City Administration

in the Ancient Near East

Russian State University
for the Humanities

Volume XXXI

Babel und Bibel 5

Annual of Ancient Near Eastern,

Old Testament, and Semitic Studies
 City Administration
in the Ancient Near East
Proceedings of the 53e
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
Vol. 2

Edited by
L. Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, and S. Tishchenko

Published for
the Russian State University for the Humanities
by
Eisenbrauns
Winona Lake, Indiana
2010
 ISBN 978-1-57506-168-9

ISSN 1938-5668

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American
National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.♾™
 Contents

Contents i
Preface v
Program ix
City Administration in the Ancient Near East
Opening Lectures
G. Selz. “He put in order the accounts …” Remarks on the
Early Dynastic Background of the Administrative
Reorganizations in the Ur III State 5
J.-M. Durand. Être chef d’un état amorrite 31

City Administration in the Ancient Near East

S. Dalley. Administration in Texts from the First Sealand
Dynasty 61
D. Katz. City Administration in Poetry: the Case of the Herald 69
R. Koliński. Between City Institutions and Markets:
Mesopotamian Traders of the 2nd Millennium BC 81
D. Lacambre. L’administration de Chagar Bazar (Ašnakkum)
à l’époque de Samsī-Addu 97
M. Lönnqvist. How to Control Nomads? A Case Study
Associated with Jebel Bishri in Central Syria. West
Semitic Nomads in Relation to the Urban World 115
M. Maiocchi. The Sargonic “Archive” of Me-sásag7 , Cup-
bearer of Adab 141
L. Marti. Le ¶azannu à Mari et sur le Moyen-Euphrate 153
B. Nilhamn. From Oral Promise to Written Receipt.
A Cognitive Study of the Use of Mnemonics within
Ancient Administration 171
S. Paulus. Verschenkte Städte – Königliche Landschenkungen
an Götter und Menschen 191
J. Taylor. Úazannum: The Forgotten Mayor 207
Ju. Tsirkin. Städtische Selbstverwaltung und sozial-
politischer Gemeindesektor in Phönikien und Syrien 223
G. Van Buylaere. The Role of the ¶azannu in the Neo-
Assyrian Empire 229
W. H. van Soldt. The City-Administration of Ugarit 247
ii Babel und Bibel 5

G. Visicato. New Light from an Unpublished Archive of

Meskigalla, Ensi of Adab, Housed in the Cornell
University Collections 263

Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

J. Dahl. A Babylonian Gang of Potters. Reconstructing the
Social Organization of Crafts Production in the Late
Third Millennium BC Southern Mesopotamia 275
S. Garfinkle. What Work Did the Damgars Do? Towards
a Definition of Ur III Labor 307
Xiaoli Ouyang. Administration of the Irrigation Fee in
Umma during the Ur III Period (ca. 2112–2004 BCE) 317

Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference Works, Series,

and Sources 351
 Previous page:
The participants of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
in the Hermitage Theater, St. Petersburg, July 27, 2007
 Preface

This Preface is a token of gratitude to those who, in some way or other,

helped us organize the fifty-third Rencontre Assyriologique Internation-
ale, which took place in Moscow and St. Petersburg in July 2007, with
“Language in the Ancient Near East” and “City Administration in the
Ancient Near East” as its main subjects.

In Moscow, the wonderful tandem of two Katias—Markina and Vizi-

rova—successfully carried out innumerable tasks, major and minor, con-
nected with visa service, accommodation, train transfer, and cultural
program. Without their patience and devotion, this Congress could
never have been as it was.
More than a dozen students, graduate students and faculty of the In-
stitute for Oriental and Classical Studies of RSUH worked as volunteers
during that memorable week: M. Chamurlieva, D. Cherkashin, M. Dol-
bilova, M. Ermolaev, E. Frolova, I. Khait, M. Kalintseva, Yu. Kirilenko,
A. Kovalev, A. Lyavdansky, A. Morozova, R. Nurullin, N. Rudik, A. Syrei-
shchikova, A. Terpelyuk, S. Tishchenko, V. Tsukanova, Yu. Tulaikova,
V. Vdovikov, O. Vinnichenko, E. Vorobieva. Their patient and efficient
assistance is hard to overestimate. The same applies to the Institute’s ad-
ministrative staff represented by Ms. Marina Pedenko and Ms. Svetlana
Vesnina.
It was a privilege for us to cooperate with the director of the Institute
for Oriental and Classical Studies, Dr. Ilya Smirnov, throughout the diffi-
cult months that preceded the Congress. His experience, devotion and
strong will, but above all his patience, never failed. One would wish that
all experts in medieval Chinese literature were so much dedicated to the
progress of Assyriological science!
From the very beginning of our enterprise, it enjoyed unconditioned
approval of the Rector of RSUH, Prof. Efim Pivovar. The facilities the
administration of RSUH put at our disposal were a real boost for the or-
ganizing committee. To be singled out is the kind help of the vice-rector
for administrative affairs, Mr. Aleksandr Volkov, and the head of the fi-
nancial department, Ms. Svetlana Sokolova.
viii Babel und Bibel 5

Our sincere gratitude goes to colleagues from other academic institu-

tions in Moscow where Assyriological subjects are taught and investi-
gated: Boris Aleksandrov and Daria Gromova (Moscow State University),
Ilya Arkhipov (Russian Academy of Sciences), Anastasia Tarasova (the
Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts). All of them took this event with much se-
riousness and responsibility and provided quick and effective assistance
in many respects.

In St. Petersburg, the city that hosted the previous Russian Rencontre
(1984), we were encouraged by the advice of its organizer, Prof. Mu-
hammad Dandamayev. We tried to do our best emulating his erstwhile
achievement.
This Congress would have never been possible without constant sup-
port and cordial hospitality of the Director of the State Hermitage, Prof.
Mikhail Piotrovsky, Deputy Director for Research, Prof. Georgy Vilin-
bakhov, and Academic Secretary, Dr. Mariam Dandamaeva, as well as the
Director of the Institute for Oriental Studies (now the Institute of Orien-
tal Manuscripts) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Dr. Irina Popova,
and the head of the Department for Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Dr.
Inna Medvedskaya.
We would like to express our gratitude to Dr. Andrey Nikolayev (Ori-
ental Department of the State Hermitage) for his immense support dur-
ing the last, and most difficult, months before the Rencontre, as well as to
other staff members of the Oriental Department (A. Novikova, L. Po-
tochkina, L. Smirnova, D. Vasilieva). We are grateful to P. Kagadeeva,
A. Moskaleva, R. Oreschko, M. Redina, and M. Sologubova, students of
the Oriental Faculty of St. Petersburg State University who worked with
us during the days of the Congress. We also thank numerous members of
the Hermitage staff for their generous help.

In both Moscow and St. Petersburg, the organizing committees benefited

from financial support of the Russian Foundation for the Humanities
(РГНФ/RFH). We are pleased to extend our sincere gratitude to this in-
stitution. We also gratefully acknowledge personal donations of Anatoly
Kovalev and Olexandr Usinsky.
Alexandra Okhotina and Katia Markina are responsible for the design
of the Rencontre’s emblem and maintenance of the website respectively.
We are grateful to Anastasia Smirnova, who designed the RAI poster.
 Preface ix

Numerous workshops, which in a sense were a hallmark of this Ren-

contre, were organized by the following colleagues: S. Garfinkle, A. Kas-
sian, I. Márquez Rowe, S. Loesov, M. Streck, G. Wilhelm, C. Wunsch,
G. Zólyomi. To all of them we extend our sincere gratitude.
Successful organization of the Rencontre would have been impossible
without constant assistance of the Leiden secretariat of the International
Association of Assyriology, notably, Wilfred van Soldt and Renee Kalvela-
gen, who never failed to share with us their invaluable experience and to
support us with their advice. Last but not least, it is a pleasant duty to
remember a meeting with Klaas Veenhof during the Leiden Rencontre
of 2002, where the very idea of a prospective Russian Rencontre was first
suggested by one of the undersigned—and enthusiastically approved!
L. Kogan, N. Koslova

As usually, the editors of these volumes gladly extend their gratitude to

their technical assistants: Dr. Anatoly Kovalev, who prepared the layout,
and Ms. Svetlana Vesnina, responsible for the technical editorial work.
We cannot but admire their diligent and patient collaboration.
L. Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, S. Tishchenko
xii Babel und Bibel 5
RAI 53: The Program xiii
xiv Babel und Bibel 4
RAI 53: The Program xv
 City Administration
in the Ancient Near East
Opening Lectures
 !

! " # $%&'()%&'*+ ! $%&,-+

! " #

./
" # 0 .% /

1 2
. 3 4 1 2
5 6 0 0 4 #
.
0 #
7!! 0 #
0. / # 1 2 #
0 0 0
. /
0 # $ #
+8 # .

/ 9 8 2
,: 0
; 5 . 0 ! 4 ! <.
7 = 0 >. ? 0 8. 2 <. @ ! 5. A >.
A A. 8 ! A. < 0
; 7 .
B C ! 0 ! 0
1 .
%
%&'()%&'*D ! %&,-EF: .D %&&% .
%&&&E%(,.
* B 5

"# / G " # F%
0 ! #
F
. %:
" # H #
. G #
" # .
0 0 0 $1 2 +
0 . 0 #! 0
# I5 0 #> #!J
1 2 I J 4 # #
#! $1 #A7# #!+.K 5 ! 0 L H
" # .(

%.F. / 1 2
'
4 5 6# 0
0 4 1 2 #
4 . ? 4
! 0 3M . C 0

F
%&'()%&'* !
%&,-EF: . N0 %&&%N
%&&&E%(, O I O #
J 0 .
K
8 # ! I #
# J 1 E 1 . -& P ; 81 %.F.&.'.( %: ) *.
(
/ 8
.
I J 0 !
. 7 0
8. C ?. $F::(+.
I; B 7 7
Q.8RN$# % #% &N J !
D . $ +.
'
/ I J
! ./
=
H 0 I J .B
1 2 0
. 0 #
E0 0
0 ./
0 .
 . I u u J -

.
8 > .B
1 2
7!! 9 7 ! D
* -
.

%.K. ! #
0
O 0 0
.

%.K.%. 3

= #
., 7 ! O
0
O
L H #
N 0 .& 1
0
'$# + 0 O #
0 .%: 1
0 !
$# +. = #

*
9 3.D < .D 7. u
.< . .; F::*D 1 2
1 / 7 0 ? D
4 .< 7.
u ! u !.
-
B 4 ! 0 #
" " . 3. 8
u ! u ! $< . %. F::-+
6 4
. / 6 2.
B0 ;. 8 " # $ u !
u ! $< . K. F::-+ 0 .
,
3 0 C %&&FD %&&,
F::%.
&
/ ! I O J $
! 5S 7+ T7/ K$ . ! F::'D %&&,EF&()K:'+.
%:
/ 0 '$# +# #2> L1.# $ + 2>.H
, B 5

1 2 5 6 #(
$29 &F ')*+ # # L1 5 $ +H #
)#* # # # $# L 0 H
$29 %,( ' ) %+. 5 ! 0 !
( ! I1 5S 7 J
!D 0
.C 0 ( 1>.5R5.A
%%

.%F / #( O
0
#( .C 0 4 #
%K
0 ( O . 0
O
4 4 0
4 ./ 0
%(
O . 7
! 0

# .%'

%.K.F. 9 ./ U%*
%.K.F.%. / 4 ! 8 $ 1 + !
! 0 I J I J

%%
.%,K&- 9 ()'D
. '( > . (F&. 1
%F
0 . %. ; 9. ? V.
1 . '( > . (F& =
H D 8 0 %&&KE(K)(- ! F::F.
%K
8 5 %( F(, P 1 K* .E (# E " /7. " E N $ # u W E " /7. ".A E
X8Y > ( # # # A .8 >D . 8 5 %F %% .%
%(
/ 0 . 9
7 F::% 0 F::K F::( .
%'
9 #> 6 #! 4
# I J 0 5 D 0 .F
K+. /
0
0 D .9 %&(,E-F)-KD #C #
%&&%EK(- $0 .+. / #
0 / #2 %&:-EF . % (.
%*
3 0 H
0 F::' $F::*+.
 . I u u J &

= .? G
0 $# L H 0 I J
$L H 0
! .%- / B 5 6
%, %&
O $# E $# # # # # $# #% # + F: $#
F% FF
# # #+( $# # ; Z 7>[# & $# # # ,# .FK /
O 0 $ +
> # #!. / 7 / HV6 0 #
0 . / #
! 0 4 #C M 5 6 .
; Z 7>[# & 0
> # #!.F( ! 5 # ; Z
7>[# & 0
$# . #
> # #!
$ +.

%.K.F.F. / 3M 4
0 = 0 $#
IL HJ $# W ; L .H 7
L .HF'

%-
$ L .H
%,
/ O $# F:: 1 2 #
5 6. > $# # % # &#) # # -#
* # 29 (*F %0 4 0
D . F:.
%&
1 . %* P ; 81 %.&.'.F- &.
F:
7 # # ' # %#% #$# #% # + 29 (:* ()'.
! 0 %#% #$# # 3\ %,: -), ( (# 29 %,(
F)K # U( %) < F' %:' (.
F%
1 .F %& ! . .
FF
1 . 1 . .
FK
1 . F& K. ! 1 2 5 6
$# D . %,. N
0 O #$# $# + L I J HE ].]
29 %%K 4 - . . # 3\ %*( K ()#/7; 29 (F K . . #$# # 29 F%,
* > !. %F' %:D 0 $# .
F(
%&&' E%*, . %-: . 0 . (-: . K:: .
F'
< %&&'E&%)%KKD F::( . K:%.
%: B 5

%.K.F.K. 4 0 5 6 $# '# $ &#

# # % - # ,# + L $ 0 $0
E+ I $ + A J+.H /
$> !. F,K 29 (-F (-K+
! 1 #A7# ! .F* /
I JG N #
1 #A7#
'# . /
$# 0 .

%.K.F.(. /

#
. I J 0
5 6> # #!
. 7 E
O 4 1 2 0
O #
0 I J I .J

%.K.K. $ +
Q.8R $ 1 #A7# E $# % #% &+
. / 0 0
. /
0
0 L H.F- !
0 H I J0
.F, F& /
! 0 .K: B 5 6

F*
/ 29 *%K
/C % (F $P 37B %'WF . (+ 0 0 !
! . 5 (.
F-
?. %&&&)F:::E,)%: 0 ! F::( .
F,
8 1 %&&:
D . %&&&)F:::E,)%: +.
F&
0 0 ! #
D 0 O
0 0 0
0 ! .
K:
0 ! 1 %&&:.
 . I u u J %%

! I J 0 #
EK%
%. 7 E 0 .
KF
F. ? O # 0 #
.
K. C E O .
(. 3 $ = 0 +E
! L5 H 'u #
.
'. 3 0 #0 ! .KK
*. ; .
-. 3 O # .
,. ? W .
,.%. .

%.K.K.%. ! 0
# ! .
K(
#
0 O
0 5 H H ( )* * + *
$>19+. 0 0 O
0 I .JK' 0
0
.9
.

K%
3 %&&&E(&,)':*.
KF
/ 9 2. ; 9 " ), ! # #
+ # ! ! $%&&& @. !+
.
KK
.
K(
7 0 0
0 G
1 #A7# #!H I # JD . %&&&)F::: $ . , . %')F:+.
K'
> ?. ! H E I1 1 0 #B #
! # 8 ! O 9 0
7 8 .J / ! I #
0 1
$ ! + ! 0 0 #
9 ^ J $ ! F::-E%%(+. 0 0
G 0 O .
%F B 5

%.K.K.F. 3 1 2 0 = 0
K*
O 0
.K- / =
1 2 G .K, ? 0

K&
! # E
L I ! J $; # + 4 !
$ + I 0
_J 0 $ ;.+ $ + E I9 $
+ O 0 _J
$ +E N ! .H
L I ! J $; # + =
I ! J $ *# # + I
! J I 0 $ + _J
0 $ + $ + E I9 $ +
O _ 8 W O 0
_J 0 $ + E
I ! J .H
! . ( 4 F: ) 4 %% WW ' 4 F: ) 4 %,

.# 7 0 ! 0 I #
J " # 0 0
. .3 ! G !

K*
4 < F' ' P <7/ ((%F 0 %&&&)F:::E
(K . > . & E "
$%.K:: + $$+ $ #, + #
7 .
K-
3 I J 4 #
C )5 %&&* E ! %&&& %&&&)F:::
! F::K ! F::( > F::- 0 ! F::-.
K,
! F::-.
K&
? 7 #
! 4 0
./ = O 4
0 0 . #
0 F:: 4
2 H ! 0 ! IC !.J
0 .C 0
I J ./ #
= G 0 .
! # 0
.
 . I u u J %K

" # $ #> #!+.

1 2 I12.J 3
! 0 .
%. 2 O $ ". F:+D 12 U
F. ? U $B #7!! U+D 12 U
K. ; I J$ ". F%+ U 12 U
(. O > U 12.
'. ? $9 6#2 ". K&+ % # 4
.
*. ? D #
$ 0 '+D 12 U
-. ; 0 U$ .' *+D 12.
,. > 0 D 0 #
$ .' *+D 12.
&. ; 0 U 12 U
%:. I; ! J D 12.

F.%. 2 O $ ". F:+

/ O ! " # $
! + B . C 0 1 2
5 60
> # #! .7 #
0 B 7!! 0
G ./ O " #
! = 4 1
2 B 7!! .

F.F. ? $". F:+

7 " #

G .(: 1 B #7!!
L 7 H
> M # `
.(% L'(::
$1;R> 7!! ( _+
! H .(F 7 0

(:
a " # F: EL 0 .H
(%
5 6 %&&,E'FK)'K% #
$ . (,K)(,-+.
(F
; 81 F F&D . %&&&E*,.
%( B 5

0 0
0 0 !
.
0 7!! 0 0 #
0
I .J

F.F.%. 1 2 #

O . > !. K $ ! . 5 '+ 4 0
D #1;R>$# +.(K
/ %'K O L
H L 9 H . / #
$ E + 0 ! 0
$A ;*+. 9
O . ! 0
D #
0 0 # I #
.J / I J 0 #,
L H ! .(( 0 1 #A7# #
O
5 ./ 0 O 0
.(' /
N D 0
8 #
. 0 ! #,
( 0
.

F.F.F. / ! 0 3M . /
= @ H IA H # 5 J #
#

(K
%&&,E'F&
#1;R>$# +
L .H
((
3 4 %&&,E
K%-)K%&.
('
. KK 0 . 4 < F' ' P <7/ ((%F $ %&&&)
F:::E(K .+D $ #, + 0
0 .
 . I u u J %'

0 .(* # O#
1 2 . !
0 0 1 2 #
0 O !
0 .

F.F.K. 0
! 0 B 7!#
! 0 G
G .(- .
" # H I J #
# .

F.K. ; I J$ ". F%+

F.K.%. 7 %&-' 8 ! 0 #
Q.8RN$# % #% &
1 2 5 6. C
# 0 4
> # #!# O
! . 0 ! 0.
( 5 $U+ / 7 (- FK L 0 #
0 #O H0 W $# $ %#$# #
# # + Q.8R $# % #
% &. 7 0 -% 29 %(:
$ ! . 5 % $U++E(, 1
$ # # + L > # #!H $ %#( #% # # ' #
# # +. 7 8 ! 0 0
$ #7#%+ L
(&
.H 7 !
5 6 0 0 #
G .':

(*
?. )aı ı %&&KD %&&,EK:&)K%F.
(-
?. %&&&E*')*,.
(,
? . 8 ! 0 %&-K)%&-(E%%'.
(&
8 ! 0 %&-K)%&-(E%%-.
':
%&&' E'- '& *% . *F.
%* B 5

F.K.F. 3 H
1 2 . 0
Q.8RN$# % #% & E'%
7W% *#A ;*# %/#% D ! 0
. %*: F*:
; # )#* ) +# /D
7WF # # 0 ()# %# 0 D
7WK $# I JW $ +
I JW + 0 .

/ 7W% 7WF 7WK 0

* 5 = Q.8R.
3 1 # F 1 #A7# 5 *
Q.8RN$# % #% & 0E
) -1 $1 . F+D
) . 233 c 4 $ . "33 U+ 5 .*$ 7W% O + c %'(
$7WF 5 . *W&+ c %'& $7WK 5 . *W%F+D
) 0 . .03 c 4 $ . "33 U+ ! . 1 $ 7W% O
+ c %K- $7WF ! . 1 %W(+ c %(- $7WK ! . 1 %W(+D
) -3. $7W%c7WFc7WK ! . 5 FW,)&+D
) 5"/ $7W%c7WFc7WK ! . 5 KW(),+D
) . 5.- $7W%c7WFc7WK ! . 5 Kc(+D
) 0 /"- $7W%c7WFc7WK ! . 5 *+.

Q.8RW$# % #% & 1 2 5 #
4 %' ! %:::
.

F.(. O >
7 O
B ./ 0
O 1H 1 6 #
! 6 #! 5 ! 6 #
.1 #
4 5 0 . 0
O B #
5 6. / 0 #> 6 #!
$ # > .2 + 0 # 3 2 5 6

'%
/ ! %&&' E(&)*K (&)'K #
.
 . I u u J %-

5 #
6 > >7 0 .7 =
> #
#! > 6 > >7
5 6 . #
0 4#
0 =
.
9 O
0 D . 0
%. . EL 0 HD
F. ". -E L > X0 Y.H
7 ! 0 0 1 2
. C 0 0 #
# E 0 0
$ +
.

F.'. ? $ ". K&E I $_ Q+

9 6#2 0 J+ % # 4
/ 1 2 " # H #
9 6#2 W2 ./ #
! Q.8RN$# % #% &
B 5 6 . . 1 #1
5 # 1 #A7# #! .
0
0 1 1 .

F.*. ? D

/ # -
0. 3 B 0 .
/ ! 0 4 0 #
0 0 4 #> 6 #!
# #3M .'F C 0 0 0
0 #
0 0 ! 0

'F
0 C F::(.
%, B 5

. % $P 7 7+
'K
L H %# L H 3M #
0 L H 0 #
2 .2 > # #!H
'(
1 .

F.-. ; 0 $ . F.' F.*+

/ 4 1 2 #
3M . #> 6 #!H 1H
I J0 = 0
O # A !#
# 0 . / 0
D 3M # 4 0
0 . ! 0
.C 0 #
# ! 0 . C 0

! 5 . 4
0 0 # 1 2
0 0
. > 0
''
#
.

F.,. > 0 D 0 #
$ . F.' F.*+N
". F%E L> O # 1
1 > $ + ". O #
O # 1 > .H
4
B 7!! D #

'K
?.A ! %&&,EK%(.
'(
?. %&&,E(-% . 5 # ; Z 7>[# & #
> # #! $ . %&&' EK:: .+
2 .2 O > # #! ; Z 7>[# &
.
''
/ #
1 #A7# $5 6+ 0 5 #
.
 . I u u J %&

;. A. 1 # 4
E I/ .J'*
0 1 H I J I #
J 1 2
I J B 7!! .
7 3M 0 #
A ! 8 .'- 7 #
0
B .', #
0 0 #
N N
0 0
1 2 .

F.&. ; 0
/ 0 #
D
0 0 #
. / $ + 0 #
0 . 8 #
0
.'&

F.&.%. / ! 0 4 1 2 #
0 1 . -- -,. / O 4 % #
2 .2 # ; Z 7>[# &! L% E $ + 2 .2
; Z 7>[# &.H / E # # #%
2 .2 Ld%e $ +0 # 2 .2 #
.H O 0 #
L H $ # # # ++ 9 0

'*
1 F::(EF,)K:.
'-
A !)8 ) F::')F::*.
',
3 ; F::( . !
. .C IB f 3 J $F::(E%:% .+.
'&
@. 3 9. 2 0 C. > ;. A. 1
9 # 4
. ; 0 $0 4 + #
1 $%&&, F::(EK:)KF+D
0 I
J $F::(EKF)K-+.
F: B 5

G (&'.' *,:.' 0 .3
! 0 2 .2
1 H .

F.&.F. 0 0 ! <
F- K( $P <7/ (-K*+ $ 7 4 > . %+.
1 #A7# 5 0 #
0 0 #
0 # E %' ' # ' # #A7# # # ' #
L$/ 0 # + %' 6 G $ +> #
#! 1 #A7# #! ! .H

F.&.K. / 0 0 . 0
O $ +
G . 7
9. ! 4 1 #A7#
./ L
0 0 $ + #
0 $ +O $ + # 0
$ + .H*:
7 4
<F- &- $P <7/ (&%-+ 0 * ! .
0 # # + #% # # + $ # > !. *%+ L
# H $ ! 0 +. /
4 0 L H $ # #
+ # # ++.*%

F.&.(. / ': O B #
5 6. >
1 O # D
$ + 0
# 0 .7 4 0
$ + 0 .
4 29 '-K %
1 #A7# ! O !.
0 O 0 0
0 29 ',( $5 . *+

*:
?. ! %&&%EFKF.
*%
?. %&&' .
 . I u u J F%

E '# - # # #% ) # # ' L
1 $ O +.H
2 O #

$ + # $$($# 7>[++ #> #!

! 8 .7 7!!.
- &$ + 0 $
+D 0 ! 5 !u
! 0 #0 #1 .*F

F.%:. I; ! J
/ 5 6 = 0
./
#
.
5 6 0
> >7W> > 6 . > 6
! # > # #!. #
#> 6 #! $ > >7W> #
+ O .

2. 6
%: I" # H J
G
0 I J 0
1
2 . / 0 ! 0 #
! . B 4 # 0 #> #!
5 #16 C # D
1 #A7# #!H I J . / 4
0 #
C H 0 .*K
B 0
0
! 0 .7
0 1 2

*F
F::%.
*K
=\ %&&%.
FF B 5

! . / #
. 0 #
0 !u u. #
.
 . I u u J FK

4"
/ 4 E <7/ (-K* P < F- K(. 8 E ) -.( D ) -.( . / #
E2 %&FK)%&F(E%-K .D 5 %&''E'-F. 9 E 29 ':& $ ! . 5
%+D 29 '%: $ ! . 5 $U+ %+. 2 $ H +E (WK $ (+. / E #A#,. / E
0 # = # .
% % % (: - # % $0 #+ $ + (:
% %' - # % $0 #+ $ + %'
F %: - # F $0 #+ $ + %:
%* - # % $0 #+ $ +*
' F' - # F $0 #+ $ +'
F % %( - # % $0 #+ $ +(
%K - # % $0 #+ $ +K
%F - # % $0 #+ $ +F
K% - # K $0 #+ $ +%
' F (# ' # F $ +0
% 6];Z 7c7 % E
) u
K % #()# *
- # / $0 #+ D
% *: - # % $0 #+ $ + *:
% (: - # % $0 #+ $ + (:
% %' - # % $0 #+ $ + %'
' F %: - # F $0 #+ $ + %:
%, - # % $0 #+ $ +,
; ( % %K - # % $0 #+ $ +K
%F - # % $0 #+ $ +F
%%g - # % $0 #+ $ +%g
%% - # % $0 #+ $ +% E
!E
' # # +#
- & $0 #+ D
% (# ' # % $ +
' % F (
+%#' F0 $U+.
/ u u
* % # #()#( # # # > # #! 0
' # # # 0 $ +
# & #
7# 0# =
# # 1 #
' #% )
# #( (. $ 0 # +L .H $a (.+
> E
/ 4 4 0 # B
. / 0
I J 4 1 #A7# #! $ H #!+D .
! . ( 4 %F)FF WW ' 4 F:)F& 9. #
! $%&&%+.
F( B 5

$FE'+ 3 (# ' P ! $ u$ + L $ +H 7C0. F&FD ?72 %:-.

6
$FE*+ 4 ];Z 7c7N 7 7 0 N
0 ./
W W$ W W W W U+ 8 5 %( (*(E%(- .
! !
# ];Z 7c7 ];Z] $ 9. !
%&,:+. %&-:E%&& F(' W W P ];Z 7 P Wu & u
L3 .H > 4 57A F,&
$P % 4+ ];Z/7 ( 0 9. ! 15/ . '(
];Z 7;.
$KE% (E'+ > -#()# * -# # +. / 4
0 L HL H 4 #
.7 0 # # +
%&&' . 3 1 0 0 0 #
$? ;95 1 . -- -,+. 0 8. 7. 9 0 $%&,&)
%&&:E':,+ 0 # $ #% + *,:.(,'
0 O L H0 # (&'.' .
$(E*+ 3 . 29 ':& F)' 0 G (
' # #
# (
' # # # (
' # (
+%#' E L $ + 0 #
$ +0 $ + 0 # $ +0 $ + .H $/
8. C 0 0
0 D 0 8 .+
$'E%+ / (
+%#' D .
$ %&&KEK* .+. ;. A. 1 H $%&&:E%(- . . (*-+
= 8. ? H $%&*,E%:+ J .J
1 H 2 H
%&FK)%&F(E%-K 8. 5 $%&''E'-F+. 7
;. A. 1 $%&&:E%(- .+ > # +%#' !
F% $P %F: +.
 . I u u J F'

4 ..

. 0. 9 9. ? V P .%,K&- 9 ()'D
1 . '( > . (F&

. 1. 3 %&*F / ((
F* B 5

.1 .7 0$ . @. +

. 2. 2 #> #! $ . @. +
 . I u u J F-

%&&, @. 2 7 #
. @.D 1 ;. A.D A !
8. 3 E 4 u u*#5 u 5
$B B %*:W%+. 3 ) \ . 9 . (K%)','.
#C %&&% #C 1. 7. 3 ! #
5 $C 7B K+. C .
F::'
$F::*+ @. 2 < 9 /
^ 8 . K-E&)F'.
? %&*, ? 8. 6 #2 1 H ? . 6 7 ,,EK)%(.
2 %&FK)%&F( 2 7. 8u # * ",
$7 + &)%K+. ; .
1 %&&: 1 ;. A. 7 ! u 9 : u ! #
$ <B %:+. .
1 %&&, 1 ;. A. / 4 5 ! 9 .
@.D 1 ;. A.D A ! 8. 3 E
4 u u*#5 u 5 $B B %*:W%+.
3 ) \ . 9 . %')FKK.
1 F::( 1 ;. A. 9 #? 7 !
@ .C ) F::(. 9 . FK)(*.
C F::( C . . !! F% ? ?1.
C ) F::(. 9 . ,&)%:*.
C %&&F C . C A\ #
^ 7 B . 5 ,FE()F%.
C )5 %&&* C 8.D 5 . $ .+. +
( ) .? .
C ) F::( C 8.D ?. $ .+. !) 7
$ ? 7 >
1 1 (+. .
A ! %&&, A ! 8. 2 / 4 3M 7 h M i .
@.D 1 ;. A.D A ! 8. 3 E
4 u u*#5 u 5 $B B %*:W%+.
3 ) \ . 9 . FK-)(F-.
A !)8 )
F::')F::* A ! 8.D 8 @.D . @. 1 3M # #
/ . 7 '%E(')'K.
5 %&'' 5 8. / 4 4 5 $ +. 7
FKE''-)'-(.
8 ! 0 %&-K)%&-( 8 ! 0 A. / 2 Q.8R 5 6
1 2 .3 ,)&E--)%((.
8 0 %&&K 8 0 ;. @. !.
6 ( $8 <B F+. .
> F::- > C. I ^ !_J T #
0 ! #
9 K. @ .? . ! ?.
F, B 5

$ .+. ; ! ! ) 7 . 4!
u / ! <u u u # . .
9 . F,%)F&&.
9 %&(, 9 7. " . 9 ! ! u 0=>>)0?22.
9 .
9 0 %&,&)%&&: 9 0 8. 7. 8 j 0 . ; 7 -E('-)'%-.
; F::( ; 1. 7 ? E/ 2
/ !#! 1 8 .C )
F::(. 9 . %:-)%((.
%&&& . #T . .D #
7. 3 E ** #5 u #5 $B B
%*:WK+. 3 ) \ . 9 . %F%)K&:.
%&-: 7. ; 3 .C !.
%&&K . @. < u$ +. 1 5 0
7!! U / ,-EF&)('.
%&&' . @. u u ! u #@ : u
! $ $B9 >A3 %K+. 9 .
%&&' . @. # # + #% # # +E 1 C j#
T .( %&&'W,.
%&&, . @. k 8 C ! .
T ^ C #
K. @ .2 8.D 5 B. $ .+.
% # . u u *.
. . + . /@ $7B7/ F'K+. 8^ . 9 . F,%)K((.
%&&& . @. < I J IT #
! 0 .J \ ! .D ? !#A 1.D
; / . $ .+. 3u u u 3 .
6. / ! $7B7/ F*-+. 8^ . 9 . (*')'%F.
%&&&)F::: . @. I ! )5 ! ) #
! .J T ; #
0 9 0 1 .
7 (*)(-E%)((.
F::% . @. L C 3^ .H T <
8 8 < #
C . F,E,)K&.
F::K . @. 2 B = ! .k #
B = ! # B = ! #
3 ^ .
.D .D C A. $ .+. u A * u
# . 5u < u 4.
# ;u,. 0 . 9 . FKK)F',.
F::( . @. ? E B
B = O / 8 8 . 7
-FEKK)'K.
$ + . @. ; B 7 #
7 Q.8RN$# % #% &N . #
. .
 . I u u J F&

$ + . @. T C 0 5 6.
. u$* 3 9 u .
=\ %&&% =\ l. . / <
5 0 C U8 0 ! 9.D ! 9.
. $ .+. 9 + u . ( ) u
3 !u $ u7 &+. ) .
9 . F%&)FF'.
%&'()%&'* 1. H . 7 %-E
%-)%,.
F::( C. 1 1 5 0
" !. C. $ .+. 9 u ) u
u *. #. + $C 7B &+. C .
9 . F&K)K&%.
)aı ı %&&K C.D aı ı 3. A H " #
!. u 3 u ! (KE%-)F*.
! %&,: ! 9. B ; 5
/ ];Z]! 7. 7! . 6 KFEFK)KK.
! %&,- ! 9. / 7 1 B #
E/ ? 9 .
8 .D ;. 2. $ .+. " %7 ! % %+ :#
. % % u u % % % %( %) $ 7B?
(*+. ? . 9 . %&)(%.
! %&&% ! 9. / ; A7 1
/ 9 .8 0 ! 9.D !
9. . $ .+. 9 + u . ( ) u
3 !u $ u7 &+. ) .
9 . FF-)FKK.
! %&&& ! 9. 5 / ?
. \ ! .D ? !#A 1.D ;
/ . $ .+. 3u u u 3 . 6.
/ ! $7B7/ F*-+. 8^ . 9 . ''K)'-%.
! F::F ! 9. 7 ? f
. 7 / . $ .+. /
+ . %( %) % u % %3 % " .
6 . 5 ! . 9 . F(&)F'&.
! F::( ! 9. / 0 2 O 9 1
7 / 8 . ; ;.D
? . $ .+. 3
E 3 " u u
$B B *+. . 9 . &%)%%%.
! F::( ! 9. / 3 2
7 9 4 1 . C #
) F::(. 9 . *'),,.
%&*F 1. 6 u 3 . ;
<u 4 ! u , # .
8^ .
K: B 5

/ #2 %&:- / #2 3. ; u u ** <@#
! .5 .
< %&&' < . " u u 8u u *
7B u u #
) ; u . 8^ .
%&&% C. ; 0 8 .D ;. 2.
$ .+. " 7 ! + : E u u
( ) $ 7B? (*+. ? %&,-. 6 7
%%%E*K-)*(%.
%&&& 7. / B 7!! 9 E C
? . .D 7. 3 E
** #5 u #5 $B B %*:WK+. 3 )
\ . 9 . %')%%-.
! F::K ! ?. ) ( ) :.
! !." ) ; ! + . 8^ .
! F::' ! ?. 12 5S 7 $ +
/ 4 .< C. . $ .+. ) 3 #
$?;;7 (,+. 5 . 9 . (K:)(('.
! F::- ! ?. 8 ! 8 ! 7 B 1
K. @ .? .; .D @. $ .+.
3 u 34 * $ #
< \
^ C 7 . <.+. ) )
A\ . 9 . -%)%F%.
 Être chef d’un état amorrite*

Jean-Marie Durand
Collège de France

À la première RAI à laquelle j’aie participé, comme jeune chercheur, à

propos de la Royauté, à Paris en 1971, le professeur F. R. Kraus avait éta-
bli — en français — un petit questionnaire a priori à propos du roi, d’où
il ressortait, à écouter les conclusions orales du contributeur, que sur
beaucoup de points on ne savait rien ou pas grand chose.1 Pourtant y a-t-
il un concept plus central en Assyriologie que celui du ROI? Au point
que, vue de l’extérieur, la civilisation mésopotamienne paraissait être
éminemment royale. Même si aujourd’hui beaucoup de détails sont
encore à élucider, la lecture des archives retrouvées à Mari permet
d’obtenir sur beaucoup des points abordés par F. R. Kraus une vision
relativement concrète, au moins pour la région amorrite que contrôle
Mari.
Les problèmes d’information de R. Kraus venaient en fait de l’am-
pleur du sujet abordé: “roi paléobabylonien” est une catégorie trop vaste,
tout comme le serait, d’ailleurs, celle de “roi amorrite” en général. Ham-
mu-rabi de Babylone ou Rîm-Sîn de Larsa étaient bien des amorrites, de
façon ostensible d’après leur onomastique, mais il étaient rois en des
lieux où la royauté était une institution ancienne et avait certainement
des exigences qui, même si elles ont été altérées à l’époque qui nous
concerne, remontaient à des traditions différentes. La lignée royale de la
Babylone paléobabylonienne est ainsi bien plus ancienne que celles de
Mari, voire même d’Alep, semble-t-il, tandis que celle de Larsa se trouvait
en plein terroir de vieille culture sumérienne.

* Cet article est une version remaniée de ce qui a été effectivement dit à la
RAI, à la session de St-Pétersbourg, et je tiens à remercier les prof. N. Koslova
(St-Pétersbourg) et L. Kogan (Moscou) pour leur chaleureux accueil.
1
Ce questionnaire apparaît encore, en français, au milieu du texte allemand
de sa contribution, Das altbabylonische Königtum. P. Garelli (éd.). Le Palais et la
royauté (CRRAI 19). Paris, p. 235sq. On peut voir encore des constats négatifs, p.
257 de l’op. cit., où à propos de la “fortune personnelle” (un sujet central pour
les recherches sur Mari, à l’heure actuelle), le verdict est “Aufschlußreiche
Textaussagen zu diesen Fragen kenne ich nicht.”
32 Opening Lectures

Une partie de ces diverses traditions anciennes sont certainement pré-

sentes à Mari, quoique cela vienne surtout du fait de la pratique cunéi-
forme à laquelle cette ville participait. Cela ne veut pas dire que le roi de
Mari était plus amorrite que les autres. Ni moins que d’autres. Les nom-
breux textes que nous avons gardés des princes benjaminites d’obédience
mariote s’expriment le plus souvent dans un excellent akkadien et ce
n’est qu’à de rares moments que nous saisissons leurs particularismes cul-
turels, tout comme dans certaines lettres d’authentiques mariotes.
Plutôt donc, exactement, que de traiter du roi amorrite en général, et
encore moins du roi paléobabylonien, la présente communication vou-
drait présenter la façon d’être chef de l’État dans cette région médiane
qu’illustre la documentation de Mari, entre Est et Ouest, même si, à l’oc-
casion, d’autres centres politiques doivent être évoqués. Doit de plus être
évoquée plutôt la façon dont on paraît ou devient roi, que la nature des
institutions, ce qui est un autre sujet.
Un autre point doit être souligné: la façon dont se sont présentés ou
légitimés, pour parler large, les ‘chefs occidentaux’ dans la région
moyenne, au moins d’après la documentation de Mari, n’a pas été la
même, selon qu’il s’est agi de Samsî-Addu et de ses fils ou de ceux qui
étaient d’origine bensim’alites, Yahdun-Lîm et Zimrî-Lîm: les deux tradi-
tions dont ils se réclamaient n’étaient pas identiques. Il faut, d’autre part,
tenir compte du rang des autres, ceux qui se donnaient dans cette zone le
titre de ‘roi’, c’est-à-dire, un peu tout le monde, chez les Benjaminites ou
dans les villes de Haute-Djéziré.
Quelques textes importants soulignent bien la différence entre le pou-
voir selon Samsî-Addu et celui selon la dynastie bédouine. Pour le pre-
mier, il suffit de se reporter à LAPO 16, 29 (= ARM I, 73) qui montre
que sous le pouvoir d’un seul chef, Samsî-Addu, existaient une multi-
tudes d’entités où chacun devait acquitter une redevance de soumission,
même Yasmah-Addu que nous tenons pour roi à Mari et qui devait
verser la wêdûtum, l’impôt pesant sur sa dignité de chef local (wêdûm).2
Pour le second, il existe une “lettre circulaire” envoyée par Zimrî-Lîm
après sa prise de pouvoir (LAPO 16, 247; cf. ARM XXVIII, 148): “Le
pays tout entier est revenu à ses divisions patrimoniales3 et chacun est
remonté sur le trône de la maison paternelle.”4

2
Cf. FM V, pp. 80–81.
3
Lots d’héritage, isqî-šu.
4
= ana kussî bît abi-šu îrub.
 J.-M. Durand, Être chef d’un état amorrite 33

La chute du royaume de Haute-Mésopotamie a donc fait passer de la

conception d’un État rayonnant et unificateur, celui de de Samsî-Addu, à
une autre, parcellaire et égalitaire, celle de Zimrî-Lîm. Pour un Yahdun-
Lîm, et à plus forte raison, Yaggid-Lîm, il est difficile de se les représen-
ter faute de documents suffisants, mais on peut supposer d’après
l’expression de LAPO 16, 247, et la vraisemblance, qu’il s’agissait de pou-
voirs qui répondaient à la seconde sorte.
Toutefois, il faut tenir compte du fait que Yahdun-Lîm et Zimrî-Lîm
ont été fortement influencés, quoique sans doute de façon différente, par
la manière dont Samsî-Addu a exercé lui-même le pouvoir, donc par des
conceptions proprement akkadiennes, puisque la région du Centre-Irak
semble être celle d’où provenait la famille de Samsî-Addu.5 Pour Zimrî-
Lîm le souvenir du prestigieux Samsî-Addu a dû peser encore plus lourd
puisque le chef bédouin prenait le pouvoir en des terres où il avait été
exercé d’une façon autoritaire pendant plus d’une génération d’activité
humaine et que certaines habitudes y avaient dû être prises.
(a) Un premier exemple: Yahdun-Lîm — qui a adopté chez lui une ré-
forme radicale de l’écriture — y a introduit aussi l’usage de l’akkadien au
détriment du dialecte de Mari, des noms d’années qui ont bouleversé les
pratiques archivistiques et une littérature extérieure avec des valeurs cul-
turelles inédites. Complémentairement, il a assumé une idéologie nouvelle
qui inspire autant son Inscription de Fondation que le Disque: celle d’un roi
bâtisseur et irrigateur, ce qui ne semble pas avoir appartenu en propre à la
tradition des rois du Moyen-Euphrate. Un roi comme Zimrî-Lîm n’a ainsi
pas repris cette tradition, ni les autres chefs amorrites de la zone.
(b) Un de ses proches rappelle à Zimrî-Lîm qu’il est à la fois ‘roi d’Ak-
kadiens’ et ‘roi de Bédouins’.6 Le passage en question a demandé plu-
sieurs efforts avant que l’on n’arrive à la bonne lecture du passage crucial
due à N. Ziegler. Il s’agit non plus du moment même de la prise du pou-
voir sur Mari, comme je l’ai cru longtemps, mais désormais de celui de
son triomphe sur un prince benjaminite, Yagîh-Addu. C’est donc deux
ans après qu’il soit devenu roi de Mari. Il n’en reste pas moins que l’affir-
mation souligne l’aspect double de sa royauté, ce qui est d’ailleurs patent
d’après le libellé même des sceaux des rois bensim’alites, Yahdun-Lîm et
Zimrî-Lîm, qui se disent ‘roi de Mari’ et ‘roi de Bédouins’.

5
Cf. LAPO 17, pp. 107–109 et Charpin, D. Mari und die Assyrer. Meyer, J.-W.;
Sommerfeld, W. (Hrsg.). 2000 v. Chr. Politische, wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Entwick-
lung im Zeichen einer Jahrtausendwende (CDOG 3). Saarbrücken, 2004. Pp. 371–382.
6
ARM VI, 76, commenté plus bas.
34 Opening Lectures

A) Le titre royal
Le titre même de Samsî-Addu,7 outre ceux purement locaux de ‘roi
d’Ekallâtum’ comme il se nomme lui-même8 ou que lui donne Dâdu-ša, roi
d’Ešnunna, de ‘gouverneur’ (ENSI2) d’Aššur ou encore de ‘grand de Mari’,9
semble avoir été couramment, vu la façon dont on parle de lui, šarrum
rabûm.10 Le titre a prêté à confusion: ce n’est pas ‘le grand roi’, ce qui a,
surtout en français, des connotations qui en feraient l’équivalent d’un
“empereur”11 mais le ‘roi grand’, c’est-à-dire “plus grand que les autres”,
celui qui a le pas sur les autres, en l’occurrence sur ses fils, celui qui est roi
à Ekallâtum et l’autre qui est roi à Mari, ainsi que sur ceux de ses
dignitaires qui ont été installés dans un endroit comme gouverneurs-rois.12
Ce n’est donc pas un titre à portée internationale, celui de quelqu’un qui
pourrait se présenter comme le suzerain des autres rois amorrites, comme
pouvait l’être l’Empereur d’Élam, lequel ne porte d’ailleurs que le titre de
SUKKALMAÚ, qui n’est, à tout prendre, qu’un héritage historique perpé-
tuant plutôt le souvenir d’une subordination aux empereurs de la IIIe dy-
nastie d’Ur, non une revendication de prééminence.
Ses fils, eux-mêmes, s’adressent à lui ou parlent de lui, en lui disant
‘Addâ’, de sens discuté: il ne peut pas s’agir d’un hypocoristique de
Samsî-Addu, lequel aurait une formation autre,13 ni de “papa” comme ce-

7
Je laisse volontairement de côté les titres de ‘roi de la totalité’ comme on traduit
généralement LUGAL KIŠ (qui n’est sans doute qu’une façon de rendre ‘roi d’Agadé’
qui arrive en d’autres occasions), qui doit faire référence à ses origines, ou de muštemki
mâti birit Idiqlat u Purattim qui n’est qu’une épithète commémorative de ses conquêtes.
8
Cf. Charpin, MARI 3, pp. 47–48, No. 4:10.
9
Cf. Charpin, MARI 3, p. 48, No. 4:9. C’est un titre qui remonte peut-être à
Yahdun-Lîm qui l’aurait pris à l’imitation de celui du roi d’Ešnunna; cf. FM XIII
(Documents de Mari antérieurs à la babylonisation).
10
Ce titre est repris par Samsî-Addu lui-même; cf. Charpin, MARI 3, pp. 44 et
47, No. 2:6 ou No. 4:2. Il est vrai que nous n’avons pas de lettres adressées par un
tiers à Samsî-Addu. Dans les lettres de Shemshara, il utilise lui-même, comme le fait
après lui Zimrî-Lîm, la formulation umma bêl-kâ-ma ou encore umma šarrum-ma.
11
C’est le sens qui est donné à ὁ βασιλεύς ὁ µέγας pour désigner le roi des rois, en
l’occurrence le grand roi perse. ‘Grand roi’ fonctionne en fait comme ‘roi majeur’, celui
a qui a des vassaux, formation comparative, selon l’usage propre au sémitique. C’est le
sens de l’invective du roi de Qa¢na envers Išme-Dagan, car il est trop tôt pour qu’Išme-
Dagan soit dit successeur du roi Samsî-Addu; cf. ARM V, 20 = LAPO 16, 256.
12
Cf. ci-dessous n. 84.
13
On attendrait une forme du genre de *Samsiyatum (qui n’est pas employé),
comme Iddiniyatum est formé sur Iddin-Numušda. Mais on ne comprendrait pas
un tel usage concernant la personne du roi.
 J.-M. Durand, Être chef d’un état amorrite 35

la a été plusieurs fois proposé, car les filles de Zimrî-Lîm ne l’emploient

pas.14 Il doit plutôt s’agir d’une appellation honorifique dont le sens de-
vait être celui d’ “Ancien”,15 voire de “cheikh”.

1. Quel était le titre même de Zimrî-Lîm, ou d’un chef amorrite?

(a) On s’adresse à lui en en lui parlant à la 3e personne, au moins par
écrit, ce qui devait être assurément une marque de grand respect qui ne
se retrouve pas entre autres correspondants, mais qui ne devait pas cor-
respondre à l’usage réel de la langue, lequel consistait à s’adresser à lui
en lui parlant à la deuxième personne. On en a la preuve en lisant
certaines correspondances, comme celle de ses filles16 ou de gens grandis
loin de la cour, lesquels mélangent deuxième et troisième personnes de
façon pénible pour suivre le fils de la pensée.
Ainsi Bannum, un mer¶ûm, qui a dû passer l’essentiel de son existence
parmi des Bédouins au sud du Sindjar, un tard venu à la cour de Mari
où il a réinstallé Zimrî-Lîm, lui dit-il:
‘C’est aimable, ces propos très désagréables que m’a tenus
mon seigneur, m’écrivant: (…)’
repris par:
‘Tu m’as écrit des propos insultants… etc.’ (la seconde partie
de la lettre est à la seconde personne).

Mais dans ARM XXVI, 5, on trouve un vrai mélange:

l. 31 sqq.: ‘Tu dois nommer aux fonctions (de l’État) des serviteurs avec
lesquels tu ne chagrineras pas mon seigneur (= “toi”) ni les
Bensim’alites …’
l. 32: ‘Vois comme cet homme est porté au mal et comme il tient à
mon seigneur (= “toi”) des discours inspirés par de mauvaises
intentions …’

14
Elles utilisent le terme de kakkabum, auquel recourt aussi Inib-šina, sœur du
roi, et doit simplement signifier “personne royale”.
15
On se reportera au titre de Kudur-mabuk qui est dit ad-da e-mu-ut-ba-la ou
ad-da MAR.TU, titre donné aussi à Hammu-rabi; le terme adda entre en opposition
éventuelle avec ÌR, comme dans la lettre envoyée par Nanna-mansum à Rîm-Sîn.
Ce n’est sans doute que secondairement que adda ‘chef (de tribu, de famille)’ a si-
gnifié aussi de façon honorifique ‘père’, comme en français ‘monsieur’ a pu être
aussi employé par un certain vocabulaire familial. Inversement, à l’époque de Zim-
rî-Lîm, c’est le terme familial abum ou abbû qui signifie ‘le(s) chef(s)’. Il n’est pas sûr
que ce terme adda soit du sumérien, comme cela est généralement compris.
16
Cf. MARI 3, p. 177.
36 Opening Lectures

l. 53–54: ‘Une fois que mon Seigneur fut sorti de Saggâratum, voici ce
qu’il t’a dit: …’

La lettre ARM XXVI, 5 qui commence à la deuxième personne pour-

suit à la troisième pour revenir enfin à la deuxième personne.
On voit là en fait s’opposer étiquette et pratique habituelle.
(b) Le titre usuel qu’on donne au roi est simplement bêlî que nous tra-
duisons par ‘mon Seigneur’ (voire, ‘Monseigneur’). On pourrait dès lors
supposer que bêlum est l’appellatif correspondant à šarrum, comme ‘votre
Majesté’ correspond à ‘roi’ en Français, ou ‘your Grace’ à ‘King’.
Toutefois, on ne précise le nom propre du roi que lorsque l’on est un
étranger. L’expression bêlî Zimrî-Lîm, ‘Mon seigneur Zimrî-Lîm’ est ainsi
très nettement le propre de quelqu’un d’extérieur au royaume. Il en était
de même sans doute pour Yasmah-Addu et lorsque l’on possède une
lettre d’Asqûdum adressée à ‘mon seigneur Yasmah-Addu’, il faut sup-
poser que le devin est encore en poste dans l’administration centrale et
n’a pas encore été rattaché au royaume de Mari.17
Dans le même état d’esprit, lorsque Yasmah-Addu écrit à quelqu’un
de l’administration de son père, il ne s’en dit pas le bêlum, ce qui peut
chagriner certains qui y voient là une marque de distanciation.18 Nous
n’avons pas de lettre adressée à Hammu-rabi de Babylone par des Ma-
riotes, mais Hammu-rabi ne marque pas sa qualité royale de bêlum en
écrivant à de grands serviteurs de Zimrî-Lîm, comme Bahdî-Lim ou
Meptûm.
On doit donc en déduire que ne pas indiquer le nom du roi revient à
souligner le caractère naturel de sa prééminence à son égard.
De la même façon, les nombreuses déclarations de fidélité que pro-
noncent les chefs de Haute-Mésopotamie reviennent à dire simplement
de Zimrî-Lîm qu’il est leur bêlum, plus que leur šarrum.

17
Cf. ARM XXVI, 88 = ARM V, 65. Tarîm-Šakim doit, dans cette lettre, ne
s’adresser à Asqûdum qu’à son retour à Šubat-Enlil ou Ekallâtum. Asqûdum en
arrive, ensuite, à Saggâratum, aux portes du royaume de Mari, pour prendre les
présages le concernant. Il n’est donc pas encore affecté à Mari.
18
L’anecdote concernant Tarîm-Šakim est exemplaire. Le caractère de “fonc-
tionnaire de l’administration centrale” de ce dernier, non rattaché à Mari, est
bien marqué par le fait que toutes ses lettres (ARM V, 22–31) commencent par ‘à
mon seigneur Yasmah-Addu’. Ses doléances sont bien visibles dans ARM V, 34 =
LAPO 16, 21 où il se plaint à un secrétaire de Yasmah-Addu: ‘[Mon seigneur] ne
m’avait pas écrit comme “à son serviteur”. Derechef, il m’a envoyé une tablette.
Au lieu de m’écrire comme “à son serviteur”, il l’a fait “À Tarim-šakim, can-
canier”.’
 J.-M. Durand, Être chef d’un état amorrite 37

Il est donc important de bien comprendre ce que convoie ce titre de

bêlum. La traduction par ‘maître’ ou ‘seigneur’ (qui est banale dans les tra-
ductions) introduit cependant en français une notion de possession qui est
extrêmement trompeuse: bêlum n’exprime en fait qu’un référentiel, une
sorte de ša (‘celui de …’) emphatique. La langue connaît très bien cet
usage: le bêl dînim (en m. à m. ‘maître du procès’) n’est pas celui qui
l’emporte dans un procès, ni celui qui le juge, mais simplement ‘celui qui a
un procès’, comme le bêl bilâtim (en m. à m. ‘maître des apports’) n’est pas
autre que le “contribuable”, non celui qui perçoit l’impôt.
Il faut en déduire que bêl mâtim désigne non pas le ‘Maître du pays’
mais ‘celui du pays’, celui qui a un rapport naturel avec lui.
De la même façon, une princesse de Mari devenue femme d’un vassal
emploie ce terme de bêlî pour désigner ses deux “référents” naturels, son
père et son époux.19
Les gens d’un pays hors Mari, mais soumis à lui, ont aussi deux bêlum:
leur roi particulier et son suzerain: ainsi les gens du Yarih (benjaminites)
disent-ils:
‘À part le roi Yasmah-Addu, notre seigneur, nous ne (re)con-
naissons pas d’autre roi.’20

L’opposition dans ce texte de bêlum et de šarrum est celle de “proche”

à “lointain”.
Cela explique que le roi est très généralement défini par le simple LÚ
(awîl … = ‘homme de …’), voire un nisbé. Le roi se présente ainsi comme
une réalité politique naturelle et nationale.
Il devait en être de même pour la divinité. Elle est couramment dite
LUGAL de son pays. Nous savons maintenant que la lecture de l’idéo-
gramme est (au moins à l’époque amorrite) bêlum.21 Il faudra donc en dé-
duire que la divinité aussi est comprise comme une réalité nationale. La
divinité non nommée en apparence, LUGAL mâtim, doit être comprise de
même simplement comme “la divinité nationale par excellence”, c’est-à-
dire Addu.
(c) Deux textes explicites parlent de la royauté (šarrûtum) de Zimrî-
Lîm: deux affirmations solennelles qui décrivent son pouvoir, deux
lettres qui viennent de femmes très proches de la personne royale et ori-

19
C’est le cas d’Inbatum, reine d’Andarig, selon particulièrement ARM X, 84
= LAPO 18, 1232.
20
Ullânum Yasma¶-Addu LUGAL, bêli-ni, LUGAL [šarram = Zimrî-Lîm] šanêm ûl nide.
21
Cf. OLA 162, p. 203.
38 Opening Lectures

ginaires d’Occident: ARM XXVI, 236 de Šibtu (originaire d’Alep, reine

de Mari), ARM XXVI, 238 d’Addu-dûrî (originaire d’Abattum, donc une
benjaminite des Rabbéens, tribu dont les contacts avec Alep sont très
forts, mère du roi):
‘La šarrûtum est sa brique et le palûm est son mur’
(ARM XXVI, 238).

Cela signifie que la dynastie est le mur (sans doute de protection du

royaume, ou de la maison royale?) qui est constitué petit à petit par les
différents règnes.
Le texte date de la période d’entre ZL 1 et ZL 6, date de la mort
d’Addu-dûrî; il s’agit donc soit des problèmes du tout début du règne,
soit de la période de la révolte des Benjaminites, soit de la guerre contre
Ešnunna.
‘La šarrûtum, le Sceptre, le Trône, le palûm, le Pays d’amont et
d’aval, c’est à Zimrî-Lîm qu’ils sont donnés’ (ARM XXVI, 236).

La royauté šarrûtum est définie par le sceptre ( ¶a¢¢um) et le trône

(kussûm) mais le palûm est défini par le mâtum elîtum et le mâtum šaplîtum,
ce qui est l’étendue territoriale du pouvoir, formée des deux régions
clefs, en théorie l’amont de Mari et la région de Mari, en pratique de la
Haute-Djéziré et du Sûhum qui sont les “extensions naturelles” du
royaume.
La première partie définit ce qui fait le roi, la seconde ce qui constitue
le royaume, présenté comme une extension territoriale due aux con-
quêtes successives ou aux accords de ceux qui constituent la dynastie.
C’est là une vision typique de l’époque où tous les royaumes sont consti-
tués par une annexion ou une soumission des voisins, toutes conquêtes
que scandent les noms d’années de chaque roi. Lorsque Larsa prit Isin,
manifestement un état d’équilibre territorial était atteint, les noms d’an-
nées ne faisant plus que répéter l’événement jusqu’à la fin du règne de
Rîm-Sîn.
Ces 2 textes décrivent ce qui fait le roi ainsi que la dynastie, concepts
distincts mais complémentaires, l’un étant, en quelque sorte l’incarnation
historique de la seconde. On ne peut donc être roi sans s’inscrire dans
une réalité historique dont on est, en quelque sorte, l’héritier.
Comme l’expression de ces deux lettres est en akkadien standard, on
doit se demander si l’expression n’occulte pas une autre réalité lin-
guistique.
 J.-M. Durand, Être chef d’un état amorrite 39

2. Pour exprimer la notion de royaume, on attend mâtum: c’est le

terme couramment employé pour le définir dans la prophétie d’Addu
selon la lettre de FM VII, 38 ou dans FM VII, 39 où il est dit: ‘Je lui
donnerai le mâtum depuis son Orient jusqu’à son Ponant.’22
(a) Le terme akkadien mâtum peut occulter d’autres termes, comme
par exemple celui, occidental, de dadmum qui ne sert plus en akkadien
que d’équivalent littéraire à mâtum, mais qui à l’époque de Mari23 désigne
spécifiquement le royaume d’Alep. La série lexicale Malkum en fait
d’ailleurs l’équivalent de mâtum ou de âlum ‘ville’.
(b) On trouve par ailleurs assez souvent à Mari le terme de namlakâtum
qui n’appartient pas à la langue akkadienne proprement dite:24
‘Je lui ai donné la totalité du pays de Mari, les Bords-de-l’Eu-
phrate et son namlakâtum’25 (Charpin, MARI 3, p. 42, No. 1).

A.3024 = ARM XXVIII, 60 cite le discours tenu par un cheikh du

Nord qui parle des villes du namlakâtum de Zimrî-Lîm:
‘La ville de Burundum est comme les villes qui font partie de
son namlakâtum.’26

Namlakâtum signifie donc, plutôt que “royaume dans ses frontières”,

une “zone naturelle de pouvoir politique”.

3. On peut donc se demander, puisque le territoire d’un roi est appelé

namlakâtum, si ce dernier a pour lui même le titre de mal(i)kum. C’est à en
croire la série lexicale Malkum l’équivalent même de šarrum dans l’Ouest.
Aucun exemple clair ne montre cependant son usage comme terme
politique.
Que le mot malkum lui-même existe est corroboré par plusieurs faits.
(a) À l’époque d’avant l’akkadisation, quand l’écriture continue encore
les traditions du IIIe millénaire, on a l’expression ITI EN-kà-né-en là où
l’on attend wara¶ malkânim.27 Cet exemple est important car il montre

22
= mâtam ištu ´îti-ša ana erpi-ša anaddin-šu.
23
Et semble-t-il encore à l’époque des textes d’Ougarit; cf. Bonechi, M. NABU
1998/80.
24
Le CAD N1 233, ou le CDA 236a le citent sous la forme erronée *namlaktu
comme un particularisme de la langue de Mari.
25
= mât Mari, ⶠPurattim, u nam-la-ka-ti-šu ušaklilam.
26
= kîma alâni ša nam-la-ka-ti-šu âlum Burundi.
27
FM XIII (Documents de Mari antérieurs à la babylonisation) ad TH.85 61 offre
la séquence 12 U4 ITI EN-kà-né-/en.
40 Opening Lectures

qu’à Ebla le choix de l’idéogramme sumérien EN pour désigner celui qui

exerce le pouvoir royal n’avait pas en vue de noter une dignité religieuse,
mais bien un pouvoir politique. On peut supposer que le titre du roi
d’Ebla était bien mal(i)kum. Lui correspondait donc exactement celui de
ma-lik-tum porté par la ‘reine’. À Mari, cette dernière, en revanche, se di-
sait bêltum, mais on possède déjà le terme de šarratûtum pour indiquer
l’exercice de son pouvoir.28 Or l’essentiel de ce dernier, comme on sait,29
était d’exercer la lieutenance du royaume en l’absence du roi.
Dans les textes antérieurs à la babylonisation, le maître de la cité porte
le titre — localement traditionnel — de šakkanakku, en m. à m. ‘gouver-
neur militaire’, remontant à l’époque où la fonction fut instituée par Sar-
gon, une fois maître de la ville, lorsqu’il décida d’installer aux côtés du
chef local un “général” qui devait commander la garnison qu’il y avait in-
troduite.30
En revanche, on voit apparaître dans les mêmes textes un titre šarrum
ou rubûm qui doit au contraire désigner celui qui s’était installé à Dêr et
qui désignait sans le nommer explicitement au moins Yahdun-Lîm.31
(b) Un lieu-dit s’appelle Ilum-mulukki dont la variante est Ilum-malikki,
opposition qui doit documenter deux forme dialectales, l’une benjaminite
(*mul(u)kum), l’autre ramenée à des canons akkadiens (mal(i)kum).
(c) L’onomastique emploie surabondamment malikum dans des con-
textes où il ne peut signifier que ‘roi’ comme les NP Dagan-malik ou Addu-
malik. Šarrum n’arrive que dans des NP akkadisés et l’on sait que l’écriture
peut être akkadisante à Mari.
(d) Dans le culte, sous Zimrî-Lîm, les deux termes sont distingués
puisque l’on parle des LUGAL.MEŠ u ma-li-ku,32 mais il s’agit là d’un emploi
très particulier du vocabulaire religieux, lequel recourt assez souvent à des
usages traditionnels. Malikum ne semblerait plus signifier que ‘membre
de la famille royale’,33 à moins que nous n’ayons là un couple de termes
qui réunit ceux qui ont exercé la royauté avec le titre de šarrum, ce qui
ferait allusion à l’époque récente, et ceux qui ont recouru au titre de
malikum, ce qui pourrait y inclure les plus anciens rois de Mari dont la

28
Cf. LAPO 18, p. 168.
29
Cela est tout particulièrement net par ARM X, 34+X, 113 = LAPO 18, 1224.
30
Cf. FM XIII (Les documents de Mari antérieurs à la Babylonisation).
31
Ibid.
32
Cf. Jacquet, A. Lugal-meš et malikum: nouvel examen du kispum à Mari. FM
VI, pp. 51–68.
33
Au moins si l’on ramène cette nomenclature à la liste royale des Hittites qui
y incluent ceux qui ont exercé le pouvoir et les princes de leur famille.
 J.-M. Durand, Être chef d’un état amorrite 41

tradition locale a pu garder le souvenir.34 Le fait qu’un roi se devait

d’inclure dans le culte dynastique ses prédécesseurs, même s’ils ne fai-
saient pas stricto sensu partie de sa famille, pourrait permettre d’en faire la
supposition.35
Šarrum et mal(i)kum existaient donc bien tous les deux, mais il est vrai-
semblable que le second était le mot courant dans la langue locale alors
que šarrum était l’expression officielle, le second (comme šakkanakkum) de-
vant représenter dès lors une expression politique désuète.

B) Les regalia qui font le roi

La présentation faite à un roi (Yahdun-Lîm, Samsî-Addu ou Zimrî-Lîm)
d’un cercle et d’un bâton par la déesse peinte sur les murs de Mari, à
l’occasion d’une investiture, représente un motif iconographique36 qui ne
peut correspondre à ce qui est dit de la royauté de Zimrî-Lîm qu’à condi-
tion d’identifier le cercle au palûm et le bâton au sceptre royal. Le palûm
qui représente un “temps circulaire”, selon l’expression de D. Charpin,
serait assez bien symbolisé par le cercle, comme le sceptre par le bâton
(du berger?). Cette interprétation de la scène de l’investiture correspond
bien à ce que les deux femmes précitées, Addu-dûrî et Šiptu, disent de la
royauté de Zimrî-Lîm, mais il reste à savoir ce qu’elles décrivent. Il est
vraisemblable qu’elles envisagent plus son statut de chef désormais d’un
grand royaume qu’elles ne célèbrent sa simple dignité de chef bédouin. À
ce compte là, la peinture de l’Investiture a pu leur servir de modèle, mais
il n’est pas exclu qu’elle représente en fait l’intronisation d’un Samsî-
Addu plutôt que celle d’un Zimrî-Lîm. On verra en effet que dans cette
peinture il manque des faits essentiels pour Zimrî-Lîm, comme il y en a
dont il semble tout à fait se passer.

34
On sait que la “Liste royale sumérienne”, qui inclue les plus anciens rois de
Mari, ceux mêmes qui étaient antérieurs à l’époque d’Ebla, était toujours connue
à l’époque amorrite puisqu’un exemplaire de cette liste a été retrouvé à Šubat-
Enlil. La fameuse “Ballade des princes du temps jadis” pourrait garder encore le
souvenir de rois de Mari très anciens comme Zizi, au moins d’après la tradition
d’Ougarit. Malheureusement aucun indice ne nous a été gardé qu’on avait
encore à l’époque de Zimrî-Lîm le souvenir des rois de l’époque d’Ebla, les seuls
qui mériteraient véritablement le titre de malikum.
35
Cf. la fin de cet article.
36
Il existe une littérature immense au sujet de ces symboles, mais quelle que
soit l’origine d’un motif, l’important est de connaître son actualisation lors des
différentes exploitations qui en ont été faites.
42 Opening Lectures

1. Malgré ce que l’on pourrait attendre de l’idéologie bédouine, qui

semble fondée sur le pastoralisme, on ne voit pas le roi assumer à Mari la
figure du berger et nul texte ne documente la fabrication d’un sceptre
pour lui. Peut-être le mer¶ûm qui paraît être le chef naturel de ceux qui
conduisent les grands troupeaux bensim’alites avait-il un bâton comme
insigne du commandement mais rien ne nous le dit et nous n’avons
aucun enseignement sur son paraître.
Le seul bâton que le roi aurait entre les mains serait, selon ARM X, 4
(LAPO 18, 1144), le ¶umâšum, un objet pour lutter, pour lequel ont été
proposés des sens comme ‘canne’ (ou ‘ceinture?’37) pour la lutte. Rien ne
prouve en fait qu’il s’agisse d’un symbole; ce serait tout au plus une arme.38

2. Ce qui caractérise la dignité du chef c’est d’abord l’arme, comme le

grand coutelas qu’il porte à la taille, le muwarrîtum (murrîtum) ‘la tran-
chante’, d’après l’expression idéogrammatique qui le glose: «le couteau à
égorger le cochon’,39 terme traduit différemment par les dictionnaires.40
On lui apporterait en présent à la fin de son règne l’atû, soit ‘l’arc
d’honneur’ des Bédouins.41

37
Pour ce terme, cf. LAPO 18, p. 323; J. Sasson (Or 43 (1974):404–410), le
rapproche de l’hébreu µomeš, qui désigne pourtant une partie du corps et que
von Soden rapproche de l’akkadien emšum. Les équivalents akkadiens ou
sumériens en font un simple synonyme de ‘force’, quoique le terme puisse
qualifier un objet (canne ou bâton). Dans ARM XXV, 742, c’est un baladin qui en
est doté.
38
En fait, rien ne prouve dans les exemples de Mari qu’il s’agisse d’un objet,
alors qu’il peut en qualifier. On en rapprochera les ´imdum ša ¶u-mu-ši-im ou ša ¶u-
ma-ši-im qui semblent désigner des ‘bandeaux de force’; cf. ARM XXX, pp. 95–96;
y ajouter ARM XXI, 294:8′ // ARM VII, 161:10. L’expression de ARM X, 4 est
parallèle à šitpu´um. ¶umâšum doit donc désigner simplement une façon de ‘lutte’
et être rapproché de l’arabe ¶amaša ‘donner une gifle, frapper qq’un’ et sans
doute ¶umâšam našûm revient-il simplement à dire ‘lever la main sur qq’un’. C’est
une défaite ignominieuse et non à l’arme noble qui est prédite au roi ennemi.
39
GÍR NÍG ŠAÚ ŠUM.
40
Pour ce terme, cf. ARM XXVI/1, p. 120. CAD M2 196a connaît un mumarrîtu
‘(a scraping or combing tool)’; AHw. 671b, mumarrītu ‘ein Entborstungsgerät (für
Schweine)’. Mumarrîtu est la forme que prend le terme à l’époque médiobabylo-
nienne; CDA 325b, qui connaît la forme muwarrītum l’enregistre comme ‘a weap-
on or tool’.
41
Pour le terme documenté à Mari, cf. ARM XXX, p. 425 (ad M.7745+:28),
où 8 cheikhs de Bédouins reçoivent le don d’une étoffe et d’un arc, lorsqu’ils ont
apporté l’a-tu des Bédouins. Il existe aussi un atû qui signifie ‘laine noire’, mais si
ce terme était ici documenté, on devrait le trouver plus souvent dans les textes
 J.-M. Durand, Être chef d’un état amorrite 43

Une information spectaculaire, mais dont il est difficile de bien com-

prendre la portée, est que les armes d’Addu d’Alep arrivent à Terqa pour
la cérémonie de l’investiture,42 ce qui est en écho avec ce qu’est censé dire
Addu à Zimrî-Lîm, à la fin de son règne, qu’il lui a donné l’arme avec la-
quelle il avait combattu la Mer. Il n’est pas sûr que la muwarrîtum y fasse
allusion.43 On en remarque toute fois l’absence sur la peinture de l’In-
vestiture. Même absence, apparemment, sur le fragment subsistant de
l’Ordonnateur du sacrifice: la figure majeure ne porte pas d’arme à la
taille, même si l’on peut penser que le registre du haut pouvait en repré-
senter une (arc ou massue?).
La notion d’arme est effectivement à l’époque une référence obligée:
tout présent d’étoffes s’accompagne ainsi de l’octroi d’une arme de di-
verses sortes (de l’arc-tilpânum à la fronde-wa´pum, en passant par
d’autres sortes), dont la valeur symbolique (qui devait certainement
exister) ne nous apparaît plus.44

afférents à la laine et il serait sans doute précédé de SÍG. Il vaut donc mieux
penser à l’atû qui survit dans les lexiques comme signifiant ‘arc d’apparat’
(GIŠ.ILLULU(RU) ME.TE) ou ‘arc qu’on offre en présent’ (qa-[šat] kad-[re] et qui
serait encore connu chez les Soutéens à l’époque de la glose; cf. CAD A2 518 s. v.
En fait, il n’est peut-être que le terme signifiant au propre ‘présent’ (cf. arabe ’atā
= ‘venir’, mais ‘donner’ IV, avec une dérivation sémantique analogue à nâmurtum
par rapport à amârum). On se trouve effectivement à un moment crucial,
quelques mois à peine avant la disparition du royaume de Mari et il est possible
que 8 cheikhs bédouins aient alors fait un présent solennel au roi de Mari,
réaffirmant leur allégeance. Vu qu’en général on honorait quelqu’un par le don
d’une arme, il est possible que les glossateurs babyloniens en aient tiré la
conclusion qu’atû en désignait une. Il faudrait dès lors simplement traduire
‘lorsque 8 cheikhs bédouins ont apporté le présent d’allégeance’; ce serait un
moyen d’expliquer la rareté du terme qui serait la véritable dénomination
occidentale, occultée généralement dans nos textes par un terme plus purement
akkadien comme qištum ou autre (MU.TÙ = šûrubtum). Les dictionnaires ne
mettent pas en relation le terme atû avec celui de addu, bien mieux représenté
dans les textes, et qui est enregistré comme ‘a throwstick’ (CAD A1 111a–b) ou ‘ei-
ne Waffe’ (AHw. 12a), alors que les équivalents idéogrammatiques en font nette-
ment une sorte d’arc-tilpânu (GIŠ.ILLURU + épithètes). On remarque que le addu
est plusieurs fois énuméré à proximité d’arcs. Cela a pu faciliter la compréhen-
sion par des lexicographes de l’atû comme étant de la même sorte.
42
Cf. FM VII, 38 et le commentaire afférent à FM VII, 5, pp. 14–15.
43
Pour les armes d’Addu, cf. Bordreuil, P.; Pardee, D. Le combat de Ba¶lu
avec Yammu. MARI 7, p. 67, et pour l’époque d’Ebla, dans l’article de M. Bone-
chi. Lexique et idéologie royale… MARI 8, pp. 481 sq.
44
Cf. ARM XXI, p. 399.
44 Opening Lectures

3. De la même façon que la femme mariée était couverte d’un voile, le

bédouin amorrite, ou au moins le notable, ne semble pas avoir été tête
nue, ce qui est attendu dans ces régions.
(a) Lorsque Zimrî-Lîm doit rencontrer les ‘autres rois’, il ne peut y
aller sans couvre-chef. Ce n’est pas une couronne qu’il porte sur la tête:
le roi veut un kubšum, terme généralement traduit par ‘coiffe’,45 mais qui
devait être, au moins dans l’Ouest, le casque que devait porter normale-
ment le soldat.46 Il est possible, également, que l’objet ait été plus cou-
ramment utilisé à l’époque ancienne.47
Le texte de référence est ARM XVIII, 18 (= LAPO 18, 1033):
‘Je t’ai répété: “Fais-moi penser que ce kubšum doit être déco-
ré …” Maintenant les rois vont arriver et le kubšum se trouve
sans ce que l’on devait lui enfiler.’

On peut se représenter un kubšum d’après ce que porte sur son Code

la représentation de Hammu-rabi de Babylone (ou déjà Gudéa sur ses
statues). Celui de Zimrî-Lîm avait certainement une décoration en pierre-
ries qui devait lui donner une valeur particulière.
(b) Les rois d’un rang moindre devaient se contenter d’une simple
perruque ¶upurtum.48 Il fallait 5 mines de laine pour un ¶upurtum, soit
une quantité non négligeable. Ce ne devait donc pas être un mince
ornement. Le roi suzerain pouvait en faire présent en reconnaissant le
nouveau prince:
‘Mon seigneur l’avait compté parmi les awîlum, le revêtant
d’un habit et lui imposant la perruque-¶upurtum’49 (FM II, 122
(A. 221) 39–40, à propos d’Akîn-amar de Kahat).

On connaît aussi ARM XXVI, 372:52 selon lequel sont envoyés par
Hammu-rabi à Atamrum, devenu le nouveau roi d’Andarig, un ensemble
vestimentaire, une perruque et un trône.50

45
Cf. ARM XXX, p. 51 sq.
46
Pour cette idée, cf. ARM XXX, p. 53 s. g): le fait que l’on (Samsî-Addu?) de-
mande 5000 kubšum à Ha´or montre qu’on devait en produire beaucoup en Pa-
lestine et que ce n’était pas là un couvre-chef royal, d’où l’idée qu’il pouvait s’agir
d’un équivalent (voire une forme dialectale évoluée?) du casque-gurpisum. Le
kubšum fait partie des présents normaux que les notables font au roi de Mari.
47
Cf. ARM XIX, 408, commenté ARM XXX, p. 53, n. h).
48
Cf. ARM XXX, p. 45.
49
= lubuštam (TÚG) ulabbiš-šu, u túg¶upurtam iškun-šu(m).
50
TÚG.ÚÁ lu-bu-uš-tam ¶u-UB-ur-tam GIŠ.GU.ZA.
 J.-M. Durand, Être chef d’un état amorrite 45

(c) Or il existait également des ¶upurtum pour des femmes, selon

A.3917:51 ‘Jusqu’à ce que vous fassiez passer la frontière à la femme,
changez sa vêture et son ¶upurtum.’52 Il n’y a cependant pas d’indice que
la reine de Mari (ou quelqu’autre de son rang) en ait porté un.

4. Outre une coiffe, le roi de Mari portait sans doute ordinairement

comme tout notable de l’époque, à en juger d’après les listes qui énu-
mèrent sa vêture, l’habit u¢ba53 qui devait représenter quelque chose
d’ample et en tissu léger. On peut s’en faire une idée par la grande
didacha que portent encore les Arabes.
Il pouvait avoir sur lui à certaines occasions rituelles des habits sans
doute de facture archaïque, comme le lullumtum.54
Mais ce dont il se revêtait pour son intronisation, ou à certaines com-
mémorations de l’événement, était le ´ubât taddiâtim,55 ‘l’habit à applica-
tions’ d’or fauve (rouge, ¶uššûm). C’est lui qui semble avoir été le cadeau
vestimentaire de choix au moment de la consécration d’un roi, comme le
montrent les échanges avec Alep au moment de l’avènement de Hammu-
rabi du Yamhad.
Sa désignation venait du fait qu’il était pourvu de taddiâtum et nous
possédons encore la description de son aspect magnifique;56 c’est lui, non
l’u¢ba, qui avait beaucoup en commun avec l’habit de Tuttub.57 Or Tuttub
est une ville d’où pourrait être originaire la dynastie de Samsî-Addu puis-
que c’est là que l’on propose à Išme-Dagan de s’installer, lorsqu’à la fin
de notre documentation il perd sa ville d’Ekallâtum.58
Ce pourrait être un indice que l’on voulait en Occident se montrer en
roi à la façon d’un monarque du pays d’Akkad. Toutefois, la détermina-
tion de l’origine de l’habit est difficile: on en apporte un de Byblos, et on
en fait porter un exemplaire chez Ibâl-pi-El II, roi d’Ešnunna.59 Il est

51
Désormais édité comme FM IX, 74, p. 282, avec un commentaire par Nele
Ziegler.
52
a-di MUNUS [a-a]l pa-¢ì-im tu-še-et-te-qa TÚG.BA-ša, ù ¶u-bu-ur-ta-ša nu-uk-ki-ra.
53
Cf. ARM XXX, pp. 130–131.
54
Cf. ARM XXX, pp. 559–560.
55
Cf. ARM XXX, pp. 122–123.
56
Cf. ARM XVIII, 6 = LAPO 16, 133, repris dans ARM XXX, p. 12.
57
Contre toute vraisemblance, en effet, le nom de l’habit u¢ba a été rattaché
par les dictionnaires à la ville de Tuttub.
58
Voir pour ce point essentiel, la communication de L. Marti. Une ambassade
mariote à Sippar (FM VI, 19, pp. 201–210, spéc. pp. 208–209).
59
Cf. ARM XXX, s. v.
46 Opening Lectures

donc difficile de bien “situer” l’origine et, de ce fait, le symbolisme qui

s’attachait à cet habit, si ce n’est qu’il devait contribuer à rehausser l’aura
du roi et qu’il était ainsi en accord avec la notion de l’éclat-melammu dont
parlent les textes mésopotamiens de l’Est.

5. Le signe même de la royauté était par excellence le trône: le fait

même de devenir roi se disait d’ailleurs ‘entrer au trône de la maison de
son père’.60 C’est l’expression même qui désignait l’avènement d’un roi
tenu pour légitime, dans la langue de Mari, comme si kussûm avait ici un
sens bien plus large que celui de ‘siège’ et désignait le fait même d’une
royauté ancestrale, ce qui par ailleurs est exprimé couramment par bîtum
‘maison’,61 non par le terme restreint de kussûm, alors que ‘trône’ s’em-
ploierait fort bien avec ce sens dans une langue moderne, comme le fran-
çais, par exemple.
‘Je t’ai ramené au trône de ton père’, dit Addu au roi de Mari62 pour
exprimer le fait qu’il en ait fait un roi.
Le roi de Mari n’offre à ses dieux que des trônes63 ou des statues de
lui, sans doute en orant. De fait la représentation courante à l’époque est
que l’orant se tienne debout (position du serviteur) devant la figure d’un
dieu assis, comme on le voit sur les sceaux. Un endroit non élucidé du ri-
tuel du kispum64 parle de la ‘demeure des trônes’ (É GIŠ.GU.ZA.ÚÁ) ce qui
fait écho au É iš-te465 de l’époque ancienne, mais qui se trouverait à Dêr,

60
ana kussî bît abi-šu erêbum.
61
Dans des expressions comme bît Mari, bît Qa¢na, voire bît Tišpak, lorsqu’il
s’agissait d’Ešnunna.
62
Cf. FM VII, 38.
63
Cela peut souligner la royauté divine, comme indiquer que le dieu n’avait
pas alors de statue; cf. FM VIII, p. 17.
64
M.12803:10, édité dans FM III, p. 66.
65
Cf. ARM XIX, 365, 384 et analogues: selon une excellente idée de M. Gui-
chard, NABU 1995/22, le trône ašta’u (cf. CAD A2 475, aštû) se retrouve sur le
nubalum offert à Dagan. Ce terme correspond au sumérien aš-te et devait être la
façon archaïque de désigner le siège royal. En fait, aš-te est catalogué par Malku
comme le terme occidental auquel correspond šubtu, lequel a pour premier sens
‘seat, chair, throne’; cf. CAD Š3 172a. Des exemples ont été réunis pour le IIIe
millénaire dans Steinkeller, P.; Postgate, N. Third Millenium Texts from the Iraq
Museum (MC 4). Winona Lake, 1992, p. 90. Il doit donc s’agir d’un terme occi-
dental, peut-être apparenté à l’éblaïte uštin ‘siège’ (cf. Fronzaroli, P. NABU
1992/59) passé secondairement en sumérien. Que représentait cette “salle des
trônes”? Peut-être simplement celle où se trouvaient les symboles divers des
Ancêtres des Bensim’alites.
 J.-M. Durand, Être chef d’un état amorrite 47

non à Mari. Comme le kispum a bien des chances de s’être passé à Dêr,66 il
est possible que la “salle des trônes” ne fut pas à Mari, comme cela a déjà
été pressenti, mais que son nom réel ait été bît aštê ou bît ašta’î et que aštû
(ašta’u?) ait été le terme propre à Mari pour désigner le trône, non kussûm
qui est un akkadisme.
Il y a à l’époque une grande importance de la position assise et l’ex-
pression wašib kussîm ‘qui a droit à un siège’ était une dignité en soi.67
Un militaire qui est promu à une fonction de chef reçoit en présent
un siège.
L’envoi d’un trône était, enfin, une façon courante pour un roi de re-
connaître l’accession d’un nouveau roi; cf. ci-dessus.

6. En ce qui concerne le comportement du roi, le roi bédouin était ha-

bitué à monter (RKB) à cheval, ou plutôt à perdum,68 selon l’Épopée de
Zimrî-Lîm. C’est là sans doute à l’époque une habitude de Bédouin, non
d’un citadin. Le titre honorifique à l’époque est d’ailleurs râkib imêri, ‘che-
vaucheur d’âne’, sur lequel était éventuellement installée une selle (le
kussûm). À chaque dignité sa monture.
Plusieurs textes indiqueraient le luxe que constituaient certains che-
vaux blancs qui semblent provenir de Qa¢na, sous Yasmah-Addu, tout
comme sous Zimrî-Lîm.69 Cela pourrait indiquer qu’il y avait là une tradi-
tion royale de Qa¢na que son roi étendait par honneur à ses alliés. Nous

66
Cf. FM XIII (Textes antérieurs à la Babylonisation).
67
Cf. pour Ebla, Fronzaroli, P. NABU 1992/59.
68
Ce terme est considéré comme l’équivalent de l’hébreu pered, donc une
sorte de mule; cet animal est monté selon la Bible par des princes (2 S 13:29) et
utilisé lors des combats (2 S 18:9), dans l’épisode d’Absalom; mais l’équivalent fé-
minin sert aussi de monture royale, 1 R 1:33. L’animal est surtout documenté
dans la documentation paléoassyrienne. Il est possible que l’Anatolie soit son ori-
gine. On sait en effet que Zimrî-Lîm est venu de Carkémish reconquérir son
royaume (cf. Kupper, J.-R. Dans les jardins de Carkémish. Mélanges A. Parrot =
FM VI, p. 195 sq.) et a pu en ramener cet animal qui de fait n’apparaît plus par la
suite que dans des formes de vases, sous la forme de lîd perdi. M. Guichard (ARM
XXXI, pp. 282–283), a étudié l’opposition perdum/sîsum dans les textes de Mari et
en a conclu qu’il s’agissait plutôt d’une sorte de cheval que d’une mule, sens qui
peut être effectivement un modernisme dans la Bible.
69
Cf. LAPO 16 ad No. 256 et 18 ad No. 1110 et, ibid., p. 291. Cf. note précé-
dente. Si M. Guichard a raison, perdum pourrait être le nom de ces chevaux de
luxe, quoique nous ne sachions pas comment on désignait ces ‘chevaux blancs’.
Le nom de l’animal (un occidentalisme?) signifierait au propre ‘unique’. Ce serait
une monture d’une particulière qualité.
48 Opening Lectures

ne savons néanmoins pas ce que le roi de Mari faisait de ses chevaux: s’il
les montait ou s’en servait pour son char.
Dans ARM VI, 76 (LAPO 17, 732, à corriger en ce sens) un compa-
gnon très proche (Bahdî-Lîm) dit à Zimrî-Lîm, après son triomphe sur
un de ses rivaux benjaminites, selon une excellente idée de N. Ziegler:
‘Maintenant que tu t’es emparé du pays de Yagîh-Addu … de
même que tu es un roi de Bédouins, tu es aussi, en second
lieu, roi d’un territoire akkadien.’

Il est important de réaliser maintenant que ce texte ne concerne plus

la capitale du royaume, mais uniquement Mišlân, ville qui devait compor-
ter à la fois des sédentaires assimilés à des Akkadiens et des Bédouins
benjaminites à qui elle avait été livrée en compensation pour Saggâratum
qu’ils convoitaient.70 Dès lors, le roi doit être véhiculé sur un nubalum (=
palanquin, chaise à porteurs). Le sens de l’injonction n’est plus évident
pour nous: pourquoi le roi de Mari ne devait-il pas entrer à dos d’animal
mais sur une chaise à porteurs? Les ša nubalim, ceux qui portaient le pa-
lanquin, étaient effectivement avec les ša temmennî ceux qui constituaient
la domesticité propre du roi. Il devait certainement s’agir en l’occurrence
du respect d’un tabou. Le fait que l’on représente un dieu monté sur un
animal pouvait-il faire penser à certains que le roi se présenterait dès lors
en dieu et non plus en humain? Cependant, rien ne nous atteste la pra-
tique du nubalum ou de son équivalent dans la région d’Akkad.
En revanche, c’est aussi en palanquin-nubalum qu’était arrivée à Mari
la princesse de Qa¢na qui devait être revêtue de la dignité de ‘reine’ et
non pas simplement d’ ‘épouse du roi’. C’est un nubalum que l’on offre à
un dieu-roi occidental comme Dagan.
La situation est encore plus compliquée selon un texte édité ici même
par Ilya Arkhipov et qui montre que tout roi du Nord n’avait pas droit à
un nubalum, selon le ministre Sammêtar, quoique le roi de Mari en pro-
cure un à qui doit le représenter.
A.868: ‘Au sujet du palanquin (= nubalum) que mon seigneur m’a fait
porter, il m’est arrivé. Hé bien! C’est un grand honneur que
m’a octroyé mon Seigneur et le pays tout entier est au cou-
rant. Or, mon Seigneur sait que les rois de ce pays (= Djéziré
de l’Est) où je dois aller — mis à part Buna-Eštar (= Kurdâ) et
Šarraya (= Razamâ) qui se véhiculent en palanquin — se véhi-

70
Pour cette nouvelle façon de voir, cf. ma contribution “Un centre benjami-
nite aux portes de Mari; réflexions sur le caractère mixte de la population du
royaume de Mari”, dans les Mélanges en l’honneur de V. Donbaz (à paraître).
 J.-M. Durand, Être chef d’un état amorrite 49

culent, eux, en char de première qualité; il y en a même qui le

font en char de seconde qualité.’

