Journal of Cuneiform Studies (JCS 61) 2009

Journal of Cuneiform Studies Volume 61

2009 Editor Piotr Michalowski, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Associate Editors Gary Beckman, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Elizabeth Carter, University of California, Los Angeles Piotr Steinkeller, Harvard University Matthew W. Stolper, The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Managing Editor Billie Jean Collins, Emory University

CONTENTS Daniel Potts, Bevel-Rim Bowls and Bakeries: Evidence and Explanations from Iran and the IndoIranian Borderlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Wolfgang Heimpel, The Location of Madga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

Eva von Dassow, Naram-Sîn of Uruk: A New King in an Old Shoebox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

Anne Kilmer and Jeremie Peterson, More Old Babylonian Music-Instruction Fragments from Nippur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93

Jerome Colburn, A New Interpretation of the Nippur Music-Instruction Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97

Jeanette C. Fincke, Zu den akkadischen Hemerologien aus {attusa (CTH 546), Teil I. Eine Hemerologie für das „Rufen von Klagen“ (sigû sasû) und das „Reinigen seines Gewandes“ (subat-su ubbubu): KUB 4, 46 (+) KUB 43, 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Philip C. Schmitz, Archaic Greek Names in a Neo-Assyrian Cuneiform Tablet from Tarsus. . . . . . . 127 Texts and Fragments Barbara Böck, Three New Sources of Mussuåu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

BEVEL-RIM BOWLS AND BAKERIES: EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATIONS FROM IRAN AND THE INDO-IRANIAN BORDERLANDS Daniel Potts (The Universitij of Sydnexj)

The handmade (Karlsbeck 1980; Chazan and Lehner 1990; 25) or moldmade (Balfet 1980: 78, Miller 1981; 128) ves.sel known as the "bevel-rim" or "bevelled-rim" bowl (hereafter BRB) is (haracterized by a coarse, chaff-tempered, highly porous fabric, fired at a low temperature. With its distinctive, often sloppily indented (bevelled) rim and rough exterior (fig. 1), the BRB is easily identified and, once seen, rarely mi.staken for anything else. Although considered a characteristic Mesopotamian ceramic ¡eiffossil of the mid- to late-fourth millennium lie:, the first BRBs ever published were actually discovered in Iran, M Susa, during tbe seasons of 1897/98 and 1898/99 (de Morgan 1900:figs.91, 118, 121). in the winter of 1902/3 at least one complete BRB, later displayed in tbe Louvre, was recovered by Gautier and Lampre at Tepe Musiyan (Burton Brown 1946: 36). The first examples published from a Mesopotamian site were those found at Tell Abu Shahrein (ancient Eridu) in 1918 (Campbell Thompson 1920; tigs. 3.4 and 4.10). In 1925/26 .six BRBs were found at Jamdat Nasr (Mackay 1931: pi. 67.22-23), prompting Ernest Mackay to observe, '"The combination of beveled rim with a rough appearance should be of use in dating other sites where they migbt be found" fMackay 1931: 250). Henri Frankfort obviously concurred, for a year later be cited BRBs—a "rough bowl with thick walls, beveled at the rim"—among the diagnostic shapes of the Uruk period in his classic study of the "Sumerian problem" (Frankfort 1932: 17, n. 3). In 1928 more BRBs from Susa were published (Allotte de la Füye, Cumont, and de Mecquenem 1928; 102.fig.1.4) and during the next few years BRBs were recorded in Assyria for the first time during the British Museum's excavations (seasons of 1929/30-1931/32) at Nineveh (Campbell Thompson and 1 lutchinson 1931: 104; Campbell Thompson and Hamilton 1932: 88; Campbell Thompson and Maliowan 1933: 168). The fact that many BRBs were found upside down at Nineveh in the vicinity of the later Isbtar temple reminded their excavators of much later, similarly upturned Aramaic incantation bowls at Nippur. On analogy with these, Campbell Thompson and bis assistants suggested that BRBs had functioned as votive bowls. BRBs were recorded on the Iranian Plateau for the first time in 1933 during the excavation of Tepe Sialk (Ghirshman 1938: pi. 26.7b; Amiet 1985: 196 and fig. 1.S20) and by 1942 their presence or absence was being cited by D. E, McCown as a significant chronological marker in bis interpretation of Susas stratigraphy (McCown 1942; 43, 44). A year later R. de Mecquenem suggested that BRBs functioned as the markers of infant burials at Susa (de Mecquenem 1943; 13). In 1946 T. Burton-Brown compared BRBs to Predynastic and Old Kingdom Egyptian bread pots (Burton-Brown 1946: 36-37), in which he 1

JCSHI (2(HW)

DANIEL POTTS

Map of sub-regions, identified by Roman numerals, in which BRBs have been recorded (see Table 1 for complete listing of sites by name within each sub-region). was followed a year later by E. Baumgartel (1947: 93). Neither, however, explicitly suggested that BRBs had been used for baking bread (this is, however, implied by Schmidt 1982: 317), and even the formal parallel was dismissed by H, Kantor (Kantor 1954: 6; Hennessy 1967: 39). In 1952, P Delougaz published a thorough investigation into the problem of their function. Rejecting the Nineveh teams proposal that they had been used as votive offerings, Delougaz suggested instead that their "porosity, shape, and size would have been well suited' to "processes of food preparation such ... as the separation of whey from curds" (Delougaz 1952; 128). Discussion of function languished somewhat over the next decade as tbe emphasis shifted again to the utility of BHBs as chronological markers, Following on from McCown s observations about the presence of BRBs at Susa, R. H. Dyson Jr., included bevel-rim bowls among tbose ceramic indicators that denoted the spread of what he termed the "Uruk-Jamdat Nasr-related horizon'" in Iran in the second edition of Chwtiologiefi in Old World Archaeol<)g,y published in 1965 (Dyson 1965: 219). By that time

BEVEL-RIM BOWLS AND BAKERIES

Fig, 1. BRB f nun Ur. donated to the jNicholson Mustuni, University of Sydney, in 1935 {NM 35.81), height 8.5-9.8 cm, base diameter 7,5 cm, rim diameter 16-16.8 cm. this point needed no further emphasis, however, and again the question of function arose, this time from an entirely different perspective. Two ver\' different hypotheses appeared in rapid succession. In 1967, B, Buchanan suggested that BRBs at Telloh had been used to hold aromatics burnt near tlie site of burials in order to sweeten the air and quell the stench of death (Buchanan 1967: 539). In 1970, however, a far more robust explanation was pt oposed In- H, J, Nissen, In the course of his excavations in K/L XII at Uruk-Warka during the winter seasons of 1965/66 and 1966/67, Nissen encountered some 1520 BRB fragments. The sheer numbers involved set him to thinking about the function of this mass-produced type, and in so doing to reject earlier hypotheses linking them to both votive offerings and food preparation. Instead, the uniformitv of BRBs suggested to Nissen that these vessels were used to distribute those rations in itattualia on whi( li, according to cuneiform sources, a large proportion of the southern Mesopotamian population was dependent during the late-fourth millennium BC (Nissen 1970; 137). Integial to Nissens hypothesis, but unstated in his 1970 publication, was the identification of the archaic pictogram GAR NINDA with the BRB (Green, Nissen, Damerow, and England 1997: 153-54; Englund 1998: 180; CancikKirschhaum and Chambón 2006: 201), In fact, already in 1925, A, Deimel had recognized "the pictographic referent of the sign GAR (Sumerian 'ninda' and Akkadian correspondence akalu) as a dining bowl" [Englund 1998; 180; Deimel 1925: 102, sign 597), Several years after Nissen s original discussion of the mass-produced types at Uruk was published, G. A. Johnson tested his hypothesis by examining two features of it which he called "distributional cfticiency" and "standardization of container volume according to ration size" (Johnson 1973: 132). Johnson argued that evidence of BRB manufacture at Susa, Choga Mish, and Abu Fanduweh, all of whidi were major population tenters during the fourth millennium BC, suggested the existence of a

DANIEL POTTS system of efficient BRB production close to hypothesized points of ration distribution. Secondly, based on his estimates of BRB volume for 189 sherds from five sites fKS-36, KS-39, KS-59, KS-108 and Susa), John.son identified three size categories with mean volumes of .922, .647 nnd .465 liters. These, he believed, corresponded reasonably well to standard ration units of 1, .72 and .5 liters (Jobnson 1973: 135). Subsequent metric analysis by T, W. Beale cast doubt on the validity' of this tri-modal ration-bowl hypothesis {Beale 1978), largely because of what he considered an intolerable degree of .size/volume variability in the sample, a point illustrated by the BRBs from Tepe Farukhabad a.s well (Miller 1981). John.son, however, continued to argiie that Nissens hypothesis best fit the available evidence (1987: 112). Interestingly, variability observed in BRB volumes might .still be accommodated by the proto-cuneiform evidence since the sign GAR is associated with no fewer than 33 units of grain ranging in size from 25 liters (Nj) to a .small quantity (NgQ,.), the exact size of which is unknown (Englund 20Ü1: 8-9). On its own, however, GAR "does have a specific metrological equivalent in archaic accounts ... with some variations, it corresponds to the numerical sign N30a equal to 1/30 of the sign N] in the capacity system" (Englund 1998; 180), or an amount (25/30) of ca. .83333 liters, Nevertheles.s, it seems highly unlikely that BRB volume variants, which so often seem to reflect the vagaries of ceramic production, correspond to gradations in the Archaic system of grain metrology, In fact, this entire line of reasoning may be invalid if, as Englund assumes, some sort of scoop or ladle of fixed size was used to dish out the rations, putting the cereal into the BRB (J. Dahl, pers, eomm.). In this case, the variability of BRB volumes would be irrelevant' The 1980s witnessed a change of direction in the interpretation of BRBs. In 1982, the prehistorian K. Schmidt propo.sed that BRBs were bread molds (Schmidt 1982) while in 1987 J.-D. Forrest proposed that they had held food consumed at banquets by the Late Uruk aristocracy and had been discarded after use (Forrest 1987). A year later, the Assyriologist and Old Testament scholar A. R. Millard, apparently unaware of Schmidts suggestion, returned to the bread-mold explanation (Millard 1988), a suggestion tbat quickly received the support of Egyptologists struck by the similarity of BRBs and ancient Egyptian vessels used to make pot-baked bread (Ghazan and Lehner 1990). Shortly thereafter, however, G. Buccellati steered the di.scussion in yet another direction when he suggested that BRBs were used as containers for the dessication of .salt cakes and their subsequent transport and distribution (Buccellati 1990: 25). Today it would seem that, despite Beales critique of tbe metric regularity of the BRB and the alternative hypotheses put forward over the years, Nissen s ration-bowl theory is favored by most archaeologists and a large number of Assyriologists, Undoubtedly this is due to the fact that it sits well with our current understanding of Late Uruk social and economic evolution (not just the notion of laborers compensated with rations) particularly since, as a ceramic fossil index of the Late Uruk period, BRBs have figured in the voluminous literature generated since the late 1960s on what is generally known as the "Uruk phenomenon" or "expansion" (Algaze 2005; Stein 1999; Gollins 2000; Rothman 2001 ; Postgate 2002; Butterlin 2003; for a critique .see Potts 2004). The startling discovery in the 1960s of what appeared to be Uruk-era colonies at Habuba Kabira, Jabal Aruda, and Tell Kannas on the Middle Euphrates, with assemblages of typical Mesopotamian ceramics including BRBs, was but a prelude to a spate of work at Uruk-related sites in southern Anatolia like Arslantepe, Kurban Höyük. Lidar Höyuk, Hassek Hoyuk, and Hacinebi. As scholars began to speak of Uruk colonies (e.g., Habuba Kabira); Uruk enclaves within indigenous, native settlements (e.g., Godin Tepe); and a corona of Uruk influence even further afield, the BRB came to be recognized as one of those Uruk (eramic types that seemed to penetrate furthest into the Me.sopotamian periphery. While this discussion has not ignored finds from sites in Iran (e.g., 1, For a gond overview of the different methods that may be used to estimate vessel volume irom archaeological drawings ;inf! shards, see Seninr ;ind Birnie (1995).

BEVEL-RIM BOWLS AND BAKERIES Algaze 2005: 53-56), it seems nonetheless true that the occurrences of BRBs in Iran and even í urther ea.st, in Pukistan, have not received the attention they deserve, It is to this material that we now turn. BRBs in Iran and Pakistan So much survey and excavation has taken phue in lian since the revolution of 1979, and so few reports of this work have been accessible in the West, that it is difficult to be certain just where BRBs have been recovered. In 1980 A. Le Brun published a list of sixteen sites in Iran {not counting all of the Khuzestan survey sites) at which BRBs had been found and published (Le Brun 1980: 67-68) and by 1999 that number had f^rown to fourty-five (Abdi 1999: 83-84). A search through the relevant literature and consultations with Iranian (olleagues (especially A. Moghaddam and K. Abdij now suggest that BRBs have been picked up on or excavated at over one hundred sites in some nineteen different subregions of Iran and Pakistan, These are listed in Table 1, beginning near Tehran in tbe north and proceeding west into the Zagros, south to Khuzestan and eastward into Fars, Kerman, and Pakistani Makran. Each of the regions is numbered sequentially from I to XIX (the subareas of the Central Western Zagros and Bakhtiyari mountains are not given individual numbers but are listed separately). In addition, site names are preceded by a number from 1 to 107. This should be taken as a minimum figure, since the exact number of sites with BRBs in some regions (e.g,, Bard Sir) is unclear The fallibility of the available distribution data is clearly illustrated by the fact that, during an informal survey carried out in 2002, K. Roustaei, C. Pétrie, L, R. Weeks, and the author picked up BRBs on several sites, including Arjan (Behbehan; figs, 2-3), Qaleh Gelli (Lordegan;figs.4-5), Tol-e Spid, and Tol-e Nurabad (Mamasani). where they had not been previously recorded. Clearly, therefore, the likelihood is great tbat BRBs are present on many more sites than those recorded here. Equally, there are sites such as Geoy Tepe in Azerhaijan (Burton-Brown 1951: fig, 22,237) and Tepe Farhadgerd in Khorasan (Gropp 1995: 78, Abb. 10 IFl] and Taf. 3a) where the identification of BRBs, alleged by the excavator, can be clearly refuted by the published photographs and drawings. Explanations While their presence at Susa, Godin Tepe, Sialk, Tal-e Malyan, and Tepe Yahya is often noted in the literature, BRBs are clearly much more widespread to the east of Mesopotamia than is commonly assumed. Their disc over\' in the north not far from Tehran, and in the south at Miri Qalat in Pakistan, signals a distribution pattern radically different from what was envisaged even just a few years ago. On the other hand, outside of Susiana, and perhaps the Marv Dasht plain (Tai-e Malyan, Tal-e Kureh), BRBs are neither particularlv numerous when present nor evenly distributed across the landscape, Di.scontinuities in their distribution may be misleading, however. While they are absent in the Pusht-i Kuh (Haerinck 1987: 56), this region is almost completely surrounded by regions with BRBs (Deh Luran and Susiana to tbe south, central Luristan to the north), raising the possibility that their absence may be an artifact of exploration. Similarly, there is every po.ssibility that BRBs will one day he fonnd on sites situated between Bard Sir (Tal-i Iblis), the Sogliun Valley (Tcpc' Yahya), Jiroft (Mathoutabad), and Pakistani Makran (Miri Qalat), areas that today form discontinuous links in a chain of evidence stretching ever eastward. As noted above, between the 1920s and the 1960s numerous scholars emphasized the presence (or absence) of BRBs on sites in Iran as a significant chronological marker and this point continues to be made whenever BRBs are discovered where they were previoiusly unknown (e.g., in our recent excavations at Tol-e Nurahad and Tol-e Spid, in the Mamasani district). Since the late 1960s, however, the cultural implications of BRBs have been given at least as much empbasis as their chronological significance, in assessing the situation at Tal-i Iblis and Tepe Sialk in 1967, J. R. Galdwell expressed a

DANIEL POTTS

- t,s

Fig. 2. View of the surface of Arjan, November, 2002.

BEVEL-RIM BOWLS AND BAKERIES

Fig. 3. BRB fragment from the surface of Arjan. very general view that the presence of BRBs, among otber ceramic types, signified a link to Mesopotamia when he wrote: The importance of Ihhs VI is in its specific connections with Sialk IV and tn late Uruk and Jemdet Nasr in Mesopotamia. Ghir.slimiin explained Sialk IV as resullins irom iui Elamife expansion. Oui" discovery of Iblis VI now suggests that his explanafion may ha\e heen foo simple, f{)r we can douht if there was a simultanemis Elnniite invasion into Kerman. For the iiionient, we prefer to see both Sialk IV and Ihlis VI as participating in a grand interaction with Mesopotamia, a parallel to the old Uhaidian oikumeiiê of Braidwood and Howe, but even more far flung, reaching Egypt, perhaps the Balkans, and two extreme points. Sialk and Iblis on the western Plateau. The western Plateau, while maintaining in parf its distinctive cultural areas, was perhaps now becoming a vast hinterland of the Mesopntamian cities of late Unik and Jemdet Nasr times, perhaps ahout 2800 BC. (Caldwell 1967: 38)

A Vast Hinterland of Mesopotamia? While Susa and Siisiana might be viewed in this light—at least tltiring fhe Late Uruk period—there are probably few scholars working today who would describe the whole of western Iran in such words, let alone the entire area extending north to Tehran and east to Pakistani Makran. Nevertheless, whether or not Iran was an Uruk hinterland, it is certainly true that the presence of BRBs has been invoked on numerous occasions as a reflection of ties between tbe Iranian Plateau and Uruk Mesopotamia. Thus, in their preliminary report on Tal-i Iblis, Caldwell and Maiek Sbahmirzadi suggested tbat tbe presence of BRBs tbere migbt "have something to do witb tbe export of copper from Iblis" (Caldwell and Sbabmirzadi 1966; 16), a view still echoed four decades later by C, Algaze wbo suggested that tbe copper resources of the Iblis region "were accessible to Uruk societies in Khuzestan" (Algaze 2005; 70). Similarly, Algaze bas called Sialk IV^ an "Uruk outpost," suggesting tbat the presence of BRBs "and occasional conical cups of Uruk type" at Tepe Ghabristan were byproducts of copper exploitation (it is unclear whether he meant actual mining or simply trading/acquisition) "by Uruk societies by way of the Khorasan Road" (Algaze 1989: 584; 2005: 70). He linked "a handful of beveled-rim bowl sberds" at Tepe Yahya with exploitation of copper sources in Kerman "by Uruk societies in Kbuzestan via routes across the southcentral Zagros and tbe Kur River basin" (Algaze 1989; 585; 2005; 71). Quite clearly, for Algaze, BRBs are a concrete manifestation of Uruk agents from Mesopotamia and/or Khuzestan on the Iranian Plateau. A more strictly Mesopotamian interpretation tbat seems to exclude a possible link witb Khuzestan has been espoused by R. Matthews and H. N. Fazeli who recently suggested, a propos the BRBs from Tepe Ghabristan, that,

DANIEL POTTS

Fig. 4. View of Qaleh Gelli, November 2002.

Fig. 5. BHB fragments from the surface of Qaleh Gelli,

The possible means by which these vessels reached, or were made at, Ghabristan are numerous, but tlie\' undeniably connect the site, however tenuously, with the world of Late Umk Mesopotamia Interest of the lowlanders in access to nearhy topper ,source,s, or rather to means of exchange with long-established communities who controlled copper extraction, smelting and casting, may well he materialised in some way in the form of the recovered bevelled-rim howls," (Matthews and Fazeli 2004;"65; Fazeli 2004; 197) Stich a view, however, contrasts with that of the excavator, Y. Majidzadeh, who believed that, "The community of culture between Ghabristan and Godin indicates clearly that the beveied-dm bowls must have come by way of the Katigavar Valley" (1976: 199). Elsewhere Majidzadeh suggested that the inhabitatits of Ghabristan and Godin "had at the time an identical culture" (1976; 172), which, in light of Weiss and Youngs 1975 article on Godin V, he considered "a Susian trading outpost" (1976: 170). As the title of their original article clearly indicated, Weiss and Young initially viewed the Godin V complex as a settlement of people from Susa, yet a decade later Yoting and L. D. Levine were no longer speaking of the "merchants of Susa," but of Mesopotatnian colonies. As they wrote, "beveled rim bowls have been found on survey in sufficient quantities on at least three sites (Md. 30, 101. and 167) as to suggest the presence there of three lowland Mesopt)tainian 'colonies' similar to that known from Godin V" (Levine and Young 1986: 40). A few \ears later, Zagarell was more restrained, suggesting that Godin V and Sharak, near Shahr-e Kord, which he termed "Uruk commtniities of the western Zagros," might have housed "small groups of 'merchants'," rather than full-blown colonies. Such an explanation, Zagarell continued,

BEVEL-RIM BOWLS AND BAKERIES was in his opinion "less likely for Tepe Yahya .., and highly improbable for the other Zagros sites" (Zagarell 1986: 419). Algaze, while identifying the Godin V (and Sialk) Uruk material as evidence of an "Uruk outpost in the periphery," remained undecided about whether its inhabitants hailed from Mesopotamia or Khuzestan (Algaze 2005: 53). Moving beyond the broad characterization of sites with BRBs as "Uruk communities" or "outposts," Zagarell made an explicit link between BRBs and the Mesopotamian system of standardized rations discussed above. He wrote. Since, a.s I have suggested, these vessels are generally thought to he related to the ration system, their presence indicates the utilization of rationed labor in these newly e.vploitecl region.s .., It i.s not impo.s.sible that, in (ertain areas, hegemonic controls brought them [the small communities of merchantsi tribute in goods or lahor ser\'ife. Indeed, even for the Zagros rim (Godin, Sharak), where smaller sites might support communities of specialized households—for example, merchants—it is improbable that we are dealing with a group of independent merchants. If one accepts the function of the bevelled-rim bowl expounded here, it is difficult to understand why large numbers of such bowls are found at such sites ii' these communities were simply merchant colonies; they can have had no important economic function in u merchant conte.xt. It is possible, however, that the bowls played a symbolic role, reflecting .sacred or administrative dominance. (Zagarell 1986: 419) BRBs, he suggested, were symbols of "the new Me.sopotamian productive mode" (Zagarell 1986: 419) and further: "The lowland complex |of wares, etc.| seems to be restritted to a handful of sites. This is particularly true of beveled rim bowls, an important element of that complex, possessing what seems to have been a specialized, urban-based function (apparently tied to lowland public/communal redistribution and production systems .,.)" (Zagarell 1989: 294). Fifteen years later, M. Rothman went even further, extending the implications of BRBs from ration redistribution to labor recruitment. He wrote. Their distribution relative to other pottery types may be a way to monitor the loci of state activity.... Because beveled dm bowls are one of the first pottery types found both north and south at the beginning of the Uruk expansion ... they could indícate a regionwide pattern of lahor recruitment. Still, more work needs to be done both on the functions of these and other pottery types and on the whole i.ssue oí labor and its relation to .social organization, ethnicity, status identification, and particularly centralized control networks. (Rothman 2004: 101) The views expressed above can be summarized as follows. One school of thought (Weiss, Young, Levine, Algaze, Matthews, Fazeli) has identified BRBs as markers of Uruk cultural identity, associating them with merchants or other agents engaged in the procut ement of copper and perhaps other commodities. Another school of thought (Zagarell, Rothman) has interpreted the presence of BRBs as a reflection of a peculiar .system of labor compensation via standardized rations, a system that is basically Mesopotamian in its origins and best documented, at this early date, at Uruk and other sites where archaic protocuneiform texts have been found. Nicholas, proposed a variant of this latter thesis; in discussing the BRBs found at Tal-e Malyan she wrote. It does seem unusual, though, that so many ration howLs would have heen hroken and discarded at the administralive center which would noniially be presumed to he the agency disbursing the rations The juxtaposition of large amounts of bevetled-rim howls with the ¡¡resence of predominantly secular administrators raises the jjossihility that those vessels were being bnniglit to the administrators' building, hut as tax-containing bowls rather than votive howl.s." (Nicholas 1990: 128; 1987: 71) Although Nicholas would turn the ration hypothesis on its head and replace it with a tax payment in iiatiiralia for rations received, her explanation still situates the BRB in a very specific economic context and a.ssigns it an economic function, albeit in the delivery of taxes rather than the disbursement of rations.

10

DANIEL POTTS Evaluation

The entire discussion of BRBs—either as cultural markers of Uruk merchants/agents, or as the residue of an Uruk-style ration economy—is reminiscent of discussions of Hellenistic ceramics in the Near East and Central Asia ahout twenty-five years ago when, confronted with the geographically broad diffusion of Hellenistic diagnostics, some classical archaeologists (e.g., Hannestad 1983: 84, 117-20) ventured to suggest the presence of Greek colonists throughout the entire region from the Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush hased on the frequency of Hellenistic ceramics. If the fallacy of the view that "hehind every fishplate lurks a Greek" is apparent, the idea that BRBs = Sumerian or Susian traders is no less worrying. As we have seen, BRBs are now distributed from the Tehran plain in the north to Pakistani Makran in the southeast. Is it really plausible to think that, at more than one hundred sites documented here (Table 1), Uruk merchants/agents were present or an Uruk-styie ration or labor economy was in place? Outside of Susiana, we are not, after all, dealing with thousands of examples on any given site. Indeed, although surveys and limited excavations produce imperfect data, we are often confronted with only a few BRB sherds. Can these modest numbers support a ration system hypothesis? Do they really reflect a massive system of labor recruitment across the Iranian Plateau? Does the small quantity of BRBs reflect the presence of either settled Uruk merchants or itinerant commercial agents looking to procure copper? In my opinion the an.swer to each of these propositions must be "no," How, then, do we deal with the presence of the BRB from Miri Qalat to Tepe Maral? One simple but essential question to ask of the BRBs found in Iran is this: Were they made locally, that is, where they have been found on sites to the east of Mesopotamia, or were they imported? Here it must be admitted that very few have been analyzed, Examples from Tal-e Malyan (Blackman 19891; 8, Table 7 [6 examples each from the TUV and ABC areas]) were made of clay that is comi)ositionally consistent with local clays and locally made, chaff-tempered ceramics. Blackman noted, "Alden postulates that bevel rim bowls may bave been produced, as needed, by local households and that an as yet unidentified site that produced necked goblets probably exists. This production site may well be Tal-e Malyan" (Blackman 1981: 17). This conclusion is still somewhat equivocal, however. Unpublished analy.ses by Blackman of BRBs and a blank tablet from the IVC building at Tepe Yahya suggest that both were locally produced (C, C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pers. comm.). In addition, analyses recentiv undertaken hy C. A. Pétrie on sherds from Tol-e Spid and Tol-e Nurabad showed that the BRBs at both sites were compositionally similar to each other, and to earlier Neolithic material as well, suggesting a nearby center of production (Pétrie, pers. comm.). More direct evidence of BRB manufacture at Iranian sites is provided by the discovery of BRB wasters found in the vicinity of pottery kilns at Choga Mish (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: 49) and fired BRBs within a kiln at Tall-e Abu Chizan (tig. 6), east of the Gargar in eastern Khtizestan (Moghaddam 2007). intuitively, the fragility of BRBs might suggest tbat they were used fairly close to their place of production, for transport of such vessels over great distances could have resulted in a high rate of breakage, 1 will therefore assume, as a working hypothesis, that the BRBs found in Iran and Pakistan were locally produced rather than imported. The nature of BRB manufactnre is, however, a separate issue. Do they represent "domestic" production, in the sense of pottet y produced in individual households by non-professional potters, or were the>- the products of specialized craftsmen? As Balfet noted, notwithstanding variations in diameter and height, the level of standardization of BRB form and paste is more consistent with production by professionals who are, she argued, less concerned with quality than with quantity (Balfet 1980; 79, n. 13). Civen the fact that BRBs were found at Susa hefore they were recognized anv'where in Mesopotamia, should we in fact consider the possihility that they originated somewhere to the east of Mesopotamia? Logically, the diminishing frequency of BRBs on sites as one moves eastwards from Mesopotamia would surest the Tigris-Euphrates Valley as their point of origin. Nevertheless, the literature on many

BEVEL-RIM BOWLS AND BAKERIES

\

Fig. 6. Kiln witb BRBs inside at the Middle Susiana site of Tall-e Abu Chizan, eastern Khuzestan. Courtesy of A. Mogbaddam.

U

12

DANIEL POTTS

sites, including Tepe Sialk, Susa, Tal-e Ghazir, and Tai~i Iblis is peppered with allusions to the "protoBRB" that, if the term has any merit, suggests a form tbat predates the classic BRB. Notwithstanding Cbazan and Lebners discussion of the possible evolution of tbe BRB towards its "classical" form (Chazan and Lehner 1990: 27,fig.2), the designation "proto-BRB" may be simply a misnomer Heigbl and size variation certainly does characterize tbe BRB corpus. Thus, writing about the ceramic assemblage of Acropole I: 22-17, Le Brun noted that it was dominated b>- BRBs, with variations partit tilar to the lower and upper levels (Le Brun 1971: 177). Similarly, at Tepe Yahya it has been observed that, "Besides the classic Mesopotamian variety, both a smaller and a taller variety have been discovered bere which bave parallels at Susa" (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi 1973; 36; Potts 1977; 28, n. 30). More recently, B Helwing has noted, "a clear typological distinction between early shallow forms tbat tend to be made from a loamy cbaff tempered clay, and of a later high, narrow conical form made from a clay with cbaff-and-giit temper is possible and chronologically significant" (Helwing 2005: 54, n. 17). Witbout a detailed analysis of all of tbe C'"* dates from Umk Mesopotamian, and contemporary sites in Iran, Syria, and Anatolia, it is impossible to defend the view tbat the shorter or "proto-BRB" is chronologically earlv eiiotigh to stipport the view tbat the form originated outside of Mesopotamia. It may just be a variant that falls chronologically within the earlier period of BRB use in the Near East. Whether or not the BRB originated in Mesopotamia, it has been considered a quintessentially Mesopotamian artifact for nearly a century Yet if BRBs were made in hundreds of places outside of Me.sopotamia (if we count Syria and Anatolia as well as Iran), should we continue to consider tbem Mesopotamian? As B, Helwing noted several years ago, "Bevelled rim bowls bave long been considered a marker for the Uruk culttue, until closer examination of assemblages from Northern Syria and Soutbeastem Turkey revealed that BRBs can occur alongside otbei"wise clearly indigenous assemblages... and they equally can occur on tbe Iranian plateau witbin strictly indigenous assemblages" (Helwing 2005: 54, n. 17), It is time to rethink our approach to BRBs and to stop looking at tbem as non-indigenous, intrusive elements in tbe many local ceramic traditions in which they appear. In this regard, the study of ancient religion provides us with an obvious analog}- that may be instru( tive, Many originally Mesopotamian deities, including Adad and bis consort Sbala, Inanna, KI (Earth), Nabu, Nana, Ninbursag, and Sin, were worshipped in sotithwestern Iran during tbe second millennium BC: (Potts 1999, in press), Some of these, such as Adad, were still worshipped during tbe Achaemenid period (Koch 1977: 110-11). W, F, M. Henkelman bas made the point, bowever, that the worship of some of these deities in Iran, including Adad, is attested over sucb a great span of time, that it is incorrect to view such deities as Mesopotamian or Babylonian when talking about tbe Iranian context (Henkelman 2006: 240). After fifteen hundred years of veneration, Adad's presence at Persepolis can hardly be considered evidence of tbe worship of a "foreign" deity. If anything, tbe Persians of the fifth century BC may have tbougbt of Adad as an Elamite deity, so ancient wa.s bis worship in the region, but certainly not as Me.si)potamian. A similar sort of logic may help us to understand the cultural cbaracter of tbe BRB. In this case, it is not tbe use and assimilation of BRBs over millennia that transformed tbem from something Mesopotamian into something local, but rather tbe fact tbat they appear to have been made and used in sucb a variety of non-Mesopotamian locales by non-Mesopotamians—since it seems inconceivable tbat Sumerian or Susian enclaves lurk beneatb tbe surface of every site on which BRBs have been found—tbat tbey must be viewed as part of the local cultural répertoire. This being the case, it seems logical to go one step further and to suggest tbat the tises to wbicb BRBs may have been put on tbe Iranian Plateau or in Pakistani Balucbistan were not necessarily the same as those assumed in tbe Mesopotamian beartland. Even if Nissen, Johnson, Englund, and others are correct in interpreting the BRB as a ration bowl in Mesopotamia, it seems difficult to extend tbis interpretation to Iran and Pakistan, where tbe small numbers of BRBs found on many sites where they appear would seem to argue against their having

BEVEL-RIM BOWLS AND BAKERIES

13

functioned in a ration distribution system, let alone "a regionwide pattern of labour recruitment" (Rothman 2004; 101), On the other hand, tme must ask whether their peculiar fabric and shape wotild have been reproduced over and over again if the BRB tlid not have some strong functional raison d'être? Multi-functionality was first seriously argued by A. Le Brun (Le Brun 1980: 66), and some years later K. Abdi suggested that the dramatic socio-economic developments tïf the Uruk period required a theap, easy-to-make, multi-functional container for a variet\' of daily domestic uses, a situation comparable to the increasing demand for cheap packing material ior exports during the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century, and the paper plates and Dixie c ups of the contemporary western societies. (Ahdi 1999; 223) But while many ceramic forms in antiquity were probably multi-functional, it seems difficult to believe that any number of other forms on hand at Tal-i Iblis, Tepe Ozbaki, or Susa couldn't have filled the need fttr multi-functionality. A Culinary Change and a Culture of Emulation in the Fourth Millennium IM;--* If one is looking for a single-function explanation, t)ther than the ration bow!, then, following Schmidt, Millard, Ghazan, antl Lehner, the analogy with Egyptian "pot bread" vessels seems tt) provide the "most convincing explanation for the function of such vessels ... as moulds for cooking leavened bread" (Wengrow 2001; 171), It is nt)table that, although a great deal t)f attention has been paid to early cereal domestication in the ancient Near East, far less attention has been paid to the grinding of harvested grains into flour (Landsberger 1922; Stol 1979) and the making of bread (Währen 1967; Grégoire 1999). As J.-R Grégoire bas noted, "Flat bread constituted the staple diet, but leavened bread had been knt)wn since the Neolithic period, as evidenced by cupola ovens, which coexisted in the Near East as early as from the sixth millennium BGE with cylindrical ovens (taiinr). While the former are suitable for leavened bread, the latter are more appropriate for the breaking of flat bread. The great bakeries used mainly cupola ovens" (1999; 255, citing Währen 1967: 11; Barrelet 1974; Brotnberger 1974; Crawford 1981). According to Pliny (Natural ///.siori/18.71; Chazan and Lehner 1990: 31), both grountl bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia) and chick pea {Cicer arientinum) could be used as leavening agents. Bt)th of these pulses were widely available in the ancient Near East (Stol 1985; Renfrew 1985). The "great bakeries" of which Grégoire wrote were, of course, the huge establishments attested in cuneiform sources. Not very many sites in Iran would have had grinding and baking establishments on a par with those known at Nippur or Umma, but Susa, Tal-e Malyan and Choga Mish—where ca 250,000 BRBs were found in just two seasons of excavation—may well have been baking bread on an industrial scale. Those loaves ma\- well have heen distributed as compensation for labor petformed, just as Rothman, Zagarell, and tbe Mesopotamian ration proponents have suggested. Elsewhere, however, it is equally possible tbat what spread was not a labor system with bread as rations or state/city-state coordinated merchant colonies, but a taste for leavened bread (whatever its Neolithic antecedents)— tentatively identified in contemporary proto-cuneiform text as GUG2;i (Englund 1998: 180, n. 417)— and a new t>'pe of baking technology using easy-to-fashion, locally produced BRBs. In discussing the comparative evidence from Egypt, Chazan and Lehner closely compared the technique of baking in thick-walled, Eg\ptian ¡x-dja bowls (Jacqnet-Gordon 1981 ft)r a detailed presentation of Egyptian bread pots) and in the thinner-walled BRB, suggesting that whereas hedja bowls were in fact portable ovens that were heated and then filled with dough, BRBs were probably filled with dough and then placed in an oven for baking. Importantly, the apparently crude fabric of the BRB, they argued, "can be explained as a response to the uneven and rapid heating to which these vessels were exposed ,.. The more open a ceramic fabric, the more able it is to absorb thermal shock" (Chazan and Lehner 1990: 30). Were

14

DANIEL POTTS

BRBs a kind of "baking tin" in which leavened bread was produced using a similar method to that documented in Egypt? Did non-Mesopotamian palates adopt a Mesopotamian mode of baking in the midfourth millennium that saw the spread of the BRB from the Mediterranean and Anatolia all the way to Pakistan? Was serious élite emulation involved, or just a taste for a new type of bread? The disappearance of tbe BRB, of course, requires an explanation as well Is the bread-baking explanation weakened by the fact that BRBs stopped being made after ca, 3000 BC? If one thinks of Nissens original ration hypothesis, then the answer to this que.stion must surely be "no," After all, the disappearance of the BRB in Mesopotamia did not mark the end of the ration system tbere; therefore, there is no reason to believe tbat the end of the BRB-using phase marked the end of eating leavened bread. Here an observation on bread shape may be relevant. As Grégoire noted, according to Wahren's research, "Loaves dated t(t the third millennium were made from barley, emmer, or wheat flour and were round, concave, or triangular, or even ball- and ring-shaped" (Grégoire 1999: 255), This suggests increasing diversification in bread-baking occurred after tbe fourth millennium, and one could suggest that after an initial phase in which the BRB was used as the main form for baking leavened bread, a greater number of ceramic forms came to be employed to produce loaves of a wide variety of shapes. East of Mesopotamia, and for that matter in those other parts of Western Asia where BRBs had been used, the local evolution of the baker's craft may well have resulted in the modifaction or invention of indigenous ceramic forms that came to replace the BRB as the baking of leavened bread became culturally internalized. Such a scenario would thus account both for the hundreds of thousands of BRBs found at sites like Ghoga Mish, where great bakeries may well have catered to hundreds if not thousands of dependent laborers, and small sites like Wezmeh Gave, where the odd sherd of a BRB may simply reflect the baking of unleavened bread in a fashion initially borrowed from Mesopotamia or Khuzestan. Acknowledgments As noted above, finding out where BRBs have been found is easier said than done, and for their help with some of the newer Itanian discoveries, not all of which are yet published, I would like particularly to thank Abbas Moghaddam (Iranian Genter of Archaeological Research) and Kamyar Abdi (Dartmouth Gollege). I must thank Abbas Moghaddam as well for permission to use the photo of a BRB in a kiln at Tall-e Abu Chizan, published here. Finally, for information and comments on an earlier draft of this paper I am particularly grateful to G G. Lamberg-Kariovsky and Richard Meadow (Harvard University); G A, Pétrie (Cambridge University); L. R Weeks (University of Nottingham); and J. AlvarezMon (University of Sydney).

BEVEL-RIM BOWLS AND BAKERIES

15

Table 1. Occurrences of BRBs at 107 archaeological sites in 19 snh-regions of Iran and Pakistan. Site/Surve\

Reference

I. Tcbriu 1. Tepe Mamorin 2. Wavan 3. Maríil Tepe

near/under new Imam Kbomeini hit Airport flKIA) soutb of Tebran on tbe way to IKIA pai1 of the Tepe Ozbaki complex; sherds from •"a number of beveled-rim bowls" were recorded

Abdi 1999: 84 Abdi 1999: 84 and pers. eomm. Majidzadeb 2000:fig.8.1; 2001/2: 3

4. Tepe Gbabristan

period IV: "about seventy beveled-rim bowl sherds and one complete "'Groben Rlümenfopf"

Majidzadeh 1976: 108,199

5. Tepe Sialk

periods

Gbirshman 1938: pi. 26.7b 1S.2O|, pi. 90 [S.371;D\'son 1965: 223.225; Amiet 1985: figs. 1-2; ilelwing 2005a: 54, n. 17

6. Ad.sman

"so ist auch ji't/t in der Sialk tV-Zcit eine geringe Anzahl von Formen vertreten, die zwar lokal in der Fertigung ist, deren Prototypen jedocb in der mesopolamischen Unikkultur zu sucben sind. Dazu geboren (ilockenlopTe, die nun wesentlich steilwandiger sind als die älteren Fxeinpiare"

Chegini et al, 2004: 215; Helwing 2()05b: 175

7. Cnidin Tepe

period V building ¡icriod VI: "At (iodin outsitie of the Oval Enclosure, in tiiiisp parts of the town occupied in late Period VI, one Hnds trom tbe Late Uruk assemblage only tbe bc^velled rim bowls and eoarse ware trays"

Weiss and Young 1975 Levine and Young 1986: 40

8-10.survey

"Bevelled rim bowls and eoarse ware trays have ... been found on tbe surf'aee of three otber sites ¡other tban Godin Tepe] in the Kangavar valley, but not in any quantity 1 BRB on ¡in uiuiamed .site "sberds of beveled-rim bowis have been picked up at Giyan itself (University Mu.seum collection)" "quantities of beveled-rim bowls at Deshiivar (sic) not many miles from Giyan"" "beveled rim bowls have been found on survey in sufiieient quantities on at least tbree sites (Md. 30,101, and 167)"

Levine and Young 1986: 40

17, Chogha Gavaneb

•"In onr surf'aee pick-up ;it Choghii Gavaneh we found stray pieces of Beveled-Rini Rowl"; in Step Trench I, "il dense deposit of discarded Uruk pottery, including Bevel-Rim Rowls"

Abdi 2001: 5

18. WezmebCave 19. survey

one sherd Abdi 2003: 424 "No Hulailan site ... yielded more than four Reveled- Henrickson 1983: 456. citing Mortensen rim bowls" 1976: 45 "A few bevel rim bowls and a po.ssible drooping spout Goff 1971: fig. 5.19; Wrigbt 1987: 147 [Goff 1971: figures ¡9.23;Mortensen 1975:figures7,8) on one of the campsites and one of the village site.s of the Ihihiihin Plain are the sole possible indications of the Late Uruk Period."

II. Qazvin

1 U.C. Plateau

IV (;. Western Zagros Kangavar)

11.survey 12. Tepe Giyan Kermansbab) 13. Tepe Debsavar IMahidasht) 14-16. survey

Islamabad)


20. Cbia Fatela

Howell 1979: 157 Dyson 1965: 232, cf. 219 Dyson 1965: 219 Levine and Young 1986: 40

16

Region

DANIEL POTTS

Remark.s

Siti-/Siir\i\

Referenre

V I!>eh Liiran 21. Tepe Farukhabad

20 BRBs

Wright t981 : pi. i ie-f. Tables 27 and C4

22. Tepe Musiyan

complete bowl displayed in the Louvre before WW III

Burton Brown 1946; 3fi

23. Susa 24. Choga Mish

indeterminutf but large number ea. 250,000 in the 3rd and 4th seasons alone

25-78. survey

"Bevel rim bowls apparently occur at all Middle and Late Uruk sites." of vvhith there are at least 54

inter alUil,r\inm 1971, 1978. 1980 Delougaz and Kantor 1996: 49,fig.8, 111. 83.T-V Jobnson 1973: 58 and Table 18

79-80. KS-1508,1617 81. Tall-e Abu Chizan

unstated number

Moghaddam and Miri 2003:fig.12.2-3 Moghaddam 2007

82. Tal-i Ghazir ÍRH-1) 83. Tepe Moravache/ RH-6 84. Tepe Bayamun/ RH-32

unstated number

Caldwell 1957-71:figs.18, 27

unstated number

Wright and Carter 2003: 76

unstated number

Wrighl and C;ai1er 2003: 81

85. Qaleh-ye Toi

2 BRBs

unpubli.shed;.sefn 17.11.2002

86. Tepe Sabz'aii Zabarjad

"a eoncentration of standard beveled ritn bowl Wright 1979:67 sherds ... covering an oval area oriented noiiheast.southwest, perpendicular to the oval summit of the mound" "five complete examples from the pit in Unit B as welt Wright 1979: 71, fig. 25b-c, Tables 7-8 as bv 15 rim-to-base seetions"

87 BZ.86/1 87. Arjan

possible proto-BRB I BRB (figs. 1-2)

Dittmannl984:52;ef.66 unpublisbed; seen 15.11.2002

89. Tul-i Boland Aloiii/ K25

BHB found by Zagarell: "many" on 2002 survey

(Lordegan)

90. Oaleh Gelli (Ll)

4 BRBs (figs. 3-4)

(Shahr-e Kord)

91. Sharak (SIO) 92. S17

"large numbers of beveled rim bowls" "large numbers of beveled rim bowls

Zagarell 1978:136 and unpublisbed; seen 19.11.2002 by Potts, Roustaei. Weeks, and Pétrie unpublished; seen 19,11.2002 by Potts, Roustaei, Weeks and Pétrie Zagarell 1989: 291, fig. 17.6.3 Zagarell 1989:291

93. Tol-e Nurabad 94. Tol-e Spid

41 BRBs recovered in 2003 excavations 23 BRBs recovered in 2003 excavations, more in 2007

95. Tappeh Mohammad Kazemi/MS47

1 BRB

VI Siisia

VII. Mianab/Gargar

VIII. Ram Ilormviz

IX. Oaleh-ye Toi X.Izeh

XI. Behbehan/Zuhreh

XII. Bakhtiyari mountains (Kliana Mirza)

XIII, Mania.sani

fig

Weeks et al. 2006:fig.3.100-102 Pétrie et a!. 2006: fig 4.73; Pétrie et al. 2007; Zeidi, McCall, and Khosrowzadeb 2006:fig.6.15 |MSP 19481 ZeidI, McCall, and Kbosrowzadeh 2006: 6.15 |MSP 1786)

BEVEL-RIM BOWLS AND BAKERIES

Region

Site/Survpv

17

Remarks

XIV Mai-v Daslit 96. Tal-e Malyan 97. Tal-e Kureh 98-100. survey

indeterminate but significant number (TUV; ABC, H5) Nicholas 1990: 56-57; Siminer 2003: 46-47; Miller and Sumner 2003: Table 2 at least 326 BRBs in both Terminal Lapui and Banesii Aiden 2003; 196 and Table DI levels at least 3 nut of 42 sites with Banesh diagnostics had hiuniner 2Ü03: 199 and Table E2 BRBs, a fiiiihcr 18 had dnubtfiit Banesh presence

\VB;mlSir 101. Tal-i Iblis

102-103. survey

jK'rind IV: "The Mesopotamian variety of beveled rim Chase, Caldwell and Fehérvári 1967; 184 Imwl period VI: "In a 5 m test pit (No, 111 200 m SSVV "occur rather sparingly"; Catdwell 1967: of tlie edge of the mound the first 20 cm level 38 andfig.39 lower rontained 61 beveled rim howl fragments, 4 trough .spouts und other sherds reminiscent of Sialk IV" 5 BRBs at Tal-e Khomi, 2 at Tal-e Dashtekar Alire?,a Khosrowzadeb pers, comm,; 2005

104, Tepe Langar

30 Itm southeast of Kennan, unstated number of BRBs Lamberg-Karlovsky 1968: 167

105, Tepe Yahya

indeterminate number

Potts 2001: figs. 2.19-20

106,Mathoutabad ((', 1 km E of Konar Sandal South)

"abundant fragments", "about ]3% of the whole ceramic assemblage, and their fragments come by the hundreds"

Vidale 2007 and pers. comm.

107 Miri Qalat

indeterminate number

Besenval 1994; 521; 1997: Bg, 18

.WI. Kerman XVli, Sdgluin Wlll.Jiroft

MX. Maknm

18

DANIEL POTTS References

Abdi, K, 1999 2001 Alden, J. 2003

The Bevcled-Rim Bowl: Function and Distribution, Pp. 64-85 The hanian World: Essays on Iranian Art and Archamlo^ii Fn'sented to Ezat O. Negfihlxni, ed. A, Alizadeh, Y. Majidzadeh, and S, M, Sliahmirzadi, Tehran: Iran University Press. (Persian. Knglisli summary pp, 222-23), Archaeological Research in the Islamabad Plain; Report on the First and Second Seasons, 1998-1999, Iranian Journal of Archaeology and History 13/2-14/1: 3-5 (English abstract). Appendix D. Excavations at Tal-e Kureh. Pp. 107-98 in Early Urban Life in the Ixind of Anshan: Excavations at Tal-E Malyan in the Highlands of Iran. ed. W. M. Siimner. Philadelphia: University Museum Monoy;raph 117,

Algaze, G, 1989 The Uruk E.xpansion: Cross-Cultmal Exchange in Early Mesopotamian Civilization. Current Arühro]X)logy 30: S7\-mS. 2005 The Uruk World Sy.'iteni 2nd edition. Chicago; University of Chicago Press. Allotte de la Fuye, F M,; Cumont, F.; and de Mecquenem, R. 1928 Numismati(fue, Epigraphie grecque. Céramique élamite. Paris; Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique en Perse 20. Amiet, P 1985 La période IV de Tépé Sialk reconsidérée, Pp. 293-312 in De î'îndus aux Balkan.'^, recueil Jean Deshayes, ed. J.-L. Hiiot, M. Yon, and Y. Calvet. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisation.s. Balfet, H, 1980 A propos du métier de l'argile: Exemple de dialogue entre ethnologie et archéologie. Pp. 71-82 in Varchéologie de l'Iraq du début de l'cpŒiue néolithique à 333 avant notre ère, ed. M,-L. Barrelet Paris: CNRS, Barrelet, M.-L 1974 Dispositifs à feu et t uisson des aliments à Ur, Nippur et Uruk. Paléotient 2; 243-300. Baumgartel, E. 1947 The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt. Vol, 1. Oxford: Oxford Universit\' Pre.ss, Beale, TW, 1978 Beveled Rim Bowls and Their Implications for Change and Economic Organization in the Later Fourth Millennium HC./ÍVES37: 289-313, Besenval, R. 1994 Le peuplement de l'ancienne Gí'drosie, de la protohistoire à la période islamique: Travanx archéologiques récents dans le Makran pakistanais. Comptes rendus de ¡Académie des hi.'icriptions et Udleslettres 1994: 513-35. 1997 The Chronology of Ancient Occupation in Mukran. Pp, 199-215 in South Asian .Archaeology 1995, ed. R, Allchin and B, AlUhin, Delhi: Oxford and IBH, Blackman, M. j . 19S1 The Mineralogical and Chemical Analy.sis of Banesh Period Ceramics from Tal-i Malyan, Iran. Pp, 7-20 in Scientific Studies in Ancient Ceramics, ed. M, J, Hughes. London: British Museum Occasional Studies 19. Bromberger, C, 1974 Fosses à cuisson dans le Proche-Orient actuel: Bilan de quelques observations ethnographiques. Pa/eorícíií 2:301-10, Buccellati, G. 1990 Sait at the Dawn of History: The Case of the Bevelled-Rim Bowls. Pp. 17-40 in Resurrecting the Past A Joint Tribute to Adncin Bounni, ed, P Matthiae, M, van Loon, and H. Weiss, Leiden: Uitgaven van het Nedeiiands Histoiisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. Buchanan, B, 1967 The Prehistoric Stamp Seal: A Reconsideration of Some Old Excavations./AOS 87; 525-40. Burton-Brown, T, 1946 Studies in Third Millennium History. London: Luzac, 1951 Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948. London: John Murray.

BEVEL-RIM BOWLS AND BAKERIES

19

Biittcrlin. P 2003 Les temps ¡mHu-urlxiius da Mésa¡}<)tamic: Contacts et acculturation à re'jxKjtie dVruk au Moyen-Orient Paris: CNRS, CatdwelU.R. 1957 Ghazir, Tell-i. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 3: 348-55. 1967 The Sctlinganti Re.siilt.s of the Kemian Project. Pp. 21-4Ü in Invef!tigatio7isatTal-i-Iblis,ed.J.K Caldwell. Springfield: Illinois State Museinn Preliminary Reports 9. Caldwell. J. R., and Sliahmirzadi, S. M. 1966 Tal'i-lblis, the Kemian Range and the Beginnings of Smeîtitig Springfield: Illinois State Museum Preliniiniiry Reports 7. Campbell Thompson, R 1920 The British Museum Excavations at Ahu Sliahraiii in Me.sop()tamia in 1918. Arcliaeohgia 70: 101-44. Campbell Thompson, Ii., and Hamilton, R. W. 1932 The British Museum Ext avations on the Temple of Ishtar at Nineveh 1930-1931. LAAA 19: 55-116. Campbell Thompson, R, and Hiilchinson, R W. 1931 The Site of the Palace of Ashurna,sirpal II at Nineveh, Excavated in 1929-30, lAAA 18: 79-112. Camphell Thompson, R, and Mallowan, M. E. L. 1933 The British Mu.seum E.vtavations at Nineveh 1931-1932. MAA 2Ü: 71-186. Cancik-Kirschbaum, E., and Chambón, C 2006 Maßangaben nnd Zahlvorstellung in archaischen Texten. AoJ-'33: 189-214. Chase, D. W.; Claldwell. J. R; and Fehérvári, I. 1967 The Iblis Sequence and the Exploration of Excavation Areas A, C, and E. Pp, 111-201 in Investigations at Tal'i'lblis, ed. J. R. Caldwell. Spiingiield: Illinois State Museum Preliminary Reports 9. Chazan, M., and Lehner, M. 1990 An Ancient Analogy: Pot Baked Bread in An(ient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Paíeoríeríí 16: 21-35. Chegiiii, N. N,; Helwing, B.; Parzinger, H.; and Vatandoust, A. 2004 Eine präliistorische lndusti'iesiedlung auf dem irani.schen Platean; Forschungen in Arisman. Pp. 210-16 in Persiens antike Pracht, Vol. 1, ed. T, Stöllner, R. Slotta, and A. Vatandoust. Bochum: Deutsches Berghau Museum. Collins, P 2000 The Uruk Plwnomenon: The Role of Social Ideology in the Exjxmsion of tlie Uruk Culture during tJw Fourth Millennium B.C. Oxford: BAR International Series 900. Crawford, H. 1981 Some Fire Installations from Abu Salabikb, Iraq. Paléorientl: 105-14. Deimcl, A. 1925 Sunierisches Lexikon, Heft I. Vollständiges Syllabar fS'V mit den wichtigsten Zeichenformen. Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici. Delougaz, P 1952 Pottery jrom the Diyala Region. OIP 63, Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Delougaz, P, and Kantor, II. 1996 Chogha MÎ.'^/Ï, Vol. I: The First Five Seasons of Excavations. ¡901-1971 OIP 101, Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Dittmann, R. 1984 EÍ7ie Randebene des Zagros in der Frühzeit: Ergebnisse des Behbehan-Zuhreh Surveys. Berlin: Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 3. Dyson, R,H„Jr, 1965 Problems in the Relative Chronology of Iran, 6000-2000 B.C. Pp. 215-56 Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, ed. R. W. Ehrich, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Englund, R.K. 1998 Texts from the Late Uruk Period. Pp, 15-233 in Mesopotamien: S])äturuk-Zeit und FrühdynaHtische Zeit, ed. P Attinger and M. Wiifler. OBO 160/1. Freihurg/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2001 Grain Accounting Practices in Archaic Me.sopotamia. Pp. 1-35 in Changing Viens on Ancient Near Eastern Matlieniatics, ed. J. Heyrup and P. Damerow. Berlin: Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 19.

