The House of Prisoners: Slavery and State in Uruk during the Revolt against Samsu-iluna 9781614510970, 9781614511090

Citation preview

Andrea Seri The House of Prisoners

Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records

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

Volume 2

Andrea Seri

The House of Prisoners Slavery and State in Uruk during the Revolt against Samsu-iluna

DE GRUYTER

ISBN: 978-1-61451-109-0 e-ISBN: 978-1-61451-097-0 ISSN: 2161-4155 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2013 Walter de Gruyter, Inc., Boston/Berlin Typesetting: Meta Systems, Wustermark Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

“Mais l’histoire n’est pas l’horlogerie ou l’ébénisterie. Elle est un effort vers le mieux connaître: par suite une chose en mouvement.” Marc Bloch, Apologie pour l’ histoire

For Professor Norman Yoffee

Acknowledgements Work on this book started at Harvard and was completed at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. I wish to thank scholars from both institutions for their support and collaboration. I am greatly indebted to the generosity of many friends and colleagues. Gary Beckman unstintingly gave me his copies and transliterations of the bīt asīrī tablets from Yale, and he also edited the final manuscript. I feel really lucky to have Gary as a friend. Walter Farber offered more help than I can possibly acknowledge, and I am grateful for his willingness to discuss philological issues every time I knocked on his door across the corridor. Marten Stol read one of the versions, offered many suggestions, and sent me his personal notes on certain geographic names, institutions, and titles. Piotr Steinkeller’s assistance was inestimable. Not only did he read the complete manuscript at least twice, but he also discussed with me various problems over the phone. Norman Yoffee read several versions and his continual encouragement was fundamental for the completion of this work. I want to express my gratitude to Piotr Michalowski and Martha Roth for their advice. John Brinkman’s suggestions on an early version were most helpful. My thanks also go to Robert McCormick Adams and Janet H. Johnson for reading and commenting on the conclusion and the introduction, respectively. The insights from the two anonymous peer reviewers engaged by the publishers are greatly appreciated. I am much obliged to Gonzalo Rubio, the editor of the SANER series, and to Michiel Klein-Swormink from De Gruyter for their patience and advice. I have discussed a number of terms and concepts with Gertrud Farber, Miguel Civil, Robert Biggs, John Huehnergard, and Rebecca Hasselbach. Frans van Koppen collated one tablet and sent me pictures of four other British Museum tablets. Gary Beckman and I are grateful to Benjamin R. Foster, Curator of the Yale Babylonian Collection, for permission to publish these tablets in his care, and to Ulla Kasten for her assistance. I wish to thank Janine Pollock, Assistant Head of the Rare Book Department of the Free Library of Philadelphia, for her hospitality and permission to publish the tablets housed at the Free Library. Thanks are also due Walter Farber for permission to publish tablets from the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, and to Kenneth Woodrow Henke from the Princeton Theological Seminary for permission to publish one tablet in that collection. Jonathan Taylor, at the British Museum, went beyond the call of duty helping me identify bīt asīrī tablets that were not catalogued. E. Gubel and D. Hoornaert from the Musées du Cinquantenaire of Brussels sent me a digital photograph of one of the tablets in their Museum, as did Paula Metzner from the Kalamazoo Valley Museum, and Elizabeth Payne from Yale.

viii

Acknowledgements

The presentations and exchange of ideas during the conference “Slaves and Households in the Near East,” organized by Laura Culbertson and held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago in March 2010, provided a stimulating framework for thinking about problems related to the study of slavery in ancient societies. In 2010 I was invited to participate in a workshop at Berkeley for the Berkeley Prosopography Services organized by Laurie Pearce and Niek Veldhuis; the discussions and comments on prosopographic issues by the attendees, including Cornelia Wunsch and Caroline Waerzeggers, were inspiring. The help and support of Niek Veldhuis and Steve Tinney with the preparation of an electronic edition of the Rīm-Anum corpus for Oracc has been invaluable. My appreciation for the cooperation of all these colleagues is genuinely heartfelt. The responsibility for all mistakes, omissions, and misinterpretations rests solely with me.

Contents List of tables

xvi

Plans and maps List of abbreviations

xvii xviii

Introduction 1 I “Why and How?” 1 II Prisoners of war and the bīt asīrī in previous scholarship 7 III Interpretations of the role of the bīt asīrī 10 IV About this book 15 V Cuneiform texts, conventions, principles of transliteration, and related matters 17 Chapter 1 The archive of the house of prisoners and political history I Documents dated to Rīm-Anum and the archive of the house of prisoners 20 II Uruk during the Old Babylonian period 26 III The revolts against Samsu-iluna and Rīm-Anum’s reign 27 IV Year names, chronology and political history 29 V Administrative records and political history 36 V.1 Rīm-Anum’s first year 42 V.2 Rīm-Anum’s second year 42 VI Military activities 44 VII The rebels according to the bīt asīrī sources 47 VII.1 Daganma-ilum 48 VII.2 Ilūni 49 VIII Conclusion 51 55 Chapter 2 Allocation of flour I General remarks 55 II Records dealing with flour allocation from the bīt asīrī III Flour allocation of the ana ĝešbun type 57 III.1 Sealings 58 III.2 Recipients of the allocation 63 IV Flour allocation of the šuku type 68 IV.1 šuku e₂ asīrī 68 IV.2 ana šuku e₂ u aḫiātim 69

57

20

x

Contents

V

VI VII VIII IX

70 IV.3 ana šuku lugal (u aḫiātim) IV.4 ana šuku (erin₂) mu-wa-ar-ba-tim 70 IV.5 ana šuku lu₂ GN u aḫiātim 71 Flour allocation of the ana si-la₂ type 72 V.1 Sealings 72 73 V.2 Recipients of the ana si-la₂ allocations Flour allocation of the ṣudû type 75 Other allocations 75 Comparative analysis of the various flour allocations Conclusion 82

78

Chapter 3 Prisoners and slaves 110 110 I General remarks II Prisoners of war and slaves 110 III Geographic provenance of prisoners and slaves 112 IV Ties of personal dependency of prisoners and slaves 120 V Status of prisoners and slaves 127 131 VI Allocation of prisoners and slaves VII Conclusion 138 Chapter 4 The organization of Uruk under Rīm-Anum Part I: “Houses” and institutions 142 I Concepts and sources 142 146 II The “houses” (e₂, bītum) II.1 The bīt asīrī 146 II.2 The e₂-aĝrig 149 II.3 The e₂ šabrîm 154 II.4 The e₂-(munus-)uš-bar 154 II.5 The e₂-mušen-hi-a 158 II.6 The e₂-bur-saĝ 159 II.7 Other houses 162 162 The e₂ The e₂-a-zu-meš 162 The e₂-maš-lugal 163 The e₂-sukkal 163 The e₂-uzu 164 III Other institutions 164 III.1 The e₂-gal 164 165 III.2 The (e₂-)ĝi₆-par₃ III.3 The en-nu e₂-gal 166

Contents

IV Conclusion

xi

167

Chapter 5 The organization of Uruk under Rīm-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals 171 171 I General remarks II Personnel with title and clear affiliation with houses and institutions 172 172 II.1 a-zu-gal (azugallum) II.2 aĝrig (abarakkum) 172 II.3 dub-sar en-nu e₂-gal 173 II.4 gu-za-la₂ (guzalûm) 173 II.5 sukkal (šukkallum) 174 175 II.6 ša₃-tam (šatammum) II.7 šabra (šabrûm) 176 II.8 ugula asīrī 177 II.9 ugula e₂ and ugula e₂-meš 180 II.10 ugula e₂-mušen-hi-a 181 182 II.11 ugula (e₂-)munus-uš-bar II.12 zabar-dab₅-ba (zabardabbûm) 183 III Personnel without title but with clear affiliation with houses 183 III.1 Personnel of the e₂-aĝrig 183 184 III.2 Personnel of the e₂-uš-bar IV Personnel with title and no clear affiliation with specific houses and institutions 185 IV.1 Administrative personnel 185 bisaĝ-dub-ba (šandabakkum) 185 dub-sar (ṭupšarrum) 186 IV.2 Other professions and occupations 186 ad-KID (atkuppum) 186 lu₂ azlag₂ (ašlākum) 187 ensi₂ (iššiakkum) 188 189 hub₂-bu-meš (ḫuppû) kisal-luh (kisalluḫḫum) 190 lu₂-ur₃-ra (lurrakkûm) 191 lunga₃ (sirāšûm) 191 manzaz bābim and mazzaz ka₂ ra₂-gaba 192 muhaldim (nuḫatimmum) 192 na-gada (nāqidum) 193 193 nar-gal (nargallum) santana (šandanakkum) 193

xii

Contents

simug (nappāḫum) 194 194 sipad (rēʾûm) su-si-ig (šusikkum) 194 195 ša₃-gud (kullizum) šu-i (gallābum) 195 u₂-tul₂ (utullum) 196 ugula geme₂ 197 zadim (sasinnum) 197 V Personnel affiliated with temples 198 ensi₂ dutu 198 gudu₄ (pašīšum) 198 saĝa (šangûm) 199 VI Men without titles but with seals 199 VI.1 Seal inscriptions with the legend “servant of royal name” 199 Apil-Amurrum / dumu Šulgi-[…] / arad Rīm-Anum 199 Apil-ilīšu / dumu Ṭāb-târ-ilī / arad Samsu-iluna 200 Awīl-ilī / dumu Ṣillī-[…] / arad Samsu-iluna 200 VI.2 Seal inscriptions with the legend “servant of divine name(s)” 201 Adad-rīm-ilī / dumu Kānišum / arad Nabium 201 Apil-Amurrum / dumu Ilam-ēriš / arad Amurrum 201 Etel-pī-d˹Erra?˺ / dumu Enanatum / arad Iggala 202 Iballuṭ / dumu Ḫubbušum / arad Amurrum 202 ? Šarrum-i₃-[li₂ ] / dumu Sîn-[…] / arad Nin-siana 202 Ur-Ninurta / dumu a?-wi-ia-˹x˺ / arad Lugal-banda 203 Wussum-nu-˹x-x˺ / dumu Iddin-Ištar / arad Nin-siana 203 […]-Amurrum / dumu Sîn-iddinam / arad Nabium 203 VI.3 Partially legible sealings 203 Abum-ilī / dumu […] /[…] 203 Ātanaḫ-ilī / dumu Lā-qīpum / arad den-[…] 203 Awīl-[…] /dumu Sîn-[…] / arad […] 204 Bāštī-d[…] / dumu Kiḫlī-ʾel / arad […] 204 E₂-an-[…] / dumu ma-a-nu-um / [arad …] 204 Enlil-[…] / dumu Sîn-[…] / [arad …] 204 Etel-pī-Marduk / dumu AN.˹x˺-[…] / [arad …] 204 205 Sîn-[…] / dumu Sîn-gāmil / […] VII Men without seals or titles from tablets from the Sîn-kāšid palace 205 Amurrum-mušallim 205

Contents

B/Ma-ni-[…] 205 205 Ibni-dNin-[…] Iddinyatum 205 206 Marduk-nādā Pirḫum dumu Ilī-u-Šamaš 206 Sukkukum 206 Ṣillī-[…] 207 […]-gāmil 207 VIII Men without seals or titles presumably acting in an official 207 capacity Adad-mušallim dumu Mu-duga 207 Anum-ilī 207 Awīl-[…] 208 Ibni-Adad 208 Ikūn-pûm 208 Ilīma-abī 208 Ilšu-bānî 208 Inbi-ilīšu 208 Nabium-mālik 209 Ninurta-ibnīšu 209 Nūratum 209 Šamaš-gāmil 209 Šamaš-muballiṭ 209 Šamaš-nāṣir 209 210 *Tigilâ-ana-Damkina Ubār-Zababa 210 IX Conclusion 210 Chapter 6 The military, messengers and foreign officials I General remarks 214 II ugula MAR.TU 217 III PA.PA 222 IV aga₃-us₂ (rēdûm) 223 ugula aga₃-us₂(-meš) 223 šāpir aga₃-us₂-meš (šāpir rēdî) 223 aga₃-us₂ saĝ (lugal) 224 225 aga₃-us₂ lugal V ra(₂)-gaba 225 VI Administrative officials in the army 225 dumu e₂-dub-ba(-a) 225

214

xiii

xiv

Contents

dub-sar ugnim 226 227 VI lu₂-kiĝ₂-gi₄-a VIII Other leadership posts from outside Uruk 234 IX Conclusion

228

Conclusion The House of Prisoners: State and slavery in Uruk during the revolt against Samsu-iluna 237 I An exercise in fragmentology 237 II Political history 238 III The administration of Uruk under Rīm-Anum 242 IV The bīt asīrī 252 V State and slavery in Uruk during the revolt against Samsuiluna 258 264 Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions Catalogue of tablets edited in this volume 264 Concordance: Tablets arranged alphabetically after the Museum 265 signature Autographs 266 Transliterations and translations 289 Appendix 2: Collations

324

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk dated to Samsuiluna and Rīm-Anum 343 Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk dated to Samsu-iluna and RīmAnum 371 Appendix 5: Glossary 407 I List of Sumerian words and logograms and their Akkadian and English renderings 407 II Akkadian words and their Sumerian and logographic renderings 409 Bibliography

411

Indexes 427 1. Personal names 2. Divine names

427 431

Contents

3. Geographic names 432 433 4. Akkadian words 5. Sumerian words and sumerograms 436 6. Cuneiform texts

434

xv

List of tables 1. 2. 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

Present location of the tablets Tablets dated or attributable to Rīm-Anum Duration of Rīm-Anum’s reign List of the eighth to the fifteenth year names of Samsu-iluna Synchronism of the reigns of Samsu-iluna, Rīm-Sîn, and Rīm-Anum Men receiving rations from the bīt asīrī Synchronism between Samsu-iluna and Rīm-Anum Sealings on tablets pertaining to ĝe šb u n allocations Recipients of ĝ ešb u n allocations Sealings on tablets pertaining to si-la ₂ allocations Recipients of si -la ₂ allocations Comparative chart of different flour allocations All flour allocations List of texts pertaining to flour allocations Prisoners and slaves managed through the bīt asīrī Geographic provenance of prisoners and slaves Men who brought or sent prisoners to Uruk Prisoners and slaves in the retinue of various men Workers at the house of the weavers List of texts pertaining to prisoners and slaves Overseer of the house of the weavers The bīt asīrī and its interactions with other “houses” and institutions The bīt asīrī supply of labor force for individuals, groups and activities List of overseers of the Amorites or “generals” (ugu la MAR.TU) List of messengers (lu₂-kiĝ₂-gi₄-a) Attestations of Marduk-nāṣir šāpir / ugu la i d ₂ Asurrum Attestations of the title ugu la MAR.TU(- m e š ) Houses and institutions mentioned in the corpus Titles and institutional affiliations Temple personnel Recipients of flour allocations

Plans and maps 1 2. 3. 4.

Plan of the Sîn-kāšid palace at Uruk Map of Babylonia Centers of power: Babylon, Ešnuna, and Larsa Plan of the Sîn-kāšid palace at Uruk showing different areas

List of abbreviations

Bibliographic AbB AfO AHw AJSL AOAT AoF ARM ASJ AUCT AuOr BaM BAP BB BDHP BE BIN BiOr BM BSA CAD CDLJ CT CTMMA CUSAS FAOS GAG JAOS JCS JESHO JNES

Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung Archiv für Orientforschung Akkadisches Handwörterbuch The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Alter Orient und Altes Testament Altorientalische Forschungen Archives Royales de Mari Acta Sumerologica Japan Andrews University Cuneiform Texts Aula Orientalis Baghdader Mitteilungen Beiträge zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht, by B. Meissner, 1893 Babylonische Briefe aus der Zeit der Hammurapi-Dynastie, by A. Ungnad, 1914 Business Documents from the Hammurabi Period, by L. Waterman, 1913 Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies Bibliotheca Orientalis Signature of the British Museum Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Cuneiform Digital Library Journal Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets… in the British Museum Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology Freiburger Altorientalische Studien Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, by W. von Soden, 1995 Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Journal of Near Eastern Studies

List of abbreviations

MAD MCS MDP MHET MSL NABU OBO OECT OIP OLA OLP Or OrNS PBS PDT PSBA RA RGTC III RlA RSO SEL Syracuse TCL UF VAB VAS VT YOS ZA

Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary Manchester Cuneiform Studies Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse Mesopotamian History and Environment Texts Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Oxford Edition of Cuneiform Texts Oriental Institute Publications, University of Chicago Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica Orientalia Orientalia Nova Serie Publications of the Babylonian Section, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania Die Puzriš-Dagan-Texte der Istanbuler Archäologischen Museen. Teil I: Nr. 1–725, by M. Çig, H. Kizilyay and A. Salonen, 1954 Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology Revue d’assyriologie et archéologie orientale Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes III, by B. Groneberg, 1980 Reallexikon der Assyriologie Rivista degli studi orientali Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul vicino Oriente antico Textes économiques néo-sumériens de l’Université de Syracuse, by M. Sigrist, 1983 Textes cunéiformes, Musée du Louvre Ugarit Forschungen Vorderasiatische Bibliothek Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin Vetus Testamentum Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts Zeitschrift für Assyriologie

Kings Aṣ RīA RS I

xix

Ammī-ṣaduqa of Babylon Rīm-Anum of Uruk Rīm-Sîn I of Larsa

xx RS II Si

List of abbreviations

Rīm-Sîn II of Larsa Samsu-iluna of Babylon

Others App. 1 DN GN LB MA MB OAkk OB PN NP

Appendix 1 Divine Name Geographic Name Late Babylonian Middle Assyrian Middle Babylonian Old Akkadian Old Babylonian Personal Name Profession Name or Title

Introduction I “Why and How?” Scholars in the field will recognize that I have borrowed the questions “why and how?” from A. Leo Oppenheim’s essay “Assyriology – Why and How?” It first appeared in 1960 and slightly modified was then included as one of the chapters of Oppenheim’s influential book Ancient Mesopotamia (1964). I still find reading this article stimulating and thought-provoking, even though several decades have passed. Back in the 60s, however, Oppenheim’s views triggered various reactions. On the one hand, certain traditional academics regarded his theoretical statements as audacious and his criticisms of the Assyriologist’s craft as nothing less than offensive. Negative feelings must have been so widespread that in an obituary published in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Erle Leichty (1975, 369) openly commented that Oppenheim’s attempt to “reform” the field upset many of his colleagues. On the other hand, a number of fellow Assyriologists including members of younger generations – who were interested in contemporary debates such as those around Marxism, structuralism, functionalism, Russian formalism, the Prague School, and the early discussions that led to postmodernism – welcomed Oppenheim’s approach. Viewed in perspective, Oppenheim’s work represented the desire and need to discuss ideas, interpretations and methods of dealing with cuneiform sources and Mesopotamian history (see Stolper 1992). His interest in anthropological theory is apparent from his writings, and his “why and how” undoubtedly recalls Marc Bloch’s (1949, xvi) “pourquoi et comment on écrit l’histoire.” Today, over fifty years after “Assyriology – Why and How?” was first published, some of Oppenheim’s claims may sound unsophisticated because a great deal has been written on anthropology, literary theory, historiography and history writing, and because our knowledge of Mesopotamia has improved enormously. Nevertheless, Oppenheim and the questions “why and how” came to my mind when I decided to write a book on the house of prisoners in Uruk during the reign of Rīm-Anum. It is fortuitous that my reflections coincided with the fiftieth anniversary of Oppenheim’s Assyriological manifesto. The first question that I want to address is relatively straightforward: why is it worth studying the bīt asīrī at Uruk during the reign of Rīm-Anum? At a surface level, the answer does not require much elaboration. Documents from the archive of the house of prisoners at Uruk provide unprecedented evidence for one of the sources of ancient slavery (Stol 2011, Seri 2011), i.e., prisoners of war. This is a unique institution in that it is currently barely attested for any

2

Introduction

other Babylonian city throughout history with the exceptions of Sippar and Larsa. References to the bīt asīrī and to the position of overseer of prisoners in Sippar documents are still scanty.1 Three documents from the kingdom of Larsa mentioning the house of prisoners, all of them dated to the ninth month of Rīm-Sîn II’s first year (OECT 15 29 and 83, and UF 10 41 [=OECT 15 50]), are contemporary with the bīt asīrī tablets from Uruk.2 At the risk of sounding too skeptical or overcautious, one should consider whether those mentions, as well as the use of the word asīrum in localities such as Larsa, Sippar, Mari (e.g., ARM 4 53:6, 12, 16; ARM 14, 176), or Leilan (for the latter see, e.g., Eidem 1991, 131) may not correspond strictly to the Uruk institution if only because of the material conditions and the different historical contexts. A frequently quoted parallel for the house of prisoners is the existence of an entity bearing an analogous name in the Old Testament, i.e., the bêt hāʾasîrîm, where Samson was held prisoner according to the biblical story (Judg. 16:21). Certain authors imply that these homonymous institutions had a similar function (e.g., Feigin 1934a, van der Toorn 1986). But the similarities, in my opinion, have not been substantiated beyond the etymological affinities. Recently available new records from the bīt asīrī as well as those tablets originating from the Sîn-kāšid palace allow us to revise previous assumptions and they also justify further research on the house of prisoners. The temporal frame of my research encompasses a narrow period of less than three years in which Rīm-Anum (1741 BC) ruled over Uruk. Rather than being due to a methodological decision, this simply represents the time covered by the archive of the bīt asīrī and by other administrative documents from the Sîn-kāšid palace dated to king Rīm-Anum. Another peculiarity of the bīt asīrī sources is that they consist of 317 tablets dealing with a single institution during less than three years, a most welcome abundance of documentation for the writing of second millennium history.

 Overseers of prisoners are known from Sippar, for instance, Nabium-nāṣir (Di 614:18', Di 662:25, written ugul a a l- dab₅- ba in Di 628:08', 19; see Janssen 1991, 103–105), Elmēšum (MHET I Nᵒ 65:38', undated), Nanna-ibila-mansum (MHET I Nᵒ 65:15'–16', undated), and IbniŠērum (YOS 13 507:8, Abi-ešuḫ). According to M. Stol (2004, 791 fn. 1072) an unpublished British Museum tablet (BM 79898) mentions the expression ša ₃ e₂ a-si-ri, which shows that the house of prisoners is attested for the city of Sippar during the time of king Abi-ešuḫ, Samsu-iluna’s successor. Aside from Sippar tablets, the word asīrum is documented in texts from Larsa and elsewhere (see infra pp. 9 and 55, note 1).  I discuss these three documents in the conclusion. Six tablets mentioning prisoners (asīrū) come from the kingdom of Larsa during the reign of Rīm-Sîn I: TCL 10 58 (RS I 22/X/30), 62 (RS I 23/[…]/8), 135 (RS I 30/[…]/[…]), 85 (RS I 31/X-kam/4), 84 (RS I 31/XI-ka m /26), and 122 (date broken).

“Why and How?”

3

The question of why write about the bīt asīrī is furthermore related to reasons other than the wealth of documentation. The period covered by these records coincides with one of the most fascinating yet lesser known epochs of Old Babylonian history. This was the time when the enormous territorial state that Hammurabi had consolidated started showing alarming signs that things were falling apart. At a deeper level, an analysis of the social and economic implications of this institution is certainly needed. In this respect, the archive of the house of prisoners provides an excellent opportunity for studying the intersection where state interests and forced labor were brought together. More specifically, my study undertakes an evaluation of chronological and political matters based on the tangential information provided by laconic economic documents, which is then supplemented with information from year names and royal inscriptions. It further tries to establish the connections between archival groups and the activities of the house of prisoners and those of other related administrative or productive units. Hopefully this will clarify certain mechanisms at work in the management of a captive and enslaved labor force. I also trace, whenever possible, the social characteristics and political circumstances of prisoners of war and slaves recorded in the bīt asīrī corpus. I then attempt to reconstruct as far as I can the workings of the Uruk administration through documents from the palace and the house of prisoners, as well as certain aspects of the military and information concerning representatives from cities other than Uruk. Such a reconstruction is perforce incomplete, because it can recover only those institutions and people mentioned in a tightly circumscribed set of documents. Finally I interpret what “the house of prisoners” likely was, how it worked, how it interacted with other institutions, and the composition of its labor force. The question of “how” to study this topic is obviously more complicated because it concerns a number of historiographic problems and methodological decisions that a researcher has to make. I should mention from the outset that I do not intend to undertake an institutional history or the history of an institution. My scope is broader, as can be seen from the title of this book. In other words, through the study of the house of prisoners I wish to understand wider aspects of Uruk’s economy and society, including state management of prisoners of war and forced labor. The aim of this work faces its own limitations in that the vast majority of the sources originate from one institution. However, I believe that this should not limit the questions one asks of the documents even though the resulting hypotheses and interpretations cannot be but partial. After all, the modern scholar has to work with the documents that are available rather than with those that are desirable and s/he must be accustomed to the fact that some inquiries may not have a definite answer.

4

Introduction

The textual corpora for the reign of Rīm-Anum consist of year names and administrative records. Year names could be compared to abridged annals entries in that they usually highlight the main royal achievements of the year under consideration and provide information about political, military or pious deeds. Year names and annals have similar biases because under the guise of a dry list of events they conceal ideological and political statements. Administrative documents, for their part, are useful only when studied together in significant numbers and when the information is cross-checked and categorized. This succinct description hints at the lack of letters, legal documents, and royal inscriptions among the documents from Rīm-Anum’s reign that have come down to us. The limitation in the variety of available sources can be attributed, I believe, to a number of factors, including the violent destruction of the palace in antiquity, the activities of modern looters, archaeological agendas, and the political circumstances under which Rīm-Anum ruled. Another restriction pertaining to documentary evidence is that, unlike the scholar of Classical antiquity, the Assyriologist lacks narrative sources such as Columella’s and Varo’s On Agriculture or Aristotle’s The Politics, to mention only a few ancient works dealing with slavery. I am certainly not suggesting that any of these classical authors should be taken at face value or that their writings do not present heuristic issues, but at least they offer a fairly coherent account of slavery from a perspective closer to the facts than ours. This in turn represents an advantageous starting point. Such considerations are important because problems pertaining to the sources dictate the avenues of research. For instance, with the Rīm-Anum documents in particular and with most other Mesopotamian corpora in general, it would be extremely difficult – if possible at all – to study certain topics that are among the concerns of other ancient historians. I am specifically thinking of questions discussed in the last three decades or so, such as class struggle (e.g., de Ste Croix 1981, Talbert 1989), slave rebellions and revolts (e.g., Bradley 1989, Urbainczyk 2008), the recreation of the realities of slave experiences (Bradley 2005), or the relative absence of slaves and their history in the writings of ancient and modern scholars (duBois 2008). Moreover, unlike the literature in Classical studies (e.g., McKeown 2007), there is no recent work about the ways in which the history of slavery in Mesopotamia has been written nor studies discussing research agendas. What is more, it is surprising that there is no book dealing with slavery during the Old Babylonian period, which covers half a millennium of Mesopotamian history. The situation is slightly different for the first millennium because there are a few monographs entirely devoted to slavery topics (e.g., Dandamaev [1974] 2009, Ragen 2007), and a recent dissertation concentrates on post-Old

“Why and How?”

5

Babylonian second-millennium servile labor (Tenney [2009] 2011). Although there are numerous articles addressing particular problems related to slavery in ancient Mesopotamia (e.g., Finkelstein 1955 and 1962, Gelb 1976, Klengel 1977, Westbrook 1995, van Koppen 2004, Culbertson 2011), there has been little work done in the way of synthesis. The relatively scarce attention that slavery has attracted in Mesopotamian studies – especially for the second millennium – has its cause, I think, in deeper historiographic traditions. Basing their theories on various travelers’ reports, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century scholars tended to regard the East as a place of stagnation, because allegedly Eastern societies did not experience changes over the millennia and were polarized between a powerful ruling elite and communities of peasants (see Anderson 1974). Karl Marx (1964) built on those ideas to draw his sketches of the Asiatic form of production in his posthumously published manuscript Die Formen (see Hobsbawm 1964). His ideas constituted the core of what certain later Marxist historians called the Asiatic Mode of Production, characterized by struggles between state and communities (see, e.g., Dunn 1982, Zaccagnini 1981). In this model there is almost no room for slaves because they were not the main productive force of society. Substantial differences aside, a number of Classicists and Weberian historians share similar views regarding the position of slavery in the ancient Near East, although their approaches and conceptual frameworks differ. One of the earliest appraisals of “Oriental” slavery was Eduard Meyer’s (1898), who concluded that from an economic point of view slavery did not play an important role in the ancient Near East. More recently Moses Finley ([1980] 1998, 77) has similarly affirmed that “Although slaves have been exploited in most societies as far back as any records exist, there have been only five genuine slave societies, two of them in antiquity: classical Greece and classical Italy.” The other three were all in the “New World,” namely, in the United States, the Caribbean and Brazil. Thus intellectuals of very different theoretical backgrounds agreed that slavery was not important before the time of classical Greece. These ideas have obviously influenced the interpretations of certain scholars who have affirmed, for instance, that Near Eastern slavery had very little, if anything, in common with Roman slavery (e.g., Mendelsohn 1946, 122; Driver and Miles 1952, 223). In Marxist historiography, however, Soviet historians undertook a re-evaluation of the importance of slavery in ancient Near Eastern societies. A series of debates around socio-economic relations in the ancient Near East took place in Leningrad during 1931–1934, as Muhammad Dandamaev ([1974] 2009, 67–102) has explained. It was apparently Vasilii Struve who first maintained that ancient Oriental societies were slave societies (see, e.g., Struve [1933] 1969). This, Dandamaev commented, provoked the reaction of certain

6

Introduction

Western European theoreticians who believed that Marx understood the ancient Orient as embodying an Asiatic Mode of Production. That is to say, as a society characterized by the dichotomy between state and communities without slavery, at least as the predominant productive force. For his part, the prominent Soviet Assyriologist Igor Diakonoff expressed his views on Mesopotamian slavery in a number of articles (e.g., 1969, 1972, 1974, and 1987). One of them, “Slaves, Helots and Serfs in Early Antiquity” (1974), occupies a central place in Finley’s ([1980] 1998, 135–169) refutation of the existence of slavery societies before Greece and Rome. Finley was particularly annoyed by the fact that Diakonoff made no differentiation among slaves, helots and serfs, because they were all exploited by extra-economic coercion and were all deprived of property in the means of production. Finley also questioned the statement that all ancient societies in Europe and on all other continents belonged to an identical socio-economic formation and that they shared a common system of production. For Finley, on the other hand, slavery designated a juridical category rather than an economic class. In this sense he stressed that “the uniqueness of slavery (…) lay in the fact that the labourer himself was a commodity, not merely his labour or labour-power” (p. 143). The arguments are of course lengthier, but this overview conveys, I hope, the gist of the discussions. Although I do not believe that the minds of scholars are tabula rasa, one obvious conclusion of this necessarily brief summary is that, in certain cases, ideological agendas and political positions seem to have taken precedence over the analysis of documents. Of course no one will question that scholars such as Diakonoff or Finley knew their sources, but perhaps because they were both interested in the big picture, certain relevant details got lost in the maze of argumentation. For example, Finley differentiated slavery from other forms of dependent labor because, for him, the main characteristic of slavery was that the slave was the private property of the owner and that s/he could be sold. According to this criterion, however, ancient Mesopotamia would have been a slave society because there is unequivocal evidence of private ownership of human beings, who could be sold in exchange for silver even in the Ur III period (see Molina 2008), formerly considered a state economy. On the opposite side of the debate, certain Marxist scholars have argued that particular historical situations reflect the coexistence of various modes of production, within which only one is predominant. In the case of ancient Mesopotamia, this assertion is hard to prove because of the difficulty of estimating and quantifying slave work. Dandamaev ([1974] 2009, 71) saw some of these points when he affirmed that “many of the participants in these debates approached the problem of the nature of socio-economic relations in the ancient Orient without adducing evidence and without any preliminary study of the vast archival

Prisoners of war and the bı¯t ası¯rı¯ in previous scholarship

7

material.” He consequently undertook a study of slavery that considered those theoretical issues but that relied heavily on documentary evidence. One may or may not agree with his conclusions, but Dandamaev’s method was undoubtedly a step forward. All this shows that, luckily for the Assyriologist, there is still much work to be done regarding the role of slaves and slavery in Old Babylonian society. I have considered certain historiographic and methodological issues related to slavery not because I shall attempt to solve them all. I have done so because I am convinced that reflecting on previous approaches helps us distance ourselves from our sources and see patterns and difficulties from a different perspective. I further think that research on the house of prisoners in Uruk represents an unusual case study that will contribute to our understanding of certain aspects of slavery and forced labor in ancient societies. Oppenheim thought that the questions Why and How were foundational for Assyriology. A few years earlier, another brilliant mind had thought along similar lines. When reflecting on the historian’s craft, Marc Bloch (1949, xvi) affirmed “En un mot, on voudrait, avant tout, dire comment et pourquoi un historien pratique son métier.” And in his eagerness to eradicate positivism and antiquarianism from historical analysis he added a few sentences later “(…) l’histoire n’est pas l’horlogerie ou l’ébénisterie. Elle est une effort vers le mieux connaître: par suite un chose en mouvement.” I am afraid that this work includes a lot of clockmaking but this is because I am convinced that such is also a fundamental part of our endeavor toward better understanding.

II Prisoners of war and the bīt asīrī in previous scholarship The earliest discussion of a group of bīt asīrī texts dated to Rīm-Anum appeared in the sixth volume of Hammurabis Gesetz (Koschaker and Ungnad 1923, 171) almost a decade after their publication by Figulla (1914). In only one paragraph the authors offered a general description of the lot and explained that these twenty-one tablets consisted of texts dealing with flour allocation and with the delivery of people characterized as slaves or prisoners of war. Some of these men and women were foreigners. They speculated that the word asīrum possibly derived from the root ʾsr (for previous interpretations of the term see Walther 1917, 241–242). Asīrum therefore meant “Gefangener,” i.e., “captive” or “prisoner”; whereas the bīt asīrī was a “Gefangenenlager,” a “detention center.” More specifically, they argued that the bīt asīrī was a detention center in particular for prisoners of war (“Kriegsgefangene”). They also contemplated the possibility that considering the group of tablets dealing with flour alloca-

8

Introduction

tion, this institution could have been at some point a sort of storehouse in which prisoners who needed to be fed were kept. Eleven years later, Samuel Feigin (1934a) discussed the word asīrum and the bīt asīrī in his article on captives in cuneiform inscriptions. He explained that asīrum means “captive” or “war captive” but not “prisoner.” Landsberger (1935–1936, 144), however, refuted this translation, arguing that esērum has to be understood as “Gefangene” in the sense of “prisoner” not in the sense of “captive.” Feigin also pointed out that bīt asīrī is frequently written in Sumerian as e₂ - a - s i - ru m , most likely a loanword from Akkadian (see also Edzard 1957, 160 fn. 858). Captives were brought to the bīt asīrī and assigned to various officials. They were kept in that institution and at least some of them were redeemed by their cities, as mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi. According to Feigin the occupation of these captives was grinding flour, hence the bīt asīrī was “a granary for flour” (p. 224). The flour produced there was for consumption by the “house of captives” and for the provisions of various kinds of travelers. Finally, the author provided evidence for the attestation of the word asīrum in Palestinian letters of the El Amarna period and in the “Hittite Code.” A brief section of about two pages devoted to the reign of Rīm-Anum and to the documents from the archive of the bīt asīrī appeared in Edzard’s (1957, 160–162) Die ‘zweite Zwischenzeit’ Babyloniens. He included Rīm-Anum among the Old Babylonian rulers of Malgûm because at that time Rīm-Anum’s seat of power was uncertain. Since Edzard seems to have been mostly interested in the clarification of geographical and chronological matters regarding this ruler, his comments on the archive of the bīt asīrī were not very detailed. He said, for example, that the documents usually provide information about the origin of prisoners, messengers and other people. But Edzard did not discuss the institution in itself nor did he speculate about the possible functions and activities of the house of prisoners or of its labor force. A few years later, Leemans (1961) re-examined the problem of the asīrū starting from a group of six texts from Larsa (TCL 10 Nᵒs 58, 62, 84, 85, 122, and 135). He concluded that these prisoners were foreigners under state control who could remain such for a long time. They were usually assigned to government officials and went on journeys, possibly involving trade. Since some of the asīrū died on these expeditions, their death was recorded at Larsa. Leemans’ hypothesized that the asīrū were a sort of trade agent and this led him to assume that, although prisoners, these men must have been trusted and must have enjoyed liberty of movement because those trips would have been ideal occasions for escape. Furthermore, because there are examples of asīrū being under the authority of messengers, Leemans concluded that those pris-

Prisoners of war and the bı¯t ası¯rı¯ in previous scholarship

9

oners could have themselves been employed as messengers who carried letters from traders to the government and to other contacts. The author then proceeded to compare the documents from Larsa with those from the bīt asīrī dated to Rīm-Anum, which in 1961 consisted only of some twenty-three tablets. Leemans classified the texts into two main groups: one dealing with expenditures of flour for food supplies at the house of prisoners, for the sustenance of various men and for messengers from other towns; and the other pertaining to people delivered as a labor force. All these transactions were authorized by the overseer of prisoners Sîn-šeme. From these texts Leemans inferred that the two main activities of the institution were “the supplying of flour, in a number of instances to people from other towns or countries, and the delivery of subordinate people for work under government officials” (p. 69). Leemans concluded his article with other attestations of the word asīrum in places such as Mari, Alalah, Ugarit, Palestine and in Hittite texts. More recently three other authors have discussed prisoners of war and the house of prisoners in Uruk or have edited new texts from this archive. Horst Klengel (1981, 244) succinctly referred to the documents from the bīt asīrī in his entry for prisoners of war in the Reallexikon der Assyriologie. He considered them to be a labor force at the house of prisoners under the supervision of an overseer known as the ugu la asīrī. Klengel specified that asīrum could mean prisoner of war but that the difference from other prisoners is not clear. In 2003 Annunziata Rositani published 153 tablets from the British Museum dated to Rīm-Anum. Her text edition has an introduction in which she mentioned all the Rīm-Anum tablets known at that time and the chronology and political history of the period (see also Pomponio and Rositani 1998). She described the types of tablets and provided some notes concerning certain officials recorded in these documents. Her essay does not include a discussion of the bīt asīrī nor an explanation of the role that prisoners of war played in the institution. Another edition of sixteen flour records from the British Museum followed (Rositani 2009). Finally, Marten Stol (2004, 790–793) briefly mentioned this Uruk archive in his survey of prisoners of war during the Old Babylonian period. His evidence further includes the Code of Hammurabi and examples from other places such as Sippar and Mari. He has pointed out that besides the syllabic writing a-si-ru and the pseudo-Sumerian a - s i -r um (apparent from the expression e₂ a- si -r u m instead of e ₂ a-si-ri) common in the Uruk archive, tablets from Sippar show the word written a l- d ab ₅- ba in Sumerian (Stol 2004, 791). A review of previous scholarship shows that the last lengthy study of the bīt asīrī and of prisoners of war in Uruk was Leeman’s article published in 1961, when there were only twenty-three documents available. Although the

10

Introduction

information from those tablets allowed earlier researchers to offer an overview of certain aspects of the institution, there are now about 290 more records that will contribute to a better understanding of the functioning of the bīt asīrī and its interactions with other institutions. Thanks to this material it will be possible to study the role of prisoners of war and slaves in Uruk and the management, composition and characteristics of forced labor. These tablets together with those found at the site of the Sîn-kāšid palace offer the opportunity to try to reconstruct – even if partially – various echelons of the local administration. In addition, they provide evidence to trace the diplomatic, political and military actions of various rulers striving for independence from the city of Babylon.

III Interpretations of the role of the bīt asīrī The Oxford History of the Prison contains a chapter entitled “Prison Before the Prison: The Ancient and Medieval Worlds” (Peters 1995). The seemingly contradictory part of the title is later explained as the period prior to the seventeenth-century, before Europe experienced a proliferation of prison building and imprisonment. The aim of the chapter is to deal with prisons as part of “modes of physical punishment, including confinement.” The author mentioned the bīt asīrī twice. On the first page he affirmed that the joint effort of archaeologists, philologists, and historians “has been required to illuminate the character of the Babylonian bit asiri and the ‘Great Prison’ of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom” (p. 3). Later on Peters commented that “The Old Babylonian term bit asiri seems to refer specifically to the forced labor of foreign captives” (p. 10). In the same paragraph he mentioned the bīt kīli which, according to him, was another, broader, Babylonian term for prison. This expression could be used for any place to confine, among others, criminals, hostages and rebels. One cannot but notice that in a forty-two page chapter only two pages are devoted to the subheading “Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Assyria,” and half of one of those is occupied by a picture showing the wooden sculpture of a prisoner grinding corn from the Middle Kingdom in Egypt. The passage about Mesopotamia and Assyria barely covers half a page. A considerable part of this brief summary explains that there is little evidence in the Code of Hammurabi, that the Assyrians set foreign prisoners to grinding flour, and that prisons were located close to or inside granaries. This, Peters commented, was also the case with Samson among the Philistines, and with the Hebrews and the Egyptians. There are unfortunately no remarks concerning the status and characteristics of those foreign prisoners of Babylonians

Interpretations of the role of the bı¯t ası¯rı¯

11

and Assyrians and no explanation of what is meant by foreigners. The reader is left to wonder whether those foreign prisoners were bandits or criminals, especially because the introduction to the Oxford History of the Prison affirms that “prisons hold convicted offenders as a punishment” (Morris and Rothman 1995, ix). Interestingly, the paragraphs immediately before those treating Babylonia and Assyria refer to Egypt and deal exclusively with the story of Joseph’s confinement in Pharaoh’s prison in the book of Genesis (Gen.39:20–40:5), where his fellow inmates were foreigners captured in war or royal servants being punished. This particular prison “appeared to have been a granary that housed foreign offenders” (p. 9). One gets the impression, therefore, that all over the ancient Near East most prisoners were foreigners incarcerated and put to work as millers: Joseph, Samson, and the Babylonian and Assyrian captives. While this could very well have been the case, it is reasonable to suspect that Peters and others may have interpreted the rest of the ancient Near East through the lens of the Torah.3 That the bīt asīrī of Uruk was a sort of prison perhaps related to a granary seems to be a common assumption. As we have seen, translations of this expression in specialized literature render the term variously as “Gefangenenlager” or “detention center” (Koschaker and Ungnad 1923, 171), “house of captives” and “granary for flour” (Feigin 1934a, 224), and “Gefängnis” or “prison,” literally “Haus der Gefangenen”, i.e., “house of prisoners” (Stol 2004, 790). Struve ([1933] 1969, 25), for example, thought that Sumerian slaves were the collective property of territorial communities and that they were “quartered in special barracks or ‘workhouses’ called šnʿ.w in Egyptian, and bīt-asīrī, ‘house of captives’ in Babylonia of the First Dynasty.” Explicit comparisons between the Biblical narratives and the bīt asīrī appeared already as early as 1934. Feigin (1934a), for instance, referred to the story of Samson and connected it with the house of captives in Uruk to conclude that prisoners confined in this institution ground flour. Part of this flour was then used to feed those millers, and part was assigned to other officials and messengers. More recently, Karel van der Toorn (1986) reexamined the Biblical stories of Samson and Zedekiah, a letter of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon to the god Aššur, and a letter from Mari. He linked them all to the asīrū-texts from Uruk and characterized the latter as “administrative records of the ergastula in which prisoners of war were  Although Peters is not an Assyriologist, it is surprising that his bibliography on this section consists only of a PhD dissertation written in 1977 (D. Blumenfeld, “The Terminology of Detention and Forced Imprisonment in the Bible,” New York University), “which ranges across the ancient Near East and offers a rich collection of comparative material” (p. 45). The rest of the bibliography is about Biblical topics and other important articles for Mesopotamia (e.g., Leemans 1961, Steinkeller 1991, Civil 1993) are not even mentioned.

12

Introduction

lodged.” Van der Toorn also explained that “the main activities of the bīt asīrī were the supplying of flour and the delivery of labourers for work under government officials” (p. 249). For him, confining prisoners of war in “milling houses” of the state or the temples was a form of exploitation and humiliation. He similarly mentioned the bīt ararrim, “house of the miller,” attested in three Old Babylonian letters from Sippar (AbB 1 137:10, AbB 2 106:11, and AbB 5 213:15–18), which functioned as a place of detention for distrainees or people under arrest.4 The ancient Near Eastern institutions that van der Toorn subsumed under the term ergastula include the Biblical bêt hāʾasîrîm and the bīt asīrī of Uruk, the bīt ararrim or “house of the miller,” the ṣibittum or bīt ṣibittim (usually translated as “prison,” but, according to him, “an ergastulum rather than a jail,” p. 250), the nupārum or “workhouse” in texts from Mari and Chagar Bazar, as well as the nakkamtum, “granary,” and the kalakkum, “silo.” The author mentioned, moreover, other places of detention which perhaps involved forced labor, such as the bīt kiššatim, edulû, bīt maṣṣartim, kišukku, kišeršum, bīt napṭarim, bīt šutummim, bīt esērī, bīt tamkārim, and, in later texts, the bīt kīli. All these words were listed without translations. Van der Toorn concluded his article with the following statement: “Throughout the first two millennia BC, from Babylon to Palestine, defeated enemies were confined in ergastula, where many had to live their lives as grinders” (p. 251). This equation seems to imply that the term ergastulum is expansive enough to cover all those institutions of the ancient Near East. Although the Oxford English Dictionary translates ergastulum as “a prison-like building on a large estate used for housing slave workers,” an overview of that institution as interpreted by certain Classical authors may be pertinent to this discussion.5 Latin literature tends to present the ergastulum as a private prison attached to most Roman farms (Smith 1870, 476). For example, in his fourteenth Satire, which dates from after AD 127, Juvenal (xiv.23–24) listed together the terms chains, branded slaves, ergastula, and prison (quid suade iuveni laetus stridore catenae, quem mire adficiunt inscripta, ergastula, carcer?) to imply the misfortunes of lack of freedom and imprisonment.6 For his part, Pliny the Elder (23– 79 AD) in his Natural History (NH XVIII.7 §4) considered it a bad plan to have land tilled by slaves from the ergastula. Similarly interested in agricultural

 AbB 5 213:15–18 actually mentions the e₂ a-si-ri, in line 16.  See www.oed.com, s.v. ergastulum.  “Someone who revels in the clank of chains, who is extraordinarily excited by branded slaves, chain gangs, and dungeons – what is his influence on his youngster?” (See Juvenal, Satires, edited and translated by Susanna Morton Braund).

Interpretations of the role of the bı¯t ası¯rı¯

13

issues, Columella (first century AD) provided more details about the ergastulum and slaves in his De Re Rustica. When he described the manor house he said that cubicles for unfettered slaves should be built to admit the midday sun at the equinox. But for slaves in chains there should be an underground “prison” (subterraneum ergastulum) receiving light through narrow windows built so high from the ground that they could not be reached with the hand (I.vi.3). Later on Columella (I.viii.16–18) explained that it was customary to inspect the inmates of the ergastulum and make sure that they were properly chained and that the place of confinement was safe and properly guarded. According to Columella, slaves who had displeased their masters were punished by imprisonment in the ergastulum. It seems clear from these references that the ergastulum was, at least for those Latin authors, primarily a place of detention, more precisely, an agricultural prison in which to confine and chain disobedient, unreliable, and problematic slaves who worked in the fields during the day. Columella regarded the ergastulum as a place of punishment, as an underground dungeon with small windows in contrast to the sunny cubicles where other slaves were housed. His comment suggests that slaves were kept in different places depending on their behavior, but both groups – docile and problematic slaves – had to perform forced labor. For Columella the ergastulum was part of a private estate where certain slaves were disciplined by their owners or supervisors. This ergastulum differs from van der Toorn’s, especially because the latter differentiates ergastulum from prison or jail, and considers the ergastulum to be a place of confinement where defeated foreign enemies were compelled to perform a specific type of forced labor, namely, grinding flour. Moreover, if I understand him correctly, the many manifestations of the ancient Near Eastern ergastula were state institutions rather than private agricultural prisons. Certain scholarly writings dealing with the house of prisoners – and by extension with ancient Near Eastern prisons of sorts – display a circular reasoning heavily influenced by superficial comparisons. That is to say, early commentators saw a parallel between the Akkadian expression bīt asīrī and the Hebrew bêt hāʾasîrîm as attested in the biblical story where Samson endured his captivity. Similarity in terminology was then used to conclude that the house of prisoners in Uruk and in other ancient cities must have functioned like the Philistine institution very briefly depicted in the book of Judges. A few decades later, the story of Zedekiah and a letter of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon to the god Aššur, together with an assortment of Akkadian terms that refer to various kinds of detention places, as well as the word ergastulum were all added to the argument as if a semantic whirlpool would suffice to analyze the

14

Introduction

workings of an institution. By the same comparative procedure, the story of Joseph’s confinement in Pharaoh’s prison and the Egyptian workhouse šn.ʿ w were presented as evidence to explain that all over the ancient Near East foreigners in disgrace and prisoners of war were held as captives and put to work under severe conditions. All these examples are undoubtedly most interesting, but the only reason for bringing them together seems to have been the fact that all of them come from the ancient Near East. The tendency to analyze Mesopotamian evidence through the Bible and Classical literature goes back to the earliest days of Assyriology in the late nineteenth century. The reasons for such a methodology originated, among other things, from the fact that there are no narrative sources from Mesopotamia explaining how slaves and prisoners of war were treated nor do we have any treatise describing the functioning of institutions and governments. Under those circumstances it is understandable that early scholars tended to relate and compare hundreds of scattered tablets and inscriptions from Mesopotamia to evidence known from other societies and eras. But already in the twentieth century, availability of sources and advances in ancient studies have made this kind of comparison obsolete. The historian Jack Hexter (1979, 242) signaled the risks of certain overarching comparisons when, not without a touch of exaggeration and humor, he divided intellectuals into “lumpers” and “splitters.” In his view, the discriminating splitters are superior because the lumpers are incapable of making fine distinctions and consequently consider diverse phenomena as a single lump (see Burke 1993, 26). Among the earliest relatively successful applications of comparative methods to the study of society are those of the sociologists Émile Durkheim and Max Weber. As a matter of fact, comparisons originated from sociological analyses. Although historians such as Bloch and Otto Hintze were influenced by the comparative methods of Durkheim and Weber, respectively, a number of other historians have traditionally been skeptical about comparisons because for them history, unlike sociology, deals with what is unique in society. But of course, as Weber pointed out to Georg von Below, it is also by comparison that one can establish what is missing from a particular society (see Roth 1976, 307). Since Bloch’s pioneering article (1928) and books on the subject (1924 and 1939–1940), historians have become more involved in comparative history, as can be seen from the creation in 1958 of the journal Comparative Studies in Society and History in the United States and from a number of discussions on comparative history (e.g., Sewell 1967, Hexter 1979, Hill and Hill 1980, Halperin et al. 1982, Atsma and Burguière 1990). As Peter Burke (1993, 26–27) has pointed out, the achievements of comparative history are enormous, but this method also carries dangers. Among them he mentioned: the danger of accepting uncritically the assumption that societies evolve

About this book

15

through a fixed succession of stages as maintained by nineteenth-century scholars such as Marx, Comte, Spencer and Durkheim; and the danger of ethnocentrism, by treating the West (or, in the case of Assyriology, the Bible and Classical antiquity) as a norm by which to evaluate other societies. The third major problem that Burke adduced is “that of deciding what exactly to compare with what.” In brief, used by an inexperienced analyst the comparative method may turn the scholar into a sorcerer’s apprentice manipulating forces that s/he cannot or does not know how to control.

IV About this book The comparative method, as valuable as it is, has little or no place in this particular analysis of the house of prisoners. This decision rests on the fact that it seems preferable to me to focus on the analysis of the 317 tablets from the bīt asīrī that are available and attempt to understand the purpose and functioning of this institution and its place in Uruk’s social and economic life. I think that at the current stage of our knowledge, it is advisable to leave more ambitious comparative approaches concerning the bīt asīrī for a later date. This is so because the documentation from other sites is qualitatively and quantitatively uneven and therefore the conclusions based on such partial data could be more misleading than helpful. I consider an analytical method to be the researcher’s tool more than the researcher’s credo. For this reason, I have chosen those approaches that I believe helped me deal best with this particular archive. This study is at the intersection of local, institutional, and political history without belonging to any of them in the strict sense. It similarly does not qualify, I think, solely as economic or social history. Yet it builds to a certain extent on all those areas. One of the interesting aspects of the bīt asīrī archive is that it brings together state officials and forced labor, and because of that it provides glimpses of the interactions between upper and lower classes. I have to admit that, for me, writing this book was like putting together a fragmentary mosaic whose complete picture I had never seen before; and I have wondered many times whether I was placing somebody’s head on somebody else’s shoulders. But while aware that such are the challenges of the Assyriologist’s craft, I hope that other scholars interested in these problems will contribute with their own views to our understanding of this topic. The book consists of six chapters. The first, “The archive of the house of prisoners and political history,” provides information about the primary sources, i.e., documents from the bīt asīrī and those from the palace of Sîn-kāšid. This is followed by a contextualization of the city of Uruk during the Old Baby-

16

Introduction

lonian period, the revolts against Samsu-iluna and the reign of Rīm-Anum. It also includes a revision of the chronology and the political history of king RīmAnum, based on information from administrative documents, year names, and, occasionally, on evidence from other cities. The second chapter, “Allocation of flour,” studies the section of the bīt asīrī archive dealing with the distribution of flour to various individuals, groups, and officials. These encompass allotments of various types, such as ĝe šb u n , šu ku, si -l a₂ , ṣudû, and others. I analyze each type and try to establish who the recipients were and, whenever possible, what the differences among those allotments were. The group of tablets dealing with flour allocation contains crucial information about political history, and I consider it to be the logical continuation of the preceding chapter. The third chapter, “Prisoners and slaves,” focuses on the other section of the archive, that is, those tablets recording the management of prisoners and slaves who were brought to the house of prisoners to be employed as forced labor. The remaining three chapters are based not only on the information from the bīt asīrī texts but also on the tablets originating from the palace of Sînkāšid. Chapter four, “The organization of Uruk under Rīm-Anum, part I: ‘houses’ and institutions,” traces all the institutions of the city of Uruk attested in documents dated to Rīm-Anum. For each one of these organizations I attempt to establish its dealings with the house of prisoners, the kind of transactions in which it appears, as well as the figures of authority and other personnel related to it. The ultimate goal is to see if it is possible to integrate all of these institutions into a picture of the economic life of Uruk, in spite of the limitation that they generally appear in connection with the bīt asīrī. Chapter five, “The organization of Uruk under Rīm-Anum, part II: professions and individuals,” is the continuation of the previous section. But this part concentrates on the people involved in the transactions mentioned in tablets from the house of prisoners and the palace. I consider personnel with titles and clear affiliations with houses and institutions, personnel without title but with clear affiliation with houses, personnel with title but no clear affiliation, personnel affiliated with temples, men without titles but with seals, and finally men without seals or titles presumably acting in an official capacity. The last chapter, “The military, messengers and foreign officials,” explores the various officers and envoys present at Uruk during the reign of Rīm-Anum and casts light on the interaction of rebel rulers and the central administration. As can be seen from this description, I first present the documentary evidence, then contextualize the period under consideration, and proceed to analyze the two lots of documents from the house of prisoners. After this, I concentrate on institutions, officials, the military and foreign envoys. Every chapter dissects

Cuneiform texts, conventions, principles of transliteration, and related matters

17

specific aspects. I hope to bring all these issues back together in the conclusion in order to offer my interpretation of the house of prisoners and of aspects of slavery and state in Uruk during the reign of Rīm-Anum.

V Cuneiform texts, conventions, principles of transliteration, and related matters This book includes autograph copies, transliterations and translations of fortytwo unpublished texts dated or attributable to king Rīm-Anum of Uruk (see Appendix 1). Fifteen of the tablets included here come from the Yale Babylonian collections and were copied and transliterated by Gary Beckman. These, as well as all other published tablets, will be available through the Oracc website, which will allow the user to search the texts electronically. Transliteration conventions are those usually employed in Assyriology. Complete square brackets with leaders ([…]) indicate a broken passage, square brackets with signs or words inside ([sign/word]) are used for restorations, and half brackets (˹ ˺) show signs that are partially preserved. Superscripts in initial or final position express determinatives or word classifiers. Subscripts indicate sign values. Akkadian words are transliterated and transcribed in italics (a-siru or asīrū) and Sumerian words in spaced Roman (e₂ -muš en -hi - a). For the transcription of Sumerian, I generally avoid doubling consonants when the doubling is orthographic rather than etymological, for instance, Ešnuna instead of Ešnunna, Enanatum instead of Enannatum, and Iggala instead of Iggalla (see Cooper 1986, 2–3). For the sake of consistency, when citing Akkadian I use mimation even when it is not on the original tablet. In general, transliterations for Sumerian follow the conventions of the Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary by Steve Tinney (http://psd. museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html). When I quote from the ePSD I provide the lemma without providing the electronic address, but I give the access date. I have also made extensive use of two websites, the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (http://cdli.ucla.edu/) run by Bob Englund, and the Base de Datos Neosuméricos (http://bdtns.filol.csic.es/) managed by Manuel Molina. For the transcription of geographic names I follow RGTC III by Brigitte Groneberg, unless new readings have appeared after the publication of this volume. Like most other Old Babylonian archival texts, tablets from the bīt asīrī contain words, professional names, and titles that are consistently written

18

Introduction

logographically.7 To avoid inconsistencies I quote those terms logographically, as they appear in the documents. That is to say, I do not translate them into Akkadian, unless I specifically discuss one of those words. Readers not familiar with logograms, Sumerian, and Akkadian terminology can consult Appendix 5, which provides a list of logograms and their Akkadian and English renderings. The translations of certain titles are problematic because the modern equivalent is anachronistic or because there is no consensus among scholars about the approximate translation. I acknowledge that, although I have tried to be rigorous, some of my translations might be idiosyncratic. Finally, when a sign or a string of signs is transcribed in capital letters, this means that the ancient reading of the sign(s) is uncertain. The transcription of personal names can be a real challenge. When quoting a personal name I do so in Roman letters without differentiating whether the name is Akkadian (Sîn-šeme), Sumerian (Mu-duga), Amorite (Kiḫlī-ʾel), Elamite (Simtaligeš), or Hurrian (Ḫazib-Teššub). When the name is written completely in Sumerian, I leave it in Sumerian. But if one of the elements is Akkadian, I render the entire name in Akkadian. For instance, d utu- d i -kud is transcribed as Utu-dikud in Sumerian, and du m u-er-ṣe-tim as Mār-erṣetim in Akkadian. However, when a name that unambiguously belongs to the same individual is written, for example, as both du m u-k i and du mu-er-ṣe-tim, it is always rendered in Akkadian. Occasionally, my choices are arbitrary. This is usually the case with the sign AN, which can be interpreted as diĝi r, “god,” or as an , the god Anum. This is particularly ambiguous in the city of Uruk, where Anum was one of its tutelary deities. In these instances, I only normalize AN as Anum when the name is attested syllabically written at least once; otherwise, I transcribe the sign as d iĝi r. Names in Akkadian that contain the logogram d iĝ i r can also be problematic in that d iĝ ir could be in the singular, the plural, or the singular nominative with the first person possessive pronoun. In such cases, whenever the name is always written with d iĝ i r, I transcribe it as a free form singular. For example, dda-gan-ma-d iĝ i r is rendered Daganmailum (“Dagan-is-indeed-god”), although Daganma-ilī (“Dagan-is-indeed-mygod”) would also be possible. This ambiguity is of course solved when “god” is written syllabically i₃-li₂, which stands either for the nominative/accusative singular with the first person singular possessive suffix, or for the oblique plural. For the way a particular name was written, the reader can consult the online transliterations of the Rīm-Anum corpus. When transcribing cylinder seal impressions, I normalize the name and leave other nouns in their original logographic writing. For example: na-bi-i₃ For the bound transliteration of logograms and Sumerian words see the introduction to Appendix 5.

Cuneiform texts, conventions, principles of transliteration, and related matters

19

li₂-šu / b i s aĝ - du b - b a / du m u la-ki-ta-re-me-ni / a r ad ri-im-da-nu-um is given as Nabi-ilīšu / b isaĝ- du b - ba / du m u Lakīta-rēmēni / ar a d Rīm-Anum, “Nabi-ilīšu, the bisaĝ-dub-ba-official, son of Lakīta-rēmēni, servant of RīmAnum.” Finally, a few words about dates are necessary because scholars follow different conventions. In this book the formula Si 8/II/24, for instance, stands for Samsu-iluna eighth regnal year, second month (Ayyarum, April-May), twenty-fourth day. Dates (e.g., 1742 BC) are according to the Middle Chronology (see Seri 2005, 29–31), and, since the chronology of second millennium Mesopotamia has not yet been definitely established, all dates are approximate.

Chapter 1 The archive of the house of prisoners and political history I Documents dated to Rīm-Anum and the archive of the house of prisoners Rīm-Anum of Uruk was one of the leaders who revolted against Babylon towards the end of Samsu-iluna’s eighth regnal year (1742 BC). As I argue in the following sections, Rīm-Anum was in power for over two years, and 408 administrative documents either carry one of his year names or can be attributed to him with an acceptable degree of certainty (see Appendix 3). Records dated to Rīm-Anum have reached us from two different avenues, namely, from the antiquities market, and from the German excavations at the palace of Sînkāšid in Uruk during the nineteenth campaign of 1960–1961 (see Falkenstein 1963; Mauer 1987; Sanati-Müller 1988, 1989, 1992, 1995, 1996b, and 2000a). The first tablet with a Rīm-Anum date from unknown provenance was published by Scheil in 1898. Sixteen years later, Figulla (1914) made twenty-two new records available, and since then many more tablets have come to light. Yet another lot of documents dated to Rīm-Anum is still awaiting publication.1 Tablets from the Sîn-kāšid palace are in Baghdad and Heidelberg, and those from the antiquities market are scattered in various collections in the United States and Europe, as can be seen from Table 1. Three hundred and twenty-four tablets from the reign of Rīm-Anum reached the various collections through the antiquities market and there is consequently no information regarding their archaeological context or provenance. The vast majority of them, however, can safely be attributed to the institution known as bīt asīrī or “house of prisoners” on prosopographical and other internal evidence. The eighty-four tablets from the palace of Sîn-kāšid, on the contrary, were excavated by professional archaeologists and their provenance was properly recorded. The Sîn-kāšid palace was discovered during Julius Jordan’s first sea-

 In addition to the tablets edited in this book, I know of thirty-one unpublished records dated to Rīm-Anum in the British Museum (see Appendix 4 under Unpublished). Some of them were found by Marta Fracowiack while she was cataloging Old Babylonian tablets. Although I had access to these documents and quote them in this study, Fracowiack expressed her intention to publish them in the future. It is my understanding that Rositani will publish some of these tablets as well.

Documents dated to Rı¯m-Anum and the archive of the house of prisoners

Country

Institution

Number of tablets

Belgium France Germany

Musées du Cinquantenaire, Brussels Musée du Louvre, Paris Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin Seminar für Sprachen und Kulturen des Vorderen Oriens, Heidelberg Iraq Museum, Baghdad Museo archeologico di Firenze, Florence British Museum, London Liverpool Free Library of Philadelphia Kalamazoo Valley Museum Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Princeton Theological Seminary Yale University, New Haven

   

Iraq Italy UK USA

21

        

Tab. : Present location of the tablets

son in Uruk in 1912/13 (see Jordan 1928 and 1930), where he found bricks stamped with Sîn-kāšid’s name.3 Further excavations at the palace took place in the seventeenth campaign of 1958/9 and continued for five more seasons until the twenty-second mission (see Lenzen et al. 1956, 1961–1964, and 1966). Most of the 305 Old Babylonian tablets and fragments dug during the 1960– 1961 campaign were found in a pit up to 1.5 m under the ground level of room 35. This pit contained 212 tablets (inventory numbers W 20472, 1–203; W 20473– 20477; W 20478, 1–5). Falkenstein (1963, 4–5) suggested that those tablets were buried in the pit under the floor of room 35 because they were no longer in use and were part of dead archives (see also Sanati-Müller 1988, 472). Records from the Sîn-kāšid palace are dated to various kings of Uruk and were published in several issues of the journal Baghdader Mitteilungen.4 The administrative records from the palace dated or attributable to Rīm-Anum do not come from the pit under room 35. Seventy-nine of the tablets were found in room 30 (quadrant Ea XIV 4) near the door to courtyard 23, under a heavy deposit of

 I was not able to locate the museum in which this tablet is currently housed.  Jordan’s first campaign was interrupted due to the international situation before and during World War I. Excavations were resumed in 1928 for eleven more campaigns until 1939. There was another interruption due to World War II, and the twelfth campaign took place in 1949/ 1950. See Clancier (2009, 28–20).  Tablets from the Sîn-kāšid palace dated to various kings appeared in BaM 2 (1963), 18 (1987), 19 (1988), 20 (1989), 21 (1990), 22 (1991), 23 (1992), 24 (1993), 25 (1994), 26 (1995), 27 (1996), 31 (2000).

22

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

carbonized palm-wood and shards.5 The remaining five tablets were found in several rooms.6 These records deal with various items such as textiles, reeds and wood (see Appendix 4). The palace has also yielded two tablets dated to Samsu-iluna; both are from his seventh year (BaM 31 321, Si 7/VIII/16; BaM 31 320, Si 7/VIII/19).7 These, together with another document possibly dated to Samsu-iluna’s eighth year (Nisaba 4, 195–197; Si 8/VIII/11), are the only documents from Uruk bearing a Samsu-iluna date. One of these palace records preserves four lines on the reverse and two on the upper edge, and the word namḫarti followed by a personal name shows that this is a receipt (BaM 31 321). The other palace tablet lists eight slaves assigned as male and female ox-drivers (BaM 31 320).8 Certain texts from the bīt asīrī from the time of Rīm-Anum register similar transactions (e.g., Nisaba 4 II.53, 60, 61; UF 10 31). Although in the Samsuiluna tablet the house of prisoners is not mentioned, the fact that these people were slaves and were assigned to work as ox-drivers may imply that this record belongs to the same or to a related institution.

 Tablets found in room 30 have a W 20052 inventory number: BaM 23 185 (W 20052, 22), BaM 27 212 (W 20052, 33), 213 (W 20052, 89), 215 (W 20052, 30), 216 (W 20052, 132), 217 (W 20052, 132A), 218 (W 20052, 132B), 219 (W 20052, 132C), 223 (W 20052, 132G), 226 (W 20052, 115C), 227 (W 20052, 102), 228 (W 20052, 23), 229 (W 20052, 13), 230 (W 20052, 52), 231 (W 20052, 90), 232 (W 20052, 29), 233 (W 20052, 24), 234 (W 20052, 28), 235 (W 20052, 32), 236 (W 20052, 5), 237 (W 20052, 19), 238 (W 20052, 20), 239 (W 20052, 31), 240 (W 20052, 77), 241 (W 20052, 45), 242 (W 20052, 75), 243 (W 20052, 471), 244 (W 20052, 47II), 245 (W 20052, 16), 246 (W 20052, 46), 250 (W 20052, 104), 251 (W 20052, 18), 252 (W 20052, 38), 254 (W 20052, 53), 256 (W 20052, 91), 257 (W 20052, 92), 259 (W 20052, 126), BaM 31 268 (W 20052, 65), 269 (W 20052, 60), 270 (W 20052, 37), 271 (W 20052, 74), 272 (W 20052, 40), 273 (W 20052, 42), 280 (W 20052, 140B), 281 (W 20052, 140C), 282 (W 20052, 140D), 284 (W 20052, 140F), 292 (W 20052, 140N), 293 (W 20052, 140O), 295 (W 20052, 140Q), 302 (W 20052, 64), 303 (W 20052, 84), 306 (W 20052, 98), 308 (W 20052, 63), 316 (W 20052, 108BI+II), 322 (W 20052, 8), 323 (W 20052, 9), 324 (W 20052, 10), 326 (W 20052, 14), 328 (W 20052, 21), 330 (W 20052, 26), 331 (W 20052, 27A), 334 (W 20052, 35), 338 (W 20052, 44), 340 (W 20052, 50), 343 (W 20052, 59), 344 (W 20052, 61), 345 (W 20052, 62), 347 (W 20052, 67), 351 (W 20052, 80A), 352 (W 20052, 80B), 356 (W 20052, 82A), 359 (W 20052, 83), 362 (W 20052, 88), 363 (W 20052, 95), 366 (W 20052, 101), 367 (W 20052, 102), 374 (W 20052, 113), 383 (W 20052, 123B).  BaM 18 32 (W 20038, 30) in quadrant Dc/d XIV 4, room 12 at ground level; BaM 18 33 (W 20038, 31) in quadrant Eb XIV 5, room 35; BaM 23 179 (W 19622a) in room 2; BaM 26 210 (W 20198) in quadrant Eb XIV 4, room 53; and for BaM 31 300 no information available.  Like the majority of the tablets dated to Rīm-Anum, the two documents dated to Samsuiluna also come from quadrant Ea XIV 4, room 30.  Lines 11–13 are poorly preserved. My reading of these lines is different from Sanati-Müller’s (2000a, 124–125). Based on similar tablets dated to Rīm-Anum, I suggest the following reading: r3. n iĝ₂ - šu ˹i₃-li₂-ip-pa-al-sa₃-am˺, r4. 8 ˹saĝ-gem e ₂ -a r ad- m e š˺, r5. [a]-na l u ₂ š a₃ - gu d munus ša ₃-gud .

23

Documents dated to Rı¯m-Anum and the archive of the house of prisoners

Dd

Dc

Ea

De

Eb

Ed

Ec

Ee

Fa

Fb

XIII 4

XIII 4

XIII 5

XIII 5

80 115

XIV 1

XIV 1

89 79

78

116 114

82

77 73

7c

XIV 2

75 28

XIV 3

63 4 3

110

26 58

25 24

23

108

60

2a 10 11b

21

35

52 53 51

103 100 104 106 99 102 98 101 96 97 95

94

54 55

93

0

Dc

Dd

De

Ea

Eb

Ec

Ed

10

Ee

20

30

Fa

XV 2

XV 2

38 39 a 56 57 39b 41 92 43 81 45 47 42 50 44 48 46 81 49

105

XV 1

XV 1

37

107

34

XIV 5

30 22 31 32 20 1 19 16 33 11a 8 18 33a 15 36 17 14 13 40 9

107a

109

59

XIV 4

26 12a

XIV 5

107b

64

61

27

XIV 3

62

5

XIV 4

111

76 76b a

6

12b

113

86a 86b

74

7a

112

XIV 2

71

84 85

72

7b 29

87

40

Fb

Fig. 1: Plan of the Sîn-kāšid palace at Uruk. Adapted from Lenzen (1966) pl. 36.

Other affinities between tablets from the palace and those from the house of prisoners exist. For example, six tablets coming from the antiquities market pertain to transactions more akin to those documented in the palace records than to those from the bīt asīrī archive.9 But this judgment is only conjectural because not all personal names are qualified by titles and some of them are unattested elsewhere. One of these administrative records, however, mentions two officials known from the archive of the house of prisoners: Sîn-šeme, the overseer of the bīt asīrī, and Sîn-bēl-ilī, the overseer of the female weavers (Nisaba 4 III.2). These two men are frequently attested in documents from the house of prisoners, but this tablet is a receipt for wood and reeds that does not fit into the context of the bīt asīrī archive. It is possible that in this case the overseer of the weavers was receiving materials necessary for weaving tasks; if

 Nisaba 4 III.1 (RīA 1/V/26), VAS 13 35 (RīA 1/XI/[…]), Nisaba 4 III.3 (RīA 3/IX/[…]), Nisaba 4 III.2 (RīA […]/VIII/16), Nisaba 4 III.4 (RīA? […]/[…]/[…]), App. 1 Nᵒ 39 (RīA 3/II/15).

24

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

so, this was a receipt kept in a different palace archive. However, since the records are fragmentary, this piece of evidence is not conclusive. Further interesting results come from the prosopographical analysis of the two groups of texts. There are two cases in which the attestation of the same individual in tablets from the palace and those from the antiquities market is unambiguous. First there is the sealing with the legend Etel-pī-˹Erra?˺ / du mu Enanatum / a r a d Igga la .10 This seal was rolled on three tablets from the palace and on six tablets of unknown provenance.11 Two of the palace records are receipts dealing with reed bundles for the smiths (BaM 27 228) and for the making of spears (BaM 27 257), while the third is fragmentary (BaM 31 347). The other documents are flour allocations for messengers and men from various places, including Larsa (Nisaba 4 I.4, 5, 10) and Isin (Nisaba 4 I.13), as well as another poorly preserved tablet (App. 1 Nᵒ 1). The second case of officials appearing in both groups of texts is that of Ištar-ilum, who in all documents bears the title za d i m , “maker of bows and arrows.” In tablets from the archive of the bīt asīrī he receives a boy from the booty of Daganma-ilum (YOS 14 340, RīA 2/IV/1), and two more slave youths a few months later (Nisaba 4 II.75, RīA 3/I/22). In addition, three other slaves are entrusted to him (App. 1 Nᵒ 41, [RīA…]/IX/24). The palace tablet mentioning Ištar-ilum has him as the recipient of carding combs together with Ša-ilīšu (BaM 31 303, RīA 3/I/20). Besides his title, his cylinder seal impression is preserved: Ištar-ilum / du mu Sîn-gāmil / a r a d Nin-siana (BaM 31 303, Nisaba 4 II.75). Most importantly, there is a tablet from the Sîn-kāšid palace recording the transfer of a person received by Mār-Bābilum; the conveyor was Marduk-nāṣir (BaM 31 366). Although no titles are attested for either of these men, Marduknāṣir could have been the same man who, with the title aga₃-u s₂ saĝ, “elite soldier,” acted as conveyor in another document dealing with a similar transaction (Nisaba 4 II.13). For his part, Mār-Bābilum is very well attested as the man who received workers at the e₂ - aĝ rig, “the house of the aĝr ig-official.” Only a few signs of the reverse are preserved and the date is mostly illegible, but it is likely that the name of Sîn-šeme was written in the lost portion. In spite of the missing information, this is certainly a bīt asīrī document that includes officials known from other similar texts. The existence of like records coming from the antiquities market and from the Sîn-kāšid palace together

 For the divine name Igga l a see Deimel (1914, 144 Nᵒ 1508), Litke (1998).  Tablets from the Sîn-kāšid palace are: BaM 27 Nᵒ 228 (RīA 1/X/8), BaM 31 Nᵒ 347 (RīA 1/ XI/11+) and BaM 27 Nᵒ 257 (date missing). Those from unknown provenance are: Nisaba 4 I.4 (RīA 1/X/5?), Nisaba 4 I.5 (RīA 1/X/6), App. 1 Nᵒ 1 (RīA 1/X/18), Nisaba 4 I.10 (RīA 1/XI/15), Nisaba 4 I.13 (RīA 1/XI/23), and App. 1 Nᵒ 3 (RīA 1/[…]/2+).

25

Documents dated to Rı¯m-Anum and the archive of the house of prisoners

with the prosopographical evidence suggests that the documents of unknown provenance may have also come from the palace. Most of the tablets constituting the archive of the bīt asīrī come from the antiquities market. This is what Norman Yoffee (1977, 7) called an “artificial archive,” that is to say, a group of texts assembled according to internal criteria and based on prosopographical research. In other words, these documents were scattered in different collections and have been put back together into a meaningful archive through the work of generations of Assyriologists. The key official in the reconstruction of the archive of the house of prisoners is Sînšeme, who bore the title ugu la (e₂ ) asīrī, “overseer of the (house of) prisoners.” This man appears in the vast majority of documents and gives archival coherence to the lot. According to the extant tablets currently known to me, 317 records belong to the archive. The transactions registered in these documents served as the basis for dividing them into two groups: allocation of flour and management of prisoners and slaves. There are 173 tablets dealing with allocation of flour covering the period from RīA 1/IX/17 (Nisaba 4 I.2) to RīA 2/ XI/23 (UF 10 35). The 141 records pertaining to the management of prisoners Provenance

Subject of the document

Number of Tablets and Fragments

Palace

 Reeds and reed products Prisoners and slaves Sheep Textiles Textiles, silver, and gold Wood, rushes, and related products Broken

      

Antiquities Market Bīt asīrī archive

  Flour Prisoners and slaves Others (memo, wood, dead animal)

  

Cattle related (unclear) Reeds Silver Unspecified product Year name formula

    

Others



Total of tablets and fragments dated to Rīm-Anum  Tab. : Tablets dated or attributable to Rīm-Anum

26

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

and slaves extend a bit further, i.e., from RīA 1/V/22+ (BM 88930) to RīA 3/II/ 28 (Nisaba 4 II.79). All these tablets provide unparalleled evidence not only for the study of the bīt asīrī but also for the understanding of the political history of the period.

II Uruk during the Old Babylonian period The city of Uruk held a prominent position in Mesopotamia throughout various epochs. Its archaeological importance is apparent because Uruk is the only extensively excavated site from the late Uruk period (ca. 3400–3100 BC). Already at that early stage it occupied about 2.5 km2 (Nissen 2001), had unprecedented monumental architecture (e.g., Nissen 1988, 96–106), as well as record-keeping techniques and cuneiform writing (e.g., Michalowski 1990 and 1994; Nissen, Damerow, and Englund 1990), all indicators of a specialized economy and of a hierarchical and complex society (e.g., Liverani 1998, Pollock 1999, Yoffee 2005). But perhaps Uruk attained worldwide fame for being the home town of king Gilgameš, the literary character who undertook many adventures in search of glory and immortality. The situation of Uruk, however, was not always splendid, for on several occasions the fortunes of the city were tied to the political and military defeats of local and regional rulers. There are, in addition, periods that are very poorly documented and this certainly impedes our comprehension not only of historical processes but also of basic facts, such as chronological matters. Those difficulties are particularly evident concerning the Old Babylonian period, for which there is a lack of sources. During this time, the city experienced long spells of political domination by other kingdoms. The scarcity of documentary evidence is an obstacle to our understanding of the placement of kings in chronological order. As an example, there is the case of Rīm-Anum, whose position in the history of Uruk was determined only a few decades ago (Ellis 1986). Even more striking is the fact that new evidence for Old Babylonian kings keep surfacing. For instance, a royal inscription of a previously unknown ruler of Uruk was rediscovered in Minnesota in 2005 and recently published (von Dassow 2009). It was Adam Falkenstein (1963) who first established an outline of the chronology of Old Babylonian Uruk thanks to the texts excavated by German archaeologists in the palace of Sîn-kāšid. Other scholars have successively contributed new information to update Falkenstein’s chronology.12 The names of Uruk rulers known at present are Alila-ḫadûm, Sūmû E.g., Sigrist (1977), Kienast (1978, 20–21), Ellis (1986), Charpin and Reculeau (2001), Charpin (2004), and von Dassow (2009).

The revolts against Samsu-iluna and Rı¯m-Anum’s reign

27

binassa, Narām-Sîn, and perhaps also a certain Ikūn-pī-Ištar.13 All of them ruled before Sîn-kāšid, although the exact chronological order is still unknown. These sovereigns are to be dated roughly to the Isin-Larsa period (ca. 2000– 1850 BC). A second sequence of rulers includes Sîn-kāšid, Sîn-erībam, Sîngāmil, Ilum-gāmil, ANam, Irnene, Nabi-ilīšu (ca. 1860–1803 BC), and finally Rīm-Anum (1741–1739 BC). Uruk was most likely under the control of the kingdom of Isin at the beginning of the Old Babylonian period. It then attained an ephemeral independence and later became part of the state of Larsa, since king Sūmû-El claims to have defeated Uruk in his fifth year formula (1891 BC). Larsa’s dominion over Uruk continued until Sîn-kāšid established a ruling house around 1860 BC. All the successive kings including Nabi-ilīšu apparently ruled uninterruptedly until Rīm-Sîn I of Larsa regained Uruk. This may have happened during his thirteenth regnal year because he claims to have vanquished the army of Uruk in his fourteenth year name. After Hammurabi defeated Rīm-Sîn I in 1763 BC, Uruk became part of the all-encompassing domain that the Babylonian king had amalgamated. Such was the state of affairs until a number of revolts took place on various fronts during the reign of Hammurabi’s successor.

III The revolts against Samsu-iluna and Rīm-Anum’s reign The vast territorial state that king Hammurabi of Babylon established towards the end of his reign started showing signs of internal political conflict by the eighth regnal year of his son and successor Samsu-iluna (1742 BC). A look at Samsu-iluna’s year names shows that until his seventh year on the throne of Babylon, the king engaged in a number of administrative and pious activities.14 These include work on the wall of Sippar (year 1), the establishment of order and justice in the lands of Sumer and Akkad (year 2), the digging of irrigation canals (years 3 and 4), as well as offerings and dedications to various deities (years 5, 6, 7 and 8). His ninth year-formula, however, marks the beginning of six years in which the king had to deal with a series of military issues. There are mentions of the Kassites and of revolts in central and southern Babylonia, such as the uprisings that took place in Ida-Maraṣ, Emutbal, Uruk, Isin, Larsa, Kisura and Sabûm. There is also evidence that, around the same time, insur-

 See Charpin (2004, 76–77 and footnote 248), especially for the discussion concerning Alilaḫadûm and Sūmû-binassa.  For year names see M. Sigrist and P. Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names in cdli.ucla.edu/ tools/yearnames/HTML, and Horsnell (1999).

28

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

Fig. 2: Map of Babylonia.

Year names, chronology and political history

29

rections against Samsu-iluna took place in the north, for instance in Ešnuna and Muti-abal (Charpin 2001). Perhaps the most frequently cited of these rebellions is the one led by Rīm-Sîn II in Larsa (e.g., Ormsby 1972, 91; Stol 1976, 44– 58). Two other insurgents were Ilūni from Ešnuna and Ilīma-ilum mentioned in texts from Nippur (see Stol 1976, 56). The chronological placement of yet another rebel king during this period, Rīm-Anum of Uruk, become possible only some twenty-five years ago. Although this king was fairly well attested since the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (see, e.g., Scheil 1898, Figulla 1914), Rīm-Anum’s place in Old Babylonian history was in dispute until Maria deJong Ellis (1986) published a tablet from the collection of the Free Library of Philadelphia (App. 1 Nᵒ 11). This document is dated to Rīm-Anum and bears the impression of a seal belonging to Apil-ilīšu, servant of Samsuiluna, which shows that the two kings were contemporaneous.15 The geographical location of Rīm-Anum’s kingdom was similarly conjectural until not too long ago. As early as 1923 Koschaker and Ungnad (1923, viii–ix) suggested that Rīm-Anum’s seat of power was Uruk (see also Figulla 1961; Leemans 1961, 71; Kraus 1952–1953, 322 Nᵒ 13); however, other scholars proposed that texts dated to his reign came from Malgûm (Jacobsen 1937–1939, 363) or from northern Babylonia (e.g., Kienast 1978, 11; Charpin 1979, 193; Klengel 1981, 244). The discovery of tablets bearing Rīm-Anum’s year-names in the palace of Sîn-kāšid in Uruk (see Falkenstein 1963; Mauer 1987; Sanati-Müller 1992, 1995, 1996, and 2000a) as well as the mention of Uruk in Rīm-Anum’s year-names confirm that he ruled in the city of Uruk. Although recent studies have concentrated on king Rīm-Anum and – to a lesser extent – on the activities of other rulers who challenged the Babylonian dominion over those territories that they claimed (see Pomponio and Rositani 1998, Rositani 2003), the particulars of Rīm-Anum’s reign are far from established and certain facts remain hypothetical. There are currently only two groups of direct sources for the reconstruction of the political history of Uruk under this ruler: his year names and 408 administrative tablets originating from the Sîn-kāšid palace and from clandestine excavations.

IV Year names, chronology and political history The placement of Rīm-Anum within Old Babylonian history and the publication of new texts have made it possible to address the issues of the accession  For a summary of previous interpretations see Ellis (1986, 68–69). We now also know of a similar case, namely, Awīl-ilī, the servant of Samsu-iluna, who rolled his seal on tablets dated to Rīm-Anum (e.g., BaM 27 230, 232, 233, 234, and 239). See S. Sanati-Müller (1996b, 366, and 379–385).

30

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

year of this king and of the duration of his term in power. Until less than a decade ago, there were five different year formulae belonging to Rīm-Anum. The recent publication of two British Museum tablets (Nisaba 4 II.44 and II.41), however, has shown that two of those formulae were actually different abbreviations of the same year name (Rositani 2003, 11). Based on the comparison and similarities of two groups of eight tablets bearing two different formulae and considering the short interval in which tablets from both groups were issued, Rositani (2003, 11–15) argued that these two year names were also two different abbreviations of the same formula. I share this hypothesis but for a different reason. More than similarities and the proximity of months and days, the key resides in the political information contained in these records. This is so because they are flour allocations assigned to military leaders (ugu l a MAR.TU) and their dependents, to messengers of Larsa, to men of Muti-abal, Isin, Gutûm, Dunnum, Kisura and Ešnuna, who were all involved in diplomatic missions or military affairs, as we shall see later. These activities are frequent and very well documented for the first and second years (see Year 2 a). The information currently available suggests that the chronological arrangement of Rīm-Anum’s year names is as follows: Year 1 Year 2

a

b Year 3

m u ri-im-da-nu-um luga l- e m u ri-im-da-nu-um lugal-e u n ug k i -ga u ₃ a₂ - dam-bi uĝ₃ su h ₃- a -b i si b i ₂ -i n - si - sa ₂ m i - n i- ib -gi ₄ (Nisaba 4 II. 41 + II.44) m u ri-im-da-nu-um luga l- e n u mu n - d a- ri ₂ n a m - e n -n a -ke ₄ m u ri-im-da-nu-um luga l- e m a - d a e-mu-u t-ba- ˹lu m ug n im ˺ e š₃ -n u n -n a i ₃ - si- i n k i ka -za l-lu e- n e -b i -˹ t a -gi n ₇˺ u n ug k i - še ₃ me ₃ -a i n - ši - sug ₂- e š- ˹ a m ₃ ˺ ˹ ga r₃ - d a r ˺ er in ₂ -n a- ˹bi ˺ m i- n i - in -ĝ a r- r a n iĝ₂ -u l- du ₃ - a - ˹ ta˺ un ug k i sa ha r-r a la - b a -˹ du b ? - ab ? ˺ -b a sa h a r b a - du b ? -ba-a -ba ˹ m i - n i -i n - ša r ₂ ˺- ša r ₂- re n a m -a ₂ -ĝal ₂ -l a -a- ni kal a m- ma ˹ m i ˺ -n i -˹ i n -r i ˺- a (Michalowski and Beckman, 2012)

The placement of the first year is secure because it is a rather common name for the accession year of a number of Old Babylonian kings. As is well known, the formulae chosen for successive years in power usually describe the deeds that the ruler accomplished during each previous year. The year-name stating that the king reorganized Uruk, its territory and its disorganized people and that he established the eternal name of his lordship seems to be the best candi-

Year names, chronology and political history

31

date for the second year formula if only because of the modesty of the king’s claims. In other words, during his first year Rīm-Anum had recently revolted against the central administration of Samsu-iluna in Babylon, and had to reorganize the city of Uruk, its hinterlands, and its population. It is also clear from the content of certain tablets dated to the second year that during this period there was intense diplomatic and military activity in the area. Since foreign representatives are not as frequently attested in documents from the third year, it is possible to speculate that some of the diplomatic dealings with other rulers may not have lasted, as seems to have been the case with Larsa. If this line of reasoning is correct, it would then follow that Rīm-Anum’s accomplishments during his second year are the basis of his third year formula. Here the king claims to have defeated Emutbal and the troops of Ešnuna, Isin, and Kazalu.16 Accepting that this reconstruction is valid, two other problems remain: how many months did Rīm-Anum rule Uruk and what is the exact synchronism between his and Samsu-iluna’s years? The earliest extant document dated to Rīm-Anum comes from the palace of Sîn-kāšid and is a fragment that preserves only the date, namely, the second month of Rīm-Anum’s first year (BaM 31 374, RīA 1/II/[…]). If the autograph copy is accurate, there is nothing after the legend “mu Rīm-Anum luga l- e ,” where luga l- e is indented under mu RīmAnum. Unfortunately the tablet is in Baghdad and therefore currently unavailable for collation. There is yet another palace document dated to Rīm-Anum’s fourth month of the first year (BaM 31 330, RīA 1/IV/[…]). This tablet is also in Baghdad and unavailable for collation. However, in her edition Shirin SanatiMüller (2000a, 130) indicated that the upper edge – where one would expect the date to continue – is not inscribed. An unpublished bīt asīrī tablet from the British Museum is certainly dated to the fifth month of Rīm-Anum’s first year (BM 88930, RīA 1/V/22+).17 To this list one should add another tablet dated to the twenty-sixth day of the fifth month of Rīm-Anum’s first year (Nisaba 4 III.1, RīA 1/V/26).18 This shows that the recently proposed accession date of  Kazalu is usually written ka -za l-lu, but note the phonetic writing ka-sa-al-lu-ukk i in two Mari letters ARM 26/2 365: 12 and 20, and 366: 15.  Although the line containing month and day is partially damaged, the reading ˹it i n e - ne-ĝar ˺ is secure. The second ne and the ĝar signs are clear; the first n e is partially erased.  Pomponio and Rositani (1998, 639) argued that BM 23456 dated to the fifth month cannot refer to Rīm-Anum’s first year, in part because the writing of the year name is defective. Rositani (2003, 191) edited this tablet as Nisaba 4 III.1 and read the date in lines 1 and 2 of the reverse as follows: “1. it u ne- ne -gar u₄-26-[kam], 2. m u ri-im-da-nu-um”, without further mentioning or transliterating any defective writing. I have collated this tablet and see a defective writing in the second line. Here the determinative diĝ i r and the first sign of the king’s

32

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

Rīm-Anum a few days after the eleventh day of the eighth month of Samsuiluna’s eighth year (Rositani 2003, 16) cannot be sustained because there are tablets dated to the first year of Rīm-Anum previous to the eighth month. Based on the available evidence the following table illustrates the number of months that Rīm-Anum was in power: Year

Month and day + attestation

High date (number of months)

RīA 

II/[…] (BaM  ) to XII/ (Nisaba  II.) V/+ (BM ) to XII/ (Nisaba  II.) I/ (App.  Nᵒ ) to XII/ (App.  Nᵒ ) I/ (Nisaba  II.) to IX?/ (BaM  ) I/ (Nisaba  II.) to IX/[…] (Nisaba  III.)



RīA  RīA  Total

 +

Low date (number of months)   ±

 +

 ±

Tab. : Duration of Rīm-Anum’s Reign

Thus if we take the earliest and latest attestations of dates that could be problematic because of the impossibility of collating some of the tablets, Rīm-Anum ruled Uruk for two years and six-plus months. If we adhere to the dates securely attested, he reigned for at least two years and three months. The issue of the synchronism between Rīm-Anum’s and Samsu-iluna’s reigns is more complicated, but the fact that we now know that Rīm-Anum ruled for over two years is helpful.19 This is so because references to the revolt of Rīm-Sîn II of Larsa have usually influenced interpretations concerning the king of Uruk. Marten Stol’s (1976, 48–52) reconstruction of Rīm-Sîn’s activities suggested that the king of Larsa revolted during Samsu-iluna’s eighth year and controlled most of the south by the end of the same year. Stol concluded that Rīm-Sîn was defeated in Larsa early in Samsu-iluna’s tenth year and most importantly that it took Samsu-iluna several more months after the fall of Larsa to defeat Rīm-Sîn completely. Samsu-iluna’s tenth year formula states that the name are not elegantly written and the last sign of the line, ‑um, was partially written over the last sign of the obverse, which runs over the left edge. In spite of this, it seems to me that dating this tablet to the first year is not to be questioned, for there is no line following this one. This interpretation is reinforced by the unpublished tablet also dated to the fifth month mentioned above.  Other scholars have recently proposed that the first year of Rīm-Anum corresponded to either Samsu-iluna’s seventh or eighth year. For a summary of these interpretations see Charpin (2004, 338 fn. 1756).

Year names, chronology and political history

33

king of Babylon smote the troops of Ida-Maraṣ, Emutbal, Uruk and Isin. This must have happened during Samsu-iluna’s ninth year. But this victory seems not to have encompassed the entire south because Samsu-iluna’s eleventh year formula proclaims that the king defeated Larsa. What is more, judging from Samsu-iluna’s list of year names, he was still struggling in the south during his thirteenth year on the throne. The following chart presents a cursory view of Samsu-iluna’s year formulae, the year in which the events took place and the royal deeds that are reported: Year Name

Regnal Year

 

 









  

  





Samsuiluna’s deeds he installed a royal platform in the Eturkalama temple he ripped out the foundation of the army of the Kassites of/at Kikala he defeated the army of Ida-Maraṣ, (the army of Ešnuna), (the land of) Emutbalum, Uruk and Isin he destroyed the walls of Ur, Larsa, (and) Uruk and defeated the army of Akkad for the time he defeated the army of Sumer and Akkad he brought Kisura and Sabûm into submission he smote the enemy king(s) who had caused the people of Akkad to revolt he restored the wall of Isin

Tab. : List of the eighth to the fifteenth year names of Samsu-iluna

This shows that the victories that Samsu-iluna claimed were not necessarily conclusive because he affirmed having defeated Uruk twice, namely, in his tenth and eleventh formulae, which correspond to his ninth and tenth regnal years. The twelfth year name is interesting because the Babylonian king mentioned an anonymous enemy who had revolted again during his eleventh regnal year. When compared with the previous names, the choice of words for the twelfth year formula is revealing because – if the extant information is complete – Samsu-iluna or his scribes decided not to mention specific geographic names, resorting instead to the vague “enemy lands” and “troops of Sumer and Akkad.” This is even more striking when in previous and following year names references to particular cities and defined territories are not absent. The same is the case with his fourteenth year name mentioning that Samsuiluna smote the “enemy king(s) who had brought the people of Akkad to  List based on the reconstruction by Horsnell (1999, 190–201).

34

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

revolt.” In other words, revolts in the south started during Samsu-iluna’s eighth year when he defeated the Kassites, continued with the insurrections in IdaMaraṣ, Emutbal, Uruk and Isin in his ninth year, and the conflicts were still ongoing during Samsu-iluna’s thirteenth year in power. Uruk documents dated to Samsu-iluna are few. As far as I know, there are only two tablets from the Sîn-kāšid palace with a Samsu-iluna date, both from his seventh year (BaM 31 320, Si 7/VIII/19; BaM 31 321, Si 7/VIII/16). A third tablet may have originated from Samsu-iluna’s eighth year (Nisaba 4, 195–197), although the writing of the year name is problematic. This is so because this year name, written on the left side, reads “i d ₂ ki-lugal-gu b h ur- saĝ”; whereas elsewhere the name reads: m u sa-am-su-i-lu-na lugal- e u r u d u ki-lugal-gub ( - ba ) h u r- saĝ id ₂ - di dl i- b i( - t a ) h e-n un h e₂ -ĝal ₂-bi tum₃- tum ₃ e₂ ma h e₂- tu r₃ -kal am - m a ig i an d i na nn aka - še₃ u₆- di - še ₃ ki -gub -< ba> - e -ne- ne m u-un- g i - na- a (Horsnell 1999, 190).

As can be seen, the abbreviation is faulty in that i d₂ is written before ki -luga l- gu b instead of after h u r- saĝ . In spite of the variant, it is not unlikely that this tablet originated in Samsu-iluna’s eighth year. This is the case because alterations of word order for this year name are attested elsewhere (see Horsnell 1999, 190 Nᵒ 49) and because two of the officials mentioned in this tablet (Sîn-bēl-ilī, the overseer of the weavers, and Sîn-šeme, the overseer of the house of prisoners) are well attested in documents dated to Rīm-Anum. Based on the previous considerations, I propose the following interpretation. As is well-known, Uruk had been under the rule of other kingdoms, Isin, Larsa and then Babylon, for many decades. One has to assume that it was difficult for a local noble or rebel to attain the support of the people and of neighboring allies to muster the forces and revolt against the central power. This was perhaps easier for a leader of a city such as Larsa, which only a few years earlier had been the capital of a powerful kingdom. It is possible that – even though cities such as Uruk and Larsa may have revolted around the same time – Rīm-Sîn II might have been acknowledged as king a few months earlier than Rīm-Anum in Uruk and that his example may have influenced Uruk. What is more, a letter (AbB 13 53:4–9) and one of his year formulae suggest that RīmSîn II might have originally been from Keš, a city whose location is still unknown. As other scholars have already noted, the case of Rīm-Sîn II of Larsa is complicated because he seems to have controlled an important territory and because documents dated to his year formulae come from various other cities such as Ašduba, Bad₃-tibira, Kutalla, Lagaš, Nippur and Ur (Stol 1976, 56–57;

Year names, chronology and political history

35

Charpin 2004, 339).21 Therefore, as Stol (1976, 52) has suggested, Rīm-Sîn’s defeat in the city of Larsa may not have prevented him from resisting in other southern cities. The fall of Larsa may have taken place towards the end of RīmSîn’s second year as is apparent from the last Larsa document dated to his reign (PSBA 39 21, RS II b/XII/26), or at the very beginning of his third year. It is not unlikely that Rīm-Anum and other men of Uruk revolted during the second half of Samsu-iluna’s eighth year. This insurrection, however, did not necessarily coincide with Rīm-Anum’s first year as king. This is reasonable in view of the fact that a rebel, be he of royal blood or not, needs to show leadership and to attain some consensus from peers, followers, and the rest of the population. Rīm-Anum, having achieved this, must have become king of Uruk during Samsu-iluna’s ninth year. Furthermore the only tablet possibly to be dated to Samsu-iluna’s eighth year (Nisaba 4, 195–197; Si 8/VIII/11), which records the names of two future officials of Rīm-Anum, may suggest that the rebels were appointing their own loyal people to the administration of Uruk even though they still used the year names of the king of Babylon. The synchronism of Samsu-iluna, Rīm-Sîn and Rīm-Anum is presumably as follows:

Samsu-iluna th year (year name th) Samsu-iluna th year (year name th) Samsu-iluna th year (year name th) Samsu-iluna th year (year name th)

Larsa revolted Rīm-Sîn II st year Rīm-Sîn II nd year

Uruk revolted

(Rīm-Sîn II)

Rīm-Anum nd year

Ø

Rīm-Anum rd year (until month IX or X)

Rīm-Anum st year (from month II or V)

Tab. : Synchronism of the reigns of Samsu-iluna, Rīm-Sîn, and Rīm-Anum

 Although there are currently three year formulae attested for Rīm-Sîn II, it is possible that he ruled for about two years. The last Samsu-iluna text from Larsa is dated to Si 7/XII/20 (TCL 11 215) and his dating in Larsa was resumed at the beginning of Samsu-iluna’s 10th year (e.g., YOS 12 314, Si 10/I/1; TCL 11 219, Si 10/II/12); whereas the last text dated to Rīm-Sîn II is b/XII/ 26. It is possible that Larsa fell towards the end of Rīm-Sîn’s second year or at the beginning of his third year.  Rīm-Sîn’s formulae are: 1) mu dri-im-30 lugal- e, 2) mu dri-im-30 lugal- e u ri k i -ma e ₂ - m ud-kur-r a -ke₄ ki- e din- še ₃ bi₂-in-ĝ ar-r a , and 3) m u dri-im-30 lugal- e d n in- m ah- e e ₂ ke š k i tem en -a n-ki- bi- d a- ta nam-luga l kal a m k iš ĝ a l₂ -l a- š e ₃ gal- b i - t a b a - a n-il₂ -la lu₂ kur₂ lu₂ hul- ĝa l ₂ kur-kur- še₃ gaba - bi nu- g i ₄ - a (Sigrist 1990, 61–62). Formulae 2 and 3 seem to designate the same year (Stol 1976, 54), which correspond to Stol’s years Samsu-iluna a and b.

36

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

As Stol (1976, 48) argued, Rīm-Sîn II of Larsa “led a revolt in Samsu-iluna’s eighth year and became the master of the south at the end of the year;” he further added that Rīm-Sîn’s year name b (i.e., year 2) was used during Samsuiluna’s ninth year, following the year of his conquests. Tablets from Bad₃-tibira dated to the ninth and tenth months of Rīm-Sîn’s year b and to the third-sixth months of Samsu-iluna’s eleventh year formulae show that the king of Babylon re-conquered a number of southern cities during his tenth regnal year (see Leemans 1957–1958, 216). This synchronism agrees with the claims made in the year names of both Samsu-iluna and Rīm-Anum. Samsu-iluna’s most important deed in his eighth year must have been the defeat of the Kassites mentioned in his ninth year formula. It was possibly also during this year that Uruk and Larsa revolted. In his ninth year the king of Babylon must have fought against Ida-Maraṣ, Emutbal, Uruk and Isin, as stated in his tenth year formula. This must have coincided with Rīm-Anum’s accession to the throne of Uruk (first year formula) and with his reorganization of Uruk and its territories, which happened during his first year and was therefore mentioned in his second year formula. During Rīm-Anum’s second year, Samsu-iluna must have attacked Uruk because in his eleventh year name he claimed to have destroyed the walls of Ur and Uruk. This was apparently not a total defeat of Rīm-Anum, for he continued in power for several more months. The mention of the destruction of the wall of Uruk invites us to consider two different interpretations, i.e., either that the episode was irrelevant or that Rīm-Anum was intimidated and Samsu-iluna decided to let him keep the throne of Uruk on the condition that Uruk join forces with the Babylonian army. The latter interpretation is not implausible because it was also during his second year that Rīm-Anum defeated Emutbal, Ešnuna, Isin and Kazalu, as he proclaimed in his third year formula. It is unlikely that Uruk alone could have accomplished all of those victories. This series of military actions then corresponds to Samsu-iluna’s tenth regnal year, for in his eleventh year formula he boasted that he destroyed the walls of Ur, Larsa and Uruk and defeated the army of Akkad. The study of certain events mentioned in the tablets from the archive of the bīt asīrī provides more information on political history, as will be seen.

V Administrative records and political history Records originating from the bīt asīrī contain oblique references that are useful in reconstructing some of the political maneuvers of the time. This is especially the case with tablets dealing with allocation of flour. A number of flour records

Administrative records and political history

37

mention officials and men from other cities, who were the recipients of flour while they visited Uruk, presumably on diplomatic missions or to deal with military affairs. Documents identify these recipients of flour in the following manner: du m u- m eš lu ₂-k iĝ₂ -g i ₄- a (“messengers”), lu₂ -kiĝ ₂ -g i ₄-a GN (“messenger of geographic name”), lu ₂-k iĝ₂ -g i ₄ -a RN (“messenger of royal name”), lu ₂ GN (“man of geographic name”), še š Daganma-ilum (“brother of Daganma-ilum”), šu- i GN (“barber of geographic name”), ugul a šu- i RN (“overseer of the barbers of royal name”), and ugu l a MAR.TU(-meš ) (“Amorite leader(s)”).23 An examination of the chronological and geographical distribution of these men may help reconstruct certain political negotiations. Table 6 (pp. 38–41) illustrates the geographical and chronological arrangement of the available flour records mentioning men from other cities, areas, and ethnic affiliation receiving rations in Uruk. This list allows us to visualize the emissaries and military authorities present at a given time in Uruk. This is important because the date of the documents reflects the real point at which these people were receiving the flour. That most of these men were figures of authority is clear from the fact that in the majority of cases they appear as recipients together with dependents (aḫiātum). The earliest extant tablet of this group dates to RīA 1/X/2 and is a ĝe šbu n allocation (see chapter 2) for the messengers of the Aḫlamû and for the messengers of Isin (UF 10 20), whereas the latest attestation comes from RīA 2/X/ […] and is a ĝ eš bu n allocation for the man (lu ₂ ) of Kisura (App. 1 Nᵒ 16). According to the available sources, diplomatic activities carried on in Uruk spanned twelve months, from the end of Rīm-Anum’s first year to the end of his second year. If we take the fifth month as the accession date for Rīm-Anum, the evidence shows that the allocation of flour for men from outside Uruk started some five months later. This seems a reasonable period for the organization of the kingdom, but this may also be the result of the chance of discovery. In these documents, recipients of flour were mainly related to specific toponyms, to ethnic groups, and to Daganma-ilum, clearly a personal name. The surviving records are most likely incomplete and this may explain the reason why some locations such as Damrum and Ida-Maraṣ are mentioned only once while other places are better documented. Yet the attestations show the network of cities, territories and groups involved in the negotiations. Surprisingly, the important absence is that of Ešnuna, especially since people from Ešnuna are well represented in tablets dealing with the management of

 For this translation, see the discussion of the title below on pages 43–44 and in chapter 6 under ugula MAR.TU.

38

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

City of origin or other affiliation

Date

Title or identification

Type of allocation

Document

Aḫlamû

RīA /X/

dumu- meš lu ₂-ki ĝ₂ -g i ₄-a Aḫlamû

ĝ ešbun

UF 10 20

Bābilum Bābilum Bābilum Bābilum

RīA RīA RīA RīA

lu ₂

ĝ ešbun si - la₂ si - la₂ si - la₂

UF 10 21 App. 1 Nᵒ 2 Nisaba 4 I.10 Nisaba 4 I.21

Bābilum

RīA 2/II/27

lu ₂

ṣudû

VAS 13 48

Bābilum

RīA 2/II/29

lu ₂

si - la₂

UF 10 5

Bābilum

RīA 2/IV/22

lu ₂

si - la₂

RSO 82 9

Bābilum

RīA 2/[…]/7

lu ₂ Bābilum lu ₂ Bābilum lu ₂ Bābilum u gula MAR.TU- meš Bābilum u gula MAR.TU- meš Bābilum u gula MAR.TU- meš Bābilum u gula MAR.TU- meš Bābilum u gula MAR.TU- meš Bābilum

lu ₂

Ø

VAS 13 49

Daganma-ilum Daganma-ilum Daganma-ilum Daganma-ilum Daganma-ilum Daganma-ilum

RīA 1/XII/20 RīA 1/XII/22 RīA 1/XII/23 RīA 1/XII/24 RīA 1?/[…]/[…] RīA 2/II/20

ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun si - la₂

VAS 13 41 RSO 82 5 UF 10 9 Nisaba 4 I.15 RSO 82 13 Nisaba 4 I.21

Daganma-ilum

RīA 2/II/27

ṣudû

VAS 13 48

Damrum

RīA 1?/VIII/ 11+

š uku

RSO 82 6

1/XI/14 1/XI/14+ 1/XI/15 2/II/20

šeš Daganma-ilum šeš Daganma-ilum šeš Daganma-ilum šeš Daganma-ilum ˹šeš˺ Daganma-ilum lu ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a Daganmailum lu ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a Daganmailum lu ₂ Damrum

 In certain cases, “other affiliation” may refer to personal ties. For instance, Daganmailum’s brother and messenger(s) are not identified by their names but by their ties to Daganma-ilum. The category may also encompass ethnic or territorial association, or both. The Aḫlamû, for example, were an ethnic group poorly attested during the Old Babylonian period (see, e.g., Van Lerberghe and Voet 1991, 130, note II.16, 19). The term Gutûm (or Gutium) may refer to an ethnic group (see, e.g., Durand 1998, 376) or to the area or territory occupied by them, usually written with the semantic classifiers ku r or k i (e.g., ku r.gu .t i.u m k i = ku r gu-ti-i, MSL 11, 35: 8; kurgu-ti-umk i , AfO 16, 4: 15; gu-tu-umk i , RA 70, 117: 14'). Muti-abal (or Muti-abalum) was a territory with capital in Kazalu, but it was also the name of an ethnic group (Charpin 1988 and 2001). The Sutûm were an ethnic group whose activities and the names of some of whose leaders are better known from the Mari archives (see, e.g., Kupper 1961b; Durand 1998, 505–506). They are attested as transhumant pastoralists, as guides, as brigands, and as slave merchants (Joannès 1997, 409–411). The term Sutûm also refers to the territory occupied by this ethnic group, although its location is difficult to determine.

Administrative records and political history

39

City of origin or other affiliation

Date

Title or identification

Type of allocation

Document

Dunnum Dunnum Dunnum Dunnum Dunnum Dunnum Dunnum Dunnum Dunnum

RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA

/IV/ /IV/ /IV/ /V/ /VI/ /VI/ /VI/ /VI/ /VII/

lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂

ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun

Nisaba  I. MCS /,  UF   UF   Nisaba  I. UF   Nisaba  I. Nisaba  I. UF  

Gutûm Gutûm Gutûm Gutûm Gutûm Gutûm Gutûm Gutûm Gutûm Gutûm Gutûm Gutûm

RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA

/IV/ /V/ /V/ /V/ /VI/ /VI/ /VI/ /VI/ /VI/ /VII/ /VII/ /VII/

ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun šuku

UF   UF   Nisaba  I. App.  Nᵒ  Nisaba  I. Nisaba  I. Nisaba  I. App.  Nᵒ  App.  Nᵒ  App.  Nᵒ  UF   Nisaba 4 I.48

Gutûm

RīA

ĝ eš bun

UF 10 18

Gutûm25

RīA

ĝ eš bun

UF 10 11

Gutûm Gutûm

RīA RīA

ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun

VAS 13 44 App. 1 Nᵒ 20

Ida-Maraṣ

RīA 1/X/6

lu ₂-kiĝ₂- gi₄-a Ida-Maraṣ

si- la ₂

Nisaba 4 I.5

Isin

RīA 1/X/2

ĝ eš bun

UF 10 20

Isin Isin

RīA 1/XI/22 RīA 1/XI/23

ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun

UF 10 16 Nisaba 4 I.13

Isin

RīA 1/XII/9

dumu - meš l u ₂- kiĝ₂- g i₄ -a Isin lu ₂ Isin lu ₂-kiĝ₂- gi₄-a- meš l u ₂ Isin lu ₂ Isin

ĝ eš bun

UF 10 15

Dunnum Dunnum Dunnum Dunnum Dunnum Dunnum Dunnum Dunnum Dunnum

lu ₂ Gutûm lu ₂ Gutûm lu ₂ Gutûm lu ₂ Gutûm lu ₂ Gutûm lu ₂ Gutûm lu ₂ Gutûm lu ₂ Gutûm lu ₂ Gutûm lu ₂ Gutûm lu ₂ Gutûm ugula MAR.TU-m eš l u ₂ Gutûm 2/VII/[…] ugula MAR.TU-m eš l u ₂ Gutûm 2/VII/9 lu ₂ ugula MAR.TU-meš Gutûm 2/[…]/21 lu ₂ Gutûm 2/[…]/[…] lu ₂ Gutûm

 Although in his transcription Loretz (1978, 126) has Bi-tu-um, the word is possibly to be read gu!-tu-um. The first sign is defective. In documents from the bīt asīrī archive Gutûm is usually written gu-ti-um, but there are at least three other instances with vowel contraction: BM 97061:11 (unpublished), Nisaba 4 II.46:3, and YOS 14 339:5.

40

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

City of origin or other affiliation

Date

Title or identification

Type of allocation

Document

Isin Isin Isin Isin Isin Isin Isin Isin

RīA 2/IV/27 RīA 2/IV/30 RīA 2/V/1 RīA 2/V/2 RīA 2/V/3 RīA 2/V/3? RīA 2/V/8 [RīA…]/IX/[…]

lu ₂ Isin lu ₂ Isin lu ₂ Isin lu ₂ Isin lu ₂ Isin lu ₂ Isin lu ₂ Isin dumu- meš lu ₂-ki ĝ₂ -g i ₄-a lu ₂ Isin

ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun […] ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ṣudû

Nisaba 4 I.65 UF 10 17 Nisaba 4 I.32 RSO 82 3 Nisaba 4 I.34 Nisaba 4 I.33 UF 10 24 App. 1 Nᵒ 21

Kisura Kisura Kisura Kisura Kisura Kisura Kisura Kisura Kisura Kisura Kisura Kisura Kisura

RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA

ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun

VAS 13 42 VAS 13 38 Nisaba 4 I.15 MCS 7/1, 3 UF 10 10 UF 10 19 VAS 13 47 UF 10 12 Nisaba 4 I.36 Nisaba 4 I.42 App. 1 Nᵒ 10 App. 1 Nᵒ 11 UF 10 11

Kisura

RīA

ĝ ešbun

UF 10 7

Kisura Kisura

RīA RīA

ĝ ešbun š uku

Nisaba 4 I.46 Nisaba 4 I.48

Kisura

RīA

ĝ ešbun

UF 10 18

Kisura Kisura

RīA RīA

lu ₂ Kisura lu ₂ Kisura lu ₂ Kisura lu ₂ Kisura u gula [ MAR.TU] l u₂ Kisura lu ₂ Kisura lu ₂ Kisura lu ₂ Kisura lu ₂ Kisura lu ₂ Kisura lu ₂ Kisura lu ₂ Kisura lu ₂ u gula MAR.TU- m eš Kisura 2/VII/10 u gula [ MAR.TU]- meš l u ₂ Kisura 2/VII/12 lu ₂ Kisura 2/VII/28 u gula MAR.TU- meš lu ₂ Kisura 2/VII/[…] u gula MAR.TU- meš lu ₂ Kisura 2/X/[…] lu ₂ Kisura 2/[…]/[…] lu ₂ Kisura

ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun

App. 1 Nᵒ 16 App. 1 Nᵒ 20

Larsa Larsa Larsa Larsa Larsa Larsa Larsa Larsa Larsa Larsa

RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA

1/X/5? 1/X/6 1/XI/12 1/XI/14 1/XI/14+ 1/XI/15 2/II/20 2/II/21 2/II/27 2/II/29

ĝ ešbun si - la₂ ṣudû ĝ ešbun si - la₂ si - la₂ ĝ ešbun ĝ ešbun ṣudû si - la₂

Nisaba 4 I.4 Nisaba 4 I.5 UF 10 13 UF 10 21 App. 1 Nᵒ 2 Nisaba 4 I.10 UF 10 25 App. 1 Nᵒ 6 VAS 13 48 UF 10 5

1/X/[…] 1/XI/7 1/XII/24 2/IV/19 2/IV/23 2/IV/24 2/V/11 2/V/14 2/V/21 2/VI/21 2/VI/22 2/VI/30 2/VII/9

lu ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a lu ₂ Larsa lu ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a Larsa lu ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a Rīm-Sîn lu ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a -meš Larsa lu ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a -meš Larsa lu ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a Larsa u gula šu -i ša Rīm-Sîn u gula šu -i Larsa? šu - i ša Rīm-Sîn lu ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a , šu -i ša Rīm-Sîn

Administrative records and political history

City of origin or other affiliation

Date

Larsa Larsa

Title or identification

41

Type of allocation

Document

RīA 2/II/30 RīA 2/III/10

si- la ₂ si- la ₂

Nisaba 4 I.59 App. 1 Nᵒ 7

Larsa

RīA

si- la ₂

Nisaba 4 I.60

Larsa

RīA

si- la ₂

Nisaba 4 I.25

Larsa

RīA

Ø

VAS 13 49

Larsa

RīA

lu ₂-kiĝ₂- gi₄-a Larsa Inbi-ilīšu ša e₂- mun us ša Rīm-Sîn 2/III/16 lu ₂-kiĝ₂- gi₄-a- meš ša Rīm-Sîn 2/III/19 lu ₂-kiĝ₂- gi₄-a- meš ša Rīm-Sîn 2/[…]/7 lu ₂-kiĝ₂- gi₄-a ša Rīm-Sîn; šu -i Larsa 2/[…]/[…] lu ₂-kiĝ₂- gi₄-a- meš ša Rīm-Sîn

ṣudû

RA 71 Nᵒ 4, p. 8

Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal

RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA

1/XI/22 1/XI/30 1/XII/20 1/XII/23 1/XII/22 1/XII/24 2/IV/12 2/IV/27 2/V/1 2/V/8 2/V/11

lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂

Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal Muti-abal

ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun

UF 10 16 RSO 82 8 VAS 13 41 UF 10 9 RSO 82 5 Nisaba 4 I.15 Nisaba 4 I.28 Nisaba 4 I.65 Nisaba 4 I.32 UF 10 24 VAS 13 47

Sutûm Sutûm Sutûm Sutûm Sutûm Sutûm

RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA

1/XI/14+ 1/XI/30 1/XII/20 1/XII/22 1/XII/23 2/V/3?

lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂ lu ₂

Sutûm Sutûm Sutûm Sutûm Sutûm Sutûm

si- la ₂ ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun ĝ eš bun

App. 1 Nᵒ 2 RSO 82 8 VAS 13 41 RSO 82 5 UF 10 9 Nisaba 4 I.33

Tab. 6: Men receiving rations from the bīt asīrī

prisoners and slaves. Another peculiarity is that allocations of flour to men from places other than Uruk are not attested for any of the nine (or ten) months of Rīm-Anum’s third year. Once again, if not due to the chance of discovery, this may mean that diplomatic dealings were carried on outside Uruk or that men involved in diplomacy or war were compensated by other authorities. Since this was obviously a time of political upheaval, in certain cases it is difficult – if not impossible – to decide whether these men were envoys from political allies or messengers from the enemy’s army. A chronological approach to the evidence clarifies some of the interaction.

42

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

V.1 Rīm-Anum’s first year Flour records from the first year show that Babylon had men (lu ₂) in Uruk around the middle of the eleventh month of Rīm-Anum’s first year, when one has to assume that the two cities were not on the best of terms. It is, however, not unlikely that Babylon was trying to convince Rīm-Anum to switch sides or to surrender. Also during the last two months of his first year, the brother of Daganmailum received flour. Unfortunately, no title is preserved for Daganma-ilum, but he was apparently an important character. We know from other bīt asīrī texts that Daganma-ilum was sending slaves from Muti-abal, where he seems to have been active. This may suggest that either Daganma-ilum was an ally of Uruk or that he was in Rīm-Anum’s service. Since there are two records in which men are described as messengers of Daganma-ilum (Nisaba 4 I.21, VAS 13 48), it is possible that he was a king or a claimant to the throne of a city in the Muti-abal area or of a neighboring region because the title messenger (lu₂ -kiĝ ₂ -gi ₄ -a) in this archive is either followed by a geographic or a royal name. It should be noted that men (lu ₂ ) of Muti-abal are also present in Uruk during the eleventh and twelfth months of Rīm-Anum’s first year, and that on three occasions they are listed on the same tablet with the brother of Daganmailum (VAS 13 41, UF 10 9, and Nisaba 4 I.15). During the eleventh and twelfth months men from the northern area of Sutûm were in Uruk and accordingly received flour allocations from the bīt asīrī. Similarly active in Uruk during the first year of Rīm-Anum were messengers and men from Isin, attested from the tenth to the twelfth months. Other neighboring cities such as Kisura and Larsa also had representatives in Uruk around the same time. Men (lu₂ ) of Kisura are recipients of flour from the tenth to the twelfth months, whereas messengers from Larsa are currently recorded for the tenth and eleventh months. As these sources demonstrate, diplomatic and military activities are concentrated in the last three months of Rīm-Anum’s first year.

V.2 Rīm-Anum’s second year The picture that emerges from flour records dated to the second year shows certain continuities but also a few changes. Flour allocations to men from other cities are currently attested from the twentieth day of the second month (Nisaba 4 I.21 and UF 10 25, RīA 2/II/20) to the tenth month (App. 1 Nᵒ 16, RīA 2/X/[…]). Beginning our survey with distant areas, there is only one attestation of a man from Sutûm dated to the fifth month as opposed to the four entries of people from this area in the previous year. As for Babylon, three of the four

Administrative records and political history

43

tablets mentioning Samsu-iluna’s capital date to the twentieth, twenty-seventh, and twenty-ninth days of the second month, and in the other two the month is broken. It is worth mentioning that while representatives from Babylon were characterized as “man” (lu ₂ ) during Rīm-Anum’s first year, the attestations of the second year record the title ugu la MAR.TU(-m e š ) , “Amorite leader(s).” In the case of Daganma-ilum, there are only two flour allocations dated to the twentieth and twenty-seventh days of the second month, and the recipient is now a messenger instead of Daganma-ilum’s own brother. Possibly indicative of the whereabouts of Daganma-ilum are mentions of people from Muti-abal receiving flour from the bīt asīrī in records that span one month. Concerning cities closer to Uruk, there are seven references to men (lu₂ ) of Isin towards the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth months. Numerically more important are the sixteen tablets recording people from Kisura. Some of these men are characterized as “man of Kisura,” whereas other entries mention the ugu la MAR.TU-m e š lu ₂ Kisura. Attestations of representatives from Kisura range from the fourth to the tenth months of Rīm-Anum’s second year. In clear contrast with Kisura is the case of people from Larsa, whose presence in Uruk is thus far attested for only one month, namely, from RīA 2/II/20 to RīA 2/III/19. Judging from the extant evidence, diplomatic dealings between Larsa and Uruk seem to have been interrupted during the third month of Rīm-Anum’s second year. Men from Larsa bear various titles such as “overseer of the barbers” of Rīm-Sîn or of Larsa, messengers of Rīm-Sîn or of Larsa, or even “PN of the house of the women of Larsa” (PN ša e ₂- mu nu s Larsa). Two new actors absent from the records from the first year are Dunnum and Gutûm. Men from Dunnum received nine ĝ e šbu n allocations over a period of three months, from RīA 2/IV/12 to RīA 2/VII/9. Similarly, there are fifteen ĝ eš b u n allocations assigned to men of Gutûm spanning three months, from RīA 2/IV/24 to RīA 2/VII/28. A characteristic of Rīm-Anum’s second year is the frequent presence in Uruk of men bearing the title ugu la MAR.TU(-m e š) . As I argue in chapter 6, the title ugu l a MAR.TU, usually rendered as “general,” is frequently preceded by a personal name, whereas ugu la MAR.TU(- m e š ) without a PN may have referred to the leader(s) of a military corps named after the gentilic “Amorites” (see Michalowski 2011).26 This might have a correlate in the role that Elamites  The most recent treatment of the Amorites is Michalowski’s (2011, 82–121). For the Ur III and early Old Babylonian periods, he maintained that the term Amorites is related to the military profession and cites Weeks (1985) and Whiting (1995), who suggested that the Amorites “being organized military, were in position to take power in times of Chaos” (Michalowski 2011, 109 fn. 46). Michalowski further argued that the combined logogram MAR.TU should be read a mur r u ( p. 1 07), but see Attinger’s (2011) objections.