7. Addu d’Alep mentionne un fait unique à notre connaissance, celui

d’avoir octroyé au roi de Mari l’huile de son invincibilité.71 Il faut donc
supposer une onction royale, bien antérieure à celles que nous pouvons
connaître par la suite, pour la monarchie hittite ou l’israélite. Sans doute
était-elle réservée aux chefs principaux et non à tout le monde. Peut-être
les rois de Kurdâ et de Razamâ la connaissaient-ils et était-ce la raison
pour laquelle ils avaient droit au nubalum? En tout cas, ce sont eux qui
avaient contracté des pactes particuliers (¶ipšum ou pacte de sang) avec le
roi de Mari et avaient le droit de s’en dire les frères, ce qui n’est pas le cas
des autres.
Nous n’avons plus l’affabulation qui allait avec cet acte symbolique. On
ne comprend pas très bien comment le grand dieu d’Alep a pu envoyer à
un tout jeune roi qui se présentait comme ‘fils du roi d’Alep’ une si grande
marque de puissance. Peut-être tout roi d’Occident avait-il droit à un tel
rituel et Zimrî-Lîm se conformait-il ainsi à la coutume occidentale? Le “dis-
cours historico-théologique” qui ouvre la lettre ne semble cependant avoir
de sens que si Zimrî-Lîm accédait, en arrivant au trône, au leadership sur
les autres rois; le discours pouvait dès lors ne concerner que la région de
l’Euphrate (ne sont mentionnés par le texte que Yahdun-Lîm, Samsî-Addu
et Zimrî-Lîm), lieux où pourtant ce devrait être à Dagan de tenir ce genre
de discours, lui qui les avait déjà donnés à Sargon d’Agadé et devait en
faire de même pour Hammu-rabi de Babylone. Peut-être pour celui qui est
venu d’Occident le seul grand dieu était-il Addu, alors que des Orientaux
reconnaissaient cette région comme le domaine propre de Dagan. Il peut y
avoir là une différence de conceptions religieuses que nous ne sommes
plus à même de bien comprendre aujourd’hui.
L’envoi des armes d’Addu d’Alep devait dès lors sceller l’alliance de
Mari et d’Alep, avant la venue de la princesse Šiptu et le rattachement
des Bords-de-l’Euphrate au domaine religieux de l’Ouest.
Le roi amorrite se présente fondamentalement, en fait, comme tout
notable de son époque: il a un couvre-chef, une arme et un moyen parti-
culier de se véhiculer, quoique chacun de ses attributs soit d’une qualité
particulière et que l’on voie certains rois être marqués comme plus presti-
gieux que d’autres. Il faut surtout tenir compte de l’existence de l’onction
sur laquelle il faudra encore réfléchir.

71
Cf. FM VII, 38 et commentaire afférent.
50 Opening Lectures

On garde toutefois l’impression que l’expression de la royauté d’un

Zimrî-Lîm est “mixte” et empruntait à plusieurs sources les regalia par
lesquels le roi affirmait sa puissance, sans qu’on soit néanmoins en me-
sure de dire si la complexité de l’ensemble était repensée dans une con-
ception particulière. On en revient à l’affirmation citée plus haut de
Bahdî-Lîm: ‘Tu es roi d’Akkadiens, en même temps que tu es roi de Bé-
douins’.

C) Les conditions pour devenir roi

1. L’appartenance à une race semble avoir été une condition fonda-
mentale pour accéder à la royauté et c’est ce que veulent dire les textes
cités ci-dessus lorsqu’ils parlent de la dynastie, le palûm.
(a) La réinterprétation du terme de mâdarum comme ‘celui qui est re-
specté’72 versus muškênum ‘celui qui respecte’ permet la constitution d’une
paire qui fait écho au couple awîlum versus muškênum à Babylone, au
moins dans le Codex de Hammu-rabi. Awîlum signifie à Mari également
‘noble, notable’.
Il existait certainement au sein de la tribu (li’mum) un clan royal, dont
le nom particulier devait être simplement bîtum, même si l’on ne sait pas
quelles motivations l’avait fait choisir à l’origine.
Nous voyons à Babylone, Hammu-rabi remonter à son ¶ammum. Plu-
sieurs allusions existent à l’antiquité des alliances entre des “maisons
royales”, même si nous ne savons pas toujours si la fiction qui veut que ce
soit toujours un fils qui ait succédé à son père sur les trônes majeurs se
soit toujours aussi harmonieusement déroulée que nous le présentent les
diverses titulatures.
Pour une de ces grandes royautés de l’époque amorrite, nous entre-
voyons comment les choses pouvaient se passer, après la prise
d’Ešnunna, où semble-t-il la famille royale avait subi de lourdes pertes du
fait de la conquête élamite. A.272 cite les propos qu’avait tenus Zimrî-Lîm
à Hammu-rabi:
‘Si les nobles (awîlum) d’Ešnunna te donnent leur accord,
exerce toi-même la royauté d’Ešnunna ou, dans le cas con-
traire, installe à leur royauté un de la famille royale (= un
mâdarum) qui se trouve chez toi’, tout en constatant: ‘(… Or)
les gens d’Ešnunna ont pris pour être roi sur eux (= ana
šarrûti-šunu) un centurion (= râb pirsi) d’Ešnunna.’

72
Cf. LAPO 18, index, p. 566 et Cours et travaux du Collège de France. Résumés
(2005–2006):613.
 J.-M. Durand, Être chef d’un état amorrite 51

Tout était donc, en fait, question d’acceptation du nouveau roi par les
principaux personnages de l’État, quoique cette dernière dût s’exercer
de façon préférentielle au sein d’une famille précise. Il est difficile, sans
document plus explicite, de savoir si les awîlum qui pouvaient prendre
Hammu-rabi pour roi étaient les mêmes que ceux qui en définitive
avaient élu Ôilli-Sîn.
De fait, être un muškênum qui accède au pouvoir royal, donc en
quelque sorte “être fils de ses œuvres” n’était généralement pas considéré
comme quelque chose de flatteur et l’affirmation ‘c’est un muškênum’
semble avoir eu le sens d’une accusation méprisante. On le voit bien par
ce qui se passait dans les royautés mineures de Haute-Djéziré. La pra-
tique d’héberger chez soi un keltum (cf. ci-dessous) n’avait vraiment de
sens qu’à la condition de prendre le roi dans une famille précise. Comme
Babylone et Ešnunna appartenaient toutes deux au pays d’Akkad, il n’est
pas impossible que — d’une façon ou d’une autre — leurs familles
royales n’aient été apparentées et que l’élection de Hammu-rabi au trône
d’Ešnunna n’ait paru aussi naturelle que, dans des temps pas si lointains,
les prétentions diverses des familles royales européennes aux divers
trônes de leur monde, nationalisme mis à part.
(b) Comment cela se passait-il à Mari? Nous pouvons entrevoir une ré-
ponse à partir du cas de Zimrî-Lîm, lui-même.
Un premier (et unique!) sceau de Zimrî-Lîm se trouve sur une lettre à
Tiš-Ulme,73 faisant partie d’une “circulaire” à une série de princes, vrai-
semblablement avant que Zimrî-Lîm n’entre à Mari: Zimrî-Lîm était déjà,
selon ce sceau, roi de Mari et des Bédouins, mais, en même temps, il s’y
disait fils d’un certain Hadnî-Addu, lequel était manifestement un des
premiers personnages de l’État,74 donc d’une façon ou d’une autre appa-
renté à la famille royale.
Or, sur ce qui sera son sceau officiel, ultérieurement, qui présente le
même libellé, il est désormais ‘fils de Yahdun-Lîm’.
Dès MARI 4, nous savions que c’était Bannum qui avait ramené le
nouveau roi sur le trône ancestral. Nous savons de plus, aujourd’hui,
que, alors que Zimrî-Lîm était toujours retenu devant Tuttul, Mari a été

73
Cf. MARI 4, p. 324.
74
Cf. l’inventaire des princesses dans un texte sans doute éponymal, MARI 4,
p. 431 ad A.4634:5′–7′ où sont mentionnées 3 filles de Hadni-Addu, avant 1 fille
de Sumu-Yamam et après 8 filles sans doute de [Yahdun-Lîm]. Deux de ces filles
de Hadni-Addu sont mentionnées comme bénéficiaires de bijoux dans un texte
que sa graphie permet d’attribuer à Yahdun-Lîm (ibid. ll. 6–7).
52 Opening Lectures

prise au royaume de Haute-Mésopotamie par un corps expéditionnaire

conduit par Bannum, Zakura-abum et Qarnî-Lîm,75 trois chefs ben-
sim’alites, qui plus tard apparaissent à des titres divers l’avoir soutenu, le
premier comme ministre, le second comme roi vassal de Zaluhân et le
troisième comme roi vassal d’Andarig.
Il faut dès lors considérer que ce que disait le premier sceau de Zimrî-
Lîm était définitif en ce qui concerne les Bédouins, mais sujet à discussion
en ce qui concerne Mari. De plus, comme Yahdun-Lîm était ‘roi de Mari et
des Bensim’alites’, le fait que Zimrî-Lîm se dise ‘roi des Bédouins’ de façon
large, devait revenir à englober à la fois une partie au moins des Ben-
sim’alites,76 mais aussi les Benjaminites à qui il devait concéder une partie
de ses conquêtes comme autant de royaumes autonomes à ses portes.
S’il lui a donc fallu changer son père — même si la raison précise n’en
est pas encore connue —, c’est que les difficultés ont dû venir d’asseoir
son pouvoir dans la ville de Mari elle-même; cela a certainement été
l’œuvre de Bannum, mais dépendait en outre de l’établissement d’une fi-
liation avec l’ancien roi Yahdun-Lîm. L’opposition des deux sceaux de
Zimrî-Lîm montrent en tout cas la nécessité pour être roi d’être ‘fils d’un
ancien roi’.
Plusieurs faits peuvent d’ailleurs être interprétés comme les efforts de
Zimrî-Lîm pour établir sa légitimité dans sa nouvelle capitale: sa dévotion
à Annunîtum de Šehrum, dès son retour à Mari, a dû affirmer sa pré-
sence sur des lieux proprement rattachés à la tradition de Yahdun-Lîm;77
l’acceptation de la veuve de son prédécesseur comme première épouse,78
le maintien d’une partie de l’administration antérieure79 ont dû en re-
vanche lui permettre de se rattacher d’une façon ou d’une autre au dé-
funt Yasmah-Addu.
Il n’est pas sans signification que Zimrî-Lîm ait appelé ses 3 fils:
Yaggid-Lîm, Hadnî-Addu et Yahdun-Lîm, soit celui qui avait dû amener
la tribu dans la région de Mari, celui qui fut son géniteur et celui qui était
devenu son ‘père de raison’.80

75
Cf. Guichard, M.; Ziegler, N. Yanûh-Samar et les Ekâllatéens en détresse.
Dercksen, J. G. (ed.). Assyria and Beyond. Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen.
Leiden, 2004. Pp. 229–247.
76
En tenant compte de l’affaire du ri¶´um, réglée ultérieurement à la prise du
pouvoir par les soins d’Asqûdum; cf. ARM XXVI, pp. 181–192.
77
Cf. OLA 162, p. 202.
78
Cf. LAPO 18, pp. 265, 296.
79
Cf. Guichard, M.; Ziegler, N. Op. cit., pp. 242–243.
80
Cf. désormais, Ziegler, N. FM IV, pp. 68–39.
 J.-M. Durand, Être chef d’un état amorrite 53

(c) C’est à la lumière de ces considérations qu’il faut reprendre la com-

préhension du document exceptionnel que constitue le libellé du sceau
de Bannum, lui-même.81
[b]a-ni-nu-um, [LÚ] mu-ul-¶a-[anki], ÌR ia-a¶-du-un-li-i[m], mu-ti-ir
pí-ri-i¶, [i]a-a¶-du-un-li-im, [a]-na iš-re-ti-[šu]
soit:
‘Ban(i)num de Mulhân,82 serviteur de Yahdun-Lim, celui qui a
fait revenir l’héritier de Yahdun-Lîm à ses domaines.’

(a) Baninu doit être la forme complète de Bannum, sur la racine BNN
qui est peut-être simplement une variante de BNi.
(b) Pir¶um signifie au propre “rejeton” au sens botanique du terme,
puis “descendance” dans le dialecte akkadien, selon nos dictionnaires;
j’avais proposé dans LAPO 18, p. 195 que le terme signifiât au propre le
‘petit-fils’ en amorrite au moins de Mari; mais à reprendre le texte XIII
109 (LAPO 18, 1021) ‘Cet homme [Yantin-Dagan] est le pir¶um de Lana-
Addu, or Lana-Addu était un fils de Yahdun-Lîm’, cette interprétation ne
me semble plus possible. Comme Yantin-Dagan a été élevé dans la mai-
son de Bînum, il s’agissait certainement d’un tout jeune enfant de haute
naissance; il ne peut ainsi pas avoir été le petit-fils de Lana-Addu, mais plu-
tôt son fils; c’était donc au propre de Yahdun-Lîm qu’il était le petit-fils.
Or, pir¶um est glosé par mârum dans la série Malku et par aplum dans
une autre liste lexicale. C’est sans doute là la solution la plus simple: il
faut comprendre qu’il s’agit de l’héritier, l’aplum, ‘celui à qui on a répon-
du (oui)’,83 lequel est un fils, certes, mais supérieur aux autres, sans doute
en bonne partie suite au choix fait par son père parmi toute sa
progéniture mâle. C’est exactement d’ailleurs ce que demandait Yasmah-
Addu, lui-même, dans ARM I, 3 (= LAPO 18, 931), après la mort de son
fils, où il dit vouloir la vie et un héritier: napištam u pir¶am.
Comme il y a une alternance Ú/Ø entre la langue de Mari et le terme
akkadien, le fait indique qu’il faut partir d’un " primitif. Dès lors, on con-

81
Cf. MARI 4, p. 324.
82
Il n’est pas sûr que Ban(i)num fût réellement ‘roi’ de Mulhân, comme nous
l’avons pensé dans MARI 4, p. 324, n. 136, mais plutôt faut-il considérer que tel
fut l’apanage qu’il reçut en devenant ministre du nouveau roi. Ce n’est sans
doute pas un hasard si celui qui devait lui succéder dans ces fonctions, Sammêtar,
reçut lui-même ces territoires sur lesquels des sugâgum furent nommés.
83
Cette étymologie me paraît plus vraisemblable que de faire venir le terme
du sumérien ibila = *ì-bil-a qui ferait référence au culte familial et qui ne serait,
au mieux, qu’une remotivation du terme akkadien.
54 Opening Lectures

state que le mot qui lui correspond exactement en arabe est fara" qui si-
gnifie ‘premier petit d’une femelle que les Arabes avaient coutume
d’égorger à certaines fêtes’ et que lui correspond l’arabe far" qui signifie
‘chef d’une famille, d’une tribu’ (BK II 579b). Dans son Dictionnaire
(Lane 2378), donne comme sens primitif du verbe fara"a ‘dépasser en
taille’, et dérive de ce sens les termes far" = ‘le plus haut’, d’où fara" =
‘the firstling of the camel, or of the sheep or goat’.
Zimrî-Lîm se dit sur son sceau ‘DUMU’ de Yahdun-Lîm et, de facto, il
en est l’héritier puisque c’est lui qui lui succède. C’est bien là le sens du
terme occidental de pir¶um tel que nous l’ont livré les lexiques.
(c) išrêtum: ce terme nous avait beaucoup gêné, D. Charpin et moi-
même, lors de la rédaction de MARI 4. En fait le singulier išrum apparaît
dans un contexte précis: dans ARM II, 113 (= LAPO 18, 1244) où il dé-
signe le domaine réservé de la reine d’Ašlakkâ, où elle dit entrer à son ar-
rivée chez son époux. La connotation en est certainement négative, vu le
ton de la lettre, et je l’ai rendu par “pied-à-terre”, ce qui est une façon
contextuelle de désigner le domaine réservé à la pauvre princesse qui
comptait bien jouer à la reine.
Ce terme ne peut que rappeler l’išrum qui désigne nettement le “do-
maine d’activité” dans les documents paléobabyloniens et qui semble en
l’occurrence permuter avec ¶al´um “domaine de compétence”, voire
bîtum.
(d) Tous les problèmes politiques, à la chute du royaume de Haute-
Mésopotamie, sont venus du fait qu’après une période relativement
longue on avait dû perdre dans les différents centres politiques de
Haute-Djéziré le souvenir précis de l’aînesse des ayants droit; le premier
revenu d’exil, susceptible de réclamer le trône, avait ainsi été nommé roi.
Sans compter que nous comprenons aujourd’hui qu’une partie de la
noblesse locale avait dû passer du côté de Samsî-Addu et que plusieurs de
ceux que l’on prenait pour ses grands serviteurs pouvaient tenir leurs
gouvernorats locaux comme des sortes de vice-royautés.84 Tout cela avait
entraîné beaucoup de protestations de prétendants ultérieurs. Plusieurs

84
C’est en tout cas le cas de Yarîm-Addu que l’on peut tenir comme le roi de
Kahat antérieur à Kabiya, celui à qui Kahat a été conquise dès les débuts du nou-
veau règne. Voir pour ces problèmes l’article de M. Guichard et N. Ziegler (Op.
cit., p. 242). La nomination de Habduma-Dagan comme gouverneur de Tuttul
par Samsî-Addu avait déjà des apparences de l’installation d’un nouveau roi; cf.
ARM I, 18 (= LAPO 16, 43).
 J.-M. Durand, Être chef d’un état amorrite 55

anecdotes de l’époque le montrent. La lettre circulaire de Zimrî-Lîm dont

il nous reste un exemplaire adressé à Tiš-Ulme n’a pas d’autre sens.
Ces protestataires sont appelés simplement mâdarum lorsque Mari les
soutient, le titre soulignant l’appartenance à une famille royale, keltum
dans le cas contraire.
Qu’était-ce qu’un keltum? On peut le considérer comme un mâdarum
en opposition avec celui qui se trouvait sur le trône de sa famille, où il
voulait reprendre sa place; c’était un prétendant soutenu par un autre
roi qui, sous prétexte de soutenir un opprimé, voulait en réalité
intervenir dans la politique d’un royaume voisin.
Nous connaissons surtout les keltum à l’occasion des luttes entre les pe-
tits royaumes du Nord. Zimrî-Lîm lui-même a eu recours à cette poli-
tique envers plusieurs des rois de Haute-Djéziré85 et même à l’encontre
d’une grande monarchie comme Kurdâ ou des rois benjaminites de la
première génération.86 Même si le terme ne semble pas avoir été employé
dans tous les cas que nous connaissons (peut-être n’est-ce là qu’un fait de
dénomination), la pratique au moins en a été utilisée.
Zimrî-Lîm a eu lui-même à souffrir de telles pratiques, preuve, s’il en
était besoin, que les problèmes concernant sa propre légitimité ont bien
dû perdurer:
Hammu-rabi de Babylone pour décrire son abandon s’exclame87 que,
à part les dieux, il n’a comme allié que ‘Zimrî-Lîm LUGAL DUMU si-im-a-
al’. Qu’on traduise ‘le roi Z., un bensim’alite’, ou ‘Z.-L., un roi bensim’a-
lite’, le résultat est le même: il n’y a pas mention de Mari pour définir sa
royauté. Plus tard, Hammu-rabi a dû envisager d’ailleurs de susciter à
Zimrî-Lîm un rival en accueillant chez lui un certain Kâpî-Dagan, qui se
prétendait de la famille royale de Mari.88
Bunu-Eštar, le roi de Kurdâ, quant à lui, passé dans le camp hostile à
Mari, fut accusé, selon la lettre publiée dans les Mélanges Larsen, A.1215,
précitée, d’héberger à Kurdâ, un certain Yam´i-Malik, fils d’Abî-mâdar,
au nom programmatique,89 alors que Zimrî-Lîm entretenait chez lui

85
Cf. Durand, J.-M. Mâdarum à Mari (NABU 2008/20), à propos du soutien
apporté très tôt par Mari à de futurs princes de Haute-Djéziré.
86
Cf. Charpin, D.; Durand, J.-M. Prétendants au trône dans le Proche-Orient
amorrite. Mélanges Larsen, pp. 99–115.
87
M.7492, cf. Charpin, D.; Durand, J.-M. Fils de Sim’al… RA 80 (1986):150.
88
C’est l’affaire dite du mâdarum de Babylone; le dossier doit être publié par
L. Marti.
89
‘C’est un membre de la famille royale qui est mon père’.
56 Opening Lectures

(exactement, à Tuttul) un ‘fils de Dâ’irum’, donc celui-là même qui devait

devenir, sous le nom de Hammu-rabi, roi de Kurdâ.
(e) Les procédés de nomination des rois benjaminites commencent à
être connus:90 il faut y distinguer soigneusement ce qui semble le processus
normal (l’élection par les pairs) de celui qui fut la norme après la défaite de
la première génération des rois (la nomination du roi par le suzerain).
Le “processus normal” est sans doute illustré par les tentatives de
Lahun-Dagan pour acheter ceux qui votent: les chefs de clans benjami-
nites étaient donc bien ceux dont l’accord était nécessaire pour devenir
roi: c’étaient ainsi les sugâgum qui élisaient un primus inter pares mais en
choisissant certainement dans une famille précise, puisqu’ils s’apprê-
taient, par exemple, à choisir le fils de Yagîh-Addu comme roi.
La différence entre les deux façons est en effet montrée à l’occasion de
la nomination d’un nouveau roi de Yarih, selon ARM XXVIII, 32:6–10:
‘Voilà que tu avais élevé Yasmah-Addu au lieu de Yagîh-Addu
et que tu l’avais fait s’asseoir sur le trône. Or eux (les Benjami-
nites rebelles, mâr yamîna sarrârû) ont entrepris d’élever un fils
de Yagîh-Addu à la royauté (ana šarrûtim).’

Yagîh-Addu était alors toujours vivant, mais parti à Ešnunna d’où il

devait revenir à la tête de troupes étrangères.91 Il fallait néanmoins un roi
qui soit présent; peut-être y avait-il des impératifs religieux dont on ne
nous parle pas. C’est un de ses fils en tout cas qui avait été choisi.
L’affermissement de son pouvoir royal à Mari a amené Zimrî-Lîm a
évoluer dans sa conception de la légitimité. Si, au tout début, il s’agissait de
“rendre les trônes aux familles légitimes”, donc de mettre fin à l’espèce de
super-État qu’avait organisé Samsî-Addu, sans doute sur un modèle impérial
amené depuis la région d’Irak du centre et qui unifiait sous une administra-
tion centrale les pouvoirs locaux quel que fût leur enracinement légitime,
très vite il a considéré qu’on n’était légitime qu’avec son aval de roi suzerain.
(f ) Ces impératifs religieux sont peut-être ce qui donne l’explication
de biens des aspects que nous avons évoqués plus haut et ils peuvent être
résumés comme la préoccupation d’assurer le culte des Ancêtres, celui
autour duquel se cimentait la cohésion du groupe qui, en commémorant
le passé, affirmait sa cohésion et entreprenait d’agir de conserve dans
l’avenir.

90
Cf. Durand, J.-M. Peuplement et sociétés à l’époque amorrite. I. Amurru 3
(2004):158–160.
91
Cf. ARM XXVIII, 168. D’autres textes mentionnent le fait.
 J.-M. Durand, Être chef d’un état amorrite 57

On constate, en tout cas, que le nouveau roi se jugeait astreint au culte

de ceux qui l’avaient précédé et, cela, quels qu’ils fussent: Zimrî-Lîm énu-
mère ainsi les rois avant lui comme Yahdun-Lîm, Samsî-Addu et Yas-
mah-Addu, mais Yasmah-Addu, lui-même, pensait pouvoir se réclamer
de l’at¶ûtum qu’avait contractée Yahdun-Lîm avec le roi d’Apišal, alors
qu’il ne faisait pourtant pas partie de sa famille.92 En revanche, Zimrî-
Lîm évite de mentionner le nom de Sumu-Yamam, fils de Yahdun-Lîm
et roi de Mari, qui semble avoir obtenu la royauté de façon irrégulière.93
Les listes royales de Mari recopiées, à l’époque de Yahdun-Lîm ainsi
qu’à celle de Zimrî-Lîm, font remonter la lignée bensim’alite à l’instaura-
tion des šakkanakku de Mari par Sargon d’Agadé, mais sans reprendre ap-
paremment les rois antérieurs, ceux qui avaient été les contemporains de
la grandeur d’Ebla au IIIe millénaire.94
Peut-être ce que nous devinons de la façon dont Samsî-Addu est deve-
nu prince à Aššur pourrait-elle nous permettre d’aller plus loin. Non
seulement, ce qui est “normal”, Samsî-Addu est entré dans la liste royale
d’Aššur mais on trouve avec lui aussi ses ancêtres qui n’ont certainement
jamais exercé le pouvoir royal à Aššur, puisqu’ils sont dénommés ‘rois
sous la tente’ et appartiennent aussi aux Ancêtres de Babylone. Il est pos-
sible que la prise du pouvoir par Samsî-Addu à Aššur, même si elle a con-
sisté à chasser le roi qui y régnait, soit passée par un de ces rituels
d’adoption ou de pactes familiaux qui régissaient alors les relations entre
États et donnaient tout leur sens aux nomenclatures familiales qui
désignaient alors les liens entre rois étrangers.95

92
Cf. Charpin, D.; Ziegler, N. Mekum, roi d’Apišal. MARI 8, spéc. p. 244,
ll. 10–11.
93
Cf. ARM I, 3 = LAPO 18, 931.
94
Voir pour cette question, l’introduction historique aux Šakkanakku dans FM
XIII; cf. ci-dessus, pp. 39–41, la possibilité que les malikum y fassent référence.
95
Cf. Durand, J.-M. La conscience du temps et sa commémoration en Méso-
potamie: l’exemple de la documentation mariote. Akkadica 124 (2003):1–11. On
remarque que dans ses inscriptions d’Aššur Samsî-Addu se situe clairement en
héritier des rois qui l’ont précédé dans cette ville puisqu’il parle (RIMA 1, p. 49)
de l’É.AM.KUR.KUR.RA ‘temple d’Enlil qu’Erišum (I), fils d’Ilu-šu-ma, avait con-
struit’, ou (RIMA 1, p. 55) du ‘temple d’Ereškigal, qu’Ikûnum, fils d’Êrišum (I),
avait construit’ et dont, après sa ruine, il avait assuré la reconstruction. Dans cette
inscription, Samsî-Addu et Ikûnum portent également le titre d’ENSI2. De la
même façon (RIMA 1, p. 53), il remonte jusqu’à Maništušu, fils de Sargon, ce qui
tendrait à prouver que la lignée où il s’insère comprenait bien tous les rois qui
ont exercé le pouvoir dans cette ville.
58 Opening Lectures

Sans doute sur la figure du roi et la légitimation de sa royauté avons

nous, grâce aux textes de Mari et à “l’imagination déductive”, fait des
progrès par rapport à l’exposé de R. Kraus, mais peut-être le maître
n’aurait-il pas tout également apprécié, ni accepté. C’est sans doute là le
patient travail de l’historien que d’apporter faits — et hypothèses —
neufs.
Mais pour mieux percevoir le roi amorrite et la complexité de sa façon
d’être roi, il faudrait aussi opposer à son rôle de guerrier parmi des com-
pagnons d’armes la lourdeur du cérémonial de cour et de l’étiquette qui
s’installe de plus en plus à la cour de Mari, ou opposer l’affirmation qu’il
est en théorie un primus inter pares à l’esprit de courtisanerie qui tend de
plus en plus à affirmer son caractère divin. Cela n’est, néanmoins, qu’un
phénomène d’évolution “naturelle” à partir de l’image du jeune héros
que nous présente l’Épopée de Zimrî-Lîm et qui montre l’influence des
grandes cours orientales, ou de leurs modèles rhétoriques, sur les bords
de l’Euphrate.
Il faudrait aussi le voir comme ‘roi de justice’, en fait défenseur — voire
complice — de son groupe, et se réservant pour fonder la notion d’État le
droit de verser le sang, mettant ainsi fin aux pratiques du niqmum.96
La royauté d’un Zimrî-Lîm hésite de fait entre traditions bédouines
ou occidentales et influences citadines ou orientales, de façon trop
complexe pour que tout soit dénoué aujourd’hui. Sans doute le progrès
décisif viendra-t-il le jour où l’on sera plus à même de définir dans quelle
mesure les grandes monarchies citadines de l’Est avaient gardé de leurs
origines occidentales.

96
Cf. Durand, J.-M. La vengeance à l’époque amorrite. FM VI, pp. 39–50 et
Cours et travaux du Collège de France. Résumés (2005–2006):613.
 City Administration
in the Ancient Near East
 Administration in Texts
from the First Sealand Dynasty

Stephanie Dalley
Oriental Institute, University of Oxford

This archive1 consists of 462 tablets of unbaked clay, inscribed in Babylo-

nian cuneiform some time between ca. 1550 and 1480 BC.2 From inter-
nal criteria it is certain that they all come from the same provenance, and
they cover a time-span of 15 to 18 years, if the analysis of year-names is
correct. The two kings named in year formulae are Pešgaldarameš and
Ayadaragalama.
The existence of the archive proves that the First Sealand dynasty was a
political reality with a flourishing economy after the Old Babylonian dy-
nasty came to an end. The dynasty was previously known from Babylonian
Royal Chronicle as the one that succeeded the First Dynasty of Babylon,
but that source gives information only about 5 kings who, as we now know,
were contemporaries of late Old Babylonian kings rather than subsequent
to them. The Sealand kings are listed in the Babylonian King-lists A and B,
and in the Synchronistic King-list, in which Assyrian kings are set beside
their contemporaries in the Sealand; this gives an indication of the impor-
tance of the dynasty in an Assyrian tradition. Brinkman deduced that the
dynasty was included in the king-list and chronicle traditions of Babylon
because at least one of the Sealand kings ruled Babylon.3

1
An edition with copies, transliterations and translations, notes and indices, is
now published as Babylonian Tablets from Sealand Dynasty in the Schøyen Collection
(Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 9). Bethesda, 2009.
2
The range of dates suggested here belong within the long or middle chro-
nology. I follow, e. g., Podany, A. H. The Land of Hana. Bethesda, 2002. Pp. 48–
49, in rejecting a lower chronology; and I suggest that the repeat year formula
from Tell Muhammad does not imply the resettlement of an abandoned city
Babylon, as proposed by Gasche, but rather that the king stayed there during
those years and did not campaign. See Gasche, H. The Fall of Babylon and Its Re-
settlement (MHEM 4). Ghent–Chicago, 1998. Pp. 84–87.
3
Brinkman, J. A. RlA 8:6–10 s. v. Meerland, especially 6b. Note that a king
“of the Sealand” is now attested in an Old Babylonian text, Ash.1922.353, see Dal-
ley, S. Old Babylonian Tablets in the Ashmolean Museum (OECT 15). Oxford, 2004,
62 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

References in the archive to offerings made to Marduk might be

thought, at first glance, to indicate rule over Babylon; on the other hand,
several scholars4 have suggested that the widespread influence and syn-
cretising of Marduk goes back to the Third Dynasty of Ur rather than be-
ing an innovation of the Old Babylonian period, a scenario which would
allow Marduk to be worshipped in southern Mesopotamia during the
First Sealand dynasty without the need to invoke a specific political cause.
This archive contains other, indirect evidence that Ayadaragalama exer-
cised some kind of control over Babylon perhaps as a vassal or client
kingdom, and that he controlled Nippur. That is a possibility that would
explain the groupings of deities of Nippur and Uruk in our Sealand
texts, whether they were visiting for a festival or whether they were rep-
resented within the shrines of the Sealand capital city. It would also ex-
plain why Ayadaragalama claimed in his year formula G that ‘Enlil estab-
lished for him the shepherding of the whole earth,’ NAM.SIPA
KI.ŠÁR.RA.TA dEN.LÍL.LE MU.UN.GAR.RA.A.BA.
The two kings Pešgaldarameš and Ayadaragalama are attested from
the king-lists as 7th and 8th kings of the First Sealand dynasty, but not
elsewhere attested beyond this archive in published texts, although an
exception may be the bronze circlet inscription from Tell en-Nasbeh.5
King-list A abbreviates the names, to give Pešgal and Ayadara. Pešgalda-
rameš is credited with a 50-year reign by the king-list, and Ayadara-
galama with 28 years. Kinglist B notes that both kings were sons, perhaps
meaning son and grandson, of Gulkišar. It is clear, from the divine name
Šamaš-ana-Gulkišar-kurub in a list of deities, that our two kings derived
their dynasty from Gulkišar; and the lengths of reigns ascribed to those
three kings, 55 + 50 + 28, mark a time of stability in which the economy
might flourish. It remains to be explained why no inscribed bricks have
(yet) come to light recording the pious works of these rulers.

No. 78. The tablet, from Larsa, can be dated between Hammurabi year 13 and
Samsu-iluna year 8.
4
Richter, T. Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in
altbabylonischer Zeit (AOAT 257). Second ed. Münster, 2004. Pp. 14–15.
5
See the readings made separately by Albright, Cameron and Sachs, in
McCown, C. C. (ed.). Tell en-Nasbeh I. Archaeological and Historical Results. Berke-
ley–New Haven, 1947, pp. 150–153, which may be preferred to the proposed
new interpretation of Horowitz and Vanderhooft, The Cuneiform Inscription
from Tell en-Na´beh: The Demise of an Unknown King. Tel Aviv 29 (2002):318–
327. A separate study for this issue is in progress.
 S. Dalley, Administration in Texts from the 1st Sealand Dynasty 63

Since the texts have no known provenance, neither by site nor by

building, one aim was to discover from internal evidence whether palace,
cloister, household of a high official, or temple administration produced
the archive, and which city or town may have been the provenance.
However, the evidence required normally can be found only in legal
texts and from colophons in literary texts, both of which are lacking in
this archive; so the first of these aims has been largely unsuccessful.
Among the criteria I have tried are: the types of weights and measures
used; the designs and inscriptions on cylinder sealings, professions of
named individuals; also the deities found both in personal names and in
offerings lists. I shall mention some of the inconclusive evidence in de-
scribing the different groups of texts.
Among the criteria for identifying the city of provenance, is the im-
portance of the goddess Nazi (Nanše), for whom offerings are spread
over many different days and months. This seems to point to the city of
Nina, ancient Surghul in the former kingdom of Girsu–Lagash, although
there is only one personal name compounded with Nazi. The god Nin-
girsu, who previously was associated with her, occurs in one list of deities,
but not with Nazi, and her erstwhile consort Nin-dara ‘Lord Cock’ does
not feature at all. Gods of Uruk and of Nippur are listed, but in several
cases it is specified that they are the gods of those cities, implying that
those cities are elsewhere.
Previously it has sometimes been supposed that the Sealand kings of
this time were hyper-conservative rulers who looked back to their Sumer-
ian forebears, in a land where most of the great cities of the past—
Nippur, Uruk, Ur, Larsa—had become more-or-less ruined, and one
might have expected to find the temple as more central to economic life,
but that is not the case. The common assumption that southern Babylo-
nia was virtually abandoned for centuries after the time of Samsu-iluna,
recently questioned by Richter,6 seems to be undermined by some of the
new evidence. The contents of the archive show that southern Mesopo-
tamian society did not hark back to the pattern of early times when the
temple was perhaps more central than the palace in terms of organisation
and networks. The so-called palace economy, best known from Mari in
the Middle Bronze Age, and regarded as almost universal in the Late
Bronze Age, seems to be dominant, but temple and palace are very
closely linked in their economic activities.

6
Richter, op. cit. 280.
64 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Another supposition, arising from the elaborate Sumerian names of

Gulkišar, Pešgaldarameš and Ayadaragalama, has been that the First Sea-
land dynasty kings in southern Babylonian remained as conservative
guardians of Sumerian traditions. But most of the scribal habits resemble
the Old Babylonian of Rim-Sin I, Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna; Sumer-
ian is only used for some common logograms and a very few personal
names, perhaps all top men in the community. Because of this I refer to
most gods by their Akkadian names: Šamaš rather than Utu, Sebitti
rather than Imin-bi. There are no obviously Amorite names with the ver-
bal prefix Ya-, although the god Amurru is still in evidence; a few names
are Elamite, for men mainly described as messengers; only one name is
definitely Hurrian; and a few Kassite, none for men of very high rank—
there is no evidence for Kassite overlords or governors.
The month names are those of Nippur, and are always written with
logograms. Since kinūnu-rituals take place in the 9th month, which is the
month called kinūnu at Nuzi (to be contrasted with the 6th month in OB
Diyala and Sippar texts; 7th at OB Mari, and 10th in the neo-Assyrian
calendar), there may have been co-ordination with Nuzi and the Mittani
kingdom, if it is not just coincidence. kinūnātu-rituals ‘of the gods’ are
performed on the first day of the 9th month, and kinūnu-rituals are per-
formed for Marduk and the temple of Ninurta on the 20th of that
month. The fifth month, presumably read Abu, is the month of the tā-
kultu-ritual of Nazi (day 16), and of offerings made to the house of kings
and to thrones (day 20).
Year names are of two kinds: formulae of the Old Babylonian style,
‘Year, king so-and-so did such-and-such a deed’; and numbered years,
such as ‘Year 7.’ Months xii and ii are intercalated, and the details of
their occurrence have shown the way to understand the variety in year
names. The main reasons for thinking that there are two kinds of naming
for each year are: that the likely pairs do not occur together in the same
section, except in Section 7, in which me¶rum-“copies” have year num-
bers, and non-me¶rum “originals” have a year formula. One likely pair
each has intercalation in month xii, and the intercalation in the second
month almost certainly comes in the following year when, presumably,
the earlier intercalation proved inadequate to bring festivals linked to sol-
stices and equinoxes into the correct months.
The archive consists of a range of text types which I have grouped
into sections as follows.
 S. Dalley, Administration in Texts from the 1st Sealand Dynasty 65

Section 1 (1–15). Letters. The content is that of palace and local gov-
ernment administration, lacking references to priests or temples. The
addressee of most of them is not named; he is simply ‘my lord,’ and is
presumably the king or a high official or member of the royal family.
Among the letters is an indication that Eshnunna was still a kingdom to
be reckoned with. There is also a reference to writing-boards, which is
particularly significant in view of the rarity of clay tablets at this period.
None of the letters is sealed. Greetings formulae are sometimes of the OB
type, sometimes of the MB / Kassite type. Some of the letters are written
by females whingeing to their lord about lack of supplies and stinginess.
Section 2 (16–58). Deliveries, receipts and lists of livestock, mainly
sheep, occasionally also wool, mainly ‘to the Palace.’ Seals (A and B) are
recognisable on some tablets, but are always very faint. Some envelopes
and envelope fragments are preserved. The end use of the animals is of-
ten specified, including for extispicy (ana nēpešti), for a meal (ana
KIN.SIG), for unspecified sacrifice (ana SIZKÚR), for various named gods
and for the temples of particular gods. The goddess Nazi is particularly
common as the recipient. Two texts mention animals for the Egirmah
‘House of the Great Oven.’ Other specified sacrifices are to the new
moon ar¶u, to the Sebitti-gods, for the deceased pre-Sargonic king of
Uruk and Ur, Lugal-giparsi; for me¶¶uru offerings to Nergal, for a nadītu-
priestess, for the DU6.KÙ mound, and for a variety of named persons. The
same administration in this section serves the palace and the temples.
Section 3 (59–84). A variety of types of texts, all involving deities;
some are dated and certainly administrative, others are undated, badly
written, without a heading or summary. One, for instance, is dated to
New Year’s Day, and makes an allocation to 22 named deities, beginning
with Enlil, Enki and Ninurta. Another text dated to New Year’s Day lists
an allocation of barley or flour to 28(?) deities and two entu-priestesses.
The KISAL of Ninurta and the BARAG of Šamaš both receive sacrifices in
various texts. One allocation is given for the tākultu-ritual of Nazi, as al-
ready mentioned. A temple of Marduk (among others) receives an alloca-
tion on New Year’s Day. A god named Šamaš-ana-Gulkišar-kurub occurs
in a list of otherwise well-known deities. None of this section is sealed or
has an envelope.
Section 4 (85–150). Deliveries and receipts and lists of foods. None of the
tablets is sealed, and there are no envelopes. Among the recipients are musi-
cians who sing / play at the palace gate. Merchants are mentioned. Bread-
loaves or cakes are given for funerary KI.SÌ.GA; perhaps also with a funerary
66 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

context are jars of beer for the house of kings and for thrones. Flour is re-
ceived for the Egirmah, the ‘House of the Great Oven.’ Cooks take receipt of
the flour, but that does not necessarily allow us to decide whether the Egir-
mah is a huge furnace for baking bricks, a smaller one for firing pottery, or
one for cooking on a grand scale; but it is probably a holy installation. Again,
the same administration serves the palace and the temples.
One aspect of the administration is clear from this section: at least two
different sila (qa) capacity measures were used, and perhaps as many as
four different ones. One was a lighter seah measure (for rations) which
used a bronze container, presumably consisting of 10 qa, and the other
was a heavier one usually called the 6 ⅔ seah (for šibšu-tax). This gives the
ratio between the two systems as 1:1 ½, as worked out by Powell from in-
formation given in an old friend from Tell al Rimah, OBTR 314.7 This
means that a šibšu-tax seah-measure of 6 ⅔ qa is equivalent to 10 qa in the
ration-measure. This double system found in the Sealand is known from
northern Old Babylonian, which suggests a widespread use. There is also
a seah of 5 qa, explicitly mentioned in only one text. Whether the bronze
seah is an abbreviation of another, or whether we have four different
measure systems is still not clear to me. The CAD’s entry under sūtu has
an astonishing variety for that measure in the MB period. The expres-
sions used to describe the weights and measures do not allow us to dis-
tinguish between the palace and the temple.
Section 5 (151–246). Deliveries of malt by maltsters, and receipts of malt
and barley for malt by maltsters and, rarely, brewers. Some tablets are
sealed, and some are me¶rum-copies. Destinations include the Egipar clois-
ter, the Palace, and the palace of Kar-Šamaš; occasionally no destination is
mentioned. The mention of a cloister implies continuity with the Old Baby-
lonian practice of maintaining cloisters in major religious centres from
which females from various royal families would conduct trade and earn
wealth; and its occurrence is one reason for supposing that this archive
comes from a major city. Unfortunately the deity to whom the cloister was
dedicated is not indicated. There is a small group of brewers and maltsters,
two separate professions that are never confused. Malt is given as fodder for
horses, which shows that horses were now in use in southern Babylonia, al-
though the context does not allow one to distinguish between military and
ceremonial horses; and there is no reason to connect the horses with the bīt
kaššî ‘house of Kassites’ which is referred to in one of the letters.

7
Powell, M. in RlA 7, s. v. Masse und Gewichte, 500.
 S. Dalley, Administration in Texts from the 1st Sealand Dynasty 67

Section 6 (247–308). Deliveries of beer-jars. There are no copies, and

no envelopes. Most of the tablets in this section are sealed, and almost all
are explicitly destined for the Palace. Only one connects with the cloister.
The seal impression on two of the tablets shows that it came from a seal
which had a (gold?) cap decorated with a guilloche pattern—not a sign of
poverty or peripheral possession. The prosopography overlaps with that
of Section 5, the texts concerning malt.
Section 7 (309–367). Deliveries of animal carcasses. Many of the tab-
lets are very faintly sealed; the unreadable inscriptions come from at least
two seals. A few of the tablets are with their envelopes. The me¶rum-copy-
tablets are usually dated by year as a number; the non-copy tablets are
dated with a royal year formula. It is almost certain that each year could
be referred to either by number or by an Old Babylonian-style year for-
mula. The animals involved are mainly cattle; some specified as killed by
a wolf or a lion; calves are always described as branded, shaved or
painted with a mark of ownership, šimtum. Owners are named, including
the queen, information that indicates her status; also herdsmen kullizāti,
farmers iššakkâti, Šamaš the sun-god, and one named person who is
known from the letters to be a very high official, Anam-dingira. All deliv-
eries are to the palace, recipient is the chief of cooks, UGULA MU.MEŠ.
There are three references to the military rank of AGA.UŠ in this group.
Section 8 (368–377). Texts concerning ¶argalû-cereal.8 The reading of
the word with first vowel a is established for this date and region by a
variant syllabic writing ¶a-ar-. Perhaps only one tablet is sealed, very
faintly. The Palace is usually the explicit recipient of the flour. One allo-
cation is for grinding by palace maid-servants, and gives a list of female
personal names. The section in general provides many personal names,
and repetition here and in the following sections is helpful for establish-
ing correct readings through variation.
Section 9 (378–406). Personnel lists. Distribution of barley, barley ra-
tions, some explicitly to workmen / soldiers ERÍN. Of the many personal
names, some have professions attached, and some allow identification of
characters named in other sections. A wonderful list of craftsmen,
DUMU.MEŠ ummâni, incomplete, but giving sections, each with its own
summary, includes 5 coppersmiths, 25 + leather-workers, 5 jewellers,
probably 5 doctors, 13 carpenters, 2 reed-arrow-makers (381).

8
Sassmannshausen, L. Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft Babyloniens in der
Kassitenzeit. Berlin, 2001. P. 251.
68 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Section 10 (407–451). Large Ledgers. None sealed, some dated, many

are incomplete through damage. Various commodities involved, includ-
ing barley and sa¶lû, the plant of uncertain identification which is proba-
bly for flavouring and preserving beer. Headings show the taxes: šibšu,
ki´ru and miksu; groups of people include guards, LÚ EN.NUN.MEŠ, and
muškênu-men. The Palace gives or gets (??) a share separate from that of
the muškênu. Highlights: one text includes flour given ana kispi; there is a
flautist, LÚ.GI.GÍD; an aluzinnu-jester; references to two types of ship, a
few Elamites. One large ledger gives 11 columns with cattle, and another
relates to bricks. There is reference to ‘the son of the king’ DUMU.LUGAL,
perhaps implying the Crown Prince, and a reference also to a daughter
of the king, DUMU.MÍ.LUGAL which can be added to the information that
the queen owned cattle, to show an aspect of the high status of women in
the economy. These references to the royal family allow the possibility
that the archive comes from a palace located in a city of royal residence.
Section 11 (452–463). Metals, textiles, and miscellaneous. These are
all quite short texts, of which the two most informative mention sīru-
textiles together with minas of copper.
In conclusion, this archive comes from an administration involving
the royal family in a royal city where Nazi was the patron deity. The city
had a cloister with nadītu-women who were involved in brewing, but the
mention of the cloister and nadītu-women within the whole archive is
sufficiently rare to exclude a cloister provenance for all the tablets. There
is continuity with the Old Babylonian period: in the muškênu-class of men,
and in the taxes that were levied. Records were sealed with Old Babylo-
nian-type seals which bore a three or four line inscription of traditional
type and a rather standard design. The Queen and the Daughter of the
King had an acknowledged role in economic life. There was a cult of
previous kings, both for the founder of the dynasty Gulkišar and for the
pre-Sargonic king Lugal-giparsi, but in other respects the society was not
notably conservative. It had particular trading links with Elam and with
Eshnunna. People enjoyed the entertainment of the court jester aluzinnu,
the flautist, and many singers. One deduction that might be drawn, re-
lated to the main topic of this conference, is: links between palace and
temple were so strong that the two institutions had a shared administra-
tion for the kinds of activities illustrated in this Sealand archive.









          

        


          



       
        
      











       
           


          






 
  














 




          
            


         





      



         

       






 

  





  



 
         
             
             
       

         
             



          




             
          





 









 



         
      



  










          


         

      


            

           


















         

 







  

            

          
 
            


 


            
           




          







          



 









              









  





          
         





            








         

 
          


             


        
    















  

        

            




          


          
        

            



        






           

           


       
      





          

         



  


           
        











      
          
        
          

            

           
             



 


            








            
 




  


           
            

           

            

          

          
           
           
          


    
           
         
           
          



            

         
         






 
  

              



           

  




           

 
    


           


             
          


            
           
       

          




           
             

           

 


           




          
           
           
               



  

       

           




































 Between City Institutions and Markets:
Mesopotamian Traders of the 2nd Millennium BC*

Rafał Koliński
Adam Mickiewicz University of Poznań

Mesopotamian trade has been a subject of numerous studies by archae-

ologists, assyriologists, historians and economists for more than a century
resulting in long series of contributions, varying from short notes to
books and addressing various aspects of the ancient trade from different
theoretical perspectives. Thus, what is the reason for attempting another
study? My aim will be at relation between persons involved in trade and
the state and city institutions during the 2nd millennium BC. The begin-
ning of this period is evidencing a serious change in structure of the
Mesopotamian economy. The oikos-type estates, predominant in the 3rd
millennium BC, have lost much of their importance. Instead the state
economy is using mainly another paradigm, called by Johannes Renger
“tributary economy” (Renger 1994, 2000, 2002, 2003). Not going into
particularities, this type of economy is characterized by relation between
obligations toward the state and usufruct of land apportioned by state as
remuneration for fulfilling these obligations. It is, in my opinion, a mat-
ter of interest to know how this substantial structural change influenced
position and activities of people professionally involved into trade. It is
obvious that the subject is a very wide one, fitting more for a book than a
conference lecture, consequently I am going to offer you only some high-
lights on the topic now, hoping to present a fuller study in the future.
One of the most often discussed matters, brought to Assyriology by
theoretical studies of Karl Polanyi, is the question of market (Polanyi
1957:16–17; 1981:78–79). Before going deeper into the subject of my lec-
ture, it is necessary to make a distinction between ‘a market’ (in Singular)
understood as an abstract concept used for various economical analyses

* Research on the topic presented in this paper was possible due to a research
grant No. 109 04331/3637 provided by the Department of Scientific Research,
Ministry of Science and High Education, Republic of Poland. The text was set in
Kunew TrueType font provided kindly by prof. Michael Jursa from the Vienna
University.
82 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

for describing complex interrelations between supply, demand, equiva-

lent and price, and ‘markets’ (in Plural) a term referring to specific lo-
cation where the transactions of sale, buy and exchange take place. 1
Presence of both ‘market’ and ‘markets’ in Antiquity have been dis-
missed by Polanyi for reasons too wide to be discussed here. Several
scholars demonstrated that certain elements of market and markets ex-
isted in Mesopotamia as early as the turn of the 3rd millennium BC at
the latest. It is again too broad of a problem to go into details, I will
only quote Steinkeller’s opinion of 2004, that even during the IIIrd
Dynasty of Ur period people receiving grain, oil and wool rations from
the oikos-type institutions needed to acquire other necessary products
(food, tools, etc.) by means of exchange (Steinkeller 2004:95–96). It is
also enough to mention that there is evidence that profit was an objec-
tive of entrepreneurs in the field of trade as reflected by Babylonian
didactic texts commented by Hallo (Hallo 1992), phraseology of Old
Assyrian letters discussed by Veenhof (Veenhof 1987) and corrobo-
rated by investment contracts, which stipulate division of profit (nēme-
lum) from the Old Assyrian period on (Garelli 1963:52–53; Robertson
1993). I would rather propose a different approach, taking into ac-
count two aspects of trading activities: namely relations between insti-
tutions and traders and origin of goods or capital put into circulation
by merchants.

Institutions
The “tributary” economical system of the 2nd millennium Mesopotamia
was organized along lines allowing the central institution to transfer
large part of the burden of organization and administration of produc-
tion and production itself, as well as storage, on the dependent people
of various professions. As a result, the central institution, that is palace,
collected taxes and contracted quota of agricultural products and silver
(Fig. 1).
The relation of traders to the palace is well evidenced by the cu-
neiform texts for the most of the 2nd millennium BC. Only for the
Old Assyrian period there is reason to doubt into existence of insti-
tutional traders (Dercksen 2000:137, 139). Neither temple nor pal-
ace archives of this period have been uncovered (Pedersén 1985:27),
consequently all merchants mentioned in the correspondence and

1
For the most recent discussion on the notion of ‘market’ cf. Seri 2005:40–46.
 R. Koliński, Between City Institutions and Markets… 83

economic texts from Kanish in Anatolia represent private trading

companies, basing on the family ties. Kings and crown-princes of As-
sur, as well as some priests, invested privately in the trade, what may
suggest lack of the “institutional” trade during this period (Dercksen
2000:137–140).

Fig. 1. Old Babylonian palace: sources of income

In Babylonia, dependency of some merchants on the central insti-

tution is obvious: they appear either in the palace ration lists (for in-
stance OBLAT 67) or as recipients of the subsistence plots issued by
the ruler/palace administrators (TCL 7, 3 = AbB 4, 3). Letters in
which various kings summon ‘overseers of merchants’ from Ur,
Larsa and Sippar to deposit due deliveries to the palace in Babylon
(AbB 2, 33 and 68) constitute another proof of this relation (Stol
2004:897–98). Yet, in most cases merchants were not directly linked
to the palace, but formed their own, specific institution, i. e. kārum
(Kraus 1982).
84 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Fig. 2. Sale of natural products of palace via merchants belonging to kārum

The word kārum originally designated a quay or area adjacent to a

quay, but during the early 2nd millennium it acquired other meanings:
community of merchants or a part of a city where this community re-
sided. More than dozen kārum’s is mentioned to exist in Old Babylonian
texts, of which these of Sippar, Larsa and Ur are the best known (Stol
2004:874–879). Gleanings from the Sippar (Charpin 1982) and Larsa
(Stol 1982) texts demonstrate they have hierarchic structure with an
‘overseer of merchants’ (UGULA DAM.GÀR) at the head, some middle rank
officials designated ‘responsible for a group of five’ (UGULA NAM.5), a
number of ordinary merchants and probably also a number of retail
agents (šamallû). There are reasons to believe that the ‘overseer of mer-
chants’ needed not to pursue a profession of merchant himself (as it was
in the case of Utu-šumundib of Sippar, who appears in many texts as a
judge, cf. Leemans 1950:102–103) what qualifies this title as a mainly
administrative function. Main activity of the traders forming kārum was
selling of a part of palace income in naturalia on the local markets (Fig. 2)
or making purchases on the palace orders (Fig. 3). In the first case, trad-
 R. Koliński, Between City Institutions and Markets… 85

ers often picked up products directly from the producers, usually holders
of the palace plots, consequently they are regarded by some scholars as
tax-collectors. Some merchants of kārum ventured also international trade
for instance between Sippar and Ešnunna/Susa or between Ur and Dil-
mun (Leemans 1960:18–56, 85–113). Yet in Mari, for instance, there is
no evidence for presence of kārum, and the international trade was car-
ried out by merchants working for palace but also by the agents of the
king (for instance in text A.3907) (Kupper 1989; Michel 1996). In such
cases commodities for sale were provided by the palace and goods pur-
chased abroad had been deposited in the palace as well and promptly
noted in the palace archives.

Fig. 3. Purchase of goods on behalf of the palace via kārum

Old Assyrian kārum’s in Anatolia seem to be an institution of a differ-

ent type, both in aspect of its organization and of its activities and will be
discussed later on.
It has to be stressed, that there is very little evidence for existence of
kārum as organization of traders in the second part of the 2nd millen-
nium BC. It is not mentioned neither in Middle Assyria, Nuzi nor Kassite
86 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Babylonia (although names consisting the element kār—quay, are quite

popular, mainly in conjunction with a name of a god). The only re-
minder of its role as commercial establishment survived probably in the
title rabī kārim, appearing once in a Middle Assyrian text but more popu-
lar in the 1st millennium, when it described a custom officer collecting
fees on waterways (CAD K 239).
Temples were economic units of an organization similar to that of the
palace, though smaller in scale. There is Old Babylonian evidence, dis-
cussed by D. Charpin, that they exchanged products via traders belonging
to kārum in an exactly the same way as the palace did (Charpin 1982:49–57).
Private households seem to be relatively small throughout the first
part of the 2nd millennium BC. If they were engaged in trade, it was an
activity of the owner of the household sometimes in cooperation with his
family members. Only in the second part of the millennium some wealthy
families, usually related to the royal houses, were in possession of much
more extensive estates, which were organized and administered like pal-
aces in miniature (for instance that of Šilwa-Tešup in Nuzi, cf. Morrison
1974, or of Ilī-padâ in the Middle Assyrian state, cf. Akkermans 2006). In
such cases “professional” traders responsible for selling and acquiring
goods were sometimes members of the households, for instance Ummani
for Šilwa-Tešup (HSS 9, 36 and 154) (Zaccagnini 1977:179–180) and
anonymous persons leading caravans for Ilī-padâ, ‘grand-daughter’ and
‘big ones’ (letter T 93–20 from Tell Sabi Abyad) (Faist 2001:96).
Tablets of the Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian period evidence
presence of a various bodies of local authorities typical for the cities, in-
dependent of the state (or better royal) administration. The head of the
city, rabiānum (later ¶azannum), the city elders (šībūt ālim), the city assem-
bly (pu¶rum) and the city (ālum) functioned in most if not all of the cities
of Mesopotamia of early 2nd millennium BC. These institutions had been
studied recently by J. G. Dercksen for Assyria (2004) and by Andrea Seri
(2005) for Babylonia.
While the mentioned bodies have only limited economical role in
Babylonia (administration of communal property and sometimes collect-
ing taxes) they played important role in judicial matters pertaining to its
citizens. According to Andrea Seri, ‘overseer of merchants’ belonged to
the City Assembly, probably representing in it state administration and it
is very likely that merchants were members of the other mentioned bod-
ies (Seri 2005:170–75). Apparently, this was the reason merchants and
other members of the city elite often appeared as witnesses to contracts of
 R. Koliński, Between City Institutions and Markets… 87

various types, beside the city mayor, the elders and some royal officers.
The ‘overseer of merchants’ and merchants are in such cases always
identified by their function and often use personal cylinder seals. Their
names appear usually in the upper part of the witness list (Goddeeris
2002:426–427), pointing indirectly to their elevated position in local
communities. There can be various reasons for this fact:
– firstly, merchants, because of their relation to the palace had semi-
official standing,
– secondly, carrying their business among local population were prob-
ably well known and knew most of the city citizens,
and
– finally, kārum in the later part of the Old Babylonian period became also
a court, as reflected by evidence collected by Kraus (1982:33–35).

A special case is represented by the Old Assyrian institutions of the

City State of Assur and kārum’s located in Anatolia, first of all the kārum of
Kanish. According to the recent study by Dercksen, bīt ālim or City Hall
of Assur and bīt kārim of Kanish have similar structure and performed
similar tasks (Dercksen 2004:5–39, 76–98). For this reason there was no
need for kārum in Assur. Both these institutions were led by līmum-
officials, both acted on behalf of the community convention. While it is
not clear how well were the merchants represented in the City Assembly
of Assur, it may be assumed that Assembly of the kārum of Kanish was
composed exclusively of merchants.
Institutions of the City of Assur and of the kārum of Kanish had similar
functions:
– they represented interests of Assyrian traders towards the Anatolian
and North Syrian rulers. Treaties and oaths sworn always in the
presence of representatives of both institutions created judicial en-
vironment in which merchants could safely pursue their business
(Veenhof 2003a:85–89; 2008:190–200);
– they acted as a court of justice and had power to seize property of a
debtor or to force guarantees to pay the debt (City Hall: Dercksen
2004:40–51; kārum: Larsen 1976:327–331);
– they could set, collect and suspense taxes and limit trade in certain
commodities (City Hall: Larsen 1976:197–198; Veenhof 2003a:98–
102; Assembly: Larsen 1976:170–191; Veenhof 2003a:89–98; kārum:
Veenhof 2003a:103–105; Dercksen 2004:110–117);
– they kept records of trading transactions as well as accounts of at
least some traders, dubbed (awīlum ša nikassī) ‘man of accounts’
(City Hall: Dercksen 2004:76, 86–88; kārum: Larsen 1976:310–319;
Dercksen 2004:121–124, 191–230);
– they credited trade (Dercksen 2004:119–147, 181–190).
88 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

The only substantial difference was in the field of trading activities.

While the City Hall of Assur has monopoly in trade of some commodities
imported from Babylonia (textiles) or via Babylonia from Suza and Iran
(tin, lapis lazuli) (Dercksen 2004:14–25; Michel 2001a:350–351), the
kārum of Kanish did not enjoy such a privilege. On the other hand, it
acted as an intermediary in transactions between merchants and local
palaces: the payment by Anatolian officials was not handed down to the
trader, but deposited in kārum from which he could pick it up (Veenhof
2003a:105). The kārum of Kanish organized also šitapkum sales of goods
deposited by merchants, probably answering orders of Anatolian palaces
(Dercksen 2004:132–147). The above mentioned difference was obviously
a result of the location of kārum in Anatolia.
The differences between the Old Assyrian kārum and its Old Babylo-
nian namesake are obvious, but are in fact not structural. Both these in-
stitutions were meant to administer and to facilitate trade. But while in
quite well articulated hierarchical tributary system typical for Babylonia
in which role of the palace was dominating, kārum was dependent to the
palace and first of all responsible for trade in palace goods, while in As-
sur, where the economic role of the palace seems to be very limited,
kārum (and bīt ālim) seem to have much more independent position. In
consequence, they are involved nearly exclusively in activities on behalf
of the “non-institutional” trade.
It has been recently demonstrated by Steinkeller, that trading activi-
ties of the Old Babylonian merchants seem to be organized in a way
analogous to the system of the Ur III state. Ur III merchants, supervised
by an ‘overseer’ UGULA, acted for the Fiscal Office (Steinkeller’s term)
and performed exactly the same business activities as their later name-
sakes did (Steinkeller 2004:109–110).2 It may be assumed that Old Assyr-
ian system was another adaptation of the Ur III pattern, fitting to the
particular conditions of the City of Assur.
Lack of kārum organizations in the later part of the 2nd millennium
BC has to be related to different position of the merchant himself. He
seems to be much more closely linked to some institution, be it royal (cen-
tral) palace, regional palace or large private estate. Merchants are listed
among personnel receiving rations, which is in contrast to the situation in
the Old Babylonian period, when they seemed to be tenants of suste-
nance fields.

2
Cf. Steven Garfinkle’s contribution in this volume.
 R. Koliński, Between City Institutions and Markets… 89

Financing of trade ventures

Merchants carrying out their business on behalf of an institution were us-
ing goods provided by this institution and were supposed to settle their
accounts with it, depositing either agreed amount of silver or acquired
goods (as is reflected by documents formulated as loan contracts). They
circulated goods belonging to the institution and did not have to bother
in securing capital to pursue their business. Yet, it is commonly accepted,
that institutional traders, especially those going into longer commercial
trips, carried out trading activities of their own. One possibility was to
make purchases on order submitted by someone; in such case the price
of ordered goods was handed to the trader and a loan contract of “ana
ŠÁM” type signed (Skaist 1994:72–77, 92–93). This kind of arrangement is
typical for slave trade and, in the Late Bronze Age, for the horse trade as
well.
Another activity of traders was to “speculate,” investing silver in goods
to be sold at their destination place or bartered for other commodities to
be sold when back home. This kind of enterprise, aiming at immediate
profit, was conducted either using private capital or capital belonging to
other people or institutions and entrusted to merchant for the purpose of
tamkārūtu, i. e. trade activities. Correspondence of the Old Assyrian mer-
chants reflected constant need for extra capital to invest into their trade
(for instance: TCL 3, 26:7).
There were several possible sources of credit available: partners or
friends, investors, money-lenders, temples and institutions like kārum.
Loans among friends are evidenced mainly among the Old Assyrian
merchants and served rather to solve financial difficulties resulting from
due debts or taxes, or over-investment, than to finance new trading ex-
peditions. As described by Veenhof, this kind of loan was often described
as “favour” and was interest free (Veenhof 1999:57–58).
An obvious possibility was a credit against the interest. Such loans
were often issued at ‘merchants house’ (bīt tamkārim), in this case tamkārum
being rather a professional money lender than a trader. Loans at ‘mer-
chant’s house’ are evidenced in Old Assyrian (Veenhof 1999:67–69) and
in the Old Babylonian sources (Mari included), first of all in letters. The
loan contracts and law regulations (Hammurapi’s Laws §§ 49–51, a, t, v–z
according to Roth’s edition, 1997) referred to merchant as money-lender,
but never mentioned bīt tamkārim. A scale of money lending business may
be illustrated by “Sammelurkunde” of Alahum (kt c/k 839), collecting in-
formation on uncollected debts from a period of 15 years between KEL
90 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

84 and KEL 98 (ca. 1894–1877, middle chronology)3 (Donbaz 1984). It lists

62 claims amounting together well over 270 minas of silver. A separate
group of loan contracts is composed of loans issued for the purpose of a
commercial trip, usually provided with stipulation, that the loan will be re-
turned after successful return from a trip. This kind of arrangement is
typical for qīptum loan contracts (Skaist 1994:45–47) and tappûtum contracts
of the Old Babylonian period (Tyborowski 1999:126, 130–132) but occurs
also during the Late Bronze Age (for instance AASOR 16, 79 from Nuzi).
Its Old Assyrian variation was ellatum-contract, by which capital was en-
trusted to a person to perform one, rarely two (EL 216; ATHE 64; AKT 3,
28), go-and-return trips either to Assur or to Kanesh (Larsen 1967:44–70).
It is interesting to observe that in Babylonia loans for commercial purposes
were exempted from periodical mēšarum-edict cancellations (though inter-
est on such loans was cancelled), as stated in the Edict of Ammi´aduqa (§ 8–
9) and Edict of Anonymous ruler (§ B–C) (Finkelstein 1969).
Another substantial group of credit related contracts are arrange-
ments, by which investors entrusted significant amount of silver or gold
to a merchant for a determined period of time (from a few months only
up to twenty years). The terminology of specific contract types in Assyria
and in Babylonia differs. The basic long term investment types in Assyria
were naruqqum and ebu¢¢um. Naruqqu allowed to gather a considerable
capital (up to 30 minas of gold calculated at the rate 1 mina gold = 4 mi-
nas of silver) entrusted for a period of 10 or 12 years (Larsen 1999;
Dercksen 1999:92–97). Naruqqu-contracts stipulate the following division
of profit: ⅓ will be divided between investors, ⅓ will be used by the
holder, and the remaining ⅓ being most probably capitalized for re-
payment of the loan (at the rate of 8 minas of silver per mina of gold).
The conditions of the ebu¢¢u loans are not entirely clear; shares were
smaller and expressed in silver and the term of the contract could be
even 20 years (Dercksen 1999:97–98).
The basic form of Babylonian investment loan was tappûtu/
(NAM).TAB.BA partnership (Tyborowski 1999:105–197). The capital was
provided by ummiānu(s), who was/were either wealthy person(s), or mer-
chant (as indicated by repayment at the kārum), by temple (god as credi-
tor and other gods as witnesses) and rarely by nadītu (repayment at the
cloister gate). The length of the contract was usually limited to a single
trip. Instead of interest, trader and investors divided profit of the enter-

3
Dates according to Veenhof 2003b, corrected by Veenhof 2007.
 R. Koliński, Between City Institutions and Markets… 91

prise. Single cases of tappūtu are known from the Old Assyrian texts as
well (Michel 2001b:314–315).
Finally, there existed some forms of credit used exclusively to facilitate
trade. One of such loans was tadmiqtum, issued either as separate loan or a
condition pertaining to part of capital. According to Veenhof (1999:57–
58), it was an interest free loan in order to make the best possible profit
and could consist of either silver and merchandise. A similar type of
credit arrangement was Old Assyrian qīptum which was either silver or
merchandise entrusted to a person for a limited period of time (usually a
few months). The interest on such loan accrued only if it had not been
returned in term (Veenhof 1999:59). This kind of contract is well known
in Babylonia, where it was usually marked by use of ŠU.LÁ/qīptum term
(Skaist 1994:41–51). Finally, kārum of Kanesh offered to some of its mem-
bers (šaqil dātim) possibility to deposit jointly (šitapkum) (Dercksen
2004:132–147). Certain quota of merchandise were deposited in the kā-
rum for a purpose of community trade and the price of these goods was
balanced on the account of the merchant even before they were sold.

Fig. 4. Prices and opportunities for profit in the Old Assyrian Trade
(based on Dercksen 1996; 2004; Larsen 1967; Veenhof 2003a)
92 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Trade and profit, institutional and private

Without a full prosopographic study of cuneiform documents it is impos-
sible to demonstrate that the Old Babylonian merchants belonging to
palace/kārum institutions ventured also “private” trade on their own ex-
pense. This seems to be natural from our modern point of view, as natu-
ral as conviction that doing business means gaining profit. It has to be
remarked that in the Mesopotamian trade of at least the first part of the
2nd millennium BC such a motivation played significant role as well.
Ample evidence of commercial loans, with typical interest rate of 30% in
both Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian contracts and reaching even 50%
in Nuzi texts, demonstrate that traders needed to make profit out of the
trade, at least big enough to pay the expenses and interest (the commer-
cial loans were not subjects to mēšarum annulations!). In the case of the
Old Assyrian trade gain from a single go-and-return trip to Anatolia was
evaluated at a level of 100% to 200% of the initial capital, depending on
which of alternative chains of exchange in Anatolia was used (Dercksen
1996:180–181; Veenhof 2003a:114–116). Thus, it is obvious that the long
distance trade, despite all the risks, was a very efficient way of obtaining
wealth (Fig. 4).
The 2nd millennium BC period, due to the structural changes in
economy, created more suitable conditions for exchange in comparison
to the IIIrd Dynasty of Ur period, and the ample documentation per-
taining to the non-institutional trading and financing trade demonstrate
that markets existed, as well as a number of people brave enough or
ruthless enough to make profit out of this situation. Institutions have
clearly other aims than profit: either converting perishable goods into sil-
ver, or obtaining goods and materials needed. One of the difficulties in
analysing this phenomenon is that divisions between institutional and
non-institutional activities are not clear cut. The distinction between “in-
stitutional” and “private” transactions is possible only when there is evi-
dence concerning ownership of merchandise sold, or capital used for
purchases. Merchants at the same time belong to central administration,
selling and buying palace goods, to kārum, were appear as creditors, to a
city, where they join the city assembly and collegiums of judges and,
finally, they operate as independent entrepreneurs pursuing their own
business. If I may propose a modern analogy for their status, doctors in
contemporary Poland divide their time between state-owned hospitals
and private practice after hours, combining in this way acting on institu-
tional and non-institutional level.
 R. Koliński, Between City Institutions and Markets… 93

References
Akkermans 2006 Akkermans, P. The Fortress of Ilī-padâ: Middle Assyrian
Excavations at Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. Butterlin, P.; Le-
beau, M.; Müller, B. (eds.). Les espaces syro-mésopotamiens.
Dimensions de l’expérience humaine au Proche-Orient ancient.
Volume d’hommage offert à Jean-Claude Margueron (Subartu
XVII). Turnhout. Pp. 201–211.
Charpin 1982 Charpin, D. Marchands du palais et marchands du tem-
ple à la fin de la Ire dynastie de Babylone. JA 270:25–65.
Charpin 2005 Charpin, D. Les dieux prêteurs dans le Proche-Orient
Ammorite (c. 2000–1600 av. J.-C.). Topoi 12–13:13–34.
Dercksen 1996 Dercksen, J. G. The Old Assyrian Copper Trade in Anatolia
(PIHANS LXXV). Istanbul.
Dercksen 2000 Dercksen, J. G. Institutional and Private in the Old As-
syrian Period. Bongenaar, A. C. V. M. (ed.). Interdepen-
dency of Institutions and Private Entrepreneurs (MOS St 2 =
PIHANS LXXXVII). Istanbul. Pp. 135–152.
Dercksen 2004 Dercksen, J. G. Old Assyrian Institutions (MOS St 4 =
PIHANS XCVIII). Istanbul.
Donbaz 1984 Donbaz, V. New Evidence on the Reading of the Old As-
syrian Month-name Kanwarta with an Edition of the
Memorandum kt c/k 839. JEOL 28:3–9.
Faist 2001 Faist, B. I. Der Fernhandel des assyrischen reiches zwischen
dem 14. und 11. Jh. v. Chr. (AOAT 265). Münster.
Finkelstein 1969 Finkelstein, J. J. The Edict of Ammi´aduqa. Pritchard,
J. B. (ed.). The Ancient Near East Texts Relating to the Old
Testament. Supplement. Princeton. Pp. 526–528.
Garelli 1963 Garelli, P. Les assyriens en Cappadoce. Paris.
Goddeeris 2002 Goddeeris, A. Economy and Society in Northern Babylonia in
the Early Old Babylonian Period (ca. 2000–1800 B. C.) (OLA
109). Leuven.
Hallo 1992 Hallo, W. W. Trade and Traders in the Ancient Near
East: Some New Perspectives. Charpin, D.; Joannès, F.
(eds.). La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans
la Proche-Orient ancien. Actes de la XXXVIIIe Rencontre As-
syriologique Internationale (Paris, 8–10 julliet 1991). Paris.
Pp. 351–356.
Jakob 2003 Jakob, S. Mittelassyrische Verwaltung und Sozialstruktur: Un-
tersuchungen (CM 23). Leiden–Boston.
Kraus 1982 Kraus, F. R. Kārum, ein Organ städtischer Selbstverwaltung
der altbabylonischer Zeit. Finet, A. (ed.). Les pouvoirs locaux
en Mésopotamie. Colloque organisée par l’Institute des Hautes
Etudes de Belgique, 28 et 29 janvier 1980. Bruxelles. Pp. 29–42.
Kupper 1989 Kupper, J.-R. Les marchands à Mari. Lebeau, M.; Talon, P.
(eds.). Reflets des deux fleuves. Volume de mélanges offerts à An-
dré Finet (Akkadica Sup VI). Leuven. Pp. 89–93.
94 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Larsen 1967 Larsen, M. T. Old Assyrian Caravan Procedures (PIHANS

XXII). Istanbul.
Larsen 1976 Larsen, M. T. The Old Assyrian City State and its Colonies
(Mesopotamia 4). Copenhagen.
Larsen 1999 Larsen, M. T. Naruqqu-Verträge. RlA 7:181–184.
Leemans 1950 Leemans W. F. The Old-Babylonian Merchant, His Business
and His Social Position (Studia et documenta ad iura ori-
entis antiqui pertinentia III). Leiden.
Leemans 1960 Leemans W. F. Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period
(Studia et documenta ad iura orientis antiqui pertinentia
VI). Leiden.
Michel 1996 Michel, C. La commerce dans les textes de Mari. Du-
rand, J.-M. (ed.). Amurru 1:385–426.
Michel 2001a Michel, C. Le lapis-lazuli des assyriens au début du IIe
millénaire av. J.-C. Van Soldt, W. H. et al. (eds.). Veenhof
Anniversary Volume. Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on
the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday (PIHANS LXXXIX).
Istanbul. Pp. 341–360.
Michel 2001b Michel, C. Correspondance des marchands de Kanish au début
du IIe millénaire av. J.-C. (LAPO 19). Paris.
Morrison 1974 Morrison, M. A. Šilwa-Tešup: A Portrait of a Hurrian
Prince. Unpublished PhD. thesis. Brandeis University.
Pedersén 1985 Pedersén, O. Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur
(SSU 6). Uppsala.
Polanyi 1957 Polanyi, K. Marketless Trading in Hammurabi’s Time.
Polanyi, K. et al. (eds.). Trade and Market in Early Empires—
Economies and History and Tradition. New York–London.
Pp. 12–26.
Polanyi 1981 Polanyi, K. The Livelihood of Man. London–New York.
Renger 1994 Renger, J. On Economic Structures in Ancient Mesopo-
tamia. Or NS 63:157–208.
Renger 2000 Renger, J. Das Palastgeschäft in der altbabylonischer
Zeit. Bongenaar, A. C. V. M. (ed.). Interdependency of In-
stitutions and Private Entrepreneurs (MOS St 2 = PIHANS
LXXXVII). Istanbul. Pp. 153–183.
Renger 2002 Renger, J. Wirtschaftgeschichte des Alten Mesopota-
miens: Versuch einer Standortbestimmung. Hausleiter,
A. et al. (eds.). Material Culture and Mental Spheres. Rezep-
tion archäologischer Denkrichtungen in der Vorderasiatischen
Altertumskunde. Interantionales Symposium für Hans J. Nis-
sen. Berlin, 23–24 Juni 2000. Münster. Pp. 239–265.
Renger 2003 Renger, J. Trade and Market in the Ancient Near East.
Theoretical and Factual Implications. Zaccagnini, C.
(ed.). Trade and Politics in the Ancient World. Rome.
Pp. 15–40.
Robertson 1993 Robertson, J. F. On Profit-seeking, Market-orientations,
and Mentality in the Ancient Near East. JAOS 113:437–443.
 R. Koliński, Between City Institutions and Markets… 95

Roth 1997 Roth, M. T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Mi-
nor. Atlanta.
Seri 2005 Seri, A. Local Power in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia (Stud-
ies in Egyptology and the Ancient Near East). London.
Skaist 1994 Skaist, A. The Old Babylonian Loan Contract. Its History and
Geography. Ramat-Gan.
Steinkeller 2004 Steinkeller, P. Toward a Definition of Private Economic
Activity in Third Millennium Babylonia. Rollinger, R.;
Ulf, C. (eds.). Commerce and Monetary Systems in the Ancient
World: Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction (Me-
lammu Symposia V). Innsbruck. Pp. 91–111.
Stol 1982 Stol, M. State and Private Business in the Land of Larsa.
JCS 34:127–230.
Stol 2004 Stol, M. Wirtschaft und Geselschaft in altbabylonischer
Zeit. Attinger, P. et al. (eds.). Mesopotamien: die altbabyloni-
sche Zeit (OBO 160/4). Fribourg–Göttingen. Pp. 643–975.
Tyborowski 1999 Tyborowski, W. Taputtûm. Investment and Agricultural
Associations of the Old Babylonian Period. Unpublished
PhD. Thesis. University of Poznań.
Veenhof 1987 Veenhof, K. R. ‘Dying Tablets’ and ‘Hungry Silver’. Ele-
ments of Figurative Language in Akkadian Commercial
Terminology. Mindlin, M. et al. (eds.). Figurative Lan-
guage in the Ancient Near East. London. Pp. 41–75.
Veenhof 1997 Veenhof, K. R. ‘Modern Features’ in Old Assyrian
Trade. JESHO 40:336–366.
Veenhof 1999 Veenhof, K. R. Silver and Credit in the Old Assyrian
Trade. Dercksen, J. G. (ed.). Trade and Finance in Ancient
Mesopotamia (MOS St 1 = PIHANS LXXXIV). Istanbul.
Pp. 55–83.
Veenhof 2003a Veenhof, K. R. Trade and Politics in Ancient Assur. Bal-
ancing of Public, Colonial and Entrepreneurial Interest.
Zaccagnini, C. (ed.). Trade and Politics in the Ancient
World. Rome. Pp. 69–118.
Veenhof 2003b Veenhof, K. R. The Old Assyrian List of Year Eponyms from
Karum Kanish and its Chronological Implications. Ankara.
Veenhof 2007 Veenhof, K. R. The Old Assyrian List of Year Epo-
nyms. Corrections, Additions and Chronology. NABU
2007/49.
Zaccagnini 1977 Zaccagnini, C. The Merchant at Nuzi. Iraq 39:171–189.
 ! " #$ $ %&'

( () *+ , + - , .
/ 0 + 1 2 +3 + 4 # 5 $
+ 1 + 65 7
8 9+ : 8+ . 2 7 +;
< 67 < " < = + 2
:+ ,2 2 + )+ ,4 8 +
2 > + # : 0 7 > ? 9+ : 9
2 . () 9$ 2 / . /
7 7 @7 2 + 2
( + + 7 8
<<= 9 + . & 22 A + +
B C/A / , +2
D
# +# , 2+ 2+ 9 . + +
+ 2 7 +; 7 :+ < =
8 2 9 . 2 .
/ 0 9 2+4 ( E$ 7 2 . < = 8

@ + 2 > 2 +8 F7 A 2+ 9 + +
? 88 9 3 + 2 D6667 @ 1
7* (
8, + 9$ 2 2+ 9 + 2
+ + . / 0 4 ) + + D66!
D66G 4 2+ 9 + + 1 +
+ 3 . / 0 2 + 8+ 7 +;
D66 , D66= D66 1 2 7
87 , 7 @7 A 8 + . / 0 , < 7 ! < = H = " GI
7A 8 + . / 0 A / 5, < =" 7 = <!6 HDD" 7
D
$55 ( 2 J7
&+ 9 2 + + + <<=,
87 C/A /, 227 "!7
< )$ + $ * '

> , 7 +; + + 3 8+
A / 57
K2 <<<, + 1 2 8+ 2 +
+ :+ ,1 4 2 2 +
$ 4 () + + +. 4 9 >.
() . 2 2 +8 F A 7 %,
, + + 2 D6667! &
, 8 . 3 2+ H + D66
8+ <7 7"7 2 3 , + D66D 8+
= 7 7"7 , + : + 8 , >
+ + 6 3 88 7G 2 , 8 ) :+
+ + 7 $ + , 9 . 2 D66 3 4
2 + 2 2 9 > 7
. + + > 2 + 2
2 1 . 2 . 8+ + + ,
2 .+ 7 9 . :+
D666 D66D, + D ! 3 8 . , 2
A , F7I / . +, $7 77 7 7
!""""!""! 7 #
$% & 7 + "& " )
$ , D66 B / %%% 7 ( D66 D66! 9+ 2
3 , 2 D66G 4 2 . + +
7 $ , + 6 2 . 2 2 D66 , G=
8+ + 2> + 8 . 8 +
9 2 4 3 2
C/A / / %%%7
+ + . / 0 2 4 3 +
3 8 4 9 2+4 +)
# +2+ , +) 2 ( E$ ,
> @7 7 =<D" ==G 7 @7 7 9 2 > + + +. +
=
) 7 + 3 3 + 2 9 ? 4

!
87 A , F7 & + + 3 + +. 4 + 7 / %%%,
7 , 227 " G7
G
87 / %%%, 27 D6!7
87 , 7I $ 1, $7 . / 0 7 '( %
D66 LG 7
=
+ + +. 2 , 7I M . , *7 #
) $ N O7& , D66 , 27 D D7
 7 , $ P <<

. / 0 1 9 $Q 55 7 K 9 2+4 , 9
9% 7 9%Q E 1R $ ,$
O, G B $&C =, = 6 , 4 4
9$Q 55 8 2 9% 2 7 "=H
5
+ 2 . * -ı0ı
A 2 T, U 2 V W$X A Y) .+
O Z 7< ( 9 + 9$Q 55 + + 2+
2 + , + 2+ 9 2+4 M E E
6
==G" = D 7 @7 7 7
+ + 2 . / 0 + 2
9 22 +8+ + + 9 + 9 2+4
+) # +2+ , + V 4 2 ,[ '
A , 9 2 4 9+ 9 1 ) +
2+ 2+4 7 9 ) + + . +
> + 22+ 8+ + + 1 .
/ 0 2 + + + + . + 7
$ , + + 4 . / 0 , 9 $Q 55 ,
. 2 (\ 4EQ 4 + +
2 + 7 2 , 4 + , + 2
2+2 + 8 2+ . 2 ]^ _7 3
3 8 + 2 9 + +
+ . + H . > 7
2 2 + +
3 , + 88 , 9 3 *
8 * 7' ? , + 2+ 3 22
9 + . / 0 + . +
+) # +2+ 7

87 , 7I $ 1, $7 + . / 0 7 / %%%,
7 =, 227 ! " G!7
<
O+ + 2 +2+ + + + . +.
2 4 2 @7 7 & 2 + 1 9 2+4 + 7 %
9 , * + , 7 77' #
( B $% ! 7 & , D66!, 227 D " DG, ` 7 7 7 &+ * , +
9 7 7* + ) 1 9 2+4
M \ \ , 5 , @7 7 77( + (
# C$$( 7 ) , D66 , 227 !!"!G7 &+ A Y) , + O +8, -7 7
$ + ' 2 C$$( 7 ) , D66 , 227 "D ]=7 A , 8+ .
)_7
6
87 N O D66 , 227 D G"D 8 +. 2 4 7
 66 )$ + $ * '

7
7 7 (\ 4EQ , . . / 0
. / 0 , 9 ) + + , 2 +
. 2 (\ 4EQ 7 (+ 2 V ? 2 +
+ + , < > $ 4
$C D! 7 (\ 4EQ ) . + W? /a $ ,
( E$ 9 '*7M ,- L %b c L d A - % 7
+ ? + . 8+ + 7 $ +
, 1 2+ + 2 +2 , + +
+ 2 3 3 / 5 Q , +e
D
W (\ 4EQ 97 9 2 , (\ 4EQ 8
+ :1 + . f 3 + 2 +;
87 8 ` 7 7
( (\ 4EQ . . / 0 , 2 + >
+ 2+ + 2 V .+ -* + :
9 2 2 27 8+ + 88 2
2 $2 (\ 9 2 > / %%%, <D / D HG - , . 7 ^
V 2, + 3 1
3 7
! .+ !
"L# L $ % == 7 @7 7 ! "L# L $ % == 7 @7 7 !
% 2 + /'Q ! % 2 + /'Q !
C/A / H C/A / <H ! C/A / H D C/A / <H !!
# L &' === 7 @7 7 ! (L L &' === 7 @7 7 !
!
+ . 2+ 8 ! 2 9 + > !
C/A / 6HG=, C/A / =GHG , / %%%, <D / D HG!
C/A / HG C/A / =HG6!
/7 + + 2+ (\ 4EQ 9$2 (\

8+ + (\ 4EQ + 7
$ , 9 2 + 4 9 + 9 9 1R
$ , #Y ) , 8+ + [ ' 7
, + 1 , 2 + 8 N O%%%, !
2 @7 7 7 (\ 4EQ #Y ) 8+ +

87 , 7I $ 1, $7 (\ 4EQ , . . / 0 7
/ %%%, 7 , 227 D "DD67
D
87 / %%%, 27 < '( 27 !6 '( < 7
87 / %%%, 227 D "D !, ` 7D7D7
!
87 / %%%, 227 D D"D , ` 7D7 27 D =, 7G7
 7 , $ P 6

2 2 8 + + 9 + + +
8 0 1 . / 0 7G 2 + D 3 8
/ %%%, 27 = 1 < , 4 + 2 :+ C/A / =, 2 )
V 2 N O%%%, ! + 1
+ 9 2+ ) 9$ Y 7
$ , + 3 3 . / 0 + + 8+
9 4 (\ 4EQ . V +
3 2+ + 2 + > 7 4 + 8+ +
2 ( E$ + + 2 3 , + 9 3 2
M # # 0 55Y + + ? 87 8 ` G7G 7

7D7 9 (\ 4EQ
f 1 9 ? + (\ 4EQ + . . / 0 ,
2+ 3 )2 + 1 +
H + , 9 + 2 , + . + 9 W 2
\ 9 *g 7 h+ 21 + G 3 + 2 I
+ > , . + W > 2+
3 3 9 G= 3 , 9 1 2+ + + +
2 + 7 3 . 2 2 H( E
$ 5 E, (\ Y [ Q E7 % + 9 . 9 +
-* 4 1 + i , V ) 9 9
2 V 8 3 + 8? 7=

7 7 (\ 4EQ
+ 3 3 + 22 . 4 (\ 4EQ 2+
9 4 > < 3 7 ( +
D66D > \ , + 3 3 + D66
<
+ 2 9 + + 2 + + + . + 7 ' +
+ 3 + .
2 9$ Y , + 2 4 (\ 4EQ 3

G
87 , 7I $ 1, $7 . / 0 + 0 7
/ %%%, 7 , 227 D<G" 7 3 + L L$ Y
DL L$ Y 7
87 , 7I $ 1, $7 9 (\ 4EQ H 2 >
2+ 8+ + ( E$ 7 / %%%, 7 D, 227 DD "D 7
=
87 / %%%, 227 D !"D =, ` D7D7!7
87 $ 1, $7 # (\ 4EQ 7 / %%%, 7 , 227 D <"D=<7
<
87 , 7I $ 1, $7 . / 0 7 '( %
D66 LG 7
 6D )$ + $ * '

2+ 2 2 H ,4 + , ,
2 + + 2 2 : 4 9 7 9 ,+
3 . j+ 8 ? 1> , 2 4 9
+ + 4 7D6 C 4 (\
4EQ . 4 4 2+ + 9\ ,
a E, / 5 E, [ Q 4EQ M bPc 2+
+ + HD 6 W. 9 D W2
97 ' ? , 9 2 > 3 + . 2
$ Y , (\ 4EQ + + 0 8 H 8 . j+ R
, ( , # V2 , # , ( )
\ , % , - Y , # k , # 3 ?
2 % 7DD (\ 4EQ + 9
+) 3 4 + 2 2 8+ 2
8 7 + !6 8 1 2+ + , 9 +
8+ + 2 7

7!7 + (\ 4EQ
+ + 8+ + ( E$ , (\ 4EQ 2+
+ 4 + + 2 + 3 DL 3 L* (\
=== 7 @7 7 H C/A / DG, C/A / ! C/A / <67D *+ +
4 9 1 '5 Y 2 V .+ 2 + a
M # Q ; 7 % + + 9
R ' 9 2 > C/A / ! 2 + + 9'5 Y
C/A / DG 1 :+ 2 + 4 +
9'5 Y , # Q ; a M 7 C/A / = ,
!Lb cLb$;E c) , + ? 8 , 2 4 2 2 .
+ 4 +) 1 '5 Y HD! R ' j
+ l 8 ! G + 9 $ $ 7
+ 9'5 Y 2+ , 9 2 > C/A / !, !
DG
+ , 8 8 + 3 4 2 . + W 9

D6
87 / %%%, 227 DG "DG!, ` 7 7 7 27 D , ` 7!7 7
D
87 / %%% G / !G G H " 7 O+ + , 7I $ 1, $7
. / 0 7 '( % D66 LG 7
DD
87 / %%%, 27 D =, 7G7
D
87 / %%%, 227 D "D , ` 7D7G7
D!
9 2 > . !, , <" 6 <"D6, 87 + + / %%%,
27 D =7
DG
% 8 + . / %%%, 27 D H 8 + + 3
8 A * (7 A +7 7
 7 , $ P 6