20

DANIEL POTTS

Fazeli, H. 2004 Chaikoiithisehe Archäologie der Qazvin-Ebene, Pp. 194-9S in Persiens antike Pracht. Vol, 1, ed. T. Stöllner, R, Siotta. and A. Vatandoust. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau Mii.seum. Forrest. J,-D. 1987 Les bevelled rim bowls, nouvelle tentative d interprétation. Akkadica 53: 1-24. Frankfort, H. 1932 Arclmeolfígy and the Siinicrifni Prnhlcnt. SAOC 4. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Ghirshman, R 1938 Fouilles de Téjjé Sialk près de Kasitan. W33. W34, W37. Paris: Geiithner. Gofí', C, L, 1971 Luristan hefore the Iron Age. Irait 9: 13f-51. Green, M.; Nissen, H. J.; Damerow, P; and Englund, R. K. 1997 Archaiscfie Texte aus l/r«fc, II. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Grégoire, J.-P 1999 Major Units for the Transformation of Grain: The Grain-Grinding Households (eo-HARHAR) of Southem Mesopotamia at the End of tlie Third Millennium BCE. Pp, 223-57 in Frehititory of Ag^riculiure: New Ex})erimental and Ethnographic Approaches, ed. P Anderson. Los Angeles: UCLA Institute of Archaeology Monograph 40. Gropp, G. 1995 Archäologische Forschungen in Khoraaan. Iran. Wiesbaden: Beihefte zum TAVO B 84. Haerinck, E. 1987 The Chronology of Luristan. Pusht-i Kuh in the Late Fourth and First Half of the Third Millennium B,C. Pp. 55-72 in Préhintoirc de la Mésopotamie, ed. J.-L. Huot. Paris: CNRS. Hannestad, L. 1983 The Hellenistic Pottery from Failaka. Aarhus: Jutland Archaeological Society Publications 16,2 [= Ikaros, the Hellenistic settlements 2.1|. Helwing, B. 2005a Early Complexit\- in Highland Iran: Recent Research into the Chalcolithic of Iran. TÜBA-AR [Türkiije Bilimlcr Akademifii Arkeoloji DeigisH Turkish Academy of Scic^nces journal of Archaeologi^ 8: 39-60. 2005b Long-Distance Relations of the Iranian Highland Sites during the Late Chalcolithic Period: New Evidence from the Joint Iran i an-Germ an Excavations at Arisman. Prov, Isfahan, Iran. Pp. 171-78 in South Asian Archaeology 2003, ed, U, Franke-Vogt and J. Weisshaar. Aachen: [Jnden Soft. Henkelman, W, F. M, 2006 The Other Gods Who Are: Studies iit Elamitc-lranian Acctdfuratio)i Based, on the Persepolis Fortification Texts. Ph,D. Dissertation, University of Leiden. Hennessy, J. B. 1967 The Foreign Relations of Palestine during the Early Bronze Age, London: Qiiaritch. Henrickson, E. 1983 Ceramic Style and Cultural Interaction in the Early and Middle Cbalcolithic of the Central Zagros, Iran, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto. Howell, R. 1979 Survey of the Malayer Plain, ¡ran 17: 156-57. Jacquet-Gordon, H. 1981 A Tentative Typology of Egyptian Bread Moulds. Pp. 11-24 Studien zur Alt gyptischen Keramik, ed. D. Arnold. Mainz: von Zabern. Johnson, G. A. 1973 lj)cal Exchange and Earh/ State Development in Southwestern Iran. Ann Arbor: Anthropological Papers of the University of Michigan Musenm of Anthropology 51. 1987 The Changing Organization of Uruk Administration on the Susiana Plain. Pp. 107-39 in The Archaeology of Western Iran: Settlement and Society from Prehiston/ to the Islamic Conquest, ed. F. Hole, Washington, D,C, and London: Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry. Kantor, H. 1954 The Chronologv of Egypt, Pp. 1-27 in Relative Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, t'd. R. W Ehrich, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

BEVEL-RIM BOWLS AND BAKERIES

21

Karlsbeck, J. 1980 I^a c'éranii
DANIEL POTTS Pétrie, C, A.; Asgari Chaverdi, A; and Seyedin., M, 2006 Excavations at Tol-e Spid, Pp. 89-134 in The Maniasani Arcliat'ol()i:,ical Project Staf^e One: A Rc^mrt on the First Tua Seasons of the ICAR—University of Sydney Expedition to the Mamasani District, tars Province, Iran, ed, D. T, Potts and K, Rousfaei. Tehran: Archaeological Report Monograph Series 10, Pétrie, C. A; Sardari Zarchi, A; Aiamdari, K.; and Javanniard Zadeh, A. 2007 Developing Societies and Economies in 4th Millennium BC Fars: Further Excavations at Tol-e Spid. irai), 45; 301-9, Postgate, J.N,,ed, 2002 Artefacts of Complexity: Tracking the Unik in the Near East Warminster: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Pofts, D. T 1977 Tepe Yahyi» and fhe End of the 4th millennium on the Iranian Plafean, Pp, 23-.31 in Lc plateau iranien et lAsie Centrale des origines à la conquête islamique, ed. J, Deshayes, Paris; CNRS, 1999 The Arcliaeologij of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 2001 Excavations at Te])e Yahija. /.967-/,975.' Tlie Third Millennium Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research 45. Cambridge: Peabody Museum Press. 2004 The Uruk Explosion: More Heat than Light? The Review of Archaeology 25/2: 19-28, In press Elamite Temple^Building. In From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible, ed. M, J. Boda and J. R. Novotny. Münster: Alter Orient und .Mtes Testament, Renfrew, J. 1985 Pulses Recorded from Ancient Iraq, BSA 2: 67-72, Rothman, M, S, 2001 Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors: Cross-Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Santa Fe; School of American Research Piess; Oxford; James Currey, 2004 Studying the Development of Complex Societ> ; Mesopotamia in the Late Fifth and Fourth Millennia BC. Journal of Archaeological Research 12: 75-119. Schmidt, K. 1982 Zur Verwendung der mesopotamischen "Glockentöpfe," Arcliäologisches Korresjxfíidenzblatt 12: 317-19. Senior, L, M., and Biniie, D. P, III, 1995 Accurately Estimating Vessel Volume from Profile Illustrations, American Antiquity 60; 319-34. Stein,G. 1999 Rethinking World Systems: Diasporas. Colonies, and Interaction in Uruk Mesopotamia Tucson: University of Arizona Press, Stol, M. 1979 On Trees, Mountains and Millstones in the Ancient Near East Leiden; Mededelingen en Verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch Cenootschap Ex Oriente Lux 21, 1985 Bean.s, Peas, Lentils and Vetches in Akkadian Texts, BSA 2: 127-39, Sumner, W. M, 2003 Early Urban Life in the Land of Anshan: Excavations at Tal-e Malyan in fhe Highlands of Iran, Philadelphia: University Museum Monograpli 117, Vidale, M, 2007 The Graveyard of Mathoutabad. Unpublished paper delivered at the Mkldle Asian Intercultural Space (MAIS) conference, Ravenna, Italy, 7 July, Wahren, M, 1967 Brot und Gebäck im. Leben und Glauben des Alten Orient Bern; Schweizerisches Archiv für Brot- und Gebäckkunde, Weeks, L. R,; Alizadeh, K. S,; Niakan, L,; Aiamdari, K,; Khosrowzadeh, A,; and Zeidi, M, 2006 Excavations at Tol-e Nurabad, Pp. 31-88 in The Mamasani Archaeological Project Stage One: A Report on the First Two Seasons of the ICAR-University of Sydney Expedition to the Mamosani District. Fars Province. Iran, ed. D, T, Potts and K, Roustaei, Tehran: Archaeological Report Monograph Series 10, Weiss, K, and Young, T C, Jr 1975 The Merchants of Susa: Godin V and Plateau-Lowland Relations in the Late Fourth Millennium BC, Iran 13: 1-17,

BEVEL-RIM BOWLS AND BAKERIES

23

Wengrow, D, 2001 The Evolution of Simplicit> ; Aesthetic Labour and Social Change in the Neolithic Near East, World Archaeology SU: 168-88, Wright,! i. T 1979 .Archaeological Investigations in Northeastern Xuzestan, 1976, Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology Technical Reports 10, 1981 An Earl\ Town on the Deh Luran Plain; Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad, Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthrtjpology Memoir 13. 1987 TheSusiana Hinterlands during the Era of Primary State Fonnation. Pp, 141-55 in The Archaeology of Western ¡ran, ed. F 1 foie. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Wright, H. T. and Carter, E, 2003 Archaeological Surve\ on the Western Ram Hormiiz Plain, 1969, Pp, 61-82 in yeki hud. yeki nabud: Essays on the Archaeology of ¡ran in Honor of William M. Sumner, ed. N. F. Miller and K. Abdi. Los ,'\ngeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 48. Zagarell, A, 1978 The Role of Highland Pastoralism in the Development of Iranian Citdlization iProto- and Prehistoric ¡ran). Inauguraldissertation, Freie Universität Berlin, 1986 Trade, Women, Class, and Society in Ancient Western Asia. Current Anthro^MÀogy 27: 415-30. 1989 Pastoralism and the Early State in Greater Mesopotamia. Pp, 280-301 in Archaeological Thought in America, ed. C-, C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zeidi, M,; McCÀill, B.; and Kliosiouzatleb, A, 2006 Survey of Dasht-e Rostam-e Yek and Dasht-e Rostam-e Do, Pp. 147-68 in The Mamasani Archaeological Project Stage Oiw: A Re¡K)rt on the First Two Seasons of the ¡CAR-Uniœrsity of Sydney ExjK'dition to the Mamasani District. Fars Proviïice, Iran, ed, D, X Potts and K, Roustaei. Tehran: Archaeological Report Monograph Series 10.

THE LOCATION OE MADGA Wolfgang Heim,pel, University of California, Berkeley

1. The Thesis' F. Thureau-Dangin published in SAKl 176 XVIII a seal legend whose first three lines he read as H u - u n - n i - n i pa-te-si Ki-mas'" sakkanak Ma-ad-qa'""Hunnini, governor of Kimash, general of Madqa." The identification of "Ma-ad-qa" with the locality Madga, which is attested in Ur III and earlier periods, led to the conviction that, just like Kimash, it was located in the area east of the Tigris. Marvin Powell, collating the seal legend, found that "Ma-ad-qa'''" actually reads ma-at Elam'''. His new reading was quoted in RIA s.v. Kimas.^ Therewith the trans-Tigridian localization of Madga lost its rationale, and a new search for its localization is required. In his inscriptions, Gudea mentions Madga as source of bitumen and as the location of the ordeal river. The Old Babylonian letters from Mari show that bitumen from Hit was an economic necessity for southern Mesopotamia. Abi-Mekim, an emissary of Zimri-Lim of Mari to Hammu-rabi of Babylon, reports in ARM 26 468:20'-23' on negotiations about the city of Hit, whose possession both kings claimed. After much diplomatic back-and-forth, the matter came to a head when Hammu-rabi declared: "If it were just a word, why would I need Id? The means (of transportation) of your land is donkeys and carts; the means of (transportation of) this land is boats. I do need that city for the bitumen and the asphalt. If it were not for that, why would I need that city?" In the words of S. Lackenbacher, who published this text, "Les raisons qu'il (Hammurabi) donne sont intéressantes car elles ne sont ni politiques ni stratégiques mais d'ordre économique." This economic necessity did not start with Hammu-rabi. It existed as long as boats of the region were sealed with bitumen. The Mad letters also document the river ordeal in Hit, to which people came from as far as Aleppo and Karkamish in the northwest and Elam in the southeast. The double coincidence of Madga and Hit as principal source of bitumen and as location of a river ordeal indicates that they were two names of the same place. It is the aim of this article to substantiate this thesis.

1. Abbreviations follow the CAD. Ur III sources are quoted according to the Database of Neo-Sumerian Texts (BDTNS). Erlenmeyer 152 is the text treated in Englund 2003. In dates of Ur III texts AS, S, and SS stand for Amar-Suen, Shulgi, and Shu-Suen. Additional abbreviations are: BPOA: Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas: Madrid; CUSAS: Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology. 2. For the seal legend see now RIME 3/2.6.1. Powell's collation may have led Pomponio and d'Agostino to understand the mention of Madga in Nisaba 7 10 as a "small town in the province of Lagash-Girsu."

25

JCS 61 (2009)

26

WOLFGANG HEIMPEL 2. A Closer Look at the Gudea Inscriptions

Cylinder A XVI 7-12 má ha-ù-na má na lu-a ésir a ba-al ésir IGI.ÉSIR im bábbar-ra hur-sag Má-ad-ga-ta níg-gurji má se gana deg-a-giny Gù-dé-a en ''Nin-gír-su-ra im-ma-na-ús

Boats (loaded) with h a-um earth, boats (loaded) with numerous limestones, with water-scooper bitumen, IGI.ÉSIR bitumen, gypsum from the "mountains"^ of Madga, goods as if it were grain from the fields, let Gudea for lord Ningirsu follow one another.

The translations of Falkenstein (1953: 153), Jacobsen (1987: 407), and Edzard (1997: 79) suggest that the bitumen was transported in types of boats called ha^una and nalua. Averbeck (1987: 646) proposed translating "boat-(loads) of ha^una-stones and nalu^a-stones (along with) ... bitumen ...," which agrees with the later view of Falkenstein (1966, 51): "Aus dem 'Gebirge von Madga' besorgte Gudea sich noch 'h a ^ u m Erde, zahlreiche na-Steine, abal Asphalt, IGI.ÉSIR-Asphalt und Gips' und liess all das auf Schiffen nach Girsu transportieren." More detail is found in the parallel passage of Statue B: Statue B VI51-63 Ma-ad-ga'" hur-sag Í7 lú-ru-da-ta ésir ([ ]) gú RÉG 214 im-ta-eji ki-sá é-ninnu-ka mu-ni-dù im ha-um im-ta-e]^]^

hur-sag Bar-ME-ta na4 na lu-a má gal-gal-a im-mi-si-si úr é-ninnu-ka mu-na-ni-gur

From Madga, (from) the "mountains" of the ordeal river, came down ( ) bitumen,... talents. He constructed with it the foundation terrace of House Fifty. Ha^um earth came down. From the mountains of Bar-ME boats with numerous limestone slabs, large boats, he filled with them. He installed them around the base of House Fifty.

The surface of line 53 is damaged. There is not enough space for ésir a ba-al ésir IGI.ÉSIR or even one of these. The sign after gú is unique; Thureau-Dangin listed it according to its form as REG 214, noting "composé de HI et KASKAL?" It can hardly be a number, which would be entered before the measure. Steible (1991: 169) assumes that gú RÉG 214 describes the bitumen, and so does Edzard (1997: 35) suggesting a possible translation "a myriad(?) of talents of bitumen."

3. Steinkeller (2007) convincingly argued the difference between kur and hur-sag as that of a single mountain as opposed to that of a mountain landscape. His standard translation "mountain range" is misleading in the case of the environment of Madga, where we see hills rather than mountains. For southern Mesopotamians anything that was not flat alluvium or a hill created by a ruined settlement, which was called dug, was apparently a mountain. The case of hur-sag Í7 lú-ru-da may be exceptional because the very site of the ordeal is called in later texts hurmnu, indicating a single feature.

THE LOCATION OF MADGA

27

The boatload of ha-ù-na of the cylinder inscription is called an earth (im). The source of "numerous limestones" is given as "the mountains of Bar-ME." There are limestone cliffs and limestone sills forming rapids along the middle course of the Euphrates, where the stone was quarried. For example, ARM 26 292 includes mention of a slab of stone for a stele (na4 na-re-e-em/na-ra-am) of an unusually long 21 m that had been cut in Sa Hiddan, which was opposite Hindanu, not far downstream from Mari. The area of Hit is devoid of possible limestone quarries. The "numerous limestones" would have come from father upstream. Lines 3-12 of the same column of Statue B mention two areas where limestone slabs were cut for use as stele. Many fragments of such stele are preserved, and are discussed by Suter (2000). Umanum and Menua are unrealized. Básala is etymologically connected with Bishri of Jebel Bishri if indeed the spellings Bajj-sal-la and Ba-s/sa-ar are variants."* Statue B VI3-12 U-ma-núm From Umanum, hur-sag Me-nu-a-ta the mountains of Menua, Bajj-sal-la from Básala, hur-sag Mar-TU-ta the mountains of Amorites, na4 na gal large limestone slabs im-ta-ej]^ came down. na-rû-a-sè Into stele mu-dím he made them. kisal é-ninnu-ka In the courtyard of House Fifty mu-na-ni-rú he erected them for him (Ningirsu). Why is there a gap between tbe listing of middle Eupbratian limestone quarries and of Madga, if the latter was the older name of Hit? A closer look at the entire section on building materials for the construction for Gudea's building shows the following sequence: Section on Ruilding Materials, Statue B V 23-VI63 Material

lumber lumber limestone for stele limestone for stele alabaster copper ebony gold gold Halub wood bitumen "numerous limestones"

Source Amanus area of Ebla Umanum Básala Tidanum Abullat of Kimash Meluhha Hahhum Meluhha Gubin Madga

Bar-ME

Place in text V28 V33

VI 3 VI 5 VI 13 VI 21 VI 26 VI 34 VI 39 VI 45 VI 51 VI 59

4. For a difFerent interpretation of this passage and of the cited place names, see Marchesi 2006; 16. I will discuss his proposal elsewhere.

28

WOLFGANG HEIMPEL

The sequence from Mount Amanus to the area of Ebla, and then to Jebel Bishri makes geographical sense, moving from the far west to the Euphrates, and down the river to an area not far upstream from Hit. The alluvium farther south is of no concern, and the view changes east, first to the source of alabaster, which should be Assyria, named after an Amorite tribal group, and then to the source of copper in Abullat of Kimash, which is, according to a new thesis of Potts, in the "Tiyari mountains, north of Amadiyah."^ Next are imports from the Persian Gulf, which would have come up the Tigris to Gu'aba. Last are Madga and Bar-ME. I cannot find a convincing reason for this arrangement, but it does not shake my belief that Madga is the older name of Hit. 3. The Name "Madga " Madga is first attested in the list of geographical names from Abu Salabikh, line 40, where it appears as Má-ga'^' (OíP99 73). This is definitely an early writing of Madga, as indicated by the variation between Ma-ga*"' and Ma-da-ga""' in the list of geographical names from Ebla (MEE 230 37). In documents, the place name is first attested in Old Akkadian administrative records from Girsu, as in ETC 235, which records the expenditure of "5 kors of barley, Madga boat" (5 se gur A-ga-dè'" má Ma-ad-ga'''), or jRTC253 "3 Ma-ad-ga" in a list of workers. In Ur III sources, the name is spelled Má-ad-ga, Ma-ad-ga, Má-da-ga, and Má-ad-da-ga, and misspelled as Ma-da-ad-ga in SATl 16,MVN12 124, and also, perhaps, in jRoc/ie.ster 216, often without the place determinative. In MVN 12 88 Madga is designated as a "city" (uru). There is a slight chance that it was called a "land" (kur) in Hirose 344 (see 8.2 below). A personal name is Ma-da-ga dumu Mu-da-gál in TEL 241: iv 9-10. So far, no reference is found where the geographical name was spelled Ma-da-ga in Ur III texts. In the sequence má Daa-ga in Or 47-49 249: 80, BPOA 1 458, and SAT 3 1213, Da-a-ga is a personal name. That is also likely the case of má Da-ga in JCS 2 (1948) 191, NBG 3221. All other references of the sequence má d a g a known to me come from contexts that indicate the geographical name Madga. The spelling Má-ad-da-ga indicates a pronunciation Mad(d)aga, the spelling Ma-ad-ga a pronunciation Madga. The name is not attested in texts after the Ur III period; it was supplanted with Id, It, or Ida.** 4. Trips to Madga from Umma Documents from Umma record the assignment of workers for trips to Madga. All these journeys were round trips, which is occasionally explicitly stated. The description in UTI 5 3147 is "gone to Madga, returned from Madga, and boat unloaded" (Má-da-ga-as gen-a Má-da-ga-ta gur-ra ù má ba-al-la). The load is described in MVN 14 310, unfortunately with the general term "things of

5. Daniel Potts in press. The localization would imply that Elam stretched far to the northwest at the time of its governor Hunini, which poses a problem. 6. The Old Babylonian name appears in letters from Mari. It was logographically written with the name of the local god as ''ÍD''', syllabically I-ID''' in ARM 26 503: 8 and I-da*^' in ARM 4 17: 7 as well as in the personal names l-din-''l-da and Síl-lí-I-d|a|. I expect -da to be -id. However, Durand, who collated the text, informed me that he had not seen the wedges that would allow the reading of -id. He also drew my attention to his index on Id (Durand 277: 699) where he states: "Le ville de Hit est tantôt écrite phonétiquement i-da, tantôt parle signe idéogrammatique id, ou parla séquence id-da, série de jeux graphies à partir de l'akkadien idduin, 'bitume,' Idda étant la forme féminine amorrite; la ville ne devait pas être dénommée à partir du terme sumérien 'fleuve.'" Durand does not remark on the form I-ID in AñM26 503: 8. That form can be the Sumerian word for river. It shares the lack of loss of final consonants with Isnunak, the pronounciation of Esnuna in Mad. The name of the inhabitants was spelled i-ta-jii/i. I-ID may have actually rendered I-it.

THE LOCATION OF MADGA

29

the load" (nig gú'-na).'' In AAICAB 1/1 Ashm. 1924-650 the load is identified as hitumen: "gone to Madga, returned from Madga, and in Umma bitumen hoat unloaded" (Má-da-ga-as g e n - n a Máda-ga-ta g u r - r a ù Umma'''-a má ésir ba-al-la). The duration of a trip is given in records of S 46 and 48 as 90 days, corresponding to three months of the administrative calendar. In AS 3, two records give sixty and one record seventy-five days. The three records of AS 7 give seventy, sixty, and fifty-five days. In AS 9, it was seventy-five and sixty days, and in SS 2 seventy, sixty-six, and sixty days. Only one trip was made in a given year. Different numbers of days of one and the same trip reflect the amount of barley and processed foods given to the supervisors who managed the livelihood of their crew. For example, one of the sources for the trip in SS 2 is an entry in Erlenmeyer 152, the balanced account of the scribe Lu-Shara for SS 2, which could not have been written before the end of the year. The entry reads, "three boys for seventy days, their wages** are for 210 days, gone to Madga, sealed tablet of Lugal-itida." BPOA 1 1314 records the duration of the same trip for the same three "boys" as sixty-six days. MVN 14 310 and UTI 5 3147, referring to the same trip, expressly mention the return from Madga and the unloading in Umma, for which only sixty days are given. The length of employment of workers for a trip may have varied according to whether or not they were engaged in unloading the bitumen. It may also reflect unidentified or unrecognized accounting procedures. I suspect that the different numbers of days in this and other groups of texts, which are tabulated below, were fractions of thirty-day months, seventy-five days being two and a half months, seventy days two and a third months, and sixty-six days two and one fifth months. Such time fractions were easily converted into fractions of pay. The single source for the trip SS 6 to 7 gives the duration of the trip as "from SS 6 XII 20 to SS 7 II 25," that is eighty-six days considering that SS 6 had thirteen months in Umma. The eighty-six days do not represent two months and a fraction of a month and should represent the actual duration of the trip and the unloading. The text records the assignment of thirty-five workers of ten agricultural supervisors. Trips from Umma. Agricultural supervisors (nu-bànda gU4) are asterisked (*), other work supervisors marked with a circumflex C^). Text

Date

Days

S 46

90

Syracuse 442

S 46

90

Nisaba 9 284

S 46

90

M VN 2129

S 46

90

BPOA 2 2655

S 46

90

Workers

Notations, supervisors, responsibles, sealers 2

unsealed gîri L u g a l - n i s a g e 2 unsealed giri L u g a l - n i s a g e 2

unsealed

giri L u g a l - n i s a g e 2 unsealed ugula Lugal-gigire* gîri L u g a l - n i s a g e 1 unsealed giri L u g a l - n i s a g e

7. The sign g u' is copied and read as "k u n" by the editors. The term may designate various "things" coming from Madga, not just varieties of bitumen, but also, for example, gypsum. "Things of a load" is also the technical term for a commodity tax (see CUSAS 5 7.5). 8. For the translation "wage" of á see CUSAS 5 2.18.1.1.

30

WOLFGANG HEIMPEL

Text

Date

Days

Workers

Notations, supervisors, responsibles, sealers

BPOA 2 2288

S 48

90

1

ugula g4 sealed by scribe Lugal-Emahe

SAT 2 686

ASI

60

1

"60 gurus U4 1-sè" ugula Lugal-gU4-e* sealed by scribe Abbagina

ßliV 5 272:156-59

AS 3

60

1 Má-da-ga-as gen-na year account of Lugal-gude* sealed tablet (kisib) of Abbagina

SAT 2 747

AS 3

60

1

Má-da-ga gen-a ugula Da-DU-mu* sealed by scribe Abbagina

AUCT3 299

AS 3

75

2

iti215 sealed by scribe Abbagina

Princeton 340

AS 7

70

1

ugula Basa sealed by Lugal-itida

BPOA 2 2227

AS 7

60

2 sealed by tbe scribe Inim-Sbara and tablet to be replaced by tablet sealed by (his father) Lugal-itida

Princeton 366

AS 7

55

1

ugula Lugalmu-ma ag'^ giri Lugal-itida sealed by (his son) Inim-Sbara

Î7TI3 1612

AS 9

75

3

Má-da-ga gen-a ugula Lugal-itida* sealed by Lugal-itida

UTI 5 3047

AS 9

75

1 sà-gU4

Princeton 335

AS 9

75

3

ugula Lugal-nisag-e sealed by Lugal-itida

Princeton 338

AS 9

75

1

ugula Da-DU-mu* sealed by Lugal-itida

Princeton 337

AS 9

60

BPOA 2 2107

SS2

70

2 ugula Ur-mes* sealed by Lugal-itida 1 ugula Sharakam'^ sealed by Lugal-itida

BPOA 1 1314

SS2

66

3

CDLJ 2003:1 I V 32-35

SS2

70

3 whole-year account sealed tablet of Lugal-itida

MVN 14 310

SS2

60

2 "gone to M, goods unloaded in Umma" ugula Ur-sigs'^ sealed by Lugal-itida

ugula Ur-é-nun-na* sealed by Lugal-itida

Má-da-ga gen-a ugula 17-pa-è' sealed by Lugal-itida

THE LOCATION OF MADGA

UTI5 3147

SS 2

60

AAICAB 1/1 Ashm. 1924- SS 6-7 650

86

MVN 18 439

68

31

5 "gone, returned, boat unloaded" ugula Abbagina sealed by Lugal-itida 35 "gone, returned, unloaded bitumen in Umma" multiple overseers, all agricultural supervisors sealed by scribe Abbagina 1 sealed by Lugal-itida

The First Leg of a Trip from Umma to Madga SAT 2 858 and 880, dated AS 5, record the assignment of workers for twenty-seven days of transport work. They treat the same undertaking in slightly different versions, forming a pair of a sealed and an unsealed tablet with the same subject matter.® SAT 2 880 was written and sealed by the scribe Abbagina, son of Lugal-magure, and would have been forwarded to the appropriate provincial administrator. SAT 2 858 is the unsealed copy that Abbagina wrote and gave to the overseer Lugal-magure (no relation). The discrepancy of the number of workers must be an error, and would have become a problem for Abbagina when the two tablets were viewed together at the occasion of composing the annual account in which the record of the work assignment was included. The Pair of Texts SAT 2 858 and 880 Line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

858 3 gurus U4 3-sè nig gú-na kas-dé-a má-a gar U4 5-sè má Má-da-ga gid-da [U4] 6-sè má lá gis kése tir ''Nin-ildum-ma-ta Umma'"-sé má diri-ga ù má ba-al-la U4 5-sè im-dug-a é-da-na aka U4 3-sè kas-dé-a gub-ba U4 5-sè en-gaba-DU-ta Káb-su'*'-s[e] gi gid-]da má ba-al]-la ugula Lugal-[má-gur8-re]

880 2 gurus U4 3-sè nig gú-na kas-dé-a má-a gar-ra U4 5-sè má Má-da-ga gíd-da U4 6-sè má lá-a gis kése-r[á] tir ''Nin-ildum-ma-t[a] Umma'"-sé má diri-g[a] ù Umma'"-[a] m[á] b[a-al-la] U4 5-sè [im-dug-a] é-de4-na [aka] U4 3-sè [kas-dé-a gub-ba] U4 5-sè gi [gíd-da] en-gaba-D[U-ta Káb-su] ""-sé ù Umma'"-a [má ba-al-la] ugula Lugal-má-[gur8-re]

For three days, the workers put the commodity tax (nig gú-na) destined for a reception (kas-dé-a) in Nippur on a boat.'" For the next five days, they towed "a Madga boat" (má Má-da-ga), and for the 9. The translitération is based on photos taken by E. Salgues, for which I thank her and B. Foster. 10. For the reception, literally "poured beer" (kas dé-a), of the governor of Nippur see Sallaberger 1993,1; 35-36,144-45; 1993, II: Table 42. It happened during month VIII and could last into month IX. Receptions of the king in Nippur are also attested as work assignments, for example in CUSAS 3 221 and 240. They happened during month IV The timing of the reception of the governor fits the present texts (see section 7).

32

WOLFGANG HEIMPEL

next six days they tied wood to be towed behind a boat at the forest of Nin-ilduma (má là-a gis kése-rá tir ''Nin-ildum-ma), and floated it back to Umma. They also made adobe walls in PuzrisbDagan, served at the reception in Nippur, and transported reeds. As is not uncommon, the listing of tasks is not in strictly chronological order. I suggest the following scenario: The "Madga boat" was a boat bound for Madga. It was loaded with goods for Madga, but there was enough room to take the items that were destined for the reception in Nippur. The five days of towing the boat would have taken them to Ka-sahara. Upon having reached the Euphrates, they might have changed boats, unloading tbe goods for the reception onto a boat going downstream to Nippur or tbey took tbe Madga-bound boat to Nippur, wbere it could have taken on board more goods bound for Madga. The workers served for three days at the reception in Nippur and made adobe walls in nearby Milehouse for five days. They returned, walking overland to the forest of Nin-ilduma where they helped floating wood to Umma. The last assignment was a difFerent trip in the vicinity of Umma. 5. Pay for Workers Assigned to Madga Trips in Texts from Girsu Texts from Girsu provide information on the pay of workers going to Madga. If my interpretation is not mistaken, over three hundred workers participated in a single trip. The texts do not inform on the tasks of the workers. The transport alone, that is towing the boats upstream and floating tbem downstream, bardly justify the large number of workers and the duration of the trips. They must have been needed for the task of quarrying bitumen. 5.1 Orient 16 135 Tbis is tbe record of an inspection of dockworkers from all three districts of the province dated S 46 IX 7." Thirty-three men were assigned to a trip to Madga (Ma-ad-ga-sè). Three groups of eleven men were formed, each including a foreman called "big brother" (se s-gal). In the first group were three shipwrights (m á - g í n), including the foreman, one soldier (à g a : ú s), five dock workers (lu m a r sa), one "reed-boat person" (lii má g i), and one mat weaver (ad-kub4). The occupations of the workers of the second group are lost in a break. The third group consisted of two "old ones" (su-gÍ4), "old hands" in light of the fact that one of the two served as foreman, four carpenters (nagar), four mat weavers, and one'^ "reed-boat person."

11. The left edge of the tablet is inscribed. BDTNS and CDLI transliterate lugal-''inana U4-da su ba-a-da-ni-ti [ ] su-su-dam. The last line of the last column is "Year Kimash" (mu K i-mas'"'), the shortest possible version of the year name. Entire year names or the last parts were occasionally written on the left edge. The element U4-da is connectable with the element U4 1 -a in the standard full version of the year name. Further, Gomi's copy allows one to read the last two signs as ba-hul. This is then a version of the full name of S 46, albeit one not registered by Sykes (1973) or Sigrist and Gomi (1991): Ki-mas""' lugal ""Inana U4-da su ba-a-da-ni-ti [ ] ba-hul. The verbal form may be understood to include-ni-in causative function and -da- as abilitative. Inana would have enabled the king. "Through Inana the king was able to take Kimash into the hand [and Hurti?] (I[GI.DIB hu-urs-ti'']') was destroyed." The lack of^ an agentive is bothersome. Still, tbe conclusion that Inana was credited with the military success that gave the year the name seems inevitable. No other date formula of an LJr III king credits a god for military success, nor is a trace of it found in the known inscriptions of Shulgi. The name of regnal year 45 breaks the long list of tersely formulated year names. Perhaps long and varied year-name formulations blossomed during the very last years of Shulgi s rule. 12. Copy has "2."

THE LOCATION OF MADGA

33

5.2 Records of barley and flour expenditures for paying the workers who participated in the expedition of S 46 Tbe texts name the disburser and recipient of barley and flour and state the amount and its use as "Madga food" (sà-gal M á-ad-g a"") for tbe month of the date of the text. Tbe texts were inscribed on tablets with a sealed envelope and on unsealed tablets. Tbe seals were those of tbe recipient. Tbe unsealed tablets may have lost tbeir envelope, or they were copies retained by the disburser or tbe recipient. The tablets witb a sealed envelope went to tbe administration. Tbe barley and flour totals of tbe texts are divisible by sixty, wbicb is tbe standard ration of male workers. It was received by tbeir supervisors. They are relatively well documented in Nisaha 7 10 and associated texts, wbicb are treated below. Some of tbem appear to be foremen. DU.DU.NI, for example, was supervisor of workers of tbe type called "seized children" (dumu dabs-ba) and a "seized child" himself. The barley for bis crew was received on bis behalf by someone else, presumably because be was with bis crew on expedition to Madga. Other supervisors were not part of tbeir crew,'^ so, for example, the "overseer (and) dock scribe" (ugula dub-sar mar-sa) Esb^am.'"* He acted as disburser in his capacity of administrator of the dock and as recipient in his capacity of overseer'^ The context shows that tbe workers' rations were not simply moved by tbeir supervisors from the provincial administration to tbe worker The receipts were dated to months when tbe workers were on assignment to Madga. The administration paid supervisors the rations for tbeir workers on a montbly basis whether the workers were present or not. It was up to a supervisor to guarantee tbe livelihood of his crew during tbe entire trip. We do not know bow tbat was organized and what tbe workers actually received. It seems absurd tbat a worker would take along 180 liters of raw barley, wbicb he would masticate, grind, cook, bake, or barter for readily edible food during tbe trip. More likely, tbe workers took along flour, cooked soup, and ate dates furnisbed by their supervisors at the outset of their assignment and financed by tbeir monthly rations.'® In several records of receipts of barley for workers, tbe formula sa Madga appears {MVN 12 88, 120, 454; TCTI 2 8598, 3593). If understood literally as "in Madga," one migbt entertain tbe idea tbat there existed grain stores in Madga from wbich the pay of workers was drawn. Transport of barley to Madga is not recorded in tbe extant documentation. It is therefore more likely tbat the formula is used, just like Akkadian .sa, in a wide range of meanings. In the quoted texts it probably identifies Madga as tbe destination of tbe work assignment. The workers were "boatmen" (má-lah5), "seized children" (dumu dabs-ba), and "workers" (eren). Tbey received the standard ration of sixty liters of barley, including the "seized children." Tbe literal meaning of tbis term, which is typically found in texts from Girsu, indicates orphaned cbildren wbo were "seized," that is, taken in charge as workers when they were able to carry a full workload. By tbe time they were registered as recipients of rations, they were adults. The thirty-three men assigned to a trip of Madga at the inspection of S 46 IX 7, wbicb is recorded in Orient 16 135 (see 5.1), would be among tbem, specifically among, or in addition to, the ninety-nine "assistants" of MVN 12 93. 13. Overseers did not count as one of their crew. Both foremen and overseers were called "overseer" (ugula), so only the context reveals, or does not reveal, the difference. 14. Or was he overseer of the scribes of the dock? 15. Es-àm, presumably pronounced Esh^am and meaning "He-is-(child number) three," occasionally misunderstood and transliterated "3-àm," was not exclusively concerned with workers. MTBM 319, from S 47, and MVN 22 201, from SS 6, show that his responsibilities included dealing with bitumen. 16. For flour, oil, and dates put on Madga-bound boats see 5.4.3 to 5.4.5.

34

WOLFGANG HFIMPFL

Receipts of barley and flour for workers on mission to Madga by tbeir supervisors in S 46. Numbers enclosed in < > in the column "for" result from dividing tbe amount by rations of sixty liters; d. U.M = dumu Ur-Mama, d. L.U = dumu Lugal-usumgal. Text

Month Amount

for

from

Received by

MVN 12 34 ñA 62,15 24 MVÍV12 88

IX X

dumu dab5-ba <38> éren <1> dumu dab5-b a dumu dab5-ba 41 má-lah5 99 ses-tab-ba <30> dumu dab5-lDa <27> éren <40> éren <32> má-lah5 <29> éren <36> éren

Esh^am Nabasa Nabasa Esh^am Nabasa

Ur-kisala Esh^am Ur-kisala Ur-kisala for KA.KA Ur-mes sabra

MVA^12 103

X X

MViV 12 93

X

MVIV 5 148

MVIV 12 127

X X XI XI XI

SAT 1 16

XI

MVIV 12 78 MVIV 12 124 MVIV 12 120

I.O.O 7.3.0 O.I.O I.O.O 8.1.0 19.4.0 6.0.0 5.2.0 8.0.0 6.2.0 5.4.0 71.0

Rochester 216 XI MVIV2 17 XII

dabin se se zi se se se se se se se se

2.3.0 se 2.4.0 se

/ 1 Q xl"^

<14> éren'**

basa Nabasa Nabasa

Ur-kisala for DU.DU.NI Lu-digira Ur-mes d. U.M. for Izu Ur-sag.TAR Ur-mes d. L.U. Nabasa Ur-kisala Nabasa ù "DUB"-Èr-ra for Ur-sag.TAR DU.DU.NI Ur-sag.TAR Lu-digira Nabasa Ur-kisala

5.3 Records from S 47 Nisaba 7 10, a "balanced account of Madga barley" (nig-kasy-ak se Má-ad-da-ga) is a summary text based on all receipts from the next year. It was compiled by Ur-Igalima, son of Atu, wbo was a "scribe of the dock" (dub-sar mar-sa).'^ The total of expenditures was 237.4.5 = 71,390 liters of barley According to A10N31,173 BM 14325, 49.3.2 3 = 14,903 liters were "deficit" (lá-i), which means that they had not been spent. Spent were 56,487 liters. Assuming an average ration of sixty liters of barley and a trip of ninety days, the amount sufficed for the cost of almost 314 workers. The text is divided into three sections. They may represent the three districts of the province. Nisaba 7 10 Amount of barley received sections supervisor

I

II

III

identifications of supervisors

Ur-sag.TAR Ur-è%igir

7.0.0 1.1.0

7.0.0 -

5.1.0 má-1 abg (CT5 17750 II 16-17; MVÍV8 179 XI 31) dumu L u g a l - ù s a r (CT5 17750II23-24)

17. The editor Sigrist (Sigrist and Gomi 1991) transliterates sà-gal ma-da ma-da-[ad]-ga-sè. 18. Envelope: sà-gal éren Ma-ga'''-sè. Tablet; sà-gal Ma-ad-da-ga-sè. 19. His title is known from MVN 8 179 IV 12-13 and other texts.

ga-túg. I assume the text reads sà-gal

THE LOCATION OF MADGA

Ur-ki-sal4-la

DU-(ú-)DU-NI Ur-mes Ur-mes Ur-ki-sal4-la Lú-dingir-ra Ka5-a-mu Es-àm Es-a-bi Gu-za-na Na-ba-sag

15.0.0

71.0 34.2.0 8.0.0 6.0.0 13.2.0 5.2.0 8.0.1 5

6.3.2 11.0.3 5 — —

I-SU4

erased A-kal-la Lú-si Totals

-

— — •

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

9.1.0

70.0 5.0.3 4.0.0

—

—

132.3.1

5.0.0 71.4 11.4.0 4.1.0 4.4.0 — —

35

d u m u d a b 5 - b a ( C r 5 17750 V 5-6) u g u l a d u m u dabs-ba (MVN 12 88) d u m u L u g a l - p a - è ( T C T i 2 3904) d u m u dab5-ba(CT5 17750118) dumu Lugal-usumgal dumu Ur-Ma-ma d u m u dab5-ba(CT5 17750II4) u g u l a d u m u Ur-^'^gigir (Rochester 216) d u m u H é - t i (CT5 17750 II 15) u g u l a d u b - s a r lu m a r - s a (rLB3, 64) dub-sar mar-sa {HSS 4 3)

13.2.2 5 15.2.2 n a g a r ( C T 5 17750) 2.0.0 d u b - s a r m a r - s a (BAOM 2, 25 21) 3.3.0 m á -1 a hs (CT 5 17750 VI 4-5) —

6.4.0 m á -1 a hg {MVN 8 179) 2.2.2

23.0.3 68.1.2 5

5.4 Other Years The documentation for earlier and later years is spotty. 5.4.1 Nisaba 13 48 is an undated balanced account of "Madga barley" for payment of 150 liters for eacb of sixteen "boys" (gurus). That would have been fifty liters per month for three months, or sixty liters for two and a half months. The supervisors of the workers mentioned in Nisaba 13 48 were Ur-Igalima, Esh^am, and Ur-sag.TAR, all known from the records of trips to Madga from Girsu in S 46 and S 47 5.4.2 ASJ 3, 54 3, from S 36, is a seed and fodder text of the household of Ig-Alima. The first item in incidental expenses is recorded in IV 11-13: 11 g u r u s 0.3.0-ta, [se-b] i 6.3 gur, x x Má-ad-ga'''.^° The amount of barley was good for a trip of three montbs of the eleven workers for each of whom a ration of sixty liters was budgeted. 5.4.3 CT 10, 44 BM 18962, from S 43, is a balanced account of grain and flour. One item of expenditures is 10,675 liters of ... flour for Madga (35.3.0 la 5 s 11 a z 1 KA Má-da-ga), whicb was received by tbe "flour scribe Ur-Nungal" (dub Ur-'^Nun-gal d u b - s a r zi). According to MVN 12 206 of S 47 II, ten liters of flour was tbe flour ration in addition to the sixty-liter barley ration for "assistants, boatmen" (ses-tab-ba ma-lahs), who were the kind of workers assigned to trips to Madga. Assuming a trip of tbree months, 10,675 liters of flour would have been suflicient for 356 workers, disregarding tbe subtracted five liters. It compares well with the 314 workers of the trip of S 47. The possibility that the flour was used for the purchase of bitumen iu Madga is discussed iu section

20. The trace.s in Maekawa's copy do not agree with sà-gal or se-ba. 21. The term zî KA is treated by M. Such-Gutierrez in Sefarad 63 (2003) 393-410. The reading of KA, and therewith the literal meaning, remains unknown. References cited on pp. 403-4 show that it could be used as rations of workers.

36

WOLFGANG HEIMPEL

5.4.4 HSS 4 3 is the final balanced account of sesame oil and lard from AS I.^^ An amount of seventy liters of sesame oil and thirty-seven liters of lard is identified as "Madga expenditure" (zi-ga Ma-adga'^')- If it was used as pay for workers on assignment to Madga, if they received one-sixth liter of oil per month as did male household slaves in Garshana,^'' and if sesame oil and lard were treated as equivalent in value, the amount would have been good for 214 workers on a three-month trip, or 321 workers on a two-month trip. The last number agrees with the two-month trip scheduled for AS 1 in Umma and the 314 and 356 workers calculated for trips in S 43 and S 47. 5.4.5 MVN 5 157, from AS 4 X, records that Lu-''lgi-ma-sè received oil for boatmen going to Madga. He was probably the boatman of TCTI2 3981 of AS 6 XL According to ITT 2 3237 of the same date, he operated—or owned—a boat identified with his name. He also received food "for Madga" in SS 2 IX (see 8.20 below). E. Sollberger, who edited the text, includes MVN 5 157 among the "texts in very rough copies (some not in Pinches's hand)." The first line reads "twenty' boys, each one half liter of oil." According to the oil ration of slave workers of one-sixth liter per month mentioned in 5.4.4, one half liter was good for three months. The total of oil would be 30 x 1/2 = 15 liters or 20 x 1/2 = 10 liters, which corresponds to the copy of the second line: l-bi 0.0.1 lugal. 5.4.6 TCTI 2 3449, from AS 6 X, is a case tablet. The envelope was sealed by Nabasa. The text records the receipt of 600 liters of barley for workers on assignment to Madga. In the text on the tablet, the workers are called "smith workers" (éren simug'), on the tablet "boatmen" (má-[lah5]). They appear to have been smiths by profession who served as boatmen on assignment, belonging to the group of workers called "assistants, boatmen" in CT 10 44 (BM 18962 [5.4.3[). If they went for two and a half months, and if they earned a ration of sixty liters per month, the barley would have sufficed for four of them. 5.4.7 QqTabCun 314, from AS 9 X, records the receipt of 3,600 liters of barley for twenty "boys" earning 180 liters each as "food of Madga workers" (sà-gal é r e n Má-ad-da-ga). The barley came from the bishop (saga) of the household of the god Gisbare. The 180 liters per person indicate a trip of three months of workers receiving a sixty-liter ration. 5.4.8 MVN 12 454, from SS 2 XI, records the receipt of 7,810 or 8,110 liters of barley flour as pay for workers hired for loading'' bitumen onto a boat operated—or owned—by a certain Lu-Nanshe.^'' The colophon consists of the notation "in/of Madga" (sa Má-ad-da-ga'), which appears to designate the place where, the work was done.^^ The text combines unusual or unique elements compared with the extant documentation: the naming of the operator—or owner—of the boat, the hiring of workers, and the loading of bitumen in Madga. The pay came from Ur-Nanshe and was received by Ur-Dumuzi. I am unable to identify the three persons, nor am I able to find information on the relationship between Lu-Nanshe and the provincial government, or information on the presence of locals that could be hired in Madga. The amount of barley is divisible by five liters, which was the standard low wage of hired male workers, but the resulting numbers are only divisible by two, so the loading would have been done by 781 or 811 workers for two days. 5.4.9 Rochester 202, from SS 2, records the receipt by a certain Shu-Eshtar of 950 liters of barley as food for Madga workers (sà-gal éren Má-da-ga) that was disbursed by a certain Lukala. The amount of barley could represent nineteen rations of fifty liters for a single month. The workers were "seized children" (dumu dabs-ba). The text is cataloged by the editor Sigrist and entered into the databases BDTNS and CDLI as coming from Umma. Lukala is attested as the disbursing official in 22. The date can be restored according to SAT 1 279 as demonstrated by Maekawa, AS] 20 (1998) 93. 23. CUSAS 5 2.18.3.6. 24. Gomi's copy of tbe number of kors must be read 26 or 27. Tbe work description is not fully preserved. Gomi s copy does not agree witb unloading, wbicb would bemá ba-al-la, and suggests loading, wbicb would be má-a gar-ra. 25. Tbe copy sbows a remaining single wedge of tbe sign after -d a and a partially obscured indented sign, wbicb could be g a or ta. Tbe suggested reading is wbat can be expected.

THE LOCATION OF MADGA

37

many texts from Umma at the time, but also in a few texts from Girsu.^® The term "seized children" is very common in texts from Girsu, but is sparsely attested in texts from Umma.^^ 5.4.10 MVN 12 457, from SS 3, records the receipt of twelve kors of barley as food for eighteen "boys" going to Madga and earning 200 liters each. If they received 60 liters per month, their trip would have been scheduled for a hundred days. If the trip was scheduled for three months, their monthly ration was 62 2/3 liters. 5.4.11 The small unsealed undated tablet BCT 2 179 reads "420 liters of barley ... -kilu, 420 liters Lugal-dalla, 300 barley Nina-za^a, five liters of lard. They received it for the persons of a boat bound for Madga" (1.2.0 se gur si-sá, KU/ma/ur-ki-lú, 1.2.0 Lugal-dalla, 1.0.0 se Ning-na-za-a, 5 sila í-sáh, double ruling, lu má Ma-ad-ga-sè, su ba-ti-és). KU/ma/ur-ki-lú and Ning-naza-a are attested only here. An "overseer" (ugula) L u g a l - d a l l a is attested in texts from Girsu {CT 10 16 [BM 12921 II 17], AS 4) and as foreman of dockworkers in DAS 68 in SS 2. He could well be the Lugal-dalla of BCT 2 179. The amounts are divisible by sixty, but the result of the division are the prime numbers seven and five, so only one month pay for nineteen ration recipients can be meant. The normal amount of oil rations was one-sixth liter per worker per month, so the five liters were a comparably generous rate. 6. Pay for Workers Assigned to Madga Trips in Texts from Umma The documentation is sparse. At the least it informs us about dates of trips to Madga from Umma in AS 5 and 6 that are not documented in the texts treated in section four. 6.1 SAT 2 851, from AS 5, records that "a receipt of Arad over 2,190 liters of barley, food of persons of Madga had been transferred from Abbagina by Lugina (7.1.3 se gur lugal, sa-gal lu Má-da-ga, kisib Arad, ki Ab-ba-gi-na-ta, Lu-gi-na ba-an-dib').^^ The formulation allows a literal interpretation of the "persons of Madga" as inhabitants of Madga who had come to Umma. More likely is a loose formulation for Ummaites going to Madga. The amount of barley divided by standard rations and attested lengths of trips does not yield integers. 6.2 UTI 5 3496, from AS 6, lists expenditures of barley that were to be placed on the account of the supervisor of granaries (a-gù ka-gury gá-gá-dam). One entry is "1,920 liters of Madaga barley, Abbagina son of A-ri-bi." The amount of barley would pay sixty-liter rations for sixteen workers for a trip of two months. 6.3 AAICAB 1/1 Ashm. 1911-170, from SS 2 X-XI, is a receipt sealed by Agu, son of Lugal-Emahe, of 180 liters of barley designated as barley rations of Madga (se-ba Má-da-ga) for two named workers. Ninety liters is an unusually high ration. 26. TCTl 2 2593 and TEL 29. 27. Certainly from Umma is Heisserer 10 and perhaps Hirose 358. Interestingly, AUCTS 492 from Umma mentions a "lieutenant of the seized children of Girsu." 28. The reader suggested correcting the transliteration d a hs to d i b. E. Salgues collated this text and the same phrase in SAT 2 851, 1120, and SAT 3 1493. In all cases, the sign is dih, in SAT 2 851 in the form that was in use in Umma, which was recognized by Steinkeller (1989: 285). Surely, dabs in the colophon of Nisaba 11, 14 has also to be corrected.