44

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

played in the military during the Ur III period (see Steinkeller 1980, Michalowski 2008) and perhaps also during the Old Babylonian period, as may be implied by certain records of the house of prisoners.27 The attestations of highranking officers during the second year stretch from the second to the eleventh month (RīA 2/II/2 to RīA 2/XI/11?), which sharply contrasts with the examples coming from the tenth and eleventh months of Rīm-Anum’s first year.

VI Military activities The data from administrative records provide details for assessing the extent of diplomatic dealings and the political actors of the period, even though certain particulars remain elusive. These references further supplement the information from year formulae. Activities recovered from administrative documents fit nicely into the military deeds enumerated in Rīm-Anum’s third year formula, i.e., the defeat of the land of Emutbal and the army of Ešnuna, Isin, and Kazalu. Emutbal designated the region of Larsa as well as the region of Maškan-šāpir and areas farther east (Stol 1976, 63–72; Steinkeller 2004b, 36).28 According to the evidence, diplomatic relations between Uruk and Larsa possibly ended after the third month of Rīm-Anum’s second year. The records show that the diplomatic exchanges lasted for about five months (RīA 1/X/5? to RīA 2/III/19). This time seems to coincide roughly with the fall of Larsa to Babylon, which might have happened before the second month of Samsu-iluna’s tenth year (Stol 1976, 50), although Rīm-Sîn II may have been active in southern Mesopotamia for a few more months. The diplomatic exchanges between Uruk and Larsa during the second and third months of Rīm-Anum’s second year do not have to be those of cooperation, for it is natural that enemies send messengers to each other in times of war. It might be possible then that these last exchanges took place at the beginning of a third year of Rīm-Sîn II as king, although he had already lost Larsa. At this point, of course, Uruk had joined  Michalowski (2008, 111) argued that for the Ur III period Elamites were bodyguards and that there is no evidence that the Elamites were part of the Ur III military establishment as maintained by other scholars such as Jones and Snyder (1961, 299–300) and Gelb (1973, 93). Unfortunately, the context in which the title ugul a MAR.TU(- m e š) appears in the bīt asīrī records does not shed any light on the function and activities of the bearer of the title.  Charpin (1988, 148) provided a different interpretation, i.e., that during the time of Hammurabi, Emutbal was the region around Maškan-šāpir. However, he later changed his mind and agreed with Stol’s suggestion (Charpin 1997/1998, 341; 2004, 32). More recently Steinkeller (2004b, 36) proposed that there was a “migration of Emutbalans to the south” reaching Larsa and Ur and that Maškan-šāpir was “the core tribal territory of the Emutbala.” The designation Emutbal was then also used for the areas to the south.

Military activities

45

Babylon. Interestingly enough, troops of Uruk headed by the ugu la MAR.TU of Uruk received about 300 liters of flour in Larsa at the end of Rīm-Sîn’s second year (RS II 2/XII/26, PSBA 39 21). This could mean either that troops of Uruk went to the aid of Larsa against Babylon (Stol 1976, 51) and perhaps that Uruk switched sides later, or that this allocation of flour possibly happened shortly after Larsa had fallen. The defeated city then had to feed the enemy troops and perhaps its scribes had not yet adopted Samsu-iluna’s dating system. This is possible considering that there is a Larsa text dated to Samsuiluna 10/I/1 (YOS 12 314). Rīm-Anum’s third year formula further refers to the defeat of the army of Ešnuna. As mentioned earlier, there is no record of messengers or other people from Ešnuna receiving flour from the bīt asīrī of Uruk. All tablets concerning people from Ešnuna refer to prisoners and slaves from that kingdom administered as a labor force by the house of prisoners. There is, however, a messenger of Ida-Maraṣ who might be connected to Ešnuna’s dealings in the area. Of the twelve attestations of prisoners of Ešnuna, nine pertain to people sent by Daganma-ilum from the Muti-abal area, and only three refer to prisoners originating from other places, apparently obtained by the army of Uruk. Thus a certain Pirḫi-ilīšu of Ešnuna was captured in GN (BM 88447:1, RīA 2/IX/25), two other men from Ešnuna were seized in Ka₂-Latarak (UF 10 2:1–3, RīA 2/IX/ 18), and two others in Isin (VAS 13 50:1–3, RīA 2/XI/10).29 The last example suggests that the troops of Ešnuna could have been defeated in southern Mesopotamia, which fits well with other records, as will be discussed later. The third year formula of Rīm-Anum also states that the king defeated Isin. As can be seen from Table 6, messengers and men from Isin received flour allocations in Uruk at various times. Attestations span from RīA 1/X/2 to RīA 2/V/8. There are also three texts dealing with the management of prisoners dated to RīA 1/XI/5 (Nisaba 4 II.13), RīA 1/XI/15 (Nisaba 4 II.20), and RīA 2/VI/5 (Nisaba 4 II.51), which record people from the booty of Isin. Although these tablets reflect only the date on which the transfer of prisoners was recorded and cannot be used to date the fall of Isin precisely, it is logical to suppose that Isin was conquered at some point before RīA 1/XI/5, when the first prisoner from the booty of Isin is recorded. Considering that the earliest extant attestation of a messenger of Isin receiving flour in Uruk dates to RīA 1/X/2, it is reasonable to assume that the conquest of Isin took place around the ninth month. Although the presence of messengers does not necessarily mean that the two cities were allies, records in Uruk pertaining to prisoners from the booty of Isin in RīA 1/XI/5 show that Isin had been defeated earlier than that date.  Ka₂-Latarak is the name of a city gate (or perhaps even a town) whose location is unknown.

46

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

The first document mentioning prisoners from Isin is a tablet recording that a person from the booty of Isin, whose conveyor was Marduk-nāṣir, the elite soldier (aga₃-u s₂ saĝ), was assigned to Muti-Dagan, the overseer of the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.13, RīA 1/XI/5). Three other slaves from the booty of Isin, similarly transferred to the weavers, had been taken from the house of Sînibnīšu, the ugu la aga ₃-u s₂ -m eš, the overseer of the soldiers (Nisaba 4 II.20, RīA 1/XI/15). Finally, a woman from the retinue of the same Sîn-ibnīšu, the ugu l a aga ₃ -u s ₂-m e š, was also given to the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.51, RīA 2/ VI/5).30 The first two tablets date from the eleventh month of Rīm-Anum’s first year. The prisoners transferred had an elite soldier as their conveyor or they were taken from the house of the overseer of the soldiers. This may indicate that these people had been captured among the booty of Isin not very long before they were transferred to the weavers. The third document dates from the sixth month of Rīm-Anum’s second year. In this case, however, the person seems to have been in the service of the household of Sîn-ibnīšu, the overseer of the soldiers, before being transferred, because the tablet states that the prisoner was from Sîn-ibnīšu’s retinue. This document may further suggest that both Marduk-nāṣir, the elite soldier, and Sîn-ibnīšu, the overseer of the soldiers, had participated in the capture of Isin, and that high-ranking soldiers could have retained in their service prisoners captured in military campaigns. Rīm-Anum’s third year formula finally mentions his defeat of Kazalu. The location of this city is still unknown, but it was possibly situated in the region between the cities of Marad and Kiš, in the area of Muti-abal (Kraus 1952–1953; Charpin 2004, 87). The presence of men of Muti-abal in Uruk spans from RīA 1/XI/22 to RīA 2/V/11, almost six months. All these men received ĝešbu n allocations, according to the bīt asīrī records. As already suggested, Daganma-ilum also seems to have been operating in the area of Muti-abal, because he was sending slaves to the house of prisoners of Uruk from that region. The first attestation of the brother of Daganma-ilum appears in the same tablet as the first occurrence of a man of Muti-abal (VAS 13 41, RīA 1/XII/20). These men received flour in Uruk on two other occasions (UF 10 9, RīA 1/XII/23; Nisaba 4 I.15, RīA 1/XII/24). This coincidence might be explained by the supposition that Daganma-ilum operated in Muti-abal, because tablets dealing with the management of prisoners show that he sent prisoners from Muti-abal. However, the last attestation of a messenger of Daganma-ilum in Uruk dates to RīA 2/II/27 (VAS 13 48), whereas the last men of Muti-abal appear in RīA 2/V/11 (VAS 13 47). This is of course conjectural, but the options seem to be either

 The fourth tablet is RlAA Nᵒ 250, date missing.

The rebels according to the bı¯t ası¯rı¯ sources

47

that the men of Muti-abal and the affiliates of Daganma-ilum represented the same political power or that they had conflicting interests. It is not unlikely that the order in which Rīm-Anum lists his accomplishments in his third year formula, namely, the defeat of the land of Emutbal and that of the army of Ešnuna, Isin and Kazalu, reflects the importance of the deeds. It would be expected that Uruk confronted all those states with the help of allies. Most likely, at the beginning of his second year, Rīm-Anum had joined the forces of Samsu-iluna. Perhaps the battles were fought in southern Babylonia, where the presence of the troops of other states is apparent, although the possibility that Rīm-Anum sent his armies to the north in support of Babylon should not be ruled out.

VII The rebels according to the bīt asīrī sources A well-known royal inscription of Samsu-iluna on a cylinder commemorating work on the wall of Kiš implies that Samsu-iluna considered Rīm-Sîn II and Ilūni his most powerful opponents because they are the only rebels mentioned by name (RIME IV E4.3.7.7). The text tells that the year was not half over when Samsu-iluna killed Rīm-Sîn II. This agrees with our hypothesis that Larsa fell towards the end of Samsu-iluna’s ninth or the beginning of his tenth year, which corresponds to Rīm-Anum’s late first and early second year. As Stol had suggested, the final defeat and subsequent murder of Rīm-Sîn II might have occurred a few months after Larsa was conquered. The Kiš inscription adds that Rīm-Sîn II had instigated revolts in Emutbal, had been crowned in Larsa, and that he was killed and buried in Kiš. The death of Rīm-Sîn II must then have taken place during Samsu-iluna’s tenth year. The cylinder next has a very brief passage mentioning that the king of Babylon also killed twenty-six other rebel kings. According to the inscription, right after this, Samsu-iluna defeated Ilūni, the king of Ešnuna, led him off in a neck-stock, and had him killed. The result was the pacification of the lands of Sumer and Akkad. The archive of the house of prisoners shows that Rīm-Anum was involved in the insurrections against Babylon during several months. Furthermore, the attestation in Uruk of various officials related to Rīm-Sîn II implies that the two kings had joined forces at some point. Since Rīm-Sîn had already taken over a number of southern cities by the end of Samsu-iluna’s eighth year, it is possible to assume that Rīm-Anum of Uruk was looking for a strong ally to crystallize his aspirations for independence and that he found one in Rīm-Sîn. But records from the bīt asīrī show that the situation was rather complex. The number of cities, territories and groups with representation in Uruk was

48

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

important, because there are at least twenty different entities recorded in the archive. The documents mention groups and places such as Aḫlamû, Babylon, Damrum, Gutûm, Ida-Maraṣ, Isin, Kisura, Larsa, Muti-abal and Sutûm. However, the presence of recipients of flour allocations from places outside Uruk cannot be taken as direct evidence of alliance and cooperation or of enmity. This is because political alliances changed over time and the documentation is meager. But besides the group of flour records, texts dealing with the management of prisoners provide additional evidence for the rebels’ activities. We can now take a closer look at two of the other leaders besides Rīm-Anum and Rīm-Sîn II mentioned in the archive.

VII.1 Daganma-ilum There are twenty-three tablets mentioning Daganma-ilum from the bīt asīrī. His relations with Rīm-Anum are apparent from flour allocations assigned to his representatives, covering at least three and a half months. There are currently six such records. Four of them register flour given to the brother of Daganma-ilum and the other two are allocations for his messengers. The remaining seventeen tablets deal with prisoners and show that Daganma-ilum undertook three campaigns, although there is no mention of any specific location.31 From these expeditions he dispatched to Uruk prisoners described as men of Ešnuna, men of Malgûm, men of Sutûm, men sent from Muti-abal, or simply as booty of Daganmailum.32 The date of records dealing with management of people indicates the occasion on which the transfer of personnel took place, but not the date on which these prisoners were actually captured. An example is the case of three prisoners described as having been sent from Muti-abal during Daganma-ilum’s first and third campaigns (Nisaba 4 II.36, RīA 1/XII/[…]). The earliest dispatches of prisoners are from the eleventh month of Rīm-Anum’s first year, which means that their capture had taken place before that date. The fact that he sent captives from  Nisaba 4 II. 36 (RīA 1/XII/[…]) mentions the first and third campaigns. The third campaign appears in Nisaba 4 II.32 (RīA 1/XII/16), Nisaba 4 II.35 (RīA 1/XII/29), BM 86143 (RīA 1?/XII/ 17?), and BM 97061 (date broken).  Examples are as follows: men of Ešnuna appear in Nisaba 4 II.22 and 23 (RīA 1/XI/22), Nisaba 4 II.25 (RīA 1/XI/22), BM 88590A (RīA 1/XI/22), Nisaba 4 II.26 (RīA 1/XI/23), Nisaba 4 II.29 (RīA 1?/[…]/30), UF 10 29 (RīA 1/XII/14). A man from Malgûm is recorded in Nisaba 4 II.25 (RīA 1/XI/22), the men of Sutûm in Nisaba 4 II.26 (RīA 2/XI/23). Men sent from Muti-abal are attested in Nisaba 4 II.36 (RīA 1/XII/[…]). Examples of men mentioned as booty of Daganmailum include Nisaba 4 II.32 (RīA 1/XII/16), BM 86143 (RīA 1?/XII/17?), RA 71 Nᵒ 1 (RīA 1/XII/22), Nisaba 4 II.35 (RīA 1/XII/29), YOS 14 340 (RīA 2/IV/1), BM 86143 (RīA 1?/XII/17?), and BM 97061 (date broken).

The rebels according to the bı¯t ası¯rı¯ sources

49

Muti-abal suggests that, at certain point, Daganma-ilum must have been active in the area located between Babylon and Marad. A few decades ago Leemans (1961, 72) maintained that Daganma-ilum was the king of Muti-abal. To my knowledge, there is still no conclusive evidence that he was a ruler anywhere. He could have been either a monarch whose title is not preserved, or the claimant to the throne of a city that he was not able to control, or finally – and perhaps less likely – Daganma-ilum could have been a high officer in Uruk’s army. Evidence against his position as a king would be his dispatch of prisoners to Uruk instead of keeping them in his own kingdom. However, this could also have been in accordance with an agreement he had made in order to obtain the support of Uruk – possibly against Babylon and Ešnuna. If Leemans’ hypothesis is correct, and Daganma-ilum was a king – or perhaps a noble with royal aspirations – from the Muti-abal area, then one could assume that he was based in Kazalu, which had been the main center of the Muti-abal area and had boasted its own ruling dynasty until it was conquered by Sūmû-la-El of Babylon. Following this line of reasoning, it would then be possible to infer that Rīm-Anum’s third year name mentioning the defeat of Kazalu refers to his – or actually Babylon’s – defeat of Daganmailum. This would make sense considering that Uruk’s diplomatic exchanges with Daganma-ilum had stopped by the second month of Rīm-Anum’s second year, although dealings with men of Muti-abal seem to have continued a bit longer (VAS 13 47, RīA 2/V/11).

VII.2 Ilūni Documents from the bīt asīrī show that it was Daganma-ilum who sent most of the prisoners of Ešnuna to Uruk from Muti-abal. However, it is also apparent from records of the house of prisoners that additional men of Ešnuna were captured in other cities and areas such as Ka₂-Latarak (UF 10 2) and the environs of Isin (VAS 13 50). The presence of troops of Ešnuna in southern Mesopotamia is apparent from a sealing on a receipt of ghee from Ur dated to Samsuiluna, where the owner of the seal is Sîn-ibbīšu, the servant of Ilūni (JCS 24 Nᵒ 11, Si 8/IX/28). Sîn-ibbīšu actually had two seals which were rolled on tablets dealing with similar transactions. The first sealing reads d s u’ en -i-[bi-šu] / dum u d s u’ en -i-qi₂-ša-am / a r a d dri-im-d su’e n , “Sîn-ibbīšu son of Sîniqīšam, servant of Rīm-Sîn,” and was used on two tablets (JCS 24, 95 Nᵒ 9, RS II 1/III/26; and Nᵒ 21, RS II 1/VIII/27). The second has the legend d s u’ en -i-bi˹šu˺ / du mu d ˹ s u’ en ˺ -[i]-qi₂-ša-am / a r a d di-lu-[ni], “Sîn-ibbīšu, son of Sîniqīšam, servant of Ilūni,” and is attested only once (JCS 24, 95 Nᵒ 11, Si 8/IX/

50

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

28). The same archive from Ur also preserves a third sealing, namely, that of d s u’ en -i-qi₂-ša-[am] / b i saĝ - du b -b a gu du ₄ - abzu d[…] / du mu diĝ i r -šu-ibi₂-[šu] / a r a d ḫa-am-mu-ra-bi, “Sîn-iqīšam, the bis aĝ- dub -ba (and) gu du ₄- abz u of [DN], son of Ilšu-ibbīšu, servant of Hammurabi.” This seal was rolled on tablets dated to the sixth, seventh, and eighth years of Samsuiluna and was used either by Sîn-iqīšam himself, or – as Ormsby thought (1972, 89) – Sîn-ibbīšu had inherited the seal from his father and used it along with his two seals or until he acquired his own. These Ur tablets and their sealings are relevant because they partially reflect the political history of Ur during the revolts. They demonstrate that Sîn-iqīšam was an official under Hammurabi and that his seal was still in use during the time of Samsu-iluna. The seals of his son Sîn-ibbīšu are even more important because he is seen to be the servant of Rīm-Sîn II in sealings of two tablets dated to this king and the servant of Ilūni in the sealing of a tablet dated to Samsuiluna. The chronological attestation of those sealings is as follows: Sealing

Attestation

Sîn-iqīšam bisa ĝ -dub-ba g udu₄-abzu d […] d umu Ilšu-ibbīšu a ra d Hammurabi

Si /I/[…] (JCS ,  Nᵒ ) Si /IV/ (JCS ,  Nᵒ ) Si /IV/ (JCS ,  Nᵒ ) Si /VIII/ (JCS ,  Nᵒ ) Si /IX/[…] (JCS ,  Nᵒ ) Si /X/ (JCS ,  Nᵒ ) Si /XI/ (JCS ,  Nᵒ ) Si /XII/ (JCS ,  Nᵒ ) Si /II/ (JCS ,  Nᵒ ) Si /IV/ (JCS ,  Nᵒ ) Si /VII/ (JCS ,   Nᵒ ) Si /VIII?/[…] (JCS ,  Nᵒ ) Ø /IX/ (JCS ,  Nᵒ )

Sîn-ibbīšu d umu Sîn-iqīšam a ra d Ilūni

Si /IX/ (JCS ,  Nᵒ )

Sîn-ibbīšu d umu Sîn-iqīšam a ra d Rīm-Sîn

RS II /III/ (JCS ,  Nᵒ ) RS II /VIII?/ (JCS ,  Nᵒ )

We note the continuity of this man – or of him and his father – as official(s) under what seem to be three different administrations in Ur: that of Samsuiluna of Babylon, that of Ilūni of Ešnuna, and finally that of Rīm-Sîn II of

Conclusion

51

Larsa. It is possible that Ilūni claimed the throne of Uruk around the ninth month of Samsu-iluna’s eighth year, when Sîn-ibbīšu decided to get a seal of his own, although during the transition tablets were perhaps still dated to Samsu-iluna. To this evidence one should add a tablet also from Ur dated to the sixth day of the eleventh month of Ilūni’s first year (HE 167, Charpin 1986, 174–175). Stol (1976, 56) believed that the Ilūni of the year name refers to the king of Ešnuna.33 These Ur tablets and sealings suggest that Ilūni held the position of king in Uruk very briefly between the last months of Samsu-iluna’s eighth year and the first year of Rīm-Sîn II. Although short, Ilūni’s rule over Ur also implies some military presence of Ešnuna in southern Mesopotamia, which agrees with the evidence from the house of prisoners. There is only one reference to Ilūni in records from the bīt asīrī. The relevant tablet mentions that Šamaš-naḫrarī, man of Ešnuna, belonging to Ilūni the e n s i ₂ of Ešnuna, was sent by Daganma-ilum from Muti-abal and was given as a royal gift to the god Šamaš (Nisaba 4 II.23, RīA 1/XI/22).34 The fact that the scribe thought it important to mention that Šamaš-naḫrarī had belonged to the king of Ešnuna and that he was dedicated as a temple slave may mean that this man could be traded for other prisoners in the future. There might be a similar case attested in a tablet bearing the same date, wherein a certain Awīl-Nabium, described as the son of Inbi-erṣetim, man of Ešnuna, belonging to Munawwirum the e n si ₂ , man of Ešnuna, was sent by Daganma-ilum from Muti-abal and given as a royal present to the god Rammānum (Nisaba 4 II.22, RīA 1/XI/22). Munawwirum could very well have been yet another rebel from the Ešnuna area (see chapter 6, p. 232). As was the case with these two men, Awīl-Adad, who bore the highest military title of ugu l a MAR.TU followed by the annotation man of Ešnuna, was also held captive in Uruk and granted as a royal gift for to goddess Kanisura (Nisaba 4 II.16, RīA 1/XI/11?).

VIII Conclusion The history of Uruk during the Old Babylonian period is poorly known. This is especially the case for the years preceding the final demise of the autonomous local kingdom headed by Rīm-Anum, when king Samsu-iluna was able to regain control over the territories that had revolted. The reasons for this lack

 Charpin (1986, 175) first doubted whether this was a year name referring to Ilūni of Ešnuna or whether this was an abbreviation of Samsu-iluna. Later he agreed with Stol and considered Ilūni to be the king of Ešnuna (Charpin 2004, 175).  My collation of the personal name of the first line shows I d u t u -na-aḫ-ra-ri.

52

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

of knowledge, although manifold, rest in the scarcity of written sources. These were times of political upheaval in a kingdom that was trying to achieve independence after decades of subjugation and whose scribes’ priorities must have been military rather than administrative and literary. Moreover, because of the destruction of the palace in antiquity and the raids of modern looters, one has to assume that many tablets have been lost. The uneven temporal distribution of local records reveals a documentary gap that is an obstacle to the reconstruction of basic facts. As an example of this situation suffice it to mention that only two documents dated to Samsu-iluna’s seventh year have been preserved, whereas all that survives of the administrative records of Rīm-Anum’s kingdom are tablets found at the site of the Sîn-kāšid palace and 324 pieces coming from the antiquities market relating mostly to only one institution. Furthermore, it is surprising that in spite of all the diplomatic activities that took place in Uruk, no letter from the time of Rīm-Anum has been found in the palace. This scarcity of sources poses many questions for which the answers, if any, are hypothetical. For instance, one cannot but wonder about the function of the Sîn-kāšid palace after the conquest of Uruk first by Rīm-Sîn I of Larsa and later by Hammurabi. But since two records dated to Samsu-iluna were found there, it is possible that the palace continued to operate as the center of the local administration. Later, perhaps, it also became Rīm-Anum’s royal residence. Based on year names, royal inscriptions and administrative documents, the chronological reconstruction and synchronisms proposed in this chapter differ from those of recent studies (see Pomponio and Rositani 1998, Rositani 2003, Charpin 2004). I argue that the duration of Rīm-Anum’s reign was longer than previously suggested because palace documents as well as published and unpublished British Museum material show that he ruled for more than two years. Moreover, the existence of tablets dated to the fifth (or possibly also the second) month of Rīm-Anum’s first year makes it clear that the interpretation suggesting that he became king in the second half of the eighth month of that year (= Si 8) needs revision. It is not unlikely that Rīm-Anum revolted against Samsu-iluna during the second half of the latter’s eighth year, as Rīm-Sîn of Larsa had done. However, the current evidence allows us to infer that RīmAnum’s earliest dated document corresponds to Samsu-iluna’s ninth regnal year. In that same year Samsu-iluna acted against the rebels in the south and seems to have defeated Emutbal, Uruk and Isin (Samsu-iluna’s tenth year formula), but this victory must have been only partial. The next year the king of Babylon marched again against the south, destroyed the walls of Ur, Larsa and Uruk, and defeated the army of Akkad (Samsu-iluna’s eleventh year name). This reconstruction implies that Rīm-Sîn II lost Larsa towards the end of his second year and that he was defeated and executed at some point during

Conclusion

53

the first half of his third year in power. For his part Rīm-Anum of Uruk had initially joined forces with Larsa, but after that kingdom had fallen he shifted his loyalties and became an ally of the Babylonian king. This change of allegiance could have taken place at the beginning of Rīm-Anum’s second year after Samsu-iluna had destroyed the city wall of Uruk. Rīm-Anum’s new alliance would further explain the reasons why he was able to stay in power a bit longer, i.e, until the ninth or the eleventh month of his third regnal year. During this time Rīm-Anum might have fought together with the armies of Babylon, for in his third year formula he mentions having defeated Emutbal, Ešnuna, Isin and Kazalu, i.e., most of the rivals that Samsu-iluna mentions in his tenth year formula. The synchronism then would be as follows:

Year Name

Regnal year

Si deeds of regnal year

Si  Si 

Si  = RS II  Si  = RS II  = RīA 

Si 

Si  = (RS II ) = RīA 

Si 

Si  = RīA 

defeated the Kassites defeated Ida-Maraṣ, Ešnuna, Emutbal, Uruk and Isin destroyed the wall of Ur, Larsa and Uruk and defeated the army of Akkad (killed Rīm-Sîn) defeated the army of Sumer and Akkad (defeated Uruk after month IX)

RīA deeds of regnal year

became king reorganized Uruk and its territories defeated Emutbal, Ešnuna, Isin and Kazalu (joined Babylon)

(unknown because, since he did not rule for a fourth year, there is no formula naming the deeds of his rd year as king)

Tab. : Synchronism between Samsu-iluna and Rīm-Anum

This parallel indicates that Samsu-iluna’s victories of his ninth and tenth year were not decisive. It is therefore possible that after he had vanquished Larsa and co-opted Uruk, he went back to fight the northern rebels (possibly the army of Akkad of Samsu-iluna’s eleventh year name) again, now with the help of Rīm-Anum, who in his third year formula claims victories against northern Ešnuna and Kazalu. Samsu-iluna may have thought of his alliance with RīmAnum as a convenient strategic move because he may have wanted to keep the south in check. However, this cooperation was relatively short-lived and once Samsu-iluna felt confident and strong he must have attacked Uruk and put an end to Rīm-Anum’s independent kingdom.

54

The archive of the house of prisoners and political history

Although fragmentary, the administrative documents dated to Rīm-Anum provide abundant information regarding the political dealings of the time and the interaction of a number of cities and kingdoms. Thanks to this detailed evidence it is possible to determine even the day on which messengers and military men visited Uruk, but since too many pieces are missing one can only hypothesize about other large areas of the fragmentary mosaic that is the Old Babylonian history of Uruk. The explosion of revolts all over Babylonia shows that political and tributary impositions nourished local traditions of independence, even when the particulars are difficult to grasp. One of the riches of the documents dated to Rīm-Anum is that they also let us investigate parts of the economic and social history of the kingdom as recorded in the archive of the bīt asīrī. The next chapter will focus on records dealing with allocation of flour, one of the main activities of the house of prisoners.

Chapter 2 Allocation of flour I General remarks The existence of a group of tablets from the bīt asīrī at Uruk recording the allocation of flour to certain institutions and people has influenced interpretations regarding the role of the house of war prisoners as well as the fate of those men and women confined therein. The first significant number of these texts appeared in H. H. Figulla’s (1914) copies of Old Babylonian tablets from the Vorderasiatisches Museum zu Berlin (VAS 13). The volume includes twentytwo records from the bīt asīrī dated to the reign of Rīm-Anum. Thirteen of them deal with flour, eight with the management of prisoners, and one is a receipt (VAS 13 35). These texts initially attracted the attention of scholars because of the attestation of the word asīrum in second-millennium Mesopotamia and because of the analogies that could be drawn from the Bible and from texts from other areas of the ancient Near East.1 Basing his argument on this corpus and on a tablet previously published by Scheil (1898), S. Feigin (1934a, 220– 225) explained that some prisoners attested in the texts from Uruk were possibly redeemed by their cities as stated in the Laws of Hammurabi – although no such case is attested in the available bīt asīrī sources. Other prisoners were assigned to a number of officials for various tasks. Feigin subsequently wondered “what was the occupation of the ordinary captives who had not the chance to be discharged from the house of the captives and be transferred to other places or positions?” (p. 224). Feigin turned to the Hebrew Bible for an answer and found a parallel in the less laconic and more picturesque story of Samson as narrated in the book of Judges. From this account we learn about Samson’s misfortune because “the Philistines seized him, gouged out his eyes, and bringing him down to Gaza, they bound him with bronze shackles, and he spent his time grinding in the (Judg. 16:21).”2 This passage is then related to house of captives, the bīt asīrī texts from Uruk dealing with allocation of flour, and the conclusion is that the bīt asīrī was a granary that provided flour for the sustenance of the prisoners, for state officials, for travelers, and to repay departments which had  For example, the word asīrum and its feminine form, asīrtum, are also attested in Palestinian letters of the El Amarna period, in the Hittite Code and in the treaty between kings Šuppiluliuma of Hatti and Šattiwaza of Mitanni, in the Assyrian laws, in Nuzi documents (see Feigin 1934a), and in places such as Mari, Alalah and Ugarit (see Leemans 1961).  Feigin further mentions Exodus 11:4–5 and Job 31:9–10 to show that captives were employed as grinders (p. 224).

56

Allocation of flour

fed the captives before they were confined in the bīt asīrī. Feigin affirmed that milling was an occupation of the Babylonian captives, presumably because of the texts from the bīt asīrī dealing with flour and their biblical parallel. According to this interpretation, then, prisoners processed their own food, food to replace what they had eaten in the past, and an additional amount for other officials and messengers. Comparisons between biblical accounts and Mesopotamian practices concerning the treatment of prisoners appeared more recently in van der Toorn’s (1986) reappraisal of Judges 16:21 in the light of Akkadian sources. The Samson episode is mentioned together with Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment of Zedekiah, also blinded, bound with bronze fetters and imprisoned in the house of the mill until his death (Jer. 52:11). Van der Toorn’s cuneiform evidence includes the letter of Esarhaddon to the god Aššur, which involved a symbolic act of surrender by the ruler of Uppuma in the land of Šubria (Borger 1967, 105 § 68 ii: 18–20). As the tale goes, helpless king Rusa sent to the Assyrians a statuette bound in fetters and holding a grindstone. This was apparently his way of acknowledging that as a future prisoner he would be enslaved and forced to work as a miller. There is, furthermore, a reference to a letter from Mari mentioning that some men should not be sold, but that they should rather have their eyes gouged out so that they could grind in the “ergastulum.” The alternative was to have their tongue cut out (ARM 14 78:r 9'–11').3 Finally, van der Toorn referred to the texts from the bīt asīrī at Uruk, including now the forty tablets published by Loretz (1978). According to him, the main activities of the institution were the provisioning of flour and the delivery of laborers for work under government officials (see already Leemans 1961). This would show that Uruk prisoners like their counterparts all over the ancient Near East had to live out their lives as grinders secluded in ergastula. Interestingly enough, however, in the meticulous recordkeeping of the institution there is no mention of either prisoners deployed as millers or of prisoners purposely mutilated. In this chapter I reexamine the evidence from the flour texts to explain the connections between allocation of flour, forced labor, and the bīt asīrī. The sources include flour records recently made available (e.g., Rositani

 In this case, the word that van der Toorn translated as ergastulum is not bīt asīrī but nepārum. This word, however, is lost in the original and restored by the author. His restoration was adopted by J.-M. Durand (2000, 66–68, note b), who explains: “On a adopté ici la solution de K. van der Toorn (…). Les parallèles bibliques que cet auteur établit, tout particulièrement avec l’histoire de Samson, montrent que les travailleurs de l’ergastule étaient mutilés, certainement pour des mesures de sécurité.”

Flour allocation of the ana gˆeš bun type

57

2003), unpublished tablets in the British Museum, and those edited in this volume.4

II Records dealing with flour allocation from the bīt asīrī Approximately half of the texts attributable with certainty to the bīt asīrī are related to flour allocation (see Table 2). As is usually the case with this kind of administrative document issued for accounting purposes, the information provided is functional but sketchy. The extant records cover the period from RīA 1/IX/17 (Nisaba 4 I.2) to RīA 2/XI/23 (UF 10 35). There is currently no flour allocation tablet dated to the third regnal year of king Rīm-Anum, and it is difficult to decide whether this is due to chance of discovery or because those assignments ceased towards the end of Rīm-Anum’s second year. Although all the texts belonging to this group pertain to the generic category of flour allocation, there are different sorts of allocations dutifully specified by the scribe. Besides type and quantity, there is also an indication of the quality of the allocated product, that is, flour without any specification and flour of lesser quality (u s ₂ ).5 For methodological reasons, I have grouped the documents taking into account the type of allocation to which they refer and I have ranked them according to a numeric criterion, namely, more numerous texts appear first (see Table 13 at the end of this chapter). I keep the same arrangement in the following discussion.

III Flour allocation of the ana ĝ eš bun type The compound logogram ĝe šbu n (written with the signs KI.KAŠ.NINDA) is rendered in Akkadian as tākultum and is translated in the dictionaries as: “meal, banquet, ceremonial or cultic meal,” and “feeding the troops.”6 I prefer  See the list of flour texts at the end of this chapter. Reportedly, Frackowiack and Rositani will publish the tablets from the British Museum.  Examples of flour of a lesser quality include: App. 1 Nᵒ 9, Nᵒ 4, Nᵒ 15; Nisaba 4 I.1, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 22, 23, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, 61, 65; UF 10 7, 9, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 32, 34; VAS 13 54. Two flour allocations are characterized as terdītum, “additional delivery.” In one case, the additional flour was for the ĝ e šb u n allocation of a man of Gutûm, a man of Kisura and dependents (Nisaba 4 I. 36, RīA 2/V/21); in the other it was for a man of Gutûm and dependents App. 1 Nᵒ 9 (RīA 2/V/24). As can be seen, the man of Gutûm and dependents received flour twice in four days. Finally, there is only one mention of mundu-“groats” (UF 10 33, RīA 1/X/18).  CAD T s.v. tākultu mngs a) and b) lists examples from the bīt asīrī under the meaning b) “festive meal, banquet.” See also AHw s.v. tākultu.

58

Allocation of flour

the meaning “daily meal” for the bīt asīrī ĝ eš b un allocations because, contrary to what would be expected for a banquet, only flour is allotted in texts from this archive. The recipients, as will be shown, are mostly military men (even the sick) and the frequency of the allocations is very regular. The archive, furthermore, comes from a time of war, when so many banquets would not be likely. Tablets recording this kind of allocation are by far the most numerous and they are attested from RīA 1/X/2 (UF 10 20) to RīA 2/X/30 (UF 10 14).7 The extant sources yield a total of 7,649 liters allocated as ana ĝe šbun . Quantities assigned range between 20 and 300 liters, and it seems reasonable to believe that this fluctuation was due to the number of people who received the allocation, even if the exact total of recipients per text cannot be determined because of lack of precise details. It is also not possible to ascertain how long the flour assigned to each individual was supposed to last.8 These uncertainties, therefore, do not allow us to establish a correlation between amount of flour received per person and the frequency of the allocation. All the ana ĝ ešbu n documents share two characteristics: they were issued at the bīt asīrī (z i -ga š a ₃ e₂ asīrī) and all of them were issued under the authority of the same official, i.e., Sîn-šeme (n iĝ₂ - šu Sîn-šeme).

III.1 Sealings All these documents were sealed, although certain seal impressions are now illegible and some others cannot even be seen by modern scholars because of the poor state of preservation of the tablet. There are fourteen different sealings on tablets of the ĝe šbu n allocations. The owners of the seals and their attestations are as follows:

 There are seventy-four tablets recording allocations ana ĝ e šb u n (see Table 13 at the end of the chapter). Unlike Rositani (2003, 27, fn. 84), I have not included in this group VAS 13 51 because the expression ana ĝ ešbun is missing. The characteristics of the text, however, might fit into the ana ĝešbun type.  This lack of details concerning the amounts of flour allotted contrasts with two bīt asīrī tablets dated to Rīm-Sîn II (UF 10 41 [= OECT 15 29] and OECT 15 50). The records originated from the kingdom of Larsa, but the exact provenance is unknown. They were both issued the same day (RS II 1/IX/16). UF 10 41 orders the disbursement of 150 liters of flour, šu ku-allocation for ten guards of the bīt asīrī (10 e rin₂ e n- nu e₂ a-si₂-ri). OECT 15 29 specifies that the flour allotted to the ten guards amounted to 150 liters for fifteen days, from the day the document was issued to the thirtieth day of the same month. Each guard then must have received fifteen liters for fifteen days, or one liter per day.

Flour allocation of the ana gˆeš bun type

Sealing

Attestation

Apil-Amurrum d um u Šulgi-[…] ara d n iĝ ₂ dMAR.TU

UF   (RīA /II/), UF   (RīA /III/), UF   (RīA /III/), UF   (RīA /IV/)

Apil-Amurrum dumu Šulgi-[…] arad Rīm-Anum

UF   (RīA /IV/), UF   (RīA /V/)

Apil-Amurrum d um u Ilam-ēriš ara d dMAR.TU

Nisaba  I. (RīA /II/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /III/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /III/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /III/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /IV/?), Nisaba  I.  (RīA /VI/), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /[…]/)

Apil-ilīšu d um u Ṭāb-târ-ilī ara d Samsu-iluna

App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /VI/)

Etel-pī-d˹Erra?˺ d um u Enanatum ara d Iggala

Nisaba  I. (RīA /X/˹?˺), Nisaba  I. (RīA /XI/), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /[…]/+), RSO   (RīA /II/)

E-[…] d um u Diĝ ir-en -diĝ i r-[…] ara d Nergal

UF   (RīA /X/), UF   (RīA /XI/)

59

 Entries are alphabetically arranged. I have omitted the sealing on VAS 13 38 because it is problematic and needs collation. From Figulla’s copy, I see AN.AN.MAR.[…] / du m u Ib/p-[…] / ˹x˺ a r a d NI […]. As Stol (1979, 178) pointed out, the divine name AN.AN.MAR.TU, although attested, is rare as the theophoric element in Old Babylonian personal names. Stol also mentioned that the seal of the god AN.AN.MAR.TU can be followed by the epithets du mu- a n- n a (e.g., Kupper 1961a, 70 Nᵒ 4, pls. 1, 7, figs. 4, 39; Beran 1968, 115 Nᵒ 24; VAS 9 143 seal) and du mu- a n- n a diĝ i r-m e-kug-ga (e.g., Kupper 1961a. pl., fig. 8). From the copy of the sealing on VAS 13 38, there does not seem to be much room left after one restores the TU sign. Stol thinks that this is the sealing of the god AN.AN.MAR.TU (personal communication 09/23/2011). In favor of this interpretation is the scribal annotation (probably a caption to identify the seal’s owner) AN.AN.MAR.TU on the right edge of VAS 13 13, a tablet dealing with prisoners dated to Rīm-Anum.  Apil-Amurrum dumu Šulgi-[…], also appears in UF 10 15 (RīA 1/XII/9), but the third line of the sealing is not legible; therefore, it is unknown whether this was the seal impression of his first or second seal. I did not collate British Museum tablets published in UF 10.  This personal name is written diĝir- en- diĝir-[…], or Ilī-bēl-ilī in Akkadian, although, it could very well be read as an- e n- diĝi r, i .e., Anum-bēl-ilī. However, since in the vast majority of texts the divine name Anum is written syllabically, I have decided to read the sign as diĝ i r. Exceptions to the syllabic writing of da-nu(-um) include the royal name ri-im- an in year names and sealings: BM 100379; Nisaba 4 I. 6, 9, 42, 46, 60 and II.2; App. 1 Nᵒ 11, Nᵒ 10, and Nᵒ 20.  UF 10 21 is only partially legible: […] / dumu diĝir-[…] / ar ad Nergal. Since UF 10 20 is the only sealing on tablets dealing with flour allocations that has a r ad Nergal, it is possible that the seal rolled on UF 10 21 also belonged to E-[…] / dumu d iĝ ir- e n- d iĝ ir / ar ad Nergal.

60

Allocation of flour

Sealing

Attestation

Irībam-Sîn d ub-sa r d umu Warad-Šamaš a ra d Rīm-Anum

Nisaba  I. (RīA /XI/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /II/)

Marduk-nāṣir […] [ara d] Rīm-Anum

Nisaba  I. (RīA /IV/)

Nabi-ilīšu bisa ĝ -dub-ba d umu Lakīta-rēmēni a ra d Rīm-Anum

UF   (RīA /XI/), UF   (RīA /XII/), RSO   (RīA /XII/?), RSO   (RīA /XII/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /XII/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /I/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /II/ ), UF   (RīA /II/), UF   (RīA /II/), UF   (RīA /II/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /II/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /II/), UF   (RīA /III/), UF   (RīA /III/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /III/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /III/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /III/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /IV/), UF   (RīA /IV/), UF   (RīA /IV/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /IV/), UF   (RīA /IV/), Nisaba  I. (RīA / V/), UF   (RīA /V/), UF   (RīA /V/), UF   (RīA /V/), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /VI/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /VII/), UF   (RīA /VII/[…])

Rammānu[m-…] d umu Ana-pāni-ilī a ra d Rammānum

Nisaba  I. (RīA /XII/), RSO   (RīA /XII/)

Sîn-iddinam d umu I-nu-[…] a ra d AN.AN.MAR.TU

Nisaba  I. (RīA /I/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /VI/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /VI/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /VI/), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /VI/)

Sîn-[…] d umu Sîn-gāmil […]

UF   (RīA /XII/)

Wussum-nu-˹x-x˺ d umu Iddin-Ištar a ra d Nin-siana

Nisaba  I. (RīA /X/˹?˺)

[…]-Amurrum

UF   (RīA /V/)

 This sealing appears in Nisaba 4 I.4, 5, 10, and II.28. I have collated these tablets and the sealing is better preserved from I.10: [wu]-su-um-nu-˹x x˺ / du m u i-din-iš₈-tar₂ / ar ad d nin -˹ si˺-an -na . The two partially visible signs could be read ˹ur₂?-šu˺, but this reading is not certain.

Flour allocation of the ana gˆeš bun type

Sealing

61

Attestation

d um u Sîn-iddinam ara d Nabium Tab. : Sealings on tablets pertaining to ĝešbun allocations

The seal most frequently rolled on the ĝ ešb u n records belongs to Nabi-ilīšu, the b i s aĝ - du b - b a -official. This seal is currently attested on twenty-eight ĝe š b u n tablets covering the period from RīA 1/XI/14 (UF 10 21) to RīA 2/VII/ 12 (Nisaba 4 I.46). There are thirteen tablets where this seal seems to be the only one, whereas in other cases this is one of two – or even three in one case – seals on the document. Other people whose seals are attested together with Nabi-ilīšu’s are: Apil-Amurrum son of Šulg[i…], Apil-Amurrum son of Ilamēriš, Apil-ilīšu, Irībam-Sîn, Rammānu[m-…], Sîn-iddinam, and others.14 The second most attested seals belong to Apil-Amurrum the son of Šulg[i-…], for whom no title is so far attested. His seals appear on eight tablets: two times apparently alone (UF 10 8, 40) and the other five times together with the seal of Nabi-ilīšu (UF 10 12, 15, 27, 30, and perhaps also in 10). The seal of the other Apil-Amurrum, the son of Ilam-ēriš, is attested seven times in the ĝe šbu n texts. Four times it seemingly stands alone (Nisaba 4 I.22, 63, 64; App. 1 Nᵒ 19), twice together with Nabi-ilīšu’s (Nisaba 4 I.61 and 62), and once with Sîniddinam’s (Nisaba 4 I.66). As is the case with his namesake, no title is attested for this Apil-Amurrum. The seal of Sîn-iddinam is recorded five times: once alone (Nisaba 4 I.38), twice with Nabi-ilīšu’s (Nisaba 4 I.57, App. 1 Nᵒ 11), once with Apil-Amurrum’s (Nisaba 4 I.66), once with Apil-ilīšu’s, (App. 1 Nᵒ 11) and once with [PN] (Nisaba 4 I.39). Sîn-iddinam’s title is not preserved on ĝ ešbu nallocation tablets, but the sealings on other records show that he was a b is aĝ - du b - b a -official (VAS 13 52, Nisaba 4 I.51, RSO 82 1, VAS 13 54).15 The seal of Etel-pī-d˹Erra?˺ appears four times: once with the seal of Wussum-nu˹x-x˺ (Nisaba 4 I.4), once with Irībam-Sîn’s (Nisaba 4 I.13), and twice alone (App. 1 Nᵒ 3, RSO 82 4). Although no title is known for Etel-pī-d˹Erra?˺, his seal

 Apil-Amurrum son of Šulg[i…] (UF 10 30, 15, 27, 12), Apil-Amurrum son of Ilam-ēriš (Nisaba 4 I. 61, 62, App. 1 Nᵒ 19), Apil-ilīšu (App. 1 Nᵒ 11), Irībam-Sîn (Nisaba 4 I.18), Rammānu[m-…] (Nisaba 4 I.15), Sîn-iddinam (Nisaba 4 I.57, App. 1 Nᵒ 11), Marduk-nāṣir (Nisaba 4 I.65), and others whose names are mostly illegible (UF 10 21, 25; Nisaba 4 I.26; and UF 10 34). The only tablet where 3 sealings are legible is App. 1 Nᵒ 11.  There is a Sîn-iddinam aga₃-us₂ saĝ , who acts as conveyor (ĝ i ri ₃ ) in a tablet dealing with prisoners; however, his paternal filiation in that tablet is not recorded (Nisaba 4 II.9: 5, RīA 1/X/5).

62

Allocation of flour

is also attested on three administrative documents originating from the Sînkāšid palace.16 E-[…]’s sealing appears twice as well: once alone (UF 10 20) and once with Nabi-ilīšu’s (UF 10 21). Irībam-Sîn’s also appears twice together with Etel-pī-d˹Erra?˺’s (Nisaba 4 I.13) and Nabi-ilīšu’s (Nisaba 4 I.18), and the rest of the sealings listed above are recorded only once. Two of the officials who rolled their seals on ĝeš bun allocations were certainly related to Rīm-Anum’s administration, namely, the bi saĝ- dub -ba Nabi-ilīšu and the scribe Irībam-Sîn. They were both servants of Rīm-Anum according to the sealings. Another man affiliated with state affairs is Sîn-iddinam, the son of I-nu-[…], because in another set of tablets he used a second seal where he is identified as b i saĝ- du b - ba , son of I-nu-[…], servant of RīmAnum. Sîn-iddinam’s first seal states his paternal filiation and that he is a servant of the god AN.AN.MAR.TU. This sealing is currently attested from RīA 2/I/26 (Nisaba 4 I.57) to RīA 2/VI/30 (App. 1 Nᵒ 11). Since a second sealing bearing his title and the name of the Uruk king is at present recorded from RīA 2/VIII/22 (VAS 13 52) to RīA 2/IX/4? (Nisaba 4 I.51), one has to conclude that either Sîn-iddinam was moved to the position of bi saĝ- du b -ba after RīA 2/VI/30, or that he was acting as a b isaĝ- du b - ba already by RīA 2/I/26 but that he only acquired a new seal some time later. Etel-pī-d˹Erra?˺ must also have been an Uruk official because his seal impression appears on tablets found at the site of the Sîn-kāšid palace. A unique document in the archive contains three legible sealings, one each belonging to Sîn-iddinam (without title), to the b i saĝ- du b -ba Nabi-ilīšu, and to Apil-ilīšu, servant of Samsu-iluna (App. 1 Nᵒ 11). This record pertains to a ĝe š b u n -allocation for a man of Kisura, a man of Gutûm and dependents, and is dated to RīA 2/VI/30. This could mean that a former Samsu-iluna administrator in Uruk was using his old seal after he became a subordinate of Rīm-Anum, or that he was a Samsu-iluna official acknowledging the receipt of flour on behalf of the ultimate recipients. It seems that ĝ e š bu n tablets were sealed by Uruk royal administrators – who acted as state comptrollers perhaps from different bureaus, and by a representative of the men to whom the flour was assigned. The official who gives coherence to this lot of records is Sîn-šeme, who authorized the transaction at the house of prisoners in all the cases. Even though no title follows his name in this group of tablets, he was probably the highest authority of the bīt asīrī, for elsewhere he bore the title ugul a bīt asīrī, “overseer of the house of prisoners of war.”

 See BaM 27 Nᵒ 228 (RīA 1/X/8), Nᵒ 257 (date lost), and BaM 31 Nᵒ 347 (RīA 1/XI/11+).

Flour allocation of the ana gˆeš bun type

63

III.2 Recipients of the allocation The recipients of the ĝe šb u n allocations can be identified by one or more of the following characteristics: provenance, profession, condition, and personal name. Recipients usually appear in groups, sometimes with no apparent connection. Certain examples include the collective aḫiātum, “dependents,” at the end.17 In Table 9 I present the recipients of ĝe šb un allocations. The list is of course artificial because for clarity’s sake I have isolated people who appear in groups.18 There are twenty-two texts recording flour given to Amorite leader(s) and dependents (ugu l a MAR.TU( -m e š) u aḫiātum). These are attested from RīA 1/XII/9 (UF 10 15) to RīA 2/IV/7? (Nisaba 4 I.64). The amounts disbursed vary between 60 and 200 liters and they total 2,040 liters, which represents about 27.5% of all the ĝ eš b u n allocations.19 Since our records are incomplete, the amounts provided here should be considered only as relative indicators. The fact that some of these allocations took place on consecutive days could mean that the flour might have been issued – if not daily – at least with a certain regularity to the Amorite leaders and their people. Amorites leaders from other localities also received flour allocations from the bīt asīrī. It is not possible to calculate the amounts received by the ugul a MAR.TU- m eš of specific places because these men are usually listed together with other recipients and the allocations were not itemized. There is, for example, a text mentioning the ugu la MAR.TU-m e š of Gutûm, the ugu l a MAR.TU- m eš of Kisura, together with a man from Dunnum and dependents (UF 10 11, RīA 2/VII/9). Similarly, another tablet lists a man of Dunnum, the ugu l a MAR.TU-m eš , men of Kisura, and dependents (UF 10 10, RīA 24/IV/23). The ugu l a MAR.TU-m e š of Kisura appear in three other tablets: once with a man of Gutûm and dependents (UF 10 7, RīA 24/VII/10), once with the ugul a  The word aḫiātum is the plural of aḫītum, the feminine singular of aḫûm. The CAD (A/1 s.v. aḫû mng. 1) translates the term aḫûm as “strange (person), foreigner, outsider, alien (object);” and the AHw (s.v. aḫûm(m) mng. 1) renders it as “fremd.” For aḫītum, the AHw (s.v. aḫītu(m) mng. 1) has “Umgebung;” and the CAD (A/1 s.v. aḫītu mngs. 4 and 5) “outside, outskirts, side,” and “circle of acquaintances and dependents.” My translation of aḫītum as “dependents” is based on the CAD. M. Stol has pointed out to me that he understands aḫiātum to mean “various,” or “other,” although in the context of the bīt asīrī corpus, “dependents” may be meant.  For the original groupings of the recipients in each tablet see Table 13 at the end of this chapter.  The liters are distributed as follows: 60 liters = 8 tablets (Nisaba 4 I.22, 23, 58, 61, 62; RSO 82 14; UF 10 8, 37); 80 liters = 1 tablet (UF 10 15); 100 liters = 6 tablets (UF 10 30, 38; Nisaba 4 I. 63, 27, 64; App. 1 Nᵒ 19); 120 liters = 4 tablets (RSO 82 4; UF 10 40, 32, and 27); and 200 liters = 2 tablets (Nisaba 4 I.18, UF 10 22); […] liters (Nisaba 4 I.26).

64

Allocation of flour

Recipient(s)

Attestation

l u₂ Bābilum l u₂ Dunnum

UF   (RīA /XI/) Nisaba  I. (RīA /IV/), MCS /,  (RīA /IV/), UF   (RīA /IV/), UF   (RīA /V/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /VI/), UF   (RīA /VI/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /VI/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /VI/), UF   (RīA /VII/) Nisaba  I. (RīA /I/), UF   (RīA /IV/), UF   (RīA /V/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /V/), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /V/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /VI/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /VI/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /VI/), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /VI/), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /VI/), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /VII/), UF   (RīA /VII/), VAS   (RīA / […]/), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /[…]/[…]) UF   (RīA /XI/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /XI/), UF   (RīA /XII/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /IV/), UF   (RīA /IV/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /V/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /V/?), Nisaba  I. (RīA  /V/), UF   (RīA /V/) VAS   (RīA /X/[…]), VAS   (RīA /XI/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /XII/), MCS /,  (RīA /IV/ ), UF   (RīA /IV/), VAS   (RīA /V/), UF   (RīA /V/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /V/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /VI/), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /VI/ ), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /VI/), Nisaba  I. (RīA / VII/), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /X/[…]) UF   (RīA /XI/), RSO   (RīA /XI/), VAS   (RīA /XII/), UF   (RīA /XII/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /XII/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /IV/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /IV/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /V/), UF   (RīA /V/), VAS   (RīA /V/) App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /[…]/+) RSO   (RīA /XI/), VAS   (RīA /XII/), UF   (RīA /XII/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /V/?)

l u₂ Gutûm

l u₂ Isin

l u₂ Kisura

l u₂ Muti-abal

l u₂ Mu-x-x-x l u₂ Sutûm

d umu-meš l u₂-kiĝ₂- gi₄-a Aḫlamû d umu-meš l u₂-kiĝ₂- gi₄-a Isin l u₂ -kiĝ ₂-g i₄ -a -meš Isin l u₂ -kiĝ ₂-g i₄ -a (-meš) Larsa

UF 10 20 (RīA 1/X/2) UF 10 20 (RīA 1/X/2) Nisaba 4 I.13 (RīA 1/XI/23) Nisaba 4 I.4 (RīA 1/X/˹5?˺), UF 10 21 (RīA 1/XI/14)

 To make this list easy to search I have divided the categories alphabetically: lu₂ GN (= provenance); (dumu-meš) lu₂-kiĝ ₂-g i₄-a (GN), ugu l a MAR.TU(- m e š GN), ugu l a š u- i (= occupation/profession); marṣūtum (=condition); and personal names. In the comments following this list, however, such arrangement is not kept.

Flour allocation of the ana gˆeš bun type

65

Recipient(s)

Attestation

ug ula MAR.TU(-meš)

Nisaba  I. (RīA /II/), UF   (RīA /II/), UF   (RīA /II/), UF   (RīA /II/), UF   (RīA /II/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /II/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /II/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /II/), UF   (RīA /III/), UF   (RīA /III/), UF   (RīA /III/ ), Nisaba  I. (RīA /III/), Nisaba  I. (RīA / III/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /III/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /III/), Nisaba  I.  (RīA /IV/), UF   (RīA / IV/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /IV/?), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /[…]/), RSO   (RīA /[…]/[…]). UF   (RīA /VII/), UF   (RīA /VII/[…]) UF   (RīA /VII/) UF   (RīA /IV/), UF   (RīA /VII/), UF   (RīA /VII/[…]), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /[…]/[…]) UF   (RīA /XII/)

l u₂ u g ula MAR.TU-m eš lu ₂ Gutûm l u₂ u g ula MAR.TU-m eš Kisura ug ula MAR.TU-meš lu ₂ Kisura ug ula MAR.TU-meš Uruk ug ula šu-i Rīm-Sîn u₃ eren ₂-meš-šu ug ula šu-i Larsa?

UF   (RīA /II/)

marṣūtum

UF   (RīA /X/)

Mannium Ṣillī-Šamaš

App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /[…]/+), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /[…]/[…]) UF   (RīA /XII/), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /[…]/+), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /[…]/[…]) VAS   (RīA /XII/), UF   (RīA /XII/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /XII/), RSO   (RīA ˹?˺/[…]/[…]) App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /[…]/[…])

š eš Daganma-ilum […]-bu-u₂

App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /II/)

Tab. : Recipients of ĝešbun allocations

MAR.TU- m eš of Gutûm and dependents (UF 10 18, RīA 2/VII/[…]), and finally with a man of Gutûm and dependents (App. 1 Nᵒ 20, RīA 2/[…]/[…]). In brief, a total of twenty-eight allocations went to various ugu l a MAR.TU-meš. Of these, twenty documents mention the title without any qualifier. The ugu l a MAR.TU- m eš of Kisura are recorded five times, and the ugul a MAR.TU-meš from Gutûm are attested twice. A relatively small group of allocations of the ĝeš bun -type encompasses flour given to messengers, including men from groups or localities such as  In UF 10 15 the name Ṣillī-Šamaš is indented and followed by another indented line with the title ugula MAR.TU- me š Uruk and then on the next line lu ₂ Isin. The possibility that the title qualifies Ṣillī-Šamaš could be ruled out by the fact that it appears on a different line and that in two other attestations this man does not have a title.

66

Allocation of flour

Aḫlamû and Isin (UF 10 20, RīA 1/X/2), Isin (Nisaba 4 I.13, RīA 1/XI/23), and Larsa (Nisaba 4 I.4, RīA 1/X/5?, UF 10 21, RīA 1/XI/14). Messengers are among the recipients of 350 liters of flour distributed as follows: 80 liters for the messengers of Aḫlamû and Isin; 90 liters of flour for the messengers, for a man of Isin and dependents; and 180 liters for those of Larsa.22 There is also a reference to 120 liters of flour for the overseer of the barbers (ugu la šu-i ) of Rīm-Sîn and his troops (e ri n ₂ - m e š-šu). This man was most likely acting as the emissary of the king of Larsa (UF 10 25, RīA 2/II/20). He might very well be identified with the ugu la šu-i of Larsa? who received 20 liters on the following day (App. 1 Nᵒ 6, RīA 2/II/21).23 Another small group of five texts refers to allocations for the brother of Daganma-ilum and men from other localities. He appears three times together with a man of Muti-abal, a man of Sutûm and dependents (VAS 13 41, RīA 1/ XII/20; RSO 82 5, RīA 1/XII/22; and UF 10 9, RīA 1/XII/23); and once with a man of Kisura, a man of Muti-abal and dependents (Nisaba 4 I.15, RīA 1/XII/24); and finally with a man of Muti-abal and dependents (RSO 82 13, RīA ˹1?˺/[…]/ […]). Four of the five allotments are limited to the twelfth month of Rīm-Anum’s first year. As far as I know, this example is unique in that one of the recipients is characterized by family ties. The identification by means of fraternal relationship suggests that Daganma-ilum and his brother may not have been from Uruk but from elsewhere. Otherwise the scribe would have mentioned this man by his own name without having to resort to citing the prominent relative. Two men identified by their names only are similarly attested just a few times. One is Ṣillī-Šamaš, who once received 60 liters of flour together with the ugul a MAR.TU- m eš of Uruk, a man of Isin and dependents (UF 10 15, RīA 1/XII/9), and twice with Mannium, who is the second man recorded only by name (App. 1 Nᵒ 3, RīA 1/[…]/2+; App. 1 Nᵒ 4, RīA 1/[…]/[…]). In the first tablet they appear with lu ₂ mu-x-x-x and in the second with […]-bû and dependents. The amounts of flour are 150 and 180 liters, respectively. The rest of the ĝe šb u n -allocation tablets mention men from a number of places, but unfortunately details about their occupation or their capacity as recipients of flour were not registered. All these men are listed as lu₂ GN, i.e., man of a specific geographic name. The term lu₂ (awīlum) is not without semantic ambiguity, for it can be translated as “man,” as “free man,” or as “gentleman,” denoting an honorific or polite title.24 In these texts, however,  In UF 10 21 the recipients are the messengers of Larsa, a man of Babylon and dependents.  Note that UF 10 25 has a numun-year name and App. 1 Nᵒ 6 has an u nug-year name. Both are different formulae for Rīm-Anum’s second year (see Rositani 2003).  For discussions of the term awīlum see Walther (1917, 67), Driver and Miles (1952, 343), Kraus (1973, 92–93, 117–122), Harris (1975, 65), Dombradi (1996, 245 § 320), Fortner (1996, 305– 308), and Seri (2005, 168).

Flour allocation of the ana gˆeš bun type

67

awīlum seems to mean a man of a certain authority or simply leader, especially in view of the absence of personal names or any further reference, and because in certain cases the plural determinative after the geographic name seems to imply a collective.25 These men can appear as individual recipients, together with dependents (aḫiātum), or with men from other localities. It is interesting to note that from the extant evidence there is no example of two or more tablets of ĝ e š b u n -allocation issued on the same day.26 This may be coincidental, or rather it could explain the reason why men from different places are listed together in the same document with no apparent logic to the arrangement. This may simply reflect an accounting practice in which what really mattered to the bureaucracy was the summarized registry of the amount of flour issued, the recipient(s), and date of the transaction. The question of the identity of these men (lu ₂ GN) remains, as well as that of the reason for their receipt of flour from Uruk. Had they had a title, one would expect the scribe to have mentioned it. And although it is true that scribes did not always write people’s titles, officials were usually identified by their personal names, by their titles, or both. As we have seen, this is the case with several of the recipients of flour ana ĝe šb u n . Among those titles we had: the Amorite leaders (ugu la MAR.TU-m e š), the Amorite leaders of Gutûm, Kisura and Larsa; the overseer of the barbers of Rīm-Sîn of Larsa and his troops; messengers from Aḫlamû, Isin and Larsa; and the brother of Daganma-ilum, who seems to have been posted north of Uruk (possibly in the area of Mutiabal) as an ally or a subordinate of the king of Uruk. Thus the people who received allocations of the ĝe šb u n type were clearly connected to the military, either as high-ranking officials in the army or as emissaries of other cities. This implies that the anonymous lu ₂ GNs who also received ĝ ešbu n allocations were similarly engaged in military activities. Since in several cases these lu₂ GNs are listed together with dependents (aḫiātum), it is possible that they were the heads of groups of men from different localities in the service of the king of Uruk or of his allies. Here also belongs a text mentioning flour ana ĝ eš bun marṣūtim, for feeding the sick, most likely to be understood as men wounded in battle (UF 10 14, RīA 2/X/30).27  Thus for instance in lu₂ gu-ti-umk i - me š, lu₂ i₃ - si - i n k i - m eš and lu ₂ m u- t i - ab a - a l k i -m eš (UF 10 24:2–4).  One could quote Nisaba 4 I.33 and I.34, dated to RīA 2/V/3. However, the day in I.33 is partially broken, so that the reading “3” for the day number is not sure.  There is another text that records an allocation of flour for the e ₂ - a-z u- m eš , “the house of the physicians,” which was perhaps assigned to soldiers injured in war (Nisaba 4 I.35:3). This seems to be the case because most of the flour assigned through the bīt asīrī was for the military.

68

Allocation of flour

IV Flour allocation of the š uku type The term š u ku , kurummatum in Akkadian, refers to food portions allotted by the administration to dependent persons or to domestic animals.28 In the archive of the bīt asīrī, allocations of flour characterized as š uku are subdivided into five categories: šu ku e₂ asīrī (allocation of the house of prisoners), ana š u ku e₂ u aḫiātim (for allocation of the house and dependents), ana š u ku luga l (u aḫiātim) (for allocation of the king and dependents), ana šu ku (e re n ₂ ) mu-wa-ar-ba-tim (for allocation (of the team) of mu-wa-ar-ba-tim), and ana š u ku lu ₂ GN u aḫiātim (for allocation of the man of GN and dependents).

IV.1 š uku e ₂ asīrī The group of texts pertaining to flour registered as š uku bīt asīrī, literally “food portion of the house of prisoners,” consists of fifty-four tablets spanning a period of about fourteen months, from RīA 1/IX/17 (Nisaba 4 I.2) to RīA 2/ XI/23 (UF 10 35). The documents yield a total of approximately 3,662 liters.29 Quantities assigned range between 35 and 300 liters. Unlike the ĝešbu n texts, in which the preposition ana (“for”) precedes the word ĝe šbun , in those of the š u ku e ₂ asīrī class there is no preposition. Therefore, the recipients of these allocations are not specified apart from the generic description šu ku e₂ asīrī, which must mean that the flour was assigned to the institution and not to individuals. Documents simply mention the amount and occasionally the quality of the flour, followed by the characterization š uku e₂ asīrī, and then the statement that the flour was issued (zi - ga ) under the authority (n iĝ₂ - š u) of the official(s) in charge. Two men authorize these allocations. One is Aḫum-waqar, who is attested twice with the title aĝr ig (YOS 14 341:3, Nisaba 4 I.16:4). He appears as the sole authority in sixteen documents from RīA 1/IX/17 to RīA 2/XI/23.30 The

 See CAD K and AHw s.v. kurummatu. In our corpus, šu ku is written in Akkadian (kurummat e₂ ) only twice (RSO 82 10:2 and VAS 13 55:1). For šuku , see Steinkeller and Postgate (1992, 69), Bauer (1989–1990, 82–83).  The amount is approximate because in a number of cases the units are broken.  Aḫum-waqar authorized the following allocations, chronologically arranged: Nisaba 4 I.3 (RīA 1/IX/˹15+˺), Nisaba 4 I. 2 (RīA 1/IX/17), VAS 13 37 (RīA 1/IX/19), YOS 14 341 (RīA 1/X/1), Nisaba 4 I. 6 (RīA 1/X/17), BM 100379 (RīA 1/X/20), Nisaba 4 I. 7 (RīA 1/X/24), Nisaba 4 I. 9 (RīA 1/XI/5), RSO 82 12 (RīA 1/XI/5), Nisaba 4 I.11 (RīA 1?/XI/19), Nisaba 4 I.12 (RīA 1?/XI?/21), Nisaba 4 I. 16 (RīA 1/[…]/26), App. 1 Nᵒ 38 (RīA 2/VIII?/[…]), Nisaba 4 I.53 (RīA 2/IX/13), Nisaba 4 I.54 (RīA 2/IX/25), UF 10 35 (2/XI/23).

Flour allocation of the š uku type

69

other official is Nabi-Sîn, whose title, if any, is not recorded. He authorizes sixteen allocations during Rīm-Anum’s second year, from RīA 2/IV/16 to RīA 2/ X/18?, a period of about six months.31 In addition, Aḫum-waqar and Nabi-Sîn jointly authorize twenty disbursements of flour from RīA 1?/IX/18 to RīA 2/IX/ 4+.32 Both men are unattested aside from their role in the documents dealing with š u ku e ₂ asīrī transactions. The preserved sealings on all of these tablets belong to only one official, Sîn-šeme, namely, the same man attested elsewhere as the ugu l a bīt asīrī.33 Sîn-šeme’s sealing on this lot of tablets allows us to reconstruct the flour’s circulation. Since Aḫum-waqar bears the title aĝrig and since the flour characterized as šu ku e ₂ asīrī was issued under his authority, that flour seems to have been produced – or maybe just collected – at the institution known as e ₂ -aĝr ig, where Aḫum-waqar and Nabi-Sîn operated. The flour was then assigned to the bīt asīrī and received by Sîn-šeme. The rolling of his seal over the tablets must have been a confirmation that Sînšeme had acknowledged receipt of the allocation.

IV.2 ana š uku e ₂ u aḫiātim There are ten tablets where the amount of flour is followed by the expression ana š u ku e ₂ u aḫiātim, “(flour) for food portion of the house and dependents.” Attestations are limited to the second year of Rīm-Anum, from RīA 2/VIII/17 to RīA 2/IX/26, slightly over a month.34 The flour amounts to 660 liters and the allocations were issued at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme. The sealings on three of these tablets belong to Nabi-ilīšu, son of Lakīta-rēmēni,

 Attestations for Nabi-Sîn are: Nisaba 4 I. 29 (RīA 2/IV/16), Nisaba 4 I.30 (RīA 2/IV/19), App. 1 Nᵒ 26 (RīA 2/IV/23), Nisaba 4 I.31 (RīA 2/IV/26), Nisaba 4 I.37 (RīA 2/V/29), Nisaba 4 I.45 (RīA 2/VII/11), BM 100216 (RīA 2/VIII/14), Nisaba 4 I.50 (RīA 2/VIII/23), App. 1 Nᵒ 37 (RīA 2/VIII/30), App. 1 Nᵒ 15 (RīA 2/X/9), BM 87092 (RīA 2/X/10), Nisaba 4 I.55 (RīA 2/X/11), RSO 82 11 (RīA 2/ X/12), Nisaba 4 I.56 (RīA 2/X/18?), BM 87069 (RīA 2/[…]/˹1+˺), BM 88687 (RīA […]/XI/[…]).  Thus in Nisaba 4 I.1 (RīA 1?/IX/18), Nisaba 4 I.14 (RīA 1/XII/8), App. 1 Nᵒ 5 (RīA 2/I/15), BM 88681 (RīA 2/I/29), App. 1 Nᵒ 30 (RīA 2/II/11), Nisaba 4 I.19 (RīA 2/II/16), Nisaba 4 I.20 (RīA 2/ II/19), Nisaba 4 I.24 (RīA 2/II/28), App. 1 Nᵒ 34 (RīA 2/VI/4), Nisaba 4 I.40 (RīA 2/VI/13), BM 87065 (RīA 2/VI/15), BM 88698 (RīA 2/VI/18), Nisaba 4 I.43 (RīA 2/VI/22), Nisaba 4 I.44 (RīA 2/ VI/29), Nisaba 4 I.47 (RīA 2/VII/13), App. 1 Nᵒ 13 (RīA 2/VII/24), Nisaba 4 I.52 (RīA 2/IX/4+), BM 100363 (RīA 2/[…]/18), App. 1 Nᵒ 40 ([RīA?…]/II/3), BM 88954 ([RīA?…]).  Sîn-šeme’s seal inscription reads: Sîn-šeme / dum u Išme-Sîn / ar ad Rīm-Anum.  Attestations are as follows: RSO 82 10 (RīA 2/VIII/17), VAS 13 52 (RīA 2/VIII/22), RA 71 Nᵒ 2 (RīA 2/VIII/30), VAS 13 55 (RīA 2/IX/7), VAS 13 53 (RīA 2/IX/19), Nisaba 4 I.67 (RīA 2/IX/20), UF 10 23 (RīA 2/IX/26), App. 1 Nᵒ 14 (RīA 2/IX/[…]), RSO 82 1 ([RīA…]/VII/11+), App. 1 Nᵒ 24 ([RīA?…]).

70

Allocation of flour

who bears the title b i saĝ - du b - b a and is a royal servant (VAS 13 53, Nisaba 4 I.67, and App. 1 Nᵒ 14). The other sealings, although only partially preserved, are those of Apil-Amurrum, son of Ilam-ēriš (RSO 82 1, App. 1 Nᵒ 24); and Sîniddinam, the b i saĝ- du b -b a , servant of Rīm-Anum (VAS 13 52, RSO 82 1). These sealings are also attested in flour allocations of the ana ĝe šbun type. In the context of this group, the term e ₂ seems to stand not for the abbreviation of the bīt asīrī but for any one of the other households recorded in the bīt asīrī archive. This seems to be the case because the flour allotted to the house and its dependents shares all the characteristics of those texts dealing with allocations ana ĝ e šb u n , “for the daily meal.” The common features are as follows: the use of the preposition ana, the fact that the flour was issued at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme, and the attestation of sealings belonging to the same officials.

IV.3 ana š uku lu gal (u aḫiātim) Only two tablets record allocations of this kind. The first consists of 120 liters given for the food portion of the king; the Amorite leaders, men of Kisura (ugu l a MAR.TU-m e š lu ₂ ki su r a ); the Amorite leaders, men of Gutûm (ugu l a MAR.TU-m e š lu ₂ gutûm); and dependents (Nisaba 4 I. 48, RīA 2/VII/ 28). Since the expression ugu la MAR.TU- m e š is repeated twice, followed by the expression denoting men of a geographic name, it is possible that this characterization is used to specify the provenance of the Amorite leaders. The sealing on this document belongs to Nabi-ilīšu, the bi saĝ- du b -ba . The second tablet records the allocation of 60 liters of lesser-quality flour allotted as š u ku of the king and dependents (Nisaba 4 I.51, RīA 2/IX/4?). Apil-Amurrum, the son of Ilam-ēriš, and Sîn-iddinam, the b i saĝ- du b -ba , sealed this tablet. Both transactions were issued at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme.

IV.4 ana š uku (e ri n₂ ) mu-wa-ar-ba-tim This expression appears in three instances. One of the attestations is on a tablet allocating 30 liters of flour ana šu ku e r i n₂ mu-wa-ar-ba-tim ša e ₂ šabrîm, “for the food portion of the workers of mu-wa-ar-ba-tim of the house of the šabrûm-official” (VAS 13 54, [RīA 2? …]35). The second document similarly  Only two signs remain of the year name m [u….]-bi . Since the two other attestations belonging to this group (App. 1 Nᵒ 17, and Nᵒ 18) are from the second year (m u u nug k i - ga u ₃ a ₂ - d am -b i), it is possible to attribute this tablet to Rīm-Anum’s second year.

Flour allocation of the š uku type

71

records the allocation of 30 liters ana e r in ₂ -m e š mu-˹wa˺-[ar-ba-tim] ša e₂ šabrîm, “for the food portion of the workers of mu-wa-ar-ba-tim of the house of the šabrûm” (App. 1 Nᵒ 17, RīA 2/XI/3). The last example is written ana šu ku mu-˹wa-ar-ba-tim˺ ša ₃ e ₂ šabrîm on a record dealing with the allotment of 40 liters of flour (App. 1 Nᵒ 18, RīA 2/XI/17). If properly transliterated, the word mu-wa-ar-ba-tim is problematic. The signs are clear in VAS 13 54, partially broken in App. 1 Nᵒ 18, and only mu- is fully preserved in App. 1 Nᵒ 17. The transliteration provided here follows CAD (Š/1 s.v. šabrû A c 2'), where mu-waar-ba-tim is neither normalized nor translated, suggesting that the editors were uncertain about this term. For her part, Rositani (2003, 217) included mu-waar-ba-tim in her list of personal names from the bīt asīrī. As far as I know, muwa-ar-ba-tum is unattested as an Akkadian or as an Amorite, Elamite, or Hurrian name.36 The two tablets that preserve a complete dating (App. 1 Nᵒ 17, and Nᵒ 18) were issued within a period of fourteen days. The three records of this group amount to 100 liters of flour and were issued at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme (z i - ga ša ₃ e ₂ asīrī n iĝ ₂ - šu Sîn-šeme). Etel-pī-Šamaš the mu h al dim , “cook,” acted as the conveyor (ĝ ir i ₃) twice (VAS 13 54, and App. 1 Nᵒ 18). These are the only two instances in which an Etel-pī-Šamaš bearing the title m u h a l d i m is attested. Moreover, the sealings of Apil-Amurrum and Sîniddinam are legible on one of the documents (VAS 13 54) and the sealing of Nabi-ilīšu, the b i s aĝ - du b -b a , on another (App. 1 Nᵒ 17). The three sealings are well attested from allocations characterized as ana ĝ eš bun , ana š uku e ₂ u aḫiātim, and ana šu ku luga l u aḫiātim, as shown above.

IV.5 ana šuku l u ₂ GN u aḫiātim There is only one tablet, recording 120 liters of flour for the šu ku allocation of the man of Damrum and dependents (RSO 82 6, RīA 1/VIII/11+). This document shows that leaders from specific localities and their dependents also received š u ku allocations, even when in the majority of the examples the recipients are institutions.

 Another option would be to divide the signs differently and read ana š u ku (er i n₂ ) m uhald im wa-ar-ba-tim. This reading might be justified by the fact that in two of the tablets (VAS 13 54, and App. 1 Nᵒ 18) Etel-pī-Šamaš, the m uhal d i m , acts as the conveyor (ĝ i ri ₃ ). This interpretation, however, is equally problematic because I cannot explain the word wa-arba-tim as a personal name nor can I translate it meaningfully. I wish to thank Walter Farber, Rebecca Hasselbach, and John Huehnergard with whom I discussed this term.

72

Allocation of flour

V Flour allocation of the ana si- la ₂ type The Sumerian term si -la ₂ , piqittum in Akkadian, can be rendered in the context of the bīt asīrī as “provisioning or provisions” and “supplies” (see CAD P s.v. piqittu mng. 1, and AHw p. 865). Ten of the extant flour texts belong to this group. They are attested from RīA 1/X/6 (Nisaba 4 I. 5) to RīA 2/IV/22 (RSO 82 9), a period of around six and a half months. Flour allocated ana s i -l a₂ amounts to 680 liters and the allocations range from 20 to 150 liters. As was the case with all of the other flour records, except for the šu ku bīt asīrī texts, allocations ana s i -l a₂ were issued at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme.

V.1 Sealings The seals of at least four different officials were rolled on si -l a₂ -allocation tablets. Sealing

Attestation

Apil-Amurrum d umu d[…] a ra d Rīm-Anum

UF   (RīA /II/)

Apil-Amurrum d umu Ilam-ēriš [ara d …]

Nisaba  I. (RīA /III/)

Etel-pī-d˹Erra?˺ d umu Enanatum a ra d Iggala

Nisaba  I. (RīA /X/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /XI/)

Nabi-ilīšu bisa ĝ -dub-ba d umu Lakīta-rēmēni a ra d Rīm-Anum

Nisaba  I. (RīA /II/), UF   (RīA /II/), App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /III/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /III/), Nisaba  I. (RīA / III/)

Wussum-nu-˹x-x˺ d umu Iddin-Ištar a ra d Nin-siana

Nisaba  I. (RīA /X/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /XI/)

Tab. : Sealings on tablets pertaining to si -la₂ allocations

 This sealing could belong either to Apil-Amurrum son of Šulgi-[…], or to Apil-Amurrum son of Ilam-ēriš. Both have two sealings one with the legend “servant of DN,” and another with the legend “servant of Rīm-Anum.”

Flour allocation of the ana si - la₂ type

73

The seal of Wussum-nu-˹x-x˺ was attested in a tablet pertaining to a ĝeš bu n allocation. He is also known from two tablets dealing with prisoners (Nisaba 4 II.28, 68). In this group of texts his sealing appears only twice, together with the sealing of Etel-pī-˹Erra?˺ during the tenth and eleventh months of RīmAnum’s first year. For their part, Apil-Amurrum, the son of Ilam-ēriš, and Nabiilīšu, the b i s aĝ - du b -b a , rolled their seals on the same document only once (Nisaba 4 I.25).

V.2 Recipients of the ana si - la ₂ allocations As a rule the amounts of flour allocated are assigned to different individuals listed on the same tablet together with an unspecified number of dependents (aḫiātum). However, certain examples are more detailed than others and allow us to infer that sometimes the ana si -la ₂ allocation may have consisted of about 10 liters per individual. One tablet records 60 liters of flour for six individuals: Lūmur-gimil-Šamaš; Ešeʾi-pāni-Šamaš; Tarībatum; Apil-Kūbi, the š u-i (barber); Ilšu-nawir, the lu ₂ -kiĝ₂ - gi ₄ -a (messenger) of Rīm-Sîn; and the ugu l a MAR.TU-m e š (the Amorite leaders) of Babylon (UF 10 5, RīA 2/II/29). It is likely that these men were granted 10 liters each. Another document lists 20 liters for Ilīma and Bēlī-qarrād, lu ₂ -k iĝ₂ -g i₄ - a of Rīm-Sîn, and another 20 liters for Nūr-Kabta and Warad-Ištar, both also messengers of Rīm-Sîn (Nisaba 4 I.25, RīA 2/III/19). The allocations were a bit more generous in other cases. For instance, two other messengers of Rīm-Sîn, Nabi-Sîn and Sîn-išmeanni, received 30 liters, perhaps divided into 15 liters each (Nisaba 4 I.60, RīA 2/III/ 16); whereas Inbi-ilīšu of the e ₂ -m u n u s of Rīm-Sîn received 20 liters (App. 1 Nᵒ 7, RīA 2/III/10).38 Two tablets suggest that occasionally the allocations to certain individuals occurred on successive days, for the text includes the specification (ana) s i -l a₂ u d 2-ka m , “(flour) for the provision on the second day” (Nisaba 4 I.21, RīA 2/II/20; Nisaba 4 I.25, RīA 2/III/19). As was the case with the ĝ eš b u n type, men of different and sometimes distant places could be grouped together in the same tablet. Recipients of the si-la₂ allocations are identified either by their title, by their name, by both, or simply under the collective category aḫiātum, dependents. Here I provide a list of recipients characterized by titles and names:  Inbi-ilīšu bearing the same title appears in VAS 13 49:4. Rositani (2003, 213) reads Inbiilīšu ša e₂ -gem e₂ , perhaps because she was thinking of the existence of a house of female slaves in Uruk. The sign, however, looks to me like m un u s. My interpretation seems to be confirmed by App. 1 Nᵒ 7, which has Inbi-ilīšu ša e ₂-munu s ša Rīm-Sîn. Inbi-ilīšu then is not an official from Uruk but from the city of Larsa.

74

Allocation of flour

Recipient

Attestation

l u₂ Bābilum

App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /XI/+), Nisaba  I. (RīA / XI/) App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /XI/+), Nisaba  I. (RīA / XI/)

l u₂ Sutûm

l u₂ -kiĝ ₂-g i₄ -a -meš Larsa l u₂ -kiĝ ₂-g i₄ -a Larsa

App.  Nᵒ  (RīA /XI/+) Nisaba  I. (RīA /X/), Nisaba  I. (RīA / XI/), Nisaba  I. (RīA /II/)

u g ula MAR.TU-meš lu₂ Bābilum

Nisaba  I. (RīA /II/), UF   (RīA /II/ ), RSO   (RīA /IV/)

Apil-Kūbi šu-i Bēlī-qarrād l u₂-kiĝ ₂-gi ₄-a ša Rīm-Sîn Ešeʾi-pāni-Šamaš Ilī-ayy-ēniš l u₂-kiĝ₂-gi ₄-a ša Daganma-ilum Ilīma l u₂-kiĝ₂-g i₄ -a ša Rīm-Sîn Ilšu-nawir l u₂-kiĝ ₂-gi ₄ -a Rīm-Sîn Inbi-ilīšu ša e₂-mun us ša Rīm-Sîn Lūmur-gimil-Šamaš Mannium from Ida-Maraṣ Nabi-Sîn l u₂-kiĝ ₂-g i₄-a ša Rīm-Sîn Nūr-Kabta l u₂-kiĝ ₂-gi₄ -a ša Rīm-Sîn Sîn-išmeanni l u₂-kiĝ₂- gi₄-a ša Rīm-Sîn Tarībatum

UF   (RīA /II/) Nisaba  I. (RīA /III/) UF   (RīA /II/) Nisaba 4 I.21 (RīA 2/II/20) Nisaba 4 I.25 (RīA 2/III/19) UF 10 5 (RīA 2/II/29) App. 1 Nᵒ 7 (RīA 2/III/10) UF 10 5 (RīA 2/II/29) Nisaba 4 I.5 (RīA 1/X/6) Nisaba 4 I.60 (RīA 2/III/16) Nisaba 4 I.25 (RīA 2/III/19) Nisaba 4 I.60 (RīA 2/III/16) UF 10 5 (RīA 2/II/29)

Tab. 11: Recipients of si- la ₂ allocations

This list shows that the si -la₂ allocations were for emissaries from other kingdoms and cities such as Babylon, Larsa, Ida-Maraṣ, and Sutûm. Clearly the majority of the attestations refer to messengers of Rīm-Sîn II, the king of Larsa.  My collation shows lu₂ ka ₂- d iĝ ir- r a k i .  As Stol (2004, 791 note 1024) suggested, it is possible that this Ešeʾi-pāni-Šamaš is the same as the one attested in three letters (AbB 6 118:22, AbB 14 65:6 and 68:r3') of the archive of Nūr-Šamaš, possibly from the town of Pī-Kasî, in the Lower-Yaḫrurum area (see Stol 1982, 162 note 6; Veenhof 2005, xx-xxi; and Seri 2010, 144). Interestingly, AbB 6 118 states that Ešeʾipāni-Šamaš of the house of prisoners (ša e₂ a-si-ri) came together with two barbers and two military scribes.  My collation shows i₃-li₂-a-a-e-˹ni-iš˺. The name Ilī-ayy-ēniš (“O my god, let me not be weak”) is attested during the Old Babylonian period (e.g., YOS 8 128 case line 7, VAS 7 128:44). The Ilī-ayy-ēniš of Nisaba 4 I.21:3 is the same man attested in VAS 13 48 with the title lu₂-kiĝ₂ -gi₄-a Daganma-ilum.

Other allocations

75

VI Flour allocation of the ṣudû type The Akkadian dictionaries render the plurale tantum ṣudû as “travel provisions” and “rations” (CAD Ṣ and AHw s.v. ṣudû).42 Four of the tablets from the bīt asīrī record allocations of the ṣudû type. Only two of them preserve a full dating: one originates from RīA 1/XI/12 (UF 10 13) and the other from RīA 2/II/ 27 (VAS 13 48). The third document comes from the second year but day and month are missing (RA 71 Nᵒ 4), and the date of the fourth is partially broken (App. 1 Nᵒ 21, RīA […]/IX/[…]). The extant ṣudû allocations amount to 410 liters. One tablet mentions 120 liters for the messengers of Rīm-Sîn (UF 10 13) and another has 100 liters for the messengers of Isin (App. 1 Nᵒ 21). The messengers of the king of Larsa further received 110 liters in total, but in this case the allocations were itemized as follows: 60 liters for Nūr-Kabta, the dub - s arzag- ga , 30 liters for Ilšu-rēʾ īšu, and 20 liters for Awīl-erṣetim (RA 71 Nᵒ 4). There are two other recipients mentioned by name: Ilī-ayy-ēniš, the messenger of Daganma-ilum, received 60 liters; and Apil-Kūbi, the š u-i of Rīm-Sîn, and the Amorite leaders of Babylon got 20 liters altogether (VAS 13 48). Some of the recipients of the ṣudû allocations had been the beneficiaries of flour allotted as si-l a ₂ . These men were Ilī-ayy-ēniš; Apil-Kūbi and the Amorite leaders of Babylon (ugu l a MAR.TU-m e š lu ₂ Bābilum), who had received the si -l a₂ allocations a week earlier; and Nūr-Kabta.43 As for the sealings, two of them are legible on only one of the tablets (VAS 13 48). Both are already known from other flour texts. One is the well-attested seal impression of Nabi-ilīšu, the bisaĝ - du b - b a , and the other belongs to the seal of Rammān[um-…], the son of Ana-pāni-ilī. Similar to most flour tablets, the ṣudû provisions were issued at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme.

VII Other allocations This broad category includes disparate allocations encompassing only one or two examples. There is first a single tablet recording a total of 80 liters without specifying the type of allocation (VAS 13 49, RīA 2/[…]/7). The allotment of flour was itemized as follows: 30 liters for Šamaš-ilum, Šamaš-liwwir, and NūrŠamaš, the messengers of Rīm-Sîn; 20 liters for Inbi-ilīšu of the e₂ -mun u s;  Note also the feminine noun ṣidītum, “viaticum, travel provisions, provision” (see CAD Ṣ and AHw s.v. ṣidītu), unattested in the bīt asīrī corpus. The terms ṣudû and ṣidītum are related to the verb ṣuddû, “to provide with food, to provision.”  The date of the ṣudû allocation to Nūr-Kabta is broken; therefore the time elapsed between the two allotments cannot be determined.

76

Allocation of flour

10 liters for the šu- i -“barber” from Larsa; 10 liters for Rīš-Šubula and Kalūmum, messenger(s) of Rīm-Sîn; and 10 liters for the Amorite leaders (ugu l a MAR.TU- m eš ) of Babylon. Inbi-ilīšu is the only man on the list attested as recipient of exactly the same amount of flour from a si -l a ₂ allocation (App. 1 Nᵒ 7, RīA 2/III/10). Since the month of his previous attestation is broken, it is difficult to decide whether he received the two allocations within only three days, or whether they were issued in different months. In VAS 13 49, the amounts granted to various men are clearly not the same. This could mean either that a larger allotment was supposed to cover a longer period or that it was to be redistributed among other men. Occasionally, men characterized by the same title, i.e. “messenger of Rīm-Sîn,” received different amounts. In this case at least, an explanation considering hierarchy as the reason for assigning different amounts to different people might not be suitable. A common feature of seven of these men is that they were messengers or emissaries of the king of Larsa. The seal rolled on this tablet belongs to the well-known b i s aĝ - du b - b a Nabi-ilīšu. The transaction took place at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme. There is also a group of four tablets in which the flour was allotted not to individuals but to institutions. Two instances mention that the flour is ana rēš ekallim kullim, which could be translated as “to be at the palace’s disposal” or “to be in readiness for the palace” (Nisaba 4 I.17, RīA 2/I/7; Nisaba 4 I.49, RīA 2/VIII/6).44 The total flour amounts to 120 liters, divided into 60 and 60 liters, respectively.45 The transaction was issued at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme. Both documents were sealed by Nabi-ilīšu, the b i s aĝ - du b - b a . Under this subgroup I also include the 120 liters allotted as ana mēreš šarrim, “for the king’s discretion,” similarly issued at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme and bearing the seal impression of Nabi-ilīšu (RA 71 Nᵒ 3, RīA 2/VIII/15).46 Finally, a chief physician (a -zu-ga l ) received  As an idiom, the verb kullum with rēšu means “to wait for, to take care of, to be at the disposal of, in readiness for a specific purpose (said of persons, commodities, boats, etc.),” see CAD K s.v. kullu mng. 5 f) b' and AHw p. 503. There is a similar Old Babylonian attestation šumma eqlum annûm nadīma rēš ekallim ukâl “if this field lies fallow and is at the palace’s disposal” (BIN 7 6:13), quoted and translated in CAD. The expression eqlum ša rēš ekallim ukallu was also used to describe a type of field during the Old Babylonian period (Renger 2000, 156 and 158).  Nisaba 4 I.17 clearly has 60 liters. The amount of Nisaba 4 I.49 is problematic. Rositani (2003, 95) transliterates the amounts as 1/5 1/3? and then translates 60 + 100(?). My collation shows 1(PI) […] ˹zid₂˺ [x]. Since the line is partially broken because the tablet is crumbling, it is not clear to me whether there is a sign between 1(PI) and z id ₂ .  If I am interpreting this properly, line 2 reads: a-na me-re-eš lugal . In the Old Babylonian period mērešu usually designates a “cultivated land” or “cultivation.” Since the translation

Other allocations

77

flour for the e ₂ - a -zu- m e š, the house of the physicians (Nisaba 4 I.35, RīA 2/ V/8).47 Once again, the transaction took place at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme. Two more tablets are part of this lot of various and poorly attested types of flour allocations. They share several common features: the portions were assigned to cities, both records originate from Rīm-Anum’s first year, and both were issued at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme. In the first case, 20 liters were assigned to “the city of Nabigum when Appān-ilī, the šabrûm, ordered it” (Nisaba 4 I. 8, RīA 1/XI/2). Appān-ilī, whose name was also written Ana-pāni-ilī, is a very well attested šabrûm official from bīt asīrī texts dealing with both allocation of flour and management of prisoners and slaves. His activities are recorded from RīA 1/XI/2 (Nisaba 4 I.8) to RīA 3/II/7 (Nisaba 4 II.77). The second example has 100 liters of mundu-“groats” for the city of Eridu when Etel-pī-Šamaš, the šabrûm, went there (UF 10 33, RīA 1/X/18). Apart from him, two other men by the name of Etel-pī-Šamaš appear in the prosopography of texts from the reign of Rīm-Anum. One of them has the title muh al d im (App. 1 Nᵒ 18, RīA 2/XI/17; and VAS 13 54, [RīA…]). The other is the brother of Ninurta-abī, who is attested in documents dealing with the management of prisoners, from RīA 2/VI/15 (Nisaba 4 II.55) to RīA 2/VII/10 (UF 10 39). But there is not enough evidence to relate any of these namesakes to Etel-pī-Šamaš, the šabrûm. It seems likely that the flour assigned to cities was actually given to emissaries of Rīm-Anum who went to Nabigum and Eridu on diplomatic missions. Finally there are seven tablets where certain information is unavailable because of broken passages or fragmentary condition.48 In most cases the amount of flour or the purpose of the allocation are missing. Five of them preserve the recipients partially (RSO 82 2, 3, 16; UF 10 36; and VAS 13 51). They were all issued at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme. Five of the sealings are legible: those belonging to Etel-pī-d˹Erra?˺ (App. 1 Nᵒ 1, and RSO 82 2), E₂-an-na-[…] (App. 1 Nᵒ 1), Apil-Amurrum, son of Ilam-ēriš (RSO 82 3), and Nabi-ilīšu and Sîn-iddinam (UF 10 36).

“flour for cultivation” or “for the cultivated land” does not make much sense, I take mērešum as “wish.”  The amount of flour is lost.  These tablets are App. 1 Nᵒ 1 (RīA 1/X/18), RSO 82 16 (RīA 1/XI/8), RSO 82 2 (RīA 1/XI/9), YOS 14 346 (RīA 2/III/5), RSO 82 3 (RīA 2/V/2), VAS 13 51 (RīA 2/V/16), and UF 10 36 (RīA 2/VI/ 20).

78

Allocation of flour

VIII Comparative analysis of the various flour allocations The extant flour records from the bīt asīrī are in all likelihood incomplete. Therefore, a quantitative comparison might be misleading. Although it is difficult to separate the two aspects, the approach of this section will privilege a qualitative analysis in order to understand the different allocations and the institutional mechanisms behind them. Table 12 (pp. 80–81) help us view the various allocations comparatively. It shows that the allocations characterized as ana ĝ eš b u n , ana si-la ₂ and ṣudû, although different, have close affinities: they were all issued at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme, they were sealed by the same officials, and the recipients were all connected to military or diplomatic activities. The beneficiaries of the extant seventy-four ĝ ešbu n allocations are predominantly men from different localities (lu₂ GN) and dependents, various Amorite leaders (ugu la MAR.TU- m e š, possibly including the official from the city of Uruk itself) and dependents, and then – in smaller numbers – messengers from specific localities, the brother of Daganma-ilum, the ugul a š u-i of Rīm-Sîn, two men listed by their personal names, and the sick. It is possible that these allocations were mostly assigned as food for people directly involved in battles and logistics to support Uruk and its allies. Unlike ĝ eš bu n allocations, those of the s i -l a₂ type are less numerous: there are currently only ten tablets. The salient characteristic of the s i-l a ₂ allotments is that the recipients are predominantly messengers recorded by their personal names, titles and their royal or territorial affiliations. For example, the majority refers to messengers of Rīm-Sîn or messengers of Larsa, but also to the messengers of Daganma-ilum. Other people mentioned are a man from Babylon, the ugu la MAR.TU of Babylon, a man from Sutûm, and one from Ida-Maraṣ. These characteristics suggest that the si -l a₂ allocations went mostly to men involved in diplomatic activities, mainly messengers but also other officials. There are only four tablets pertaining to ṣudû allocations. Like the si -l a₂ allotments, the ṣudû were assigned to messengers and diplomats from places other than Uruk, including people related to Larsa, Babylon, Isin, and to the messenger of Daganma-ilum. There seems to be a connection between people granted s i -l a ₂ and ṣudû allocations. We know that messengers of Larsa received s i -l a ₂ flour (Nisaba 4 I.5, RīA 1/X/6) and then ṣudû flour over a month later (UF 10 13, RīA 1/XI/12). Similarly, Ilī-ayy-ēniš, the messenger of Daganmailum, received s i-la ₂ flour “on the second day” (Nisaba 4 I.21, RīA 2/II/20) and then he got a ṣudû allocation seven days later (VAS 13 48, RīA 2/II/27). Finally, Apil-Kūbi, the š u- i of Rīm-Sîn, received ṣudû flour (VAS 13 48, RīA 2/II/27) and two days later a s i-la ₂ allocation (UF 10 5, RīA 2/II/29). I suggest as an hypoth-

Comparative analysis of the various flour allocations

79

esis that while the si -la ₂ allocations were used to feed foreign diplomats who remained in Uruk for a few days, the ṣudû allocations were granted as travel provisions.49 The case of the šu ku allocations, usually translated as “food rations,” is different. We should first distinguish allocations characterized as šu ku e ₂ asīrī from the other š u ku tablets. The fifty-four šu ku e ₂ asīrī were all issued under the authority of Aḫum-waqar (the aĝ rig) and Nabi-Sîn and the expression š a₃ bīt asīrī does not appear in this lot, showing that the flour was not issued at the house of prisoners as was the case with absolutely all other allocations. In addition, all legible sealings belong to only one official, Sîn-šeme. As already suggested, since the šu ku e ₂ asīrī flour was issued under the authority of Aḫum-waqar (the aĝ rig) and Nabi-Sîn, it seems reasonable that the flour originated from the e₂ -aĝ rig, an institution attested in the archive. In such a case, the house of prisoners was the recipient instead of the distributor of the flour. The rest of the šu ku allocations, however, follow the pattern of all other allocations. They were issued at the house of prisoners under the authority of Sîn-šeme, and sealed by those officials whose seals were rolled on other flour tablets. First there is a group of ten records where the flour was allocated ana š uku e ₂ , “for š u ku of the house.” Since this group does not share any of the characteristics of the tablets mentioning flour š uku e₂ asīrī, one has to assume that e₂ was not an abbreviation for the house of prisoners but for some other household. The three tablets with the expression ana šu ku ( e ri n ₂ ) muwa-ar-ba-tim ša e₂ šabrîm were assigned to people related to the household of the šabrûm-official.50 These eleven šu ku documents record flour allotted to local institutions or to state personnel. Finally, the two tablets ana šu ku luga l register flour given to the king and dependents and to the king, the Amorite leaders of Kisura and Gutûm, and dependents. That is to say, at least one of the recipients also represented a local institution. Besides the two š uku luga l mentioned above, three other tablets mention the king and the palace in connection with flour allocations. Two records refer to flour “to be at the palace’s disposal,” which shows that flour was given to the palace via the bīt asīrī and that the palace then redistributed it. And another tablet mentions flour possibly to be distributed at the king’s discretion.  Note that there are two si-l a₂ examples in which the allocations are given on the second day (Nisaba 4 I.21 and 25), which supports the hypothesis that si -l a₂ allocations were granted to diplomats who remained in Uruk for some time. Another example is the case of Nūr-Kabta from Larsa, who received si-l a ₂ flour on the second day on RīA 2/III/19 (Nisaba 4 I.25) and ṣudû flour on RīA 2/[…]/[…] (RA 71 Nᵒ 4). But this example is not conclusive because one of the dates is broken.  We know of two šabrû who disposed of bīt asīrī flour (Appān-ilī in Nisaba 4 I.8:3–4, and Etel-pī-Šamaš in UF 10 33:4).











ana šuku lu gal (u aḫiātim) ( tablets)

ana šuku (e ri n₂ ) mu-wa-ar-ba-tim ( tablets)

ana šuku lu ₂ Damrum

ana si- la₂ ( tablets)

ṣudû ( tablets)

,

šuku e ₂ asīrī ( tablets)



,

ana ĝešbun ( tablets)

ana šuku e₂ u aḫiātim ( tablets)

Liters

Allocation Type various sealings

Sealings

š a₃ bīt asīrī ni ĝ₂ -š u Sîn-šeme

š a₃ bīt asīrī ni ĝ₂ -š u Sîn-šeme

š a₃ bīt asīrī n iĝ -š u Sîn-šeme

š a₃ bīt asīrī ni ĝ₂ -š u Sîn-šeme ĝ iri ₃ Etel-pī-Šamaš m uhal d im

š a₃ bīt asīrī ni ĝ₂ -š u Sîn-šeme

š a₃ bīt asīrī ni ĝ₂ -š u Sîn-šeme



Nabi-ilīšu Rammān[um-…]

Apil-Amurrum (A) Apil-Amurrum (B) Etel-pī-d˹Erra?˺ Nabi-ilīšu Wussum-nu-˹x-x˺

Sîn-iddinam

Apil-Amurrum Nabi-ilīšu Sîn-iddinam

Apil-Amurrum Nabi-ilīšu Sîn-iddinam

[Apil-Amurrum] Nabi-ilīšu

ni ĝ₂ -š u Aḫum-waqar u Nabi-Sîn Sîn-šeme

š a₃ bīt asīrī ni ĝ₂ -š u Sîn-šeme

Issued

l u₂ - ki ĝ₂ - gi ₄-a

l u₂ GN ugula MAR.TU- meš GN l u₂ - ki ĝ₂ - gi ₄-a NP PN

ana šuku lu₂ Damrum

ana šuku (e ri n₂ ) mu-wa-ar-ba-tim

ana šuku lugal (u aḫiātim)

ana šuku e₂ u aḫiātim

Seemingly Sîn-šeme at the bīt asīrī

ugula MAR.TU- meš (GN) u aḫiātum PNs ugula šu- i Rīm-Sîn šeš Daganma-ilum l u₂ - ki ĝ₂ - gi ₄-a- meš GNs l u₂ GNs u aḫiātum marṣūtum

Recipients

80 Allocation of flour

[…]



ana e ₂-a-zu- meš ( tablet)

city of Nabigum ( tablet) city of Eridu ( tablet)

,



Ø

š a₃ bīt asīrī ni ĝ₂ -š u Sîn-šeme š a₃ bīt asīrī ni ĝ₂ -š u Sîn-šeme See Table  at the end of the chapter

Illegible

Ø

Nabi-ilīšu

Nabi-ilīšu

Nabi-ilīšu

š a₃ bīt asīrī ni ĝ₂ -š u Sîn-šeme

š a₃ bīt asīrī ni ĝ₂ -š u Sîn-šeme

š a₃ bīt asīrī ni ĝ₂ -š u Sîn-šeme

š a₃ bīt asīrī ni ĝ₂ -š u Sîn-šeme

ci ty of Eridu

ci ty of Nabigum

ana e ₂ -a-zu- meš

ana mēreš šarrim

ana rēš ekallim kullim

l u₂ - ki ĝ₂ - gi ₄-a NP

 AN.AN.MAR.TU, Apil-Amurrum son of Šulgi-[…], Apil-Amurrum son of Ilam-ēriš, Apil-ilīšu, Etel-pī-d˹Erra?˺, E-[…], Irībam-Sîn, Marduk-nāṣir, Nabiilīšu, Rammānu[m-.], Sîn-iddinam, Sîn-[…], Wussum-nu-˹x-x˺, and […]-Amurrum.

Tab. : Comparative chart of different types of flour allocations

Total

Fragmentary ( tablets)



ana mēreš šarrim ( tablet)







ana rēš ekallim kullim ( tablets)

no name ( tablet)

Comparative analysis of the various flour allocations

81

82

Allocation of flour

IX Conclusion Based on the above discussion, I propose the following reconstruction of the administrative mechanisms related to flour allocation. The bīt asīrī under the supervision of Sîn-šeme received flour from another state household, the e₂ - aĝr ig, whose foremost official was Aḫum-waqar, the aĝr ig. This flour could have been produced either at the e ₂ -aĝ r ig and its gristmill or it could have been collected from millers not necessarily working in a central institution. Once the receipt of flour was acknowledged, the bīt asīrī redistributed it among various institutions, people, and officials from Uruk and from other kingdoms. In spite of their differences, all the allocations originating from the bīt asīrī have in common the fact that the flour was used to feed men engaged in military and diplomatic activities related to the revolts against king Samsuiluna and the metropolis. This will explain why, among the 173 flour texts, there is no flour allocation dating from Rīm-Anum’s third year. Unless new findings alter this situation, all seems to indicate that by the third year RīmAnum had given up his aspirations of independence and of territorial expansion. At present, the last allocation of flour is dated to RīA 2/XI/23 (UF 10 35) and the last bīt asīrī text records management of prisoners dated to RīA 3/II/ 28 (Nisaba 4 II.79). We know, however, that the independent king of Uruk remained in power – if only nominally – for a few more months, for there is an administrative tablet dated to RīA 3/IX/[…] (Nisaba 4 III.3). There is no direct evidence in flour allocations from the bīt asīrī to support the view either that the flour was produced by prisoners or that it was used to feed them, although this might have been the case. What is more, there is not even a single mention of any prisoner or slave in tablets dealing with flour allocation. Documents from the bīt asīrī at Uruk are sometimes quoted in comparison with the biblical narratives of Samson and Zedekiah and the story of the letter that the defeated Uppuma sent to the Assyrian king Esarhaddon. All these references are employed to explain that all over the ancient Near East prisoners were blinded, chained and forced to work as millers. But one could also argue that the punishments of Samson and Zedekiah were the exceptions rather than the rule, for the mutilation of their eyes could have been intended to convey an exemplary punishment. From the Ur III and the Old Babylonian periods, there are abundant references to blind gardeners, but, as far as I am aware, there is no clear evidence that those men were purposely blinded. This discussion will be pursued later, after the presentation of further evidence from the bīt asīrī. In the next chapter, I analyze the management of prisoners and slaves.

official(s) zi -ga [š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme] zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

purpose/description

ana ĝeš bun d um u -m eš l u ₂- ki ĝ ₂- g i ₄-a Aḫlamāya u Isin

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂- ki ĝ ₂- g i ₄-a Larsa

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Kisura

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Kisura

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂- ki ĝ ₂- g i ₄-a-m eš Larsa, l u ₂ Bābilum u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Isin, l u₂ Muti-abal u aḫiātim

Amount and quality

 liters

60 liters

360? liters

300 liters

120 liters us₂

150 liters us₂

ana ĝešb un

Tab. 13 All flour allocations (Attestations are chronologically arranged within categories)

1) Nabi-ilīšu / [bisaĝ - dub - ba] / [dum u Lakīta-rēmēni] / [arad Rīm-Anum] 2) [E?-…] / [d umu Diĝir-endiĝir?] / ara d Ne[rgal]

AN.AN.MAR.[TU]

RīA 1/XI/22

RīA 1/XI/14

RīA 1/XI/7

RīA 1/X/[…]

UF 10 16

UF 10 21

VAS 13 38

VAS 13 42

Nisaba 4 I.4

RīA 1/X/˹5?˺

1) Etel-pī-d[Erra?]/ d umu Enanatum / arad Iggala 2) Wussum-nu-˹x-x˺ / [d umu] Iddin-[Ištar] / arad ˹Ninsiana˺

CT UF 10 20

date

E-[…] / d umu Diĝir-en-diĝir / RīA 1/X/2 arad Nergal

sealing(s)

All flour allocations

83

official(s) zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₃ asīrī

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme ug ula asi rum zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

purpose/description

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂- ki ĝ ₂- g i ₄-a-m eš , l u ₂ Isin u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Mutiabal, l u₂ Sutûm u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun Ṣillī-Šamaš, u g ula MAR.TU- m eš Uruk, l u ₂ Isin, u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun […] u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun š eš Daganma-ilum, l u₂ Mutiabal, l u₂ Sutûm, u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun š eš Daganma-ilum, l u₂ Muti-abal, lu₂ Sutûm u aḫiātim

Amount and quality

90 liters us₂

[…] liters

80 liters us₂

[…] liters

90 liters

90 liters

1) [Nabi-ilīšu] / bisaĝ - dub - [ ba ] / dum u Lakīta-rē[mēni] / arad Rīm-A[num]

[Nabi]-ilīšu / [bisaĝ - d ub - ba] / [d um u Lakīta-rēmēni] / [arad Rīm-Anum]

1) Apil-Amurrum / d umu Šulg[i…] / [arad …] 2) [Nabi-ilīšu] / bisaĝ - dub - [ ba ]/ dum u Lakīta-rēmēni / arad Rīm-[Anum]

RīA 1/XII/22

RSO 82 5

VAS 13 41

RSO 82 15

RīA 1/XII/10?

RīA 1/XII/20

UF 10 15

RSO 82 8

Nisaba 4 I.13

CT

RīA 1/XII/9

RīA 1/XI/30

RīA 1/XI/23

1) Etel-pī-d[Erra?] / d umu Enanatum / arad Iggala 2) Irībam-Sîn / d ub -sar / dum u Warad-Šamaš / arad Rīm-Anum illegible

date

sealing(s)

84 Allocation of flour

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

[…]

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana ĝeš bun š eš Daganma-ilum, l u₂ Kisura, l u ₂ Muti-abal u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun Mannium, Ṣillī-Šamaš u lu ₂ mu-x-x-x

ana ĝeš bun Mannium, Ṣillī-Šamaš, […]-bû u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun š eš Daganma-ilum, l u₂ Mutiabal u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Gutûm u aḫiātim

90 liters us₂

150 liters

180 liters us₂

49 liters

60? liters us₂ zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi - ga š a₃ e ₂ asi rum n iĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana ĝ eš bun š eš Daganma-ilum, l u₂ Mutiabal, l u₂ Sutûm, u aḫiātim

150 liters us₂

1) Nabi-i[līšu] / bisaĝ - dub - [ ba ] / dum u Lakīta-[rēmēni] / [arad Rīm-Anum]

illegible

RīA 2/I/26

Nisaba 4 I.57

RSO 82 13

RīA ˹1?˺/[…]/[…]

App. 1 Nᵒ 3

App. 1 Nᵒ 4

RīA 1/[…]/2+

[Etel-pī-Erra?]/ [d um u] Enanatum/ [arad ] Iggal[a]

Nisaba 4 I.15

UF 10 9

RīA 1/[…]/[…]

RīA 1/XII/24

RīA 1/XII/23

1) Rammānu[m-…] /d umu Ana-pāni-ilī / arad Rammānum 2) [Nabi-ilīšu] / bisaĝ - [dub - ba]/ dum u Lakīta-[rēmēni] / arad Rīm-Anum

Sîn-[…] / d umu Sîn-gāmil / […]

2) Ra[mmānum-…] / d umu [Ana-pā]ni-ilī / [arad Ram]mānum

All flour allocations

85

official(s)

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum nig ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

purpose/description

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU-meš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula šu- i ša Rīm-Sîn u e ri n₂ -m eššu

Amount and quality

200 liters us₂

200 liters us₂

120 liters

100 liters

120 liters

120 liters

RīA 2/II/20

RīA 2/II/16

[Etel-pī]-d[Erra?] / [d um u Ea]natum / [arad d]Ig[gal]a 1) Nabi-ilīšu / [bisaĝ - dub - ba] / [dum u Lakīta-rēmēni] / [arad ] Rīm-Anum 2) [PN] / d umu Sîn-[…] / […]

RīA 2/II/9

RīA 2/II/8

RīA 2/II/6

RīA 2/II/5

date

illegible

Apil-Amurrum / d um u Šulg[i-…] / arad ni ĝ ₂ dMAR.TU

Nabi-ilīšu / [bisaĝ - d ub - ba] / [d um u Lakīta-rēmēni] / [arad Rīm-Anum]

1) Irībam-Sîn / d ub -sar / dum u Warad-Šamaš / [arad Rīm]-Anum 2) [Na]bi-ilīšu / bisaĝ - dub - [ ba ] / dum u Lakī[ta-rēmēni] / arad Rīm-Anum

2) Sîn-iddi[nam] / dum u P[N] / a rad AN.AN.MAR.[TU]

sealing(s)

UF 10 25

RSO 82 4

UF 10 38

UF 10 40

UF 10 22

Nisaba 4 I.18

CT

86 Allocation of flour

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana ĝeš bun u g ula šu- i Larsa(?)

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

20 liters

120 liters us₂

60 liters us₂

60 liters us₂

60 liters

60 liters

100 liters

60 liters

RīA 2/II/26

RīA 2/II/25

RīA 2/II/21

Nabi-i[līšu] / bisaĝ - d ub- ba /

1) Apil-Amurrum / dum u Šulg[i-…] / arad ni ĝ₂ dMAR.TU 2) [Nabi-ilīšu] / bisaĝ - dub - ba / dum u Lakīta-rē[mēni] / arad Rīm-[Anum]

Apil-Amurrum / d um u Šulg[i-…] / arad ni ĝ ₂ dMAR.TU

RīA 2/III/16

RīA 2/III/4

RīA 2/III/1

Nabi-ilīšu / bisaĝ- d ub- ba / RīA 2/II/28 d um u Lakīta-[rēmēni] / arad R[īm-Anum] [Nabi-ilīšu] / RīA 2/II/29 bisaĝ - d ub- [ ba] / d um u Lakīta-[rēmēni] / arad Rīm-[Anum]

[Apil]-Amurrum / d um u Ilam-ēriš / a ra d d[…]

Nabi-i[līšu] / bisaĝ - d ub- ba / d um u Lakīta-[rēmēni] / arad Rīm-Anum

illegible

UF 10 37

UF 10 30

UF 10 8

Nisaba 4 I.58

Nisaba 4 I.23

Nisaba 4 I.22

UF 10 32

App. 1 Nᵒ 6

All flour allocations

87

official(s)

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

purpose/description

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

Amount and quality

60 liters us₂

[…] liters

60 liters

100 liters

100 liters

RīA 2/III/24

RīA 2/III/22

RīA 2/III/19

date

Nabi-ilīšu / bisaĝ- d ub- ba / RīA 2/IV/2 d um u Lakīta-rē[mēni] / [arad Rīm-Anum]

Apil-Amur[rum] / dumu Ilam- RīA 2/III/28 [ēriš] / arad Amurrum

1) Apil-Amurrum / dum u d iĝi r-[…] / arad […] 2) Nabi-i[līšu] / bisaĝ - dub - ba / dum u Lakīta-[rēmēni] / arad Rīm-[Anum]

1) Nabi-ilīšu / [bisaĝ - dub - ba] / dum u Lakīta-[rēmēni] / arad Rīm-A[num] 2) [PN] /dum u PN / [arad ] AN.[AN] MAR.[TU]

1) Apil-Amurrum / d umu Ilam-ēriš/ a ra d […] 2) [Nabi]-ilī[šu] / [bisaĝ ] - d ub- [ba] / [dum u] Lakīta-rē[mēni] / [arad R]īm-Anum

d um u Lakīta-rē[mēni] / arad Rīm-Anum

sealing(s)

Nisaba 4 I.27

Nisaba 4 I.63

Nisaba 4 I.62

Nisaba 4 I.26

Nisaba 4 I.61

CT

88 Allocation of flour

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme ug ula asi rum zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Dunnum, l u ₂ Muti-abal u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Kisura, l u ₂ Du[nnu]m? u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Dunnum, u g ula [MAR.TU- m eš], l u ₂ Kisura, u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ [G]N, l u ₂ Kisura, l u ₂ Gutûm, u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Isin u aḫiātim

120 liters

100 liters […]

100 liters

20+ liters

120 liters us₂

120 liters us₂

120 liters us₂

Nabi-[ilīšu] / bisaĝ - d ub- [ ba] / d um u Lakī[ta-rēmēni] / [arad Rīm-Anum]

Nabi-i[līšu] / bisaĝ - d ub- ba / [d um u] Lakīta-[rēmēni] / [arad Rīm-Anum]

1) [PN] / bisaĝ- d ub- ba / dum u / [PN] 2) [Apil]-Amurrum / [dum u] Šulg[i-…] / [arad R]īm-Anum

mostly illegible

Apil-Amur[ru] / dum u d iĝi r[…] / [arad] Amur[rum]

1) Apil-Amurrum / dum u Šulg[i-…]/ arad ni ĝ₂ [dMAR.TU] 2) Nabi-i[līšu] / bisaĝ - dub - ba / dum u Lakīta-[rēmēni] / arad [Rīm-Anum]

RīA 2/IV/30

RīA 2/IV/24

RīA 2/IV/23

RīA 2/IV/19

UF 10 17

UF 10 19

UF 10 10

MCS 7/1:3

Nisaba 4 I.28

Nisaba 4 I.64

RīA 2/IV/7? RīA 2/IV/12

UF 10 27

RīA 2/IV/6

All flour allocations

89

illegible 1) Nabi-[ilīšu] / bisaĝ - dub - [ ba ] /

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Isin u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Gutûmk i - m eš , l u₂ Isink i -m eš , l u ₂ Muti-abalm eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Mutiabal, l u₂ Kisura u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Kisura u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Gutûm l u ₂ Kisura u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun, l u ₂ Gutûm, u zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum aḫiātim niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Dunnum u aḫiātim

150 liters us₂

150 liters

120 liters

120 liters

120 liters us₂ terdītum

80 liters us₂ terdītum

120 liters us₂

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

illegible

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Sutûm, l u ₂ Isin, u aḫiātim

60 liters us₂

1) Nabi-i[līšu] / bisaĝ - dub - [ ba ] / dum u Lakīta-[rēmēni] / arad Rīm-An[um] 2) Apil-Amurrum / dum u Šulg[i-…]/ arad Rīm-Anum

Nabi-ilīšu / [bisaĝ - d ub - ba] / d um u [Lakīta-rēmēni] / [arad ] Rīm-Anum

[Na]bi-ilīšu / bisaĝ - d ub- [ ba] / d um u Lakī[ta-rēmēni] / arad Rīm-[Anum]

illegible

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Isin, l u₂ Muti-abal u aḫiātim

120 liters us₂

sealing(s)

official(s)

purpose/description

Amount and quality

RīA 2/V/28

RīA 2/V/24

RīA 2/V/21

RīA 2/V/14

RīA 2/V/11

RīA 2/V/8

UF 10 34

App. 1 Nᵒ 9

Nisaba 4 I.36

UF 10 12

VAS 13 47

UF 10 24

Nisaba 4 I.34

Nisaba 4 I.33

RīA 2/V/˹3?˺ RīA 2/V/3

Nisaba 4 I.32

CT

RīA 2/V/1

date

90 Allocation of flour

zi - ga š a₃ e ₂ asi rum n iĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi - ga š a₃ e ₂ asi rum n iĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi - ga š a₃ e ₂ asi rum n iĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi - ga š a₃ e ₂ asi rum n iĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi - ga š a₃ e ₂ asi rum n iĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi - ga š a₃ e ₂ asīrī n iĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana ĝ eš bun l u₂ Dunnum u aḫiātim

ana ĝ eš bun l u₂ Dunnum u aḫiātim

ana ĝ eš bun l u₂ Gutûm, l u₂ Dunnum u aḫiātim

ana ĝ eš bun l u₂ Gutûm, l u₂ Dunnum u aḫiātim

ana ĝ eš bun […]ki- meš , […]ki- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝ eš bun l u₂ Kisura, l u₂ Gutûm u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Gutûm, l u ₂ Kisura u aḫiātim

120 liters us₂

120 liters us₂

120 liters us₂

120 liters

60+ liters us₂

120 liters us₂

120 liters

illegible

illegible

illegible

1) Apil-Amurrum / dum u Ilam-ēriš/ arad […] 2) Sîn-iddi[nam] / dum u P[N] / arad AN.AN.MAR.[TU]

1) Sîn-iddi[nam] / dum u P[N] / arad AN.AN.[MAR.TU] 2) [PN] / d umu […] / arad Nabium

illegible

Sîn-iddi[nam] / d umu P[N] / arad AN.AN.MAR.[TU]

dum u Lakīta-[rēmēni] / arad Rīm-[Anum] 2) […]-Amurrum / [dum u] Sîn-iddi[nam] / arad Nabi[um]

RīA 2/VI/22

RīA 2/VI/21

RīA 2/VI/15

RīA 2/VI/7

RīA 2/VI/3

RīA 2/VI/2

RīA 2/VI/1

App. 1 Nᵒ 10

Nisaba 4 I.42

Nisaba 4 I.41

Nisaba 4 I.66

Nisaba 4 I.39

UF 10 26

Nisaba 4 I.38

All flour allocations

91

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Kisura, l u ₂ Gutûm u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Gutûmm eš , l u ₂ […]- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ u g ula MAR.TU- m eš Gutûm, lu₂ u g ula MAR.TU- m eš Kisura, l u ₂ Dunnum u aḫiātim ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ u g ula MAR.TU- m eš , l u ₂ Kisura, l u ₂ Gutûm, u aḫiātim

[…]

[…] liters

120 liters

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Mutiabal, l u₂ Isin u aḫiātim

120 liters us₂

100 liters us₂

official(s)

purpose/description

Amount and quality

illegible

[…] /[…] arad Rīm-[…]

1) Apil-ilīšu / dum u Ṭāb-târ-ilī / arad Samsu-iluna 2) [Nabī-ilīšu] / [bisaĝ ] - d ub- ba / [dum u La]kīta-rē[mēni] / [arad ] Rīm-Anum 3) Sîn-iddinam / dum u P[N] / arad AN.AN.MAR.TU

1) Nabi-ilī[šu] / bisaĝ - dub - [ ba ] / dum u Lakīta-rē[mēni] / arad Rīm-A[num] 2) ˹Marduk-nāṣir˺ /[…] /[…]/ arad Rīm-Anum

sealing(s)

RīA 2/VII/10

RīA 2/VII/9

RīA 2/VII/8

RīA 2/VI/30

RīA 2/IV/27

date

UF 10 7

UF 10 11

App. 1 Nᵒ 12

App. 1 Nᵒ 11

Nisaba 4 I.65

CT

92 Allocation of flour

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga […]

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme […]

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš l u₂ Kisura, u g ula MAR.TU- m eš l u ₂ Gutûm u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun marṣūtim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Kisura u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Gutûm u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU, l u₂ Kisura, l u ₂ Gutûm u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš u aḫiātim

ana ĝeš bun u g ula MAR.TU- m eš ˹xx˺ u gula MAR.TU- m eš l u₂ Gutûm u aḫiātim

150 liters

120 liters

120 liters

100 liters

150 liters

150 liters

60 liters

[…]

7,649 liters (74 tablets)

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana ĝeš bun l u ₂ Kisura u aḫiātim

120 liters us₂

illegible

Apil-Amurrum / dum u Ilam[ēriš] / arad [Amurrum]

illegible

Nabi-ilīšu / bisaĝ - d ub- [ ba] / d um u Lakīta-rē[mēni] / [arad Rīm-Anum]

Nabi-ilī[šu] / bisaĝ - d ub- [ ba] / d um u Lakīta-rēmēni / arad Rīm-Anum

[…]

RīA 2/[…]/[…]

RīA 2/[…]/[…]

RīA 2/[…]/21

RīA 2/[…]/9

RīA 2/X/[…]

RīA 2/X/30

RīA 2/VII/[…]

RīA 2/VII/12

RSO 82 7

RSO 82 14

App. 1 Nᵒ 20

VAS 13 44

App. 1 Nᵒ 19

App. 1 Nᵒ 16

UF 10 14

UF 10 18

Nisaba 4 I.46

All flour allocations

93

zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫum-waqar zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫum-waqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫum-waqar aĝ ri g zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫum-waqar zi -ga n ig ₂-šu Aḫum-waqar zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫum-waqar zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫum-waqar zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫum-waqar zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫum-waqar zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫum-waqar

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

ša ₃ e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

90.5? liters

70 liters us₂

70? liters

56 liters

142? liters

70 liters

90 liters

95 liters

86 liters

65 liters us₂

72 liters

zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫum-waqar

šuku e ₂ asīrī

36.5? liters

official(s)

purpose/description

Amount and quality

šuku bīt asīrī

RīA 1/X/24

RīA 1/X/20

Sealing: only traces visible

Sîn-[šeme] / [d umu] Išme[Sîn] / a ra d Rīm-[Anum]

RSO 82 12 Nisaba 4 I.11 Nisaba 4 I.12

RīA 1?/XI/19 RīA 1?/XI?/21

Nisaba 4 I.9

Nisaba 4 I.7

BM 100379

Nisaba 4 I.6

YOS 14 341

VAS 13 37

RīA 1/XI/5

Sîn-šeme / dumu Išme-Sîn / RīA 1/XI/5 arad Rīm-Anum

illegible

RīA 1/X/17

RīA 1/X/1

RīA 1/IX/19

Nisaba 4 I.1

Sîn-šeme / dumu Išme-Sîn / RīA 1?/IX/18 arad Rīm-Anum

Nisaba 4 I.3

CT

Nisaba 4 I.2

RīA 1/IX/ ˹15+˺

date

Sîn-šeme / dumu Išme-Sîn / RīA 1/IX/17 arad Rīm-Anum

illegible

sealing(s)

94 Allocation of flour

zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫum-waqar aĝ ri g zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n ig ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ -š u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Nabi-Sîn

šuku! e₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asi r um

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asi r um

74 liters

68 liters

60 liters

50 liters

40 liters

55 liters

50 liters

45? liters

40 liters us₂

50 liters

46 liters

48 liters us₂

zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Nabi-Sîn

zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn

šuku e ₂ asīrī

90 liters

Sîn-[šeme] / d umu IšmeSîn / arad Rīm-An[um]

[Sîn-šeme] / [d umu] Iš[me]Sîn / arad [Rīm-An]um

illegible

[Sîn-šeme] / [d umu] Iš[meSîn] / a rad Rīm-[Anum]

Sîn-[šeme] / [d umu] Išme[Sîn] / [a ra d Rīm-Anum]

Sî[n-šeme] / [d umu IšmeSîn] / [a ra d] Rīm-Anum

Sîn-šeme / dumu Išme[Sîn] / a ra d Rīm-[Anum]

[Sîn-šeme] / d umu Išme[Sîn] / a ra d Rīm-[Anum]

illegible

[…] / […] / [arad ] Rīm-[Anum]

RīA 2/V/29

RīA 2/IV/26

RīA 2/IV/23

RīA 2/IV/19

RīA 2/IV/16

RīA 2/II/28

RīA 2/II/19

RīA 2/II/16

RīA 2/II/11

RīA 2/I/29

RīA 2/I/15

Sîn-šeme / dumu Išme-Sîn / RīA 1/[…]/26 arad Rī[m-Anum]

Sîn-šeme / dumu Išme-Sîn / RīA 1/XII/8 arad Rīm-Anum

Nisaba 4 I.37

Nisaba 4 I.31

App. 1 Nᵒ 26

Nisaba 4 I.30

Nisaba 4 I.29

Nisaba 4 I.24

Nisaba 4 I.20

Nisaba 4 I.19

App. 1 Nᵒ 30

BM 88681

App. 1 Nᵒ 5

Nisaba 4 I.16

Nisaba 4 I.14

All flour allocations

95

zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu [PN] zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Nabi-Sîn

zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫum-waqar

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asi r um

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asi r um šuku e ₂ asīrī šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī šuku e ₂ asīrī

40 liters

40 liters

50 liters

55 liters

35 liters

47 liters us₂

50 liters

45 liters

58 liters 60 liters 54 liters

53 liters 300 liters

zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn

official(s)

šuku e ₂ asi r um

purpose/description

40 liters

?