2 + 9 + 9 8 9 32 + + 33 '* $ H
- 2 +7 G % Q +7 G7
% 8 ? + C/A / <6,
+ 2+ 2 3 2 ,4 + + + +
+ + 2+ + 2 , 8
+ + 3 7D
A+ 1 + (\ 4EQ 4 2+
2 + +) # +2+ 7

)7
3 8 + 4 4 . / 0 +
9 W2 9 ^7 $ 3 7D= % 9 . > ,
D
9 2 > F7 A , 9 + 2 3 2 + 2 +
f +e 8 + +; < = 4
f + 8+ % 9+e 2 +
:+ 2 D6667 f
12 9 9 9 + 2 f +
+ . . + 2 + 2 V 9 7 f 3
+ , + 2 + 9+ . + + 2+ +
2+2 + 2 7

D7 7 2+2 + 8 2
*+ 2+ + 9 8+ + 2+2 + 2 . f 1 2
+ 4 3 + + .
2 ['7/$ 3 + + 9$ Y === 7
@7 7 H C/A / 6, C/A / =G, C/A / C/A / =7D< 3
32 7C + 9 + 2 + > 8
+ 2+ > 3 9'9 Y 76
' , G + + 33 + * (7$ % +
8 $ E E a , + = > 5$ + !.
* 7 9 DG + D 8 2 2
82 + + + 33 + * (7$ %

D
87 / %%%, 27 D 7
D=
C/A / ==, 7 <mH n/ 'G7 'G7 $ ^7 $ 3 W +
2 97
D
87 / %%%, 27 G7
D<
87 / %%%, 227 D D"D , ` 7D7 7
6
% 2+ . 0 9+ 3 87 8 ` 7 7
 6! )$ + $ * '

E a o E7 ' ? G + 2+ > 0 + *^7 , + 3 , +

7 3> 2 , 22 4
8 W +9 + 2 8 2 9 4
7
8 +
L L$ Y C/A / 6 =G $ 7$7*% d $ 7 '[ - 6
7 * (-
L L$ Y C/A / =G =G b c$ 7$7*% d $ 7 '[ - 6
7 * (-
L L$ Y C/A / = $ 7$7*% d $ == 7 '[ - 6
7 * (-
L L$ Y C/A / = G< 7 '[ d $
!7 + 8 ( E$
2 8 2 3 + .
2+ 2+2 + 2 ['7/$ 3

% 9 . 8 (\ 4EQ , EV M
, # E$
( ) 7 *+ + 2 8 (\ 4EQ +
7 &+ 8 , + 22 + 4 M E
V + 2+ /o + 4 8 ?
+ ? 7D# E$ 3 2+ ,R 2 ) R $) ,
4 + ? 3? 7 ' ? 8 ( ) ,
9 ? + + ,U 7 ' 88 ,
8 + 1 '5 Y 9 2 9 2 > / %%%,
6 / , <L L* (\ 7 !
% + 1 8 8 22 + 4 , + 1 , 4 9
> *7 M . + + . 9 2+4 M E
E , 3 2 > 38 7' + ,
88 , 4 ] 8 + 2 88
2 +8? 2 9 8 I 3
) + W 2 9 3 7_ G
3 2 , N %J, , + ? ) 7

&+ 3 , 87 / %%%, 27 D<, 7 <7

D
87 / %%%, 227 D!G"D! , ` 7D7 7 7
87 / %%%, 27 D! , ` 7D7 7D7
!
87 / %%%, 27 G, ` 7D7 , 227 D! "D!=I ` 7D7 7 227 " !I ` =7 7
-' +7 " D, + ? ? + * (\ L$
Y , 87 p ı, 7 $ '2+ ) -' 8 + -p 2 7 ( 7 G D66 H 6<7
G
87 M . , *7 8 9 : : N %O 7 & , <<<, 27 =7
87 M . , *7 $ & N %J 7
& , D66=, 27 , *+7 , + 1 . 7
 7 , $ P 6G

+ + + + , + + V +1 .
/ 0 , +e 3 + W2 9 2 +2 , +
+ 2 4 8 (\ 4EQ + 8+ + 7
2 + 1 + > 8 1 7

D7D7 . 2
2 . 7& + 3 3 , +
> 1 + 9 W^ 9 h7*% 7 '[
4 . 2+ 2 - -n 3; 7= %
+ . 2 + (\ 4EQ 7 ' 88 ,
2 2 > 4 9+ 2 8 3 ,
+e .+ + 8 2 . 2 + *
R $ 7 K + + +)+ , + 2+ , 4
2 4 4 + 2 +) 3 2 +
2 2 + 3 1 2 7

*7 & + ,
+ + 9 4 2 , 3 2 + 2+ 9
3W 39H . > 7
. > + + 8+ +
+ 9 + 8+ 8+ + 2+ +
9 + 7

7 7 .
. 2 + 8+
2 +; < < =7 $ + + < =, 4
+ 2 3 8 . C/A / D 1 C/A / D!, 8
+ :+ 4 3 C/A / , C/A / , C/A / !
C/A / G + 1 2 +3 $/ < 7
9+ . + > +
+ 2+ 9 22 2 7% 8 2 +
$ Y. , < + 8+ + 3 2+ + 2 + > 7 (
+ 2 9 . + . 1 H 2+
V :+ + 1 7K ,+ 2 9 )2+ >

=
87 / %%%, 27 6=, ` 7=7 7
87 -+22 , N7 + 2 C/A / ( ! "!= <<<"
D666 H = 7
<
87 / %%%, 227 DD "DD , ` D7 7!7
 6 )$ + $ * '

4 9 + 2+ . + 1
+ > 7 (9 + + . ,!6
2+ G6 l 8 7! % + 2+ 9 4
2 G W 9, 9 1 G1 4 2 . + 7%
+ + + 3 1 + 8 :+
i . + 9 . . /'Q 87 8
` G7D 7 ' + , $ Y. 2+ , + 2 +
2 , +e . + ( E$ 7!D
3 + . ,2 + + 2
,! + + 2+ + 9+ .
+ 7% + . >
2 + . 7 $ , > 4 + +
4 $ Y +) # +2+
, + 1 . / 0 , 22 . 1
. 7 $ + , . 3 (\ E %Q E +
7 & + 3 ,R $ ,
+ , 2 + 2+ / + 7
3 + ) 8 9+ : 2 , :
9 + 2 4 + 7!!
' ? , . f 3 + . 2+ 9 +
3, 9 9 . 9 . . 2
+ 7!G C . + 8 ` G7D , +
2+ R 5 ) ,! + + 7!= C

!6
87 C/A / D L L$ ) ) , 3 2 $ Y. 7 % +
+ . 2i 7 8 1 :+ / %%%, 27 DD ,
` D7 7!7D7
!
87 C/A / G 6L L$ Y , C/A / 6 L L$ Y C/A /
G= L L$ Y 7
!D
87 / %%%, 27 !6 '( 7
!
87 C/A / D L L$ Y 7
!!
87 C/A /, 227 !" =I -+22 , N7 ( ! "!= <<<"D666 H
.+ I N O D66 , 227 D " 6I / %%%, 227 D, " !, ` 67 7D7 C
2+ + - . , '7 5 $ +
. / 0 7 %7 D D666 HD! "D 6, 9 8 2 +
+ + 3 2 & 22 A + C/A /7
!G
87 C/A /, 227 " !7 O+ -+22 , N7 ( ! "!= <<<"D666 H
.+ / 7
!
87 2 C/A / 6 6L L$ Y 7 O+ C/A / D
L L$ Y C/A / !! L L$ Y 7
!=
C/A / G! L L$ Y , C/A / L L$ Y , C/A / G
L3 L$ Y C/A / ! L3 L$ Y 7 O+ 9 2 /7 +
 7 , $ P 6=

!
f 3,!< 2 . 2
-* 2 8 3 7G6 9 . . 0
$[7 K 9+ 3 ['* . + + 2+
9'9 Y 7G ' ? 2 . 3 7GD

7D7 >
> + + , 2 2
+ D66 D66D 3 + 7
2 + +3 + , 3 ) 8
7G ,1 88 . , + 2+ +
2 9 8+ + + + . + 7C 2 4
2+ 7 ' %E E $4 ,
9 9 + # Y ' 5 E7 ' $;E ) , ' 5 E
+ :+ 1, # Y 2 2 2 + +
2 $ 5 E Y ;E $ 7' * (\ , M 0 ) 8 + +
+ ' 5 E7
+ 2 + 9+ . 88 ,
8+ + 3 8+ + 4 >
+ 4 9+ . 2+ 8 4 7
& 3 2 , > + 4 -$[ (% G 1 . / 0
+ 2+ , 9 1 4 9 + 9+ . + + +
> 7 2 + 9 32 4 4 + 3
+ + V )2 > 7 9
+ D66 8+ <7 7"7 D66D 8+ = 7 7"7 2 3 2 4
+ + 2+ 4 9 + + > + 4 -$[ (% G 7 G!
2 +

7 9 . 2+ +2+ , () A .
%% ,+ , /7I , 7 77 <
7 # 7& , D66 , 227 <" 6 7
!
87 C/A / L L$ Y , C/A / D= L L$ Y , C/A / D
L L$ Y , C/A / G L3 L$ Y C/A / L3 L$ Y 7
!<
87 C/A / DD L L$ Y , C/A / =D L L$ Y C/A /
L 3 L$ Y 7
G6
87 C/A / L3 L$ Y C/A / < L3 L$ Y 7
G
87 C/A / D 6L L$ Y , C/A / G L3 L$ Y , C/A /
G< L3 L$ Y C/A / D< L3 L$ Y 7
GD
C/A / G L L$ Y , C/A / !D L L$ Y , C/A / D!
L L$ Y C/A / !6 L 3 L$ Y 7
G
87 + + 2 / %%%, 227 6" , ` 7D7!7 7
G!
87 / %%%, 227 D6 "D6G, ` 67G7 227 " ! ,$ 3 7
 6 )$ + $ * '

> 1 . / 0 , 4 9+ + 9
2+ 2 + 88 + 1A 2 3 2 7GG
9 2 , + ? 3 2+
> ,G 2+ 4 9 9 . 9+ .
G=
. , V + , V 2+ 9 +
9 + 2 + + . + 7

"7
3 3 + 8+ 2 +
2 2 7 + + 3 .
+ + . 4 + 2 + 4 2 .
3 2+ *
8 * 7

!7 7 3
3
+ 2 3 8 .
G
+ + . 2 8 . + +
7G< & 3 , C/A / G L L$ Y 2
+ 2> + , 9 2 > & 22 A + , + D =
6
3 h $M $ D7 '[ 6 * ( [7/$ , :+ 8 7
2 + . 2 , %
E R V 7 C 2 + 4 22 \ .
/ %%%, H , +e ? 9 + + >
9 +2 + 4 22+ 9 +88 7

!7D7 H * ,8 *
9 .+ 2 + 22 1 i 3
. + 8+ + . 2 2 7

GG
87 / %%%, 227 D6G"D6=, ` 67G7D7
G
87 / %%%, 27 D6 , ` 67!7 7
G=
87 O +8, -7 7 $ / !7 "/+ + , D66G,
27 DD67 O+ $ A !G = D7
G
87 C/A /, 227 ="D!I -+22 , N7 ( ! "!= <<<"D666 H =
.+ $7 7 8 + H C/A / G L L$ Y , C/A /
L L$ Y 7 2 2+ C/A / <!, C/A / 6 ,
C/A / , C/A / <, C/A / D C/A / D!7
G<
/ %%%, D6 / <D HDm, 4 + * ( [7/$ 7b '[c
2 2 + 7
6
87 , 7, + 2 C/A / +( D6 D666 HDGG 7
 7 , $ P 6<

+ 6 3 8 . ) .+ +
V + 2+ + 7 + . + 1 88
2 + + ,8 8 , 2 , 9 2 > 2 8
D
? , + .+ H * , 8 * 7 9 2 >
C/A / L L$ Y , 2 + + 2
7 2 2 2 + > +
3 7 $ * , . , + 2
+ +) 1 2 + + 1 7U 1 * ,+ 9
2 + 9 8? 4 9 9 . 9 +k
I! 2+ + + 2+ 1 + 2 +
2 > 2 3 2 7G( .+ 0
+ 2+ 1 1 2 + + 9+ : 2
. , 2+ , 7, + 3
.+ + 1 7 % 2
4 + 2+ 9 22+ . + 1 2 + > 7

-7 % . /
G7 7 + ( E$ 9%Q .
( E$ 2+ 1 . / 0 , 22 W +
[ ' 9 3 , +e 2+ + 9
7 9 2+ , 2 . + W +9
' 'D7 $ , 2+ 7 ' V

87 C/A /, 227 D!"D<I -+22 , N7 ( ! "!= <<<"D666 H =

.+ $7D 7 C + 9 + 3 2 4 + H C/A /
L L$ Y , C/A / D C/A / D 2 7' 3
2 + H C/A / D L L$ Y , C/A / , C/A / <Gq 6
:+ D66! 9$ 2 C/A / G 2 7
' ? , + 3 2 V 2 + + +. 4 H C/A / 6D,
C/A / C/A / D67
D
+ + / %%%, D6 / <D H m
r s
b c 7 '[ b c7
87 , 7 + 2 C/A / +( D6 D666 HDGG 7
!
87 C/A /, 27 !G, 7 G , 9 2 > @7 7 $ A JJ%, 227 ! "
!= , 7 DD7
G
O+ 4 N7 -+22 ( ! "!= <<<"
D666 H ! D4 + 4 , 2+ 9 , ]- 8+
5 +8 ;+ , . 5 +; 7_
C/A / = L3 L$ ) ) , C/A / =< L L$QQ 5 , C/A / = bPc
L L bPc 7 2 2+ C/A / < , C/A / < , C/A / < , C/A /
6 C/A / 6 7
 6 )$ + $ * '

f 2 ( E$ E, + + 1 8 4
W( E$ + 97 + 2 2 +
8 + *$ H + = D 2
+ 7' 2 2 2+ + 8
. 9 > + + 7
%Q . 2+ . +
3 C/A / = H !, ! ^ - , +e l 8 !
+ 7

G7D7 9 . . /'Q
=
.9 .
1 : /'Q 2 2 7%
1 2 +3 2 V +
2+ 9$ Y. 87 2 ` 7 7 9 . f 1 9 2 +
2 (\ 4EQ , $2 (\ .+ -* $
Y. , !L L$;E ) , 4 + + + 9 3 7 C
. + 9) 9) . )2 +
!, n/ + $ $ 7

G7 7 2 W 9
2
2+ 2 4 V 2 4 2
<
. + + W 9 + 2+ 9$ Y. +4
2 ` 7 7 + 4 8 9 32 + + 33 '* $ +
+ + . f 1 3 3 H C/A / L L$ Y
C/A / =6 L L$ Y 7% 9 . % Y $ , - 00 , $ Q , =6
- 00 t$ $*7=

=
+2+ ) 2+ + 2 + > . + + 7
87 C/A /, 27 I -+22 , N7 ( ! "!= <<<"D666 H .+
N 7 A+ 3 + + 1 !L L$;E ) H C/A / , C/A /
<, C/A / = C/A / ==7
<
87 , @7 7 $&C = << , 227 GD!"GD=7 O+ 9
-+22 , N7 A C . + +8 % + $. 7 +> 8 !!
D66 H!G "G6!7
=6
% 22 \ C/A / <, 7 = - 7 % 9 . 9
= + 2 +2 H 2 V 9 2+ W 9T
=
&+ + 2 +2 , 87 , @7 7 9 2+ +2+
) 9+ + 4 9 2+4 + 7 % + 7 >
<< H< , 7 !67 % 2 +2+ = u v + , + ,
?7
 7 , $ P

G7!7 . , 9 2i - -
2 -35
. = + 3 4 + + 1 9+ + +
9 2i - - * (\ 7=D % > 1 9 3
, 2 9 + . 9) 2+ 2
9 2i . + > 2+ 2 :+ 7 9
2i - - ] 2i . 8 + + k2 +
2 +2 7_= % + 1 . 2+2 +
+ 2 2 , 2 -35 7=! 3 +
9 + N O%%%, ! 2 87 ` 7 ,
+ V 4 + 2+ + + 0 1
. / 0 7

G7G7 M # H 8+ +
# 0 55Y 1 . / 0
9 2+4 R $ + 8 9+ : 9
> + 2> 2 &7 O 12 + +
D66 7=G 2 , + , 9 + +)
# +2+ + + 7 3 .
/ 0 2+ + 22+ 4 4 8+ + +
# 0 55Y + # 0 55Y , 4 2 i
A 7=
C + 9 , (\ 4EQ 2 ,
4 . + h + 21 W9 + I \ 9,2 +) , 1
2+4 , 1 > 8+ + 7C , M #
+ M # + 3 3 . / 0
9$;E ) + W9 + # 0 55Y 9H

=D
87 , 7I $ 1, $7 + 3 - - 1 . /
0 7 / %%%, 7 G, 227 D ="D< 7
=
87 , #7 A # L H 3 7 O7 ' + + 2 +
9 2 7 %%7 7 ( / AL=="= , + 7 D7
=!
% 7, + 7 7 O+ , @7 7 $&C = << , 227 GD "GD!7
=G
87 O , &7 9 2+4 R $ 7( D
D66 H<" !67
=
87 , 7 $
2 ) * . 7 N %% <<! HD!6"D!!7
O+ 8 2 7 tw8 1 1 @7 9
A 9 ( D B LB *7
C/C($ D 7 N + ." x . , D66 , 227 < "<D 3 7
 D )$ + $ * '

C/A / = L L$;E ) H==

5
D h 3
C/A / == b !L L$;E ) c H=
5
Dm m b ch 3

C 2 8 22 + + WM # ,?
( y \ , ( E$ 9 2
+ 8 . 9 +22 1A , 9
U Y7=< M # + . # 0 55Y 76
2 , ,$ %O, !! B $&C =, ! D , 9%Q
. 1R $ + 22 4 # 0 55Y 8 2
9 R A 5 , + > 2
&7 O H
]K 2 +2+ # 0 55Y , R A 5 , ?
4 9+ 2+ + 7 $? . ,
+ + 2 4 :9 4 + 8 . +
7U 9 + . 7_ D

9$;E ) 9 2 > 7 2 *7 M . , +
V + 4 3 + C/A /7 N 22+
4 , + V 4 91 . / 0 , + + 88 1
.+ -* 1 8+ + , + +
+ , + 2 4 T 4 + + 2 3 H1 +
2+ 2 + > + 88 0+ 2+

==
&+ , 87 / %%%, 27 G , ` 7D7 7D7
=
&+ , 87 -+22 , N7 ( ! "!= <<<"D666 H .+ N
/ %%%, 27 DG, 7 !7 + + / 7
=<
87 ), (7I t 5 , 7 /7 N7I # ;5 , @7 7
C 7 + + , <= B C/A , 27 DG6, *+7 !7 .
H b c bc D b c r s bdc A - % 7
22 + :1 2 +2+ 2 7/ + + + 2
+ C/A , 87 C( =D <= H D7
6
+ 2 7( + + 1 9
9 + 9 2 4 + 2
+ . , 87 ( , 7 0 55 H 22+ 2+ 7D 3 D
D66G H 6G, 7 7
87 ( D D66 H<D, ` 7 7 7 &+ *&, 87 , @7 7 C $ DL
D66 , 27 =< A 4\ 7% 8 R A 4\ 7
D 5 r s
$ %O, !! B $&C =, ! D H G 3 -
%r s r s
= 3 - < - bc 6 b3 3c
5
7 b3 c b c - D b c - b-c
b c ! G -b c 3 r s7
87 N O D66 H , 7 !!7
 7 , $ P

+ 4 2+ 8+ + +)
# +2+ , + + 9 + 2 1 2 +2+
(\ 4EQ 7 ( 3 . / 0 + 22+ 2
8+ + 9 + +) # +2+ ,
+ 2 + > + + + 9V + 7

9 . 3 2 C/A / / %%% 2 +
+ 2 3 2 . / 0 , 9 $Q 55 7 +
+ + 9) V + 4
2 D66G7 % 9 . 2 2 , 2+ + , 9
, 3 3,
. > 7$ , 2 + + +
1V 3 + 7% . 2 (\ 4EQ 4 2+
+ 9 2 + 7 2+2 + 2
2 , 2 + 2 4 2
+ . + + 9 2+ ) 9$ Y 2 ,
3 , * , 8 * ,2 V 1
!! 2 + 7! + + + 9
2+2 + 2 . / 0 1 2+4 7
2 2 j 2+2 + 2 . + +
22 \ + 2 -35 4 2
+ 9 2i - - 7 3 2+ . V 4 +
, 2 3 2 2+ + 9 + + + 8
0 $ Y , + + + N O%%%, !
+ 1 7' ? 9 + . / 0 ,
2+ 9 + + 8+ + 9+ . +
+) # +2+ , 2
. # 0 55Y , V + + + 9V
7
+ + 2 D66G 1 2
+ + 2 2 +
9 2+4 ( E$ 7

!
87 , 7, + 2 C/A / +( D6 D666 HDGG 7
 How to Control Nomads?
A Case Study Associated with Jebel Bishri in Central Syria.
West Semitic Nomads in Relation to the Urban World

Minna Lönnqvist
University of Helsinki

From the state and urban administration point of view the question, how
to control nomadic forces of deserts and steppes, has been a recurring
theme in history. The tension between the desert and steppic people vis à
vis the urban ones1 is a phenomenon still continuing today. Like the an-
cient Mesopotamians modern super powers are faced by the demands of
tribal and originally nomadic people as a threat not thoroughly thinking
what the reasons for their behaviour are or trying to understand them.
In the Mesopotamian sources the so-called Sumerian Myth of MAR.TU2
especially illustrates the attitude of the urban Sumerians towards the no-
madic MAR.TU folk i. e. the Amorites. The Myth of MAR.TU describes the
apparent eponymous deity of the Amorites as a mountaineer carrying a
weapon and digging truffles in the foot of the mountain, living in a tent,
not burying his dead companions and not being familiar with the city-
life. A Sumerian urban lady, according to the myth, should not marry
this nomad. In the myth only after sedentarizing and taking up agricul-
ture the life of MAR.TU improves and starts flourishing.
The mountainous area of Jebel Bishri (fig. 1) which parallels over 100
km the right bank of the Euphrates between Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa in
Syria (see fig. 1) is especially interpreted as being the ancient habitat of
the Amorites. In the Drehem texts lambs were sacrificed to god MAR.TU
and to the deified mountain of Jebel Bishri.3 This Mountain or Steppe of
the Amorites is also mentioned in the Gudea inscriptions of the Sumerian
renaissance. Gudea Statue B (Louvre AO 2) describes Basalla, the moun-
tain of the Amorites, as the source of large stones to be transported for
the building projects of Gudea in Mesopotamia. Another Gudea inscrip-

1
See also Pongratz-Leisten 2000.
2
CBS 14061, e. g., in Chiera 1924:20; cf. Buccellati 1966:330.
3
See bibliography in Astour 2002:118.
116 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

tion, namely Cylinder A, mentions the mountain of Tidnum as the source

of marble/alabaster. Marble is especially attested at Jebel Bishri. Inciden-
tally or not the present-day Bedouins of the village called Shanhas also
collect truffles as their subsidiary livelihood in the piedmont of Jebel
Bishri like the MAR.TU in the Sumerian myth.

Fig. 1. The location of Jebel Bishri between the Euphrates

and the Syrian Desert

As the central habitat of West Semitic nomads Jebel Bishri is some-

times seen as the starting point of a widespread nomadic movement from
the desert and steppe to the agricultural lands of the Levant and towards
Mesopotamia in the end of the 3rd millennium B. C. This large-scale ex-
pansion was accompanied with a sedentarization process well attested in
the change of the ruling classes at several sedentary sites around Syro-
Mesopotamia. From the nomadic habitat of the Amorites of the 3rd and
2nd millennium B. C. Jebel Bishri continues to resurface in the cunei-
form sources as an important area populated by nomadic and tribal
Arameans from the late 2nd millennium B. C. to the 1st millennium B. C.
until the Roman times. Actually Arameans become visible first time in his-
tory as the inhabitants of Jebel Bishri in the 13th century B. C.4 Jebel
Bishri becomes the Mountain of the Arameans in this stage of history.
The aim of this article is to approach the evidence of how city-states
and larger territorial states in Syro-Mesopotamia controlled surrounding

4
Luckenbill 1926 I § 239.
 M. Lönnqvist, How to Control Nomads? 117

nomads, such as Amorites and Arameans in particular, basing the assess-

ment on the case study of Jebel Bishri. The historical evidence springing
from the cuneiform sources is here looked from the perspective of the
recent archaeological surveys and mappings by the Finnish project
SYGIS on Jebel Bishri under the leadership of the present author.5
While facing the threat of nomads several measures appear to have
been taken by the sedentary and urban people of Syro-Mesopotamia to
deal with the surrounding mobile forces. These measures are also largely
attested in the relations between the urban people and the pastoral no-
mads of Jebel Bishri over millennia. The evidence concerning the rela-
tions consists of cuneiform sources, archaeological remains and ethno-
graphic/ethnoarchaeological observations. It is worth exploring whether
there are differences in relations with nomads in different periods and if
why there are such differences. This may provide implications for the
modern world and one may reflect our approaches considering the
methods, how to deal with tribal and nomadic groups.
It is interesting to approach the evidence from the theoretical concept
of territorialism and its impact to the relations. Territorialism has rarely
been singled out as a possible factor causing collisions of interests be-
tween the city-states and nomads of Syro-Mesopotamia. Territorialism is
a spatial concept and deals with the areas under control. R. D. Sack6
defines territorialism as an attempt to affect, influence or control people,
phenomena, relationships by asserting boundaries and controlling over
geographic areas. M. J. Jochim7 sees territorialism as a long-term strategy
to control resources. Jebel Bishri is a geographical location which here
provides the scene of movements in the landscape and encounters of dif-
ferent worlds.

Cities, nomads, territories and collisions of interests

Different stimuli or dynamic forces behind the change and collapse of
urban administrations in the end of the 3rd millennium B. C. have been
suggested. The proposed reasons range from environmental changes to
socio-political upheavals or the combination of both. Equally climatologi-

5
Before the Finnish project, which started in 1999–2000, Giorgio Buccellati
and Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati had carried out studies in the Palmyrene and the
Jebel Bishri, see Buccellati–Kelly-Buccellati 1967. See the Finnish project: www.
helsinki.fi/hum/arla/sygis and Lönnqvist–Törmä 2003.
6
Sack 1986:19.
7
Jochim 1981:174.
118 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

cal and socio-political changes have been interpreted as working agents

and reasons for the large-scale sedentarization process of the nomadic
Amorites in the turn of the 3rd and 2nd millennia B. C. In recent dec-
ades, however, the movement of nomads has not been seen as a reason
for the collapse of state administrations such as the Ur III dynasty and
the subsequent change of ruling authorities.
Rivers and oases with perennial springs offered opportunities for irri-
gated agriculture providing needed surplus to maintain populations of
city states and territorial states. In the urban milieu the past demographic
growth and its effects as a pressure is easier to trace than in the world of
ancient nomads. A systematic irrigation and possibilities to utilize more
fertile soil space were associated with technological innovations which
provided the opportunity to a demographic change. The agricultural
surplus of permanent centres enabled population growth on a steady ba-
sis. The city-states have marked walls, the space inside the walls and the
number of houses or private as well as public spaces constitute the basis
from which archaeologists often infer the possible size of a population.
There is substantial evidence of the rapid growth of early Mesopotamian
city-states to territorial states and empires from ca. 3300–2300 B. C. Ori-
ental despotism, was according to Karl A. Wittfogel, a type of regime that
was typical of hydraulic civilizations.8 However, periods of tribal sectarian
interests have caused periods of chaos and change in leadership.
Deserts and steppes surrounding urban centres in the Near East have
been and are populated by mobile people mainly for environmental rea-
sons—the lack of rain and perennial water sources for permanent agri-
cultural endeavours. Steppes and deserts generally have supported hunt-
er-gatherer or pastoral nomadic subsistence economies and in some de-
gree semi-sedentary subsistence strategies at seasonal basis associated
with wadis, small springs or wells. Territorialism is an inherent feature in
the culture of nomadic tribes. Each nomadic tribe usually has a territory
of its own for utilizing its resources. But the resources of each lot can
change and alter the equilibrium state causing a move to better grazing
grounds, change or expand the boundaries. The search for better graz-
ing grounds or adequate resources in a way or another were obviously
some of the reasons for changes in the pattern from seasonal movements
to an expansion and large-scale sedentarization in the history of the
Amorites and Arameans. The interests of the states to expand their
territories to country sides, even to include several city-states in their

8
Wittfogel 1957.
 M. Lönnqvist, How to Control Nomads? 119

tories to country sides, even to include several city-states in their territory

and to control nomads can be seen as a measure to act to the opposite di-
rection from the perspective of the tribal territorialism of the nomadic
world. The control over the nomads may gradually form what M. Row-
ton9 called enclosed nomadism and a dimorphic state.
Compared to the walled cities the nomadic and tribal territories are
only reflected in intangible features in a landscape and those features we
archaeologists have only gradually begun to understand.10 Ethnoarchae-
ology has been a valuable tool to learn the spatial patterning and organi-
zation of pastoral remains in a landscape from which to infere some herd
or population sizes as well as organisational features. Often tombs and
corrals, i. e. animal pens, are the main structural features left for the ar-
chaeologists to grasp the density or the amount of the animal heads,
population and activities in the landscape. It has been noted that the mo-
bility of women decreases the frequency of pregnancies; so there is a dif-
ference for demographic growth between the sedentary and mobile way
of life. However, still the possible role of the increase in nomadic popula-
tions as causing a particular pressure remains a difficult question to assess
while studying past nomads. Today Jebel Bishri is on the fringe of the
Syrian Desert and is easily affected by droughts and desertification that
especially cause problems for the pastoral nomads currently living in the
area.11 Nowadays the way of living encapsulated in the state is peaceful
but earlier in the 19th and early 20th century the Bishri Bedouins were
known from their violent nature.12

Pastoralism and the earliest contacts of Jebel Bishri

with Lower Mesopotamia
What is then the archaeological evidence concerning the nomadic habitat
of Jebel Bishri like? The result of the Finnish survey is that mountain
largely offers finds associated with hunter-gatherers and nomads, i. e.,
mobile people usually representing groups with no literary past. The en-
vironmental conditions have been such that the central areas have never
during the Holocene been favourable to sedentary agricultural life. Signs

9
See, e. g., Rowton 1973:1976.
10
See passim Rossignol–Wandsnider 1992.
11
See Lönnqvist–Törmä 2004; 2006.
12
This is, for example, reported by a Finnish orientalist and arabist G. A. Wal-
lin who travelled in the district with caravans in the 19th century. A letter to Geit-
ling by Wallin dated 12th June, 1849.
120 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

of semi-sedentarism appear along some wadis. Only from the Roman pe-
riod more sedentary installations based on organised water harvesting
with barrages has been recorded in the area related to the military or-
ganisation of the Eastern Limes.13
The archaeological remains representing nomadic groups in the re-
gion of Jebel Bishri consist of cairns/tumuli, stone enclosures, such as cor-
rals, and megalithic stone rings. The graveyards from the Chalcolithic
and Bronze Age indicate tribalism and the existence of a chiefdom sys-
tem. In the groups of cairns/tumuli there namely exist distinctive ring-
tumuli which appear as single larger graves more prominent than other
tombs in the grave fields. They not only differ in their size but also in
their structure and position having a stone ring around a cairn and
sometimes being located on prominent hilltops. This internal organisa-
tional difference in a cairn/tumulus field indicates the social organisation
of a chiefdom system.14
It is possible—as I have suggested elsewhere15—that the pastoralists of
the region were more nomadic before the large-scale sedentarization
process and before the integration them into a state system. As far as the
region of Jebel Bishri is concerned this view differs from Giorgio Buccel-
lati’s16 latest theory that the nomads of the region had earlier been village
farmers. My view is based on the archaeological evidence springing from
the region which seems to suggest that among the groups on Jebel Bishri
and the Syrian desert there was a gradual change from mobile and semi-
mobile hunter-gatherer economy to pastoral nomadism like in the Negev
and Sinai. Therefore the possibility of different degrees of nomadism
among different tribal groups needs to be taken into account.
The piedmont areas like those facing the Euphrates and the basin of
the oasis of El Kowm are associated with the irrigated agriculture and
characteristically include tells i. e. sedentary sites. Seven tells have been
identified and mapped so far in the Euphrates side foot of Jebel Bishri by
the Finnish project SYGIS. The tells are situated between Raqqa and
Deir ez-Zor, and some of them are apparently associated with sedentariz-
ing nomads. Four have been previously located by K. Kohlmeyer17 and

13
See passim Lönnqvist et al. 2006.
14
Ibid.
15
Lönnqvist 2008.
16
See Buccellati 1992:83–104.
17
Kohlmeyer 1984, Beilege 4.
 M. Lönnqvist, How to Control Nomads? 121

by J. Besançon and P. Sanlaville,18 although they had not been mapped

into a coordinate system before the Finnish survey. Four of the pros-
pected tells (Tell Tibne, Tell Tabus, Tell Kharita, Tell Ayyash) are situ-
ated between Halabiya and Deir ez-Zor, and of those Tell Kharita is a
newly discovered tell by the Finns.
Archaeology provides the first signs of contacts between the region of
Jebel Bishri and the urban cultures of early Mesopotamia. The clear
Mesopotamian cultural and territorial influences are attested in the pot-
tery repertoire of the region starting from Al-Ubaid and Uruk sherds as
evidence of contacts. The Finnish survey has found one possible piece of
Ubaid pottery19 in the inner areas of the mountain which, however, gen-
erally provides cruder Chalcolithic pottery associated with pastoral cor-
rals. The Chalcolithic period appears as the climax of specialised pastoral
nomadism and favourable desert-steppe cultures, but the piedmonts of
Jebel Bishri indicate contacts to the emerging urban world of Lower
Mesopotamia. Compared to one possible sherd of later Al-Ubaid pottery
on Jebel Bishri typical wave decorated pottery of the Al-Ubaid type oc-
curs in quantity at Tell Kharita. Tell Tibne next to Halabiya has provided
Uruk pottery dating to the time of the emergence of the urban Sumerian
civilization and writing. Nearest other sites with Uruk evidence are situ-
ated at Tell El-Kowm 2—Caracol20 at the western piedmont area of Jebel
Bishri, at Qraya21 on the confluence of Khabur and the Euphrates and in
the area of the gorge at Halabiya, namely at Tell Humeida22 on the left
bank. So, it may be that Tell Tibne on the right bank next to Halabiya in
the foot of Jebel Bishri already served as an Uruk station on the Euphra-
tes on the way to Lower Mesopotamia.23
Giorgio Buccellati has suggested that the bewelled-rim bowls of the
Uruk period served as vessels for producing salt.24 Salt was indeed an
important traded commodity and flourishing business, because in a hot
climate food storing was essentially carried out with salt. Buccellati notes
that the Amorite salt is especially mentioned in later ancient sources,
e. g., in the religious text called Maqlu, as a commodity associated with

18
Besançon–Sanlaville 1981:10–11, Carte 1, four tells.
19
Lönnqvist et al. 2006.
20
Cauvin–Stordeur 1985.
21
See Algaze 1993:48, fig. 22.
22
See http://aidifondation.org/English/Syrian_spanish_mission.htm.
23
See the discussion in Algaze 1993:48ff.
24
Buccellati 1990b.
122 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

the people.25 In the region of Jebel Bishri there indeed exist sabkhas, salt
playas, and evidence of glass production which used the local minerals in
antiquity. Whether we can include the area of Jebel Bishri to the Uruk
world-system is hard to demonstrate by using the nomenclatura of Gui-
llermo Algaze26 sensu Immanuel Wallerstein. It seems that in the case of
the influence of the larger urbanized cultural system the integration of
the Jebel Bishri region would only concern the banks of the Euphrates
and surrounding oases. At this stage there is no archaeological evidence
of tension caused by the earliest city-states with their territorialism to at-
tain resources from the district.

The earliest textual evidence of Amorite—urban relations

The Ebla texts from 24th century B. C. refer to the areas inhabited by
Amorites reaching as far as Emar (Meskené), Tuttul (Tall Bi’a) and
MAR.DUki. The location of MAR.DUki, the kingdom of the Amorites, with its
king and elders27 is still obscure, although some scholars point to the re-
gion of Jebel Bishri.28 The tells identified in the foot of Jebel Bishri from
Deir ez-Zor to Raqqa provide Early Bronze Age pottery. The newly dis-
covered Tell Kharita has offered 3rd millennium pottery including
plenty of hole mouth jars indicating that this low mound 22 km west
from Deir ez-Zor in the foot of Jebel Bishri served as a site for sedentariz-
ing nomads. Above, in the near vicinity, on the higher edge of Jebel
Bishri, our project has also found looted Early Bronze Age tombs with
cists. But none of the sites offer direct evidence (such as inscriptions) of
the existence of the Amorites.
In the Ebla texts peaceful contacts inter alia with MAR.DUki deal with
diplomatic gift exchange, treaties and trading with the Amorites showing
that especially garments were transmitted for its king and elders: the
types of clothing consisted of cloaks, tunics and girdles. Oil was provided
for the oaths and treaties. The Amorites also received wine from Ebla
which indicates the existence of some sort of court practices. Amorites in
turn provided sheep, wool (TM.75.G.10079, TM.75.G.10251, ARET IV
15rev. x 6–9) and possibly metal weapons, such as GÍR MAR.TU, i. e. the
Amorite daggers, to the people of Ebla. The products indicate to liveli-

25
Buccellati 1990b:31.
26
Algaze 1993.
27
See Archi 1985.
28
E. g., Astour 1992:54–55; 2002:116–118.
 M. Lönnqvist, How to Control Nomads? 123

hood in pastoralism and trade with metal objects. The Ebla texts also re-
fer that some Amorites were defeated in the neighbourhood of Emar
which seems to mean that there was occasional pressure that was felt
from the steppe.29
It is interesting to remind that in the Sumerian Myth MAR.TU the deity
indeed carries a weapon as his companion. The Ur III texts also deal with
stone acquired by Gudea and information that some Amorites were inte-
grated into the Sumerian society and were dealing with different materials
such as textiles, wood, leather and traded commodities made of them.30
The exchanged goods between the people of Ebla and Sumerians with
the Amorites can be summarized as follows:
Wine
Oil?
Textiles
Leather
Wooden objects
Metal objects
Stone
Salt
Lambs/goats
Apart from a few incidents the earliest 3rd millennium B. C. evidence
largely deals with peaceful relations between the Eblaites, Sumerians and
Amorites: the involvement of city-states and territorial states with West Se-
mitic nomads thus largely consists of evidence such as diplomatic gift ex-
change, trade and alliances with only some minor clashes or confrontations.

Environment and territorial interests

However, a peaceful tide between the Amorite world and urban centres
exemplified by city-states and territorial states changed during the Ak-
kadian dynasty and in the end of the Ur III dynasty. The Akkadian and
the Ur III dynasty have been coined as the first two empires of Mesopo-
tamia. The alluvial zone was scarce in natural resources, such as stones,
metals and wood.31 Those are clearly resources which Amorites had been
actively trading. It seems that the Mesopotamian state administration

29
See Archi 1985.
30
See passim Buccellati 1966.
31
See, e. g., Larsen 1979:75–76.
124 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

needed to extend its resource basis for growing population, and in the
Akkadian era the Amorites were seen as a particular threat for the inter-
ests of the spreading empire in the 23rd century B. C. The Amorites
were governing the areas with the natural resources. In some extent it
seems that these colliding interests influenced on the attitudes and
gradually ended peaceful relations.
For the Akkadian rulers of the 3rd millennium B. C. such as Sargon
and Naram-Sin it was important to conquer areas as far as the Mediter-
ranean and the Amanus. Akkadian ruler Shar-kali-sharri also boasts win-
ning a battle that took place in the neighbourhood of Jebel Bishri appar-
ently against nomadic Amorites.32 But it is important to remember that
this is the view given by the Akkadian sources, and there is no evidence
from the Amorite side and how the nomads coped with the military
threat of the growing empire. In any case the military element started in-
creasingly to play a role on the stage of contacts with the nomadic people
and reflects the time when the Akkadians were expanding and Amorites
were counteracting. Jebel Bishri was an achievement to boast and to
build propaganda to support the view of hegemony of the Akkadian rul-
ers as the area formed a visible obstacle—a natural bastion—on the way
from the Lower Euphrates to the Upper Euphrates. The mountain of-
fered stone for building materials and possibly trees, although nowadays
Jebel Bishri is largely devoid of trees apart from some small pockets like
those met by the Finnish project at Ash-Shujiri. (Travellers accounts from
last century mention trees in the foot of the mountain, and earlier the
area has been more terebinth-almond-woodland steppe type).
The late 3rd millennium B. C. evidence reflects deteriorating relations
between the Sumerians and the Amorites in the Ur III period compris-
ing a reference to a booty from the area of Jebel Bishri and the threat of
the Tidanum felt at the gates of Ur. Finally a special wall murîq Tidnim
was built to keep these Tidnum nomads away.33 As indicated above, it is
plausible that Jebel Bishri is identified with the mountain of Tidnum
mentioned in the Gudea texts; the Di-da-a-nu, Tidnum or Tidanum are
usually connected with the West Semites as the name of a place or an an-
cestral nomadic tribe. For example, Di-da-a-nu appears in the Assyrian
king list as the name of an old nomadic folk or ancestral tribe. Seventeen
of the kings in the Assyrian king list appear to have been tent-dwellers,
and in the list Di-da-a-nu is the 9th and ¶a-nu-ú, i. e. Hanean ancestry as

32
RTC 124; MAD I, 268:6–9.
33
Wilcke 1969–1970:9–12.
 M. Lönnqvist, How to Control Nomads? 125

the 10th.34 Beside the outside threat caused by Tidnum/Amorite nomads

and by the Elamites, environmental deterioration and overexploitation of
the irrigated fields causing salination35 have been suggested as some of
the weakening elements of the administrative power of the Ur III.

From tribalism to states

As far as the socio-political organisation of the Amorites is concerned, tri-
balism has, like in the case of Tidnum, been interpreted as the primeval
social structure among these nomads.36 As mentioned, the tombs and
graveyards at Jebel Bishri indicate tribal organisation that reached a
complexity of the chiefdom level in the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age.
Whether these tombs can be particularly associated with the Amorites is,
however, another matter but they clearly belong to the nomadic remains
and ritual world. As far as states are concerned, MAR.DUki, the previously
mentioned kingdom of the Amorites occurring in the Ebla texts in the
3rd millennium B. C., appears to denote the first state known entity
among the Amorites themselves existing already in the 24th century B. C.
Earlier in the first half of the 20th century the scholarly theory of the
violent form of the movement of the nomadic Amorites was an over-
whelmingly preferred explanation as a mechanism of the large-scale sed-
entarization process of the people, but it was later on from the 1960s and
1970s gradually rejected, followed and replaced by the totally anti-
invasionist interpretation of peaceful infiltrations. However, the archaeo-
logical evidence clearly supports that not only peaceful but also violent
forms appear as mechanisms in this sedentarization process.37 According
to W. Irons, pastoral nomads are either integrated to the state societies or
while living as outsiders may choose an aggression as a mode to solve
disputes with states. Chiefs that have a role as war leaders take also a spe-
cial intermediating role between the nomads and the state. Warfare even
sometimes appears as a particular means for nomads to create states.38 In
the psychology of aggression “dominance” plays the key role in the ques-
tion to control resources.39 In the stratigraphy of tells, such as Byblos and
Ebla, the change of the ruling authority is preceded by destruction layers,

34
Kraus 1965:123–125.
35
See, e. g., Adams 1974.
36
Passim Kupper 1957.
37
See Lönnqvist 2008.
38
Irons 1979:365, 370–371.
39
Archer 1988:4–16.
126 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

accompanied by some change of the material culture and new names of

rulers in inscriptions.40 Little is known whether the conquered people
were annihilated or subjected in each case. It seems that most of the vio-
lent clashes in the transitional period from the 3rd to 2nd millennia B. C.
took place in western Syria while the Jezira and Palestine belonged to the
seasonal grazing grounds, and urban centres there became populated by
former nomads or renomadized during a less dramatic and peaceful
process.41
In the Middle Euphrates the change to the Amorite rule appears in
Mari and Terqa representing the kingdom of Khana42 in the 2nd millen-
nium B. C. The situation is clearly different compared with the 3rd mil-
lennium B. C. evidence. Mari of the Lim dynasty and Terqa appear as
the results of the sedentarization process of the local Amorites. The tribal
groups such as the Hana and the Bene-sim’al i. e. the Simalites were par-
ticularly related to the Amorite Lim dynasty of Mari.43 In the Mari texts
the Suteans populated the Jebel Bishri region (ARMT VI, 44:5–6) and
have been thought to represent more nomadic groups than the Benja-
minites (ARMT V, 27:25–26), who only partly had their grazing grounds
in the district of Jebel Bishri. As far as the Benjaminites are concerned,
they seem to have exercised more horisontal nomadism along the right
river bank44 in contrast to vertical nomadism of transhumance. However,
both groups, namely the Suteans and the Benjaminites, are traditionally
listed among Amorite tribes.45
After the 3rd millennium B. C. the sacred image of Jebel Bishri as the
home of some gods resurfaces in the Old Babylonian sources. It is no won-
der that the Amorite hegemony had religious interests to the early tribal
territories. In the Mari sources Ishtar-Bishra appears as a special goddess
attributed to the Jebel Bishri area (ARMT 16/1, 255; ARMT 22, 64; ARMT
23, 462:11). Old Babylonian literature which Andrew George46 is currently
publishing mentions a myth of a previously unattested goat-herding ram-
god called Bazi. The myth describes how Bazi takes up residence in Mts

40
See the analysis in Lönnqvist 2000:138–143, 153–156.
41
See Lönnqvist forthcoming in the 4 ICAANE proceedings.
42
Podany 2002:4, 10.
43
See, e. g., Charpin–Durand 1986:141–183.
44
The tribal name of the Bene-yamina, i. e. the Benjaminites, bears the deno-
tion of ‘the sons of the south or the right bank’ (of the Euphrates).
45
See Kupper 1957.
46
I thank Andrew George for the possibility to mention this reference before
publication.
 M. Lönnqvist, How to Control Nomads? 127

Sharshar and Bashar identified with Jebel Bishri. Mt. Sharshar is the
source of nomadic pastoralists usually hostile to the peoples of the plain.
The poem describes Bazi’s cult-centre as an unusual mountain with high
‘banks’ and lots of water inside (the waters of life and death). The ‘banks’
may refer to the table-like form of Jebel Bishri paralleling the Euphrates,
and the sources of water may refer to its water sources to the southeast
such as springs at Nadra and to the south to wells at Qebaqeb. It is clear
that the impression of Jebel Bishri as the first strikingly high grounds
while coming from the Lower Mesopotamia may have affected its mytho-
logical nature and ancient folklore.

Sedentarized groups integrating related nomads

Khana as representing a regional state formed by the previous nomadic
tribes could enclose the genealogically related tribal groups into their
administrative districts. Close tribal relationships built loyalty. It seems
that the earlier shakkanakku period in Mari did not have the same strong
relations with the nomadic surroundings as the Amorite Lim dynasty. As
far as the archaeological evidence from the Jebel Bishri region is con-
cerned, the Middle Bronze Age evidence exemplified in pottery pieces is
very scarce on the mountain but appears in the sedentary sites like tells
and plateaus on the Euphrates side in the piedmont areas.47 This may
indicate to the sedentarization and territorial influence of Mari and
Terqa representing the kingdom of Khana as the sites appear on the
road to Aleppo-Yamkhad on the right bank of the Euphrates.
During the Lim dynasty nomads became included into the city admini-
stration as a military force. This is one of the characters of a dimorphic so-
ciety. But I wish to stress, as already indicated, that this is the situation of
the 2nd millennium B. C., when the large-scale sedentarization of the
Amorites had already taken place. The genealogy of the Hammurabi dy-
nasty also mentions the era of the Amorite soldiers and era of the Hanean
soldiers.48 Like the mentioned Assyrian king list, Hammurabi’s genealogy
claims that rulers bore genealogical background to tent-dwellers.49
N. Weeks also assumes that the role of the Amorites as a militarily organ-

47
See passim Lönnqvist et al. 2006 and Lönnqvist et al. 2009.
48
Finkelstein 1966:29–31.
49
Kraus 1965.
128 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

ized force enabled them to size power in Mesopotamia. This assumption

largely conforms with the 2nd millennium B. C. evidence.50
In the Mari texts the surrounding nomadic and tribal people are re-
cruited especially as mercenaries. During the Lim dynasty recruiting and
organising related nomads even as warriors into a military force was a
way to utilize and control them and create peaceful relations in the 2nd
millennium B. C. It is apparent that the Hurrian influence of the devel-
opment of the class of warriors was integrated into this system. Various
titles of the military agents in the texts can be mentioned:
1) GAL.MAR.TU or rabi Amurrim means ‘commander of the Amorites’—
translated as the great one of Amurru.51 In Yamkhad, Eshnunna and
Babylon the rank was called UGULA.MARTU or wakil Amurrim.52 It repre-
sented a military commander of up to 300 men, corresponding to ‘a bat-
talion.’53
2) DUB.SAR.MAR.TU or ¢upšar Amurrim means a ‘Scribe of the Amo-
rites’—a military person who could lead troops in the field and took care
of census and conscript lists. In the military ranking system he was sec-
ond to the rabi Amurrim.
3) The GAL.KUD or rabi pirsim was a ‘captain’ who commanded a ‘com-
pany’ called KUD or pirsim consisting of 200 men.
4) The NU.BANDA or laputtûm, was in charge of units under 200 men
but greater than 10, approximately 100 men.54
However, there were problematic groups which especially seem to
have been in the interest of the state administration of Mari. These
groups partly had their grazing grounds in the region of Jebel Bishri.
For example, revolts of tribal Benjaminites were a source of problems.
Bejaminites had their grazing grounds on the right bank of the Euphra-
tes inter alia from Dûr Yahdun-Lim (some scholars identify the site to the
neighbourhood of Deir ez-Zor) continuing beneath Jebel Bishri through
Tuttul55 up to Harran.56 Beside Benjaminites Mari wished also to control
the ‘apiru/¶apiru and sutû, i. e. the Suteans: a special mention is associated
with the tribal group of Yamutbal to ‘apiru. ‘Apiru owned weapons and

50
Weeks 1985.
51
Sasson 1969:12.
52
See Stillman–Tallis 1984:21–22.
53
Salonen 1968:160.
54
Stillman–Tallis 1984:21–22.
55
Charpin–Durand 1986:156.
56
Kupper 1957:48.
 M. Lönnqvist, How to Control Nomads? 129

could have from time to time been also recruited as military personnel.
Itur-Asdu wrote a letter to Zimri-Lim of Mari explaining, how he had or-
ganized ¶apiru.57 This clearly indicates that there was a need to organize
them from the city administration point of view.
Interestingly later on Idmiri, the king of Alalakh, was forced to an ex-
ile to sojourn among his relatives in Emar and further on lived both
among the sutû and ¶apiru. He explains, how he took his horse and char-
iot crossing to the desert country and even entering the region of the Su-
tian warriors. He also lived seven years among ¶apiru (ANET 559–558).58
Emar plays again a central role like in the much earlier contacts of Ebla
with the Amorites, and interestingly the major groups during Idmiri’s
time in the vicinity are the sutû and ¶apiru. The Sutean region appears
here in association of the desert country somewhere near by, and the sutû
are described as warriors. The region might refer to the area of Jebel
Bishri and the Palmyrene desert. According to the Idmiri text, some of
the sutû had, however, spread and were living in the area of Alalakh. Id-
miri emphasizes that he made them to settle inside his kingdom and live
in permanent settlements and also “those who did not want to live in set-
tlements.” So, here we have evidence of political pressure from the state
point of view to sedentarize nomads in order to control them. Recent ar-
chaeological studies in the vicinity of Tell Atchana (Alalakh) interestingly
deal with land tenure of the kingdom incorporating small settlements.59

Warriors appearing in archaeological record

Graham Philip has discussed the advent of the so-called warrior burials
and metal weapons of different kinds in Syria–Palestine and Mesopotamia.
He identifies the first group of the so-called warrior burials with the Early
Dynastic III Mesopotamia (tombs of Ur) and the second one with the Mid-
dle Bronze Age burials of the Levant.60 The latter is indeed a period when
archaeologically the so-called warrior burials are distinctively numerous
and are attested around Amorite kingdoms, e. g., Baghouz near Mari.
The EB IV/MB I or the so-called Intermediate Bronze Age (ca. 2300–
2000/1900 B. C.) of Palestine is contemporaneous with the Amorite move-
ments in Syro-Mesopotamia, infiltrations even conquests and establishment

57
Bottéro 1954.
58
Smith 1949.
59
Casana 2007:195–221.
60
Philip 1995:140–154.
130 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

of their rule over urban sites. Kathleen M. Kenyon61 interpreted the new-
comers to Palestine as being Amorites during the period (the so-called
Amorite hypothesis), but whether we can connect these EB IV/MB I buri-
als with the Amorites is difficult to assess for certainty, because textual
evidence is practically lacking from Palestine in the period. A long and
narrow dagger with a midrib, a type appearing in quantity in the Jericho
tombs,62 is the most common dagger type associated with the EB IV/MB I
layers and especially connected with the Amorite-occupied sites in Syria.
This type common in Syria-Palestine develops to daggers with several
central ribs during the Hyksos period. One may venture to ask if the pro-
totype of the dagger is the one known as the “Amorite dagger” and
whether the nomadic Amorites in the time of conflicts possessed more ef-
fective weapons compared to the urban sites which they overcame. Fen-
estrated axes and duckbill axes as well as sickle-swords are especially
characteristic for the Amorite-occupied sites from the EB IV/MB I
through the Middle Bronze Age.63
It is, however, evident that Caucasus and Luristan had some impact in
the development and application of bronze weapon forms and of good
quality in the period. Trade contacts were flourishing in the Middle
Bronze Age. The Old Assyrian sources especially provide evidence of the
Amorites active in trade and donkey caravans.64 The availability of tin to
produce good bronze is well attested only from the Middle Bronze Age in
Syria-Palestine. The Middle Bronze Age is a period when bronze weap-
ons are becoming more numerous and types more diverse in Syria. The
introduction of horse and chariotry is coeval with the Hurrian and Hittite
expansions in the 2nd millennium B. C. The typological continuity of
specific weapon types in the MB II graves stretching to the Nile delta at
Tell el-Dab’a is on its part supporting this as the material culture of the
Hyksos and their names are often identical with the Amorite-Hurrian an-
cestry of Syria-Palestine. As known, the Hyksos were colonizing foreign
Semites, who brought an interlude to the rule of Egypt the pharaos of
which, however, finally were able to expel them.65

61
Kenyon 1966:6–16.
62
Kenyon 1965:48.
63
See Lönnqvist 2000:286–309.
64
Lewy 1952.
65
See Lönnqvist 2000:292, 293, 530–540.
 M. Lönnqvist, How to Control Nomads? 131

Archaeological implications of the Assyrian-Aramean conflicts

According to A. Podany,66 the Late Khana period stretches up till ca.
1200 B. C. The kingdom of Khana seems to disintegrate just before or
simultaneously with the appearance of the Aramean kingdom of Laqē, and
Khana’s role behind this new kingdom could be sought for. However,
Georgio Buccellati rather sees Khana’s role behind the later kingdom of
Amurru further to the west to the Mediterranean.67 There seem to have
existed shared territorial interests in Khana and Laqē as both kingdoms
and their ruling classes had West Semitic and nomadic background partly
associated with Jebel Bishri. Jebel Bishri that was known as the mountain
of the Amorites recurs as a possible part of the Aramean kingdom of Laqē
in the late 2nd millennium — 1st millennium B. C. The connections be-
tween the Amorites and Arameans have puzzled scholars for long. Interest-
ingly while Amorites, who appear into history as the first nomadic people
connected with Jebel Bishri, disappear from the history of the area becom-
ing replaced by the nomadic Arameans linguistically related also with West
Semitic groups. Some scholars have suggested that the sûtu, i. e. the
Suteans, especially associated with the Jebel Bishri region became to be as-
similated with the Arameans.68
There are historical descriptions of Assyrian military campaigns
against Arameans in order to control them around Jebel Bishri. The ac-
counts describe crossing the Euphrates as well as stepping ashore at cer-
tain sites to attack an Aramean town in the foot of Jebel Bishri: Assyrian
king Tiglathpileser I carried out a military campaign ca. 1112 B. C.
against Ahlâmu-Arameans,69 first crossing the Euphrates in leather boats
and destroying six of the Aramean towns in the foot of the mountain with
fire, destruction and calamity. The second major Assyrian campaign
associated with Jebel Bishri took place ca. 878 B. C. and was led by
Assurnasirpal II, then king of Assyria. The troops approached the region
along the Euphrates: Wherever the navigation of the Euphrates proved to
be difficult, the boats were drawn up out of the water and dragged along
the banks over rollers until they could again be safely launched; thus,
partly afloat and partly on land, they passed through the gorge of
Halebiyeh, landed at Kharidi, and inflicted a salutary punishment on the

66
Podany 2002.
67
Buccellati 1990a:229–253.
68
E. g. Heltzer 1981:98.
69
Luckenbill 1926 I § 239.
132 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

cities which had defied the king’s wrath on his last expedition. Khindânu,
Kharidi, and Kipina were reduced to ruins, and the Sukhi and the Laqi
defeated, the Assyrians pursuing them for two days in the Bisuru
mountains (Jebel Bishri) as far as the frontiers of Bit-Adini.70
Landscape and battlefield archaeology71 can be used in order to study
these historical events at the foot of the mountain. The locations of
Khindânu, Kharidi, and Kipina mentioned in the Assyrian texts above have
been of interest to several scholars for long, but thus far no specific ar-
chaeological site identification has earlier been verified. A. Musil,72 how-
ever, suggested that Kipina should be associated with the neighbourhood
of Deir ez-Zor. We have suggested that the newly discovered Tell Kharita
might be Kharidi (cf. the name Kharita). The reasons for this suggestion
are the following: (1) archaeological remains dating inter alia to the Iron
Age including Aramean, Assyrian pottery and an inscription found at the
site, (2) the name of the village “Kharita” is close to the site name “Kha-
ridi,” and modern toponyms may carry remnants from the older ones,
(3) the Assyrians passed the gorge of Halabiya when floating down the
river, Tell Kharita is after Halabiya down the river and being before and
west of Ayyash—a possible site of Kipina. Finally (4) ancient Holocene
river channels of the Euphrates can be found just below the tell, although
relatively far today, offering a place for easily going ashore.73
The finds from the season 2006 may be contributing to the history of
the Assyrian attacks and the punishing campaigns against Arameans in
the foot of the mountain. The Arameans were, however, ruling the
mountain well into the Roman period, and the first evidence of their ex-
istence discovered in the region is provided in a short inscription on a
pottery sherd at a domestic site found at Qseybe, a Roman military sta-
tion, on Jebel Bishri in the season of 2006,74 where the locals may have
worked as cooks for the Romans.

Concluding remarks: ways to control the nomads of Jebel Bishri

The modes to deal with nomads are expressed in the Syro-Mesopotamian
cuneiform texts in the following forms: (1) diplomatic gift exchange,
(2) trading, (3) building a wall or fortification against them, (4) trying to

70
See Assurnasirpal’s Annals, e. g., Maspero 1903.
71
Darmark 2008.
72
Musil 1927.
73
Lönnqvist et al. 2007; Lönnqvist et al. 2009 (in press).
74
Lönnqvist et al. 2009.
 M. Lönnqvist, How to Control Nomads? 133

integrate nomads into the society, e. g., as traders, as a part of military

force or as other work-force (5) sending a military punishment or mili-
tary razzia against them, (6) harnessing the powers of the desert through
sacrifices and divination, (7) making an alliance with nomads, (8) spread-
ing propaganda against these outsiders or (9) imposing sedentarization.
We may group these measures into the peaceful and polarising ones.
Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7 appear as peaceful measures, while Nos. 3, 5 and 8 are
measures to deal with the enemies. Nos. 6 and 9 can be interpreted both
ways depending on the situation: religious means can be very peaceful
but while comprising curses can be directed to harm enemies, and im-
posed sedentarization can be peaceful through degrees but also forced by
military actions.
Most of the mentioned measures are touching in a way or another the
evidence that we have dealt with and which concern the relations be-
tween cities, territorial states, and empires towards nomadic Amorites
and Arameans, who are especially associated with the mountainous re-
gion of Jebel Bishri in Syria. The present archaeological evidence
confirms that the area was occupied by nomadic and tribal groups that
had reached the level of the chiefdom system in its social complexity by
the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age, when urbanization was on its way in
the Euphrates valley. The archaeological remains indicate that as far as
the archaeological indications of the Mesopotamian influence is con-
cerned, first the Al-Ubaid culture followed by the Uruk culture with its
territorialism influenced the piedmonts of Jebel Bishri.
It is not sure whether the contacts between Jebel Bishri and the urban
and territorial states meant political hegemony of Ebla or Lower Mesopo-
tamia over the area in the 3rd millennium B. C. According to the cunei-
form texts, the contacts between Ebla and the Amorites including their
kingdom MAR.DUki seem largely to have been peaceful. However, no di-
rect archaeological evidence of MAR.DUki is yet available, at least in the
sites around and on Jebel Bishri. But whether the Bronze Age people of
Jebel Bishri were particularly Amorites cannot yet be traced and defined
from the archaeological finds as no inscriptions that could be connected
to them or “type-fossils” of the people have yet been found. The foot of
the mountain, however, provides evidence of sedentarizing nomads
along the right bank of the Euphrates in the archaeological data dating to
the Early Bronze Age.
The Mesopotamian sources provide early evidence of religious lore
and myths concerning Jebel Bishri and the Amorites. From the cunei-
134 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

form evidence it can be inferred that not only diplomacy and alliances
but also trade and religious collaboration stimulated peaceful relations
between the Amorites with Ebla, early Ur III dynasty and its Gudea.
However, at Ebla the alliances and trade did not finally prevent from oc-
casional clashes with the Amorites, who ultimately conquered and took
over Ebla. Like territorialism imperialism also drove the interests towards
gaining an access and control resources, and this seems to have been be-
hind the Akkadian-led conflicts in the west and the neighbourhood of Je-
bel Bishri. The Akkadian and Ur III empires had special territorial in-
terests. Among the Sumerians there was a prejudiced, imperialistic and
insecure attitude towards the foreign and “barbarian” MAR.TU mountain-
eers with a weapon. It became apparent that trade and attempts to inte-
grate some of these foreign nomadic elements into the Sumerian society
was not permanent and they did not secure peace for the Ur III society.
The large-scale sedentarization of the Amorites was followed by the es-
tablishment of the Amorite rule in several city-states from ca. 2000 B. C.
onwards. The propagandist and imperialistic attitudes—such as ex-
emplified in the Sumerian sources—towards the surrounding nomads do
not appear pronouncedly in the sources of the genealogically related
kingdoms of Mari and Terqa (Khana) the new rule of which had been
formed by the nomads of the region. The state administration of Mari in-
tegrated the related groups as military force and enclosed them into the
local territorial administration. This is also the time of the rising amount
of the so-called warrior burials in the region. The Hurrian impact is ap-
parent in the military elements. However, the time was not totally devoid
of conflicts with some distantly related Amorite groups, such as Benjami-
nites, who are associated with the region of Jebel Bishri. From the pre-
sent evidence it seems that the archaeological evidence from tells and
tombs in the foot of Jebel Bishri providing Middle Bronze Age pottery is
connected with the greater cultural or territorial influence of Mari and
the kingdom of Khana in the region. From this period religious activities
are reconnected with the mountain.
Nomadic Arameans, however, became a direct target of the Middle
and Neo-Assyrian imperial politics in the foot of Jebel Bishri, and no
trade or religious lore associated with the mountain and its gods are rein-
stated any more. Some new identification of the sites that were possible
locations of the battles between Arameans and Assyrian rulers are sug-
gested by the Finnish survey and mapping project possibly finding ar-
chaeological echo in the cuneiform sources. Although the Assyrians had
 M. Lönnqvist, How to Control Nomads? 135

pursued after the nomadic Arameans deep into the mountain, they could
have never totally harnessed them.
The mountainous desert-steppe areas occupied by tribal people are
often impossible to conquer by urban powers even they may have territo-
rial interests into resources. The ways to maintain peaceful contacts in-
clude communication and co-operation in the field of trade, religion, di-
plomacy, treaties of alliances and offering employment.

Acknowledgements
The archaeological work on Jebel Bishri which is documented in the ar-
chaeological reports could not have been carried out without the kind co-
operation of the Syrian Department of Antiquities including Director
Generals Sultan Muheissen Moaz, Tammam Fakouch, and Director of
Archaeological Research in Syria Michel al-Maqdissi, funding from Acad-
emy of Finland, NorFA (NordForsk) and sponsorship of Nokia Co. Vari-
ous researchers need have been taking part in the survey and mapping
over the years and are remembered with gratitude. Special thanks are
due to GIS professor Kirsi Virrantaus, Markus Törmä, PhLic., my hus-
band Dr. Kenneth Lönnqvist, Helena Riihiaho, Theol. Cand., Prof. Mil-
ton Nuñez, Dr. Jari Okkonen, Margot Stout Whiting, MPhil., Prof. Martti
Nissinen and Prof. Gullög Nordquist.

References
Adams 1974 Adams, R. M. Historic Patterns of Mesopotamian Irriga-
tion Agricutlure. Downing, T. E.; Gibson, M. (eds.). Irriga-
tion’s Impact on Society (Anthropological Papers of the Uni-
versity of Arizona 25). Tucson. Pp. 1–6.
Algaze 1993 Algaze, G. The Uruk World System. London–Chicago.
Archer 1988 Archer, J. The Behavioural Biology of Aggression. Cam-
bridge.
Archi 1985 Archi, A. Mardu in the Ebla Texts. Or NS 54/1–2:7–13.
Astour 1992 Astour, M. C. An Outline of the History of Ebla (Part 1).
Gordon, C. H.; Rendsburg, G. A. (eds.). Eblaitica: Essays
on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language 3. Winona Lake.
Pp. 3–82.
Astour 2002 Astour, M. C. A Reconstruction of the History of Ebla.
Gordon, C. H. (ed.). Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives
and Eblaite Language 4. Winona Lake. Pp. 57–195.
Besançon–Sanlaville
1981 Besançon, J.; Sanlaville, P. Aperçu géomorphologique sur
la vallée de l’Euphrate Syrien. Paléorient 7:5–18.
136 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Bottéro 1954 Bottéro, J. Le problème des Habiru (CSA XII). Paris.

Buccellati 1966 Buccellati, G. The Amorites of the Ur III Period. Naples.
Buccellati 1990a Buccellati, G. From Khana to Laqē: The End of Syro-
Mesopotamia. Tunca, Ö. (ed.). De la Babylonie à la Syrie,
en passant par Mari. Mélanges offerts à Monsieur J.-R. Kup-
per à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire. Liège. Pp. 229–253.
Buccellati 1990b Buccellati, G. Salt at the Dawn of History: The Case of
the Bevelled-rim Bowls. Matthiae, P.; van Loon, M.;
Weiss, H. (eds.). Resurrecting the Past. A Joint Tribute to
Adnan Bounni (PIHANS 67). Leiden. Pp. 17–40.
Buccellati 1992 Buccellati, G. Ebla and the Amorites. Gordon, C. H.;
Rendsburg, G. A. (eds.). Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives
and Eblaite Language. 3. Winona Lake. Pp. 83–104.
Buccellati–Kelly-
Buccellati 1967 Buccellati, G.; Kelly-Buccellati, M. Archaeological Sur-
vey of the Palmyrene and the Jebel Bishri. Archaeology
20:305–306.
Casana 2007 Casana, J. Structural Transformations in Settlement Sys-
tems of the Northern Levant. AJA 111:195–221.
Cauvin–Stordeur
1985 Cauvin, J.; Stordeur, D. Une occupation d’époque Uruk
en Palmyrène: le niveau superior d’El Kowm 2–Caracol.
Cahiers de l’Euphrate 4:191–205.
Charpin–Durand 1986 Charpin, D.; Durand, J.-M. “Fils de Sim’al”: Les Origi-
nes Tribales des Rois de Mari. RA 80:141–183.
Chiera 1924 Chiera, E. Sumerian Religious Texts (Crozer Theological
Seminary Babylonian Publications. I). Upland.
Darmark 2008 Darmark, K. The Archaeological Potential of the Assyro-
Aramean Hostility on the Euphrates Side of Jebel Bishri.
Implications of Battlefield Archaeology. Lönnqvist, M.
(ed.). Jebel Bishri in Context. Introduction to the Archaeological
Studies and the Neighbourhood of Jebel in Central Syria. Pro-
ceedings of the Nordic Research Training Seminar in Syria, May
2004 (British Archaeological Reports. International Se-
ries). Oxford. Pp. 49–58.
Finkelstein 1966 Finkelstein, J. J. The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dy-
nasty. JCS 20:95–118.
Heltzer 1981 Heltzer, M. The Suteans. Naples.
Irons 1979 Irons, W. Political Stratification among Pastoral No-
mads. Pastoral Production and Society. Cambridge.
Pp. 361–374.
Jochim 1981 Jochim, M. A. Strategies for Survival, Cultural Behaviour in
an Ecological Context. New York.
Kenyon 1965 Kenyon, K. M. Excavations at Jericho. Vol. II. The Tombs
Excavated in 1955–1958. London.
Kenyon 1966 Kenyon, K. M. Amorites and Canaanites (The Schweich
Lectures of the British Academy 1963). London.
 M. Lönnqvist, How to Control Nomads? 137

Kohlmeyer 1984 Kohlmeyer, K. Euphrat-Survey, die mit Mitteln der Ger-

da Henkel Stiftung durchgeführte archäologische Gelän-
debegehung im syrishen Euphrattal. MDOG 116:95–118.
Kraus 1965 Kraus, F. R. Könige, die in Zelten Wohnten (Mededelingen
der Koninlijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschap-
pen, AFD. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks—Deel 28, No. 2).
Amsterdam.
Kupper 1957 Kupper, J.-R. Les nomades en Mésopotamie au temps des Rois
de Mari (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosphie et
Lettres de l’Univeristé de Liège CXLII). Paris.
Larsen 1979 Larsen, M. T. The Tradition of Empire in Mesopotamia.
Larsen, M. T. (ed.). Power and Propaganda. A Symposium on
Ancient Empires (Mesopotamia 7). Copenhagen. Pp. 75–115.
Lewy 1952 Lewy, J. Studies in the Historic Geography of the An-
cient Near East, Old Assyrian Caravan Roads in the Val-
leys of Habur and the Euphrates and in Northern Syria.
Or 19:265–292.
Lewy 1961 Lewy, J. Amurritica. HUCA 32:31–74.
Lloyd 1987 Lloyd, S. The Archaeology of Mesopotamia. From the Old Stone
Age to the Persian Conquest. London.
Lönnqvist 2000 Lönnqvist, M. A. Between Nomadism and Sedentism. Amorites
from the Perpective of Contextual Archaeology. PhD. Diss. Hel-
sinki.
Lönnqvist 2008 Lönnqvist, M. Were Nomadic Amorites on the Move?
Migration, Invasion and Gradual Infiltration as Mecha-
nisms for Cultural Transition. Kühne, H.; Czichon, R.;
Kreppner, F. J. (eds.). Social and Cultural Transformation:
The Archaeology of Transitional Periods and Dark Ages. Ex-
cavation Reports. Proceedings of the 4th International Con-
gress on the Archaeology of the Near East, 29 March — 3
April 2004. Freie Universität Berlin. Vol. 2. Wiesbaden.
Pp. 195–215.
Lönnqvist–Törmä 2003 Lönnqvist, M.; Törmä, M. SYGIS—The Finnish Ar-
chaeological Project in Syria. The ICOMOS & ISPRS
Committee for Documentation of Cultural Heritage. Al-
tan, M. O. (eds.). The Proceedings of the XIX International
Symposium New Perspectives to Save Cultural Heritage (CIPA
2003, Antalya) (The ISPRS International Archives of the
Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Informa-
tion Sciences. XXXIV-5/C15). Istanbul. Pp. 609–614.
Lönnqvist–Törmä 2004 Lönnqvist, M.; Törmä, M. Different Implications of a
Spatial Boundary. Jebel Bishri between the Desert and
the Sown in Syria. Altan, M. O. (ed.). The Proceedings of
the ISPRS XX Congress (The ISPRS International Ar-
chives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and
Spatial Information Sciences. Vol. XXXV, Part B). Is-
tanbul. Pp. 897–902.
138 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Lönnqvist–Törmä 2006 Lönnqvist, M.; Törmä, M. Observing Changes and their

Effects in Nomadic Environment, Remote-sensing and
Archaeology for Sustainable Development on Jebel Bish-
ri in Syria. Anji Reddy, M. (ed.). Environmental Geoinfor-
matics and Modeling (Proceedings of ICEM’05—Interna-
tional Conference on Environmental Management. 28–
30 Oct. 2005. Vol. IV). Hyderabad.
Lönnqvist et al. 2006 Lönnqvist, M.; Törmä, M.; Nuñez, M.; Lönnqvist, K.;
Whiting, M. S.; Okkonen, J.; Riihiaho, H.; Nissinen, M.
Archaeological Surveys of Jebel Bishri. The Preliminary
Report of the Finnish Mission to Syria 2000–2004. Kas-
kal 3:205–242.
Lönnqvist et al. 2007 Lönnqvist, M.; Törmä, M.; Lönnqvist, K.; Nuñez, M.;
Okkonen, J.; Latikka, J. The Euphrates Channel Chang-
es and Archaeology along Jebel Bishri in Syria. Geor-
gopoulos, A. (ed.). Proceedings of the XXI Symposium, An-
ticipating the Future of the Cultural Past (CIPA 2007, Ath-
ens). Vol. 1 (The International Archives of Photogram-
metry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sci-
ences. XXXVI-5/C53). Athens. Pp. 465–470.
Lönnqvist et al. 2009 Lönnqvist, M.; Törmä, M.; Lönnqvist, K.; Okkonen, J.;
Herles, M.; Königsdörfer, M. Archaeological Surveys of
Jebel Bishri. The Preliminary Report of the Finnish Mis-
sion to Syria 2005–2006. Kaskal 6:11–42.
Luckenbill 1926 Luckenbill, D. D. Ancient Records of Assyia, from the Earliest
Times to Sargon. Vol. I. Chicago.
Maspero 1903 Maspero, G. History of Egypt. Vol. 7. Part A: Chaldea,
Syria, Babylonia and Assyria (ed. A. H. Sayce). London.
Musil 1927 Musil, A. The Middle Euphrates. A Topographical Itinerary
(Oriental Explorations and Studies 3). New York.
Philip 1995 Philip, G. Warrior Burials in the Ancient Near-Eastern
Bronze Age: The Evidence from Mesopotamia, Western
Iran and Syria-Palestine. Campbell, S.; Green, A. (eds.).
The Archaeology of the Death in the Ancient Near East (Ox-
bow Monographs 51). Exeter. Pp. 96–115.
Podany 2002 Podany, A. H. The Land of Hana. Kings, Chronology, and
Scribal Tradition. Bethesda.
Pongratz-Leisten 2000 Pongratz-Leisten, B. The Other and the Enemy in the
Mesopotamian Conception of the World. Whiting, R. M.
(ed.). Mythology and Mythologies. Methodological Approaches
to Intercultural Influences (Melammu Symposia 2). Hel-
sinki. Pp. 195–231.
Rossignol–
Wandsnider 1992 Rossignol, J.; Wandsnider, L. (eds.). Space, Time, and Ar-
cheological Landscapes (Interdisciplinary Contributions to
Archaeology). New York–London.
 M. Lönnqvist, How to Control Nomads? 139

Rowton 1973 Rowton, M. Autonomy and Nomadism in Western Asia.

Or 42:247–258.
Sack 1986 Sack, D. R. Human Territoriality. Its Theory and History.
Cambridge.
Salonen 1968 Salonen, E. Zum altbabylonischen Kriegwesen. BiOr
25:160–162.
Sasson 1969 Sasson, J. M. The Military Establishments at Mari (StP 3).
Rome.
Smith 1949 Smith, S. The Statue of Idmi-ri (Occasional Publications of
the British School of Archaeology in Ankara. I). London.
Stillman–Tallis 1984 Stillman, N. R.; Tallis, N. C. Armies of the Ancient Near
East 3000 BC to 539 BC. Northing.
Weeks 1985 Weeks, N. The Old Babylonian Amorites: Nomads or
Mercenaries? OLP 16:49–57.
Wilcke 1969–1970 Wilcke, C. Zur Geschichte der Amurriter in der Ur III
Zeit. WO 5:1–31.
Wittfogel 1957 Wittfogel, K. A. Oriental Despotism. A Comparative Study of
Total Power. New Haven.
 The Sargonic “Archive” of Me-sásag7 , Cup-bearer of Adab

Massimo Maiocchi
Venice International University

1. Introduction
The aim of the present article is to provide a preliminary study on some
published and unpublished texts from Adab,1 concerning the activities of
Me-sásag7, a high-ranking cup-bearer (sagi).2 This individual was already
known from some published documents, but the available data weren’t
sufficient to trace an outline of his affairs. Because of this, they didn’t re-
ceive much attention from modern scholars. The tablets I will present
here are administrative records, belonging to the Classical Sargonic Pe-
riod (late reign of Naram-Sin and Šar-kali-šarri), illicitly excavated at the
site of Adab or in the nearby region. The ascertainment of dating and
provenance of the texts is based on palaeography, orthographic peculi-
arities, prosopography, and menology. Recently published material from
this site3 makes Adab and the surrounding area (including the sites of
Umm-el-Hafriyat, Karkar, and Keš) of utmost importance to understand
society and administration of the last quarter of the third millennium BC.
The available documentation is in fact comparable in number to that of
contemporary Girsu, deserving a detailed analysis which may shed some
new light on Sargonic administrative practice.4

1
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Prof. D. Owen, who gave me the
permit of studying about 250 tablets for my PhD. The complete publication has
recently appeared as Maiocchi 2009. The texts belongs to the Cuneiform Collec-
tion of the Department of Near Eastern Studies, Cornell University and are pres-
ently housed in the Jonathan and Jeannette Rosen Ancient Near East Seminar
there.
2
I follow Yang Zhi (PPAC 1) in reading this PN as Me-sásag7; contra Cooper–
Heimpel 1983:81 reading Me-ša-kan (where ša is apparently a mistake for sá).
For reason of clarity, I also retain the traditional transliteration sagi for SÌLA.ŠU.
DU8, although sagia should be preferred, see Taylor 2002.
3
263 documents from Adab ranging from Early to Classical Sargonic period
have been recently published in TBI 1.
4
A short overview of the available Sargonic material from Adab has been pre-
sented by Maria Elena Milone in her contribution to the Banca d’Italia volume,
142 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

2. Physical characteristics and palaeography of the tablets

The tablets mentioning Me-sásag7 are not homogeneous in size and shape,
but they tend to be rather square, this feature being more evident in
those of larger format, having very straight edges. The text is written in a
single column on both sides. An uninscribed space is usually placed be-
fore the total or the colophon. The signs are neatly aligned to both left
and right margins, giving to the individual cases a sense of completeness
and order. The sign variants belong to the Classical Sargonic Period,5
note especially: the ŠE and SUM signs don’t have “stem” (a feature pecu-
liar to Early and Middle Sargonic tablets), ŠU has horizontal “thumb” (as
opposed to earlier oblique “thumb”), the word for ‘total’ is written šu+
nígin (as opposed to earlier šu-nígin).6 Each case usually contains more
than a semantic whole, namely a certain amount of items followed by a
personal name and/or a title. There are no seal impressions or envelopes.
Other characteristics, such as form and size of the stylus, are not easy to
evaluate. Nevertheless, the general impression is that these tablets were
written by different scribes in a relatively short period of time. Thus, they
do not form an archive in the sense of a collection of documents belong-
ing to a single individual or institution, and kept in a specific place for
his/its own use. In particular, at least one of the Cornell tablets mention-
ing Me-sásag7 can be grouped together with the texts belonging to the
kitchen archive.7 Nevertheless, it is useful to group these tablets together
to better understand the role played by the cup-bearer of Adab in the
Sargonic administration.

see Milone 2006. The tablets from this site are presently scattered among the col-
lections of Cornell University (NY), Instanbul Museum, Real Academia de la His-
toria (Madrid), Oriental Institute of Chicago, Schøyen Collection (Oslo, unpub-
lished), Banca d’Italia (Rome). In addition, many texts probably from Adab ap-
peared very recently in on-line auctions on the web, some of them being traced
by the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (www.cdli.ucla.edu). The archives
which has been so far more extensively studied are those of Umma, Me-ság, and
Nippur, see respectively USP; Bridges 1981; OSP 1, OSP 2, ECTJ. For an over-
view of available Sargonic archives and the relevant bibliographical references see
Foster 1982; Foster 1993b.
5
E. Milone announced a study of the Adab palaeography in the forthcoming
edition of the cuneiform tablets belonging to the Real Academia de la Historia
(Madrid), see TBI 1, 9.
6
On this palaeographic feature see Alberti 1987.
7
For a discussion on this archive see Maiocchi 2009:7–9.
 M. Maiocchi, The Sargonic “Archive” of Me-sásag7… 143

3. The “archive”
Me-sásag7 is a rare name, occurring in Adab only. He is qualified as sagi
in OIP 14, 100 = PPAC 1, A 937obv.:2, OIP 14, 83 = PPAC 1, A 978rev.:2,
and CUNES 49-09-113rev.:10. Another text, namely PPAC 1, A 940,
mentions an official called Me-sásag7 ‘the scribe’ (dub-sar), in relation to a
certain amount of fish. Since both title and food items involved differ
from the ones found in the other texts of the archive, I excluded this
document from the present discussion, but one can speculate that we are
dealing with the same person in a different period of his “career.” In ad-
dition, it is unclear if the individual whose name is spelled Me-ság is the
same as Me-sásag7 (ság = PA.GAN, sag7 = GAN).8 The former appears in
two texts from Adab, namely PPAC 1, A 938 and OIP 14, 92 = PPAC 1, A
925, in connection with groats and beer referred to as outcome (è). In
any case, he is not to be confused with the well known Me-ság of Umma,
whose archive have been studied by Foster in his Umma C texts group.9
The documents concerned here may be divided in five groups accord-
ing to their content: a) texts concerning movement of bronze objects (§ 3.1);
b) texts concerning beer and/or ingredients for making beer (§ 3.2); c) texts
concerning grain (§ 3.3); d) texts concerning miscellaneous food items for
local temples and gods (§ 3.4); e) texts concerning breeding (§ 3.5).

3.1. Texts concerning movement of bronze objects

OIP 14, 103 and OIP 14, 100 = PPAC 1, A 937 belong to this group,
dealing with bronze artefacts given to (an-na-sum), or received by (šu ba-
ti), Me-sásag7. The items include bronze vessels or utensils (šu-garzabar),10
libation vessels (kun-KAKzabar),11 jars (šu-lázabar),12 basins (za-¶umzabar) “in

8
Contra Yang Zhi, who considers the two spellings as variants, cf. PPAC 1,
185 (where Me-sag7 is actually a mistake for Me-ság).
9
USP 79–148.
10
Possibly an abbreviated spelling of šu-ša-gar or šu-uš-garzabar = Akk. šušmarû
‘a vessel or utensil.’ The term is probably written also U.LAL = šuš-lá, see MC 4, 54.
This object weights up to 4 minas and it is worth 6–15 shekels of silver, see CAD Š3
383. Sallaberger 1995:17 understands šu-ša-gar kun-KAK as ‘Libationskanne,’ see
also note 11.
11
According to Civil 1987:40 this object may weight 1 mina and 17 shekels (≈
641.4 gr). It is tempting to read the term kun-KAK as kun-rimx, compare dugkun-
rim = Akk. masla¶tu ‘a vessel for sprinkling’ in Ú¶ x 173, see also Sallaberger
1995:17.
12
The capacity of this container fluctuates between 1, ½, and ¼ of liter, see
MC 4, 48.
144 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

the Magan style,” mirrors? (ma-ša-lumzabar, big and small),13 hand-mirrors?

(zabar-šu),14 and bronze figurines in the shape of a dog (gal-pumzabar).15 All
these items clearly compose a standard set of ceremonial or institutional
tools used by the cup-bearer in some special occasion, such as banquets
and festivals. Comparative evidence from Ebla and other sites suggests
that all the items listed above are standardized in weight.16 This fact may
explain why containers and decorative objects are counted per se, i. e.,
without further indications. In addition, the presence of the administra-
tive terms an-na-sum and šu ba-ti in the colophon of the tablets suggest
that the manufactured objects are (at least formally) property of the cen-
tral administration. Hence, they are presumably to be returned in the
hand of the local government at the end of the cup-bearer’s office.

3.2. Texts concerning beer and/or ingredients for making beer

OIP 14, 101 = PPAC 1, A 970, OIP 14, 83 = PPAC 1, A 978, and CUNES
48-06-189 deal with deliveries of beer or ingredients for making beer.
More in detail, the former records an ‘expenditure’ (zi-ga) of two kinds of
beer (kaš-sig5, kaš-GÌR)17 to a cup-bearer called Ig-mu-lum, possibly a for-
eigner, and to a group of Gutians.18 The beer is said to have been brought

13
The word ma-ša-lum is either a variant of mu-ša-lum ‘mirror’ or a term
probably denoting a type of pipe or drinking tube. For lexical references and dis-
cussion see Cooper–Heimpel 1983:81; Steinkeller 1987:349, n. 5; Sallaberger
1995:17.
14
On the meaning of this term and a discussion on lexical references see
Steinkeller 1987. See also Cooper–Heimpel 1983:81, stressing the fact that this ob-
ject is not necessarily made of bronze. The literal meaning ‘bronze (of) the hand’
may fit either to a hand-mirror or to an object having handle(s), but one can not
exclude the interpretation ‘mirror (of) the (lifted) hand (= of the prayer),’ compare
ninda-šu (Nik. 2, 45 et passim) as abbreviated writing of ninda-šu-íl-la ‘bread of the
lifted hand’ attested in the so-called “reforms” of IriKAgina.
15
Cooper–Heimpel 1983:81 (with previous bibliographical references) read
gal-KA׊U ‘a variety of container for liquids’; contra CAD K 71 ‘a dog of bronze.’
Both interpretations are probably correct, thinking of gal-pù in terms of a bronze
container in the shape of a dog.
16
On this vast topic see Archi 1985; Milano 1991; Zaccagnini 1991.
17
Either high and ordinary quality beer, or golden and dark/reddish beer (in
which case GÌR is to be read ¶úš = Akk. ezzu), cf. Powell 1994:104–118.
18
Gutians as travellers or ‘conveyors’ (gìr-gen-na) of the Easterner(s) (sa-ti-um)
are mentioned also in PPAC 1, A 919 = Steinkeller 1980:7–9, in connection with
a certain amount of barley referred to as ‘expenditure’ (zi-ga) of Un-íl, a scribe in
charge of grain and flour supplies.
 M. Maiocchi, The Sargonic “Archive” of Me-sásag7… 145

by a certain É-a-mu-da the maškim-supervisor, and is referred to in the

colophon as expenditure (zi-ga) of Me-sásag7 in the month še-sag-sa6-ga.
OIP 14, 83 = PPAC 1, A 978 is a record of beer referred to as muštúm é-
lùnga énsi-ka ‘m.-contribution of the ensi’s brewery’ under the supervision
of Me-sásag7 sagi. The ensi’s brewery was a structure providing beer for
foreigners, as Yang Zhi already pointed out.19 CUNES 48-06-189 is a
rather long record of barley, beer breads (bappir), malt (munu4), and beer
(kaš-sig5) for various months, measured in gur si-sá and gur-ma¶.20 The
recipients are priests, gods, individuals, and ‘the new “house” ’ (é-gibil).
Since the tablet is poorly preserved one cannot exclude that this was in fact
an annual balance of barley. Me-sásag7 is mentioned twice (obv.:6′ and
obv.:10′), in connection with the considerable amount of 1,800 liters of bar-
ley either in the month gá-udu-ur4 or in the month ab-è zi-ga (the context
is unclear). The colophon, unfortunately broken, might have registered
the total amount of grain in relation to Me-sásag7. Since the above-
mentioned OIP 14, 101 = PPAC 1, A 970 may also be interpreted as a re-
cord of beer for travel provision, one can not exclude that the barley allot-
ted in CUNES 48-06-189 was to be processed into bread and/or beer, pos-
sibly related to some diplomatic mission involving Me-sásag7 as well as the
other individuals mentioned in the tablet.21

3.3. Texts concerning grain

PPAC 1, A 669 and TBI 1, 241 deal with barley and emmer, referred to
in the latter as ‘arrears’ (lá-NI)22 of Me-sásag7 in the previous year ([im-
ma-kam\). The total amount mentioned in the colophon is considerable,
reaching 35,520 liters. The individuals mentioned in these documents
belong to the head of the city administration. In particular, it is notewor-
thy the presence of a certain Ur-dinanna, whose activities were formerly
unclear. The Cornell texts prove that he was a chief brewer, whose ar-
chive is to be compared to the ones belonging to the ensi’s brewery,
É-sukkal-gi-si, Inim-ma, and Un-íl.23 TBI 1, 241 mentions also Sipa-an-né
‘the cook’ (mu¶aldim), who is in charge of the énsi’s kitchen. This admin-
istrative structure provides food for both the ensi's table and for cultic oc-

19
PPAC 1, 267.
20
On these beer ingredients see Powell 1994:94–99.
21
For this interpretation see also § 3.6.
22
On this term, probably to be read lá-ux, see Steinkeller 1984:137–139.
23
See respectively PPAC 1, 256–258, 260–261, 264–267.
146 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

casions.24 The alimentary items come from various sources, such as the
above-mentioned scribes Inim-ma and Un-íl, other individuals without ti-
tle, and the storehouse (é-nì-ga ganun). In addition, CUNES 49-12-008 is
a small tablet, rather round, recording an unnamed item, possibly barley
or sheep, in relation to gods and temples. The tablet is roughly made,
and the lack of the indication of the item involved may suggest that this
was a preliminary note, whose content was probably summarized in lar-
ger tablets. Be this as it may, we see here a hint at a cup-bearer perform-
ing his office in cultic context.25

3.4. Texts concerning miscellaneous food items

As mentioned above, the texts belonging to this group deal with food
items (including meat), related to local gods and temples. CUNES 48-06-
190 and CUNES 49-09-113 are two parallel medium-size records of
sheep, cakes (gúg), ordinary beer (kaš), and breads for offering (ninda-
nesag-UMBIN×LU)26 to major gods (Dingir-ma¶—probably an epithet of
Nin¶ursag,—Iškur, Enki, Ašgi, Meslamtaea, Ninšubur and others whose
name is broken or poorly preserved) and the relative priests (en) or
priestesses (nin-dingir). The colophon states that the food items are an
‘expenditure’ (zi-ga) of Me-sásag7, qualified as sagi in the former text.
Note that in cultic context the recipients of alimentary items delivered by
the cup-bearer always receive fully processed food.
In addition, it is noteworthy the presence of cakes, which are never al-
lotted to workers, professionals, or court personnel.27

3.5. Texts concerning breeding

Only one text belongs to this group, namely CUNES 47-12-200, an ac-
count of he-goats (máš) and sheep (udu) allotted to various individuals,
whose profession is not provided, and to the kitchen (é-mu¶aldim). This

24
PPAC 1, 256–258.
25
Cup-bearers performing their offices as part of the temple personnel are well
attested also in Drehem, see Sigrist 1992:123, 276; Glassner 1993–97:420–421.
26
This kind of bread is attested in Adab only. The meaning of UMBIN×LU is
unclear. On the one hand, one can think about a bread in the shape of a wheel,
on the basis of the equivalence UMBIN = Akk. magarru. On the other, the term
UMBIN seem to refer to a container for oil and fat (see for instance TBI 1,
165obv.:1 et passim). The variant? ninda-nesag-UMBIN×LU GALAM is attested in
OIP 14, 89rev.:4, but the context is difficult.
27
See also § 3.5.
 M. Maiocchi, The Sargonic “Archive” of Me-sásag7… 147

text actually belongs to the kitchen archive, consisting of a dozen of other

documents. These are similar in shape and size to the one concerned
here, a small-medium tablet, having an average brownish colour, and
Classical Sargonic script. The sheep are told to be an ‘expenditure’ (zi-ga)
in the colophon of the document. In the texts of the Me-sásag7 “archive”
concerning miscellaneous food items, meet is reserved as food for cultic
occasions. This fact suggests that the animals concerned here may also be
related to religious context, though one can not exclude that they are to
be regarded as food for the énsi’s table. In addition, it is unclear if sheep
and goats come directly from the fields managed by local institutions, or
were given to the kitchen in order to be processed.