38

WOLFGANG HEIMPEL

6.4 Syracuse 446, undated, records amounts of barley flour received by supervisors called "overseers" (ugula) as "food for Madga" (sà-gal Má-da-ga), The personal name U-dag-ga is found in texts from Umma. It surely means "(the one from) Udaga" a location in the province of Umma. In BPOA 1 530 and AnOr 1 63 of S 46, the overseers Lugalmu-ma^ag and Aradmu are found among other overseers known from Umma texts. All amounts are divisible by sixty. If that was tbe flour ration for all workers under tbe supervision of tbe overseers, tbe amount of 240 liters would have lasted for a two-month trip for two workers, and the emended total would have been tbe pay for tbirty-six workers altogether If it was a supplementary flour ration of ten liters, as attested in MVN 12 206 quoted under 4.3, the emended total would have been pay for 216 workers. Tbe numbers as copied do not add up. Liters of barley flour Supervisor 1,320 Lugal-é-mab-e 240 Lugal-mu-ma-ág 240 Lugal-má-gur3-re 240 A-kal-la ses É-a-lú-bi 240 Lti-'^Sára 240 Ù-dag-ga "1.4 1" = 240'' Arad-mu 240 Ur-<'Sul-pa-è 240 Lti-sig5 ses-tab-ba Lü-''Da-mu 360 Bí-duij-ga 360 Ur-sig5 360 Lú-tur-tur "3,720" = 4,320'^ Total 7. Timiug of Trips Records of work assignments give the duration of trips to Madga, records of pay of workers often imply it, and items tbat were taken to Madga provide departure dates (see Table 1). Tbe shortest trip lasted fifty-five days, the longest possibly one bundred days. Only one trip was made in a year Tbe departure dates were in montbs IX-XI, The return trip coincided with the spring flood of the Euphrates. Before the construction of dams on the Euphrates, tbe river crested at Madga/Hit in April, wbicb corresponds roughly to month I.^^ The distance from Umma to Madga by way of the rivers was close to 400 km. That number is based on the description of the rivers in Chesny (1969).''*' The trip went from Umma up tbe Tigris about 30 km, 10 km along tbe connector to the Euphrates, and 360 km up the Euphrates. There were more than enough workers to tow the boats. Tbe towing path was well trod, so they could move at walking speed of 5 km per hour The time was winter, and the path could have been slick for some distance, wbicb would bave slowed tbem down, but tbey would bave been able to make up for it where conditions were good. If they put in eight hours a day, they would have been in Madga within ten days. But things go wrong, so a trip of twelve days seems more likely. For the return trip they aimed at the height of tbe spring flood. At tbat time, the current was 4 km per hour according to Ghesney The formulation "gone to Madga, returned from Madga, and boat unloaded" {UTI 3147 of

29. Adams 1981; 4,fig.1. 30. Chesny (1969: 54-59), gives distances by way of the river: from Hit to Falluja 77 miles, from Falluja to Hilla 91 miles, and from Hilla to Diwaniya 57 miles. I assume that the fork of the ancient connector to the Tigris was as far from Hilla as is Diwaniya.

THE LOCATION OE MADGA

39

SS 2, see section four) indicates that the main body of the workers and the boats returned together. If 5 km per hour were again their pace, there would have been towing to speed up the now heavily laden boats. The time of the downstream return would have been also twelve days, so twenty-four days were taken up by traveling and the remaining thirty-six days by quarrying and loading bitumen. AAICAB 1/1 Ashm. 1924-650 dates a trip from SS 6 XII 20 to SS 7 II 15. It lasted eighty-six days of the administrative calendar of thirty-day months beginning in a year of thirteen months. The timing of this trip was exceptional and would have contributed to its lengtb because the current was fast on the way to Madga and slow on the return. There were years for which the extant documentation records trips from Umma and from Girsu. Since they happened at the same time, one wonders whether they were coordinated. Madga was beyond the territory of the Ur III kingdom, if we posit the fortifications that were designed to stem the influx of Amorites at the upper end of the alluvium of Euphrates and Tigris as border. Tbe soldiers from Ur who went to the site of the ordeal (see 11.3 and 11.4) may have provided security in the area, but that possibility exhausts the information on involvement of the crown. Ummaite boats coming from Madga were unloaded in Umma (see section 4), which means at least that a trip of Ummaites to Madga was not undertaken exclusively for the benefit of the crown. According to MVN 16 676 and 745, the arrival of boats returning from Madga after a long, and potentially dangerous trip, was celebrated with an offering (siskur), and the workers were given bread, bear, and oil.^' Both texts have no month date. The offering of MVN 16 676 could have concluded the trip of AS 9, that of MVN 16 745 the trip of SS 2. 8. Items Going to Madga

Texts from the archives of the provincial governments of Girsu and Umma provide information on goods destined for Madga. Two of twenty-seven texts, SNAT 331 (8.7) and MVN 16 1257 (8.24), explicitly state the use: flour taken to Madga was for buying (saig) bitumen. The identity of the seller, or sellers, is not known. Indeed nothing is known of the locals and their political status. The purchase of bitumen implies that not all bitumen could simply be quarried and taken home. One wonders why not all bitumen had to be purchased if some bitumen was purchased. The large number of workers going to Madga and the fact that they stayed in Madga for about one month imply that the workers from Umma or Girsu did the quarrying. Did the flour purchase the right to quarry bitumen? The nature and number of goods destined "for Madga" reveal their use to a certain extent and shed some light on the conditions in Madga. Luxury items in small quantities were likely gifts to potentates. Implements and tools could have been needed for repairs of equipment and for quarrying bitumen. Some of them could alternatively have been used for exchange. The same is true for food. Elasks containing scented ghee and protected with fine leather covering and small amounts of linen are the most obvious luxury items. Among the hides, sandals, cloth, and foods could also be some that were of fine quality and could have been used as gifts. The few pieces of cloth mentioned in Princeton 304 (8.14) and BPOA 1 1251 (8.16) were of modest quality. Still, for inhabitants of the meager environment of Madga, the "fourth quality" (4-kam us) cloth may have been a luxury. Eine foods such as scented ghee, ghee, cheese, malt flour, and dried figs could have been gifts or exchange goods. More modest food stuffs could have fed the workers on assignment to Madga. Examples are oil and dates in quantities that agree with food for workers in 8.20, or the barley flour listed in 8.18. The ten "snake-reeds" ('^"'gi-mus) and ten pounds of goats wool mentioned in 8.2 could have been used as supplies for keeping the boats in good order and moving. The goat hair would have been useful if there was an opportunity for some workers during the trip to make it into straps for tying down their 3t. Sallaberger 1993,1; 275.

40

WOLFGANG HEIMPEL

Table 1. Timing and duration of trips. References treated in section 8 refer to a date prior to launcb. Years with asterisk have thirteen months. Year S 36 S 38 S 38 S 38 S 42 S 43 S 44* S 46* S 46* S 46* S 46* S 46* S 46* S 47 S 48 ASI* ASI AS 3 AS 3 AS 3 AS 4 AS 4 AS 4* AS 5 AS 5 AS 6* AS 6

Month

Number of days Archive — —

X XI — — XI 2 — IX 1X7 X

XI XII — — — — — — — X X — — VIII or IX —

— Girsu — Umma — Umma — Umma — Umma

90^ — 90 — — — — — — 90 60 60^ 60 75 — — — — — — 60^ 75?

AS 7 AS 7

X — — —

AS 9

—

75

AS 9 AS 9

— —

AS 9

IX

AS 9

X — —

60 — — 90 —

AS 7

SSl

SS2 SS2

70 60 55

70 66

Girsu Umma Umma Girsu Girsu Girsu Girsu Girsu Girsu Umma Umma Girsu Umma Umma Umma Girsu Girsu Umma Umma Umma Umma Girsu Umma Umma Umma Umma Umma Umma Umma Girsu Umma Umma Umma

Treated in 5.4.2 8.3 8.1 8.2 8.4 5.4.3

8.5 4 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.3

4 4 5.4.4 4

4 8.8 5.4.5

8.10

8.9 6.1

4.1 with note 8 6.2

5.4.6 4 4

4 4 4 8.12 8.15 5.4.7 MVA^16,676 4 4

THE LOCATION OF MADGA

41

SS 2 SS 2

— —

60 Umma Umma

4 8.16

SS 2

— —

Umma

8.19

SS 2

Girsu

5.4.9

SS 2

XI

Girsu

5.4.8

SS 2

X-XI —

60

SS 3*

—

100'

Girsu

5.4.10

SS 3*

XI

Girsu

8.23

SS 6*

XII

Umma

8.25

Umma

7

SS 2

SS 6*-7

XII 20-11 15

86

Umma

5.3

Umma

MVN 16, 745

loads. The four mooring posts in 8.11 would obviously be a good thing to take along. Old mooring posts needed replacement, new mooring posts were needed for more boats, and the kind of timbers needed for them might not have been available in Madga. Oarlocks take a lot of stress, so they would have been frequently replaced, especially as they were made of wood. The leather wares, sandals, bags, sacks, water skins, and unworked hides are perhaps the most likely examples of merchandise that would have been exchanged for bitumen. The workers were on the river or close to the river at all times. They did not need water skins. They may have wanted sandals for walking the mile or so from the "water-scooper" bitumen wells to the bank of the Euphrates with a heavy load of bitumen on their backs, but either they wore sandals anyway or they were going barefoot anyway. The largest amounts of goods going to Madga are 2,820 liters of malt flour of 8.21 and 1,600 liters of barley flour of 8.7, as well as 122 hides and 108 pairs of sandals of 8.23. If they were used to purchase bitumen, these were still puny amounts compared to the value of bitumen current in the Ur III kingdom. Assuming the 108 pairs of sandals in 8.23 were of "ordinary" (gen) quality, they would have been worth seven shekels of silver or 3,316 pounds of "water-scooper" bitumen (ésir a ba-al). Uncontrollable factors make estimates of total amounts going to Madga impossible. We do not know how much is missing in the documentation. There is a dearth of documents from the upper administrative level, not one text that lists an entire boatload for Madga, or a single account that totals the expenditures for a trip. The following documentation collects all references that I found to goods going to Madga, in chronological order. This information is provided also in abbreviated form in Table 2. The officials mentioned in the records are supervisors in the manufacturing sector serving as disbursers; persons moving the goods to the boats going to Madga who received and were responsible for the transfer of the goods; and administrators serving as scribes. Disbursers, recipients, and responsibles are listed in Table 3. 8.] MVN 20 4 (Umma), from S 38 X, is an unsealed receipt by Lugal-itida from Dadaga of two "mast housings'" ("™^"é-dim) and three axes ("""^"ha-zi-in) for Madga (Má-da-ga). """'"é-dim is also found together with "™'"ha-zi-in and """»"ha-bù-da in UETS 291. Nik 2 422 mentions 1 """'"é-dim weighing five pounds. There exists also 8''ù-suh5 é-dim {RTC 307). The interpretation of the term is based on its apparent literal meaning. Perhaps ^"'é-dim consisted of different parts, a metal ring called "mast housing" with three or four sockets into which were fitted timbers also called "mast housing." A five-pound ring with three or four sockets appears reasonable for anchoring a relatively low mast.

42

WOLFGANG HEIMPEL Table 2. Goods taken to Madga Item a grass

Sumerian term Ú-ZI:ZI.A Ú - n i n9

Quantity

Text

765 bale strings 70 pounds

8.4 8.15

9001 9001

8.18 8.20

4 strings 2 strings

8.18 8.20

dates

zú-lum

figs

s'^pès

harley flour

dahin

1,600 1 8.7 9001 8.18 2401 8.24

malt flour

zî munu4

9001 8.18 2,820 1 8.21

in haskets emmer flour

zi-KAL

601

8.18

emmer grit

esa

601

8.18

a cereal

se-A

1 sack

8.19

ghee

1-nun

21

8.18

cheese

g a UD-gunû

21

8.18

scented ghee

î - n u n dujQ-ga

2 1/41

8.18

sesame oil

î-gis

251 601

8.18 8.20

lard

í-sáh

351 101

8.18 8.20

fish oil

î-kue

201

8.18

smoked fish p

kug-izi

3001

8.8

KWU 896'

15 pounds

8.18

cow hides

k u s gU4

1 1 11 1 13

8.12 8.19 8.28 8.25 8.26

sheep hides

kus udu a-gar gU7 kus udu

40 70 10

8.12 8.23 8.25

goat hides

kus más

41

8.23

dyed hide

kus tj-háh

1/2 2

8.12 8.19

white hide

kus h á h b a r

1

8.12

skins for flasks

kus dug sagan

3

8.9

THE LOCATION OF MADGA

water skins

sandals

kus

ummu

"e-sir

43

25 1 20 36

8.12 8.19 8.23 8.27

53 11 128 36

8.12 8.19 8,23 8.25 8,27

30+

bags

""'yu^o'gäi

2 2

8,12 8,25

sack (with grain)

'"^a - g á -1 á

1

8,19

130

8.11

10

8,2

10 pounds

8,2

2

8.1

3 4

not specified

8,1 8,5 8,22

10 pounds

8,10

2 pounds

8,10

less than 155 3

8,3 8,14 8,16

various timbers boat timber

8«g i - m u s

eoat hair

sig udr: (

O

mast housings'"

axes

D

O

n^idu^ - d i m irudu

ha-zi-in

copper (for axes)

urudu

borax' (for axes')

s ù - GAN

cloth

túg

1

linen

gada

4 2 1

8,5 8.6 8,14

flask

sagan

1 2 2 2

8,5 8.13 8.18 8.25

A problem remains as s'^^é - d i m appears in the context with palm-tree products in MVN^20 34. Also, the riverboats may not have had masts, Wilcke (1999: 633), discussing MVN 20 93, which lists shipbuilding timbers including s'-^ù-suhs «'^-dim, hesitates to accept the translation. The axes may have been used for quarrying hardened bitumen. 8.2 Hirose 344 (Umma), from S 38 XI, records the receipt by Lugal-itida from a certain Gati of ten i - m u s and ten pounds of goat hair for Madga (M á - a d - g a - a s), ^'"g i - m u s, a wooden boat timber

WOLEGANG HEIMPEL

44

Table 3. Oflicials involved in moving goods to Madga. (U = Umma, G = Girsu) Erom Dadaga Gati governor and family — i-kal-la i-kal-la i-kal-la Ur-Shara leatherworker Akala leatherworker Akala leatherworker Akala leatherworker Akala forester Ur-TAR.LUH Lukala Lukala overseer Lu-Shara Ur-Shulpae • Nigar-kidu A-gu Ur-Suen Lu-Utu Ur-abba Ludingira —

Received by

Responsible

Lugal-itida Lugal-itida — — — governor governor Abbagina Ur-Shulpae Lugal-itida Ur-Shulpae (sealed by Atu) Abbagina, son of Lugal-magure — Lugal-itida Abbagina (sealed by Ur-Shulpae) Lu-gina Lugal-itida Ur-Ee Lugal-itida Abbagina Esh^am, dock scribe Lu-Igimashe Lu-Igimashe —

— — Lugal-itida Lu-Shara Lugal-nesag-e — Lugal-itida — Lugal-iti-da — — — Lugal-itida — — — — — — — — — — Lu-Igimashe

Text U U

u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u G G G G

8.1 8.2 8.3 8.5 8.6 8.14 8.16 8.7 8.9 8.12 8.13 8.25 8.11 8.15 8.8 8.17 8.18 8.19 8.21 8.24 8.10 8.20 8.23 8.24

Abbagina. The Abbagina of 8.7 sealed Syracuse 3 from AS 2. The seal legend calls him a scribe and son of Lugal-magure. He was an administrator in the labor sector, sealing tablets that record work done. He first appears in S 42 and last in SS 6. Among other things, he sealed tablets recording the assignment of workers to a trip to Madga.'^^ He also sealed documents that are not directly concerned with workers. According to SJVAr331, from AS 2 (8.7), and MVN 16 1257, from SS 6 (8.24), he expedited flour for purchasing bitumen in Madga, which happened according to the latter text on the command of the governor. Dadaga and Gati (Ga-ti). Dadaga provided over five metal parts to Lugal-itida in a text from S 38 (8.1) He could be the smith or the brother of the governor of that name, or still someone else. Gati of the other text from that year (8.2) is otherwise unknown. He provided boat equipment, so he may have belonged to the dock sector. 32. On one of these tablets, AUCT 3 299, the name of father is given as Lugal-pada. The same seal is also found on the tablet AUCT S 3tt. It is very unlikely that there were two scribes named Abbagina who did the same thing at the same time. Abbagina may have had two fathers, one of whom was not the biological father, or the father used two names.

THE LOGATION OF MADGA

45

Ikala (I-kal-la). According to his seal legend he was a scribe and a son of Lu-saga (Lúsag-ga). He was an administrator of the textile sector. Lu-Utu. He may have been the scribe and son of Bazi of seal legends on receipts of the time. If so, it may be no coincidence that the scribe Bazi was named as one of the responsible persons attending the deposition of an oath regarding the metal issued by Lu-Utu that is quoted in 8.10. Lugal-itida. He sealed Hirose 344, from S 38 (8.2), with the legend "Lugal-tida, son of Cidni, governors soldier" (Lugal-t i-da, [dumu] Ôiri-ni, àga-us énsi). The spelling of the name is phonetic. The logographic spelling, Lugal-iti-da, was used in the text, which he presumably wrote himself, and in SAT 2 190 from the same year (8.3). Another seal of his was impressed on the tablet MVN 8 181 from S 40 I. The legend calles him a servant of the governor and is silent about his occupation: "Ur-Lisi, governor of Umma' Lugal-itida your slave" (Ur-''LÍ9-sÍ4, énsi Umma''', Lugal-iti-da, dumu C i r i - n i [árad-zu]). His third seal was impressed first on tablet MVN 1 88 from AS 4. Despite being an agricultural supervisor (nubànda gU4), the contents of the texts where he appears rarely deal with agricultural matters and mostly with the labor sector, specifically with loading boats bound for Madga. Ur-abba. He provides dates also according to TCTI2 3411 from SS 3 and BPOA 1 30 from SS 2 VII. A search for a "gardener" (nu-^'^kirig) or "chief gardener" (san dan a) of that name did not yield results. Ur-Shulpae. His seal is impressed on Frinia dell'alfabeto 42 (8.8) and SAT 2 808 (8.9). The legend calls him a scribe and son of Lugal-kugani. A survey of tablets sealed by him and dated AS 3 and AS 4 shows that he sealed receipts of food items that were sent out of the province and records of transport work. In the latter capacity his duties were similar to those of the scribe Abbagina. He sealed the receipt Frima delValfabeto 42 (8.27) for Abbagina. Ur-Suen. A flourmill overseer of that name is attested in MVN 16 635 from the same year. whose literal meaning seems to be "snake reed," is usually supposed to designate a steering oar or punting pole. References quoted by Powell (1992; 117-18) recording fourteen of tbese for one boat and twenty-tbree for wbat is possibly anotber boat, speak against steering oars. 8.3 SAT 2 190 (Umma), from S 38, is a balanced account of textiles, including linen, tbat came from tbe governor Ur-Lisi, bis brotbers Akala, Ur-Nissaba, Dadaga, bis wife Nin-melam,^'^ and a few otbers. Tbey were distributed on tbe occasion of a royal reception (k as-dé-a) to tbe king, generals (as mashdaria), and to various individuals for unspecified destinations in Nippur, Ur, and Umma. In addition, 155 textiles were going to a group of four destinations, including an unknown number for Madga.^"* Tbe soldier Lugal-itida was responsible for tbe routing of tbe textiles. 8.4 BCT 2 27 and 28 (Umma), from S 42, record tbe taking in cbarge of fifteen workers wbo would, or did, make bundles of tbe grass, sedge, or rusb tbat was used for making strings and ropes. Tbe texts constitute a pair of quasi duplicates. BCT 2 28 is sealed, tbe legend unreadable. BCT 2 27 is unsealed and would bave been given by tbe scribe wbo wrote tbe tablet to Ur-Ee wbo took tbe workers in cbarge. Tbe copy tbat Ur-Ee sealed went to tbe administration. Botb documents are awkwardly formulated. 33. Dahl (2007: 45) charts the family tree. 34. One of the four destinations is a warehouse whereto most of the 155 pieces may have gone.

WOLFGANG HEIMPEL

46

Ur-Ee took charge of 765 bundles of a grass, sedge, or rush that were made by fifteen workers in seventeen days, each worker making three bundles a day The bundles were apparently destined for Madga. The large number makes it unlikely that they were used as packing material. BCT 2 27

BGT 2 28

Translation

15 gurus 15 boys á U4 l-bi ú-ZI:ZI.A gu-nigin-45'-ta-àm wages of 1 day are (for) 45 bale strings each (worker each day) su + nigin 765 gu-nigin-àm su+nigin 76[5] gu-nigin-àm the total is 765 bale strings á U4 17-bi-im [á] u[4! 17]-bi-im the wages are for 17 days sag-nig-gur^ 1-ra-kam it is the "capital" (i.e., the debit) sà-bi-ta (deducted) from it are 765 bale strings 765 gu-nigin-àm Ur-Ee took (the workers) in charge Ur-Ejj-e i-dab5 Ur-E^-e l-dabs ... Madga ... KU ga Má-da-ga ki su-us date date traces of seal impression?

15 gurus á U4 l-bi gu-nigin 45-àm

8.5 SANTAG 6 11 (Umma) is from S 44 XI 2. The year name was also used for S 25, 32, and IS 3. The documentation of IS 3 is relatively dense, but Madga is not mentioned in any document dated to the reign of Ibbi-Sin. The documentation from the years S 25 and S 32 is sparse, so S 44 is most likely. The person responsible for the record is Lu-Shara, whose name is very common in Umma. He may be identical with the Lu-Shara in SAT 2 394 dated to S 44 XII who was responsible for the warehousing of a large number of skins. Since storage was part of his duties, he may have been responsible for issuing the linen, oil, and metal from a warehouse and the transfer to a boat going to Madga. Linen, a flask in a bag with five-sixths of a liter of "good ghee" (1 sagan '"'^ujo-gan l-nun-du^o'bi 5/6 sila), and four axes ("^''"h a - z i - i n) were destined for Madga. The linen came in different varieties: 1 gada gal sig5 sa gu 1 gada sà-ga-dù sig5 1 gada a-dabg 1 gada sà-ga-dù sig5 us A silver value of one-third shekel for one liter of "good ghee" is given in the undated text AUCT 1 193:4-5. The flask and leather bag may have been more valuable. Flasks were occasionally made of stone or wood and fitted with a stand (see Sallaberger 1996: 70-71 and 107). 8.6 BPOA 1 1755 (Umma), from S 46, an unsealed tablet, records that two pieces of ordinary linen (gada gen) were provided by Ikala for Madga (Má-da-ga-as), with a certain Lugal-nesage being responsible.

THE LOCATION OF MADGA

47

8.7 SIVAT 331 (Umma), from AS 2, is a balanced account of the scribe Abbagina, son of Lugal-magure, concerning "Madga flour" (nig kasy-ak zi Má-da-ga), recording expenditures of flour coming from a certain Ur-Shara, including of 1,600 liters of barley flour for the purchase of bitumen (ésir-a sajo'a)The editor Gomi transliterates ésir-duru5, which would mean "moist bitumen" and could be the opposite of "dry hitumen" (ésir had). It is unattested elsewhere. The same phrasing is found in 8.24, which shows that the -a is actually the locative postposition: dabin ésir-ra sajQ. The locative is also found in BINS 530: 0.0.3 dabin mun-a sa^o'^. The case becomes understandable if the literal meaning of sajo is considered: "flour made equivalent to salt."''^ If the value of barley flour was equivalent to unmilled barley, it would have purchased about 850 liters of "water-scooper bitumen" (ésir a-ba-al) according to the price given in Snell (1982: 125-26). 8.8 Prima delValfabeto 42 (Umma), from AS 3, is a tablet sealed by Ur-Shulpae, recording the receipt by Abbagina from Lukala of 300 liters of fish (kug s egg) for Madga (Má-da-ga-as). Whether used as food for workers going to Madga, or as article of exchange in Madga, the fish must have been preserved in some fashion. Englund (1990: 217-18) suggests the meaning "smokedfish."That term was written in Old Akkadian kug segg-gá and Ur III kug al-segg-gá. The expected form kug segg-gá was not used in Ur III, so a reading k ug izi "fire (treated) fish" is a possibility. 8.9 SAT 2 808 (Umma), from AS 4, records the receipt of three skins for long flasks (kus ''"^saganS"" SÙ) for Madga (má-da-ga-as). The tablet was sealed by Ur-Shulpae. Sigrist transliterates the flasks as sagan hé-sud. "May-it-last-long" would be description of an alluring content, similar to Sallaberger's (1996: 107) "flask of desire" for ''"'^sagan nig-su-kam-ma. Another possibility is to understand the second GAN as phonetic supplement, sagan^"". In that case one can understand su with Sallaberger (1996: 71) as descriptive of the form of the flask, and translate su as "long." It agrees with the fact that it is skins that were received. They would have to fit a long neck. The last possibility is to understand s Ù as "empty." Itfitswell in the context of container transport. But it is not the container that is the object of the text, but the leather wrapping; whether it was full or empty was irrelevant. 8.10 HLC 232 (Girsu), from AS 4 X, an unsealed tablet, records the receipt by Esh^am of ten pounds of copper and two pounds of su-GAN metal for Madga (Ma-da-ga'^'-sè). Esh^am was "the overseer (and) scribe of dock workers" (ugula dub-sar lu mar-sa) who received the means for paying the workers going to Madga (see 5.2). The metal came from a certain Lú-''Utu. According to AOAT 249 73* (BM 15362), dated to the same year and treating the same matter, the metal was destined for making axes of the type called ha-zi-in.''® CST585, treated below under 8.22, records the expenditure of charcoal for casting such axes to be sent to Madga. The context created by HLC 232 and AOAT 249 73* suggests 35. For this meaning see Steinkeller 1989: 155. 36. The text was transliterated by Bram Jagersma and is included in BDTNS and CDLI. Jagersma kindly reviewed his notes on the reading of line eight. He states: "I also copied the traces of the 'en?' and looking at them now, a reading [mlá-ad-ga^'-se seems fine."

48

WOLFGANG HEIMPEL

that ten pounds of copper and two pounds of su-GAN were used for making axes. However, one used much less su-GAN for that amount of copper, 0,7 to 3 percent according to the documentation assembled by Waetzoldt (1984: 8-9), E, Pernicka {apud Waetzoldt 1984), suggested su-GAN was borax, which inhibited oxidation of the molten copper Perhaps the term su-GAN was here used to cover all additives, the tin to make bronze and the sù-GAN to facilitate and ameliorate the casting. AOAT 249 73* [10] ma-na urudu [2] ma-na sù-GAN ki Lú-''Utu-ta

ten pounds of copper two pounds of ,,, from Lu-Utu blank

sà-bi-ta 10 ma-na urudu 2 ma-na sù-GAN "™''"ha-zi Ôir-su'''-ta [M]a-ad-ga'"-sè DU-a ba-a-gar-ra-a [Es-àm]-e é ''Nin-MAR,KI-ka nam-érim-bi ingiri Nam-mah sabra é ù Ba-zi dub-sar zi-[ga-àm] nig-kas7-[ak Má-ad[-ga'" [ ]-a

of it ten pounds of copper two pounds of borax that it was deposited for axes going'' from Girsu to Madga Esh^am confirmed under oath in the temple of Nin-MARKI responsible commander of the house Nammah and scribe Bazi it is credit balanced account of Madga ,,.

8.11 MVN 1 233 (Umma), from AS 4 XII, records timbers that had been manufactured by foresters with wood from the forests of the province of Umma, and were issued by Ur-TAR.LUH, the "overseer of the forest sector" (Steinkeller 1987: 88), as "takes of Madga" (nig-dabs Má-da-ga).^^ The term nigd ab5 appears to have different meanings in different contexts. I happen to know its use for designating the ingredients that went into soups served to workers in Garshana,''^ Similarly, the "takes of Madga" could designate the "ingredients" of a shipload, that is the individual "items." All items were made of wood. They are poorly documented and not securely identified. The mooring posts and oar locks, and perhaps all other items, would have been useful for the logistics of the trip and may not have been meant for exchange. Items Remarks and tentative translations 20 gis "más" (kun-) ZA-ha-LUM gis kun gigir Hh V 42 (MSL6 8) 16 gis ùmun u m b i n ' um-ma-tum sá NA4,HAR (MSL 14 419:186) 4 gis d u r g u l / d i m g u l mooring post 16 gis za-ra ga-bu "left za-ra" 30 gis kul zi'-gan su-duy-a "ready-to-use•' oar locks" 37. Steinkeller (1987: 106 no. 23) used the text as source for his study of the foresters of Umma. He characterized its contents as "supphes/equipment for the boat(s) of Daga." We can be sure that Madga is meant because the recipient was the same Lugalitida who received other goods for Madga. 38. CUSAS 5 2.18.3.7.

THE LOCATION OE MADGA 40 gis kak-gid 14 gis an-ta-gál

49

"long pegs" ?

8.12 UTI 3 1772 (Umma), from AS 9, records the receipt of leather goods from the leatherworker Akala. They were received nominally by Lugal-itida, but his son Inim-Shara wrote and sealed the tablet for his father. The destination of the goods is given as Má-da-ga-as kése-ra {sic), "tied," that is presumably "bundled" for shipping to Madga.''® 1 kus gU4 25 '"''^ùmmu 3 ""'"e-sir us 50 '"'^e-sir gen e-ba-an 2 '"'Mujo'g^ri XX 40 kus udu a-gar guy 1/2 kus ú-háb 1 kus b á b b a r sag í-sáh

(tanned) cow hide(s) water skins <pairs of> second rate sandals pairs of ordinary sandals ... leather sacks swelled sheep bides dyed hide prime'white hide (treated with) lard

8.13 UTI 4 2786 (Umma), a sealed tablet of the same date, records the receipt of leather wraps from Akala. They were destined for vessels going to various destinations and to Madga. The formulation of the text is difficult to understand. I give a tentative translation of lines six to eleven. 5 ka nig si la 2-ta ba-gar five (dyed sheep hides) were placed on the opening of (vessels) of two liters each Ur-^'Ba-ú-se forUr-Baba ka í-gára zú-lum (and) were wrapped over the openings ba-an-kése
39. The following translations of hides are inspired by Scurlock (2005). "Swelled" refers to a hide that was dehaired and then soaked. It would have heen treated with oil subsequently, which may be implied. The "white" may refer to the color of tawed hides that were not dyed, for which Scurlock suggests identification with "Hungarian" white. The lard may have been the fat with which these tawed hides were treated. It may have given it the "prime" quality if that is what sag means.

50

WOLFGANG HEIMPEL

8.15 SAT 2 1160 (Umma), from AS 9 IX, a tablet sealed by Lugal-itida, records bis receipt from a certain Lukala of seventy pounds of ú-ning for Madga. As Givil (1964: 86) demonstrated, ú-ning and Ún i n n Í5 designate tbe same plant. U - n i n n Í5 is equated witb Akkadian aslu, wbicb is supposed to be a rusb. Tbe word also designates tbe rope made from it.'*" It is attested in tbe spelling ú-ning in texts from Umma and Drebem. It is measured in talents, rarely just in pounds.'" Tbe largest amount recorded is over 926 talents {UETS 1265: II 6). According to SAT 2 178: 7-8, nine talents were wortb two and a quarter sbekels of silver, so tbe seventy pounds would bave been wortb fifty-two and a balf grains of silver Despite its low value, tbe plant is often found in lists of "income" (mu-DU) of tbe god Sbara. For tbe rite called "entry of ú -n i ng to tbe bouse," presumably tbe temple of Sbara in Umma, a ram was expended for Sbara {BPOA 1 360). It was an article of trade {BPOA 1 1165), so it could bave been used in excbange for bitumen. 8.16 BPOA 1 1241 (Umma), from SS 2, is similar to Princeton 304 (8.14), from AS 9. Botb tablets are unsealed, and tbe texts record tbe receipt of textiles for Madga by tbe governor Also, tbe textiles are of tbe same quality (nig-lam 4-kam us). Princeton 304 lists linen, BPOA 1 1241 does not. Tbe number of tbe pieces of clotb are tbree, bardly 180. Lugal-itida was responsible for getting tbe clotb on tbe boat to Madga. 8.17 BPOA 1 767 (Umma), a sealed tablet of tbe same date, is tbe source for tbe corresponding entry in tbe annual summary text Erlenmeyer 152 IV 19 (publisbed by Englund in CDLJ 2003:1). Tbe text in BPOA sbows tbat tbe scribe of tbe receipt left out tbe signs a and gar and tbus made tbe text nearly unintelligible. Tbe scribe of Erlenmeyer 152 corrected tbe entry and could bave made tbings even clearer by adding -as after Má-da-ga and -ra after gar. But be ran out of space, crowded tbe signs, and made abbreviations in tbe single register be used for tbe entry. His text can be translated: "Ten boys for one day: sacks bound, (for) Madga, put on boat, boat towed from Apisal to tbe Girgis inlet and boat returned." Tbe a-gá-lá sacks may bave contained barley or flour. BPOA 1 767 10 gurus U4 1-sè ""•'a-gá-lá kése-rá Má-da-ga má A-pÍ4-sal4ki-ta ka gis:giri3ki-sè má gid-da ù má gur-ra

Erlenmeyer 152 IV 19 10 gurus U4 1-sè '"'"a-gá-lá kése-rá Má-da-ga má-a gar A-pÍ4-sal4ki-ta ka Giri3-gis'"-sè má gíd-da ù má gur-ra

40. ITT SI 6351 (Girsu) illustrates the use of ú n i n n Í 5 for ropes, but the relevant entry is not easy to understand. Here is my tentative translation; *'má-da-lá ú n i n n Í 5 es ir s u - b a es má g í d '*'má-da<-lá>bi 12 Ú n i n n Í 5 - b i 3 gú 2 gú Ú n i n n Í 5 é s - g a l má g i d - s è

bitumen-coated n i n n i boat-trailers the needed boat tow-ropes of the boat-trailer: twelve the needed n i n n i : three talents two talents of n i n n i for a large rope for boat towing

41. In Nik 2 312:8 read 4 gú ú-ning.

THE LOCATION OF MADGA

51

8.18 UTI 4 2862 (Umma), of the same date, sealed by Lugal-itida, records his receipt from Ur-Shulpae of the following food items for Madga: Liters, numbers( ) Sumerian 900 Zl m u n u 4 h i - a 900 dabin 900 zú-lum 60 zi-KAL 60 esa zú-lum nu-tuk 2 i-nun 2 g a UD-gunû 2 1/4 î-nun dujo'gä gis gal-gal 25 î-gis 35 í-sáh 20 î-kue 2* ''"^sagan '"'MujQ-gan 1/2 s lia gis gal-gal 4* ^"pès se-er-gu 15 pounds KWU 896-

Translation various malt flours barley flour dates emmer flour emmer grits without dates ghee cheese "big-trees good ghee" sesame oil lard fish oil flasks in bags (containing) 1/2 liter of "big-trees (good ghee)" strings of figs

?

Three varieties of fats qualified as "big trees" are attested in Ur III texts: 1-nun du^Q-ga gis galga T'big-trees good ghee," l duiQ-ga gis gal-gaT'big-trees good oil," and!-gis du^Q-ga gis gal-gal "big-trees good sesame oil." 1-nun dujQ-ga gis gal-gal is listed in BPOA 678 in first position before ghee (1-nun), sesame oil, and lard. It was the most valuable of the fats. Four liters of 1-gis dujQ-ga gis gal-gal and 50 liters of sesame oil were used by the builders of the temple of Shara to anoint themselves during the year SS 2 {SANTAC 6 244). One liter was listed together with a large amount of barley and 33 1/3 liters of sesame oil, and the three items were designated as their food (sà-gal) in BPOA 1129 of the previous year. The "big trees" may be the zahalum/supalum tree and cypress (suúr-me), which are mentioned as ingredients of "big-trees good oil" in TCL 5 6042. For the entry ''"'^sagan ''"'duiQ-gan 1/2 sUa gis gal-gal see the similar entry 2 "^'«sagan ba-an dujQ-gan in UTI 4 2786, which is quoted above under 8.13. 8.29 MVN 16 768 (Umma), of the same date, records the receipt by Ur-Ee from Nigar-kidu of leather goods for Madga. The tablet was sealed by Ur-Ee. The text uses finite verbal forms for designating the use of the leather goods. Sacks "had been filled" with a cereal, the opening of ghee containers "were tied" with sheep hide, and measuring vessels "were strengthened" with cowhide."*^ Number 1 1 1 1

Translation Leather good ""'"a-gá-lá se-A ba-an-si sack: it was filled with ... barley kus udu ú-háb ad-tab ur-ra dyed sheep hide (for) dog-leashes kus gU4 ba-ri-ga ú si-im-dum cowhide: 60-liter and 30-liter measuring containers ba-ra-kala were strengthened with it ""'"^ùmmu énsi governor's water skin

42. The leather wrapping "strengthened" by preventing the breakage of the pottery.

52

Number 1 1 10 5 12

WOLFGANG HEIMPEL

Leather good

Translation

kus udu ú-háb ka dug í-nun ba-ra-kése '""'e-sír é-ba-a-an (sic) '*"^e-sír é-ba-a-an ''"'ù m m u kus udu

dyed sheep hide: ghee-vessel opening was tied with it pair of sandals pairs of sandals water skins sheep hides

The cereal called se-A is equated in lexical texts with Akkadian subultu "ear" (of grain). Landsberger and Gurney (1957-1958; 336) adduce references from omen protases that confirm the meaning "ear" and suggest a reading se^u ratbu. They also refer to a passage from a training manual of horses, where fodder is described as se-A and equated with se-uni uB-Bu-[ ], understood by them as uppu[lu], which would be "late (ripened)" (see AHw s.v.). Powell (1984; 67, 5.16) does not mention se-A, but notes uppulu as term for late-ripened grain. Ur III references from varied contexts have been published since. They show that se-A was not animal fodder, but a fine food that could be part of the royal breakfast. SAT 1 66 (Girsu) records food for the king and the queen delivered on the "morning boat" (má U4-zal-la), including ghee, cream, sour milk, fruit, meat, and eggs. AUCT 1 320 is an undated list of items unloaded from a boat, perhaps another "morning boat" with breakfast materials, among them six pots with se-A. NATN 825 (imperial calendar) records ten or twenty pots of this commodity together with onions,fish,and other foodstuffs. On one occasion Queen Abi-simti received one pot (d u g) of sour milk, and another one filled with se-A, together with beer, fish, onions, and eggs as recorded in TCTI 2 3802 (Girsu). The "pot" (dug) was the common container for se-A. MVN 21 203 rev. 1 3-4 (Umma) lists ten such pots filled with this commodity (10 dug 0.0.1 se-A ba-an-si). Repeatedly, se-A is found listed immediately after ga-se-a, as in MVÍV14 552 (Umma) and MVN 16 687 (Umma). se-A is also found among flours (for example SAT2 695 and TUT 126). TÍ7T 121 (Girsu) starkly illustrates its rarity: 1,810 liters of se-A next to 6,356,100 liters of barley. 8.20 MVN 22 266, from AS 2 IX (Girsu), unsealed, records the receipt by Lu-Igimashe of modest amounts of sesame oil, lard, dates, strings offigs,and date palm products for Madga from a certain Ur-abba. LuIgimashe received pay for workers assigned to a trip to Madga in AS 4 (see 5.4.5 above). Fronds and zé-na, which are common and inexpensive palm-tree products, would not have made good exchange articles or gifts for Madga where palm trees were certainly growing. They may rather have been used as packing material. Liters, numbers (*) 60

10 900 2

Item Translation l-gis sesame oil 1-sáh Lard zú-lum Dates s'^pès 6 k ù s six-cubitfig(strings)

n* n

pes-múrgu zé-na

palm fronds midribs?

8.21 UTI 4 2624 (Umma) of the same date, sealed by Lugal-itida, records his receipt of forty-seven reed baskets of the type ^'gur-dub, each filled with sixty liters of malt flour (zi munu4), and two, or 120,

THE LOCATION OF MADGA

53

reed mats of the type called NIR-ru-um, each measuring twelve square meters (ki-lá-bi 2/3 sar), for Madga. The mats may have been packing material. Sixty liters was the standard capacity of the g u r - d u b basket. The weight of theflourwas about seventy-five pounds, so the basket had to be sturdy, f^'gurdub (GAxGI) appears to be the same word, but in this spelling designates the container when it was used for wool and other items measured in pounds, while '^'g u r - d u b was used for items measured in liters. 8.22 CST 585, from SS 2 (Umma), a sealed tablet, records the receipt of six talents of charcoal "for making," that is casting the blades of "Madga axes" ("""'"ha-zi-in Má-da-ga aka-dè). ^'"ú-bíl-la designates charcoal and narrow timbers. Only charcoal was measured in talents (see GUSAS 5.8.5). 8.23 TUT87, from SS 3 XI (Girsu), an unsealed tablet, records the receipt by Lu-Igimashe of sandals and hides for Madga from a certain Lu-digira. Number 20 108 11 41 70

Item "•""e-sir-sig5 é-ba-an """'e-sir é-ba-an kus gU4 kus más kus udu

Translation pairs of good sandals pairs of sandals cow hides (tawed) goat hides (tawed) sheep hides

8.24 MVN 16 1257, from SS 6 (Umma), a sealed tablet, records the receipt by the scribe Abbagina, son of Lugal-magure, from Ur-Suen, surely the flourmill overseer of that name, of 240 liters of "barleyflourto buy bitumen, for Madga, on the word of the governor" (dabin ésir-ra saj^o'SälO"*^^ Má-da-ga-se inim énsi-ta). For the phrasing of the purchase notation, see already 8.7. 8.25 UTI 6 3678, from SS 6 XII (Umma), a sealed tablet, records the receipt by Abbagina from the leather worker Akala of leathergoods for Madga. Number 20 lOxn+n 20 2

2 1 10

Leathergoods '"•'Ù m [m u] [''"•'^1 e - s i [r s] u g U4 """••^e-si [r (x)] g e n

''"'^^sagan [''"y]uio-gan túg kus gU4 kus udu

Translation water skins cow(hide)... sandals ordinary ... sandals flasks sacks for cloth (tanned) cow hide (tawed) sheep hides

The editor Gomi reads the qualification of thefirstentry of sandals as k] us' gU4.1 read according to Nik 2 438:1. It could also be e-sir [su k] us' as in Snell (1982: pi. XI 7:11).

54

WOLFGANG HEIMPEL

8.26 TUT 83 (Girsu), an unsealed tablet, undated, lists the expenditure of cowhides. The first entry records thirty cowhides that were used, or to he used, for making three hundred pairs of sandals and thirteen cowhides for Madga. Lu-Igimashe was responsible for the two items, which indicates that not just the cow hides but also the shoes were destined for Madga. The date for this and the next entry, which records cow hides for the house of couriers (é ka§4), is given as "from month III to month I." The two years of that period are not identified.

8.27 MVN 5 273 (Girsu), an unsealed tablet, undated, records work done by craftsmen. The first set of entries reads as follows: 1'"'*e-sir é - b a - a n 1 ""'^ù m m u á-bi U4 5 - k a m 2 a s g a b i t i 3-sè á-bi U4 180-kam Má-ad-ga'"-se m u 3 a - r á 1-àm

1 pair of sandals 1 water skin the wages for (making) them is for five days two leather workers for three months the wages for that is for 180 days for Madga three years - first time

GDLI and BDTNS read 60 as number of pairs of sandals and water skins, which is motivated by the large size of the sign DIS. The copy published as MVN^ 5 273 was made by Pinches and is fully trustworthy. Yet a single leatherworker could hardly make sixty sandals and sixty water skins in five days.'*'' Two leather workers were available for ninety days. During that time they could make thirty-six pairs of sandals and thirty-six water skins. The last statement is unclear The text was not finished and lacks a colophon. 9. Goods Coining from Madga According to the inscriptions of Gudea, limestone, bitumen, and gypsum and/or h a-um earth were imported from Madga but only bitumen is attested in Ur III records, and so far only twice. 9.1 WMAH 3 (transliteration and comments) = MVN 2 3 (copy) is a balanced account of materials and personnel of the dock belonging to the household of the high priestess of Baba of Girsu from the years S 48 and AS L The account was made by the chief administrator (sabra). The amounts were modest. Little of the house/Ea bitumen was used during AS 1, and all of the water-scooper and mountain bitumen remained in storage, while 4,839 pounds of dry bitumen were used. According to CT 10 20 (BM 14308), the size of the household of the high priestess of Baba was small compared with the temple households of the province.^"*

43. Graphic differentiation hetween dis and gés by size of the single wedge is sometimes ohservable, but not a rehable criterion. Differentiation by angle of impression (Powell, RlA 7, 466 note 2) is only exceptionally shown in copies. 44. Available assets of the household at the beginning of S 48: 130,219 2/3 liters of barley and emmer, 1,304 1/4 liters of beans, and about twenty female workers.

THE LOCATION OF MADGA

55

Bitumen available at tbe end of S 48 and wbat was left of it one year later according to WMAH 3. Liters

Pounds Liters

S 48

Pounds Bitumen variety

Translation

ésir 540 ésir 1,860 ésir 35,661 ésir

bouse/Ea water-scooper mountain

ASI

685

635 540

1,860 40,500

é-a a ba-al bur-sag bád

dry

Tbe bouse/Ea, water-scooper, and mountain types of bitumen were designated as "Madga bitumen" (ésir Má-ad-ga'"). Tbe Madga bitumen could bave been brougbt from tbe trip of S 47 (see 5.3). It bad been stored at a riverside storage facility (gá-nun gú iy). Some of tbe bouse/Ea bitumen came from a mercbant. I understand tbe notation a-ba-al as a dub-sar formation meaning "water scooper" and designating tbe person wbo "scoops tbe bitumen up witb palm leaves" from tbe watery bitumen wells of Hit, as described by A. Musil.'"' Water-scooper bitumen, but not otber bitumen, was often qualified by si-ga, wbicb means, "filled (into a container)."''^ ITT5 6978 may serve as an example: 3.0.1 ésir é-a gur lugal 10 gú ésir a ba-al si-ga 13 gú ésir bád 28 gú ésir bur-sag Fresbly scooped bitumen was still warm and wet. One would bave let it drip from a palm frond or some otber implement used for scooping into a bucket. Tbe buckets would bave been carried to tbe riverbank and tben emptied into tbe cargo space of a boat. Neitber tbis nor tbe details of unloading are recorded. Tbe term ésir é-a is usually understood to mean "bouse bitumen," but tbere is no evidence of a special connection witb bouse construction. Tbe god "River" ^íd) of tbe bitumen wells of Hit was a manifestation of tbe god Ea.**^ He may bave been connected witb tbis variety of bitumen. It alone was measured in volumetric liters."*^

45. See document 3 in Heimpel 1996: 15. The editor Sauren translates "Asphalt, den das Wasser übergeben (abgestossen) hat" and quotes a similar earlier translation of Barton. Both translations fit the mechanism of the bitumen wells near Hit perfectly, but are grammatically problematic as they presuppose the unattested form a ba-al-la. 46. ésir si-ga in BAOM 2 39, 110 is exceptional. 47. He was called Ea, "king of the Abzu," in the Neo-Babylonian literary composition "Nebuchadnezzar King of Justice" (quoted in Heimpel 1996: 15-16). The reader refers me to the equation "i"»"«'"'IDIM = É-a {An=Anum II 168 and III 145 [Litke 1998: 87 and 145|; CT24 14,48, where it is counted as the twenty-third name of Ea). He also stresses, importantly, that the equation did not include Enki. This observation agrees with the view of Durand (2007: 222-25) that the Syrian É-a was not the god Enki of Sumer, but a genuine Amorite divinity, whose indigenous name was Aya. The god Ilurugu may then be understood as an alter ego of this Aya. 48. The bitumen listed for sealing Makkan boats in CT 7 31 (BM 18390) rev. 5 is also given in liquid/dry measure. It is called ésir-luh "clean bitumen."

56

WOLFGANG HEIMPEL

The term "mountain bitumen" (ésir hur-sag) is reminiscent of the designation of Madga as "'mountains' of the ordeal river" in Statue B of Gudea. It seems to be identical with IGI.ÉSIR of the Ur III documents, because the passage in Gudea Gylinder A XVI names water-scooper bitumen and ésir IGI.ÉSIR as the bitumen varieties coming from Madga. It could have been the "pitch" that "flows out over the desert and dries into an asphalt pavement.""*^ Dry bitumen was recycled bitumen. It came mostly from dismantled boats.''" 9.2 AION 31, 171 (BM 14411), from S 47, records a transfer of bitumen of the household of NinMAR.KI from Guiaba to storage in a flourmill. The text identifies the origin of the bitumen. Bitumen in BM 14411 Amount

Bitumens

Translation

137 talents 1,092 talents 1,080 liters 219 talents 130 talents

ésir ésir ésir ésir ésir

packed water-scooper bitumen Madga mountain bitumen Madga house/Ea bitumen Madga dry bitumen Guiaba dry bitumen boats in Girsu

a ba-al si-ga hur-sag é/E-a hád hád

Source

10. Other Ordeals Called Ilurugu In my previous publication on the topic of the river ordeal (Heimpel 1996), I left out the problem of ordeals called Ilurugu that were clearly not located in Hit. The following remarks are meant to make up for this lack. 10.1 In the Temple of Nanshe in Nina Line 130 of the Nanshe Hymn states: "in the house of Nanshe an ordeal river cleanses a person" (é '^Nanse-ka iy-lú-ru-gú lu mu-un-zalag-zalag-ge). The working of the ordeal is described in lines 131-133. As far as I understand them, it consisted of the interpretation of a song that came from the groundwater through an opening and, if confirming the truthfulness of the ordalist, a cleansing by a male-female pair of cult practitioners.^' As in the ordeal in Madga/Hit, the decision came from the waters below. Unlike in Madga/Hit, the decision was based on an interpretation of sound. 10.2 In the Temple of Ningal in Ur In a building inscription of Warad-Sin is found the statement "the walls and foundation of her 'house Ilurugu of the land,' her beloved 'house,' which had been erected in long-gone days, had aged. He (Warad-Sin) did not remove its foundation deposit, but repaired its aged underside" (é iy-lú-ru-gú

49. As described in Gertrud L. Bell. See Heimpel 1996: document 2. 50. Pieces of bitumen from dismantled boats from the middle of the third millennium BC were found on the coast of Oman and are described in Cleuziou and Tosi (1994). They may very well have come from the type of boats that were used in southern Mesopotamia. The hull of the boats was covered inside and out with heavy layers of bitumen. The bitumen was mixed with much organic matter, such as crushed bulrush and palm leaves. 51. Heimpel 1981: 115.

THE LOCATION OF MADGA

57

kalam-ma é ki-ág-gá-ni U4 ul ba-dù-a-ta uru4 é-gars-bi ba-sun t e m e n - b i n u - m u - u n ki'ir ur l i b i r - r a - b i ták-si-ru-um bí-in-ak). The inscription was written on a clay cone that was found in room C 10 of the Giparku in Ur.^" The room is located in the southeastern part of the complex, which Charpin determined to have been the temple of Ningal It belongs to a flight of rooms surrounding the central courtyard and celias on the southeast and southwest, a long narrow room next to the exterior wall. Charpin related the inscription of the cone to the temple as a whole. The location at the exterior wall makes this interpretation plausible, because the cone could have fallen off that wall. Alternatively, the inscription refers to room C 10 and possibly the suite of rooms, especially C8 and C9 that led from the central courtyard to C 10. That suite of rooms could have been the "house Ilurugu of the land," where an ordeal actually took place. 10.3 In Nippur TRU 363, from SS 6 VI, records expenditures of slaughter rams. The first expenditure has become understandable after collation by Lafont (1985: 181):siskur a ij lú-ru-gú-ta è-a "offering- having come out of the ordeal-river water." Who is coming out of the water is not recorded. Sallaberger (1993: 128) connected the text with the festival of Inana of Nippur of month VI. He explained the background of the offering according to the Middle Assyrian Astrolabe B and Seleucid ritual texts as "Reinigung der Gefolgschaft Istars im Ilurugu, dem Ordalfluss." He then related all Ur III references to the ordeal river and its god to this festival. The "Gefolgschaft" of the goddess is identified in Astrolabe B as AMA.''INANA.E.NE. The term is equated with istarltu and amalltu, which could well designate the group of various female cult personnel, human and divine, of Inana/Istar. If they all went into the "waters of Ilurugu" at the festival of month VI in Nippur and if these waters were anything like those of the ordeal in Hit as described in the Mari texts, a significant number would have died annually, which is an unlikely proposition. Either the nature of the ordeal river component of the festival of month VI had changed over time, or the ordeal in Madga/Hit and in Nippur during the Ur III period had different functions. 10.4 In the ''House of Nimgal" The so-called Nungal hymn is understood by Civil (1993: 62) as the product of an imprisoned scribe who: "before his sentencing,... sings the praises of Nungal, the divine warden." Lines 58-59 descrihe the sentencing: U4 um-gen é-kur ezen-gim ni-bi-a ba-an-dù, ki en t a r - r e ''I7-I I'l-rugú (variant iy-lú-ru-gú) digir ba-suß-ge-es, zi-du érim-du bar im-aka-ne si-sá mu-unù-tu, in Civils translation: "When the time (for the trial) has come, the Prison is made up as for a public festival. The gods are present at the place of interrogation, at the river ordeal, separating the honest from the evildoer, it gives birth to a just one." In a comment to the lines. Civil poses the question whether "the trial is metaphorically compared to a River Ordeal, or an ordeal effectively takes place." If a river ordeal of Madga/Hit is meant, it must be a metaphor. That ordeal was not a trial and lacked the elements of interrogation and the presence of gods. The idea of a trial in prison appears to be based on the identification of the prison with the netherworld where the sun god presided over the gods judging the dead.'^^ The connection of the trial and ordeal in prison with a festival provides a possible link with the river ordeal in Nippur. 52. UEF 1 126. See Charpin 1986: 198-99 and RIME 4.2.13.1, On page 193, Charpin provides the drawing of the ground plan. 53. That identification i.s affirmed by the use of the word "mountain house" (é-kur), considering that kur could be understood as the "mountain within" (see my note NABU 1996: 28).