Amount and quality

[…]/[…]/ arad Rīm-[…] illegible Sîn-[šeme] / d um u Išme-[Sîn] / arad Rīm-[Anum] illegible illegible

Sîn-šeme / dumu Išme[Sîn] / a ra d Rīm-[Anum] […] / arad Rīm-An[um]

[Sîn-šeme] / [d umu] Iš[meSîn] / [a ra d Rīm-Anum]

illegible

illegible

Sîn-[šeme] / d umu Išme[Sîn] / a ra d Rīm-[Anum]

illegible

sealing(s)

RīA 2/VIII/30 RīA 2/VIII?/[…]

RīA 2/VIII/14 RīA 2/VIII/20 RīA 2/VIII/23

RīA 2/VII/24

RīA 2/VII/13

RīA 2/VII/11

RīA 2/VI/29

RīA 2/VI/22

RīA 2/VI/18

RīA 2/VI/15

RīA 2/VI/13

RīA 2/VI/4

date

App. 1 Nᵒ 37 App. 1 Nᵒ 38

BM 100216 App. 1 Nᵒ 36 Nisaba 4 I.50

App. 1 Nᵒ 13

Nisaba 4 I.47

Nisaba 4 I.45

Nisaba 4 I.44

Nisaba 4 I.43

BM 88698

BM 87065

Nisaba 4 I.40

App. 1 Nᵒ 34

CT

96 Allocation of flour

zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫum-waqar zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga [ni ĝ ₂ ]-š u PN zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu [Aḫumwaqar] u Nabi-Sîn

šuku e ₂ asi r um

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

šuku e ₂ asīrī

58 liters

36 liters us₂

37 liters

48 liters us₂

48 liters

38 liters

42 liters

67 liters

50 liters

370 liters

85 liters

42 liters

44 liters

3,662 liters (54 tablets)

z[i -ga ] ni ĝ ₂ -š u Nabi-Sîn

šuku e ₂ asi r um

55? liters us₂

zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫumwaqar u Nabi-Sîn zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫum-waqar zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Aḫum-waqar

šuku e ₂ asīrī

56 liters us₂

RīA 2/X/10

RīA 2/X/9

RīA 2/IX/25

RīA 2/IX/13

RīA 2/IX/4+

illegible

illegible

illegible

Sîn-[šeme] / [dumu] Iš[meSîn] / [arad Rīm-Anum]

BM 88687 BM 88954

[RīA?…]

App. 1 Nᵒ 40

SAKF 106

BM 100363

BM 87069

[RīA…]/XI/[…]

[RīA…]/II/3

RīA 2/[…]/5

RīA 2/[…]/18

RīA 2/[…]/˹1+˺

UF 10 35

Nisaba 4 I.56

RīA 2/X/18? RīA 2/XI/23

RSO 82 11

Nisaba 4 I.55

BM 87092

App. 1 Nᵒ 15

Nisaba 4 I.54

Nisaba 4 I.53

Nisaba 4 I.52

RīA 2/X/12

Sîn-šeme / dumu Išme-Sîn / RīA 2/X/11 arad Rīm-An[um]

illegible

Sîn-še[me] / [d umu] Išme[Sîn] / [a ra d] Rīm-A[num]

Sîn-[šeme] / d umu Išme[Sîn] / a ra d Rīm-[Anum]

All flour allocations

97

official(s) zi -ga š a₃ e₂ [asi r um ] niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u […] [zi- ga š a₃ e₂] asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga […]

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum nig ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

purpose/description

ana kurummat e₂

ana š uku e₂ u aḫiātim

ana š uku e₂ u aḫiātim

ana kurummat e₂ u aḫiātim

ana š uku e₂ u aḫiātim

ana š uku e₂ u aḫiātim

ana š uku e₂ u aḫiātim

ana š uku e₂ u aḫiātim

ana š uku e₂ u aḫiātim

Amount and quality

[…] liters

60 liters

120 liters

60 liters

60 liters

60 liters

60 liters us₂

60 liters

120 liters

ana šuku e₂ u aḫiātim

RīA 2/IX/19

RīA 2/IX/7

RīA 2/VIII/30

RīA 2/VIII/22

RīA 2/VIII/17

date

1) Apil-Amur[rum] / dum u [Il]am-[ēriš] / arad Rī[m-An]um

Nabi-ilīšu / bisaĝ - d ub- [ ba] / d umu Lakita-[rēmēni] / [arad …]

[…] / […] / [ara] d Rīm-Anum

App. 1 Nᵒ 14

RSO 82 1

[RīA?…]/VII/11+

UF 10 23

Nisaba 4 I.67

VAS 13 53

VAS 13 55

RA 71 Nᵒ 2

VAS 13 52

RSO 82 10

CT

RīA 2/IX/[…]

RīA 2/IX/26

Nabi-ilīšu bisaĝ- d ub- [ ba] / RīA 2/IX/20 d um u Lakīta-rē[mēni] / arad Rīm-A[num]

[Na]bi-ilīšu / bisaĝ - d ub- ba / d um u Lakīta-rēmē[ni] / arad Rīm-Anum

[Sîn-iddinam] / bisaĝ - d ub- ba / d um u P[N] / arad Rīm-Anum

sealing(s)

98 Allocation of flour

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana š uku l ugal , ug ula MAR.TU-m eš lu ₂ Kisura, ug ula MAR.TU-m eš l u₂ Gutûm u aḫiātim

ana š uku l ugal u aḫiātim

120 liters

60 liters us₂

180 liters (2 tablets)

official(s)

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

purpose/description

ana š uku e₂ u aḫiātim

Amount and quality

ana šuku lugal (u aḫiātim)

660 liters (10 tablets)

60 liters

1) Apil-Amur[rum] / [d umu] Ilam-[ēriš] / arad […] 2) Sîn-iddi[nam] / bisaĝ - dub - [ ba ] / [dum u P]N / arad Rīm-Anum

Nabi-ilīšu / d um u Lakī[ta]-rē[mēni] / bisaĝ - d ub- ba / arad Rīm-An[um]

sealing(s)

[Apil-Amurrum] / [d um u] Ila[m-ēriš] / [arad ] Rīm-Anum

2) Sîn-iddi[nam] / bisaĝ - dub - [ ba ] / [dum u P]N / arad Rīm-Anum

Nisaba 4 I.48

Nisaba 4 I.51

RīA 2/IX/4?

CT

App. 1 Nᵒ 24

RīA 2/VII/28

date

[RīA?…]/[…]/[…]

All flour allocations

99

š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme ug ula asīrī ĝi ri₃ Etel-pī-Šamaš m uhal di m zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme ug ula asīrī ĝi ri₃ Etel-pī-Šamaš m uhal di m zi-ga š a₃ e ₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme ug ula asīrī

ana e ri n₂- m eš mu-˹wa˺-[ar-ba-tim] ša e ₂ šabrîm

ana š uku mu-wa-ar-ba-tim ša e ₂ šabr[îm]

ana š uku erin ₂ mu-wa-ar-ba-tim ša e ₂ šabrîm

30 liters

40 liters

30 liters us₂

1) Apil-Amur[rum] / dum u Ilam-[ēriš] arad Rīm-Anum 2) Sîn-i[ddinam] / bisaĝ - dub - [ ba ]/ dum u P[N] / arad Rīm-[Anum]

illegible

[Nabi-ilīšu] / [bisaĝ - d ub - ba] / d um u Lakīta-[rēmēni] / arad [Rīm-Anum]

sealing(s)

App. 1 Nᵒ 18

VAS 13 54

[RīA? …]52

App. 1 Nᵒ 17

CT

RīA 2/XI/17

RīA 2/XI/3

date

 Only two signs remain of the year name m [u ….]-b i , since the two other attestations belonging to this group are from the second year (m u un ug k i ga u₃ a ₂- dam-bi ) it is possible to attribute this tablet to Rīm-Anum’s second year.

100 liters (3 tablets)

official(s)

purpose/description

Amount and quality

šuku (e ri n₂) mu-wa-ar-ba-tim

100 Allocation of flour

ana si- la₂ zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum lu ₂- ki ĝ₂ - g i₄ -a- m eš niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme Larsa, lu₂ Bābilum, lu ₂ Sutûm u aḫiātim

ana si- la₂ lu ₂- ki ĝ₂ - g i₄ -a Larsa, lu₂ Bābilum, lu ₂ Sutûm u aḫiātim

150? liters

100 liters us₂ ?

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana si- la₂ 10 zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum lu ₂- ki ĝ₂ - g i₄ -a niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme Larsa, Mannium, IdaMaraṣ u aḫiātim

150 liters

official(s)

š a₃ e₂ asīrī n iĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

official(s)

purpose/description

ana š uku l u ₂ d u ₁₀- gar u aḫiātim

purpose/description

Amount and quality

ana si-la₂

120 liters (1 tablet)

120 liters

Amount and quality

ana šuku lu₂ GN u aḫiātim

1) Etel-pī-d[Erra?]/ d umu Enanatum / arad Iggala 2) Wussum-nu-˹x-x˺ / dum u Iddin-Ištar / arad Nin-siana

illegible

RīA 1/XI/15

RīA 1/XI/14+

RīA 1/X/6

1) Etel-pī-d[Erra?]/ d umu Enanatum / arad Iggala 2) Wussum-nu-˹x-x˺ / dum u Iddin-Ištar / arad Nin-siana

Nisaba 4 I.10

App. 1 Nᵒ 2

Nisaba 4 I.5

CT

RSO 82 6

RīA 1?/VIII/11+

date

CT

date

sealing(s)

Sîn-i[dinnam] / dumu / Iddin[-…] / arad AN.AN.MAR.TU

sealing(s)

All flour allocations

101

1) Apil-Amurrum / dum u diĝir-[…] / arad Rī[m-Anum]

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

si - la₂ Lūmur-gimilŠamaš, Ešeʾi-pāniŠamaš, Tarībatum, Apil-Kūbi š u - i, u Ilšu-nawir, lu ₂- ki ĝ₂ - g i₄ -a ša Rīm-Sîn u u gula MAR.TU-m eš l u₂ Bābilum

ana si- la₂ lu₂ kiĝ ₂ - gi ₄ -a Larsa

si - la₂ Inbi-ilīšu ša e₂ m unus ša Rīm-Sîn

ana si- la₂ Nabi-Sîn zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum u Sîn-išmeanni, niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme lu ₂- ki ĝ₂ - g i₄ -a- m eš ša Rīm-Sîn si - la₂ ud - 2 -kam [zi- ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme]

60 liters

40 liters

20 liters

30 liters

RīA 2/II/30

RīA 2/II/29

RīA 2/II/20

date

Nabi-ilī[šu] / bisaĝ - d ub- [ ba] / [d um u Lakīta-rēmēni] / [arad Rīm-Anum] 1) Apil-Amurrum / d umu Ilam-ēriš/ [ara d …]

Nisaba 4 I.60

Nisaba 4 I.25

RīA 2/III/19

App. 1 Nᵒ 7

Nisaba 4 I.59

UF 10 5

Nisaba 4 I.21

CT

RīA 2/III/16

Nabī-ilīšu / bisaĝ- d ub- ba / RīA 2/III/10 d um u Lakita-rēmēni / arad [Rīm-Anum]

2) Nabi-i[līšu] bisaĝ - dub - ba / dum u Lakita-rēmēni / arad Rīm-Anum

Nabi-ilīšu / bisaĝ - d ub- ba / d um u Lakīta-rēmēni / [ arad Rīm]-Anum

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana si- la₂ ud -2kam ša Ilī-ayy-ēniš, lu ₂- ki ĝ₂ - g i₄ -a ša Daganma-ilum, u ug ula MAR.TU-m eš lu ₂ Bābilum

60 liters

sealing(s)

official(s)

purpose/description

Amount and quality

102 Allocation of flour

Nūr-Kabta u WaradIštar, l u₂- ki ĝ ₂- g i₄ -a Rīm-Sîn

si - la₂ ug ula MAR.TU-m eš l u₂ Bābilum

20 liters

30 liters

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ṣudê l u₂ -kiĝ ₂- g i ₄ -a ša Rīm-Sîn

ṣudê Ilī-ayy-ēniš, lu ₂- ki ĝ₂ - g i₄ -a ša Daganma-ilum

ana Apil-Kūbi š u- i ša Rīm-Sîn, u u g ula MAR.TU-m eš l u₂ Bābilum

120 liters

60 liters

20 liters

(total:) 80 liters

official(s)

purpose/description

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

Amount and quality

ṣudû

680 liters (10 tablets)

Ilīma u Bēlī-qarrād, lu ₂- ki ĝ₂ - g i₄ -a ša Rīm-Sîn

20 liters

1) Nabi-ilīšu / bisaĝ - dub - ba / dum u Lakīta-[rēmēni] / arad Rīm-[Anum] 2) Rammān[um…] / d um u Ana-pā[ni-ilī] / a ra d Rammān[um]

illegible

sealing(s)

2) Nabi-il[īšu] / bisaĝ - dub - ba / dum u Lakīta-rēmēni / arad Rīm-Anum

RīA 2/II/27

RīA 1/XI/12

date

RīA 2/IV/22

VAS 13 48

UF 10 13

CT

RSO 82 9

All flour allocations

103

Ilšu-rēʾīšu

Awīl-erṣetim

ṣudê l u₂ -kiĝ ₂- g i ₄ -a ša Rīm-Sîn

ana ṣudê dum u- meš lu ₂- ki ĝ₂ - g i₄ -a, l u ₂ Isin

30 liters

20 liters

(total:) 110 liters

100 liters

purpose/description

Šamaš-ilum, Šamašliwwir u Nūr-Šamaš, lu ₂- ki ĝ₂ - g i₄ -a ša Rīm-Sîn

Amount and quality

30 liters

Other allocations a) unspecified allocation to varios PNs

410 liters (4 tablets)

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī

ṣudê Nūr-Kabta dub-sar-zag- ga

60 liters

sealing(s) Nabi-i[līšu] / bisaĝ - d ub- [ ba] / d um u Lakīta-[rēmēni] / [arad Rīm-Anum]

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

illegible

sealing(s)

official(s)

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

official(s)

purpose/description

Amount and quality

RīA 2/[…]/7

date

RīA […]/IX/[…]

RīA 2/[…]/[…]

date

VAS 13 49

CT

App. 1 Nᵒ 21

RA 71 Nᵒ 4

CT

104 Allocation of flour

Rīš-Šubula u Kalūmum, lu ₂- ki ĝ₂ - g i₄ -a ša Rīm-Sîn

10 liters

purpose/description

ana rēš ekallim kullim

Amount and quality

60 liters

b) ana rēš ekallim kullim

80 liters (1 tablet)

(Total:) 80 liters

ug ula MAR.TU-m eš lu ₂ Bābilum

šu -i g u -za ša itti nubālim ištu Larsa illikam

10 liters

10 liters

Inbi-ilīšu ša e₂ -m unus

20 liters

zi -ga ša ₃ e₂ asir um ni ĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

official(s)

1) [Nabi-ilīšu] / 'bisaĝ - d ub- ba / dum u Lakīta-[rēmēni] / arad Rīm-Anum 2) traces

sealing(s)

RīA 2/I/7

date

Nisaba 4 I.17

CT

All flour allocations

105

ana rēš ekallim kullim

60 liters

[…] šu t i -a a-zu-gal ana e₂ -a-zu-m eš

[…] liters us₂

[…] liters (1 tablet)

purpose/description

Amount and quality

d) ana e ₂ -a-zu -meš

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

official(s)

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana mēreš šarrim

120 liters

120 liters (2 tablets)

official(s)

purpose/description

zi -ga ša ₃ e₂ asir um ni ĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

official(s)

Amount and quality

c) ana mēreš šarrim

120 liters (2 tablets)

purpose/description

Amount and quality

sealing(s)

[PN] / dum u / Ana-pāni-ilī / arad Rammānum

sealing(s)

[Nabi]-ilīšu / [bisaĝ ]- d ub - ba / [d um u Lakīta-rēmēni] / [arad Rīm-Anum]

sealing(s)

RīA 2/V/8

date

RīA 2/VIII/15

date

RīA 2/VIII/6

date

Nisaba 4 I.35

CT

RA 71 Nᵒ 3

CT

Nisaba 4 I.49

CT

106 Allocation of flour

[…]

šu ti-a Ḫammušu-ilum [l u ₂- ki ĝ ₂ -g i₄-a] L arsa, lu ₂- ki ĝ₂ - g i₄ -a Ešnuna u aḫiātim

[…]

150 liters

[…]

purpose/description

Amount and quality

f) Fragmentary

120 liters (2 tablets)

ana Nabigum, inūma zi -ga n iĝ ₂-šu Sîn-šeme, Appān-ilī šabrûm u g ula asīrī iqbû

20 liters

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum nig ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

official(s)

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana Eridu inūma Etel-pī-Šamaš, šabrûm illiku

100 liters of mundu“groats”

official(s)

purpose/description

Amount and quality

e) ana GN

RīA 1/XI/8 RīA 1/XI/9

Etel-pī-[Erra?] / d um u Enanatum / arad Iggala

RīA 1/X/18

1) [Etel-pī-Erra?] / dum u Enanatum / arad Iggala 2) E₂-an-[…] / dum u Ma-a-nu-um illegible

date

RīA 1/XI/2

RīA 1/X/18

date

sealing(s)

illegible

sealing(s)

RSO 82 2

RSO 82 16

App. 1 Nᵒ 1

CT

Nisaba 4 I.8

UF 10 33

CT

All flour allocations

107

GRAND TOTAL: 14,171 liters

270 liters (7 tablets)

RīA 2/VI/20

[…] u [aḫiātim]

[…]

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

RīA 2/V/16

ana […] l u₂ [GN], l u ₂ zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asīrī [GN] u aḫiātim niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

[…]

1) Nabi-ilīšu / bisaĝ - dub - ba / dum u Lakīta-rē[mēni] / arad Rīm-Anum 2) Sîn-iddin[am] / dum u P[N] / arad AN.AN.MAR.[TU]

Apil-Amu[rrum] / [dumu] Ilam-[ēriš] / arad Rī[m]-Anum

zi -ga š a₃ e₂ asi rum niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

ana […] lu₂ Isin u aḫiātim

120 liters

RīA 2/V/2

RīA 2/III/5

[zi - ga] š a₃ e ₂ asīrī niĝ ₂-š u Sîn-šeme

date

[…]

sealing(s)

[…]

official(s)

purpose/description

Amount and quality

UF 10 36

VAS 13 51

RSO 82 3

YOS 14 346

CT

108 Allocation of flour

List of texts

App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. BM BM BM BM BM BM BM BM BM BM

                            

Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ

                            

         

MCS / p.  Nisaba  I. Nisaba  I.

Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba

                                            

I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I.

Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba

                   

I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I.

RA  Nᵒ  p.  RA  Nᵒ  p.  RA  Nᵒ  p.  RSO   RSO   RSO   RSO   RSO   RSO   RSO   RSO   RSO   RSO   RSO   RSO   RSO   RSO   RSO   RSO   SAKF  UF   UF   UF  

Tab. : List of texts pertaining to flour allocation

UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   UF   VAS   VAS   VAS   VAS   VAS   VAS   VAS   VAS   VAS   VAS   VAS   VAS   VAS   YOS   YOS  

109

Chapter 3 Prisoners and slaves I General remarks The bīt asīrī archive provides unparalleled evidence for studying prisoners and slaves brought to Uruk as spoils of war and for interpreting the way the state managed them. There are 141 tablets pertaining to prisoners and slaves dated or attributable to Rīm-Anum (see Table 20 at the end of this chapter). The extant records span a period of approximately twenty months from RīA 1/V/ 22+ (BM 88930) to RīA 3/II/28 (Nisaba 4 II.79). In addition, two similar documents are dated to the seventh and eighth years of Samsu-iluna. The first comes from the Sîn-kāšid palace and registers eight slaves assigned as male and female ox-drivers (BaM 31 Nᵒ 320, Si 7/VIII/19).1 The second is of unknown provenance and lists thirty-seven slaves, including women, boys and babies, received by Sîn-bēl-ilī, the overseer of the weavers (Nisaba 4, 195–197, Si 8/ VIII/11). The latter tablet mentions two officials well attested in similar documents bearing Rīm-Anum dates. These men are Sîn-bēl-ilī and Sîn-šeme, the ever-present overseer of prisoners. The availability of only two such tablets dated to Samsu-iluna limits the possibility for comparison and further interpretations. At the same time, however, the tablet found at the site of the palace provides evidence that the bīt asīrī had already existed before Rīm-Anum seized power and that most likely the archive was originally housed in the Sînkāšid palace.

II Prisoners of war and slaves Documents dealing with the administration of workers from the bīt asīrī reflect a wide assortment of people handled by this institution. They are usually characterized by one or more of the following features: name, sex, age group and family ties, geographic provenance, means by which they were recruited, profession, and social status. Persons recorded on tablets from the bīt asīrī are consistently identified by their names. Although personal names seldom present gender ambiguity, in most cases the scribe seems to have had the obligation of specifying whether he is recording the movement of male or

 My reading of lines 11–12 differ from that of Sanati-Müller. I interpret them as follows: 11. niĝ₂ - šu ˹i₃-li₂-ip-pa-al-sa-am˺, 12. 8 ˹saĝ-ge me₂- ar a d- me š ˺, “11. under the authority of Ilīippalsam. 12. 8 male-and-female-slaves.”

Prisoners of war and slaves

111

female personnel. In the majority of entries there is no mention of age group, but in those examples where there is such a reference, it is used to indicate that the individual is either unfit for full productivity or is too young. In other words, lack of age specification for most men and women implies that they are productive adults. The age group distinction encompasses male and female babies (du m u- gab a , du m u-m u n u s- gab a ), some of whom are twins (ma š - t ab ); youths, both boys (tu r) and girls (m un us-t ur); and only rarely old women (m u n us- šu-gi ).2 Family ties are mostly maternal to indicate the child or children belonging to a mother. In only a few cases are ties paternal or fraternal.3 Table 15 (p. 112) illustrates the data pertaining to slaves and prisoners from Uruk, including sex and age group.4 The graphic shows that most of the prisoners and slaves were adult men (47.54%) and women (30.91%) and that none of the other groups reaches 10%. But this distribution is tentative for several reasons, including broken passages, poor state of preservation, and the possibility of new findings in museum collections.5 The repetition of personal names occasionally makes it difficult to decide whether a given name refers to the same individual or to a namesake.6  Examples include: boys (Nisaba 4 II.3:1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, r1; Nisaba 4 II.18:1, 4; Nisaba 4 II.45:12; Nisaba 4 II.50:13; Nisaba 4 II.59:r1; Nisaba 4 II.75:1–2; Nisaba 4 II.80:10–11, 13, 15; VAS 13 50:1–2; YOS 14 337:7–8; YOS 14 340:1), girls (Nisaba 4 II.4:11; Nisaba 4 II.50:3, 5, 7, 14; Nisaba 4 II.51:2; UF 10 1:8, r1), baby boys (Nisaba 4 II.2:2, 4; Nisaba 4 II.5:3; Nisaba 4 II.10:3, 4; App. 1 Nᵒ 28:30), baby girls (Nisaba 4 II.2:6, Nisaba 4 II.10:7), baby twins (Nisaba 4 II.4:15), and old women (App. 1 Nᵒ 33:5, Nisaba 4 II.50:11).  Examples of paternal ties are: Nisaba 4 II.22:1–2, and Nisaba 4 II.25:3–4. It is likely that in both cases the paternal filiation is mentioned because these were the children of military leaders. An example of fraternal ties is Nisaba 4 II.64:1–2.  The chart includes data from all the documents dealing with prisoners and slaves, with the sole exception of BaM 31 Nᵒ 320 (Si 7/VIII/19), which lists 4 male and 4 female slaves. I have included the other text dated to Samsu-iluna (Nisaba 4 pp. 195–197, Si 8/VIII/11) because of the attestation of the ugul a asīrī Sîn-šeme.  There are a few texts that mention, for instance, one prisoner from among a group of twenty prisoners. In these instances I have included the prisoners mentioned in the text, but not the other nineteen, because it is not clear to me that those other prisoners actually entered the bīt asīrī circuit.  When examples of a repeated name clearly refer to the same individual, I have counted the name once. But when there is no certainty, I entered the names as belonging to different people. Examples include: Abī-šagiš (Nisaba 4 II.62:1, 63:1, same person), Adad-šeme (Nisaba 4 II.57:3, 58:3, same person), Aḫam-arši (Nisaba 4 II.29:1, YOS 14 339:1), Aḫam-nirši (UF 10 2:r3, VAS 13 13:10), Aḫīma (Nisaba 4 II.40:1, 41:1, same person), Awīl-Adad (Nisaba 4 II.16:3, App. 1 Nᵒ 22:7), Awīl-Nabium (Nisaba 4 II.22:1, VAS 13 36:1), Ḫāpirum (VAS 13 13:8, YOS 14 342:3), Ḫummurum (Nisaba 4 II.1:3, 14:5, 70:1), Ibni-Adad (Nisaba 4 II.73:1, UF 10 4:5), Iddin-Asalluhi (Nisaba 4 II.45:5, App. 1 Nᵒ 28:24, same), Ilabrat-abī (Nisaba 4 II.45:8, VAS 13 13:7), Ili-awīlim-

112

Prisoners and slaves

Tab. 15: Prisoners and slaves managed through the bīt asīrī

III Geographic provenance of prisoners and slaves A consistent feature of the group of documents dealing with the management of prisoners and slaves is the mention of the origin of those individuals brought to the bīt asīrī of Uruk. References to geographic provenance may encompass a toponym following the personal name, the city or territory where the prisoner

rabi (Nisaba 4 II.77:3, App. 1 Nᵒ 28:25), Ilī-iqīšam (Nisaba 4 II.73:2, 80:r1), Ilī-kibrī (Nisaba 4 II. 57:1, 58:1, same), Ilīma-abī (VAS 13 40:1, App. 1 Nᵒ 32:5), Ilšu-ibnīšu (Nisaba 4 II.36:7, 79:3), Narām-ilīšu (Nisaba 4 II.49:3, 61:1), Šamaš-iddinam (Nisaba 4 II.38:1, 81:2), Šamaš-naḫrarī (Nisaba 4 II.23:1, 43:r1), Utu-diĝir (Nisaba 4 II.9:6, 81:5), Warad-Sîn (Nisaba 4 II.30:1, 69:1), all men; and the following women, e.g.,: Aḫātum (Nisaba 4 II.43:1–2, twice; 44:r1; 50:12; YOS 14 337:2), Alītum (Nisaba 4 II.33:6, 50:1, CDLJ 2007/1 47:6), Ana-Ištar-atkal (Nisaba 4 II.4:14, 82:3, App. 1 Nᵒ 28:19), Bēlessunu (Nisaba 4 II.55:1, 56:1, App. 1 Nᵒ 23:1, same), Bēltī-dumqī (Nisaba 4 II.46:1, App. pp. 195–7:r6), Iltāni (Nisaba 4 App. pp. 195–7:13, BM 88612:1), Ištar-damqat (Nisaba 4 II.4:1, 9, twice), Ištar-ummī (Nisaba 4 II.44:1, App. 1 Nᵒ 28:18), Mārat-erṣetim (Nisaba 4 II.4:7, 37:4, same, UF 10 3:1), Mārat-Ištar (Nisaba 4 II.53:1, App. pp. 195–7:5), Munawwirtum (Nisaba 4 II.20:6, UF 10 1:2, 4, twice), Rībatum (Nisaba 4 App. pp. 195–7:2, UF 10 1:1), Šamašdumqī (Nisaba 4 II.2:5, 59:2).

Geographic provenance of prisoners and slaves

113

presumably resided or was born, or the place where the prisoner was captured. In most cases it is difficult to differentiate between place of birth and place of permanent or temporary residence of these people. This can only be inferred when the city or area of origin and the place in which the prisoner was seized are both recorded. Prisoners of the bīt asīrī come from a number of locations. Their provenance is indicated in a number of ways, for instance, PN ša GN, “personal name of geographic name,” lu ₂/ m u n u s GN, “man/woman of geographic name,” “prisoner(s) (brought) from GN,” and “personal name from the booty of geographic name.” Examples of native or residential cities, regions, and other places where people were captured are listed in Table 16 (pp. 114–115). Prisoners are usually related to specific cities such as Isin, Kisura, Larsa and Ur, or to smaller settlements. But in other examples the reference is to a broader territory, be it a kingdom or a less defined area. That is the case with Ešnuna – used to designate both the capital city and its realm – with Elam, with the territory of Šubartum and with Sutûm.7 Naturally, indications of southern Mesopotamian locations are precise, whereas places far away from Uruk are only vaguely mentioned without specification. Scribes at the bīt asīrī took further note of the places where prisoners were captured. In several cases, men and women taken as captives are considered part of war booty (šallatum), as was already customary in earlier periods (see Gelb 1973, 77–78).8 The extant documents refer to four cities that yielded prisoners as booty, namely Isin, Šatalla, Natbakum and Āl-Damqi-ilīšu. Isin appears in eleven tablets dated to the first and second years of Rīm-Anum. For instance, Muti-Dagan, the overseer of weavers, received a captive taken from the booty of Isin and the conveyor was Marduk-nāṣir, the aga₃ -u s₂ saĝ, “elite soldier” (Nisaba 4 II.13:3). Ten days after that transaction, Sîn-bēl-ilī and MutiDagan, both overseers of weavers, received three slaves from the booty of Isin, who were taken from the house of Sîn-ibnīšu, the ugu l a aga₃-u s₂ -meš , “overseer of soldiers” (Nisaba 4 II.20:5).9 The overseer of soldiers Sîn-ibnīšu appears again in connection with a prisoner from the booty of Isin, who was taken from his retinue and received by Sîn-bēl-ilī, the overseer of weavers (Nisaba 4 II.51:r1). Nawir-bēlī, also from the booty of Isin, was granted by the king to the goddess Kanisura together with two other men (Nisaba 4 II.16:4).10 Similarly, a prisoner from the booty of Isin mentioned in a broken context was  Šubartum was an important territory in northern Mesopotamia. See, e.g., Finkelstein (1955 and 1962), Lebeau (1998), and Guichard (2002). For Sutûm see p. 38 footnote 24.  The term šallatum is written nam- r a, in Sumerian, in two unpublished tablets from the British Museum (BM 88569:2 and BM 88576:2).  My collation of line 5 has the verb il-le-qu₂-u₂, instead of il-li-ka?. The masculine plural is a mistake for the feminine plural.  After collation line 5 reads: ˹ša ₃˺ [ša]-˹la˺-at i₃ - si-˹in k i ˺ .

114

Prisoners and slaves

Geographic Name or Location

Attestation

a -ga r₃ a -ša ₃ g ibil Abul-Lugal-˹Erra?˺ Abul-mê Abul-Tutu Āl-Damqi-ilīšu Bābilum

UF  :r (RīA /IX/) Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XII/) App.  Nᵒ : (RīA /III/), App.  Nᵒ : (RīA /IV/) UF  :r (RīA /IX/) Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XII/), BM : (date lost) Nisaba  II : (RīA /VIII/), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /I/), CDLJ / :– (RīA /II/+), App.  Nᵒ : ([…]/[…]/) BM : (RīA /[…]/), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /II/) VAS  : (RīA /XII/), YOS  :r (RīA /XII/) BM : (RīA /[…]/) Nisaba  II.: (RīA /X/) Nisaba  II.: (RīA /X/), RlAA Nᵒ : (RīA /X/[…]) VAS  :r (RīA /[…]/[…]). Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XI/) Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XI/?), Nisaba  II.:– (RīA /XI/), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XI/), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XI/), BM A: (RīA /XI/), Nisaba  II.:– (RīA /XI/), Nisaba  II.:,  (RīA ?/[…]/), UF  : (RīA /XII/), VAS  : (RīA /XII/?), YOS  : [=RT  pp. –:] (RīA /V/ ), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /VII/), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /VII?/ ), BM : (RīA […]/VIII/), UF  : (RīA /IX/), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /IX/), BM : (RīA /IX/), VAS  : (RīA /XI/), Nisaba  II.:,  (RīA […]/X/[…]), App.  Nᵒ : ([RīA?]/[…]/) Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XI/), VAS  : (RīA /XI/), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XI/?), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XI/), BM : (RīA /XII/), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /VI/), VAS  : (RīA /

Bad₃ Bad₃-Lugal-(ša-)Isin Bad₃-mah-Lugal-Erra Bad₃-tibira E₂-duru₅-bi₂-ša₆ Elam Emutbal Ešnuna

Isin

 Attestations are arranged chronologically and listed alphabetically.  This name is written ka₂-ga l-tu-tu. The reading tu- t u was suggested by Charpin (1980, 75), as were the readings ka₂-dla-ta-ra-ak, and Uṣarpara.  See Āl-Damiq-ilīšu in RGTC III, 11. In the two tablets dated to Rīm-Anum this geographic name is spelled iri-dam-qi₂-i₃-li₂-šu. This variant is most likely a sandhi writing already attested as i r i k i -dam-qi₂-i₃-li₂-šu in the twenty-fifth year formula of Rīm-Sîn of Larsa. See, for instance, TCL 10 66 and 67, PBS 8/1 17, YOS 8 52, 53 and 56 (See Ungnad 1938, 163 Nᵒ 227; and Sigrist 1990, 53–4).  In this case the name is written ba d₃-lugal -ša-i₃ - si - i n.  For this geographic name see, e.g., MSL 11, 18: 16' (e ₂ - du ru ₅- b i₂ - s a₆ k i ); AbB 2 176:7, 23 (e ₂ - dur u₅-b i-za ); AbB 11 108:13, 41 (e ₂- duru₅-bi₂- sa₃ ), 113:5' (e ₂ - du ru ₅- b i₂ - s a₃ ). References courtesy of M. Stol.  Note that one of the tablets (Nisaba 4 II.44:6) records an elamītu, which could be translated as a female Elamite. However, in the context of this document it rather seems to be a feminine personal name.

Geographic provenance of prisoners and slaves

Geographic Name or Location

Ka₂-Latarak Kisura

Kutalla Lagaš Larsa Malgûm Mantinu Ma-ar-ḫa-x Muti-abal

Natbakum Nin-gal.DU.DUki Pī-nārātim Sîn-nūrum Sutûm Šatalla Šubartum Šu-ḫa-ni Urim Uṣarpara Zallunum Zibbatum

115

Attestation XI/), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XI/?), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XI/ ), RlAA :' (date lost), BM :r (date lost) UF  : (RīA /IX/) Nisaba  II.:r (RīA /IX/), VAS  : (RīA /XII/), UF  : (RīA /I/), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /I/), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /II/) App.  Nᵒ : (RīA /IV/) Nisaba  II.:,  (RīA /[…]/) Nisaba  II.: (RīA /VI/) Nisaba  II.:– (RīA /XI/), BM : (RīA /XII/) Nisaba  II.: (RīA /X/) VAS  :r (RīA /[…]/[…]) Nisaba  II.:  (RīA /XI/), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XI/), Nisaba  II.:  (RīA /XI/), BM A: (RīA /XI/), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XI/), UF  : (RīA /XII/), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XII/[…]) YOS  : (RīA /XII/), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XII/), UF  : (RīA /I/), BM : (date lost) Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XI/) Nisaba  II.: (RīA /I/) Nisaba  II.: (RīA /I/) Nisaba  II.:r (RīA /XI/) Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XI/) Nisaba  II.:,  (RīA /[…]/), Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XI/), YOS  : (RīA /V/) UF  : (RīA /I/) Nisaba  II.: (RīA /I/) UF  : (RīA /IX/) Nisaba  II.: (RīA /III/) Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XI/?)

Tab. : Geographic provenance of prisoners and slaves

 RGTC III, 160 reads the city name in this text as “uru?ma-ar-ḫa-šu?” and quotes examples of the toponym mar-ḫa-ši(ki). However, because of the different spelling and the difficulties reading the last two signs of VAS 13 13:r4, I prefer the reading Ma-ar-ḫa-x  For Pī-nārātim, situated in the vicinity of Kutha and Kiš, see Streck (2005, 566–567). The place is also mentioned in the newly published “A Song in Praise of Ningišzida” (George 2009, 45 line 15 and note on p. 46 lines 14–15).  su-tu-m eš is here used to characterize two men from Ešnuna and one from [GN].  I am not aware of another attestation of this place. It is unlikely that šu-ḫa-ni is the same as ŠU.HA.E.NE (see RGTC III, 227, AbB 4 78:5).  My collation shows the signs ŠEŠ.UNUG k i .

116

Prisoners and slaves

given as a royal gift to the deity Nanāya and received by Ninurta-ibnīšu and Ikūn-pûm, most likely both temple officials (RlAA 250). There are two tablets issued the same day and mentioning the booty of Natbakum. In one of them, Sîn-bēl-ilī, the overseer of weavers, received two fullers out of a group of seventeen men from the booty of Natbakum brought by Awīlīya, the ugul a MAR.TU (YOS 14 339:5). In the other tablet, the same Sîn-bēl-ilī and Muti-Dagan received a group of slaves, among whom were two women from the booty of Natbakum and Āl-Damqi-ilīšu (Nisaba 4 II.33:15–16). A woman from the booty of Šatalla, brought by Ea-bēl-ilī, was also assigned to the weavers and received by the same pair of overseers (Nisaba 4 II.20:7). Documents recording prisoners as originating from šallat GN, “booty of geographic name,” share certain similarities. For example, in those cases where there is mention of the person who brought the prisoners and of his title, this man is usually related to the military: Marduk-nāṣir, the aga₃-u s₂ saĝ (Nisaba 4 II.13:3), Sîn-ibnīšu, the ugu la aga ₃ -us₂ -meš (Nisaba 4 II.51:r1), and Awīlīya, the ugu la MAR.TU of Gutûm (YOS 14 339:5). Most of these prisoners were assigned to the weavers. Except for one, the tablets are dated to the eleventh and twelfth months of Rīm-Anum’s first year. Documents from these two months specify the conveyor of the prisoner, the house from which the prisoner was taken, and the person who brought the prisoner(s) to Uruk. This suggests that prisoners mentioned in these tablets had only recently been incorporated into the bīt asīrī and possibly that the incursions of Rīm-Anum’s troops into Isin, Āl-Damqi-ilīšu, Natbakum, and Šatalla might have taken place not too long before these documents were issued. The first attestation of a prisoner from the booty of Isin is dated to RīA 1/XI/5, the tablets mentioning men of Natbakum were dated to RīA 1/XII/16, and that concerned with the woman from Šatalla comes from RīA 1/XI/15. The prisoner from Isin recorded in a tablet dated to RīA 2/VI/5 had most likely been captured the previous year because he was taken from the retinue of Sîn-ibnīšu, the overseer of the soldiers who also had a prisoner under his authority in a tablet dated to RīA 1/ XI/15. Sîn-ibnīšu may have participated in the expedition against Isin. Other texts do not have the expression šallat GN, but mention only that people were captured and brought to the bīt asīrī from a number of locations by various individuals. I have classified these tablets according to the verb that the scribe employed. The first group consists of documents using the verb wabālum in the G preterite plus the ventive. For example, Bēlānum, the ugu l a MAR.TU, brought Abī-šagiš, man of Ešnuna, from an unspecified location (Nisaba 4 II.63:3–5). And Bēlānum, this time without title, brought a certain Ilī-unnēnī of Kutalla, who was in Abul-mê (App. 1 Nᵒ 8:2–5). In another case, Warad-Šamaš is mentioned as one of seven prisoners from Bad₃-Lugal-ša-Isin

Geographic provenance of prisoners and slaves

117

brought to Uruk by men from Kisura under the authority of Ṣillī-Ištar (YOS 14 339:7–r2). Ṣillī-Ištar was from Kisura himself (Nisaba 4 II.18:r2). Another document mentions that Ilī-ippalsam brought Ilī-ummatī from E₂-duru₅-bi₂-ša₆ and that Ḫuzālum, the ugu la gem e ₂, “overseer of female slaves,” brought Šamašilum (Nisaba 4 II.9). The rabi sikkatim Lipḫur-ālī brought a brewer from Larsa (Nisaba 4 II.19). And Nabi-ilīšu and Šamaš-gāmil, under the authority of the ugu l a MAR.TU Apil-ilīšu, brought three slaves (Nisaba 4 II.33:9–11).22 Finally, Marduk-nāṣir, the šāpir B a d ₃ -a n -n a , brought two female slaves from Zallunum (Nisaba 4 II.43:6–7).23 A second group of documents has the verb târum (D stem plus ventive) to account for the place where prisoners were captured and then transferred to the bīt asīrī. The verb târum in the D stem has the meaning “to bring or send back” and to “bring back as booty” (CAD s.v. târu mngs. 8 and 9) and also “to capture” or “to take captive” (see AHw, 1335b mng. 19). M. Stol (2004, 790) pointed out that the meaning “to take captive” is known from only two texts outside the bīt asīrī records, namely, the Laws of Hammurabi (col. x:17, 34; and xi:17), and a letter (ARM 27 161: 44–46). In our corpus târum is attested in the following phrases: ina GN turrum (in the preterite plus ventive), “to capture in geographic name,” and ištu GN turrum (in the preterite plus ventive), “to bring back (as booty) from geographic name.” The verb can also appear simply without the prepositional phrases. Examples of the expression ina GN turrum include people captured in Abul-mê (App. 1 Nᵒ 31:4–5), a woman captured by the king in Abul-Lugal-Erra (Nisaba 4 II.33:1–3)24, a group of seven prisoners captured by men of Kisura in Bad₃-Lugal-Isin (VAS 13 43), sixteen prisoners captured in the a - gar ₃ a - ša ₃ gi b i l (UF 10 2:10–r3), two prisoners captured in Bad₃ (Nisaba 4 II.78:6–11), two prisoners captured in Bad₃-tibira (Nisaba 4 II.71:7–r2), thirty-nine prisoners captured in Isin during the first campaign of Warad-Šamaš, the ugu la MAR.TU of Kisura (Nisaba 4 II.72:1–5), two other prisoners who had come from Babylon and were captured in Kisura (Nisaba 4 II.83:4–6), three prisoners captured in Mantinu (Nisaba 4 II.71:4–6), and a man captured in the outskirts of the city by a man of Kisura (UF 10 4:1–4). An interesting tablet records a man out of a group of thirteen prisoners who had escaped from Larsa and was captured in Ningal-DU.DU by Awīl-Adad, the PA.PA officer (Nisaba 4 II.28). Finally there is a certain Šamaš-iddinam captured in Pī-nārātim (Nisaba 4 II.38).25  According to my collation, in line 11 there is an indented ub-lam at the end.  Following my collation of BM 85062, I read the city name as ˹i r i ˺b ad ₃ - a n- n a k i . For a recent discussion of this city see Verkinderen (2007) and Steinkeller (forthcoming).  My collation of the verb in line 3 shows u₂-te-er-ra-aš-ši.  Šamaš-iddinam is characterized as lu₂ e ₂-gurušda na -ka m - t u m Larsaki, “man of the fattening stable of the store house of Larsa” (Nisaba 4 II.38: 1–2).

118

Prisoners and slaves

The expression ištu GN turrum, “to bring back from geographical name,” is attested in several cases. It appears three times in a single document listing a number of men assigned to the house of the aĝ r ig. This tablet first mentions two prisoners from Ešnuna brought from Ka₂-Latarak, then a certain Ilī-dayyānī from among three prisoners brought from Uṣarpara, and finally another man brought from Abul-Tutu (UF 10 2:4–5, 8–9, r4–5). There is also a man of Natbakum whom Awīlīya, the ugu la MAR.TU, brought from Šu-ḫa-ni (UF 10 4:5–9), and a man brought from Sîn-nūrum (Nisaba 4 II.42:2–3). The verb turrum also appears in three cases in which prisoners are brought to Uruk. For example, Ubār-Zababa brought two men of Larsa (Nisaba 4 II.54:3–5), whereas Warad-Sîn, the man of Gutûm, and Marduk-nāṣir, the ugul a MAR.TU, brought various prisoners from places such as Šubartum and Ešnuna (YOS 14 338:8–12 [=RT 20, 64–5]). Another group of texts records the movement of prisoners sent to Uruk by Daganma-ilum. In all these cases the verb is warûm in the Š stem plus ventive, meaning “to send.”26 These documents can be sorted into three groups. The first consists of tablets mentioning prisoners and slaves that Daganma-ilum sent from Muti-abal.27 On two occasions the tablets refer to the first and third campaigns (ka s ka l). These documents are dated to the twenty-second and twenty-third days of the eleventh month of Rīm-Anum’s first year and one to the twelfth month of the same year. The second group includes tablets recording prisoners that Daganma-ilum sent from (an) unspecified location(s).28 Finally, the third group encompasses tablets in which the prisoners are described as coming from the booty of Daganma-ilum and a number of them specify that this was during the third campaign.29 Daganma-ilum seems to have dispatched a considerable number of prisoners, for one of the tablets

 Note that in a number of tablets the verb is written u₂-šu-ri-am (e.g., Nisaba 4 II.26:r3, 29:4 (u₂-šu-ri-a-šu-nu-), and UF 10 29:5), instead of the expected u₂-ša-ri-(a)-am (e.g., App. 1 Nᵒ 22:11, Nisaba 4 II.22:6, 24:6, 32:3, 35:2, 36:6). A smiliar OB spelling is attested in MDP 2 81: 5' (see CAD A/2 s.v. arû). M. Stol points out to me that this writing must reflect the local dialect that goes back to Old Akkadian (personal communication, 09/23/2011). For this variant see GAG § 103u, and Hasselbach (2005:224–226).  For Muti-abal and its capital, Kazalu, see Edzard (1997), Charpin (2001) and ARM 26/2 p. 151. Documents mentioning slaves sent by Daganma-ilum from Muti-abal are Nisaba 4 II.22 (RīA 1/XI/22), Nisaba 4 II.23 (RīA 1/XI/22), Nisaba 4 II.25 (RīA 1/XI/22) and Nisaba 4 II.26 (RīA 1/XI/23). The first campaign is mentioned in Nisaba 4 II.36:6 (RīA 1/XII/[…]).  For instance, Nisaba 4 II.24 (RīA 1/XII/22), and Nisaba 4 II.29 (RīA 1?/[…]/30).  The third campaign is mentioned in Nisaba 4 II.32 (RīA 1/XII/16), collation of BM 15675 line 2 gives the reading ˹ša ₃˺ ša-˹al-la-at˺ dda-gan-˹ma˺-[diĝ ir ]), RA 71, 7 Nᵒ 1 (RīA 1/XII/22), Nisaba 4 II.35 (RīA 1/XII/29), Nisaba 4 II.36 (RīA 1/XII/[…], collated), and BM 86143 (RīA 1?/ XII/17?).

Geographic provenance of prisoners and slaves

119

mentions one man out of forty-seven prisoners of Ešnuna (Nisaba 4 II.29:1, RīA 1?/[…]/30) and another records one man out of thirty-nine prisoners (RA 71, 7 Nᵒ 1, RīA 1/XII/22). Most of these texts have a limited temporal distribution. They come from the eleventh and twelfth months of Rīm-Anum’s first regnal year, with one extant exception (YOS 14 340, RīA 2/IV/1).30 The late date of YOS 14 340 is possibly due to the fact that it records the relocation of a prisoner who had been sent earlier, perhaps with other men that Daganma-ilum had previously sent. Three of the tablets referring to Daganma-ilum have the same date and they all deal with prisoners from Ešnuna and one from Malgûm, whom the king dedicated to several deities (Nisaba 4 II.22, 23, 25; RīA 1/XI/22). It is likely that these documents were issued when the prisoners left the bīt asīrī rather than when they were registered as assets of the institution. Such an assumption finds support in the tablets dated to the twelfth month of Rīm-Anum’s first year mentioning the first and third expeditions (ka skal ) of Daganmailum.31 A safe inference is that these prisoners came to Uruk at least by the twenty-second day of the eleventh month of Rīm-Anum’s first year. What is more, these prisoners may have been brought to Uruk by the brother and by a messenger of Daganma-ilum who are recipients of flour allocations.32 The earliest attestation of Daganma-ilum’s envoys to Uruk dates to the twentieth day of the twelfth month of Rīm-Anum’s first year (VAS 13 41, RīA 1/XII/20), and the latest is dated to the twenty-seventh day of the second month of RīmAnum’s second year (VAS 13 48, RīA 2/II/27). The particulars concerning Daganma-ilum remain elusive and no title is attested for him. Based on Scheil’s edition of one of these texts (RT 20 [=YOS 14 338]), Leemans (1961, 72) concluded that because Daganma-ilum handed over a man of Ešnuna from Muti-abal to Rīm-Anum, Daganma-ilum was the king of Muti-abal at that time (see also Saporetti 2002, 231).33 Both Leemans  Chronologically arranged these are: Nisaba 4 II.22, 23 and 25 (all RīA 1/XI/22), Nisaba 4 II.26 (RīA 1/XI/23), Nisaba 4 II.32 (RīA 1/XII/16), RA 71, 7 Nᵒ 1 (RīA 1/XII/22), Nisaba 4 II.24 (RīA 1/XII/22), Nisaba 4 II.35 (RīA 1/XII/29), BM 86143 (RīA 1?/XII/17?), and Nisaba 4 II.29 (RīA 1?/ […]/30).  These are Nisaba 4 II.32 (RīA 1/XII/16), RA 71, 7 Nᵒ 1 (RīA 1/XII/22), Nisaba 4 II.35 (RīA 1/ XII/29), and Nisaba 4 II.36 (RīA 1/XII/[…]). My collation of line 6 of Nisaba 4 II.36 reads: Iddagan-ma-d iĝir ˹u₂-ša˺-[ri-aš-šu-nu-ti] / ka skal-ki-1.  The brother of Daganma-ilum is thus far mentioned five times as the recipient of ĝ e š bu n flour: VAS 13 41:3 (RīA 1/XII/20), RSO 82 5 (RīA 1/XII/22), UF 10 9:2 (RīA 1/XII/23), Nisaba 4 I.15 (RīA 1/XII/24), and RSO 82 13 (RīA 1?/[…]/[…]). A messenger of Daganma-ilum is recorded twice: once as recipient of s i-l a₂ flour (Nisaba 4 I.21, RīA 2/II/20), and once as recipient as ṣudû flour (VAS 13 48:3, RīA 2/II/27). For the different types of flour allocation see chapter 2.  Leemans transliterates the personal name as mdDa-gan-ma(!)-an and normalizes it as Dagan-mān, followed by Saporetti (2002, 231 footnote 79).

120

Prisoners and slaves

and Saporetti thought that asīrū-prisoners were employed as royal messengers. However, the new texts published since Leemans’ and Saporetti’s works appeared show that the prisoners sent by Daganma-ilum were not messengers but put to work as slaves through the bīt asīrī, and that those prisoners were probably brought to Uruk by the brother and messengers of Daganma-ilum. A question that remains to be answered is why if Daganma-ilum was the king of Muti-abal he would have sent slaves to the house of prisoners of Uruk. The possibility that he was a rebel noble from Muti-abal (or elsewhere) who had been unable to take control of his capital city and had therefore joined forces with Rīm-Anum of Uruk should not be ruled out. Table 17 (pp. 121–122) shows the names and titles of men who brought or sent prisoners to Uruk as well as the place of origin of those prisoners.34 As one would have expected, when a title follows the name of the man who brought prisoners to the bīt asīrī, this person is usually related to the military. A number of these men belonged to places other than Uruk, such as Nazarum, Gutûm, Bad₃-an-na and Kisura. This suggests that people from those places had joined forces with the king of Uruk.

IV Ties of personal dependency of prisoners and slaves An additional way of identifying certain prisoners – besides name, sex, family ties and provenance – was by relating them to individuals under whose authority prisoners seem to have been before they were turned over to the bīt asīrī to perform particular tasks. Men connected to prisoners are identified by name and by one or more of the following particulars: paternal filiation, title and, in a few cases, place of origin. Certain men connected to prisoners are recorded only once in the available documents, but there are others who are attested several times. Personal ties are indicated by the expressions “PN₁ ša PN₂” or “PN₁ (š a ₃ ) rēdût PN₂.” The second phrase can be rendered as “Personal Name 1 (in) the retinue of Personal Name 2” and is attested less frequently.35 As for the first phrase, it is difficult to decide whether ša should be translated literally as “belonging to” in the sense of “property of,” or whether it should be interpreted more loosely as “under the custody of,” meaning that those prisoners  This list includes only attestations in which the name of the man who brought the prisoners is mentioned. In several tablets the name is not indicated.  The word rendered as “retinue” is the Akkadian rēdûtum. It is a derivative of the verb redûm, which has “to follow” among one of its meanings. The CAD (s.v. rēdûtu mng. 3) defines the term as “(a condition of dependence or membership in a retinue).” As far as I am aware, this meaning is so far found only in the bīt asīrī corpus.

Ties of personal dependency of prisoners and slaves

121

Name

Title

Prisoners’ provenance

Attestation

Annum-pīŠamaš Awīl-Adad

e nsi₂

Ø

BM : (RīA /V/)

PA .PA lu ₂ Nazarum

Nisaba  II.: (RīA /XI/)

Awīlīya

u g ula MAR.TU Gutûm u g ula MAR.TU

escaped from Larsa and captured in Ningal-DU.DU booty of Natbakum of Natbakum sent from Šu-ḫa-ni booty of Natbakum and Āl-Damqi-ilīšu from Abul-mê l u₂ Ešnuna l u₂ Ešnuna

UF 10 4:8 (RīA 2/I/9)

l u₂ Ešnuna sent from Muti-abal l u₂ Malgûm and l u₂ Ešnuna sent from Muti-abal l u₂ Ešnuna sent from Muti-abal came with WaradTutub lu₂ Ešnuna sent from Muti-abal l u₂ Ešnuna sent from Muti-abal Ø from the booty of Daganma-ilum from the booty of Daganma-ilum Ø l u₂ Ešnuna from Muti-abal from the booty of Daganma-ilum from the booty of Daganma-ilum booty of Šatalla Ø from E₂-duru₅-bi₂ša₆

Nisaba 4 II.22:4 (RīA 1/XI/22)

Awīlīya Awīlīya

Daganma-ilum

u g ula MAR.TU G u tûm Ø Ø u g ula MAR.TU l u ₂ Nazarum Ø

Daganma-ilum

Ø

Daganma-ilum

Ø

Daganma-ilum

Ø

Daganma-ilum

Ø

Daganma-ilum

Ø

Daganma-ilum Daganma-ilum

Ø Ø

Daganma-ilum

Ø

Daganma-ilum Daganma-ilum Daganma-ilum Daganma-ilum

Ø Ø Ø Ø

Daganma-ilum

Ø

Ea-bēl-ilī Ḫuzālum Ilī-ippalsam

Ø u g ula geme₂ Ø

Bēlānum Bēlānum Bēlānum

YOS 14 339:5 (RīA 1/XII/16)

BM 97061:11 (date lost) App. 1 Nᵒ 8:3 (RīA 2/IV/5) Nisaba 4 II.62:4 (RīA 2/VII/27) Nisaba 4 II.63:3 (RīA 2/VII?/27)

Nisaba 4 II.25:7 (RīA 1/XI/22)

Nisaba 4 II.23:4 (RīA 1/XI/22) Nisaba 4 II.24:5 (RīA 1/XII/22) BM 88590A:3 (RīA 1/XI/22) UF 10 29:4 (RīA 1/XII/14) Nisaba 4 II.32:2 (RīA 1/XII/16) BM 86143:2 (RīA 1?/XII/17?) RA 71, 7 Nᵒ 1:3 (RīA 1/XII/22) Nisaba 4 II.35:2 (RīA 1/XII/29) Nisaba 4 II.29:3 (RīA 1?/[…]/30) Nisaba 4 II.36:6 (RīA 1/XII/[…]) YOS 14 340:2 (RīA 2/IV/1) BM 97061:13 (date lost) Nisaba 4 II.20:8 (RīA 1/XI/15) Nisaba 4 II.9:8 (RīA 1/X/5) Nisaba 4 II.9:3 (RīA 1/X/5)

122

Prisoners and slaves

Name

Title

Prisoners’ provenance

Attestation

Lipḫur-ālī Marduk-nāṣir Men of Kisura under the authority of Ṣillī-Ištar Rīm-Anum

rabi sikkatim šāpir Bad₃-an-na Ø (possibly military)

from Larsa Nisaba 4 II.19:3 (RīA 1/XI/13) from Zallunum Nisaba 4 II.43:7 (RīA 2/III/6) from Bad₃-Lugal-Isin VAS 13 43:4 (RīA 1/XII/10), YOS 14 339:r2 (RīA 1/XII/16)

king of Uruk

Sîn-ibnīšu

ug ula a ga ₃ -us₂- meš

from Abul-LugalErra booty of Isin

*Tigilâ-anaDamkina36 Ubār-Zababa Warad-Sîn and Marduk-nāṣir Warad-Šamaš, Bēlānum and Annum-pī-Sîn Warad-Šamaš

Ø

Bad₃-tibira

Ø l u₂ Gutûm ug ula MAR.TU ug ula MAR.TU

lu ₂ Larsa lu ₂ Šubartum and lu ₂ Ešnuna […]

Nisaba 4 II.54:4 (RīA 2/VI/14) YOS 14 338:10–11 (RīA 2/V/20)

ug ula MAR.TU lu ₂ Kisura

Isin

Nisaba 4 II.72:5 (RīA 2/XI/11?)

Nisaba 4 II.33:3 (RīA 1/XII/16) Nisaba 4 II.20:5 (RīA 1/XI/15), Nisaba 4 II.51:r1 (RīA 2/VI/5), BM 88612:r2 (date lost) Nisaba 4 II.71:r1 (RīA 2/X/29)

Nisaba 4 II.79:5–7 (RīA 3/II/28)

Tab. 17: Men who brought or sent prisoners to Uruk

were in temporary service or that they belonged to the households of these men. Of course the tablets do not explain the difference between the two phrases, but some men with authority over prisoners appear as PN₂ in both expressions. The precise difference in the use of such terminology is unclear to me, but I have noticed that tablets with the expression ša rēdût PN mention only one or two slaves per authority figure; whereas in the expression PN₁ ša PN₂ a man can have up to thirteen slaves all listed in the same tablet. According to the extant evidence, eight individuals or family members had prisoners in their retinues (see Table 18). One has to assume that they were influential people, although not all of them are attested with a title. Men, women, and youths originating from different retinues are usually characterized as slaves and not as prisoners. This is possibly due to the fact that some

 This, if correct, is a most unusual name. See discussion in chapter 5, page 210, footnote 112. The name could be an error for Tiklā-ana-Damkina, “Trust-in-Damkina,” as M. Stol suggested (personal communication 09/23/2011).

Ties of personal dependency of prisoners and slaves

123

Retinue of (rēdût PN):

Prisoner(s)/Slave(s)

Date

Document

Abīyatum ug ula MAR.TU d um u-meš Dan-Erra d um u-meš Dan-Erra d um u-meš Dan-Erra Ea-bēl-ilī u ₂-tul ₂ Etel-pī-Šamaš and Ninurta-abī his brother Etel-pī-Šamaš and Ninurta-abī his brother Etel-pī-Šamaš and Ninurta-abī his brother Etel-pī-Šamaš and Ninurta-abī Etel-pī-Šamaš and Ninurta-abī his brother Etēyatum Marduk-nāṣir ug ula id₂ Asurrum Marduk-nāṣir and Gimillum Marduk-nāṣir and Gimillum Sîn-ibnīšu u g ula aga₃-us ₂-meš

     

RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA

UF  : Nisaba  II.: Nisaba  II.: CDLJ / : Nisaba  II.: Nisaba  II.:

woman boys men women man woman (Bēlessunu)

/VIII/ /I/ /I/ /II/+ /VI/ /VI/

 woman (Bēlessunu) RīA /VI/

Nisaba  II.:

 [PN]

VAS  :

RīA /VI/

 man RīA /VII/  woman (Bēlessunu) date lost

UF  : App.  Nᵒ :–

 women  woman

RīA /II/ RīA /VI/

YOS  : Nisaba  II.:

 Ilī-[…]  woman 1 woman

RīA /V/+ RīA /VI/ RīA 2/VI/5

BM : App.  Nᵒ :– Nisaba 4 II.51:9–r1

Tab. 18: Prisoners and slaves in the retinue of various men

time had elapsed since these men and women first entered the bīt asīrī as prisoners only to turn into slaves at a later date. As can be seen from the list, persons of authority at the head of these retinues include military men and state officials, but also family members, as is the case with the children of Dan-Erra and with Etel-pī-Šamaš and his brother Ninurta-abī. The children of Dan-Erra appear only in these three tablets, and Dan-Erra is attested once as the father of Etel-pī-Nabium (Nisaba 4 II.4:r8). As for the two siblings, Ninurtaabī is not recorded elsewhere, whereas the name Etel-pī-Šamaš is once followed by the title šabrûm (UF 10 33:4) and twice by muh al d i m (App. 1 Nᵒ 18:4, VAS 13 54:4), but there is no clue that allows us to relate the brother of Ninurta-abī to either of these two other men. The precise nature of the relation of personal dependency between slaves and the heads of various retinues is uncertain because of the laconic character  Nisaba 4 II.55 and 56 are almost identical and were written on successive days.  In the bīt asīrī archive, the writing of Asurrum is consistently preceded by i d₂ , the Sumerogram for watercourses. Then the expression id ₂ a-sur-rum is to be understood as “Asurrum canal district.”

124

Prisoners and slaves

of the records. One of the tablets, however, may shed some light on this issue. The document states that “Warad-Ištar of the retinue of Etel-pī-Šamaš and Ninurta-abī, who was taken from the house of the weavers, is (now) a gift of the king for the shepherd Ibanni-ilum” (UF 10 39). This piece of evidence shows that the king seems to have had the ultimate rights over people belonging to somebody else’s retinue to the extent that the ruler could give away some of these slaves as royal presents. It is possible that Warad-Ištar was first assigned to the retinue of the brothers Etel-pī-Šamaš and Ninurta-abī, whose connections with the state remain uncertain because they are recorded without title. Etel-pī-Šamaš and Ninurta-abī seem to have made use of Warad-Ištar’s services until the state, perhaps through the diligent Sîn-šeme, decided that the weavers needed additional laborers. Warad-Ištar was picked as a suitable slave to be given as a royal gift. Tablets in which prisoners and slaves are described as ša PN, “belonging to personal name,” are the majority. There are approximately eighty men who had authority over or perhaps owned prisoners and slaves. While a few of these men bear titles, others are identified by paternal ties, by toponyms, and some others do not have any identification besides their personal names. Men with title consistently belong to the army or are state administrators and related personnel. People associated with the military exhibit various ranks. For instance, the ugu la MAR.TU Abīyatum has a slave who was assigned to the house of the aĝr ig (Nisaba 4 II.77:4). Another ugu l a MAR.TU, Ali-talīmī, has a female slave assigned to the weavers (UF 10 6:4), and Ḫummurum, a slave assigned to the poultry house, belonged to Ibni-Amurrum, the ugul a MAR.TU of Malgûm (Nisaba 4 II.14:5–6). A certain Aqâl-ana-Marduk belonging to the šāpir aga ₃ -u s₂ Aḫīya was received by officials at the house of the aĝ r ig (Nisaba 4 II.77:2). Marduk-mušallim, the ugu l a aga₃ -us₂ , “overseer of soldiers,” was in charge of two boys received by Bēlšunu, the overseer of the Elamites (Nisaba 4 II.3:6). Similarly, a certain Ilī-iqīšam belonged to Marduknāṣir, aga ₃ -u s ₂ saĝ , “elite soldier” (Nisaba 4 II.80:r2). The r a ₂ -gaba, “mounted messenger,” Šarrum-kīma-ilim was in charge of the slave Lāsimumamranni (Nisaba 4 II.81:8). Another r a ₂ -gab a , Sîn-išmeanni, was in possession of a female slave and her two sons, who were all assigned to the weavers (YOS 14 337:11). And a female slave of Munawwirum, the du b - sa r ug ni m, “military scribe,” was also assigned to the weavers (UF 10 6:6). Other men with authority over prisoners and slaves are connected to the state administration, including both palace and temples, and bear various titles. Thus Ḫadānšu-likšud, the su k ka l-official, has one slave (Nisaba 4 II.57:4), and the following day the same man, this time without title, is men-

Ties of personal dependency of prisoners and slaves

125

tioned as the master of another slave (Nisaba 4 II.58:4).39 The other su kkal in charge of a slave is Aḫum (Nisaba 4 II.39:2). Various en si ₂ s, “agricultural managers,” also disposed of slaves.40 Such is the case with the en si ₂ s Annumpī-Šamaš (Nisaba 4 II.50:r4), Awīl-Adad (VAS 13 45:2), and Ilī-[…] (Nisaba 4 II.11:2), all with one slave each. Men bearing the title en si ₂ of Šamaš, “agricultural manager of (the temple of) Šamaš,” also had slaves under their control. Examples include Adad-šarrum in charge of two boys (Nisaba 4 II.3:15) and one slave (Nisaba 4 II.10:12), Lipit-Ištar in charge of a slave (Nisaba 4 II.10:10), and Mār-erṣetim, who had a slave and a boy (Nisaba 4 II.10:2, II.80:14).41 A number of men engaged in activities pertaining to animal husbandry had various slaves at their disposal. For instance, Ea-bēl-ilī, the u ₂ -tu l₂ , “herds administrator,” had seven slaves (Nisaba 4 II.47:2, II.49:6, II.65:2, and II.67:3). The second u ₂ - t u l ₂, Sîn-imguranni, has only one slave (Nisaba 4 II.27:2).42 Similarly, a n a - ga da -herdsman is in charge of a woman who was transferred to the weavers together with seventeen other women (Nisaba 4 II.4:r5). For his part, the s i p a d-shepherd Sîn-ekallī appears as the master of two female slaves, both called Aḫātum, brought to Uruk by Marduk-nāṣir, the šāpir Bad₃an-na (Nisaba 4 II.43:4, see also 44: r2). There are three ugul a ge me ₂, “overseers of female slaves,” associated with one slave each, namely, Ḫuzālum (Nisaba 4 II.9:8), Ilabrat-tukultašu (Nisaba 4 II.10:14), and Qibīšumma-tikal (Nisaba 4 II.81:6). The three other men bearing titles and having slaves under their authority are Etel-pī-Ea, the n a r-ga l, “chief musician,” who has a man (Nisaba 4 II.34:243 and 80:r8); Muḫaddûm, also chief musician (Nisaba 4 II.34:3); and Šallūrum, the overseer of the weavers, one of whose female slaves was given to Warad-Sîn from Gutûm (Nisaba 4 II.46:2). And the reed worker Ea-šar-ilī has two slaves presumably brought to the bīt asīrī and registered on the twenty-fourth day of the eighth month of Rīm-Anum’s first year (App. 1 Nᵒ 28:27). Other people with authority over prisoners and slaves are identified by a toponym, which shows that they were not from Uruk. Such is the case with Awīl-Sîn of Isin, who has a slave from Šubartum later entrusted to a s an ta na , “orchard administrator,” via the house of prisoners (Nisaba 4 II.15:6), and with Burāmūša, man of Ešnuna, mentioned because one of his men was recorded  For the title sukkal (šukkallum) see chapter 4 s.v. e ₂- su k ka l and chapter 5 s.v. su k ka l, with information about Ḫadānšu-likšud.  For a discussion of this title see chapter 5, p. 198.  Ašdī-baḫû en si₂ x x (perhaps to be restored d utu) also has two slaves (Nisaba 4 II.81:4).  Collation gives u₂ *-t ul ₂*.  After collation lines 2–4 read: 1. ˹ša e-tel-pi₄-e₂-a nar- ga l˺, 2. ˹niĝ ₂ - šu ˺ mu-ḫa-du-um n a r-ga l, 4. [a-na] e₂ munus-uš-bar.

126

Prisoners and slaves

as one of eight slaves managed through the bīt asīrī (Nisaba 4 II.81:12). A female slave belonging to Ilīma-abī, man of Kisura, was assigned to the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.4:r10). Similarly, Šamaš-lamassī belonging to Ipqatum, the rabiānum of Ašarmu, was also transferred to the weavers (UF 10 28:2). A certain Ilabrat-abī is recorded as belonging to Mār-erṣetim, the šagi n a of Bad₃-tibira (Nisaba 4 II.45:9).44 There is also a fragmentary tablet in which Warad-Sîn, the man of Gutûm, and Marduk-nāṣir, the ugu la MAR.TU, appear as the persons in charge of a group of prisoners from a number of localities, who were assigned to the house of the aĝr ig (YOS 14 338:10–11). It is not unlikely that, at least in some of these instances, the names of previous authority figures were preserved in case of future negotiations pertaining to the exchange of prisoners. This seems to be the case especially with certain prisoners from Ešnuna sent by Daganma-ilum and with those captured possibly in southern Mesopotamia, where there seems to have been a presence of troops from Ešnuna. Other examples, however, may correspond to allies of king Rīm-Anum, who brought prisoners as spoils of war to the city of Uruk even if they maintained certain personal rights over those prisoners. Marduk-nāṣir, active in the Asurrum canal district, controlled many prisoners and slaves.45 He appears in one of the texts in connection with a slave belonging to his retinue (Nisaba 4 II.51:6). There are twenty-nine prisoners and slaves associated with Marduk-nāṣir. These men and women were allocated to several institutions through the house of the prisoners. For instance, the boy Sîn-ašarēd was given to the saĝa of Kanisura (Nisaba 4 II.18:2), three other slaves belonging to him are listed among sixteen barbers in a document issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the overseer of the prisoners (Nisaba 4 II.80:12), and Mārat-erṣetim was received by the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.37:5). There are also three people belonging to Marduk-nāṣir listed in a document mentioning twenty-four slaves brought (presumably to the bīt asīrī) on the twenty-fourth day (App. 1 Nᵒ 28:22). Two more documents state that Marduknāṣir’s slaves were assigned to the weavers. The first lists seven female slaves and a girl (Nisaba 4 II.4:13), and the second records fourteen slaves, including female slaves, an old woman and children (Nisaba 4 II.50:r2). The rest of the authority figures with whom prisoners and slaves are associated consist of some forty men identified by name and paternal filiation or simply by name. Some of them are mentioned only once, while others are attested in up to seven documents. For example, a certain Erra-nāṣir without

 Collation of this line (Nisaba 4 II.45 = BM 23121) shows the signs ˹K IŠ . NITA ₂ bad ₃-tib i r a k i ˺.  For the titles of this man see chapter 6.

Status of prisoners and slaves

127

further particulars appears in tablets from the first to the second year of RīmAnum, from RīA 1/VIII/15 (BM 88820:2) to RīA 2/VI/12 (Nisaba 4 II.53:4). As is usually the case, Erra-nāṣir’s slaves are assigned to tasks through the house of prisoners. These occupations encompass weavers, ox-drivers, and barbers, among others.46 One has to assume that at least some of the people controlling prisoners and slaves who performed labor in other institutions via the bīt asīrī were in some way related to the state, but the lack of titles and the occasional presence of names that are very common makes it difficult to identify these figures with namesakes attested with titles.

V Status of prisoners and slaves Scribes at the house of prisoners kept meticulous records of those individuals managed by the institution. This documentation is useful when trying to understand the various categories that bureaucrats employed to classify human resources. In this respect, the basic and traditional distinction between ascribed and achieved social status may help study slaves and prisoners from the bīt asīrī. Information concerning inborn status includes sex and age group, family relationships and place of origin. In the context of this archive, it is not unreasonable to think that the acquired status is mainly related to random and forced circumstances, such as enslavement as result of war. Occasionally, the profession or occupation of prisoners and slaves is also mentioned. The labor force administered by the bīt asīrī is frequently characterized by social and juridical labels such as “prisoner” and “slave,” but in many other cases there is no specification of social status, although all seems to indicate that these individuals were slaves. People characterized as prisoners (asīrum) are consistently men. There is no attestation of female prisoners from this archive recorded as such (asīrtum). The extant evidence yields a total of forty-five men registered as prisoners. It is surprising that of the 223 male workers managed by an institution called “house of prisoners” only forty-five are described as “prisoners.” They are mentioned in tablets dating from RīA 1/XI/23 (Nisaba 4 II.26) to RīA 3/II/18 (Nisaba

 Erra-nāṣir is attested in the following documents BM 88820:2 (RīA 1/VIII/15), Nisaba 4 II.1:2 (RīA 1/VIII/20), Nisaba 4 II.4:r3 (RīA 1/IX/6), Nisaba 4 II.30:2 (RīA 1/XII/10), Nisaba 4 II.45:4 (RīA 2/III/28), App. 1 Nᵒ 32:2 (RīA 2/V/13), Nisaba 4 II.53:4 (RīA 2/VI/12) and Nisaba 4 II.80:7 (date lost).

128

Prisoners and slaves

4 II.78).47 Some of the documents specify that the man or men in question belonged to a larger group of prisoners. For example, Imgūatum is one of the seven prisoners captured in Bad₃-Lugal-Isin by men of Kisura (VAS 13 43:1). Another document states that Aḫam-arši and Marduk-nāṣir belonged to a group of seventeen prisoners from the booty of Natbakum, and that WaradŠamaš belonged to a group of seven prisoners brought by men of Kisura from Bad₃-Lugal-ša-Isin (YOS 14 339). Similarly, Sāmum is recorded as one of thirtynine prisoners sent by Daganma-ilum during the third campaign (RA 71, 7 Nᵒ 1:1). There is then an Ilī-dayyānī, recorded as coming from a group of three prisoners brought from Uṣarpara, and a Ṣillī-Adad is also mentioned in the same tablet as one of sixteen prisoners captured in the a-gar ₃ a- ša₃ gi bi l (UF 10 2:6–r2). Three other men were part of a group of ten prisoners captured in Mantinu (Nisaba 4 II.71:1–6). Ḫuzālum and Šamaš-nāṣir were two men of Ešnuna from a group of 102 prisoners captured in Isin (VAS 13 50:1–5). A certain Sîn-[…] is one of the thirty-nine prisoners brought from the territory of Isin during the first campaign of Warad-Šamaš, the ugul a MAR .T U of Kisura (Nisaba 4 II.72:1–5). Two other men were among a group of six prisoners from Babylon (Nisaba 4 II.83:1–4). An Adi-annia is mentioned as belonging to a group of forty-two prisoners (Nisaba 4 II.76:1–2). Finally, a single tablet mentions ten Elamites from a party of 200 prisoners brought from Marḫa[…] (VAS 13 13). It is not clear whether all the prisoners listed as belonging to groups brought from different places arrived at Uruk, or whether they were given to other collaborators in the campaigns such as army officers or leaders from elsewhere who might have joined forces against common foes. Other men described as prisoners, but with no reference to larger groups, are similarly recorded with their place of origin and occasionally also with the name of the captor or the person who brought them to Uruk.48 Men characterized as prisoners are usually listed without mention of a figure of authority; rather the provenance and the name of the captor and conveyor are given. That these prisoners were considered slaves is clear from a number of tablets in which a man is first registered as a prisoner and then as a slave in the summary portion of the document where the totals are provided. For example, men listed as prisoners captured in Mantinu and Bad₃-tibira are later referred  These documents are: Nisaba 4 II.24:2 (RīA 1/XII/22), Nisaba 4 II.26:r1 (RīA 1/XI/23), Nisaba 4 II.29:2 (RīA 1?/[…]/30), VAS 13 43:2 (RīA 1/XII/10), YOS 14 339:4 (RīA 1/XII/16), RA 71, 7 Nᵒ 1:2 (RīA 1/XII/22), Nisaba 4 II.36:4, r2 (RīA 1/XII/[…]), YOS 14 338:9 (RīA 2/V/20), UF 10 2:3, 7 (RīA 2/IX/18), Nisaba 4 II.71:4, 8 (RīA 2/X/29), VAS 13 50:3 (RīA 2/XI/10), Nisaba 4 II.72:2 (RīA 2/XI/11?), Nisaba 4 II.76:2 (RīA 3/I/28), Nisaba 4 II.78:3, 8, r3 (RīA 3/II/18), Nisaba 4 II.83:3 (RīA 3/I/5).  See, for instance, Nisaba 4 II.24, 26, 36.

Status of prisoners and slaves

129

to as slaves (s aĝ -a r a d ) assigned to the e ₂- b ur- saĝ institution (Nisaba 4 II.71:4–r3). Similarly, prisoners brought from three different locations were then recorded as slaves given to the house of the aĝr ig (UF 10 2:3, 7, 11, r6). There is also a tablet where men are described twice as saĝ- ar ad-meš asīrū, i.e., “slaves, prisoners” (Nisaba 4 II.36:4, r1–2).49 In other instances, however, the label “prisoner” is maintained throughout the document, as in the case of three prisoners assigned to the weavers (YOS 14 339:3, 7, r4). Although the attestations are few and there is no clear hint concerning the intended nuances of these different scribal conventions, it is possible that no change of status had been imposed on prisoners not recorded as slaves. This may have happened because the state had not yet formally assigned these men to any of its institutions or to individuals. Male laborers managed through the bīt asīrī are usually described as s aĝ - a r a d , “slave.” The names of twenty-two of those male slaves recur. In most cases there is no unequivocal evidence that multiple attestations of a name refer to the same individual. I can account for only five men who are unambiguously recorded more than once, namely, Abī-šagiš, Adad-šeme, Aḫīma, Iddin-Asalluhi, and Ilī-kibrī. Abī-šagiš, for instance, is registered as a man of Ešnuna who came to the bīt asīrī from Daganma-ilum in the expedition of Bēlānum. He was given as pledge and received by Šamaš-muballiṭ (Nisaba 4 II.62).50 The very next day another tablet was issued stating that Abī-šagiš, the man of Ešnuna whom Bēlānum, the ugu la M A R .T U of Nazarum, brought to Uruk, had been entrusted to Šamaš-muballiṭ as a pledge (Nisaba 4 II.63).51 Two other slaves recorded on successive days and in closely related tablets are Ilī-kibrī belonging to Awīl-ilī and Adad-šeme belonging to Ḫadānšu-likšud, both assigned to feed the wagon oxen. In the first document the recipient is Abī-kīma-Šamaš (Nisaba 4 II.57:1, r1) and in the second Ītanaḫ-ilum (Nisaba 4 II.58:1, r2).52 Similarly, Aḫīma belonging to Adad-mušallim, the son of Mu Collation of Nisaba 4 II.36:r2 (BM 23164) shows lu₂ a-si-˹ru*˺-u₂*.  After collation lines 3–5, r1 read: 3. ˹ša˺ iš-tu ma-ḫa-ar ˹dda-gan-ma-diĝ i r il-li-kam˺, 4. ˹ka skal be˺-la-nu-um, 5. ˹a-na lu₂ šu- du₈- a˺, r1. nam-ḫa-ar-ti d˹u t u -mu-ba-li-iṭ˺  In Nisaba 4 II.63:r1 the month name was written with metathesis: kug- du ₆ instead of du ₆ -kug.  Collations of Nisaba 4 II.57: obv. 2. ˹ša˺ a-wi-il-i₃-li₂ iri˹x˺-ruki / dumu ka-ba-ar-tum, 3. ˹d i šku r-še-mi˺, 4. [ša] ˹ḫa-da-an-šu-lik-šu-ud˺ sukka l , 5. ˹2 saĝ ˺ - ar a d- m eš , lo.e. 6. [a]-na gud-h i-a ma-ia-˹al-tim˺, 7. šu-ku-lim, rev. 1 nam-ḫa-ar-ti Ia-˹bi˺-ki-˹ma˺-d u t u / ma-za-az ka₂ r a ₂ -gab a . Nisaba 4.II 58 has obv. 2: ša a-wi-il-i₃-li₂ dum u ka-ba-ar-tum, 3. I < d > iš ku r-še-mi…, lo.e. 5. a-na gud-h i-a ma-ia-al-tim šu-ku-lim…, rev. r a ₂-gaba after Ītanaḫ-ilum. According to the evidence from Chagar Bazar, Shemshara, and Mari, the mayyaltum was a wagon drawn by oxen. See Stol (1995, 185–6) and van Koppen (2002, 23 footnote 26), with previous bibliography. For the translation “litière à roues” see ARM 21 258:16, 20, and ARM 26/1, 123 and footnote 20.

130

Prisoners and slaves

duga, is registered on successive days (Nisaba 4 II.40:1, and 41:1).53 The example of Iddin-Asalluhi is a bit more problematic because he is mentioned once as belonging to Ea-šar-ilī, the reed worker (App. 1 Nᵒ 28:26, RīA 1/VIII/24), and another time as belonging to Ea-šar-ilī, the e n si ₂ (Nisaba 4 II.45:5, RīA 2/III/ 28). Certain male slaves are further described by an age specification (saĝ -t ur, “slave boy”) or by affiliation with the palace (s aĝ-ar a d e₂ -gal , “palace slave”).54 Although female workers managed by the bīt asīrī are never characterized as prisoners (asīrtum), it is apparent that various women were brought to Uruk from different locations as captives. Some of them came from the booty of Isin, of Šatalla, and of Natbakum and Āl-Damqi-ilīšu.55 Furthermore, a certain Sabītum was brought by the king from Abul-Lugal-Erra (Nisaba 4 II.33:1–2). Two women, both by the name of Aḫātum, were brought from Zallunum (Nisaba 4 II.43:1–5). And finally a female slave was recorded as a woman from Babylon (CDLJ 2007/1 Nᵒ 47:4). The common label for female workers managed by the house of prisoners is “female slave,” written saĝ-ge me ₂ and mu n u s- s aĝ (see Gelb 1982, 81). The two terms seem to have been interchangeable, for women recorded as saĝ- ge m e ₂ are then resumed in the line giving totals as s aĝ - mu n u s and vice versa. The other term to describe female slaves in the bīt asīrī archive is m u n u s- saĝ d ili (“female slave, alone”).56 The word “alone” here seems to imply that these women arrived without a partner or that they were separated, since a few of them had children.57 There is one tablet recording a certain Bēltani, spouse of Ipqu-Araḫtum of Babylon, together with three other women who are summarized in line seven as “four female

 Aḫīma belongs to Adad-mušallim and not to Marduk-mušallim (collated).  An example of the attestation saĝ -tur is Nisaba 4 II.75:1–3. Five palace slaves appear in one tablet (Nisaba 4 II.73:1–6).  Attestations include: booty of Isin (Nisaba 4 II.13:2, 20:1–4, 51: 8, RlAA 250:5'-6', and BM 88612:r1), booty of Šatalla (Nisaba 4 II.20: 7), Natbakum (YOS 14 339:5) and Natbakum and ĀlDamqi-ilīšu (Nisaba 4 II.33:12–16, and BM 97061:9–10).  The term d ili, (w)ēdum / ettum in Akkadian, means “individual, solitary, single (person), alone; see CAD E s.v. ēdu and AHw s.v. wēdum. Some of these women had children; see, e.g., YOS 14 337:6–8, Nisaba 4 II.2:1–8, 4 II.4:4–12. Examples of tablets mentioning the term munus- saĝ d ili include: App. 1 Nᵒ 28:20, Nisaba 4 II.2:8, Nisaba 4 II.4:3, 12, 17, r7, r10–11, Nisaba 4 II.10: 5, Nisaba 4 II.33: 7, 14, Nisaba 4 II.50: r1, r5, YOS 14 337: 3, 9, r1, and CDLJ 2007/ 1 Nᵒ 47: 7.  For instance, a tablet records a woman named Ea-lamassī (and her) male baby Ubār-Sîn, another woman named Massātum (and her) male baby, Šamaš-dumqī (and her) female baby Amat-Nanāya, and the boy Ana-pāni-Šamaš-nadi. They are all summarized as three female slaves alone, one boy, two male babies, and one female baby belonging to Bēlšunu (Nisaba 4 II.2:1–9).

Allocation of prisoners and slaves

131

slaves alone” (CDLJ 2007/1 Nᵒ 47). The mention of spouses and children may mean that occasionally whole families were captured, which may also explain the presence of elderly people in certain documents.58

VI Allocation of prisoners and slaves Slaves and war prisoners from the bīt asīrī recorded together with their owners or superiors were allocated to various individuals and institutions for a number of purposes. Although there are variations, most of the tablets dealing with the management of people have a similar structure. This generally includes the identification of slave(s) or prisoner(s), the institution or men receiving them, the occasional mention of the conveyor, and finally the name of the bīt asīrī official responsible for the transaction. For the vast majority of documents this official is Sîn-šeme, the ugu la asīrī, “overseer of prisoners.” In most cases, there is also a reference to the name of a person who actually received the prisoner(s) or slave(s) for an institution or for an individual. A few tablets that also include details pertaining to the particulars of these laborers only state that the prisoners and slaves were brought – presumably either to Uruk or perhaps more precisely to the bīt asīrī. In one exceptional instance, a member of the royal family, i.e., Lalâtum, the king’s mother, received a certain Warad-Sîn belonging to Erra-nāṣir (Nisaba 4 II.30:1–4).59 The transaction was issued at the Gipar under the authority of the zaba r- dab₅-ba - official. The king himself presented slaves to various gods and temples.60 For instance, Awīl-Nabium was given as a royal gift for the god Rammānum and received by the s aĝa -official Iddin-Šamaš (VAS 13 36:1–4). About one week later an Awīl-Nabium, son of Inbi-erṣetim, man of Ešnuna belonging to Munawwirum, was presented to the same deity and received by Anum-ilī, also

 For example, there is a mention of eleven slaves apart from three old people (ezub 3 labīrūtim) in App. 1 Nᵒ 28:21, and two old women are recorded in App. 1 Nᵒ 33:5 and in Nisaba 4 II.50:11. Since elderly people are very few, it is not possible to discuss their function in society or the kind of work they performed.  Collation of the tablet gives la-la-tum a m a lugal . One could quote as a parallel Lamassatum, the mother of Lipit-Ištar of Isin, described as am a-ni , “his mother”, in one of the king’s royal inscriptions (Frayne 1990, 59, E 4.I.5.7).  The king is further mentioned in connection with slaves in two other cases. One of the tablets mentions five palace slaves from Isin released by the king, with no specification of the destiny of these men (Nisaba 4 II.73). The other specifies that two men, who came from Babylon and were captured in Kisura, were released by the king and assigned to Ubār-Šamaš, the overseer of the soldiers (Nisaba 4 II.83).

132

Prisoners and slaves

a s aĝ a of Rammānum (Nisaba 4 II.22). Three men identified by their provenance, including Awīl-Adad, the ugu la MAR.TU of Ešnuna, and received by Ana-Marduk-atkal, the saĝ a, were intended for the goddess Kanisura (Nisaba 4 II.16). In addition, Kanisura received a prisoner sent by Daganma-ilum (Nisaba 4 II.24). It is also possible that Kanisura was presented with a boy belonging to Marduk-nāṣir, the ugu la i d ₂ Asurrum, who was received by the s aĝ a of Kanisura, although the tablet does not specify that the slave was for the deity (Nisaba 4 II.18:1–3). One man from Ešnuna belonging to Ilūni, the en s i ₂ , man of Ešnuna, was allotted to the god Šamaš (Nisaba 4 II.23). Similarly, two male slaves – one from Malgûm and one from Ešnuna sent by Daganma-ilum – were royal gifts for the gods Lugal-Erra and Meslamtaea (Nisaba 4 II.25).61 Finally, the goddess Nanāya received prisoner(s) from the booty of Isin (RlAA 250). The king further gave two men as presents to other individuals. The first was Warad-Ištar from the retinue of Etel-pī-Šamaš and Ninurta-abī taken from the house of the weavers and given to Ibanni-ilum, the s i pa d-shepherd (UF 10 39). The second, Saniq-qabûša belonging to Ea-bēl-ilī and under the authority of Sîn-bēl-ilī, was a royal gift for Ibni-Adad (Nisaba 4 II.65). The presence of Sîn-bēl-ilī, attested elsewhere as ugu l a u š-ba r, shows that, as was the case on the previous tablet, Saniq-qabûša had also previously been employed at the house of the weavers. Several slaves and prisoners were assigned through the bīt asīrī to individuals who were presumably members of state institutions, although the status of men without title cannot be ascertained. For instance, Ṣillī-Ištar of Kisura received the boy Awīl-Adad, who had been taken from the e₂ -aĝ r ig, “house of the aĝ r ig ” (Nisaba 4 II.18:4–r3). This Ṣillī-Ištar is most likely the same man whose subordinates had brought to Uruk prisoners from Bad₃-Lugal-Isin (YOS 14 339:r3, and VAS 13 43:5). Two men without title, namely Etel-pī-Marduk and Bēlšunu, received five slaves to be ox-drivers (Nisaba 4 II.44:r5). Bēlšunu is recorded two more times as being in charge of ox-drivers (Nisaba 4 II.49:r1, and Nisaba 4 II.61:3). For his part Warad-Sîn, the Gutian, was given a woman belonging to Šallūrum, the overseer of the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.46:3). Other people receiving prisoners and slaves bear titles and are clearly related to the palace and temple administrations. For example, Ša-Šamaš-kalūma under the authority of the e n si₂ Sîn-rēmēni had been working in the biltum-field of Marduk-nāṣir and was then assigned to the scribe Lipit-Ištar to irrigate the field(s)

 For the gods Lugal-Erra and Meslamtaea see Lambert (1987–1990, 143–145), and Steinkeller (2004, 175–176).

Allocation of prisoners and slaves

133

(Nisaba 4 II.21:2). Another scribe received eight slaves belonging to various people, all characterized as a d-K I D -m e š, “reed workers” (Nisaba 4 II.45:r9).62 Other men similarly engaged in several trades and occupations received laborers from the house of the prisoners. For instance, the brewer Apil-Amurrum was first assigned a man brought from Larsa (Nisaba 4 II.19:6) and then another from Ešnuna (Nisaba 4 II.29:r1). Abī-kīma-Šamaš, the mazzaz ka₂ - r a ₂ - gab a , 63 received two slaves (Nisaba 4 II.57:r1), and two other slaves went to Dādâ, the skin flayer (Nisaba 4 II.76:r1). Two prisoners from the booty of Daganma-ilum’s third campaign were given to be oil-pressers. One of them was Abum-ilum (Nisaba 4 II.35:1),64 and the name of the other is not preserved (BM 86143:1). Other workers were assigned to the s a ntan a, “orchard administrator.” The s a n ta n a Ilī-iddinam first received two men from Šubartum (Nisaba 4 II.15:r2) and then one from Ešnuna (UF 10 29:r1), whereas his colleague Ibni-Sîn got three prisoners from Sutûm (Nisaba 4 II.26:r4). An overseer of the barbers, ugu la šu- i , received a certain Ilī-unnennī originally from Kutalla (App. 1 Nᵒ 8:6). Finally, Ištar-ilum, the overseer of the bow makers, is attested in three documents. He first received one boy (YOS 14 340:r1) and later another two (Nisaba 4 II.75:6). In a poorly preserved tablet Ištar-ilum further appears as the recipient of three slaves (App. 1 Nᵒ 41:r8). Certain documents record people assigned to activities or groups. For instance, the h u b ₂- bu-m e š, “acrobats,” received a prisoner from the booty of one of Daganma-ilum’s campaigns (RA 71, 7 Nᵒ 1:r1).65 Another tablet men My collation of this line shows “8 a d- KID - me š.” The third sign is certainly not n u n but KI D.  For this title see chapter 5, p. 192.  I interpret l u ₂ raqqûm as “oil presser” (i₃- r a ₂-r a ₂); see CAD R s.v. raqqû, and AHw s.v. raqqû(m), “Ölkelterer.” Although raqqûm is generally rendered “as perfume maker,” in this context the translation “oil presser” seems preferable because in Nisaba 4 II.35 the transaction was issued at the e₂ -aĝrig, an institution related to food preparation (see pp. 149–54 under e ₂ - aĝ r ig). Another option would be to take the word as lu₂ -ra-ki-i, i.e., lurrakkûm (see discussion on p. 191 s.v. lu₂ -ur₃- r a ). The problem with this interpretation is that the syllabic writing of lurrakkûm is attested with the sign lu instead of lu₂ (e.g., lu ₂ lu-ra-ku-um and lu ₂ lu-ra-keem, ARM 2 136:4, 10; and lu₂- me š lu-ra-ak-ki, ARM 21 87:8' + footnote 2). Both texts from the bīt asīrī (Nisaba 4 II.35, and BM 86143:1) have the writing lu₂ ra-qi₂-i; therefore, to emend lu ₂ -ra-ki-i twice is problematic; unless this was a writing convention in Uruk.  For a discussion of the hub₂-bu- me š see chapter 5, pp. 189–90. The tablet reads: 1. Isamu!-um, 2. ša ₃ 39 lu₂ ˹a˺-si-˹ru-u₂˺, 3. ša ša-al-la-at d˹da-gan˺-[ma-diĝ i r] / kas ka l-k i-3– ˹ka m˺, 4. ˹ša iš-tu˺ na-kam-tim 5. i-tu-ra-am, r1. a-na h u b - b u- m e š, r2. it i še -k in -ku d ud-2 2– ˹ka m˺, r3. ˹mu ri˺-im-da-nu-um ˹lugal ˺ (RA 71, 7 Nᵒ 1 = AO 7548), “Sāmum, from among 39 prisoners of the booty of Daganma-ilum’s third campaign, who came back from the storehouse. For the acrobats. Date.” On the first line, the sign that I read as mu! in the copy looks like a gu. However, since a man with the name Sāmum appears in another tablet also

134

Prisoners and slaves

tions that a certain Sāmum was taken from the storehouse and given to the hu b ₂ - b u- me š (Nisaba 4 II.82:6–10). Ox-driving was yet another activity that slaves and prisoners from the bīt asīrī performed. For example, a person under the authority of Imgur-Sîn returned to the house of prisoners from the team of ox-drivers and was then assigned to the poultry house (UF 10 31:1–7). For his part, a certain Bēlšunu received four male slaves characterized as ša ₃-gu d, “ox-driver(s),” from among the slaves of Ea-bēl-ilī (Nisaba 4 II.49:r1–3), and a month and a half later, one of those slaves, Narām-ilīšu, was returned to the bīt asīrī (Nisaba 4 II.61:1, r1–2). Similarly, the e n s i ₂ Āmur-ilūt-Sîn received Ilīippašram for the team of ox-drivers in the biltum-field of Bēlānum (Nisaba 4 II.60:1–5). Women were also employed as ox-drivers.66 This becomes apparent from a tablet in which two female slaves under the authority of Sîn-bēl-ilī and Muti-Dagan, respectively, were assigned to female ox-drivers to feed the oxen (Nisaba 4 II.53:6–7). Both women must have previously been performing weaving work because Muti-Dagan and Sîn-bēl-ilī are both well attested overseers of the weavers. In one other case both male and female slaves are assigned to the ox-drivers and received by Etel-pī-Marduk and Bēlšunu (Nisaba 4 II.44:r4). Finally, certain tablets record people employed to feed the oxen (ana alpī šūkulim). For instance, two male and one female slaves to feed the oxen were received by Imgur-Sîn (Nisaba 4 II.27:r1–2), who is attested elsewhere in connection with ox-drivers (UF 10 31:2). Moreover, two other documents issued on successive days record the same transaction, i.e., the assignment of two male slaves to feed the wagon oxen (alpī mayyaltim). These men were received respectively by Abī-kīma-Šamaš, the mazzaz ka₂ r a₂ -gaba, “the official standing at the gate of the mounted messenger(s),” and by Ītanaḫ-ilum, the r a ₂ - gab a , “mounted messenger” (Nisaba 4 II.57, RīA 2/VI/19; 58, RīA 2/VI/20). There is also one tablet mentioning ten boys assigned to the group of Elamites (ana du m u- m e š lu ₂ e la m - m a k i) and received by Bēlšunu, the ugu la lu ₂ e la m -m a k i , “overseer of the Elamites” (Nisaba 4 II.3:r3). This document is important because it shows that Elamites were established in Uruk, and this adds to the evidence from other cities such as Babylon, Dilbat, Lagaš, Larsa, Nippur, Sippar, and Ur (see Van Lerberghe 1986, 153). The role of Elamites in Old Babylonian society is better known from Sippar because they are relatively well attested there. According to late Old Babylonian Sippar texts, Elamites occupied various social positions: some of them were owners

related to the hub -bu-me š, the reading mu! is perhaps preferable (Nisaba 4 II.82:6). The signs on line 4 (line 5 in Arnaud’s copy) are difficult to read.  M. Stol (1995, 193) pointed out that there were female ox-drivers, and that lower-class parents rented out their children as ox-drivers. See also BaM 31 Nᵒ 320.

Allocation of prisoners and slaves

135

of real estate and others were slaves (see De Graef 1999, 15–19). From the Sippar area also come the titles PA . PA lu ₂ e r i n ₂ el a m-ma k i , from texts dated to Ammi-ṣaduqa (Aṣ 13–17), and the title PA .PA el a m- ma e ₂ -ga l from the same king (De Graef 2002a). The title PA.PA is usually translated as “captain,” and the context of some of these texts makes it possible to relate these Elamites to military activities. Another tablet mentions three Elamites under the authority of two PA . PA-officers in a party dredging the banks of the Tigris (CT 48 77, Aṣ 18). The term e ri n ₂ is certainly ambiguous because it can be translated either as “team of workers” or as “soldiers.” In the text from Uruk, the ambiguity resides in the title ugu la , which can be rendered as “overseer, leader” or as a military title when followed by the gentilic MAR .TU, in which case it usually follows a personal name. In any event, the fact that ten boys were assigned to the group of Elamites and received by an ugu l a Elam indicates that they made up a needed extra labor force. These Elamites could have been a military contingent or perhaps even a group of workers. Another bīt asīrī text mentions ten Elamites from among a group of 200 prisoners captured, which shows that – at least at some point during Rīm-Anum’s reign – Urukeans and Elamites were fighting against one another (VAS 13 13). This agrees with the hypothesis that Uruk switched sides, betraying its former allies. Slaves and prisoners were very often transferred from the bīt asīrī to other institutions, each of them called “house.” The e₂ -aĝr ig, “house of the aĝr igofficial,” is attested as dealing with prisoners and slaves over a period of about fifteen months, from RīA 1/XI/13 (Nisaba 4 II.18) to RīA 3/II/7 (Nisaba 4 II.77).67 About forty-five laborers who passed through the bīt asīrī were assigned to the house of the aĝ rig. Documents mentioning a labor force working for the institution record two kinds of movements: workers coming to the house of the aĝ r ig and laborers going out from the e₂ - aĝr ig to other people or institutions, which was done with the authorization of the house of prisoners.68 This can be illustrated as follows:  For the e₂ -aĝr ig see chapter 4, pp. 149–54. Documents mentioning prisoners and slaves assigned to the e₂-aĝr ig include: Nisaba 4 II.17:5 (RīA 1?/XI?/12), 18:6 (RīA 1/XI/13), 35:r1 (RīA 1/XII/29), App. 1 Nᵒ 29:r7 (RīA 2/I/1), Nisaba 4 II.39:3 (RīA 2/I/11), 40:3 (RīA 2/I/19), 41:r1 (RīA 2/I/20), BM 88515:3 (RīA 2/I/21), Nisaba 4 II.42:4 (RīA 2/I/28), 47:4 (RīA 2/IV/28), YOS 14 340:3 (RīA 2/IV/1), Nisaba 4 II.47:4 (RīA 2/IV/28), YOS 14 338:r1 (RīA 2/V/20), App. 1 Nᵒ 35:r10 (RīA 2/ VII/26), Nisaba 4 II.64:5 (RīA 2/VIII/13), UF 10 2:r6 (RīA 2/IX/18), Nisaba 2 II.70:3 (RīA 2/X/7+), 77:7 (RīA 3/II/7), VAS 13 13:r5 (RīA 3/[…]/[…]).  Incoming labor force is registered as PN(s) ana e₂-aĝ rig namḫarti Mār-Bābilum and/or Ana-pāni-ilī (e.g., Nisaba 4 II.42:5–6, 47:5, YOS 14 338:r2–4, Nisaba 4 II.64:7, UF 10 2:r7–8, Nisaba 4 II.77:8–9, and VAS 13 13:r6–7). Labor force leaving the house of the aĝ rig is usually recorded as PN ša ištu e ₂-aĝ rig illeqiam “PN who was taken from the house of the aĝ r ig ” and then reassigned, or simply as PN ša ištu e₂- aĝrig (niĝ ₂ - š u PN₂) ana PN₃/institution

136

Prisoners and slaves

As can be seen, the house of prisoners allocated laborers to the house of the aĝ r ig. Sometime later, these workers were reassigned to other people and institutions via the bīt asīrī, but the workers in question seem to have been transferred directly from the house of the aĝr ig. Various other institutions similarly received prisoners and slaves, although the number of laborers is usually smaller than in the case of the house of the aĝ r ig. This is the situation with the e ₂ -b u r- saĝ , possibly a provider of regular offerings and daily goods, as will be discussed in the next chapter. For example, Gurrurum, who had been given to the ( e ₂ -) bur- s aĝ , was then transferred to another institution (Nisaba 4 II.6, RīA 1/IX/20), and a few days later Iddin-Nanāya, the gu-za -la ₂ -official, received a slave assigned to the e ₂ - b u r- s aĝ (Nisaba 4 II.8, RīA 1/X/3). About one year later, the institution was assigned five slaves received by Etel-pī-Ištar and Bēlānum, the ša ₃-t am (Nisaba 4 II.71, RīA 2/X/29), and the same officials got four more prisoners a few months later (Nisaba 4 II.78, RīA 3/II/18).69 The e₂ - ĝi p ar, traditionally the residence of the e re š- d iĝi r-priestess, is attested as the recipient of at least four men, namely Gurrurum given as substitute for Nabium-iddinam (Nisaba 4 II.6), Warad-Sîn (Nisaba 4 II.30), Warad-Amurrum (BM 100292), and another man whose name is partially missing (BM 87045). Institutions recorded only once as beneficiaries of labor from the bīt asīrī include the e₂ -uz u , “meat house,” which received one man (App. 1 Nᵒ 27), and the e₂ -maš -lugal , “the royal sheepfold,” which got a woman (Nisaba 4 II.7).70 innadnu “PN₁, who from the house of the aĝ rig (under the authority of PN₂) was given to PN₃/institution.”  Collations of Nisaba 4 II. 6 and 8 clearly show e₂- bu r- saĝ .  See CAD N s.v. nasru and AHw, p. 755a s.v. nasrum (see p. 164 under e ₂ -u z u ). See ePSD for e₂ -ma š.

Allocation of prisoners and slaves

137

Two other institutions receiving labor are the e ₂ -muš en -hi -a and the e ₂- s u k ka l . The e ₂-m u šen -h i -a , “poultry house,” is attested in five documents. It first received three slaves (Nisaba 4 II.14, RīA 1/XI/6), then a prisoner brought from Pī-nārātim (Nisaba 4 II.38, RīA 2/I/4), and five days later two more slaves from different locations (UF 10 4, RīA 2/I/9). In addition, a man who had returned to the bīt asīrī after having worked with the team of oxdrivers under the authority of Imgur-Sîn was assigned to the e₂ -muš en -hi -a (UF 10 31). Marduk-mušallim, the overseer of the poultry house, received them all. The e₂ - s u k ka l(- m e š), “house of the su kka l (s),” also profited from the labor force originating from the bīt asīrī. Thus two slaves from the e ₂ -aĝ rig were transferred to the house of the su k ka l (Nisaba 4 II.41) and so were other two slaves belonging to the u ₂ - tu l₂ Ea-bēl-ilī (Nisaba 4 II.67). Finally, most attestations pertaining to the allocation of slaves and prisoners to an institution come from the e ₂- ( m u n us-) u š-ba r, “the house of (female) weavers.” There are thirty-four tablets mentioning this institution.71 One of them is dated to king Samsu-iluna (Nisaba 4, pp. 195–197, Si 8/VIII/11), four have a missing date (CDLJ 2007/1 Nᵒ 45, App. 1 Nᵒ 23, BM 88612, and BM 97061), and the rest originated from the reign of Rīm-Anum. These records span about seventeen months, from Rīm-Anum 1/VIII/27 (Nisaba 4 II.2) to Rīm-Anum 3/II/3 (YOS 14 337). Most of the prisoners and slaves were received by officials of the house of the weavers. Some of these men bear the title ugul a ( mu n u s- ) u š - b a r, as for instance Sîn-bēl-ilī, Muti-Dagan, Būnu-d[…], and Šallūrum, but other men acting in the same capacity are attested without a title, namely, Irībam-Sîn and Pa-ila. The majority of the tablets record forced labor received by the institution, but there is a document in which a man taken from the house of the weavers was given to a si p a d-shepherd as a royal gift (UF 10 39). As was the case with other people handled by the bīt asīrī, slaves and prisoners transferred to the e ₂ -u š-b a r are linked to figures of authority. But unlike tablets recording transfers to other institutions, those dealing with weavers usually list more people. For instance, up to thirty-seven slaves are registered in one tablet (Nisaba 4, 195–7), while the number of laborers sent to other institutions is consistently smaller.  Chronologically arranged these are: Nisaba 4, 195–197 (Si 8/VIII/11), Nisaba 4 II.2 (RīA 1/ VIII/27), 4 (RīA 1/IX/16), 5 (RīA 1/IX/18), BM 88624 (RīA 1/X/3), UF 10 6 (RīA 1/X/11), Nisaba 4 II.10 (RīA 1/X/20), 12 (RīA 1/XI/3), 13 (RīA 1/XI/5), 17 (RīA 1?/XI?/12), 20 (RīA 1/XI/15), UF 10 28 (RīA 1/XI/28), VAS 13 40 (RīA 1/XII/15?), YOS 14 339 (RīA 1/XII/16), Nisaba 4 II.33 (RīA 1/XII/ 16), 34 (RīA 1/XII/21), 37 (RīA 1/[…]/6), VAS 13 39 (RīA 1/[…]/16), Nisaba 4 II.46 (RīA 2/III/29), 50 (RīA 2/V/26), App. 1 Nᵒ 33 (RīA 2/VI/1), Nisaba 4 II.51 (RīA 2/VI/5), 55 (RīA 2/VI/15), 56 (RīA 2/VI/16), 59 (RīA 2/VI/25), UF 10 39 (RīA 2/VII/10), 3 (RīA 2/VIII/21), 1 (RīA 2/X/13), VAS 13 46 (RīA 2/X/15), YOS 14 337 (RīA 3/II/3), CDLJ 2007/1 Nᵒ 45 (date lost), App. 1 Nᵒ 23 (date lost), BM 97061 (date lost), and BM 88612 (date lost).

138

Prisoners and slaves

Another distinctive feature of documents pertaining to weavers is that the workers are predominantly women and their children. The exact number of people mentioned in these tablets is difficult to calculate because of the broken passages. An estimate with the available information gives a total of 190 workers distributed as follows:

Tab. 19: Workers at the house of the weavers

Although these numbers are relative and may change with the appearance of additional texts, the percentages seem to agree with the fact that weaving was mostly a female activity. Evidently, female weavers were assigned to the e ₂ -u š - b a r together with their children. That way they could feed their babies while at work, and it is not unlikely that young children worked together with their mothers in less demanding weaving tasks. This is by no means unusual in pre-modern societies (see, e.g., Maekawa 1980, Jursa 1995, 8–9).

VII Conclusion One of the characteristics of bīt asīrī documents dealing with the management of prisoners and slaves is the care put into the identification of these people.

Conclusion

139

Records may include name, sex, family ties, place of origin, place where the prisoner was captured, the name of the captor, the name of a previous and present figure of authority or owner, individual or institution where the prisoner or slave was transferred, and in a few cases the relocation of the worker. There is only one attestation of an individual whose disease is mentioned (UF 10 6:5). This tablet deals with three female slaves assigned to the weavers, one of them suffered from a skin affliction. As Stol (1989, 30 fn. 54) pointed out, line 5 should be read “1 sa h a r- šu b - b a An-nu-ni-tum-um-mi,” namely, “one leper, Annunītum-ummī.”72 It is surprising, however, that these tablets do not mention blind or mutilated prisoners and that there are only a few attestations of runaway slaves.73 Another administrative practice was the registration of dead prisoners and slaves. There are currently six such documents dealing with male and female deceased people. All these registers start with the word “dead” (uš ₂ ) and provide certain information regarding the individual. For instance, a female slave called Ummī-Išḫara among the women of the house of the weavers died and the conveyors were Nabi-ilīšu, the b i saĝ- du b - ba , and the overseers of the house, ugu l a e₂ - m eš (BM 88624, RīA 1/X/3). About five weeks later, the slave Sîn-imguranni belonging to Gimil-ilī, the overseer of the house, died. The transaction was recorded at the house of prisoners under the authority of Sînšeme and the conveyors were once again Nabi-ilīšu and the overseers of the house (Nisaba 4 II.31, RīA 1/XII/10). From the twelfth month also comes the record of another dead individual and the same conveyors (BM 88576, RīA 1/ XII/[…]). The last three tablets originated from the second year. They include a man from the house of the aĝr ig (BM 88515, RīA 2/I/21, same conveyors), Warad-Sîn from Ešnuna under the authority of the overseer of prisoners (Nisaba 4 II.69, RīA 2/IX/22), and Pirḫi-ilīšu also from Ešnuna (BM 88447, RīA 2/IX/25). None of these documents states the cause of death. The information from the archive shows intricate mechanisms interrelating state institutions and various people through the house of prisoners. It is my

 Stol (1989, 30 fn. 54) explained that the Sumerian s aha r- šu b - b a, literally, “covered with dust,” is the Akkadian saḫaršubbû. According to Stol, saḫaršubbû “…is a general term covering at least two diseases, garābu (favus?) and epqu (psoriasis?). Old Babylonian attendance lists of workers show that this was a daily word for a ‘leper’ (…).” See also Köcher (1986), and Scurlock and Andersen (2005, 232–233).  One tablet mentions Abdi-Ištar, a man of Šubartum, among thirteen weavers of Larsa who had escaped from that city (Nisaba 4 II.28, RīA 1/XI/28). Collation shows: 1. Iab-di-iš₈-tar₂ lu₂ su-bir₄. He is obviously not a bīt asīrī runaway. The second example mentions two runaway male slaves whom the ugul a šu-i, “overseer of the barbers,” of Larsa brought to Uruk (Nisaba 4 II.66, RīA 2/IX/9).

140

Prisoners and slaves

contention that the identification of workers was so meticulously done because, far from being a place of detention, the bīt asīrī was an administrative unit.74 This bureau managed a labor force originating from prisoners who became slaves. Some of them were granted by the king as gifts to deities, which was a well attested practice and source of temple slavery (see, e.g., Mendelsohn 1946, 86), and others were given to state affiliates and dependencies. The evidence supports the assignment of prisoners and slaves to elite individuals that Gelb (1973, 81) suspected years ago. It is not unlikely that some slaves managed by the bīt asīrī were not prisoners but private slaves contributed by their own owners to work for the state. The management of prisoners and slaves from the bīt asīrī reflects a complex situation. Besides laborers that the state granted to assorted individuals, the extant sources show that some military officers disposed of a considerable number of prisoners and slaves. Possibly, these military men had captured and retained prisoners as part of their own compensation for participating in royal campaigns. In certain cases, prisoners transferred to state officials remained under their authority only for a time. Occasionally the king disposed of some of those slaves and gave them away as presents to various deities and individuals. What is apparent from records from the bīt asīrī is that, at some point, prisoners granted by the state or retained by certain individuals temporarily reverted to the bīt asīrī. The bureau then assigned those prisoners and slaves to work for the state or for state affiliates. This is a most efficient management of personnel. By assigning prisoners to individuals, the state maximized the use of resources, especially food rations. Yet the state could benefit from the work of these prisoners as part-time laborers. The rest of the year, they were fed by their own masters. This finds support in the fact that, as I have shown in the previous chapter, flour allocations from the bīt asīrī were given to the military and to messengers, but in Uruk the house of prisoners does not seem to have distributed rations to the prisoners that the institution managed.

 K. Van der Toorn (1986, 249) offered a different interpretation. According to him, the bīt asīrī in Uruk was “the ergastula in which prisoners of war were lodged (…).” He suggested that in the first millennium the “defeated enemies were confined in ergastula, where many had to live out their lives as grinders.” p. 251. A similar interpretation seems to be implied by Hallo (1971, 165), who argued that the bīt asīrī and other Akkadian and Sumerian terms are “potential designations of the house of detention.”

Conclusion

App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App. App.

         

Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ

         

BaM   BaM   BM  BM  BM  BM  BM  BM  BM  BM  BM  BM  BM A BM  BM  BM  BM  BM  BM  BM  BM  BM  BM  CDLJ / Nᵒ  CDLJ / Nᵒ 

Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba

                                     

II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II.

Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba

                                     

Tab. : List of texts pertaining to prisoners and slaves

 + RT 20 pp. 64–5.

II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II. II.

Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba

       

II. II. II. II. II. II. II. app.

RA  Nᵒ  p. RlAA Nᵒ  RlAA Nᵒ  UF UF UF UF UF UF UF UF UF

        

        

VAS VAS VAS VAS VAS VAS VAS VAS

       

       

YOS YOS YOS YOS YOS

    

    

141

Chapter 4 The organization of Uruk under RīmAnum Part I: “Houses” and institutions I Concepts and sources The word “organization” refers here to the way in which officials, administrative units and the military operated in Uruk during the brief independent interlude under Rīm-Anum. The word is vague and promises more than can be delivered. It conveys the impression that the functioning of Rīm-Anum’s kingdom can be explained thoroughly in spite of the scant documentation available. It is vague because it lacks the technicality and perhaps the accuracy of other analytical categories. Due to its vagueness, however, the term organization is advantageous in that it does not bear the semantic and theoretical loads of other concepts. The bureaucracy undoubtedly plays a fundamental role in the functioning of a kingdom. But, in view of its ambiguous use in contemporary parlance, “bureaucracy” can be misleading when employed without further qualification. On the one hand, there is nowadays a widespread and stereotyped perception of it as an inefficient and lethargic administrative system. On the other, there is a more specialized use of bureaucracy derived from those analytical approaches whose foremost theoretician was Max Weber.1 In a number of works on ancient Mesopotamia, bureaucracy is generally used in a broad sense to describe and explain forms of administration, power and authority (e.g., Visicato 1995; Pollock 1999, 149-172).2 In order to avoid certain theoretical ambiguities that may lead the reader to think that I subscribe to Weber’s models, I have decided to favor “organization” over “bureaucracy.” The present chapter, as is clear from its title, deals only with institutions. Professions, religious personnel, the military, and individuals without a title  Although Weber (1978) refers to bureaucracy in various places of his Economy and Society, his systematic treatment of the subject appears in chapter 11. For Weber, ancient Near Eastern societies were patrimonial rather than bureaucratic, with the exception of Egypt during the New Kingdom, which nonetheless still had “strong patrimonial elements” (p. 964). It is worth mentioning that at the time Weber wrote his most comprehensive work on the ancient world, namely Agrarverhältnisse im Altertum (1909), the study of Mesopotamian economic and social institutions was still in its infancy (see Weber 1976, first English translation). Therefore, his interpretations regarding ancient Mesopotamia cannot be accepted uncritically.  For a variety of approaches and periods see the volume edited by Gibson and Biggs (1987), including Moroney’s attempt at providing a theoretical reappraisal of bureaucracy in ancient societies.