3.6. Conclusions
To sum up, Me-sásag7 seems to manage alimentary items coming from dif-
ferent departments of the city administration. He accounted his own
monthly expenditure of beer for foreign visitors, and for some cultic occa-
sion, possibly festivals involving major gods of the local pantheon. Allot-
ments of sheep, cakes, breads for offering, and beer are also recorded as
expenditure of Me-sásag7. At the end of a year, he drew up an annual bal-
ance of his activities. Besides temple and gods, some high officials also re-
ceive food items from the cup-bearer, but the role played by them in the
city administration remains unknown. The source of beer was of two types:
a supervisor (maškim) called É-a-mu-da, and the énsi’s brewery. Together
with this institution and the énsi’s kitchen, Me-sásag7 receives large quanti-
ties of barley, possibly to be processed by these two administrative depart-
ments. In this case, one has to assume that the cup-bearer had his own sub-
accounts of alimentary items. The same applies for the main officials in-
volved in food redistribution (beer and bread). The cup-bearer was also in-
volved in some cultic activities that can not be further specified.
Finally, for his court office he receives bronze containers and decorative
figurines, but these items seem not part of his personal belongings. Hence,
one could summarize the redistributive patterns of alimentary and non-
alimentary items involving Me-sásag7 as presented in fig. 1.
Some remarks are in order. First of all I considered the kitchen tout
court (é-mu¶aldim) as identical to the énsi’s kitchen (é-mu¶aldim énsi-ka),
since the former appears only in CUNES 47-12-200, which is part of the
internal archive of the kitchen itself.28 Though there is no conclusive evi-

28
See also PPAC 1, 256–258.
148 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

dence, it seems that the designation énsi-ka is not obligatory in this group
of texts.
The lack of flour and non-processed food as expenditure of Me-sásag7
is noteworthy. We know in fact that barley, emmer, dabin-flour and flour
of husked emmer (zì zíz-AN) were part of the regular offerings (sá-du11)
to local gods and temples.29 The alleged gap in the available documenta-
tion may be explained either by the fact that the cup-bearer was not in
charge of flour-supplies, or by the fact that the flour was actually proc-
essed into breads and cakes (presumably by the é-mu¶aldim) but the rel-
ative documentation either did not survive, or was not accounted by the
local administration.
There is little evidence in the available Adab Sargonic records of other
duties peculiar to the cupbearer’s office, such as the pouring out of beer,
wine, and water, as well as the check of poisoned drinks.30 These tasks are
mostly attested in literary context, and may constitute the basic service of
low-ranking officials.31 Diplomatic responsibilities are not explicitly at-
tested in Adab, but note that the above-mentioned text OIP 14, 101 =
PPAC 1, A 970 may be interpreted as a record of food items related to a
foreign embassy, composed by a foreign cup-bearer and a retinue of Gu-
tians, whose food provision was supervised by Me-sásag7. Comparable dip-
lomatic duties are attested also in the Ebla archives, where precious gifts
exchange is also recorded.32
As we have seen, administrative records mostly document the supervi-
sion of city departments, such as the brewery and the kitchen. This fact
implies that the function of the sagi includes not only the one of a som-
melier, but also the one of a food taster latu sensu.

29
See for instance PPAC 1, A 865 and PPAC 1, A 865, both involving the
scribe Inim-ma. For a discussion on cultic activities in Adab see PPAC 1, 240–250.
The term bappir = Akk. tappinnu is a generic one denoting various kinds of flour
or milled products (níg-аr-ra, zì-gu, še-KAM), but not high quality flour (zì-sig15),
as stated in AAS 4. On the term dabin see also Milano 1993–97:25. Both bappir
and zì zíz-AN (read also zíz-ìmgaga) are used as basic ingredients for making beer
and breads (ninda and ninda-zíz-AN respectively), the latter mostly allotted to cul-
tic officials.
30
Glassner 1993–97:421–422.
31
According to Early Dynastic Šuruppak texts low-ranking cup-bearers re-
ceive 160 sìla of barley as standard ration, see EDATŠ 32.
32
Archi 1999:151–152. These ceremonial functions are comparable with those
of the zabar-dab5, a high-ranking cultic official attested from Ur III on, see Salla-
berger 1999:186–188; Glassner 1993–1997:421–422.
 M. Maiocchi, The Sargonic “Archive” of Me-sásag7… 149

It is also noteworthy that more than a cup-bearer is attested in Adab.

In fact, up to 8 cup-bearers are listed in partially broken context in a long
document enumerating high officials and professionals.33
It is unclear if these cup-bearers come from other cities, or rather per-
form their offices in different contexts, such as in temples, in private
houses, or they are simply in service of different court personalities.34
The relation among them remains therefore unclear. In any case, this is
not unique in third millennium sources. As far as the Old Akkadian Pe-
riod is concerned, one can compare OPBF 5, 9, listing sickles (urudukin)
related to various cup-bearers and received in the city of Girsu.
Since the administrative affairs of Me-sásag7 are mostly related to the
énsi’s brewery and the énsis’s kitchen, one can consider his activity as a
private office in a public milieu. Again, this fact is not unique in Sargonic
administration, being comparable with the practices attested in the so-
called Umma B archive.35
Finally I would like to point out that the reconstruction of third mil-
lennium redistributive patterns involving the cup-bearer’s office is re-
quired not only to better understand innovations and changes in Ancient
Near Eastern history and society from a diachronic point of view,36 but
also to properly appreciate royal ideology and Mesopotamian mentality
toward the most famous cup-bearer of that time, according to later (non-)
historical inscriptions: Sargon himself, the cup-bearer of Ur-zababa, king
of Kiš.37

33
CUNES 48-07-095.
34
For instance Baba, the queen of pre-Sargonic Mari, had her own cup-
bearer, see Archi 1999:148; see also Glassner 1993–97:420. Two cup-bearers are
also attested UET 2 Sup, 23obv. i 1–3. Note also Nik. 2, 49 recording a journey of
the cupbearers supervisor (ugula sagi-ne). Other instances of groups of cup-
bearers are found in Fara (see EDATŠ 19obv. v 1–6 and ibid. 121, n. 39), in pre-
Sargonic Lagaš (see FAOS 15/1, 286 iv 1, where they are related to the construc-
tion of a building), and in Ur III texts (see for instance AnOr 1, 139obv.:5 et pas-
sim). On cup-bearers as cultic officials see above note 25.
35
This group of tablets carefully document the business of a certain Ur-dšára
and his wife Ama-é, as a private enterprise related to a large institutional house-
hold, see USP 52–78.
36
For an outline of Sargonic administration see Foster 1983a (with previous
references), where remarkably the office of the cup-bearer is left out.
37
Sargon is given the title sagi Ur-dza-ba4-ba4 both in the Sumerian King List
and in some of the so-called “legends,” see Cooper–Heimpel 1983; MC 7, 51–55;
Westenholz 1999:34–37.
150 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Fig. 1

Addendum
While working on another group of Classical Sargonic tablets in the Cornell
University collection, I found the following texts belonging to the Me-sásag7
‘archive,’ which have been included in my recent volume in the CUSAS se-
ries: CUNES 49-08-110 (involving barley and emmer), CUNES 48-12-069
(barley), CUNES 49-09-114 (loaves of bread for offering), CUNES 48-06-157
(expenditure beer), CUNES 48-06-175 (expenditure beer), CUNES 48-06-
193 (expenditure of beer), CUNES 48-06-194 (beer, malt and groats). All of
them support the conclusions offered above. It is noteworthy the mention of
the private household (é) of this official in connection with barley in the first
text of the list above, and the fact that the recipients of the beer in the ex-
penditure texts (zi-ga) of Me-sásag7 are mostly constables (šu-gal5-lá / šu-gal5-
lá-um), receiving beer probably for traveling purposes (see § 3.2).
 M. Maiocchi, The Sargonic “Archive” of Me-sásag7… 151

References
Alberti 1987 Alberti, A. šu.nígin: ein neuer Anhaltspunkt zur Datie-
rung der Texte der Akkade-Zeit. WO 18:20–25.
Archi 1985 Archi, A. Circulation d’objets en métal précieux de poids
standardisé а Ebla. Durand, M.; Kupper, J. R. (eds.).
Miscellanea Babylonica. Mélanges offerts à Maurice Birot. Pa-
ris. Pp. 25–34.
Archi 1999 Archi, A. The Steward and His Jar. Iraq 61:147–158.
Bridges 1981 Bridges, S. J. The Mesag Archive: A Study of Sargonic Soci-
ety and Economy. PhD. Diss. Yale University.
Civil 1987 Civil, M. Ur III Bureaucracy: Quantitative Aspects. Gib-
son, McG.; Biggs, R. D. (eds.). The Organization of Power.
Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East (SAOC 46).
Chicago. Pp. 35–44.
Cooper–Heimpel 1983 Cooper, J. S.; Heimpel, W. The Sumerian Sargon Leg-
end. JAOS 103:67–82.
Foster 1982 Foster, B. R. Archives and Record-Keeping in Sargonic
Mesopotamia. ZA 72:1–27.
Foster 1983a Foster, B. R. Management and Administration in the Sargo-
nic Period. Liverani, M. (ed.). Akkad. The First World Empire.
Structure, Ideology, Traditions (HANE/S 5). Padova. Pp. 25–39.
Foster 1983b Foster, B. R. Selected Bibliography of the Sargonic Peri-
od. Liverani, M. (ed.). Akkad. The First World Empire. Struc-
ture, Ideology, Traditions (HANE/S 5). Padova. Pp. 171–182.
Glassner 1993–1997 Glassner, J. J. Mundschenk. RlA 8:420–422.
Maiocchi 2009 Maiocchi, M. Classical Sargonic Tablets Chiefly from Adab in
the Cornell University Collections (CUSAS 13). Bethesda.
Milano 1991 Milano, L. Circolazione di recipienti d’oro e d’argento in
Siria nell’Antico e Medio Bronzo. Scienze dell’Antichità
5:353–368.
Milone 2006 Milone, E. Testi da Adab del III millennio. Pomponio,
F. et al. (eds.). Le tavolette cuneiformi di Adab delle collezioni
della Banca d’Italia. Vol. 1. Roma. Pp. 65–67.
Powell 1994 Powell, M. Metron Ariston: Measure as a Tool for Study-
ing Beer in Ancient Mesopotamia. Milano, L. (ed.).
Drinking in Ancient Societies. History and Culture of Drinks in
the Ancient Near East. Padova. Pp. 91–120.
Sallaberger 1995 Sallaberger, W. Eine reiche Bestattung im neusumeri-
schen Ur. JCS 47:15–21.
Sallaberger 1999 Sallaberger, W. Ur III Zeit. Attinger, P.; Wäfler, M.
(eds.). Mesopotamien. Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit (OBO
160/3). Fribourg. Pp. 121–390.
Sigrist 1992 Sigrist, M. Drehem. Bethesda.
Steinkeller 1980 Steinkeller, P. The Old Akkadian Term for ‘Easterner.’
RA 74:1–9.
Steinkeller 1984 Steinkeller, P. Sumerian Miscellanea. AuOr 2:137–142.
152 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Steinkeller 1987 Steinkeller, P. On the Meaning of zabar-šu. ASJ 9:347–349.

Taylor 2002 Taylor, J. On the Reading of SÌLA.ŠU.DU8 ‘cup-bearer.’
NABU 2002/29.
Westenholz 1999 Westenholz, A. The Old Akkadian Period: History and
Culture. Attinger, P.; Wäfler, M. (eds.). Mesopotamien.
Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit (OBO 160/3). Fribourg.
Pp. 17–117.
Zaccagnini 1991 Zaccagnini, C. Ancora sulle coppe d’oro e d’argento nel
Vicino Oriente nel Tardo Bronzo. Scienze dell’Antichità 5:
369–379.
 Le ¶azannu à Mari et sur le Moyen-Euphrate

Lionel Marti
CNRS, UMR 7192

Les pouvoirs locaux dans le Proche-Orient ancien ont toujours suscité

l’intérêt des chercheurs. Encore dernièrement ont été étudiés la composi-
tion et le fonctionnement des Assemblées populaires, considérées comme
des prototypes de la démocratie, les institutions des Anciens, la définition
de la Cité et le rapport de toutes ces institutions avec le pouvoir royal en
général.1
Parmi ces études le ¶azannu fait figure d’oublié. Sa fonction traverse
pourtant toutes les époques du Proche-Orient ancien; selon nos diction-
naires, il serait un ‘Mayor’2 ou un ‘Burgmeister’.3 La compréhension de
ses activités pose encore de nombreux problèmes, entre autres celui de
savoir si ce titre, dont l’étymologie est opaque, a toujours désigné la
même réalité.
Sa définition est pour le moins vague: le ¶azannu est ainsi considéré
par Marc van de Mieroop comme “un terme générique correspondant au
chef d’une communauté, qu’il soit un local désigné par le roi ou un fonc-
tionnaire étranger mis en place par la cour”.4
Dans la présente approche, je comparerai deux corpus d’époques diffé-
rentes, mais géographiquement contigus, l’un originaire de Mari, l’autre
provenant des textes du Moyen-Euphrate. Les textes mariotes permettent
une approche assez précise du ¶azannu pour ce qui est de l’aspect concret

1
Le colloque Les Pouvoirs locaux en Mésopotamie et dans les régions adjacentes
(Bruxelles, 1982) traitait de ce sujet. Plus récemment, voir le livre de D. Fleming.
Democracy’s Ancient Ancestors. Mari and Early Collective Government (Cambridge,
2004) et A. Seri. Local Power in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia (Londres, 2005).
2
CAD Ú 163b: ‘Chief magistrate of a town, of a quarter of a large city, a vil-
lage, or large estate’—‘Mayor, burgomaster, headman’.
3
AHw. 338b: ‘Bürgermeister’.
4
Van de Mieroop, M. The Government of an Ancient Mesopotamian City:
What We Know and Why We Know So Little. Watanabe, K. (éd.). Priests and Offi-
cials in the Ancient Near East. Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East
—The City and Its Life Held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka,
Tokyo), March 22–24, 1996. Heidelberg, 1999, p. 158.
154 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

de ses fonctions, lorsque les États amorrites cherchent à étendre et conser-

ver leur influence locale. Les textes de l’Euphrate, postérieurs de quatre
siècles à eux, documentent toujours la fonction dans la région du Moyen-
Euphrate syrien, mais dans un cadre politique et culturel très différent.
Postérieurement à la première dynastie de Babylone, on se trouve dans un
monde à la confluence de grandes zones politiques et culturelles hétéro-
gènes qui, tour à tour, le contrôlent (la nébuleuse hourrite du Mitanni, les
royaumes hittite et assyrien). Il a préservé des particularismes forts remon-
tant à l’époque amorrite, mais il a aussi profondément changé tant dans ses
institutions que pour ce qui concerne la manipulation de l’écrit, très diffé-
rente des pratiques dites babyloniennes.
Je tracerai d’abord à grands traits le portrait du ¶azannu mariote et de
ses fonctions et le confronterai ensuite avec ce que nous apprennent les
textes postérieurs du Moyen-Euphrate.

1. Le ¶azannum à Mari
Nous constatons l’existence d’un grand nombre de ¶azannum dans toutes les
régions tant de l’Euphrate que de la Haute-Djéziré qui entrent dans l’horizon
documenté par Mari.5 Nous sommes bien renseignés pour ce qui est de l’in-
stallation du personnage et de la signification politique d’un tel acte. Nous
avons surtout pour presque toute la durée du règne de Zimrî-Lîm la cor-
respondance d’un ¶azannum particulier, Lanasûm, qui se trouvait à Tuttul,
ville dont les institutions politiques ne nous sont, en outre, pas inconnues.
La traduction de sa fonction par ‘maire’, dans les textes de Mari, avait
été pressentie comme fausse par les éditeurs de ARM X6 et J.-M. Durand
a bien montré ensuite que le rôle du ¶azannum était avant tout d’être “le
représentant local des intérêts du suzerain.”7

1.1. La nomination d’un ¶azannum

(a) Yawi-ilâ, roi de Talhayûm, ville à l’histoire mouvementée,8 décrit l’in-
stallation d’un ¶azannum. Devant l’instabilité politique de sa région, crai-
gnant ses voisins trop entreprenants, Yawi-ilâ écrivit à Zimrî-Lîm pour

5
J.-R. Kupper en avait dressé un inventaire dans: Zimri-Lim et ses vassaux.
Charpin, D. (éd.). Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Etudes sur la civilisation méso-
potamienne offertes à Paul Garelli. Paris, 1991, pp. 182–183.
6
Dossin, G.; Finet, A. Correspondance féminine (ARM X). Paris, 1978, p. 275.
7
Durand, J.-M. LAPO 16 (1997), p. 517.
8
Voir Durand, J.-M. Les Anciens de Talhayûm. RA 82 (1988):108–111.
 L. Marti, Le ¶azannu à Mari et sur le Moyen-Euphrate 155

faire sa soumission: il demanda la prestation de serments mutuels, ce qui

devait être suivi par l’installation d’un ¶azannum envoyé par celui qui
serait devenu son suzerain:
‘Il faut que mon seigneur prête un serment par le dieu et qu’un
¶azannum entre dans la ville de Talhayûm.’9

L’insistance de Yawi-ilâ transparaît dans la conclusion de sa lettre, qui

nous indique d’où venait le ¶azannum demandé.
‘Que mon seigneur me fasse porter rapidement une réponse à ma
tablette, que je puisse envoyer des gens qui fassent prêter serment
(…) et que m’arrive avec mes serviteurs (…) que j’aurais envoyés un
¶azannum donné par mon Seigneur qui puisse entrer dans la ville
de Talhayûm.’

Ce fonctionnaire venait donc de chez Zimrî-Lîm et n’était, au moins

dans ce cas, pas un local. Cette lettre comporte de plus à cette occasion
l’intéressant rappel d’un précédent historique.
‘Depuis toujours, la ville de Talhayûm appartient à mon seigneur
et non pas d’aujourd’hui: à l’époque de Yahdun-Lîm, ton père, et
du noble Rakabtum [un roi antérieur de Talhayûm], c’était Yakûn-
Mêr, l’échanson, serviteur de Yahdun-Lîm, ton père, qui exerça ici
l’office de ¶azannum.’

C’est le porteur d’un titre aulique, un échanson, qui avait été envoyé
comme ¶azannum, et son installation signifiait déjà l’inféodation du pou-
voir local.10

(b) Yawi-ilâ n’est pas le seul roi à faire ce genre de demande: lorsque un
roi local souhaitait l’aide du roi de Mari il lui réclamait un ¶azannum. Ain-
si, le roi d’Urkiš, Terru, sentant la situation locale lui échapper, écrivit à
Zimrî-Lîm.
‘La dissension s’est installée dans Urkiš. Il faut que [mon seigneur]
envoie un ¶azannum à Urkiš et un (autre) ¶azannum à Šinah pour
qu’ils veillent sur [les maisons] des particuliers, afin que le pays
[n’échappe pas] au contrôle de mon seigneur.’11

Šinah et Urkiš étaient deux villes très proches l’une de l’autre et très
solidaires: un seul homme n’aurait pu, apparemment, exercer la fonction

9
ARM XIII, 143 = LAPO 16, 303.
10
Charpin, D.; Ziegler, N. Mari et le Proche-Orient à l’époque amorrite. Essai
d’histoire politique (FM V). Paris, 2003, p. 55, n. 219.
11
ARM XXVIII, 45.
156 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

pour les deux cités. Il faut donc en déduire que le ¶azannum était rattaché
à un corps municipal précis et non à l’ensemble d’un royaume. Le ¶azan-
num à la différence d’un roi n’avait donc pas une autorité régionale très
étendue, mais se limitait à un groupe urbain spécifique. Il entrait donc
dans les rouages d’une administration précise.

(c) L’installation d’un ¶azannum n’était pas le privilège des seuls grands
rois. On ne peut donc pas inférer de cette institution qu’elle servirait de
marqueur aux principaux pouvoirs politiques de l’époque. En effet, Šuk-
rum-Teššub, roi d’Eluhut, une cité importante mais bien moins sur le
plan international que Mari, se plaignit de l’ingérence d’un voisin sur
une ville, Amaz,12 qu’il considérait comme sienne:
‘Dis à Šûb-râm, ainsi parle Šukrum-Teššub. Que signifie l’action
que [vous avez commise]? Ignorais-tu qu’un ¶azannum à moi réside
dans cette ville, et (donc) que la ville d’Amaz est à moi?’13

Placer un ¶azannum dans une ville était ainsi un moyen de marquer

une influence politique quelconque. En effet, l’action de Šûb-râm doit
être comprise comme une attaque contre une ville sentie comme en de-
hors du royaume stricto sensu du roi d’Eluhut. Les travaux de M. Gui-
chard14 ont effectivement montré qu’Eluhut était une ville importante,
centre d’un kârum, mais à l’intérieur des montagnes, alors que Tell Arbid
(‘Amaz’) se trouve loin dans la plaine de piémont, sur le wadi Khanzir.
La même argumentation est illustrée dans une lettre de Šadûm-La-
b(u)a, roi d’Ašnakkum, à Zimrî-Lîm, protestant de sa bonne volonté:
‘Dis à mon seigneur, ainsi parle Šadûm-Lab(u)a, ton serviteur.
Quelle est la raison pour laquelle le chef des pâtures bensim’alite
[mer¶ûm] m’a écrit en ces termes:
“Si on trouve un ¶azannum à toi à Tarnip, on le tranchera en
deux à la taille”.’15

12
Amaz est actuellement identifié avec Tell Arbid par J. Eidem. Old Assyrian
Trade in Northern Syria: The Evidence from Tell Leilan. Dercksen, J. G. (éd.).
Anatolia and the Jazira during the Old Assyrian Period (OAAS 3 = PIHANS 111).
Leyde, 2008, pp. 31–41 et tout particuièrement p. 40
13
ARM XXVI/2, 435.
14
Voir en dernier lieu Guichard, M. Sur l’identification du Sârum, affluent du
Habur et son implication sur la géographie politique du Haut-Habur au temps
de Zimrî-Lîm. NABU 2006/37.
15
ARM XXVIII, 103.
 L. Marti, Le ¶azannu à Mari et sur le Moyen-Euphrate 157

Šadûm-Lab(u)a avait donc tenté, profitant de l’inattention du chef des

pâtures16 de marquer son influence sur une ville prestigieuse, quoique
ruinée, ce qui lui avait valu cette énergique apostrophe du mer¶ûm lui
avait énergiquement répondu. La situation est la même que dans
l’anecdote précédente: Šadûm-Lab(u)a était roi à Ašnakkum, laquelle
ville semble avoir été à Chagar Bazar,17 alors que Tarnip se trouvait sur le
Habur à l’amont de l’actuelle Hasséké. Là encore il s’agit d’une extension
de pouvoir dans un territoire qui était dans le prolongement naturel
d’un royaume mais qui n’en faisait pas à proprement parler partie.
Les textes de Mari montrent donc clairement que le ¶azannum était un
moyen d’affirmer une influence politique sur un territoire, sans pour cela
l’annexer. Il s’agit en fait d’une manifestation de pouvoir hors de fron-
tières naturelles ou reconnues officiellement par les autres puissances po-
litiques de l’époque, un peu comme la pratique d’installer son pavillon
pour une puissance européenne au moment des extensions coloniales.
Cela est en accord avec la théorie politique basique d’un Zimrî-Lîm décri-
vant la chute du royaume de Haute-Mésopotamie comme la ‘restauration
des maisons’ (princières).18
Cela explique dès lors que nous ne voyons pas les États qui pratiquent
l’annexion pure et simple comme Babylone, Ešnunna ou Samsî-Addu, in-
staller des ¶azannum.
Dès lors, devient très signifiant pour nous que Mari installe un
¶azannum à Tuttul mais un šâpi¢um à Qa¢¢unân19 ou à Nahur: ce sont bien
tous là des territoires extérieurs au royaume des trois provinces (Mari–
Terqa–Saggâratum), mais pas de la même façon: Tuttul fait partie de la
zone de pouvoir de Mari, mais Qa¢¢unân ou Nahur font l’objet d’une ad-
ministration directe.

16
Pour le titre de mer¶ûm et sa fonction voir en dernier lieu Durand, J.-M.
Peuplement et société à l’époque amorrite. 1. Les clans bensim’alites. Nicolle, C.
(éd.). Nomades et sédentaires dans le Proche-Orient ancien (Amurru 3). Paris, 2004,
pp. 160–163.
17
Cf. Lacambre, D.; Albà, A. M. Le nom ancien de Chagar Bazar. Tunca, Ö.;
Baghdo, A. el-M. (éd.). Chagar Bazar (Syrie). III. Les trouvailles épigraphiqes et
sigillographiques du chantier I (2000–2002). Louvain–Paris–Dudley, 2008,
pp. 143–154.
18
Voir Charpin, D.; Ziegler, N. Mari et le Proche-Orient à l’époque amorrite. Essai
d’histoire politique (FM V). Paris, 2003, pp. 181–184.
19
Pour cette charge de gouverneur, à Mari, sous le règne de Zimrî-Lîm, voir
Lion, B. Les gouverneurs provinciaux du royaume de Mari à l’époque de Zimrî-
Lîm. Amurru 2 (2001):141–147; pour le district de Qa¢¢unân, pp. 161–171.
158 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Ces exemples donnent clairement le sens de l’institution du ¶azannum,

mais ne précisent pas ses attributions. La correspondance de Lanasûm,
en revanche, le permet.

1.2. Lanasûm, ¶azannum de Zimrî-Lîm à Tuttul20

Tuttul est avec Terqa une des grandes métropoles religieuses de l’Eu-
phrate, où le dieu Dagan avait une importance majeure mais, contraire-
ment à Terqa, n’était pas intégrée directement au royaume de Mari.21
Les souverains mariotes cherchèrent toujours à contrôler la ville, un
avant-poste très fort au débouché du royaume, dont Halabît (l’actuelle
Halébiyé) représentait depuis Sumû-Yamam la limite. Yahdun-Lîm s’en
proclama roi;22 Zimrî-Lîm,23 en revanche, n’y installa qu’un ¶azannum,
Lanasûm.

(a) Le thème central de la correspondance de ce dernier concerne le tri-

but, le sîrum, demandé par Zimrî-Lîm; il était chargé de le collecter mal-
gré éventuellement l’assemblée locale, le ta¶tamum,24 toujours prête à en
repousser sans cesse l’échéance. En outre, il lui fallait contrecarrer le
parti anti-mariote qui tentait de faire basculer Tuttul du côté des
Benjaminites, ou de celui d’Alep.
Nous connaissons encore une lettre de Zimrî-Lîm à son ¶azannum par
la citation qu’en fait ce dernier, à propos du tribut qui tarde à rentrer:
‘Mon seigneur m’a envoyé le message suivant par Zû-Hadni: “fais
siéger l’assemblée et réclame leur la taxe-sîrum qui pèse sur les
citoyens de Tuttul”.’25

20
La correspondance de Lanasûm est encore largement inédite. Le présent
exposé est un préliminaire à l’édition de ces documents que m’a confiés. J.-M.
Durand.
21
Charpin, D.; Ziegler, N. Mari et le Proche-Orient à l’époque amorrite. Essai
d’histoire politique (FM V). Paris, 2003, p. 182.
22
Frayne, D. R. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Early Periods. Vol. 4. Old
Babylonian Period (2003–1595 BC). Toronto, 1990. ll. 1–5: ia-a¶-du-un-li-im,
DUMU ia-gi-id-li-im, LUGAL ma-riki, tu-ut-tu-ulki, ù ma-at ¶a-na (RIME 4.6.8.1).
23
Voir les remarques de D. Charpin; N. Ziegler. Op. cit., p. 182, n. 90, con-
cernant l’inscription de la glacière de Terqa et de la titulature de Zimrî-Lîm.
24
Pour le ta¶tamum, voir Durand, J.-M. L’Assemblée en Syrie à l’époque pré-
amorrite. MisEb 2 = QuSem 16 (1989):27–44, et pour le sîrum et l’assemblée
ta¶tamum cf. Durand, J.-M. La cité-état d’Imâr à l’époque des rois de Mari. MARI
6 (1990):56–61; Durand, J.-M. LAPO 18, pp. 47–48.
25
A.2951.
 L. Marti, Le ¶azannu à Mari et sur le Moyen-Euphrate 159

Lanasûm raconte comment il a fait siéger le conseil; et que tout va

rentrer dans l’ordre. Cette fin de lettre positive, selon la formule con-
sacrée, est la façon pour Lanasûm de montrer sa compétence dans une
ville où il affronte une très forte opposition. Les gens de Tuttul ne sont
pas disposés à payer tribut. Ils ont demandé pourtant l’avis des gens
d’Imar,26 qui, eux, le payant à trois rois, leur conseillent de payer.
Devant l’impuissance de Lanasûm, le roi de Mari envoya un haut per-
sonnage, Abum-El, régler le problème. Lanasûm tenta de se justifier dans
une lettre.27 La situation paraît complexe. Zimrî-Lîm a un besoin urgent
de ce tribut. Celui qui semble être le principal personnage de Tuttul,
Yašûb-Dagan, peut-être l’administrateur du temple de Dagan, l’équiva-
lent d’un roi local,28 semble souhaiter un rapprochement entre Tuttul et
Alep, ce qui ne serait possible qu’avec le renvoi de Lanasûm.
‘Autre chose: Yašub-Dagan envoie message sur message à Imar
pour dire: “Dagan ne cesse de me réclamer des sacrifices pour Alep
mais je ne suis absolument pas capable de les donner du fait qu’il y
a un ¶azannum. Il ne convient point qu’un ¶azannum soit en
fonction!” ’

Le conseil d’Abum-El est de temporiser:

‘Donnez le tribut qui vous est imposé et, après mon départ, ren-
voyez le ¶azannum!’

Il est difficile de bien comprendre les intérêts en jeu car nous ne con-
naissons pas toutes les données et le rôle d’Abum-El, surtout, nous est en-
core opaque. Mais, on comprend que l’envoi par Tuttul de sacrifices à Ad-
du d’Alep reviendrait à faire acte d’allégeance au royaume du Yamhad,
dont effectivement la zone politique n’est pas très éloignée d’elle puis-
qu’elle semble commencer à partir de Hakkulân.29 On voit aussi que ce
qui bloque un tel envoi c’est le ¶azannum dont la présence suffit à affirmer
localement la prééminence politique de Zimrî-Lîm. Le conseil d’Abum-El
ménage la chèvre et le chou: ‘Payez le tribut, puis renvoyez le ¶azannum
ce qui permettra d’envoyer les sacrifices à Alep!’ Ce faisant, le conseil est
tout à fait en accord avec celui que donnent les habitants d’Imar, qui

26
Pour cette collusion entre les gens d’Imar et de Tuttul, voir Durand, J.-M.
La cité-état d’Imâr à l’époque des rois de Mari. MARI 6 (1990):44–53.
27
ARM II, 137 = LAPO 16, 335.
28
Durand, J.-M. LAPO 16, 523 n. c.
29
Cf. Durand, J.-M. Peuplement et sociétés à l’époque amorrite. 1. Les clans
bensim’alites. Nicolle, C. (éd.). Nomades et sédentaires, p. 172, n. 339.
160 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

semblent se trouver bien de verser le tribut d’allégeance à plusieurs suze-

rains.
On en déduira donc que la présence d’un ¶azannum marquait locale-
ment le caractère unique de l’allégeance consentie par Tuttul à Mari.

(b) L’originalité de la documentation fournie par Lanasûm est de nous le

montrer avant tout comme quelqu’un d’informé qui transmettait au roi
ce que ce dernier ne pouvait deviner derrière la réalité des actions. En
cela il fonctionnait comme un véritable espion. Cela est bien montré par
une anecdote citée par M. Guichard:
‘Dis à mon Seigneur, ainsi parle Lanasûm, ton serviteur. Depuis le
jour où nous n’entendons plus parler que de l’Élam, l’oreille de ces
gens [= Tuttul] est tournée vers l’Élam! Les gens du parti de l’Élam
disent tout haut des choses inconvenantes.
Ainsi cet argent qu’ils doivent apporter (en contribution) à mon
seigneur, ils l’ont réuni dans la ville et l’ont placé par devant Da-
gan, mais ils ont coupé par dessus le cou à des agneaux et à de la
volaille et, de plus, ils ont instauré une déploration.
Celui qui m’a raconté cette affaire, c’est mon messager, celui qui
doit apporter l’argent à mon Seigneur, Alî-šum-šu (…).’30

En fait, les gens de Tuttul, sous couvert d’obtempérer aux ordres du

roi de Mari, lui envoient un argent ‘sale’ qui fera la perte de leur suzerain
dès qu’il s’en servira dans un dessein que n’approuvent pas les gens de
Tuttul.

(c) L’impuissance de Lanasûm vient surtout du fait qu’il n’a pas les moyens
d’imposer sa volonté.
Cela est bien montré lors du règlement de l’affaire des pilleurs yahu-
réens d’une caravane :
‘À mon seigneur, dis: ainsi parle Lanasûm, ton serviteur. Aupara-
vant, mon seigneur m’a écrit ceci à propos des Yahuréens qui ont
attaqué la caravane: “Que l’assemblée siège! Ligotez ces hommes
puis amenez-les moi!” (…) Moi, le troisième jour, j’ai fait siéger l’as-
semblée et j’ai parlé de cette affaire. Les gens de la ville m’ont don-
né trente hommes et je me suis porté en renfort au devant des atta-
quants (…).

30
Guichard, M. Violation du serment et casuistique à Mari. Lafont, S. (éd.).
Jurer et maudire: pratiques politiques et usages juridiques du serment dans le Proche-Orient
ancien (Méditerranées 10–11). Paris, 1997, pp. 79–80.
 L. Marti, Le ¶azannu à Mari et sur le Moyen-Euphrate 161

À propos de cette affaire j’ai rencontré ces hommes en pleine

route. Il n’y avait pas une corde à leur taille. Je n’ai rien pris dans
leurs mains. En outre, il n’y avait pas leur “jugeur”. J’ai étranglé
ces hommes afin qu’ainsi, à l’avenir, un autre redoute de porter la
main sur quoi que ce soit (…).’31

L’affaire se comprend bien: Zimrî-Lîm écrit à Lanasûm de faire siéger

l’assemblée et de lui amener ces bandits. L’assemblée procure trente
hommes à Lanasûm, qui n’avait donc pas le personnel pour se porter de
lui-même à la rencontre des pillards.
Il assume le commandement militaire de l’expédition mais tout porte
à croire que les pillards allaient s’en sortir si Lanasûm n’avait pas brusqué
les choses en procédant d’autorité à une exécution en plein désert. Il faut
donc en déduire qu’il avait suffisamment d’autorité pour exiger séance
tenante cette mise à mort des fautifs. Nous savons que, selon les meurs
du temps, seul le roi de Mari s’arrogeait le pouvoir de verser le sang du
coupable. Si Lanasûm le fait c’est qu’il agit donc en tant que représentant
personnel du roi et que, toujours selon l’idéologie de l’époque, il était
considéré comme un plénipotentiaire, c’est-à-dire qu’il incarnait en l’ab-
sence du roi la volonté et les pouvoirs du maître.
Les limitations cependant du pouvoir d’un ¶azannum sont très bien
montrées par un texte récemment publié par M. Guichard, où l’on voit
que le ¶azannum d’Eluhut avait fait arrêter un trublion mais qu’il a été
obligé de le relâcher sous pression de la ville où apparemment il était
mandaté.
‘À présent, [le trublion] a fait appel à la ville d’Ulaya à mon en-
contre, et le représentant [¶azannum] d’Eluhut qui [en vertu de sa
fonction] de patrouilleur? l’avait capturé, l’a relâché.’32

Il est possible que les deux anecdotes doivent s’interpréter comme l’il-
lustration du fait que le ¶azannum a en réalité la puissance de celui qu’il
représente. Celui du roi de Mari a la capacité de faire exécuter des pil-
lards; celui qui représente le roi d’Eluhut est obligé de céder aux pres-
sions locales.

31
Lafont, S. Un cas d’exécution sommaire à Tuttul. Charpin, D.; Durand, J.-M.
(éd.). Recueil d’études à la mémoire d’André Parrot (FM VI). Paris, 2002, texte No. 4.
32
Guichard, M. Amud-pâ-El et le royaume de Šuduhum au temps de Zimrî-
Lîm, Actes de la table ronde de Berlin sur Assur, Mari et Dur-katlimmu (juillet
2006). Historische Geographie Assyriens, des Habur Gebietes und des mittleren Euphrats
im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (BBVO 20), sous presse.
162 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

(d) Qui était et d’où venait Lanasûm? Peut-être de Mari puisqu’il est ques-
tion de l’y renvoyer, mais éventuellement il pouvait s’agir d’un local rallié
à la cause du nouveau maître. Il apparaît avec les textes de Zimrî-Lîm et
reste en place jusqu’à la fin de son règne.
Ce n’est pas un chef de garnison, ni un gouverneur, ni semble-t-il une
autorité tribale, quoique son intervention soit multiforme. Depuis Tuttul
sa correspondance renseigne beaucoup le roi sur le Zalmaqum et les Ben-
jaminites ainsi que sur le culte de Dagan. Il n’a pas élu domicile au palais
de Tuttul, lequel semble d’ailleurs avoir été incendié au moment de la
prise de la ville par Zimrî-Lîm, ni dans le temple. Il doit donc être dans
une maison privée, sans doute la sienne. On le voit héberger chez lui un
opposant notable (keltum) à la cour de Kurdâ, soutenu par Zimrî-Lîm et
qui a de fortes chances d’être le futur roi, Hammu-rabi. Il peut interdire
l’accès du culte à quelqu’un de suspect aux intérêts mariotes. En fait il
veille, seul, sans que l’on connaisse exactement quels sont ses appuis, aux
intérêts de son maître, dont il semble partager localement le caractère
sacro-saint. Il peut faire siéger l’assemblée, mais cette dernière prend
aussi des décisions souveraines. La situation locale est complexe: face à
lui, se trouve un puissant parti anti-mariote qui a tenté à plusieurs re-
prises de se débarrasser de lui.

2. Le ¶azannum au bronze récent dans les textes

du Moyen-Euphrate
Quelques siècles plus tard, comment se présentent les ¶azannum, toujours
mentionnés dans les textes, par rapport à ceux qui sont en fonction à
l’époque de Mari?
Au bronze récent la fonction est très bien représentée dans les diffé-
rents corpus: à El-Amarna, à Nuzi,33 à Émar ou à Munbâqa, même si un
consensus est difficile à appréhender dans les études qui la concernent.
Pour nous en tenir aux textes du Moyen-Euphrate syrien, tant
d’Émar que d’Ekalte, ils mentionnent les structures administratives et les
pouvoirs locaux: rois, Anciens, Assemblées, ce que l’on tient pour des
‘administrateurs de temple’, ‘Frères’ et ¶azannu; à Émar on suppose une

33
Le rôle du ¶azannu a été très étudié dans la correspondance d’El-Amarna et
dans les textes de Nuzi. Ces deux corpus ne seront pas pris en compte ici et fe-
ront l’objet d’études ultérieures, lors de ma synthèse générale qui doit être conte-
nue dans l’édition des lettres de Lanasûm.
 L. Marti, Le ¶azannu à Mari et sur le Moyen-Euphrate 163

superposition de pouvoir locaux, hérités de la tradition syrienne, et

d’une nouvelle administration dite mise en place par les Hittites.34
À l’inverse du corpus mariote, ceux d’Emar et d’Ekalte ne nous per-
mettent pas d’avoir des précisions sur la nature de ces structures. Nous
repérons les institutions surtout dans les énumérations des témoins sans
quasiment jamais les voir fonctionner. Ainsi à Émar, un ¶azannu est régu-
lièrement mentionné parmi les listes de témoins, mais son rôle n’y est ja-
mais expliqué.
L’intérêt de la documentation de Munbâqa/Ekalte est cependant de
nous permettre de suivre la carrière d’un ¶azannu, Muhra-ahî, tant
comme personne publique ou témoin que comme personne privée qui se
constitue un patrimoine.

2.1. Les attestations du ¶azannu à Émar

Les différentes attestations du ¶azannu à Émar ne le mentionnent que faible-
ment. Deux datent avec certitude de la “dynastie Skaist”35 la plus ancienne:
Ba’al-ba’li36 et Abi-Rašap37 pour 3 générations de souverains, alors que pour
la “dynastie Arnaud”, plus récente, 4 ¶azannu sont connus pour 2 souve-
rains.38 À cela s’ajoutent un ¶azannu de la dynastie récente, Ikki-Dagan,39 que

34
Sur cette superposition administrative et les évolutions de pratiques, voir no-
tamment Cohen, Y. Change and Innovation in the Administration and Scribal
Practices of Emar during the Hittite Dominion. Tel Aviv 32 (2005):192–203; d’Al-
fonso, L. Syro-hittite Administration at Emar: New Considerations on the Basis of
a Prosopographic Study. AoF 27 (2000):269–295; Yamada, M. The Hittite Ad-
ministration in Emar: The Aspect of Direct Control. ZA 96 (2006):222–234.
35
Skaist, A. The Chronology of the Legal Texts from Emar. ZA 88 (1998):45–
71; et Skaist, A. The Order of the Rulers of Emar. Sefati, Y. et al. (éd.). An
Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of
Jacob Klein. Bethesda, 2005, pp. 568–574.
36
Arnaud, D. Emar VI/3, No. 150 et Beckman, G. Texts from the Vicinity of
Emar, in the Collection of Jonathan Rosen (HANE/M II). Padoue, 1996, RE 91.
37
Arnaud, D. Textes Syriens de l’âge du Bronze Récent (AuOr Sup 1). Barcelona,
1991, Nos. 16, 17, 87; Arnaud, D. Emar VI/3, Nos. 148, 149; Sigrist, M. Seven Emar
Tablets. Rainey, A. (ed.). kinattûtu ša dārâti. Raphael Kutscher Memorial Volume. Tel
Aviv, 1993, No. 6.
38
Respectivement: Ahi-malik (Emar VI/3, No. 253); Iribu (Emar VI/3, No. 157);
Kânu (Arnaud, D. Tablettes de genres divers du Moyen-Euphrate. SMEA 30
(1992), ME 130, pp. 200–201); Mûdu (Emar VI/3, No. 147 et Beckman, G. Op. cit.,
RE 24).
39
Emar VI/3, No. 127.
164 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

nous ne pouvons pas placer avec exactitude, ainsi qu’un certain Maša’e,40 to-
talement insituable. Ces six ¶azannu pour l’ensemble des archives d’Émar41
contrastent avec les huit des archives de Munbâqa,42 pour un temps plus bref.

2.1.1. Indépendance du ¶azannu face au roi

Le corpus d’Émar montre que le changement de dynastie et l’installation
d’un pouvoir hittite local n’a en rien altéré l’existence même de l’institution
du ¶azannu même si le renouvellement de ces fonctionnaires semble s’être
accéléré. L’appréciation du rôle du ¶azannu ne peut toutefois pas ignorer
ce que les Hittites appellent également ¶azannu à Hattuša, fonctionnaire
pour les fonctions duquel nous disposons d’un texte très explicite.43 On
doit garder à l’esprit que le ¶azannu de l’époque hittite à Émar peut donc
avoir été différent de celui d’avant l’établissement de leur pouvoir.

2.1.2. La place du ¶azannu parmi les témoins

Les ¶azannu sont mentionnés dans les textes d’Emar parmi les témoins,
généralement juste avant le scribe, mais parfois en tête de liste. L’étude
des groupes de témoins montre sa présence liée à sa qualité de chef de fa-
mille et non à sa fonction, puisqu’il n’apparaît pas systématiquement.
Sous la vieille dynastie d’Émar, si sa durée supposée est juste, les
¶azannu semblent avoir conservé longtemps leur titre. Nous voyons ainsi
Abi-Rašap devenir ¶azannu sous Li’mi-šarra, Rašap-Ili et le rester jus-
qu’aux fils de Li’mi-šarra. Ce n’est donc pas le roi local qui devait nom-
mer le ¶azannu, à moins bien sûr de supposer qu’il le confirmait dans sa
fonction, lors de son accession au trône?
La dynastie ancienne d’Émar semble toutefois avoir été sous domina-
tion mitanienne, à en juger par ses versements de tribut au roi hourrite.44

40
Emar VI/3, No. 254.
41
Pour la chronologie des textes d’Emar, voir di Filippo, F. Notes on the
Chronology of Emar Legal Tablets (SMEA 46 (2004):175–207), et pour la transi-
tion entre les dynasties, voir Pruzsinszky, R. Emar and the Transition from
Hurrian to Hittite Power. Heinz, M.; Feldman, M. H. (éd.). Representations of Po-
litical Power. Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient
Near East. Winona Lake, 2007, pp. 21–37.
42
Mayer, W. Tall Munbâqa-Ekalte. II. Die Texte (WVDOG 102). Saarbrücken,
2001, pp. 23–25.
43
Pour ce texte, CTH 257, voir la bibliographie dans Klengel, H. Geschichte des
Hethitischen Reiches (HdO 3). Leiden, 1999, p. 119.
44
Voir les exemples de paiement arana rassemblés par Pruzsinszky, R. Op.
cit., p. 26.
 L. Marti, Le ¶azannu à Mari et sur le Moyen-Euphrate 165

Dans la logique de ce que l’on sait de l’époque de Mari, le ¶azannu doit

avoir été nommé par le suzerain auprès du pouvoir local.
Il faudrait supposer que, sous domination hittite, sa nomination in-
combait aux empereurs de Hattuša ou au vice-roi de Carkémish.

2.2. Les multiples facettes d’un ¶azannu de Munbâqa: Muhra-ahî

Munbâqa/Ekalte, très proche d’Émar, donne d’autres renseignements con-
cernant le ¶azannu.45
Chronologiquement, les textes semblent antérieurs à ceux de la dynas-
tie ancienne d’Émar, car ils documentent deux rois d’Émar inconnus par
ailleurs. Les tablettes sont très rarement datées et seule l’une,46 dont la
facture fait douter qu’elle provienne de Munbâqa, porte un “éponyme” de
la sorte de ceux d’Émar, caractéristiques de sa dynastie ancienne.47
Munbâqa montre la succession de plusieurs ¶azannu, mais le person-
nage central de notre documentation est Muhra-ahî.

2.2.1. Un personnage local, faisant ses affaires

Muhra-ahî, fils d’Ahiyanni, est un des personnages les plus documentés
des archives de Munbâqa, tant comme témoin que comme entrepreneur.
Sa famille est bien connue, son père avec certitude, et peut-être son
grand père.48 Sa famille était donc installée à Ekalte depuis au moins une
génération. Il s’agit certainement d’un local.
Sa carrière commence sous le ¶azannu Ôillu-Dagan49 par l’achat de
plusieurs biens, notamment ceux d’Igmil-Dagan confisqués par la ville
suite à un péché de ce dernier et où il apparaît comme voisin. Il s’agit là
d’un cas classique de constitution d’un patrimoine par rachat de terres
limitrophes.

45
Ces réflexions sont préliminaires à la synthèse qui doit paraître dans ma ré-
édition à venir des textes de Munbâqa.
46
Mayer, W. Op. cit., No. 80.
47
Pour cette question des “éponymes” d’Emar, voir notamment Yamada, M.
The Eponymous Years and Ninurta’s Seal: Thoughts about the Urban Authority
of Emar. Mikasa, T. (éd.). Essays on Ancient Anatolia and Syria in the Second and
Third Millenium B. C. (BMECCJ 9). Wiesbaden, 1996, pp. 297–308; Adamthwaite,
M. R. Late Hittite Emar. The Chronology, Synchronisms, and Socio-Political Aspects of a
Late Bronze Age Fortress Town (ANES Sup 8). Louvain, 2001, pp. 16–26.
48
Mayer, W. Op. cit., No. 8. Néanmoins ce texte ne mentionné qu’un
Ahiyanni DUMU […]. Il est possible qu’il s’agisse du Ahiyanni, père de Muhra-ahî.
49
Mayer, W. Op. cit., Nos. 3, 4, et 5.
166 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Nous intéresse plus particulièrement son rôle comme ¶azannu. Dans

les actes de ventes, de la même façon qu’à Émar, il est mentionné avec
son titre parmi les témoins, uniquement parce qu’il est impliqué dans la
transaction et non du fait de sa fonction. Un fait est néanmoins remar-
quable: lorsqu’il est mentionné comme témoin, il est toujours qualifié de
¶azannu, sans que sa filiation soit mentionnée, mais lorsqu’il est mention-
né dans le corps du texte, comme acheteur ou comme voisin, sa filiation
est indiquée, non son titre. Cette remarque peut être généralisée d’ail-
leurs à toutes les fonctions: dans les listes de témoins elles sont indiquées
alors que dans le corps du texte ce n’est que la filiation, à de rares excep-
tions près.50

2.2.2. Le ¶azannu comme personnage officiel

Le système de datation des tablettes de Munbâqa a été souvent comparé à
celui d’Émar.51 En fait, très peu de tablettes sont datées,52 chacune de fa-
çon différente. L’une porte la mention ‘MU Imu-u¶-ra-a-¶i LÚ ¶a-za-nu-
um,’53 ce qu’il ne faut certainement pas traduire par ‘année de Muhra-
ahî, le ¶azannum’, mais comprendre comme une forme courte pour
‘époque où Muhra-ahî était ¶azannu’, formule connue où MU est à
comprendre comme l’équivalent de inûma; le texte 48 dit de même ‘cette
tablette a été rédigée lorsque Ba’al-malik était ¶azannu.’54
Le ¶azannu fait partie, avec le roi, des autorités qui apparaissent ex-
ceptionnellement aux côtés des institutions habituelles que sont les An-
ciens55 et le dieu de la ville:

50
Voir par exemple le texte publié par Cavigneaux, A.; Beyer, B. Une orphe-
line à Emar. Butterlin, P. et al. (éd.). Les espaces syro-mésopotamiens. Mél. Margueron
(Subartu 17). Turnhout, 2006, pp. 498, où 21: IGI Ika-pí-dKUR DUMU zu-ba-la LÚ-
ÚAL. Ce texte à été commenté par Lafont, S. Eléments pour une diplomatique ju-
ridique des textes d’Emar (sous presse).
51
Mayer, W. Op. cit., p. 24.
52
Texte 28:16: MU-KAM Iar-nu-bar DUMU šu-li-ia. Néanmoins, dans ce texte, la
date est placée juste avant la liste des témoins. Texte 80: ITI li-li-a-tum, MU x x 1
KÁM-MA. La lecture de la date pose problème. La lecture de W. Mayer a été
contestée par Wilcke, C. AÚ, die ‘Brüder’ von Emar. Untersuchungen zur
Schreibtradition am Euphatknie. AuOr 10 (1992):124. La tablette elle-même est
atypique, et ne provient peut-être pas de Munbâqa. L’année est marqué selon le
système des éponymes d’Émar.
53
Mayer, W. Op. cit., No. 93.
54
[i-na] u4-mi-MEŠ* ša I dEN-ma-lik LÚ ¶a-[za-an-nu], ¢up-pu ša-¢e4-er.
55
Mayer, W. Op. cit., No. 7: 25 [a]-na* ša* [p]a*-an iLÚj* ši*-i*-b[u*-ti]m* 26
i j
ù * ka-[al a]-lì* ¢up-pu ša-¢[e4-er] 27 ša a-wa-ti an-né-ti ú-na-a[k-k]a-ar 28 dIM NUMUN-
 L. Marti, Le ¶azannu à Mari et sur le Moyen-Euphrate 167

a) lors de la rédaction d’un document:

‘La tablette a été écrite en présence de Ba’al-kabar, le roi
(d’Émar)’56 ou ‘la tablette a été écrite [par devant Ba’al-mali]k, fils
de Ba’al-Kabar (roi d’Émar), ¶azannu de la ville d’Ekalte.’57

b) dans les amendes:

‘Celui qui, à l’avenir, revendiquerait le champ paiera 1000
(sicles) d’argent au roi (d’Émar), 1000 à Ba’al-Akka et 1000 à la
ville.’58
‘Celui qui, tôt ou tard, revendiquerait le kir´itum payera 200
(sicles) d’argent à Muhra-ahî et 200 d’argent à la ville.’59

Le statut de ¶azannu de Muhra-ahî n’est pas indiqué dans le texte;

Muhra-ahi n’apparaît pas dans la liste des témoins, mais est un voisin du
bien vendu et la liste des témoins correspond à celle de l’époque où il est
¶azannu.
Ces exemples montrent que le ¶azannu et le roi (d’Émar) n’apparais-
sent qu’associés aux composantes classiques du pouvoir local, le dieu local
ou la Ville, mais ne sont jamais ensemble, ce qui doit indiquer que le
¶azannu pouvait prendre la place du roi, dans certains cas, et qu’il se pré-
sente donc comme son représentant.

2.2.3. Les fonctions du ¶azannu

Le texte majeur pour comprendre les organes politiques locaux à Mun-
bâqa est représenté par le texte No. 1, pour lequel je propose la traduc-
tion nouvelle suivante:
‘Décision officielle:
La Ville, Majeurs et Mineurs, se sont réunis et ils ont dit:
“On a porté à Ba’al-kabar, roi d’Émar, du cuivre pour 120 ta-
lents en guise des moutons qui ont fait l’objet du pillage et du tri-
but qui a été pris sur les fonds de Muhra-ahi, le ¶azannu.”
Alors, un Majeur a dit: “Ce cuivre est considérable. À l’avenir, la
ville ne doit plus en porter.”

šu li-¶al-li-iq 29 IGI d[a]-da [LÚ?] ¶a-za-nu. Idem, texte 30: 9 [DU]B* an-ni-<ú> 10 [i-
na pa]-a-ni 11 [ša ši]-bu-ut 12 [URUki ša-¢]e4-er: ‘La tablette a été écrite devant les
anciens et l’ensemble de la ville.’
56 18
a-na pa-ni I dIM.GAL [L]UGAL 19 ¢up-pu ša-¢e4-er.
57 6′
[i+na pa-an dEN-ma-li-k]i* DUMU dIM.GAL 7′ [¶a-za-an URU e-kal]-teki ¢up-pu sa-
¢e4-er 8′ [IGI dEN-ma]-lik DUMU dIM.GAL 9′ [LÚ ¶a-za-a]n-nu.
58
Texte 7: 20 ša ur-ra [še]-ra-am 21 A.ŠÀ i-ba-qa-ar 22 1 li-im KÙ.BABBAR a-na LUGAL
23
1 li-im a-na dba-a¶-la-ka 24 1 li-im a-na URUki Ì.LÁ.[E].
59
Texte 16: 24 ŠEŠ a-na ŠEŠ ú-[ul i-r]a-ga*-am* 25 iša urj-ra še-[ra] iij*-[ra-ga-
m]u* 1 me-at iKÙ.BABBARj a-na 27 LÚ.MEŠ a¶-¶e Ì.LÁ.E.
26
168 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Et un Mineur a dit: la ville doit en porter.’60

Ce texte montre l’inféodation d’Ekalte à Émar, puisqu’elle paie le tribut.

Elle illustre le déroulement d’une Assemblée et la prise de décision, ce
qui n’est pas sans nous rappeler les Assemblées-ta¶tamum de Tuttul ou
Imar de l’époque amorrite. Or, nous voyons cette assemblée se composer
d’‘Aînés’ (GAL) et de ‘Puînés’ (TUR), phénomène attesté en Mésopotamie
depuis le Poème de Gilgamesh et d’Akka, avec ses Anciens et ses Jeunes, jus-
qu’au kârum ´eher rabi d’Aššur. Bien que la tablette ait une lacune, les TUR
semblent avoir un avis divergeant par rapport aux GAL.GAL qui peuvent
être identifié aux šîbût âlim.61
Même si nous échappe le détail de l’affaire, il apparaît clairement que
l’Assemblée s’est réunie pour décider de poursuivre ou non le paiement
du tribut à Émar, sans que le roi ou le ¶azannu ne soient présents, puis-
que ce dernier n’apparaît pas parmi les témoins. Cela n’est en soi pas
étonnant si le ¶azannu est le représentant du suzerain.
Si le ¶azannu ne préside qu’occasionnellement l’Assemblée, on ne peut
le tenir pour le maire de la ville. Il apparaît ici, non seulement comme le
représentant du roi, mais comme celui qui est chargé de faire verser le
tribut.
D’ailleurs un texte illustre ce fait. Il s’agit d’un billet (texte 33) indi-
quant que Muhra-ahî a perçu une certaine somme de cuivre. On peut
supposer que l’on a là un exemple du versement d’une partie de la
somme que le ¶azannu était chargé de collecter.
Il faut ici mentionner que dans les textes d’Émar de la dynastie an-
cienne le ¶azannu apparaît très souvent dans les textes dits de l’arana, le
paiement du tribut.
Nous constatons donc la structure suivante: une Assemblée débattant
des intérêts de la ville ne semble pas unanime pour la livraison du tribut;

60 1
iš-tu u4-mi an-ni-[i]m 2 URUki GAL.GAL ù [TUR.TUR] 3 ip-¶u-ru-ma ki-a-[am] 4 iq-
bu-ú um-ma š[u-nu-ma] 5 URUDU.ÚÁ ša 120* (DIŠ.DIŠ) GÚ*.U[N*.ÚÁ] 6 ki-ma USDUÚA
¶i-im-[´a-tim] 7 ša URUki ù ki-m[a] 8 GÚ ša Imu-u¶-ra-a-[¶i LÚ ¶]a-za-inuj 9 a-na
d
IM.GAL LUGAL U[RU e-marki] 10 ub-lu ù ki-ia-m[a 1 GAL iq-bi] 11 ša a-na LUGAL-ri [ub-
lu] 12 URUDU.ÚÁ an-nu-um [ma-a-ad] 13 i-na ar-ki-it* [U4-mi] 14 URUki la-a [ub-ba-al-šu]
15
1* TUR* ki-a-[ma iq-bi] 16 [i-n]a? a[r?-ki-it u4-mi] 17 [URUki li-bi-il]…
61
Voir la remarque de G. Beckman. Texts from the Vicinity of Emar (HANE/M
II). Leiden, 1996, p. 55, n. 14 et R. Westbrook. Emar and Vicinity. Westbrook, R.
(éd.). A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (HdO 72). Leiden, 2003, p. 659, n. 12
grâce au texte RE 34, où l’expression KI dNIN.URTA ù LÚ.MEŠ ši-bu-ut URU e-marki
be-lu-ú … est remplacée par KI dNIN.URTA ù LÚ.MEŠ GAL.GAL URU e-marki.
 L. Marti, Le ¶azannu à Mari et sur le Moyen-Euphrate 169

elle le fait indépendamment de ses autorités de tutelle; le ¶azannu est

celui qui collecte le tribut pour le roi d’Émar.
Le texte qui parle, à la fin de sa carrière, d’un péché de Muhra-ahî
envers la ville a été rédigé devant un autre ¶azannu, Ba’al-malik, fils de
Ba’al-kabar, qui n’est autre que le roi d’Émar. Le péché de Muhra-ahi a
dû consister à déplaire au roi d’Émar, qui l’a remplacé par un de ses fils,
certainement plus à même de comprendre ses exigences.

Conclusion
Au terme de cette étude, il apparaît clairement que la traduction de
¶azannum par ‘maire’ n’est jamais satisfaisante car un maire est
l’émanation d’une collectivité, non son surveillant, et surtout pas pour
une autorité extérieure. Le ‘maire’, ‘premier citoyen’ comme l’indique
l’étymologie de son nom (major), en tant que chef de la collectivité
urbaine, s’est le plus souvent dans le cours de l’histoire opposé à un
pouvoir central qui était peu enclin à favoriser des franchises
municipales. Il ne semble pas avoir existé dans notre Occident ce type de
fonctionnaire royal ‘domicilié’ dans une municipalité à la fois pour
l’inspirer et la surveiller. Ce qui s’en rapprocherait le plus pourrait sans
doute être le type du ‘résident’, pratique de l’administration coloniale
française, mais ce dernier avait dans un ‘protectorat’ (non une colonie, ni
un département d’outre-mer!) des pouvoirs effectifs de contrôles,
financier, policier et militaire, qui excédaient bien ceux du ¶azannum
amorrite qu’on ne voit jamais diriger une ‘administration parallèle’ à
l’ ‘administration indigène’ mise en tutelle. Il n’en reste pas moins que
l’installation d’un ¶azannum revenait bien à procéder à la réduction en
‘protectorat’ d’une ville, où l’on n’entreprenait pas de nommer un prince
vassal (Mari connaît déjà l’usage de šaknum pour désigner un prince
vassal) ni un gouverneur (le šâpi¢um). La fonction semble, en tout cas,
relever plus, au moins à l’origine, d’une pratique des relations
internationales, donc de la vie diplomatique, que d’une pièce du système
administratif. Il est donc signifiant qu’il n’y ait pas eu de ¶azannu à
l’intérieur du royaume de Mari lequel ne l’a mis en pratique qu’à
l’extérieur et à échelle réduite.
La comparaison des corpus euphratiques, celui d’époque amorrite et
ceux d’époque moyenne, montre en tout cas une continuité dans les attri-
butions du ¶azannu. Il est le représentant local des intérêts d’un suzerain,
tout particulièrement pour l’incitation à la collecte de l’impôt. Il peut être
envoyé sur son lieu de fonction ou être un local nommé à ce poste. C’est
170 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

sans doute le cas de Muhra-ahî qui était un notable local avant sa nomi-
nation.
Les rapports d’une telle fonction avec les autorités locales ne pou-
vaient être faciles comme le montrent les tribulations de Lanasûm; son
autorité sur les pouvoirs locaux était loin d’être effective et il était
immanquablement en butte aux intérêts locaux qui cherchaient à se
débarrasser de lui.
Le schéma descriptif ici présenté devrait servir de moyen d’examiner
à nouveaux frais les autres ¶azannu d’époque récente qui nous sont docu-
mentés, tout particulièrement ceux qui entretiennent sur la Côte proche-
orientale des rapports avec le roi d’Égypte.
 From Oral Promise to Written Receipt
A Cognitive Study of the Use of Mnemonics
within Ancient Administration*

Bonnie Nilhamn
National Museum of Antiquity, Leiden

Introduction
Seen as a tool for verification, the receipt is an example of an item that is
given a certain place in the legal literature and within the economy. This
short paper aims to expand on the nature of providing proof, its impor-
tance in current and ancient societies, and its relationship to the cognitive
development of the human mind. This case study will further combine
contemporary research on the development of symbolism and non-textual
communication within law and accountancy by such scholars as M. Don-
ald,1 M. Malul2 and B. Hibbits.3
The receipt has an important role within the administration both on a
micro level for the individual person and on a macro level for the whole
society, including the city. It was no coincidence that the first written
documents in the fourth millennium were receipts and inventories of
goods as part of the bookkeeping.4 The emerge of the physical receipt re-
flects the society and the change towards a increasingly complex economy.
Without commonly accepted verifications no economical activities could
exist. We must not be blinded by the modern terminology of the receipt5
as a static object but rather acknowledge that it rather was a dynamic

* I am grateful to the participants of the 53rd RAI for their useful comments
and criticisms given. Responsibility for the views expressed herein rests with the
author.
1
Donald 1991; 2001.
2
Malul 1987; 1988.
3
I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Vermaak who after my speech in St.
Petersburg made me aware of the works of Prof. B. J. Hibbits. Especially the arti-
cle “Coming to Our Senses” (1992) has turned out to be a valuable source of
comparative references.
4
Englund 2004.
5
“receipt.” Merriam–Webster’s Dictionary of Law. Merriam–Webster, Inc. 10 Apr.
2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/receipt>.
172 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

concept that incorporated several aspects and could take different forms
in which all five senses are involved and also necessary. This paper will
argue that, through time the oral tradition has moved towards a written
tradition. However, the oral tradition did not disappear completely, but
became embedded within the new tradition.
Throughout the ancient Near Eastern societies used comparable
forms of communication and legal expressions. However, this does not
make them identical in all respects. The major difficulty with studying
ancient cultures relates to selectiveness of our sources. Much of what we
know is a result of what the ancient societies chose to write down (or
draw). Unfortunately the common knowledge, that was obvious for the
ancient people themselves (but not for us) was never consciously written
down. This can be supplemented with anthropological and ethnographi-
cal research from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which
has yielded a significant body of information on communication and legal
expression within non- or preliterate societies. With caution, we may use
this as comparative material.6 Further, we must question ourselves as to
how we read these sources, and not be stuck in a former bias of how we
should interpret our (legal) material. Scholars such as M. Roth, R. West-
brook and M. Malul have shown that finding a clear answer is never easy
because there is no single way to achieve it.7

The human cognitive development

To understand why the need arose for a receipt or verification we have
to turn our attention to the human mind.8 Within the field of accoun-
tancy and record keeping the cognitive idea of Merlin Donald is of spe-
cial interest.9 He believes that the cognitive development of the brain
made it possible for abstract thinking to develop.10 In the same way we
can assume that this development also can be seen in the legal material.
The development of legal and administrative practices should be seen as
part of this broader cognitive development.
Since the Upper-Palaeolithic period, human cultures have gone through
major transformations. They have been transformed from hunter-gatherer
societies dominated by oral-mythic traditions, mimetic ritual and narrative

6
In this paper however no such sources have been used in any larger extent.
7
Roth 2001; Westbrook 2003; Malul 1987.
8
Connerton 1989; Levi-Strauss 1962.
9
Mouck 2004.
10
Donald 1991; 1993; 2001.
 B. Nilhamn, From Oral Promise to Written Receipt… 173

thought to hierarchically-stratified, post industrial societies dominated by

shared theoretic world-models, large scale theoretic artefacts and massive
external symbolic networks.11
Donald has divided this evolutionary development into four stages of
human cognitive-cultural evolution: episodic, mimetic, linguistic (oral
mythic culture), and finally external symbolic storage (ESS) (theoretic
culture). For each new stage, new neural-cognitive pathways were
needed for the cognitive processing of new types of representations. The
first two transitions—from episodic to mimetic and from mimetic to lin-
guistic—required the biological evolution of new innate neural systems. 12
In contrast the third transition—from oral-linguistic to ESS—did not cor-
respond with biological changes in the innate human brain but relied
solely on the plasticity of already existing neural networks. With this no-
tion Donald refers to the ability of the brain to generate new neural cir-
cuitry as a result of learned experiences in the world.13
In this view, early humans depended heavily on their natural or bio-
logical memory capacities. Even though mimetic skills and language en-
abled humans to sustain a shared representational culture, the actual
physical storage of that collective knowledge depended on individual
memory. Thought was dependent on biological working memory, and
whatever was seen or heard had to be remembered and rehearsed either
in imagination or in speech. The contents of our long-term storage were
accessible only by means of the limited associative strategies available to
the biological memory, such as similarity and contiguity. This necessi-
tated a reliance on oral mnemonics, extensive literal oral recitation, and
on specialized individuals to preserve important memory material.
By introducing external memory devices, such as tokens, pictorial
items, clay tags, kudurrus and written documents new cognitive skill-clus-
ters developed and we can talk about symbolic literacy. Using an external
memory, which is the prerequisite for literacy, imposes an emphasis on
visual as well as semantic processing. These visual systems produce

11
Donald 2001:260.
12
The first transition, from apes to Homo erectus, was characterized by “the
emergence of the most basic level of human representation, the ability to mime,
or re-enact, events.” The second transition, from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens,
completed the biological evolution of modern humans. According to Donald, the
key event “was the emergence of the human speech system, including a com-
pletely new cognitive capacity for constructing and decoding narrative.” Donald
1991:16f., 273–284.
13
Donald 1991.
174 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

knowledge-states that are directly derived from the external memory.

Donald distinguished three main modes of visual symbolic inventions;
“pictorial,” “ideographic” and “phonetic.” These developed at different
stages of the visuo-symbolic evolution starting with the pictorial but did
not necessary indicate that they required the others to function. Donald
points out that, this was the beginning of “a new cognitive structure,”
enabling forms of “analytic thought,” i. e. “formal arguments, systematic
taxonomies, induction, deduction.”14
The introduction of external memory devices altered human working
memory. Unfortunately, it diminished the need for direct and active re-
membering. Working memory is generally conceived of as a system cen-
tred on consciousness of the world around. This provides the basis for
consciousness, although not everything that occurs is consciously re-
membered or experienced. A society that relies exclusively on human
memory depends upon social arrangements and mnemonic skills to
maintain social-cultural memory by using verbal formulaic recitation,
witnesses, formal ritual, and visual imagination as a means of under-
standing and retaining complex memories. The involvement of all the
senses—touch, sight, sound, smell and taste—enhance the capacity of
memory, although it also requires presence in real time. The emergence
of external mnemonic tools made it possible for the two actors to be
parted from each other geographically and to separate activities in time.

A question of definition
The term ‘receipt’ commonly implies a physical object, representing a
transaction that is part of a record-keeping system. This bias would imply
that it only can provide us with static information concerning: (a) the
amount and kind of money/goods received or sold; (b) the name of the
person from whom the goods came; (c) the name of the recipient; (d) if
there was a certain condition for the transaction; (e) name of witnesses
and, finally, (f ) date.
The main reason to hand out, receive and keep a receipt is that it
represents legal evidence of a statement agreed upon by two or more ac-
tors. It is a verification of all parties concerned that an agreement has
been made. Sometimes this is stated as “his heart is satisfied” (Sum.
šà-ga-ni al-du10; Akk. libbašu ¢āb) which means that this person has relin-

14
Donald 2001.
 B. Nilhamn, From Oral Promise to Written Receipt… 175

quished all future claims.15 The receipt is in this sense a stimulus or a

memory device, which holds the information of a transaction between
transmitter and receiver. In other words, the verification gives the trans-
action legal credibility and authority.16
The verification had therefore a major role and established that:
– someone paid and received the goods or services;
– someone paid and has right to something or someone that will be deliv-
ered at a later point;
– someone delivered a good or service;
– the goods or services are the ones agreed upon;
– someone is responsible;
– someone will store and keep something safe;
– someone lent something out and someone borrowed something;
– a loan has been paid back or an object has been returned to its owner;
– it is the will of the god(s).

A receipt is a verification of not only loans and sales but also of gifts,
betrothal, marriages performed, agreements concerning co-ownership,
tax payment and delivery of goods. Furthermore, it was part of the ac-
countancy and administration of property and land as it reflects the bal-
ance between income and expenses. The Ur III balance sheets are early
examples of this practice.17 Receipts are not only verification of a transac-
tion of physical material but can also indicate responsibility for goods,
people, function or action.
Perhaps the question should be raised as to the difference between a
receipt and a “contract,” or whether it is just plain record keeping. The
answer is found in the definition of the product; a contract holds a legal
concept while record keeping indicates a financial aspect. Nevertheless,
both need verifications of the agreed or the actual situation. The “receipt
function” is the evidentiary instrument.

The actors
There are always at least two parties in a transaction and the receipt is
important for both of them. These two parties can fulfil a number of dif-
ferent social roles:
– the buyer; that he had required the products or services by paying or
other legal means;

15
CH §§ 178, 264; Westbrook 1991.
16
Westbrook 2003:4.
17
Mattessich 1998.
176 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

– the merchant; for his balance sheets, to keep record of his storage and
stock, and to proof that he sold an item legally. This is especially impor-
tant if he acted as an agent;
– the debtor; that he has paid/returned the goods;
– the creditor; that he expects payment and interest and that he has lent
out, for instance barley;
– the taxpayer; that he has paid or given the temple or the palace its share;
– the palace or the temples for their own external and internal administra-
tion, for instance as part of the inventory;
– the heir; that he is the legal heir of property.

The receipt remained important even after the death of the former
debtor. In ancient Mesopotamia no prescription (in modern sense) oc-
curred so therefore a receipt was of great importance for the heirs to
prevent a creditor from trying to collect a loan already paid. However a
document was not always a guarantee that the debt could be collected as
has shown in several debt remissions. The Edict of Ammisaduqa (10th
ruler OB, 1646–1626 B. C.), gives the best detailed description of how
complex the economic situation could be.18

The carriers
The most common idea of what a receipt is, is the written tablet contain-
ing a sworn statement, tuppi burti,19 which was sometimes put in an enve-
lope and sealed. At an early stage (2500 B. C.) these were easy to recog-
nize by their standardized small size of up to 8 × 8 cm and the rounded
form of the tablets.20
However, there were also other kinds of receipts and transaction
verifications. Tokens, clay tags and kudurrus carried information of a
settled and implemented agreement in a similar way.
Tokens had an important role as instruments for abstract counting
and the development of numerals, especially in providing a cognitive
framework for further development.21 Schmandt-Besserat went as far as
to state that the token accounting system ushered the revolution in hu-
man cognitive capabilities: “Tokens and clay tablets functioned as an ex-
tension of the human brain to collect, manipulate, store, and retrieve

18
Pritchard 1975 II 36–41.
19
CAD B 339.
20
Englund 2004:28.
21
For the discussion about the token as a numerical device and beginning of
accounting see Englund 1996; Schmandt-Besserat 1992; Mattessich 1987; 1989;
1994; 1998; 2000; Ezzamel–Hoskins 2002.
 B. Nilhamn, From Oral Promise to Written Receipt… 177

data.”22 The token as memory carrier was also argued for by Costello.23
These scholars focus on accounting and their economical role. The token,
however, also had a legal importance, as the judicial evidence of a trans-
action. Taking into consideration contextual information that shows that
the tokens were sometimes stored together with seals and written legal
documents, the author argues that tokens are an archaic alternative to
the standard receipt, like contracts.24
Kudurrus carry the same concept as a public receipt. They are publi-
cally displayed, reminding everyone of the agreement.25 Other objects
could also carry this meaning like the Early Dynastic pegs that were
driven into the walls to symbolize the sale of a house. This action was also
accompanied by the libation of oil by the herald, a symbolism to which we
will soon return.26
In addition to such material, physical memory tools and verifications
also came in immaterial or more abstract forms. A contract (riksatum/inim
ka-kéš) did not have to imply a written document. Besides the physical
memory tools, immaterial and more abstract forms also occurred. The
testimony of witnesses was from the earliest time the weighty proof ac-
cording to the laws and the legal literature regardless of the presence of a
tablet. Gods could also sometimes act as witnesses.27 The spoken words
formed the main body of the receipt given. We see for instance that the
early sales document (2500 B. C.) had no seals, which meant that the ac-
tual presence of (official) witnesses was required.28
However, in the absence of what we may term “rational evidence,” in
the sense of physical evidence or witnesses, the ancient courts had other
options to resolve disputes. The court could establish by oath, ordeal or
testimony a claim of property or liability (burru).29 The oath was in most
cases part of making an agreement or stating a legal claim, and often in-

22
Schmandt-Besserat 1992:197.
23
Costello 2002.
24
Nilhamn, B. Tokens from a Juridical Point of View (paper presented at RAI
51, 2005).
25
Gelb et al. 1991.
26
At the Hermitage in St. Petersburg two “House sale contracts” (SRU 33 and
34, published by D. Edzard) are written on hollow clay nails, which illustrates this
use further.
27
Mercer 1913:92.
28
Postgate 1992:285f.
29
E. g. CH §§ 23, 126.
178 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

voked the king and/or the gods.30 There was not only the oath sworn by
the witnesses but also the exculpatory oath performed by the defendant.
The river ordeal (id alākum) also functioned as supra-rational evidence as
this is based on the verdict from the god(s) using the river as their in-
strument of verdict.

The role of the five senses as part of verifications

All learning comes from perceptions that are directed to the brain by one
or more of the five senses. Hibbits call these (communication) media.31 By
involving more than just one sense one triggers several memory centres
in the brain. Psychologists have found that learning or remembering oc-
curs most rapidly when information is received through more than one
sense.32 Most societies rely on face-to-face contact when making an agree-
ment. In these circumstances, speech will be the most important instru-
ment, but sight is also important due to the perception the entire scene,
including all the gestures. A formal predictable movement and the use of
formal items or wording will not only audio-visualize the situation but
also transform its value into an official situation. Physical performances
like striking one in the face or forehead or clasping the hands emphasize
the action further (see table 1).
Sight, sound, touch, taste and smell all performed part of recognized
verification processes.
In our culture, writing dominates the media we are taught and
trained to be visually oriented. In preliterate or marginally literate socie-
ties, the focus on the visual dimension of experience was of less impor-
tance than hearing according to Hibbits.33 Visual expressions are often
three-dimensional and kinetic.34 The gesture is good example of this.
Gestures can be divided into two groups: natural (instinctive) and con-
ventional (cultural). An example of the first is for instance the smile when
pleased or crossing the arms when reserved. The latter are more cultur-
ally determined and must be acquired by learning. We may call a set of
certain conventional gestures a ceremony, and if several people are in-

30
Mercer 1913.
31
Hibbits 1992:955.
32
According to Laird (1985), 75% is learned through seeing. Hearing about
13%, and the other senses—touch, smell and taste account for 12% (however, his
Sensory stimulation theory is based on modern man in western society).
33
Hibbits 1992.
34
Hibbits 1992:907.
 B. Nilhamn, From Oral Promise to Written Receipt… 179

volved (the presence of witnesses) its importance grows. Looking at the

symbolism of literature and iconography, the Near Eastern societies were
highly gesticulatory, as the following examples illustrate:
– a slave owner who freed his slave smashed a pot as a sign of breaking the
slave contract;35
– a salesman could sell his land to a buyer by lifting his own foot off it and
putting the foot of the buyer on it instead;36
– a similar symbolic ceremony is found in the Old Testament where the
salesman gives a sandal to the buyer as a sign that the latter has now the
right to walk over (possess) the land;37
– the son who wished legally to disown his parents abandoned his garment
at the entrance of his former parent’s house. A father who wanted to
disown his son broke a clod of earth or clay between his fingers (as a
sign of breaking the relationship as man was said to be made of clay);38
– a dying man wishing to designate his heir or legatee took the hand of the
benefited individual.39

The delivery or acceptance of certain items could be part of an

agreement between two parties. This could either be of a material or an
immaterial kind. A debtor could seal a loan agreement by publicly deliv-
ering his garment or the hem of his garment to his creditor.40 The public
handing over of an item like the pestle is another example connected to
land transaction.41 The placing on of wedding ring nowadays has the
same function. In Mesopotamia,42 the river was seen as the instrument of
the will of (the) god(s). The river ordeal as a legal gesture provides the
audience and the judges with the visual sign of the will of god(s).
The written receipt is more than just a copy of spoken words put
down on a tablet, it is also a material piece that can be seen and felt. In
the earliest time, they were standardized and formalized as rounded tab-
lets. For the people who could not read, its appearance made it immedi-
ately obvious of what kind it was. The tablet itself proved that it was a
closed agreement with a legal aspect not to be contested. Breaking the
written tablet was of course a strong visual symbol of annulment and
termination of the obligation.

35
Malul 1987:58–59.
36
Malul 1987:514.
37
Ruth 4:2–11.
38
Malul 1987:110, 138.
39
Oppenheim 1964:283.
40
Malul 1987:366.
41
Gelb et al. 1991:242.
42
Similar idea was also present in Europe, cf. the witch trials in the 18th century.
180 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

In a society where writing is absent or not common, a contract be-

tween promisor and promissee had to be orally made in the presence of
witnesses. However even after the appearance of literacy, we cannot as-
sume that the spoken word (solemnia verba) was unnecessary. On the con-
trary, writing can never replace the richer spoken language.43 Even when
writing existed, the oral testimony was preferred or given more weight as
proof.44 Even though written documents were made to capture what was
said the saying itself mattered more than the writing. The tablet was
nothing more than a “witness” of the stated.45
Touching is not the first sense that comes to mind, but was as impor-
tant as the rest of the senses. One of the most universal gestures around
the world for the formal closure of a contract or a deal is the handclasp
or handshake, or more fiercely the receiving of a slap. This is not only a
visual gesture but also a tactile message. Grasping a person’s hem sym-
bolized in a tactile manner a formal complaint towards that person.46 An-
other method was to strike, slap or hit someone on the forehead.47 This
latter, if it was the forehead of a debtor, could also mean that a debt was
legally guaranteed.48 Perhaps this may only be a symbolic wording, but
still a quite forceful one. A similar practice is found in an Old Babylonian
letter where it is said that “if the envoy grasped the testicles and penis of
the owner (writer of the letter) the owner would give him [it],” i. e. the
goods. This is probably also only symbolic wordings and Malul argues
further that the envoy probably had to present an oath.49
The same can be said about the kiss between bride and groom con-
solidating the marriage as a legal relationship. Touching or kissing a reli-
gious object is also a strong tactile gesture, as one “connects” with not
only the object but with the gods at such moments. Being physically pre-
sent in the temple can be seen in a similar way, as one is bodily sur-
rounded by the spiritual air and presence of the gods. Transferring
goods or objects is also a tactile experience of holding, letting go and re-
ceiving. Passing or crossing a pestle, a rod or even a sandal is sign of

43
Bottero 2001:24.
44
Socrates never wrote down any of his thought as this was the normal be-
haviour for a person who lived in a society where speech was the common sign of
intellect. Plato did it later but in the form of dialogues.
45
Westbrook 2003:12f.
46
Malul 1987:560.
47
Malul 1987:581.
48
Malul 1987:307.
49
Malul 1987:491f.
 B. Nilhamn, From Oral Promise to Written Receipt… 181

transfer of ownership. The physical passing of the receipt may also have
been a strong rite of its own as ownership of the agreement then became
property of the other party.
Even though it is not immediately obvious, taste and smell can be used
as necessary parts of verification procedures. Smell recognises the use of
ointment, perfumes, incense and sacrificial smoke. These may symbolize
the divine presence and divine approval. The ritual of anointing indi-
viduals with scented oil changed their legal status, bringing them into
different relationships with other individuals and subjecting them to dif-
ferent obligations.50 Such rituals could be part of land transactions,51 of
betrothals52 or freeing a slave.53 Taste plays a major role in the sharing of
a meal. Feasting is a common part of an agreement or a transaction all
around the world. The ancient Near East forms no exception as we see in
the laws of Ešnunna § 27. According to Babylonian law, “Eat the ram and
drink the cup” was required for both parties and the witnesses when
making a land transaction.54 Drinking may be seen as a swallowed oath or
as a promise, as in the modern saying “This we toast on/drink to”! The
bride and groom sharing a cup and feeding each other with cake or the
toast when a sale is closed are other examples of the survival of these rites
into our time. A sacrifice of food or drinks or a libation (kirrum) to the
god(s) form similar rituals.

The juridical evidences

As people were forced to live in a smaller area this meant that conflicts
were never far away. Commonly accepted rules had to be posed and au-
dited by a mutually accepted party, but it also meant that administration
had to be organized to avoid conflicts. One driving force in the the de-
velopment of writing was the necessity to keep a track of exchanges of
goods in growing urban centra like Uruk, where the increase of popula-
tion made it difficult to prove ownership and manage debt situations
(with sales, interest and taxes) in the old (oral) way.
As society and its economy grew more complex so did the need for
(legal) administration. Considering the fact that witnesses have always
been—and still are—part of transactions and formal agreements, we can

50
Hibbits 1992:935–937.
51
Malul 1987:440.
52
CE §§ 27–28; Malul 1987:204.
53
Malul 1987:58.
54
Hibbits 1992:939; Malul 1987:440.
182 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

assume that they were essential in pre-literate societies too. In historical

period, from the third millennium onwards, we see that the role of the
witnesses still was a natural part of legal procedures, verifying their pres-
ence by using a seal. Occasionally they used a hem of a garment or even a
fingernail instead.55 As Postgate reflects, the use of witnesses “… is not
specified as a principle anywhere: we do not come across any law …”56
However, putting one’s seal on a document is a further step towards ex-
ternal evidentiary memory. If we look at the development of verification
we notice that the first receipts/sales of property were not sealed. The oral
performance was probably the main activity and the document itself was
not even evidentiary but may be seen as a mnemonic device. It was still the
words and the performances that counted. Even though the legal literature
from ancient Mesopotamia itself does not show any abundance of symbolic
actions, we cannot ignore their importance.57 Malul argues for the idea
that they had become embedded in the legal documents.58 He further ar-
gues that one should separate symbolic action (physical movement) from
symbolic gestures (non-verbal) as these had different purposes.59
Looking at the legal law traditions in Mesopotamia60 (table 2) through
time we see that there is a tendency towards the written sources as mem-
ory devices even though the necessity of the witnesses is still obvious in
the Neo-Babylonian time (and still is today). In some cases, performances
such as oaths and ordeals were needed as evidence.
In Nuzi, as in Babylonia, a document was considered to be a simpler
form of proof than the oral testimony of the witnesses. However, a wit-
ness was always seen as the principal verification. In some cases the wit-
nesses were examined even though the document existed. It seems that
in some cases the document was only used if the defendant lacked wit-
nesses. If the authenticity of the document was questioned the seals were
examined. The river ordeal and use of oaths were also in use in Nuzi.
The oath was however, contrary to Babylonia, not used in the same ex-
tent and the witnesses were rarely asked to take it. In general, the oath
only applied when other verification was lacking.61

55
Postgate 1994:285, fn. 524.
56
Postgate 1994:285.
57
Malul 1987:449.
58
Malul 1987:12.
59
Malul 1987:21.
60
This overview (table 2) focus on the main area of Mesopotamia. Therefore
neither Hittite nor Jewish sources have been incorporated.
61
Liebsny 1941:131–142.
 B. Nilhamn, From Oral Promise to Written Receipt… 183

Conclusion: the importance of the given proof

This study has looked upon the receipt as a mnemonic verification from
four different angles: (1) the importance of the memory; (2) conception
vs. perception; (3) the increasing need of written statements and, finally,
(4) material vs. immaterial.
According to Donald,62 the evolution of writing did not involve any
significant change in the innate biological brain. It did reflect a massive
change in cognitive capabilities, but those enhanced capabilities are more
aptly characterized as the use of external devices to leverage the cognitive
abilities, to enhance the capacities of human memory and to focus and
process information. This however occurred at the expense of the oral
and mimetic memory.
In other words, with the development of writing, the active use of
other kinds of proof diminished while the written receipts and contracts
became necessities for both the memory, and the legal administration.
The most obvious reason for having evidence, regardless of its form, is
its support for the memory of what was actually agreed or transferred
functioning as proof that the agreement had actually happened. In this
sense memory devices have an outspoken legal aspect that was fully inte-
grated into the economy and of course the city administration. To be
valid it had to be made within a culturally recognized framework where
both parties were involved and the rest of the society acknowledged its
legal status. To enhance its legal value it was made in the presence of the
actors involved assisted by witnesses, but receipts were more than the
written or orally spoken words. The physical container that held the
symbolism and the intention of the receipt could equally well be recog-
nized as having a strong legal aspect. Laws did not recognize the creation
of the physical document as the essence of a transaction but only as a
verification that the transaction had taken place in a legally valid manner.
One must therefore conclude that the term receipt/verification holds
two important aspects:
– conception, i. e. the abstract process of meaning and value;
– perception, i. e. the physical or symbolic appearance acknowledged through
the senses.