58

WOLFGANG HEIMPEL 11. Trips to and from the Ordeal Site in Madga

Michalowski (1977: 288-89) collected Ur III references for Ilurugu. He understood the term as a topographical name despite the consistent lack of the place determinative.'^'* Additional references have been published in the meantime. All are found on tablets from Drebem. Ill Trouvaille 85, from S 47 II, records the bestov^/al of silver rings on two palace women at tbeir arrival "when they came from Ilurugu" (u4''l7-lú-ru-gú-tai-im-e-re-és-sa-a). Ina later publication, Michalowski (1978: 5) notes that "the occasions on which these rings were disbursed in almost all cases has to do with the travel of the recipients." For the location of Ilurugu it is important to note that such travel involved considerable distances. The women would have undergone the ordeal in Madga and come out safe. 11.2 AUCT 1 276, date broken, is another record of bestowal of silver rings to persons at tbe occasion of their arrival. Two specialty cooks (lu-ur-ra) received rings "when they (arrived) safe from Ilurugu" (u4 17-lú-ru-gú-ta i-im-ma-silim-és-sa-a). They had undergone the ordeal and had come out alive. The use of the same verb for surviving the ordeal is attested in the Mad text ARM 26 488^^ and in the Gode of Hammurabi. One wonders wbether they had been accused of food poisoning. 11.3 OrAnt 16 288 = SAT 2 709, from AS 2 II, records the expenditure of ten rams and ten male goats that were placed on a boat for soldiers from Ur "when they went to Ilurugu" (U4 iy-lú-ru-gú-se 1re-sa-a). The soldiers would have walked. They probably accompanied some unfortunates who had to undergo the ordeal. 11.4 CST 252, from AS 2 IV, that is a little over a month later, five rams were put on a boat for another group of soldiers from Ur "when they went to Ilurugu" (U4 Ty-lú-ru-gú-se l-re-sa). 11.5 The triplicates CSTáOl, SAT2 1158, and MVN5 120, from AS 5 XII, record the expenditure of five rams for the cupbearer Nurra "when he came from Ilurugu" (U4 iy-lú-ru-gú-ta l-im-gen-na-a).^® All three tablets were sealed. One copy would have gone to Aradmu who acted as deputy of the expenditure, another sent to the administration by the sealer Nur-Adad, the third kept by Duga, tbe expending official. Nurra may have survived an ordeal that proved his right to the five rams. 54. For example Puzris-Dagan was mostly written without determinative. 55. See the reading of ARM 26 488: 41 by Durand as quoted in Heimpel 1996: 12 note 10. 56. The transliteration of the first sign in MVN 5 120 is k i. CST has U4. SAT 2 can be read U4 according to collation by E. Salgues.

THE LOCATION OF MADGA

59

11.6 AUCT 2 378, date broken, records the expenditure of three fattened rams to the singer Ur-mes "the day that beer was poured for' the ordeal river (god)" (U4 "Ty-lú-ru-gti-d [è] kas ba-ni-dé-a). Another case of the case -e in connection with a "beer pouring" is TCL 5 6040 II 8' éren uru-ke4 kas dé-a, which Sallaberger (1993: 239) understands as locative-terminative, "translating "bei der" and explaining it as "für sie," which makes the troops of the city (éren uru) the heneficiaries. The locative-terminative would have heen used instead of the dative hecause they were treated as deanimated collective. Accordingly, the ordeal river would he beneficiary in AUCT 2 378, and the divine determinative was part of the notation of the place name as in 10.4 as opposed to 10.1-3. The festive occasion agrees with the river ordeal in Nippur 12. Conclusions While the orbit of ancient Mesopotamia does not lack sources of bitumen, the only prolific source where bitumen can be scooped out of water and that is in close proximity to a navigahle watercourse is Hit. The text treated in section 4.1 comes very close to proof that Madga is an older name of Hit, as it makes it very likely that the route from Umma used the connector hetween Tigris and Euphrates that was used for travel to Nippur The connection hetween llurugu and hitumen from Madga as stated by Gudea is paralleled hy the Old Babylonian sources from Mari that document the ordeal of the god ''íd and the economic importance of the hitumen of ''íd. It is to be expected that as long as bitumen was used, the bitumen wells of Madga/Hit were the principal source for southern Mesopotamia. It is also to be expected that one of the wells in that area was used as a truth oracle throughout documented ancient history of the region, including the early Sargonic tablet recording ordeals by the river god (Edzard 1968: no. 99), the Old Assyrian letter edited by Günhatti (2001), and the Middle Babylonian legal documents from Ur (Gurney 1974: 10-12). In these documents, the site of the ordeal was called hursanu. It designates prohably the very same feature that was called hur-sag Madga in Gudea's cylinder inscription quoted at the heginning of this article. References Adams, R. McC.

1981

Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Averbeck, R. E. 1987 A Preliminary Study of Ritual and Structure in the Cylinders of Gudea. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dropsie College. Charpin, D. 1986 Le clergé d'Ur au siècle d'Hammurabi Genève-Paris: Librairie Droz. Chesny, R. A. 1969 The Expedition for the Survey of the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris. Repr of 1850 edition. New York: Greenwood Press. Civil, M. 1964 A Hymn to the Beer Goddess. Pp. 67-89 in Erom the Workshop of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary: Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1993 On Mesopotamian Jails and their Lady Wardens. Pp. 72-78 in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William, W. Hallo, ed. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg. Bethesda MD: CDL.

60

WOLFGANG HEIMPEL

Cleuziou, S., and Tosi, M. 1994 Black Boats of Magan: Some Thoughts on Bronze Age Water Transport in Oman and beyond from Impressed Bitumen Slabs of Ra^s al-Junayz. Pp. 745-61 in South Asian Archaeology 1993: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists Held in Helsinki University, 5-9 ]uly 1993, Vol. II, ed. A. Parpóla and P. Koskikallio. Annales academiae scientiarum fennicae B.271 Helsinki: Soumalainen Tiedeakatemia. CUSAS 5 2009 W. Heimpel, Workers and Construction Work at Garsana CUSAS 5. Bethesda, MD: CDL. DahU-L. 2007 The Ruling Family of Vr III Umma: A Prosopographical Analysis of an Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago. PIHANS 108. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije Oosten. Durand, J.-M. 2007 La Religion Amorrite en Syrie à l'Époque des Archives de Mari. Pp. 171-314 and 633-703 in Mythologie et Religions des Sémites occindentaux, ed. G. del Olmo Lete. OLA 162. Leuven: Peeters. Edzard, D-0. 1968 Sumerische Rechtsurkunden des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor der III. Dynastie von Ur. München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1997 Gudea and His Dynasty. RIME 3.1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Englund, R. 1990 Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur HI-Fischerei BBVO 10. Berlin: Reimer 2003 The Year: "Nissen Returns Joyfully from a Distant Island. CDLJ 2003:1. Online: http://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/ cdl]72003/cdl]2003_00Lhtml. Cited June 7, 2009. Falkenstein, A. 1953 Sumerische und Akkadische Hymnen und Gebete. Zürich: Artemis. 1966 Die Inschriften Gudeas von Lagas. AnOr 30. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Günbatti, C. 2001 The River Ordeal in Ancient Anatolia. Pp. 151-60 in Veenhof Anniversary Volume: Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. W. H. van Soldt. PIHANS 89. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Gurney, O. R. 1974 The Middle Babylonian Legal and Economic Texts from Ur. UET 7. London: British Museum Publications. Heimpel, W 1981 The Nanshe Hymn. JCS 33: 65-139. 1996 The River Ordeal in Hit. RA 90: 7-18. Jacobsen, T. 1987 The Harps that Once... : Sumerian Poetry in Translation New Haven: Yale University Press. Landsberger, B., and Gurney, 0. R. 1957- Practical Vocabulary of Assur AfO 18: 328-41. 1958 Litke, R. L. 1998 A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists An: ''A-nu-um and AN:Anu sa amëli. TBC 3. New Haven: Yale Babylonian Collection. Marchesi, G. 2006 Lumma in the Onomasticon and Literature of Ancient Mesopotamia Padova: S. A.R.G.O.N. Michalowski, P 1977 Ur III Topographical Names. OrAn 16: 287-96. 1978 The Neo-Sumerian Silver Ring Texts, Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 2/3. Malibu: Undena. Potts, D In press Adamsah, Kimas and the Miners of Lagas. In Your Praise is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black from Students, Colleagues and Friends, ed. H. D Baker, E. Robson and G. Zólyomi. Oxford: The Griffith Institute. Powell, M. 1984 Sumerian Cereal Crops. BSA 1: 48-72. 1992 Timber Production in Presargonic Lagas. BSA 6: 99-122.

THE LOGATION OF MADGA

61

Sallaberger, W. 1993 Der kultische Kalender der Ur-lU-Zeit, 2 volumes. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1996 Der babylonische Töpfer und seine Gefäße: Nach Urkunden altsumerischer bis altbabylonischer Zeit sowie lexikalischen und literarischen Zeugnissen Mit einem Beitrag von M. Civil. Mesopotamian History and Environment 3. Ghent: University of Ghent. Scurlock,J. A. 2005 On Some Terms for Leathei-working in Ancient Mesopotamia. Pp. 169-74 in Proceedings of the 51st Rencontie Assyriologique Internationale, Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, July 18-22, 2005, ed. R. D. Biggs, J. Myers, and M. T Roth. SAOG 62. Chicago: University of Chicago Press' Sigrist, M., and Gomi, T 1991 The Comprehensive Catalogue of Published Ur III Tablets. Bethesda MD: GDL Snell, D.C. 1982 Ledgers and Prices: Early Mesopotamian Merchant Accounts. YNER 8. New Haven: Yale University Press. Steible,H 1991 Die Neusumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, Teil 2, FAOS 9/2. Stuttgart: Steiner. Steinkeller, P 1987 The Foresters of Umma. Pp. 73-115 in I^bor in the Near East, ed. M. Powell. AOS 68. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1989 Sale Documents of the Ur-lll-Period, FAOS 17. Stuttgart: Steiner. 2007 On Sand Dunes, Mountain Ranges, and Mountain Peaks. Pp. 219-32 in Studies Presented to Robert D. Biggs, June 4, 2004, From the Workshop of the Chicago Assijrian Dictionary 2, ed. Martha T Roth, W. Färber, M. W. Stolper, and P von Bechtoldsheim. AS 27. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Suter, G. 2000 Gudea's Temple Building: The Representation of an Early Mesopotamian Ruler in Text and linage. CM 17. Groningen: Styx. Sykes, K. L. 1973 The Year Names of the Ur III Period. MA Thesis, The University of Chicago. Waetzoldt, H. (with H. G Bachmann and E. Pernicka) 1984 "Zinn- und Arsenbronzen in den Texten aus Ebla und aus dem Mesopotamien des 3. Jahrtausends" OrA?i 23: 1-18. Wilcke, C. 1999 "Neusumerische Merkwürdigkeiten." Pp. 621-38 in Minúscula Mesopotamica: Festschrift für Johannes Renger, ed. B. Bock, E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, and Th. Richter. AOAT 267. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

NARAM-SIN OF URUK: A NEW KING IN AN OLD SHOEBOX Eva von Dassow (University of Minnesota) For my mother Eleanor, who has built a house of earth

This article presents the first evidence of one Naram-Sin, king of Uruk sometime in the nineteenth century BC, to come to light.' Two inscriptions of the new Narâm-Sîn are now known: a complete clay cone helonging to the Department of Classical and Near Eastern Studies at the University of Minnesota, which arrived through the antiquities trade at an unknown time; and a fragment of the head of a clay nail (or peg), hearing the same or nearly the same text as the cone, which was found at Uruk during the 1928 excavation season. In the first section of this article I discuss the provenance, discovery, and identification of hoth artifacts. The second section provides a copy and edition of the cone inscription; an appendix hy Eckart Erahm provides an edition of the fragmentary nail inscription. The historical context to which Narâm-Sîn may hypothetically helong is the suhject of the third section. In the fourth and fifth sections, I discuss the physical form, placement, and function of these t^'pes of objects. A Cone in a Shoebox and a Clay Nail from Uruk In the winter of 2005-2006, the University of Minnesota's Department of Classical and Near Eastern Studies (CNES) moved out of the huilding where it had been hou.sed for more than a centtiry and into

1. Wprr the practices of the natural sciences followed in .Assyrinlogy. this puhliriition of one inscribod day rone would havr at least half a dozen fo-authors. Douglas Frayne made the crucial hreakthiough in reading the text, based on my preliminary copy. Sub.se(|iiently, Piotr Michalowski and Eckart Frahm each made indispensahle contribntions, liclpiii(i jirachiitlly to work out most of the problematic bits. Frahm had by that point ideiititied a fragment of an inscribed clay nail from Unik as a (near-) du plicate of the clay rone; the nail fragment had been made known to him by Mavfiarpte van Ess, wbo bas graciously provided tbe field photographs of this object and granted permission to publish it. The identification of tbe duplicate, moreover, was made possible byJa(kSa.sson,lhrougb broadca.stingon his e-mail list m\'initial de.scription of tbe newly discovered cone attesting NarSm-Sîn of Uruk. And Ihc cone was photographed by Sahrina Curran, graduate student in the University of Minnesotas Dcpartmeut of Antbropulogy. as part of tbe Evolutionary .\ntbropology Laboratory's Interactive 3D Digital Re.souices Project, directed by John Sodcrbcrg. Thus, tbe edition of the cone's text, together witb its photographic dociunenlation, has nuin\' parents. But the article— other than the ajipendix written by Frabm—has ju.st onr: whereas the individuals named above are eaeh to be credited with their invaluable contributions to this work, any errors of fart or interpretation are mine alone. Bibliogiaphif abbreviations follow tbe ii.sage of Archiv für Orieiilfor.'icluut^ Tbe following sigla and abbreviated references should be uoted: AVWE 4 = Finkbeiner 1991: AU\VE 15/1 = van Ess 2001; BM = siglum for objects in the collection of the British Mu.seum: CNES = Department of Classical and Near Ea.stem Studies at tbe University of Minnesota; U = siglum for objects excavated at Ur; UM = siglum for cuneiform inscriptions in the ci)llection of tbe University of Minnesota Libraries; VVB I = Jordan 1930; UVB 17 = Lenzen, et al. 1961 ; UVB 22 = Lenzen, et al. 1966; VA = siglum for objects in tbp collection of tbe Vorderasiati.sches Museum; W = siglum for objects excavated at Uruk/Warka.

63

j e s 61 (20091

64

EVA VON DASSOW

new quarters in another huilding.- The move provided the occasion for unpacking all of the teaching collection that had been a.s.semhled in a previotis generation by Williatn McDonald, Professor of Classics and Archaeology from 1948 to 1980. This collection, comprising potsherds, pottery, and other kind.s of artifacts, was stored in scores of ballet shoeboxes that appear to date from the 1960s. One of the boxes yielded a clay cone inscribed in cuneiform. It had evidently been packed away and forgotten long ago; no one .still on the faculty at the end of the twentieth century knew of this inscribed cone s existence.^ The little extant documentation pertaining to the acquisition of the cone is somewhat ambiguous. On the base of the cone was glued a label reading "Cuneform \sic] document, Mesopotamian—Time of Mo.ses. Bovey Collection. Goldstein" ffig. 1); also on the base, the numeral 057 is written in ink, over traces of earlier inked numerals. The only other documentation that specifically records this cone is a notebook, which accompanied the boxes described above, containing an incomplete "Catalogue of Objects in the Collection of the Department of Classics" prepared by Michael Padgett in the summer of 1983.^ In this catalog, which numbers all objects .seriatim, fifteen objects numbered 050 to 064 iire listed under the heading "Goldstein Collection," and no, 057 is a "terracotta cone" in.scribed in cuneiform. Thus it would appear that the cone arrived in a collection given to the department by one Goldstein at some point {and then it received the number "057" when the entire departmental collection was cataloged in 1983). However, the "Bovey Collection" mentioned on the cones label should mean the material donated by Mrs. Kate Koon Bovey to the University of Minnesota Libraries in the 1940s. Besides donating many books, she donated at least one "tablet" to the library, according to archival records pertaining to the cuneiform material in Special Collections and Rare Books,' No details are given about the "tabiet" Mrs. Bovey donated, which could well have been this cone. The cones label indicates that it belonged to the Bovey and Goldstein collections in turn, but the relationship between the two is unclear, as is the path the object took to arrive in the possession of the Department of Classics, There is no indication that anyone ever read the cone, or publi.shed it in an\- form. Whiie Tom B. Jones was on the University of Minnesota faculty (from 1935 to 1977), he and his students published most of the cuneiform material then found in Minnesota collections."^ However, the cone that came to 2. The story of thp discovery "f the inscribed cone, and the subsequent identification of the matching clay nail, was reported in a paper I presented at tbe 217th meeting of the American Oriental Society, "Naram-Sin, King of Unik" (San .Antonio, Texas, March 18,2007). The story has also been serialized in print, in articles I wrote for CNESs 2006 and 2U()7 newsletters (thanks are due to Barbara Lehnhoff, executive secretary- in CNES. for her work producing and distributing these newsletters). Both newsletter pieces were broadcast by Jack Sasson on the Ajrade e-mail list, the first on January 16, 2{)Q7. and Ihe second on October 19,2007. 3. I joined CNES in the fall of 2000. and at that time inquired whether there were any cuneiform inscriptions in collections on campus nr in the area. Information pmvidetl in response to my query led me to the small cuneiform collection belonging to the University of Minnesota Libraries, Special CloMcctions and Rare Books (this (ollection is now accessible on Ihe Internet at http://special.lib.umn.edu/rare/cuneiform/). But no one had any idea that a cuneiform inscription lay in one of the numerous boxes stacked For .several years in the very room where the department held facility meetings. 4. So according to the notebooks "title pa^e." This unremarkable notebook, which escaped notice at the time the shoeboxes were opened and the cone was found, turned up in spring 2008, when the search for documentation pertaining to the cone was renewed. In 1983, J. Michael Padgett, now Cnrator of Ancient Art at the Princeton University Art Mu.seum, was a graduate student in the Department of Art History at the University of Minnesota. As he recalls, he cataloged all the ancient material he could find, working in the University Gallery, which was then housed in 316 Noiihrop Memorial Auditorium (e-mail correspondence, April 17, 20Ü8). A few years previously, the collection of ancient art in the University Gallery had heen described in a brief note bv William Coulsoti and Sheila McNally (1979); this note, however, de.scribes material that eventually entered the collection of the Frederick R. Weisman Art Museum, and does not mention the Gold.stein Collection or any of the material now in the possession of CNES. 5. This information was originally collected by my undergraduate student Mark Gill in the course of investigating the history of the cuneiform collections belonging to the University Libraries and to the Science Museimi of Minnesota, for his contribution to the exhibit and catalog "Mesopotamia in Minnesota" (Gill in von Dassow 2003; 41-42), 6. Tablets from the Ur III period were puhli.shed by Jones and Sn\ der (1961 ); this volume also included Old Babylonian inscriptions found in the same collec tions (such as cones of Sui-kSsid and Lipit-Estar), while tablets from other periinls were wcasitmally published elsewhere {for example, one of the two Neo-Babylonian tablets in the collection of the Science Museum of Minnesota

NARAM-SIN OF URUK: A NEW KING IN AN OLD SHOEBOX

65

Fig. 1. Base of the inscribed clay cone, with its label, now in tbe collection of CNES (Universitv of Minnesota). reside in tbe Department of Glassies was apparently never shown to Jones, who taught in the Department of History" Meanwhile, no information about tbe cones date or its textual content accompanied the cone as it passed from hand to hand. The absence of such information and the lack of any publication are not surprising in view of the inscription's poor condition and, more important, the fact that it is unique. We can easily read what we already know a text says, even if it is badly damaged, but if it records unexpected and unparalleled information we are likely to be stymied. The text of this cone was written none too carefully to begin with, and it had suffered considerable damage (apparently in

is text no. 9 in the dissetiatian of Ira Spiir |1972|). Much of Ihc nmterial stiulieiJ h\ Jones and Snyder was subscqucntly dispersed: the Minneapoli.s Institute of Arts, the Walker Art Center, and the Saint Panl Piihlic Library each sold off their follections nf cuneiform tablets in successive decades (hut that is a tale to be told elsewhere). The cuneiform collections of the University of Minnesota Libraries (see previous f<x)tnote) and the Science Muse'um of Minnesota (http://www,i;min.org/anthmpology/cuneiform/) remain largely intact. 7. Nor did Erie Leiclity, who was on the faculty of the Department of History from 1963-1968, ever see this cone (personal communication, March 18, 2ÜÜ7); nor did faculty trained in Assyriology who joined what was then the Department of Middle Eastern Languages (Jonathan Paradise in 1965, and Daniel Reisman in 1971).

66

EVA VON DASSOW

antiquity). Had any cuneiformist in the early or mid-twentieth century examined it, lacking any other exemplar of the .same text, he or she would likely have given up tr\'ing to make out what the cone said, and settled for telling its owner that it was an authentic Mesopotamian inscription dating hack to the second millennium BC, By the late-twentieth century, the study and puhlication of Mesopotamian royal inscriptions had culminated in the RIM .series., facilitating the comparative investigation of such material. L however, being unschooled in Sumerian and inexperienced with early Mesopotamian ro\al inscriptions, could make little progress in reading the cone from the shoehox when presented with it in 2006. It was clearly authentic, and virtually im])()ssible to read. At length I recognized the name Narâm-Sîn in the first line and the phrase "I built the palace of my kingship" in II, 11-12, meanwhile searching through volumes of Mesopotamian royal in.scriptions in an effort to figure out whose cone this was and what it said. It quickly became clear that it could not be an inscription of any of the known kings named Narâm-Sîn: not Narâm-Sîn of Eshnunna, nor Narâm-Sîn of Assur, nor, of course, Narâm-Sîn of Akkad." Having arrived at this impa.sse, I copied the text and sent the copy to Douglas Frayne, who, as the author of several fí/ME volumes, possesses the requisite knowledge that I lack. He readily recognized much of the phraseology, and above all, the name Uruk (11. 2, 6, 8,18), which, once one sees it, is clear enough even where the sign is damaged, but which was utterly unexpected. Wben the existence of an inscription attesting a hitherto-unknown Naram-Sîn, king of Uruk, was announced (see above, n. 2), the news caught the eye of Eckart Frahm, for be bad seen a similar inscription several years before." Margarete van Ess had shown him a photograph of a fragment of an inscribed clay nail head which had been excavated at Uruk; at the time, given tbat it was only a fragment and its preserved content matched no known text and no known king, Frabm could not identify it. But be could do so upon bearing of the cone inscribed for Naràm-Sîn of Uruk, for wbat remained of tbe text of tbe nail fragment matched the text of the cone. The fragment from Uruk (field number W 4094; museum number VA 10959) is roughly one quarter of the head of a clay nail, and it pre.serves most of tbe top half of the first column of the inscription, which was disposed in two columns on the nail head.'" The fact that the nail fragment was actually excavated at Uruk both confirms tbe authenticity of the cone found in a sboebox in Minnesota, and establishes that its provenience must likewise be Uruk, as its text would suggest. Closer study of the inscriptions on both tbe nail and the cone indicates that they may not be exact duplicate.s, or, if both are exemplars of the .same text, they seem to have variants. Moreover, tbeir script differs: whereas the cone is in.scribed in an inexact, careless band, tising younger or more "cursive" sign forms, tbe nail head is inscribed in a clear, calligraphic hand, using more archaic or 'monumental" sign forms. These observations, together with the fact tbat the two artifacts are of different types, are

8. Quite aside frotn the absence of the name Esbnunnti or Assur, iiiid ol' any content matching royal inscriptions from either city, clay cones were not nsed as ;i form for royal inscriptions at either .\ssnr or, apparently, E.shnunna durinff the early-second millennium fK:. No cones are listed for Eshnunna in RIME 4 (Frayne 199Ü). In As.syria, clay nails were not introdnced as a carrier of inscriptions until the mid-second millennium RC.aa'onling lo the overview presented by Donbaz antl Crayson (1984: 2-3, denoting the objects Vones") and Nunn (2ÜÜ6; 91, denoting them knobs ornaiLs); the .sJ/cA:aiiii» referred to in Old Assyrian royal inscriptions wonid appear to have heen an uninscribed peg (see below, pp. 77-78, with n. 36). The .same criteria and more exclude third-millennium Akkad, although one could imagine someone producing a fake inscription of Naram-Sîn of .Akkad in the earlysecond millennium RC. 9. Here I report information derived from my e-mail correspondence with Eckart Frahm in February and March. 2007 (see also Fraiims appendix to this article). H). This description is ba.sed on the held photofjraph (no. 655) provided courtesy of Margarete van Ess, current head of the Deuts( hes Archäologisches Institut excavations at Uriik; the photograph is published in Frahm s appendix as Hg. 6, along with his copy (figs, 7 and 8).

NARÄM-SIN OF URUK: A NEW KING IN AN OLD SHOEBOX

67

significant, first, because their divergences establish the authenticity of what tbe texts say. That is, tbere really was a Naräm-Sin who ruled Uruk, if ever so briefly, wbit h one could doubt if be were attested only by a single poorly written, unprovenienced inscription." Besides providing a secure provenience for tbe cone, ideally the find spot of the nail fragment would indicate the archaeological context of both inscriptions. Tbey sbould originally have been placed witbin the structure they record, namely tbe palace tbat Narâm-Sîn built. If Narâm-Sîns reign was very liiief, he probably could not have completed construction of the palace for wbich tbe inscribed cone and nail were made, but their original context should nonetheless correspond to tbe site of construction. However, although its find spot is imprecisely documented, it appears that the nail fragment was found in secondary context.'" It was found during tbe first season of regtilar excavations at Uruk in 1928 (Campaign 1}, in the area of tbe Eanna, and it most likely came from a structure then referred to as Bau J, wbicb is of Neo-Babylonian date.''^ Bau J and its neigbborhood yielded large quantities of miscellaneous Old Babylonian material, including numerous inscriptions of Sîn-kâsid, which bad presumably been relocated through the transportation of construction materials or by other means.''* Thtis the context in wliich Narâm-Sîn s clay nail fragment was found reflects its original location indirectly, if at all. The clay cone that found its way to Minnesota was most likely removed from the site of Uruk around the same time tbat tbe nail fragment was excavated there, whether or not tbe two artifacts derive from the same (probably secondary) arcbaeological context; it might, however, have turned up at an earlier date. During the period of the initial 1912-1913 campaign at Uruk, Edgar J. Banks was selling ancient Near Eastern artifacts that included cones and tablets of Sîn-kâsid, which originated from Uruk, in tbe United States. In 1913 the University of Minnesota Library bought eight tablets from Banks, according to correspondence preserved in the University Archives, and this lot included one cone and one tablet from Stn-käsids palace.'"' Piivate individuals in Minnesota also purchased cuneiform tablets from Banks, and in many ca.ses sucb material was eventually presented eitber to the University or to the Science

11. With only the cone at hand, carpk-ssiy inscribed and unparalleled in contení, T wondered whether it might be an ancient "fake" in some sense—for instance, perhaps a scribe drafted it as a sort of sample text, using a popular royal name where the real king's name would be inserted in the real inscription, and then he discarded it {but not in the recycling bin) after defacing it somewhat in order to annul the text {hence the extensive surface damage). The existence of another exemplar, written in a diñerent hand on a difFcrcnt type of object, makes such a hypothesis unnecessary. 12. I am grateful to Margarete van Ess for providing information about the archaeological context in which the clay nail fragment was found, as well as ahout the early excavations ¡it Uruk (e-mail communications. March 15 and August 21. 2007; letter, August 9, 2008). 13. For further detail see the appendix by Frahm. Bau J, denoted "Wasser-Klar-Anläge" in VVB 1, pis. 9 and 10, is dated to Marduk-apta-iddina II b>' that kings inscribed bricks (see Lenzen, et al, 19.56: 14), 14. The catalog of inscriptions in UVB 1 (pp, 45-67) records several day cones and nails of Shi-kasid found in Bau J {see nos. 8-11). The,se are discu.ssed in more detail by van Ess, in AUWE 4: 204 {on Sin-kaSid inscriptions found in the area of the "Wasserbecken Marduk-apla-iddinas"l and AlWE 15/1; 348 (ditto, in the "Kanalanlagen von Marduk-apla-iddina Tl westlich des Kara indas-Tempe I s"). In surve\'ing the distribution of S'm-käsi(]'s inscriptions at the site of Uruk, van Ess observes that a great many, of different types, were found in the area of the wate-i-works of Marduk-apla-iddina II (Bau J.i, w hilf- others were found in the area of Neo-Babylonian houses, where the\' would either have been tran,sporte
68

EVA VON DASSOW

Fig. 2. Copy of the in.scription on the CNES cone.

NARAM-SIN OF URUK: A NEW KING IN AN OLD SHOEBOX

69

Museum of Minne.sota,'" Banks was still marketing cuneiform tablets and other antiquities to Minnesota institutions and individuals as late as 1938.'' Thus it is likely that, whether as early as 1913 or as late as 1938, the cone of Narâm-Sîn of Urttk, too, was acqtiired by Banks, who sold it to a private collector (apparently Mrs. Bovey), whence it came to the University. The Insc-riptiun on the CNES Cone As mentioned above, although the cone is intact, with only small bits actually missing toward the left edge (next to the uninscribed base), its surface is considerably damaged. This damage, combined with tbe indifferent manner in which the text was inscribed, makes many passages very difficult to discern, much less to read, unless they are paralleled in other inscriptions, The beginnings of the first eight lines are preserved on tbe matching clay nail fragment found at Uruk, whicb helps to complete some parts, but these eight lines do not appear to be entireh- identical on both nail and tone. Thus tbe edition presented here contains uncertainties, and no doubt mistakes, where it has been impossible to determine wbat was written (or meant to be written) on the cone. In order to facilitate improvements and corrections to the reading of the text by other scbolars, I bave indicated damage quite liberally— and as accurately as I was able—in my copy (fig. 2). so that it may be possible to tell what signs could or could not have been written in tbe damaged parts. The pbotograpbs published here present two views of the cone (figs. 3 and 4); photographs of the entire cone are available on the web site of tbe Evolutionary Anthropology Laboratory at the University of Minnesota.'^ The cone measures 8.4 cm in length; its slightly elliptical base is 4.9-5.3 cm in diameter. Text: 1) iVa-ra-am-''EN.ZU sipa níg-nam-sár-ra Unug'^'-ga Hugar sa iri''''"''-na^^ dujo^^uiO 'dingir'' ma-da-na 5) 'U4' Au •'Inanna-ke4 nam-lugal Unug'''-g|aj ma-'an'-|sum|-mu-us-a 'u4^-ba'^'Hukul 'kalag^-ga-ga-ta •^id^ Unug^'-ga *-"'*x ^ x x x x ^ gal hé-bí'-x' 10) [z]ag-x 'x^-mu hé-bí-gub [x] '^x^ NI "^x^ é-gal nam-lugal-la-gá mu-dù [u4-bal bala-nam-lugal-'la'-gá [3 s|e-gur-ta 1|2¡ ma-'na sig'-ta 15) [10 maj-na "^urudu^-ta 3 ban î-gis-ta ^ ma-da-gá-ka "^kù^-babbar 1 gín-e

Translation: Naram-Sîn, sbepherd making all abundant for Uruk, '^king'*^ who gladdens 'the heart of his city''^ 'deity^' of his land. When An (and) Inanna granted me the kingship of Uruk, at that ti[me|, by my mighty weapon, I.., -ed the river of Uruk ^ \ I captured 'EdurfP-Sîn-'isa^ ^border''...' my '...' I set up', ^ . .^ the palace of my kingship I built, [At that time,] during my reign, |3| gur of |bar|le\, 1 [2| minas of wool, [10 mijnas of copper, (or) 3 ban of sesame oil, at the market rate of mv land,

16, Gill, in von Dassow (2003; 41-42), drawing on conespondence kept by private owners as well as tlie archives of the Science Museum of Minnesota, Division of Research and Collections. On Ihi- interactions amony Banks, the Scienee Museum, and private donors, see also Redman (20Ü7: 149-52; this discussion at points paraphrases Gill's 2ÜÜ3 piece quite closely), 17, This is attested by letters kept in the acquisition records of the Science Museum of Minnesota, within SMM accession no. .575; this lot comprises objects acquired from Banks by Gharles L, Ames, who donated them to the mnseiim as his father Charles W, Ames had done with tablets purchased in 191.'>. The 1938 correspondence is discussed in Redman 20()7: 150-52.1 am gratefid to Edward Fleming, Curator of Archaeology in the Science Museum's Department of Anthropology, for checking the records on my behalf, and for providing the reference to Redman (2007), 18, See http://anthropologvlabs,iimn.edu/litml/vr presentations,html; click on "Cuneiform Inscriptions," then "Cone 1." The ihree-dimensional movie" can be stopped at any point to view the text.

70

EVA VON DASSOW

fdulmu.nitag dumu.munus '^Unug^'*'-[ga]-'^ke4i fama5'^ ama'-a-sè hé-bí-^gur^ 20) 'inim'' nu-siki^ nu-mu-un-kus-'a' ''{x'y hé-bí-sag

cost 1 shekel of silver, The sons and daughters of Uruk returned to the chamber of the mother'' "^the word^ of the orphan (and)^ widow was pleasant''

Notes: 11. 3-4: These two lines appear to differ between the cone and the nail (W 4094). Whereas 1. 3 of W 4094 reads lugal ¡ri'''"^ [..,] (the second and third signs clearly written but unusual in form), it is not altogether clear that there was any sign at the damaged beginning of I. 3 on the cone (the marks on the copy that suggest cuneiform strokes may ju.st as easily be scratches); following the spot where lugal should be, there are four damaged signs, then I. 3 concludes with duiy-duiQ. The solution, as Frahm proposes (see Appendix), seems to be to recognize in 1. 3 of the cone tbe epithet lugal sa iri""'-na dujQ-duiQ, attested in the hymn Enlil-bani A; 112-13 (see Kapp 1955: 79), and to assume that .sa was erroneously omitted on the nail head while lugal was written faintly on the cone (and then perhaps flattened wbile the rest of tbe text was inscribed). Similarly, wbile W 4094: 4 begins with a very clear DINGIR, this sign is barely discernible at the damaged beginning of I. 4 on the cone. Since these lines would make no sense without lugal and d i n g i r (respectively), it seems best to restore the signs in accord with tbe nail inscription even though their presence is doubtful. Why the scribe of the eone wrote both lugal at the beginning of I. 3 and d i n g i r at the beginning of 1. 4 indistinctly—if at a l l tempts speculation. Tbe epithet in 1. 3 appears to be a variation of si pa/1 ú sa nib ru'" dnjQ-du)(), used by Enlil-bäni's predecessor Bûr-Sîn {RIME 4.1.7.1,1. 2) and later at Larsa by Kudur-mabuk (RIME 4.2.13,10,1. 13) and Warad-Sîn (ñ/ME 4.2.13.20.1. 8; see Seux 1967: 392). As Frahm observes (see Appendix), d i n g i r mada-na is semantically equivalent to the epithet d i n g i r kalam-ma-na used by kings of the Ur III Dynasty and the Hrst two kings of the Isin dynasty (Seux 1967: 389). I. 6: The reading of the verb as ma-an-sum-mu-us-a is confirmed by the nail inscription, where the first four signs are partly preserved and adequately clear. Without the duplicate, tbis reading was suggested by Michalowski based on sense, more than on what the scribe wrote, which is so indistinct as to suggest he was unsure whether SUM should precede MU or vice versa, therefore wrote unclearly to obscure his uncertainty. The scribe wrote A as two simple verticals here and elsewhere (compare DURU5 in I. 9 and A at tbe end of I. 20). I. 8: The first sign, id, incompletely preserved on the cone, is restorable from tbe nail, where it is fairly clear. The line concludes with a half-illegible verb; apparently the scribe misjudged how long the line would be, so that, after writing gal hé-, he wrote the last two (?) signs around the curve toward the cones tip, rather than placing the entire verb on a new line. Indeed, the signs completing the verb are so poorly inscribed tbat I could not see them the first several times I examined the cone, and the discernible strokes, obscured by damage, still fail to resolve into any particular signs, Michalowski suggested gal hé-bi-tag4, "I openedr whicb would seem to make sense with id Unug'"-ga at the beginning of the line; but Miguel Civil observes (persona! communication, 19 July 2008) that he can find no instance in which gal ,.. tag4 is used of a watercourse, and that a watercourse would not likely be opened using a mighty weapon, which is indicated by the previous line. The verb may instead refer to a military action involving the river through Uruk and culminating in the capture of Edurû-Sîn-isa in the next line. I, 9: Though the sign E is mostly missing and SAg is unclear and damaged, the reading of the place name E-duru5-(''Nanna-)i-sa6''"' (Akk, Fdurû-[Sîn-]isa) seems certain. This place seems to be otherwise attested only in texts from the reign of Sumu-El of Larsa, who named his fourteenth year for the

NARAM-SIN OF URUK: A NEW KING IN AN OLD SHOEBOX

1 ig. 3. Vi( w oí the CNES cone inscription.

71

Fig, 4. View of tbe CNES cone inscription.

conqttest of Edurû-Sîn-isa. That event was evidently an important moment in Sumu-Els northerly expansion at Isins expense, as described by Walters (1970: xxii-xxiii, 164-65; Text 25 |pp, 27-29| mentions a palace in EdurCi-isa). Walters accordingly suggested that Edurû-Sîn-isa was located near the mouth of the Isin Canal, a proposal noted in RGTC 3: 67 and followed by Frayne (1989: 23; see map 8, on whicb the area where Edurû-Sîn-isa would be located is shaded as Larsas territory). I. 10: Though tbe sign following [zj ag is one of the most clearly written on tbe cone, it is not clear what sign it is; the damaged sign preceding m u is equally obscure. The tentative translation of this line suggests a possible sense, in tbe absence of a certain reading. II. 14-16: Tbe damaged parts are restored based on identical passages in numerous inscriptions of Sîn-kâ.sid of Uruk, in who.se reign 3 se g u r - t a 12 m a - n a s i g - t a 10 m a - n a u r u d u - t a 3 b a n îg i s - t a purportedly cost one shekel of silver (i^JME 4.4.1, nos, 8 and 10-15). 1. 19: The reading given here was suggested by Eckart Frabm. Though the signs cannot be made to read a m a - a r - g Í 4 e - g a r or the like, the line does call to mind the edicts of debt remission tbat Old Babylonian kings often issued upon accession (I owe this observation to tbe referee for JCS). When did Narâm-Sîn Rule Uruk? In general, this inscription is composed using typical early Old Babylonian phra.seology and motifs, which helps in restoring or interpreting damaged or poorl\' inscribed passages. More important, the specific details that it shares with otber rulers' inscriptions are significant for establishing tbe historical context in which we may place NarSm-Sîn of Uruk. For example, the epithet s i p a n í g - n a m - s á r - r a (1. 2) is used by Enlil-bâni of Isin in several inscriptions {see RJME 4,1.10), and l u g a l âà iri^'-na duiQ-duiQ appears in a bymn to tbe same king. The theme of gladdening widow and orphan (11, 20-21) appears in an inscription of Nor-Adad of Larsa {RIME 4.2,8.7,11. 55-56). But the most striking parallel to other kings* in.scriptions is the statement of ideally low prices (II, 13-17). Narâm-Sîns ideal prices are exactly the same as tbose claimed by Sîn-kâsid (see note on 11. 14-16, above), who e.stablished Uruk as the seat of an independent kingdom, renovated the Eanna, and built bis palace, wbich bas been tbe object of archaeological excavation.'*^ Tbe motif of ideal prices is also found in inscriptions of two

19. Sîn-kasids palace was the target of excavation during the initial campaign at Uruk led by Julius Jordan in 1912/1913 (Jordan 1928: 54-56); the structure Jordan dug, however, lay northwest of the palace building that was later excavated [1 am indebted to Margarete van Ess for clarifying Ihis point; see further below, pp. 79-80, with iioles 39-40). E.\(;avation of the palace was resumed in the 1958/1959 season (VVB 17: 20-23, with pis. 30a, b), and completed tíve years later {UVB 22: 28-30. with pis. 31-35). The architecture of Shi-kasid's palace has heen reanalyzed by Margueron (1982,1; 4ÜÜ-418; II:fig.s.275-94), Detailed

72

EVA VON DASSOW

contemporaries of Sîn-kâsid,, namely Nur-Adad of Larsa and his son Sîn-iddinam, in both cases paired with a statement of the high wages paid to the men who htiilt the constructions the texts record,^" This motif does not recur in the extant inscriptions of subsequent ritlers of either Uruk or Larsa, though it does appear—rendered into Akkadian—in an inscription of Samsi-Adad I from Assur (RIMA I, 0.39.1; 59-72); there, the motif of ideal prices reflects the introduction of "southern" elements into upper Mesopotamia by Samsi-Adad.^' If one excludes Samsi-Adad as an outlier, and excludes the statements of price norms in law collections on account of genre, the statements of ideal prices now known from early-second-millennium royal inscriptions can be charted in time and by city as follows (Table 1).^^ Table 1. Statements of ideal prices in early Old Babylonian royal inscriptions.* Uruk quantity per silver shekel of:

Nur-Adad (r. 1865-1850)

Sîn-iddinam (r. 1849-1843)

Sin-kasid (r. 1860-1833 P

Naram-Sîn (r. ??)

barley wool copper sesame oil dates lard

2 gur (i) 10 minas (iii)

4 gur (i) 15 minas (iii)

2 ban (ii) 10 gur (iv)

3 ban (iv) 12gur(ii) 5 ban (v)

3 gur 12 minas 10 minas 3bán

3 gur 1[2] minas (10| minas 3bán

* Dales are given according to Charpin 2004, Annexe A, wherein the so-called Middle C]hr()nol<(g\' is followccl, I use these dates here in order to facilitate comparison with other literature on the Old Babylonian period, in which the Middle Chronology predominate,s, although in my view the chronology- shotild be lowered by abont half a century.

The list of commodities and the order in which they are listed vary, except that barley always comesfirst"^The sequence in use at Uruk is used to structure Table 1, and lowercase roman numerals

study and publication of textual finds deriving from the excavation of the palace commenced with Falkenstcin's initial synthetic treatment {1963; 4-82); publication of the administrative tablets found there has been carried forward principally by SanatiMiiller {see Sanati-Miiiler 2000, with references to previous literature, p, 93, n, 1). Inscriptions of Sin-kaSid are collected under flíME 4,4,1; on his reign and dynast\', see further below. 20. See RIME 4,2.8.7, an inscription of Nor-Adad refwrting his construction of the cit>' wall of Larsa (ideal prices, II. 57-63; high wages, 11, 64-70), and RIME 4,2.9,6. an inscription of Sîn-iddinam reporting his work on the Ebabbar {high wages, II, 49-57; ideal prices, I!. 58-69). 21. So according to Grayson, who remarks that Samsi-Adad's "utopian description of |)ricf-s |is| reminiscent of southern practices'" {RIMA 1, Gruyson 1987: 47); note that Sín-i(¡isam should be replaced by Nur-Adad in the list of southern rulers Grayson cites, in accord uith Sollbc-rger (1982: 342). 22. This would update the table given by SoUberger (1965: 16), amended following his corrected attribution of BM 132226 {RIME 4,2.8,7| to NOr-Adad rather than Sîn-iqîsam (SoUberger 1982: 342, with n, 3); on the attribution to Nur-Adad, see further Frayne 1990; 147. Hawkins presents a similar table that also includes statements of ideal prices in Noo-Assyrian and NeoBabylonian inscriptions (1986: 95, Table 9,1). which he then uses as a basis for interpreting and analyzing instances of the same motif in Hieroglyphic Liiwian inscriptions of the early-first niillenniuni (for reference tn ílawkins's article 1 thank F.ckart Frahm). The resurrection of the motif of ideal prices not only in first-millennium Ass\rian and Babylonian royal in.scriptions but in Hieroglyphic Luwian ones is histnricaih' interesting, though not directly relevant here. Hau kins (1986: 93-95) |)osits continuity of usage, without however expressly articulating a mechanism of continuit\- that would account for the Luwian examples, beyond adducing the tariff in thr Hittite Laws. 23. Hawkins observes that both the second- and first-millennium "tariffs" ,share a consistent structure, in that barley is always listed first and all commodities are valued in terms of one silver shekel or, in the Hieroglyphic Luwian cases, one sheep (1986; 94,96.98),

NARAM-SIN OF URUK: A NFW KING IN AN OLD SHOEBOX

73

indicate the order in which the commodities are li.sted in the Larsa in.scriptions, The variation from one rtller to the next in the amounts a shekel could purportedly purcha.se is politically if not economically meaningful, as discussed further below. Leaving out the motif s echo at Assur (and its development in law collections), the statements of ideal prices known for this period come from just two neighboring realms, Uruk and Larsa, and from two generations onl\. Though the sample is tiny, this chronological distribution indicates that NariimSîn of Uruk should belong somewhere in the same two-generation period. The other comparanda thus far identified between Narâm-Sîn's inscription and texts pertaining to other rulers support this dating, and even narrow the time frame somewhat. Table 2 charts these data points chronologically, taking the start of each rtilers reign as the date of reference; tbe amount of barley per shekel is indicated in parentheses, as shorthand for tbe entire series of commodities listed in the statements of ideal prices. Table 2. Comparanda between Nar5m-Sîn of Uruks inscription and those of other rulers. Isin sipa sa ni bru*" dujQ-dujQ

ideal prices (2 gur per shekel); widow & orphan bappy sipa níg-nam-sár-ra; Enlil-bani (r. 1862-1839) lugal sa iri-na duiQ-du^g ideal prices (3 gur per shekel)

lú sa nibru*" dujo'dujo

Uruk

Bür-Sín (r. 1897-1876)

Edtirû-Sî n-isa

ideal prices (4 gur per sbekel)

Larsa

Sumu-El (r. 1894-1866) Nur-Ad ad (r. 1865-1850) Naram-Sîn Sin-käsid (r. 1860-1833 ?) Sín-iddinam (r. 1849-1843) Kudur-mabuk; Warad-Sín (r. 1834-1823)

The comparison between Naram-Sîns epitbet d i n g i r ma-da-na and tbe epithet d i n g i r kaïamma, wbich was in use by kings from Sulgi to So-ilisu (see note on 11. 3-4, Section II, above), is omitted by reason of temporal distance; about a century elapsed from the reign of Su-ilisu to thiit of Bur-Sîn, otherwise the earliest ruler to supply a parallel for Narâm-Sîns text. Tbe use of epithets similar to Enlilhani's lugal sa iri-na du¡()-du]() by other kings of Isin and Larsa brackets the period represented in the table: this epitbets application to Enlil-bani may be .seen to echo his predecessor Bfn-Sins use of the similar epitbet sipa sa nibru"" duiQ-dujo, whicb was subsequently picked up by tbe dynasty Kudur-mabuk founded at Larsa. Tbe evidence assembled in Table 2, together witb what is known about the dynasty founded by Sînka.sid, indicates that Naram-Sîn must have ruled Uruk before Sîn-kâsid did. After a fairly long reign, Sîn-kâsid was followed on the throne in apparently unbroken (albeit rapid) succession by members of his dynasty: bis .son Sin-iribam; two grandsons in turn, Sîn-gâmil and Ilum-gamil; then a collateral descendant, ANam, whose son and successor IRnene suffered defeat and capture at tbe hands of RimSin of Larsa; finally, one last ruler, Nabi-ilisu (whose relation to the foregoing is unclear), may have

74

EVA VON DASSOW

confronted Rim-Sîn before Uruk was absorbed into the kingdom of Larsa.^'* Thus there appears to be no open spot in the period covered by Sîn-kâsid s dynasty in which Narâm-Sîn might be inserted. Nor is there an open spot in tbe subsequent period, during which Uruk was under the rule of Larsa, then Babylon, until Rim-Anutns revolt in year eight of Samsu-ihtna; in any case, this period is well out of the range indicated by tbe comparanda discussed above. During tbe period before Sîn-kâsid took the throne, Utttk had apparently been independent for a time under the rttie of kings bearing the Amorite names Alila-5adûm and Sumu-binasa.-" Sumu-Ei of Larsa named his fifth regnal year for the defeat of Uruk, and a decade later be captured Edurû-Sîn-isa, the place whose capture our new Narâm-Sîn trumpets in his cone inscription. Narâm-Slns inscription proceeds to emulate tbe rhetoric of Sumu-Els successor Nur-Adad and the latters contemporary Enlil-bani of Isin, Al! tbese data point to the few years between the end of Sumu-Els reign and the motnent of Sîn-kâsids accession as the time when Narâm-Sîn ruled Uruk. He is placed accordingly in table 2, but in italics pending conoboration. If this proposal is correct, Narâm-Sîn s cameo appearance in history may be reconstructed, conjecturally, as follows. After Sumu-EI of Larsa vanquished earlier rulers of Uruk, whose names indicate Amorite lineage, Sumu-EI embarked on tbe northward expansion of his kingdom, culminating in the conquest of Edurû-Sîn-isa and consequent diversion of water from the Isin Canal; tbus both Uruk and Isin suffered at Larsas bands. Upon Sumu-El's demise, Naram-Sin managed to capture Edurû-Sîn-isa and obtain the throne of Uruk (whether in that order or in the order his inscription narrates, II. 5-10), quite possibly witb the assistance of Isin (as well as tbat of An and Inanna). Narâm-Sîn's endeavors focused in some way on the waterway flowing through Uruk (according to 1. 8), Perhaps reflecting an alliance with Isin against Larsa, Narâm-Sîn adopted the epithets "shepherd producing abundance, king who gladdens his citys heart" from Eniil-bani, Surely reflecting rivalry with Larsa, Uruks immediate neighbor and recent enemy, Narâm-Sîn imitated the statement of ideally low prices througb whicb Nür-Adad formulated the claim that his kingdom prospered under his rule. But where Nur-Adad claimed tbat in his realm one silver shekel cotild purchase two gnr of barley (etc), Narâm-Sîn raised tbe ante by claiming that one shekel could purchase three gur of barley (etc.). Of course Sin-kâsid could claim no less, and he reiterated the ideal prices of Naram-Sîn, so Nur-Adad's successor Sîn-Iddinam had to raise him by claiming tbat one shekel could purchase/our gur of barley according to the going rate "in Ur, Larsa, and my land" (RIME 4.2.9,6: 66-67). Seen in tbe context of the politic al and territorial competition between Uruk and Larsa, the upward trend of the shekels piuchasing power according to the claims made by successive rulers of these rival cities looks very much like political campaign literature on clay. Such claims also reflect the struggle for power tbat evidently took place within Uruk. How did Narâm-Sîn, having gained tbe throne and putatively achieved both territorial expansion and economic prosperity, lose it? His inscription says nothing of his origins. His name, evoking the same illu.strious namesake as that of his close contemporary at Assur,-*' indicates no particular ethnic or other affiliation, but it could well have been assumed with tbe tbrone. Sîn-kâsid, by contrast, though he likewise says nothing of his origins and has a purely Akkadian name, could cal! bimself "king of the Amnânum" as

24, The fundamental trcntment of Sin-kasids dynasty and its history is that of Falkenstein (1963), now updated in summary by Charpin (2004: ]i)S-13), .\mong the amendments to Falkenstcin's reconstruction, the ruler Eteysi is to he excised (C^harpin 2004: 110, n. 456); and Rini-.^nuni beloni;s to the time of Samsii-iliina (Charpin 2004: 113, 337-38), nither thün succeedinj/ ÎRiiene (lunng the interval before Larsas final conquest of Uruk (of, Falkenslein 1963; 38-41 ). 25, Charpin 2004: 76-77, with previous literature; also Frayiie 1989: 24-25. Both authors note the possibilit>- that one Ikunpi-Estar also ruled Uruk at some point in this period. 26, Narani-Sin of As.sur became king in 1872, according to the Veenhof "s reconstruction of the c hronology in light of the newly diseovered Kültepe Eponym Lists (2003: 4,5, 57). If, as proposed here, Narâm-Sîn of Unik immediately prcct'drd Sîn-kâsid, whose reign began ea. 1860, the two were almost exact contemporaries.