Concepts and sources

143

but with a role in the administration will be included in the next chapter. The study of “houses” and institutions is admittedly fragmentary and incomplete, for the vast majority of the evidence originates from documents from the bīt asīrī. The number of tablets dated to Rīm-Anum outside the lot belonging to the house of prisoners is very limited.3 What is more, records from the Sînkāšid palace and those from the bīt asīrī are at present the only available sources for the study of the local history of Uruk during this brief stage of the Old Babylonian period. Since tablets mention “houses” and other institutions only tangentially, the information to reconstruct their functioning and activities is also partial. This documentary shortcoming is most apparent from the fact that two conspicuous and traditional institutions of ancient Mesopotamia, namely the temple(s) and the palace, are barely mentioned in our corpus. Nevertheless, instead of focusing on the absences, I will try to explore the dealings and interactions of the attested institutions and to trace the activities of certain men related to them. The word that I translate simply as “house” – e ₂ in Sumerian and bītum in Akkadian – is problematic and requires clarification because it has been employed to designate very different entities. For example, basing his analysis on early Mesopotamian sources, Gelb (1967, 5) provided the meanings “household,” “manor,” or “estate,” and maintained that an e ₂ or bītum was: (…) a full socio-economic unit, largely self contained and autarchic, which includes residential buildings, shelters for labor force, storage buildings and animal pens, fields, orchards, gardens and pastures, as well as the owners (or managers), labor personnel, and domestic animals.

In Mesopotamian studies, Gelb was one of the first scholars to compare e ₂ and bītum to the Greek oikos.4 In his article “Household and Family in Early Mesopotamia” (Gelb 1979), he affirmed that the manifold meanings of e₂ and bītum – i.e., room, dwelling, stall, temple, family and household – are all covered by the Greek term oikos. Gelb explained that two groups of households are distinguishable: public households such as palace, temple, and official and private households including those that are private-familial and privateindividual.  About eighty-four documents from the palace of Sîn-kāšid could be attributed to Rīm-Anum. Of these tablets, sixty-four have a Rīm-Anum year name and the rest have broken dates, but on prosopographic grounds most of the remaining documents can also be assigned to his reign.  In one of his essays Gelb (1979, 4) explained: “About ten years ago, during the discussion period which took place at the 15th Rencontre Assyriologique in Liège, Belgium, I applied the terms oikos and ‘oikos age’ to Mesopotamia.”

144

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part I: “Houses” and institutions

Gelb’s study included examples from the Early Dynastic, Sargonic and Ur III periods. According to his conclusions, in early Mesopotamia “household stands for a primary unit of agricultural production” (p. 3) and he also considered certain types of public households specializing in the production of commodities. Gelb was most interested in the composition of different households. He did not resort to them to characterize early Mesopotamian economy and society as a “patrimonial” system of self-sufficient units merely orbiting around the temple and palace economy. Gelb (1967, 2 and 1969) had already vehemently expressed his disagreements with the “temple/state economy theories” because those interpretations have further implications since they do not acknowledge the existence of a private economic sector. Therefore, even though he acknowledged that he owed “many fruitful ideas” to the works of Max Weber (Gelb 1967, 2), unlike certain Weberian intellectuals, Gelb did not reject the existence of private property and private activities outside the state, including both temple(s) and palace. Other scholars such as Renger (e.g., 1979, 1994, 1995, 2000, 2001) and Grégoire (e.g., 1981, 1999) also adopted the concept oikos, although in a very different sense.5 Renger (1979, 251) maintained that “the economies of temple or palace are called households (oikos in Greek, e₂ in Sumerian, bītum in Akkadian)” and explained elsewhere that he understood oikos economy in the terms of Karl Bücher’s (1893) “geschlossene Haushaltwirtschaft” or closed household economy (Renger 1994, 170). In Renger’s own words: Key elements in such an ideal-type of household economy are the unity of labor, living together within a household, and consumption where there are no prices, no wages, no rent, no profit or capital. Household economy in a highly developed form finds its manifestation in the institutional households of the Mesopotamian palace and temple and in their workings.

His mention of “an ideal-type of household economy” reveals Renger’s affinities with Weber’s interpretation of patrimonial states.6 This was explicitly  See also Grégoire and Renger (1989) for the use of oikos to characterize the economy of Ebla.  Grégoire (1981, 69 and 1999, 8-9) similarly interpreted the Ur III economy as a patrimonial economic system characterized by redistribution. When dealing with “l’oïkos mésopotamien” Grégoire (1981, 72) explained: “(…) il s’est développé en un organisme étatique administré de façon autoritaire et bureaucratique. Sa fonction principale, en dehors de sa fonction sociale et reliegieuse, est de couvrir les besoins matériels du maître de la ‘maisonnée,’ le en ou lugal, c’est-à-dire le souverain, et sa suite. La maisonée mésopotamienne est l’unité de production par excellence, comprenant des domains, des hameaux, des complexes administratifs, des résidences, des manufactures, des ateliers, des magasins et des greniers, des parcs à bétail, des plantations et des jardins, ansi que des pâturages. Elle dispose d’un personnel administrative, de forces productives diverses, d’un personnel chargé de l’entretien et de la surveillance, organisés hiérarchiquement.” Grégoire’s article was the result of a paper presented at the

Concepts and sources

145

stated in an article in which, following Weber, Renger (2001, 410) described the oikos as a “self-sufficient household producing almost everything needed for consumption within the household itself.” According to Renger (2003, 1722), the oikos-system was typical of the Ur III period and it prevailed under the first rulers of the Isin dynasty. At the beginning of the 19th century there emerged a new system of economic organization that he called “tributary economy.” Renger (1994, 170) implied that at least certain features of the oikoseconomy survived into the Old Babylonian period. This idea was later developed in another article where he stated that the structure of the Ur III oikoseconomy influenced the palace economy of the Old Babylonian period; however, during the Old Babylonian period, only the administrative aspect of the oikos survived (Renger 2000, 173).7 This compressed overview of certain approaches to “Mesopotamian oikoi” is not meant to deal with the debates on third- and second-millennium economy and society, a discussion that does not belong here. It rather aims at showing how loaded the term oikos and its modern renderings are. That is to say, the use of oikos is not simply the learned Greek translation of a Sumerian and Akkadian word. For certain scholars oikos represents a particular way of explaining the functioning of economic systems as originally suggested by Bücher and Weber and subsequently adopted, adapted, and applied to the study of ancient Mesopotamia. Bücher’s and Weber’s interpretations, later reformulated by Polanyi, are fervently defended by certain Mesopotamian scholars resisting those radical interpretations proposing that ancient economies operated like their modern counterparts.8 The problem with such interpretations is that, in the excitement of argument, both parties tend to privilege the theories that they support over the data that contradict their theories.9 I am convinced that both traditionalist and modernist views are the unfortunate outcome of imposing Western models and categories on the study of ancient Mesopotamia. This is as anachronistic as suggesting that Classicists should “Colloque organisé par l’E.R.A” in 1976 and published in 1981. Grégoire (1999, 9) defined household as “(…) the Mesopotamian oikos – a State institution, administered in an authoritarian and bureaucratic manner whose basic function was to cover the needs of the lord of the Household, the Patrimonial Sovereign”. See also Grégoire (1970, xiii-xxvii).  In Renger’s (2000, 173) own words: “Meines Erachtens ist der organisatorische Rahmen der Palastwirtschaft der altbabylonischen Zeit weiterhin von den Strukturen der oikos-Wirtschaft der Ur-III-Zeit beeinflußt. Der entscheidende Unterschied besteht darin, daß in der altbabylonischen Zeit von der Struktur des oikos nur die administrative Seite übrig geblieben ist.”  Some of the modernist interpretations go so far as to regarding Sumerian temples as “civilization’s first business corporations” (Hudson 1996, 9).  For these different approaches see, for instance, Finley (1979), Granovetter (1985), Polanyi (1957 and 1977), Renger (1984).

146

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part I: “Houses” and institutions

study the Greek oikos by calling it “e₂ /bītum economy” because the latter was attested earlier. In any event, Gelb was right in emphasizing all the nuances conveyed by e ₂ and bītum. Thus besides the meanings that express a private house and household, e ₂ was also used to designate a variety of institutions, not all of which represented a closed economic system. At least some of these “house”-institutions in the Old Babylonian period represented an administrative office or even a productive unit, although they were not all necessarily self-sufficient, as we shall see. In this chapter I present the institutions of Uruk mentioned in the bīt asīrī sources.

II The “houses” (e ₂, bītum) II.1 The bīt asīrī The bīt asīrī is the best attested of all the “houses” recorded in the available Rīm-Anum documents. The 163 explicit mentions of the bīt asīrī appear in both groups of bīt asīrī texts, those dealing with flour allocation and those pertaining to the management of people. In flour allocation tablets, the bīt asīrī operates either as the recipient or as the provider of allocations. When the bīt asīrī is the recipient, the allotment of flour is described as šu ku e₂ asīrī, the flour is issued under the authority of Aḫum-waqar, the aĝ r ig, and Nabi-Sîn, who appear acting separately or together. In those instances in which the sealing is legible, the seal is that of Sîn-šeme. Fifty-four tablets belong to this group.10 The examples at hand date from RīA 1/IX/17 to RīA 2/XI/23, a period of about

 Documents recording flour allocation as šuku e₂ asīrī are as follows: Nisaba 4 I.3 (RīA 1/ IX/15+), Nisaba 4 I.2 (RīA 1/IX/17*), Nisaba 4 I.1 (RīA 1?/IX/18), VAS 13 37 (RīA 1/IX/19), YOS 14 341 (RīA 1/X/1), Nisaba 4 I.6 (RīA 1/X/17), BM 100379 (RīA 1/X/20), Nisaba 4 I.7 (RīA 1/X/24), Nisaba 4 I.9 (RīA 1/XI/5), RSO 82 12 (RīA 1/XI/5), Nisaba 4 I.11 (RīA 1/XI/19), Nisaba 4 I.12 (RīA 1?/XI?/21), Nisaba 4 I.14 (RīA 1/XII/8), Nisaba 4 I.16 (RīA 1/[…]/26), App. 1 Nᵒ 5 (RīA 2/I/15), BM 88681 (RīA 2/I/29), App. 1 Nᵒ 30 (RīA 2/II/11), Nisaba 4 I.19 (RīA 2/II/16), Nisaba 4 I.20 (RīA 2/ II/19), Nisaba 4 I.24 (RīA 2/II/28), Nisaba 4 I.29 (RīA 2/IV/16), Nisaba 4 I.30 (RīA 2/IV/19), App. 1 Nᵒ 26 (RīA 2/IV/23), Nisaba 4 I.31 (RīA 2/IV/26), Nisaba 4 I.37 (RīA 2/V/29), App. 1 Nᵒ 34 (RīA 2/VI/4), Nisaba 4 I.40 (RīA 2/VI/13),BM 87065 (RīA 2/VI/15), BM 88698 (RīA 2/VI/18), Nisaba 4 I.43 (RīA 2/VI/22), Nisaba 4 I.44 (RīA 2/VI/29), Nisaba 4 I.45 (RīA 2/VII/11), Nisaba 4 I.47 (RīA 2/VII/13), App. 1 Nᵒ 13 (RīA 2/VII/24), BM 100216 (RīA 2/VIII/14), App. 1 Nᵒ 36 (RīA 2/VIII/20), Nisaba 4 I.50 (RīA 2/VIII/23), App. 1 Nᵒ 37 (RīA 2/VIII/30), App. 1 Nᵒ 38 (RīA 2/VIII?/[…]), Nisaba 4 I.52 (RīA 2/IX/4+), Nisaba 4 I.53 (RīA 2/IX/13), Nisaba 4 I.54 (RīA 2/IX/25), App. 1 Nᵒ 15 (RīA 2/X/9), BM 87092 (RīA 2/X/10), Nisaba 4 I.55 (RīA 2/X/11), RSO 82 11 (RīA 2/X/12), Nisaba 4 I.56 (RīA 2/X/18?), UF 10 35 (RīA 2/XI/23), BM 87069 (RīA 2/[…]/1), BM 100363 (RīA 2/[…]/18), SAKF 106 (RīA 2/[…]/5), App. 1 Nᵒ 40 (RīA […]/II/3), BM 88954 (RīA […]), and BM 88687 (RīA […]).

The “houses” (e₂ , bı¯tum)

147

fourteen months. As argued in the second chapter, the flour allotted as š uku e ₂ asīrī apparently originated from the institution known as e₂ -aĝr ig, whose foremost official was Aḫum-waqar, the aĝ rig. These expenditures were acknowledged at the bīt asīrī by Sîn-šeme, the ugul a asīrī. When the bīt asīrī acted as the provider, the flour was issued at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme and acknowledged by a number of officials who rolled their seals on these tablets.11 The flour distributed through the bīt asīrī encompassed a variety of allocations such as ĝe šb u n , šu ku , si -l a₂ and ṣudû, and it was assigned to various individuals, groups or institutions. There are currently 116 flour allocations issued at the bīt asīrī.12 The attestations span from RīA 1/X/2 to RīA 2/XI/17, a period of about thirteen and a half months. Tablets dealing with management of people mention the bīt asīrī less frequently than flour allocation tablets, although there are 141 records pertaining to prisoners and slaves. The reason for the scant direct references to the house of prisoners in this lot is the presence of bīt asīrī personnel acting on behalf of the institution. In comparative terms, these documents show only a small part of the careful record-keeping practices related to the circulation of forced labor through the bīt asīrī. They reflect three types of transactions: reporting dead laborers, recording people who came back to the institution after serving in other units, and registering prisoners brought from elsewhere. The house of prisoners appears in three tablets concerning dead men. For example, a certain Sîn-imguranni belonging to Gimil-ilī is registered as a dead man in RīA 1/XII/10 (Nisaba 4 II.31). The document was issued at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the ugu la asīrī, whereas Nabi-ilīšu, the b is aĝ - du b - b a , acted as the conveyor (ĝi r i₃ ) together with the unnamed overseers of the house, ugu la e ₂ -m e š.13 The fact that Nabi-ilīšu was the conveyor may indicate that the dead slave had worked for him. Similarly, WaradSîn, a man of Ešnuna, died and was recorded at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme in RīA 2/IX/22 (Nisaba 4 II.69). In this case, however, the document does not mention other officials and unfortunately the seal impression does not preserve the name of the seal owner. Another tablet also issued at the house of prisoners registers the death of a man of Ešnuna, who apparently worked for a cook (BM 88447). There are, furthermore, three documents recording prisoners who returned or were brought to the bīt asīrī. The first tablet is  For the identity of these officials see chapter 2, pp. 68–69.  The š uku-allocations for the bīt asīrī are the only allocations that were not issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme. See Table Nᵒ 13.  Since the tablet has the sealing of Nabi-ilīšu and of a certain Rammānu[m-….], it is possible that this second man was one of the unnamed ugul a e₂- m eš. His seal is attested four other times: in Nisaba 4 II.31, Nisaba 4 I.15, VAS 13 48, and Nisaba 4, 195-7.

148

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part I: “Houses” and institutions

in very fragile condition and mentions one man returning to the house of prisoners (Nisaba 4 II.48).14 There is also the case of the prisoner Narām-ilīšu, who had been assigned to Bēlšunu for the team of ox-drivers and then returned to the bīt asīrī, presumably to be relocated (Nisaba 4 II.61). Finally, a document mentions that Bakīya and Aḫum-wēdum, two men of Larsa, arrived at the house of prisoners and that the conveyor was a certain Rīm-Adad (Nisaba 4 II.54). According to these examples, the bīt asīrī also had among its functions the registry of the movement of prisoners and slaves who came to the house for the first time and of those who had been assigned to specific tasks. The only official who consistently recurs in documents from the bīt asīrī is Sîn-šeme. He appears in about 76% of the texts, a percentage that could be higher considering the number of tablets that are damaged and of sealings that are illegible. Sîn-šeme held the title ugu l a ( e₂ ) asīrī, overseer (of the house) of prisoners.15 Several tablets preserve the impressions of his seal, which identifies him as the son of Išme-Sîn and a servant of Rīm-Anum.16 Except for the record dated to king Samsu-iluna, Sîn-šeme’s activities are currently attested from RīA 1/VIII/15 (BM 88820) to RīA 3/II/28 (Nisaba 4 II.79).17 Besides his role in the circuit of receiving and redistributing flour described above, Sîn-šeme authorized and supervised the movement of prisoners and slaves. In addition to recording the deceased, he kept track of prisoners who entered the bīt asīrī for the first time, prisoners and slaves assigned to perform tasks for other “houses,” laborers returned to the bīt asīrī after they had accomplished their duties elsewhere, prisoners assigned to individuals, and those whom the king presented to various deities. The only other man who bears the title ugu l a asīrī is a certain Šēp-Sîn. His case, however, is exceptional because he appears only once in the corpus and the date of this document is missing (VAS 13 54). Since the text records the problematic expression mu-wa-ar-ba-tim attested in two other tablets from Rīm-Anum’s second year (App. 1 Nᵒ 17 and 18), I have suggested in chapter 2 that this document could also be assigned to the second year.18 This finds  The tablet is crumbling and I could see fewer signs than those transliterated by Rositani (2003, 154). The first line of the reverse reads: z i-ga ša₃ e ₂ a-si-ri.  The full title ugul a e ₂ asīrī, “overseer of the house of prisoners,” is attested only twice: in Nisaba 4 App. p. 195-7:r20 (Si 8/VIII/11), and in an unpublished tablet from the British Museum, BM 88662:8 (date broken). In all other attestations the title is simply ugu l a asīrī, “overseer of prisoners.”  Aside from the sealings of his son, Išme-Sîn is not attested in any of the extant documents from the reign of Rīm-Anum.  As Rositani (2003, 15-16) explained, the year formula on Nisaba 4, 195-6 is defective, but it seems to be an abbreviation for Samsu-iluna’s eighth year, as discussed in chapter 1.  See chapter 2, p. 70 footnote 35.

The “houses” (e ₂ , bı¯tum)

149

support in the fact that the two signs preserved from the year formula fit that possibility. In the other two documents from this group, the ugul a asīrī is Sînšeme and not Šēp-Sîn. Other officials on these tablets are the same. Thus Etelpī-Šamaš, the mu h ald i m , acted as the conveyor twice (VAS 13 54, App. 1 Nᵒ 18), and Šēp-Sîn and Sîn-šeme were respectively the ugu l a asīrī. Similarly, the sealings on the tablet recording the ugula asīrī Šēp-Sîn are frequently present in documents mentioning Sîn-šeme.19 It is possible then that the only attestation of Šēp-Sîn’s role as ugu la asīrī could be explained as a temporary substitution for Sîn-šeme. None of the other officials documented from the bīt asīrī archive seem to belong to this institution, although some of them have close dealings with it. Rather than a physical entity similar to a prison or an ergastulum, the bīt asīrī seems to have been an office or a “bureau” run almost exclusively by Sînšeme. Most likely with the assistance of a scribe, Sîn-šeme was responsible for all the administrative procedures related to the bīt asīrī. As shown in the previous chapters these included management of prisoners and slaves engaged in forced labor, but also the distribution of flour allotments to men involved in diplomatic and military activities. One has to assume that the actual supervision of prisoners was in the hands of other people. It is clear from texts dealing with the management of prisoners that overseers of various houses and professions took responsibility for the laborers that they received, whereas men temporarily at the disposal of the bīt asīrī must have been left under the supervision of the soldiers who had captured them or of men to whom these prisoners and slaves had previously been assigned. It is also likely that the bīt asīrī kept prisoners in certain facilities in order to provide temporary lodging to laborers in transit, but this is not at all apparent from the sources. The bīt asīrī was an office, and a very important one for that matter. It not only controlled human resources introduced into the economy of a recently independent kingdom, but it must have also had access to strategic information brought to Uruk by those military men and diplomats who received flour allotments from the bīt asīrī.

II.2 The e ₂ -a ĝ ri g The title aĝ r ig, abarakkum in Akkadian, has a long tradition in Mesopotamia.20 The term is usually rendered as “steward” or “housekeeper,” either of  VAS 13 54 has the sealings of Apil-Amurrum and of Sîn-iddinam, the bi s aĝ - du b - b a.  It is already attested, for instance, in Early Dynastic texts from Šuruppak (Pomponio and Visicato 1994, 32). See also Viscato and Westenholz (2005, 67), Selz (1989, 61), Charpin (1986, 243-244).

150

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part I: “Houses” and institutions

a temple or of a private or royal household. But as is frequently the case with certain archaic titles, the denomination may have had very little to do with the actual activities performed by the title bearers, and modern translations might be somewhat anachronistic. The e ₂ -aĝrig is currently better known from studies of documents from the city of Mari. Nele Ziegler (1999, 98 + footnote 597) explained that bīt abarakkātim, “maisons des intendantes,” designated the palace kitchens. She also observed that the title abarakkatum, “female administrator,” was the equivalent of abarakkum, “male administrator,” who was similarly affiliated with the “house of the administrator(s),” namely the e₂ - aĝ r ig.21 It is most likely that in Uruk the e₂ - aĝr ig was also related to food preparation because the flour allocated to the bīt asīrī originated from the e₂ - aĝ r ig. In the bīt asīrī documents, the e ₂ - aĝ r ig is recorded eighteen times.22 Attestations range from RīA 1/XI/13 (Nisaba 4 II.18) to RīA 3/II/7 (Nisaba 4 II.77). Explicit mentions appear only in texts dealing with management of people, although indirect evidence makes it possible to relate the e₂ - aĝ r ig to flour allocations as well, as we shall see later. Nothing in this corpus indicates whether the e ₂ -aĝr ig was an institution affiliated with the palace or with the temple, but it is apparent that this was not a private household. Tablets mentioning the e ₂- aĝ rig reflect activities involving the transfer of labor, including people assigned to the e₂ - aĝr ig and people transferred from the e₂ - aĝ r ig to other institutions or individuals. There are seven documents registering the e ₂ -aĝr ig as the recipient of a labor force.23 The common expression in all of these records is PN(s) ana e₂ - aĝ r ig, “personal name(s) for the house of the aĝr ig.” The number of people assigned in a single document varies from one to ten. Judging from the personal names and the characterizations, these individuals were mostly male.

 Ziegler (1999, 100) noted that in a broad sense abarakkātum refers to all the women in the kitchens, but in a restricted sense the term means “économes,” that is, administrators. Therefore, they were not simply female cooks (m unus-muha l d i m ). The connection of the title abarakkatum with food preparation had already been suggested by Birot (1964, 2), for whom the abarakkātum were “cuisinières en chef.” For J. Sasson (2004, 189) the abarakkātum (mun us-aĝr ig) were “actually ‘pantry maids,’ with specialized division of labor.”  Nisaba 4 II.17 (RīA 1?/XI?/12), Nisaba 4 II.18 (RīA 1/XI/13), Nisaba 4 II.35 (RīA 1/XII/29), App. 1 Nᵒ 29 (RīA 2/I/1), Nisaba 4 II.39 (RīA 2/I/11), Nisaba 4 II.40 (RīA 2/I/19), Nisaba 4 II.41 (RīA 2/I/20), BM 88515 (RīA 2/I/21), Nisaba 4 II.42 (RīA 2/I/28), YOS 14 340 (RīA 2/IV/1), Nisaba 4 II.47 (RīA 2/IV/28), YOS 14 338 (RīA 2/V/20), Nisaba 4 II.64 (RīA 2/VIII/13), App. 1 Nᵒ 35 (RīA 2/VII/26), UF 10 2 (RīA 2/IX/18), Nisaba 4 II.70 (RīA 2/X/7+), Nisaba 4 II.77 (RīA 3/II/7), VAS 13 13 (RīA 3/[…]/[…]).  These are: Nisaba 4 II.42 (RīA 2/I/28), Nisaba 4 II.47 (RīA 2/IV/28), YOS 14 338 (RīA 2/V/ 20), Nisaba 4 II.64 (RīA 2/VIII/13), UF 10 2 (RīA 2/IX/18), Nisaba 4 II.77 (RīA 3/II/7), VAS 13 13 (RīA 3/[…]/[…]).

The “houses” (e ₂ , bı¯tum)

151

Two officials received these workers, namely, Mār-Bābilum and Ana-pāni-ilī, who could act together or separately.24 Their function involved receiving labor assigned to the e₂ -aĝ rig. The transfer of workers was done under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the ugu la asīrī.25 In one of the examples the conveyors (ĝ ir i ₃) were Apil-Amurrum and Sîn-nūr-mātim (YOS 14 338). There is also the case of people transferred from the e₂ - aĝr ig to other institutions or individuals. We have first a group of tablets stating that the transaction took place at the e₂ - aĝ rig (ša ₃ e ₂- aĝr ig). For instance, Abum-ilī from the booty of Daganma-ilum’s third campaign was given to work as an oil presser. The tablet was issued at the e ₂ -aĝr ig under the authority of Ninurtamansum and the conveyor (ĝi ri ₃ ) was Sîn-šeme, the ugu l a asīrī (Nisaba 4 II.35).26 Although on a damaged tablet, a certain Marduk-iddinam belonging to Ilī-bānî was similarly transferred. The transaction took place at the e₂ -aĝ r ig under the authority of Ninurta-mansum and Appān-ilī and the conveyor was Sîn-šeme, the ugu la asīrī (App. 1 Nᵒ 29, RīA 2/I/1). Ten days later, these three officials played the same role assigning Ḫazib-Teššub as a gift for Mardukmušallim, the a -zu-ga l, “chief physician” (Nisaba 4 II.39, RīA 2/I/11).27 In another instance, a worker by the name of Aḫīma, belonging to Adad-mušallim son of Mu-duga, had been taken from the house of the aĝr ig and given to Marduk-nāṣir. The document was issued at the e ₂ -aĝr ig and the conveyor was Sîn-šeme (Nisaba 4 II.40, RīA 2/I/19). The next day, the same Aḫīma is recorded again as being given to Marduk-nāṣir. But, unlike in the previous document, this tablet included another man transferred to the house of the s ukka l . This transaction also took place at the e₂ - aĝ rig under the authority of MārBābilum and Appān-ilī and the conveyor was once again Sîn-šeme (Nisaba 4 II.41, RīA 2/I/20). Other tablets mention the relocation of people from the house of the aĝ rig (ištu e₂ - aĝ r ig ) to other locations, but in these instances the transaction did not occur at the e₂-aĝr ig. There is first the case of two women who from  Mār-Bābilum and Ana-pāni-ilī appear together in Nisaba 4 II.42 (RīA 2/I/28), YOS 14 338 (RīA 2/V/20), UF 10 2 (RīA 2/IX/18), Nisaba 4 II.77 (RīA 3/II/7), and VAS 13 13 (RīA 3/[…]/[…]). Mār-Bābilum appears in Nisaba 4 II.47 (RīA 2/IV/28), and Ana-pāni-ilī in Nisaba 4 II.64 (RīA 2/VIII/13).  With the exception of Nisaba 4 II.42, where the conveyors are mentioned. After collation, the first lines of the reverse read: 1. [ĝi ri ₃ PN], 2. ˹u₃ d˺[AMAR].UTU-[na-ṣi-ir], 3. aga₃ -u s ₂ s aĝ luga l.  Collation shows the name Ninurta-mansum. Ninurta-mansum appears two other times in connection with the house of the aĝ rig: in App. 1 Nᵒ 29:8 and also in Nisaba 4 II.39:4. On both occasions the prisoners are at the e ₂-aĝ rig under the authority of Ninurta-mansum and Appān-ilī.  For line 5 of the obverse, collation shows: ˹niĝ₂- ba ˺ a-na … instead of “ni₃-šu a-na.”

152

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part I: “Houses” and institutions

the e₂ - aĝr ig were assigned as weavers and received by Sîn-bēl-ilī, the ugul a m u n u s-u š - b a r, “overseer of female weavers.” The tablet was issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme (Nisaba 4 II.17). As far as I know, this is the only case of female slaves in connection with the e ₂- aĝ r ig. Another man belonging to Marduk-nāṣir, the ugu la Asurrum, was taken from the e ₂ -aĝ rig, reassigned and received by Ālī-lūmur. The record was issued under the authority of Sînšeme (Nisaba 4 II.70). Furthermore, Awīl-Adad, a boy under the authority of Marduk-nāṣir, was taken from the e ₂ -aĝr ig and given to Ṣillī-Ištar, but no official is mentioned (Nisaba 4 II.18). There is a document in this group in which seven slaves belonging to Ilīma-ilum were given to the e ₂ -aĝ rig under the authority of Mār-Bābilum in order to be available (ana kullim).28 Finally, one slave seems to have died while working at the e₂ -aĝr ig (BM 88515). A few officials take part in activities related to the house of the aĝ r ig. In one instance Apil-Amurrum and Sîn-nūr-mātim acted as conveyors (YOS 14 338). A Sîn-nūr-mātim is also attested in another text dealing with management of prisoners, where he had a man under his authority (App. 1 Nᵒ 28:33). As for Apil-Amurrum, there are three different namesakes.29 Since Apil-Amurrum, son of Erṣēya, is attested in two other documents dealing with the management of prisoners, I suggest that he is the man acting as conveyor in YOS 14 338. Ninurta-mansum’s position in the administration is more elusive. He appears only in the three tablets mentioned above (Nisaba 4 II. 35:r2, 39:4 and App. 1 Nᵒ 29:8) and no title or paternal filiation is preserved for him. Finally, MārBābilum and Ana-pāni-ilī received workers in documents pertaining to the transfer of labor for the e ₂ -aĝr ig. They are also present in some of the tablets issued at this institution, which shows that they both belonged to the e₂ -aĝ r ig or had very close dealings with it. Aside from his role in these texts, MārBābilum is recorded once in a tablet from the Sîn-kāšid palace acting in the same capacity (BaM 31 Nᵒ 366:3), and his seal mentions that he was the son of Ṣillī-d[…] and servant of the god Rammānum (UF 10 2). His title, if any, is not preserved. An Ana-pāni-ilī also appears in a text dealing with flour allocation, where he bears the title šabrûm (Nisaba 4 I.8:3).30  For this translation see App. 1 Nᵒ 35, comment on line 12.  The namesakes are Apil-Amurrum, son of Ilam-ēriš; Apil-Amurrum, son of Šulgi-[…] (both well attested in texts dealing with flour allocations, see chapter 2, p. 59); and Apil-Amurrum, son of Erṣēya. The last is recorded in two documents dealing with management of people (Nisaba 4 II.19:6, 1/XI/13, and Nisaba 4 II.29:r1).  The name Ana-pāni-ilī is further attested from the seals of two other men of whom Anapāni-ilī is the father. One of the seals reads: Sîn-bēl-ilī / du m u Ana-pāni-ilī / ar ad Rammānum (Nisaba 4 II.4; UF 10 6; Nisaba 4 II.10, 12, 17, 20, 33, 37, 50 and 51). The second has: Rammānum-[…] /dumu Ana-pāni-ilī / a r a d Rammānum (Nisaba 4 I.15, II.31, RSO 82 5, and VAS 13 48). Both Sîn-bēl-ilī and Rammānum-[…] had a role in the administration of Uruk.

The “houses” (e₂ , bı¯tum)

153

The foremost authority of the e ₂ -aĝ rig was of course the aĝrig official. The only man who bears this title is Aḫum-waqar. Although he is attested thirty-six times, his title is mentioned only twice (YOS 14 341:3, Nisaba 4 I.16:4-5). Unlike the officials discussed above, in the extant records Aḫum-waqar’s activities are limited to authorizing allocations of flour assigned to the bīt asīrī. He was active from RīA 1/IX/17 (Nisaba 4 I.2:4) to RīA 2/XI/23 (UF 10 35:r2). In this capacity he could act alone or together with Nabi-Sîn. Because no title is preserved for NabiSîn, his actual role in the e ₂ -aĝr ig remains unknown. His activities are attested from RīA 1?/IX/18 (Nisaba 4 I.1:r2) to RīA 2/X/18? (Nisaba 4 I.56:r1). We can now attempt a reconstruction of the functioning and hierarchy of the house of the aĝ rig. As already mentioned, the head was undoubtedly the aĝr ig Aḫum-waqar. Nabi-Sîn must have had a high position since together with Aḫum-waqar he authorized flour expenditures for the bīt asīrī. It is reasonable to conclude then that one of the activities of the e₂ -aĝ r ig was the provision of flour for the house of prisoners. Because the attestations of the e ₂- aĝ r ig come from documents from the bīt asīrī, it is at present impossible to know whether the e₂ - aĝ rig had other dealings in the economy of Uruk. The evidence shows that in turn, the bīt asīrī provided the house of the aĝr ig with labor. Ana-pāni-ilī seems to have been the authority responsible for dealing with workers that the house of prisoners supplied. This is so because he authorized transactions that involved the movement of people coming to and leaving the e ₂ - aĝ r ig. In his role as recipient of prisoners, Ana-pāni-ilī interacted with Ninurta-mansum, who authorized mostly the transfer of laborers from the e₂ - aĝr ig to other institutions and individuals, and with MārBābilum, who mainly received incoming workers.31 The e₂ -aĝ r ig obtained some forty-eight workers from the bīt asīrī, of whom only two were female, and three were boys. Of course this number might not reflect the real flow of forced labor due to the fragmentary character of our documentation.32 This Although there is no direct evidence to link these three men, it is not unlikely that the šabrûm Ana-pāni-ilī was the father of Sîn-bēl-ilī and Rammānum-[…]. This would also be an example of nepotism in the newly created administration.  This distinction between the roles of Ninurta-mansum and Mār-Bābilum might be due only to chance of discovery.  This number includes not only those individuals who were coming to the e ₂ - aĝ r ig but also those who were leaving. I have not counted the same person when he is recorded twice. The distribution is as follows: 2 female slaves (Nisaba 4 II.17, RīA 1?/XI?/12), 2 boys (Nisaba 4 II.18, RīA 1/XI/13), 1 man (Nisaba 4 II.35, RīA 1/XII/29), 1 man (App. 1 Nᵒ 29, RīA 2/I/1), 1 man (Nisaba 4 II.39, RīA 2/I/11), 1 man (Nisaba 4 II.40, RīA 2/I/19), 2 men (Nisaba 4 II.41, RīA 2/I/ 20), 1 dead man (BM 88515, RīA 2/I/21), 1 man (Nisaba 4 II.42, RīA 2/I/28), 1 boy (YOS 14 340, RīA 2/IV/1), 1 man (Nisaba 4 II.47, RīA 2/IV/28), 7 PNs and 1 man (YOS 14 338, RīA 2/V/20), 1 man (Nisaba 4 II.64, RīA 2/VIII/13), 7 male slaves (App. 1 Nᵒ 35, 2/VII/26), 1 man (Nisaba 4

154

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part I: “Houses” and institutions

movement took place over around sixteen months. Although there is no direct evidence, it is possible that at least some of these people were put to work as millers in the e ₂- aĝr ig, because this institution was the provider of flour for the bīt asīrī.

II.3 The e ₂ šabrîm The šabrûm was the chief administrator of the household of a wealthy individual or an institution (temple or palace).33 Three tablets from the archive of the bīt asīrī refer to the bīt šabrîm.34 The documents record the allocation of flour for the (er i n₂ ) mu-wa-ar-ba-tim (meaning unclear) of the “house of the šabrûm.” On two occasions the conveyor was Etel-pī-Šamaš, the mu ha l di m, “cook” (App. 1 Nᵒ 18, VAS 13 54). The three allocations were issued at the bīt asīrī under the authority of the ugu la asīrī. The legible seal impressions belong to Apil-Amurrum, son of Šulgi-[…], and to Nabi-ilīšu, the bi s aĝdu b - b a . The seals of both men were also rolled on flour allocation documents of the type ĝ e š b u n and šu ku . The meaning of mu-wa-ar-ba-tim eludes us, but it is clear that the flour was assigned to a particular group of people in the institution and not to the e ₂ šabrîm itself. Two men bear the title šabrûm. The first is Etel-pī-Šamaš, who is attested once in an allocation of flour for Eridu issued at the bīt asīrī under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the ugul a asīrī (UF 10 33:4). The second šabrûm is Ana-pāni-ilī, who bears the title in a document dealing with allocation of flour (Nisaba 4 I.8:4). Since there is only one attestation for each man, it is unclear whether they held the title simultaneously or whether Ana-pāni-ilī replaced Etel-pī-Šamaš.35

II.4 The e ₂ - ( m unus - )uš -bar The e₂ - ( m u n u s- )u š-b a r, “house of (female) weavers” (see Stol 2004, 969), is mentioned six times, although there are in total thirty-six tablets pertaining II.64, RīA 2/VIII/13), 5 male slaves (UF 10 2, RīA 2/IX/18), 1 man (Nisaba 4 II.70, RīA 2/X/7+), 2 male slaves (Nisaba 4 II.77, RīA 3/II/7), and 10 Elamites (VAS 13 13, RīA 3/[…]/[…]).  See CAD and AHw s.v. šabrû. For the role of the šabr a during the Ur III period see Grégoire (1970, 130-131) with previous bibliography, Sigrist (1992, 219-221), and Sallaberger (1999, 194195).  In chronological order these tablets are: App. 1 Nᵒ 17 (RīA 2/XI/3), Nᵒ 18 (RīA 2/XI/17), and VAS 13 54 ([RīA 2?/…/…]).  For the activities of Ana-pāni-ilī see chapter 5 (pp. 176–77) s.v. š ab r a . He is recorded in several documents, although only once with the title šabrûm.

The “houses” (e ₂ , bı¯tum)

155

to this institution.36 During the reign of Rīm-Anum attestations go from RīA 1/ VIII/27 (Nisaba 4 II.2) to RīA 3/II/3 (YOS 14 337), and there is furthermore one record dated to Samsu-iluna 8/VIII/11 (Nisaba 4, 195-97). The fact that uš -bar usually appears with the feminine determinative (mu nu s) may signify that for administrative purposes there was a distinction between male and female weavers, even though in certain cases both men and women are recorded on the same tablet. Approximately 190 people were assigned to the weavers during the seventeen months covered by the extant tablets. Some of these people were characterized as captives and others as slaves. The e ₂ -uš -bar was apparently the institution that received the largest number of workers from the bīt asīrī, including women, children, and a few men.37 The house of the weavers had at least two overseers acting either together or individually at a given time.38 For instance, Sîn-bēl-ilī is recorded both as ugu l a ( m u n u s- ) u š- b a r, “overseer of (female) weaver(s),” and as ugu l a e ₂-u š - b a r, “overseer of the house of weavers.”39 From the impression of his seal we know that he was the son of Ana-pāni-ilī and a servant of the god Rammānum.40 The other overseer of the weavers is Muti-Dagan, who is thus far attested only as ugu la ( m u n u s-) u š-b a r and the impression of whose seal is not preserved.41 The administration of the bīt asīrī considered Muti The six attestations of e ₂-uš- ba r are as follows: BM 88624 (RīA 1/X/3), Nisaba 4 II.12 (RīA 1/XI/3), 34 (RīA 1/XII/21), BM 87085 (RīA 1/[…]/[…]), Nisaba 4 II.46 (RīA 2/III/29), UF 10 39 (RīA 2/VII/10). Other occurrences of (munus- )uš- bar are: Nisaba 4, 195-97 (Si 8/VIII/11), Nisaba 4 II.2 (RīA 1/VIII/27), 4 (RīA 1/IX/6), 5 (RīA 1/IX/18), UF 10 6 (RīA 1/X/11), Nisaba 4 II.10 (RīA 1/X/20), 13 (RīA 1/XI/5), 17 (RīA 1?/XI?/12), 20 (RīA 1/XI/15), UF 10 28 (RīA 1/XI/28), VAS 13 40 (RīA 1/XII/15?), Nisaba 4 II.33 (RīA 1/XII/16), YOS 14 339 (RīA 1/XII/16), Nisaba 4 II.34 (RīA 1/ XII/21), 37 (RīA 1/[…]/6), VAS 13 39 (RīA 1/[…]/16), Nisaba 4 II.50 (RīA 2/V/26), App. 1 Nᵒ 33 (RīA 2/VI/1), Nisaba 4 II.51 (RīA 2/VI/5), 55 (RīA 2/VI/15), 56 (RīA 2/VI/16), 59 (RīA 2/VI/25), UF 10 3 (RīA 2/VIII/21), UF 10 1 (RīA 2/X/13), VAS 13 46 (RīA 2/X/15), YOS 14 337 (RīA 3/II/3), CDLJ 2007/1 45 (date lost), App. 1 Nᵒ 23 (date lost), BM 88612 (date lost), BM 97061 (date lost).  The distribution is as follows: 122 women, 13 men, 13 girls, 18 boys, 11 baby boys, 10 baby girls, 2 old women, 1 broken (see chapter 3, Table 19).  Other people might have been either overseers or have received workers for the house of the weavers in some other capacity. This seems to be the case with Irībam-Sîn and Pa-ila, as shall be discussed later.  He bears the title ugul a (munus- )uš -ba r(-m e š) in Nisaba 4, 195-97 (Si 8/VIII/11), UF 10 6 (RīA 1/X/11), Nisaba 4 II.17 (RīA 1?/XI?/12), 20 (RīA 1/XI/15), VAS 13 40 (RīA 1/XII/15?), Nisaba 4 II.33 (RīA 1/XII/16), YOS 14 339 (RīA 1/XII/16), Nisaba 4 II.34 (RīA 1/XII/21), 37 (RīA 1/[…]/6), VAS 13 39 (RīA 1/[…]/16), Nisaba 4 II.50 (RīA 2/V/26), BM 88612 (date lost), and ugu la e ₂ -uš-ba r in Nisaba 4 II.12 (RīA 1/XI/3).  His seal reads: Sîn-bēl-ilī / dumu Ana-pāni-ilī / ar ad Rammānum (e.g., Nisaba 4 II.4, 10, 12, 17, 20, 33, 37, 50, 51, and UF 10 6).  Attestations include Nisaba 4 II.2 (RīA 1/VIII/27, ∅), 4 (RīA 1/IX/6, ∅), 10 (RīA 1/X/20), 13 (RīA 1/XI/5), 20 (RīA 1/XI/15), UF 10 28 (RīA 1/XI/28, ∅), Nisaba 4 II.33 (RīA 1/XII/16), BM 87085

156

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part I: “Houses” and institutions

Dagan as Sîn-bēl-ilī’s partner (tappûšu, Nisaba 4 II.4:r16). Their role was to receive workers transferred from the bīt asīrī to the house of the weavers. The first document from the e ₂ -u š-b a r dated to Rīm-Anum comes from RīA 1/VIII/ 27 (Nisaba 4 II.2) and mentions the two overseers together, whereas the last document recording both men is dated to RīA 1/XII/16 (Nisaba 4 II.33). Sîn-bēlilī, however, is active again in RīA 2/VI/15 (Nisaba 4 II.55), and fourteen days earlier Irībam-Sîn had already appeared as recipient of prisoners (App. 1 Nᵒ 33, RīA 2/VI/1). In this capacity, he alternates first with Sîn-bēl-ilī and then with Pa-ila. Although their titles are not preserved, Irībam-Sîn and Pa-ila must also have been overseers or else officials with a certain authority, for their seals are rolled on a number of these tablets.42 Finally, there is only one attestation of Šallūrum, the ugu la m u n u s-u š-b a r (Nisaba 4 II.46). But unlike the other overseers of weavers who received workers, Šallūrum was in charge of a woman transferred from the e ₂ -m u n u s-u š-b a r to Warad-Sîn the Gutean. And the ugu l a m u nu s-u š-b a r Būnu-d[…] is similarly mentioned in only one text, where he received three slaves: a man called Dādum-rabi, a woman by the name of Aliat-Ištar and her baby boy (Nisaba 4 II.5). One cannot but wonder whether this was a family, even though the woman is not characterized as Dādum-rabi’s wife. The “house of the weavers” has at least four overseers and two other men with no attested title but acting in a similar role. These people are arranged chronologically in Table 21 (p. 157)43. As the list shows, after the fifth month of the second year there is a tendency to omit the title, which may suggest that Irībam-Sîn and Pa-ila were also overseers. The house of the weavers is the institution with the greatest number of overseers attested. At least six men acted in this or a similar capacity. This is probably related to the fact that the e ₂ -u š-b a r received many more workers from the bīt asīrī than any other institution. Forced labor assigned to the house of the weavers consisted mostly of women and children. With only one possible exception, all the documents dealing with weavers were issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the ugu la asīrī.44 Furthermore, there seems to be a certain connection between the weavers and the “makers of bows and arrows”

(RīA 1/[…]/[…], ∅), Nisaba 4 II.53 (RīA 2/VI/12, ∅), 59 (RīA 2/VI/16, ∅), CDLJ 2007/1 45 (date lost), and BM 97061 (date lost, Ø). Ø indicates that the title was not written down.  Irībam-Sîn’s seal reads: Irībam-Sîn / dum u Sîn-i-[…]/ a r a d d[…] (App. 1 Nᵒ 33, UF 10 3, VAS 13 46), and Pa-ila’s has Pa-ila / dumu Ṣillī-d[…] / a r a d Amurrum (UF 10 1).  I have excluded from this list four documents with missing dates. Two have Muti-Dagan ugula m un us-uš- ba r (CDLJ 2007/1 45 and BM 97061) and the other records Sîn-bēl-ilī (App. 1 Nᵒ 23, BM 88612).  Although the tablet is in poor condition, Sîn-šeme seems to be absent from Nisaba 4 II.2.

157

The “houses” (e₂ , bı¯tum)

Name(s)

Title

RīA Date

Document

Muti-Dagan and Sîn-bēl-ilī Sîn-bēl-ilī and Muti-Dagan tappûšu Būnu-d[…] Sîn-bēl-ilī

Ø Ø

/VIII/ /IX/

Nisaba  II. Nisaba  II.

ugula munus-uš-ba r ugula mun us- uš-bar-meš ugula [ uš] -bar-meš ugula e₂-uš-ba r ugula munus-uš-ba r ugula mun us- uš-bar-meš ugula mun us- uš-bar-meš Ø ugula mun us- uš-bar-meš ugula mun us- uš-bar-meš ugula mun us- uš-bar-meš ugula mun us- uš-bar-meš ugula munus-uš-ba r ugula mun us- uš-bar-meš Ø ugula munus-uš-ba r Ø ugula munus-uš-ba r Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø

/IX/ 1/X/11

Nisaba  II. UF 10 6

1/X/20 1/XI/3 1/XI/5 1?/XI?/12

Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba Nisaba

1/XI/15

Nisaba 4 II.20

1/XI/28 1/XII/15?

UF 10 28 VAS 13 40

1/XII/16

Nisaba 4 II.33

1/XII/16

YOS 14 339

1/XII/21

Nisaba 4 II.34

1/[…]/6 1/[…]/16

Nisaba 4 II.37 VAS 13 39

1/[…]/[…] 2/III/29 2/III/29 2/V/26 2/VI/1 2/VI/5 2/VI/15 2/VI/16 2/VI/25 2/VIII/21 2/X/13 2/X/15 3/II/3

BM 87085 Nisaba 4 II.46 Nisaba 4 II.46 Nisaba 4 II.50 App. 1 Nᵒ 33 Nisaba 4 II.51 Nisaba 4 II.55 Nisaba 4 II.56 Nisaba 4 II.59 UF 10 3 UF 10 1 VAS 13 46 YOS 14 337

Sîn-bēl-ilī and Muti-Dagan Sîn-bēl-ilī Muti-Dagan Sîn-bēl-ilī Sîn-bēl-ilī and Muti-Dagan Muti-Dagan Sîn-bēl-ilī Sîn-bēl-ilī and Muti-Dagan Sîn-bēl-ilī Sîn-bēl-ilī Sîn-bēl-ilī Sîn-bēl-ilī Muti-Dagan Šallūrum Sîn-bēl-ilī Sîn-bēl-ilī Irībam-Sîn Sîn-bēl-ilī Sîn-bēl-ilī Sîn-bēl-ilī Muti-Dagan Irībam-Sîn Pa-ila Irībam-Sîn Pa-ila

4 4 4 4

II.10 II.12 II.13 II.17

Tab. 21: Overseers of the house of the weavers

(za d i m ), including the provisioning of utensils. As was the case with the e ₂-u š - b a r, on two occasions the za d i m also employed child laborers from the bīt asīrī (YOS 14 340, Nisaba 4 II.75). In these two examples, Ištar-ilum, the

158

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part I: “Houses” and institutions

za d i m, received three boys.45 Ištar-ilum also appears in a document from the palace of Sîn-kāšid, where he received 240 combs together with Ša-ilīšu, also a z a d i m (BaM 31 Nᵒ 303).46 The huge number of combs suggests that they might have been used for carding wool and therefore transferred from the za d i m to the weavers.47 The profession “makers of bows and arrows” may seem at odds with the receipt of combs; however, since bows and arrow shafts were made out of wood it is possible that Ištar-ilum supervised the manufacture of other wooden products as well.48 This suggestion may be further supported by the fact that there is an administrative document in which Sîn-bēlilī (without title or paternal filiation, but elsewhere known as ugul a u š-ba r) receives various kinds of wood and palm ribs, products that could very well have been employed for weaving tasks (Nisaba 4 III.2). The transaction took place under the authority of Sin-šeme, the ugu l a asīrī.

II.5 The e ₂ - m uše n-h i -a This expression literally means “house of the birds” and is usually translated as “poultry house.”49 Texts from the bīt asīrī do not provide information regarding the activities of the e ₂ -m u šen -h i - a , but it seems likely that it was

 Three other men were entrusted to Ištar-ilum, the z a di m , although the tablet is poorly preserved (App. 1 Nᵒ 41).  Sanati-Müller (2000a, 112) interprets this name as Ištar-ìl-tim, but such a reading is unjustified. The same remark applies to the name that she reads as “Ša-ì-lí-šu-tim.” The latter is simply Šā-ilīšu. The two signs that Sanati-Müller reads as – tim after the personal names are actually the title zad im . This is supported by other attestations of Ištar-ilum with the title z a di m (YOS 14 340, Nisaba 4 II.75 and App. 1 Nᵒ 41, in the last two tablets written syllabically z a - di m ).  Although Sanati-Müller (BaM 31 Nᵒ 303:1) reads g iš- m a- nu- ga - rig ₂ (“combs made of ma -n u wood”), the reading ĝ e š m a- nu-ga -rig₂-˹ ak˺ should not be ruled out, because there seem to be too many wedges at the end of the line for simply r ig ₂. The term ĝ e š ga - rig ₂ - a k was specifically used for “carding comb;” see H. Waetzoldt (1972, 116). The wood of the ĝeš m a-n u tree (Akkadian eʾru) was of poor quality. According to Steinkeller (1987, 92), the tree is possibly to be identified with the willow (Salix acmophylla).  Ištar-ilum bore the title zadim (Nisaba 4 II.75) and we know from his sealing that he was the son of Sîn-gāmil and servant of Nin-siana (BaM 31 Nᵒ 303 and Nisaba 4 II.75). Arrows (ĝ e š ka k-pa n ) are attested from tablets from the Sîn-kāšid palace (See, e.g., BaM 31 Nᵒ 302).  The institution is attested also in Ur III documents (e.g., JCS 2, 189 = UIOM 735, AION 31 176 7, ZA 71, 40 Nᵒ 1, OIP 115 101, and HLC 2 23 pl. 62, CUSAS 3 8, 9, and 12). References are from Base de Datos Neo-suméricos (http://bdtns.filol.csic.es/) and Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/), both accessed on 06/26/2011. We know from Late Babylonian documents that the e ₂-mušen-hi -a received grain for feeding poultry. For examples see CAD I s.v. iṣṣūru and bīt iṣṣūrī. For Neo-Babylonian aviculture and fowling see Jankovic (2004).

The “houses” (e₂ , bı¯tum)

159

mostly engaged in breeding poultry and in dealing with its byproducts. There are five tablets from the bīt asīrī mentioning the e ₂ - muš en -hi -a .50 They span a little more than six and a half months, from RīA 1/XI/6 (Nisaba 4 II.14) to RīA 2/V/26 (UF 10 31). These documents report the transfer of eight laborers to the poultry house. The first lists three male slaves for the e₂ -muš en -hi -a : one belonging to Inbi-erṣetim, the ugu la MAR.TU, another belonging to Sammîtar, and Ḫummurum belonging to Ibbi-Amurrum, the ugul a MAR.TU of Malgûm (Nisaba 4 II.14).51 There is also Šamaš-iddinam, a man from Larsa captured in Pī-nārātim and given to the poultry house (Nisaba 4 II.38). Furthermore, two slaves, Erībūni, brought by a man of Kisura, and Ibni-Adad, brought by Awīlīya, the ugu la MAR.TU, were sent to the e ₂ -muš en -h i- a (UF 10 4). A man belonging to Imgur-Sîn returned to the bīt asīrī and was then transferred to the poultry house (UF 10 31). Finally, a man from Ešnuna was also assigned to the e₂ - mu š e n-h i- a (BM 86101). All eight laborers are male. Sîn-šeme, the ugula asīrī, authorized the transaction in all five cases, and it is always Mardukmušallim who received the workers. Although the e₂-m u šen -h i -a is not mentioned, another tablet belongs to this group. In this record, Ilī-ippašram was assigned to a team of ox-drivers (er i n ₂ š a ₃ - gu d- m e š) at the biltum-field of Bēlānum and received by an e ns i ₂ , “agricultural manager,” under the authority of Marduk-mušallim. The transaction was authorized by Sîn-šeme (Nisaba 4 II.60). From the presence of the two officials it is possible that Ilī-ippašram was transferred from the e ₂- m u š en -h i - a to the team of ox-drivers via the bīt asīrī. Marduk-mušallim once bears the title ugu la e₂ - m u še n -h i - a , “overseer of the poultry house” (Nisaba 4 II.38), and we know from his seal impression that he was the son of Abīyatum and a servant of the gods Inanna and Nabium.52 Marduk-mušallim is the only official so far attested operating at the e ₂ -muš en -hi -a .

II.6 The e ₂ - bur-saĝ The expression e₂ -b u r- saĝ is poorly attested outside texts from the bīt asīrī. However, the word b u r- saĝ is relatively well known from Early Dynastic  Chronologically arranged these are Nisaba 4 II.14 (RīA 1/XI/6), Nisaba 4 II.38 (RīA 2/I/4), UF 10 4 (2/I/19), UF 10 31 (RīA 2/V/26), and BM 86101 (RīA […]/VIII/1).  The Amorite name Sam-mîtar is well attested in Mari. For this normalization, I follow Streck (2000, 163), who interprets the name as Śam-mîtar, “Nachkomme des Hervorragenden.”  His seal’s legend is reconstructed from traces on Nisaba 4 II.60 and UF 10 31. It reads: Marduk-mušallim / dumu Abīyatum / ar ad Inanna u Nabium. Collation of BM 86047 (= Nisaba 4 II.60) shows a-bi-ia-tum instead of a-pil!-tum on line 7 and on the second line of the sealing.

160

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part I: “Houses” and institutions

inscriptions, from economic and legal documents from Ur III Girsu, and from Early Old Babylonian lexical lists.53 Although in none of these administrative records is b u r- saĝ preceded by e ₂ , the term e ₂ - bur- saĝ appears in lexical lists such as the Old Babylonian version of kagal from Nippur (MSL 13 p. 69 ln. 91) and in an unpublished Old Babylonian manuscript of kaga l in Philadelphia.54 Aside from lexical lists, two literary texts mention the (e ₂ - ) b u r- s aĝ . One is a hymn to Nanše (Nanše A: 64), which has a passage referring to regular offerings and daily goods coming from the e₂ -bu r- s aĝ (see Heimpel 1981).55 The other is the Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, where the context might imply food preparation (see Michalowski 1989, 55 ln. 314, 96). Heimpel (1981, 106 Nᵒ 64) pointed out that inscriptions of Uru-KAgina show that the b u r- saĝ was a building used for the storage of regular offerings, and quoted a passage from one of these inscriptions explaining that b u r- s aĝ is “the house from which regular offerings are brought to him (i.e., to the god Enlil).”56 Four tablets from the bīt asīrī archive refer to the e₂ -bu r- s aĝ , but the context does not provide even a glimpse of the activities performed there.57 The institution appears over a period of about a year and five months, from  For instance, from Girsu during the Early Dynastic IIIb period we have: VAS 27 97 obv. i:1; OrNS 42 236 obv. iv:4; FAOS 5/1 Ent 33 obv. ii:2'; FAOS 5/1: Ukg 4 A obv. ii:1, Ukg 4 B obv. ii:1, Ukg 4 C obv. ii:1, Ukg 8 obv. ii':4', Ukg 10 obv. iv:2, Ukg 11 obv. 31. Some examples from Girsu during the Ur III period are: AAS 185 obv. 2; ASJ 9 336 obv. ii:2; CT 10 pl. 28 BM 14316 rev. ii:1; CTNMC 53 rev. iii:22; Fs. Sjöberg 61-61 rev. iii:14'; HLC 44 (pl 13) rev 3, 238 (pl. 113) iii:36; HSS 4 7 obv i:9, 110 rev. 1, 144 obv. 3; ITT 2 627 obv. ii:16, 857 rev. 1, 864 obv. 3, 904 obv. iv:17; ITT 3 5509 obv. 4; ITT 5 6709 obv. 4; MVN 2 176 obv. ii:22; MVN 6 192 obv. 2, 221 obv. 2, 259 rev. 2, 295 rev. i:15, 450 obv. 4, 451 obv. 4; MVN 10 151 obv. 9; MVN 11 A rev. 6; MVN 12 76 obv. 2, 91 rev. 1, 91 rev. 1, 413 rev. 1, MVN 17 3 obv. ii:4, 54 rev. iii: 13'; Nik. 1 61 obv. i:4; Orient 16 87 129 obv. 3; RTC 399 obv. i:8, ii:18, 34, v:24, rev. i:1, 12, rev. ii:6, 8; STA 10 obv. ii:10'; TCTI 2 3623 obv. 4, 3691 obv. 5; TÉL 119 rev. 3, 122 rev. 3; TUT 146 obv. i:9, ii: 2, obv. iii:16, 156 rev. ii:4, 161 obv. iv:25; UDT 59 obv. ii:9, UET 3 1024 obv. 3, UNT 36 obv. 4, Zinbun 18 102 7 obv. 3. For Ur III Girsu there is also the title ugula bur- saĝ : ASJ 20 104 5 rev. ii: 17, rev. iii:24 and AuOr 1718 222 17 obv. 4. In Early Old Babylonian lexical lists the term b u r- s aĝ is attested for instance in MSL 12 28 A rev. i:44, 28 B face c: i:1', 30 S' obv. 1':8' and SLT 12 obv. iii:2 (all from Nippur) References from CDLI (http://cdli.ucla.edu).  See CDLI number: P247858, Museum number: CBS 01864 (Sippar?), rev. ii:24, transliteration by Niek Veldhuis.  I wish to thank Piotr Steinkeller for bringing this reference to my attention.  See Steible 1982, Ukg 10. This conclusion agrees with the use of the term b u r- saĝ ( - ga ₂ ), bursaggûm in Akkadian, which refers to a kind of offering (CAD B and AHw s.v. bursaggû, all SB and LB examples).  Chronologically arranged these tablets are: Nisaba 4 II.6 (RīA 1/IX/20), 8 (RīA 1/X/3), 71 (RīA 2/X/29), 78 (RīA 3/II/18). Collation of Nisaba 4 II.71:r3 (= BM 16387) shows e ₂ - b u r- saĝ . Line 3 of the reverse of Nisaba 4 II.78 (= BM 96122) reads: 4 lu ₂ a - si - r u m / a-na

The “houses” (e₂ , bı¯tum)

161

RīA 1/IX/20 (Nisaba 4 II.6) to RīA 3/II/18 (Nisaba 4 II.78). The first text records the transfer to the ĝ i ₆ -pa r ₃ of a man who had previously been given to the e ₂- b u r- s aĝ (Nisaba 4 II.6).58 There is no official engaged in this transaction except for the master of one of the workers, who was a PA.PA-official. The second document deals with a slave received by Iddin-Nanāya, the gu-z a-l a ₂ official, and the conveyor was Sîn-rēmēni (Nisaba 4 II.8). There are two other men called Iddin-Nanāya in our corpus (Nisaba 4 II.3:14, and Nisaba 4 II.83:2), but both of them are prisoners and therefore unrelated to the gu-z a -la ₂ . As for Sîn-rēmēni, the name is attested four other times. There is a Sîn-rēmēni, son of Diĝir-dikud (Nisaba 4 II.1:4); another with no paternal filiation, who bears the title e n s i₂ (Nisaba 4 II.21:2); a third, who is the conveyor of a slave (Nisaba 4 II.8:r1); and finally a Sîn-rēmēni, son of Warad-Amurrum (BM 100292:5). Two other tablets recording the term e ₂ -b u r- saĝ share certain characteristics. One of them mentions five men first described as prisoners and later labelled as slaves, who were assigned to the e₂ - bu r- saĝ and received by Etelpī-Ištar and Bēlānum, the ša ₃ -t a m - officials. The tablet was issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the ugu la asīrī (Nisaba 4 II.71). The second tablet is problematic because in line 3 of the reverse, the sign e ₂ does not look right and the sign b u r is partially broken and not certain. However, the presence of Etel-pī-Ištar and Bēlānum as recipients of the prisoners may support the reading e ₂ ! - ˹ b u r ? ˺ - [ s aĝ]. It is a register of four prisoners assigned to the institution and it also reveals the three authorities who appeared in the previous record acting in the same capacity (Nisaba 4 II.78). Etel-pī-Ištar appears only in these two documents, where he immediately precedes Bēlānum the ša ₃ta m . Since the title follows the name of Bēlānum and is not written with the plural marker, the question remains whether the title qualifies both men or only one of them. There are other attestations of the name Bēlānum but they are probably unrelated to the ša ₃- ta m . In sum, three officials received prisoners for the e ₂ - b u r- saĝ , namely, Iddin-Nanāya, the gu-z a-l a ₂ , and Etel-pīIštar and Bēlānum, the ša ₃ - ta m . The institutional affiliation of the gu-z a-l a₂ remains uncertain, whereas the term ša ₃- ta m could designate either an administrative official or a temple administrator (CAD Š/2 s.v. šatammu, AHw, 1199).59 e ₂ !-˹ bur ˺-[ saĝ]. This reading is justified by the presence of the same officials receiving the prisoners.  In this document the institution is written bur- saĝ without the e ₂ sign. Collation of line 5 shows: ša i-na ˹ĝi₆-par₃ i ti ne- ne -ĝ ar ud 2-kam ˺.  For the role of the š a₃- ta m in the Old Babylonian period see Gallery (1980) and Charpin (1986, 244-245).

162

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part I: “Houses” and institutions

II.7 Other houses The rest of the houses known from the bīt asīrī are poorly attested and the information concerning their activities is minimal or nonexistent.60

The e₂ There are six documents dealing with allocation of flour that mention e₂ , “house,” without further qualification.61 It is not clear to me whether this is an institution called simply “the house,” or whether it is an abbreviation for one of the other houses. In all cases the flour is assigned to the house and dependents (aḫiātum) as a šu ku allocation. The title of a certain Gimil-ilī recorded as ugu la e ₂ suggests that he was affiliated with this institution.62 In one instance he is mentioned because a slave belonging to him had died (Nisaba 4 II.31:2). He appears a second time in connection with another man belonging to him, who was assigned to a team of ox-drivers (Nisaba 4 II.60:2). Moreover, a certain Ālī-lūmur, the ki sa llu h , “courtyard sweeper,” was apparently also serving at this house. The attestation comes from a tablet from the Sîn-kāšid palace recording that Ālī-lūmur, characterized as both courtyard sweeper and a r ad e ₂ , “servant/slave of the house,” delivered 4 gigurdû-baskets (BaM 18 32).63 Finally, anonymous overseers of the house acted as conveyors in documents pertaining to dead slaves (Nisaba 4 II.31:r2, BM 88515:r2, and 88576:r2).

The e₂-a-zu-meš There is a single attestation of the e ₂ -a -z u-m e š, “house of the physicians.” This tablet records a flour allocation received by the chief physician, a -zu-ga l , for the house of the physicians (Nisaba 4 I.35:3). Although the name of the chief physician is not mentioned, it is possible that he was Marduk-mušallim,

 A comment should be made about the institution that Rositani (2003, 186 plus note 365, 238) read e₂?-mu-at-im and translated “the house(?) of the dead” (Nisaba 4 II. 82, date missing). Collation shows ša sa-mu-um ˹gudu₄˺. Finally, I have not included the institutions e ₂-m un us (VAS 13 49:4) and e ₂- guruš da (Nisaba 4 II.38:1) because they are both located in Larsa.  These tablets are Nisaba 4 I.67:2, RA 71, 7 Nᵒ 2:2, UF 10 23:2, and VAS 13 55:1, 52:2, 53:2. Of course e₂ could refer to a temple instead of an administrative household or bureau.  For the title ugul a e ₂, see chapter 5 subheading II.9, ugu l a e ₂ and ugu la e₂ - me š , pp. 180–81.  Instead of A-li-lu x sukkal (Sanati-Müller 1987, 153), the signs read a-li-lu-mur k is al-lu h .

The “houses” (e₂ , bı¯tum)

163

who bears the title a-zu-gal in a document where he receives a slave named Ḫazib-Teššub (Nisaba 4 II.39:6). This evidence is too meager to draw further conclusions.

The e₂-maš-lugal Only one of the extant texts refers to the e₂ - m a š-lugal , “the royal sheepfold” (see Sallaberger 1993, 91 Nᵒ 389).64 Although the institution is known from the Ur III period, as far as I am aware, it is unattested for the Old Babylonian period, with the exception of this tablet. The obverse is poorly preserved, but it seems that in this case a woman characterized as the daughter of AmatSîn belonging to Būr-Sîn was assigned to the e₂ - m aš-luga l (Nisaba 4 II.7:5). Interestingly, neither the bīt asīrī nor any official related to it or to any of the other houses is recorded in this transaction.

The e₂-sukkal The term s u k ka l (Akkadian šukkallum) is usually translated as “minister, civil servant,” or “plenipotentiary,” and “messenger.” During the Old Babylonian period, the s u k ka l occupied a very high position, but his role and activities are still poorly understood (see Stol 2002, 755-756; Charpin 2004, 258-259).65 There are two tablets mentioning the e ₂ - su k ka l ( - meš) , both dated to RīmAnum’s second year. The first document records two male slaves given to the e ₂- s u k ka l- m eš . The tablet was issued at the house of the aĝr ig under the authority of Mār-Bābilum and Appān-ilī, and the conveyor was Sîn-šeme, the ugu l a asīrī (Nisaba 4 II.41). The second tablet registers two men assigned to the e ₂ - s u k ka l , who were received by [PN], and Sîn-šeme was the issuing  According to Steinkeller, during the Ur III period the e₂- ma š was a major economic institution at Umma that dealt with all kinds of supplies, and it is not clear why it was called e ₂ - m aš “goat house” (Steinkeller personal communication, 8/21/2011).  CAD S s.v. sukkallu mng. 1 has “(a court official).” The šukkallum’s high status in society is apparent from a number of Old Babylonian attestations cited in CAD. AHw s.v. šu(k)allu(m) renders the title as “Bote, Minister, Wesir.” Sallaberger (1999, 308) translated s u k kal in Ur III documents as “Bote.” On his part, when dealing with the administration of the Ur III state, Renger (2001, 411) identified the e₂- sukkal as one of the five distinct types of households or oikoi. Renger also explained: “The administration of the realm was also organized in the form of a household, the e₂-sukkal. The royal messengers, or better emissaries, conveyed the orders of the ruler to distant parts of the Ur III state. Connected with the e₂-sukkal were roadhouses in which the messengers could rest and receive supplies.” For the Old Babylonian period, Stol (2002, 755) translated s ukka l with the German “Wesir.” For the meaning “secretary, civil servant,” see ePSD s.v. s ukka l , accessed 06/27/2011.

164

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part I: “Houses” and institutions

authority (Nisaba 4 II.67). Before the date, this document bears the annotation ša adīni lā kankū, “(slaves) who until now were not assigned in a sealed document.”66 This is currently the only extant example of such specification in documents from the bīt asīrī archive.

The e₂-uzu E ₂ -u z u literally means “house of meat,” or “meat store.”67 According to Durand (1987, 75-77), in the palace at Mari, the e ₂-uz u was used for the expenditure of animals (carcasses) and meat. Since there is a text recording a bovine (gu ₄- ab ₂ - b a ) slaughtered in that place, he suggested the translation “butchery,” or “slaughter house.” There is only one reference to the e₂ -u zu in documents from the bīt asīrī archive. Although the beginning of the tablet is in very poor condition, it is clear that one or more dead animals of the store house (nakkamtum) under the authority of Nabium-mālik, Ilšu-bānî and their companion(s) the š a₃- ta m (s), were brought to the e ₂ -uz u. 6 8 The conveyor was Adad-tayyār (App. 1 Nᵒ 27). With the exception of Adad-tayyār, all the other authorities appear again in the same order and capacity in a document dealing with five slaves from the palace (Nisaba 4 II.73).69

III Other institutions III.1 The e ₂ - gal The palace appears in eight tablets. Four of the instances originate from the archive of the bīt asīrī, whereas the other four attestations come from the palace of Sîn-kāšid. In documents dealing with flour, the palace is mentioned  After collation, line 3 of the reverse reads: ša a-di-ni la ka-an-ku. The personal name on the first line of the obverse is Idutu-pi₂-di-ik-le-et (Šamaš-pidi-iklet, “Šamaš, have mercy- it is so dark!”). I wish to thank Walter Farber for suggesting the translation of this personal name.  See CAD N s.v. bīt nasri and AHw, 755a s.v. nasru. I follow Durand (1987, 75-76 plus footnote 115), who rendered e₂-uz u as bīt šīrim. He explained that, although bīt nasrim is documented in the Mari archives, it was a place to store utensils (unūtum). Nevertheless, at Mari the e ₂-uzu functioned as a place dealing with metals.  The mention of the nakkamtum in App. 1 Nᵒ 27 is interesting because a tablet from Mari mentions that in the city of Terqa meat was stored in a bīt nakkamtim of the palace (ARM 23 224, 199 plus footnote c).  Nabium-mālik, Ilšu-bānî and the ša₃- tam(- me š) tap-pi₂-šu-nu are attested only in these two tablets; whereas Adad-tayyār is otherwise unattested. In his place, the conveyor in Nisaba 4 II.73 is Sîn-šeme, the ugul a asīrī.

Other institutions

165

twice in allocations described with the expression ana rēš ekallim kullim, “to be at the palace’s disposal” (Nisaba 4 I.17 and 49). Both allotments were issued at the house of the prisoners under the authority of Sîn-šeme. Tablets dealing with management of people mention the palace as the owner of slaves (Nisaba 4 II.68 and 73). Finally, the records found at the site of the Sîn-kāšid palace show that the issuing of various products took place at the palace (e.g., BaM 27 231, BaM 31 271, 334, 338, and 362).

III.2 The (e ₂ - ) ĝ i ₆ -pa r₃ The ĝi ₆ -p a r ₃ was traditionally the residence of the e n-priestess, a position held by a daughter of the king. At Uruk the ĝi ₆ -p ar ₃ was part of the Eana, the temple of the gods Anum and Inanna/Ištar. An inscription of the Ur III king Amar-Suʾen found at Uruk mentions that Amar-Suʾen built the e ₂- ĝ i ₆ -p a r ₃ (Steible 1991, 244, AS 14; see George 1993, 93). The ĝi ₆-p a r₃ also appears on an Old Babylonian cone from Uruk explaining that king Sîn-kāšid built it for his daughter Nīši-īnīšu, an e re š- d iĝi r priestess of the god Lugalbanda (Frayne 1990, 455, E4.4.1.9:7-14). References to the ĝi ₆-p ar ₃ in the archive of the bīt asīrī suggest that the building was functioning during the reign of Rīm-Anum. It is unknown, however, whether the ĝi ₆-p ar ₃ remained active after Uruk had been successively conquered by other kingdoms or whether Rīm-Anum reactivated it after he revolted against Samsu-iluna. Five tablets from the bīt asīrī refer to the ĝ i₆ -p a r ₃. One of the documents records that Gurrurum was assigned to the ĝi ₆-p ar ₃ as a substitute for Nabium-iddinam, who had been transferred from the ĝ i₆-pa r ₃ to the e ₂ - b u r- saĝ (Nisaba 4 II.6). According to another text, WaradSîn belonging to Erra-nāṣir was given to Lalâtum, the mother of the king. The document was issued at the ĝi ₆ -p a r₃ under the authority of Ikūn-pī-Ištar, the zab a r- d ab ₅ - b a (Nisaba 4 II.30).70 This is the only attestation of Ikūn-pī-Ištar and – except for him- no other official appears in these tablets, not even Sînšeme. During the second year of Rīm-Anum two other tablets mention the ĝ i₆-pa r ₃ , both dealing with the transfer of men to the institution (BM 100292, BM 87045). Finally there is an undated document recording the allocation of rations to six men characterized as asīrū ša ĝ i₆ -p a r₃ , “prisoners of the gipārum,” which shows that several prisoners worked for that institution (App. 1

 Collation shows that Lalâtum was the mother of the king (a m a lugal). For the title zabardabbûm see Charpin (1986, 237-340). About this title, Lafont (1987) commented that “il ne fait maintenant plus aucun doute que le zabar-dab₅ est bel et bien un ‘échanson’.”

166

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part I: “Houses” and institutions

Nᵒ 42). Each one of these men is mentioned by name, figure of authority, and two of them bear the title šu- i , “barber.” Because of the laconic nature of these documents it is not possible to trace the activities of prisoners at the ĝ i ₆ -p a r ₃ .

III.3 The e n - n u e ₂ -gal The Sumerian word e n - n u-u n (Akkadian maṣṣartum, maṣṣarum), as Miguel Civil (1993, 75) has pointed out, “has three semantically related meanings: (1) ‘watch, guard’; (2) ‘watch’ (a division of night time); and (3) ‘imprisonment’ and, when designating a place, ‘prison’.” E n - n u is one of the terms for “prison” during the Ur III period and it is also known from Sargonic texts (Steinkeller 1991, 230; Civil 1993, 75).71 Steinkeller mentioned that although “the basic sense of /e n n uĝ / is ‘watchhouse’ or ‘guardhouse’ (…), it is clear that in the Ur III period this facility also served as a place of detention.” In the bīt asīrī corpus e n -n u is attested only once, where it is followed by e ₂ -ga l (App. 1 Nᵒ 39:3). The e n - n u e ₂- ga l of Uruk is only tangentially mentioned in connection with Ninurta-ilum, whose title is dub - sa r en -n u e₂ -gal , “scribe of the e n - nu e₂- ga l.” Since in the Old Babylonian period the title dub - sa r always relates to a group of men and not to an institution,72 en- nu e ₂ -ga l then means “guard of the palace,” or “royal guard.” The tablet in question does not belong to the archive of the bīt asīrī but it rather shares some of the characteristics of the administrative texts found in the Sîn-kāšid palace. For instance, it does not deal with flour allocation or management of people and the overseer of the prisoners is not mentioned. The text simply states that Ninurta-ilum brought thirty reed products to an unnamed place and that Apililīšu received them. Concerning the parties involved, Ninurta-ilum is otherwise unattested in the available documents. The name Apil-ilīšu, however, is recorded six further times. In one of these references the name is followed by the title ugu l a MAR.TU and the subject is the management of people (Nisaba 4 II.33:11).73 Apil-

 As Steinkeller (1991, 230) explained in footnote 15, the term is /e nn uĝ / and it was “variously written as en- nun-(g ), e n-nu-(g ), or e n- n u nun -( g ) .”  I owe this explanation to M. Stol (personal communication, 9/23/2011). Note that in two documents from Larsa dated to the first year of Rīm-Sîn II, en- nu qualifies the guard of the bīt asīrī (OECT 15 29 and 50).  It is likely that Apil-ilīšu, the ugul a MAR.TU, recorded in Nisaba 4 II. 33:11 is the same man as the Apil-ilīšu without title mentioned in BM 97061:6, also dealing with the management of prisoners.

Conclusion

167

ilīšu’s sealing is preserved on one of the tablets dealing with flour allocation, and we therefore know that he was the son of Ṭāb-târ-ilī and a servant of Samsu-iluna (RA 80, 67-69 = App. 1 Nᵒ 11). Although this individual could very well be the same man attested together with Ninurta-ilum, I am inclined to think that he was not the same person because he was one of the men who acknowledged the receipt of flour assigned to a man from Kisura, and to another man from Gutûm and dependents. It is likely, therefore, that Apil-ilīšu, son of Ṭāb-târ-ilī, was the ugu la MAR.TU recorded in Nisaba 4 II.33:11. There are two more mentions of Apil-ilīšu from the Sîn-kāšid palace (BaM 31 322:r2, and BaM 31 303:r1), which make it possible to relate these two attestations of the name Apil-ilīšu to the man acting together with Ninurta-ilum, the scribe of the en - n u e ₂ - ga l . This is so because the two documents from the palace and the one mentioning the e n - n u are administrative texts most likely not from the house of prisoners, and because in the three cases Apil-ilīšu appears receiving or authorizing the delivery of manufactured products.74

IV Conclusion There are a number of problems to consider when dealing with the administration of Uruk during the reign of Rīm-Anum. As already mentioned, the history of Uruk in the Old Babylonian period is still poorly known. Uruk had been under the dominion of other, more powerful, cities for several decades before Rīm-Anum, as well as leaders from various other places, revolted against Samsu-iluna and Babylonian rule over Mesopotamia. This means that from being a provincial city, Uruk became the capital of a newly independent kingdom. One must assume that the local administration had to be transformed and adapted to suit the new circumstances. The palace that king Sîn-kāšid (ca. 1860 BC) had built about a century earlier became the seat of Rīm-Anum’s administration, as can be inferred from the tablets dated to his reign found there. As a result, the functioning of the administration might not be so typical as that of cities such as Babylon or Larsa, which had a less interrupted administrative tradition. In addition, there is the fact that during the brief period of Rīm-Anum, insurgency and struggle seem to have been endemic and this might have had an influence on bureaucratic procedures.

 BaM 31 303 lists 240 carding combs, whereas it is not clear what kind of products are mentioned in BaM 31 322 and App. 1 Nᵒ 39 (in the last it is possibly some kind of reed products, perhaps baskets).

168

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part I: “Houses” and institutions

Another problem is that most of our records come from the bīt asīrī and we are therefore reconstructing the big picture through narrowly focused lenses. Since this archive is so meticulous in recording its dealings, it is safe to assume that other houses and institutions also kept their own archives, which have not thus far been recovered. Therefore, we can approach those institutions only indirectly. How much of the administration was built on previous practices and how much of it was new is a question that we cannot answer at this point. One thing that catches our attention is that very few officials and other personnel are attested for each of the institutions. This is particularly evident in the case of the bīt asīrī, whose only official was Sîn-šeme, the overseer of prisoners. He might have had the assistance of scribes but he seems to have carried out business mostly by himself, although this impression could be the result of the documents that have reached us.75 Other “houses” such as the e ₂ - aĝ r ig seem to have been better staffed. Similarly, the house of the weavers had six figures of authority and some of them were active at the same time. Various studies of Babylonian state and economy consider that “houses” can be related to administrative and productive activities, or to both. Part of this interpretation is confirmed by the information from the archive of the bīt asīrī. What is not clear is whether some of these houses operated as both administrative units and workshops. This question applies particularly to the case of the production of flour and textiles. Were these products mass produced in workshops and grinding houses, or were they produced in private houses and then collected by supervisors? In the case of the weavers I could not find direct evidence to answer the question. Although at first glance the “workshop” hypothesis might sound more convincing, this is far from certain. In other cases such as the bīt asīrī the administrative role is apparent: its two main activities were the distribution of flour for military and diplomatic use, and the management of prisoners of war brought to Uruk. The houses and institutions mentioned in our corpus all have dealings with the house of prisoners, with only one or two possible exceptions, namely the en - n u e ₂ - gal and the e ₂ -u zu . The study of the various “houses” and institutions has shown that most children and women were assigned to the house of the weavers, whereas most men were distributed to one or another household, given to individuals and periodically reassigned. The productive use of prisoners as laborers reveals yet another and most efficient mechanism

 Note that two tablets from the bīt asīrī of Larsa dated to Rīm-Sîn II mention 10 men who are guards of the house of prisoners (OECT 15 50 and 83). It is possible, however, that the house of prisoners of the kingdom of Larsa had a different organization.

Conclusion

Tab. 22.: The bīt asīrī and its interactions with other “houses” and institutions

169

170

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part I: “Houses” and institutions

of the bīt asīrī. That is to say, instead of mutilating and confining a productive labor force, prisoners were put to work at various tasks. In such a manner men were split up into small groups and frequently relocated, presumably in order to prevent revolts. Table 22 shows the function of the bīt asīrī in providing labor to other institutions. Of all the houses attested, the only one that gives something in return to the house of prisoners is the e₂ -aĝr ig, which was the provider of flour. The table also illustrates the circulation of prisoners among institutions. This shows, I believe, that prisoners were not confined but put to work in different state units. This was particularly important in a time of war because local men were probably engaged in battle and therefore an extra labor force must have been welcome. In the next chapter I deal with professions and individuals involved in the administration of Uruk.

Chapter 5 The organization of Uruk under RīmAnum Part II: Professions and individuals I General remarks The previous chapter dealt with those attested institutions upon which the administration of Uruk rested. This chapter concentrates on the individuals who managed and participated in institutions and administrative and productive units. Since the documents of our corpus originate from the bīt asīrī and from the palace, most if not all of the active parties involved belonged to the state or had close dealings with it. By “state” I mean here a managerial entity encompassing palace and temple(s) as well as all of their various dependencies and personnel. The classification of these people and their institutional affiliation is sometimes problematic. This is so because certain men with a frequent role in these tablets do not bear a title or their professions are simply not recorded. There are also certain titles used for both temple and palace personnel, which makes it difficult to relate these men to specific institutions. All these considerations challenge modern attempts to reconstruct ancient administrations to such an extent that one runs the risk of mimicking Borges’ Chinese Encyclopedia, notorious for the arbitrariness of each one of its categories (see Foucault 1966, 7). The modern grouping of officials under specific areas can also be distorting and anachronistic because it may not reflect the ancient way of viewing institutions and their dealings and interactions. Yet I believe that trying to systematize the evidence whenever possible is methodologically more productive than a simple alphabetic listing of names and professions. Bearing all these issues in mind, I propose an arrangement that considers the following: personnel with title and clear affiliation with houses and institutions, personnel without title but with clear affiliation with houses, personnel with title and no clear affiliation with specific houses or other institutions, personnel affiliated with temples, men without titles but with seals, men without seals or titles from tablets from the Sîn-kāšid palace, and finally men without titles presumably acting in an official capacity. Within categories, the arrangement is alphabetical.

172

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

II Personnel with title and clear affiliation with houses and institutions Although officials and individuals under this category have already appeared in previous chapters, their inclusion in this section is due to the need for presenting all the attested functionaries together and systematically.

II.1 a -zu - gal (azugallum) The profession a -zu-ga l, “chief physician,” is attested twice in the lot of tablets dated to Rīm-Anum. The bearer of this title is Marduk-mušallim, who received as a gift a man named Ḫazib-Teššub belonging to Aḫum, the su kkal (Nisaba 4 II.39:6). The transaction took place at the house of the aĝ rig under the authority of Ninurta-mansum and Appān-ilī, and the conveyor was Sînšeme, the ugu l a asīrī.1 Another tablet records the allocation of flour for the house of the physicians (e₂ - a -zu- m e š) received by an unnamed a -zu- gal , presumably Marduk-mušallim (Nisaba 4 I.35:2-3).

II.2 a ĝ ri g (abarakkum) The title aĝr ig is translated in the Akkadian dictionaries as “steward, housekeeper,” or “administrator” either of a temple, a palace or a private household (see CAD A/1 and AHw s.v. abarakku).2 In documents from the royal archives of Mari, the title designated the male administrator of the palace kitchens (Ziegler 1999, 98). According to his role in our corpus, the aĝrig seems to be a state official, from either the temple or the palace. Aḫum-waqar is the sole aĝ r ig known from the archive of the bīt asīrī, where his title appears but twice (YOS 14 341:3 and Nisaba 4 I.16:4). None of the available documents has the impression of his seal; therefore, his filiation is unknown. He is attested thirtysix times over a period of some fifteen months, from RīA 1/IX/17 (Nisaba 4 I.2:4) to RīA 2/XI/23 (UF 10 35:r1).3 In all these tablets he acts alone or together

 After collation the personal name in line 4 of the obverse reads Ninurta-mansum, and line 4 has n iĝ₂-b a instead of niĝ ₂- šu.  See chapter 4, pp. 149–50.  He is recorded in BM 87065:3, BM 88681:r1, BM 88698:r1, BM 88954:r1, BM 100363:4, BM 100379:r1, App. 1 Nᵒ 5:4, Nᵒ 13:4, Nᵒ 34:4, Nᵒ 40:5, Nᵒ 38:4, Nᵒ 30:r1; Nisaba 4 I.1:r1, 2:4, 3:4, 6:r1, 7:r1, 9:r1, 11:r1, 12:r1, 14:r1, 16:4, 19:r1, 20:r1, 24:r1, 40:r1, 43:4, 44:r1, 47:4, 52:r1, 53:4, 54:4; RSO 82 12:r1; UF 10 35:r1; VAS 13 37:4; YOS 14 341:3.

Personnel with title and clear affiliation with houses and institutions

173

with Nabi-Sîn as the authority issuing flour recorded as an allocation of the house of prisoners (šu ku e₂ asīrī). Aḫum-waqar must have been the foremost authority of the e ₂-aĝr ig, “house of the aĝ rig,” which received forty-eight workers from the bīt asīrī over a period of sixteen months. As we have seen in the previous chapter, the house of the aĝr ig was the institution that provided flour to the house of prisoners while benefiting from the labor force of prisoners and slaves who might have worked temporarily as millers until they were relocated. Aḫum-waqar’s last attestation thus far is dated to RīA 2/XI/23 (UF 10 35:r1), whereas the last extant attestation of the e ₂ -aĝrig is from RīA 3/II/ 7 (Nisaba 4 II.77). This may be coincidental or it may indicate that flour allocations to messengers and the military ceased towards the second year of RīmAnum, while the house of the aĝr ig was still the recipient of workers from the bīt asīrī.

II.3 d ub -sa r e n - n u e ₂ - gal The title “scribe of the palace guard” appears only once, attached to the name of the otherwise unattested Ninurta-ilum (App. 1 Nᵒ 39:2-3). The tablet records Ninurta-ilum’s delivery of reed products received by Apil-ilīšu.

II.4 g u -za - l a ₂ (guzalûm) The title gu-z a -l a₂ literally means “chair-bearer,” and it might have referred originally to a servant carrying a chair after his master, as explained by the CAD (G s.v. guzalû). The exact role of the gu-za -l a₂ -official during the Old Babylonian period remains unclear (see Westenholz and Westenholz 2006, 124128).4 In the corpus of the bīt asīrī there are two men bearing this title. The gu-z a -l a ₂ Iddin-Nanāya is recorded once (Nisaba 4 II.8:4). In this tablet he receives a slave for the e ₂ -b u r- saĝ , which implies that Iddin-Nanāya must have rendered services to this institution. The other gu-z a-l a ₂ is Sînni, who acts as the conveyor of two runaway slaves brought by the overseer of barbers of Larsa (Nisaba 4 II.66:r2). There is no evidence to relate this man to the e ₂- b u r- s aĝ or to any other institution.

 For the role of the gu-za-la₂ at Maškan-šāpir during the reign of Rīm-Sîn I of Larsa, see Abraham and Gabbay (2012). According to the authors, the gu-za-la₂ of Maškan-šāpir administered the disbursal of beer, flour and barley to various destinations.

174

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

II.5 sukkal (šukkallum) The word s u k ka l is rendered in the Akkadian dictionaries as “court official” (CAD S s.v. sukkallu) and as “Minister, Wesir” (AHw s.v. šu(k)kallu). As discussed in the previous chapter, the su kka l was a high official, although his precise function in the Old Babylonian administration is still uncertain. This official must have operated in the e ₂ - su kka l, which is attested twice in the bīt asīrī corpus.5 Four su kka ls appear in the archive. The su kka l Aḫum is the master of a man who was given to the chief physician from the house of the aĝr ig (Nisaba 4 II.39:2). Another worker belonging to Gimil-ilī, the ugul a e₂ , was assigned to the team of ox-drivers in the biltum-field of Bēlānum, the s u k ka l , and was received by an e n si ₂ (Nisaba 4 II.60:2). In a fragmentary tablet, Itūr-ašdu, the ugu la ša su kka l, received a prisoner brought from Isin (Nisaba 4 II.52:7). The fourth su k ka l is Ḫadānšu-likšud, similarly mentioned as the man in charge of one slave, Adad-šeme. In this document Adad-šeme and another slave were assigned to feeding the wagon oxen and were received by Abī-kīma-Šamaš (Nisaba 4 II.57:4 and 58:4).6 The case of Ḫadānšu-likšud requires additional comment. A Ḫadānšu-likšud with the title su kka l is attested as one of the witnesses in a document from Sippar (BDHP 28:r 11, Si 8?).7 The tablet records the purchase of a field from the king. Stol (2002, 736 and 755) related him to the king of Babylon and provided evidence for a certain Ḫadānšu-likšud with the title šāpir rēdî, “chief of the soldiers.” In a later oracle question concerning a campaign of Hammurabi to Kazalu (Lambert 2007, 25:9-11), Adānšu-likšud, son of Sîn-nērārī, is mentioned as “the one who supervises the soldiers” (ša akilūt rēdî ippušu, ln. 10). When commenting on the historicity of the oracle question, Charpin (1997, 190) mentioned that Ḫadānšu-likšud with the title šāpir rēdî is attested in two documents dated to the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth years of Samsuiluna (CT 45 37:8, MHET II/6 877:6). He also pointed out that on the second tablet Ḫadānšu-likšud appears as the neighbor of a property, which does not mean that he was still alive at the time the document was issued. In archival documents, Ḫadānšu-likšud is recorded during the reign of Samsu-iluna (and during Rīm-Anum’s second year, when the king of Uruk had already switched sides and joined Samsu-iluna). It is difficult to ascertain whether Ḫadānšu-

 See chapter 4, p. 163.  Collation of Nisaba 4 II.57 (=BM 1642) shows: obv. 2. ˹ša˺ a-wi-il-i₃-li₂ i r i ˹x˺-ruk i / du m u kaba-ar-tum, 3. ˹d iš kur-še-mi˺, 4. [ša] ˹ḫa˺-da-an-šu-lik-˹šu-ud˺ s u k kal , lo.e. 6. [a]-na gu d-h i- a ma-ia-˹al-tim˺ / šu-ku-lim, rev. 1. nam-ḫa-ar-ti Ida-˹bi˺-ki-˹ma˺-d u t u , etc.  The date of this document is problematic, see Stol (2002, 735).

Personnel with title and clear affiliation with houses and institutions

175

likšud, the s u k ka l, and Ḫadānšu-likšud, the šāpir rēdî, are the same person, but Stol pointed out that in both cases we are dealing with a high official in Babylon.8 It is most likely therefore that the Ḫadānšu-likšud attested as su kkal in the document from the bīt asīrī was one of the men of the king of Babylon present in Uruk.

II.6 ša ₃ - ta m (šatammum) The š a ₃ - t a m is usually characterized either as an administrative official or a temple administrator, seemingly of low rank.9 There are two different kinds of ša ₃ - t a m s recorded in documents from the reign of Rīm-Anum: the ša₃ -ta m acting in the e₂ - bu r- saĝ, possibly a house of offerings, and the ša ₃-ta m a n-z a ₃ - ga r, “administrative official of the (fortified) area.”10 The ša ₃-ta m Bēlānum received prisoners for the e ₂ -b u r- saĝ from the house of prisoners. Bēlānum is recorded together with Etel-pī-Ištar in two documents (Nisaba 4 II.71:r4-5, and Nisaba 4 II.78:r4-5). No sealing is extant for any of them. Attestations for the š a ₃ - t a m a n -za -ga r ₃ come from three tablets found at the palace of Sîn-kāšid, and from one in the Yale Babylonian Collection. One of the ša ₃ - t a m a n-z a - ga r₃ is Apil-ilīšu, who appears twice in administrative documents dealing with textiles. On both occasions the items were issued under his authority within a span of four days (BaM 23 179:r2'-4', and BaM 31 322:r24). An Apil-ilīšu without title is recorded in another document from the palace. In this case, however, he authorized the issuing of carding combs instead of textiles (BaM 31 303:r1). Similarly, in a document from the antiquities market an Apil-ilīšu also without title received reed products (App. 1 Nᵒ 39: 5). Even though a profession or filiation is lacking in the last two examples, the characteristics of the transactions may indicate that they involved the same man. The other š a ₃ - t a m a n-za - ga r₃ is Ipqu-Nabium, who twice authorized the delivery of textiles (BaM 23 179:r1'-3', and BaM 31 322:r2-4). In the first instance he acted together with his colleague Apil-ilīšu. No sealing is preserved for these men.

 Personal communication (9/23/2011). I wish to thank M. Stol for sharing with me his notes on Ḫadānšu-likšud.  See CAD Š/2 and AHw s.v. šatammu, Gallery (1980), Charpin (1986, 244-5), Van De Mieroop (1987, 96-7), Edzard (2004, 562, Nᵒ 277), Molina and Such-Gutiérrez (2005, 55).  For the e₂ -bur- saĝ see chapter 4, p. 159. The term an -z a- gar ₃ or dimtum in Akkadian can be translated as “tower,” “fortified area” (CAD D and AHw s.v. dimtu).

176

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

II.7 šab ra (šabrûm) The š ab r a was the chief administrator of a household. Unlike the š a₃- tam, the šabrûm seems to have been a high ranking administrative official.11 Two šabrûms are attested in the bīt asīrī archive, and they must have presided over the house of the šabr a . Chronologically, the first is Etel-pī-Šamaš, who received 64 liters of mundu-“groats” issued at the house of prisoners when he went to Eridu (UF 10 33:4).12 The other šabrûm is Ana-pāni-ilī.13 His title appears only once in a document recording the allocation of 20 liters of flour that the šabrûm Ana-pāni-ilī had ordered for the city of Nabigu. The flour was issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme the overseer of the bīt asīrī (Nisaba 4 I.8:3). Other documents recording the name Ana-pāni-ilī deal with prisoners instead of flour. The main characteristic of this group of documents is that the transactions took place at the house of the aĝ r ig or that some of the parties were officials related to the e ₂ -aĝr ig. For instance, Marduk-iddinam belonging to Ilī-bānî was transferred from the e ₂- aĝ rig under the authority of Ninurtamansum and Ana-pāni-ilī, and the conveyor was Sîn-šeme, the ugu la asīrī (App. 1 Nᵒ 29). A similar tablet records the transfer of Ḫazib-Teššub from the e ₂ - aĝ r ig to Marduk-mušallim, the “chief physician.” Here again the worker was under the authority of Ninurta-mansum and Ana-pāni-ilī and the conveyor was Sîn-šeme (Nisaba 4 II.39). Nine days later, two slaves under the authority of Mār-Bābilum and Ana-pāni-ilī were transferred from the house of aĝr ig and the conveyor was Sîn-šeme (Nisaba 4 II.41). In other documents where Anapāni-ilī acted together with Mār-Bābilum, both men received prisoners and slaves assigned to the e ₂ -aĝr ig.14 On one occasion Ana-pāni-ilī received the prisoners by himself (Nisaba 4 II. 64). Finally, the name Ana-pāni-ilī appears as father in the sealings of two men: Sîn-bēl-ilī and Rammānum-[…].15

 See, for instance, CAD Š/1 and AHw s.v. šabrû, W. Sallaberger (1999, 194-5), R. de Maaijer (1998, 53-4), Sigrist (1992, 219-221), Grégoire (1970, 130-1).  There are two other men named Etel-pī-Šamaš in the archive of the bīt asīrī, but they do not seem to be related to the šabrûm. One of them is Etel-pī-Šamaš, the brother of Ninurtaabī, who had slaves and prisoners under his authority (Nisaba 4 II.55:2, 56:2, VAS 13 45:4; UF 10 39:2, App. 1 Nᵒ 23:3). The other Etel-pī-Šamaš is a m uh a l d im (App. 1 Nᵒ 18:4, VAS 13 54:4).  This personal name is also attested as Appān-ilī (e.g., App. 1 Nᵒ 29:9, Nisaba 4 I.8:3, II.39:5, 41:r3, and 64:7).  Thus, for instance, in Nisaba 4 II.42, 77, UF 10 2, VAS 13 13, and YOS 14 338.  The sealing of Sîn-bēl-ilī / dum u Ana-pāni-ilī / […] appears in Nisaba 4 II.4, 10, 12, 17, 20, 33, 37, 50, 51, and UF 10 6. The seal of Ramānum-[…] was rolled on Nisaba 4 I.15, II.31, RSO 82 5, and VAS 13 48.

Personnel with title and clear affiliation with houses and institutions

177

The problem remains as to whether the name Ana-pāni-ilī refers to only one person or to more than one. There are a number of possible scenarios. The first is to consider Ana-pāni-ilī to be two, three or even four different men: one being the šabrûm, the other an official in the e ₂ -aĝr ig, and finally the father(s) of Sîn-bēl-ilī and Rammānum-[…]. Or any combination of those alternatives might apply. Homonyms are by no means rare in the archive. The second option is the possibility that Ana-pāni-ilī’s career included first his role as a šabrûm and later his activities at the house of the aĝ r ig.16 Finally, it could be that Ana-pāni-ilī was but one person and always held the position of šabrûm. If the last alternative is the case, then it seems that the e₂ -aĝ r ig and the bīt šabrîm had close dealings with one another. It would also represent a clear example where father and children were members of the administration.

II.8 u g ul a asīrī There are two overseers of prisoners attested in the corpus of texts from RīmAnum. Šēp-Sîn appears only once on a tablet with a broken date. In this document 30 liters of flour for allocation to the house of the šabrûm were issued at the house of prisoners under his authority (VAS 13 54:6).17 The second ugu l a asīrī, Sîn-šeme, is recorded about 240 times over a period of eighteen and a half months, from RīA 1/VIII/15 (BM 88820:3) to RīA 3/II/28 (Nisaba 4 II.79:r2). He is further mentioned once in a document dated to king Samsuiluna (Nisaba 4, 195-7, Si 8/VIII/11). The impression of his cylinder seal is preserved on a number of tablets, where he is identified as the son of Išme-Sîn and servant of Rīm-Anum.18 Because Sîn-šeme is well documented, it is possible to reconstruct the activities of the ugu la asīrī in some detail. Sîn-šeme’s name appears in three types of documents: those dealing with products other than flour, those allocating flour, and those pertaining to prisoners and slaves. There are only two tablets related to products other than flour. The first mentions various types of wood issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the ugu l a asīrī, and received by Sîn-bēl-ilī (Nisaba 4 III.2:r1). Although this latter man does not have a title, it is possible that he is the well-attested ugu l a u š- b a r, “overseer of weavers.” The second tablet is more problematic because

 Note that Ana-pāni-ilī’s attestation as šabrûm comes from Rīm-Anum’s first year, whereas his activities in the e₂-aĝrig are recorded from RīA 2/I/1 (App. 1 Nᵒ 29) to RīA 3/II/7 (Nisaba 4 II.77).  For a tentative dating of this document and for Šēp-Sîn’s role in it see chapter 4, p. 148.  His sealing reads: dsu’en-še-mi / dumu iš-me-d su’en / a r ad ri-im-da-nu-um.

178

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

the date is missing and the two men involved do not bear titles (Nisaba 4 III.4). In this case an otherwise unattested Šamaš-nāṣir receives silver and barley and Sîn-šeme receives only barley. As the editor noticed, this text may very well not belong to the time of Rīm-Anum (Rositani 2003, 193) nor to the bīt asīrī archive for that matter. Documents pertaining to flour have Sîn-šeme performing two distinct functions. On the one hand, he rolled his seal on tablets about allotments described as š u ku e ₂ asīrī, “food allocation of the house of prisoners,” which means that he acknowledged the receipt of the flour for the institution he managed. Of the fifty-four tablets of the type šu ku e ₂ asīrī all the legible sealings belong to Sîn-šeme.19 On the other hand, Sîn-šeme authorized the expenditure of flour in all other allocations issued at the house of prisoners, for example ĝešbu n , si -l a ₂ , and ṣudû.20 In sum, in this group of texts the overseer of the prisoners managed the incoming flour and its subsequent allocation. Tablets dealing with the management of prisoners and slaves record Sînšeme acting as conveyor or authorizing the transfer of labor. Sîn-šeme is the conveyor (ĝ i r i ₃ ) in eight extant documents.21 In all these instances, the prisoners were transferred from an institution that is not the bīt asīrī to another institution, to a person, or back to the house of prisoners. For example, a certain Abum-ilī, whom Daganma-ilum had sent during the third campaign, was given as an oil-presser. The relevant tablet was issued at the e ₂ -aĝ rig under the authority of Ninurta-mansum. It seems then that Abum-ilī spent some time working at the house of the aĝr ig before being assigned as an oilpresser (Nisaba 4 II.35). A similar case occurs on a broken tablet involving Marduk-iddinam belonging to Ilī-bānî, who was seemingly assigned to the soldier Sîn-aḫḫī-iddinam. This transaction also took place at the house of the aĝ r ig under the authority of Ninurta-mansum and Ana-pāni-ilī. The conveyor was Sîn-šeme (App. 1 Nᵒ 29, RīA 2/I/1). Ten days later, another man, Ḫazib Thus, for example, in Nisaba 4 I.1, 2, 9, 14, 16, 19, 20, 24, 29, 30, 31, 37, 40, 44, 45, 50, 52, 54, and 55.  For instance, ĝ ešb un: App. 1 Nᵒ 11, Nᵒ 19, Nᵒ 12, Nᵒ 9, Nᵒ 4, Nᵒ 16, Nᵒ 6, Nᵒ 10, MCS 7/1, 3, Nisaba 4 I.4, 13, 15, 18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, RSO 82 8, 13, 14, UF 10 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 34, 37, 38, 40, VAS 13 38, 41, 42, 44, 47; si-la ₂: App. 1 Nᵒ 7, Nᵒ 2, Nisaba 4 I.5, 10, 21, 25, 59, 60, UF 10 5; ṣudû: App. 1 Nᵒ 21, UF 10 13, VAS 13 48; ana GN: Nisaba 4 I.8, UF 10 33; šu ku e₂: App. 1 Nᵒ 24, Nisaba 4 I.67, RA 71, 7 Nᵒ 2, UF 10 23, VAS 13 52, 53; ana š u ku lugal : Nisaba 4 I.48, 51; ana rēš ekallim kullim: Nisaba 4 I.17, 49; ana e ₂ a -z u- me š : Nisaba 4 I.35; mēreš lugal: RA 71, 8 Nᵒ 3; ana mu-wa-ar-ba-tim: App. 1 Nᵒ 18, App. 1 Nᵒ 17, VAS 13 54.  Tablets in which Sîn-šeme acts as conveyor are as follows: App. 1 Nᵒ 29:r10, Nisaba 4 II.35:r3, 39:r2, 40:r6, 41:r4, 46:r2, 48:r2, 73:r7.

Personnel with title and clear affiliation with houses and institutions

179

Teššub, was transferred from the e ₂- aĝ rig to Marduk-mušallim, the chief physician, and the same authorities were involved (Nisaba 4 II.39, RīA 2/I/11). Two tablets written on successive days are unparalleled within this group. The first is fragmentary but it mentions that Aḫīma, belonging to Adad-mušallim, was taken from the house of the aĝrig and given to Amurrum-nāṣir. There is a lacuna and when the text resumes it mentions that the tablet was issued at the house of the aĝr ig and that the conveyor was the well known ugul a asīrī (Nisaba 4 II.40, RīA 2/I/19). The next day another record registers the transfer of the same Aḫīma and of a second slave belonging to Gimillum to the house of the s u k ka l. The transaction took place at the house of the aĝ r ig and Sîn-šeme was the conveyor, but this happened under the authority of MārBābilum and Ana-pāni-ilī, who were not mentioned in the previous document. The tablet bears the sealing of Sîn-šeme (Nisaba 4 II.41, RīA 2/I/20). If the slave belonging to Gimillum was also present in the broken passage of the previous tablet, the most important difference between these two records would be the absence of the two officials from the house of the aĝ r ig in the first. One could speculate that both workers were withdrawn from the house of the aĝr ig when none of the authorities supervising this kind of transfer – such as Ninurtamansum, Ana-pāni-ilī or Mār-Bābilum – were present. Therefore, the second tablet could have been written to record the consent of the officials from the house of the aĝ r ig. The three other tablets where Sîn-šeme is the conveyor deal with institutions other than the house of the aĝr ig. The first mentions that a woman belonging to Šallūrum the overseer of weavers was given to Warad-Sîn, the Gutian.22 The document was issued at the house of the weavers under the authority of Sîn-bēl-ilī. Here Sîn-bēl-ilī appears without title, but he is attested elsewhere as overseer of the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.46:r2). Sîn-šeme was also the conveyor in a fragmentary tablet recording people returned to the house of prisoners. In this case the tablet was issued at the bīt asīrī (Nisaba 4 II.48:r2). Finally, Sîn-šeme was the conveyor in a document concerning five palace slaves. The transaction took place under the authority of Nabium-mālik, Ilšubānî, and their partners the ša ₃ - ta m s (Nisaba 4 II.73:r7). The rest of the tablets dealing with prisoners and slaves have the ugu l a asīrī Sîn-šeme as the official under whose authority labor was assigned. In most of these documents, one or two men received prisoners and slaves for the institutions that they represented. The phraseology is consistently the same: Nᵒ PN(s) / (ana institution name) / namḫarti PN(s) (NP) / z i -ga / n iĝ ₂- šu Sînšeme ugu l a asīrī, “number of personal name(s) (for institution name) received  Warad-Sîn, the Gutian, also appears in charge of prisoners in YOS 14 338:10.

180

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

by personal name (title); issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the overseer of the prisoners.” Examples include laborers received by Sîn-bēl-ilī, MutiDagan, Irībam-Sîn, Pa-ila and Būnu-d[…] for the house of weavers,23 by MārBābilum and Ana-pāni-ilī for the house of the aĝ rig,24 by Marduk-mušallim for the poultry house,25 by Ištar-ilum for the bow-makers,26 and by Etel-pī-Ištar and Bēlānum for the house of offerings, e ₂- b u r- s aĝ .27 A number of workers issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme were also received by men with a title but without a mention of their affiliation with particular houses or with other specific institutions. For instance, recipients are: the en s i ₂ Āmur-ilūt-Sîn (Nisaba 4 II.60:5), the s an ta na Ibni-Sîn (Nisaba 4 II.26:r4), Ilī-iddinam also sa n t a n a (UF 10 29:r1-2), Ana-Mardukatkal, s aĝ a of Kanisura (Nisaba 4 II.16:r2, and 24:r1), the saĝ a s of Rammānum, Iddin-Šamaš and Anum-ilī, (VAS 13 36:7, Nisaba 4 II.22:7-r1), and UbārŠamaš, s aĝ a of Šamaš (Nisaba 4 II.23:r1).28 Further examples include a brewer (Nisaba 4 II.19: 6), the overseer of the Elamites (Nisaba 4 II.3:r5), a su- s i - ig, “animal flayer” by the name of Dādâ (Nisaba 4 II.76:r1), the scribe Sîn-nāṣir (Nisaba 4 II. 45:r9), and Imgur-Sîn, who was related to the oxdrivers (Nisaba 4 II.27:r1). Other recipients of a labor force issued by Sînšeme were men without a title (e.g., Nisaba 4 II.1:r2, and VAS 13 45:r3). Finally, a few other tablets record movements of laborers under the authority of the ugu l a asīrī, but they do not usually feature the noun namḫarti as was the case with other documents. They register four slaves entrusted to a man by the name of Bēlšunu, son of Ḫurruṣum (Nisaba 4 II.49), and dead prisoners (e.g., Nisaba 4 II.31, and 69).

II.9 u g ul a e ₂ and ug ul a e ₂ -m eš The titles ugu l a e₂ and ugu la e ₂ -m eš could be rendered as “overseer of the house” and “overseers of the house,” in the singular and the plural respec-

 E.g., CDLJ 2007/1 45:r2; App. 1 Nᵒ 23:8; Nisaba 4 II.4:r15, 5:8, 10:r6-7, 12:4, 13:5, 17:r3, 20:r7'8', 33:r4-5, 37:r2, 50:r8, 51:r6, 55:5, 59:r6; Nisaba 4, 195-7:r18; UF 10 1:r7, 28:5; VAS 13 40:r2, 46:5; YOS 14 337:r4, 339:r6.  E.g., Nisaba 4 II.64:7, 77:8; UF 10 2:r7; VAS 13 13:r6; YOS 14 338:r3-4.  E.g., Nisaba 4 II.14:r3, 38:r1; UF 10 31:6.  E.g., App. 1 Nᵒ 41:8, Nisaba 4 II.75:6, YOS 14 340:r1.  E.g., App. 1 Nᵒ 32:r1', and Nisaba 4 II.78:r4-5.  The en si₂ (iššiakkum) managed fields, the san t a na (šandanakkum) administered orchards, and the saĝa (šangûm) was the chief administrator of a temple.

Personnel with title and clear affiliation with houses and institutions

181

tively.29 There are four attestations of ugu la e ₂ in the singular. In two cases the bearer of the title is Gimil-ilī. The first document was issued at the bīt asīrī and records that Sîn-imguranni belonging to Gimil-ilī, the ugu l a e₂ , had died. The conveyors were Nabi-ilīšu, the b i saĝ- du b - ba , and the ugu la e ₂ -me š (Nisaba 4 II.31:r1-2). The second tablet mentions that Ilī-ippašram belonging to Gimil-ilī, the ugu l a e ₂, was assigned to a team of ox-drivers (Nisaba 4 II.60:2). The ugu l a e₂ Aḫī-[…] is recorded in two unpublished tablets dealing with prisoners under his authority who had died (BM 88576:4, BM 88624:3-4). In both cases the conveyors were Nabi-ilīšu and the ugu l a e ₂- me š. The title ugu l a e ₂ - m eš , “overseers of the house,” in the plural, is attested four times and is not preceded by personal names in either instance. As already mentioned, the overseers of the house are listed together with Nabi-ilīšu as the conveyors in tablets dealing with dead slaves managed through the bīt asīrī (BM 88624:r1-2, BM 88576:r1-2, Nisaba 4 II.31:r1-2, and BM 88515:r1-2). The overseer of prisoners does not appear in any of these tablets.

II.10 u g ul a e ₂ - m uš e n- h i -a Marduk-mušallim is the only overseer of the poultry house attested thus far. His name is recorded six times over a period of about seven and a half months, from RīA 1/XI/6 (Nisaba 4 II.14) to RīA 2/VI/25 (Nisaba 4 II.60).30 Traces of his sealings are preserved on three tablets, where he is identified as son of Abīyatum and servant of the gods Inanna and Nabium.31 As was the case with other overseers of houses, Marduk-mušallim received prisoners and slaves – those assigned to the e₂- m u šen -h i - a on five occasions. He received three male  The CAD A/1 s.v. aklu A discussion section p. 280, refers to the entry šāpiru for PA.E₂ in the Old Babylonian period. In volume Š/1 s.v. šāpiru mng. 1 a) 3', the expression šāpir bītim is rendered as “major-domo, steward of an estate.” In all the instances provided, the first element, i.e., šāpiru, is written syllabically. The editors refer to šabrû usage b-2' a' and šabrû A disc. section, for the signs PA.E₂. The same dictionary, volume Š/1 s.v. šabrûm A (discussion section), explains “The lexical evidence indicates that PA.E₂ (as well as PA.AL) is to be read šabra (…) rather than šāpir bīti. This is corroborated by the occurrence side by side of ša-pir É, PA.É ša gagîm, and PA.É ša dUTU in TCL 1 151:3 16' f. (…).” For the Ur III period Sallaberger (1999, 195) has PA.E₂ = šabr a₂. For the Old Babylonian period M. Stol (2002, 736 and 741) reads the signs as PA e₂ and renders the title as “Haupt des Hauses,” and “Chef des Hauses.”  He appears in Nisaba 4 II.14:r2-3, Nisaba 4 II.38:r1-2, UF 10 4:r3, UF 10 31:6, Nisaba 4 II.60:67, and BM 86101:r1.  The sealing is a composite of different impressions (Nisaba 4 II.38, UF 10 31, Nisaba 4 II.60) and the attestation of the paternal name appears once in the body of the tablet (Nisaba 4 II.60:7). Collation of Nisaba 4 II.60 (=BM 86047) clearly shows a-bi-ia-tum. Collation of the sealing on this tablet confirms this reading, for it has [dum u a]-bi-˹ia-tum˺.

182

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

slaves (Nisaba 4 II.14), a man brought from Pī-nārātim (Nisaba 4 II.38), two slaves brought from different cities (UF 10 4), and a worker who had previously been assigned to the ox-drivers (UF 10 31). Finally, Ilī-ippašram, who had been under the authority of Marduk-mušallim, was assigned to a team of ox-drivers and received by an en si₂ , “agricultural manager” (Nisaba 4 II.60). In this case, the overseer of the poultry house seems to have acknowledged the transfer that Sîn-šeme, the ugu la asīrī, authorized.

II.11 u g ul a ( e ₂ - ) munus -uš -bar Four men bear the title overseer of the female weavers and are clearly connected with the e₂-u š-b a r. Alphabetically arranged they are Būnu-d[…], MutiDagan, Sîn-bēl-ilī, and Šallūrum.32 Būnu-[…] and Šallūrum are attested just once, Muti-Dagan twelve times, and Sîn-bēl-ilī on twenty-three occasions.33 When sealings are legible, they belong to Sîn-bēl-ilī, the son of Ana-pāni-ilī and servant of the god Rammānum.34 Furthermore, Sîn-bēl-ilī appears in one document with the title ugu la e ₂ -u š-b a r, “overseer of the house of the weavers,” instead of simply “overseer of the weavers” (Nisaba 4 II.12:5). Unless this is a string of coincidences, the facts that he is the most frequently attested overseer of the weavers, that he has a seal, and that he is once mentioned as house overseer, imply that Sîn-bēl-ilī was the highest authority of the e ₂ -u š - b a r. The four overseers of the weavers seem to have been active contemporaneously, at least in certain cases. In most instances they received prisoners and slaves assigned to the institution via the house of prisoners.35 But on a few other occasions two of them are mentioned in a different capacity. For exam Attestations are as follows: Būnu-d[…] (Nisaba 4 II.5:8), Muti-Dagan (BM 87085:4, BM 97061:r6, CDLJ 2007/1 45:r2, Nisaba 4 II.2:r12', 4:r16, 10:r7, 13:5, 20:r8', 33:r5, 53:5, 59:r6, UF 10 28:5), Sîn-bēl-ilī (BM 86144:3, BM 88612:r4, App. 1 Nᵒ 23:8, Nisaba 4 II.2:r13', 4:r15, 10:r6, 12:4, 17:r3, 20:r7', 33:r4, 34:5, 37:r2, 46:r1, 50:r8, 51:r6, 53:2, 55:5, 56:r1, Nisaba 4 pp. 195-7:r18, UF 10 6:r3, VAS 13 39:r5, 40:r2, YOS 14 339:r6), and Šallūrum (Nisaba 4 II.46:2).  The name Sîn-bēl-ilī is recorded twice without title and no apparent connection with the house of the weavers: once as the recipient of wooden products (Nisaba 4 III.2:8), and once as the man who authorizes the transfer of a person belonging to Ea-bēl-ilī to another man as a royal gift (Nisaba 4 II.65:3). There is not enough evidence to decide whether these attestations of Sîn-bēl-ilī refer to the ugul a uš-ba r or to a homonym.  Sealings are legible in Nisaba 4 II.4, 10, 12, 17, 20, 33, 37, 50, 51, and UF 10 6.  For a chronological list of the attestations of the overseers of the weavers see chapter 4, p. 157. Examples of prisoners and slaves received by these men are: BM 86144, CDLJ 2007/1 45, App. 1 Nᵒ 23, Nisaba 4 II.2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 17, 20, 33, 34, 37, 50, 51, 55, 56, 59, Nisaba 4 pp.1957, UF 10 6, 28, VAS 13 40, YOS 14 339.

Personnel without title but with clear affiliation with houses

183

ple, the only attestation of Šallūrum appears on a tablet concerning a woman belonging to him and given to Warad-Sîn, the Gutian. The document was issued at the e₂ -u š -b a r under the authority of Sîn-bēl-ilī (Nisaba 4 II.46). This might be additional evidence that Sîn-bēl-ilī had precedence over Šallūrum and possibly over the other overseers as well. Finally Sîn-bēl-ilī is recorded two other times on tablets pertaining to the transfer of prisoners and slaves. In one case a person belonging to Etel-pī-Ea, the n ar-ga l , “chief musician,” was assigned to the house of the weavers under his authority (Nisaba 4 II.34).36 In another, Mārat-Ištar belonging to Zalluḫum under the authority of Sîn-bēl-ilī was assigned together with another woman to the ox-drivers (Nisaba 4 II.53).37

II.12 zaba r- dab ₅ -ba (zabardabbûm) The title z ab a r- d ab ₅- b a , “cup-bearer,” is attested only once in documents dated to Rīm-Anum (Nisaba 4 II.30:r1-2).38 The tablet deals with Warad-Sîn belonging to Erra-nāṣir, who was given to Lalâtum, the king’s mother. The document was issued at the ĝi ₆ -p a r₃ under the authority of Ikūn-pī-Ištar, the zab a r- d ab ₅- b a . Ikūn-pī-Ištar is the only official mentioned in this transaction.

III Personnel without title but with clear affiliation with houses III.1 Personnel of the e ₂ -aĝ ri g Three individuals without attested titles operated in the house of the aĝr ig. They are Mār-Bābilum, Ninurta-mansum, and Nabi-Sîn. Mār-Bābilum appears in ten tablets over a period of about one year.39 His sealing identifies him as  After collation lines 2-4 of the obverse read: 2. ˹ša e-tel-pi₄-e₂-a n ar- ga l˺, 3. ˹niĝ ₂ - š u ˺ muḫa-du-um na r-˹ga l˺.  Collation shows the following reading: obv. 6. 2 saĝ - ge m e ₂ - m eš , 7. ˹a-na˺ m u n u sš a ₃ -gud-me š, rev. 1. ˹a-na gud ˺ šu-ku-lim. Sîn-bēl-ilī may also be present in the transfer of another man belonging to Ea-bēl-ilī (Nisaba 4 II.65:3). However, since the title is not mentioned and since Ea-bēl-ilī might be the same name attested elsewhere as u ₂ - t u l₂ , it is not clear whether this Sîn-bēl-ilī is the same as the overseer of the weavers.  For a discussion of this title during the Ur III period see Sallaberger (1999, 186-188); for the Old Babylonian period see Charpin (1986, 236-241), and Lafont (1987, 51-52).  Thus in BM 88515:4; App. 1 Nᵒ 35:11; Nisaba 4 II.41:r2, 42:5, 47:5, 77:8; UF 10 2:r7; VAS 13 13:r6; YOS 14 338:r3; and possible also in BaM 31 Nᵒ 366:3.

184

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

the son of Ṣillī-d[…] and the servant of the god Rammānum (UF 10 2). His affiliation with the house of the aĝrig is apparent from a document mentioning the transfer of a laborer that took place at the house of the aĝ rig under the authority of Mār-Bābilum and Ana-pāni-ilī (Nisaba 4 II.41:r2). Similarly, seven male slaves belonging to Ilīma-ilum were given to the e₂ - aĝr ig under the authority of Mār-Bābilum (App. 1 Nᵒ 35:11). He is also mentioned once together with the ša ₃- ta m officials in a record pertaining to the death of a slave (BM 88515:4). In the rest of the documents, he and the šabrûm Ana-pāniilī received prisoners assigned to the house of the aĝr ig.40 The other man affiliated with the house of the aĝr ig, Ninurta-mansum, appears only three times over a period of less than a month, from RīA 1/XII/29 to RīA 2/I/11. He acted once as the issuing authority pertaining to a man transferred from the house of the aĝ rig (Nisaba 4 II.35:r2), and on two other occasions he and Anapāni-ilī authorized the transfer of men from the e ₂ -aĝr ig (App. 1 Nᵒ 29:8-9, Nisaba 4 II.39:4-5). Finally, the third man related to the house of the aĝr ig is Nabi-Sîn. Unlike Mār-Bābilum and Ninurta-mansum, Nabi-Sîn did not deal with the management of people but with the allocation of flour. He is recorded thirty-seven times over fourteen months, from RīA 1?/IX/18 (Nisaba 4 I.1) to RīA 2/X/18? (Nisaba 4 I.56).41 The reason I include him in the house of the aĝr ig is because together with the aĝr ig Aḫum-waqar he authorized the allocation of flour to the bīt asīrī. They appear twenty-one times. In all other tablets Nabi-Sîn acted alone.42 It is of course possible that Nabi-Sîn represented some other institution that provided flour together with the house of the aĝrig, but currently there is no evidence to confirm or disprove this hypothesis.