In combination, these form a strong instrument. Through perception

and by using several senses, one will remember something more clearly,
thereby making the legal value (the conception) stronger and more solid.

62
Donald 1991.
184 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

An example of such a traditional situation is the marital rite, where all

five senses were (and still are) involved before the marriage was officially
consummated. The verification did not just consist of the oral promise
(verba) and perhaps a written deed but also the gifts given, the witnesses
(including gods), the feast but most of all by the physical act of handing
over the bride to her husband.
It would be dangerous to discuss forms of receipts from ancient
Mesopotamia directly in the words of the economic and legal framework
of today. In our society, we perceive a receipt to be the physical paper
where figures state how much we paid for something. The immaterial
aspects of the receipt, such as the binding nature of oral words and the
handshake, are overlooked. Besides paper, modern society uses many
materials, like special coins for the laundry automats, as receipts that we
paid or agreed for the right of something.
With this in mind, we need to acknowledge alternative possibilities of
carriers of the concept of the receipt in past societies. A clay token, a
sealing or a disc are early manifestations, a ceremony of handing over a
symbol, the chosen words, the place and time and the witnesses; they all
carry a part of the concept of a receipt.
To conclude, the receipt (still) has several main purposes:
– as evidence/verification;
– as tool for the administration;
– as tool for memory;
– to avoid future disputes between individuals or groups;
– to establish and maintain ownership;
– to give authenticity and legality to acts;
– to keep a certain idea of legal consensus intact.

Rapid urbanization meant that new developments in the social structure

of society were inevitable and brought forth new methods of book keeping
and legal auditing. The economic and social complexity of loans, debts,
rental and interest made old methods as the oral performances inadequate
and not reliable nor efficient enough. As a result, we see trough time in the
legal literature that the importance of the written sources increases. In the
earliest laws, the need of the physical tablet is not so pronounced while in
the latter period this is seen as a necessity. To conclude, there are three dif-
ferent kinds of verifications that are mentioned in the laws:
– rational and material, physical evidences;
– rational and immaterial (witnesses);
– supra-rational including oaths and ordeals.
 B. Nilhamn, From Oral Promise to Written Receipt… 185

The concept of receipt included several aspects but through time

some of these became empty and archaic with a limited own legal value.
Perhaps only phrases lived on as symbolic words but the actually physical
action had disappeared.
This paper aims to how the importance of providing proof embodies
economical concepts and “law and order” and its impact upon society. At
the same time, it has shown how a concept like the receipt, regardless of
appearance, can reflect the abstract and symbolic development of society.
186 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Table 1. Overview of some performances that may denote legal activity63

Expression Situation Sense
(F: feeling; T: taste;
Sm: smell; H: hear-
ing; S: sight)
Primary Secondary
Pūtam ullulum/ubbubum Manumission of slave F S, Sm
To cleanse the forehead
Pūtum elēlum/zakûm Fulfilment of debt F S, Sm
To be clean (forehead) or other obligation
Pūtam ma¶ā´um To guarantee F S, H
To strike the forehead for somebody
Pūtam emēdum Establishment F S
To lean the forehead of obligation
Qaqqadam kullum To guarantee F S
To hold the head for somebody
Qaqqadam ma¶ā´um Make a formal accusation F S, H
To strike the head
Naḫlaptam/´ubātam šakānum u Dissolution of familial ties S F, H
pa¢ārum/alākum (the person leaves the
To place the garment and depart home)
Qannam nasāqum u a´ûm Dissolution of familial ties F S, H
To choose the hem and leave (the person leaves the
home)
Ôubātam ¶amā´um u eriššīša Dissolution of familial ties F S, H
šū´ûm/eriššīša a´ûm (divorce)
To strip the garment and drive
(someone) out naked/to go out
naked
Qannam nakāsum Dissolution of familial ties F S, H
To cut the hem (the person leaves the
home)
Ina qannim rakāsum Handing over bride price F S, H
To tie in the hem of the garment
Uznē ´abātum u pa¢ārum Dissolution of familial ties F S
To seize the ears and depart
Qātē mesûm u pa¢ārum Dissolution of familial ties F S, Sm, H
To wash the hands and go (disinheriting a son)
Qātam nasā¶um Dissolution of a claim F S
To remove the hand
Šamnam ana qaqqadim tabākum Establishment of marital Sm/F H, T, S
To pour oil on the head status

63
Based on Malul 1987.
 B. Nilhamn, From Oral Promise to Written Receipt… 187

Expression Situation Sense

(F: feeling; T: taste;
Sm: smell; H: hear-
ing; S: sight)
Primary Secondary
Šēpam šulûm u šēpam šakānum Legal transaction of land F S, H
To raise the foot and to place or property (right of suc-
the foot cession)
Qannam mašārum Establishment of legal F S, H, Sm
To impress the hem (on clay) agreement (Nuzi)
Sissiktam/sikkam batāqum/baqāmum Dissolution of familial ties F S, H
To cut/pluck the garment/hem (divorce—to be able to
remarry)
Sissiktašu kīma kunukkišu Pledge for substitution S F
His hem in lieu of his seal of seal
Kāram akālum kāsam šatûm Legal transaction of land T/Sm S, H, F
šamnam pašāšum or property
To eat the ram, to drink the
cup, to anoint with oil
Kirbānam ¶epûm To verify without docu- F S, H
To break a clod (of earth) ment (OB); dissolution
of familial ties (Nuzi)
Karpatum ¶epûm Manumission of Slave H S
To break the pot

Table 2. Mesopotamian laws64

Codex Date Comments

Ur-Nammu 2100 B. C. 37 laws of which only one mentions the need or the
preferred need of a written contract (§ 5)

Lipit-Ishtar 1930 B. C. Of perhaps 200 laws only 38 survived of which only

two mention a tablet or sealed document (§§ 20, 31)

Ešnunna 1770 B. C. Consists of more than 60 laws of which only two

mention a contract. §§ 27, 28 state that besides the
contract there will be a nuptial feast as part of the
marriage but also libation should be conducted. In-
teresting enough there is no clear statement that the
parties should have a written documentation.

64
Based on Roth 2000.
188 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Codex Date Comments

Hammurabi 1750 B. C. Of the known laws 20 mention the importance of the
written contract, deed or receipt (§§ 7, 37, 48, 52,
100, 104, 105, 106, 107, 122, 123, 128, 151, 152, 165,
177, 178, 179, 183, 264).
9 mention the necessity of witnesses (§§ 7, 9–12, 106,
122–124).
12 mention the oath (§§ 9, 20, 23, 103, 106, 120, 126,
131, 206, 207, 227, 249). Unfortunately for this paper
as we are investigating the importance of receipts, the
missing §§ 66–99 probably held additional informa-
tion concerning them.

Sumerian 1700 B. C. In this text written documents are mentioned at sev-

Handbook eral points but also other kind of proofs of action, for
of Forms instant “clearing his head, releasing his foot fetters,
smashing his pot” as co-existent proofs and rituals
beside the written document/receipt when freeing the
slave.

Edict of 1646–1626 Of the 22 known “laws” 7 mention the tablet as an

Ammisaduqa B. C. evidence of the agreed (§§ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11).

Middle 1076 B. C. It is a clear increase of wish to have a written docu-

Assyrian ment, even though the testimony of the witnesses still
Laws carries the main role as evidence (§§ A 28, 34, 46, 57,
59; B 6, 17, 18; O 2, 5).

Neo- 700 B. C. Of the 15 laws, one requires the need of the testi-
Babylonian mony from the witnesses (§ 4) and 4 mention the
Laws need of a tablet (§§ 5, 6, 8 and 9).
 B. Nilhamn, From Oral Promise to Written Receipt… 189

References
Bottero 2001 Bottero, R. Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. Transl.
by A. Nevill. Baltimore.
Connerton 1989 Connerton, P. How Societies Remember. Cambridge.
Costello 2002 Costello, S. Tools of Memory: Investigation of the Context of
Information Storage in the Halaf Period. PhD. Diss. De-
partment of Anthropology, Binghamton University.
Edzard 1968 Edzard, D. O. Sumerische Rechtsurkunden des III. Jahr-
tausends. München
Ezzamel–Hoskin 2002 Ezzamel, M.; Hoskin, K. Retheorizing Accounting, Writing
and Money, with Evidence from Mesopotamia and Ancient
Egypt. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 13:333–367.
Donald 1991 Donald, M. Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the
Evolution of Culture and Cognition. Cambridge (Mass.).
Donald 1993 Donald, M. Human Cognitive Evolution: What We Were,
What We are Becoming. Social Research 60:143–170.
Donald 2001 Donald, M. A Mind So Rare: The Evolution of Human Con-
sciousness. New York.
Englund 1996 Englund, R. K. Proto-Cuneiform Texts from Diverse Collec-
tions (MSVO 4). Berlin.
Englund 2004 Englund, R. K. Proto-Cuneiform Account-Books and
Journals. Hudson, M.; Wunsch, C. (eds.). Creating Eco-
nomic Order: Record-keeping, Standardization and the Devel-
opment of Accounting in the Ancient Near East. Bethesda.
Pp. 23–46.
Gelb et al. 1991 Gelb, I. J.; Steinkeller, P.; Whiting, R. M. Earliest Land
Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. Chicago.
Hibbits 1992 Hibbits, B. J. “Coming to Our Senses”: Communication
and Legal Expression in Performance Cultures. Emory
Law Journal 41:873–960.
Laird 1985 Laird, D. Approaches to Training and Development. Reading.
Lévi-Strauss 1962 Lévi-Strauss, C. The Savage Mind. Chicago.
Liebsny 1941 Liebsny, H. Evidence in Nuzi Legal Procedure. JAOS
61:130–142.
Nissen et al. 1993 Nissen, H. J.; Damerow, P.; Englund, R. K. Archaic
Bookkeeping. Early Writing and Techniques of Economic Ad-
ministration in the Ancient Near East. Chicago.
Malul 1987 Malul, M. Studies in Legal Symbolic Acts in Mesopotamian
Law. PhD. Diss. University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor.
Malul 1988 Malul, M. Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism (AOAT
221). Neukirchen–Vluyn.
Mattessich 1987 Mattessich, R. Prehistoric Accounting and the Problem
of Representation: On Recent Archaeological Evidence
of the Middle East from 8000 B. C. to 3000 B. C. Ac-
counting Historians Journal 14:71–91.
190 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Mattessich 1989 Mattessich, R. Accounting and the Input-Output Princi-

ple in the Prehistoric and Ancient World. Abacus 25:
74–84.
Mattessich 1994 Mattessich, R. Archaeology of Accounting and
Schmandt-Besserat’s Contribution. Accounting, Business
& Financial History 4/1:5–28.
Mattessich 1998 Mattessich, R. Recent Insights into Mesopotamian Ac-
counting of the 3rd Millennium B. C.—Successor to To-
ken Accounting. Accounting Historians Journal 25:1–27.
Mattessich 2000 Mattessich, R. The Beginnings of Accounting and Accounting
Thought Accounting Practice in the Middle East (8000 B. C.
to 2000 B. C.) and Accounting Thought in India (300 B. C.
and the Middle Ages). New York.
Mercer 1913 Mercer, S. A. B. The Oath in Cuneiform Inscriptions.
The Oath in Babylonian Inscriptions of the Time of the
Hammurabi Dynasty. AJSL 29:65–94.
Mouck 2004 Mouck, T. Ancient Accounting—Ancient Mesopotamian
Accounting and Human Cognitive Evolution. Accounting
Historians Journal 31:97–124.
Oppenheim 1964 Oppenheim, A. L. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead
Civilization. Chicago–London.
Postgate 1992 Postgate, J. N. Early Mesopotamia—Society and Economy at
the Dawn of History. London.
Pritchard 1975 Pritchard, J. B. The Ancient Near East: A New Anthology of
Texts and Pictures. Vol. 2. Princeton.
Roth 2000 Roth, M. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor
(WAW 6). Atlanta.
Roth 2001 Roth, M. Reading Mesopotamian Law Cases—PBS 5
100: A Question of Filiation. JESHO 44:244–92.
Schmandt-Besserat
1992 Schmandt-Besserat, D. Before Writing. Vols. I–II. Austin.
Westbrook 1991 Westbrook, R. The Phrase ‘His heart is Satisfied’ in An-
cient Near Eastern Legal Sources. JAOS 111:219–224.
Westbrook 2003 Westbrook, R. Introduction, The Character of Ancient
Near Eastern Law. Westbrook, R. (ed.). A History of Near
Eastern Law. Vol. 1. Leiden. Pp. 1–90.
 Verschenkte Städte – Königliche Landschenkungen
an Götter und Menschen

Susanne Paulus
Universität Münster

Um das Wohlwollen der Götter zu erlangen, wurden diese zu allen Zeiten

von den mesopotamischen Königen reich beschenkt und durch Bauwerke
geehrt. Die entsprechenden Taten dokumentierten die Herrscher in Bau-
und Weihinschriften, die für alle Epochen, auch für die mittelbabylonische
Zeit, zahlreich überliefert sind.1 Unter den königlichen Schenkungen an
die Götter sticht eine aus der frühen Kassitenzeit hervor, bei der der König
Kurigalzu I. im 14. Jh. v. Chr. eine große Landfläche der Göttin Ištar
übereignete. Der Text ist nur in zwei späteren Abschriften (BM 108982
und NBC 2503)2 überliefert, von denen NBC 2503 die jüngere ist.3

1
Einen guten Überblick über die Bau- und Weihinschriften bieten die Bände
der Serie Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia (RIM). Eine Bearbeitung der mittelba-
bylonischen Inschriften steht noch aus, da nur die Inschriften ab der Isin-II-Dynas-
tie in der Serie RIM bearbeitet wurden. Vgl. Frame, G. Rulers of Babylonia. From the
Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC) (RIMB 2). To-
ronto–Buffalo–London, 1995. Eine Zusammenstellung der kassitischen Inschriften
findet sich bei Brinkman, J. A. Materials and Studies for Kassite History. Vol. I
(MSKH). Chicago, 1976. Ein Teil der Königsinschriften sind in der Grammatikstu-
die von P. Stein. Die mittel- und neubabylonischen Königsinschriften bis zum Ende der Assy-
rerherrschaft. Grammatische Untersuchungen (JBVO 3). Wiesbaden, 2000 bearbeitet.
2
Bei BM 108982 handelt es sich um einen zweikolumnigen Tonzylinder. Die
Kopie findet sich bei Gadd, C. J. CT 36. London, 1921, Tafel 6–7. NBC 2503 ist
ein Tonprisma, das nur unvollständig erhalten ist. Die erhaltenen Stellen
entsprechen ca. i 14 – ii 18 von BM 108982. Für Kopie, Transkription und Über-
setzung dieses Textes vgl. Nies, J. B.; Keiser, C. E. Historical, Religious and Econom-
ic Texts and Antiquities (BIN 2). New Haven, 1920, No. 33, Tafel 22. Eine Trans-
kription und Übersetzung beider Texte bietet Ungnad, A. Schenkungsurkunde
des Kurigalzu mâr Kadašman-Úarbe. AfK 1 (1923):19–23. Der Text ist als No. 17
a+b bei El-Wailly, Y. Synopsis of Royal Sources of the Kassite Period. Sumer 10
(1954):43–54, als No. 49 bei Jaritz, K. Quellen zur Geschichte der Kaššû Dynas-
tie. MIO 6 (1958):187–265 und als No. Q.2.1+2 bei Brinkman, J. A. MSKH (s. o.
Anm. 1), vgl. S. 209, Anm. 14 für Kollationen zu BM 108982 aufgeführt.
3
Für NBC 2503 steht außer Frage, dass es sich um eine späte Kopie handelt,
vgl. auch Brinkman, J. A. MSKH (s. o. Anm. 1):209: “definitely a late copy”: Die
192 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Der Text schildert zunächst in Form von Epitheta die Taten des Kuri-
galzu I., besonders seine Bautätigkeit in Nippur, Ur, Uruk und Eridu.
Diese Schilderung hat Clayden mit anderen Bau- und Weihinschriften
Kurigalzus I. in Zusammenhang gebracht, die von Arbeiten an den ge-
nannten Orten zeugen,4 wobei es nach wie vor schwierig ist, zwischen
den Taten Kurigalzus I. und denen Kurigalzus II. unterscheiden, wenn
nicht die Filiation angegeben ist.5 Der hier diskutierte Text datiert sicher
auf Kurigalzu I., Sohn des Kadašman-Úarbe.6 Dieser baute nach eigenen

ursprüngliche Zeilenaufteilung wird durch Trenner angezeigt (Z. 3′, 4′, 5′, 7′,
11′, 12′, 13′), auf Sumerogramme wird weitgehend verzichtet, die Auslautvokale
werden nicht mehr korrekt geschrieben (Z. 2′, 4′ und 12′), für -ja wird die jün-
gere Form -já (Z. 4′, 9′), anstelle von -ša wird teilweise -šú verwendet (Z. 11′,
13′). Für BM 108982 ist die Datierung schwieriger. In der Orthographie fällt je-
doch die Verwendung von jüngeren Formen auf, die mittelbabylonisch zwar be-
legt sind, jedoch kaum in Kudurrus und Königsinschriften, die archaisierende
Formen verwenden, vorkommen. So werden die Präpositionen ausschließlich ana
und ina geschrieben, was laut P. Stein (JBVO 3 (s. o. Anm. 1):46) erst ab dem aus-
gehenden 2. Jt. häufiger ist. ša wird šá und u u, nicht ù, geschrieben. Archaisie-
rende Elemente, wie die Schreibung der Mimation oder die des w, treten nicht
auf. Zu diesen archaisierenden Elementen vgl. Sommerfeld, W. Die mittelbabylo-
nische Grenzsteinurkunde IM 5527 (UF 16 (1984):300). Auch die Zeichenformen
lassen kaum eine Datierung vor der späten Kassitenzeit zu, vgl. dazu die
Aufstellung bei Sassmannshausen, L. Ein ungewöhnliches mittelbabylonisches
Urkundenfragment aus Nippur (BaM 25 (1994):456). Besonders gut ist der Un-
terschied bei den Formen für LUGAL, KA, É und ŠÀ zu erkennen. Insgesamt
scheint auch BM 108982 eine spätere Abschrift zu sein.
4
Vgl. dazu Clayden, T. Kurigalzu I and the Restoration of Babylonia. Iraq 58
(1996):109–121.
5
Zur Problematik vgl. Brinkman, J. A. MSKH (s. o. Anm. 1):205ff.
6
Vgl. dazu BM 108982 i 7: IBILA šá VkadW-daš-man-V¶arW-VbeW. Auch der
Aufbau des Textes, vor allem im Vergleich mit Kudurru-Inschriften, die diesem
Text inhaltlich näher stehen als die zeitgenössischen Königsinschriften, deutet
auf eine Entstehung in der frühen Kassitenzeit hin. Wichtigster Unterschied zu
den Kudurrus ist die Formulierung in der 1. Person aus der Sicht des Königs, die
nur in Sb 22 (vgl. Scheil, V. Textes Élamites-Sémitiques (MDP 2). Paris, 1900, S. 99–
111) belegt ist, wobei dieser Kudurru eine Ausnahme bildet, da es sich hier um die
Schenkung des Königs Meli-Šipak an seinen eigenen Sohn und Nachfolger
handelt.
Eine chronologische Auswertung der Kudurru-Inschriften steht immer noch
aus, so dass eine Einordnung vorläufig ist. Vgl. dazu Brinkman, J. A. Babylonian
Royal Land Grants, Memorials of Financial Interest, and Invocation of the Di-
vine. JESHO 49 (2006):26 mit Anm. 26 (Diskussion, ob es sich bei der vorliegen-
den Schenkung um einen “Kudurru”-Text handelt) und 39ff. zu den Datie-
rungsmerkmalen. Wichtig für die Datierung ist, dass die Landbeschreibung noch
 S. Paulus, Verschenkte Städte – Königliche Landschenkungen… 193

Angaben (i 16 ff.) nicht nur am Tempel des Anu und seiner Tochter Ištar
in Uruk7, sondern stattete diesen auch mit regelmäßigen Opfergaben aus.
An Ištar verschenkte er dabei eine Fläche von 216.000 Kor ‘Saatgut’ nach
mittelbabylonischem Flächenmaß, also umgerechnet 17.496 km2.8 Das
gewaltige Ausmaß der Fläche, aber auch die Verwendung der idealisierten
Zahl 216.000 haben dazu geführt, dass Powell die Schenkung als Donatio
Constantini, also als eine spätere Fälschung, wahrscheinlich aus dem 1. Jt. v.
Chr. durch die Priester des Eanna deutete.9 Andere wiederum
interpretierten die Schenkung als Dichtung, so wird sie bei Longman in
seiner Fictional Akkadian Autobiography aufgeführt und erscheint auch bei
Foster in Before the Muses.10

nicht standardisiert und an die Himmelsrichtung gebunden ist und dass der Text
nur über eine kurze Fluchformel verfügt. Ein weiteres Kriterium ist auch die
Formulierung in BM 108982 ii 14 = NBC 2503:13′ nārī u nābalu ‘Kanäle und
trockenes Land’, die bislang nur in frühen Kudurrus vorkommt. Vgl. dazu die
Texte L 7072 (Iraq Museum) ii 18 aus der Zeit des Nazi-Maruttaš und L 7076
(Iraq Museum) iii 23 (Bearbeitung bei Arnaud, D. Deux Kudurru de Larsa. II.
Étude épigraphique. RA 66 (1972):163–176).
7
Zum Pantheon von Uruk vgl. für die altbabylonische Zeit Richter, Th. Unter-
suchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in der altbabylonischen Zeit
(2., verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage) (AOAT 257). Münster, 2004, S. 283ff. so-
wie für das 1. Jt. V. Chr. Beaulieu, P.-A. The Pantheon of Uruk during the Neo-
Babylonian Period (CM 23). Leiden–Boston, 2003.
8
Im Text ist die Zahl 60šu ŠÁR (BM 108982), bzw. 60šu šá-a-ru (NBC 2503) ge-
schrieben. Es handelt sich um eine symbolisch-runde Zahl 60 × 3600. Zur Be-
rechnung des mittelbabylonischen Flächenmaßes vgl. Powell, M. A. Maße und
Gewichte. RlA 7:494. Zur Berechnung der hier vorliegenden Fläche vgl. Powell,
M. A. Metrological Notes on the Esagila Tablet and Related Matters. ZA 72
(1982):111f. Die Berechnung von Ungnad, A. AfK 1 (s. o. Anm. 2):22, die lediglich
524 km2 gibt, ist dagegen nicht korrekt. Ihr folgt jedoch Sommerfeld, W. Der
babylonische “Feudalismus”. Dietrich, M.; Loretz, O. (Hrsg.). Vom Alten Orient zum
Alten Testament (AOAT 240). Kevelaer–Neukirchen–Vluyn, 1995, S. 467–490.
9
Vgl. dazu Powell, M. A. ZA 72 (s. o. Anm. 8):112. Derartige Fälschungen sind
durchaus belegt, die berühmteste ist sicher das sogenannte “cruciform monu-
ment”, eine neubabylonische Fälschung der Priester des Šamaš-Tempels in Sip-
par, die versuchten, ein Monument der Akkad-Zeit nachzuahmen. Vgl. dazu Soll-
berger, E. The Cruciform Monument (JEOL 20–23 (1967–1974):50ff.) und Stein-
keller, P. An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List. Sallaberger, W.; Volk,
K.; Zgoll, A. (Hrsg.). Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschrift für Claus
Wilcke. Wiesbaden, 2003, S. 278f. Steinkeller geht jedoch davon aus, dass es ein
altakkadisches Vorbild gab.
10
Vgl. T. Longmann III. Fictional Akkadian Autobiography. A Generic and Com-
parative Study (Winona Lake, 1991, S. 88–91) mit weiteren Literaturangaben zur
194 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Jedoch lassen gewisse Anzeichen im Text Zweifel an der Fiktionalität

aufkommen: Es gibt, wie bei Landschenkungen üblich, eine genaue La-
gebeschreibung, die die Grenzen der vier Seiten des Landes beschreibt.11
So reicht dieses von der ‘Stadt meiner Herrin’, also Uruk,12 bis zur Gren-
ze von Girsu13 und von der Stadt Mangi´´u, die östlich von Nippur zu lo-
kalisieren ist,14 bis zur Stadt Adattu, die nach anderen Texten in der Pro-
vinz Meerland am Euphrat lag.15 Auch wenn die Lokalisierung von Adat-

Diskussion, ob es sich um einen fiktionalen Text handelt, und Foster, B. R. Before

the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Bethesda, 32005, S. 365–366), sowie
Foster, B. R. Akkadian Literature of the Later Period (GMTR 2). Münster, 2007, S. 18,
No. 2.1.5.1.
11
Zur Terminologie der Lagebeschreibung vgl. Liverani, M. Reconstructing
the Rural Landscape of the Ancient Near East (JESHO 39 (1996):1–41) und Poda-
ny, A. H. Some Shared Traditions between Úana and the Kassites. Young, G. D.;
Chavalas, M. W.; Averbeck, R. E. (Hrsg.). Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons.
Bethesda, 1997, S. 424ff.
12
Die Identifikation von āl bēlīja (BM 108982 i 29, NBC 2503:7′) mit Uruk ist
unumstritten. Vgl. dazu auch Powell, M. A. ZA 72 (s. o. Anm. 8):112. Zudem ist ein
Tempel der Nin-ama-kala genannt, einer Göttin, die mit Nanāja verbunden ist, vgl.
dazu Cavigneaux, A.; Krebernik, M. Nin-amakalla. RlA 9:327.
13
BM 108982 ii 1: a-di-i BULUG URU gír-suki, NBC 2503:7′: Va-diW mi-V´iW-ru gi-
ki
ir-si ‘bis zur Grenze von Girsu’. Girsu ist ansonsten in mittelbabylonischer Zeit
nicht belegt, vgl. dazu Nashef, Kh. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der mittelbabyloni-
schen und mittelassyrischen Zeit (RGTC 5). Wiesbaden, 1982, S. 109f. Die Strecke
Uruk-Girsu dürfte die West-Ost-Ausdehnung des Landes beschreiben.
14
Der Text erwähnt, dass das Land bis zur Stadt Mangi´´u reicht und dabei
an die “Flur von Nippur” angrenzt, vgl. dazu BM 108982 i 26 bis I 28 und NBC
2503 7′. Nippur bildete eine wichtige mittelbabylonische Provinz, vgl. dazu Sass-
mannshausen, L. Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft Babyloniens in der Kassiten-
zeit (BaF 21). Mainz, 2001, S. 22ff. Aus L 7076 (s. o. Anm. 6) iii 1–2 wird deutlich,
dass die Stadt Mangi´´u in der Provinz Bīt-Sîn-māgir lag. Diese Provinz verlief
westlich des Tigris von Süden nach Norden. Zur südlichen Ausdehnung der
Provinz vgl. Nashef, Kh. RGTC 5 (s. o. Anm. 13):69, zur nördlichen Ausdehnung
vgl. Sb 21 i 20ff. (s. u. Anm. 40), wo im Zusammenhang mit der Provinz Bīt-Sîn-
māgir der Fluss àaban erwähnt wird, der mit dem Nār Kan"ān im Diyala-Gebiet
identisch ist. Vgl. dazu ausführlich Nashef, Kh. Der àaban-Fluss. BaM 13 (1982):
117–141. Dem Verlauf der Provinz zufolge muss Mangi´´u östlich von Nippur an-
gesetzt werden.
15
Die Lage am Euphrat wird ebenfalls in BM 108982 i 25 und NBC 2503 6′
erwähnt. In UM 29-13-629 + UM 29-13-712 10f. werden nacheinander Adattu
Bīt-Nūr-Eulmaš und Adattu Māt-Tâmti erwähnt, in CBS 7251:8 kommt Adattu
unter den ‘Häusern des Ninurta, am Ufer des Tigris’ vor (s. u.). Zu den Texten
vgl. Sassmannshausen, L. BaF 21 (s. o. Anm. 14):252f. (No. 66) und 256 (No. 71).
Die Nennung des Tigris in diesem Zusammenhang muss nicht im Widerspruch
 S. Paulus, Verschenkte Städte – Königliche Landschenkungen… 195

tu und Mangi´´u nur annähernd möglich ist, ergibt sich, verbindet man das
Ganze, eine Fläche, die weite Teile des östlichen Südbabyloniens umfasste.16
Die runde Zahl von 216.000 Kor bzw. 17.500 km2 erscheint dann Powell
auch nicht metrologisch, sondern lediglich historisch als unwahrscheinlich.17
Will man dem Text jedoch Glauben schenken, so muss man sich fra-
gen, wie die Organisation und Verwaltung des Landes möglich war,
denn die Übertragung einer riesigen Fläche, einschließlich Ortschaften
und Bevölkerung,18 in die Verwaltung des Tempels scheint kaum reali-
sierbar gewesen zu sein. Die Lösung liegt m. E. in einer unscheinbaren
Opferliste, die auf die Landschenkung folgt und die tägliche Versorgung
der Ištar beschreibt.19 Rechnet man die angegebenen Werte auf ein Jahr
hoch, so ergeben sich jeweils 1095 Kor Brot und Bier, 146 Kor Kuchen
sowie Datteln, Öl und 1095 Schafe.20 Man kann mit Sicherheit davon aus-
gehen, dass diese ‘Opfergaben’ der sogenannte ‘Landsitz der Ištar’,21 also

zur Lokalisation von Adattu am Euphrat liegen, da Euphrat und Tigris in der
Provinz Meerland eng beieinander verliefen.
16
Vgl. dazu auch Powell, M. A. ZA 72 (s. o. Anm. 8):112: “this donation would
have covered most the area between the Tigris and the Euphrates and between
Nippur and Uruk.”
17
Vgl. dazu Powell, M. A. ZA 72 (s. o. Anm. 8):112: “one cannot say with abso-
lute certainty that the donation is metrologically impossible […] but I must leave
to specialists for Kassite history to decide.”
18
Vgl. dazu die Beschreibung in BM 108982 ii 13, dass VURU.MEŠW VA.ŠÀW VI7W
u na-ba-luW ‘VStädteW, VFelderW, VFlussW und Vtrockenes LandW’ Teil der Schen-
V

kung waren.
19
Vgl. dazu BM 108982 ii 5ff. bzw. NBC 2503 10′f. Die Angabe, dass es sich
um ein tägliches Opfer handelt, findet sich in BM 108982 ii 9 bzw. NBC 2503 11′
und steht vor der letzten Opfergabe, den Schafböcken, dürfte sich jedoch auf die
Opfergaben insgesamt beziehen.
20
Berechnungsgrundlage bilden ein (fiktives) Jahr von 365 Tagen und die
Angaben der Schenkung von 3 Kor Gerste und 3 Kor Bier, 2/5 Kor mir´u-Kuchen.
Dazu kommen 3 sūtu Öl und ‘Dilmun’-Datteln sowie 3 Schafe pro Tag. Zur Zu-
sammensetzung der Opfergaben der Ištar von Uruk vgl. Beaulieu, P.-A. CM 23
(s. o. Anm. 7):159ff. Die Zahlen erscheinen relativ hoch. Man vergleiche jedoch,
dass in früher neubabylonischer Zeit z. B. ein ērib-bīti-Priester des Nabû pro Tag
jeweils 1 sūtu Brot und Bier nebst zahlreichen anderen Naturalien erhielt. Vgl.
dazu VA 3031Vs. ii 5ff. (Zeit des Nabû-šuma-iškun). In der Zeugenliste werden
dort noch 10 weitere ērib-bīti-Priester des Tempels genannt. Man kann davon aus-
gehen, dass sie Pfründe in ähnlicher Höhe besaßen. Vgl. dazu die Kopie bei
A. Ungnad (VS 1. Leipzig, 1907, No. 36), Bearbeitung bei Thureau-Dangin, F.
Un acte de donation de Marduk-zākir-šumi. RA 16 (1919):141–144.
21
Das Land wird in BM 108982 ii 14 und ii 22, sowie in NBC 2503:13′ als
šubat edurê bezeichnet. edurû ist nur selten belegt und wird für ländliche Struktu-
196 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

die ihr übereignete Fläche zu erbringen hatte. So kann man diese Pro-
dukte in den Zusammenhang mit den Abgaben stellen, die in den einzel-
nen Städten erhoben wurden, namentlich vor allem Getreide-, Dattel-,
Sesam- und Viehabgaben.22 Diese wurden bei der Bevölkerung erhoben
und von den Städten an den Tempel weitergeleitet, wo sie zu Fertigpro-
dukten für die göttliche Mahlzeit, aber auch für die Versorgung des
Tempelhaushalts verarbeitet wurden.
Am besten belegt ist dies durch die Abgabenlisten aus Nippur, in de-
nen häufig weit entfernte Städte Abgaben an Nippur liefern.23 Letzteres
haben Balkan und ihm folgend Sassmannshausen mit einer Vormacht-
stellung von Nippur in Verbindung gebracht.24 M. E. erklären sich der-
artige Abgabenleistungen einerseits durch das Verschenken der Städte
an Gottheiten, wobei Nippur der wichtigste Kultort der kassitischen Zeit
war,25 andererseits kommt eine vermeintliche Vormachtstellung Nippurs
auch durch den Überlieferungs- und Bearbeitungszufall der kassitischen
Urkunden zustande, die zum größten Teil aus Nippur stammen.26

ren, die meist einer Gottheit zugeordnet sind, verwendet. Vgl. dazu AHw. 14 s. v.
adurû ‘Dorf, Vorwerk’ und CAD E 39 s. v. edurû ‘hamlet, rural settlement’.
22
Vgl. dazu die Zusammenstellung bei Sassmannshausen, L. BaF 21 (s. o.
Anm. 14):227ff. Vgl. ergänzend auch deJ. Ellis, M. Agriculture and the State in An-
cient Mesopotamia (OPBF 1). Philadelphia, 1976.
23
Vgl. dazu Sassmannshausen, L. BaF 21 (s. o. Anm. 14):229. Evtl. ist die dort
vorkommende Stadt Adattu im Meerland identisch mit der Stadt Adattu in der
Schenkung des Kurigalzu I. (s. o. Anm. 15). Sie leistet in diesem Text jedoch kei-
ne Abgaben an den Ištar-Tempel in Uruk, sondern gehört in der auf das 12. Jahr
des Šagarakti-Šuriaš datierenden Urkunde zu den ‘Häusern des Ninurta am Tig-
ris’ und war daher dem Ninurta-Tempel in Nippur abgabenpflichtig. Vgl. CBS
7251 bei Sassmannshausen, L. BaF 21 (s. o. Anm. 14):256, No. 71.
24
Vgl. Balkan, K. Studies in Babylonian Feudalism of the Kassite Period (MANE
2/3). Malibu, 1986 und Sassmannshausen, L. BaF 21 (s. o. Anm. 14):229.
25
Zu den Tempeln von Nippur vgl. Sassmannshausen, L. BaF 21 (s. o. Anm.
14):159ff. Der Mardukkult und damit Babylon mit dem Esagila wurden erst ab
der Isin-II-Zeit bedeutender als das Ekur in Nippur. Vgl. dazu W. Sommerfeld
(Der Aufstieg Marduks (AOAT 213). Kevelaer–Neukirchen–Vluyn, 1982, S. 160ff.)
und Lambert, W. G. The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the
History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion. McCullough, W. S. (Hrsg.). The Seed
of Wisdom. Essays in Honour of T. J. Meek. Toronto, 1964, S. 3ff.
26
Für das Material außerhalb von Nippur vgl. Sassmannshausen, L. BaF 21
(s. o. Anm. 14):3f. Hilfreich ist die Übersicht über die einzelnen Archive und ihre
Laufzeiten bei Stiehler-Alegria Delgado, G. Die Kassitische Glyptik (MVSt 18). Mün-
chen–Wien, 1996, S. 229. Zu ergänzen ist unbedingt die Zusammenstellung der
 S. Paulus, Verschenkte Städte – Königliche Landschenkungen… 197

Zusammenfassend kann man folgendes System rekonstruieren: Die

Stadt erhob Abgaben, die zumeist durch die Verwaltung der Provinz an
den König flossen.27 Wurde eine Stadt an eine Gottheit verschenkt, wur-
de sie von der Abgabenleistung an die Provinz freigestellt und die Abga-
ben flossen nun direkt an den Tempel der Gottheit.28 Dabei änderte sich

zum größten Teil unveröffentlichten Texte aus Babylon, vgl. dazu Pedersén, O.
Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon (ADOG 25). Saarbrücken, 2005.
27
Dieses System lässt sich gut anhand der “Freistellungen” in den Kudurrus
belegen. Vgl. dazu die Zusammenstellung bei Kraus, F. R. Ein mittelbabyloni-
scher Rechtsterminus. Ankum, J. A.; Feenstra, R.; Leemans, W. F. (Hrsg.). Symbo-
lae iuridicae et historicae Martino David dedicatae. Tomus alter: Iura Orientis Antiqui.
Leiden, 1968, S. 9–40. Zur Funktion der Provinzverwaltung im Zusammenhang
mit der Abgabenerhebung vgl. die Bemerkungen bei Sassmannshausen, L. BaF
21 (s. o. Anm. 14):22ff. Vgl. dazu Brinkman, J. A. Administration and Society in
Kassite Babylonia. JAOS 124 (2004):283ff. Seine Zusammenstellungen zur Pro-
vinzverwaltung für die Isin-II-Zeit lassen sich auch auf die kassitische Zeit über-
tragen. Vgl. dazu Brinkman, J. A. Provincial Administration in Babylonia under
the Second Dynasty of Isin. JESHO 6 (1963):233–242 und ders. A Political History
of Post-Kassite Babylonia 1158–722 B. C. (AnOr 43). Rom, 1968, S. XXXff.
28
Derartige Freistellungen sind für die kassitische Zeit kaum belegt. Man vgl.
jedoch den sogenannten Agum-Kakrime Text, eine späte Abschrift über die Wie-
derherstellung der Mardukstatue durch diesen frühkassitischen Herrscher (Über-
setzung mit weiteren Literaturangaben bei Stein, P. JBVO 3 (s. o. Anm. 1):150ff.).
Dort werden in vi 33ff. Handwerker zugunsten des Marduk freigestellt. Aufschluss-
reich ist auch eine Passage im sogenannten Kurigalzu Text (MAH 15922), wo Kuri-
galzu I. als der beschrieben wird, ‘(14) der für die Bewohner von Babylon Freiheit
festgesetzt hat, (15) der seine Leute von der Dienstpficht zugunsten von Marduk be-
freit hat, der seine Herrschaft liebt’. Vgl. Sommerfeld, W. Der Kurigalzu-Text MAH
15922. AfO 32 (1985):3ff. Ähnliches ist aus frühneubabylonischer Zeit bekannt. Dort
waren vor allem die großen Kultzentren zugunsten ihrer Götter freigestellt. Eine
schlecht erhaltene Freistellung aus dieser Zeit ist die des Marduk-zākir-šumi I., mit
großer Wahrscheinlichkeit zu Gunsten der Stadt Borsippa und ihres Gottes Nabû.
Vgl. dazu Frame, G.; Grayson, A. K. Marduk-zākir-šumi I and the “Exemption” of
Borsippa. ARRIM 6 (1988):15–21; Frame, G. Rulers of Babylonia. From the Second
Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC) (RIMB 2). Toronto–Buf-
falo–London, 1995, No. B.6.7.2. Eine Freistellung einer kleinen Stadt zu Gunsten von
Ninurta ist aus der Zeit Bēl-ibnis überliefert, vgl. Walker, C. B. F.; Kramer, S. N. Cu-
neiform Tablets in the Collection of Lord Binning. Iraq 44 (1982):71ff., vgl. auch
Frame, G. RIMB 2, No. B.6.26.1. Verstöße gegen derartige Privilegien beschreibt der
sogenannte ‘Fürstenspiegel’, vgl. dazu Cole, St. W. Nippur IV. The Early Neo-Babylonian
Governor’s Archive from Nippur (OIP 114). Chicago, 1996, S. 268ff., No. 128 mit einer
Zusammenstellung älterer Literatur. Besonders relevant sind hier Z. 24ff. Die Frei-
stellungen der Städte wurden von den assyrischen Königen immer wieder erneuert,
vgl. dazu die Zusammenstellung bei Frame, G.; Grayson, A. K. ARRIM 6:17. Die Wie-
198 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

kaum etwas an der Verwaltung der Städte, sondern lediglich am Em-

pfänger der Einnahmen. Vor diesem Hintergrund kann die Schenkung
Kurigalzus I. durchaus als historisch bewertet werden. Für den Tempel
waren lediglich die Einnahmen aus den Landstrichen von Bedeutung,
ohne dass eine Oberherrschaft des Tempels über die Verwaltung, Recht-
sprechung etc. der Gebiete angestrebt wurde.
Neben den Geschenken des Königs an die Götter sind aus Kassiten-
zeit jedoch auch zahlreiche Landschenkungen des Königs an seine Un-
tertanen überliefert, die vor allem durch die sogenannten “Kudurrus”
belegt sind.29 Im Vergleich zu den 17.500 km2, die Kurigalzu I. der Ištar
schenkte, sind die dort vergebenen Flächen zwar kleiner, hatten jedoch
mit durchschnittlich 300–400 ha30 eine Größe, die weit über dem Exis-
tenzminimum einer Familie, die bei ca. 6 ha anzusetzen ist, lagen.31 Ne-
ben Feldern konnten auch Gärten oder ganze Ortschaften Bestandteil
der königlichen Schenkungen sein.32 Auch hier wurde die Frage gestellt,

derherstellung der Privilegien wird auch in der Vorgeschichte eines Kudurrus

Marduk-apla-iddinas II. (VA 2663 iii 11ff.) erwähnt (Kopie bei Ungnad, A. VS 1 (s. o.
Anm. 20), No. 37, die jüngste Bearbeitung findet sich bei Leemans, W. F. Marduk-
apla-iddina II, Zijn tijd en zijn geslacht. JEOL 10 (1945–1948):444–448). Interessant
ist, dass sowohl in den assyrischen als auch den babylonischen Texten immer wieder
erwähnt wird, dass die Bevölkerung dieser Städte kidinnu genoss, was sich am besten
mit “göttlichem Schutz” übersetzen lässt. Siehe für die entsprechenden Belege CAD
K 342ff. s. v. kidinnu. Vgl. dazu Koschaker, P. Göttliches und weltliches Recht nach
den Urkunden aus Susa. Zugleich ein Beitrag zu ihrer Chronologie. Or NS 4 (1935):
41ff. und Leemans, W. F. Kidinnu. Un symbole de droit divin Babylonien. David, M.;
van Groningen, B. A.; Meijers, E. M. (Hrsg.). Symbolae ad ius et historiam antiquitatis
pertinentes Julio Christiano van Oven dedicatae. Leiden, 1946, S. 36–61. Die Kombination
von ´ābū und kidinnu zu ´ābū kidinni ‘(Arbeits)truppen des göttlichen Schutzes’ lässt
vermuten, dass die Einwohner nicht zu ihrem eigenen Nutzen, sondern zu dem der
Götter freigestellt waren.
29
Eine Zusammenstellung von relevanter Literatur zu den Kudurrus findet
sich bei Paulus, S. ‘Ein Richter wie Šamaš’ – Zur Rechtsprechung der Kassitenkö-
nige. ZAR 13 (2007):2f., Anm. 9.
30
Vgl. dazu die Aufstellung bei Sommerfeld, W. AOAT 240 (s. o. Anm. 8):472f.
und Oelsner, J. Landvergabe im kassitischen Babylonien. Postgate, N. (Hrsg.). Soci-
eties and Languages of the Ancient Near East (Fs. Diakonoff). Warminster, 1982, S. 280.
31
Zur Berechnung der Feldgröße vgl. für die altbabylonische Zeit Renger, J.
Das Privateigentum an der Feldflur in der altbabylonischen Zeit. JWG/S 1987,
S. 59f. Für die mittelbabylonische Zeit fehlen bislang Vergleichswerte.
32
Eine Zusammenstellung über die in den Kudurrus vergebenen Ländereien
und sonstigen Begünstigungen findet sich bei Slanski, K. E. The Babylonian Enti-
tlement narûs (kudurrus) (ASOR Books 9). Boston, 2003, S. 209ff.
 S. Paulus, Verschenkte Städte – Königliche Landschenkungen… 199

wie die Begünstigten das Land verwalteten und ob die ansässige Bevölke-
rung Teil der Schenkung war.33 M. E. spielen hier die Freistellung (zakûtu),
die die verschenkten Ländereien und Städte von Abgaben an die Provinz
und den König befreiten, eine entscheidende Rolle.34 Dies geschah nicht
zum Wohle der Bevölkerung, sondern zum Wohle des Begünstigten, der
nun die Abgaben erhielt. Das erklärt auch die Größe der verschenkten
Flächen, da wahrscheinlich nicht der gesamte Ertrag, sondern nur die
Abgaben dem Begünstigten zur Verfügung standen. Damit funktionierte
das System hier ganz ähnlich, wie bei der oben beschriebenen Schenkung
von Land an eine Gottheit. Auch dann flossen die Abgaben nicht mehr
an die Provinz, sondern an den Tempel der Gottheit. Ein Problem ent-
stand jedoch dann, wenn Gebiete mit Städten verschenkt wurden, deren
Ortschaften von Abgaben freigestellt waren. In diesem Moment verlor
entweder der begünstigte Beamte seine Einkünfte oder die des Gottes
wurden verringert. Dass dieser Konflikt von den Beamten wahrgenom-
men wurde, spiegelt sich in der Formulierung der Kudurrus wieder. So
fürchtete man, dass das Land in die Provinz zurückgeführt oder aber an
einen Gott verschenkt würde.35

33
Vgl. dazu besonders Oelsner, J. FS Diakonoff (s. o. Anm. 30):279ff., ders.
Zur Organisation des gesellschaftlichen Lebens im kassitischen und nachkassiti-
schen Babylonien: Verwaltungsstruktur und Gemeinschaften. CRRAI 28 (AfO
Bh. 19). Horn, 1982, S. 403ff. und Sommerfeld, W. AOAT 240 (s. o. Anm. 8):
467ff.
34
Zu den Freistellungen vgl. Kraus, F. R. Symbolae David (s. o. Anm. 27):9ff.,
dazu sind der Kudurru L 2072 (vgl. Arnaud, D. RA 66 (s. o. Anm. 6):163ff.), der
ii 18ff. ebenfalls eine Freistellung enthält, sowie Sb 169 mit einer fragmentari-
schen Freistellung in ii 20′f. (vgl. Borger, R. Vier Grenzsteinurkunden Mero-
dachbaladans I. von Babylonien. AfO 23 (1970):17–23) zu ergänzen. Auch wenn
die Freistellung in den Texten nicht explizit als Begünstigung erwähnt wird, wer-
den Vergehen gegen sie häufig in der Protasis der Fluchformel der Kudurrus er-
wähnt: vgl. u. a. L 7076 (s. o. Anm. 6) iii 28ff., den “Teheran Kudurru” ii 17ff.
(vgl. dazu Borger, R. AfO 23:1–11), den “Hinke Kudurru” iii 25ff. (vgl. zuletzt
Römer, W. H. Ph. Zu einem Kudurru aus Nippur aus dem 16. Jahre Nebukad-
nezars I. (etwa 1110 v. Chr.). UF 36 (2004):371–388). Das lässt vermuten, dass
Freistellungen häufig die Grundlage der Schenkungen bildeten.
35
Vgl. dazu folgende Beispiele aus den Protasen der Fluchformeln einiger
Kudurrus aus kassitischer und der Isin-II-Zeit: Sb 22 iv: (50) A.ŠÀ ad-di-nu (51) a-
na NAM la ú-tar ‘(50) der das Land, das ich gegeben habe, (51) nicht an die Pro-
vinz zurückführt’ (vgl. Scheil, V. MDP 2 (s. o. Anm. 6):99–111), BM 90850 iii:
(24) lu a-na DINGIR lVuW a-na NVAMW (25) ú-ša-VášW-ra-ku ‘(24) der es entweder an
einen Gott odVerW an die PrVovinzW (25) VschenWken lässt’ (vgl. King, L. W. Baby-
lonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial-Tablets (BBSt.). London, 1912, No. 5), IM
200 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Derartige Übergriffe auf die Existenzgrundlage des Begünstigten gin-

gen nicht von niederer Ebene oder von Nachbarn aus, sondern wurden
direkt vom König und hohen Provinzfunktionären veranlasst.36 Gegen
diese Bedrohung konnte sich der Beschenkte kaum vor einem königli-
chen Gericht wehren, war es doch der König, der die Neuregelung be-
schloss und das Land verschenkte. Zur Absicherung ließen die Beamten
daher Kudurrus im Tempel aufstellen,37 in denen sie ein mögliches Ver-
gehen gegen ihr Eigentum nicht unter weltliche, sondern unter göttliche
Strafe stellten. So wurde demjenigen, der das Land an eine Provinz oder
einen Gott verschenkte, die Verfluchung durch die im Kudurru genann-
ten und durch die Göttersymbole vertretenen Götter38 angedroht. Die

67953 ii: (18′) a-na NAM i-šar-ra-VkuW ‘(18′) der es an die Provinz schenVktW’ (vgl.
Page, S. A New Boundary Stone of Merodach-Baladan I. Sumer 23 (1967):45–67),
“Caillou Michaux” ii: (10) lu-ú a-na DINGIR ú-šá-áš-ra-ku ‘(10) oder der es an einen
Gott schenken lässt’ (vgl. Peiser, F. E. Texte juristischen und geschäftlichen Inhalts (KB 4).
Berlin, 1896, S. 78–82), BM 90841 ii: (2) A.ŠÀ.MEŠ ši-na-ti a-na NAM-ši-na ú-tar-ru (3) lu
a-na DINGIR lu a-na LUGAL (weitere Titel …) (5) … i-šar-ra-ku ‘(2) der diese Lände-
reien in ihre Provinzen zurückführt, (3) sie entweder an einen Gott oder den König
… (5) … schenkt’ (vgl. King, L. W. BBSt., No. 7), BM 90840 iii 18 A.ŠÀ an-na-a a-na
DINGIR i-šar-VraW-VkuW (vgl. King, L. W. BBSt., No. 8), IM 90585 iii: (5) a-na DINGIR
i-šar-ra-ku (6) a-na pi-¶a-at LUGAL.E (7) i-man-nu-ú ‘(5) der es an einen Gott schenkt,
(6) zur Provinz des Königs (7) zählt’ (vgl. Livingstone, A. A Neglected kudurru or
Boundary Stone of Marduk-nādin-a¶¶ī. RA 100 (2006):75–82), IM 74651 i: (35) i-na
lìb-bi A.ŠÀ šu-a-tu lu-ú a-na DINGIR ù LUGAL (36) i-šar-ra-ku ‘(35) der es aus diesem
Land heraus entweder an einen Gott oder den König (36) schenkt’ (vgl. Reshid, F.;
Wilcke, C. Ein “Grenzstein” aus dem ersten (?) Regierungsjahr des Königs Marduk-
šāpik-zēri. ZA 65 (1975):34–62). Vgl. auch die Formulierung in der Schenkung des
Kurigalzu I. (s. o. Anm. 2) BM 108982 ii: (25) lu-ú a-na NAM ú-tar-ru. In zwei
Kudurrus wird eine bereits erfolgte Rückführung durch den König wieder
rückgängig gemacht, vgl. CMB 13Vs.:9ff. (Rückführung an die Provinz), vgl. Slan-
ski, K. E. ASOR Books 9 (s. o. Anm. 32):48–51, und IM 90585 I 20ff. (Rückführung
an die Familie des Verkäufers), vgl. Livingstone, A. RA 100:75–81.
36
Dies wird anhand der Aufzählungen möglicher Übeltäter deutlich, die fast
jeder Kudurru enthält.
37
Zum Standort der Kudurrus im Tempel vgl. Seidl, U. Die babylonischen Ku-
durru-Reliefs (OBO 87). 2. erweiterte Auflage. Freiburg–Göttingen, 1989, S. 72f.
Vgl. auch Brinkman, J. A. Kudurru A. Philologisch. RlA 6:270 und Slanski, K. E.
ASOR Books 9 (s. o. Anm. 32):55ff.
38
Zum Zusammenhang zwischen den auf den Kudurrus abgebildeten Symbo-
len und den im Texten genannten Göttern bzw. den Flüchen vgl. Seidl, U. OBO
87 (s. o. Anm. 37) und Slanski, K. E. Representation of the Divine on the Babylo-
nian Entitlement Monuments (kudurrus). Part I. Divine Symbols. AfO 50 (2003–
2004):308–323.
 S. Paulus, Verschenkte Städte – Königliche Landschenkungen… 201

sehr detaillierten Flüche bedrohten den Übeltäter mit Krankheit und

Leid, der Auslöschung seiner Familie, dem Ausschluss aus der Gesell-
schaft und schließlich einem einsamen Tod.39 Die Flüche sichern somit pri-
vates Eigentum gegen Übergriffe des Königs und hoher Beamter ab, wor-
unter auch großflächige Stiftungen, wie die Kurigalzus I., zu zählen sind.
Ein gutes Beispiel für den Zusammenhang von Landschenkung an
Götter und Beamte liefert der Kudurru Sb 21.40 Er beginnt mit den Wor-
ten ‘Nazi-Maruttaš (…) hat die Ländereien gegenüber der Stadt Babylon
an Marduk, seinen Herrn gegeben…’.41 Unter dem verschenkten Land
befand sich auch das Land der Familie Muktaris-Sa¶, das 700 Kor, um-
gerechnet ca. 5700 ha einschließlich vier Städten umfasste.42 Es folgt eine
Aufzählung der Ländereien, die nach bisheriger Lesart als eine Beschrei-
bung der Flächen aufgefasst wurden, die der König an Marduk schenkte,
anschließend werden weitere Ländereien genannt, die ein Nachfahre der
Familie Muktaris-Sa¶ vom König erhielt.43 Die hier genannte Fläche von
206 Kor entspricht nicht annähernd den 700 Kor, die ursprünglich im
Besitz der Familie waren. Daher wurde in diesem Zusammenhang auch
von Enteignung gesprochen.44

39
Eine detaillierte Studie zu den Inhalten der Flüche der Kudurrus existiert
nicht. Vgl. jedoch die Zusammenstellung verschiedener Flüche bei Pomponio, F.
Formule di maledizione della Mesopotamia preclassica. Padua, 1990, S. 64ff. und Som-
merfeld, W. Flüche und Fluchformeln als Quelle für die altorientalische Kultur-
geschichte. Dietrich, M.; Loretz, O. (Hrsg.). Mesopotamia–Ugaritica–Biblica (AOAT
232). Kevelaer–Neukirchen–Vluyn, 1993, S. 447–463.
40
Vgl. Scheil, V. MDP 2 (s. o. Anm. 6):86–92, Kopie bei Hinke, W. J. Selected
Babylonian Kudurru Inscriptions (SSS 14). Leiden, 1911, S. 1–4. Für weitere Litera-
tur vgl. Brinkman, J. A. MSKH (s. o. Anm. 1):265, No. U.2.19.
41
Vgl. Sb 21 i 1ff.
42
Vg. Sb 21 i 11ff. Der Name Muktaris-Sa¶ ist kassitischen Ursprungs, vgl.
dazu Balkan, K. Kassitenstudien. 1. Die Sprache der Kassiten (AOS 37). New
Haven, 1954, S. 71. Im Text wird stets der Begriff É Muktaris-Sa¶ verwendet, was
sich sowohl auf die ‘Hausgemeinschaft’, d. h. die Familie, als auch auf ihren Be-
sitz bezieht. Vgl. dazu Oelsner, J. AfO Bh 19 (s. o. Anm. 33):404 und Brinkman,
J. A. JAOS 124 (s. o. Anm. 27):285ff. M. E. sind die im folgenden auftretenden
Personen Kašakti-Šugab (ii 30, v 2: Sohn des A¶u-bāni) und Šu¶uli-Šugab (vii 1:
Sohn des Nibi-Šipak) Nachfahren des Hauses Muktaris-Sa¶, was sich jedoch nicht
mit Sicherheit beweisen lässt.
43
Vgl. dazu zuletzt Slanski, K. E. ASOR Books 9 (s. o. Anm. 32):309: “Nazi-
Maruttaš gave land to the god Marduk (nadānu) and granted (arassu irīmu) land
to an individual.”
44
Vgl. dazu vor allem Oelsner, J. AfO Bh 19 (s. o. Anm. 33):406.
202 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Sieht man sich jedoch die Lageverteilung der Provinzen an, die an-
geblich Marduk erhielt, so entstehen erste Zweifel. Zwar ist die genaue
Lokalisation nicht immer möglich, jedoch wird deutlich, dass nur die
Provinz Bagdada bei Babylon lag.45 Die Grundstücke in den Provinzen
Opis und Dūr-Papsukkal sind in der Nähe zu lokalisieren.46 Die Provinz
Tupliaš ist wohl bei dem gleichnamigen Fluss östlich des Tigris zu su-
chen,47 Bīt-Sîn-māgir und Bīt-Sîn-ašarēd befanden sich sicher in Südba-
bylonien.48 Somit können diese Provinzen kaum mit der Schenkung an
Marduk in Verbindung gebracht werden, die die Gebiete gegenüber von
Babylon betraf.49 Die Gesamtfläche der Teilstücke summiert sich zu in-
sgesamt 494 Kor. Dass diese Marduk geschenkt wurden, wurde aus der
Lesung von i-ru-um (in Sb 21 ii 24) gefolgert,50 obwohl die Form korrekt

45
Vgl. Sb 21 ii 1–4. Die Provinz Bagdada (oder ÚUdada) verlief nördlich des
Nār-šarri in der Gegend des heutigen Bagdad am Tigris nach Süden. Vgl. dazu
Nashef, Kh. RGTC 5 (s. o. Anm. 13):129f. und Borger, R. AfO 23 (s. o. Anm.
34):23.
46
Für Opis vgl. Sb 21 ii 15 – ii 19. Die Provinz ist wohl im direkten Umfeld
der Stadt am östlichen Tigrisufer bei der Mündung des Nār-šarri zu lokalisieren,
so auch Parpola, S.; Porter, M. The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian
Period. Helsinki, 2001, S. 18. Kh. Nashef (RGTC 5:275) sieht jedoch keinen Zu-
sammenhang zwischen dem mittelbabylonischen Upī und der Stadt Opis. Für
Dūr-Papsukkal vgl. Sb 21 i 29 – i 37. Die Provinz, benannt nach der gleichnami-
gen Stadt, lag am Fluss àaban (s. o. Anm. 14). S. Parpola und M. Porter (The
Helsinki Atlas, S. 8) schlagen vor, die Stadt mit dem modernen Mandalī im ver-
muteten Verlaufsgebiet des àaban zu identifizieren.
47
Vgl. Sb 21 ii 5 – ii 9. Die Lage der Provinz ist nicht gesichert. Kh. Nashef
(RGTC 5:265) lokalisiert die Provinz im Bereich von Ešnunna unterhalb der
Provinz Dūr-Papsukkal. Das Verhältnis zu der neuassyrischen Gegend Tuplijaš,
die Fuchs um den Nahr a¢-àib östlich des Tigris im Grenzland zu Elam ansetzt
(vgl. Fuchs, F. Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Göttingen, 1994, S. 400
und 464), ist unklar. Zur neubabylonischen Provinz Tuplijaš vgl. Kessler, K.
Provinz. B. Babylonien im 1. Jahrtausend. RlA 11:40.
48
Zu Bīt-Sîn-māgir vgl. Sb 21 i 20 – i 28. Zur Lokalisierung und dem nördli-
chen Verlauf s. o. Anm. 14. Zu Bīt-Sîn-ašarēd vgl. Sb 21 ii 10 – ii 14. Die Provinz
ist nach Kh. Nashef (RGTC 5:68) zwischen Uruk und Larsa und dem Euphrat
und Tigris zu lokalisieren. Die angebliche nördliche Lage ergibt sich aus Nashefs
Interpretation von Sb 21, dass alle dort genannten Provinzen in der Nähe von
Babylon anzusetzen sind.
49
Vgl. Sb 21 i: (7) A.ŠÀ.MEŠ ša IGIti (8) URU KÁ.DINGIR.RAki ‘(7) die Ländereien
gegenüber (8) der Stadt Babylon’.
50
Vgl. Scheil, V. MDP 2 (s. o. Anm. 6):88. Vgl. auch Oelsner, J. AfO Bh 19
(s. o. Anm. 33), ‘nochmals unterteilt in einen Anteil von 494 Kor, die Marduk
unmittelbar erhielt’.
 S. Paulus, Verschenkte Städte – Königliche Landschenkungen… 203

i-ri-im lauten müsste.51 Sieht man sich die Stelle im Detail an, steht dort
nicht i-ru-um sondern tur-ru-um, also ‘ist umgewendet’ oder ‘ausgetauscht’.52
Die Stelle nimmt daher Bezug auf Sb 21 i 16–19, wonach ‘die Verfügungsge-
walt des Hauses Muktaris-Sa¶’ von den 700 Kor umgewendet wird (utirrū),
was durch die ¶azannu-Beamten der Provinzen geschieht.53 Anschließend
werden die Ersatzflächen in den verschiedenen Provinzen beschrieben, die
die Familie erhielt. Dass diese Lesung richtig ist, wird dadurch klar, dass,
wenn man die ‘Ersatzflächen’ von der ursprünglichen Zahl 700 Kor abzieht,
man genau auf die 206 Kor kommt, die dann in Sb 21 ii 25 zutreffend als
‘Rest’ bezeichnet werden.54 Für die verbleibende Fläche erhielt die Familie
keinen Ersatz, sondern sie bekam sie vom König als Geschenk. Da für dieses
Land keine Lageangabe gemacht wurde, ist zu vermuten, dass ein Teil des
Landes direkt bei Babylon gelegen war und den Wohnsitz der Familie
umfasste und daher nicht an den Gott verschenkt wurde.55

51
Zu den üblichen Formen vgl. CAD R 146 s. v. râmu B.
52
Vgl. dazu Scheil, V. MDP 2 (s. o. Anm. 6), Tafel 16 ii 24. Nach Kollation
sind am Anfang des Zeichens 4 Keile, die zudem in der für TUR üblichen Form
schräg gestellt sind, zu sehen und nicht, wie für das Zeichen I üblich drei voll-
kommen waagerechte Keile. Die Form ist als Stativ D von târu zu interpretieren.
Das -m stellt eine Art “Pseudomimation” dar, wie sie kassitisch nicht nur archaisie-
rend, vgl. dazu Sommerfeld, W. UF 16 (s. o. Anm. 3):300, sondern auch an uner-
warteten Stellen auftritt. Vgl. dazu den Kudurru Sb 23 i 6, vgl. Scheil, V. Textes
Élamites-Sémitiques (MDP 10). Paris, 1908, S. 87–94, und ebenso NBC 9502
(unpubliziert) iv 17′ ú-tar-ru-VumW und v 17′ VinW-nu-ú-um.
53
Vgl. dazu Sb 21 i: (16) i-na ŠÀbi (17) lú¶a-za-an-na-ti (18) qa-ti É mmuk-tar-is-sa¶ (19)
ú-tir-ru ‘(16) davon (17) haben die ¶azannāti (18) die Verfügungsgewalt des Hauses
Muktaris-Sa¶ (19) abgewandt’. Der Begriff qāti turru, wörtlich ‘die Hand umwenden’
(zur Verwendung vgl. Sb 22 i 25 (Scheil, V. MDP 2 (s. o. Anm. 6):99–111)) wurde von
Oelsner, J. (AfO Bh 19:406) als Enteignung gedeutet, wobei er nicht ¶azannāti,
sondern das ‘Land’ als Subjekt auffaßt, dann die Verbalform als Dt-Passiv deutet und
den Plural der Form durch einen Kollektivplural des ‘Landes’ und ‘der Ortschaften’
erklärt. ¶azannāti ist jedoch als Nominativ Plural von ¶azannu neben der geläufigeren
Form ¶azannū belegt, vgl. dazu AHw. 339 s. v. ¶azannu(m) und CAD Ú 163 s. v.
¶azannu. Zu den ¶azannu-Beamten als Provinzfunktionären vgl. in diesem Text III 7
und Sassmannshausen, L. BaF 21 (s.o. Anm. 14):29ff. V. Scheil (MDP 2:87) übersetzt
die Stelle ‘ont dédommagée’, was inhaltlich besser dem Vorgang entspricht.
54
Die Stelle lautet: Sb 21 ii: (20) i-na ŠÀbi (21) 700;0.0 ŠE.NUMUN (22) ša URU
DUMU.ZA.GÌN (23) 494;0.0 ŠE.NUMUN (24) tur-ru-um (25) 206;0.0 ŠE.NUMUN ri-¶u
‘(20) Innerhalb (21) der 21.000 sūtu (22) der Stadt Mār-uqnî (23) sind 14.820 sūtu
(24) ausgetauscht, (25) 6.180 sūtu sind der Rest’. Vgl. CAD R 254 s. v. rī¶u 1a mit
dieser Stelle, jedoch mit i-ru-um statt tur-ru-um.
55
Vgl. Sb 21 ii 26ff. Wahrscheinlich lag der Wohnsitz der Familie Muktaris-
Sa¶ in der Stadt Mār-uqnî (vgl. i 11ff.), die in unmittelbarer Nähe von Babylon
204 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Zusammenfassend ist festzustellen, dass die Familie Muktaris-Sa¶ da-

mit ursprünglich von den Einnahmen aus einem Gebiet von 700 Kor
profitierte, das Teil einer Schenkung des Königs Nazi-Maruttaš an den
Gott Marduk wurde. Gleichzeitig bekam die Familie jedoch Ersatzflächen
über ganz Babylonien verteilt und zusätzlich einen Teil des ursprüngli-
chen Landes zurück“geschenkt”. Eine derartige Umverteilung ist nur
vorstellbar, wenn diese lediglich die Einkünfte aus den Gebieten betraf.
Der Familie kann kaum zugetraut werden, von einem Tag auf den ande-
ren Flächen, die über ganz Babylonien verteilt lagen, in Besitz zu neh-
men, neu zu organisieren und zu bewirtschaften. Auch jene Möglichkeit,
die in Betracht gezogen wurde, dass es sich bei Muktaris-Sa¶ nicht um ei-
ne Familie, sondern um eine Stammesgemeinschaft handeln könne,56 er-
gibt wenig Sinn, denn diese würde dann über ganz Babylonien verteilt
werden, während niemand auf dem Land des Marduk zurückbliebe, um
es zu bewirtschaften. Der Kudurru dokumentiert folglich weder eine
Enteignung noch eine Schenkung im eigentlichen Sinne, sondern ledig-
lich eine Umverteilung. Warum wurde er dann jedoch aufgestellt?
Auf dem Kudurru wird als mögliche Bedrohung formuliert, dass die
Provinzfunktionäre wegen des Landes, das ihren Provinzen entzogen
wurde, Klage erheben könnten.57 In diesem Fall hätte sich die verstreute
Lage der Ländereien zum Nachteil der Familie ausgewirkt. Aus diesem
Grund erfolgte die Aufstellung des Kudurru und die dort genannten
und abgebildeten Götter sollten die Übeltäter verfluchen und die Ein-
künfte der Familie sichern.58 Dass der Schutz durch den Kudurru für

zu lokalisieren ist, vgl. Nashef, Kh. RGTC 5 (s. o. Anm. 13):185. Für die altbaby-
lonischen Belege vgl. Wilcke, C. Zu den spät-altbabylonischen Kaufverträgen aus
Nordbabylonien. WO 8 (1975–76):270.
56
So bereits Scheil, V. MDP 2 (s. o. Anm. 6):87 ‘la tribu’, vgl. auch Sassmanns-
hausen, L. BaF 21 (s. o. Anm. 14):147.
57
Vgl. dazu Sb 21 iii: (4) lu-ú i-na (5) GAR.KUR.KUR (6) EN.MEŠ NAM.MEŠ (7) ¶a-
za-an-na-tì (8) ù qí-pu-ú-tì (9) ša qaq-qa-ra-tì (10) an-na-tì (11) i-na UGU A.ŠÀti (12) ši-
na-a-ti (13) i-dab-bu-bu-ma ‘(einer), (4) entweder von (5) den Gouverneuren, (6)
den Herren der Provinzen, (7) den ¶azannāti (8) oder den qīpūtu (9–10) dieser
Gebiete, (11–12) der wegen dieser Ländereien (13) Klage erheben wird’. Man be-
achte die Pluralformen bei der Aufzählung der Beamten. Die Titel werden ge-
wöhnlich im Singular aufgezählt, doch hier lagen die Ländereien in verschiede-
nen Provinzen, so dass auch jeweils mehrere Titelinhaber betroffen sind.
58
Das beinhaltet auch der Name des Kudurrus Sb 21 iv: (35) ‘Nabû ist der
Schützer des Kudurru (36) der Ländereien’. Zu den Namen der Kudurrus vgl.
die Zusammenstellung bei Radner, K. Die Macht des Namens (SANTAG 8). Wiesba-
den, 2005, S. 57ff.
 S. Paulus, Verschenkte Städte – Königliche Landschenkungen… 205

lange Zeit gedacht war, zeigt die Geschichte des Objekts selbst. Der Ku-
durru wurde nach der Neuregelung unter Nazi-Marrutaš im Tempel
aufgestellt, wobei er zunächst aus Ton hergestellt war.59 Dieser Kudurru
wurde ca. 150 Jahre später60 in der Regierungszeit des Marduk-apla-
iddina I. durch eine einstürzende Mauer zerstört,61 woraufhin ein Nach-
fahre eine Kopie des Objektes, diesmal aus Stein, aufstellen ließ.62 Das
zeigt, dass man großes Interesse an der Existenz des Kudurru als Absi-

59
Vgl. Sb 21 v 1ff. Kudurrus aus Ton sind selten überliefert, vgl. jedoch UM
55-21-62, dazu Sassmannshausen, L. Ein ungewöhnliches mittelbabylonisches Ur-
kundenfragment aus Nippur. BaM 25 (1994):447–457 und die Texte BM 91036
und BM 135743, dazu Paulus, S. ZAR 13 (s. o. Anm. 29):4f.
60
Zur Chronologie vgl. Gasche, H.; Armstrong, J. A.; Cole, S. W.; Gurzadyan,
V. G. Dating the Fall of Babylon. A Reappraisal of Second-Millennium Chronology
(MHEM 4). Chicago, 1998.
61
Vgl. Sb 21 vi: (1) i-na BALAe (2) dAMAR.UTU.IBILA.ŠÚMna (3–4) Titulatur (5) i-
na UGU na-re-e šu-a-tu4 (6) i-ga-ru i’-a-bit-ma i¶-¶é-VpiW ‘(1) In der Regierungszeit
(2) Marduk-apla-iddinas (I.) … (5) fiel auf diesen narû (6) eine Wand und er
wurde zerbroVchenW.’
62
Vgl. Sb 21 vii 1ff. Bei der Kopie handelt sich um den vorliegenden Kudurru.
Zum Kudurru als “Kopie” vgl. Charpin, D. Chroniques Bibliographiques 2. La
commémoration d’actes juridiques: à propos des kudurrus Babyloniens. RA 96
(2002):176. Diese Besonderheit des vorliegenden Objekts könnte eine weitere Ei-
genart des Textes erklären. Er enthält als einziger Kudurru im Text eine Liste der
Göttersymbole, die auf dem Kudurru zu sehen sind (iv 1 – iv 30). Diese folgt der
sonst üblichen Fluchformel und ist nur durch die Zeilen iv: (30) ‘17 Göttersymbole
(31) der großen Götter: (32) Sie sollen die Prozessgegner (33) desjenigen, der Klage
erhebt, sein’, in den Text eingebunden. Die Liste wurde vor allem zur
Identifikation und Zuordnung der verschiedenen Symbole stark diskutiert, vgl. da-
zu zusammenfassend Seidl, U. OBO 87 (s. o. Anm. 37):33ff. mit einer Zusammen-
stellung älterer Literatur und jüngst Herles, M. Götterdarstellungen Mesopotamiens in
der 2. Hälfte des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. (AOAT 329). Münster, 2006, S. 36f. Dabei
treten immer wieder Schwierigkeiten auf, die im Text beschriebenen Symbole mit
denen auf dem Kudurru in Einklang zu bringen. Der Ansatz von K. E. Slanski (AfO
50 (s. o. Anm. 38):312) überzeugt nicht, da Slanski zwar den Text von Sb 21
verwendet, jedoch versucht, ihn mit einem Photo von Sb 22sic! (ebd. Abb. 4) in
Einklang zu bringen, der statt der 17 Symbole von Sb 21 insgesamt 24 Symbole
zeigt. Die Lösung für die Problematik könnte m. E. darin liegen, dass die Liste jene
Symbole beschreibt, die ursprünglich auf dem “Ton-Kudurru” enthalten waren.
Die Kopie, die bei der Herstellung des “Steinkudurrus” vorlag, enthielt
wahrscheinlich nur eine Beschreibung, jedoch nicht die Symbole selbst. Daher
wurde die Beschreibung zufällig (?) mit auf den Kudurru übertragen, und die
Symbole wurden durch solche ersetzt, die zur Zeit Marduk-apla-iddinas I. üblich
waren. Zur Entwicklung der Kudurru-Symbolik vgl. Seidl, U. OBO 87 (s. o. Anm.
37):19ff.
206 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

cherung für die Einkünfte hatte. Dauerhaftigkeit war dem Stein jedoch
nicht vergönnt. Ca. 10–20 Jahre später überfiel der elamische König Šut-
ruk-Na¶¶unte I. Babylonien und erbeutet u. a. diesen Kudurru und ver-
schleppte ihn nach Susa.63
Zusammenfassend wird sowohl aus der Schenkung Kurigalzus I. wie
auch aus diesem Kudurru das komplexe System von Landumverteilun-
gen deutlich, die die kassitische Zeit prägten. Dieses wird nur dadurch
verständlich, wenn man davon ausgeht, dass es sich um Einkünfte han-
delte, über die der König relativ frei verfügen und sie dann auch um-
verteilen konnte. Nahm er Schenkungen zu Gunsten der Götter vor, ge-
schah dies in Erfüllung seiner königlichen Pflicht als Dienst für die Göt-
ter. Ging dies zu Lasten von begünstigten Beamten, versuchte er die Be-
troffenen zu entschädigen. Denn nicht nur die Versorgung der Götter,
sondern auch die Wahrung von Recht war königliche Aufgabe. Schließ-
lich bedrohten die Flüche der Kudurrus nicht nur die Verwaltungsbeam-
ten der Provinz, sondern jeden, der sich gegen das Eigentum verging.

63
Vgl. dazu Potts, D. The Archaeology of Elam. Cambridge, 1999, S. 233ff. mit
einer Liste von Objekten, die Šutruk-Na¶¶unte I. als Beute aus Babylonien mit-
nahm.
 Úazannum: The Forgotten Mayor

Jon Taylor
British Museum

Introduction
Assyriology knows two officials traditionally translated as “mayor”: the ra-
biānum and the ¶azannum. There is plentiful evidence of the rabiānum’s
activities, and several studies have been devoted to that official. The
¶azannum, meanwhile, is less well attested, and has attracted far less atten-
tion over the years.
The task of describing the ¶azannum is beset with difficulties. Chief
among these is the paucity of evidence. And of course only a limited
range of information was put into writing. The documentation offers the
impression that there are many officials who each perform very similar
tasks. It is not always clear when a particular task is part of an official role.
There is also the problem of different types of documentation surviving
from different periods, so that these tasks may appear to change over
time. Whilst there is, without any doubt, some difference in the function
of an official over time, there is a risk that some of the differences may be
an illusion, caused by the nature of the surviving documentation.
The difficulties increase with the ¶azannum because the few references
we have to this official often reveal little information about his activities.
In many cases he is attested simply as a witness to a legal proceeding.
Sometimes this official is mentioned just by his title, not by his name1—
even less commonly is his father’s name given—and frequently there is
no mention of the area over which he was mayor. This makes it very dif-
ficult to track individuals, their careers and family connections. As a result,
little attention has been focussed on the ¶azannum. It is illustrative of the
situation that even recent overviews of the Old Babylonian world by
Charpin (2004) and Stol (2004) and a whole book by Seri (2006) dedicated

1
There are doubtless further attestations of ¶azannums who are identified only
by name, not by title; these are very difficult to identify and attribute to specific
individuals. It is particularly unfortunate that the best attested OB ¶azannum, Sin-
remeni, has such a common name.
208 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

to local power in the Old Babylonian period barely mention this official.
The most recent attempt at a synthesis is Van de Mieroop (1999), which
seeks to produce an overview of this official across the whole span of Near
Eastern history. Prior to that, there was Walther’s study (1917:123–124,
“Der ¶azânum”2) and brief discussion from Harris (1975:58, 60).
This paper will concentrate on the ¶azannum in Ur III and Old Baby-
lonian Mesopotamia, although reference will also be made to the Middle
Babylonian evidence, as assembled by Sassmannshausen (2001:29–34).
The evidence from Old Babylonian Mari and later Syria is dealt with in
detail by Lionel Marti in another contribution to this volume. Inevitably
some attention will be paid here to the differences between the ¶azannum
and the rabiānum.

History of the ¶azannum

The ¶azannum as an official is first attested in the second half of Šulgi’s
reign; the earliest securely dated document is ITT 5, 6943 (Šulgi 25).
The figure is then found throughout the Ur III period. This distribution
is normal for the Ur III period, where texts from Ur-Namma and the
first years of Šulgi are quite uncommon. During the Old Babylonian pe-
riod he appears very rarely, in texts ranging from Sin-muballi¢ through
to Ammi-´aduqa. The ¶azannum survives through the second and early
first millennium, and down as late as the Late Babylonian period.
The rabiānum as an official (as opposed to the royal title, in particular)
is thus far attested only in the Old Babylonian period, from Sumu-la-El
to Ammi-´aduqa. After the Old Babylonian period he seems essentially to
disappear from the record. There is one attestation in a Middle Babylo-
nian votive inscription (1881-7-1, 3395), where an official claims as ances-
tor a certain Enlil-bani, ra-ba-nu-um KUR.TIki “mayor of KUR.TI” (the city
later renamed Dur-Kurigalzu). This man has been identified as the same
figure who was nešakku of Enlil and šandabakku of Nippur under Kuri-
galzu (Sollberger 1968:191); he was thus a powerful man with connec-
tions to the crown. Sassmannshausen’s proposition that the term here is
an anachronism would tally with the situation as it appears in the Old
Babylonian period, where it is the ¶azannum not the rabiānum who has
crown connections. Were there a tendency at this time to use rabiānum as

2
On p. 123, he summarises that there was no evidence either for or against
the interpretation as mayor, since he never appeared in his official capacity in any
of the available texts.
 J. Taylor, Úazannum: The Forgotten Mayor 209

an archaising expression for ¶azannum, this would explain the later equa-
tion of these two terms in the commentary to Izbu (quoted CAD R s. v.
rabiānu). After this point the rabiānum appears only in scholarly texts,
where he persists in various contexts into the first millennium.

Writings of the term ¶azannum

In the Ur III period the term is typically written ¶a-za-núm. Other spell-
ings are known, however. Out of 103 attestations there are two occur-
rences of ¶a-za-an-núm,3 one of ¶a-za-a-núm4 and two of ¶a-za-nu-um.5
In Old Babylonian texts, this situation has changed. The standard writ-
ing there is ¶a-za-nu-um, replacing the old CVC sign with CV-VC. This
spelling is found in 14 out of 18 attestations, including administrative
texts, letters and lexical texts. We see the same process applied to the two
variant spellings, yielding three times ¶a-za-a-nu-um6 and once ¶a-za-an-
nu.7 I have no convincing etymology to offer.8
The texts from Old Babylonian Alalakh use predominantly ¶a-za-a-
nu/ni, once ¶a-za-nim and once ¶a-za-an-ni; the standard Old Babylonian
Mesopotamian ¶a-za-nu-um is not found there. In Mari writings such as
lú
¶a-zi-ia-an-na((-a)-am) are common, although ¶a-za-nu-um is attested; the
term there is rendered variously ¶azannum, ¶azzannum, ¶a´´ânum,
¶a´´i’ânum and ¶aziyannum. The writings with -ia- have prompted Durand
(1997:471) to suggest derivation from *¶al´i- + ānum/annum. It is not
clear if this interpretation was current in Babylonia during the Ur III
and OB periods; the traditional rendering is retained here for conven-
ience.

Translations of the term ¶azannum

CAD Ú 163–165 translates our term as: “chief magistrate of a town, of a
quarter of a larger city, a village or large estate—mayor, burgomaster, head-

3
AUCT 1, 225:8 (Umma, Š 25); unpublished cylinder seal quoted in CAD Ú
164.
4
ITT 4, 7107 (Girsu, date lost).
5
NRVN 1, 57:11 (Nippur) and an unpublished text from GARšana.
6
VAB 5, 447 (Halhalla, A–S 9); SLB 1/2, 41:11 (R–S 37); SLB 1/2, 42:22 (R–S
37), if these last two are to be read as such, rather than as a personal name Úa-za-
za-nu-um.
7
TCL 1, 157:68 (Babylon, A–d).
8
Hilgert (2002:80) records derivation from Akkadian but no details are of-
fered.
210 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

man,” whilst AHw. 338–339 offers more concisely: “Bürgermeister.”

Rabiānum is usually translated the same way. CAD R 17–19 offers “mayor,
headman”, AHw. 934–935 “ ‘der Große’, a/jB Bürgermeister.”
Recent years have brought a number of new attestations from Mari,
leading to advances in the understanding of the ¶azannum’s role there.9
The traditional translation “mayor” applies poorly. The Mari ¶azannum
was appointed by the king to keep order in vassal cities and function as
his local representative. Thus not every city within the realm seems to
have had a ¶azannum. It should be noted, however, that the political
structure in Mari differed from that in Mesopotamia. There is no clear
evidence that the ¶azannum of OB Babylonia functioned in the same way
as his Mari counterpart. The Ur III ¶azannum is attested almost exclu-
sively for core territories rather than the periphery.
The CAD notes (correctly) that the ¶azannum is very rare in Old Baby-
lonian texts, although it is no longer true that he appears only as a wit-
ness in legal documents. It suggests that he may have been replaced by
the rabiānum. One can only note in this connection that no watershed is
visible. In Sippar and Larsa, for example, the dates at which ¶azannums
are attested overlap with those at which rabiānums are attested.10 It has
elsewhere been assumed that the ¶azannum may have been the same as
the rabiānum.11 This also seems unlikely. While the ¶azannum and rabi-
ānum never appear together, this is not in itself surprising, since we have
so few attestations of the ¶azannum. There is currently no positive evi-
dence to suggest identity of the two titles.

Activities of the ¶azannum

Seri (2006) has recently assembled the evidence for the rabiānum’s activi-
ties. His role can be summarised briefly as follows: he is drawn from (and
perhaps head of?) the city elders; he represents local interests; he ap-
pears as a witness (usually the first); and together with the elders, he sells
‘city’ land. So what does the ¶azannum do?

9
See Durand 1997:471 for details.
10
Cf. already Harris 1975:58, n. 5 “… in Sippar he is not, as suggested ibid.
(CAD Ú 164), replaced by the rabiānu.” Van de Mieroop 1999:153 suggests that
the rabiānum may have spread from the north to the south.
11
For example Finet 1982:146. This idea seems to owe its origins to E. Cuq
(1910:85).
 J. Taylor, Úazannum: The Forgotten Mayor 211

During the Ur III period, we find references to the constituencies

over which the ¶azannum was appointed. There are ¶azannums of places:12
– GARšana (MVN 4, 71; Nebraska 1; UTI 5, 3119—all Lu-šalim,
Umma, A–S)
– NAGsu (NSGU 120a; NSGU 120b—both ŠI-a-a, Umma, A–S)
– Maškan (Princeton 1, 394—Umma, Š 34)
– Zabalam (AUCT 1, 225—Umma, Š 42)
– du6-GIŠ-ab-ba (NSGU 120b—Umma, A–S)
– da-UR4?-ka (MVN 15, 255—Umma, Š 48)
– da-lugal (TCTI 2, 4037—Girsu)
– Lullubu (ITT 3, 5367—Girsu, Š–S 9)
– Marad (unpublished; cited CAD Ú 16413)
– Zimudar (CST 187—Š 45)
– GIŠ.MAŠ.E.NE (JCS 19:27, no. 2)
– BÀD (AUCT 1, 539—Š 38/40).

Here we see mostly settlements in the heartland, with just one reference
to Zimudar, located in the Diyala region.14 The reference to Lullubu
seems to refer rather to the settlement of Lullubuna in Girsu province.15
It is noticeable that the tendency is to have ¶azannums of smaller sites
such as NAGsu, GARšana or Maškan, rather than the province of Umma as
a whole.16 But note too that smaller sites such as NAGsu, Maškan and Za-

12
Here are listed only those places explicitly noted in the texts in the expres-
sion h. GN, not those which may be inferred from context. Úazannums are found
also in texts from Nippur and Wilayah.
13
Marad also has an énsi (SET 68rev. i 21), so the two positions are not exclu-
sive in a city.
14
The locations of GIŠ.MAŠ.E.NE and BÀD are unclear. Steinkeller 2007 sees the
situation in the periphery as analogous to that in the core territories: “Character-
istically, these peripheral settlements show the presence of an identical self-
governing body, represented by the ¶azannu and the elders.” In OB texts from
Mari the ¶azannum is appointed in vassal cities.
15
Another reference to this figure might be found in MVN 10, 92 and RTC
249, two long lists of rations handed out to people who are summarised as “Lul-
lubians” (described in the body of the text as Simurrians, Huhunurians and Lul-
lubians). These texts mention an unnamed ¶a-za-núm (i 10′ and i 13′ respec-
tively).
16
Harris 1975:58–60 suggested that the OB ¶azannum was in charge of the
neighborhood ward (bābtum). This was on the basis that the rabiānum, mayor of
the city, was superior to the ¶azannum (for which evidence is lacking); thus the lat-
ter would be head of a smaller administrative unit. It is unclear how the ¶azannum
as head of a ward would relate to the role of the ugula-dag-gi4-a “overseer of the
ward.”
212 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

balam could have a šagina, as well as Umma.17 Caution is required before

we assign the ¶azannum a lowly rank. In the Middle Babylonian period
¶azannums are attested for both large and small cities.18
We also find references to ¶azannums of deities:
– Šara (AAICAB 1/1 Ash 1911–212)
– Enlil (Nippur; unpublished)

A similar reference is found in Middle Babylonian text MBTU 32rev.:4–5:

¶a-za-an-nu ša DINGIR (= Sin?). There is also a single reference in Ur III
texts to a ¶azannum of a group of people, that of the dam-gàr-e-ne “mer-
chants” (SNAT 220).
No clear differences are visible between the activities of any of these
groups of figures and those of the other ¶azannums. No such designations
are yet known from Old Babylonian texts, although we have very few
references from that period, so it would be premature to draw conclu-
sions from this situation.
We would like to know how many ¶azannums there were at any time,
and how long the office was held. Was there annual rotation or was it a
life-long position? It appears that there was probably only a single
¶azannum in any one place at any one time. Frequently, reference is made
simply to the ¶azannum, without name or designation of the constituency
over which he governed. In other words, it was enough to say “the
¶azannum,” and for it to be obvious who was meant. The unfortunate
consequence of this situation, of course, is that it complicates the matter
of tracking how long a ¶azannum held office. Without names we cannot
track individuals, and without place names we can’t differentiate between
officials from neighbouring towns. This is a problem because we know
that officials from out of town may appear in documents on account of
relations between neighbouring settlements. There is also the opposite
problem: a tablet may give only the name, while the envelope gives his
name and title ¶azannum, and the seal impression his name, title and the
place over which he is ¶azannum. We may have many tablets mentioning
officials who are not (currently, at least) identifiable as such.
From the Ur III period we know that a ¶azannum ŠI-a-a is active in
Umma in years Amar-Suen 2 and 6. Lu-šalim meanwhile is also active in
Umma in Amar-Suen 5 and 6. And Ur-Dun operates in Umma between

17
NAGsu: TCL 2, 5488:7; TIM 6, 36:5; Maškan: Princeton 1, 394:6; Zabalam:
AUCT 1, 26:2; Umma: RT 19, 62:1; AUCT 3, 325 seal.
18
Sassmannshausen 2001:30.
 J. Taylor, Úazannum: The Forgotten Mayor 213

Šulgi 32 and Šu-Sin 1—a period of 26 years. In these instances we seem

to have ¶azannums of different towns rather than three (or more) concur-
rently in the same place. ŠI-a-a is ¶azannum of NAGsu, while Lu-šalim is
¶azannum of GARšana; it is not known which settlement Ur-Dun was re-
sponsible for.
We may assume a similar explanation for the existence of three
¶azannums in Girsu during Šulgi 44: Bazi, Lu-kirizal and Lu-kisal; and
likewise the three in Ibbi-Sin 2: Halili, Ur-kununa and Ur-Mes. In any
case, there appears to be no clear evidence to the contrary as yet. An ex-
tra piece of detail is that there appears to be a hierarchy of ¶azannums. In
one Umma text (NSGU 120b) the ¶azannum of NAGsu despatches the
¶azannum of du6-GIŠ-ab-ba out of town to fetch animals from someone’s
orchard. This fits with Steinkeller’s19 identification of du6-GIŠ-ab-ba as a
large village and NAGsu as a town.
Another glimpse of management structure comes from Girsu. There
two ¶azannums, Aršiah and Il-kibri, are each found acting as gìr for ra-
tions coming from a Lugal-ù-a-ma, whose title unfortunately eludes us. 20
Aršiah is not a common name in Girsu; he is perhaps the same man as
Aršiah the nu-bànda, attested in texts from Šu-Sin’s reign.
From Old Babylonian texts we know of a period of office similar in
length to Ur-Dun’s 26 years. Sin-remeni is attested as ¶azannum in Ham-
murapi 35, Samsu-iluna 10 and as late as Samsu-iluna 16—a total of 24
years. It seems that officials governed for prolonged periods or at the
very least enjoyed multiple periods in office, rather than rotated annually.
A similar situation is true for the rabiānum.