NARAM-SÎN OF URUK: A NEW KING IN AN OLD SHOEBOX

75

well as king of Uruk. Though Sîn-kâsid need not himself have been "Amorite," the Amorite lineage group known as the Amnânuin evidently formed part of his power base.^' Possibl\- Naram-Sins predecessors wbo bore Amorite names, Alila-hadûm and Sumu-binasa, were also affiliated with the Amnanum, Nar3m-S"in, however—based on the limited evidence he has left us—lacked any corresponding affiliation and power base. Perhaps for that reason, and perhaps because he failed to rebuild the Eanna hefore building his own palace (as Sîn-kâsid would later do), An and Inanna soon withdrew the kingship of Uruk from Naram-Sîn. But had they indeed granted it as he claims? Could one really buy three ban of oil for one silver shekel during his reign? Did he actually capture Edurû-Sîn-isa? Did he even build a palace of bis kingsbip. as stated on the inscribed nail and cone made for that very palace? Whicb, if any. of the statements this inscription records are historical "fact"? To pick which ones seem to us to be probably factual, and which do not, is poor methodology; we cannot logically disbelieve that An and Inanna granted Narâm-Sîn kingship while simultaneously accepting his assertion that he captured Edurû-Sîn-isa. The claim that basic commodities were abundant and unbelievably cheap during Narâm-Sîn s reign has the same value as the claim of divine support, that is, it is a political statement; the statements of ideal prices are not statements of economic reality.^^ Even the assertion that Naräm-Sin ruled Uruk as king might be questioned; after all, we never heard of him before, and now a text turns up making such grand claims for his rule. Yet the text was inscribed on two different objects, in different handwriting, objects of a kind that (with rare exceptions) only kings commissioned for a kind of building only a king built. The clay nail and cone attest, more certainly than the words written on them do, tbat Naram-Sîn did rule Uruk, long enough to plan the construí tion of his palace and the program of his kingship if not long enough to accomplish either. On the Shape of Things: Clay Nails and Cones These two exemplars of Narâm-Sîns one text are inscribed on objects of two different kinds. Though they bear the same text, the cone and the nail do not carry identical meanings. Clay cones and clay nails differ in shape, they were made for placement in different parts of the structure they identify, and they serve different, albeit overlapping, symbolic and practical ends. Yet the>' have come to be conflated in modem scholarship, as if the fact of bearing the same text warranted collapsing distinctions of form, placement, and function. Inscribed cones, pegs, and nails tend to be cursorily published, lumped together under common designators that elide diversity of fonns, and disswiated from discussion of their archaeologii'al contexts. Seldom are such inscriptions illustrated either by drawings or photographs, and wben the texts are

27. According to Falkenstein (1963: 23-24). while the title "kinfi of tbe Amnaniini" reilet ts the process of creating "Aniorite" CkantiSiniiiscbe") dynasties thiit typifies this period. Sîn-ka.sid is not therefore tin Amorite "sheik"; lather, bi.s ¡iiul his successors" names, building activities, and relations with particiihirK Urukeaii deities (siieb a.s Liigalbanda and Niiisim as protective deitifs) and traditions seem to indicate this dynasty's dee]> roots in Uruk. and more speciHctilly its connection to Kiillab. To tbe elements Falkenstein adduced i'or tbis argument one might add that when ANam restored the wall of Uruk, he described it as "the ancient work of divine Gilgamesb" (RIME 4.4,6,4.11. 5-8; see Falkenstein 1963; 18). Botb Sin-ka5ids roots in Unik and his acquisition of rule over the Amnänum, Falkenstein concluded, were es.sential for his attainment of tbe kingsbip of Uruk. B\ contrast, Micbalowski has argued that Sîn-kSsids use of the title "king of the Amnänum" signifies legitimization of bis claim to tbe throne on tbe basis of his membership in the royal lineage of Ihe Amnänum tribe (1983; 241). 2H. It bas generally been recognized that such "tariff's" did not correspond to reality, but served to articulate in specific terms the kings claim tbat his reign was characterized by abundance and pr<)S[K'rity {Falkenstein 1963; 33. with n. 150; tbe .same assessment is reiterated b\' Liverani 1995: 2353; and see Hawkins 1986; 94. with notes 12-13 ior further references). Sollbergor, however, averred that tbongb propagandistic these tariffs "must have, to a certain degree, reflected prevalent conditions" [1965: 15). There is no basis for believing they did.

76

EVA VON DASSOW

copied, the copies often neglect to show how tbe text is disposed on tbe object. Typically, duplicate exemplars of a known text are merely registered, witb mention of textual variants btit without mentioning characteristics of tbe inscription itself or its physical carrier. All too often, archaeological details go one way and texts go another: description of tbe physical contexts where inscribed objects have been found normally lands in excavation reports, wbiie the inscriptions themselves land elsewhere, each kind of pttblication otnitting and including different kinds of information; con.sequently it is difhcult to reconnect the dispersed bits of data pertaining to any particular inscribed object. Features tbat may prove essential to understanding form and function, sticb as whether the shaft of a nail flares, simply go unremarked. It requires effort even to ascertain what sort of object may be meant by "cone" or "nail" due to the imprecise u.se of words and the conflation of different artifact types under one or the otber term.^^ Pegs and nails are not "cones," and a cone, considered as a geometrical sbape, cannot have or lack a "head." Yet for the most part scholars have settled on calling all these objects "cones," distinguisbing tbose that are actually more or less cone-shaped as "beadless cones."^" Wbat function could a cone perform, however; what meaning could this shape convey? The idea that inscribed clay cones and pegs or nails are variants of one and the same form is predicated in part on the idea that tbey all derive from the use of cones to create wall mosaics in tbe Uruk period.^'' As Kraus pointed out, however, tbis derivation is undermined by tbe long gap in time and the changes in construction practices separating the last use of cone mosaics from the earliest use of conical or nail-shaped clay objects as carriers of inscriptions.^" Clay cones and clay pegs or nails therefore do not share common descent from mosaic cones. In bis detailed inquiry into the function and significance of inscribed clay nails. Kraus decided against

29. The foregoing criticisms, it should be noted, do iiol apply (o the study of Middle and Neo-Assyrian in.scribed clay nails or knobs, which have received considerahly more attention an artifacts than their less attractive southern Mesopotamian relatives. Most recently, a thorough .study of the clay knobs and knob-plaques found at Assur has been produced by Niinn (2006), who considers the objects' form, placement, disposition of the text, and Hndspots, among otber aspects, in detail. Nunn's .study does however share the tendency to conflate objects of different types, in this case from an Assyriocentric standpoint; objects that are "cones" in the publications cited in the ne.vt note are "knobs" (or nails) in Nunns book. 30. This is the practice adopted in the RIM senes (among the works cited in the pre.seiit article, see Donhaz and Grayson 1984; Grayson 1987; Frayne 1990, 1997; Edzard 1997), and followed by others (e.g., Steinkeller 2(K)4: 136. whc) generalizes the immoditied designator "cone" to both nail- and cone-shaped foi*ms). By contrast, Sollberger (1965) referred lo all these objects as "nails," distinguishing cones as "headless nails" (which makes somewhat more sense than calling nails cones); having erstwhile distinguished "cUnr from "caiie" (1956), he eventually switched to using the word "cone" for both (1982), Hallo alternated between one word and the other in articulating his typology of Ur III royal inscriptions, speaking now of "nails" and now of "cones" (1962: esp. pp. 4-5, 8-10), and ultimately collapsing both types of objects under the common descriptor "cone" (1962; 23ff.; likewise Hallo 1961); he defended the use of the term "clay cone" on the grounds of "convenience," while acknowledging Krau.ss point that the {Ton)kegel is one of several "varieties of clay nails" (Hallo 1962: 3, n. 23). The confusion of terms and types has been perpetrated by archaeologists as well as philologists: Woolley. for example, de.scrihed nail-shaped objects as "cones" (e.g., 1939: 24, 43, with pis. 15a, 29a, and 31b), sometimes describing the same objects as both "nails" and "cones" (1954; 127); and Jordan likened the cones he found in Sîn-ka.sids palace to the "Nagelformig(.' Terrakitttakegel" that Woolley found in situ at Ur (Jordan 1928: 55). Why objects that are not eones should have come to be so designated is unclear to me, but tbe usage goes back to the nineteenth century (see, e.g., de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884-1912: 53-54). 31. The (uninscribed) mosaic cones were proposed as an ancestor of (inscribed) clay cones and nails by Jordan (Jordan 1928: 55) and Andrae (1930: 78-86), a derivation that Woolley doubted (1939: 24). Andrae developed a more elaborate genealogy. based on his reconstruction of the historical development of construction te( hniqnes: both the bent clay nails found in Ubaid to Uruk period levels and the baked clay cones or pegs {Timstifte) used to make mosaics in the Uruk period would have served to protect earthen walLs, the former by fastening reed mats onto them, the latter by forming a water-resistant crust; the second moreover imitatc'd the Brst in decorative patterning, as did the employment of decorative clay nails much later in Assyria All these objects can thus be assimilated in function, thence in form and meaning, a
NARÂM-SÎN OF URUK: A NEW KING IN AN OLD SHOEBOX

77

using the designation "cone" for objects shaped like nails, and he postulated that the clay cone (Tonkegel) developed independently of the clay nail [Tonnagel]?^ Reexamining the matter one generation later, Ellis likewise concluded that "cones and nails were two separate classes of objects" (1968: 116). He found that the evidence of form, function, and chronological development argues against positing a direct relationship between the two types, although in its form the cone could be a cousin of the nail (1968: 117-20), Regarding their mode of employment, Ellis observes that "clay cones have been found in situ only in the foundations of walls, clay nails only in the upper parts" (1968; 116). He proposes that, instead of relating cones to nails, the inscribed clay cones of the late-third and early-second millennium may be descended from Early Dynastic period inscribed ovoids and cones, made of clay and stone, and he suggests ease of manufacture as the reason for the conical shape adopted for tbe cla> versions of the type (1968: 119), The use of the clay cone as a massproduced form of building inscription in the early-second millennium required a shape that could easily be made in multiple copies; if the cone shape were indeed derived from that of the nail, tbe symbolic meaning of the nail was not preserved by the cone.'''' Ellis furthermore distinguishes clay "nails" from foundation ''pegs," which were never made of clay, observing that "the fomier were placed horizontally in tbe upper parts of walls, the latter vertically in or beneath the foundations" (1968: 85), The fact tbat both were denoted by the same word, kak in Sumerian and sikkatum in Akkadian, does not suffice to prove that they both had the same meaning, as he rightly points out (1968; 84-85, 88). In accord with Kraus's argument, the use of the inscribed clay nail most likely derives from the practice of driving a (probably wooden) peg into the wall of a bouse (or into a field, or elsewhere) to svmbolize and publicize transfer of [)ropert>- rights; this s\nibolic function cannot readily be applied to the use of foundation pegs,^' These, instead, symbolize the marking out of the area occupied by a structure, and the anchoring of that structure into the earth; the (set of) foundation peg(s) is denoted temen, which also denotes the area marked off by .surveying pegs and, consequently, the foundation of the structure built on that basis. Tbis has been demonstrated by Dunham (1986), who draws together several lines of evidence in order to explicate the semantics of tbe word t e m e n, and the meaning of the verb s i (g) when used to denote what is done with temen. One drives the pegs into (t e m en .,. s i) tbe ground to delineate the area of the foundation, hence to fix in place tbe building to rise thereon. But a kak {= peg) may also be driven in (- si), while the word t e m e n may perhaps be applied also to a clay nail, of tbe kind that would have been placed horizontally in the wall rather tban vertically in the foundation; moreover, in this usage sikkatum may render temen as well as kak. Thus, when the inscription of Nfn-Adad of Larsa that records tbe building

33. Kraus 1947: 73, n, 2, and 75-76, Other terms that Kraus rejected include Tonpiiz. which had come into use as a designator l'or ciay nails, and which remains current in German scholarship allhough its equivalents in other liingtiages ha\e generally dropped out of use. The large clay nails of the early-second millennium do indeed tend to l(>()k like enormous mushrooms (see below, p. 85, with n, 54), but a term that reflects onlv the objects' shape and captures nothing of their function is not very serviceable, 34. Ellis puts this part of the case as follows: "Sin-kaäid"s palace deposits dearly show a desire to distribute as man\- inscriptions as possible throughout the foundations," and if this intention can be retrojected to the Ur III or early Isin-Larsa period, "Ihe form of the clay nail might have been adapted simply because it was familiar as a cheap, wholesale type nf building inscription. 1 doubt that there is any closer symbolic link between the crones and tbe nails" (1968: 1171, His argmnent for thp genealogy of the clay cone and for a categorical distinction (with the possibility- of a casual relationship) between cones and nails in( hides additional points tending to dissociate the cone form, as developed in the late-third and carh-.second millennium, from tin- syinboiic function of the nail, 35. Nor, obviously, can it he applied to cones. The arguments developed by Kraus (1947: 79-92) are summarized by Ellis (1968: 83-89), who, however, differs from Kraus at several ¡joints beyond the assumption that the use of the same word implies that the objects so denoted carry the same signitícance, Ellis earnestly explores the possibility of Unking foundation pegs with the "secular pegs" employed in the transfer of property rights, but finds that this derivation fails to account for many features of foundation pegs (1968: 9U-91), ¡¡ace Kraus (1947: 78).

78

EVA VON DASSOW

of the city wall (RIME 4.2.8.7; above, p. 72, witb n. 22), wbich is written on clay nails, mentions tbe driving-in of t e m e n (1. 73, temen-kù mi-ni-si), it would therewith report its own placement in the structure it records. The pbrase t e m e n ... si as used in this inscription of Nur-Adad is paralleled by sikkatam mahasuin in tbe copy of an inscription of Erisum I of Assur found at Kültepe, which enjoins any future king who would rebuild the temple from disturbing "the peg wbich I drove in" {sikkata7n sa amhasu. RIMA 0.33.1: 21); this, however, was presumably an uninscribed sikkatum, since inscribed clay nails or pegs are not known for the Old Assyrian period any more than inscribed clay cones are.'^ Though examples like these suggest functional and symbolic identity, or at least overlap, between clay nails and foundation pegs f= temen = kak = sikkatinn), Dunham expressly notes that her argument that foundation pegs are t e m e n is not meant to apply to clay nails (1986: 59, n. 119). Steinkeller, however, citing Dunham, would extend the semantic domain of t e m e n to encompass "any type of object inscribed with a foundation text," correspondingly broadening tbe meaning of si{g) as well (2004: 136, witb n. 6).^" So, whereas Frayne renders the above-cited sentence from Nfir-Adads inscription, t e m e n kù mi-ni-si, as "I determined the holy perimeter" (of the wall), Steinkeller declares Frayne s translation erroneous and renders the sentence "I embedded boly foundation inscriptions" (in tbe wall). To prove that t e m e n means "foundation inscription" (of whatever form) and t e m e n ... si means "embed foundation inscription" (in wbatever part of a .structure), Steinkeller further adduces a passage of an inscription of Warad-Sin of Larsa, written on stone tablets (fî/M£ 4.2.13.22: 29-31): te men-árn a m - n u n - n a - g á uru4-bé ki hé-bi-túm é-gar^-sikil-bi bé-bí-si, which he translates "I buried (some of) the foundation inscriptions, the praise of my princesbip, in its foundation, (while others) I embedded in its pristine brick wall." Again Fraynes translation differs significantly: "I deposited a foundation inscription of my princely praise in its foundation, (and) tilled it up with a clean brick wall." Thus, whereas according to Frayne s interpretation of this passage t e m e n is singular and not the object of si, according to Steinkeller tbese tablets of Warad-Sîn report the placement of (plural) t e m e n tbat include both themselves, (putatively) buried in tbe foundation (none of the exemplars was excavated), and their non-surviving congeners written on clay nails, which would have been embedded in the building's wall, and whose placement there is expressed with the verb si just as in Nar-Adad*s inscription. The difference between Frayne's and Steinkellers understanding of tbe pbrase t e m e n ... si is dissolved, while the difference in form and function among inscription-bearing objects is restored, by

36. See above, p, 66. n. 8. The practice and the objects atte.sted by the rare references to placing a sikkatum in Old Assyriiiii royal inscription.s must accordingiv be distinguished from the Middle and Nc()-As.syritiii use of inscribed clay nails or knobs, and not onlv on the criterion of multiplicily versus iini[¡uenes.s. Landsberger and Balkan (1950: 252-57), Ellis (1968; 78, 90), and Nunn (2006; 91) assume direct continuity in practice without notinji either how few Old A.s.syrian attestations there are (only two, both of Erisum, RIMA 0.53.1 and 0.33.10; bein^ late and suspect, the Neo-Assyriaii school text [?| naming Samsi-Adad does not count [RIMA 0.39.2; GraysOTi 1987; 551), or that no mscrilted Old Assv-rian .^ikkafum has come to light. Nevertheless, like similar injunctions regarding inscribed objects (tablets, tian'i, and temmenü, the last presumably encompassing inscribed foundation pegs), the injunction in tbe inscription of Erisum quoted above (which was copied on a tablet) instructs the future king not to disturb the Nikkatiiiii that the author of the present inscription drove in, but to put it back in its place. IIow a future king was supposed to know whose sikkatuiii it was, unless it was inscribed, is not clear to me; perhaps he was supp
NARAM-SIN OF URUK: A NEW KING IN AN OLD SHOEBOX

79

reverting to the action that is the referent of the phrase. As Miguel Civil explains it, t e m e n .,. si "means both things: 1) marking a perimeter, specifically by 2) chiving pegs in the ground" (personal communication, March 21, 2008), That function is not performed b\ clay nails that are embedded in the wall (nor by tablets or cones, etc.). The wide extension and concomitant dilution of meaning for which Steinkeller argues affects not only the Sumerian lexemes but also the category "foundation text/ inscription" (in which clay nails In the wall would fit uncomfoi*tably), stretching the words to the point (tf prejudging the case whiie also privileging the text over the object on which it is written. Yet if indeed Nur-Adad's clay nails self-referentially report their own placement in the wall with the sentence tcmen-kù mi-ni-si, this does indicate that the meaning of the words t e m e n .,. si, and perhaps the meaning of the action denoted thereby, too, was extended from driving in (foundation) pegs to embedding (symbolic) nails in the wall. Foundation pegs evidently differed from inscribed clay nails in their symbolic function and geneali^, as well as in their physical placement. Therefore, though in ancient Mesopotamian usage, both "pegs" (placed in the foundation] and clay "nails" (placed in the walls) be alike denoted kak (or temen) = sikkatwiK it makes sense to capture the typological distinction between the two forms by designating them by different tenns. So, albeit with some diffidence, I have chosen to do as Ellis did and call the peg-shaped objects buried in the foundations of structures "pegs," and those that are embedded into standing walls "nails." Placement, Manufacture. Form, aud Function Placement and manner of production, as well as form, reflect function, 1 conclude tbis study of the newly-discovered inscription of Narâm-Sîn of Uruk by drawing together these aspects of the two classes of objects represented by the two known exemplars of it. Where and how inscribed clay cones and nails were normally placed (or meant to be placed) is not altogether easy to determine, since objects of either class are almost never found in situ. Almost the only instances of their excavation and documentation in their original position are the following: clay cones laid within the foundation of a structure adjacent to Sîn-kâsid's palace at Uruk; clay nails embedded in the walls of several structures at Ur; and, though the details are imprecisely recorded, clay nails of Ur-Bau embedded in a wall at Girsu,'^ Details of tbese instances follow. • Dvning the initial campaign of excavations at Uruk in 1912-1913, Jordan undertook to investigate Sin-käsids palace. Upon determining where exactly the clay cones and tablets recording this building, whicb were then turning up in quantity on the antiquities market, were coming from, be excavated a small section of the structure down to the foundations, and there he found more of the same clay cones and tablets (Jordan 1928: 54). Jordan describes and illustrates bow they were situated in the foundations, as follows: after every fourth course of mudbricks was laid a reed mat, beneath which lay cones and tablets or (in alternating layers) only tablets; the cones and tablets were distributed regularK' at intervals of about 42 centimeters from eacb other (Jordan 1928: 54 with diagrams, pi. 30d), The foundations of this structure were thus effectively seeded with inscribed cones and tablets identifying the building and its builder.''* What Jordan 38. Not relevant to the practices or products of the late-third and early-second millennium is the odd instante of Sin-balätsui(|bi's clay nails, which were found in situ, placed point up and base down, in the temple of Ningal al Ur (Woolley 1925: 368, wilh pi. 35, no, 1; 1939: 63-64, witbfig.4 and pi, 27b). Ellis paint.s out that they could have been placed in this pw uliar position in the fourse of the reconstruction of thi^ temple by Nabonidus (1968: 83, n. 237); if so, the possibilitv of dftiberately incorrect positioning mighl be considered. 39. Thf conrs and tablets deriving from Sîn-kâsid's palace arc collected, together with bricks, unúcr RIME 4.4.1,2-4. (RIME 4,4.1.2.,5, which gives the palace s name, is extanl in two exemplars, one of whicb has an arcbapological provenience; it was found nut in the palace but in the area of the ziggurat.)

80

EVA VON DASSOW excavated, however, was part of a structure lying a little ways northwest of the building subsequently identified as the palace of Sîn-kâsid/" Layers of cones and tablets like those Jordan discovered in this outlying structure, which must in some way have belonged to the palace, were not found in the palace itself. • At Ur, Woolley found clay nails embedded in tbe wall at tbe west (outer) corner of the bastion built onto the ziqi|urrat terrace by Watad-Sin of Larsa (1932: 377, with pi. 66. no. 2; 1939: 43, with pi. 29a).^' He reports that they were placed "at a height of 1.85 m above foundation level" (1932: 377), that is, at about eye level. Their sbafts were embedded in the wall and their heads exposed on its surface; as Woolley described the find upon its discovery, "tbe flat inscribed base was flush with the plaster on the wall face, whi( h had been carefully trimmed .so as to leave the clay disc exposed^' (1932: 377., emphasis added; similarly in the final report: "the flat head, projecting five millimetres from the wall, was exposed, the plaster being brought up carefully all around it," 1939: 43). Both head and shaft were inscribed with the same text recording WaradSîn"s (re)building of the E-temen-ni-guru for Nanna.^^ • More clay nails bearing the same inscription of Warad-Sîn were found "on either side of the stairpas.sage," wbere "some were loose in the filling, some seemed to be in position, embedded in the Larsa brickwork" bebind the later Kassite period baked-brick facing (Woolley 1939: 43, withfig.2 and pi. 31b).^'^ Wooliey further remarks that ''they were at the same height as those at the west corner and would seem to have made with them a uniform scheme" (1939: 43). The clay nails along tbe stairway were di.scovered in the 1924-1925 season, and at tbe time Woolley thought

40. Jordan gives tbe coordinates for tbe site of Sín-kñsid's palace as quadrants A-E/XII-XVI, and ancbors tbe locu.s of his excavations at "Trianguiationspiinkt H" within quadrant C/XIV (see Jordan 1928: 54; city plan, pi, 1; plan and section drawings of the stnictnre be identified as tbe palace, pi, 30d; and photographs, pi. 74). The plan of the palace as exposed in the course of the later excavations occupies quadrants Dc-Fb/XIII4-XV2 lUX^B 22: pi. S5i, and the site of Jordan's excavations in C114 is located about .30 meters northwest of it (see AUWE 4 122, witb pi. 10a, and AU^'E 4 Beilage, Sheet 7, where the structure Jordan excavated i.s shown in relation to tbe palace; I am indebted to van Ess for clarification of this matter). By the time tbe excavation of Sin-kä.sid's palace recommenced, the rooms exposed by Jordan had blown away {UVB 17; 20). 41. Woolley de.scribes and illustrates just two inscribed day nails ("cones"), one placed on eacb side of the plain buttress at tbe "west eomer" of the outer facade of Warad-Sin s bastion. The description in the preliminar\- report (1932) is dearer and more detailed than that in tbe final n'¡)oi-t í]939¡: tbe corner with the clay nails was located at the "west corner" of tbe "decorated façade" of the "main NW front." tbat is. tbe outside wall, of tbe bastion (see Wooltey 1932: 376-77, with pis. 65-fJ6; 1939: 4.3, with pis. 29, 70-71; the caption to the photograph of the clay nails in .situ in tbe earlier report erroneously identihes iho tmais as tbe "Ecorner" |1932i pi. 6(i, no. 2||.The progress of Woolley's description in tbe 1939 i eport then takes the reader up the staircase to the "top of the ruins," inside the bastion and atop tbe ziggurat terrace (p. 43), reversing the order in which excavation and discovery progressed (.staircase in 1924 and bastion facade in 1932; for the staircase see the next example immediately below). 42. Woolley (1939: 43) gives tbe excavation number of these "cones" as U 2659 and refers to tbeir publication as UET 1, no. 131. [n UKF 1, several excavation numhers, including U 2659, are recorded under no. 131 (p. xvi); the edition of tbe text, which was already known from unexcavated exemplars, is accompanied by only a partial copy of a newly found exemplar (pp, 37-38, with p!. XXV}. Tbe inscription is reedited as RIME 4.2.13.16, under which seventy-nine exemplars are listed (this figure includes the heads and shafts of the same objects as separate exemplars): among tbese, U 2659 is registered as exemplar no, 21, which is identified as the one copied in VET 1, but tbe provenance of exemplar no. 21 is said to be unknown; meanwhile, the remaining exemplars listed there as published under UET 1, no. 131 inchide none of the ones found in situ (Frayne 1990: 231-33). Though he records the findspots of many exemplars, tbe only exemplar Frayne specifically identifies as found in .•iihi is U 1200, numbered 11 (= head) and 12 (= shaft), which be records as found "in situ in inner Témenos wall, north of ziqqurrat" (Frayne 1990: 231). Thus it is not at all a straightforward matter to determine which exemplars of Warad-Sin's clay nails were tbe ones tbat Woolley found in their original position in the wall. 43. Woolley had earlier de'scrilM^d thefindingof these clay nails in his preliminary report on the 1924-1925 season, as follovi/s: "on either side of tbe bastion stairs we found, undisturbed in their original position, no less tban eleven large foundation-cones of Warad-Sin ... laid on their sides in the angltis between the outer walls and tbe walls of the staircase, witb their bases |= headsl to the wail face and their points to tbe walls core" (1925: 356. with pi. 32. 2). Tbese eleven clay nails must bc tbe eleven exemplars U 27.Ö9A-K that were found "each side of staircase W. angle of Great Temple Extension," as quoted from tbe field catalog by Sollberger (1965: 30). Sollberger describes all eleven as nails while Frayne registers four of them as "cones," that is, without either distinguishing head and shaft or distinguishing them as "headless" {RIME 4.2.13.16, exemplars 24-26, 31 = U 2759B, Q D, G), but the.se four lack museum or regi.stration numbers, and therefore cannot have been examined so as to be specifically characterized.

NARAM-SIN OF URUK; A NEW KING IN AN OLD SHOEBOX

81

to have been buried in the mndbrick core of the wall. Upon discovering the clay nails at the west comer in the 1931-1932 season {see preceding example above), he revised this interpretation, declaring that the new find "made it evident that those [clay nails found in 1924] ... were really in the face of the mud-brick wall which the later burnt-brickwork merely masked" (1932: 377). Thus Woolley concluded that these clay nails too, like the ones in the bastion corner, were originally placed so as to be visible, though he later came to believe they were not (1939: 27; see discussion of the next example), • Woolley also found clay nails of Ur-Nammu in nitu, thirty-six of them, embedded in the northwest wall of the ziqqurrat terrace (1925: 351-52, with pi. 31, 2; 1989; 24, with pi. 15a). They were, he reports, "inserted in the brickwork of the wall-front" in three rows, spaced about .7 m apart, and "so far as could be detected the mud plaster of the wall was brought up to but not over" their heads.'" Notwithstanding these observations, Woolley declares that "'the inscription, of course, was concealed, that being the concern of the god, or of posterity" (1939: 24). He proceeds then to argue that the mudbrick wall of the ziqqurrat terrace had to have heen provided with a bakedbrick facing, despite the lack of evidence for one—it would putatively have been completely removed later on—so that "the terracotta cone-heads would not have been visible, but hidden behind the skin of burnt brick"; as an analogy he adduces the bastion of Warad-Sîn in which "the dedication-cones were set in the face of the mud-brick core of tbe wall and were concealed by its burnt-brick facing" (1939: 27). Tbis statement, however, corresponds not with his description of the placement of Warad-Sins clay nails in the next chapter of the same work, btit with the initial interpretation of the 1924-1925 tind that he rejected in 1932 (see above, preceding example).'''"' In fact, from Woolley's description it appears that the clay nails of Ur-Nammu were originally placed so that the nail-heads were visible, like the later ones that Warad-Sin embedded in the bastion walls. Unlike Warad-Sin's clay nails, however, Ur-Nammu's were inscrihed only on the shaft; the heads were left blank.^" • Proceeding backward through time, de Sarzec found clay nails of Ur-Bau (also inscribed only on the shaft) embedded in a wall running beneath Gudeas edition of the Eninnu, Ningirsus temple at Girsu (Tello).^' According to the report describing the excavation of this wall and the finding within it of clay nails ("cônes"), not only were these spread profusely along its length, some were 44. I quote from Woolley 1939: 24, which largely repeats verbatim the description given in W(H)lley 1925: 351-51. but with some significant alterations and omissions: for example, in the parlier version lie states that the clay nails "had heen inserted in the vertical joints of the brickwork" {rather than simply "in the brickwork of the wall-tront"). From the earlier report it is clear that Wonlley initially interpreted the evidence he observed in the field to indicate that the nail heads were originally visible on the walls surface. 45, WonlUns analog) evidently refers not to the clay nails in the bastion's west comer but to the ones along the stairway. Of the latter, he says in the 1939 report that they lay "hehind the burnt-brick casing subsequently added to the building by KuriGalzu," with no mention of any Larsa-period burnt-brick facing {p. 43); his description on p. 27 reflects the earlier interpretation that he here rejects in a footnote (p, 43, n. 6, referring without citation to his rejection in 1932: 377 of the interpretation given in 1925: 356). Regarding the clay nails of Ur-Nammu, in a later publication he indicated that they had been plastered over at the time the wall in which they were embedded was Hnished 11954: 127), in flat contradiction (and with no reference) to his earlier statements (1925: 352; 1939: 24), but in support of his assumption that they were not meant to he seen by contemporaneous obser\ers. Tbe same assumption is made by Hallo, who accordingly prefers Woolley's description in a popular book written two to three decades after the excavation over his description in the excavation reports (Hallo 1962: 10, with n, 70). 4(i. These clay nails of Ur-Nammu, for which Woolley gives no excavation number, nor any reference to their publication, were not included in UET 1 on the grounds that their text was already known from un proven ienced exemplars); see Gadd and Legrain (1928: xxiv). The inscription is reedited as ñJME3/2.1.1.11, for whieh Frayne lists 163 exemplars; among ihese, exemplar no, 53, comprising "40 exs. from the terraee of E-temen-ni-guni" (Fravne 1997: 32), evidently represents the assemblage of tiay nails that Wonlle\' found in sitti. 47. This wall, the "Mur sous les fondations," is described in deSani.rc and Heuzey 1884-1912: 50-54. mid drawu (m the plan of the- Palais de Tello (1884-1912: Pian A); it is illustrated b\- two photographs (pi. 51), where it is identified as the ""Mur souterrain d'Our-Baou." Unfortunately, the photographs do not show any clay nails embedded in the wall.

82

EVA VON DASSOW

still engaged between tbe bricks of tbe faç'ade (de Sarzec and Heuzey 1884-1912; 53). Regrettably no further detail is given about the inscribed clay nails' placement,'*^ Do these examples represent the norm, or do they represent just one possible way to employ clay cones and one or two ways to employ clay nails? So few examples form a slender basis for generalization,*^ But tbe main reason why tbere are so few is self-evident. The modes of employing clay nails and cones practically ensured that they would not remain in SÍYH across the ages: walls collapse over time, and foundations may be excavated in the process of rebuilding; reconstruí tion entails displacing elements of tbe original construction, while abandoned structures are mined for building materials to reuse elsewhere. It was in full awareness of these processes that clay cones and nails (and bricks, etc.) were inscribed and placed within the structures they identify. Whatever other purposes inscribed objects of these types were made to serve, they were intended to communicate the identity of the building and its builder to people who, in later generations, sought to restore the structure or simply sorted through its ruins. The inscriptions would communicate all the same if nothing of the structure remained, or if they were removed elsewhere. And that, to judge by the iindspots reported for the great majority of clay nails and cones, is wbat usually happened.''^ Sucb inscriptions were meant to be found in tbe future, and finding them would entail moving them (hence the occasional injunction to put tbem back), so it was typical that tbey sbould be dispersed from their original places of deposition. Sometimes, of course, they never made it to their intended place of deposition, as in tbe case of the numerous clay nails of Sîn-kâsid tbat were inscribed for tbe temples of Lugal-irra and Meslamta-ea at Durum, but were found in the kiln where they had been baked, beneath part of Sîn-kâsids palace at Uruk.'' There this large assemblage of inscribed nails had been abandoned when the palace was

48, There follows the remark that the inscribed "cônes" were distributed in such prnfusion as to suggest that the builder of (he wall in which they were found had no coni'crn but tn transmit hi,s name and titles, along with those of the deity for whom he had built the structure, to future ages (de Sarzec and Hruzfy 1884-1912: 54). Ironically, the author ol' this remark doe.s not sny whose name and titles are recorded in these inscriptions, instead proceeding to mention only that ¡imong the "cônes"' he brought back to the Louvre, some indeed bore the name of Ur-Bau; evidently it was not at Tello bnt in Paris Ihat the in,scriplions were read and the buildings identitied with their builders. No identification of any sort is given for the clay nails found in the wall whose attribution to Ur-Bau they were meant to attest, one of which proves to be illustrated by a photograph in pi, 38 (center left) of the work cited. They presumably include most of the 158 clay nails recording Ur-Bau's building of the Eninnu that are in the collection of the Louvre, which, together with about three hundred more clay nails, are ediled as one witb exemplars of the same inscription on two bricks and a door socket (Steible 1991: 145-47, Urbaba 7; RIME 3/1,1,6.4), Curiously, both Steible and Edzard separate the single clay nail whose photograph appears in de Sarzec and Henzey 1884-1912, pi. 38 from all the others in the collection of the Txiuvre, though none of them has an accession number (see Stciblf 1991: 145, Urbaba 7, C and K; Edzard 1997; 17, exemplars 4 and 5-455. the latter series encompassing all exemplars on clay nails). 49. Tbe same smalt set of examples was assembled by Kraus when, ,six decades ago, he likewi.se inquired how clay nails and related types of objects were employed, and wondered bow representative tbe few examples fonnd in dtu might be; he urged that future excavations migbt answer these hitherto neglected c|upstions {Kraus 1947: 78-79), That has not happened, but not because of disinterest on the part of archaeologists. Incidentally, Woolley made a point of menlioning that he deliberately left uncleared parts of Ihc terrace wall where he found Ur-Nammu's clay nails Í7i .situ, so thai the rest of the wall v\'ilh the additional clay nails surelv to be found therein might remain In place "as a permanent record'" (1925: 351 ). Whether they have .so remained to this day may he doubled, but it would be worth a look. 50, This stalement may be validated by perusing the findspots recorded for inscribed "cones" (including nails) in the relevant RIM v'olumes, or, more ea.sily, by perusing those recorded for "clay nails'" (including cones) by Sollberger in the catalog of ins<:riptions in UETS, where he quotes iindspots from the Ur Held catalog (1965: 1-37, including the list of additions and corrections to L/£T lj.Clay nails and cones are typically found in various contexts of secondary deposition (especially infill;sometimes in wells, pits, or drains), or else in unstratified contexts; often enough they are found in the stratified debris of a structure, but not in tbeir original position; and if found within walls or foundations, their exact position has generally not been observed and documented. 51. Lenzen describes the tindspot of these cta\' nails in his summary of the excavation of Sin-kasids palace in ÜVB22 (196fi: 28-30), as follows. Before the palate was built. man\' large kilns for bricks and architectural ceramics occupied the site, and in one such kiln (ilhistratcd in pi, 15a) were found a great number of "meist zerbrochener Sikkahi (bese liriftele Ton pi I ze),"" which, Lenzen observes, is evidence that the palace was constructed well after the start of Sîn-kâsids reign (1966: 29), This entire lot of

NARÄM-SIN OF URUK: A NEW KING IN AN OLD SHOEBOX

83

erected on the site. One wonders whetber, were Durum to be excavated, exemplars of tbese inscription.s would be found tbere, or remains of the temples whose construction they record, or not. If the few instances in which objects of these types have been found in their original position do represent the norm, that norm was to bury inscribed cones within the foundations of the structure tbey identify' and to embed inscribed nails in its exterior walls, bead exposed on tbe wall face, as illustrated scbematically infig.5. This was not an absolute rule, however, for in some cases .such inscriptions were placed in structures otber than the ones they refer to, occasionally even in other cities. For example, a clay nail reporting Warad-Sîns (re)construction of the wall of Ur was found in the area of tbe temple of Niuinii, and several clay nails reporting Sin-iddinams expansion of the Ebabbar at Larsa were found here and there at Ur.''" An example from an earlier period is noted by Ellis when be observes that "one of Ur-Nanse's foundation tablets mentioned many buildings, but not the one in which it was buried" (1968; 86}. From tbis omission, together with other evidence, Ellis infers that the inscription does not embody tbe primar\' ptirpose of a foundation deposit; witb regard to pegs in particular, he states that the inscription "was not an original or essential feature of the peg deposit" (1968: 86). The like was line of the clay nail, wbicb stood for the employment of an uninscribed nail or peg to accomplish a symbolic act. Thus the structure recorded by a building or fotmdation inscription was not invariably identical to the structure in which it was placed, and tbe inscription itself originated as a secondary feature of the object on wbich it was written, Notwithstanding instances of in.scriptions recording structures other than those in wbich they were placed, the normal emplovment of a building or foundation inscription entailed placing it within the structure it identified. Absent an inscription, a peg, nail, or brick that was employed symbolically in founding or dedicating a building could only have fulfilled its purpose through plac ement in the structure for wbicb it was made. The in.scription, then, though it had arisen as a secondary element, acquired greater importance as it became standard practice to inscribe such objects, to the point tbat the objects jiractical function as tbe carrier of a written message might supersede its symbolic function.'^ The fact of being inscribed could even emancipate the object from physical association with the structure it recorded, as well as from its original symbolism. Furtbermore, the function of carrying a text would come

day nails was registered under the excavation number W 21415; il was cataloged by Bottéro as no. 190, an "important ensemble ÚV fragmi-nts de "thampignons" de céramique," in the catalog of tablets and inscriptions, where Bottéro records the locus of the lind us D('.XIV/2 {l^B22: 66). The two inscriptions repre.sented in the assemblage (R/Mii 4.4.1.13 and 14) differ ()nl\- in the name of tlic deity and the name and epithet of the temple. Clopics of b()tb,from intact exemplars, are given in U\'B22. Ihe inscriptions on tbe heads being copied on pi. 23'"' and these oil the shafts on pi. 23'''. 52. In each case the findspot apparently represents the objects' original location, if not original position. The clay nail of Warad-Sin, UEFS 76 {found "near the great Nanna courh'ard"), i.s an exemplar of ií/ME 4.2.13.20. Several clay nails of Sin-iddinam recording his construction work at the Ebahbar, which were found at Ur, bear the same text as a foundation plaque found at the Ebabbar in Larsa (UETS 72; RIME 4.2.9.6: this ins ne attempts to explain \\ hy an inscription recording a building in Larsa should have heen located in Ur. (Fraynes remark that "the discovery of the thipUciite [rom Larsa helps explain \\ hy a text dealing solely with the construction of the Ebabbar temple was found at Ur" 11990: 164-65] explains this not at all.) 53. An interesting partial parallel in shape, function, and development is offered by Egyptian funerary cones of baked chiy, in use mostly in Thebes during the Middle and New Kingdom, Egyptian fimerary cone.s were placed above the doors of tombs, iheir exposed bases forming a frieze; they were at first uninscribed—which has given rise to a rich assortment of theories about what their original .symbolism wa.s—but over time the cone-base.s came to be employed as the earner of a .stamped inscription idenlifying the lomb owner, visible lo visitors (see Manniche 2001; 1 am grateful to Ogden Goelet for discussiivg these objects with me and providing references). In their origin as the uninscribed carrier of symbolic meaning, their development into a form of display insci iption, and their placement in the structure the\' identify, Egyptian funerary cones are comparable to Mesopotamian clay nails, while in their physical shape they most resemble Mesopotamian clay eones.

84

EVA VON DASSOW

Fig. 5. Sketch illustrating the placement of a clay nail in the wall and clay cones in the foundation.

NARAM-SIN OF URUK: A NEW KING IN AN OLD SHOEBOX

85

to affect the object's form atid to determitie the manner of its production and employment. The transformation in function thus gradually wrought a series of changes in the physical attribtites atid usage of the ohjects under discussion. While (ttninscribed) pegs and other objects may have been employed singly, one per building or one for each significant point of a building, inscribed clay nails and tablets (as well as bricks) would be ptoditced iti tnany identical copies and disttihttted thickly in the approjiriate parts of a building. Whereas clay nails were first inscribed only on the shaft, the head, too, catue to be employed as a writing surface, and it was correspondingly enlarged. The shape of the nails shaft was altered as well, in one new model: instead of tapering to a point, like a real nail that is driven into place, the shaft was made cylindrical with a slight ilate at the end—so the nail came to look like a mushroom—the flare helping to anchor the object in place in the wall.'"* Lastly, the stubby clav tone was invented as the carrier of a foundation inscription made for multiplication: this form, easier to produce than a tablet,^^ possessed no symbolism whatsoever but could readily be manufactured in quantity, yielding a massproduced time capsule that would remain unseen in the foundation until the building it identified fell into ruin and became the object of excavation. Hence the clay cone recording Narâm-Sîn of Uruks construction of his palace is inscribed in wretched, sometimes illegible handwriting, while the head of the cla\^ nail made for the same .structure is inscribed calligraphically. The one was made to be buried, the other to be seen, its message displayed on the exterior walls of the future palace (which may never have been buüt}.'^^ It matters not that most people could not read; display inscriptions communicate as displays anyway, while their textual content would have heen tnade known to the relevant public hy other tneans, These texts were to be read by men, not by the gods alone. The inscribed ('lay cones and the shafts of clay nails cotnmttnicated to tnen of the future, and the inscribed heads of clay nails to men of the present, their author's contemporaries.

54. The mush room-shaped model of ckiy nail coexisted witb the nail-shappd model during the Isin-Larsa period fcf. Ellis 1968,tíg.32; tbis very useful drawing summarizing tbe historical devetopineut of cone and nail forms snm^est.s tbat the mushn)om shape displaced the nail shapej. Sîn-kâsid nf Uruk, notably, used tbe mushrooin-shaped mcHlel. while the nail-,shapc'
86

EVA VON DASSOW Appendix A Second Sumerian Inscription of Narâm-Sîn of Uruk, Found in the Eanna Precinct Eckart Frahm (Yale University)

As stated above by Eva von Dassow, the Minnesota clay cone published on the preceding pages is not the only object inscribed in the name of Narâm-Sîn of Uruk. A se(ond in.scription of this ruler, likewise hitherto unpublished, can be found on the head of a clay nail [Tonpilz) excavated by German archaeologists in Uruk in 1912/13. Photos of this badly preserved inscription were made available to me in the year 2001 by Margarete van Ess, but it was only after finding out about the contents of the Minnesota cone that I was able to identify the name of the king, partly preserved in 1, 1, who commissioned the text." According to the inventory book of the German Uruk expedition, the clay nail in question bears the excavation number W 4094 and the museum number VA 10959. Unfortunately, the object cannot currently be located in the Vorderasiatisches Museum Beilin, where it is supposed to be housed, and the copy and edition provided here are based exclusively on the Uruk excavation photographs nos. 655 and 828. Photograph no. 655 is published here asfig.6; the copy isfig.7. Unlike the Minnesota cone, the nail can be linked to a fairly specific findspot. According to the inventory book, it was discovered in Uruk's Eanna precinct, in the area of 'Bau J" ("construction J") or "Bau N" ("construction N"). These two terms were in use during the first regular campaign of the Gennan Uruk expedition only.^'^ While "Bau N" seems to have served as a provisional designation of the Karaindash temple, "Bau J" indicated a hydraulic installation situated about 15 m towards the northwest of that sanctuary. The installation is depicted, labeled as no. 12, on the plan of the northeastern side of the Eanna precinct in UVB 1, Tf. 9/10.''' Since a significant number of objects from the Isin-Larsa / early Old Babylonian period were found in this very area, apparently in secondary context, it seems likely that the clay nail comes from there and not from the Karaindash temple. The fragmentary head of the nail measures ca. 9 x 10.6 cm. Since parts of its perimeter are preserved, it is possible to determine that its original diameter must have measured ca. 18.7 cm. With no more than a maximum of three signs missing in each preserved line of the inscription, it is very likely that the head, when complete, was inscribed not with one but with two columns, which means that the text on W 4094 could have been as long as that on the Minnesota cone. Figure 8 presents a sketch reconstructing the shape of the original nail head, and illustrating the extant fragment in relation to it. Due to the fragmentary nature of the nail inscription, it remains unclear whether originally it duplicated its Minnesota counterpart. The opening sections, partly preserved on both objects, are very similar, but not completely identical. In 1. 3, W 4094 seems to deviate from the cone. However, as pointed out in the philological remarks below, this variant may be due to a scribal mistake, and the close parallels between the pre.served parts of the inscriptions make it somewhat likel\- that they were essentially duplicates.

57. I am most grateful to Margarete van Ess, tbe current director of the German excavations at Uruk, for entrusting me with photos of the piece, providing me with additional information on its findspot, and giving her permission to puhlish the inscription. To Eva von Dassow, I am p-atefiii for her willingness to append this .short note to her artit-le and for the fruitful cooperation we have shared, 58. The numbering of archaeological campaigns at Uruk starts from the 1928 season, when annual excavations commenced; the pre-World War I campaign during thr winter of 1912-1913 is designated Campaign 0. 59. There i-s a eertain ehance that the adjacent rooms were likewise regarded as part of "Bau J."

NARÄM-STN OF URUK; A NEW KING IN AN OLD SHOEBOX

87

Fig. 6. Clay nail bead fragment VV 4Ü94, found at Uruk (excavation photograph no. 655).

W 4094 col.l 2

sipa níg-na|m-sár-ra]

3 4 5 6

dingir ma-d[a^-na^] U4 An ''Ina[nna-ke4] nam-lugal Unug'^''''-g[a| 'ma-an'-sum-m|u-u.s-a] 7 U4-b|a ^"'tukul k|aiag-'ga'-|gá-ta] 8 fíd'^iU(nugir'''-gaM | (empty space) | | (rest of col, 1 and the whole text of col. II broken away)

' Naram-|Sîn|,-shepherd |who makes] everything [abundant for] Uruk,'^ king \whogladdens] of I/i/.s] city, ^ god of \his\ laud—^ when An (nnd) Inanna " granted me the kingship of Uruk, ~ at that time, jby my| inighty |weapon|, '^ | / . . .| the canal of Uruk | | (text breaks off). Philological Remarks Restorations generally follow the Minnesota cone, and the preceding remarks on that inscription are, as a rule, not repeated bere. Tbe sign forms used on the nail are somewhat archaizing and indicate an effort, on tbe part of the scribe, to emulate monumental inscriptions. 3; The second sig)i, which is well preserved but has a rather odd shape, is most likely iri. The corresponding line of the Minnesota cone, ditHcult to read, is clearlv different: Between what may be a

88

EVA VON DASSOW

Fig. 7. Copy of the inscription on tbe clay nail-head fragment W 4094.

Fig, 8. A reconstruction of the shape of the original nail head and the placement of the fragment W 4094 in relation to it.

NARÄM-SIN OF URUK: A NEW KING IN AN OLD SHOEBOX

89

'lugaP at the beginning of the line and a sign group that could represent ^iri'^^ there is an additional sign, possibly sa. All this brings to mind Enlil-bani A, 112-13 (lugal sa uru-na dum-dun)),™' and it seems likely that 1, 3 of the cone corresponded to that passage, the only difference being the addition of the determinative KI. The restoration proposed here for W 4094: 3 is based on tbe assumption that the scribe intended to write the same, but left out sa by mistake. 4: The reading of the last preserved sign as d |a| is again inspired by the Minnesota cone. The royal epithet d i n g i r m a-d a-n a "god of his land" seems to be unique. It corresponds semantically to the far better attested royal appellation d i n g i r kalam-ma-na "god of bis state," which was used by Sulgi, Sn-Sin, Ibbi-Sin, l.sbi-Erra, and Su-ilisu (see Seux 1967: 389), 6: The individual wedges of the SUM sign, normally more slanted, seem to be unusually horizontal according to the photographs, 8: Neither here nor in the respective line of the Minnesota cone do the sign groups at tbe beginning form a good id (A,ENGUR); rather, they resemble A.LU and fA.SUG\ respectively. It should be noted, though, that at least the latter writing, A.SUG, is attested as a variant of A.ENGUR in some Old Babylonian texts; see Stol 1988: 179a and Borger 2003: 438. References Andrae, W. 19:31) Das Cotteshaus und die Urformen des Bauens im Alten Orient Berlin: Schoetz. Borger, R. 2003 Mesopotamisdiea Zeichenlexikon AOAT 305, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Braun-Holzinger, E. A, 1996 Verschleppte Bau- und Weihinschriften der HeiTst her von Lagas. AS] 19: 1-18, Charphi, D, 2004 Histoire politique du Proche-Orient Amorrite (2002-1595). Pp. 25-480 in Mesopotamien: Die altbabyloniHche Zeil, ed. D. Charpin, D. O. Edzard, and M, Stol, OBO 160/4. Frihourg; Academic Pres.s; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 6; Ruprecht, Coulson, W., and McNally, S. 1979 Classifal Art in Minnesota. Archaeology 32: 61-63. de Sarzec, K,, and Heuzey, L 1884- Découvertes en Chaldée par Ernest de Sarzec. ouvrage accompanié de ¡¡lanche.^, publié par les soins 1912 de ¡Jon Heuzey. avec le concours de Arthur Amiaud et François Thureau-Dangin jxnir la paitie épigra¡)hi(jue. 2 vols. Paris: Leroux. Donbaz. V, and Grayson, A. K, 1984 Royal Inscriptions cm Clay Cones from Ashur Now in Istanbul RIM Supplements 1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Dunham, S. 1986 Sumerian Words for Foundation, Part I: Temen. RA 80: 31-64, Edzard, D, O, 1997 Gudea and His Dynasty. RIME 3/1, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Ellis, R S. 1968 Foundation De)X)sits in Ancient Mesopotamia. YNER 2. New Haven: Yale University Press, Falkenstein, A. 1963 Zu den Inschriftenfunden der Grabung in Uruk-Warka 1960-1961, BaM 2: 1-82, with pis. 1-14, Finkheiner, U., et al. 1991 Uruk. Kam]xigne 35-37, ¡982-1984: Die archäologische Oherfläschenuntersuchung (Survey). AUWE 4, Mainz: von Zabem.

60. Quoted after ETCSL (online: http://etcsl,orinst.ox,ac.uk); see also Kapp (1955: 79).

90

EVA VON DASSOW

Frayne, D. 19S9 A Struggle for Water: A Case Study trom the Historical Records of the Cities Isin and Larsa (19001800 BC). Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 17; 17-28. 1990 Old Bahylonian Period (2003-1595 BC). RIME 4. Toronto: University of Toronto Pi'ess. 1997 Ur HI Feriml (2n2-2(HH BC!. RIME 3/2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gadd, C, J., and Legrain, L. 1928 Ur Excaixitions Texts., Vol. I; Royal Inscriptions. London: The British Museum. Cravson, A. K. 1987

Assyrian

Rulers

of the Third and Second Millennia

BC (to 17/5 BC). R I M A 1. Toronto; University of

Toronto Press. Hallo, W. W. 1961 Royal Inscriptions of the Early Old Babylonian Period; A Bibliography. ßiOr 18; 4-14. 1962 The Royal Inscriptions of Ur;"a Typology. IWCA 33; 1-43. Hawkins, J. D. 1986 Royal Statements of Ideal Prices; Assyrian, Bahylonian, and Hittite. Pp. 93-102 in Ancient Anatolia: A.spects of Change and Cultural Development: Es.-iays in Honor of Machteld J. Mellink, ed. J, V Canby, et al. Madison, Wl; University of Wisconsin Pre.ss. Jones, T B., and Snyder, J. W. 1961 Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty: A Catalogue and Discussion of Documents from Various Collections. Minneapolis; University of Minnesota Press. Jordan, J, 1928 Uruk-Warka nach den Ausgrabungen durch die Deutsclie Orient-Geselhcliaft WVDOG 51. Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1930 Erster vorläufiger Bericht über die vo7i der Notgemeinschaft der Deutsdien Wissenschaft in UrukWarka untemommejten Ausgrabungen. Berlin; Akademie der Wissenschaften. Kapp, A. 1955 Ein Lied auf Enlilbäni von Isin. ZA 51; 76-87. King, L. W. 1910 A History of Sutner atïd Akkad: An Account of the Early Races of Babykmiafrom Prehistoric Times to the Foundation of the Bahylonian Monarchy. London; Chatto & Windus. Kraus, ER. 1947 Altme.sopotamische Tonnaegel mit Keilinschriften. Pp. 71-113 in Halil Edhem Hâtira Kitabi I. TTKY VII/ 5. Ankara; Tiirk Tarih Kiinimu Basnnevi. Landsberger, B., and Balkan, K. 1950 Die Inschrift des assyrischen Königs Irisum, gefunden in Kültepe 1948, Belleten 14; 218-68. Lenzen, H., et al. 1956 XH. vorläufiger Beñcht über die vot\ dem Deutschen Archäologischen Instítut und der Deutsdien OrientGcsellscJiaft ans Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. ADOG 1. Berlin; Gebr. Mann. 19f)l XV7/. vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutscfien Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. ADOG 6. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. 1966 XXH. vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Ceselhcliaft aus Mitteln der Deut.schen Forschungsgenieinschaft unternommenen Ausgralnmgen in Uruk-Warka ADOG II. Berlin; Crfbr. Mann. Mann iche, L. 2001 Eunerary Gones. Pp. 565-67 in Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 1, ed. Donald B. Redford. Oxford; Oxford University Press. Margiieron,J. 1982 Recherches sur les fmlais nwsopotamiens à l'âge du Bronze, 2 vols. BAH 107. Paris: Geuthner. Mie halowski, P. 1983 History as Charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List./AOS 103; 237-48. Nunn, A. 2006 Knanfplatten und Knäufe aus Assur. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Assur, E Die Fundgruppen; WVDOG 112. Saarweliingen: Saariandisthe Druckerei und Verlag.