III.2 Personnel of the e ₂ -uš- bar Two men without title or whose titles were not recorded acted as officials in the house of the weavers. The first is Irībam-Sîn, attested three times.43 In these  A tablet from the palace of Sîn-kāšid has Mār-Bābilum as a recipient of a man, but the date is uncertain due to the few visible wedges (BaM 31 Nᵒ 366).  Attestations are: App. 1 Nᵒ 26:4; BM 87065:r1; BM 87069:4; BM 87092:4; BM 88681:r2; BM 88687:r1, RSO 82 11:r1; BM 88698:r2; BM 88954:r2; BM 100216:r1; BM 100363:r1; App. 1 Nᵒ 5:5, Nᵒ 13:5, Nᵒ 15:3, Nᵒ 34:5, Nᵒ 37:4, Nᵒ 40:6, Nᵒ 30:5, Nᵒ 36:4; Nisaba 4 I.1:r2, 14:r2, 19:r2, 20:r2, 24:r2, 29:4, 30:r1, 31:4, 37:4, 40:r2, 43:r1, 44:r2, 45:r1, 47:r1, 50:r1, 52:r2, 55:4, 56:r1.  For instance in App. 1 Nᵒ 26:4; BM 87092:4; BM 100216:r1; App. 1 Nᵒ 37:4, Nᵒ 36:4, Nᵒ 15:3; Nisaba 4 I.29:4, 30:r1, 31:4, 37:4, 45:r1, 50:r1, 55:4, 56:r1.  App. 1 Nᵒ 33:9, UF 10 3:r1, and VAS 13 46:5. Note that in the body of the first two tablets the name is written Erībam and the sealing has Irībam.

Personnel with title and no clear affiliation

185

tablets he received four female prisoners and slaves for the e₂ -u š-ba r. All the documents bear the impression of his cylinder seal, but the sealings are only partially legible.44 The second is Pa-ila, attested only twice (UF 10 1:r7, and YOS 14 337:r4). He received twenty-one workers for the house of the weavers. From his sealing we know that he was the son of Ṣillī-d[…] and servant of the god Amurrum.45 It is possible that both Irībam-Sîn and Pa-ila bore the title ugu l a u š - b a r, as did other officials related to the house of the weavers.

IV Personnel with title and no clear affiliation with specific houses and institutions IV.1 Administrative personnel bisa ĝ - d ub - ba (šandabakkum) This term is usually rendered as “archivist.” During the Old Babylonian period the b i s aĝ - du b - b a was a high ranking official in the palace or temple administration.46 In the extant documents only two men bore the title, namely Nabiilīšu and Sîn-iddinam. Nabi-ilīšu’s seal characterizes him as bi saĝ - du b -ba , son of Lakīta-rēmēni and servant of Rīm-Anum. Nabi-ilīšu is attested from RīA 1/X/3 (BM 88624) to RīA 2/XII/5 (App. 1 Nᵒ 27). His seal impression was rolled on forty-seven tablets.47 These documents deal with allocation of flour, except for one case in which Nabi-ilīšu sealed a tablet recording a delivery of a dead animal to the e₂ -u zu , “meat house” (App. 1 Nᵒ 27).48 He also acted as conveyor (ĝi r i ₃ ) on five occasions in documents pertaining to the death of prisoners.49 The other b i s aĝ - du b -b a is Sîn-iddinam, attested from RīA 1/VIII/11+ (RSO 82 6) to RīA 2/IX/22 (Nisaba 4 II.69). He is known exclusively from eleven seal impressions on tablets dealing with flour-allocation and slaves. Sîn-iddinam  The sealings read: Irībam-Sîn / dum u Sîn-i-[…] / ar ad d[…].  The impression of Pa-ila’s seal appears only once: Pa-ila / du m u Ṣillī-d[…] / a r ad Amurrum (UF 10 1).  For this title see A. Sjöberg (1986, 133), Charpin (1986, 241 and 2004, 248), M. Powell (1973, 182-3 Nᵒ 25), and Stol (2002, 753 with bibliography).  These are: App. 1 Nᵒ 11, Nᵒ 7, Nᵒ 17, Nᵒ 14, Nᵒ 27; Nisaba 4 I.15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 34, 46, 48, 49, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 65, 67, II.31; RSO 82 5, 15; UF 10 5, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37; VAS 13 48, 49, 53.  The beginning of the tablet is badly damaged, but a numeral one is at the beginning of the first line, and the term ri -ri-ga shows that this is a dead animal.  Nabi-ilīšu is the conveyor in BM 88515, BM 88569, BM 88576, BM 88624, and Nisaba 4 II.31. The name Nabi-ilīšu also appears as the father of [PN] in a sealing on a tablet from the Sînkāšid palace (BaM 27 216).

186

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

had two different cylinder seals. The first is so far attested through the sixth month of Rīm-Anum’s second year (RīA 2/VI/30, App. 1 Nᵒ 11). The second seal adds the title b i saĝ- du b - ba and has “servant” of Rīm-Anum instead of “servant” of the god AN.AN.MAR.TU.50 Sîn-iddinam used both of his seals alternately, and the one including the legend “servant of Rīm-Anum” is first attested on the twenty-second day of the eighth month of Rīm-Anum’s second year. As for their institutional affiliation, it is not clear whether Nabi-ilīšu and Sîn-iddinam belonged to the temple or to the palace administration. Even the presence of a royal name on the seal is not revealing because bi s aĝ - dub -baofficials from the temple or the palace alike are servants of kings (see Charpin 2004, 247-8). What is clear is that the two men held the position simultaneously, at least for some time.

d ub -sa r (ṭupšarrum) The name of only one scribe whose title had no other qualifications has reached us.51 The scribe is Irībam-Sîn, whose seal was rolled on two tablets dealing with flour allocation. He was the son of Warad-Šamaš and servant of Rīm-Anum (Nisaba 4 I.13, and 18). Finally there are two scribes whose sealings are preserved on documents from the palace of Sîn-kāšid but whose names are missing. The first is [PN], son of Nabi-ilīšu and servant of Rīm-Anum (BaM 27 216), and the second is [PN], son of […]-Ninurta, servant of Rīm-Anum (BaM 27 223).

IV.2 Other professions and occupations a d - K I D (atkuppum) Except for three documents, tablets mentioning the ad-K ID, “basket weaver” or “reed worker,” originate from the Sîn-kāšid palace and belong to an archive

 The impression of the first seal reads Sîn-iddinam / du m u I-nu-[…] / ar a d AN.AN.MAR.TU. See RSO 82 6 (RīA 1?/VIII/11+); Nisaba 4 I.38 (RīA 2/VI/1), 39 (RīA 2/VI/3), 57 (RīA 2/I/26), 66 (RīA 2/VI/7); App. 1 Nᵒ 11 (RīA 2/VI/30). His second seal has Sîn-iddinam b i saĝ - du b - b a / dum u I-nu-[…] / a r a d Rīm-Anum. See VAS 13 52 (RīA 2/VIII/22); Nisaba 4 I.51 (RīA 2/IX/4), II.69 (RīA 2/IX/22); RSO 82 1 (RīA […]/VII/11+); and VAS 13 54 (date broken).  Besides the simple title scribe, there are other qualified titles such, as du b - sa r e n- n u e ₂-gal, “scribe of the palace guard” (App. 1 Nᵒ 39:3); du b - s ar ug n im , “military scribe” (UF 10 6:6); and one messenger of Rīm-Sîn of Larsa bears the title du b - s ar-z ag- ga, “registry official” (RA 71, 8 Nᵒ 4:3). Obviously, the last example does not come from Uruk.

Personnel with title and no clear affiliation

187

other than that of the bīt asīrī.52 Three men bore the title ugul a a d-K ID, “overseer of the reed workers.” Alphabetically arranged they are Ilī-u-Šamaš, Ina-palêšu, and Utu-mansum. Ilī-u-Šamaš’s title is partially broken, but the restoration seems justified by his role on the tablet, for he is the recipient of eighty reed-bundles (BaM 27 238:3).53 He is also attested without title in a tablet dealing with the same material (BaM 27 237:2). The ugu l a ad- KI D Inapalêšu received reed products issued at the storehouse (BaM 27 250:3).54 A similar transaction is recorded on three other tablets.55 The third ugu l a a d- K I D is Utu-mansum, who received ninety reed-bundles (BaM 27 243:4). Moreover, there is an Adad-šar-ilī attested only once as a d-K ID, without the word ugu l a preceding the title. He is the recipient of rushes (ĝ e š u₂ - di - du ) and his seal was rolled on the tablet. According to the sealing he was the son of Rīm-Adad (BaM 31 Nᵒ 270:3). A certain Eana-liwwir, apparently a slave belonging to Rīm-Ištar, is also characterized as a d- KI D. This record mentions that Rēš-Šamaš brought Eana-liwwir to the palace and that this man was entrusted to the ad-KID Ina-palêšu (Nisaba 4 II.68:1, 6).56 Another a d-K ID is Ea-šar-ilī, in charge of two slaves (App. 1 Nᵒ 28:28). Finally, a bīt asīrī document mentions eight male slaves described as a d-K I D -m eš (Nisaba 4 II.45:r8).57

lu₂

a zl a g ₂ (ašlākum) The only three fullers attested are workers assigned by the bīt asīrī. In the first document, Sîn-bēl-ilī the overseer of the house of weavers received a fuller (Nisaba 4 II.12). In a second tablet the same Sîn-bēl-ilī received three prisoners

 Tablets from the Sîn-kāšid palace mentioning the ad-K ID include BaM 27 237:2 Ø, 238:4, 242:4, 243:5, 245:3 Ø, 246:4 Ø, 250:4, 252:3 Ø, 256:2; and BaM 31 270:3 (Ø indicates that the title was not written). The three tablets from the bīt asīrī are Nisaba 4 II.45:r8, 68:6, and App. 1 Nᵒ 28:28.  The legible signs on Sanati-Müller’s copy read: obv. 3. nam-ḫar-ti i₃-li₂-˹u₃˺-[…], lo.e. 6. ugu la ˹ad˺-[ KI D], although from the copy the traces do not resemble the beginning of an ad sign. The sealing on BaM 27 237 reads Ilī-[u-Šamaš] / dum u […]-NI-[…] / ar a d Samsu-iluna.  BaM 27 250 line 1 of the reverse should be read ˹ša₃˺ n a -kam - t u m (also in 242:r2). The word n a-kam -tum, or nakkamtum in Akkadian, means “storehouse.”  Thus he receives: 40 reed[-bundles?] (BaM 27 246), 20 reed-bundles (BaM 27 245), and again 40 reed-bundles (BaM 27 252). Sanati-Müller reads line 5. “šà gišú-nu-tum”; however the last sign is -tim. The reading e₂ u₂-nu-tim seems more appropriate in this context (see AHw s.v. unūtu mng. 5), especially considering the two other documents where the products were issued š a ₃ na -kam -tum, “at the store house.”  After collation lines 5-7 of the obverse read: 5. a-na e₂ - gal ub-lam, 6. ša 〈〈i-na〉〉 ana ip-pa-li-šu a d-K I D, 7. pa-aq-du.  Collation shows that line 8 of the reverse has: 8 ad-KID - me š .

188

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

for the house of the weavers and two of them, Aḫam-arši and Marduk-nāṣir, carried the title l u ₂ a zlag₂ (YOS 14 339).58 These men were obviously connected to the e ₂ -u š - b a r, “house of the weavers,” if only temporarily, which agrees with their profession.

ensi ₂ (iššiakkum) The title en s i ₂ appears alone (BM 88756:4; Nisaba 4 II.11:2, 21:2, 45:7, 50:r4, 53:r5, 60:5; and VAS 13 45:2), followed by the divine name Šamaš (Nisaba 4 II.10:2, 80:14) and by the indication “man of Ešnuna” (Nisaba 4 II.22:3, and 23:2). In this section I deal only with en si₂ without further specification. En si ₂ of Šamaš will be included in the section about temple officials, and e ns i ₂ man of Ešnuna is excluded because it clearly does not belong to Uruk.59 During the Old Babylonian period, e n si ₂ generally designated a managerial position pertaining to state agricultural domains (see Ellis 1976, 27-52).60 His responsibilities included the recruitment of workers (Yoffee 1977, 118) and the annual delivery of the biltum-obligation to the state (see Charpin 1987, 111-124; Stol 2004, 760). There is no agreement on whether the en si ₂ was a state tenant, a private person or an independent entrepreneur. For an overview of different interpretations concerning the status of the en si ₂ see Stol (2004, 760). Ten or possibly eleven men from tablets of the archive of the bīt asīrī bear the title e ns i ₂ . In alphabetical order they are: Ali-talīmī, Āmur-ilūt-Sîn, Annum-pī-Šamaš, Awīl-Adad, Ea-šar-ilī, Irībam, Ilī-[…], Sîn-rēmēni, ṢillīŠamaš, Tappê-wēdum, and [PN]. Since one of the names is missing, it is not known whether this was one of the already attested en s i₂ s or a different one. Four of these ens i ₂ s are mentioned together on a single tablet recording two women transferred to the team of ox-drivers. They are Irībam, Ṣillī-Šamaš, Tappê-wēdum and Ali-talīmī, all characterized as en si ₂ -meš (Nisaba 4 II.53:r2-5). The en si ₂ Āmur-ilūt-Sîn received Ilī-ippašram, who was assigned to the team of ox-drivers in the biltum-field of Bēlānum, the su kka l (Nisaba 4 II.60:4).61 The en si ₂ Annum-pī-Šamaš appears in two documents issued within twenty-six days. He is first cited for bringing Mār-erṣetim, who belonged to Ilīippalsam, the ugu la MAR.TU of Emutbal (BM 88756:4). Then he is mentioned  Although Simmons reads this title “lú hun.” (YOS 14, 339) and Rositani (2003, 228) lists this NP as “lú-ḫun-meš,” the reading l u ₂ az l ag ₂ is more appropriate because of the context and because it does not require any emendation.  For the title e ns i₂ lu₂ Ešnuna see chapter 6, p. 232.  The term also designates, in certain contexts, a “governor” or even a royal title (see Seri 2005, 70).  After collation line 5 of the obverse reads: ˹nam-ḫa˺-ar-ti a-mur-i-lu-ut-d s u ʾ e n / e ns i ₂.

Personnel with title and no clear affiliation

189

as being in charge of the slave Ummī-ṭābat, who was assigned to the house of the weavers together with fourteen other people belonging to Marduk-nāṣir, the ugu l a Asurrum (Nisaba 4 II.50:r2). Similarly, the en si ₂ Awīl-Adad had Ilīitūram under his authority and this worker was then transferred to Šamaštayyār (VAS 13 45:2).62 The en si₂ Ea-šar-ilī is mentioned as the master of IddinAsalluhi in a tablet listing slaves received by a du mu e ₂- du b - ba , “scribe” (Nisaba 4 II.45:7). For his part, the en si ₂ Ilī-[…] had a certain Marduk-ḫāzir under his authority, who seems to have been transferred to Marduk-nāṣir in the Asurrum canal district, although the passage in question is broken (Nisaba 4 II.11:2). Finally, a worker under the authority of the e ns i ₂ Sîn-rēmēni, who was performing service in the biltum-field of Marduk-nāṣir, the ugul a Asurrum, was later entrusted to Lipit-Ištar, the du m u e ₂ - dub - ba, “scribe,” to do irrigation work in a different field (Nisaba 4 II.21:2). This interpretation finds support in texts from the same period recording agricultural workers employed for a limited time, for instance: “11 harvesters under the authority of Etel-pī-Dagan harvested in the biltum-field (a - ša₃ gu ₂ -u n ) of Marduk-nāṣir for 13 3/4 days” (Pinches 1915, 119-121 Nᵒ 96; Si 6a/II/11). These examples show that most workers belonging to various e n si ₂ s were transferred to do agricultural labor for other men and that they usually worked on land subject to the biltum obligation, which fits well into the activities of the e ns i ₂ .

h ub ₂ - bu - m eš (ḫuppû) The term h u b ₂ - b u may designate two different professions, i.e., “acrobat” or “cultic dancer,” and “a type of weaver” (see CAD and AHw s.v. ḫuppû). The CAD entry specifies that as name of a profession in Old Babylonian texts “possibly some of the quoted references refer to acrobats.” Most Babylonian attestations from this period and from the kingdom of Mari suggest that the translation “acrobat” or “entertainer” may be preferable.63 Only two tablets from the bīt asīrī mention the h u b ₂ -b u- m e š. The first reports that Sāmum from a group of thirty-nine prisoners (asīrū) belonging to the booty of Daganma-ilum

 Rositani (2003, 227) reads line 2 as follows: ša a-wi-il-diškur e ns i ₂- e ₂ . However the sign after ens i₂ is not e₂ but most likely ke ₄. Although during the Old Babylonian period ke ₄ is not common after en si₂ as it was in earlier periods, an Old Babylonian lexical list has the spelling en si₂ -ke₄ (MSL 14 28 Kv cd. i rev. 2).  The exact talents of these entertainers are still under discussion. Durand and Guichard (1997, 51, 58) rendered hub₂-bu as “saltimbanques”, Duponchel (1997, 225 Nᵒ 51) prefered “baladins,” and – following Goetze’s translation “ritual dancer” – Catagnoti (1997, 585-589) explained them as frenetic dancers (see Westenholz and Westenholz 2006, 69 Nᵒ 11). See also Buccellati (1972, 151-2 Nᵒ 45), and AbB 4 45:6.

190

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

was assigned to the ḫuppû (RA 71, 7 Nᵒ. 1). The second tablet deals with two women and a boy also assigned to the “acrobats” (Nisaba 4 II.82:6). Line five of the reverse of the last document has “[…] e n s i ₂ ˹x x˺.” Since there are two broken signs after the title en si₂ , it is tempting to restore e ns i ₂ ˹d ut u˺ because this title is already attested in the archive.64 Although the context of the second tablet is broken, the participation of an e n s i ₂ or agricultural administrator is very telling. This is so because according to a letter from Larsa dating to Hammurabi, the ḫuppû could be recipients of fields from the palace (BIN 7 6:14 = AbB 9 193).65 In this missive, king Hammurabi instructs Šamaš-ḫāzir to give a plot of land to the ḫuppû under the authority of Šū-Amurrum, the chief musician, if the field had not previously been assigned. This datum plus the fact that an e nsi ₂ appears in connection with the “entertainers” demonstrates that the land assigned to the h ub₂ b u- me š was subject to some kind of tribute, perhaps biltum-tribute. The ḫuppû, therefore, seem to have been entitled to a captive labor force as we have already seen in the case of Marduk-nāṣir, the overseer of the Asurrum canal district.

kisal - l uh (kisalluḫḫum) The k i s a l-lu h , “courtyard sweeper,” is well attested during the third and second millennia as a member of the temple and palace personnel.66 In the corpus of texts dated to Rīm-Anum, there is only one attestation of a ki s al-lu h . The text was found at the site of the Sîn-kāšid palace and records that Ālī-lūmur brought four baskets, which were received by Adad-rīm-ilī (BaM 18 32:3).67 Ālīlūmur is further described as a r a d e ₂ , “servant of the house.” It is not clear whether this is a palace or temple household or estate, and therefore whether Ālī-lūmur is a palace or temple employee. From this sole example, however, the position of ki sa l-lu h seems to have included menial tasks such as carrying and delivering products. On his part, Adad-rīm-ilī was most likely a palace official, as we shall see later.  Thus for instance in Nisaba 4 II.10:2, 8, 10, and 80:14.  The relevant passage reads: 11. šum-ma a- ša₃ an-nu-u₂-um 12. na-di-ma re-eš e ₂ - gal -im 13. a-na l u ₂ h ub₂-b[u]-[m e š] 15. niĝ ₂- šu šu-dMAR.TU n a [r- g ]a [ l] 16. i-di-in, “…if this field has been left uncultivated and is available to the palace, give (it) to the dancers under ŠūAmurrum, the chief musician” (Stol 1981, 124-125).  For a discussion of the kisa l-luh see van Koppen (2001), Stol (1999, 668), and Henshaw (1994, 37). Van Koppen pointed out that the kisal-luh is attested in texts from Sippar, Mari, Chagar Bazar, and Isin. See Ziegler (1999, 89-91), Talon (1997, 30), and Wilcke (1994, 304, and 307) respectively. To this list one should add now the example from Uruk.  See collation of Ālī-lūmur’s name and title in Sanati-Müller (2000b, 187).

Personnel with title and no clear affiliation

191

l u ₂ - ur₃ - ra (l u rrakkûm ) This professional name is related to food preparation.68 J.-M. Durand (1997, 311) explained that “il s’agisse d’un technicien de l’alimentation, peut-être spécialisé dans certaines conserves” (see also Krebernik 2001, 101). Brigitte Lion and Cécile Michel (1997, 719) mentioned that in Mari the lurrakkûm belonged to the palace personnel and that he was a cook specializing in the preparation of šiqqum and other types of food (see also Bottéro 2004, 78). According to Lion and Michel, the lurrakkûm also prepared crayfish, kamārum-fish, leeks, and locust (see Lion and Michel 2000, 91). Similarly, Jack Sasson (2004, 193-4) argued that the lurrakkûms in texts from Mari and Leilan were “conservation specialists, possibly picklers of fish, crayfish, and grasshoppers.” In the archive of the bīt asīrī, the title appears in only one document (Nisaba 4 II.72:r1-2). In this case Tarībum, the lu ₂-u r ₃- r a , received a man from a group of thirtynine prisoners captured in the territory of Isin during the first campaign of Warad-Šamaš, the overseer of the Amorites from Kisura. Tarībum’s sealing on the tablet is partially preserved.69

l un ga ₃ (sirāšûm) The logogram lu nga ₃ is written ŠIMxNIG₂ (see Borger 2010, 322 Nᵒ 373). The CAD (S s.v. sirāšû) renders the term as “brewer” (see also AHw s.v. si/erāšû). Three men from the bīt asīrī archive bear the title lu nga₃, and they appear once in the same tablet. In this document, Apil-Amurrum, the brewer, son of Erṣēya, received a worker characterized as a brewer belonging to Aplum, the brewer of Larsa (Nisaba 4 II.19:6).70 Apil-Amurrum, son of Erṣēya, but without title similarly received a prisoner from Ešnuna (Nisaba 4 II.29:r1).71 A second

 Sjöberg (1996, 130-1) interpreted this word as “spice miller,” but other Sumerologists have suggested that the title is rather related to food preparation in general (see Behrens 1998, 89). A lexical list from Emar equates lu₂-ur₃-r a = lu-ur-ra-ak-ku (series lu ₂ -ša, text Nᵒ 602: 150; see Arnaud 1986, 186). Durand (1989, 85) argued that lurrakkûm should not be considered a loanword from the Sumerian lu₂-ur₃- r a (lu₂+ur₃+ak, “man of the roof”), but rather “la notation idéogrammatique doit être tenue pour la remotivation d’un terme étranger.” Note the feminine m un us lu-ra-ak-ki-tam in ARM 10 86:7'.  The sealing reads: ta-ri-[bu-um] / ˹dum u˺ im-gur-[…] / ˹a r a d ˺ AN.AN.[…]  As pointed out by Rositani (2003, 128 fn. 227) following Stol’s suggestion, one could read the second line differently, i.e., ša-ap-lum lunga₃ l ar sa k i and interpret this as a second man brought from Larsa. However, since unlike šaplum, the name aplum is well-attested, I prefer the reading ša ap-lum, which also agrees with standard characterization of prisoners.  There is also an Apil-Amurrum without title or filiation acting as conveyor together with Sîn-nūr-mātim in a document dealing with slaves (YOS 14 338:r5). The evidence is not enough to decide whether this Apil-Amurrum is the brewer son of Erṣēya.

192

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

tablet records that two boys were assigned to the brewers (a-na ˹lunga ₃˺ -meš, VAS 13 50:7).

manzaz bābim and mazzaz ka ₂ ra₂ - gaba The title manzaz bābim literally means “the one who stands at the gate.” In the Old Babylonian period the title is attested as muzzaz bābim translated as “tax collector” (see CAD M/2 s.v. muzzazu mng. b).72 CAD further explains that “In post-OB texts muzzazu seems to have been replaced by manzazu, also attested in the compounds manzaz bābi, ekalli, rēši (…).” The two attestations of the word written mazzaz in the corpus of bīt asīrī texts may indicate that the reinterpretation of the G participle of the irregular verb izuzzum (OB muzzazum; OAkk, MA, M/LB muzzizum) as the “nomen loci” manzāzu in later texts (see GAG §107d) could have already started in the Old Babylonian period. Stol (2004, 767) recently discussed the role of the muzzaz bābim in Sippar and explained that “gate” in this expression does not refer to the city but rather to the palace gate. In tablets from the reign of Rīm-Anum, the title occurs twice. There is first a Rīm-Adad, the mazzaz bābim, who acted as the conveyor of two slaves brought to the house of prisoners from Larsa (Nisaba 4 II.54:r2). The second tablet mentions that Abī-kīma-Šamaš, the mazzaz ka ₂ r a ₂ -gaba (lit. “the one who stands at the gate of the mounted messenger[s]”), received two slaves issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the ugu l a asīrī (Nisaba 4 II.57:r1).73 As is the case with most titles from the archive, the activities of these officials are almost always related to their roles in connection with the house of prisoners.

m uhal d i m (nuḫatimmum) There are two men bearing the title m u h a ld im , “cook,” in texts from the bīt asīrī. The first is Etel-pī-Šamaš, who is attested twice (App. 1 Nᵒ 18:4, VAS 13 54:4). In both cases, he is the conveyor of quantities of flour assigned for the house of the šabrûm issued at the house of prisoners under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the ugu la asīrī. It is possible that Etel-pī-Šamaš was affiliated with the house of the šabrûm; but the evidence is too meager to substantiate such a connection. The second m u h a ld im is Ilīma-ilum, mentioned in a tablet recording the death of Pirḫi-ilīšu, a prisoner from Ešnuna (BM 88447:5).  Rositani (2003, 160 fn. 301) explained “As suggested by M. Stol, it could be a dialectal form for muzzaz, cf. CAD M/2 s.v. muzzazu (‘witness, attendant’): muzzaz bābi ‘tax collector’.”  After collation the personal name of line 7 of the obverse is Ia-˹bi˺-ki-˹ma˺-d u t u . Note that Stol (2012, 343) translates mazzaz ka₂ r a₂- gaba as “Diener am Tor des R.”

Personnel with title and no clear affiliation

193

na - ga da (nāqidum) Two n a - ga d a s, “herdsmen,” appear in texts dated to Rīm-Anum.74 The first is Awīlatum, who is mentioned as master of a woman listed together with eighteen other female slaves assigned to the house of the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.4:r5). The recipients are Sîn-bēl-ilī and Muti-Dagan, and the transaction was issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the overseer of prisoners. The second n a- ga d a is recorded in an administrative document dated to Rīm-Anum but not necessarily related to the archive of the bīt asīrī (Nisaba 4 III.1:4). Unlike the previous tablet, this one may belong to a different administrative archive from the Sîn-kāšid palace.

na r- gal (nargallum) Two men bear the title n a r-ga l, “chief musician,” i.e., Etel-pī-Ea and Muḫaddûm. They are recorded together once on a tablet pertaining to a female slave belonging to Etel-pī-Ea, the n a r-ga l, under the authority of the n ar-ga l Muḫaddûm. Judging from this instance, Muḫaddûm might have had precedence over Etel-pī-Ea, although both bore the same title (Nisaba 4 II.34:2-3).75 Etel-pī-Ea is attested again as the master of Marduk-rēmanni, one of the sixteen slave barbers (s aĝ - a r a d šu- i- m e š) mentioned in a document (Nisaba 4 II.80:r8).

san ta na (šandanakkum) The title s a n t a n a is generally translated as “administrator of date orchards.”76 In the Rīm-Anum corpus only two men are attested bearing this title. The sa n t a na Ibni-Sîn received three prisoners – two of them from Ešnuna – described as l u ₂ a - s i - r u-u m su-tu-m e š, “Sutean prisoners” sent by Daganma-ilum (Nisaba 4 II.26). Ibni-Sîn’s sealing is partially preserved: he is the son of Urd […] and servant of the god Šamaš. The other san ta na , Ilī-iddinam, is recorded twice. On one occasion two men from Šubartum are entrusted to him (Nisaba 4 II.15). About a month later he received another man from Ešnuna whom Daganma-ilum had sent from Muti-abal (UF 10 29). Ilī-iddinam’s sealing is partially legible on both tablets. He is the son of Sîn-[…] and servant of the

 For the title na -gad a in the area see Kraus (1966, 7,16)  After collation lines 2-4 of the obverse read: 2. ˹ša e-tel-pi₄˺-e₂-a na r- gal , 3. ˹ niĝ ₂ ˺ - š u mu-ḫa-du-um n ar-˹gal˺.  For the title s an tana during the Old Babylonian period see Cocquerillat (1967), Charpin (1981, 525-6), Stol (1982a, 130-142).

194

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

deity Nin-[…]. It is worth noticing that in all three extant documents prisoners from the north are employed in date-palm orchards.

si m u g (nappāḫum) The professional name sim ug, “smith,” appears in only one tablet and the sign is partially broken, although the legible wedges support this reading (BaM 27 228:3). This is a document from the Sîn-kāšid palace recording the assignment of five additional reed bundles to the si m ug-meš , “smiths.” The tablet bears the seal impression of Etel-pī-d[Erra?], son of Enanatum and servant of the god Iggala.77

si pa d (rēʾûm) The two shepherds mentioned in the bīt asīrī archive are Ibanni-ilum and Sînekallī. Ibanni-ilum received a slave called Warad-Ištar as a present from the king. Warad-Ištar belonged to the retinue of Etel-pī-Šamaš and Ninurta-abī and was presumably rendering service at the house of the weavers, for the document states that he was taken from the e ₂-u š- ba r (UF 10 39). The shepherd Sîn-ekallī first appears as the master of two women both named Aḫātum (Nisaba 4 II.43:4). Eight days later one of these women characterized once again as Aḫātum ša Sîn-ekallī si p a d, namely, “Aḫātum belonging to Sîn-ekallī, the shepherd,” was listed among seven slaves received by Etel-pī-Marduk and Bēlšunu, both without title (Nisaba 4 II.44:r2).

su -si - i g (šusikkum) This title can be rendered as “animal flayer” (ePSD s.v. s u- s i -ig). It is also translated as “fellmonger,” whose activities “involve disposal of the carcasses, hide or meat of animals which died while in the care of herdsmen” (CAD Š/3 s.v. šusikku).78 The only attestation of this word in the bīt asīrī archive is written with an extra si-sign, possibly to be emended lu₂ - su- si -〈 〈 si 〉 〉 -ig. The bearer of the title is Dādâ, who received two slaves in a tablet issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the overseer of the prisoners (Nisaba 4 II.76:r1-2).

 The sealing of this man is attested on two other tablets from the palace, one also dealing with reeds (BaM 27 257) and a second that is very fragmentary (BaM 31 347). The sealing further appears on tablets from the bīt asīrī recording allocation of flour: Nisaba 4 I.4, 5, 10, 13; App. 1 Nᵒ 1, Nᵒ 3; and RSO 82 2 and 4.  See Kraus (1984, 350-393).

Personnel with title and no clear affiliation

195

ša ₃ - g u d (kullizum) Six texts from the bīt asīrī archive dated to Rīm-Anum deal with a labor force assigned to the (team of) ox-drivers, (e ri n ₂ ) ša₃ - gu d.79 The tablets usually specify the destination of the workers. For example, four women and a baby girl, the daughter of one of them, were assigned to the ox-drivers and received by Etel-pī-Marduk and Bēlšunu (Nisaba 4 II.44, RīA 2/III/14). About two months later, four men characterized as slave ox-drivers belonging to Ea-bēl-ilī were entrusted to Bēlšunu (Nisaba 4 II.49, RīA 2/V/12). A related document explains that after eighteen days, one of those slaves, Narām-ilīšu, returned to the house of prisoners (Nisaba 4 II.61, RīA 2/VI/30). Similarly, another man who had worked in the team of ox-drivers under the authority of an Imgur-Sîn also returned to the bīt asīrī and was then reassigned to the poultry house (UF 10 31).80 In another tablet, four e n si ₂s received two female slaves to be employed as female ox-drivers (Nisaba 4 II.53). Finally, Ilī-ippašram belonging to Gimililī the ugu l a e₂ , overseer of the house, was assigned to the team of ox-drivers in the biltum-field of Bēlānum and received by the e ns i₂ Āmur-ilūt-Sîn (Nisaba 4 II.60).

šu - i (gallābum) The title š u- i , “barber,” during the Old Babylonian period covered different activities besides those strictly related to the office of a barber.81 Documents from the bīt asīrī mention three different kinds of šu- i . First there are a number of š u- i characterized as šu-i Larsa, “barber of Larsa,” or šu-i of Rīm-Sîn, “barber of Rīm-Sîn,” the king of Larsa. These men were apparently acting as messengers or diplomats and did not belong to the administration of Uruk; therefore their attestations will not be discussed in this section.82 A certain Marduk-mušē[zib?] bears the title ugu la šu- i , “overseer of the barbers.” He received a prisoner from the city of Kutalla in a document issued under the authority of the ugu la asīrī Sîn-šeme (App. 1 Nᵒ 8:6). The other ugu la š u-i

 These are: Nisaba 4 II.44:r4, 49:5, 53:7, 60:3, 61:4, and UF 10 31:3. There is also a text from the Sîn-kāšid palace pertaining to ox-drivers and dated to Samsu-iluna 7/VIII/19 (BaM 31 320).  This Imgur-Sîn could be the same man who received 3 slaves, one of whom belonged to Sîn-imguranni the u₂- tul ₂ (Nisaba 4 II.27:r1). Therefore, he seems to be related to the oxdrivers and to agricultural activities. His sealing is only partially legible.  For a discussion of the range of activities of the “barber” see CAD G s.v. gallābu, Walter (1917, 177), Kraus (1951, 80).  For instance, Šamaš-mušēzib ugul a šu- i Larsa (Nisaba 4 II.66:4-5), an unnamed š u- i Larsa (App. 1 Nᵒ 6:2), and Apil-Kūbi the šu-i lu₂-kiĝ ₂-gi ₄ -a Rīm-Sîn (VAS 13 48:4-5, UF 10 5:5).

196

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

is Ilabrat-[…], who received sixteen slave barbers (1 6 s aĝ- ar a d šu- i- me š). This document was also issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme (Nisaba 4 II.80:r13-14). Furthermore, a šu- i by the name of Šamaš-ayy-abāš was the conveyor in a document dealing with two male slaves (Nisaba 4 II.9). The other men bearing the title šu- i are prisoners. For instance, one single tablet lists a number of men belonging to individuals who are later described as 16 saĝ - a r a d š u- i - m eš, “16 slave barbers.” The document was issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme (Nisaba 4 II.80:r13). Finally, two barbers belonging to Gimillum appear in a ration list and are summarized as “six prisoners of the ĝi p a r ” (App. 1 Nᵒ 42:7).

u ₂ - tul ₂ (utullum) The occupation u ₂- tu l₂ has traditionally been translated as “herdsman” or “chief herdsman” (e.g., Finkelstein 1953, 129 Nᵒ 26:6; Harris 1975, 256; see also CAD U/W, and AHw s.v. utullu). However, Hartmut Waetzoldt (1982, 397) studied the term diachronically and argued that those renderings were inaccurate. According to him, economic documents show that utullum was a managerial position, and should be translated as “herds administrator” (Herdenverwalter) or “director of the management of herds and flocks” (Direktor der Viehhaltung). The title u ₂ -t u l is recorded a few times in the records from the bīt asīrī. For instance, Ea-bēl-ilī bears this title twice. In the first attestation, a man from his retinue was given to Bēlšunu for the team of ox-drivers (Nisaba 4 II.61:2). In the second, two slaves belonging to the u ₂ -t ul ₂ Ea-bēl-ilī were assigned to the house of the su kka l (Nisaba 4 II.67:3). Since Ea-bēl-ilī appears in three other tablets exercising authority over workers, it is safe to assume that this Ea-bēl-ilī is the “herds administrator,” although the profession is not recorded. For instance, Šamašma-ilī belonging to him was assigned to the house of the aĝ r ig (Nisaba 4 II.47:2). A few days later four of his slaves were entrusted to Bēlšunu, the son of Ḫurruṣum (Nisaba 4 II.49:6). Finally one of his men was granted as a royal gift (Nisaba 4 II.65:3).83 The herds administrator of Gula, Ibni-Amurrum, was in charge of a female slave and her daughter, who were assigned to the weavers (VAS 13 39:3). The other u ₂-tu l ₂ is Sîn-imguranni. He appears only once, in a document stating that a slave belonging to him was received by Imgur-Sîn and employed to feed oxen (Nisaba 4 II.27:2). There are two men named Imgur-Sîn in this document. The first is the son of Qarrādum and master of two slaves. The second is the recipient of the slaves and seems

 There is another attestation of an Ea-bēl-ilī, who brought a female prisoner from Šatalla (Nisaba 4 II.20:8). It is not clear, however, whether this man was the same as the u ₂ - t u l₂ .

Personnel with title and no clear affiliation

197

to be in charge of a team of oxen.84 This is confirmed by another tablet in which a slave belonging to Imgur-Sîn, the son of Qarrādum, returned to the bīt asīrī from a team of ox-drivers under the authority of Imgur-Sîn, and was then received by Marduk-mušallim of the poultry house (UF 10 31).85

u gul a ge m e ₂ Three men bear the title ugu la ge m e ₂ “overseer of the female slaves.” Ḫuzālum, the ugu l a gem e₂ , is mentioned once. He had brought to the bīt asīrī a certain Šamaš-ilum belonging to Ilabrat-tukultašu (Nisaba 4 II.9:8). An Ilabrat-tukultašu bearing the title ugu la ge m e₂ was the master of the female slave Mātī-libluṭ assigned to the house of the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.10:14). It is not unlikely that this Ilabrat-tukultašu is the same man attested without title in the previous document. The third ugu la gem e ₂ -me š is Qibīšumma-tikal, who is listed as the master of one of the eight slaves assigned as workers (Nisaba 4 II.81:6). The last section of the tablet is damaged so that the name of the institution or authority receiving the slaves is missing.

zad i m (sasinnum) Two men are characterized as za d i m , “bow-maker.”86 Ištar-ilum, is attested three times in tablets belonging to the bīt asīrī archive and once in a document found at site of the Sîn-kāšid palace. His sealing is preserved from two tablets where he is identified as son of Sîn-gāmil and servant of the deity Nin-siana.87 He first received a boy named Kalab-Šamaš from the booty of Daganma-ilum (YOS 14 340:6-r1). Ištar-ilum with the title z ad im is then attested as the recipient of carding combs together with the only other known z ad i m, Ša-ilīšu (BaM 31 303:3).88 In another document Ištar-ilum received another two boys  The sealing of this Imgur-Sîn shows that he is the son of Šu-nu-e-[…] (Nisaba 4 II.27).  Note that there are two different Imgur-Sîns in this document. The first is identified as the son of Qarrādum. The second is the man in charge of the team of ox-drivers and known from his sealing to be the son of Šunu-e-[…] (?) (Nisaba 4 II.27).  The logogram zadim can be rendered in Akkadian as both sasinnum “bow-maker” or zadimmum “lapidary.” CAD Z s.v. zadimmu mentions that “(…) the term zadimmu disappears in the Ur III period and maintains itself later on only in lexical texts and in the name of the patron deities of lapidaries” (p. 10).  The sealings read iš₈-tar₂-diĝ ir / dumu d su’e n-ga-mil / ar ad d ni n- s i₄ - an - na . The reading is a reconstruction from the legible signs on two tablets: Nisaba 4 II.75 and BaM 31 303.  The readings that Sanati-Müller offers, namely, “iš₄-tár-ìl-tim” and “ša-ì-lí-šu-tim” for BaM 31 303 lines 3 and 4 respectively should be changed to iš₈-tar₂-d iĝ i r z a di m and ša-i₃-li₂-šu za d i m .

198

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

described as slave boys from the retinue of the sons of Dan-Erra. In this case the title is written syllabically za - d i m (Nisaba 4 II.75:5).89 Finally, Ištar-ilum, the z a - d i m , appears in connection with three slaves on a tablet issued under the authority of the ugu la asīrī (App. 1 Nᵒ 41:8).

V Personnel affiliated with temples

ensi ₂ d u tu The en s i ₂ held a managerial position related to state agricultural domains. Discussions revolve around whether this position represented a state tenant, a private individual, or an independent entrepreneur in the service of the state (see Stol 2004, 760). Although there is no conclusive evidence, it is possible that the en s i ₂ of the god Šamaš was in charge of land controlled by temple(s). Hence his inclusion in the section dealing with personnel affiliated with temples. There are five or possibly six en si₂ d u tu attested in tablets from the bīt asīrī. In alphabetical order these men are Adad-šarrum (Nisaba 4 II.10:12), Ašdībaḫû (Nisaba 4 II.81:4), whose title is partially broken (en s i₂ ˹x x˺), IpquAnnunītum (Nisaba 4 II.10:8), Lipit-Ištar (Nisaba 4 II.10:10), Mār-erṣetim (Nisaba 4 II.10:2, 80:14), and […]-ḫāzir (Nisaba 4 II.10:6). With the exception of Ašdī-baḫû, the four other e n si ₂ s have slaves in their charge who were transferred to the house of the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.10). Mār-erṣetim is attested in another tablet as the master of a boy later characterized as š u-i , “barber” (Nisaba 4 II.80:14). And finally Ašdī-baḫû e n si ₂ ˹x x˺, perhaps to be restored e n s i ₂ d u t u , is also the master of a slave (Nisaba 4 II.81:4).

gu d u ₄ (pašīšum) This title is attested three times in documents from the time of Rīm-Anum. The word literally means “the anointed one” and refers to a kind of religious personnel.90 Nabium-ḫāzir, the gu du ₄ , is recorded in connection with a laborer belonging to Ea-bēl-ilī assigned to the house of the aĝr ig (Nisaba 4 II.47:3). Two gu du ₄ s appear together in a tablet from the palace of Sîn-kāšid

 After collation, lines 5-6 of the obverse read: 5. a-na z a - di m , 6. nam-˹ḫa˺-ar-ti iš₈-tar₂˹d iĝir ˺ za - d im . This reading is confirmed by App. 1 Nᵒ 41:1, where the title is also written syllabically za- di m.  See, e.g., Renger (1969, 143-72), Charpin (1986, 252-7).

Men without titles but with seals

199

(BaM 31 322:4-7). They are Bēlānum, the gu du ₄ -p r i e st of the deity Nin-siana, and Iddin-Ilabrat?, gu du ₄ of AN.AN.Inanna.91 The fourth gudu₄ is Sāmum, the master of a female slave assigned to the acrobats (Nisaba 4 II.82:4).

saĝ a (šangûm) The s aĝ a was the chief administrator of a temple (CAD Š/1, and AHw s.v. šangû). Five s aĝ a s related to different deities are attested in tablets from the bīt asīrī. Alphabetically arranged they are Ana-Marduk-atkal, saĝ a of Kanisura; Anum-ilī, s aĝa of Rammānum; Iddin-Šamaš, s aĝ a of Rammānum; Ninurta-iddinam, s aĝa of […]; and Ubār-Šamaš, saĝ a of Šamaš. Ana-Mardukatkal, s aĝa of Kanisura, is attested twice. He received slaves as royal gifts for the god Kanisura in documents issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the overseer of the house of prisoners (Nisaba 4 II.16:r2, II.24:r1). His sealing is partially legible on both tablets.92 Anum-ilī, the saĝ a of Rammānum, similarly received a slave from Ešnuna as a royal gift for the god Rammānum (Nisaba 4 II.22:r2). His sealing is also partially legible.93 The other saĝa of Rammānum, Iddin-Šamaš, appears twice as the recipient of men given as royal gifts for the god Rammānum (VAS 13 36:6-7). It is worth noticing that the two saĝa s of Rammānum held office simultaneously. Ninurta-iddinam, the s aĝ a of [DN], received a man (Nisaba 4 II.28:9). Finally, Ubār-Šamaš, the saĝ a of Šamaš, was the recipient of a prisoner given as a royal gift to the god Šamaš (Nisaba 4 II.23:r1).

VI Men without titles but with seals VI.1 Seal inscriptions with the legend “servant of royal name” Apil-Amurrum / d um u Šulgi-[…] / a rad Rīm-Anum Apil-Amurrum, the son of Šulgi-[…] and servant of king Rīm-Anum, is known only from sealings on tablets dealing with flour allocation. Tablets with legible sealings have his together with the seal impressions of the bi saĝ- du b -ba  Sanati-Müller (2000, 126) reads the titles as lukur and explains in footnote 107 “Bēl-Anum ist eine naditu-Priesterin der Nin-Sianna. In Nr. 372:4 ist ebenfalls Bēl-Anum genannt, allerdings handelt es sich dort um einen Mann (Zeile 5 dumu Erra-nāṣir)”. The remaining traces and the masculine personal name, however, favor the reading gu du ₄ instead of lu ku r.  The sealing reads a-na-d ˹m arduk˺-[atkal] / dum u i-ri-ba-˹am˺ / a r ad d ni n- […]. It is best preserved from the impression on Nisaba 4 II.24.  Anum-ilī’s sealing reads: a n-i₃-[li₂]/ [dumu] d˹nin˺-[…] / a r a d dra-˹ma˺-[…].

200

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

Nabi-ilīšu or of the bi saĝ- du b -b a Sîn-iddinam. As was the case with Sîniddinam, the b i saĝ - du b -b a , this Apil-Amurrum also has two seals: one with the legend “servant of the god Amurrum” and the other with the legend “servant of Rīm-Anum.”94

Apil-ilīšu / d um u Ṭāb-târ-ilī / ara d Samsu-iluna The sealing of Apil-ilīšu, son of Ṭāb-târ-ilī and servant of king Samsu-iluna, is attested once on a tablet dealing with flour allocation of the ĝešbu n type for a man of Gutûm, a man of Kisura and dependents (RA 80, 69 = App. 1 Nᵒ 11, RīA 2/VI/30). There is not enough evidence to relate this man to the Apil-ilīšu bearing the title š a₃ -t a m a n -za - gar ₃ (BaM 23 179:2', BaM 31 322:r2-4) or to the one with the title ugu la MAR.TU (Nisaba 4 II.33:11). Since the sealing appears on a flour allocation text, it is not possible to know whether this Apililīšu was a man from another kingdom loyal to king Samsu-iluna or whether he belonged to the Uruk administration but was still using his Samsu-iluna seal halfway through Rīm-Anum’s second year.

Awīl-ilī / d um u Ṣillī-[…] / arad Samsu-iluna Awīl-ilī, the son of Ṣillī-[…] and servant of Samsu-iluna, is recorded eleven times on tablets from the Sîn-kāšid palace. He is currently attested for only seventeen days, from RīA 1/X/10 (BaM 27 229:3) to RīA 1/X/26 (BaM 27 235). All the tablets deal with reeds and they all bear the sealing of Awīl-ilī.95 Awīl-ilī has two roles in these documents. He received (šu t i -a) bundles of reeds for eaves (ana g i - s a l-la ), for awnings (ana ĝ i ssu ), for torches (ana gi -i zi -l a ₂) and for the reed workers (a d-K ID ).96 He also acted as conveyor (ĝ i ri ₃) of reed

 The sealing with the legend a r a d niĝ₂ dMAR.TU appears in UF 10 8, 27, 30, and 40; whereas the sealing with the legend a r a d Rīm-Anum appears in UF 10 10, and 12. The sealing of an Apil-Amurrum also is attested in UF 10 5 but since the filiation only preserves the sign diĝ ir, this man could be Apil-Amurrum the son of Ilam-ēreš. This may be the case because the allocation in this tablet is si-l a₂ instead of ĝ eš bun. If this is correct, then Apil-Amurrum, the son of Šulgi-[…], used his ar a d nig ₂ dMAR.TU seal until RīA 2/IV/6 (UF 10 27) and his Rīm-Anum seal is first attested in RīA 2/IV/23 (UF 10 10).  The only exception is BaM 27 236, but this tablet is very fragmentary and the sealing may not be legible. He is attested in BaM 27 229:3, 230:4, 232:3, 233:4, 234:4, 235:4, 239:3, 251:3, 256:4, and 259:3.  Reed bundles for eaves (gi- sa l-l a ) are mentioned in BaM 27 229 and 235, reed bundles for awnings (ĝi ssu) in BaM 27 230, reed bundles for torches (g i- iz i -l a₂ ) in BaM 27 233, 234, and for the basket weavers in BaM 27 256.

Men without titles but with seals

201

bundles for eaves.97 Although laconic, the evidence suggests that Awīl-ilī was an official in the distribution of reeds. He possibly received reed bundles that workers collected from the riverside. The reeds were assigned for specific products and registered as such by scribes. Awīl-ilī subsequently distributed the reed bundles among people in charge of transforming the reeds into torches, baskets, or among people using the reeds for roofing or similar activities. The evidence is incomplete, and the circuit of reed products is basically traceable only through this group of texts. It is not possible, therefore, to determine whether Awīl-ilī ceased performing his functions after the tenth month of RīmAnum’s first year and was replaced, or whether he remained in office.

VI.2 Seal inscriptions with the legend “servant of divine name(s)” Adad-rīm-ilī / d umu Kānišum / ara d Nabium Adad-rīm-ilī, son of Kānišum and servant of Nabium, is attested only twice in texts from the Sîn-kāšid palace.98 He first received four baskets brought by Ālīlūmur, the k i s a l-luh , and further rolled his seal on the tablet (BaM 18 32:5). In another document, Sukkukum together with Adad-rīm-ilī received wood for making arrows (ĝ e š ka k-p a n ) and the tablet bears the seal of […]-Sîn (BaM 31 302:4-5).99 The attestations are few, but Adad-rīm-ilī seems to have administered raw material for the manufacture of weapons.

Apil-Amurrum / d um u Ilam-ēriš / a ra d Amurrum Apil-Amurrum’s sealing is preserved on eleven tablets dealing with allocation of flour. He is attested for a little more than six months, from RīA 2/II/26 (Nisaba 4 I.22) to RīA 2/IX/4 (Nisaba 4 I.51). These allocations are mostly of the ĝ e š b u n type, but there is also one si -la ₂ and various kinds of š uku alloca-

 Thus in BaM 27 232, 239, 251, 259.  I interpret the personal name Kānišum as a participle, meaning “The one who is submissive.” But it could also be taken as Kanišûm, “Man from Kaniš.” The feminine Kanišītum is attested and analyzed by Stamm (1968, 268) as “Frau aus Kaniš.”  Although I follow the reading by Sanati-Müller, the signs as copied in BaM 31 302:2 look actually like ĝ e š ka k-ti instead of ĝ e š kak-pan. Note M. Civil’s (2003, 52) remark that the term ka k-t i is a lesser used, or later, synonym of ĝ e š kak-pan. One has to assume that the wood received in BaM 31 302 was used for making the shaft. Civil already explained that the word “arrow” is sometimes used metonymically for the whole arrow (t i ) and not stricktly for arrowhead (kak).

202

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

tions. When other sealings are legible on the tablets, they belong to the b i s aĝ- du b - b a s Nabi-ilīšu and Sîn-iddinam.100

Etel-pī-d˹Erra?˺ / d um u Enanatum / ara d Iggala Etel-pī-d˹Erra?˺’s sealing was rolled on three tablets from the Sîn-kāšid palace and on eight from the bīt asīrī dealing with flour allocation.101 He is attested over a period of about four months, from RīA 1/X/5? (Nisaba 4 I.4) to RīA 2/II/ 16 (RSO 82 4). Among tablets from the house of prisoners, he sealed allocations of the types ĝ ešb u n (Nisaba 4 I.4, 13; RSO 82 4; App. 1 Nᵒ 3) and si -l a ₂ (Nisaba 4 I.5 and 10). When other sealings are legible on the same tablet, they belong to Wussum-nu-˹x-x˺, E₂-an-˹na˺-[…] and Irībam-Sîn.102 Two of the tablets from the palace deal with the consignment of reed bundles for the smiths (BaM 27 228) and for the manufacture of spears or lances (ĝ e š š uku r) perhaps made partly out of bronze (BaM 27 257), which fits with the smiths mentioned in the previous record. The third tablet from the palace is very fragmentary and the contents are missing (BaM 31 347).

Iballuṭ / d um u Ḫubbušum / a ra d Amurrum Iballuṭ’s sealing is attested only once, on a tablet dealing with rushes (ĝ e š u ₂ - d i - du ) received by Ilīma-ilum, the dum u e₂ - du b -ba , “scribe,” belonging to the team of Ubār-Zababa, the ugu l a MAR.TU, “overseer of the Amorites” (BaM 31 Nᵒ 269).103

Šarrum-i₃-[li₂?] / d um u Sîn-[…] / a rad Nin-siana This sealing is currently attested on a tablet from the Sîn-kāšid palace possibly dealing with textiles (BaM 23 179). This sealing is perhaps the same as that appearing on another tablet similarly dealing with textiles. The preserved traces of this sealing read […]-ilī / du m u Sîn-[…] / a r ad d[…] (BaM 31 356).  The ĝešb un allocations are Nisaba 4 I.22, 61 + sealing of Nabi-ilīšu, 62 + sealing of Nabiilīšu, 63, 64, 66+ sealing of Sîn-iddinam. The si-l a ₂ allocation is Nisaba 4 I.25 + sealing of Nabi-ilīšu. The šuku lugal allocations are Nisaba 4 I.51 + sealing of Sîn-iddinam, VAS 13 54 + sealing of Sîn-iddinam, and RSO 82 1 + sealing of Sîn-iddinam.  The tablets from the Sîn-kāšid palace are BaM 27 228, 257, and BaM 31 347; those from the bīt asīrī are Nisaba 4 I.4, 5, 10, 13, App. 1 Nᵒ 1, Nᵒ 3, and RSO 82 2 and 4.  Attestations are: Wussum-nu-˹x-x˺ (Nisaba 4 I.4, 5, 10), Šullānum (Nisaba 4 I.5 and 10), E₂-an-˹na˺-[…] (App. 1 Nᵒ 1), Irībam-Sîn (Nisaba 4 I.13).  I suggest reading this personal name u-bar!-dza-ba₄-ba₄. The sign bar was copied with an extra horizontal wedge at the bottom.

Men without titles but with seals

203

Ur-Ninurta / d um u a?-wi-ia-˹x˺104 / a rad Lugal-banda Ur-Ninurta is attested only once (BaM 31 306). In this tablet from the Sîn-kāšid palace he received molds (ĝ e š u ₃ - šu b - sig₄ ) to make bricks. The document was issued under the authority of Marduk-nāṣir and bears the sealing of Ur-Ninurta. It seems therefore that Ur-Ninurta was an authority in the bureau of brick accounting.

Wussum-nu-˹x-x˺ / d um u Iddin-Ištar / ara d Nin-siana The sealing of this man is known from five tablets from the bīt asīrī and two from the palace. In records from the house of prisoners, together with Etel-pīd ˹Erra?˺, he sealed documents pertaining to flour allocations (Nisaba 4 I.4, 5, and 10). His sealing also appears on a tablet assigning a runaway man to the s aĝ a Ninurta-iddinam (Nisaba 4 II.28). In addition, he once acted as the conveyor of a slave entrusted to Ina-palêšu, the a d- K ID (Nisaba 4 II.68). In records from the palace, he sealed two tablets requesting 20 reed bundles for torches (BaM 27 212 and 213). The range of his activities is worth noticing: he is involved in flour allocations, in the management of prisoners, and in the bureau of reeds.

[…]-Amurrum / d umu Sîn-iddinam / a rad Nabium This sealing appears with that of Nabi-ilīšu, the b i s aĝ- du b - ba , on a tablet allocating ĝe š b u n flour to a man of Dunnum and dependents (UF 10 34).

VI.3 Partially legible sealings105 Abum-ilī / d um u […] /[…] Abum-ilī’s sealing is attested only once, on a tablet requesting reed-bundles for making torches (BaM 27 215). There is no one else mentioned in this record.

Ātanaḫ-ilī / d um u Lā-qīpum / a ra d den-[…] Ātanaḫ-ilī’s sealing appears once on a tablet from the Sîn-kāšid palace (BaM 31 308). This is a fragmentary receipt of two rudders (ĝ e š z i -ga n ). Although

 Sanati-Müller (2000, 114) reads za-wi-ia-tu-[um]. This personal name is unknown to me.  I include under this subheading sealings that do not preserve the royal or divine name of the third line, i.e., ar ad […].

204

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

the date is missing, the attestation of Marduk-nāṣir in this text and on a similar tablet dated to the third year of Rīm-Anum (BaM 31 306:5, RīA 3/II/28) justifies the inclusion of this record among those from this king.

Awīl-[…] /d um u Sîn-[…] / arad […] This sealing appears once on a tablet from the Sîn-kāšid palace that preserves only the date (BaM 31 340). The other man from the palace tablets whose name starts with the same word is Awīl-ilī, but he is the son of Ṣillī-[…]. From the bīt asīrī archive we have names such as Awīl-Adad, Awīl-ilī, Awīl-Ištar and Awīlīya, but there is at present no evidence that might relate any of them to Awīl-[…].

Bāštī-d[…] / d um u Kiḫlī-ʾel / a ra d […]106 The sealing of Bāštī-d[…] appears only once, on a tablet dealing with the management of prisoners received by Būnu-d[…], the overseer of the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.5).

E₂-an-[…] / d um u ma-a-nu-um / [a ra d …] This sealing is preserved on a very fragmentary tablet pertaining to the allocation of flour. The document also bears the sealing of [Etel-pī-Erra?] son of Enanatum (App. 1 Nᵒ 1).

Enlil-[…] / d um u Sîn-[…] / [a rad …] Enlil-[…]’s sealing is the only one legible on a tablet dealing with eight men from Ešnuna received by a du m u e ₂ - du b -b a , “scribe” (Nisaba 4 II.45).

Etel-pī-Marduk / d um u AN.˹x˺-[…] / [a rad …] The only surviving mention of this man appears in a document where he receives slaves together with Bēlšunu. Neither of these two men bears a title nor are they explicitly related to any institution. They received slaves for the ox-drivers and Etel-pī-Marduk sealed the tablet (Nisaba 4 II.44). The Bēlšunu

 For the Amorite name Kiḫlī-ʾel, “My might is god,” written ki-li-d iĝ ir see Streck (2000, 324).

Men without titles but with seals

205

who appears together with Etel-pī-Marduk is attested elsewhere in connection with the ox-drivers (Nisaba 4 II.61:3).

Sîn-[…] / d um u Sîn-gāmil / […] His is the only legible sealing on a tablet allocating ĝešbu n flour to the brother of Daganma-ilum, a man of Muti-abal, a man of Sutûm and dependents (UF 10 9).107

VII Men without seals or titles from tablets from the Sîn-kāšid palace Amurrum-mušallim Amurrum-mušallim is recorded only once, in a fragmentary text where he receives textiles (BaM 23 179:2).

B/Ma-ni-[…] This man receives wood once together with another man. Unfortunately the tablet is fragmentary and the name of the other recipient is missing, as is the purpose of the wood (BaM 31 300:4).

Ibni-dNin-[…] This person is recorded as the conveyor possibly of a product issued at the palace. Since the obverse of the tablet is missing, the object of the transaction is unknown (BaM 31 344:1’).

Iddinyatum Iddinyatum is attested twice in texts from the palace recording textiles (BaM 23 185:4, and BaM 31 356:5). Both records give the type and weight of the textiles and specify that the document is “a copy of the tablet given to Iddinyatum” (meḫer kanīkim ša ana Iddinyatum innadnu). Iddinyatum was probably concerned with the production or distribution of textiles.

 There is also a sealing of […] ma […] /dumu Sîn-gāmil (App. 1 Nᵒ 27), that might belong to the same man.

206

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

Marduk-nādā108 Four tablets from the Sîn-kāšid palace record this man, who is thus far attested from the second and third years of Rīm-Anum. In the first case, the reed worker Adad-šar-ilī received rushes for the Gate of Gibil and the transaction was issued under the authority of Marduk-nādā (BaM 31 270:5).109 There is another receipt of rushes issued at the palace under the authority of Marduk-nādā (BaM 31 271:r2’). Finally, two very fragmentary tablets seem to deal with similar matters. One states that the document was issued at the palace under the authority of Marduk-nādā (BaM 31 344:3’). The other preserves only “under the authority of Marduk-nādā” and the sealing of […] son of Sîn-[…] (BaM 31 351:r1). This implies that Marduk-nādā was an official based in the palace and that he authorized the distribution of rushes and perhaps of wood as well.

Pirḫum d um u Ilī-u-Šamaš Pirḫum appears in a very fragmentary text recording a receipt (BaM 31 359:4). It is possible that the missing section mentions a product rather than people because the verb is šu t i -a instead of the noun namḫartum (namḫarti PN) which, in the archive of the bīt asīrī, usually appears in receipts of people. If Pirḫum’s father is the same man attested elsewhere as an ad- KI D, “reed worker” (BaM 27 237:2 and 238:3), then we have another example of two members of the same family working for the state. Without further evidence, however, the connection is only hypothetical.110

Sukkukum Sukkukum is attested once in a text from the palace where he and Adad-rīmilī received wood for making arrows (ĝ e š ka k-pa n ). He must have had a role

 Sanati-Müller reads Marduk-na’id twice and Marduk-nādā two other times, but this is evidently the same individual.  The Gate of Gibil (abul d g ibi l ) seems to have been a neighborhood or a settlement. See BaM 24 203 col. vii':11'-14' where we have: 11'. 2 g in₂ ia-ab-ru-uq-a-bi 12'. lu ₂ ka ₂ - diĝ i r- r a k i 13'. i-nu-ma i-na abul- d gibil 14'. wa-aš-bu. “2 shekels for Yabruq-abi, the man of Babylon, when he was staying in Abul-Gibil.”  There is also a Pirḫum attested as in charge of three men assigned to the ox-drivers in a text dated to Samsu-iluna (BaM 31 320:5). Again, there is not enough evidence to relate these two Pirḫums. There seems to be yet another Pirḫum, son of Na-[…], who receives wood in another tablet (BaM 31 273). Although the date is missing, the attestation of Adad-šar-ilī, known also from a text dated to Rīm-Anum’s third year (BaM 31 270), makes it likely that the former tablet was also written during Rīm-Anum’s reign.

Men without seals or titles presumably acting in an official capacity

207

in administering or redistributing raw material for the manufacture of weapons and perhaps other wooden products as well (BaM 31 302:4).

Ṣillī-[…] A man whose name begins with Ṣillī-[…] receives two rudders from Marduknāṣir and the tablet bears the sealing of Ātanaḫ-ilī (BaM 31 308:2). A few names among the texts dated to Rīm-Anum start with Ṣillī-[…]; however, it is not possible to relate any of them to this attestation.

[…]-gāmil This fragmentary name is recorded on a tablet from the palace, where this man might have received textiles together with Amurrum-mušallim, but this is not certain because the beginning of the line is missing (BaM 23 179:3).

VIII Men without seals or titles presumably acting in an official capacity Adad-mušallim d umu Mu-duga Adad-mušallim described solely by his paternal filiation appears in two tablets issued on successive days. Both documents record the transfer of a slave named Aḫīma who belonged to him (Nisaba 4 II.40:1, and II.41:1).

Anum-ilī This man is first attested on a tablet recording four slaves assigned to him and to Sîn-ibni, the overseer of the Asurrum canal district, for irrigation work on another field(s) (YOS 14 342:r2). He is also attested in a document dealing with three slaves under his and Sîn-ibni’s authority, who were transferred to the house of the weavers and received by Muti-Dagan (Nisaba 4 II.59:6).111 From the first record one has to assume that Anum-ilī managed agricultural workers. It is possible that he did not belong to the Uruk administration.

 After collation, Nisaba 4 II. 59:6 (= BM 16415) reads da-˹nu-um-i₃-li₂˺. This shows that the PN that appears together with Sîn-ibni, the ugul a id₂ Asurrum, in YOS 14 342:r2 should be read an -i₃-li₂, instead of an-na-i₃-li₂ as listed in the list of personal names (Simmons 1978, 49). YOS 14 342 lines r2 and r3 has: r2. ša a-na an-i₃-li₂ […], r3. u₃ d su ʾ e n-ib-ni ugu la a-sur-rum.

208

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

Awīl-[…] Awīl-[…] is the conveyor (ĝ ir i ₃) of prisoners presumably brought to the bīt asīrī, although neither the institution nor its overseer are mentioned (App. 1 Nᵒ 28:9). The same document mentions an Awīl-Ištar, the du mu e ₂ ! - dub b a - a , but there is no way to prove that they were the same person.

Ibni-Adad Ibni-Adad receives a man as a royal gift. This slave is characterized as belonging to Ea-bēl-ilī, under the authority of Sîn-bēl-ilī (Nisaba 4 II.65:4). An IbniAdad bearing the title du m u e ₂ - du b -b a - a is known from a text from the Sînkāšid palace (BaM 31 359:r1). However, it is at present impossible to relate the two attestations. Since most slaves described as royal gifts were assigned to temples, it is not unlikely that Ibni-Adad was a temple official.

Ikūn-pûm Ikūn-pûm is attested only once, in a document where he receives, together with Ninurta-ibnīšu, a slave for the deity Nanāya (RlAA 250:r3). His role in this tablet seems to indicate that he was a temple official.

Ilīma-abī This man is attested only once, in a document where he gives silver to a certain Nūratum (Nisaba III.3:3). This is an administrative document that does not seem to belong to the archive of the bīt asīrī but possibly to one of the archives from the palace.

Ilšu-bānî Ilšu-bānî appears twice within a period of about ten days. On both occasions the tablets mention that a number of slaves are under the authority of Nabiummālik, Ilšu-bānî and the ša ₃- ta m -administrators, their partners (Nisaba 4 II.73:r5, App. 1 Nᵒ 27:6). This may suggest that both Nabium-mālik and Ilšubānî belonged to the same institutions as these unnamed š a₃- tams or that they had close dealings with them.

Inbi-ilīšu Inbi-ilīšu together with Šamaš-gāmil, under the authority of the ugul a MAR.TU Apil-ilīšu, brought two female slaves and a child, who were then given

Men without seals or titles presumably acting in an official capacity

209

to the house of the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.33:9). He is also mentioned in a tablet pertaining to two slave boys given to the weavers (BM 97061:5).

Nabium-mālik See Ilšu-bānî.

Ninurta-ibnīšu Ninurta-ibnīšu is attested only once, in a document where he receives, together with Ikūn-pûm, a slave for the deity Nanāya (RlAA 250:r2). His role in this tablet seems to indicate that he was a temple official.

Nūratum Nūratum receives silver from Ilīma-abī (Nisaba III.3:2). This is an administrative tablet that may not belong to the archive of the bīt asīrī but possibly to one of the archives from the palace.

Šamaš-gāmil Šamaš-gāmil together with Inbi-ilīšu, under the authority of the ugul a MAR.TU Apil-ilīšu, brought two female slaves and a child, who were then given to the house of the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.33:10). He is also mentioned in a tablet pertaining to two slave boys given to the weavers (BM 97061:5).

Šamaš-muballiṭ Šamaš-muballiṭ is attested twice in tablets recording the same transaction. He received a prisoner from Ešnuna brought by Bēlānum, the overseer of the Amorites, as surety (Nisaba 4 II.62:r1 and 63:6).

Šamaš-nāṣir This man appears as the recipient of silver and barley in a very fragmentary tablet (Nisaba 4 III.4:2). Although the date is missing, the presence of Sîn-šeme indicates that the tablet belongs to the time of either Samsu-iluna or RīmAnum.

210

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

*Tigilâ-ana-Damkina112 *Tigilâ-ana-Damkina brought two prisoners from Bad₃-tibira, who were then assigned to the e ₂- b u r- saĝ (Nisaba 4 II.71:r1).

Ubār-Zababa Ubār-Zababa is mentioned only once. He brought two men of Larsa for the house of prisoners (Nisaba 4 II.54:4). An Ubār-Zababa, ugu l a MAR.TU, is attested from a tablet from the Sîn-kāšid palace (BaM 31 269:4).

IX Conclusion The previous chapter deals with the organization of Uruk and concentrates on institutions identified as such in the records. Generally, the names of these institutions include the component e ₂ that can be translated variously as “house,” “estate,” “household,” or even “office” or “bureau.” In this chapter the emphasis is on individuals and occupations that are sometimes easily identifiable as belonging to institutions, but in most other cases the affiliation of these men with specific organizations remains elusive. On several occasions it is not clear whether certain men recorded in the archive were state officials or rather individuals interacting with state affairs without being an official of the state. What seems clear from the analysis of these people’s activities – as far as it is possible to trace them – is that for the most part they are connected to state institutions, either the temple or the palace. Except for certain cases such as temple officials or men bearing royal titles, it is usually uncertain whether a person was in the service of a temple or the palace. When studied together, tablets from the bīt asīrī and those from the Sînkāšid palace occasionally reveal certain detailed aspects of the institutional, economic and political life at Uruk during the short adventure of Rīm-Anum’s revolt against Samsu-iluna. There is for instance the case of individuals such as Awīl-ilī and Ilī-u-Šamaš, who continued to use their seals with the legend  To my knowledge, this is a rather unusual name. It is written Iti-gi-la-a-na-d da m -k i - na . The word tigi la in Sumerian, tigil(l)û in Akkadian means, according to CAD T s.v. tigillû, “(a squash).” For tigil(l)û attested with various spellings in Sumerian, the ePSD provides the meaning “a bird” and “colocynth as a drug.” Veldhuis (2004, 288) lists the word t i- g i₄ -lu m u š e n as one of the birds in “Nanše and the birds” and explains that Civil (1987) has shown that t i -gi₄-lu m u š e n is homonymous with a musical instrument. This PN then means “A-tigilâ-forDamkina.” The name could be an error for Tiklā-ana-Damkina, “Trust-in-Damkina,” as M. Stol suggested (personal communication 09/23/2011).

Conclusion

211

“servant of Samsu-iluna” on tablets dated to Rīm-Anum.113 Attestations date from the tenth month of the first year of Rīm-Anum’s reign. This fact reveals that, at least temporarily, certain officials employed under Samsu-iluna’s rule in Uruk preserved their positions during the reign of Rīm-Anum. Because of a lack of information it is not possible to know whether these people were later replaced or whether they kept their posts throughout the whole period of RīmAnum’s rule. Similarly, there is also the case of two officials who acquired new seals during the new administration. Sîn-iddinam used a seal with the legend “son of I-nu-[…], servant of the god AN.AN.MAR.TU” from RīA 1?/VIII/11+ (RSO 82 6) to RīA 2/VI/30 (RA 80:69 = App. 1 Nᵒ 11) and then he acquired another seal with the legend “son of I-nu-[…], b i saĝ- du b - b a , servant of Rīm-Anum.” He added his title to the new seal and changed “servant of the god” to “servant of the king.” The new seal is first attested in RīA 2/VIII/22 (VAS 13 52). Perhaps more revealing is the case of Apil-Amurrum, whose seal was rolled on flour allocations. His title, if any, is still unknown. His first seal, which has the inscription “son of Šulgi-[…], servant of the god Amurrum,” is attested from RīA 2/II/8 (UF 10 40) to RīA 2/IV/6 (UF 10 27). The second seal, which replaces the name of the god with the name of the king, is currently first attested in RīA 2/IV/23 (UF 10 10). Apil-Amurrum must have acquired his new seal during the fourth month of Rīm-Anum’s second year. The fact that one of these two men changed seals in the fourth month of the second year and the other man after that date may indicate an institutional reorganization. One has to assume that men who had previously held seals without a royal name were certainly elite. The acquisition of a new seal with the legend “servant of Rīm-Anum” implies that the owner of the seal had become a royal official under king Rīm-Anum. The case of the ugul a asīrī Sînšeme is particularly interesting because he appears in that role in a tablet dated to Samsu-iluna’s eighth year, most probably written before Rīm-Anum formally took control of Uruk. Sîn-šeme’s case suggests at least two possibilities. The continuity of Sîn-šeme in such an important post may represent the feeble loyalty of provincial administrators to the king of Babylon, or else his example shows that men loyal to Rīm-Anum were taking control of key areas of the administration before the installation of the new king. The tablets from the bīt asīrī and those from the Sîn-kāšid palace are administrative records that cast light on prisoners and slaves utilized for state

 Awīl-ilī’s sealing appears on ten tablets dated from RīA 1/X/10 (BaM 27 229) to RīA 1/X/ 26 (BaM 27 235), and on 3 documents with the date missing. Ilī-u-Šamaš’s seal was rolled on a tablet dated to RīA 1/X/[…] (BaM 27 237).

212

The organization of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum Part II: Professions and individuals

Tab. 23.: The bīt asīrī supply of labor force for individuals, groups and activities

Conclusion

213

labor (see Table 23, p. 212). One of the characteristics of these documents is that they are official records that allow us to study, albeit partially, aspects of political and institutional history of the state and of royal revolts, but also the history of those men, women and children taken as captives and forced into slavery. The Rīm-Anum tablets further allow us glimpses of everyday life activities. Thanks to these archives it is possible to trace, for example, the trajectory and functions of bureaucrats allocating flour, managing the labor force, distributing and registering raw material and manufactured products. They evoke a teeming city and swarms of people producing textiles, baskets, torches, bricks, weapons and food in times of political upheaval. In a less mundane sphere, they also reflect the king’s attempt at pleasing the gods and seeking the favor of temple representatives by granting them slaves as royal gifts.

Chapter 6 The military, messengers and foreign officials I General remarks Tablets dated to Rīm-Anum and more specifically those originating from the bīt asīrī mention various ranks of the military, as well as persons seemingly acting as diplomats, messengers, and foreign officials. A number of those people are clearly outsiders whom scribes identified as such by providing their place of origin or the name of the king or superior whom they served. In certain cases, however, there are reasons to suspect that the place of origin might not have been consistently recorded. Similarly, in texts dealing with flour allocation – to mention one example – a title may appear without the personal name that would help identify the official in question. This undoubtedly poses a problem because people without geographic, ethnic or political identification may or may not have belonged to Uruk. There are further complexities pertaining to these issues. For example, I use the words “foreign officials” and “foreigners” for lack of better terms. However, the way that one defines “foreign” and “foreigner” in the ancient world, especially in times of political upheaval, is rather lax. Unlike modern nation states, whose borders are clearly defined by rigid lines drawn on a map, in antiquity territorial and state affiliations seem to have depended on the notion of belonging to a city or to something similar to the Latin pagus, sometimes identifiable with a kingdom. This can be illustrated by the fact that formerly independent capitals that revolted against Samsu-iluna had become part of the Babylonian kingdom after Hammurabi’s conquest. Yet in tablets from the bīt asīrī people are connected to cities, for instance Isin or Larsa, or to broader areas, such as Emutbal, to indicate that they were not from Uruk. Individuals are multidimensional in that they belong simultaneously to various collectivities that in turn help establish identities and belonging, as Eric Hobsbawm (e.g., 1993) has convincingly argued. Hobsbawm explained that it is not unusual to prioritize one identity over others depending on circumstances. The primary identification of an individual as a citizen of a nation state is a late development that originated in the 18th century AD. Although information pertaining to simultaneous multiple identifications may not be explicitly stated in documents from Old Babylonian Uruk, it is possible to trace, however tentatively, certain practices to establish people’s affiliation. There are of course several, not mutually exclusive, levels. In tablets from the archive of the bīt asīrī, scribes could identify members of the military, messen-

General remarks

215

gers and foreign officials by means of various labels of belonging, even though they did not switch from one category to another when referring to the same person. For example, one of the men receiving a flour allocation is consistently characterized as the brother of Daganma-ilum, a military leader. In this particular instance, the expression “brother of” puts the emphasis on kinship (e.g., UF 10 9:2, VAS 13 41:3, Nisaba 4 I.15:3, RSO 82 13:3). In other cases, however, the connection is to a gentilic, such as for example Aḫlamû (UF 10 20:3).1 Most common is the identification by means of geographic names. Only occasionally are men in the military affiliated with a figure of authority. For instance, the military scribe Ilīma-ilum is characterized as belonging to the unit of Ubār-Zababa, the ugu la MAR.TU (BaM 31 269:3–4).2 All these men could undoubtedly have been identified by their filiation or by a profession as were other of their colleagues, but Uruk scribes chose as they saw fit to employ fraternal ties, or ethnic and territorial connections. On a few occasions, there are examples of overlapping particulars, generally encompassing a profession and a geographic affiliation. The status of certain elite men and army officers must have been bound up in the political swings that the city of Uruk experienced during the Old Babylonian period. As already explained, from being an independent kingdom, Uruk became part of the territorial state of Larsa and finally, together with all the domains of its former master, it was annexed to Hammurabi’s realm. Samsu-iluna subsequently inherited Uruk and the rest of the territorial state that his father had established. Whereas many people may have continued living their lives without noticing much change, one has to assume that local elites may have had to negotiate their loyalties and accept the new masters or step aside. In the case of men in the military, the situation must have been more complicated, if only because of their geographical mobility and the changing political scenarios. For example, when a number of regional leaders revolted against the central power, as was the case with Larsa and Uruk, they must have counted on the support of certain military leaders who abandoned their loyalty to the Babylonian king to engage in regional adventures. That the loyalty of soldiers was not unconditional is apparent from certain Mari texts listing Babylonian fugitive soldiers, perhaps from among those sent by Hammurabi to help Zimrī-Līm (Millet Albà 2003). Due to these circumstances, the leadership of the army during the time of Rīm-Anum may have consisted of

 There are few attestations of the Aḫlamû in the Old Babylonian period (see Van Lerberghe and Voet 1991, 130, note II.16, 19).  I suggest reading this personal name u-bar!-dza-ba₄-ba₄. The sign bar was copied with an extra horizontal wedge at the bottom.

216

The military, messengers and foreign officials

military men once supportive of Samsu-iluna and his army and other military leaders who had now switched sides. The political status of certain army leaders is, therefore, difficult to ascertain. Other aspects such as the organization of the military, however, are relatively well known. Various scholars have studied the composition of the army during the Old Babylonian period. Based on a letter addressed to a number of army officers (VAS 16 165), Benno Landsberger (1955) reconstructed the military hierarchy and offered English translations for the titles.3 Nine years later, Kraus (1964) edited another letter with the same listing of officials (see also Kraus 1968, 60–61), providing the German rendering of the same titles. More recently Stol (2004, 779) has compared both interpretations, adding his own translation, and Charpin (2004, 282) has listed the Babylonian titles and their equivalents in the kingdom of Mari. Disagreements revolve basically around the reading of certain signs and around Akkadian and modern translations. The different interpretations can be summarized as follows: Title u g ula MAR.TU PA.PA

Landsberger ()

Kraus ()

Charpin ()

Stol ()

Reading: Akkadian: Translation: Reading: Akkadian:

u gula MAR.TU unknown4 “general” PA.PA unknown

ugula mar-tu Ø “Oberster” PA.PA Ø

u g ula mar- tu šâpir? Amurrim “général” u g ula g i d r u 6 rab ḫaṭṭim

Translation:

“captain”

“Hauptmann” “chef de section” nu -ban da ₃ nu - banda₃ Ø laputtûm “Feldwebel” “lieutenant” aga-uš aga- ús Ø rêdûm “Soldat” “simple soldat”

PA MAR.TU5 Ø “General” PA.PA rabû ša ḫaṭṭātim “Kapitän”

nu -ba n da ₃ Reading: Akkadian: Translation: a ga ₃-us₂ Reading: Akkadian: Translation:

n u- ba nda laputtûm “sergeant” a ga- uš rēdûm “private”

nu- banda ₃ laputtûm “Unteroffizier” aga - uš rēdûm “Soldat”

A number of other specialized soldiers, substitutes, and mercenaries, to mention only a few examples, completed this hierarchy (see, e.g., Harris 1975, 86– 109). Furthermore, Stol (2004, 777–817) analyzed the army, taking into account

 The letter is addressed to the ugula MAR.TU-me š!, the PA.PA-m e š!, the nu- b and a₃ - m eš ! and the dum u e₂- dub -ba-a . See also the comments in Landsberger (1967, 58) footnote 212. Koshurnikov (1993, 177), however, criticized Landsberger’s translations on the basis that “it seems to me quite unreasonable to correlate his rank with the captain in a modern army.”

ug ula MAR.TU

217

ranks and economic issues such as land tenure as well as administrative posts. It is not my intention to undertake a study of the Old Babylonian army, which deserves a monograph of its own. In this chapter, I deal only with those military officers attested from texts dated to Rīm-Anum, in addition to diplomats, messengers and other foreign officials who carried on their duties in the city of Uruk.

II u gula MAR.TU The Akkadian rendering of this title is still, in my opinion, problematic. Lexical lists give the reading ugu la for the sign PA and consider waklum and šāpirum as synonyms. Although there seems to be an inclination towards the reading šāpir amurrî, I prefer keeping the logogram ugul a and the Akkadian word šāpirum as separate categories until conclusive evidence becomes available.7 The title ugu l a MAR.TU is, as far as I know, attested from the reign of king Hammurabi onwards (Kupper 1957, 186). Stol has pointed out that several men holding the post have Akkadian names but others bear names in addi Landsberger (1955, 122) stated that “UGULA.MAR.TU cannot be read *waqil Amurrî” and suggested the possible reading *ugulamartû. See footnote Nᵒ 11.  Stol now believes that the Akkadian equivalent of PA MAR.TU is šāpir Amurrî (personal communication 09/23/2011).  The reading ugula gidru, suggested by Kraus (1968, 63 footnote 94.b), was supported by Charpin (1987b, 662) on the basis of the reading lu₂ gal-g i dri in a Mari letter (ARM 22 270), which Charpin takes as the equivalent of the Babylonian PA.PA. Later on Charpin (2000) argued that the reading of PA.PA is certainly ugul a g idru . He based his reading on a tablet published by Van Lerberghe (1998), text Nᵒ 11. The editor read the signs PA giš PA followed by the title nu-banda₃, which – according to Charpin- shows the correct reading of PA.PA. See also De Graef (2002).  Stol now prefers the reading šāpir amurrî (personal communication 09/23/2011). See also Stol (2004, 805 and footnote 1149) and Charpin (2004, 282). For the attestation in lexical lists, see the lexical sections in CAD A/1 s.v. aklu and CAD Š/1 s.v. šāpiru. It is possible that in real life ugula and šāpirum are two different posts. From an economy perspective, ugu la is written with only one sign and šāpirum with three. Therefore one wonders why a scribe would choose the longest way for writing a quick administrative document. Furthermore, there is the case of a certain Marduk-nāṣir who bears the titles šāpir id₂ Asurrum and ugu la i d₂ Asurrum. As far as the extant tablets preserve complete dates, the two titles do not overlap in time (see Table 26). This is further supported by a Mari letter (ARM 1 28:20) where wa-˹ak-la˺-am and ša-pi-ra-am appear together. There are also similar attestations from kudurrus; thus, for instance, in MDP 2 p. 97:11 lu ugul a lu ša-pi-ru lu nu- ba nd a ₃ lu qi₂-[pu] (Adad-šuma-uṣur), in MDP 6 pl. 10 iii:29 lu ugul a lu nu-banda ₃ lu ša-pi-ru lu šākin (Marduk-apla-iddina I); and in VAS 1 36 ii 16–18 lu lugal lu dumu luga l lu nun lu ugu la lu ša₂-pi-ru lu di -ku d (Nabûšuma-iškun).

218

The military, messengers and foreign officials

tional languages, such as Amorite, Elamite, and Kassite. According to him, the ugu l a MAR.TU had direct access to the king and did not necessarily belong to local families (Stol 2004, 806 and 810). In the Rīm-Anum corpus the title is written ugu l a MAR.TU when preceded by a personal name and ugu l a MAR.TU( - m eš ) , mostly with the plural marker, when no personal name is attached to it.8 The types of texts in which the two variants appear are different: ugu la MAR.TU( -m eš) is attested in tablets pertaining to flour allocations; whereas PN ugu la MAR.TU appears in texts dealing with the management of prisoners and in administrative records from the Sîn-kāšid palace. I think that in this corpus PN + ugu la MAR.TU designates the military rank usually translated as “general.” But when no name precedes the title, ugul a MAR.TU(- m eš ) refers to “Amorite leader(s),” as seems to be implied by Stol’s (2004, 791) rendering of “PA MAR.TU.meš” as “Haupt der Amurriter.” Since there is an ugu l a lu ₂ e la m , “overseer of the Elamites,” in the corpus (Nisaba 4 II.3:r5–6), one wonders whether in the bīt asīrī tablets the “Amorites” were meant to be soldiers from the land of Babylonia. But this, without further evidence, is just speculation. Attestations of the title ugu la MAR.TU-m e š as found in flour allocations are presented chronologically in Table 27 at the end of this chapter. As can be seen from the table, out of the thirty-two occurrences only four lack the plural marker, which could have been a scribal writing preference, an unwilling omission, or it could have indicated an institutional recipient.9 These allocations span from RīA 1/XII/9 (UF 10 15) to RīA 2/VII/28 (Nisaba 4 I.48). Although most of the tablets register the ĝe šb u n type assigned as meal for the army, there are two records pertaining to a si -la ₂ allocation, one ṣudû and one š uku luga l . On twelve occasions the ugu la MAR.TU- me š were recorded with a toponym. In alphabetical order, the distribution of geographical names following the title is as follows: Babylon and Gutûm three times, Kisura five times and Uruk once.  Examples of the attestation PN ugula MAR.TU include: BaM 31 269:4, 272:3, 338:6; BM 88756:2, BM 97061:11; Nisaba 4 II.14:6, 16:3, 33:11, 63:3, 72:5, 74:4, 77:4–5, 79:5–7; UF 10 3:2–3, 4:8, 6:4; YOS 14 338:11, 339:5. Attestations of ugul a MAR.TU- me š not preceded by a PN are: App. 1 Nᵒ 19:3; Nisaba 4 I.21:5, 22:3, 27:3, 48:3–4, 58:3, 61:3, 62:3, 63:3, 64:3; RSO 82 14:3; UF 10 5:r1, 8:3, 11:2–3, 15:3, 18:2–3, 30:3, 32:3, 37:2, 38:3, 40:3'; VAS 13 48:6, 49:r3. There are finally a few examples of ugul a MAR.TU in the singular not preceded by a PN thus: App. 1 Nᵒ 20:2; Nisaba 4 I.18:3, 26:3; and UF 10 22:2.  I should also mention here the case of BaM 31 359 (RīA 3/VII/23). This is an administrative tablet from the Sîn-kāšid palace, badly broken at the beginning. Then we have in lines 3–5. š u ti -a ugula MAR.TU / IPirḫum dum u Ilī-u-Šamaš / ĝ i ri ₃ Ibni-Adad dumu e ₂ - du b - b a- a . The end of line 3 is missing, but perhaps there is an u ₃ sign or two clauses asyndetically linked. It would be unusual to have the title ugul a MAR.TU before the name of its bearer.

ug ula MAR.TU

219

There is then the group of officials registered as PN ugu la MAR.TU. These men consistently appear in bīt asīrī tablets dealing with the management of people and in documents from the Sîn-kāšid palace pertaining to raw materials. On tablets from the palace the title ugu la MAR.TU occurs three times. The ugu l a MAR.TU Marduk-[…] is recorded in a very fragmentary tablet. Although the obverse is mostly gone, the line “under the authority of Marduk-[…] ugul a MAR.TU” is preserved on the lower edge (BaM 31 338:6). It is tempting to restore this name as Marduk-[nāṣir] because an ugul a MAR.TU with that name is attested twice in the bīt asīrī (YOS 14 338:11, Nisaba 4 II.74:4), and because a homonym without title appears in a similar transaction (BaM 31 306:5).10 The ugu l a MAR.TU Ubār-Zababa is tangentially mentioned in another palace document. In this case, Ilīma-ilum, the du m u e ₂ - du b -ba , “scribe,” belonging to the troop of Ubār-Zababa receives rushes for unspecified purposes (BaM 31 269:4). Finally, the ugu la MAR.TU Awīlīya from Muti-abal receives rushes (ĝ e š u ₂ - d i - du ) for boats (ana m a ₂ -gu r ₈-h i - a) once; the rest of the document is broken (BaM 31 272:3).11 As we shall see in the next paragraph, in tablets from the bīt asīrī, the name Awīlīya is attested three more times followed by the title ugu la MAR.TU: once without a geographic name (UF 10 4:8) and twice followed by Gutûm (YOS 14 339:5, BM 97061:11). It seems safe to assume that the Awīlīya from bīt asīrī records refers to the same person, because in the three instances he is mentioned in connection with prisoners from Natbakum and Āl-Damqi-ilīšu that he had previously brought to Uruk. The Awīlīya recorded in the tablet from the Sîn-kāšid palace is, therefore, a different person. Attestations of ugu la MAR.TU from the archive of the bīt asīrī all relate to the management of prisoners. Five ugu la MAR.TUs brought prisoners to Uruk from different locations. For instance, the aforementioned ugu l a MAR.TU Awīlīya is recorded in connection with two men from among seventeen prisoners of the booty of Natbakum whom he had brought from Uruk. These two men were assigned to the weavers (YOS 14 339:5). In another tablet issued a few days later, one of two men assigned to the poultry house is identified as a man of Natbakum brought by Awīlīya (UF 10 4:8). Similarly, two boys from the booty of Natbakum and Āl-Damqi-ilīšu were brought by Awīlīya, the ugul a MAR.TU of Gutûm, and assigned to the weavers (BM 97061:11). The ugul a MAR.TU Bēlānum, man of Nazarum, brought to Uruk a certain Abī-šagiš identi-

 In this case he authorized molds to make bricks. See also BaM 31 308:3, where a man received two rudders from a Marduk-nāṣir without title.  If the signs are properly copied, the name is awkwardly written a-wi-il-ia, either a faulty or an etymologizing syllabification, instead of the expected a-wi-li-ia.

220

The military, messengers and foreign officials

fied as a man of Ešnuna and entrusted to Šamaš-muballiṭ (Nisaba 4 II.63:3–4). Both men also appear on a related tablet mentioning that Bēlānum had brought Abī-šagiš from his expedition and that the slave was given as surety and received by the same Šamaš-muballiṭ (Nisaba 4 II.62:4).12 The ugul a MAR.TU Marduk-nāṣir together with Warad-Sîn, the Gutian, brought a number of prisoners, and although the beginning of the tablet is broken, we can read that one of these men was from Šubartum and another from Ešnuna (YOS 14 338:10–11). Warad-Sîn, the Gutian, is recorded once more in connection with prisoners (Nisaba 4 II.46:3). Another tablet mentions that a man received by a certain Tarībum came from among thirty-nine prisoners brought from the first expedition of Warad-Šamaš, the ugu la MAR.TU, man of Kisura (Nisaba 4 II.72:5). Finally, Nabi-ilīšu and Šamaš-gāmil, who were under the authority of Apil-ilīšu, the ugu la MAR.TU, brought three slaves (Nisaba 4 II.33:11).13 A number of prisoners and slaves are also described as belonging to (ša) PN ugu l a MAR.TU. For example, a certain Ili-awīlim-rabi belonging to Abīyatum, the ugu l a MAR.TU, was assigned to the house of the aĝ r ig (Nisaba 4 II.77:4–5). The previous year Mārat-erṣetim from the retinue of Abīyatum, the ugu la MAR.TU, had been assigned to the house of the weavers (UF 10 3:3). Another female slave belonging to Ali-talīmī, the ugu la MAR.TU, was also given to the weavers (UF 10 6:4). For his part, a certain Ḫummurum belonging to Ibbi-Amurrum, the ugu la MAR.TU of Malgûm, was given to the poultry house together with two other slaves, one of whom belonged to Inbi-erṣetim, the ugu la MAR.TU (Nisaba 4 II.14:2,6). There is moreover a tablet listing three men of Kisura under the authority of three other men, namely, Warad-Šamaš, Bēlānum and Annum-pī-Sîn (Nisaba 4 II.79:5–7). The title ugul a ˹ MAR.TU ˺ follows the name of Annum-pī-Sîn in line seven. It is possible that it qualifies the three men because with the exception of Annum-pī-Sîn the other two individuals bear the title ugu la MAR.TU elsewhere in the corpus. However, an Annum-pī-Sîn with the title ugu la MAR.TU is attested in a letter (AbB 9 237:7, 17).14 There is finally the case of Mār-erṣetim, belonging to Ilī-ippalsam, the  The date of Nisaba 4 II.63 is written with metathesis: kug- du ₆ instead of du ₆ -kug. It seems to me that Nisaba 4 II.62 was written earlier because it gives more details about the prisoner’s provenience.  My collation of this tablet shows the verb ub-lam indented after line 11.  As is the case with most letters, the lack of context makes it difficult to understand the contents fully. In this letter Gimil-Gula writes to Namram-šarūr that the field of Narām-ilīšu, the ugula MAR.TU, which had been given to Annum-pī-Sîn, the ugu l a MAR.TU, as a subsistence field, is now in the possession of Ilī-itūram. Furthermore, a few lines later he comes back to Annum-pī-Sîn, the ugul a MAR.TU, saying: aššum Annum-pī-Sîn ṭuppi šāpir rēdîša illikam mādiš dunnun, “Concerning Annum-pī-Sîn, the tablet of the chief of the soldiers that came to me is severe.” One wonders whether Annum-pī-Sîn abandoned or lost his field because he

ug ula MAR.TU

221

Personal name

Title

Date

Document

Abīyatum Abīyatum

u g ula MAR.TU u g ula MAR.TU

RīA /VIII/ RīA /II/

UF  :– Nisaba  II.:–

Ali-talīmī

u g ula MAR.TU

RīA /X/

UF  :

Annum-pī-Sîn

u g ula MAR.TU

RīA /II/

Nisaba  II.:

Apil-ilīšu

u g ula MAR.TU

RīA /XII/

Nisaba  II.:

Awīlīya Awīlīya Awīlīya

u g ula MAR.TU u g ula MAR.TU u g ula MAR.TU Gutûm

RīA /XII/  RīA /I/ date lost

YOS  : UF  : BM :

Awīlīya

u g ula ˹MAR.TU˺ l u ₂ Muti-abal

date lost

BaM  :

Awīl-Adad

u g ula MAR.TU lu ₂ Ešnuna

RīA /XI/?

Nisaba  II.:

Bēlānum Bēlānum

u g ula MAR.TU lu ₂ Nazarum ( ugula MAR.TU)

RīA /VII?/ RīA /II/

Nisaba  II.: Nisaba  II.:–

Ibbi-Amurrum

u g ula MAR.TU Malgûm

RīA /XI/

Nisaba  II.:

Ilī-ippalsam

u g ula MAR.TU Emutbal

RīA /V/

BM :

Inbi-erṣetim

u g ula MAR.TU

RīA /XI/

Nisaba  II.:

Marduk-nāṣir Marduk-nāṣir Marduk-[nāṣir?]

u g ula MAR.TU u g ula MAR.TU u g ula MAR.TU

RīA /V/ RīA /[…]/ RīA /II/

YOS  : Nisaba  II.: BaM  :

Ubār-Zababa

u g ula MAR.TU

RīA /[…]/[…]

BaM  :

Warad-Šamaš Warad-Šamaš

u g ula MAR.TU lu ₂ Kisura u g ula MAR.TU

RīA /XI/? RīA /II/

Nisaba  II.: Nisaba  II.:–

[…]

u g ula MAR.TU lu ₂ Isin

RīA /VI/

Nisaba  II.:

Tab. : List of overseers of the Amorites (u gula MAR.TU)

switched sides, and whether the tablet from the šāpir rēdî includes a report on Annum-pī-Sîn’s activities as a rebel.

222

The military, messengers and foreign officials

ugu l a MAR.TU of Emutbal, brought by the e ns i ₂ Annum-pī-Šamaš (BM 88756:2). Two other attestations of ugu la MAR.TUs are exceptional. The ugul a MAR.TU Marduk-nāṣir, son of Ana-ṣillīšu-ēmid, is mentioned because a man of Lagaš belonging to Ilī-iddinam, also from Lagaš, was found in his house and then reassigned (Nisaba 4 II.74:4). The fact that this man was “found” (ša…innamru) in Marduk-nāṣir’s house may imply that the bīt asīrī had lost track of this prisoner because a previous transfer had not been recorded, or it could also be that Marduk-nāṣir “borrowed” this man without informing the authority at the house of prisoners. Most interesting is the case of Awīl-Adad, characterized as ugu la MAR.TU, man of Ešnuna, and given together with two other men as royal gifts for the goddess Kanisura (Nisaba 4 II.16:3). This brief mention shows that either the army of Rīm-Anum or the troops of his allies had captured Awīl-Adad from Ešnuna, who bore the highest title in the army, and brought him to Uruk where he ended up as a temple slave. This example therefore reflects the existence of competing powers and the fragmentation in the ranks of the Babylonian army. Table 24 (pp. 221) contains the names of men bearing the title ugu l a MAR.TU in tablets dated to Rīm-Anum, alphabetically arranged. To this list one should add a text not dated to Rīm-Anum but to Rīm-Sîn II of Larsa (RS II b/ XII/26, PSBA 39 pl 8 Nᵒ 21), mentioning a certain Šuritak(?), ugul a MAR.TU of Uruk (see Stol 1976, 51).

III PA.PA This title, generally translated as “captain,” is second in importance after the ugu l a MAR.TU. Harris (1975, 96) states that in Sippar the PA.PA “appears to be the stable element in the army” and that the post was held for many years and perhaps for life. She mentions, furthermore, that unlike the “general” (ugu l a MAR.TU), the captain belonged to local families and held the office for many years (see also Stol 2004, 810). There are two PA.PAs attested in the corpus of the bīt asīrī, Awīl-Adad and Ālī-lūmur.16 Awīl-Adad is recorded on a  Collation of line 2 of the obverse of Nisaba 4 II.52 (= BM 16459) shows: ša ˹ x-x k i - ga ˺ / [ ugula ] ˹MAR.TU˺ lu₂ i₃- si-i n k i .  The collation of Nisaba 4 II.28:7 (=BM 23165) shows a-wi-il-d i šku r instead of a-pil- d i šku r. In her edition of Nisaba 4 II.6:2 (=BM 15663), Rositani has ša ˹pa˺-ni-šu-lu?-mur? PA.PA, which would be a second PA.PA. However, the signs are partially eroded and the proposed reading is problematic. The first sign of the personal name is not pa, nor is the last sign of the professional name. The title looks more like ugul a e ₂, but such a reading is not sure. In my opinion PA.PA is out of the question.

aga ₃ - us₂ (re¯dûm)

223

tablet dealing with the management of prisoners. In addition to the title he is also characterized as a man of Nazarum. The geographic name leaves no doubt that he is not from the city of Uruk (Nisaba 4 II.28:7). According to this tablet, Awīl-Adad had captured a group of thirteen weavers who had escaped from Larsa. As for the PA.PA Ālī-lūmur, he received a prisoner captured by the men of Kisura under the authority of Ṣillī-Ištar (VAS 13 43).

IV a ga ₃- us₂ (rēdûm) Men with authority over soldiers are, after the ugul a MAR.TU, the best documented in the Rīm-Anum corpus. Perhaps due to the characteristics of our sources, the available information pertains to elite men in charge of soldiers. Attestations include ugu la aga ₃-u s₂ ( -m e š) , šāpir aga ₃-us ₂ , aga ₃-u s₂ s aĝ, aga ₃ -u s ₂ s aĝ luga l, and aga ₃-u s₂ luga l. In the following section I present the evidence concerning all these titles.

u gul a a ga ₃ - us ₂ ( -m eš ) This title literally means “overseer of the soldier(s).” Three men from the bīt asīrī archive bear the title, namely Marduk-mušallim, Sîn-ibnīšu and UbārŠamaš. Marduk-mušallim, the ugu la aga ₃-u s₂ , is mentioned in connection with two boys belonging to him who were assigned to the group of the Elamites (du m u- m eš lu ₂ el a m - m a k i ) and received by Bēlšunu the overseer of the Elamites (Nisaba 4 II.3:6). Sîn-ibnīšu is recorded three times in tablets dealing with the management of prisoners. In the first document, three female slaves from the booty of Isin were taken away from the house of Sîn-ibnīšu, the ugu l a aga ₃ -u s ₂ - me š, and then assigned to the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.20:5). A second tablet similarly mentions that a woman and her three children from the booty of Isin were also taken from Sîn-ibnīšu’s house and given to the weavers (BM 88612:r2). In the third, another female slave from the booty of Isin was taken from the retinue of Sîn-ibnīšu and also assigned to the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.51:r1). Finally, the ugu la aga ₃ -u s₂ Ubār-Šamaš received two prisoners from Babylon captured in Kisura (Nisaba 4 II.83:8, RīA 3/I/5).

šāpir a ga ₃ - us ₂ - m eš (šāpir rēdî) This title can be rendered as “chief of the soldiers” (Stol 2004, 801). The participle šāpirum means “the one who gives orders” or “the one who commands,”

224

The military, messengers and foreign officials

although the word has a wider semantic range depending on the context. There is only one attestation of šāpir aga ₃ -u s₂ -m e š in the archive of the bīt asīrī. In this case, a man belonging to Aḫīya, the šāpir aga ₃-us ₂ -me š, was assigned to the house of the aĝr ig together with another man belonging to Abīyatum, the ugu l a MAR.TU (Nisaba 4 II.77:2). These are the only two slaves mentioned in the tablet, and both of them were under the authority of military leaders.

a ga ₃ - us ₂ sa ĝ (l ugal ) Landsberger (1955, 122) explained that the title qaqqad rēdî meant “proper soldier” as opposed to taḫḫum, the “legal substitute.” He further commented in a footnote that, unlike Ungnad (BB 31:16, 66:14), he did not “consider AGA.UŠ.SAG (…) as revealing an exempted rank among the rēdû’s, as an alternative writing for qá-qá-ad AGA.UŠ.” More recently, however, Stol (2004, 802) questioned the assumption that qaqqad rēdî and aga₃ -us ₂ saĝ are different writings of the same post. For him, the former title means “Hauptsoldat,” whereas the latter is clearly an “Elitesoldat.” Two men in the bīt asīrī archive bear the title aga₃ -us ₂ saĝ. The first is Sîn-iddinam. He acts as the conveyor of a prisoner belonging to Mannum-kīmailīya, whom Ilī-ippalsam had brought to Uruk (Nisaba 4 II.9:5). This Ilī-ippalsam could be the du m u e ₂ - du b - b a , “scribe,” attested with this title in a document from the Sîn-kāšid palace (BaM 31 273:5). Such a possibility agrees with the presence of a soldier as conveyor of a prisoner brought to Uruk by a military scribe. Or perhaps Ilī-ippalsam could be the ugu l a MAR.TU of Emutbal who is recorded as the master of a slave brought to the bīt asīrī by the e n s i ₂ Annum-pī-Šamaš (BM 88756:2). The second aga ₃-u s₂ saĝ is Marduk-nāṣir, recorded four times. As was the case with Sîn-iddinam, on one occasion Marduk-nāṣir is the conveyor of a prisoner from the booty of Isin assigned to Muti-Dagan, the overseer of the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.13:3). A Marduk-nāṣir without title acts in the same capacity in a document from the palace, although this time the recipient is MārBābilum, possibly the well-known official at the house of the aĝr ig (BaM 31 366:4). Marduk-nāṣir is recorded once more with the title aga ₃-u s₂ s aĝ in a document registering a slave belonging to him (Nisaba 4 II.80:r2). Finally, he is mentioned with the title aga ₃ -u s₂ saĝ luga l , “royal elite soldier,” in a tablet where he, together with another man whose name is missing, acted as conveyor of a slave from Ur assigned to the aĝ rig and received by Mār-Bābilum and Ana-pāni-ilī (Nisaba 4 II.42:r2–3).17  Collation of lines 1–3 of the reverse shows: 1. [ĝ iri ₃ PN], 2. ˹u₃ dm ardu k ˺-[na-ṣi-ir], 3. aga ₂ -us₂ saĝ luga l.

Administrative officials in the army

225

a ga ₃ - us₂ l u gal This title can be translated as “soldier of the king” or “royal soldier” (see Stol 2004, 804). It is attested only once, in a document from the bīt asīrī. Although the tablet has a broken passage, it seems that a certain Marduk-iddinam belonging to Ilī-bānî was assigned to Sîn-aḫḫī-iddinam, the aga₃ -us ₂ lugal . The document was issued at the house of the aĝ r ig under the authority of Ninurta-mansum and Ana-pāni-ilī, whereas the conveyor was Sîn-šeme, the ugula asīrī (App. 1 Nᵒ 29:3).

V ra ( ₂ ) - gaba This title is variously translated as “messenger, envoy” (CAD R s.v. rakbû), “Meldereiter”? (AHw s.v. rakbu), “mounted messenger” ? (CDA s.v. rakbu), and “Berittener” (Stol 2004, 803).18 Four men bear the title r a ( ₂ ) -gaba in texts dated to Rīm-Anum: Ilšu-nawir, Ītanaḫ-ilum, Sîn-išmeanni and Šarrum-kīmailim. The r a ₂ - gab a Ilšu-nawir was mentioned because a man belonging to him was listed in a document recording sixteen slave barbers (Nisaba 4 II.80:r10). For his part, the r a ₂ -gaba Ītanaḫ-ilum received two male slaves to feed the wagon oxen (Nisaba 4 II.58:r2).19 Another document mentions three slaves belonging to the r a ₂ -gab a Sîn-išmeanni who were assigned to the weavers (YOS 14 337:11). Finally, another man belonging to the r a₂ -gaba Šarrum-kīma-ilim was given to a person or an institution that is not legible on the tablet (Nisaba 4 II.81:8). As is clear from these examples, the three r a ( ₂ ) - gab a s have men under their authority and the bīt asīrī disposed of these workers as needed.

VI Administrative officials in the army dum u e ₂ - d ub - ba (-a) Landsberger (1955, 125) translated the title du m u e ₂ - dub -ba( - a) as “military scribe” (see also Harris 1975, 106), and Stol (2004, 780) stated that certain texts  Stol (2012) has recently listed several activities in which various r a ₂ - gab a were involved, including their role as messengers, “policemen,” and their participation in the military (p. 343), among many others.  Collation shows: obv. 2. ˹ka˺-ba-ar-tum, 3. Iiškur-˹še-mi˺, 5. a-na gu d-h i- a ma-ia-altim, 6. šu-ku-lim; rev. 2. r a ₂-gaba following the name Ītanaḫ-ilum.

226

The military, messengers and foreign officials

show that the du mu e ₂ - du b -b a ( -a ) -“Schreiber” came after the PA.PA in the military hierarchy.20 Seven men in our corpus are characterized as dumu e₂ - du b - b a ( - a ) , “scribe.” The relevant tablets come from both the bīt asīrī archive and the Sîn-kāšid palace. In a very fragmentary record that preserves only four lines on the reverse, Apil-Šamaš, the dumu e₂ - dub -˹ ba-a ˺ , is the only witness to a transaction that took place at the palace (BaM 31 362:2). The scribe Awīl-Ištar acted as the conveyor of six female slaves (App. 1 Nᵒ 28:23). Another poorly preserved tablet has the du m u e₂ - dub -ba- a Ibni-Adad as conveyor (BaM 31 359:r1). Ilī-ippalsam bore the title dumu e₂ - du b -ba ˹ er i n ₂ x x ˺ in a record from the palace where he received rushes (BaM 31 273:5). A man by the same name but without title brought a prisoner to Uruk (Nisaba 4 II.9:3).21 This Ilī-ippalsam could be the same person, for people engaged in the military frequently provided prisoners from other locations, although he could also be the namesake who was the ugu la MAR.TU of Emutbal (BM 88756:2). Ilīma-ilum bore the title du m u e ₂- du b -b a e ren ₂ Ubār-Zababa ugu l a MAR.TU, “scribe of the troop of Ubār-Zababa, the ugul a MAR.TU.” As was the case with Ilī-ippalsam, Ilīma-ilum was affiliated with a particular military contingent. In this palace tablet, he received rushes (BaM 31 269:3). For his part, the du m u e₂ - du b - b a Lipit-Ištar received a man entrusted to him to do irrigation work on the field(s). This worker had previously been under the authority of an e n si ₂ in the biltum-field of Marduk-nāṣir (Nisaba 4 II.21:5–6). Finally, the du m u e₂ - du b - b a( - a ) Sîn-nāṣir received eight slaves belonging to various men (Nisaba 4 II.45:r9).

dub-sar ugnim This title literally means “scribe of the army” and is attested only once in the archive of the bīt asīrī. In this case, a woman belonging to Munawwirum, the du b - s a r ug n i m, was assigned to the weavers together with two other female slaves (UF 10 6:6).

 Besides the evidence from the “archive of Ubarum,” Stol also mentioned AbB 6 165:7–10 and 215:14. The dumu e ₂- dub -ba -a is not always a military scribe, as M. Stol points out to me (personal communication 09/23/2011). K. De Graef (2002, 170–171, footnote 61) explained that the exact connotation of dumu e₂- dub - ba-a is still unknown, and speculated that “Possibly the dumu e ₂- dub -ba- a is the ‘master-scribe’, as opposed to the du b - s ar or ‘scribe’ (…).  An Ilī-ippalsam without title is attested in a tablet from the palace dated to the time of Samsu-iluna. Here a man under his authority is assigned to the ox-drivers together with other seven slaves (BaM 31 320, Si 7/VIII/19).

lu ₂ - ki gˆ₂ - g i₄ -a

227

VI l u₂ -ki ĝ₂ -g i ₄-a Strictly speaking, messengers do not seem to belong to the ranks of the military, although they clearly performed services for kings and their armies. Most messengers from the bīt asīrī archive were recipients of flour allocations and they usually come from places other than Uruk. The only exception is on a tablet which is seemingly a memorandum of sorts recording that the messengers Marduk-nāṣir and Ibni-Kabta brought a tablet to Kisura from Babylon (App. 1 Nᵒ 25). Alphabetically arranged, messengers receiving flour allocations on tablets dated to Rīm-Anum are as follows: Personal Name

Title

Awīl-erṣetim Bēlī-qarrād Ibni-Kabta Ilīma Ilī-ayy-ēniš Ilī-ayy-ēniš Ilšu-nawir Ilšu-rēʾīšu Kalūmu Marduk-nāṣir Nabi-Sîn Nūr-Kabta Nūr-Kabta

l u ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a ša l u ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a ša l u ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a l u ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a ša l u ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a ša l u ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a ša l u ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a ša l u ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a ša l u ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a ša l u ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a l u ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a ša l u ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a ša dub-sar-za g-ga l u ₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a ša

Date Rīm-Sîn Rīm-[Sîn]

RīA RīA RīA Rīm-[Sîn] RīA Daganma-ilum RīA Daganma-ilum RīA Rīm-Sîn RīA Rīm-Sîn RīA Rīm-Sîn RīA RīA Rīm-Sîn RīA Rīm-Sîn RīA RīA Rīm-Sîn

/[…]/[…] /III/ /X/ /III/ /II/ /II/ /II/ /[…]/[…] /[…]/ /X/ /III/ /III/ /[…]/[…]

Document RA ,  Nᵒ : Nisaba  I.: App.  Nᵒ : Nisaba  I.: Nisaba  I.:– VAS  : UF  : RA ,  Nᵒ : VAS  :r App.  Nᵒ : Nisaba  I.: Nisaba  I.: RA ,  Nᵒ :

 Right before Ilšu-nawir, there are four other recipients of flour: Ešeʾi-pāni-Šamaš, Tarībatum and Apil-Kūbi, the šu- i. The title lu₂-kiĝ ₂-gi ₄-a, in the singular, follows the name of Ilšu-nawir. Since in other instances the title is either repeated or written in the plural, I have decided not to include the other men as “messengers.” However, they might have been “diplomats” of Rīm-Sîn because, as shown in chapter 2, si -l a ₂ allocation went mostly to foreign diplomats and messengers. Moreover, Apil-Kūbi is mentioned as šu- i ša Rīm-Sîn in yet another tablet (VAS 13 48:4).  In this document (VAS 13 49) again, there is first a Nūr-Šamaš, lu ₂ -k iĝ ₂ - g i ₄ - a of Rīm-Sîn, preceeded by Šamaš-ilum and Šamaš-liwwir. The tablet continues with a š u- i-barber who came from Larsa with a cart (it-ti nu-ba-lim; the meaning of this term is much debated; see Arkhipov 2010, with bibliography). The next recipient is Rīš-Šubula followed by Kalūmu, the lu₂ -k iĝ₂-gi₄-a of Rīm-Sîn. In both cases the occupation is written in the singular, but it is not unlikely that these men were all part of a delegation from Larsa.  This document records ṣudû allocations for Nūr-Kabta, the du b - s ar-z ag- ga, Ilšu-rē’īšu and Awīl-erṣetim. It also provides the total and states “ṣudê lu ₂ -k iĝ ₂ - g i₄ - a- m e š ša Rīm-Sîn,” which shows that all three men were messengers.

228

The military, messengers and foreign officials

Personal Name

Title

Date

Document

Nūr-Šamaš Sîn-išmeanni Warad-Ištar

l u ₂- kiĝ₂-gi ₄-a ša Rīm-Sîn l u ₂- kiĝ₂-gi ₄-a ša Rīm-Sîn l u ₂- kiĝ₂-gi ₄-a ša Rīm-Sîn

RīA /[…]/ RīA /III/ RīA /III/

VAS  : Nisaba  I.: Nisaba  I.:

Tab. : List of messengers (l u₂-ki ĝ₂-gi₄ -a )

Eleven of the fourteen men listed here are messengers of king Rīm-Sîn II of Larsa. It is possible that some of the messengers had other professions as well. For instance, Nūr-Kabta bore the title du b - sa r-zag-ga, “registry official,” and was then apparently regarded as one of the three lu₂ -kiĝ- gi ₄ -a-meš recorded on the tablet. This is so because the first line of the reverse gives the total amount of the allocation and states that it is flour for the messengers of RīmSîn (RA 71, 8 Nᵒ 4). Similarly, it is possible that Apil-Kūbi, the šu- i -“barber” of Rīm-Sîn, was on a diplomatic mission, for he received a flour allocation together with a messenger from Daganma-ilum and an ugul a MAR.TU from Babylon (VAS 13 48:4–5). On another occasion he, together with a messenger of Rīm-Sîn and an ugu la MAR.TU from Babylon, was the recipient of a s i -l a₂ allocation (UF 10 5:5). Such could also have been the case with the š u-i -“barber” of Larsa? (App. 1 Nᵒ 6:2). Aside from men characterized as belonging to the king of Larsa, there is also an Ilī-ayy-ēniš, recorded as messenger of Daganma-ilum (Nisaba 4 I.21:4, and VAS 13 48:2). The title or status of Daganma-ilum is unknown, but he must have been either a rebel leader or an army officer operating northeast of Uruk, for he sent prisoners to the bīt asīrī in Uruk. The attestations of messengers in Uruk range from RīA 1/X/7 to 2/III/ 19, which may reflect the period of coordinated efforts of certain rebel leaders against the central power.

VIII Other leadership posts from outside Uruk Texts dated to Rīm-Anum mention people from places other than Uruk. A number of these men exercised leadership or held administrative positions in other cities or geographic areas and are usually mentioned in connection with prisoners and slaves that the bīt asīrī managed. For instance, Ipqatum, the rabiānum of Asarmum, is recorded because a certain Šamaš-lamassī, belonging to him, was assigned to the weavers (UF 10 28:2). The city Asarmum is, to my knowledge, not extensively attested (see RGTC III, 22). This reference could mean either that Asarmun was under the control of Uruk or that the name of the slaves’ former master was preserved to allow the eventual negotiation of

Other leadership posts from outside Uruk

229

an exchange of prisoners with the chief of a hostile city. Similarly, Ilabrat-abī belonging to the š agi n a -official of Bad₃-tibira was received by a military scribe (Nisaba 4 II.45:9).25 The case of Marduk-nāṣir is more complex, because this name is recorded with the titles šāpir b a d ₃ -a n -n a k i , šāpir i d ₂ Asurrum, and ugul a i d ₂ Asurrum. Marduk-nāṣir, the šāpir b a d ₃ -a n -n a k i , “šāpirum-official of the city of B a d ₃ - a n- n a” (Nisaba 4 II.43:6),26 is mentioned in relation to two female slaves belonging to the shepherd Sîn-ekallī, whom Marduk-nāṣir had brought from Zallunum. There is then Marduk-nāṣir, the šāpir i d₂ Asurrum, attested three times. Only one of these three tablets preserves the complete date. In this case a number of slaves belonging to Marduk-nāṣir were listed together with other slaves brought to Uruk (App. 1 Nᵒ 28:22). Another two female slaves belonging to Marduk-nāṣir, the šāpir i d ₂ Asurrum, were given to the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.37:5). Similarly a tablet with the date missing registers three slaves belonging to the same Marduk-nāṣir (Nisaba 4 II.80:12). Marduk-nāṣir is then recorded with the title ugu l a i d₂ Asurrum. In all these documents he is in charge of slaves and prisoners. For example, in a partially broken document, four slaves that had apparently worked on his biltum-field seem then to have been entrusted to Sîn-ibnīšu, the ugul a i d ₂ Asurrum, for another field (YOS 14 342:6).27 Two other slaves belonging to the ugu l a i d ₂ Asurrum Marduk-nāṣir were given to the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.17:3). Similarly, a child belonging to him was assigned to the saĝa of Kanisura (Nisaba 4 II.18:2). And a man under the authority of the e ns i ₂ Sîn-rēmēni in the biltum-field of Marduk-nāṣir was transferred to another field (Nisaba 4 II.21:3). Another tablet mentions fourteen slaves belonging to him, who were assigned to the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.50:r2). There is also a man identified as rēdûtum ša Marduk-nāṣir ugu la i d ₂ Asurrum, “the retinue of Marduk-nāṣir” (Nisaba 4 II.51:6, RīA 2/VI/5). Furthermore, a certain Ḫummurum belonging to Marduk-nāṣir had been taken from the house of the aĝr ig and then reassigned (Nisaba 4 II.70:2). Finally, two other tablets mention Marduk-nāṣir in the Asur-

 My collation of Nisaba 4 II.45:9 (= BM 23121) has: ša du mu-er-ṣe-tim ˹šag in a (KIŠ.NITA₂) b a d ₃-ti bir a k i ˺. The signs for the logogram šagina and the signs for b ad ₃ - t i bi r a k i are clear. For the reading KIŠ.NITA₂ instead of GIR₃.NITA₂ see Steinkeller (2004).  After collation, Nisaba 4 II.43:7 (=BM 85062) reads: ˹ i r i ˺ b a d₃ - an- na k i . For a discussion of this city see Falkenstein (1966), Michalowski (1977), Verkinderen (2006), Steinkeller (forthcoming).  Key passages of this tablet are broken. I read: 6. ša₃ gu ₂ -u n d˹marduk˺-[nāṣir], 7. ugu l a i d ₂ [Asurrum]. This restoration is based on Nisaba 4 II.21, which mentions: 3. š a₃ gu ₂ -u n d marduk-na-ṣi-ir 4. ugul a id₂ a-sur-rum, 5. ša a-na li-pi-it-iš₈-tar₂, 6. du m u e ₂- du b - b a, 7. ana a - š a₃ me-e ša-qi₂, r1. pa-aq-du.