Úazannum as the king’s man

While the elders (and in the Old Babylonian period also the rabiānum,
who was drawn from among the elders) represent local interests, the
¶azannum seems to have been a crown official, representing the king’s in-
terests.21 In one Umma text (Princeton 1, 394) a ¶azannum receives a bar-

19
Steinkeller 2007:194. GARšana, Maškan and Zabalam are also assigned town
status.
20
WMAH 176 (Š 48); STA 10 (date lost).
21
As argued by Sigrist 1992:277. Steinkeller 1987:26 questioned whether he
was subordinate to énsi or šagina, noting his subjection to the énsi in legal mat-
ters, according to NSGU 120 (a and b). He deduces on the basis of TIM 3, 145
and TIM 5, 12 that “the mayor exercised the highest legal authority in a given
place.” Van de Mieroop 1999:152 suggests that the role of the ¶azannum here
214 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

ley loan intended for a large number of workers on behalf of the šagina
“general.” Another Umma ¶azannum, Sigsu, is attested earlier in his ca-
reer with the title nu-bànda (details given below).
A text relating a dispute between two brothers over a garden throws
light on the ¶azannum’s interactions with the énsi.22 The witnesses give
evidence before the énsi but are shown to be unreliable.23 On account of
this development, the énsi instructs the ¶azannum to take them to the
palace for further interrogation (rev.:5–9):
é-gal-la en8-bi ga-tarar bí-in-dug4
a-bu-DU10 ¶a-za-núm-ma
in-na-an-sum
é-gal-šè la-¶a-ab
in-na-an-dug4
‘ “I want to interrogate them in the palace,” he said. He handed
them over to Abu-¢ab the ¶azannum, saying: “Take them to the pal-
ace!” ’

Is the whole trial being moved to the palace or just the unreliable wit-
nesses? The initial hearing (at a temple?) shows the claimant’s case to be
unsupported. We would expect at this point that the case would be
thrown out. The reason for the change of venue is unclear. Is the palace
here the énsi’s palace?24

could be instead a representative of the workers. Steinkeller (2007:209) decides

that the ¶azannum indeed “fell under the authority of the local military com-
mander, rather than that of the governor of the province … he served as a direct
link between the rural structures and the crown, to the almost complete exclusion
of the governor and his administration.” He posits, pp. 209–210, a network of
semi-military settlements under crown control, with a degree of self-government,
headed by a ¶azannum. The settlements were treated as collective bodies in law (as
shown by references to di-til-la dumu GN), and had representatives such as the
elders (ab-ba), who validated or witnessed proceedings. While there is a match
between dumu GN and ¶a-za-núm GN for GARšana, NAGsu and Zabalam, it is not
clear to the present writer how attestations of di-til-la dumu Ummaki (e. g. SNAT
320rev. i 7–8; 321rev.:11) would fit into this model. It is perhaps significant that
in OB Proto-Lu the ¶a-za-nu-um is listed together with the šagina (426–427), and
apart from the énsi (28).
22
Text modified from Pettinato 1997, no. 45.
23
In obv.:8ff. the man who brought the unfounded lawsuit and several other
people are taken somewhere; in rev. 1 read mu-la-a[¶]; this is a verb rather than
a personal name. Rev.:2–3 should read: igi-énsi-ka-ke4 lú-ní-zu¶ ba-an-ku4-re-eš
“In the énsi’s presence they were shown to be dishonest.”
24
Or could this actually be é-gal as “prison” in this context?
 J. Taylor, Úazannum: The Forgotten Mayor 215

NSGU 111 sees the “man of Umma” (i. e., the énsi) taking the “man
of NAGsu” to court over a canal (ídpa4-sikil-nun lú-ummaki-ke4 lú-NAG-
suki-da di in-da-an-dug4). The details of the dispute are unknown but the
decision goes against NAGsu. Were the “man of Umma” a reference to the
¶azannum25 we might deduce from this process that he is not directly re-
sponsible to the énsi. Alternatively, the “man” may refer to the šagina of
NAGsu.
From the Old Babylonian period we have one text (TCL 1, 157)
where a ¶azannum’s seal describes him as “servant of Ammi-ditana,”
rather than “servant of such and such a deity.” However, the seal does
not record his profession, and in any case it has been observed that more
and more officials begin to be described as servant of king as the late Old
Babylonian period advances (Harris 1961). In Mari he is a royal appoint-
ment, and in Alalakh he appears to be a relatively important official, with
royal connections.

Legal role: ¶azannum as a witness

The ¶azannum is frequently found acting as a witness. The kinds of trans-
actions involved are, for the Ur III period:
– loans of silver and barley
– the hiring and selling of slaves
– land sales
– rental agreement
– disputed marriage

and for the Old Babylonian period similarly:

– land and property sales
– adoption and inheritance.

It is often stated that the declining power of the ¶azannum may be

traced through his drop down the order of witness lists. In Ur III he is
said usually to be first witness, in Old Babylonian never so. This is only
partly true. In Ur III we have 16 attestations of the ¶azannum as witness;
of these, only half are as the first witness. He may also come in 2nd posi-
tion (three times); 3rd (three times); and even as far down as 9th (once).
In Old Babylonian texts, we have only four attestations. Among these, he

25
A ¶azannum is mentioned in OB letter AbB 10, 16 in the general context of
irrigation and cultivation of barley; the immediate context is broken. The
¶azannum is further attested with reference to irrigation in Middle Babylonian
texts, for which see Sassmannshausen 2001:31.
216 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

occurs once as 2nd witness, once as 3rd, once 4th and once 9th. In the so-
called “Public announcement of the loss of a seal”26 Ullia the ¶azannum
appears as the penultimate witness (out of eight). There are so few attes-
tations, and such variety within them, that no clear pattern of demotion is
apparent in the witness lists.27 The case of Ur-abzu, an Ur III ¶azannum,
is instructive. In TIM 5, 12 he is the first witness. In TIM 3, 145 mean-
while he is only the ninth. Even in this last case, it is he who seals the tab-
let, despite his low position in the order of witnesses. Turning to the Old
Babylonian examples, three of the four attestations refer to a single per-
son, Sin-remeni; he occurs variously in second, fourth and ninth position.
A decrease in power cannot safely be shown with such data. More gener-
ally, the order in which people appear in witness lists is not set; there is
no clear pattern of position observable in these texts, in terms of place,
time, or type of transaction.28
In MVN 18, 515 (Umma, A–S 7) a ¶azannum gives testimony in an ar-
gument over the loss of a boat. He had knowledge relating to the owner-
ship of the lost boat; it seems likely, although not certain, that this de-
rived from his official activities.
In one Old Babylonian text (TCL 1, 157) a ¶azannum appears as (third)
witness to a disputed house sale. The document is witnessed by nine
people, all of the rest of whom are specified as judges. Could the ¶azan-
num have been qualified to sit with the college of judges?

Úazannum as the long arm of the law

Another role in the legal sphere was fetching runaways. Umma text
Princeton 1, 365 has a ¶azannum ([Síg]-su13?) going to fetch a man who
had run away but was found in someone’s house. In the court document
quoted above it was the ¶azannum who was responsible for the transfer of

26
ETCSL c.5.7.a, line c57a.11. This is an Old Babylonian school text portray-
ing a legal case from the Ur III period. The énsi named there is Lugal-melam,
known elsewhere as énsi of Nippur during the reign of Amar-Suen.
27
Harris 1975:60 refers to the rabiānu preceding in witness lists the šakkanakku,
who in turn precedes the ¶azannu, citing CT 8, 1a as evidence. There a rabiānum
precedes a šakkanakkum, but no ¶azannum is present; in BE 6/1, 59 a šakkanakkum
precedes a ¶azannum, but no rabiānum is present. ¶azannum and rabiānum never
co-occur in witness lists.
28
Seri 2006:89 notes that the rabiānum usually, but not always, comes first in
witness lists. Dombradi 1996:31, n. 175 comments that no order is visible “Mit
Ausnahme des rabiānum bzw. des ¶azannum, der die Zeugenliste immer an-
führt…”
 J. Taylor, Úazannum: The Forgotten Mayor 217

unreliable witnesses (thus criminals themselves) from the preliminary

hearing before the énsi to the “palace.” Meanwhile in Girsu, a nu-bànda
arrests a ¶azannum and another man because a third person, a robber,
has fled. Apparently the duties of the ¶azannum (aided by soldiers?) in-
cluded rounding people up and bringing them before the authorities, as
well as transferring them from one location to another. It is not clear if
his role extended to acting as jailer, which in the Old Babylonian period
was the rabiānum’s responsibility.
A similar function is attested in a treaty from Old Babylonian Alalakh
(AT 2), where any fugitive who reaches the other’s country should be
tracked down and imprisoned (in the palace) until the owner comes to
claim him; if the runaway cannot be found, the ¶azannum and five elders
must take an oath to swear that they have not been able to locate him.
The joint responsibility with the elders is found also in Mari text ARM 3,
73, where following a revolt the elders and ¶azannum are interrogated.
Both the above references derive from outside of Mesopotamia. Within
Mesopotamia in the Old Babylonian period it is usually the rabiānum who
acts in concert with elders.29 The rabiānum was not a position in Mari or
Alalakh—but this figure is also lacking from Ur III Mesopotamia, and no
clear working partnership between the ¶azannum and the elders can be
found there.
The ¶azannum is also known in the Ur III period as someone respon-
sible for dealing with lost sheep. In one Umma text (NSGU 120a) a royal
guardsman brings a lost flock before ŠI-a-a the ¶azannum of NAGsu, who
then brings them before the énsi of Umma. He in turn has the ¶azannum
and royal guardsman take the claimant on to Nippur. In a related docu-
ment (NSGU 120b), someone makes a claim on sheep and goats found in
a garden. A šùš (a functionary responsible for livestock, subordinate to
the énsi) sends him to the ¶azannum. The ¶azannum of NAGsu sends the
¶azannum of du6-GIŠ-ab-ba and two men to go and fetch the sheep. A man
who claims to be the legal owner of the sheep follows behind and is sent
on to Nippur accompanied by another man, who by analogy with NSGU
120a was probably a royal guardsman.30
A significant development in our understanding of the ¶azannum is
found in the career of Sigsu of Umma. We know him as a ¶azannum from

29
The possible exception to this is AbB 5, 168, where a ¶azannum plays a role
in a contest over a type of house, in broken and unclear context.
30
Alternatively he may be a herdsman; a man with this name appears else-
where in Umma texts dated to the reign of Amar-Suen in this capacity.
218 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

NSGU 69 (A–S, year lost). There he appears alongside figures with whom
he co-occurs in other documents, including A-za-a, who is ¶azannum in BM
106468, BM 111052 and SNAT 321 (A–S 2). The Ur-gišgigir nu-bànda of
rev.:5 is perhaps the same as the man in YOS 4, 1 (Š 44):12 who follows Síg-
su13 nu-bànda. In BM 110171 (A–S 7):10 a Síg-su13 ab-ba-uru is listed.31 In
that same text are found together Lú-du10-ga and Inim-ma-AN (known from
elsewhere as a dam-gàr “merchant”). They appear together again in NSGU
62 (Š–S 4) alongside a Síg-su13; in that text Síg-su13 has no designation but
Lú-du10-ga is ¶azannum. One gains the impression that roles such as nu-
bànda and ¶azannum (perhaps also dam-gàr) were shared among a relatively
small group of local families, and the presence in witness lists of individuals
bearing such titles is conditioned more by their status than by a specific as-
pect of their official capacity. Significantly in terms of the ¶azannum, while
the office holder was part of the crown system,32 he could be drawn from lo-
cal elites rather than despatched from the capital. In this respect he is similar
to the énsi, who despite being “servant of the king” belongs to an important
local family. The šagina meanwhile is part of the extended royal family and
is posted to various provinces during his career. It is unclear what his func-
tions were in the core territories, what kind of infrastructure he may have
commanded there and how this would have interacted with that of the énsi.

Úazannum as an authorising official

In Ur III texts the ¶azannum is found sealing various transactions. These
include dealings in grain and wool. Following Steinkeller 1989:98 we
might assume that also in those cases where the ¶azannum does not seal
the tablet but occurs as first witness (loans and slave sale/hiring), he is
again an authorising official.
One sealing provides us with an interesting piece of additional infor-
mation. In Girsu text ITT 5, 6943 a ¶azannum called Lu-Girsu seals a tab-
let concerning the delivery of wool (kišib lú-gír-suki ha-za-]núm^ [íb-ra]).
His seal inscription refers to him as “scribe”:
lú-gír-suki ‘Lu-Girsu
dub-sar scribe
dumu lú-gír-nun-na son of Lu-Girnuna.’

31
Thanks to Manuel Molina for bringing this reference to my attention.
32
It is not clear that the ¶azannum is part of the military structure himself, al-
though in CST 187 he pays what must be the gú-un-ma-da tax—a tax usually paid
by military officials in the periphery. He pays at the level of a senior nu-bànda.
 J. Taylor, Úazannum: The Forgotten Mayor 219

From this we learn that the ¶azannum could be literate.33 This seems,
however, to be a background qualification. In OIP 104, 193:370 he is
listed as witness alongside someone designated as scribe. And in the Old
Babylonian corpus the ¶azannum Sin-remeni appears alongside a figure
who is designated as scribe (same person in H 35 and S–i 1034), so he
cannot have fulfilled that role in those cases at least.
There are a number of other attestations referring to the ¶azannum’s
involvement in barley storage and distribution, including letters as well as
economic texts. In these texts the barley is intended variously as rations
for workers and fodder for (the énsi’s) donkeys (SAT 1, 29). He has other
economic contacts with the énsi. For example, in addition to receiving a
loan from the énsi on behalf of the general to feed some workers (dis-
cussed above), he is also found (alongside high ranking officials) with-
drawing reeds from the énsi of Umma (Nebraska 1 (A–S 5) and MVN 4,
71 (A–S 6); cf. UTI 5, 3119 (A–S 5)).

Other activities
The ¶azannum is visited by royal messengers from Nippur on several oc-
casions (HLC 310; TCTI 2, 3785; MTBM 122). He seals for receipt of
barley coming out of the mill house (MVN 21, 281) as well as acting as
gìr35 for barley for slaves in the mill house (WMAH 176; STA 10). He also
hands out food for workers, including hirelings (MVN 11, 39; ITT 3,
5367), and has a regular account for such activity (as shown by OMRO 56,
7; Girsu). In MVN 16, 936 (Umma) he is issued with bread for workers
engaged in boat caulking. In Girsu he is found deleting men from a ros-
ter (ITT 3, 5047). ITT 5, 6943 sees him acknowledge receipt of wool on
someone else’s behalf, while AAICAB 1/1 Ash 1911–212 sees a ¶azannum’s
wife use his seal to acknowledge receipt of wool and ITT 4, 7953 sees a
nu-bànda-gu4 act on his behalf (in unclear context). In Or SP 6, 60 the
¶azannum donates silver gal-gal-la vessels to the temple of KI.ANki, and in
Or SP 47–49, 328 he donates a bronze gal-vessel to the Šara temple. He re-
ceives a payment from the Ningišzida temple (TÉL 34a) and elsewhere
provides a-ru-a offerings for female slaves in the Šara temple (Nisaba 6, 27).

33
We might perhaps add another example if […]-zà-è ¶a-za-núm in NATN
780 is the same man as Ur-zà-è dub-sar in TMH NF 1–2, 73.
34
BE 6/1, 22 and CT 8, 32c. It is tempting in these instances to envisage
¶azannum and scribe operating as a pair.
35
In TUT 160 he acts as gìr for payments to someone from Umma.
220 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

In the Old Babylonian period we find two references to barley for

harvest labourers working in the field of a ¶azannum (SLB 1/2, 41 and 42)
and a reference to an orchard belonging to a ¶azannum (YOS 8, 34; cf.
MVN 16, 913, where a date orchard belonging to a ¶azannum in Umma is
mentioned, dated to Šu-Sin). Finally in this regard it is worth noting the
mention in Old Babylonian text BE 6, 77 of land rented out for cultiva-
tion, located “at the gate of the settlement of the ¶azannum” (šá ]ba-ab
AN.ZA^.GÀR ¶a-za-nu-um36). The significance of this is not yet clear.
There are also a few references to what may well be his personal deal-
ings. In Ur III texts he acts as a guarantor for some oil (ITT 2, 2643),
and sells a she-ass (JCS 19, 27:2). In one Old Babylonian text (VAB 5,
447; Sippar, Apil-Sin 11) there is a reference to him selling a house and
exchanging another. It is tempting here to think of the other mayor, the
rabiānum’s, function in selling the city’s property, but there is no evidence
for it being anything other than his own house in this case.37

Conclusion
It is fair to say that there is much we would still like to know about the
¶azannum. Prosopographical analyses—of Ur III texts in particular—
should lead to advances in our understanding of this elusive official.38 In
the meantime I offer the following provisional overview of his role. He
appears to be a royal official. In the Ur III period he perhaps works for
the šagina. But unlike the šagina he is drawn from the local area. He
functions as a link between a town and the province’s governor. It is not
clear whether this should be interpreted as acting as an intermediary be-
tween royal and local power, between military and civil administration or
something else altogether. In legal matters, he appears to be subordinate
to the énsi and responsible for ensuring that people and animals in-
volved in legal proceedings are in the right place at the right time. He
has some responsibility for maintaining local law and order. He is re-
sponsible for capturing runaways and perhaps also criminals. As an im-
portant local official he acts as an official witness to events and transac-
tions. He can also be found as an authorising official and a guarantor.

36
Text kindly collated by Matthew Rutz.
37
The ¶azannum’s role in the dispute related in AbB 5, 168 is unclear.
38
Many of the individuals with whom the ¶azannum interacts or co-occurs
have common names. Several of these are known as the names of members of an
énsi’s family. It would be useful to know whether the ¶azannums are related to the
governors or if this is simply coincidence.
 J. Taylor, Úazannum: The Forgotten Mayor 221

Very little can be said about the ¶azannum in Old Babylonian Mesopota-
mia at present. Frustratingly, the ¶azannum’s relation to other urban au-
thorities, such as the elders, rabiānum, ‘the city,’ ‘the assembly,’ nu-bànda,
merchants etc. is unclear.

References
Charpin 2004 Charpin, D. Histoire politique du Proche-Orient Amor-
rite (2002–1595). Attinger, P. et al. (eds.). Mesopotamien:
die altbabylonische Zeit (OBO 160/4). Fribourg–Göttingen.
Pp. 23–480.
Cuq 1910 Cuq, E. Essai sur l’organisation judiciaire de la Chaldée.
RA 7:65–101.
Dombradi 1996 Dombradi, E. Die Darstellung des Rechtsaustrags in den alt-
babylonischen Prozessurkunden (FAOS 20). Stuttgart.
Finet 1982 Finet, A. Y eut-il une démocratie mésopotamienne? Fi-
net, A. (ed.). Les pouvoirs locaux en Mésopotamie et dans les
régions adjacentes. Bruxelles. Pp. 144–151.
Durand 1997 Durand, J.-M. Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari. I
(LAPO 16). Paris.
Harris 1961 Harris, R. On the Process of Secularization under Ham-
murapi. JCS 15:117–120.
Harris 1975 Harris, R. Ancient Sippar: A Demographic Study of an Old
Babylonian City (1894–1595 BC). Istanbul.
Hilgert 2002 Hilgert, M. Akkadisch in der Ur III-Zeit (IMGULA 5).
Münster.
Pettinato 1997 Pettinato, G. L’uomo comincio a scrivere: iscrizioni cuneiformi
della collezione Michail. Milan.
Sassmannshausen
2001 Sassmannshausen, L. Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesell-
schaft Babyloniens in der Kassitenzeit (BaF 21). Mainz am
Rhein.
Seri 2006 Seri, A. Local Power in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia. Lon-
don.
Sigrist 1992 Sigrist, M. Drehem. Bethesda.
Sollberger 1968 Sollberger, E. Two Kassite Votive Inscriptions. JAOS
88:191–197.
Steinkeller 1987 Steinkeller, P. The Administrative and Economic Or-
ganization of the Ur III State: The Core and the Pe-
riphery. Gibson, McG.; Biggs, R. D. (eds.). The Organiza-
tion of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near
East. Symposium on the Organization of Power: Aspects of Bu-
reaucracy in the Ancient, Medieval and Ottoman Near East
(SAOC 46). Chicago. Pp. 19–41.
Steinkeller 1989 Steinkeller, P. Sale Documents of the Ur III Period (FAOS
17). Stuttgart.
222 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Steinkeller 2007 Steinkeller, P. City and Countryside in Third Millennia

Southern Babylonia. Stone, E. (ed.). Settlement and Soci-
ety: Essays Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams. Chicago.
Pp. 185–211.
Stol 2004 Stol, M. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in altbabylonischer
Zeit. Attinger, P. et al. (eds.). Mesopotamien: die altbaby-
lonische Zeit (OBO 160/4). Fribourg–Göttingen. Pp. 641–
975.
Van de Mieroop 1999 Van de Mieroop, M. The Government of an Ancient Mes-
opotamian City: What We Know and Why We Know So
Little. Watanabe, K. (ed.). Priests and Officials in the Ancient
Near East. Heidelberg. Pp. 139–161.
Walther 1917 Walther, A. Das altbabylonische Gerichtswesen (LSS 6/4–6).
Leipzig.
 Städtische Selbstverwaltung und sozial-politischer
Gemeindesektor in Phönikien und Syrien*

July B. Tsirkin
St. Petersburg

Phönikien war niemals ein Einheitsstaat, sondern bestand aus einigen

Stadtstaaten. Der phönizische Stadtstaat entspricht dem Begriff Nomos;
das war ein typischer Nomos-Staat.1 Diese Stadtstaaten haben sich be-
wahrt, als die territorialen Staaten und gar die Imperien schon existier-
ten. Sie haben sogar nach der Eingliederung in Assyrien, Babylonien und
Persien ihre Autonomie und ihre Ordnung erhalten (mit den wenigen
zeitbedingten Ausnahmen). Andererseits sind sie Anfang des 3. Jahrtau-
sends v. u. Z. entstanden, und die politischen und ethnischen Wandel
des 2. Jahrtausends haben auf sie wenig gewirkt. Deshalb kann man sa-
gen, dass die sozial-politische Struktur Phönikiens während zweieinhalb
Jahrtausende fast unveränderlich geblieben ist.2 Die politische Ordnung
der phönizischen Stadtstaaten war Monarchie, und der König besaß die
bedeutende Macht. Der König beherrschte den Staat, und ihn dürfte
man nicht für einen lebenslänglichen Magistrat nach der Art von sparta-
nischen Königen halten. Bei alledem existierten in phönizischen Städten
auch die Gemeinden.
Die Gemeinde und ihre Organe spielten eine nicht unbedeutende
Rolle in phönizischen Städten. Als in Byblos die Zeker angekommen
sind, die die Übergabe von Wenamon gefordert haben, hat der König
Zeker-Baal den Rat einberufen und nur mit seiner Zustimmung eine
schlaue Antwort gegeben. Er hat abgelehnt, Wenamon auszuliefern, und

* Der vorliegende Beitrag ist eine kurze Zusammenfassung der größeren Ar-
beit, die den Leser mit den wesentlichen Ergebnissen dieser Arbeit bekannt macht.
1
Zu dem Nomos-Staat s. Diakonoff, I. M. (ed.). Early Antiquity. Chicago–Lon-
don, 1991, S. 37.
2
Tsirkin, Ju. B. Fenicia y los cambios en Asia Anterior cerca 1200 a. de C.
Spanò Giammellaro, A. (ed.). Atti del V Congresso internazionale di studi fenici e
punici. Palermo, 2005, S. 19–22.
224 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

empfahl, ihn nach der Abfahrt aus Byblos festzuhalten (2:70–74).3 In

dem Vertrag des tyrischen Königs Baals mit Asarhaddon werden neben
dem König auch ‘das Volk’ und ‘die Leute’ des Landes von Tyros ge-
nannt (ANET Sup, p. 534). In der Inschrift auf dem Sarkophag Esch-
munazar II. wird vor der Eröffnung ‘jeder König und jeder Mann’ ge-
warnt (KAI 14). Es ist klar, dass ‘ein Mann’ nicht der erste beste, sondern
ein Mitglied der sidonischen Gemeinde ist. Über das Volk des Landes
spricht auch die Inschrift von Yehawmilk von Byblos (KAI 10).
Auf die Gemeinde musste der König Rücksicht nehmen. Während
des Aufstands gegen die Perser konnte der König Tennes die Stadt nicht
einfach übergeben, sondern musste zuerst Sidon verlassen und unter ei-
nem passenden Vorwand ein Hundert der einflussreichsten Bürger mit-
nehmen. Erst danach konnte er die Stadt mit persischen Truppen be-
setzen. Aber die Bürger haben trotzdem den hartnäckigen Widerstand
geleistet (Diod. XVI 43–45). 18 Jahre später hat der König Straton (Abd-
astart II.) Sidon nicht freiwillig, sondern nach dem Willen des Volks
übergeben (Curt. Ruf. IV 1, 16).
Seinen Willen äußert das Volk in der Volksversammlung. Die von der
Heimat getrennten und zum Bau des Kanals von Xerxes zusammenge-
triebenen Phönizier stiften sofort ein Kollektiv mit der Versammlung
(Herod. VII 23). Eben die tyrische Gemeinde hat die Botschafter zu
Alexander entsandt, und nur die Versammlung konnte diese Frage lösen
(Arrian. Anab. II 15, 6). Es besteht kein Zweifel, dass es sich um die Ver-
sammlung ‘am Tor der Stadt’ handelt. Wir kennen diese Versammlun-
gen in den phönizischen Kolonien.4 Daneben existierte auch der Rat. Ei-
nen solchen Rat hat Zeker-Baal in Byblos einberufen. Die Ältesten von
Byblos (ziqnê Gebal) nennt Ezechiel (27:9). Der Vertrag Baals mit Assur-
haddon zeugt von den Ältesten und dem Rat. Von den tyrischen Senato-
ren schrieb Justinus (XVIII 4, 15).
Die Mitglieder der Gemeinde standen im Militärdienst. Ezechiel
(27:11) erwähnt die Söhne von Tyros, die samt den Söhnen Arwads die
Mauern ihrer Stadt geschützt haben. Diese Behauptung ist ein sehr
wichtiges Argument für den Zusammenhang zwischen dem Militärdienst
und dem Bürgerstatus.

3
Korostovzeff, M. A. Wen-Amun’s Journey to Byblos. Moskau, 1960, S. 32 (Pute-
schestviye Un-Amuna v Bibl).
4
Seston, W. Remarques sur les institutions politiques et sociales de Carthage,
d’après une inscription latine de Tugga. Kupper, J.-R. (ed.). La civilisation de Mari
(CRRAI 15). Paris, 1967, S. 218–222.
 Ju. B. Tsirkin. Städtische Selbstverwaltung … 225

Alle Zeugnisse sprechen aber dafür, dass sich die Vollmachten der Ge-
meinde und ihrer Organe nur auf die Stadt selbst ausdehnten. Die Ge-
meinde konnte im Namen des ganzen Staats nicht sprechen und han-
deln. Ihr Tun während des Angriffs von Alexander wurde von den
außerordentlichen Umständen hervorgerufen: der König war nicht in
der Stadt, der Eroberer lagerte an den Mauern von Tyros, und man
musste die Stadt retten. Bei analogen Umständen wandte sich viel früher
die byblische Gemeinde an den Pharao.
Deshalb kann man sagen, dass in der Hauptstadt der König genötigt
war, Rücksicht auf die Gemeinde zu nehmen. Die Gemeindeorgane be-
schäftigten sich mit den Lokalsachen, in welche sich der König ohne ihre
Zustimmung nicht einmischen konnte. Die Gemeinde, wenigstens der
Hafen, besaß das Asylrecht, das der König eigenmächtig nicht verletzen
konnte.
Unter der Königs Gewalt standen doch nicht nur die Hauptstadt, son-
dern auch andere Städte. Diese Städte zahlten die Steuern dem König.5
Der Verweser des zyprischen Karthago bezeichnet sich als den Sklaven
des Königs Hiram (KAI 31). Natürlich kann man den hochgestellten Be-
amten für den wahren Sklaven schwerlich halten, aber diese Redensart
zeigt, dass er dem König untergeordnet war. Die Beziehungen zwischen
den Königen betrafen nur die Könige selbst. Das erweisen die Verhält-
nisse zwischen Hiram und Salomo (I Reg 9:11–13; Jos. Ant. Iud. VIII 5,
3). Somit handelte außerhalb der Hauptstadt selbst der König selb-
ständig.
In untergeordneten Städten scheinen auch die Gemeinden existiert
zu haben,6 aber es gibt keine Zeugnisse für Zusammenhänge zwischen
diesen Gemeinden und der Gemeinde der Hauptstadt.
Die Mitglieder der städtischen Gemeinde bildeten die Bürgerkollek-
tive der ‘Söhne (benē) der Stadt’. Ihre Oberschichten bildete die Aristo-
kratie. Philo von Byblos (fr. I 10, 44) spricht über ‘die Mächtigen’. Die
‘Mächtigen’ (!drnm) werden in zwei Inschriften aus Karthago und Sardi-
nien erwähnt.7 Da werden auch ‘die Geringen’ (´"rnm) genannt. Jesaia

5
Zu den Steuern von Utica s. Jos. C. App. I, 18; Ant. Iud. VIII 5, 3. Das be-
weist, dass auch die anderen Städte die Steuern dem König zahlten: Schiffmann,
I. Sch. On Royal Taxation of Palestine. VDI 1 (1967):41 (K woprosu o zarskich
povinnostjach v Palestine).
6
S. Bondì, S. F.; Guzzo Amadasi, M. G. Besprechung von Pritchard, J. B.
Sarepta. A Preliminary Report on the Iron Age. Philadelphia, 1975. RSF 5/1 (1977):97.
7
Schiffmann, I. Sch. Zur Interpretation IFPCO 36 und 39 aus Sardinien. RSF
4/1 (1976):51–52.
226 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

(23:8) spricht über die Kaufleute von Tyros, die ihre Fürsten (śārīm) wa-
ren. Sallust (Iug. 19:1) berichtet von dem Adel und von der Plebs, die
sich an der Kolonisation beteiligten. Unter den Bürgern waren ‘die Be-
wohner’ der Stadt.8 Sie waren freie, aber traten nicht in den Presti-
gedienst der Krieger, sondern in den niedrigeren und schwereren Dienst
der Ruderer.
Also kann man sagen, dass es in phönizischen Städten der politisch-
administrative Dualismus herrschte. Dort koexistierten das Königtum
und das System der Gemeinden, mit denen der König die Macht in der
Stadt selbst, nicht aber außerhalb der Stadt bzw. im ganzen Staat, teilte.
Etwas andere Verhältnisse gestalteten sich in Arwad. Die Quellen sind
leider knapp und widersprüchlich. Deshalb kann man nur eine Vermu-
tung aussprechen. Das arwadische Königreich bestand aus zwei Teilen:
der Insel, wo sich Arwad selbst befand, und dem Festlandsteil. Der Um-
fang der königlichen Macht war in den beiden Teilen verschieden. Den
Festlandsteil besaß der König (possidebat, wie Curtius Rufus IV 1, 6 be-
richtet), und dort war die Macht des Königs unbeschränkt. In der Insel-
stadt spielte die Gemeinde eine viel größere Rolle, als in den anderen
phönizischen Städten. Hier ließ nicht der König, sondern die Stadt die
Münzen prägen.9 Allein dieser Umstand zeigt, dass die Oberhoheit das
Kollektiv der arwadischen Bürger besaß. Die beiden Teile konnten sogar
die unterschiedliche Außenpolitik durchführen, wie das während der
Kriege gegen Salamanassar III. und Alexander der Fall war.10 Diese grö-
ßere Rolle der Gemeinde machte Arwad dem antiken (griechisch-römi-
schen) Entwicklungsgang der alten Gesellschaft sehr nahe.
In Syrien (oder Innensyrien) fand im 2. Jahrtausend v. u. Z. der Wan-
del des Ethnos statt. Den größeren Teil des Landes haben die Aramäer
bevölkert. Die aramäischen Staaten Syriens sind Anfang des 1. Jahrtau-
sends nicht auf Grundlage der Stadt, wie in Phönikien, sondern auf
Grundlage des Stammes (entweder des Stammesbundes oder der Stam-
mesfraktion) entstanden. In diesen Staaten bestand kein strenger Zusam-
menhang zwischen dem Namen des Staates und der Hauptstadt.11 Von
der Innenstruktur des aramäischen Staates zeugen die Verträge des

8
Zu den Bewohnern s. Ez 27:8.
9
Betylon, J. W. The Coinage and Mints of Phoenicia. Chico, 1980, S. 139.
10
Tsirkin, Ju. B. Singulridades del régimen socio-político de Arwad. Trans-
euphratène 30 (2005):143–144.
11
Sader, H. Les états araméens depuis leur fondation jusqu’à leur transformation en
provinces assyriens. Tübingen, 1984, S. 237–238.
 Ju. B. Tsirkin. Städtische Selbstverwaltung … 227

arpadischen Königs Matiilu mit anderen Königen (Sader III Ba). Diese
Verträge schlossen der König und seine Nachkommen mit einem ande-
ren König und seinen Nachkommen, der Staat mit einem anderen Staat,
die Hauptstadt mit einer anderen Stadt, Herren der Stadt mit Herren ei-
ner anderen Stadt, Götter mit Göttern. Die Assyrer erkannten die zusam-
mengesetzte Struktur demonstrativ nicht an und handelten nur mit dem
König (Sader III Ad I).12 Die anderen aramäischen Staaten hatten aber
dieselben Partner. Deshalb konnte man die wesentlichen Parameter des
arpadischen Königreiches nach den der anderen Staaten ergänzen.
An der Spitze des Staates stand der König. Aber dort existierte auch
der Gemeindesektor. In erster Linie wird er durch das Bürgerkollektiv
der Hauptstadt repräsentiert. Die Bürger der Stadt werden als b"ly – ‘die
Herren’ der Stadt (b"ly !rpd, b!ly ktk) – bezeichnet. Außer den Herren wird
auch ‘das Volk’ ("m) der Stadt genannt. Einmal kommt die folgende
Kombination vor: b"ly !rpd w"m ‘die Herren Arpads und das Volk’ (Sader
III Ba IB). Aus dieser Kombination kann man schließen, dass ‘die
Herren’ und ‘das Volk’ zwei verschiedene Kategorien der Bevölkerung
der Stadt darstellen. Bei alledem ist das Volk auch der gleichberechtigte
Teilnehmer des Vertrags. Zweimal wird unter dem Volk die ganze Be-
völkerung der Stadt gemeint. Hat dieses Wort zwei Bedeutungen: 1) die
ganze Bevölkerung der Stadt, 2) ein Teil der Stadtgemeinde, aber nicht
ein Teil des Bürgerkollektivs? In diesem Fall wäre das Volk irgendeine
Kategorie der Bevölkerung, die nicht zum Bürgerkollektiv gehört,
gleichzeitig aber in gewissem Umfang politische Rechte hat. Man kann
sich an die römischen Plebejer aus dem früheren Zeitabschnitt der Ge-
schichte Roms erinnern.
In den Verträgen wird noch eine Kategorie genannt, nämlich die
mächtigen (oder großen) Söhne Arpads (bnth rbt) (Sader III Ba IA). Der
Zusammenhang zwischen diesen Leuten und der Stadt ist recht innig.
Wahrscheinlich sind sie entweder die Stadtaristokratie oder die Mitglie-
der des Stadtrats. Übrigens muß es zwischen diesen beiden Alternativen
keinen Widerspruch geben. Wie in Rom, wo sich das Wort senatus
manchmal nicht nur auf das höchste Organ, sondern auch auf seine Mit-
glieder bezog, konnte in Arpad der Begriff ‘mächtige Söhne’ die Mitglie-
der des Rats bezeichnen und gleichzeitig die höchste Schicht der Stadtge-
sellschaft, aus welcher der Rat gebildet wurde.

12
Vgl. Dupont-Sommer, A. Trois stèles araméennes provenant de Sifré. Les
Annales archéologiques syriennes 10 (1960):45–46.
228 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Neben Arpad werden in den Verträgen auch andere Städte genannt

(Sader III Ba IA, III). Dem Augenschein nach handelt es sich um andere
Gemeinden auf dem Territorium des arpadischen Königreichs. Das Auf-
zählen dieser Städte samt Arpad zeugt von ihrer Selbständigkeit in Bezug
auf die Hauptstadt. Es scheint über die Existenz der autonomen und
durch die Macht eines Monarchen vereinigten Gemeinden sprechen zu
können. Einmal handelt es sich nicht nur um die Stadt, sondern um ihr
Territorium und ihre Dörfer (Sader III Ba III). Wahrscheinlich be-
schränkte sich das Territorium der Gemeinde nicht auf die Stadt selbst.
Außerhalb der Stadt befanden sich die unterstellten Dörfer (kpryh).
Jeder Staat hatte natürlich seine Eigentümlichkeiten. Einen Teil der
Struktur des arpadischen Königreichs bildeten die vielleicht halbnoma-
denhaften Stammesgemeinschaften Bit-Gusi und Bit-SLL (Sader III Ba
IB, IIB). In Jaudi gab es zwei Kategorien der Bevölkerung – die Musch-
kabim und die Baarim, die wahrscheinlich zu verschiedenen Völkern ge-
hörten.13 Das Königreich von Damaskus war ethnisch homogen. Nicht
ohne Grund hatte es den ethnischen Namen Aram. Aber seine wesentli-
chen Züge waren weder identisch noch ähnlich.
Die Staaten Phönikiens und Syriens waren verschieden hinsichtlich
ihrer ethnischen Grundlagen (kanaanäischen und aramäischen), der Zeit
ihrer Entstehung (Anfang des 3. Jahrtausends und Anfang des 1. Jahr-
tausends v. u. Z.), ihrer Art (Nomos- und Stammesstaaten), aber sie hatten
die gleiche dualistische sozial-politische Struktur. Die hebräischen Staa-
ten scheinen analoge Struktur erhalten zu haben14. Dem Anschein nach
war solcher Dualismus ein Wesenszug des semitischen Vorderasiens.
Derselbe Dualismus existierte auch in der Wirtschaft, aber das ist ein an-
deres Thema.

13
Aymard, A.; Auboyer, J. L’Orient et la Grèce antique. Paris, 1994, S. 240.
14
Schiffmann, I. Sch. Old Testament and Its World. Moskau, 1987, S. 23 (Vethiy
Zavet i ego mir).
 The Role of the ¶azannu in the Neo-Assyrian Empire*

Greta Van Buylaere

Università degli Studi di Udine

1. Introduction
The office of ¶azannu is attested as early as the Ur III period1 and is known
from second and first millennia texts; this Akkadian word is usually trans-
lated as ‘mayor,’ even though his duties have little in common with those of
present-day mayors. Although references to ¶azi’ānu in Middle Assyrian
sources are relatively rare, they are significant since they can further our
understanding of the role of this office in the Neo-Assyrian Empire.
Fortunately, there are more references to this office in Neo-Assyrian
sources. It is certain that the ¶azannu played an important role in the ur-
ban administration of the empire. The texts also suggest that the office in
the old capital and religious centre Assur may have been marginally dif-
ferent from that in other Assyrian cities; and the same professional title in
Babylonia was possibly used to describe a slightly different office in that
region, since the administrative situation there was different than that in
Assyria or in its provinces.
This article will present a short overview of the office of ¶azi’ānu in the
Middle Assyrian period and an in-depth study of the ¶azannu’s duties in
the Neo-Assyrian Empire, beginning with the evidence from Assur. Ref-
erences to ¶azannus in Babylonia or Elam, however, are not included in
the present discussion.

* In my presentation in Saint-Petersburg, I compared the duties of ¶azannus

and ša-mu¶¶i-ālis in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. In this article, I will discuss only
the role of the ¶azannu; a paper on the responsibilities of the ša-mu¶¶i-āli will be
published in the State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 18 (forthcoming). Since some of
these officials’ responsibilities were jointly carried out, there will be a slight over-
lap between both articles.
I would like to thank M. Luukko, J. Novotny and J. Llop for their critical re-
marks and useful suggestions. I am also grateful to S. Parpola for permission to
use the database of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project and to S. Dalley for her
encouraging comments after my presentation.
1
See J. Taylor in this volume.
230 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

2. The Middle Assyrian ¶azi’ānu

Jakob (2003) recently studied the Middle Assyrian evidence. He states
that each ¶azi’ānu was appointed by the state administration, and was
probably a citizen of the city/town he represented. As such, he was the
principal link between the citizens/villagers and the regional and state
administrative bodies. At least in Assur, he was the head of the local
council of elders (rabi’ūtu), accountable to the district governor (bēl pā¶ete)
or the county supervisor (¶assi¶lu), and responsible for implementing
their instructions. The ¶azi’ānu could assist the provincial administration
with the storage and distribution of barley (including, e. g., the barley ra-
tions for Kassite captives), and the levying of taxes and tribute (e. g.,
sheep and wool). From time to time, a ¶azannu may have been in charge
of the organization of local agriculture. Moreover, the governor could
delegate to a ¶azannu the task of supplying couriers and other govern-
ment officials passing through his district.2
A text from Dunnu-ša-uzibi (modern Giricano) concerning the pen-
alty for a crime committed by Mušallim-Aššur provides some information
about the juridical/custodial role of this office. As punishment for the
crime he committed, Mušallim-Aššur gave his brother as a slave to PN. As
an alternative to slavery, the boy could place himself in the custody of the
¶azi’ānu and enter a ša-nupāri (‘workhouse’).3
Section B § 6 of the Middle Assyrian laws provides an interesting piece
of information on the sale of real estate:
‘When the herald makes his proclamation in the city of Assur, one of
the royal court officials (iltēn ina sukkallē ša pani šarre), the city scribe
( ¢upšar āle), the herald (nāgiru), and the royal officials (qēpūtu ša šarre)
are to be present; representing the city of the field or house that he
intends to purchase, the mayor (¶azi’ānu) and three elders4 of the city
(3 rabi’ūte ša āle) are to be present’ (B § 6 iii 28–35; Roth 1997:178).

This demonstrates that, in addition to the royal administration in Assur, the

presence of the local ¶azi’ānu and three elders was required when someone
purchased a field or house. A law concerning a woman whose husband had
been taken prisoner by an enemy provides additional evidence for this role.
Having nothing to support her, the woman could appeal to the judges:

2
Jakob 2003:149–158.
3
For this interpretation of the text, see Radner 2004:81–83 (text No. 4, espe-
cially notes to ll. 18–21).
4
Roth translates ‘noblemen.’
 G. Van Buylaere, The Role of the Úazannu in Assyria… 231

‘But [if she is a wife of a man? whose] field and [house are not suf-
ficient to support her?], she shall come forward and declare before
the judges, “[I have nothing] to eat”; the judges shall question the
mayor and the elders4 of the city to determine the current market
rate? of a field in that city; they shall assign and give the field and
house for her, for her provisioning for two years; she shall be resi-
dent (in that house), and they shall write a tablet for her (permitting
her to stay for the two years)’ (A § 45 vi 58–68; Roth 1997:170–171).5

Since the ¶azi’ānu and some elders had to be present at every sale of local
real estate, it is not surprising that judges consulted them about the value
of the property.

3. The Neo-Assyrian ¶azannu in Assur

This office is well-attested in Neo-Assyrian texts from Assur. The duties
and responsibilities of ¶azannus in Assur are known from lawsuits and
other legal documents, a royal inscription of Adad-nerari II, a decree of
Adad-nerari III, a dedication of temple personnel by Sennacherib, and
letters sent from Assur to Calah and Nineveh in the Sargonid period.
As early as the reign of Sennacherib, the city of Assur had more than
one ¶azannu at the same time.6 The principal ¶azannu was probably that
of the Inner City; texts also refer to him as the ¶azannu of the Aššur
Gate.7 The ¶azannus of the Šamaš Gate and the Tigris Gate may have as-
sisted him.8 The association of each ¶azannu with a city gate appears to
have been intentional since control over the city gates implies authority
over the traffic of people and goods. In this regard, Nijenhuis (1991:46)
remarks: “[in] the case of the city gate, we notice the doors as regulators
of entry and departure, the walls as an obstruction of passage, the towers
as possibilities for view and prospect as well as surveillance points. At the

5
See also Postgate 1971, Aynard–Durand 1980:11.
6
The earliest reference to three ¶azannus can be found in Sennacherib’s dedi-
cation of personnel to his newly-built akitu-temple (SAA 12, 86rev.:27–28).
7
Cf. Sin-na’di (see § 3.6).
8
The Aššur, Šamaš and Tigris Gates are first mentioned in texts from the
16th and the 13th century BC; three other gates are attested in the Old-Assyrian
period and eight or nine gates are known from the Neo-Assyrian period. The Aš-
šur Gate and the Šamaš Gate were city gates in the wall around the Inner City:
the Aššur Gate was probably situated to the north of the city, in the neighbour-
hood of the Aššur temple, and the Šamaš Gate was possibly in the eastern city
wall. The Tigris Gate (originally the Ištar Gate) was located in the wall surround-
ing the New City (Miglus 1982).
232 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

city gate, taxes and tolls have to be paid, and there is a constant milling
about of people such as gatekeepers, innumerable ‘marginals,’ prosti-
tutes, merchants, and hawkers. Near the gate reigns an uncertainty.”
These extremely busy parts of the city offer an ideal location for markets,
the administering of justice, the collection of taxes, and the gathering of
various local assemblies. The hustle and bustle around the gates also at-
tracted criminals, thus necessitating the constant presence of officials, in-
cluding the district’s ¶azannu and/or his assistants. Nijenhuis (1991:47)
also states: “the city does not radiate from the city but is formed from the
boundary. The limit is not the end of the city but its beginning, in space
as well as in time. The border is not passive but active.” As will be shown
below, a ¶azannu’s duties are largely connected with activities taking place
in or near a city gate. The three ¶azannus of Assur were likely responsible
only for the city quarter they represented.

3.1. Politics: the ¶azannus and the city council

The executive power over Assur appears to have been divided between the
governor and the local municipal institutions, to which the ¶azannus and
the city council belonged.9 A good working relationship between both par-
ties was of the utmost importance, which may explain why the governor of
Assur installed a eunuch of his as a ¶azannu after the death of Sennacherib:
‘He installed a eunuch of his as a ¶azannu. His (other) eunuchs
stood in the presence of the ¶azannu, dressed in festive robes and
wore golden rings, while the singer, Qisaya, and his daughters
keep singing (hymns) before them’ (SAA 16, 95:6–11).

Normally, it was the king who appointed a ¶azannu, as SAA 13, 25 clearly
states: ‘To the king (Assurbanipal), my lord: your servant, Sin-na’di, ¶azannu
of the Inner City, whom the king, my lord, appointed’ (SAA 13, 25:1–4).
Letters jointly written by ¶azannus and the city council10 suggest that
(a) ¶azannu(s) presided over the council. Moreover, in all probability
these appointed men were respected local citizens; e. g., several local
goldsmiths are known to have held this office.11 The city council may
have recommended to the king this individual, who may have been a

9
Cf. Barjamovic 2004:85–86.
10
Paršumūti (‘elders’) in SAA 1, 77:13 (LÚ*.AB.BA.MEŠ) and SAA 16, 96:3
([LÚ.pa]r-šú-mu-te); kaqqudāti ša Libbi-āli Libbi-ālāiē ´e¶er rabi (‘the principals of the
Inner City and the citizens of the Inner City, young and old’) in SAA 16, 97:3–5.
11
E. g. Sin-na’di (see § 3.6), Aššur-šadduni, and Ahulamma (Deller–Millard
1985:42–43rev.:7–8; Radner 1999:21, 32).
 G. Van Buylaere, The Role of the Úazannu in Assyria… 233

member of this select group; the king may then have approved (or re-
jected) the nomination.12
As heads of the council, ¶azannus acted as intermediaries between the
city and the palace. Through written correspondence or in person,13 they
informed the king about local affairs, including actions of a corrupt, negli-
gent, and/or disobedient provincial governor posted in his city. For exam-
ple, when the privileges in Assur were in jeopardy, the ¶azannus and elders
of the Inner City wrote to Esarhaddon, complaining that men of the house
of the [governor] had appointed officials to exact corn and straw taxes.14
In another letter sent to the king, the ¶azannus,15 the city scribe, and the
principals and citizens of the Inner City16 complain about the misdeeds of Is-
sar-na’di, another ¶azannu who they call a criminal. The mention of silver,
gold, and coloured leather may indicate that he had stopped looking after
the interests of Assur and started lining his own pockets instead:
‘Issar-na’di, ¶azannu, has destroyed the [Inner Ci]ty. … Now he has
picked up [x] talent(s) of silver, […] gold, [x] mina(s) of silver, [x]
coloured leather, … [Why should] he be reappointed to the office
of ¶azannu? He is a [crimi]nal. … If he is reappointed to the office
of ¶azannu, your servants will die’ (SAA 16, 97:9–10, 16 – rev.:1,
and 4–6 and 11–13).

Unfortunately for these men, the king was slow in resolving this issue—
they claim to have already sent two letters to the king, but had not yet re-
ceived a reply.17
Furthermore, the governor of Assur could summon the ¶azannus and
the local council for the restoration of local buildings and other projects.

12
At present, there is no conclusive textual evidence to support this assumption.
13
The presence of a ¶azannu of the Inner City at the royal court in Nineveh is
attested in a list of officials (SAA 7, 6 ii 12′–13′). See also § 4.1.
14
SAA 16, 96; Barjamovic 2004:85–86. Perhaps in reaction to this, Esarhad-
don re-established the kidinnūtu of Assur (Baltil) and exempted its inhabitants
from paying corn and straw taxes, and other duties levied at the city’s quays and
crossing-points. Moreover, Esarhaddon claims that he set up kidinnu in its gate(s)
for eternity (Borger 1956:3, Ass. A II 27 – III 15).
15
Although the number of ¶azannus who wrote this letter is unspecified and
their names are not provided, it is probable that two of the three ¶azannus in As-
sur co-authored the text; the third ¶azannu of Assur, Issar-na’di, is being de-
nounced by his colleagues.
16
The citizens of the Inner City, ‘young and old’ or ‘small and great,’ likely
represented “two separate bodies of citizens”: “the elite, restricted body of elders,
and a wider one of the men in general” (Van de Mieroop 1999:147).
17
SAA 16, 97rev.:14–16.
234 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

In a letter to Sargon, àab-´ill-Ešarra, the governor of Assur, states that he

consulted the ¶azannus, masons and elders about restoring a wood store
in the palace. They agreed that:
‘The chief of public works will do the demolition and the brick-
work; the sons of the palace maids will supply the materials needed
and plaster its roof; (and) if a beam is broken, the masons of the
Inner City will supply the replacement’ (SAA 1, 77:14 – rev.:3).

However, when ordered to pull down and rebuild this wood store, the
chief of public works did not cooperate,18 which prompted the governor
to inform the king. Possibly, the governor appealed to the ¶azannus and
the elders of the city more regularly than extant sources suggest. After
all, if he wanted to hire the best craftsmen, the local city council could—
better than anyone else—recommend whom to employ. The lack of other
references can probably in part be explained by the fact that the gover-
nor did not necessarily inform the king about matters of this kind when
his orders were carried out satisfactorily.

3.2. Juridical duties (principally in legal transactions)

Another task of a ¶azannu was to maintain law and order in his city/dis-
trict. Since Klengel-Brandt–Radner (1997) and Radner (2005) have dis-
cussed the juridical aspect of his job, there is no need to go into detail
here. In short, attestations of ¶azannu in legal documents provide infor-
mation about his role as judge, sealer of tablets, or witness.
The real estate deeds from Assur, however, deserve special attention,
since these documents not only had to be sealed by the seller,19 but also by
one or more officials.20 This practice brings to mind the Middle Assyrian law
quoted above (B § 6) which states that both state and municipal representa-
tives had to be present when a field or house was sold. Interestingly, at least
until 692 BC, the ša-mu¶¶i-āli was solely responsible for the real estate deeds
in Assur. However, during the reign of Assurbanipal and later, this official is
accompanied by one or three ¶azannus and the foreman of ten scribes.21

18
SAA 1, 77 rev.:4–5.
19
Normally the seal identification and sealing (finger nail impression) of the
seller of real estate in Assur are located at the end of the deed, mostly on the left
edge of the tablet (Klengel-Brandt–Radner 1997:138).
20
However, there are a few deeds of real estate in Assur that are sealed only
by the seller (see Klengel-Brandt–Radner 1997:138).
21
Klengel-Brandt–Radner 1997:152.
 G. Van Buylaere, The Role of the Úazannu in Assyria… 235

Úazannus are also regularly mentioned in the penalty clause of con-

veyance documents, proving that this official could contest the validity of
a sale or inheritance. For example:
‘[wh]oever contests the inheritance of PN’s sons, whoever trans-
gresses (it) in the future, at any time, whether (it is) [his] s[ons] or
his nephews, his governor, his prefect, the ¶azannu of [his city], his
decurio or his relative …’ (StAT 2, 264:4′–10′).

Apparently, there is a strong link between the ¶azannu and local real estate.
It is possible that then ¶azannu was (co-)responsible for the administration
of the land within his region and for the local collection of taxes.22

3.3. Ilku and tupšikku

As the religious capital of Assyria and as a city of kidinnu (divine protec-
tion), Assur was the most privileged city in the empire. Its citizens were
exempted from obligations and enjoyed special privileges and benefits.
Among other things, they were not obligated to perform ilku and tupšikku,
‘labour and corvée,’23 the organization of which was the joint responsibil-
ity of the prefect, the commander-of-ten, the ¶azannus, and the ša-mu¶¶i-
āli. Most Neo-Assyrian kings seem to have respected these traditional
freedoms. For example, in a decree of expenditures for various festivals
and ceremonies in the Aššur temple, Adad-nerari III states:
‘[These] bakers, brewers, and boatmen—at (the time of) labour and
corvée (ilku tupšikku), drafting of the country and the call of the her-
ald, the prefect, the ša-mu¶¶i-āli, the ¶azannu, or the commander-of-
ten shall not pass through their gate to lead [tho]se [people] f[or la-
bour and c]orvée. No person of authority that arises shall [lead
them (in this manner)]’ (SAA 12, 69rev.:26–28).24

It is possible that Adad-nerari only exempted the explicitly mentioned

temple personnel from ilku and tupšikku because of their daily commit-
ment to the temple. On the other hand, in Sargon’s “Assur Charter,”
Shalmaneser V is accused of having imposed labour, corvée, and taxes on
the citizens of Assur—an injustice Sargon II boasts of having rectified
soon after he became king. He claimed:

22
Cf. Postgate 1989:143–144, 149.
23
Reviv (1988:296, n. 25) noted: “ilku tupšikku is a combination of two terms,
each defining separate obligations. In the present context the reference is to ilku
of the tupšikku type, namely work which was, at least originally, involved in build-
ing”; see also Postgate 1974:81.
24
Compare this passage with SAA 12, 68.
236 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

‘I exempted them [from labour and corvée (ilku tupšikku),] from the
call of the land, the proclamation of the herald, dues on quay [and
crossing …] (and) all the temples of the land of Assyria’ (Assur
Charter rev.:15–17; Postgate 1974:132, Saggs 1975:16–17).

This privilege, however, did not apply to other Assyrians, who were still ob-
ligated to perform ilku and tupšikku. This is clear from Sargon’s Letter to the
god Aššur: ‘I counted the inhabitants of Mu´a´ir among the people of As-
syria and imposed ilku and tupšikku upon them as Assyrians’ (TCL 3, 410).
In a similar fashion, Sennacherib denied the prefect, the ¶azannus, and
the ša-mu¶¶i-āli the right to exercise authority over the personnel he dedi-
cated to the newly-built akitu-temple at Assur.25 Esarhaddon claims to have
set up kidinnu in a gate of Assur for eternity.26 Could this imply that the
¶azannus were to guard and protect the kidinnutu-status of the city? In fact,
as representatives of the citizens of Assur and intermediaries between them
and the palace, they were the officials in the best position to ensure and
safeguard the kidinnutu. The above-mentioned letter (SAA 16, 96) in which
the ¶azannus and the elders of the Inner City opposed the exaction of corn
and straw taxes may also hint that this was a duty of the ¶azannu’s office.

3.4. Law enforcement

Law and order not only had to be kept “in court,” but also enforced “on
the streets,” as the ¶azannu Issar-na’di experienced. The deputy priest
Mutakkil-Aššur and Issar-na’di reported to the king that Bibiya, the pre-
fect of the Itu’eans, and his deputy Tarditu-Aššur were sitting outside the
Inner City, in front of the gate, eating, drinking, and squandering the
exit-dues of the Inner City. The incident is described as:
‘When I (= Issar-na’di?27) opened negotiations with them, they
grabbed the best things, molested me, and took my garments away
from me. I was not strong enough to fall upon them’ (SAA 13,
33rev.:5–12).

25
SAA 12, 86:34–35. Some of the witnesses listed in this text are the ša-mu¶¶i-
āli Abi-ramu, the temple scribe Nabû-e¢iranni, the city scribe Nabû-mudammiq,
and the three ¶azannus of Assur: Šamaš-ila’i, ¶azannu of the Aššur Gate, […]su,
¶azannu of the Šamaš Gate and Mannu-ki-Issar, ¶azannu of the Tigris Gate.
26
See n. 14.
27
The “I” could refer to the priest or to the ¶azannu. As the text deals with
exit-dues (a´ītu) it may be more plausible to imagine that the ¶azannu was negoti-
ating with the Itu’eans, than the priest.
 G. Van Buylaere, The Role of the Úazannu in Assyria… 237

The reference to the city gate and the exit-dues of the Inner City may
suggest that ¶azannus supervised the collection of exit-dues.
In addition to street crime, ¶azannus dealt with the theft of temple
property (see § 3.6).

3.5. Duties associated with temples

Úazannus had a role in a ritual that was performed in the Aššur temple in
714 BC. Also Nabû-šallimšunu, the scribe of the king, and Zazâ, the city
scribe, participated in the ceremony. Unfortunately, the context is not
quite clear: ‘The ¶azannus have taken up a position in the gate of the
“stable of Ninurta” (bēt ubsāti)’ (ND 1120:22; Van Driel 1969:198–205).

3.6. Sin-na’di
One of the best-known ¶azannus of Assur is Sin-na’di. He was a son of Raši-
il28 and the chief goldsmith of the Aššur temple. He was appointed by As-
surbanipal as ¶azannu of the Inner City29 or, according to an Aramaic in-
scription on a triangular corn loan docket, as µ\z!^n . ’glh, ‘¶azannu of the
palace.’30 As ¶azannu, he also sealed real estate deeds; in one text, he sealed
as ‘¶azannu of the Aššur Gate.’31
From his correspondence, we know that Sin-na’di dealt with several
temple thefts.32 In SAA 13, 25, he informed the king that he had arrested
several thieves and recovered the stolen gold. He also referred to his
predecessor as follows: ‘Nabû-a¶¶e-šallim captured temple thieves before
me. … Let Nabû-a¶¶e-šallim come and ask questions’ (SAA 13, 25rev.:9 –
15). He may have written this letter at the beginning of his career and
was uncertain as to how to deal with the thieves. Advice from an experi-
enced ex-¶azannu may have been welcome.33

28
VA 7498:1–2 (659 BC); see also n. 30.
29
SAA 13, 25 (see § 3.1).
30
VA 7498:1–2, published by Fales (1986:229–233, No. 49), and Hug (1993:
23–24, AssU 4). Fales and Hug interpreted µ\z!^n . ’glh as ‘mayor of Ekallatu.’
However, Radner (1999:15–16) has recently translated this passage as ‘mayor of
the palace.’ If Radner is correct and the Aramaic refers to the palace, it may indi-
cate that the palace (i. e., the king) appointed this official.
31
StAT 2, 14.
32
SAA 13, 25–26.
33
This shows that the office of ¶azannu was not for life (cf. also SAA 16, 97).
Nabû-a¶¶e-šallim may have been promoted, abased or retired.
238 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

In another letter, Sin-na’di informed the king on two matters.34 Al-

though the first issue is almost completely missing, it ends with an appeal
to the king to write to the people of the Inner City, in other words to the
city council. The second matter relates to goldsmith business and shows
that the office of ¶azannu was not a fulltime job for Sin-na’di as he could
still continue his work as chief goldsmith at the same time.
The earliest known text mentioning the ¶azannu Sin-na’di dates to 666
BC.35 In this proof of payment of a debt, Sin-na’di acted as legal adver-
sary. He had a very long career since he appears to have held the office
of ¶azannu at least until 623* BC.36

4. Elsewhere in Assyria
There is evidence for ¶azannus in other Assyrian cities and in cities out-
side Assyria proper which were controlled by Assyrians: e. g., Arbela, Ba-
qarru, Calah, Du’ua, Girmua, Iagiria, Kurbail, Labiri, Lahiru, Ma’allana-
te, Meturna, Nineveh, Piwa, Qudaru, Rišali, Samanu, Ôabit-akšudu, Tur-
sana, and Uba[sê].37 However, not all known references specify the juris-
diction of the ¶azannus. In addition, ¶azannus are attested for Dur-
Šarrukku, Dur-Katlimmu, Nabula, Na´ibina and Gezer in the Neo-Assyri-
an Period.38

34
SAA 13, 27.
35
StAT 2, 37.
36
SAAS 5, 19 = StAT 1, 35 (VAT 8656).
37
¶azannu ša GN: Arbela (SAA 14, 307rev.:6′), Baqarru (Billa 69:8), Calah (see
n. 39), Du’ua (CTN 2, 17rev.:21), Girmua (Billa 69:2), Iagiria (Billa 69rev.:5),
Kurbail (CTN 2, 15rev.:12), Labiri (Billa 69:4), Lahiru (Bazuzu is the ¶azannu of
the Lahirean village of the queen in SAA 14, 1rev.:16–17), Ma’allanate (O
3682rev.:10), Meturna (SAA 5, 53:5), Nineveh (SAA 7, 28 i 15; SAA 7, 30 ii 2′;
StAT 3, 32rev.:7′), Piwa (Billa 69:6), Qudaru (SAA 6, 130rev.:10), Rišali (Billa
69:5), Samanu (SAA 14, 397rev.:6′), Ôabit-akšudu (Billa 69:7), Tursana (SAA 6,
188rev.:10e), and Uba[sê] (SAA 14, 397rev.:12′). Further ¶azannus (in broken pas-
sages) are known for Hi[…], Sasu[…], and La[…] (Billa 69); M[i…], and M[u…]
(CTN 2, 82). The Billa-references date to the reign of Shalmaneser III. Further-
more, there is a reference to the ¶azannu of the village of the turtānu (CTN 2,
4rev.:8–9). For the enigmatic Sasî, LÚ.¶a-za-nu UR[U.x x] (SAA 6, 314rev.:10), see
Nissinen 1998:135–150, and PNA 3/I, p. 1095, No. 12).
38
E. g., Dur-Šarrukku (SAA 15, 169:7–8, ¶azannu is here written logographi-
cally as LÚ*.NU.BÀN.DA, see the glossary of SAA 15), Dur-Katlimmu (BATSH 6,
p. 160–161, No. 119:15), Nabula (SAAB 2, p. 7–9, Gir. 84/84rev.:6′), Na´ibina
(SAA 1, 239:9), and Gezer (PEF 36, 229rev.:9′).
 G. Van Buylaere, The Role of the Úazannu in Assyria… 239

There may have been one or more ¶azannu(s) appointed in every city
in the Assyrian heartland, regardless of its size; this may also have been
the case for cities in the provinces. As in Assur, there were several
¶azannus active at the same time in the larger cities. For example, we
know that there were at least two ¶azannu offices in Calah; the ¶azannu of
Calah39 and the ¶azannu of the Nabû temple (a certain Nabû-šumu-iddina
is known to have held this office).40 Two texts reveal the presence of two
contemporaneous ¶azannus in Nineveh: a legal document from the reign
of Sennacherib is witnessed by Nabû-belu-u´ur, ¶azannu of Nineveh, and
by Nabû-rim-ilani, who is also listed as ¶azannu of Nineveh;41 and a
document from the late reign of Assurbanipal mentions a ¶azannu šaniu, a
deputy ¶azannu of Nineveh.42
Most of the information on city administration outside of Assur comes
from Calah and Nineveh. The picture of the ¶azannu’s office in these cit-
ies is rather limited, principally due to the lack of sources. The duties of
the ¶azannus outside Assur seem to correspond largely with those of their
colleagues in the Inner City.

4.1. Politics: the ¶azannu and the city council

Only one letter hints at the position of a ¶azannu as the head of a civic in-
stitution of elders. Nabû-šumu-iddina, the ¶azannu of the Nabû temple in
Calah (see § 4.6), requests an audience with the king at the moment when
the elders would pass by the terrace.43
As Barjamovic has demonstrated, Nineveh also “held a body of citi-
zens capable of representing their community at official occasions.”44
Most likely, that body was headed by the local ¶azannu.

39
Úazannu ša Kal¶i: e. g., in CTN 2, 18rev.:5–6 (778); SAA 6, 31rev.:13 (reign of
Sargon); SAA 13, 128rev.:15–16 (reign of Esarhaddon); SAA 14, 135rev.:3 (663);
CTN 3, 31:1–2 = SAAS 5, 9 (630*); ND 2091:2 = SAAS 5, 4 (629*); SAA 12,
96rev.:13 (621*).
40
SAA 13, 78 (reign of Esarhaddon). SAA 13, 79–123 are written by Nabû-
šumu-iddina/Nadinu, but without mention of his title.
41
SAA 6, 86rev.:5–6.
42
SAA 14, 104:8 (639*). It is possible that Nabû-zer-kitti-lišir, the ¶azannu
šaniu in question, later became the ¶azannu (cf. SAA 14, 222 s.1–2; PNA 2/II,
p. 906–907, No. 8).
43
SAA 13, 80:16 – rev.:6.
44
Barjamovic 2004:86.
240 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

4.2. Juridical duties (principally in legal transactions)

Like their counterparts in Assur, ¶azannus elsewhere in the Empire were
responsible for maintaining law and order in their jurisdictions. They
could serve as judge or witness.45
Only one real estate deed sealed by a ¶azannu originating outside of
Assur is known. CTN 2, 44 (from Calah) is sealed by Šamaš-iddina,
¶azannu of […], and records the sale of a plot of land (8th century). Other
¶azannus in Calah are listed as witnesses in real estate sales.46
In Nabula, the ¶azannu had authority in real estate transactions. In a
sales contract recording the purchase of an orchard by Issar-nadin-a¶¶e,
the gardener Šarru-lu-dari is described as a man who ‘does not have usu-
fruct of a garden nor of a house without the approval of his ¶azannu’
(SAAB 2, p. 7–9, Gir. 84/84:5′–6′; 631*).
The importance of the bureau seal of the ¶azannu is obvious when read-
ing SAA 5, 53. In this letter, the treasurer Aššur-dur-panija informed the
king about the murder of the ¶azannu of Meturna by a commander-of-fifty
of his. He demanded Il-dalâ (a team commander)47 to pursue the killer,
who had taken refuge in Šubria. There: ‘Il-dalâ saw him and ma[de a
sw]orn agreement with him: “Come and [b]ring me the seal of the L[Ú. x x]
and [you] shall be fr[ee]” ’ (SAA 5, 53:23 – e.:26). In the SAA edition of this
letter, the owner of the seal is restored as the governor. However, it seems
more plausible to restore the owner of the seal as L[Ú.¶a-za-ni], since it was
not the governor who was murdered and robbed but the ¶azannu.

4.3. Ilku and tupšikku, iškāru and agricultural taxes

The ¶azannu and the ša-mu¶¶i-āli were responsible for the organization of
ilku and tupšikku (see § 3.3). Probably, they could also each be entrusted
with part of the distribution and collection of the iškāru-assignments. In
SAA 1, 24, Sargon commands [a governor] to assign the task of summon-
ing the LÚ*.UD kas pu [x x] (l. 14) and the bēl iškāri, the recipients of
iškāru-assignments (l. 15), to the ¶azannu and the ša-mu¶¶i-āli.
Postgate (1974:233) remarked: “It is obviously possible that the mayor
of each village supervised the collection of agricultural taxes from the
members of his community, thus very much easing the task of the offi-

45
The ¶azannu of Calah acted as a witness in private votive donations: e. g.,
SAA 12, 93 (634*); SAA 12, 96 (621*); SAA 12, 97.
46
E. g., CTN 2, 15rev.:12, 17rev.:21.
47
Cf. PNA 2/I, p. 513, No. 1.
 G. Van Buylaere, The Role of the Úazannu in Assyria… 241

cials.” For the collection of these taxes, the rates to be paid on different
fields had to be known, thus the ¶azannus with all their knowledge about
real estate transactions may in fact have been consulted and assigned the
supervision of the collection.
On a tablet from Tarbusiba, better known as Til-Barsib/Kar-Shalma-
neser, from the reign of Sennacherib (683), the ¶azannu and the ša-mu¶¶i-
āli appear together. It is sealed by Šulmu-a¶¶e, the deputy governor of
Til Barsib, and the scribe Iqbi-Aššur,48 and witnessed by four individuals.
The tablet records:
‘On the day when Úannî and Úašanu49 go to Tarbusiba, neither
the deputy of Tarbusiba, nor the ¶azannu nor the ša-mu¶¶i-āli of
Tarbusiba shall speak with them until a sealed order comes from
the palace and they check it. Nobody shall speak with them’ (TB
14:4–12; Dalley 1996–1997:84–85).

This document indicates that, in specific situations, the deputy, the

¶azannu, and the ša-mu¶¶i-āli had to await instructions from higher au-
thorities before they could take action. It is unfortunate that the back-
ground of this text is not better understood.

4.4. Law enforcement

When thefts were reported in the temple, a ¶azannu was called to the
scene. Together with a priest, he could take action:
‘Now then I (= Aššur-re´uwa, priest of Ninurta) and the ¶azannu of
Calah had the overseer of the city gates50 go down to Urdu-Marduk
and Sangu-Issar, and he had a look. The king, my lord, should ask
him how much was cut off ’ (SAA 13, 128rev.:15–20).

4.5. Management of deportees/captives

As noted above (§ 2), the governor could give the ¶azi’ānu the task to take care
of the distribution of barley rations for Kassite captives in the Middle Assyrian
period. Likewise, Taklak-ana-Bel, the governor of Na´ibina, put the ¶azannu
of the town and the commander of the scouts in charge of the Qappateans.51

48
For Iqbi-Aššur: see PNA 2/I, p. 560, Nos. 2, 3 and SAA 16, 44 (n. on ll. 2–3).
49
Possibly Úannî and Úašanu were messengers.
50
LÚ.GAL KÁ.GAL.MEŠ. It is the only reference to this profession in the Neo-As-
syrian text corpus. It seems that the overseer of the city gates was a lower-rank of-
ficial and at least here a subordinate of the ¶azannu.
51
SAA 1, 239.
242 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

4.6. Duties associated with temples

Although ¶azannus are occasionally mentioned together with priests or in
connection with temple thefts,52 only one text explicitly mentions a
¶azannu of a temple: Nabû-šumu-iddina,53 the author of many horse re-
ports to the king54 and of one report addressed to the crown prince As-
surbanipal. On one occasion, in SAA 13, 78:12–13, he provides his title: ‘I
am the ¶azannu of the temple of Nabû, your god.’ Nabû-šumu-iddina
may have been the most important ¶azannu in Calah at this time.55
Numerous horse reports show that he was responsible for the inspec-
tion of horses that arrived in Calah and that he was assigned the task of
informing the king about their number and breed. In the aforemen-
tioned letter to the crown prince, he explains that he had to be in Calah
for the preparations for the ritual of the sacred marriage of Nabû. As
‘horse-inspector,’ he may have been involved in the preparation of a spe-
cific part of the ritual involving the horses of the gods. He reports: ‘The
chariot driver of the gods will go (with) the team of horses of the gods.
He will bring the god out and back in again’ (SAA 13, 78:20 – rev.:3).
000A letter of Nergal-šarrani,56 a priest of the Nabû temple, provides
more information about the same ritual and the important role of the
¶azannu in it:
‘Tomorrow, on the 4th day, in the evening, Nabû and Tašmetu will
enter the bedroom. On the 5th day, they will serve (them) the royal
banquet. The ¶azannu will attend. They will bring the lion-head (rhy-
ton) and a tallakku-object to the palace. From the 5th to the 10th, the
gods will be in the bedroom, and the ¶azannu will sit by. On the 11th,
Nabû will go out and stretch his legs…’ (SAA 13, 70:6–rev.:2).

5. Conclusions
The ¶azannu was an important local citizen, probably chosen by the city
council and appointed by the king. He was the official inspector of a city
or district. In smaller towns, there was probably only one ¶azannu where-
as two or three inspectors operated in larger cities like Assur, Calah, and
Nineveh. In Assur, the three ¶azannus were associated with city gates: the

52
SAA 13, 25–26, 33 (from Assur); SAA 13, 70, 128 (from Calah).
53
Or abbreviated: Nadinu (PNA 2/II, p. 885–886, No. 15).
54
SAA 13, 79–123.
55
Cf. SAA 13, 80 (see § 4.1).
56
Nergal-šarrani was a brother of the important exorcist Nabû-nadin-šumi
(Parpola 1971:39).
 G. Van Buylaere, The Role of the Úazannu in Assyria… 243

Aššur Gate, the Šamaš Gate, and the Tigris Gate. The presence of this
official (and/or his assistants) at the gates—a place where traffic in and
out the city could be regulated, where taxes were collected, markets were
held, justice administered, and assemblies gathered—not only implies
control and supervision over the activities taking place there, but also au-
thority over the immediate surroundings of the city.
The principal duties of a ¶azannu were administrative, juridical, and
religious. The ¶azannu(s) presided over the city council and acted as in-
termediary between the citizens/villagers he represented and the pal-
ace. Apart from his regular job, e. g. as goldsmith or temple ‘horse in-
spector,’ he was the representative of his city (quarter) for the king. On
the one hand, a ¶azannu must have been highly regarded by his com-
munity since he was tasked with making royal orders and obligations
acceptable to the local population. On the other hand, the direct corre-
spondence and personal audiences of ¶azannus with the king demon-
strate that the king valued ¶azannus. A ¶azannu was the local “eyes and
ears” of the king and regularly informed the king about local affairs, in-
cluding actions of a corrupt, negligent, and/or disobedient provincial
governor posted in his city. A loyal and efficient ¶azannu could have a
long tenure in his office, although it is likely that his position had to be
reconfirmed on a regular basis.57 The ¶azannus and the council proba-
bly operated independently of the provincial administration in matters
strictly concerning the local community. However, when obligations to
the state were involved, the governor could summon the local
¶azannu(s) and the council, since they were most familiar with many as-
pects of the city they represented.
A ¶azannu regularly sealed real estate documents (almost all these tab-
lets come from Assur) or acted as witness in real estate transaction; he was
well-informed about communal events and thus a suitable person to settle
local disputes. Moreover, his knowledge of local land ownership—the
value of houses and fields, the type of property, the expected yield of the
fields, etc.—was an asset for the state since property formed the basis of
taxation. Therefore, it is not surprising that he is mentioned along with
the prefect, the commander-of-ten, and the ša-mu¶¶i-āli in connection
with the organization of ilku and tupšikku, ‘labour and corvée’ in cit-
ies/towns other than cities of kidinnu (Assur and Harran). The ¶azannu

57
Cf. the possible reappointment of Issar-na’di in SAA 16, 97 (§ 3.1).
244 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

may also have cooperated with state officials in part of the distribution
and collection of iškāru-assignments and corn and straw taxes.
Furthermore, he participated in rituals and dealt with temple thefts.
Sometimes, he acted as the local police. In one text, the ¶azannu and the
commander of the scouts were put in charge of captives/deportees.
Naturally, the work of a ¶azannu cannot always have been easy and
must have met with vocal and physical opposition every once in a while,
e. g., when dues or taxes had to be paid, or when a royal order dis-
rupted the status quo of his city/district. Then again, because of his
strong influence in his community, a ¶azannu could also turn against
the state, by either lining his own pockets or even conspiring against
the king.58

References
Aynard–Durand 1980 Aynard, M.-J.; Durand, J.-M. Documents d’époque médio-as-
syrienne (Assur 3/1). Malibu.
Barjamovic 2004 Barjamovic, G. Civic Institutions and Self-Government in
Southern Mesopotamia in the Mid-First Millennium BC.
Dercksen, J. G. (ed.). Assyria and Beyond. Studies Presented to
Mogens Trolle Larsen (PIHANS 100). Istanbul. Pp. 47–98.
Borger 1956 Borger, R. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien
(AfO Bh 9). Graz.
Cole–Machinist 1998 Cole, S. W.; Machinist, P. Letters from Priests to the Kings
Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (SAA 13). Helsinki.
Dalley 1996–1997 Dalley, S. Neo-Assyrian Tablets from Til-Barsib. Abr-
Nahrain 34:66–99.
Deller et al. 1995 Deller, K.; Fales, F. M.; Jakob-Rost, L. (with contribu-
tions by V. Donbaz). Neo-Assyrian Texts from Assur. Private
Archives in the Vorderasiatisches Museum of Berlin. 2 (SAAB
9/1–2). Padova.
Deller–Millard 1985 Deller, K.; Millard, A. Zwei Rechtsurkunden aus Aššur
im British Museum. AfO 32:38–52.
Donbaz 1988 Donbaz, V. Some Neo-Assyrian Contracts from Girnavaz
and Vicinity. SAAB 2:3–30.
Donbaz–Parpola 2001 Donbaz, V.; Parpola, S. Neo-Assyrian Legal Texts in Istan-
bul (StAT 2). Saarbrücken.
Faist 2007 Faist, B. Alltagstexte aus neuassyrischen Archiven und Biblio-
theken der Stadt Assur (StAT 3). Wiesbaden.
Fales 1986 Fales, F. M. Aramaic Epigraphs on Clay Tablets of the Neo-
Assyrian Period (SS NS 2). Rome. Pp. 206–209.

58
This could perhaps explain the order to arrest ten ¶azannus in Billa 69.
 G. Van Buylaere, The Role of the Úazannu in Assyria… 245

Fales–Jakob-Rost 1991 Fales, F. M.; Jakob-Rost, L. Neo-Assyrian Texts from Assur.

Private Archives in the Vorderasiatisches Museum of Berlin. 1
(SAAB 5/1–2). Padova.
Fales–Postgate 1992 Fales, F. M.; Postgate, J. N. Imperial Administrative Records.
Part I. Palace and Temple Administration (SAA 7). Helsinki.
Fales–Postgate 1995 Fales, F. M.; Postgate, J. N. Imperial Administrative Records.
Part II. Provincial and Military Administration (SAA 11).
Helsinki.
Fuchs–Parpola 2001 Fuchs, A.; Parpola, S. The Correspondence of Sargon II.
Part III. Letters from Babylonia and the Eastern Prov-
inces (SAA 15). Helsinki.
Hug 1993 Hug, V. Altaramäische Grammatik der Texte des 7. und des 6.
Jh.s v. Chr. (HSAO 4). Heidelberg.
Jakob 2003 Jakob, S. Mittelassyrische Verwaltung und Sozialstruktur. Un-
tersuchungen (CM 29). Leiden.
Jas 1996 Jas, R. Neo-Assyrian Judicial Procedures (SAAS 5). Helsinki.
Kataja–Whiting 1995 Kataja, L.; Whiting, R. Grants, Decrees and Gifts of the Neo-
Assyrian Period (SAA 12). Helsinki.
Klengel-Brandt–
Radner 1997 Klengel-Brandt, E.; Radner, K. Die Stadtbeamten von
Assur und ihre Siegel. Parpola, S.; Whiting, R. (eds.). As-
syria 1995. Helsinki. Pp. 137–159.
Kwasman–Parpola
1991 Kwasman, Th.; Parpola, S. Legal Transactions of the Royal
Court of Nineveh. Part I. Tiglath-pileser III through Esar-
haddon (SAA 6). Helsinki.
Lanfranchi–Parpola
1990 Lanfranchi, G.; Parpola, S. The Correspondence of Sargon
II. Part II. Letters from the Northern and Northeastern
Provinces (SAA 5). Helsinki.
Luukko–
Van Buylaere 2002 Luukko, M.; Van Buylaere, G. The Political Correspon-
dence of Esarhaddon (SAA 16). Helsinki.
Mattila 2002 Mattila, R. Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh.
Part II. Assurbanipal through Sin-šarru-iškun (SAA 14).
Helsinki.
Miglus 1982 Miglus, P. A. Die Stadttore in Assur—das Problem der
Identifizierung. ZA 72:266–279
Nijenhuis 1991 Nijenhuis, W. City Frontiers and Their Disappearance.
Assemblage 16:42–53.
Nissinen 1998 Nissinen, M. References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources
(SAAS 7). Helsinki.
Parpola 1971 Parpola, S. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esar-
haddon and Assurbanipal. Part II. A. Introduction and Ap-
pendices. Kevelaer–Neukirchen–Vluyn.
Parpola 1987 Parpola, S. The Correspondence of Sargon II. Part I. Letters
from Assyria and the West (SAA 1). Helsinki.
246 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

Parpola 1993 Parpola, S. Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars

(SAA 10). Helsinki.
Postgate 1971 Postgate, J. N. Land Tenure in the Middle Assyrian Pe-
riod: A Reconstruction. BSOAS 34:496–520.
Postgate 1973 Postgate, J. N. The Governor’s Palace Archive (CTN 2).
London.
Postgate 1974 Postgate, J. N. Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian
Empire (StP SM 3). Rome.
Postgate 1989 Postgate, J. N. The Ownership and Exploitation of Land
in Assyria in the 1st Millennium B. C. Lebeau, M.; Ta-
lon, Ph. (eds.). Reflets des Deux Fleuves. Volume des mé-
langes offerts à André Finet. Leuven. Pp. 141–152.
Radner 1999 Radner, K. Ein neuassyrisches Privatarchiv der Tempelgold-
schmiede von Assur (StAT 1). Saarbrücken.
Radner 2002 Radner, K. Die Neuassyrischen Texte von Tall Šēh Hamad/
Dur-Katlimmu (mit Beiträgen zu den aramäischen Bei-
schriften von W. Röllig) (BATSH 6). Berlin.
Radner 2004 Radner, K. Das mittelassyrische Tontafelarchiv von Giricano/
Dunnu-ša-uzibi (Subartu 14). Turnhout.
Radner 2005 Radner, K. The Reciprocal Relationship between Judge
and Society in the Neo-Assyrian Period. MAARAV 12:
41–68.
Reviv 1988 Reviv, H. Kidinnu Observations on Privileges of Mesopo-
tamian Cities. JESHO 31:286–298.
Reynolds 2003 Reynolds, F. The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon
and Letters to Assurbanipal and Sin-šarru-iškun from North-
ern and Central Babylonia (SAA 18). Helsinki.
Roth 1997 Roth, M. T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Mi-
nor. 2nd ed. (WAW 6). Atlanta.
Saggs 1975 Saggs, H. W. F. Historical Texts and Fragments of Sar-
gon II of Assyria. The “Aššur Charter.” Iraq 37:11–20.
Van Buylaere
forthcoming Van Buylaere, G. The Role of the ša-mu¶¶i-āli in the
Neo-Assyrian Empire. SAAB 18.
Van de Mieroop 1997 Van de Mieroop, M. The Ancient Mesopotamian City. Ox-
ford.
Van de Mieroop 1999 Van de Mieroop, M. The Government of an Ancient
Mesopotamian City: What We Know and Why We Know
So Little. Watanabe, K. (ed.). Priests and Officials in the
Ancient Near East. Papers of the Second Colloquium on the
Ancient Near East. The City and Its Life Held at the Middle
Eastern Culture Centre in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 22–
24, 1996. Heidelberg. Pp. 139–161.
Van Driel 1969 Van Driel, G. The Cult of Aššur. Assen.
 The City-Administration of Ugarit*

Wilfred H. van Soldt

Leiden University

A study of the city-administration of Ugarit has to be limited to the pe-

riod during which written documents were produced, and that was the
last phase of the Late Bronze Age, ca. 1330–1180 B. C. The wealth and
the diversity of the written material is such that in theory it should be
possible to obtain a good overview of the structure of this city-state
(fig. 1). In practice, however, things are more difficult than they seem at
first glance. The international relations with the Hittite overlord and his
viceroy in Carchemish are very well documented, through treaties, pro-
tocols of lawsuits at the court of the viceroy and many letters to and from
towns and countries in Western Asia. Less clear, however, is the structure
of society in Ugarit itself. As usual, the available sources were not in-
tended to enlighten us about the ins and outs of the city’s society and
administration and the picture that has to be drawn up must be pieced
together from a large number of rather laconic legal texts and adminis-
trative lists, supplemented by a sizable corpus of letters. To these can be
added the many ritual texts which, among other things, give information
about the cultic functions of the king. Since international relations have
been studied extensively in this article they will be mentioned only when
this material sheds more light on the internal situation.1 Since it will be
impossible to discuss all aspects of Ugaritic administration in a single arti-
cle I will concentrate here on the king and his family and on the most
important officials in the city-state.

* Texts from Ugarit are mostly cited by their RS numbers. References to their
place of publication are added between brackets. Alphabetic texts have a refer-
ence to KTU2 (henceforth KTU).
1
In order to obtain a coherent picture of the administration of Ugarit it is
necessary to collect evidence from all available texts, not only the legal texts and
letters, but also the many lists from archives all over the city. For this, a thorough
prosopographical study of the many persons occurring in these texts is indispen-
sable. Also, the locations of the archives must be taken into account, because the
contents of the documents are normally connected with their place of storage. Ig-
noring this important evidence can lead to erroneous conclusions.
248 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

1. The king and queen

The king of Ugarit was the center of power and authority. On the relig-
ious level he received his power and legitimation from the gods,2 on the
political level he received it from his overlord the Hittite king and his di-
rect superior, the king of Carchemish, viceroy over the Hittite territories
in Syria.3
As a vassal of the kings of Úatti the king of Ugarit had to comply with
a number of rules. The first of these concerned the successor to the
throne. From the documents found in the southern wing of the royal
palace it is clear that the Hittite king took a keen interest in the succes-
sion to the throne and that the new king had to report to his overlord as
soon as possible. A letter in which king Ibirānu is summoned by the king
of Carchemish to go to Hattuša immediately and to appease the anger of
the Hittite king illustrates this rather well.4
As can be expected, the territorial integrity of the empire was of cru-
cial importance for the kings in Úattuša. Vassals were not allowed to for-
mulate their own foreign policy and any local disputes concerning com-
mon borders had to be settled by either the king of Úatti or by his dep-
uty in Carchemish.5 Some (probably minor) conflicts were settled by the
vassals themselves. Well-known examples are the disputes between Uga-
rit and Siyannu over fields located near the border towns Šuksu and
Úarmānu.6 These conflicts started when Siyannu was separated from
Ugarit during the reign of Muršili II.7

2
Rainey (1962:9) pointed to KTU 1, 15 ii 12f. (Krt) as a sign of divine sanc-
tion from the head of the pantheon. Krt was also called the son of !Ilu (ibid. 13)
and was considered by his children to be immortal (KTU 1, 16 i 14f.).
3
Rainey 1962:10, 14f.
4
17.247 (PRU 4, 191).
5
Best known are the conflicts between Ugarit and Mukiš, which led to the
drawing up of a special treaty concerning the northern border. See van Soldt
2005:51f.
6
Cf. 17.123 (PRU 4, 230) and 19.81 (PRU 4, 291). Both these lawsuits were
handled by the Hittite king. A dispute concerning fields near Úarmānu and
Mulukku (16.170, PRU 3, 91) was settled in a document sealed by Niqmepa" of
Ugarit and a conflict between marziµu members in !Aru and Siyannu was settled
by King Padi of Siyannu (18.01, PRU 4, 230). In a letter to !Ibirānu of Ugarit the
king of Carchemish announces that the borders set by prince Armaziti must be
put in place and that they should not be changed (17.51, PRU 4, 188).
7
See Singer 1999:662f.
 W. H. van Soldt, The City-Administration of Ugarit 249

In his own territory, the city-state, the Ugaritic king was the head of
the administration, which was organized like a patrimonial household. 8
This is not only reflected in his administrative duties but also in his in-
volvement in the local cult. As the head of the city-state the king of Ugarit
was the official owner of the land, which meant that it was his prerogative
to grant property to his subjects and to take it from them, just as the Hit-
tite king could grant property to his vassals but could also take it away.
This is best reflected in the many legal texts which deal with land grants
to subjects of the king, often in exchange for services that had to be per-
formed by the tenants.9 The ultimate owners of the land were the king’s
gods.10
The king was also supreme commander of the armed forces. The Ug-
aritic epics Krt and Aqht and the iconography11 show this very clearly.
Members of the military are often directly linked to the king, like the
mur!us and the maryannus, and all military personnel are ranked among
the bnš mlk, the “men of the king.”
The king was also the supreme judge in his territory, but he often
delegated his judicial obligations to his second-in-command, the sākinu of
Ugarit (see below).
In the local cult the king was the central figure and in many of the
ritual texts he is mentioned as the main celebrant.12 Prominence is given
in the ritual texts to the cult of the royal ancestors13 and among the
places where the rituals are said to have taken place the palace (bt mlk)
occurs frequently.14 Only very few texts seem to testify to a cult that took
place outside the royal cult.15
Of the other members of the royal family it is mainly the queen who
appears to have had real authority and influence. We should keep in
mind, however, that the title queen does not necessarily refer to the wife

8
Schloen 2001:252f. As Schloen points out, the Hittite empire itself was organ-
ized like a patrimonial household with the Hittite king at its head (ibid. 231).
9
Aboud 1994:105f.; Márquez Rowe 2006:234f.
10
Schloen 2001:231b; Márquez Rowe 2006:233.
11
See, for example, the ivory bed panel, Caquot–Sznycer 1980, pl. 29; Corne-
lius 1999:595f.; Cornelius–Niehr 2004:60–61.
12
Xella 1981; Del Olmo Lete 1999:213f.; Merlo–Xella 1999:296f.; Pardee
2000:930; Wyatt 2007:54f.
13
Aboud 1994:123f.; Loretz 1990:125f.; 2003:211f.; Merlo–Xella 1999.
14
Pardee 2000:1083f.; Merlo–Xella 1999:302f.
15
Pardee 2000:930, 13.06 (KTU 1, 79) and 15.072 (KTU 1, 80), for which see
ibid. 428f. and 435f., respectively. See also Wyatt 2007:54f.
250 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

of the ruling king, but that it applies to the oldest living royal spouse,
usually the king’s mother.16 She was often of foreign origin and brought
with her a substantial dowry.17 She also had her own personnel, her own
administration and her own merchants.18 Her influence is clear from a
number of letters, in particular the letters sent to her by her son, the
king,19 and from a few texts in which she figures prominently. Among the
latter the case of the two brothers of "Ammi¬tamru II, who committed a
crime against him, is the best known. According to two verdicts by Tud-
¶aliya and Ini-Teššub, queen A¶at-milku, "Ammi¬tamru’s mother, pro-
vides the two brothers with part of the inheritance and they are expelled
to Alašiya (Cyprus).20
The influence of the other members of the royal family is minimal in
comparison to that of the queen and when they are mentioned it usually
has to do with real estate or with problems in their relation to the king.