NARAM-SIN OF URUK: A NEW KING IN AN OLD SHOEBOX

91

IÎ('dm;in,S, J. 2007 Midwestern Museums and Cla-S.sical Arehaeologv, 1893-1998. National Association for the Practice of Anthro¡x)logyBulletin27: 141-59. Sanatl-Müller, S. 2000 Texte aus dem Sînk5sid-Palast. Zehnter Teil: Holztexte—Elfter Teil: Fragmentarisch erhaltene Texte. ßflM31: 93-175. Seux, M.-j. 1967 Epithetes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes. Paris: Letouzey et Ané. Sollherger. E. 1956 Corpus des inscriptions "royales" piv'saigonicpies de ¡Mgas. Genève: Droz. 1965 Ur Excavations Texts, VIII; Royal hiscriptiatis, Part II. London: The British Museum. 1982 An Old-Bahylonian Tribute to an Old-Babyloiiian Master. Pp. 342-50 in Zikir Sumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. G. van Oriel, et al. Leiden; Brill. Spar, I. 1972 Stndies in Neo-Babylonian Economic and Legal Texts. Ph.D, Di.ssertatinn, University of Minnesota. Steible, H. 1991 Die neusumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, 1. Inschriften der H. Dynastie von Lagas. FAÜS 9/1. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Steidkeller, P 2004 A Building In.scription of Sîn-iddinam and Other Inscribed Materials from Abn Duw;u i. Pp. 135-52 in The Anatomy of a Mesopotamian City: Surveij and Souiid/ngs at Mashkan-shapir, by E. Stone and P Zimansky. Winona Lake. IN: Eisenbrauns. Stol, M. 1988 Review of R. M. Whiting, Old Babylonian Letters from Tell Asmar. AfO 35; 177-79. van Ess, M. 2001 Uruk Architektur H. Von der Akkad- bis zur inittelbabylonischcn 7.eit 1 ; Das Eanna-Heiligtum zur Ur 111- und altbabylonischen Zeit AUWE 15/1. Mainz; von Zabern. Veenhof, K, R 2003 The Old Assyrian List of Year Ejxmymsfroni Kamm Kanish atid its Chronological Implications TTKY Vi/64. Ankara; Turkish Historical Society, von Dassow, E., et al. 2003 Mesojwtamia in Minnesota: Cuneifonn Texts in Twin Cities Collections. With contributions hy Gretchen Anderson and Mark Gill. Minneapolis, MN: Regents of the University of Minnesota. Walters, S. D. 1970 Water for l-Xirsa: An Old Babylonian Archive Dealing with Irrigation YNER 4. New Haven: Yale University Press. Woollc>'.L. 1923 Excavations at Ur of the Cha\óees. Anti/jitnries Journal o: 311-33, witb pis. 24-34. 1925 Tlie Excavations at Ur, 1924-1925. Antiquaries Journal 5: 347-402, with pis. 31-48. 1932 Excavations at Ur, 1931-2. A/ií/í/í/«rí(^.s;(j(íníü/12; 355-92. 1939 Ur Excavations, Vol. 5; The Ziggurat and Its Surroundings. London; Oxford University Press. 1954 Excavations at Ur A Record of Twelve Years' Work London; Benn.

MORE OLD BABYLONIAN MUSIC-INSTRUCTION FRAGMENTS FROM NIPPUR Anne Kilmer (University of California., Berkeley) ]eremie Feterson (University of Fennsylvania Museum. Philadelphia)

Twelve years have elapsed since the Ia.st publication of cuneiform texts from Nippur containing music instructions ÍKilmer and Tinney 1996 and 1997), Now, thanks to Jeremie Peterson, two more Old Babylonian fragments have been joined to N3354 + N3355, These fragments, N7745 and N7679, are presented here (in new hand copies by Peterson) together with N3354 -i- N3355. In general, no one has doubted that these texts repre.sent some form of musical instructions, but wbether they are actual tuning instructions to real performing musicians tuning their instruments in preparation for a performance, or whether they are more in tbe nature of educational exercises in the Edubba, one ( annot be certain. In bis article in this issue, Jerome Colburn suggests that tbese texts can display the music itself and can be rendered into modem notation by means of very different interpretations and applications of some key terms, especiall\ genniini, zennum, and siljpu. For our part, we have maintained the same method of understanding these instructions as relating to tuning as it was presented in Kilmer and Tinney (1996 and 1997). Infig.2 of Kilmer and Tinney (1996: 55), Janet Smith rendered the musical notation under the assumption that the scale was ascending. If we were to redo that illustration today, we would assume a descending scale in accordance with newer and widely accepted interpretations stemming from the work of Theo Krispijn (2002: 472) on the understanding of the rubric NU.SU in the Old Babylonian retuning text U.7/8Ü not as a Sumerian expression meaning no further" but rather as Akkadian ÍÍIÍ-.SÍÍ-/Í|ÍÍ1 meaning "tightening" to describe the tuning procedures of the foregoing paragraph (Gurney 1994: 101-2). As in our previous two articles, we offer no exact translation of all tbe Akkadian words in the text, but rather have placed in the right margin the type of musical information that each line seems to provide. Part I. The Nippur Fragments N3354 + N3355 + N7745 + N7679 Transliteration and "translation" Obv. Col. i

1. Also in Kilmer and Tinney 1996. 93

JCS 61 (2009)

ANNE KILMER AND JEREMIE PETERSON

94 2' 3' 4'

|-/ÍÍ/-)Í;?Í

-u]nv

5' 6' interval, tune

7'

9'

'w'^ ge-\en-nu'-um' \s]a-na-nam ze-en-uu-uiu

mode, tune & test ?, tnne

10'

(iá-ab-li-\tum\ ge-en-nu-um ù ze-en-nu-utn

mode, test & tune

IV 12' 13'

^A-ha^-mi'Uiit zcen-nu ii ge-en-nu-\uiii\ I \-nani ze-en-nu-u\m] [ |-an'' ^ze^-en-hut-inii^

4th string, tune & test ?., tune ?, tune

Obv. Col. ii r ze-^en-nu-um «^^ \ge-en-nu-mn] 2' i-sa-ar-tim ze-en-h}u^-\u7n\ 3' ze-en-nu-um ^(V ge-^en^-[nu-um\ 4' ze-en-nu-\um\ 5' 6' T

9' 10'

pr^ \ [x x) \ ri-hi uli-ri-im ze-eln-iiu-mn] ki-if-mu-um z[e-en-nu-um\ [ff\e-h'7-^-du-itm ^,e-\en-iiu-u

Hymn Title 6th string, tune int./mode, tune interval, test

[xl -'x^"3i/ sí-hi-ip pi-t[Í7n]

?, paired mode

[x- x]' 'x^ ze-e7}-7iu-\u7n r ' 1 1

1/

1

1

1

'-^6 " e7't

II

ÍÍ(í"///ít ze

en

?, tune test & tune 5th string, test int./mode, tune

e7i-bu-b{u-u7n |

int./mode, [tune/test|

Rev. col. iii 2' 'rí^-|/jí ulj-ri (or: re-\bu-tum 3' 4'

6' 7'

nu

uin

i-.ki-a\r-tum ze-en-7iu-um\

12'

14'

tune & test int./mode, tune tune 6; test tune

[[ 'xxxxxx^

6th string for; int.), |tune/test] int., |tune/test|

MORE OLD BABYLONIAN MUSIC-INSTRUGTION FRAGMENTS FROM NIPPUR 8'

{old 1') si-hi-ip qá-ah-li-tim \ |

paired mode, |tune?¡

9' 10'

(old 2') ^qá-ab^-li-tumze-[en-nu-um] (old 3') \ze'en-nu-u]m ù ge-\en-nu-um]

int./mode, tune tune & test

11'

(old 4') [ I ^ze-en'^'lnu'ttni]

[—], tune

95

Rev. col, iv r

[ \^x^ z.e'e\n-nii-tim\

{

2' 3'

I 1 '.V.V.V.V' i/;l/-ín-'í./;N".v'l

? int./mode, |tune/testl

4'

\u\h'-ru-um ^ge-cn-uu^-u ui

9th string, test

5'

\sa-n]a-nam i-sa-*ar-tini ze^-en-n[u-um\

?, intVmode, tune

6'

\ki^-it'-ni u-uin gc-en-nn-ti ni\

int./mode, test

T

\xxx ^zelge^-en-nu-u lu

tune/test

8'

[ I-'urn'

?

]

|,tüne

Commentary to N3354 -i- New Fragments and Joins The general sense of and vocabulary in the new fragments clearly belong to our recognizable music term,s (including isqu for isqu "throwstick/lot" and enbûbu for emhûbii "reed pipe"), but several unfamiliar and unprecedented terms also appear: Obv, col. i, 10b: [H\a-na-nam\ relate to sun "to equal/rival"? Rev. col. iii, 4': If urram, "morning, daytime" is a valid reading, then compare sent "morning" as the name of a musical interval. Rev. col. iv, 5': ] sa'-na]-nam; compare obv. i 10. These terms listed above join, tben, the earlier list of obscure terms, as noted in Kilmer and Tinney {1996:53). For the suggested meanings of zeîmwn and gennwn as "tune" and "test," see the discussion in Kilmer and Tinney (1996: 53). For a very different interpretation of these two terms as well as tbe term siljpu in these Nippur fragments and in Nabnitu 32, where we have assumed that sihpu indicated a paired tuning related to the seven "standard" tunings, see the contribution of Colburn in this issue. Kilmer and Peterson leave it to the musicologists to tackle these new interpretations. Pan II. AddeiiHuni to UM 29-15-357 + N3020^ Thanks to the new Old Babylonian Tuning/Retvming text fragment published in l'£T Vl/3 899, a corrected reading can be made for tbe interval/scale name previously read as nis GABA-ri-im (also read as nls mihrim) and translated as "rise of the duplicate" (or as "ri.se of the antiphon"). On L^ET VI/3 899, where the interval nU gßharhn is expected (Krispijn and Mirelman in press), the text writes ni-i& tU'uh-ri-im. Therefore we can now read GABA as iuh and render niH tuhrim rise of tbe tuhriinf (a part 2, See Kilmer and Tinney 1996: 49; 1997,

96

ANNE KILMER AND JEREMTE PETERSON

of the foot, see CAD). Exactly what this means remains obscure and needs discussion. Therefore, in the UM text's line 9' (Kilmer atid Tinney 1996; 52), we now read (with collation by Peterson) ni-is tuulj'\ri-im] instead of |.vxi hii-id^ ai-u6-|.v .\i; or we may restore |fíi'/íí-í/j| hii-is^ íM-i/¿i-|?7-im¡, following Colburn (in this issue).

N7C71

Fig. 1. N3354 + N3355 + N7745 + N7679 obverse and reverse (new joins marked). References Gurney, O. 1994 Babylonian Music Again. Iraq 56; 101-6. Kilmer, A., and Tinney, S. 1996 Old Bah\lonian Music Instruction Texts./CS48: 49-56. 1997 Gortection to Kilmer/Tinney "Old Babylonian Music Instruction Texts./CS48 (1996)."/CS49; 118. Krispijn, T 2002 Musik in Keilschrift; Beiträge zur altorientalische Musikforschung 2. Pp. 466-79 in Studien zur Musikarchäologie III, ed. E. Hickmann, A D. Kilmer, and R. Eichmann. Orient-Archäologie, Band 10. Rahden/ Westf,; Marie T.,eidorf, Krispijn, T, , and Mirelnian,S. In press The Old Babylonian Tuning Text UET VI/3 899. Iraq.

A NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE NIPPUR MUSIC-INSTRUCTION FRAGMENTS Jerome Colhurn (Champaign, IL)

As Anne Kilmer (to whom go my deepest thanks for encouraging me to present this article) has stated, the Old Babylonian music instruction fragments from Nippur "are difficult to piece together in a meaningful musical context"' when interpreted as instructions for tuning up a stringed instrument. The puzzle persists even with the two new pieces she and Jeremie Peterson present in the preceding article. In the discussion that follows, the abbreviation NMI 1 (for Nippur Music Instructions 1) refers to N3354 + N3355 + N7745 + N7679; NMI 2 denotes UM 29-15-357; and NMI 3 denotes N3020. A summary of the relevant cuneiform theoretical music documents, for those who may not be familiar with the foregoing literature, is given in the Appendix to this article. The Appendix also discusses the rationale for the staff notation that is adopted here. The term "instructions," it must be acknowledged, is a misnomer if understood in the sense of instructions that a musician could read and follow or a teachers instructions to pupils. As Piotr Michalowski points out in a forthcoming article, the OB scribe and musician received different educations, and a musician would not be able to read these texts.^ If they are, as they appear to be, written descriptions of musicians' actions related to particular compositions, they were prepared for purposes and under circumstances unknown to us. The term "instructions" in this article is nevertheless retained in continuity with the previous publications. Obstacles to the Interpretation of the Fragments as Tuning Instructions Interpreting these texts as tuning instructions entails an inherent ambiguity. If a term with sehpum, such as sehep pltim, means a scale,'' then its occurrence in a "tune" step {zennuvi)* of a tuning protocol can be understood as an instruction to tune multiple strings to that scale; in a "test" step {gennum)^ it would mean that multiple intervals in the scale are to be tested. Likewise, the name of one of the thirds/sixths, such as serdûm, can refer only to that string set. The name of a fifth/fourth, however, such 1. A. D. Kilmer and S. Tinney, "Old Babylonian Music Instruction Texts," JCS 48 (1996) 54. 2. P. Michalowski, "Learning Music: Schooling, Apprenticeship, and Gender in Early Mesopotamia," in Musicians and the Tradition of Literature in the Ancient Near East, ed. R. Pruzsinszky and D. Shehata (Vienna: LIT, in press). I offer my deepest thanks to Piotr Michalowski for accepting this work, for much necessary criticism, and for sharing with me a draft of his forthcoming paper. 3. R. L. Crocker and A. D. Kilmer, "The Fragmentary Music Text from Nippur," Iraq 46 (1984) 81-85. 4. Kilmer and Tinney, "Old Babylonian Music Instruction Texts," 54. 5. Ibid.

97

JCS 61 (2009)

98

JEROME COLBURN

as isartum, can mean either tbe string set itself or tbe corresponding scale. If tbe term means tbe string set, tben tbe instructions cannot call for any scale tbat is not a sehpum. If tbe term means the scale, however, tbe fiftbs/fourtbs cannot be named in tbe tuning process, in contrast to what is actually described in tbe known "Tuning Text" UETVll 74^ (and now UET YI/S 899).^ Richard Dumbrill proposes tbat in tbese texts isartum and so fortb always mean tbe string sets, wbereas sehep isartim and so fortb mean tbe scales described in tbe Tuning Text.^ Tbe otber texts we bave tbat name scales, bowever—tbe Tuning Text, tbe Assyrian song catalog KAR 158,^^ and tbe music from Ugarit'"—do not use tbe word sehpum. In actual use, tbe terms are inconsistently and problematically appled. One would expect tbe terms for (rough) tuning step and for testing (or fine-tuning) step each to apply to its own specific category of entities. Gennum as "test" should certainly be applied only to string sets or {sehpü of) scales, and tbat is how it is applied in most instances, but it is applied to a single string in NMI 1 i' 12', ii' 12', iv' 4'. Against wbat is a single string to be tested? Zennum is usually applied to a sehpum or a string set, but it is applied to the fourth string in NMI 1 i' 4' and NMI 2 ii' 9'. In reference to wbat is the fourth string to be tuned? Operations are wasted. On NMI 2 iii' 2'-4', one is told, '^serdûm, test. Isartum, tune, tune, and test." Wby is it necessary to (rougb) tune tbe isartum scale twice—in the process destroying the relationship established witb tbe preceding fine-tuning of tbe serdûm string set? On tbe same tablet, ii' 7'-8', tbe instruction to test tbe qablltum occurs before tbe instruction to (rougb) tune it; likewise NMI 1 i' 11'. On NMI 1 ii' 2'-4' one is told, "Isartum, tune, tune and test, tune." This requires tbree complete (rougb) retunings, apparently; again, wby was one not enougb? Altbougb the material is fragmentary, tbese paradoxes arise in wbat is preserved, not as a result of tbe lack of material. Tbese difficulties are so substantial tbat a reexamination of tbe problem and its controlling assumptions seems justified. The Basis for the Interpretation of the Fragments as Tuning Protocols Tbe interpretation of tbe Nippur fragments publisbed in 1996 as tuning instructions rests on Richard Crocker s identification of tbe sehpum terms as names of scales." These terms were discovered by Aaron Sbaffer in a Middle Babylonian version of tbe lexical text Nabnitu XXXII.'^ In tbat text, a list of tbe names of the strings themselves is followed by tbe names of tbe corresponding fiftbs/fourtbs or scales, eacb one followed by its sehpum {isartum, sehep isartim, kitmum, sehep kitmim, and so on). Sehpum is attested otberwise (and later) in tbe meanings "stretcb, extent" (already found in a stock pbrase sehep AN u KI in OB Mari'^); "sweeping attack"; "covering"; "inner bark of tbe kiskanû tree"; "prone position" (CAD S 238-39). It is derived from sahäpum "to cover, overwhelm, spread over"; "put a cover on, cover over"; "turn over (?), upside down (?), lay flat, lay (?)

6. O. R. Gurney, "An Old Babylonian Treatise on the Tuning of the Harp," Iraq 30 (1968) 229-53. 7. S. Mirelman and T J. H. Krispijn, "The Old Babylonian Tuning Text UET VI/3 899," Iraq (forthcoming). 8. R. Dumbrill, The Archaeomusicology of the Ancient Near East (Victoria, BC: Trafford, 2005), 75. 9. A. D. Kilmer, "The Strings of Musical Instruments: Their Names, Numbers, and Significance," in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsherger, AS 16 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1965), 267-68. 10. H. C. Cüterbock, "Musical Notation in Ugarit," RA 64 (1970) 45-52. 11. Crocker and Kilmer, "The Fragmentary Music Text from Nippur," 84-85. 12. A. Shaffer, "A New Musical Term in Ancient Mesopotamian Music," Iraq 43 (1981) 79-83. 13. D. Charpin, "Les malheurs d'un scribe, ou de l'inutilité du sumérien loin de Nippur," in Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 3Sè Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia, 1989, ed. M. dej. Ellis (Philadelphia: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 1992), 9, line 12.

THE NIPPUR MUSIC-INSTRUCTION FRACMENTS

99

hricks" {CAD S 30-36). In view of the meaning "turn over (?), upside down (?)," Shaffer suggested that sehpum might mean the "inversion" of the interval in its modern musical sense: the interval produced by transposing one of the pitches of the original interval by an octave to make the upper pitch the lower and vice versa. Sehpum cannot mean "inversion" in that sense, however, because the Tuning Text and the list of string pairs CBS 10996''' treat fifths and fourths, which are inversions of each other, identically; because sehpum terms existed for string pairs that could not be inverted on a nine-stringed instrument, as in sehep kitmim, where kitmum is the string pair (3, 6); and because sehpum terms existed only for the fifths/fourths/ scales, even though some of the thirds and sixths can also be inverted on a nine-stringed instrument. Crocker, in reply to Shaffer, argued that because the string set or scale names in Nabnitu XXXII appear in the same sequence as they do in the Assyrian song catalog and the second series of the Tuning Text, where they denote scales, rather than in the sequence in which they appear in CBS 10996, the names must have referred to scales in Nabnitu XXXII as well, and therefore the sehpû must also have been scales. Crocker further suggested, on the analogy of the plagal modes of Cregorian and Byzantine chant but without reference to the cuneiform evidence, that each sehpum covered a lower pitch range than the corresponding scale named without sehpum. Tuning such a "paired mode" alongside the ordinary scale (as called for by the Nippur fragments interpreted as tuning instructions) would require as many as twelve strings.'^ The document that names the sehpü, however, names only nine strings,'® which is curious if the theory it represents required more. When the Nippur fragments were subsequently brought to light, the presence of names of scales, as the sehpû were believed to be, among the names of strings and string sets following an apparent hymn title compelled the interpretation of these fragments as instructions for tuning the instrument to those scales and adjusting particular intervals to play the named hymn. In view of the aforementioned ditficulties with that interpretation, however, it may be worthwhile at this point to reconsider the claim that the sehpû must have been scales. Sehpû If the terms in the second section of Nabnitu XXXII, including the sehpû, do not refer to scales, they must refer to string sets. For there to be a reason to list the sehpû, they must have been distinct from any of the other known string sets. There must also have been a regular relationship between them and the fifths/fourths to which they are said to belong. Mathias Bielitz has suggested (on other grounds than those presented here) that the sehpü could be string pairs derived from the fifths/fourths by inward displacement of fingers, reducing the widths of the intervals."^ When such a change is applied to a pair of strings spanning a fourth, the result is a pair of adjacent strings, sounding a second, such as (4,5) from kitmum (3,6). Such string pairs fulfill both of the requirements set forth in the preceding paragraph. As seconds they are not identical to the fifths/ fourths or thirds/sixths known from CBS 10996, and they are regularly derivable from fourths. Under this hypothesis, the sehpû would relate to the corresponding fifths/fourths in the same way as titur isartim (3,5), the "bridge of the isartum]' relates to isartum (2,6).

14. Kilmer, "The Strings of Musical Instruments." 15. Kilmer and Tinney, "Old Babylonian Music Instruction Texts," 54. 16. Crocker and Kilmer, "The Fragmentary Music Text from Nippur," 82. 17. M. Bielitz, Über die babylonischen theoretischen Texte zur Musik: Zu den Grenzen der Anwendung des antiken Tonsystems. 2., erweiterte Auflage für HeiDok (Neckargemünd: Männeies, 2002), 55-56.

100

JEROME COLBURN

Treble in front, bass in back —*^*—

—©—

3"

«.•>

*•>

sehep isarti

isartu ©—

—e*i—

kitmu sehep kitmi 1

nid qabli

sehep nid qabli

embQbu

i >ö i

1— n —

s*^ 1— e —

sehep Ê;mbûbi

®"

cv

Tï

—e —e

nis tuhri

pîtu

sehep pTti "TV©

—©*^—

sehep nis tuhri

'

©•

1

1

qablîtu sehep qablTti

Fig, 1, Relationships of the sehpü with the corresponding fifths/fourths.

In playing a third such as titur isartim on a lyre or harp with the fingers of one hand, the fingers touch strings 3 and 5 while the hand arches over string 4 without touching it—a pattern for which "bridge" is an appropriate term. In playing a second, the fingers touch both adjacent strings with no intervening untouched string. The meaning of sehpum as "extent, covering, overlay" fits such a pattern, without need to invoke the dramatic ideas of overwhelming or overturning that the parent verb may suggest. Four of the string pairs listed in CBS 10996 appear as fourths: nid qablim (1, 4), qablltum (2, 5), kitmum (3, 6), and pltum (4, 7). The sehpû of these pairs are easily formed directly: (2, 3), (3, 4), (4, 5), and (5, 6). Isartum, on the other hand, is described as a fifth (2, 6) in CBS 10996, yet sehep isartim is listed in Nabnitu XXXII. How can such a sehpum be formed? As discussed in the Appendix, the Tuning Text shows that a string set such as isartum included not merely the two strings mentioned in CBS 10996 but also the octaves of those strings available on a given instrument, such as string 9 along with string 2 on a nine-stringed instrument. With string 9 included, the fourth (6, 9) also represents isartum, and the sehpum of that fourth is (7, 8). On a nine-stringed instrument all of the seconds except (1,2), and its octaves at (8, 9), lie within fourths of which they are the sehpü, and all of the fifths/fourths except embübum (3, 7) may appear as fourths from which sehpû can be formed. Defining (1,2) and (8, 9) as sehep embübim fits the logic that defines the other sehpü. If there were a tenth string, it would be the octave of the third, and (8, 9) would be the sehpum of (7, *10), although it is not clear that such a statement would be made in OB times. The sehpü as seconds are shown, in the staff notation described in the Appendix to this chapter, as formed from the fourths in traditional order in fig, 1 and by themselves in order of pitch infig.2. Some Objections If the sehpü are string sets, the question arises why they do not appear in the known string set catalogs: CBS 10996 and the left column of the Tuning Text, which lists the thirds, fourths, fifths, and sixths that involve each string.'* If the sehpü are not interpreted as seconds, however, this question does not go away but takes a different form: Why do the catalogs not include terms for the seconds? The answer would have to be that the authors of the catalogs were interested only in consonant intervals,'® not in the dissonant seconds. That answer still makes sense even if names for the seconds turn out to exist.

18. R L. Crocker, "Remarks on the Tuning Text UET VII 74 (U. 7/80)," Or 47 (1978) 99-104. 19. A. Mann (ed.). The Study of Counterpoint from Johann Joseph Fux'sGradus ad Parnassum (New York: Norton, 1965), 20.

THE NIPPUR MUSIC-INSTRUCTION FRAGMENTS

101

Treble in front, bass in back

sehep embubi sehep md qabli sehep qabliti sehep kitmi sehep piti sehep nîs tuhri sehep isarti Fig. 2. The sehpü in order of pitch. One could also ask, if the second section of Nabnitu XXXII is a list of string sets rather than of scales, why it does not list the thirds/sixths. A possible answer is that it may have. There is enough room in the missing portions of the column for a listing of the thirds below the fifths and fourths and their sehpü. A column could be at least thirty-eight lines deep;^° the nine strings, the summary line, the line for pismu, and the seven fifths/fourths and their sehpü take up twenty-five lines, leaving at least thirteen in which to fit entries for the seven thirds/sixths in a separate section. MaZrutu., Pismu, and Isartu in the NA Fragment Crocker's argument that the sequence of names in Nabnitu XXXII requires it to be a sequence of scales remains to be dealt with. The second section of Nabnitu XXXII in the NB version begins with a term pismu that does not appear in the MB version, followed by isartu, the first term in the list of fifths/fourths or scales. Because of its occurrence in this text and the premise that the section is a list of scales, pismu has been understood to be a scale as well.^' The same sequence pismu, isartu found in the later Nabnitu XXXII also occurs on BM 65217 + 66616, a Neo-Assyrian fragment that also contains a broken commentary after each term.-^ In this text, pismu is preceded by the previously unknown term maZrutu, which, by association, has been taken to be yet another scale. If this list is a list of scales, one would expect the commentary on each item to mention tightening and loosening strings, making intervals "clear," and perhaps testing or fine-tuning. These topics are not found, at least in the preserved portions of the commentary. Instead, what remains and can be understood of the commentary focuses on strings and fingers. Reading these passages, without an a priori assumption that they must refer to scales, suggests that they are instructions for placing the hands to play strings and string sets (which would be the same in any scale). If so, they militate against the contention that the sequence pismu, isartu, and so forth, found in Nabnitu XXXII, necessarily designates names of scales. As one example, the most nearly intact commentary, that for maZrutu, "the sound of whose strings to play together, one with the second not brought near,"^^ reads like a term for playing two strings as some type of dichord. If so, it is further evidence that, as Kilmer proposed over thirty years ago to an incredulous musicological community,^"* the musicians of the cuneiform world made use of the sound of simultaneous different pitches. 20. I. Finkel and M. Civil, Materialen zum sumerischen Lexikon XVI: The Series SIG7.ALAN = Nahnltti (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982), 254. 21. A. D. Kilmer, "How the Mesopotamians Did or Did Not Express the Concept of the Octave," in Studien zur Musikarchäologie V, ed. E. Hickmann and R. Eichmann (Rahden-Westf.: Marie Leidorf, 2004), 276. 22. A. D. Kilmer, "A Music Tablet from Sippar (?): BM 65217 + 66616," Iraq 46 (1984) 69-80. 23. Kihner, "A Music Tablet from Sippar (?)," 73, rev. ISa-h. 24. A. D. Kilmer, "The Cult Song with Music from Ancient Ugarit: Another Interpretation," ñA 68 (1974) 69-82.

102

JEROME COLBURN

The description of the next term, pismu, is more broken, but it also mentions strings, fingers, and rûtu, a Neo-Assyrian term defined as "half-cubit, span" {CAD R 438-39). When the fingers are fully abducted, the distance from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the little finger is indeed about half a cubit (distance from elbow to tip of extended fingers).^^ The term could thus refer to the fingers stretched out in the same way across the strings of a lyre or harp. Theo Krispijn connects pismu with pasämu "to veil,"^® and in such a position the fingers do spread like a veil over the strings. Musical Use of the Seconds If the sehpû are string sets, the Nippur fragments become sequences of string set names interspersed with unknown technical terms and other words. Such a pattern looks like a description of performance rather than a tuning procedure—in other words, like what we would call music. Kilmer and Dumbrill have each previously suggested that the fragments are descriptions of performance, but both interpreted the sehpû as scales.^^ Thus NMI 1 ii' 6'-9' gave, for Kilmer, a starting pitch, two string pairs as the "intervals" used (as she interpreted zennum at the time), and the scale, from which the complete performance was to be developed somewhat as in an Indian râga. When the fragments containing gennum were added, Kilmer replaced this interpretation with the tuning interpretation discussed earlier.^^ For Dumbrill, lines 6'-8' give the music to be played, while line 9' names the scale as a kind of colophon. If so, a sequence of only three string sets would represent an entire song, which does not seem likely. The present interpretation, as entirely a description of playing a sequence of string sets, avoids these difficulties. Leaving aside for a moment the meaning of the technical terms zennum and gennum, it becomes possible to discuss at least the dichord sequences. For a full description, it would be necessary to know what scales were used, but that information is not preserved explicitly, though it can be inferred as described in the following section. Nevertheless, some features of the music can be discussed independently of the scale. NMI 1 ii' 6'-9' shows a progression rebi uhrim (string 6), kitmum (strings 3 and 6), serdûm (4,6), sehep pltim (5, 6 by the interpretation of sehpum advanced here). In Western terms this is oblique motion:^^ stepwise motion through strings 3, 4, and 5 against a drone or pedal point on string 6. Similar oblique motion occurs in NMI 2 ii' 2 ' - i r , with the drone on the fourth string this time: nidi qablim (1, 4), titur qablttim (2, 4), and sehep qablltim (3, 4). A unison, abanûm (string 4), leads to a second, sehep kitmim (4, 5), by oblique motion in ii' 9 ' - i r . The neat fit of the seconds obtained by the present interpretation of sehpum into the motion patterns in these passages supports this interpretation. It also shows that the Old Babylonian composers did not use these dissonances haphazardly but prepared them melodically, somewhat as in the Western counterpoint tradition.^" A sehpum is followed by its corresponding fourth {sehep qablttim, qablltum) in NMI 1 iii' 8'-9' and in NMI 2 ii' 5'-7'. This may have been a convention for resolving the dissonance. 25. Author's personal observation. 26. T. J. H. Krispijn, "Musik in Keilschrift: Beiträge zur altorientalistischen Musikforschung 2" in Studien zur Musikarchäologie III, ed. E. Hickmann, A. D. Kilmer, and R. Eichmann (Rahden-Westf.: Marie Leidorf, 2002), 465-79. 27. A. D. Kilmer, "Musical Practice in Nippur," in Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35è Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia, 1989, ed. M. de Jong Ellis (Philadelphia: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 1992), 101-12; Dumbrill, Archaeomusicology of the Ancient Near East, 86-88. 28. Kilmer and Tinney, "Old Babylonian Music Instruction Texts," 53. 29. Mann, The Study of Counterpoint, 22. 30. See, e.g., Mann, The Study of Counterpoint, 41.

THE NIPPUR MUSIC-INSTRUCTION FRACMENTS

103

Identification of the Tuning and the Modality Under the assumption that the composers did not use the diminished fifth/augmented fourth in a scale (called "not clear" in the Tuning Text), as is the case at Ugarit,''' one can set bounds on what the scales could be. If a fifth/fourth appears in a passage, the scale in which that fifth/fourth is not clear is ruled out. If the practice of following a sehpum with its corresponding fourth was a general convention, that fourth should also be added to the list of fifths/fourths used. NMI 1 i' contains kitmum (ruling out the emhübum scale) and qablltum (ruling out the isartum scale). Column ii' contains isartum (ruling out the kitmum scale), kitmum, embübum (ruling out the pltum scale), and sehep pltim (if followed by pltum, ruling out the nld qablim scale). The only possible scales for column ii' (whether one includes the whole column or only the column from line 10' on) are therefore isartum, nls tuhrim, and qablltum, but if the two columns belong to the same composition and therefore use the same scale (or if they belong to different compositions that were grouped together by the scale), the only possibilities are nls tuhrim and qablltum, surprisingly far, in terms of steps along the second series in the Tuning Text, from the "normal" isartum. On the reverse, pltum, kitmum, isartum, and qablltum are found, ruling out nld qablim, em.bûbum, kitmum, and isartum and leaving pltum, nls tuhrim, and qablltum. The reverse may not belong to the same composition as the obverse. NMI 2 i' may contain nld qablim and isartum, but the column is too damaged to be certain. In column ii', qablltum and nld qablim are found, ruling out the isartum and nls tuhrim scales. In NMI 2 iii', isartum and kitmum occur as in NMI 1 ii', ruling out the kitmum and embübum. scales, and nls tuhrim (see Kilmer and Peterson, this volume) would rule out qablltum. No fifths/fourths are certain on NMI 3. The dichord sequences from NMI 1 are notated in fig. 3. For NMI 1 i' and ii', taken to be from the same composition, the nts tuhrim scale is used, in which five strings are flattened relative to isartum. The other passages are taken to be in pltum (three flats relative to isartum) because it is the closest scale to isartum (in tuning steps) that permits the fifths/fourths found in those passages. The nls tuhrim scale would also be possible for NMI 1 iii' and iv'. The beginning of ii' 10', which follows sehep pltim, is restored as [pi-tu-u]m according to the proposed dissonance resolution convention, and the notes are consequently bracketed. The restoration in iii' 2' is taken to be re-[bu-tum] rather than re-[bi uh-ri-im]. String set sequences from NMI 2 are notated in fig. 4. NMI 2 iii' has some musical similarities to NMI 1 i'-ii' and may belong to the same work, so it is notated in nls tuhrim as well The following restorations are suggested to col. iii'. In line 6', "^x^ (ending in a vertical)-dti-Mm should be a string set name by its position, but the only known string set name ending in -du-um is serdûm, so [s]e-^ery-du-um is emended here. In line 9' there is enough space before ni-is tu-uh-r[i-im] to restore either some hint syllables (see p. 105) or [sé-he-ep], and the latter (which may have resolved to nls tuhrim) is restored here. In line 8' [re]-^bi uh^-ri-im is at least not ruled out by the traces on the copy. In line 7' there is room for a word of about four signs, perhaps [hamsum], [gennum], or [zennum], of which the former was chosen. All these restorations are bracketed in the figure. In NMI 1 ii' and NMI 2 iii', the third and the fifth above the drone are heard, which to our ears creates a sense of modality and a tonal center on the 6th string; with the instrument tuned to the nls tuhrim scale the modality is minor, with a sharp 6th degree (although that degree, on string 1, is not actually found here).

31. A. D. Kilmer, "Musik. A," § 5.3, Group B, RIA 8 (1997).

104

JEROME COLBURN

obv. i 1 ^

Z

Z+G s,Z

obv. ii' 2'-14' Z,Z+G,Z Z

G+Z Z+G s?,Z

Z

Z+G,Z G

G

*.•>

}' ^

>—§--^

J

-J,—'•—n

_lí—i.>" [ o ]

e Lipit-Estar

rev. iii'2'-3' Z?

[

8'-10' ?

x.zu rev. iv' 3'-6' ? G

Z,Z+G Z

-O-

IS5I -©-

8 ] <>

Fig. 3. String set sequences from NMI 1 (N 3354+N 3355+N 7745+N 7679). Z, zennum,; G, gennum; s, sananam. obv. i i ' 2 ' - l l ' Z,Z :^

Ö

Z Tï

G+Z Z

rev. iii' 2'-6' G Z,Z+G Z

G Z

;

-©-

"XT"

-©-

kun?.na

in.sa

Fig. 4. String set sequences from NMI 2 (UM 29-15-357).

Zennum and Gennum The meanings "tune" and "test" attributed to the terms zennum and gennum are a consequence of the premise that the Nippur fragments are tuning instructions.^^ If, as argued here, the Nippur fragments describe musical performance, these terms must instead represent different ways of playing a string set, for which there are boundless possibilities. The information these terms represented must have been very important to the performance, however, because they are so frequent in the texts. In support of the interpretation of zennum and gennum as "tune" and "test," Kilmer connected these terms to Sumerian zi and ge-(en), found in OB Proto-Lú 622-627^^ and in Shulgi Hymn B.^"* In the latter text, at line 160, zi "to raise" is paired with su "to lower," but it is not certain what is being raised and lowered. At line 171 of Shulgi B, ge-na occurs as the alternative to gid-i "tighten" (sharpen a string) and tu-lu "loosen" (flatten a string). Although this use of gen in a tuning context appears to support the meaning "test" for gennum, it must be noted that the most logical possibility for a term contrasted with sharpening and flattening is not fine-tuning, which on the lyre would be done with the same physical manipulations as rough tuning, but simply keeping the pitch unchanged, consistent with one meaning of gen: "(to be) permanent."^^ A successful test, after all, means that no further adjustments are necessary. A term for keeping the pitch unchanged could easily find use in performance as well as in the tuning context of Shulgi B. It would be an appropriate description for sounding the same note or dichord on the instrument for some length of time.

32. 33. 34. 35.

Kilmer and Tinney, "Old Babylonian Music Instruction Texts," 53. Kilmer and Tinney, "OB Music Instruction Texts," 54; Kilmer, RIA "Musik. A," § 5.2. Krispijn, "Musik in Keilschrift 2," 466-67. ePSD s.v. gin [establish]. Online: http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/.

THE NIPPUR MUSIC-INSTRUCTION FRACMENTS

105

Zennum is not as easily explained philologically The final consonant of the root written with zi in the meaning "rise" is not n but g,^** and there does not appear to be a Sumerian root *zen. If related to Sumerian z i, the term must have been reworked to resemble gennum. As Michalowski has pointed out (personal communication, July 2008), all the other known musical terms in these fragments are Akkadian rather than Sumerian, so Akkadian interpretations for these terms should be sought as well. Etymology alone, however, cannot answer the present questions. The occurrence of a term that is not a musical one but is found in numerous poetic compositions— the royal name Lipit-Estar—in a description of musical performance on a stringed instrument suggests that the fragments pertain to the accompaniment to singing.*^^ In such a case the most important information for the instrumentalist, after the sequence of string sets, would be how to synchronize the accompaniment with the vocals. It is likely that zennum and gennum played a role in that task. There are so many uncertainties and variables, however, that any attempt to ascertain the meaning of these terms more precisely from the materials at hand quickly becomes a layering of conjecture upon conjecture. The primary variable is the identity of the sung texts themselves. The possible clues are the words, or parts of words, that are found in the musical instructions but do not belong to the known body of musical technical terms. Most prominent of these words is the name Lipit-Estar at NMI 1 ii' 5', taken from the outset to be tbe incipit of a song.''^ The only known poetic text (or supposed poetic text) that begins with this name, however, is the one commonly referred to as Lipit-Estar Hymn B (Li B),'^^ which is now understood to be a scribal school exercise that would not be set to music.""* One might consider as an alternative the possibility that the name was written there not because the composition began or ended there but because the name, as part of the sung text, was to be sung at that point in the musical performance. This hypothesis makes it unnecessary for the name to be the incipit of the text and therefore multiplies the possibilities for the identity of the text, but there is, naturally, no evidence that such a procedure was ever followed. In several lines scattered through these instructions, mysterious syllables that do not belong to any of the known musical terms are written before the names of the string sets. The temptation arises to view these as hint syllables from the sung text, placed to aid in synchronizing accompaniment with vocals. The beginning of NMI 1 ii' 9', [xJ.i^xlZU (in which the sign immediately before ZU ends in two stacked verticals), occurs on only the fourth line following the name Lipit-Estar, from which it is separated by two occurrences of zennum and one of gennum. On the assumption that the name was to be sung where it is written in the musical instructions, might it be possible to identify the sung text by searching the known literature for an instance in which -zu is placed fairly closely after the name Lipit-Estar and then, from the distance between them, compute approximately how much musical time zennum and gennum could have taken? Such a search can be made on Lipit-Estar hymns A through E and H thanks to the online publication of these texts."" Unfortunately, the search turns up only five instances of ZU within three lines or so of the king's name, and four of them are in Li B (lines 25-27, 28-29, 33-34, and 57-58)."^ The fifth, on the other hand, is in Li E 2 (a line that is at the end of the sag4-ba-tuku section, which is followed 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

ePSD s.v. zig |rise]. Online: http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/. A. D. Kilmer and M. Civil, "OB Musical Instructions Relating to Hymnody," JCS 38 (1986) 96. Ibid. H. L. J. Vanstiphout, "Lipit-Estar's Praise in the Edubba," JCS 30 (1978) 33-67. Michalowski, "Learning Music." ETCSL. Online: http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/. Ibid., c.2.5.5.2.

106

JEROME COLBURN

by the third and fourth ki-ru-gú; that is, slightly more than halfway through the complete hymn),*"^ where the king's name is followed immediately by ú-a-zu. If that is the text that is meant, at least part of the two instances of zennum and one gennum would almost certainly have to have been played as instrumental solo of unknown duration, and nothing can be inferred about the time significance of zennum and gennum. It is, of course, equally likely that the sung text was not one of those now known, that the unexplained syllables were not part of the sung text, or both, again leaving us without a basis for inferences. èananam The new fragments added to NMI 1 by Kilmer and Peterson in the preceding article introduce a new term sananam, which by its position between gennum and zennum in i' 10' and before isartum in iii' 5', could refer to a string set or be another playing direction. Kilmer and Peterson suggest that it is connected with sanänum "to become equal, to rival, to match, to claim equality, to defy," "to reach the same height" (CAD S I 366-370). One is tempted to suppose that what was "equal" was the octave doubling of a string,'*'' and therefore that sananam meant a pair of strings an octave apart, either (1,8) or (2,9) on a nine-stringed instrument. Michalowski points out (personal communication, July 2008), however, that the accusative case form of sananam contrasts to the nominative used everywhere else for names of string sets. (There are a few instances of i-sa-ar-TIM without preceding noun or preposition, which might be read i-sa-ar-tumg) As an accusative, sananam would have an adverbial meaning, "equally" or the like, and would have to modify the sense of the sequence of string sets and zennum/ gennum terms. One possibility is that sananam simply signals a repeat; the non-mimated, and therefore perhaps plural, zennu u gennu in i' 9' and i' 12', lines preceding sananam, may be significant. Conclusions Interpreted in detail as tuning protocols, the Nippur fragments present severe practical difficulties in terms of ambiguous instructions and sometimes senseless and self-defeating sequences of actions. These difficulties do not arise when they are interpreted as descriptions of musical performance, even though many questions of detail remain. The interpretation of sehpum as a pair of adjacent strings between those of the corresponding fourth after which the sehpum is named is consistent with the musical progressions shown in the fragments and with the otherwise attested meaning of this term. CBS 1766, recently identified as pertaining to music, provides support for this interpretation. A discussion is in preparation. That zennum and gennum had some rhythmic meaning appears likely, but at present nothing reliable can be inferred from the evidence available. New studies and new material are to be welcomed. Further data will also be necessary to determine the meaning of the new term sananam. If the instrumental music from these tablets is the accompaniment, what might the singing have sounded like? Imagine trying to infer the vocal melody for a jazz standard one has never heard, given only a chord chart. The present task may be somewhat simpler, because it is likely that the vocal line generally matched one or the other of the pitches heard from the strings. For a singer to offer a different note than those played on the strings, there would have to be some way of relating that third note to the other two—that is, a general theory of harmony, applicable between the instrument and the voice 43. Ibid., c.2.5.5.5. 44. For a similar semantic process, see Kilmer, "How the Mesopotamians Did or Did Not Express the Concept of the Octave," 277.

THE NIPPUR MUSIC-INSTRUCTION FRAGMENTS

107

and capable of relating more than two pitches at a time. There is no evidence of such a theory from the OB period. It is, however, possible that the singing involved melodic ornamentation practices that we cannot infer from the documentation we have. On the other hand, the vocal line could be much simpler Might it be that the "drone" represents the actual vocal line, somewhat similar to the reciting notes in various types of chant? A discussion of the implications of the present work for the music from Ugarit, which this music does not much resemble and from which it is separated by several centuries, is in preparation. Appendix The following is a summary of the terminology encountered in the study of cuneiform musical texts and an explanation of the use of staff notation to represent the musical material discussed here. The first section of the lexical text Nabnitu XXXII consists of a list of nine strings: 1. í/udmú "first" 2. samüsu "second" 3. salsu qatnu "third thin" 4. Ea-bânû "Ea-creator," written abanû in the present fragments 5. hamsu "fifth" 6. rebi uhri "fourth behind" 7. saisi uhri "third behind" 8. sini uhri "second behind" 9. uhru "behind" CBS 10996,''^ a Neo-Babylonian list primarily of key numbers for mathematical operations,'"' contains a list of the following pairs of string numbers. They are known to be string numbers because they are preceded by the logogram SA "string" and because they are also identified by the corresponding names from the preceding string list in Nabnitu XXXII. 1,5: nls tuhri; 5, 7: sëru 2, 6: isartu; 1, 6: salsatu 3, 7: embûbu; 2, 7 rebûtu 4, 1: nîd qabli; 1, 3: isqu 5, 2: qablltu; 2, 4: titur qabllti 6, 3: kitmu; 3, 5: titur isarti 7 4: pitu; 4, 6: serdû The strings in each pair are either two, three, four, or five strings apart. The eighth and ninth strings are not used in this document, and where one would expect them, the first and second strings appear instead (as in salsatu, where after 1, 5, 5, 7, and 2, 6 we would expect 6, 8, but 1, 6 appears), suggesting a heptatonic scale."*^ This hypothesis was confirmed by the discovery of the Tuning Text,"*** in which, in response to the condition isartu or qablltu is not "clear," the musician is instructed to adjust both string 2 and string 9, from which it can be inferred that those two strings are separated by an octave. The instructions in the Tuning Text can be understood physically and musically if the heptatonic scale is diatonic, like our do, re, mi,... scale or the white keys on a piano. In that case, making the (2,6) string pair sound "clear" would mean to tune the pair to a perfect fifth (the interval between do and sol. 45. 46. 47. 48.

Kilmer, "The Strings of Musical Instruments." A. D. Kilmer, "Two New Lists of Key Numbers for Mathematical Operations," Or 29 (1960) 273-308. Kilmer, "The Strings of Musical Instruments," 265, 266. Gurney, "An OB Treatise on the Tuning of the Harp."

108

JEROME COLBURN

representing a frequency ratio of 3:2). Making the (5, 2) pair "clear" would mean to tune to a perfect fourth {do and fa, representing a frequency ratio of 4:3).^^ The requirement to adjust both strings 2 and 9 to make isartu clear also shows that, for the author of the Tuning Text, the concept of isartu was not restricted to strings 2 and 6, which define isartu in CBS 10996, but included string 9 as well. Likewise, qablltu included string 9 as well as strings 2 and 5. Evidently, the term "string pair" is too restrictive for these entities. We can dare to generalize that each name from CBS 10996 comprised not only the minimal two strings named in that text but also all the octaves of those strings available on a given instrument. As a result, the term "string set" is used in this article rather than "string pair." The term "set" also includes sets that contain only one member—that is, single strings—and it is used in that expanded meaning in this article as well. A "sequence of string sets" therefore may include any combination of single strings and string "pairs." In light of the foregoing considerations, in the present article the string sets defined in CBS 10996 as the pairs (1,5), (2,6), (3, 7), (4,1), (5, 2), (6, 3), (7, 4) are referred to collectively as "fifths/fourths." The other string sets listed in CBS 10996 are referred to as "thirds/sixths." It should be noted that the sevenstringed minimal representation CBS 10996 is a later simplification, not only because it was written later than the Tuning Text but because the rearmost string it mentions, string 7, is still called saisi uhri as if there were two more strings behind it. Below the list of strings, the first column of Nabnitu XXXII contains the beginning of a list of the fifths/fourths, each one followed by its sehpum: isartum, sehep isartim; kitmum, sehep kitmim, and so forth, as further discussed in the text of this article. The instrument (or category of instruments) described by these two texts is variously referred to in modern publications as a harp or a lyre. That is, it comprises more than a few strings, and each string simply produces one pitch that is not altered by fingering techniques. Without any intent of opening a detailed organological discussion beyond the scope of this article,"" the term "lyre" is occasionally used here as a convention, but in most instances the word "instrument" is used instead. In every diatonic scale, one of the fifths/fourths cannot be perfect. Called an augmented fourth, a diminished fifth, or a tritone, the offending interval lies between fa and ti in the major scale, or between F and B on the white keys. This fact is essential to interpreting the Tuning Text. In each step, one starts with a lyre in a state named after one of the fifths/fourths; observes that another one of the fifths/fourths is not "clear"; and adjusts one of the strings in the not-clear fifth/fourth, leaving the lyre in a new state described by the name of another fifth/fourth. The modern counterpart of the procedure is changing the F-B interval to a perfect fourth by making the F sharp or the Bflat.The steps proceed in one direction in the first series of the Tuning Text and in the opposite direction in the second series. The state called isartum, "normal," is the endpoint of the first series and the beginning of the second. In the isartum state, the not-clear fifth/fourth is (5, 2). One can therefore represent these tuning states (called "scales" in this article) by modern key signatures, using the white-key "natural" scale to represent the Babylonian "normal" scale. If the first string of the lyre was the lowest in pitch, then the second string corresponds to F, the fifth string to B, and the second series of the Tuning Text, which begins by changing the second string in "normal," corresponds to adding sharps beginning with F#. However, converging lines of evidence indicate that the first string was the highest in pitch, not the lowest.^' In

49. D. Wulstan, "The Tuning of the Babylonian Harp," Iraq 30 (1968) 215-28. 50. See now Michalowski, "Learning Music." 51. R Vitale, "La musique suméro-accadienne: gamme et notation musicale," UF 14 (1982) 241-63; 0. R Gurney, "Babylonian Music Again," Iraq 46 (1994) 101-6; see also A. D. Kilmer, "Continuity and Change in the Ancient Mesopotamian Terminology for Music and Musical Instruments," in Studien zur Musikarchäologie II, ed. E. Hickmann, I. Laufs, and R Eichmann (RahdenWestf.: Marie Leidorf, 2000), 114, 116.