230

The military, messengers and foreign officials

rum canal district. In the first case, seven adult female slaves and a girl belonging to Marduk-nāṣir ša ₃ i d ₂ Asurrum were sent to the weavers together with eleven other female slaves (Nisaba 4 II.4:13). In the second, he is mentioned in connection with a man belonging to an e n s i ₂ (Nisaba 4 II.11:5). Marduk-nāṣir disposed of a considerable number of prisoners and slaves, including men, women and children. Since the labor force under his authority circulated through the house of prisoners, and because laborers working on his biltum-field were administered by e n si ₂ s possibly related to Uruk, one has to assume that the Asurrum canal district was under the control of Uruk. As we have already discussed, the titles šāpirum and ugul a appear in different contexts and can be translated respectively as “the one who gives orders” and “overseer.” In view of the number of people under the control of Marduk-nāṣir, it is possible that he was either an officer in the army or a district authority. The attestations of Marduk-nāṣir operating in the Asurrum canal district are as follows: Name

Title

Date

Document

Marduk-nāṣir Marduk-nāṣir Marduk-nāṣir

šāpir i d₂ Asurrum šāpir i d₂ Asurrum šāpir i d₂ Asurrum

RīA /VIII/ RīA /[…]/ RīA […]/[…]/[…]

App.  Nᵒ : Nisaba  II.:– Nisaba  II.:

Marduk-[nāṣir] Marduk-nāṣir Marduk-nāṣir Marduk-nāṣir Marduk-nāṣir Marduk-nāṣir Marduk-nāṣir

ugula ugula ugula ugula ugula ugula ugula

RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA RīA

YOS  :– Nisaba  II.: Nisaba  II.: Nisaba  II.: Nisaba  II.:r Nisaba  II.: Nisaba  II.:

Marduk-nāṣir Marduk-nāṣir

ša₃ id₂ Asurrum ša₃ id₂ Asurrum

i d₂ i d₂ i d₂ i d₂ i d₂ i d₂ i d₂

Asurrum Asurrum Asurrum Asurrum Asurrum Asurrum Asurrum

/IX/ ?/XI?/ /XI/ /XI/ /V/ /VI/ /X/+

RīA /IX/ RīA /X/

Nisaba  II.: Nisaba  II.:

Tab. : Attestations of Marduk-nāṣir šāpir / u gula id₂ Asurrum

Another man with authority in this area is Sîn-ibnīšu, recorded twice. The first time, four slaves who had been working in the biltum-field of Marduknāṣir, the ugu l a i d ₂ Asurrum, were entrusted to Anum-ilī and Sîn-ibni, the ugu l a i d ₂ Asurrum, for irrigation work in the field(s) (YOS 14 342:r3). This would mean that Sîn-ibni and Marduk-nāṣir both held the same title at the same time. There is also another document that records three slaves who were under the authority of Anum-ilī and Sîn-ibni, bearing again the title ugul a id ₂ Asurrum (Nisaba 4 II.59:8).

Other leadership posts from outside Uruk

231

Other men are identified as lu ₂ GN, “man of geographic name.” As discussed in chapter 2, the term awīlum in certain contexts seems to refer to a person of authority, possibly a leader. Tablets mentioning the word lu ₂ with this sense can be divided into two groups. The first encompasses men characterized as lu ₂ GN who received flour allocations of the ĝ eš bun -type, and they are sometimes listed together with dependents. These men were from places such as Babylon, Dunnum, Gutûm, Isin, Kisura, Muti-abal, and Sutûm (see chapter 2, p. 64). The second group consists of documents dealing with the management of people, in which these lu ₂ GN had slaves and prisoners under their authority. For instance, the slave Ubār-Adad belonging to Burāmūša, lu₂ Ešnuna, is one of the eight slaves received by a person or institution not preserved on the tablet (Nisaba 4 II.81:12). Similarly, a man from Lagaš belonging to Ilī-iddinam, the lu ₂ Lagaš, was assigned through the bīt asīrī (Nisaba 4 II.74:3). Ilīma-abī, man of Kisura, is mentioned because a female slave belonging to him was given to the weavers together with seventeen other women (Nisaba 4 II.4:r10). There is also Ṣillī-Ištar of Kisura – although the word lu ₂ does not appear – who received a boy taken from the house of the aĝr ig and the conveyor was a Marduk-nāṣir without title (Nisaba 4 II.18:r2). Marduk-nāṣir, the ugu l a i d ₂ Asurrum, is also mentioned in the second line, but the context does not necessarily imply that he is the conveyor, because this man could also be Marduk-nāṣir, the ugu la MAR.TU. Be that as it may, the fact that the conveyor was either the ugu la MAR.TU or the ugul a i d₂ Asurrum strengthens the possibility that Ṣillī-Ištar was a figure of authority. This finds some support in two other tablets. The first mentions a man from Bad₃-Lugal-Isin among seven prisoners brought by the men of Kisura under the authority of Ṣillī-Ištar (VAS 13 43). The second document, issued six days later, mentions another man from the same group of prisoners from Bad₃-Lugal-Isin brought to Uruk by the men of Kisura under the authority of Ṣillī-Ištar (YOS 14 339). This evidence shows that Ṣillī-Ištar was a leader possibly related to the military. The case of Warad-Sîn, the lu ₂ Gutûm, resembles that of Ṣillī-Ištar in that the term lu ₂ was written only once out of three attestations, which may signify that the former was also a lu ₂ GN and that his title was simply omitted. WaradSîn first received a woman belonging to Šallūrum, the overseer of the weavers, in a document issued at the house of the weavers (Nisaba 4 II.46:3). WaradSîn is also recorded in a fragmentary document where he and Marduk-nāṣir, the ugu l a MAR.TU, are reported to have captured a number of prisoners from places such as Šubartum and Ešnuna (YOS 14 338:10). This attestation is interesting because it shows the military cooperation of an ugu l a MAR.TU and a

232

The military, messengers and foreign officials

Gutian, who after capturing prisoners handed them over to the bīt asīrī of Uruk.28 Finally, three men from Ešnuna recorded in the archive of the bīt asīrī should be considered together. These records share certain characteristics: they were all issued on the same day, they all deal with prisoners sent by Daganmailum from Muti-abal, and all the prisoners are royal gifts presented to different deities. Thus, a man characterized as “lu ₂ Ešnuna ša Ilūni en si ₂ lu₂ Ešnuna,” “man of Ešnuna belonging to Ilūni, the e n si ₂ , man of Ešnuna,” was sent by Daganma-ilum from Muti-abal and presented to the god Šamaš (Nisaba 4 II.23). The first question is of course how to translate lu₂ , for, as already mentioned, it could mean simply man or else leader. The second issue is the title en si ₂ . Rositani (2003, 132) translates en si₂ as “iššiakkum-farmer,” possibly because other en s i ₂ s attested in the corpus are clearly related to agricultural management. However, the name Ilūni followed by the title en si ₂ of Ešnuna certainly raises doubts because in the early Old Babylonian period en si ₂ was a royal title used in places such as the kingdom of Ešnuna (see Hallo 1957, 34–48). What is more, Ilūni of Ešnuna was one of the rulers who revolted against Samsu-iluna (Stol 1976, 56) and it is likely that he adopted a royal title rooted in the local tradition. None of Ilūni’s royal inscriptions is preserved, although he is mentioned in one of Samsu-iluna’s (RIM 4 E4.3.7.7:104). More interesting is the fact that king Ilūni appears in two tablets from Ur. The first mention comes from the sealing of Sîn-ibbīšu, son of Sîn-iqīšam, and servant of Ilūni.29 The second is an Ur document dated to the sixth day of the eleventh month of the “year Ilūni (became) king” (Charpin 1986, 175). This could signify that Ilūni may have had control over Ur if only briefly, and this would therefore explain why a number of prisoners from the bīt asīrī are from Ešnuna. The second man from Ešnuna mentioned in this group of three tablets is Munawwirum. In this case Awīl-Nabium, characterized as the son of Inbi-erṣetim, lu ₂ Ešnuna belonging to Munawwirum, the e ns i ₂ , lu₂ Ešnuna, was sent from Muti-abal by Daganma-ilum and given to the god Rammānum as a royal gift (Nisaba 4 II.22). This example is telling because instead of identifying AwīlNabium simply as a man of Ešnuna, the tablet explains that he is the son of “Inbi-erṣetim lu ₂ Ešnuna ša Munawwirum e n si ₂ lu ₂ Ešnuna.” As I interpret it, this means that Inbi-erṣetim was one of the leaders of Ešnuna and that he belonged to the contingent of Munawwirum, the ruler of Ešnuna. This interpre-

 A Warad-Sîn without title or toponym appears in a tablet where a slave belonging to him was assigned to the weavers together with four other slaves (Nisaba 4 II.51:1).  See Ormsby (1972, 99) seal 3 and Charpin (1986, 129).

Other leadership posts from outside Uruk

233

tation seems justified by the fact that there is a Munawwirum who was the son of a king (rubûm) of Ešnuna, possibly Narām-Sîn (Saporetti 2002, 222).30 The case of the third man from Ešnuna is more problematic. He appears in a tablet recording two slaves whom Daganma-ilum sent from Muti-abal and that the king gave as presents for the gods Lugal-Erra and Meslamtaea (Nisaba 4 II.25). Lines 3–4 read: Ii₃-li₂-ra-bi eš₃ * -n u n - na k i , dumu ḫu-za-lum x-ub e š ₃ - n u n - n a k i , “Ilī-rabi of Ešnuna, son of Ḫuzālum, x-ub of Ešnuna.31 The possibility of reading ˹ru?˺-ub Ešnuna seems unlikely because for the title rubûm, a royal title in Ešnuna, one would expect the construct state to be rubê, rubi or rubā but not rub because the base ends in – ā.32 One might think that because this was not a title commonly used in the south the scribe interpreted its construct state as that of rabûm, i.e., rab or rabi. However, since it is not clear that the first sign is ru, it is not prudent to force this interpretation. The fact remains that this prisoner was listed as a man of Ešnuna, the son of Ḫuzālum, who seems to have held a title in Ešnuna. In these three documents the slaves are specifically connected not only to Ešnuna but also to men who seem to have been rulers or nobles from that area, and they were all given as royal gifts to various deities. This was also the case with Awīl-Adad, the ugu l a MAR.TU, man of Ešnuna, who was similarly granted as a royal gift for the goddess Kanisura (Nisaba 4 II.16:3). It is likely that this information was preserved in case future negotiations concerning captives arose, and perhaps the lives of temple slaves were less arduous than the lives of prisoners assigned to other labors.

 A document from Mari mentions garments brought by Munawwirum, the son of the rubûm (ARM 22 123). See FM 2 text 103, Wu (1994, 104), Kupper (1984, 183). Saporetti suggested that Munawwirum was the son of Narām-Sîn. Although the chronology of Ešnuna is not firmly established, Narām-Sîn could be placed around 1816/8 BC (see Saporetti 2002, 423–4, Charpin 2004), that is to say, some 76 years before the revolt against Samsu-iluna. But the possibility that Munawwirum was the son of some other ruler from the Diyala region should not be ruled out.  I wish to thank Frans van Koppen who collated this tablet for me. In an email dated June 25th 2007, he mentioned that in line four the sign before UB “looks like ki with a bold horizontal wedge running through it. (…) but a reading RU seems out of the question.” I have collated the tablet in 2009, and could see that the sign was possibly distorted by pressure on the clay.  Rositani (2003, 133 footnote 241) explains that “The following reading can be suggested: ˹ru?˺-ub èš-nun-naki but, probably, with a different meaning to the one used in Ešnunna, where the term rûbum was used to indicate the king.” This interpretation is problematic.

234

The military, messengers and foreign officials

IX Conclusion Documents from the bīt asīrī and from other archives from the Sîn-kāšid palace provide a rather complete view of the echelons of the military active in Uruk, and they further show a number of messengers and foreign officials present in that city. This information lets us picture Uruk as a cosmopolitan city where messengers and leaders from other places interacted, and where foreign prisoners were forced into slavery. Members of the army and messengers are generally registered because they were the recipients of flour allocations issued by the house of prisoners. But military men are also frequently recorded in connection with prisoners. In this respect officers are reported to have brought or sent prisoners to Uruk. Occasionally prisoners are described as being part of the booty from various cities. Some of them had fled and were captured by officers who brought them to Uruk. Some of those prisoners seem to have been officers or influential men from the kingdom of Ešnuna who had been seized and brought to Uruk. Military men are also attested as masters of prisoners and slaves managed through the house of prisoners and put to work at various tasks throughout numerous state institutions. A number of tablets show that military men of various ranks had prisoners and slaves under their authority and that these prisoners were occasionally relocated through the house of prisoners. It is possible that army personnel received prisoners and slaves either as part of war booty or as remuneration for military service. But in those cases, the ultimate ownership of the slaves seems to have been the state’s. In all likelihood, prisoners and slaves granted to military men also had to work for state institutions part time. Foreign messengers and officials are mostly affiliated with king Rīm-Sîn II of Larsa, one of the local leaders who revolted against Samsu-iluna. The extant references to messengers of Rīm-Sîn II come from the second and third months of Rīm-Anum’s second year (RīA 2/II/16 to 2/III/19). This evidently reflects the period during which the two rebel kings seem to have tried to coordinate efforts against the army of Babylon and possibly against other foes. There is also the case of messengers of Daganma-ilum. The status of this man is unknown but it is possible that he was another rebel nobleman or perhaps either an officer in the army loyal to Rīm-Anum or to one of his allies. Daganma-ilum appears in several tablets as the man who sent prisoners from Muti-abal. In most cases these slaves were men from Ešnuna. He might have fought against the armies of Ešnuna during the first year of Rīm-Anum, because during the king’s first year (RīA 1/XI/22) Daganma-ilum sent slaves from Ešnuna who were presented to temples as royal gifts. Two attestations of king Ilūni of Ešnuna from a sealing and from a year name of two tablets from the city of Ur make it possible to speculate that Ilūni’s

Conclusion

235

army was active in southern Mesopotamia and that he may have been able to take control of cities such as Ur, if only briefly.

Title

Receives (type of allocation)

Type of document

Date

Document

ug ula MAR.TU-meš Uruk

ĝešbun together with ṢillīŠamaš; lu ₂ Isin and dependents ĝešbun together with dependents ĝešbun together with dependents ĝešbun together with dependents ĝešbun together with dependents ĝešbun together with dependents si- la ₂ together with Ilī-ayyēniš messenger of Daganma-ilum ĝešbun together with dependents ĝešbun together with dependents ṣudû together with Ilī-ayyēniš messenger of Daganma-ilum ĝešbun together with dependents si- la ₂ together with PNs and a messenger of Rīm-Sîn II ĝešbun together with dependents ĝešbun together with dependents ĝešbun together with dependents ĝešbun together with dependents ĝešbun together with dependents ĝešbun together with dependents

bīt asīrī (flour)

RīA 1/XII/9

UF 10 15:3

bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour)

RīA 2/II/5 RīA 2/II/6

Nisaba 4 I.18:3 UF 10 22:2

RīA 2/II/8

UF 10 40:3

RīA 2/II/9

UF 10 38:3

RīA 2/II/16

RSO 82 4:3

bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour)

RīA 2/II/25

bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour)

RīA 2/II/29 Nisaba 4 I.58:3 RīA 2/II/29 UF 10 5:r1

bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour)

RīA 2/III/1

UF 10 8:3

RīA 2/III/4

UF 10 30:3

ug ula MAR.TU ug ula MAR.TU ug ula MAR.TU-meš ug ula MAR.TU-meš ug ula MAR.TU-meš ug ula MAR.TU-meš

ug ula MAR.TU-meš ug ula MAR.TU-meš ug ula MAR.TU-meš l u₂ Bābilum ug ula MAR.TU-meš ug ula MAR.TU-meš l u₂ Bābilum ug ula MAR.TU-meš ug ula MAR.TU-meš ug ula MAR.TU-meš ug ula MAR.TU-meš ug ula MAR.TU ug ula MAR.TU-meš

RīA 2/II/20 Nisaba 4 I.21:5 UF 10 32:3

RīA 2/II/26 Nisaba 4 I.22:3 RīA 2/II/27 VAS 13 48:6

RīA 2/III/16 UF 10 37:2 RīA 2/III/19 Nisaba 4 I.61:3 RīA 2/III/22 Nisaba 4 I.26:3 RīA 2/III/28 Nisaba 4 I.63:3

236

The military, messengers and foreign officials

Title

Receives (type of allocation)

Type of document

Date

u g ula MAR.TU-meš

ĝešbun together with dependents ĝešbun together with dependents ĝešbun together with a man of Dunnum and dependents ĝešbun together with the u gula MAR.TU of Kisura, a man of Dunnum and dependents ĝešbun together with the u gula MAR.TU of Gutûm, a man of Dunnum and dependents ĝešbun together with the man of Gutûm and dependents šuku l u gal together with the ugula MAR.TU of Kisura and dependents ĝešbun together with the u gula MAR.TU-meš of Gutûm and dependents ĝešbun together with the u gula MAR.TU-meš of Kisura and dependents together with messengers of Rīm-Sîn ĝešbun together with dependents ĝešbun together with a man of Kisura and a man of Gutûm ĝešbun together with dependents [ …] šu ti -a

bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour)

RīA 2/IV/2

bīt asīrī (flour)

RīA 2/VII/9 UF 10 11:2

bīt asīrī (flour)

RīA 2/VII/9 UF 10 11:3

bīt asīrī (flour)

RīA 2/VII/28

Nisaba 4 I.48:3

bīt asīrī (flour)

RīA 2/VII/28

Nisaba 4 I.48:4

bīt asīrī (flour)

RīA 2/VII/ […]

UF 10 18:2

bīt asīrī (flour)

RīA 2/VII/ […]

UF 10 18:3

bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour) bīt asīrī (flour)

RīA 2/[…]/7 VAS 13 49:r3 RīA 2/[…]/9 App. 1 Nᵒ 19:3 RīA 2/[…]/ App. 1 Nᵒ […] 20:2

bīt asīrī (flour) Sîn-kāšid palace

RīA 2/[…]/ […] RīA 3/VII/23

u g ula MAR.TU-meš u g ula [MAR.TU l ]u₂ K isura u g ula MAR.TU-meš Gutûm

u g ula MAR.TU-meš Kisura

u g ula MAR.TU-meš l u₂ Kisura u g ula MAR.TU-meš l u₂ Gutûm u g ula MAR.TU-meš l u₂ Kisura u g ula MAR.TU-meš l u₂ Gutûm u g ula MAR.TU-meš l u₂ Bābilum u g ula MAR.TU-meš u g ula MAR.TU l u₂ Kisura u g ula MAR.TU-meš u g ula MAR.TU

Tab. 27: Attestations of the title ugula MAR.TU(- meš)

Document

Nisaba 4 I.27:3 RīA 2/IV/7? Nisaba 4 I.64:3 RīA 2/IV/23 UF 10 10:3

RSO 82 14:3 BaM 31 359:3

Conclusion The House of Prisoners: State and slavery in Uruk during the revolt against Samsu-iluna I An exercise in fragmentology I first came across the term “fragmentology” while reading one of the articles in the volume entitled Of Derrida, Heiddeger, and Spirit, edited by David Wood. In his essay on “The Actualization of Philosophy and the Economy of Geist: From Avoidance to Deployment,” Wood (1993, 76) mentioned “Adorno’s postmetaphysical fragmentology.” I am still not quite sure whether I truly understand what Adorno’s post-metaphysical fragmentology means, but the concept made an impression on me. Some time later I encountered it again while reading Han Baltussen’s review of Fragment-sammlungen philosophischer Texte der Antike.1 Baltussen uses “fragmentology” variously as the study of philosophical fragments, as the study of textual fragments from antiquity, or simply as the study of fragments. I cannot think of a more accurate description for the tasks involved in studying the bīt asīrī of Uruk during the revolt against Samsuiluna. My reconstruction of institutional, political, and socio-economic history is based on a variety of fragments: broken tablets, tablets with missing lines or passages, incomplete archives, lack of written sources from Uruk other than laconic administrative records, and poor knowledge of the political and economic situation, among others. All these difficulties undoubtedly pose a methodological challenge, which consists of extracting as much information as possible from the surviving sources and of compiling and making sense of facts oftentimes mentioned only tangentially. Tablets belonging to the bīt asīrī corpus were dispersed in modern times and subsequently regrouped according to internal criteria and prosopography. The key official in the reconstruction of the archive of the house of prisoners is Sîn-šeme, the overseer of the bīt asīrī. These documents are currently housed in museums in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and all of them came from the antiquities market. There is also a group of tablets dated to Rīm-Anum, although seemingly not directly related  The review appeared as Bryn Mawr Classical Review 1999.09.23 (http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/ 1999/1999-09-23.html). The book under consideration is: Walter Burkert, Laura Gemelli, Elizabetta Matelli, Lucia Orelli: Fragment-sammlungen philosophischer Texte der Antike – Le raccolte dei frammenti di filosofi antichi. Aporemata. Kritische Studien zur Philologiegeschichte. Band 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.

238

The House of Prisoners

to the bīt asīrī, found by German archaeologists at the site of the Sîn-kāšid palace in Uruk and currently in Baghdad and Heidelberg. The administrative records from the palace deal with products such as textiles, reeds and wood. As I have argued in chapter 1, the existence of similar records coming from both the antiquities market and the palace as well as the presence of the same individuals attested in both lots suggest that not only did bīt asīrī records originate from the city of Uruk but most likely they were dug out of the ruins of the palace of Sîn-kāšid. Being well aware that this represents an exercise in fragmentology, in the following sections I present a reconstruction of the political history and the house of prisoners as I understand them from the extant evidence.

II Political history The political history of Uruk during the Old Babylonian period reflects the power swings of a number of territorial states with hegemonic pretensions. In the early Old Babylonian period, Uruk was first under the control of Isin. It then acquired some ephemeral independence, but was later incorporated into the domain of Larsa. Another interval of independence followed when Sînkāšid (ca. 1860 BC) ruled as king of Uruk and was succeeded by a series of other autonomous kings. Around 1803 BC, however, Rīm-Sîn I of Larsa defeated Uruk and it once again became part of that kingdom. This was the situation until Hammurabi of Babylon conquered Larsa (1763 BC) in his thirtieth regnal year. The capital city together with its territories was added to the territorial state of the king of Babylon. When Hammurabi died, his son Samsu-iluna inherited the vast realm that he ruled apparently rather uneventfully until uprisings altered this situation. According to his year names, the first seven years of Samsu-iluna’s reign seem to have been devoted to religious matters. In his ninth year name, however, the king claims to have defeated the army of the Kassites.2 In the following year formula, Samsu-iluna mentions his victory over Ida-Maraṣ (variant has the army of Ešnuna), Emutbal, Uruk, and Isin. This statement implies that the insurgencies had taken place more or less simultaneously all over the kingdom. The details for the reconstruction of these events are still unknown, but it is certain that leaders of all the formerly independent kingdoms that Hammu-

 In this respect, Horsnell (1999, 49–50) suggested that the defeat of the Kassites took place in the eighth regnal year, disagreeing with Stol’s (1976, 44) view that the event had happened during the first half of the ninth regnal year.

Political history

239

rabi had subjugated had been patiently waiting for the propitious moment to revolt. The opportunity presented itself as the result of an economic, institutional and military crisis (Charpin 2004, 336) that possibly had deep roots but that was apparent by the time of the rebellions. According to the statements of one of Samsu-iluna’s royal inscriptions (RIM IV E4.3.7.7), that king first killed and buried Rīm-Sîn II in Kiš, then he killed twenty-six rebels, and finally defeated Ilūni of Ešnuna and had his throat cut. There must therefore have been a total of about twenty-eight rebellious leaders. Whether the number is accurate or whether it was inflated to boast about the royal accomplishments is impossible to ascertain with the information available. The names of a few other insurgents, however, are known or can be inferred. There is of course Rīm-Anum of Uruk, after whom bīt asīrī tablets and a number of documents from the Sîn-kāšid palace are dated. Furthermore, a rebel by the name Ilīmailum is attested in texts from Nippur (Stol 1976, 56). In bīt asīrī records, Ilūni is mentioned once with the title e n si ₂ lu ₂ Ešn u n a , “en si ₂ , man of Ešnuna.” As is well-known, in the kingdom of Ešnuna e n si ₂ actually meant king. I have argued (see chapters 1 and 6) that this title casts light on another man attested in the archive, namely, Munawwirum, who is referred to with the same particulars: en s i ₂ lu ₂ E š n u n a . It is possible then that Munawwirum was yet another rebel from the Ešnuna area. Similarly, one could also suggest that Daganmailum, so prominently recorded in the archive of the bīt asīrī sending slaves from the area of Muti-abal, was either the ruler of Kazalu, which was the main center of Muti-abal until it was conquered by Babylon, or the claimant to its throne. This gives us the following list of insurgents: Rīm-Sîn II Larsa3 Rīm-Anum Uruk Daganma-ilum Kazalu/Muti-abal Ilīma-ilum Nippur Ilūni Ešnuna Munawwirum Ešnuna If one accepts Samsu-iluna’s statement that the rebels were twenty-eight, this list lacks some twenty-two names.  The extant sources are ambiguous about Rīm-Sîn’s seat of power. The Akkadian version of the Kiš cylinder of Samsu-iluna states that Rīm-Sîn had been elevated to the kingship of Larsa: Rīm-Sîn … ša ana šarrūt Larsa innašiu (RIME 4: 387 ll. 93–97). Note, however, that in a letter sent to Amurrum-tillatī, king Rīm-Sîn states: ana namerti Yamutbalum šakānim u nišīšu sapḫātim puḫḫurim ilū rabûtum ina Keš āl bānītīya išdī kussīya ukinnū, “In order to bring light to Yamutbalum and to gather its scattered people, the great gods established the foundations of my throne in Keš, the city of my creatress” (AbB 13 53:4–9). Here Rīm-Sîn II implies that his throne was in Keš. There is, furthermore, a year formula of Rīm-Sîn II in which he is called king of Ur (See Stol 1976, 54).

240

The House of Prisoners

The events that took place within the five and a half or six years that span the eighth and the thirteenth regnal years of Samsu-iluna are far from well established and the situation must have been confusing even in ancient times. It is possible to imagine local nobles or leaders fighting to attain independence from the central power. It is also not unlikely that, as was the case in earlier times, the Elamites were involved in the political affairs of the Babylonians (see Charpin and Durand 1991). This supposition is based on the fact that an overseer of the Elamites (ugu la lu ₂ Elam) received ten young (tu r-r a ) prisoners of war from the bīt asīrī possibly as the Elamite’s share of war booty (Nisaba 4 II.3). Charisma and availability of resources must have turned some of the local leaders into natural allies for rebels of modest means. Under such circumstances, shifting loyalties and betrayals should not come as a surprise. This dynamic is well attested from other periods of Old Babylonian history, and had been the way in which only a few decades earlier Hammurabi had gained control of his former allies’ (and enemies’) territories. A switch of alliances seems to have been the course of action that Rīm-Anum of Uruk followed in order to remain in power quite a few more months after Rīm-Sîn II of Larsa had been vanquished, seemingly before the first half of Samsu-iluna’s tenth year.4 The study of year names and documents from the archive of the bīt asīrī provides information that allows us to trace, even if partially, some of the alliances and changes of sides. I understand that there were initially at least three axes of power. One was structured around Samsu-iluna and the city of Babylon with leaders of other cities whose identities are not yet completely clear. A second group was centered on leaders from Ešnuna, perhaps with the support of men from the Ida-Maraṣ area. This seems to be indicated by the alternation of Ešnuna and Ida-Maraṣ as one of the victims in Samsu-iluna’s tenth year name.5 To complicate things further, Ilūni of Ešnuna seems to have managed to take control over Ur, if only briefly, as is apparent from a seal impression and a year name from that city. Most likely, the third block originally consisted of Rīm-Sîn II of Larsa, Rīm-Anum of Uruk, and Daganma-ilum

 The Kiš cylinder mentions that Rīm-Sîn II was buried in Kiš. The text continues by saying that Samsu-iluna killed twenty-six rebel kings. According to Samsu-iluna’s fourteenth year name (Horsnell 1999, 199), a number of anonymous rebel kings were killed in Samsu-iluna’s thirteenth regnal year. Whether this included Rīm-Sîn, is difficult to ascertain. But it is unlikely that the rebels were all captured and killed at the same time.  Note also the only attestation of a messenger from Ida-Maraṣ as the recipient of a ĝ eš b u n allocation in one of the tablets from the bīt asīrī in the first year of Rīm-Anum (Nisaba 4 I.5, RīA 1/X/6).

Political history

241

possibly from Muti-abal, with the possible support of Elam.6 The loyalties of other cities are not apparent from documents from the bīt asīrī and will require additional investigation. But it seems safe to assume that Isin was defeated before the eleventh month of Rīm-Anum’s first year on account of prisoners from that city recorded in the house of prisoners. Therefore, Isin must have been either an ally of Samsu-iluna or else had resisted alone. The complexity of the situation is clear when one considers the number of men from different cities and areas receiving flour allocations in Uruk (see Table 6). Information from royal inscriptions and the bīt asīrī suggests that Rīm-Sîn II of Larsa might have been deserted by Rīm-Anum and Daganma-ilum, because while Rīm-Sîn II was possibly killed at the beginning of Samsu-iluna’s tenth year, Rīm-Anum continued as king of Uruk until at least the tenth month of Samsu-iluna’s eleventh year. The Elamites who supported the former allies also seem to have been defeated because a document from Rīm-Anum’s third year records ten Elamites as prisoners of war (VAS 13 13), although they could

Fig. 3: Centers of power: Babylon, Ešnuna, and Larsa

 From flour allocation texts, it seems possible that other occasional or permanent allies of the Rīm-Sîn, Rīm-Anum, Daganma-ilum axis, were Dunnum, Dēr, Damrum, Gutûm, Isin, Kisura, and Sutûm. As argued in chapter 1, however, the recipients of rations may not necessarily have been allies.

242

The House of Prisoners

have been captured before that date. In the course of Rīm-Anum’s second year the king of Uruk might also have defected from his alliance with Daganmailum and the people of Muti-abal because references to messengers of Daganma-ilum ceased after RīA 2/II/27 and those to men from Muti-abal stopped after RīA 2/V/11. What is more, Rīm-Anum’s third year name mentions his victory over Kazalu in the heart of Muti-abal. By persuasion or by force, Samsu-iluna must have obtained the loyalty of Rīm-Anum, but if Samsu-iluna reassured Rīm-Anum in his hope for power and independence, those promises were not honored and the king of Uruk must have been deposed after the ninth month of his third year, the date of his last extant document. The city of Uruk must have suffered enormous losses during this time and not long afterwards parts of its population emigrated to northern areas, more specifically to the city of Kiš, as Jacob Finkelstein (1972, 11–13) has demonstrated (see also Charpin 1981 and 1986, 403–415, and Yoffee 1998).

III The administration of Uruk under Rīm-Anum This subheading is undoubtedly overambitious. Yet documents from the archive of the bīt asīrī and the few extant administrative tablets excavated at the site of the Sîn-kāšid palace provide an overview – albeit partial – of the administration of Uruk during the about two and a half years that Rīm-Anum was in power. Many facts remain unknown. Among these are the functions and characteristics of the Uruk administration for the decades in which Uruk was under the control first of Rīm-Sîn of Larsa and later under the dominion of Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna of Babylon. It is possible to assume that the bureaucratic mechanisms of Uruk had to be adapted to new political and economic demands originating from the conquering powers. But it is a matter of speculation whether bureaucrats at the highest levels were kept in place or removed, and whether administrators from Larsa and later from Babylon were running the city and collecting tribute for the metropolis. Equally unknown are the subsequent adaptations that would have been implemented once RīmAnum became king and Uruk acquired once again the status of an independent kingdom. The Sîn-kāšid palace, which had been built by that king (ca. 1860 BC) over a century before Rīm-Anum’s time, was discovered by Jordan in 1912–13 and excavated in successive campaigns (see, e.g., Lenzen 1956, 1961–1964, and 1966; Falkenstein 1963; Margueron 1982). But the combination of violent destruction, natural erosion, and formation of ravines, together with the action of looters, has severely damaged the remains of the construction, especially

243

The administration of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum

Ea

Eb

Ee

Ed

Ec

Fa

Fb

XIII 4

De

XIII 4

Dd

Dc

XIII 5

XIII 5

80

XIV 1

XIV 1

89

115

79

78

116 114

82

77 73

7c

XIV 2

75

6

a

XIV 3

63 4

110 64

61

27 3

F

107b

E

26 58

25 24

23

B

2a 10 11b

11a 8 17

22 20

31 32 19 16 33 18 33a 15 36 14 13 40

XV 1

51

94

54 55

38 C 39 a 56 57 39b 41 92 43 81 45 47 42 50 44 48 46 81 49

105

93

0

Dc

Dd

De

Ea

Eb

Ec

Ed

10

Ee

20

30

Fa

XV 2

XV 2

D

52 53 35

XV 1

37

103 100 104 99 102 106 98 101 96 97 95

107

34

XIV 5

1

108

60 30

21

9

107a

109

59

XIV 4

26 12a

XIV 4

XIV 3

62

5

XIV 5

111

76b

76

28 A

113

86a 86b

74

7a

12b

112

XIV 2

71

84 85

72 7b 29

87

40

Fb

Fig. 4: Sîn-kāšid palace at Uruk showing various areas. Adapted from Margueron (1982) fig. 277. Room numbers are after Lenzen (1966) pl. 36.

on the eastern side of the building. This obviously impedes the understanding of the different sectors and their uses. As Margueron (1982, 402–418) has explained, the functions of the various areas of the palace cannot always be determined with certainty because of the poor state of preservation. In his study, Margueron suggested that the upper story of the palace consisted of living quarters and bureaus. According to him, tablets found in sector C rooms 35, 38 and 39 had possibly fallen from the upper level, and such was perhaps also the case with tablets found in sector B room 2a. He agreed with the German archeologists that sector A could have been a storage area, sector C possibly consisted of latrines, and the function of the other sectors is uncertain. What remains of the foundations does not allow archaeologists to trace important modifications to the building over time, except for a few minor alterations such as the shifting position of door sockets in room 27 and the dividing of a room into two or three as in 71, 72, and 73, or in 76a, and 76b.

244

The House of Prisoners

Margueron, writing in 1982 before the chronological placement of Rīm-Anum, attributed the violent destruction of the palace to Rīm-Sîn I of Larsa, but current knowledge of political history allows us to infer that Samsu-iluna destroyed it once he had quelled the southern rebellions. The discovery in the palace of two tablets dated to Samsu-iluna’s seventh year lets us suspect that the building might have served as an administrative center during the Babylonian domination, whereas the documents dated to Rīm-Anum suggest that this king continued using the palace. If this is correct, then one could assume that the palace was the center around which other administrative units or bureaus (the Akkadian “houses”) orbited. It is my contention that the term house (e₂ or bītum) expressed disparate realities as do some of its modern counterparts (“office” and “bureau,” for instance). That is to say, “house” could refer to a place for habitation, to a household including building, family members and related personnel, to a productive, or to an administrative unit. In state-related affairs, the term bītum designated mostly a productive or an administrative entity. Houses and institutions mentioned in documents dated to Rīm-Anum are listed in Table 28 (pp. 245–46). Judging from their names – although no concrete evidence can be adduced – some of these entities seem to have been facilities used as depots (e.g., n a -ka m-t um, e₂ unūtim). Some others, such as the palace, undoubtedly referred to the building and to the institution of the crown, depending on the context, whereas the administrative or productive nature of others (e.g., e ₂ -( mu nu s-) uš -bar, e₂ - aĝ r ig, etc.) cannot be inferred from the information available. The sixteen institutions listed in Table 28 are related to the state, including both palace and temples. The interactions of these institutions with temples, however, are difficult to ascertain given the laconic character of the evidence. Rivkah Harris (1961) proposed that a process of secularization occurred during the time of Hammurabi, but I am skeptical that such a process took place all over Babylonia during the reminder of the Old Babylonian period. Harris based her reasoning on documents from the city of Sippar, whereas an important number of those tablets pertain to the nadiātum, who were devotees of the god Šamaš and his consort Aya. Harris adduced three sets of evidence: the secularization of the judicial system apparent from legal texts of the nadiātum, the secularization of the office of saĝa -priest, and the secularization of gagûm“cloister”-officials. In the case of the saĝa , she considered three different sealings in which the owner of the seal is characterized as servant of a deity in earlier tablets dated to kings Apil-Sîn and Sîn-muballiṭ but as servant of the king in a tablet dated to Hammurabi and in another from the reign of Ammīditana. In the case of Uruk, however, the only extant sealing belonging to a s aĝ a reads: Anum-ilī / du m u Nin-[…] / a r a d Rammānum, i.e., “Anum-ilī, son of

The administration of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum

245

House/Institution

Afilliated personnel

Attestation

e₂

Gimil-ilī u gula e₂ Aḫī-[…] ugula e₂ ˹PN˺ u gula e₂

Nisaba  II.:, : BM :, BM : Nisaba  II.:

e ₂ -aĝ ri g “house of the aĝrig-official”

Aḫum-waqar aĝrig Ana-pāni-ilī Mār-Bābilum Nabi-Sîn Ninurta-mansum

See chapter  II.

e₂ asīrī “house of prisoners”

Sîn-šeme u gula asīrī Šēp-Sîn ugula asīrī

See chapter  I. VAS  :

e ₂ -a-zu-m eš “house of the physicians”

a -zu -gal

Nisaba  I.:

e ₂ - bur-sa ĝ “house of the bur-saĝinstitution”

Bēlānum ša ₃ -ta m Etel-pī-Ištar ša ₃ -ta m Iddin-Nanāya gu -za- la ₂

See chapter 4 II.6

e ₂ - gal “palace” (e ₂ -)ĝi₆ -pa r₃ “(house of the) gipārum”

See chapter 4 III.1

Ikūn-pī-Ištar zabar-dab ₅- ba

e ₂ - maš -l ugal “royal e₂-maš-institution”

Nisaba 4 II.6:5, r1, 30:6; App. 1 Nᵒ 42:7

Nisaba 4 II.7:5

e ₂ - m uše n-hi-a “poultry house”

Marduk-mušallim u gula e₂-m ušen- hi-a

See chapter 4 II.5

e ₂ -sukkal (-m eš ) “house of the sukkalofficial”

[PN]

Nisaba 4 II.41:7, 67:4

e ₂ unūtim “house of tools”

BaM 27 252:5

 Attestations refer to tablets that mention the institution and are listed alphabetically. Institutions that are not qualified as “houses” follow.

246

The House of Prisoners

House/Institution

Afilliated personnel

Attestation

e₂ šabrîm “house of the šabrûmofficial”

Ana-pāni-ilī šabrûm Etel-pī-Šamaš šabrûm

App. 1 Nᵒ 17:3, Nᵒ 18:3; VAS 13 54:3

e ₂-(m unus -)uš-ba r “house of the (female) weavers”

Būnu-d[…] u gula uš-bar Irībam-Sîn Ø Muti-Dagan u gula uš- ba r Pa-ila Ø Sîn-bēl-ilī ugula (e₂- )uš-ba r Šallūrum u gula uš- ba r

See chapter 4 II.4

e ₂-u zu “meat house”

Ø

App. 1 Nᵒ 27:8

e n-nu e₂-gal “palace guard”

Ninurta-ilum d ub-sa r

App. 1 Nᵒ 39:3

na -ka m -tum “store house”

Nabium-mālik, Ilšu-bānî, and the ša ₃- ta m-officials

Nisaba 4 II.79:10, 82:7; App. 1 Nᵒ 27:3; BaM 27 241:r1', 242:r2, 246:r1, 250:r1

Tab. 28: Houses and institutions mentioned in the corpus

Nin-[…], servant of the god Rammānum” (Nisaba 4 II.22).8 The fact that one saĝ a from Uruk considers himself a servant of the god and not of the king does not substantiate the secularization process in this kingdom, at least not in the terms that Harris understood it. The situation of course could have been more complicated and diverse, especially because these were times of political turbulence. During the revolts against Samsu-iluna, officials and temple personnel could have supported either the traditional status quo, the rebels, or they could have tried to remain neutral. Connected with state institutions, a number of titles and professions are recorded. The affiliations of a person or of a title or a professional name with a particular institution or house are not always apparent, and sometimes the connection might be only circumstantial. The following attestations are drawn from documents dated to king Rīm-Anum:

 The other saĝa s attested from our corpus are Ana-Marduk-atkal (Nisaba 4 II.16:r2 and 24:r1), Iddin-Šamaš (VAS 13 36:7), Ninurta-iddinam (Nisaba 4 II.28:9), and Ubār-Šamaš (Nisaba 4 II.23:r1), but their sealings are not preserved in the extant tablets.

The administration of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum

Title

247

Related Institution

Attestation

a -zu-gal “chief physician” Marduk-mušallim

e₂-a-zu -meš

See chapters  II. and  II.

a ĝ ri g “administrator” Aḫum-waqar

e₂-aĝrig

See chapters  II. and  II.

a d -KI D see u g ula ad-KID

lu₂

a zl a g₂ “fuller”

See chapter  IV.

bisa ĝ-dub -ba “archivist” (high official) Nabi-ilīšu Sîn-iddinam

See chapter  IV.

d ub -sa r “s crib e” Irībam-Sîn

See chapter  IV.

d ub -sa r en-nu e₂-gal “scribe of the palace guard” Ninurta-ilum

en -n u e₂-gal

See chapters  III. and  II.

e nsi ₂ “agricultural manager” Ali-talīmī Āmur-ilūt-Sîn Annum-pī-Šamaš Awīl-Adad Ea-šar-ilī Ilī-[…] Irībam Sîn-rēmēni Ṣillī-Šamaš Tappê-wēdum [PN]

See chapter  IV.

g u-za -l a ₂ “chair bearer” Iddin-Nanāya Sînni

See chapter  II.

hub₂-bu -m eš “acrobats”

e₂-bur-sa ĝ Ø See chapter  IV.

248

The House of Prisoners

Title

Related Institution

Attestation

kisal -l uh “courtyard sweeper” Ālī-lūmur

See chapter  IV.

lun ga ₃ “beer brewer” Apil-Amurrum

See chapter  IV.

lu ₂-ur₃-ra “food-conservation specialist” Tarībum

See chapter  IV.

manzaz bābim “tax collector” Rīm-Adad Abī-kīma-Šamaš (mazzaz ka ₂ ra ₂-gaba )

See chapter  IV.

muhal dim “cook” Etel-pī-Šamaš Ilīma-ilum

See chapter  IV.

na -ga da “herdsman” Awīlatum ˹PN˺

See chapter  IV.

na r-gal “chief musician” Etel-pī-Ea Muḫaddûm

See chapter  IV.

sa nta na “administrator of date orchards” Ibni-Sîn Ilī-iddinam

See chapter  IV.

si m ug-m eš “metal workers”

See chapter  IV.

si pa d “shepherd” Ibanni-ilum Sîn-ekallī

See chapter  IV.

The administration of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum

249

Title

Related Institution

Attestation

sukkal “court official” Aḫum Bēlānum Ḫadānšu-likšud Itūr-ašdu u g ula ša sukkal

e₂-sukkal(-m eš)

See chapters  II. and  II.

su-si -i g “ animal flayer” Dādâ

See chapter  IV.

š a ₃ -ta m “administrator” Bēlānum Etel-pī-Ištar Apil-ilīšu Ipqu-Nabium

See chapter  II. e₂-bur-sa ĝ an -za- gar ₃

š a ₃ -gu d “ox-driver” šabrûm “chief administrator” Ana-pāni-ilī Etel-pī-Šamaš

See chapter  IV.

e₂ šabrîm

(ugul a ) a d-KI D “overseer of the reed workers” Adad-šar-ilī Ea-šar-ilī Ilī-u-Šamaš ug ula ˹ad ? ˺-[KID] Ina-palêšu ug ula ad-K I D Utu-mansum u g ula ad -K ID ug ul a ( e₂) asīrī “overseer of the (house of) prisoners” Sîn-šeme Šēp-Sîn

See chapters  II. and  II.

See chapter 5 IV.2

e₂ asīrī

See chapters 4 II.1 and 5 II.8

250

The House of Prisoners

Title

Related Institution

Attestation

ugul a e₂ ( -m eš) “overseer(s) of the house” Ø Gimil-ilī Aḫī-[…] ˹PN˺

e₂

See chapters 4 II.7 and 5 II.9

ugul a ge m e₂ “overseer of female slaves” Ḫuzālum Ilabrat-tukultašu Qibīšumma-tikal ugul a e₂ -m uše n-hi -a “overseer of the poultry house” Marduk-mušallim

See chapter 5 IV.2

e₂- mušen -hi -a

ugul a š u-i “overseer of the barbers” Ilabrat-[…] Marduk-mušē[zib] ugul a ( m unus -) uš- bar 9 “overseer of the (house of the) weavers” Būnu-d[…] Muti-Dagan Sîn-bēl-ilī Šallūrum

See chapter 5 IV.2

e₂- uš-bar

u₂ -tul ₂ “herds administrator” Ea-bēl-ilī Ibni-Amurrum (u₂-tul ₂ Gula) Sîn-imguranni zaba r-dab ( ₅ ) -ba “cup bearer” Ikūn-pī-Ištar

See chapters 4 II.5 and 5 II.10

See chapters 4 II.4 and 5 II.11

See chapter 5 IV.2

ĝi₆-par₃

See chapter 5 II.12

 Irībam-Sîn and Pa-ila are also associated with the e₂ -u š - b ar. They could very well be overseers (ugula), but they appear without title.

The administration of Uruk under Rı¯m-Anum

Title

Related Institution

za di m “bow-maker” Ištar-ilum Ša-ilīšu

251

Attestation See chapter 5 IV.2

Tab. 29: Titles and institutional affiliations

As discussed in chapters 4 and 5, people bearing these titles or professions seem to have been related to the state – i.e. the institutions of palace or temples – because they usually appear as the beneficiaries of labor administered via the house of prisoners or in connection with texts pertaining to the allocation of flour. Although in many instances the affiliation of officials and personnel with particular institutions cannot be established, there are a number of instances in which the titles are clearly related to temples. In texts dated to Rīm-Anum there are three such instances, namely Title

Name(s)

Attestation

e nsi ₂ d u tu Adad-šarrum “agricultural manager Ašdī-baḫû (title broken) of (the temple of) the god Šamaš” Ipqu-Annunītum Lipit-Ištar Mār-erṣetim […]-ḫāzir

See chapter  V

g ud u ₄ “pašīšu-priest”

See chapter 5 V

sa ĝa “temple chief-administrator” sa ĝ a of the goddess Kanisura sa ĝ a of the god Rammānum sa ĝ a of the god Šamaš sa ĝ a of […]

Tab. 30: Temple personnel

Bēlānum gu du ₄ Nin-siana Iddin-Ilabrat(?) gud u₄ AN.AN.Inanna Nabium-ḫāzir Sāmum

See chapter 5 V Ana-Marduk-atkal Anum-ilī Iddin-Šamaš Ubār-Šamaš Ninurta-iddinam

252

The House of Prisoners

In most cases temple personnel appear in connection with slaves and prisoners related to the bīt asīrī. The saĝa -officials are recipients of slaves given to specific deities as royal gifts. The reconstruction of the administration of Uruk through documents pertaining to the house of prisoners and through a very limited number of surviving administrative tablets excavated at the palace of Sîn-kāšid is perforce fragmentary. To this one should add the constraints arising from the nondescriptive and non-explanatory character of this kind of written source, and the fact that there are only three extant documents dated to Samsu-iluna. The lack of earlier evidence impedes tracing continuities and changes between the Babylonian administration of Uruk and that of the independent kingdom that Rīm-Anum established. The extant records document a period of about five years, of which the first two are represented by only three tablets. The existence of these documents dated to the Babylonian king implies that the Sînkāšid palace was in use during his reign and that there must have existed a local administration, but it is unknown how many – if any – of those administrators were kept in place and how many may have been removed from their posts once Rīm-Anum seized power. Similarly problematic is the placement within the ranks of the administration of those men bearing seals or holding a position of influence but whose titles or professional names are not preserved. In spite of all those restrictions, however, our corpus provides valuable information about the kingdom of Uruk during this intriguing period of Old Babylonian history.

IV The bīt asīrī Tablets from the house of prisoners offer the opportunity to study a well attested institution through a period of about two and a half years and to trace its interactions with a number of different entities active in the city of Uruk during the same time. This particular lot of documents dated to king RīmAnum comes from the antiquities market and its exact find spot is therefore unknown. However, the fact that other administrative texts were excavated at the palace of Sîn-kāšid in Uruk suggests that the bīt asīrī corpus also comes from that city. What is more, I have argued in chapter 1 that certain affinities in the type of records as well as the attestation of a number of personal names in tablets from the palace and from unknown provenience let us speculate that the bīt asīrī could have been one of the bureaus functioning in the Sîn-kāšid palace. The archive of the bīt asīrī, at least from the records that have come down to us, can be sorted into two main groups, one dealing with allocation

The bı¯t ası¯rı¯

253

of flour and the other with the management of prisoners of war and slaves. The combination of prisoners of war and flour led scholars to compare the situation of a captive and enslaved labor force in second millennium Babylonia with that of first millennium Assyria and the Biblical story of Samson. The conclusions drawn from such a comparison characterize the bīt asīrī variously as a prison, a detention center, a granary for flour, and an ergastulum. My study of bīt asīrī documents does not apply a comparative approach. Rather I have concentrated only on this archive and I have tried to analyze the activities of the house of prisoners and its dealings with other institutions in the broader context of political history during the revolts against Samsu-iluna. In this respect it is important to emphasize that from flour texts it is not evident that flour was produced in the bīt asīrī. On the contrary, flour seems to have been processed either in the e₂ - aĝ rig or perhaps somewhere else but distributed through the house of the aĝ rig. Only then did the flour reach the house of prisoners, which in turn redistributed it mostly to military men and messengers and envoys from other kingdoms. This was probably the case because certain documents describe the allocations as šu ku e₂ asīrī, “food allocation of the house of prisoners,” and because this kind of flour allotment was issued under the authority of the aĝr ig Aḫum-waqar and of Nabi-ilīšu, both of whom act alone on a number of occasions. The šu ku e ₂ asīrī documents lack one important element present in all other types of allocations: the clause zi -ga š a ₃ e₂ asīrī, namely, “issued at the house of prisoners.” The omission shows that the flour was issued elsewhere. This is supported by the fact that several tablets of this group still preserve the sealing of the ugul a (e₂ ) asīrī Sîn-šeme, who must have rolled his seal on the documents as the recipient of the allocation for the institution that he managed. As is clear from Table 22, the house of the aĝ r ig is the only institution for which an exchange is apparent. In other words, the house of prisoners provided the house of the aĝr ig with a labor force and received flour in return. There is no definite evidence in the extant records that flour allocations administered through the bīt asīrī were used to feed prisoners of war or slaves. Instead, recipients of such allotments were in the vast majority individuals engaged in military and diplomatic activities (see Table 31). In addition, a few other references pertaining to allocations issued at the bīt asīrī are, prima facie, not necessarily related to the military. For instance, a ĝe šbu n allocation was assigned to “the sick ones” (marṣūtum), and another unspecified type of allotment was given to the “house of the chief physician” (e₂ - a-z u-ga l ). In these two cases, however, it is possible to speculate that the beneficiaries were men wounded on the battlefield, whereas the e ₂ -a -zu- gal was perhaps the place where injured soldiers and other army members were treated. On three other

254

The House of Prisoners

Recipient(s) lu ₂-kiĝ₂-gi₄-a “messenger”

Type of allocation si - la₂ ṣudû unspecified

lu ₂-kiĝ₂-gi₄-a -m eš G Ns “messengers of geographic names”

ĝ eš bun

lu ₂ GN “man of geographic name”

si - la₂

lu ₂ GN u aḫiātum “man of geographic name and dependents”

ĝ eš bun

Personal Name(s)

ĝ eš bun si - la₂

Name of Profession

si - la₂ unspecified

š eš Daganma-ilum “brother of Daganma-ilum”

ĝ eš bun

PN u gul a MAR.TU GN “overseer of the Amorites of geographic name” (highest military rank, “General”) ugul a MAR.TU-m eš (GN) u aḫiātum “Amorite leader(s) (of geographic name) and dependents” ugul a š u-i Rīm-Sîn “overseer of the barber(s) of Rīm-Sîn”

si - la₂

ĝ eš bun

ĝ eš bun

Tab. : Recipients of flour allocations

occasions, the allocations refer to the king. Two of these tablets record 180 liters characterized as ana šu ku luga l … u aḫiātim (“for food allocation of the king… and dependents”), two other documents deal with 120 liters described as ana rēš ekallim kullim (“for the palace to dispose of”), and finally one tablet grants 120 liters of flour ana mēreš šarrim (“at the king’s discretion”). Once again, although no soldiers or military men are mentioned here, it is not unlikely that the king used these allocations as compensation for military service.

The bı¯t ası¯rı¯

255

Whereas flour documents are fundamental in the reconstruction of the political history of Uruk and its contacts with other kingdoms during the revolts against Samsu-iluna, tablets dealing with the management of prisoners and slaves are important for studying the functioning of the bīt asīrī, its interactions with other local institutions as well as the characteristics of forced labor and the ways in which the state and elite individuals benefited from it. Although sketchy, records registering prisoners and slaves provide a wealth of details when studied as a group. This information is the result of the administrative need to identify efficiently the enslaved labor force, which is particularly clear in the case of tablets recording prisoners and slaves who had died. As Assyriologists know, in Babylonia during the Old Babylonian period there were different ways of identifying people depending on their status. For example, state officials had cylinder seals that usually contained personal name, title, paternal name, and association with one or two deities or with the name of the king.10 When referring to a person in the body of a document, the scribe might include name and paternal filiation, name and title, or both. In the case of slaves the common practice was to mention the name of the slave and occasionally health condition and origin, besides the name of the master. Records from the bīt asīrī describing prisoners and slaves usually provide name and one or more of the following additional features: sex, family ties, geographic origin, manner in which the prisoner or slave was recruited, profession, social status, and the name of a figure of authority. Occasionally, the scribe also indicated whether a person was a baby, a child, or an elderly individual, and, by omission, the absence of this kind of specification means that the prisoner or slave was an adult of productive age. Prisoners of war arrived at Uruk from a number of different locations (see Table 6). References to geographic origin may refer to the city or territory where the prisoner presumably resided or had been born, to the place where the prisoner was captured, or to both. However, in most cases it is difficult to differentiate between place of birth and place of permanent or temporary residence of these prisoners. Not surprisingly, these men and women were brought or sent to Uruk by men related to the military, bearing titles such as aga ₃-u s₂ s aĝ (“elite soldier”), ugu la aga ₃ -u s₂ saĝ (“overseer of the elite soldiers”), or ugu l a MAR.TU (“highest military officer”). In certain cases men bringing or dispatching prisoners are from places other than Uruk, as for instance Awīlīya, the ugu la MAR.TU of Gutûm, or Marduk-nāṣir, the šāpir Bad₃-an-na. Given the character of the extant written records, it is not possible to reconstruct the

 For instance: Nabi-ilīšu / bisaĝ- dub - ba / dum u Lakīta-rēmēni / ar ad Rīm-Anum. There are cases in which the name of the profession is not included.

256

The House of Prisoners

administrative procedures that were performed when prisoners arrived at Uruk. The tablets at our disposal document people who had already entered the circuit of the Uruk administration. What is clear is that at a certain point, a change of status seems to have taken place by which prisoners of war were turned into slaves. This transition in status, however, may not have encompassed a formal legal re-categorization because certain individuals are described as prisoners and slaves in the same tablet. Prisoners and slaves administered through the bīt asīrī were assigned to a number of state institutions, deities, and individuals. A rough estimate based on the available records shows that the enslaved labor force managed by the institution consisted of about 48% men, and 31% women, while the remaining 20% encompassed babies, children and the elderly, whose productive capabilities must have been considered less significant, if indeed they were productive at all. A variety of state institutions profited from laborers from the house of prisoners. For instance, most women were put to work as weavers for the institution called e ₂ - (m u n u s-) u š-b a r, “house of the (female) weavers.” But it is not clear to me whether this house was a centralized workshop or whether it was an administrative bureau that, through a network of overseers, allocated workers to the houses of individuals who fed them and had these women work part-time for them while the rest of their time was employed in weaving tasks for the state. I have also suggested that, because the flour distributed through the bīt asīrī originated from the e ₂- aĝ rig, the house of the aĝ r ig could have used a number of prisoners and slaves to grind flour. Similarly, it is possible to assume that workers given to the e ₂ - m u še n -h i -a, “poultry house,” must have either taken care of poultry or dealt with the processing of by-products such as meat and feathers. The tasks that prisoners and slaves might have performed in other houses – whose names are not so transparent as to connect them with specific activities – are unknown. Moreover, there is evidence that at least some of the workers were transferred from one institution to another, or from one institution to individuals or to perform other activities. For example, two female slaves from the house of the weavers were assigned to the oxdrivers, and another two women from the house of the aĝr ig were sent to the house of the weavers, whereas a man from the e ₂ -bu r- saĝ was sent to the ĝi ₆ -pa r ₃ . A number of prisoners and slaves must have worked at agricultural activities, because they were assigned to personnel engaged in the administration or management of agricultural work, as for example the en si ₂, “agricultural manager,” and the sa n t a n a -official in charge of date orchards. Others must have been employed at tasks pertaining to animal husbandry, for they were dependents of herd administrators, herdsmen, or shepherds. Yet other prison-

The bı¯t ası¯rı¯

257

ers were related to men bearing titles such as brewer, chief musician, animal flayer, barber, and bow-maker, among others. It is also known that on a number of occasions, the king presented male prisoners to a number of different deities, namely Kanisura, Rammānum, Šamaš, Nanāya, and Lugal-Erra and Meslamtaea. Interestingly, in these instances prisoners tend to originate from the Ešnuna area and were high military officers, as for instance Awīl-Adad, the ugu l a MAR.TU of Ešnuna. Or they were connected with important characters such as Munawwirum and Ilūni, both characterized as en s i₂ lu₂ Ešnuna, i.e., royalty. Other prisoners and slaves granted to the gods were sent by Daganmailum, in one case from Malgûm and in another from Ešnuna. Considering certain shared characteristics of prisoners given to deities as royal gifts, it is not unlikely that these men enjoyed preferential treatment. In temples, they may have worked at less demanding jobs than their less fortunate fellow prisoners, perhaps because, since they were of higher status, they could eventually have been exchanged to rescue other prisoners or to negotiate with their kings. Finally there are prisoners and slaves assigned to individuals. Their titles, if any, were not recorded. In certain cases it is likely that these men were acting in an official capacity. For example, a man by the name of Bēlšunu, son of Ḫurruṣum, twice received laborers described as ša ₃- gud , “ox-drivers,” and once he was the recipient together with Etel-pī-Marduk, who does not have a title. The expression ana er i n ₂ ša ₃ -gu d- m e š “for the team of ox-drivers” that appears in one of the documents suggests that both Bēlšunu and Etel-pī-Marduk were state personnel. Sometimes prisoners are assigned to men from places other than Uruk, as for instance the ten boys for the Elamites (ana dum u- m eš lu ₂ el a m - m a k i ) received by Bēlšunu, the ugul a lu₂ Elam. There is also Warad-Sîn, the Gutian, who received one woman who had been under the authority of Šallūrum, the overseer of the weavers. Of no less interest is the case of Ṣillī-Ištar of Kisura, who got one boy taken from the house of the aĝ r ig. He is also attested in two other documents issued six days apart. The first mentions that Imgūatum from Bad₃-Lugal-Isin was brought to Uruk under his authority, and the second that the prisoner Warad-Šamaš also from Bad₃Lugal-Isin was brought by the Kisureans under the authority of Ṣillī-Ištar. Apparently Ṣillī-Ištar had a military position and received the prisoner as compensation, as was perhaps also the case with the Gutian Warad-Sîn. These instances show that not only do certain military men from outside Uruk receive prisoners and slaves from the bīt asīrī, but several documents reveal that it was similarly men from other localities who on a number of occasions had brought or sent prisoners to Uruk. Among them we find the following high military leaders: Bēlānum, the ugula MAR.TU of Nazarum; Awīlīya, the ugu l a MAR.TU of Muti-abal; Warad-Šamaš, the ugu l a MAR.TU

258

The House of Prisoners

of Kisura; and Daganma-ilum. This naturally poses the question of why men from other areas would bring to Uruk prisoners, who would then be administered through the house of prisoners. The texts are silent in this respect and one can only offer hypotheses. One possibility is that members of the army identified by toponyms represented the allies of Uruk during the revolt, who arrived at Uruk after a campaign bringing prisoners as spoil, leaving them in Uruk, and perhaps taking them back to their cities when they left Rīm-Anum’s capital. Because the tablets mostly register the movement of prisoners and slaves within the Uruk administration, the dates on these records do not reflect the actual time when prisoners first came to the city. Therefore, unlike texts dealing with flour allocation, they do not convey accurate chronological information regarding political activities. Another possibility is that, because of its administrative infrastructure, the bīt asīrī of Uruk operated as a regional center for the management of prisoners brought by allies, who may not have had a clearly defined territorial base, or whose cities may not have possessed the necessary facilities to cope with the influx of a captive labor force. Admittedly, the description that I have offered is a collage that results from piecing together bits of information from laconic administrative records. Throughout this book, I tried to answer two questions: what was the bīt asīrī and how did it work? I hope I have already answered the second question. As for the first, I would argue that the bīt asīrī was one of the many administrative units that constituted the bureaucratic machinery of the kingdom of Uruk under the Rīm-Anum administration. In brief, the house of prisoners, through the dealings of its solicitous overseer Sîn-šeme, received men and women brought to Uruk as prisoners of war, and assigned them to elite men, or to work for the state. There is no indication in the extant records from Uruk that the house of prisoners was a place of detention, be it called prison or ergastulum. What is more, the mobility of prisoners and slaves who circulated among various other houses related to the state and who performed a number of activities does not support the hypothesis that forced laborers were confined in a detention center. Of course this does not mean that prisoners and slaves from the bīt asīrī enjoyed freedom of movement or action. As a matter of fact, they may actually have lived and worked under severe conditions, but this did not happen in the house of prisoners itself.

V State and slavery in Uruk during the revolt against Samsuiluna One of the important features of the archive of the bīt asīrī is that it contains information for the study of one of the main sources of slavery in ancient

State and slavery in Uruk during the revolt against Samsu-iluna

259

Mesopotamia, namely prisoners of war.11 Other sources such as house-born and debt slaves are not recorded in these documents (see, e.g., Mendelsohn 1946, Seri 2011, Stol 2011). The bīt asīrī corpus was the product of the administrative procedures by which the state kept track and disposed of a labor force incorporated into the productive system of the kingdom. In this respect, the hundreds of documents belonging to the institution are exceptional in that they allow us to undertake a systematic analysis of prisoners of war, a topic that had previously been approached through documentation coming from various sources and areas. The uniqueness of the bīt asīrī of Uruk resides in the fact that scholars have been able to reconstruct the archive by means of prosopography, Rīm-Anum year names, and by the typological consistency of records dealing with the allocation of flour and the management of people. It is most likely that houses of prisoners existed elsewhere in Mesopotamia and in other areas of the ancient Near East. As we have mentioned, in the Biblical story, the facility in which Samson was confined as a miller was also called “house of prisoners” in Hebrew (bêt hāʾasîrîm). In Babylonia proper the term asīrum, “prisoner,” is attested in the kingdom of Larsa (see Leemans 1961) and in the city of Sippar, where the title ugu la asīrī is also known (Janssen, e.g., 1991, 103–105). The existence of semantically related entities in different areas, however, should not lead us to believe that these institutions functioned identically, even though all of them were in charge of managing prisoners of war. Similar designations do not necessarily indicate similar procedures. Documents from the bīt asīrī dated to Rīm-Anum were used to support the picturesque story of the blind Samson grinding flour in the house of prisoners, and, conversely, the same passage was quoted to explain the modus operandi of the house of prisoners of Uruk. One has to remember that the Biblical account in Judges 16:21 aims, among other things, at presenting Samson as an individual hero enduring his misfortunes. The narrator is not concerned with Samson’s equally exploited and imprisoned fellows. In contrast, there is no narrative account about the prisoners from the bīt asīrī, no individual hero, only hundreds of administrative documents recording state business. It has also been suggested, based on the same and similar comparisons, that laborers in the house of prisoners of Uruk must have been blinded to prevent insurrections. I do not share that opinion. It is certainly true that there are numerous references to blind workers and prisoners of war in Mesopotamia attested as early as in

 In a recent article Stol (2011, 566b-568b) mentions five sources of slavery in the Old Babylonian period: purchase (“Kauf”), debt (“Verschuldung”), birth (“Geburt”), punishment (“Strafe”), and booty (“Kriegsbeute”).

260

The House of Prisoners

Presargonic Girsu (Gelb 1973). Heimpel (2009) has now convincingly argued for the presence of blind workers (S I G₇- a , to be read si ₁ ₂ -a) in the Ur III period, which supplements the information from a royal inscription of Šū-Sîn mentioning that the king blinded his enemies (Frayne 1997, RIME 3 E3/2.1.4.3).12 Blind individuals are also well known from the Old Babylonian period (see Farber 1985). But what goes against the hypothesis that slaves from the bīt asīrī in Uruk were blinded is precisely this abundance of references to people described as blind (e.g., igi n u- du ₈, si ₁₂ - a , ḫuppudum) elsewhere.13 In the meticulous records from the bīt asīrī there is not even one person characterized as blind. They might have existed, but if they did, relevant records have not come down to us, and it is unlikely that they represented the majority of the enslaved assets of the bīt asīrī. Prisoners and slaves from Rīm-Anum’s house of prisoners were clearly exploited, but they do not seem to have been mutilated en masse for purposes of discipline, unless we believe that scribes intentionally avoided mentioning blindness as one of the features used to identify these people. When documents in the corpus refer to laborers that have been lost to the system, the reason is death, but there is no register of fugitive slaves, except for one case in which a prisoner of the bīt asīrī of Uruk is described as a runaway from Larsa. It is possible that the way the state managed to prevent revolts was by dividing laborers into small groups, by assigning them to perform different activities, and by putting them under the control of overseers. This agrees well with the evidence at our disposal. Furthermore, in a number of cases prisoners and slaves were related to military men and to other individuals not necessarily connected with specific state-households, but who were certainly figures of authority. Ties of personal dependence were indicated by the expressions PN1 ša PN2, “Personal Name 1 belonging to Personal Name 2” or PN1 (š a₃) rēdût PN2, “Personal Name 1 (in) the retinue of Personal Name 2.” When a sale is not mentioned, it is not clear whether the state transferred the property of those slaves permanently. I suggest that prisoners and slaves whom the state granted to individuals temporarily reverted to the bīt asīrī and were put to work for the state. This was, in brief, a maximization of resources in times of political upheaval.

 It is important to notice that Šū-Sîn states that he destroyed the cities, blinded the men and put them to work in the orchards of the gods Enlil and Ninlil, whereas women were presented to the house of the weavers of the same gods (E3/2.1.4.3: iv 11–31). Similarly, the blind workers that Heimpel cites are millers, fullers, ox-drivers, weavers, and musicians, among others.  For blindness in Akkadian sources see also Marcus (1980) and Stol (1986).

State and slavery in Uruk during the revolt against Samsu-iluna

261

The evidence available makes it difficult to contextualize the bīt asīrī of Uruk within the larger picture of Old Babylonian Mesopotamia and within the framework of other cities participating in the revolts against Samsu-iluna. It is equally problematic to evaluate whether the bīt asīrī is representative of other similar institutions. This is the case because, except for a few scattered references to the bīt asīrī mostly from Sippar and Larsa and from Biblical narratives, there is currently no substantial material for comparison. For example, only three documents pertaining to a house of prisoners from the kingdom of Larsa dated to the reign of Rīm-Sîn II are contemporary with the bīt asīrī archive of Uruk. Two of them pertain to one šu ku-allocation for ten guards of the house of prisoners of war (e n - n u e₂ a-si₂-ri) under the authority of Apil-Amurrum, the r a ₂ - gab a -official, guard of the house of prisoners (UF 10 41 [= OECT 15 50], and OECT 15 29, both dated to RS II 1/IX/16). The third tablet lists ten men who guarded the house of prisoners (OECT 15 83, RS II 1/IV/5+).14 Only differences from the situation in Uruk are apparent from the laconic data that the three tablets from the kingdom of Larsa provide. No guards of the house of prisoners received allocations in the extant documents from Uruk. Sîn-šeme bore the title ugu l a asīrī; whereas Apil-Amurrum was a r a ₂ - gaba-official under whose authority there were ten other guards. However, there is no clue as to whether these differences also apply to the functioning of the two institutions. Fifty years ago, in his seminal article “Assyriology – Why and How?” A. Leo Oppenheim (1960) argued for the need of studying administrative and legal documents and letters systematically in order to analyze ancient Mesopotamian economy, society, and history. I would like to call attention to two points that he emphasized because they are pertinent to the study of the bīt asīrī. First there is the problem of the written evidence and the ways of dealing with it. Oppenheim has eloquently pointed out what I have referred to earlier as an exercise in fragmentology. According to him: The cuneiform texts have given us a strangely distorted picture of more than two thousand years of Mesopotamian civilizations. It is composed of a complex medley of abundant but very spotty detail information, and of rough and incomplete outlines of the major political and cultural developments. All that is torn to shreds by immense accidental gaps in time and space. It requires much patient and mostly rather hazardous work on the part of the philologist to hold these shreds together by a criss-crossing web of connections based on slim textual evidence. (p. 410)

 Lines 12–13 read: 10 e ri n₂-hi-a ša e ₂ a-˹si₂-rum ˺ / i-na-aṣ-ṣa-ru. Note that in all the extant tablets from the kingdom of Larsa, including those from the reign of Rīm-Sîn I (see introduction p. 2), asīrum is written with the si₂ sign; whereas in documents from Uruk it is written with si.

262

The House of Prisoners

This book, I believe, is mostly about putting the pieces back together and about explaining the functioning of the house of prisoners at Uruk within the broader context of Babylonian political history. In this sense, my study has involved quite a bit of clockmaking, to borrow Marc Bloch’s expression. The other remark of Oppenheim that I would like to consider is of a methodological nature. He affirmed: There are scholars who are inextricably entangled in attempts to relate Assyriological data to the Old Testament in some acceptable way, and others who find in haphazardly collected instances, torn out of their ideological and stylistic habitat, convincing proof for whatever the fashion of the day in anthropology, the history of religion, or economics is propounding. (p. 414)

We must acknowledge that he had a point, although he may not have expressed it in the most tactful way and did not explain the logic behind those methodologies. To do justice to the pioneers of the field, one should consider that in the early stages of Assyriology, scholars resorted to the Bible and to Classical antiquity in order to make sense of the cuneiform evidence that surfaced as the new material was being accessed (Seri 2005, 9–28). In the process of decipherment and interpretation, certain Biblical and Classical worldviews slipped in and Mesopotamian institutions and societies were studied in terms of resemblances and differences with other realities. But we have now come a long way since those formative days of the discipline and I believe we need to explore our material further before engaging in comparisons of unequal data. If Biblical stories have led scholars to see the bīt asīrī as Samson’s prison and Classical antiquity has prompted them to conceive of it as a kind of ergastulum, modern theories have similarly shaped understandings of how slavery should be studied and of how important slavery was in ancient Mesopotamia. As I see it, when it comes to theoretical approaches, the problem of slavery is tightly entangled with historical and sociological studies about capitalism and the division of labor in society. Since Adam Smith’s interests in the new division of labor arising in the wake of modern industry, some theoreticians have concerned themselves with explaining various aspects of capitalism. These inquiries produced works such as Émile Durkheim’s (1997) The Division of Labor in Society, originally published in French in 1893. Other thinkers, however, have sought to explain the origins of capitalism as the result of a historical progression, and they have therefore resorted to adducing ancient societies to explain continuities and, most importantly, changes throughout the ages and across geographies. This was certainly the path followed by Karl Marx and Max Weber, although they arrived at very different conclusions. It would be arrogant and counterproductive to try to summarize a very complicated devel-

State and slavery in Uruk during the revolt against Samsu-iluna

263

opment in the history of ideas in a couple of sentences. For the purpose of my argument, suffice it to say that ancient historians following the analytical methods of theoreticians such as Marx and Weber have, intentionally or not, imposed upon their subject of study certain interpretations and developmental schemes that were idiosyncratic. In spite of the many theoretical differences, both Marxist and Weberian historians, with conspicuous exceptions such as Diakonoff (e.g. 1974), have concluded that slavery was not important in ancient Mesopotamia. Compared to other works on slavery, my study of the bīt asīrī has had modest goals and has yielded only partial conclusions. This is so because, although about half of my records deal with slaves, I have decided not to engage with discussions pertaining to the place of slavery in Mesopotamian society. I have based this decision on the fact that there is still an enormous amount of work to be done to understand the functioning of Old Babylonian economy and society and the interaction and predominance of different forces of production before we can responsibly attempt a major synthesis. I am certainly not claiming that mine is the right approach, but I do believe that being aware of the difficulties the ancient historian encounters sharpens what I call “historical sensibility.” By historical sensibility I mean attentiveness regarding chronological, regional, and contextual differences and material conditions. This, no doubt, is what I envision every time I think of Marc Bloch’s reflection “Mais l’histoire n’est pas l’horlogerie ou l’ébénisterie. Elle est un effort vers le mieux connaître: par suite une chose en movement.”

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions 1

Catalogue of tablets edited in this volume

Tablet Nᵒ

Museum Nᵒ

Free Library of Philadelphia Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP  Nᵒ  FLP 

Date

Type

RīA /X/ RīA /XI/+ RīA /[…]/+ RīA /[…]/[…] RīA /I/ RīA /II/ RīA /III/ RīA /IV/ RīA /V/ RīA /VI/ RīA /VI/ RīA /VII/ RīA /VII/ RīA /IX/[…] RīA /X/ RīA /X/[…] RīA /XI/ RīA /XI/ RīA /[…]/ RīA /[…]/[…] RīA […]/IX/[…] [RīA…]/[…]/ RīA […]/[…]/[…] RīA […]/[…]/[…]

Flour allocation Flour allocation Flour allocation Flour allocation Flour allocation Flour allocation Flour allocation Management of prisoners Flour allocation Flour allocation Flour allocation Flour allocation Flour allocation Flour allocation Flour allocation Flour allocation Flour allocation Flour allocation Flour allocation Flour allocation Flour allocation Management of prisoners Management of prisoners Flour allocation

Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Nᵒ  A  RīA /X/ Nᵒ  A  RīA /IV/

Memorandum Flour allocation

Princeton Theological Seminary Nᵒ  PTS 

Cattle (dead animals)

RīA /XII/

 Tablets are grouped under the institution where they belong: Free Library of Philadelphia, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Princeton Theological Seminary, and Yale University. Within every subgroup, the arrangement is chronological.

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Tablet Nᵒ

Museum Nᵒ

Date

265

Type

Yale University Tablets from Yale were copied and transliterated by Gary Beckman who kindly agreed to publish them in this volume. Nᵒ  MLC  RīA /VIII/ Management of prisoners Nᵒ  MLC  RīA /I/ Management of prisoners Nᵒ  MLC  RīA /II/ Flour allocation Nᵒ  MLC  RīA /III/ Management of prisoners Nᵒ  MLC  RīA /V/ Management of prisoners Nᵒ  MLC  RīA /VI/ Management of prisoners Nᵒ  MLC  RīA /VI/ Four allocation Nᵒ  MLC  RīA /VII/ Management of prisoners Nᵒ  MLC  RīA /VIII/ Flour allocation Nᵒ  MLC  RīA /VIII/ Flour allocation Nᵒ  MLC  RīA /VIII?/[…] Flour allocation Nᵒ  NCBT  RīA /II/ Administrative Nᵒ  MLC  RīA […]/II/ Flour allocation Nᵒ  MLC  [RīA…]/IX/ Management of prisoners Nᵒ  MLC  undated Allocation of (grain) to prisoners

Concordance: Tablets arranged alphabetically after the Museum signature A  = Nᵒ  A  = Nᵒ  FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP

       

= = = = = = = =

Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ

       

FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP

          

= = = = = = = = = = =

Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ

          

FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP

    

MLC MLC MLC MLC MLC

    

= = = = =

Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ

    

= = = = =

Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ Nᵒ

    

MLC  = Nᵒ  MLC  = Nᵒ  MLC  = Nᵒ  MLC  = Nᵒ  MLC  = Nᵒ  MLC  = Nᵒ  MLC  = Nᵒ  MLC  = Nᵒ  MLC  = Nᵒ  NCBT  = Nᵒ  PTS  = Nᵒ 

266

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Autographs Nᵒ 1 FLP 1917 obv.

rev.

lo.e.

up.e.

seal 

seal 

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 2 FLP 2213 obv.

rev.

lo.e.

up.e.

Nᵒ 3 FLP 2094 obv.

rev.

lo.e.

up.e.

seal

267

268

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 4 FLP 1859 obv.

rev.

lo.e.

up.e.

Nᵒ 5 FLP 1715 obv.

rev.

up.e.

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 6 FLP 1909 obv.

rev.

lo.e.

up.e.

Nᵒ 7 FLP 1710 obv.

rev.

seal

up.e.

269

270

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 8 FLP 1686 obv.

rev.

lo.e.

up.e.

Nᵒ 9 FLP 1719 obv.

rev.

lo.e.

up.e.

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 10 FLP 2044 obv.

rev.

lo.e.

up.e.

Nᵒ 11 FLP 1681 obv.

rev.

lo.e.

up.e.

271

272

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

seal 

seal 

seal 

Nᵒ 12 FLP 1707 obv.

rev.

lo.e.

up.e.

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 13 FLP 2017 obv.

rev.

Nᵒ 14 FLP 1792 obv.

rev.

seal

up.e.

273

274

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 15 FLP 2040 obv.

rev.

up.e.

Nᵒ 16 FLP 1867 obv.

rev.

up.e.

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 17 FLP 1729 obv.

rev.

lo.e.

Nᵒ 18 FLP 1718 obv.

rev.

275

276

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 19 FLP 1690 obv.

rev.

lo.e.

up.e.

seal

Nᵒ 20 FLP 2066 obv.

rev.

lo.e.

up.e.

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 21 FLP 2249 obv.

rev.

Nᵒ 22 FLP 2358 obv.

lo.e.

rev.

277

278

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 23 FLP 1691 obv.

rev.

lo.e.

up.e.

le.e.

Nᵒ 24 FLP 1692 obv.

rev.

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 25 A 4700 obv.

rev.

Nᵒ 26 A 4906 obv.

rev.

up.e.

279

280

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 27 PTS 12 obv.

rev.

lo.e.

up.e.

seal 

seal 

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 28 MLC 2679 obv.

rev.

281

282

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 29 MLC 2565 obv.

rev.

le.e.

Nᵒ 30 MLC 845 obv.

rev.

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 31 MLC 1005 obv.

rev.

Nᵒ 32 MLC1587 obv.

rev.

283

284

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 33 MLC 1592 obv.

rev.

seal

Nᵒ 34 MLC 838 obv.

rev.

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 35 MLC 1621 obv.

rev.

Nᵒ 36 MLC 847 obv.

rev.

285

286

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 37 MLC 842 obv.

rev.

Nᵒ 38 MLC 844 obv.

rev.

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 39 NCBT 1845 obv.

rev.

Nᵒ 40 MLC 843 obv.

rev.

287

288

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 41 MLC 1590 obv.

Nᵒ 42 MLC 1591 obv.

rev.

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

289

Transliterations and translations Free Library of Philadelphia Nᵒ 1: FLP 1917 Measurements: 5.5 x 3.7 x 2.0 cm Date: RīA 1/X/18 Type: Flour allocation obv. Lost lo.e. 1'. z i - ga rev. 2'. š a ₃ ˹ e ₂ ˺ a - s i -ru m 3'. n iĝ ₂ - ˹ š u ˺ d s u ʾe n -še-mi 4'. i t i ab - e ₃ u d 18-ka m up.e. 5'. mu ˹ri-im˺-da-nu-um luga l Translation: […] 1'-2'Issued at the house of prisoners. 3'Under the authority of Sîn-šeme. 5' Date.

4'-

Sealings: on the reverse, upper, left and right edges On the upper edge: 1 [e-tel-pi₄-Erra?] / [du m u ] ˹ e n ˺ -a n -n a -˹ tu m ₂ ˺ / ˹ar a d˺ d ig- gal-[ l a ] [Etel-pī-Erra?], son of Enanatum, servant of the god Iggala On the reverse: 2 . e₂ - a n - ˹ n a ˺ - […] / du m u ma-a-nu-um / [a r ad …] Eana-[…], son of ma-a-nu-um, [servant of …] Note: Restoration of the personal name of sealing 1 is based on attestations from BaM 27 228, 257; 31 347; FLP 2094; Nisaba 4 I. 4, 5, 10, and 13.

290

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 2: FLP 2213 Measurements: 3.5 x 3.2 x 1.8 cm Date: RīA 1/XI/14+ Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.2.˹3?˺.0.0 [z id ₂]-˹d a ? ˺ ˹a-na s i -la ₂ ˺ 2. ˹lu ₂ -k iĝ ₂ - g i₄ -a -m eš la r sa k i ˺ 3. lu ₂ ka ₂ - ˹ d iĝi r-r a k i ˺ 4. lu ₂ su-˹tu˺-[um] lo.e. 5. ˹u₃˺ a-ḫi-a-˹tim ˺ ˹z i - ga ˺ rev. 6. [ š a ₃ ] ˹e₂ ˺ a - si -r u m 7. n iĝ ₂ - ˹ š u d s u ʾe n ˺-še-mi 8. ˹i t i z i z ₂ - a ud 14+ -ka m ˺ up.e. 9. [m u ri]-˹im˺-[d]a-nu luga l Translation: 1–5 150? liters of flour for the si -la ₂ -allocation of the messengers of Larsa, the man of Babylon, the man of Sutûm and dependents. 5–6Issued at the house of prisoners. 7Under the authority of Sîn-šeme. 8–9Date. Sealings: on the obverse, reverse, left and right edges. Only traces visible. Notes: The transliteration of flour quantities is expressed by five digits separated by periods. Every digit represents a unit, and zeros are used to indicate empty units. Thus, for instance, 0.2.3.1.1 expresses 0(gur).2(PI).3(ban ₂ ).1 s il a ₃.1 še. ln . 1: Nisaba 4 I.10, an allocation for the same messengers and men, has zi d ₂ us₂.

Nᵒ 3: FLP 2094 Measurements: 3.1 x 3.1 x 1.5 cm Date: RīA 1/[…]/2+ Type: Flour allocation

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

291

obv. 1. 0.2.3.0.0 z i d ₂ -˹d a ˺ a-na ĝ e š b u n 2. I˹ma˺-ni-um lo.e. 3. Iṣil₂-li₂-d u t u 4. u₃ lu ₂ mu-x-x-lu rev. 1'. ˹i t i ˺ [… u d ] ˹2+˺ -ka m up.e. 2'. mu ri-˹im˺-da-nu ˹ luga l˺ - e Translation: 1–4 150 liters of flour for the ĝe šb u n -allocation of Mannium, Ṣillī-Šamaš, and the man of GN?. […]. 1'-2'Date. Sealings: on the obverse, lower, left, and right edges [e-tel-pi₄-Erra?] / ˹du m u ˺ e n - a n - n a - ˹t u m ₂ ˺ / ˹a r a d˺ d ig-gal-[ l a] [Etel-pī-Erra?], son of Enanatum, servant of the god Iggala

Nᵒ 4: FLP 1859 Measurements: 3.3 x 3.0 x 1.1 cm Date: RīA 1/[…]/[…] Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.3.0.0.0 ˹z i d ₂ u s₂ ˺ ˹a-na ĝe š b u n ˺ 2. ˹Ima-ni-um ṣil₂-li₂-d u t u ˺ 3. […] ˹x˺-bu-u₂ lo.e. 4. ˹u₃ a-ḫi-a-tim ˺ rev. 5. ˹z i - ga š a ₃ e ₂ a - si -r u m ˺ 6. ˹niĝ ₂ - š u d s u ʾ en -še-mi˺ 7. [i t i …] up.e. 8. ˹mu ˺ [ri]-˹im-da-nu-um˺ luga l- e

292

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Translation: 1–4 180 liters of lesser-quality flour for the ĝ ešb u n -allocation of Mannium, ṢillīŠamaš, […] and dependents. 5Issued at the house of prisoners. 6Under the authority of Sîn-šeme. 7–8Date.

Nᵒ 5: FLP 1715 Measurements: 3.2 x 3.0 x 1.7 cm Date: RīA 2/I/15 Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.1.0.8.0 z i d ₂ - d a 2. ˹š u ku e₂ ˺ a-si-ri 3. z i - ga rev. 4. ˹n iĝ₂ ˺ - š u Ia-ḫu-wa-˹qar ˺ 5. u₃ na-bi-˹dsuʾen ˺ 6. i t i b a r a ₂ - ˹ z ag ˺- ga r u d 15-˹ ka m ˺ up.e. 7. m u u n ug k i -˹ga ˺ ˹ u₃˺ a ₂ - ˹d a m ˺ -[ b i ] Translation: 1 68 liters of flour. 2šu ku-allocation of the house of prisoners. the authority of Aḫum-waqar and Nabi-Sîn. 6–7Date.

3–5

Issued under

Sealings: on the obverse, lower edge, reverse, upper, left and right edges Only traces legible: […] / […] / [a r a d ] ri-im-d[…] […] / […] / [servant of] Rīm-d[…]

Nᵒ 6: FLP 1909 Measurements: 3.3 x 3.4 x 1.7 cm Date: RīA 2/II/21 Type: Flour allocation

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

293

obv. 1. 0.0.˹2˺.0.0 z i d₂ - d a 2. ˹a˺-na ĝ eš b u n ˹i-nu-u₂-ma˺ ugu la ˹ šu-i la r sa k i ? ˺ 3. ˹il-li-kam ˺ lo.e. 4. z i - ga rev. 5. š a ₃ e₂ ˹a-si-ri ˺ 6. n iĝ ₂ - š u 30-še-mi 7. i t i gu d- s i - s a ₂ u d 2 1- [ ka m ] 8. mu ri-im-da-nu-um luga l up.e. 9. [u n ug ] k i - ga u₃ ˹a ₂- d a m ˺ -[ b i] s u h ₃ < - a > - bi si b i ₂ -˹ i n ˺ -[ si - sa ₂ ] Translation: 1–3 20 liters of flour for a ĝ ešb u n -allocation when the overseer of the barbers of Larsa? came. 4–5Issued at the house of prisoners. 6Under the authority of Sîn-šeme. 7–9Date. Sealing(s): illegible on the obverse, reverse and left edge Note: ln. 3: There is an extra d i š sign after li, but the reading illikam is safe.

Nᵒ 7: FLP 1710 Measurements: 3.0 x 3.2 x 1.5 cm Date: RīA 2/III/10 Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.0.˹2˺ .0.0 ˹z i d ₂ - d a ˺ 2. ˹s i -l a ₂ in-bi-i₃-li₂-šu ša e ₂ m u n u s˺ ˹ša ri-im-dsu ʾ en ˺ ˹z i - ga ˺ rev. 3. ˹š a ₃ ˺ e₂ a-si-ri 4. n iĝ ₂ - š u d s u ʾ en -še-mi

294

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

5. i t i s ig ₄ - a u d 10 -˹ ka m ˺ 6. ˹m u ri-im-da-nu-um˺ [luga l] -˹ e˺ up.e. 7. [u n ug k i u₃] ˹a ₂- d a m ˺ -[ b i] Translation: 1 20 liters of flour. 2si -la ₂-allocation of Inbi-ilīšu of the house of the women of Rīm-Sîn. 2–3Issued at the house of prisoners. 4Under the authority of Sîn-šeme. 5–7 Date. Sealing(s): on the lower edge, reverse, left and right edges On the left edge: [na-bi-i₃-li₂-šu] / b isaĝ -˹ du b ˺- [ b a ] / du m u la-ki-˹ta˺-[re-me-ni] / a r ad [ri-imd a-nu-um] [Nabi-ilīšu], b i s aĝ- du b -b a -official, son of Lakīta-[rēmēni], servant of [RīmAnum]

Nᵒ 8: FLP 1686 Measurements 3.4 x 3.4 x 1.3 cm Date: RīA 2/IV/5 Type: Management of prisoners and slaves obv. 1. Ii₃-li₂-u₂-ne-ni iri ˹ku-ta-al-la˺k i 2. ˹ša˺ i-na ab u l-˹me-e ˺ 3. ša be-˹la˺-nu-um lo.e. 4. ˹i r i x-ra-ma˺ 5. ub-lam rev. 6. nam-˹ḫar˺-ti d m a rdu k-˹mu-ši ˺-[zi-ib] ugu la šu- i 7. z i - ga n iĝ ₂ - šu ˹d su ʾ e n ˺ -še-mi ugu la a-si-ri 8. i t i š u- n u mu n -a u d 2 5-ka m up.e. 9. m u u n ug k i - ga 10. u₃ ˹a ₂ ˺ - d a m -b i

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

295

Translation: 1–5 Ilī-unnēnī of Kutalla, who was in Abul-mê, (and) whom Bēlānum of ? GN brought. 6–7Received by Marduk-mušēzib, the overseer of barbers. 7Issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the overseer of prisoners. 8–10Date. Notes: ln. 2: The location Abul-mê is also attested in Nᵒ 31. ll. 3–4: I wonder whether there is an iš-tu omitted in front of the GN. The translation would then be “whom Bēlānum brought from GN.” This is possible because there is a Bēlānum, ugu la MAR.TU, lu₂ Nazarum, attested in the corpus. This Bēlānum is also related to prisoners. If the preposition ištu is not missing, then there is another Bēlānum from outside Uruk besides the ugul a MAR.TU of Nazarum.

Nᵒ 9: FLP 1719 Measurements: 3.5 x 3.5 x 1.9 cm Date: RīA 2/V/24 Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.1.2.0.0 z i d ₃ u s ₂ te-er-˹di-tum ˺ a-na ĝ eš b u n 2. lu ₂ gu-ti-um 3. u₃ a-ḫi-a-tim lo.e. 4. z i - ga rev. 5. [š a ₃ e₂ ] ˹ a - s i ˺-r u m 6. [n iĝ₂ - š u ] ˹d s u ʾe n ˺ -še-mi 7. i t i ˹n e- n e ˺ - ga r u d 24-ka m 8. ˹mu ri-im-a n luga l˺ up.e. 9. ˹u nug k i - ga ˺ ˹u₃ a ₂ - d a m -b i˺ Translation: 1–3 80 liters of lesser-quality flour, additional delivery for the ĝešbu n -allocation of the man of Gutûm and dependents. 4–5Issued at the house of prisoners. 6 Under the authority of Sîn-šeme. 7–9Date. Sealing(s): illegible on the obverse, reverse and left edge.

296

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 10: FLP 2044 Measurements: 3.5 x 3.5 x 1.8 cm Date: 2/VI/22 Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.2.0.0.0 z i d ₂-˹ d a ˺ a-na ĝ e šb u n 2. lu ₂ gu-ti-um 3. lu ₂ k i - s u r- r a k i lo.e. 4. u₃ a-ḫi-a-tim rev. 5. ˹z i ˺ - [ ga ] 6. n iĝ ₂ - š u ˹d s u ʾe n ˺ -[še-mi] 7. i t i ˹k i n - d i na n n a u d 2 2˺ - [ ka m ] up.e. 8. [m u ] ˹ri-im˺-a n lugal 9. u n ug ˹ k i ˺ - ga 10. u₃ a ₂ - d a m- b i Translation: 1–4 120 liters of flour for the ĝ ešb u n -allocation of the man of Gutûm, the man of Kisura, and dependents. 5–6Issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme. 7–10Date. Sealing(s): illegible on the obverse, reverse, lower, left and right edges

Nᵒ 11: FLP 1681 Measurements: 3.7 x 4.0 x 1.7 cm Date: RīA 2/VI/30 Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. [….] ki [a]-˹na˺ ĝe šb u n 2. [lu ₂ k i ] - ˹ s ur ˺- r a k i 3. [lu ₂ gu]-ti-um 4. [u₃ a-ḫi-a]-tim lo.e. 5. ˹z i ˺ - ga

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

297

rev. 6. š a ₃ e₂ a - s i - r u m 7. n iĝ ₂ - š u d s u ʾ en -še-mi 8. i t i k i n - d i n a nn a u d 3 0 -ka m up.e. 9. [m u ] ri-im- a n luga l u nug k i - ga ˹u₃˺ [a ₂ - d am ]- ˹b i ˺ Translation: 1–4 […] for the ĝ e š b u n -allocation of the man of Kisura, the man of Gutûm, and dependents. 5–6Issued at the house of prisoners. 7Under the authority of Sînšeme. 8–9Date. Sealings: on the obverse, lower edge, reverse, upper, left and right edges On the reverse: 1. a-pil-i₃-li₂-šu / du m u ṭa₃-ab-ta-ar-d iĝ i r / ˹ar a d ˺ sa-am-su-i-lu-˹na ˺ Apil-ilīšu, son of Ṭāb-târ-ilī, servant of Samsu-iluna On the right and upper edges: 2. [na-bi-i₃-li₂-šu] / [b i saĝ] -˹ du b ˺- [ b a ] / [du m u la]-ki-ta-re-[me-ni] / [ar a d ri]-im-da-[nu-um] Nabi-ilīšu, b i s aĝ - du b - b a -official, son of Lakīta-rēmēni, servant of RīmAnum On the right edge: 3. d ˹ s u ʾ e n ˺-[i-din-nam] / [ du m u ] i-˹nu˺-[…]/ ˹ar a d˺ AN.AN.MAR.[TU] Sîn-iddinam, son of […], servant of AN.AN.MAR.TU

Nᵒ 12: FLP 1707 Measurements: 3.7 x 3.7 x 2.0 cm Date: RīA 2/VII/8 Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. […] ˹z i d ₂ - d a ˺ 2. [a-na] ˹ĝ eš b u n ˺ 3. [lu ₂ gu]-tu-um- m eš

298

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

4. [lu ₂ ] ˹x x x˺ k i - m e š lo.e. 5. [u₃ a]-˹ḫi ˺-a-tim rev. z i - ga 6. ˹š a ₃ e₂ a - s i- ru m ˺ 7. ˹n iĝ ₂ - š u ˺ d s u ʾ en -še-mi 8. i t i du ₆ -kug u d 8-ka m 9. ˹m u ri-im-da-nu-um ˺ luga l- e up.e. 10. ˹u nug k i u₃ a ₂- d a m -b i ˺ Translation: 1–5 [Amount] of flour for the ĝ ešb u n -allocation of the men of Gutûm, the men of GN, and dependents. 5–6Issued at the house of prisoners. 7Under the authority of Sîn-šeme. 8–10Date. Sealing(s): illegible on the obverse, reverse, upper, left and right edges On the left edge: […] / […] / a r a d ri-˹im˺-[…] […] / […] / servant of Rīm-[…] Note: ln. 3: GN written [gu]-tu-um instead of gu-ti-um, as frequent in other documents dated to Rīm-Anum.

Nᵒ 13: FLP 2017 Measurements: 3.0 x 3.0 x 1.6 cm Date: RīA 2/VII/24 Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.0.˹4˺. 5.0 zi d₂ - d a 2. ˹š u ku ˺ e₂ a-si-ri 3. ˹z i - ga ˺ rev. 4. ˹n iĝ ₂ - š u ˺ a-ḫu-˹wa-qar ˺ 5. ˹u₃ na-bi-dsuʾen˺

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

299

6. ˹i t i du ₆ -kug ˺ u d 14-ka m 7. mu ˹u n ug k i u₃ a ₂- d a m - b i˺

Translation: 1 45 liters of flour. 2š u ku-allocation of the house of prisoners. the authority of Aḫum-waqar and Nabi-Sîn. 6–7Date.

2–5

Issued under

Nᵒ 14: FLP 1792 Measurements: 3.6 x 4.0 x 2.0 cm Date: RīA 2/IX/[…] Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.1.0.0.0 z i d ₂ - d a a-na š u ku e ₂ 2. u₃ a-ḫi-a-tim z i - ga rev. 3. […] 4. […] 5. ˹i t i ga n - ga n - e ₃ u d ˺ [x-ka m ] 6. ˹mu ri-im-da˺-[nu-um luga l- e ] up.e. 7. ˹u nug k i u₃ a ₂ - d a m - b i˺

Translation: 1–2 60 liters of flour for the šu ku-allocation of the house and dependents. 2–4 Issued […]. 5–7Date.

Sealings: on the obverse, lower, left and right edges

On the obverse: na-bi-i₃-li₂-[šu] / b is aĝ - du b - [ b a ] / du m u la-˹ki˺-ta-[re-me-ni] / [a r ad ri-imd a-nu-um] Nabi-ilīšu, b i s aĝ- du b - b a -official, son of Lakīta-rēmēni, [servant of RīmAnum]

300

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Nᵒ 15: FLP 2040 Measurements: 3.0 x 3.0 x 1.7 cm Date: RīA 2/X/9 Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.0.3. ˹6˺ .0 zi d₂ -˹ d a ˺ ˹x ˺ 2. ˹š u ku e₂ a ˺-[si-ri] ˹z i ˺ - [ ga ] rev. 3. n iĝ ₂ - š u ˹na-bi-d su ʾ en ˺ 4. i t i ab - e ₃ - a u d 9-ka m 5. m u u n ug k i - ga up.e. ˹u₃˺ [a ₂ ] - d am -b i Translation: 1 36 liters of lesser-quality flour. 2šu ku-allocation of the house of prisoners. 2–3 Issued under the authority of Nabi-Sîn. 4–5Date. Sealing(s): very faint traces on the reverse, possibly an ar a d sign visible

Nᵒ 16: FLP 1867 Measurements: 3.5 x 3.1 x 1.1 cm Date: RīA 2/X/[…] Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.2.0.0.0 z i d ₂-˹d a ˺ a-na ˹ĝ e šb u n ˺ 2. ˹lu ₂ k i ˺ - s u r-[ r a ]˹ k i ˺ 3. ˹u₃ a ˺-[ḫi-a-tim] rev. ˹z i - ga ˺ 4. ˹š a ₃ e₂ a - s i -ru m ˺ 5. ˹n iĝ₂ - š u d s u ʾe n -še-mi ˺ up.e. 6. ˹i t i ab - e ₃ ˺ [u d x-ka m ]

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

301

7. ˹mu ˺ [ri]-˹im˺-[da-nu-um] 8. ˹u nug k i - ga ˺ 9. [u₃ a ₂ ] - ˹ d a m ˺- [ b i ] Translation: 1–3 120 liters of flour for the ĝ e šb u n -allocation of the man of Kisura and dependents. 3–4Issued at the house of prisoners. 5Under the authority of Sînšeme. 6–9Date.

Nᵒ 17: FLP 1729 Measurements: 3.7 x 3.5 x 1.7 cm Date: RīA 2/XI/3 Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.0.3.0.0 z i d ₂ -˹d a˺ 2. a-na er i n₂ - m eš mu-˹wa˺-[ar-ba-tim] 3. ša e₂ ša-˹ab˺-[ri-im] ˹ z i - ga ˺ lo.e. 4. š a ₃ e₂ a-si-[ri] rev. 5. [n iĝ₂ ] - ˹ š u ˺ d su ʾ en -še-[mi] ˹ugu l a ˺ a-˹si˺-[ri] 6. i t i z i z ₂ - a u d 3-kam 7. mu u n ug k i ˹u₃ a ₂ - d a m ˺- [ b i ] Translation: 1–3 30 liters of flour for the team of mu-wa-ar-ba-tim of the house of the šabrûmofficial. 3–4Issued at the house of prisoners. 5Under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the overseer of the prisoners. 6–7Date. Sealings: on the obverse, reverse, and upper, left and right edges [na-bi-i₃-li₂-šu] / [b is aĝ - du b - b a ] / du m u la-ki-˹ta˺-[re-me-ni] / a r ad [ri-imd a-nu-um] [Nabi-ilīšu, b i s aĝ - du b -b a -official], son of Lakīta-rēmēni, servant of [RīmAnum]

302

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Note: For the restoration of lines 2–3 see VAS 13 54: 2–3

Nᵒ 18: FLP 1718 Measurements: 4.0 x 4.5 x 1.5 cm Date: RīA 2/XI/17 Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.0.˹4˺.0.0 zi d₂ - d a 2. a-na š u ku mu-˹wa-ar-ba-tim˺ 3. ˹š a ₃ e₂ ša-ab-ri-im˺ 4. ˹ĝ i r i ₃ e˺-tel-pi₄- d u tu m u h a ld im ˹z i - ga ˺ 5. ˹š a ₃ e₂ a-si-ri ˺ 6. ˹n iĝ ₂ ˺ - š u d su ʾ e n -še-mi ˹ugu la a - si - ru m ˺ rev. 7. i t i z i z ₂ - a ud 17-ka m 8. m u ri-im-da-nu luga l- e 9. u n ug k i ˹u₃ a ₂˺ - d a m -b i Translation: 1–3 40 liters of flour for the šu ku-allocation of the mu-wa-ar-ba-tim at the house of the šabrûm-official. 4Conveyor: Etel-pī-Šamaš, the cook. 4–5Issued at the house of prisoners. 6Under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the overseer of the prisoners. 7–9Date. Sealings: illegible on the obverse, lower edge, reverse, upper, left and right edges.

Nᵒ 19: FLP 1690 Measurements: 3.0 x 3.0 x 1.7 cm Date: RīA 2/[…]/9 Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.1.4.0.0 z i d₂- d a 2. a-na ĝ e š b u n

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

303

3. ugu l a MAR.TU-m e š 4. ˹u₃˺ a-ḫi-a-tum lo.e. 5. z i - ga rev. 6. [š a ₃ ] ˹e ₂ ˺ a - s i- r u m 7. [n iĝ₂ ] - ˹ š u ˺ Id su ʾ e n -še-mi 8. [i t i …]-˹x˺- a u d 9-ka m lo.e. 9. [m u ri]-im-da-[nu-um luga l- e] 10. [u n ug ] k i - ga ˹u₃ - d a m -b i ˺ Translation: 1–4 100 liters of flour for the ĝ ešb u n -allocation of the Amorites leaders and dependents. 5–6Issued at the house of prisoners. 7Under the authority of Sînšeme. 8–10Date. Sealings: on the obverse, upper, left and right edges On the right edge: a-pil-d ˹ M A R .T U ˺ / du m u d iĝ ir-la m- [ē r i š] / [a r a d] d [MAR .TU] Apil-Amurrum, son of Ilam-[ēriš, servant of Amurrum] Notes: ln. 4: a-ḫi-a-tum instead of a-ḫi-a-tim Restoration of the sealing based on UF 10 40.

Nᵒ 20: FLP 2066 Measurements: 3.5 x 4.0 x 1.2 cm Date: RīA 2/[…]/[…] Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.2.3.0.0 z i d ₂ -˹d a ? ˺ a-na ˹ĝe š b u n ˺ 2. ugu l a MAR.TU lu ₂ ˹k i - su r- r a ˺[ k i ] 3. lu ₂ gu-ti-um lo.e. 3. ˹u₃ a-ḫi-a-tim ˺ z i - ga

304

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

rev. missing up.e. 1'. [m u ri-im]-a n luga l 2'. ˹u n ug k i - ga ˺ 3'. ˹u₃ a ₂ - d a m - bi ˺

Translation: 1–3 150 liters of flour for the ĝ ešb u n -allocation of the overseer of the Amorites, man of Kisura, of the man of Gutûm, and dependents. 3Issued […]. 1'-3'Date.

Sealings: on the obverse and left edge, illegible

Nᵒ 21: FLP 2249 Measurement: 3.5 x 4.0 x 1.2 cm Date: RīA […]/IX/[…] Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.1.4.0.0 z i d₂-[ d a ? ] a-na ˹ṣu ˺-[de-e] 2. du m u- m eš lu ₂ -˹ k iĝ ₂ ˺- [g i₄ - a ] 3. lu ₂ i ₃ - s i - [ i n] k i ˹z i - ga ˺ rev. 4. [š a ₃ e ₂ ] ˹a-si-ri ˺ 5. ˹n iĝ₂ - š u d s u ʾe n ˺-še-mi 6. ˹i t i ga n - ga n - e ₃ u d ˺ [x-ka m ] 7. m u ˹r i ˺-[im-da-nu-um luga l- e ]

Translation: 1–3 100 liters of flour for the ṣudû-allocation of the messengers […], (and) the man of Isin. 3–4Issued at the house of prisoners. 5Under the authority of Sînšeme. 6–7Date.

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

305

Sealings: on the obverse and lower and right edges, illegible Note: ln. 2: it is possible that a GN or a RN in the break qualified these messengers.

Nᵒ 22: FLP 2358 Measurements: 10.5 x 6.0 x 1.5 cm Date: [RīA?]/[…]/14 Type: Management of prisoners and slaves obv. 1. Ina-aš₂-su₂-a-bu-bu-um 2. Ia-wi-il-˹d s u ʾ en ˺ 3. Iri-iš-dza-ba₄-ba₄ 3 s aĝ - a r a d i r i ˹ al-x˺k i I 4. i₃-li₂ ḫi ˹zu? u₂ ˺ 5. Ia-ḫi-um-mi-šu 6. [I]du m u-d u t u 7. ˹I˺a-wi-˹il ˺- d i š ku r 8. ˹I ˺ d ˹ u t u ˺ -ra-bi 9. ˹I ˺ d ˹ u t u ˺-ta-ia-ar 10. ˹I ˺ a-di-du-um 7 s aĝ- a r ad-m e š lu ₂ e š₃ -n u n - n a ˹ k i ˺ l 11. [ ]lu-mur-gi--d u t u ˹x x˺ 8 s aĝ- a r a d-m eš ša ₃ ka ₂ - d iĝi r-˹ r a k i ˺ u₂-ša-ri-a-am ka s ka l k i -3 12. ˹I ˺ dšu- ˹ bu-la˺-qar-ra-ad 13. ˹I˺li-wi-˹ru-um ˺ lo.e. 14. ˹i-bi-d n i n - š u b u r˺ ˹3 s aĝ - a r a d- m e š i r i ? al? ˺-[…] rev. 15. […] li ˹x x x x ki˺ 16. […] ˹x x x x˺ AN [u₃]-˹ ša-ri-a ˺-[am] ˹ka ska l˺ k i -3 I 17. [ ]˹qa₂˺-aq-qa₃-du-um 18. [ša d]˹da-gan-ma-d iĝ ir ˺ [u₂]-˹ša-ri-a˺-am ka s ka l k i -˹1+˺

306 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

[…] ˹ ša iš-tu x x x x ˺ […] ˹x x˺-il-li-t im […] ˹x a-na x x˺ […] ˹x x˺ […] […]-˹me š ˺ […] ˹d s u ʾ e n˺-še-mi ugu la a-si-ru [i t i … u d ] 14-ka m […] ˹x˺ luga l

Translation: 1–3 Nâssu-abūbum, Awīl-Sîn, (and) Rīš-Zababa: 3 slaves of G[N]. 4–10Ilī-x-x-x, Aḫīummīšu, Mār-Šamaš, Awīl-Adad, Šamaš-rabi, Šamaš-tayyār, (and) Adīdum: 7 slaves, men of Ešnuna. 11(Plus) Lūmur-gimil-Šamaš ˹x x˺: 8 slaves that he had brought into Babylon (during) the third campaign. 12–14Šubula-qarrād, Liwwirum, (and) Ibbi-Ilabrat: 3 slaves of G[N]. 15–16[PN] whom [PN] had sent (from) the third campaign. 17–18Qaqqadum, [whom] Daganma-ilum sent (during) the ˹x˺ campaign. 19[PN] who from […], 20 PN, […]. 21–24too fragmentary for translation.25[…] Sîn-šeme, the overseer of prisoners. 26–27Date. Note: ln. 1: The PN na-aš₂-su₂-a-bu-bu-um is unattested and I do not know of personal names with the noun abūbum. Perhaps the first element should be understood as the morpho-graphemic writing of nâšu + pronominal suffix: Nâssu-abūbum: “His shaking is (like) the flood.” I thank Walter Farber for suggesting this explanation.

Nᵒ 23: FLP 1691 Measurements: 3.0 x 3.0 x 1.5 cm Date: RīA […]/[…]/[…] Type: Management of prisoners and slaves obv. 1. [I]˹be-le-su₂-nu˺ 2. ˹re˺-du-ut 3. I˹e-tel-pi₄˺-[d u tu ] 4. [u₃ d n i n -u r t a-a-bi] lo.e. 5. ˹š e š - a - n i ˺

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

307

rev. 6. [a-na m u n u s-u š-b a r ] 7. ˹nam-ḫa-ar ˺-[ti] 8. I30-be-[el-i₃-li₂] 9. ˹z i - ga ˺ up.e. 10. ˹niĝ ₂ - š u ˺ 30-še-[mi] ugu l a a-˹si-ri˺ le.e. 11. ˹x x˺ [….] 12. ˹x x˺ […] Translation: 1–5 Bēlessunu (in) the retinue of Etel-pī-Šamaš and his brother Ninurta-abī. 6For the female weavers. 7–8Received by Sîn-bēl-ilī. 9–10Issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the overseer of prisoners. 11–12Date lost. Note: Restorations based on Nisaba 4 II.55 and II.56

Nᵒ 24: FLP 1692 Measurements: 3.5 x 3.8 x 1.5 cm Date: RīA […]/[…]/[…] Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.1.0.0.0 ˹z i d ₂ - d a ˺ 2. ˹a-na ˺ š u ku e ₂ 3. ˹u₃ a ˺-ḫi-a-˹tum ˺ 4. ˹z i - ga ˺ ˹e₂ ˺ a - si -r u m rev. 5. ˹niĝ ₂ - š u d s u ʾe n ˺-še-mi Rest lost Translation: 1–2 60 liters of flour for the šu ku-allocation of the house and dependents. 4Issued at the house of prisoners. 5Under the authority of Sîn-šeme. Rest lost. Sealings: on obverse, lower and left edges [a-pil-d M A R .T U] / [du m u ] diĝir-lam-[ēriš] / [a r ad ] ˹ri ˺-im-an [Apil-Amurru, son] of Ilam-[ēriš], servant of Rīm-Anum

308

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Oriental Institute University of Chicago Nᵒ 25: A 4700 Measurements: 4.0 x 4.0 x 1.7 cm Date: RīA 1/X/7 Type: Memorandum obv. 1. I ˹ d ma rdu k ˺-na-ṣi-ir 2. I˹ib ˺-ni-d˹kab-ta˺ 3. 2 lu ₂ - ˹ k iĝ ₂ -g i ₄ -a - m e š˺ 4. ˹ša ˺ iš-tu ka₂ - d iĝi r-r a k i 5. ˹a-na ki - s u r-r a k i ˺ rev. 6. ṭup-pa-˹am˺ 7. ub-lu-nim 8. i t i ab - e ₃ u d 7-ka m 9. m u ri-˹im ˺-da-nu-um ˹luga l˺ Translation: 1–7 Marduk-nāṣir and Ibni-Kabta are the two messengers who carried a tablet from Babylon to Kisura. 8–9Date. Sealing(s): illegible, faint traces on the left edge

Nᵒ 26: A 4906 Measurements: 2.8 x 2.8 x 1.5 cm Date: RīA 2/IV/23 Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.0.˹5˺.0.0 z id₂ - ˹d a ˺ 2. ˹š u ku e₂ a-si-ri ˺ 3. ˹z i - ga ˺ rev. 4. n iĝ₂ - š u na-bi-˹ d su ʾ en ˺ 5. ˹i t i š u ˺ - n u mu n - a u d 2 3- ˹ka m ˺ up.e. 6. m u [ u n ug] ˹ k i ˺ -ga

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

7.

309

˹u₃ ˺ [a ₂ ] - ˹ d a m ˺-b i

Translation: 1 50 liters of flour. 2š u ku-allocation of the house of prisoners. the authority of Nabi-Sîn. 5–7Date.

3–4

Issued under

Sealing(s): illegible, faint traces on the obverse, lower edge, reverse and possibly on left and right edges.

Princeton Theological Seminary Nᵒ 27: PTS 12 Measurements: 4.0 x 3.7 x 1.5 cm Date: RīA 2/XII/5 Type: Cattle (dead animal), possibly not bīt asīrī obv. 1. 1 ˹x x˺ 2. […] ˹r i ˺-r i -˹ga ˺ 3. ša ˹na-kam-ti !˺ 4. ˹niĝ ₂ ˺ - š u dna-bi-um-ma-lik 5. u₃(erasure) d iĝi r -šu-ba-ni lo.e. 6. u₃ š a ₃ - t a m tap-pi₂-šu-nu 7. mu- t u m ₂ rev. 8. a-na e₂ -u z u 9. ĝi r i ₃ d i š ku r -˹ta˺-ia-ar 10. i t i š e -k i n -kud u d 5-ka m 11. mu u n ug k i - ga up.e. 12 u₃ a ₂ - d a m - b i Translation: 1–2 1 dead [animal], 3–6belonging to the store house under the authority of Nabium-mālik, Ilšu-bānî, and the šatammu-official, their partner. 7–8Brought to the meat house. 9Conveyor: Adad-tayyār. 10–12Date. Sealing(s): On the reverse: 1. […] ma […] / du m u d su [ʾ e n ]-ga-mil / […]

310

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

[PN], son of Sîn-gāmil, […] On the left edge: 2. [na-bi-i₃-li₂-šu] / [b isaĝ] - du b - [ b a ] / [du m u ] la-ki-ta-˹r e˺-[me-ni] / [ar a d ri-im]-an [Nabi-ilīšu, b isaĝ ]- du b -b a , son of Lakīta-rēmēni, [servant] of Rīm-Anum. Notes: Readings of lines 1, 3, and 8 suggested by M. Stol ln. 8: e₂ -u z u , literally “meat house.” See CAD N s.v. nasru and AHw, p. 755a s.v. nasrum. For a discussion of the institution see chapter 4 II.7 p. 64

Yale University Nᵒ 28: MLC 2679 Measurements: 11.3 x 6.1 x 3.0 cm Date: RīA 1/VIII/24 Type: Management of prisoners and slaves

obv. 1. Ibi x x x x 2. Išar-rum-d i š ku r 3. Ibu-˹x˺-zi-ti 4. I˹na-bi-um-mu-ša?-lim?˺ 5. Ix-[…] x x x 6. Ix x x x 7. I˹d˺[m a rdu k]-˹na˺-ṣi-ir x 8. u₃ [gi-mil-lum še š-a - n i ] 9. ĝ i r i ₃ a-˹wi-il˺-[…] 10. Ix-˹x˺-[…] 11. I˹dx x˺ […] 12. I˹x˺-[…] 13. I˹x x x˺ 14. I[…] 15. ˹I˺[…] 16. ˹I˺[…] 17. 1 ˹x zi˺-[…] 18. 1 ˹x˺ iš₈-tar₂-um-mi

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

311

19. 1 ˹x ˺ a-na-iš₈-tar₂-at-kal 20. 1 ˹x ˺ dna-bi-um-dum-qi₂ 5 s aĝ d i l i 6 m u n u s- saĝ d i li 21. ˹e-zu-ub ˺ 3 la-bi-ru-tim lo.e. 22. ˹ša d m a rdu k ˺-na-ṣi-ir ša-pi₂-ir id₂ a-sur-rum 23. ˹ĝ i r i ₃ ˺ a-wi-il-iš₈-tar₂ du m u e₂ ! - du b -b a - a rev. 24. [I]i-din-d a s a l- ˹lu ₂˺ -h i 25. I˹i₃-li₂˺-a-wi-lim-˹ra˺-bi 26. ša e₂-a-šar-i₃-li₂ a d- K I D 27. ĝ i r i ₃ e-ṭi-rum aga ₃ -u s₂ ? 28. Ii₃-li₂-ba-aš-ti 29. Ii₃-li₂-˹ x ˺ du m u-n i 30. 1 du m u- gab a li-˹wi ˺-ir- d i n an n a du m u- n i 31. ša zi-im-ri-d i š ku r 32. Ii₃-li₂-tap-pi₂ ˹ša e₂ ? ˺ a r a d- d u t u x x x x 33. I u t u-ma-gir ša 30-nu-ur₂-ma-tim 34. ˹ š u ˺ - n ig i n ₂ 24 saĝ-ge m e ₂ -a r a d 35. m u- t u m₂ i-na u d 24-ka m 36. 39(partially erased) 37. i t i ap i n - du ₈ -a u d 24-ka m 38. m u ri-im- da-nu lugal- e Translation: 1–8 [PN], Šarrum-Adad, PN, Nabium-mušallim?, PN, PN [in the retinue of] [Marduk]-nāṣir and [Gimillum, his brother]. 9Conveyor: Awīl-[…]. 10–20 I[…], I[…], I[…], I […], I[…], I[…], I[…], 1 ˹x˺ […], 1 ˹x˺ Ištar-ummī, 1 ˹x˺ Ana-Ištar-atkal, 1 ˹x˺ Nabium-dumqī. (Total:) 5 male slaves alone, 6 female slaves alone, 21–22apart from 3 elderly people belonging to Marduk-nāṣir, the šāpirum-official of the Asurrum canal district. 23Conveyor: Awīl-Ištar, the scribe. 24–26Iddin-Asalluhi, (and) Ili-awīlim-rabi belonging to Ea-šar-ilī, the reed worker. 27Conveyor: Ēṭirum, the soldier?. 28–31Ilī-baštī (and) Ilī-[…], her son, 1 male baby: LiwwirIštar, her son, belonging to Zimrī-Adad. 32Ilī-tappê belonging to the house of Warad-Šamaš […]. 33Šamaš-māgir belonging to Sîn-nūr-mātim. 34Total: 24 male and female slaves. 35Brought on the 24th day. 3639. 37–38Date. Notes: ll. 7–8: The restoration of the names Marduk-nāṣir and Gimillum, his brother, is based on other attestations where they appear together as slave owners (e.g.,

312

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

BM 88930:3 and Nisaba 4 II.45:r2–4). It is likely that line 6 contains the name of the slave followed by rēdûtim ša (or simply rēdût), as is the case in the other two documents recording Marduk-nāṣir and his brother Gimillum. This interpretation seems to be supported by the fact that every group of slaves is followed by the “master(s).” That is the case in lines 22, 26, and 31. Note also that the total provided in line 34 of the reverse is 24 male and female slaves. We then have: 6 slaves (ll. 1–9) belonging to [Marduk]-nāṣir and [Gimillum] + 11 slaves (total in the indentation of line 20) belonging to Mārduk-nāṣir, the šāpir Asurrum, + 2 slaves belonging to Ea-šar-ilī (ll. 24–27) + 3 slaves belonging to Zimrī-Adad (ll. 28–31) + 1 slave belonging the house of Warad-Šamaš (ln. 32) + 1 slave belonging to Sîn-nūr-mātim (ln. 33). ln. 35: It is not clear to me what does the partially erased number 39 stand for.

Nᵒ 29: MLC 2565 Measurements: 3.7 x 3.7 x 2.1 cm Date: RīA 2/I/1 Type: Management of prisoners and slaves

obv. 1. I d m a rdu k-i-din-nam 2. ša i₃-li₂-ba-ni-i 3. ša a-na d s u ʾen -a-ḫi-i-din-˹nam aga ₃˺ -u s₂ luga l 4. […] g i b i l 5. […] ˹luga l ?˺ lo.e. 6. [z i ]-˹ga ˺ rev. 7. š a ₃ e₂ aĝ r ig 8. n iĝ ₂ - š u d n i n- ˹u r ta - m a ˺ -a n - su m 9. u₃ ap-[pa-an]-i₃-li₂ 10. ĝ i r i ₃ 30-še-mi ugu la a-si-ri 11. i t i b a r a ₂ -z ag- ga r u d 1-ka m up.e. 12. m u ri-im-da-nu-um ˹luga l˺ 13. uĝ₃ s u h₃ - a - b i le.e. 14. s i b i ₂ - i n - s i- sa ₂

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

313

Translation: 1–5 Marduk-iddinam belonging to Ilī-bānî, who to Sîn-aḫḫī-iddinam, the royal soldier […]. 6–7Issued at the house of the aĝrig-official. 8–9Under the authority of Ninurta-mansum and Appān-ilī. 10Conveyor: Sîn-šeme, the overseer of the prisoners. 11–14Date.

Nᵒ 30: MLC 845 Measurements: 3.0 x 3.0 x 2.1 cm Date: RīA 2/II/11 Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.0.5.0.0 ˹z i d ₂ ˺- [d a ? ] 2. ˹š u ku ˺ e₂ a-si-˹ri˺ 3. ˹z i - ga ˺ rev. 4. ˹ n iĝ ₂ - š u ˺ [a-ḫu-wa-qar] 5. u₃ [na]-˹bi˺-[d s u ʾ en ] 6. ˹i t i gu d ˺- s i - s i(sic) u d 1 1-˹ ka m ˺ up.e. 7. ˹mu u n ug ˺[k i ]- ga 8. u₃ a ₂ - ˹ d a m- b i˺ Translation: 1 50 liters of flour. 2šu ku-allocation of the house of prisoners. the authority of Aḫum-waqar and Nabi-Sîn. 6–8Date. Sealing(s): illegible

Nᵒ 31: MLC 1005 Measurements: 3.5 x 3.4 x 1.9 cm Date: RīA 2/III/12 Type: Management of prisoners obv. 1. I d m a rdu k-ga-mil ša ˹x x˺ °erasure° 2. Iat-kal-a-na-d u tu

3–5

Issued under

314

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

3. ša i₃-li₂-i-din-nam e₂ ? ˹x x x˺ 4. ša i-na ab u l-me-e lo.e. 5. u₂-te-er-ru-˹ni-šu-nu˺-[ti] 6. x […] rev. 7. I […] 8. ša i₃-˹li₂˺-[i-din-nam?] 9. ĝ i r i ₃ […] x […] °erasure° 10. i t i s ig ₄ - a u d 12-ka m 11. m u u n ug k i u₃ a₂ - d a m - b i Translation: 1 Marduk-gāmil belonging to […] and 2–3Atkal-ana-Šamaš, belonging to Ilī-iddinam […], 4–5who were captured in Abul-mê. 6[…], 7[PN], 8belonging to Ilī-[iddinam]. 9Conveyor: [PN]. 10–11Date.

Nᵒ 32: MLC 1587 Measurements: 6.0 x 4.1 x 2.3 cm Date: RīA 2/V/13 Type: Management of prisoners and slaves obv. 1. I d m a rdu k-le-qe₂-e-un-ne-nim 2. ša er₃-ra-na-ṣi-ir 3. ˹I˺ra-pa-aš-x-d m a rdu k 4. ˹ša˺ dna-bi-um-im-gur-an-˹ni ˺ 5. [I]i₃-li₂-ma-a-bi 6. [I]du t u--ma-an-ni 7. ˹2˺ s aĝ- a r a d ša i₃-li₂-ia-˹tum˺ rev. two or three lines missing 1'. [nam-ḫa-ar]-ti ˹e˺-tel-pi₄-du t u 2'. ˹z i - ga !˺ 3'. ˹n iĝ₂ - š u d s u ʾe n -še-mi ˺ 4'. ugu l a a-si-˹ri ˺ 5'. [i t i n e] - ˹ n e ˺-ga r u d 13-ka m

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

315

up.e. 6'. [m u u n ug k i ] u₃ a ₂ - d a m -b i Translation: 1–2 Marduk-leqê-unnēnim, belonging to Erra-nāṣir. 3–4Rapaš-x-Marduk, belonging to Nabium-imguranni. 5–7Ilīma-abī (and) Šamaš-rēmanni, two slaves belonging to Ilīyatum. […] 1'Received by Etel-pī-Šamaš. 2'-4'Issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the overseer of the prisoners. 5'-6'Date. Sealing(s): illegible Note: ln. 3. Perhaps to be read ˹I˺ra-pa-aš-tu r ₃ -d m a rdu k, Rapaš-tarbaṣ-Marduk.

Nᵒ 33: MLC 1592 Measurements: 6.6 x 4.4 x 2.4 cm Date: RīA 2/VI/1 Type: Management of prisoners and slaves

obv. 1. [1 s aĝ - gem e ₂ ] ˹d˺na-na-˹a-ta˺-ia-ra-at 2. ˹re-du-tum ˺ 3. ša d m a rdu k -na-ṣi-ir 4. u₃ gi-mil-lum 5. 1 mu n u s- š u- gi a-ma-at-dša-la 6. ša a r a d- dba!-˹u₂˺ 7. 2 s aĝ - gem e- ˹ m e š˺ rev. 8. a-na mu n u s-uš -b a r-m eš 9. nam-ḫa-ar-ti Ie-ri-ba-am-˹d su ʾ e n ˺ 10. z i - ˹ ga ˺ 11. n iĝ ₂ - š u d ˹ s u ʾen ˺-še-˹mi ˺ 12. ugu l a ˹a˺-si-˹ri ˺ 13. ˹i t i ˺ k i n - d i n an n a u d ˹ 1-ka m ˺ 14. [m u u n ug ] k i -ga 15. [u₃ a ₂ ] - d a m- b i

316

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Translation: 1–4 1 female slave, Nanâ-tayyārat, (in) the retinue of Marduk-nāṣir and Gimillum. 5–61 old woman, Amat-Šala, belonging to Warad-Baʾu. 7–82 female slaves for the weavers. 9Received by Erībam-Sîn. 10–12Issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the overseer of the prisoners. 13–15Date. Sealing: i-ri-ba-am-d [ s u ʾ en ] / du m u d su ʾ e n -i-[…] / a r a d d[…] Irībam-Sîn, son of Sîn-i-[…], servant of […]

Nᵒ 34: MLC 838 Measurements: 3.9 x 3.8 x 2.0 cm Date: RīA 2/VI/4 Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.0.˹4˺.0.0 z id ₂ -˹ d a ˺ 2. š u ku e₂ a - si -ru m 3. z i - ga lo.e. 4. n iĝ₂ - š u a-ḫu-wa-qar rev. 5. u₃ na-bi-d s u ʾen ! 6. i t i k i n -d i n an n a u d 4-ka m 7. ˹m u u n ug˺ k i u₃ a ₂ - d a m -b i Translation: 1 40 liters of flour. 2šu ku-allocation of the house of prisoners. the authority of Aḫum-waqar and Nabi-Sîn. 6–7Date.

3–5

Issued under

Sealing(s): illegible Note: ln. 5: Although the last sign of the PN is defective, this person has to be NabiSîn, who appears frequently together with Aḫum-waqar.

Nᵒ 35: MLC 1621 Measurements: 6.2 x 4.5 x 2.4 cm Date: RīA 2/VII/26 Type: Management of prisoners

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

317

obv. 1. Ii₃-li₂-uṣ-ra-an-ni 2. Idšu-bu-la-a-bi 3. Ilem-nu-um-li-mu-ut 4. I d MAR.TU-tukul-ti 5. Ili-bur?-ṣi-nu-um 6. Iki-tum-li-iz-zi-iz 7. I s ig-iš₈-tar₂ rev. 8. 7 s aĝ- a r a d- m e š 9. ša i₃-li₂-ma-d iĝ ir 10. ša a-na e₂ aĝ rig 11. n iĝ ₂ - š u du m u-ka ₂ - d iĝi r-r a k i 12. a-na ku-ul-li-im 13. na-ad-nu 14. i t i du ₆ -kug ud 2 6-ka m up.e. 15 mu u n ug k i u₃ a ₂ - d a m -˹ b i˺

Translation: 1–7 Ilī-uṣranni, Šubula-abī, Lemnum-limūt, Amurrum-tukultī, Libūr-ṣēnum, Kittum-lizziz, (and) Ipqu-Ištar. 8–137 male slaves belonging to Ilīma-ilum, who were given to the house of the aĝr ig under the authority of Mār-Bābilum in order to be available. 14–15Date.

Note: ll. 3 and 5: As far as I know, the personal names Lemnum-limūt (“May the enemy die”) and Libūr-ṣēnum (“May the flock prosper”) are unattested. ln. 12: the verb kullum (here infinitive in the genitive case) has the meanings to hold, to detain a person as a pledge, to have possession. See CAD K s.v. kullu mng 4 d). Following M. Stol’s suggestion, I translate ana kullim “in order to be available” (personal communication, 09/23/2011).

Nᵒ 36: MLC 847 Measurements: 3.0 x 2.9 x 2.1 cm Date: RīA 2/VIII/20 Type: Flour allocation

318

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

obv. 1. 0.1.0.0.0 ˹z i d ₂ - d a ˺ 2. ˹š u ku e₂ a-si ˺-[ri] 3. z i - ˹ ga ˺ 4. n iĝ₂ - š u ˹na-bi ˺-[d su ʾ e n ] rev. 5. ˹i t i ap i n ˺-du ₈- a u d 2 0 - [ ka m ] 6. ˹m u ˺ u n ug k i u₃ ˹a₂ - d a m ˺ -[ b i] Translation: 1 60 liters of flour. 2šu ku-allocation of the house of prisoners. the authority of Nabi-Sîn. 5–6Date.

3–4

Issued under

Sealing(s): illegible

Nᵒ 37: MLC 842 Measurements: 3.2 x 3.3 x 2.2 cm Date: RīA 2/VIII/30 Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. 0.0.5.3.0 ˹z i d ₂ - d a ˺ 2. š u ku ˹e₂ a-si- ri ˺ 3. ˹z i - ga ˺ 4. ˹n iĝ ₂ - š u na-bi-d su ʾ en ˺ rev. 5. ˹i t i ap i n - du ₈-a u d 3 0˺ - [ ka m ] 6. m u ˹u n ug˺ k i -ga 8. ˹u₃ a ₂ ˺ - d a m -b i Translation: 1 53 liters of flour. 2šu ku-allocation of the house of prisoners. the authority of Nabi-Sîn. 5–8Date. Sealing(s): illegible

Nᵒ 38: MLC 844 Measurements: 3.7 x 3.5 x 2.0 cm Date: RīA 2/VIII?/[…] Type: Flour allocation

3–4

Issued under

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

319

obv. 1. ˹1˺.0.0.0.0 ˹z i d ₂ - d a˺ 2. ˹š u ku ˺ e₂ a-si-ri 3. z i - ga 4. n iĝ ₂ - ˹ š u ˺ a-ḫu-wa-qar rev. 5. i t i ˹ap i n ?˺-[du ₈- a u d x-ka m ] 6. ˹mu u n ug ˺[k i -ga ] up.e. 7. u₃ ˹a ₂ - d a m ˺ - [ b i ] Translation: 1 300 liters of flour. 2šu ku-allocation of the house of prisoners. 3–4Issued under the authority of Aḫum-waqar. 5–7Date. Sealing(s): illegible

Nᵒ 39: NCBT 1845 Measurements: 3.6 x 3.6 x 2.4 cm Date: RīA 3/II/15 Type: administrative(?) obv. 1. 30 ˹gi˺ib₂? ba ig ru 2. mu- t u m ₂ d ni n-u r t a- d iĝi r 3. du b - s a r e n - n u e ₂- ˹ gal˺ lo.e. 4. nam-˹ḫa˺-ar-ti 5. Ia-pil-i₃-li₂-˹šu˺ rev. 6. i t i gu ₂ (sic)-s i - s a ₂ u d 1 5-˹ ka m ˺ 7. mu ri-im-da-nu luga l 8. s a h a r b a - du b ? - b a -a - ba 9. ˹ m i ˺ - n i - i n - š a r₂ - ša r ₂ Translation: 1–3 30 reed objects? brought by Ninurta-ilum, the scribe of the royal guard. 4–5 Received by Apil-ilīšu. 6–9Date.

320

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

Note: ln. 1: the sign ˹gi˺ after the number 30 suggests that these are objects made out of reed, but I cannot offer an interpretation for this string of signs.

Nᵒ 40: MLC 843 Measurements: 3.4 x 3.3 x 2.1 cm Date: RīA […]/II/3 Type: Flour allocation obv. 1. ˹0.1.2.5?˺.0 2. š u ku ˹e₂ a-si-ri ˺ 3. ˹z i - ga ˺ lo.e. 4. ˹85?˺ rev. 5. ˹n iĝ ₂ - š u a-ḫu-wa˺-[qar] 6. ˹u₃ na-bi˺-[d s u ʾ e n ] 7. gu d- s i- s a ₂ u d 3-˹ ka m ˺ 8. m u […] Translation: 1 85 liters of flour. 2šu ku-allocation of the house of prisoners. the authority of Aḫum-waqar and Nabi-Sîn. 7–8Date.

3–6

Issued under

Note: ln. 4: The signs are d i š, a small Winkelhaken, and a partially broken sign that consists of 4+ vertical wedges on top of another wedge. There seems to be another wedge between the Winkelhaken and the other numeral. It is not clear to me how to read this number because of the break. Perhaps this is to be understood as 60 + 10 + ˹10?˺ +5 = 85. This number would agree with the amount of flour allocated, and the fact that it was written on the lower edge may mean that it was an annotation to spot the amount easily. It is worth mentioning, however, that the practice is unattested in other tablets of the bīt asīrī archive.

Nᵒ 41: MLC 1590 Measurements: 5.6 x 4.3 x 2.1 cm Date [RīA]/IX/24

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

321

Type: Management of prisoners obv. 1. ˹2˺ s aĝ ˹x x z a ˺- d i m 2. š a ₃ ? ˹x˺ za x re? um 3. ˹x x-un-ni ˺-d ut u ˹n aga r˺ 4. š a ₃ x x x iš₈-tar₂ ugu la ? ! e ₂ x […] du m u a-na-d u t u -ta-ki-il 5. lu ₂ -ma-nu-um ˹ naga r˺ lo.e. 6. ša d s u ʾ en -iš-me-a-ni du m u a-na-tum rev. 7. 3 s aĝ - a r a d du m u- m e š um-mi!-a-ni 8. ša a-na iš₈-tar₂-diĝi r z a - d i m 9. ˹pa*-aq*-du*˺ 10. ˹z i ˺ - ga 11. [n iĝ₂ - š u ] ˹s u ʾen ˺-še-mi 12. ugu l a lu ₂ a-si-ri up.e. 13. [i t i ga n ] - ga n - e₃ u d 24-ka m 14. [m u …] x […] Translation: 1 2 slaves […], bow maker. 2Fragmentary for translation. 3[…]-unni-Šamaš, the carpenter. 4[…]-Ištar overseer of the house? […], son of Ana-Šamaš-takil. 5–6 Awīl-Mānum, the carpenter, belonging to Sîn-išmeanni, son of Anatum. 7–9 3 male slaves, craftsmen, who were entrusted to Ištar-ilum, the bow-maker. 10–12 Issued under the authority of Sîn-šeme, the overseer of prisoners. 13–14Date. Notes: The upper half of the obverse is eroded and certain signs are difficult to read. I collated the tablet from a picture and could rarely offer alternative readings. ln. 1: the signs preceding za - d i m are difficult to read because they are poorly preserved. ln. 2: eroded. ln. 5: the last sign of this line is unclear. I interpret lu₂ -ma-nu-um as a personal name, Awīl-Mānum. There are attestations of Awīl-GN (e.g. Lu₂-Uruk in UET 5 703:6). ln. 8: Ištar-ilum with the title za d i m i s a t te sted in a number of other tablets (e.g., YOS 14 340, BaM 31 303 + sealing, Nisaba 4 II 75 + sealing). Note the

322

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

syllabic spelling of the title z a d im , also attested in Nisaba 4 II.75:5, 6. Elsewhere in the archive Ištar-ilum’s title is written logographically z ad im (e.g., YOS 14 370:7, BaM 31 308:3, Nisaba 4 275:6). As far as I know, the syllabic spelling is usually za-dim₂, although an Old Babylonian lexical list from Kiš has z a d i m z a - d im (MSL 14 p. 110 Nᵒ 1.1. col. ii' 2'). ln. 9: The first two signs are damaged and the last one is poorly written. My collation from the picture suggests the reading ˹pa-aq-du˺. The stative of paqādu is attested in a similar context (e.g., Nisaba 4 II.21:r1).

Nᵒ 42: MLC 1591 Measurement: 5.4 x 4.0 x 1.9 cm Date: undated Type: Allocation of (grain/flour) to prisoners

obv. 1. 2 (gu r) I30-im-gur-an-ni ša ˹x˺-[…] 2. 2 (gu r) Ii₃-li₂-ka₃-ši-id ˹ša gi-mil˺-lum 3. 3 (gu r) I d K A. D I -re-me-ni ša ˹x x x x˺-ti 4. 3 (gu r) I ga z- d u t u ša gi-mil-lum x x 5. 2 (gu r) I d m a rdu k-a-bi 2 šu- i ˹ša gi-mil-lum ˺ 6. 2 (gu r) Ii₃-li₂-ti-la-ti 7. ˹š u ˺ - [ nig i n₂ ] ˹6˺ lu ₂ a-si-ri ša ĝe ₂-p a r ₃ rev. not inscribed Translation: 1 600 liters (for) Sîn-imguranni belonging to [PN], 2600 liters (for) Ilī-kāšid belonging to Gimillum, 3900 liters (for) Ištaran-rēmēni belonging to PN, 4900 liters (for) Gaz-Utu belonging to Gimillum […], 5600 liters (for) Marduk-abī, 2 barber(s) belonging to Gimillum. 6600 liters (for) Ilī-tillatī. 7Total: 6 prisoners of the ĝ e ₆ -p a r ₃ . Notes: This text, if it comes from the bīt asīrī of Uruk, is rather unusual considering the extant tablets. It is unique because it is the only allotment of grain for prisoners that has survived. Although the text could also have come from Larsa (but note, against this possibility, the writing a-si-ri, instead of the a-si₂-ri from texts from the kingdom of Larsa), I included it here because a number of PNs

Appendix 1: Autographs and text editions

323

are attested from the house of prisoners. Gimillum, for instance, is attested as master of slaves in texts from the bīt asīrī (see BM 88930, MLC 1592, Nisaba 4 II.45). There is a Sîn-imguranni belonging to Gimil-ilī recorded as a dead man (Nisaba 4 II.31). ll. 5–6: Although the annotation 2 šu-i ˹ša gi-mi-lum˺ was written on line 5, one wonders whether the scribe went a line up when perhaps the annotation should have been written in line 6 after the name Ilī-tillatī. Note that there is an Ilī-tillatī recorded as šu- i ša Narām-šarūr (Nisaba 4 II.80:r5).

Appendix 2: Collations Note: the asterisk (*) following a sign indicates collation and emendation of a reading. CDLJ 2007/1 § 3.47: rev. 4'-5': mu* ˹ri*-im*-d*a*-nu*˺-[um lugal-e] / ˹ma*-da* e*-mu*-ut*-ba*˺[lum]. I collated the year name from a high resolution digital picture provided by Paula Metzner from the Kalamazoo Valley Museum. Nisaba 4 I.2: (BM 15596) rev. 1: u d 17*-ka m Nisaba 4 I.3: (BM 15606) obv.: 1: 3(b a n ₂) * 6 1/2 ˹si la ₃*˺. rev. 2: the line is partially erased, but the day seems to be ˹ud 15˺-[ka m]. rev.: 3: there is nothing written after mu ri-im-da-nu-˹um˺. This is then RīA 1. Nisaba 4 I.4: (BM 22734) obv. 3: lu ₂ UD*.UNUGki.GA. The GN is Larsa not Uruk. rev. 3: u d ˹ 5 * ? ˺-ka m Seal 1: e-te-el-pi₄-d * ˹ g ir ₃* ˺ - [r a ] Seal 2: wu-su-um-˹nu*-x*-x*˺ [du m u i-din-iš₈-tar₂ / ar ad d n in - si ₄-a nn a ]. I took high resolution pictures of this sealing but I could not see the signs after wussum-nu-[…]. This sealing is rolled on the obverse of the tablet at least three times. At least twice the sealings are superimposed. Restoration of the rest of the sealing is based on Nisaba 4 I.5. Nisaba 4 I.5: (BM 23248) obv. 3: e₂ - duru ₅ - b i ₂ ! * -˹ ša ₆ ? * ˺ k i . The bi ₂ sign is distorted, possibly due to the pressure when the seal was rolled on the surface. Of the sign ˹š a ₆ ˺ only traces are visible. For this geographic name in the bīt asīrī corpus see also Nisaba 4 II.9:4 and RlAA Nᵒ 244:2. Thanks are due M. Stol for sending me his notes on this GN. Seal 2: ˹wu*˺-su*-um*-[nu-…] / du m u i-˹din*˺-[iš₈-tar₂] / ar a d d n i n- si ₄ a n - [ n a ]. Seals 1 and 2 are the same as in Nisaba 4 I.4. Nisaba 4 I.10: (BM 22722) Seal 2: ˹wu˺-su*-˹um*˺-nu* -˹x x˺ / du m u i-din-iš₈*-tar₂* / ar ad d n i n- si ₄ a n - n a . Same sealing appears in I.4 and I.5. Nisaba 4 I.11: (BM 15676) obv. 1: 1(PI)* 5 sila ₃ *

Appendix 2: Collations

325

Nisaba 4 I.17: (BM 23209) obv. 1: 1(PI)* […] ˹z i d ₂˺* rev. 3: ˹b a r a ₂ -zag˺-[gar ] Nisaba 4 I.19: (BM 15692) rev. 6: collation confirms that the day is 16-[ka m], without question mark. Nisaba 4 I.21: (BM 22727) obv. 3: i₃-li₂-a-a-e*-ni*-iš*. obv. 6: lu ₂ ka₂ *- d iĝ ir * -r a * k i * Nisaba 4 I.25: (BM 23221) obv. 3: u₃ be-li-qar*-ra-ad*. The reading Bēlī-qarrād was suggested to me by M. Stol (personal communication 9/23/2011) and confirmed by my collation (12/09/2011). Nisaba 4 I.28: (BM 23259) obv. 1: 1 (PI) 4(b a n ₂ ) * rev. 1: ˹z i * ˺-[ga* ]. Rositani omitted this indented line, which is the first line of the reverse. rev. 2: š a ₃ * ˹e₂ * a˺-[si-ri] rev. 3: n iĝ - š u ugu la a - si- ru m Nisaba 4 I.41: (BM 16439) obv. 1: ˹1(PI)*˺ […] ˹z i d ₂*˺ u s₂ obv. 3: […] ˹ k i * ˺- m e š obv. 4: […] ˹ k i * ˺- m e š Nisaba 4 I.46: (BM 22726) obv. 3: lu ₂ k i - ˹su r * -r a * k i ˺ Nisaba 4 I.49: (BM 85414) obv. 1: 1(PI) […]* z id ₂*-˹d a *˺. There is a short trace of the lower part of a vertical wedge in the broken space, but this may be the result of an erased (not a broken) sign. Nisaba 4 I.59: (BM 16430) obv. 4: the only safe reading is the initial ša. If the last sign is indeed –am, this word could be the object of the verb wabālum in the next line. obv. 5: ˹ub*-lu*-nim˺ Nisaba 4 I.65: (BM 16456) rev. 1: š a ₃ at the beginning of the line. rev. 4: m u * ri*-im*-d*a*-nu*-um* luga l* - e * / ˹n u mu n˺ - da -r i ₂ n amen - n a -ke₄

326

Appendix 2: Collations

Sealing 2: d m ardu k-na-ṣi-ir is the name in the first line. I could only see traces for the rest of the lines. Nisaba 4 I.66: (BM 22725) obv. 3: gu-ti--um Nisaba 4 II.1: (BM 16414) obv. 1: Idna-bi-um-šu-ul-˹li-ma*-ni*˺ rev. 1: I cannot read the personal name. rev. 2: In my opinion, the signs do not sustain the reading Šamaš-gāmil. Nisaba 4 II.2: (BM 16389) obv. 4: d luga l-˹x x x˺ obv. 7: a-na-pa-ni-d u t u-˹na*-di˺, the signs na-di are right, although squeezed when the clay was wet. obv. 11: […] ˹a*-bi*-li˺-bu-ra*, namely, Abī-liburram. rev. 8'.: lu-˹ša*-lim*˺-ba-aš-ti rev. 9': ša i₃-[li₂ …]-am*-[…]-˹x˺ rev. 10': ˹13*˺ at the beginning of the line. rev. 12': ˹nam-ḫa-ar*˺-ti Nisaba 4 II.3: (BM 26307) obv. 1: tak₃ instead of tak! in the PN. obv. 12: tum instead of ṭum in the PN. rev. 4: ˹šu*-ḫu-zi-im˺. sealing: 3. [a r a d ] d˹MAR*˺.[TU] Nisaba 4 II.4: (BM 22715) obv. 4: Idi n a nn a -˹ki *˺-[ma]*-um-mi obv. 5: Id˹x x˺-la-ma*-si₂ rev. 2: I˹šu*˺-ru-uš*-ki-in* rev. 17. [n iĝ ₂] - ˹ šu *˺ at the beginning of the line. Nisaba 4 II.5: (BM 86034) obv. 1: Idda-du-˹um*-ra*˺-bi obv. 2: Ia-li-a-at-iš₈*-tar₂* obv. 3: du mu-n i * after du m u- gab a . obv. 6: the signs of the PN are me* ib* im*, which are difficult to explain. Nisaba 4 II.6: (BM 15.663) obv. 1: ša ˹x-x-x˺-x-x ugu la e ₂ ? . This line is difficult and the reading problematic. The first sign is ša. The second sign is not pa. It is written as two parallel horizontal wedges and two parallel vertical wedges. It looks more like u₂. The reading ˹ni-šu˺ for the third and fourth signs is

Appendix 2: Collations

327

not guaranteed because the surface is eroded. The fifth and the sixth signs are definitely not lu-mur. The first sign of this sequence is possibly giš and the next one looks like ˹mu˺. For the last two signs, the reading PA.PA is also problematic. The first is certainly a PA sign, but the next one looks more like an e ₂ . obv. 5: I suggest the reading ˹ša i-na ĝ i ₆-p a r ₃ i t i ne -n e-ga r u d-2-kam˺. However, the only perfectly clear signs are ša i-na ĝi₆ and ne-ne Nisaba 4 II.8: (BM 22733) obv. 1: 1 s aĝ * - a r a d * a-ḫu-šu-nu obv. 2: ša ṣil₂-li₃-d u t u e ₂ * ˹a-˹su*?˺-tu*-um*. The reading e₂ is right, as suggested by Rositani. The sign su? is partially visible because it is under the sealing, but the remaining traces look more like those of a šu sign. Although this is speculative, one could understand bīt asûtim, “house of the medical profession.” But of course this is problematic because of the nominative ending of the second noun and the lack of other attestation of such an institution. The other option is to understand Asûtum as a PN. Nisaba 4 II.9: (BM 23377) obv. 2: ma-nu-um-ki-ma-i₃-li₂-ia* ˹ZU*˺.AB*. The meaning of this logogram in this context (where one would expect a NP) is unknown to me. obv. 4: e ₂ - du r u ₅ -b i ₂ - ša ₆ ˹ k i ˺ . For this GN in the bīt asīrī corpus see Nisaba 4 I.5:3 and RlAA Nᵒ 244:2. rev. 3: luga l * at the end of the year name. Nisaba 4 II.10: (BM 96096) obv. 3: be-el-ti-e-TI-ir!-ti. The name Bēltī-ēṭirtī means “My lady is my savior.” Reading and translation by M. Stol (09/23/2011). obv. 4: su*-pu*-rum*-li*-ir*-pi₂*-iš* obv. 7: Ida*-a*-˹na*˺-pi₂-iš-ti rev. 2: im*-˹x˺*-e*-d i šku r* rev. 3: there is an erasure after du m u-gab a °x°( erasure) Nisaba 4 II.11: (BM 16452) obv. 3: the line is partially erased. I see the following traces and signs: ˹ša˺ a-na ˹x x˺ de-e-em. obv. 4: […] ˹x˺ obv. 5: ˹ša*˺ before the name Marduk-nāṣir. obv. 6: ˹pa*˺-aq*-˹du*˺ Nisaba 4 II.12: (BM 22729) obv 1: Imi-il-ki-˹it*-ti*-luga l* ˺

328

Appendix 2: Collations

Nisaba 4 II.13: (BM 23251) obv. 1: Ini*-x*-e-nam-˹d m a rdu k˺. There is only one NI sign. The reading i₃-li₃ requires an emendation. Marduk is not followed by a ME sign, although there are certain misleading markings. Nisaba 4 II.14: (BM 22718) obv. 1: ku-uz-za-ri. Attestations of this personal name include Kuzzari, the father of the ugu la MAR.TU Šuḫutki (PBS 8/2 252:29, Aṣ 5), which is an Elamite name (see M. Stol 2004, 806). The name is also attested in CT 45 48:10 (Ad 14); see Harris (1975, 96 footnote 46 and p. 96); Charpin (1993, 184; text 7: 15' and note 12'-16'); and Durand (1997, 446–447) for Kuzzarum man of Talḫayûm. obv. 2: in-bi-k i !*-tim. The ki sign is defective, but this reading is preferable to -[er]-ṣe- because there is no missing sign between bi and ṣe. The reading ṣe should be abandoned. rev. 2: m u š en -h i -a is written over an erasure, the final ki sign was erased. rev. 4: ˹ugu l a * e₂ ˺- m u še n -h i- a . There is no ki sign at the end of the line. Two vertical wedges, partially gone, seem to be traces of an erasure. rev. 6: i t i ˹ ziz ₂ * ˺- a * rev. 7: There is no line after this one. Nisaba 4 II.15: (BM 16436) obv. 3: lu ₂ i ₃* - si * -˹ i n * ˺ k i * obv. 6: a Personenkeil precedes the personal name and the sign il does not need an exclamation mark. rev. 1: ˹x x x˺ rev. 3: pa- without exclamation mark. rev. 6: […]*-˹a˺. I cannot see any trace that could indicate the reading ˹ziz₂˺-a. Nisaba 4 II.16: (BM 23214) obv. 1: [I*]˹gur*-ru*˺-du-um obv. 5: ˹š a ₃ *˺ [ša*]-˹la*˺-at* i ₃* - si * -˹ i n * k i * ˺ Nisaba 4 II.17: (BM 23174) obv. 1: [Ia]-˹ḫi*˺-ma* x […]. This line is mostly gone. It should contain two female personal names because line 4 mentions two female slaves. obv. 2: [ša] ˹ḫa˺-da-an-šu-˹lik-šu-ud˺. This is followed by an indented line with the signs u₂ kal? ba. I cannot offer a meaningful reading of these signs. One would expect a title in this position. Ḫadānšu-likšud is attested elsewhere as su kka l (Nisaba 4 II.57:4, 58:4). obv. 3: ša* d m a rdu k-na-ṣi-ir

Appendix 2: Collations

329

obv. 5: ša* iš-˹tu˺ obv. 6: ˹i*-tu*˺-ra*-˹nim*˺-ma / [a]*-˹na*˺ m u n u s-uš -bar-meš Nisaba 4 II.18: (BM 22890) obv. 1: 1 t u r obv. 4: 1 t u r Nisaba 4 II.19: (BM 96237) obv. 1, 2, 6: the title is lu nga₃ (ŠIMxNIG₂) instead of kaš- šu r. The Sumerian term lu nga ₃ = sirāšûm in Akkadian, “brewer.” The same title also appears in VAS 13 50: 7. Reading by M. Stol (personal communication 09/23/2011). Nisaba 4 II.20: (BM 16390) obv. 2: Ika-al-lu-za-˹x*-x*˺ obv. 4: 3 s aĝ - ge m e ₂ *- m e š ša-al-˹la*˺-[at] obv. 5: il-li-qu₂*-u₂* indented. The verb in the masculine plural is a problem, because the verb has five female slaves as the subject. obv. 8: ˹ub*˺-lam rev. 6': ˹4+*˺ [sag-gem e ₂ a]-˹na˺ m u n u s-u š -b ar-meš Nisaba 4 II.21: (BM 16451) obv. 7: a-na a - ša₃ me-e ša-qi₂. Reading by M. Stol (personal communication 09/23/2011). The expression ana eqlim mê šaqîm literally means “to irrigate the field(s) with water.” The same expression appears in another document from the bīt asīrī archive, namely, YOS 14 342: r4: a-na a - š a ₃ -im me-e ša-qi₂. YOS 14 342 deals with slaves “(…) who had been commissioned for irrigation work on the field;” see CAD s.v. šaqû B, b) with mê. Nisaba 4 II.22: (BM 16449) obv. 2: ˹in!*-bi˺-er-ṣe-tim. M. Stol pointed out to me that this tablet was copied as Nᵒ 12 in A. Uchitel’s Ph. D. Dissertation (1985). The first sign in! is broken and, from the copy, looks like e-. rev. 2: I*a n -i₃-li₂, with Personenkeil before the personal name. Nisaba 4 II.23: (BM 16453) obv. 1: I d u t u *-na-aḫ*-ra-ri. After I had collated this tablet I had access to Uchitel’s (1985) autograph (Nᵒ 11), whose copy agrees with my reading. Courtesy of M. Stol. Nisaba 4 II.24: (BM 23227) obv. 1: ˹Ia-x* x*˺ […] obv. 3: Ia r a d-tu*-˹tu*-ub* ki*˺

330

Appendix 2: Collations

obv. 4: il-li-ku-nim-˹ma*˺ rev. 3: š e! -kin -ku d u d 22-ka m . The first sign seems to be šu. Nisaba 4 II.25: (BM 86052) obv. 3: eš ₃ * -n u n -n a k i obv. 4: ˹x˺-ub. I cannot provide a meaningful reading of these two signs. rev. 1: d luga l-gi r ₃* - r a rev. 4: x*-x*-da*-me*-meš* Nisaba 4 II.26: (BM 23178) obv. 2: Ila-˹x*˺-[x]-˹x˺ obv. 3 ˹lu ₂ *˺ [ša*] ˹iš*-tu*˺ [mu-ti]-˹a*˺-ba*-lu*-˹um*˺ki obv. 4 […] ˹x˺. This line should contain a verb in the subjunctive and perhaps also a PN at the beginning. In other similar tablets Daganmailum sends prisoners from Mutiabalum. Nisaba 4 II.27: (BM 15417) obv. 2: title is u ₂ * - tu l₂ * obv. 6: 2 s aĝ -ge m e ₂ -a r a d ša ˹im*-gur*-d * s u’e n*˺. This line is actually written on the lower edge together with lines 7 and 8. obv. 7: du m u qar*-ra*-du*-um*. There is an erasure at the beginning. This line is indented and should be taken as a continuation of line 6. ImgurSîn the son of Qarrādum is also attested in UF 10 31:2. rev. 2: ˹a*-na* gu d * -h i* - a * šu*-ku*-lim* z i - ga˺ Nisaba 4 II.28: (BM 23165) obv. 1: ˹ab*˺-di*-iš₈-tar₂ lu ₂ su *- b i r₄ * k i obv. 6: i-na ˹x˺ n in -ga l-la h ₅ k i . The sign before ni n is not diĝi r. What remains of that sign are traces of two oblique wedges at the beginning and the ending resembles the end of a ni sign. It has to be part of the geographic name. obv. 7: a-wi*-il-d išku r obv. 10: ˹a*˺-na* n iĝ₂ - […] sealing: wu-su₂-um-˹nu-x-x˺ / du m u ˹i-din-iš₈*-tar₂*˺ / ar ad d [ ni n - s i₄ ]an-na Nisaba 4 II.29: (BM 16438) obv. 1: e š ₃ - n u n * -n a * obv. 2: š a ₃ 47* obv. 3: eš ₃ - nu n * -n a* rev. 4: [i t i ] […]*-a rev. 5: luga l- ˹e˺ sealing: […] / du m u d˹x x x˺ / [a r a d …]

Appendix 2: Collations

331

Nisaba 4 II.30: (BM 15484) obv. 3: the logogram after the personal name Lalâtum is ama *. rev. 1: i-ku-un-pi₄!*-iš₈-˹tar₂*˺ rev. 2.: z ab a r- d ab ₅ * -[ b a ] rev. 3: [i t i š e-k in ] -ku d * rev. 4: Nothing is written after m u Rīm-Anum, therefore this is RīA 1. Nisaba 4 II.31: (BM 23380) obv. 2: the reading ugu la e ₂ is confirmed by Nisaba 4 II.60:2, where the sign e₂ is clear. Nisaba 4 II.32: (BM 15675) obv. 1: I˹da*˺-ar*-mil*-ki*. Although I am unaware of the attestation of such a name, Dār-milkī seems to be a correct name, meaning “My advice is forever.” M. Stol suggests the translation “The decision about me is enduring” (personal communication 09/23/2011). obv. 2: ˹š a ₃ ˺ ša-˹al*-la*-at*˺ dda-gan-˹ma˺-[d iĝ i r ] rev. 2: ˹ša iš*-tu* x x i-x x x˺ rev. 3: a-˹na e ren ₂ x x x x˺ rev. 4: ˹a-na x x x x˺. Lines 2–4 are in bad shape and their reading difficult. Nisaba 4 II.33: (BM 16394) obv. 1: The word following the personal name Sabītum is not clear to me. I see the following signs: x d˹utu˺ su um ki, but I cannot offer an interpretation. obv. 2: d luga l- ˹gi r ₃ ? * ˺ -r a obv. 3: u₂-te-er*-˹ra*˺-aš*-ši* obv. 5: t u r at the beginning of the line. obv. 7: 2 m u n u s- saĝ d ili 1 t u r obv. 8: ša* i-na ˹x x x xki*˺ obv 11: ˹ub*-lam*˺ indented under ugu la MA R .TU obv. 12: Ibe-el-ta*-ni* obv. 13: Ie-ri-iš-ti-dir₃*-ra* obv. 14: 2 m u nu s- [saĝ ] d i li* obv. 15: š a ₃ * ša-al-la-at* rev. 3: [a]-na m u n u s- ˹u š* - ba r * -m eš* ˺ Nisaba 4 II.34: (BM 15595) obv. 2: ˹ša* e*-tel*-pi₄*˺-e₂*-a* n a r * -ga l* . This man is also attested in Nisaba 4 II.80:r8.

332

Appendix 2: Collations

obv. 3: ˹n iĝ ₂* - šu * ˺ mu-ḫa-du-um n a r * -gal * obv. 4: restore [a-na] before e ₂ -m u n u s-u š- bar-meš rev. 5: Nothing is written after m u Rīm-Anum, therefore this is RīA 1. Nisaba 4 II.35: (BM 23441) rev. 2: d n i n-u r- ta - m a * - an * - su m * Nisaba 4 II.36: (BM 23164) obv. 3: Ia*-pil₂*-er*-ṣe*-tim* obv. 6: I*d*da-gan-ma-d iĝi r ˹u₂*-ša*˺-[ri-am] / kas ka l-ki 1* obv. 10: u₂-ša-ri-a-˹am*˺ / ka ska l-ki ˹3 *˺ rev. 2: lu ₂ a-si-˹ru*-u₂*˺ rev. 7: m u ri-im-da-˹nu-um lugal*˺. Nothing else follows. Nisaba 4 II.37: (BM 23187) obv. 2: ˹x* x* x* x*˺ obv. 3: ˹lu ₂ * i₃ *- si * -i n * k i * ˺ rev. 6: nothing follows this line. It is therefore RīA 1. Nisaba 4 II.38: (BM 23257) obv. 1: lu ₂ e₂* - gu r u šd a *. In Akkadian awīl bīt mārîm, “the man of the fattening stable.” The word is attested in OECT 15 25: rev. 3'. Note lu ₂ - gu r u šd a = ša kuruštê, Borger (2010) sign Nᵒ 171. For sign ku r u š d a = ku₇, see Deller (1985, 358–9), with Akkadian equivalent mārû and ša kuruštê, “fattener.” Reading of the title and references courtesy of M. Stol. obv. 3: ša* instead of ša ₃ Nisaba 4 II.39: (BM 85082) obv. 2: a-ḫu-um* obv. 4: d n i n-u r t a -m a * - a n * - su m * obv. 6: ˹n iĝ ₂ * -b a *˺. The reading šu for the second sign is incorrect, especially when it is compared with the šu in the fourth line in the obverse. rev. 2: 30*-še-mi is written without the divine determinative. Nisaba 4 II.40: (BM 15656) obv. 1: d ˹ i š ku r * -mu-ša-lim˺ obv. 7: a-na iribu*-ba*- ˹x*˺ rev. 2: […] rev. 3: ˹x x x˺ rev. 5: z i * - ga . rev. 6: 30*-še-mi, without the divine determinative.

Appendix 2: Collations

333

Nisaba 4 II.41: (BM 85057) obv. 1: ˹d i š ku r*˺-[mu-ša-lim] obv. 3: ˹x x˺ after the personal name. obv. 4: ˹a*-na* iri*bu-ba*-lam?* in*-na*-ad*-nu*˺. The line is very damaged, but – since this text is closely related to the previous one (Nisaba 4 II.40: obv. 7) – this reading is not unlikely. obv 5: Ina-ḫi-iš-˹ša˺-[…] ˹x x˺ obv. 6: ˹d a m * - ga r ₃* ša*˺ x*-a*-ia* ki * Nisaba 4 II.42: (BM 85034) obv. 1: u r i ₅ * k i obv. 4: * aĝr ig. The sign e₂ was not written down. rev. 1: perhaps to be restored [ĝi r i ₃ PN]. Although the line is lost and no sign legible, the fact that Marduk-nāṣir, the aga₃-u s₂ s aĝ luga l , is acting as conveyor in Nisaba 4 II.13, may support this restoration. Note also that in YOS 14 338, which records a similar transaction, there are two conveyors. rev. 2: ˹u₃* d*˺[AMAR].˹UTU˺-[na-ṣi-ir] rev. 3: aga ₃ * -u s₂ * saĝ* luga l Nisaba 4 II.43: (BM 85062) obv. 7: i r i b a d ₃* -a n * - n a * k i rev. 4: i-ku*-un-pi₂*-30* rev. 5: d luga l-g i r₃ * -r a rev 6: tu*-ur*-ru* rev. 7: ˹x* x* x* x*˺ The signs of this line seem to have been written when the tablet was almost dried. The wedges are not deep as the rest. Nisaba 4 II.44: (BM 16388) This tablet is in a very poor condition. obv. 1: I[iš₈]-˹tar₂˺-um*-mi. The sign ˹um˺ is partially erased but does not need an exclamation mark. obv. 3: Id[x]-˹x˺-e₂ * -˹ga l˺-li obv. 4: du m u *- m u n u s*- ˹ gab a * ˺ at the beginning of this indented line. obv. 5: d gu * -l a * -na-ṣir instead of Marduk!-nāṣir. obv. 7: after Ibni-Amurru I only see ˹x x x˺. obv. 8: 2 s aĝ * -˹ge m e ₂ * -m eš* ˺ [1] / ˹ du m u *˺ - [mu nu s]- ˹gaba˺ Res t of t h e ob ve r se a n d lo we r e dge b ro ke n . rev. 1: a-˹ḫa-tum*˺ without exclamation mark. rev. 3: 5 ˹s aĝ - ge m e ₂ *- m e š* ˺ 2* ˹ du m u * -m un us *-gaba*˺ rev. 4: 7 s aĝ - gem e ₂ * -m e š* ˹ a* -n a * ša ₃* - gu d*˺

334

Appendix 2: Collations

rev 5: personal names are e-tel-˹pi₄*-d m a rdu k˺ u₃ be-el-šu-nu* sealing: ˹e˺-tel-[pi₄-d m a rdu k] / [du m u ] d˹x˺ / [a r ad …] Nisaba 4 II.45: (BM 23121): very fragile condition. obv. 2: ˹ša iš*-tu e ₂ aĝr ig il*-le*-qi*-a*-am*˺ obv. 6: ˹ša iš-tu˺ n iĝ₂ - saĝ* il-˹le-qi-a-am˺ “who was taken from the storage place.” The term n iĝ₂ - saĝ , Akkadian nisakku, nisannu, usually refers to “offering (of first fruits).” For the meaning “storage place,” see ePSD s.v. n iĝ₂ - saĝ accessed: 07/17/2011; Heimpel (1994) suggested that it was an architectural unit. According to him, the term “designated something like a sacristy, with the special function to store the wine and the sacred utensils which were needed for the New Year Festival.” obv. 9: ša du m u-er-ṣe-tim šagi n a * ˹b a d ₃ *- t i bi r a* k i * ˺ obv. 10: ˹ša* i˺-na e ₂ d*i šku r*-ma*-d iĝi r * ˹x x x˺ obv. 12: 1* ˹tu r*˺ šum*-ma*-la*-d m a rdu k*-˹ma*˺-an* rev. 7: … du mu i₃-li₂-un*-ne*-ni* ˹x-x˺. The Personal name Ilī-unnēnī seems to be followed by a NP, but I could not read it. Ilī-unnēnī is attested, for instance, in UET 5 40: 7 (Ilī-un-ni-ni), YOS 13 257: 32 (Ilī-un-ne-ni), YOS 8 85: 27 (Ilī-un-ne-ne) and RA 52 221: 20 (Ilī-u₂-ne-ni), all OB. In our corpus the name appears again in App. 1 Nᵒ 8:1, written i₃-li₂-u₂ne-ni. rev. 8: 8 a d * - K I D *- m e š rev. 9: dsuʾen-°na*°( erasure)-na*-ṣi*-ir. The first n a sign was erased. The second na and the ṣi signs are clear. Nisaba 4 II.46: (BM 15597) obv. 4: there is no sign before innadnu Nisaba 4 II.47: (BM 15690) obv. 3: the last sign could be ˹gu du ₄ ˺ but is partly broken. Part of line 3 is indented and should be read ub*-lam*. There is no sign after – lam. Nisaba 4 II.48: (BM 23454) This tablet was not available for collation due to its poor estate of preservation. obv. 1: […-ip*]-pa-la-˹as*˺. Based on Rositani (2003, 245) drawing of the last sign, M. Stol suggest this reading (Personal communication 09/23/ 2011). obv. 3: ˹ṣi₂?-li₂?˺-˹den-lil₂? x x x x x˺ Nisaba 4 II.49: (BM 22719) obv. 4: Ina-˹din?-x x˺ du m u-šu

Appendix 2: Collations

335

obv. 7: ˹ša* a*-na*˺ gu d *- ap i n * n i * -i s* - qu *. The word nisqum, “choice quality, first rate,” usually qualifies sheep (e.g., AUCT 5 246, 247, and 253), and donkeys (Flückiger-Hawker 1999, 174 and 121 ln. 115). M. Stol pointed out to me that the adjective was not attested with oxen until now (personal communication 09/23/2011). Nisaba 4 II.50: (BM 23126) obv 2: for the personal name I see the signs ˹li-bu˺-lu-za, but I do not know of such a name. obv. 5: m u n u s-tu r ḫu- ma - si * . obv. 7: dtaš-me-tum -˹x x˺, the sign(s) of the second part of the personal name are partially broken. obv. 8: t u r * e*-ta*-am*-ši*-a*-d iĝi r * ˹du m u ? * -n i *˺. A similar name, Ētamšiā, is attested in BE 6/1 56: 4. obv. 10: Itu*-kul₂*-ti-*li-ib-lu-uṭ obv. 11: Iaš*-šu*-ri*-tum*. This noun could be both the personal name Aššurītum (e.g., TCL 4 74: 3 OA) or the gentilic “Assyrian” in the feminine. obv. 12: Ia*-ḫa*-tum. The name is Aḫātum. Collation shows two erasures in this line. The first has traces of an erased °a°. The second erasure has only the head of a wedge, possible the beginning of the – tum sign written towards the end of the line. obv. 13: a-na-dna-bi-um*-ta*-˹ak*-la*-ku*˺ obv. 14: ˹m u n u s˺ -t u r a?-˹x-x˺-li-bur / du m u- mun us- ˹n i ˺ Nisaba 4 II.51: (BM 23139) obv. 4: 1 s aĝ - ge m e ₂ * 1 m u n u s-t u r ˹ša iš-tu x x˺ obv. 5: Iku-un-ši-ma*-tum. See CAD sv kanāšu 1 4'. The name is attested in Ur III documents from Puzriš-Dagan (e.g., PDT 1 772:r20 and Gomi 1988:119, Syracuse 480:r 16, AUCT 3 294: 11; references from Base de Datos Neo-Suméricos, accessed 05/06/2012); and in Mari texts (e.g., J. Bottéro and A. Finet 1954, 151; ARM 10 3:3) obv. 6: re-du-tum* rev. 2: Iiš₈-tar₂-mu-ba-li₂-ṭa*-at* rev. 4: 4 s aĝ - gem e₂ * -m e š 1 m u n u s- t u r- r a rev. 5: 5 s aĝ - ge me ₂ * -a r a d-m eš Nisaba 4 II.52: (BM 16459) The obverse is in very poor condition. obv. 2: ša ˹x * -x* - ga ? * k i ˺ / [ugu la ] ˹MAR.TU˺ lu ₂ ˹i ₃˺ -si -i n k i . The line is difficult because of the poor preservation. Most of the signs are badly

336

Appendix 2: Collations

broken. I could not see the signs DA?/ID ˹i₃?-li₂?˺ transliterated by Rositani (2003, 158). obv. 3: ša ˹x x x x˺. This has to be a PN. The line is poorly preserved. obv. 5: ub*-°erasure°-lam*. The verb is ublam. There is no sign after – lam, only a few scratches. obv. 7: ˹ ugu la ša* su k ka l˺. Lines 6 and 7 are written on the lower edge. The line is poorly preserved. Nisaba 4 II.53: (BM 16447) obv. 1: the last name of this line is za*-lu*-ḫu*-um* obv. 3: dug ₃*-ga*-ma*-al*-d iĝi r * . The name is Ṭāb-gamāl-ilim, “Sweet is the kindness of god.” Reading suggested by M. Stol (09/23/2011). obv. 6: s aĝ - gem e ₂* - m e š rev. 1: ˹a*-na*˺ gu d * šu*-ku*-lim* rev. 2: Ieri₄*-ba*-am*. There is no d u tu , the name is Erībam. The sealing clearly shows ˹e˺-ri-ba-am at the beginning of the line. rev. 4: It ab * -˹b a * ˺-we*-˹du*˺-um* rev. 5: u₃* at the beginning of the line, instead of š uku. The title after the name Ali-talīmī is e n si ₂ * -˹ m e š* ˺ Nisaba 4 II.54: (BM 15665) obv. 1: ˹ba*˺-ki-ia. I suggest the reading ba-ki-ia, attested as Bakâ in BAP 64 (Ha 37) in Sippar, see also Ba-ka-a taken as a hypocoristic by Ranke (1905, 72) and Bakûa in Stamm (1939, 330). rev. 1: ˹m u * ˺-t u m ₂ * , instead of ˹kaš˺-du at the beginning of the line. Reading suggested by M. Stol (09/23/2011). rev. 2: ˹ĝi r i ₃˺. The sign is partially eroded, but the reading is safe. Nisaba 4 II.55: (BM 15689) obv. 4: the line starts with [a*]-˹na*˺ instead of ša. obv. 5: ˹I*30˺-be*-˹el*˺-[i₃-li₂] rev. 2: 30*-[še-mi]. No divine determinative before 30. Nisaba 4 II.56: (BM 16444) obv. 1: ˹I˺be*-le*-su₂*-nu*. There is no sign after nu. obv. 3: š e š - a *- n i . obv. 4: [a*]-˹na*˺ at the beginning of the line. Nisaba 4 II.57: (BM 16420) obv. 2: After the personal name I can only see irix-ruki / dumu ka-ba-artum*. For the personal name Kabartum see MAD I 282: 7. obv. 3: ˹ I * d * ˺ išku r * -še*-mi* obv. 4: ˹ḫa˺-da-an-˹šu-lik*-šu*-ud*˺.

Appendix 2: Collations

337

obv. 6–7: [a*]-na* gu d * -h i * - a* ma*-ia*-˹al*-tim*˺ / šu-ku-lim. This is actually one line because šūkulim is indented. rev. 1: nam-ḫa-ar-ti I*a*-˹bi*-ki*-ma*-d u tu * ˺ Nisaba 4 II.58: (BM 23457) obv. 2: ˹ka*˺-ba*-ar*-tum* obv. 3: I*i š ku r*-˹še*-mi*˺ obv. 5: a-na gu d *-h i *-a * ma*-ia*-al*-tim* obv. 6: šu-ku*-lim rev. 2: Ii-ta-na-aḫ-d iĝ ir r a ₂* - gab a * Nisaba 4 II.59: (BM 16415) obv. 2: Id u t u * -˹dum*˺-[qi₂] obv. 3: last word is du m u- ˹ m u n u s* - a *- n i * ˺ obv. 4: 2 s aĝ *- ge m e ₂ * -m eš 1 ˹ du m u * ˺ -[ mu n us gaba] obv. 5: 3 s aĝ- ge m e ₂ * -˹ m e š˺ obv. 6: ša* n iĝ ₂* - šu * da*-˹nu*-um*-i₃-li₂˺ obv. 8: ugu l a * id ₂ * a-sur-[rum] rev. 3: 2 ˹ s aĝ ˺ -ge m e ₂ * -˹ m e š˺ rev. 4: [ du m u ] * - ˹ m u n u s-gab a ˺ rev. 6: I˹mu-ti-dda˺-[gan]* Nisaba 4 II.60: (BM 86047) obv. 4: be-la-nu-um* obv. 5: a*-mur*-i*-lu*-ut*-dsuʾen* after namḫarti obv. 7: a-bi*-ia*-tum seal 1 2: [du mu a]-˹bi-ia*-tum*˺ Nisaba 4 II.61: (BM 23416) obv. 5: in-na-ad-˹nu*˺ Nisaba 4 II.62: (BM 15614) obv. 3: ma-ḫa-ar ˹d*da*-gan*˺-ma*-d iĝi r* il*-li*-kam* obv. 4: ˹ka s ka l be*˺-la-nu-um obv. 5: ˹a*-na* lu ₂ šu * - du ₈ *- a * ˺. Note that Nisaba 4 II.63 (BM 16458) records the same transaction. It is not clear to me whether lu₂ was erased. rev. 1: ˹d u t u *-mu*-ba*-li*-iṭ*˺ after namḫarti. Nisaba 4 II.63: (BM 16458) r1: The month name is written with a metathesis: kug- du₆ instead of du ₆ -kug.

338

Appendix 2: Collations

Nisaba 4 II.65: (BM 15713) obv. 5: The signs are x x d/ki du um, written on the lower edge. rev. 1: The number of days is written 20 and followed by three vertical wedges on top of each other. This could therefore be a faulty 1, a faulty 3, or even a faulty 9. Nisaba 4 II.66: (BM 15445) obv. 4: the sign ši* of the name Šamaš-mušēzib is clear. obv. 6: […]-D U * possibly to be restored [m u] - tum₂ . obv. 7: I suggest instead reading [a-na] at the beginning of the line, instead of [n iĝ ₂ ] -˹ šu ˺. Nisaba 4 II.67: (BM 23260) obv. 1: I d u t u *-pi₂*-di*-ik*-˹le*-et*˺. There is very little left of the last sign of the line. It is written on the right edge. The reading of the first six signs is certain, but my interpretation is only tentative. I am not aware of any attestation of the name Šamaš-pidi-iklet, “O Šamaš, have mercy. It’s (so) dark!” I wish to thank Walter Farber for discussing this name with me. rev. 2: z i - ˹ ga ˺ [n iĝ - šu d su ʾ e n ]-˹še˺-me. rev. 3: ša a-di-ni* la* ka*-an*-ku*. This is the only bīt asīrī document known to me that bears the annotation ša adīni lā kankū “(Slaves) which until now were not assigned in a sealed document.” This shows that the transferring(s) of the two slaves took place before the tablet was issued. Nisaba 4 II.68: (BM 15450) obv. 5: ša a-na e ₂ -ga l ub*-lam* obv. 6: ˹ša*˺ a*-na* ip*-pa*-li*-˹šu*˺. This writing is to be compared with that of Ana-pāni-ilī and its variant Appān-ilī, both spellings attested in the bīt asīrī archive. The personal name Ina-palêšu was written here Ippalêšu with simplification of the preposition and subsequent assimilation of /n/ to /p/. The scribe had to write ša ana Inapalêšu a d-K ID… but started instead with the preposition which is the first element of the PN. Ina-pa[lêšu] ugu l a a d-K ID is attested in BaM 27 Nᵒ 250:4. obv. 7: ˹pa*˺-aq*-du*. Nisaba 4 II.69: (BM 22721) Obv. 1: last word is ˹e š₃ - n u n - ˹ n a * ˺[ k i ].

Appendix 2: Collations

339

Nisaba 4 II.70: (BM 85481) obv 5: a-na ZU*.AB*- m e š. This title also appears indented in the next line and in Nisaba 4 II.74. obv. 6: the title is ZU*.AB* Nisaba 4 II.71: (BM 16387) obv. 3: Id iĝ i r-ra*-bi*. obv. 4: a - s i - r u m * is correct, so is the ša ₃ * sign. rev. 3: ˹5*˺ s aĝ - a r ad a-na e ₂- b u r- saĝ* . rev. 7: ˹ ab * ˺ - e₃* Nisaba 4 II.72: (BM 23361) obv. 1: [I]˹dEN˺-[…]-˹x x˺ obv. 3: ša i-na ma*-at* i ₃ * - si- i n k i rev. 1: lu ₂ -u r ₃ * -r a rev. 2: lu ₂ -u r ₃* - r a Nisaba 4 II.73: (BM 23192) obv. 8: ub*-lam* lu ₂ * i ₃ * - si* - ˹i n *˺ [ K I * ] rev. 3: [ š a ₃ ] na*-kam*-tim rev. 6: tap-pi₂-šu-˹nu*˺ Nisaba 4 II.74: (BM 16398) obv. 5: du m u a-na-ṣil₂-li₂-šu-e-˹mi*˺-id rev. 2: a-na ZU*.AB*-m e š Nisaba 4 II.75: (BM 16393) obv. 1: 1 t u r- ˹ r a˺ a*-bi*-[ki-ma]-˹d m a rdu k* ˺ obv. 5: a-na z a * - d im * . The word za d i m is also written syllabically twice in another tablet (App. 1 Nᵒ 41:1, r8). obv. 6: z a * - d im * Nisaba 4 II.76: (BM 97321) obv. 1: Ia-˹di-an-ni*-a* lu ₂ ˺ obv. 5: […] ˹x˺ after the personal name. obv. 7: 11 is not there. Nisaba 4 II.78: (BM 96122) obv. 1: Ia-wi-li-˹ia*˺ obv. 4: ša i*-na °x°( erasure) ta*-ar-ba-[ṣi] obv. 5: ša gu₂ i d ₂ ĝe š-n i- n i m […] rev. 3: a-na e ₂ !-˹b u r˺-[saĝ ] rev. 5: be-la-nu-um*

340

Appendix 2: Collations

Nisaba 4 II.79: (BM 23349) obv. 9: ˹ša ab u l* - d iĝi r˺-[…] obv. 10: na-kam-˹tim x˺-[…] rev. 4: ĝ i r i ₃ nu-˹ur₂*-x-x˺ rev. 5: u₃ i- ˹x x˺ […] ˹ugu la * ˺ MAR.*TU* Nisaba 4 II.80: (BM 16382) obv. 4: I d m a rdu k-t i l₃- a -n i-˹iq*˺-[bi*], for the name Marduk-balāssu-iqbi see Stamm (1939, 188). obv. 5: I d ˹ u tu * - a n * ˺ - du l₃ *-li* obv. 7: Personal name is written ˹er₃*˺-ra-na-ṣi-ir obv. 9: ˹I d i š ku r-p u zu r₄ ˺ * -a d *-šu*. I do not know of other attestations of the name Adad-puzur-abīšu, “Adad is the shelter of his father,” but note the name Puzur-abi (Stamm 1939, 346). obv. 13: 1 ˹ tu r ˺- r a du m u-tu*-ub*-qi₂*-˹im*˺. The noun tubqu, “corner,” appears in PNs. Mār-tubqim, “Son of the corner.” The reading of the sign ˹-im*˺ was suggested by M. Stol (09/23/2011). My collation (12/09/ 2011) confirms that it is an -im instead of a -˹ni ? ˺ sign. The -im sign is covered by dirt, but one of the oblique wedges at the beginning of the sign is visible. rev. 3: Ibe-˹el-su*˺-pi₂*-e*-[li-qi₂] rev. 4: ˹dsuʾen˺-iš-me-a-an*-ni ˹x x x˺ rev. 9: I˹be*˺-[el]-ša*-du*-ni rev. 10: ša d iĝ i r* -˹šu*˺-na*-wi-ir r a ₂ * - gab a rev. 14: I suggest the reading [a-na] ˹n in * - šu bur *˺ -[…] ugu la ˹ šu *-i *˺. Nisaba 4 II.81: (BM 16384) obv. 2: last word is e š₃ * -˹ n u n * ˺ - [n a k i ]. obv. 3: last sign is ˹-iš*˺ obv. 7: Idla-si-mu-um-qar*-ra-˹ad*˺. Reading by M. Stol (09/23/2011); confirmed by my collation (12/05/2011). rev. 7–9: z i - ga [n iĝ₂ -šu dsuʾen-še-mi] / ugul a * [a-si-ri] / ˹x x˺. Most of the signs are poorly preserved, but this reading is suggested by similar passages from related tablets. Nisaba 4 II.82: (BM 16396). obv. 4: ˹ša sa*˺-mu*-um* ˹ gu du ₄ *˺ . obv. 5: 2 s aĝ -ge m e ₂ *- m e š a-na ˹x x x˺ / h ub₂ -bu-meš obv. 8: il-li-qi₂-a-˹am*-ma*˺ rev. 1: ˹s aĝ * -a r a d * ˺ rev. 2: ˹mu nu s- saĝ -° a r a d ° ( erasure) ˺ -m eš

Appendix 2: Collations

341

rev. 3: 3* ˹ s aĝ˺-ge m e ₂- [a r a d ] -m e š rev. 4: [a-na h ub ₂- b u ]*-m e š Nisaba 4 II.83: (BM 23463) obv. 1: ˹Ix x x x x x an x x˺ […]. obv. 4: ša °i°(erasure) iš*-tu obv. 7: š u * - b a r* lugal* rev. 2: m u s a ha r * u n ug k i - še₃ * rev. 3: š a r ₂ * - ša r₂ * -re* ˹x*˺ / […]. Lines 2 and 3 of the reverse contain an abbreviation of Rīm-Anum’s third year formula. Nisaba 4 III.1: (BM 23456) obv. 1: 3 2/3*. The object of the transaction is not specified. obv. 2: at the end of the line possibly ˹u d ? 20?-kam ?˺ written on the left edge. Nisaba 4 III.2: (BM 23191) obv. 2: 2 ĝ e š ˹ĝ u šu r* x x x˺. The sign ĝ u šur = u r₃ , Akkadian gušūrum, “beam.” obv. 3: 4 ĝ e š ˹saĝ * - du * x x ra?˺. The word s aĝ- du , Akkadian asû, “(a wooden part of a loom)”, see CAD s.v. asû B. obv. 5: 8 ĝ eš ˹u tt u * ˺ ugu n u ₂ *. The sign u t tu is written TAGxKU. ePSD s.v. u t t u translates “log, beam of weaving utensil.” Note that CAD s.v. išparu, lexical section gives u t- tu d u š- ba r = dTAGxKU. The sign ugu n u ₂ is U-gunû; for ugunû see Borger (2004, 394 Nᵒ 662). Nisaba 4 III.3: (BM 85077) rev. 1: ig i d˹x x x˺ Nisaba 4 III.4: (BM 97450) obv. 1: 1: 1 5/6 m a * 15 še obv. 3: 1(GUR)* 1(PI)* 2(b a n ₂) * še -gu r ˹7*˺ si l a ₃ obv. 4: 4(GUR)* 1(b a n ₂ ) * še Nisaba 4 Appendix pp. 195–7: (BM 16379) There are several lines damaged. I only offer here my collations when they improve the readings. obv. 1: Ita-ri-iš-ma*-tim* obv. 3: I d iĝ i r- * m a h -um-mi, that is, Bēlet-ilī-ummī obv. 7: a-qa₂-al-a*-na-be-el-tim* obv. 13: I˹il*˺-ta*-ni* obv. 18: ˹Id*˺na-na-a-ša-am*-ḫa-at* rev. 2: I ˹be*˺-[el]-˹ti*˺-re-me-en₆-ni rev. 3: I[a]-˹ḫa˺-tum

342

Appendix 2: Collations

rev. 4: Ia-ḫa-ta-ni* rev. 6: I˹be*-el*-ti*˺-dum*-qi₂* rev. 7: the last sign is d i li rev. 16: 1 du m u-gab a du m u * a*-˹qa₂*-al*-a*-na*˺-be-el-ti-ia rev 19: ugu l a m u n u s-u š-˹ b a r˺ is followed by an erasure ° x PA x x ° RlAA 250: Collated from a picture obv. 1'. […] obv. 2'. […] ˹x˺ […] obv. 3'. ˹n iĝ ₂* - šu * ˺ ˹x x˺-su*-um* ugu la * MAR.TU* rev. 3: u₃ i-ku-un-ka * RSO 82 6: (BM 88510) rev. 9: Rositani reads [u n ug ]˹ k i -ga ˺. I cannot see traces of any of these signs. Therefore, I prefer the date RīA year 1? RSO 82 9: (BM 88601) Collated from a picture rev. 5: [a]-˹di˺ it i … rev. 9: [i t i ] ˹šu * -n u m u n * - a u d 22*-ka m ˺ sealing: I could not read it from the picture. RSO 82 12: (BM 88701) Collated from a picture obv. 1: ˹6*˺ sila ₂ UF 10 6: (BM 14039) obv. 2: the last sign of the PN is -um. This Zalluḫum is probably the same man attested in Nisaba 4 II.53: 1.

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk dated to Samsu-iluna and Rīm-Anum Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

Si /VIII/

Sîn-kāšid palace. Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid palace Administrative, bīt asīrī (?) Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī (?) Prisoners and slaves Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative Unspecified product Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

BaM  

Si /VIII/

Si /VIII/

RīA ?/II/[…] (RīA l ugal ) RīA /II/[…] (RīA l ugal ) RīA /IV/[…] (RīA l ugal ) RīA /V/+ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /V/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA ?/VIII/+ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /VIII/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /VIII/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /VIII/ (RīA l ugal )

BaM  

Nisaba  App. pp. – BaM  

BaM  

BaM  

BM  unpublished Nisaba  III.

RSO  

BM  unpublished Nisaba  II.

App.  Nᵒ 

 If the autograph copy is accurate, there seems to no line after ˹mu˺ Ri-im-d[A-nu-um lugal]. This would indicate that this tablet is dated to the first year of Rīm-Anum.

344

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA /VIII/ (RīA l u gal )

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds

Nisaba  II.

RīA /IX/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /IX/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /IX/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /IX/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /IX/+ (RīA l u gal ) RīA */IX/* (RīA l u gal ) RīA /IX/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA ?/IX/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /IX/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /IX/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /IX/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /IX/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /IX/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /IX/ (RīA l u gal )

Nisaba  II.

BM  unpublished Nisaba  II.

YOS  

Nisaba  I.

Nisaba  I.

Nisaba  II.

Nisaba  I.

VAS  

Nisaba  II.

Nisaba  II.

BaM  

BaM  

BaM  

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA /IX/[…] (RīA l ugal )

Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative Memorandum Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Textiles Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

BaM  

RīA /IX/[…] (RīA l ugal ) RīA ?/IX/[…] (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/? (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/+ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal )

BaM  

BaM  

YOS  

UF  

Nisaba  II.

BM  unpublished Nisaba  II.

Nisaba  I.

Nisaba  I.

App.  Nᵒ 

BaM  

BaM  

BaM  

UF  

345

346

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA /X/ (RīA l u gal )

Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds

BaM  

RīA /X/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /X/[…] (RīA l u gal ) RīA /X/[…] (RīA l u gal )

Nisaba  I.

UF  

App.  Nᵒ 

BaM  

Nisaba  II.

BM  unpublished BaM  

Nisaba  II.

BaM  

Nisaba  I.

BaM  

BaM  

BaM  

BaM  

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA /X/[…] (RīA l ugal )

Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […]

BaM  

RīA /X/[…] (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/? (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/? (RīA l ugal )

VAS  

Nisaba  I.

Nisaba  II.

Nisaba  I.

Nisaba  II.

RSO  

VAS  

Nisaba  II.

VAS  

BM  unpublished RSO  

RSO  

Nisaba  II.

BaM  

347

348

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA /XI/ (RīA l u gal )

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Textiles and silver Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

UF  

RīA ?/XI?/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XI/+ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XI/+ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA ?/XI?/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l u gal )

Nisaba  II.

Nisaba  II.

Nisaba  II.

BaM  

UF  

App.  Nᵒ 

Nisaba  I.

Nisaba  II.

Nisaba  II.

Nisaba  I.

Nisaba  I.

UF  

Nisaba  II.

Nisaba  II.

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal )

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Cattle related Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

Nisaba  II.

RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/[…] (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XII/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XII/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XII/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XII/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XII/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XII/? (RīA l ugal )

BM A unpublished Nisaba  I.

Nisaba  II.

Nisaba  II.

UF  

Nisaba  II.

RSO  

VAS  

Nisaba  I.

UF  

VAS  

Nisaba  II.

Nisaba  II.

RSO  

349

350

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA /XII/ (RīA l u gal )

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

UF  

RīA /XII/? (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XII/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XII/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XII/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA ?/XII/? (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XII/ (RīA [l ugal ]) RīA /XII/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XII/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XII/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XII/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XII/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XII/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XII/ (RīA l u gal ) RīA /XII/ (RīA l u gal )

VAS  

YOS  

Nisaba  II.

Nisaba  II.

BM  unpublished VAS  

Nisaba  II.

RA  Nᵒ  p.

Nisaba  II.

RSO  

UF  

Nisaba  I.

BM  unpublished Nisaba  II.

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA /XII/[…] (RīA [l u gal ])

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

Nisaba  II.

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

App.  Nᵒ 

RīA /XII/[…] (RīA [l u gal ]) RīA /[…]/+ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /[…]/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /[…]/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /[…]/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /[…]/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /[…]/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /[…]/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA ?/[…]/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /[…]/[…] (RīA l ugal ) RīA /[…]/[…] (RīA l ugal ) RīA ?/[…]/[…] (RīA l ugal )

RīA /I/ (u ĝ₃-suh₃-a -bi) RīA /I/ (u ĝ₃-suh₃-a -bi)

BM  unpublished App.  Nᵒ 

Nisaba  II.

Nisaba  II.

VAS  

BM  unpublished BaM  

Nisaba  I.

Nisaba  II.

App.  Nᵒ 

BM  unpublished RSO  

Nisaba  II.

351

352

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA /I/ (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi )

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

Nisaba  I.

RīA /I/ (uĝ ₃-suh₃-a -bi) RīA /I/ (uĝ ₃-suh₃-a -bi) RīA /I/ (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA /I/ (uĝ ₃-suh₃-a -bi) RīA /I/ (uĝ ₃-suh₃-a -bi) RīA /I/ (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA /I/ (n umun-da -ri₂ nam-en -na -ke₄ ) RīA 2/I/28 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/I/29 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/II/5 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/II/6 (n umun-da -ri₂ nam-en -na -ke₄ ) RīA 2/II/8 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/II/9 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/II/11 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi )

UF  

Nisaba  II.

App.  Nᵒ 

Nisaba  II.

Nisaba  II.

BM  unpublished Nisaba 4 I.57

Nisaba 4 II.42

BM 88681 unpublished Nisaba 4 I.18

UF 10 22

UF 10 40

UF 10 38

App. 1 Nᵒ 30

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA 2/II/16 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi)

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […]

Nisaba 4 I.19

RīA 2/II/16 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/II/19 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/II/20 (n umun-da -ri₂ nam -e n-na -ke ₄) RīA 2/II/20 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/II/21 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/II/25 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/II/26 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/II/27 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/II/28 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/II/28 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/II/29 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/II/29 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/II/30 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/II/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi)

RSO 82 4

Nisaba 4 I.20

UF 10 25

Nisaba 4 I.21

App. 1 Nᵒ 6

UF 10 32

Nisaba 4 I.22

VAS 13 48

Nisaba 4 I.23

Nisaba 4 I.24

UF 10 5

Nisaba 4 I.58

Nisaba 4 I.59

BaM 31 328

353

354

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA 2/III/1 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi )

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī […] Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

UF 10 8

RīA 2/III/2 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/III/4 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/III/5 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/III/6 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/III/10 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/III/12 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/III/14 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/III/16 (n umun-da -ri₂ nam-en -na -ke₄ ) RīA 2/III/16 (n umun-da -ri₂ nam-en -na -ke₄ ) RīA 2/III/19 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/III/19 (n umun-da -ri₂ nam-en -na -ke₄ ) RīA 2/III/22 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/III/24 (n umun-da -ri₂ nam-en -na -ke₄ ) RīA 2/III/28 (n umun-da -ri₂ nam-en -na -ke₄ )

BM 100292 unpublished UF 10 30

YOS 14 346

Nisaba 4 II.43

App. 1 Nᵒ 7

App. 1 Nᵒ 31

Nisaba 4 II.44

Nisaba 4 I.60

UF 10 37

Nisaba 4 I.25

Nisaba 4 I.61

Nisaba 4 I.26

Nisaba 4 I.62

Nisaba 4 I.63

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA 2/III/28 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi)

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

Nisaba 4 II.45

RīA 2/III/29 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IV/1 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IV/2 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IV/5 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IV/6 (n umun-da -ri₂ nam -e n-na -ke ₄) RīA 2/IV/7? (n umun-da -ri₂ nam -e n-na -ke ₄) RīA 2/IV/12 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IV/16 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IV/19 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IV/19 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IV/22 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IV/23 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IV/23 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IV/24 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi)

Nisaba 4 II.46

YOS 14 340

Nisaba 4 I.27

App. 1 Nᵒ 8

UF 10 27

Nisaba 4 I.64

Nisaba 4 I.28

Nisaba 4 I.29

MCS 7/1 p. 3

Nisaba 4 I.30

RSO 82 9

UF 10 10

App. 1 Nᵒ 26

UF 10 19

355

356

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA 2/IV/26 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi )

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

Nisaba 4 I.31

RīA 2/IV/27 (n umun-da -ri₂ nam-en -na -ke₄ ) RīA 2/IV/28 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/IV/30 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/IV/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/V/1 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/V/1 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/V/1 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/V/1 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/V/2 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/V/3? (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/V/3 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/V/8 (n umun-da -ri₂ nam-en -na -ke₄ ) RīA 2/V/8 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/V/10 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi )

Nisaba 4 I.65

Nisaba 4 II.47

UF 10 17

BaM 31 331

Nisaba 4 I.32

Nisaba 4 II.48

BM 88756 unpublished BM 88617 unpublished RSO 82 3

Nisaba 4 I.33

Nisaba 4 I.34

UF 10 24

Nisaba 4 I.35

BM 87045 unpublished

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA 2/V/11 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi)

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

VAS 13 47

RīA 2/V/12 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/V/13 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/V/14 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/V/16 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/V/20 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/V/21 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/V/24 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/V/26 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/V/26 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/V/28 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/V/29 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VI/1 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VI/1 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VI/2 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi)

357

Nisaba 4 II.49

App. 1 Nᵒ 32

UF 10 12

VAS 13 51

YOS 14 338+ RT 20 pp. 64–5 Nisaba 4 I.36

App. 1 Nᵒ 9

UF 10 31

Nisaba 4 II.50

UF 10 34

Nisaba 4 I.37

Nisaba 4 I.38

App. 1 Nᵒ 33

UF 10 26

358

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA 2/VI/3 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi )

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

Nisaba 4 I.39

RīA 2/VI/4 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VI/5 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VI/7 (n umun-da -ri₂ nam-en -na -ke₄ ) RīA 2/VI/10 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VI/12 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VI/13 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VI/14 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VI/15 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VI/15 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VI/15 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VI/16 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VI/17 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VI/18 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VI/19 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi )

App. 1 Nᵒ 34

Nisaba 4 II.51

Nisaba 4 I.66

Nisaba 4 II.52

Nisaba 4 II.53

Nisaba 4 I.40

Nisaba 4 II.54

Nisaba 4 I.41

Nisaba 4 II.55

BM 87065 unpublished Nisaba 4 II.56

VAS 13 45

BM 88698 unpublished Nisaba 4 II.57

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA 2/VI/20 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi)

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

Nisaba 4 II.58

RīA 2/VI/20 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VI/21 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VI/22 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VI/22 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VI/25 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VI/25 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VI/29 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VI/30 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi)

RīA 2/VI/30 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VII/8 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VII/9 (n umun-da -ri₂ nam -e n-na -ke ₄) RīA 2/VII/10 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VII/10 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VII/11 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi)

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

359

UF 10 36

Nisaba 4 I.42

Nisaba 4 I.43

App. 1 Nᵒ 10

Nisaba 4 II.59

Nisaba 4 II.60

Nisaba 4 I.44

App. 1 Nᵒ 11 (only seals and date were published in RA 80: 69–70) Nisaba 4 II.61

App. 1 Nᵒ 12

UF 10 11

UF 10 7

UF 10 39

Nisaba 4 I.45

360

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA 2/VII/12 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi )

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

Nisaba 4 I.46

RīA 2/VII/13 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VII/24 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VII/26 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VII/27 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VII?/27 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VII/28 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VII/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VIII/6 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VIII/13 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VIII/14 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VIII/15 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VIII/17 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VIII/20 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/VIII/21 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi )

Nisaba 4 I.47

App. 1 Nᵒ 13

App. 1 Nᵒ 35

Nisaba 4 II.62

Nisaba 4 II.63

Nisaba 4 I.48

UF 10 18

Nisaba 4 I.49

Nisaba 4 II.64

BM 100216 unpublished RA 71 Nᵒ 3 p. 8

RSO 82 10

App. 1 Nᵒ 36

UF 10 3

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA 2/VIII/21? (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi)

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

Nisaba 4 II.65

RīA 2/VIII/22 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VIII/23 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VIII/30 (n umun-da -ri₂ nam -e n-na -ke ₄) RīA 2/VIII/30 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/VIII?/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IX/4? (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IX/4+ (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IX/7 (n umun-da -ri₂ nam -e n-na -ke ₄) RīA 2/IX/9 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IX/13 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IX/14? (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IX/18 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IX/19 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/IX/20 (n umun-da -ri₂ nam -e n-na -ke ₄)

VAS 13 52

Nisaba 4 I.50

RA 71 Nᵒ 2 p. 7

App. 1 Nᵒ 37

App. 1 Nᵒ 38

Nisaba 4 I.51

Nisaba 4 I.52

VAS 13 55

Nisaba 4 II.66

Nisaba 4 I.53

Nisaba 4 II.67

UF 10 2

VAS 13 53

Nisaba 4 I.67

361

362

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA 2/IX/20 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi )

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds? Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

Nisaba 4 II.68

RīA 2/IX/22 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/IX/25 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/IX/25 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/IX/26 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/IX/[…] (RīA l u gal ) RīA 2/X/4? (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/X/7+ (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/X/8 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/X/9 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/X/9 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/X/10 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/X/11 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/X/12 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/X/13 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi )

Nisaba 4 II.69

Nisaba 4 I.54

BM 88447 unpublished UF 10 23

App. 1 Nᵒ 14

BaM 31 282

Nisaba 4 II.70

BaM 27 241

App. 1 Nᵒ 15

BaM 31 352

BM 87092 unpublished Nisaba 4 I.55

RSO 82 11

UF 10 1

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA 2/X/15 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi)

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Textiles Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Textiles (?) Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Baskets Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […]

VAS 13 46

RīA 2/X/18? (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/X/22 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/X/29 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/X/30 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/X/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/X/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/XI/2 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/XI/3 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/XI/6 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/XI/10 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/XI/11? (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/XI/17 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/XI/18 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/XI/22 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi)

Nisaba 4 I.56

BaM 31 340

Nisaba 4 II.71

UF 10 14

RlAA Nᵒ 244

App. 1 Nᵒ 16

BaM 23 179

App. 1 Nᵒ 17

BaM 31 322

VAS 13 50

Nisaba 4 II.72

App. 1 Nᵒ 18

BaM 18 32

BaM 31 326

363

364

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA 2/XI/23 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi )

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Cattle (dead animal) Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds

UF 10 35

RīA 2/XI/25 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/XI/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/XII/5 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/[…]/5 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/[…]/7 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/[…]/9 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/[…]/18 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/[…]/21 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/[…]/24 (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/[…]/1+ (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/[…]/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/[…]/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/[…]/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi ) RīA 2/[…]/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi )

Nisaba 4 II.73

BaM 31 324

App. 1 Nᵒ 27

SAKF 106

VAS 13 49

App. 1 Nᵒ 19

BM 100363 unpublished VAS 13 44

Nisaba 4 II.74

BM 87069 unpublished BaM 27 219

BaM 27 244

BaM 27 245

BaM 27 246

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA 2/[…]/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi)

Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Year name Antiquities market Year name Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

BaM 31 270

RīA 2/[…]/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/[…]/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2 /[…]/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/[…]/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 2/[…]/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA […]/[…]/[…] (un ug k i u₃ a ₂-da m-bi) RīA 3 RīA 3 RīA 3/I/5 (saha r ša r₂-ša r ₂-re) RīA 3/I/20 (ma- da Emutbal) RīA 3/I/22 (ma- da Emutbal) RīA 3/I/24 (ma- da Emutbal) RīA 3/I/24 (ma- da Emutbal) RīA 3/I/28 (ma- da Emutbal) RīA 3/II/2+ (ma-da Emutbal)

365

BaM 31 280

BaM 31 302

RA 71 Nᵒ 4 p. 8

App. 1 Nᵒ 20

RSO 82 14

VAS 13 54

IV R 35 Nᵒ 8 Michalowski and Beckman (2012) Nisaba 4 II.83

BaM 31 303

Nisaba 4 II.75

BaM 31 316

BaM 31 344

Nisaba 4 II.76

CDLJ 2007/1 Nᵒ 47

366

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA 3/II/3 (ma -da Emutbal)

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative Reeds, possibly not bīt asīrī Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Antiquities market Administrative Receipt of silver

YOS 14 337

RīA 3/II/5+ (ma -da Emutbal) RīA 3/II/5 (ma -da Emutbal) RīA 3/II/6 (ma -da Emutbal) RīA 3/II/7 (ma -da Emutbal) RīA 3/II/15 (saha r ba -d ub -ba) RīA 3/II/18 (ma -da Emutbal) RīA 3/II/28 (ma -da Emutbal) RīA 3/II/28 (ma -da Emutbal) RīA 3/II/[…] (ma -da Emutbal) RīA 3/II/[…] (ma -da Emutbal) RīA 3/II/[…] (ma -da Emutbal) RīA 3/III/25 (ma -da Emutbal) RīA 3/VII/23 (ma -da Emutbal) RīA 3/IX/[…] (ma -da Emutbal)

BaM 31 292

BaM 31 334

BaM 31 338

Nisaba 4 II.77

App. 1 Nᵒ 39

Nisaba 4 II.78

BaM 31 306

Nisaba 4 II.79

BaM 31 268

BaM 31 295

BaM 31 362

BaM 31 345

BaM 31 359

Nisaba 4 III.3

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA 3/IX?/10 (ma- da Emutbal)

Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

BaM 27 242

Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Sheep Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative Wood Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […]

BaM 31 271

RīA 3/[…]/[…] (ma- da Emultbal) RīA 3/[…]/[…] (ma- da Emutbal) RīA 3/[…]/[…] (ma- da Emutbalum) RīA 3/[…]/[…] (ma- da Emutbal)

[RīA?…]/I/24? ([…]) [RīA?…]/II/3 (prosopography) RīA […]/III/13 (RīA l ugal […]) RīA […]/IV/[…] (RīA […]) RīA […]/VII/11+ (RīA […]) RīA […]/VIII/1 (RīA […]) RīA […]/VIII/16 (RīA l ugal ) [RīA?…]/IX/24 (prosopography) RīA […]/IX/[…] (RīA […]) RīA […]/X/21 (RīA lugal [… ])

BaM 27 217

BaM 27 243

BaM 31 269

VAS 13 13

App. 1 Nᵒ 40

BaM 31 343

BaM 18 33

RSO 82 1

BM 86101 unpublished Nisaba 4 III.2

App. 1 Nᵒ 41

App. 1 Nᵒ 21

BaM 31 323

367

368

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA […]/X/[…] (RīA lugal […])

Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Seal impression Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds

BaM 27 238

RīA […]/X/[…]

[RīA …]/XI/[…] (prosopography) RīA […]/XII/21 (RīA […]) [RīA?…]/[…]/9 (prosopography) [RīA?…]/[…]/14 (prosopography) RīA […]/[…]/19 (RīA lugal […]) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

Nisaba 4 II.81

BM 88687 unpublished BaM 31 293

BaM 31 351

App. 1 Nᵒ 22

BaM 31 284

BaM 27 212

BaM 27 213

BaM 27 218

BaM 27 223

BaM 27 250

BaM 27 251

BaM 27 252

BaM 27 254

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

[RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood (?) Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Textiles Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative Receipt of silver Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

BaM 27 256

[RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) RīA […]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA?…] (prosopography) [RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

369

BaM 27 257

BaM 27 259

BaM 31 272

BaM 31 273

BaM 31 281

BaM 31 300

BaM 31 308

BaM 31 356

BaM 31 366

Nisaba 4 II.80

Nisaba 4 II.82

Nisaba 4 III.4

RlAA Nᵒ 250

CDLJ 2007/1 Nᵒ 45

370

Appendix 3: Chronological catalogue of texts from Uruk

Date

Provenance, type, and content

Publication

RīA? (undated) (prosopography)

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī (?) Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

App. 1 Nᵒ 42

[RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

App. 1 Nᵒ 23

App. 1 Nᵒ 24

RSO 82 7

BM 88612 unpublished BM 88662 unpublished BM 97061 unpublished BM 88954 unpublished

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk dated to Samsu-iluna and Rīm-Anum Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

BaM  

W , 

RīA /XI/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W a

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , A

BaM  

W , B

Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Baskets Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Sheep Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Textiles Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Textiles Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Textiles and silver Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […]

Collation

RīA […]/IV/[…] (RīA […]) RīA /XI/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi) RīA /X/+ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /XI/+ (RīA l ugal ) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) RīA /IX/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA ?/II/[…] (RīA l ugal ) RīA /[…]/[…] (ma - da Emultbal) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

 Tablets edited in this volume are listed after all the published tablets (under App. 1 Nᵒ 1 etc.), and they are followed by unpublished tablets from the British Museum (under Unpublished) that are quoted in this study but not edited because Rositani and Frackowiack expressed their intention of publishing them in the future.

372

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

BaM  

W , C

RīA /[…]/[…] (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

BaM  

W , G

BaM  

W , C

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Seal impression Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds

[RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) RīA /IX/[…] (RīA l ugal ) RīA /IX/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/[…] (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/[…] (RīA l ugal ) RīA […]/X/[…] (RīA lugal […])

Collation

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

BaM  

W , 

RīA /X/[…] (RīA l ugal )

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , II

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds? Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Reeds

RīA /[…]/ (RīA l ugal ) RīA /X/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi) RīA /IX?/ (ma - da Emutbal) RīA /[…]/[…] (ma - da Emutbal) RīA /[…]/[…] (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi) RīA /[…]/[…] (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi) RīA /[…]/[…] (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

373

Collation

374

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

BaM  

W , 

RīA /II/[…] (ma- da Emutbal)

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , B

BaM  

W , C

BaM  

W , D

BaM  

W , F

BaM  

W , N

BaM  

W , O

BaM  

W , Q

BaM  

No signature

BaM  

W , 

Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood (?) Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood

RīA /[…]/[…] (ma- da Emutbalum) RīA /[…]/[…] (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi ) [RīA?…]/I/? ([…]) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) RīA /[…]/[…] (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi ) [RīA? …]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) RīA /X/? (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi ) RīA […]/[…]/ (RīA lugal […]) RīA /II/+ (ma- da Emutbal) RīA […]/XII/ (RīA […]) RīA /II/[…] (ma- da Emutbal) RīA […]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) RīA /[…]/[…] (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

Collation

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

BaM  

W , 

RīA /I/ (ma - da Emutbal)

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , BI+II

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , A

BaM  

W , 

Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Wood Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative, bīt asīrī (?) Prisoners and slaves Sîn-kāšid Palace. Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Textiles (?) Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […]

RīA /II/ (ma - da Emutbal) [RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) RīA /I/ (ma - da Emutbal) Si /VIII/

Si /VIII/

RīA /XI/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi) RīA ˹?˺/X/ (RīA lugal [… ]) RīA /XI/[…] (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi) RīA /XI/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi) RīA /II/[…] (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi) RīA /IV/[…] (RīA l ugal ) RīA /IV/[…] (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi) RīA /II/ (ma - da Emutbal)

375

Collation

376

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

BaM  

W , 

RīA /II/ (ma- da Emutbal)

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , A

BaM  

W , B

BaM  

W , A

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , 

Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Textiles Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative Prisoners and slaves

Collation

RīA /X/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi ) RīA […]/III/ (RīA l ugal […]) RīA /I/ (ma- da Emutbal) RīA /III/ (ma- da Emutbal) RīA /XI/? (RīA l ugal ) [RīA?…]/[…]/ (prosopography) RīA /X/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi ) [RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography) RīA /VII/ (ma- da Emutbal) RīA /II/[…] (ma- da Emutbal) RīA /IX/[…] (RīA l ugal ) [RīA?…] (prosopography)

 The signs copied in the autograph do not seem to correspond to a Rīm-Anum or Samsuiluna year name.

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

BaM  

W , 

RīA /IX/ (RīA l ugal )

BaM  

W , 

BaM  

W , B

CDLJ / Nᵒ 

KVM .

CDLJ / Nᵒ 

KVM .

IV R  Nᵒ MCS / p. 

B.K.  Liverpool ..

Michalowski and Beckman () Nisaba  I.

NCBT 

Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Sîn-kāšid Palace Administrative […] Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves year name Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Year formula

RīA ?/IX/ (RīA l ugal )

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

BM 

377

Collation

RīA /II/[…] (RīA l ugal ) RīA ?/IX/[…] (RīA l ugal ) [RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

(+)

RīA /II/+ (ma-da Emutbal)

RīA  RīA /IV/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 

RīA /IX/ (RīA l ugal )

(+)

RīA /IX/+ (RīA l ugal )

(+)

 If the autograph copy is accurate, there seems to no line after ˹mu˺ Ri-im-d[A-nu-um lugal]. This would indicate that this tablet is dated to the first year of Rīm-Anum.

378

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Collation

Nisaba  I.

BM 

RīA /X/? (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba  I.

BM 

RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal )

RīA /X/ (RīA l ugal )

RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal )

RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal )

RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal )

(+)

RīA ?/XI/ (RīA l ugal )

(+)

RīA ?/XI?/ (RīA l ugal )

RīA /XI/ (RīA l ugal )

RīA /XII/ (RīA l ugal )

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Nisaba  I.

BM 

RīA /XII/ (RīA l ugal )

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

379

Collation

RīA /[…]/ (RīA l ugal )

(+)

RīA /I/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

RīA /II/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA /II/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

RīA /II/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA /II/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

RīA /II/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA /II/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA /II/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA /III/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

380

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Nisaba  I.

BM 

RīA /III/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

Collation

RīA /IV/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /IV/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /IV/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /IV/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /IV/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /V/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /V/? (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /V/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /V/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /V/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Nisaba  I.

BM 

RīA /V/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

381

Collation

RīA /VI/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA /VI/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA /VI/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA /VI/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

RīA /VI/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA /VI/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA /VI/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA /VII/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA /VII/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA /VII/ (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

382

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Nisaba  I.

BM 

RīA /VII/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba  I.

BM 

Nisaba 4 I.58

BM 16442

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

RīA /VIII/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /VIII/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /IX/? (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /IX/+ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /IX/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /IX/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /X/ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /X/? (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA /I/ (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - e n- na- ke₄ ) RīA 2/II/29 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

Collation

(+)

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

383

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Collation

Nisaba 4 I.59

BM 16430

RīA 2/II/30 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

Nisaba 4 I.60

BM 23235

Nisaba 4 I.61

BM 23258

Nisaba 4 I.62

BM 16429

Nisaba 4 I.63

BM 16431

Nisaba 4 I.64

BM 15617

Nisaba 4 I.65

BM 16456

Nisaba 4 I.66

BM 22725

Nisaba 4 I.67

BM 16440

Nisaba 4 II.1

BM 16414

Nisaba 4 II.2

BM 16389

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

RīA 2/III/16 (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - en- na- ke₄ ) RīA 2/III/19 (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - en- na- ke₄ ) RīA 2/III/24 (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - en- na- ke₄ ) RīA 2/III/28 (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - en- na- ke₄ ) RīA 2/IV/7? (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - en- na- ke₄ ) RīA 2/IV/27 (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - en- na- ke₄ )

(+)

RīA 2/VI/7 (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - en- na- ke₄ )

(+)

RīA 2/IX/20 (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - en- na- ke₄ ) RīA 1/VIII/20 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

RīA 1/VIII/27 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

384

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Collation

Nisaba 4 II.3

BM 26307

RīA 1/IX/3 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.4

BM 22715

RīA 1/IX/6 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.5

BM 86034

RīA 1/IX/18 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.6

BM 15663

RīA 1/IX/20 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.7

BM 23404

Nisaba 4 II.8

BM 22733

Nisaba 4 II.9

BM 23377

Nisaba 4 II.10

BM 96096

Nisaba 4 II.11

BM 16452

Nisaba 4 II.12

BM 22729

Nisaba 4 II.13

BM 23251

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

RīA 1/IX/20 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1/X/3 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

RīA 1/X/5 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

RīA 1/X/20 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

RīA 1/X/23 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

RīA 1/XI/3 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

RīA 1/XI/5 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

385

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Collation

Nisaba 4 II.14

BM 22718

RīA 1/XI/6 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.15

BM 16436

RīA 1/[…]/11 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.16

BM 23214

RīA 1/XI/11? (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.17

BM 23174

RīA 1?/XI?/12 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.18

BM 22890

RīA 1/XI/13 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.19

BM 96237

RīA 1/XI/13 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.20

BM 16390

RīA 1/XI/15 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.21

BM 16451

RīA 1/XI/17 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.22

BM 16449

RīA 1/XI/22 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.23

BM 16453

RīA 1/XI/22 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.24

BM 23227

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

RīA 1/XII/22 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

386

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Collation

Nisaba 4 II.25

BM 86052

RīA 1/XI/22 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.26

BM 23178

RīA 1/XI/23 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.27

BM 15417

RīA 1/XI/26 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.28

BM 23165

RīA 1/XI/28 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.29

BM 16438

RīA 1?/[…]/30 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.30

BM 15484

RīA 1/XII/10 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.31

BM 23380

RīA 1/XII/10 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.32

BM 15675

RīA 1/XII/16 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.33

BM 16394

RīA 1/XII/16 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.34

BM 15595

RīA 1/XII/21 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.35

BM 23441

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

RīA 1/XII/29 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

387

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Collation

Nisaba 4 II.36

BM 23164

RīA 1/XII/[…] (RīA [l u gal ])

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.37

BM 23187

RīA 1/[…]/6 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.38

BM 23257

RīA 2/I/4 (u ĝ ₃ -suh₃ -a - bi)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.39

BM 85082

RīA 2/I/11 (u ĝ ₃ -suh₃ -a - bi)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.40

BM 15656

RīA 2/I/19 (u ĝ ₃ -suh₃ -a - bi)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.41

BM 85057

RīA 2/I/20 (u ĝ ₃ -suh₃ -a - bi)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.42

BM 85034

RīA 2/I/28 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.43

BM 85062

RīA 2/III/6 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.44

BM 16388

RīA 2/III/14 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.45

BM 23121

RīA 2/III/28 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.46

BM 15597

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

RīA 2/III/29 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

388

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Collation

Nisaba 4 II.47

BM 15690

RīA 2/IV/28 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.48

BM 23454

RīA 2/V/1 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.49

BM 22719

RīA 2/V/12 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.50

BM 23126

RīA 2/V/26 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.51

BM 23139

RīA 2/VI/5 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.52

BM 16459

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

RīA 2/VI/10 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

RīA 2/VI/12 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

RīA 2/VI/14 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

RīA 2/VI/15 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

RīA 2/VI/16 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

RīA 2/VI/19 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.53

BM 16447

Nisaba 4 II.54

BM 15665

Nisaba 4 II.55

BM 15689

Nisaba 4 II.56

BM 16444

Nisaba 4 II.57

BM 16420

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

389

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Collation

Nisaba 4 II.58

BM 23457

RīA 2/VI/20 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.59

BM 16415

RīA 2/VI/25 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.60

BM 86047

RīA 2/VI/25 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.61

BM 23416

RīA 2/VI/30 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.62

BM 15614

RīA 2/VII/27 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.63

BM 16458

RīA 2/VII?/27 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.64

BM 23410

Nisaba 4 II.65

BM 15713

Nisaba 4 II.66

BM 15445

Nisaba 4 II.67

BM 23260

Nisaba 4 II.68

BM 15450

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

RīA 2/VIII/13 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/VIII/21? (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

RīA 2/IX/9 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

RīA 2/IX/14? (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

RīA 2/IX/20 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

390

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Collation

Nisaba 4 II.69

BM 22721

RīA 2/IX/22 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.70

BM 85481

RīA 2/X/7+ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.71

BM 16387

RīA 2/X/29 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.72

BM 23361

RīA 2/XI/11? (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.73

BM 23192

RīA 2/XI/25 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.74

BM 16398

RīA 2/[…]/24 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.75

BM 16393

RīA 3/I/22 (ma- da Emutbal)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.76

BM 97321

RīA 3/I/28 (ma- da Emutbal)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.77

BM 23358

Nisaba 4 II.78

BM 96122

Nisaba 4 II.79

BM 23349

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

RīA 3/II/7 (ma- da Emutbal)

RīA 3/II/18 (ma- da Emutbal)

(+)

RīA 3/II/28 (ma- da Emutbal)

(+)

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

391

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Collation

Nisaba 4 II.80

BM 16382

[RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.81

BM 16384

RīA […]/X/[…]

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.82

BM 16396

[RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

(+)

Nisaba 4 II.83

BM 23463

RīA 3/I/5 (sahar š ar ₂ -š ar ₂ - re)

(+)

Nisaba 4 III.1

BM 23456

RīA 1/V/26 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 III.2

BM 23191

RīA […]/VIII/16 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Nisaba 4 III.3

BM 85077

RīA 3/IX/[…] (ma - da Emutbal)

(+)

Nisaba 4 III.4

BM 97450

[RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

(+)

Nisaba 4 App. pp. 195–7

BM 16379

Si 8/VIII/11

(+)

RA 71 Nᵒ 1 p.7

AO.7548

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative Unspecified product Antiquities market Administrative Wood Antiquities market Administrative Receipt of silver Antiquities market Administrative Receipt of silver Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī (?) Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

RA 71 Nᵒ 2 p. 7 AO.20299

RA 71 Nᵒ 3 p. 8 AO.20310

RīA 1/XII/22 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/VIII/30 (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - en- na- ke₄ ) RīA 2/VIII/15 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

392

Publication

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Museum Number

RA 71 Nᵒ 4 p. 8 AO.20311

RlAA Nᵒ 244

O.150

RlAA Nᵒ 250

O.154

RSO 82 1

BM 86048

RSO 82 2

BM 86093A

RSO 82 3

BM 86095A

RSO 82 4

BM 86145

RSO 82 5

BM 87738A

RSO 82 6

BM 88510

RSO 82 7

BM 88533

RSO 82 8

BM 88588A

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

RīA 2 /[…]/[…] (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

Collation

RīA 2/X/[…] (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

[RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

(+)

RīA […]/VII/11+ (RīA […])

RīA 1/XI/9 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/V/2 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/II/16 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 1/XII/22 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1?/VIII/11+ (RīA l ugal )

[RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

RīA 1/XI/30 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

393

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Collation

RSO 82 9

BM 88601

RīA 2/IV/22 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

RSO 82 10

BM 88619

RSO 82 11

BM 88694

RSO 82 12

BM 88701

RSO 82 13

BM 88802

RSO 82 14

BM 88817

RSO 82 15

BM 88977

RSO 82 16

BM 88980

SAKF 106

14 a

UF 10 1

BM 13905

UF 10 2

BM 13962

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

RīA 2/VIII/17 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/X/12 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 1/XI/5 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1?/[…]/[…] (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/[…]/[…] (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 1/XII/10? (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1/XI/8 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/[…]/5 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/X/13 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/IX/18 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

(+)

394

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

UF 10 3

BM 14021

RīA 2/VIII/21 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

UF 10 4

BM 14028

UF 10 5

BM 14030

UF 10 6

BM 14039

UF 10 7

BM 14058

UF 10 8

BM 14059

UF 10 9

BM 14060

UF 10 10

BM 14059

UF 10 11

BM 14064

UF 10 12

BM 14065

UF 10 13

BM 14066

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

Collation

RīA 2/I/9 (uĝ ₃ -suh ₃ -a- bi )

RīA 2/II/29 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 1/X/11 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/VII/10 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/III/1 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 1/XII/23 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/IV/23 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/VII/9 (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - e n- na- ke₄ ) RīA 2/V/14 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 1/XI/12 (RīA l ugal )

(+)

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

UF 10 14

BM 14069

RīA 2/X/30 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

UF 10 15

BM 14070

UF 10 16

BM 14072

UF 10 17

BM 14074

UF 10 18

BM 14075

UF 10 19

BM 14077

UF 10 20

BM 14078

UF 10 21

BM 14079

UF 10 22

BM 14080

UF 10 23

BM 14081

UF 10 24

BM 14082

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

RīA 1/XII/9 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1/XI/22 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/IV/30 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/VII/[…] (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/IV/24 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 1/X/2 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1/XI/14 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/II/6 (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - en- na- ke₄ ) RīA 2/IX/26 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/V/8 (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - en- na- ke₄ )

395

Collation

396

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

UF 10 25

BM 14084

RīA 2/II/20 (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - e n- na- ke₄ )

UF 10 26

BM 14086

UF 10 27

BM 14087

UF 10 28

BM 14090

UF 10 29

BM 14091

UF 10 30

BM 14092

UF 10 31

BM 14094

UF 10 32

BM 14094

UF 10 33

BM 14162

UF 10 34

BM 14175

UF 10 35

BM 14182

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

RīA 2/VI/2 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/IV/6 (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - e n- na- ke₄ ) RīA 1/XI/28 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1/XII/14 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/III/4 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/V/26 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/II/25 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 1/X/18 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/V/28 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/XI/23 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

Collation

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

UF 10 36

BM 14188

RīA 2/VI/20 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

UF 10 37

BM 14211

UF 10 38

BM 14212

UF 10 39

BM 14228

UF 10 40

BM 14231

VAS 13 13

VAT 5589

VAS 13 35

VAT 5139

VAS 13 36

VAT 3964

VAS 13 37

VAT 3955

VAS 13 38

VAT 3953

VAS 13 39

VAT 4349

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Cattle related Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

RīA 2/III/16 (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - en- na- ke₄ ) RīA 2/II/9 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/VII/10 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/II/8 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 3 /[…]/[…] (ma - da Emutbal)

RīA 1/XI/[…] (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1/XI/6 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1/IX/19 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1/XI/7 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1/[…]/16 (RīA l ugal )

397

Collation

398

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

VAS 13 40

VAT 3883

RīA 1/XII/15? (RīA l ugal )

VAS 13 41

VAT 3854

VAS 13 42

VAT 3872

VAS 13 43

VAT 4317

VAS 13 44

VAT 3954

VAS 13 45

VAT 3939

VAS 13 46

VAT 3931

VAS 13 47

VAT 2958

VAS 13 48

VAT 3928

VAS 13 49

VAT 3965

VAS 13 50

VAT 3886

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

RīA 1/XII/20 (RīA [l ugal ])

RīA 1/X/[…] (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1/XII/10 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/[…]/21 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/VI/17 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/X/15 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/V/11 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/II/27 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/[…]/7 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/XI/10 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

Collation

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

VAS 13 51

VAT 3877

RīA 2/V/16 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

VAS 13 52

VAT 3855

VAS 13 53

VAT 3863

VAS 13 54

VAT 3875

VAS 13 55

VAT 3878

YOS 14 337

MLC 1741

YOS 14 338 + RT 20 pp. 64–5

MLC 1284

YOS 14 339

MLC 1588

YOS 14 340

MLC 2650

YOS 14 341

MLC 837

YOS 14 342

MLC 1589

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

RīA 2/VIII/22 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/IX/19 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA […]/[…]/[…] (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/IX/7 (num un- da- ri ₂ nam - en- na- ke₄ ) RīA 3/II/3 (ma - da Emutbal)

RīA 2/V/20 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 1/XII/16 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/IV/1 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 1/X/1 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1/IX/7 (RīA l ugal )

399

Collation

400

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

YOS 14 346

YBC 11995

RīA 2/III/5 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

App. 1 Nᵒ 1

FLP 1917

App. 1 Nᵒ 2

FLP 2213

App. 1 Nᵒ 3

FLP 2094

App. 1 Nᵒ 4

FLP 1859

App. 1 Nᵒ 5

FLP 1715

App. 1 Nᵒ 6

FLP 1909

App. 1 Nᵒ 7

FLP 1710

App. 1 Nᵒ 8

FLP 1686

App. 1 Nᵒ 9

FLP 1719

App. 1 Nᵒ 10

FLP 2044

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī […] Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

RīA 1/X/18 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1/XI/14+ (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1/[…]/2+ (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1/[…]/[…] (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/I/15 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/II/21 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/III/10 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/IV/5 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/V/24 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/VI/22 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

Collation

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

App. 1 Nᵒ 11 FLP 1681 (only seals and date were published in RA 80: 69–70) App. 1 Nᵒ 12 FLP 1707

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

RīA 2/VI/30 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative Reeds, perhaps not bīt asīrī

RīA 2/VII/8 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

App. 1 Nᵒ 13

FLP 2017

App. 1 Nᵒ 14

FLP 1792

App. 1 Nᵒ 15

FLP 2040

App. 1 Nᵒ 16

FLP 1867

App. 1 Nᵒ 17

FLP 1729

App. 1 Nᵒ 18

FLP 1718

App. 1 Nᵒ 19

FLP 1690

App. 1 Nᵒ 20

FLP 2066

RīA 2/VII/24 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/IX/[…] (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/X/9 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/X/[…] (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/XI/3 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/XI/17 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/[…]/9 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/[…]/[…] (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 3/II/15 (sahar ba- d ub - ba )

401

Collation

402

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

App. 1 Nᵒ 21

FLP 2249

RīA […]/IX/[…] (RīA […])

App. 1 Nᵒ 22

FLP 2358

App. 1 Nᵒ 23

FLP 1691

App. 1 Nᵒ 24

FLP 1692

App. 1 Nᵒ 25

A 4700

App. 1 Nᵒ 26

A 4906

App. 1 Nᵒ 27

PTS 12

App. 1 Nᵒ 28

MLC 2679

App. 1 Nᵒ 29

MLC 2565

App. 1 Nᵒ 30

MLC 845

App. 1 Nᵒ 31

MLC 1005

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative Memorandum Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Cattle (dead animal) Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

[RīA?…]/[…]/14 (prosopography)

[RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

[RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

RīA 1/X/7 (RīA l ugal ) RīA 2/IV/23 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/XII/5 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 1/VIII/24 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/I/1 (uĝ ₃ -suh ₃ -a- bi )

RīA 2/II/11 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/III/12 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

Collation

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

App. 1 Nᵒ 32

MLC 1587

RīA 2/V/13 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

App. 1 Nᵒ 33

MLC 1592

App. 1 Nᵒ 34

MLC 838

App. 1 Nᵒ 35

MLC 1621

App. 1 Nᵒ 36

MLC 847

App. 1 Nᵒ 37

MLC 842

App. 1 Nᵒ 38

MLC 844

App. 1 Nᵒ 39

NCBT 1845

App. 1 Nᵒ 40

MLC 843

App. 1 Nᵒ 41

MLC 1590

App. 1 Nᵒ 42

MLC 1591

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative Reeds, possibly not bīt asīrī Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī (?) Flour

RīA 2/VI/1 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/VI/4 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/VII/26 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/VIII/20 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/VIII/30 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 2/VIII?/[…] (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 3/II/15 (sahar ba- d ub - ba)

[RīA?…]/II/3 (prosopography)

[RīA?…]/IX/24 (prosopography)

RīA? (undated) (prosopography)

403

Collation

404

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Unpublished

BM 86101

RīA […]/VIII/1 (RīA […])

Unpublished

BM 86108

Unpublished

BM 86143

Unpublished

BM 86144

Unpublished

BM 87045

Unpublished

BM 87065

Unpublished

BM 87069

Unpublished

BM 87085

Unpublished

BM 87092

Unpublished

BM 88447

Unpublished

BM 88515

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves

RīA 1/XI/7 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1?/XII/17? (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1/IX/4 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/V/10 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/VI/15 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/[…]/1+ (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 1/[…]/[…] (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/X/10 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/IX/15 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/I/21 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

Collation

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Unpublished

BM 88569

RīA 1/XII/25 (RīA l ugal )

Unpublished

BM 88576

Unpublished

BM 88590A

Unpublished

BM 88612

Unpublished

BM 88613

Unpublished

BM 88617

Unpublished

BM 88624

Unpublished

BM 88662

Unpublished

BM 88681

Unpublished

BM 88687

Unpublished

BM 88698

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

RīA 1/XII/[…] (RīA [l u gal ])

RīA 1/XI/22 (RīA l ugal )

[RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

RīA 1/[…]/22 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 2/V/1 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

RīA 1/X/3 (RīA l ugal )

[RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

RīA 2/I/29 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

[RīA …]/XI/[…] (prosopography)

RīA 2/VI/18 (unug k i u₃ a₂ - dam - bi)

405

Collation

406

Appendix 4: Catalogue of texts from Uruk

Publication

Museum Number

Provenance, type, and content

Date

Unpublished

BM 88756

RīA 2/V/1 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

Unpublished

BM 88820

Unpublished

BM 88930

Unpublished

BM 88954

Unpublished

BM 97061

Unpublished

BM 100216

Unpublished

BM 100292

Unpublished

BM 100363

Unpublished

BM 100379

Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Prisoners and slaves Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour Antiquities market Administrative, bīt asīrī Flour

RīA 1/VIII/15 (RīA l ugal )

RīA 1/V/22+ (RīA l ugal )

[RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

[RīA?…]/[…]/[…] (prosopography)

RīA 2/VIII/14 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/III/2 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 2/[…]/18 (unug k i u ₃ a₂ - dam - bi )

RīA 1/X/20 (RīA l ugal )

Collation

Appendix 5: Glossary This glossary is not meant to be a lexical study. The English translations do not cover the entire semantic range of the individual lemmata; the meanings offered here are only those occurring in attestations in the corpus of the bīt asīrī. The glossary is intended to serve as a quick reference to Sumerian and Akkadian expressions cited in this study. A number of these words are also discussed in various sections of the book. The English renderings of certain terms, especially those denoting professions or institutions, are problematic because the translation may be anachronistic, because it may not reflect the actual activities performed by an individual or an institution, or because the precise meaning is still debated. When the Akkadian equivalent of a logogram is not completely certain, I do not provide it. The bound transcription of a number of logograms and Sumerian words can be problematic because it is not completely clear how certain semantic units were interpreted in antiquity and because modern scholars follow different conventions. I have found no general principle to apply to the bound transcription because the available options were not completely satisfactory or could not be applied to every case. In this study the elements of genitival and adjectival chains are not hyphenated, unless the Akkadian rendering consists of only one word. This is the case, for instance, with a-zu-gal (a-zu + gal), Akk. azugallum, and dub-sarzag-ga (dub-sar + zag), Akk. zazakkum. Even though Akkadian and Sumerian are two completely unrelated languages, since they were in close contact, the Akkadian translation often provides us with a roughly understanding of the Sumerian. I have made an exception with institutions whose designation begins with an e₂ sign, whose elements are all hyphenated. This is strictly a matter of practical personal preference to make it easier for the reader to perceive frequently quoted words as a unit.

I List of Sumerian words and logograms and their Akkadian and English renderings a -zu-gal → azugallum → chief-physician a d -KI D → atkuppum → basket weaver, reed worker a ga₃-us ₂ → rēdûm → soldier a ga₃-us ₂ l u gal → royal soldier a ga₃-us ₂ sa ĝ → elite soldier a ga₃-us ₂ sa ĝ l u gal → royal elite soldier a ĝ ri g → abarakkum → administrator (of the kitchens)

arad → wardum → slave, servant lu₂ azlag₂ (LU₂.TUG₂) → ašlākum → fuller bisaĝ-dub-ba → šandabakkum → highranking official in the palace or temple administration d ili → wēdum → individual, solitary, single person, alone.

408

Appendix 5: Glossary

d ub -sa r → ṭupšarrum → scribe d ub -sa r u gn im → military scribe d ub -sa r-za g-ga → zazakkum → registry official d um u e₂-dub -ba → scribe d um u -gaba → dumugabûm → male baby d um u -m unus -gaba → dumugabītum → female baby e ₂ → bītum → house e ₂-a -zu -m eš → bīt asî → house of the physicians e ₂-a ĝrig → bīt abarakkim → house of the administrator (of the kitchens) e ₂-bur-sa ĝ → possibly a place related to food preparation or to the storage of offerings e ₂-ĝi₆ -pa r₃ → bīt gipārim → residence of the entum-priestess e ₂-guruš da → bīt mārîm → fattening stable e ₂-maš -l u gal → royal sheepfold e ₂-m unus → house of the woman/women e ₂-m uš en -hi -a → bīt iṣṣūrī → house of the birds, poultry house e ₂-sukkal → bīt šukkallim → house of a court official (of high status) e ₂-š abra → bīt šabrîm → house of the chief administrator (of the household of a wealthy individual, or of a palace or temple) e ₂-( m unus -)uš -bar → bīt išparī / bīt išparātim → house of the (female) weavers e ₂ unūtim → bīt unūtim → house of tools e ₂-u zu → bīt šīrim, bīt nasrim → meat store e ₂-gal → ekallum → palace e n-nu → maṣṣarum, maṣṣartum → watch, guard e nsi₂ → iššiakkum → 1) ruler, 2) agricultural manager e reš -di ĝi r → entum → high priestess e ri n₂ → ṣābum → troops, team gem e ₂ → amtum → female slave g u -za -l a ₂ → guzalûm → chair-bearer (function uncertain) g u du₄ → pašīšum → a priest g u du₄ -abzu → gudapsûm → a priest

ĝešbun (KI.KAŠ.NINDA) → tākultum → a type of flour allocation. ĝi₆ -par ₃ → gipārum → residence of the entum-priestess ĝiri₃ → šēpum → conveyor hub₂-bu- m eš → ḫuppû →acrobats kisal-l uh → kisalluḫḫum → courtyard sweeper lu₂ → awīlum → man, leader lu₂-ki ĝ₂ -gi ₄ -a → mār šiprim → messenger lu₂-ur₃- ra → lurrakkûm → food preparation specialist lugal → šarrum → king lun ga₃ → sirāšûm → brewer MAR.TU(-meš) → amurrû → Amorites maš-tab → māšum, f. māštum → twin (brother/sister) muhaldi m → nuḫatimmum → cook munus-sa ĝ → female slave munus-šu -g i → šībtum → old woman munus- tur → ṣeḫertum → young (woman), girl munus- uš -ba r → išpartum → female weaver na-gada → nāqidum → herdsman na-kam -tum → nakkamtum → store nar-gal → nargallum → chief musician PA.PA → rab ḫaṭṭim, rabû ša ḫaṭṭātim → “captain” of the army ra₂-gaba → rakbum → envoy, “mounted messenger(?)” (function uncertain) saĝ-arad → wardum → male slave saĝ-ge m e₂ → amtum → female slave saĝ-tur → slave boy saĝa → šangûm → chief administrator of a temple san tana → šandanakkum → administrator of date orchards si-la₂ → piqittum → a type of flour allocation.

Appendix 5: Glossary

si m ug → nappāḫum → smith si pa d → rēʾûm → shepherd su-si -i g → šusikkum → animal flayer, fellmonger sukkal → šukkallum → high official (function uncertain) š a ₃ -gud → kullizum → ox-driver š a ₃ -ta m → šatammum → administrative official, or temple administrator of lowrank š a ₃ -ta m a n-za ₃-ga r → šatam dimtim → administrative official of a fortified area š ab ra → šabrûm → high-ranking administrative official š a gi na (KIŠ.NITA₂)→ šakkanakkum → governor š eš → aḫum → brother. š u-i → gallābum → 1) barber, 2) a title of a(n) (royal) official.

š uku → kurummatum → a type of flour allocation. tur → ṣeḫrum → young (person), boy, youth u₂-tul ₂ → utullum → herds administrator ugula → waklum, šāpirum → overseer, giver of instructions ugula MAR.TU → lit. overseer of the Amorites; 1) highest military office, “general” of the army, 2) Amorite leader uš -bar → išparum → weaver zabar-dab ₅ -ba → zabardabbûm → cup bearer (function uncertain) zadi m → sasinnum → maker of bows and arrows

II Akkadian words and their Sumerian and logographic renderings abarakkum → aĝ rig aḫum → šeš amtum → geme ₂, sa ĝ-gem e₂, mun us-sa ĝ amurrû → MAR.TU(-meš) ašlākum → l u ₂ a zla g ₂ (LU₂.TUG₂) atkuppum → a d-KID awīlum → l u₂ azugallum → a -zu-gal bītum → e₂ bīt abarakkim → e ₂-a ĝri g bīt asî → e ₂-a-zu-meš bīt gipārim → e₂-ĝ i₆ -par ₃ bīt iṣṣūrī → e₂-mušen-hi -a bīt išparī / bīt išparātim → e₂-( munus-) uš-bar bīt mārîm → e₂-g urušda bīt šabrîm → e ₂-š abra bīt šīrim → e ₂-uzu bīt šukkallim → e ₂-sukkal bīt unūtim → e ₂ unūtim

409

dumugabītum → d um u- m unus - gaba dumugabûm → d um u - gaba ekallum → e ₂- gal entum → ereš - d i ĝ ir gallābum → š u - i gipārum → ĝ i ₆ -par ₃ gudapsûm → g udu₄ -abzu guzalûm → g u -za- la ₂ ḫuppû → hub₂ - bu- m eš išpartum → munus - uš - ba r išparum → uš - bar iššiakkum → ensi₂ kisalluḫḫum → kisal - l uh kullizum → š a₃ - g ud kurummatum → š uku lurrakkûm → l u₂ - ur ₃ - ra

410

Appendix 5: Glossary

mār šiprim → l u ₂-kiĝ₂-gi ₄-a maṣṣarum, maṣṣartum → en -n u māšum, f. māštum → maš- tab nakkamtum → na -kam- tum nappāḫum → simug nāqidum → na -ga da nargallum → na r-gal nuḫatimmum → muhald im pašīšum → g udu₄ piqittum → si-la ₂ rab ḫaṭṭim, rabû ša ḫaṭṭātim → PA.PA rakbum → ra ₂-gaba rēdûm → a ga ₃-us ₂ rēʾûm → sipa d sasinnum → za d im sirāšûm → l un ga ₃ ṣābum → erin ₂ ṣeḫertum → mun us- tur ṣeḫrum → tur šabrûm → šab ra šakkanakkum → šagi na (KIŠ.NITA₂)

šandabakkum → bisaĝ - d ub - ba šandanakkum → santana šangûm → saĝ a šāpirum → ug ula šarrum → l u gal šatammum → ša ₃ - tam šatam dimtim → š a₃ - tam an-za₃ - gar šēpum → ĝ i ri ₃ šībtum → m unus -šu- g i šukkallum → sukkal šusikkum → su-si - i g tākultum → ĝ eš bun (KI.KAŠ.NINDA) ṭupšarrum → d ub-sar utullum → u₂ - tul ₂ waklum → u g ula wardum → a rad , saĝ -arad wēdum → d il i zabardabbûm → zabar- dab ₅- ba zazakkum → d ub -sa r-zag- ga

Bibliography Abraham, K. and U. Gabbay, 2012. Expenditures by the gu-za-lá Official at Maškan-šapir from the Time of Rim-Sin of Larsa. Pp. 1–36 in The Ancient Near East, a Life! Festschrift Karel Van Lerberghe, ed. T. Boiy et al. OLA 220. Leuven: Peeters. Al-Rawi, F.N.H. and L. Verderame, 2009. Neo-Sumerian Administrative Texts from Umma Kept in the British Museum. Part three (NATU III). Messina: Di.Sc.A.M. Alexander, J., 1943. Early Babylonian Letters and Economic Texts. BIN 7. New Haven: Yale University Press. Arkhipov, I., 2010. Les véhicules terrestres dans les textes de Mari. I. Le nūbalum. Pp. 405– 420 in Language in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique International, Vol. 1, Part. 1, eds. L. Kogan et al. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Arnaud, D., 1977. Textes relatifs a l’histoire de Larsa I. RA 71: 3–8. Arnaud, D., 1986. Recherches au pays d’Astata. Emar VI/4. Paris: ÉRC. Anderson, P., 1974. Lineages of the Absolutist State. London: NLB. Atsma, H. and A. Burgière, 1990. Marc Bloch aujourd’hui: histoire comparée & sciences sociales. Paris: Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales. Attinger, P., 2011. La lecture de MAR.TU. NABU 2011: Nᵒ 58. Bardet, G. et al., 1984. Archives Administratives de Mari I. Publiées pour le Cinquantenaire de Mari. ARM 23. Paris: ÉRC. Bauer, J., 1989–90. Altsumerische Wirtschaftsurkunden in Leningrad. AfO 36–37: 76–91. Behrens, H., 1998. Die Ninegalla-Hymne: die Wohnungnahme Inannas in Nippur in altbabylonischer Zeit. Stuttgart: Steiner. Beran, T., 1968. Die altorientalischen Rollsiegel der ehemaligen Sammlung Johannes Jantzen in Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe Hamburg. Archäologischer Anzeiger. Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts: 103–122. Berlin: De Gruyter. Birot, M., 1964a. Textes administratifs de la sale 5 du palais (2ème partie). ARM 12. Paris: P. Geuthner. Birot, M., 1964b. Lettres de Yaqqim-Addu, Gouverneur de Sagaratum. ARM 14. Paris: P. Geuthner. Birot, M., 1993. Correspondance des gouverneurs de Qattunam. ARM 27. Paris: ÉRC. Bloch, M., 1924. Les rois thaumaturges: étude sur le caractère surnatural attribué à la puissance royale, particulièrement en France et en Angleterre. Strasbourg: Librairie Istra. Bloch, M., 1928. Pour une histoire comparée des sociétés européenes, Revue de Synthèse historique 46: 15–50. Bloch, M., 1939. La société féodale: la formation des liens de dépendence. Paris: A. Michel. Bloch, M., 1940. La société féodale: les classes et le gouvernement des hommes. Paris: A. Michel. Bloch, M., 1949. Apologie pour l’histoire ou métier d’historien. Cahiers des Annales. Paris: Librairie Armand Colin. Blocher, F., 2000. Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast, zehnter und elfter Teil: Die Siegelabrollungen. BaM 31: 177–180. Borger, R., 1967. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien. AfO Beiheft 9. Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag. Borger, R., 2010. Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon. Zweite, revidierte und aktualisierte Auflage. AOAT 305. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.