2. The sākinu21
The king and queen were assisted by a number of officials whose position
and tasks are not always clear to us. This can be explained as a conse-
quence of the patrimonial household model, according to which the state
organization consisted of a hierarchy of households in which—in Schloen’s
words—“the social actors’ understanding of household-based relationships
of authority and obedience remained the same at every level”22. This
means, that each official was himself the head of a household in which
there were no clear descriptions of his tasks and we can only gather what
they were expected to do from the evidence at hand.
We know of several terms for officials who appear to have played a
role in the state administration. The most important of these certainly
was the sākinu. However, we have to distinguish between a number of
officials who are bearing this title. First there is the sākinu of Ugarit. His

16
Van Soldt 1987.
17
Such as A¶at-milku who came from Amurru, see PRU 3, 182f. and Singer
1999:641f.
18
Vita 1999:469f.
19
11.782 (KTU 2, 13); 16.379 (KTU 2, 30); 17.139 (KTU 2, 34); probably also
34.124 (KTU 2, 72), see Bordreuil–Pardee 2004:89f., no. 29.
20
17.35 (PRU 4, 123, Tud¶aliya) and 17.352 (PRU 4, 121, Ini-Teššub). See
van Soldt 1991:14; Aboud 1994:114f.; Singer 1999:679f.
21
See most recently van Soldt 2001, 2002 and 2006; Vidal 2005:128f.
22
Schloen 2001:252a.
 W. H. van Soldt, The City-Administration of Ugarit 251

full title occurs only in the international correspondence and almost only
in letters and legal texts written outside Ugarit.23 The only occurrences
presumably written at Ugarit are a letter found in Tel Aphek and a con-
tract in which two foreigners sell a slave to the sākinu. Since the contract
was written by a well-known Ugaritic scribe it was probably written at Uga-
rit.24
In Ugarit itself the name of the town was not added to the title, at
least not in documents concerning local affairs; the person intended was
obvious to everyone. Therefore, the shortest possible form was chosen,
not only in terminology (‘the sākinu’), but also in spelling. The most
common way of writing the title in Akkadian texts was the ideographic
spelling lúMAŠKIM, but syllabic spellings occur as well.25 The Akkadian ex-
pression for sākinu was šakin māti and in alphabetic texts one always finds
skn (once spelled s̀kn).26
The sākinu of Ugarit was not the only sākinu in the city-state. First of
all, there are two officials of that title who appear to belong to the entou-
rage of the royal family. The first was called lúMAŠKIM É.GAL27 or skn bt
mlk,28 ‘sākinu of the palace.’ For both attestations we have the name of the
office-holder. One of them was the well-known Tak¶ulinu or Taguģlinu,
who had been kartappu of the king of Ugarit at the court of Carchemish
before becoming sākinu in Ugarit.29 The other was a certain Ba"lu-´aduqu
(if the reading of his name is correct), who occurs in an alphabetic legal
document, the contents of which are not entirely clear.30 Both names are
also attested for sākinus of Ugarit31 and it seems likely that the two offices,
sākinu of the palace and sākinu of Ugarit are in fact one and the same.
The sākinu of the palace was automatically the most important official in

23
See the list of occurrences in van Soldt 2001:582f. According to place name:
Beirut, 11.730 (P3, 12), 34.137 (R7, n. 37); Carchemish, 19.63+ (P6, n. 35);
Ušnatu, 17.425 (P4, 218), probably also 17.288 (P4, 215); Qadeš, 34.146 (R7,
n. 15); Sidon, 25.430; Tyre, 17.397D+ (P4, 219); unclear, 17.148 (P6, n. 7),
17.393 (P4, 226). From Ugarit are Aphek 52055/1 (Tel Aviv 8, 7) and possibly
17.251 (P4, 236).
24
See the previous note.
25
See van Soldt 2001:582–584.
26
Ibid. 581f.
27
15, 114 (P3, 112).
28
15, 117 (7, 63).
29
See the remarks in van Soldt 2001:588f.
30
For the reading of this official’s name, see van Soldt 2001:587f.
31
See the previous footnotes.
252 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

the city-state after the king and this explains why he was normally re-
ferred to simply as the sākinu. Only to foreign correspondents did it have
to be made clear that he was from Ugarit.
The other sākinu at the royal court was the official referred to as the
‘sākinu of the queen’s house.’ The title occurs in two Akkadian texts. In
the first the office-holder is a certain Kilbi-ewri, who frees a slave-girl and
gives her in marriage;32 in the second document real estate is sold to
Queen Ṯaryelli, and her sākinu Matēnu is one of the witnesses.33 The
same Matēnu is called abarakku in another document which was found in
the same archive.34
A special house for the queen of Ugarit has so far not been identified.
Several buildings, both in Ras Shamra and Ras Ibn Hani, have been con-
sidered to belong to the queen, but these identifications were usually made
on the basis of letters or other documents found there in which the queen
is mentioned. In fact, half of the twenty letters addressed to the queen
were found in the palace, two in the western archive, three in the eastern
archive and five in the central archive. The most important of these was
the southern wing of the central archive where the land sale documents of
Ṯaryelli were also uncovered. The other half of the letters was found in no
less than seven different houses all over Ugarit and Ra!šu (Ras Ibn Hani).35
The pattern of findspots of these letters resembles that of the letters sent to
and by the king of Ugarit. We probably have to conclude that a special
house for the queen outside the royal palace may have existed, but that it
cannot be identified on the basis of the texts.
I therefore agree with Vita that “the house of the queen” probably re-
fers to an administrative structure which supported the many activities
that are recorded for the queen of Ugarit.36
Finally, in a letter in alphabetic script a sākinu of the estate of the
queen of Ugarit (skn gt mlkt ugrt) is mentioned. The estate of the queen
also appears in an administrative text and is said there to be close to the
Raµbānu-river, probably the Nahr el-Kebīr. The title can best be trans-
lated as “supervisor of the queen’s estate.”

32
8, 208 (Syria 18, 248), cf. van Soldt 2001:595.
33
17, 325 (Ug. 5, 161).
34
17, 86+ (Ug. 5, 159). Both documents were found in the central palace ar-
chive and Ṯip¢i-Ba"lu, the son-in-law of the king, played an important role in
both of them. For Matēnu, see van Soldt 2001:595f.
35
See van Soldt 2006.
36
Vita 1999:470.
 W. H. van Soldt, The City-Administration of Ugarit 253

Apart from the officials just discussed there were the sākinus of towns
outside the capital. There are now eight different towns37 which are said
to have their own sākinu. Since more than 200 place names are known
from the texts from Ugarit the question should be asked whether the
towns that have their own sākinu have a special status. If one looks at the
distribution pattern of these towns it becomes clear that they are located
in areas not far from the capital (in fig. 1, the dark area). The best repre-
sented groups are those to the east and southeast of Ugarit, but one town
lies to the northeast and another town close to the southern border with
Siyannu. An estimation of their size is more difficult. If we rely on the
census and taxation lists from the administrative archives we can draw
the tentative conclusion that the size of the towns may have played a role,
but probably in combination with their location close to the capital. On
the one hand seven of these towns belong to the group of the twenty
largest towns in the city-state. On the other hand not all of the towns in
this group of twenty are said to have their own sākinu, and one town that
does, Úuri-´ubū"i, is relatively small. New evidence will hopefully help to
fill this incomplete picture.
The functions of the different sākinus in the city administration cannot
be sharply defined, a consequence of the patrimonial household model
advocated by David Schloen. The difference between ‘work’ and ‘private’
is not clearly kept apart in a patrimonial household and it cannot always
be seen whether an official is acting on behalf of the state or purely for
himself. Many times the letters contain requests for goods that were
probably intended for the palace but some of them were intended for the
sākinu alone (see below).
Among the official duties of the sākinu of Ugarit his judicial authority
was one of the most important. He passes verdicts in internal disputes be-
tween citizens of the city-state, but also in trans-border disputes between
Ugaritians and citizens of neighboring Siyannu-Ušnatu. This probably
distinguished the sākinu of Ugarit from his colleagues in smaller towns.
The latter only had authority in their own district and probably had to
appeal to the sākinu of Ugarit in case of disputes between their citizens
and those of other towns. The same is probably true for another group of
officials, the mayors (¶azannus).
The sākinu also had an important role in supervising real estate. The
king as titulary owner of the ground was the one who granted real estate

37
There are nine if one includes the reference to qrt in 18.481 (4.555) rev.:1′.
For a discussion of these towns, see van Soldt 2006.
254 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

to his subjects and he probably left the administration to his sākinu. In the
deeds we encounter this official only a few times, usually when he acts as
benefactor in a grant. A sākinu of the town of Raqdu transferred real estate
from two nayyālus to another person, probably within his own district and
on the authority of the king (17, 61 [Ug. 5, n. 9]). On another occasion a
sākinu attended the transaction as a witness and brought the seal with
which the tablet had to be sealed (16, 145 [PRU 3, 169]);38 see also below.
In the administrative texts the sākinu appears sometimes as a supervi-
sor of real estate39 and he is also listed with other prominent citizens who
were tenants of fields.40
The sākinu of Ugarit commanded his own mur!us, a prerogative that
he shared with the king and the crown-prince, such as Prince !Ibirānu,
son of "Ammi¬tamru II. He was the only official who was allowed this
status and it shows his strong ties with the palace and the royal court.
On the international level the sākinu could act as the representative of
the king of Ugarit, in particular at court cases presided by the viceroy of
Syria, the king of Carchemish. Since he was heavily involved in judicial
matters in Ugarit itself this could just be another aspect of his duties.41 In
a letter from the Hittite king the sākinu is asked to act on behalf of his
king, because the latter “is still young and does not know anything.” On
the basis of the references to the Sea Peoples this letter probably has to be
dated to the beginning of the reign of "Ammurapi!.
Another task of the sākinu of Ugarit concerned his involvement with
messengers that were sent by foreign kings and officials. In letters the
sender asks that the messenger be looked after well and is not hindered
in any way.42
A sizable portion of the international correspondence deals with the
exchange of gifts and it is not always clear whether these gifts, usually
consisting of garments or animals, were meant for the king or for the
sākinu himself. Since the quantities are usually rather small and seem to
be for one particular person I assume that—as long as the king or queen

38
See Márquez Rowe 2006:27f., 207.
39
Cf. 12, 06 (4, 110).
40
See van Soldt 2010.
41
In one of these court cases a sākinu of Sil¶u, a town to the northeast of
Ugarit, is listed as a witness, perhaps because the family that is bought by the king
of Ugarit from a prince of Carchemish came from that town.
42
van Soldt 2002:810f., 825, 827.
 W. H. van Soldt, The City-Administration of Ugarit 255

are not explicitly mentioned—these items are meant for the sākinu and
his household.43
The sākinu of the palace, also named the sākinu of Ugarit, was dealing
with matters that concerned the city-state as a whole and not local affairs
of individual towns. For the latter, the local sākinus probably were re-
sponsible. However, direct evidence for this is lacking and what evidence
there is should be used with caution.44
One phenomenon that makes the sākinus of Ugarit stand out is the
linguistic background of their names. Of the twelve names known so far,
eight are Hurrian or possibly Hurrian and only four are West Semitic.45
It is possible that this distribution is influenced by trends and preferences
for Hurrian personal names in the Hittite empire during the Late
Bronze Age.46

3. Other officials
Apart from the sākinus there was another official who played a significant
role in the city administration. We know him by the Ugaritic title rb qrt,
“the great one of the city,” and by the Akkadian title ¶azannu. Both ex-
pressions can be translated “mayor.” The attestations known so far do
not tell us much about the activities and duties of this official. The rb qrt is
only attested once in a list of bnš mlk, “men of the king,”47 the ¶azannu oc-
curs in a number of legal texts and in a letter. The legal texts concern
real estate and deal with the promotion of a citizen of Ugarit to the status of
mūdû, “friend,” of the king or queen. According to the texts this new status
frees them from the authority of the ¶azannu (āli/GN),48 “(town-)mayor”,

43
See van Soldt 2002:814f. and 826.
44
As already discussed above, the presence of a sākinu of the town Sil¶u at the
court case in Carchemish concerning the redemption of a Ugaritic family could
mean that the family originated from that town, but this is far from certain. A sākinu
of Raqdu is involved in the transfer of real estate during the reign of king
Niqmaddu II and in one text (17.61 [Ug. 5, 9]) he even seems to take over the role
of the king in granting the land. Note, however, that he does not use the royal seal
but his own seal and that the deed is followed by a substantial list of witnesses.
Probably, the deed was drawn up at a time that the king was unavailable.
45
van Soldt 2002:599; 2004:687, 701f.
46
van Soldt 2004:702f.
47
15, 22+ (4, 141) iii 3.
48
The addition URUki is attested in 15, 137 (P3, 134); 25, 134 (Lackenbacher
1991) has PN lú¶a-za-ni uruú-ga-ri-it; 20, 03 (Ug. 5, 26) has lú¶a-za-ni ša uruša-al-mi-ia
(lines 20–21) and lú¶a-za-nu ša šal-mi-ia (line 30).
256 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

and the lúUGULA A.ŠÀ.MEŠ, “supervisor of the fields,” or the lúUGULA gišGIGIR,
“supervisor of the chariots.”49
The only towns which are said to have had their own ¶azannu are Šal-
miya in the north50 and Ugarit itself.51
According to Schloen the ¶azannu was a local headman who was re-
sponsible for ensuring the delivery of goods and services,52 but these con-
clusions are drawn mainly on the basis of texts from Amarna and Alala¶.
For Ugarit we can merely say that the ¶azannu or rb qrt had authority over
local inhabitants,53 that he could supervise court cases,54 and that he could
be made responsible for the well-being of visitors.55 He was a subject of his
king and he probably was under the authority of the sākinu of Ugarit. The
case of the ¶azannu of Ugarit shows that the city had a sākinu as well as a
mayor. The range of authority of the former encompassed the entire city-
state, but that of the latter was probably confined to the city.
There also appears to have been a council of elders in the villages and
in Ugarit itself.56 These councils acted as representative bodies before the
central authorities and as a body with judicial power in cases of conflict.57
I hope to discuss this council in more detail in the future.

4. The elite at Ugarit

Finally a brief remark on the possible existence of an elite at Ugarit. By
this term I mean a section of Ugaritic society that supposedly had more
property and influence than the average citizen. Well-known examples
are high officials like the sākinu, but also merchants like Sinarānu son of

49
Cf. 15, 137 (P3, 134); 16, 157 (P3, 83); 16, 250 (P3, 85); 16, 348 (P3, 162).
50
The letter (20.03 [Ug. 5, n. 26]) contains a request from Šukur-Teššub,
prince of Carchemish residing in Alala¶, to "Ammi¬tamru II concerning people
from Paneštāyu who want to perform offerings(?) in NIN-rimi. Since this town
belonged with the bigger town Šalmiya, Šukur-Teššub recommends that these
people be entrusted to the ¶azannu of Šalmiya, who is ordered to help them in
any way he can.
51
According to 25, 134 (Lackenbacher 1991; 2002:271f.) there was a ¶azannu
of Ugarit called Arzayu who supervised a case of adoption.
52
Schloen 2001:238, 252f., 315f.
53
See above.
54
Cf. 25, 134 (see above).
55
Cf. 20, 03 (see above).
56
For Ugarit, see 17, 397B+424+39 (P4, 219):25, lúAB.BA.MEŠ uruu-ga-ri[-it], and
88, 2009 (RSO(u) 14, 2):6, lú.mešši-bu-ti ša URUki.
57
See most recently Vidal 2005:121f.
 W. H. van Soldt, The City-Administration of Ugarit 257

Siginu,58 "Abdu son of "Abdi-Rašap,59 and Ṯip¢i-Ba"lu son-in-law of the

king of Ugarit; there are also some owners of houses with important ar-
chives, like Yabni-Šapšu (Yabninu), Urtenu, Rap!ānu and Rašap-!abu.60
Several professional groups that should be regarded as among the higher
echelons of society include the mūdûs or “friends” of the king and queen,
the maryannus or charioteers (at least originally) and the mur!us. The term
mur!u is usually translated as “commander” or “official,” but in view of
the mur!u’s allegiance to the king, the crown-prince and the sākinu, he
should perhaps be interpreted as a personal guard, at least in origin. We
should also include the "aširus, the meaning of which is still uncertain, the
¬annānus, possibly archers, and the priests and the merchants.61 Many
members of these and other professional groups were endowed with
plots of land, often in return for services rendered to the state. During
the reigns of the earlier kings we know them only from the royal land
grants stored in the palace, but in later years the administrative texts
found in archives in the palace and in the city contain lists in alphabetic
script which give the names of people who own land.62 Since administra-
tive texts usually had a short life-span I assume that they date to the last
half century of Ugarit’s existence. This is corroborated by the fact that
the names of the people receiving land in the royal deeds are almost al-
ways different from those in the administrative lists. Very few land grants
have survived from the last fifty years of Ugarit and this gap is more or
less filled by the data from the lists.
The lists of field owners (b"l šd) usually give the name of persons of a
certain profession63 or from a certain town64 and they state that their field
was “for” or “in the hands of ” another person. One person may receive
up to ten different plots of land. Schloen states that these texts have no
juridical value65 and according to him the fact that we have no royal

58
Lackenbacher 2002:306f.
59
Ibid. 301f.
60
For the houses owned by these persons, see, for example, Yon 2006.
61
A term that is often found in connection with the top layer of society is that of
the rabûtu (lúGAL.MEŠ), “dignitaries.” For Amarna, see Moran 1992:xxvi70. For Ugarit it
is not clear who exactly from the groups just mentioned should be included among
the rabûtu. See my forthcoming article on the landowners in Ugarit.
62
For an overview, see van Soldt 1991:36f.
63
Varia 18 (4, 7), 11, 858 (4, 103) and 20, 145 (4, 692). Note that in half of the
texts concerning landholders no information on the holders is provided.
64
12, 06 (4, 110), 18, 296 (4, 424) and 19, 72 (4, 631).
65
Schloen 2001:250.
258 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

deeds in Ugaritic or Akkadian of these transfers shows that they cannot

be interpreted as transfers of property. However, the persons who re-
ceive these fields are also listed in texts where they appear side by side
with the sākinu and seem to be regarded as very important citizens. A
good example is text 11.857 (4.102) in which wives and children are
listed who belong to the household of certain persons, one of whom is
the sākinu himself. The owners of these houses are often identical with
the persons who receive the fields; in 11.857 this is true for no less than 8
out of 17 recipients.66
Moreover, there are several royal deeds in Akkadian that feature the
very people who receive fields in the administrative texts. A good exam-
ple is Gamiraddu, who is one of the most important beneficiaries in the
lists. In 16.148+(P3, 115) ("Ammi¬tamru II) he is said to receive all the
property that was transferred to Tak¶ulinu in case Tak¶ulinu dies. This
Tak¶ulinu is called a šatammu in this text, but he could be identified with
the sākinu of Ugarit of the same name, who also lived during the reign of
"Ammi¬tamru II. It shows that an heir could already be appointed before
the owner had died.
I therefore believe that the group of persons who are said to receive
these fields probably belong to the upper stratum of Ugaritic society and
were part of the elite of the city-state. I will deal in more detail with these
matters in a forthcoming article.

66
krzn (line 1), nwr¯ (3), armwl (9), aupš (12), ¬p¢b"l (13), ´dqšlm (23), tt (26), trģds
(27). See van Soldt 1991:36f., where 11.857 (4, 102) is text O. Five of these names oc-
cur in 11, 858 (4, 103, text A), which on the basis of the mri.ibrn (line 37) can be
dated to the later years of "Ammi¬tamru II; cf. ibid. 11f. and van Soldt 1990:344164.
W. H. van Soldt, The City-Administration of Ugarit 259

Fig. 1. The City-state of Ugarit

260 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

References
Aboud 1994 Aboud, J. Die Rolle des Königs und seiner Familie nach den
Texten von Ugarit. Münster.
Bordreuil–Pardee
2004 Bordreuil, P.; Pardee, D. Manuel d’ougaritique. Paris.
Caquot–Sznycer 1980 Caquot, A.; Sznycer, M. Ugaritic Religion (Iconography of
Religions XV/8). Leiden.
Cornelius 1999 Cornelius, I. The Iconography of Ugarit, Watson, W. G.;
Wyatt, N. (eds.). Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Leiden.
Pp. 586–602.
Cornelius–Niehr 2004 Cornelius, I.; Niehr, H. Götter und Kulte in Ugarit. Mainz.
Del Olmo Lete 1999 Del Olmo Lete, G. Canaanite Religion according to the Litur-
gical Texts of Ugarit. Bethesda.
Lackenbacher 1991 Lackenbacher, S. Un contrat d’adoption en fraternité.
Charpin, D.; Joannès, F. (eds.). Marchands, diplomates et
empereurs. Etudes sur la civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à
Paul Garelli. Paris. Pp. 341–343.
Lackenbacher 2002 Lackenbacher, S. Textes akkadiens d’Ugarit. Textes prove-
nant des vingt-cinq premières campagnes (LAPO 20). Paris.
Loretz 1990 Loretz, O. Ugarit und die Bibel: kanaanäische Götter und Re-
ligion im Alten Testament. Darmstadt.
Loretz 2003 Loretz, O. Götter, Ahnen, Könige als gerechte Richter: der
“Rechtsfall” des Menschen vor Gott nach altorientalischen und
biblischen Texten (AOAT 290). Münster.
Márquez Rowe 2006 Márquez Rowe, I. The Royal Deeds of Ugarit (AOAT 335).
Münster.
Merlo–Xella 1999 Merlo, P.; Xella, P. The Ugaritic Cultic Texts, 1. The
Rituals. Watson, W. G.; Wyatt, N. (eds.). Handbook of
Ugaritic Studies. Leiden. Pp. 287–304.
Moran 1992 Moran, W. L. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore.
Pardee 2000 Pardee, D. Les textes rituels (RSO(u) XII). Paris.
Rainey 1962 Rainey, A. F. The Social Stratification of Ugarit. PhD. Diss.
Brandeis University.
Schloen 2001 Schloen, J. D. The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol.
Winona Lake.
Singer 1999 Singer, I. A Political History of Ugarit. Watson, W. G.;
Wyatt, N. (eds.). Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Leiden.
Pp. 603–733.
van Soldt 1987 van Soldt, W. H. The Queens of Ugarit. JEOL 29:68–73.
van Soldt 1990 van Soldt, W. H. Fabrics and Dyes at Ugarit. UF 22:321–
357.
van Soldt 1991 van Soldt, W. H. Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit. Dating
and Grammar (AOAT 40). Neukirchen–Vluyn.
van Soldt 2001 van Soldt, W. H. Studies in the sākinu-Official (1). The
spelling and the office-holders at Ugarit. UF 33:579–599.
 W. H. van Soldt, The City-Administration of Ugarit 261

van Soldt 2002 van Soldt, W. H. Studies in the sākinu-Official (2). The
functions of the sākinu of Ugarit. UF 34:805–828.
van Soldt 2004 van Soldt, W. H. The Use of Hurrian Names at Ugarit.
UF 35:681–707.
van Soldt 2005 van Soldt, W. H. The Topography of the City-State of Ugarit
(AOAT 324). Münster.
van Soldt 2006 van Soldt, W. H. Studies on the sākinu-Official (3). The
sākinu of other Ugaritic towns and of the palace and the
queen’s house, and the findspots of the tablets. UF 38:
675–697.
van Soldt 2010 van Soldt, W. H. Landholders in Administrative Texts.
van Soldt, W. H. (ed.). Society and Administration in An-
cient Ugarit. Papers Read at a Symposium in Leiden, 13–14
December, 2007. Leiden. Pp. 151–163.
Vidal 2005 Vidal, J. Las aldeas de Ugarit según los archivos del Bronce
Reciente (siglos XIV–XII a. n. e.) (AuOr Sup 21). Barce-
lona.
Vita 1999 Vita, J. P. The Society of Ugarit. Watson, W. G.; Wyatt, N.
(eds.). Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Leiden. Pp. 455–498.
Wyatt 2007 Wyatt, N. The Religious Role of the King in Ugarit.
Lawson Younger Jr., K. (ed.). Ugarit at Seventy-Five. Wi-
nona Lake. Pp. 41–74 (= UF 37 (2005):695–727).
Xella 1981 Xella, P. I Testi Rituali di Ugarit. I. Rome.
Yon 2006 Yon, M. The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Winona
Lake.
 New Light from an Unpublished Archive
of Meskigalla, Ensi of Adab,
Housed in the Cornell University Collections

Giuseppe Visicato
Rome

The study of about 340 tablets from Adab and 14 from other sites, which
span from the Early Dynastic IIIa to the Early Sargonic times, was car-
ried out by Westenholz and the author of this paper from 2004 to 2007.1
The tablets are housed in the Cornell University.2
During this study the authors were able to single out from all texts in
study an archive made up of more than one hundred-seventy eight tab-
lets related to the period when Meskigalla was ruler (ensi2) of Adab.
Really the documents which are surely to be assigned to the reign of
Meskigalla are the documents where Meskigalla himself 3 or his most im-
portant dignitary, the administrator (nu-banda3) DI-Utu,4 or the E-tur,5
are mentioned.
On the whole there are 47 tablets relating to the time of Meskigalla.
To them we have to add another 36 documents for internal prosopo-

1
Visicato, G.; Westenholz, A. Early Dynastic and Early Sargonic Tablets from Adab
in the Cornell University Collections, in press.
2
We have to express all our thanks to David Owen, curator of the cuneiform
collection kept in the Museum of the Institute of Near East in Cornell University,
for his kindness and hospitality in the campus when we stayed there.
3
CUN 47-11-066; 48-04-080; 48-06-225; 48-06-227; 48-06-251; 48-08-048;
48-09-099; 48-09-103; 48-10-060; 48-10-093; 49-02-122; 49-08-048; 49-12-010;
49-14-005; 50-03-122; 50-06-007; 50-06-017.
4
CUN 47-11-069; 48-06-222; 48-06-223; 48-06-224; 48-06-225; 48-06-227;
48-06-233; 48-06-249; 48-07-113; 48-09-100; 48-09-137; 48-10-059; 49-02-126;
49-09-124; 49-14-005; 50-03-125; 50-03-136; 50-06-007; 50-06-017.
5
The E-tur is an institutional structure which occurs in several documents
(CUN 48-06-249; 48-10-049-1; 48-10-066-1; 48-11-053: 49-08-005; 49-08-052;
50-03-119; 50-03-122; 50-03-123, 50-06-007) where sometimes occur DI-Utu nu-
banda3 and Meskigalla ensi2 but it is difficult to understand the function of it. It
does not occur either in the seventy eight document of previous periods (ED
IIIa–b) or in the ninety texts of following period (ES after Meskigalla).
264 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

graphic concordances. The remaining texts are assigned to this period

only for their palaeography.6
The documents offer much information about the time when Sargon
and Lugalzagesi were at war. We had about this time only the inscriptions
of the kings of Akkad. In the royal inscriptions of Sargon Adab did not ap-
pear in the list of cities conquered and destroyed by Sargon, whereas in the
inscriptions of Rimuš (cf. RIME 2, 41–42) Meskigalla together with Lugal-
galzu Ensi of Zabalam were defeated and captured by Rimuš.
The only other information about Adab in this time are some dedica-
tory inscriptions for the life of Meskigalla Ensi of Adab (RIME 2, 253;
Cooper 1986 ad 6, 17; Marchesi 2006:228) and finally in BIN 8, 26rev. ii
3–7, an administrative document where Meskigalla appears as Ensi of
Adab and Lugalzagesi as Lugal. Accordingly Meskigalla was Ensi of Adab
at least from the reign of Lugalzagesi until the reign of Rimuš.
The new information concerns:
a) the relationship between an unnamed king and Adab;
b) the relationship between Akkad and Adab;
c) the relationship between Adab and Umma;
d) the mention of some trips of Meskigalla Ensi of Adab.
The period, in our idea, is related to the time when Sargon con-
quered Sumer and the time immediately following.

Relationship between the Lugal and Meskigalla7

1a) CUN 48-06-223
obv. I 1) [ ] [ud]u-niga
2) ur-sag
3) nar
4) unugki-še3
5) lugal
6) i3-na-DU
II 1) udu zi-ga
2) dutu-teš2-mu
3) e2-gal
4) mes-ki-gal-la

6
The texts TCABI 18, 19, 21, 23; the texts 3 and 254 of the Real Academia
Hispánica (courtesy of M. Molina) and other unpublished tablets of the Schøyen
collection are surely part of this archive and also some documents, part used here
and part unpublished, belonging to a private collection. It is likely that other
tablets of this archive are scattered in other private collections.
7
All the transliterations and translations presented here were prepared by
A. Westenholz and G. Visicato.
 G. Visicato, New Light from an Unpublished Archive… 265

5) ensi2
6) UD.NUNki
rev. I 1) gir2-suki-ta
2) im-gin-na-am3
3) iti mu-tir
‘X fattened sheep Ursag the singer, to the king in Uruk brought. Disbursement of
sheep of Utu-tešmu in the ruler’s palace. When Meskigalla ruler of Adab from
Girsu came back. IX month.’

Utu-tešmu is the official who delivered sheep in CUN 48-06-222,

CUN 50-06-017 and in TCABI 18 (restored).

2a) CUN 50-06-017

obv. I 1) 1 udu-niga
2) 1 udu-nita
3) e2-mu¶aldim ab-ku2
4) 1 maš2
5) su-uš-gi
6) ensi2
7) GIŠ.UÚ3-ra
II 1) DI-dutu
2) nu-banda3
3) in-na-DU
4) 1 maš2
5) ur-ur
6) lu2 lugal
7) 1 maš2
8) ur-e2
rev. I 1) lu2 na-ni
2) 1 udu-nita
3) amar-NI dam-gar3
4) 1 sila4
5) e2-d<inanna>-ke4
6) a-ba-sum
7) udu zi-ga
8) dutu-teš2-mu
9) e2-<nisaba>
II 1) [iti x x x]
2) [mes-ki-gal-la]
3) [ensi2]
4) UD.NUNki
‘1 fattened sheep, 1 ram in the kitchen of the ruler was consumed; 1 kid to Suušgi
ruler of Umma, DI-Utu the administator brought/delivered; 1 kid to Urur the man
of the king; 1 kid to Ure the man of Nani, 1 ram to Amar-NI the merchant; 1 lamb
to the temple of Inanna was given. Expenditure of sheep of Ututešmu in the tem-
ple of Nisaba. Month … When Meskigalla was ruler of Adab.’
266 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

3a) CUN 50-03-117

obv. I 1) [ ]x
2) [ ]AN
3) [ ]-ra [ ] gur
4) [ ] gur
5) [ U]D
6) [ ]-bi
II 1) 0.2 še anše-ku2
2) mar-tu
3) lugal-kam
4) an-na-sum
5) e2-tur
6) iti a2-ki-ti
‘… 120 sila3 of barley, fodder for donkeys to the martu of the king was given (in
the) Etur. IV month.’

We do not have any elements to understand who is the lugal in ques-

tion: Lugalzagesi or Sargon.

Relationship between Adab and Akkad

1b) CUN 47-11-067
obv. II 1) 10+[x] še gur
2) mi-ti-ti
3) sukkal a-ga-de3ki
4) ba-DU
5) <nin?-al>
rev. 1) maškim-bi
2) iti dšuba3-nun
‘10+X gur of barley Mititi messenger of Akkad took away. PN was the inspector;
X month.’

2b) Unpublished text from private collection

obv. I 1) 39 u8
2) 59 udu-nita
3) 7 ud5
II 1) 5 LAK 20
2) udu mi-iš-ti-ti-kam
3) ensi2-da
4) a-ga-de3ki-še3
rev. I 1) ba-da-la¶4
2) iti ga2-udu-ur4
3) mu i7-mes-ki-gal-la
4) al-dun-na
 G. Visicato, New Light from an Unpublished Archive… 267

‘39 ewes, 59 rams, 7 she-goats, 5 male goats, sheep of Mištiti who together with
the ruler (of Adab) to Akkad took away. VI month. The year when the canal
Meskigalla was dug.’

3b) CUN 49-14-005

obv. I 1) 3 4 (sila3) i3-nun dug umbin
2) ur-šubur
3) 1 7 (sila3) i3-nun dug umbin
4) nu-banda3
5) šu-a-gi4-a
II 1) <šu?>-an-ne2
2) i3-ra2-ra2
3) an-na-de2
4) mu gir2-suki
5) ¶ul-am3
6) ensi2
7) a-ga-de3ki
rev. I 1) i3-DU-am3
2) iti še-še-kin-a
3) DI-dutu
4) nu-banda3
‘3 container’s umbin of ghee of 4 liters from Ur-Šubur, 1 container of ghee of 7 li-
ters from the administrator restituted; to Šuanne the perfume-maker was
poured. In the year when Girsu was destroyed, the ruler went to Akkad. XII
month. DI-Utu the administrator.’

4b) CUN 49-02-122

obv. I 1) 80 la2 1 kuš-ab2
2) 10 la2 1 kuš-ab2-gir
3) 2 gu4-ab2
4) 16 amar-gu4
5) 8 ab2-[amar-g]a
6) [x] la2 1 amar-gu4-ga
7) [ ]-ab-ba
8) [ ] [k]uš-eme3
II 1) 2 eme3 mu 3
2) 2 amar-dusu2-nita mu 2
3) 24 kunga
4) 44 dusu2-nita
5) 60 anše-eden
6) NI.GI4.MA
rev. I 1) 20 la2 3 kuš-gu4
2) 6 kunga
3) 20 la2 3 dusu2-nita
4) sa12-du5- ke4-ne-kam
————
268 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

II 1) [e3]-a
2) [DI-dutu nu]-banda3
3) a-ga-de3ki
4) an-na-sum
‘79 cow hides, 9 hides of cow gir, 2 ox and cow, 16 male calves, 8 female calves of
milk, X minus 1 male calves of milk, X-abba; X hides of female donkeys, 2 female
donkeys 3 years old, 2 young male mules 2 years old, 24 onagers, 44 mules, 60
wild donkeys NIGIMA; 17 hides of oxen, 6 onagers, 17 male mules. They belong to
the field registrars. (Livestock) out-go, which (DI-Utu), the administrator to/for
Akkad were given.’

All these references seem to indicate that Adab was subject to Akkad
and paid taxes to the Sargonic king.

Relationship between Adab and Umma

1c) CUN 48-07-113
obv. I 1) [ ]
2) [ ]
3) [u]r-lu2
4) 1 ma2-gur8-si
5) [d]am-gar3
6) [ur-e]š3-lil2-la2?
7) [ ].DU
8) [ ]
II 1) [1] al-la
2) pa3-da ugula
3) 1 ur-kun
4) sipa-anše
5) eden-bi-še3 ugula
6) DUMU GIŠ.UÚ3ki igi-du
7) UD.NUNki
rev. I 1) [ ].TUG2
2) mes-ki-gal-la
3) ensi2
4) UD.NUNki
5) su-uš-gi
6) ensi2
7) GIŠ.UÚ3ki
II 1) [x]-dab5
2) [i]m-bi
3) e2-gal
4) al-SAR
5) [ ]-NE
6) [ ] -bi?
 G. Visicato, New Light from an Unpublished Archive… 269

‘… Urlu, 1 Magursi the merchant, Ur-Ešlilla … 1 Alla, Pada is the supervisor, 1

Urkun shepherd of donkeys, Edenbiše is the supervisor, citizen of Umma … in
Adab. … Meskigalla ruler of Adab and Suušgi ruler of Umma … This tablet in the
ruler palace was written …’

2c) CUN 50-06-017, cf. 3a

3c) Unpublished text in a private collection

obv. I 1) 2 udu
2) ensi2
3) GIŠ.UÚ3
4) za3-mu sukkal
II 1) i3-na-la¶4
‘2 sheep to the ruler of Umma Zamu the messenger brought.’

The Ensi Suuš-kin could be identified or not with Suruš-kin who appears
in the Manistusu Obelisk8: 2 dumu su-ru-uš-GI ši PAP.ŠEŠ ensi2 GIŠ.UÚ3ki …
49 dumu-dumu a-ga-de3ki AB+AŠ2.AB+AŠ2 gana2 ‘2 sons of Suruš-kin (son) of
PAP.ŠEŠ, Ensi of Umma … 49 people citizens of Akkad are witnesses of the
field.’ It is interesting that the sons of Suruš-kin were considered citizens of
Akkad. This is not surprising because Suruš-kin is a Semitic name, and it is
possible he was one of the Akkadian Ensis installed by Sargon.9
If this identification is true, Suruš-kin could be Ensi of Umma after
Sargon conquered Umma and he continued to be governor of Umma at
least until the reign of Manistusu.10

The trips of Meskigalla

1d) CUN 48-06-225
obv. I 1) 3 šum-urudu
2) ki-la2-bi 6 ma-na 7 (gin2)
3) šu-a-gi4-a
II 1) UÚ-kam
2) iti mu-tir-a
3) GAR-ensi2
4) unugki mu-ti-la
———
rev. 1) DI-dutu

8
Cf. ELTS 124–125: A xii 21–24.
9
Cf. Gelb–Kienast 1990:159.
10
In all the copies of the Sumerian King list Manistusu was the king after Ri-
muš but in a new copy of the List dating to Ur III times, and thus the oldest one,
he appears before Rimuš, cf. Steinkeller 2005:247–292.
270 City Administration in the Ancient Near East

‘3 knives of copper weighing 6 minas and 7 shekels given back by UÚ-kam; IX

month. When the GAR-Ensi stayed in Uruk. DI-Utu.’

2d) CUN 49-14-005, cf. 3b

3d) CUN 50-03-136

obv. I 1) 308 še gur
2) še ma2-sukkal-a-kam
3) lu2-DUN-a
4) na-ba-lul-ke4
II 1) [x x]-[us]-šu
2) iti A[B-e3]-zi-ga-am3
3) mes-ki-gal-la
4) ensi2
5) UD.NUNki
rev. I 1) kur-gišeren-tar-ta
2) im-gin-na-am3
3) gir3-gin-na
4) ur-d[EN].ZU
‘308 gur of barley, barley in the boat of the Sukkal, the depedent of Nabalul sent.
V month. When Meskigalla ruler of Adab from the cutting? in Cedar mountain
came back. (All these goods for) trip of Ur-Sin.’

4d) TCABI 23
obv. I 1) 56 ninni5 gu2
2) 10 zi-ba-tum LAGAB
3) ur-gu
4) bad3ki
II 1) mu-[DU]
2) iti <a2>-[ki]-ti-kam
3) mes-ki-gal-la
4) en[si2]
5) UD.NUNki
rev. I 1) kur-gišeren-t[a]
2) im-[gin-na-am3]
‘56 talents of grass ninni5, 10 bales of … Urgu of/to the fortress brought, III
months. When Meskigalla ruler of Adab from the Cedar Mountain came back.’

The trips to Uruk and Girsu, in first istance, are difficult to interpret.
On the contrary, the trip to Cedar Mountains offers an important ele-
ment to identify the unnamed king mentioned above. As a matter of fact
it appears very unlikely that Meskigalla went alone to Lebanon to bring
wood of the cedars. It seems more likely that he went there together with
someone and this can be only Sargon when he started the campaign
 G. Visicato, New Light from an Unpublished Archive… 271

against Mari, Ebla and Yarmuti and arrived to the cedar forest and silver
mountains.11 and joined his forces with Sargon in this victorious cam-
paign. Consequently it appears that Meskigalla after BIN 8, 26 was writ-
ten (but we do not know how many years after) broke his relationship
with Lugalzagesi and became allied and subject to Sargon during the in-
vasion of Sumer. If it is true Meskigalla participated in the siege of Uruk
and in Girsu during the war against Lugalzagesi as CUN 48-06-223 and
48-06-225 seem to demonstrate. After Sargon conquered Umma and cap-
tured his ruler, Mes-e (cf. RIME 2, 30–31) he puts as governor of Umma
Suruš-kin, likely the Ensi mentioned in our texts. After the installation
Suruš-kin went to Adab to establish a kind of agreement with Meskigalla,
which was supervised by an official of the king as CUN 48-07-113 seems
to demonstrate.

Abbreviations
Cooper 1986 Cooper, J. Presargonic Inscriptions. New Haven.
Gelb–Kienast 1990 Gelb, I. J.; Kienast, B. Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften
des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. Stuttgart.
Marchesi 2006 Marchesi, G. Statue regali, sovrani e templi del Protodi-
nastico: I dati epigrafici e testuali. Appendix in: Mar-
chetti, N. La statuaria regale nella Mesopotamia Protodinas-
tica. Roma.
Steinkeller 2005 Steinkeller, P. An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian
King List. Sallaberger, W.; Volk, K.; Zgoll, A. (Hrgs.). Li-
teratur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschrift für
Claus Wilcke. Münster. Pp. 247–292.

11
Cf. RIME 2, 28–29. One of the dedicatory inscriptions for the life of Mes-
kigalla records the trip of Meskigalla to the cedar mountains cf. Cooper 1986:17.
Professions and Labor
in the Ur III Period
 A Babylonian Gang of Potters
Reconstructing the Social Organization
of Crafts Production in the Late Third Millennium BC
Southern Mesopotamia*

Jacob L. Dahl
University of Oxford

Introduction
One of the more controversial hypotheses of the Soviet Orientalist Vasilii
Vasil’evich Struve was the claim that the workers of the Ur III period
toiled all year for the state, with little or no time of their own, while de-
pending completely on the favors of the state.1 This hypothesis is hard to
prove, however, since workers were treated in the administrative record
in a way that does not, as a rule, allow us to perform any of the kind of
prosopographical analyses which are central to our understanding of late
third millennium BC societies.2
Struve was able to produce some evidence that workers could be as-
signed to the same institution, and the same work-crew, over a prolonged
period of time during which they worked full time for that institution.3 It is

* An abbreviated version of this paper was read on the 27th of July, 2007, at
the Institute for Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg, during the 53e Rencontre As-
syriologique Internationale. It was originally inspired by Natasha Koslova’s
manuscript of more than 400 cuneiform tablets in the State Hermitage Museum
(Koslova 2000) that was kindly made available to me in 1997. I wish to thank here
above all Natasha Koslova for allowing me to study these texts prior to their pub-
lication, and Bob Englund for discussing the texts and this article over the years.
I wish also to thank the several participants at the 53e RAI who commented on
my paper there, in particular Claus Wilcke, Hans Neuman, and Steven Garfinkle.
In the following, standard abbreviations are used for ancient dates (AS 1 stands for
the first year of Amar-Suen, month and day count is given when necessary). All
other abbreviations follow CDLI standards (http://cdli.ucla.edu).
1
Struve 1969:129; Struve 1954:44.
2
R. McC. Adams pointedly remarked on the lack of studies of lower stratum
of Mesopotamian society in both archaeology and Assyriology in Adams 2008.
3
Struve discussed the work-team of Lugal-gu’e recorded in the two accounts
BIN 5, 272, and TCL 5, 5675 covering the years AS 3 and 4 in Struve 1969:139;
and Struve 1954:48.
276 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

difficult to overstate the importance of Struve’s understanding of the social

status of the Ur III workers, since it is paramount to state-formation and
social evolution theories of, in particular, Marxist scholars working during
the first three quarters of the twentieth century. In fact, Struve influenced
general Soviet theories of state formation and social evolution.4 The posi-
tion of Struve, and his Soviet colleagues, that the dependent workers of the
Ur III state were in fact state-slaves was later contested by Western col-
leagues, among others Ignace Gelb who vigorously promoted the so-called
serf theory.5 The present study revisits that topic studying the social position
of the potters attached to the household of the governor of Ur III Umma.
Almost all our knowledge of Ur III pottery production has been de-
duced from two badly damaged accounts, MVN 1, 231 and 232.6 For the
sake of convenience, and in an attempt to facilitate cross-referencing to
Steinkeller’s 1996 study of the same two texts, MVN 1, 231 is here re-
ferred to as text A, and MVN 1, 232 is referred to as text B.7 An almost
completely preserved parallel text, MVN 21, 203, was published recent-
ly.8 I call that new text C. Text C completes our understanding of the
structure of texts A and B and of the nature of Ur III crafts-production as
a whole. Using text C we are therefore able to advance well beyond what
could be achieved by studying texts A and B alone. In addition to texts A,
B, and C, I will discuss at length SAT 3, 1597, in the following called text D.
TCL 5, 6036, the famous carpentry and basketry account of Agu, will serve
as a model, and will be called text Ø. The key-texts are transliterated in the
appendix, visual documentation of all texts, except D, are online in the
pages of the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI).9

4
Prokhorov 1983 (Vol. 24, p. 608, and Vol. 2, p. 418).
5
For a sort of conclusion to the debate between, among others, Diakonoff and
Gelb see: Diakonoff 1987.
6
I wish to thank Dr. Barbara Geilich, curator of the Museum Forum der Völker
(Völkerkundemuseum der Franziskaner) in Werl, Germany, for providing me with
pictures of text A and B.
7
Published by Pettinato et al. 1974; see also Waetzoldt’s detailed study of the
same two texts in Waetzoldt 1970–1971. For a discussion of the same two texts see
also Sallaberger–Civil 1996:34–37 and 62–65; Steinkeller 1996:245–251; Potts
1997:155–161; and Moorey 1994:141.
8
Koslova 2000.
9
Text A = http://cdli.ucla.edu/P113264; B = http://cdli.ucla.edu/P113265; C
= http://cdli.ucla.edu/P120440; D = http://cdli.ucla.edu/P144797; Ø = http://cdli.
ucla.edu/P131750.
 J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 277

In his 1996 article, entitled “The Organization of Crafts in Third

Millennium Babylonia: The Case of Potters,” Piotr Steinkeller dealt ex-
tensively with texts A and B. The scope of that article was to investigate
the social position of the Babylonian potter during the third millennium
BC. Steinkeller used his 1996 conclusions to draw even broader
conclusions concerning late 3rd millennium BC Babylonian society in a
2004 study expanding his 1996 conclusions to cover the entire Ur III
crafts production.10 However, by comparing accounts A and B with the
new text C, and other similar accounts from the same period, such as text
Ø available for study since the days of Struve, I argue against Steinkel-
ler’s reconstruction of texts A and B as well as the conclusions he drew
concerning the social position of the potters, and other Ur III craftsmen.
In figures 2 and 3 below, I have tried to map Steinkeller’s reconstruction
of these two texts onto the text-model structure used in this article to de-
scribe the Neo-Sumerian account (see fig. 1).11 This is not an easy task
since Steinkeller’s understanding of central elements of ancient book-
keeping is in direct opposition to the model used here.
The Neo-Sumerian accounts have received more attention than any
other group of administrative documents from the same period. In par-
ticular those accounts that calculate the rate at which the trade-agents ful-
filled various obligations to the state, the so-called dam-gar3 accounts,
have been studied in detail, if not always with clear conceptual founda-
tions.12 These reports, written up by accountants of the state, calculate
the rate at which the trade-agent converted the “goods,” put at his dispo-
sition by certain agencies of the state, into commodities sought by the
same or other agencies of the state.13 As a tool for computations, and sole-
ly for that purpose, silver, as well as other commodities, could be used as
a medium of equivalence (silver, as a commodity, ultimately for prestige

10
“In the case of craftsmen, for example, this mean that, having delivered the
required number of man-days to the state, they were free to work entirely for
themselves and to sell or barter their wares on a free market, so to speak. … I
hasten to offer the following caveat, however. There is no written evidence that
the potters or, for that matter, any other category of craftsmen, actually sold or
bartered their products” (Steinkeller 2004:94–95). One may add the complete
absence of references to a market, free or not, in the extant, but extremely rich
record.
11
Adopted in parts from Englund 1991, fig. 1.
12
Snell 1982; Englund 1990:14–51.
13
Englund 1990. For a historical perspective see Christian 1957; Struve 1969;
Struve 1954; Landsberger 1967.
278 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

objects, is of course also present in the administrative record). In the

same manner, accounts involving crafts production or agricultural pro-
duction, are best understood as accounts calculating the way in which the
overseer of a crafts production or work team disposed of the man-days
given to him in the first place, that is, the workers of his crew. Production
records applied a sophisticated system of equivalences for evaluating the
relative value of the production. The pottter’s accounts and the other Ur
III accounts concerning craft production, are entirely similar. The only
exception is that the accounts of craft production involving valuable ma-
terials, such as text Ø, had a more involved calculation of the value of the
production. This is entirely due to the nature of the production, and
does not concern the status of the workers.
In short, the first section of an Ur III account contains the ‘debits’ of
the accounted. As a rule it ends with the subscript sag-nig2-gur11-ra-kam,
but this and other technical terms can be left out and inferred from the
general structure of the document. sag-nig2-gur11-ra-kam can loosely be
translated as ‘the first section of the account,’ referring to the placement of
that section in the text, rather than the nature of the goods. The second
section, initiated by the Sumerian ša3-bi-ta, ‘from its middle,’ and termi-
nated by zi-ga-am3, ‘is torn out’ (or ‘booked out’), represents the ‘credits’ of
the accounted. Again the terminology is perhaps best understood as relat-
ing to the physical structure of the document. If the value of the second
section surpassed that of the first, the result would be termed a ‘surplus’
(diri). On the other hand, a ‘deficit’ (la2-ia3)14 was introduced in those in-
stances where the value, expressed by means of equivalences, of the first
section outweighed that of the second. As has been sufficiently demon-
strated, such an “operating balance” could be transferred to the next ac-
count, but it could also be settled immediately.15 The severe consequences
resulting from an unsettled deficit are well-known: jail-time was not an un-
common fate for those unable to settle their ‘deficit’ (la2-ia3).16 When a defi-
cit was transferred to the next account it was called the ‘remainder’ (si-i3-

14
Traditionally read la2-NI. A reading la2-ia3 (deficit, nominalized form of la2,
‘to hang’) is suggested by the writing of the parallel term zi-ga.
15
Snell 1982:104–108 and tables 31 and 33; Englund 1990:33–51.
16
See the examples in Englund 1990:46–48. Add MVN 18, 505 mentioning a
person who has been freed from prison (en-nu-ga2) where he was incarcerated
because of his deficit (obverse, line 1: [mu] la2-ia3-na-še3 QenR-[nu]-ga2
i3-in-QtiR-[la]-am3).
 J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 279

tum),17 and it was then entered at the very beginning of the account, as
part of the ‘debits’ (the sag-nig2-gur11-ra-kam). A ‘surplus’ (diri), on the
other hand, could be transferred to the ‘credits’ (ša3-bi-ta … zi-ga-am3) of
the next account, but it was more likely treated as the personal profit of the
accounted.18 Accounts were usually concluded with a colophon, containing
information about the accounted, and the date of the accounting period.
Accounts concerning work used a sophisticated system of equivalences
based on the fictitious value of a man-day. Struve, first to realize this, de-
scribed the unparalleled historical implications of this finding in his 1948
article.19 The Ur III administrative calendar, with its year consisting of 12
months, each with 30 days, was the foundation of the administration of
labor.20 Englund (1988) suggested that each of the 12 (13) lunar months
in the Ur III cultic calendar were given a rounded value of 30 days in the
administrative calendar (each lunar month would be in average about
29 ½ days, as a result each month would, presumably, alternate between
having 29 and 30 days). The lunar year, thus, had approximately 355 days
and could easily be intercalated to conform with the solar year, inserting
one intercalendrical month (iti diri) every third year. The administrative
year, on the other hand had 360 days. Foremen of work-crews would in
this system lose approximately five work-days a year for which they had to
show a production. On the other hand, anyone in charge of rations, for
animals or humans, would gain five ration-days a year.21 By fixing the val-
ue of a laborers work as a standard unit, and by standardizing the calendar,
the Ur III accountants were able to convert any piece of work into a meas-
urable unit, easily calculated in the sexagesimal system. A man-day had a
value in such different realms as a measurement of refined grain, a quanti-
ty of excavated soil, an area plowed, harrowed, or hoed, a surface area of
reed mats woven, and ultimately a silver equivalence.
When calculating the value of the products of a crafts production unit,
it was necessary to split them into their individual components. The an-
cient bookkeepers would then calculate the, sometimes, very complicated
relationships between the (fictitious) value of, say, a basket and the reed,
the different pieces of wood, and the man-days, needed for its manufac-

17
si’tum, written si-i3-tum, see already Gelb 1957:262–263 (and CAD Š3 136
with reference to MAD 5, 30:7 and MAD 1, 267:5). See also Snell 1982:323.
18
Englund 1991:264.
19
Struve 1969:128 (first published in Russian in 1949), in particular pp. 52–53.
20
Englund 1988:124–125.
21
Ibid. 129.
280 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

ture. For that reason the ‘credits’ section of large accounts pertaining to
the production of crafts was split in two: one recording the content of the
actual receipts and one bundling the products and calculating the worth
of each. For example, the value of a certain basket was calculated accord-
ing to the standard production rates of a reed-worker, who was supposed
to fabricate 6 m² of matting each day.22 Since the raw-materials used in the
production of pottery were assigned no accounting value, save for the
reeds used either as fuel or to mix with the clay, the accounts concerning
the Umma pottery workshop furnished the pots and jars only with a work-
day equivalence. Unfortunately no meaningful system of conversion has
been discovered concerning the application of these equivalences.

Ur III pottery production

In his 1996 article, Steinkeller argued that the Ur III pottery workers en-
joyed a relatively prosperous economic situation. We can summarize
Steinkeller’s claims in four points. He claimed that the potters worked in-
dependently, with no direct supervisors (p. 248), that they were based at
home (p. 249), had free time during which they could hire themselves
out for wages (p. 247), and finally, that the potters received land allot-
ments making them independent (pp. 238–239).
Steinkeller’s article relies heavily on textual sources, rather than ar-
chaeological data or anthropological parallels, and we may therefore ask
to what extent the texts are able to support these kinds of claims. Texts A
and B were key-texts for Steinkeller, but his reconstruction of the two is
impossible to follow. It is presumably based on a number of mistaken
readings, evident when comparing the two texts with text Ø, or the new
potters account, text C. In figures 2 and 3, below, I have tried to map
Steinkeller’s reconstruction onto the text-model used in this study (see
fig. 1). In addition, Steinkeller confused data concerning different groups
of potters and based his conclusions on the result. In this study I investi-
gate only the one gang of potters, presumably attached to the household
of the governor of Umma, and controlled by its chief administrator. This
work-crew is attested in texts A, B, C, D, and other texts, covering a peri-
od of almost 20 years. Other teams existed in Umma; however, they are
much less well documented, but they were probably structured in the
same way as the team described here, since no strong evidence to the
contrary exists.

22
Ibid. 170, fn. 43.
 J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 281

According to my model, texts A and B are structured in precisely the

same way as Ø and text C. Partially due to the close relationship between
B and C I am able to reconstruct large parts of B.

Text A
Text A is an account of the work of one potter during 13 months. It is
dated to the fourth year of Amar-Suen. It is most likely an ‘additional’ ac-
count covering the work of some unspecified ‘extra’ performance by an
‘added’ worker, or the like. The main Umma potters account from AS 4
probably remains to be found. The name of this potter is unfortunately
lost in a break. Although the ‘credits’ section is well preserved,23 it is not
possible to reconstruct the total (the subscript sag-nig2-gur11-ra-kam is
missing). However, it was larger than the total of the ‘debits,’ resulting in
a surplus (diri) partly visible on the hand copy of Waetzoldt.
In his reconstruction, Steinkeller added the sums or partial sums of
the ‘credits’ and ‘debits’ to reach what he termed a total of man-days
available (p. 246). He then suggested that the balance could be computed
by subtracting another partial sum of the ‘credits,’ from the so-called total
man-days available (p. 246). He then tried to reconstruct the preserved
numerical signs to make these fit his reconstruction (p. 246, fn. 79). In
doing so he violated basic rules of numerical notations (Steinkeller
restored the notation: 3600 [la2 120] Q3R ⅓ 7! (text: 3) g[in2] = 3600 –
123 – 27 gin2 = 3476 33 gin2). In sexagesimal notations la2 is used to
subtract 1, 2, or in very rare cases 3 or more from 10 or another higher
order notation, but never to subtract a string of numbers as is the case in
Steinkeller’s reconstruction. Finally, Steinkeller presumably read
Q
ugula(PA)R […]-am3 in line 3′ of the reverse (section 7 in Steinkeller’s
fig. 2, p. 246), instead of QziR-[ga]-Qam3R, a technical term which is
always entered after the total of the section it frames, introduced by the
technical term ša3-bi-ta. Steinkeller thus placed the colophon before the
balance.

Text B
Text B is dated to the seventh year of Amar-Suen. The ‘balance’ of B was
positive and it was later entered in the ‘credits’ of C. Although text B is
poorly preserved we are nevertheless able to analyze its superstructure,
without the help of the close parallel text C. The text begins by listing the

23
None of the receipts used to write this section have been found.
282 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

members of a work-crew. Following this list we find a number of minor

additions, such as hirelings, etc. (see also below). The very damaged
‘credits’ section had two parts like all other crafts production accounts:
the first summarizing the actual receipts, written during the year of ac-
counting,24 the second totaling these and calculating the equivalence
value of products. The total of the ‘credits’ is also damaged, but here we
may use the surplus entered in text C to reconstruct backwards whereby
we are in fact able to reconstruct all the totals in text B. The section that
Steinkeller in his 1996 discussion of text B called “total labor invested in
the production” (section 4) (p. 247) is in fact only the surplus from the
previous year which is listed in both parts of the credits section, for
accounting purposes. In his reconstruction Steinkeller omitted the actual
total of the ‘credits’ of which a few signs are visible, but calculated the
‘balance’ by subtracting the surplus (diri) from the previous year, from the
‘debits’ (p. 247).

Text C
Text C is an almost completely preserved large account with the subscript
‘finalized account of work of potters, concerning Lu-kala’ (rev. vi 3′:
nig2-ka9 aka a2 ba¶ar3 / lu2-kal-la). We can use the colophon of text C to
reconstruct that of text B, and perhaps even text A (see figures 2 and 3
above). Text C covers the first eleven months of AS 8.
The ‘debits’ of text C starts with a list of persons, some of whom are
qualified in a particular way (see below). A work-day equivalence corre-
sponding to an amount of reed is found together with a few other addi-
tions.25 The sum of the ‘debits’ is entered, but like in A the subscript

24
The following receipts from AS 7 relate to text B: BIN 5, 177 (ki
lu2-kal-la-ta), corresponding to lost entry; JCS 25, 176 (ki lu2-kal-la-ta), corre-
sponding to lost entry, recaptured in summary section (rev. iv 19–20); UTI 4,
2574 (ki lu2-kal- la-ta), corresponding to lost entry.
25
Some of the terminology is difficult to interpret, however the calculations
remain the same. Parts of or the entire regular work-crew is in texts B and C (B:
obv. i 27; C: obv. i 22) described with the Sumerian sa2-du11 ensi2 lugal-¶e2-gal2
(in text A an addition of 66 work-days termed a2-ba¶ar3 sa2-du11-ke4-ne is found
after the work-days of the ‘singular’ potter making up the ‘crew’ of that account).
A literal translation, ‘work of the sa2-du11 potters,’ is of little help when asking of
the real meaning of this technical term. The term sa2-du11 is well-understood,
and can confidentially be interpreted as ‘regular delivery,’ or (in a transferred
meaning) ‘regular offering.’ The same term is also found in connection with one
of the products listed in all three accounts described here: it is part of the name
 J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 283

sag-nig2-gur11-ra-kam is missing. The ‘credits’ section, which is a true

production-record, was drawn up using the many receipts produced dur-
ing the accounting period, when the workshop made deliveries to other
institutions in Umma (see fig. 4). Many of these receipts have been pre-
served.26
These receipts mostly accord with the format of the simple šu-ti-a doc-
uments (Product / from PN1 (ki PN1-ta) / PN2 received (PN2 šu ba-ti) or:
sealed by PN3 (kišib3 PN3) / Date / Seal). As always, when trying to classify
Ur III documents, there are numerous derivations from the standard
type. Often the person receiving the items and the person sealing the

of the bowl produced in the largest numbers, the dug sila3 sa2-du11. The produc-
tion numbers of this bowl range from at least 800 in A to more than 60,000 in
both B and C. The phrase sa2-du11 ensi2 lugal-¶e2-gal2 remains enigmatic, how-
ever: there was no governor of Umma named Lugal-hegal; nor do we know of
any high-ranking member of society with that name. One may hypothesize that
the sa2-du11 bowls were distributed to cultic personnel and thus produced by spe-
cial workers, in some way or the other sanctioned to perform this task. The par-
ticular destination of many of these bowls (not always recorded), supports this hy-
pothesis (see for example the sacrifice lists JCS 23, 68, No. 1; Atiqot 4, pl. 11, No.
67; NABU 1992/42 and UTI 5, 3467, see also Princeton 1, 243 recording the pro-
visions and sila3 sa2-du11 bowls for the queen-dowagers visit to Zabalam in ŠS 1;
and UTI 5, 3274 where 180 sila3 sa2-du11 bowls together with other kinds of pot-
tery were destined for the gu2-tul2 of the king). N. Koslova has suggested to in-
terpret the term under consideration ‘(for working with) regular deliveries of the
governor’ (personal communication). Another ambiguous term, bar-ra kar-ra, is
used in B and C. It too designates a special category of workers or a special pe-
riod of work-time. See Balke 1998, for the suggestion that workers recorded as
bar-ra kar-ra were additional workers brought from outside (the city).
26
BPOA 1, 632 (ki lu2-kal-la-ta), corresponding to obv. iv 6′–11′; MVN 14,
531 (ki dutu-sag10-ta), corresponding to obv. vi 21–29; UTI 3, 2200 (delivering
agent not specified), corresponding to lost entry; UTI 5, 3420 (ki lu2-kal-la-ta),
corresponding presumably to obv. v 17–22; UTI 4, 2380 (ki dutu-sag10), corre-
sponding to rev. i 3–5. Numerous receipts from alternate years complete our re-
construction of this procedure: MVN 14, 523 (AS 6) (ki lu2-kal-la-ta); UTI 3,
1700 (AS 9) (ki lu2-kal-la-ta); MVN 16, 842 (ŠS 1) (ki lu2-kal-la-ta); UTI 3, 1733
(ŠS 1) (ki lu2-kal-la-ta), corresponding roughly to entry 4′ of text C (obv. iv
12–16). Several receipts from AS 9 (MVN 16, 1423; SNAT 428; SAT 2, 1121; BIN
3, 543; BIN 3, 545; BIN 3, 615) record information presumably identical to that
summarized by entry 6′ of text C (obv. iv 34 – v 2). JCS 25, 176 (AS 7) corre-
sponding to lost entry of text B, is virtually identical to entry 7′ of text C (obv. v
3–11), identical receipts exists from the year AS 2 (SNAT 329), AS 3 (UTI 4,
2383), AS 6 (UTI 3, 1675), and one from an unknown year (UTI 4, 2748). The
high number of receipts from years not covered by A, B, or C, is indicative of the
longevity of the workshop under investigation.
284 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

transaction were the same; in such cases either one of the two entries
would be left out. In many cases the information in the seal-impression is
not in agreement with the information in the text; this is mostly due to a
not entirely well understood social organization that allowed brothers,
cousins, and others to roll their seal on the documents of their relatives.27
We would expect the primary documents relating to the accounts of
Lu-kala, to indicate that the items were credited to him (ki lu2-kal-la-ta),
just as the case with for example the deliveries made from the workshop
of Agu summarized in the text Ø, mentioned above.28 In the case of Lu-
kala this is not always so. In a majority of the extant instances it is not Lu-
kala who is credited with the delivery of the finished product.29 We can
identify the other people making deliveries from this workshop with
members of the work-crew listed in the beginning of accounts B and C
(see below for a discussion of the work-crew).30 This fact perhaps led
Steinkeller to his assumption that the potters worked independently. As I
shall show in the following it was the foreman, and members of his family
mainly, who besides Lu-kala could be credited with the deliveries.

27
See Dahl 2007.
28
For example the entry of Ø recorded in obv. v 31–37 which summarizes two
receipts sealed by Lugal-Emah’e, one of which is SAKF 5; the entry recorded in
obv. vi 7–19 which summarizes four receipts sealed by Lu-hegal, one of which is
JCS 2, 187 (YBC 767), and another by JCS 28, 212, No. 15; the entry recorded in
obv. vii 11–22 which summarizes two receipts sealed by Ur-Šulpa’e, one of which
is UTI 4, 2770; and the entry recorded in obv. vii 23–29 which summarizes the
primary document MVN 14, 87 sealed by Lugal-niglagare. See also forthcoming
study of text Ø by the author.
29
The following 16 texts, dating to between AS 2 to ŠS 1, all list deliveries of
pottery production credited to Lu-kala: UTI 4, 2700 (AS 2); MVN 16, 1288 (AS
3); SET 127 (AS 4); Princeton 1, 237 (AS 5); MVN 14, 523 (AS 6); MVN 14, 523
(AS 6); UTI 4, 2574 (AS 7); BIN 5, 177 (AS 7); UTI 5, 3420 (AS 8); BPOA 1, 632
(AS 8); UTI 3, 1700 (AS 9); MVN 14, 359 (AS 9); MVN 16, 842 (ŠS 1); MVN 16,
1564 (ŠS 1); Princeton 1, 243 (ŠS 1); UTI 3, 1733 (ŠS 1).
30
In particular Utu-sag, a member of the work-crew listed in texts B and C,
and Lugal-šala (not attested for the years AS 7 and 8), whose identity and rela-
tionship to the workshop under investigation remains uncertain, but most likely a
member of the crew during the years not covered by our texts (his seal may be
that of lugal-ša3-la2 / dub-sar / dumu a2-zi-da attested, in for example BPOA 2,
2653). Note in that connection, the strong evidence produced by BPOA 2, 2145,
that although the pots may be ‘credited’ to Lugal-šala (ki lugal-ša3-la2-ta) the
transaction could be sealed by Lu-kala (in this instance the goods were trans-
ferred to the ‘debits’ of Lu-gina (ugu2 lu2-gi-<na> ba-a-gar)).
 J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 285

Following the “production record” we find a list of the products bun-

dled together according to typology.31 For each product a work-day
equivalence was calculated (see fig. 4). A substantial surplus (diri), corre-
sponding to the surplus of text B, was entered at the end of the first part
of the ‘credits’ section. Surprisingly, the scribe erred crossly while repeat-
ing the entry at the end of the second part of the ‘credits’ section (writing
2.38.30 la2 1 instead of 2.27.20).32 Both the ‘debits’ and the ‘credits’ of C
are totaled, and the size of the ‘credits’ is greater than that of the ‘debits’
resulting in a (substantial) ‘surplus’ (figs. 5 and 6).

Text D
A transliteration of text D (SAT 3, 1597) was published by Marcel Sigrist
in 2000. Unfortunately, that transliteration suffers from an unusually
high number of errors some of which are apparent only after collations.33
A completely revised transliteration is available through the CDLI (http://
cdli.ucla.edu/P144797, see also appendix D), it has been partly recon-
structed using information from texts B and C as well as from other Ur
III documents.
Text D, from ŠS 5, is a sealed work-crew list recording the yearly ra-
tions allotted to members of the same work-crew recorded in texts B and C,
respectively six and seven years earlier. Not all the same members were still
present in text D but enough correlations can be established, using also
primary texts such as SNAT 497 (below) to confirm that this was indeed
the same team (for a reconstruction see fig. 7). D is sealed with the seal of
Inim-Šara, the son of Lugal-itida. This Inim-Šara is known from many
texts, and there are hints in the extant record that he took over the man-
agement of the central Umma pottery work-shop some time during the
reign of Šu-Suen, when several texts relating to matters of that unit were

31
Waetzoldt calculated the production time for many pottery products in his
article: Waetzoldt 1970–1971, in particular pp. 155–162, among others have de-
voted several pages to describing the products manufactured by the Umma pot-
tery workshop, I refer to those studies for information on specific pieces of pot-
tery mentioned in the texts discussed here.
32
Although this confusing fact may be seen as lending support to Steinkeller’s
reconstruction of text B (see fig. 3) the reconstructed sum of the work-day
equivalence of the total production would have been 2.35.21 5/6 7 gin2, a notation
very far from the one recorded.
33
Collated from photo made available by associate curator of the Babylonian
Collection at Yale University, Ulla Kasten.
286 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

sealed by him.34 The rations recorded in D are for the most part slightly
larger than those given to the regular worker, the guruš. The guruš would
presumably receive a daily ration of 2 sila3 (ca. 2 liters) of barley, whereas
the first two workers in D received ca. 3 ⅓ sila3 per day (= 1200 sila3 per
year). The remaining potters listed in text D received around 3 sila3 per
day (with the exception of Lu-Šara of line 13 who also received 3 ⅓ sila3).
The potters of our team were therefore only marginally better served than
the workers of regular crews doing manual field labor.

The Umma pottery workshop, its crew, foreman

and responsible officer
It is possible to reconstruct the work-crew listed in text B using text C.
After a successful reconstruction of the first column of B, we are present-
ed with the almost unique opportunity of analyzing a work-crew in two
successive years. Using other texts such as D, we can further suggest that
this crew existed for some twenty years. Figure 7, below, presents the re-
constructed gang as it is found in texts B and C as well as in the list of
workers found in text D years later.35

34
See for example Princeton 1, 145 (from AS 9) a sealed document of Inim-
Šara recording how the potters received a number of hides (ba¶ar3-e-(ne) šu
ba-(ab)-ti) (similar receipts exist from ŠS 1, month 6 (BPOA 1, 935); ŠS 2 (MVN
18, 401)); UTI 3, 2075 and UTI 4, 2719 from ŠS 1, recording the delivery of
various pots by Inim-Šara; BPOA 1, 1295 (ŠS 1) listing the monthly rations for an
unspecified number of potters booked out from Inim-Šara; MVN 16, 865; MVN
16, 1005; and MVN 16, 1080 from ŠS 2, recording various expenditures con-
cerning the construction of a pottery workshop (e2 ba¶ar3), the information from
the first of these receipts concerning the work of unskilled labors was entered into
the account of the agricultural overseer Lu-Šara (CDLJ 2003/1, 1 rev. i 1–3, see
the discussion of that text in: Englund 2003); SAT 3, 1502 from ŠS 4 recording
among other things the rations of a certain run-away potter by the name of
(Lugal)-niglagare then living in the ‘prison’ (ennux): he is presumably identical to
Lugal-niglagar of obv.:9 of text D, suggesting that he was reintroduced into the
team after a completed incarceration.
35
The reconstruction of the damaged text B is aided by the calculations. We
can use the total of the debits, 8,285 man-days (2 (šar2) 1 (geš’u) 8 (geš2) 5 (diš)),
and calculate backwards restoring the total man-days of the regular crew to 7,800
(2 (šar2) 6 (geš2)). That can easily be divided by 360 (12 months at 30 days per
month) whereby we learn that the regular crew was made up of 21 workers. The
ambiguity of line 37, 8 (diš) guruš u4 Q5 (diš)!R-[še3], recording the work-days of
the a2 bar-ra kar-ra [ba¶ar3] sa2-du11 (line one of the following column) is easily
sorted out since adding the hypothesized total of the permanent work-crew, the
additions to the permanent crew, the total of the ‘hired potters’ (ba¶ar3 ¶un-ga2:
 J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 287

The first important observation we can make from this significant dis-
covery of a work-crew in two successive years is that the list of workers
seems to have been standardized, naming the workers in the same order
in the two successive years. Strikingly, parts of the same list of workers,
ordered in more or less the same way, is preserved in a rations-list from
the year Šu-Suen five, six years later (D).
The gang of potters listed in texts B and C consists of a core crew of
twenty-one workers, one of whom is classified as dumu-gi7.36
In text B three workers are listed apart from the regular crew. The
same workers are listed within the boundaries of the regular crew in text
C. However, in that text three other workers were listed after the regular
crew. The first of these three people in text C is qualified as being ‘old’
(libir-am3), the other two as being ‘additions’ (da¶-¶u-am3).37 Both the
additional workers are listed as half output workers. Two primary docu-
ments, and circumstantial evidence can be used to develop our under-
standing of the system of influx and retirement of workers. In the text
SAT 2, 444, dated to Š 44, Lugal-magure and Abi-ili are entered into the
crew. Both are listed as full time members of the regular crew in texts B
and C, and they may even be identical to potters by the same names
found in the rations-account D from ŠS 5. SAT 2, 444, and text D are
separated by almost twenty years. In the text SNAT 497, from ŠS 4 (five
years after text C was written, and one year before D), Utu-sag, who is
mentioned as a dumu-gi7 in text C, receives a person conscripted to pot-
tery work. Although this person has the same name as one of the workers
in our crew (Lu-duga) the two need not be identical. Finally, Pešam, who
is listed as dead in text C, was presumably the older brother of Utu-sag
and his predecessor as overseer of the work-team.
Utu-sag, the dumu-gi7 of our gang, is a well-known person from Um-
ma, and it can be established independent of our accounts that he was an
overseer of potters. His seal is found on three texts.38 It is a simple seal
giving only the name of the holder and that of his father. Utu-sag’s father
was called Ur-Nigar. This Ur-Nigar is presumably identical with the pot-

presumably to be understood as ‘people hired as potters’) plus the potters

qualified as bar-ra kar-ra ša3 bala equals the total of the ‘debits’ (obv. ii 4). In the
second—and better preserved text C—we can calculate from the beginning using
the total to correct the broken parts.
36
See Koslova 2008:174; Koslova 2006:48.
37
According to N. Koslova, personal communication, libir-am3 refers to all 23
workers listed above and not only to Šeš-kala (see also BM 106132rev. i 17).
38
BPOA 1, 1250; SNAT 497; and MVN 1, 167.
288 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

ter Ur-Nigar attested in a few texts dated to the later years of Šulgi and
early years of Amar-Suen.39 MVN 1, 167, dated to Amar-Suen year one,
and concerning rations for members of our crew, is sealed with the seal
of Utu-sag although Pešam is named as the overseer, ugula, of the trans-
action. Pešam was most likely Utu-sag’s older brother and we can specu-
late that Utu-sag, in MVN 1, 167, acted as his assistant. Pešam’s seal,
which can be reconstructed using the information from Utu-sag’s seal
and the circumstantial evidence briefly discussed here, reads Pešam, son
of Ur-Nigar, the potter.40 At the end of Utu-sag’s career, we find a refer-
ence to one of his sons, Aba-kala, being transferred to the account of a
certain Inim-Šara (MVN 21, 127 (ŠS 8)). The tablet is said to be a copy of
the sealed tablet of Lu-kala,41 the person responsible for the balance of all
three accounts discussed here. Inim-Šara took control of our work-crew
at the latest in Šu-Suen five, and he was involved with the production of
pots much earlier.42 Apart from Utu-sag and his brother Pešam, three
other members of the work-crew are attested delivering pots from our ac-
counts, or receiving reed for the production. I suggest that two of them,
Ur-Gilgameš and Erraya, were sons of either Utu-sag or his brother
Pešam (although Erraya’s seal probably named him as servant of a god,
as in for example SAT 2, 579 and perhaps Umma 76) (see fig. 8). The
third, Šešani, is attested in only one primary document, receiving reed.
According to his seal, he was the son of a certain Damqar (AAICAB 1/1,
pl. 51, 1912–1147). Šešani entered the team in Amar-Suen year 7.
Several of the remaining members of the work-crew are known from oth-
er sources, such as ration lists, transfer-receipts, etc.43 It is no surprise that we
cannot find in our reconstructed work-crew all of the people otherwise

39
Umma 77 from AS 1 (Ur-Nigar the potter is receiving reed, a function later
attested for Utu-sag).
40
See SET 235 (and collations in ASJ 15, pp. 235–236 and 262): 1 (barig) še-
ba lugal / Qa-kal-la ba¶ar3R / kišib3 x (aš?)-am3 // iti e2-iti-6 / mu damar-dsuen
lugal // seal: Qpeš2R-am3 / Qdumu urR-[nigargar] ba¶ar3.
41
gaba-ri kišib3 lu2-kal-la: for tablet copies see Dahl 2003.
42
Utu-Sag is recorded as being old (libir) in a textile rations text from ŠS 5
month 8 (Rochester 121).
43
BIN 5, 309 (AS 5 11) receipt of monthly ration for Ur-Gilgameš the potter;
AAICAB 1/1, pl. 51, 1912–1147 (AS 1) receipt of reed sealed by Šeš-ani the potter;
VO 8/1, 3 (Š 39 10) receipt for 49 work-days of potters carrying barley from one
field to another (booked out of Ur-Gilgameš, sealed by ARAD2-mu); or SAT 2, 253
(Š 40) where 23 guruš and 32 un-ga6 workers are classified as potters under the
overseer lugal-[x] plowing the field of Šara. For transfer receipts see SNAT 497
(discussed below).
 J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 289

known to have received reed, or delivered pots at any given time in Umma.
Some of these persons may long have left the work-crew by the time of our
accounts, others may not have entered it yet.44 It is also possible that other
smaller but comparable crews existed in Umma at the same time.45
The daily business of the team was managed by a few of its members
most likely belonging to the same family. This family is one of the first Ur
III workers families to be described in the literature. One of its members
was classified as a dumu-gi7 in one of our sources (text C). This category of
workers is often speculated to be used about “free men” or “native Sumeri-
ans.”46 However, using the evidence produced above it can be suggested
that the dumu-gi7 was a dependent worker of a slightly higher standing
than the ordinary workers, and that he served as the daily leader of a team
to which he himself belonged.47 It is thus possible that we can use this sort
of evidence to describe the social position of different Ur worker categories,
where we would otherwise have to rely on speculative guesses referring to
later literary sources, or on traditional philological studies.
The person responsible for the balance and thus ultimately in charge
of all three accounts discussed here is simply called Lu-kala. His title or
familial affiliation is not given, but there can be little doubt that this Lu-
kala is identical with Lu-kala the son of Ur-E’e, and thus a member of the
so-called ruling family of Ur III Umma.48 Only one high-ranking person
named Lu-kala is found in the extant Umma sources after Amar-Suen’s
first year. I have previously described the genealogy of the ruling family
of Ur III Umma, and the patterns of succession to office within that fami-
ly.49 The prevailing system of succession seems to have been one of sen-
iority where inclusion was determined by patrilinial descent, but the or-
der of succession on a number of factors such as number of male off-
spring, training etc.: in the end a system favoring fratrilineal succession.50

44
For example AUCT 3, 346 (AS 1 12) where Lugal-daga the potter is re-
corded receiving a monthly ration of barley from Lu-duga. This Lu-duga is per-
haps identical to Lu-duga in text B obv. i 32 who contributed with 80 workdays to
the ‘debits’ of Lu-kala.
45
For example the crew found in NYPL 204 (AS 5), and other texts referred
to as the ba¶ar3 ma-da.
46
See most recently Koslova 2008.
47
See Høyrup 2002.
48
In particular BPOA 2, 2145 cited in fn. 30 above, which is sealed with the
seal of Lu-kala, can be used to support this hypothesis.
49
Dahl 2007.
50
See also fig. 8, and compare with Steinkeller 1987, fig. 8.
290 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

This can also be observed within the royal family of Ur. Lu-kala held the
title chief administrator, šabra, presumably an abbreviation of šabra e2
ensi2, chief household administrator of the governor. Although this is
based on only one textual reference, MVN 16, 1294, it is supported by a
multitude of arguments.51 Lu-kala was preceded in this office by his two
uncles Ayakala and Dadaga, and succeeded by his (younger) cousin
Gududu.

Conclusions
Instead of a negative review of the conclusions Steinkeller drew in his
1996 study (repeated in 2004), the shortcomings of which are highlighted
by the fortunate discovery of text C and D, I will briefly present my own
reconstruction of the social status of Ur III potters. This reconstruction
may not apply to all pottery workers of the Ur III state, and it is possible
that other specialized craftsmen such as metal-workers were privileged
and organized in a different way.
The twenty odd potters connected to the governor’s household
worked together in a gang, under the direction of a foreman who was a
privileged member of the same group. They most likely worked in a
workshop (e2 ba¶ar3), and not from home.52 They worked full-time, year
out, and year in, with little or no time of their own. Additional unskilled
workers were hired in peak-periods, just as members of our crew could
be transferred to other teams, performing for example manual field work
(see text C, obv. v 30 to vi 8). Run-away potters were incarcerated (SAT 3,
1502 and fn. 34 above), and they could be reintroduced into their orig-
inal team after serving their time. Some potters were attached to this crew
for about twenty years. They were given rations by the state (about 3 liters
a day), and they did not hold land allotments (none of the potters that
Steinkeller showed receiving allotments (p. 238–239 and fn. 39) were mem-
bers of our crew, they all, except one, belonged to special groups such as
the gir3-se3-ga of the king, or a temple). The two additional workers listed
after the regular crew in C were perhaps allotment holders (see BCT 2, 58
(AS 7–6) and Rochester 158 (ŠS 3–8)). These potters belonged to the large
social group of “unskilled” workers, called guruš in Sumerian.

51
See Dahl 2007:105–113.
52
Several texts speaks about the construction of the e2 ba¶ar3 (see also fn. 34
above).
 J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 291

The foreman and his assistants could deliver the finished products,
had seals, and could sign for the receipt of raw materials and rations,
making them, at least formally, seem like a privileged group. One of
these was classified as a dumu-gi7. Two were called foremen, ugula, inde-
pendent of the accounts discussed here. These privileged members of the
gang also received rations, but their rations were only slightly larger than
those of the regular guruš workers. They too did not hold land allot-
ments. The workshop was centrally controlled by the governor’s nephew
and chief administrator, Lu-kala.
Let us briefly return to the hypothesis of Struve that the workers of
the Ur III state were de-facto state-slaves. The present study of a work-
crew in Umma has to some extent proven Struve’s hypothesis by showing
that workers could be attached to the same team year after year, with no
or little time of their own, receiving all their allowances from the state
and being subjected to sudden transfers from one place of work to anoth-
er. The odd fact that run-away workers would be incarcerated and rein-
troduced into the work-crew supports this interpretation. Other teams
with a different organization may have existed, and the influence of the
state was probably limited to a fraction of the entire province of Umma.
However, whereas Struve’s hypothesis was based on a study of the status
of agricultural workers only, it can now been shown that (some) special-
ized workers were also largely unfree.