THE NIPPUR MUSIC-INSTRUCTION FRAGMENTS

109

(a) Strings: Nabnitu XXXIIfirstsection 1 2 3 4 ©

n

331 ISSZ

qudmû

samusu salsu qatnu abanû

(b) Fifths/Fourths: CBS 10996 1,5 2,6

hamsu

3,7

4,1

-©-©-

331 32:

-©-

-©-

351 331

nis tuhri

isartu

embubu

nid qabli

(c) Thirds/Sixths: CBS 10996 5,7 6,1 -e-

rebi uhri saisi uhri sini uhri

7,2

5,2*

6,3

7,4

-©-

331

331

qablitu 2,4

1,3

uhru

kitmu

pitu

3,5

4,6

331 ZS31

seru

salsatu

rebûtu

isqu

(d) Tunings (Scales): UET VII74, VI/3 899 isartu kitmu

embubu

331 331

-©-©-

isartu uncl. loosen 6

nîd qabli 33:

pitu unclear loosen 4

pitu »O-

kitmu uncl. loosen 3

nîs tuhri 1?rr

serdû

331

-©-

qablîtu unclear loosen 2,9

titur qabliti titur isarti

,

33: 331

nid qabli unclear loosen 1,8

embubu uncl. loosen 7 ,

qablîtu 35:

nîs tuhri unclear

Fig. 5. Strings, string pairs, and tunings represented in staff notation on the baritone clef.

that case the second string corresponds to B, the fifth string to F, and the second series begins by flattening B. The five lines and four spaces on a modern staff are attractive as a representation of the nine strings of the lyre. If the first string was highest, the top line of the staff must represent C, which could be indicated by a C clef on the top line or by an F clef on the middle line, one line lower than its position when it is used as the ordinary bass clef. The latter, known as a baritone clef, is supported by the software the present author is using and therefore is used here. The strings, string sets, and tunings discussed here are summarized in this staff notation infig.5. The staff notation, of course, remains misleading in that we do not know what the actual pitches of the strings were, but the representation is valid for the relationships between the pitches. Under this representation the instrument is a transposing instrument, with the amount of transposition unknown.

z u DEN AKKADISCHEN HEMEROLOGIEN AUS HATTUSA {CTH 546), TEIL I. EINE HEMEROLOGIE FÜR DAS „RUFEN VON KLAGEN" {SIGÛ SASÛ) UND DAS „REINIGEN SEINES GEWANDES" {SUBÄT-SU UBBUBU): KUB 4, 46 (+) KUB 43, 1 Jeanette C. Finche {Leiden}

Die hethitischeu Gelehrten in Hattusa zeichnen sieb durch eine modern anmutende Haltung zu den geistigen Errungenschaften ihrer Epoche aus, denn sie beschäftigten sich nicht nur mit ihrer eigenen Kultur sondern auch mit derjenigen der angrenzenden Länder, Ein besonderes Augenmerk wurde dabei auf Mesopotamien gelegt, weil hier die beiden Dialekte des Akkadischen—Bab\loniscb und Assyrisch—gesprochen wurden, welches zur damaligeu Zeit als Ungua franca im ganzeu Vorderen Orient bis hin nach Ägypten aligemein anerkannt war. Um mit anderen Ländern in Kontakt zu treten, war das Beherrschen des Akkadischen unverzichtbar. Somit mußten sowohl diejenigen Kaufleute, welche mit Mesopotamien und Syrien Handel trieben, als auch hohe Offiziere, viele Diplomaten, internationale Kuriere und eine bestimmte Gruppe von Schreibern diese Sprache nicht nin- sprechen, sondern zum Teil auch schreiben und lesen können. Ihre Ausbildung erfolgte in ihrem Heimatland—wohl zunächst hauptsächlich in der hethitischen Hauptstadt—nach mesopotamischem Vorbild, indem Texte des babytonischen Schul-Curriculums im Unterricht durchgenommen und anschließend entweder ab- oder nach Diktat bzw. aus dem Gedäcbtnis niedergeschrieben wurden'. Gelegentlich wurden auch Übersetzungen

Diese Untersiichnng ist im Rahmen des von Wilfred H. van Soldt, Leiden, geleiteten Projektes Transfer of Knowledge in a Cuiwifiirm Culture entstandeii, das von der Nedcriandse Organisa tic i:<x)r Wí'fL'nsc¡ia¡)}x.'tijk Onàvrzoi-k (NWO) finanziell und in Zusiinimeiiarheit mit dem Leiden ¡uHlitute jor Area Studies (LIAS) orftani.siert wird. Nicole Pleitee, Würzburg, .sei an dieser Stelle für ibre krilisclie Durchsiebt des Manu.skriptes gedankt. In die.sem Artikel verwendete Abkürzungen, die AHiv oder CAD nicht verzeichnen, sind fcilgende; ßB^^O = Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1987-); CTH = Emmanuel P. Laroehe, Calaliigue des textes hittites [Paris; Éditions Klincksieck. 1971); Emar VI.4 = D. Arnaud, Reclierclies au ¡xiijs d'Astata. Emar Vi/-í. Textes de la bibliothhfue: transcriptions et traductions, Mission Archéologique de Meskéné-Emar {Paris: Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987); HZL = C Rüster und E. Neu. Hethitisches Zcichenlexikon {Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989), 1, Für das babvlonischt' Sehul-Curriculum und die damit verbundenen Lehrmethoden vgl. zuletzt umfassend P D. Gesehe, Schulunterricht in Babylonien im ersten Jahrlausend v. C/ir, AOAT275 {Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001).

111

JCS Hl {2(K>9)

112

JEANETTE C. FINCKE

ins Hethitische angefertigt und entweder dem akkadi.schen oder sumerischen Text der Vorlage in einer zu.sätzlichen Kolumne beigefügt" oder auf einer gesonderten Tafel festgehalten^. Einige Werke der mesopotamischen Literatur sind unter den in Hatttisa aufgefundenen Tontafelu ausschließlich in der hethiti.schen Übersetzung bzw. Adaption überliefert'', andere hethitischsprachige Werke zeigen einen eindeutigen mesopotamischen Hintergrund'', Während der althethitischen Zeit wurden sogar hethitische Erzählungen in akkadischer Sprache niedergeschrieben, ohne daü sich eine hethitiscbe Version— sofern eine solche existierte—erhalten hat*^. Die ersten Lehrer des Akkadischen' kamen wahrscheinlich aus dem mit dem hethitischen Reich eng verbundenen Syrien**, möglicherweise auch aus Mesopotamien^ bzw. Babylonien'" selbst. Die von ihnen ausgebildeten Hethiter übernahmen dann später selbst

2. Dies ist besonders bei einif^en lexikalischen Listen (z. B. CTH 300, 301 und 302) sowie bei einigen Konfipositionen der Weisheitslitpratnr {CTI! 315 und 316), Hvmnen {CTH 314), Gebeten (C77Í 312), Ritualen' (CTH 792) und Texten aus dem Bereicb der Divination [CTll "333, Ü47 549 und 552) der Fall. 3. Dies findet sich /. B. beim Cilgames-Epos ICTII341 ) sowie bei vielen Omentexten, \%]. hierfür z. B. K. K. Riemschneider, DU' akkadischen und hethitischen Omenlextc aus Bagazköy, DBH 12 (Dresden: Techni.sche Universität Dresden, 2004) (unveränderte Publikation des vorläutigen Manuskripts seiner Habilitationsschrift aus dem Jahre 1973'; vgl. hierfür SMEA 46/2 |2004| 216Anm. 2). 4. Vgl. z. B. das mr tóm/ian-Epos [CTH 310) (vgl. hierzu zuletzt E. Rieken, J > r hetbitische .sar-tom/iäri-Text: arcbaisch oder archaisierend?", in Akten des IV internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie Würzhwg, 4.-8. Oktnlx-r 7999, Hrsg. G. Wilhelm. StBoT 45 IWie.sbiiden; Ilarrassowitz, 2001|, 576-85), die Erzählung um Nariîm-Sîn in Anatolien (CTH 311 ) und der AtnmihäsisMytbos {CTH 347). 5. In diesem Zusammenhang sind die aus Babylonien importierten und ins Hethitische übersetzten Rituale zu nennen, wie z. B. das Krs;itzkönigs!itual (vgl. H. M. Kümmel, Ersalzritnale für den lietintischen König. StBoT 3 ¡Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967), das ..Rituel contre l'insomnie" (so CTH 432; vgl. Pb. 11. J. llouwink ten Gate in SÍÍÍ and Sanction in israA and Meso^xitamia: A Comparative Study, Hrsg. K. van der Toom. Studia semitica neerlandica 21 [As.sen: Van Gorcum, 1985|, 125-33, und G. Beckman, „A Hittite Ritual for Depre.s.sion {CTH 432)" in Tahiilaria Hcthacorum: Hethitische Beiträge Silvhi Konak zum 65. Geburtstag, Hrsg. D. Groddek nnd M. Zorman, Dre.sdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 25 ¡Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2()07|, 69-81) sowie die kító/í-Hituale (vgl. G. Beckman, Jrhe '"/«(/»/f-Ritiiiil" from Bogazköy {CTH 718)". in Receiit Develojnm'uts in Hittite Archacotogy and History. Pa}iers in Memory of Hans C Cüterbock, Hrsg. K. A. Yener inid H. A. Hotfner Ir. |W^inon¡i Uike, IN: Ki sen brau ns, 20021,35-41). 6. Vgl. z. B. die althethitische historiographische Erzäbinng von der Belagerung von ürsu in akkadiscber Sprache, vgl, hierfür zuletzt G. Beckman, „The Siege of Ursu Text {CTH 7)", ICS 47 (1995) 23-34 Das Feblen einer entsprechenden betbitiscben Version kann aber auch zufällig sein. 7. Mit den mtiglichen Traditionswegen akkadischer Literatur nach Hattusa haben sich mehrere Wissenschaftler be.schäftigt, vgl. 7,. B. G Beckman, „Mesopotamians and Mesopotamian Learning at Hattusa", jCS 35 (1983) 97-114; A. Arthi, ..Hethitische Mantik und ihre Beziehungen zur mesojxitami.schen Manlik", in Meso}X)tamieii und seine Nachbarn Hrsg. H. Kühne, H. J. Nissen und J. Renger. BBVO I {- CRRAI 25) (Berlin: Reimer, 1987), 279-93; G Wilhelm, Mcdizinisclw Omina aus Hatlusa ht akkadischer Sprache, StBoT 36 (Wiesbaden: Harrassovi itz, 1994), 1-18. Den Fokus auf die Paläographie derjenigen akkiidiscli geschriebenen Texte, welche nicht zur St hiilausbildung gehören, wie z. B. die akkadisehcn Fassungen helhitisfber Staat.svcrträge oder Briefe, legt J. Klinger, „Wer lehrte die Hethiter das Schreiben?", in ///. Vlunlararasi iiiütoloji kongresi bildirleri Corum ¡6-22 Eyliil 1996 - Acts üf tbe UIrd International Congress of Hitlitoh)gy Çorum. 16-22 September ¡996, Hrsg. S. Alp und A. Süel (Ankara, 1998), 365-75; S. 370-72 weist er nach, daii einer der filihesten datierbaren Texte der Hethiter in akkadischer Sprache, derjenige akkadiscbe Brief yattnsilis !.. welcher im syrischen Tikunani gefunden wnrde, nicht von einem Hethiter geschrieben wurde, Daraus schliefet er. daft es zu jener Zeit noch keine Spezialisten für das Abfassen akkadischer Texte in Hattusa gab. 8. Der Eintluli syri.siber Scbreiber auf das im hethitischen Königreich gefundene Schrifttum geht mindestens bis ins 17, Jb. V. Chr. zurück, als die Hethiter die Keilschrift übernahmen, vgl. Beckman, jCS 35 (1983) 100; vgl. aber auch K. Hecker, „Zur Herkunft der hethitischen Keilscbriff, SCCNll 8 (1996) 291-303, der die syriscben Zeichenformen bereits im /räiii/ii-zeitlichen Anatolien nachweisen kann. Wäbrend der mittelhethitischen Zeit läEt sich ein erneuler Import von Schrifttum ans Syrien nachweisen, vgl. Beckman, jCS 35, 102-11. 9. Vgl. hierfür die hetbitiscben Übersetzungen mesopotamiscber Epen und Hymnen, die auf altbabylonische Vorlagen zurückgehen müssen, vgl. bierfür Beckman,^CS 35 (1983J 100-102. Diese Vorlagen könnten zwar von syrischen Gelehrten nach IJattu.sa mitgebracht worden sein, ein direkter Kontakt von Hethitern mit mesopotamiscben Spezialisten sollte ahcr nicht au.sgeschtiLssen werden. 10. Klinger, Acts of tbe Hlrd International Congress of hittitolngy Çorum (1996), 374, kommt zu dem Ergebnis, daß die „bei den Hethitern gebräuchliche Keiiscbrift ... auf eine Fonn der altbabylonischen Kursi\'f zurüi k|geht|. die älter ist als die im nordsyrischen Raum zur Zeit Hattusilis I. gebräuchliche". Das bedeutet, dafe im Verlauf der althethittschen Zeit eine neue Gruppe von Lehrern wohl direkt aus Babylonien zu den Hethitern gekommen sein muß.

DEN ARKADISCHEN HEMEROLOGIEN AUS HATTUSA (CTH 546). TEIL 1.

113

den Unterricht in der hethitischen Hauptstadt. Andere Lehrer kamen in der Eolgezeit direkt aus Mesopotamien" oder aus dem hurritischen Kulturraum'" wie z. B. aus dem Großreich Mittani, dem Land Nuhasso'' oder dem stark htirritisch beeinflußten und im Südosten des hethitischen Großreiches gelegenen Land Kizzuwatna''', Einige der akkadischen Texte aus Hattusa wurden von den Lehrern seihst geschriehen, andere von ihren Schülern, Weil Akkadisch-Lehrer zu unterschiedlichen Zeiten und aus unterschiedlichen Orten nach Hattusa kamen' ' und an den Sc hulen der verschiedenen Länder jeweils eine andere Ausprägung der Keilst hrift gelehrt wurde, finden sich unter den akkadischen Tafeln aus Hattusa Texte mit unterschiedlichem Duktus'*^: spät-alt- (bzw. archaisierender) und mittelbabylonischer Duktus, assyrischer Duktus des 14. Jh.s v. Chr., mittanischer und assyro-mittanischer Duktus'^ sowie spät-alt-, mittel- und junghethitisoher Duktus'^ Im Zuge ihrer Beschäftigung mit dem babylonischen Schrifttum studierten die Hethiter auch die in Mesopotamien übliche Art der Divination, indem sie diese sowohl in der Originalsprache lasen und tradierten, als auch ins Hethitische übersetzten'"'. Während die Hethiter in der Regel provozierte Diviiiationstechniken durt hfiihrten, waren in Mesopotam ¡sehen die un provozierten Methoden von größerer Bedeutung, sofern man die Menge an Schriftzeugnissen als Hinweis auf das Ansehen innerhalb der Gesellschaft intei-pretieren daif. Das bedeutet, daß die Hethiter neben der Eingeweideschau verstärkt das Verhalten von Tieren und anderen Objekten in einer speziell arrangierten oder definierten Umgebung beobachteten und nach vorher festgelegten Vorgaben als positiv oder negativ deuteten^". Diejenigen

11. Die Anwesenheit meso[X)tamischer Schreiber in Hattusa kann für die niittelhethitis(he Zeit nachgewiesen werden; währtMid der Croßreitliszeil arbeiteten mehrere assyrische und bahylonische Experten in der hethitischen Hanptstadt, vgl. Bet-kniim, JCS 35 ÍI983) 102-lÜ, hes. 108 (Liste mit den Namen der Spezialisten aus den entsprechenden Liindern), 12. Vgl. in diesem Zusammenhang z. B. die in HattuSa aufgefnndenen Omentexte in hunitischer Sprache, vgl. hierfür zuletzt S. de Marti no,/J/i" umnÜHchen 7Í!if(',ChS 1/7 (Roma: Bfinsijinori, 1992). Bei den Eingeweideschaucimina venvenden die hnnitisehen Texte sumeri.sfhe termuii tevhuicu während die vergleichbaren hethitischen Texte diese dnreh hurritisehe ersetzen. Darans läKt sich ein Traditionswefi von Mesopotamien nher die Hurriter zu den Hethitern nachzeichnen, vgl. de Martino, Die Texk', 3-4. Vjrl. ferner J. KHiifier, „Die hurritisehe Tradition in Haltusa und das Corpus hui ritischer Texte", in Kiiltin^ Altonetitaüscfie Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geiur/stog, Hrsg. T. Richter et ai, (Saarbrücken: Saarbnit ker Dnickerei, 2001), 197-208. 13. Vgl, z. B. die beiden Tafeln mit hethitischen Omina KVB8, 29 (Mondomina] und KBa 10, 7 (Eingeweidesehan: KI.CUB), die beide von Schreibern mit hurritischem Namen aus Nnhasie gesehtieben wurden, was vermuten läßt, daK sie selbst den Text zuvor aus dem Akkadischen ins Hethitisehe übersetzt hatten. Oh die in llatttisa anwesenden Gelehrten aus Nuhaä5e auch Akkadiseh unterriehteten, läßt sich anham! der Belegla^e natürlich nicht nachweisen. 14. Vgl hierfür aueh J, L. Miller, .SÍHÍ/ÍCT in theOiights. Dc-vchpiiwut and liiteqm'tatitm of the Kizzmtxitna Rituals, StBoT 46 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 20Ü4), und R. StrauR, Rciriigtinguriten aus Kizzuicatna (Berlin: de Griiyter^ 2006). 15. Einen Überblick über die zeitliche Verteilung der einzelnen Textgenera akkadisi her Lileratur in IJattu.sa gibt Beckman, ;CS35 (19831 97-114. mit u-eiterer Literatur. 16. Vgl.J. Klinger, ..Zur Paläographie akkadisehsprachiger Texte aus Hattusa", in Hittite Studies in Honor of Hairy A. Hoffner ¡r. mi the Occasion of his fíStli Hirthday, Hrsg. G. Bt^ckman I't al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbranns. 2003), 238-48, der sieh vorwiegend mit den akkadisch gescbriehenen Staatsveilrägen aus Hattusa be.sehäftigt und herausgefunden hat, daß z. B. einige der Abschriften von Staat.sverträgen Suppiluliumas I. in akkadischer Sprache aus demjenigen Land stammen, mit welehem der Vertrag geschlossen wurde, nnd damit die Schreibertradition des jeweiligen Vertragsiandes widerspiegelt. 17. Für die Unterscheidung von assyro-mittanischem, niittanischem und as.syri.schem Duktus des 14. Jh. vgl. die Paläogfapbie von D. Sehwempr. Akkadische Ritiiahaiis Hattusa, THcth 23 (Heidelberg: Winter, 199S), 17-39. 18. Vgl. hierfür die Zeichenlisten in C. Rüster nnd E. Neu, Ufiliitischt's Zeicheulcxikon (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989); C. Rüster. Helliilisclic K('il.\chrift,-Pal(iogra})hie, StBoT 2(1 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972); F. Starke, Die kcilNchriftliiu^ischcii Texte in Ihiiscimtl StBoT 30 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1985), 59, 82.110.142. 219. 302 (vgl. auch besonders S. 21-31). 19. Beekman,yCS35 (1983) 101, hält alle akkadischon divinatorisehen Texte ans HattuSa fin" ursprünglich direkt aus Mesopotamien importiert. Die.se Einschätzung kann nach den inzwi.schen erfolgten Stndien der divinatorisehen Texte so nicht mehr aufreiht erhalten werden, vgl. hierfür z. B. oben Anm. 12 (für Eingeweide-Omina) sowie Wilhelm, StBoT 36 (1994), 2-3, 5 (für diagnosUsch-prognostis( he Omina) nnd U. Koch-Westen holz, „Mesopotamian Astrology at Hattusas" in Die Rollt' der Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesojiotamicns. Hrsg. H. D. Galtcr. Cirazer Morgen land i sehe Studien 3 (Graz: mi-Drvick- & Verlag.sgesellschaft, 1993). 232-35 (für asttologische Omina). 20. Vgl. hierfür die Übersieht liber die entsprechenden Techniken von Th. van den Hont, ..Omina (Omens). B, Bei den Hethitern", RIA 10 (Berlin: de Gruvter, 2003-2005), 88-90.

T

114

JEANETTE C. FINCKE

Texte, welche derartige Verfahren beschreiben, werden in der Hetbitologie als Orakeltexte oder mantische Texte bezeichnet. In Mesopotamien wurden hingegen eher 7Atfällig beobachtete Erscheinungen am Himmel und auf der Erde als ominöse Zeichen betrachtet. Weil in Mesopotamien jede.s ominöse Zeichen als von den Göttern hervorgerufen galt, mußte jedes einzelne Zeichen eine ganz spezielle Bedeutung haben und konnte nicht einfach als positiv oder negativ gewertet werden. Die korrekte Interpretation dieser Zeichen war Aufgabe von Spezialisten, die ihr im Laufe der Zeit durch Erfahrung immer stärker anwachsendes Wissen in Handbüchern zusammenstellten. Als Eorm für ihre Aufzeichnungen wählten die Spezialisten den Konditionalsatz, bei dem das zu beobachtende ominöse Zeichen im mit summa, „wenn'\ eingeleiteten Vordersatz (Protasis), nnd die entsprechende Vorhersage im nachfolgenden Hauptsatz (Apodosis) steht"'. Mit den Omentexten eng verwandt sind die Hemerologien^l Während die Omentexte ominöse Zeichen beschreiben und hinsichtlich ihrer Bedeutung für zukünftige Geschehnisse deuten, stehen in den Hemerologien Ge- tmd Verbote für bestimmte Handlungen an einzelnen Tagen des Jahres, die gegebenenfalls von Vorhersagen über die persönliche Konsequenz bei Nichtbeachtung der Vorschrift begleitet werden. Die Verbalformen in den Protasen der Omentexte stehen demnach in der 3. Person oder im Stativ, während diejenigen der Hemerologien bei den Vorschriften nnd Verboten im Prekativ oder Imperativ bzw. Prohibitiv, bei den Vorhersagen hingegen in der 3. Person oder im Stativ stehen. Besonders fragmentarisch erhaltene Texte beider Gruppen können demnach auf den ersten Blick identisch erscheinen. Der Unterschied läßt sich oft nur bei denjenigen Texten erkennen, bei denen die Verben nicbt logographisch, sondern syllabi.sch geschrieben werden. Dieser Umstand sowie die Tatsache, daß in beiden Textgattungen Vorhersagen über die Zukunft von Individuen enthalten sind bzw. sein können, hat dazu geführt, daß sowohl Omentexte als auch Hemerologien zur Gruppe der divinatori.scben Texte gezählt werden. Entsprechend hat E. Laroche^^ alle akkadischen und hethitischen Omentexte, Hemerologien sowie die hethitischen Orakeltexte im Kapitel „Divination" unter den Nummern CTH 531560 zusammengestellt und nach Inhalt geordnet. Die seit Erscheinen von CTH publizierten Texte aus iJattusa wurden jeweils den von Laroche etablierten CTH-Nummern zugeordnet. Mit zwei Eragmenten aus der Gruppe der divinatorischen Texte aus Hattu.sa, die beide von derselben Tafel mit einer Hemerologie .stammen, beschäftigt sich die vorliegende Studie: KUB4, 46 (Bo 2196) ist das Fragment einer akkadi.schen Hemerologie (CTH 546.5), die sich auf das „Rufen von Klagen" (vgl. Z. 13: si-gu lil-^si^) bezieht. Die Anordnung des Textes auf der Tafel ist außergewöhnlich, denn die Zeilen sind über je vier Kolumnen hinweg ge.scbrieben; In der ersten steht i-na, in der zweiten der Monat, in der dritten der Tag (genannt wird nur der 15. Tag), und in der vierten Kolumne, von der nur der linke Abschnitt mit den Anfängen der Sätze erhalten ist, folgen die Ver- und Gebote bzw. Vorbersagen. Auf dem als KVB 43, 1 (Bo 1787) publizierten akkadischen Omenfragment (CTH 560,1). bei dem der Ansatz des oberen Randes erkennbar ist, sind drei Kolumnen vollständig erhalten: Die linke enthält Anweisungen und Vorhersagen, gefolgt von einer Kolumne, in welcher i-na steht, an die sich eine weitere anschließt, in welcher der Monat steht. Von der ersten Kolumne des Stückes ist am linken Rand des Fragmentes nur der rechte Abschnitt erhalten. Dennoch ist genug Text zu lesen, um das Stück als Hemerologie zu bestimmen und als vorrangig behandeltes Thema das „Rufen von Klagen" (vgl. Z. 1,3: [sigû U] Isi) und das „Reinigen seines Gewandes" (vgl. Z. 1, 3, 5: TÚG-sú DADAG) zu erkennen. 21. Für die Gleichförmigkeit des FomiuLirs dieser Omensätze mit dein jen i^cn der ¡ikkudischen Gesetzestexlp und dem dieser Übereinstininiung míifííicherweise zugrundeliegenden Q'danken vgl. zuletzt j. ('. Fincke, „Onniiit, die göttlichen „Gesetze" der Divination", j£0/. 40 (2006-2007) 131-47. 22. Einen ersten Überblic k iihev diese Textgruppe bietet R. Labat, „Hemerolf^ien". RIA 4 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972-1975), 317-23. 23. E. Laroche, CTH (1971).

z u DEN AKKADISCHEN HEMEROLOGIEN AUS HATTUSA {CTH 546), TEIL T.

115

Der gleichartige Aufbau beider Fragmente—bei KUB 43,1 feblt nur diejenige Kolumne, in welcher der Tag bezeichnet wird—sowie die Überschneidungen in Her behandelti'n Thematik macht die Zusammengehörigkeit zur selben Tafel wahrscheinlich, obwohl die Kopien der einzelnen Stücke auf den ersten Blick keine Übereinstimmung erkennen lassen: KUB 4, 46 ist von Ernst E Weidner in einer stark sy.stematisieiien Art kopiert worden, während KUB 43,1—aus der Hand von Ka.spar K. Riemschneider— auf den ersten Blick in einem anderen Duktus geschrieben scheint. Von beiden StiU ken ist der Fundort luibekannt, .so dais die Möglichkeit, über diesen eine Zusammengehörigkeit zu bestimmen, ausscheidet, Weil nur für KUB 4, 46 ein Photo zur Verfügung stand (vgl. die Online-Datenbank mit der ,JConkordanz der hethitischen Texte" des Hethitologie Portal Mai7iz ¡online; http://www,hethport.uni-wuerzburg,de/ hethkonk/|). hat Jared Miller im Sommer 2008 freundlic'he!"vteise XL'ß43, 1 in Ankara für mich angesehen tind photographiert. Für seine Hilfshereit.schaft möchte leb ihm auf diesem Wege ganz herzlich danken. Der Vergleich beider Photos ergibt, dais die Oberfläche von KUB 4,46 leicht abgerieben ist, während die Keile auf dem Fragment KUB 43, 1 noch scharf eingetieft sichtbar sind, wodurch auf den ersten Blick der Eindruck zweier unterschiedlicher Handschriften entsteht. Daß beide Fragmente dennoch von derselben Tafel stammen, zeigt sich unter anderem daran, daß auf beiden Fragmenten die Linien für die Koiumnentrenner nicht parallel, sondern in zum Teil recht stark abweichenden Winkeln zueinander gezogen winden. Die Linien scheinen zudem nicht in einem Arbeitss( hritt mit einem Lineal oder einer Schnur erzeugt worden zu sein, denn sie sind zum oberen Rand beider Fragmente hin stark gebogen. Bei dem erhaltenen Abschnitt dürfte es sich um die Vorderseite der Tafel handeln, denn der Schreiber hat die Kohminen in der linken Tafelhälfte (= KUB 4, 46) noch einwandfrei konzipiert, so daß die Keile direkt neben den Kolumnentrennern beginnen, während er auf der rechten Hälfte {= KUB 43,1) in Platznot geriet und für diejenige Kolumne, welche das Wort ina enthalten sollte, zu wenig Platz vorgesehen hat, wodiin h die Keile von i- bereits direkt auf dem Koiumnentrenner beginnen mußten. Um diese Eigentümlichkeiten der Tafel deutlich zu machen, habe ich mit Hilfe des von Jarcd Miller aufgenommenen Photos und demjenigen der Online-Datenbank die beigefügte Kopie angefertigt, KUBA, 43 {+) KUB4Q,l ist Bruchstück einer akkadi.schen Hemerologie, die sich in der linken Kolumne auf Has Rufen von Klagen in Verbindung mit Hem Reinigen Hes Gewandes bezieht; das Thema der rechten Kolumne läßt sich nicht ermitteln, Bevor auf den Inhalt dieser Hemerologie näher eingegangen wird, soUeu zunächst Orthographie und Paläographie Her Fragmente in Hinblick auf die Herkunft Her Tafel untersucht werHen. Orthographie Bei Hen Vorhersagen für das Individuum vei*wendct Her Schreiber von KUB4. 46 ( + ) KUB4S, 1 Hie besonHers in divinatorischen Texten aus Hattusa, Ugarit und Emar zu findende Schreibung ZA für atnclu, \ Das bedeutet, daß Her Schreiber dieser Tafel aus dem Bereich dieser drei Kulturzentren

24. Dem neubahvlonischen .^Berlin Vocabulary VAT 244" zufolge ist ZA neben dem eiiifathen sKiikiechten Keil SANTAK das im Ladfl Snhi—SC. dem ö.stlicK an Muri anschlieBenden Land am miltleren Euphrat zwiischen Rapiqti und Hindiinii—geläufifie Logogramm für ..Mann", vgl. Rs. iv 3f.; ZA | MIN (sv. a-nte-lu) EME SUH.A, 4; m-an-tak DIS | MIN (sc. a-mi-lü) EME SÜH.A (vgl. G. A. Reisner, ZA 9 |1894| 163). Die Gleichung von ZA mit amelu findet .sich auch in der Li.ste LÚ = Sa Tafel I Z. 14 (ZA | a-mi-lu), vgl. MSL XII 93, in der Serie Ea = nâqn Tafel I Z. 20 (za-a \ ZA | |MIN| {sc. za-zu-u) \ a-nii-Ui), hier hereits in der mittelassyri.scheii Version, vgl. MSL XIV 176, sowie in Proto-Ea Zeile 167 {za-a \ ZA], vgl. MSL XIV 38, und im Syllahar S'' Tafel I Z. 7 lza~a I ZA | a-mHu). vgl. M.SMII 9fi, Fiir die Verwendung von ZA fiir akkad. amëlu, .,Mann", in Hattusa vgl. ferner den im mittelbabylonisc'hen Duktus geschriebenen Text mit physiognomischen Omina KUB 37, 210, den im assyrischen Duktus des 14, Jh.s v. Chr. grsrh rieben en physiognomischeri Ümentext AfO Beih. 3 Nr. 65 (Bo 6263) und das physiognomische Omenfragment KBo 46, 269 sowie das wohl

116

JEANETTE C. FINCKE

stammt bzw. hier seine Ausbildung zum Schreiber genossen hat^^ Das Fragment KUB 4, 46 zeichnet sich ferner dadurch aus, daß der Schreiber das Wort sigû mit dem Zeichen SI be^^innen läßt und damit nicht der hethitischen Konvention, sondern der korrekten mesopotamischen Schreibweise folgt. Daft es sich bei diesem Fragment nicht um ein Importstück aus Babylonien oder Assyrien bzw. um eine von einem Babylonier oder Assyrer gescbriebene Tafel handelt, läßt sich daran erkennen, daß beim Prohibitiv der 3. Person von sasû die fiir bethitische Scbreiber charakteristische St hreibung der s-haltigen Silben mit s-haltigen Keilschriftzeichen vorhanden ist {lä isem, „er soll nicht rufen"', in der Schreibung NU i-,sii-î,S".si]); bei den anderen hemerologischen Texten aus Hattusa zeigt sieb diese Besonderheit hingegen häufiger beim Nomen sigû als bei der Verbalform von sasû (vgl. KUB 4,44 Vs. 7: si-gu-u und 10: ',si-gH'-|i/|, vgl. aber auch KUB 4, 45 Vs, 5': si-gu-u ú-si+is-sú und 8': si-gii-u ÍÍ-,SÍÍ-I-Í,S-.SÍÍ]). Der Schreiber dürfte eine Vorlage gehabt baben, von der er den Anfang dieser speziellen Phrase korrekt abgeschrieben, sich dann aber auf sein Gedächtnis verlassen hat, wodurch sich die für ihn geläufigere Schreibung einschleichen konnte. Paläographie Die fragliche Tafel ist kein Importstück aus Babylonien, wie sich an der Form des Zeichens TUG im Fragment KUB4S, 1 erkennen läßt; Dieses Zeichen besteht aus insgesamt vier horizontalen Keilen, von denen die mittleren beiden etwas nacb rechts eingerückt sind, und einem abschließenden vertikalen Keil. Die entsprechende alt- oder mittelbabylonische Zeichenform hätte in.sgesamt fünf horizontale Keile baben müssen (vgl. Labat, Manuel d^'pigraphie akkadienne [Paris: Geuthner, ''1988|, Nr, 254), Die Form von TUG zeigt vielmehr die typische hetbitisc he Ausprägung der älteren Zeit (vgl. HZL Nr, 212, erstes Beispiel). Auch das Zeichen KI des Fragmentes KUB 4.46 Vs. i 10 läßt sich mit dem althethitischen Zeichen des Zidanza-Vertrages der Ilethifisciwn KeiLschrift-Paiäographie von C, Rüster (StBoT20 [1972], 192) vergleichen. Das Zeichen HI/DUG in KUB áS, 1 präsentiert mit der Sequenz von vier schrägen über einem schrägen Keil eine Variante, die der Keilschrift-Paläographie zufolge sowohl in der althethitischen als auch in der späten Großreichszeit Verwendung fand (vgl. StB<)T20 [1972|, Nr, 267). Im Hetliitischen Zeichenlexikon (IIZL) von C, Rüster und E. Neu erscheint diese Ausprägung des Zeichens HI hingegen im mittleren Bereich der Sequenz, was zwar nicht auf eine exakte Datierung deutet, aber Hinweise auf eine relative Cbronologie bietet und damit im Widerspnich zur KcHschrift-Paläographie steht. Das E von KUB 4, 46 Vs. i 6 läßt sich am ehesten mit demjenigen des Arnuyanda-Vertrages (vgl. StB()T20 [1972], Nr. 157) vergleichen und ist demnach mitteihethitisch zu datieren. Das Zeichen KAM in KUB 4, 46 zeigt die Ausprägung mit den sieben schräggestellten Keilen und wird in der Umschrift demnach in Anlehnung an die Zeichenlisten von R. Borger^*^ KAM* umschrieben, Angesichts der Tatsache, daß mit Ausnahme des Zeichens TÚG alle genannten altbethitiscben Zeichenformen auch auf alt- bzw, mittelbabylonische Vorlagen zurückgehen können, möchte man

jnnghethitisoh gesrbriebene hemerologischt- Fragment KUB 4. 44, Vgl. ferner das miltelbabylonische Fragment mit PotenzBeschwöiiingen der Serie SÀ.Z1.GA aus Hattusa KUB 37, 80 (Z. 2', 13'; vgl, R, D, Biggs, SÀZÎ.GA,- AncicJit Mcsopntamian Potency hicantíttitm, TCS II |Locnst Valley, NY: Augustin, 1967], 60). Für Emar vgl, z. B. die mit der späteren Omen.seHe iqqur ipus verwandten ..Menulogien" und Hemerologien fimo/Vl,4 Nr. 610. 611. 613if., 620, 621, 622 und 638. Für Beilege in Ugarit vgl,/,. B, das Fragment mit !errestris<>hen Omina iiS 92.2018 ID, Arnaud, Xhaf'*«* VII 6. Textes de bibliothi-que (n"'' 29-3Í))"', Études Ougaritiques I. Travaux ¡9H5-n)95. Has Shamra-Ougarit XIV |Pads: Édilion Recherche snr les Civilisations, 2001], 334 Nr. 30), 25. Hattusa, llgarit imd Emar gehören dem von A. Arthi, BBVO I (1987), 280-81, als „syrisch-anatoliscbfr Kulturraum" bezeit'bncten Gebiet an, zu dem Arthi alle ..Randgebiete", u. a. aut'h Alalah, hinzuzählt 26, Vgl R, Borger, Aasyrisch-lxibylonische Zeiclienlifite, AÜAT 33/33A (Kevelaer: Verlag Butzoii & Becker; Ntjukinben-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 161 Nr, 406, und ders,, Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon, AOAT 305 (Münster; Ugarit-Verlag, 2003), Nr. 595 und 640,

z u DEN AKKADISCHEN HEMEROLOGIEN AUS HATTUSA {CTH 546), TEIL I.

117

eine Übernahme der entsprechenden Zeichenform von der Textvorlage annehmen, woraus sich eine Datierting des Textes in die mittelhethitische Zeit ergiht. Der Schreiher der Tafel düifte somit Hethiter gewesen sein, Das könnte auch die meikwiirdige Form des Zeichens LIL erklären, eines Zeichens, das im Verlauf der hethitischen Schriftkultur keine hzw. kaum Verändenmgen aufweist (vgl. HZL Nr. 127, dem zufolge für die einzige angegebene Zeichenvariante keine Belegstelle gefunden werden konnte): In dem Fragment KVB 4, 46 hat der Schreiber beim LIL das eingeschriebene SE weggelassen, wodurch das Zeichen die Gestalt von SUKUD erhält. Dieser Fehler läßt sich dadurch erklären, daß LIL in hethiti.schen Texten nur als Logogramm mit der Bedeutung „Narr, Idiot" Verwendtmg findet und entsprechend selten vorkommt. Der Schreiber dieser heme ro logischen Tafel war demnach im Schreiben akkadischer Texte ungettht und konnte als Schüler der zweiten Phase der Schulaushildung nach babylonischem Vorbild, bei welcher das Schreiben ganzer Sätze anhand literarischer Texte geübt wird, betrachtet werden. Das „Rufen von Klagen" Anlaß für das „Rufen von Klagen" bzw. das „Rtifen einer Klage" {¡^igîF sasü) ist meist eine Krankheit. Die Klage richtet sich dabei an eine Gottheit,"^ um die erkrankte Person von denjenigen Unheilsmächten zu befreien, welche als Krankheitsauslöser betrachtet werden; in diesem Zusammenhang werden oft Sünde (arnu), Verfehlung {Ißtu}., Frevel igillatu) und eigenes Verschulden [e-'illu., „[einem Gott gegenüber eingegangene] Verpflichtung") des Betroffenen genannt^^. Das J\ufen einer Klage" kann auch dem Zweck dienen, die Ursache für eine Erkrankung herauszufinden; so heißt es z, B. in einer in Hattusa überlieferten akkadischen Beschwöning;'^" „Um zu eifahren, was ich / er nicht weiß, um meine Schuld zu lösen, um meine Krankheit herauszureißen., um meinen Bann {mämJtu) lösen zu la.ssen, bin ich, eine Klage (zu rufen), (in den Tempel) eingetreten, (nämlich) eine Klage (an) die Götter des Ekur". Im Gegensatz zu den Beschwörungen, die in der Regel von einem Rittialfaihmann rezitiert werden, wird die Klage von dem Betrotfenen selbst „gerufen"^'. Dies kann offensichtlich an jedem beliebigen Ort geschehen. Der Betroffene kann sich aber auch in einen Tempel oder Heiligtum begehen, um seine Klage vor einem Götterbildnis vorzubringen, was mit ami sigû erëbu, „für eine Klage (in ein Heiligtum) eintreten" bezeichnet wird'^". Wird die Klage ohne Einbindung in ein Rittial, z. B, tmbewußt während einer Krankheit^^, oder an einem ungünstigen Tag gerufen*^, kann dies für den Betroffenen

27. Vgl. AHiv 1231b kigù „ein Klageruf' und CAD S II 413-14 ..{a lamentation, a t\pf" of prayerl": sigû ist ein Wort, das nicht flektiert wird. Für .íigi/ \^. auch van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction (1985|, 117-21. und B. Groneberg, _Die Tage des sigû', NABU 1989, 7-10 Nr. 9. 28. Vgl. 7.. B. den Eintrug tur den 26. Tag des Monats abu (V) in Her Hemerologie KAR 178 vii (= Rs. i) 36': 'sigu'-tt ana DINGlR-/ca 'Usu-tdr-ka DÉ ..rufe eine Klage an deinen Gott ¡oder) deine Göttin (gerichtet)"; vgl. auch M. C. Casaburi, um? t^büti Jgioniifavorevolr, History of the Ancient Near East, VIII (Padova: S.a.r.g.o.n. 2003), 73 (§ 173), 29. Vgl. W. Mayer, Untersuchungen zur Fomienspraclie der bahijlnnischen ..Cwel>et.sbeschwönmgen", StP Ser. Maior 5 (Rome: Ponteticio Instituto Hihlico,1976), 111-13. 30. VAT 7445 {KUB IV 47) Rs. 13-15: a-na i-du-u NL' i-du-u a-na ]Xi-Uir ar-ni-i\a\ (14) a-na na-sà-ali GlO-ia a-na su¡)-sur ma»íí-í)-í|íi| 115) si-
118

JEANETTE C. FINCKE

schlimme Folgen haben. Um den Leidtragenden von diesen Folgeschäden zu hefreien, muß ein Löseritual inamburbi) durchgeführt werden'^'. Das „Heilligen seines Gewandes" Das „Reinigen seines Gewandes" HuhCit-su ubbubu) ist eine Tätigkeit, die in verschiedenen Hemerologien angesprochen wird {siehe anschließend). Die Erwähnung in Hemerologien und der Umstand, daß diese Tätigkeit dabei oft neben dem „Rufen von Klagen" genannt wird, weisen darauf hin, daß es sich hierbei nicht um das regelmäßige Säubern der Alltagskleidung handelt, sondern eher um eine rituelle Reinigung. Diese Handlung könnte z. B. in Verbindung mit bereits durchgeführten Löseritualen [namburhi) stehen, in deren Verlauf die Unreinheiten, die dem Menschen und seinem Haus anhaften, beseitigt werden, indem man sie abwäscht; zwei Ritualbeschreibungen zufolge soll die zunächst kultisch gereinigte Person anschließend „ein gereinigtes (Variante; ein anderes) Gewand anziehen"^*^. Die Reinigung des Gewandes könnte aber auch auf das bevorstehende Durchführen eines Rituals hinweisen. So wird z. B. ein Patient vor Beginn des Heilungsrituals zunächst äußerlich von allen Unreinheiten befreit, indem „er sich wäscht und (anschließend) ein reines Gewand anzieht"''\ Somit sind seine äußerlich anhaftenden Unreinheiten bereits beseitigt, und das Ritual kann sich auf die übernatürlichen Unheilsmäcbte konzentrieren, die sich im Körper des Patienten festgesetzt haben und von dort aus die Krankheit verursachen, In jedem Fall dürfte das „Reinigen seines Gewandes" im Zusammenhang mit einem Reinigungsritual zu sehen sein. Hemerologien für das „Kufen von Klagen" und das „Reinigen seines Gewandes" Für das „Rufen von Klagen" iMgü sasû) läßt sich unter den Texten aus Hattu.sa eine weitere Hemerologie auf einer hethitischen Ritualtafel nachweisen; für das „Reinigen seines Gewandes" subät-su ubbubu) gibt es keine entsprechenden Hinweise in den anderen Texten aus hethitischen Städten. Die betreffende Hemerologie findet sich auf einer Tafel, in welcher der Verlauf eines babylonischen Rituals auf Hethitisch beschrieben und die dabei zu sprechenden Gebete in der Originalsprache, i.e. auf Akkadisch, notiert sind. Weil das Klagen in diesem Ritual eine zentrale Rolle spielt und für den Erfolg des „Rufens von Klagen", auf Hethitisch duddu lialzâi-, der richtige Zeitpunkt wesentlich ist'^^ finden sich folgende Hinweise in einem gesonderten Paragraphen (die Transliteration dieser Textpassage folgt der entsprechenden Konvention für hethitische Texte, bei welcher das Akkadische in kursiven Großbuchstaben umschrieben wird):^'"'

35. Vgl. S. M Maul, Zukunftshewältigun^ Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babyUmisch-as&yriscfien iJist'rituale (Namhurhi). BaF 18 (Mainz; von Zubem, 1994), 165-66. 36. Vgl. z. B. (las Schlangen-Nambnrhi 1 Z. 44'-45': TÚG' DADAG *'''¡MU4.MU4-as] „[er zieht] ein reines Gewand |an|" (vgl. Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung il994|, 274) und das Vogel-Nambnrhi 2 Z. 15-16: TÚG-.SI/ ú-iiak-kar "TÚG sa-nam-ma MU4.MU4as „er wechselt sein Gewand, er zieht ein andere.s Gewimd au" {vgl. Maul, Zukunftshewältigung, 236). Kiir die Reinigung im Rahuien eines Löserituals vgl. Maul. Zukunftshcwältigung, 94-100. 37. VAT 13626 {LKA 139) Vs. 11:... i-ra-muk TÚG DADAG MU4-MU4-ÎÏIS.. .|; für das Ritual und seine Paralleltexte vgl. z. B. van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction (1985), 147-54. 38. Ruft jemand eine Khige ohne Einbindung in ein Ritual oder zu einem ungünstigen Zeitpunkt, wird dieses Vergehen von den Göttern mit negativen Entwicklungen im ünanziplten. sozialen oder gesundheitlichen liereich geahndet. Um den Betroffenen von seiner Schuld nnd deren Folgen zu befreien, muß ein Löseritual (namburhí) durchgerCihri werden, vgl. Maul, ZukimftHbewältigun^ (1994), 165-66. 39. Für Bearbeitungen der Tafel siehe- obc^n Anm. 30,

z u DEN AKKADISCHEN HEMEROLOGIEN AUS HATTUSA {CTH 546), TEIL l

KUB 4, 47 Vs. 8 KUB4, 47 Vs. 9

nu ija-as-du-ii du-ud-du hal-za-i i-ia-az-zi-ma-at ki-iHa-an nii A-NA«ITU»'-"' ku-e-da-ni im-maÍTU^''^-»ÍÍ ^du^-ud-du hal-za-^/' nuS

KUB 4, 47 Vs. 10

I-NA UD.5.KAM' I-NA UD.8.KAM* J-NA UD.16.KAM' l-NA UD.26.KAM I-NA UD.28.KAM* (Rasur)

119

„Dann ruft er angesichts seines Vergehens eine Klage und macht (dies) folgendermaßen: Unter den günstigen ''Monaten, in welchem Monat auch immer er eine Klage ruft, ist es günstig: '"Am 5. Tag, am 8. Tag., am 16. Tag, am 26. Tag (und) am 28. Tag ist es günstig." Vergleicht man die Vorgaben dieser Hemerologie mit denjenigen der akkadischen Hemerologie aus Hattu.sa (siehe unten), fallen die unterschiedlichen Tage auf, welche in diesem Zusammenhang betrachtet werden. Der hethitisohen Ritualtafel zufolge sind der 5., 8., 16., 26. und 28. Tag eines jeden Monats von vornherein positiv für das „Rufen von Klagen." Die akkadisthe Hemerologie KUB4, 46 (+) KUB 43, 1 behandelt dementsprechend keinen dieser a priori günstigen Tage, sondern den 15. Tag eines Monats, der entweder positiv oder negativ sein kann. Beide Hemerologien sind also als Ergänzung zueinander zu betrachten. Während in dem hethitischen Ritualtext zwar günstige Monate erwähnt, aber nur die günstigen Tage genau bezeichnet sind, erhält man aus den Texten des 1. Jt.s v. Ghr. vorwiegend Angaben über die entsprechenden Monate. In einer mittelassyrischen Hemerologie aus Assur (KAR 177), die als sog, „Hemerologie für Nazimanitta.s" bekannt wurde/' werden die jeweils günstigen Monate für das Durchführen be.stimniter Handlungen aufgelistet. In zwei aufeinanderfolgenden Paragraphen finden sich dabei Einträge bezüglich des „Reinigens seines Gewandes" und des „Rufens von Klagen": KAR KAR KAR KAR KAR

177 Vs. 177 Vs. 177 Vs. 177 Vs. 177 Vs.

ii 25 ii 26 ii 27 ii 28 ii 29

^TVG^-sü IN.DADAG '™SIG4 '"^^'NE "' ^^ DU^ '^^APIN '"^^ZTZ '"^^'SE SE se-gu-ú GÙ-si '"^^'BÁR ' "'-'NE '"^^^DUg '"'"^APIN ''"'ZÍZi '"^SE SE

j^pjj, Gewand" ist im nisannu, ajjaru, simanu., ahu, tasrltu, arahsamna, sabatu (und) adi/ar« günstig. ^^^ 'Er ruft Klagen" ist im nisannu, simäni, abu, tasntu, arahsamna, sahatu (und) addaru günstig". Im Gegensatz zur akkadischen Hemerologie atis Hattusa KUB 4, 46 ( + ) KUB 4S. 1 wird in dieser mittela.ssyrischen Hemerologie das „Reinigen seines Gewandes" vor dem „Rufen von Klagen" betrachtet. Dennoch macht die Tatsache, daß beide Handlungen direkt nacheinander behandelt werden, eine gewisse Zusammengehörigkeit deutlich. Das „Rufen von Klagen" wird in Verbindung mit dem „Reinigen seines Gewandes" auch auf dem Fragment einer neuassyrisohen Hemerologie aus Ninive (K. 4131 + 7287+9425) behandelt, welches von l\. Labat, Jours prescrits pour la confession des péchés", RA 56 (1962) 1-8, publiziert wurde. In diesem ueuassyrischen Text werden jeweils der 6., 16., 26. und 28. Tag der einzelnen Monate betrachtet, wobei

40. Vgl, R. Labat, Héinérolo^eií et ménoU^ies d'Assur (Paris: Dbraire d'Amérique et d'Orient Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1939), 14681. Labat konnte neben KAR 177 (VAT 14529) weitere fragmentarische Exemplare identifizieren: ein weiteres Exemplar aus Assur {KAR 147 |VAT 8780|), eines aus dem spätbabvloiiischen Uruk {LKU 54 [VAT 8780|) und ein neuassyri.S(-he.s aus Ninive {Bab. l 205 |K. 6482| + Bo¿t I, 205-6 |K. 8068]+AMT6,6 |K. 2607|).

120

JEANETTE C. FINCKE

die Schaltmonate '"^"'BÁR.ZA.GAR II (Monat lia) und '^^'KIN-'^INNIN II (Monat Via) mitberücksichtigt werden. In Ermangelung anderer Hemerologien, die das Ereignis des „Rufens von Klagen" fih' jeden Monat einzeln ausdeuten, hat Labat dieses Fragment bei seiner Bearbeitung dei" Omenserie Ujqw ïpus als Textzeugnis für den Paragraphen 34-35 auígenommen*'. Die entsprechenden Vorläufer zu dieser Omenserie aus Emar haben zwar bestätigt, daß das „Rufen von Klagen'^ und das „Reinigen seines Gewandes" in der genannten Reihenfolge auch in iqqur Ipus behandelt wiirde,'*^ daß die dort gelx)tenen Angaben sich jedoch—wie es dem Schema die.ser Omenserie entspricht—auf Monate, nicht aber auf einzelne Tage beziehen und damit von denjenigen der neuassyrischen Hemerologie aus Ninive abweichen. Hemerologi.sche Angaben zum „Rufen von Klagen" und dem „Reinigen seines Gewandes" finden sich auch in der weitgehend auf Basis von iV/r/ur ipns für den assyrischen König A.ssurbanipal hergestellten Hemerologie inbu bei arhim^^. Die genannte neuassyrische Hemerologie aus Ninive dürfte angesichts der in ihr betrachteten Tage in derselben Tradition wie die hethitische Ritualtafel aus Hattusa stehen: Während in der neuassyrischen Hemerologie der 6., 16,, 26, und 28. Tag der einzelnen Monate betrachtet und ausgedeutet werden, sind es in der auf der hethitischen Ritualtafel erhaltenen Vorlauf er version der 5., 8., 16., 26. \má 28, Tag, die jeweils als positiv gelten. Das „Rufen von Klagen" und das „Reinigen seines Gewandes" werden auch in einer zunäcb.st nur durch Texte aus Assur bekannt gewordenen Hemerologie behandelt. Die entsprechenden Exemplare aus Assur (KAR 178,179 sowie sieben weitere Texte) sind unter Einbeziehung der Informationen aus der bereits oben genannten neuassyrischen Hemerologie aus Ninive (K, 4131+7287+9425, vgl. Labat, KA 56, [1962| 1-8)'''' kürzlich in einer Bearbeitung vorgelegt worden,''^' so daß die Angaben für die einzelnen Handlungen leichter aufgefunden werden können. Es stellt sich heraus, daß diese Hemerologie für das „Rufen von Klagen" bestimmte Tage vorsieht, nämlich den 6., 16. und 26. Tag eines jeden Monats, für einige Monate werden ferner der 25. oder der 28. Tag genannt. Damit folgt diese Hemerologie weitgehend derjenigen Tradition, in welcher auch die neuassyrische Hemerologie aus Ninive (K. 4131 + 7287+9425) steht (siehe hierfür oben S. 119-20)''^. Für das „Rufen von Klagen" ergibt sich anhand der Hemerologie KAR 178 und Duplikate folgendes Bild: Das „Rufen von Klagen" ist positiv im Monat nisaunu (T) am 6., 16., 26. und 28. Tag, im Monat ümanu (III) am 6., 16. und 28. Tag, im Monat abu (V) am 6., 16,, 25. und 26., im Monat idülu (VI) am 28., im Monat arahsamtia (VIII) am 6., 16. und 26,, im Monat kisllmu (IX) am 6., im Monat tehetu (X) am 6., im Monat sabätu {XI) am 16, und 26, sowie im Monat addani {XII) am 6. und 26. Tag; negativ ist das

41. Vgl. R. Lahat, t^Ji calendrier babylonien des travaux des ni^nen et des mnis {séries iqqur îpuS) {Paris: Librairie honoré Champion, 1965), 96-101. Meine Neubeíirbeitimfí der Omciiserie u/qur îptis, welche im Dezember 2005 von der Philosophi.s(hen Fakultät der Ruprecht-Karls-Universitiit Heidelberg als HabüitatioiLsschrift akzeptiert wurde, bereite ieb derzeit zur Publikation vor. 42. Vgl. £»iiirVI.4 Nr. 610-649 (bes. 610, 611, 613, 615 und 616). Neue Textvertreter von if/(/in-¡;)ij,s bezeugen, daß beide Themen auch in den Tafeln dpr sriic mcusin'lles des 1. Jt.s v.Chr. br-tracbtft wurden. 43. Vgl. hierfür R Laruhhf.rgi^r. Der kultische Kalender der BabtjUmier und Assyrvr, LSS VI.1-2 (Leipzig: Hinricbs, 1915), 101-45, Labat, Un calendrier Ixibylotiim (19651,10, Fl. XT.IV-XLVI, G. van Driel, The Cult of A.ssur (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1969), 154-59, Labat, RIA 4 (1972-1975), 319a-.320h. Eine Bearbeitung des gesamten Wortlautes dieser Hemerologie findet sich in der (unpuhlizierten) Habilitationsschrift von A. Livingstone. 44. Auf die Tatsache, da^ es sich bei diesem Stück nicbt um einen Textvertreter für KAR 178 und Duplikate bandelt, hat hereits A. Livingstone, ZA 96 (2006) 138-39, atilmerk.sam gemacht. Livingstone weist dabei auf ein andere.s—im pu hl izierte.s—Fragment aus Ninive bin, wodurch der Beweis, dafe diese Hemerologie auch im Ninivr der n('uassyri.s('ben Zeit bekannt war, wieder gegeben ist. 45 Casaburi. üme täbOti (2003). Livingstone, ZA 96 Í20061 139, wei.st auf den in Her Bearbeitung von Clasahnri fehlenden Te.xtvertreter aus Uruk. LKU 52, hin, welcher Ijereits in R. Íí<jrger, Uaudimch dir Kciischriftlitcratiir I (Berlin: de (Jniytfr, 1967), 100, genannt worden ist. Die Vorläufer fiir die.se Hemerologie au.s der bethiti.sthcn Hauptstadt sollen im zweiten Teil meiner Untersuchung der Hemerologien aus Hattusa bearbeitet werden. 46. Aus diesem Grund hat Casahuri diese HE merologie auch als Textvprtreter zu KAR 178 und Duplikate gerechnet, siehe hierfür oben Anm. 44.

z u DEN AKKADISCHEN HEMEROLOGIEN AUS HATTUâA {CTH 546), TEIL I.

121

„Rufen von Klagen" im Schah-nisannu (Ia) am 6., 16., 26. und 28., im ajjaru (II) am 6., 16., 26. und 28., im du^üzu (IV) am 6. und 26.. im abii (V) am 27,, im /Í/Q/Í/ ÍVI) am 6.. 16. und 26,, im klslimu (IX) am 16. sowie im fel)ëtu (X) am 16,, 26, und 28, Tag*"'. Das „Reinigen der Kleidung" gilt als positiv, wenn es im Monat nisannu (I) am 1., 6., 16. oder 26., im Monat ajjaru (11) am 2. und 10., im Monat simänu (III.) am 6. und 15,, im Monat ml)ùtn (XI) am 3,, im Monat araijsamna (VIII) am 7. und 12., im Monat mbätu (XI) am 3, oder im Monat addaru (XII) am 15, Tag durchgefühti wird; Negativaussagen gibt es in Bezug auf das „Reinigen des Gewandes" in dieser Hemerologie nicht. Die Hemerologie KUB 4.46 (0 KUB 43, 1 Die Hemerologie von KUBA, 46 {+) KUB4S, 1 weicht von den anderen Hemerologien mit Bezug auf das „Rufen von Klagen" und das „Reinigen seines Gewandes" insofern ab, als sie sich auf nur einen speziellen Tag eines jeden Monats bezieht, während die anderen Hemerologien entweder einen beliebigen Tag oder mehrere Tage innerhalb der einzelnen Monate behandeln (siehe oben). Weil sich die Hemerologie von KUB 4, 46 (+) KUB 43, 1 auf den 15. Tag beziebt und dieser in den anderen Hemerologien nicbt bebandelt wird, bietet dieser Text aus Hattusa ergänzende Informationen in Hinblick auf günstige und itngünstige Tage für das „Rufen von Klagen'' und das ..Reinigen seines Gewandes"; Ti'atisliteration: Vs. i 1 Vs. i 2 Vs, i 3 Vs,i4 Vs, i 5 Vs. i 6 Vs,i7 Vs,i8 Vs, i 9 Vs, i 10 Vs, i 11 Vs, i 12 Vs, i 13 Vs, i 14 Vs, i 15 Vs, i 16 Vs, i Vs. ii 1 Vs. ii 2 Vs. ii 3 Vs. I i 4 Vs. i i 5

i-na

'^^BÁRZAIG.'GARi

iUDi,l|5|,'KAM*' 1

¡ i-na

'•"y'GUDlSI.^SÁi

UD,15.KAM*

1 i\- /íü'

''''•^''SIG4,A

UD.15.KAM*

1 i-««'

'"'•'•SU,NUMUN,NA

í'-Jlí7

'•^"'NE.NE.GAR

0 i-na i-na i'na i-na

ZA si'gu ¡i]¡-m TÚG-sú DADAG 'ZA'.IBI 0] UdHüheYnasm)'tab-lxir ZA si-glu ti]t-si ITllIG-'.sií DADAG' SÀ-'sw' 1 0) DÙG-«/j ZA Si-gu |/í]/-',sii [T]ÚG-Síí DADAG •Él LÚ [0 DlAGAL-í'.í fZA' Sí-gií N [U i-^i-is-s\ i TÚG-sií NU.DADAG ZABI ina k\i-im'-ti'-sú'' Í7i-n]a-salj(SIG) ZA sí-'íí(í' \m-si riJG-sú DAD|AG |10''''+ZA 'KP DA|M-,5íí' SA-.'ÍÍÍ' D U G - Í Í / / |

'l^KIN-'^INNIN '™DU|6,KÙ '"'•^APIN.DUsi-'A' '"'•'•'GAN,GAN,NA]

1

ZA 5i-guNU i-s[í-ís-síTÚG-sií NUDADAG ZA si-gn /í7-'-sí^ [ ZA si-gii ¡il- si ZA \si-gu NU i-si-is-si TVG-sú NUDADAG]'' Z|A

'"'"'•'AB.BAÈ ]ZA1 'Sji-lfí» i-na Rest der Kolumne ist weggebrochen)

/'- nial -na -na -na -na

'^^^SU.NUMUN,NA ' •'•^NE.NE,GAR ''•'•'•'|KIN-''INNIN

'•'"'DlUfrKÙ "^A[P1N.DU«.A

47, Die Angaben für die Monate teSrîtu (VII), kidimu (IX) und Sabdtu (XI) sind weitgehend zerstört. Für die günstigen und iinßjinstigen Tage, eine Klage 7.11 rufen, vgi. auch Croneberg, NABU 1989 Nr. 9. 48, Der Sc hrcihi^r hat die Zcilcnzahhing, in welcher jede 10, Zeile durch Hinzufügen des entsprechenden Zahlzeichens gekennzeichnc'l wird, in der 4, Kiiiiimnt' viirgenommcn (in der Keiischriftautographie ist die Zahl ,.1D" nicht enthalten), Üblii'herwei.se eiinlgt die Zeilenzählung am linken Rand der ersten Kolumne. 49, Für die Ergänzung siehe unten den Kommentar zur Zeile.

122

JEANETTE C. FINCKE

Vs. ii 6 Vs.ii7 Vs. ii 8 Vs. ii 9 Vs. ii 10 Vs.ii 11 Vs. ii

i-na i-im I I i-na | | '"'"'-'ZÍZ.A.AN I I i-n[a I "'^'SE.KIN.KUD (Rest der Kolumne ist weggebrochen}

Übersetzung: ^" '[Im Monat nisa]nnu, am l[5.] Tag ; [ein Mann soll eine Klage) mfen (und) sein Gewand reinigen, "(dann) f'wird der betreffende] Mann alt werden, ""' ' '[Im Monnt aßjaru, am 15. Tag ; ein Mann [soll eine[ Kla[ge[ rufen (und) sein Gewand reinigen, ''(dann) wird sein Herz zufrieden sein. ^" '[Im] Monat simänu, am 15. Tag : ein Mann [soll] eine Klage rufen (und) sein Gewand reinigen, ^(dann) [wird[ sich das Haus des Mannes ausbreiten. ^'^' 'Im Monat du^üzu : ein Mann [darf] kei[ne] Klage [ruf[en (und) sein Gewand nicht reinigen, "(sonst) [wird] der betreffende Mann aus [seiner] Ea[milie' herau]sgerissen (sie!). "" '^Tm Monat ahu : ein Mann [soll[ eine Klage [rufen (und) sein Gewand rein[igen, ^"(dann) [wird] dem Mann wegen (lit: mit') [seiner[ Eheffrau'.sein Herz zufrieden sein.[ '"" ^'[Im M]onat ulülu : ein Mann darf keine Klage rufen (und) sein Gewand nicht reinigen, (sonst)...] ^'" '^[Im Monat tas\rïtu : ein Mann soll eine Klage rufen [...] "^^''•^[Im Monat arahsam\na : ein Mann soll ein Klage rufen [...[ ^^' '""[Im Monat kislunu] : ein Mann [darf keine Klage rufen (und) sein Gewand nicht reinigen], '^(sonst) [wird] der Ma[nn ...[ ^" '*'[Im Monat tebetu : ein Mann soll/darf (k)eine] KIa[ge rufen ...] ^^ '(Rest der Kolumne ist weggebrochen) ^ ^ ' ' ' I m [Monat

du^üzu

:...]

Monat [ííírí/íí:...| Monat ta\sritu:...]

Monat ar\ahsamna :...[ 'Im M[onat tebetu : . . . ] , "'^ sim [Monat sabatu :...] '''[(dann) ...] "I[m Monat arfi/arw:...] st der Koknnne ist weggebrochen)

Kommentar: Vs. i 1-2. In der neuassyrischen Hemeroiogie aus Ninive wird die Vorhersage ameln sfi ulabbar, „der betreffende Mann wird alt werden", für das „Rufen von Klagen und das Reinigen des Gewandes" am 6. Tag des Monats nisannu (I) vorhergesagt (vgl. K. 4131 + 7287+9425 Vs. 1-2, vgl. Labat, B.A 56, [1962] 4). Dieselbe Vorhersage findet sich auch in den Exemplaren der séiie mensuelles der Omenserie iqqur îpus''^ aus dem späten 2.'' und dem 1. Jt, v. Chr.'^ für das „Rufen von Klagen" im Monat nisannu. 50. Siehe oben Anni. 41.

z u DEN AKKADISGHEN HEMEROLOGIEN AUS HATTUSA {CTH 546), TEIL I.

123

10

10

0

1

2

3

4

5

cm

15

KUB4,46{+)KUB43, Für das „Reinigen seines Gewandes"" in dem betreffenden Monat wird dem Betroffenen hingegen allgemein ein fnthes Herz vorhergesagt (SÀ.BI DUjo.GA, „sein Herz wird froh sein"). Vs. i 3-4, Die Texte der Omenserie iqqur ipus geben für das „Rf^inigen seines Gewandes" im Monat ajjaru {II) ebenfalls die Vorhersage libba-su tab, „sein Herz wird froh sein", vgl. z. B. das in neuassyrischem Duktus geschriebene Textfragment aus Ninive K, 12643: |SÀ.BI1 DUIQ.GA. Die Vorhersage mit Bezug auf das „Rufen von Klagen" in dem entsprechenden Monat ist in der Omenserie nicht erhalten. Vs. i 5-6. Die Vorhersage für den Monat simänu (III), bit amêli irappis, läßt sich weder in anderen Hemerologien, noch in der Omenserie iqqur Ipu^ für diesen Monat nachweisen. Vs. i 7-8. Ein neubabylonisches Exemplar der Hthie mensuelles der Omenserie iqqur ipus hat als Vorhersage für das „Rufen von Klagen" im Monat dirüzu (IV) (BM 26185 Vs. 26): ina 'KIN'-.s'ii ZT-a/j „er wird aus seiner Arbeit gerissen". Dieselbe Vorhersage gibt auch eine neuassyrische Tafel von iqqur Ipus für das „Reinigen seiner Kleidung" im Monat kislimu (IX) (K. 7188 Rs. 8). Die sog. édition courte aus Emar hat hierfür folgende Variante (Msk. 74159a = EniarVlA Nr. 610.C iii 110'): ina [Rasur) IM.RI.Asii Xl-ab „er wird aus seiner Familie herausgerissen". Somit wurde die Vorhersage mit Beztig auf das „Herausreißen aus seiner Familie", die in einem Text der zweiten Hälfte des 2. Jt.s v. Chr. belegt ist (Emar), zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt dun h die Prognose „Herausreißen aus seiner Arbeit" ersetzt. Entsprechendes dürfte auch bei der Vorhersage für den Monat du^üzu vorliegen, obwohl von einem Schreiberfehler bei der Verbalfonn—.vig anstelle von sa/i—auszugehen ist. Für einen ähnlichen Fehler in einem Omentext, jedoch unter Beibehaltung des korrekten Vokals, vgl. den neuassyrischen Text der terrestrischen Omenserie summa älu CT41. 17 (K. 2284+) Rs, 6: \ina .. .\ in-na-saljiSACy). Vs. i 9-10. Eine vergleichbare Vorhersage findet sich in der Omenserie iqifur ipus in einem Exemplar der sog. sétie longue aus Emar in einer Vorhersage für den Monat arahsamna (VIII) für das „NichtHinausgehenaus dem Stadttor" (§ 59) (Msk. 74173a = EmarVI.4 Nr. 611Jii' 11'): [... » DIS UD16.KAM

51. Vgl. die sog. édition courte aus Emar (M.sk. 74159n = EmarV]A Nr. 610.C i 9): |ZA.BTI ú-lah-bar. 52. Vgl. das in neuassyrischem Duktus geschripbene Exemplar tius Ninive DT 157+171 (AAT 62 // .'\C7i Adad .XXIVl Vs. 10': [NA.BII SUMUN-èar, oder die neubabylonische Tafel aus Sippar BM 50504 Vs. 13': NA.BI ú-l\a-ah-har\.

124

JEANETTE C. FINCKE

iim KÁ.GAJL NU.Ê KI DAM-.su SÀ.BI DUjo-GA „[... Und wenn] (jemand) [am 29. Tag durch das Stadttojr [nichtl hinausgeht, wird wegen (lit.: mit] seiner Frau sein Herz zufrieden sein". In einem neuhabylonischen Exemplar der série mensuelles aus Babylonien steht für diesen Monat folgende Variante (BM 42297+43135+43136"' Vs. 36'):... KI MUNUS-5ii ; TA DU|o MU TUK : SÀ.BÏ DUIQ-GA „... wird mit seiner Frau (Var.): mit / aufgrund (von)^* Güte wird er einen (guten) Namen erhalten (Var.;) sein Herz zufrieden sein". In Anlehnung an die Schreibweise in Vs. i 4 erfolgt hier der Ergänzungsvorschlag SA'Vs. i 11. Weil die Hemerologie für den Monat ulûlu (VI) das „Rufen von Klagen" und das „Reinigen seines Gewandes" verbietet, für den vollständigen Eintrag aber nur eine Zeile vorsieht, muß die Apodosis sehr kurz sein; sie darf nicht länger als 2-3 Zeichen beanspnichen. In diesem Zusammenhang sei auf die Vorhersage für das Verbot, am 6. Tag desselben Monats (VI) Klagen zu rufen, in der neuassyrischen Hemerologie aus Ninive hingewiesen (vgl. K. 4131+7287+9425 Vs. 28, vgl. Labat, RA 56, |1962] 6): i-bir-ri „er wird hungern''. Ein Verweis auf die Prognose der darübcrliegenden Zeile durch KI.MIN, „desgleichen", kann nicht vorliegen, weil im vorangehenden Monat eine positive Aussage vorliegt. Vs. i 12-13. Über die Angaben für die Monate tasrltu (VII) und arahsamna (VIII) läßt sich nur festhalten, daß sie jeweils eine positive Aussage enthalten. Die Vorhersagen für das „Rufen von Klagen" und das „Reinigen seines Gewandes" in der Serie iqqur ipus sind für diese beiden Monate ebenfalls positiv. Vs. i 14-15. Weil der Schreiber für den Monat kislimu (IX) zwei Zeilen vorgesehen hat, müssen sich die Einträge auf negative Vorgaben beziehen. Dies entspricbt den Vorhersagen der Omenserie iqqur Ipus in einem Exemplar der sog. edition eourie aus Emar (Msk. 74159a = Emar VI.4 Nr. 610.G) für beide Tätigkeiten, vgl. (iii 109'): DIS |seí-g|i/-íí íí-si'SA NUDUjo-afo, „Wenn er eine [Klag]e ruft, wird (sein) Herz nicht zufrieden sein", bzw. (iii HO'): DIS [TÚG-.S'ÍÍ DA|DAG ina (Rasur) IM.RI.A-sii 71-ah, „Wenn er [sein Gewand rei|nigt., wird er aus seiner Familie herausgerissen". Vs. i 16. Wenn die Angaben der Hemerologie auch für diesen Monat mit den Deutungen der Serie iqqur îpuS übereinstimmen, müßten die Vorbersagen negativ ausfallen. Ob dies tatsächlich der Fall ist, kann nur ein Duplikat der Hemerologie zeigen. Vs. ii. Leider läßt: sich nicht ermitteln, welches Thema in dieser Kolumne der Hemerologie aus ijattusa bebandelt wird. Vergleich der Hemerologie aus Hattusa mit der Omenserie iqqur ipus und Her „Hemerologie des Nazi-marullas" Weil es zwischen den Vorhersagen der Hemerologie aus Hattui5a für den 15. Tag jedes einzelnen Monats und denjenigen der Version der Omenserie iqiptr Ipus aus der 2. Hälfte des 2. Jt.s v. Ghr, wie sie in den Exemplaren aus Emar erhalten ist (siehe oben den Kommentar zum Text), zahlreiche wörtliche Entsprechungen gibt, bietet sich ein allgemeiner Vergleich der Tendenzen dieser Angabenpositiv oder negativ—in jedem der zwölf Monate beider Kompositionen an. Weil die beiden Tätigkeiten „Rufen von Klagen" und „Reinigen seines Gewandes" in der Omenserie einzeln behandelt werden, sollen sie in der Gegenüberstellung ebenfalls gesondert betrachtet werden.

53. Di'ijoin rtllpr drei Fiiiginfiitp erfolgte durch L Finkel imjtiiii 1981. .54. Die Präposition TA, ¡ikkad. iiltii „aus, von; seit", kann hier weder lokativisch oder ablati\i.sch noch temporal gemeint sein, sondern muß instrumental oder kausal intei"pretiert werden. In dieser Bedeutung wären jedoch die Präpositionen ina oder a§sii 7.U erwarten gewesen. Somit muß hier eine Ungenauigkeit des Schreibers vorliegen.

z u DEN AKKADISCHEN HEMEROLOGIEN AUS HATTUáA (CTH 546), TEIL I.

125

l I. Übereinstimmungen zwischen den Vorhersagen in der Hemerologie au.s Hattusa für den 15, Tag (15./ 14. jli. V. Chr. ), der Serie iqqur Ipus aus Emar (13. Jh. v. Chr.) und der Hemerologie aus Assur (Ende 2. Jt. v. Chr.) Monat

nisa7mu (I) üjjaru (II) simäni (III)

„Rufen von Klagen" „Reinigen seiner Kleidung" Hemerologie iqqtir ipus Hemerologie Hemerologie iqqur ¡pus Hemerologie aus Hattusa aus Assur ans Emar aus Hattusa aus Emar aus Assur +

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

du 'ÛZU (IV)

-

.*

-

ahu (V)

+

?

ululu (VI) tasritu (VII) aralj.samna (VIU) kisllmu (IX) lebdtu (X) iíabátu (XI) addaru (XII)

-

-

+ +

+

-

_*

-

+

+

+'

+

-

-

-

+

+

[+1

+

+

l-l

-

-

l-l

?

_•

-

?

+

+

?

+

+

p p p

+

+

+

-

+

+

+

(• = die Wertigkeit ist in den Emar-Texten nicht erhalten und mußte Exemplaren des 1. Jt.s v. Chr. entnommen werden)

Bei der Gegenüberstellung dieser beiden Texte gilt zu beachten, dali die Hemerologie aus Hattusa, die wahrscheinlich mittelhethitisch zu datieren i.st (siehe oben S. 116-17) und demnach im 15. bzw. 14. Jh. V. Chr. Tiiedergeschrieben wurde, etwas älter ist als die Exemplare aus Eniat, welche größtenteils aus dem 13. Jh. v. Chr. entstammen. Weil eine Abweichung in den Tendenzen der Prognosen beider Texte auf eine Modifikation in der Überlieferung hinweist, .soll diese mögliche Entwicklung weiterverfolgt werden, indem die Angaben mit denjenigen der sog. „Hemerologie für Nazi-mar utta.s'^' aus Assur, welche in die mittelassyrische Zeit (sc. Ende des 2. bzw. Anfang des 1. Jt.s v. Chi.) datiert, verglichen werden (.siehe hierfür oben S. 119). Diese Übersicht macht deutlich, daß mit einer Ausnahme—die Vorhersage fih' das „Rufen von Klagen" im Monat ajjaru (II)—alle drei Texte in denjenigen Passagen übereinstimmen, in welchen den Texten eindeutige Aussagen zu entnehmen sind. Die Angaben derjenigen Hemerologie, welche sich primär auf den 15. Tag der einzelnen Monate bezieht, wurden demnach offensichtlich zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt auf jeden beliebigen Tag innerhalb des entsprechenden Monats übertragen. Es ist daher wahrscheinlich möglich, die Wertigkeit der nicht erhaltenen Einträge in der Hemerologie aus Hattuáa anhand derjenigen der späteren Exemplare zu ermitteln. Eine Ergänzung der individuellen Vorhersagen, die sich aus dem Ge- oder Verbot der Hemerologie ergeben, läßt diese tendenzielle Übereinstimmung der drei Hemerologien aus dem 2. Jt. v. Chr. hingegen nicht zu.

55. Die Apodosis fiir diesen Monat ist weitgehend zerstört. Das erhaltene Keilschriftzeicheii am Ende der entsprechenden Zeile läiÄt jedoch nur eine Ergänzung zu, der zufolge cs dem BetreHenden aufgrund seines „Riifens v(»n Klagen" emiöglicbt wird, etwas zu „erreichen" (i 30: [DiS Se-gu-ii il-si... KVR\-ad).

ARCHAIC GREEK NAMES IN A NEO-ASSYRIAN CUNEIFORM TABLET FROM TARSUS Philip C. Schmitz (Eastern Michigan University)

Nearly seventy years ago, Albrecht Goetze published nine cuneiform tablets and fragments excavated at Tarsus (Gözlü Kule),' one of the principal cities of the ancient Assyrian province of Hilakku (Cilicia).^ Tablet no. 1 is Hittite^; the others are Akkadian and of later date. Tablets no. 2 and no. 3 are economic records and contain personal names.'' Tablets nos. 4-5 are very fragmentary but record personal names. Tablet no. 6 is a fragment, perhaps of a writing exercise, but its condition is too poor for reading.'' Tablet no. 7 is almost entirely legible. I will describe its contents below. Tablet no. 8 is a magical text.'' Tablet no. 9 lists Assyrian personal names. Goetze dated the Akkadian group from a putative reference to sa\ttu] 33 in tablet no. 9, line 11. Taking the number 33 to refer to the thirty-third year of Ashurbanipal, he assigned them the date 636 BC.^

1. Hetty Goldman, "Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, 1936," AJA 41 (1937) 262-86. The tablets were found at the north end of a room in a building in section B (1937: 273,fig.27). Goldman explains that the tablets were discovered "not lying on the floor, but in the composition of the floor itself, and also in the earth below the floor" (1937: 276). Preliminary discussion of the tablets appeared in A. Goetze, "Remarks on the Epigraphic Material Found at Tarsus in 1936," AJA 41 (1937) 287-88, with full publication in idem, "Guneiform Inscriptions from Tarsus," JAOS 59 (1939) 1-16. I am very grateful to Garolina Lopez-Ruiz for perceptive comments on an earlier draft of this paper. My incorporation of her contribution has, I hope, improved the argument and not misrepresented her views. I remain responsible for the interpretations advanced in this article, and for any errors in the final version, as well as for other limitations that may be evident to the reader. Please note the following abbreviations: CHLI = J. David Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luxoian Inscriptions, Vol. 1: Inscriptions of the Iron Age, Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 8.1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000); KAV" = H. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, 3 vols. (5tb, enlarged and revised ed.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002) ; IJOPN = P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews, eds. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, 4 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987-2005); PNAE = Simo Parpóla and Karen Radner, eds. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Helsinki: NeoAssyrian Text Gorpus Project, 1998-). 2. The evidence associating Tarsus with Hilakku (rather than HiyawalQue) is marshaled by André Lemaire, "Tarshish-7ar.s7S¿: Problème de topographie historique biblique et assyrienne," in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecbaria Kallai, ed. G. Galil and M. Weinfeld, SVT 81 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 54-62. 3. Probably from a time before 1250 BC (Goetze, "Guneiform Inscriptions from Tarsus," 3). 4. Ibid., 5-6. 5. Ibid., 7. 6. See Erica Reiner, "Plague Amulets and House Blessings," JNES 19 (1960) 153-54. The text was re-edited by Stefan M. Maul, Zukunftshewältigung: Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babijloniscli-assxjrischen iJiserituale (Namhurbi), BagF 18 (Mainz: von Zabern, 1994), 185-90 (text D). 7. Goetze, "Guneiform Inscriptions from Tarsus," 16.

127

JCS 61 (2009)

128

PHILIP C. SCHMITZ

The cuneiform tablets from Tarsus have not received much sustained attention. Orthmann** and Lemaire® mention the Tarsus tablets but do not discuss them. Desideri and Jasink briefly summarize Coetze's analysis of tablet no. 7.'° Lebrun observes that tablet no. 7 contains "a majority of indigenous personal names of Luwian type,"" although he cites only the name Sandapî in line 5 (which I will discuss shortly). Coetze s interpretations of non-Assyrian personal names in Tarsus tablet no. 7 have apparently undergone no significant scrutiny since their publication. Stephanie Dalley points out that Coetze's interpretation of the number 33 in 9.11 as a year number is wrong: Assyrian documents of this period bear eponym dates.^^ From Stefan Maul's recent edition of the incantation text (no. 8),''' Dalley concludes that 708-658 BC is the probable range within which the Akkadian group should be dated.'** In this study I am concerned with tablet no. 7, which has twelve lines of cuneiform writing. Inscribed only on the obverse, the text is ruled into six registers, each containing two lines of text. The text of each register is formulaic: the first line contains a non-Assyrian personal name; the second line begins ina pan "before,"''^ followed by an Assyrian name. Thus the text appears to assign Anatolian individuals to supervision or supply by Assyrian managers. Altogether there are six names of Anatolian personnel and six Assyrian names. Coetze's working assumption was that all of the non-Assyrian names in the list were Luwian. Encouraging to such an assumption is the name in line 5, Sandapî, which is a Luwian name.'® It includes the divine name Sanda- associated with Tarsus and found in both place names'^ and personal names.'* The component pî is from Hittite and Luwian piya "give."'^ Assuming that the other names in tablet no. 7 were also Luwian, Coetze sought illustrations from pertinent sources, but with very limited results. Coetze reviewed a number of Cilician personal names more than twenty years later but did not reconsider the names he identified in Tarsus tablet no. 7^°

8. W. Orthmann, "Gözlükule," RIA 3 (1957-1971) 503. 9. André Lemaire, "L'écriture phénicienne en Cilicie et la diffusion des écritures alphabétiques," in Phoinikeia Grammata: Lire et écrire en Méditerrane'e: Actes du Colloque de'Liège, 15-18 novembre 1989, ed. Cl. Baurain, C. Bonnet, and V Krings (Namur; Société des Études classiques, 1991), 141 and n. 30; idem, "Tarshish-Tarsisi," 61 n. 97; idem, "Les langues du royaume de Sam'al au ix^-viii" s. av. J.-C. et leurs relations avec le royaume de Qué," in I_a Cilicie: Espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millénaire av. J.-C4e siècle ap. J.-C). Actes de la table ronde internationale d'Istanbul, 2-5 novembre 1999 = Kilikia: mekânlar ve yerel giiçler (M.Ö. 2. binyil-M.S 4. yûzyil). Uluslararasi xjuvarlak masa toplantisi bildirileri, Istanbul, 2-5 Kasim 1999, ed. E. Jean, A. M. Dmçol, and S. Durugönül, Varia Anatolica 13 (Istanbul: Institut français d'études anatoliennes Ceorges Dumézil; Paris: De Boccard, 2001), 189 n. 37 (read: Coetze "Cuneiform Inscriptions from Tarsus"). 10. P. Desideri and A. M. Jasink, Çilicia: Dall'etá di Kizzuwatna alla conquista macedone, Storia 1, Università degli Studi di Torino, Fondo di Studi Parini-Chirio (Florence: Le Lettere, 1990), 144-46. 11. René Lebrun, "Kummanni et Tarse, deux centres ciliciens majeurs," in La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs locaux (see n. 4 above), 91 n. 17. 12. Stephanie Dalley, "Sennacherib and Tarsus," AwSí 49 (1999) 76, with Dalley's hand copy of tablet no. 9, p. 77. The fragment is a tally, and 33 is a sum. 13. Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung, 185. 14. Dalley, "Sennacherib and Tarsus," 77. 15. A/iW821-22. In the present context, iyia pan probably signifies "at the disposal of" {CAD 12: 87 Alh 3'). 16. PNAES.h 1087-88 (R. Pruzsinszky). 17. Ladislav Zgusta, Kleinasiatische Ortsname, BzN 21 (Heidelberg: Winter, 1984), 536-37, §§1158.2-59.2. 18. Ladislav Zgusta, AnatoUsche Personennamensippen, Dissertationes orientales 2 (Prague, 1964), 135-40; idem, Kleinasiatische Personennamen (Prague: Tschechoslowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1964). Dalley, "Sennacherib and Tarsus," 74-75, discusses the iconography of the deity Sanda. 19. Coetze, "Cuneiform Inscriptions from Tarsus," 9; cf Zgusta, Anatolische Personennamensippen, 96-102; John Marangozis, A Short Grammar of Hieroglyphic Luwian (Munich: Lincom Europa, 2003), 25, 36. 20. A. Coetze, "Cilicians," JÇS 16 (1962) 48-58. Note Coetze's comment: "there is nothing significant to be added to the commentary given I.e. 9ff." (p. 54).

GREEK NAMES IN A NEO-ASSYRIAN CUNEIFORM TABLET FROM TARSUS

129

My thesis in this study is that the names in lines 1, 7, and 9 of tablet no. 7 should be interpreted as archaic Greek names rather than as Luwian names. The discussion that follows is intended to demonstrate that this approach produces more promising results. Regular correspondences between Neo-Assyrian cuneiform transcriptions and Greek letters provide a basis for interpreting the onomastic evidence from Tarsus. With Greek transcriptional equivalents in mind, I have proposed the following interpretations of the non-Assyrian names on Tarsus tablet 7. "'Ip-pa-ru-na-te (tablet no. 7, line 1).^' The underlying Greek word is 'l7t7tapovaTr|(ç) "coltish." The stem l7tjio- adds the diminutive affix -apiov-, Ijtitapiov (with long a) designating a young horse. The Akkadian writing ru- in the third syllable indicates that the medial semivowel i has been lost before o.^" It is difficult to determine whether this phonetic effect arises from the Greek word, however, because Akkadian transcriptions of Greek words often omit representation of i before o.^^ Akkadian u can transcribe Greek o, ou, or CU,^"* SO the writing of po with ru in Tarsus tablet no. 7, line 1, is orthographically unproblematic. The diminutive sometimes has "an ironical force, as ... yáaip-mv, îat-belly"^^ and that sense is possible here.^*^ The final syllable te may represent Greek r), as in the Late Babylonian transcription Deme-ti-ri-ia (ArniTJxpioç) (BRM 2.55.1).^^ Possibly an E sign is to be restored in the broken area at the upper right corner of the tablet, although the space is limited. The resulting reading, te-[e], would follow the more strongly attested pattern of representing Greek r\ with the pZene-writing e-eP To the best of my knowledge, this name, which I have explained as Greek, has no satisfactory Luwian equivalent.^^ I am not aware of a Luwian name that is similar in sound shape, Goetze's notes notwithstanding.'"' Guneiform Luwian azzu{wa)-^^ "horse" corresponds to Hieroglyphic Luwian (EQUUS) á-süwa^^ in contrast to Gk. hippo-. A semantic cognate is thus ruled out. The explanatory example adduced by Goetze, "Iußpoc, is a Garian toponym and a problematic candidate.'^'' Although the name may be ancient, the -h- is epenthetic.^'' Transcription of im{b)- \yith Akkadian ip-pa is unlikely a priori. Houwink ten Cate argues that the Lycian personal name rhpara- also appears in the Greek alphabetic spellings Iußpac and Iußpric.'^^ Reconciling these forms with the Akkadian transcription Ip-pa-ru-na-te seems futile to me.

21. PNAE 2.1: 560 (K. Âkerman). Classicist readers please note: in the conventions of Akkadian transcription, superscript ÍÍI at the beginning of a personal name represents a determinative sign indicating that the form is a personal name. 22. Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges, rev. Gordon M. Messing (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), 11 §20a; 18 §43. 23. W. Röllig, "Griechische Eigennamen in Texten der babylonischen Spätzeit," Or 29 (1960) 388. 24. Röllig, "Griechische Eigennamen in Texten der babylonischen Spätzeit," 386; Gilbert J. E McEwan, "An Official Seleucid Seal Reconsidered," JNES 41 (1982) 52. Gontemporary examples are: (piXáyopa(c) = Pi-la-a-gu-ra{-a) (Esarhaddon A V 64); Aá^aao(ç) = Da-ma-su (A V 67); AvtiKpitoc (?) = Ad-di-ik-ri-tú-sú (ABL 140.18; PNAE 1.1: 52a; Robert RoUinger and Martin Korenjak, ""Addikritusw. Ein namentlich gennanter Grieche aus der Zeit Asarhaddons (680-669 v. Ghr.)," AoF 28 [20011 325-37). 25. Smyth, Greek Grammar, 235, § 856. A possible implication is that the name is a nickname, a suggestion for which I am indebted to Professor Lopez-Ruiz. 26. The personal name 'liraap(i)ováTr|c is not found in IXiPN. 27. Röllig, "Griechische Eigennamen in Texten der babylonischen Spätzeit," 379. 28. Ibid., 385 §13. 29. The obscure Hier. Luw. construction hu-pi-tà-ta-tà |.. .\-ha-wali (BOYBENPINARI 2 \CHLI 1: 339|) does not appear related. 30. Lycian hppñterus (H. Graig Melchert, Lycian Corpus [unpubl. ms., 2001], 21,58.5) is vaguely similar. 31. See H. Graig Melchert, Cuneiform Luvian Dictionary, Léxica Anatolica 2 (Ghapel Hill 1993, http://www.unc.edu/~melchert/ LUVLEX.pdf), 44 s.v. 32. KARATEPE 41 {CHU 1: 515). 33. Goetze, "Guneiform Inscriptions from Tarsus," 9. 34. Zgusta, Kleinasiatische Ortsname, 199 §373-1. 35. Ph. H. J. HoLiwink ten Cate, The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Áspera during the Hellenistic Period, DMOA 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1961), 14, 103.

130

PHILIP C. SCHMITZ

"'Kù-ru-ni-zu-ru-me-ri (tablet no. 7, line 3).'^'^ Goetze compared Kurunizurumeri to a Luwian name attested in Cilicia at Corycus, near the Lamus River.^^ Houwink ten Cate derives tbis name from Ru{n)-Sarruma+ri?^ Tbe divine name Sarruma may appear in Lycian names as tbe suffix -aapuaç, and in Cilician names as -Çapiiaç.'"' The suffix -ri is attested but semantically opaque."" Attempts to account for the first syllable {Ku-) of tbe name as it appears in Akkadian transcription bave resorted to uncertain Hittite etymologies of Ru{nt), Runti{ya), Hier Luw. Runzas, a name associated witb tbe stag god."*^ There seems to be no fitting Creek equivalent for tbis name. "'Pi-i-me-na-tui2 (tablet no. 7, line 7).'"' The last sign of this line is broken away except for traces of its lower portion; thus its restoration and interpretation are open to question. Coetze restored the break with [a-m[ i, but tui2 fits tbe traces that appear in Coetze s hand copy and tbe reading provides a morpbologically acceptable Creek word, (8)7tinr|v-aT-o(ç). Creek r| is infrequently represented by Akkadian e.'*' Tbe epigrapbically attested name E7rinr|va*'' appears to be related to sinfiviç "wratb, threat" (e.g., II. 5.178). Tbe form attested in the Tarsus tablet (no. 7, line 7) shows aphaeresis of initial s-'"^ and carries the adjectival suffix -aT-o(ç).'''^ Note the cuneiform spelling pi-i for Ck. (s)7ri, with stress lengthening of -1"*^ ""Pe-ri-da-u-ri (tablet no. 7, line 9)*^ appears to represent '7rEpiôaO>pi(oç) in contrast to Attic nepiôripiToç "contended."^" Goetze read the first sign as pi, but it can also be read pe. The vowel quality of CV signs is often ambiguous, as in the Late Babylonian transcription Si/e-lu-ku (2É?ieuKoç).^' Tbe Akkadian spelling -a-u- to represent tbe diphthong -aw also occurs in the name ^^''^ia-ú-na-a-a /yawnaya/ "Ionian."'^^ The related name 'Emôaupioç is attested twice in Creek inscriptions of tbe classical and Hellenistic period.^'^ [""x-ílt-isí-x-lx-íx] (tablet no. 7, line 11). Part of tbe first sign of the name is visible, according to Coetzes hand copy. He reads the sign as ti?'^ The second sign, is, is complete. Other possible values are mil, islzis, or esi5. If tbe correct phonetic value is is, the name was probably not Creek. However, the syllable /-tis-/ could be a component of a Creek name. Read as is-, tbe second sign could represent a 36. PNAE 2.1: 642 (E. Lipinski). 37. Goetze, "Cuneiform Inscriptions from Tarsus," 9. 38. A variant name PmÇapuaç also occurs (Houwink ten Cate, Luwian Population Groups, 190 n. 7). 39. Houwink ten Cate, Luwian Population Groups, 129, 131. Against the association of Pu)(v)ÇpunEpiç with names bearing the element -Çapuaç on the one hand or with the divine name SISar(ru)ma on the other, see Zgusta, Anatolisciie Personennamensippen, 34. 40. Houwink ten Cate, Luwian Population Groups, 136. Note Zgusta's warning that these elements may be Celtic {Anatolisciw Personennamensippen, 34). 41. Houwink ten Cate, Luwian Population Groups, 183. 42. Houwink ten Cate, Luwian Population Groups, 128-29; CHIJ 1: 63. 43. PNAE 3.1: 994-95 (R. Pruzsinszky). 44. See the late example from BRM 2.55.1 cited above. 45. LGPNSb s.v. (1 occurrence). 46. Smyth, Greeii Grammar, 24, § 76. 47. Smyth, Greek Grammar, 243, § 863.18. 48. A clear example of stress-lengthening is Pi-la-a-gu-ra(-a) (Esarhaddon A V 64), representing <S>iXáyopac,. 49. PNAE 3.1: 995 (G. Van Buylaere). 50. Anthologia Palatina, Planudea, ed. F. Diibner (Paris, 1864-1872); ed. H. Stadtmüller, vols, i, ii (1), iii (1) (Leipzig 1894-1906), 5.218 (Paul. Sil.). 51. For example, BM 55437, 5' (Matthew W. Stolper, Lafe Acliaemenid, Early Macedonian and Early Seleucid Records of Deposit and Related Texts, AION Supp. 77 [Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1993|, 48). I had the benefit of Professor Stolper's good counsel about this question, for which I am grateful. 52. Nimrud letter 69.3 (Parpóla, AOAT 6, 303); J. Brinkman, "The Akkadian Words for 'Ionia' and 'Ionian'," in Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V Schoder, S.]., ed. R F. Sutton, Jr. (Wauconda, IL: Bochazy-Carducci, 1989), 55 and n. 3; cf Robert RoUinger, "Zur Bezeichnung von 'Griechen' in Keilschrifttexten," RA 91 (1997) |1999| 167-72. Note the similar stress contours of Greek -5aú- (in the example from Tarsus tablet no. 7) and mv- (in 'Iávia). The syllables, which differ in vowel length, are both represented in Akkadian by -o-ti-. 53. [JGPN 1 s.v. (2 occurrences).

54. Goetze, "Guneiform Inscriptions from Tarsus," 8.

GREEK NAMES IN A NEO-ASSYRIAN CUNEIFORM TABLET FROM TARSUS

131

Greek name beginning with 'Icro-.^^ The pattern established by previous names suggests that an Assyrian name is unlikely in this position. This single tahlet provides a small amount of valuable information about Tarsus in the mid-seventh century BC. In a list of six names, two are Luwian, one is possibly Luwian, and three are Greek. A number of hypothetical explanations might account for this distribution of names. For example, the list might involve the assignment of war captives for labor In such a circumstance, the Greek names would not indicate useful details about the languages spoken in Tarsus or greater Cilicia. If the text of tablet no. 7 is a list of local names, however, then it invites the question whether a Greek-speaking community resided in or near Tarsus.^" Previous discussions of this tablet adhered to the reasonable assumption that Luwian was the primary language in Gilicia when the document came into existence. More recently, specialists in the Luwian language appear to be reconsidering the sociolinguistic assumption, giving greater place to the possible use of Greek in Gilicia alongside Luwian.^^ In a forthcoming publication, I demonstrate that the Phoenician divine designation (Baal) Krntrys in the Karatepe main text (e.g., Phu/A II 17b-19, text edited by Rollig, CHLI 2; 51) represents Greek 'KopuvriTiipioc {korunêtërios) "mace-bearing."^** I have also proposed the identification of three transliterated Greek words in the Phoenician "Separate Inscriptions" from Karatepe {CHLI 2; 68-73; KAl^, p 67, no. 26 [Nachträge, Bauinschrift Dl).'^'' The time may be propitious for reconsidering the role of Greek in the speech communities of ancient Cilicia.

55. Again I thank Professor López-Ruíz for this suggestion. 56. On the question of Greek presence in Cilicia, see Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, "The Ideological and Political Impact of the Assyi'ian Imperial Expansion on the Greek World in the 8th and 7th Centuries BC," in The Heirs of Assyria: Proceedings of the Opening Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project, Held in Tvarminne, Finland, October 8-11, ¡998, ed. S. Aro and R. M. Whiting (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project 2000), 7-34; Robert Rollinger, "The Ancient Greeks and the Impact of the Ancient Near East: Textual Evidence and Historical Perspective (ca. 750-650 BC)," in Mythology and Mythologies: Methodological Approaches to Intcrcidtural Influences. Proceedings of the Second Annual Sym-\Kisium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project, Held in Paris, France, October 4-7, 1999, ed. R. M. Whiting (Helsinki: The NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project 2001), pp. 233-64. On the dynasty of Muksu/Mopsos, see André Lemaire, "La maison de Mopsos en Cilicie et en Pamphylie à l'époque du Fer (Xlle-Vle s. av. J.-C.)," nés Antiquae 3 (2006) 99-107; Norbert Oettinger, "The Seer Mopsos (Muksas) as a Historical Figure," in Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and Their Neighbours: Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-Cultural Interaction, September 17-19, 2004, ed. B. J. Collins, M. R. Bachvarova, and I. C. Rutherford (Oxford: Oxbow, 2007), 64-67. 57. Annick Payne, Hieroglyphic Luwian (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004), 124-25; idem, "Multilingual Inscriptions and Their Audiences: Cilicia and Lydia," in Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, ed. S. L. Sanders, University of Chicago Oriental Institute Seminars 2 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2006), 121-36; Ilya S. Yakubovich, "Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language," (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Chicago, 2008), 193 n. 100. Wolfgang Jenniges, "L'Asie mineure et ses langues," Res Antiquae 8 (2006) 73-97, does not discuss Greek in Anatolia. 58. Philip C. Schmitz, "Phoenician KRNTRYS, Archaic Greek "KOPYNHTHPIOZ, and the Storm God of Aleppo," KUSATU11 (2009) 119-60. 59. Philip C. Schmitz, "Archaic Greek Words in Phoenician Script from Karatepe," American Society of Creek and Uitin Epigraphy Newsletter 12.2 (October 2008) 5-9.

TEXTS AND FRAGMENTS

THREE NEW SOURCES OF MUSSU^U Barbara Bock (CSIC Madrid)

The three tablets presented here belong to the cuneiform collections of The British Museum;' the first two belong to the Babylon Collection and date to the later half of the Hrst millennium, tlie third comes from one of Ashurbanipal's libraries at Nineveh.^ The fragments duplicate three magical spells of the incantation handbook Mussu^u "Embrocation."^ Text no. 1 BM 32520 is a fragment of a one-column tablet (measurements: 5.8 x 5.5 cm) with 17 lines on the obverse and 11 lines on the reverse. The text preserves parts of the incantation *'en.ki e n tug n a m . t i , l a , k e 4 , "Enki, lord of the life bringing incantation." and traces of u d u g . h u l '"'edin.na rey.a. "As for the evil iidug demon who is roaming in the steppef both spells constitute tablet VII of the Musfiu^u handbook. The scribal hand, but not the size of the tablet, resembles a group of Mtissu^ii manuscripts written in Babylon by a certain Tanittu-Bel during the last days of Alexander the,, as identified by I. L. Finkel in his contribution "Mussw^w, Qutâru, and the Scribe Tanittu-Bel," in Velles Farautes. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Miguel Civil on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. P. Michalowski, H Steinkeller, E. C. Stone, and R L. Zettler (Sabadell-Barcelona; Ausa, 1991}, 91-104. However, the format of tbe present tablet seems far too small as to belong to TanittuBôl's library, since his tablets were around 25 x 17 cm in size. Tbe distribution of tbe text on BM 32520 allows for two possible reconstructions of the original tablet: if the tablet contained only the incantation 'en.ki en tU(i n a m . t i . l a . k e 4 and referred to the incantation u d u g . h u l " ' e d i n . n a rey.ajtistin the catchline, it might bave measured 1 1 x 7 cm; if also the incantation u d u g . h u l ^"edin.na rey.a was written ÍÍI extenso, the tablet could have originally measured around 1 7 x 7 cm in extent. If the latter is true, there would have been space for one more incantation preceding ''en.ki e n tug n a m . t i . I a . k e 4 . In either case, the tablet of which BM 32520 is part shows a ditterent distribution of incantations as compared to the MuSsu^u duplicates, whi( h jiresent both incantations written in full in one tablet or chapter.

1. 1 thank the Trustees of The British Museum for their gracious perrrission to ptihlish the texts. 2. For the creation of the lihrnry see A. R. George and G. Frame "The Royal Libraries of Nineveh: New Evidence for King Ashurbanipals Tablet Collecting," Iraq 67 (2()Ü.5) 265-84. 3. The fragments could not be inc hided in the text edition of the handbook, for which see B. Bock, Das Handbuch MuMu^u "Einreibung": Eine Serie akkadischer und surnenscher Beschworun^ien aus dem l.Jt r.C/jr., Biblioteca del Proximo Oriente Antiguo 3 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cipntíficas, 2007). R Borger kindly drew iTiy attention \o BM 32520 and BM 69903, for which see also his review article ""Textkritisches zu "Mundwaschung", zu Walker & Dirk, Indnction," BiOr (J2 (2005) 4Ü4-5.

133

JCS 61 (2009)

134

BARBARA BOCK

BM 32520

1 cm

10

THREE NEW SOURCES OF

135

Texl no. 2 The second fragment, BM 69903, preserves part of the incantations''en.ki e n tU(i n a m . t i . l a . k e 4 and u d u g . h til ""edin.na re7.a. The ohverse shows still the first half of nine hnes. the reverse of ten lines (measurements; 4.5 x 3.2 cm). The scril)al hand suggests a date within Seleucid or even later Parthian times. It is possihle that the original tablet contained a full chapter of Mussu^u. Both fragments BM 32520 and BM 69903 inc lude duplicates of incantations belonging to Mussu^u Vll, whiih counts now ten tablets (and fraginents); in accordance with the sigla in Das Handbuch Mussu'u, BM 32520 is source T and BM 69903 source "K."

BM 69903

r

V

5'

10'

10

BM 32520 BM 69903 î' 3 4 4a 5 6

K K K K K

obv. obv. obv. obv. obv,

l'-2' 3' 4' 5' 6'

traces ''asallú.hi en sà.la.s[ù ''asar.ri na de^.gfa ''asari.alim.nun.na t|u| •'asar.alim.nun.nla

J obv. 1' K obv. 7'

[ amar.ut|ti '^namlisih.a.ni [ ''amarutu tUR nam.l

J obv. 2'

|''AM!AR,UTU sa ina §ip-ti-§ú l[e-mut-tim

4. The line Dumbers follow the text edition in Das Handbuch Mussu^u, 243-49.

136

BARBARA BOCK

7 J obv. 3' K obv, 8' J obv, 4' 8 J obv. 5' K obv. 9' J obv, 5' 8a J obv, 6'

''•^itu.tu sîr.kù.ga.bi | ''tu.tus[ïr.kù.ga '^AMAR.UTU M ina sir-kü-ge-[sú '^.sazu digir suh [ ''sàzu dijgir ^AMARUTU i-lu mn-hal-lu-ú [ ''en,bi.lu.lu gaba huLgál ab.[

K obv, 10'

''e[n,bi.lu.lu

J obv, r

'^AMAR.UTU mu-né-^e-ú ir-t[i

9 J J 9a J J

obv, obv, obv, obv,

8' 8' 9' 9'

''namma su nam.tarra : ''MIN M ina qa-ti nam-ta-ri U^-[ "^namma su tag.ga.bi ; "^MIN sá li-pit qa-ti-sú na-si-[ru

10 J obv, 10' J obv, 10'

''bur.nun.e.sas lú hul.gál : ''MIN sa-kip lem-n{i

11 J obv, 11' J obv, i r

''hé.dim.me.kù lú érim.ma.bi : ''MIN mii-ra-^í-i-is [

12 J obv, 12' J obv, 13'

''GIS,LAL,abzu ka.baa,ni us„.zu [ '^pnp-sukka] sá ina e-pis pi-i-sú kis-pi ú-

13 J obv, 14' J obv, 15'

"^iPA.TE,SI.gál.abzuníg.zi'nígi.s[i.sá [''AN,MA|R.TUra-'í-íí/í/ííY-í|íí

14 J obv, 16' J obv, 17'

I I '^x^ nam,érim.ma ; | traces

28 J rev. 1' J rev. 2' ,

s[use4.dla[ inaqa-ti-s\ú

29 J rev. 3' J rev. 4'

ges,ge,en.ge,na.z|u [bi-n\a-^tP-kaa-naá\s-

30 J rev. 5' J rev. 6'

"^ninda a,mes^ ka.zu [ a-ka-Hu^ u nie-e [

31 J rev. 7' J rev. 8'

ki nam,ti,Ia.ke4 [ iua qaq-qar ha-*lá-tii^ [

THREE NEW SOURCES OF MUÈSWU

32

J J

rev. 9' rev. 10'

33

J

rev. 11'

K rev. r 38 K rev. 2' 39 K rev. 3'

37a

40 40a 41 42 43 44 45

K rev. K rev. K rev. K rev. K rev. K rev. K rev.

4' 5' 6' 7' 8'

9' 10'

137

ÍU sig5.ga digir.re.n|e. /í)af/|í7 -fi d\am]-q[audu]g.buP"'| rigal. ii ní.dúb n[í.te lam.bane.ne [ ITm,un.tag.tag,ge 1 g.e [s asal,lú. igi i[m.ma,an,s\ .gi.s ^i.s.eren [ ú.ui8.1u su.b|i abga]l abrigd|ù,a.bi sa,b|i.t|a gi,i]z¡i.lá Commenlarv

Tbe follou'ing notes refer to both the new text fragments as well as to the edition of the iiuantations in Das Haiidhuch Mussu^u, 243-52, I. 9: Source J oifers the divine name ''namnia, the other duplicates write 'kab.ta, I. 9a: On the basis of J, the divine name in source ß is rather to be read ' ' n a m m a than ''musda; correct in the light of J the Akkadian version in source D and read n]a-si'í'íí', I. 11; Read the divine name with .source j "^he.dim.me.kvi, and correct accordingly the reading in source A into | ,di|m.me,kiX and in source D to |''hé],dîm,me.k [ù |; read perhaps in A for the remaining signs ^Víí ma^-mit lja-a'ár-t[u ], and translate tentatively "Ditto (^ Hedimeku) who makes rejoice the one whose spouse is Mâmïtu (curse)!" 1.12: The line can now be partially restored; translate "GIS.LAL.abzu, w h o . . , witchcraft through his command"; correct the reading in source A to k a . b a . a . n i . I. 13: Translate "'EnsigalabzAi who loves justice and law!" and read in A in the Sumerian version [ ¡.Sl'.gal.abzu, and in the Akkadian ''AN,MA[RTU ]. II. 29-31; Source J confirms tbe restored readings at the beginning of the Sumerian lines. I. 32: Translate "Life and well-being are bestowed to him through the benevolent hand(s) of his gods!" The Akkadian text in source A should be read aim 'SUll dain^-
Text no. 3 K 5675* is part of what was originally a four-colnmn tablet; it is the fragment of the lower end of tlie third column preserving the lower edge (measurements: 4.Ü x 7.1 cm). Tbe text, written in Assyrian

5. See for this phenomenon the disnission and list of borrowings in Das Handbuch MmSii^u, 25-27. 6. EtUl Demons. Canonical Vtukkti LcmnCilii Incautationa, SAACT V ¡Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2007).

138

BARBARA BOCK

ductus, comes from one of the libraries at Nineveh. The four text lines duplicate the incantation Ummatu simmatu "Paralysis, paralysis!" which opens tablet VIII of Mmsu^u. In accordance with the edition in Das Handbuch Mmsu^u, 261-98 the fragment K 5675* is given siglum "W." K 5675*

r

59^ 61 60 63

W K K K

rev. rev. rev. rev.

iii:l' iii;2' iii:3' iii:4'

| Him-hur-ki^ \.AiB.BA ta-ma-tú ra-pá-as-[ lim-hur-kiKNTl si-kur[ /im-Äur-fc/«''GISIMMAaTUR GI

7. The line numbers follow the text edition in Das Handbuch MusSu^u, 276-77.