412

Bibliography

Bottéro, J., 2004. The Oldest Cuisine in the World. Cooking in Mesopotamia. Translated by Teresa Lavander Fagan. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (First French edition 2002). Bottéro, J. and A. Finet, 1954. Répertoire analitique des tomes I à V. ARM 15. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Bradley, K., 1989. Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World 140 BC – 70 BC. London: Batsford. Bradley, K., 2005. Slavery and Society at Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (First edition 1994). Buccellati, G., 1972. Review of Briefe aus dem Archive des Šamaš-ḫāzir in Paris und Oxford (TCL 7 und OECT 3) AbB 3 by F.R. Kraus. Oriens Antiqvvs 11: 147–152. Bücher, K., 1893. Die Entstehung der Volkswirtschaft. Tübingen: Verlag der H. Laupp’schen Buchhandlung. Burke, P., 1993. History and Social Theory. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Catagnoti, A., 1997. Les listes des HÚB.(KI) dans les texts administratifs d’Ébla et l’onomastique de Nagar. MARI 8: 563–596. Cavigneaux, A., 1996. Uruk. Altbabylonische Texte aus dem Planquadrat Pe XVI-4/5 nach Kopien von Adam Falkenstein. Mit einem Beitrag von Rainer Michael Boehmer. Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Endberichte 23. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Charpin, D., 1979. Review of Early Old Babylonian Documents. YOS XIV, by D. Simmons. BiOr 36 Nᵒ 3/4: 188–200. Charpin, D., 1980. A propos du bît asîrî sous Rîm-Anum. RA 74: 75–76. Charpin, D., 1981. La Babylonie de Samsu-iluna à la lumiére de nouveaux documents. BiOr 38: 517–547. Charpin, D., 1986. Le clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurabi (XIXe – XVIIIe siècles av. J.-C.). Geneva-Paris: Librairie Droz. Charpin, D., 1987. Le rôle économique du Palais en Babyonie sous Hammurabi et ses successeurs. Pp. 111–124 in Système palatial en Orient, Grèce et à Rome. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 19–22 juin 1985, ed. E. Lévy. TCRPOGA 9. Leiden: E. J. Bill. Charpin, D., 1987b. La hiérarchie de l’armée babylonienne. MARI 5: 662–663. Charpin, D., 1988. Les représentants de Mari à Babylone (I). Pp. 139–205 in Archives épistolaires de Mari I/2, ed. D. Charpin et al. ARM XXVI. Paris: ÉRC. Charpin, D., 1993. Un souverain éphémère en Ida-Maraṣ: Išme-Addu d’Ašnakkum, MARI 7: 165–191. Charpin, D., 1997. Review of Literary Texts from the Temple of Nabû, Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud IV by D. J. Wiseman and J. A. Black. RA 91: 188–190. Charpin, D., 1997/8. Review of Letters in the British Museum Part 2 (AbB 13) by H. van Soldt. AfO 44/45: 339–343. Charpin, D., 1998. Iluni, roi d’Ešnunna. NABU 1998: Nᵒ 29. Charpin, D., 2000. La hiérarchie de l’armée babylonienne (suite). NABU 2000: Nᵒ 18. Charpin, D., 2001. La rebellion du Mutiabal contre Samsu-iluna. NABU 2001: Nᵒ 52. Charpin, D., 2004. Histoire politique du Proche-Orient amorrite (2002–1595). Pp. 25–480 in Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit, D. Charpin, D. O. Edzard and M. Stol. OBO 106/4. Fribourg and Göttingen: Academic Press-Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Charpin, D. and Durand, J.-M., 1991. La suzeraineté de l’empereur (sukkalmah) d’Elam sur la Mésopotamie et le ‘nationalisme’ Amorrite. Pp. 59–66 in Mésopotamie et Élam. Mesopotamian History and Environment. Ghent: University of Ghent.

Bibliography

413

Charpin, D. and Reculeau, H., 2001. Nabi-ilišu, roi d’Uruk vaincu par Rîm-Sîn. NABU 2001: Nᵒ 75. Charpin, D. et al., 1988. Archives Epistolaires de Mari I/2. ARM 26/2. Paris: ÉRC. Chiera, E., 1914. Legal and Administrative Documents from Nippur. The University Museum Publications of the Babylonian Section. PBS 8/1. Philadelphia: The University Museum. Chiera, E., 1922. Old Babylonian Contracts. The University Museum Publications of the Babylonian Section. PBS 8/2. Philadelphia: The University Museum. Civil, M., 1987. Studies on Early Dynastic Lexicography III. Or.NS 56: 233–244. Civil, M., 1993. On Mesopotamian Jails and Their Lady Warden. Pp. 72–78 in The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M.E. Cohen et al. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press. Civil, M., 2003. Of Bows and Arrows, JCS 55: 49–54. Civil, M. et al. (ed.), 1969. The Series lú = ša and Related Texts. MSL 12. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Civil, M. et al. (ed.), 1971. Izi = išātu, Ká-gal = abullu and Níg-ga = makkūru. MSL 13. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Çig, M.; Kizilyay, H. and A. Salonen, 1954. Die Puzrish-Dagan-Texte der Istanbuler Archäologischen Museen Teil I: Nᵒs 1–725. Helsinki: Suomalaisen. Clancier, P., 2009. Les bibliothèques en Babylonie dans la deuxième moitié du Ier millénaire av. J.-C. AOAT 363. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Cocquerillat, D., 1967. Aperçue sur la phéniciculture en Babylone à l’époque de la 1ère dynastie de Babylone. JESHO 10:161–223. Contenau, G., 1920. Tablettes Cappadociennes. TCL 4. Paris: P. Geuthner. Cooper, J., 1986. Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions, I. Presargonic Inscriptions. New Haven: The American Oriental Society. Culbertson, L. (ed.), 2011. Slaves and Households in the Near East. Oriental Institute Seminars 7. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Dalley, S., 2005. Old Babylonian Texts in the Ashmolean Museum Mainly from Larsa, Sippir, Kish, and Lagaba. OECT 15. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dandamaev, M., 2009. Slavery in Babylonia. DeKalb, Ilinois: Northern Illinois University Press. (First Russian edition 1974). Dassow, E. von, 2009. Narām-Sîn of Uruk: A New King in an Old Shoebox. JCS 61: 63–91. De Graef, K., 1999. Les étrangers dans les textes paléobabyloniens tardifs de Sippar (Abiešuḫ – Samsuditana), 1ière partie: Sur les inconnus ‘connues’: Cassites, Elamites, Sutéens, Suḫéens, Gutéens et Subaréens. Akkadica 111: 1–48. De Graef, K., 2002a. Two Ilšu-ibni’s, Two ugula gidru’s. Šarrum-Labaki, a Military Settlement at the Irnina. AuOr 20: 61–97. De Graef, K., 2002b. An Account of Redistribution of Land to Soldiers in Late Old Babylonian Sippar-Amnānum. JESHO 45: 141–178. Deimel, A., 1914. Pantheon Babylonicum. Nomina e Textibus Cuneiformibus Excerpta et Ordine Alphabetico Distributa. Rome: Sumptibus Pontificii Instituti Biblici. Delitzsch, F., 1907. Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der königlichen Museen zu Berlin. VAS 1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Delitzsch, F., 1909. Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der königlichen Museen zu Berlin. VAS 9. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Deller, K., 1985. Köche und Küche des Aššur-Tempels. BaM 16: 347–376. Diakonoff, I., 1969. The Rise of the Despotic State in Ancient Mesopotamia. Pp. 173–203 in Ancient Mesopotamia: Socio-Economic History. A Collection of Studies By Soviet Scholars, ed. I. Diakonoff. Moscow: Nauka (first published in Russian in 1957).

414

Bibliography

Diakonoff, I., 1972. Socio-Economic Classes in Babylonia and the Babylonian Concept of Social Stratification. Pp. 41–52 in Gesellschaftsklassen im Alten Zweistromland und in den angrenzenden Gebieten, ed. D.O. Edzard. München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Diakonoff, I., 1974. Slaves, Helots and Serfs in Early Antiquity. Pp. 45–78 in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im alten Vorderasien. Nachdruck aus den Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae Tom. XXII/1–4 1974, eds. J. Harmatta and J. Komoróczy. Budapest: Akedemiai Kiado. Diakonoff, I., 1987. Slave Labor vs Non-Slave Labour: A Problem of Definition. Pp. 1–4 in Labor in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Powell. American Oriental Series 68. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Dijk, J. J. van, 1962. Die Inschriftenfunde, III: Die Tontafeln aus dem Palast des Sinkašid. Pp. 39–62 in XVIII. vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, ed. H. J. Lenzen. UVB 18. Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann. Dombradi, E., 1996. Die Darstellung des Rechtsaustrags in den altbabylonischen Prozessurkunden. FAOS 20. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Dossin, G., 1946. Archives Royales de Mari I: Lettres. Textes cunéiformes 22. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Dossin, G., 1950. Correspondance de Šamši-Addu et de ses fils. ARM 1. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Dossin, G., 1951. Correspondance de Šamši-Addu et de ses fils. ARM 4. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Dossin, G., 1967. La Correspondance feminine. ARM 10. Paris: P. Geuthner. Driver, G. and Miles, J., 1952. The Babylonian Laws, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Miles, J., 1955. The Babylonian Laws, vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. duBois, P., 2008. Slaves and Other Objects. Chicago: University of Chicago. Dunn, S., 1982. The Fall and Rise of the Asiatic Mode of Production. London-Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Duponchel, D., 1997. Les comptes d’huile de Mari dates de l’année de Kahat. Florilegium Marianum 3: 201–262. Durand, J.-M., 1983. Textes administratifs des salles 134 et 160 du palais de Mari. ARM 21. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Durand, J.-M., 1988. Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1. ARM 26/1. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Durand, J.-M., 1989. Minima emariotica II. NABU 1989 Nᵒ 111. Durand, J.-M., 1987. L’organisation de l’espace dans le palais de Mari: le témoinage des textes. Pp. 39–110 in Le système palatial en Orient, en Grèce et à Rome. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 19–22 juin 1985, ed. E. Lévy. TCRPOGA 9. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Durand, J.-M., 1997. Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, tome I. LAPO 16. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Durand, J.-M., 1998. Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, tome II. LAPO 17. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Durand, J.-M., 2000. Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, tome III. LAPO 18. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Durand, J.-M. and Charpin, D., 1993. Notes de Lecture: Texte aus dem Sînkāšid Palast. MARI 7: 367–375.

Bibliography

415

Durand, J.-M. and Guichard, M., 1997. Les rituels de Mari (textes Nᵒ2 à Nᵒ5). Pp. 18–77 in Florilegium Marianum 3: recueil d’études à la mémoire de Marie Thérèse Barrelet, ed. D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand. Paris: Sociétè pour l’étude du Proche-Orient Ancien. Edzard, D. O., 1957. Die ‘Zweite Zwischenzeit’ Babyloniens. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. Edzard, D. O., 1997. Mutiabal. RlA 8: 500–501. Edzard, D. O., 2004. Altbabylonische Literatur und Religion. Pp. 485–640 in Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit, ed. D. Charpin, D. O. Edzard and M. Stol. OBO 106/4. Fribourg and Göttingen: Academic Press-Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Eidem, J., 1991. The Tell Leilan Archives 1987, RA 85: 109–135. Ellis, M. de Jong, 1976. Agriculture and the State in Ancient Mesopotamia. An Introduction to Problems of Land Tenure. Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund, 1. Philadelphia: University Museum. Ellis, M. de Jong, 1986. The Chronological Placement of King Rim-Anum. RA 80: 65–72. Falkenstein, A., 1963. Zu den Inschriftfunden der Grabung in Uruk-Warka 1960–1961. BaM 2: 1–82. Falkenstein, A., 1966. Zur Lage des südbabylonischen Durum. AfO 21: 50–51. Farber, W., 1985. Akkadisch ‘blind’. ZA 75: 210–233. Faust, D., 1941. Contracts from Larsa dated in the Reign of Rīm-Sîn. YOS 8. New Haven: Yale University Press. Feigin, S., 1934a. The Captives in Cuneiform Inscriptions. AJSL 50: 217–254. Feigin, S., 1934b. The Captives in Cuneiform Inscriptions (Continued). AJSL 51: 22–29. Figulla, H., 1914. Altbabylonische Verträge. VAS 13. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Figulla, H., 1961. Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, vol. 1. London: The British Museum. Finkelstein, J., 1953. Cuneiform Texts from Tell Billa. JCS 7: 111–176. Finkelstein, J., 1955. “Subartu and Subarians in Old Babylonian Sources.” JCS 9: 1–7. Finkelstein, J., 1962. “Mesopotamia.” JNES 21: 73–93. Finkelstein, J., 1972. Late Old Babylonian Documents and Letters. YOS 13. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Finley, M., 1998. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. Princeton: Markus Wiener. (First edition 1980). Finley, M. (ed.), 1979. The Bücher-Meyer Controversy. New York: Arno Press. Fish, T., 1957. A Rim-Anum Tablet. MCS 7/1: 3. Flückiger-Hawker, E., 1999. Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition. OBO 166. Fribourg: University Press – Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Fortner, J., 1996. Adjudicating Entities and Levels of Legal Authority in Lawsuit Records of the Old Babylonian Era. Doctoral dissertation, Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College. Foucault, M., 1966. Les mots et les choses. Une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Éditions Gallimard. Frankena, R., 1966. Briefe aus dem British Museum. AbB 2. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Frankena, R., 1974. Briefe aus dem Berliner Museum. AbB 6. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Frankfort, H., Lloyd, S., and Jacobsen, Th., 1940. The Gimilsin Temple and the Palace of the Rulers at Tell Asmar, OIP 43. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Frayne, D., 1990. Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods, v. 4. Toronto-Buffalo-London: University of Toronto Press. Gallery, M., 1980. The Office of the šatammu in the Old Babylonian Period. AfO 37: 1–36. Gelb, I., 1952. Sargonic Texts from the Diyala Region. MAD 1. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

416

Bibliography

Gelb, I., 1967. Approaches to the Study of Ancient Society. JAOS 87: 1–8. Gelb, I., 1969. On the Alleged Temple and State Economies in Ancient Mesopotamia. Pp. 138–154 in Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra. Milan: A. Giuffrè. Gelb, I., 1973. Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia. JNES 32: 70–98. Gelb, I., 1976. Quantitative Evaluation of Slavery and Serfdom. Pp. 195–207 in Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer. AOAT 25, ed. B. L. Eichler, J. Heimerdinger and A. Sjöberg. Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker. Gelb, I., 1979. Household and Family in Early Mesopotamia. Pp. 1–97 in State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East I, ed. D. Lipinski. OLA 5. Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek. Gelb, I., 1982. Terms for Slaves in Ancient Mesopotamia. Pp. 81–98 in Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honour of I. M. Diakonoff. ed. M. Dandamayev et al. Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd. George, A., 1993. The House Most High. The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. George, A., 2009. Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schoyen Collection. CUSAS 10. Bethesda, Maryland, CDL Press. Gibson, Mc G. and Biggs, R. (eds.), 1987. The Organization of Power. Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Gomi, T., 1988. Neue Kollationen zu den Texten PDT 1. Orient 24: 108–123. Granovetter, M., 1985. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91: 481–450. Grayson, A. K. and E. Sollberger, 1976. L’insurrection general contre Narām-Suen, RA 70: 103–128. Grégoire, J.-P., 1970. Archives Administratives Sumériennes. Paris: P. Geuthner. Grégoire, J.-P., 1981. L’origine et le développement de la civilization mésopotamienne du troisième millénaire avant notre ère. Pp. 27–101 in Production, pouvoir et parenté dans le monde méditerranéen de Sumer à nos jour, ed. C.-H. Bretau et al. Paris: P. Geuthner. Grégoire, J.-P., 1999. The Grain-Grinding-Households ( e₂-ḪAR.ḪAR) of Southern Mesopotamia at the End of the Third Millennium Before the Common Era. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological society 17: 7–38. Groneberg, B., 1980. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der altbabylonischen Zeit. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes III. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Guichard, M., 2002. Le Šubartum occidental à l’avènement de Zimrî-Lîm. Pp. 119–168 in Florilegium Marianum VI. Recueil d’études à la mémoire d’André Parrot. Mémoires de NABU 7, ed. D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand. Paris: SEPOA. Hallo, W., 1957. Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles. A Philological and Historical Analysis. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Hallo, W., 1979. Notes from the Babylonian Collection I: Nungal in the Egal: An Introduction to Colloquial Sumerian? JCS 31: 161–165. Halperin, C. et al., 1982. Comparative History in Theory and Practice: A Discussion, The American Historical Review 87: 123–143. Harris, R., 1961. On the Process of Secularization under Hammurabi. JCS 15: 117–120. Harris, R., 1975. Ancient Sippar. A Demographic Study of an Old Babylonian City (1894–1595). Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. Hasselbach, R., 2005. Sargonic Akkadian. A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Bibliography

417

Heimpel, W., 1981. The Nanše Hymn. JCS 33: 65–139. Heimpel, W., 1994. ne-sa ĝ. NABU 1994 Nᵒ 83. Heimpel, W., 2009. Blind Workers in Ur III Texts. Kaskal 6: 43–48. Henshaw, R., 1994. Female and Male: The Cultic Personnel: The Bible and the Rest of the Ancient Near East. Princeton Theological Monographs Series 31. Allison Park: Pickwick Publications. Hexter, J., 1979. On Historians: Reappraisals of Some of the Markers of Modern History. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Hill, A. and B. Hill, 1980. Marc Bloch and Comparative History. The American Historical Review 85: 828–846. Hobsbawm, E., 1964. Introduction to the The Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations by K. Marx. Edited with and Introduction by E. Hobsbawm. London: Lawrence and Wishart Hobsbawm, E., 1993. Nación, estado, etnicidad y religion: transformaciones de la identidad. Pp. 9–19 in 16 Anuario de la Escuela de Historia, Facultad de Humanidades y Artes, Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Rosario: UNR. Horsnell, M., 1999. The Year Names of the First Dynasty of Babylon, 2 vols. Hamilton, Ont.: McMaster University Press. Hudson, M., 1996. Privatization: A Survey of the Unresolved Controversies. Pp. 1–32 in Privatization in the Ancient Near East and the Classical World, ed. M. Hudson. Peabody Museum Bulletin 5. Cambridge: Harvard University. Jacobsen, Th., 1937–9. The Inscription of Takil-ili-šu of Malgium. AfO 12: 363–366. Jankovic, B., 2004. Vogelzucht und Vogelfang in Sippar im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. AOAT 315. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Janssen, C., 1991. E’iltam paṭārum: awat ḫadê! Pp. 77–107 in Mesopotamie et Elam. Actes de la XXXVIème Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Gand, 10–14 juillet 1989. Mesopotamian History and Environment Occasional Publications 1. Ghent: University of Ghent. Jean, Ch., 1926a. Contrats de Larsa, première série. Planches I à XCXIX. TCL 10. Paris: P. Geuthner. Jean, Ch., 1926b. Contrats de Larsa, seconde série. Plances C à CLVI. Paris: P. Geuthner. Jean, Ch., 1942. Lettres. ARM 2. Paris: P. Geuthner. Joannès, F., 1997. Palmyre et les routes du désert au début du deuxième millénaire. MARI 8: 393–415. Jones, T. B. and Snyder J., 1961. Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty: A Catalogue and Discussion of Documents from Various Collections. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Jordan, J., 1928. Uruk-Warka nach den Ausgrabungen durch die Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft. WVDOG 51. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Jordan, J., 1930. Erster vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft in Uruk-Warka unternommenen Ausgrabungen. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jursa, M., 1995. Die Landwirtschaft in Sippar in neubabylonischer Zeit. AfO Beiheft 25. Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien. Juvenal, Satires. Edited and Translated by Susanna Morton Braund. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004. Kienast, B., 1978. Die altbabylonischen Briefe und Urkunden aus Kisurra. FAOS 2. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Klengel, H., 1977. Sklaven aus Idamaraz. AoF 5: 63–39.

418

Bibliography

Klengel, H., 1981. Krieg, Kriegsgefangene. RlA 6: 241–246. Köcher, F., 1986. Saḫaršubbu – zur Frage nach Lepra im alten Zweistromland. Pp. 27–34 in Aussatz – Lepra – Hansen-Krankheit. Ein Menschheitsproblem im Wandel, Part 2, ed. by J. Henning Wolf. Würzburg: Deutsches Assätzigen-Hilfswerk. Koschaker, P. and Ungnad, A., 1923. Hammurabis Gesetz. Band VI: Übersetzte Urkunden mit Rechtserläuterungen. Leipzig: Verlag von Eduard Pfeiffer. Koshurnikov, S., 1993. Old Babylonian Officers’ Ranks in Northern Babylonia. Pp. 175–182 in Šulmu IV. Everyday Life in Ancient Near East. Papers Presented at the International Conference Poznań, 19–22 September, 1989, ed. J. Zablocka and S. Zawadzki. Seria Historia NR 182. Uniwersytet Im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu. Kraus, F. R., 1951. Nippur und Isin nach altbabylonischen Rechtsurkunden. JCS 3. Kraus, F. R., 1952–3. Kazallu und andere nordbabylonische Kleinstaaten vor der Zeit des Ḫammurabi. AfO 16: 319–323. Kraus, F. R., 1964. Briefe aus dem British Museum (CT 43 un 44). AbB 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Kraus, F. R., 1966. Staatliche Viehhaltung im altbabylonischen Lande Larsa. Amsterdam: Nord-Hollandsche. Kraus, F. R., 1968. Briefe aus dem Archive des Šamaš-ḫāzir in Paris und Oxford (TCL 7 und OECT 3). AbB 4. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Kraus, F. R., 1972. Briefe aus dem Istanbuler Museum. AbB 5. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Kraus, F. R., 1973. Vom mesopotamischen Menschen der altbabylonischen Zeit und seiner Welt. Amsterdam-London: North Holland Publishing Company. Kraus, F. R., 1984. Königliche Verfügungen in Altbabylonischer Zeit. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Krebernik, M., 2001. Tall Biʿa/Tuttul – II. Die altorientalischen Schriftfunde. WVDOG 100. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. Kupper, J.-R., 1957. Les nomades en Mésopotamie au temps des rois de Mari. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège. Fascicule CXLII. Paris: Société d’Édition “Les Belles Lettres.” Kupper, J.-R., 1961a. L’iconographie du Dieu Amurru dans la glyptique de la 1re dynastie babylonienne. Bruxelles: alais des Academies. Kupper, J.-R., 1961b. Sutéens et Ḫapiru, RA 55: 197–200. Kupper, J.-R., 1983. Documents administratifs de la salle 135 du Palais de Mari ARM 22/1. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Kupper, J.-R., 1984. Notes relatives à la chronologie et la ménologie d’après ARM XXII. MARI 3: 181–189. Lafont, B., 1987. zabar-dab₅ -ba, zab/mardabbum. NABU 1987: Nᵒ 94. Lambert, W.G., 1987–1990. Lugal-irra and Meslamta-ea. RlA 7: 143–145. Lambert, W.G., 2007. Babylonian Oracle Questions. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Landsberger, B., 1935–6. Studien zu den Urkunden aus der Zeit des Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur. AfO 10: 140–159. Landsberger, B., 1955. Remarks on the Archive of the Soldier Ubarum. JCS 9: 121–131. Landsberger, B., 1967. The Date Palm and its By-products according to Cuneiform Sources. AfO Beiheft 17. Lebeau, M. (ed.), 1998. Subartu IV: About Subartu. Studies Devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, vol. 2: Culture, Society, Image. Brepols: Turnhout. Leemans, W. F., 1957–8. Tablets from Bad-Tibira and Samsuiluna’s Reconquest of the South. JEOL 15: 214–218. Leemans, W. F., 1961. The asīru. RA 55: 57–76. Leichty, E., 1975. A. Leo Oppenheim, 1904–1974. JAOS 95: 369–70.

Bibliography

419

Lenzen, H. et al., 1956. XII. vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. ADOG 1. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Lenzen, H. et al., 1961. XVII. vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. ADOG 6. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Lenzen, H. et al., 1966. XXII. vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. ADOG 11. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Litke, R., 1998. A Reconstruction of The Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, An: dA-nu-um and An: Anu ša amēli. New Haven: Yale University. Liverani, M., 1998. Uruk la prima città. Roma-Bari: Editori Laterza. Lion, B. and C. Michel, 1997. Criquets et autres insects à Mari. MARI 8: 707–724. Michel, 2000. Poissons et crustacés en haute Mésopotamie au début du IIe millénaire av. J.-C. Topoi. Supplément 2: 71–116. Loretz, O., 1978. Die asīrum-Texte (I). UF 10: 121–60. Maaijer, R. de, 1998. Land Tenure in Ur III Lagaš. Pp. 50–73 in Landless and Hungry? Access to Land in Early and Traditional Societies. Proceedings of a Seminar held in Leiden, 20 and 21 June 1996, eds. B. Haring and R. de Maaijer. Leiden: School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies. Maekawa, K., 1980. Female Weavers and their Children. ASJ 2: 81–135. Marcus, D., 1980. Some Antiphrastic Euphemisms for a Blind Person in Akkadian and Other Semitic Languages. JAOS 100: 307–10. Margueron, J., 1982. Recherches sur les palais mésopotamiens de l’Âge du Bronze, 2 vols. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Marx, K., 1964. The Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations. Edited with and Introduction by E. Hobsbawn. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Mauer, G., 1987. Ein Tontafelarchiv aus dem Palast des Sîn-kāšid in Uruk. BaM. 18: 133–198. McKeown, N., 2007. The Invention of Ancient Slavery? London: Duckworth. Meissner, B., 1893. Beiträge zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht. Assyriologische Bibliothek Bd. 11. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Mendelsohn, I., 1946. Slavery in the Ancient Near East. The Biblical Archaeologist 9: 74–88. Meyer, E., 1898. Die Sklaverei im Altertum. Dresden: Zahn & Jaensch. Michalowski, P., 1977. Durum and Uruk during the Ur III Period. Mesopotamia 12: 83–96. Michalowski, P., 1989. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Michalowski, P., 1990. Early Mesopotamian Communicative Systems: Art, Literature, and Writing. Pp. 53–69 in Investigating Artistic Environments in the Ancient Near East, ed. A. Gunter. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Michalowski, P., 1994. Writing and Literacy in Early States: A Mesopotamianist Perspective. Pp. 49–70 in Literacy: Interdisciplinary Conversations, ed. D. Keller-Cohen. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Michalowski, P., 2008. Observations on ‘Elamites’ and ‘Elam’ in Ur III Times. Pp. 109–123 in On the Third Dynasty of Ur. Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist, ed. P. Michalowski.

420

Bibliography

Journal of Cuneiform Studies Supplemental Series 1. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Michalowski, P., 2011. The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur. An Epistolary History of an Ancient Mesopotamian Kingdom. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Michalowski, P. and G. Beckman, 2012. “The Promulgation of the Name of the Third Year of Rim-Anum of Uruk.” Pp. 425–434 in The Ancient Near East, a Life! Festschrift Karel Van Lerberghe, ed. T. Boiy et al. OLA 220. Leuven: Peeters. Millet-Albà, A., 2003. Des soldats Babyloniens à Mari: deux nouveaux textes. RA 47: 35–42. Molina, M., 2008. New Ur III Court Records Concerning Slavery. Pp. 125–143 in On the Third Dynasty of Ur. Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist, ed. P. Michalowski. Journal of Cuneiform Studies Supplemental Series 1. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Molina, M. and M. Such-Gutiérrez, 2005. Neo-Sumerian Administrative Texts in the British Museum. Nisaba 9. Messina: Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità dell’Università degli Studi di Messina. Moroney, M., 1987. ‘In a City Without Watchdogs the Fox is the Overseer’: Issues and Problems in the Study of Bureaucracy. Pp. 7–18 in The Organization of Power. Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, ed. McG. Gibson and R. Biggs. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Morris, N. and Rothman, D., 1995. Introduction. Pp. vii-xiv in The Oxford History of the Prison. The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, ed. N. Morris and D. Rothman. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nissen, H., 1988. The Early History of the Ancient Near East 9000–2000 BC. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Nissen, H., 2001. Cultural and Political Networks in the Ancient Near East in the Fourth and Third Millennia BC. Pp. 149–180 in Uruk Mesopotamia and its Neighbours: Crosscultural Interaction in the Era of State Formation, ed. M. Rothman. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Nissen, H., Damerow, P., and R. Englund, 1990. Frühe Schrift und Techniken der Wirtschaftsverwaltung im alten Vorderen Orient. Informationsspeicherung und – verarbeitung vor 5000 Jahren. Bad Salzdetfurth: Franzbecker. Oberhuber, K., 1960. Sumerische und akkadische Keilschriftdenkmäler des archäologischen Museums zu Florenz. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft Sonderheft 8. Innsbruck: Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut der Universität Innsbruck. Oppenheim, L., 1960. Assyriology – Why and How? Current Anthropology 1: 409–23. Oppenheim, L., 1964. Ancient Mesopotamia. Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ormsby, D., 1972. An Old Babylonian Business Archive of Historical Interest. JCS 24: 89–99. Peters, E., 1995. Prison Before the Prison: The Ancient and Medieval Worlds. Pp. 3–47 in The Oxford History of the Prison. The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, ed. N. Morris and D. Rothman. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pinches, Th., 1915. The Babylonian Tablets of the Berens Collection. Asiatic Society Monographs v. 16. London: Royal Asiatic Society. Pinches, Th., 1964. Old Babylonian Business Documents. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum Part 45. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Polanyi, K., 1977. The Livelihood of Man. New York: Academic Press. Polanyi, K. (ed.), 1957. Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

Bibliography

421

Pollock, S., 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia. The Eden that Never Was. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pomponio, F. and Rositani, A., 1998. Rīm-Anum di Uruk. Pp. 635–649 in Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf. Studien zum Alten Testament und zum alten Orient: Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, ed. M. Dietrich, and I. Kottsieper. AOAT 250. Münster: UgaritVerlag. Pomponio, F. and Visicato, G., 1994. Early Dynastic Administrative Tablets of Shurupakk. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientali di Napoli. Powell, M., 1973. On the Reading and Meaning of gana₂. JCS 25: 178–184. Ragen, A., 2007. The Neo-Babylonian širku. PhD dissertation. Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. Harvard University. Ranke, H., 1905. Early Babylonian Personal Names from the Published Tablets in the SoCalled Hammurabi Dynasty (B.C. 2000). The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania Series D. Researches and Treatises 3. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Ranke, H., 1906. Babylonian Legal and Business Documents from the Time of the First Dynasty of Babylon: Chiefly from Sippar. BE 6/1. Philadelphia: Department of Archaeology of the University of Pennsylvania. Reiner, E. and M. Civil, 1974. The Series HAR-ra = ḫubullu. Tablets XX-XXIV. MSL 11. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Reiter, K. and Waetzoldt, H., 1996. Neue Lesevorschläge und Kollationen zu den altbabylonischen Texten aus Uruk. BaM 27: 401–409. Renger, J., 1969. Untersuchungen zum Priestertum in der altbabylonischen Zeit. 2. Teil. ZA 59: 104–230. Renger, J., 1979. Interaction of Temple, Palace, and Private Enterprise. Pp. 249–256 in State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East, ed. E. Lipinski. Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek. Renger, J., 1984. Some Remarks on Karl Polanyi’s Conception of Marketless Trading and the Study of Ancient Economies. Pp. 21–121 in Circulation of Goods in Non-Palatial Context in the Ancient Near East, ed. A. Archi. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Renger, J., 1994. On Economic Structures in Ancient Mesopotamia. Or.NS 63: 157–208. Renger, J., 1995. Subsistenzproduktion und redistributive Palastwirtschaft: wo bleibt die Nische für das Geld? Pp. 271–324 in Rätsel Geld. Annäherungen aus okonomischer, soziologischer und Historischer Sicht, ed. W. Schelkle and N. Nitsch. Marburg: Metropolis Verlag. Renger, J., 2000. Das Palastgeschäft in der altbabylonischen Zeit. Pp. 153–183 in Interdependency of Institutions and Private Eterpreneurs, ed. A. Bongenaar. Proceedings of the 2nd MOS Symposium – Leiden 1998. Leiden: Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. Renger, J., 2001. When Tablets Talk Business: Reflections on Mesopotamian Economic History and Its Contribution to a General History of Mesopotamia. Pp. 409–415 in Historiography in the Cuneiform World, ed. T. Abusch et al. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press. Renger, J., 2003. Trade and Market in the Ancient Near East. Theoretical and Factual Implications. Pp. 15–39 in Mercanti e politica nel mondo antico, ed. C. Zaccagnini. Roma: L’ERMA, Rositani, A., 1997. I nomi propri dell’archivio del bīt asīrī. SEL 14: 3–15.

422

Bibliography

Rositani, A., 2003. Rīm-Anum Texts in the British Museum. Nisaba 4. Messina: Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità dell’Università degli Studi di Messina. Rositani, A., 2009. Some Rīm-Anum Texts from the Bīt asīrī Kept at the British Museum. RSO 82: 97–121. Roth, G., 1976. History and Sociology in the Work of Max Weber, British Journal of Sociology 27: 306–316. Roth, M., 1995. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Sallaberger, W., 1993. Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit. Teil 1. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter. Sallaberger, W., 1999. “Ur III Zeit.” Pp. 121–390 in Mesopotamien Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit. W. Sallaberger and A. Westenholz. OBO 160/3. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Sanati-Müller, Sh., 1988. Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Erster Teil. Gerstenwerkverträge und Mehllieferungsurkunden. BaM 19: 471–538. Sanati-Müller, Sh., 1989. Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Zweiter Teil. Fischtexte und Bürgschaftsurkunden. BaM 20: 225–311. Sanati-Müller, Sh., 1990. Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Dritter Teil. Metalltexte. BaM 21: 131–213. Sanati-Müller, Sh., 1991. Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Vierter Teil. Texte verschiedenen Inhalts I. BaM 22: 314–330. Sanati-Müller, Sh., 1992. Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Fünfter Teil. Texte verschiedenen Inhalts II. BaM 23: 119–161. Sanati-Müller, Sh., 1993. Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Sechster Teil. Texte verschiedenen Inhalts III. BaM 23: 138–184. Sanati-Müller, Sh., 1994. Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Siebenter Teil. Texte verschiedenen Inhalts IV. BaM 24: 309–340. Sanati-Müller, Sh., 1995. Texte aus dem Sînkāšid-Palast. Achter Teil. Texte in Zusammenhang mit Skelettresten. BaM 26: 65–84. Sanati-Müller, Sh., 1996a. Tafel in Privatbesitz. Lieferungsschein von Textilien mit Gewichtsangaben. BaM 27: 361–363. Sanati-Müller, Sh., 1996b. Texte aus dem Sîn-kāšid-Palast. Neunter Teil. Rohrtexte. BaM 27: 365–399. Sanati-Müller, Sh., 1996c. Rīm-Anums Absetzung durch Samsu-ilūna. NABU 1996: Nᵒ 23. Sanati-Müller, Sh., 2000a. Texte aus dem Sîn-kāšid-Palast. Zehnter Teil: Holztexte Elfter Teil: Fragmentarisch erhaltene Texte. BaM 31: 93–163 + plates. Sanati-Müller, Sh., 2000b. Kollationen zu ‘Ein Tontafelarchiv aus dem Palast des Sîn-Kāšid in Uruk’ von Gerlinde Mauer. BaM 31: 181–193. Saporetti, C., 2002. La rivale di Babilonia. Storia di Ešnunna un potente regno che sfidò Ḫammurapi. Roma: Newton & Compton. Sasson, J., 2004. The King’s Table. Food and Fealty in Old Babylonian Mari. Pp. 179–215 in Food and Identity in the Ancient World, eds. C. Grottanelli and L. Milano. HANES 9. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria. Scheil, V., 1898. Le nouveaux roi Rīmānum, p. 64 in Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes. Paris: L’Institut Français d’Archéologie Oriental du Cairo. Scheil, V., 1900. Textes Élamites ~ Sémitiques. Délégation en Perse. Mémoires publiés sous la direction de M.J. de Morgan. Tome II (MDP 2). Paris: Ernest Leroux.

Bibliography

423

Scheil, V., 1905. Textes Élamites~ Sémitiques. Délégation en Perse. Mémoires publiés sous la direction de M.J. de Morgan. Tome VI (MDP 6). Paris: Ernest Leroux. Scurlock, J. and B. Andersen, 2005. Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine. Ancient Sources, Translations, and Modern Medical Analyses. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Selz, G., 1989. Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Lagash, Teil 1. Die Altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden der Ermitage zu Leningrad. FAOS 15:1. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Seri, A., 2005. Local Power in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia. Studies in Egyptology and the Ancient Near East. London: Equinox. Seri, A., 2007. The Mesopotamian Collection in the Kalamazoo Valley Museum. CDLJ 2007/1: 1–45. Seri, A., 2010. Review of Letters in the Louvre, AbB 14, by K. R. Veenhof. BiOr 67: 112–123. Seri, A., 2011. On Domestic Female Slaves during the Old Babylonian Period. Pp. 49–67 in Slaves and Households in the Near East, ed. Laura Culbertson. Oriental Institute Seminars 7. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Sewell, W., 1967. Marc Bloch and the Logic of Comparative History, History and Theory 6: 208–218. Sigrist, M., 1977. Nippur entre Isin et Larsa de Sin-iddinam à Rim-Sin. Or. 46: 363–374. Sigrist, M., 1983. Textes économiques néo-sumériens de l’université de Syracuse. Paris: ÉRC. Sigrist, M., 1988. Neo-Sumerian Account Texts in the Horn Archaeological Museum. AUCT 3. Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press. Sigrist, M., 1990. Larsa Year Names. Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press. Sigrist, M., 1992. Drehem. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. Sigrist, M., 2003. Old Babylonian Account Texts in the Horn Archaeological Museum. AUCT 5. Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press. Simmons, S., 1978. Early Old Babylonian Documents. Yale Oriental Studies, Babylonian Texts. YOS 14. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sjöberg, Å., 1996. UET VII 73: An Exercise Tablet Enumerating Professions. Pp. 117–139 in Tablettes et images aux pays de Sumer et d’Akkad. Mélanges offerts à Monsieur H. Limet, eds. Ö. Tunca and D. Deheselle. Liège: Université de Liège. Smith, W. (ed.), 1870. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. Soden, W. von, 1995. Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Spar, I. (ed.), 1988. Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Vol. 1: Tablets, Cones and Bricks of the Third and Second Millennium B.C. CTMMA 1. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Speleers, L., 1925. Recueil des inscriptions de l’Asie Antérieure des Musées Royaux du cinquantenaire à Bruxelles. Textes sumériens, babyloniens et assyriens. Bruxelles: Maison d’Édition Vanderpoorten. Stamm, J. J., 1939. Die akkadische Namengebung. MVAG 44. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs Verlag. Ste Croix, G. E.M. de, 1981. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests. London: Duckworth. Steible, H., 1982. Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. FAOS 5/1. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. Steible, H., 1991. Die neusumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. FAOS 9/2. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

424

Bibliography

Steinkeller, P., 1980. The Old Akkadian Term for ‘Easterner.’ RA 74: 1–9. Steinkeller, P., 1987. The Foresters of Umma: Toward a Definition of Ur III Labor. Pp. 73–115 in Labor in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Powell. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Steinkeller, P., 1991. The Reforms of UruKAgina and an Early Sumerian Term for ‘Prison’. AuOr. 9: 227–233. Steinkeller, P., 2004a. Studies in Third Millennium Paleography. The sign kish. ZA 94: 175– 185. Steinkeller, P., 2004b. A History of Mashkan-shapir and Its Role in the Kingdom of Larsa. Pp. 26–42 in The Anatomy of a Mesopotamian City: Survey and Soundings at Mashkanshapir, ed. E. Stone and P. Zimansky. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Steinkeller, P., forthcoming. The Grand Strategy of the Ur III Empire: Babylonia’s Foreign Policy and Territorial Expansion at the End of the Third Millennium BC. Steinkeller, P. and N. Postgate, 1992. Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Stol, M., 1976. Studies in Old Babylonian History. Leiden: Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. Stol, M., 1979. Review of Early Old Babylonian Documents by Stephen D. Simmons. JCS 31: 177–183. Stol, M., 1981. Letters from Yale. AbB 9. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Stol, M., 1982a. State and Private Business in the Land of Larsa. JCS 34: 127–155. Stol, M., 1982b. Review of Legal and Administrative Texts of the Reign of Samsu-iluna by Samuel I. Feigin. JAOS 102:161–163. Stol, M., 1986a. Blindness and Night Blindness in Akkadian. JNES 45: 295–99. Stol, M., 1986b. Letters from Collections in Philadelphia, Chicago and Berkeley. AbB 11. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Stol, M., 1989. Leprosy: New Light from Greek and Babylonian Sources. JEOL 30: 22–31. Stol, M., 1995. Domestic Animals of Mesopotamia. Part II. BSA 8: 173–213. Stol, M., 1998. Review of Female and Male. The Cultic Personnel. The Bible and the Rest of the Ancient Near East by R. Henshaw. BiOr 56: 666–669. Stol, M., 2002. Personen um den König in altbabylonischer Zeit. Pp. 735–758 in Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux. Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. AOAT 281, eds. O. Loretz, K. Metzler, H. Schaudig. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Stol, M., 2004. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in altbabylonischer Zeit. Pp.643–975 in Mesopotamien: die altbabylonische Zeit. OBO 160/4. D. Charpin, D.O. Edzard and M. Stol. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Stol, M., 2011. Sklave, Sklaverei. B. Altbabylonisch. RlA 12: 564–571. Stol, M., 2012. Der altbabylonische Beamte rá-gaba. Pp. 329–352 in Altorientalische Studien zu Ehren von Pascal Attinger. OBO 256, C. Mittermayer and S. Ecklin (eds). Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Stolper, M., 1992. On Why and How? Culture and History 11: 13–22. Streck, M., 2000. Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit. Band 1. Die Amurriter. Die onomastiche Forschung. Orthographie und Phonologie. Nominalmorphologie. AOAT 271/1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Streck, M., 2005. Pī-nārātim, RlA 10: 566–567. Struve, V.V., 1969. The Problem of the Genesis, Development and Disintegration of Slave Societies in the Ancient Orient. Pp. 17–69 in Ancient Mesopotamia: Socio-Economic History. A Collection of Studies By Soviet Scholars, ed. I. Diakonoff. Moscow: Nauka (first published in Russian in 1933).

Bibliography

425

Talbert, R., 1989. The Role of Helots in the Class Struggle at Sparta. Historia 38: 22–40. Talon, Ph., 1997. Old Babylonian Texts from Chagar Bazar. Akkadica Supplementum X. Brussels: FAGD-ASGD. Tenney, J., 2011. Life at the Bottom of Babylonian Society: Servile Laborers at Nippur in the 14th and 13th Centuries BC. Leiden-Boston: Brill. Toorn, K. van der, 1986. Judges XVI 21 in the Light of the Akkadian Sources. VT 36: 248–253. Uchitel, A., 1985. Mycenaean and Ancient Near Eastern Economic Archives. Ph. D. Dissertation. University College London. Ungnad, A., 1914. Babylonische Briefe aus der Zeit der Hammurapi-Dynastie. VAB 1. Leipzig: J. C. Heinrichs’sche. Ungnad, A., 1938. Datenlisten. RlA 2: 131–194. Urbainczyk, T., 2008. Slave Revolts in Antiquity. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press. Van De Mieroop, M., 1987. Crafts in the Early Isin Period: A Study of the Isin Archive from the Reigns of Išbi-Erra and Šu-ilišu. OLA 24. Leuven: Peeters. Van Koppen, F., 2001. Sweeping the Court and Locking the Gate: The Palace of Sippir-ṣērim. Pp. 211–224 in Veenhof Anniversary Volume. Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. W. H. van Soldt. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut vor het Nabije Oosten. Van Koppen, F., 2002. Equids in Mari and Chagar Bazar. AFo 29: 19–30. Van Koppen, F., 2004. The Geography of the Slave Trade and Northern Mesopotamia in the Late Old Babylonian Period. Pp. 9–33 in Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited: Proceedings of an International Conference of SCIEM 2000 (Vienna 8th – 9th November 2002), ed. H. Hunger and R. Pruzsinsky. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Van Lerberghe, K., 1986. Un ‘Elamite’ a Sippar-Amnānum. Pp. 151–155 in Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Mélanges Offerts à M. J. Steve, ed. L. de Meyer et al. Paris: ÉRC. Van Lerberghe, K., 1991. Sippar-Amnānum. The Ur-Utu Archive. vol. 1. MHET I/1. Ghent: University of Ghent. Van Lerberghe, K. and G. Voet, 1991. Sippar-Amnānum. The Ur-Utu Archive, vol. 1. Mesopotamian History and Environment Series III. Texts I. Ghent: University of Ghent. Van Soldt, W. H., 1994. Letters in the British Museum. Part 2. AbB 13. Leiden-New York-Köln: E. J. Brill. Veenhof, K.R., 2005. Letters in the Louvre. AbB 14. Leiden-Boston: E. J. Brill. Veldhuis, N., 2004. Religion, Literature, and Scholarship: The Sumerian Composition Nanše and the Birds, with a catalogue of Sumerian Bird Names. Cuneiform Monographs 22. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Verkinderen, P., 2007. Les toponymes bàdki et bàd.anki. Akkadica 127:109–122. Visicato, G., 1995. The Bureaucracy of Šuruppak. Administrative Centers, Central Offices, Intermediate Structures and Hierarchies in the Economic Documentation of Fara. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Visicato, G. and A. Westenholz, 2005. An Early Dynastic Archive from Ur Involving the Lugal. Kaskal 2: 55–78. Waetzoldt, H., 1972. Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textilindustrie. Rome: Istituto per l’Oriente. Waetzoldt, H., 1982. Das Amt des utullu. Pp. 386–397 in Zikir Šumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, eds. G. van Driel, et al. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

426

Bibliography

Walther, A., 1917. Das altbabylonische Gerichtswesen. Leipziger Semitistische Studies, VI. Band, Heft 4–6. Leipzig: J. Hinrichs. Waterman, L., 1913. Business Documents of the Hammurabi Period. AJSL 29. Weber, M., 1976. The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations. London: NLB. Weber, M., 1978. Economy and Society. 2 vols. Edited by G. Roth and C. Wittich. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Weeks, N., 1985. The Old Babylonian Amorites: Nomads or Mercenaries? OLP 16: 49–57. Weidener, E. von, 1952–3. Das Reich Sargons von Akkad, AfO 16: 1–24. Westbrook, R., 1995. Slave and Master in Ancient Near Eastern Law. Chicago-Kent Law Review 70: 1631–1676. Westenholz, J. and A. Westenholz, 2006. Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem. The Old Babylonian Inscriptions. Cuneiform Monographs 33. Brill: Leiden-Boston. Whiting, R., 1995. Amorite Tribes and Nations of Second-Millennium Western Asia. Pp. 1231– 42 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East 2, ed. Jack Sasson. New York: Scribner’s Sons. Wilcke, C., 1994. Personal eines Enlil-bāni-Palastes in Isin. Pp. 303–314 in Beiträge zur Altorientalischen Archäologie und Altertumskunde. Festschrift für Barthel Hrouda zum 65. Geburstag, ed. P. Calmeyer et al. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Wood, D. (ed.), 1993. Of Derrida, Heidegger, and Spirit. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Wu, Y., 1994. A Political History of Eshnunna, Mari and Assyria during the Early Old Babylonian Period (From the End of Ur III to the Death of Šamši-Adad). Supplement to Journal of Ancient Civilizations No. 1. Changchun: Institute of History of Ancient Civilizations; Northeast Normal University. Yoffee, N., 1977. The Economic Role of the Crown in the Old Babylonian Period. BiMes 5. Malibu: Undena Publications. Yoffee, N., 1998. The Economics of Ritual at Late Old Babylonian Kiš. JESHO 41: 312–343. Yoffee, N., 2005. Myths of the Archaic State. Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zaccagnini, C., 1981. Modi di produzione asiatico e Vicino Oriente antico. Appunti per una discussione. Dialoghi di Archeologia NS 3: 3–65. Ziegler, N., 1999. Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm. Florilegium Marianum IV. Paris: SEPOA.

Indexes 1. Personal names Abī-kīma-Šamaš 129, 133–34, 174, 192, 248 Abī-šagiš 1116, 116, 129, 219, 220 Abīyatum 123–24, 159+52, 181, 220–21, 224 Abum-ilum 133 Adad-mušallim 129, 13053, 151, 179, 207 Adad-rīm-ilī 190, 201, 206 Adad-šar-ilī 187, 206+110, 249 Adad-šeme 1116, 129, 174 Adad-tayyār 16469, 309 Adīdum 306 Aḫam-arši 1116, 128, 188 Aḫī-ummīšu 306 Aḫīya 124, 224 Aḫum-waqar 68+30, 69, 79, 80, 82, 94–97, 146–47, 153, 172–73, 184, 245, 247, 253, 292, 299, 313, 316, 319, 320 Aḫum-wēdum 148 Ālī-lūmur 152, 162, 169, 190+67, 201, 222–23, 248 Ali-talīmi 124, 188, 220–21, 247, 336 Aliat-Ištar 156 Alila-ḫadûm 26, 2713 Amar-Suʾen 165 Amat-Sîn 163 Amat-Šala 316 Āmur-ilūt-Sîn 134, 180, 188, 195, 247 Amurrum-mušallim 205–07 Amurrum-tukultī 317 Ana-Ištar-atkal 1126, 311 Ana-Marduk-atkal 132, 180, 199, 2468, 251– 52 Ana-pāni-ilī 60, 75, 77, 85, 106, 13568, 136, 151+24, 152+30, 153, 154+35, 155+40, 169, 176+15, 177+16, 178–80, 182, 184, 224– 25, 245–46, 249, 338 Ana-ṣillīšu-ēmid 222 Ana-Šamaš-takil 321 ANam 27 Anatum 321 Annum-pī-Sîn 122, 220+14, 221 Annum-pī-Šamaš 121, 188, 222, 224, 247 Annunītum-ummī 139

Anum-ilī 131, 180, 199+93, 207, 230, 244, 251 Apil-Amurrum 59+9, 61+14, 70–72+37, 73, 77, 80, 8151, 84, 86- 91, 93, 99, 102–03, 133, 149, 151, 152+29, 154, 191+71, 199, 200+94, 201, 211, 248, 261, 303 Apil-ilīšu 29, 61+14, 62, 8151, 117, 166+73, 167, 173, 175, 200, 208–09, 220–21, 249, 297, 319 Apil-Kūbi 73–75, 78, 102–03, 195, 22722, 228 Apil-Šamaš 226 Aplum 191 Aqâl-ana-Marduk 124 Ašdī-baḫû 12541, 198, 251 Ātanaḫ-ilī 203, 207 Atkal-ana-Šamaš 314 Awīl-Adad 51, 1116, 117, 121, 125, 132, 152, 188– 89, 204, 221–23, 233, 247, 257, 306 Awīl-erṣetim 75, 104, 227+24 Awīl-ilī 29, 129, 200, 201, 204, 210, 211113 Awīl-Ištar 204, 208, 226, 311 Awīl-Mānum 321 Awīl-Nabium 51, 111, 131, 232 Awīl-Sîn 125, 306 Awīl-[…] 204, 208, 311 Awīlatum 193, 248 Awīlīya 116, 118, 121, 159, 204, 219, 221, 255, 257 Bakīya 148 Baštī-d[…] 204 Bēlānum 116, 121–22, 129, 134, 136, 159, 161, 174–75, 180, 188, 195, 199, 209, 219–21, 245, 249, 251, 257, 295 Bēlessunu 1126, 123, 307 Bēlī-qarrād 73, 74, 103, 227, 325 Bēlšunu 124, 130, 132, 134, 148, 180, 194– 96, 204–05, 223, 257 Būnu-d[…] 137, 156–57, 169, 180, 182+32, 204, 246, 250 Būr-Sîn 163 Burāmūša 125, 231

428

Indexes

Dādâ 133, 180, 194, 249 Dādum-rabi 156 Daganma-ilum 18, 24, 37, 38+24, 42, 43, 45– 49, 51, 65–67, 74+41, 75, 78, 80, 84, 85, 102–03, 118+27, 119+32, 120–21, 128–29, 132, 133+65, 151, 178, 189, 193, 197, 205, 215, 227–28, 232–35, 239, 240– 42, 254, 258, 306, 330 Dan-Erra 123, 198 Diĝir-dikud 161 Ea-bēl-ilī 116, 121, 123, 125, 132, 134, 137, 18233, 195–96, 198, 208, 250 Ea-šar-ilī 125, 130, 187–89, 247, 249, 311 Enanatum 17, 24, 59, 72, 83, 84, 101, 107, 194, 202, 204, 289, 291 Enlil-[…] 204 Erībam-Sîn 316 Erībūni 159 Erra-nāṣir 126, 127+46, 131, 165, 183, 19991, 315 Erṣēya 152+29, 191+71 Ešeʾi-pāni-Šamaš 73, 74+40, 102, 22722 Etel-pī-Ea 125, 183, 193, 248 Etel-pī-˹Erra?˺ 24, 59, 61, 62, 72, 73, 80, 81, 83–85, 101, 107, 194, 202, 204, 289, 291 Etel-pī-Ištar 136, 161, 169, 175, 180, 245, 249 Etel-pī-Marduk 132, 134, 194, 195, 204–05, 257 Etel-pī-Nabium 123 Etel-pī-Šamaš 71+36, 77, 7950, 80, 100, 107, 123–24, 132, 154, 169, 176, 192, 194, 246, 248–49, 298, 302, 307, 315 Etēyatum 123 Ēṭirum 311 Gaz-Utu 322 Gimil-ilī 139, 147, 162, 169, 174, 181, 245, 250, 323 Gimillum 123, 179, 196, 311–12, 316, 322, 323 Gurrurum 136, 165 Ḫadānšu-likšud 124, 12539, 129, 174–75, 249, 328 Hammurabi 3, 7–10, 27, 44, 50, 52, 55, 117, 174, 190, 214–15, 217, 238, 240, 242, 244

Ḫazib-Teššub 18, 151, 163, 172, 176, 178 Ḫubbušum 202 Ḫummurum 1116, 124, 159, 220, 229 Ḫurruṣum 180, 196, 257 Ḫuzālum 117, 121, 125, 128, 197, 233, 250 Iballuṭ 202 Ibanni-ilum 124, 132, 194, 248 Ibbi-Amurrum 159, 220–21 Ibbi-Ilabrat 306 Ibni-Adad 1116, 132, 159, 208, 212, 2189, 226 Ibni-Amurrum 124, 196, 250 Ibni-Kabta 227, 308 Ibni-Nin-[…] 205 Ibni-Sîn 133, 180, 193, 248 Iddin-Asalluhi 1116, 129, 130, 189, 311 Iddin-Ilabrat(?) 199, 251 Iddin-Ištar 60, 72, 101, 203 Iddin-Nanāya 136, 161, 169, 173, 245, 247 Iddin-Šamaš 131, 180, 199, 2468, 251 Iddinyatum 205 Ikūn-pī-Ištar 27, 165, 169, 183, 245, 250 Ikūn-pûm 116, 208–09 Ilabrat-abī 1116, 126, 229 Ilabrat-tukultašu 125, 197, 250 Ilabrat-[…] 196, 250 Ilam-ēriš 59, 61, 70, 72+37, 73, 77, 8149, 88, 91, 102, 15229, 201 Ili-awīlim-rabi 1116, 220, 311 Ilī-ayy-ēniš 74+41, 75, 78, 102, 227–28, 235 Ilī-bānî 151, 176, 178, 225, 313 Ilī-baštī 311 Ilī-dayyānī 118, 128 Ilī-iddinam 133, 180, 193, 222, 231, 248, 314 Ilī-ippalsam 1101, 117, 121, 220–21, 224, 226 Ilī-ippašram 134, 159, 181–82, 188, 195 Ilī-iqīšam 1126, 124 Ilī-kibrī 1126, 129 Ilī-tappê 311 Ilī-tillatī 322 Ilī-u-Šamaš 187, 206, 210, 211113, 2189, 249 Ilī-unnēnī 116, 295, 334 Ilī-uṣranni 317 Ilīma-abī 1126, 126, 208–09, 231, 315 Ilīma-ilum 29, 152, 184, 192, 202, 215, 219, 226, 239, 248, 317 Ilīyatum 315 Ilšu-bānî 164+69, 179, 208–09, 246, 309

1. Personal names

Ilšu-nawir 73, 74, 102, 225, 227+22 Ilšu-rēʾ īšu 75, 104, 227 Ilum-gāmil 27 Ilūni 29, 47, 49, 50, 51, 132, 232, 234, 235, 239, 240, 257 Imgūatum 128, 257 Imgur-Sîn 134, 137, 159, 180, 195+80, 196, 197+84, 330 Ina-palêšu 187, 203, 249, 338 Inbi-erṣetim 51, 131, 159, 220–21, 232 Inbi-ilīšu 41, 73+38, 74–76, 102, 105, 208– 09, 294 Ipqatum 126, 228 Ipqu-Annunītum 198, 251 Ipqu-Ištar 317 Ipqu-Nabium 175, 249 Irībam 188, 247 Irībam-Sîn 60, 61+14, 62, 81, 84, 86, 137, 155–57, 169, 180, 184–86, 202+102, 246–47, 2509, 316 Irnene 27 Išme-Sîn 6933, 94, 95, 97, 148+16, 177 Ištar-ilum 24, 133, 157, 158+45, 180, 197–98, 251, 321 Ītanaḫ-ilum 129+52, 134, 225 Itūr-ašdu 174, 249 Kalab-Šamaš 197 Kalūmum 76, 105 Kānišum 201 Kiḫlī-ʾel 18, 204+106 Kittum-lizziz 317 Lā-qīpum 203 Lakīta-rēmēni 19, 60, 69, 72, 83–93, 102– 06, 108, 185, 25510, 289, 294, 297, 299, 301, 310 Lalâtum 131, 165+70, 183, 331 Lāsimum-amranni 124 Lemnum-limūt 317 Libūr-ṣēnum 317 Lipḫur-ālī 117, 122 Lipit-Ištar 125, 131–32, 189, 198, 226, 251 Liwwir-Ištar 311 Liwwirum 306 Lūmur-gimil-Šamaš 73, 74, 102, 306 Mannium 65, 66, 74, 85, 101, 291, 292 Mannum-kīma-ilīya 224

429

Mār-Bābilum 24, 13568, 136, 151+24, 152–53, 163, 169, 176, 179, 180, 183, 184+40, 224, 245, 317 Mār-erṣetim 18, 125–26, 188, 198, 220, 251 Mār-Šamaš 306 Mārat-erṣetim 1126, 126, 220 Marduk-abī 322 Marduk-gāmil 314 Marduk-ḫāzir 189 Marduk-iddinam 151, 176, 178, 225, 313 Marduk-mušallim 124, 13053, 137, 151, 159+52, 162, 169, 172, 176, 179–182, 197, 223, 245, 247, 250 Marduk-mušēzib 195, 250, 295 Marduk-nādā 206 Marduk-nāṣir 24, 46, 60, 6114, 8151, 92, 113, 116–18, 122–23, 125–26, 128, 132, 151– 52, 188–90, 203–04, 217, 21910, 220–22, 224, 226–27, 229–31, 255, 308, 311–12, 316, 327, 333 Mātī-libluṭ 197 Mu-duga 18, 129, 151, 207 Muḫaddûm 125, 193, 248 Munawwirum 51, 124, 131, 226, 232, 233+30, 239, 257 Muti-Dagan 46, 113, 116, 134, 137, 155, 15643, 157, 169, 180, 182+32, 193, 207, 224, 246, 250 Nabi-ilīšu 19, 27, 60–62, 69–73, 75–77, 80, 81, 83–88, 90, 92, 93, 98–100, 102, 103, 105, 108, 117, 139, 147+13, 154, 202100, 181, 185+49, 186, 200, 202100, 203, 220, 247, 253, 25510, 294, 297, 299, 301, 310 Nabi-Sîn 69+31, 73, 74, 79, 80, 94–97, 102, 146, 153, 173, 183–84, 227, 245, 292, 299, 300, 313, 309, 316, 318, 320 Nabium-dumqī 311 Nabium-ḫāzir 198, 251 Nabium-iddinam 136, 165 Nabium-imguranni 315 Nabium-mālik 164+69, 179, 208–09, 246, 309 Nabium-mušallim(?) 311 Nanâ-tayyārat 316 Nāram-ilīšu 1126, 134, 148, 195, 22014 Nāram-Sîn 27, 233+30 Ninurta-abī 77, 123–24, 132, 17612, 194, 307

430

Indexes

Ninurta-ibnīšu 116, 208–09 Ninurta-iddinam 199, 203, 2468, 251 Ninurta-ilum 166–67, 169, 173, 246–47, 319 Ninurta-mansum 136, 151+26, 152, 153+31, 169, 1721, 176, 178, 183–84, 225, 245, 313 Nīši-īnīšu 165 Nūr-Kabta 73, 74, 75+43, 7949, 103, 104, 227+24, 228 Nūr-Šamaš 7440, 104, 227–28 Nūratum 208–09 Pa-ila 137, 15538, 156+42, 157, 169, 180, 185+45, 246, 2509 Pirḫi-ilīšu 45, 139, 192 Pirḫum 206+110, 2189 Qaqqadum 306 Qarrādum 196, 197, 330 Qibīšumma-tikal 125, 197, 250 Rammānu[m-…] 60, 61+14, 81+51, 85, 14713 Rapaš-x-Marduk 315 Rīm-Adad 148, 187, 192, 248 Rīm-Anum 1, 2, 4, 7–9, 16–22, 25–27, 29–32, 34–36, 41–49, 51–55, 57, 59, 60, 62, 66, 69, 70, 72, 73, 77, 82–90, 92–100, 102– 06, 108, 110, 113, 116, 118–20, 122, 125– 27, 135, 137, 142–43, 146, 148, 155–56, 163, 165, 167, 172–75, 177–78, 183, 185– 86, 190, 192–93, 195, 198–201, 206–07, 209, 210–16, 218, 222–23, 225, 227–28, 234, 237, 239–44, 246, 251–52, 255, 258–60, 289, 294, 297–99, 301, 307, 310, 331–32, 341 Rīm-Sîn I 22, 27, 52, 1734, 238, 244, 26114 Rīm-Sîn II 2, 29, 32, 34–36, 44, 47, 48, 50– 52, 588, 74, 16672, 16875, 222, 228, 234, 239–41, 261 Rīš-Šubula 76, 105, 22723 Rīš-Zababa 306 Sam-mîtar 159+51 Samsu-iluna 21, 16, 19, 20, 22+7, 27, 29, 31– 36, 43–45, 47, 49, 50–53, 59, 62, 82, 92, 110–11, 137, 148, 155, 165, 167, 174, 177, 18753, 19579, 200, 206, 209–11, 214–16, 226, 232–34, 237–42, 244,

246, 252–53, 255, 258, 261, 292, 297, 343, 371 Sāmum 128, 13365, 134, 189, 199, 251 Sîn-aḫḫī-iddinam 178, 225, 313 Sîn-ašarēd 126 Sîn-bēl-ilī 23, 34, 110, 113, 116, 132, 134, 137, 152+30, 155–57, 169, 176+15, 177, 179, 180, 182+33, 183+37, 187, 193, 208, 246, 250, 307 Sîn-ekallī 125, 194, 229, 248 Sîn-erībam 27 Sîn-gāmil 24, 27, 60, 85, 158+48, 197, 205, 310 Sîn-ibbīšu 49–51, 232 Sîn-ibni 207, 230 Sîn-ibnīšu 46, 113, 116, 122–23, 223, 229– 30 Sîn-iddinam 60–62, 70, 77, 80, 8151, 92, 98, 14919, 185, 186+50, 200, 202–03, 211, 224, 247, 297 Sîn-imguranni 125, 139, 147, 181, 19580, 196, 250, 322–23 Sîn-iqīšam 49, 50, 232 Sîn-išmeanni 73, 74, 102, 124, 225, 228, 321 Sîn-kāšid 2, 10, 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34, 52, 62, 110, 143, 152, 158, 162, 164–67, 171, 175, 18440, 186, 18752, 190, 193–9579, 197–98, 200–02, 204–06, 210–11, 218–19, 224, 226, 234, 236, 238–39, 242–43, 251–52, 343, 371 Sîn-nāṣir 180, 226 Sîn-nūr-mātim 151–52, 19171, 311 Sîn-rēmēni 132, 161, 188–89, 229, 247 Sîn-šeme 9, 18, 23, 24, 34, 58, 62, 69+33, 70–72, 75–1114, 124, 126, 131, 139, 146–52, 154, 156, 158–59, 161, 163, 16469, 165, 168–69, 172, 176–80, 182, 192–96, 199, 209, 211, 225, 237, 245, 249, 253, 258, 261, 289, 290, 292–98, 301–03, 306–07, 313, 315–16, 321 Sîn-[…] 60, 81, 85, 87, 128, 193, 202, 204– 06 Sînni 173, 247 Sukkukum 201, 206 Sūmû-binassa 27+13 Sūmû-El 27

2. Divine names

Ṣillī-Ištar 117, 122, 132, 152, 223, 231, 257 Ṣillī-Šamaš 65, 66, 84, 85, 188, 235, 247, 291 Ṣillī-[…] 200, 204, 207

431

Tarībum 191, 220, 248 Tigilâ-ana-Damkina or Tiklā-ana Damkina 122, 210 Ṭāb-târ-ilī 59, 95, 167, 200, 297

Ša-ilīšu 24, 158, 197, 251 Šallūrum 125, 132, 137, 156–57, 169, 179, 182–83, 231, 246, 250, 257 Šamaš-ayy-abāš 196 Šamaš-gāmil 117, 208–09, 220, 326 Šamaš-iddinam 1126, 117, 159 Šamaš-ilum 75, 104, 117, 197, 22723 Šamaš-lamassī 126, 228 Šamaš-liwwir 75, 104, 22723 Šamaš-māgir 311 Šamaš-muballiṭ 129, 209, 219–20 Šamaš-naḫrarī 51, 1126 Šamaš-nāṣir 128, 178, 209 Šamaš-rabi 306 Šamaš-rēmanni 315 Šamaš-tayyār 189, 306 Šamašma-ilī 196 Šarrum-Adad 311 Šarrum-kīma-ilim 124, 225 Šēp-Sîn 148–49, 169, 177, 245, 249 Šū-Amurrum 190 Šubula-abī 317 Šubula-qarrād 306 Tappê-wēdum 188, 247 Tarībatum 73, 74, 102, 22722

Ubār-Adad 231 Ubār-Šamaš 13160, 180, 199, 223, 2468, 251 Ubār-Zababa 118, 122, 202, 210, 215, 219, 221, 226 Ummi-ṭābat 189 Ur-Ninurta 203 Utu-dikud 18 Utu-mansum 187, 249 Warad-Amurrum 136, 161 Warad-Baʾu 316 Warad-Ištar 73, 103, 124, 132, 194, 228 Warad-Sîn 1126, 118, 122, 125–26, 131–32, 136, 139, 147, 156, 165, 169, 179, 183, 220, 231–32, 257 Warad-Šamaš 60, 84, 86, 116–17, 122, 128, 186, 191, 220–21, 257, 311 Wussum-nu[…] 60, 61, 72, 73, 80, 8151, 83, 101, 202–03, 324 Zalluḫum 183, 342 Zimrī-Adad 311 […]-Amurrum 68, 8151, 91, 203 […]-ḫāzir 198, 251

2. Divine names Amurrum 93, 15642, 185, 200–02, 211, 303 Anum 18, 59, 165 Iggala 17, 24, 59, 72, 83, 84, 101, 107, 194, 202, 298, 291 Inanna 34, 159, 165, 181, 199, 251 Ištar 165 Kanisura 51, 113, 126, 132, 180, 199, 212, 222, 229, 233, 251, 257 Lugal-banda 165, 203 Lugal-Erra 132, 212, 233, 257 Meslamtaea 132, 212, 233, 257

Nabium 61, 91, 159, 181, 201, 203 Nanāya 116, 132, 208–09, 212, 257 Nergal 59, 83 Nin-siana 24, 60, 72, 83, 101, 15848, 197, 199, 202–03, 251 Rammānum 51, 60, 85, 106, 131–32, 152, 155, 180, 182, 184, 199, 212, 232, 244, 246, 251, 257 Šamaš 51, 125, 132, 180, 188, 193, 198–99, 212, 232, 244, 251, 257

432

Indexes

3. Geographic names Abul-Lugal-˹Erra?˺ 114, 117, 122, 130 Abul-mê 114, 116–17, 121, 295, 309, 314 Abul-Tutu 114, 118 Āl-damqi-ilīšu 113–14, 116, 121, 130, 219 Asurrum 12338, 126, 132, 152, 189–90, 207111, 2177, 229–31, 311–12 Ašduba 34 Bābilum 38, 64, 74, 75, 83, 101–03, 105, 114, 235–36 Bad3 114, 117 Bad3-an-na 117, 120, 122, 125, 229, 255 Bad3-mah-Lugal-Erra 114 Bad3-tibira 34, 36, 114, 117, 122, 126, 128, 210, 229 Damrum 37, 38, 48, 71, 80, 2416 Dunnum 30, 39, 43, 63, 64, 89, 90–92, 203, 231, 236, 2416 E₂-duru₅-bi₂-ša₆ 114, 117, 121, 319, 324 Elam 113–14, 134–35, 218, 223, 240–41, 257 Emutbal 27, 31, 33, 34, 36, 44, 47, 52, 53, 114, 188, 214, 221, 224, 226, 238, 365– 67, 373–77, 390–91, 397, 399 Eridu 77, 81, 107, 154, 176 Ešnuna 17, 29–31, 33, 36, 37, 44, 45, 47–51, 53, 107, 113–16, 118–19, 121–22, 125– 26, 128–29, 131–33, 139, 147, 159, 188, 191–93, 199, 204, 209, 219–22, 231– 34, 238–41, 257, 306 Gutûm 30, 38, 39, 43, 48, 579, 62–65, 67, 70, 79, 85, 89–93, 99, 116, 118, 120– 22, 125–26, 167, 200, 218–19, 221, 231, 236, 241, 255, 295–98, 304 Ida-Maraṣ 27, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 45, 48, 53, 74, 78, 101, 238, 240 Isin 24, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42–49, 52, 53, 64–67, 75, 78, 83, 84, 89, 90, 92, 104, 108, 113–14, 116–17, 122, 125, 128, 130, 13159, 132, 145, 174, 190–91, 214, 221, 223–24, 231, 235, 238, 241, 257, 304

Ka₂-Latarak 45, 49, 115, 118 Kazalu 31, 36, 38, 44, 46, 47, 49, 53, 11827, 174, 239, 242 Kisura 27, 30, 33, 37, 40, 42, 43, 48, 57, 62– 67, 70, 79, 83, 85, 89–93, 99, 113, 115, 117, 120, 122, 126, 128, 131–32, 159, 167, 191, 200, 218, 220–21, 223, 227, 231, 236, 241, 257, 296–97, 301, 304, 308 Kutalla 34, 115–16, 133, 195, 295 Lagaš 34, 115, 134, 222, 231 Larsa 2, 8, 9, 24, 27, 29–36, 40–45, 47, 51– 53, 58, 64–67, 7338, 74–76, 78, 83, 87, 101–02, 105, 107, 113–15, 117–18, 121– 22, 133–34, 139, 148, 159, 162, 166–68, 173, 186, 190–92, 195, 210, 214–15, 222, 227–28, 234, 238–39, 240–42, 244, 259–61, 290, 293, 322, 324 Leilan 2, 191 Malgûm 8, 29, 48, 115, 119, 121, 124, 132, 159, 220–21, 257 Mantinu 115, 117, 128 Mari 2, 9, 11, 12, 31, 38, 551, 56, 12952, 150, 15951, 164, 172, 189, 19066, 191, 215–17, 233, 335 Muti-abal 29, 30, 38, 41–43, 45–49, 51, 64, 66, 83–85, 89, 90, 92, 115, 118–21, 193, 205, 219, 221, 231–34, 239, 241– 42, 257 Nabigum 77, 81, 107 Natbakum 113, 115–16, 118, 121, 128, 130, 219 Nazarum 120–21, 129, 219, 221, 223, 257, 295 Nin-gal.DU.DU 115 Nippur 29, 34, 134, 160, 239 Pī-nārātim 115, 117, 137, 159, 182 Sabûm 27, 33 Sîn-nūrum 115, 118 Sippar 2, 9, 12, 27, 134–35, 16054, 174, 19066, 192, 222, 244, 259, 261, 331

4. Akkadian words

Sutûm 38, 41, 42, 48, 64–66, 74, 78, 84, 90, 101, 113, 115, 133, 205, 231, 241, 290 Šatalla 113, 115–16, 121, 130, 196 Šubartum 113, 115, 118, 122, 125, 133, 139, 193, 220, 231 Ur 33, 34, 36, 49–53, 113, 134, 224, 232, 234–35, 2393, 240 Uruk 1–3, 7, 9–13, 15–18, 20–23, 26, 27, 29–37, 41–49, 51–56, 62, 65–67, 73, 78, 79, 82, 84, 110–13, 116–20, 122,

433

125–26, 128–35, 139–40, 142–43, 146, 149, 150, 152–53, 165–68, 170–71, 174– 75, 18651, 188, 19066, 195, 200, 207, 210–11, 214–19, 222, 224, 226–32, 234–35, 237–44, 246, 251–52, 254–62, 295, 322, 324 Uṣarpara 11412, 115, 118, 128 Zallunum 115, 117, 122, 130, 229 Zibbatum 115

4. Akkadian words abarakkum 149, 150, 172, 407, 409 aḫiātum 37, 63+17, 67–71, 73, 80, 83–93, 98–101, 107–08, 162, 187, 254 alpum 134 asīrum 2, 7–9, 11, 17, 55, 120, 127, 129, 165, 189, 259 ašlākum 187, 407, 409 atkuppum 186, 407, 409 azugallum 172, 407, 409 biltum 132, 134, 159, 174, 188–90, 195, 226, 229–30 bīt asīrī 1–3, 7–13, 20–26, 31, 36, 3925, 42– 49, 55–58, 62, 63, 68–72, 75- 82, 94, 110–114, 116–20, 123, 125–27, 129–40, 143, 146–50, 153–56, 158–60, 162–79, 181, 184, 187–89, 191–99, 202–04, 206, 208–12, 214, 218, 219, 222–28, 231, 232, 237–42, 251–53, 255–63, 320, 322, 324, 327, 329, 338, 340 bīt šabrîm 154, 177, 408–09 bīt unūtim 408–09 gallābum 195, 409 gipārum 131, 136, 165, 196, 245, 408–09 guzalûm 173, 408–09 ḫuppû 189–90, 408–09 ḫuppudum 260 iššiakkum 18028, 188, 232, 408–09

kisalluḫḫum 190, 408–09 kullizum 195, 408–09 kurummatum 68, 98, 409 lurrakkûm 13364, 191, 409 manzaz bābim 192, 248 marṣūtum 64, 65, 80, 253 maṣṣartum 166, 408, 410 maṣṣarum 166, 408, 410 mayyaltum 12952, 134 mu-wa-ar-ba-tim 68, 70, 71, 79, 80, 100, 148, 154, 169, 17820, 301–02 nakkamtum 12, 164+68, 18754, 408, 410 namḫartum 22, 13568, 179, 180, 206, 337 nāqidum 193, 408, 410 nargallum 193, 408, 410 nuḫatimmum 192, 408, 410 pašīšum 198, 251, 408, 410 piqittum 72, 408, 410 rabi sikkatim 117, 122 rabiānum 126, 228 rēdûtum 120+35, 122–23, 229, 260, 312 rēʾûm 194, 409, 410 saḫaršubbû 13972 sasinnum 197, 409–10 sirāšûm 191, 329, 408–10

434

Indexes

ṣudû 16, 38, 40, 41, 75, 78–80, 103–04, 119, 147, 178, 218, 227, 235, 254, 304, 328 šabrûm 70, 71, 77, 79, 107, 123, 152–54, 169, 176–77, 184, 192, 246, 249, 301– 02, 409, 410 šallatum 113, 116 šandabakkum 185, 407, 410 šandanakkum 18028, 193, 408, 410 šangûm 18028, 199, 408, 410 šāpir rēdî 174–75, 220, 223 šāpirum 216–17, 223, 229, 230, 311, 409 šatammum 175, 409, 410

šukkallum 12539, 163, 174, 409, 410 šusikkum 194, 409, 410 tākultum 57, 408, 410 târum 117 turrum 117–18 ṭupšarrum 186, 408, 410 utullum 196, 409, 410 waqlum 2174 zabardabbûm 16570, 169, 183, 409, 410

5. Sumerian words and sumerograms a-gar₃ a-ša₃ gibil 114, 117, 128 a-zu-gal 76, 106, 151, 162, 169, 172, 245, 247, 253, 407, 409 ad-KID 133, 186–87, 200, 203, 206, 247, 249, 311, 338, 407, 409 aga₃-us₂ 216, 223, 311, 407, 410 aga₃-us₂ saĝ 24, 46, 6115, 113, 116, 124, 15125, 223–24, 255, 333, 407 aĝrig 68, 69, 79, 82, 94, 95, 146, 147, 149, 153, 172, 173, 245, 247, 407, 409 al-dab₅-ba 21, 9 azlag 187–88, 247, 407, 409 bisaĝ-dub-ba 19, 50, 60–62, 70–73, 75, 76, 83, 84, 86–90, 98–100, 102–03, 105, 108, 139, 147, 149, 181, 185–86, 199, 200, 203, 211, 247, 255, 294, 295, 297, 299, 301, 407, 410 dub-sar 60, 84, 86, 166, 186, 22620, 246– 47, 408, 410 dub-sar en-nu e₂-gal 166, 173, 18651, 247 dub-sar ugnim 124, 18651, 226, 408 dub-sar-zag-ga 75, 104, 186, 227–28, 408, 410 dumu e₂-dub-ba-a 189, 202, 204, 208, 2163, 2189, 219, 224–26, 229 dumu-gaba 111, 316, 326, 337, 342, 408, 409 dumu-munus-gaba 111, 408–09

e₂ 34, 69, 70, 80, 143–44, 146, 162, 178, 190, 195, 210, 244–45, 250, 307, 408– 09 e₂-a-si-rum 8, 9, 291, 297–98, 300 316 e₂-a-zu-gal 253 e₂-a-zu-meš 6727, 77, 81, 106, 162, 172, 245, 247, 408–09 e₂-aĝrig 24, 69, 79, 82, 132–33, 135, 137, 147, 149–54, 168, 170, 173, 176–79, 183–84, 244–45, 247, 253, 256, 312– 13, 317, 333–34, 408–09 e₂-bur-saĝ 129, 136, 159, 160–61, 165, 173, 175, 180, 210, 245, 247, 249, 256, 330, 408 e₂-gal 130, 135, 164, 166–68, 187, 190, 245, 338, 408 (e₂-)ĝi₆-par₃ 161, 165–66, 183, 245, 250, 256, 322, 327, 408–09 e₂-maš-lugal 136, 163, 245, 408 e₂-munus 41, 43, 73–75, 105, 156, 162, 327, 332, 408 e₂-(munus)uš-bar 125, 137–38, 154–57, 182– 85, 188, 194, 244, 246, 250, 256, 329, 332, 408–09 e₂-mušen-hi-a 17, 137, 158–59, 181, 245, 250, 256, 408 e₂-sukkal 125, 137, 163, 174, 245, 249, 408 e₂-uzu 136, 164, 168, 185, 246, 309–10, 408 en-nu 58, 166–67, 261, 408–10

5. Sumerian words and sumerograms

435

ensi₂ 51, 121, 125, 130, 132, 134, 159, 161, 174, 180, 182, 188–90, 195, 198, 222, 224, 226, 229, 230, 232, 239, 247, 251, 256, 257, 336, 408–09

munus-šu-gi 111, 315, 408, 410 munus-tur 111, 330, 408, 410 munus-uš-bar 12543, 152, 156–57, 182, 307, 315, 329, 332, 408, 409

gi-izi-la₂ 200 gi-sal-la 200 gu-za-la₂ 136, 161, 173, 245, 247, 408–09 gudu₄ 50, 162, 198–99, 251, 334, 340, 408 gudu₄-abzu 50, 408

na-gada 125, 193, 212, 248, 408, 410 na-kam-tum 11725, 18754, 244, 246, 408, 410 nar-gal 125, 183, 193, 248, 408, 410

ĝešbun 16, 37–41, 43, 46, 57, 58, 61–63, 65–68, 70, 71, 73, 78, 80, 83–93, 119, 147, 154, 178, 200, 202, 205, 218, 231, 235–36, 240, 253–54, 291–93, 295–98, 301–04, 408, 410 ĝiri₃ 61, 71, 80, 100, 147, 151, 178, 185, 200, 208, 218, 224, 302, 309–12, 314, 333, 336, 340, 408, 410 ĝissu 200 hub₂-bu-meš 133–34, 189, 190, 247, 340–41, 408–09 igi nu-du₈ 260 ĝeš

kak-pan 158, 201, 206 kisal-luh 162, 190, 201, 248, 408–09 lu₂ 37–43, 64–68, 70, 71, 73–75, 78, 80, 81, 83–85, 89–93, 99, 101–05, 107–08, 113, 117, 121–22, 129, 133–35, 187, 188, 206, 221, 223, 231–32, 235–36, 239, 240, 248, 254, 257, 285, 290–91, 295– 98, 300, 303–05, 308, 311, 319, 321– 22, 324–25, 328, 335, 337, 339, 408– 09 lu₂-kiĝ₂-gi₄-a 37–42, 64, 73, 74, 80, 81, 83, 84, 101–05, 107, 195, 227–28, 254, 290, 408, 410 lu₂-ur₃-ra 133, 191, 248, 408–09 lunga₃ 191, 192, 248, 329, 408, 410 ma₂-gur₈ 219 maš-tab 111, 408, 410 muhaldim 71, 77, 80, 100, 123, 149, 15021, 154, 17612, 192, 302–410 munus-saĝ 130, 311, 340, 408–09

PA.PA 117, 121, 135, 161, 2163, 217, 222–23, 226–27, 408, 410 ra₂-gaba 124, 129, 133–34, 192, 225, 248, 261, 408, 410 saĝ-arad 129, 130, 193, 196, 305, 314, 317, 321, 339, 408, 410 saĝa 126, 131–32, 180, 199, 203, 229, 244, 246, 251–52, 408, 410 sahar-šub-ba 139 santana 125, 133, 180, 193, 212, 248, 256, 408, 410 si-la₂ 16, 38–41, 72–76, 78–80, 85, 101–03, 119, 147, 178, 200–02, 218, 227, 228, 235, 254, 285, 290, 293–94, 408 si₁₂-a 260 simug 194, 248, 409–10 sipad 125, 132, 137, 194, 248, 409–10 su-si-ig 180, 194, 249, 409–10 sukkal 124–25, 12952, 137, 151, 16263, 163, 169, 172, 174–75, 179, 188, 196, 245, 249, 328, 336, 408–09 ša₃-gud 228, 134, 159, 183, 195, 249, 257, 409 ša₃-tam 136, 161, 164, 175–76, 179, 184, 200, 208, 245–46, 249, 309, 409–10 ša₃-tam an-za-gar 175, 200 šabra 15433, 176, 18129, 408–09 šagina 126, 229, 334, 409–10 šeš 37, 38, 65, 80, 84, 85, 254, 310, 336, 409 šu-i 37, 40, 41, 50, 6420, 65, 66, 73–76, 78, 80, 86, 87, 102–03, 105, 133, 139, 163, 166, 193, 195–96, 198, 212, 22722, 228, 250, 254, 293–94, 322, 228, 409 šuku 16, 38–40, 58, 68–72, 79, 80, 94–101, 146, 147, 154, 162, 173, 178, 201–03,

436

Indexes

218, 236, 253, 254, 261, 292, 298–99, 300, 302–03, 307–08, 313, 316, 318– 20, 336, 409 ĝeš šukur 202 tur 111, 130, 240, 329, 331, 334–35, 339, 340, 408–09 ĝeš

u₂-di-du 187, 202, 219 u₂-tul 123, 125, 137, 18337, 19580, 196, 250, 409–10 ugula aga₃-us₂(-meš) 46, 113, 116, 122, 124, 223, 255 ugula aga₃-us₂ saĝ 255 ugula al-dab₅-ba 21 ugula asīrī 9, 100, 107, 1114, 131, 147–49, 151, 154, 156, 158–59, 161, 163, 16469, 169, 172, 176–77, 179, 180, 182, 192, 195, 198, 211, 225, 245, 259, 261 ugula e₂(-meš) 139, 147, 14815, 155, 157, 159, 162, 174, 180–82, 195, 22216, 245, 250, 321, 326, 328, 331

ugula geme₂ 117, 121, 125, 197, 250 ugula id₂ 123, 132, 207111, 2174, 229, 230–31 ugula lu₂ elam(-maki) 134, 218, 240, 257 ugula MAR.TU(-meš) 30, 37–40, 43, 4427, 45, 51, 63, 6420, 65+21, 66, 67, 70, 73–76, 78, 80, 84, 92, 93, 99, 102, 105, 116– 18, 121–24, 128, 129, 132, 159, 166, 167, 188, 200, 202, 208–10, 215, 216+3, 217–24, 226, 228, 231, 233, 235, 236, 254, 255, 257, 295, 303, 328, 331, 342, 409 ugula (munus-)uš-bar 132, 137, 152, 155–58, 177, 18233, 185, 246, 250 ugula šu-i 37, 40, 64–66, 78, 80, 86, 87, 133, 13973, 195, 250, 254, 294 zabar-dab₅-ba 131, 165, 183, 245, 326, 409– 10 zadim 24, 157, 158+45, 197, 198+89, 212, 251, 321–22, 339, 409–10 ĝeš zi-gan 203

6. Cuneiform texts AbB 1 137 12 AbB 2 106 12 AbB 2 176 11415 AbB 4 45 18963 AbB 5 21 312 AbB 6 165 22620 AbB 9 193 190 AbB 9 237 220 AbB 11 108 11415 AbB 13 53 34, 239 App. 1 N° 1 24, 29, 77, 107, 109, 19477, 202102, 204, 346 App. 1 N° 2 38, 40, 41, 74, 101, 109, 348 App. 1 N° 3 2411, 59, 61, 64–66, 85, 109, 202, 351 App. 1 N° 4 65, 66, 85, 109, 351 App. 1 N° 5 6932, 95, 109, 146, 172, 184, 352 App. 1 N° 6 40, 65, 66, 87, 109, 195, 228, 253 App. 1 N° 7 41, 72–74, 76, 102, 109, 17820, 354

App. 1 N° 8 114–16, 121, 133, 141, 195, 334, 355 App. 1 N° 9 39, 57, 64, 90, 109, 357 App. 1 N° 10 39, 40, 64, 91, 359 App. 1 N° 11 29, 39, 40, 59, 60–62, 64, 92, 109, 167, 17820, 185–86, 200, 211, 359 App. 1 N° 12 39, 64, 92, 109, 359 App. 1 N° 13 6932, 96, 109, 14610, 360 App. 1 N° 14 6934, 70, 98, 109, 362 App. 1 N° 15 6931, 97, 109, 14610, 362 App. 1 N° 16 37, 40, 42, 64, 93 109, 363 App. 1 N° 17 7035, 71, 100, 109, 148, 15434, 17820, 246, 363 App. 1 N° 18 7035, 71, 77, 100, 109, 123, 149, 154, 17612, 17820, 192, 363 App. 1 N° 19 59, 61, 6319, 65, 93, 109, 2188, 364 App. 1 N° 20 39, 40, 64, 65, 93, 109, 2188, 365 App. 1 N° 21 40, 75, 104, 109, 17820, 367 App. 1 N° 22 1116, 114, 11826, 141, 368

6. Cuneiform texts

App. 1 N° 23 1126, 123, 137, 141, 15536, 15642, 17612, 18023, 18232, 35, 370 App. 1 N° 24 6932, 70, 99, 109, 17820 App. 1 N° 25 227, 345 App. 1 N° 26 69, 95, 109, 14610, 18441, 42, 355 App. 1 N° 27 136, 164, 185, 205107, 208, 246, 364 App. 1 N° 28 1112, 6, 1126, 125–26, 130, 13158, 141, 152, 187, 208, 226, 229, 230, 343 App. 1 N° 29 32, 13567, 141, 15022, 151–52, 15332, 176, 17716, 178, 184, 225, 351 App. 1 N° 30 6931, 95, 109, 14610, 352 App. 1 N° 31 114, 117, 141, 354 App. 1 N° 32 1126, 127, 141, 18027, 357 App. 1 N° 33 1112, 123, 13158, 13771, 141, 15536, 156–57, 184, 357 App. 1 N° 34 6932, 96, 109, 14610, 358 App. 1 N° 35 13567, 141, 15022, 15228, 15332, 18338, 184, 360 App. 1 N° 36 96, 109, 14610, 360 App. 1 N° 37 6931, 96, 109, 14610, 18441, 361 App. 1 N° 38 6830, 96, 109, 14610, 361 App. 1 N° 39 239, 166, 16774, 173, 175, 18650, 246, 366 App. 1 N° 40 6932, 97, 109, 14610, 367 App. 1 N° 41 24, 133, 141, 15845, 18026, 198, 339, 367 App. 1 N° 42 109, 196, 245, 370 ARM 1 28 2177 ARM 2 136 13364 ARM 4 53 2 ARM 10 86 19168 ARM 14 78 56 ARM 21 87 13364 ARM 21 258 12952 ARM 22 123 23330 ARM 22 270 2176 ARM 23 224 16468 ARM 26/2 365 3116 ARM 27 161 117 AUCT 3 294 335 BaM 18 32 226, 162, 190, 201, 363 BaM 18 33 226, 367 BaM 23 179 226, 175, 200, 202, 205, 207, 363

437

23 185 225, 205, 345 24 203 206109 26 210 226, 348 27 212 225, 203, 368 27 213 203, 368 27 214 225 27 215 225, 203, 344 27 216 225, 18549, 186, 343 27 217 225, 367 27 218 225, 368 27 219 225, 364 27 223 225, 186, 368 27 226 225, 345 27 227 225, 202, 344 27 228 225, 24+11, 6216, 194, 202+101, 289, 345 BaM 27 229 225, 200+95, 96, 211113, 345 BaM 27 230 225, 2915, 20095, 96, 346 BaM 27 231 225, 165, 346 BaM 27 232 225, 2915, 20095, 20197, 346 BaM 27 233 225, 2915, 20095, 96, 346 BaM 27 234 225, 2915, 20095, 96, 346 BaM 27 235 225, 200+95, 211113, 346 BaM 27 236 225, 20095, 346 BaM 27 237 225, 187+52, 53, 206, 211113, 346 BaM 27 238 225, 187+52, 206, 368 BaM 27 239 225, 2915, 20095, 20197, 347 BaM 27 240 225, 351 BaM 27 241 225, 246, 362 BaM 27 242 225, 32, 187+52, 246, 367 BaM 27 243 225, 187+52, 367 BaM 27 244 225, 364 BaM 27 245 225, 187+52, 55, 364 BaM 27 246 225, 187+52, 55, 246, 364 BaM 27 250 225, 187+52, 54, 246, 338, 368 BaM 27 251 225, 20095, 20197, 368 BaM 27 252 225, 187+52, 55, 245, 368 BaM 27 254 225, 368 BaM 27 256 225, 20095, 96, 369 BaM 27 257 225, 24+11, 6216, 19477, 202+101, 289, 369 BaM 27 259 225, 187+52, 20095, 20197, 369 BaM 31 268 225, 366 BaM 31 269 225, 202, 210, 2188, 219, 221, 226, 367 BaM 31 270 225, 187+52, 206+110, 365 BaM 31 271 225, 165, 206, 367 BaM 31 272 225, 2188, 219, 221, 369 BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM

438

Indexes

31 273 225, 206110, 224, 226, 369 31 280 225, 365 31 281 225, 369 31 282 225, 362 31 284 225, 368 31 292 225, 366 31 293 225, 368 31 294 225 31 295 366 31 300 226, 205, 369 31 302 225, 15848, 201, 207, 365 31 303 225, 24, 158+47, 48, 167, 175, 197+87, 321, 365 BaM 31 306 225, 203–04, 219, 366 BaM 31 308 225, 203, 207, 21910, 322, 369 BaM 31 316 225, 365 BaM 31 320 22, 34, 110, 1114, 13466, 141, 19579, 206110, 226, 343 BaM 31 321 22, 34, 343 BaM 31 322 225, 167, 175, 199, 200, 363 BaM 31 323 225, 367 BaM 31 324 225, 364 BaM 31 326 225, 363 BaM 31 328 225, 353 BaM 31 330 225, 31, 343 BaM 31 331 225, 356 BaM 31 334 225, 165, 366 BaM 31 338 225, 165, 2188, 219, 221, 366 BaM 31 340 225, 204, 363 BaM 31 343 225, 367 BaM 31 344 225, 205–06, 365 BaM 31 345 225, 366 BaM 31 347 225, 24+11, 6216, 19477, 202+101, 289, 347 BaM 31 351 225, 206, 368 BaM 31 352 225, 362 BaM 31 356 225, 202, 205, 369 BaM 31 359 225, 206, 208, 2189, 226, 236, 366 BaM 31 362 225, 165, 226, 366 BaM 31 363 225, 345 BaM 31 366 225, 24, 141, 152, 18339, 18440, 224, 369 BaM 31 367 225, 344 BaM 31 374 225, 31, 32, 343 BaM 31 383 225, 345 BAP 64 336 BDHP 28 174 BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM BaM

BIN 7 6 7644, 190 BM 86101 114, 141, 159+50, 18130, 367, 404 BM 86108 141, 347, 404 BM 86143 4831, 32, 11829, 11930, 121, 133+64, 141, 350, 404 BM 86144 141, 18232, 35, 344, 404 BM 87045 136, 141, 165, 356, 404 BM 87065 6932, 96, 109, 14610, 1723, 18441, 358, 404 BM 87069 6931, 97, 109, 14610, 18441, 364, 404 BM 87085 141, 15536, 41, 157, 18232, 351, 404 BM 87092 6931, 97, 109, 14610, 18441, 362, 404 BM 88447 45, 114, 139, 141, 147, 192, 362, 404 BM 88515 13567, 139, 141, 15022, 152, 15332, 162, 181, 18338, 184, 18548, 352, 404 BM 88569 1138, 114–15, 141, 18549, 350, 405 BM 88576 1138, 139, 141, 181, 18549, 245, 351, 405 BM 88590A 4832, 114–15, 121, 141, 349, 405 BM 88612 1126, 115, 122, 13055, 137+71, 141, 15539, 15643, 18232, 223, 370, 405 BM 88613 114, 141, 351, 405, BM 88617 141, 356, 405 BM 88624 13771, 139, 141, 15536, 181, 185+49, 245, 345, 405 BM 88662 141, 14815, 370, 405 BM 88681 6932, 95, 109, 14610, 1723, 18441, 352, 405 BM 88687 6931, 97, 109, 14610, 18441, 368, 405 BM 88698 6931, 96, 109, 14610, 1723, 18441, 358, 405 BM 88756 121, 141, 188, 2188, 221, 222, 224, 226, 356, 406 BM 88820 127+46, 141, 148, 177, 343, 406 BM 88930 26, 31, 32, 111, 123, 141, 321, 323, 343, 406 BM 88954 6932, 97, 109, 14610, 1723, 18441, 370, 406 BM 97061 3925, 4831, 114–15, 121, 13055, 137+71, 15536, 15643, 16673, 18232, 209, 2188, 219, 221, 370, 406 BM 100216 6931, 96, 109, 14610, 18441, 360, 406 BM 100292 136, 141, 161, 165, 354, 406

6. Cuneiform texts

BM 100363 6932, 97, 109, 14610, 1723, 18441, 364, 406 BM 100379 5910, 6830, 94, 109, 14610, 1723, 346, 406 CDLJ 2007/1 N° 45 137+71, 141, 15536, 15643, 18023, 18232, 35, 369 CDLJ 2007/1 N° 47 1126, 114, 123, 130+56, 131, 141, 324, 365 CT 45 37 174 CT 45 48 328 CT 48 77 135 IV R 35 N° 8 365, 377 MCS 7/1 p. 3 39, 40, 64, 89, 109, 17820, 355, 377 MHET I N° 65 21 MHET II/6 N° 877 174 Nisaba 4 I.1 575, 6932, 94, 109, 14610, 153, 1723, 17819, 184+41, 344 Nisaba 4 I.2 25, 57, 68+30, 94, 109, 14610, 156, 172, 17819, 324, 344 Nisaba 4 I.3 6830, 94, 109, 14610, 324, 344 Nisaba 4 I.4 2411, 40, 59, 60+13, 61, 64, 66, 83, 109, 17820, 19477, 202+102, 203, 289, 324, 345 Nisaba 4 I.5 2411, 39, 40, 72, 74, 78, 101, 109, 1783, 202102, 2405, 203, 324, 327, 345 Nisaba 4 I.6 5911, 6830, 94, 109, 14610, 346 Nisaba 4 I.7 6830, 94, 109, 14610, 346 Nisaba 4 I.8 77, 7950, 107, 109, 152, 154, 176+12, 17820, 346 Nisaba 4 I.9 5911, 6830, 94, 109, 14610, 17819, 347 Nisaba 4 I.10 2411, 38, 40, 72, 74, 101, 109, 17820, 202101, 203, 290, 324, 348 Nisaba 4 I.11 6830, 94, 109, 14610, 324, 348 Nisaba 4 I.12 6830, 94, 109, 14610, 348 Nisaba 4 I.13 24+11, 39, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 84, 109, 186, 202101, 349 Nisaba 4 I.14 6932, 95, 109, 14610, 17819, 349 Nisaba 4 I.15 38, 40–42, 46, 60, 6114, 64– 66, 85, 109, 11932, 14713, 15230, 17615, 18547, 215, 350

439

Nisaba 4 I.16 68+30, 95, 109, 14610, 153, 172, 17819, 351 Nisaba 4 I.17 7645, 105, 109, 165, 17820, 18547, 325, 352 Nisaba 4 I.18 60, 6114, 62, 6319, 65, 86, 109, 18547, 2188, 352 Nisaba 4 I.19 6932, 95, 109, 14610, 17819, 325, 353 Nisaba 4 I.20 6932, 95, 109, 14610, 17819, 353 Nisaba 4 I.21 38, 42, 72–74, 78, 7949, 102, 109, 11932, 17820, 18547, 2188, 227, 228, 325, 353 Nisaba 4 I.22 59, 61, 6319, 65, 87, 109, 201, 202100, 353 Nisaba 4 I.23 60, 65, 87, 109, 18547, 353 Nisaba 4 I.24 6932, 95, 109, 14610, 17819, 353 Nisaba 4 I.25 41, 72–74, 79, 102, 109, 17820, 18547, 202100, 227, 228, 325, 354 Nisaba 4 I.26 60, 6114, 6319, 65, 88, 109, 18547, 354 Nisaba 4 I.27 60, 65, 88, 109, 18547, 355 Nisaba 4 I.28 39, 41, 64, 89, 109, 325, 355 Nisaba 4 I.29 6931, 95, 109, 14610, 17819, 18442, 355 Nisaba 4 I.30 6931, 95, 109, 14610, 17819, 355 Nisaba 4 I.31 6931, 95, 109, 14610, 17819, 356 Nisaba 4 I.32 40, 41, 64, 90, 109, 356 Nisaba 4 I. 33 40, 41, 64, 6726, 90, 109, 356 Nisaba 4 I.34 40, 60, 64, 90, 109, 18547, 356 Nisaba 4 I.35 6727, 77, 106, 109, 162, 172, 17820, 245, 356 Nisaba 4 I.36 39, 40, 575, 64, 90, 109, 357 Nisaba 4 I.37 6931, 95, 109, 14610, 17819, 357 Nisaba 4 I.38 39, 60, 61, 64, 91, 109, 18650, 357 Nisaba 4 I.39 39, 60, 61, 64, 91, 109, 358 Nisaba 4 I.40 6932, 96, 109, 14610, 17819, 358 Nisaba 4 I.41 91, 109, 325, 358 Nisaba 4 I.42 39, 40, 5911, 64, 91, 109, 359 Nisaba 4 I.43 6932, 96, 109, 14610, 359 Nisaba 4 I.44 6932, 96, 109, 14610, 17819, 359 Nisaba 4 I.45 6931, 96, 109, 14610, 17819, 359

440

Indexes

Nisaba 4 I.46 40, 5911, 60, 61, 64, 93, 109, 18547, 325, 360 Nisaba 4 I.47 6932, 96, 109, 14610, 360 Nisaba 4 I.48 39, 40, 70, 99, 109, 17820, 18547, 218, 360 Nisaba 4 I.49 7645, 106, 109, 18547, 325, 360 Nisaba 4 I.50 6931, 96, 109, 14610, 17819, 361 Nisaba 4 I.51 61, 62, 70, 99, 109, 18650, 201, 202100, 361 Nisaba 4 I.52 6932, 97, 109, 14610, 17819, 361 Nisaba 4 I.53 6830, 97, 109, 14610, 361 Nisaba 4 I.54 6830, 97, 109, 14610, 17819, 362 Nisaba 4 I.55 6931, 97, 109, 14610, 17819, 362 Nisaba 4 I.56 6931, 97, 109, 14610, 153, 184, 363 Nisaba 4 I.57 60, 61+14, 62, 64, 85, 109, 18547, 352 Nisaba 4 I.58 60, 65, 87, 109, 18547, 353 Nisaba 4 I.59 41, 74, 102, 109, 17820, 325, 353 Nisaba 4 I.60 41, 5911, 72–74, 102, 109, 17820, 18547, 227, 228, 354 Nisaba 4 I.61 59–61, 65, 88, 109, 18547, 354 Nisaba 4 I.62 59, 60, 65, 88, 109, 18547, 354 Nisaba 4 I.63 59, 6319, 65, 88, 109, 354 Nisaba 4 I.64 59, 63, 65, 89, 109, 355 Nisaba 4 I.65 40, 41, 60, 6114, 64, 92, 109, 18547, 325, 356 Nisaba 4 I.66 39, 59–61, 64, 91, 109, 326, 358 Nisaba 4 I.67 6934, 70, 98, 109, 16261, 17820, 18547, 361 Nisaba 4 II.1 1116, 12746, 141, 161, 180, 326, 343 Nisaba 4 II.2 1112, 1126, 13056, 57, 137+71, 141, 155+36, 41, 156+44, 157, 18232, 35, 326, 344 Nisaba 4 II.3 1112, 124–25, 134, 141, 161, 180, 218, 223, 240, 326, 344 Nisaba 4 II.4 1112, 1126, 115, 123, 125–26, 12746, 13056, 141, 15230, 15540, 156–57, 17615, 18023, 18234, 35, 193, 230, 231, 326, 344 Nisaba 4 II.5 1112, 141, 156, 157, 18232, 35, 204, 326, 344

Nisaba 4 II. 6 136+69, 141, 16057, 161, 165, 22216, 245, 326, 344 Nisaba 4 II.7 136, 141, 163, 245, 344 Nisaba 4 II.8 136, 141, 161, 173, 327, 345 Nisaba 4 II.9 6115, 1126, 114, 117, 121, 125, 141, 196–97, 224, 226, 324, 327, 345 Nisaba 4 II.10 1112, 125, 13056, 13771, 141, 15230, 15536, 40, 157, 18235, 188, 19064, 197–98, 327, 346 Nisaba 4 II.11 125, 141, 188–89, 230, 327, 346 Nisaba 4 II.12 141, 15536, 39, 40, 157, 182+35, 187, 327, 347 Nisaba 4 II.13 24, 45, 46, 113–14, 116, 13055, 141, 157, 18235, 224, 328, 333, 347 Nisaba 4 II.14 124, 137, 141, 159+50, 18025, 181+30, 182, 2188, 220–21, 328, 347 Nisaba 4 II.15 115, 125, 133, 141, 193, 328, 351 Nisaba 4 II.16 51, 1116, 113–15, 132, 141, 180, 199, 221–22, 233, 2468, 328, 347 Nisaba 4 II.17 13567, 141, 15022, 152, 15332, 15539, 40, 157, 18235, 229–30, 328, 348 Nisaba 4 II.18 1112, 117, 126, 132, 135, 141, 150+22, 152, 15332, 229–31, 329, 348 Nisaba 4 II.19 117, 122, 133, 141, 15229, 180, 191, 329, 348 Nisaba 4 II. 20 45, 46, 1126, 113–16, 121–22, 13055, 141, 15540, 157, 18235, 19683, 223, 329, 348 Nisaba 4 II.21 133, 141, 161, 189, 226, 229+27, 230, 322, 329, 348 Nisaba 4 II.22 4832, 51, 1113, 6, 114–15, 11826, 27 , 119+30, 121, 132, 141, 180, 188, 199, 232, 246, 329, 348 Nisaba 4 II.23 51, 1126, 114–15, 11827, 121, 132, 141, 180, 199, 232, 2468, 329, 348 Nisaba 4 II.24 11828, 11930, 121, 12847, 48, 132, 141, 19992, 329, 350 Nisaba 4 II.25 4832, 1113, 114–15, 11827, 121, 132, 141, 233, 330, 349 Nisaba 4 II.26 4832, 114–15, 11826, 11930, 127, 12847, 133, 141, 180, 193, 330, 349 Nisaba 4 II.27 125, 134, 141, 180, 19580, 196, 19784, 85, 330, 349 Nisaba 4 II.28 73, 115, 117, 121, 13973, 141, 199, 203, 22216, 223, 2468, 330, 349

6. Cuneiform texts

Nisaba 4 II.29 4832, 1116, 114, 11828, 11930, 121, 12847, 133, 141, 15229, 191, 330, 351 Nisaba 4 II.30 1126, 12746, 131, 136, 141, 165, 183, 331, 349 Nisaba 4 II.31 139, 141, 147+13, 162, 180–81, 18549, 245, 323, 331, 349 Nisaba 4 II.32 4831, 32, 11829, 11930, 31, 121, 141, 331, 350 Nisaba 4 II. 33 1126, 114–17, 121–22, 13055, 56 , 13771, 141, 15536, 39, 40, 156–57, 16673, 167, 18235, 200, 209, 220–21, 331, 350 Nisaba 4 II.34 125, 141, 15536, 39, 157, 18235, 183, 193, 331, 350 Nisaba 4 II.35 32, 4831, 32, 11829, 11930, 31, 121, 133+64, 141, 15022, 151–52, 15332, 178+21, 184, 332, 350 Nisaba 4 II.36 4831, 32, 1126, 115, 11827, 29, 11931, 121, 12847, 12949, 141, 332, 351 Nisaba 4 II.37 126, 141, 15540, 157, 18235, 229, 230, 332, 351 Nisaba 4 II.38 1126, 115, 11725, 137, 141, 159+50, 16260, 18025, 18130, 31, 182, 332, 351 Nisaba 4 II.39 125, 13567, 141, 15022, 151+26, 15332, 163, 172, 174, 176, 179, 184, 332, 352 Nisaba 4 II.40 1116, 130, 141, 15022, 151, 15332, 179, 207, 332–33, 352 Nisaba 4 II.41 30, 137, 141, 15022, 151, 15332, 163, 176, 179, 18339, 184, 245, 333, 352 Nisaba 4 II.42 115, 118, 13567, 141, 15022, 23, 15124, 25, 15332, 17614, 224, 333, 352 Nisaba 4 II.43 1126, 115, 117, 122, 125, 130, 141, 194, 229+26, 333, 354 Nisaba 4 II.44 30, 1126, 11416, 132, 134, 141, 194, 195+79, 204, 333, 354 Nisaba 4 II.45 1113, 6, 126+44, 12746, 130, 133, 141, 180, 187+52, 189, 204, 226, 229+25, 312, 323, 334, 355 Nisaba 4 II.46 3925, 1126, 125, 132, 13771, 141, 15536, 156, 157, 179, 18232, 183, 220, 231, 334, 355 Nisaba 4 II.47 125, 13567, 141, 15022, 23, 15124, 15332, 196, 198, 334, 356 Nisaba 4 II.48 141, 148, 179, 334, 356 Nisaba 4 II.49 1126, 132, 134, 141, 180, 195– 96, 334, 357

441

Nisaba 4 II.50 1112, 125–26, 13056, 13158, 141, 15536, 39, 40, 157, 18235, 189, 229, 230, 335, 357 Nisaba 4 II.51 45, 46, 1112, 113–14, 116, 122– 23, 126, 13055, 13771, 141, 15536, 40, 157, 18235, 223, 229, 23228, 335, 358 Nisaba 4 II.52 141, 174, 221, 22215, 335, 358 Nisaba 4 II.53 22, 1126, 127+46, 134, 141, 15641, 183, 188, 195, 336, 342, 358 Nisaba 4 II.54 115, 118, 122, 141, 148, 192, 210, 336, 358 Nisaba 4 II.55 77, 1126, 123+37, 141, 156, 157, 17612, 18235, 307, 336, 358 Nisaba 4 II.56 123, 141, 157, 18235, 336, 358 Nisaba 4 II.57 1116, 1126, 124, 129+52, 133– 34, 141, 174+6, 192, 328, 336, 358 Nisaba 4 II.58 125, 129, 141, 225, 337, 359 Nisaba 4 II.59 1112, 141, 157, 18235, 207+111, 230, 337, 359 Nisaba 4 II.60 134, 141, 159+52, 162, 174, 180, 18130, 31, 182, 188, 195, 331, 337, 359 Nisaba 4 II.61 123, 132, 134, 141, 148, 195– 96, 205, 337, 359 Nisaba 4 II.62 1116, 114, 121, 129, 141, 209, 220+12, 337, 360 Nisaba 4 II.63 114, 116, 121, 129+51, 141, 220+12, 221, 337, 360 Nisaba 4 II.64 1113, 13567, 68, 141, 15022, 15124, 15332, 176, 18024, 360 Nisaba 4 II.65 132, 141, 18233, 18337, 196, 208, 338, 361 Nisaba 4 II.66 13973, 141, 173, 19582, 338, 361 Nisaba 4 II.67 137, 141, 164, 196, 338, 361 Nisaba 4 II.68 141, 165, 187, 203, 338, 362 Nisaba 4 II.69 114, 139, 141, 147, 185, 338, 362 Nisaba 4 II.70 141, 15022, 152, 15432, 229, 230, 339, 362 Nisaba 4 II.71 114–15, 117, 122, 128+47, 129, 136, 141, 16057, 161, 175, 210, 339, 363 Nisaba 4 II.72 115, 117, 122, 128+47, 141, 191, 220, 221, 339, 363 Nisaba 4 II.73 1116, 1126, 114–15, 13054, 13160, 141, 16469, 179, 208, 339, 364 Nisaba 4 II.74 115, 141, 219, 221–22, 231, 339, 364

442

Indexes

Nisaba 4 II.75 24, 1112, 123, 13054, 133, 141, 157, 15846, 18026, 19787, 198, 322, 339, 365 Nisaba 4 II.76 123, 128+47, 133, 141, 180, 194, 339, 365 Nisaba 4 II.77 77, 1126, 124, 135+68, 141, 150+22, 23, 15124, 173, 17716, 220–21, 224, 366 Nisaba 4 II.78 114, 117, 12847, 136, 141, 16057, 161, 175, 18027, 339, 366 Nisaba 4 II.79 26, 82, 110, 115, 122, 141, 148, 177, 220, 221, 246, 340, 366 Nisaba 4 II.80 1112, 124, 126, 12746, 141, 193, 196, 198, 224–25, 229, 230, 323, 331, 340, 369 Nisaba 4 II.81 114, 124–26, 141, 197–98, 225, 231, 340, 368 Nisaba 4 II.82 134, 141, 16260, 190, 199, 340, 369 Nisaba 4 II.83 114–15, 17, 128+47, 13160, 141, 161, 223, 341, 365 Nisaba 4 III.1 239, 3118, 193, 341, 343 Nisaba 4 III.2 23+9, 158, 177, 18233, 341, 367 Nisaba 4 III.3 239, 32, 82, 341, 366 Nisaba 4 III.4 239, 178, 209, 341, 369 Nisaba 4 App. pp. 195–97 1126, 14815, 343

RSO 82 3 40, 77+48, 108, 109, 356 RSO 82 4 59, 61, 6319, 86, 109, 19477, 202101, 235, 353 RSO 82 5 38, 41, 60, 66, 84, 109, 11932, 15230, 17615, 18547, 350 RSO 82 6 38, 71, 101, 109, 185, 18650, 211, 342, 343 RSO 82 7 93, 109, 370 RSO 82 8 41, 64, 84, 109, 17820, 349 RSO 82 9 38, 72, 74, 103, 109, 342, 355 RSO 82 10 6828, 6934, 98, 109, 360 RSO 82 11 6931, 97, 109, 14610, 18441, 362 RSO 82 12 6830, 94, 109, 14610, 1723, 342, 347 RSO 82 13 38, 65, 66, 85, 109, 11932, 215, 351 ROS 82 14 6319, 65, 93, 109, 2188, 236, 365 RSO 82 15 60, 84, 109, 349 RSO 82 16 77+48, 107, 109, 347 SAKF 106 97, 109, 14610, 364 Syracuse 480 335 1 151 18129 4 54 335 10 58 22, 8 10 62 8 10 66 11413 10 84 8 10 85 8 10 122 8 10 135 8 11 215 3521 11 219 3521

PBS 8/1 17 11413 PBS 8/2 252 328 PSBA 39 21 35, 45, 222

TCL TCL TCL TCL TCL TCL TCL TCL TCL TCL TCL

RA 71 N° 1 p. 7 4832, 11829, 119, 121, 128+47, 133+65, 141, 190, 350 RA 71 N° 2 p. 7 6934, 98, 109, 16261, 17820, 361 RA 71 N° 3 p. 8 76, 106, 109, 17820, 360 RA 71 N° 4 p. 8 41, 75, 7950, 104, 109, 18651, 227–28, 365 RIAA N° 244 114, 141, 324, 327, 363 RlAA N° 250 4630, 115, 116, 13055, 132, 141, 208–09, 342, 369 RSO 82 1 61, 6934, 70, 98, 109, 18650, 202100, 367 RSO 82 2 77+48, 107, 109, 19477, 202101, 347

UET 5 40 334 UF 10 1 1112, 1126, 141, 15536, 15642, 157, 18023, 185+45, 362 UF 10 2 45, 49, 1116, 114, 115, 117–18, 128+47, 129, 13567, 141, 15022, 15124, 152, 17614, 18024, 18339, 184, 361 UF 10 3 1126, 123, 141, 15536, 157, 18443, 2188, 220–21, 360 UF 10 4 1116, 115, 117–18, 121, 137, 141, 159+50, 18130, 182, 219, 221, 352 UF 10 5 38, 40, 72–74, 78, 102, 109, 17820, 18547, 19582, 20094, 2188, 227–28, 235, 353

OECT 15 29 2, 588, 16672, 261 OECT 15 50 2, 588, 16875, 261 OECT 15 83 2, 261

6. Cuneiform texts

UF 10 6 124, 13771, 139, 141, 15230, 15536, 39, 40 , 157, 17615, 18232, 35, 18651, 220–21, 226, 342, 345 UF 10 7 39, 40, 575, 63–65, 92, 109, 17820, 359 UF 10 8 59, 61, 6319, 65, 87, 109, 20094, 235, 354 UF 10 9 38, 41, 42, 46, 575, 60, 64–66, 85, 109, 11932, 205, 215, 350, UF 10 10 39, 40, 59, 63–65, 89, 109, 20094, 211, 236, 355, 394 UF 10 11 39, 40, 5910, 63–65, 92, 109, 236, 359 UF 10 12 40, 59–61, 64, 90, 109, 357 UF 10 13 40, 75, 78, 103, 109, 17820, 348 UF 10 14 58, 65, 67, 93, 109, 363 UF 10 15 39, 575, 5910, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 84, 109, 218, 235, 349 UF 10 16 39, 41, 575, 64, 83, 109, 348 UF 10 17 40, 575, 60, 64, 89, 109, 356 UF 10 18 39, 40, 60, 65, 93, 109, 236, 360 UF 10 19 39, 40, 575, 60, 64, 89, 109, 355 UF 10 20 37–39, 58, 5912, 62, 64, 66, 83, 109, 215, 345 UF 10 21 38, 575, 40, 59–62, 64, 6622, 83, 109, 348 UF 10 22 575, 60, 6319, 65, 86, 109, 2188, 235, 352 UF 10 23 575, 6934, 98, 109, 16261, 17820, 362 UF 10 24 39–41, 60, 64, 6725, 90, 109, 356 UF 10 25 40, 42, 60, 65, 6623, 86, 109, 353 UF 10 26 39, 575, 64, 91, 109, 357 UF 10 27 59–61, 65, 89, 109, 20094, 211, 355 UF 10 28 126, 13771, 141, 15536, 41, 157, 18232, 228, 349 UF 10 29 4832, 114–15, 11826, 121, 133, 141, 180, 193, 350 UF 10 30 59–61, 63, 65, 87, 109, 235, 354 UF 10 31 22, 134, 137, 141, 159+50, 18025, 18130, 182, 195+79, 197, 330, 357 UF 10 32 575, 60, 65, 87, 109, 235, 353 UF 10 33 575, 77, 7950, 107, 109, 123, 154, 176, 17820, 346 UF 10 34 39, 575, 60, 6114, 64, 90, 109, 203, 357 UF 10 35 25, 57, 68, 82, 97, 109, 14610, 153, 1723, 173, 364

443

UF UF UF UF

10 36 77, 108, 109, 359, 397 10 37 60, 6319, 65, 87, 109, 235 10 38 65, 86, 109, 235, 352 10 39 77, 123, 124, 132, 137+71, 141, 15536, 17612, 194, 359 UF 10 40 59, 61, 6319, 65, 86, 109, 211, 235, 303, 352 VAS 7 128 7441 VAS 9 143 599 VAS 13 13 599, 1116, 114, 11517, 128, 135, 141, 15022, 15124, 17614, 18024, 18339, 241, 367 VAS 13 35 239, 55, 349 VAS 13 36 1116, 114, 131, 141, 180, 199, 2468, 347 VAS 13 37 6830, 94, 109, 14610, 1723, 344 VAS 13 38 40, 599, 64, 83, 109, 17820, 347 VAS 13 39 13771, 141, 15536, 157, 18232, 196, 351 VAS 13 40 1126, 114, 13771, 141, 15536, 157, 18023, 18235, 350 VAS 13 41 38, 41, 42, 46, 64–66, 84, 109, 119, 215, 350 VAS 13 42 40, 64, 83, 109, 347 VAS 13 43 114, 115, 117, 122, 128, 132, 141, 223, 231, 349 VAS 13 44 39, 64, 93, 109, 364 VAS 13 45 123, 125, 141, 17612, 180, 188, 189 VAS 13 46 13771, 141, 15536, 157, 18443, 363 VAS 13 47 40, 41, 46, 49, 64, 90, 109, 357 VAS 13 48 38, 40, 42, 46, 7441, 75, 78, 103, 109, 119, 14713, 15230, 176, 17820, 18547, 19582, 2188, 227, 228, 235, 353 VAS 13 49 38, 41, 7338, 75, 76, 104, 109, 16260, 227+23, 228, 364 VAS 13 50 45, 49, 1112, 114, 128, 192, 329, 363 VAS 13 51 587, 77, 108, 357 VAS 13 52 61, 62, 6934, 70, 98, 17820, 18650, 211, 361 VAS 13 53 6934, 70, 98, 361 VAS 13 54 575, 61, 70, 71, 77, 100, 123, 148– 49, 154, 17612, 177, 17820, 18650, 192, 202100, 302, 365 VAS 13 55 6828, 6934, 98, 16261, 361 VAS 16 165 216

444

Indexes

8 52 11413 8 53 11413 8 56 11413 8 85 334 8 128 7441 13 257 334 13 507 21 14 337 1112, 1126, 123–24, 13056, 137, 141, 15536, 157, 18023, 185, 225, 366 YOS 14 338 114–15, 118–19, 122, 126, 12847, 13567, 15022, 151+24, 152, 15332, 17614, 17922, 18024, 18339, 19171, 2188, 219, 220–21, 231, 333, 357 YOS YOS YOS YOS YOS YOS YOS YOS

YOS 14 339 3925, 1116, 114–17, 121, 12847, 129, 13055, 132, 137, 141, 15536, 157, 18232, 35, 188, 219, 221, 231, 350 YOS 14 340 24, 4832, 1112, 119, 121, 133, 13567, 141, 15022, 15332, 15846, 18026, 197, 321, 355 YOS 14 341 68+30, 94, 109, 14610, 153, 172+3, 345 YOS 14 342 1116, 141, 207, 229, 230, 329, 344 YOS 14 346 7748, 108, 109, 354