.
292 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

Structural analysis
Calculation
accounting original Reference
comments of man-days
terminology terminology
sag-nig2-gur11- workers and raw obv. i 1 to
‘debits’ 3.41.22 ⅔ 4 gin2
ra-kam materials obv. iv 7
production
1st part of record: list of obv. iv 8 to
ša3-bi-ta …
‘credits’ the original obv. x 46
receipts
surplus from surplus from (no man-days in obv. x 47 to
diri mu AS 3
previous year previous year surplus) rev. i 8
calculation of
2nd part of rev. i 9 to
worth of
‘credits’ rev. vi 29
production
surplus from
previous year
summation of
rev. vi 30 to
total of ‘credits’ raw materials: 1.32.44 1 gin2
rev. vii 24
total of credits
… zi-ga-am3
‘balance’ is made 2.08.34(8)! ⅔ 3 rev. vii 25 to
la2-ia3
up of both deficit gin2 rev. viii 6
and surplus, due
‘balance’
to the complex (no man-days in rev. viii 7 to
diri
composition of surplus) rev. viii 27
goods
[nig2-ka9]-ak
a-gu
colophon rev. x 1 to 2
[dub]-sar gašam
[mu] AS 4
Fig. 1. Outline of the structure of text Ø. Only the man-days have been included
in this figure: the account includes large amounts of different kinds of reeds and
wood as well

.
 J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 293

Structural analysis Calculation of man-days

accounting original Steinkeller Steinkeller original Reference
terminology terminology 1996 1996 terminology
*sag-nig2-gur11- Section 1: “…
ra-kam labor provided
(technical term by potters dur- obv. i 1
‘debits’ 516 8.36
missing in text A, ing the current to 11
present in most year”
parallel accounts)
Section 2: “…
obv. i 12
1st part of pots produced
ša3-bi-ta … to
‘credits’ and expended
rev. i 2
by the potters”
surplus Section 3: “…
from labor left from 49.20 ½ rev. i 1
diri mu AS 3 2960.55
previous the previous 3 gin2 to 2
year year”
Section 4:
“tallies the pro-
2nd part of duced pots and rev. i 3 to
‘credits’ the labor invest- rev. ii 29
ed in their man-
ufacture”
surplus
Section 5:
from 49.20 ½
“reiterates … 2960.55 rev. ii 29
previous 3 gin2
section 3”
year
Section 6: “…
total of man-
total of days avail- Q 1.[1x.xx] + 4
3476.55R rev. iii 1
‘credits’ able …” ⅔! 3 gin2
(section 1 plus
section 3)
Section 7:
….QziR-[ga]-Qam3R “names the offi- rev. iii 2
cial in charge”
Section 8:
“records the
man-days still
‘balance’ diri x […] + 15 ⅔! rev. iii 3
left”
(section 6 minus
section 4)
[nig2-ka9-ak
a2-ba¶ar3] rev. iii 4
colophon
[lu2-kal-la] to 6
[mu AS 4]
Fig. 2. Outline of text A
294 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

Structural analysis Calculation of man-days

accounting original Steinkeller original Reference
Steinkeller 1996
terminology terminology 1996 terminology
Section 1: “…
[t]his appears to
sag-nig2-gur11- be the total.labor obv. i 1 to
‘debits’ 8285 2.18.05
ra-kam provided by the obv. ii 5
potters in that
year …”
Section 2: “lists
1st part of
ša3-bi-ta … the produced and obv. i 6 to ?
‘credits’
expended.wares”
surplus from
[2.00.00
previous diri mu AS 6 – ?
11 gin2]
year
Section 3: “tallies
the totals of pro-
2nd part of duced wares and ? to
‘credits’ the labor invest- rev. iv′ 22
ed in their man-
ufacture”
Section 4: “[t]his
surplus from is probably the to-
2.00.00
previous tal labor invested 7206.2 rev. iv′ 23
11 gin2
year in the production
(section 3)”
total of
– [4.4]5.25 rev. v′ 1
‘credits’
Q
….[zi-ga]- am3R rev. v′ 2
Section 5: “…
probably record-
ed the remaining
labor … appar-
‘balance’ diri [1078.8] [2.27.20] rev. v′ 3
ently calculated
by subtracting …
[s]ection 4 from ...
[s]ection 1”
[nig2-ka9-ak]
a2-ba¶ar3 rev. v′ 4
colophon
[lu2-kal]-la to 6
[mu] AS 7
Fig. 3. Outline of text B
 J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 295

Fig. 4. Visualization of the accounting strategy of collecting the receipts

throughout the year and entering their content into the first section of the
account. In the subsequent second part of the ‘credits’ all products of the same
type were bundled and their equivalence value in man-days calculated

Structural analysis
Calculation of
accounting original Reference
man-days
terminology terminology
*sag-nig2-gur11-ra-kam
(technical term missing obv. i 1 to
‘debits’ 2.08.33
in text C, present in obv. ii 7
most parallel accounts)
obv. ii 8 to
1st part of ‘credits’ ša3-bi-ta …
rev. i 27
surplus from
diri mu AS 7 2.27.20 rev. i 26 to 27
previous year
rev. i 28 to
2nd part of ‘credits’
rev. v 12
surplus from
*2.38.30 la2 1 rev. v 12
previous year
total of ‘credits’ 5.02.41 5/6 7 gin2 rev. vi 1
… zi-ga-am3
rev. vi 2
‘balance’ diri [2.54.08 5/6 7 gin2]
rev. vi 3
Q
nig2-ka9R-ak a2-ba¶ar3
colophon lu2-kal-la rev. vi 4 to 6
mu AS 8
Fig. 5. Outline of text C
296 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

Fig. 6. Outline of the structure of texts B and C, and the relationship

between them
 J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 297

Fig. 7. The work-crew of potters working for the household

of the governor of Umma

Fig. 8. The family of Ur-Nigar, the potter

298 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

Appendices

Appendix A
J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 299

Appendix B1
300 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

Appendix B2
J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 301

Appendix C1
302 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

Appendix C2
J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 303

Appendix D: obverse and reverse

304 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

References
Adams 2008 Adams, R. McC. An Interdisciplinary Overview of a Mes-
opotamian City and Its Hinterlands. CDLJ 1.
Balke 1998 Balke, Th. E. Anmerkungen zum Terminus bar-ra(-)kar-ra
in den neusumerischen Wirtschaftstexten. Dietrich, M.;
Loretz, O. (eds.). dubsar anta-men. Studien zur
Altorientalistik. Festschrift für Willem H. Ph. Römer zur Vol-
lendung seines 70. Lebensjahres, mit Beiträgen von Freunden,
Schülern und Kollegen (AOAT 253). Münster. Pp. 1–16.
Christian 1957 Christian, V. Sumer. lal-Ì ‘Soll’, dirig(-Ì) ‘Haben.’ RSO
32:31–34.
Dahl 2003 Dahl, J. L. A Note on Ur III Text Duplicates. CDLB 5.
Dahl 2007 Dahl, J. L. The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Proso-
pographical Analysis of an Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000
Years Ago (PIHANS 108). Leiden.
Diakonoff 1987 Diakonoff, I. Slave-Labour vs. Non-Slave Labour: The
Problem of Definition. Powell, M. A. (ed.). Labor in the
Ancient Near East (AOS 68). New Haven. Pp. 1–3.
Englund 1988 Englund, R. K. Administrative Timekeeping in Ancient
Mesopotamia. JESHO 31:121–185.
Englund 1990 Englund, R. K. Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fi-
scherei (BBVO 10). Berlin.
Englund 1991 Englund, R. K. Hard Work: Where Will It Get You? Labor
Management in Ur III Mesopotamia. JNES 50:225–280.
Englund 2003 Englund, R. K. The Year: ‘Nissen Returns Joyous from
a Distant Island.’ CDLJ 1.
Gelb 1957 Gelb, I. J. Glossary of Old Akkadian (MAD 3). Chicago.
Høyrup 2002 Høyrup, J. How to Educate a Kapo, or, Reflections on the
Absence of a Culture of Mathematical Problems in Ur III.
Steele, J. M.; Imhausen, A. (eds.). Under One Sky. Astronomy
and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (AOAT 297).
Münster. Pp. 121–145.
Koslova 2000 Koslova, N. Neusumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Umma aus
der Sammlung der Eremitage zu St. Petersburg, Russland
(MVN 21). Roma.
Koslova 2006 Koslova, N. Barley Rations in Umma during the Third
Dynasty of Ur. B&B 3:41–58.
Koslova 2008 Koslova, N. Bezeichnungen der Arbeitskräfte in Umma
der Ur III-Zeit. Garfinkel, S. J.; Johnson, J. C. (eds.).
The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur
III Administration (BPOA 5). Madrid. Pp. 149–207.
Landsberger 1967 Landsberger, B. The Date Palm and Its By-Products accord-
ing to the Cuneiform Sources (AfO Bh 17). Graz.
Moorey 1994 Moorey, P. R. S. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and In-
dustries: The Archaeological Evidence. Oxford.
 J. L. Dahl, A Babylonian Gang of Potters… 305

Pettinato et al. 1974 Pettinato, G.; Waetzoldt, H.; Schollmeyer, F. A. La Colle-

zione Schollmeyer (MVN 1). Roma.
Potts 1997 Potts, D. T. Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Foun-
dations (Athlone Publications in Egyptology and Ancient
Near Eastern Studies). London.
Prokhorov 1983 Prokhorov, A. M. (ed.). Great Soviet Encyclopedia. New
York.
Sallaberger–Civil 1996 Sallaberger, W.; Civil, M. Der Babylonische Töpfer und seine
Gefässe: nach Urkunden altsumerischer bis altbabylonischer
Zeit sowie lexikalischen und literarischen Zeugnissen (MHEM
3). Ghent.
Snell 1982 Snell, D. C. Ledgers and Prices: Early Mesopotamian Merchant
Accounts (YNER 8). New Haven.
Steinkeller 1987 Steinkeller, P. The Foresters of Umma: Towards a Defi-
nition of Ur III Labor. Powell, M. A. (ed.). Labor in the
Ancient Near East (AOS 68). New Haven. Pp. 73–115.
Steinkeller 1996 Steinkeller, P. The Organisation of Crafts in Third Mil-
lennium Babylonia: The Case of Potters. AoF 23:232–
253.
Steinkeller 2004 Steinkeller, P. Toward a Definition of Private Economic Ac-
tivity in Third Millennium Babylonia. Rollinger, R.; Ulf, C.;
Schnegg, K. (eds.). Commerce and Monetary Systems in the An-
cient World: Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction.
Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and
Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project, Held in Innsbruck,
Austria, Oct. 3rd–8th 2002. Stuttgart. Pp. 91–111.
Struve 1954 Struve, V. V. The Accounts of Work-Team Overseers on
a Royal Estate under the Third Dynasty of Ur. 23
International Congress of Orientalists. Papers Presented by the
USSR Delegation. Moscow. Pp. 43–51.
Struve 1969 Struve, V. V. Some New Data on the Organization of
Labour and on Social Structure in Sumer During the
Reign of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Diakonoff, I. (ed.).
Ancient Mesopotamia: Socio-Economic History, a Collection of
Studies by Soviet Scholars. Moscow. Pp. 127–172.
Waetzoldt 1970–1971 Waetzoldt, H. Zwei unveröffentlichte Ur-III-Texte über
die Herstellung von Tongefäßen. WO 6:7–41.
 What Work Did the Damgars Do?
Towards a Definition of Ur III Labor*

Steven Garfinkle
Western Washington University

This short article addresses the topics of the Ur III workshop held in
St. Petersburg on July 27, 2007, professions and labor, through the texts
of the merchants (Sumerian dam-gar3). To use a modern phrase that I
would normally avoid, merchants and their activities can be taken as a
leading economic indicator of the Ur III state. This is a result of their
roles in facilitating both institutional economic activity and their own
commercial interests. My goal is to provide an overview of how the
damgars worked in order to help us to understand how the broader
economy functioned.
First, I am going to create a picture of how the profession of the
damgars was organized.1 In part, this will be an attempt to show the limits
of the power of the state to direct the actors in the economy. Second, I
will lay out the work that was done by the merchants. This will be an at-
tempt to highlight both the authority of the state and its efficiency. My
goals are both modest and general. The field of early economic history is
often a contested territory between two models that fail to usefully de-
scribe ancient states in Mesopotamia. Here I am referring to what we can
still call the primitivist vs. modernist debate. As much as we might think
that these terms have been exposed for their limitations, the general dis-
cussions of ancient economies have not yet surmounted these categories.
This discussion seemed especially appropriate for a meeting in St. Pe-

* I would like to thank Natalia Koslova and Leonid Kogan for their kind assis-
tance in organizing the Ur III workshop at the RAI in St. Petersburg. Research
for this article was made possible by a fellowship from the National Endowment
for the Humanities. The use of the Database of Neo-Sumerian Texts (BDTNS:
http://bdts.filol.csic.es) was also essential to the research for this article.
1
For a recent general discussion of Ur III merchants, especially at Umma, see
Steinkeller, P. Towards a Definition of Private Economic Activity in Third Mil-
lennium Babylonia. Rollinger, R.; Ulf, C. (eds.). Commerce and Monetary Systems in
the Ancient World: Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction (Melammu Sympo-
sia V). Stuttgart, 2004, pp. 97–109.
308 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

tersburg. The work of I. M. Diakonoff still exercises a considerable and

justified influence over our understanding of early Mesopotamian society,
and his work offers interpretations beyond the limits of the primitivist vs.
modernist argument.2 And yet, it is the more strident of his pronounce-
ments on the totalitarian nature of the regime that must be refined. The
complex socio-economic system of the Ur III state defies such easy catego-
rization. In many respects, as I have argued elsewhere, the patrimonial na-
ture of the Ur III administration needs to be acknowledged if we are to
adequately assess both the successes and failures of this 100 year experi-
ment in state formation;3 and the structure of professions, like that of the
merchants, formed a crucial aspect of this era’s patrimonialism.

The merchants—sources
To begin, let me briefly survey our sources for the merchants and the
limitations of those sources. As is well known, the various corpora of Ur
III texts are among the most lavish resources from antiquity. Merchants,
because their activities required record-keeping, and because of their dis-
tinct professional designation, are relatively easy to identify in the texts.4
We have extensive records of merchants from most of the centers of the
Ur III state. From Girsu, Umma, Drehem, Ur and Nippur we find hun-
dreds of texts listing damgars and their transactions.5 We also have the
large archive of Turam-ili, who probably made his home at or near Iri-
sagrig.6 From Umma, Girsu and Drehem we get a largely institutional

2
See Diakonoff, I. M. The Rural Community in the Ancient Near East.
JESHO 18 (1975):121–133; idem. The Structure of Near Eastern Society Before
the Middle of the 2nd Millennium B. C. Oikumene 3 (1982):6–100.
3
See, for example, Garfinkle, S. Was the Ur III State Bureaucratic? Patrimo-
nialism and Bureaucracy in the Ur III Period. Garfinkle, S.; Johnson, J. C. (eds.).
The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration (BPOA
5). Madrid, 2008, pp. 55–62.
4
The merchants are well represented because so many of their transactions
(sales, loans, deliveries) required documentation. This was not the case for many
of the everyday transactions in Mesopotamia and for the professionals who un-
dertook them. For the limits of the Mesopotamian textual corpora, see Van De
Mieroop, M. Why Did they Write on Clay? Klio 79 (1997):7–18.
5
A recent search of the BDTNS listed 260 for Girsu, 206 texts for Umma, 55
for Drehem, 28 for Ur, and 89 for Nippur.
6
For the identification of Iri-sagrig as the home of the Turam-ili archive, see
Owen, D. I. Unprovenanced Texts Primarily from Iri-Sa×rig/Āl-Šarrākī and the History
of the Ur III Period (NISABA 15). Messina, 2009 (in preparation).
 S. Garfinkle, What Work Did the Damgars Do? 309

view of the merchants. That is, most of those texts identify the interaction
of the damgars with the state from the point of view of the provincial and
royal authorities. From Nippur and the Turam-ili texts, we get a better
sense of the archives of the merchants themselves. In spite of this wealth
of data, it is still difficult to undertake a quantitative analysis of merchants
and their work, and some of my conclusions must therefore advanced
with caution.

The merchants—organization
Understanding the organization of the merchants is significant to our
knowledge of professions and the broader society of the Third Dynasty of
Ur. The primary characteristics of these organizations are that they were
regional and familial. As we would expect, the profession was both inher-
ited and hierarchical. All of the groups of merchants that we can identify
were made up of clusters of families. Within these families we often find
three generations of merchants, covering roughly the entire span of pre-
served Ur III history.7 The most prominent evidence for the actual mer-
chant families comes from Girsu and from the Turam-ili archive. Thus
we get a consistent picture from two very different geographical and ar-
chival perspectives.
The best attested family of merchants at Girsu that I have identified is
that of Ur-shaga. He was a merchant in charge of ten merchants, a dam-
gar3 10, and I will return to this title below. Ur-shaga is recorded in nu-
merous texts as the son of Eki the merchant, and we can find at least four
sons of Ur-shaga who were also merchants.8 Among the most prominent
activities of this family was the collection of silver for the bala.
These texts and others make clear the manner in which these families
worked in partnerships. A series of tablets from the British Museum
shows how such partnerships worked in practice. For example, in BM

7
For the century that comprised the rule of the Ur III kings, we have good
documentation for a period of roughly fifty years, from about the thirtieth year of
Shulgi’s reign to the eighth year of the reign of Ibbi-Suen. For more detail, see
Molina, M. The Corpus of Neo-Sumerian Texts: An Overview. Garfinkle, S;
Johnson, J. C. (eds.). The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III
Administration (BPOA 5). Madrid, 2008, p. 47.
8
For Ur-shaga the son of Eki, see, for example, MVN 9, 77, BM 24036, UNT
71, and TUT 124. Among his sons are Ur-nigar (SAT 1, 364, 366 and BM
24799a), Ur-guenna (RA 58, 102:58 and UNT 69), Lu-Ningirsu (TCTI 2, 3865),
and probably Agi who twice appears as a recipient on tablets sealed by Ur-nigar.
310 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

13000 (UNT 69) Ur-guenna, a son of Ur-shaga, is identified as the re-

cipient of wool for the purchase of cattle. The text notes that the wool
was actually received under seal on his behalf by his brother Agi. The tab-
let was in fact sealed by yet another of their brothers, Ur-nigar.9 Mem-
bers of the merchant families and groups were able to act as a collective.
The Turam-ili archive shows similar examples of merchants acting on
one another’s behalf.10
The hierarchical organization of the merchants can be established in
several ways. First, we have the titles of the merchants. Two important ti-
tles are attested: ugula dam-gar3, overseer of merchants, and dam-gar3
10, merchant in charge of 10 merchants. These two titles demonstrate
some regional variability. Turam-ili is an ugula dam-gar3 in the texts
from Iri-sagrig and Lu-Nanna is an ugula dam-gar3 in a text from
Umma.11 As I have already noted, Ur-shaga was a dam-gar3 10 from
Girsu, and at least three men bore that same title in Nippur: Lugal-usur,
Katar, and Ur-Nusku.12
The authority of these titles is made clear in the responsibilities of
these men. Turam-ili, for example, administered a series of balanced ac-
counts on behalf of his collective of merchants.13 The texts demonstrate
that he apportioned these accounts to the merchants under his control.
Moreover, the titles belong to a senior member of a family of merchants
in each generation and most of the subordinates are therefore members
of that extended family. At the same time, these titles superceded the
families. Though the data is not extensive, I am convinced that within
each of the city centers in southern Mesopotamia, all of the merchants
belonged to a single collective enterprise (this is supported by the pres-
ence of the e2-dam-gar3 at Nippur) and that there was one senior official
nominally in charge of the whole. Thus, only one merchant at a time
could be the dam-gar3 10 in Nippur or the ugula dam-gar3 in Umma. As
I will point out below, these individuals then functioned as the chief liai-

9
BM 13000, Tablet: 1 gu2 15 ma-na sig2-gen / nig2-šam2 gu4-še3 / ki Lu2-dNin-
gir2-su-ta / Ur-gu2-en-na / šu ba-ti / mu Ur-gu2-en-na dam-gar3-še3 / kišib A-gi4
dam-gar3. Seal: Ur-ni9-[gar] / dam-[gar3] / dumu Ur-ša[6-ga].
10
See, for example, JCS 38, 37.
11
Turam-ili: JCS 38, 37; Lu-Nanna: Nik. 2, 447.
12
Ur-shaga: TCTI 2, 3329; Lugal-usur: BBVO 11, 280; Katar: Sale Docu-
ments 7; Ur-Nusku: BE 3/1, 15.
13
For the Turam-ili archive, see Van De Mieroop, M. Turam-Ili: An Ur III
Merchant. JCS 38 (1986):1–80; and Garfinkle, S. Turam-ili and the Community
of Merchants in the Ur III Period. JCS 54 (2002):29–48.
 S. Garfinkle, What Work Did the Damgars Do? 311

son with both the state and with the other merchant groups in different
cities.
In certain texts we also encounter merchants who are identified sim-
ply as ugula when regulating the activity of other merchants. A good ex-
ample of this is BM 25082. In this text, cattle are purchased by a large
group of merchants. A total of ten merchants each arrange for the pur-
chase of a cow and their entries are divided into four sections each con-
trolled by an ugula who is among the merchants listed.14 The title here
was a temporary administrative necessity indicating responsibility for a
single transaction and is not to be confused with the more permanent ti-
tles of ugula dam-gar3 and dam-gar3 10. Nonetheless, we see a consistent
picture of the damgars acknowledging a hierarchy of responsibility.
Another place where these different levels of responsibility are made
clear is in the texts collecting silver for the bala in Girsu.15 In these texts
the merchants make deliveries of different quantities of silver to other
merchants. The merchants receiving these deliveries are often those
elsewhere identified as superiors within the collective (and frequently
they are senior members of the family). Clearly, those with seniority were
charged with gathering the contributions of those who served beneath
them. It is also possible that the amounts of the contributions are reflec-
tive of this hierarchy, but I do not yet have enough texts to show this
categorically.
This data highlights the regional nature of these professional organiza-
tions. The damgars had long had responsibilities within their local urban
economies, and the families of merchants dominated exchange mecha-
nisms for the institutional estates in the cities.16 The growth of state power

14
BM 25082: [1] ab2 8 gin2 ku3 / Ur-ni9-gar / 1 ab2 6 gin2 En-i3-na-kal / ugula
Ur-gu2-en-na / 1 ab2 8 gin2 A-gi4 / 1 ab2 8 gin2 Lu2-ti-[ ] / 1 ab2 7 gin2 Nig2-ga / 1
ab2 6 gin2 Na-ba-ša6 / ugula Nig2-ga / 1 ab2 8 gin2 Ur-dBa-ba6 dumu I3-kal-la / 1
ab2 5 gin2 Lu2-apin / ugula Lu2-Ki-nu-nir / 1 ab2 6 gin2 A-gi4 / 1 ab2 5 gin2 Ab-ba-
mu / ugula A-gi4 / BLANK LINE / šu-nigin 10 ab2 / ku3-bi 1 ma-na 17 gin2 / ša3-
bi-ta / 6 ab2 / gu4 gu4-niga sa2 ba-a-gar / Si-du3 i3-dab5 / 4 ab2 / bala-še3 / Gir3-a-mu
kurušda i3-dab5 / BLANK LINE / šu-nigin 10 ab2 / [g]u4-šam2 dam-gar3-ne / [ ]
kišib [ ] / kišib Ur-dNun-gal / mu gišgu-za dEn-lil2-la2 ba-dim2.
15
See, for example, UNT 97, BM 24036, and BM 25445.
16
A good example of a merchant with a special institutional relationship is
Lugal-usur, a dam-gar3 10 active on behalf of the temple of Inanna in Nippur.
See Zettler, R. The Ur III Temple of Inanna at Nippur. The Operation and Organisation
of Urban Religious Institutions in Mesopotamia in the Late Third Millennium B. C. Ber-
lin, 1992, p. 226.
312 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

had an obvious impact on their activities, and especially on the scale of

those activities, but the state could not dislodge the autonomy that the
damgars enjoyed to control access to their profession and its hierarchy.
As the Ur III kingdom developed, Drehem might best be described as
the place where state power most clearly took on the direction of the
economy and where these merchant organizations met under the direc-
tion of the state. Drehem has obviously been recognized as a chief place
for the crown’s appropriation of resources from both the core and pe-
riphery of the state.17 Attention has rightfully focused on the vast amount
of livestock moving through the Drehem administration, but Drehem is
also emerging as an important locus for merchant activity. A previously
unpublished text from Yale (NBC 6641), for which I have recently pre-
pared a full edition, makes this connection apparent.18 In this text, dated
to Shu-Suen 8, an enormous amount of silver is listed for the purchase of
gold.19 There can be no doubt that the gold was intended for the crown.
The text is dated to the month of the festival of Shu-Suen and I am
tempted to view this as a lavish offering in celebration of the king and yet
another avenue for the royal extraction of resources from the urban
communities of the Ur III state.
For the purposes of this study, the significance of this text lies in the
participation of merchants from throughout the state in the transaction.
The entries highlight individuals and groups from all over southern
Mesopotamia. Indeed, several of the amounts are collectively identified
with the ‘men of Sippar’ and the ‘men of Ur.’ I have also been able to
identify a series of smaller tablets from Shu-Suen 8 that are connected to
NBC 6641.20 These texts detail the efforts undertaken by the merchants
to both apportion the necessary silver and to arrange for the purchase of
the gold. It is apparent from these other texts that Lu-Nanna, the ugula
dam-gar3 from Umma, was chiefly responsible for managing this under-
taking. He both disbursed the capital in silver and he received the gold

17
I retain the use of the terms “core and periphery” here, but I am increas-
ingly convinced that we need to think of these areas more in cultural than in geo-
graphic terms. Susa, for example, was clearly a part of the core of the state for
much of its existence in spite of its distance from the traditional heartland of the
Ur III state.
18
See Garfinkle, S. Silver and Gold: Merchants and the Economy of the Ur
III State. Michalowski, P. (ed.). On Ur III Times: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist.
(JCS SS 1). Boston, 2008, pp. 63–70.
19
70 ma-na of silver is the amount listed at the head of the text.
20
MVN 3, 285 and 290, and NBC 6653.
 S. Garfinkle, What Work Did the Damgars Do? 313

that was purchased. Several of the merchants from Turam-ili’s group also
appear in these texts; and there is a tablet in Turam-ili’s own archive
dated to this same year in which he compensates two of his merchants for
a loss related to an exchange involving gold.21
For transactions of this scale, involving deliveries from across the
state, the merchants needed to cooperate on a broad scale. This coopera-
tion was facilitated by the presence at Drehem of merchants from the dif-
ferent regional associations. The Drehem texts record a small number of
merchants who appear to have been resident at that center.
They routinely participate in providing single animals as deliveries in
Drehem, which was likely a cost of living in a city devoted to such regular
contributions. The merchant groups maintained agents in the urban cen-
ters throughout the state to better arrange their cooperative efforts.
Thus, Turam-ili would dispatch merchants to work with Lu-Nanna to
handle a transaction like that in NBC 6641. Consequently, if this transac-
tion resulted in a loss for these men, he would assume responsibility. In
other cases, as we will see below, a position like Turam-ili’s would invoke
privilege as well as responsibility.
What I am suggesting is that organization of the merchants was ef-
fected locally and beyond direct state control. This is further evidence for
the persistence of regional patterns of behavior contemporary with the
rise of the territorial state. Indeed, I am convinced that the survival of
such local hierarchies aided the new state in efficiently managing its re-
sources. The flexibility of the merchant groups, in their ability to act both
locally and in concert on a broader geographic scale, made them indispen-
sable. The merchants were well placed to aid in the growth of the state
economy because of their combination of local expertise and their knowl-
edge of foreign trade. The state could control some of the activities of the
merchant groups and it was clearly their biggest client; however, the range
of their transactions went well beyond those they engaged in on behalf of
the state. In summary, the merchants worked with the state not for the
state, and they did so based on their traditional and familial hierarchies.

The merchants—work and labor

Turning now more directly to the work done by the merchants, we have
already seen that they performed a number of specialized functions. First

21
The text is JCS 38, 6 (NBC 7804). This point is discussed in Garfinkle, Sil-
ver and Gold (see n. 18).
314 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

and foremost, the merchants arranged for the exchange of goods. In the
best attested examples of merchant activity from institutional settings,
from numerous merchants at Umma and from Lugal-usur in Nippur, we
find the damgars exchanging bulk products produced on institutional es-
tates for silver and other goods not locally available. This responsibility
for trade extended abroad. The merchants, like Ur-Nusku in Nippur,
maintained contacts outside of southern Mesopotamia and arranged for
the import of strategic materials like copper.22
This role as agents of exchange ultimately led to the damgars assum-
ing greater responsibilities concomitant with the growth of the Ur III
kingdom. As the bala system developed, the merchants became involved
in two significant ways. First, the merchants acted regionally to help pro-
vincial authorities arrange for the collection and the delivery of the bala,
often in local commodities. Second, the merchants acted on behalf of the
crown collecting and managing the bala system. We see both of these
roles very prominently for example in Turam-ili’s archive. In the second
role, we can best describe the function of the merchants in terms that are
more familiar from descriptions of the Roman economy. The damgars
acted as “tax-farmers” on behalf of the crown, collecting the bala and or-
ganizing bala accounts and then delivering silver to the royal authority.
The behavior of the merchant groups directed by Turam-ili and Ur-
shaga should be understood in this way. For both groups, a great deal of
their work was undertaken for the bala (Sumerian bala-še3), and resulted
in the transfer of significant amounts of silver to the state.
Critically, the work of the merchants went beyond those tasks that
they performed for their clients. The damgars were engaged in work on
behalf of their own individual households and on behalf of their mer-
chant groups. Money-lending is perhaps the most obvious of these activi-
ties as it is the clearest case where we can demonstrate that the benefit ac-
crued to the individual household and not to an institution. The access
that the damgars had to the accounts of state institutions presented them
with a crucial opportunity for individual advantage. On occasion, when
Turam-ili apportioned balanced accounts to merchants under his author-
ity, he was able to charge them interest for the use of resources that did
not belong to him.23 This establishes both the benefits of holding high po-
sition within the merchant community as well as their independence
from direct state control.

22
See, for example, NATN 511.
23
See, for example, JCS 38, 16 and JCS 54, 8.
 S. Garfinkle, What Work Did the Damgars Do? 315

Significantly, the merchants also engaged in non-specialized labor that

had no relationship at all to their professional responsibilities. It is clear
that the merchants had corvée labor obligations to the state along with
the rest of the professional classes of southern Mesopotamians. As Jacob
Dahl pointed out in his paper at the St. Petersburg workshop, we must
keep in mind that the considerable part of the labor force was controlled
directly by the state and its institutions and worked year round.24 At the
same time, labor was always the most limiting factor of production in
agrarian Mesopotamia at the end of the third millennium. Both the state
and individual households were often faced with labor shortages. This
can be readily seen, for example, in antichretic loan arrangements.25 The
state had a ready solution to this problem in that it could compel workers
outside of its immediate control to contribute their labor. The occasional
appearance of merchants among laborers attests to this process. These
arrangements were temporary, but they highlight both the power of the
state and its quest for efficiency.
For example, we find the Girsu merchant Ur-baba, showing up on a
number of occasions in the work records of the Sagdana millhouse.26
These temporary stints at the mill house, for which Ur-baba received
regular rations, interrupt an otherwise ordinary career as a merchant
chiefly concerned with purchasing animals. When the state called upon
professionals to provide non-specialized labor, it was attempting to
smooth over inefficiencies in its administrative system.
As Bob Englund noted in his discussion of labor accounts of milling,
“The posting of a balance usually resulted in a debit, since the expected
labor performance was in all likelihood beyond the capabilities of the
normal worker.”27 This was likely true in most of the labor intensive en-
deavors of agrarian Mesopotamia. The state had to constantly balance its
expectations of work under ideal conditions with the real work that could
be performed.
There is a clear parallel here with the professional work of the mer-
chants as well. The state had ideal expectations for the value it would re-

24
Dahl, J. A Babylonian Gang of Potters, in this volume.
25
See Garfinkle, S. Shepherds, Merchants, and Credit: Some Observations on
Lending Practices in Ur III Mesopotamia. JESHO 47 (2004):1–30.
26
At least six texts show Ur-baba at the Sagdana millhouse in Amar-Suen 9.
See, for example, TUT 139 and UDT 60.
27
Englund, R. K. Hard Work—Where Will It Get You? Labor Management
in Ur III Mesopotamia. JNES 50 (1991):280.
316 Professions and Labor in the Ur III Period

ceive from controlling the means of production, and on top of this the
added value that could be extracted from both the core and periphery
through tribute and offerings. The role of the merchants, by maintaining
the so-called balanced accounts with institutional clients, and by tax-
farming on behalf of the bala, allowed the state to engage in the same
process of ideal forecasting and real record-keeping. The efficiency of the
merchants in helping the state to regulate the growing economy led in
turn to their achieving a greater prominence. As the territorial state be-
came the norm in southern Mesopotamia, its dependence on the special-
ized labor of the merchants continued to grow. At the same time, mer-
chants, like most everyone else in the state, had to take on additional
non-specialized tasks at the direction by the state.

Conclusion
To conclude, the merchants occupied an important middle ground in Ur
III society. They clearly operated above the level of common laborers,
and from this privileged position they were free from much interference
of the state in their daily work activities. At the same time, they were be-
low the level of the royal and provincial elites. This meant that their work
was aimed at reinforcing the growing authority of the state and signifi-
cantly they aided in the project of concentrating wealth in the hands of
the royal elite. The efficiency with which the royal family directed re-
sources towards the court paved the way for the creation of the powerful
monarchies that later became characteristic of Mesopotamia. The con-
tinuing importance of merchants in the subsequent era, both as special-
ists in acquiring goods and more importantly as agents for the collection
and concentration of wealth, shows the manner in which they were a fea-
ture of Mesopotamian state formation.
Returning to our themes, the professional organization and the work
of the merchants show us both the extent and limits of royal authority in
the Ur III period. Ultimately, what I am suggesting is that the authority
of the state was exercised more effectively over individuals than over col-
lectives, and that the use of this authority was aimed at increasing the
efficient operation of institutional economies.
 ! " !
" ##
# $ % $& # !
)
" ' # (
* ' ! " #
$

( (+ * ( , * $
" (
- $. $/ , $ , + $
$ . " # $
( # ,
" , (
0121
345673468 9:;< 6= !$ ,* 2 , * 346>734?= 9:;< 5 !$ 1* 2 1
* 34?873435 9:;< 5 !$ *2 * 343=73446 9:;< 36 ! ,
* ' @ A * " '
9@"A*! #0 B : @ C
:@C ! #0 $ 0 9+ , ) 2 ($"<* $
D + ) D $ 344>!
)
* * ( )5=)$
# # )5=) D ( )5=>0)337)3E!
! " !
# *# B $ * ( '
$ # C F$
# #
3$ ) E4$ )$ 4 ( !# $% $
)3E7)3>< # C F
# )588! G )5530)367
)38! # ! " ! ,
' #
A ## * ( 344)0E6$ E=7>)! - )554$ #
57))! #
?)= + C +

' ## '$ B #
$ ,
# , ' # -
B '
$3 #
H # A
# $ B # # # # #
#
( # " '
## $ $ #
I ( # $ # # "
## # , '
) ## '
# B

3) . #
" ) # # J & '' $( $ )* & ' ' $ +
J # # #
1 ?? 7 * ) ?
I 1 ?? 6?$ & ''
# ( # " #
=3K # #
" # # 3K )>K #
# # 1 ??$
# $ # #
>E= E8 ( #
% & $ ! , %# # &
6
& -!

3
+ # # #
!0 * 3446$ * ( 344>$ @ 3448
?
* ( D
" ' $ # * ( )5=808>$ )8 D )55> * (
# # )5=)0))87))=!$
< D #
## # ' # & ''
6 L
* ) & '' & # I & -
%# # $& * ( 344> *
# $
 $ M ?)5

& ''
& B
E
# # 1 66 ,* 3$
# $( $ # #
# " >5K
# # "
3 86 ( ! # ##
>
# #
8
( & B # ( 1 6) '
68E =E ( ,* 3 ,
#
$
, # # & ''
& ''
=
* % &
# $ ' # #

, # ( ,* 3$ '
# ,* = I 1* >$
)* & ' ' #
# " ## ' 66K

B # " & -
*, ,. < # N
# # % $ * 34460)3E$ 84
E
I , # #
$ $@ 344806878?<
', B 1 ??J ,* =!$ & ' ' ,* =J1* 8 !$ (
1* 8 J * ?! " & '' # & ''
$ D )55408E -
'# ( # & '' & $
OP Q ,( #
& '' + F
@ # R )55E0)?6! " '#
# & '' ## & '' &
# 9.D ?$ 68 ,* =!$ 9@"A*$ #0 B
I 344=!
>
* 9+ , )$ 5=4 ,* )!
8
* E6$ )40>=< # (
E48 E4 . "
& + # ( (
$
=
@ 34480>578?
?34 + C +

# # , #
64K # # # ,
# #
& '' ( $ )* & ' ' #
# D $
# B
":C E$ >46E ! )* & ' ' #
" $ S ( B
( )* & ' ' $ # & '' ( $
#
5
$ "
' )* & ' ' ?4 )8 (
1* )! & -
# # #
$ # # #
" H # $ + $
1* 8 *) # #
# "
*A," E)= ! #
==K #
)4
# , #
$ # (
# & '' )* & ' ' ))
H # $ # #
# "
= ( 1 ?6 )3 ( 1* 6!$ ) ' / 8
( 1 ?8!$ 0. * 3 86 ( ,* )!$
85 EE ( ,* > T 8!$ )* 1 >? 64 ( 1* 8!$
)3
'2 3 4 E4 ( * )! " '
& # $
& < U3E !
# #

5
6E$ B >$ )4E7)4>$ )))
)4
#
' 5E$ )5) * )V!< ( '

))
@ 34480=)7=?
)3
, # ) ' # &
#$ 3
 $ M ?3)

H # #
" ) ' / $ 0. * $
'2 3 - #
)* 1
" ' ":C E$ >46E ,* = ' !
#
# 85 EE (
)?
'# $ '$
)?E >? ( => ?>K ! )*
)6
& '' "
# % & B # #
)E
)* & ' ' -
B )* 1 *A," E)=
1* 8! S + $ H #
$ #
" & '' $ ( $ )* & ' ' $ +
# ' #
#
# $ ##
)>
# B * ( , # # #
H # $ $
" B $ & '' ( $
& B # ##
$ % & #
H # #
( #

I ) # H #

)?
37?$ )6$ )8< * ( ' )5=)0))5!
3 P)Q E > 8 W 33 W & 4$ $$
9@"A*$ >4 ( # $ #0
B / 344=! $
( )7)> >4 (
)8
)6
))7)6$ )87)5
)E
* ( )5=)0))5!
)>
)3)
?33 + C +

) 3
' , & '' (

6 ?
+ )* & ' '
X H #
# A # #
## , # 0
@ 344806E$ B >

33 C H
" ' 9 A E$ )4= 1 66! + )$ 645 ,* 3!
# H
" $ 0
Y . G &% $ $$ %' $
" XA) O R XA) !$
1 +A) ! +A)
M !
&%! " " ! O $R
& 5 $
$ @ &
@

" 9 A E$ )4= ##
S 20 ' &$ 6 $ $ +* $ " ! $ ( &
$
3 ' , ## + )$ 645
" ! " '! -
+ )$ 6450 7 .& $ " ' '$ 8"$ ' &
$
" '!
I # J 2 ' &$ 6 $ $ +* $
&
( J B H
)8
I $ 8"$ ' &
& )=
" '! $ " '! $ "' ' (
)5
- " ! 7 .&

)8
* $* ( 344>033736$ ?4
)=
I 8"$ ' & $ @ 34480?8766< " '! $
" '! $ "' '$ D ( )5=80?E7?>$
B >$ =$ 5 #
)5
" # " ! " '!
+ )$ 645 0E!
$ # # ' #
 $ M ?3?

'# ' #
&
# ( ## # $
" #
&
( $ #
# ! !
34
+
$
#
&
' $(

# # # #
" '
* #
3 '$ % $&
& #
9! 0 ## "
! " # ! * % &
$ #

I 3 U 3? # $ $
; $
# B $ #

3 ? %+ &
A ' 9 A E$ )4= 1 66! + )$ 645 ,* 3!
# $
1 +A! #

9 ( $ 7 .&
&
# ( H ' # "
' ' ' 03!
34
* D ( & ' 9D )4E??6 )5=80?=7?5$ 8?786$
8 * ( 344>0?47?) 9 # ( $
#
; # (
> $% " # # )44 $
&
>4K ( $ 34K 2 ' &$ 34K 6 $
+*
?36 + C +

3)
' # * ( B
# '
' $
B # #
# & +A ! # D $ 1 +A
& +A # & # *
' # # #
# $ ' #
33
# # " #
# # I ' # $ '
# 2 ' &$ ' A 5$ 88 1 ??!
3?
# $ # ##
" $ ( #
$ %# &
# $
# ' '#
"
( #
' # #
# I $) ' & :# & ' ' 5= 3E (
6 $ , ## 66= 1 ??!
' A9: ?4E= 1 ?>! = )$ 8) 1 ?5!$ (
# 8E =E )> =5 ( # $
' # 9
( 6 $ 1 ??$ ) ' & : # #
1 ?> 1 ?5 ( B 3! "
' #
5 & !
# " '
36
# #

3)
: $ 2 $$ ' &$
+*
&
$ ! & ( $ ) '# " ! $
) ' 3 ' " ' # 6 $ 0
( 1 66 ) ' &% / ,* 3
33
" # * ( )5=)0))8$ 34!
3?
* ,,* 8E 1 ?8!$ + )$ E6= 1 ?=!$ 9 A E$ )4= 1 66!$ +
)$ 645 ,* 3!
36
* ( )5=)0))5!< 9 A E$ )4= 1 66!$
*," 3$ EE? 1 68!$ + )$ 645 ,* 3!< # ! #
# $ , * ?3$ I4) 1 ?6! A9: 343? 1 63!
 $ M ?3E

" B # # H
# #
&
2 ' 1 ??$ ?6 $ ?> $ ?8$ ?=$ ?5 $ 64 $ 66$ ,* 3$ =
)* 1* 8
1 <
6 $ ) ' & : 1 ??$ ?> $ ?5
)* : : 1 ?=
) ' 1 64
( 1 66
) ' &% / ,* 3$ 1* 3 $ ? <
+* $$ 1 ?? $ ?6 $ ?> $ ?5 $ 64 $ 66$ ,* 3$ 1* > <
&
(
7 .& 1 ??
1 ?6
1 ?8$ 6?$ 6E$ ,* 3<
"' ' 1 ??$ ?E
V
$$ 1 ??
1 6?$ 6E$ ,* 3<
" ! ) '# 1 ??$ ?6$ 64 $ 66$ ,* 3<
" '! ) '# 1 ?6$ ,* 3<
" '! 1 6?$ ,* 3<
" $$ 1 ?6$ 6)<
&
8"$ ' ; 9 & '' ' ,* 3<
&
)* ' * )<
&
( 1 ?>
! & 1 64 $ 66$ 6>$ ,* 3<
#
3 ' ) ' 1 ?>$ ?8 $ ?5 $ 64$ 66$ ,* 3$ 1* ? $ * )
! & 1 6><
" $! & 1 36<
&! 9 & '' 1 ?E$ ?>$ ?= V<
" & 9 & '' ' 1 6E
! " # #
C 2 # # < 2#
" (
# # #

& &
,## $ ' # 8"$ ' $ $
# $ # #
3E
# # "

3E
I ' # $ 6 $ $ B # #
#
1 ?? 1* ? 9 ,* 3 1* ?$ #
) ' &% / # " $
?3> + C +

&
2 ' # '#
B 1 ??$ ?8$ ?=$ 66$ ,* 3! B
1 ?6 $ 1 ?> $ ?5 $ 64 $ ,* = !
:
# $ &
$
# #

9 " '
$ # # B #
# - ( (
& S B # V
* #
# $ # ' # # #
S D $
# # # ## ##
# $ #
# # " #
# # #
# # 9 # # #
( #
# '
&
)! 2 '
" # # $ )* 1 $ #
$ # 3=4 8= (
1 ?6 "
2 '&
$ # B $ & '' ( B
H # ! )* & ' ' H # ! 3>
&
2 ' H
# B # ,
$ #
& - $ %# # $& $

$ 6 $ # ) ' &% /

3>
@ 344806E$ B >$ =E75>
 $ M ?38

38
# ' * ##
$ #
&
# 2 ' , )* 1 $

$
$ 34$ % 34
&3= " B ( #
35
$ #
3! 6 $
" ' # 5= 3E
( 1 ?? , B # $
) ' & : ) ' &% / # #
X (
6 $ $ # ) ' & : # <
?4
$ ! , ) ' &% / $ ##
(
+* 6 $ 1
66 1* 5 # ' #
$" ! ?)
?! +*
$$ #
1 ?? 1* >$ E? 4= ( 1 ?>
- +* $ $$
?3
B #
&
6! (
7 .&
#
1 ?8 ,* 3 " # 58 8E (

38
=E75>
3=
* ( 344>06>76=< '#
35
35
@ 34480587)4?
?4
DZA )E$ ?54 1 ?8 ! 38$ ?5< ' (
# # $ 9@"A*$ #0 B
/ 344=!
?)
@ 34480)3E7)38
?3
DZA )E$ ?54 1 ?8 ! 6)$ E6$ 9@"A*$ #0 B
/ 344=!
?3= + C +

1 ?8 ##
* ( B
( # 7 .& "
' # # B # $
??
# $ % & -
B #
# #

"' '
" # 7 .& $ $
# "' ' " #
#
U 3 3! " #
)33 6= ( 1 6E $
B , $ B #
?6
B # B
" !
) '# # " !
( $ # )>4 =5 (
1 ?? B 1
?? ,* 3 Z * (
&
B , $ (
" ! !$ ) '# #
% ?4 & $ ?4! ?E
## $ (
&
( D $ ##
?>
" ! - ) '#
& #
" '!
- $ " '! ## # " !
# ) '# $

??
* ( 344>0?E7?8$ ' DZA )=$ )55 ,* 3!$ + C )5$ )8=
,* ?!$ ":C E$ >4?> ,* 6 ' !$ " ?$ )5?4 1* )!$ DZA )E$ => 1* )!
?6
, B 3 $ # " $!
& 1 36$ 7 . "' ' 1 ??$ "' ' 1 ?E$
&
( 1 ?>
?E
Z 344=0)?67)?>< * ( 344>0?)7??
?>
* ( 344>0?E)7?E3$ 3 9$ )
 $ M ?35

B " #
))4 ?= ( 1 ?6 " H ' # " '! "
!
7 .& "' ' " #
# $ 0 " ' $ " ! ##
?8
" '! '#
" '!
,# ## # #
1 6? ) >8 ) 53 ( # !
,* 3 5 8? ( ! -
" '! (
$ # $
( , 9@"A*
(
" '! I ' # $ A 5$ 35 1 6? !$ B (
" '! # B
?=
, # # % $&?5
# #
" '!
"
" # ## " (
&
I $ 0 # 9! $ & #
&
9! " ! ! ( $
# * $
64
DZA 3)$ ?6? 1* ?!$
# B $ " #
& 6)
# B ( ( "
" # #
,# $$ ## #
# 1 ?6 3) ( ! 1 6) ) ??

?8
* " 68765$ )>? 1 ??!$ 9D )4>EE8 1 66!$ " )E$ E8 9 6? 1 66!$
9 A E$ )4= 1 66!
?=
* ' 9@"A*$ #0 B / 344=!
?5
* $ ' # $ )* 1 2 '& ) '#
" !
64
, 3
6)
" ## 5< B "& .
&
6! " ))!< B ( $
D ( )5=80?>$ B )5
??4 + C +

( ! # " (
" # # 0
$ % &63
&
# (
" ' #
&
(
&
7! U 3 3! (
# " ' $ # #
# # # #
&
! & # (
# 1 64 ,* 3 9 #
3?6 64 ( ! # 1 ?> "
! & B
D #
6?
- #
B $ B
# $
E! " #
3 '
) ' #
3 ' # 1 ?> *)
# 34 == ( 1 ?8 @ #
3 '$ # #
# ( B B *
66
( B C (
# ( #
# 9 #

63
* " ?$ )>6= ,* =!0 #
$$ $ $
P Q A P
5$ 5> 1* )!0 Q< $
$$ $ < ' 9@"A*$ #0
B / 3448!
6?
I ' # $ # " 68765$ 3?4 1
6? !0 ! & $ 5 & ,
9@"A*$ # 1 6?
,* 3 DZA 3)$ 6E!< #0 B / 3448!
66
# $" ! ( (
&
$ # ! ( " '! $
&
# ' ! # ( *
( 344>0?)$ ?5764!
 $ M ??)

# $ $
) ' # B
3 '
6 &!
,# 9 & '' # 6 &!
# # 35 3?
( 1 ?E - 6 &!
6E
+* " B 9 & '' #
' # #
# (
" #$ # #
$ B
!
# # # " (
$ H
#

36 , #
U3? %# & # #
# & +A ! # 1
+A! " ' 3 $ $ #
# $ # #
# ,
' &% +A$ % +A$&
# & +A # # #
' # 0
9+ , )$ =E> 1* 6!

) 6 W . &% $ $$ %6 W (
3 ' !9 ' <
? ? . )E &% ? ( )E
6 1 '. ! 9 1 '.<
E ? . )E &% ? ( )E
> 2 / ! ! / ! <
.
8 &% ! " ! # ! O R

6E
Y9: 5=)=$ ,* 3$ 6 &! +*
37 )!<
+ * (
??3 + C +

= & ' ' &% / ! ) ' &% / <

5 & $# & # $
)4 &% " # !
& # & 3 & <
)) & $ $ / / # &
)3 Y 1* 6 " 1* 6

' # $
) ' &% / & +A) < =! ( &% +A376<
3$ 6$ >! , '
# E (
6>
4 46 ( , 3
## ' ( #
, $ B $ B & :!$ #
# # $! !$ !$ ' !$
68
. !$ # $ # 2 $ $ !$
B & - ! ;' # # $

" ' $ # $ #
# %# & B U3?
# #
&% $ $$ +A$ % +A & $ B B
# B ( # # !
B
( !
$
# B B
" S 0
( # V, # "
$
## # #
6=
!$ * ' 3

6>
DZA 3)$ ?6? ))7)3
68
I # $ D 344)0?)E
6=
C 2 '!! #
C F$
# !
$
#
< # # #
# $ # D ( )588< )5=>! G )5530
))E7)?6! # #
 $ M ???

#
' # $ 9+ , )$ =E>$ !$
B "
B " '

3 E ,## $ $ S
" ' DZA 3)$ ?6? 1* ?! 3 #
# B 0344 )
. &% & ' ' & #% '* '.' '!
65
)44 > !' &% & ' '!/ , '$ "
68765$ 3)? 1 64!$ # B # ?8 56 (
2 '! 3 ' 2 '! " $ $%
& % 6 $ &E4
-
'# ( $ S
# " '
9+ , )$ =E> 1* 6! S U 3 6$ # B
& $ #
C # ##
H $ $ "
68765$ 3)?$ # # # *# B

A B "! & : ! H
=E 1 ?E!$ & ' ' # ?5
( & :$ ## # "
. $ *," 3$ EE? 1 68! #
0E)

A ## < !
$ &
- ( ' )
A ##
65
. 678$ )47)) " # $ $ % &% " ' !' '
( ' #
" ' $$ 0 '
+ * C F$ # # ( $
D ( )5880)7E$ 3?$ B
# '
E4
, * ( )5=)0)3)
E)
: + * (
??6 + C +

) P)Q[? ! ! 8 $% ! 3 3 ! ) 6$6E5 8E & $

& !W & !¼ & ! !
3 P&%Q $ > )) W . 3> ! ?8) >6 ( $
? P Q " & B # <
6 P)Q[) ! ! ) $ = ! ? $% ! ? 3$?58 8E & $
& !W & !¼ & ! !
E P Q " # B $
> P3Q[8 $% ! ? & ! W & ! ! )>E E4 & $
>
8 " 3 :? B $
= P " Q & # !B ' #
# E T 8!<
5 . > ! !? $ = !? 8$43? & )[6[>!<
& ! !
)4 . & - & " <
)) 1 5 & $
.
&
)3 # * & $ ' 1 6>

@ 3 )$
4 4=? ( # & $ S ) E4 ( # $%
2 )= & ! " ## 3 ( # \
' 9D )4>EE8 1 ?6! E3 9
C F A ## E? ,
# 3 ( # $%
* B $ # A
0
]
U 980 & $ "^ ]& ^ 5 '* '* 2 P'!Q 3 )=
& $ 3 . " ] " V
!' " ^
% B
$ B # O 'R 3 ( # $% &E6

" $
C F$EE
B #

E3
0>0 ) $% ! ! 3 . < D D +
* ( " ' 9@"A*$ #0 B
/ 344=!
E?
C F$ ! B 4$ )$ ) W$ 3 (
# $% $ D ( )5880)3< A ## $ ! ) ) E$
) 6 E$ 3 ( # $% $ * ( )5=)0))E!
E6
: # : D :
EE
D ( )588
 $ M ??E

E>
B $ '
' " # B
" # ' S
0 3 !$ 3!$ )!$ )!$ 3!$ ' )!$ ' ?!$ '
6! , $ # (

*," 3$ EE? # #
B H ' # 0
# !E8 '$
# B
B H C
C F$ # "
E=
3EK B D ( &
$B
E5
#

3> @
" ?! #

# # " # #
34 ( ! # # < ) E4 ( !$
& . < )5 )? ( ! " #
B $ # > E4
( ## #
>4 >)
$ $ S ,
$5 ( # '' & $%
# &>3 " %# & ( #

E>
I $ $ # B 2 ' &$
# & '' 1 ??< )
E8
I " % # B &
%B $& D ( )5540)?6 A $ $ , ## 665 1 ?E!
? # " < '# "
' # '
E=
C )5540)>57)8)
E5
D ( )5880))=7))5
>4
" ?$ 3434 1* E '! 0)67)E0 " & _ ` / $ $
>)
D ( )5=?0)587344
>3
*," 3$ ) 1 36! )
??> + C +

4 S A
" "
$ & '' $( $ )* & ' ' $
+ $ '
# # , $
#
# $ % & " !
# ( $ $ $ B $ $ $
#
>?
D
# B $ $
# &
D $ #
% & ( #
D $ $
$
& # !
>6
!& ( "

'# B
" # B &
B
#
9 B ## $
## $
# Y
$ # ( $
# #
H # , # '# $

>?
D B OP Q & #
"
& $R #
B
)55>$ # 3E673EE! * (
B ' # B ( OB B R $ #
' #
B # )5=8088$ )8!<
B $ * ( 34460557)4?
>6
* 3445
 $ M ??8

$
>E
( $

-
B #
$ # #
>>

>E
" " ?$ )5?4 1* )!$ $
( # 7 .& $ # )>
( ! ( ! <
" ?$ )5?4 * ( 344>0?>
>>
Z @ # #
# )55=0?67?E!< * ( #
# (
)5550?34$ E3!
??= + C +
$ M ??5
?64 + C +
$ M ?6)
?63 + C +
$ M ?6?
?66 + C +
$ M ?6E
?6> + C +
$ M ?68
?6= + C +

B
: # : $D # $ % D #
@ 3448 @ $ / & ' 0 " ( )
( * ' + ' , -...
/ + ,A* )4=! C
C )554 C $ D " * # A * I
E0)687)=>
D )554 D $ " I ,( @ $ X
)308)78=
D )55> D $ " . & I :
: * )=03E673>4
D ( )588 D ( $ a " . " I !
,+ A C,C! C )60)7E6
D ( )5=> D ( $a , " ' C
9 D Z! 3)05)7)E8
D ( )5=8 D ( $ a " D @ C
0,* 9D ))4))> 3303E7=3
D ( )554 D ( $a : D +
E0))E7)6>
D 344) D $X , * X8 2 . D
840?)?7?)8
D ( )5=? D ($ + : " A
X # * 330)5)734?
3445 $ 0 '
" * +* * (
+ @ @
( 3443 ($ " 0 * 1 2 ( *
*,A",X 8! -
* 3446 * $" " * 1 C

* ( )5=) * ( $ + " . I ; D #
@ # : # % &
* + 3 360))?7)6E
* ( )5=8 * ( $ + " I 0 "
@ B C + $D , ! #
* % + , * >=! A +# 8?7))E
* ( )555 * ( $ + C " : " D
D # 0" + . Z
$ D< C $9 , ! 4
# $ ( * % + + D
9 8! : D ! +# 3=57?3)
* ( 344) * ( $ + " + - ($ . < /
$ . ! * ' 5 * % +
# $ C +# 687>)
* ( 3446 * ( $+ " @ B + ;
, " D 9 . $ .<
 $ M ?65

$: ! * ' ' *
6 0 *
D * # Z! * +# 5)7))3
* (
344> * ( $9 4 #
' + @ @
Z 344= Z $A @ b # S
bS # #
& X B ( $ * /< / $ / : !
7 $ + ' ( 0
" * *
6 8 ( -9 : & * ' , )
D +# )357)?5
@ )55= @ $X C , D # 0 O" -
. @ A ;' R $ 9<
D H $. ! # 3 'V ** #
+ ' * C +# )5765
Z ( )5=8 Z ($ " ; I # ( D
* 9 I #
?80?E>7?>?
- )554 - $ G 9 c
+ E0)735
- )55E - $ Y ( %* & X
,(( +
)40)387)6E
G )553 G $. C ( % (( 0
( 4 &
( # 99Z
))! 9
Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference Works, Series, and Sources

A. Cuneiform tablets from Mari

AAA Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology
AAB Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften
zu Berlin. Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst
AAICAB J.-P. Grégoire. Archives administratives et inscriptions cunéi-
formes de l’Ashmolean Museum et de la Bodleian Collection d’Ox-
ford. I–IV. Paris, 1996–2002
AASF Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae
AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
AB Anchor Bible
AbB Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung
ABC A. K. Grayson. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (TCS 5).
Locust Valley–Glückstadt, 1975
AbhMünchen Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-
ten, Phil.-hist. Klasse
ABIM A. al-Zeebari. Altbabylonische Briefe des Iraq-Museums. Mün-
ster, 1964
ABL R. F. Harper. Assyrian and Babylonian Letters. Chicago, 1892–
1914
Adab = PPAC 1
ADD C. H. Johns. Assyrian Deeds and Documents. I–IV. Cambridge,
1898–1923
ADFU Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in
Uruk-Warka
ADOG Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
AfK Archiv für Keilschriftforschung
AfO Archiv für Orientforschung
AfO Bh Archiv für Orientforschung. Beihefte
AHw. W. von Soden. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. I–III. Wiesbaden,
1965–1981
AIHA F. Rasheed. The Ancient Inscriptions in Himrin (Himrin 4).
Baghdad, 1981
AION Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli
AION Sup Annali dell’Instituto Orientale di Napoli. Supplementum
AJ Archaeological Journal
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AJPh American Journal of Philology
352 Babel und Bibel 5

AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures

AKA W. King. The Annals of the Kings of Assyria. I. London, 1902
AKT 1 E. Bilgiç; H. Sever; C. Günbattı; S. Bairam. Ankara Kültepe
Tabletleri (Ankaraner Kültepe-Tafeln). I. Ankara, 1990
AKT 3 E. Bilgiç; C. Günbattı. Ankaraner Kültepe-Tafeln. III (FAOS
Bh 3). Stuttgart, 1995
ALASPM Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien–Palästinas und Me-
sopotamiens
AMI Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi Konferansları (Anatolian Civ-
ilizations Museum Conferences)
AMMK Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran
AMT R. C. Thompson. Assyrian Medical Texts. London, 1923
ANET J. B. Pritchard (ed.). Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the
Old Testament. Princeton, 31969
ANES Ancient Near Eastern Studies
ANLR Academia Nationale dei Lincei. Rendiconti della Classe di Scienze
morali, storiche e filologiche
AnOr Analecta Orientalia
AnSt Anatolian Studies
AO Antiquités orientales, Louvre
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
AOATS Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Sonderreihe
AOATT K. R. Veenhof. Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and Its Terminolo-
gy (SD 10). Leiden, 1972
AOB Altorientalische Bibliothek
AoF Altorientalische Forschungen
AOH Acta Orientalia Hungarica
AOS American Oriental Series
ArAn Archivum Anatolicum
ARES Archivi reali di Ebla. Studi
ARET Archivi reali di Ebla. Testi
ARM Archives royals de Mari
ARMT Archives royales de Mari. Traduction
ArOr Archiv Orientální
ARRIM Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project
AS Assyriological Studies
ASJ Acta Sumerologica
ASJ Sup Acta Sumerologica. Supplementum
 Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference Works, and Sources 353

ASKT P. Haupt. Akkadische und sumerische Keilschrifttexte. Leipzig,

1881–1882
ASOR American Schools of Oriental Research
AT D. Wiseman. The Alalakh Tablets. London, 1953
ATHE B. Kienast. Die altassyrischen Texte des Orientalischen Seminars
der Universität Heidelberg und die Sammlung Erlenmeyer. Berlin,
1960
ATU Archaische Texte aus Uruk
AUCT Andrews University Cuneiform Texts
AuOr Aula Orientalis
AuOr Sup Aula Orientalis. Supplementa
AUWE Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Endberichte
AWAS G. J. Selz. Altsumerische Wirtschaftsurkunden aus amerikanischen
Sammlungen (FAOS 15/2). Stuttgart, 1993
AWEL G. J. Selz. Die altsumerischen Verwaltungstexte aus Lagash. I. Die
altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden der Eremitage zu Le-
ningrad (FAOS 15/1). Stuttgart, 1989
AWL J. Bauer. Altsumerische Wirtschaftstexte aus Lagasch (StP 9).
Rom, 1972
Ayanis I M. Salvini; A. Çilingiroğlu (eds.). Ayanis I. Ten Years’ Excava-
tions at Rusaḫinili Eiduru-kai. 1989–1998 (Documenta Asiana
VI). Roma, 2001
BA(SS) Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft
Bab Babyloniaca. Études de philologie assyro-babylonienne
B&B Babel und Bibel
BaF Baghdader Forschungen
BAH Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, Institut Français
d’archéologie de Beyrouth
BaM Baghdader Mitteilungen
BAM F. Köcher. Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Un-
tersuchungen. Berlin, 1963ff.
BAOM Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BATSH H. Kühne (Hrsg.). Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šē¶ Hamad/
Dūr-Katlimmu. Berlin–Wiesbaden, 1991ff.
BBR H. Zimmern. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion
(Assyriologische Bibliothek 12). Leipzig, 1901
BBSt. L. W. King. Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial-Tablets
in the British Museum. London, 1912
354 Babel und Bibel 5

BBVO Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient

BCBO Biblioteca de ciencias bíblicas y orientales
BDB A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by F. Brown,
S. R. Driver and Ch. A. Briggs. Oxford, 1907
BDTNS Base de Datos de Textos Neosumerios (http://bdtns.filol.csic.es)
BE The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylva-
nia. Series A. Cuneiform Texts
Belleten Türk Tarih Kurumu. Belleten
Berens Th. G. Pinches. The Babylonian Tablets in the Berens Collection
(Asiatic Society Monographs 16). London, 1915
BFE M. Krebernik. Die Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla. Untersu-
chungen zur ältesten keilschriftlichen Beschwörungsliteratur (TSO
2). Hildesheim, 1984
BID W. Farber. Beschwörungsrituale an Ištar und Dumuzi. Wiesba-
den, 1977
Billa Cuneiform tablets from Tell Billa
BiMes Bibliotheca Mesopotamica
BIN Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies.
Yale University, New Haven
BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
BK A. de Biberstein-Kazimirski. Dictionnaire arabe-français. I–II.
Paris, 1860
BM Cuneiform tablets from British Museum
BMECCJ Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan
BPOA Biblioteca del próximo oriente antiguo
BRM Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan
Brock. C. Brockelmann. Lexicon Syriacum. Halle, 1928
BSA Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture
BSL Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris
BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
BT Babylonische Texte
BWL W. G. Lambert. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford, 1960
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago. Chicago, 1956ff.
CAH Cambridge Ancient History
CBS Cuneiform tablets in the University Museum, Philadelphia
CCT Cuneiform Texts from Cappadocian Tablets in the British
Museum
 Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference Works, and Sources 355

CDA J. Black; A. George; N. Postgate. A Concise Dictionary of Akka-

dian. Wiesbaden, 1999
CDLB Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin
CDLJ Cuneiform Digital Library Journal
CDOG Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East
CHD The Chicago Hittite Dictionary. Chicago, 1980ff.
CHÉU G. Contenau. Contribution à l’histoire économique d’Umma (Bi-
bliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études. IVe section.
Sciences philologiques et historiques 219). Paris, 1915
ChS Corpus der hurritischen Sprachdenkmäler
CILT Current Issues in Linguistic Theory
CIRPL E. Sollberger. Corpus des inscriptions royales présargoniques de
Lagaš. Genève, 1956
CLAM M. E. Cohen. The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopota-
mia. Potomac, 1988
CM Cuneiform Monographs
CPOA Civilisations du Proche-Orient. Série I. Archéologie et Envi-
ronnement
СРОР Civilisations du Proche-Orient. Série 2. Philologie
CRRAI Compte rendu, Recontre Assyriologique International
CSA Cahiers de la Société Asiatique
CST T. Fish. Catalogue of Sumerian Tablets in the John Rylands Li-
brary. Manchester, 1932
CT Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British
Museum
CTH E. Laroche. Catalogue des textes hittites. Paris, 1971
CTN Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud
CTNMC Th. Jacobsen. Cuneiform Texts in the National Museum, Copen-
hagen. Leiden, 1939
CUN Tablets of the Cornell University Collection
CUNES Cornell University Near Eastern Studies
CUSAS Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology
Dalman2 G. H. Dalman. Aramäisch-neuhebräisches Handwörterbuch zu
Targum, Talmud und Midrasch. Frankfurt a. M., 1922
DAS B. LaFont. Documents administratifs sumériens, provenant du site
de Tello et conservés au Musée du Louvre. Paris, 1985
356 Babel und Bibel 5

DB The Elamite version of Darius’ trilingual inscription from

Behistun (F. H. Weißbach. Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden.
Leipzig, 1911 and G. G. Cameron. JSC 14 (1960):59–68).
DBH Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie
DCS D. Charpin; J.-M. Durand. Documents cunéiformes de Stras-
bourg. Paris, 1981
DD B. Alster. Dumuzi’s Dream. Aspects of Oral Poetry in a Sumerian
Myth (Mesopotamia 1). Copenhagen, 1972
DM E. S. Drower; R. Macuch. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford, 1963
DMOA Documenta et monumenta Orientis antiqui
DNWSI J. Hoftijzer; K. Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic
Inscriptions (HdO 21). Leiden–New York–Köln, 1995
DP M. F. Allotte de la Fuÿe. Documents présargoniques. Paris, 1908–
1920
DRS D. Cohen. Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou attestées dans les
langues sémitiques. La Haye, 1970ff.
DS–NELL Dutch Studies of the Near Eastern Languages and Literature
DUL G. Del Olmo Lete; J. Sanmartín. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Lan-
guage in the Alphabetic Tradition (HdO 67). Leiden, 2003
DV = Nik.
EA J. A. Knudtzon. Die El-Amarna Tafeln (VAB 2). Leipzig, 1915
Ebla
1975–1985 L. Cagni (ed.). Ebla 1975–1985. Napoli, 1987
ECTJ A. Westenholz. Early Cuneiform Texts in Jena. Pre-Sargonic and
Sargonic Documents from Nippur and Fara in the Hilprecht-Samm-
lung vorderasiatischer Altertümer, Institut für Altertumswissenschaf-
ten der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena. Copenhagen, 1975
EDATŠ F. Pomponio; G. Visicato. Early Dynastic Administrative Tablets
of Šuruppak. Napoli, 1994
EI Eretz-Israel
EK L. Ch. Watelin; S. H. Langdon. Excavations at Kish. Vol. IV
(1925–1930). Paris, 1934
EKI F. W. König. Die elamischen Königsinschriften (AfO Bh 16).
Graz, 1965
EL E. Eisser; J. Lewy. Die altassyrischen Rechtsurkunden vom Kül-
tepe. I–II (MVAG 33, 35). Leipzig, 1930, 1935
ELTS I. J. Gelb; P. Steinkeller; R. M. Withing. Earliest Land Tenure
Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus (OIP 104). Chicago,
1989
 Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference Works, and Sources 357

ElW W. Hinz; H. Koch. Elamisches Wörterbuch (AMI Erg. Bd. 17).

Berlin, 1987
Emar 6 D. Arnaud. Recherches au pays d’Astata. Emar 6/1–4. Paris, 1986
EPSD Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary Project (http://
psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/index.html)
ERC Mém. Édition Recherche sur les Civilisations. Mémoires
ETCSL The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (http://
www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk)
FAOS Freiburger altorientalische Studien
FM Florilegium Marianum
FO Folia Orientalia
Fö U. Förtsch. Altbabylonische Wirtshaftstexte aus der Zeit Lugalban-
da’s und Ururkagina’s. Texte 1–195 (VS XIV/1). Leipzig, 1916
GAAL Göttinger Arbeitshefte zur altorientalischen Literatur
GAG3 W. von Soden. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (AnOr
33). Roma, 1995
Gir. Cuneiform tablets from Giricano
GKT K. Hecker. Grammatik der Kültepe-Texte (AnOr 44). Roma, 1969
GMTR Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record
GOF Ir Göttinger Orientforschungen. Reihe 3. Iranica
HALAT3 L. Koehler; W. Baumgartner. Hebräisches und Aramäisches
Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Leiden, 1991
HANE/M History of the Ancient Near East/Monographs
HANE/S History of the Ancient Near East/Studies
HchI F. W. König. Handbuch der chaldischen Inschriften (AfO Bh
8/1–2). I–II. Graz, 1955–1957
HdO Handbuch der Orientalistik
HED J. Puhvel. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Berlin, 1984ff.
HEG J. Tischler. Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar (IBS 20). Inns-
bruck, 1977ff.
HHB H.-S. Schuster. Die hattisch-hethitischen Bilinguen. Leiden, 1974
Hirose T. Gomi; Y. Hirose; K. Hirose. Neo-Sumerian Administrative
Texts of Hirose Collection. Potomac, 1990
HKM S. Alp. Maşat-Höyük’te Bulunan Çivi Yazılı Hitit Tabletleri (He-
thitische Keilschrifttafeln aus Maşat-Höyük) (TTKY 6/34).
Ankara, 1991
HLb Cuneiform tablets in Haverford Library
358 Babel und Bibel 5

HLC G. A. Barton (ed.). Haverford Library Collection of Cuneiform

Tablets or Documents from the Temple Archives of Tello. I–III.
Philadelphia–London, 1905–1914
HS Hebrew Studies
HSAO Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient
HSED V. E. Orel; O. V. Stolbova. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dic-
tionary. Materials for a Reconstruction (HdO 18). Leiden, 1995
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
HW J. Friedrich. Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Kurzgefasste kritische Samm-
lung der Deutungen hethitischer Wörter. Lfg. 1–4. Heidelberg,
1
1952–1954, 21991. Erg. Hefte 1–3. Heidelberg, 1957–1966
HW2 J. Friedrich; A. Kammenhuber (Hrsg.). Hethitisches Wörterbuch.
Zweite, völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage auf der Grundlage der
edierten hethitischen Texte. I–III. Heidelberg, 1975–1994
IAS R. D. Biggs. Inscriptions from Tell Abū Salābīkh (OIP 99). Chi-
cago, 1974
IBoT Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerinde Bulunan Boğazköy Tablet-
lerinden Seçme Metinler
IBS Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Vorträge und
kleinere Schriften
ICK 1 B. Hrozný. Inscriptions cunéiformes de Kültepe. Prague, 1952
ICK 2 L. Matouš. Inscriptions cunéiformes de Kültepe. Prague, 1962
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
IM Cuneiform tablets in the Iraq Museum
IOS Israel Oriental Studies
IrAnt Iranica Antiqua
ISET S. Kramer; M. Çig; H. Kizilyay. Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerinde
Bulunan Sumer Edebi Tablet ve Parçaları (Sumerian Literary
Tablets and Fragments in the Archaeological Museum of
Istanbul). I–II. Ankara, 1969–1976
Ish. Cuneiform tablets from Ishchali
ITT F. Thureau-Dangin; H. de Genouillac; L. Delaporte. Inven-
taire des tablettes de Tello, conservées au Musée Impérial Ottoman.
I–V. Paris, 1910–1921
Ja. M. Jastrow. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and
Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York, 1926
JA Journal asiatique
JAC Journal of Ancient Civilizations
 Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference Works, and Sources 359

JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions

JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBVO Jenaer Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JCS SS Journal of Cuneiform Studies. Supplement Series
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
JEN Joint Expedition with the Iraq Museum at Nuzi. American
Schools of Oriental Research. Publications of the Baghdad
School. Texts
JEOL Jaarbericht Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap “Ex Oriente Lux”
JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient
JIES Journal of Indo-European Studies
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JMC Journal des médecines cunéiformes
JNES Journal of the Near Eastern Studies
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
JSOT Sup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series
JS Journal for Semitics
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JTT Journal of Translation and Text-linguistics
JWG/S Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Sonderband
K. Cuneiform tablets from Kuyunjik in British Museum
KAI H. Donner; W. Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschrif-
ten. I–III. Wiesbaden, 1962–1964
KAR E. Ebeling. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts (WVDOG
28, 34). I–II. Leipzig, 1919, 1920–1923
KAV O. Schroeder. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts
(WVDOG 35). Leipzig, 1920
KB E. Schrader et al. (Hrsg.). Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. Samm-
lung von assyrischen und babylonischen Texten in Umschrift und
Übersetzung. Berlin, 1889–1915
KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi
KL Cuneiform tablets from Kāmid el-Lōz
Kraus
Texte F. R. Kraus. Texte zur babylonischen Physiognomatik (AfO Bh 3).
Berlin, 1939
360 Babel und Bibel 5

Kt Cuneiform tablets from Kültepe

KTBl J. Lewy. Die Kültepetexte der Sammlung Rudolf Blanckertz, Ber-
lin. Berlin, 1929
KTH J. Lewy. Die Kültepe-Texte aus der Sammlung Frida Hahn, Ber-
lin. Leipzig, 1930
KTK N. B. Jankovskaja. Klinopisnye teksty iz Kjul’-Tepe v sobranijah
SSSR. Moscow, 1968
KTS 1 J. Lewy. Die altassyrischen Texte vom Kültepe bei Kaisarīje. Keil-
schrifttexte in den Antiken-Museen zu Stambul. Konstantinopel,
1926
KTS 2 V. Donbaz. Keilschrifttexte in den Antiken-Museen zu Stambul
(FAOS Bh 2). Stuttgart, 1989
KTU2/CAT The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and
Other Places (KTU: second, enlarged edition) (ALASPM 8).
Münster, 1995
KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi
KUG K. Hecker. Die Keilschrifttexte der Universitätsbibliothek Gießen.
Gießen, 1966
KUKN N. V. Arutjunjan. Korpus urartskih klinoobraznyh nadpisej. Ere-
van, 2001
KZ Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der
indogermanischen Sprachen (Kuhns Zeitschrift)
LAK A. Deimel. Liste der Archaischen Keilschriftzeichen (WVDOG
40). Berlin, 1922
Lane W. Lane. An Arabic-English Lexicon. London–Edinburgh,
1863–1893
LAPO Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient
LAS S. Parpola. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhad-
don and Assurbanipal (AOAT 5/1–2). I–II. Neukirchen–Vluyn,
1970–1983
LE A. Goetze. The Laws of Eshnunna (AASOR 31). New Haven,
1956
LHarm A. Goetze. Fifty OB Letters from Harmal. Baghdad, 1958
LIH L. King. The Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi. London,
1889–1900
Liv T. G. Pinches. The Cappadocian Tablets Belonging to the
Liverpool Institute of Archaeology. AAA 1 (1908):49–80
LIV2 H. Rix; M. Kümmel. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben.
Wiesbaden, 2001
 Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference Works, and Sources 361

LKA E. Ebeling. Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Assur. Berlin, 1953

LKU A. Falkenstein. Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Uruk. Berlin, 1931
LSIE Leiden Studies in Indo-European
LSS Leipziger Semitistische Studien
LTBA I L. Matouš; W. von Soden. Die lexikalischen Tafelserien der Ba-
bylonier und Assyrer in den Berliner Museen. Berlin, 1933
M. Cuneiform tablets from Mari
MAD Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary
MAH Cuneiform tablets in Musée d’art et d’histoire (Geneva)
MANE Monographs on the Ancient Near East
MAOG Mitteilungen der Altorientalischen Gesellschaft
MARI MARI. Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires
MBI G. A. Barton. Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions. I. Sumeri-
an Religious Texts. New Haven, 1918
MBQ Cuneiform tablets from Tall al-Munbaqa
MBTU O. R. Gurney. The Middle Babylonian Legal and Economic Texts
from Ur. London–Oxford, 1983
MC Mesopotamian Civilizations
MCS Manchester Cuneiform Studies
MCSA Mesopotamia. Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology
MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin
MDP Mémoires de la délégation en Perse
MEE Materiali epigrafici di Ebla
MHEM Mesopotamian History and Environment. Memoirs
MHEO Mesopotamian History and Environment. Occasional Publi-
cations
MHET Mesopotamian History and Environment. Texts
MIO Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung
MisEbl Miscellanea Eblaitica
MNS Å. Sjöberg. Der Mondgott Nanna-Suen in der sumerischen Über-
lieferung. I. Texte. Stockholm, 1960
MOS
St(udies) Middle Eastern Studies Program. Leiden–Istanbul, 1999ff.
Msk Cuneiform tablets from Meskene
MSKH Materials and Studies for Kassite History
MSL Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon
MSL SS Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon. Supplementary Series
MSS Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft
362 Babel und Bibel 5

MSVO Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen

Orients
MTBM M. Sigrist. Messenger Texts from the British Museum. Potomac,
1990
MUSJ Mélanges (de la Faculté Orientale) de l’Université Saint-Joseph
MVAG Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft
MVN Materiali per il vocabulario neosumerico
MVSt Münchener vorderasiatische Studien
MZL R. Borger. Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon (AOAT 305). Mün-
ster, 2004
N. Cuneiform tablets from Nippur in the University Museum,
Philadelphia
NABU Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires
NATN D. I. Owen. Neo-Sumerian Archival Texts Primarily from Nippur
in the University Museum, the Oriental Institute and the Iraq Mu-
seum. Winona Lake, 1982
NBC Cuneiform tablets in the Nies Babylonian Collection
NCBT Cuneiform tablets from Newell Collection
ND Cuneiform tablets from Nimrūd
NEB New English Bible
Nik. 1 M. V. Nikol’skij. Dokumenty hozjajstvennoj otčetnosti drevnejšej
epohi Haldei iz sobranija N. P. Lihačeva (Drevnosti Vostočnyja
3/2). St. Petersburg, 1908
Nik. 2 M. V. Nikol’skij. Dokumenty hozjajstvennoj otčetnosti drevnej
Haldei iz sobranija N. P. Lihačeva. II. Epoha dinastii Agade i
epoha dinastii Ura (Drevnosti Vostočnyja 5). Moscow, 1915
NJPS New Jewish Publication Society Version
NRVN M. Çiğ; H. Kızılyay (Hrsg.). Neusumerische Rechts- und Verwal-
tungsurkunden aus Nippur. I (TTKY VI/7). Ankara, 1965
N(S)G(U) A. Falkenstein. Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden. I–III
(AbhMünchen NF 39–40, 44). München, 1956–1957
NTSŠ R. Jestin. Nouvelles tablettes sumériennes de Šuruppak au Musée
d’Istanbul. Paris, 1957
NYPL H. Sauren. Les tablettes cunéiformes de l’Époque d’Ur de la New
York Public Library (PIOL 19). Leuven, 1978
OAA Old Assyrian Archives
OAAS Old Assyrian Archives. Studies
OAIC I. J. GeIb. Old Akkadian Inscriptions in Chicago Natural History
Museum. Chicago, 1955
 Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference Works, and Sources 363

OBCh Orientalia Biblica et Christiana

OBE U. Jeyes. Old Babylonian Extispicy: Omen Texts in British Muse-
um. Istanbul, 1989
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
OBOSA Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Series Archaeologica
OBT(I) S. Greengus. Old Babylonian Tablets from Ishchali and Vicinity
(PIHANS 44). Istanbul, 1979
OBTR St. Dalley; C. B. F. Walker; J. D. Hawkins. The Old Babyloni-
an Tablets from Tell al Rimah. Hertford, 1976
OECT Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts
OES Oriental Explorations and Studies
OIP Oriental Institute Publications
OIS Oriental Institute Studies
OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology
OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta
OLP Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica
OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
OM Oxbow Monograph
OMRO Oudheidekundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van
Oudheden te Leiden
OPBF Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund
OP(SN)KF Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund
Or. Cuneiform tablets from Ortaköy
Or Orientalia
O(r)A(nt) Oriens antiquus
Or NS Orientalia. Nova Series
Or SP Orientalia. Series Prior
OrSu Orientalia Suecana
OSP 1 Aa. Westenholz. Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Phila-
delphia, Chiefly from Nippur. I. Literary and Lexical Texts and
the Earliest Administrative Documents from Nippur (BiMes
1). Malibu, 1975
OSP 2 Aa. Westenholz. Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Phila-
delphia, Chiefly from Nippur. II. The “Akkadian Texts”, the
Enlilemaba Texts, and the Onion Archive (Carsten Niebuhr
Institute Publications 3). Copenhagen, 1987
Pant..Bab. A. Deimel. Pantheon Babylonicum. Roma, 1914
PBS University of Pennsylvania, Publications of the Babylonian
Section
364 Babel und Bibel 5

PdP La parola del passato

PDT 1 M. Çiğ; H. Kızılyay; A. Salonen. Die Puzriš-Dagan-Texte der Is-
tanbuler Archäologischen Museen. I (AASF B 92). Helsinki,
1954
PDT 2 F. Yıldız; T. Gomi. Die Puzriš-Dagan-Texte der Istanbuler Ar-
chäologischen Museen. II (FAOS 16). Stuttgart, 1988
PEF Palestine Exploration Fund
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PIHANS Publications de l’Institut historique et archéologique néer-
landais de Stamboul
PIOL Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain
PNA K. Radner (ed.). The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.
Helsinki, 1998ff.
PPAC 1 Yang Zhi. Sargonic Inscriptions from Adab. Changchun, 1989
Prag K. Hecker; G. Kryszat; L. Matouš. Kappadokische Keilschrift-
tafeln aus der Sammlung Karlsuniversität Prag. Praha, 1998
PRAK H. de Genouillac. Premières recherches archéologiques à Kich. Mis-
sion d’Henri de Genouillac 1911–1912. I–II. Paris, 1924–1925
Princeton 1 R. M. Sigrist. Tablettes du Princeton Theological Seminary: Epoque
d’Ur III (OPKF 10). Philadelphia, 1997
PRU Palais royal d’Ugarit
PSBA Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology
PSD The Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary. Philadelphia, 1984ff.
PW A. Pauly; G. Wissowa. Realencyclopädie der klassischen Alter-
tumswissenschaft. Stuttgart, 1894ff.
QGS Quaderni di geografica storica
QuSem Quaderni di Semitistica
RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale
RB Revue biblique
RE Cuneiform tablets from Emar in the collection of Jonathan
Rosen (G. Beckman. Texts from the Vicinity of Emar in the Col-
lection of Jonathan Rosen. Padova, 1996)
RÉJ Revue des études juives
RÉS Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique
RGTC Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes
RHA Revue hittite et asianique
RIM Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia
RIMA Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods
RIMB Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Babylonian Periods
 Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference Works, and Sources 365

RIME The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods

RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie.
Berlin, 1932ff.
Rm. Cuneiform tablets in British Museum excavated by H. Rassam
Rochester M. Sigrist. Documents from Tablet Collections in Rochester, New
York. Bethesda, 1991
ROM Cuneiform tablets in Royal Ontario Museum
RS (RŠ) Cuneiform tablets from Ras Šamra
RSF Rivista di studi fenici
RSO Rivista degli Studi Orientali
RSO(u) Publication de la Mission Française Archéologique de Ras
Shamra–Ougarit
RT Recueil de traveaux rélatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyp-
tiennes et assyriennes
RTC F. Thureau-Dangin. Recueil de tablettes chaldéennes. Paris, 1903
SA C.-F. Jean. Šumer et Akkad. Contribution à l’histoire de la civilisa-
tion sans la basse Mésopotamie. Paris, 1923
SAA State Archives of Assyria
SAAB State Archives of Assyria Bulletin
SAACT State Archives of Assyria. Cuneiform Texts
SAALT State Archives of Assyria. Literary Texts
SAAS State Archives of Assyria. Studies
SAB B. Kienast; K. Volk. Die sumerischen und akkadischen Briefe des
III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor der III. Dynastie von Ur (FAOS
19). Stuttgart, 1995
SACT Sh. T. Kang. Sumerian and Akkadian Cuneiform Texts in the
Collection of the World Heritage Museum of the University of Illi-
nois. I–II. Urbana, 1972–1973
SAKF K. Oberhuber. Sumerische und akkadische Keilschriftdenkmäler des
Archäologischen Museums zu Florenz (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur
Kulturwissenschaft. Sonderheft 7–8). Innsbruck, 1958–1960
SAKI F. Thureau-Dangin. Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsin-
schriften (VAB I). Leipzig, 1907
SANE Sources of the Ancient Near East
SANTAG SANTAG. Arbeiten und Untersuchungen zur Keilschriftkunde
SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization
SAT Sumerian Archival Texts
SBAW Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften in München. Phil.-hist. Klasse
366 Babel und Bibel 5

SBL WAW Society of Biblical Literature. Writings from the Ancient

World Series
SCCNH Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the
Hurrians
SD(IOAP) Studia et documenta ad iura Orientis antiqui pertinentia
SDB Supplément au dictionaire de la Bible. Paris, 1928ff.
SED I A. Militarev; L. Kogan. Semitic Etymological Dictionary. I. Anat-
omy of Man and Animals (AOAT 278/1). Münster, 2000
SED II A. Militarev; L. Kogan. Semitic Etymological Dictionary. II. Ani-
mal Names (AOAT 278/2). Münster, 2005
SEL Studi epigrafici e linguistici
SET T. B. Jones; J. W. Snyder. Sumerian Economic Texts from the
Third Ur Dynasty. A Catalogue and Discussion of Documents from
Various Collections. Minneapolis, 1961
SF A. Deimel. Schultexte aus Fara (WVDOG 43). Leipzig, 1923
SHAW Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissen-
schaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse
ShA 1 J. Eidem; J. Læssøe. The Shemshara Archives. 1. The Letters.
Copenhagen, 2001
ShT J. Læssøe. The Shemshāra Tablets. A Preliminary Report. Copen-
hagen, 1959
SK H. Zimmern. Sumerische Kultlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit. I–
II. Leipzig, 1912–1913
SKL Th. Jacobsen. The Sumerian King List (AS 11). Chicago, 1939
SKST Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia
SLB Studia ad tabulas cuneiformes a de Liagre Böhl collectas
pertinentia
SLT E. Chiera. Sumerian Lexical Texts from the Temple School of Nip-
pur (OIP 11). Chicago, 1929
SMEA Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici
SNAT T. Gomi; S. Sato. Selected Neo-Sumerian Administrative Texts
from the British Museum. Chiba, 1990
SpTU Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk
SRT E. Chiera. Sumerian Religious Texts. Upland, 1924
SRU D. O. Edzard. Sumerische Rechtsurkunden des III. Jahrtausends:
aus der Zeit vor der III. Dynastie von Ur (AbhMünchen NF 67).
München, 1968
SS Studi semitici
SSLL Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics
 Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference Works, and Sources 367

SS NS Studi semitici. Nuova serie

SSN Studia Semitica Neerlandiсa
SSS Semitic Study Series
SSU Studia Semitica Upsaliensia
STA E. Chiera. Selected Temple Accounts from Telloh, Yokha and Dre-
hem. Cuneiform Tablets in the Library of Princeton University.
Philadelphia, 1922
StAT Studien zu den Assur-Texten
StBoT Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten
StEb Studi Eblaiti
STH M. I. Hussey. Sumerian Tablets in the Harvard Semitic Museum.
I–II (HSS 3–4). Cambridge, 1912–1915
StOr Studia Orientalia
StP (SM) Studia Pohl (Series Maior)
Streck Asb. M. Streck. Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum
Untergange Niniveh’s (VAB 7). Leipzig, 1916
STT O. Gurney; J. Finkelstein. The Sultantepe Tablets. I–II. Lon-
don, 1957–1964
STVC E. Chiera. Sumerian Texts of Varied Contents (OIP 16). Chica-
go, 1934
ŠL A. Deimel. Šumerisches Lexikon. I–IV. Rom, 1925–1950
T. Cuneiform tablets from Tulūl al-‛Aqar (Kār-Tukultī-Ninurta)
Taanach Taanach letters (W. Horowitz; T. Oshima. Cuneiform in Ca-
naan. Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times.
Jerusalem, 2006)
TAD S. Langdon. Tablets from the Archives of Drehem. Paris, 1911
TAPA Transactions of the American Philological Association
TB Cuneiform tablets from Tell Brāk
T(CA)BI F. Pomponio et al. (eds.). Tavolette cuneiformi di Adab delle Col-
lezioni della Banca d’Italia. Roma, 2006
TC Tablettes cappadociennes du Louvre
TCL Textes cunéiformes du Louvre
TCS Texts from Cuneiforms Sources
TCTI B. Lafont; F. Yıldız. Tablettes cunéiformes de Tello au Musée
d’Istanbul datant de l’époque de la IIIe Dynastie d’Ur (PIHANS
65–77). Istanbul, 1989–1996
TÉL Ch. Virolleaud; M. Lambert. Tablettes économiques de Lagash
(époque de la IIIe dynastie d’Ur). Paris, 1968
368 Babel und Bibel 5

TEM M. Birot. Textes économiques de Mari (III). RA 49 (1955):

15–31
TENUS M. Sigrist. Textes économiques néo-sumériens de l’Université de Sy-
racuse (ERC Mém. 29). Paris, 1983
Thompson
Rep. R. C. Thompson. The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers
of Nineveh and Babylon in the British Museum. I–II. London,
1900
TIM Texts in the Iraq Museum
ТJAMC E. Szlechter. Tablettes juridiques et administratives de la IIIe dy-
nastie d’Ur et de la Ire dynastie de Babylone, conservées au Musée
de l’Université de Manchester et à Cambridge, au Musée Fitzwil-
liam, à l’Institut d’Études Orientales et à l’Institut d’Égyptologie. I–
II. Paris, 1963
TM Cuneiform tablets from Tell Mardī¶ (Ebla)
TMH Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collec-
tion of Babylonian Antiquities im Eigentum der Friedrich
Schiller-Universität Jena
TPAK C. Michel; P. Garelli. Tablettes paléo-assyriennes de Kültepe. I
(Kt 90/k). Paris, 1997
TPTS M. Sigrist. Tablettes du Princeton Theological Seminary. Époque
d’Ur III (OPKF 10). Philadelphia, 1990
TrD H. de Genouillac. La trouvaille de Dréhem. Paris, 1911
TRU L. Legrain. Le temps des rois d’Ur. Paris, 1912
TSA H. de Genouillac. Tablettes sumériennes archaïques: matériaux
pour servir à l’histoire de la société sumérienne. Paris, 1909
TSABR D. Arnaud. Textes syriens de l’âge du Bronze récent (AuOr Sup
1). Barcelona, 1991
TSL Typological Studies in Language
TSO Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik
TSŠ R. Jestin. Tablettes sumériennes de Šuruppak conservées au Musée
de Stamboul. Paris, 1937
TSU H. Limet. Textes sumériennes de la IIIe dynastie d’Ur (Épigra-
phie 1). Bruxelles, 1976
TTC C. Michel. Réédition des «Trente Tablettes ‘Cappadocien-
nes’ de G. Contenau». RA 80 (1986):105–136
TTKY Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları
TUAT Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments
TUT G. Reisner. Tempelurkunden aus Telloh. Berlin, 1901
 Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference Works, and Sources 369

TYBC Texts from the Yale Babylonian Collection

UAVA Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Ar-
chäologie
UCP University of California Publications in Semitic Philology
UDT J. Nies. Ur Dynasty Tablets. Texts Chiefly from Tello and Drehem
Written During the Reigns of Dungi, Bur-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and Ibi-
Sin (Assyriologische Bibliothek 25). Leipzig, 1920
UE Ur Excavations. Publications of the Joint Expedition of the
British Museum and of the University Museum, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, to Mesopotamia
UET Ur Excavations. Texts
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
Ug. Ugaritica
UKN G. A. Melikišvili. Urartskie klinoobraznye nadpisi. Moscow, 1960
UM Cuneiform tablets in the University Museum, Philadelphia
UMTBM 1 F. d’Agostino; F. Pomponio. Umma Messenger Texts in the Brit-
ish Museum. I (Nisaba 1). Messina, 2002
UNT H. Waetzold. Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textilindustrie
(Studi economici e technologici 1). Roma, 1972
USP B. R. Foster. Umma in the Sargonic Period (Memoirs of the Con-
necticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 20). Hamden, 1982
UT(AM)I
I F. Yıldız; H. Waetzold, H. Renner. Die Umma-Texte aus den Ar-
chäologischen Museen zu Istanbul. I (MVN 14). Roma, 1988
UT(AM)I
II H. Waetzold; F. Yıldız; H. Renner. Die Umma-Texte aus den Ar-
chäologischen Museen zu Istanbul. II (MVN 16). Roma, 1994
UT(AM)I
III F. Yıldız; T. Gomi. Die Umma-Texte aus den Archäologischen
Museen zu Istanbul. III. Bethesda, 1993
UT(AM)I
IV T. Gomi; F. Yıldız. Die Umma-Texte aus den Archäologischen
Museen zu Istanbul. IV. Bethesda, 1997
UT(AM)I
V F. Yıldız; T. Ozaki. Die Umma-Texte aus den Archäologischen
Museen zu Istanbul. V. Bethesda, 2000
UT(AM)I
VI T. Ozaki; F. Yıldız. Die Umma-Texte aus den Archäologischen
Museen zu Istanbul. VI. Bethesda, 2001
370 Babel und Bibel 5

V(A)S Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen (Staatli-

chen) Museen zu Berlin
VA(T) Cuneiform tablets in Vorderasiatische Abteilung, Tontafel-
sammlung. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin
VAB Vorderasiatische Bibliothek
VBoT A. Götze. Verstreute Boghazköy-Texte. Marburg, 1930
VDI Vestnik drevney istorii
VO Vicino Oriente
VT Vetus Testamentum
WB Cuneiform tablets in Weld-Blundell Collection, Ashmolean
Museum, Oxford
WF A. Deimel. Wirtschaftstexte aus Fara (WVDOG 45). Leipzig, 1924
WMAH H. Sauren. Wirtschaftsurkunden aus der Zeit der III. Dynastie von
Ur im Besitz des Musée d’art et d’histoire in Genf. Neapel, 1969
WO Die Welt des Orients
WOO Wiener Offene Orientalistik
WTM J. Levy. Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die
Talmudim und Midraschim. Leipzig, 1876
WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Ori-
entgesellschaft
WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes
YBC Cuneiform tablets in Yale Babylonian Collection
YNER Yale Near Eastern Researches
YOS Yale Oriental Series. Babylonian Texts
ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie
ZA(B)R Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte
ZÄS Zeitschrift für ägyptischen Sprache und Altertumskunde
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästinavereins
ZKM Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes
ZVS Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung