Akkade Is King A Collection of Papers by

Akkade is King:
a collection of papers by friends and colleagues presented to Aage Westenholz on the

occasion of his 70th birthday 15th of May 2009
edited by
Gojko Barjamovic
Jacob L. Dahl
Ulla Susanne Koch
Walter Sommerfeld
Joan Goodnick Westenholz
2010
“He saw the secret and uncovered the hidden, he brought back a message from distant times”
Table of Contents

Introduction 9
Bibliography of the publications of Aage Westenholz 13
Alster, B. Some New Sumerian Proverbs 17
Andersson, J. A Modest Addition to Early Syro-Mesopotamian Calendars 37
Bulgarelli, O. Financial and economic activity in Mesopotamia 45
Dahl, J. L. The Statue of Nin-e’iga 63
Dercksen, J. G. The Seal of Bēl : Sealing practices and Babylonian religious
motifs in the Seleucid period 75
Eidem, J. The Towers of Shemshara 87
Fadhil, A. and M. Hilgert „Verwandelt meine Verfehlungen in Gutes!“
Ein šigû-Gebet an Marduk aus dem Bestand der «Sippar-Bibliothek» 101
Feldt, L. and U. S. Koch A Life’s Journey — Reflections on Death in the Gilgamesh Epic 119
Foster, B. R. The Sargonic Period: Two Historiographical Problems 135
George, A. R. Erridupizir’s triumph and Old Akkadian sa’pum “foot” 147
Glassner, J.-J. Le corps de la victime dans le sacrifice divinatoire 151
Johnson, J. C. The metaphysics of mantic/prophetic authentication
devices in Old Babylonian Mari 159
Kogan, L. Old Babylonian Сopies of Sargonic Royal Inscriptions as
Linguistic Evidence 171
Marchesi, G. Goods from the Queen of Tilmun 197
Markina, E. Observations on Gasur Akkadian 209
Oelsner, J. Bemerkungen zu den „Archivfunden“ aus den hellenistischen
Heiligtümern Uruks 225
Pomponio, F. Quello che accade (forse) dopo la morte di Šar-kali-šarrī 237
Reade, J. The search for Old Akkadian rule at Nineveh 255
Salgues, E. Naram-Sin’s conquests of Subartu and Armanum 263
Selz, G. J. Reconstructing the Old Sumerian Administrative Archives of the
é-mí – é- d ba-ba 6 - Institution 283
Sommerfeld, W. Altakkadische Duelle 297
Visicato, G. The Careers of Some Bureaucrats in ED IIIb and Sargonic Girsu 313
Westenholz, J. G. Who was Aman-Aštar? 327
Abbreviations
All abbreviations are those of The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago
(Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956-), The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of the University
of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1984-), and the CDLI (http://cdli.ucla.edu s.v.
Abbreviations for Assyriology), with the following exceptions and additions:
AAE = Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy.
AI = Read as ana ittishu.
AOTb = Tablets from Telloh in the Collections of the Musée du Louvre (Visicato).
Arb. = Arabic.
AUWE Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Endberichte. Mainz (12-13 = von Weiher 1993-1998; 17 = Kose 1998;
19 = Wallenfels 1994; 20 = Lindström 2003).
AWAB = G. J. Selz (forthcoming): Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden aus Berlin (Neue Beihefte zur
WZKM; Wien: LIT-Verlag).
AWAS = G. J. Selz (1993): Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden aus amerikanischen Sammlungen.

Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Lagaš. Teil 2, 1. Abschnitt: Die Texte aus dem Harvard Semitic Museum
(FAOS 15/2-1; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag).
AWEL = G. J. Selz (1989): Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden der Eremitage zu Leningrad, Altsumerische
Verwaltungstexte aus Lagaš (FAOS 15/1; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag).
BCH = Bulletin du Correspondance Hellénique.
BDB = F. Brown, S.R. Driver and Ch. A. Briggs (1907), A Hebrew and English lexicon of the Old Testament
(Oxford).
BWL = Lambert.
CDG = W. Leslau (1987), Comparative Dictionary of Geˤez (Classical Ethiopic), (Wiesbaden).
CDLI = Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative; directed by Robert K. Englund of the University of California
at Los Angeles and Peter Damerow of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin (http://cdli.
ucla.edu).
DCCLT = Digital Corpus of Cuneiform Lexical Texts, directed by Niek Veldhuis of the University of California
at Berkeley (http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt), Berkeley, 2003-.
DUL = G. del Olmo Lete, J.Sanmartín (2003), A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic
Tradition (Leiden and Boston).
ePSD = electronic version of PSD, to be found at (http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd).
ETCSL = Black, J.A., Cunningham, G., Ebeling, J., Flückiger-Hawker, E., Robson, E., Taylor, J., and Zólyomi,
G., The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/), Oxford: 1998–2006.
FuB = Forschungen und Berichte der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin.

8 Akkade is King
Gez. = Geez.
HALOT = L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, J. J. Stamm (1994-2000), The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament (Leiden, New York, Cologne).
HL = T. M. Johnstone (1977), Ḥarsusi Lexicon (London).
Jib. = Jibbali.
JL = T. M. Johnstone (1981), Jibbali Lexicon (Oxford).
ML = T. M. Johnstone (1987), Mehri Lexicon (London).
LA = Ibn Manḏūr (1990), Lisānu l-ˤarab (Beirut).
Lane = E. W. Lane (1867), Arabic-English Lexicon (London).
Mhr. = Mehri.
MSA = Modern South Arabian languages.
PS = Proto-Semitic.
RIDA = Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité.
S = Donbaz, V. and B. Foster (1982): Sargonic Texts from Telloh in the Istanbul Archaeological Museums (S;
Philadelphia: University Museum).
SD = A. F. L. Beeston, s. A. Ghul, W. W. Müller, J. Ryckmans (1982), Sabaic Dictionary (English-French-

Arabic) (Louvain-la-Neuve).
SED I = A. Militarev, L. Kogan (2000), Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 1. Anatomy of Man and Animals
(Münster).
SP = Proberb Collection, see B. Alster (1997), Proverbs of Ancient Sumer I-II (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press).
Sab. = Sabaic.
Ugr. = Ugaritic.
Aage Westenholz: A Hero of a Heroic Age
When Aage’s nam-tar was decided by Enlil, the Great Mountain, the father of gods, it was to
be Assyriology, and his holy city Nippur was bestowed on Aage as his destiny.

Those days were indeed faraway days.
Those nights were indeed faraway nights.
Those years were indeed faraway years.
The storm roared,
the lights flashed.
On the sacred area of Nippur
(Barton Cylinder, Alster and Westenholz 1994: 26)
Nippur was his fated city, and Aage was the man who roamed its streets acquainting himself
with its inhabitants and incessantly looking for all possible information he could gather on them.
Aage Westenholz came into the world on June 20, 1939 to be an Assyriologist. The son of Erik
Aage Westenholz and Birgitte Marie Schiøler, he was born into strongly knit patrician family whose
most internationally well-known member was the author Karen Blixen. Despite being named after
his grandfather, Aage — ever the individualist — followed neither his grandfather nor his father to
become an engineer or even in his wider family’s footsteps of music and literature.
This young man was something of an Assyriological prodigy, insisting – at the age of seven
– on doing his arithmetic calculations in cuneiform, much to the consternation of his math teachers.
At the age of eight, he terrorized his grandmother with a temper tantrum in order to obtain Driver’s
Ancient Semitic Writing. As he grew to adulthood, he continued to employ the cuneiform script to
inscribe the Danish language on clay to give as gifts and as mementos to his loved ones.
Despite his early love of Assyriology, there was another area of human knowledge that absorbed
his interest. His fascination with not only theoretic chemistry, but also practical experimentation
caused much heartache while he was growing up. In later years, the move from apartment to house
was also dictated by a need for a basement for a chemistry lab—there were objections to flasks
bubbling away on kitchen stoves. His solution for household disinfectant or detergent was commonly
a home-made chemical concoction.
As a student in Regensen, a dormitory of the University of Copenhagen, he devoted himself
to gaining mastery of his beloved field, and although his interest in inorganic chemistry lead him
astray for his first year of his university studies, he returned reinvigorated to the study of Assyriology.
He worked at first in the ‘Assyriological Laboratory’ (Universitetets assyriologiske Laboratorium)
in Skt. Pedersstræde 19 under Prof. Jørgen Læssøe, where he began his life long fascination with
the Akkadian language, its phonology and grammar. As he delved deeper into his subject, the study
of Assyriology moved and gained its own home and name: ‘The Institute of Assyriology of the
University of Copenhagen’ (Det assyriologiske Institut ved Københavns Universitet) at Gråbrødre-
10 Akkade is King
Annekset in Kejsergade 2. After seven years, and alongside his fellow student and later colleague,
Mogens Trolle Larsen, in 1968, he was presented with his credentials as a master of Assyriology. He
received not only his degree, but also the gold medal of the University of Copenhagen in Semitic
Philology on the subject of the Akkadian language in the city of Ugarit.
Armed with academic credentials, he went to Philadelphia where he fell in love with all things
Nippur – especially the tablets – and he took it upon himself to publish all the texts from the pre-
Sargonic and Old Akkadian period from that site. Of course, that archive had to be supplemented
by the tablets from Nippur kept in the Hilprecht Sammlung in Jena. Thus, his wanderings around
the world began, tablets in Philadelphia, followed by tablets in Chicago, then tablets in Jena, tablets
in British Museum in London, Pontifical Biblical Institute and Banca d’Italia in Rome, Bible Lands
Museum tablets in Jerusalem, Schøyen Collection in Oslo, Cornell University in Ithaca, and even
some in Copenhagen. His motto is: ‘Where there are tablets, I will surely come.’
Putting his chemical knowledge to work, Aage perfected a system of preserving tablets that
were crumbling through the process of salinization and poor storage facilities through soaking and
baking. His work helped to preserve the tablet collections at the Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago and the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem. He was invited to teach the Samuel Noah
Kramer Institute at Bar Ilan University how to care for their tablets. He even set up a laboratory in
his home and taught his students the process.
Aage’s intense devotion to tablets is of a very generous nature — he has helped read tablets
for all and sundry, who sought his aid and assistance — and the list of his collaborative efforts is long
indeed. In a cooperative effort during 2002 and 2003 with Walther Sommerfeld, of the University
of Marburg, Aage acted as a partner for the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI) under the
directorship of Robert Englund, of the University of Los Angeles, and Peter Damerow, of the Max
Plank Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, to compile and enter into its main files a catalogue
of over 5,000 Old Akkadian texts. These texts have now been digitalized and are available through the
Internet making them accessible to scholars from around the world. Another completed cooperative
project was the publication of 210 third-millennium cuneiform documents belonging to the Banca
d’Italia in Rome, together with Giuseppe Visicato and Elena Milone. Two further projects are in
progress: the cataloguing and publication of 1200 texts at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., together
with Francesco Pomponio, Giuseppe Visicato and Elena Milone, and of 500 texts in the Schøyen
Collection, Oslo, together with Giuseppe Visicato, Gianni Marchesi and Elena Milone.
Among his many legacies, his students have always been a source of interest and pleasure to
Aage. Although tardy and not always organized, Westenholz was a devoted teacher and spent many
hours helping his students. Through his wise counsel and patient tutelage, they learned to understand
the cultural history of the ancient world of cuneiform studies. In an attempt to bridge the gap between
archaeologists and Assyriologists, he taught courses for archaeologists to help them recognize and
understand cuneiform tablets as archaeological records.
Introduction 11
Aage Westenholz’s contribution to cuneiform studies can be found in his numerous articles
on Sumerian and Akkadian language and lexicography, religion, history and literature. His focus
was principally directed to third millennium studies – the Old Akkadian period in particular – and to
Akkadian literature, Gilgameš in particular. Aage’s text editions reflect his literary sensitivity to textual
nuances, philological acumen, and careful attention to grammatical issues. He has been paramount
in maintaining the field of Old Akkadian studies, and brought to it new insights and interpretations.
He recognized the importance of a proper, well-founded linguistic classification of Ur III Akkadian,
and its differentiation from the Akkadian of the preceding Sargonic period that necessarily derives
from this classification. He assumed a pivotal role not only in ‘debunking the phantom called “Old
Akkadian,” but also in tracing the direct ancestry of Old Babylonian, in particular that of its early,
pre-Hammurapi varieties’ (see M. Hilgert in CDLJ 2003/4). Beyond the grammar and texts, Aage’s
involvement with the Old Akkadian dynasty is all-embracing, and in his contrubution to the M.
Wäfler and P. Attinger’s series of monographs on Mesopotamian histoy (OBO 160/1-5), Aage has
tried to capture the momentous nature of the Sargonic period as well as its “inexplicable charm”.
His lifelong love and devotion to the Akkadian epic of Gilgameš permeated his teaching
as well as his personal philosophy. He saw Gilgameš as the major contribution of Mesopotamia
to humanity’s spiritual achievement. Aage searched for the original sources, and his copies (the
Philadelphia OB Gilgameš, the MB Megiddo Gilgameš and others) served as a base for the work of
later generations of scholars. While he was collating the Bauer tablet at the University of Chicago,
A.L. Oppenheim approached him to ask why bother about the tablet, since it had already been copied!
Beyond scholarly circles, Aage would give extemporaneous recitals of the epic to all and sundry. In
order to disseminate the knowledge of this most important piece of Akkadian literature to a wider
general audience, he undertook to translate, in collaboration with Ulla Susanne Koch, not only the
Epic of Gilgameš but also that of Enuma Eliš into Danish. This rendition was most welcome.
A most important legacy will be his perfect hand-drawn copies of thousands of texts. The many
years of writing cuneiform came to fruition in his publications. His excellent hand-copies reveal his
keen eye and fine hand. In his generation of scholars, there has been no copyist that can match his
work. Furthermore, he has tried to inculcate in his students and colleagues the pivotal importance of
this basic foundation of our discipline — the hand-drawn facsimile copy of a tablet.
To describe Aage and to forget his love of all other languages would be a pity. He enjoys
playing with scripts and words, comparative philology and etymology – the Runic script and Old
Norse, Germanic languages, the relationship between the Indo-European family and the Semitic. He
is particularly interested in language interaction — he works and publishes on the interface between
Babylonian and Greek and between Arabic and Greek. He plays with the possible connections
between Indo-European and Hamito-Semitic.
In general, Aage has passionately argued for a wider dissemination of Mesopotamian lore,
for which we hold the key. In his article “Does Assyriology Have a Future”, he makes the case that
12 Akkade is King
we as Assyriologists have a social responsibility to the Babylonians that we represent and to future
generations that we engender to provide illumination to see their past. It is his hope that as the
study of Assyriology was part of the nineteenth century gentleman’s pursuit of knowledge, it should
continue to be part of humanity’s quest for wisdom.
This collection of essays by students and colleagues reflects the many interests of its honouree,
Aage Westenholz. We hope that he enjoys reading them and subjecting them to his critical review.
Joan Goodnick Westenholz

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PUBLICATIONS OF AAGE WESTENHOLZ
A. Books and Monographs

1. Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Philadelphia, Chiefly from Nippur, vol. 1. Bibliotheca
Mesopotamica 1; Malibu, Ca.: Undena Publications, 1975.
2. Early Cuneiform Texts in Jena. Det kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Hist.-filos. Skrifter VIII/3, 1975.
3. Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Philadelphia, Chiefly from Nippur, vol. 2: The ‘Akkadian’
Texts, the Enlilemaba Texts, and the Onion Archive. CNI Publications III; Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum
Press, 1987.
4. The Old Akkadian Period, in: W. Sallaberger and A. Westenholz, Mesopotamia. Akkade-Zeit und Ur
III-Zeit (Orbis biblicus et orientalis 160/3; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1999.
B. Books written conjointly with others

1. (With U. Koch-Westenholz), Gilgamesh *Enuma Elish. Guder og mennesker i oldtidens Babylon.
Copenhagen: Forlaget Spektrum, 1997 (2nd ed. 1999).
2. (With H. P. Martin, F. Pomponio and G. Visicato), The Fara Tablets in the University of Pennsylvania
Museum. Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2001.
3. (With J. Goodnick Westenholz), Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum,
Jerusalem: The Old Babylonian Inscriptions. Cuneiform Monographs 33; Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2006.
4. (With F. Pomponio et al.), Tavolette cuneiformi delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia. Vol. I, Adab.
Rome: Banca d’Italia, 2006.
5. (With F. Pomponio et al.), Tavolette cuneiformi delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia. Vol. II, Varia
provenienza. Rome: Banca d’Italia, 2006.
6. (With G. Visicato), Early Dynastic and Early Sargonic Tablets from Adab in the Cornell University
Collections. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 11; Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2010.
C. Articles
“berutum, damtum, and Old Akkadian KI.GAL: Burial of Dead Enemies in Ancient Mesopotamia”, Archiv fur
Orientforschung 23 (1970), 27-31.
“Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in the National Museum of Copenhagen”, Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 26 (1974), 71-80.
“Early Nippur Year Dates and the Sumerian King List”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 26 (1974), 154-156.
“Old Sumerian Administrative Documents in the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome”, Orientalia 44 (1975),
434-438.
“The Earliest Akkadian Religion”, Orientalia 45 (1976), 215-216.

14 Akkade is King
“Old Akkadian School Texts: Some Goals of Sargonic Scribal Education”, Archiv für Orientforschung 25
(1974-1977), 95-110.
“Diplomatic and Commercial Aspects of Temple Offerings”, Iraq 39 (1977), 19-21.
(With J. Goodnick Westenholz), “Help for Rejected Suitors: The Old Akkadian Incantation Text MAD V 8”,
Orientalia 46 (1977), 198-219.
“Some Notes on the Orthography and Grammar of the Recently Published Texts from Mari”, Bibliotheca
Orientalis 35 (1978), 160-169.
“The Old Akkadian Empire in Contemporary Opinion”, in: M. Trolle Larsen (ed.), Power and Propaganda
(Mesopotamia VII), Copenhagen 1979, 107-124.
(With J. Oelsner), “Zu den Weihplattenfragmenten der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena”, Altorientalische

Forschungen 10 (1983), 209-214.
(With J. Goodnick Westenholz), “Die Prinzessin Tutanapsum”, Altorientalische Forschungen 10 (1983), 387-388.
“The Sargonic Period”, in: A. Archi (ed.), Circulation of Goods in Non-Palatial Context in the Ancient Near
East, Rome 1984, 17-30.
“An Essay on the Sumerian “Lexical” Texts of the Third Millennium”, Orientalia 54 (1985), 294-298.
(With U. Koch), “Enkidu - den ædle Vilde?”, in: B. Alster and P. J. Frandsen (eds.), Dagligliv blandt Guder og
Mennesker, Copenhagen 1986, 63-72.
“Lugalzagesi”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7 (1987), 155-157.
(With F. M. Fales and O. Pedersen), “Neo-Assyrian Texts and Fragments from Copenhagen”, State Archives of
Assyria Bulletin 1/1 (1987), 17-25.
“Personal Names in Ebla and in Pre-Sargonic Babylonia”, in: A. Archi (ed.), Eblaite Personal Names and
Semitic Name Giving (Archivi reali di Ebla: Studi 1), Rome 1988, 99-117.
(With J. Eidem), “Cuneiform Texts in a Private Danish Collection”, Archiv für Orientforschung 36/37 (1989-
1990), 113-115.
“A Note on the Pre-Islamic Arabic Dialect of Syria on Basis of Greek Inscriptions”, in: E. Keck, S. Sondergaard,
and E. Wulff (eds.), Living Waters. Scandinavian Orientalistic Studies Presented to Professor Dr. Frede
Løkkegaard, Copenhagen 1990, 391-396.
“The Phoneme /o/ in Akkadian”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 81 (1991), 10-19.
“The Early Excavators of Nippur”, in: M. J. Ellis (ed.), Nippur at the Centennial, Papers Read at the 35th
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia, 1988 (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah
Kramer Fund, 14), Philadelphia 1992), 291-296.
“The World View of Sargonic Officials, Differences in Mentality Between the Sumerians and Akkadians”, in:
M. Liverani (ed.), Akkad, the First World Empire: Structure, Ideology, Traditions (History of the Ancient Near
East, Studies V), Padova 1993, 157-169.
Publications of Aa. Westenholz 15
(With B. Alster), “The Barton Cylinder”, Acta Sumerologica 16 (1994), 15-46.
“Assyriologists, Ancient and Modern, on Naramsin and Sharkalisharri”, in: J. Marzahn and H. Neumann
with Andreas Fuchs (eds.), Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner anläßlich seines 65.
Geburtstages am 18. Februar 1997 (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 252), Münster 2000, 545-556.
(With G. Visicato), “Some Unpublished Sale Contracts from Fara”, in: S. Graziani (ed.), Studi sul Vicino
Oriente Antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni, Napoli 2000, 1107-1133.
(With Ulla Koch-Westenholz), “Enkidu — the Noble Savage?” in: A. R. George and I. L. Finkel (eds.), Wisdom,
Gods and Literature: Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert, Winona Lake, Ind. 2000, 437-451.
(With G. Visicato), “Cinque contratti di compravendita di Fara”, Annali 60-61 (2000/01), 1-8.
(With G. Visicato), “A New Fara Contract”, Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 19 (2002), 1-4.
“The Sumerian City-State”, in: M. H. Hansen (ed.), A Comparative Study of Six City-State Cultures: An
Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre, Copenhagen 2002, 23-42.
“How do we understand ancient history, and why study it at all?”, Kaskal 1 (2004), 179-186.
“Have you been near Prof. Larsen too long?”, in: J. G. Dercksen (ed.), Assyria and Beyond. Studies presented
to Mogens Trolle Larsen (Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 100),
Leiden 2004, 599-606.
(With G. Visicato), “An Early Dynastic Archive from Ur Involving the lugal”, Kaskal 2 (2005), 55-78.
“Do not trust the Assyriologists!”, in: G. Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg (eds.), The Akkadian Language
in its Semitic Context, Leiden 2006, 252-260.
“Does Assyriology Have a Future?”, Kaskal 3 (2006), 275-283.
“The Graeco-Babyloniaca Once Again”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 97
(2007), 262-313.
D. REVIEWS
I. J. Gelb, Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary, No. 4: Sargonic Texts in the Louvre Museum, No. 5: Sargonic
Texts in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 31 (1972), 380-382.
J. J. M. Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 34 (1975), 288-293.
B. Foster, Umma in the Sargonic Period, in: Archiv für Orientforschung 31 (1985/86), 76-81.
J.-J. Glassner, La chute d’Akkade, in: Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 87 (1992), 39-48.
P. Steinkeller and J. N. Postgate, Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the Iraq Museum,
Baghdad, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 115 (1995), 535-537.
R. di Vito, Studies in Third Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names, in: Archiv für Orientforschung
42/43 (1995/96), 217-222.
16 Akkade is King
D. R. Frayne, The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods, vol. 2, in: Bibliotheca Orientalis 53
(1996), 114-123.
E. PUBLICATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC

“Hvordan kan man læse Kileskriften, og hvad kan den fortælle os?“ in: J. Læssøe (ed.), Assyriologien i
Danmark, Copenhagen 1977: 34-52.
“Kileskriften”, Louisiana Revy. Årg. 18, nr. 3 (1977/78), 28-29.
“En Udgravning i Iraq i gamle Dage”, in: P. J. Frandsen and J. Læssøe (eds.), Mellem Nilen og Tigris: Festskrift
for Carsten Niebuhr Instituttet, Copenhagen 1984, 149-162.
“Ved vi virkelig så lidt om denne David?”, Bibliana. Årg. 3, nr. 2 (2002), 31-43.
“Har Assyriologien en Fremtid?”, Tidernes Morgen. Meddelelser fra Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Ny Serie no. 10
(2008), 75-82.
Some New Sumerian Proverbs
Bendt Alster, Espergærde
As a great admirer of Aage Westenholz’s outstanding copies of cuneiform tablets, I am grateful

for this opportunity to dedicate a short overview of Sumerian proverbs, which have appeared in
recent years, to Aage Westenholz on the occasion of his 70th birthday. I can only regret that far from
all the tablets could be read with the accuracy and scrutiny that lives up to his standards. The aim of
this study is to list some recently published Sumerian proverbs, and partly to edit them, but does not
aim at discussing them all in every detail.
The discovery of Sumerian proverbs not attested in the already known Nippur repertoire
is particularly interesting, and a number of those treated below appear to belong to this group, or
they contain substantive variants not attested at Nippur.1 Since the findspots are mostly unknown,
the tablets are listed according to the museums, collections or locations where they are at present
located.
Some Recent Trends in the Study of Mesopotamian Proverbs

First, a few words about some recent trends in the study of Mesopotamian proverbs are
suitable. Important reviews of Alster 1997 are Veldhuis 2000a and Taylor 2005. Substantial new
text editions are Alster and Oshima 2006 and Alster 2007. Jon Taylor 2007 studies the vocabulary
of the Sumerian proverb collections, considered as a sub-corpus of the entire corpus of Sumerian
literary texts as reconstructed in the ETCSL (the on-line Oxford Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian
Literature), which includes numerous contributions to Sumerian proverbs by Jon Taylor. The latter
impressive edition, although far from complete, makes such analyses possible with a precision
hitherto unthinkable. “The proverbs can be expected to employ a different set of conventions and to
draw upon stereotypes, yet express them in varying ways. ... Proverbs ... can be expected to address
a wider range of themes, and illustrate their themes with a variety of examples” (Taylor 2007, 275-
276). A minor point of criticism is that the ETCSL corpus is not fully representative of the entire
Sumerian literary corpus, especially because emesal texts are mostly not included. This is regrettable,
because a study of the use of emesal in Sumerian proverbs would be highly relevant.
Veldhuis (esp. in Veldhuis 2004, 96-98) studies the relations between some proverb collections
and a number of exercise tablets on which some key-words, particularly relating to bird-names, occur.
In lucky circumstances this approach makes it possible to attain much more precise information
about the place of proverbs in the scribal curriculum than hitherto thought. Alster and Oshima 2006,
1 In this study, parallels to the main text of an edited line are written with smaller script under the main
lines. Translations of elliptical proverbs may contain words in parentheses, which are not in the original text,
but have been added for the sake of clarity from parallel sources to complete the meaning.
18 Akkade is King
esp. 32-41, however, rather wish to emphasize the relevance of the comparative aspect of proverbs,
not least, because in many linguistic areas proverbs have been similarly used in school education.
Doubts about the concept that the proverbs were introduced in scribal education precisely in order to
introduce grammar is further expressed in Alster 2007, esp. 5-7, who points out that many Sumerian
proverbs or sayings are quoted elliptically in the proverb collections, which makes it unlikely that
they were intended primarily for grammatical instruction. Since elliptical proverbs are a frequent and
well-known phenomenon wherever proverbs occur in a world-wide perspective, this is one of the
many features that stimulate further studies making use of comparative material.
It should be borne in mind that the transmission of the proverb collections was very unstable
and varied from place to place, so that the numbering and designation of the collection is nothing
but a preliminary way to organize the material. What is mostly considered “duplicates” may in many
cases be nothing but sequences that run partly parallel.2 It should also be borne in mind that using the
designation “proverb” does not imply anything but a very general similarity with what is elsewhere
regarded as “proverbs” and “proverb collections”. As a more precise term “sayings collection” may
be suggested.3
The Antiquities Market: An emesal Proverb

Niek Veldhuis has kindly drawn my attention to a round exercise tablet inscribed with two
lines containing an otherwise unknown Sumerian proverb in emesal. It was first spotted by Robert K.
Englund, as no. HAG 03 (Heritage Auction Galleries), where it was sold in March 2008, and at first
classed as a lexical text. Its present whereabouts are unknown, but photographs of it are accessible as
http://cdli.ucla.edu/P382664. Only one side is inscribed. The inscribed side reads:
KA-zu a l-ze -bé-ed

KA-zu še-er à m-na -a l
Your mouth/word is importa n t
your mouth/word is authori t at i v e
There are two unusual features here: z e - b é - e d , emesal for dugud seems to be the first OB
attestation of /zebed/ for dugud.4 Furthermore, na-al is a unusual writing for the normal emesal
form ma-a l = ŋál.
2 This is the ultimate consequence of the recognition of Veldhuis 2000a, 389, cf. the preliminary
grouping of the proverb collections in Alster 2007, 16-17.
3 Considered without much enthusiasm by Jon Taylor 2005, 16, cf. the discussion in Alster 2007, 12-13
and the literature quoted there.
4 For /zebed/ emesal for dugud, see e.g. the examples quoted in CAD K 25 lex., apparently all post
OB, such as CBS 14119 ii 9f.: zé-eb-bé-da = kab-tu4.
B. Alster: Some New Sumerian Proverbs 19
Single tablets inscribed with emesal proverbs are otherwise rare.5 An example occurs in the
Schøyen-collection as MS 2065 (Alster 2007, 29-30), a saying quoting the millstone’s song. For a
more detailed discussion of the latter, see Civil 2006, 122.6
Barcelona: A Proverb in the Montserrat Museum

A small unprovenanced school tablet in the Montserrat Museum, Barcelona, MM 1134, has
been published by Manuel Molina 2000, 755, copy and photo pp. 760, 762. It has four lines dealing
with birds, and its contents are similar to that of SP 6. It is reminiscent of SP 6.28, but may not belong
to that collection at all.
The British Museum: Proverbs From Ur In UET 6/3

The recent UET 6/3 volume, with copies by Aaron Shaffer of tablets excavated at Ur,
was prepared for publication by Christopher Walker and Marie-Christine Ludwig, who kindly
communicated to me a number of copies before their publication. Some of these are edited here.
UET 6/3 651

This is a large centre fragment from a multi-column tablet of which only one side is inscribed.
No edges are preserved. It contains the remains of two columns with extracts from proverb collections
or literary compositions, among which a few can be identified: Emeš and Enten 162; SP 3.66; SP 23.7
(9-10). Remarkably a sequence is preserved in a first-millennium source, K 8338 (BWL 255: 4-6,
quoted below), a bilingual fragment from the library of king Assurbanipal in Nineveh, where even
the meaning was still well understood.7
Col. iʹ
1ʹ [ ... ] ˹ x x x ˺
/ sa 6 -sa 6
2ʹ [ ... ] ˹ x ˺ e še-n i (o r i n ) d i l i -àm ḫ é-en -T UŠ
3ʹ [ ... ] ˹ x ˺ dùg -g a-àm
4ʹ [(x) dam]-gà r-ra k ù -d i ri l á-e
4ʹ [...] pa ying mo re m o n ey t o a [m er]ch an t .
5 Taylor 2005, 22-23 correctly argues that emesal does not necessarily prove that female speakers are
involved, since there was an incentive in the scribal schools to compose and practice in emesal. Yet, it is a
general impression that emesal is used in narratives mainly by female speakers, except for liturgical and cultic
context, where emesal is sometimes is used by males; cf. also Alster 2007, 8, fn. 8.
6 Civil (loc. cit.) understands it as “a reference to the feelings of the miller wishing to be free of
the physically hard work of grinding, accompanied obviously by rhythmic songs.” Alster 2007, 30 sees it as
spoken by a female worker herself, bored with the tediousness of her work. At any rate the speaker seems to
be female.
7 For a similarly amazing Neo-Babylonian case, BM 38283, see Alster 2006.
20 Akkade is King
Cf. SP 3.65 d a m-g àr-ra k ù ta ba -a n-tur ì ù š e [ta ba -a n-tur]

T h e merc h an t - how s ma ll he ma de the a mount of s ilve r!
[H o w s mall h e m a de ] the a mount of oil a nd ba rle y!
iʹ 4ʹ -5ʹ: Seem related to SP 3.65-66, but do not duplicate them. Cf. also i 10.
5ʹ [ ... ] ˹ šu(or s i m i l ar) ˺ k ár(o r s i m i l ar)-b i g i -n a

6ʹ [ ... ]- ˹ x ˺ ˹ x ˺ - b i í b -t ag4
7ʹ [ ... ] ḫé -dùg-g a
–––––
8ʹ [dub-sar-tur ] b ar-{ IM } -àm n í ŋ -g i g -g a
9ʹ [(...)] ˹ ú a ški ˺ k i -n á-b i n u -zi
–––––
8ʹ [When young s cri b es ] are ab s en t , i t ’s a b ad t h i n g ,

9ʹ [no rushe s] a re t o rn o u t fo r t h ei r b ed d i n g .
UE T 6 /2 2 7 4 [d u ]b -s a r-tu r { NÚ M U N } níŋ-gig-ga / ú a š ki ki-ná -ni / nu-um-z i

Wh en a y o u n g sc ribe is a bs e nt, no rus he s a re torn out for his be dding.
E me š a n d E n te n 1 6 2 : d u b -s ar-tu r ba r-à m níŋ-gig-ga ú aški ki-ná-bi-šè nu-zé

W h e n y o u n g s c ribes are absent, it is a bad thing.
No ru s h e s are to rn out for the ir be dding.
iʹ 8-9ʹ: These parallel UET 6/2 274, quoting Emeš and Enten 162, cf. the translations quoted
in PSD B, 111, and Alster 1997, 470. For the reading of ú NÚ M U N as ú a š k i , see Civil 1987: 49-
50, based on MSL 5, 164. In our i 8, it is difficult, however, to harmonize the first part with the
parallels, since no explanation of the sign I M has been found. Perhaps this is caused by confusion
with the reading IM (= TUM 9 )-šèŋ, which would mean “rainy wind”, or maybe the IM was
simply a misapprehended duplication of à m . In our source b i , instead of UET 6/2 274: n i , can be
understood as a collective plural, “their” with a singular verb. The ḫamṭu verb z i , with its variant
zé, is a characteristic example of the tense-less use of the perfective in Sumerian proverbs (cf. Alster
2005a, 209-210).
10ʹ [nam-da]m-g àr-ra na4
l ag ab -za-g ì n -n a
[(...) x]-íb-si
10ʹ Trade ... bloc k s o f l ap i s l azu l i . . . .
SP 3 .6 6 n am-d am-g àr-ra na4 la ga b-z a -gìn-na / na 4 lugal-bi-ir a-d[a ... ]

(v a r. na4 k iš ib -z a -gìn-na for na4 la ga b-z a -gìn-na )
S P 3 . 6 6 Tr a d e . . . b l o c k s of lapis lazuli (var. a seal of lapis lazuli) ...
iʹ 10ʹ : Unfortunately SP 3.66, which is imperfectly preserved, cannot be restored from our
text. Alster 1997, 92, tentatively translates “That which in the trade is (considered) a block of lapis
lazuli is a stone that ... for its owner”. The intent might then be that something very small may mean
something special to someone personally involved, but other interpretations can be considered. Cf.
also i 4-5 above.
11ʹ [ní-buluŋ 5 a-š à]-g a š u (! t ex t : b a) l á
[Someone wh o p u ff s h i m s e l f u p ]
ca rrie s (a wat er s k i n ) i n h i s h an d (!).
SP 2 2 v i 1 0 -1 2 n í-b u lu ŋ 5 n í n u - íl / kuš á -gá -lá š u-š è

S o m e o n e w h o p uffs himself up cannot raise himself
(w h ile ca rry in g ) a w a te r s kin in his ha nd.
SP 2 3 . 7 (5 ) kuš
á-g á-lá -š è š u (s ic !) íl-[x]
B W L 2 5 5 , K 8 3 3 8 : 4 -6
n í -b u lu ŋ 5 a -š à -ga ŋin-na kuš a -ga -lá š u(!)-š è lá
= k u -u b -b u -r u š á eqla ina a-la-k i-š ú na-r u-uq-q[ a] š u-qal-lu-lu
S o m e o n e w h o p uffs himself up,
w h e n w alk in g into a fie ld he c a rrie s a w a te r s kin in his ha nd.
C f . D ia lo g u e 1 , 9 9 (s o u rce s q u o te d in A ls te r 1997: 446)

n í-b u lu ŋ 5 a-š à -ga kuš a -ga -lá š u-š è lá
S o me o n e p u ffing hims e lf up
(w h en w alk in g ) into a fie ld c a rrie s a w a te r s kin in his ha nd.
iʹ 11ʹ: If the parallels quoted really belong here, our version is truncated almost beyond
recognition. In this case the most sensible variant of the saying, ridiculing a pompous person, is
remarkably that of the late bilingual K 8338. In SP 22 vi 10-12 the saying is truncated (l á is left out),
but ní nu-íl is not simply a mistake for a - š à - g a ŋ i n - n a : this is rather an interesting example of a
substantive proverb variant not attested in the Nippur sources. n í - b u l u ŋ 5 and n í n u - í l correspond to
each other as an antithetic pair. The intent is something like “he who puffs up himself (= kubburu, lit.
“swells himself”, “makes himself thick”) cannot raise himself.” This may reflect a genuine proverbial
expression, but the point that the pompous person ridicules himself by doing something trivial (that
is, carrying a water skin while pompously going out to the fields) has got lost in SP 22.8 It is less
explicit in Dialogue 1, 99, where the field remains without the verb. The most likely explanation is,
therefore, that the Neo-Assyrian version was based on a more complete citation of the saying than
those hitherto attested. An alternative explanation might be that the Neo-Assyrian version expanded
an old saying in a sensible way, but this is less likely, because the full version is likely to lie behind
the truncated OB versions known to us. In SP 23 the saying appears truncated and corrupted, in that
šè should belong to the following šu, and l á has become í l , which can be understood as a sensible
8 SP 22 (edited in Alster 1997, 261-269) is an unusual four-column tablet (that is, four columns on both
sides) in the Oriental Institute in Chicago. It includes a number of proverbs and literary extracts not attested in
the known Nippur collections. It is well written, but contains a number of grave scribal errors.
22 Akkade is King
variant of íl, though.9 The nature and implication of such truncated or elliptical proverbs is discussed
by Alster 2007, esp. 5-6.
12ʹ [ ... ] TÙN-bi n í ŋ - ˹ š u ˺ - ˹ x ˺ (l i k e p eš ?)

–––––
13ʹ [ ... ] ˹ x ˺ [x x x ]
Res t of c ol. i broken. B egin n i n g o f co l . i i b ro k en .
Col. iiʹ
1ʹ ˹ x ˺ [ ... ]
2ʹ ˹ ḫé(?) ˺ -[ ... ]
–––––
3ʹ lú [ ... ]
4 ʹ é-bi [ ... ]
5ʹ ka-zu-[gim g al 4 -l a-zu -g i m ]
–––––
5ʹ [Like ] your mo u t h , [l i k e y o u r v u l v a].

iiʹ 5ʹ: Tentatively restored from ED Proverbs 3 (cf. Alster 1991-92, 10): k a - z u 5 -g i m / g al 4 -
zu 5 -gim = OB version ka-zu-gim / g a l 4 - z u - g i m = ki-ma pi-i-[ki] bi-[iṣ]-ur-[ki], “like your
mouth, like your vulva”, but it is of course possible that the second part was different in our case. If
correctly restored, this exemplifies a very common international proverb type, see e.g. the examples
quoted in Alster 1991-92, 6. The quotation of a saying that also occurs in an ED source would be
remarkable, but the expression may have been so common that it may not have been quoted from
there.
6ʹ lú-lul-[la gal 4 -l a b a-an -ú s ]

7ʹ lú nu-ŋa r-[ra ŋiš
š u -k i ŋ m i n -àm ]
A liar [pursue s t h e v u l v a ] .
A disorderly m a n [ h a s t w o s i c k l e s ] .
9 SP 23 (two columns, edited in Alster 1997, 270-272) is another unprovenanced tablet, acquired by
Thorkild Jacobsen from the antiquities market in Baghdad in the 1930s, who later donated it to the National
Museum of Denmark. The tablet contains a number of unidentified proverbs and is characterized by many
scribal errors. It is one of the three known sources that contain The Adulterer (cf. below under ii 6-7). A second
source is YBC 5828, also unprovenanced, copy in Alster 1997, pl. 123. The third source, Schøyen MS 2268/03
is now published in Alster 2005a, pl. 41, and Alster 2007, 36.
SP 2 3 . 7 (9 ) lú -lu l-la ga l 4 -la [ba -a n-ús ]

(1 0 ) lú - ˹ n u ˺ - ŋa r-ra ŋiš(!) šu-kiŋ min-[àm],
(9 ) A lia r [p urs ue s ] the vulva .
(1 0 ) A d is o rde rly ma n ha s tw o s ic kle s .
BWL 255, K. 8338 7-10:

[l]ú -lu l-la [g a l 4 ]-la ba -a b-ús [l]ú nu-gi-na [ŋi]š šu-kin-bi min-àm
= s a r- r u m u r- t e - e d-du-ú ú-ri la ki-nu ši-it-ta ni-ig-gal-la-šú
A lia r p u rs u e s th e vulva . A n unjus t ma n ha s tw o s ic kle s .
SP 1 . 1 5 8 [d am]-ŋ u 10 l[ú ]-lul-la ma -a n-dug 4

[g al 4 -la]-e b a -a b-ús -e -e n
M y [w ife] s aid “ unfa ithful” to me ,

(b u t) d o I ch as e a fte r [the vulva ? ] (or: You c ha s e a fte r [the vulva ]).
iiʹ 6-7ʹ: In this case it is the Nippur version SP 1.158-159 that deviates considerably from the
other sources, in that the SP 1.158 form of the saying is phrased as a rhetorical question uttered by a
husband accused by his wife of chasing other women.10 The other variants are plain statements. Both
forms make good sense, but, in view of its lively character, the SP 1.158 form has the greater chance
of having been a genuine spoken proverb. In addition, SP 1.159 has a form not attested in the later
sources: ŋiš-lul-la gal 4 -la -lul-la-ke 4 n a - n i - i n - s ì , “an unfaithful penis matches an unfaithful
vulva”. What is meant by having “two sickles” is rather that his sickle is double-sided, symbolizing
his utter unreliability.11 These sayings are remarkable in that they render the female point of view,
not only that of the male. The motivation for warning against adultery, may, however, rather have
been that it makes the man unwelcome in society. That this is a relevant point of view appears clearly
from one of our sources, SP 23, in which our saying is followed by the unique short morality tale The
Adulterer, which is phrased as a quasi-riddle, obviously with similar intent. Apart from SP 23, it is so
far attested only in two other unprovenanced tablets, both without context, see fn. 7 above for details.
None of the sources comes from Nippur.
8ʹ kišib-tuku ŋá (o r s i m i l ar) [ . . . ]
He who ha s a s eal . . . (o r: T h e s eal h e h as . . . )

iiʹ 8ʹ : The intent may well have been that a seal of an unreliable person is untrustworthy, or
similar.
9ʹ lú-lul [ ... ]
10ʹ lú [ ... ]
11 ʹ é [ ... ]
12ʹ ˹ x ˺ [ ... ]
10 Or simply translate “you chase after [the vulva]”, still spoken by the wife.
11 Or cf. Foster 1993, 344, commenting that one sickle is enough for an honest man.
24 Akkade is King
Res t of col. iiʹ brok en

iiʹ 9ʹ : This might be SP 22 vii 43: lú - l u l I . L U , but very uncertain.
UET 6/3 876

Lentil, top and upper right corner missing. Rev. mathematical, see E. Robson (OECT xiv, p.
257).
1 [l]ú níŋ- ˹ gi ˺ -[n a]

2 níŋ-si-sá ˹ x ˺ [ x x ]
3 d
utu ˹ á ˺ -[zi-da]
4 lú-lú-[ka m(?) ]
1- 2 A just man, wh o [p erfo rm s ] ri g h t eo u s n es s ,

3- 4 the sun god [ wi l l b e] t h e “[ri g h t ] arm ” [o f] t h e m an .
Related sayings occur in UET 6/2 259 (Alster 1997, 310), cf. SP 26 Sec. A 4. n í ŋ - s i - s á occurs
in Ni 3981 (2) (Alster 1997, 293): dumu - n í ŋ - s i - s á , but no duplicate. Cf. also YBC 7331 (Alster
1997, 331). What is meant by the “right arm” is rather a favourable protecting deity, or similar. l ú - l ú
may well stand for *lú-ùlu-[kam].
UET 6/3 881

Lentil, upper half with four lines preserved, the fourth partly broken. Inscribed with an
unidentified proverb or a quotation from a literary composition.
1 KA (hardly sa ŋ )-d a KA b [a (x )]
2 níŋ nu-z uḫ nu -m [u -x -(x )]
3 a-ga -bi-[šè (x)]
4 ˹ diri (S I.A) ˺ ˹ x (l i k e k i ) ˺ ˹ x ˺ ˹ x ˺ [x x (x )]
1- 2 With ... he (? ) d i d n o t s t eal an y t h i n g , h e d i d n o t . . .

3- 4 [In] the end . . . m o re . . .
UET 6/3 882

Lentil, fragment from the left side.
1ʹ ˹ lú ˺ [...]
2ʹ igi-ni- ˹ šè ˺ [mu- na - ŋe n]
3 ʹ eŋir-ra-a-[ni im- ús]
4ʹ nam [...]
1ʹ-4ʹ A ma n [...] wen t b efo re h i m , [. . . fo l l o wed ] b eh i n d h i m . . .

This is not necessarily a proverb, but may be a quotation from a hymn describing a personal
god. Cf. Gudea Cylinder B ii 9-10: ú-du g 4 s a 6 - < g a > - n i i g i - š è m u - n a - ŋ e n (10) d l am a s a 6 -
ga-ni eŋir-ni im-ús, “his favourable personal deity went before him, his favourable protective
deity accompanied him”. The proverbial character appears from the similar use in SP 3.188. Cf. also
YBC 7347 (Alster 1997, 331).
Other British Museum Tablets
BM 104096
This lentil, kindly communicated to me by Jon Taylor, is on display at the British Museum, and
has been published inter alia by Walker 1987, 34, and Robinson 1995, 82-83. It reads:
mu udu abul x (KÁ.GAL) è -a -b i n am -ra-aš m u -u n -u r 4 -re

Year: He gathers the sheep f o r b o o t y a s t h e y c o m e o u t t h r o u g h t h e c i t y
ga te .
This is hardly a proverb in any strict sense of the word. The initial m u imitates the phraseology
normally used in year formulae, so it may be meant as a (mock?) quotation of a year formula that had
become almost proverbial.
Cornell University: Proverbs in the Cornell University Library

Two tablets of unknown provenance in the Cornell University Library are published in Alster
2005a, 391-403. Of these, Kroch-04 adds considerably to the reconstruction of SP 1.113-1.119.
Kroch-05 is a well preserved one-column tablet with 12 inscribed entries, containing mostly excerpts
from SP 2 and SP 3, in addition to quotations from Gilgameš and Huwawa, The Fowler and his
Wife, and some unidentified proverbs. After the initial publication, Kroch-05.25 was indentified as a
parallel to Schøyen MS 3426.4; see Alster 2007, 144.
Cotsen Collection: Proverbs in the Cotsen Collection

From the Cotsen collection in Los Angeles comes a lenticular proverb tablet, now published
as Wilson 2008, 160-161 (number 62). The reverse is not inscribed.
Obv
1 lú dùb-tuku b ar-n i i n -d ab 5
2 lú á -tuku ba -an -d a-k ar
3 lú ka-tuku é -g al -š è
4 ba -ni-in-ku 4
1- 2 The swift ma n fo u n d a way o u t ; t h e s t ro n g m an es cap ed ;
3- 4 (but) the one wh o co u l d u s e h i s m o u t h en t ered t h e p al ace.
26 Akkade is King
T h i s is a v a ria n t o f S P 1 8 . 8 = U E T 6/2 281:

d ù b -tu k u b ar in -da b 5 / us u-tuku ba -da -a n-ka r / ka -tuku é -ga l-š è
/ b a -n i-in -k u 4
Ge n e v a p ro v e rb s i 1 9 -ii 1 :
lú d ù b -tu k u b a r in-da b / lú á -tuku ba -da -a m(s ic !)-ka r
lú e me -tu k u é -ga l- ˹ la ˺ ˹ ba ˺ -[ku 4 ]
Sc h øy e n M S 3 2 7 9 : 1 8 (A ls te r 2 0 0 7: 112) (s e mi-bilingua l):

d ù b (? )-tu k u ma š -dà in-da b 5 lú á - ˹ tuku ˺ / ˹ ba -da ˺ - ˹ ka r(? ) ˺
(A k k n e a r ly illegible )
The Geneva version clearly has e m e - t u k u instead of k a - t u k u (see the edition in Alster
and Oshima 2006). ka-tuku occurs in Instr. Šuruppak 106 (cf. the discussion in Alster 2005a, 140
and the literature cited there), and is probably the more convincing reading. This is an example of a
proverb that displays a critical attitude towards the palace, best illustrated by SP 9 Sec. A 9: n u - z u
é-gal-la ba-šár, “there are many ignoramuses in the palace”. Cf. also SP 6.4 and Instr. Šuruppak
104; 110, and Alster 2005a, 33, n. 14.
Edinburgh: A Proverb in The Royal Scottish Museum Edinburgh

Claus Wilcke has identified and kindly communicated before publication to me an
unprovenanced tablet in the Royal Scottish Museum Edinburgh (Langdon, BL, Pl. X, Nr. viii ter) as
a duplicate to SP 1.198-202 (Alster 1997, 39). Langdon’s copy is not very reliable, but more reliable
readings can now be obtained since the tablet, Edin. 09.405-3, was collated in 1985 by Wilcke in the
Royal Scottish Museum in Edinburgh, and a new copy has been made by M. J. Geller. An edition
has been published by Wilcke (2004, 345-348). The new duplicate makes it possible to recognize
the small fragment UET 6/2 328 (Alster 1997, 320), mentioning a woman from Girsu, with some
apparently obscene allusions to “her lap”, “her after”, and a “gate”, as a duplicate to SP 1.199. In
the commentary, (Alster 1997, 474), UET 6/2 328 is said to be an “unusual fragment of a limerick,
unfortunately too poorly preserved to make connected sense”. It would now rather seem to be best
described as a small humorous anecdote.
Geneva: A Large Proverb Tablet in Private Possession

One of the most interesting proverb tablets that have been published recently,12 is a large
fragment of an unprovenanced six-column tablet in a private collection in Geneva, inscribed with
a number of proverbs, a number of which are hitherto unknown. This was published by Alster and
Oshima 2006.
Isin: A Proverb From The German Excavations

From Isin comes a tablet, IB 1143 = IM 80803, kindly communicated by Claus Wilcke, which
12 That is, acquired over twenty years ago from the antiquities market in Europe, but luckily made
available for publication by its present owner. See now Wilson 2008.
allows a better understanding of SP 14.46: G I . K I D . M Á . Š Ú - a a k , “making a reed mat”. The

previous translation of ak as “what functions as a reed mat?” should be corrected accordingly. Cf.
now Wilcke (2004, 345-348).
Istanbul: Proverb Fragments Published by Christine Proust

The volume of mathematical tablets in the archaeological museum of Istanbul published by
Christine Proust 2007 contains some exercise tablets also inscibed with excerpts from the proverb
collections. They all come from Nippur and were partly included in earlier publications of these
collections. The relevant texts are listed on p. 327 and transliterated on the following pages by
Antoine Cavigneaux.
Note in particular that Ni 3678: 4’-5’ (p. 336) = SP 18.13, also attested in Schøyen MS 3298
B 3. Following Å. Sjöberg, saŋ-ki-tùm / t ú m may mean “supportive one”, rather than “to bury
someone”: cf. the references cited in Alster 2007, 132. Unfortunately this new attestation does not
help much.
Jena: A Bilingual Proverb Published by M. Krebernik

A bilingual proverb, probably from Nippur, about a widow, and a bilingual variant version of
SP 3.102 was published by Manfred Krebernik (2004, 226-249). These are further discussed in Alster
(2005b, 91-95). Another variant has now remarkably turned up in the Geneva proverb tablet ii 16, see
the edition in Alster and Oshima 2006, 16.
Jena: A possible Ur-III Proverb

No. 23 in van Dijk and Geller 2003 is described by the editors as a possibly Ur-III proverb
tablet, because of its style. Cf. also Alster 2007, 22, fn. 2.
Oslo: Proverbs in the Schøyen Collection

The largest and by far the most important new group of proverbs belongs to the private
collection of Martin Schøyen in Oslo, which contains about 33 unilingual Sumerian or bilingual
proverb tablets, among these a unique semi-bilingual OB proverb tablet (MS 3279), containing about
42 proverbs, most of them provided with Akkadian translations. These have all been published by
Alster 2007. For previous mention of them, see Alster 2005a, 390, 403; Alster 2005c.
28 Akkade is King
Philadelphia: Proverbs in The University Museum:

Additional Sources And Reassignments
Niek Veldhuis 2000a, 383-99, published a list a newly identified additional proverb sources,
not repeated here. His most important contribution is the identification of CBS 6832 (Alster 1997,
287), as a duplicate to SP 6.20-27 (transliterated by Veldhuis 2000a, 390-391). As a result SP 6 can
now be shown to be the continuation of SP 2, as already predicted by E. I. Gordon and Alster.
Veldhuis 2000a: 395 also lists some as yet unidentified fragments, of which the following
deserve to be included here (with a few slightly modified translations suggested):
CBS 6565 (copy Veldhuis: 2000a, 396 Fig. 2)

2ʹ a -na-gin 7 -n[am ]
3ʹ níŋ ì-gù-a-ŋu 1 0
4ʹ gub-ba e-še
2ʹ-4ʹ “How c an thin g s t h at I j u s t at e b e s t an d i n g h ere?” h e s ai d .

–––––
5ʹ muš-lah 5 -e
6ʹ muš a n-da - ˹ ŋál ˺
7ʹ z ú mu-ra-zé - ˹ x ˺
5ʹ-7ʹ A sna ke c ha rmer h ad a s n ak e, h e(?) p u l l ed o u t t h e t o o t h . . .
N 5569
–––––
3ʹ si-ga -a r na m- b a-an (?)-n a-k ú r-[ ]
4ʹ kala-ga -a r na m -b a-an - ˹ š e 8 ˺ - š [e 8 ]
5ʹ gašam-šè á-n i ˹ x ˺
3ʹ-4ʹ B e not hosti l e t o t h e weak l i n g , d o n o t cry fo r t h e s t ro n g

one,
5ʹ to the craftsm an h i s arm . . .
SP 8
According to Veldhuis, N 3852 (his Fig. 6) joins CBS 3882 + CBS 19758. The following
section is to be inserted before the end of SP 8 Sec. C:
1ʹ ˹ lú ˺ še tuku-tu k u ˹ x ˺ ù m u - ˹ u n ˺ -[k u -k u ]
2ʹ x mu gud NE -b a-an
1ʹ The one who h as g rai n can n o t s l [eep ]. . . .

–––––
3ʹ ˹ da r(?) ˺ m u š e n -re i m -d ù -a g ù ù -b [í -i n -d é]
4ʹ [ga n]-bad m u š e n 2 š u -s i n u -l á-e [ . . . ]
5ʹ [bí-z ]a -z a m u š e n -g ù -b al aŋ -ŋ á-k [ar(?)-g i r 5 -za-n a]
6ʹ [...] a d ù-mu-n i -i [n -ŋ á-ŋ á]
7ʹ [...] ˹ x ˺ UN e m e en -n u -[u ŋ . . . ak ]
3ʹ A francolin, h a v i n g m a d e v o i c e o n a m u d - b r i c k w a l l ,
4ʹ did not rea ch t wo “fi n g ers ” t o ward s a . . . b i rd .
5ʹ A sounding(? ) fro g
6ʹ having emitte d a s o u n d [i n . . . ].
7ʹ ... gua rd[e d] i t s t o n g u e . . .
–––––
8ʹ traces
1ʹ : This is a somewhat surprising conversion of SP 3.23.
SP 16
Attention is further drawn to the slightly improved reconstruction of SP 16 Sec. E 7 = Sec.
F 1-5 (Veldhuis 2000a, 393). By means of N 1009 (+) 5187 (copy Veldhuis 2000a, 397 Fig. 4),
Veldhuis provides the following text:13
SP 1 6 S ec . E 7 = F 1 kur kù b a-al -[g i m l ú ] d í m -m a n u -s a 6

SP 1 6 S ec . F 2 šu-i-gim n am - ˹ x ˺ -[ ] s u ḫ u r i m -š i -l á- ˹ e ˺
SP 1 6 S ec . F 3 ˹ x ˺ z i T ÚG ˹ x ˺ [ . . . d ]n i raḫ -g i m d ar-ra- ˹ m e-en ˺
SP 1 6 S ec . F 4 [...] ka -àm ì -b ar-re
SP 1 6 S ec . F 5 [...] diri
SP 1 6 S ec . F 6 [... b]a -n i -i b - ˹ t ú m (?) ˺
Rev.
1’ [...] x e-še
2’ [...] a Š [E(? )- ]-i -g í d -i x -ŋ á-ŋ á(?)
3’ iš-ḫi-[ i]k(?) x el r a -ma -n i -š u i z -n u -u r
Lef t side [...] ta-w i-i-tu m
Right side i-[...]
13 Veldhuis’s remark ad SP 15 B, referring to Sec. A 5, p. 393, “it is not clear where Alster’s transliteration
comes from”, can be explained by a simple misprint: it should be A instead of B.
30 Akkade is King
According to Veldhuis’s collation (Veldhuis 2000a, 392) this can be combined with SP 9 Sec.
G 3, reading [kur kù] ba-al-gim(!) l ú d í m - m a n u - s a 6 , “As a mountain mined for metal ore,
this man is not in a right state of mind”.
SP 21
Another important contribution by Veldhuis 2000a, 394 is his reorganization of SP 21: After
an initial lacuna Sec B should come before Sec A and D.
Further unidentified fragments

As possible unidentified proverbs Veldhuis 2000a, 395, n. 32 lists: CBS 7894; CBS 7895;14
N 4664 (lentil fragment); N 5667 + N 5694; UM 29-13-512 rev. Of the unidentified photographs in
Alster 1997, pls. 112-116, 3N-T914n contains model contracts, not proverbs.
Further Fragments from Nippur

Two small exercise tablets from Nippur, nos. 22 and 23 in Waetzoldt 2001, are described by
Hartmut Waetzoldt as possible proverbs. I have not been able to identify them.
No. 22 rea ds: nin amar ? an- n a / p à - d a n u - p à

No. 23 re ads: [ ... -t]a ? -[? ] / [ . . . ]-d u 1 0 / [ . . . ]- ˹ m è ˺
Toronto: A Proverb in The Royal Ontario Museum

An unprovenanced OB lentil published by Sigrist 2004, no. 506, is inscribed with the following
text:
níŋ-šu ŋál-la / i-bí-gim / a n -š è(! co p y : L AGAB ) b a-è-d è

“A ll he has will evaporate l i k e s m o k e”. 1 5
This has now been recognized as a duplicate to a fragment of the Níŋ-nam composition BM
54699 Face B 11 (CT 42, 23; cf. Níŋ-nam B 6; D 11 ff; see now Alster 2005a, 280, 287).
Ugaritic Proverbs
To the best of my knowledge a Sumerian tablet from Nippur, CBS 13777, was first mentioned
in PSD A/3, p. 28, as a duplicate to a bilingual sequence of proverbs from Ugarit, RS 25.130,
published by Nougayrol 1968, 293-297. This has now been edited in Alster 2005a, 323-326. The
text was previously studied by Dietrich 1992, 9-29, who proposed a somewhat different “ethical”
interpretation.
The Ugaritic sequence of proverbs in one source is inscribed on a tablet that also contains
the Ballade of Ancient Rulers. A Neo-Assyrian source, K 6917 + K 13679, identified and joined by
14 The possibility of a join between CBS 7895 and 7894 needs to be checked.
15 I owe the reference to Niek Veldhuis.
Rylke Borger, contains the opening lines of the Ballade, followed by short sequences of proverbial or
sententious sayings, which reminds of the Ugaritic proverbs in tone. These are now edited in Alster
2005a, 320-322.
Uruk Proverbs: Auwe 23, 120-121

AUWE 23, nos. 120-121, contains Adam Falkenstein’s copies of two tablets from Uruk, edited
by Antoine Cavigneaux 1996, 62-63, 161-162. No. 120 almost certainly belongs to the same tablet as
no. 121, as indicated by Cavigneax 1996, 62. In that case, 120 is the upper left corner of the complete
tablet, and 121 belongs to the reverse. On the reverse the following sequence can be recognized, in
this order: SP 4.4; SP 3.93; SP 4.5; SP 4.8; SP 4.9, which is the last entry on the tablet. The reverse
of the complete tablet then seems to have contained no more than a short section from SP 4, and
the preceding lines now almost completely lost could have been approximately = SP 4.1-3. The
obverse of the complete tablet, of which now only AUWE 23: 120 remains, seems to have contained
a composition different from SP 4; cf. Cavigneaux’ comments 1996, 62.
Corrections and Reassignments

YBC 8929 (Alster 1997, 332) is Lipit-Eštar Hymn B 10-11.
Joseph Bauer (2002, 43-44), commenting on Alster (1997, 335-337), contributes to some
difficult school texts from Susa in heavy phonetic writing.
In the volume of proverbs in the Schøyen Collection, Alster (2007, 50-51), MS 3322 should be
corrected to MS 3222. It is correctly listed in Alster 2007, 149, though, where, however, the number
3323 should be deleted.16
Jeremiah Peterson has identified N 3783- N 5031 (Veldhuis 2000b), as PS 3.150 (Peterson
2007), and CBS 8010 rev. as SP 2+6: 107-110 (Peterson 2008).
“Early Dynastic Proverbs”

Miguel Civil, in a paper read at the 47th RAI, Helsinki, 2001 (Civil forthcoming), has thrown
new light on this collection, edited by Alster 1991-92. Civil argues that this in fact basically consists
of a long list of female insults. This seems to be corroborated by an OB duplicate published by Jacob
Klein 2003. Such lists of insults may be related to the abuses thrown in the dialogues between two
women, as well as to the long list of abusive words with which the father scolds his son in Father and
Son (Sjöberg 1977). See now Alster 2005a, 23-24 with nn. 32-36.17
16 Kindly checked by Elizabeth Sørenssen.

17 An example of a modern collections of insults is Nancy Mcphee: The Complete Book of Insults, first
published in 1982, later reprinted as Big Book of Insults, by Chancellor Press. This combines two previous
books, The Book of Insults Ancient and Modern (1979), and The Second Book of Insults (1981). These collect
insults mainly from written sources. That the Sumerian proverb collection sometimes include insults has already
been noted, cf. Alster 2007, 5 with fn. 66 for further discussion. This of course does not imply that every insult
is a proverb, but only that some insults may have become so widely known that they had become proverbial.
32 Akkade is King
Kassite Proverbs
Veldhuis 2000b, 72-74, 80 includes (p. 74) a few (extracts from) Sumerian proverbs, and (p.
80) a single Akkadian one.
A Comment on a Bilingual Proverb About Rain

In a much discussed bilingual proverb about the farmer looking for rain, most recently edited
in Alster 2006, 383-384, rain is understood as something beneficial. Alster 2006, 389 translates “The
day became cloudy, but it did not rain; it rained, but the sandals were not [untied]; the Tigris roiled
in its outlet(?), but it (= the Tigris) did not fill the irrigation canals”, the point being that the Tigris
roiling is like the proverbial big mountain that gave birth to a ridiculous mouse, or “much ado about
nothing”, when the rain that the farmer was looking forward to fell over the river, but not on the dry
land. An earlier suggestion by Foster 2005, 430, who sees rain as something damagable, is still worth
taking into account, however, since in the preceding sequence rain is seen as something damagable
befalling a cursed city, which favours negative connotations of rain. This could be supported by a
remark communicated to me by Emmanuel Georgoudakis: “It could be rather normal, regardless
of the climate, that in a land, as dry as Iraq, rain could be unwelcome, bearing in mind the Greek
proverb In the cursed land it is raining even in May (Ston katarameno topo, Mai mena brechei).”
Appedix
The following and identifications came to late to be taken into account in the present study (I
owe some of the following references to N. Veldhuis):
Wilson 2008, no. 062 is the tablet cited in Alster 2007, 113. No. 067 is described as a proverb by
Wilson, but identified as Lipit-Estar B by Peterson. No. 148 (lentil reading: kur-kur-re ú-sal mi-ni-nú).
Nos. 149 and 150: proverbs (unidentified).
M. Krebernik edited and identified on the CDLI website: HS 264++: http://cdli.ucla.edu/P229761
= SP 2.38-45; HS 238 + HS 1667; http://cdli.ucla.edu/P229757 = SP 3.128-131. N. Veldhuis further
kindly drew my attention to: http://cdli.ucla.edu/P388562 (unedited and apparently unparalleled).
Ludek Vacin, in NABU 2010/2, no. 32, edits an OB lentil, WML 53.114.680 (= http://www.cdli.ucla.
edu/P405567) in the World Museum, Liverpool, inscribed with an unidentified proverb. Uri Gabbay,
“Some notes on an Izbu Commentary”, NABU 2009/3, and “The Assyrian Dream Book and Sumerian
Proverbs”, NABU 2010/30, comments on some expressions in the proverb collections, esp. SP 1.76
and SP 7.12 etc., recurring in medical texts and incantations. Uri Gabbay in a forthcoming study,
“Lamentful Proverbs or Proverbial Laments?”, kindly made available to me before publication, makes
numerous observations with some significant new interpretations, mainly of emesal proverbs recurring
in laments. Eckart Frahm’s study: “The latest Sumerian Proverbs”, in a forthcoming anniversary
volume dedicated to B. Foster, was kindly made available to me by the author, but unfortunately came
too late be be used in this study. Forthcoming is also: Alster: K 7674+. On Some Proverbial Sayings
From the NA Period. Festschrift for Åke Sjöberg’s 85th anniversary. Ed L. Sassmanshausen, 2011.
Bibliography (including a few important recent studies not discussed above)

Alster, B. 1991-92: “Early Dynastic Proverbs and Other Contributions to the Study of Literary Texts from Abu
Salabikh”, Archiv für Orientforschung 38-39, 1-51.
––––––– 1997: Proverbs of Ancient Sumer I-II (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press).
––––––– 2005a: Wisdom of Ancient Sumer (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press).
––––––– 2005b: “Groates Dropping on the Widow: HS 1461. Studies in Bilingual Proverbs I”, Kaskal 2, 91-95.
––––––– 2005c: “One cannot Slaughter a Pig and Have it. A Summary ...”, Orientalia 75/1, 91-95.
––––––– 2006: “The Tigris Roiled: BM 38283. Studies in Bilingual Proverbs II”, Orientalia 75/4, 380-389.
––––––– 2007: Sumerian Proverbs in the Schøyen Collection. Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection. Cuneiform
Texts II (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology, Vol. 2; Bethesda: CDL Press).
Alster, B. and T. Oshima 2006: “A Sumerian Proverb Tablet in Geneva. With some Thoughts on Sumerian
Proverb Collections”, Orientalia 75/1, 31-95.
Bauer, J. 2002: [Corrections], Nouvelles Assyriologiques Bréves et Utilitaires 2002/2, 43-44.
Cavigneaux, A. 1996: Uruk : altbabylonische Texte aus dem Planquadrat Pe XVI-4/5 nach Kopien von Adam
Falkenstein (Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Endberichte, 23; Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern)
––––––– 2003: “Fragments littéraires susiens”, in: W. Sallaberger et al. (eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in
Mesopotamien. Festschrift für Claus Wilcke (Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 14; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz),
53-62.
Civil, M. 1987: “Feeding Dumuzi’s Sheep: the Lexicon as a Source of Literary Inspiration”, in: F. Rochberg-
Halton (ed.), Language, literature, and history: philological and historical studies presented to Erica Reiner
(AOS 67; New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society),
––––––– 2006: “The Song of the Millstone”, in: Olmo del Lete (ed.), Šapal tibnim mû illakû. Studies Presented
to Joaquín Sanmartín on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aula Orientalis Suppl. 22; Barcelona: Sabadell),
121-138.
––––––– (forthcoming): “Misogynic Themes in Sumerian Literature”, paper read at the 47th RAI, Helsinki 2001.
Dietrich, M. 1992: “«Ein Leben ohne Freude». Studie über eine Weisheitskomposition aus dem
Gelehrtenbibliotheken von Emar und Ugarit”, Ugarit Forschung 24, 9-29.
Dijk, J. J. A. and M. J. Geller 2003: Ur-III Incantations (Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht
Collection of Babylonian antiquities im Eigentum der Universität Jena 6; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
Durand, J.-M. 2006: “Dictions et proverbe à l’époque amorrite”, Journal asiatique 294:1, 3-38.
Foster, B. R. 2005 (3rd ed.): Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Bethesda: CDL Press).
Foster, B. and E. Salgues 2006: “«Everything Except the Squeal». Pigs in Early Mesopotamia”, in: B. Lion
and C. Michel (eds.), De la domestication au tabou: Le cas des suidés dans le Proche-Orient ancien (Paris:
Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 1), 283-291.
34 Akkade is King
Klein, J. 2003: “An Old Babylonian Edition of an Early Dynastic Collection of Insults (BT 9)”, in: W. Sallaberger
et al. (eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschrift für Claus Wilcke (Orientalia Biblica et
Christiana 14; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), 135-149.
Krebernik, M. 2004: “Wörter und Sprichwörter: der zweisprachige Schultext HS 1461”, Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 94, 226-249.
Molina, M. 2000: “Lexical and Other School Tablets in the Montserrat Museum”, in: S. Graziani (ed.), Studi
sul Vicino Oriente Antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni (Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale DSA,
Series Minor LXI, vol. II), 751-764.
Nougayrol, J. 1968: “Sagesse”, in: J. Nougayrol, et. al. (eds.), Nouveaux textes accadiens, hourrites et
ugaritiques des archives et bibliothèques privées d‘Ugarit : commentaires des textes historiques (première
partie) (Mission de Ras Shamra, Tome XVI; Ugaritica V; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale), 273-300.
Peterson, J. 2007: “The MB Nippur Combination Extract N 3783 + N 5031 obverse”, NABU 2007/34.
––––––– 2008: “The OB Nippur Type II Extract CBS 8010 (STVC 97)”, NABU 2008/41.
Proust, Ch. 2007: Tablettes mathématiques de Nippur (Varia Anatolica 18; Istanbul: Institut français d’études
anatoliennes Georges Dumézil).
Robson, E. 2004: “Mathematical cuneiform tablets in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford”, SCIAMVS - Sources
and Commentaries in Exact Sciences 5, 3-65.
Robinson, A. 1995: The Story of Writing (London: Thames & Hudson).
Sigrist, M. 2004: Neo-Sumerian Texts from the Royal Ontario Museum II (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press).
Sjöberg, Å. 1973: “Der Vater und sein missratener Sohn”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 25, 105-169.
Taylor, J. 2005: “The Sumerian Proverb Collections”, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 99, 13-38.
––––––– 2007: “A Quantative Analysis of the Sumerian Proverb Collections”, in: J. Ebeling and G. Cunningham
(eds.), Analysing Literary Sumerian. Corpus-based Approaches (London: Equinox Publishing), 273-315.
Veldhuis, N. 1997: Elementary Education at Nippur: The Lists of Trees and Wooden Objects (Ph.D. diss.,
Groningen).
––––––– 2000a: “Sumerian Proverbs in their Curricular Context”, Journal of the American Oriental Society
120/3, 383-99.
––––––– 2000b: “Kassite Exercises: Literary and Lexical Extracts”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 52, 67-94.
––––––– 2004: Religion, Literature, and Scholarship: The Sumerian Composition «Nanše and the Birds»
(Cuneiform Monographs 22; Leiden: Brill).
Waetzoldt, H. 2001: “Ein kleines Archiv mit Schulübungen”, in: W. H. van Soldt, J. G. Dercksen, N. J. C.
Kouwenberg and Th. J. Krispijn (eds.), Veenhof Anniversary Volume. Studies Studies Presented to Klaas R.
Veenhof on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch - Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, LXXXIX), 529-546.
Walker, C. B. F. 1987: Reading the Past: Cuneiform (London: British Museum Press).
Wilcke, C. 1976: Kollationen zu den sumerischen literarischen Texten aus Nippur in der Hilprecht-Sammlung
Jena, (Abh. der Säch. Akad. der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, phil.-hist. Klasse Bd. 65, Hf. 4; Berlin : Akademie-
Verlag).
––––––– 2004: “Die Tochter von Girsu: Das Ende von Sprichwortsammlung 1”, in: H. Waetzoldt (ed.), Von
Sumer nach Ebla und zurück, Festschrift Giovanni Pettinato zum 27. September 1999 (Heidelberger Studien
zum Alten Orient 9; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), 345-348.
Wilson, M. 2008: Education in the Earliest Schools. Cuneiform Manuscripts in the Cotsen Collection (Los
Angeles, Ca.: Cotsen Occasional Press).
A Modest Addition to Early Syro-Mesopotamian Calendars
Jakob Andersson, Uppsala
A calendar which was used in several cities in the Syro-Mesopotamian cultural area before the
advent of the Ur III state has been known for a few decades. The month names varied somewhat from
time to time and from place to place. Some, though, are distributed over a considerable area.1 The
most complete evidence comes from Pre-Sargonic Ebla, and the available material has been divided
into an early and a later calendar.2 Here we shall follow Dominique Charpin in seeing the different
sets of month names at Ebla as expressing a regional and a local calendar respectively.3
Piepkorn PB 10
A Sargonic tablet, once part of the Piepkorn collection, St. Louis, gives us information on
a month name previously only attested at Ebla and Mari. The text was originally treated by R. D.
Freedman in his doctoral dissertation,4 and it is dated to the month ITI a-nu-na-at. This brings the
total of Syro-Mesopotamian month names attested in the Southern half of Mesopotamia up to eight.5
It also gives us a phonetic rendering of the month name. PB 10 has five lines on the obverse and six
on the reverse. The personal names warrant digression:
obv. 2-3: i3-lu-dan-nu / sipa udu; 5: ˹x˺-[ x ] - K I / [N ] A 6 s a ĝ ĝ a ; rev. 2: ˹ DA ˺ - K A L A G ; 4:

?
iś-ma2-E2-a sa 1 2 -sug 5
The name of the first person is unique as far as the present writer has been able to ascertain.
Normally, one would expect an adjectival predicate in the absolute state, dan. Adjectival dan with
additional case-bearing component is rare in the Sargonic Akkadian onomastic material.7
1 Gelb 1992, 135-147; Cohen 1993, 23-36.

2 Pettinato 1977; Pettinato 1974-77.
3 Charpin 1987, 90.
4 Freedman 1975, 145, no. 56. Despite what is said in Freedman 1978, 257; 1977, 11, the Pre-Sargonic
and Sargonic texts from the Piepkorn collection never found their way into the collection of the University
Museum of the Oriental Institute of Chicago. Only about a dozen Aššurbanipal fragments from the Piepkorn
collection ever turned up there. I am most grateful to Mr. Jonathan Tenney and Professor Walter Farber of the
Oriental Institute, Chicago, for supplying me with this information. The whereabouts of PB 10 and the other
Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic texts treated by Freedman in his Ph. D. thesis are at present unknown.
5 See list with Gelb 1992, 140. Pettinato 1977, 283 n. 34, suggested reading a broken date in a Gasur
tablet (Meek 1935, no. 166) as itiGa-sum. The copy more likely shows itiGa-š[u?-(x)?].
6 Read M [ u … n ] a in Freedman 1975. Only the horizontal bar of the first sign is copied.
7 Foster 1982, no. 30 rev. 2 (Dan-num2, Umma); Gelb 1970, no. 13 obv. 10; no. 18 obv. 9; 29 rev. 2
38 Akkade is King
The broken entry in obv. 5 must be a person due to the professional title s a ĝ ĝ a . Two, or at the
most three, signs may be reconstructed before K I / [N] A . The sign K I is rather uncommon as a last
element in Akkadian personal names of this and the following period. No s a ĝ ĝ a with an Akkadian
name ending in –KI is known to me. Sumerian names ending in – K I are more common, but here
also, evidence for a suitable saĝĝa is missing. A s a ĝ ĝ a by the name of E n - l i l 2 - a n - n a is known
from the Sargonic period,8 but that name would hardly fit in here.
The third name ˹ DA ? ˺ -KALAG , needless to say, presents further difficulties. It is not a
hypocoristic for an imperative of takālum, as in Ba‘liś-takal.9 A Northern variant of nadānum in
the 2ms or 3fs durative would be totally unexpected. Moreover, the sign K A L A G has been copied
with one more vertical wedge compared to dan in obv. 2. Possible interpretations include Sumerian
readings ˹ nitaḫ ! ˺ ( ˹ UŠ ˺ )-ka la g 10 or ˹ a ! ˺ ( ˹ DA ˺ )-k al -<l e>.
2
Iś-ma2-E2-a, the šassukkum mentioned in rev. 4 may be identical with a namesake in a text,
likewise of unknown provenience.11 In that text, Yiśma‘-Ea is not qualified by a title.
It has proven impossible to assign a place of origin to PB 10. The shapes of D U in m u - D U ,
rev. 5 and ITI, rev. 6 may prove to be fruitful as points of departure in future investigations, but
collation is needed. The six gunû-wedges inside N A in the month name probably indicate that this
text was written in the Classical Sargonic period.
ITI a-nu-na-at and variants

The variant writings for the month name from Ebla and Mari are: NI -nun, N I -nun-na, N I -
nun-na-at, NI-nun-nun and a-nun-nun.12 The latter two are only attested as variations of the month
name nidba x (PAD.MUŠ 3 )- d’A3-da in the local calendar of Ebla.13 The name in PB 10 yields a
(Ni-śu-dan-nam, Kiši). A similar name from the Diyālā region is written I3-lu-da-nu, Gelb 1952, 205, index.
Note the possibility that the name I3-lu-da-nu does not feature the root dnn, but instead *dyn, or diānum, “to
judge.”
8 Owen 1975, no. 59, obv. 2, provenience uncertain but a relative proximity to Nippur may be indicated
by boats loaded with dates headed for that city, obv. 6.
9 takal, written ta2-kal2, is the form normally attested in Sargonic Akkadian personal names, but tikal,
written ti-ka3-al, is found once outside of personal names, Hasselbach 2005, 199 n. 143.
10 I thank Professor W. Sommerfeld for discussing this name with me and for offering this suggestion,
based on names of comparable structure, like Lugal-nitaḫ, Lugal-nitaḫ-zi, Nin-kalag-ga and so forth.
However, in the early periods, kalag rarely qualifies nitaḫ. The only Pre-Utuḫeĝal instance known to the
present writer is Biggs 1976, 34-35, x 3-4 (En-an-na-tum 2 / nitaḫ kalag-ga-ĝu 10 ).
11 Foster 1983, 175, no. 17, rev. 8. Note in that text the odd orthography DIĜIR-ma-li-ik / šu
sukkal:gal, obv. 2-3.
12 See Cohen 1993, 27 for references.
13 Pettinato 1974-77, 28-30, b), f), k). This variant writing of nidba 2 (PAD.AN.MUŠ 3 ) appears to be
the normal one at Ebla, cf. Lambert 1989a, 16. It is also found in Inana temple documents from Ur III Nippur
J. Andersson: A Modest Addition to Syro-Mesopotamian Calendars 39
basic reading *’anun, of a geminated root *’xnn. As for the reading of the aleph as one of the Proto-
Semitic gutturals ’1-4, the evidence for Eblaite and Sargonic Akkadian taken together weigh in favor
of a reading /’a/, /ha/ or /‘a/.14 As the latter of these later produced a raising of a-vowels to e,15 it too,
as we shall see below, must be discarded as a possible first root consonant.
Ending, stem and semantic root

The only writings where the gender of the month names is indicated are the ones ending in
feminine –a or –at.16 The local calendar of Ebla using the form with reduplicated nun oddly comes
off looking as if it featured nunation. That would be a first for the Syro-Mesopotamian Semitic
dialects. In Mari of the šakkanakkū period, nunation was not uncommon.17 One could contend that the
šakkanakkū documents expressed what may be termed an archaizing chancery language.18 Nunation
also occurs in the liver models found at Mari. Due to inconsistencies in the orthography of the liver
models, Gelb saw them as having evolved over a few hundred years.19 But evidence for nunation in
the early periods is totally absent.20
Another alternative that would explain all the extant forms would be to posit an R3 stem of a
verb *’xnn. The instances with reduplicated nun can be viewed as endingless R3-stem infinitive or
passive participle, *’anunun;21 the single nun forms, a variant to this, *’anun;22 and the feminine
and in documents from other places in the earlier periods, see Civil 1980, 232.
14 Sargonic Akkadian A: /’a/, /ha/, /‘a/, Hasselbach 2005, 75, 78-79, 82-83, 94.
Eblaite A: /’a/, /ha/, /‘a/, Krebernik 1982, 180-181, 219-220, 235 (collations).
Sargonic Akkadian N I: /’i/, /‘i/, Hasselbach 2005, 76, 84, 95.
Eblaite N I: /’a/, /ha/, /ḥa/, /‘a/, Krebernik 1982, 219-222.
Gelb 1981, 32, was not convinced whether Eblaite a-mu-su3 stood for /ḥammuśu/ or /‘ammuśu/. The
latter seems better in tune with other evidence. For a true reading /ḥa/ of A in an OB liver model from Mari,
see Gelb 1981, 21.
15 See Gelb 1992, 149 with references; Hasselbach 2005, 109.
16 Gelb 1992, 128; 149-150.
17 Durand 1985, 152 n. 30.
18 See for instance the comments by Lambert 1992, 50-51.
19 Gelb 1992, 170-177. Uncharacteristically, Gelb cloaked the nunation in oblique plural forms by
reading timx for TIN.
20 Lambert 1992, 51, “In neither [Edzard 1984, nos. 6 and 7], as in the Ebla archive generally, is there
any hint of nunation in place of mimation. Caution is in order, since in Mari it seems that signs ending in –m
could also be read with –n … but the total lack of Mari nunation at Ebla seems convincing.”
21 Which would be in line with Whiting’s (1981, 14) reconstruction of the original form of the
R-infinitive, parususum.
22 See Whiting 1981, 14: šaḫur < šaḫurrum < šaḫururum.
40 Akkade is King
forms a nominalized adjective *’anunna(t).23 Both the supposed G-infinitive and the resulting R3-
derivatives would probably be intransitive in meaning with an intensive function.24
Correspondences in the South and a possible meaning

Through Mark Cohen’s division of the year, the Northern regional and local calendars would in
part find correspondences with the Southern calendar in Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic Nippur onwards.25
Connections between the fourth Northern month Ri2-sa2 / I-ri2-sa2 /I-ri2-śa-at and Sumerian š u -
numun; and between the twelfth month Iq-za / Iq-zum of the regional Semitic calendar or š e - K I Ĝ 2-
ku 5 of the local Eblaite calendar and (š e - ) K I Ĝ 2-k u 5 at Nippur,26 would be the result. Following
Cohen’s proposition, the month *’anunnat would be the sixth month, which was named k i ĝ 2 - d I n a na
at Nippur. The main festival in Ur III Nippur honoring Inana took place during this month. A ritual
cleansing of sorts, involving the divine ordeal river is mentioned.27 Around that time and in the same
place Akkade’s protectress ‘Aštar ’Annunītum was the subject of veneration between months 5 to
7.28
Given Cohen’s reconstruction, and given a harvest season stretching from mid-April to mid-
June, we end up with an approximate placement of the 6th month between mid-October and mid-
December. This roughly coincides with the slow rising of the water level in the Euphrates and the
Tigris and the season of small amounts of precipitation.29 The sixth month of the local Ebla calendar
according to Cohen’s reckoning was named ni d b a x (PAD. M UŠ 3 )-d’A3-da.
To see whether there could have been a connection between the months K I Ĝ 2 - d I n a n a and
nidba x -dHadda, one must first establish whether these two deities shared one or more traits. I n a n a
/ ‘Aštar was fleetingly connected with atmospheric phenomena,30 but Hadda’s qualities as a god of
punitive character, even in the early periods,31 are perhaps more to the point. Archaeological finds at
Ebla, point to links between ‘Aštar and Hadda for the last phase of the Early Bronze period, around
23 Attested forms of this stem from the Sargonic and earlier periods include: raśubbatum, Rasheed
1981, no. 4 obv. i 6-7 (Mi-lu-lu / šu Ra-śú-ba-tim, PN); namurratum, Edzard 1984, no. 6, vi 6 (na-mu-ra-tum
d
Utu al 6 -ĝal 2 …); no. 4, iv 5-6 (na 4 / na-mur-ra-tum); de la Fuÿe 1908, no. 2 ii 3' (na-mu-ra-˹x˺, PN).
24 Whiting 1981, 16; 26-27101; GAG § 55, 28 a) III and b) III.
25 Westenholz 1975; Westenholz 1987, 202.
26 Cohen 1993, 23-25, with notes and references. For notes on the reading of KIĜ 2 in this respect, see
Sallaberger 1993, 9 n. 24.
27 Sallaberger 1993, 127-129. See also Livingstone 1996, 309.
28 Sallaberger 1993, 198-201.
29 See Adams 1981, 3-5 with fig. 1, and 11-13 with Table 1. Based on modern data.
30 One instance is found in Hallo and van Dijk 1968, 15, lines 10-11: “When you roar at the earth like
Thunder, no vegetation can stand up to You. A flood descending from its mountain…”
31 Fronzaroli 1997, passim.
2200-2000.32 So it would seem that the basic trait shared by the two figures was their involvement
with warfare.
One primary lexical equivalent of Sumerian k i ĝ 2, as in k i ĝ 2- d I n a n a , is Akkadian šiprum.33
A connection between šiprum and Inana / ‘Aštar appears several times in Old Babylonian copies of
Narām-Su’en and the Great Insurgency.34 Narām-Su’en was in śi-ip-ri2 d I n a n a . That is, engaged in
a task belonging to ‘Aštar’s areas of responsibility, or acting under the direct command of that same
goddess. The inscription recounts the most critical event in Narām-Su’en’s reign. The nisbe35 byname
of ‘Aštar ’Annunītum and other Akkadian divine names led Jacobsen to posit the existence of a verb
’nn, or ’anānum, “to skirmish.”36 Adding to that the Akkadian nouns anantu and anuntu, poetic terms
for “battle,” none of which exhibit the raising of the vowel a > e, it does not seem too far-fetched to
add our month name to the list of words derived from the root ’nn.37
If the identification should prove to be valid through future research, then the month name
might allude to the time of year most suitable for military campaigns, in a season when the demands
for manpower from the agricultural subsistence base was at a minimum. That is, away from the
months of sowing and harvesting. And also at a time of the year when the mean temperatures were
better suited for long and short distance campaigns. Highly tentative translations of the feminine
’anunnatum, given Jacobsen’s assessment, might be “hostility,” or “adversity.”
32 Marchetti and Nigro 1997, 1-3 and n. 11; 24 and n. 72.

33 CAD Š/3, 73, s.v. šipru. See also têrtum, CAD T, 357-358, with similar meanings.
34 See references with Kienast and Sommerfeld 1994, 297, s.v. šiprum, with important additions and
critical editions by Sommerfeld 2000, especially 419-421 and n. 4, and Wilcke 1997.
35 Gödecken 1973, 154 and n. 76.
36 The connection between ’Annunītum and a root ’nn was made already by Jacobsen 1970, 322-324
n. 6, followed by Roberts 1972, 36 (<anānum).
37 See discussion in Selz 2000, 34 and n. 83, and PSD A/1, 133, with references. A possible relation
between the words anantu, anuntu and anūnu, “fear,” was proposed in Lambert 1989b, 325. The reading of
anūnu into the Šamaš hymn from Ebla and Abū Ṣalābīḫ (Biggs 1974, no. 326 (+342), i 13 = Edzard 1984, no.
6, ii 2) by Lambert (1989, 6-7) is problematic. See Krebernik 1992, 95.
42 Akkade is King
Bibliography
Adams, R. McC. 1981: Heartland of Cities. Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central
Floodplain of the Euphrates (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press).
Biggs, R. D. 1974: Inscriptions from Tell Abū Ṣalābīkh (Oriental Institute Publications 99; Chicago, Ill.:
University of Chicago Press).
––––––– 1976: “Enanatum I of Lagash and Ur-Lumma of Umma – A New Text”, in: B. L. Eichler; J. W.
Heimerdinger and Å. Sjöberg (eds.), Kramer Anniversary Volume. Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel
Noah Kramer (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 25; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker), 33-40.
Charpin, D. 1987: “Tablettes présargoniques de Mari”, Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 5, 65-127.
Civil, M. 1980: “Daily Chores in Nippur”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 32, 229-232.
Cohen, M. E. 1993: The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press).
Durand, J.-M. 1985: “La situation historique des Šakkanakku”, Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires
4, 147-172.
Edzard, D. O. 1984: Hymnen, Beschwörungen und Verwandtes aus dem Archiv L. 2769 (Archivi reali di Ebla.
Testi 5; Roma: Missione archeologica italiana in Siria).
Foster, B. R. 1982: Umma in the Sargonic Period (Hamden, Ct.: Published for the Academy by Archon
Books).
––––––– 1983: “Business Documents from Sargonic Mesopotamia”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 35, 147-175.
Freedman, R. D. 1975: The Cuneiform Tablets in St. Louis (unpublished PhD. dissertation, Columbia University;
University Microfilms).
––––––– 1977: “Texts from the Piepkorn Collection, III”, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 9, 11-25.
––––––– 1978: “Texts from the Piepkorn Collection, II”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 98, 251-265.
Fronzaroli, P. 1997:”Les combats de Hadda dans les textes d’Ebla”, Mari, Annales de Recherches
Interdisciplinaires 8, 283-290.
de la Fuÿe, F.M. Allotte 1908: Documents présargoniques, Fascicule 1. Première partie, (Paris: Ernest
Leroux).
Gelb, I. J. 1952: Sargonic Texts from the Diyala Region (Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 1; Chicago, Ill.:
––––––– 1970: Sargonic Texts in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 5;
Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press).
––––––– 1981: “Ebla and the Kish Civilization”, in: L. Cagni (ed.), La lingua di Ebla (Napoli: Istituto
Universitario Orientale), 9-73.
––––––– 1992: “Mari and the Kish Civilization”, in: G. D. Young (ed.), Mari in Retrospect (Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns), 121-202.
Gödecken, K.B. 1973: “Bemerkungen zur Göttin Annunītum”, Ugarit-Forschungen 5, 141-163.
Hallo, W. W. and J. J. A. van Dijk 1968: The Exaltation of Inanna (Yale Near Eastern Researches 3; New
Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press).
Hasselbach, R. 2005: Sargonic Akkadian. A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz).
Jacobsen, Th. 1970: “Ancient Mesopotamian Religion: The Central Concerns”, Toward the Image of Tammuz,
(Harvard Semitic Series 21; Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press), 473-484.
Kienast, B. and W. Sommerfeld 1994: Glossar zu den altakkadischen Königsinschriften (Freiburger

Altorientalische Studien 8; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag).
Krebernik, M. 1982: “Zu Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla. Teil 1”, Zeitschrift für
––––––– 1992: “Mesopotamian Myths at Ebla: ARET 5, 6 and ARET 5, 7”, in: P. Fronzaroli (ed.), Literature
and Literary Language at Ebla (Quaderni di Semitistica 18; Firenze: Dipartimento di Linguistica, Università
di Firenze), 63-149.
Lambert, W. G. 1989a: “Notes on a Work of the Most Ancient Semitic Literature”, Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 41, 1-33.
––––––– 1989b: “A Babylonian Prayer to Anūna”, in: H. Behrens, D. Loding and M.T. Roth (eds.), dumu
e2-dub-ba-a. Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg (Philadelphia, Pa.: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, University
Museum), 321-336.
––––––– 1992: “The Language of ARET V 6 and 7”, in: P. Fronzaroli (ed.), Literature and Literary Language
at Ebla (Quaderni di Semitistica 18; Firenze: Dipartimento di Linguistica, Università di Firenze), 41-62.
Livingstone, A. 1996: review of Sallaberger 1993, Journal of the Semitic Studies 41, 303-310.
Marchetti, N. and L. Nigro 1997: “Cultic Activities in the Sacred Area of Ishtar at Ebla during the Old Syrian
Period: The Favissae F.5327 and F.5238”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 49, 1-44.
Meek, Th. J. 1935: Old Akkadian, Sumerian, and Cappadocian Texts from Nuzi (Harvard Semitic Series 10;.
Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press).
Owen, D. I. 1975: The John Frederick Lewis Collection (Materiali per il vocabolario neosumerico 3; Rome:
Multigrafica éditrice).
Pettinato, G. 1974-77: “Il calendario di Ebla al tempo del re Ibbi-Sipiš sulla base di TM.75.G.427”, Archiv für
Orientforschung 25, 1-36.
––––––– 1977: “Il calendario semitico del 3. millennio ricostruito sulla base dei testi di Ebla”, Oriens Antiquus
16, 257-285.
Rasheed, F. 1981: The Ancient Inscriptions in Himrin Area (Himrin 4; Baghdad).

44 Akkade is King
Roberts, J. J. M. 1972: The Earliest Semitic Pantheon: A Study of the Semitic Deities Attested in Mesopotamia
before Ur III (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press).
Sallaberger, W. 1993: Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
Selz, G. J. 2000: “Five Divine Ladies: Thoughts on Inana(k), Ištar, In(n)in(a), Annunītum, and Anat, and the
Origin of the Title ‘Queen of Heaven’”, Nin: Journal of Gender Studies in Antiquity 1, 29-62.
Sommerfeld, W. 2000: “Narām-Sîn, die “Große Revolte” und MAR.TUki”, in: J. Marzahn and H. Neumann
(eds.), Assyriologia et Semitica. Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18.
Februar 1997(Alter Orient und Altes Testament 252; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag), 419-436.
Westenholz, A. 1975: Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Philadelphia. Part One: Literary and Lexical
Texts and the Earliest Administrative Documents from Nippur (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 1; Malibu, Ca.:
Undena Publications).
––––––– 1987: Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Philadelphia. Part Two. The ‘Akkadian’ Texts, The
Enlilemaba Texts and the Onion Archive (Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 3; Copenhagen: Museum
Tusculanum Press).
Whiting, R.M. 1981: “The R Stem(s) in Akkadian”, Orientalia 50, 1-39.
Wilcke, C. 1997: “Amar-girids Revolte gegen Narām-Su’en”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
Archäologie 87, 11-32.
Financial and economic activity in Mesopotamia1
Odoardo Bulgarelli, Rome
The earliest known archive belonging to a family of “private bankers” is that of the Enlilebaba
Family.2 The heads of this family held the title of merchants (d a m - g a r 3 ), and followed one another
for over 50 years, doing business in the city of Nippur from the end of the reign of Manishtusu and
through the reign of Naram-Sîn. The Enlilemaba household, which also owned real estate, fruitfully
employed their mutual funds in silver in a so-called “household basket” (d u s u é - a d - d a ) to grant
loans in silver to its members. Likely, this was not the only family engaged in such activities in
Nippur, and the fact that similar archives have not been found is probably due to the fact that the
Sargonic strata have not been thoroughly excavated yet.3 At any rate, from an economic point of
view, we can rest assured that important private bankers already operated in Mesopotamia as far
back as the III millennium B.C.,, and that their activity predates the equivalent function that public
bankers performed from at least the beginning of II millennium B.C., first by temples and later by
the palaces.4
1 I should like to express my gratefulness to Dr Rosario Mandaglio for his assistance in the translation
into English of the present essay and for the closer linguistic revision of the text in print.
2 See Westenholz 1987, 59-86.
3 op. cit. 60.
4 Several families of bankers, whose archives have survived, are known to us to have operated after
that of Enlilemaba from Nippur. Among others, the archives of: SI.A-a (period of Ur III), Iddin-Lagamal
from Dilbat (19th-18th centuries B.C.), Dumuzi-gamil from Ur (beginning of the 18th century. B.C.), a small
family (probably Šadû-rabû-iriš) from a town near Babylonia (middle of the 13th century B.C.), Ea-iluta-bani
from Borsippa (687-486 B.C.), Egibi from Babylonia (602-482), Nûr-Sîn from Babylonia (6th century B.C.)
and Murashu from Nippur (455-403 B.C.). These families normally made use of silver in their transactions.
That loans may be traced back to a much earlier date seems to be proved by an inscription on the “Stele of the
Vultures” (cf. Steible 1982, 120-145), in which Eannatum, king of Lagash (around the 25th century B.C.), has
the king of Umma take an oath, full 6 times, and in front of the nets of 6 different deities, stating that he will
make use of the fields in Lagash, considering them only as a kind of loan (and burdened with an interest rate),
denying that they may be considered as property of his own. In another inscription, known both on a horn and
on a clay jar (Steible 1982, 230-245), probably coming from Girsu, Entemema, King of Lagash (25th century
B.C.), allows Umma to make full use of the lands of Lagash, considering them as a loan, and imposing that
they are to be returned after a certain number of years, along with the payment of an interest of 44,000 GUR 7 -
gal barley (in fact, the interest paid in the end was well below; cf. Pettinato 2003, 184-85). During the reign
of Meskigalla (end of the pre-Sargonic period and beginning of the Sargonic), a loan with the interest paid in
silver is attested (Pomponio, Visicato and Westenholz 2006, 93-94, n. 14). As to the Sargonic period, Foster
(1983, 147-175) examines the following texts, in which silver and barley are reported to be employed to issue a
loan: YBC 7090; NBC 10257, 10239, 10237, 10286a (possibly); HSS 10 72, 10 107 (both loans in barley at an
46 Akkade is King
This essay is intended as a brief reflection, conducted from the point of view of a scholar
in economics, on the major financial instruments and on the main functions performed by the most
important means of payment at that time. The aim is to establish whether the kind of means employed
were limited in number and/or whether they were only occasionally employed; and, ultimately,
whether the economic and financial establishment of the time were of a primitive kind or had already
interest rate of 33,3%). Still referring to the Sargonic period, Gelb 1970b reports 3 loans in silver (nos. 30, 36,
and 86) and 4 loans in barley (nos. 21, 74, 77, 78); and in Gelb 1955 (no. 32) the loan of a lamb and of barley,
probably burdened with interest, is registered, while Gelb 1952: no. 291 is a loan in silver from the region of
Diyala. De Genouillac 1921, 6735, reports a controversy on a loan that ended with a declaration whereby no
interest was actually due. Yang 1989, 119-121 presents two Sargonic tablets: the former (A 894) records two
loans in silver meant to accrue a 50% interest rate; the latter (A 975) is about a loan in silver and barley. Other
loans come from Gasur. In documents of Tell Suleimah dating back to the Sargonic period a few dozen loans
are attested, at least half of which are concerned with barley (Visicato 1999, 20-21), while two loans in barley,
one with an interest, are reported in Pomponio, Stol and Westenholz 2006, nos. I-51, I-52. Other documents
concerning loans at an interest in silver and in barley from Adab, dating back to both the pre-Sargonic and
the Sargonic period, will be published soon (paper delivered by G. Visicato). As for Ebla (24th century B.C.),
we might mention tablet TM.76.G.749 edited by Archi (2002), where it is said that a village is granted a loan
of 60 minas of silver by two other villages. Milano 2003, 45 relates a balanced account from Ebla concerned
with 20 shekels of silver from the city of Mari for a loan in silver whose interest rate is not specified. From
this city another debt is reported by Archi 2002, 95-108 of 2 minas and 4 shekels of silver (probably the value
equivalent to 320 gubar of barley) and 30 shekels of silver, which, probably, represent a loan in silver. In
TM.75.G.10235 too “1650 bovines for a debt at an interest” are mentioned without a specific indication of
the interest due. Also in the Ebla archives several tablets record debts burdened with interest, although they
provide no details allowing us to determine the amount of the interests due. The distiction between a debt and
a loan is not an easy one, and it is not always easy to determine where they were productive of interest and
to what extent. At any rate, the amount of loans increases considerably from the Ur III-period onwards. For
instance, we know of about 30 loans in silver and barley coming from Nippur, and issued by someone called
Lugalazida, probably a merchant. Motta 2002/2003, 10 has listed 543 neo-Sumerian loans, of which nearly
44% and 48%, respectively, are in silver and barley. The interest rate is normally 20% on silver and 33,3% on
barley, even though in a number of cases it is 13,33 – 16,66 – 24,50 on silver, and 6,6 – 13,33 – 20 – 30 on
barley. Among the texts not included in Motta, we should mention two loans in barley discussed in Pomponio,
Stol and Westenholz 2006: nos. II-44, II-64. A number of loans higher than that known from the Ur III-period
are known from Old Babylonian times. Skaist 1994, provides a full account of hundreds of loans dated to this
period. Apart from the Skaist texts, others come from Kanesh (19th - 18th centuries B.C.) and from Susa. In
Susa rates could reach 30 – 40 – 50% (as in MDP XXII, nos. 22, 24, 30, 197, 198, 199; MDP XXIII, nos. 183,
185). Among the Old Babylonian texts first edited after Skaist’s work ten documents concerned with silver
were published by Pomponio, Stol and Westenholz 2006: nos. III-17, 18, 27-33, 35. Plainly, loans would also
continue to be issued also in subsequent periods, both in Mesopotamia and elsewhere, as in Ugarit, Emar, Nuzi,
Assur, Borsippa, Babylonia (examples are the loans issued by the family of bankers). For interest rates, cf. e.g.
Leemans 1950, 7-34 and Steinkeller 1981, 113-145; for monetary and financial aspects of the Neo-Sumerian
and Old-Babylonian periods, see Pomponio 2003, 59-108.
O. Bulgarelli: Financial and Economic Activity in Babylonia 47
reached a high degree of development.5

From an economic point of view, it is a fact of considerable importance in itself, that,
dating as back as early as the early III millennium at least, interest bearing loans had already begun
to be issued.6 An additional, and even more crucial circumstance, is that there might have been
people, who were continuously engaged in granting loans, i.e. “private bankers”.7 This needs to be
5 The extent of the subject we intend to survey, which covers the three millennia B.C., has required
a selection of significant economical and financial aspects, namely that of the means of payment. Among
these, however, particular attention will be paid to silver, this being a means of payment freely chosen, as
opposed to barley, more probably imposed by the economical setting, insisting on agriculture and cattle
rearing. Accordingly, many issues of great interest have deliberately only been hinted at, and might not have
been treated more in depth, for our current purpose. Moreover, references are only to be intended as indications
for further reading, and not as detailed treatment of highly controversial issues, which need to be paid closer
attention to. Finally, we have mainly focussed on the earliest period only for reasons of space.
6 For instance, a thorough treatment of the issue concerning debts/loans/interests requires more space
than what we are allowed to, even for an introduction. What we might point out here, is that the distinction
between debt and loan is, all too frequently, not a clear one; it is not clear whether: (a) interests on individual
debts or loans were due and at which rate; (b) interest rates had to be paid annually or otherwise. We should
simply mention that Mesopotamian laws give 20% and 33,3% as the interest rates for loans in silver and
in barley, respectively. These rates, however, were rarely respected, and more frequently modified upwards
leading to exorbitant amounts of debt. We can hope for a wider, seminal, study tracing the interest development
throughout these millennia B.C. on the grounds of the published data provided.
7 As regards the figure of the banker, see Bogaert (1966), and the wide bibliography which this
essay, though not a recent one, assembles. This eminent scholar points out that all the different ascriptions
of the occurrence and development of banks to different periods and places, ultimately depend on the lack
of a definition of bank universally agreed upon. Bogaert argues that in order to define a bank as such, it must
issue loans on the basis of funds collected from other persons (deposits). Accordingly, Bogaert comes to the
conclusion that, as concerns Mesopotamia, we cannot properly speak of banks as such, for the collection of
deposits from those who granted loans with a certain regularity is insufficiently attested. On the other hand, for
many other scholars the question regarding the collection of deposits is secondary in importance as compared
to the granting of loans. Bogaert 1966, 32, however, also affirms that “La grande majorité placent l’origine
de la banque en Mésopotamie … “. It seems quite clear, on the other hand, that temples did not begin to carry
out an important banking activity prior to the beginning of the second millennium B.C.; see Saporetti 2002,
104-113 (and the bibliography it reviews), who argues that most of the numerous loans dating back to the Old
Babylonian period in Eshnunna were issued by temples which fulfilled the function of loan banks. Lafont 2001,
680, too, mantains that temples and palaces, as well as well-off privates, in this period acted as private bankers.
Harris, 1960, 4, states that the several scores of texts dating back to this period confirm that temples served
as banks. This does not seem to convince Charpin 2005, 16, when he affirms, probably because of Bogaert’s
strong position, that “Au sens strict, on ne peut considérer les activité des temples babyloniems du deuxième
millénaire comme relevant de la banque …”; though he laters affirms “On serais dès lors tenté de considérer
que les temples de Šamaš jouaiet à travers toute la Mésopotamie le rôle de banques” (p. 19); notwithstanding
that he finally seems to concede that the data we hold, however abundant, afford no greater possibilities
48 Akkade is King
considered against the fact that this activity took place in an economy that was mainly based on the
redistribution of rations in kind.8 Moreover, some of the surviving texts clearly refer to the formation
of joint-stock companies, where profits of investments made in silver were subsequently shared,9
where commercial associations were created, and various kind of investments took place,10 in which
the people engaged might resort to antichresis,11 and where usury was opposed by means of both
“d’avoir une vision globale de les activités bancarie des temples babyloniens” (p. 39), implicitly stating, as
we might guess, that temples were involved in banking activities all the same. Margueron 1993, 436-441, on
dealing with business and banking, points out the emergence of highly specialized banking techniques, whose
inventors are the money-lenders, and whose origines and development are to be traced as back as the middle
of the third millennium B.C., Van de Mieroop 1992, 105, 208-210 points out how, during the Old Babylonian
period, the temples in Ur (particularly those of Nanna and Ningal), fulfilled a relevant economic and financial
function, and that: “In conclusion, it can be said that the influence of the temple in the economy of Ur was very
great and far reaching”. A similar function was served by the nadītu priestesses in the Sippar gagûm (Bogaert
1966, 57-58). Similar observations can be made regarding periods in the history of Mesopotamia following the
Old Babylonian period. It seems that palaces, along with temples, carried out banking activities, although this
is less clearly attested. These bankers, both public and private, issued loans in silver, even though loans issued
in barley or in other goods are not uncommon.
8 The question regarding the degree of centralization in the management of Mesopotamian economy
(and particularly the problem of the role of temples, palaces, private bankers), is still a matter of debate, and,
since this is more concerned with the structure of the Sumerian society, here we can refer to the most recent
studies on the subject, such as Foster 1981, 225-241; Steinkeller 1999, 289-309; Glassner 2000, 35-53, and
their bibliographies. We should also emphasize that among the thousands of tablets, at least 80% deals with
economic and financial matters, e.g. accounting, and that they are more often found in the remains of public
buildings, such as temples, palaces, than in private houses. It might be argued, however, that this peculiar
association of public buildings with financial activities may be due to the particular bias in the excavations
which has privileged public buildings, rather than private ones, emphasizing the relevance of temples and
palace in regard to their economical and financial activity.
9 See, for example, §99 in the Code of Hammurabi.
10 This phenomenon is abundantly documented in the archives of Old Assyrian merchants of Kanesh,
though it is also attested for later periods. The tin trade between Elam and Mari was also regulated in silver.
11 It is worth mentioning the contracts of antichresis in which King Ammitaku of Alalakh (18th century
B.C.) is concerned: he issued loans and the debtor, instead of paying an interest, worked at the service of the
king in reimbursement of the debt. As stated by Bogaert 1966, 69-70 antichresis is also attested in other sites
(Mari, Tutub, Elam, etc). Alalakh Tablet AT 47, for example, mentions a loan worth 60 minas of silver, granted
by prince Ilim-Ilimma, in which, as it seems, the debtor and his wife, instead of paying interests, remain at the
service of the prince (the tablet, however, makes no mention as to the reimbursement of the capital borrowed).
The Alalakh texts, accordingly, particularly Alalakh AT 19, 21-23, 49, specify that the debtor will cease working
at the service once the debt will have been totally reimbursed. Pomponio 2003, 86-87 refers to some case of
antichresis during the Old Babylonian period, in which the payment of interest was replaced by a temporary
use of lands, houses, or labour force, or by reimbursement in terms of harvest; this scholar also points out that
antichresis was frequent in Ur III as well. As regards pledges and antichresis, cf. Skaist 1994, 202-230.
laws and individual acts of remission of the debts.12 According to Van de Mieroop, during the Old
Babylonian period, there seemed to be, in the city of Ur, a kind of “financial centre” in which some
merchants also operated as bankers.13 There existed credit and debit relationships (frequently assisted
by guarantees and pledges),14 as well as credit deals (that is, where payment is delayed).15 Similarly,
deposits in silver were made,16 and, at least dating back to the beginning of the second millennium
12 Frequently, the payment of interests both on loans and other debts appears to become so high as
to bring about usury. This seems to have forced several kings since the middle of the third millennium –
but particularly at the beginning of the second millennium B.C. – to adopt acts of remission of debts, and
accordingly to the release of those enslaved for default, probably with a view to avoid social tension.
13 Consider, for instance, the numerous loans made in silver, which in this “financial centre”, are seen
to involve (among others) Dumuzi-gamil, cf. Van de Mieroop 1992, 203-208 and 275-276.
14 Cf. Westbrook-Jasnow 2001.
15 Among others, see Charpin, 2005, 32-33, who refers to credit sales (that is, with delayed payment) of
surplus woolen products, during the Old Babylonian period by the temple of Shamash in Sippar to privates. On
these particular occasions, the temple entrusted merchants with the selling of the wool, on condition that they
subsequently paid back the temple the sums earned in silver. In the same period, such term sales also took place
in the palace. Charpin 1982, 25-65 specifies that these operations are clearly attested by a wealth of documents,
and that in this case too, the sales were entrusted to merchants, who, when requested by the palace, paid in
silver the revenue from the selling of the wool. Before the sale, the wool was brought to the bīt akitim where it
was weighed, packed, sealed, and afterwards sold on term/on credit.
16 The topic of deposits made in silver is also a very relevant one. The fact that people entrusted other
people with their silver (money) to be deposited is considered a crucial economic issue. Mesopotamian laws
mentioning the fact certainly imply that kings themselves also attributed crucial importance to the phenomenon,
since they found it necessary to regulate it by law. At the beginning of the second millennium B.C, deposits are
specifically dealt with by both the rulers of Eshnunna and by King Hammurabi. In particular, §§36-37 in the
Laws of Eshnunna mention the deposits of goods, without explicitly saying whether they included silver too.
Paragraphs 7, 122, 123, 124, 125 in the Code of Hammurabi explicitly deal with deposits in silver and in other
goods, and regulate their various aspects (stating, for instance, the need to draw up an official act or witnesses,
and in case of the lack of an official act, the loss of the rights on the deposit, sanctions for the denial of a
deposit regularly made and theft of the deposit). This subject is thus strictly regulated, particularly in the act of
making deposits, including deposits in silver, and the drawing up of acts to be carried out in the full formality
of court. Apart from the laws, individual tablets also refer to deposits in silver, barley or in other goods. Only to
mention the earliest period, we may refer to a tablet approximately dated to 2370 B.C., cf. Edzard 1968, no. 75,
which seems to make a reference to a sum of silver credited to an account at the temple of Nin-MAR in Girsu.
Another text (Edzard 1968, no. 76), belonging to the Sargonic period, also refers to a sum of silver credited
to an account. Foster 1983, 159-160, presents a Sargonic text in which a certain quantity of silver is entrusted
to an agent for custody. Foster 1977, 35 argues that businessmen in that period probably had deposits in silver
in several places – note for instance the Quradum archive, where a man from Eshnunna is said to keep silver
in Uruk and in another place. Gelb 1970a, nos. 68, 73, 124, refers to 3 deposits in silver. On dealing with the
archive of Ṣilli-Eshtar, who lived in Kutalla (18th century B.C.), Charpin 1980, 121-122, refers to three texts
concerning deposits in silver (probably issued as receipts on occasion of the reimbursement of the deposit).
50 Akkade is King
B.C., the economical system already resorted to instruments of credit payable tto the bearer (bearer
titles) and promissory notes.17 In the sealing of contracts and agreements, witnesses were frequently
requested to assist, and in most cases they were in large number. For the sake of the defense of their
rights (especially economic ones), these people commonly appealed to the law, as represented and
applied by judges in ordinary courts of law.18 It must be added that a considerable number of tablets
show that silver and barley (along with copper and, occasionally, gold, wool and other goods),19
Similar operations taking place in this and in other periods are also attested (such as in Nuzi during the 15th
century B.C.). Their particular nature, however, is still a matter of debate.
17 The presence in Mesopotamia of bearer titles (bearer’s checks) dating as early as the beginning of
the II millennium B.C. has been for more than a century a matter of debate and contrasting opinions. Rather
frequently, this definition is contained in loan contracts. Cuq 1929, 171-174 defines the bearer titles. Sixteen
of these documents had been published by Pruessner 1927-28, 92-103. These instruments of credit were also
discussed by Kraus 1958, 101, and Szlechter 1958, nos. 18, 27, 28, 29, 38. The subject is also discussed by
Bogaert 1966, particularly on pages 55-56, 73-74 and 94-97. Charpin 1982, 33 cites text BM 81591, in which a
person is due to reimburse one shekel of silver as the price equivalent to six minas of wool; the tablet specifies
that the silver will be paid back by the debtor to the bearer of the tablet only when the latter requires it (this
curious formula, “only when required to”, occurs in a variety of texts). Bearer bonds have also been found in
Mari (ARM VIII, 78 dated to the time of Zimri-Lim) and in Susa (MDP XXII, 29; 122; 123; XXIII 271; 274).
One of the oldest examples appears to be HG IV 919 dating to the Hammurabi period. As an example, a text
dated 1772 B.C., in Szlechter 1958 (no. 38), mentions “½ shekel of silver, at the interest rate of Shamash – to
PN, priest of Shamash, son of PN (debitor), son of … has lent. On occasion of the harvest he will pay back the
silver and its interest to the conveyor/bearer of the tablet”.
18 On the administration of justice in Mesopotamia, see Joannès 2000. The first incomplete examples
of legal proceedings are found at Fara; they increase during the Akkadian period, where the figure of a judge
also appears; however, it is only with the Ur III period that we have the first important judicial archives, which
help clarifying the functionins of the legal system. Regarding this period, see the seminal study by Falkenstein
1957 on nearly 250 texts, to which much new documentation has since been added. As for the following phase
(the Old Babylonian period), Lafont 2000, 16, states that in Nippur there was an active school of specialization
in the legal profession. Trials might be concerned with the widest range of matters (economic questions,
robbery, damages, various kinds of crime, escape or sale of slaves, weddings, divorce, adoption, inheritance).
No particular building has been found, which may be identified with a law court. As a rule, as far as the very
fragmentary, or even missing mass of documents enables us to determine, in case of a legal proceeding, the
first step taken was usually that of conciliation, so as to avoid direct appeal to judges; when no agreement
could be reached, the parties appealed to the court, where judges evaluated the facts and finally passed a
verdict. Throughout the trial, each party was allowed to lead their case personally, or by means of third parties
representing them, and produced different kinds of evidence (written, witnesses, oaths, ordeals). For instance,
during the Ur III period, slaves too were allowed to appeal to a judge, to act as witnesses, and to take oaths. As
to legal proceedings regarding trade activities during the Old Assyrian period, see Michel 2000, 113-140.
19 Cuneiform tablets were often kept in jars, pots, baskets, boxes, etc., which might bear a label
specifying their content. They might also be kept, as attested in Kanesh, inside safes, along with other valuable
goods. Sometimes, they were stored in special rooms (as in Ebla, where they lay on wooden shelves, arranged
were employed as ordinary means of payment, not only in all the operations mentioned above, but
also in the sales (of houses, land, slaves, other kind of goods), in the payment of rent,20 salaries and
wages, as a means of compensation for robbery, damages or personal injuries, and in a variety of non-
economical relationships, such as marriages, adoptions, inheritances and all sorts of controversies.
Silver and, less frequently, barley, also fulfilled the threefold function of money as means
of payment, as a measure of economical and financial value, and as instruments of accumulation
of capitals or savings. To sum up, they already presented the same characteristics that were to be
unified in coined currency: means of payment and medium of exchange, unit of account, and store
of value.
The two means of payment, silver and barley, coexisted in the same monetary system, and
were related to each other by means of an exchange rate between the two currencies. Normally, one
gur of barley corresponded to one shekel of silver. Thus, the monetary system had two forms of
interchangeable currency, where one might be more commonly employed than the other.21 The two
according to text type, or as in Mari, where the most important texts were stored in a room sealed with the royal
seal), or in niches (as in Sippar, where they were similarly arranged according to type). The care in the storing
certainly denotes, on the one hand, the importance ascribed to this kind of documents; on the other hand, the
advanced degree of development in the organization of the system itself.
20 As regards the earliest period, Gelb, Steinkeller and Whiting 1991 have published 57 stone kudurru’s
(border stones), ranging from the late Uruk period to the Sargonic period, mainly concerned with the transfer
of farming land against silver, copper or barley. The three scholars also closely examined 282 contracts of sale
ranging from the Fara period to Ur III, concerning houses, fields and persons and other goods, most of which
are paid in silver, but in some cases in barley or copper. In the following period (ED and Old Akkadian)nearly
30 new documents come from Fara, Adab, Umma and Isin. Among the kudurru’s, the most famous is certainly
the Maništusu obelisk (23rd century B.C.), which records the purchase of huge areas of farmland along with the
payment of massive amounts of silver made by the king in four distinct provinces. As for the Old Babylonian
period, Simonetti 1998 has examined more than a thousand contracts of sale concerning houses and land,
whose payment is made in silver. A number of sale contracts are reported in other sites and periods, such as
at Mari, Nuzi, Ugarit, Emar, etc, until the end of the Babylonian period. In all of them, silver plays a crucial
role. Similarly, in nearly all the contracts of every period, witnesses are taken into account and particularly in
the less archaic acts, specific clauses are inserted dealing with sanctions in silver (and less frequently in gold)
against default or against those who contested the validity of such agreements. A number of other contracts are
concerned with the rent of houses, land, orchards and palm groves, which were normally set in barley, in some
case along with additional sums in silver. Among the hundreds of texts from Ur III, we should mention those
examined by Maekawa 1977, 1-54, (Lagash), Kraus 1975/76 (Nippur), Grégoire 1970 (Umma) and Steinkeller
1981 (Ur). In Old Babylonian contracts too, the rent was set in barley (with a few exceptions of silver); very
frequently, however, sums in silver to be paid in advance were also requested, particularly in reference to
farmland (Pomponio 1978, 5-15, 43-45).
21 §91 in the Code of Hammurabi, which specifies that the exchange rate between silver and barley
was to be officially settled by royal decree is important from an economic point of view, suggesting that the
exchange rate between the two forms of money was to be fixed by a central authority. A similar indication may
52 Akkade is King
currencies were used by a variety of operators in all ordinary transactions:22 temple servants, palace
staff, members of the royal family, the highest functionaries and dignitaries, wealthy families, and
private citizens.
All these economical and financial activities were carried out within the framework of a body
of legal procedures, which had been gradually codified by a number of kings, at least since the end
of the third millennium B.C., and which managed to regulate aspects of economic life and activities
at the time. A third of the 270 paragraphs in the Code of Hammurabi refer to the use of silver, while
at least one fifth refers to the use of barley,23 both as means of payment. The fact that Mesopotamian
retraced in the “ana ittišu” where, however, reference is also made to the exchange rate currently applied, that
may differ from the rate settled by royal decree.
22 As concerns the use of the different means of payment in the three millennia B.C., see Bulgarelli
2001, 57-272; 2005, 73-85, 2009, Monaco-Pomponio 2009, 19-50, Saporetti 2009, 91-101.
23 Among the most important cases recurring in this legal corpus, in which silver is referred to as a
means of payment, we may mention the following: kidnapping (CU §3), sexual abuse of a woman (CU §8),
divorce (CU §§9-10), false accusation (CU §13-14), seizure of a runaway (CU §17); injuries (CU §18-21; 22),
perjury (CU §27), theft (LI, §14), undue cutting of trees (LI §15), compensation (CL §§17-18), perjury (CL
§38), injuries (AI iv, §§1-2), repudiation of a wife (AI vii a §6), interests (AI vii b §4), exchange rate of silver/
barley (AI vii b §5), list of prices in silver (CE §1), undue use of watercraft (CE §6), harvester wages (CE §7),
harvester wages (CE §9), worker wages (CE §11), interests (CE §21), sexual abuse of a female slave (CE §31),
sanction (CE §32), injuries (CE §§42-47; 54-57), seizure of a slave (CH §17), murder (CH §24), selling of real
estate (CH §40), undue cutting of a tree (CH §59), interest rate (CH §§90-91), undue appropriation of a person
(CH §114), death of a slave taken as a pawn (CH §116), failure to give a wedding gift (CH §§139-140), selling
of a female slave (CH §147), incest (CH §156), injuries (CH §§198, 201, 203-204, 207-215), payment to a
surgeon (CH, §§215-223), payment to a veterinary (CH §225), payment to a house builder (CH §228), payment
for caulking (CH §234), damages caused by ox (CH §251), killing of a slave (CH §252), theft of a plough (CH
§§259-260), wages for a man and artisans (CH §§273-274), rent of a watercraft (CH §§ 275-277).
As for texts, which refer to barley as a means of payment, we will mention the following cases:
compensation for the flooding of a field (CU §30), failed cultivation of lands (CU §31); renting of cart, ox
and carter (LI §4), rent of an ox (LI §4), death, disappearance, etc. of a rented slave (AI vii a §7), interest (AI
vii b §2), prices in barley (CE §2), rent of cart, oxen, and carter (CE §3), rent of a boat (CE §4), payment to a
harvester (CE §7), rent of a winnower (CE §8), rent of a sickle (CE §9a), rent of a donkey (CE §10), interests
(CE §§18a; 20), failed tillage of land (CH §44); interest (CH §§48-50; not specified whether in silver or in
barley), damage caused to land (CH §§53; 56), damage caused to a herd (CH §§57-58), compensation for
uncultivated land (CH §63), interest rate (CH §90), selling of beer (CH §111), rent of warehouse (CH §121),
payment for a helmsman (CH §239), sequestration of an ox (CH §242), renting of an ox (CH §243), theft of
cattle and seed (CH §255), payment of a farmer (CH §257), payment of a drover (CH §258), payment of a
shepherd (CH §261), rent of an ox (CH §268), rent of a donkey (CH §269), rent of a billy-goat (CH §270), rent
of cart, oxen, and carter (CH §271), rent of cart (CH §272). For reasons of space, these examples only cover
the Hammurabi period. In Middle Assyrian laws, payments are made in silver and tin, and in Neo-Babylonian
laws, in silver. For further references cf. Saporetti 1984.
laws took into account those aspects of economic and financial activity – such as money lending,
interest rates, wages and salaries, rents, prices, deposits – in which silver and barley as means of
payment appear. This suggests that the central authorities were well aware of all such activities
and transactions, which must have reached a considerable degree in development and frequency in
occurrence. Several kings certainly recognized their role by regulating economic activity with a body
of laws and acts. Such laws established a variety of sanctions to be applied in specific cases, and
aimed at discouraging illegal conduct, with fines, in the majority of cases, to be paid in silver.
Trading activities too had reached a considerable degree in development. Dating as far back
as at least the third millennium B.C. (but even earlier, if we consider the Uruk colonies in the fourth
millennium B.C.), a great number of merchants operated in the market, and were, likewise, involved
in banking activities. Probably, they initially operated on behalf of temples and palaces; soon,
however, they must have tried their hand at these activities on their own, with the purpose of making
a profit.24
24 Mesopotamia was connected to the outside world by long distance caravan routes at least since the
fourth millennium B.C. At that time, merchants travelled with their goods (obsidian, pottery, metals, stones,
wood, etc.) from one place to another in Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Elam. The real function of these merchants
is still a matter of debate among scholars. As regards the earliest period, it is still difficult to determine whether
they operated only on behalf of temples and palaces, or if they also operated on their own. In addition, it
is unclear whether they had already begun to operate for profit. Furthermore, it is not clear whether there
were proper markets where the goods were sold and bought; whether these markets were held occasionally
or periodically, whether they were temporary or permanent, or whether they were located on the banks of
the rivers Tigris and Euphrates or elsewhere. A vast number of texts, dating as far back as the earliest period,
however, make references to the market, the individuals operating it, and the activities which took place in it.
They mention markets, merchants, the heads of merchants, weights and interest rates. Hence, we may argue
that a complex mercantile structure existed, which was apparently organized in the form of “corporationa”,
and that, with the passage of time, this system was developed and refined to a point where it came to hold a key
position in the economy. As for the relationship between public and private in the three millennia B.C., already
hinted at, see also Dercksen 1999, Bongenaar 1999, Archi 1984 and Hudson and Van De Mieroop 2002. As
for the traders during the Sargonic period, Foster 1977, 31-43, argues that there were private merchants, who
operated for their own profit. Among them, he has discovered a peculiarly resourceful businesswoman from
the city of Umma called Ama-è. She was not daunted by the risks of investing, and she was successful in
operating by means of a firm, and entertained economic relations with the State. She was a clear example of a
true entrepreneur, who headed a fairly complex commercial organization. Discussing trading activities during
the Ebla period, Matthiae 2005, 28-29, after emphasizing the prominent role of palaces in the redistribution of
goods, asserts that there are relevant hints that allow us to affirm with a degree of certainty, that private trade
was a major feature in the palace economy of Ebla during the period of the royal archives. He also points
out that non-economic texts in the Ebla Archives provide data on the activity of merchants, and concludes
that trade activities did exist, but that they were strictly regulated by political power. Pettinato 1994, 174,
affirms: “Ciò vuol dire che con Ebla ci troviamo in una fase del commercio molto sviluppata e che il tempo del
baratto è ormai superato. Nella documentazione di Ebla è attestato ancora il baratto, ma non come forma di
54 Akkade is King
scambio … La forma più comune, però, è ormai la compravendita a mezzo di argento”. He goes on to point out
that: “… anzi quest’ultimo metallo (l’argento) serviva come normale mezzo di pagamento per le transazioni
commerciali”. In recent years, the discussion has revolved around the role of merchants in the Ur III period.
Scholars such as Englund, Foster, Limet, Neumann, Powell, Sigrist, Butz, Snell, Steinkeller, Van de Mieroop
and Young have tackled the problem without agreeing on the fundamental questions. The most crucial point is,
no doubt, the question of the degree of autonomy of private subjects in a strongly centralized state. A matter of
intense debate, for example, is whether Sumerian merchants carried out their activities at the service of the state
(receiving a commission for their activity), or whether they operated entirely on their own account and interest;
that is, whether they operated in the public economic sphere or in the private sphere, as it seems to have been
argued in recent years (Foster, Powell). It has been discussed, for example, whether one of the Umma merchants,
Ur-Dumuzida, was at the head of a real organization of professional merchants, which also represented a proper
social class guided by a “chief/supervisor of merchants”. As to the Ur merchants, Van de Mieroop 1992, 202-
203 argues the existence of real associations. Van de Mieroop 1986, 1-80, examining scores of texts concerned
with the merchant Tūram-ilī, supposes that the examination of this merchant’s archive may help prove the
existence of an association of private entrepreneurs, involved in trading activities and the use of a mutual fund
that all traders contributed to in order to back their investments, sharing both risks and profits. This merchant
is also the object of study in Garfinkle 2002, 29-48, while Snell 1982, 1988, devotes his attention to scores of
balanced accounts that the Umma merchants in the Neo-Sumerian period drew for the central administration.
Larger and more detailed is the documentation from the subsequent, Old Babylonian, period; consequently, the
activity of private merchants appears as better defined, while a certain degree of obscurity remains as to the
role of the merchant himself. Various other figures still seem to operate, coordinating or supervising the activity
of merchants (one is Abum-waqar from Sippar, discussed in Jursa 1997, 135-145). Scores of texts from Larsa,
for example, refer to merchants as intermediaries between the central administration and private entrepreneurs,
intervening in the sale of fish, dates, garlic, and wool, and working alongside the kārum and the “overseer of
the merchants” (one of them named Šēp-Sin). The central administration was interested in silver deriving from
the trade in such goods to private persons: a trade that employed silver as money, controlled by the state, in
which merchants served as intermediaries. The Larsa texts are also taken into account by Koschaker 1942, 135-
180, who considers their object being taxation rather than sale, as well as by Charpin 1980, 126-131, and Stol
1982, 127-230, who see them as acts of sale. From Sippar, scores of texts refer to transfers in silver between
private persons without any intervention from the central authority. They focus on an intermediary undertaking
to provide landowners with a number of workers on occasion of the harvest; these intermediaries eventually
received a payment in silver. As to the intense debate that has led to this conclusion, see Stol 1976, 97-104. As
regards the harvesters, we cannot determine whether they received silver or not; we know, however, that the
Eshnunna Laws and the Code of Hammurabi regulated the payment of workers, including harvesters, workmen,
winnowers, surgeons, veterinaries and a whole series of artisans (EL §§7, 9 and 11, and CH §§215, 221, 224,
273, and 274). The Kanesh texts, on the other hand, depict merchants as very active people, proficiently making
use of a variety of instruments: setting up firms, associations and companies of various kinds, reverting to sale
agents, granting loans at an interest, investing money, and providing warranties. Certainly, the whole picture
conjures up the idea of a highly developed economic system. The presence of merchants increased in the
following periods. Well-off merchants, during these millennia, regularly employ silver as a means of payment
in their transactions, and being involved in a variety of activities, become a primary resource for a complex
Hence, by means of these activities – exchanges, lending money out at an interest, or even
usury – a concept of profit had made its way through the economic system, and would remain a
component of crucial importance until our time. In a nutshell, the picture of a complex economic
and financial system, in which some financial instruments of the finest degree were already being
employed, emerges from all that has been said. Silver, in particular, played an important role as a
means of payment, that is the form of money, nearly in all sectors of the economic life.
Consequently, two questions of particular importance might be posed. Firstly, what kind of
knowledge of economic concepts and expertise in the use of financial instruments did these people
possess? And secondly, did they already employ such instruments with a relevant degree of frequency
and continuity in use, or did they only make use of them occasionally?
Most urgently, therefore, we need to clarify that those people were perfectly aware of the
function and correct and most efficient employment of these instruments. It is not surprising, then,
that they were familiar and proficient both in their use and in the principles that governed them. One
example will suffice. Loans, for instance, were granted only by means of official acts, expressly and
accurately drawn by accountants (scribes); that is, by means of real acts which also served as official
evidence, proving (from a judicial point of view), that a transaction had taken place. Some of the
most accurately drawn acts clearly specify all the fundamental details in the subsequent management
of the transaction, and, particularly, the name of the parties involved, the amount of the sum to
be granted, the date and the place where it must be reimbursed, the interest rate to be applied, the
guarantors in the operation or the pledges requested, and any pecuniary sanctions in case of protest
or default. To sum up, all the essential details are included, which will characterize this kind of
transactions, with little differences, in all economic systems, up to the most sophisticated economies
in our time.25 This suggests that Mesopotamian civilization gave rise to (and first developed these)
financial instruments.
Another relevant aspect to be taken into account is the frequency with which those instruments
were employed. In order to evaluate this, it would be necessary to examine all of the texts published
so far, keeping in mind, at the same time, that they represent only a minute part of the texts actually
excavated, and that they are themselves but a slightest portion of all the texts produced during the
millennia of Mesopotamian history. Nonetheless, some of the available data may provide a first
indication of their frequency of use. It is also necessary, however, to rearrange these data according
to the different kinds of transactions, the date and place of the discovery of the source, etc.26 This
economic system, certainly no longer a primitive one.
25 Obviously, not all loan contracts (or other operations) contained the entirety of these elements. Some
acts of loan are, in fact, more concise and, in many cases, they are also fragmentary and hard to interpret. This,
of course, does not diminish the relevance of the point made so far, that is, that people were well acquainted
with all the instruments, formulas and clauses, even though they do not all occur in the tablets, and proficient
in their application when occasion arose.
26 The task is a difficult one, since the texts are, frequently, obscure and incomplete, and do not easily
56 Akkade is King
appears as the only possible way of evaluating the degree of circulation for each kind of transaction,
albeit on the sole basis of the texts that have been effectively published.27 To compensate for the lack
of information, we may observe that thousands of texts coming from different sites, and belonging
to different periods of the Ancient Near East, have been recovered. They all represent, nowadays, the
tips of icebergs – in some cases very near to each other – emerging from a vast sea and, and clearly
concealing enormous glaciers (that is, a huge amount of economic and financial transactions).
All things considered, then, we are certainly facing a civilization making proficient use
of such instruments and with considerable frequency. We may argue that we are facing a whole
economic and financial structure that did not fundamentally rely on barter (which is, furthermore,
scarcely testified)28 – and gave rise to and made use of sophisticated financial instruments, as well
as means of payment and money used in the widest variety of transactions, carried out by temples,
palaces or private subjects29.
Minted coin was invented in the 7th century B.C. We may still wonder whether this was a
sudden discovery or, if it was more probably as Babelon pointed out already in the 19th century, a
system which originated, developed, and improved entirely on its own, generation after generation;
hence, it is vain to search for the person, whose sublime mind should have invented money.30 Most
probably, the form of money gradually changed from the plain and simple piece of weighed metal,
to an ingot with its weight impressed on it, to minted coins. Besides, in the different ages, and until
very recently, all the different forms of means of payment have often circulated and been employed
yield to univocal interpretation.

27 Margueron 1993, 417-418, estimates that, during the three millennia, at least a billion tablets were
written. If we consider almost one million tablets and fragments have been recovered so far, and that only a
part or them have been published, we should multiply the number of texts by 2000 if we want to assess the
number of transactions that actually took place, or, according to Margueron, at an even higher rate, particularly
if we consider that a great number of transactions may not have been required to be drawn up.
28 Cuneiform tablets rarely refer to barter. More frequently, they contain full reference to the means
of payment. We do not think that barter did not exist, nor that it was confined to a secondary role in economic
transactions. The point we want to make is that textual evidence does not provide us with elements to determine
the situation in which barter was used, and that, from a documentary point of view, its role is difficult to
determine when compared to the more detailed information we possess on the means of payment.
29 The poor knowledge that economists have of the economic and financial field of the ancient world
is certainly due to the difficulties these scholars find in getting acquainted with the primary sources. A solution
may be found only if a strict collaboration between economists and Assyriologists arises. This alone may lead
economists to a better understanding of the economical life of such distant people. It is also necessary, on the
other hand, to see an effort from Assyriologists to find other forms of expression for their findings, which may
stimulate the interest of economists as regards this part of the ancient world that is not always provided with
translations, but seems entirely confined to cuneiforms texts, either reproduced as such or transliterated.
30 Babelon 1915, 229-230.
at the same time.31

For hundreds, or even thousands, of years, silver (stamped or not), was circulated and
employed for its real value (that is, a coin or piece was equivalent in value to the quantity of metal
it contained), regardless of the form it may have taken (bars, metal plates, rings, gold or silver dust).
With minted coins, precious metals continued, at least initially, to circulate according to their own
real value. What had been done, was nothing but combining the ancient habit of using weighed silver
with that of impressing a seal, as a guarantee, on the containers of goods (jars, amphorae, sacks,
boxes/crates), warehouse doors, clay tablets. A piece of metal of specified weight (planchet) was
taken, and an image was impressed on it with a seal (coinage). Thus, minted coin was invented in
the 7th century B.C.32 Soon states realized that they might take a profit out of the minting of coins
at a face value (set by the state itself) well above the value of the metal it contained; thus, minted
fiduciary money was invented, probably around V-VI century B.C.33 This represented the end of the
two thousand year era in which silver was the only means of payment employed in its real value.
Ever since, fiduciary money would coexist with coinage based on real value, until our time, where
the fiduciary money par excellence—the banknote—characterizes the end of a story that has lasted
five thousand years and has been characterized by the circulation of real value metallic money.
To conclude, Mesopotamian economies used sophisticated financial and economical
instruments, including means of payment-money. The use of these instruments would develop, and
were significantly refined in the centuries to come, as documented by tens of thousands of clay
31 These means have not been dismissed altogether. They are still present in the safes of Central Banks
in many countries, where gold bars are jealously guarded, along with gold and silver coins, mainly minted in
the 19th and 20th centuries.
32 In truth, we have occasional evidence, written or archeological, of the presence of stamped metals,
although we are not always able to determine whether they were used as means of payment. For the Old
Babylonian period we possess a wealth of references to silver with a sealing (for example in Kanesh), although,
it is widely held that the seal was not directly stamped on the silver itself, but on the case containing it (a bag,
box, etc). Michel 2001, 542 states that bronze bars dating to the Middle Assyrian period have been found,
and that some silver bars with the seal of the Anatolian Royal Treasure may be dated to the same age. Other
examples are the ox-hide bars of copper found in the Cape Gelidonya shipwreck, which were partly stamped
(13th century B.C.), and the copper ingots in the Roman aes rude and aes signatum, which were stamped with
a variety of images; or the smaller bars in silver of Zinjirli (Turkey), which bear the seal of King Bar-Rakib
(second half of the 8th century B.C.), or the silver bars with the effigy of the goddess Ishtar of Arbela (second
half of the 8th century B.C.).
33 As to the legal tender of minted coin, we should mention Polienus, Stratgems III, 10, 14; IV, 10,
2, Aristotle, Economics, II 2, 23a; II 2, 16; and Politics I, 6. According to Crawford (1986, 43), legal tender
in the ancient Greek world it was certainly not a temporary measure caused by the recurrent financial crisis,
but rather, since the 4th century B.C. became a prominent feature of the monetary system. See also Caccamo
Caltabiano and Radici Colace 1992, who make wider reference throughout the book to classic sources; and cf.
Le Rider 2001, 95.
58 Akkade is King
tablets discovered in the Ancient Near East. The economies were of a predominantly agricultural
and pastoral kind (based on farming and cattle breeding), with a presence of artisans and workmen,
and fundamentally based on the redistribution of rations, the management of which was of a variably
centralized kind according to the different periods. The crucial presence of economical and commercial
activities, run by private subjects and “public bankers”, such as temples and palaces, however, is
considered a matter of fact, and is a concept widely agreed upon by scholars. More importantly, a
wealth of phenomena clearly denote a high degree of development in those economies, for instance in
banks, money lending, loans, interest rates, profits and even usury, along with investments, deposits,
bearer titles, antichresis, guarantees, pledges, trading activities, contracts of sale (including term
sales), and a wealth of goods being traded, limited liability companies, commercial associations and
their operating agents and investments. Finally, from a judicial point of view, we find judicial acts
and sentences. Therefore, it is very probable that the particular means of payment, employed in all
such transactions, were to represent the ancestors of minted coin.
Bibliography
Archi, A. (ed.) 1984: Circulation of Goods in non-palatial Context in the Ancient Near East (Roma: Edizioni
dell’Ateneo).
––––––– 2002: “«Debt» in an Archaic Palatial Economy: the Evidence from Ebla”, in: M. Hudson and M. Van De
Mieroop (eds.), Debt and Economic Renewal in the Ancient Near East (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press), 95-108.
Babelon, E. 1915: Le origini della moneta (1st edition 1897; Milano).
Bongenaar, A. C. V. M. 1999: “Money in the Babylonia Institutions”, in: J. G. Dercksen (ed.), Trade and
Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia: proceedings of the first MOS Symposium (Leiden 1997) (PIHANS 84;
Istanbul / Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul), 159-174.
Bulgarelli, O. 2001: Il denaro alle origini delle origini (Milano: Spirali).
––––––– 2005: “Il regolamento degli scambi nel Vicino Oriente Antico”, in: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
(ed.), L’economia palaziale e la nascita della moneta: dalla Mesopotamia all’Egeo (Rome: Accademia
Nazionale dei Lincei), 73-85.
––––––– 2009: “Moneta ed Economia nell’Antica Mesopotamia (III-I millennio a.C.)”, Rivista Trimestrale di
Diritto dell’Economia, supplemento n. 3.
Caccamo Caltabiano, M. and P. Radici Colace 1992: Dalla premoneta alla moneta (Pisa: ETS Editrice).
Charpin, D. 1980: Archives familiales et propriété privée en Babylonie ancienne. Étude des documents de Tell
Sifr (Genève: Droz).
––––––– 1982: “Marchands du palais et marchands du temple à la fin de la Ire Dynastie de Babylone”, Journal
asiatique CCLXX, 25-65.
––––––– 2005: “Les Dieux prêteurs dans le Proche-Orient Amorrite (c. 2000-1600 av. J.-C.)”, Topoi 12-13, 13-34.
Crawford, M. H.. 1986: La moneta in Grecia e a Roma (Bari and Rome: Editore Laterza).
Cuq, E. 1929: Études sur le droit babylonien, les lois assyriennes et les lois hittites (Paris: Paul Geuthner).
Dercksen, J. G. (ed.) 1999: Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia: proceedings of the first MOS Symposium
(Leiden 1997) (PIHANS 84; Istanbul / Leiden: Nederlands Historisch Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul).
Edzard, D. O. 1968: Sumerische Rechtsurkunden des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor der III. Dynastie von
Ur (München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Beck in Kommission).
Falkenstein, A. 1957: Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden (München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften).
Foster, B. 1977: “Commercial Activity in Sargonic Mesopotamia”, Iraq 39, 31-43.
––––––– 1981: “A New Look at the Sumerian Temple State”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of
the Orient 24, 225-241.
––––––– 1983: “Selected Business Documents from Sargonic Mesopotamia”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies
35, 147-175.
Garfinkle, S. 2002: “Turam-ili and the Community of Merchants in the Ur III Period”, Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 54, 29-48.
Gelb, I. J. 1955: Old Akkadian Inscriptions in Chicago Natural History Museum. Texts of Legal and Business
Interest (Chicago, Ill.: Chicago Natural History Museum).
––––––– 1952: Sargonic Texts from the Diyala Region (MAD 1; Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press).
––––––– 1970a: Sargonic Texts in the Louvre Museum (MAD 4; Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press).
––––––– 1970b: Sargonic Texts in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (MAD 5; Chicago, Ill.: University of
Chicago Press).
Gelb, I. J., P. Steinkeller, and R.M. Whiting 1991: Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East. Ancient
Kudurrus (OIP 104; Chicago, Ill: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago).
Genouillac, H. 1921: Inventaire des tablettes de Tello conservées au Musée Impérial Ottoman V: Epoque
présargonique, Epoque d’Agadé, Epoque d’Ur. Première partie (Paris: Leroux).
Glassner, J.-J. 2000-2001: “Les petits Etats mésopotamiens à la fin du 4e et au cours du 3e millénaire”, in:
M. H. Hansen, (ed.), A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures (Copenhagen: Kongelige Danske
Videnskabernes Selskab), 35-53.
Grégoire, J.-P. 1970: Archives administratives sumériennes (Paris: P. Geuthner).
Harris, R. 1960: “Old Babylonian Temple Loans”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 14, 126-137.
Hudson, M., and M. Van de Mieroop (eds.) 2002: Debt and Economic Renewal in the Ancient Near East
(Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press).
60 Akkade is King
Joannès, F. 2000 (ed.): Rendre la justice en Mésopotamie (Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes).
Jursa, M. 1997: “‘Als König Abi-ešuh gerechte Ordnung hergestellt hat’: eine bemerkenswerte altbabylonische
Prozessurkunde”, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 91, 135-145.
Kraus, F. R. 1958: Ein Edikt des Königs Ammi-Ṣaduqa von Babylon (Leiden: Brill).
––––––– 1975/1976: “Feldpachtverträge aus der Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur”, Die Welt des Orients 8, 85-205.
Kohler, J. and A. Ungnad 1909-1911: Hammurabi’s Gesetz. Urkunden, Erläuterungen III-V (Leipzig: Verlag
von Eduard Pfeifer).
Koschaker, P. 1942: “Zur staatlichen Wirtschaftsverwaltung in altbabylonischer Zeit, insbesondere nach den
Urkunden aus Larsa”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 47, 135-180.
Lafont, S. 2001: “Prêt”, in F. Joannès and C. Michel (eds.), Dictionnaire de la civilisation mésopotamienne
(Paris: R. Laffont), 679-681.
Lafont, S. 2000: “Considérations sur la pratique judiciaire en Mésopotamie”, in: F. Joannès (ed.), Rendre la
justice en Mésopotamie (Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes), 15-34.
Le Rider, G. 2001: La naissance de la monnaie (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France).
Leemans, W. F. 1950: “The Rate Interest in Old-Babylonian Times”, Revue internationale des Droits de
l’Antiquité V, 7-34.
Maekawa, K. 1977: “The Rent of the Tenant Field (gan-APIN.LAL) in Lagash”, Zinbun 14, 1-54.
Margueron, J. C. 1993: La Mesopotamia (1st edizione 1991; Bari and Rome: Editore Laterza).
Matthiae, P. 2005: “Economia palatina a Ebla nell’età degli archivi”, in: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (ed.),
L’economia palaziale e la nascita della moneta: dalla Mesopotamia all’Egeo (Rome: Accademia Nazionale
dei Lincei), 21-34.
Michel, C. 2000: “Les litiges commerciaux paléo-assyriens”, in: F. Joannès (ed.), Rendre la justice en
Mésopotamie (Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes), 113-140.
––––––– 2001: “Moyens de paiement”, in: F. Joannès and C. Michel (eds.), Dictionnaire de la civilisation
mésopotamienne (Paris: R. Laffont), 541-543.
Milano, L. 2003: “Sistemi finanziari in Mesopotamia e Siria nel III millennio a.C.”, in: L. Milano and N. Parise
(eds.), Il regolamento degli scambi nell’antichità (III-I millennio a.C.) (Bari and Rome: Laterza), 3-58.
Monaco, S. and F. Pomponio 2009: “L’impiego dell’argento nei testi mesopotamici dal periodo arcaico a quello
paleo-accadico”, Rivista di Storia Economica 25, 19-50.
Motta, F. 2002/2003: I contratti di prestito di periodo neo-sumerico, Thesis in Università degli Studi di Messina.
Pettinato, G. 1994: Ebla (1st edition 1986; Milano: Rusconi libri).
––––––– 2003: I re di Sumer (Brescia: Padeia Editrice).

Pomponio, F. 1978: I contratti di affitto dei campi per la coltivazione di cereali pubblicati in YOS 13 (Napoli:
Istituto Orientale di Napoli).
––––––– 2003: “Aspetti monetari e finanziari del periodo neo-sumerico e paleo-babilonese”, in: L. Milano
and N. Parise (eds.), Il regolamento degli scambi nell’antichità (III-I millennio a.C.) (Bari and Rome: Editori
Laterza), 59-108.
Pomponio, F., G. Visicato and Aa. Westenholz 2006: Le tavolette cuneiformi di Adab delle collezioni della
Banca d’Italia (Roma: Banca d‘Italia).
Pomponio, F., M. Stol, and Aa. Westenholz 2006: Tavolette cuneiformi di varia provenienza delle collezioni
della Banca d’Italia (Roma: Banca d‘Italia).
Pruessner, A. H. 1927/1928: “The Earliest Traces of Negotiable Instruments”, American Journal of Semitic
Languages and Literatures 44, 88-107.
Saporetti, C. 1984: Le leggi della Mesopotamia (Firenze: Editore Le Lettere).
––––––– 2002: La rivale di Babilonia (Rome: Newton & Compton Editori).
––––––– 2009: “L’argento come mezzo di scambio nell’economia paleo-babilonese”, Rivista di Storia
Economica 25, 91-101.
Simonetti, C. 2006: La compravendita di beni immobili in età antico-babilonese (Paris: De Baccard).
Skaist, A. 1994: The Old Babylonian Loan Contract. Its History and Geography (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan
University Press).
Snell, D. C. 1982: Ledgers and Prices. Early Mesopotamian Merchant Accounts (New Haven, Ct.: Yale
University Press).
––––––– 1988: “The Allocation of Resources in the Umma Silver Account System, Journal of the Economic
and Social History of the Orient 31, 1- 13.
Steible, H. 1982: Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften (FAOS 5; Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner).
Steinkeller, P. 1981: “The Renting of Fields in Early Mesopotamia and the Development of the Concept of
‘Interest’ in Sumerian”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 24, 113-145.
––––––– 1999: “Land-Tenure Conditions in Third Millennium Babylonia: The Problem of Regional Variation”,
in: M. Hudson and B. A. Levine (eds.), Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East (Cambridge,
MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University), 289-309.
Stol, M. 1976: Studies in Old Babylonian History (PIHANS 40; Istanbul/Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul).
––––––– 1982: “State and Private Business in the Land of Larsa”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 34, 127-230.
Szlechter, É 1958: Tablettes juridiques de la 1re Dynastie de Babylone (Paris: Recueil Sirey).
Van de Mieroop, M. 1986: “Turam-ilī: An Ur III Merchant”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 38, 1-80.
––––––– 1992: Society and Enterprise in Old Babylonian Ur (Berlin: Reimer).

Visicato, G. 1999: “The Sargonic Archive of Tell El-Suleimah”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 51, 17-30.
Westbrook, R. and R. Jasnow 2001: Security for Debt in Ancient Near Eastern Law (Leiden; Boston: Brill).
Westenholz, Aa. 1987: Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Philadelphia. Part Two: The “Akkadian”
Texts, the Enlilemaba Texts, and the Onion Archive (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press).
Yang, Z. 1989: Sargonic Inscriptions from Adab (Changchun: The Institute for the History of Ancient
Civilizations).
The Statue of Nin-e’iga
Jacob L. Dahl, Oxford
The fourth kirugu of the Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur (LSUr) begins
with Enlil answering Nanna-Suen’s plea for Ur, uttered in the final lines of the preceding k i r u g u .
As Michalowski observed (1989: 15), this is a turning point of the story where the final verdict on
Sumer and Ur is rendered. Following Enlil’s advice to Nanna-Suen to abandon Ur, and the reaction of
the people of Ur upon learning about the advancing enemy, the destruction is described in four short
episodes. The first, describing the destruction of the statue of Nin-e’iga (earlier read Nin-e’igara),
will be discussed below; the second details the destruction of the outside of the temple; the third
the destruction of the inside of the temple; and the fourth the destruction of the seat of justice.1 The
kirugu ends with yet another plea of Nanna-Suen, this time more favorably received by Enlil (as
observed by Michalowski the narrative continues to describe the destruction, although the score had
been settled [1989, 15]).
This short study, dedicated to my former teacher at the University of Copenhagen, Aa.
Westenholz, is an attempt to present a synopsis of the fourth k i r u g u of LSUr, and subsequently,
with that analysis in mind, to suggest a new translation of lines 408-419 (line numbering following
Michalowski [1989]). That approach has revealed some new evidence for the existence of statues of
divine beings in early Mesopotamia.2
Synopsis of the fourth kirugu of LSUr:3

1. (360-370): Enlil answers Nanna-Suen, and explains how Ur’s supremacy was temporary.4
The poetic structure of this stanza is not clear, perhaps due to the direct speech?
1 In his discussion of the fourth kirugu, Michalowski paid particular attention to the plea of Nanna-
Suen and the answer of Enlil: the middle of the kirugu holds in Michalowski’s words a description of “the
final onslaught on the city ….. described in a long, vivid passage (lines 377-448)” (1989, 14-15). Kramer, in
the introduction to his translation summarized the kirugu in similar terms (1969a, 611). Whereas Kramer’s
synopsis is more detailed than that of Michalowski, neither went beyond a literal interpretation.
2 On divine statues in Sumer see most recently Ozaki (2008, 218). See Alster (2005, 16) for a general
discussion of the presence or absence of cult statues of Sumerian deities. I wish to thank B. Alster, R. K.
Englund, and M. Widell for many useful comments on this article.
3 The poetic structure of the 4th kirugu is not clear. Some stanzas appear to be made up of distiches
only (2, 3, and 9), whereas others are much more complex (stanza 4: 2+1+2+1+2; stanza 5: 2+1+2 1 2+1+2?;
stanza 6: 2+1+2 2+1+2; stanza 7: 2+1+2+1+2; and stanza 8: 2+1+2+1+2). The poetic structure of stanzas 1,
10, 11, and 12 is particular difficult to discern, probably due to the direct speech.
4 Michalowski paid special attention to this part of the 4th kirugu (1989, 15). His observations are
followed here.
64 Akkade is King
2. (371-380): The final day of Ur has arrived, and Nanna-Suen and his family leave.
3. (381-390): Although besieged by the enemy, Ur is defiant in its ignorance.
4. (391-398): The people of Ur despair.
5. (399-407+): In Ur is only hunger and misery: outside Ur is the enemy: the enemy is let into
Ur (line 404, the middle of the stanza reads: “The palace will be given over to the
rising flood: they tore out the bolt!”).
6. (408-417): The enemy destroys the statue of Nin-e’iga. See below for a detailed description
of this section.
Turning point (418-419):
The temple is given over to the enemy, and the spoils are carried off.
7. (420-427): Destruction of the outside of the temple.
8. (428-437): Destruction of the inside of the temple (first doors and locks, then musical
instruments and dining place).
9. (438-448): Destruction of the seat of justice: Alamuš leaves and with him the remainder of
the cult.
10. (449-459): Nanna-Suen speaks to Enlil.
11. (460-469): Enlil answers Nanna-Suen, part 1
12. (470-477): Enlil answers Nanna-Suen, part 2
Nin-e’iga:
Nin-e’iga (see RlA 9: 348) is also mentioned together with her husband in the 2nd k i r u g u
of LSUr (line 202). Whereas Nin-e’iga is only sporadically mentioned in Ur III documents,5 she is
better attested in the following Isin-Larsa period. This supports a date of composition contemporary
with the refurbishing of the temples of Ur during the reigns of Ishme-Dagan and Lipit-Ishtar.6
5 Offerings to Nin-e’iga are found in four texts from Ur, dating to the reign of Ibbi-Suen (UET 3, 149,
161, 164, and 822) and one text from Drehem, dating to the reign Amar-Suen (a list of new-moon offerings
SET 116, cited in Sallaberger [1993, 58 n. 245]). In three of the Ur III texts from Ur, she is mentioned after
Nanna and Alamuš in a short list of offerings. Alamuš is also found in the fourth kirugu of LSUr, in section 9
(see also Richter [2004, 448]). The husband of Nin-e’iga, Nin-gublaga “Lady-Gublaga”, is better attested (see
footnote 6): he is known from Ur III as well as ED IIIb and Old Akkadian administrative texts, and is frequently
found as the theophoric element of Ur III personal names. On masculine divine names beginning with nin, see
Heimpel (2002).
6 Numerous clay-cones (RIME 4.1.5.6, see Charpin [1986, 220-21]), originally from Ur, and dating
to the reign of Lipit-Ishtar, commemorate the building of the gipar, the dwelling of the EN-priest(ess) of
Nin-gublaga who was also the steward of Nin-e’iga. This is of course highly significant, and may very well
provide the historical background for the inclusion of the description of the statue of Nin-e’iga into the LSUr.
This also agrees well with Michalowski’s observations that LSUr is a political comment on Isin’s succession
J. L. Dahl: The Statue of Nin-e’iga 65
Nin-e’iga was a goddess of dairy products (her name means “Lady of the house of ghee and
cheese”).7 As such, her statue most likely had dairy-animal attributes; it was perhaps even cow-
like (see line 411 below), and probably decorated with general fertility symbols. This hypothesis
is vital for the following re-translation of the ten lines (eleven when including the Ur manuscript)
describing the destruction of her statue. The prominence given to her statue in this composition
remains enigmatic, however.
The destruction of the Statue of Nin-e’iga:

For detailed philological comments and a score of the stanza under discussion here, see the
next section. In the following discussion, the Ur text UET 6/2, 132, is treated as the most reliable
source. The first distich (408-409) describes how the enemy cut down the statue, identified only in
the second half of the couplet as that of Nin-e’iga. The identification is indirect, and fits the standard
Sumerian pattern of introducing a subject by allusion, only revealing its true name in a subsequent
line. This literary device, presumably employed to increase suspense, is known from 3rd millennium
Sumerian as well as Standard Sumerian compositions from the Old Babylonian period. When the
goddess is said to have abandoned the storeroom (her part of the temple), we know that it was
her statue, which was cut down in the preceding line. The two first lines therefore form a distich
(Vanstiphout [1993, 324]):
( 408) alan AN.ZA 3 -g e s i -a-b i g u 2 -g u ru 5 b a-n i -i n -ak -eš
( 409) d
nin-e 2 -i 3 -ga a g ri g m ah -e eri m 3 -m a š u b i 2 -i n -d ag
The y pruned t h e s t at u e, p l aced i n t h e t reas u ry 8 ,
N in-e ’iga , the ex al t ed s t eward , ab an d o n ed t h e s t o rero o m .
The following line (410) is an intermezzo between two semantically related distiches (408-409
and 411-412).9 It describes how the statue is lying next to its throne after being cut down. This is
done by first describing a part of the statue, namely its base or throne, and second by describing how
Nin-e’iga is sitting in the dust, and not on her throne:
( 410) geš
gu-z a-bi ig i -b i -t a b a-e-š u 2 s ah ar-ra b a-d a-t u š
The throne w a s c o v e r e d f r o m s i g h t : ( s h e ) w a s s q u a t t i n g i n t he
dust.
to Ur’s hegemony (1989, 15), an observation ultimately going back to Edzard (1957, 57f.), see also Römer
(2004, 4-5).
7 One would expect i 3 -nun for ghee and ga-ar 3 (or similar) for cheese, but note that these were often
abbreviated i 3 ga in Ur III administrative texts (see Stol [1993-7, 193-4]), when Nin-e’iga was known under
the same name.
8 The “treasury” is probably either a name or description of the temple (or cella) of Nin-e’iga, which
must have been seen as storing or being the source of precious dairy products.
9 See Sauren (1971, 331-2 and n. 18) for a brief discussion of chiasmus in Sumerian literary compositions
(both on the level of the strophe, as here, and on the level of compositions, or songs (see below on the fourth
song of LSUr as a ring composition)).
66 Akkade is King
The next distich describes the destruction of parts of the statue (411-412). Remembering that
Nin-e’iga was a goddess of dairy products, it makes sense to identify the cow as Nin-e’iga herself,
and the bulls and sheep not as living animals but parts of the statue, probably ornaments.10 The first
verse of the distich may thus be a simile on the first verse of the first distich. As in the first line of
the first verse, the subject is the enemy (mentioned in line 405), which is marked in the verbal chain
accordingly.
( 411) ab 2 mah-bi si-m u š 3 -b i -t a b a-an -d ab 5 -b e 2 -eš s i -b i b a-ra-an -k u 5
( 412) gu 4 du 7 -du 7 -e u d u u 2 g u 7 - g i n 7 g e š t u k u l -e b a-an -s ag 3 -s ag 3
They se iz ed t h e m i g h t y co w b y i t s i l l u s t ri o u s h o rn s : i t s h o rns
we re c ut off,
The goring ox en were b eat en l i k e g razi n g s h eep .
In the next verse the transmission of the text needs to be considered. If we read only from
Nippur manuscripts, we begin with line 413 (according to Michalowski 1989, 175). This line lists the
names of the statue, and likens it to a weapon. If we however include the Ur text UET 6, 132 (witness
II in Michalowski [1989, 175]), the verse has 3 lines and begins with a parallel to the very first line
of the stanza being discussed here. The second part of the ‘couplet’ (414) describes the destruction of
the top and the foundation of the statue. This is done with the imagery of rushes, probably for hair,
and roots, perhaps for feet.
( 412 a) [geš]
˹gešimma r˺-g i n 7 g u 2 -g u ru 5 r u b a-ab -d u 11 t eš 2 -b i b a-ra-an -
ka d 4
( 413) geš
ge šimmar uru d a n i g 2 k al -g a a 2 n am -u r-s ag -g a 2
( 414) u2
numun 2 -gin 7 b a-b u u2
n u m u n 2 b a-ze 2 u r 2 -b a t i m i -n i -i b -b al a
It wa s pruned l i k e a d at e p al m , t h e (p i eces ) were co l l ect ed ,
Date P alm, Mi g h t y T h i n g o f C o p p er: R i g h t Arm o f Hero i s m ,
The rushes (= h ai r) were t o rn o u t l i k e weed ed ru s h es : t h e ro o t s
(=foundation s / feet ) were cri s s cro s s ed .
The next line (415) stands alone, describing the state of the statue before its final destruction
(lines 416-417). It thus divides the second half of the segment into two semantically related verses
just as line 410 divided the first. There are other parallels between 410 and 415; in both verses the
first part describes a physical property of the statue, and the second interprets this on a different level.
410 was concerned with the base of the statue, 415 with the its top:
( 415) sag sahar-ra k i b a-n i -i b -u s 2 l u 2 zi -zi l a-b a-t u k u
The head (=c r o w n ) w a s i n t h e d u s t : t h e r e w a s n o b o d y w h o
could ra ise it.
10 In an unqualified reference to these lines, writing that “virtually every part of the date-palm was
broken up and utilized in one form or another by the ancients, one poet was moved to lament that “a heavenly
throne,” as well as the temple’s choice oxen and sheep were cut to pieces like date-palms”, Kramer (1969b, 5)
seems to have understood the destruction of the statue in much the same terms as the present author.
The final verse, represented by the couplet 416-417, may present the strongest imagery of the
entire segment. In 416, again using a date palm analogy, the description is given of the ripping out of
the center of the statue, and the burning of its top (crown), and in 417, where the flower/date cluster
is said to be ripped out. The latter is perhaps an image of Nin-e’iga being stripped of her symbols of
fertility:
( 416) geš
ze 2 -na -bi ha -b a-˹an -g u ru 5 ˺-u š s ag š u b i 2 -i n -h u -h u -ru -u b 11
( 417) geš
a 2 z u 2 -lum-m a-b i p u 2 d u 7 -d u 7 b a-ra-an -b u -b u -d e 3 -eš
The central r i b w a s c u t o ff : t h e h e a d ( = c r o w n ) w a s b u r n t
through,
They tore out i t s d at e-cl u s t er, a ‘p erfect ’ wel l .
The next two lines, which are at the exact numerical middle of the k i r u g u , are difficult to
interpret. 418 may summarize the destruction of Ur as a whole. Line 419 describes how the spoil was
carried away to the mountains:
( 418) gi z i na b ku 3 -g e m u 2 -a š u b a-e-l a 2 -l a 2
( 419) gu 2 -un gal-gal -e m i -n i -i n -g ar-re-eš -a k u r ( 2 ) -re i 3 -i l 2 -i l 2
A good re ed g ro wi n g i n t h e wet l an d s was h an d ed o v er, 1 2
After they ha d e s t a b l i s h e d t h e r e a g r e a t t r i b u t e , i t w a s c a r r i e d
off to the mou n t ai n s / fo rei g n l an d s .
Score and Commentary:

The Ur and Nippur witnesses are treated as two distinct traditions of the same text, and thus
not coalesced into one composite. UET 6/2, 132 is the only Ur witness to lines 408-413 and 416-417,
that manuscript is thus identical to the “Ur composite” given below.
408 (Ur): alan AN.ZA 3 - g e s i -a-b i g u 2 -g u ru 5 r u b a-n i -i n -ak -eš
408 (Nippur): ( u r u d a ) a la n AN. Z A 3 -g e s i -a-b i g u 2 -g u ru 5 b a-an -n e-eš
CBS 2359 uruda
ala n A N . Z A 3 -ge s i-a -bi gu 2 -˹guru 5 ba ˺ -[…]
N 1878+ a la n A N . Z A 3 -g e s i-a -bi gu 2 -guru 5 ba -a n-ne -e š
3 N-T 318b+ [… ] ˹ g u 2 -g u ru 5 b a -a n˺-ne -e š
The most important difference between the Ur and Nippur traditions is the choice of auxiliary
verb to gu 2 -guru 5 . This is apparently not semantically significant.
The translation of AN.ZA 3 as ‘treasury’ (with the reading u z u g , etc.) is based on the
suggestion by Civil (1983, 236) that the signs A N . Z A 3 and L A K 3 8 4 coalesce in the Ur III
period preserving the two independent meanings a) horizon, originally reserved for A N . Z A 3 , and
b) treasury, originally for LAK 384 (the evidence for the meaning of L A K 3 8 4 is based largely
on Ebla material).
( gu 2 -)guru 5 (-uš) (for reading and grammatical analysis see Attinger (1993, 519-25)), is
perhaps originally an onomatopoeic of the sound of the gnawing teeth of a rodent (kursissu) (or other
11 The composite in Michalowski (1989, 62) is a mix of Nippur and Ur witnesses (see score below).
12 See discussion below.
68 Akkade is King
animal, see Landsberger and Krumbiegel [1934, 108]). An obviously larger animal, perhaps a Bactrian
camel (see below), gu 2 -guru 5 , is known from Ur III administrative texts (OIP 115, 171, male and
female animals with age designations [1 to 3 years]; RA 63, 102, listed among wild animals; and
PDT 1, 594, mentioning a keeper of gu 2 -g u ru 5 , s i p ad g u 2 -g u ru 5 ). In a recent article Steinkeller
suggested that these were Bactrian camels (Steinkeller 2009; see also Potts 2008, 190; Steinkeller
2007, 218-19 and n. 16). Steinkeller’s philological arguments are different from the ones given here:
he sees in gu2-guru5 a phonetic variant of g u 2 -g u r 2 ( G A M ) and equates this with Akkadian kanāšu,
“to bend down” (2009, 417). Although camels do bend down in a particular way, they are certainly
also known for their prominent teeth, and the hissing sound of their voice. g u r u 5 ( - u š ) is in fact
also used in animal imagery for raging (better perhaps “hissing” or “gnawing its teeth at”) (see AHw
sub voce kaṣāṣu; Edzard [1975, 255 and fn. 6]; Sjöberg [1973, 112 (commentary to line 11)]; and
Vanstiphout [1978, 48 (commentary to line 33)]).
gur u 5 may coalesce with ku 5 in OB and post-OB periods (see MSL 14, 346: 98, k u - r u 3 |
TAR | [ š a 2 PA-TAR ] mur-ru-u, and compare MSL 14, 441: 36 [ g u - u r U R U x G U ] | ka-sa-mu;
ka-ṣa-ṣu2; ˹ur˺-ru-u2; etc., and see AhW sub voce (m/w)urrûm; and add Falkenstein (1939, 35)).
Most helpful, perhaps, for our purpose is Landsberger’s (1967, 30) discussion of date palm
terminology and showing that guru 5 (equivalent of kapāru) refers to trimming or pruning of the
palm (see therefore also line 412a below).
In sum, we may speculate that gur u 5 , originally an onomatopoeic of the sound of the gnawing
teeth of a rodent, meant “to prune” or “to trim”. It was used briefly for imported camels from Bactria
during Ur III, and in OB literature figuratively as an animal image for “fierce” or “aggressive”. Both
the Ur III name and the OB literary image can easily be explained going back to the original meaning
of the word, “gnawing the teeth” or “hissing”. It later coalesced with the regular word for “to cut
down”, ku 5 .
Here, and in the following lines, -b i , is understood as a demonstrative rather than referring to
an inanimate statue.
409 (Ur): ˹d˺
nin-e 2 -i 3 -ga ag ri g m ah -e eri m 3 -m a š u b i 2 -i n -˹ d ag ˺
409 (Nippur): nin-i 3 -ga agri g m ah -(k e 4 ) eri m 3 š u b i 2 - i n - d a g
d
CBS 2359 d
n in -i 3 -g a ag rig ˹ ma h˺-ke 4 e rim 3 š u bi 2 -in-˹ da g˺
N 1878+ d
n in -i 3 -g a ag rig ma h e rim š u bi 2 -im-da g
3 N-T 318b+ [… ]-in -d ag
UET 6/2, 132 is the only the manuscript preserving the correct writing of the name of Nin-
e’iga. All Nippur Manuscripts have nin- i 3 -g a.
410 (Ur): [geš]
gu-z a-bi ig i -b i -t a b a-e-š u 2 s ah ar-ra b a-d a-t u š
410 (Nippur): g e š gu-z a-bi ig i -b i -t a b a-(e)-š u 2 s ah ar-ra b a-(e)-d a-an -t u š
CBS 2359 geš
[g u -za ]-˹ b i˺ ig i-bi-ta ba -e -š u 2 s a ha r-ra ba -e -da -x-[x]
N 1878+ geš
g u -za -b i ig i-b i-ta ba -š u 2 s a ha r-ta ba -da -a n-tuš
411 (Ur): [a b 2 ] ma h-bi s i -m u š 3 -b i -t a b a-an -d ab 5 -b e 2 -eš s i -b i b a-ra-an -

ku 5
411 (Nippur): ab 2 ma h-bi si -m u š 3 -b i b a-an -d ab 5 -b e 2 -eš s i -b i b a-ra-an -k u 5
CBS 2359 ˹a b 2 ˺ [… ] ˹ s i˺-m uš 3 -bi ba -a n-da b 5 -be 2 -e š s i-bi ba -ra -[…]
N 1878+ [a b 2 ] ma h -b i s i- ˹muš 3 ˺-bi ba -a n-da b 5 -be 2 -e š s i-bi ba -ra -a n-ku 5
3 N-T 900, 3 [… ]-b i x [… ] x […]
The first part of the line is probably an anticipatory genitive, “of the cow, its horns”. m u š 3
remains enigmatic. Whereas it is regularly interpreted as shining, “emblematic” may be better.
412 (Ur): [gu4] ˹du7˺-du7-e udu u2 gu7- gin7 geštukul-e ba-an-sag3-sag3
412 (Nippur): gu 4 du 7 -du 7 -b i / g i n 7 u d u u 2 g u 7 -a-b i g e š t u k u l b a-an -s ag 3 -s ag 3
CBS 2359 [g u 4 d u 7 -d u 7 -b i] udu u 2 gu 7 -a -bi geš tukul ba -a n-s a g 3 -s a g 3
N 1878+ g u 4 d u 7 -d u 7 -b i udu gi 4 -a -bi geš tukul i 3 -in-s a g 3 -s a g 3
3 N-T 900, 3 [g u 4 d u 7 ]-d u 7 -g in 7 udu ˹ u 2 ˺ […]
There is considerable difference between the Ur and the Nippur manuscripts, and even between
the Nippur manuscripts themselves. The Nippur manuscripts could be understood as a corruption of
the Ur ones. According to proto-Ea MSL 14, 51: 490 PA is read sag (see also Alster (2006: 23).
412a (Ur): [geš]
˹ge šimmar ˺-gin 7 gu 2 -guru 7 ru ba-ab-du 11 teš 2 -bi ba-ra- a n - k a d 4
This line is identical to l. 195 (composite) where the object is the throne of Nanše. Landsberger
(1967: 30) equated guru 5 with Akkadian kapāru (note that late Babylonian SBH should not be
weighed equally with for example the OB text CBS 11319+ (not 1131 g + as in Landsberger (1967:
30)) published by Sjöberg (1993: 19)). Landsberger translated l. 195 of LSUr (with reference to
Civil), “he (Enlil) trimmed (the holy throne) like a date palm”.
Note the phonetic spelling of gur u 5 with g u r u 7 (cf. Attinger (1993: 422), and Mittermayer
(2006: sign number 396)).
413 (Ur): [geš]
˹ge šimmar ˺ u ru d a n i g 2 k al -g a a 2 ˹n am ˺-u r-s ag -g a 2
413 (Nippur): g e š ge šimmar u ru d a n i g 2 k al -g a a 2 n am -u r-s ag -g a 2
CBS 2359 [. . . ] k a l-g a a 2 n am-ur-s a g-ga 2
N 1878+ geš
g e š imma r u ru d a nig 2 ka l-ga a 2 na m-ur-s a g-ga 2
3 N-T 900, 3 [ geš g e š imma r] ˹uruda ˺ nig 2 ka l-ga […]
The Ur and Nippur manuscripts seem to agree on this line. It is possible, and indeed likely that
these were widely known, and standardized names of the statue of Nin-e’iga.
414 (Ur): [u2]
numun 2 -gin 7 b a-b u u 2 n u m u n 2 b a-ze 2 u r 2 -b a t i m i -n i -i b -b al a
UE T 6 /2 , 1 3 2 n u mu n 2 -g in 7 b a -bu u2 numun 2 ba -z e 2 ur 2 -ba ti mi-ni-ib-ba la
[u2]
UE T 6 /3 , 5 1 3 [… ] ˹ti˺ mi-n i-ib -ba la

414 (Nippur): u 2 numun 2 -gin 7 b a-b u u2
n u m u n 2 b a-ze 2 u r 2 -b a t i m i -n i -i n -b al a
CBS 2359 [ n u mu n 2 -g in 7 ] ˹ ba ˺-bu numun 2 ba -z e 2 ur 2 -ba ti ˹ mi˺-[…]
u2 u2
N 1878+ u2
n u mu n 2 -g in 7 b a -bu u2 numun 2 ba -z e 2 ur 2 -ba ti mi-ni-in-ba la
3 N-T 900, 3 [ n u mu n 2 ]-˹ g in 7 ˺ ba -bu u2 [numun 2 ba -z e 2 ] ur 2 ˺-ba ti […]
u2
For the reading of u 2 numun 2 see Civil (1987: 49) with reference to unpublished(?) manuscripts
of the Ur Lamentation (Römer (2004: 147)). Accidentally the interpretation of our line offered above
lends support Civil’s suggestion that u 2 nu m u n 2 , rushes, is used as an image for hair.
415 (Ur): ˹ sa g˺ sahar-ra k i b a-n i -i b -u s 2 l u 2 zi -zi l a-b a-t u k u
70 Akkade is King
UE T 6 /2 , 1 3 2 ˹ s a g ˺ s ah ar-ra k i ba -ni-ib-us 2 lu 2 z i-z i la -ba -tuku

UE T 6 /3 , 5 1 3 [… ]-a n -tu k u
415 (Nippur): sa g sa ha r-ra k i b a-n i -i b -u 2 -u s 2 l u 2 zi -zi l a-b a-t u k u -t u k u
CBS 2359 [s ag s a h ar-ra k i] ˹ ba ˺-ni-ib-u 2 -us 2 ˹ lu 2 ˺ z i-z i la -˹ba ˺ -[x]
N 1878+ s a g s a h ar-ra k i b a -ni-ib-u 2 -us 2 lu 2 z i-z i la -ba -tuku-tuku
3N-T 900, 3 [s ag s a h ar-ra ] k i ba -ni-˹ ib˺-[…]
416 (Ur): ˹geš˺

ze 2 -na-bi ha-b a-˹an -g u ru 5 ˺-u š s ag š u b i 2 -i n -h u -h u -ru -u b
416 (Nippur): geš
ze 2 -na -bi gu 2 -g u ru 5 b a-ab -d u 11 [… ] ˹š u ˺ b i 2 -i n -h u -h u -u z
416 (Mic ha lowski): giš
z e 2 -n a-b i g u 2 b a-ab -g u r 5 -u š s ag š u b i 2 -i n -h u -h u -u z
CBS 2359 [ z e 2 -n a]-b i g u 2 -˹guru 5 ˺-uš ba -a b-˹ du 11 š u˺ bi 2 -in-hu-hu-˹ uz ˺
geš
N 1878+ geš
ze 2 -n a -b i g u 2 -g uru 5 ba -a b-˹ du 11 ˺ […]-hu-hu-uz
3N-T 900, 3 [ geš ze 2 -n a-b i] g u 2 -˹guru 5 ˺ […]
For šu—hu.uz meaning “to burn”, see Civil (1994, 91). I have no idea what h u . h u r u b in
the Ur manuscripts may mean.
417 (Ur): ˹geš˺
a 2 zu 2 -lum -m a-b i p u 2 d u 7 -d u 7 b a-(eras u re: ze 2 ? )-ra-an -b u-
bu-de 3 -e š
417 (Nippur): g e š a 2 -a n zu 2 -lu m -m a-b i p u 2 d u 7 -d u 7 b a-ra-an -b u -b u -d e 3 -eš
CBS 2359 [ … ] - lu m-ma-b i pu 2 du 7 -du 7 ba -˹ ra ˺-[x]-bu-bu-de 3 -e š
N 1878+ a 2 -a n z u 2 -lu m-ma -bi ˹du 6 -du 6 -ra ba -ra -a n˺-[…]-e š
3N-T 900, 3 trac e s
418 (Ur): gi z i na b ku 3 - g e m u 2 -a š u b a-e-l a 2 -l a 2

UE T 6 /2 , 1 3 2 ˹g i˺ -z i n a b ! k u 3 - ge mu 2 -a š u ba -e -la 2 -la 2
UE T 6 /2 , 1 3 3 g i-˹ z i˺ n a b ˹k u 3 - ge ˺ mu 2 -a š u ba -e -la 2 -la 2
UE T 6 /3 , 5 1 3 [… ] ˹ mu 2 -a g e š ˺ ki ba -e -la 2 -[x]
418 (Nippur): gi z i […] ku 3 -g e m u 2 -a š u b a-e-l a 2 -l a 2
CBS 2359 [… ] x k u 3 -g e ˹m u 2 ˺-a ˹ š u ba ˺ -e -la 2 -la 2
N 1878+ g i-z i x k u 3 -g e m u 2 -a š u ? ba ? […]
Although the Old Babylonian scribe may have played on the phonetic similarity of š u b a - e -
la 2 and šu pe-el-la (du 11 /ak), the verbs š u — l a 2 and š u p e - e l - l a ( 2 ) d u 11 are not synonymous.
The semantic range for the first is broad and includes “to hand over” and “to let the hand hang”,
i.e. “to paralyze” see ŠL II 3 (p. 669); and limited for the second “to do šupêlum”, i.e. “to alter (in
a negative way)”. šu pe-el-la ( 2 ) du 11 may ultimately be a Sumerian loanword (š u — b a l a ) in
Akkadian (as šupêlum), which re-entered Sumerian in the Standard Sumerian literary texts as the
nominal part of a composite verb with the auxiliary verb d u 11 or a k (see Attinger [1993, 710-14]).
However, our text is quite clearly using š u — l a 2 which in Ur III texts is normally translated “to
hand over” (“to entrust”, qiāpu); šu-la 2 - a (equivalent to Akadian qīptu) is frequently attested with
delivered animals, see Sigrist (1992, 116-17 and 210-11), a translation accepted here.
419 (Ur): gu 2 -un ga l-ga l -e m i -n i -i n -g ar-re-eš -a k u r 2 -re i 3 -i l 2 -i l 2
UE T 6 /2 , 1 3 3 ˹ g u 2 ˺-u n g a l-g al-e mi-[ni]-in-ga r-re -e š kur 2 -re i 3 -˹il 2 ˺-[il 2 ]
UE T 6 /3 , 5 1 3 [… ]-n i-in -g ar-ga r-re -e š -a kur-ra ? ˹ i 3 ˺-[…]
419 (Nippur): gu 2 -un ga l-ga l -e m i -n i -i n -g ar-re-eš -a k u r-re i 3 -i l 2 -i l 2
CBS 2359 [… ]-˹ e mi-n i-in-ga r-re -e š -a kur˺-re i 3 -il 2 -il 2

N 1878+ g u 2 -u n g al-g al-e mi-ni-in-ga r-re -[…]
N 6722 [… ]-˹ il 2 ˺-il 2
Poetic structure:13
The poetic structure of the stanza is now clear. The first distich is mirrored in the second,
separated by an intermezzo (410) describing the result of the actions of the first. The next two
distiches are likewise separated by a single verse, but the relationship between the two is less clear.
I cannot explain the fact that the third ‘distich’ has 3 lines in the Ur manuscript, however the overall
structure is to be analyzed as 2+1+2; 2+1+2:
Distich 1: the statue is pruned = the goddess is leaving
Intermezzo: the statue is sitting in the dust
Distich 2: the cow (Nin-e’iga) has been seized and its horns cut off = the dairy animals are
slain (its attributes are destroyed)
‘Distich’ 3: the statue is compared to an uprooted date palm
Intermezzo: the statue’s top is in the dust
Distich 4: its symbols of fertility are destroyed
Structural turning point: Ur was handed over, the spoil carried off to the mountains
Lines 418-9 are at almost the exact middle of the entire k i r u g u (between lines 360-417 and
420-477). 418 is also the last line on UET 6/2, 132 (except for a line count): it is repeated in the first
line of UET 6/2, 133 (as a catch-line) holding the second half of the k i r u g u . It therefore appears as
if this kirugu is organized as a ring composition, divided into two halves of c. 70 lines each the first
starting with, and the second ending with a discourse between Nanna-Suen and Enlil.
Conclusion:
Similar analyses of the remainder of the LSUr and other Sumerian compositions may help us
understand many difficult passages. Divine statues from early Mesopotamia have not been recognized
in the archaeological record, presumably as these were often of precious materials. The statue of Nin-
e’iga described here may have been of copper (or partly of copper), it sat on a stool or throne, it had
cow-horns, its parts were likened to rushes, roots, and other plants. It had attributes in the form of
dairy animals, and held an object likened to a date-cluster.
13 See Vanstiphout (1993, 323-28) for the most recent discussion of the poetic structure of Sumerian
literature.
72 Akkade is King
Bibliography
Alster, B. 2005: “Nanše and Her Fish”, in: Y. Sefati, et al. (eds.), “An experienced scribe who neglects nothing”:
ancient Near Eastern studies in honor of Jacob Klein (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press), 1-18.
––––––– 2006: “New Sources for Dumuzi’s Dream”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
Archäologie 96 (1), 1-30.
Attinger, P. 1993: Éléments de linguistique sumérienne : la construction de du11/e/di “dire” (Orbis biblicus et
orientalis; Fribourg, Suisse / Göttingen: Éditions Universitaires; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Charpin, D. 1986: Le clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurabi : (XIXe-XVIIIe siècles av. J.-C.) (Hautes études
orientales; Genève: Librairie Droz).
Civil, M. 1983: “The Sign LAK 384”, Orientalia, 52, 233-40.
––––––– 1987: “Feeding Dumuzi’s Sheep: The Lexicon as a Source of Literary Inspiration”, in: F. Rochberg
(ed.), Language, literature, and history : philological and historical studies presented to Erica Reiner (New
Haven, Ct.: American Oriental Society), 37-56.
––––––– 1994: The farmer’s instructions : a Sumerian agricultural manual (Aula orientalis Supplementa 5;
Barcelona: AUSA).
Edzard, D. O. 1957: Die zweite Zwischenzeit Babyloniens (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
––––––– 1975: “Zur ‘Wortbildung im Sumerischen’,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
Falkenstein, A. 1939: “Sumerische Beschwörungen aus Boğazköy”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und
Vorderasiatische Archäologie 45, 8-41.
Heimpel, W. 2002: “The Lady of Girsu”, in: I. T. Abusch (ed.), Riches hidden in secret places : ancient Near
Eastern studies in memory of Thorkild Jacobsen (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns), 155-60.
Kramer, S. N. 1969a: in J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the Old Testament (3rd edn.;
Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press), 611-619.
––––––– 1969b: “Sumerian Similes: A Panoramic View of Some of Man’s Oldest Literary Images”, Journal of
the American Oriental Society 89 (1), 1-10.
Landsberger, B. 1967: The date palm and its by-products according to the cuneiform sources (Archiv für
Orientforschung. Beiheft 17; Graz: Weidner).
Landsberger, B. and I. Krumbiegel 1934: Die Fauna des alten Mesopotamien nach der 14. Tafel der Serie ḫar-
ra=ḫubullu (Leipzig: S. Hirzel).
Michalowski, P. 1989: The Lamentation over the destruction of Sumer and Ur (Mesopotamian civilizations 1;
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns).
Mittermayer, C. 2006: Altbabylonische Zeichenliste der sumerisch-literarischen Texte (Orbis biblicus et

orientalis; Fribourg / Göttingen: Academic Press; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Ozaki, T. 2008: “Divine Statues in the Ur III Kingdom and their “ka du8-ha” Ceremony”, in: P. Michalowski,
On The Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist (Journal of Cuneiform Studies Supplemental
Series 1; Boston, Ma.: ASOR), 217-222.
Potts, D. 2008: “Puzur-Inšušinak and the Oxus Civilization (BMAC): Reflections on Šimaški and the geo-
political landscape of Iran and Central Asia in the Ur III period”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische
Richter, T. 2004: Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit
(Alter Orient und Altes Testament; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Römer, W. H. Ph. 2004: Die Klage über die Zerstörung von Ur (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 309; Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag).
Sallaberger, W. 1993: Der Kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit (Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und
vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7; Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter).
Sauren, H. 1971: “Zur poetischen Struktur der sumerischen Literatur”, Ugarit-Forschungen 3, 327-34.
Sigrist, M. 1992: Drehem (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press).
Sjöberg, Å. W. 1973: “Hymn to Numušda with a Prayer for King Sîniqīšam of Larsa and a Hymn to Ninurta”,
Orientalia Suecana 22, 107-21.
––––––– 1993: “CBS 11319+. An Old-Babylonian Schooltext from Nippur”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und
vorderasiatische Archäologie 83 (1), 1-21.
Steinkeller, P. 2007: “New Light on Šimaški and Its Rulers”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische
––––––– 2009: “Camels in Ur III Babylonia?”, in: J. D. Schloen (ed.), Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in
Honor of Lawrence E. Stager (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns), 415-19.
Stol, M. 1993-7: “Milch(produkte). A”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8
(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), 189-201.
Vanstiphout, H. L. J. 1978: “Lipit-Eštar’s Praise in the Edubba”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 30 (1), 33-61.
––––––– 1993: “‘Verse Language’ in Standard Sumerian Literature’”, in: J. C. de Moor and W. G. E. Watson
(eds.), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer), 305-29.
The Seal of Bēl : Sealing practices and Babylonian religious
motifs in the Seleucid period1
Jan Gerrit Dercksen, Leiden
Writing about the population in Uruk during the Seleucid period, Bernd Funck commented
upon the drawing of a cylinder seal impression on CT 49, 126, which depicts a bearded figure
standing in adoration before two divine symbols on altars, recognizable as the spade of Marduk and
a carved stone showing a star resting on a crescent. The tablet dating to the year 58 SE is a letter
order sent by Marduk-bēlšunu and Bēl-bullissu, two incantation priests, about the issuing of barley
from the property of divine Bēl (makkūr Bēl) to another āšipu.2 A letter order was commonly sealed
by all of its senders, but in this case only one of them sealed the tablet. It it likely but uncertain that
the seal he employed was his personal one. Funck assumed that this was an official sealing, “eine Art
“Amtssiegel” des Tempels bzw. des zuständigen Tempelbeamten”, in view of the contents of the letter
and the lack of any identification of the seal user.3 Funck’s assumption was criticized by Wallenfels.4
Fortunately, the sealing of the main temple at Babylon, the Esagil of Marduk/Bēl, from this period
has indeed survived. It has been largely ignored or overlooked and therefore requires emphasis as a
rare example of a surviving temple sealing from first-millennium Babylonia.
The evidence
The sealing is attested on two cretulae from Seleucia-on-the-Tigris and on several clay
documents presumably found in Babylon but now in The British Museum, London.
a) S7-4033. Publication: Bollati and Messina 2004, 171 and pl. 93 no. AF 80a. Dim. 2.18 x 1.9
cm. Previously published in Invernizzi 1976, 171 and fig. 5; Invernizzi 1984, 29 and fig. 3;
Ministero 1985, 126 no. 115, photo p. 177; Invernizzi 1994, 357 fig. 1a.
b) S7-4650. Publication: Bollati and Messina 2004, 171 and pl. 93 no. AF 80b. Previously published
in Invernizzi 1994, 357 fig. 1b.
c) CT 49, 122 (47316+47323); Mitchell and Searight 2008, 210 no. 687: “crouching quadruped
(lion?) to left on three-deck plinth with doorway behind–centre” with drawing. Photo: Figs.
4-5 below.
d) CT 49, 115 (31473); sealings not in Mitchell and Searight 2008. Photo: Fig. 6 below.
1 I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Antonio Invernizzi for permission to include pictures of the sealings
from Seleucia, and the Curator (Cuneiform Collections) of The Department of the Middle East of The British
Museum, Dr. Jon Taylor, for his help in obtaining photos of CT 49, 115 and 122.
2 See also Boiy 2004, 271.
3 Funck 1984, 46.
4 Wallenfels 1994, 10.
76 Akkade is King
Sealings a-b (Figs. 2-3) were uncovered by the Italian team from Turin in a large administrative
building during excavations between 1967 and 1972 at modern Tell Umar, the site of ancient Seleucia.
The building, where approximately 25,000 clay cretulae were discovered, can be regarded as the
archive of the capital. Many of these cretulae relate to the salt-tax and contain a short text in Greek,
which mentions the year according to the Seleucid Era. The oldest of these inscribed sealings dates
to 56 SE (256/255 BC), the most recent one to 158 SE (154/153 BC). This indicates the time span
during which the archive was used. The building was destroyed by fire shortly after 154 BC.5 Two
of the cretulae, S7-4033 and S7-4650, were impressed with the same stamp seal; their distinctive
Babylonian imagery and cuneiform legend attracted some attention. A photo of S7-4033 justly
appeared in several of the excavator’s publications on this subject. The date of their application to
documents long lost will have fallen within the period of the archive’s use, between c. 56 and 158
SE.
c) The reverse of the envelope of a letter order (likely from Babylon), which was published
as CT 49, 122 (47316+47323), contains four impressions of the same seal as that impressed on the
cretulae. These impressions and those of the other seals on the envelope have now been published
in the Catalogue (Mitchell and Searight 2008, 210 no. 687). The Catalogue does not show Seal A.
Seals C, D, and E are small oval stamp seals depicting a walking lion and crouching bulls. By far
the largest seal is B, circular in shape, which was impressed four times. A more accurate view of the
impression than the drawing in the Catalogue is offered by photographs of the envelope, which also
show the cuneiform inscription (Figs. 4-5). The text on the envelope (see below) dates it to year 54
SE (258 BC).
d) CT 49, 115 is a dialogue document recording statements made on 13.VII.46 SE (266 BC).
The reverse of this tablet contains four recognizable impressions of the seal (see Fig. 6).
The seal
A drawing of the seal is given below as Fig. 1; it is based on the cretulae from Seleucia-on-
the-Tigris which offer the clearest imprint. The seal was a large-sized circular stamp seal, as emerges
from the imprints on CT 49, 122 and 115. The reconstructed seal can be distinguished from other
third century seals by its size, its imagery, and its cuneiform legend. Whereas circular stamp seals
are quite common during the Neo-Babylonian period (cf. Ehrenberg 1999 for the evidence from
Uruk), this shape is almost absent in the Seleucid period as far as can be judged from the Uruk
material (Wallenfels 1994 and Lindström 2003). With a diameter of ca. 23 mm this seal appears to
be the largest circular stamp seal from the Neo-Babylonian and Hellenistic periods. The largest Neo-
Babylonian stamp seal from Uruk is 20 mm in diameter (Ehrenberg 1999 no. 76). Wallenfels 1994
no. 102 is a circular seal with a diameter of 19 mm. The size itself does not necessarily stress the seal
owner’s status; cf. the two circular Neo-Assyrian royal stamp seals impressed on the bulla published
5 Messina 2006, 27-69.

J. G. Dercksen: The Seal of Bēl 77
as CTN 3, 26, one with a diameter of 36 mm, the other of 14 mm. However, in combination with the
two other features, the size of the seal evidently was an expression of the high standing of its owner
and user. Moreover, according to Lindström, the official seals (Amtssiegel of the chreophylax and
bibliophylax) from late third century Uruk were larger than the individual seals from that city.6
The seal depicts a serpent dragon (mušḫuššu)7 facing left lying on a dais with Wasserwellenmuster
and a short inscription in cuneiform above its back. The mušḫuššu is the emblematical animal of the
gods Marduk and Nabû. On Neo-Babylonian seals it is depicted with the symbol of one or both,
with the spade of Marduk, and the stylus of Nabû, god of the scribal art.8 It is noteworthy that
this sealing lacks any identifying symbol, but the inscription proves beyond doubt that the animal
represented is that of Marduk, or rather Bēl as he was called during the first millennium. Other
known representations of the mušḫuššu of Bēl from the Seleucid period are rare; impressions of three
(pointed) ellipse seals are on texts from Uruk and all depict the animal facing right on a simplified
dais with the spade above its back (Wallenfeld 1994, nos. 455-457). Wallenfels has remarked that
the similarity of these three seals and of a fourth one from Seleucia (S6-929 = AF 78 in Bollati and
Messina 2004) suggests these were all made by the same seal cutter, “perhaps an itinerant worker
from Babylon” (Wallenfels 1994, 70). A mušḫuššu facing left with spade and a worshipper standing
in front of it occurs on an oval seal from Uruk (>17 x >12 mm), published in Lindström 2003 as no.
56-2 (Tf. 65). This evidence demonstrates that the image of the serpent dragon was rarely used for
seals during the Seleucid period. Moreover, these four known cases contrast sharply with the seal
under discussion, with its representation of the creature on its elaborate dais, but without additional
symbols or worshipper standing in front of it. This circular stamp seal was clearly of high quality.
The cuneiform legend on the seal seems to be the sole case of the use of cuneiform on a
sealing from the Seleucid period that has survived. It is best visible on S7-46509 and reads n í g .
ga umun “Property of Bēl”. Now the normal logographic writing is níg.ga d en, which is attested
in texts from the Neo-Babylonian period onwards and remains the usual spelling even during the
Arsacid period (e.g. in CT 49, 151 and 161, see Van der Spek 1998, 232 and 240). The use of umun
(Emesal for en) instead of d en in the seal legend is therefore a distinctive feature. From the end of
the Achaemenid period until the Arsacid period, this sign (without the determinative D I N G I R )
is used almost exclusively to write the theophoric element Bēl in personal names; according to
Beaulieu it appears especially in texts from the fourth century and is “particularly common in lists
of allotments from the Esagil archive”.10 The use of umun to render Bēl is extremely rare outside
6 Lindström (2003, 25) gives the following data: official seals are on average 15-20 mm wide and 20-30
mm high, whereas individual seals are 10-15 mm wide and 7-10 mm high.
7 For this dragon, see Wiggermann 1995.
8 For example on the seal AO 4366 dated to the sixth c. BC, see André-Salvini 2008, 223 no. 176.
9 Invernizzi 1994.
10 Beaulieu 2006, 7f. n. 4.
78 Akkade is King
of personal names, and normally the logogram d e n is used. Note, however, the use of u m u n for
bēlu in the Babylon inscriptions (a seal, bricks) of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (Borger, AfO Bh 9,
29-30) and of umun.mu (literally: “my lord”) as the Sumerian version of Akkadian d e n = Bēl in a
contemporary ritual text from Babylon.11 The use of umun therefore appears to date this seal to the
post-Neo-Babylonian period.
After the present author had established the reading of the inscription, he discovered via
Oelsner12 that this had been done before by Wallenfels.13 These authors interpreted the sealings
found at Seleucia as “impressions of seals of Babylonian temple officials” (Oelsner) and “likely
from Babylon” (Wallenfels). The importance of these sealings, however, is that they are the first
surviving examples of actual sealings by the temple of Bēl, the Esagil. We agree with Invernizzi, that
it belonged to this organization.14
The institutional property of temples or of the crown was called makkūru, and comprised
both movable and immovable goods. The possessions of the Bēl temple (makkūr Bēl; rarely makkūr
Esagil, níg.ga é.sag.íl, in CT 49, 5:14) that occur in documents include land and its produce,
houses and other movable and immovable property. The combination n í g . g a + D N (sometimes
with a temple name) is also found in colophons of tablets; the oldest surviving one is from Middle
Babylonian Nippur (Hunger no. 40); most are from the Seleucid period. Of some interest is the
addition of a Neo-Babylonian colophon on BM 91068 from Abu Habba identifying a Sargonic land
sale document as property of Šamaš (níg . g a d u t u ).15
The Esagil temple itself was excavated by Koldewey on a limited scale during which only
eight clay tablets were discovered; one of the documents is a small Neo-Babylonian tablet which
twice contains the text ša Bēl.16 About 200 other clay tablets written by this institution stem from
uncontrolled excavations; these texts form the so-called Esagil archive, which dates from the late
Achaemenid to the early Hellenistic periods.17
Divine seal owners

The inscription of the seal marks it as divine property. In his typology of Mesopotamian seal
inscriptions, Gelb (1977) listed such seals under “type XXX: temple seals”, some of which could
have been presented to the deity as a votive gift (type XX). Seals of the first category are attested in
11 RAcc., 127-154+, line 5; see Linssen 2004, 215.

12 Oelsner 2002, 186 n. 14.
13 Wallenfels 1994, 70; 1996, 115 n. 20.
14 Invernizzi 1996, 136; 2003, 312.
15 OIP 104, p.160f. no. 48.
16 Pedersén 2005, 283-284.
17 Jursa 2005, 73-75.
other places and periods of Mesopotamian history,18 but mostly as impressions. Votive seals could be
used by the temple administration, as for example in the Ur III temple of Inanna in Nippur.19
Sealings by three cylinder seals of divine Aššur, one of which dates back to the Old Assyrian
period, and another one dedicated by Sennacherib, were impressed on the treaties of Esarhaddon
excavated in Nimrud.20 The seal of the city-god of Emar occurs on several documents recording
the sale of temple land.21 The impression of a goddess on a lead bulla found in Babylon has been
interpreted as that of a divine seal.22
Only a few actual seals have survived, all of them cylinder seals. Two early first millennium
lapis lazuli cylinder seals of monumental dimensions (12.5 and 19.8 cm high) were excavated at
Babylon in a house dating to the Parthian period. Koldewey already concluded that part of the hoard
where they were found has to be regarded as belonging to the former treasury of the Esagil.23 The
first cylinder depicts divine Adad and the original inscription on the seal reads: (1) n í g . g a d am ar.
utu (2) na 4 .kišib šá d im (3) šá é.sag. g í l “Property of Marduk. Seal of Adad. Belonging to the
Esagil”. The other seal was a votive gift that king Marduk-zākir-šumi had made to Marduk. The size
of this seal will have limited its use to the sealing of (very) large tablets or other clay surfaces. Textual
references to divine seals are rare; seals (n a 4 . k i š i b . m e š ) of Šamaš are mentioned in a text from the
Ebabbar archive at Sippar from the time of Nabonidus.24
Who sealed?
Evidence from the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid as well as from the Macedonian periods
demonstrates that temple functionaries impressed their own seal on documents dealing with the
administration of the temple, thus expressing their personal responsibility. This is the case with, for
example, letter orders and receipts, where the sealing can be accompanied by a caption identifying
the sealing as that of (i.e., used by) PN (often followed by his function), but never as that of the deity
or temple or a sub-division of it. In this way the sealings by the two highest temple functionaries in
18 And indeed from elsewhere in the Ancient Near East; see Watanabe 1989 for Hittite evidence.
19 Zettler 1987, 237; Gelb 1977, 112.
20 Watanabe 1999, 315.
21 See Westenholz 2000, 91-93.
22 Unger 1931, 210 with Tf. 26 Abb. 41; Collon 1987 no. 565; cf. Veyra 1961, 50. The reference in
Veyra 1961, 50 to seals of Babylonian deities returned by Assurbanipal relies upon an erroneous reading by
Streck, Assurbanipal II, p. 146 X 19; see Borger, BIWA, p. 138 C I 25. Another outdated reference (p. 51) is
that to a seal of the Urartean goddess Bagbartu in Sargon VIII line 385; the word concerned, timbuttu, is now
thought to mean “drum”.
23 Wetzel 1957, 34ff., Invernizzi 2008, 254; for photos see André-Salvini 2008, 210 nos. 146 and
147.
24 Bongenaar 1997, 388.
80 Akkade is King
Neo-Babylonian Sippar and Uruk, the šangû at Sippar25 and the šatammu of Eanna, are attested.26
One text from the reign of Alexander the Great (325 BC) records the receipt of payments by three
accountants of the Esagil, who also impressed their seals on the tablet (Stolper 1993, p. 69 A2-1).
There would appear no need for any functionary within the temple administration to employ
in those cases a non-personal seal that contained the text “Property of Bēl”. Of direct relevance to
the question of who had sent the documents, of which only the cretulae have been found at Seleucia,
is the presence of impressions by the same seal on the cuneiform texts CT 49, 115 and 122. CT 49,
122 (the envelope of no. 123)27 is a letter order dating to 11.IX.54 SE (Dec 258 BC) and is one of the
preserved letters sent by the šatammu of Esagil, the deputy of Nikanor, and the Babylonians of the
temple council of Esagil, to Mūrānu son of Bēl-bullissu.28 The archive of this Mūrānu has recently
been studied by M. Jursa, which renders it superfluous to repeat the texts here in transliteration
and translation.29 CT 49, 122 contains an order to issue barley to Balāssu, the butcher, as rations
for the butchers for the current year. The uninscribed reverse of the envelope contains impressions
of at least five different stamp seals, all but one of elliptic shape; top right: 2 impressions of seal D
(which contains an Aramaic legend), below these: 2 impressions of seal C; lower part: 2 impressions
of seal E; top left: 4 indistinct impressions, below: impressions of seal A. Centre: impression of a
seal surrounded by 4 large impressions of seal B (the seal of Bēl). All sealings on this envelope are
without caption.
The same seal (also without seal captions) occurs on CT 49, 115 (edition in Jursa 2006, 140ff.),
a dialogue text which contains declarations by Mūrānu and by Bēl-ibni, the šatammu of the Esagil,
and by the temple council of the Esagil, made on 13.VII.46 SE (Oct 266 BC). The reverse of this text
contains at least three recognizable impressions of this seal. Moreover, the identical seal probably was
impressed on CT 49, 118a (edition: Jursa 2006, 186-187; a letter order from Bēl-ibni, the šatammu of
the Esagil, [PN], the paqdu of Nikanor and the Babylonians, the assembly of the Esagil to Mūrānu,
date 4.VII.50 SE [Sept 262 BC]).
The senders common to all three texts are the šatammu and “the Babylonians (forming) the
temple council (perhaps kiništu) of the Esagil”, who together represent the highest temple authority
25 MacGinnis 1995, 170; Bongenaar 1997, 16.

26 Ehrenberg 1999, p. 80 no. 141.
27 Van der Spek 2000, 438.
28 (1) [im šú-mu-mu lú šà.ta]m é.sag.gíl lú.ad (2) [šá] pd en-sipa-šú-nu lú šà.ta[m é.sag.
pd
gíl] (3) [p] en-šú-nu lú paq-du šá pni-ka-[nu-ru] (4) [u l ] ú e ki .meš lú.ukkin šá é.sa[g.gíl] “Letter of
Marduk-šumu-iddin, šatammu of the Esagil, father of Bēl-rē’ûšunu, šatammu of the Esagil, Bēlšunu the paqdu
of Nikanor, and the Babylonians, the assembly of the Esagil.”
29 For the archive of Mūrānu, see Jursa 2006. CT 49, 122 has been edited and translated there on pp.
191-192. The letter orders in this dossier are listed p. 156. Cf. also Oelsner 1971, 168; Van der Spek 1986, 62;
Boiy 2004, 209-210.
governing Babylon during the Seleucid period.30 The council may have included the prebendaries
of the temple or their representatives, similar to the situation Bongenaar has reconstructed for Neo-
Babylonian Sippar.31 Whether or not the šatammu and the council co-sealed with the seal of Bēl (e.g.
in CT 49, 115) is unclear.
If the sealing practice from the preceding Neo-Babylonian period had persisted into the Seleucid
period, a šatammu would use his own seal. The study of letter orders from the Ebabbar temple at Neo-
Babylonian Sippar by MacGinnis has revealed that five of the šangus (the highest temple functionary
in Sippar), whose seals can be identified on such texts, all employed seals depicting a worshipper
standing in front of an altar (1995, 170); the seals did not contain any legend. If the assumption
that the Seleucid-period seal with the text “Property of Bēl” was used by the šatammu of the Esagil
proves to be correct, this may be due to a (perhaps local) development during the beginning of the
Seleucid period which led to a change in the seal used by the temple’s highest official from his
personal seal to that of the institution. This change may result from the role that this functionary and
the council played as the local government of Babylon until the beginning of the second century BC.
The existence of an institutional seal of distinctive size parallels that of official seals for Seleucid
royal functionaries (although the latter were often inscribed with the functionary’s title).32
One may expect that the same authority applied the seal on CT 49, 115 and 122 and on the
two cretulae found in Seleucia. The sealings found in Seleucia had been attached to documents, most
likely of parchment, which were called kuš
šipištu in contemporary Akkadian texts.33 We can only
guess at the contents of these writings, but it is possible that they were letters important enough to be
stored in the central archive of the capital. It remains speculation whether besides this institutional
seal a contemporary ceremonial seal of Bēl also existed.
Conclusion
The institutional seal of the Esagil temple of Bēl that was impressed on letter orders and legal
documents from the Seleucid period is now represented by several sealings on clay from Babylon
30 Van der Spek 1986; Boiy 2004, 194ff.; Van der Spek 2005, 397.
31 Bongenaar 1997, 150-153.
32 For this type of seal, see Lindström 2003, 25ff. For the seal with a caption on the cuneiform tablet
BRM 2, 10 from 37 SE, see Wallenfels 1994, 9.
33 Although it is possible that such documents were written in Greek instead of in Aramaic, it is unclear
whether that can be proven by a statement ending the “šatammu-letters” CT 49, 118:14f., 122:11f., 123:15f.,
and 128:14f. This reads: gaba.ri ina im(-)man-na-a-tú šá-ṭir, which McEwan 1981, 151; Van der Spek 1985,
555-556; and Boiy 2004, 293, interpret “a copy (of the text in cuneiform) was written in Greek” (assuming
yamannattu > imannattu). By contrast in CAD M/1, 208 s.v. manâtu B “accounting, bookkeeping”: “the
corresponding (deduction of expenditures) was entered on the account tablet”; see also Jursa (2006, 192). For
the use of Greek and Aramaic, see Oelsner 1995, 124; Van der Spek 1998, 255. For traces of leather on a bulla
from Uruk, see Oelsner 1996, 102 n. 6.
82 Akkade is King
and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. It is remarkable for its size, image and cuneiform legend. The authority
using this seal may have been the šatammu, perhaps occasionally together with the assembly of the
Esagil. The available chronological data (266, 258 and sometime between 256-153 BC) obviously
do not permit us to determine how long or when for the first time this seal was used, but it seems
likely that also the two cretulae found in Seleucia were impressed during the third century BC. The
seal appears to result from the political and organizational situation during the Seleucid period, when
Babylon was governed by the temple authorities of the Esagil.
The question of whether the seal is in any way related to the construction work on the Esagil
undertaken by king Antiochus I around 38 SE (273/272) of course remains unanswerable. Presenting
a seal as a royal gift, though, would befit this king who considered himself zānin Esagil u Ezida
according to his own cuneiform inscription in the best Babylonian tradition.34
34 See Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1991.

Fig. 1. The seal of Bēl. Fig. 2. S7-4033 from Seleucia

(by courtesy of A. Invernizzi).
Fig. 3. S7-4650 from Seleucia

(by courtesy of A. Invernizzi). Fig. 4. CT 49, 122 reverse
(© The Trustees of The British Museum)
Fig. 5. CT 49, 122 detail of reverse Fig. 6. CT 49, 115 reverse

(© The Trustees of The British Museum). (© The Trustees of The British Museum).
84 Akkade is King
Bibliography
Bollati, A. and V. Messina 2004, Seleucia al Tigri. Le impronte di sigillo dagli Archivi III: Figure umane,
animali, vegetali, oggetti (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso).
Beaulieu, P.-A. 2006: “The astronomers of the Esagil temple in the fourth century BC”, in: A. K. Guinan et al.
(eds.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty (CM 31; Leiden,
Boston: Brill), 5-22.
Boiy, T. 2004: Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon (OLA 136; Leuven: Peeters and Dept. Oosterse
Studies).
Bongenaar, A. C. V. M. 1997: The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: its Administration and its
Prosopography (PIHANS 80; Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut te Istanbul).
Collon, D. 1987: First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East (London: British Museum).
Doty, L. Th. 1978-79: “A cuneiform tablet from Tell ‘Umar”, Mesopotamia 13-14, 91-98.
Ehrenberg, E. 1999: Uruk: late Babylonian seal impressions on Eanna-tablets (Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka.
Endberichte 18; Mainz: von Zabern).
Funck, B. 1984: Uruk zur Seleukidenzeit. Eine Untersuchung zu den spätbabylonischen Pfründentexten als Quelle
für die Erforschung der sozialökonomischen Entwicklung der hellenistischen Stadt (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag).
Gelb, I. J. 1977: “Typology of Mesopotamian seal inscriptions”, in: McGuire Gibson and R. D. Biggs (eds.),
Seals and Sealings in the Ancient Near East (BM 6; Malibu, Ca.: Undena Publications), 107-126.
Invernizzi, A. 1976: “Ten years research in the Al-Mada’in area Seleucia and Ctesiphon”, Sumer 32, 167-175.
––––––– 1984: “Note on the art of Seleucid Mesopotamia’, in: R. Boucharlat and J.-F. Salles (eds.), Arabie
orientale, Mésopotamie et Iran méridional. De l’Age du fer au début de la période islamique: (réunion de
travail, Lyon, 1982, Maison de l’Orient), (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations), 27-31.
––––––– 1994: “Babylonian motifs on the sealings from Seleucia-on-the-Tigris”, in: H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg,
A. Kuhrt, M. Cool Root (eds.), Achaemenid History VIII. Continuity and Change : proceedings of the last
Achaemenid History workshop, April 6-8, 1990, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het
Nabije Oosten), 353-364.
––––––– 1996: “Gli archivi pubblici di Seleucia sul Tigri”, in: M.-F. Boussac and A. Invernizzi (eds.), Archives
et sceaux du monde hellénistique = archivi e sigilli nel mondo ellenistico; Torino, Villa Gualino, 13-16 gennaio
1993 (BCH Supplément 29; Athènes: Ecole Française d’Athènes), 131-143.
––––––– 2003: “They did not write on clay: non-cuneiform document and archives in Seleucid Mesopotamia”,
in: M. Brosius (ed.), Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions: concepts of record-keeping in the ancient world
(Oxford: Oxford University Press), 302-322.
––––––– 2008: “Les dominations grecque et parthe. 331 av. J.-C. – fin du Ier siècle apr. J.-C.”, in: B. André-
Salvini (ed.), Babylone (Paris: Hazan; Musée du Louvre), 251-258.
Jursa, M. 2005: Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents. Typology, Contents and Archives
(Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
––––––– 2006: “Agricultural management, tax farming and banking: aspects of entrepreneurial activity in
Babylonia in the Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods”, in: P. Briant and F. Joannès (eds.), La transition
entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques : actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France
par la “Chaire d’Histoire et Civilisation du Monde Achéménide et de l’Empire d’Alexandre” et le “Réseau
International d’Études et de Recherches Achéménides” (GDR 2538 CNRS), 22 - 23 novembre 2004 (Paris: De
Boccard), 137-222.
Kuhrt, A. and S. Sherwin-White 1991: “Aspects of Seleucid royal ideology: the cylinder of Antiochus I from
Borsippa”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 111, 71-86.
Lindström, G. 2003: Uruk. Siegelabdrücke auf hellenistischen Tonbullen und Tontafeln (Ausgrabungen in
Uruk-Warka Endberichte 20; Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern).
Linssen, M. J. H. 2004: The Cults of Uruk and Babylon. The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic
Cult Practice (Leiden, Boston: Brill, Styx).
MacGinnis, J. 1995: Letter Orders from Sippar and the Administration of the Ebabbara in the Late-Babylonian
Period (Poznan: Bonami).
McEwan, G. J. P. 1981: Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylonia (FAOS 4; Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag).
Messina, V. 2006: Seleucia al Tigri. L’edificio degli archivi (Monografie di Mesopotamia VIII; Firenze: Le
Lettere).
Ministero degli Affari Esteri et al. 1985: La terra tra i due fiumi. Venti anni di archeologia italiana in Medio
Oriente (La Mesopotamia dei tesori. Mostra organizzata dal Centro Ricerche Archeologiche e Scavi di Torino
per il Medio Oriente e l’Asia; Turin: Il Quadrante Edizioni).
Mitchell, T. C. and A. Searight 2008: Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in The British Museum. Stamp
Seals III: Impressions of Stamp Seals on Cuneiform Tablets, Clay Bullae, and Jar Handles (Leiden, Boston:
Brill).
Oelsner, J. 1971: Review of CT 49, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 61, 159-170.
––––––– 1995: “Recht im hellenistischen Babylonien: Tempel-Sklaven-Schuldrecht—allgemeine

Charakterisierung”, in: M. J. Geller and H. Maehler (eds.), Legal Documents of the Hellenistic World : papers
from a seminar arranged by the Institute of Classical Studies, the Institute of Jewish Studies and the Warburg
Institute, University of London, February to May 1986 (London: Warburg Institute, University of London:
University College London, Institute of Jewish Studies), 106-148.
–––––– 1996: “Siegelung und Archivierung von Dokumenten im hellenistischen Babylonien”, in: M.-F. Boussac
and A. Invernizzi (eds.), Archives et sceaux du monde hellénistique = archivi e sigilli nel mondo ellenistico;
Torino, Villa Gualino, 13-16 gennaio 1993 (BCH Supplément 29; Athènes: Ecole Française d’Athènes), 101-
112.
––––––– 2002: “Hellenization of the Babylonian culture?”, in: A. Panaino and G. Pettinato (eds.), Melammu
Symposia III: Ideologies as Intercultural Phenomena (Milan: Università di Bologna : IsIAO 2002), 183-196.
Pedersén, O. 2005: Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon. Die Tontafeln der Grabung Robert Koldeweys 1899-
1917 (ADOG 25; Saarbrücken: In Kommission bei SDV).
86 Akkade is King
Spek, R. J. van der 1985: “The Babylonian temple during the Macedonian and Parthian domination”, Bibliotheca
Orientalis 42, 541-562.
––––––– 1986: Grondbezit in het Seleucidische Rijk (Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij).
––––––– 1998: “Cuneiform documents on Parthian history: the Raḫimesu archive. Materials for the study of
the standard of living”, in: J. Wiesehöfer (ed.), Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse/The Arsacid Empire:
Sources and Documentation (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag), 205-258.
––––––– 2000: “The šatammus of Esagila in the Seleucid and Arsacid periods”, in: J. Marzahn and H. Neumann
(eds.), Assyriologica et Semitica. Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner (AOAT 252; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag), 437-446.
––––––– 2005: “Ethnic segregation in Hellenistic Babylon”, in: W. H. van Soldt (ed.), Ethnicity in Ancient
Mesopotamia : papers read at the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Leiden, 1-4 July 2002 (CRRAI
48; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten), 393-408.
Stolper, M. W. 1993: Late Achaemenid, Early Macedonian, and Early Seleucid Records of Deposit and Related
Texts (AION 77; Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale).
Unger, E. 1931: Babylon. Die heilige Stadt nach der Beschreibung der Babylonier (Berlin: De Gruyter).
Vieyra, M. 1961: Review of Fr. Wetzel et al., Das Babylon der Spätzeit, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie
Orientale 55, 50-51.
Wallenfels, R. 1994: Uruk. Hellenistic Seal Impressions in the Yale Babylonian Collection. I. Cuneiform Tablets
(Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka Endberichte 19; Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern).
––––––– 1996: “Private seals and sealing practices at Hellenistic Uruk”, in: M.-F. Boussac and A. Invernizzi
(eds.), Archives et sceaux du monde hellénistique = archivi e sigilli nel mondo ellenistico; Torino, Villa Gualino,
13-16 gennaio 1993 (= BCH Supplément 29; Athènes: Ecole Française d’Athènes), 113-129.
Watanabe, K. 1989: “Mit Gottessiegeln versehene hethitische ‘Staatsverträge’”, Acta Sumerologica 11, 261-276.
––––––– 1999: “Seals of Neo-Assyrian officials”, in: K. Watanabe (ed.), Priests and Officials in the Ancient
Near East: Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East—the city and its life, held at the
Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 22-24, 1996 (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag
C. Winter), 313-366.
Westenholz, J. G. 2000: Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem. The
Emar Tablets (CM 13; Groningen: Styx Publ.).
Wetzel, F. 1957: Das Babylon der Spätzeit (Berlin: Gebr. Mann).
Wiggermann, F. A. M. 1995: “Mušḫuššu”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8,

455-462.
Zettler, R. L. 1987: “Sealings as artifacts of institutional administration in ancient Mesopotamia”, Journal of

Cuneiform Studies 39, 197-240.
THE TOWERS OF SHEMSHARA
Jesper Eidem, Berlin
Introduction
The year 2009 marks the 50th anniversary of the end of the Danish-Iraqi excavations at the
site of Tell Shemshāra in Iraqi Kurdistan 1957-1959. The project not only produced important
prehistoric material, but also very informative written sources from the Middle Bronze Age. The
archives excavated in an Old Babylonian palace on the lower part of the main mound open a window
to an otherwise virtually lost world on the periphery of Ancient Mesopotamia,1 and publication of
this evidence, after long delays, was finally completed in 2001. The contemporary archaeological
evidence from Shemshāra still awaits more comprehensive analysis, but closer study of the available
information can provide some interesting new perspectives on the site in the Old Babylonian
period.2
Tell Shemshāra and Tell Barda Stee

Tell Shemshāra was excavated as part of the Dokān Dam Salvage project, first by a Danish
expedition directed by H. Ingholt and J. Læssøe in 1957, and subsequently by an Iraqi expedition
directed by Abd al-Qadir in 1958-1959. The early second-millennium tablets excavated by the two
teams have been completely published (Eidem 1992, and Eidem and Læssøe 2001),3 as has the
evidence from the Hassuna period retrieved by the Danish expedition (Mortensen 1970). Otherwise
the archaeological data have only been reported in provisional manner.
In this situation fundamental questions remain open, one of them being the true extent of the
ancient site excavated as Tell Shemshāra. The Danish expedition found a high mound with a clear
lower, southern extension, and it was this area, of ca. 3 hectares, which was described in preliminary
reports, and which was the focus for a topographic map published in a first final report (Mortensen
1970). The map, however, shows several hills adjacent to the main mound, pointing to a much more
extensive site. The Danish expedition established its base camp on a hill NE of the Shemshāra high
mound (figure 1), and soon discovered that this hill also covered ancient remains:
1 For a recent summary see Eidem n.d.

2 It is a pleasure to present these notes in a volume honouring my old teacher Westenholz, whose career
in Assyriology is almost coeval with the inception of the Shemshāra project, and who many years ago, with
characteristic élan and friendly impatience, introduced me to Akkadian grammar, The Epic of Gilgamesh, Old
Akkadian, the archaeology of Nippur, and much more!
3 The many interesting and important remarks in reviews of Eidem and Læssøe 2001 (Biggs 2004,
Charpin 2004, Dalley 2003, Kupper 2001, van de Mieroop 2002, Stol 2002, Villard 2004, and Ziegler 2006) are
not discussed here, partly because the perspective is different, partly because I agree with most of them.
88 Akkade is King
“When digging holes for poles of kapra, Halifa observes foundations (stones, asas) and
potsherds not far below surface of camp hill; not Islamic!”
(Notebook of J. Læssøe, entry for 1/6, 1957; his underlinings)4
This observation was confirmed by subsequent Iraqi excavation on “camp hill”, as recounted
by Læssøe:
“On Plate 12 (a) can be seen the camp of the Dokan Expedition: the tents have been erected
on a low rise on the other side of a depression that separates it from the tell. A later investigation
demonstrated that this was also a tell: our camp was actually pitched on the ruins of a second
millennium building, in which pottery was found in 1958 strongly reminiscent of types known from
the Nuzi of the time of the Kingdom of Mitanni” (Læssøe 1963, 139f.).
Perhaps inspired by the Iraqi excavations Læssøe similarly made the following, rather
surprising statement (my emphases):
“The Shemshāra tablets have revealed that the ancient name of the city buried in numerous
mounds around Tell Shemshāra, covering a very considerable area, was Shusharrā” (Læssøe 1959,
17).
We cannot know today what concretely lies behind this claim, but it may be supposed that both
topographical observations and possibly surface finds supported it. Reading Læssøe’s private notes
and his more restrained published remarks (Læssøe 1963, 138-141) makes it clear that the Danish
excavation at Shemshāra was, in terms of logistics and physical conditions, a difficult enterprise,
and due to the uncertain political situation in 1958, also unexpectedly limited to just one season. It is
hardly surprising therefore, if the expedition did not manage to explore and document the surrounding
area of the main tell more completely.
Another element in this query, however, consists of references to Iraqi finds from Tell Brusti,
“adjacent” to Tell Shemshāra. These finds included Late Uruk/Jamdat Nasr and ED I sherds (As-
Soof 1964, 39), and an Ur III period tablet dated to the reign of Ibbi-Sîn (Eidem 1992, 13 n. 6).
These references may plausibly be combined with the official record of Iraqi work at Tell Barda
Stee,5 “near Shimshara”, and conducted by Abd al-Qadir in 1959 (al-Haik 1968, 67, No. 37a; the
only period given is 8 = “Early Dynastic”). I have not been able to establish a more precise location
for this site, but it seems possible that it could have been part of the apparent cluster of mounds
around the main Shemshāra tell. “Camp hill” can be formally excluded since we know that the Iraqis
excavated there already in 1958 (see above).
What emerges then is an image of Tell Shemshāra as a more extensive site with a more
4 This notebook was among various books and papers left by Læssøe, and given to me by his sons Rolf
and Carsten a few years ago. The kapra refers to a small roofed shelter used as work – and dining area for the
expedition.
5 The local form is Gird Barda Stee, Kurdish for “Mound of flints”, as I was kindly informed by Mr.
Assos Qader (University of Würzburg), who himself hails from Rania.
J. Eidem: The Towers of Shemshara 89
complex settlement history than hitherto assumed. Sadly most of the scholars involved in the work
at Shemshāra are no longer with us, and cannot be consulted. Thus further assessment must rely on
future analysis of the extant Danish and Iraqi records, and not least, new observations on location,
although it is unclear how much of the area remains above the water of the Dokān Lake. From the
above notes, however, it may be concluded that the “camp hill” mound had a building of mid-second
millennium BC date, and that another mound nearby, possibly part of the Shemshāra “cluster”, Tell
Barda Stee, contained levels dating to the late fourth-early third millennium, 6 and the Ur III period.
The find of an Ur III tablet, if correctly reported, is of course no surprise in view of the evidence for
Šašrum/Šaššurum (= Šušarrā) in Ur III sources (cf. Frayne 1999, 171f.).7
The Old Babylonian tablets found at Shemshāra provide very little information on the settlement
itself. The “palace” (ekallum) is of course mentioned, but the only detail revealed on its layout and
organisation is the existence of the nepārum “workshop/prison” (Eidem and Læssøe 2001, Nos. 16
and 38). Two administrative texts mention offerings to deities, possibly in an interpalatial context
(Eidem 1992, Nos. 13 and 27). A letter from Šamšī-Adad implies that the town could accommodate
600 troops, and must have been quite large (Eidem and Læssøe 2001, No. 19). Finally a high-
ranking associate of Kuwari, Talpuš-šarri, had a “house” in Shemshāra, but since this was engaged
in agricultural activities, it may not have been located in the town itself (Eidem and Læssøe 2001,
Nos. 53 and 57).
Fortunately, however, the available archaeological evidence may enable us to add some
interesting and suggestive information to these data.
Temples, Palaces, and Towers

Some 10 years after the Shemshāra excavations three remarkable terracotta objects discovered
by the Iraqi expedition surfaced in publications. All three are stands, some 70 cm high, shaped
like fortified towers, and with horned animals protruding from their bases. Two were included, for
comparative purposes, in a report on excavations at Tell Basmusian, a large tell only a few kilometres
south of Tell Shemshāra, and noted to have been found during the 1958 excavation at Shemshāra in
“the courtyard of the Temple of level V” (as-Soof 1970, 72, see figure 2). They are both topped by
tube-shaped receptacles; one has only the head of a caprid protome (IM.62079; Muller 2002, No.
28), whereas the other has a two-stage tower carried on the back of a complete animal placed on a
square plaque (IM.62083, Muller 2002, No. 29). The third stand was presented in a general work
on the Ancient Near East (Pritchard 1969, No. 842 w. note p. 380, see figure 3), without detailed
6 The 21 early sherds published by as-Soof (1964, 39 w. Pl. V) derived from levels IX to II, with some
concentration in levels IV-III, but without more data the significance of this is not clear. No other information
on this excavation is known to me.
7 Yet another site, Girdi Gul, is recorded as being “near Shimshara”, and was target for some work
by the Iraqi Dokān Expedition in October 1960 (al-Haik 1968, No. 36a, p. 66), but no further information is
available. This was apparently the last archaeological effort on the Rania Plain.
90 Akkade is King
provenience, but from “Shimshara 1958”, and likely to come from the same context (IM.62080;
Muller 2002, No. 30). It has a circular opening inside the top, and two caprid heads protruding
from the base of the tower. A stand of similar type, closest to IM.62083 from Shemshāra, with a top
receptacle partially preserved, was found in Temple I in level III at Basmusian, which the excavator
dated to the mid to late second millennium BC (IM.60294; Muller 2002, No. 15, see figure 4).
The four stands from Shemshāra and Basmusian form a unique group without close parallels
elsewhere, and are thus of some considerable interest.8 Accordingly they have been discussed in detail
in two monographs on “architectural models” from the Ancient Near East, but the scant reporting on
the relevant excavations has caused some confusion, as will be clear from the earlier treatment by
Bretschneider (1991), whose chronological conclusions were followed closely, although with some
reservation, by Muller (2002, 26f.: Nos. 28-30 w. further internal refs.):
“In den Tempeln von Basmusian und Shemshara (Zagros Gebirge) sind eine große (sic!) Zahl
von Opferständern (Nr. 41-44/Abb. 36-39) freigelegt worden. Die Ständer aus dem Tempel I (Level
III) von Basmusian datiert der Ausgräber aufgrund der mitgefundenen Keramik in die 2. Hälfte des 2.
Jts. v. Chr.. Die von J. Læssøe untersuchten Tontafelfragmente der Schicht III datieren gleichfalls in
die mittelassyrische Zeit. Die Modelle aus Shemshara (Nr. 42-44/Abb. 37-39) wurden im Tempelhof
der Schicht V freigelegt. Die Schichten VIII-IV von Shemshara werden vom Ausgräber in die
Mitanni-Zeit gesetz. Aufgrund der großen Ähnlichkeit von Nr. 42-44 zu dem Modell aus Basmusian
(Nr. 41/Abb. 36) scheint die Datierung der Schicht V in die 2. Hälfte des 2. Jahrtausends gerechfertigt
zu sein” (Bretschneider 1991, 69).
Although the reasoning here seems impeccable it is in fact very problematic. The Shemshāra
levels VIII-IV referred to are those excavated on the high mound, which the excavator actually dated
earlier:
“Levels IV-VIII presumably are to be classified as Hurrian, and to be dated early in the second
millennium B.C.” (Ingholt 1957, 214).
“The next level was classified as Hurrian (layers 4-8), partly contemporary with the cuneiform
tablets found in a building on the lower mound, that is about, 1800 B. C.” (Ingholt, in Mortensen
1970, 13).
The chronologically unfortunate term “Hurrian” may have created confusion, and inspired the
“Mitanni” date indicated by Weidner (1958/59, 456), and followed by Bretschneider. While it now
seems that these levels were not too clear, and that they may comprise scattered evidence from a
fairly long time range (Thuesen 1988), they can in any case not be used to date the three stands. There
8 A peculiar aspect of these stands is the attached caprids, which are difficult to explain (cf. Muller 2002,
169). Although depiction of caprids is a banal theme in Mesopotamian iconography, one notes the find of a
fragmentary vessel with a frieze of caprids (and a leopard and snakes) in relief found on the floor of Temple
II at Basmusian (as-Soof 1970, Pls. XV: 2-3 and XVI: 1-2). A recently discovered tower stand from Tell Brak
in NE Syria (Area TC., OAkk.) has caprid protomes on the roof-railing, and birds perched on the roof beams
below (Emberling and McDonald 2003, 49-51 w. figs. 52-53).
is no indication that the Iraqi expedition resumed excavation on the high mound of Shemshāra, but
clear evidence that it extended excavation on the lower mound, where level V can be dated almost to
the calendar year thanks to the epigraphic finds excavated by the Danes. Extension of this operation
was clearly a major objective for the Iraqi excavations in 1958, which “uncovered a massive edifice
with numerous annexes” (al-Alusi 1959, 50), otherwise only known from the description provided
by Læssøe in his report on the tablets found in 1958:
“This room [excavated by the Danish expedition in 1957] has been numbered 2. Entrance to
this room was from a small courtyard to the south of it, from which a gateway led west into a very
large open court in the central part of the building. The tablets .... were found in two rooms, 27 and
34, immediately south of this large court .... It is likely, that the paved floors of rooms 27 and 34
are in fact contemporaneous with the paved floor of room 2, all of which represent the fifth level of
occupation in this part of Tell Shemshara, and all shows the remains and traces of a big fire which
took place in several suites of this building” (Læssøe 1960, 12f.).
Accordingly, Iraqi excavations in 1958 uncovered at least 32 new rooms and spaces in what
was clearly an Old Babylonian palace, burnt probably as the result of a deliberate destruction (cf.
Charpin and Ziegler 2003, 106-107). But where was the level V “temple”? It has been mentioned
only as find spot for the stands, which renders identification conjectural. Was it perhaps the second-
millennium building on “camp hill”? Was it a separate level V building on the lower main mound?
Or was it simply a description for part of the level V palace?9
The first possibility can not be excluded, since the only information on the “camp hill”
excavation is the brief remark by Læssøe quoted above. If the building was a temple, however,
one would assume Læssøe knew this, and would have mentioned it. It also seems a bit strange to
imagine that this excavation reached exactly a fifth level; and would this have corresponded to level
V on the main mound? The possibility of a separate temple building in level V on the main mound
also can not be excluded. Again, however, one would expect it to have been mentioned elsewhere.
Consequently it seems most likely that the stands were actually found in one of the courtyards of
the Old Babylonian palace on the Shemshāra lower mound. The term “temple” may derive from
the layout of the relevant suite or “annex” of the building, from the find of the stands themselves,
9 According to the data provided in al-Haik 1968, 66f., Iraqi teams in 1958 worked at Basmusian from
19/6 to 25/8, and at Shemshāra from 9/8 to 31/10. The ca. two week overlap in work at the two sites might
inspire a suspicion that some finds from Shemshāra and Basmusian accidentally became mixed, and that all the
stands in fact derive from the Basmusian temple(s). As-Soof (1970, 70) reported an older version of Temple
II in level V, which of course would fit the context given for the (Shemshāra) stands. For important finds like
the tower stands, however, such a mistake is hardly conceivable, and it may also be noted that the last (1958)
season at Basmusian was much focused on a deep stratigraphic excavation (al-Alusi 1959, 50), which reached
a level XVI and Halaf/Samarra material (as-Soof 1970, 69). If speculation in this direction can eventually be
demonstrated to have substance, it would of course contradict the title of the present paper, but on the other
hand confirm the revised date proposed for the stands.
92 Akkade is King
as presumed temple equipment, or could simply be a mistake. Until better informed I think we are
allowed to assume that the stands are contemporary with the cuneiform archives from level V, and
dated to ca. 1780 B.C., and most likely were found in the palace.
If correct, this conclusion has important consequences: the date of the stands is moved back in
time several centuries, and this of course seems likely to be the case also for the Basmusian example,
which throws the date of the building in which it was found (Temple I, level III), which does not
seem too secure anyway, into doubt. There is every reason to be grateful that the first excavator of
Basmusian managed to publish his evidence in summary form, but as he himself conceded, many
details remain unclear (as-Soof 1970). The older Temple II (level IV) was located on the highest part
of the mound, and founded on a brick platform 6-12 courses high. Associated ceramics, including
Habur Ware, shows that it must date to the earlier part of the second millennium. The later Temple I
(level III) was founded on a layer of pebbles and the walls of Temple II, and dated by the excavator
“towards the middle or end of the second millennium B. C.” (as-Soof 1970, 68).10
This is not a very precise assessment, and seems a shrewd compromise between the logical
date not much later than Temple II, and the possibility that level III should be dated by the Middle
Assyrian tablets. In fact, the excavator himself describes the clear similarities between the two
temples. Another observation may further demonstrate the close cultural and probably chronological
relationship between the two structures: a good deal of objects were found associated with Temple
II, both inside it and especially outside the entrance, which leads to a suspicion that the building may
have been deliberately buried in preparation for Temple I, and the objects left as ritual deposits.11
Indeed the published material from level III does not provide a very clear date. There seems to be
some mix between levels II and III, and the date of level II is left undecided by the excavator. The
small group of fragmentary Middle Assyrian tablets is not helpful, since they were found partly in
10 The Basmusian temples share some important characteristics with temple 1554 at Tell Mhm. Diyab
in NE Syria, although the poor state of preservation of this building did not allow identification of internal
and external wall decoration of engaged columns found in the Basmusian examples (Nicolle 2006, 242f.).
Incidentally Basmusian Temple II with its foundation platform may also provide an interesting parallel for the
Shemshāra high mound, where the Hurrian levels included a brick platform, thought by the excavator to belong
to a religious structure (Ingholt 1957). It is of course expected to find temples on the highest parts of major
MBA sites in Northern Mesopotamia, similar to the well-known examples at Tell Rimah and Tell Leilan.
11 For this practice, see Bjorkman 1999 with special reference to the Ishtar Temple at Nuzi (the cella
of which incidentally also shares some architectural characteristics with the Basmusian temples). Finds inside
Basmusian Temple II include a silver cup (IM.60239), the special vessel fragments referred to above n. 8, a cup
(IM.60268), a bronze pin (Pl. XXII: 8)), and a Habur Ware vessel (Pl. XXXIII: 1). A small “hoard” of items
was found outside the entrance: four fairly complete vessels (IM.60263, 60264, 60265, and 60282), a bronze
spearhead (IM.60220), and a bone pin (IM.60236). Interestingly, both the entrance and the vessels show signs
of burning, like the group of “small vessels of usual household type - ... much-burned...” found with group 9
outside the cella entrance of the Ishtar temple at Nuzi, which also had signs of burning (Björkman 1999, 117;
and 106 for an explanation of this).
level III “fill”, partly in a pit cut from either level II or III (Læssøe 1959, 16, and as-Soof 1970, 68).
It may no longer be possible to revaluate the material from Basmusian conclusively, but there seems
to be no decisive argument against an earlier date for level III.12
In sum it seems likely that the Shemshāra and Basmusian tower stands should be dated to the
early second millennium, and that the Basmusian Temple I also dates to this period.13 It remains,
however, to account for the presence of the stands in the Shemshāra building, and consider the
possible function of these objects. The assumption that the four tower stands from the Rania Plain
were all found in “temples” has of course influenced understanding of their function, although the
very thoughtful analysis of B. Muller clearly reveals some frustration in this regard:
“À dire vrai, si à Basmosian et Shemshara on est sûr du contexte (temples) et de la forme, en
revanche c’est la fonction exacte (supports plutôt que vases ou conduits?) qui, faute de renseignements,
pose problème” (Muller 2002, 181).
There is no ready solution to this problem. The “architectural models” collection obviously
covers a complex and heterogeneous cultural background (Muller 2002, e.g. 177f.). Perhaps closer
inspection of the actual objects may provide new evidence for the function of the Shemshāra (and
Basmusian) stands. In particular, the internal structure of the top receptacle present on three examples,
and possibly broken on the fourth, could perhaps provide some clues. In a more general way, however,
some suggestions may be offered.
Assuming a ritual context for the stands, one is reminded of the administrative tablets from the
Shemshāra palace, which mention offerings to several deities, i.a. “The Lady of the Palace” (Bēlet-
Ekallim) (Eidem 1992, No. 13 (and 27), and the likely existence of temple/chapel sectors within the
evidently large palace, in parallel with contemporary contexts (e.g. Mari, cf. Durand 1987, 89-103).
Assuming instead a secular function for the stands, one is reminded of the obvious need,
also in antiquity, for some protection against annoying insects. The stands, deployed in a palace
12 Level (0-)I at Basmusian was clearly Medieval, but looking through the material presented by as-
Soof (1970), the impression is that several items ascribed to level III could be earlier (e.g. the sieve Pl. XIV: 8,
and the cup Pl. XLII: 9, which both have parallels in early second-millennium levels at Tell Yelkhi; see Gabutti
2002/3, Pl. 130:22 and 62:4), and that it was rather level II which was the source of the pit with MA tablet
fragments. The general uncertainty attached to the stratification of this material, however, is exemplified by
the seemingly complete Habur Ware jar Pl. XXXIII: 9, reported to have come from level II. Also several of the
metal objects from level II presented on Pl. XXIII seem more at home in the early second millennium, as do
undoubtedly the bronze pins Nos. 1 and 4 from left, upper row (cf. parallels from Tell Yelkhi in Dietre 2007,
Fig. 6, p. 193). Exact find spots for these items are not reported, but if from the area of the temples, they might
conceivably have been part of deposits on top of fill used to “bury” Temple I (cf. n. 11).
13 Shemshāra and Basmusian are only a few kms apart, but without more evidence it is difficult to
evaluate the relationship between the two sites in the Old Babylonian period. The texts from Shemshāra mention
a number of settlements presumably located on the Rania Plain, the most important apparently Burullum, but a
possible identification with Basmusian is not supported by any specific evidence (cf. Eidem 1992, 56).
94 Akkade is King
courtyard, could have served to issue insect-repelling fumes, which gave, among others, the Lord of
the palace, Kuwari, some protection when enjoying the cool evening air. Judging by the experience
of the Danish Dokān expedition, summers on the Rania Plain could be a real test of endurance.
Læssøe eloquently recalled the difficult conditions in camp, which swarmed with snakes, scorpions,
solifugae, one-foot long locusts, and not least sand-flies: “For many weeks clouds of sand-flies made
life almost unbearable: mosquito-nets could not keep out these small insects, and all day long they
buzzed around one like an intolerable pest; cigarettes were the only possible remedy” (Læssøe 1963,
140).
The latter is of course a rather fanciful suggestion for the function of the stands, which I cannot
substantiate further. However that may be, the likely ascription of the tower stands to the Kuwari
palace adds an intriguing material aspect to the otherwise dim image of this building and life within
it. The idea that the towers may reflect contemporary architectural models is, of course, also an
intriguing possibility, which should have some basic validity. We may quote Muller’s reflections on
the Rania Plain stands:
“En ce qui concerne les maquettes de Basmosian et Shemshara, le fouilleur ne proposait pas
d’interprétation architecturale plus précise que celle de tours; ...... Le caractère composite de ces
monuments contribue à brouiller leur signification: faut-il, avec Djandieri, voir prosaiquement dans
le capriné qui porte certains d’entre eux le bétail de la maisonnée, logé au rez-de-chaussée de la
“maison-tour”? Pour ma part je pense que les crénaux, répétés parfois au sommet de chacun des deux
niveaux marqués par un décrochement dans le volume, sont le signe de la fortification, peut-être d’un
construction complexe” (Muller 2002, 118).
The stands from the Rania Plain on present evidence form a unique group, and the caprid
attachments may be one of the few hints at eastern or north-eastern influence in the material record
from this region, which otherwise seems much influenced by lowland Mesopotamian models (Eidem
and Læssøe 2001, 62). Like Muller, however, I prefer to see the towers as representing primarily
fortifications, a motif otherwise rare in the iconography of this period. Thus the general design of the
towers themselves and their fittings may well be evocative of actual defensive structures that once
existed at Old Babylonian Shemshāra, and elsewhere in its hinterland.14
Concluding Remarks
The excavations on the Rania Plain in NE Iraq 1956-60 constituted one of the earliest
archaeological salvage projects in the Middle East, and remain a pioneering effort. Unfortunately,
the results, for many different reasons, have been communicated mostly very provisionally, and this
14 The concept of the second-millennium dimātu sites may be relevant here (cf. Kolinski 2001; with
special analysis of the Rania Plain, 65 and 78f.), but whatever the exact textual referent, it seems that compact
fortified structures dotted the countryside of Greater Mesopotamia from a very early date. Without specific
information, however, the design of the towers is best considered as generally representative of fortification
architecture.
has complicated or precluded their inclusion in a wider scholarly debate. The example discussed
in this paper hopefully demonstrates that the data retrieved, in spite of many uncertainties, have
some coherence and real importance. It is therefore to be hoped that remaining evidence from these
excavations,15 whatever the formal documentary shortcomings, may be located in the museums
in Iraq, and eventually published. The short notes available, found primarily in the journal Sumer,
certainly inspire some genuine interest: an Ubaid period temple excavated at Tell Qorashina (al-
Alusi 1959, 50), substantial remains from the Uruk period at Tell Kamarian (al-Asil 1956, 6f.), not to
mention further finds from the later seasons at Basmusian and Shemshāra.
The Dokān Lake only flooded part of the Rania Plain, and many of the sites listed by as-
Soof (1970, map Pl. I) seem available for future excavation. Although no longer an urgent target
for exploration, the sites in this strategically important valley may eventually offer many new
perspectives on the NE periphery of Ancient Mesopotamia.
15 Apart from the report on the 1956 season at Basmusian by as-Soof (1970), Abd al-Qadir published
a report on the excavations at Tell ed-Deim (al-Qadir 1960, in Arabic; for a short summary in German see
Ayoub 1982, 10f.). The remaining archaeological material from the Danish excavations at Shemshāra will be
published by I. Thuesen.
96 Akkade is King
1. Tell Shemshāra 1957. View towards “camp hill” (photo: J. Læssøe).

2. Shemshāra stands IM.62079 (left) and IM.62083 (after as-Soof

1970, Pl. XIII, 1).
3. Shemshāra stand IM.62080 (after Pritchard 4. Basmusian stand IM.60294 (after as-Soof
1969, No. 842). 1970, Pl. XII).
98 Akkade is King
BIbliography
al-Asil, N. 1956: “Recent Archaeological Activity in Iraq”, Sumer 12, 3-7.
al-Alusi, S. 1959: “News and Correspondence”, Sumer 15, 43-57.
Ayoub, S. 1982: Die Keramik in Mesopotamien und in den Nachbargebieten (MVS 11; München: Mäander
Kunstverlag).
Biggs, R. 2004: “Review of Eidem and Læssøe 2001”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 63, 211-212.
Bjorkman, J. 1999: “How to Bury a Temple: The Case of Nuzi’s Ishtar Temple A”, Studies on the Civilization
and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 10, 101-122.
Bretschneider, J. 1991: Architekturmodelle in Vorderasien und der östlichen Ägäis vom Neolithikum bis in das
1. Jahrtausend (AOAT 229; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Charpin, D. 2004: “Chroniques Bibliographiques 3. Données nouvelles sur la région du Petit Zab au XVIIIe
siècle av. J.-C.”, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 98, 151-178.
Charpin, D. and N. Ziegler 2003: Mari et le Proche-Orient à l’époque amorrite (FM 5; Antony: SEPOA,
Société pour l’étude du Proche-orient ancien).
Dalley, S. 2003: “Review of Eidem and Læssøe 2001”, Orientalia 72, 330-332.
Dietre, C. 2007: “L’area di Tell Yelkhi: i piccoli oggetti”, Mesopotamia 42, 167-209.
Durand, J.-M. 1987: “L’organisation de l’éspace dans le palais de Mari”, in E. Lévy (ed.), Le système palatial
en Orient, en Gréce et à Rome (Leiden: Brill), 39-110.
Eidem, J. 1992: The Shemshāra Archives 2. The Administrative Texts (Copenhagen: Kongelige Danske
Videnskabernes Selskab).
––––––– n.d.: “Šušarrā”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie.
Eidem, J. and J. Læssøe 2001: The Shemshāra Archives 1. The Letters (Copenhagen: Kongelige Danske
Videnskabernes Selskab).
Emberling, G. and H. McDonald 2003: “Excavations at Tell Brak 2001-2002: Preliminary Report”, Iraq 65,
1-75.
Frayne, D. 1999: “The Zagros Campaigns of Šulgi and Amar-Suena”, Studies on the Civilization and Culture
of Nuzi and the Hurrians 10, 141-201.
Gabutti, A. 2002-3: “La ceramica dei livelli VIb-III”, Mesopotamia XXXVII-VIII, 87-264.
al-Haik, A.R. 1968: Key Lists of Archaeological Excavations in Iraq I. 1842-1965 (Field Research Projects
Study No. 9; Coconut Grove, Fla.: Field Research Projects).
Ingholt, H. 1957: “The Danish Dokan Expedition”, Sumer 13, 214-215.
––––––– 1970: “Introduction”, in P. Mortensen (ed.), Tell Shimshara. The Hassuna Period (Copenhagen:
Munksgaard), 5-16.
Kolinski, R. 2001: Mesopotamian dimātu of the Second Millennium BC (BAR IS-1004; Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports / Hadrian).
Kupper, J.-R. 2001: “L’akkadien des lettres de Shemshâra”, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale
95, 155-173.
Læssøe, J. 1959: “The Bazmusian Tablets”, Sumer 15, 15-18.
––––––– 1960: “The Second Shemshara Archive”, Sumer 16, 12-19.
––––––– 1963: People of Ancient Assyria (London).
Mieroop, M. van de 2002: “Review of Eidem and Læssøe 2001”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 54, 130-134.
Mortensen, P. (ed.) 1970: Tell Shimshara. The Hassuna Period (Copenhagen: Munksgaard).
Muller, B. 2002: Les “maquettes architecturales” du Proche-Orient Ancien I-II. Beirut (BAH 160; Beyrouth:
Institut français d’archéologie du Proche-Orient).
Nicolle, C. 2006: Tell Mohammed Diyab 3 (Paris: ERC).
Pritchard, J.B. (ed.) 1969: The Ancient Near East. Supplementary Texts and Pictures Relating to the Old
Testament (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press).
al-Qadir, A. 1960: “The Excavations at Tell ed-Daim (Dokan)”, Sumer 16; Arabic section, 93-109.
as-Soof, B.A. 1964: “Uruk Pottery from the Dokan and Shahrazur Districts”, Sumer 20, 37-44.
––––––– 1970: “Mounds in the Rania Plain and Excavations at Tell Bazmusian”, Sumer 26, 65-104.
Stol, M. 2002: “Review of Eidem and Læssøe 2001”, Bibliotheca Orientalis 59, 108-110.
Thuesen, I. 1988: “The Hurrian Levels at Tell Shemshara, paper given at the 35 RAI” (Philadelphia, Pa.).
Villard, P. 2004: “Review of Eidem and Læssøe 2001”, Syria 81, 278-281.
Weidner, E. 1958/59: “Tell Schemschara”, Archiv für Orientforschung 18, 456.
Ziegler, N. 2006: “Review of Eidem and Læssøe 2001”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
„Verwandelt meine Verfehlungen in Gutes!“
Ein šigû-Gebet an Marduk aus dem Bestand der «Sippar-
Bibliothek»1
Abdulillah Fadhil, Baghdad – Markus Hilgert, Heidelberg
1. Einleitung
Die Entdeckung der sogenannten «Sippar-Bibliothek»2 hat der Altorientalistik nicht nur eine
qualitativ neue Basis für die Erarbeitung einer altorientalischen Textsammlungstypologie3 beschert,
sondern auch dazu geführt, dass mitunter erhebliche Überlieferungslücken im Textbestand vieler
bereits bekannter Werke der babylonisch-assyrischen Gelehrtentradition des 1. Jt. v. Chr. mit den
aus der «Sippar-Bibliothek» neu hinzu gekommenen Textvertretern geschlossen werden können.
Auch wenn die philologische Aufbereitung und wissenschaftliche Edition dieser Manuskripte noch
längst nicht abgeschlossen sind,4 zeigt sich darüber hinaus deutlich, dass die darauf erhaltenen
Werkfassungen in der Regel Besonderheiten gegenüber den bisher bezeugten Rezensionen aus
anderen keilschriftlichen Textsammlungen des 1. Jt. v. Chr. aufweisen. Diese Besonderheiten
können orthographischer, lexikalischer, grammatischer oder stilistischer Natur und mithin von
vergleichsweise geringer Signifikanz sein. Bisweilen sind jedoch auch mehr oder minder starke
1 Die Autoren danken dem Generaldirektorat des State Board of Antiquities and Heritage des Irak, dem
Department of Archaeology, College of Arts der Universität Baghdad sowie dem Iraq Museum Baghdad für die
freundliche Genehmigung, die Tafel IM 132516 (Sippar 8, 198) veröffentlichen zu dürfen. Die hier verwendeten
bibliographischen Abkürzungen sind unter http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/wiki/index.php/Abbreviations_for_
Assyriology aufgelöst.
2 Der in der Altorientalistik mittlerweile weit verbreitete Begriff «Sippar-Bibliothek» (englisch: «Sippar
Library») bezeichnet eine Sammlung gelehrter keilschriftlicher Manuskripte aus dem späten 7. und frühen 6. Jh.
v. Chr., die weitgehend intakt in einem offenbar eigens zur Aufbewahrung eines solchen Manuskriptbestandes
angelegten Raum angetroffen wurde, der zu einem an das E-babbar, das altmesopotamische Hauptheiligtum
des Sonnengottes Šamaš zu Sippar (heute Tall Abū Ḥabba), unmittelbar angrenzenden Gebäudekomplex
gehörte. Zu den archäologischen Fundumständen der «Sippar-Bibliothek» siehe die bei Fadhil – Hilgert 2008,
154 Anm. 1 zitierte Fachliteratur.
3 Siehe Hilgert 2004 sowie Hilgert (im Druck).
4 Eine Übersicht über Editionen von Keilschriftmanuskripten aus der «Sippar-Bibliothek» bieten
Fadhil – Hilgert 2008, 154 Anm. *. Seither erschienen ist darüber hinaus al-Rawi und George 2006. Die
systematische, wissenschaftliche Edition aller Textfunde aus der «Sippar-Bibliothek» wird seit dem Jahr 2007
in einem Verbundprojekt unter der Leitung von Abdulillah Fadhil (Baghdad), Markus Hilgert (Heidelberg)
und Walter Sommerfeld (Marburg) in Kooperation mit dem State Board of Antiquities and Heritage des Irak,
dem Department of Archaeology, College of Arts der Universität Baghdad sowie dem Iraq Museum Baghdad
durchgeführt.
102 Akkade is King
Abweichungen in Textbestand und -struktur zu beobachten, die die relative Vielfalt der im 1. Jt.
v. Chr. verbreiteten schriftlichen Erscheinungsformen ein und desselben Werkes illustrieren und
dadurch ein in der Unterscheidung von Rezensionen und Versionen bestehendes textkritisches
Klassifizierungsproblem der altorientalischen Kulturwissenschaft in den Blickpunkt rücken.5 Das
keilschriftliche Manuskript, das hier in einer editio princeps vorgelegt wird, veranschaulicht diesen
generellen Befund exemplarisch und unterstreicht so die Bedeutung der «Sippar-Bibliothek» gerade
auch für die Erforschung von Phänomenen der Textstabilität bzw. ‑variabilität im Zusammenhang der
schriftlichen Speicherung und Tradierung von spezialisierten Wissensbeständen im Mesopotamien
des 1. Jt. v. Chr.6
Die Tafel IM 132516 (Sippar 8, 198) war bei ihrer Entdeckung ca. 10,6 cm hoch, ca. 6,9 cm
breit und auf Vorder- und Rückseite mit jeweils einer Schriftkolumne beschrieben. Dabei trägt die
Tafelvorderseite insgesamt 22 Werkzeilen, die Tafelrückseite 11 Werkzeilen sowie 2 zusätzliche
Zeilen, die den Kolophon enthalten. Das Manuskript, dessen rechte obere Ecke abgebrochen ist,
5 Vergleiche dazu etwa die Bemerkungen von Cooper 2005, 49–50, die die Problemlage für das gelehrte
sumerische Schrifttum knapp umreißen, sowie al-Rawi und George 2006, 35–55, die am Beispiel des 20.
Kapitels des astrologischen Omenkompendiums Enūma Anu Ellil die Komplexität der Prozesse diachroner
Textgenese in der keilschriftlichen Gelehrtentradition demonstrieren.
6 Die innerhalb der altorientalischen Philologie bis heute vorherrschende Praxis, aus verschiedenen
keilschriftlichen Manuskripten variierender Provenienz und Entstehungszeit, die sich untereinander in
inhaltlicher, sprachlicher und formaler Hinsicht so stark ähneln, dass sie von Altorientalisten als Textvertreter
ein und desselben «Werks» klassifiziert werden, einen einzigen Komposittext zu konstruieren, dem gleichsam
eine autoritative Bedeutung beigemessen wird, ist, wiewohl wissenschaftsgeschichtlich begründbar und für
eine basale inhaltliche Strukturierung der überlieferten Schriftzeugnisse durchaus sinnvoll (vergleiche dazu
etwa Landsberger 1937, 1*–3*), problematisch. Denn im Gegensatz zu den Textbeständen, die jeweils auf den
einzelnen Manuskripten gespeichert sind, besaß dieser nach unterschiedlichen heutigen Kriterien konstruierte
«Einheitstext» keinerlei lebensweltliche, praxisrelevante Präsenz in der mesopotamischen Antike. Es ist
jedoch diese praxisrelevante Präsenz des schriftlich gespeicherten sprachlichen Handelns (siehe Ehlich 1983;
ders. 1994), die für eine kulturwissenschaftlich orientierte Hermeneutik eine wesentliche Voraussetzung der
Textinterpretation darstellt. So war die hier edierte Fassung des šigû-Gebetes an Marduk offenbar die einzig
verfügbare im Bestand der keilschriftlichen Manuskriptsammlung, die wir als «Sippar-Bibliothek» bezeichnen.
Es war also nur dieser spezifische Wortlaut des Gebetes, der durch die Kopie einer älteren Vorlage in der «Sippar-
Bibliothek» präsent war und möglicherweise zum Gegenstand weiterer Rezeptionspraktiken (z. B. Kopie,
Memorierung, Rezitation, Redaktion, Kompilierung, Kommentierung) durch Personen wurde, die Zugang zu
der fraglichen Tafel hatten. Seine zeitgenössisch antike Bedeutung, um deren Erforschung die altorientalische
Kulturwissenschaft bemüht ist, drückt sich ausschließlich in diesen ebenso spezifischen Rezeptionspraktiken
aus. Die philologische Erschließung solcher keilschriftlich überlieferter Werke, für die mehrere Textvertreter
vorliegen, wird daher in Zukunft ihr Augenmerk verstärkt auf die einzelnen Manuskripte, ihre diversen
Besonderheiten sowie ihre jeweilige sozialpraktische Kontextualisierung richten müssen, will sie sich nicht
auf die Entschlüsselung als immanent vorausgesetzter Sinngehalte in konstruierten Texten beschränken; siehe
dazu Hilgert 2010; ders. (im Druck).
A. Fadhil and M. Hilgert: „Verwandelt meine Verfehlungen in Gutes!“ 103
wurde aus Nische 8 C der «Sippar-Bibliothek» geborgen, war also in der dritten Nische von oben
innerhalb der vierten vertikalen Nischenreihe von links in der südwestlichen Rückwand des Raumes
eingestellt.7
Das Manuskript ist mit einem Text beschrieben, der ein von Mayer 1976, 466–469 unter dem
Siglum „Marduk 28“ (Incipit: Marduk ilu rēmēnû muballiṭ mīti, „Marduk, gnadenreicher Gott, der
den Toten wieder belebt“) ediertes, seinerzeit nur partiell zu rekonstruierendes Gebet an den Gott
Marduk weitestgehend dupliziert. Nach seinem Inhalt sowie aufgrund einer im Textvertreter Si. 8
Rs. 11 erhaltenen Rubrik8 wird dieses Gebet mit einem indigenen akkadischen Terminus gemeinhin
als šigû klassifiziert.9 Das Manuskript IM 132516 selbst bietet allerdings keinerlei Rubrifizierung.10
Obschon IM 132516 im Textbereich Vs. 14–22 starke Beschädigungen der Tafeloberfläche aufweist,
die den Verlust von etwa 50% des dort ursprünglich vorhandenen Textbestandes bedingen, kann
das besagte šigû-Gebet an Marduk, dessen letztes Drittel – eine «Bußlitanei» – bislang nur sehr
fragmentarisch überliefert war, auf der Grundlage des Manuskripts aus der «Sippar-Bibliothek»
in der dort bezeugten Rezension nun erstmals vollständig rekonstruiert werden. Damit bereichert
diese Tafel unser Wissen über die in šigû-Gebeten des 1. Jt. v. Chr. eingesetzten sprachlichen und
formalen Gestaltungsmittel beträchtlich. Darüber hinaus werden die vielfältigen lexikalischen und
7 Vergleiche Fadhil – Hilgert 2008, 154-155 und Anm. 3.

8 Siehe Mayer 1976, 468 Rs. 11.
9 Zu diesem Begriff und seiner Bedeutung siehe CAD Š/II 413a–414a šigû s., dazu Mayer 1997, 173;
Gössmann 1968, 361–381; Kunstmann 1932, 44–45, dazu Zgoll 2003, 16; Maul 1994, 165–166; Mayer 1976,
111–113; Seux 1981, 419–438; van der Toorn 1985, 117–139; vergleiche noch Groneberg 1989, 7–10 Nr. 9;
Labat 1962, 1–8; Landsberger 1915, 114–118. Die Etymologie des Wortes šigû ist nach wie vor ungeklärt. Den
zur Klärung dieser Frage bereits angestellten Vermutungen (siehe dazu zusammenfassend Seux 1981, 420–421;
van der Toorn 1985, 117–118) ließe sich die gegenwärtig allerdings ebenfalls nicht zu beweisende Hypothese
hinzu gesellen, dass šigû aus Sumerischem še 25/26/27/x — gi/gi 4 „schreien, brüllen; donnern“ (siehe Attinger
1993, 182 und Anm. 318; Zgoll 1997, 312–313) entlehnt ist. Zu stützen wäre diese Hypothese nicht nur durch
den Verweis auf die formale und semantische Nähe von sumerisch /še(g)gi(a)/ und akkadisch šigû, sondern
möglicherweise auch durch die Tatsache, dass die Termini, die während des 1. Jt. v. Chr. zur Rubrifizierung
der in der kultischen und rituellen Praxis verankerten sumerischen und akkadischen Gebete erscheinen, aus
kulturhistorischen Gründen überwiegend sumerisch bzw. sumerischen Ursprungs sind. Interessant mag in
diesem Zusammenhang schließlich die Beobachtung sein, dass das Geräusch, das von den auch zur Untermalung
ritueller Handlungen gespielten Schlaginstrumenten šèm/šem 4 und á-lá erzeugt wurde, im Sumerischen
durch das Verb še 25/26/27/x — gi/gi 4 wieder gegeben werden kann (z. B. Gudea, Zylinder B xix 1; „Inana und
Enki“ 245; „Die Hochzeit des Martu“ 61; „Šulgi A“ 53; „Šulgi D“ 366; „Keš Tempel-Hymne“ 118; „Hacke
und Pflug“ 28 [Belege nach http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html]; siehe Kilmer 2003–2005,
368a–370b, besonders 370 §§ 4. 5).
10 Zum Problem einer modernen Gattungsklassifizierung auf der Basis antiker Rubrifizierungen im
Falle der šigû-Gebete siehe Kunstmann 1932, 44–45, dazu Zgoll 2003, 16; Mayer 1976, 15–16 und Anm. 31.
25; Seux 1981, 424–425; van der Toorn 1985, 118; vergleiche Lambert 1974, 267–270.
104 Akkade is King
phraseologischen Bezüge sichtbar, die zwischen dem Gebet „Marduk 28“ und inhaltlich verwandten
Kompositionen des babylonisch-assyrischen religiösen Schrifttums bestehen und einmal mehr die
hohe Intertextualität dieser Werke unter Beweis stellen.
Das Thema des vorliegenden šigû-Gebets ist das Eingeständnis von Fehlverhalten gegenüber
Marduk11 – insbesondere von unbewusst begangenen Verfehlungen (Zeilen 8-31) – durch den Beter
sowie seine Bitte um Befreiung von der entstandenen Schuld12, die im letzten Vers der Komposition
(Zeile 33) in der dringlichen Aufforderung an Marduk und Zarpanītum kulminiert: šuknāni ḫīṭātīa
ana damqāti, „Verwandelt für mich meine Verfehlungen in Gutes!“.13 Das Gebet stellt also ein
umfassendes religiöses Schuldbekenntnis mit der Bitte um vollständige Vergebung durch die
angerufene(n) Gottheit(en) dar.14
Die Struktur des Textes entspricht im Wesentlichen den von Mayer 1976 beschriebenen
Konventionen15: Auf die Anrede16 der Gottheit (Zeilen 1–4) folgt die durch die Wahrnehmung des
eigenen Fehlverhaltens ausgelöste Hinwendung17 des Beters zu dieser Gottheit (Zeilen 5–6), an die sich,
ausgehend von einem weiteren «Schuldbekenntnis» (Zeilen 7–8), die ausführliche Bitte18 (Prekativ,
Imperativ; Zeilen 9–16) um Auflösung der Schuld (Zeilen 9–10), göttliche Zuwendung (Zeilen 11–
14) sowie Wohlergehen und Reinigung19 (Zeilen 15–16) anschließt. Eine kurze Überleitung (Zeilen
17–18a) führt zu einer «Bußlitanei» (Zeilen 18b–30), die inhaltlich und formal im Zentrum des
Gebetes steht und mit 13 Versen mehr als ein Drittel des Werkumfangs ausmacht. Diese «Bußlitanei»
stellt offenbar eine Besonderheit innerhalb des gegenwärtig bekannten Korpus akkadischer Gebete
des 1. Jt. v. Chr. dar.20 Den Gebetsschluss21 (Zeilen 31–33) bilden drei Verse, in denen Marduk und
Zarpanītum abermals ersucht werden (Imperativ), das Böse, das der Beter unwissentlich verübt hat,
11 In der «Bußlitanei» (Zeilen 19–30) werden außer Marduk auch die „großen Götter“ (Zeile 23),
Marduks Gefährtin Zarpanītum (Zeile 24) sowie vermutlich der Sonnengott Šamaš (Zeile 25) angesprochen.
12 Zu einer allgemeinen inhaltlichen Charakterisierung der als šigû-Gebete klassifizierten Werke siehe
die in Anm. 9 zitierten Publikationen.
13 Siehe dazu den Kommentar zu Zeile 33 unter „4. Bemerkungen“.
14 Van der Toorn 1985, 117–146 erörtert šigû-Gebete im größeren kultur- und theologiegeschichtlichen
Kontext von Bußgebeten in Mesopotamien und Israel.
15 Wendet man das von Zgoll 2003, 30–36 mit Blick auf die akkadischen šu-ila-Gebete an Ištar
vorgeschlagene Strukturierungsmodell an, so entsprächen wohl Zeilen 1–4 der Invokation und Zeilen 5–33 der
Supplikation. Eine abschließende Benediktion ist in „Marduk 28“ nicht enthalten.
16 Vergleiche Mayer 1976, 39–45.
19 Siehe dazu den Kommentar zu Zeile 16 unter „4. Bemerkungen“.
20 Siehe dazu den Kommentar zu den Zeilen 23–30 unter „4. Bemerkungen“.
zu tilgen und seine Verfehlungen in Gutes zu wandeln.

Anlass, Ort, Handlungskontext und rezitierende Person(en) des vorliegenden Gebets bleiben
unklar.22 Da die zweite Zeile des Kolophons (Zeile 35), in der der Name des ursprünglichen
Eigentümers des Manuskripts vermerkt war, lediglich vereinzelte Zeichenreste bietet, lassen sich
auch keine Aussagen zu den Bezügen machen, die möglicherweise zwischen der professionellen
Spezialisierung dieses Gelehrten, seiner gegebenenfalls dadurch begründeten Funktion in der
kultischen Praxis und seinem durch die Tafel aus der «Sippar-Bibliothek» bezeugten Studium des
Marduk-šigû „Marduk ilu rēmēnû muballiṭ mīti“ bestehen könnten.23
2. Transliteration
IM 132516 (Sippar 8/198)
Vorderseite
1 d
AMAR.UD DINGIR re-me-nu-˹ú ˺ ˹mu-bal ˺-[liṭ? LÚ ? .ÚŠ ? ]
2 ši-gu-ú ba-la-ṭi a-˹š ˺[a?-si?-ka?]
3 pa-ṭir ka-˹s˺i-i ṣa-bit ŠU na-˹a˺[s?-ki?]
4 še-mi tés-li-tum ù ik-ri-˹bi˺ [at?-ta?]
5 ana(DIŠ ) aḫ-ṭú-ú ˹e˺-gu-ú e-še-ṭú ˹ù ú-g˺[al-li?-lu?]
ana(DIŠ ) ˹ši-gu-ú˺ ˹e?˺-[er?-ru?-ub?]
6 E [GI ]R DINGIR-ti-ka GAL ! -ti a˹l˺-[l]˹ak a-na ši˺-[gu?-ú?]
˹e-er-ru-ub˺
7 an-˹nu˺-ú-˹a˺ ˹ḫi-ṭa-tu˺-[ú?]-˹a gíl-la-tu-ú?˺-[a]
8 šá a-˹na EN -ia k˺i-a-am e-te-ep-pu-šu-ma la i-d[u-ú]
9 ˹ki-ma˺ SUM.SAR liq-qa-líp ˹ki˺-ma ZÚ.LUM.MA liš-šá-˹aḫ-ṭ˺[a]
10 ki-ma ŠU. ˹ S ˺ AR lip-pa-áš-ra
11 ˹TU ˺MU -ka ˹ṭa-a-b˺u ˹nap˺-š ˹ur-k˺a ˹dam-qum˺
12 na-as-ḫ˹ur˺-ka [r]a-bu-ú
13 ˹ta˺-a-a-˹ra˺-tu-ka [k]ab-ta-˹t˺u
14 ˹a-na ARA ˺D -ka ia-[a?-t]˹i˺ ˹líb˺-ša-nim-˹ma˺
15 ˹lu-ub-lu-u˺ṭ ˹lu-uš˺-[lim?-ma? lu?]-˹uš˺-tam-mar-ka
16 ˹eb?-bu-ti-i˺a na˹m-ru?˺-[ti? šu-k]˹un˺ te-lil-˹ti?˺
17 ˹ki-a-am lu-ud˺-[lul ? nar ?-bi ? DINGIR]-˹ti˺-ka ˹GAL-t˺[i?]
18 k[i-a-am lu ?-uš ?-tam ?-mar ? ši-gu]-˹ú ˺ d AMA ˹R.UD ˺
19 a˹r˺-[ni? gíl ?-la?-ti? ḫi?-ṭi?-ti?] ˹ši˺-gu-ú d AMA ˹R ˺.U ˹D ˺
20 e-g[i aḫ?-ṭi ? e?-še?-eṭ? ù? ú?-g]˹al-li-il˺
21 a-na i-˹lu-ti˺-[ka ra?-bi?-ti? ši?-gu?-ú? ] ˹d AMAR ˺.UD
22 Zu den bislang bezeugten Rezitationsszenarien von šigû-Gebeten, innerhalb derer auch der Herrscher
als Beter auftritt, siehe Landsberger 1915, 114–117; Mayer 1976, 15–16 mit Anm. 31; Seux 1981, 421–422;
van der Toorn 1985, 119–120; vergleiche auch die in CAD Š/II 413a–414a šigû s. b) gebuchten Belege sowie
zu TU 45 = AO 6472 Vs. 17 Linssen 2004, 286. 290 zu Zeilen 17–18.
23 Vergleiche dazu den Kommentar zu Zeile 35 unter „4. Bemerkungen“.
106 Akkade is King
22 e-gi aḫ-ṭi ˹e-še-e˺-[ṭ ù? ú?-gal?-l]˹i-il˺

Rückseite
23 [a-na/ana(DIŠ) ] ˹DINGIR ˺.MEŠ GAL. ˹MEŠ ˺ ši<-gu-ú d? AMAR ? .UD ?>
24 [e-gi aḫ]-˹ṭ ˺ i KI.MIN ana(DIŠ) d ˹ AMAR.UD ˺ u d Z ar-pa-ni-tum ši<-gu-ú
d?
AMAR ? .UD ? >
25 ˹e˺-gi aḫ-ṭi KI. ˹ MIN ˺ ana(DIŠ) ˹d UTU ? a˺-bi-ia ši<-gu-ú d ?AMAR ? .UD ? >
26 ˹ka-l˺a an-nu-ú-˹a˺ k˹a˺-[l]˹a ḫi-ṭ˺a-tu-ú-a ši<-gu-ú d ?AMAR ? .UD ? >
27 ˹k˺a-la gíl-la-t ˹u-ú-a˺ ka-˹la˺ ma-ma-tu-ú-a ši<-gu-ú d ?AMAR ? .UD ? >
28 ˹k˺a-˹la˺ tu-ma-˹ma˺-tu-ú-˹a˺ ˹ši˺<-gu-ú d ?AMAR ? .UD ? >
29 i-t˹a-a-k˺[a] ˹lu-ú e˺-ti-iq Á.SÀG -k˹a l˺[u-ú a-k]ul ši<-gu-ú d ?AMAR ? .UD ? >
30 ˹an-zil˺-[la-ka] ˹lu˺-ú ú-kab-b˹i˺-[is] ši<-gu-ú d ?AMAR ? .UD ? >
31 ˹lu-mu-u˺[n e]-te-ep-pu-šu a-na-ku la i-[d]˹u-ú˺
32 AMAR.UD ˹pu-u˺š-ra d Zar-pa-ni-tum pu-u˹s-si-s˺[i?]
˹d ˺
33 ˹šuk-na˺-ni ˹ḫi-ṭ˺a-ti-ia a-˹na˺ dam-qa-˹a-ti˺

Kolophon:
34 ˹ki-ma˺ la-bi-ri-ša ša-ṭi-ir-ma ba-˹r˺[i]
35 ˹IM.GÍD.DA m x˺-[x (x) (x) (x)] ˹DUMU ? LÚ.SANGA ? ˺ [(x) (x) (x)]
3. Übersetzung
1 Marduk, gnadenreicher Gott, der den [Toten wieder be]lebt,
2 Ein šigû des Lebens [rufe ich Dir zu].
3 Der den Gebundenen befreit, die Hand des Hin[gestreckten] packt,
4 Der Flehen und Gebet erhört, [(der) bist Du].
5 Für das, wo ich fehl gegangen bin, was ich versäumt, vernachlässigt, missachtet und
ge[frevelt] habe, tre[te ich] (nun) zu einem šigû ein.
6 Deiner großen Gottheit folge ich - zu einem ši[gû] trete ich (nun) ein.
7 Meine unrechten Taten, meine Verfehlungen, [meine] Frevel,
8 die ich auf diese Weise gegen meinen Herrn wieder und wieder begangen habe, ohne es zu
wi[ssen] –
9 Es soll wie Knoblauch abgeschält, mir wie die Dattel (von der Rispe) abgerissen,
10 mir wie Palmbastgeflecht aufgetrennt werden.
11 Dein süßer Atemhauch, Deine gütige Erlösung,
12 Deine großartige Hinwendung,
13 Deine mächtigen Vergebungswerke
14 sollen mir, Deinem Diener, zuteil werden,
15 auf dass ich lebe, he[il bin] und Dich [rü]hme.
16 Meine Reinen, die Strahlenden (oder: meine strahlenden Reinen)24 [sch]affe (, [be]wirke)
meine Reinigung!
17 So will ich preis[en die Großtaten] Deiner großen [Gott]heit,
24 Zu dieser tentativen Übersetzung siehe den Kommentar unter „4. Bemerkungen“.

18 S[o will ich (sie) rühmen25 – šig]û Marduk.

19 Mein Un[recht, mein Frevel, meine Verfehlung] – šigû Marduk.
20 Ich war [nachlässig, habe gefehlt, Missachtung gezeigt und ge]frevelt
21 gegen [Deine große] Gottheit – [šigû] Marduk.
22 Ich war nachlässig, habe gefehlt, Missachtung gezeigt [und gefre]velt
23 [gegen] die großen Götter – ši<gû (Marduk)>.
24 [Ich war nachlässig, habe ge]fehlt, ditto (Missachtung gezeigt und gefrevelt) gegen Marduk
und Zarpanītum – ši<gû (Marduk)>.
25 Ich war nachlässig, habe gefehlt, ditto (Missachtung gezeigt und gefrevelt) gegen Šamaš (?),
meinen Vater – ši<gû (Marduk)>.
26 Alle meine unrechten Taten, alle meine Verfehlungen – ši<gû (Marduk)>.
27 Alle meine Frevel, alle meine Eide – ši<gû (Marduk)>.
28 Alle meine Schwüre – ši<gû (Marduk)>.
29 Deine Grenze habe ich wirklich übertreten, Dein Tabu habe ich wirk[lich verl]etzt – ši<gû
(Marduk)>.
30 Abscheuli[ches] habe ich wirklich gegen [Dich] verübt –ši<gû (Marduk)>.
31 Das Böse, das ich unwissentlich wieder und wieder getan habe,
32 löse auf, Marduk, tilge, Zarpanītum!
33 Verwandelt für mich meine Verfehlungen in Gutes!
–––
34 Gemäß seiner Vorlage abgeschrieben und überprüft.
35 „Langtafel“ des […] Nachkomme (?) der šangû (?) […]
4. Bemerkungen
Zeile 2: Dieser Vers ist in den von Mayer 1976, 466–469 bearbeiteten Manuskripten nicht
enthalten.26 Die Rekonstruktion des Zeilenschlusses basiert auf der anderweitig gut bezeugten
Wendung šigû šasû „šigû rufen“; siehe dazu CAD Š/II 413–414 šigû b) sowie die Diskussionen bei
Mayer 1976, 112 Anm. 90; van der Toorn 1985, 117–120.
Zeile 5: In dem Manuskript aus der «Sippar-Bibliothek» folgt die Subordinativform aḫṭû
unmittelbar auf ana (vergleiche Mayer 1976, 466 Zeile 4 und Anm. 1 Zeile 4; Seux 1981, 426. 429.
431). Dieselbe Wortfolge (a-na aḫ-ṭù-ú) begegnet auch in KUB 4, 47 Rs. 22,27 einem Ritualtext
in hethitischer Sprache, in den drei akkadische Gebete eingebettet sind, von denen zwei als šigû-
Gebete klassifiziert werden können („Šamaš 103“ [siehe Mayer 1976, 422, 103]; „Zarpanītu 3“
[siehe Mayer 1976, 517–518]).28 Will man nicht davon ausgehen, dass die inhaltlich und theologisch
25 Zu dieser Übersetzung siehe den Kommentar unter „4. Bemerkungen“.

26 Nach van der Toorn 1985, 121 bietet das Manuskript Si. 723 + 724 zwei šigû-Gebete, deren ersteres
das Gebet „Marduk 28“ teilweise dupliziert.
27 Siehe Mayer 1976, 517 Anm. zu Zeile 8ʹ („Zarpanītu 3“).
28 Zu KUB 4, 47 siehe Seux 1981, 429–430; van der Toorn 1985, 124–133; vergleiche noch Schwemer
108 Akkade is King
miteinander verwandten Kompositionen „Marduk 28“ und „Zarpanītu 3“ auf einer zumindest partiell
gemeinsamen Redaktionsgeschichte basieren, innerhalb derer die Phrase ana aḫṭû (egû) ešēṭu (u)
ugallilu fehlerhaft für intendiertes ana ša aḫṭû (egû) ešēṭu (u) ugallilu überliefert wurde,29 wäre
wohl aus dem vorliegenden Befund zu schließen, dass in beiden Texten eine seltene Funktion der
Partikel ana als Subjunktion mit der Bedeutung „dafür, dass; weil“ bezeugt ist. Auch wenn uns
keine weiteren Beispiele für eine solche subordinierende Funktion von ana bekannt sind, ließe sich
zur Stützung dieser Hypothese darauf verweisen, dass ana beispielsweise in KUB 4, 47 mehrfach
mit dem präfigierenden Stativ im Subordinativ idû (ana idû lā idû, „für das, von dem ich weiß,
(und) für das, von dem ich nicht weiß“)30 verbunden und so in funktional-typologischer Hinsicht
mit ina zu vergleichen ist, welches ebenfalls in der Kombination mit Stativen bzw. präfigierenden
Stativen im Subordinativ auftritt.31 Da ina – ebenso wie einige andere akkadische Partikeln, die
als Präpositionen und Subjunktionen Verwendung finden32 – zudem auch vor nicht-stativischen,
finiten Verbalformen im Subordinativ erscheinen kann,33 ist eine entsprechende Funktion von ana
prinzipiell nicht auszuschließen. Das hier nur angerissene syntaktische Phänomen bedarf allerdings
einer eingehenderen Untersuchung auf einer signifikant erweiterten Belegbasis.
Zeile 6: In Abweichung von der hier vorgeschlagenen Rekonstruktion ˹a-na ši˺-[gu?-ú?], die
auf der Annahme einer Wiederholung des vorausgehenden Versschlusses beruht, wäre es denkbar, die
Zeichenfolge A NA IGI zu ˹a-na IGI ˺-[ka?], ana maḫrīka/pānīka „vor Dein Angesicht“ (vergleiche
dazu CAD E 265 erēbu v. 1. c) 1ʹ. 3ʹ) zu ergänzen. Da jedoch am Beginn dieses Verses der Beter
metaphorisch davon spricht, hinter (arki) der großen Gottheit Marduks zu gehen (alāku), scheint uns
diese alternative Lesart im Hinblick auf die darin implizierte, fehlende Bildlogik wenig sinnvoll.
Zeilen 9–10: Die anschauliche Metaphorik dieses kurzen Textabschnitts besitzt eine enge
Parallele in den sogenannten «lipšur-Litaneien» (siehe Reiner 1956, 136 Zeilen 79–80; 140 Zeilen
12ʹ–14ʹ. 28ʹ–30ʹ). Zu ähnlichen Formulierungen siehe etwa noch CAD P 436 pitiltu s. d); Q 59a
qalāpu v. 4.; Š/I 95a šaḫāṭu B v. 9. a).
Zeilen 11–14: Zu den hier bezeugten, stereotypen Wendungen siehe Mayer 1976, 228; CAD
T 59a tajārtu s. 2. Der in dem vorliegenden Manuskript – sowie vermutlich in CT 51, 206 Vs. 2ʹ –
belegte „süße Atemhauch“ (šāru ṭābu) der Gottheit ist ebenso ein fester Bestandteil der panegyrischen
2004, 78 Anm. 58.

29 Zur subordinierenden Verbindung von ana und ša bzw. ašša siehe von Soden 1995, 211 § 116 g; 266
§ 165 d; 281 § 174 h; Dietrich 1969, 72 XVI. XVII. XVIII. Vergleiche AHw 48b an, ana 18); 83b ašša; CAD
A/II 460 ašša conj.
30 KUB 4, 47 Rs. 3. 13. 23. Siehe weiterhin die Phrase ana idû u lā idû in den sogenannten «lipšur-
Litaneien» (Reiner 1956, 136 Zeile 95).
31 Siehe AHw 188a edû(m) III B. 1); 381a ina, in C.; CAD I–J 29b idû v. 2. c) 2ʹ.
32 Zum subordinierenden Gebrauch der entsprechenden Partikeln siehe von Soden 1995, 210–211 § 116.
33 Siehe von Soden 1995, 210–211 § 116 b.
Phraseologie akkadischer Gebete im 1. Jt. v. Chr.; siehe beispielsweise Mayer 1976, 228–229; CAD
Š/II 138b–139a šāru A s. 4. a) 1ʹ.
Zeile 16: Die sprachliche Analyse und inhaltliche Deutung dieses Verses sind problematisch.34
Wie in dem Textvertreter CT 51, 206 Vs. 6ʹ35 beginnt er auch in dem vorliegenden Manuskript mit
den beiden maskulinen Adjektiven im Obliquus Plural ebbūtīa namrūti, „meine/meiner Reinen, die/
der Strahlenden“ oder „meine/meiner strahlenden Reinen“.36 Aus Gründen der Numerus-Kongruenz
können diese beiden Adjektive nicht als Attribute zum Substantiv im Singular tēliltī fungieren,
dessen /i/-Auslaut wir nicht als Markierung des Genitiv Singular, sondern vielmehr als Possessiv-
Suffix der 1. Person Singular auffassen möchten. Syntaktisch ließe sich die Gestalt des vorliegenden
Verses durch die Annahme erklären, dass sowohl die Adjektive ebbūtīa und namrūti als auch das
Substantiv tēliltī direkte Objekte im Akkusativ zu dem im Vers zentral platzierten Imperativ šukun
darstellen. Das durch diese Annahme postulierte Stilmittel des Apokoinu, dessen Koinon šukun wäre,
ist nicht nur in akkadischen Gebeten des 1. Jt. v. Chr.,37 sondern auch in anderen Werken des gelehrten
akkadischen Schrifttums vergleichsweise gut bezeugt.38 Die hier versuchte Übersetzung des Verses
geht als Arbeitshypothese davon aus, dass ein solches Apokoinu vorliegt.
Unklar bleibt allerdings auch nach dieser hypothetischen syntaktischen Analyse, worauf
sich die beiden Adjektive ebbūtīa und namrūti beziehen, ob und gegebenenfalls welches elliptisch
unterdrückte Substantiv im Plural sie qualifizieren. Vor dem Hintergrund hemerologischer Texte, nach
denen an bestimmten Tagen die Reinigung (ebēbu D) der Gewänder dem šigû-Rufen vorausgeht,39
mag man darüber spekulieren, ob in dem vorliegenden Vers, der ja in großer Nähe zum Beginn der
šigû-Litanei (Zeilen 18–30) platziert ist, die Gottheit nicht nur um (rituelle) „Reinigung“ (tēliltu)
34 Mayer 1976, 469, bietet keine Übersetzung dieses und der folgenden Verse, Seux 1981, 428 mit
Anm. 3 dagegen übersetzt: „Mets en moi de la pureté et de la netteté comme purification“ (Seux 1981, 427
Anm. 1: „ebbūtīya namrūti ‚de la netteté pour moi (et) de l’éclat‘ dans un exemplaire.“). CAD T 329 tēliltu s.
c) bucht den vorliegenden Vers als „uncertain“ und enthält sich einer Übersetzung.
35 Si. 8 Vs. 17 bietet den vorliegenden Vers in folgender Form: el-lu-tum eb-bu-tum šuk-na te-lil-[x].
36 Die von Seux 1981, 428 durch die Übersetzungen „pureté“ und „netteté“ implizierte Analyse dieser
beiden Formen als mit dem Morphem /-ūt/ gebildete substantivische Abstrakta (ebbūtu, namrūtu), die von
den Wurzeln ’BB und NMR abgeleitet sind, überzeugt nicht, da es unseres Wissens bislang keine eindeutigen
Belege für solche Substantive mit der Bedeutung „Reinheit“ bzw. „Strahlen“ im Akkadischen gibt (vergleiche
AHw 180b ebbūtum [„Vertrauensstellung“]; CAD E 4 ebbūtu s. [„trusteeship“] bzw. AHw 729a namrūtu
[„Perlmutter??“]; CAD N 244b namrūtu s. [„limestone(?)“]). Außerdem müsste nach dieser Lesart die Form
ebbūtīa als Genitiv Singular mit Possessiv-Suffix der 1. Person Singular analysiert werden. Ein Genitiv am
Satz- und Versbeginn wäre jedoch syntaktisch kaum zu erklären.
37 Siehe z. B. Zgoll 2003, 50 und Anm. 127; 92. Siehe auch die Bemerkungen zu den Zeilen 17–18.
38 Siehe z. B. Hecker 1974, 123–126; 136–138; von Soden 1995, 295 § 186 e.
39 Siehe Groneberg 1989, 9; Labat 1962, 4. 8; Landsberger 1915, 115–118; vergleiche van der Toorn
1985, 120.
110 Akkade is King
des Beters,40 sondern zunächst auch um strahlend saubere Gewänder (ṣubātū)41 gebeten wird. Es ist
jedoch auch nicht auszuschließen, dass der Vers auf eine fehlerhafte Überlieferung zurück geht.
Unabhängig von der syntaktischen und morphologischen Analyse des Verses fällt in
lexikalischer Hinsicht auf, dass die in ihm verwendeten Nomina von den Wurzeln ’LL, ’BB und
NMR abgeleitet sind und mithin an die Homoionymen-Trias ellu – ebbu – namru erinnern, die in
keilschriftlichen Wortlisten häufig als Ganze zur Erklärung eines einzelnen sumerischen Begriffes
entsprechender Bedeutung eingesetzt wurde.42
Zeilen 17–18: Auch wenn nicht auszuschließen ist, dass in Zeile 18 der Ausdruck [ši-gu]-˹ú˺
d
AM A ˹R.UD ˺ das direkte Objekt zu dem auf der Grundlage der Textvertreter Si. 8 Vs. 19 und CT
51, 206 Vs. 8ʹ rekonstruierten Prädikat luštammar darstellt,43 möchten wir aufgrund von inhaltlichen
Erwägungen vorschlagen, die Phrase kīam ludlul narbî ilūtīka rabīti kīam luštammar, „So will ich
preisen die Großtaten Deiner großen Gottheit, so will ich (sie) rühmen“, als Apokoinu (vergleiche
den Kommentar zu Zeile 16) zu analysieren, innerhalb dessen narbî ilūtīka rabīti als direktes Objekt
sowohl zu ludlul als auch zu luštammar fungiert. Der Bittruf šigû Marduk träte danach, wie auch in
allen folgenden Versen der «Bußlitanei», als sekundäre Interjektion syntaktisch unverbunden an die
voraus gehende Phrase an.
Offen bleibt, ob sich das Adverb kīam inhaltlich auf den davor stehenden Text (Übersetzung:
„demgemäß, dementsprechend“) oder eher auf die folgende «Bußlitanei» bezieht (Übersetzung:
„folgendermaßen, auf folgende Weise“). Möglicherweise ist zusätzlich zu den hier identifizierten
Apokoinu-Konstruktionen in den Zeilen 16–18 auch diese bidirektionale Bezüglichkeit intendiert.
Zeilen 19–24: Die Rekonstruktion dieser Zeilen stützt sich auf die in CT 51, 206 Vs. 9ʹ–13ʹ
erhaltenen Textpassagen (siehe Mayer 1976, 467 zu Zeile 20).
Zeilen 23–30: Der am Ende eines jeden Verses in diesem Abschnitt der «Bußlitanei«
erscheinende šigû-Ruf ist auf dem vorliegenden Manuskript in der Form ši, d. h. durch das erste
Zeichen der Phrase, graphisch abgekürzt wieder gegeben. Dabei bleibt unklar, ob die Abbreviatur
ši für den gesamten, in den Zeilen 18, 19 und 21 vollständig ausgeschriebenen Ruf „šigû Marduk“
(ši<‑gu-ú d AMAR.UD>) steht, oder lediglich für šigû (ši<‑gu-ú>), eine Annahme, die primär mit
Blick auf die in den Zeilen 23, 24 und gegebenenfalls 2544 angerufenen, von Marduk verschiedenen
Gottheiten sinnvoll erscheint.
Graphische Abkürzungen wie die in den Zeilen 23–30 verwendeten begegnen im 1. Jt. v.
40 Siehe CAD T 328–329 tēliltu s., besonders 329 c).

41 Vergleiche dazu die in CAD Ṣ 224–225 ṣubātu s. 1. b) 1ʹ; d) zitierten Textpassagen aus verschiedenen
Epochen, in denen das Substantiv ṣubātu und vom Verbum ebēbu abgeleitete Sprachformen im Topos der
«reinen Gewänder» verbunden sind.
42 Siehe beispielsweise CAD N /I 239–240 namru adj., lexikalischer Abschnitt.
43 Vergleiche dazu Mayer 1976, 112 Anm. 90 b).
44 Siehe dazu die Bemerkungen zu Zeile 25.
Chr. mit großer Regelmäßigkeit innerhalb von Litaneien, die in Emesal-Gebete eingebettet sind.45
Die Praxis selbst ist allerdings bereits in sumerischen Werken des 2. Jt. v. Chr. nachzuweisen (siehe
dazu z. B. Krecher 1966, 42–45; ders. 1980–1983, 5b). In den akkadischen Gebeten, die bei Ebeling
1953, Kunstmann 1932, Mayer 1976 sowie Zgoll 2003 behandelt sind, finden sich dagegen weder
entsprechend gestaltete Litaneien46 noch Abbreviaturen in der hier vorliegenden Art. Das auf der
Grundlage des Manuskripts IM 132516 erstmals vollständig rekonstruierte Gebet „Marduk 28“
scheint also in formaler Hinsicht eine Sonderstellung innerhalb des Korpus akkadischer Gebete des
1. Jt. v. Chr. einzunehmen und in seiner graphischen Gestaltung von den für die Niederschrift von
Emesal-Gebeten typischen Konventionen beeinflusst zu sein.
Zeile 25: Ob es sich bei der männlichen Gottheit, die in diesem Vers vom Beter als „mein Vater“
angesprochen wird, tatsächlich um den Sonnengott Šamaš handelt, ist nicht abschließend zu klären.
Immerhin lässt der epigraphische Befund diese Lesung als die plausibelste erscheinen. Es besteht
allerdings auch die Möglichkeit, dass der Bittruf abermals Marduk (˹ d ˺ [AM AR ? ]. ˹ UD ? ˺ ) gilt.
Zeilen 26–28: Zu diesem Abschnitt der Litanei vergleiche beispielsweise die Formulierungen
in Lambert 1974, 280 Zeile 123, Reiner 1956, 142 Zeile 50ʹ sowie von Weiher 1988 Nr. 81, 1–2.
Zeilen 29–30: Enge Parallelen zu den in diesen beiden Versen gewählten Wendungen liegen
etwa in Lambert 1974, 274 Zeile 27; 282 Zeilen 139–140 vor; vergleiche dazu noch Reiner 1956, 136
Zeile 93. Siehe weiterhin die in CAD K 10a kabāsu v. 5. a) zitierten Textstellen.
Zeilen 31–32: Die offenbar im Anschluss an Mayer 1976, 468 Zeilen 8–9 in CAD Š/III 342
šurbû adj. vorgenommene tentative Rekonstruktion dieses Textabschnitts kann nun anhand des
vorliegenden Manuskripts korrigiert werden. Zu der in Zeile 32 bezeugten Kombination der Verben
pašāru und pasāsu vergleiche etwa Reiner 1956, 136 Zeile 77; Lambert 1974, 274 Zeile 30 sowie
die entsprechenden, in CAD P 219 pasāsu v. 1. b) gebuchten Passagen. Zur Verwendung des hier
bezeugten Doppelungsstamms von pasāsu siehe CAD P 220 pasāsu v. 2. c).
Zeile 33: Die abschließende Bitte an Marduk und Zarpanītum šuknāni ḫīṭātīa ana damqāti,
„Verwandelt für mich meine Verfehlungen in Gutes!“ besitzt nahezu wörtlich damit übereinstimmende
Parallelen in den diĝir-šà-dib-ba-Gebeten: šukun ḫīṭātīa ana damqāti (siehe Lambert 1974, 274
Zeile 32) bzw. ḫīṭātīa [šukun] ana damqāti (siehe Lambert 1974, 280 Zeile 129); siehe dazu bereits
Seux 1981, 427 Anm. 3. Weitere Belege für den Ausdruck ana damiqti(m)/damqāti(m) šakānu(m),
„(etwas) in Gutes/Vorteilhaftes verwandeln“ bietet CAD Š/I 148b šakānu v. 6. a).
Zeile 35: Sollten die letzten in Zeile 35 erhaltenen Zeichenfragmente richtig gedeutet sein, war
der ursprüngliche Eigentümer des Manuskripts Mitglied einer Familie, deren Name mit dem Wort
šangû (LÚ.SA NGA) begann. In den photographisch dokumentierten Kolophonen der Manuskripte
45 Einen guten Überblick über die konkreten Ergebnisse dieser Schreibpraxis vermitteln etwa die bei
Cohen 1981, ders. 1988 sowie Maul 1988 edierten Manuskripte mit Emesal-Gebeten.
46 Vergleiche jedoch das bei Mayer 1976, 537–540, bearbeitete, fragmentarische Gebet an eine Göttin,
dessen letzter erhaltener Abschnitt (Zeilen 23ʹ–32ʹ) einer Litanei ähnlich zu sein scheint.
112 Akkade is King
aus der «Sippar-Bibliothek» sind drei entsprechende Familiennamen bezeugt: šangû Akkade47, šangû
Ištar Bābili48 und šangû Sippar49 (siehe Hilgert 2004, 291–300; ders. (im Druck)). Auffällig ist in
diesem Zusammenhang, dass es sich bei denjenigen Mitgliedern der Familie šangû Akkade, die die
Kolophone aus der «Sippar-Bibliothek» als Manuskripteigner oder -schreiber identifizieren und
deren Namen eine Berufs- bzw. Amtsbezeichnung beigegeben ist, stets um „Klagesänger“ (kalû)
handelt. Dagegen ist die einzige Berufsangabe, die nach den Kolophonen dieser Textsammlung für
Mitglieder der Familie šangû Sippar nachzuweisen ist, „Omenspezialist“ (bārû).50
Auch wenn unklar bleibt, ob der ursprüngliche Eigner des vorliegenden šigû-Manuskriptes
tatsächlich einer der drei genannten Familien angehörte und Dienste etwa des „Klagesängers“ oder
„Omenspezialisten“ versah, würde ein solcher Befund keineswegs überraschen. Denn er entspräche
der Beobachtung, dass beispielsweise diejenigen Manuskripte aus der «Sippar-Bibliothek», die
nach Ausweis ihrer Kolophone von „Klagesängern“ geschrieben wurden oder sich ursprünglich
im Besitz dieser Personen befanden, nicht nur, wie man vielleicht aufgrund der fachlichen
Spezialisierung der Eigner oder Schreiber erwarten würde, Gebete im Emesal-Soziolekt überliefern,
sondern auch lexikalische Kompendien, eine Götterliste, ein Kapitel aus dem terrestrischen
Omenkompendium šumma ālu, akkadische Gebete, den «Prolog» des «Kodex Ḫammurapi», eine
mathematische Reziprokentabelle sowie eine Beschwörung (siehe Hilgert 2004, 291–311).51 Eine
entsprechende inhaltliche Vielfalt kennzeichnet darüber hinaus etwa auch die Zusammensetzung
der Manuskriptbestände, die nach den sogenannten «Assyrian Library Records» Gelehrten anderer
Spezialisierungen zugeordnet werden können (z. B. āšipu, bārû). Das Wissen und die Bildung aller
dieser «Spezialisten» dürfte sich also nicht selten weit über die Grenzen ihres jeweiligen Fachgebiets
hinaus erstreckt haben.
47 Zu weiteren Mitgliedern dieser Familie siehe Bongenaar 1997, 541; Fadhil – Hilgert 2008, 185;
Jursa 1996, 197–211; ders. 1997, 101–104; ders. 1999, 288; da Riva 2002, 461.
48 Zu dieser Familie siehe Bongenaar 1997, 13–14. 240–242. 268–269. 435–446; Jursa 1999, 288; da
Riva 2002, 314. 461.
49 Zu dieser Familie siehe Bongenaar 1997, 13. 235. 240–241. 447–463; Jursa 1999, 288; da Riva 2002,
462.
50 Keine Berufs- bzw. Amtsbezeichnung ist für die in Manuskripten aus der «Sippar-Bibliothek»
erwähnten Mitglieder der Familie šangû Ištar Bābili belegt.
51 Von der Hand angehender „Omenspezialisten“ stammen in der «Sippar-Bibliothek» dagegen
ausschließlich Manuskripte, die mit einzelnen Kapiteln aus dem extispizinischen Omenkompendium bārûtu
beschrieben sind (siehe Hilgert 2004, 297–300).
IM 132516 (Sippar 8/198) Obverse

114 Akkade is King
IM 132516 (Sippar 8/198) Reverse

Bibliography
al-Rawi, F. N. H. and A. R. George 2006: “Tablets from the Sippar Library XIII. Enūma Anu Ellil XX”, Iraq
68, 23–57.
Attinger, P. 1993: Eléments de linguistique sumérienne. La construction de du11 /e/di <<dire>> (Orbis Biblicus
et Orientalis, Sonderband; Fribourg, Suisse : Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Bongenaar, A. C. V. M. 1997: The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and its
Prosopography (PIHANS 80; Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut te Istanbul).
Cohen, M. E. 1981: Sumerian Hymnology. The Eršemma (Hebrew Union College Annual Supplements 2;
Cincinnati, Oh.: Hebrew Union College).
––––––– 1988: The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia 1–2 (Potomac, Md.: CDL Press).
Cooper, J. S. 2005: “Right Writing: Talking about Sumerian Orthography and Texts”, Acta Sumerologica 22,
43–52.
Dietrich, M. 1969: “Untersuchungen zur Grammatik des Neubabylonischen. I. Die neubabylonischen

Subjunktionen”, in: W. Röllig (ed.), lišān mitḫurti. Festschrift Wolfram Freiherr von Soden zum 19. VI. 1968
gewidmet von Schülern und Mitarbeitern (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 1; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).
Ebeling, E. 1953: Die akkadische Gebetsserie „Handerhebung“ (Berlin: Akademie).
Ehlich, K. 1983: “Text und sprachliches Handeln. Die Entstehung von Texten aus dem Bedürfnis nach
Überlieferung”, in: A. Assmann et al. (eds.), Schrift und Gedächtnis. Beiträge zur Archäologie der literarischen
Kommunikation (München: Fink), 24–43.
––––––– 1994: “Funktion und Struktur schriftlicher Kommunikation”, in: H. Günther and O. Ludwig (eds.),
Schrift und Schriftlichkeit. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung 1 (Berlin; New York:
W. de Gruyter), 18–41.
Fadhil, A. and M. Hilgert 2008: “The Cultic Lament ‚a gal-gal buru14 su-su’ in a Manuscript from the ‚Sippar
Library’”, Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 1, 154–193.
Gössmann, F. 1968: “Der šiggayôn”, Augustianum 8, 361–381.
Groneberg, B. 1989: “Die Tage des šigû”, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1989/1, 7–10 Nr. 9.
Hecker, K. 1974: Untersuchungen zur akkadischen Epik (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Sonderreihe 8;
Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).
Hilgert, M. 2004: Bestand, Systematik und soziokultureller Kontext einer neubabylonischen ‚Tempelbibliothek’.
Ein Beitrag zur altorientalischen Textsammlungstypologie (Habilitationsschrift, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität
Jena).
––––––– 2010: “‘Text-Anthropologie’: Die Erforschung von Materialität und Präsenz des Geschriebenen
als hermeneutische Strategie”, in: M. Hilgert (ed.), Altorientalistik im 21. Jahrhundert. Selbstverständnis,
Herausforderungen, Ziele (Mitteilungen der Deutsche Orient Gesellschaft 142; Berlin: Deutsche Orient
Gesellschaft).
116 Akkade is King
––––––– (im Druck): “‘Tempelbibliothek’ oder ‘Tafeldepot’? Zum rezeptionspraktischen Kontext der ‘Sippar-
Bibliothek’”, in: W. Sallaberger et al. (eds.), CDOG 7.
Jursa, M. 1996: “Akkad, das Eulmaš und Gubāru”, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 86, 197–211.
––––––– 1997: “Nochmals Akkad”, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 87, 101–110.
––––––– 1999: Das Archiv des Bēl-rēmanni (PIHANS 86; Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch
Instituut te Istanbul).
Kilmer, A. D. 2003–2005: “Pauke und Trommel. A”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen
Archäologie 10, 367b–371b.
Krecher, J. 1966: Sumerische Kultlyrik (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
––––––– 1980–1983: “Klagelied”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6, 1a–6a.
Kunstmann, W. G. 1932: Die babylonische Gebetsbeschwörung (Leipziger Semitistische Studien, Neue Folge
2; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs).
Labat, R. 1962: “Jours prescrits pour la confession des péchés”, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale
56, 1–8.
Lambert, W. G. 1974: “DINGIR.ŠÀ.DIB.BA Incantations”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33, 267–322.
Landsberger, B. 1915: Der kultische Kalender der Babylonier und Assyrer (Leipziger Semitistische Studien 6,
1/2; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs).
––––––– 1937: Die Serie ana ittišu (Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon, Vokabulare und Formularbücher
1; Rome: Sumptibus Pontificii Instituti Biblici).
Linssen, M. J. H. 2004: The Cults of Uruk and Babylon. The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic
Cult Practice (Cuneiform Monographs 25; Leiden, Boston: Brill, Styx).
Maul, S. M. 1988: ‘Herzberuhigungsklagen’: Die sumerisch-akkadischen Eršaḫunga-Gebete (Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz).
––––––– 1994: Zukunftsbewältigung. Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babylonisch-
assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi) (Baghdader Forschungen 18; Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern).
Mayer, W. 1976: Untersuchungen zur Formensprache der babylonischen „Gebetsbeschwörungen“ (Studia

Pohl: Series maior 5; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum).
Oppenheim, A. L. et al. (eds.) 1956– : The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago (Chicago, Ill.: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago).
Reiner, E. 1956: “Lipšur Litanies”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15, 129–149.
da Riva, R. 2002: Der Ebabbar-Tempel von Sippar in frühneubabylonischer Zeit (640–580 v. Chr.) (Alter
Orient und Altes Testament 291; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Schwemer, D. 2004: “Ein akkadischer Liebeszauber aus Ḫattuša”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und
Vorderasiatische Archäologie 94, 59–69.
Seux, M.-J. 1981: “Šiggayôn = šigû?”, in: A. Caquot – M. Delcor (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux
en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag),
419–438.
Soden, W. von 1965–81: Akkadisches Handwörterbuch 1–3 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
––––––– 1995: Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (3., ergänzte Auflage, Analecta Orientalia 33; Rome:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum).
van der Toorn, K. 1985: Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia. A Comparative Study (Assen: Van
Gorcum).
von Weiher, E. 1988: Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk. Teil 3 (Ausgrabungen der Deutschen
Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 12; Berlin: Mann).
Zgoll, A. 1997: Der Rechtsfall der En-ḫedu-ana im Lied Nin-me-šara (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 246;
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
––––––– 2003: Die Kunst des Betens. Form und Funktion, Theologie und Psychagogik in babylonisch-
assyrischen Handerhebungsgebeten an Ištar (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 308; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
A Life’s Journey — Reflections on Death in the Gilgamesh Epic1
Laura Feldt and Ulla Susanne Koch, Copenhagen
The Babylonian Epic of the valiant hero Gilgamesh, king of Uruk, consists of a series of
episodes, which all primarily centre on one theme: human attitudes towards death. By focusing on
one person’s struggle to accept death as one of the fundamental conditions of life, the epic comes to
reflect on many other aspects of life both heroic and mundane: family, friendship, fame, kingship,
temple service, felling trees and killing wild bulls. But more than anything, the epic is about one
person’s journey to greater existential insight, or, in other words, coming to terms with human
mortality. In its own way, the Gilgamesh epic is an early Bildungsroman,2 a story of venturing out
into the world in order to meet oneself and, not least, about finding home after facing the boundaries
of the world and of oneself.
This paper will argue that the narrative of the Gilgamesh epic presents a peculiar structure
in which spatial aspects are related to the existential attitudes of the protagonist. This forms our
basic interpretive grid, as we show how the text seems to design a complex metaphor in which
Gilgamesh’s spatial movement through a series of domains expresses his attitude with respect to
death. Our analysis shows that the basic domains that Gilgamesh’s movements circumscribe are
those of Nature, Culture, and Supernature,3 and we argue that the epic is concerned with maintaining
the proper boundaries between these domains. For that reason, the epic pays considerable attention
to monstrous identity and the liminal spaces in between the three domains as these play important
roles for the hero’s attainment of the attitude towards death that the epic eventually endorses. There
are many aspects of this epic that we cannot treat in detail, but we do claim that existential questions
permeate the entire epic and that we will gain important insight into the central problems that the
narrative treats by focusing on them.
The history of the evolution of the Gilgamesh epic is a complex affair. In this article we
primarily use the so-called classical version known from texts from the first millennium. This version
1 We wish to thank Dina Westenholz-Smith for applying a sharp editorial eye on a previous version of
this paper.
2 Jacobsen 1978, 219 was probably the first to dub the Gilgamesh epic a “story of growing up”, seeing
it as an allegory of the individual’s psychological development from recalcitrant child to mature adult.
3 Most previous analyses have centred on the nature-culture or the life-death dichotomy, e.g. Kirk
1970, 145 ff. or on one of the prominent themes, e.g. friendship, for instance Landsberger 1977, 171-177.
Death has often been recognised as a central theme, e.g. Heidel 1949. Jacobsen understood the “contrasting
attitudes towards death” as expressing the central theme of the epic (1978, 215). Speiser 1969, 72, summed
these themes up nicely: “man and nature, love and adventure, friendship and combat – all masterfully blended
into a background of the stark reality of death”. The word Culture is capitalized when we refer to these domains
and otherwise not.
120 Akkade is King
is written on twelve tablets of roughly 300 lines each and is available in a new edition by A. R.
George.4 When the Sumerian traditions are referred to, we use the ETCSL edition.5
Journeying Through Worlds

As clearly stated in the beginning of the epic, the narrative presents itself as a journey towards
greater insight (Tablet I, 1-10). The epic is, of course, a travelogue, being the story of a man’s journey.
But metaphorically, too, the story is about travelling. The spatial positions that the hero occupies at
various points in the narrative are semantically charged.6 The epic reveals its message by letting the
hero journey between various spaces or worlds that are invested with meaning and the core theme
of the narrative is about what happens when you transgress the boundaries between these worlds
or spaces. Drawing on contemporary theories from cultural studies on monsters and boundaries,
we will try to show the centrality of monsters and boundary-transgressions to the epic’s existential
exploration of death.
In order to shed light on the worlds journeyed in, the boundaries transgressed, and their
relationship to death, let us first look at the structure of the epic. The epic may be divided into two
sections, namely before and after the death of Enkidu. Part One thus consists of Tablets I-VI, Part
Two of Tablets VII-XI(XII). Tablet VII is the middle chapter in which the pivotal event of the epic
takes place: the death of Enkidu. The two parts may be seen as structurally parallel. The development
in the attitude towards life and death is portrayed in the epic by means of a chiastic structure: a-b-
b-a. In each part of the epic a hero leaves his world to enter another, and both journeys result in a
return to order and the death of the hero: Enkidu suffers death in a concrete, bodily way at the end
of Part One, whereas Gilgamesh upon his return to Uruk at the end of Part Two has accepted that
death is his destiny. These two journeys make us see that the epic operates with three worlds or
spheres: the world of the wild animals (Nature), the human world (Culture), and the world of the
gods (Supernature).7 Enkidu, who lives among the wild animals in Nature, travels into the world of
Culture. Gilgamesh, the cultural hero, who lives in the contemporary epitome of Culture, the city of
Uruk, travels towards Supernature but is forced to return to the world of humans. The spatial system
that makes up the cosmos of the epic is thus “Nature”, “Culture”, and ”Supernature”, as it were.
Gods, humans, and animals exist and act in these worlds or spheres according to their abilities and
natures. In Assyriological research, Babylonian cosmology is traditionally described in emic terms,
according to which the cosmos is divided into four or more layers. The basic layout of the cosmos is
4 George 2003. It is our view that the epic of Gilgamesh is too well-known to warrant an overall summary.
5 Black et al. 1998-2006.
6 Jensen 1983, 57-84, has a similar point of departure, but his treatment of the epic is placed within a
structuralist framework.
7 Boyer 1982, 5-34, esp. p. 19.
L. Feldt and U. S. Koch: A Life’s Journey 121
thus that of one (or more) heavens, earth, the subterranean waters (abzu), and finally the underworld.8
In this analysis, we take an etic approach inspired by anthropologist Pascal Boyer’s suggestions.9 We
argue that the relationship between the three domains of Nature, Culture, and Supernature and the
existential position of the hero with respect to death is important for understanding the final attitude
towards death that the epic endorses, and that it will also throw light on minor issues such as why
Enkidu must die and why Enlil agrees to give Ishtar the Bull of Heaven.
The boundaries between the domains are not hermetically sealed. Rather, they may be
understood as spaces which function as contact zones, sluices, where the worlds touch and contact
is possible. As the French historian and anthropologist Michel de Certeau has shown, a boundary
as a cultural phenomenon is not a line, but a space with a mediating role created by contacts.10
Points of differentiation between identities or domains are also their mediating points, and therefore
a boundary functions as a space between, a Zwischenraum, composed of interactions, exchange and
encounter.11 Monsters as category-transgressive creatures may be seen as inhabiting or embodying
these boundary regions between domains of cultural meaning. Monsters articulate the boundary as
a concept: the ambivalence, the neither-nor, both-and, the uncertainty, fluidity and potentiality of
the space in between identities, of boundary spaces. As boundary phenomena they may assist in the
creation and/or maintenance of a cultural order by helping to mark its boundaries.12 Monsters are thus
eminently usable, in fact necessary, for an exploration of the boundaries of life and death.
The epic expresses the message that to transgress the cultural boundaries between the domains
of Nature, Culture, and Supernature is risky and may have fatal consequences for humans and gods
alike.13 The heroes of the Gilgamesh epic attempt to ignore the basic structure of the cosmos, and
each tries to transgress the boundaries of his world of origin, but the epic reaffirms the validity of the
structure by not allowing either traveller to remain in the world that he has travelled into. The epic
articulates its speculations about death in the idea of a journey between these domains.
Monstrous Heroes, Boundaries, and the Return to Order

As stated, the epic’s basic domains are that of Nature, where the wild animals live, Culture,
inhabited by humans, and Supernature, home of the gods. What is interesting, however, is that,
although they are human, neither Gilgamesh nor Enkidu seem to fit easily into the world of Culture.
8 See for instance, Horowitz 1998, with previous literature.
9 Boyer 1982, 5-34.
10 de Certeau 1984, 127.
11 For further theoretical elaboration of monstrosity and boundaries in relation to religion, see Feldt
2003; in general see de Certeau 1984, 115-130 on the cultural phenomena boundary and bridge.
12 On monsters and monstrosity, see Feldt 2003; 2006; and Feldt forthcoming.
13 Crossing boundaries is, in fact, a recurring theme in the epic tradition, e.g. The Etana Epic (Kinnier
Wilson 1985 and Saporetti 1990) and the story of Adapa (Izre’el 2001). This suggests that the motifs we
investigate are relevant for Mesopotamian religion in general.
122 Akkade is King
This is what makes them apt to explore the boundaries of humankind. Enkidu, who has a share in the
world of Nature, and Gilgamesh, who has a share in the divine world, are able to test the boundaries
of human life in ways not accessible to normal humans. In this way, the two monstrous heroes
clarify what is specifically human exactly because they are not typically human themselves. They
stand above or beside normal categories and are thus ascribed monstrosity; their task is to stand at
society’s border in order to help define it.14 Each hero is given a paradoxical characterisation, so that
a slight discrepancy between each hero’s nature and his position is established. But the paradox is
solved and the two aspects may be integrated into the analysis, if we realise that the hero’s passage
to another world is of less importance than his return to the sphere to which he belongs – his world
of origin. Note, that the journeys of both protagonists fail: both are made to return to their world of
origin. Their stay in the other world is wholly transitory. In this context it seems that the primary
problem that the epic reflects upon is the maintenance of a proper distance and clear limits between
the worlds established by the cosmology of the text.15 The attention that the epic spends on monsters
and boundary regions demonstrates that the upkeep of the important boundaries between worlds is
no easy affair. The epic labours to confirm the basic boundaries between the domains of its cosmos
– Nature, Culture and Supernature – and its central message is that the inhabitants of each domain
must remain within in these boundaries. The epic’s plot threatens to turn the order of the cosmos
upside-down, but the narrative ends in a demonstration of the pointlessness of opposition to the terms
and boundaries of this order. The epic shows us a momentary disruption of order, for the purpose of
finally confirming it. In this way, we are brought to see that what Gilgamesh attempts to do in the
second half of the epic is an impossible negation of the conditions of human life.
The structure of the epic may be compared to the circular structure of a rite of passage, for
instance a purification ritual. Its point of departure is normal everyday existence, which has come
under threat (from illness, depression, magic or other dangers). The ritual participant moves from
everyday existence to a temporary stay in another sphere beyond the boundaries of normal life (the
liminal phase), in order to return transformed (strengthened, purified, cured) to everyday life. The
stay in “another world” may be ritually marked in various ways: one may use a circle of flour in order
to create an ad hoc supernatural space, one may stay in a special building (bit rimki, for instance),16 or
use a procession out of the city to a special temple in the steppe, to mention Babylonian examples. In
all cases a boundary is transgressed, the laws of everyday human life are temporarily broken or turned
upside down as the ritual participant is betwixt and between the ordinary cultural classifications and
categories. Afterwards, the participant returns strengthened to his/her normal world. Liminality17 as
14 Jensen 1998.
15 Boyer 1982, 5-20.
16 Læssøe 1967 and Borger 1967.
17 The concept originated with van Gennep 1909, 116 f., 124, 161 ff., 210 f., 263-267, but was unfolded
and elaborated by Turner 1977, 37 f.
a concept primarily concerns this temporary phase of a rite of passage according to Victor Turner.18
However, the concept can be broadened to include space and action categories.19 If we, as previously
mentioned, understand a boundary not as a line but as space of exchange and encounter in between
domains of cultural meaning, which those who straddle the domains (as do Enkidu and Gilgamesh)
can traverse, we may link this understanding of the boundary to the concept of liminality. In this
way, the boundary regions in between the domains of Nature, Culture, and Supernature as well as the
monsters may be grasped theoretically. The boundary regions (liminality as a space) of the epic signify
in-between zones of exchange and encounter, from which one may return strengthened. Monsters
(liminality as embodied action) are figures of transformation and exchange that may perform both
negative and positive functions.20
In the context of the Gilgamesh Epic, it is significant to stress that any temporary stay in a
different sphere may test boundaries, but does not break them down; rather it affirms them.21 Enkidu,
nature’s child, does not survive his transition to the world of Culture, and Gilgamesh from the world
of Culture cannot stay in Supernature’s boundary region, but is forced to return to Culture in the
end. Similarly, Humbaba as a monster appropriately inhabits a place in the boundary region of the
Cedar Forest. The epic’s focus on boundaries and monstrosity in the end confirms and strengthens
its cosmology and the inevitable discontinuity between the different worlds. In the following, we
elaborate this point and relate it to the issue of attitudes towards death.
A Sumerian Intertext22
The first half of the epic may be said to concern boundary transgressions, journeys between
worlds and killings of monstrous boundary-guardians like Humbaba and the Bull of Heaven. But
what does all of this have to do with death? At this point it might clarify the issue to consider the
differences between the first half of the Babylonian epic and the Sumerian Gilgamesh traditions.
The Sumerian traditions are quite important as background material for the first half of the epic. The
Sumerian literature about Gilgamesh consists of a series of short stories, the plots of which may be
recognized as episodes in the Babylonian epic.23 The story of Gilgamesh and Huwawa is relevant to
consider in connection with the theme of death in the classical version. In it we recognise the main
lines of the content of Tablets IV and V and the raid against Humbaba. In the Sumerian version,
Gilgamesh sets out towards Huwawa’s cedar wood with the one clear purpose of becoming famous:
18 Turner 1969, 73 f.; 1974, 231-233; 1977, 36-38; Alexander 1991, 29-33.
19 Feldt 2003, 48-49.
20 Feldt 2003, 59.
21 This structure, typical of rites-de-passages in general, is characteristic of many Babylonian rituals,
e.g. mis pî , see Walker and Dick 1999, 68 ff with reference to a doctoral dissertation by Peg Boden.
22 For a brief exposition of the concept of intertextuality, see Lachmann 2004, 173.
23 See George 2003, 18 ff. and Tigay 1982, 40 ff.
124 Akkade is King
to attain a metaphorical immortality by felling cedars. The text VERSION A24 explains this clearly:
(Lines 1-3) “Now the lord once decided to set off for the mountain where the man lives;
lord Gilgamesh decided to set off for the mountain where the man lives. He spoke to his slave
Enkidu: (Lines 4-7) “Enkidu, since a man cannot pass beyond the final end of life, I want to set
off into the mountains, to establish my renown there. Where renown can be established there,
I will establish my renown; and where no renown can be established there, I shall establish the
renown of the gods.”
(Gilgamesh and Huwawa Version A: 1-7)
VERSION B25 explains that Gilgamesh has seen the people of his city die, their bodies drift
down the river, and realizes that he too will die. Therefore he seeks eternal fame, he wishes to do
something that will be remembered, and in this way transcend death:
(Lines 1-4) “So come on now, you heroic bearer of a sceptre of wide-ranging power!
Noble glory of the gods, angry bull standing ready for a fight! Young lord Gilgamesh, cherished
in Uruk!” (Lines 5-21): “In Uruk, people are dying, and souls are full of distress. People are
lost -- that fills me with dismay. I lean out over the city wall: bodies in the water make the river
almost overflow. That is what I see: that people die thus, which fills me with despair; that the
end of life is unavoidable; that the grave, the all-powerful underworld, will spare no one; that
no one is tall enough to block off the underworld; that no one is broad enough to cover over the
underworld -- the boundary that a man cannot cross at the final end of life. By the life of my own
mother Ninsumun, and of my father, holy Lugalbanda! My personal god Enki, lord Nudimmud,
[three lines fragmentary]. I will complete... there. I will bring... there”.
(Gilgamesh and Huwawa Version B: 1-21)
This motif is also to be found in the Babylonian version, only it is much clearer in the Sumerian
story, which begs the question: why has this motif been downplayed in the Babylonian narrative?
The answer must be connected to the other major difference between the two versions: Enkidu’s
significant upgrade from being Gilgamesh’s servant in the Sumerian version to being Gilgamesh’s
equal, his friend, in the Babylonian version. Enkidu is a very important person in the Babylonian
narrative. Created by the gods as an equal and a match for king Gilgamesh, presented as a wild,
natural Tarzan from the steppe, he is a wild man in need of enculturation:26
“In the wild she (Aruru) created Enkidu, the hero,
An offspring of silence, knit strong by Ninurta.
Shaggy is he all over his body,
The hair on his head is like that of a woman,
The fleece of his hair is thick like a cornfield,.
Nothing knows he of people or country.
His garment is that of a beast [i.e. his own fur].
24 Cf. ETCSL composition 1.8.1.5.

25 Cf. ETCSL composition 1.8.1.5.1.
26 Cf. Westenholz and Koch-Westenholz 2000, 437-452.
With the gazelles he feeds on the grass,

With the animals he jostles at the watering hole,
With the wild animals he enjoys water”
(Gilgamesh, Tablet I: 103-112)
Gilgamesh’s friendship with him is critical to the plot, especially because it is only the death
of his friend and equal Enkidu that makes the king see that death is also his destiny. The Babylonian
narrative uses Enkidu to emphasize the great value of friendship for the good life, as well as to
formulate a message about the value of Culture and city life. This is accomplished by the juxtaposition
of nature’s child Enkidu and the cultural hero Gilgamesh. In this way the epic portrays what Culture
and city life consists of, and affirms its value, but the Sumerian intertext places these motifs within
the overall frame of reflections on death and immortality. We return to this below.
The motif of seeking eternal fame that transcends death in the Sumerian tradition is an important
background for the Babylonian epic. Without it, we would not understand the motivation for the
quest of the heroes to Humbaba in the Babylonian narrative. This motivation is also directly stated in
the Babylonian narrative (e.g. Tablet IV: 248, V: 188), but the primary function of the journey is to
solidify the friendship between Enkidu and Gilgamesh, rather than a quest for immortality. The role
that Enkidu plays in the Babylonian epic is important: his character is used to formulate a message
about the nature of human life in the world of Culture. Enkidu, this child of nature, this half-animal,
his life, death and his close friendship with the narrative’s protagonist, Gilgamesh, function as a
catalyst that helps disclose what true human life and Culture is.27
Enkidu Must Die – Or: On the Importance of Boundaries

What then, of our hero and the changes he undergoes in the first half of the epic? Gilgamesh is
presented as a powerful, but despotic, ruler in the city of Uruk: he exercises a regime of terror. He is
uncontrollable and ruthless in his treatment of his subjects. His behaviour is in violation of the rules
for behaviour within Culture and thereby transgresses the norms of the cultural world. The gods are
made aware of the problem and do not hesitate to take action: Gilgamesh must change his behaviour,
he must adhere to the rules of Culture, and create peace in the city of Uruk. To solve this problem, the
wild man Enkidu is created: he is to be Gilgamesh’s equal and peer, someone to match his strength
and to provide a new focus for Gilgamesh’s attention. Enkidu, too, is a boundary-transgressor in his
world, the world of Nature: the presence of a human animal on the steppe creates problems for the
animals, for the hunter and disturbs the regular order of things. His introduction into Culture is a
solution to both of these initial problems: these two boundary-transgressors keep each other in check.
However, the meeting of the hero and his friend only solves the boundary-problems temporarily.
After having tested each other’s strength, they form a strong friendship and their attention is directed
away from each other and towards the boundary region between Nature, Culture and Supernature:
the cedar wood of Humbaba. And here, they create new problems by transgressing the boundaries
27 See the analysis in Westenholz and Koch-Westenholz 2000, 444.

126 Akkade is King
in new ways. The killing of the monster Humbaba is a transgressive act, for he is the legitimate
guardian of the cedar forest, instated by the gods. Humbaba scorns Enkidu and chides him for being
a creature who, like a fish, does not know his own father and who never even sucked the milk of
his mother.28 He accuses Enkidu of being a traitor to their common monstrous nature (Tablet V: 87-
92, 175-176). The two friends do not fully realize what they have done – that they have disturbed
the order of the world, though they are aware that the gods could be angry with them when they
learn of their impetuous actions (Tablet V: 186). Upon their return, Gilgamesh is propositioned by
the goddess Ishtar. He contemptuously rejects her advances. His rejection of her advances is quite
appropriate from the point of view that a liaison between god and human would be a transgressive
act, but it is nevertheless an insult. This leads to her bringing the gigantic, violent monster, the Bull
of Heaven from heaven, Supernature, to earth, the world of Culture, where it wreaks havoc. She
forces her father Anu to lend her the bull by threatening an even worse breaking of boundaries,
namely smashing the underworld and bringing the dead out among the living (Tablet VI: 97-100).
The decisive boundary under threat here is, notably, not the boundary between the living and the
dead,29 but the boundary between Supernature and Culture. We understand Anu’s willingness to
give the Bull of Heaven to Ishtar despite of the havoc he knows it will wreak as an attempt to escape
the much worse threat of a prolonged and cataclysmic break of the boundary between Supernature
(the realm of the dead) and Culture, as opposed to the momentary and local rupture of boundaries
involved in the Bull of Heaven’s “visit” to Uruk. Be that as it may, the heroes’ slaughter of the Bull of
Heaven is a transgressive act, as was the slaughter of Humbaba. On top of this, Enkidu aggravates the
transgression by hurling a final gross insult at Ishtar (Tablet VI: 154-157). These serious disturbances
of the world order need mending: the gods decide that Enkidu must die as a punishment for the
impertinent boundary-transgressions. But why Enkidu?
Enkidu is a monstrous persona in that he embodies the transition from one domain, Nature,
to another, Culture; he constitutes an intersection of Nature and Culture which is neither Nature nor
Culture. Thus, he represents an uncanny third domain, namely the meeting of domains, the boundary
between them. For that reason, he is a monstrous presence in the domain of Culture, exceeding
Nature, but not yet Culture. In accordance with the general message of the epic on the importance of
maintaining the proper boundaries between domains, Enkidu must therefore die. The transgressive
acts of the protagonists are, of course, transgressive in their own right, but also function as the reason
for the gods’ violence against Enkidu, who by virtue of his mere existence as a mixed creature
(Nature resembling Culture) undermines the world order from within.30 His death is fundamentally
necessary to uphold the world order that the epic posits.
28 These phrases may be seen as intertextual signals of monstrous nature found elsewhere in
Mesopotamian literature, see, for instance, Lugale, lines 27-30.
29 E.g. Katz 2001, 1.
30 Theoretical inspiration is here drawn from Slavoj Žižek’s analysis of ideology in Žižek 2008, 205-209.
Metaphorical Immortality – On the Nature of Heroism

Now, let us pursue the issue of heroism and eternal fame carried over from the Sumerian story,
for the question of heroism and what it leads to is central to the first half of the epic. The heroes are in
search of eternal fame, metaphorical immortality, but what they find, instead, is concrete bodily death
– this is Enkidu’s lot. The attainment of metaphorical immortality turns out to be quite complicated.31
In the course of the narrative, we as readers are, along with Gilgamesh, brought to see the paradoxical
nature of all heroic acts: the mighty acts that may lead to eternal fame – one form of immortality
– are usually deadly dangerous to perform. In fact, the sine qua non of heroic acts seems to be that
performing them might kill you. Standing at the entrance to Humbaba’s forest, one of the two friends
becomes painfully aware of this.32 He is paralyzed by fear (Tablet IV: 229-230), and feels unable to
continue. Gilgamesh has to give a persuasive pep-talk about courage, the power of friendship, and
the fame that they will acquire, in order for him to carry on. It is as if they do not fully realize the
paradoxical nature of heroic acts until then. Enkidu, perhaps, was aware of the nature of heroism,
because before their departure from Uruk he tried, unsuccessfully, to dissuade Gilgamesh from going.
The dangerous logic of heroism does not dawn on the impetuous Gilgamesh until he stands at the
entrance of the cedar forest and realizes how dangerous their quest is. Metaphorical immortality is
paradoxical: in order to win life (eternal fame), one must risk life (concrete bodily existence). The
heroes do not die a bodily death as an immediate consequence of their heroic act. The consequences
of it are, however, fatal for both of them. Gilgamesh’s many ill-foreboding dreams en route are
premonitions of this, both to the heroes and to us as readers (Tablet IV: 6 passim). They remain
foreboding in spite of Enkidu’s eager attempts at overly positive interpretations. When confronting
Humbaba in the forest, Gilgamesh loses courage and his friend goads him: “Why, my friend, [do you]
speak like a weakling? With your feeble talk you vex my heart” (Tablet V: 100-101). He probably
also refers to the name he will make for himself: “Establish an eternal […..] how Gilgamesh [slew]
Humbaba [….]” (Tablet V: 188-189). When Humbaba realizes his attempts to plead with them to
spare his life have failed, he curses them: “May the pair of them not grow old, apart from his friend
Gilgamesh, may Enkidu have nobody to bury him!” (Tablet V: 256-257). Before he can embellish
upon this curse, the friends now hurry to kill him. And as Gilgamesh is brought to realize along the
way, they are both to die, even if they did not die while performing their heroic act.
31 Both protagonists do, in fact, attain metaphorical immortality, because the Gilgamesh epic is still
read and interpreted today. The epic is self-reflexively aware of this – and this is, we believe, part of its message
– as is seen especially in its opening stanza.
32 The text is broken and it is somewhat unclear which one of the friends is the hesitant and which one
encourages the other to go on. In George’s interpretation Gilgamesh is the undaunted one. This is in accordance
with the roles at the outset of the journey, but not with Enkidu’s attempts to interpret Gilgamesh’s clearly
foreboding dreams as favourable signs.
128 Akkade is King
Gilgamesh faces his mortality

On Tablet VII, the drama of the epic culminates with the death of Enkidu. At the same time, our
protagonist Gilgamesh reaches an emotional nadir. This tablet forms the pivotal point of the epic, and
the death of his beloved friend becomes a vehicle for Gilgamesh’s development from self-centered,
careless he-man to a responsible and knowledgeable king. Enkidu’s death is Gilgamesh’s first real
confrontation with bodily death and the concomitant, inevitable physical collapse of the body.33
Enkidu, in his famous deathbed speech, angrily curses his own introduction into Culture
and all the circumstances that have led to his imminent death. The sun-god Shamash manages to
calm him by reminding him of all the good sides of Culture: love-making, food, beer, clothes – and,
not least, friendship. Facing death, Enkidu admits that he has no options but to bless Culture – in
spite of Culture’s fatal effects on him. What Culture consists of is verbalised in several dimensions,
but friendship and the burial and mourning rituals that one’s real friends take care of after one’s
death receive special attention. The speech reveals an important message: Culture is worth dying for.
Enkidu dies at peace with his destiny. The speech is followed by a dream in which Enkidu gets a
vision of the underworld. It is emphasised that even kings and priests die and all live an empty life
in the shadows of the underworld. There are no exceptions – all humans, including the rich and
powerful, end up in the realm of the dead. Death is the destiny that unites all of humankind. But
Gilgamesh has yet to come to terms with this.
Gilgamesh vehemently grieves the loss of his beloved friend, a very understandable and
very human feeling: “Now what sleep is it that has seized [you?]; You have become unconscious and
cannot hear [me!]” (Tablet VIII: 55-56). In spite of his previous encounters with death and his fear of
death before the encounter with Humbaba, it is not until now that he, sitting by Enkidu’s dead body,
faces his own mortality: He too is just a man, and he too will die, just like Enkidu. In spite of his
superhuman strength and in spite of him being two-thirds divine, death will get him too: “I shall die,
and shall I not be like Enkidu? Sorrow has entered my heart. I became afraid of death” (Tablet IX:
3-5). Enkidu was created by the gods to play the role of peer for the untamed king, and he was the
first person that Gilgamesh accepted as his peer. This is the reason that his death frightens Gilgamesh
so much. One of the benefits of Culture that Shamash mentions to Enkidu in his attempts to comfort
him is that his death will not go unnoticed as if he were an animal on the steppe (Tablet VII: 134 ff.).
On the contrary, Gilgamesh will make sure that “[the princes] of the earth will kiss your feet. [He
will make] weep for you the people of Uruk, he will make them sob for you, the people [so bonny] he
will fill with grief for you. [And] he, after you are gone he will have himself bear the matted hair of
33 This seems to be a particularly apt illustration of Pascal Boyer’s cognitive theory about how religious
representations arise: faced with the phenomenon of a dead body, human minds are likely to generate religious
representations because a dead body activates conflicting category assumptions in the mind (those of the thing
and of the person categories). A dead body is thus, in Boyer’s terminology, counter-intuitive and it is therefore
likely that the mind generates religious representations around it (Boyer 2001, 241-243).
mourning, [he will don] the skin of a lion and go roaming the [wild].” (Tablet VII: 143-147). And that
is exactly what Gilgamesh does. He makes sure that the funeral is exquisite and attempts to secure
his friend’s destiny in the underworld as well as he possibly can by means of votive presents for all
relevant deities (Tablet VIII: 92 ff.). Only then does he, anguished by the horror of death, embark on
his journey to find Utnapishtim. Gilgamesh seeks his help to overcome the bodily death that he so
fears.
Utnapishtim
Utnapishtim is the only person who has “found life” (Tablet XI: 7) or who, in other words,
is immortal or lives forever. Utnapishtim has not become divine; he is no deity and does not live
in a sacred abode. He is merely an immortal human, living at the world’s end. He does not belong
in this world, nor in the Supernatural world, but inhabits a boundary region, isolated from both the
human world and the divine realm. The story of the great flood has been added to the Gilgamesh
epic in abbreviated form. The long version in Atrahasis has anthropology as its central theme: the
creation of humankind and its role and place in the cosmos. In Gilgamesh, the story has been added
as a natural part of the framing narrative as an explanation for why and how a human being could
transgress the boundaries of normal human existence and escape death. It also contributes to marking
the boundaries between the realms or worlds posited in the epic, and to defining how an exchange
between the realms can come about and when it, instead, turns into a dangerous transgression. Both
gods and humans face danger when they transgress the boundaries and enter another realm than
their realm of origin. The order of the world is unsettled. Even if the deities control the supernatural
powers better than humans, these powers are stronger than the gods and things may get out of control
as in the case of the great flood, where even the gods had to seek refuge. Ea, deity of wisdom and
magic, urged the deities to hold back and, instead of using weapons of mass destruction, as it were,
to use plague, famine, and wild animals to reduce the number of humans (Tablet XI: 181 ff.).
Gilgamesh, who seeks Utnapishtim’s help to secure eternal life for himself, needs to pass
through two boundary zones or gates to get to him. The first gate is the “Path of the Sun”, the sun’s
passage underneath the mountains – where the sun goes at night to get from west to east.34 His journey
brings him to the “Twin mountain”. Possibly Sin told him the way there (Tablet IX: 10ff). This
mountain functions as a connecting link between this world and the supernatural world: heaven and
underworld – “their tops [abut] the fabric of the heavens, their bases reach down to the Netherworld”
(Tablet IX: 40-41). The opening is guarded by two frightful scorpion-men who protect the sun at
its rising and setting. Even Shamash is at risk when crossing boundaries and needs protection by
monstrous beings. This illustrates again the message that messing with the basic boundaries between
domains is risky, even for the gods.
On his journey, Gilgamesh tells those he meets of the impression that Enkidu’s death has
34 For a discussion of Gilgamesh’s journey, cf. Horowitz 1998, chapter 5; an example of an emic-
descriptive approach to Mesopotamian cosmology.
130 Akkade is King
made on him, and he is subsequently offered their advice, and in this way, the epic offers different
answers to Gilgamesh’s problem. The answers are voiced by the different persons he meets. Each
person counsels him in his/her own way according to his/her life experiences. The speech of the
alewife Siduri is prosaic and consists of common wisdom, put in a way that speaks immediately to
us across the millennia: there is nothing to do about the fact of death; all you can do is enjoy the time
allotted to you – eat, drink and be merry!
Utnapishtim, the object of Gilgamesh’s journey, was once a king, too. His speech is more
poetic and his first piece of advice to Gilgamesh is to rejoice at his privileged standing in life: A
king, who is intelligent and therefore obliged to care for the weak (Tablet X: 267 ff.). Still, there is
no cheating death, so always look on the bright side of life... Worry, sorrow and complaint will only
draw one’s dying day closer. After all he has been through, Gilgamesh has no choice but to return to
his point of departure. He did not gain eternal life, but he does not return empty-handed: he is wiser
– in life and death.
Descriptions of Death
The descriptions of death in the epic all attest that it is inevitable, its timing unforeseeable, and
that the life of the dead in the underworld is dark, dusty and sad.35 This relates to Enkidu’s death in
Tablet VII when Enkidu sees what awaits him in the underworld in a vision. In the epilogue, Tablet
XII, which is not part of the frame narrative, further details about the destiny of the dead are relayed.
The life of the dead is depicted in contrast to the life of the living, in words that express an opposition
to life as we know it – words such as passivity, darkness, and dust. The afterlife is not desirable in
any way. Rather, it is a form of non-life, a shadow existence. No notions of judgment, reward, or
punishment are connected with death – the same fate awaits everyone without exception. The only
thing that might ease one’s “life” in the realm of the dead is the sacrifice of water by one’s relatives.
All images of death and the condition of humans after death stress the universality of death, that it
strikes everyone and that it disregards personal advantage and social standing. The inevitability with
which death is portrayed in the Gilgamesh epic affirms beyond a doubt that it is a boundary that
cannot be crossed. However, as we will show in the next section, Gilgamesh’s travels to and testing
of this boundary offer a catalogue of human attitudes towards death and a catalyst for existential
reflection.
Change and Development in Gilgamesh’s Views of Life and Death

The story of Gilgamesh exemplifies the different attitudes towards death that people usually
have by means of one legendary figure: a superficial acceptance of death, which is usually destroyed
by one’s first real encounter with the concrete, bodily death of a loved one, the horror of bodily
decrepitude, the wish to avoid death in one’s own case, and finally a form of resignation in the face
35 Tablet X: 53 and passim, 301-322, cf. Lambert 1980, 53 ff. On Mesopotamian ideas of the Netherworld
and life after death, cf. e.g. Katz 2001.
of death, possibly combined with a last attempt to delay it by prolonging youth.36 In this way, the epic
is also about the kinds of attitudes that humans may have towards life in the face of death. In other
words, by offering a site for reflection on death, the epic also treats the most fundamental concern
of humans – how to live a good life. Thus, the epic of Gilgamesh belongs in the (disputed) genre of
wisdom literature.37 After all, it is clearly stated in the introduction to the epic that it relates how king
Gilgamesh found wisdom: “he saw the secret and uncovered the hidden, he brought back a message
from antediluvian times” (Tablet I: 7-8).
If we consider the development in Gilgamesh’s attitude towards life that is played out in the
epic, the following picture emerges: in the beginning, Gilgamesh is carefree and free of worry, but
also uncontrollable and autocratic. This attitude is followed by a strong concern for or worry about
bodily death (in the cedar woods, Tablets IV-V). This worry worsens into fear of death after the
death of Enkidu (Tablets VIII-IX), and is, finally, replaced by a return to the point of departure, but
with a crucial transformation: Gilgamesh is again free of worry, but in a controlled, appropriate way
remaining within the bounds of human life, in clear recognition of its limits. The initial worry that
Gilgamesh feels just before the attack on Humbaba is overcome because his friend, Enkidu, is with
him and shares the burden – companionship solves the problem. Deep despair and fear of death is
introduced only after the death of Gilgamesh’s friend. We may thus describe this development: a
first stage (a) in which Gilgamesh is without worry, does not suffer from fear of death (Gilgamesh
in Uruk), but in an inappropriate way, because he acts as if he neither can nor will die. He in fact
worries too little about death at this stage, for he behaves as if death were not a condition of life for
him, as if death were not a possibility for king Gilgamesh. In the next phase (b), Gilgamesh is in
fact worried or fearful of death; he is afraid of dying the physical death in the attempt to become a
true hero. The king realizes that he can die a bodily death while performing his heroic feats. Death
becomes a possibility for Gilgamesh. Then follows the death of Enkidu as the decisive turning point.
After this turning point we may again discern two phases: in the first phase (b), Gilgamesh is very
worried or feeling fear of death after the death of Enkidu. He now knows for certain that he will die.
Now, he worries too much, in fact so much that it prevents him from leading a normal, human life,
let alone carry out his duties as a king. The thought of death makes him so desperate that he will do
anything to avoid it. Death is a real and concrete possibility, but possibly avoidable for Gilgamesh.
In the last phase (a), Gilgamesh is again free of worry and feels no (specific) fear of death (upon
his return to Uruk). He has accepted death as the boundary of human life and is free of worry in a
constructive, appropriate way. In any case, this is what the end of the epic leads us to believe, even if
it is not stated explicitly by Gilgamesh himself. This is what we as readers gather by combining the
36 Cf. also Tsukimoto 1985, 2 ff. with reference to previous literature.

37 We use the term in the sense that it is also used of e.g., The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer or the
Babylonian Theodicy, see Lambert 1960, 21 ff. and 63 ff.). For a discussion of the definition of the genre, see
Alster 2005, 18-24.
132 Akkade is King
end of the epic with its beginning, and it is also suggested by the symmetric structure of the epic.38
Gilgamesh has accepted death as the condition of human life and realized that worry is futile when
death is inevitable. This is the sum of his hard-won antediluvian wisdom. Death is concrete, real, and
unavoidable for Gilgamesh, as for all other humans. The development in the attitude towards life and
death is portrayed in the epic by means of a chiastic structure: a-b-b-a.
Choosing Life
The moral of the epic ends up as an affirmation of Culture and civilized city life. The pre-
condition of this good human life – death – is inescapable. In this way, the epic turns out to be about
how Gilgamesh in the end, and forced by inevitable conditions, accepts and chooses the human life
in Culture that is his lot, for better and for worse, with all the rules of the game – illness, decrepitude
and death. He only does this when no other option is left, and only after having tested the boundaries
of the cosmos thoroughly. When Gilgamesh finally returns to Uruk after visiting Utnapishtim, his
embrace of Culture is conveyed in several codes – he dresses in exquisite, clean clothes, he washes,
etc. The pre-condition for a good human life in the world of Culture is acceptance of death.
The epic explores the relations between life and death, Nature, Culture, and Supernature, and
positions them in a balanced way in relation to each other. The story examines and tests different
possible attitudes towards death and finally reaches a mediation that is complex, ambivalent, and
personal. The epic of Gilgamesh is an exploration of humankind’s relationship to death that ends in
acceptance, but it is a multifarious and complex investigation that moves at many levels and which
does not present a black and white solution. It is a story that presents its hero in all sorts of different
attitudes towards death, from attempts to ignore it to finally realizing that he is overcome: he has no
choice but to accept life on the condition of death with all the ambivalence that this brings. As we
hope to have shown, this is a story that pays attention to the ambivalence, uncertainty, and ambiguities
of life and death by means of its focus on monsters and boundaries. It is, of course, crucial that the
boundaries between the basic domains of Nature, Culture and Supernature and the inevitability of
death are maintained and affirmed in the epic, but as the analysis shows the monsters and boundary
spaces of the epic attest to a need for cultural reflection on the world order and human life within the
domain of Culture. The epic is about defining and delimiting the good human life, but its interest in
monsters and the in-between-ness of boundary spaces also makes possible a broader reflection on
what this might be. This epic thus provides a site for societal and individual reflection on death and
the values of human life in the domain of Culture. Appropriately, we find that the true, Babylonian
values brought out in this epic ring Westenholzian bells! – ṣabaṭ ūmi, Westenholz!
38 The circular motion is established in a very concrete manner: In Tablet I: 18-23 the epic’s audience
is encouraged to inspect the wall of Uruk, in the conclusion of Tablet XI Gilgamesh exhorts the ferry-man
Urshanabi to do the same using the exact same phrase (Tablet XI: 322-328).
BIbliography
Alexander, B. 1991: Victor Turner Revisited: Ritual as Social Change (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press).
Alster, B. 2005: Wisdom of Ancient Sumer (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press).
Black, J. A., et. al. 1998-2006: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (http:www..etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk).
Borger, R. 1967: “Das dritte “Haus” der Serie bīt rimki (VR 50-51, Schollmeyer HGŠ NR. 1)”, Journal of
Boyer, P. 1982: “Récit épique et traditionî i L’homme”, Revue française d’anthropologie 22, 5-34.
––––––– 2001: Religion Explained. The human instincts that fashion gods, spirits and ancestors (London:
Heinemann).
de Certeau, M. 1984: The Practice of Everyday Life (Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press).
Feldt, L. 2003: “Monstrøsitet som kulturel og religiøs diskurs”, Religionsvidenskabeligt Tidsskrift 42, 43-64.
––––––– 2006: “Reading the Monstrous: An Example of Sumerian Heroic Literature”, in: K. Eksell and L.
Feldt (eds.), Readings in Eastern Mediterranean Literature (Arbeitsmaterialien zum Orient 18; Würzburg:
Ergon Verlag).
––––––– 2010. “Heralds of the Heroic: The Functions of Angimdimma‘s Monsters” in: E. Robson, et al. (eds),
Your Praise is Sweet – A Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black from students, colleagues and friends (Oxford:
Oxbow Books).
van Gennep, A. 1909: Les rites de passage (Paris: É. Nourry).
George, A. R. 2003: The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. Vols.
I-II. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Heidel, A. 1949: The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago
Press).
Horowitz, W. 1998: Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns).
Izre’el, S. 2001: Adapa and the South Wind. Language has the Power of Life and Death (Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns).
Jacobsen, Th. 1976: The Treasures of Darkness. A History of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven, Ct.: Yale
University Press)
Jensen, H. J. L. 1983: “Gilgamesh-epet. Kosmologi og antropologi”, Religionsvidenskabeligt Tidsskrift 2: 57-84.
––––––– 1998: “Helt”, in: H. J. L. Jensen, and G. Hallbäck (eds.), Gads Bibelleksikon (Copenhagen: Gad).
Katz, D. 2001: The Image of the Netherworld in the Sumerian Sources (Bethesda, Ind.: CDL Press).
Kinnier Wilson, J.V. 1985: The Legend of Etana (Warminster, Pa.: Aris & Phillips).
Kirk, G.S. 1970: Myth: Its Meaning and Function in Ancient Greece and other Cultures (Cambridge: University
of California Press).
134 Akkade is King
Lachmann, R. 2004: “Cultural Memory and the Role of Literature”, European Review 12/2, 165-178.
Lambert, W.G. 1960: Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
––––––– 1980: “The Theology of Death”, in: B. Alster (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia: papers read at the XXVIe
Rencontre assyriologique internationale (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag).
––––––– 1987: “Gilgamesh in Literature and Art: The Second and First Millennium”, in: A. E. Farkas et
al. (eds.), Monsters and Demons in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds: Papers presented in Honour of Edith
Porada (Mainz on Rhine: P. von Zabern), 37-52.
Landsberger, B. 1977: “Einleitung in dem Gilgamesh Epos”, in: K. Oberhuber (ed.), Das Gilgamesh Epos
(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft), 171-177.
Læssøe, J. 1967: Studies on the Assyrian Ritual and Series bît rimki (Copenhagen: Munksgaard).
Saporetti, C. 1990: Etana (Palermo: Sellerio).
Speiser, E. A. 1969: “The Epic of Gilgamesh” in: J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to
the Old Testament (Princeton NJ.: Princeton University Press), 72-99.
Tigay, J. H. 1982: The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press).
Tsukimoto, A. 1985: Untersuchungen zur Totenpflege (kispum) im alten Mesopotamien (Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 216; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).
Turner, V. 1969: “Liminality and Communitas” in: V. Turner and R. D. Abrahams (eds.), The Ritual Process:
Structure and Anti-Structure (Chicago Ill.: Aldine Publishing Company), 94-130.
––––––– 1974: Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors. Symbolic Action in Human Society (Ithaca, NY.: Cornell
University Press).
––––––– 1977: “Variations on a Theme of Liminality”, in: S. F. Moore and B. G. Myerhoff (eds.), Secular
Ritual (Assen: Van Gorcum), 36-52.
Walker, C. and M. B. Dick 1999: “The Mesopotamian mis pî Ritual” in: M. B. Dick (ed.), Born in Heaven
Made on Earth. The making of the Babylonian Cult Image in the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns), 55-121.
Westenholz, A. and U. S. Koch-Westenholz 1997: Gilgamesh & Enuma Elish. Guder og mennesker i oldtidens
Babylon (Copenhagen: Spektrum).
––––––– 2000: “Enkidu - The Noble Savage”, in: A. R. George (ed.), Wisdom, Gods and Literature: Studies in
Assyriology in Honour of W.G. Lambert (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns), 437-451.
Žižek, S. 2008: For They Know Not What They Do: Enjoyment as a Political Factor (London: Verso).
THE SARGONIC PERIOD: TWO HISTORIOGRAPHICAL PROBLEMS1
Benjamin R. Foster, New Haven
The Sargonic Empire and Its Rural Policy

The honoree will recall that when we took up onions, setting aside the legends and inscriptions
of the Sargonic kings to examine their administrative records, the only study of society in the
Sargonic period was a printed summary of an essay by Gelb, dating to 1960, and two chapters in
Russian books dating to the height of the Stalinist era.2 No Sargonic archive had ever been analyzed
or even comprehensively described. The standard histories of the Sargonic period of the time, such
as Gadd’s chapter in the third edition of the Cambridge Ancient History or Bottéro’s in the Fischer
Weltgeschichte, did not mention administrative evidence.3 The honoree’s essay on the Sargonic
period, based on perfect mastery of all the written sources, shows how far the field has come in the
thirty-plus years we have campaigned together in it, and how much the honoree’s own epigraphic and
interpretive work has done to get this pivotal age out of the clutches of both the novelists and the nay-
sayers, if only either camp would pay more attention to the extant facts.4 Although he has rightly and
forthrightly accused me of spending too much research time in the Sumerian south, favoring Lagash
and Umma over his beloved north, which begins at Nippur, linking point of heaven and earth, I hope
that he will nonetheless accept these small notes from the trodden terrain aforesaid.
Was There a Sargonic Empire?

Michael Astour once remarked that it was common to ascribe to Athens an empire, though it
consisted of a handful of Greek cities, whereas much larger empires in the Middle East tended to
be condescended to as “empires” in modern scholarship.5 The Sargonic “empire” is no exception to
this pattern. Perhaps, after all, the inscriptions of the Sargonic kings are empty verbiage and the later
legends revelatory of anything but what they actually say. Furthermore, some hold, if we rely on
archaeological evidence alone, defined narrowly as non-verbal material culture, we would have no
basis for believing such an empire ever existed.6 In fact, I doubt anyone could design an archaeological
1 I thank Emmanuelle Salgues for suggestions and corrections to a draft of this study; errors that remain
are mine alone.
2 Gelb 1960; for Soviet work on the Sargonic period, see Foster in Liverani (ed.) 1993, 182. For
onionology, see Gelb 1967.
3 Gadd 1971; Bottéro 1965, 93. Bottéro was, of course, aware of their existence (Bottéro 1970-71, 87-
116), but, like Gadd, he may not have considered them historically useful sources.
4 Westenholz 1999.
5 Astour 1988, 140.
6 Matthews 2003, 152-3; Liverani 2005.
136 Akkade is King
project that would prove definitively, in the absence of written sources, that the Portuguese or British
empires ever existed either. Therefore I propose here to offer some rough, impressionistic comparative
statistical data that might find their place in a discussion of the archaeology of the Sargonic Empire.
The inscribed Sargonic stela fragment from Telloh, AO 2679, first published in 1893,
commemorates agricultural change in the “imperial core,” to use the terminology of Roger Matthews,
in that it disposes of about 1339 square kilometers of land (133,979 h) in the Lagash region, or
a square roughly 37 kilometers on a side, including seventeen important towns (u r u ) and eight
important agricultural centers, called maškanu, or threshing floors, possibly 2% of the total arable
area of Babylonia.7 These statistics, which might be called the first surface survey in Sumer, yield
first the interesting proportion of one city or town per 78 square kilometers, suggesting on the one
hand a rather rural horizon, but, on the other, a surprisingly urbanized one, since there are twice as
many towns or cities as there are smaller agricultural centers. But the total area is extraordinary, as a
few comparisons may show:
Jamdat Nasr Domaina 2,200h

Sargonic Domain in Telloh stela b
133,979h
Maništusu Purchasec 3,430h
Ur III Lagash Crown Domains Regional Averaged 22,457.45h
Ur III Lagash Temples e
26,147h
30-year Purchases of Old Babylonian Larsa notable f
1.8h
Kassite Temple of Ishtarg 52,488h
Kassite Royal Grants
h
486h
Neo-Babylonian Ishtar Temple i
17,000
a. Steinkeller 1988, 12-14; Nissen, Damerow, and Englund 1993, 55-9.
b. Foster 1985, 15-30, but using a reading of the numerals suggested to me by J. Friberg: 5(šár) <gal>
5(šar’u) 1(šár) 3(bur’u) 4(bùr) 2(eše3) 1 1/4(iku) = ± 379, 723 iku.
c. Gelb, Steinkeller, and Whiting 1991, 116.
d. Maekawa 1981, No. 1; see Van de Mieroop 1999, 123-37.
e. Maekawa 1987, No. 1.
f. Reiter 1982, 68.
g. Ungnad 1923, 19-36.
h. Average, courtesy of Susanne Paulus.
i. Joannès 2004, 155.
7 Foster 1985; for more recent discussions of this piece, see Westenholz 1999, 42 n. 132. I adhere
to my cautiously expressed reading of the broken traces in the Louvre fragment of the Telloh stele, based
on extended direct study of both originals, and to my thesis, established by both mineralogical analysis and
measurement of corresponding lines and cases (even if, to my bafflement, these are not compelling arguments
to the distinguished honoree), that the Yale piece and the Louvre piece belong to the same monument.
B. Foster: The Sargonic Period: Two Historiographical Problems 137
The palatial building at Jamdat Nasr is the first entity for which we can estimate its size,
based on records of land management. The approximate calculations amount to slightly over 2200
hectares, meaning the Sargonic domain was more than 60 times larger than the estate managed
by the imposing structure there. The domain was five to six times larger than the total land under
cultivation by the crown in the Ur III province of Lagash. The Kassite kudurru’s were carved onto
lavish stone monuments indicating their considerable importance to the principals involved.8 The
Sargonic domain was over 275 times larger than the average estate bestowed or confirmed in these
records, many of which were presumably located in less densely populated areas than Sargonic
Lagash. The Ishtar temple in Uruk is the largest known proprietor of land in the Neo-Babylonian
period. For this, an estimate of 17,000 hectares is available, slightly larger than one eighth the size of
the Sargonic domain. This suggests that the alleged grant by king Kurigalzu to the Ishtar temple of
about 525 square kilometers, about three times the area distributed by Nabonidus to his henchmen,
was, in fact, wishful thinking. Yet even if it is pure fantasy and the document a forgery, as sometimes
suggested, the area given is only a third the size of the actual Sargonic domain commemorated in the
Telloh stone. Could anyone but the ruler of an empire dispose of such a vast area of real estate in the
heart of Sumer?
Focusing more closely on Sargonic evidence, we find that the estate of a certain Mesag, an
important dignitary in the Umma-Lagash region at the time of Naram-Sin, was slightly over 1270
hectares in size (3600 iku, surely a schematic figure carved out of a conquered landscape, possibly
from this same parcel).9 There would be room for over 100 estates the size of Mesag’s in the domain
of the Telloh stela. An administrative record from the same region records over 6200 hectares
accountable to a land registrar (as mentioned in line 52 of the Curse of Agade, see below), about five
8 Brinkman 1980-83, 273.

9 Foster 1982a, 57.
138 Akkade is King
times the size of Mesag’s estate.10 By any documented Mesopotamian standard, these are enormous
parcels, laid over a region where much smaller parcels were sufficient to sustain even privileged
people. At Sargonic Umma, for instance, the average parcel noted in records of land assigned to
members of a great household was 16 hectares.11
Only kings would have the means or force to acquire so much arable land in Sumer. Šarkališarri
purchased rights to 120 bur in the Lagash region, about 762 hectares, paying fifty minas of silver.12
Over 175 parcels this size would fit in the area recorded in the Telloh stela, whose worth by this
standard was about 147 talents of silver. Maništusu’s purchase in the Kish region, recorded in diorite,
was about 3430 hectares, or 2.8 times larger than Mesag’s domain, perhaps distributed among forty
followers, for an average about 8¼ hectares per person – slightly over half the size of the average
parcels recorded in the Umma distribution records.13 The total area of Maništusu’s purchase in Akkad
was dwarfed by the parcel in the Telloh stela, by a factor of over 39.
The productive capacity of land held in Sumer by followers of the Sargonic king could only
be an impressionistic figure. Projecting a modest 16 g u r per b u r of productive land in the Lagash
region shipped to Agade (on the basis of BIN 8 121), one may suggest that on a similar basis the
tract in the Telloh stela would yield 337,520 g u r of grain to be shipped to the capital, enough to fill
101,256,000 sila bowls of rations, sufficient to sustain Sargon’s army of 5400 men for quite some
time.14 No wonder, then, that so much grain flowed into Agade, according to the Curse of Agade, that
the goddess Inanna lost track of it:
51. ensi 2 ensi 2 sa n g a* -e-n e * (v ar. : g ì r-n i t a)
52. sa 1 2 -du 5 gú-eden -n a-k e 4 -n e
53. nidba iti-da zag -m u -b i s i àm -s á-e-n e
54. a bul A-ga-dè k i a-g i m k ú š m i -n i -i b -g ál
55. nidba-bé kù d In an n a-k e 4 š u -t e-g á n u -zu

Governors, temple administrators, (var.: generals)
Land registrars in rural areas,
Sent their monthly and New Year food deliveries there,
So much so, that at Agade’s gate it was a problem for her,
Holy Inanna did not know how to receive these deliveries of food.15
10 Foster 1982a, 63.

11 Foster 1982a, 71.
12 Steinkeller 1999.
13 Foster 2000.
14 Foster 1986.
15 Cooper 1983, 52, lines 51-55; line 54 restored from the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature
(http://etcsl.orinst.ox.a.uk/index.html).
Elsewhere I have suggested that Girsu was the administrative center of an extended Sumerian
province under the Sargonic kings and that this could help account for the power and prosperity of
Lagash under Gudea and his dynasty.16 Since the total area of land reckoned by the Ur III Lagash
bureaucrats is the only area recorded in an administrative document that compares to the area in the
Sargonic stela, and it seems to be in approximately the same region, the suggestion follows that the
Ur III kings managed extensive domains in Lagash, the origins of which can be traced to the domain
created in the Telloh stele.
The Bloody Legacy of the Gardener’s Son

The honoree could never resist a lively turn of phrase, even in Assyriological prose, so I
have borrowed shamelessly this memorable designation of the Sargonic period from a Time-Life
publication.17 There is no point in rehearsing here my arguments that the early Sargonic tablets from
Umma (Archive A) include records of a labor camp in which both free citizens and slaves perished
doing some onerous form of labor.18
The limited distribution of Archive A, narrowly defined as the prison camp records, compared
to other records from Sargonic Umma, which are scattered far and wide, suggests that Archive A,
plus a small mix of other early Sargonic tablets, was found around 1911, when Umma was being
looted for the first time. More recent looting of the site, on the other hand, has produced many more
early and Classical Sargonic tablets but no more, to my knowledge, that clearly belong to Umma
Archive A, narrowly defined. The group of tablets published herewith, which includes examples of
Archive A, was given to Yale by Jonathan Rosen sometime in the 1980s, and I thank William W.
Hallo, then curator of the Yale Babylonian Collection, for his permission to publish them.19 I have no
further information on the modern history of these documents, including whether or not they were
brought out of Iraq after the Kuwait war.
The cramped script and small size of Archive A suggests to me a myopic scribe with Presargonic
writing habits. I am tempted, therefore, to identify the writer of some of these tablets with Má-gur8
the scribe, active during the reign of Lugalzagesi and perhaps still at work half a generation later, in
the reign of Rimush.20
Tablets 1-5 date to the Early Sargonic period, as already documented for Umma Archive A. I
would assign Nos. 1 and 5 to Umma Archive A, and perhaps No. 2. No. 6 may be Presargonic.
16 Foster 1982a, 110-111.

17 Sumer: Cities of Eden (Alexandria, Va., 1993), Chapter 4.
18 Foster 1982b, 46-50.
19 Foster 1982b, 7; for example, the recent publication of early Sargonic tablets recently looted from
the Umma region, Pomponio, Stol, and Westenholz 2006, does not contain any examples that clearly belong
with Archive A.
20 Foster 1982b, 43.
140 Akkade is King
No. 1 (RBC 3010, 3 x 3.6 cm)

1. 1 u ru d u s ag b an š u r
2. k i -l á-b i 6 l á 1 0 g í n m a-n a
3. 7 l á-àm
4. u š -b ar š u -a g i 4 -a
5. M u -n i -k am
6. 6 mu iti 6
“1 metal tray, weighing 350 shekels, the proportion of (copper
to tin) being 7 to 1, returned piece work of Muni, year 6, month 6.”
This Muni may be identified with the metalworker (kù-dím)
who received metal in the “scepter house” of Umma in S.483 (=Foster
1982b, 32), dated to year 3 month 12(?).
No. 2 (RBC 3013, 3 x 3.5 cm)

1. 1 u r 5 š u -š u s è-[g a]
2. N ag ar-zi
3. 2 l ah t an x ? (DAG+KIS IM 5 x ?) ak -k a-NE
4. e-d a x (P I)-g ál
5. Ur-u r n u -b àn d a-b i
6. I
Ur- d Ni raḫ
7. I
Ur-l ú
8. I
Ad -d a
n u -b àn d a
“1 grinding tool with handles, (belonging to?) Nagar-zi, is
with 2 men? (for?) making vats?. Urur is their? overseer (for this
task?). Ur-Nirah (and) Ur-lu (are the two men?), (normally under?)
Adda the overseer.”
For the grinding tool or hand mill, see Milano 1993-97, 395. Nagar-zi occurs in the text Nik
II 14 (see Foster 1982b, 18-19). Line 3 is unclear to me. The honoree will likely agree with me that I
have no idea what this text means.
No. 3 (RBC 3011, 2.5 x 3 cm)

1. I
É-šà
2. Ama r-g i š
3. ugula -n i
4. E n-líl- g al -e
5. ba-túm
“Enlil-gal has taken away Eša, Amar-giš is his foreman.”
No. 4 (RBC 3014, 3 x 3.5 cm, exceptionally thick for its size)
1 . L u g al -t i -d a š u -ḫ a
2 . n a-b é-a
3 . 1 s í g - b a r n u - t u k
4 . 1 g u -s a-b ar
5 . n u -t u k
6 . 1 m á [ ]
7 . n u -t u k
“Message of Lugal-tida the
fisherman: ‘I have no wool fleece, I have
no net strand, I have no boat [...].’”
142 Akkade is King
No. 5 (RBC 3015, 4 x 5 cm, canceled on obverse, line 20 added later)

1. 1 u r 5 ù l -l a x [ ]
2. k i -l á-b i 1 / 3 -š a m a-[n a]
3. 1 t ú g š à-g a-d ù
4. 1 t ú g n í g -l á
5. 1 t ú g l am aḫ u š
6. 1 t ú g <eras u re ? > d ù l -x [ ]
7. u g u l a Uš -àm
8. Ì-l u -ra-b í é-m aḫ en s í Di l m u n -
d ar-ra-n a k i -k a-k e 4
9. é-m aḫ en s í -ra m u -n a-DU-a e-b a
1 0 . 1 t ú g š à-g a-d ù
11 . [1 t ú g ] l am aḫ u š
1 2 . [ ]-b í -ì -l u m g u d á
Di n g i r-k al a-k e 4 e-b a
1 3 . u š -b ar-àm
1 4 . [Ì]-l í -a-ḫ i
1 5 . m aš k i m -b i
1 6 . en s í -k e 4 A-g a-d è k i -a
1 7 . P ù -m a-l í E . UR -a
1 8 . Um m a k i -š è d u -n i
1 9 . Di l m u n -d ar-ra-n a k i e-n e-b a
2 0 . t ú g Ur-l ú d u b -s ar-d a
g i -g i -[d a ? ] e-d a-g [ál ]
6 m u [ ]
“1 medallion? … , weighing 1/3 mina; 1
undershirt; 1 tie-girdle; 1 red festival-garment; 1
head covering?; under the supervision of Uš, Ilu-
rabi in the headquarters of the ensí at Dilmun-
darrana, having brought (it) for the ensi, gave to
him in the ensi’s headquarters. 1 undershirt, 1 red
festival-garment Dingir-kalag gave to [ ]
the priest, it is piece work, Ili-ahi oversaw the
transaction. When the ensi was in Agade and … came to Umma, he gave it to them in Dilmun-
darrana. The textiles were with Ur-lu the scribe, as he returned? Year 6 [ ].”
For parallel texts, see Foster 1982b, 38-9. I do not understand the names(?) in line 17, nor can
I document Dilmun-darrana. For further discussion of the textiles, see Foster in press.
No. 6 (RBC 3012, 4.8 x 4.7 cm)

i
1) I
É - d E n -l í l -l e
2 ) Ḫa-ra-n i
3 ) Kál -b ú m
4 ) I
L u g al -t i r
5 ) Ur- d N i n -ì l d u m
(s p ace)
6 ) I
Z à ? -g e
7 ) Ur-u m -m e-g a
ii
1 ) I
L UL [ ]
2 ) L u g al -g [u ? ]
3 ) Ur- d N [i n ]- ˹ ì l d u m ˺
4 ) I
L u g al -[ ]
5 ) L u g al -n í [g ] x?
6 ) Ur- d E n -l í l
(s p ace)
iii
1 ) 5 š u n i g í n s ag d u b
2 ) 8 š eš -t ab š i d ?
3 ) N i g ì n u g u l a-b i
4 ) Gi š -š à n u -b àn d a-b i
5 ) en s í -k e 4
6 ) é-m aḫ
7 ) e-s ar
iv
1 ) 4 m u 11 i t i
(5 men with Personenkeil, 8 men
without): “5 total on the main tablet (=
entitled to full rations?), 8 helpers counted?, Nigin is their foreman, Gišša is their overseer. The ensi
wrote (this) in the headquarters. Year 4 month 11.”
For the pairing of guruš and šeš, compare CT 50 66 (from Sargonic Umma). This would seem
to be one of the earliest references to šeš-tab, common in Ur III documents. For adding people to a
tablet of workers, see Foster 1982b, 124 and for sag-dub, Grégoire 1970, 294.
144 Akkade is King
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Astour, M. C. 1988: “The Geographical and Political Structure of the Ebla Empire”, in H. Waetzoldt and H.
Hauptmann (eds.), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla (Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 2; Heidelberg:
Heidelberger Orientverlag), 139-58.
Bottéro, J. 1965: “Das Erste Semitische Grossreich”, in Fischer Weltgeschichte, Die Altorientalischen Reiche
I (Frankfurt a. M: Fischer Bücherei ), 91-128.
––––––– 1970-71: “Antiquités Assyro-Babyloniennes”, Annuaire de l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, IVe
Section, Sciences Historiques et Philologiques, 87-129.
Brinkman. J. A. 1980-83: “Kudurru”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6, 267-74.
Cooper, J. S. 1983: The Curse of Agade (Baltimore Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press).
Foster, B. R. 1982a: Administration and Use of Institutional Land in Sargonic Sumer (Mesopotamia 9;
Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag).
––––––– 1982b: Umma in the Sargonic Period (Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Sciences 20; Hamden,
Ct.: Archon Books).
––––––– 1985: “The Sargonic Victory Stela from Telloh”, Iraq 47, 15-30.
––––––– 1986: “Agriculture and Accountability in Ancient Mesopotamia”, in H. Weiss (ed.), The Origins of
Cities in Dry-Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C. (Guilford, Ct.: Four Quarters Pub.
Co), 109-28.
––––––– 2000: “The Forty-nine Sons of Agade”, in S. Graziani (ed.), Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico dedicati
alla memoria di Luigi Cagni (Napoli: Istituto universitario orientale), 309-18.
––––––– in press: “Clothing in Sargonic Mesopotamia: Visual and Written Evidence” (Centre for Textile
Research, Ancient Textiles Series; Oxford: Oxbow).
Gadd, C. J. 1971: “The Dynasty of Agade and the Gutian Invasion”, in The Cambridge Ancient History (3rd ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 417-463.
Gelb, I. J. 1960: “Social Stratification in the Old Akkadian Period”, in: B. G. Gafurov (ed.), Proceedings of the
25th International Congress of Orientalists (Moscow), vol. 1: 225-6.
––––––– 1967: “Approaches to the Study of Ancient Society”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 87, 1-8.
Gelb, I. J., P. Steinkeller and R. Whiting 1991: Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East, Ancient Kudurrus
(Oriental Institute Publications 104; Chicago, Ill.: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago).
Grégoire, J.-P. 1970: Archives administratives sumériennes (Paris: P. Geuthner).
Joannès, F. 2004: The Age of Empires, Mesopotamia in the First Millennium BC, (translated by Antonia Nevill)
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
Liverani, M. 1993 (ed.): Akkad, the First World Empire, Structure, Ideology, Traditions (HANES 5; Padova:
Sargon).
––––––– 2005 : “Imperialism”, in S. Pollock and R. Bernbeck (eds.) Archaeologies in the Middle East, Critical
Perspectives (Oxford: Blackwell), 223-43.
Maekawa, K. 1981: “The Agricultural Texts of Ur III Lagash of the British Museum (I)”, Acta Sumerologica
3, 37-61.
––––––– 1987: “The Agricultural Texts of Ur III Lagash of the British Museum (V)”, Acta Sumerologica 9, 89-129.
Matthews, R. 2003: The Archaeology of Mesopotamia, Theories and Approaches (London: Routledge).
Milano, L. 1993/97: “Mühle A. I”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8, 393-400.
Nissen, H.-J., P. Damerow and R. K. Englund 1993: Archaic Bookkeeping (Chicago Ill.: University of Chicago
Press).
Pomponio, F., M. Stol and Aa. Westenholz 2006: Tavolette cuneiformi di varia provenizia delle collezioni della
Banca d’Italia 2 (Rome: Banca d’Italia).
Reiter, K. 1982: Untersuchungen zum Archivwesen der altbabylonischen Zeit, dargestellt an den Brief-, Rechts-
und Verwaltungsurkunden des Šēp-Sin and des Balamunamhe (Dissertation; Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin).
Steinkeller, P. 1988: “Grundeigentum in Babylonien von Uruk IV bis zur frühdynastischen Periode II”, in: B.
Brentjes, et al. (eds.), Das Grundeigentum in Mesopotamien, Jahrbuch für Wirstschaftsgeschichte, Sonderband,
(Berlin: Akademie-Verlag), 11-27.
––––––– 1999: “Land-Tenure Conditions in Southern Babylonia under the Sargonic Dynasty”, in: B. Böck,
E. Cancik-Kirschbaum and Th. Richter (eds.), Munuscula Mesopotamica. Festschrift für Johannes Renger
(AOAT 267; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag), 553-71.
Ungnad, A. 1923: “Schenkungsurkunde des Kurigalzu mâr Kadašman-ḫarbe”, Archiv für Keilschriftforschung
1, 19-23.
Van de Mieroop, M. 1999: Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History (London: Routledge).
Westenholz, Aa. 1999: “The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture”, in: P. Attinger and M. Wäfler (eds.),
Mesopotamien, Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit (Orbis biblicus et orientalis 160/3; Fribourg, Suisse / Göttingen:
Éditions Universitaires; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Erridupizir’s triumph and Old Akkadian sa’pum “foot”
A. R. George, London
The dictionaries do not speculate on the Old Akkadian form of later šēpum “foot”, for no such
form appears in the Akkadisches Handwörterbuch (1981), in volume 18/2 of the Chicago Assyrian
Dictionary (1992), or in I. J. Gelb’s Glossary of Old Akkadian (1957), except under the logographic
writing DU. Likewise, this word does not occur in Rebecca Hasselbach’s new study of Sargonic
Akkadian (2005).
A phonetic spelling occurs unnoticed in the first of the three monumental inscriptions of the
Gutian ruler Erridupizir published by Raphael Kutscher in 1989. The inscription, here cited as
Erridupizir A, is an Old Babylonian copy from Nippur taken from a monument dedicated by
Erridupizir to the god Enlil in Nippur. It records his victory over an enemy army. The passage in
question quotes the victor’s declaration in direct speech:
13 en-ma 14 e-er-ri-du-pi-zi-ir 15 da-núm 16 šar(l u g al ) 17 qù-ti-˹im˺ 18 [ù] 19
[ki]-˹ib-ra˺-tim 20 [a]r-ba-im 21 in u-mi-su 22 ṣalmī(d ù l )me 23 ab-ni-ma 24 in na-
pá-áš!-ti-su 25 sa-ap-su 26 ˹iš˺-ku-un
(Erridupizir A ii 13–26, ed. Kutscher 1989, 53; Frayne 1993, 222)
Here sa-ap-su was previously parsed from “sabu, a red stone” (Kutscher 1989, 64) and
šamšum “sun disk” (Hallo apud Kutscher 1989) or left untranslated (Frayne 1993). A parsing from
sa’x pum “foot” (cf. Old Babylonian šēpum, šīpum) yields much better sense, allowing the following
translation:
Thus Erridupizir, mighty king of Gutium [and the] four quarters: “At that time I
fashioned my monument and placed my foot (tablet: he placed his foot) at his throat.”
The spelling sa-ap-su for sa’x apsu is unexceptional in a Sargonic royal inscription from
Nippur. According to Militarev and Kogan’s Semitic Etymological Dictionary, Akkadian šēpum
derives from a root I-š2 (2000, 241–2 no. 269 *ŝayṗ-). Other Nippur copies of Sargonic inscriptions
use the signs sa and sá, apparently in free variation, for the two syllables /š1a/ and /š2a/ (see Hasselbach
2005, 69–70), and they do not always indicate explicitly a syllable boundary between two vowels
(e.g. ar-ba-um for ’arba‘um, ar-ba-im for ’arba‘im, ša-ir for θā’ir passim). The /a/ vowel in sa-ap-
su speaks against a contracted form, *sāpsu, given that the Old Babylonian šēpum shows that the
outcome of the contraction /a’x/ in this word was a raising of the vowel to /ē/. I have had the advantage
of corresponding about the root of šēpum with L. Kogan. He identifies the middle consonant as /’1/
(hamza) by reference to Soqotri, where Leslau reported a dual form ŝa’fi, and points out that a
development sa’pum → šēpum finds a parallel in Akkadian rēšum “head” and ṣēnum “flock”, which
are also from roots middle /’1/.
148 Akkade is King
As Kutscher surmised (1989, 64), the subject of the third-person verb iškun in this passage of
Erridupizir’s inscription is the same as the subject of the first-person verb abni; the scribe (or copyist)
reverted prematurely from direct speech to the narrative voice.
An identical reversion from first to third person happens in a parallel passage of an inscription
of Narām-Sîn known from an Old Babylonian copy found at Ur:
17
en-ma 18 dna-ra-am-dsuen(en.z u ) 19 da-núm 20 šar(l u g al ) 21 ki-ib-ra-tim 22 ar-ba-im .
. . 32 ì-nu-šu-[ma?] 33 tám-si4-l[í] 34 ab-ni-[ma] iv 1 a-[na] 2 dsîn(e n . z [u ]) 3 iš-ru-u[k]
Thus Narām-Sîn, mighty king of the four quarters: “ . . . At that time I fashioned my
image and presented (tablet: he presented) it to Sîn as a votive offering.”
(UET I 275 iii 17-iv 3, ed. Frayne 1993, 134; Foster 1982, 29-30)
It is highly likely that Erridupizir’s inscription A was partly modelled on this or a similar
text.
The monument that Erridupizir made commemorated the events described in the immediately
preceding passage: the capture of an enemy king, probably the ruler of Madga, and his execution
in the temple of the god of Gutium (Erridupizir A i 1’–ii 11). The second clause of the passage
quoted above, now revealed to describe Erridupizir placing his foot on his enemy’s neck, presumably
describes the symbolic scene engraved on the monument. The trampled-enemy motif was a staple
image in the depiction of ancient Mesopotamian triumph, both in art and in texts. The foot-on-neck
variety is most prominently articulated in words by the passage of Utu-ḫengal’s victory inscription
that records his ritual humiliation of the captive Gutian ruler Tirigan:
igi d u[tu]-šè gìr-ni-šè mu- n á g ú - n a g ì r b í - g u b
In public view (lit. in the sun’s presence) he made him lie at his feet and placed his
foot on his neck.
(Utu-ḫengal C 121–3, cf. Frayne 1993, 287)
Both art and text speak for the custom of a ceremonial triumph which included a ritual
humiliation of the vanquished enemy’s leader. Like many another ancient ruler the victorious
Erridupizir preserved the memory of that humiliation by setting it down in pictures and words and
placing them in the sight of the gods.
Aage Westenholz is rightly known to Assyriologists as a leading authority on third-millennium
matters, but the Danish public celebrate him also as a translator of Gilgamesh and Enūma eliš
(Westenholz and Westenholz 1997). Aage was translating Gilgamesh as I was establishing the
text for my own critical edition; we walked much of the road together, a journey that I recall with
gratitude as most rewarding. I hold no expectation that this little note on Old Akkadian sa’pum will
make as big a splash in third-millennium studies as his translations have made in the recovery of
Babylonian literature for modern readers, but I take great pleasure in placing it before him in homage
to a remarkable scholar.
A. George: Erridupizir’s Triumph and Old Akkadian sa’pum “Foot” 149
Bibliography
Foster, B. R. 1982: “The siege of Armanum”, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 14, 27–36.
Frayne, D. R. 1993: The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods. Vol. 2. Sargonic and Gutian
Periods (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
Gelb, I. J. 1957: Glossary of Old Akkadian (MAD 3; Chicago Ill.: University of Chicago Press).
Hasselbach, R. 2005: Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz).
Kutscher, R. 1989: The Brockmon Tablets at the University of Haifa, Royal Inscriptions (Haifa: Haifa University
Press).
Militarev, A. and L. Kogan 2000: Semitic Etymological Dictionary 1. Anatomy of Man and Animals (AOAT
278/1; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Westenholz, U. and Aa. Westenholz 1997: Gilgamesh, Enuma Elish: Guder og mennesker i oldtidens Babylon
(Copenhagen: Forlaget Spektrum).
Le corps de la victime dans le sacrifice divinatoire
Jean-Jacques Glassner, Paris
Nul n’ignore la place essentielle que tient le sacrifice de la victime animale dans l’extispicine,
cette branche de la mantique déductive où le devin est conduit à produire le présage.1 Il est effectué
en un jour propice, au lever du soleil.2 Il comporte deux moments saillants, la mise à mort de l’animal
(la victime idéale est un agneau à la mamelle et qui n’a pas encore été tondu)3 et sa dissection pour
en extraire les viscères. Le devin la consacre en l’égorgeant ou la décapitant à l’aide d’un couteau.
C’est à ce même moment qu’il pose aux dieux la question relative au sacrifiant et à laquelle il attend
une réponse «véridique» sous la forme des présages qu’ils impriment sur le corps et les viscères de
l’animal. La victime meurt au terme d’une lente agonie en se vidant progressivement de son sang.
Son examen commence dès l’instant où elle est abattue. Le devin l’ouvre ensuite et en extrait les
viscères: TA ŠA UDU. NITA BAD-ú UR 5 . ÚŠ tu-še-la-a, “aussitôt que tu auras ouvert l’intérieur
du mouton, tu prélèveras les présages”.4
Tel est le mode opératoire requis, sous peine de nullité de l’acte rituel. Une prière assyrienne
à Marduk mentionne, au rang d’événements contrariants, le cas de la suffocation du mouton, hiniq
immeri:5 l’animal ne trouvant pas la mort dans les conditions attendues, la consultation oraculaire
tourne court. Le témoignage de la prière est confirmé par celui de la série Maqlû qui met en garde
contre tout incident susceptible de se produire inopinément, notamment lors d’une consultation
oraculaire, lorsque la victime meurt de constriction (hinqu).6 Un ultime exorcisme assyrien rapporte
le même incident dans les mêmes termes: šá li-pit! Š U I I hi-niq UDU. N ÍTA S IS KUR S IS KUR -e
DÙ-ti H A L -te, “lors du rituel divinatoire, de la suffocation du mouton, de la présentation (de la
victime), de la consultation oraculaire”.7
Le sacrifice est le signe visible de l’instauration d’un dialogue entre les dieux et les hommes.
Or, il n’est nul besoin d’une longue exégèse pour s’apercevoir de la place centrale que tient la victime
sacrificielle dans ce dialogue. C’est en effet elle qui, sur l’injonction du devin, convoque les dieux:8
i-na za-i-im qí-ri i-li ra-bu-tim za-ú-um ù geš
E R IN li-iq-ri-a-ku-nu-ti-i-ma i-na te-er-ti e-ep-pu-šu
1 Zimmern 1901; Starr 1983.

2 Bottéro 1974; Glassner 2009.
3 van Dijk, Goetze, and Hussey 1985, 23: 3-4.
4 K 220 rev. 27’ (Boissier 1894-1899, 209-212; voir à présent Koch 2005, no. 58: face 27’).
5 La sténose du mouton: Labat 1951, 78: 74; sur la constriction, plus généralement: Scurlock and
Andersen 2005, 699.
6 Meier 1937 VII 125.
7 Maul 1994, 186: 5; 188: 5, qui ne traduit pas le terme hinqu.
8 van Dijk, Goetze, and Hussey 1985, 23: 5-6.
152 Akkade is King
i-na ki-ri-ib a-ka-ar-ra-bu ki-it-tam šu-uk-na-an. “Convie les grands dieux au moyen de la résine.
Que la résine et l’essence de cèdre vous convient et dans le présage que j’instruis, dans la prière de
consécration que je prononce, placez la vérité!”. C’est également sur et dans son corps, sous la forme
de marques visuelles identifiées à des présages, que les dieux déposent les réponses véridiques que
l’on attend d’eux.
Ce corps est, premièrement, une donnée offerte par la nature. Il est celui d’un individu
appartenant à une espèce animale. En se livrant à son examen direct, le devin porte sur lui, tour à tour,
le regard d’un clinicien et d’un anatomiste. De l’animal qui agonise, depuis la tête jusqu’à la queue, il
observe l’apparence et la gestuelle, la couleur de la peau, les éruptions cutanées, les mouvements du
corps, les réflexes de la chair, la tension des muscles, l’écoulement des humeurs. Une fois la victime
morte, son corps est ouvert pour permettre l’inspection du squelette et des viscères. Tous ces faits
sont bien connus.9
En résumé, prenant appui sur les connaissances cliniques et anatomiques de leur temps, les
devins manipulent les innombrables irrégularités de la nature pour les mettre au service de leur
propre science et leur attribuer une lisibilité en accord avec leurs objectifs, et c’est jusqu’aux plus
légers frémissements du corps, où une dimension temporelle vient s’ajouter à la dimension spatiale,
auxquels ils confèrent une signification.
À l’arrière-plan de ces observations se manifestent des enjeux de savoir et de pouvoir. Pour
les tenants des deux spécialités envisagées, le corps de l’animal est perçu comme une réalité offerte
par la nature, la médecine et la divination contribuant ensemble à l’objectiver, à en faire un objet de
la connaissance, un objet à penser; mais, chacune à sa manière, ces deux disciplines en font un corps
qui mémorise, qui incorpore un code, et qui, devenu signe et parole, s’exprime et communique. En
un mot, il leur apparaît comme un support de sens.
Selon leur mode de pensée de prédilection qu’est “l’analogisme”, et “prenant acte de la
segmentation générale des composantes du monde sur une échelle de petits écarts”, les lettrés
mésopotamiens se donnent pour objectif “de tisser ces éléments faiblement hétérogènes en une
trame d’affinités et d’attractions signifiantes ayant toutes les apparences de la continuité”, posant que
“la différence infiniment multipliée (...) est l’état ordinaire du monde”, “la ressemblance le moyen
espéré de le rendre intelligible”.10 Partant, en quête de similitudes ou de ressemblances induisant
des rapprochaments qui permettent de se représenter dans une même entité le milieu naturel et le
monde de la culture, les devins spéculent sur le monde. À l’extrême fin du IIIe ou au début du
IIe millénaire, ils vont jusqu’à déduire les présages des oracles qui leur sont homologués (ainsi:
“Si le pays d’Amurru s’amenuise, cela (= le présage) se présentera ainsi”),11 posant l’existence de
rapports de réciprocité entre nature et culture, et postulant que l’ordre du monde peut dépendre, en
9 Glassner 2005; 2008.

10 Descola 2005, 281. Pour la divination en Mésopotamie: Glassner 1984, 26-29.
11 Rutten 1938, no. 12.
J.-J. Glassner: Le corps de la victime dans le sacrifice divinatoire 153
ultime analyse, de l’attitude de l’homme, puisqu’il est loisible d’inférer la configuration d’un foie
de mouton d’un événement politique ou militaire. Plus généralement, ces mêmes devins mettent de
l’ordre dans l’univers naturel, rapportant le comportement de l’animal, ses traits physiologiques ou
ses particularités anatomiques à des épisodes de la vie humaine.
Ils achèvent de donner cohésion au corps animal en introduisant une opposition entre la droite
et la gauche, une dimension que la nature ignore et qui découle d’une interprétation culturelle d’une
asymétrie biologiquement observable.12 La place de telles oppositions binaires dans la construction
des savoirs est suffisamment connue pour qu’il soit utile de s’y attarder. Bref, le corps de l’animal
ne se réduit plus, désormais, à des concepts exclusivement biologiques, il est aussi structuré selon
des normes sociales. Étant entendu que la droite est mienne et que la gauche concerne l’ennemi,13
à la notion de droite correspond tout ce qui est en hauteur, tout ce qui est intact, tout ce qui est clair
ou brillant, tout ce qui est sain; à l’opposé, la notion de gauche contient tout ce qui est sombre,
incomplet, bas ou malade.
Une lecture attentive des fragments de rituels divinatoires néo-assyriens fait apparaître une
particularité passée généralement inaperçue14 et, de ce fait, négligée par les commentateurs. Au cours
du sacrifice, le devin procède avec le corps de la victime en pratiquant successivement deux rituels,
ceux du lavage et de l’ouverture de la bouche. Ainsi est-il rappelé, à l’initiale d’un fragment, que
dans l’hypothèse où le dieu ne répondrait pas à l’interrogation du devin, ce dernier devrait “effectuer
pour lui les rites du lavage et de l’ouverture de la bouche”, K A . L U H . Ù . [ D A ] K A . D U H . Ù . D A
DÙ-su.15
S’agissant du lavage de la bouche, mīs pî, l’un des fragments16 s’exprime comme suit:
[ d UTU EN di-nim d IŠK]UR EN bi-ri (...) a-kar-rab-ku-nu-ši
[ SAL.S ILA 4 M]U.1.KAM šá as-lu la iš-hi-iṭ-ṭu UGU-<šá> ri-hu-ut d GÌR
[la im]-qu-ta ana Š À-šá e-kal Ú. M E Š ina ba-ma-a-te
iš-ta-na-at-ti A.MEŠ ma-ha-zi KÙ.MEŠ (...)
a-kar-ra-bak-ku-nu-ši SAL.SILA 4 a-šak-kan ana KA SAL.SILA 4 geš ERIN KÙ
ki-iṣ-ra sil-ta za-’a DU 1 0 .GA d UT U u d IŠ KUR ina S AL . S IL A 4 an-ni-ti
i-ziz-za-nim-ma
12 Detrez 2002, 124ss.

13 Thompson 1904, 44: 59.
14 Soulignée par Berlejung 1998, 183.
15 Zimmern 1901, 100 face 9. Voir également 11 col. iv: 20. Il ne s’agit pas, dans ce cas, d’activer une
statue divine, comme le pense CAD M/2, s.v. mīsu A, 112b, mais d’agir sur le réceptacle dans lequel le dieu est
censé se trouver, à savoir le corps de l’animal sacrificiel.
16 K 2519: Craig 1895, 61-62: 10-16; Zimmern 1901, 100 rev. 35-43.
154 Akkade is King
«Šamaš, seigneur du jugement, Adad, seigneur de la consultation oraculaire, (...) je

vous consacre (cette) agnelle d’un an, qu’aucun bélier n’a encore saillie, en qui n’a
pénétré aucune semence animale, elle broute l’herbe librement dans la plaine, elle ne
boit partout que l’eau pure des cités saintes. Je vous consacre cette agnelle (...). Je vous
consacre cette agnelle; je mets dans sa bouche du cèdre pur, un bouquet de copeaux
(à) l’odorante résine. O Šamaš, ô Adad, soyez présents dans cette agnelle».17
Au paragraphe qui précède, la même source énonce clairement, dans un contexte similaire,
non plus à propos d’une agnelle mais d’un mouton, UDU.NÍTA, lequel «broute l’herbe partout dans
la plaine, ne boit partout que l’eau pure des cités saintes», [e-ta]-nak-kal Ú. M E Š ina ba-ma-a-ti
[iš-ta-na-at-ti A.MEŠ ma-h]a-zi KÙ.M E Š , qu’il «est purifié par l’eau pour le rituel du lavage de
sa bouche», ul-lu-lu ina A.MEŠ mi-si ka-šú.18
En ce qui concerne le second rituel, celui de l’ouverture de la bouche, pīt pî, une difficulté
survient cependant, en l’état des sources: si le rite du lavage est bien attesté en relation avec la victime
animale, celui de l’ouverture de la bouche, K A . D U H . H U . D A e-pu-u[š]/K A . D U H . H U . D A D Ù -
[uš], «il accomplira/tu accompliras le rituel de l’ouverture de la bouche»,19 étrangement, ne s’entend
apparemment plus de l’animal, mais d’un tukkannu, autrement dit d’un «sac en cuir». En effet, les
rares sources qui le documentent n’usent pas des termes vernaculaires désignant les animaux sacrifiés,
mais d’un mot énigmatique, tukkannu. Dans la langue courante, ce terme désigne une poche pouvant
contenir des pierres précieuses ou semi-précieuses, des fragments d’or ou d’argent, ou le scrotum.
Dans le contexte de la divination, ce sac est fait avec la peau de l’animal sacrifié, K U Š . U D U .
SI LA 4 kuš
DÙG.GA N, «le tukkannu en peau d’agneau»,20 et il est disposé comme il convient, l’acte
rituel étant accompagné d’une prière adéquate, k u š DÙG. GAN DU-an ik-rib k u š DÙG. GAN kun-ni
ta-da-bu-ub, «tu disposeras comme il convient le sac en cuir et tu réciteras la prière pour disposer le
sac en cuir».21 L’une des sources évoquées associe le mot tukkannu à une opération de lavage de la
bouche, l’animal acquérant peut-être le statut de «sac en cuir» dès le moment de l’accomplissement
du premier rituel: [e-nu-ma KA] kuš
DÙG. GAN L Ú. HAL L UH-ú, «lorsque le devin procèdera
au lavage de la bouche du sac en cuir».22
À ce stade de l’enquête, et pour tenter de mieux comprendre le but recherché par les acteurs
comme le choix du vocabulaire, une comparaison s’impose entre les deux procédures que sont le
sacrifice divinatoire et l’activation d’une statue de culte.
17 Traduction Labat 1970, 277.

18 Zimmern 1901, 100: 26-27.
19 Zimmern 1901, 74: 33, 37, 40.
20 Zimmern 1901, 1-20: 39.
21 Zimmern 1901, 76: 21.
22 Zimmern 1901, 74: 29-30; voir également 21: 30 (pour ce dernier texte, voir à présent Maul 1994,
198: 17, et note 359).
Dans le cas d’une statue de culte, on somme une image invisible, née dans les cieux et vivante,
de prendre possession d’une autre image, visible celle-là, mais muette et inanimée car fabriquée
sur terre et de main d’homme, et qui attend de se voir insuffler la vie.23 Elle ne devient le réceptacle
susceptible d’accueillir une divinité, et donc d’être animée, qu’une fois accomplis les rituels du
lavage et de l’ouverture de la bouche ou de l’oeil. Le lavage de la bouche a pour effet de séparer la
statue des autres artefacts faits de main d’homme et d’en faire un réceptacle potentiel apte à accueillir
une divinité, l’ouverture de la bouche a pour fonction de rendre cette présence divine efficace en
son sein. Tout se passe, en ultime analyse, comme si les artisans humains ne faisaient que mimer les
artisans divins, les véritables fabricants de la statue.24
Il est remarquable que dans le cas du sacrifice divinatoire le devin procède avec la victime
sacrificielle comme on fait avec une statue, en pratiquant successivement les rites du lavage et de
l’ouverture de la bouche. Malgré leurs différences, les deux rituels obéissent donc à une même logique
de pensée, puisqu’il s’agit de donner vie à un corps qui en est privé. Dans le cas de la divination, il est
cependant deux différences essentielles. Il existe, premièrement, un préalable indispensable: il faut
retirer la vie à la victime pour rendre son corps accessible à la présence divine laquelle va lui conférer
une nouvelle vie pour le temps du rituel. Le corps de la victime, d’autre part, n’est pas statufié, mais,
une fois la bouche lavée, il est mué en «sac» ou «poche» en cuir.
Le témoignage du rituel paléo-babyhlonien déjà évoqué vient peut-être compléter utilement
celui des sources néo-assyriennes, même s’il se satisfait d’une formulation énigmatique: i-na ši-ik-
na-at i-li ra-bu-tim i-na tu-up-pi ša i-li ta-ka-al-tum li-ši-ib d N i s ab a tu-up-ša-ra-tum li-ša-ṭe4-er
di-na-am, «au sein de la création des grands dieux, que les viscères soient en place, que Nisaba
(y) inscrive le jugement». La phrase y fait écho, simultanément, à deux images qui se superposent,
celle d’une tablette enfermée dans une enveloppe à l’instar des documents juridiques,25 et celle d’un
réceptacle créé par les dieux, né au ciel comme disent les sources traitant de la statue divine.
Par le biais du rituel, on assiste donc à une transformation spectaculaire du corps d’une victime
animale qui est mué en un objet, un réceptacle plutôt qu’un sac ou qu’une poche, dont la divinité peut
prendre possession et qui s’apprête à être transi de signes porteurs de sens pour l’homme et la société.
Car les présages ne sont pas présents de manière permanente sur ou dans le corps de la victime. Ils
sont imprimés par les dieux en guise de réponse à la question que leur pose le devin et ils trouvent
leur point d’ancrage dans des figures fournies par la nature et rendues connaissables par l’étude du
comportement, de la physiologie, de l’anatomie et de la pathologie du mouton. Il est indispensable
de conserver en l’esprit que sans la consécration de la victime à la divinité, cette dernière serait
privée du support indispensable pour lui permettre de communiquer avec les hommes. Autrement
dit, l’animal agonisant s’assied-il sur son arrière-train avant de tomber, se maintient-il debout, fait-il
23 Winter 1992, 13-42; Berlejung 1998; Dick 1999; Walker and Dick 2001.
24 Walker and Dick, 2001, 80: 54, 66, 190.
25 avec Steinkeller 2005, 14.
156 Akkade is King
des cabrioles, l’un de ses côtés étant gorgé, l’autre souillé de sang,26 ce sont-là autant de figures qui
lui sont dictées et imposées par les dieux. Le registre de ces figures s’étend jusqu’à l’écoulement des
humeurs et aux marques anatomiques ou pathologiques sur les viscères. Il comprend également les
cris et les bêlements que l’animal peut émettre.
Partant, on postule pour le mot tukkannu et dans le contexte particulier de l’extispicine, un
usage métaphorique ou métonymique faisant référence au corps du mouton mort, sacralisé par
l’opération du lavage de la bouche, et devenu une enveloppe, un réceptacle apte à accueillir une
divinité qui s’exprime en y inscrivant des présages. Par le biais du traitement rituel, ce corps n’est
pas mué en statue, mais en médium, étant entendu que ce terme ne désigne pas une personne ayant le
pouvoir de communiquer avec les dieux, mais un corps dont la divinité prend possession. Ce corps
est un tukkannu, un réceptacle et il est rempli de šīru/U Z U , un terme qui signifie «chair» dans la
langue vulgaire, mais qui fait référence aux «présages» dans la langue des devins, ces marques qui se
situent à la surface des choses et qui signalent les ressemblances invisibles qui parcourent l’univers.
Bref, le rituel est une opération d’installation qui fait du corps biologique de la victime un tukkannu,
un corps-médium.
Résumons-nous. Le corps de l’animal tient une place centrale dans les procédures de
construction des présages dont il est la condition de possibilité. Le corps-médium se présente comme
le produit calculé d’une construction autant mentale que matérielle. Le corps de l’animal et le corps-
médium forment, ensemble, une unité indissociable, le premier étant instrumentalisé par le second.
Mais si le premier est tenu de se conformer au second, celui-ci, en retour, ne peut lui échapper. Le
point de départ de toute l’entreprise réside dans une connaissance intime du corps biologique dont le
traitement rituel permet de disposer autrement, le même corps devenant producteur d’images faisant
sens en tant que signes sociaux. Les présages rendent compte du signifié biologique, mais ils ne se
limitent pas à cette seule dimension dont ils ne retiennent, du reste, qu’une partie; ils y ajoutent,
simultanément, une dimension supplémentaire, des sens cognitifs qui ne s’y trouvaient pas et qui
sont le reflet de la méditation des devins sur la temporalité et sur les rapports entre la nature, les dieux
et les hommes.
Car ce même corps est le réceptacle de trois types d’images: celles fondées par la nature, le corps
biologique; celles fondées par les dieux, les signes cliniques, anatomiques ou pathologiques auxquels
il est donné un supplément de sens; celles fondées par les devins, les oracles homologuant les présages
à des événements de la vie sociale. Bref, on assiste à une double opération de transformation, celle
d’un corps biologique en médium lequel donne à voir une image apte à transmettre des messages
qu’il convient à leur tour de retransformer pour les rendre intelligibles à la réception.
Partant, dans cette pensée subtile où se conjoignent la perception sensorielle et la perception
cognitive, il s’instaure une dialectique tout en finesse du visible et de l’invisible, de la présence et de
l’absence. Les présages apparaissent sur un support naturel régi par ses propres lois, mais aussi sur
26 Goetze 1947, no. 47: passim.

un lieu imaginaire, un artefact qui mobilise des savoirs différents. Effet de la mise en scène rituelle,
le visible n’est plus tout à fait ce qui est présent, le corps biologique, mais il s’absente au contraire,
cédant la place au médium lequel est apte à rendre présent l’invisible, les dieux eux-mêmes révélés
par les présages.
Bibliographie
Berlejung, A. 1998: Die Theologie der Bilder, Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien
und in alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik (OBO 162; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht).
Boissier, A. 1894-1899: Documents assyriens relatifs aux présages (Paris: É. Bouillon).
Bottéro, J. 1974: “Symptômes, signes, écritures”, in: J. P. Vernant (ed.), Divination et rationalité (Paris: Éditions
du Seuil), 70-197.
Craig, J. A. 1895: Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, I (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs).
Descola, Ph. 2005: Par-delà nature et culture (Paris: Gallimard).
Detrez, C. 2002: La construction sociale du corps (Paris: Seuil).
Dick, M. B. (ed.) 1999: Born in Heaven, Made on Earth, The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near
East (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns).
van Dijk, J., A. Goetze, and M. I. Hussey 1985: Early Mesopotamian Incantations and Rituals (YOS 11; New
Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press).
Glassner, J.-J. 1984: “Pour un lexique des termes et figures analogiques en usage dans la divination
mésopotamienne”, Journal asiatique 272, 15-46.
––––––– 2005: “L’aruspice mésopotamien et le regard de l’anatomiste”, Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes
6, 22-33.
––––––– 2008: “Le corps écrit: la victime dans le sacrifice divinatoire en Mésopotamie”, in: B. Baptandier
and G. Charuty (eds.), Du Corps au texte: Approches comparatives (Nanterre: Publications de la Société
d’ethnologie), 185-207.
––––––– 2009: “De l’invention du sacrifice à l’écriture du monde: le repas des dieux en Mésopotamie”, in:
M. Cartry, J.-L. Durand, and R. Koch-Piettre (eds.), Architecturer l’invisible: autels, ligatures, écritures
(Bruxelles), 41-59.
Goetze, A. 1947: Old Babylonian Omen Texts (YOS 10, New Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press).
Koch, U. S. 2005: Secrets of Extispicy (AOAT 326; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Labat, R. 1951: Traité de Diagnostics et de Pronostics médicaux (Paris: Académie internationale d’histoire des
sciences).
––––––– 1970: Les Religions du Proche-Orient asiatique (Paris: Fayard-Denoël).
Maul, S. M. 1994: Zukunftsbewältigung (Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern).

158 Akkade is King
Meier, G. 1937: Die assyrische Beschwöringssammlung Maqlû (Archiv für Orientforschung Beih. 2; Graz:
Weidner).
Rutten, M. 1938: “Trente-deux modèles de foies en argile inscrits provenant de Tell-Hariri (Mari)”, Revue
d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 35, 36-52,
Scurlock, J., and B. R. Andersen 2005: Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine (Urbana, Ill.: University
of Illinois Press).
Starr, I. 1983: The Rituals of the Diviners (BM 12; Malibu, Ca.: Undena Publications).
Steinkeller, P. 2005: “Of Stars and Men: The Conceptual and Mythological Setup of Babylonian Extispicy”,
in: A. Gianto (ed.), Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran (Rome: Pontificio istituto
biblico), 11-47.
Thompson, R. C. 1904: Cuneiform Texts in the British Museum 20 (London: Trustees of the British Museum).
Walker, C. and M. B. Dick 2001: The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia (SAALT 1; Helsinki:
Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Institute for Asian and African Studies, University of Helsinki ).
Winter, I. 1992: “Idols of the King: Royal Images as Recipients of Ritual Action in Ancient Mesopotamia”,
Journal of Ritual Studies 6, 13-42.
Zimmern, H. 1901: Ritualtafeln für den Wahrsager, Beschwörer und Sänger, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der
Babylonischen Religion (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs).
The metaphysics of mantic/prophetic authentication devices in
Old Babylonian Mari
J. Cale Johnson, Berlin
. . . these our actors,

As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air
— Shakespeare
One of the more surprising aspects of the early mantic and prophetic traditions documented
in the letters from Old Babylonian Mari is the use of pieces of hair and the fringes of garments as
a means of authentication. In the following extract from the report of Ayala’s dream (ARM 26 229
[Durand 1988] = Dossin 1975, 28 = Nissinen et al. 2003, no. 36), the hair and fringe are mentioned
explicitly, as in a number of other letters:
(15) i-na MUŠEN.ḪI.A ḫu-ri-im (16) wa-ar-ka-sa3 ap-ru-us2-ma (17) na-aṭ-la-at
(18) a-nu-um-ma ša-ra-sa3 (19) u2 si2-˹is˺-si2-ik-tam (20) u2-ša-bi-lam
By means of bird divination, I inquired about her, and (the dream) was really seen.
Now I send her hair and a fringe of her garment. (translation Nissinen)
Previous investigations of ancient Near Eastern legal practices have noted that several different
Akkadian terms that seem to refer to a hem or a fringe of a garment regularly occur in certain legal
rituals such as marriage and divorce proceedings as well as in diplomatic contexts as an indication
of the relation between a vassal and his overlord.1 But of these several terms only one (sissiktum)
also functions as a mantic/prophetic authentication device, whereas pieces of hair (šārtum) do
not seem to serve any function whatsoever in legal proceedings. I argue that the choice of ‘hair’
(šārtum) and ‘fringe’ (sissiktum) as authentication devices is motivated by a particular metaphysics
of communication with the divine, namely the idea that winds or breezes carry messages from the
netherworld to the ordinary world of everyday life. The two terms in question (šārtum and sissiktum)
pun on terms for ‘wind’ (šārum) and ‘little breeze’ (*sissikum) in order to recall the metaphysical
underpinnings of the corresponding mantic or prophetic inspiration, but add the feminine ending *-t-
in order to form substantives that refer to objects that are tangible and concrete.2 Whereas it would
1 I am in agreement with W. G. Lambert that sissiktum refers to a fringe or hem rather than the
sissiktum-garment that Malul suggests (Lambert 2007, 16, pace Malul 1986). One particularly decisive piece of
evidence in this regard are the actual impressions of fringes or hems on the tablets that mention the sissiktum
(Durand 1988, 40, n. 179 apud Lambert 2007, 16).
2 The asterisk on *sissikum here and throughout the paper indicates this form is not attested in syllabically
written form. It is meant as the hypothetical form of the Sumerian term sisig as that term would have been
160 Akkade is King
be difficult to make use of wind (šārum) or a little breeze (*sissikum) as an authentication device in
the scribal arena, the feminine (nomen unitatis) forms based on the same two stems, namely ‘hair’
(šārtum) and ‘fringe’ (sissiktum), are tractable objects that can, for instance, be impressed into a clay
tablet as a form of authentication.
I would like to offer this small token of thanks to Aage Westenholz not only for his huge
contribution to Assyriology, but also for his kindness and generosity in collaborating on several
digital catalogues of third millennium materials that I was asked to put together in 2002-2003 for the
CDLI.
The little breezes

There are several deities or divinized aspects of material or psychological reality that are
associated with dreams in ancient Mesopotamia: Mamud (Sum. m a - m u 2 ( d ) ), AN . Z A 3 . G A R ,
Sisig (Sum. si-si-ig, sig-sig or sig 3 -s i g 3 ) and Zaqiqum (Akk. zaqīqum or ziqīqum). A number
of investigators, including recent major studies by Butler (1998) and Zgoll (2006), have associated
either Sisig or Zaqiqum or both with the communication of messages from the realm of the gods, and
there is even some evidence that Sumerian Sisig and Akkadian Zaqiqum were equated in the context
of Mesopotamian bilingualism (Butler 1998, 77-83; Zgoll 2006, 299-307).3 Sisig appears in A n =
Anum, tablet 3, line 150 in Litke’s edition, immediately after Mamud as part of the retinue of the sun-
god Utu (Butler 1998, 77; Litke 1998, 133).
149. dma-mu2 | dumu-munus dutu-ke4 Mamud, the daughter of Utu
150. dsi-si-ig | dumu dutu-ke4 Sisig, the son of Utu
While a version of the same list from Late Babylonian Uruk (SpTU 3, no. 107 [von Weiher
1988]) includes the telling gloss zi-qi-qu in the middle of Sisig’s name:
dsig3zi-qi-qusig3 | dumu dutu-ke4 Sisig, the son of Utu
borrowed by Akkadian. The reason that *sissikum as such is not attested is that that it is systematically replaced
with the Akkadian equivalent of Sumerian sisig, namely zaqiqu (see below for further discussion). Needless
to say, I disagree with W. Horowitz’s conclusion that “the homonym sissiktu ‘fridge, edge, hem of garment’ can
hardly be associated with winds” (Horowitz 1998, 203, n. 19).
3 A presentation by Alhena Gadotti at the American Oriental Society in 2004 as well as her dissertation
deal with the role of Sisig in bringing Enkidu back from the netherworld (Gadotti 2004; 2005, 135-143). Gadotti
argues that Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld represents the first composition in a Sumerian Gilgamesh
Cycle and is, therefore, compelled to interpret the Enkidu who reemerges from the netherworld as a living
being rather than a ghost or spirit. This would seem to require that Sisig/Zaqiqu is the mechanism that Utu uses
to return Enkidu to the mundane realm rather than a non-material component or aspect of Enkidu himself. If
Gadotti is correct, the Sumerian Gilgamesh cycle would begin with Enkidu’s illicit vision of the netherworld (a
dream, as it were, in which Enkidu acts as a flesh and blood Sisig/Zaqiqu on behalf of Gilgamesh rather than a
disembodied spirit) and end with Gilgamesh’s own death in The Death of Gilgamesh. Other recent discussions
of Sisig include Cavigneaux and Al-Rawi 2000, 44-45 and Veldhuis 2001.
J. C. Johnson: Methaphysics of Mantic/Prophetic Authentication Devices 161
As Butler goes on to say, “[t]he correlation of the two names of the Mesopotamian Dream
God, the Sumerian Sisig . . . and the Akkadian Zaqiqu . . . is reinforced by [the Zaqiqu Incantation],
line 1, where its Akkadian manuscript has zi-qi-qu, but its two Sumerian texts have S I . S I . I G
and SIG.SIG” (Butler 1998, 77). What Butler calls the Zaqiqu Incantation originates as a short
vignette alluding to Naram-Sin’s difficulties with dreams and other omina that appears in several
miscellaneous proverb collections (including Proverb Collections 11 and 18) in the Old Babylonian
period (see Alster 1997, 194 and 242).4 Later on, in the first millennium library of Assurbanipal,
the vignette ends up as the initial passage of the first tablet of Zaqiqu, more generally know as the
Assyrian Dream Book (Oppenheim 1956, 297; Butler 1998, 321-324; Gadotti 2005, 141).5
B si-si-ig a-ga-de3ki-še3 i3-gi4-˹in?˺ (obv. 6)
D si-si-ig a-ga-de3 i-ni-˹gi4˺ [...] (rev. 4’)
E sig-sig a-ga-de3ki-še3 i3-gi4-in (obv. bottom col. iv)
F [dzi]-˹qi˺-qu zi-˹qi˺-qu dma-mu2 ilu(D ING I R ) ša2 [šunāti
(MAŠ 2 .GE 6 .ME Š)] / [ana a]-˹ga˺-de3ki aš2-˹pur˺-[ka]
O Sisig/Zaqiqu! I [= Shamash] sent you to Akkad
These pieces of evidence show that Sisig and Zaqiqu are equated in some sense within the
bilingual system of the Mesopotamian literati, but I would like to suggest that the connection between
the two terms may be even closer.
Sisig and Zaqiqu each represent, in my view, the same word stem inflected through the
phonological rules for reduplication in Sumerian and Akkadian respectively, and as I will suggest
below the reduplication in Sumerian is probably diminutive in meaning. Jacobsen follows von Soden
in deriving the stem of zaqīqum, namely *zīq-, from the verbal root zâqum ‘to blow’, but Jacobsen
4 The association between Naram-Sin and ominous dreams results primarily from Naram-Sin’s ominous
dream in lines 55-86 of The Curse of Agade (see Cooper 1983, 53-55). It is Naram-Sin’s vision of an Agade
lacking divine favor that pushes him to rebuild the Ekur and—lacking positive omens to proceed—Naram-
Sin’s act of hubris in rebuilding the temple without divine approval. The irony, of course, is that the image
of the absence of divine favor in the dream propels Naram-Sin down a pathway that leads, precisely, to the
absence of divine favor. Hence the appropriateness of this vignette at the beginning of the Assyrian Dream
Book, a collection of texts meant to assist in bringing good dreams and dispelling bad ones.
5 B = CBS 14188 [PBS 13, 38]; D = 3N-T 910 d [Alster 1997, vol. II, pls. 114-115]; E = SP 11.57 =
CBS 4567+ [PBS 12, 29+]; F = K 3758, viz. tablet I of the Assyrian Dream Book (see Oppenheim 1956). I
follow in part (B and D) the sigla of Alster’s edition of the proverb collections, but it should be kept in mind
that Proverb Collections 11 and 18 are two of the several unordered or non-thematic proverb collections (see
Gordon 1960, 128-129, especially n. 57). Proverb Collection 18, which includes two of the three witnesses of
the Old Babylonian version of the vignette in Alster’s edition (1997, vol. I, 240-242), is a somewhat tenuous
affair: witnesses A [= N 4099] and C [= CBS 8067] only share a single line with B, namely 18.21, and none
with D. Moreover, the shared line occurs at the end of witness A and the beginning of witness B. Gordon also
notes that two proverbs in Proverb Collection 9 (section E, lines 4-5 in Alster’s edition) are copied into lines
8-11 in the Dream Book immediately after this passage (Gordon 1960, 127, n. 46; Alster 1997, vol. 1, 184).
162 Akkade is King
also drew an equation between zaqīqum and the reduplication that takes place in at least one of the
orthographies of the Sumerian god Sisig, namely s i g 3 -s i g 3 , which is glossed with Zaqiqu in the late
god list from Uruk mentioned above (Jacobsen 1989, 272, n. 26). The derived stem that von Soden
proposes, *pāsīs- or *pīsīs-, is not very well attested in Akkadian, however (von Soden 1995, 70). If
we follow Jacobsen in postulating *zīq- in Akkadian and *s i g - in Sumerian as a single underlying
element, then the differences between the reduplicated form in each of the two languages can be
thought of as resulting from distinct phonological processes in each language. One possibility is
that *ziqīqum in Akkadian shows progressive (lag) assimilation followed by simplification of the
consonant cluster and shortening of the initial vowel (*zīqzīq- > *zīqqīq- > *zīqīq- > *ziqīq-), while
Sumerian, as usual, shows regressive (anticipatory) assimilation (/sigsig/ > /sissig/).6 Regressive
assimilation is well known in Sumerian from reduplicated adjectives such as b a b b a r and d a d a g ,
which are derived from reduplications of /bar/ and /dag/ respectively (viz. /barbar/ > /babbar/ and
/dagdag/ > /daddag/). Regardless of the exact derivational process underlying the Akkadian form,
however, both terms can be seen as originating from a common word stem made up of a sibilant,
a close vowel of some kind and a velar or uvular stop. Moreover, it has been shown that Sumerian
syllables that begin with a sibilant and end with a velar (/sVk/) show regular alternation between
/sik/ and /sak/ (Civil and Rubio 1999, 255), so one might even want to speculate that the alternation
between /a/ and /i/ in the variant forms of the Akkadian Zaqiqu, namely za-qi-qu versus zi-qi-qu, may
result from an underlying phonological process in Sumerian.
The reduplication in the Sumerian form s i s i g has led a number of investigators to interpret
it as a form of ḫamṭu reduplication, thereby coding either repetitive action (“the one who constantly
blows” [Butler 1998, 77]) or plurality (“the breezes” [Vanstiphout 2003, 126-127]; “the winds” [Butler
1998, 77]). These translation are clearly in general agreement with the default interpretation of ḫamṭu
reduplication (viz. plurality, pluractionality or repetitive motion). Yoshikawa has argued for a number
of different types of ḫamṭu reduplication on the basis of systematic differences in their Akkadian
equivalencies in the lexical list tradition (Yoshikawa 1993, 287-308 [ = Yoshikawa 1979]). Thus,
taking up just two classes within Yoshikawa’s classification, ḫamṭu reduplications that are translated
by the D-stem in Akkadian are “Piel-reduplications,” whereas ḫamṭu reduplications that code atelic
iterative motion are generally translated with Gtn stems in Akkadian, namely what Yoshikawa calls
“iterative motion” reduplications (Yoshikawa 1993, 291-302). In my dissertation work, as part of a
review of Yoshikawa’s typology of ḫamṭu reduplications, I identified two adjectives in Sumerian that
are formed through ḫamṭu reduplication and seem to be diminutive in meaning rather than plural,
pluractional or iterative, namely di 4 -di 4 - l a ‘small’ and k u 7 -k u 7 - d a ‘sweet’ (Johnson 2004, 115-
6 As in Sumerian, most examples of assimilation in Akkadian are regressive rather than progressive,
e.g. *edšum > eššum and the like (von Soden 1995, 35; Huehnergard and Woods 2004, 238-239). Certain
articulatory processes in Akkadian, however, do seem to be progressive in character such as the transmission
of emphatic or voiced features to the infixed *-t- of the perfect as in aṭṭardakkum (von Soden 1995, 35) or
igdamar (Huehnergard and Woods 2004, 238).
118). Both terms coexist with semantically equivalent terms in Sumerian that lack the diminutive
character of di 4 -di 4 -la and ku 7 -ku 7 -da , namely t u r ‘small’ and d u 1 0 ‘sweet’. Silverstein defines
the diminutive as follows: “[t]he diminutive form . . . expresses the speaker’s feeling that the referent
is small, or subtle; that it endears the speaker—in short, a speaker evaluation of undersize, restricted
and affectively positive” (Silverstein 1981, 8). Given such a definition, the difference between d i 4 -
di 4 -la and tur, for example, is largely a matter of affect: the non-diminutive t u r lacks the “cuteness”
factor that is present in a diminutive like d i 4 -d i 4 -l a.7 The use of reduplication to form a diminutive
may strike some readers as somewhat odd, but Mandarin Chinese exhibits a similar contrast as in the
two examples below.
ta de lian hen bai
she Poss face very white
Her face is pale
ta de lian bai.bai de
she Poss face white.Reduplication Nominalizer
Her face is (beautifully) white
Whereas bai ‘white’ is not reduplicated in the first example, indicating that it is affectively
neutral. The same term is reduplicated in the second example so as to show a positive evaluation.
Any negative affect associated with the non-reduplicated form is residual.8 I would like to suggest,
therefore, that sisig (and perhaps indirectly its Akkadian equivalent Zaqiqu) is a ḫamṭu reduplication
that is diminutive in meaning.9
7 The diminutive meaning of di 4 -di 4 -la, for example, is evident in Sumerian literature in the several
cases where it is used by a mother (or in address to a mother) to describe her children (Enki and Ninḫursaŋa,
line 272; The Return of Lugalbanda [= Lugalbanda II], line 128; The Ur Lament, line 228; The Nippur Lament,
line 66; The Home of the Fish, line 18). Similar examples could be adduced for ku 7 -ku 7 -da, particularly in
reference to lal 3 ku 7 -ku 7 -da-gin 7 “sweet as honey” and the like. The point is that both terms fit the semantic
field associated with diminutives (‘little’ and ‘small’), are associated with activities in which diminutives play
a large role such as domestic life and child rearing and both terms are also complemented by apparently non-
diminutive terms with the same meaning, namely tur and du 10 .
8 Mandarin also uses reduplication with active, volitional verbs to form what Li and Thompson call
the “delimitative” aspect, which is generally translated into English constructions with “a little” as in “the
flower must be cultivated a little before it will bloom” (Li and Thompson 1981, 232). Ji-yung Kim (2003)
draws an interesting parallel and contrast between “delimitative” reduplication in Mandarin and the use of the
*po- prefix in Russian, which “is comparable to vague quantifiers like ‘a little’, ‘a few’’ and vague measure
expressions like ‘a (relatively) small quantity/piece/extent of’” (Filip 2000 apud Kim 2003).
9 Some years ago, Civil suggested that d i4 (l) was a diminutive form of t u r largely on the basis of the
deformation of the root consonants (Civil 1973, 32) as happens in a number of other languages (see in particular
Silverstein’s discussion of Wasco-Wishram [Silverstein 1994]). If root consonant deformations are part of the
formation process of diminutives in Sumerian, we would expect them to conform to the phonological structures
of Sumerian in one way or another. At this point, however, these phonological correspondences remain unclear
164 Akkade is King
Although several minor objections could be raised at this point (such as the presence of
a nominalizing element in forms like di 4 -d i 4 - l a that seems to be absent from s i s i g ),10 the most
serious objection is undoubtedly the availability of a straightforward lexical source for the stem in
Akkadian, namely zâkum ‘to blow’. In my view, however, there is at least one plausible candidate for
the underlying stem of Sisig within the Sumerian lexicon as well, namely the nearly homophonous
root zi(g) ‘to rise’, which is sometimes used to describe the movement of winds and breezes.
114. im-ḫul im-ḫul-bi ḫa-[ma]-ta-an-zi
115. ŋišma2-gur8 ŋišma2-[tur] ˹gi ambar˺-[ra] ba-an-su
(O! my lady! [= Inanna] if you travel on a magur-boat . . .),
As for the evil winds, when they arise,
The magur-boats and the little boats will sink in the marsh.
(Inanna and An, lines 113-115, van Dijk 1998, 18 and 21; Gadotti 2005, 142)
Be that as it may, for our purposes here, the important point is that a description of Sisig
as a little or a gentle breeze fits into a diminutive semantics quite well as “undersize, restricted
and affectively positive.” Moreover, in the same way that d i 4 -d i 4 - l a and k u 7 -k u 7 - d a parallel
corresponding non-diminutive terms (tu r and d u 1 0 ), Sisig coexists with another term that denotes
‘wind’, namely tu 1 5 or tumu (Cavigneaux and Al-Rawi 1995, 188-190, n. 11). Likewise, within the
Akkadian milieu, Zaqīqu can be contrasted with the usual term for wind, namely šārum. Above all
else, it is the complementarity of the two terms in each language as well as the contrast in terms of
size and affect that strongly favors a diminutive reading of Si s i g /Zaqiqu.11
and reduplication seems to be the definitive feature in the construction. Malul reiterates von Soden’s suggestion
that sissiktum (rather than *sissikum or si-si-ig) is a “hypocoristic-diminutive form” and parallels other words
that include the feminine *-t- such as kakkabtum ‘a small star’ and šamšatum ‘solar disk’ (von Soden 1995,
91 apud Malul 1986, 33, n. 77). Crucially, however, von Soden is arguing that the feminine *-t- forms the
diminutive rather than reduplication and that the diminutive form is sissiktum rather than *sissikum.
10 The form sig 3 -sig 3 -ga does occur in the passage from the series bīt rimki cited by Zgoll: niŋ 2
ša 3 -ta i 3 -ŋa 2 -ŋa 2 inim šu [. . .] DI KA / sig 3 -sig 3 -ga kilib 3 nam-lu 2 -u 18 -lu-ke 4 šu ma-ra-ni-
ib 2 -gi 4 -gi 4 (LKA 75, line 12 f.; Zgoll 2006, 302). But as the forerunner identified by Geller makes clear (niŋ 2
ša 3 -ta i 3 -ŋa 2 -ŋa 2 inim šu du 6 -[du 6 al-di du 11 ] / d si-si-ig-e ad!(AB) nam-lu 2 -ulu 3 -˹ ke 4 ˺ [šu
ma-ra-ni-ib 2 -gi 4 -gi 4 ] “Whatever there is from the heart, the gentle word is [spoken] / and Sisig, father of
mankind [repeats it to you]” [translation Geller, CBS 1529, rev., lines 12-13; Geller 1995, 117, 119 and 122]),
the *-a in question was originally an ergative postposition rather than a part of the word-stem.
11 One may object that a vehicle for the movement of ghost, dreams and other nefarious beings from the
netherworld into the mundane world cannot be seen as “affectively positive,” but the supernatural accretions
to Sisig/Zaqiqu are certainly secondary and we should not forget the possibility that good dreams might be
transmitted as well as bad.
The metaphysical character of Sisig/Zaqiqu

Within what we might call the metaphysical economy of Mesopotamian religion, it is somehow
entirely appropriate that ordinary communications from the divine realm not impinge too heavily
on material reality. The theophanies of everyday life, as it were, should not take up space. Hence,
movements of that most immaterial of substances, air, whether in the form of a wind or a little breeze,
are ideal in that they are intangible and intractable. If my suggestion that the term s i s i g in Sumerian
is diminutive in meaning can be further substantiated, this would only heighten the insubstantial
character of Sisig/Zaqiqu: not only is Sisig/Zaqiqu made of the least concrete of materials (thin air),
but as a diminutive it would also be seen as occupying, one might say, as little physical space as
possible. The insubstantial and perhaps diminutive character of Sisig/Zaqiqu is further emphasized
in standard literary tropes that use Sisig/Zaqiqu as well as šāru ‘wind’ as metaphorical vehicles for
nothingness or emptiness in Akkadian (Streck 1999, 101; Cohen and Hurowitz 1999, 287-289).
The idea that Sisig/Zaqiqu is necessarily insubstantial and spatially diminutive is strengthened
by Zgoll’s recent discussion of Sisig/Zaqiqu as a discrete part of each human individual that can pass
between distinct ontic realms. On the basis of several passages that have previously resisted coherent
interpretation, Zgoll has argued that Sisig/Zaqiqu is a part of a human being that is analogous to a
ghost, a spirit or even a soul.
“The Zaqiqu of a person is not tied up with the spatial limitations of the human body, but rather
it can leave the body behind and pass into other spaces. In concrete terms, it can be represented
as an invisible breath, a wind. Words like ‘spirit’, ‘breath’ or ‘soul’ are available, therefore,
for translations of the term into modern languages, which can be further specified as ‘dream-
spirit’, ‘dream-breath’, or ‘dream-soul’ in the corresponding context.” (Zgoll 2006, 305, my
own translation)
The important thing about Zgoll’s description in this context is that Sisig/Zaqiqu is described
as a mediator capable of moving back and forth between the physical and the metaphysical planes
of reality, carrying perceptions of disjoint ontic realms back to the dreamer or prophet who remains
within the mundane world.12 This also reminds us that Sisig/Zaqiqu plays the same role in mantic and
prophetic communications that the liver plays in hepatoscopy or scapulae and turtle plastra play in
Shang period pyromancy in ancient China. That is to say, the focus of the ritual practices associated
with mantic and prophetic communications (as with all other forms of divination) was the medium
of communcation itself.
Paronomasia and mantic/prophetic authentication

Given the preceding description of Sisig/Zaqiqu as a quintessentially insubstantial vehicle for
the transmission of information from the metaphysical realm of the gods to the mundane realm of a
dreamer or prophet, the obvious difficulty that an ancient scribe would have faced in attempting to
12 I have dramatically oversimplified Zgoll’s description of her Traumtheorie in the interests of brevity,
for the metaphysical complexities involved, see her original presentation (Zgoll 2006, 259-473).
166 Akkade is King
autheticate a given prophecy or dream is that the medium through which the dream or prophecy was
transmitted to its initial recipient are necessarily ethereal and effervescent. Once we enter into the
realm of scribal (rather than metaphysical) transmission of the contents of a dream or prophecy to the
central authorities, a more concrete form of authentication would seem to be called for. I would like
to suggest, therefore, that the tradition that evolved in conjunction with reports of ominous dreams
and prophecies to the authorities took the word for ‘little breeze’ (viz. s i - s i - i g , s i g - s i g and s i g 3 -
s ig 3 ) in Sumerian, transformed the word into Akkadian (*sissik-) and added the feminine suffix
*-t- as a concretizing or individuating suffix (nomen unitatis).13 This yielded the word sissiktum,
which puns on a term for ‘fringe’ and plays into the widespread and presumably pre-existing use of
fringes of one kind or another to authenticate or ritualize legal and diplomatic transactions.14 In order
to clarify the meaning of the term sissiktum in the context of reports of mantic or prophetic activity,
it was then joined with an analogous term constructed along similar lines. The clearest synonym
for Sisig/Zaqiqu in Akkadian is the standard term for ‘wind’, namely šārum, and the addition of the
concretizing feminine *-t- to the stem of šārum yields the term šārtum ‘hair’. Only in combination,
therefore, do the terms sissiktum and šārtum act as paronomastic representations of the actual medium
of supernatural communication, namely *sissikum and šārum, which in turn presumably functioned
as a hendiadys for Sisig/Zaqiqu.
In general terms, it is entirely appropriate and even fortuitous (at least to modern eyes) that
the fringes of a garment were commonly used in Mesopotamia to signify the completion of various
ritual actions in the realms of family law and diplomacy. Crucially, however, in these other areas of
Mesopotamian life in which fringes play a role, the term for fringe varies (sissiktum, qanni/qaran
ṣubātim), and the fringe is never used in conjunction with šārtum ‘hair’. Even within one of the few
other textual genres where hair and fringe were used in combination, namely the tamītu texts recently
published by W. G. Lambert (2007), Lambert argues that by the Middle Babylonian period the initial
Sumerian logogram sig 2 in the phrase s i g 2 u tug2
s i g 2 was no longer read as šārtu in many cases,
13 On nomina unitatis in general, see Kienast 2001, 133, where Kienast lists several examples of
contrastive pairs in Akkadian (ḫallūrum ‘peas’ vs. ḫallūrtum ‘a pea’, kakkûm ‘lentil’ vs. kakkûtum ‘a lentil’ and
saḫlûm ‘cress’ vs. saḫlûtum ‘a cress seed’ (?)), while noting that the opposition between “masculine” collectives
and “feminine” individuated nouns (nomen unitatis) is much more clearly represented in Biblical Hebrew,
Syriac and Arabic. It is probably not insignificant that Kienast’s examples of nomina unitatis in Akkadian are
limited to relatively non-individuated crops, which are prototypically mass nouns in many languages. If this
limitation in Akkadian is real, it may suggest West Semitic or perhaps Amorite influence in the development of
the rituals associated with reports of mantic or prophetic communication, since this phenomenon is much more
broadly exemplified in the later West Semitic languages.
14 On the use of fringes as authentication devices for a number of different social practices, see Finet
1969; Finkelstein 1976; Malul 1986; 1988, and a forthcoming investigation by Amanda Podany (2008), which
was particularly useful in helping me to clarify and differentiate mantic/prophetic authentication from other
uses of fringes in Mesopotamian society. Undoubtedly, the choice of Sumerian Sisig rather than Akkadian
Zaqiqu was motivated in part by the availability of sissiktu as a target for the pun.
but rather as šīpātu ‘wool’ (Lambert 2007, 16-17).15 If so, this would suggest that the metaphysical
beliefs that underlie the use of šārtum and sissiktum in Old Babylonian prophetic and mantic texts had
largely disappeared by the Middle Babylonian period. In the absence of the connection between šārtu,
sissiktu and Sisig/Zaqiqu that I posit here, Middle Babylonian and later scribes, quite reasonably,
associated sig 2 with the šīpātu ‘wool’ that regularly appears in a wide variety of ritual texts that are
unrelated to Sisig/Zaqiqu.
Bibliography
Alster, B. 1997: Proverbs of ancient Sumer: the world’s earliest proverb collection (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press).
Butler, S. A. L. 1998: Mesopotamian conceptions of dreams and dream rituals (Alter Orient und Altes Testament
258; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Cavigneaux, A., and F. N. H. Al-Rawi 1995: “Textes Magiques de Tell Haddad (Textes de Tell Haddad II):
Troisième partie”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 85 (2), 169-220.
––––––– 2000: Gilgameš et la mort (Textes de Tell Haddad VI): avec un appendice sur les textes funeraires
sumeriens (Cuneiform monographs 19; Groningen: Styx).
Civil, M. 1973: “The Sumerian Writing System: Some Problems”, Orientalia 42, 21-34.
Civil, M. and G. Rubio 1999: “An Ebla incantation against insomnia and the Semiticization of Sumerian: Notes
on ARET 5 8b and 9”, Orientalia 68, 254-266.
Cohen, S. and V. A. Hurowitz 1999: “ḥuqqôt ha-ammîm hebel huˀ (Jer 10:3) in Light of Akkadian parṣu and
zaqīqu Referring to Cult Statues”, The Jewish Quarterly Review 89 (3-4), 277-290.
Cooper, J. S. 1983: The Curse of Agade (The Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies; Baltimore, Md.: Johns
Hopkins University Press).
van Dijk, J. J. A. 1998: “Inanna raubt den “großen Himmel”: Ein Mythos”, in S. M. Maul (ed.), Festschrift für
Rykle Borger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Mai 1994: tikip santakki mala bašmu (Cuneiform monographs
10; Groningen: Styx), 9-38.
Dossin, G. 1975: “Tablettes de Mari”, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 69, 23-30.
Durand, J.-M. 1988: Archives épistolaires de Mari (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations).
15 That the tamītu texts as well as certain other ritual and medical texts make use of šārtu and sissiktu
as a form of personal authentication or identification makes a good deal of sense because these other types of
texts depend on communication with the realm of the gods (or the netherworld) in one way or another. This is
particularly straightforward with the tamītu texts, but certain medical texts also seem to involve transmitting
the patient’s illness to the netherworld in some cases, often through the mediation of an assinnu-priest (see
Maul 1992, 164-165). In this short paper I have studiously avoided the numerous connections between Sisig/
Zaqiqu and the precursors of Lilith such as the ardat lili, connections that may be relevant to these other genres.
I hope to deal with the relationship between Sisig/Zaqiqu and the precursors of Lilith in another venue.
168 Akkade is King
Filip, H. 2000: “The Quantization Puzzle”, in J. Pustejovsky (ed.), Events as grammatical objects, from the
combined perspectives of lexical semantics, logical semantics and syntax (Stanford, Ca.: CSLI Press) , 3-60.
Finet, A. 1969: “Les symboles du cheveu, du bord du vetement et de l’ongle en Mesopotamie”, in A. Abel et
al. (eds.), Eschatologie et cosmologie (Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Institut de sociologie (de l’) Université libre de
Bruxelles), 101-130.
Finkelstein, J. J. 1976: “Cutting the sissiktu in Divorce Proceedings”, Die Welt des Orients 8 (2), 236-240.
Gadotti, A. 2004: “Enkidu Revived”, presentation at the 214th meeting of the American Oriental Society
(March 12-15, 2004).
––––––– 2005: “Gilgameš, Enkidu and the Netherworld” and the Sumerian Gilgameš Cycle (PhD dissertation;
Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University).
Geller, M. J. 1995: “Very Different Utu Incantations”, Acta Sumerologica 17, 101-126.
Gordon, E. I. 1960: “A New Look at the Wisdom of Sumer and Akkad”. Bibliotheca Orientalis 17(3/4), 122-152.
Horowitz, W. 1998: Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns).
Huehnergard, J. and C. Woods 2004: “Akkadian and Eblaite’, in R. D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge
encyclopedia of the world’s ancient languages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 218-280.
Jacobsen, Th. 1989: “The lil2 of den-lil2”, in: H. Behrens, D. Loding, M. T. Roth (eds.), DUMU E2-DUB-BA-A:
Studies in Honor of Å. W. Sjöberg (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11; Philadelphia,
Pa.: University Museum), 267-276.
Johnson, J. C. 2004: In the eye of the beholder: quantificational, pragmatic and aspectual features of the *bi-
verbal prefix in Sumerian (PhD dissertation; Los Angeles, Ca.: University of California, Los Angeles).
Kienast, B. 2001. Historische Semitische Sprachwissenschaft (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag).
Kim, Ji-yung 2003: Verb Reduplication in Mandarin (Unpublished manuscript; Amherst, Ma.: University of
Massachusetts).
Lambert, W.G. 2007: Babylonian Oracle Questions (Mesopotamian Civilizations, 13. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns).
Li, C. and S. Thompson 1981: Mandarin Chinese: a functional reference grammar (Berkeley, Ca.: University
of California Press).
Litke, R. L. 1998: A reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian god-lists, AN: dA-nu-um and AN: Anu šá amēli
(Texts from the Babylonian Collection 3; New Haven, Ct.: Yale Babylonian Collection).
Malul, M. 1986: “‘Sissiktu’ and ‘sikku’—Their meaning and function”, Bibliotheca Orientalis 43 (1/2), 20-36.
––––––– 1988: Studies in Mesopotamian legal symbolism (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 221; Kevelaer:
Butzon & Bercker).
Maul, S. M. 1992: “kurgarrû und assinnu und ihr Stand in der babylonischen Gesellschaft”, in V. Haas
(ed.), Außenseiter und Randgruppen: Beiträge zu einer Sozialgeschichte des Alten Orients (Konstanz:
Universitätsverlag), 159-171.
Nissinen, M., R. K. Ritner, C. L. Seow, and P. Machinist 2003: Prophets and prophecy in the ancient Near East
(Writings from the ancient world, no. 12; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature).
Oppenheim, A. L. 1956: The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 46(3); Philadelphia, Pa.: American Philosophical Society).
Podany, A. 2008: “Joining the Family: Old Babylonian Overlords and Vassals, and the Hems of their Garments”,
presentation at UCLA (November 30, 2007).
Silverstein, M. 1981: “The Limits of Awareness”, Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 84. Austin: Southwestern
Educational Laboratory [Reprinted in A. Duranti (ed.), Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader (Oxford, Blackwell),
382-401].
––––––– 1994: “Relative motivation in denotational and indexical sound symbolism of Wasco-Wishram
Chinookan”, in L. Hinton, J. Nichols, and J. Ohala (eds.), Sound Symbolism (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press), 40-61.
von Soden, W. 1995: Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, third expanded edition (Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute).
Streck, M. P. 1999: Die Bildersprache der akkadischen Epik (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 264; Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag).
Vanstiphout, H. 2003: Epics of Sumerian Kings: :The Matter of Aratta (Writings from the Ancient World 20:
Leiden: Brill).
Veldhuis, N. 2001: “The Solution of the Dream: A New Interpretation of Bilgames’ Death”, Journal of
von Weiher, E. 1988: Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk, Bd. 3 (Ausgrabungen der Deutschen
Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 12; Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag).
Yoshikawa, M. 1979: “Verbal Reduplication in Sumerian”, Acta Sumerologica 1, 99-119.
––––––– 1993: Studies in the Sumerian Verbal System (Acta Sumerologica Supplementary Series 1; Hiroshima:
Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan).
Zgoll, A. 2006: Traum und Welterleben im antiken Mesopotamien: Traumtheorie und Traumpraxis im 3. - 1.
Jahrtausend v. Chr. als Horizont einer Kulturgeschichte des Träumens (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 333;
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Old Babylonian Сopies of Sargonic Royal Inscriptions as
Linguistic Evidence1
Leonid Kogan, Moscow
The relevance of the OB copies of Sargonic royal inscriptions for the linguistic study of
Sargonic Akkadian has been differently assessed in scholarly literature.
According to a widespread opinion, these copies (especially those produced by the Nippur
scribal school) are fair representatives of Sargonic orthography and grammar and can be legitimately
included in the Sargonic Akkadian linguistic corpus. An eloquent expression of this approach can be
found in Aage Westenholz’s review of RIME 2:
“the Old Babylonian copies are in fact difficult to read, especially the large Sammeltafeln. If the
master scribes who wrote them can be faulted on any score, it is that they tried to cram as much text onto
as little surface as humanly possible. Otherwise, they are incredibly faithful renderings of the originals,
both with respect to sign forms and orthography, unlike most modern copies of the same texts…”
and
“these Old Babylonian copies usually are very faithful – most of them are superior to most of
what we produce” (Westenholz 1996, 120, 117).
A radically different stance towards the OB copies is taken in a recent grammar of Sargonic
Akkadian by Rebecca Hasselbach. According to Hasselbach,
“the perception that the copies from Nippur are faithful reflections of the original royal inscrip-
tions has often led to their rather uncritical inclusion into the Sargonic Akkadian corpus” (Hasselbach
2005, 11).
Despite her statement that “most of the copies, especially those from Nippur, seem to reflect
Sargonic Akkadian features faithfully”, Hasselbach asserts that, “they nevertheless contain clear
mistakes and divergences from original Sargonic texts based on misinterpretation of Sargonic forms
by Old Babylonian scribes” (Hasselbach 2005, 11-12).
Hasselbach’s approach to the OB copies is of no small consequences for her grammar. In this
book, the evidence of the OB copies is usually excluded from the analysis, being treated, at the very
best, as low-level auxiliary material.
1 An oral version of this contribution was read in January 2008 in Jena, upon a kind invitation from
Prof. M. Krebernik. In its present form, it owes much to Prof. W. Sommerfeld, who invested plenty of time and
energy to help me in a variety of difficult questions. I am deeply indebted to him for this patient guidance. My
gratitude goes to Prof. C. Wilcke who read a preliminary draft of this article, suggesting important corrections
and improvements. I thank K. Markina for putting at my disposal a few otherwise inaccessible articles and text
editions. The present article has been compiled in the framework of the project No. 09-04-00235a of РГНФ/
Russian Foundation for Humanities, whose support I gratefully acknowledge.
172 Akkade is King
This approach undoubtedly represents a major challenge from both methodological and factual
points of view – even Gelb, whose skeptical attitude towards the OB copies is correctly emphasized
by Hasselbach, did systematically analyze these texts both grammatically and lexically.
Indeed, there are powerful reasons for including the OB copies into the corpus of a Sargonic
Akkadian grammar. Five types of arguments deserve special mention in this connection.
1. Size of the corpus. Taken together, the OB copies of Sargonic royal inscriptions constitute
the largest corpus of linguistic information on Sargonic Akkadian.
2. Length of individual documents. The length of individual royal inscriptions preserved in
OB copies usually exceeds by far that of any other document written in Sargonic Akkadian. This is an
important advantage for the linguistic analysis, as it allows one to discover linguistically meaningful
oppositions within one document written by a single hand.
3. Chronology. Linguistically informative documents traceable to the early Sargonic period
are almost completely lacking. OB copies of royal inscriptions of Sargon, Rīmuš and Maništušu
provide, therefore, the principal evidence about the earliest phases of Sargonic Akkadian — which
do seem to be in some respects divergent from its later phases.
4. Formulaic nature. Sargonic letters, which constitute the bulk of the original corpus, are
very often notoriously difficult to interpret. Needless to say, royal inscriptions are not free from
difficulties, but the relatively high number of well-known standardized clichés often provide a safer
ground for linguistic research.
5. Sumerian translations. A good number of the inscriptions of Sargon and Rīmuš are
bilingual. The Sumerian versions may help to verify our understanding of the Akkadian parallels.
The same conditions could, in principle, be fulfilled by the original royal inscriptions as well,
but, to our regret, the extant corpus of original royal inscriptions does not provide even a modest
palliative in any of the aforementioned aspects. Thus, according to my raw calculations, the number
of non-repeated Akkadian tokens in all the original royal inscriptions taken together scarcely exceeds
60 items. This is considerably less than what we find in just one OB copy, viz. the Narām-Sîn tablet
now in Jena. A comparable amount of linguistic information can be gleaned from three Sargonic
letters such as Adab 3, 12 and Girsu 19. As far as the size of individual inscriptions is concerned,
even the lengthiest original inscription – the Bassetki statue – provides no more than 30 unrepeated
Akkadian tokens: ca. one third less than the “Gutian letter” Girsu 19 and almost three times less than
the Jena tablet. Finally, there are no linguistically informative original inscriptions from Sargon and
Rīmuš and no bilingual original inscriptions at all. Under such conditions, it seems rather obvious
that excluding the OB copies practically amounts to excluding the royal inscriptions as a genre. Such
a decision, it seems, would need very serious arguments in its favor.
The author of the new Sargonic grammar is well aware of this difficulty. On page 12 of her
grammar, she adduces what she considers to be,
“changes and emendations of the original text, the use of signs that were not part of the original
L. Kogan: Old Babylonian Copies of Sargonic Royal Inscriptions as Linguistic Evidence 173
Sargonic syllabary, and, rarely, forms that are not ‘grammatical’ in Sargonic Akkadian but are derived
from Old Babylonian instead”.
In a lengthy footnote 62, eleven examples illustrating this claim are adduced, and there are
other similar observations scattered over the whole of Hasselbach’s book.2 The aim of the present
contribution is to provide a critical analysis of Hasselbach’s arguments, in an attempt to re-assess the
validity of the OB copies for the linguistic study of Sargonic Akkadian. In the following each of the
eleven examples will be analyzed in order of 1-11.
1. “The use of IŠ for etymological *iṯ, which is written with IŠ11 in original inscriptions”
2. “The writing of etymological *ṯa with SA instead of ŠA”
On pp. 137-138 of her study, Hasselbach quotes two types of examples for ŠV and IŠ11
rendering *ṯV and *iṯ in the original royal inscriptions:
a. the relative pronoun ša
b. ša!āru ‘to win’.
This evidence leads Hasselbach to observe that “there are no exceptions to these spellings in
original inscriptions” and “we can therefore conclude that the phonemes *s/*ś and *ṯ were distinct
in all environments”. In my opinion, a different conclusion is at hand, namely: the original royal
inscriptions provide no evidence for the rendering of *ṯ at all. What we actually have are two lexemes,
a relative pronoun and a verb attested in formulaic expressions where historically conservative
orthography is most likely to be found. And, strictly speaking, none of the two lexemes has a reliable
Semitic etymology pointing to *ṯ in the prototype.3 This meager evidence is simply inadequate for
2 Such as “the syllabary of original royal inscriptions does not use the sign M E for syllabic spellings.
Exceptions are only found in Old Babylonian copies” (p. 47), “the sign T E is only used in the Diyala region
and in Old Babylonian copies” (p. 55), “exceptions are only found in OB copies” (p. 61, about GU for [gu]
and [ku]), “the sign IL … is never used for syllable onsets, except in Old Babylonian copies and in a personal
name” (p. 64), “the distinction of SU and SU 4 in the pronominal system is very consistent. Royal inscriptions,
except Old Babylonian copies, never confuse SU as possessive suffix with SU 4 as accusative suffix and
anaphoric pronoun” (p. 71), “this attestation from an Old Babylonian copy should consequently not be used
as genuine Sargonic evidence” (p. 170, about the preposition in ḳár-bi ‘in’), “in original Sargonic texts ’istum
is only used as adverb of time, not as preposition ‘from’, but note the exception ís-tum-ma ... in OB copies
... in which the function of the preposition does not reflect original Sargonic Akkadian” (p. 173). A proper
evaluation of these claims would exceed the limits of this article and is scheduled for a series of forthcoming
studies focusing on the Sargonic grammar as reflected in the OB copies of royal inscriptions.
3 The etymology of the characteristically Sargonic verb ša!āru ‘to win, to destroy’ remains highly
uncertain. Hasselbach (2005, 85) tends to relate it to Arb. and Sab. ṯ!r ‘to take blood revenge’ (Lane 327, SD
149; for the highly problematic ṯ!r, ṯā!r in Ugaritic see DUL 890-891), but the semantic difference makes one
reluctant to accept this etymology. The more traditional comparison with PS *ṯġr ‘to break’ is also problematic
both semantically and phonetically (cf. Kogan 2002, 315-316 and, with a more positive assessment, Kogan
2005, 200-201). As for the Akkadian relative pronoun, whatever likely its reconstruction as *ṯu may seem,
174 Akkade is King
comparison with any other linguistic corpus, within or outside Sargonic Akkadian.
If we turn to the OB copies of Sargonic royal inscriptions, the following examples of
etymological *ṯ spelled with ŠV and IŠ 11 can be discovered:
a. the relative pronoun ša (passim)
b. ša!āru ‘to win’ (passim)
c. ašru ‘place’ (a-ša-rí-śu in RIME 2.1.1.1: 98; RIME 2.1.1.2: 104; a-ša-ar-rí in RIME 2.1.2.6:
45; RIME 2.1.2.7: 21, all Nippur)4
d. šanû ‘other’ (ša-ni-am in RIME 2.1.4.3 v 33, Nippur) and šanû ‘to do for a second time’
(iš11-ni-a-ma in RIME 2.1.4.6 iii 23', Nippur)5
e. tamšīlu ‘monument’ (tám-ši-il-śu in RIME 2.1.4.23: 15 ex. 1,6 probably Nippur)7
f. šebēru ‘to break’ (ša-bir5 in RIME 2.1.4.30: 8', Nippur).8
True or alleged exceptions to this spelling convention include:
a. šanû ‘to do for a second time’ (I Š -ni-a-ma in RIME 2.1.1.3: 24, Nippur)9
b. tamšīlu ‘monument’ (tám-SI ! -l[í] in RIME 2.1.4.26 iii 33, Ur10, tám-S [I-il]-ś[u] in 2.1.4.50
direct and unambiguous etymological evidence for such a reconstruction is lacking (cf. Huehnergard 2006,
notably pp. 114-119).
4 From PS *!aṯar- ‘trace’: Arb. !aṯar-, Gez. !aŝar- (CDG 45). It was the merit of Westenholz to interpret
the Sargonic forms as oblique plurals (1996, 121) which he, nevertheless, considers “unpalatable”. In fact,
a-epenthesis before -r- would not be untenable in view of ki-ṣí-rí in RIME 2.1.1.3:7, most probably a plural
of kiṣru. Alternatively, preservation of the original bi-syllabic structure, reliably reconstructible for the PS
prototype of Akk. ašru, may be postulated: lack of vocalic syncope before -r- would be quite expected in this
early period (and even later). One wonders, incidentally, whether a similar bi-syllabic form is behind iš-ri-šu
‘his place’ (and similar forms) in Old Assyrian (< *iširīšu < *aširīšu < *ašarīšu ?): otherwise, ašru would seem
to be the only enigmatic exception to the Assyrian vocalic accommodation rule, which does not affect closed
syllables (Hecker 1968, 20-21).
5 From PS *ṯin-ā ‘two’: Arb. !iṯn-āni, Ugr. ṯn, Sab. ṯn-y (CDG, 509). Here and elsewhere below
etymological data for well-known PS roots are restricted to a reasonable minimum. Leslau’s CDG is used as a
standard reference tool.
6 The copy of the ex. 2 has SU 4 instead of ŠI, but as pointed out in Krebernik 1991, 142, the correct
reading may be ŠÈ (= *ṯe), which is compatible with the etymologically expected orthographic pattern
(reference courtesy W. Sommerfeld).
7 From PS *mṯl ‘to be similar’: Arb., ESA mṯl (CDG 365). Note in particular Arb. timṯāl- ‘image’
(LA 11, 730).
8 From PS *ṯbr ‘to break’: Arb., ESA, Ugr. ṯbr (CDG 485).
9 In iii 12 of RIME 2.1.4.2, Wilcke (1997, 23) reads IŠ-<ku8>-ni!-a-ma. This would represent another
similar exception, but note the alternative reading IŠ-BU-a-ma in Sommerfeld 2000, 424. Sommerfeld’s
interpretation (‘they did for the seventh time’) implies PS *šab"- ‘seven’ in the background, which makes the
spelling with IŠ etymologically justified.
10 Reading from Westenholz 1996, 119, following Sollberger 1965, 32.
iii 1', Nippur, tám-S I-il-śu in RIME 2.1.4.1001: 10', unknown provenance)
c. šebēru ‘to break’ (li-IŠ-bir5 in RIME 2.1.1.2: 128; RIME 2.1.1.6: 49; RIME 2.1.1.7: 34,
Nippur, SA -bi-ir in RIME 2.1.4.25: 4, Nippur, Ur)
d. derivates of šalāš ‘three’ (SA-lí-IŠ -tim ‘third’ in RIME 2.1.2.6: 69, Nippur, I Š -lí-S A -ma11
‘two of them did for the third time’ in RIME 2.1.1.3: 29)
e. nabšû ‘storehouse’ (na-ab-SI ! -ì-śu in RIME 2.1.5.6 iii 6).
Let us try to evaluate this evidence.
On the positive side, we can supplement the meager evidence of the original inscriptions by four
additional lexemes with eight attestations. Etymologically, each of these goes back to a perfect *ṯ-root.
On the negative side, two groups of real exceptions can be detected.
1. IŠ instead of IŠ 11 in IŠ-ni-a-ma and li-I Š -bir5.
These unquestionable exceptions can scarcely be attributed to the OB influence. They rather
seem to point to a real phonetic merger of syllable-final *š and *ṯ already in the earliest stage of
Sargonic Akkadian. Such a conclusion appears more than likely: outside the stereotype forms of
ša!āru, the use of IŠ 11 for *iṯ is practically unattested anywhere in the Sargonic corpus (one single
exception is discussed below in this section).12
2. SI for ŠI in tám-SI ! -l[í], tám-S [I-il]-ś[u], tám-S I-il-śu.
These exceptions are also unquestionable, but here, too, there are reasons to suspect a true
phonetic merger of *š and *ṯ before i in Sargonic Akkadian rather than an OB orthographic influence:
the reflex of *š (almost certainly pronounced as [s]) was palatalized before i and became so similar
to the reflex of *ṯ (most probably pronounced as [š]) that the orthographic opposition between S I
and ŠI could be occasionally neutralized in favor of the more commonly used sign (S I ).13 One can
11 Reading (over erasure) suggested by W. Sommerfeld in personal communication.

12 It is, of course, noteworthy that systematic replacement of IŠ 11 by IŠ is observed already in the
quarta fonte of the Ebla vocabulary (Conti 1990, 12-14; to what degree this phenomenon is attested outside this
source is debatable, cf. Krebernik 1988, 50 and Conti 1990, 13-14). While it is true that occasional merger of
SV and ŠV signs is also characteristic of the quarta fonte, the general pattern of their use remains fairly regular.
This evidence plainly suggests that the syllable-final position is the weakest one as far as the differentiation
of the sibilant phonemes is concerned. The same is true, mutatis mutandis, also of later periods, as instructive
observations on VZ, VS and VŠ signs in Old Babylonian by Streck (2006, 216-217, 225-227, 237) and
Sommerfeld (2007, 367-369) clearly demonstrate.
13 This process and its orthographic implications bear some similarity to our interpretation of the Old
Assyrian sibilant system (Kogan and Markina 2006, 571-572). That the presence of i (and u) may trigger the
sibilant merger has been observed already by Sommerfeld (GAG § 30; cf. also Hasselbach 2005, 52-53). As far
as the 19 irregular SV-spellings from original Sargonic documents are concerned (see below in this section), i
is present in seven examples. No less than five cases involve a, however.
176 Akkade is King
only speculate whether such factors as chronology14 or provenance of the tablets15 are of relevance
for this phenomenon.
All other exceptions seem to be alleged rather than real.
1. As already supposed by Blau (1972, 80) and Krebernik (1985, 58), the etymological
background of the Akkadian numeral ‘three’ (šalāš) may be different from that of Arabic ṯalāṯ-, but
rather coincide with that of Old Sabaic s2lṯ and related forms in Geez and MSA. This observation
is helpful to explain SA (but not IŠ) in S A -lí-IŠ -tim as well as I Š (but not S A ) in I Š -lí-S A -
ma. However, instead of postulating an orthographic distortion by the OB scribes it seems better to
suspect that the Sargonic numeral — not unlike most of its Central Semitic cognates — did undergo
assimilation, but in the opposite direction (*ŝalāṯ- > ŝalāŝ).16 At the same time, one will not fail to
observe that the “irregular” SA- lí-IŠ -tim in the OB copy finds an almost exact equivalent in S A -
li- I Š-tim in the original Sargonic document Eš 7: 9'.17
2. There is no uniform interpretation of S A -bi-ir in RIME 2.1.4.25: 4 (clearly written in both
Nippur and Ur exemplars).18 Hasselbach follows Gelb and Kienast 1990, 249 and Kienast 1994, 358 in
attributing this form to šebēru ‘to break’, but derivation from šapāru ‘to send, to command’19 accepted
in Gelb 1957, 281, Krebernik 1991, 141 and Frayne 1993, 13020 is at least no less probable.21
14 All the three examples come from Narām-Sîn’s inscriptions (“late Sargonic”?), but most of the
“correct” examples (including tám-ši-il-śu in RIME 2.1.4.23:15) have the same source.
15 While all “regular” examples come from Nippur, only one among the “irregular” ones (tám-S[I-il]-
ś[u] in RIME 2.1.4.50 III 1') has the same origin.
16 In view of the lateral articulation of PS *ŝ and its possible preservation (at least on the allophonic
level) in Akkadian š (see most recently Streck 2006), such an assimilation appears entirely plausible in view of
-l- as the second radical. That such a reconstruction is not merely a theoretical construct is shown by the actual
existence of the numeral ‘three’ with two lateral sibilants in the Modern South Arabian language Ḥarsūsi: ŝeláyŝ
‘three’, ŝēleŝ ‘third’ (HL, 120, side by side with ŝēleṯ ‘third’ ibid.). The relevance of the phonetic proximity
between *ŝ and *l for the complex evolution of the PS numeral ‘three’ has been correctly emphasized in Faber
1984, 215-219.
17 See also SA-al-SA-tim in CT 50, 81:3 (reference courtesy W. Sommerfeld), undoubtedly connected
with the numeral ‘three’ and possibly designating a certain time-span (contrast śa-pá-tim ‘fortnight’ in l. 6 of
this document and cf. CAD Š/1 287, AHw. 1150). My thanks go to K. Markina who kindly agreed to discuss
this passage with me.
18 Contrast Hasselbach 2005, 12 where this example appears only under “Ur”.
19 There is no certain etymology for šapāru but none of the possible candidates exhibits *ṯ as the first
radical (Huehnergard 1991, 704).
20 Both alternatives can be found in several other studies, such as Selz 1991, 42 (šapāru), Frayne 1992,
620 (šapāru), Franke 1995, 163 (rather šapāru), Steinkeller 1982, 246 (šapāru), 1998, 90 (šebēru) (references
courtesy W. Sommerfeld).
21 One more potential “incorrect” spelling of šebēru can possibly be deduced from u-SA-bi-ir in RIME
3. The reading na-ab-S I ! -ì-śu in RIME 2.1.5.6 iii 6 (Nippur), suggested in Gelb and Kienast
1990, 280-281, has been accepted by Hasselbach (2005, 146, 278). Frayne (1992, 631; 1993, 195)
definitively prefers the reading with ŠÈ w h i c h , indeed, is very clear on Goetze’s copy (1968, 57).
This word, at any rate, is quite obscure and its very attribution to bašû (presumably < *bṯy) remains
to be substantiated.
Summing up: “incorrect” spellings of etymological *ṯ in OB copies of Sargonic royal
inscriptions amount to four cases of IŠ instead of I Š 11 and three examples of S I instead of Š I
(in the latter category, only one example comes from Nippur). These “exceptions” are opposed to
eight “correct” examples involving ŠA, Š I and I Š 11 . All real exceptions can be plausibly explained
by natural phonetic developments within Sargonic Akkadian rather than by interference from Old
Babylonian scribes.
A telling confirmation for this conclusion comes from the analysis of original Sargonic documents.
In this corpus, etymological *ṯ is rendered by Š V and I Š 11 in the following cases:22
a. the relative pronoun ša (passim)
b. wašābu ‘to sit’ (u-ša-bu in Gir 27: 6'; u-ša-ab in Gir 35: 7; Ki 5: 9; Gir 36: 3; Nip 1: 10;
MAD 5, 22: 9; li-ši4-ib in Eš 1: 13)23
c. errēšu ‘cultivator’ (!à-ra-šè in Di 10: 14')24
d. šīnātu ‘urine’ (ši-na-tim in MAD 5, 8: 16)25
e. šaḳālu ‘to pay’ (iš11-ḳú-lu in MAD 5, 65: 34)26
f. bašû ‘to be’ (ib-ši in MAD 1, 167: 3; 5; i-ba-šè in *A 910: 527; Um 3: 16; MAD 5, 3: 11; 86:
2.1.4.2 vii 27. Wilcke (1997, 27) interpreted ŠU. NIR-ni-śu-nu na-DI NGIR da-núm in KÁ.KÁ ì-li-śu
u-SA-bi-ir as ‘liess Narām-Sîn, der Starke, ihre Standarten herüberbringen in die Tore seiner Götter hinein’,
but ‘he broke their standards’ is of course also conceivable and may even be preferable. While šebēru D
is widely attested in comparable passages (CAD Š/2 249-250) and is syntactically justified by the plural
object (Kouwenberg 1997, 126), the usage of ebēru Š as described in CAD E 13 does not seem to conform
to Wilcke’s interpretation. Besides, a derivation from ebēru would require, ideally, the use of SÁ rather than
SA (Sommerfeld 2003, 413), although this rule is not entirely strict (cf. Hasselbach 2005, 69 and Kogan and
Markina 2006, 566-567).
22 This list may be supplemented by ma-ša-lum ‘mirror’ < PS *mṯl (CAD M/2 257, Gelb 1957, 185)
and ši-iḳ-dum ‘almond’ (CAD Š/3 94-95, Gelb 1957, 282) < PS *ṯaḳid-/*ṯiḳd- (cf. Ugr. ṯḳd, DUL 927). Both
are widely attested as Akkadian loanwords in Sargonic documents written in Sumerian.
23 From PS *wṯb: Sab. wṯb, Ugr. yṯb (CDG 619).
24 From PS *ḥrṯ: Arb. Ugr. ḥrṯ (CDG 243). The translation ‘cultivators’ (Sommerfeld 1999, 19) is
superior to the usual interpretation as an infinitive (Kienast and Volk 1995, 167), as it explains both the lack of
mimation and the use of šè for -ē as the plural oblique marker.
25 From PS *ṯīn-at-: Ugr. ṯnt, Arb. maṯānat- ‘bladder’ (SED I No. 77v).
26 From PS *ṯḳl: Arb. ṯql (CDG 509).
27 Here and elsewhere below the asterisk marks relevant forms that are missing from the index of
178 Akkade is King
4; HSS 10, 46: 4; 51 rev. ii 4; 52 iv 1; *59 rev. 4; *120 rev. 4; MAD 1, 267: 9; *283 rev. 4; BIN 8,
*125: 8; 138: 6; 140: 6; 145: 13; OSP 2, 5: 4; Limet 1973: 38; 12: 6; 13: 5; *14: 23, i-ba-šè-ù in OSP
2, 25: 12; HSS 10, 109 rev. 9; *110, rev. 2), *ba-ši-um28 in HSS 10, 71 rev. 229
g. ša!āru ‘to win’ (passim in date formulas, see references in Kienast 1994: 277).
“Exceptions” include:
a. wašābu ‘to sit’ (tu-SA-bu in Ad 12:16; śu-S I-ib-ma in Gir 19:13; SI-ba in Di 1: 11;
li-I Š-bu in Ga 7: 11; wa-SI-bu in MAD 5, 15 rev. 3'; MAD 5, 36 rev. ii 1)
b. bašû ‘to be’ (ib-SI in Um 3: 7, MAD 1, 181 ii 6; i-ba-S E 11 in OAIC 9: 29; *[b]a-S I -um
in MAD 1, 105: 4)
c. šaḳālu ‘to pay’ (a-SA-ḳá-al in Eš 3:21; [i]-S A ?-ḳal in UCP 9, 83 iv 1230)
d. erēšu ‘to cultivate’ (e-ra-S I-iś in Ga 3: 23)
e. šebēru ‘to break’ (tá-SA-bi-ir in OSP 1, 7 i 5')
f. išû ‘to have’ (i-SU in MAD 5, 21: 5; MDP 14, 49: 7; ti- S U in OAIC 36: 8)31
g. kašāru ‘to compensate’ (a-kà-SA -ar in Ga 3: 15; ik-S U-ra in OAIC 14: 30; ik-S U 4 -ra
in OAIC 36: 9), kušurrā!u ‘compensation’ (ku8-S U -ra-im in OAIC 4: 15; ku8-S U 4 -ra-im
in MAD 4, 4: 17)32
h. ša!āru ‘to win’ (ÈŠ-a-ru in MAD 1, 236:15).
As soon as one excludes the obviously stereotype forms of bašû ‘to be’, “exceptional” examples
(19) are by far more numerous than the “correct” ones (10). Under such conditions, one can only
agree with Westenholz (1996, 120), according to whom “already by Narām-Sîn’s time, if not before,
SA and ŠA were extensively confused”. This phonological process, abundantly documented by the
original documents, could hardly have completely by-passed the royal inscriptions. They are indeed
affected by it – although, as I tried to demonstrate above, considerably less than any other Sargonic
corpus.
There is an interesting piece of evidence corroborating this assumption. As mentioned above,
the only *ṯ-lexemes from the original royal inscriptions dealt with by Hasselbach are ša ‘which’
and ša!āru ‘to win’. Now, SA -la-ti ‘booty’ in l. 4 of the inscription of Ititi, an early ruler of Aššur
Akkadian words discussed in Hasselbach 2005 (pp. 263-292 of that study).

28 Reference courtesy K. Markina.
29 The etymology of bašû is, strictly speaking, uncertain, but as observed in Hasselbach 2005, 53, *ṯ in
the prototype is likely in view of the spelling ba-ša-um = AL.GÁL in Ebla (VE 991).
30 Reading with Gelb 1957, 283 (contrast i-sa-ga-al (sic!) in Hasselbach 2005, 70, 285).
31 There is no reason to doubt that the PS root underlying Akk. išû was *yṯw (Kogan and Markina 2006,
576).
32 Probably from PS *kṯr ‘to be abundant, healthy, successful’: Ugr. Arb. kṯr (DUL 471). The translations
‘wiederherstellen, erfolgreich beenden’ and ‘conclusion’ for kašāru and kušurrā!u recently suggested in Wilcke
2000, 46 and 2007, 76 are in agreement with the general meaning of PS *kṯr as outlined above.
(RIME 2.4.1 = RIMA 0.1001), almost certainly goes back to *ṯall-at-: note the Š A spelling of its
exact cognate in Ebla (ŠA -la-tum = Sum. NA M . R A . A K A in VE 1093, Fronzaroli 1979, 76-
77, Krebernik 1983, 38) as well as Sab. ṯll ‘to carry off booty’ (SD 150)33. The Ititi inscription is
unanimously ascribed to the Sargonic period for paleographic and linguistic34 reasons (Poebel 1942,
259-260, Borger 1961, 1, Larsen 1976, 31-32, Grayson 1987, 7, Frayne 1993, 238, Neumann 1997,
134, Hasselbach 2005, 253), although its more exact chronological location is still disputed.35
It is worth observing, finally, that nowhere in the OB copies do we observe the reverse
orthographic phenomenon, viz. the “incorrect” use of Š V instead of S V. 36 This remarkable process,
probably anticipating the great orthographic shifts of later periods (Hilgert 2002, 128-133), has not
received enough attention in Hasselbach’s book: to ú-šu-ri-dam ‘he led down’ (MAD 4, 10:4) and
ma-ḫa-ar-šu-nu (OAIC 8:16; 12:16) mentioned in Hasselbach 2005, 9737 one should add several
reliable examples from Kish and Mugdan (è-rí-Š U-kà ‘they will request from you’, and Š U -up-
ra-am-ma in Ki 1:10, 1638, [u-Š]A-ti-ḳú-ni ‘that he made cross’ in MC 4, 73:18, la tá-pá-Š A-ḫi-ni
‘you will not find peace’ in MAD 5, 8:3839). In view of this evidence, one is reluctant to agree with
Hasselbach (2005, 139-140) who believes that “the interdental ṯ is still distinct from *s/ś in texts from
33 In Hasselbach 2005, 284 this form is attributed to *šll, which seems much less likely. In Arabic, sll
and ṯll are attested with clearly related meanings (‘to draw out’, ‘to take away’, Lane 1395, 345), but none is
specifically connected with booty, which makes them less relevant for the etymological evaluation of Akk.
šalālu. The form IŠ-lu-ul, attested several times in Sargonic administrative documents (presumably with the
meaning ‘he withdrew’, cf. CAD Š/1 201) is also of little relevance for the sibilant problem since the use of
IŠ 11 for etymological [iṯ] was clearly a rarity throughout Sargonic period (see n. 12). Admittedly, the existence
of the variant root *šll seems to be corroborated by the Ugartic form šl attested in the letter KTU 2.61: 6, where
it is commonly interpreted as ‘he plundered’ (DUL 817)
34 Note the preservation of the genitive ending -i in the construct state.
35 Larsen is probably right to believe that a “classical Sargonic” date (such as Rīmuš) is improbable,
since “booty from the city of Gasur, which was certainly also under the control of the southern kings, is unlikely
to have been in the hands of a governor of Rīmuš or any other Old Akkadian king”. For a similar evaluation see
Westenholz 1999, 50, 56 and, most recently, Veenhof 2008, 19.
36 The only possible exception seems to be ŠA-pá-ki-iś in RIME 2.1.5.5:55 if indeed from šapāku ‘to
pour, to heap’ (< *špk: Ugr. špk, Arb. sfk, DUL 835, Lane 1374) as suggested in Westenholz 1996, 120 (cf.
Krebernik 1991, 140-141). This is a Neo-Babylonian copy, however.
37 Three hypothetic examples of unexpected ŠÈ for etymological *š/*ŝ mentioned on p. 54 of
Hasselbach’s book are all problematic (Kogan and Markina 2006, 562).
38 From *!rŝ (Hbr. !ăräŝät ‘desire’, HALOT 92) and *špr (Arb. sfr ‘to take away, to carry off’, Lane
1370) respectively. Hasselbach (2005, 285) emends the second form to su!-up-ra-am-ma, which is unwarranted
paleographically and in view of the same type of irregularity just several lines above in the same document.
There is, probably, still a third example of ŠV instead of SV in this letter, viz. ŠU-[ṣ]í-a-am ‘bring forth’ (Gelb
1970: 4, Sallaberger 1996, 405; contrast śu! in Kienast and Volk 1995, 141).
39 From *pšḥ or *pŝḥ (cf. Huehnergard 1991, 694, CDG 168).
180 Akkade is King
Kish and Umm el-Jir in most cases” and “it therefore seems that *ṯ was mostly preserved in Kish and
Umm el-Jir”.40
3. “Vetitive /ē/ written e, which is not attested in Sargonic Akkadian before the 3ms
otherwise, as in e GUB (Sa C6:37 Nip), for which original texts would use a for /ay/”
No vetitive forms are attested in original Sargonic inscriptions, which makes them unsuitable
for comparison.41 In Old Babylonian, e regularly appears before consonants and a before vowels; in
Old Assyrian, e is normal in all positions (GAG § 81).
In the OB copies, the vetitive is attested only before “vocalic” prefixes. The picture from the
OB copies from Nippur is as follows.
The allomorph e is attested in the following examples:
˹e˺ DU ‘he shall not walk’ (RIME 2.1.1.2:131; RIME 2.1.1.6:52; RIME 2.1.1.7:37), e D U
(RIME 2.1.2.6:130)
e u-kí-il ‘he shall not hold’ (RIME 2.1.4.3 vi 24)42
e iṣ-ba-at ‘he shall not seize’ (RIME 2.1.4.3 vi 28)
e ú-śu-śi-ra ‘they shall not let flourish’ (RIME 2.1.4.3 vii 5).
The allomorph a is attested in the following examples:
a i-dì-na-śum ‘they shall not give’ (RIME 2.1.2.6:127; RIME 2.1.2.4:121 (˹a i-dì-na-śum˺);
RIME 2.1.4.3 vi 35).
The pattern is clear: e is the basic allomorph, compatible with various verbal forms with a
“vocalic” prefix, whereas a is restricted to the form yiddināšum. This distribution, attested in two
different Nippur tablets and twice present within one inscription, is with all likelihood to be treated
as a meaningful morphological opposition rather than a random coincidence. And it is so dissimilar
from the OB picture (where e appears before consonants and a before all vowels) that, in my opinion,
the possibility of an OB influence is close to zero (contra Hasselbach and Gelb 1961, 22).
40 Further reliable examples of this phenomenon are scarce in the Sargonic corpus. Perhaps the most
remarkable one is ŠA-pu-u[l]-t[im] ‘transaction?’ in MAD 1, 321:9, contrasting with SA-pu-ul-ti in MAD 1,
292:13. Hasselbach (2005, 142) quotes ki-šè-er-tim ‘prison’ and šu-pa-al ‘west’ in Ga 7:8 and HSS X, 105 iii
4, but the former word is etymologically obscure, whereas the latter most probably does not exist at all (see
K. Markina’s contribution to this volume). Gelb (1961, 36-37) adduces ḫa-ša-lim ‘to grind’ (HSS X, 132 obv.:
2, rev.: 4’), but the Biblical hapax legomenon näḥ:šālīm ‘stragglers’ (HALOT 362), apart from being a rather
poor etymology in itself, is not diagnostic with respect to the sibilant (contra AHw. 333 which refers to “he.,
aram. ḫšl”, sic with ḫ!). More suitable for comparison is Mhr. ḫəšūl ‘to make a hole’, ḫaššəl ‘to be broken
down, holed’ (ML 451), Jib. ∂ƒ Bl ‘to break underfoot’ (JL 307), which do point to *š in the prototype and
confirm that the Gasur sibilant spelling is etymologically incorrect.
41 There is one post-Sargonic example with a (a i-śi-ir), coming from an original inscription of the
Gutian ruler La-arab (RIME 2.2.14.1: 20').
42 The Nippur copy of the post-Sargonic inscription of the Gutian ruler Erridu-pizir (RIME 2.2.1.2 vii
8') seems to display a in an identical context.
A proper explanation of this distribution is admittedly a difficult task. One may suspect that the
key factor in the emergence of ē as the basic allomorph of the vetitive was the consonantal nature of
the “vocalic” prefixes: the vetitive prefix contracted before y- as it presumably also did before t- (no
examples for the latter in the OB copies). The same pre-consonantal contraction must underlie the
Old Assyrian picture.
It is, of course, hard to say why this contraction did not occur in ay yiddināšum. As a tentative
(and of necessity speculative) solution, accentual difference could be taken into account: it is only
in ay yid-di-n#šum that the accent was probably removed to the third syllable from the vetitive
morpheme, whereas in ē yíl-lik / ē yíṣ-bat and ē yu-k%l / ē yu-š'-širā it was removed to the next and
to the second syllable respectively.
The evidence from the OB Nippur copies is radically different from what is found in the
majority of Sargonic letters, which represent the only corpus of original Sargonic documents where
the vetitive is attested. Here, the basic allomorph of the vetitive is clearly a:
a u-sá-dì-in ‘he shall not let give’ (Gir 17: 6)
a e-ru-ub ‘he shall not enter’ (Ga 9 rev. 5')
a ib-ra ‘it shall not starve’ (Di 8: 5)
a i-dì-in ‘he shall not give’ (Ga 3: 21)
a táḳ-bí ‘you shall not say’ (Gir 19: 10)
a zu-ḳú-na ‘they shall not be bearded’ (Di 4: 10).
One is forced to conclude that these documents reflect a different morphological pattern, within
which the vetitive marker ay was not contracted in any environments.
It is only in one letter found in Ešnuna that two examples of pre-consonantal e are attested:43
e tal-li-ik ‘she shall not go’ (Eš 3: 14)
e tá-dì-in ‘you? shall not give’ (Eš 3: 20).
In the absence of “prevocalic” examples this evidence is inconclusive.
The OB copies from Ur44 have only non-contracted forms (always “prevocalic”):
a u-kí-il ‘he shall not hold’ (RIME 2.1.4.5 iii' 13)
a DU ‘he shall not walk’ (RIME 2.1.4.5 iii' 16)
a ˹ù?˺-śe-śi-ra ‘they shall not let flourish’ (RIME 2.1.4.5 iii' 26)
a u?-ra?-pí-iś? ‘he shall not enlarge’ (RIME 2.1.4.5 iii' 31)
a u-śa-si-ik ‘he shall not efface’ (RIME 2.1.4.26 iv 6).
Given the fact that the prevocalic a is typical of OB, an OB influence (but different from that
43 Edzard’s assumption according to which “die Vetitivnegation lautet altakkadisch in der Regel ē (E)
vor t-Anlaut” (1994, 9) is thus to be modified (reference courtesy W. Sommerfeld). The same applies to Gelb
1957, 2 and 1961, 173-174, where e tal-li-ik and e tá-dì-in are listed as regular and a táḳ-bí, as exceptional.
44 To be sure, most of the examples are concentrated in one inscription only (RIME 2.1.4.5). As far as
RIME 2.1.4.5 i' 6' is concerned, the available copies allow for both readings (˹a/e˺ u-śa-śi-ik).
182 Akkade is King
postulated by Hasselbach) is possible, but hard to prove in view of the uniform presence of a- in
Sargonic letters.
4. “The occurrence of the sound change a > e / _ [!3-5], which is not otherwise attested in
original royal inscriptions”
To the best of my knowledge, no verbal forms with etymological *" and *ḥ are attested in
original royal inscriptions. In other words, this corpus does not offer any equivalent for ip-te-ma
(RIME 2.1.4.26 i 16, Ur), adduced by Hasselbach in order to substantiate her claim. It is, therefore,
unsuitable for comparison with the OB copies.
The evidence from the OB copies is not particularly rich either. There are two reliable examples
of -a- without e-coloring, both from *šm" ‘to hear’:
iś-má-śú-ma ‘he heard him’ (RIME 2.1.4.2 ii 23, Nippur)
iś-má-śú-˹ma˺ ‘he heard him’ (RIME 2.1.4.6 v 31', Nippur).
These are counterbalanced by two e-examples:45
ip-te-ma ‘he opened’ (RIME 2.1.4.26 i 16, Ur, *ptḥ)
al!-ḳé-ù ‘which I took’ (RIME 2.1.2.8 Caption 3, Nippur, *lḳḥ).46
This meager evidence is clearly insufficient for any positive or negative conclusion about the
fate of " and ḥ as the third radical in verbal roots in Sargonic Akkadian. From a purely theoretical
standpoint, different behavior of *" and ḥ in this position is conceivable in view of the Old Assyrian
evidence collected and analyzed in Kouwenberg 2006, but four examples are not enough to make
feasible such a hypothesis.47
Both a- and e- forms are well attested in original Sargonic documents.
For roots with *", a-forms include:
i-da ‘he knows’ (Um 3: 25, *yd")
ti-da ‘you will know’ (Gir 19: 41, *yd")
aś-má-ma ‘I heard’ (Gir 37: 3, *šm").
For roots with *ḥ, a-forms include:
íl-ḳá ‘he took’ (MAD 5 82 :6, *СTMMA 1 6: 37, *lḳḥ)
a-la-ḳá-śi-ma ‘I will take it’ (OSP 1 7 iii 2', *lḳḥ)
li-il-ḳá ‘let him take’ (Pu 1: 7, *lḳḥ)
li-il-ḳá-ma ‘let him take’ (Di 2: 9, *lḳḥ).
For roots with *", e-forms include:
li-iś-me (Ki 1: 17, *šm").48
45 A third example could be id-ké-aś-śu-nu-ma in RIME 2.1.4.6 v 21', but the etymology of dekû
remains uncertain.
46 There is no published copy of this text. Sommerfeld’s collation points to AB.KI rather than AL.KI.
47 Note, furthermore, íl-ḳá-ù-nim in RIME 2.2.1.2 vi 6 (Gutian).
48 Perhaps also in Ad 3: 19, but the meager traces available on the copy do not allow any safe
For roots with *ḥ, e-forms include:

íl-ḳì-ma ‘he took’ (Eš 1: 6, *lḳḥ)
íl-ḳì-am-ma ‘he took’ (OAIC 7: 23, *lḳḥ)
li-ip-te-u-ma (Di 8: 13, *ptḥ).
This complex picture may be subject to different interpretations of geographic and dialectal
nature, but it is rather evident that ip-te-ma — the only e-form available from the OB copies — has
good precedents in original documents.
5. “The use of URU and URU× A for the syllabic value /ru/, for which original texts use
RU, as in sar-ru4(URU×A)-dam (Gelb and Kienast 1990, Rīmuš C 6: 79, and Narāmsîn C 1: 14,
both Nippur) and sar-rux-ti-su (Gelb and Kienast 1990, Narāmsîn C 5: 33, Ur)”
The peculiar spelling of ru with signs based on U R U is restricted to the word šarrūtum
‘kingdom’.
As far as one can see, the Nippur scribes only used spellings with UR U × A (= ru14):49
śar-ru14(URU×A)-tám (RIME 2.1.2.4: 550; RIME 2.1.2.6: 7251; RIME 2.1.4.3 rev. vi 2552),
śar-ru14-súm (RIME 2.1.4.6 i 3'), śar-ru14-súm-ma (RIME 2.1.4.6 i 8').
Both extant examples from the Ur copies are divergent:
śar-ru9(URU)-ti-śu (RIME 2.1.4.26 ii 1),53 śar-ru-tám (RIME 2.1.4.5 iii' 11).
It is clear from this picture that the Nippur spelling, attested five times on several different
tablets, represents the normative writing of this word within the orthographic tradition of the Sargonic
royal inscriptions.
A telling confirmation for such a conclusion comes from RIME 2.1.4.7: 11, a genuinely Sargonic
school exercise from Eshnunna, which was completely overlooked by Hasselbach (Johnson 2006).
conclusions. The forms ti-bi and te-bi in the school text MAD 1, 192:3-4 may also belong to this category if
they indeed represent the imperatives of tebû ‘to raise’ (*tiba") < *tb" (for Ugr. tb" and related roots in other
Semitic languages, see DUL 857).
49 The only apparent exception is śar-ru-tim in RIME 2.1.3.2: 11, read in this way from the exemplar
2 in both Frayne 1993, 77 and Gelb and Kienast 1990, 224, for which Sommerfeld’s collation shows a clear
RU 14 , however (the relevant line in the exemplar 1 is broken). In the Nippur copy of the Gutian inscription of
Erridu-Pizir (RIME 2.2.1.2 vii 2') śar-ru-tám is read by both Kutscher and Frayne, but the relevant sign is half-
broken and the remaining traces on the photo are probably not incompatible with URU×A.
50 Reading from ex. 2 with Westenholz 1996, 118 and Borger 2004, 261 (with reference to a collation
by W. Sommerfeld, cf. already Krebernik 1991, 143). Both Gelb and Kienast 1990, 191 and Frayne 1993, 47
have RU. The relevant sign in the exemplar 1 is broken.
51 Borger 2004, 261: “nach Frayne und nach Sommerfeld jedoch -ru4-” (in fact, RU 14 = URU×A, as
seen already in Krebernik 1991, 141).
52 Reading with Wilcke 1997, 26.
53 According to Borger 2004, 261, “… nicht kollationierbar. Original seit 1991 verschollen”.
184 Akkade is King
For Cale Johnson, this feature is a “school-boy variant” and “a little piece of either phonological or
sociolinguistic variation breaking through the monotone of scribal uniformity”. To my taste, this
statement represents a perplexing reversal of the real picture: the OB copies from Nippur were by no
means written by “school-boys” and the one-to-one coincidence between the original Sargonic school
exercise and the OB copies plainly suggests that the orthographic feature in question, purposely used
by (and taught to) the scribes already in the Sargonic period, was faithfully reproduced by their OB
successors.54 The authenticity of this orthographic tradition has recently found a brilliant confirmation
in line 13 of the newly published late Sargonic document BI 175.55
6. “The use of LÍ instead of LI in verbal forms of the root *hlk”

As correctly observed by Hasselbach (2005, 45-46), verbal forms of the root *hlk are always
written with LI in the original Sargonic documents. This practice, somewhat enigmatic from the
phonological point of view as there is no apparent factor conditioning an e-coloring in this case,
has more than a dozen illustrations from various Sargonic documents56 (see Hasselbach 2005, 264,
Kienast 1994, 177-178, Kienast and Volk 1995, 250) and was undoubtedly motivated by some
hitherto undiscovered diachronic conditions.
The only attestation of this verb in the prefix conjugation in a OB copy from Nippur conforms
to this practice:
lu-li-ik-ma-me (RIME 2.1.4.2 i 29).
The form of the participle is written differently:
á-lí-ik (RIME 2.1.2.4, Caption 2': 2), á-l[í-ik] (RIME 2.1.2.4, Caption 1: 2).
The difference is not unexpected: there are good reasons to believe that the peculiar spelling
with LI in the prefix conjugation was somehow connected with the contraction of -h-, which did not
take place in the participle, where h- is clearly preserved and spelled with á. The Nippur copies are
thus not divergent from the rest of the Sargonic documentation.
The evidence from the Ur copies is ambiguous. In one case, the normal Sargonic practice is
maintained:
54 Why this spelling was chosen for precisely this word is admittedly enigmatic. The sign itself is of
course no OB invention, as one can see from its pre-Sargonic use in the name of the city URU×A (Edzard,
Farber, and Sollberger 1977, 181, reference courtesy C. Wilcke). As correctly observed in Hasselbach 2005,
12, URU×A (probably with the syllabic value ru14) is attested in Sargonic personal names, but it is puzzling
to me how the presence of such “unusual spellings” in the proper names of original Sargonic documents could
“motivate” (so Hasselbach) the OB scribes to use URU×A in the word šarrūtum in their copies of royal
inscriptions.
55 Transliterated as sar-ru11-dam in the edition, which can scarcely be correct. Regrettably, the pertinent
line cannot be seen on the digital photo attached to the volume.
56 Remarkably, not attested in the original royal inscriptions.
al-li-ku (RIME 2.1.4.26 iv 16).57

In the other three examples (all from one inscription) LÍ is used instead:
i-lí-ik (RIME 2.1.4.25: 25), i-lí-ik-ma (RIME 2.1.4.25: 29), i-lí-ku (RIME 2.1.4.25: 21).
One may agree with Hasselbach that this deviation is probably due to an error of an OB Ur scribe.
7. “The use of lú instead of lu”

The sign LÚ with the syllabic value lu is attested twice in the verbal form yukallū ‘they hold’
in the OB Nippur copies of the inscriptions of Sargon ([u]-kà-lú in RIME 2.1.1.1:85 and u-kà-lú in
RIME 2.1.1.2:91). And indeed, no other syllabic attestations seem to be attested in the rest of the
Sargonic corpus.
To be sure, this is by far not the only example of a rare syllabic value attested only in the OB
copies of Sargonic royal inscriptions but not anywhere else in the Sargonic documentation (proper
names excluded). A small but illustrative list of similar cases includes:58
rìm (NE +RU) in SI.GAR-rìm ‘neck stock’ (RIME 2.1.1.2: 31)59
ḫirx (ḪA+ŠÚ) in li-a-ḫirx ‘may he alter’ (RIME 2.1.1.2: 126; RIME 2.1.1.6: 47;
RIME 2.1.1.7: 32)
bir5 (NAM) in li-iš-bir5 (RIME 2.1.1.2: 128; RIME 2.1.1.6: 49; RIME 2.1.1.7: 34) and ša-bir5
(RIME 2.1.4.30 i 8')
kùn (KUM) in iś-kùn (RIME 2.1.2.2: 35; RIME 2.1.2.3:36; RIME 2.1.2.4:37)
ḳàb (DA) in ḳàb-lí (RIME 2.1.2.6: 13; RIME 2.1.4.26 iii 8) and ḳàb-lá-ì (RIME 2.1.4.23: 10).
lu5 (LUL) in kà-lu5-ma (PBS 5, 36 rev. ii 13/Wilke 1997, 25 ix 26), kà-lu5-śa
(RIME 2.2.1.2 v 860).
Are there any reasons to suspect that these values were absent from the genuine inscriptions
and secondarily introduced into the copies by the Old Babylonian scribes? Hardly so. Rather, there
are several considerations making such an assumption highly unlikely.
Firstly, most of the pertinent forms (S I . G A R -rìm, li-a-ḫirx, kà-lu5-) have no precedents in the
original Sargonic documents, so that their potential spellings in this corpus are simply unknown. The
same is true of those cases where the corresponding forms in the original documents exhibit CV-VC
spellings (iś-ku-un in RIME 2.1.4.24 iii 1, tá-śa-bi-ir in OSP 1 7 i 5'): it is impossible to predict which
CVC sign could have been used instead. It is only once that a real alternative is at hand: in RIME
2.1.4.10: 52 we find ḳáb-li instead of ḳàb-lí found in the OB copies.
Secondly, most of the syllabic values in question are only rarely attested in the OB period (bir5,
lú) or, more often, do not seem to be attested at all (rìm, ḫirx, kùn, ḳàb, lu5). In such conditions, one
57 li-li-x-x-x in l. 14 is unclear.
58 Some (but not all) of these values are listed in square brackets in Hasselbach’s syllabary (2005, 32-35).
59 Reading with Westenholz 1996, 118.
60 Gutian (Erridu-pizir).
186 Akkade is King
can only wonder why the OB scribes must have been so prone to alter the original inscriptions by
introducing signs whose syllabic values they did not normally use (and perhaps did not know)?
Thirdly, and most importantly, many of the “rare” syllabic values attested in the OB copies
have good precedents in the earliest Mesopotamian syllabaries, e. g. lu5 (L U L ) in Abū Ṣalābīḫ
(Krebernik 1998, 292), Tell Beydar (Sallaberger 1996b, 60),61 and pre-Sargonic Lagash (Sollberger
1961, 39), rìm (NE+RU) in Abū Ṣalābīḫ (Krebernik 1998, 295),62 bir5 (N A M ) in pre-Sargonic
Lagash (Edzard, Farber and Sollberger 1977, 23) and Ebla (Krebernik 1978, 196, Conti 1990, 50), kùn
= KUM in pre-Sargonic Mari (Gelb and Kienast 1990, 7), Tell Beydar (Sallaberger 1996b, 60), and
and Sargonic Sippar (ELTS 41 vii 7') and, last but not least, lú (many examples in Gelb 1961, 90).63
These examples (whose number could undoubtedly be expanded by a more competent specialist)
clearly show that the “rare” syllabic values of the OB copies are scribal archaisms inherited from
pre-Sargonic times rather then spontaneous innovations of Old Babylonian scribes.
8. “GI 4 instead of KI”

The use of the sign GI4 in the OB copies is limited to two derivates of the root mḳt ‘to fall’, viz.
ušamḳit ‘he struck down’ and miḳittum ‘defeated people’.
The substantive is written in this way in each of the extant attestations:
[m]i-ḳi4-tim (RIME 2.1.2.4: 65, ex. 1), mi-ḳi4-tim (RIME 2.1.2.4: 65, ex. 2) and mi-ḳi4-tim
(RIME 2.1.2.6: 76, ex. 1).64
For the verbal form, there is a certain amount of variety.65
Spellings with GI 4 include:
u-śa-am-ḳi4-it (RIME 2.1.2.4: 52, ex. 1),66 u-˹śa˺-am-[ḳ]i4-˹it˺ (RIME 2.1.2.3: 11, ex. 1),
u-śa-am-ḳi4-it (RIME 2.1.2.6: 21, ex. 1),67 u-śa-<am>-ḳi4<-it> (Wilcke 1997, 23 iv 19
and 24 vii 18).68
61 My thanks go to Jacob Dahl for drawing my attention to the Beydar syllabary.

62 For the obviously cognate value rúm in Ebla and Tell Beydar, see Krebrenik 1982, 198, Conti 1990,
57, and Sallaberger 1996b, 60.
63 References for the latter two values courtesy W. Sommerfeld.
64 Not preserved in ex. 2. With Krebernik 1991, 143, correct ḳí in Gelb and Kienast 1990, 208 and
Kienast 1994, 246. Also Hasselbach (2005, 12) is incorrect when she states that “the same words are written
with KI” (italics added).
65 According to the standard editions, there is still another variant spelling in addition to GI 4 and
KI, viz. GI (ḳì) in u-śa-am-ḳì-it (RIME 2.1.4.6 iv 44'). This reading goes back to Kutscher 1989, 24, but the
relevant sign in Kutscher’s copy on p. 118 does not seem to differ from that on p. 120 for RIME 2.2.1.2 vi 1
(Erridu-pizir), which is, however, transcribed as qi4 in Kutscher 1989, 56. Read GI 4 on both occasions?
66 Not preserved in ex. 2.
67 Correct ḳí in Gelb and Kienast 1990, 206 (with Krebernik 1991, 143).
68 Correct u-śa-am-<ḳí-it> in Kienast 1994, 241, 367 and 373.
Spellings with KI are:

u-śa-am-ḳí-it (RIME 2.1.2.6: 21, ex. 2), u-˹śa˺-am-ḳí-it (RIME 2.1.2.3: 11, ex. 2), u-śa-am-ḳí-it
(RIME 2.1.2.1: 11, exs. 1 and 2; RIME 2.1.2.2: 11, ex. 1;69 RIME 2.1.2.4: 13, ex. 2;70
RIME 2.1.2.5: 10, exs. 1 and 2), u-śa-am-ḳí-it-sú (RIME 2.1.4.23: 14).
This picture can only be interpreted as a sign of scribal variation: G I 4 and K I can be found
in two copies of the same original inscription,71 which, by definition, could exhibit only one of the
two spellings and not both of them simultaneously. In this sense, Hasselbach’s claim appears to be
correct.
A totally different question is, of course, which of the two spellings is original and which is
innovative. For Hasselbach, the innovative sign is obviously G I 4 , which is listed among “signs not
used in original Sargonic texts”. This qualification is, however, incorrect (Kogan and Markina 2006,
562): the sign GI 4 is attested at least once in an original Sargonic document, viz. wa-ar-G I 4 -um ‘later’
in MAD 1, 229: 13 (the same word can also be spelled with K I elsewhere, see Hasselbach 2005,
290). Thus, the use of GI 4 as a syllabic sign was not unknown in the Sargonic period (additional
examples in Sargonic and Pre-Sargonic proper names can be found in Gelb 1961, 90 and Sollberger
1961, 33). There is, accordingly, no reason to assume that G I 4 — and not K I — in the OB copies
represents a late interpolation. To be sure, there can hardly be a positive solution for this problem as
neither ušamḳit, nor miḳittum are attested in the original royal inscriptions.72 It is equally hard to say
why GI 4 was chosen to spell precisely ušamḳit and miḳittum: no transparent conditioning factor is
at hand,73 whereas the usual phonetic distribution of G I and K I as postulated in Sommerfeld 1999,
19-20 seems to be quite consistent in the OB copies.74
It is important to observe, finally, that the date the emergence of the G I 4 /K I variation is hard to

71 As far as the two big Sammeltafeln are concerned, the Istanbul tablet uses only KI. The Philadelphia
tablet has both KI and GI 4 , and I was unable to discover any meaningful distributional pattern.
72 To one’s utmost regret, precisely the relevant sign is broken in the original inscription of Maništušu
(RIME 2.1.3.1: 24)!
73 As shown by Kramer (1936, 5-6 and elsewhere, cf. Gelb 1961, 27), GI and GI 4 were opposed as
/ge/ and /gi/ in the Old Sumerian syllabary. The normal Sargonic rendering of the same opposition is, however,
GI vs. KI (Sommerfeld 1999, 18), and it is unclear for what reason it should have been supplemented by a
third member. An attempt to render the consonantal distinction could in principle be surmised, reserving GI 4
specifically for [ḳi], as opposed to KI = [ki], [gi] and GI = [ke], [ge] and [ḳe] (so apparently Westenholz 1978,
162). This would not be a priori impossible in view of the specialized use of GU = [ḳu] in the Ebla syllabary
(von Soden apud Krebernik 1982, 207), but the available evidence militates against such a hypothesis: note, on
the one hand, KI for /ḳi/ in pu-uś-KI-im (RIME 2.1.4.10: 20) and i-KI-iś-śum (RIME 2.1.4.26 i 28, ii 18) and,
on the other hand, GI 4 for /ki/ in wa-ar-GI 4 -um (MAD 1, 229: 13).
74 As will be shown in a forthcoming study by the present author.
188 Akkade is King
ascertain. It may be due to the OB scribal activity, but a much older date can hardly be excluded, cf.
Krecher 1987, 179, where this example (side by side with a few comparable cases from Old Sumerian
royal inscriptions) is adduced to illustrate orthographic variation already in the third millennium.75
9. “The use of PI for the syllabic values /bi/ and /pi/, for which original texts only use BI or BÍ”
The use of the sign PI with the syllabic value pi in the OB copies is restricted to three attestations
of the present of ḳabû ‘to say’:76
˹i-ḳá-PI-ù˺ (RIME 2.1.2.4: 110, ex. 1)77, i-ḳá-P I-ù (RIME 2.1.2.6: 115; Wilcke 1997:
25 xi 28, xii 5).
These examples, coming from two different Nippur tablets, are opposed to two attestations of
the same form written with BI in a tablet from Ur:
i-ḳá-B I-ù (RIME 2.1.4.5 ii' 15, 23).
Hasselbach is correct to observe that no comparable use of P I is attested in original Sargonic
75 Reference courtesy W. Sommerfeld. My thanks go to Prof. J. Krecher who kindly agreed to discuss
with me this problem in an e-mail correspondence.
76 Outside this form, two additional examples could be gleaned from the available editions, but both
are somewhat problematic. The reading ˹PI-rí˺ -iḫ-śu in Wilcke 1997: 26 xiii 4 (= per!u ‘progeny’) finds an
alternative in ˹ŠI-rí˺ -iḫ-śu (= šer!u ‘furrow’, cf. Frayne 1993, 99 and Kienast 1994, 382, where ˹śi4˺ and ˹śi˺
respectively are both incorrect), as suggested by the parallel passage in 2.1.4.5 iii' 25 where the first sign seems
to be SI (cf. Sollberger 1965, 33). In RIME 2.1.3.1: 9-12, u-śa-PI ?-ir in ex. 8 is the reading accepted in Frayne
1993, 75 and, tentatively, Kienast and Volk 1990, 76 and 221 (contrast Gelb 1957, 14), but Sommerfeld’s
collation from photo points to ŠI instead (in the ex. 1 the relevant sign is half-broken so that a meaningful
distinction between ŠI and PI is not possible). In both cases, the reading ŠI (if accepted) is potentially relevant
for the sibilant problem discussed above in this article: as pointed out there, the use of SV instead of ŠV is
not completely unknown from the OB copies, but the reverse has virtually no precedent. Are we really faced
with two conspicuous exceptions? The etymology of šer!u is uncertain (for a few tentative suggestions, see
Kogan 2002, 316; 2007, 272) so that it is impossible to ascertain which PS sibilant is behind Akk. š in this word
(whether or not SI-ir-i in HSS 10, 156 iii' 3, 6 belongs to this lexeme remains uncertain, cf. Gelb 1957: 283
and CAD Š/2 330). The source of u-śa-ŠI-ir would, at first sight, be ešēru, in which case the spelling with ŠI
would provide a true exception (PS *yšr: Arb. ysr, Hbr. yšr, Lane 2975, HALOT 449). However, such a form
would not be in agreement with both reliable attestations of the Š stem of ešēru in the Sargonic corpus, viz. u?-
śé?-śi-ra in 2.1.4.5 iii' 26 and u-śu-śi-ra in Wilcke 1997: 26 xiii 5. As a sound alternative, Ugr. !ṯr ‘to go, follow’
(DUL 126) and Hbr. !šr ‘to stride; to lead’ (HALOT 97) are to be considered (thus “he led the ships through
the Lower Sea”). There is no exact match to this West Semitic root elsewhere in Akkadian, but it is remarkable
that both DUL and HALOT do compare it to Akk. ašāru ‘to muster, to organize’ (CAD A/2 420) in spite of
the semantic difference. If the present interpretation is accepted, the use of ŠI in this form is etymologically
justified as shown by ṯ in Ugaritic.
77 The sign does not appear in the standard editions ([bi] in Frayne 1991, 49, [bì] in Gelb and Kienast
1989, 194), but traces of PI are clear in Poebel’s copy.
documents, except for personal names.78 However, it is hard to prove that we are faced with an Old
Babylonian scribal innovation. On the one hand, there is no comparable form of ḳabû in the original
inscriptions so that it is impossible to ascertain which sign the Sargonic scribes would have used in
the relevant cases.79 On the other hand, the use of P I with the syllabic values [bi] and [be] is attested
well before the Sargonic period, being thus by no means an Old Babylonian invention (Sollberger
1961, 39-40, Gelb 1961, 98, Steinkeller 2004, Krebernik 1998, 294). Why this orthography was
chosen specifically for the present forms of ḳabû ‘to say’ is admittedly hard to say: at least one
structurally identical form is attested several times written with B I in the OB copies, viz. u-ṣa-B I -
àm-ma [yuṣabbe!am-ma] ‘he started the hostilities against me’ in RIME 2.1.4.6 i 13', RIME 2.1.4.6
v 9' and RIME 2.1.4.30 obv. ii 4'.
10. “the use of a plural verb where we would expect a dual”

Hasselbach’s example illustrating this irregularity is Sargon’s famous account of the submission
of Mari and Elam:
ma-rí k i ù NIM.KI maḫ-rí-iś śar-˹ru-GI ˺ i-za-zu-ni ‘Mari and Elam stood in obedience before
Sargon’ (RIME 2.1.1.1: 86-93 and RIME 2.1.1.2: 92-99).
This is, moreover, not the only example of this kind. In RIME 2.1.2.6: 10-17 Rīmuš informs
us that
za-ḫa-raki ù NIM.KI in ḳàb-lí pá-ra-aḫ-śum a-na k a s Š UDUL ip-ḫu-ru-ni-im-ma ‘Zahara and
Elam assembled for battle in the middle of Parahshum’.
Are we entitled to suspect that the OB copyists are responsible for these two examples where
the regular use of the dual, so characteristic of Sargonic Akkadian but absent from Old Babylonian,
is violated? In my opinion, certainly not.
To begin with, exceptional use of the plural instead of the dual is actually attested in original
Sargonic documents. One such exception has been observed in Di 8: 10-12 (PN1 PN2 li-za-zu-ma ... li-
ip-te-u-ma) by Westenholz (1974, 75),80 who considered it unique in the Sargonic corpus. Occasional
deviations from the productive use of the dual were thus possible already in Sargonic, but their
appearance in a royal inscription is by far less expected than in a business document. It seems better,
accordingly, to look for a different explanation. Such an explanation suggests itself immediately as
soon as a systematic perusal of the corpus is undertaken.
Throughout the OB copies, there are ca. 30 examples of the productive use of the dual.
78 For the latter, see Gelb 1957, 98. How the peculiar use of PI in the OB copies could be “motivated
by spellings attested in OAkk personal names” (Hasselbach 2005, 12) is, however, unclear to me (cf. n. 54).
79 Present forms of ḳabû are of course well attested in original documents other than royal inscriptions
(Hasselbach 2005, 281), where they are regularly spelled with BI in agreement with one’s expectations
(Sommerfeld 1999, 19-20). But there is no reason to believe that the scribal conventions of the original royal
inscriptions were fully identical to those practiced in everyday business documents of the same period.
80 Reference courtesy W. Sommerfeld.
190 Akkade is King
Typologically, they can be subdivided into three groups.

a. Two deities as subjects in the curse formulas. Here belong DN1 ù DN2 S UḪUŠ -śu li-sú-
ḫa ù ŠE.NUMUN-śu li-il-ḳú-tá ‘may DN1 and DN2 tear out his foundation and pick up his seed’
(RIME 2.1.1.2: 114-119; RIME 2.1.1.6: 33-40; RIME 2.1.1.7: 18-25; RIME 2.1.1.8: 11-19; RIME
2.1.1.9: 12-19; RIME 2.1.2.1: 39-46; RIME 2.1.2.3: 40-47; RIME 2.1.2.4: 90-97; RIME 2.1.2.5:
24-31; RIME 2.1.2.7: 46-53; RIME 2.1.2.8: 34-36; RIME 2.1.2.9: 21-28; RIME 2.1.2.18: 23-30;
RIME 2.1.3.1: 56-63; RIME 2.1.4.23: 24-31);81 DN1 ù DN2 S UḪUŠ -śu li-sú-ḫa ù Š E . N UM UN -śu
li-il-ḳú-tá NÍTA a i-dì-na-śum ‘may DN1 and DN2 tear out his foundation and pick up his seed, may
them give him no male progeny’ (RIME 2.1.2.4: 110-121; RIME 2.1.2.6: 116-125; RIME 2.1.2.6:
116-127); DN1 ù DN2 NÍTA ù MU a i-dì-na-śum ‘may DN1 and DN2 give him no male progeny
and no name’ (Wilcke 1997, 26 xii 29-35; RIME 2.1.4.5 iii' 17-22); DN1 ù DN2 SUḪUŠ-śu li-sú-
ḫa ŠE.NUMUN-śu li-il-ḳú-tá NITA[-śu] ˹ù˺ [M ]U -śu [a] ˹i˺-dì-na-śum ‘may DN and DN tear 1 2
out his foundation and pick up his seed, may them give him no male progeny and no name’ (RIME
2.1.4.25: 55-67); DN1 ù DN2 ˹pi ? -rí ˺ -iḫ-śu e u-śu-śi-ra ‘may DN1 and DN2 not make prosperous his
progeny?’ (Wilcke 1997, 26 xiii 1-9; RIME 2.1.4.5 iii' 23-26).
b. The Sargonic king and his enemy as subjects in battle descriptions. Here belong iš-ni-a-ma
iś-ku8-na-ma ‘they did (battle) for the second time’ (RIME 2.1.1.3: 24-25); iš-lí-śa-ma82 im4-tá-aḫ-
ṣa-ma ‘they fought for the third time’ (RIME 2.1.1.3: 29-30); iš-ni!?-a-ma iś-ku8-na-ma i-tá-aḫ-za-ma
‘they did (battle) and fought for the second? time’ (Wilcke 1997, 23 iii 12-14; RIME 2.1.4.6 iii 23'-
25'); iś-ku8-na-ma83 i-tá-aḫ-za-ma ‘they did (battle) and fought’ (RIME 2.1.4.6 ii 12'-13').
c. Two enemy leaders as lords of conquered cities: PN1 ù PN2 … U R U . K I -śu-ni … B À D -
śu-ni … U RU.KI-śu-ni ‘PN1 and PN2 … their cities … their walls … their cities’ (RIME 2.1.2.2:
15-30; RIME 2.1.2.3: 15-31).
The difference between these passages and those two which interest us is easy to observe: in
each of the three groups we are faced with two clear-cut human or divine agents, whereas in both
“exceptional” cases two countries (or, better to say, their inhabitants) are involved. These geographic
designations were probably understood by the speakers as collective rather than specifically dual,
which would easily explain the plural verbal forms — of course already in the Sargonic originals.84
81 In the latter example, -DAM! The reading -ta4 does not resolve the crux (cf. Borger 1999, 44).
82 For this reading, see n. 11.
83 For the reading of this problematic form, see n. 9.
84 This hypothesis would be contradicted by the fact that several lines below (u-śá-ḫi-śu-ni in RIME
2.1.1.1: 101; RIME 2.1.1.2: 108) we do find a dual pronominal suffix: it would be strange if Mari and Elam
were referred to in two different ways within one short section. The contradiction is only apparent, however:
as observed by Edzard (1991, 265), the suffix -śu-ni need not refer to Mari and Elam (so also Gelb and Kienast
1990, 162, contra Whiting 1972, 335). For Edzard, the referents are rather Kish and Hursagkalamma as two
parts of “greater Kish” (accepted in Frayne 1993, 12). Curiously enough, in his lengthy discussion of this
passage Edzard does not seem to be at all bothered by the plural form of the verb (the same is true of Whiting
11. “the use of wrong case endings, probably caused by a copying mistake”
According to Hasselbach, an incorrect use of case endings (T I M instead of T Á M ) is attested
in ti-a-am-T IM śa-píl-TIM MÁ.MÁ G I Š . L Á -e u-śa-P I ?-ir (RIME 2.1.3.1: 9-12). As is well
known, this is one of the most difficult passages in the whole corpus of Sargonic royal inscriptions,
for which no coherent interpretation has been suggested so far (cf. Gelb and Kienast 1990, 77, 222
and Heimpel 1982). As such, it is probably not very suitable to justify such a serious claim as the non-
Sargonic nature of the language of the OB copies, although one is inclined to agree with Hasselbach
(and Franke 1995, 151) that reading TIM as T À M in this case is a poor solution. Moreover, a similar
(but by far less ambiguous) case is provided by another late copy, viz. ì-nu ki-ib-ra-T IM ar-ba[-u]
m iś-ti-ni-[i]ś ì-kir-śú (RIME 2.1.4.29: 5-7). T I M in ki-ib-ra-T I M appears patently wrong in view
of -UM in ar-ba[-u]m and assuming a scribal mistake (Neumann 1990, 203) is preferable to the
strained reading TUM 8 (Frayne 1993, 140).
While scribal mistakes in these and similar cases are not unlikely, it is more difficult to establish
their diachronic background. Do they originate in the OB copies or do they go back to the Sargonic
originals? A meaningful solution is hard to propose, but one thing is certain: the original Sargonic
inscriptions — as probably all other inscriptions in the ancient world85 — were not free of scribal
mistakes. A telling example is the omission of <u> in <u->śa-sà-ku-ni (al-Rawi and Black 1993, 147,
l. 11).86 Another case is probably represented by the dual predicates referring to three subjects in the
original inscription of the Gutian ruler La-arab:
D I NGIR gu-ti-um d INANN A ù d E N. Z U S UḪUŠ !-śu li-sú-ḫa ù Š E . N UM UN -śu li-il-
ḳù-tá ‘may the God of Gutians, Ištar and Sîn tear out his foundations and pick up his seed’ (RIME
2.2.14: 9'-17').87
In such conditions, ascribing the mistakes to the OB scribes is hardly more than an unproven
possibility.88 Moreover, at least for ti-a-am-T IM śa-pil-T IM in RIME 2.1.3.1: 9-10 there seems to
1972, 335). If Edzard’s interpretation is accepted, the duality was highly prominent in this context and had to be
expressed morphologically. There may be other alternative interpretations not involving Mari and Elam, such
as “als eine einzige Stadt ließ er beide (d. h. Akkade und Kiš) sich verbrüdern” in Franke 1995, 106 (see further
ibid. 107-108). Last but not least, -ni need not be part of the dual pronominal suffix at all, but can be parsed as
the subjunctive suffix marking the oath (as is certainly the case of i-za-zu-ni, cf. Edzard 1991, 264).
85 For an exemplary analysis of the epigraphic South Arabian situation, see Stein 2002.
86 Restoration is not marked as such in Frayne 1993, 80.
87 Lambert’s suggestion according to which “the name of ‘the god of Gutium’ was mechanically added
to the head of a stock Old Akkadian curse formula that invoked the deities Aštar and Sîn” (apud Frayne 1993,
228) is not implausible and seems superior to Gelb and Kienast’s assumption (1990, 294) that DINGIR gu-ti-
um “die Götter von Gutium” anticipates Ištar and Sîn (cf. Franke 1995, 227).
88 To be sure, Hasselbach herself does not exclude that scribal mistakes may occur in the original
Sargonic documents, including royal inscriptions (2005, 37). Admittedly, for both examples adduced on that
page (iš11-ar-ru and im-ḫur-ra) Hasselbach’s alternative explanation (morphophonemic writings) is undoubtedly
192 Akkade is King
be positive evidence suggesting that the mistake (if there is one) is an early one: as rightly observed
by Franke (1995, 151), these peculiar spellings are found in both Nippur and Ur copies of this
inscription,89 which can only be explained by assuming a relatively early common Vorlage.
The foregoing analysis prompts two preliminary conclusions.
1. Original Sargonic inscriptions almost never provide enough evidence for comparison with
other Sargonic corpora, no matter whether they are copies or originals: for most positions under
scrutiny, comparable forms from original inscriptions are either missing, or too few in number for a
meaningful comparison. In such conditions, Hasselbach’s “usage which does not conform to original
royal inscriptions” or “forms that are not otherwise found in original royal inscriptions” become
ephemeral. It is not that the original inscriptions exhibit different forms or different usage: pertinent
forms are simply missing from this very restricted corpus.
2. Comparison between the OB copies and other Sargonic corpora scarcely reveals any serious
deviations potentially explainable by late scribal influence. A few cases where such influence can be
detected are almost exclusively restricted to the Ur copies, whereas the Nippur copies, as predicted
by the traditional concept, are nearly always blameless.
3. The modest amount of information provided by the original Sargonic documents and the rather
heterogeneous nature of this corpus make one reluctant to base the final judgment about the linguistic
value of the OB copies exclusively on their comparison with the extant original documents.
A more fruitful approach to Sargonic Akkadian as reflected by the OB copies is at hand:
an independent and unbiased analysis of each attested form and each linguistic feature within
the framework of the general background of historical grammar of Akkadian and Semitic. Forms
potentially explainable by the OB influence can be discarded,90 but the bulk of the material can be
legitimately considered a unique treasury of linguistic evidence of one of the earliest Semitic written
traditions.
to be preferred.
89 Contra Hasselbach 2005, 12 who mentions Nippur copies only.
90 Discarded from the analysis of Sargonic Akkadian but not from Akkadian linguistics, of course.
Rather the contrary — careful investigation of such problematic forms may provide valuable insights into
various aspects of the diachronic evolution of Akkadian.
Bibliography
al-Rawi, F. and J. Black, 1993: “A Rediscovered Akkadian City”, Iraq 55, 147-148.
Blau, J. 1972: “Marginalia Semitica II”, Israel Oriental Studies 2, 57-82.
Borger, R. 1961: Einleitung in die assyrischen Königsinschriften. I. Das zweite Jahrtausend vor Chr. (Leiden:
Brill).
––––––– 1999: Review of Frayne 1993. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 94, 39-44.
––––––– 2004: Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Conti, G. 1990: Il sillabario della quarta fonte della lista lessicale bilingue eblaita (Miscellanea Eblaitica 3;
Firenze: Università di Firenze, Dipartimento di Linguistica).
Edzard, D. O. 1991: “Sargon’s Report on Kish. A Problem in Akkadian Philology”, in: M. Cogan and I. Eph‘al
(eds.), Ah, Assyria... Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim
Tadmor (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University), 258-263.
––––––– 1994: “namir ‘er ist glanzend’”, Acta Sumerologica 16, 1-14.
Edzard, D. O, G. Farber, and E. Sollberger 1977: Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der präsargonischen und
sargonischen Zeit (Wiesbaden: L. Reichert).
Faber, A. 1984: “Semitic Sibilants in an Afro-Asiatic Context”, Journal of Semitic Studies 29, 189-225.
Franke, S. 1995: Königsinschriften und Königsideologie. Die Könige von Akkade zwischen Tradition und
Neuerung (Altorientalistik 1; Münster: Lit Verlag).
Frayne, D. R. 1992: Review of Gelb and Kienast 1990, Journal of the American Oriental Society 112, 619-638.
––––––– 1993: The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods. Vol. 2. Sargonic and Gutian Periods
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
Fronzaroli, P. 1979: “Problemi di fonetica eblaita, I”, Studi Eblaiti I/5-6, 65-89.
Gelb, I. J. 1957: Glossary of Old Akkadian (MAD 3; Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press).
––––––– 1961: Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar (MAD 2; Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press).
––––––– 1970: Sargonic Texts in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (MAD 5; Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago
Press).
Gelb, I. J. and B. Kienast, 1990: Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. (FAOS
7; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag).
Goetze, A. 1968: “Akkad Dynasty Inscriptions from Nippur”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 88, 54-59.
Grayson, K. 1987: The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods. Vol. I. Assyrian Rulers of the
Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC) (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
Harrassowitz).
194 Akkade is King
Hecker, K. 1968: Grammatik der Kültepe-Texte (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum).
Heimpel, W. 1982: “A First Step in the Diorite Question”, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale
76, 65-67.
Hilgert, M. 2002: Akkadisch in der Ur III-Zeit (IMGULA 5; Münster: Rhema).
Huehnergard, J. 1991: “Further South Semitic Cognates to the Akkadian Lexicon”, in: A. S. Kaye (ed.), Semitic
Studies: in honor of Wolf Leslau on the occasion of his eighty-fifth birthday, November 14th, 1991 (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz), 690-713.
––––––– 2006: “On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative šε-”, in: S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz (eds.),
Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns), 103–25.
Johnson, J. C. 2006: Review of Hasselbach 2005, Review of Biblical Literature 4.
Kienast, B. and W. Sommerfeld 1994: Glossar zu den Altakkadischen Königsinschriften (FAOS 8; Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag).
Kienast, B. and K. Volk 1995: Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Briefe des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor
der III. Dynastie von Ur (FAOS 19; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag).
Kogan, L. 2002: “Additions and Corrections to *ġ in Akkadian (UF 33)”, Ugarit-Forshungen 34, 315-317.
––––––– 2005: “*ġ in Ethiopian”, in: B. Burtea, J. Tropper und H. Younansardaroud (eds.), Studia Semitica et
Semitohamitica: Festschrift für Rainer Voigt anlässlich seines 60. Geburtstages am 17. Januar 2004 (Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag), 183-216.
––––––– 2007: “Ethiopian Cognates to the Akkadian and Ugaritic Lexicon”, in: G. del Olmo Lete et al. (eds.),
Šapal tibnim mû illakū. Studies Presented to Joaquín Sanmartín on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aula
Orientalis, Supplementa, 22; Barcelona: Editorial Ausa), 69-274.
Kogan, L. and K. Markina 2006: Review of Hasselbach 2005, Babel und Bibel 3, 555-588.
Kouwenberg, N. J. C. 1997: Gemination in the Akkadian Verb (Assen: Van Gorcum).
––––––– 2006: “The Proto-Semitic Gutturals in Old Assyrian”, in G. Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg (eds),
Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context. Studies in the Akkadian of the Third and Second Millenium BC.
(Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten), 150-176.
Kramer, S. N. 1936: The Sumerian Prefix Forms be- and bi- in the Time of the Earlier Princes of Lagaš
(Assyriological Studies 8; Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press).
Krebernik, M. 1982: “Zur Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla. Teil I”, Zeitschrift für
––––––– 1983: “Zur Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla. Teil II (Glossar)”, Zeitschrift
für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 73, 1-47.
––––––– 1985: “Zur Entwicklung der Keilschrift im III. Jahrtausend anhand der Texte aus Ebla. Ein Vergleich
zwischen altakkadischem und eblaitischem Schriftsystem”, Archiv für Orientforschung 32, 53-59.
––––––– 1988: “Prefixed Verbal Forms in Personal Names from Ebla”, in: A. Archi (ed.), Eblaite personal
names and Semitic name-giving: papers of a symposium held in Rome July 15-17, 1985 (Roma: Missione
archeologica italiana in Siria), 45-69.
––––––– 1991: Review of Gelb and Kienast 1990, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie
81, 133-143.
––––––– 1998: “Die Texte aus Fāra und Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ”, in J. Bauer, R. K. Englund, and M. Krebernik,
Mesopotamien — Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastysche Zeit (Orbis biblicus et orientalis 160/1; Freiburg,
Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 237-427.
Krecher, J. 1987: “Über Inkonsistenz in den Texten aus Ebla”, in: L. Cagni (ed), Ebla 1975-1985. Dieci anni
di studi linguistici e filologici. Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 9-11 ottobre 1985) (Napoli: Istituto
Universitario Orientale), 177-197.
Kutscher, R. 1989: The Brockmon Tablets at the University of Haifa. Royal Inscriptions (Haifa: Haifa University
Press).
Larsen, M. T. 1976: The Old Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag).
Limet, H. 1973: Études des documents de la période d’Agadé appartenant à l’Université de Liège (Paris:
Société d’éditions “Les Belles lettrès”).
Neumann, H. 1990: “Zu einer Kopie der Inschrift Narāmsîn 2 aus Babylon”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 42,
202-210.
––––––– 1997: “Assur in altakkadischer Zeit: Die Texte”, in: H. Waetzoldt and H. Hauptmann (eds.), Assyrien
im Wandel der Zeiten : XXXIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Heidelberg 6.-10. Juli 1992 (CRRAI
39; Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag), 133-138.
Poebel, A. 1942: “The Assyrian King List from Khorsabad”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 1, 247-306.
Sallaberger, W. 1996a: “Zur frühen mesopotamischen Briefliteratur”, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 91,

389-407.
Sallaberger 1996b: “Sign List: Palaeography and Syllabary”, in: F. Ismail et al. (eds.), Administrative Documents
from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1993–1995) (Subartu 2; Turnhout: Brepols) 33-66.
Selz, G. 1991: “‘Elam und ‘Sumer’—Skizze einer Nachbarschaft nach inschriftlichen Quellen der vorsargonischen
Zeit”, in: L. De Meyer and H. Gashe (eds.), Mesopotamie et Elam: Actes de la XXXVIème rencontre Assyrologique
internationale, Gand, 10-14 juillet 1989 (CRRAI 36; Ghent: Ghent University), 27-43.
Sollberger, E. 1961: “Le syllabaire présargonique de Lagaš”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
––––––– 1965: Royal Inscriptions (UET 8; London: Publications of the Joint Expedition of the British Museum
and of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania to Mesoptamia).
Sommerfeld, W. 1999: Die Texte der Akkade-Zeit. I. Das Dijala-Gebiet: Tutub (Imgula 3/1; Münster: Rhema).
––––––– 2000: “Narām-Sîn, die “Große Revolte” und MAR.TUki”, in: J. Marzahn and H. Neumann (eds.),
Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag), 419-436.
196 Akkade is King
––––––– 2003: “Der Name Rīmuš”, in: L. Kogan (ed.), Studia Semitica (Festschrift Alexander Militarev).
(Moscow: Rusian State University for the Humanities), 407-423.
––––––– 2007: “Varianten in der Keilschrift-Orthographie und die historische Phonologie des Akkadischen”,
in: G. del Olmo Lete et al. (eds.), Šapal tibnim mû illakū. Studies Presented to Joaquín Sanmartín on the
Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aula Orientalis - Supplementa, 22; Barcelona: Editorial Ausa), 359-376.
Stein, P. 2002: “Schreibfehler im Sabäischen am Beispiel der mittelsabäischen Widmungsinschriften”, Le

Muéon 115, 423-467.
Steinkeller, P. 1982: “The Question of Marḫaši: A Contribution to the Historical Geography of Iran in the Third
Millennium B.C.”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 72, 237-265.
––––––– 1998: “The Historical Background of Urkesh and the Hurrian Beginnings in Northern Mesopotamia”,
in: G. Buccellati and M. Kelly-Buccellati (eds.), Urkesh and the Hurrians. Studies in Honor of Lloyd Cotsen
(Malibu, Ca.: Undena Publications), 75-98.
––––––– 2004: “On the Writing of bēlum in Sargonic and Earlier Sources”, Nouvelles Assyriologiques
Bréves et Utilitaires 2004/13, 12-13.
Streck, M. P. 2006: “Sibilants in the Old Babylonian Texts of Hammurapi and the Governors of Qaṭṭunān”, in: G.
Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg (eds.), Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context. Studies in the Akkadian of
the Third and Second Millenium BC. (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten), 215-251.
Veenhof, K. 2008: “The Old Assyrian Period”, in: K. R. Veenhof and J. Eidem, Mesopotamia. The Old Assyrian
Period. (OBO 160/5; Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 14-264.
Westenholz, Aa. 1974: “Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in the National Museum of Copenhagen”,
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 26, 71-80.
––––––– 1978: “Some Notes on the Orthography and Grammar of the Recently Published Texts from Mari”,
Bibliotheca Orientalis 35, 160-169.
––––––– 1996: Review of Frayne 1993, Bibliotheca Orientalis 53, 116-123.
––––––– 1999: “The Old Akkadian Period”, in: W. Sallaberger and Aa. Westenholz, Mesopotamien. Akkade-Zeit
und Ur III-Zeit (OBO 160/3; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 15-117.
Whiting, R. M. 1972: “The Dual Personal Pronouns in Akkadian”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 31, 331-337.
Wilcke, C. 1997: “Amar-Girids Revolte gegen Narām-Su’en”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
––––––– 2000: Wer las und schrieb in Babylonien und Assyrien: Überlegungen zur Literalität im Alten
Zweistromland (München: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften).
––––––– 2007: Early Ancient Near Eastern Law. A History of Its Beginnings (Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns).
Goods from the Queen of Tilmun
Gianni Marchesi, Bologna
Among the cuneiform tablets housed in the Vorderasiatisches Museum of Berlin, the text VAT
4845 is particularly noteworthy in that it contains a unique reference to a Pre-Sargonic queen of
Tilmun and mentions a shipment of various goods sent from her to the queen of Lagaš.
Known for a long time only through a gappy transliteration made by Deimel,1 the text in
question has been edited several times in more recent years.2 However, the publication of a copy
(VS 27, 98) and photos (CDLI no. P020317) allows us to give an improved edition of this important
document bearing on the early history of the Arabian Gulf.3
( col. i)
1. 12 GIL.DA ˹ z ú ˺ -l u m
2. 3 GIL.DA z ú- l u m š ag 4 -s ù
3. 1 gida (GAD) ˹ ù ˺ -L AL
x
( col. ii)
4. 2 gida x (GAD) b ar-d u l 5
5. 120 ma -n[a ] aru d a x (UR UDU)
6. <na 4 > si-sá -t[a]
7. ereš kur Del[m u n ] k i -n a-[k e 4 ]
( col. iii)
8. ˹ ereš ˺ L[a]ga s k i -[ra]
9. ˹ šu e-na -taka ˺
4
10. NÌGIN-mud
11. ˹ dub ˺ -[s]ar-m aḫ
12. na-e-a
( col. iv)
13. […]- ˹ x ˺ -[ra /x]
14. d[ug 4 -g]a -na
15. dumu- ˹ ĝu -šè ˺
10
1 Deimel 1925, 51.

2 See Selz 1989b; Kienast and Volk 1995, 33-35; Sallaberger 1996, 399-401.
3 I would like to thank Carlo Zaccagnini, who discussed this text with me and offered valuable comments
and suggestions, and Glenn Magid, who checked my English. I am also grateful to Joachim Marzahn for
his collation. This study was made possible by a research grant from the Department of Archaeology of the
University of Bologna. I am very pleased to offer it to Aage Westenholz, whose generous sharing of materials,
insights and advice I have greatly benefited from.
198 Akkade is King
16. ĝeš-túg
ĝeštug-g a-n é
17. ḫa -mu-šè -ĝál
12 baskets of dates, 23 baskets of pitted dates, 31 linen u-LAL(-garment), 42 linen bardul(-

1
garments), 5120 minas of copper 6by the standard <weight>, 7the queen of the land of Tilmun 9has
sent 8for the queen of Lagaš. 14Tell 13[PN] 12what 10NIGIN-mud, 11the chief scribe, 12says: 16-17“He (=
PN, the letter’s recipient) should give attention 15to my son.”
Comments
1: GIL.DA is possibly to be read g u r x - d a or g u r d a x (GIL ) d a : cf. z ú - l u m D e l m u n - na
gur- da dab 5 -ba, “dates of Tilmun packed in baskets” (“Enlil and Sud” 120: see Civil 1983, 56
and 60), and g i gur-da = Akk. gurdû, a carrying basket made of reeds (see AHw. and CAD G s.v.
gigurdû).
2: Literally “hollow dates” (cf. šà- ˹ ab ? ˺ - [ s ] ù : šá lìb-ba-šú ri-˹qu˺, in MSL 16, 171, 12), that
is, dates in which the stone has been removed (cf. Selz 1989b, 381-382).
3: Previously read as “1 gada- ˹ bar ? -d u l 5 ? -x ˺ ” (Selz 1989b, 381; Kienast and Volk 1995, 34;
Sallaberger 1996, 399). However, the sign read as “b a r ” is clearly L A L and “d u l 5 - x ” is probably Ù .
gida x /gada ù-LAL is also found in UKg. 4 v 8 = UKg. 5 v 5 (Steible 1982, 292-293);
Nik. 1, 304 ii 3 (Selz 1989a, 533); and RTC 232 ii 3’-4’.4 Sometimes, this kind of garment is said to
be specifically woven with linen of Tilmun (g i d a x D e l m u n ù - L A L : see Bauer 1972, 473; Selz
1989b, 382).5 A Sargonic text distinguishes between g a d a ù - L A L s a g a x (S IG 5 ),6 “linen u-LAL(-
garments) of good quality,” and gada ù - L A L l u g a l , “linen u-LAL(-garments) of superior (lit.
‘royal’) quality” (RTC 232 ii 3’-4’).
In addition, ù-LAL is employed to qualify other terms for textiles, such as túg
g ú - l á (RTC
198:12) and túg
mu-du 8 -um (MVN 6, 377:5). While the referent of túg
m u -d u 8 - u m remains
obscure, túg
gú-lá, literally “neck wrapper,” is likely to be a designation for a sort of cape or wrap
7
4 For a heterovocalic form gida x of the Sumerian word for “linen” (gada/gad) before the Sargonic
period, see Lieberman 1977, 262 sub 236.
5 Wiggermann (1988, 233 and n. 32) reads “gada-máḫ,” instead of gida x Delmun, and equates it
with Akkadian gad(a)māḫu (AHw. 273; CAD G 8-9). Note, however, that 1) máḫ is a value of the sign AL
(and not of D ELMUN); 2) the signs AL and D ELMUN are graphically distinct and carefully kept separate
at Pre-Sargonic Lagaš (see RSP 399 [= AL] and 150 [= DELMUN], respectively); 3) the word /maḫ/ is never
written with AL = máḫ in Early Dynastic texts from Lagaš; for /maḫ/ the sign MAḪ (= RSP 368) was used,
instead. For gida x /gada Delmun, “linen of Tilmun,” see also n. 36 below.
6 For the value saga x of the sign SIG 5 , see Marchesi 2001, 314 n. 13.
7 Cf. “Ewe and Grain” 178: túg níĝ-dára ní-za gú-zu ù-bí-in-lá, “When your neck is wrapped with
your very own loin-cloth” (Alster and Vanstiphout 1987, 28-29; cf. ibid., 42 n. 18).
G. Marchesi: Goods from the Queen of Dilmun 199
(cf. Waetzoldt 1980-83, 22). Then ù-LA L should denote a particular type of cape or wrap, possibly
of Tilmunite origin and made with linen of Tilmun.8
4: The term bar-dul 5 (= Akk. kusītu) denotes a type of cloak or robe, as well as the piece of
cloth used to manufacture it (cf. PSD B s.v.; and Waetzoldt 1980-83, 21).
5: The value aruda x of the sign U R U D U in the Early Dynastic period is suggested by
Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic spellings such as a-ru 12 -da, a-ru12-da
URUDU and URUDU ( a - ) r u 1 2 - d a
(see PSD A/1 s.v. a-ru 1 2 -da; and Gelb et al. 1991, 296 s.v. u r u d u ). Cf. also Balke 2006, 57 n. 256.
6: The interpretation of this line—previously read as s i - s á - d [ è ] —is the major point of

disagreement among those who have dealt with VAT 4845. Selz’s original translation of lines 5-6—
“120 Minen Kupfer nach der Norm (?)” (Selz 1989b, 381; Kienast and Volk 1995, 34)—has generally
found no acceptance.
By interpreting si-sá-d[è] as an infinitive of purpose,9 and restoring lines 7-8 as “n i n k u r
Dil[ m un] k i -na -[ra ] / nin L[a ]gaš k i -[k e 4 ] ,”10 Sallaberger (1996, 399) translates: “Dies [i.e.,
dates and garments] hat – um (damit die Sendung von) 120 Minen (= 60 kg) Kupfer in Ordnung zu
bringen – [der] Herrin des Dilmunlandes [die] Herrin of Lagaš gesandt.”11
Sallaberger’s interpretation was followed by Marchesi (2004, 179): “The queen of Lagaš sent
the queen of Dilmun … (dates and garments) for the supply of 1,200 minas of copper.”12
Still different renderings for si-sá - d [ è ] were proposed by Bauer 1998b, 402 (“(die Waren)
sind direkt zuzuleiten”) and Glassner 2002, 340 (“selon l’usage (?)”).
However, the published photo clearly shows that the last sign of line 6 is not NE = d è ; the
8 For different interpretations, see Hruška 1973, 110 (“Leinenkittel”); and Frayne 2008, 251 (“perhaps
a kind of draping”).
9 Cf. Thomsen 1984, 266-267 § 524.
10 In spite of the fact that, with šu e/mu-na-taka 4 , the word order is usually: sender in the ergative
+ recipient in the dative + verb. See, e.g., DP 51 viii 1-7: Sag 9 -sag 9 / dam Eri-enim-ge-na / lugal /
Lagas ki -ka-ke 4 (erg.) / d Nin-a-zu (dat.) / … / šu e-na-taka 4 ; DP 511 ii 5 – iv 1: Parag-nam-tar-ra /
dam Lugal-diĝir-da / PA.TE.SI / Lagas ki -ka<-ke 4 > (erg.) / … / ama-né (dat.) / šu e-na-taka 4 ;
RTC 19 ii 1 – iii 2: Ereš-ĝešgim x (IGI.DUB)-ti / dam PA.TE.SI Uřab(u) x (UD.NUN) ki -ka-ke 4
(erg.) / Parag-nam-tar-ra / dam Lugal-diĝir-da / PA.TE.SI / Lagas ki -ka-ra (dat.) / … / šu
mu-na-taka 4 ; ibid. rev. i 1 – ii 3: Parag-nam-tar-ra / dam Lugal-diĝir-da / PA.TE.SI / Lagas ki -
ka-ke 4 (erg.) / … / Ereš-ĝešgim x -ti / dam PA.TE.SI Uřab(u) x ki -ka-ra (dat.) / šu e-na-taka 4 ; VS
25, 46 iii 2 – iv 2: E[n-è]n-tar-zi / PA.TE.SI / Lagas ki -ke 4 (erg.) / saĝĝa Utu-ra (dat.) / šu e-na-
taka 4 ; etc.
11 Note, however, that Tilmun was the land of date palms par excellence, whose dates were considered
of the best quality (see below with n. 31). Thus, sending dates to Tilmun would have been like “carrying coals
to Newcastle.”
12 The figure 1,200 is a misprint; read: 120.
200 Akkade is King
preserved traces rather point to TA. The resulting reading, s i - s á - t a , on the one hand represents
a hapax in the corpus of the administrative documents from Pre-Sargonic Lagaš; on the other, it
recalls the well-known expression na 4 s i - s á - t a , “according to the regular/standard weight,”
which frequently occurs in connection with weight measurements.13 Therefore, s i - s á - t a should be
interpreted as a short or defective writing of na 4 s i -s á-t a.
7: When the logogram N IN means “queen,” it is to be read e r e š , rather than n i n (see

Marchesi 2004, 186-189). The reading D e l m u n (instead of D i l m u n ) is in accordance with the
Old Babylonian syllabary Proto-Ea, which gives the Sumerian pronunciation of the logogram for
Tilmun (that is, MU NUS.TUKU or N I . T U K U ) as d e - e l - m u - u n (Proto-Ea 436: see MSL
14, 49). The later vocabulary entry Ea II 38 (MSL 14, 248) should accordingly be read: d e l - m u -
un NI .TUKU k i = Til-mun; which means that when the sign group N I . T U K U k i is pronounced
/delmun/ in Sumerian, it corresponds to Akkadian Tilmun.14
9: For šu taka, “to send, ship,” see Civil 1990. According to Sallaberger (1996, 401), the
verbal form šu e-na-taka 4 means “er sandte ihm (hier: aus dem é - M Í ) hinaus,” in contrast with
š u mu- na-taka 4 , “er sandte ihm (hier: in das é - M Í ) her.” However, š u e - n a - t a k a 4 per se does
not express a motion away from the speaker. The use of non-ventive e - n a - t a k a 4 , instead of ventive
m u- na- taka 4 , is probably due to the fact that the speaker (NIGIN-mud) looks at the action (a
shipment of goods for the queen of Lagaš) from a perspective which is not that of the beneficiary of
the action (the final recipient of the goods, that is, the queen of Lagaš). This means that NIGIN-mud,
the author of the text, was not a dependent of the organization which had to receive the goods, that
is, he was not part of the administrative personnel of the queen’s household, called é - m í , “female
house,” at Lagaš.15
16-17: Literally, “his attention should be given to my son.” Also cf. Zólyomi 1997, 723-724.
Discussion
This letter-order closely resembles the so-called “notifying messages” of the Old Assyrian
merchants.16 After an itemized list of goods, our text provides instructions to the addressee, whose
name is lost (he was probably some official of the queen’s household in Ĝirsu, the capital of the Lagaš
13 See Marchesi and Zaccagnini forthcoming.

14 Also note the syllabic spelling de 4 -el-mu-na (“of Tilmun”) in the Ugaritic version of the “Message
of Ludingirra” (Nougayrol 1968, 314 line 48’).
15 See Maekawa 1973-74; and Magid 2001. Also cf. Bauer 1972, 54 (“es ist nicht mit dem é- d ba-ba 6
identisch”). For reading é-mí, rather than é-munus, note the spelling é-mí-a-kam (VS 25 23 iii 2): the form
{ak} of the genitive morpheme implies that the word ended either with a glottal stop or with /y/ (cf. Marchesi
2006a, 22 n. 86).
16 Cf. Larsen 1967, 6; 10-11; 70 ff.
state). NIGIN-mud, the “chief scribe” (d u b - s a r- m a ḫ ) of an unknown organization, hands over the
goods to his son together with this accompanying document, by which he requests the addressee to
pay attention to the words of the envoy. Clearly enough, NIGIN-mud entrusted his son, who acts as
the transporter of the goods, with further oral instructions for the addressee.
These goods were sent from the queen of Tilmun and had to be delivered to the queen of Lagaš.
Although the verb employed (šu taka 4 ) simply “describes the transfer of goods over a distance and
does not imply per se the notions of official shipment, or gift” (so Civil 1990, 110), some sort of
ceremonial conveyance is possibly meant here.17
The unnamed queen of Lagaš referred to in our text is either Paragnamtarra, wife of Lugaldiĝirda
(“Lugalanda”),18 or, more likely, Sassag (“Šaša”), wife of Eri’enimgennâk (“Urukagina”). The use
of the title ereš Lagas k i , “queen of Lagaš,” rather than m u n u s , “the Woman” (par excellence),19
might point to the latter.20
The writer of the text, the chief scribe NIGIN-mud, also occurs in TSA 2 rev. ii 8-9 – a document
dating to the first year of “Eri’enimgennâk king (l u g a l ) of Lagaš” (that is, the second regnal year of
this ruler21). However, we do not know exactly when NIGIN-mud entered into that office;22 nor are
we better informed about the organization of which he was the chief scribe.23
According to Visicato,24 NIGIN-mud might have succeeded Amaršubêk as the chief scribe of
the é-nam-dumu, “filial house” (name of the household of the city-ruler’s children). However, it is
more tempting to identify NÌGIN-mud d u b - s a r- m a ḫ with the unnamed d u b - s a r- m a ḫ d N IN -
M A R.KI ,25 “chief scribe of NIN-MAR.KI,” who is mentioned in DP 133 rev. v 9-10 and TSA 5
17 Marchesi and Zaccagnini forthcoming.

18 For this reading of the name of the penultimate ruler of the First Dynasty of Lagaš (previously read
“Lugalanda”), see Marchesi 2006b, 217-218 n. 64.
19 Title by which Paragnamtarra is usually referred to in administrative documents (cf. Allotte de la
Fuÿe 1912, 143-152; Lambert 1957, 126 n. 5). In one occasion she is also styled ama eri, “mother of the city”
(RTC 44 rev. iii 3-4; cf. de Maaijer and Jagersma 2003-2004, 355 s.v. ama-uru).
20 er eš Lagas ki being the feminine equivalent of lugal Lagas ki , the title adopted by Eri’enimgennâk
in his second regnal year (see the following note). On the contrary, Paragnamtarra’s husband, Lugaldiĝirda,
never used this title.
21 Eri’enimgennâk changed his title from PA.T E.SI to lugal at the beginning of his second year
of office and started counting his regnal years all over again (cf. Selz 1995, 307-308; and Bauer 1998a, 477-
478).
22 An important official with the same name occurs in an administrative document dated to the fifth year
of either Lugaldiĝirda or Eri’enimgennâk; see VS 27 66 rev. i 1-4: En-ig-gal / nu-bànda / enim NÌGIN-
mud-ta / e -ta-sar 5, “En’iggal, the superintendent, has transcribed by order of NIGIN-mud. (Year) 5.”
23 There was only one dub-sar-maḫ per administrative unit at one time (cf. Visicato 2000, 75-76).
24 Visicato 2000, 76 n. 232.
25 The reading of this divine name is still unknown (cf. Attinger 1995; Sallaberger 2001, 463-465).
202 Akkade is King
rev. iii’ 13 - iv’ 1 (both texts dating to the reign of Eri’enimgennâk). In fact, it is conceivable that
goods traveling from Tilmun to Ĝirsu passed through the harbor of É - d NI N- M A R . K I /Gu’abak, in
the south-eastern part of the Lagaš state, which was under the administrative control of the temple(-
household) of the goddess NIN-MAR.KI.26 Moreover, NIGIN-mud was possibly the son of the chief
administrator of that temple; in point of fact, a scribe with the name of NIGIN-mud, son of Gube,
is mentioned in a sale contract from the time of En’entarzid (RTC 17 iv 3-4); and Gube is well
attested as the name of the “temple administrator of NIN-MAR.KI” (s a ĝ ĝ a d N IN- M A R . K I ) in
texts dating to the reigns of En’entarzid and Lugaldiĝirda.27
The unnamed dub-sar-maḫ who sent “2+x linen bardul(-garments)” (2 [ + x g i d a x ] b ar-
dul 5 ) and “5 baskets of dates” (5 GIL. D A [ z ú ] - l u m ) to the queen Paragnamtarra in Nik. 1 314
(cf. Selz 1989a, 542; id. 1989b, 381) was probably again the chief scribe of NIN-MAR.KI. These
commodities also came from Tilmun, since the G I L . D A basket appears to have been a typically
Tilmunite type of container.28 Quite interestingly, except for Nik. 1, 314 and our text VAT 4845,
no administrative documents from ancient Mesopotamia mention imports of dates and linen from
Tilmun.29 Nonetheless, to judge from later literary texts from the Old Babylonian period, dates and
linen seem to have been two major export products of Tilmun:
[1] Nibru k i kur De lmun k i nu-me-a ĝeš

ĝ eš n i m b ar b a-an -m ú / am a g al d N i n - l í l - l e
šà gada ba-ni-in-lá, “Nippur: although it was not the land of Tilmun, date palms grew there and the
great mother Ninlil was clothed in linen” (“Nanna’s Journey to Nippur” 35-36; see Ferrara 1973, 47).
[2] Delmun k i -e gada zú-lum á - a n - s u r- b é š u ḫ a - m a - d a - a b - p e š - e , “May Tilmun

increase (the supplies of) linen and date clusters for me” (ETCSL 2.5.4.01:265 [hymn to King
Išmedagān of Isin]; translation modified).
[3] Delmun k i ga da babba r ḫu ! ( R I ) - m u - n a - [ ù - d ú ] , “May Tilmun produce bright linen

for her” (CT 58, 20 rev. vi 16 [hymn to the goddess Erešniĝarak30]; cf. Kramer 1977, 65).
The dates of Tilmun were particularly renowned for their size and sweetness.31 In Akkadian
26 Cf. Grégoire 1962; Falkenstein 1966, 27-29 sub 61 and 66; Selz 1995, 256-261 s.v. d nin-MAR.KI.
27 Cf. Visicato 2000, 62 with n. 172.
28 Cf. Selz 1989b, 381. Palm dates locally produced at Lagaš were only reckoned according to the local
gur-saĝ-ĝál capacity system (cf. Powell 1987-90, 497).
29 Cf. Heimpel 1987.
30 For this deity, see Cavigneaux and Krebernik 1998-2001.
31 See CAD A/2 s.v. asnû; and UET 6/1, 1 ii 17-19: Delmun ki … zú-lum-bé zú-lum gu-ul-
g[u-ul ḫé-a] / gu-ul-g[u-la-àm], “Tilmun: … its dates [shall be / are] the largest dates” (cf. Alster
1983, 65; and Attinger 1984, 12-13). Note that date palms from Tilmun were also planted in Mesopotamia;
cf. nukaribbum (NU.ĜEŠ.KIRI 6 ) ša ĝeš ĜEŠNIMBAR DELMUN.NA, “cultivator of Tilmunite date
they were called asnû or assanû – a term possibly related in some way to al-Ḥasāˀ (or al-Aḥsāˀ), the
name of the huge oasis around the city of Hofūf in Eastern Arabia, famed for its superior quality
dates.32 This geographical area, known as Agaru(m) in cuneiform inscriptions from Failaka and
Bahrain of the Kassite period,33 and the nearby coastal oasis of Qaṭīf, with the important maritime
entrepôt of Tarut,34 probably represented the heart of Tilmun throughout the period of the Sumerian
city-states.35
As far as linen is concerned, the above mentioned sources seem to indicate that flax was
actually grown in Tilmun in the third and early second millennium BC,36 in spite of the apparently
inappropriate environmental conditions and of the fact that “none of the later relevant ethno-historic
sources dealing with cultivars ever mention the cultivation of flax on Bahrain or in the Eastern
Province of Saudi Arabia” (Reade and Potts 1993, 103).37
Addendum
After this study was completed, I asked Joachim Marzahn to check the new readings I have
proposed for VAT 4845 against the original tablet; here are the results of his collation (direct quotations
are in inverted commas):
Line 3: Traces of LAL and, probably, of Ù (“the traces of the right part of the sign are very
near to what we know of Ù; the left part is rather uncertain”).
Line 6: There is “a small vertical wedge at the beginning of the last sign. So we can be sure
palms,” in TCL 7 16: 5 (Old Babylonian letter; cf. Kraus 1968: 10-11). This variety of palm was particularly
valuable and appreciated, as revealed by the use of ĝešnimbar Delmun as a term of comparison in “Šulgi D” 34
(Klein 1981, 74): ĝešnimbar Delmun kù-gen 7 d Nin-é-gal-ke 4 mí zi du 11 -ga-me-èn, “Like a holy
date palm of Tilmun, you are cherished by Nin’egalak.”
32 Cf. Burrows 1928, 6; Cornwall 1952, 139; Piesinger 1983, 772-773.
33 See Potts 1984, 111-112; Nashef 1986, 340 with n. 4 (on p. 350); 346; 354-355 (references 1 and 15);
Potts 1990, 289; 292-293; 305-306.
34 “Though an island, Tarut is separated from the mainland by only a very narrow and shallow span
of water and is geographically merely an extension of the Qatif Oasis. … It can therefore be considered a
mainland seaport” (Piesinger 1983, 19 n. 7).
35 Cf. Piesinger 1983, 8-20; 173-190; 517-543; 826-832; Potts 1983, 15-16; Kohl 1986; Potts 1989,
13-28; id. 1992, 67-68 with figs. 3-4; Crawford 1998, 38-51.
36 A kind of linen called gada Delmun, “linen of Tilmun,” is also recorded in the great Babylonian
“encyclopedia” ḪAR-ra = ḫubullu; see Emar Ḫḫ XIX 54’ (Arnaud 1987, 135): gada Delmun = ga 14 -
de 4 -e dá-al-mu-na ! (pronunciation) = ša! Tá-al-mu<-un> (“of Tilmun”).
37 Cf. also Haerinck 2002, 246-247. However, Reade and Potts admit that, “given adequate irrigation,
flax could have been cultivated on Bahrain or in the adjacent parts of eastern Arabia,” especially if one considers
“the abundant ground-water resources of this region” (loc. cit.).
204 Akkade is King
that this cannot be -dè; it should be -ta.”
Line 7: “After -na are some traces [of a sign of] quadrangular form;” read: -na - k [ e 4 ].
Line 15: The second sign “must be M U .” In Marzahn’s copy (VS 27 98), the dividing line
between cases 14 and 15 is lacking.
Bibliography
Allotte de la Fuÿe, F. 1912: “Notes sumériennes”, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 9, 143-154.
Alster, B. 1983: “Dilmun, Bahrain, and the Alleged Paradise in Sumerian Myth and Literature”, in: D. T. Potts
(ed.), Dilmun: New Studies in the Archaeology and Early History of Bahrain (BBVO 2; Berlin: Reimer), 39-74.
––––––– and H. Vanstiphout 1987: “Lahar and Ashnan: Presentation and Analysis of a Sumerian Disputation”,
Acta Sumerologica 9, 1-43.
Arnaud, D. 1987: Recherches au pays d’Aštata: Emar VI/4. Textes de la bibliothèque: transcriptions et
traductions (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations).
Attinger, P. 1984: “Enki et Ninḫursaĝa”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 74, 1-52.
––––––– 1995: “dnin-mar-ki-ga”, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Bréves et Utilitaires 1995/33, 27-29.
––––––– 1997: review of Å. Sjöberg (ed.), The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of the University
of Pennsylvania Museum, Vol. 1: A Part II, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 87,
112-122.
Balke, Th. E. 2006: Das sumerische Dimensionalkasussystem (AOAT 331; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Bauer, J. 1972: Altsumerische Wirtschaftstexte aus Lagasch (Studia Pohl 9; Rome: Biblical Institute Press).
––––––– 1998a: “Die vorsargonische Abschnitt der mesopotamischen Geschichte”, in: J. Bauer, R. K.
Englund and M. Krebernik, Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit (OBO 160/1; Freiburg:
Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 431-585.
––––––– 1998b: review of B. Kienast and K. Volk, Die sumerischen und akkadischen Briefe des III. Jahrtausends
aus der Zeit vor der III. Dynastie von Ur, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 148, 400-405.
Burrows, E. 1928: Tilmun, Baḫrain, Paradise (Rome: Sumptibus Pontificii Instituti Biblici).
Cavigneaux, A. and M. Krebernik 1998-2001: “NIN-niĝara”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorder-
asiatischen Archäologie 9, 477.
Civil, M. 1983: “Enlil and Ninlil: The Marriage of Sud”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 103, 43-66.
––––––– 1990: “The Verb šu-tak4 ‘to send’”, Aula Orientalis 8, 109-111.
––––––– 1997: “Corrections and Additions to PSD A, 29 May 1997” <http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/

SUM/SLA/Add_PSD.html>
Cornwall, P. B. 1952: “Two Letters from Dilmun”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 6, 137-145.
Crawford, H. 1998: Dilmun and Its Gulf Neighbours (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Deimel, A. 1925: “Die altšumerische Baumwirtschaft”, Orientalia SP 16, 1-87.
Falkenstein, A. 1966: Die Inschriften Gudeas von Lagaš, I. Einleitung (Analecta Orientalia 30; Rome:
Ferrara, A. J. 1973: Nanna-Suen’s Journey to Nippur (Studia Pohl SM; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum).
Frayne, D. R. 2008: Presargonic Period (2700-2350 BC) (RIME 1; Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
Gelb, I. J., P. Steinkeller and R. M. Whiting Jr. 1991: Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient
Kudurrus (OIP 104; Chicago, Ill.: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago).
Glassner, J.-J. 2002: “Dilmun et Magan: le peuplement, l’organisation politique, la question des Amorrites et la
place de l’écriture. Point de vue de l’assyriologue”, in: S. Cleuziou et al. (eds.), Essays on the Late Prehistory
of the Arabian Peninsula (Roma: Istituto italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente), 337-381.
Grégoire, J.-P. 1962: La province méridionale de l’état de Lagash (Luxembourg: Impr. Bourg-Bourger).
Haerinck, E. 2002: “Textile Remains from Eastern Arabia and New Finds from Shakhoura (Bahrain) and ed-
Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.)”, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 13 (2002), 246-254.
Heimpel, W. 1987: “Das Untere Meer”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 77, 22-91.
Hruška, B. 1973: “Die innere Struktur der Reformtexte Urukaginas von Lagaš”, Archív Orientální 41, 104-132.
Kienast, B. and K. Volk 1995: Die sumerischen und akkadischen Briefe des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor
der III. Dynastie von Ur (FAOS 19; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner).
Klein, J. 1981: Three Šulgi Hymns: Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King Šulgi of Ur (Ramat-Gan, Israel:
Bar-Ilan University Press).
Kohl, Ph. L. 1986: “The Lands of Dilmun: Changing Cultural and Economic Relations During the Third to
Early Second Millennia B.C.”, in: Shaikha H. A. al Khalifa and M. Rice (eds.), Bahrain through the Ages: The
Archaeology (London: Kegan Paul Interrnational), 367-375.
Kramer, S. N. 1977: “Commerce and Trade: Gleanings from Sumerian Literature”, Iraq 39, 59-66.
Kraus, F. R. 1968: Briefe aus dem Archive des Šamaš-ḫāzir in Paris und Oxford (TCL 7 und OECT 3) (AbB 4;
Leiden: Brill).
Lambert, M. 1957: “Le quartier Lagash”, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 32, 123-143.
Larsen, M.-T. 1967: Old Assyrian Caravan Procedures (PIHANS 22; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het
Nabije Oosten).
Lieberman, S. J. 1977: The Sumerian Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian (Missoula, Mt.: Scholars Press).
de Maaijer, R. and B. Jagersma 2003-2004: Review of Å. Sjøberg (ed.), The Sumerian Dictionary of the
University of Pennsylvania Museum, Vol 1: A Part III, Archiv für Orientforschung 50, 351-355.
206 Akkade is King
Maekawa, K. 1973-74: “The Development of the É-MÍ in Lagash during Early Dynastic III”, Mesopotamia
8-9, 77-144.
Magid, G. 2001: “Micromanagement in the é-mí/dBa-ú: Notes on the Organization of Labor at Early Dynastic
Lagash”, in: T. Abusch, et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the XLV Rencontre Assyriologique International:
Historiography in the Cuneiform World (CRRAI 45; Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press), 313-328.
Marchesi, G. 2001: “Alleged SIG7 = agar4 and Related Matters”, Orientalia 70, 313-317.
––––––– 2004: “Who Was Buried in the Royal Tombs of Ur? The Epigraphic and Textual Data”, Orientalia
73, 153-197.
––––––– 2006a: LUMMA in the Onomasticon and Literature of Ancient Mesopotamia (Padova: SARGON).
––––––– 2006b: “Statue regali, sovrani e templi del Protodinastico: I dati epigrafici e testuali”, in: N. Marchetti,
La statuaria regale nella Mesopotamia protodinastica (Rome: Bardi), 205-271.
Marchesi, G. and C. Zaccagnini (forthcoming): “Exchange of Goods between Queens in Pre-Sargonic

Mesopotamia”.
al Nashef, Kh. 1986: “The Deities of Dilmun”, in: S. H. A. al Khalifa and M. Rice (eds.), Bahrain through the
Ages: The Archaeology (London: Kegan Paul International), 340-366.
Nougayrol, J. 1968: “Textes suméro-accadiens des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit”, in J. Nougayrol et
al. (eds.), Ugaritica, V. Nouveaux textes accadiens, hourrites et ugaritiques des archives et bibliothèques privées
d’Ugarit. Commentaires des textes historiques (première partie) (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale), 1-446.
Piesinger, C. M. 1983: Legacy of Dilmun: The Roots of Ancient Maritime Trade in Eastern Coastal Arabia in
the 4th/3rd Millennium B.C. (PhD diss.; Madison, Wi.: University of Wisconsin).
Potts, D. T. 1983: “Dilmun: Where and When?”, Dilmun 11, 15-19.
––––––– 1984: “Northeastern Arabia in the Later Pre-Islamic Era”, in: R. Boucharlat and J.-F. Salles (eds.),
Arabie orientale, Mésopotamie et Iran méridional de l’age du fer au début de la période islamique (Paris:
Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations), 85-144.
––––––– 1989: Miscellanea Hasaitica (CNIP 9; Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press).
––––––– 1990: The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity, I. From Prehistory to the Fall of the Achaemenid Empire,
(Oxford: Clarendon).
––––––– 1992: “The Chronology of the Archaeological Assemblages from the Head of the Arabian Gulf to
the Arabian Sea, 8000-1750 B.C.”, in: R. W. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, I (3rd ed.,
Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press) 63-76 (figures and bibliography in vol II, 77-89).
Powell, M. A. 1987-90: “Maße und Gewichte”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie
7, 457-517.
Reade, W. J. and D. T. Potts 1993: “New Evidence for Late Third Millennium Linen from Tell Abraq, Umm
al-Qaiwain, UAE”, Paléorient 19, 99-106.
Sallaberger, W. 1996: “Zur frühen mesopotamischen Briefliteratur”, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 91, 389-407.
––––––– 2001: “Nin-MAR.KI”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9/7-8, 463-468.
Selz, G. J. 1989a: Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Lagaš, 1. Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden der
Eremitage zu Leningrad (FAOS 15/1; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner).
––––––– 1989b: “Ein neuer altsumerischer Brief aus dem Vorderasiatischen Museum zu Berlin”, Altorientalische
Forschungen 16, 380-382.
––––––– 1995: Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadtstaates von Lagaš (Occasional
Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 13; Philadelphia: The Samuel Noah Kramer Fund).
Steible, H. 1982: Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, I. Inschriften aus “Lagaš,” (FAOS 5;
Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag).
Thomsen, M.-L. 1984: The Sumerian Language: An Introduction to Its History and Grammatical Structure
(Mesopotamia 10; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag).
Visicato, G. 2000: The Power and the Writing: The Early Scribes of Mesopotamia (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press).
Waetzoldt, H. 1980-83: “Kleidung. A. Philologisch”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen

Wiggermann, F. A. M. 1988: “An Unrecognized Synonym of Sumerian sukkal, ‘Vizier’”, Zeitschrift für
Zólyomi, G. 1997: review of B. Kienast and K. Volk, Die sumerischen und akkadischen Briefe des III.
Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor der III. Dynastie von Ur, Bibliotheca Orientalis 54, 720-727.
Observations on Gasur Akkadian1
EKATERINA Markina, Moscow
This article, originating in a close study of more than 200 documents from Sargonic Gasur, raises
two major issues: first, the present state of the archive, and second, the extent to which the linguistic
data provided by the archive can be used in a general discussion of Old Akkadian linguistics.
An administrative archive may appear to hold little potential in a linguistic discussion, as it
may be assumed that the texts are overloaded with Sumerograms, and operate with a very restricted
number of Akkadian lexemes – mainly technical terms (e. g. maḫārum, wabālum, etc.). Yet, economic
texts comprise the bulk of the extant textual evidence from the Sargonic period,2 and thus, they
should not be disregarded by linguists. Furthermore, given the lack of an up-to-date glossary of the
Sargonic dialect, some interesting forms, attested only in the administrative documents, easily escape
our attention.
At the same time, economic documents provide rich onomastic data, and, in view of the general
scarcity of evidence from the Sargonic period, it would be useful to take into consideration those
personal names that exhibit interesting linguistic features not attested elsewhere in the corpus.
This article attempts to draw attention to some such cases, and introduce them into the current
discussion of the linguistic landscape of early Mesopotamia. A full inventory of Akkadian forms as
attested in the Sargonic documents from Gasur will be accompanied by pertinent phonological and
morphological considerations, and followed by the discussion of several peculiarities of the Gasur
onomasticon.
The present state of the archive: joins

After their discovery in the early 1930s, all of the texts from Gasur were shipped to Harvard
for study. After the texts were published,3 the archive was split into two nearly equal parts, and
divided between the Iraq Museum and the Harvard Semitic Museum,4 where they are kept up to the
present day.
The state of preservation of the archive is generally described as fragmentary,5 and the great
1 The article was prepared with financial support from the Russian Foundation for Humanities (RFH)
(project No. 09-04-00235a).
2 Only about 200 of the Sargonic documents (letters, royal inscriptions and literary texts) out of
nearly 6,000 published texts so far can be said to be as linguistically informative. The remainder are mainly
administrative documents with few Akkadian forms scattered throughout different archives and, thus, not easily
accessible – the more so because many of the texts have never been edited.
3 Meek 1935.
4 Details of this division are unclear, since papers documenting it are now missing.
5 cf. Foster 1987, 105.
210 Akkade is King
potential for making joins comes as no surprise considering that we are dealing with a find yielding
so many bits and pieces. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that the archive is split
into two parts, so that joins can be formed not only by matching fragments found within the same
collection, but also by proposing long-distance joins, consisting of fragments from both collections.
During my recent stay at Harvard, I had an opportunity to work closely on the Harvard part
of the archive,6 and in the course of my work it became clear that some of the fragments kept there
belong together and make direct joins.7 These include:
a) HSS 10 61 (1998.4.29) + HSS 10 100 (1998.4.56)
b) HSS 10 50 (1998.4.35) + HSS 10 54 (1998.4.27)
c) HSS 10 140 (1998.4.81) + HSS 10 124 (1998.4.73)
d) HSS 10 123 (1998.4.72) + HSS 10 73 (1998.4.36)
Hand-copies of these texts are published at the end of the article.
The only cross-join between the Harvard and Baghdad, known to me so far, is between the
large tablet HSS 10 153 (IM 50712, Iraq) and the fragment HSS 10 80 (1998.4.42, Harvard). The
fragment joins to the upper right corner of the large tablet. This join was made using the photo of
the tablet now in Iraq.8 Closer examination will surely reveal more matching fragments from the two
collections.
2. Gasur texts: the linguistic evidence

The Gasur archive, although published nearly 70 years ago,9 has never received a proper
linguistic treatment.10 It is generally recognized that the language of these texts is mostly Akkadian,11
and several forms (especially those found in letters) are often found in discussions on Sargonic
6 I would like to thank prof. Piotr Steinkeller, Keeper of the Collection in the Harvard Semitic Museum,
for his permission to study these texts, and to publish information on new joins in the present article. I am also
indebted to him for his kind assistance during my stay at Harvard. My thanks also go to Dr. James Armstrong
whose help I greatly appreciate.
7 Another join from this collection made by K. Volk (HSS 10 121 + HSS 10 127) is published in Kienast
and Volk 1995, 190 as Ga 10.
8 I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Walter Sommerfeld for his kind permission to use his
photos of the Iraq part of Gasur tablets, as well as for reading a preliminary draft of this article, making valuable
improvements and corrections. Needless to say, the responsibility for the errors rests with me alone.
9 The archive itself was discovered in the early 1930s by the joint Baghdad-Harvard expedition under
the direction of R. Starr. Th. J. Meek, who was the field epigraphist of the expedition, published these texts in
Meek 1935.
10 The Gasur archive has mostly been approached as a source of information about Sargonic
administration and management (e. g. Westenholz 1984, 18 and 19, Foster 1981).
11 Hasselbach 2005, 18.
K. Markina: Observations on Gasur Akkadian 211
phonology and morphology.12 In addition, quite a number of interesting but less-known forms remain
that are relevant for the study of various linguistic phenomena. This is especially important in view
of the absence of an up-to-date glossary of the dialect.13
2.1. What follows is an exhaustive list of the Akkadian forms found in the Gasur
documents. The lexemes are listed according to the basic forms as registered in AHw. Forms not
acknowledged in R. Hasselbach’s recent grammar of Sargonic Akkadian are marked with an asterisk
(*).14
adi (conj.) “until” [a-d]ì-ma [a]-la-kam 10 rev. 2-3;
a-dì ENS Í la ù-wa-e-ru-uś 9 rev. 4ʹ
alākum “to go“ è-la-kam15 6 obv. 6; [a-d]ì-ma [a]-la-kam 10 rev. 2-3

i-la-ku8 200 rev. 2 (3 fem. pl.)
amārum “to see“ tá-mu-˹ur˺-ma 8 obv. 5
ana “to, for” passim
anāku “I” a-na-ku8 5 rev. 4
balum “without” *ba-[lu]-um 12 obv. 6
bašûm “to be, to exist” i-ba-šè, 46 obv. 4, 51 rev. iv 4, 52 rev. iv 1, 59 rev. 4,

120 rev. 4; i-ba-šè-ù 109 rev. 9, 110 rev. 2 (subj.)
“to be on hand” *ba-ši-um16 71 rev. 2
bêrum “to choose” i-bé-ru17 184 rev. 2 (subj.)
12 For example, forms of verbs Iw in the Š-stem (Sommerfeld 2003, 580-581, Sallaberger 1996, 398).
13 The most recent step in this direction was made in the lexical index to Hassebach 2005. However, it
includes only those forms, which are discussed in the grammar and, thus, regrettably, does not fill this gap.
14 One of the entries included in Hasselbach’s lexical index is to be removed, namely šupālum “west”
attested, according to the author, in HSS 10 105 rev. iii 4 as šu-pa-al (Hasselbach 2005, 287). The line in
question reads šu šabra (PA.AL) é “that of the majordomo”.
15 This orthography (È for the initial y- of the verbal prefix) is otherwise attested mainly in texts from
Kiš and the Diyala region, e. g. è-rí-šu-kà (Ki 1: 10), è-e-śa-ru-ni (Eš 2 rev. 11ʹ). It is interesting to note that
this is not the only orthographic isogloss between Gasur on the one hand and Kiš and Diyala on the other. Thus,
Gasur scribes often employed IM 4 for /yim-/ (im4-dú-ud 41 obv. 4; im4-tá-lik 155 iv 1) and BÌL for /bil/ (u-bìl
94 obv. 4+), just like their colleagues in Kiš and Ešnunna did, e. g. im4-ḫur MAD 5, 6 obv. 3 (Ki); MAD 5, 42
rev. 2 (Ki); u-bìl MAD 1 318 rev. 3 (Eš), MAD 5 102 rev. 2 (Ki).
16 ba-ši-um /bāšium/ vs. i-ba-šè /yibašše/ is a good illustration of the vocalic opposition between ŠI
and ŠÈ. An additional example of this lexeme (however spelled with SI) is [ba]-śi-um (MAD 1 105 obv. 4).
17 The use of BI in i-BI-ru /yibēru/ is likely conditioned by the etymological *ḥ.
212 Akkade is King
danniš “strongly, very” a-dì da-ni-iś 5 obv. 11; da-ni-iś 5 rev. 8
ebertum “the other bank” in a-˹bar˺-tim 25 obv. ii 9
elûm “to go up” li-li-am 7 rev. 1
emēdum Š: “to assign” Š: li-śa-mì-id 5 obv. 7
erēbum “to enter” a e-ru-ub 12 rev. 2
erēšum “to cultivate” e-ra-śi-iś 5 rev. 12
eršum “plowed (field)” e-re-śu-nu 5 rev. 7; 11 rev. 4
ezēbum “to leave, to reserve” li-zi-ib 5 rev. 13
ḫabātum “to rob” *ḫa-ab-tu 201 rev. 4 (stat. 3 mp)
ḫašālum “to grind” *(a-na) ḫa-ša-lim18 132 obv. 2, rev. 4ʹ
ḫubullum “debt” ḫu-bu-lum 109 rev. 7; 110 obv. 5; 111 rev. 1
ḫussusum “to remind” *ḫu-sú-sí-iś19 197 rev. 4
kaṣṣārum “donkey driver” *kà-ṣa-ru (pl.) 71 obv. 7
kašārum “to replace” a-kà-śa-ar 5 rev. 4
kišertum “prison” É ki-šè-er-tim 10 rev. 1
kullum “to hold (in store)” *u-kí-ìl 94 rev. 5
lā “no, not” 3 rev. 1; 5 obv. 10; 9 rev. 4ʹ
latākum “to inspect” *a-na la-tá-ki-im 160 rev. iii 8ʹ
18 One cannot decide whether the use of ŠA here is etymologically motivated or not, as the only
apparent cognate mentioned in AHw. 333, viz. Heb. ḫšl “to shatter” (BDB 365), is not diagnostic. For possible
cognates of ḫašālum in the MSA languages see L. Kogan’s contribution to this volume. For further discussion
on the use of ŠV and SV series in the Gasur texts see the section 2.3.1 below.
19 The infinitive with the terminative ending is attested twice in the Gasur texts (ḫu-śu-śi-iś and e-ra-
śi-iś). Further examples attested elsewhere in the Sargonic corpus can be found in Hasselbach 2005, 210, to be
supplemented by (IR 11 ) śa-a-mi-iś “(a slave) to buy” (OAIC 16: 3), a-ma-rí-iś TÚG “to look for (an apparel)”
(OAIC 16: 7).
madādum “to measure out” im4-dú-ud 41 obv. 4
maḫārum “to receive” im-ḫur (prt. 3 ms) 45 rev. 4; 47 rev. 2; 48 rev. 6; 58 rev. 1;
63 obv. 4; 65 rev. 3; 75 obv. 4; 81 obv. 1ʹ; 83 obv. 4,
83 rev. 2; 92 obv. 4; 99 rev. 3; 105 i 4ʹ; 107 obv. 6., rev. 6;
108 rev. 12; 120 rev. 3; 132 obv. 4; 136 rev. 2, 5; 144 obv. 3;
160 rev. iv 7ʹ; 190 rev. 7; im-ḫu-ra (prt. 3 c du) 42 rev. 3;
77 rev. 4; 82 rev. 3; 136 obv. 4ʹ; 185 rev. v 13; im-ḫu-ru
(prt. 3 mp) 41 rev. 4; 60 rev. 5; 81 rev. 5; 132 rev. 6ʹ;
*[i]m-ḫur-ru20 73+123 rev. 3ʹ; *im-ḫur!-ru
103 rev. 7; la i-ma-ḫa-ru (prs. 3 mp) 5 rev. 1
mahrûm “earlier” šu DUB mah-rí-im Glassner 183: 211, no. 1 rev. 3.
meḫṣum “part of a door” *me-eḫ-ṣum21 156 obv. 3ʹ, 156 rev. 3
makilum “a vessel (?)”22 *2 ma-ki-lum 170 obv. 8
mīnum “what, why” mi-nam 8 obv. 5
nadānum “to give” li-dì-in 5 obv. 8; 5 rev. 3; a i-dì-in 5 rev. 10; i-dì-in 94 rev. 3
naṣārum “to take care” li-ṣú-ur-ma 5 rev. 6; li-ṣú-ru (3 mp) 5 rev. 8; li-ṣú-ur 6 obv. 4
naṭûm “appropriate” na-ṭú 5 rev. 12
nêrum23 “to defeat” *˹en-a-ru˺ (subj.?) 37+38 rev. iii 1ʹ
20 There are other examples of morphographemic writings in the Gasur corpus, such as [u-b]ìl-lu 122
rev. 1 and im-ḫur!-ru 103 rev. 7.
21 This is the only attestation of meḫṣum in Sargonic. Later examples are dated to the Old Babylonian
period and come from Mari (ARM 3 7: 17) and Larsa (TCL 17 1: 32).
22 The meaning of this word is obscure, since, on the one hand, it is mentioned among containers of
various types (gurdappum and kirrum), while on the other hand it is equated with patrum in the lexical list Malku
(ma-ki-lu = pat (text AR)-rum, Malku iii 11). The word is discussed in Schrakamp 2006, 169 in connection
with ma-KIL ?-tum (meaning unclear) attested in the “Rüstkammerurkunde” Erm. 14380 (the second sign in
ma-KIL ?-tum looks more like an — admittedly, rather narrow — RÍ (URU) than KIL (LAGAB), contra
Sommerfeld 2006, 153).
23 The use of nêrum in the Gasur texts deserves special attention. The verb is used three times throughout
the archive, always in broken contexts, and it seems that these three attestations are not homogeneous from a
semantic point of view. The form ˹en-a-ru˺ found in 37+38 rev. iii 1ʹ, might, as suggested by the spacing of the
tablet, belong to the final part of a date formula (cf. [in 1 mu …] ti-[…] / Bí-bí-[…] en-a-[ru] “the year when
he smote …” (D-44) Kienast and Gelb 1990, 57). The remaining two forms are attested within one document
(No. 206) and are therefore in all likelihood used with the same meaning. In 206 obv. 4ʹ, en-a-ra appears after
214 Akkade is King
“to brand (?)” *en-a-ra 206 obv. 4ʹ; *en-a-ru 206 obv. 7ʹ
nukkusum “to balance

an account”24 la-ma nu-ku-us Glassner 1983, 211, no. 1 rev. 6.
panū “face” *pá-ni e ngar . e ngar 5 rev. 5
pappasum “porridge” *pá-pá-sum 148 obv. 5
qabûm “to speak” qí-bí-ma 5 obv. 3, 6 obv. 8; 7 obv. 4; 8 obv. 4; 9 obv. 6;

10 obv. 4; 11 obv. 4
qerbum “middle, inside” in qer-bí-śu 5 rev. 2
rupšum “width” *[ru-up]-śum 156 obv. 1ʹ; *ru-[up]-˹śum˺ 156 rev. 4
redûm “to lead” *ìr-da-a (3 c du) 108 rev. 9
ruˀubbāˀum “compensation” *ru-ù-ba-um25 175 rev. iii 9
ṣabātum “to seize” *[l]i-iṣ-ba-at 11 rev. 5
ṣābum26 “troops, workers” *x ṣa-bi-im 175 rev. iv 6; *GN ši ṣa-bi-im 201 rev. 3
šapārum “to send” iś-pu-ra-am 121+127 obv. 2ʹ
two personal names, which explains the dual, whereas the plural en-a-ru in 206 obv. 7ʹ is used impersonally
with no subject specified. The latter form seems to have a parallel in the text 205 written in Sumerian and
dealing with the same subject (branding of workers), cf. ˹1 ˺ i r 11 lugal zà-šu 4 má Da-qum en-a-ru (206 obv.
6ʹ-7ʹ) and 10 PNs šu-ut PN1 PN2 guruš-àm šu PN3 in GN PN4 ù PN5 ... zà-šu 4 má Da-qum bí-šu 4 “10 PNs
belonging to PN1 (and) PN2 being the guruš of PN3, PN4 and PN5 … branded with the boat-brand of Daqqum”
(for the discussion of the meaning of zà-šu 4 má Da-qum see Foxvog 1995, 3 and de Maaijer 2001, 303).
This parallel, while certainly insufficient to confidently state that the Akkadian form is a direct equivalent of
the Sumerian expression, makes such a possibility rather appealing. If we add to this that lexical lists take the
Sumerian equivalents of nêrum (sag giš ~ra) and maḫāṣum (sag ~gaz) as synonyms (e. g. sag giš ~ra,
sag ~gaz = MIN in the maḫāṣum section of Nabnitu, XXI 38f.), and that one of the technical meanings of
maḫāṣum, as well as of Sumerian šu 4 , is “to cover, coat” (see CAD M/1 79), such a possibility seems likely
(cf. already Gelb 1957, 191).
24 For a detailed discussion of this meaning of nukkusum in Sargonic see Markina (forthcoming).
25 Sargonic purussā’um formations are treated in Hasselbach 2005, 188. Beside ruˀubbāˀum from the
Gasur text, still another lexeme, ḫuluqqāˀum “loss” (ḫu‑lu‑qá‑um, MAD 1 21 rev. 2) is to be added to this list.
26 Spelling with BI may reflect the lowering of /i/ before the etymological *ˀ (cf. Hebrew ṣābā(ˀ), BDB
838) as described in Hasselbach 2005, 119.
šapûm “to be silent” tá-aś-tá-˹pu˺ 8 rev. 2

šêtum “to leave” a-śi-tu (subj.) 5 obv. 5
širˀum27 “(a linear measure)” *śi-ir-i 156 obv. 3, 6
šittum “remainder” śi-tum 3 obv 1; 48 rev. 3; 50 rev. iii 4ʹ, iv 2; 55 rev. 8;

63 obv. 2; 96 obv. 3
šiāti28 “that” *śi-a-ti 72 rev. iv 10
šu “who, which, of” passim (attested forms include šu (m. Nom. sg.),
ši (m. Gen. sg.), šāt (f. Nom. sg.), šūt (m. Nom. pl.))
šumma “if” śum-ma 5 rev. 11
-šuni “their” al-śu-ni29 59 rev. 3
tabālum “to take away” *it-ba-[al?] 141 obv. 8ʹ (in broken context)
tapḫurtum “collection” ˹tá˺-ap-ḫu-ur-tum 204 rev. 3
wabālum G: “to bring, to carry” u-ba-al (Prs. 3 ms) 71 obv. 5; *u-˹bìl˺ (Prt 3 ms) 65 obv. 7;
*u-bìl 92 rev. 1; 94 obv. 4; 112 rev. 5ʹ; 160 iv 4ʹ;
*u-[bìl-lu?] (Prt 3 mp, without vowel syncope) 118 obv. 8ʹ;
*[u-b]ìl-lu 122 rev. 1; ub-lu (Prt 3 mp, syncopated)
168 rev. 14; *u-B ÍL -nim30 (Prt 3 mp + Vent.)
27 The form is difficult. The context (4 kùš ù śi-ir-i me-eḫ-ṣum) suggests that the word in question is a
linear measure, most probably a subdivision of the cubit. However, the attribution of the form śi-ir-i to šer’um
“furrow”, widely accepted in the dictionaries (cf. CAD Š/2 330; AHw 1220), is problematic. Indeed, šer’um is
sometimes used as a linear measure (according to B. Landsberger, it is “Abstand zwischen zwei Saatfurchen”,
see MSL 1, 153-154), but in such cases it normally describes the width of a field and is not used in connection
with any other spaces or objects (cf. CAD Š/2 329). Morphological analysis of śi-ir-i is also difficult since
the expected status absolutus form (so actually AHw 1220) would hardly end in -i in this particular case. The
spelling with the sign I also poses a problem, given the fact that this sign is strictly reserved for /yi/ in Gasur
(as in Sargonic in general). Admittedly, the etymology of Akk. šer’um “furrow” remains uncertain.
28 This is the only attestation of the 3 fs demonstrative pronoun in the Sargonic corpus, regrettably
overlooked in Hasselbach 2005, 149.
29 The attestation of this form warrants a modification of Hasselbach’s statement that “the 3cd possessive
suffix is not attested in syllabic Sargonic texts” (2005, 153).
30 u-BÍL-nim for /ūbilūnim/ is an abbreviated spelling. This orthographic phenomenon is attested
several times in the Sargonic royal inscriptions, especially in Narām-Sîn’s descriptions of the Great Revolt. By
far the best known example is i-KIR-ni-śu for /ikkirāniššu/ from the Bassetki statue (ì-nu ki-ib-ra-tum ar-ba-
um iś-ti-ni-iś i-KIR-ni-śú “when the four quarters together revolted against him”, RIME 2.1.4.10: 9), discussed
216 Akkade is King
37+38 rev. iii 10ʹ;

Š: “to send (objects)” li-śé-bi-lam 10 rev. 7; 11 obv. 6
warkium “later (delivered)” ˹wa-ar-ki˺-um 68 rev. 1; 69 obv. 5
waṣābum “to add” *u-ṣí-ib 14 rev. 4
waṣûm Š: “to let go out” u-śu-ṣi-[ma] 8 rev. 1
wašābum “to be in a
certain place” li-iš-bu 10 rev. 4
warûm G: “to lead, to bring” *it-ru-[...] 206 rev. 3; *[u]-ru 169 rev. 6; u-ru 171 rev. 2
Š: “to send” l[i]-śé-rí-am 6 rev. xʹ
wussûm “to identify” wu-sú-iś 186 rev. 1
wuˀˀurum “to instruct” la ù-wa-e-ru-uś 12 rev. 4
2.2. In addition to these, a number of unclear forms that can possible be interpreted as
Akkadian are found in the corpus.
a) a-na NI-KI-im-DI 5 rev. 11

For the discussion of this form see Kienast and Volk 1995, 183.
b) la BA.A 11 rev. 3
Explained as Stat. 3 m du. of bâˀum “to go” (AHw 116) in Kienast and Volk 1995, 185. This
interpretation is followed by Hasselbach 2005, 133.
c) [...] SI 11 -la-tum 194 rev. 3
It is not quite certain whether the word šillatum is meant here. On the one hand, it fits the
context perfectly, as the text reads: ˹x+4˺ géme S I 11 -la-tum [i]n N í š -b e k i ˹x+4˺ géme [i]n
Ga- s úr k i “x female workers, (from) booty, (are) in Nišbe, x female workers (are) in Gasur” (194
rev. 2ʹ-6ʹ). On the other hand, the word “booty”, as attested in Sargonic, is šallatum, cf. (in śa-la-ti
G a- s ur x k i “from the booty of Gasur”, Ititi RIME 2.4.1.1). And even if a by-form šillatum (actually
attested in later dialects such as nB) is postulated, the apparently non-motivated use of S I 11 (normally
representing /se/, see Sommerfeld 1999, 19) remains unexplained.
2.3 Gasur Akkadian: some linguistic features

2.3.1. It can be observed that the general Sargonic orthographic conventions are consistently
followed, although there are signs of disintegration of standard orthography in some major diagnostic
extensively in Farber 1983, 69. Two additional examples are i-SI 11 -nim for /išši’ūnim/ (RIME 2.1.4.10: 18)
and na-SI 11 -nim for /naši’ānim/ (RIME 2.1.4.7: 4; RIME 2.1.4.26: 23).
areas (such as representation of gutturals and sibilants as well as the vocalic opposition i vs. e).31
Such consistency, that may seem unexpected in view of the peripheral origin of the archive, can
be explained by its date (the archive is conventionally placed within the classical Sargonic period
(Narām-Sîn or Šar-kali-šarrī)).32
a) Gutturals are reflected inconsistently. As far as ˀ3-5 are concerned, only lexemes with historical
ˤ and ḥ are attested. In nearly all instances no special signs are used to reflect these phonemes: e-re-
śu-nu 5 rev. 7 and 11 rev. 4; e-ra-śi-iś 5 rev. 12 (*ḥrṯ); i-bé-ru 184 rev. 2 (*bḥr); a e-ru-ub 12 rev.
2 (*ˤrb); li-zi-ib 5 rev. 13 (*ˤḏb). This probably means that they had already been dropped by the
time the archive was written.33 However, the absence of the shift a > e in the proximity of *ˤ in
two cases (in а-bar-tim 25 ii 9 (*ˤbr) and li-śa-mì-id 5 obv. 7 (*ˤmd)) as well as broken spellings
involving *ḥ (en-a-ra 206 obv. 4ʹ; en-a-ru 206 obv. 7ʹ) and *ˤ (Ìr-e-d E n -t i 35 obv. 5ʹ), suggest that
these phonemes may have still have been occasionally preserved. Not unexpectedly, the Semitic
onomasticon of Gasur tends to maintain traditional spellings: ˀÀ-ì-śa 8 obv. 6, ˀÀ-ra-šúm 69 obv. 4,
Iś-má-D I NGIR 9 obv. 3.34
b) Confusion between SV (= *šV) and ŠV (= *ṯV) is only attested once in the corpus (e-ra-śi-iś
5 rev. 12 (*ḥrṯ)), probably indicating an incipient merger of *š and *ṯ. In all other pertinent instances
these series are clearly opposed to each other, although one has to acknowledge that certain examples
of words with *ṯ in the prototype are not common within this corpus.
Examples for ŠV reflecting an etymological *ṯ include i-ba-šè 46 obv. 4+ and ba-ši-um 71 rev.
2. The latter example is especially interesting: the presence of Š I in the active participle of bašû, a
rare form not attested anywhere else in the Sargonic corpus, indicates that the etymologically correct
use of the ŠV series was not restricted to stereotype forms like i-ba-šè, potentially explainable by
historical orthography.
The use of the SV for an etymological *š is illustrated by a-śi-tu 5 obv. 5; śi-tum 3 obv. 1+;
li-śé-bi-lam 10 rev. 7 and l[i]-śé-rí-am 6 rev. 10ʹ.
In a number of cases, it is hard to say whether the use of the S V and Š V signs is etymologically
correct, either due to the lack of a generally recognized etymology for the pertinent Akkadian lexemes,
31 The only orthographic rule which is rather strictly observed, is the use of special signs (U, I, È) to
mark initial y- of the verbal prefix of 3 m. For this reason I take ù-wa-e-ru-uś (12 rev. 4) as 1cs, unlike Kienast
and Volk 1995, 189 (note also that Gasur texts employ Ù only for /ˀu/, as in i-ba-šè-ù 109 rev. 9+ and ru-ù-ba-
um 175 rev. iii 9).
32 Foster 1982, 7.
33 A number of sandhi-writings attested in the corpus (mostly in personal names) point in the same
direction: Kí-nu-uś-śa-am 12 obv. 8 (/Kēn-uššam/ “(O god), make the foundation firm!”), At-tá-ḫu-ni 146 rev. 3
(/Atta-aḫūni/ “You are our brother”), ˹Śu-ku˺-né-en-[na?-am?//nam?] 142 rev. 4 (/Šukun-ennam/ “(O god), have
mercy!”; read as ˹Ú-ba˺-ni-en-na in HSS 10).
34 Although there are a few orthographic peculiarities in the onomasticon as well: Śú-BAD-la 5 l.e. vs.
Šu-BAD-la 26 obv. 5; A-ga-dè-um 48 rev. 5; [A]-ga-ti-um 105 i 3ʹ; I-dì-šúm 142 rev. 6ʹ.
218 Akkade is King
or because the existing cognates are not diagnostic. The former group includes a-kà-śa-ar 5 rev. 4, é
ki-šè-er-tim 10 rev. 1 and śi-ir-i 156 obv. 3 and 6 (cf. fn. 26 above). The latter comprises ḫa-ša-lim
132 obv. 2 and rev. 4ʹ (cf. fn. 18 above).
As expected, the opposition between S V and Š V is preserved in personal names, cf. ˀÀ-ra-
šúm (*ḥrṯ) in 69 obv. 4.
c) The use of sign pairs marking the vocalic opposition between C e and C i 35 is generally
consistent. Phonologically justified usage of the pertinent syllabic signs can be illustrated by the
following examples:
Ce Ci
BI ~ BÍ i-bé-ru qí-bí-ma, (in) qer-bí-śu
GI ~ KI u-kí-il (ana) la-tá-ki-im, ˹wa-ar-ki˺-um,

é ki-šè-er-tim, ma-ki-lum
LI ~ LÍ li-li-am (only in personal names

li-śa-mì-id e. g. Ì-lí, BAD-lí-śa-dú, etc.)
li-zi-ib
(and passim in precative
forms)
SI 11 ~ SI li-śé-bi-lam a-śi-tu
l[i]-śé-rí-am śi-tum
śi-a-ti
ŠÈ ~ ŠI i-ba-šè ba-ši-um
ZÉ ~ ZI u-śu-ṣi-[ma] u-ṣí-ib; li-zi-ib; ḫu-sú-sí-iś
The only apparent exception seems to be li-śé-bi-lam (cf. the expected spelling li-śé-bí-lam in
Di 11, 2).
2.3.2. Along with well-known Sargonic archaisms, such as the productive use of the
terminative (e-ra-śi-iś 5 rev. 12; ḫu-sú-sí-iś 197 rev. 4) and the dual (im-ḫu-ra 185 v 13+; en-a-ra
206 obv. 4ʹ; ìr-da-a 108 rev. 9), we find some innovations, such as the loss of a separate form for 3
fp (šu .n ígin 10 gém e a-na Ga -sú r i-la-ku8 200 rev. 2).
3. Onomastics
This section will focus on one particular onomastic issue, i. e. on personal names with the
predicate in the dual.
Such names are likely to be interpreted in line with the concept of the “dual deity” (representing
35 See Sommerfeld 1999, 19.

“the masculine and feminine aspect of the divine”)36 outlined by A. Westenholz in his study of Eblaite
and Pre-Sargonic personal names (Westenholz 1988). Westenholz applied this concept to an earlier
onomasticon, but it may be that some remnants of it were still present in the Sargonic name-giving
tradition.
Thus, the name Nu-ḫi-ša-ni-im (25 rev. iii, 5) certainly means “bring wealth!” and is to be
analyzed as imptv. 2cd with vent. from naḫāšu “to be wealthy” (/nuḫḫišānim/). The dual addressee
is most probably the “dual deity”.37
Dual verbal forms can be recognized in a group of personal names exhibiting the structure ta-
VERBAL BASE-ā and i-VERBAL BASE-ā:38
Tá-ni-a /tāniā/ “You both have changed (for better)” (147 obv. 4)
Tá-ku8-na /takūnā/ “You both proved reliable” (60 obv. 7)
Tá-aś-ṭup-pá /taśṭupā/ “You both saved (the child?)” (139 obv. ii:4ʹ)
Iś-ku8-na /iškunā/ “They both established” (119 obv. 1)
Admittedly, -a in such forms can be alternatively analyzed as a hypocoristic ending. This
analysis was applied by M. Hilgert to ta-VERBAL BASE-a names in Ur III (Hilgert 2002, 413).
The validity of this hypothesis can only be proven by decisive prosopographical evidence, where
one and the same individual would be designated by both the “abbreviated” name (e. g. Takūna) and
its hypothetic full form (e. g. Takūn-mātum). To the best of my knowledge, no such cases have been
established so far.
Finally, it is hard to omit from the present context, that personal names with the predicate in
the dual are also known from a later (Old Babylonian) onomastic tradition, such as Ilān-dannā “Both
gods are mighty” (AbB 10, 200, obv. 1) or Ilān-šemeā “Both gods are listening”(AbB 7, 17 obv. 4).
According to M. Stol (2003), the divine couple involved consists of the “twin gods” Šullat and Ḫaniš.
May we suspect that in Sargonic names, too, we are faced with a couple of gods other than Ilum and
Ištarum posited for the Pre-Sargonic names by Westenholz? In this sense, Sargonic royal inscriptions
(or, more precisely, their curse formulae) can be suggestive. In these formulae, it is usually a pair of
gods that protects the inscribed object.39 One of the deities in this pair is invariably Šamaš, while the
other, in about 70 percent of the cases, is Enlil.40
36 Westenholz 1988, 103

37 The most common representative of this tradition, Warassuni “their (du.) servant”, is frequently
attested in Gasur, e.g. IR 11 -sú-ni 17 obv. 3+.
38 For other examples of names of this formation see Hilgert 2002, 4135.
39 Inscriptions with three or many divine protectors are also known, but it is hard to deny that by far the
most common type employs a pair of gods. Divine triads, much less frequently found, usually comprise Anum,
Enlil, and Aštar (RIME 2.1.1.11: 40f.; Sar) or Enlil, Šamaš and Aštar (RIME 2.1.5.5: 61f.; Škš). A curse by a
group of deities is Narām-Sîn’s innovation: such curses are attested three times in his inscriptions and are not
found elsewhere in the corpus (see e. g. RIME 2.1.4.10: 58f.; Nar).
40 Other combinations are: Ninhursag and Šamaš (RIME 2.1.3.6: 12f.; Man), Šamaš and Lugalmarda
220 Akkade is King
4. Copies of joined Harvard tablets
HSS 10 61 (1998.4.29) + HSS 10 100 (1998.4.56)
HSS 10 50 (1998.4.35) + HSS 10 54 (1998.4.27)
(RIME 2.1.4.9: 31f.; Nar), Šamaš and the god of Akkad (RIME 2.1.4.13: 32f.; Nar), and Ningublaga and
Šamaš (RIME 2.1.4.25; Nar). They are usually found when an object bearing a royal inscription is dedicated
to a specific deity.
HSS 10 140 (1998.4.81) + HSS 10 124 (1998.4.73)
HSS 10 123 (1998.4.72) + HSS 10 73 (1998.4.36)

222 Akkade is King
Bibliography
Farber, W. 1983: “Die Vergöttlichung Narām-Sîns” Orientalia 52, 67-72.
Foster, B. 1987: “People Land, and Produce at Sargonic Gasur”, in D. I. Owen and M. A. Morrison (eds.),
General Studies and Excavations at Nuzi 9/1 (Studies in the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians
2; Winona Lake, Ind.; Eisenbrauns), 89-107.
––––––– 1981: “Administration of State Land at Sargonic Gasur”, Oriens Antiquus 20, 39-48.
––––––– 1982: “Archives and Record-Keeping in Sargonic Mesopotamia”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und
Foxvog, D. 1995: “Sumerian Brands and Branding Irons”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
Glassner, J. J. 1983: “Texts and Fragments”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 35, 209-212.
Gelb, I. J. 1957: Glossary of Old Akkadian (MAD 3; Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Hasselbach, R. 2005: Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
Hilgert, M. 2002: Akkadisch in der Ur III-Zeit (IMGULA 5; Münster: Rhema).
Kienast, B. and I. J. Gelb 1990: Die Altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr (FAOS
7; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag).
Kienast, B. and W. Sommerfeld 1994: Glossar zu den Altakkadischen Königsinschriften (FAOS 8; Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag).
Kienast, B. and K. Volk 1995: Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Briefe des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor
der III. Dynastie von Ur (FAOS 19; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag).
de Maaijer, R. 2001: “Late Third Millennium Identifying Marks,” in W. H. van Soldt, et. al. (eds.) Veenhof
Anniversary Volume: studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday (Leiden:
Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten) 301-324.
Markina, E. (forthcoming), Akkadian of the Me-ság Archive.
Meek, Th. J. 1935: Excavations at Nuzi, vol. III: Old Akkadian, Sumerian and Cappadocian texts from Nuzi
(Harvard Semitic Series 10; Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press)
Sallaberger, W. 1996: “Zur frühen mesopotamischen Briefliteratur,” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 91/4,

388-407.
Schrakamp, I. 2006: “Kommentar zu den altakkadischen ‘Rüstkammerurkunde’ Erm. 14380,” Babel und Bibel
3, 161-180.
Sommerfeld, W. 1999: Die Texte der Akkade-Zeit. 1. Das Dijala-Gebiet: Tutub (IMGULA 3; Münster:
Rhema).
––––––– 2003: “Bemerkungen zur Dialektgliederung Altakkadisch, Assyrisch and Babylonisch”, in: G. J. Selz
(ed.), Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast zu seinem 70. Geburtstage dargebracht von Freunden, Schülern und
Kollegen (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag) 569-586.
––––––– 2006: “Eine Sammeltafel der Akkade-Zeit aus der St.Petersburger Eremitage über die Ausgabe von
Waffen”, Babel und Bibel 3, 149-160.
Stol, M. 2003: “Das Heiligtum einer Familie. Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien”, in: W.
Sallaberger, K. Volk and A. Zgoll (eds.) Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus
Wilcke (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), 293-300.
Westenholz, Aa. 1984: “The Sargonic Period”, in: A. Archi (ed.), Circulation of Goods in Non-Palatial Context
in the Ancient Near East (Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo), 17-30.
––––––– 1988: “Personal Names in Ebla and in Pre-Sargonic Period”, in A. Archi (ed.), Eblaite personal
names and Semitic name-giving: papers of a symposium held in Rome July 15-17, 1985 (Roma: Missione
archeologica italiana in Siria), 99-118.
Bemerkungen zu den „Archivfunden“ aus den hellenistischen
Heiligtümern Uruks
Joachim Oelsner, Leipzig / Jena
Die Forschungsschwerpunkte von Aa. Westenholz, dem die folgenden Zeilen anläßlich seines
70. Geburtstags gewidmet werden sollen, liegen vorwiegend im Mesopotamien des 3. Jahrtausend
v.Chr. Doch auch andere Perioden des Alten Orients haben sein Interesse gefunden. So hat er sich
unlängst unter dem Titel „The Graeco-Babyloniaca Once Again“ der spätesten keilschriftlichen
Überlieferung zugewandt1 und Gedanken über den Ausgang der babylonischen Kultur vorgetragen.
Dabei ist er auch der Frage nachgegangen, wo für das interessante Phänomen der Umschrift des
Sumerischen und Akkadischen in griechische Buchstaben der Sitz im Leben zu suchen ist. Wie für
manches andere gebührt ihm für diesen gründlichen und anregenden Beitrag, mit dem die Diskussion
weitergeführt wird, Dank, auch wenn der Verf. dieser Zeilen ihm nicht in allen Punkten folgen
möchte. Hier soll es allerdings nicht um diese Problematik gehen, sondern um einen anderen Aspekt
des hellenistischen Babyloniens. Auch wird nicht die Stadt Babylon in den Mittelpunkt gestellt,
sondern das südlicher gelegene Uruk.
Darüber gibt es inzwischen eine Fülle von Publikationen. Die Veröffentlichung der Ausgrabungs-
ergebnisse in der Reihe „Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Endberichte“ (= AUWE) erlaubt es jetzt,
manches aus der Geschichte der Stadt besser zu erkennen als bisher. Für die hellenistische Periode sind
es besonders der von Arno Kose vorgelegte archäologische Befund (AUWE 17) und die Untersuchung
der Siegel auf den bei den Ausgrabungen gefundenen Tonbullen und Tontafeln durch Gunvor
Lindström (AUWE 20), die zu neuen Einsichten führen. Dabei hat letztere die Tonbullen auch nach
ihrer äußeren Form klassifiziert.2 Aber auch die von Ronald Wallenfels vorgelegte Veröffentlichung
der Siegelabdrücke auf den hellenistischen Tontafeln in der Yale Babylonian Collection (AUWE 19)
hat die Materialbasis erweitert, um nur einige wichtige neuere Arbeiten zu nennen. Das zugänglich
gemachte Material wird nicht nur im einzelnen analysiert, sondern auch historisch interpretiert. Die
Folgerungen, die gezogen werden, regen zu weiteren Untersuchungen an.
Da nun von zahlreichen der in den beiden großen Heiligtümern der hellenistischen Periode –
dem Rēš und dem Irigal – gefundenen gesiegelten Tonbullen und Tontafeln die genauen Fundstellen
bekannt sind, läßt sich die Zusammensetzung der Fundkomplexe besser als bisher erkennen. Dazu
sollen im folgenden einige Überlegungen vorgelegt werden, nachdem wir uns bereits vor einigen
Jahren einmal mit dieser Frage beschäftigt haben.3 Das neue Material erlaubt es, die früheren
1 Westenholz 2007.
2 AUWE 20, 8-12; dazu u. bei und mit Anm. 9.
3 Oelsner 1996 (Vortrag auf der Konferenz „Archives et Sceaux du Monde Hellénistique“, Turin, Januar
1993).
226 Akkade is King
Aussagen zu präzisieren bzw. zu korrigieren. Bei der Besprechung des Materials werden weitgehend
die Grabungsnummern (W[arka]) herangezogen.4
Im konkreten Fall besteht das Archivmaterial aus Rechtsurkunden auf Tontafeln sowie aus
gesiegelten Tonbullen, die einst als Verschlüsse von Urkunden dienten. Letztere selbst, in der
Regel auf Pergament und wohl nur ausnahmsweise auf Papyrus geschrieben,5 sind verloren, da
das vergängliche organische Material bei der Lagerung im Boden Mesopotamiens nicht erhalten
geblieben ist, falls es nicht bereits vorher durch Brand zerstört wurde.
Zu den bei den Ausgrabungen gefundenen Exemplaren kommen zahlreiche Stücke aus
Raubgrabungen, die über den Antikenhandel in verschiedene Museen und Sammlungen gelangt sind.
Bei letzteren ist nur gelegentlich möglich, die Fundstelle in Uruk zu ermitteln. Sie werden deshalb
im Folgenden nur ausnahmsweise berücksichtigt. Ergraben wurden sowohl größere Fundkomplexe
als auch nur aus wenigen Exemplaren bestehende kleine Gruppen bzw. Einzelstücke. Mehrfach sind
literarische bzw. astronomische Texte und Rechtsurkunden zusammen aufbewahrt worden, wobei
die eine oder die andere Gattung überwiegt.
In der heutigen Fragestellung soll es darum gehen, welche Schlüsse aus der Zusammensetzung
der Fundkomplexe über den Charakter der dort aufbewahrten Texte und ihre Urheber gezogen
werden können. Untersucht wird die inhaltliche Zusammensetzung der Funde aus den beiden großen
Heiligtümern der hellenistischen Zeit im Zentrum von Uruk:
1. dem Rēš-Heiligtum (ausgegraben 1912/13 und Nachuntersuchung in der 18. Kampagne
1959/60),
2. dem Irigal (Südbau; archäologisch untersucht in der 5.-8. Kampagne 1932/33-1935/36).
Tonbullen und Tontafeln wurden an verschiedenen Stellen der beiden gewaltigen Baukomplexe
gefunden. Die Angaben über die Fundstellen folgen A. Kose bzw. G. Lindström.6 Letztere hat auch
die Zusammensetzung der Fundkomplexe analysiert7 und die Tonbullen nach bestimmten Merkmalen
gegliedert. Unterschieden werden können:
Typ A: ringförmig (zu Privaturkunden gehörig);
Typ B: plombenförmig, nur Amtssiegel (Verwaltungsurkunden oder amtliche Dekrete);8
4 Zugrundegelegt sowohl AUWE 20, 207-229 (Anhang: Archivgut aus hellenistischen Fundkomplexen)
als auch AUWE 17, 540-555 (Konkordanzliste der stratifizierten Kleinfunde [= KF] geordnet nach Warka-
Nummern, d.h. Index zur Liste der Kleinfunde S. 423-539).
5 S. auch u. Anm. 8. Zur Bestimmung des Materials s. AUWE 20, 13 f. Dort auch gute Argumente dafür,
daß die Bezeichnung „Leder“ zugunsten von „Pergament“ aufgegeben werden sollte.
6 S. o. Anm. 4, ferner die Pläne AUWE 17, Beilage 48 (Bestimmung der Räume) und Beilage 49 (mit
Einzeichnung der Fundstellen) für das Rēš sowie für das Irigal Beilage 51.
7 AUWE 20, 69-75 sowie Nachweise an den o. Anm. 4 genannten Stellen.
8 AUWE 20, Nr. 258 und 268 gehören zu Urkunden, die nicht auf Pergament, sondern auf Papyrus
geschrieben wurden, s. S. 36 f. mit Abb. 32, S. 62.
J. Oelsner: Bemerkungen zu den „Archivfunden“ ... 227
Typ C: ebenfalls plombenförmig, aber nur ein Privatsiegel (vermutlich vom Absender
gesiegelte Briefe).9
Leider ist von einer beträchtlichen Anzahl der Tonbullen keine Warka-Fundnummer bekannt
(AUWE 20, Nr. 240-330 aus dem Rēš, Nr. 506-630 aus dem Irigal).10 Während die Tontafeln von
verschiedenen Fundstellen innerhalb des Stadtgebiets kommen, lassen sich Tonbullen nur vereinzelt
außerhalb der beiden Heiligtümer und ihrer unmittelbaren Umgebung lokalisieren.11
Zu 1. Rēš-Heiligtum:
Die bei der Fundteilung ins Istanbuler Museum gelangten Stücke sind unpubliziert (teilweise
verfügbar auf den Grabungsphotos = Ph[oto] W[arka]). Von den nach Berlin gelangten Tontafeln
hat O. Schröder in VS 15 die Rechtsurkunden veröffentlicht, allerdings ohne Grabungsnummern.
Diese wurden bei Oelsner 1996 ohne Einzelnachweise zugrundegelegt. Die Tonbullen sind Dank
G. Lindström jetzt in AUWE 20 zugänglich.12 Um Verwechslung mit der dort vorgenommenen
Einteilung derselben (Typ A bis C, s.o.) zu vermeiden, werden die Archive im Folgenden gegenüber
Oelsner 1996, 112, mit römischen Ziffern benannt (in Klammer die frühere Benennung). Einzelstücke
wurden nicht in die Tabelle aufgenommen.13
9 AUWE 20, 12 Tab. 1. Zum dort vermuteten Textinhalt s. u. Typ A kann in drei Untergruppen
eingeteilt werden: A1: nur Siegel von Privatpersonen (Vertragsparteien, Zeugen), A2: neben Siegeln von
Privatpersonen Siegel des „Registratur“-Beamten (χρεοφύλαξ), A3: neben Siegeln von Privatpersonen Siegel
von Steuerbeamten und eventuell des χρεοφύλαξ. Da es sich aber bei allen um Privaturkunden handelt, ist
dies im vorliegenden Zusammenhang ohne Belang.
10 Bereits vor dem Beginn der gezielten Ausgrabungen hat eine umfangreiche illegale Suche
stattgefunden, vgl. AUWE 20, 66 f. mit Anm. 391-398, besonders Anm. 392 mit Verweis auf „Raublöcher“,
die die ersten Ausgräber dokumentiert haben. Beachtung verdienen unseres Erachtens nicht zuletzt die bei
Jordan 1928, Taf. 2, im Bereich der Ostecke des Irigal, der bei den Ausgrabungen nicht untersucht wurde,
eingezeichneten Stellen. Die Vermutung drängt sich auf, daß ein Teil der in den Handel gelangten Tontafeln
und Tonbullen von dort stammt.
11 AUWE 20, Nr. 631 (Eanna), 632-634 (Stadtgebiet). Bereits länger bekannte hellenistische Tontafeln
aus Raubgrabungen kommen mit ziemlicher Sicherheit teilweise auch aus dem Wohnviertel im Planquadrat
U 18. Die dort bei den Ausgrabungen gefundenen Tafeln, überwiegend aus dem 5. und 4. Jh. v.Chr., wurden
veröffentlicht von H. Hunger in SpTU 1 und E. von Weiher in SpTU 2-5.
12 Die Ergebnisse zusammengefaßt AUWE 20, 69-75.
13 Die Buchstaben C, F und M von 1996 wurden nicht umgestellt, da sie nicht in die Tabelle aufgenommen
wurden. Einige Angaben von 1996 sind nach den heute vorliegenden Publikationen zu modifizieren: zu C
gehört nur W 90 (AUWE 17, 442 Nr. 265; AUWE 20, 216; als Einzelstück nicht in die Tabelle aufgenommen),
die Gruppe W 89 gehört nicht zu C (s. Tabelle), sie kommt aus „Einschnitt IV, Halde“ (AUWE 17, 442 Nr. 247,
in Beilage 49 nicht eingezeichnet); zu D: W 148 = Tontafelfragmente, bei W 154 ist 5 Versehen für 15; E ist an
falscher Stelle eingezeichnet, kommt nach AUWE 17, Beilage 49 aus Raum 110 (allerdings mit Fragezeichen;
zur Fundstelle s. AUWE 17, 194 Abb. 114, statt (W) 376, 377 ist dort 375, 376 zu lesen, s. ebd. S. 456 sub Nr.
454 f.; F = W 380 ist ein Einzelfund (AUWE 20, 218); der Eintrag W 487 unter Bullen G gehört zu I, Herkunft
228 (s. Oelsner, 1996, 112) Akkade is King
Archiv
Raum
(Kose, Beilage 48)

Charakter des Raumes
W-Nr.
Bullentyp A
Bullentyp B (C)
möglicher Zeitraum]
Datierung (v.Chr.) [/ =
VS 15)
in AUWE 20; Tontafeln:
Publikation (Bullen: Nr.
Anhang S. 207 ff.

Auflistung in AUWE 20,
Kleinfunde (= KF)
Nr. in AUWE 17, 423 ff.:
I (= A) 89 Sakralraum 64 mind. 64 Bullen 61 3 223-146 Nr. 3-66 S. 207 250-
261
I (= A) 89 Sakralraum 64bo, 2 kleine unpubl. S. 207 -
64bp Tafelfrgmte.
- NW- (s. Kose sub 89 9 Bullen 9 um 221/ Nr. 67-75 S. 216 247
Bereich KF 247) um 208
(sekundär?)
II (= B) 90 Archivraum 111 mind. 72 Bullen 48 22 (C: 238-145 Nr. 77-148 S. 207 313-
2, s. S. 332
12)
II (= B) 90 Archivraum 117 1 Taf. 246/223 VS 15,21 S. 207 333
III (= D) 82 Archivraum 154 mind. 15 Bullen 15 um 192/ Nr. 149-163 S. 217 352-
um 154 356
III (= D) 82 Archivraum 148, Tafelfrgmte. unpubl., teilweise S. 217 351,
155, literarisch 357-
159 358
IV (= )E 110? Sakralraum 375 22 Bullen 22 Nr. 164-185 S. 218 454
V (= G) 26 Sakralraum 402, Tafeln 165, VS 15, 13, 33, S. 218 403,
440 230/210 46 und unpubl. 406
Frgmte.
VI (=H) Tür 44 zu 407 4 Bullen 4 186-189 S. 218 411-
55 412
VI (=H) Tür 44 zu 408 6 Tafelfrgmte. S. 218 413
55
VII (= I) 55 (unt. Archivraum 487 1 Bulle 1 225A S. 218 324
Niveau)
VII (= I) 55 (ob. Archivraum 415 3 Tafelfrgmte. S. 218 417
Niveau)
VIII (= J) Durchgang 478 12 Bullen 12 223-164 214-225 S. 209 619
22 zu 29a
VIII (= J) Durchgang 476 1 Tafel (2 192/162 VS 15, 22 S. 209 616
22 zu 29a Frgmte.) (Randfrgmt.
unpubl.)
IX (= K) 29d Archivraum 522 4 Bullen 4 um 189/ 226-229 S. 210 606-
um 154 608
IX (= K) 29d Archivraum 521 zahlreiche VS 15 (s.u.); S. 210 597-
Tafeln Sarkisjan 1975 Nr. 605
1; teils unpubl.
X (= L) 29c Archivraum 418, 5+19+4 Bullen 28 um 190 190-213, 559,
473, 230-233 576-
523 578,
595
aus Raum 55 jetzt gesichert; sub J: W 476 bezieht sich nur auf eine Tafel, das Randfrgt. gehört ziemlich sicher
dazu, vgl. AUWE 20, 209; zu K und L: W 473 Bullen bezieht sich auf Bullen, unter W 418 sind auch einige
Bullen inventarisiert; M = W 524 ist wohl altbab. (AUWE 20, 218 mit Anm. 36). - Woher Kose, AUWE 17,
465 sub Nr. 596, die Herkunftsangabe hat, ist uns nicht bekannt (die endgültige Publikation = TCL 6, 38 fehlt
dort; der Verweis auf Jordan WVDOG 51, 64, ist falsch). Das Stück dürfte eher zu den bei Anm. 14 genannten
Tontafeln aus Raum 79b (AUWE 20, 211-216) gehören.
(s. Oelsner, 1996, 112) J. Oelsner: Bemerkungen zu den „Archivfunden“ ... 229
Archiv
Raum
(Kose, Beilage 48)

Charakter des Raumes
W-Nr.
Bullentyp A
Bullentyp B (C)
möglicher Zeitraum]
Datierung (v.Chr.) [/ =
VS 15)
in AUWE 20; Tontafeln:
Publikation (Bullen: Nr.
Anhang S. 207 ff.

Auflistung in AUWE 20,
Kleinfunde (= KF)
Nr. in AUWE 17, 423 ff.:
X (= L) 29c Archivraum 417, weit über 299-141 VS 15 (s.u.); 558,
418, 100 Tafeln viele unpubl. 560-
516 (Hauptfund) 575,
591-
594
Weitere Funde wurden nicht in die Tabelle aufgenommen, weil sie für die Frage nach Archiven
unergiebig sind. Sie seien nur kurz erwähnt:
a) Aus Raum 79b im mittleren Bereich der Südostfront kommt eine beträchtliche Zahl von
Tontafeln, überwiegend astronomischen und literarischen Inhalts.14 Es befinden sich aber auch einige
Rechtsurkunden darunter.15 Tonbullen kommen ebenfalls von hier (W 368 = AUWE 20, Nr. 163C).
b) In den fünfziger Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts und gelegentlich auch später wurden im Bereich
des Nordost-Zingels und der Ostecke des Rēš mehrfach Tontafeln, darunter auch Rechtsurkunden,16
sowie Tonbullen (AUWE 20, Nr. 235-239)17 gefunden.
c) Streufunde aus dem Rēš: einige Tonbullen (AUWE 20, Nr. 1-2, 76, 163A-B, 234)
sowie eine Anzahl von Tontafeln18 wurden 1912/13 an verschiedenen Stellen gefunden.
Nach diesem Überblick über das verfügbare Material kann die Frage nach seiner
14 AUWE 20, 71 f., 211-216 („Astr. und Liter. Texte“ bei Oelsner 1996, 112). S. auch AUWE 17,
Beilage 48 f.
15 Nachweise AUWE 20, 211-216. Einen Archivzusammenhang konnten wir nicht ermitteln. Allerdings
ist nicht auszuschließen, daß unter der Fundnummer W 20030 auch Fragmente inventarisiert wurden, die von
anderen, nicht dokumentierten Fundstellen kommen. Ein Fragment davon konnte mit einem in den Handel
gelangten Fragment indirekt zusammengeschlossen werden: van Dijk und Mayer 1980, Nr. 132, und Weisberg
1991, Nr. 3 (Duplikat zu MLC 2201, s. AUWE 19, 175 sub numero; AUWE 20, 215 sub Frgt. 5). Offenbar in
diesem Bereich gefunden wurde W 369 = VS 15, 7 (AUWE 20, 211).
16 Vgl. AUWE 20, 218 f. und AUWE 17, Beilage 49 (Fundstellen).
17 AUWE 20, 218 f. ist W 18756 = Nr. 235 (s. S. 110) ausgefallen. Vgl. auch die in diesem Bereich
eingezeichneten Raublöcher bei Jordan 1928, Taf. 2 (dazu o. Anm. 10).
18 AUWE 20, 216-218 sub W 66-526; zu den Fundstellen s. AUWE 17, Beilage 49. Nicht zu bestimmen
ist die Fundstelle derjenigen Texte, die wie eine Anzahl der Bullen keine W-Nummer tragen: VS 15, 30, 34,
43, 49 (auch auf den Grabungsphotos nicht zu identifizieren). – Die nach Istanbul gelangten Texte U 1-281
entsprechen den vorher S. 207 ff. unter den Fundnummern aufgeführten Exemplaren. Es ist allerdings nur bei
den von Neugebauer 1955 veröffentlichten astronomischen und einigen mathematischen Beispielen möglich,
aus den Grabungsphotos Entsprechungen zwischen Fundnummer (W 186, s. AUWE 20, 211) und U 91-181 zu
ermitteln. S. auch u. Anm. 21.
230 Akkade is King
Zusammensetzung gestellt werden. Wir kommen damit zur Analyse der Archivfunde. Zunächst
einmal ist zu beobachten, daß die Fundkomplexe unterschiedlich zusammengesetzt sind:
1. Gruppe: Tabelle I, II, III, VIII – vorwiegend Bullen, nur wenige Tontafelfragmente;
2. Gruppe: Tabelle IV – nur Bullen; die Fundlage der Bullen mit der Fundnummer W 89 (s.
Tabelle) ist wohl als sekundär zu interpretieren;
3. Gruppe: Tabelle V –, ein kleiner Fund von Tafeln (Streufund?);
4. Gruppe: Tabelle VI (da aus einem Durchgangsraum, wohl sekundäre Fundlage) und VII
(Bullen und Tontafeln auf unterschiedlichem Niveau), zwei kleine Funde – Bullen und Tafeln
zahlenmäßig etwa gleich verteilt;
5. Gruppe: Tabelle IX und X – überwiegend Tontafeln, nur wenige Bullen.
Interessant ist, daß Tonbullen-Typ B (zu offiziellen Dokumenten gehörig) nur in den Archiven
I (dreimal neben 61-mal Typ A) und II (22 Exemplare neben 48-mal Typ A und zweimal Typ C)
vertreten ist. Die anderen Gruppen enthielten nur Privaturkunden.
In Gruppe 5 mit den Archiven IX und X aus den durch Raubgrabungen nicht gestörten
Räumen 29c und 29d liegt der umfangreichste Fund von Tontafeln vor. Sie gehören wahrscheinlich
inhaltlich zusammen und können als Hauptarchiv betrachtet werden.19 Neben Rechtsurkunden,
die die überwiegende Zahl der Texte bilden, befinden sich auch einige literarische, aber keine
astronomischen Texte darunter.20 Die Tafeln W 418 lagen in einer Ecke des Raumes 29c in drei
Schichten übereinander.21 Erschwerend für die Bewertung erweist sich, daß das – zahlenmäßig wohl
umfangreichere – Material in Istanbul unpubliziert ist. Nur die nach Berlin gelangten und in VS 15
veröffentlichten Stücke sind bekannt.22 Davon können Nr. 8, 11, 12, 14, 36, 39 mit Duplikat 4023,
44, 50, 52 dem Fundkomplex IX zugewiesen werden und Nr. 2, 5, 6, 10, 15+29, 17, 19, 20, 24,
19 Wenn der Zusammenschluß von W 418 h mit W 521.[21] (so AUWE 20, 208 sub numero) gesichert
ist, dann wäre dies ein sicheres Zeichen, daß die in den beiden Räumen gefundenen Objekte zusammen gehören.
Unklar bleibt aber, warum sie so verteilt sind. S. auch AUWE 20, 70 f. und u. Anm. 21 f. Bei VS 15, 22 (W 476)
und den Bullen W 478 (AUWE 20, Nr. 214-225, s. auch S. 209) legt die Fundlage in einem Durchgangsraum
den Verdacht nahe, daß diese nicht ursprünglich ist. Dabei muß aber offen bleiben, wann die Objekte dahin
gelangt sind. Das ist durchaus auch in einer späteren antiken Nutzungsphase denkbar.
20 Nachweise AUWE 20, 208-210. Unter W 418.[16] ist eine Verwaltungsurkunde aus der Zeit
Nebukadnezars II. (605-562 v.Chr.) inventarisiert. VS 15, 1 (W 418.1) könnte man in die Nähe von
Traditionsliteratur stellen.
21 AUWE 17, 194 Abb. 114. Wegen dieser Häufung wird man hierin das Zentrum der Tafelsammlung
sehen dürfen. S. auch Jordan 1928, 25. Zur Aufbewahrung, wahrscheinlich auf Regalen, s. AUWE 20, 71 mit
Anm. 414.
22 Einige wenige der nicht in Berlin befindlichen Tontafeln sind auf den bei Jordan 1928, Taf. 102 f.,
veröffentlichten Grabungsphotos zu finden, Nachweise Krückmann 1931, 6 Anm. 15.
23 Ein weiteres Duplikat VS 15 49 gehört zu den o. Anm. 18 genannten Beispielen ohne W-Nr.
25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 35, 37, 38, 45, 48, Sarkisjan 1975 Nr. 1, dem Komplex X.24 Zeitlich umfassen
diese Urkunden die Periode von etwa 320 bis 171 v. Chr. (VS 15 20 bzw. VS 15 37). Nur wenige
davon gehören zu den von T. L. Doty25 ermittelten großen Archiven: VS 15, 19 zum sogenannten
Lâbâši-Archiv und VS 15 10, 28, 37 zum Dannat-Bēlti-Archiv, während Nanâ-iddin- und Dumqi-
Ani-Archiv in dieser Fundgruppe nicht vorkommen. Aber auch im Rēš isoliert gefundene Tontafeln
lassen sich dem Lâbâši- bzw. Dannat-Bēlti-Archiv zuordnen, ersterem VS 15 41 (= W 380, Raum
25),26 letzterem VS 15 4 (= W 116, Hof VII).27 Da an jeder Transaktion zwei (oder mehr) Parteien
beteiligt sind, die jeweils eine Ausfertigung erhielten, bedeutet das nicht, daß die aus Raubgrabungen
stammenden Urkunden dieser Familien ursprünglich hier aufbewahrt worden sind.
Hinsichtlich der Archivzugehörigkeit lassen sich aus dem Hauptfund von Tontafeln in den
beiden zuletzt genannten Räumen keine Erkenntnisse gewinnen. Warum die Tafeln dort zusammen
gelagert wurden, bleibt unklar. Die früher geäußerte Vermutung, daß es sich bei den im Rēš-Heiligtum
aufbewahrten Dokumenten vielleicht um Familienarchive handeln könnte,28 erscheint uns heute eher
unwahrscheinlich.
Zu 2. Irigal:
Im Unterschied zum Rēš-Heiligtum besitzen die hier ausgegrabenen Bullen und Tontafeln
einen relativ einheitlichen Charakter: da Dumqi-Ani, Sohn des Arad-Rēš und seine Familie
wiederholt als Vertragspartei auftauchen,29 werden die Tontafeln diesem Archiv zugewiesen und
die Fundstelle als „Handhaus“ (bīt qāt) derselben verstanden.30 Die beiden Räume, aus denen die
Dokumente kommen—ein Zingelraum und der Torraum Nr. 5/5a—sind allerdings nicht miteinander
verbunden. Da sie auch Gegenstand von Raubgrabungen waren,31 ist die Fundlage gestört. Warum
24 Vgl. AUWE 20, 208 f. (W 417, 418, 516) bzw. 210 (W 521).
25 Doty 1977, 163-168.
26 O. Anm. 13 sub F; s. auch AUWE 20, 218.
27 Zu beachten ist, daß einige der Texte aus VS 15 keine Fundnummer erhalten haben (AUWE 20, 219:
Nr. 30, 34, 43, 49), s. o. Anm. 18. Von den vor dem Beginn der Ausgrabungen angekauften Stücken gehören
VS 15, 3, 23, 51 zum Nanâ-iddin-Archiv und Nr. 18 zum Dannat-Bēlti-Archiv, während Nr. 32 und 47 keinem
der vier Archive zugeordnet werden können.
28 Oelsner 1996, 110; G. Lindström verweist darauf AUWE 20, 70 mit Anm. 412. - Jordan 1928, 25,
denkt an „Amtsräume“ vergleichbar der Situation in Babylon. Ob man dies auf Privaturkunden übertragen
kann, erscheint uns sehr fraglich.
29 Doty 1977, 163-165, 168, 270-302.
30 AUWE 20, 72-75, s. auch AUWE 17, 239 f.
31 Die Hinweise der Ausgräber auf die Raubgrabungen im Irigal zusammengestellt vgl. AUWE 20, 72
Anm. 426. Ein anderer Teil der im Handel erworbenen Tafeln mag von der Ostecke des Bauwerks kommen, zu
den dortigen Raublöchern s. o. Anm. 10 am Ende.
232 Akkade is King
eine Verteilung auf getrennte Räume erfolgte, läßt sich nicht erkennen. Eine beträchtliche Anzahl der
Tontafeln stammt aus der Zeit zwischen 161 und 151 v. Chr., das späteste Stück wurde 146 v. Chr.
geschrieben.
In diesem Fall kann davon ausgegangen werden, daß auch die Bullen ohne W-Nummer an
den genannten Stellen gefunden wurden. Sie können also—anders als die Bullen aus dem Rēš—
ohne Vorbehalte zusammengefaßt werden. Damit hätten wir von hier aus den Ausgrabungen einen
einheitlichen Fund von mindestens 300 Bullen, zu einem großen Teil Bruchstücke,32 sowie etwa
65 mehr oder weniger fragmentarischen Tontafeln.33 Wie Zusammenschlüsse von ausgegrabenen
Stücken mit in den Handel gelangten Tafelfragmenten zeigen,34 kommen dazu Tontafeln (und auch
Bullen?) aus Raubgrabungen. Ihre Anzahl ist allerdings nicht zu bestimmen.
Unter den ausgegrabenen Bullen befinden sich keine des Typs B. Die weit überwiegende
Zahl gehört zu Typ A, einige Stücke zu Typ C, die G. Lindström Briefen zuordnet.35 Dies bedeutet
offenbar, daß an den im Irigal gegrabenen Stellen nur Privaturkunden sowie einige Briefe, aber
keine offiziellen Dokumente aufbewahrt wurden. Gleichzeitig scheint aber die Zahl der Pergament-
Urkunden die der Tontafeln zu übersteigen.
Zusammenfassung:
Einige vorläufige Folgerungen seien erlaubt. Zunächst: Die ausgegrabenen Funde aus dem Irigal
bilden, wie gesagt, wahrscheinlich eine zusammengehörige Gruppe. Wie die von den Ausgräbern
beobachteten Raublöcher zeigen, wurden weitere Tontafeln und Bullen in diesem Heiligtum auch an
anderen Stellen gefunden. So kann vermutet werden, daß eine Anzahl der über den Antikenhandel
erworbenen Tontafeln und Bullen wie bereits erwähnt aus dem Bereich der Ostecke des Irigal kommt,
wo nicht gegraben wurde.36 Aber auch Fundstellen im Stadtgebiet außerhalb der beiden hier betrachteten
Heiligtümer sind in Erwägung zu ziehen. Im einzelnen ist ihre Herkunft nicht mehr zu ermitteln.
Zusammengehörigkeit kann nur aus inhaltlichen Indizien ermittelt werden, wobei aber immer damit zu
rechnen ist, daß Dokumente desselben Personenkreises an verschiedenen Stellen aufbewahrt wurden.
32 AUWE 20, Nr. 331-630. Mit Ausnahme von Nr. 331 (Oberflächenfund der Grabung 1912/13)
zeigen die Inventarnummern des Vorderasiatischen Museums zu Berlin, daß auch die Stücke ohne W-Nummer
während der Ausgrabungen in den dreißiger Jahren des 20. Jhs. gefunden wurden.
33 Oelsner 1986, 149-151, 156. Die nach Berlin gelangten Stücke wurden veröffentlicht von G.Ch.
Sarkisjan, 1975 und 1977. Die bei der Fundteilung ins Iraq-Museum gegebenen Tafeln und Fragmente wurden
von A. Falkenstein kopiert (noch unpubliziert).
34 Zusammen gehören: BRM 2 42 + Sarkisjan 1975 Nr. 6 + W 15034h (= Sarkisjan 1977, 82 f.) mit
Duplikat (unpubl.) MLC 2180 + Sarkisjan 1977, 88 Nr. 24; BRM 2 55 + Sarkisjan 1975 Nr. 21 + Sarkisjan
1977, 86 f. Nr. 13; (unpubl.) MLC 2185 + Sarkisjan 1975, Nr. 22, s. Wallenfels, AUWE 19, 174, vgl. auch
Oelsner 1986, 151.
35 Zusammengestellt AUWE 20, 12 mit Anm. 45. Zur Klassifizierung s.o. bei und mit Anm. 9.
36 S. o. Anm. 31.
Während das Irigal ein ziemlich geschlossenes Bild bietet, kommen aus dem Rēš mehrere
Fundkomplexe, die unterschiedlich zusammengesetzt sind. Vernachlässigt man die vereinzelten
Tontafelfragmente in den vorwiegend Bullen enthaltenden Gruppen (I, II, III, VIII) und faßt sie mit
der nur Bullen enthaltenden Gruppe IV zusammen, so sind aber auch hier, wie bereits o. gesagt,
Unterschiede in der Zusammensetzung zu erkennen: die meisten Fundkomplexe mit Bullen enthalten
nur solche des Typs A, also Privaturkunden. Solche des offiziellen Typs B sind vereinzelt in Archiv
I (etwa 5 %) und nur in Archiv II in größerer Zahl (etwa 30 %) vertreten—letzteres zeigt also einen
mehr oder weniger offiziellen Charakter. Eine Zuordnung der Bullen aus dem Rēš ohne W-Nummer
ist leider nicht möglich, so daß über einen beträchtlichen Teil des Materials keine Aussagen möglich
sind. Daneben stehen Gruppen, die ausschließlich Tontafeln enthalten (V) oder in denen sie
überwiegen (VI, VII, IX, X). Die hier bezeugten Bullen gehören durchweg zum Typ A.
Für einige Personen, die auf Tontafeln namentlich genannt werden, konnte G. Lindström37
nachweisen, daß sie auch auf Tonbullen vorkommen. Verglichen mit der Vielzahl der in den Texten
namentlich genannten Akteure handelt es sich allerdings nur um einen kleinen Prozentsatz. Ein weiterer
Gesichtspunkt, der zu beachten ist, ist die Ikonographie. G. Lindström hat darauf hingewiesen, daß
hellenistische Motive auf den Bullen einen größeren Anteil bilden als auf den Tontafeln. Daraus
hat sie den Schluß gezogen, daß es sich um verschiedene Personengruppen handelt: die Personen,
die auf den Bullen agieren, waren stärker in überregionale Geschäftstätigkeiten involviert als die
Keilschrift verwendende, mit der Tempelwirtschaft verbundene Gruppe.38 Die Frage, ob Bullen und
Tontafeln von demselben Personenkreis geschaffen wurden, ist also differenzierter zu sehen als
bisher. Vergleicht man die einzelnen Fundkomplexe miteinander, gelingt es vielleicht, zu präziseren
Aussagen zu kommen.
Auf die Frage, warum Rechtsurkunden auf Ton und Pergament39 im hellenistischen Uruk nicht
nur in Wohnhäusern (dort allerdings bisher nur Keilschrifttafeln nachgewiesen), sondern ebenso in
den Heiligtümern niedergelegt wurden, finden wir auch weiterhin keine Antwort.40 Mit Sicherheit
läßt aber die Aufbewahrung in verschiedenen Räumen des Rēš erkennen, daß es sich im Anu-Antu-
Heiligtum nicht um ein einheitliches, geschlossenes „Rēš-Archiv“ handelt. Und, obwohl im Irigal
nur ein Archiv ausgegraben worden ist, ist - wie o. gezeigt wurde - auch hier mit verschiedenen
Fundgruppen zu rechnen.
37 AUWE 20, 205 f.: Identifizierung von Tonbullen siegelnden Personen.

38 AUWE 20, 77 f., s. auch Lindström 2003a (dazu Oelsner 2005, 214-216).
39 AUWE 20, 12 Tabelle 1, werden die Privaturkunden des Typs A durchweg als „Kaufurkunden“
eingeordnet. So generell ist das sicher nicht haltbar. Die unterschiedliche Zahl von Abdrücken erklärt sich sicher
daraus, daß verschiedener Vertragsinhalt zugrunde liegt. So sind z.B. Schuldurkunden nicht auszuschließen,
gegebenenfalls ist auch mit Dokumenten aus dem Bereich des Familienrechts und anderem zu rechnen.
40 S. Oelsner 1996, 108. – Vgl. auch die tabellarischen Übersichten über die zeitliche Verteilung des
Materials in AUWE 17, 38 f., und AUWE 20, 60 f.
234 Akkade is King
Bibliography
Clay, A. T. 1913: Legal Documents from Erech in the Seleucid Era (312-65 B.C.) (BRM 2; New York).
van Dijk, J. and W. R. Mayer 1980: Texte aus dem Rēš-Heiligtum in Uruk-Warka (Baghdader Mitteilungen,
Beiheft 2; Berlin: Mann).
Doty, T. L. 1977: Cuneiform Archives from Hellenistic Babylonia (unpublished PhD dissertation; New Haven,
Ct.: Yale University).
Hunger, H. 1976: Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk, Teil 1 (SpTU 1; ADFU 9; Berlin: Mann).
Jordan, J. 1928: Uruk-Warka (51. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft;

Osnabrück: Zeller).
Kose, A. 1998: Uruk. Architektur IV. Von der Seleukiden- bis zur Sasanidenzeit (AUWE 17; Mainz am Rhein:
Verlag Philipp von Zabern).
Krückmann, O. 1931: Babylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden aus der Zeit Alexanders und der
Diadochen (Philosophische Dissertation; Berlin, Weimar).
Lindström, G. 2003: Uruk. Siegelabdrücke auf hellenistischen Tonbullen und Tontafeln (AUWE 20; Mainz am
Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern).
––––––– 2003a: “Kulturelle und ethnische Identität im hellenistischen Uruk. Ein Beitrag aus der Siegelforschung”,
in: K. S. Freiberger, A. Henning and H. von Hesberg (eds.), Kulturkonflikte im Vorderen Orient an der Wende
vom Hellenismus zur römischen Kaiserzeit (Orient-Archöologie 11; Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf), 37-45.
Neugebauer, O. 1955: Astronomical Cuneiform Texts (London: Published for the Institute for Advanced Study
by Lund Humphries).
Oelsner, J. 1986: Materialien zur babylonischen Gesellschaft und Kultur in hellenistischer Zeit (Budapest:
Eötvös University).
––––––– 1996: “Siegelung in Archivierung von Dokumenten im hellenistischen Babylonien”, in: Boussac, M.-
F. and A. Invernizzi (eds.), Archives et Sceaux du Monde Hellénistique (BCH Supplément 29; Athènes: Ecole
Française d‘Athènes), 101-112.
––––––– 2005: Rezension zu A. Henning and H. von Hesberg (eds.), Kulturkonflikte im Vorderen Orient an
der Wende vom Hellenismus zur römischen Kaiserzeit (Orient-Archöologie 11; Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf 2003),
Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 100, 611-616.
Sarkisjan, G. Ch. 1975: “New Cuneiform Texts from Uruk in the Seleucid Period in the Staatliche Museen zu
Berlin”, Forschungen und Berichte, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin 16, 15-76.
––––––– 1977: “Bruchstücke von seleukidischen Wirtschaftstexten in den Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin”,
Altorientalische Forschungen 5, 81-89.
Schröder, O. 1916: Kontrakte der Seleukidenzeit aus Warka (VS 15; Leipzig).
Thureau-Dangin, F. 1922: Tablettes d’Uruk à l’usage des prêtres du temple d’Anu au temps des Séleucides
(TCL 6; Paris: P. Geuthner).
Wallenfels, R. 1994: Uruk. Hellenistic Seal Impressions in the Yale Babylonian Collection. I. Cuneiform Tablets
(AUWE 19; Mainz: Zabern).
von Weiher, E. 1983-1988: Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk, Teil 2-3 (SpTU 2-3; ADFU 10, 12; Berlin :
Mann).
–––––––1993: Uruk. Spätbabylonische Texte aus dem Planqudrat U 18, Teil 4-5. (SpTU 4-5; AUWE 12, 13;
Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern).
Weisberg, D. B. 1991: The Late Babylonian Texts of the Oriental Institute Collection (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica
24; Malibu: Undena Publications).
Westenholz, Aa. 2007: “The Graeco-Babyloniaca Once Again”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
Quello che accade (forse) dopo la morte di Šar-kali-šarrī
Francesco Pomponio, Messina
“Nations by violence are espous’d to kings,

and men are hammer’d into wedding-rings”
(Walter Savage Landor)
1. Indubbiamente più sintetico dell’opera dedicata da Edward Gibbon alla decadenza e alla
caduta dell’impero romano, il capitolo di A. Westenholz intitolato “The Decline and the Fall of
the Akkadian Empire” nel volume di Sallaberger and Westenholz 1999, 56-59, è nondimeno ricco
di informazioni e suggerimenti, resi ancora più suggestivi dalla sapida ironia della quale Aage
Westenholz è impareggiabile dispensatore. Alcuni dei temi e dei problemi discussi in quelle pagine
sono riesaminati nel presente articolo per il volume destinato a onorare il nostro Collega.
2. Il testo WB della Sumerian King List stabilisce come complessiva durata della Dinastia
di Accad 181 anni, mentre in altri manoscritti il suo periodo varia da 177 a 197.1 Seppure secondo
un omen di extispicina il regno di Šar-kali-šarrī coincida con la “rovina” ([ n ì - h ] a - l a m - m a =
šahluqtum) di Accad,2 questa rovina non sarebbe stata definitiva, essendo seguiti, secondo alcuni
manoscritti della SKL, al regno del bisnipote di Sargon un’altra quarantina di anni dei sovrani di
Accad, costituiti dal triennio di “anarchia/confusione”, dai 21 anni di regno di Dudu e dai 15 di
quello di suo figlio Šu-Durul. È da notare, tuttavia, che nei manoscritti da Susa e da Nippur gli
ultimi due sovrani non sarebbero citati,3 e lo stesso, è stato suggerito, sarebbe avvenuto per il testo
rinvenuto a Tell Leilan.4
Il triennio dei più immediati successori di Šar-kali-šarrī, quattro secondo la più tarda tradizione
della SKL (I(r)gigi, Nanum/Nani, Imi, E/Ilulu), e probabilmente anche secondo il manoscritto di
redazione neo-sumerica (Irgigi, Nanum, Elulu, [Imi]),5 è espresso dalla formula “Chi era re? Chi
non era re?” (in sumerico nelle più tarde redazioni e in accadico nella più antica). Propriamente
“anarchia” in questo caso dovrebbe fare riferimento non alla coesistenza di più sovrani (poiché non
abbiamo motivo di credere che qualcuno di costoro non abbia regnato in Accad), ma alla inefficienza
e incapacità di coloro che si erano assunti il compito di esercitare il potere supremo, dimostrate e
1 Cf. Glassner 1993, 259, n. 22.

2 Cf. Nougayrol 1944, 9, 21 (= CT 20, 2, r. 18-19). In un altro omen di redazione tarda, la medesima
situazione è posta in relazione con un innominato “re di Accad” (TCL 6, 1 v. 18; cf. CAD, Š/1, p. 99, sub
šahluqtum 1a).
3 Cf. Jacobsen 1939, 25-26.
4 Cf. Vincente 1995, 264-265.
5 Cf. Steinkeller 2003a, 272; Glassner 2004, 153.
238 Akkade is King
aggravate dalla brevità dei loro regni. Se davvero, come testimonia un altro omen, Šar-kali-šarrī
avrebbe condiviso il fato del nonno Manistusu e, addirittura con le medesime modalità, del prozio Rimuš
e sarebbe stato eliminato da una congiura di palazzo,6 è probabile che questa sia stata guidata dal suo
diretto successore Irgigi, al quale un manoscritto della SKL attribuisce un’improbabile discendenza
da Narām-Sîn.7 Se anche Irgigi e i suoi successori siano stati via via eliminati da successivi colpi
di stato non è certo, ma l’indubbia situazione di caos deve aver ovviamente accresciuto le difficoltà
politiche e militari che qualcuno aveva ritenuto di risolvere con l’eliminazione di Šar-kali-šarrī.
La situazione deve essere leggermente migliorata, almeno per la lunghezza del regno, con
Dudu. Questi, per quanto riguarda la parte meridionale della Mesopotamia, era ancora in possesso di
Adab. Lo dimostrano non solo la provenienza della bulla di un suo funzionario con dedica a Dudu,
“il potente, il re di Accad”,8 ma soprattutto un registro di assegnazione di lana da Adab che è datato
dal nome del primo anno di suo figlio Šu-Durul: in 1 m u šu-dur-ùl sar-ru11-dam i-hu-zu, “Anno in
cui Šu-Durul assunse la regalità”.9 E da Adab deve essere partita l’incursione contro Umma ricordata
in un testo amministrativo, proveniente forse da Zabalam, che data il pagamento di 2 mine di argento
al periodo “quando Dudu razziò/distrusse Umma insieme all’Elam” ([N]IM - d a h u l - a ).10
Inoltre, la copia da Nippur dell’iscrizione di un sovrano, che si definisce “il re di Accad” e
assegna un dono alla dea Aštar dal bottino di Girsu, allorché egli distrusse (e-na-ru) la città, è stata
attribuita in Frayne 1993, 211, 2 a Dudu sulla base di una collazione della tavoletta e la conseguente
reintegrazione del nome del sovrano come ˹Du˺-[du], mentre in Gelb and Kienast 1990, 283, C 2
il nome del sovrano è lasciato in lacuna e la traccia è letta come l’epiteto del sovrano ˹da˺-[núm].11
6 Cf. Goetze 1947, 258-259; Cooper 1980, 99. Ma era proprio necessario questo colpo di stato, ovvero
quanti anni aveva Šar-kali-šarrī quando sarebbe stato assassinato? Pur ammettendo che egli potesse non
essere il primogenito di Narām-Sîn, e che l’abbia preceduto un fratello poi eliminato dalla successione perché
premorto o per altri motivi (cf. Steinkeller 2003a, 279), certamente egli doveva essere già nato quando il
padre salì al trono, dopo il lunghissimo regno di Sargon e i 22-24 anni complessivi dei regni di Manistusu e
Rimuš. Ora, se Narām-Sîn avesse regnato 56 anni, o 54 anni e 6 mesi, come indicano rispettivamente alcuni
manoscritti della SKL e la sua versione neo-sumerica, Šar-kali-šarrī, che regnò 24/25 anni, dovrebbe aver
avuto 80 anni o più quando morì. Se invece suo padre avesse regnato 37 anni, come indicano altri manoscritti
della SKL, e ha convincentemente suggerito Westenholz 2000, 255, egli sarebbe morto dopo aver superato
la sessantina, abbastanza anziano per cominciare a dare segni di debolezza e abbastanza giovane per rendere
ancora conveniente una congiura di palazzo.
7 Glassner 2004, 153. Sembrerebbe così una beffa che la lettera di Ur-Utu, che afferma che i cittadini
di Accad non devono essere giustiziati, poiché “Accad è re”, imponga di affidare gli eventuali condannati alla
giurisdizione di Irgigi (Kienast and Volk 1995, 134-136).
8 Frayne 1993, 212-213.
9 Pomponio, Visicato and Westenholz 2006, 224, N. 235.
10 Wilcke 1974-1977, 84, N. 1 l 7-9.
11 Westenholz 1999, 57, n.223 dichiara di non condividere, sulla base di una fotografia dell’iscrizione,
F. Pomponio: Quello che Accade (forse) dopo la Morte de Šar-kali-Šarri 239
Ora, l’epiteto di “il re di Accad” esclude sia Manistusu, sia Rimuš che adottarono coerentemente
quello di “il re della totalità (lugal kiš)”, mentre Sargon si definisce “il re di Accad” e Narām-Sîn,
nelle sue iscrizioni più antiche, “il potente, il re di Accad”, alla pari di Dudu e di Šu-Durul. Tuttavia,
come notato in Gelb and Kienast 1990, 283, Girsu non ricorre tra le città sumeriche conquistate dai
grandi re sargonici.12 Pertanto, a prescindere dalla lettura del nome del re nell’iscrizione in oggetto,
l’interpretazione più verosimile per l’attribuzione di questo testo è che Dudu, dopo aver sconfitto
Umma, si sia spinto ulteriormente a Sud, un’impresa probabilmente impossibile ormai per Šu-
Durul.
Sempre per quanto riguarda la regione babilonese, Dudu sembra aver avuto sotto il proprio
controllo Nippur, da cui proviene anche un vaso con l’offerta di “Dudu, il potente, il re di Accad”
(Frayne 1993, 210-211, 1), e Apiak, a ovest di Marad, al cui dio cittadino, Nergal, egli aveva pure
dedicato un vaso (ibid., 214, 3). Ovviamente, in questo periodo l’estrema regione meridionale della
Mesopotamia si era già sottratta al controllo accadico, con ogni verosimiglianza sotto la guida di
Uruk: la SKL fa seguire, infatti, alla dinastia di Accad una IV dinastia di Uruk con 5 sovrani e una
durata complessiva di 30 anni secondo la redazione WB, ma con molte varianti in altri manoscritti in
uno dei quali la dinastia arriva a 47 anni.13 Tutti i re di Uruk IV sono figure oscure e solo i primi due
(Ur-nigin e il figlio Ur-gigir) sono menzionati in un’iscrizione dedicatoria con il titolo di “l’uomo
potente, il re di Uruk”.14 Il passaggio del potere da Uruk ai Gutei in seguito a una sconfitta della prima
segue lo schema della SKL, ma non deve far riferimento a un preciso conflitto.
La menzione dell’Elam insieme a Umma, come avversari di Dudu, nel testo amministrativo
succitato suggerisce, con questa innaturale alleanza, che la provincia di Umma era stata sottratta
all’impero accadico dai montanari orientali, che vennero così a esercitare sulla città una forma di
controllo, occupandone anche una parte del territorio. L’evento post quem per questa intrusione è
il regno di Irgigi, che ancora controllava Umma, come dimostra la lettera di Ur-Utu (cf. supra, n.
7), rinvenuta in questa città. Ed essa si protrasse per un periodo relativamente lungo poiché due
ensik di Umma, Nammahni e Lugal-annaDU, nelle iscrizioni in cui ricordano di aver (ri)costruito
due templi cittadini, aggiungono una notazione temporale che fa riferimento a quando erano re di
Gutium rispettivamente Iarlagan e Si’um,15 da identificare con Iarlaganda e Si’u, il terzultimo e il
penultimo re della dinastia gutea nella SKL, entrambi con un regno di 7 anni. L’iscrizione di Lugal-
annaDU aggiunge che al periodo di regno di Si’u erano già passati 35 anni da quando “Umma era
la lettura delle tracce del segno come nome di Dudu.

12 Propriamente in un testo inedito da Adab (Cornell University, 49-14-005: cortesia di G. Visicato) è
fatta menzione del “l’anno in cui Girsu fu distrutta”. La tavoletta appartiene all’archivio di Meskigalla, ensik
di Adab, ed è da assegnare, insieme al nome di anno succitato, al regno di Sargon.
13 Glassner 2004, 153.
14 Frayne 1993, 274-276.
15 Cf. ibid., 267-268.
240 Akkade is King
stata spartita” (Umma k i ba-ba-a). Quest’arco di tempo deve, quindi, comprendere buona parte del
regno di Dudu, la cui vittoria non sembra aver conseguito efficaci risultati, e i regni di Šu-Durul e
Iarlagan(da). Resterebbe da stabilire se con “Elam” nell’espressione che riferisce la vittoria di Dudu
si faccia in realtà riferimento ai Gutei, meno famosi dei vecchi nemici Elamiti, o se i due gruppi di
invasori si fossero associati nell’occupazione di una parte del territorio di Umma.
Per quanto riguarda Šu-Durul, che, come su visto, quando salì al trono, ancora occupava
Adab, il suo regno comprendeva anche Kiš ed Ešnunna, da cui provengono due bullae con il nome
del re seguito dagli stessi due epiteti portati da suo padre (“il potente, il re di Accad”), e forse ancora
Apiak, considerando l’offerta dedicatoria di una testa di mazza da parte di un funzionario di Šu-Durul
a Nergal,16 possibilmente come dio di Apiak, ma vi è nella regione, e anzi, probabilmente più vicino
ad Accad, un altro centro, pure dedicato al culto di Nergal: Kutha. Una coppa,17 di provenienza ignota
(ma quella da Adab ci sembra probabile), presenta la menzione, evidentemente incisa in periodi
diversi, di due distinti sovrani: il primo è, appunto, Šu-Durul, “il potente, il re di Accad”, e il secondo
Ar-la-ga-an, “il potente, il re di Gutium”, da identificare senz’altro con il succitato Iarlagan(da).
Costoro devono aver regnato in successione, non necessariamente diretta, ma con ogni probabilità a
breve distanza l’uno dall’altro.
3. Dopo Šu-Durul noi ipotizziamo sul trono di Accad l’arrivo di Erridu-pizir, un re guteo
del quale una Sammeltafel da Nippur copia tre iscrizioni.18 Ciò che colpisce in questi testi in lingua
accadica è la somiglianza con le iscrizioni di Narām-Sîn, a iniziare dai titoli di “il potente, il re di
Gutium e dei quattro angoli (del mondo)”, da mettere in rapporto con gli epiteti del grande re accadico
di “il potente, il re di Accad e dei quattro angoli (del mondo)” nell’iscrizione edita da Frayne 1993,
88-90, mentre in tutte le altre sue iscrizioni i titoli ‘politici’ sono o “il potente, il re di Accad” o “il
potente, il re dei quattro angoli (del mondo), il vincitore di nove battaglie in un anno”. Inoltre, la
prima iscrizione di Erridu-pizir esordisce con la menzione di tre divinità, il nome della prima delle
quali (molto probabilmente Enlil) è andato perduto, mentre è conservato quello della seconda, Aštar-
Annunitum, e della terza, Ilaba, definito K A L A G ì-lí il-la-at-su, “il potente tra gli dèi, il suo (dio
del) clan”: ora, un’iscrizione di Narām-Sîn (Frayne 1993, 104) esordisce con la menzione di Enlil,
“il suo dio” e appunto di Ilaba, “il potente tra gli dèi, il suo (dio del) clan” e Aštar-Annunitum è la
dea cui Narām-Sîn risulta essere più legato. Ancora, tutti gli dèi menzionati nelle iscrizioni di Erridu-
pizir, fatta eccezione per un non meglio noto “dio di Gutium” (D I N G I R Gu-ti-im), ricorrono nelle
iscrizioni dei re sargonici e, in particolare, le divinità invocate nelle maledizioni che concludono le
tre iscrizioni di Erridu-pizir (rispettivamente Šamaš, Aštar e Ilaba; Enlil e Aštar, Ninhursag e Nintu;
Enlil e Šamaš) sono quelle menzionate nelle maledizioni delle iscrizioni di Narām-Sîn e dei suoi
predecessori. Cf. ad es.:
16 Cf. ibid., 215-217.

17 Cf. Hallo 2005, 147.
18 Frayne 1993, 220-228.
ša DUB su4-a u-sa-sà-ku-ni d e n- l í l ù dšamaš S UHUŠ -su li-sú-ha (Narām-Sîn: Frayne 1993,
127, 21-28), “(di) colui che rimuoverà questa iscrizione, Enlil e Šamaš la sua radice svellano”;
ša DUB su4-a u-sa-sà-ku d en-lí l ù dšamaš S U H U Š -su li-sú-ha (Erridu-pizir: Frayne 1993,
227, XI 5’-12’).
Quindi, Erridu-pizir volle considerarsi legittimo discendente dei sovrani accadici, e in
particolare del più grande di costoro, tra quelli a lui più vicini nel tempo, ed emulo delle loro
tradizioni, ad esempio delle offerte dedicatorie di statue nel tempio di Enlil in Nippur. Che questo
sovrano regnasse su Accad è dimostrato da un passo della sua seconda iscrizione: qui è riferito che
prima che l’intero esercito partisse per la spedizione contro Simurrum, la dea Aštar lo aveva radunato
in Accad e che in Accad era stato compiuto un sacrificio di grandi capri agli dèi (Frayne 1993, 224,
v 1-18). È possibile anche che in Accad fosse ubicata la “Porta del dio di Gutium”, presso la quale,
nella sua prima iscrizione, Erridu-pizir ricorda di aver giustiziato lo sconfitto re di Madga.
Le imprese militari cui si fa riferimento nella seconda e nella terza iscrizione di Erridu-pizir
sono rivolte contro un re (lugal) di Simurrum, collegato con il paese di Lullubum, e un governante
(ensik) di Urbilum. Una guerra contro Simurrum è citata in un nome di anno di Sargon,19 oltre che
nel suo poema “Sargon, l’eroe conquistatore”,20 mentre due nomi di anno di Narām-Sîn menzionano
rispettivamente una spedizione e una vittoria contro Simurrum, aggiungendo il nome del luogo dove
si svolse lo scontro (Kirašeniwe) e la cattura del suo re, l’e n s i k Baba, e di un alleato di questi, il
governatore di Asrame,21 e in una versione letteraria della “Grande ribellione” è menzionato, tra
i sovrani coalizzati contro Narām-Sîn, Puttim-Matal, re di Simurrum.22 Quanto ai Lullubiti essi
rappresentano il popolo nemico del re nel testo della “Stele della vittoria” di Narām-Sîn.23
Poiché Erridu-pizir non è citato tra la ventina di nomi di sovrani della dinastia gutea (u g n i m /
ma- da gu-tu-umki) della SKL, è stato ipotizzato che egli sia da identificare con il “re senza nome“
con il quale esordisce questa dinastia.24 Ma neanche il padre di Erridu-pizir, dal nome di Enrida-pizir
e citato con i medesimi epiteti di “il potente, il re di Gutium e dei quattro angoli (del mondo)“ nella
seconda iscrizione di suo figlio, ricorre nella SKL. D’altro canto, a noi sembra verosimile che solo gli
ultimi sovrani di questa dinastia siano da attribuire al periodo della occupazione gutea di parte della
Babilonia, perdendosi invece i primi nella notte dei tempi e negli anfratti delle montagne orientali.
Una spiegazione che concorderebbe con tutti i dati su presentati consiste nell’ammettere
l’esistenza di due gruppi di occupanti “gutei“. Il primo, guidato da Erridu-pizir, o forse già da suo
padre Enrida-pizir, si sarebbe impadronito di Accad e avrebbe cercato il consenso dei sacerdoti di
19 Cf. Gelb and Kienast 1990, 49 D-1.

20 Cf. Goodnick Westenholz 1997, 70-71.
21 Cf. Gelb and Kienast 1990, 51 D-11-12.
22 Cf. Goodnick Westenholz 1997, 242-243, 29.
23 Frayne 1993, 143-144.
24 Cf. Jacobsen 1939, 117, n.285.
242 Akkade is King
Nippur a legittimare il proprio dominio. A Erridu-pizir potrebbe essere succeduto qualche altro
sovrano di più ridotta potenza e dal breve regno, ad es. La-’à-ra-ab, che con l’epiteto di “il potente,
il re di Gutium“, e non è da escludere che nella lacuna che segue sia andata perduta l’aggiunta
“e dei quattro angoli (del mondo)“, è citato nell’iscrizione dedicatoria di una mazza, da Sippar.25
Accad, il territorio limitrofo della valle del Diyala e parte della Babilonia settentrionale subirono poi
l’occupazione degli Elamiti di Puzur-Inšušinak, che in precedenza, partendo dalla Susiana, aveva
saccheggiato le regioni di Kimaš e Hurti, possibile homeland dei Gutei.26 Così fu posta per sempre
fine all’esistenza di Accad come capitale di uno stato indipendente. A pochi anni di distanza, almeno
parte di questo territorio, la Babilonia settentrionale (Akšak, Apiak, Marad e Kazallu), sarebbe stata
conquistata/liberata da Ur-Namma.
4. Più a Sud un secondo gruppo di Gutei, dopo aver cercato senza successo di infiltrarsi
nel territorio di Girsu,27 avrebbe occupato, forse insieme agli Elamiti, parte della regione di Umma,
tenendo sotto una sorta di tutorato i regnanti di questa città, e contemporaneamente o successivamente
il territorio di Adab. Questa situazione della seconda provincia è provata, tra l’altro, dall’inserimento,
nel manoscritto di redazione neo-sumerica della SKL, dopo la dinastia gutea, di una dinastia di Adab,
conclusa da Tirigan, che in tutto il resto della tradizione storica mesopotamica rappresenta l’ultimo
25 Frayne 1993, 228-229; nella maledizione finale sono invocati “il dio di Gutium”, Aštar e Sîn.
26 Cf. Steinkeller 1992, 729, in un’ammirevole sintesi storica di questo periodo. Qui si ipotizza anche
che il controllo di Ur-Namma sulla Babilonia settentrionale, a causa di un ritorno elamita o guteo, potrebbe
essere stato solo temporaneo, data l’assenza di sue iscrizioni in questa regione e la possibilità che Ur-Namma
sia stato sconfitto e ucciso combattendo contro i montanari. Ma la morte del re potrebbe essere avvenuta nel
tentativo di ampliare verso Est le sue conquiste e la regione, con il cosiddetto “Catasto di Ur-Namma” (Frayne
1997, 50-54), sembra già saldamente inserita nello stato neo-sumerico.
27 Una delle prime menzioni databili dei Gutei viene da una lettera del “prefetto del palazzo” Iškun-
Dagan, con un giuramento in nome di Šar-kali-šarrī: qui si fa riferimento a una loro incursione allo scopo di
razziare bestiame e dal risultato di impedire i lavori agricoli, ma contro di loro è ritenuta bastante la sorveglianza
di guardie (cf. Kienast and Volk 1995, 89-91). Ancorché Iškun-Dagan potesse essere installato ad Adab, come
mostra in un’altra sua lettera (cf. ibid., 53 r. 6-7) l’invocazione alla coppia cittadina Ašgi e Ninhursag, la prima
lettera dovrebbe provenire da Girsu (cf. ibid., 88) e, quindi, fare riferimento alla situazione in quest’ultimo
territorio.
Un’altra citazione dei Gutei, dello stesso periodo, riguarda la cattura di Sarlag, re dei Gutei (ma non
citato nella SKL), da parte di Šar-kali-šarrī. Questa impresa non fu ritenuta aver sufficiente titolo per costituire
da sola il nome di un anno ed è menzionata dopo la costruzione dei templi di Annunitum e di Ilaba nell’ancor
modesto centro di Babilonia (Kienast and Gelb 1990, 54, D-27). Nonostante il suo titolo di “re di Gutium”,
Sarlag poteva essere poco più del capo di una banda di briganti, capaci di razziare greggi, come nella lettera
succitata, ma non ancora di occupare stabilmente una vasta regione, tantomeno di minacciare l’esistenza
dell’impero. Ma è verosimile che questi fossero solo i prodromi dell’imminente tempesta che investì Umma,
ma non Lagaš, evidentemente in grado di autodifendersi.
dei sovrani gutei in territorio sumerico,28 e dalla descrizione della “Lamentazione su Sumer e su Ur“,
che sembra conservare il ricordo di Adab come la vera roccaforte gutea in territorio sumerico.29
Questo secondo nucleo guteo sarebbe stato eliminato, senza soverchie difficoltà, dalla
spedizione di Utu-hegal, celebre nella tradizione sumerica come colui che aveva espulso dal Sud i
barbari montanari. Anche in questo caso, pochi anni dopo, la regione di Umma-Adab sarebbe entrata
a far parte dell’impero di Ur-Namma. Sotto il controllo di questo secondo stato guteo potrebbero
esser state Nippur, che certo non cadde in mani elamite, e Irisagrig,30 ma esso non deve esser andato
molto oltre, né a Nord, né a Ovest.
5. Per l’intervallo di tempo che intercorse tra Šar-kali-šarrī e Utu-hegal, Glassner 1994, 9,
ritiene che ai regni di Dudu e Šu-Durul abbia fatto immediatamente seguito l’occupazione di Accad
da parte di Puzur-Inšušinak, mentre Ur-Namma era già sul trono di Ur e ipotizza, quindi, che tra la
scomparsa di Šar-kali-šarrī e la presa del potere di Ur-Namma non siano intercorsi più di una trentina
di anni. Con maggior rispetto per le date della SKL, Hallo 1971, 714a (cf. anche Hallo 2005, 153)
ritiene che tra i due avvenimenti siano intercorsi 40 anni. Invece, P. Steinkeller, nella sua succitata
conferenza per l’ARCANE di Monaco, suggerisce una durata che varia dagli 84 ai 100 anni. A parere
di chi scrive, facendo riferimento in particolare alle vicende di Adab, si avrebbe:
“periodo di anarchia”: 3 anni +
Dudu + Šu-Durul: 36 anni +
Iarlagan(da) + Si’u(m): 14 anni =
53 anni,
presupponendo che le date della SKL per questo periodo siano affidabili e che a Šu-Durul
sia successo direttamente Iarlagan(da), ma con un leggero incremento di anni, se tra i due dovesse
essere inserito un altro sovrano, e una lieve diminuzione, se la fine del controllo di Šu-Durul su Adab
(o comunque sul centro sumerico da cui proviene la coppa con l’incisione del nome sia di Šu-Durul,
28 Mentre sembra molto probabile che il manoscritto neo-sumerico della SKL provenga da Adab (cf.
Steinkeller 2003a, 269) come gran parte del materiale cuneiforme di recente comparsa sul mercato antiquario,
non è convincente l’ipotesi che l’aggiunta di questa dinastia sia dovuta all’orgoglio cittadino del suo scriba:
non si vede quale vanto attribuisca ad Adab un re dalla fama di barbaro e, al contempo, di imbelle come Tirigan,
dal regno ridicolmente breve di 40 giorni. L’inserimento di questa dinastia di Adab terminante con Tirigan può
invece essere determinato dal ricordo storico della salda occupazione gutea del territorio di Adab.
29 Cf. Michalowski 1989, 44-45, 144-146.
30 Una tavoletta da Kiš (MAD 5, 22 v. 1) menziona un mercante di Sarati-gubbisin. Questo personaggio
ricorre nella iscrizione dedicatoria di uno scriba di Irisagrig, dove egli è definito dumu-lugal, e nel sigillo
di un altro suo funzionario (Frayne 1993, 250-251), e inoltre in un’iscrizione inedita come sanga di Keš, la
città santa dello statarello di Adab (citata nel paper di P. Steinkeller, presentato all’ARCANE di Monaco del
2006, e fornitoci con la sua consueta generosità del Collega). Con ogni probabilità, Sarati-gubbisin era un figlio
di Iarlagan o di Si’um. Tuttavia, la menzione di un suo dam-gàr in un testo di Kiš non sembra sufficiente a
dimostrare che questi sovrani gutei (a differenza di Erridu-pizir) avessero mai occupato la città.
244 Akkade is King
sia di Arlagan) avesse preceduto la fine del suo regno. Ciò non vuol dire che la dominazione gutea
in qualche zona della Mesopotamia sarebbe durata solo 14 anni (+ i 40 giorni di Tirigan, per essere
precisi), poiché ad esempio a Umma la dominazione di Si’um è detta essere stata preceduta da 35
anni di predominio da parte dei Gutei (ed Elamiti), che dovrebbero corrispondere a gran parte del
regno di Dudu e a quelli di Šu-Durul e Iarlagan(da).
6. Ora, partendo da Utu-hegal, possiamo ripercorrere a ritroso il medesimo arco di tempo a
riguardo della storia della regione sumerica per la quale possediamo di gran lunga il maggior numero
di informazioni, cioè lo statarello di Lagaš-Girsu. La seconda impresa politico-militare di Utu-hegal
è il suo intervento in un conflitto tra le limitrofe Ur e Lagaš. Iscrizioni su alcuni coni di argilla
ricordano che Utu-hegal, “il re dei quattro angoli (del mondo)”,31 restituì alla coppia divina formata
dai fratelli Ningirsu e Nanše il loro territorio di confine (k i - s u r- r a ) sul quale l’uomo di Ur aveva
avanzato pretese. Evidentemente il re di Uruk era intervenuto nel contrasto tra le due città confinanti
al suo stato, prendendo le difese della più debole. Questo intervento, mentre lasciò sul trono di Lagaš
un ensik, come sovrano almeno formalmente indipendente, non si deve esser limitato a rintuzzare le
pretese di Ur, ma deve aver portato alla sua occupazione.32 Ma allorché Utu-hegal morì a seguito di un
incidente, e Ur-Namma divenne da šagi n a l u g a l , il potere centrale passò da Uruk a Ur. Trascorse
qualche tempo, forse a causa dei più pressanti impegni militari di Ur-Namma contro gli Elamiti al
Nord, poi il conflitto tra Ur e Lagaš fu ripreso e, data ormai la disparità delle forze, definitivamente
risolto con l’annessione dell’ultimo stato sumerico ancora indipendente all’impero di Ur.
L’ultimo sovrano autonomo di Lagaš fu Nammahni/Namhani, il cui nome è legato a un centro
amministrativo (é Nam-ha-ni) menzionato spesso nelle tavolette neo-sumeriche di Girsu, a parte
un intervallo che va dal primo mese del terzo anno di Amar-Suena al primo mese del quarto anno di
Šu-Sîn, durante il quale esso assunse il nome di “Centro di Amar-Suena”.33 Questa persistenza del
nome di Namhani potrebbe suggerire che la perdita di indipendenza di Lagaš fu in qualche misura
volontaria, e non stabilita con un conflitto particolarmente violento. Di contro, la cancellazione del
nome dell’ensik in un buon numero delle sue iscrizioni superstiti, che ha suggerito la possibilità
di una sua damnatio memoriae, parrebbe l’azione, più che di un nemico esterno,34 di un avversario
politico interno.
Ora, da una tavoletta di offerte di ovini a re defunti e per altre cerimonie religiose da Girsu
31 Questo titolo stabilisce che l’intervento di Utu-hegal è quello di un overlord, in qualche modo simile
all’azione di Mesilim a riguardo dei confini di Umma e di Lagaš, e quindi si svolse dopo la campagna contro
Tirigan e nella parte finale del suo all’incirca settennale regno.
32 Un contrasto di confine tra le allora province dell’impero sargonico Ur e Lagaš, riguardante i centri
di Sulum ed E-apin, è segnalato per il regno di Sargon e poi per quello di Narām-Sîn, nella succitata lettera di
Puzur-Mama, ensik di Lagaš, al proprio re, con ogni probabilità Šar-kali-šarrī (Kienast and Volk 1995, 102-
103).
33 Cf. Pomponio and Verderame 2007, 131.
34 Edzard 1997, 194.
(BM 18474) dovremmo essere in grado di ricostruire la sequenza dei sovrani di Lagaš-Girsu per il
periodo precedente quello di Ur III. Essa è presentata dall’Editore della tavoletta35 come segue:
Ur-Ningirsu, l’anziano
Pirig-me
[Lu-Bau, Lugula, Inimku]
Ur-Bau
Gudea
Ur-Ningirsu, il figlio di Gudea
Ur-GAR
Ur-Abba
Ur-Mama
Namhani
Rimane il dubbio se i tre ensik Lu-Bau, Lugula, Inimku (che non sono citati nella tavoletta
in oggetto, ma ricorrono ciascuno in un nome di anno del tipo m u NP e n s i k ) siano da inserire dopo
Pirig-me, come indicherebbe l’identificazione di uno dei tre e n s i k , Inimku, con un personaggio
che deve essere all’incirca della stessa generazione di Ur-Bau (cf. infra, n. 40), o prima di Ur-
Ningirsu I, come sembrerebbe suggerire, oltre all’assenza dei loro nomi da BM 18474, il brano della
composizione detta “The Rulers of Lagaš”, 195-196, che fa di Ur-Bau un funzionario (d u b - s a r )
di Ur-Ningirsu (I).36 In un altro testo di assegnazioni funerarie, questa volta di grasso (ì - n u n e
ì-udu),37 sono citati oltre al ki-a-nag di Gudea, i seguenti sovrani di Lagaš II:
Ur-Ningirsu (I)
Pirig-me
Ur-Bau
Ur-Ningirsu (II)
Nammahni
L’assenza, tra i beneficiari delle offerte (oltre a Lu-Bau, Lugula e Inimku già non citati nel
testo precedente) di Ur-GAR, Ur-Abba e Ur-Mama, sarebbe determinata, secondo l’Editore della
tavoletta, da una sorta di damnatio memoriae di un ramo della famiglia di Ur-Bau nei confronti
dell’altro, seguita alla lotta di potere scoppiata tra di loro.38 In realtà, non abbiamo alcun elemento
per affermare che Ur-Abba e Ur-Mama facessero parte della famiglia di Ur-Bau e per Ur-GAR, a
35 Cf. Maeda 1988, 24.

36 Cf. Sollberger 1967, 282. Per quanto questo testo sia volutamente inattendibile, non è escluso che
esso possa conservare il ricordo di un colpo di stato in seguito al quale Ur-Bau avrebbe eliminato il giovane
figlio (Pirig-me) del suo sovrano.
37 Cf. Perlov 1980, 79-81.
38 Ibid., 81.
246 Akkade is King
questo riguardo, vi è solo la dedica di una statuetta39 da parte di una figlia di Ur-Bau, il cui nome è
andato perduto, e di norma considerata la sua sposa,40 per la vita di Ur-GAR e per la propria vita.
D’altro canto, una simile dedica, sempre per Ur-GAR, è fatta da uno scriba, che ben difficilmente può
essere considerato un suo parente stretto.41 L’ultimo dei re menzionati in questo testo è Nammahni,
ovviamente da identificare con il Namhani, che è l’ultimo re citato in BM 18474.42
Maeda (1988, 23) ipotizza che Ur-Abba avrebbe iniziato la sua attività di e n s i k come
sovrano indipendente, ma nella seconda parte del suo regno avrebbe subito l’influenza di Ur al punto
da usare in testi, che lo menzionano come e n s i k , nomi di anno di Ur-Namma; e, poiché Ur-Mama
e Nammahni, che regnarono dopo Ur-Abba, usano propri nomi di anno, questo dimostrerebbe che
il predominio di Ur su Lagaš non sarebbe stato né lungo, né stabile. Contro questo oscillare della
supremazia di Ur su Lagaš, Widell 2004, 4, 4.5 sembra sostenere l’ipotesi di Sollberger 1954-56,
45-46, che Ur-Abba successe a Nammahni, poiché Ur-Abba avrebbe cominciato a usare un proprio
nome di anno e sarebbe passato a impiegare quelli di Ur-Namma, a differenza di Nammahni che
avrebbe usato esclusivamente propri nomi di anno. Ora, le citazioni di Ur-Abba possono essere
distinte in tre gruppi:
1) Ur-Abba come re indipendente di Lagaš in nomi di anno (m u u r- a b - b a e n s i k di RTC,
264) e nella lista di offerte funerarie BM 18474;
2) Ur-Abba come sukkal-mah che dedica due teste di mazza a Ig-alima per la vita di
Nammahni (Edzard 1997, 202-203);
3) Ur-Abba come ensik in tavolette datate agli anni Ur-Namma 4 (RTC, 261, 263) e 6 (RTC,
39 Edzard 1997, 190, 2.

40 Una lastra di pietra è dedicata a Ningirsu, per la vita di Nammahni, da parte di una figlia di Ur-
Bau, Ereš-hedu, che si definisce sua sposa (Edzard 1997, 197-198, 5). Una statuetta femminile, una
statuetta di toro, un recipiente di alabastro e teste di mazza (ibid., 198-202, 6-10) sono dedicate a varie
divinità del pantheon di Lagaš per la vita dello stesso Nammahni da Ereš-inimgina, che si definisce figlia
di Inimku, probabilmente da identificare con l’ensik che precedette Ur-Bau, e ama-tu-da, “la madre
che lo ha generato”, di Nammahni: (per questo rapporto di parentela tra Ereš-inimgina e Nammahni
cf. Maeda 1988, 22; Monaco 1990, 100; Marchesi 2006, p. 211, n. 33, mentre ama-tu-da è reso come
“cousin”(?) in Edzard 1997, 199 e “Haustochter” in Steible 1991, 374-375). Riepilogando, Nammahni
sarebbe stato figlio di un ensik (Ur-GAR), nipote di un ensik (Inimku) e genero di un ensik (Ur-Bau).
La stessa Ereš-inimgina, in un’iscrizione su testa di mazza con dedica a Šulšagana per la vita di Ur-GAR e
per la propria vita, sembrerebbe definirsi dam (il segno è parzialmente rotto) di Ur-GAR (Edzard 1997, 189).
Non sembra, quindi, molto verosimile che anche l’innominata figlia di Ur-Bau sia stata moglie di Ur-GAR, che
avrebbe così avuto due mogli, figlie di due diversi ensik.
41 Edzard 1997, 190-191, 3.
42 Di contro, ai due differenti nomi corrisponderebbero due diversi personaggi ancora secondo Monaco
1990, 97-99 (cf. anche Neumann 1998, 135).
265).43
A nostro parere, tutte queste citazioni non si riferiscono al medesimo individuo, specialmente
se con BM 18474 accettiamo che Ur-Abba regnò su Lagaš prima di Nammahni. Pertanto, la nostra
ricostruzione è la seguente: Ur-Abba regnò per brevissimo tempo, forse un solo anno, tra Ur-GAR e
Ur-Mama. Successivamente, durante il regno di Nammahni, un suo omonimo, caratterizzato come
figlio di un certo Ur-Utu, raggiunse la carica di sukkal-mah. Quando, poco dopo, Lagaš fu annessa
all’impero di Ur-Namma dopo i primissimi anni del regno di questi e Nammahni perse il potere, un
altro Ur-Abba, probabilmente il succitato sukkal-mah, fu posto da Ur-Namma come governatore
della nuova provincia, il primo della sequenza di governatori di Lagaš nel periodo neo-sumerico.44
Poiché nel testo di offerte di olio, quella per Nin-hedu, la moglie di Nammahni (4 s ì la
di burro di buona qualità e 8 sìla di grasso di pecora di buona qualità), è nettamente superiore a
quelle per tutti gli altri personaggi citati nella tavoletta, compresi i sovrani defunti, tra cui è Gudea
(ammontante per ciascuno a ½ sìla di grasso di pecora di qualità inferiore), è probabile che le offerte
fossero principalmente in relazione al funerale di Nin-hedu45 e fossero estese agli altri più importanti
membri della famiglia, in primo luogo coloro che avevano ricoperto la suprema carica politica, con
Ur-Ningirsu (I) e Pirigme aggiunti in quanto considerati i progenitori di questa famiglia. Si noti
anche che insieme ai sovrani, sono citate, sempre come beneficiarie di ½ s ì l a di grasso, tre donne
(Ningula, Gemeba e Sasaga), importanti defunte, probabilmente della famiglia di Nin-hedu, la prima
delle quali è anche citata in BM 18474, in entrambi i testi immediatamente prima di Nammahni.46
7. Il primo sovrano indipendente di Lagaš, dopo la dominazione accadica, deve essere stato
non Lugal-ušumgal, la cui fedeltà agli occupanti è riconosciuta da Westenholz 1999, 56, n. 217, e
negata da Glassner 1994, 8, 2, ma Puzur-Mama: questi compare, infatti, in una lettera47 in cui scrive,
quale ensi k di Lagaš, a un re di Accad, di certo Šar-kali-šarrī, a riguardo di passate e presenti
pretese territoriali della rivale provincia di Ur, ma ricorre poi come l u g a l di Lagaš nell’iscrizione
di due contenitori di argilla,48 dove addirittura si fregia di una ricca serie di epiteti che lo mettono in
relazione con le principali divinità del suo pantheon cittadino. Questa indipendenza di Lagaš sarebbe
avvenuta nel periodo di turbolenze seguite alla morte di Šar-kali-šarrī secondo Volk 1992, 27, ma è
43 Un’altra menzione dell’ensik Ur-Abba è in una tavoletta datata mu nin-dingir d iškur maš-e
ba-pà-da (Çig 1976, 81, 10), con ogni probabilità pure da attribuire al regno di Ur-Namma.
44 Lu-girizal (menzionato a partire da Šulgi 18) – Ur-Lama – Alla – Gudea, dopo il quale la provincia
di Lagaš potrebbe essere stata unita a quella di Girsu (cf. Pomponio 1999, 312-314).
45 Si noti anche la grafia più antica del nome del suo sposo, rispetto a quella Namhani di BM 18474.
46 Mancano i nomi di Nin-alla, la moglie di Gudea e figlia di Ur-Bau, e della moglie di Ur-Ningirsu (II)
(Nin-niginesi), che in questo periodo potrebbero essere state ancora vive. La seconda moglie di Gudea, Geme-
Šulpae, sarebbe, quindi, convissuta con la prima.
47 Cf. Kienast and Volk, 1995, 102-103.
48 Edzard 1997, 271-272.
248 Akkade is King
ovviamente possibile che già il precipitare della situazione nell’estrema parte del regno di Šar-kali-
šarrī abbia reso possibile la rivolta di Puzur-Mama, determinata anche dalla necessità di difendersi
più efficacemente dal pericolo dell’invasione gutea. Per il periodo immediatamente successivo, la
sequenza di regni, per lo più molto brevi, di e n s i k di Lagaš fino a Ur-Bau deve essere considerata
contemporanea di gran parte del regno di Dudu in Accad. La perdita delle due province “granarie”
di Umma e Lagaš deve aver aggravato la crisi dell’impero accadico seppur non nelle dimensioni che
sperimentò il regno di Ibbi-Sîn.
Dopo di costoro viene il periodo di maggior prosperità per Lagaš, costituito dal regno di
Ur-Bau, che riuscì a imporre una delle sue numerose figlie, En-annepada, come sacerdotessa-en di
Nanna in Ur,49 e da quello di suo genero Gudea, complessivamente per circa un quarto di secolo.
Gudea, oltre alla realizzazione di grandi progetti architettonici, si dichiara, in un unico passo delle sue
iscrizioni, vincitore di Anšan e dell’Elam, e sue iscrizioni sono state rinvenute, oltre che nei centri del
suo stato, a Nippur, Ur, Uruk e Badtibira, a probabile dimostrazione della diffusione del suo prestigio
in Sumer meridionale, con in più un testo da Ur datato da un suo nome di anno.50 Inoltre, due passi
dei Cilindri, come nota Cooper 1999, 699, fanno chiaro riferimento all’egemonia di Gudea su Sumer,
escluse Umma e Adab, dove non sembra siano state rinvenute iscrizioni del re.51 In particolare per
quanto riguarda l’influenza di Lagaš su Ur, a parte l’installazione della figlia di Ur-Bau come en del
secondo centro, è probabile che l’uso nei testi amministrativi di Ur del calendario di Lagaš, che durò,
con il conservatorismo caratteristico dell’impiego calendariale, sino all’ultimo mese del trentesimo
anno di Šulgi, abbia avuto origine durante il regno di Ur-Bau o, meglio, di Gudea.52
Ora, non ci sembra ammissibile che questo quarto di secolo, particolarmente prospero per
Lagaš, immune tra l’altro dalla vicina infezione gutea, coincida con la fine del regno di Utu-hegal,
che segnò a tal punto un indebolimento di Lagaš, che questa non fu in grado di difendersi dalle mire
espansionistiche dell’ancor piccolo stato di Ur. D’altro canto, far slittare tutta la sequenza di sovrani di
Lagaš, da Ur-Bau compreso sino a Nammahni, al periodo successivo a Utu-hegal, cioè farla coincidere
con i regni di Ur-Namma e Šulgi53 comporterebbe, tra l’altro, che Ur-Bau o Gudea occupassero il
49 Edzard 1997, 25, 13.

50 Cf. Sallaberger and Westenholz 1999, 133.
51 Cf. Hallo 1971, 677b. Di contro, è da escludere che le due iscrizioni di Gudea edite come OIP 14, 33-
34 siano state realmente rinvenute a Bismaya, trattandosi certamente di un generoso “apporto”, probabilmente
da Girsu, da parte di E. J. Banks, alla pari delle due tavolette amministrative OIP 14, 57 e 65 (cf. Bauer 1975,
207-210). Per quanto riguarda Umma, la statua U di Gudea è stata rinvenuta a Tell Hammām, una dozzina
di km. a sud di Umma (Edzard 1997, 62-63), ma non sappiamo a quale dei due centri tra Girsu e Umma
appartenesse la zona al tempo di Gudea.
52 Cf. da ultimo Widell 2004, 1-3. Per altre citazioni di testi di Ur con la menologia di Lagaš, cf.
D’Agostino et al. 2004, 216.
53 Ciò, tuttavia, è quanto ipotizzato da Vallat 1997, 35-36, che pone Nammahni (e Puzur-Inšušinak)
prima del regno di Gudea e fa coincidere l’inizio del regno di questi con il 2° anno di Ur-Namma e da Quintana
trono di Lagaš mentre Ur annetteva la città. Anche se fosse vero, come suggerito da Steinkeller 1988,
51, solo che “Gudea’s reign overlapped, at least partially, with that of Ur-Nammu”, dovremmo da un
canto ammettere che la parte iniziale del regno di Gudea sarebbe coinciso con quello di Utu-hegal (e
la succitata estrema debolezza di Lagaš) e dall’altro che il regno di Ur-Namma avrebbe compreso,
oltre ad alcuni anni di Gudea, i regni di Ur-Ningirsu (II), Ur-GAR, Ur-Abba, Ur-Mama e Nammahni
e, quindi, che pressoché sino alla fine del regno di Ur-Namma Lagaš-Girsu avrebbero conservato la
propria indipendenza dallo stato di Ur, mentre i confini settentrionali dell’impero ormai arrivavano a
comprendere stabilmente Marad, Apiak e Kazallu.54
Non resta, a nostro parere, che far coincidere il regno di Gudea all’incirca con quelli, in Accad,
di Šu-Durul e di Erridu-pizir. Inoltre, il regno di Gudea sarebbe stato contemporaneo all’occupazione
gutea di parte della regione immediatamente a Nord, e questo farebbe supporre una condizione di
non belligeranza tra i due stati, con Gudea interessato a conservare aperte, anche militarmente, le
rotte verso Anšan e l’Elam e a curarsi più del Sud che del Nord dell’alluvio.
8. Di contro, il periodo susseguente il regno di Gudea, che coinciderebbe con il regno di
Utu-hegal e i primi anni di Ur-Namma, fu senz’altro caratterizzato da un rapido declino di Lagaš: a
Gudea, infatti, seguirono cinque sovrani dal regno sicuramente molto breve, con il primo di questi
règoli, suo figlio Ur-Ningirsu (II), che fu presto eliminato. Per questo indebolimento, a cause esterne,
come l’ascesa al trono della confinante Uruk di un sovrano dalle grandi capacità e carisma, come
Utu-hegal, il terzo sovrano, dopo Narām-Sîn ed Erridu-pizir, ad assumere il titolo di “il re dei quattro
angoli (del mondo)”, potrebbero essere aggiunte cause interne: i troppo ambiziosi, per le dimensioni
del suo stato, progetti architettonici di Gudea dovrebbero aver drenato più risorse di quanto sarebbe
stato opportuno, e così, forse, le sue ambizioni di espansione al Sud. Una vicenda simile potrebbe
essere occorsa a un altro importante sovrano del glorioso passato di Lagaš, Enmetena: questi aveva
inflitto ai suoi esordi una gravissima sconfitta al confinante settentrionale Ur-Lumma e imposto il
proprio predominio alle meridionali Uruk, Larsa, Badtibira e forse Ur. In seguito questa influenza
andò persa nel confronto con il re di Uruk e “re di Kiš” Lugal-kiDU.NIdudu,55 sotto l’apparenza di
un trattato di alleanza,56 e non sembra neppure che Enmetena abbia reagito con totale successo alle
rinnovate pretese territoriali del nuovo re di Umma, Ila, se nella narrazione dei “Coni di Enmetena”
1997, 69-70 secondo il quale è “muy posible” che Gudea sia vissuto sino al 29mo anno di Šulgi, quando da
tempo abbiamo menzionati “governatori” di Lagaš.
54 Cf. il prologo del Codice di Ur-Namma (Molina 2000, 68) e il succitato “Catasto di Ur-Namma”. Per
la prima tra le città menzionate nel Prologo del Codice come liberate dagli Elamiti di Anšan, è senz’altro da
preferire la lettura Akšak, di ubicazione incerta, ma comunque da situare nella Babilonia settentrionale, forse
presso la confluenza del Diyala nel Tigri, a quella di Umma (cf. da ultimo Sallaberger 1999, 134, n. 50), che
era stata liberata da Utu-hegal e che, quindi, doveva già far parte dello stato sumerico.
55 Per la lettura e le varianti di questo nome cf. Marchesi 2006, 263, n. 250.
56 Cf. Steible 1982, 260-263.
250 Akkade is King
egli si limita a dichiarare con insolita modestia che “Enlil e Ninhursag non glielo concessero”.57
Qualche anno dopo, in seguito a un’incursione elamita, almeno il ramo principale della dinastia di
Ur-Nanše sarà troncato e Gišša-kidu sarà in grado di spostare a favore di Umma il confine tra i due
statarelli.58
Per quanto riguarda la durata di questo periodo, basandoci sull’ipotizzato intervallo di poco
più di mezzo secolo tra Šar-kali-šarrī e Utu-hegal, e assegnando complessivamente circa 25 anni
ai regni di Ur-Bau e Gudea, resterebbero altrettanti anni per i regni di Puzur-Mama (che in parte
potrebbe però essere contemporaneo agli ultimi anni di Šar-kali-šarrī) e poi di Ur-Ningirsu (I),
Pirigme, Lu-Bau, Lugula e Inimku. Questa data ci sembra del tutto verosimile considerando che, a
parte probabilmente il regno di Ur-Ningirsu (I), tutti gli altri sovrani devono aver regnato per breve
tempo, sulla base anche della quasi totale assenza di loro iscrizioni reali.
9. Rimangono due problemi. Il primo è quello cronologico segnalato da Steinkeller 1988,
49-51: presumendo che la II dinastia di Lagaš termini nei primi anni di Ur-Namma ci sarebbe una
distanza di 28 anni tra i regni di Gudea e Šulgi. Ciò implicherebbe che quattro funzionari (Bazige,
Lugal-egide, Ur-ga, Ur-nigar), citati in testi datati dal regno di Gudea al 10mo-11mo anno di Šulgi
avrebbero operato per circa 40 anni, una situazione teoricamente possibile, ma altamente improbabile.
Tuttavia, presumendo che gli anni di Gudea, a cui sono datate le tavolette che menzionano i funzionari
succitati appartengano all’estremo periodo del suo regno, aggiungendo 2-3 anni di Utu-hegal, i 18 di
Ur-Namma e 11 di Šulgi, avremmo in realtà un periodo di poco più di una trentina di anni che non
migliora di molto la situazione, ma la rende un po’ meno improbabile.
Il secondo problema è rappresentato dal rapporto dei re gutei (Iarlagan(da), Si’um) citati
immediatamente prima di Tirigan nella “dinastia gutea” della SKL, con i re della “dinastia di Adab”
che nella sua versione neo-sumerica pure precedono Tirigan (Puzur-Zuzu and Sagdu-Aški[?])59,
entrambi dal breve regno, 3 e 6 anni rispettivamente. Una soluzione a esso potrebbe essere fornita
dalla descrizione della campagna di Utu-hegal contro Tirigan. Il re di Uruk, partendo dalla propria
città, attraversa la regione occidentale di Umma, facendo tappa a Nagsu, circa 10 km. a NW di
Umma60 e poi a Karkar, ormai più vicino ad Adab che a Umma, senza incontrare alcuna resistenza
da parte del re guteo, che si limita a inviare due suoi generali, con funzione di ambasciatori, nel
probabile intento, fallito, di prendere tempo. Proseguendo lungo il canale Iturungal (Tigri),61 Utu-
hegal arriva e supera Adab, ponendo a nord della città un’imboscata per le truppe gutee che saranno
annientate con conseguente fuga del loro re a Dabrum.
57 Ibid., 240-241, 34-36; cf. Pomponio 1995, 7, n. 10.

58 Cf. Marchesi 2006, 222, n. 93.
59 Per questa proposta di lettura della seconda parte del nome, che fa riferimento al dio di Adab, Ašgi,
figlio della coppia cittadina Ninhursag/Nintu/Dingirmah-Šulpae, cf. Steinkeller 2003b, 281.
60 Cf. Steinkeller 2003b, 13-15.
61 Cf. Steinkeller 2001, 41-42; Charpin 2003, 2.
Ora, dove era Tirigan durante i sei giorni dell’avanzata di Utu-hegal da Uruk ad Adab? Che
se ne restasse rinchiuso nella sua capitale di Adab, per poi, all’arrivo del nemico, effettuare una
ritirata verso il Nord, sembra inverosimile: tra l’altro, con il re guteo installato in Adab, sarebbe
stato ben difficile per Utu-hegal, pur operando di notte e all’alba, sfilare lungo il canale davanti
alla città, sbarcare il proprio esercito e, all’insaputa del nemico, stabilire un agguato. È molto più
probabile che Tirigan sia sceso, più o meno rapidamente, da N/NE. A questo riguardo, è possibile (e
ciò spiegherebbe il ritardo di Tirigan nell’affrontare Utu-hegal) che il vero centro del potere guteo
fosse ancora ubicato al di fuori della Mesopotamia e da qui Tirigan, salito al trono da poco più
di un mese, si sarebbe mosso, facendo tappa a Dabrum, probabilmente Tell el-Wilayah (a NE di
Adab), dove potrebbe aver lasciato moglie e figli, e dove cercherà di rifugiarsi e sarà consegnato a
Utu-hegal. È anche possibile che egli sia partito da un centro all’interno della Mesopotamia, come
ad esempio Irisagrig.62 In un caso e nell’altro, si dovrebbe ipotizzare che i re gutei avessero la loro
capitale in un’altra città, mentre sia a Umma, sia ad Adab erano installati dei sovrani/governatori
sumerici (Nammahni e Lugal-annaDU a Umma, Puzur-Zuzu e Sagdu-Aški ad Adab) sotto il controllo
guteo, considerato probabilmente, almeno dalla propaganda di Utu-hegal, non meno opprimente e
disonorevole di una vera occupazione. Se la eccezionalmente vivida narrazione dell’iscrizione di
Utu-hegal è anche storicamente esatta, e così lo è la durata del regno di Tirigan nella SKL, questo
sventurato sovrano potrebbe non aver visto mai, come re, la sua “capitale” Adab, oppure averlo fatto
solo come prigioniero del re di Uruk.
Bibliography
Bauer, J. 1975: “Darlehensurkunden aus Girsu”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 18,
189-218.
Charpin, D. 2003: “L’énumération des villes dans le prologue du ‘Code de Hammurabi’”, Nouvelles
Assyriologiques Bréves et Utilitaires 2003/3.
Çig, M. 1976: New Formulas from the Tablet Collection of the Istanbul Archaeological Museums (AOAT 25;
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag), 41-57.
Cooper, J. 1980: “Apodotic Death and the Historicity of “Historical” Omens”, in B. Alster (ed.): Death in
Mesopotamia (Mesopotamia 8; Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag), 99-105.
62 In questo caso, poiché Irisagrig è sullo stesso corso d’acqua che bagna Adab, Tirigan avrebbe evitato
di utilizzare la via d’acqua e avrebbe preferito la più familiare (per un discendente di montanari) via di terra,
allungando i tempi e incappando nell’imboscata tesagli dal re di Uruk. Irisagrig doveva essere un centro
importante, ancorché elusivo, nel periodo tardo paleo-accadico e diverrà una capitale provinciale nell’impero
neo-sumerico [un archivio di tavolette di Ur III da Irisagrig è in corso di pubblicazione da parte di D.I. Owen
in Nisaba 15]. Nella succitata “Lamentazione su Sumer e Ur”, tuttavia, Irisagrig non è citata, a differenza delle
vicine Keš e Adab.
252 Akkade is King
––––––– 1999: review of D. O. Edzard, Gudea and His Dynasty, RIME 3/1, Journal of the American Oriental
Society 119, 609-701.
D’Agostino, F., F. Pomponio, and R. Laurito 2004: Neo-Sumerian Texts from Ur in the British Museum (Nisaba
5; Messina: DiScAM).
Edzard, D. O. 1997: Gudea and His Dynasty (RIME 3/1; Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
Frayne, D. 1993: Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334-2113 BC) (RIME 2; Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
––––––– 1997: Ur III Period (2112-2004 BC) (RIME 3/2; Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
Gelb, I. J. and B. Kienast 1990: Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. (FAOS
7; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner).
Glassner, J.-J. 1993: Chroniques mésopotamiennes (Paris: Les Belles lettres).
––––––– 1994: “La fin d’Akkadē: approche chronologique”, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Bréves et Utilitaires
1994/9.
––––––– 2004: Mesopotamian Chronicles (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature).
Goodnick Westenholz, J. 1997: Legends of the Kings of Akkade. The Texts (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns).
Goetze, A. 1947: “Historical Allusions in Old Babylonian Omen Texts”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 1, 253-265.
Hallo, W. W. 1971: “Gutium”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 3/9, 708-720.
––––––– 2005: “New Light on the Gutians”, in: W. H. van Soldt (ed), 2005: Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia.
Papers read at the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale , Leiden 1-4 July 2002 (PIHANS 102; Leiden:
NINO), 147-161.
Jacobsen, Th. 1939: The Sumerian King List (Assyriological Studies 11; Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago
Press).
Kienast, B. and K. Volk 1995: Die sumerischen und akkadischen Briefe des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor
der III. Dynastie von Ur (FAOS 19; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner).
Marchesi, G. 2006: “Statue regali, sovrani e templi del Protodinastico. I dati epigrafici e testuali”, in N.
Marchetti, La statuaria regale nella Mesopotamia protodinastica (Rome: Bardi), 205-271.
Michalowski, P. 1989: The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur (Winona Lake, Ind:
Eisenbrauns).
Molina, M. 2000: La ley más antigua. Textos legales sumerios (Madrid: Editorial Trotta; Barcelona: Edicions
de la Universitat de Barcelona).
Monaco, S. F. 1988: “Two Notes on ASJ 10”, Acta Sumerologica 12, 89-109.
Neumann, H. 1998: “Nammahani”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archaologie 9/1-2, 135.
Nougayrol, J. 1944-45: “Note sur la place des ‘presages historiques’ dans l’extispicine babylonienne”, École
pratique des Hautes Études, section des sciences religieuses, Annuaire 1944-1945 (Melun), 1-41.
Perlov, B. 1980: “The Families of ensi’s Urbau and Gudea and Their Funerary Cult”, in: B. Alster (ed.), Death
in Mesopotamia (Mesopotamia 8; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag), 77-81.
Pomponio, F. 1995: “Re di Uruk, ‘re di Kiš’”, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 68, 1-14.
––––––– 1999: review of D. Frayne, Ur III Period (2112-2004 BC), RIME 2, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
94, 311-318.
Pomponio, F. and L. Verderame 2007: Neo-Sumerian Ĝirsu Texts of Barley and Cereal Products (Nisaba 17;
Messina: DiScAM.).
Pomponio, F., G. Visicato, and Aa. Westenholz 2006: Le tavolette cuneiformi da Adab delle Collezioni della
Banca d’Italia (Roma: Banca d’Italia).
Quintana, E. 1997: “Nuevas consideraciones sobre la cronologia de Gudea”, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Bréves
et Utilitaires 1997/71.
Sallaberger, W 1999: Die Ur III-Zeit, in: W. Sallaberger and Aa. Westenholz, Mesopotamien. Akkade-Zeit und
Ur III-Zeit (Orbis biblicus et orientalis 160/3; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht).
Sollberger, E. 1954/56: “Sur la chronologie des rois d’Ur et quelques problèmes connexes”, Archiv für
Orientforschung 17, 10-48.
Steible, H. 1982: Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. Teil I, Inschriften aus ’Lagaš’ (FAOS 5;
Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner).
––––––– 1991: Die neusumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. I. Inschriften der II Dynastie von Lagaš (FAOS
Steinkeller, P. 1992: “Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C.”, in: D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible
Dictionary IV (London: Doubleday), 724-732.
––––––– 2001: “New Light on the Hydrology and Topography of Southern Babylonia in the Third Millennium”,
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 91, 22-84.
––––––– 2003a: “An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List”, in: W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, and A. Zgoll
(eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz),
267-292.
––––––– 2003b: “More on the Location of the Town of NAGsu”, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Bréves et Utilitaires
2003/1.
Vallat, F. 1997: “La date du règne de Gudea”, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Bréves et Utilitaires 1997/37.
Vincente, Cl.-A. 1995: “The Tall Leilan Recension of the Sumerian King List”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und
Volk, K. 1992: “Puzur-Mama und die Reise des Königs”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
254 Akkade is King
Westenholz, Aa. 1999: The Old Akkadian Period, in: W. Sallaberger and Aa. Westenholz, Mesopotamien.
Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit (Orbis biblicus et orientalis 160/3; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
––––––– 2000: “Assyriologists, Ancient and Modern, on Naramsin and Sharkalisharri”, in: J. Marzahn, and H.
Neumann (eds.), Assyriologica et Semitica. Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstages
am 18. Februar 1997 (AOAT 252, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag), 545-556.
Widell, M. 2004: “The Calendar of Neo-Sumerian Ur and the Political Significance”, Cuneiform Digital
Library Journal 2004:2.
Wilcke, C. 1974-77: “Die Keilschrift-Texte der Sammlung Böllinger”, Archiv für Orientforschung 25, 84-94.
The search for Old Akkadian rule at Nineveh
Julian Reade, Copenhagen
About 1980, while giving a series of lectures to students in Copenhagen, I was disconcerted to
find that my audience was liable to include Aage Westenholz: surely he would already be familiar with
almost anything I might say. So indeed he was, but I quickly learnt to welcome his presence, because
of his occasional comments and questions that always initiated constructive discussion. In Aage’s
honour, therefore, and in particular acknowledgement of his contributions to our understanding of
Old Akkadian history, I am glad to have the opportunity of offering a few related observations.
We owe to Aage the
realization that, although there
is much confused evidence,
no original Old Akkadian
inscriptions specifically written
for any building at Nineveh
have yet been recognized
(Westenholz 2000, 548-552),
and even the political status
of this city between the Old
Akkadian and Middle Assyrian
periods remains enigmatic.
The gradual accumulation
of Ur III references to rulers
of Nineveh with Hurrian
names (e.g. Zettler 2006), the
speculative identification of
yet another in a dedication
text (Searight et al. 2008,
92), and the more abundant
information concerning the
involvement of the Amorite
Shamshi-Adad I and his family
and their associates (e.g. Reade
2005, 361-369), do not resolve
Fig. 1. Shamshi-Adad I’s Ishtar Temple at Nineveh, including earlier this issue; nor does the little-
Room QRWX (author’s drawing, after Gut 1995: II, 18, Fig. 5).
known cluster of references to
256 Akkade is King
one Pizikarra of Nineveh who apparently destroyed the Euphrates city of Emar (Neu 1996, 20), an
episode that could perhaps be connected with the establishment of the Mitannian empire.
One problem concerns what work, if any, may have been done by one or more Old Akkadian
kings on the site eventually occupied by the principal temple (subsequently and perhaps already
previously famous throughout the Near East) that was dedicated to one or more avatars of the Great
Goddess whom we commonly call Ishtar (known by various names in various languages: Nin [hence
perhaps the very name of Nineveh]/Inanna/Ishtar/Shaushka/Mulissu/etc). Shamshi-Adad I worked
there, and claimed that Manishtushu had done so beforehand, but J. G. Westenholz (2004, 9) has
suggested that there had been no such Old Akkadian involvement at Nineveh, and the archaeological
evidence is indeed scanty, ambiguous or absent.
I have argued elsewhere that one building, Room QRWX, which partly underlay the likely
position of the eventual inner shrine of Shamshi-Adad’s Ishtar Temple, Fig. 1, was probably an
important shrine built long before the Old Akkadian period, quite possibly on a site which had been
sacred since remote prehistory (Reade 2005, 354-356). Its occupant was always presumably (by
whichever name) Ishtar. The soil above Room QRWX, at the time of the original excavations by
R. Campbell Thompson and his collaborators, was heavily pitted, with much material deposited
in the Greco-Parthian period, and no archaeological evidence is available to demonstrate whether
Manishtushu himself did or did not undertake construction work or repairs in this specific area.
Slightly to the south-west, in contrast, between Room QRWX and the south-western court of Shamshi-
Adad’s temple underneath Squares OO and PP, there are walls and foundations of mudbrick some
of which the excavators described in their original notes as belonging to the ziggurrat of the Ishtar
Temple. So far as we know, the relevant surviving walls and foundations could all have been the
work of Shamshi-Adad, but the remains are more solid than one might have expected, with mudbrick
underrunning the putative floors of rooms as well as the walls themselves. So there could have been
an earlier phase, going back to the Old Akkadian period and perhaps even incorporating a raised
platform or ziggurrat, traces of which are buried within the structure. Even if Shamshi-Adad did not
observe substantial evidence for Manishtushu having rebuilt the Ishtar Temple, it is still possible that
the former, in claiming to have restored it, was not merely indulging in pious or political fraud as
suspected by J. G. Westenholz but was commemorating albeit perhaps exaggerating the work of his
predecessor. He could, for instance, have seen an object dedicated to the goddess by Manishtushu.
The question remains open.
Pertinent archaeological material was found some 50 meters from Room QRWX, in Square
OO underneath the south-western court of Shamshi-Adad’s temple. It included several pottery
vessels which had been made in the later third millennium, resembling material from levels VIII-
VII at Tell Taya, i.e. somewhere around the Old Akkadian period. Among these ceramics there was
one group that consisted of a beaker inside a “large double pot.” The actual pieces can probably be
identified with three now in the British Museum, namely a broken beaker and two larger jars that
J. Reade: The Search for Old Akkadian Rule at Nineveh 257
have lost their rims (Gut et al. 2001, 99-100, nos. 138, 148-149). I previously deduced that this group
should have come from “occupation debris” (Reade 2005, 357-358), but failed to make the link
with a common Mesopotamian type of burial, at least for children, which involved placing the body
and minor offerings inside two jars the tops of which were then jammed together. The arrangement
corresponds so closely to what little we know of
this Ishtar Temple group that we can be reasonably
sure that the latter too came from a grave. The
group will have been close to the surface of an
open courtyard for centuries, and will have been
exposed to further stress after the temple had been
abandoned and the courtyard tiles had been taken
elsewhere. The absence of any excavation record of
a skeleton is therefore not surprising, since the bones
could well have decayed beyond easy recognition.
The presence of a late-third-millennium burial in
Square OO suits the supposition that the area, at
that period, comprised domestic housing. It could
conceivably have been housing attached directly
to a contemporary version of the Ishtar Temple,
but there is no particular reason to suppose so: the
presumed third-millennium temple need not have
reached as far as this south-western section of
Shamshi-Adad’s construction.
Incidentally, when in 2005 I suggested how
the Ishtar Temple at Nineveh should be restored, I
had not yet consulted a paper by Miglus (2001) on
Fig. 2. Copper head of Old Akkadian ruler,
the Ashur Temple at Ashur. He proposed that, while
Manishtushu(?), from Nineveh. Iraq Museum
11331. the north-eastern section of Shamshi-Adad’s temple
at Ashur had been dedicated to Ashur (as everyone
agrees), the south-western section might have been dedicated to Enlil, Ashur’s supposed archetype
or avatar, a celebrated supreme god in southern Mesopotamia. Now, at Nineveh, if the north-eastern
section of the temple was dedicated to the main local manifestation of the goddess, perhaps the
south-western section around Square OO was dedicated to another version of the same goddess,
most obviously Inanna, a celebrated supreme goddess in the south. The architectural plan is very
fragmentary, but would not exclude such an interpretation.
Third-millennium houses in or around Square OO would have lain between Room QRWX
and what we suppose, following Sennacherib’s descriptions (but without any clear evidence on the
258 Akkade is King
ground as there has not been any serious excavation there), to have been the site of the later Ishtar
ziggurrat, yet another 50 meters or more away to the south-west (Reade 2000, 407). There seems no
reason at all to suppose that a ziggurrat existed here, over 100 meters from Room QRWX, before
the Amorite period. We cannot exclude the possibility that one was built here in honour of Ishtar by
an Old Akkadian king, but most probably Shamshi-Adad or an even later king was responsible for
choosing this position for the ziggurrat of Ishtar.
J. G. Westenholz (2004, 11-14) also refers to a hoard of late-third-millennium copper objects
which were buried at an uncertain date underneath the shrine of Shamshi-Adad’s Ashur Temple at Ashur
(Wartke 1995), and she suggests that the celebrated Old Akkadian copper head, Fig. 2, excavated in the
Ishtar Temple at Nineveh (Mallowan 1936), might have been brought there from Ashur by Shamshi-
Adad. The Nineveh head was found below the presumed floor-level of Shamshi-Adad’s temple, close
to a spearhead possibly inscribed with the name of a king of Ashur (Reade 2005, 358-361), and has
been tentatively ascribed to Manishtushu; the head, besides having lost its torso, had been deliberately
defaced in antiquity, with damage
to the nose, beard, both ears and
at least one eye. In sum what we
have are two new temples built by
Shamshi-Adad in the early second
millennium, one at Ashur and one
at Nineveh, and two groups of
earlier copper/bronze items that
were found beneath their floors.
We do know that Shamshi-Adad
liked Old Akkadian art, since
he commissioned imitations of
it (e.g. Boehmer 2001). One
explanation for the coincidence,
however, may simply be that both
copper groups were items that had
been placed in previous temples
on the two sites, i.e. that the Ashur
group came from a pre-existing
Ashur Temple and the Nineveh
group from a pre-existing Ishtar
Temple. They would then belong
straightforwardly with other Fig. 3. Stone head of Old Akkadian ruler, Manishtushu(?), from
ancient Mesopotamian deposits Ashur (Abu al-Soof 1983: 305).
of superseded temple furniture.

If the copper head was in the
Ishtar Temple at Nineveh before the
time of Shamshi-Adad, it is tempting to
draw another parallel with the situation
at Ashur. There a headless Old Akkadian
stone torso was excavated near the Adad
Temple in 1905, and subsequently taken
to Berlin. Then, in 1982, a defaced Old
Akkadian stone head was excavated in the
area of the Ashur Temple, to be published
by Behnam Abu al-Soof (1983), Fig.
3. It was the late Tariq Madhloom at
the 1983 Rencontre Assyriologique in
Leiden, if I remember rightly, who on
behalf of the Iraq authorities announced
the discovery of the head, and I recall
how one participant’s suggestion that the
new head might join the Berlin torso was
generally pooh-poohed. Gratifyingly,
Fig. 4. Part of stone head of Old Akkadian ruler, from Ur. however, the idea was adopted by
British Museum 114197.
Evelyn Klengel-Brandt (1993; 1995),
who arranged for a plastercast of the
broken neck of the Berlin torso to be taken to Baghdad; the head and the cast fitted one another, and
the matter was settled. She tentatively ascribed the statue to Manishtushu; part of the reason for this
ascription is the resemblance of the new head to the head from Nineveh, so there is an element of
circularity, but anyhow they are both royal heads of the Old Akkadian period.
The Ashur head is missing its nose and left ear, and the eyes and mouth are somewhat battered;
as noted by Klengel-Brandt, such damage may well have resulted from defacement in antiquity. It
seems certain, at any rate, that the head was separated from its torso in the remote past. An obvious
possibility is that the decapitation was deliberate and that the heavy torso remained near its original
position for many centuries, but that the head was removed to the Ashur Temple for display or
safekeeping. Much the same might have happened to the Nineveh head, except that its metal torso
would doubtless have been recycled. So it may be that Manishtushu and/or other Old Akkadian rulers
were active at both Ashur and Nineveh; that statues of one or more of them were erected at palaces
and/or temples in both these cities; that such statues were decapitated when the Old Akkadian kings
lost control of the region; that each disgraced and defaced head was displayed in the nearest important
260 Akkade is King
temple, much as the head of Teumman was displayed by the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal some 1500
years later; and that the heads were kept in the temples and, sooner or later, buried there.
One difference between the Nineveh and Ashur heads lies in the precise details of the
defacement, although one would hardly have expected both to be defaced in exactly the same way.
It can be difficult to tell, especially with broken stone statues, even on close personal inspection,
whether details of damage were original and deliberate, happening soon after there had been a change
of regime, or whether they happened incidentally during defacement, or resulted from subsequent
wear and abrasion or from casual or deliberate maltreatment at some later date. This also applies to
two other Old Akkadian pieces, and two “Gudea” statues, with which I happen to be familiar (Reade
2002, 262-265, 271, 277-278, 285-286). The damage to the El-Sanam Sargon(?) was at least partly
systematic. The situation is less clear with an Old Akkadian royal stone statue, excavated at Ur,
which is currently known only from part of its head, with a damaged ear, Fig. 4: the damage to the ear
may have been deliberate or incidental, and the entire fragment could have flown off unexpectedly
during careful decapitation rather than as a consequence of a frenzied attack with hammer or axe.
Similarly, several statues of Gudea found at Telloh(?) and Ur were defaced in a range of ways, largely
decided perhaps by whoever happened to be responsible for trashing them.
The processes involved in eliminating political symbols such as royal images can, like the
processes involved in creating and refining them, provide refreshing alternative insights into the
historical processes that are more explicitly attested in the written documentation. To interpret both,
however, we need perceptive historians like Aage, and it is to be hoped that he will continue to
enlighten us on many issues for a very long time to come.
Bibliography
Abu Al-Soof, B. N. 1983: “Discovery of the head from a stone statue of an Old Assyrian king at Ashur”, Sumer
39, 304-305.
Boehmer, R. M. 2001: “Eine reliefierte, nach akkadzeitlichen Vorlagen gearbeitete Steinbasis der altbabylonischen
Zeit aus Nineve”, in: J.-W. Meyer, M. Novák, and A. Pruss (eds.), Beiträge zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie
Winfried Orthmann gewidmet (Frankfurt am Main: Archäologisches Institut der Universität Frankfurt), 90-92.
Gut, R. V. 1995: Das Prähistorische Ninive: zur relativen Chronologie der frühen Perioden Nordmesopotamiens
(Baghdader Forschungen, 19; Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern).
Gut, R. V., R. M. Boehmer, and J. E. Reade 2001: “Ninive: Das späte 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr.”, in: J.-W. Meyer,
M. Novák, and A. Pruss (eds.), Beiträge zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie Winfried Orthmann gewidmet
(Frankfurt am Main: Archäologisches Institut der Universität Frankfurt), 74-129.
Klengel-Brandt, E. 1993: “Die Rekonstruktion einer altakkadischen Königsstatue aus Assur”, Mitteilungen der
Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 125, 133-141.
––––––– 1995: “Monumental Sculpture: 22: Torso of a male statue”, in: P. O. Harper, E. Klengel-Brandt, J. Aruz,
and K. Benzel (eds.), Discoveries at Ashur on the Tigris: Assyrian Origins: Antiquities in the Vorderasiatisches
Museum, Berlin (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art), 42-43.
Mallowan, M. E. L. 1936: “The bronze head of the Akkadian period from Nineveh”, Iraq 3, 104-110.
Miglus, P. A. 2001: “Der Aššur-Tempel des Königs Šamsi-Adad I. und die mesopotamische Sakralarchitektur
seiner Zeit”, in: J.-W. Meyer, M. Novák, and A. Pruss (eds.), Beiträge zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie Winfried
Orthmann gewidmet (Frankfurt am Main: Archäologisches Institut der Universitåt Frankfurt), 322-331.
Neu, E. 1996: Das hurritische Epos der Freilassung I: Untersuchungen zu einem hurritisch-hethitischen
Textensemble aus Hattusa (Studien zu dem Boğazköy-Texten 32; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
Reade, J. E. 2000: “Ninive (Nineveh)”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9/5-6,
388-433.
––––––– 2002: “Early monuments in Gulf stone at the British Museum, with observations on some Gudea statues
and the location of Agade”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 92, 258-295.
––––––– 2005: “The Ishtar Temple at Nineveh”, Iraq 67, 347-390.
Searight, A, J. E. Reade, and I. L. Finkel 2008: Assyrian Stone Vessels and Related Material in the British
Museum (Oxford: Oxbow Books).
Wartke, R.-B. 1995: “The copper hoard from the Ashur Temple”, in: P. O. Harper et al. (eds.), Discoveries at
Ashur on the Tigris: Assyrian Origins: Antiquities in the Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin (New York: The
Metropolitan Museum of Art), 37-41.
Westenholz, Aa. 2000: “Assyriologists, ancient and modern, on Naramsin and Sharkalisharri”, in: J. Marzahn and
H. Neumann (eds.), Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstages
am 18. Februar 1997 (Altes Orient und Altes Testament, 252; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag), 545-555.
Westenholz, J. G. 2004: “The Old Akkadian presence in Nineveh: fact or fiction”, Iraq 66, 7-18.
Zettler, R. L. 2006: “Tišatal and Nineveh at the end of the 3rd millennium BCE.”, in: A. K. Guinan, et al, (eds), If
a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty (Cuneiform Monographs,
31; Leiden: Brill), 503-514.
Naram-Sin’s conquests of Subartu and Armanum1
Emmanuelle Salgues, New Haven
A pair of documents in the Yale Babylonian Collection provides two previously unknown year
formulas from the reign of Naram-Sin, commemorating his conquests of Subartu and Armanum.2
The tablets belong to the Mesag archive, a group of over 600 Sargonic documents from Sumer. The
archive is written in a mix of Sumerian and Old Akkadian and records the daily activities of a rural
estate in the Umma/Lagash region under a high official named Mesag.3 In language and system of
1 To A. Westenholz, with gratitude and admiration. I would like to thank the curators of the Yale
Babylonian Collection, B. Foster and U. Kasten, for permission to publish these tablets. B. Foster, W. Heimpel,
E. Frahm, and P. Notizia read various drafts of this paper and made insightful suggestions. W. Sommerfeld
provided me with several references and made some helpful suggestions regarding the pronoun. W. Sallaberger
generously listened to my early thoughts on this article. I am grateful to all of them for their help.
2 For a list of the published year names see Frayne 1998-2001, 170-174.
3 The Mesag archive was first identified and discussed by Foster in various articles (Foster 1993a, 176
citing earlier literature). 126 Mesag texts, all in the Yale Babylonian Collection, were studied by Bridges in her
dissertation The Mesag Archive: A Study of Sargonic Society and Economy (1981). Many of these were copied
in BIN 8. Bridges provides transliterations of the unpublished texts in the appendix of her dissertation. Many
of the BIN 8 texts were translated and discussed by M. Lambert in his study of the economic life of Umma
in the Sargonic period (Lambert 1965 and 1975). Nine other Yale texts (BIN 8 185, 186, 187, 197, 328, 342;
NBC 6930, 6951, 7026), which were not included by Bridges in her dissertation, were treated by Foster in his
study of Sargonic land management as Mesag texts (Foster 1982a, 52-69). Based on the shape of the tablet,
museum number (YBC, rare for Mesag texts) and the name Ur-tur, BIN 8 198 probably does not belong to the
Mesag archive (the text was included by Foster 1982a, 63, but not by Bridges). Based on prosopographical
links, BIN 8 190 probably also belongs to the archive (not included by Bridges and linked to Umma by Foster
1982a, 80). Another thirteen texts, from the Iraq Museum, were published by Steinkeller and Postgate (1991),
texts 33-45. A Mesag text at Bryn Mawr College (BMC 15) was published by Ellis 1979, 51. Pomponio and
Visicato published a Mesag text from a private collection in Milan (2000, 6ff. text 2). Collection de Clerq 42
is a seal that probably belongs to Mesag (Me-sag 2 dub-sar). SANTAG 7 3 and 7 probably also belong to
the archive. A further group of Mesag texts in the Iraq Museum was the subject of A. Eidan’s dissertation. A
number of Mesag texts have been circulating on the antiquities market, but I am not aware of their current
location(s) nor of their number. An additional 384 tablets from the archive were donated to the Yale Babylonian
Collection in 1998 by Jonathan Rosen on behalf of his mother Miriam Rosen; those texts are presented here
as RBC. The archive will be treated in my dissertation The Mesag Archive: Rural Administration in Early
Empire. For a discussion of Mesag ensi of Umma and Mesag the scribe see Foster 1979, 161 n. 56, and 1993,
30, Steinkeller and Postgate 1991, 8-9, and Visicato 2000, 111-112 n. 51. Steinkeller (Steinkeller and Postgate
1991, 89 and Steinkeller 1999, 554 n.5) refers to the archive as the “Sagub” archive based on the occurrence
of that toponym in the records (at least ten times) and the fact that it is a locus of Mesag’s activity (BIN 8 141,
265 and unpublished RBC 2649, 2681, 2653). While this is possible, and indeed part of Mesag’s holdings
264 Akkade is King
accounting, the records differ markedly from those drafted in neighboring Sumerian centers, such as
Girsu and Umma, because they display “northern” or “Akkadian” features similar to those found at
Mugdan (Umm al-Jir).4 This archive belonged to one of the new administrative centers established
by the Sargonic kings as a way to govern the South.5 The importance of the estate and of Mesag
himself, is evident from the large tract of land he held, over 1,270 ha in area.6
The following are the year names, both in Akkadian:
1. RBC 2631
[in 1 MU na-ra-]am/-[ d ] ˹ EN ˺ .ZU ˹ Š UB UR ˺ k i S AG. GIŠ . R A
[The year Nar]am-Sin conquered Subartu.
2. RBC 2664
in 1 MU na-ra-am-d EN .ZU ar-ma-namki SAG. ˹ GIŠ.RA ˺ BAD 3 .[BAD 3 ? ] 7 u-na-[qi3-ir]
The year Naram-Sin conquered Armanum, dest[royed] (its) wall[s?].
These new year formulas permit us to date the Mesag archive to the time of Naram-Sin. Previously, based
on “classical Sargonic” typology of the tablets and the mention of Lugal-ušumgal the ensi of Lagash, the
archive had been attributed to late in the reign of Naram-Sin and/or early in the reign of Šarkališarri.8
Two interesting philological features of the year formulas are the use of logogram S A G . G I Š .
RA, and the use of a D-stem to express the plurality of the walls destroyed.
The logogram SAG.GIŠ.RA is so far not attested in a year name. One year name uses
syllabically written ne’ārum for SAG.G I Š . R A , but there the object is a person, not a place.9 Other
was in Sagub (van Driel 2000, 16-17), other toponyms, especially Lagash and Zabalam, are frequent and the
principle may apply that specifying a locus of activity indicates that the activity did not take place in the locus
of accountability. Therefore the precise provenance of the tablets remains unknown. For a similar principle
during the Ur III period, see Civil 1994, 106 n. 102.
4 Bridges 1981; Foster 1982c, 22-25. For the Mugdan documents, see Foster 1982b.
5 Westenholz 1999, 50; Foster 1993a, 29ff, Foster 1983, 47ff. (“the archive of an artificially created,
almost schematic administrative entity, near Umma/Lagash”).
6 BIN 8 291: 15-20: šu-nigin 2 65(bur 3 ) 1(eše 3 ) 1* (iku) g[ana 2 sa 10 -a] šu-nigin 2 134(bur)
2 (eše 3 ) gana 2 šuku nu-TU-TUM gana 2 lagaš ki Me-sag 2 u-ka3-al, or 3,601 iku total. This text was
collated and discussed by Foster 1982a, 57-58. The iku in line 15 is clear.
7 Both BAD 3 and -śu are possible.
8 Bridges 1981, 19; Foster 1982a, 52; 1982c, 6; 1993b, 176. For a typology of the “classical Sargonic”
tablets see Foster 1982c, 3-4. A Naram-Sin date for the archive is further corroborated by the presence of Ur-
d
UTU, the ensi, in one of the unpublished texts (RBC 2676a). In all likelihood, this is the same Ur- d UTU who
is known to have held the ensiship of Ur during the time of Naram-Sin (RTC 83, FAOS 19, 102-104: Gir 26).
9 See CAD N/I, 178ff nêrum: “1. to kill to slay, 2. to hit to strike (with a weapon) 3. to conquer to
destroy (a city or country),” also MAD 2, 191 “to smite.” FAOS 7, 57-58: D-44 anonym 3, a place name is
possible, but unlikely. RIME 2, 183 (vi o) (= FAOS 7, 56: D-36 ŠKŠ 13) could perhaps contain SAG.GIŠ.
RA, but only the SAG is preserved.
E. Salgues: Naram-Sin’s Campaigns of Subartu and Amarnum 265
examples of Sargonic year names that mention the conquering of a place use Sumerian h u l .10 In
monolingual Akkadian inscriptions, SAG . G I Š . R A is used in a similar context and is sometimes
replaced by syllabically written ne’ārum.11 S A G . G I Š . R A is also used for the participle, nā’ir,
which in various inscriptions means “conqueror.”12 In bilingual royal inscriptions, S A G . G I Š . R A
is the Akkadian logogram corresponding to Sumerian “h u l ” and is most often used to describe the
conquest of cities; the stock phrase can also mention the destroying of walls.13
The most interesting feature of “year name 2” is the use of the D-stem of naqārum which
corresponds to the reduplicated base of the logographically used Sumerian form I 3 . G U L . G U L .
This D-stem could be used to stress the plurality of objects, here the triple walls of Armanum, known
from a royal inscription,14 reflecting the reduplicated logogram.15 This is so far the only attestation
of a syllabic Akkadian writing for the logogram I 3 . G U L . G U L . The verb naqārum, although not
syllabically attested in Old Akkadian so far, has been assumed to be the equivalent of the logogram.16
This is based on the frequency of naqārum, from the Old Assyrian period onward, in passages about
the demolition of walls.17 The preserved portion of the verb una- excludes the possibility of a G-stem;
it also excludes other lexical equivalents of GUL such as ḫepû, or sapānu. The most likely candidate
for the damaged verb therefore is unaqqir. The D-stem of naqārum with the meaning “to tear down,”
perhaps occurring in a Middle Babylonian omen text from Susa.18
The two year names and the two geographical terms associated with them, Armanum and
Subartu, allow us to distinguish two campaigns by Naram-Sin, previously known from royal
inscriptions and possibly a year name.19
10 in 1 mu PN GN ki mu-hul-la, for example, Frayne 1993, 8 (ii a) (= FAOS 7, 49-50: D-2, Sargon
2a,), and Frayne 1993, 85 (ii e) (= FAOS 7, 51: D-9 Naram-Sin 3).
11 See, for example, RIME 2.1.4.26 col ii 2-7: dna-ra-am-d EN.ZU da-num2 ar-ma-namki u3 eb-laki
en-ar.
12 FAOS 7: Sargon C 7: 4; C 13:4; C 14:3, Rimuš 5:4, C 7; Frag 5:6; Naramsin 11: 6, B 7: 8, C 11: 8.
13 For example, Sargon RIME 2.1.1.1 12-15: (Sargon) uru unu ki e-hul bad 3 -bi e-ga-si 3 : URU k i
UNU ki SAG.GIŠ.RA u ˹BAD ˺-śu I .GUL.GUL “(Sargon) conquered Uruk and destroyed its walls.”
3 3 3
For a list of inscriptions that use SAG.GIŠ.RA, see FAOS 8, 257-259.

14 RIME 2.1.4.26, FAOS 7: Narām C 5, Foster 1982d and Otto 2006.
15 There are other possible reasons for the use of the D-stem of course, such as intensity of action.
16 FAOS 8, 252 naqārum, all of the instances cited are written with the logogram I 3 .GUL.GUL. In
the bilingual inscriptions the Sumerian for I 3 .GUL.GUL is usually e-ga-si 3 (for example RIME 2.1.1.1 15),
but note Sumerian i 3 -gul-gul RIME 2.1.1.11 7. For references to the formula PLACE/CITY SAG.GIŠ.RA
u 3 BAD 3 -śu (or BAD 3 .BAD 3 ) I 3 .GUL.GUL, see FAOS 8, 196-197.
17 CAD N/I 329 ff.
18 See references in CAD N/I 332, AHw 743. The verb in the text quoted by CAD, Labat Suse 3 rev. 5:
šarru ḫalṣīšu u2-na-qar2-ma could perhaps be read u2-na-kar-ma, from the verb nukkuru (CAD N/I 168 9c).
19 For a history of northern Mesopotamia and Syria during the third millennium, see Sallaberger 2007.
266 Akkade is King
Naram-Sin’s northwestern campaign was a particularly important feat in his quest to expand
the territory of the empire. It is commemorated in “year name 2,” presented here, as well as in a
royal inscription and in Naram-Sin’s titles “conqueror of Armanum and Ebla”20 and “conqueror of
Armanum, Ebla, and Elam.” 21 A royal inscription, preserved in an Old Babylonian copy from Ur,
begins with the claim “since the creation of mankind, no king whatsoever had destroyed Armanum
and Ebla,” and goes on to describe the course of the campaign from east to west.22 First he conquered
Armanum and Ebla, and then went on to the Amanus, the Cedar Forest, and the Upper Sea.23 The
inscription tells us that Naram-Sin captured Riš-Adad, the king of Armanum, and gives a detailed
description of the size and relative location of the multiple walls of Armanum, the destruction of
which is commemorated in the year name.
These are the same walls that led Otto to identify ancient Armanum with modern Tell Bazi on
the Middle Euphrates. Otto based this identification on the fact that Tell Bazi is the only Early Bronze
Age citadel situated on a natural hill in North Mesopotamia or Syria.24 She also used archeological
evidence that matches the description of the walls found in the Ur inscription, as well as information
provided by the Ebla archives, where Armanum/Armi is frequently mentioned.25 She demonstrated
that Naram-Sin’s campaign was in fact the second time Armanum had been destroyed, the first dating
to the destruction of Ebla, perhaps by Mari.26 The archeological record shows that the Bazi citadel
had been rebuilt before Naram-Sin destroyed it in his campaign.
“Year name 1” commemorates Naram-Sin’s defeat of Subartu. This and multiple other
attestations of the term Subartu show that it was used to refer to a specific entity and geographical
location. In Naram-Sin’s usage, it refers to the northeastern extension of his conquest. The question
of the nature and location of Subartu during the Sargonic period has been discussed at length.
Michalowski argued that the term had two senses, a “broad” one, which includes all of northern
20 FAOS 7, Naramsin 11.

21 RIME 2.1.4.2005.
22 Several Old Babylonian copies of royal inscriptions claim that Dagan gave Sargon the “Upper Land”
including Ebla, and one specifies that he destroyed its walls (RIME 2.1.1.11 and RIME 2.1.1.12). Archi and
Biga 2003 have suggested that Ebla was destroyed earlier by Mari. In fact, by the time of Naram-Sin the areas
of Upper Mesopotamia and Syria especially Mari and Ebla had suffered a significant reduction of urban culture
(Sallaberger 2007, 422). As argued by Otto, the earlier destruction of Ebla and Armanum would have allowed
for the reconstruction of at least part of the fortress at Armanum and the rise of a new ruler who called himself
king (lugal). The Ebla archives reveal that earlier Armanum had been ruled by an en (Otto 2006, 18 citing
earlier literature).
23 RIME 2.1.4.26; for the siege of Armanum see Foster 1982d.
24 Otto (2006, 7) notes that Emar could also be such a site, but Emar is frequently mentioned in the Ebla
texts, therefore it cannot be Armanum.
25 Otto 2006.
26 Archi and Biga 2003.
Mesopotamia as far as the Mediterranean, and a “narrow” meaning defining an actual place.27
Steinkeller, recalling a proposal of Gelb, convincingly shows that the actual area of Subartu was the
region extending north of the Diyala, along and east of the Tigris, approximately the region of later
Assyria.28 As is clear from the Sargonic inscriptions, as well as the year name presented here and
another from Umm al-Jir, Naram-Sin was in repeated contact with Subartu. This relationship was
sometimes peaceful, at other times hostile, as Subartu was subject to repeated campaigns by Naram-
Sin.29 The interaction of Naram-Sin with Subartu is highlighted in several places: in RIME 2.1.4.1,
possibly describing an east to west progression of a campaign into Subartu, Naram-Sin “led off the
merchants of the land of Subartu.”30 A year name from Umm al-Jir reads “The year Naram-Sin was
victorious in battle with Subartu in Azuhinnum and captured Taḫišatili.”31 Azuhinnum also occurs in
RIME 2.1.4.30 where it says that Naram-Sin is “the one who smashed the weapons of all of Subartu.”
The inscription then lists places defeated by Naram-Sin including Azuhinnum.32 That the relationship
between Subartu and Naram-Sin was not always hostile is clear from the account of Amar-girid’s
revolt, where Amar-girid attempts to stir up the lords (EN . EN) of the Upper Land and the governors
(ENSI 2 .ENSI 2 ) of Subartu against Naram-Sin, but these rulers remain loyal to Naram-Sin. These
same lords and governors occur in RIME 2.1.4.25, which begins with the statement that he “smashed
the weapons of the land of Elam, all of it, as far as Parhašum, and the land of Subartu as far as
the Cedar Forest.” The inscription later states that when Naram-Sin went to Talhadum, he received
offerings from the “governors of Subartu and the lords of the Upper Land.” RIME 2.1.4.1004 is a
27 Michalowski 1986 and 1999.

28 Steinkeller 1998, 76ff, also Gelb 1944 (for the Old Akkadian period 34-37). Gelb saw Subartu as the
mountains east of the cultivatable areas in Assyria.
29 In the Sargonic period Subartu occurs in five royal inscriptions, all from the time of Naram-Sin:
RIME 2.1.4.1; RIME 2.1.4.25 (see suggested reading of lines 4-5 in FAOS 8, 358); RIME 2.1.4.30 (see FAOS
8, 391 for the possible reading N IM ki for UŠ.GI line 7ʹ) which mentions eastern Azuhinnum in the region
of Nuzi (RlA 9, 173); RIME 2.1.2.1004, and a passage from Amar-girid’s revolt Wilcke 1997, 11-32 and
Sommerfeld 2000, 419-436. RIME 2.1.4.21 (also Foster 1992) is likely to be an itinerary into the land of
Subartu as it mentions Azuhinnum and Kurda, both in northeastern Mesopotamia, but the term Subartu is not
specified.
30 RIME 2.1.4.1 col vi 2ʹ ff. In the inscription the eastern Tigris toponym Talmuš is mentioned right
before this line. For a map of the area, see Sallaberger 2007, 430.
31 in 1 M[U] dna-ra-[am-d E]N.ZU REC169 SUBIR ki in a-zu-ḫi-nimki i-ša-ru ta2-ḫi-ša-ti-li ik-
mi-u3. Perhaps a longer version of the year name presented here (see below). Frayne 1993, 2, 86 v (q) (FAOS
7, 51-52: D-13 Naram-Sin 6). This is the first mention of a Hurrian dignitary, see Lambert 1983, and Salvini
2000, 287.
32 For the problem of Azuhinnum and its two locations see the discussion by Sallaberger 2007, 429 with
previous literature, Frayne 1998-2001, 173, and Charpin 2003, 20 (on western Azuhinnum near the Jebel Sinjar
and eastern Azuhinnum east of the Tigris). For Azuhinnum and the Hurrians see Salvini 2000, 287ff.
268 Akkade is King
fragmentary inscription, attributed to Naram-Sin, which mentions Ebla, Mari and other northwestern
toponyms, as well as Urkiš in the Habur region, “the land of Subartu, the shores of the Upper Sea,”
and Magan and its provinces on the other side of the sea.
Based on these last two inscriptions, Michalowski came to the conclusion that Subartu was “an
extension of the nebulous Upper Land and that it reached the very limits of the known universe.”33
A “broad” definition for Subartu has been followed by most scholars who have come to use the
term, for all of Upper Mesopotamia and sometimes beyond.34 While the phrasing of RIME 2.1.4.25,
“the land of Elam as far as Parhašum and the land of Subartu as far as the Cedar Forest,” certainly
suggests a broad area extending from the east of the Tigris all the way to the area of modern Lebanon,
the mention of the Upper land and Subartu in the same inscription “when the lords of the Upper land
and the governors of Subartu” bring Naram-Sin gifts, suggests that the two areas were considered
two different entities. Because Elam and Parhašum represent extremities of Naram-Sin’s eastern
conquests, the most western being Elam and the most eastern being Parhašum,35 Subartu and the
Cedar Forest could therefore represent the eastern and western extremities of his northern conquest.
The other inscription that has led to the “broad” definition of Subartu is RIME 2.1.4.1004 9ʹ,
“kur šubur-r[a] gaba-gaba-a-ab-[ b a I ] G I . N I M - m a ,”36 translated as “the land of Subartu
on the shores of the Upper Sea.”37 This does not necessarily fit the preceding part of the inscription
which lists several toponyms, including Mahazum, Puš, Ebla, Mari, Tuttul, Urkiš, Mukiš, Abarnum,
and “the land where cedars are cut down, along with its provinces” (u 3 k u r giš
eri n -k u 5 m a-d a -
ma-d[a-bi]). It is possible to translate what follows “the land of Subartu (and) the shores of the
Upper Sea,” followed by “Magan along with [its] province [X] on the other side of the se[a]” (u 3
m a 2 - gan k i ma-da-[ma-da-bi] kur x [ . . . ] b a l - a - r i a - [ a b - b a . . . ] ). Thus all of these locations
are separate entities. While Subartu certainly could have been used to mean “the entire north” at times
to stress the infinite extent of Naram-Sin’s power, its more frequent use as a specific location, as well
as the existence of another term “Upper Land,”38 makes it clear that whatever its limits (east of the
33 Michalowski 1999, 309.

34 Opinions include Weiss, Courty et al. 1993, 995: “the rain-fed cereal agricultural Habur plains of
Northern Syria” and Weiss and Courty 1993, 133 “Subir, northern Mesopotamia,” Westenholz 1999, 47 “The
entire Upper Mesopotamian region- the ancient Subartu, including the Transtigris and the Jezira” ; Akkermans
and Schwartz 2003, 278 “... Subartu (upper Mesopotamia and Syria).”
35 For Parhašum/ Marḫaši, see Steinkeller 1982 and 2006. Steinkeller proposes the region of Kerman
as the site of ancient Marhaši.
36 I interpret the -a of IGI.NIM-ma as genitive, not locative.
37 Michalowski 1999, 310; RIME 2.1.4.1004.
38 I follow Sallaberger’s suggestion that the “Upper Land” includes areas of upper Mesopotamia
(Sallaberger 2007, 424). In an earlier inscription of Sargon RIME 2.1.1.11 (Sum.) 20-28 and 24-35 (Akk.), the
Upper Land could refer to the middle Euphrates region including Mari, Yarmuti, Ebla as far as the Cedar Forest
and the Silver Mountain.”
Tigris, perhaps including the area of its west bank), Subartu was a specific area. In any case, a broad
definition of Subartu could hardly have been used by the people living in Northern Mesopotamia.39
The term Subartu should therefore be understood in a more nuanced and specific way, at least during
the Sargonic period, to refer to the northeastern extent of Naram-Sin’s campaigns, corresponding to
the region later known as Assyria.
The two year names presented here would therefore refer to campaigns into distinct territories,
Subartu in the northeast,40 and Armanum in the northwest. Armanum should perhaps be considered
part of “the Upper Land,” although this remains problematic. In his inscriptions, Naram-Sin refers
to the rulers of the Upper Land as lords (EN. EN),41 which would fit the information from the Ebla
archives, in which Armanum was governed by an en.42 However, the ruler of Armanum, Riš-Adad,
whom Naram-Sin captures, has the title king (lu g a l see note 23).
The year names published here may further be considered with respect to the uncertain
chronology of Naram-Sin’s reign. “Year name 2,” which mentions Armanum, does not have a divine
determinative before Naram-Sin’s name, although the determinative is present in the Old Babylonian
inscription from Ur commemorating the same event. While the occurrence in the copy from Ur
suggests that the destruction of Armanum took place after the great revolt, the absence of the divine
determinative in the contemporaneous year name, shows once again that the presence or absence of
the divine determinative cannot be used reliably as a criterion for subdividing Naram-Sin’s reign into
events before and after the great revolt.43 The beginning of “year name 1,” which mentions Subartu,
is not preserved so one cannot determine whether the DINGIR sign is present or not, although there
is scarcely room for it in the broken section.
Furthermore, the question of how many times Naram-Sin conquered Subartu has yet to be
answered.44 Campaigns into Subartu may have taken place over several years, as discussed by
Westenholz (1999, 47-48) and Sallaberger (2007, 425-431). Some or all of the inscriptions mentioned
above could refer to different aspects of this process. The year name presented here could, moreover,
be an abbreviated form of the Umm al-Jir year name, which specifies where (Azuhinnum) Naram-Sin
39 Michalowski 1999, 306ff, with stress on the fact that the discussion of the term Subartu is based on
a southern perspective.
40 It is also possible that the defeat took place outside of Subartu.
41 Amar-girid’s revolt i 1-23, Wilcke 1997, 22; RIME 2.1.4.25 36-37.
42 Discussed by Otto 2006, 18, with references.
43 Best phrased by Westenholz 2000, 553 n. 19: “At most, the presence of the DINGIR-sign may
date an inscription to the time after the Great Rebellion; from its absence nothing can be concluded.” Also see
comments by Sallaberger 2007, 427 n. 51 with regard to the uncertainty of the time span between the great
revolt and the deification of Naram-Sin. It is also possible that the Ur inscription was drafted after the great
revolt and the DINGIR sign could have been inserted at that time.
44 In the Ur III period Shulgi defeated repeatedly one and the same city, as for example is the case with
Simurrum (see Michalowski 1993, 78-79).
270 Akkade is King
defeated the forces of Subartu. The Mesag and Umm al-Jir archives are most likely contemporaneous;
both are “Classic Sargonic” in style and show striking similarities in their systems of accountability
as well as the presence of a dignitary named Kīnumupi.45
The discovery of these year names has allowed us to date the Mesag archive to the time of
Naram-Sin. The year names present striking philological features, in particular the use of D-stem
nuqqurum for what is normally written with the logogram I 3 . G U L . G U L . Furthermore, these year
names provide significant new detail concerning Naram-Sin’s northern campaigns, affording concrete
chronological markers to events known from inscriptions. Further excavations will hopefully shed
new light on the nature of Naram-Sin’s presence in the north.
RBC 2631
This is a well-made four-columned tablet with a flat obverse and a slightly convex reverse.
The tablet is written in a mix of Sumerian and Akkadian,46 in a fairly high ductus (Sommerfeld II47).
The tablet is in poor condition, especially the obverse. The transliteration follows CDLI standards
(http://cdli.ucla.edu).
45 In addition to the similarity in language and accounting techniques used in both archives (Bridges
1981, abstract), the close relationship between the two archives is further confirmed by the presence of an ensi,
probably a Sargonic official, Kīnumupi, who appears in the expression na-ba-al-ka3-at DUB Ki2-nu-mu-pi5
ensi2” (AIA 8 lines 19-21), at Umm al-Jir and in duplicate unpublished texts RBC 2661 and RBC 2679 19-
21: DUB Ki2-num2-pi6 šu Me-sag2 na-ba-al-ka3-tum. (for pi6 for BIL 2 as an alternative writing for BI/pi2 in
personal names in Ur III, see Hilgert 2002, 64-65: Pi5-sa-ah-DI NGIR/ Pi6-ša-hi-DI NGIR). For inspections
by Sargonic royal agents, see Foster 1983, 49.
46 On the language of the Mesag archive see Steinkeller and Postgate 1991, 10, with further remarks on
the bilingualism of the scribes, see Westenholz 1995, 536, and Woods 2006, 93ff.
47 Sommerfeld 1999, 7-19.
RBC 2631 co l i i .
10.25 x 8 x 2.5 c m 1 . s i k i -b i 1 (u c ) l a 2 1 (aš c ) g u 2
col i. 2 . 4 (u c ) m aš 2 -g al
1. ˹ 6(ge š 2 c ) ˺ 2(u c ) 2(a š c ) udu 3 . Di n g i r- ˹ k i -ag ˺ 2
2. 4(u c ) 5(a š c ) sila 4 4 . 2 (g eš 2 c ) m aš 2 -g al

3. [ šu-nigin 2 ] ˹ 7(geš 2 c ) ˺ 7(a š c ) u d u 5 . ˹ š a ˺ -a t [ ]-Z U d u 6 -b ab b ar 2 k i
4. [ siki]-bi 1(u ) ˹ la ˺ [x]
c 2
6 . 1 (g eš 2 c ) m aš 2 -g al
5. 3(u c ) maš 2 -gal 7 . š a - ˹ a t ˺ N u -g al
6. E -li- ˹ li ˺
2
Do u b l e ru l i n g
7. 5(ge š 2 c ) 4(u c ) [x] udu / la 2 2 (g eš 2 ) 8 . [š u -n i g ]i n 2 ˹ 3 (g eš 2 c ) ˺ m aš 2 -g al
4(u) ˹ 2 (diš) ˺ [x ] 9 . Az
8. s ila ˹ nu ˺ -[tuku]
4 1 0 . 1 (g eš 2 c ) 3 (u c ) ˹ 5 (aš c ) ˺ ab 2 -am a
9. s iki-[bi] [x] 11 . ˹ 1 (u ) 5 (aš ) ˺ [a]b -3 (d i š )
c c 2 t
10. Še[š]-[tur] 1 2 . ˹ 1 (u c ) 3 (aš c ) ˺ +[x ] [a]b 2 -2 (d i š t )
11. 4(geš 2 c ) 5(u c ) 2(a š c ) +[x u d u ] 1 3 . 2 (u c ) +[x ] ab 2 -1 (d i š t ) l a 2 2 (d i š t )
12. [x]+ 1(a š ) ˹ sila ˺ -bi
c 4 1 4 . ˹ 2 (u ) ˺ +[x ] [g u d ]-ab
c 2
Double ruling 1 5 . 2 (u c ) g u d -2 (d i š t )
13. [šu-nigin 2 x]+ 2(u c ) 2(aš c ) / [udu] 1 6 . 2(u c ) 2(aš c ) gud-1(diš t ) la 2 2(diš t )
B l an k l i n e
272 Akkade is King
rev.
col. iii co l . i v
1. š u-nigin 2 3(geš 2 c ) +[x ab 2 ] 1. [ n i ]t a 2 [ ]
2. Ama- ˹ barag ˺ 2. [ d u ]s u 2 -n i t a 2 -2 (d i š t )
3. 5(u c ) la 2 1(a š c ) a b 2 -a ma 3 . [ ] d u s u 2 -n i t a 2 -1 (d i š t )
4. 7(a š c ) ab 2 -3(diš t ) Do u b l e ru l i n g
5. 1(u c ) la 2 1(aš c ) erasure? ab 2 -2(diš t ) 4 . š u -n i g i n 2 3 (u c ) l a 2 3 (aš c ) em e 6
6. 1(u c ) 4(a š c ) ab 2 -1(diš t ) la 2 [x ] 5 . L u g al -u ru
7. 3(a š c ) gud-ab 2 6 . 2 (u c ) 2 (aš c ) g u d -3 (d i š t )
8. 1(u c ) la 2 1(a š c ) gud-2(diš t ) 7 . š u Am a-b arag
9. 1(u c ) 4(aš c ) gud-1(diš t ) la 2 4(diš t ) 8 . ˹ 2 (aš c ) ˺ g u d -3 (d i š t )
Double ruling 9 . š u A-zi
10. šu-nigin 2 1(geš 2c ) 4(u c ) 5(aš c ) ab 2 10. a-˹na˺ giš
ap i n
11. A- ˹ z i ˺ 11 . A-b i 2 - r a
12. 1(u c ) 1(aš c ) ˹ dusu 2 ˺ -mun u s am a 1 2 . u 3 M e-s ag 2 i- ḫ u -z a
13. 1(aš ) ˹ dusu ˺ -[munus x]
c 2
13. [ ] 2 (d i š t )
14. 2(a š c ) [du]su 2 -munus-2(d i š t ) 14. [ ]X Z U
15. 2(a š ) ˹ dusu ˺ -munus-1(d i š )
c 2 t
1 5 . [in 1 mu Na-ra-]am/-[ d ] ˹ EN ˺ .ZU
16. 5(a š c ) dusu 2 -nita 2 -ga l 1 6 . ˹ Š UB UR ˺ k i S AG. GIŠ . R A
17. [ ]- ˹ š a ˺ i b - ˹ r i ˺
3 2
Translation
col. i. 1-4) 382 sheep, 45 lambs, total: 427 sheep their wool: 10 [ talents ]
5) 30 mature goats
6) Elili
7-9) 340 [+ x] sheep arrears: 184 [+ x], (they) do not have lambs; [their] wool: [x]
10) Šeš-tur
11- 12) [x+] 292 sheep, [x +] 1 (are) their lambs,
13-col. ii 1) Total: [x+] 22 sheep; their wool: 9 talents
2) 40 mature goats
3) Dingir-kiag
4-5) 120 mature goats these are the ones (located at) “[ ]-white hill”
6-7) 60 mature goats these are the ones of Nu-gal
8) ˹Total˺ 180 goats
9) Az
10-16) 95 calf-bearing cows, 15 three-year-old cows, 13 [+x] two-year-old cows, 20 [+x] one-year-
old cows, 20 [+x] breeding bulls, [+x] 20 two-year-old oxen, 22 one-year-old oxen arrears: 2
col. iii 1) Total: 180 [+x] cattle

2) Ama-barag
3-9) 49 calf-bearing cows, 7 three-year-old cows, 9 two-year-old cows, 14 one-year-old cows arrears:
[ ], 3 breeding bulls, 9 two-year-old oxen, 14 one-year-old oxen arrears: 4
10) Total: 105 cattle
11) A-zi
12)- col. iv 3) 11 foal-bearing jennies, 1 [four or three-year-old] jenny, 2 two-year-old jennies, 2 one-
year-old jennies, 5 mature donkeys, [x] [three or four- year-old] donkeys, [ ] two-year old donkeys,
[ ] one-year old donkey(s).
4) Total: 27 asses
5) Lugal-uru
6-12) 22 three-year-old oxen, from (those of) Ama-barag, 2 three-year-old oxen, from (those of) A-zi,
for the plough, did Abira and Mesag take.
13-14) [ x] two year old [ ] [ PN ]-ZU
15-16) [ the year Nar]am-Sin conquered Subartu
17) [PN]-ša made the inspection
Comments
This text is an inspection record of sheep and their wool, goats, cattle, and equids. The numbers
counting the animals and the wool are curvilinear, while the age of the animal is expressed by means
of cuneiform numbers tenû. Double rulings occur before totals, but the entries are otherwise not
separated. Equids, sheep and goats also occur together in RBC 2638 (perhaps also an inspection).
Other records mentioning a single one of these are common, as are records of cattle and equids
together.48 Separate inspection records of goats, sheep, their lambs and wool, equids and cattle also
occur, such as BIN 8 183.
col. i-col. ii 9: Account of sheep, their lambs and wool, and goats.
Elili, Šeš-tur, Dingir-kiag and Az are all shepherds of the household managed by Mesag, who
receive sustenance land (MC 4 33 and BIN 8 19649). The four shepherds appear together in MC 4 44,
and unpublished RBC 2679 and 2661; all three are records of sheep and their wool. Individually or
in small groups of two or more, the shepherds show up in other sheep and wool documents50 as well
48 For example, NBC 6847 and BIN 8 273, RBC 2632, 2638 and 2644 (also an inspection record).
49 Elili is not mentioned in MC 4 44, but he is present in what seems to be another version of the same
record, BIN 8 196.
50 RBC 2658 (Elili, Dingir-kiag and Šeš-tur), 2744, 2713, and 2688, SEL 17 2 (Elili).
274 Akkade is King
as documents concerning animals only.51 Az specialized in goats only.52 The sex of neither sheep nor
goat is specified; just as udu can be used for male sheep or “sheep,” m a š 2 - g a l is used for “mature
goat” in general. That the age (full grown), not the gender, of the animal is specified is not surprising
as the record was concerned with wool, the amount of which would not differ greatly between full
grown males or females.
col. i. 7. la 2 designates a deficit, in this case the number of sheep that were expected but not
delivered. It is possibly an abbreviation for l a 2 -u x (N I ) , “arrears” or “remainder.”53 This possibly
occurs in another Mesag texts: the obverse of SEL 17 2 (Pomponio and Visicato 2000) records amounts
of wool presumably delivered by Elili (no verb is specified). On the reverse the traces preserved
indicate that each line begins with la 2 followed by a number, possibly pointed (not curvelinear), and
the whole account is labeled “it is arrears” l a 2 -u x -am 3 . That animals can be in arrears is clear from
unpublished RBC 2768 where equids labeled as l a 2 -u x -am 3 “it is arrears” are delivered m u - D U .54
Grain in arrears is also attested in the archive (BIN 8 117).
The total of items designated as “arrears” (l a 2 ) was called šittum “remainder.” It was carried
over to the text of the following accounting period. This occurs in an unpublished text from the
Mesag archive, RBC 2745, a balanced account (PN u-na-ki-is), where l a 2 precedes amounts of grain
followed by the name of different cultivators; these are totaled as “si-tum” of a specific field.55
MC 4 44 makes it clear that la 2 is an arrear that is still owed: l a 2 5 g u 2 3 4 s i k i m a-n a al E2-
li-li i-ba-še2 u-ba-lam (col ii 7-9) “deficit: 334 minas of wool Elili owes, he will deliver.” Parallels are
found in other Old Akkadian documents, where the balance can be grain or sheep and is expressed in
the similar phrase “si-tum al PN ibašši.”56
The cuneiform number following l a 2 is used to differentiate the entry from the positive amount
(written with a rounded stylus), indicating a sort of “red ink” principle. The use of a pointed stylus to
count things that are normally accounted for by means of curvilinear numbers occurs in a land text
from the archive as well. This is clear from unpublished RBC 2637 where different parcels of land
are written with curvilinear numbers, but one entry which was not measured (or surveyed) (n u - g i d 2 )
is differentiated by the use of pointed wedges.
51 BIN 8 146, 274, 284, and 285, other unpublished records include RBC 2638, and 2816.
52 For example, BIN 8 146, 274, RBC 2816, 2679, 2661, 2829, not clear in MC 4 44 because the section
before his name is broken.
53 CAD R 315ff. ribbatu “arrears, remainder, remnant”. For this term in Ur III, see Englund 1990, 25-
27, and Nissen et al. 1993, 47-54; for the reading la-u x (NI) see Steinkeller 1984, 137-142.
54 RBC 2768 transliteration: 1-5) 1 dusu 2 -munus ama, 1 dusu 2 -munus III, 1 dusu 2 -nita 2 , 1
dusu 2 -nita 2 -giš, la 2 -u x -am 3 , 9-10) Ur-gu 2 mu-DU.
55 RBC 2745 5-7) la 2 49.0.0 še gur Da-da la 2 31.1.3 še gur... šu-nigin 2 246+[ ].[x].1 /
[še gu]r A-ga-de 3 ki [si]-tum šu Ašag-gibil.
56 See references CAD Š/III 136 šittu A. Also SANTAG 7 3: 3-5 (possibly a Mesag text).
col. ii 5-9. It is unclear from the pronoun šat whether the 120 goats and the 60 goats are treated
as a singular or a plural; in either case the pronoun is feminine. The evidence for use of pronouns
concerning animals is complicated, as is evident from BIN 8 273 and NBC 6847 (duplicates) ii 1-2,
š u- nigin 2 16 ab 2 ša-at Pa2-har, but 9-10) š u - n i g i n 2 2 5 ab 2 šu-ut Dūr-mu-pi5. Another example
from Tutub57 mentioning goats uses the masculine plural pronoun šu-ut; [ x ] M A [ Š 2 ] šu-ut PN.58
The gender and case of the pronoun therefore do not seem to always rely on that of the head noun.59
It is possible that the pronoun was influenced by the number of the animals being counted,60 but this
needs further study. See also comments to col iv 6-12).
col. ii 5. Du 6 -ba bbar 2 k i is perhaps an alternative writing of D u 6 -b ar 6 k i , in which case the
latter can be read Du 6 -ba bbar. 6 1 The sign - Z U which precedes it is most probably the second
component of a personal name (a similar situation occurs in OSP 1 39 ii 6ʹ.
co. ii 7. I am not aware of other instances of the personal name Nu - g a l in the archive, but the
name occurs in other Sargonic texts.62
col. ii 10-col. iii 11. Cattle
The order of the cattle, female from oldest to youngest, followed by breeding bulls, followed
by oxen, is the standard one found in the archive. The females are usually aged one to three years
old, in a few cases four years old; in one case (RBC 2638) the term a b 2 - m a h is used for “mature
cow,”63 and one tablet mentions a five-year-old cow (RBC 2710).64 The term a b 2 - a m a both implies
that the cow was mature, probably in its fourth year or older, and was either of calf-bearing age or
had actually born a calf.
Ama-barag and A-zi occur together in RBC 2632, where they are also associated with cattle;
this is probably Ama-barag the dub-sa r- m a h associated with land in BIN 8 123, 182, 184, 192,
195, 199, 200, NBC 5920 (Bridges 446) and other unpublished texts.
col. iii 1. For the reconstruction of a b 2 as the total, see below line 10. It is standard in the
archive to total mixed cattle as ab 2 .65
57 Sommerfeld, 1999; Tutub 28 1-2.

58 The goats are the object of the verb kašûm; the pronoun, whether in the accusative or nominative, is
masculine plural. For the verb kašûm, see comments to text by Sommerfeld 1999, 82-83.
59 Deutscher 2002, 92ff.
60 This was suggested to me by W. Sommerfeld in a personal communication.
61 OSP 1, 21 iv 3 and 39 ii 6ʹ; ECTJ 128 4.
62 For example: Manistusu obelisk xiv 8, xvii 30 (he is the same person in both entries); HSS 10 158 iv
5, 212: 3, 55: 2, 153 vii 20, perhaps 139 iii 2; also AIHA 3 i 11.
63 Ur III ab 2 -mah 2 .
64 For cattle “in their x year” rather than x-year old, see Gelb 1967, 64-66; Heimpel 1995, 86-87 and
Stol 1995, 176-179.
65 In a few instances ab 2 and gud are totaled as ab 2 .HI.A, for example NBC 6926 and RBC 2638.
276 Akkade is King
col iii 3-col iv 5) Donkeys

For the term dusu 2 , A NŠE.LIB I R , with the meaning donkey in the third millennium, see
Postgate 1986.66 The standard third millennium gunû form of the A NŠ E sign, with lines across the
“muzzle” and “neck,” is used throughout the archive.67 The “mane,” or two diagonals at the beginning
of the sign coming out of the neck, is sometimes left off the sign, when the A NŠ E sign is meant to
indicate a variation in meaning; for example, in unpublished RBC 2649 and 2651 all of the d u s u 2
signs are written with a “maned” ANŠE sign but totaled as d u s u 2 - m u n u s without the mane. The
order of the donkeys from oldest female to youngest male is the same as that used for cattle and both
male and female are aged between one and four years. After their fourth year, the male are d u s u 2 -
nita 2 -gal and the female are dusu 2 -mu n u s - a m a or occasionally, d u s u 2 -m u n u s -m ah .
col. iv 4. The donkeys are totaled using the more generic feminine A NŠ E . M UNU S or
eme 6 . In other Mesag documents donkeys can also be totaled as d u s u 2 - m u n u s and a n š e . H I . A ,
regardless of whether or not other equids, such as onagers and mules are involved.68
col. iv 5. Lugal-uru occurs in several Mesag texts with other estate herders. He is always
associated with donkeys, and in MC 4 33: 15, where he receives sustenance land, his title is s i p a -
anš e.69
col. iv 6-12. Oxen taken for the plow
The determinative pronoun šu is used for the oxen taken from Ama-barag’s and A-zi’s herds,
indicating that because only oxen are concerned, and not females, these are treated as masculine. A
determinative pronoun referring to groups of oxen occurs in two other texts from the archive. In both
cases these use the masculine plural šu-ut.70 One expects an accusative determinative pronoun here
as well, which would also be šu-ut if the scribe was treating the oxen as plural, or ša as collective.
It seems that the pronoun follows the case of the head noun, so both would be nominative.71 This
type of asyntactic construction is known from Sumerian documents as well as other Old Akkadian
documents.72
The three-year-old oxen taken from both Ama-barag and A-zi are not accounted for in the
section above (col. ii 10- col. iii 11). This implies that these had been part of their herd but that the
66 For previous interpretation by Zarins, Maekawa and Lieberman, see Postgate 1986, 196.
67 For this form, see Zarins 1978, 3.
68 Examples for eme 6 as total include BIN 8 273 iv 4. Texts with dusu 2 -munus totals include RBC
2644, and 2649; RBC 2638 has anše.HI.A.
69 NBC 6847 and BIN 8 273, unpublished texts include RBC 2632 and 2644.
70 YBC 12319 vii 1-3: 40 gud-giš libir, 6 gud-dab 5 šu-ut GALA and unpublished RBC 2669
9-13: 4 gud-giš 2 gud DAR E SU šu-ut Da-du Ur-mes i-hu-uz.
71 Deutscher 2002.
72 Sallaberger 2000, Old Akkadian examples include HSS 10 63: 0.1.5 še si-tum še-ba PN im-hur. I
thank C. Hesse for pointing HSS 10 63 out to me.
responsibility for them was now Mesag’s and Abira’s.

col. iv 11. A-bi2-ra is not known to me from other Mesag texts.
col. iv 12. Mesag and Abira are the subjects of the dual verb i-ḫu-za.
col. iv 13-14. I am unable to reconstruct this passage but it must be the same type of entry as
above: animal + age + PN.
col iv 15) The beginning of the line is completely broken, making it impossible to make out
any traces of the signs. There does not seem to be enough room for a D ING I R sign before the name
of Naram-Sin.
col iv 17) No other animal record is inspected by someone whose name ends in - š a 3 . One could
suggest the common name Giš-ša 3 , but this is simply conjecture as no scribe named G i š - š a 3 occurs
in the archive. One expects a highly placed scribe or even a royal official, such as Dūrmupi, who
made inspections in Zabalam. Other animal inspection records usually specify where the inspection
took place, but there is no trace of a place name in our text.73
73 Dūrmupi in Zabalam: BIN 8 273, NBC 6847 and RBC 2644. For other scribes doing inspections:
Mesag in SAG.UB: RBC 2649; Ur-mes in SAG.UB: RBC 2651; d UTU-[ḫi-li?] in Zabalam: BIN 8 184; Da-da
in Nag-ku 5 -absu: RBC 2710.
278 Akkade is King
RBC 2664
The tablet is a medium rectangle with rounded edges and both obverse and reverse are slightly
convex. The signs are well made and written in high ductus II.
RBC 2664
8 x 4 x 2 cm
Obv. R ev.
1. ˹ 2(aš c ) ˺ [ ] 1 3 . a l M e-s ag 2
2. 1(u c ) [ ] 1 4 . s a -ki -i n
3. 1(u c ) gur bappir 1 5 . u -b a -l a m
4. 1(u c ) gur nig 2 -ar 3 -ra 1 6 . i n 1 (d i š ) m u
5. 5(aš c ) gur dabin 1 7 . N a -r a -a m- d EN. Z U
6. 1(u c ) šah 2 -niga 1 9 . A r-ma -n a m k i
7. 2(aš c ) gur gu 2 -gu 2 2 0 . S AG. ˹ GIŠ . R A ˺
8. 2(ba rig 2 c ) 3 (ban 2 c ) še -lu 2 2 1 . B AD 3 [ ]
9. 2(barig 2 c ) ga-mun 2 2 . u -n a -[q i 3 -i r ]
10. 1(u c ) gur ku 6
11. ˹ 2(barig 2 c ) ˺ 3 (ban 2 c ) gur g azi
12. [ ] gur na ga
Translation
1. 2+x kor of [ ], 10+[x] kor [ ], 10 kor of beer-bread, 10 kor of groats, 5 kor of “coarse
flour,” 10 grain-fed pigs, 2 kor of “pulse,” 150 sila of coriander, 120 sila of cumin, 10 kor of fish, 150
liters of “wild licorice,” [x] kor of potash, are charged to Mesag, he will deliver them.
The year Naram-Sin conquered Armanum, destroyed (its) wall[s?].
Comments
3-12. For a similar text, comments and references to b a p p i r, n i g 2 -ar 3 -ra, d ab i n , g u 2 -g u 2 ,
š e- lu 2 , ga-mun, and gazi, see Steinkeller and Postgate 1991 comments to texts 40 and 41, p. 74-
77. For gu 2 -gu 2 , še-lu 2 and gazi, see Powell 2003, 19-22.
13-15. For eli PN šakānu “to charge to someone,” see CAD Š/I 147, for its equivalence
in Sumerian, ugu ga 2 -ga 2 , see Civil 1973, 58-59. A similar expression is found in another Old
Akkadian text RTC 119, where the verb is in the preterite and a person does the charging. In the text
presented here, the verb is in the stative form, not specifying who did the charging. The full phrase al
PN sakin ubbalam, is very close to al PN ibašše ubbalam74 found in the archive, “PN owes, he will
deliver it” which can be used for animals, silver and other commodities.
Bibliography
Akkermans, P. and G. Schwartz 2003: The Archeology of Syria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Archi, A. and M. G. Biga 2003: “A Victory Over Mari and the Fall of Ebla,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 55, 1-44.
Bridges, S. J. 1981: The Mesag Archive: A Study of Sargonic Society and Economy (Ph.D dissertation; New
Haven: Yale Univerity).
Charpin, D. 2003: “La ‘toponymie en miroir’ dans le Proche Orient Amorrite,” Revue d’Assyriologie et
d’Archéologie Orientale 97, 3-34.
Civil, M. 1973: “From Enki’s Headaches to Phonology,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32, 57-61.
––––––– 1994: The farmer’s instructions: a Sumerian agricultural manual (Aula Orientalis. Supplementa 5;
Barcelona: Sabadell-Barcelona).
Deutscher, G. 2002: “The Akkadian Relative Clauses in Cross-Linguistic Perspective,” Zeitschrift für
van Driel, G. 2000: “Institutional and Non-Institutional Economy in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in: A. C. V.
M. Bongenaar (ed.), Interdependency of Institutions and Private Entrepreneurs (MOS Studies 2; Leiden:
Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten), 5-23.
Ellis, M. de J. 1979: “Cuneiform Tablets at Bryn Mawr College,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 31, 30-55.
74 CAD B 145, the full phrase is found MC 4 44.

280 Akkade is King
Englund, R.K. 1990: Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei, (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen
Orient 10; Berlin: Reimer).
Foster, B. 1979: “New Light on the “mu-iti” Texts,” Orientalia 48, 153-162.
––––––– 1982a: Administration and use of Institutional land in Sargonic Sumer (Mesopotamia 9; Copenhagen:
Akademisk Forlag).
––––––– 1982b: “An Agricultural Archive from Sargonic Akkad,” Acta Sumerologica 4, 7-51.
––––––– 1982c: “Archives and Record-keeping in Sargonic Mesopotamia,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und
––––––– 1982d: “The Siege of Armanum,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 14, 27-36.
––––––– 1986: “Archives and Empire in Sargonic Mesopotamia,” in: K. Veenhof (ed.), Cuneiform Archives
and Libraries, (CCRAI 30; Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul), 46-52.
––––––– 1992: “A Sargonic Itinerary,” in: D. Charpin and F. Joannès (eds.) La circulation des biens, des
personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien, (CCRAI 37; Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations),
73-76.
––––––– 1993a: “Managment and Administration in the Sargonic period,” in: M. Liverani (ed.), Akkad, the
First World Empire. Structure, Ideology, Traditions (HANE/S V; Padova: Sargon), 25-39.
––––––– 1993b: “Selected Bibliography of the Sargonic Period,” in: M. Liverani (ed), Akkad, the First World
Empire. Structure, Ideology, Traditions (HANE/S V; Padova: Sargon), 171-182.
Frayne, D. 1993: Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334-2113 BC), (Royal inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early
periods vol. 2 ; Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
––––––– 1998-2001: “Narām-Sîn A,” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archaologie 9, 169-
174.
Gelb, I. J. 1944: Hurrians and Subarians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
––––––– 1967: “Growth of a Herd of Cattle in Ten Years,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21, 64-69.
Gelb, I. J and B. Kienast 1990: Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. (FAOS
Heimpel, W. 1995: “Plow Animal Inspection Records from Ur III Girsu and Umma,” Bulletin of Sumerian
Agrigulture 8, 71-171.
Hilgert, M. 2002: Akkadisch der Ur III-Zeit (IMGULA 5; Münster: Rhema).
Kienast, B. and W. Sommerfeld 1994: Glossar zu den altakkadischen Königsinschriften, (FAOS 8; Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner).
Kienast, B. and K. Volk 1995: Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Briefe, (FAOS 19; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner).
Lambert, M. 1965: “La vie économique à Umma á l’époque d’Agadé,” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie
Orientale 59, 61-72, 115-126.
––––––– 1975: “Mesag le prince et Mesag le shabra (La vie economique à l’époque d’Agadé),” Rivista degli
Studi Orientali 49, 159-184.
Lambert, W. G. 1983: “An Early Hurrian Personal Name,” (Notes Brève), Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie
Orientale 77, 95.
Michalowski, P. 1986: “Mental Maps and Ideology: Reflections on Subartu,” in: H. Weiss (ed.), The Origins
of Cities in Dry-Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C. (Guilford, Co.: Four Quarters
Pub), 129-156.
–––––– 1993: “Memory and Deed: The Historiography of the Political Expansion of the Akkad State,” in: M.
Liverani (ed.), Akkad the First World Empire (HANE/S V; Padova: Sargon), 69-90.
–––––– 1999: “Sumer and the Dream of Subartu: Politics and the Geographical Imagination,” Orientalia
Lovaniensia analecta 96 (CRRAI 42), 305-315
Nissen, H., P. Damerow and R.K. Englund 1993: Archaic Bookkeeping; Early Writing Techniques of Economic
Administration in the Ancient Near East (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Otto, A. 2006: “Archeological Perspectives on the Localization of Naram-Sin’s Armanum,” Journal of

Ozaki, T. 2002: Keilschrifttexte aus japanischen Sammlungen (SANTAG 7; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
Pomponio, F. and G. Visicato 2000: “Tavolette cuneiformi del III millennio di una collezione privata,” Studi
Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 17, 3-12.
Postgate, J. N. 1986: “The Equids of Sumer, Again,” in R. Meadows and H. P. Uerpmann (eds.), Equids in the
Ancient World, (TAVO Beih. zur Reihe A Nr. 19/1; Wiesbaden: Reichert), 194-206.
Powell, M. 2003-2005: “Obst und Gemüse.A.I.,” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen
Sallaberger, W. 2000: “Texformular und Syntax in sumerischen Verwaltungstexten,” Acta Sumerologica 22,
249-277.
––––––– 2007: “From Urban Culture to Nomadism: A history of Upper Mesopotamia in the Late Third
Millennium,” in: C. Kuzucuoğlu and C. Marro (eds.), Sociétés humaines et changement climatique à la fin du
troisième millénaire: Une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en haute Mésopotamie? (Varia Anatolica XIX; Istanbul: Institut
français d’études anatolienne Georges-Dumézil), 417-456.
Salvini, M. 2000: “Les Hourrites dans la Djéziré syrienne,” Subartu VII, 287-297.
Sommerfeld, W. 1999: Die Texte der Akkade-Zeit, 1. Das Dijala-Gebiet: Tutub, (IMGULA Bd 3/1; Münster:
Rhema).
––––––– 2000: “Naram-Sîn, die “Große Revolte” und MAR.TUki,” in: J. Marzahn and H. Neumann (eds),
Assyriologica et Semitica; Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner (AOAT 252; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag), 420-436
Steinkeller, P. 1982: “The Question of Marḫaši: A Contribution to the Historical Geography of Iran in the Third
Millennium B.C.,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 72, 237-265.
282 Akkade is King
––––––– 1984: “Sumerian Miscellanea”, Aula Orientalis 2, 137-142.
––––––– 1998: “The Historical Background of Urkesh and the Hurrian Beginnings in Northern Mesopotamia,”
in G. Buccellati and M. Kelly-Buccellati (eds.), Urkesh and the Hurrians Studies in Honor of Lloyd Costen
(BM 26; Malibu: Undena), 75-98.
––––––– 1999: “Land-Tenure Conditions in Southern Babylonia under the Sargonic Dynasty,” in B. Böck,
E. Cancik-Kirschbaum and Th. Richter (eds.), Munuscula Mesopotamica: Festschrift für Johannes Renger,
(AOAT 267; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag), 553-571.
––––––– 2006: “New Light on Marhaši and Its Contact with Makkan and Babylonia,” Journal of Magan
Studies 1, 1-17.
Steinkeller, P., and J. N. Postgate 1991: Third-millennium legal and administrative texts in the Iraq Museum,
Baghdad (Mesopotamian Civilizations 4; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns).
Stol, M. 1995: “Old Babylonain Cattle,” Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture 8, 173-213.
Visicato, G. 2000: The Power and the Writing: The Early Scribes of Mesopotamia (Bethesda, Md.: CDL
Press).
Weiss, H and M. A. Courty 1993: “The Genesis and Collapse of the Akkadian Empire: The Accidental Refraction
of Historical law,” in: M. Liverani (ed.), Akkad the First World Empire. Structure, Ideology, Traditions (HANE/S
V; Padova: Sargon), 131-155.
Weiss, H., M. A. Courty, et. al. 1993: “The Genesis and Collapse of Third Millennium North Mesopotamian
Civilization,” Science 261, 995-1004.
Westenholz, Aa. 1995: “Review of P. Steinkeller and J. N. Postgate Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative
Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 115, 535-537.
––––––– 1999: “The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture,” in Aa. Westenholz and W. Sallaberger,
Mesopotamien. Akkade-Zeit und Ur III Zeit, (OBO 160/3; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 17-117.
––––––– 2000: “Assyriologists, Ancient and Modern, on Naramsin and Sharkalisharri”, in: J. Marzahn and H.
Neumann (eds.), Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für J. Oelsner (AOAT 252; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag),
545-556.
Wilcke, C. 1997: “Amar-girids Revolte gegen Naram-Su’en”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
Woods, C. 2006: “Bilingualism, Scribal Learning, and the Death of Sumerian”, in S. Sanders (ed.), Margins
of Writing, Origins of Cultures (the Oriental Institute of Chicago Oriental Institute Seminars 2; Chicago:
University of Chicago), 91-120.
Zarins, J. 1978: “The Domestic Equidae of Third Millennium B.C. Mesopotamia”, Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 30, 3-17.
Reconstructing the Old Sumerian Administrative Archives of the
é-mí – é- dba-ba 6 - Institution1
Gebhard J. Selz, Vienna
0. General considerations:
The following remarks are presented as a small token to Aage Westenholz, who made such
important contributions to the study of third-millennium cuneiform archives. Archival documents
often come from illicit excavations and their physical context and coherence therefore remains
uncertain.2 Even if their provenance is known, stratigraphic information and related excavation
circumstances are often not readily available. The case of palace G at Elba, where such texts
were actually discovered “on the shelves”, remains exceptional.3 A great deal of work has been
and continues to be devoted to reconstructing cuneiform archives, and usually has been focused
on the content of the texts, their (general) typology, and, when available, their prosopography
and dates. Most important, but not easily evaluated, are prosopographical data.4 Furthermore, the
internal structure of the administration and the significance of archival procedures has not yet been
an emphasis of research.5 This has several reasons: First, such studies are considered “second order”
research, presupposing to a large degree the evaluation of the other data just named; therefore they
often remain somewhat speculative. Second, the technical terminology of the original documents is
not always well understood, and, accordingly, the function of a single document or of a certain kind of
document often remains unclear. For instance, it is only some thirty years ago that it was realized that
a great number of documents were not simply inventories or receipts, but rather directives ordering
the performance of various tasks, notably the (future) issue and distribution of goods. The importance
of planning to the general and special purposes of ancient record-keeping therefore had to be studied.6
1 The English of this article was kindly revised by Craig Crossen, Vienna.
2 However, some tablet collections do apparently reflect an original archival context. In the Hermitage at
St. Petersburg, for instance, we find an unusual great number of tablets concerning activities of an “agricultural
office”, cf. Selz 1989, 200. An impressive attempt to reconstruct later “archives and libraries” was published by
Pedersén 1998; he also revised the situation of the Babylon findings thoroughly in 2005. However, even when
the archaeological situation is less well documented, an evaluation of the available (unpublished) materials can
provide interesting insights concerning the stratigraphic context, as was shown by Huh 2008.
3 See Matthiae et al. 1995, 112-125; cf. the reconstructions on pp. 114 and 122.
4 Prosopographical research is not easy indeed but a prerequisite, and therefore many historical
reconstructions are based on more or less incidental observations.
5 Of course, such studies do exist, but mostly in scattered articles; for third-millennium evidence
summarising studies, see among others, Visicato 1995, Foster 1982 and Sigrist 1992.
6 Fundamental was Englund 1990, who applied his approach to further research published in various
articles; see also Nissen 1990. I made similar observations already in my 1985 PhD dissertation, of which a
284 Akkade is King
Further, our research is somewhat hampered by the varying archival terminology and practices used
during the history of ancient Mesopotamia. This is indicative of possible changes in accounting
procedures. We know, of course, of the Old Akkadian efforts to introduce standardised measurements
and the efforts of the kings of the Ur III period “to put in order the accounts” which are discussed in
various articles.7 However, the history of the third-millennium accountancy in Mesopotamia remains
to be written. Finally, an additional complication comes from the various modern terminologies.
What exactly is meant by the terms “archive”, “dossier”, or “liasse” differs according to the various
regional archival traditions. This may affect and even obscure our interpretations.8
1. The Old Sumerian administrative texts from Lagash

Aage Westenholz has repeatedly shown how important and illuminating methodical
reconstructions of archival contexts can be. However, in cuneiform studies we are still far from
any history of archival procedures, and especially the “science of accountancy” deserves a new and
intensified attention. My interest in these matters was aroused when I first studied the Old Sumerian
documents in Leningrad and in Berlin. In the preparation of editions of the roughly 1,800 Old
Sumerian administrative documents, I have thus far collated about half of the original texts. At first,
I was primarily interested in the texts themselves, especially the correct reading of the numbers
and signs. Soon I noticed, however, that these documents provide additional information for an
understanding of the process of accounting. Some of these features were already known, others are
entirely new,9 and they have never been studied thoroughly. The following preliminary observations
are intended only to demonstrate that further studies along these lines seem promising.
revised version was published in 1995. In Selz 1999 I attempted to correct a widespread misconception of
Mesopotamian historiography, and show that planning was also an integral part of the emic Mesopotamian
notion of historiographic endeavours.
7 Cf. the concise discussion by Sallaberger 1999, 148; cf. also Selz 2010.
8 Papritz 1983 devotes many pages to describing such different terms which are not only language-
based but also the result of different cultural traditions of accountancy. As far as I am aware, cuneiform scholars
have paid little attention to clarifying their terms. I based my considerations on Franz 1989 and Papritz 1983.
9 The physical features of the tablets have hardly ever been considered. It would, e.g., be very rewarding
to investigate the different kinds of clay used in association with different types of texts. Even a cursory check
produced interesting results. For instance, lists enumerating offerings for deceased ancestors were made of a
much higher quality clay than ordinary disbursement lists or simple archival notes.
The following remarks are predominantly based on the Berlin texts, especially those copied by Marzahn
in VS 25 and VS 27, but observations from other collections are included. It is important to note that the
following is far from exhaustive; quite the contrary, it is intended merely as an incentive for further research.
I wish to express my gratitude to Joachim Marzahn of the Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin, with
whom I discussed many of the physical features of the documents. He was the first to study systematically in
the Berlin texts a feature which he termed “Tilgungsausbruch” or “excision of acquittance”. He enumerated
several such instances in the catalogue to his excellent copies of VS 25 and 27.
G. Selz: Reconstructing the Old Sumerian Administrative Archives of the é-mí 285
1.1. Archival interconnectivity

The significance of all archival documents is based on their archival interconnectivity. This
truism certainly applies to the roughly 1,800 Old Sumerian documents from the state of Lagash.
However, their connectivity – that is the correlation and the interrelation between the various
transactions documented – is not easily discerned. Nonetheless, these texts, almost all of which were
written in a timespan of less than 20 years and belong to the same large institutional household,
show a coherence and a richness in administrative formulations not found in earlier archives. The
fact that a number of ration lists (še-ŋar – and š e - b a – types) were compiled on a monthly basis
and combine the name of the month with the consecutive numbers of the disbursements, possibly
supplemented by a year number and the name of the ruler (or his wife), allows for a fairly precise
chronological ordering of a large proportion of these texts.10 This ordering provides a grid for the
many other texts which lack precise dates. From this we can gain many insights into the nature
of Lagash’s economic life, including the famous reconstruction of the agricultural cycle11 and the
frequency and significance of the state’s religious festivals and processions.12
1.2. The arrangement of the archives; archival collocation

Previous attempts to understand the procedures of collocation in this archive were chiefly
concerned with the thematic and factual connection of the contents, the realia dealt with in the
texts (“Sachzusammenhang”). In general, the subject matter, or the “Betreffzusammenhang”,
of the texts was described and their chronological ordering attempted. However, these principles
(“Pertinenzprinzip”) rarely helped improve our understanding of the archival system itself and the
underlying economic processes from which it originated.
1.2.1. A future systematic study of archives should be concerned with the following:
a) The chronological seriation.
b) The grouping of topics or subject matter according to economic sector.
c) The provenance and the setting of the actions in relation to administrative departments or
specialised offices.
d) The structure or tectonics of the archives. This includes not only the identification of the
various types of transactions and their implications, but also a determination of the archival hierarchy
of the documents.
1.2.2. Administrative archives. A very important question, though an answer to it is not yet
in sight, is: what was the purpose of these administrative archives?13 In contrast to the filing of
10 This sequence was established in Selz 1995, 306-313: Tabelle I.

11 Hruška 1990, 1995; cf. also Yamamoto 1979/1980, Marzahn 1989, and LaPlaca and Powell 1990
with reference to an alleged biennial cycle in agriculture (fallow system).
12 Selz, 1995 passim; Cohen 2001.
13 One might even doubt if the term “archive” is appropriate for this sort of record: most of them seem
286 Akkade is King
legal documents as proof of deeds and for further reference, the purpose of archiving administrative
records is not so clear. They may have some value over a number of months, or even years, but hardly
for any longer period of time. Indeed, the discard and destruction of texts, or even their reuse, is quite
likely, despite the fact that some documents had been intentionally collected and stored for a certain
time. Administrative records from Lagaš were unsealed. I am aware of only one exception: the text
AT 1, which is also the only example of a “Hüllentafel”. The seal reads: “On [the festival] of Nanše
from the hawr (or swamp)-fishermen”.
1.3. Format, size and structure of the tablets

The format of the Old Sumerian tablets from Lagash is quite distinctive. They are almost
square, though with rounded corners and a cushion-like appearance. The obverse is markedly convex,
the reverse usually much flatter. We should note, however, that a similar shape is attested for many
contemporary archives, even those in Upper Mesopotamia (Mari, Tell Beydar, and Ebla).
The size of the Lagash tablets varies considerably: the Berlin group ranges between
15.7x15.7x3.2 cm (VS 25 70) and 4.3x4.3x2.6 cm (VS 25 3). The largest known Lagash text is at
Yale: MLC 2610 = AWAS 123, h.: 19.4 cm, w.: 18.8 cm. The writing is arranged in cases (lines) which
form vertical columns.14 On the obverse, the tablet is read from the upper left corner to the bottom
right. Often the text continues on the reverse, starting at the right upper corner. However, the running
text – especially on larger documents – is sometimes wrapped: the subscript – colophon, especially
when it contains sums and dates, is then continued with the first line in the upper left corner (as on
the obverse). This “wrapping” allowed not only for a clear graphic distinction of the summarising
subscript, but also might have facilitated the thumbing through of the tablets while they were still
in the boxes in which they were kept: sums and subjects could be easily read.15 Such summarising
entries are sometimes also marked by an additional space at the beginning of the column; cf. VS
25 69 = AWAB 4 and VS 27 69 = AWAB 37. Very large tablets with hundreds of different entries
sometimes give subtotals as well as the grand total (summa summarum: g ú - a n - š è ). These subtotals,
which are normally collected in the middle columns of the reverse, are then to be read from the left
to have functioned as an aide-memoire. In German one would designate documents not drawn up for long-term
filing as “Kanzleischriftgut” or “Registraturschriftgut”.
14 The term “vertical” applies to the “modern” direction of reading; cf. the following note.
15 This presupposes that the scribes still used the “ancient” reading direction, with the text turned 90o
to the right, compared to the “modern” arrangement. This is consistent with the iconic origin of many signs.
However, Joachim Marzahn drew my attention to the fact that the writing – even in the earliest documents –
cannot be in full accordance to this correct “original” reading (unless every scribe was left handed); cf. Marzahn
2003; see also Powell 1981, Picchioni 1984-85, and Fitzgerald 2003. This might be explained by the fact that
the tablet was somehow held diagonally, this being the true starting point for both documented ways of reading;
see also Krebernik, Marzahn, and Selz 2005/2006; I would like to note here a similar proposal by Falkenstein,
as discussed in Fitzgerald 2003. Note that the “ancient” or “pictographically correct” reading direction is used
on monumental inscriptions right down into the Kassite period of the second millennium B.C.
to the right and, when there is enough space, flanked by empty columns.
Archived tablets were kept in boxes secured by clay labels (“plumbs”). The Sumerian term
for such labels is pisaŋ-dub(-ba) “tablet label”.16 These labels functioned similar to the traditional
sealings. This was probably induced by the archival needs for a more sophisticated classification of
the documents: the use of seals must have become impractical for clearly distinguishing the varieties
of files. This process also presupposes an increasing literacy among the administrative clergy.
In the documents, a new paragraph, section or clause was marked either by an empty column,
by an empty line (case), or simply by an empty space in the upper part of a case. Such features,
unfortunately not always rendered correctly in the extant copies of the texts, are clearly important for
textual interpretation.17
1.4. Peculiarities of writing: number notations

Other physical characteristics of the Old Sumerian documents are also important. Best known
is perhaps the fact that, for numerical signs, many tablets use wedge-shaped (cuneiform) numbers in
addition to the rounded (curvelinear) ones incised with the stubby end of the stylus. This difference
in number form was used in several ways: 1. It was used for the smaller units in the different systems
of measurement for length, area, or capacity: thus, e.g., the capacity measures PA P and s i l à were
generally written with cuneiform signs. 2. The different number forms18 were often used to distinguish
(semantically) between objects in the texts. In wool ration lists, for example, we find the amount of
wool rendered with “rounded” (curvelinear) numbers, whereas the number of recipients is given in
cuneiform (cf. VS 27 69 = AWAB 40; but cf. VS 27 90 = AWAB 39!). Similarly, in barley fodder
texts the amount of fodder is written in round (curvelinear) numbers but the number of animals fed
is given in cuneiform. 3. Exceptional are some barley ration lists in which certain rations are written
with wedge-shape signs. The usual assumption is that these rations were, for whatever reason, not
distributed at the time the document was drawn up. However, what this really signifies within the
re-distributive economic system remains unclear.
Rather commonly attested as an archival notation is the sign k ú r or PA P, which is probably
comparable to our “tick mark” or “check mark” for “ticking off” items in a list.19 It seems reasonable
to assume that the “ticked off” entries are those for which the connected transaction had not yet been
executed at the time the document was compiled.20
16 Cf. Fitzgerald 2003.

17 We should mention that in earlier periods the scribes used different ways for drawing up such lists;
see the discussion in Krebernik, Marzahn, and Selz 2005/2006.
18 Cf. also Krebernik, Marzahn and Selz 2005/2006.
19 See AWAS p. 186. Cf. AWEL pp. 208 and 509, and see especially the texts VS 25 72 = AWAB 75
and VS 25 16 = AWAB 137.
20 See the forthcoming discussion on VS 25 72 = AWAB 75.
288 Akkade is King
1.5. Physical alterations to the tablets: Excision marks and “damages”

It is not always obvious that damaged tablets got that way as a result of careless excavations
and handling. Indeed, a number of tablets show damage which was clearly intentionally inflicted
upon them in antiquity. Such damage has been termed a “excision of acquittance” or „Tilgungs
ausbruch“ by J. Marzahn, who first made systematic observations of it.21 Perhaps to the same category
belongs the broken upper left corner seen on so many of the tablets. The conjecture that such breaks
indicate a tablet with no further use for planning and distribution, and therefore, so to speak, taken
out of circulation and sent to the “morgue”, remains to be confirmed. However, the excisions, which
are often more or less violent erasures, are clearly of archival significance, even when their precise
meaning is not perfectly clear.
In the Berlin archive such deliberate excisions are clearly visible on the tablets VS 25 11 =
AWAB 3 (I-A-2.); VS 25 14 = AWAB 6 (I-A-4.); VS 27 4 = AWAB 12 (I-B-2.); VS 27 33 = AWAB
23 (I-D-2.); VS 25 1 = AWAB 33 (I-F-7.); VS 27 9 = AWAB 57 (I-K-4.); VS 25 35 = AWAB 117 (II-
E-3.); VS 25 64 = AWAB 158 (III-B-5.); and VS 27 47 = AWAB 159 (III-B-5.).22
The most telling example is perhaps VS 25 1 = AWAB 33. The subject of this text is a barley
loan; therefore the amounts excised likely were parts of the loan “paid back”. This is confirmed by
the text VS 25 35 = AWAB 117, which concerns deliveries of fish and in which are marked those
amounts of fish not yet delivered. A similar function for the excisions may be postulated for VS
25 64 = AWAB and VS 27 47 = AWAB 159, two texts concerning the inspection of small cattle: a
connection with imposed deliveries not yet handed over seems likely.
A number of texts show related irregularities. In VS 25 11 = AWAB 3 11:5-8 the wedged-
shaped number may refer to subsidiary calculations (“Hilfsberechnung”). This is also the reason for
21 J. Marzahn gave account of his observations in a talk during the 45 RAI in Chicago. To the best of
my knowledge his paper remains unpublished, so I quote from his abstract:
“Until recently, cuneiform texts were generally examined only with regard to their contents, not to
their form and physical characteristics. ... When copying texts attentively one recognises [traces] ... which can
only have been effected by artificial means (tools) during the period of their use. A summary of such surface
‘disturbances’, within the corpus of texts from Pre-Sargonic Girsu, shows that the scribes used a differentiated
system of features, in conjunction with the normal ‘process of writing’, to characterise certain processes of
administration. ... ‘rudenesses of accounting’ ....”
22 The intention of such excisions was varied. But for the following cases in the Berlin corpus I am not
yet able to provide an explanation: VS 27 76 = AWAB 24 (I-D-3.), VS 27 21 = AWAB 45 (I-I-4.), VS 25 37 =
AWAB 80 (II-A-6.), VS 27 42 = AWAB 83 (II-A-6.), VS 27 57 = AWAB 84 (II-A-6.), VS 27 62 = AWAB 91
(II-C-4.), VS 27 81 = AWAB 143 (II-E-5.), VS 27 29 = AWAB 151 (III-A-2.), VS 27 25 = AWAB 164 (III-F-1),
and VS 25 85 = AWAB 203 (III-G-6.). Cases of doubtfully deliberate excisions are: VS 25 66 = AWAB 7 (I-
B-1.), VS 27 72 = AWAB 13 (I-B-2.), VS 25 89 = AWAB 34 (I-G-1.), VS 27 80 = AWAB 39 (I-I-3.), VS 25
19 = AWAB 41 (I-I-3.), VS 27 79 = AWAB 44 (I-I-3.), VS 27 44 = AWAB 52 (I-K-1.), VS 25 46 = AWAB 62
(I-K-6.), VS 27 93 = AWAB 112 (II-E-2.), VS 27 51 = AWAB 131 (II-E-3.), VS 25 28 = AWAB 135 (II-E-3.),
VS 27 13 = AWAB 148 (II-A-1.), VS 27 26 = AWAB 170 (III-F-2.), and VS 27 24 = AWAB 209 (IV).
the number “22” in VS 27 18 = AWAB 173 vi 1. The tablet VS 25 20 = AWAB 109 shows on its
edges the impression of textile. VS 27 7 = AWAB 36 (I-H-1.), which concerns bread rations for the
Baba-festival, lacks the amount of bread issued. This suggests that several stages were involved in
the drawing up of such an accounting text.
2.1. The terminology of accountancy. “Innere Archivvermerke”

Our observations have so far concerned chiefly the process of accounting on a given tablet,
though this sometimes indicates its broader archival function.23 But a number of short phrases or terms
recurrent on the tablets give us additional insights into the structure or tectonic of these archives.
Most important in this respect are:
2.1.1. p isaŋ-d u b (-b a) “basket for tablets” or “Tafelkorb”. Tablets starting with this entry
functioned as the labels for the baskets in which groups of tablets were kept, apparently as part of the
accounting process. These labels are extremely important for the reconstruction of early Sumerian
accountancy procedures, as they state the contents of the group of tablets preserved in each basket or
box. Among the Berlin texts we find: VS 14 88, which refers to a tablet basket with texts concerning
barley for seed and fodder received by the head of plough-teams; VS 14 191, which alludes to a tablet
basket with texts concerning mašdari’a-deliveries distributed to the deceased social elite; and VS 14
192, which mentions a tablet basket with texts concerning the cows counted during inspection.
2.1.2. šu -niŋ ín tablets or summary tablets (“Summentafeln”). In a number of instances
this general term for summaries functions as a header for the tablet’s text. Such tablets collect and
enumerate the detailed summaries, sometimes totalling the number of different text sub-types.
They may refer to monthly or even yearly amounts of deliveries of a given commodity – essential
information for estimating the size and structure of the Lagashite economy. The examples VS 25
12, 23, 73 and 65 = AWAB 19-22, and the documents STH 1 2-4 = AWAS 1-3, 24 are essential for
differentiating the various types of grain distribution and grain deliveries.25 The document VS 25 23
= AWAB 20 deserves special mention. Drawn up at the end of Lugalanda‘s reign, it summarises the
23 We note again that this treatment is far from being exhaustive. Thus, the much discussed bala-
additions, a multi-functional converting fee, is not discussed here. [A full treatment of its function is given in
the PhD dissertation (Munich) of Hagan Brunke, “Essen in Sumer”]. Another important feature asking for an
in-depth discussion is the arrangement of enumerated items in the documents, which generally show the same
order as in the lexical lists.
I do not include here a discussion of the the frequent phrases e-da-ti/se 11 which were treated extensively
by Magid 2001. Note, that Magid is one of the few scholars who paid some attention to the question of profit
wthin the Sumerian economy, labeled by him as “quota economy” (2001, 323f).
24 In my editions I classified them as documents of the type I-C-1; cf. the following note.
25 In Selz 1995, 49-69, I analysed and discussed in full the structure and typology of these grain
distribution and grain delivery texts (Getreidezuteilungs- and Getreidelieferungslisten), based upon the
pioneering work of Maekawa 1973-75. A complete list of these type I-C-1 texts is given on pp. 65-69; cf. also
Magid 2001.
290 Akkade is King
amounts of the different types of grain distribution and grain deliveries,26 and is clearly connected
with the contemporary barley distribution text RTC 54, which mentions nearly identical amounts.
Such summary tablets apparently were composed at different administrative levels. In VS 25 65 =
AWAB 22 we have an annual summary of the barley distribution of the rather small institution of
children ((é-)nam-dumu),27 which was part of the larger é - m í – é - d b a-b a 6 complex.
From Maekawa’s study, we know that the é - m í – é - d b a-b a 6 institution was in a more or
less permanent state of reorganisation.28 The texts VS 27 2 = AWAB 25 and VS 27 98 = AWAB 26
(Type I-E-1) prove that in the 6th royal year of Uru-inimgina (his 7th year of rule) a special accounting
department for emmer wheat was formed. These texts corroborate the evidence of the texts VS 27 1
= AWAB 8 and VS 27 40 = AWAB 16 concerning a reorganisation of the grain-issuing offices and
their accounting procedures.
2.1.3. lá-a texts: book debts (“Außenstände”). Tablets or entries headed by this term refer to
debts, both book debts resulting from unfulfilled delivery obligations, or, possibly, debts by loan.29
These texts are central for any discussion and reconstruction of the redistributive aspects of this
economy; see below 2.1.14.
2.1.4. d u b -bé -dah -ha-še-b a- k a m probably means “addition on the tablet concerning
barley distributions“; cf. Nik I 54 2:2.
2.1.5. d u b -tu r-tu r-ta – NIŊÍ N “to collect from the small tablets”. This term is found
in DP 248 iii 5 and probably also in DP 246 iv 2 in connection with the entry s a r- r u - a m 6 “this is a
summarising excerpt“. The term designates a compilation of entries from various small tablets, but
its precise function in the process of accounting remains unclear.
2.1.6. d u b -daŋ al(-a) e-/nu-ŋ a r “this is (not) transferred to the larger tablet”. This
rather common notation indicates whether or not the listed transactions were also entered into the
general ledgers of the accountants. The term is mostly used with transactions concerning livestock,
especially inspection or branding. Another good example is DP 470 iii 6: d u b - d a ŋ a l - ŋ i š - g u r 7 -
ka-ka nu-ŋar, “(this) was not (yet) put on the larger tablets of the timber store“, meaning that the
wood, tabulated, felled, and even shipped, has not yet been entered into the ledgers of the lumber
yard. Interesting is also VS 27 68 = AWAB 79, which adds the phrase l á - a n u - t a - z i , “debts not
(yet) cancelled“, an expression probably meaning that the delivery obligations are not yet fulfilled;
see also Nik I 191 und 192.
2.1.7. d u b -daŋ al(-ta) nu-ta-zi “not (yet) removed from the larger tablet”. This term
26 In my typology these are classified as types I-A-1 to 4, and I-B-1.

27 I classified these texts as type I-A-4; cf. Selz 1995, 53-55, 145f., and 277f.
28 Maekawa 1973-75; Selz 1995, 101.
29 My 1999/2000 article attempts to show how these types of debts were originally connected and how
they contributed to the evolution of the concept of credit and loan, leading to all kinds of contractual and legal
stipulations.
refers to withdrawals not (yet) transferred and noted in the larger ledgers; cf. VS 25 59 = AWAB
59.
2.1.8. dub-anše-ŋ iš-ka-ta n u -ta -zi “not (yet) removed from the tablets concerning
‘working donkeys’”. This entry in VS 27 14 = AWAB 58 attests to special ‘donkey’ registers. A
similar register dealt with draught-oxen, as is shown by the entry d u b - g u d - ŋ i š - k a ( - k a / - t a ) n u -
ŋar (nu-ta-zi) in Nik I 207 and VS 14 58.
2.1.9. dub ŋ iš ki-mú -a ba-ši d -d a -ta n u -ta -zi “not (yet) removed from the tablet of
the wood counted at its growing place” (DP 447 iii 3-4). Timber, like livestock, was also regularly
surveyed and tabulated. During this process even its future purpose was established. Apparently the
procedures documented in VS 27 79 = AWAB 166 were no exceptions.
2.1.10. z i-(z i-)ga “expenditure(s)”. This general term refers to outlays of goods by one
sector of the administration; cf. VS 25 56 = AWAB 65 esp. v 1; see also DP 453 iv 2-6; Nik I 156 and
its connection to VAT 445930 = AWAB 88 and MAH 15856. An exceptional usage appears in VS 25
100 = AWAB 198, where two persons named Ur-Ninpiriŋ and Urni are described as “missing” and
their working duties therefore transferred to a certain Inim-du and Šeš-lu-du respectively.
2.1.11. e-ta-sar I call phrases of the form e - t a - s a r, “he/she has copied”, annotations of
transcription (“Abschrift-Vermerke”).31 These phrases most probably indicate the transfer of data
concerning material or persons from one central ledger to another, e.g. from the ledger of the é - m í
– é- d baba 6 to the ledger of the “palace”.
2.1.12. dub agr ig b a-DU-a e- ta -s a r “(this) was copied from the tablet which the steward
has taken away” STH 1, 14 = AWAS 13. See also the commentary in AWAS p. 164f.
2.1.13. dub-še -ba-ta – sar “to copy from the barley distribution lists” (STH 1 19 = AWAS
18) and dub -še-b a- d nin -ŋír-su -ka-ta — s a r, “to copy from the barley distribution lists of
(the god) Nin-Girsu” (DP 140), are interesting remarks. They not only confirm the basic distinction
between the barley distribution and barley delivery lists,32 they also support the assumption that the
Nin-Girsu temple possessed an economic institution quite similar to that of the é- m í – é - d b a-b a 6 .
2.1.14. Two terms are closely related to the functioning of the redistributive economy: d u b -
bi- e- da/P I-bal and gú -na/-n e-n e- a ŋ a r frequently occur together on the l á - a tablets, texts
concerning book-debts, or rather unfulfilled delivery obligations, mentioned in 2.1.3. above.33 d u b
in the first expressions refers most probably to such a l á - a document, a debt note. The expression
as a whole apparently means that the “debts”, the open obligations of a person or a group of persons,
30 This tablet is missing in the Berlin collection since World War II. Interpretations are therefore based
on the transcription of Deimel 1926, 28.
31 See already AWAS 164f.
32 The existence of these two distinct types of ledger was already observed by A. Deimel; cf. Selz 1995,
50ff.).
33 I discussed earlier interpretations of such texts in AWAS p. 403.
292 Akkade is King
was transferred onto that tablet.34 Accordingly, the second phrase means that this specific amount
was also entered into those persons‘ larger account of debits or as an entry in the general debit of the
accountancy.
Here I can only briefly mention that such book debts are attested for a wide range of objects,
such as the barduba-payments, flax, dairy products, barley and emmer, flour, livestock and fish,
wool, and agricultural tools. I do not have room to further elaborate on this central topic of this early
economy; however, I would emphasise that the functioning of this redistributive economy in all
likelihood also allowed a margin for private profit, thus providing an incentive for production.
2.2. Duplicates and serialisation: the chronological order of transactions

The study of the Old Sumerian archival texts has so far yielded a number of pseudo-duplicates
and, no doubt, future research will increase that number. Related to this is the chronological order of
the document, with regards to which the various types of barley distributions and barley deliveries
(Selz 1995, 50ff.) as well as the field texts ( Marzahn 1989 and LaPlaca and Powell 1990) have been
rather well studied. In the following I will discuss a few examples:
2.2.1. Examples of quasi-duplicates. STH 1 8 = AWAS 7 = has as quasi-duplicate STH 1 11
= AWAS 10, a barley distribution list of (the goddess) Baba, for people holding a land allotment. I
believe the production of these quasi-duplicates was a consequence of a reform of the accounting
system at this time,35 but this conjecture can only be confirmed by a thorough investigation of the
various text-types. Similarly, TSA 13 partially duplicates STH 1 18 = AWAS 17, a document of
barley deliveries from the temple of Baba to i g i n u d u -workers, carriers, and individual š à - d u b ( -
ba)-workers.36 DP 45, a document with offerings for deities during the barley feast of the goddess
Nanše, is duplicated by STH 1 41 = AWAS 40. The latter version is evidently just an improved
version of the former, which contains a great many errors. A chronological ordering demonstrates
that the drafting of MVN 3 6 = AWAS 55, the quasi-duplicate of TSA 20, was the result of a clerical
mistake in dating.37
VAT 4459 = AWAB 88, which deals with a b a r d u b a -payment of sheep supervised by a
commissioner, seems, according to the debit notation in 6:2-4, to have been issued somewhat later
than MAH 15856. Related to these documents is Nik I 156, which mentions the later assignment of
these sheep for offerings.
The construction plan STH 1 42 = AWAS 41 has DP 613 as a quasi-duplicate. If we compare
the entries in both documents (see AWAS, 392ff.), we see that the former is a draft. The most striking
34 Cl. Wilcke suggested to me the following translation “hat er ihm/ ihnen die (Schuld)tafel darüber(,
d.h. über die ‘angehängten, angelasteten’ (lá) ‘Außenstände’ (lá-a)) ausgefertigt”.
35 See AWAS 118f., 144f. and 492.
36 AWAS 207.
37 AWAS 441.
argument for this is the fact that in AWAS 41 the subscript-colophon is still missing. Thus it seems
reasonable to assume that several quasi-duplicates had been preliminary drafts.
Two nearly identical documents VS 25 19 = AWAB 41 and VS 25 54 = AWAB 42, texts
concerning the distribution of wool to the “close personnel”, differ only in their year dates (Lug. 3 and.
Lug. 4). These texts are not duplicates but attest to the continuity of certain economic operations.
DP 274 and DP 275 from the year Enz. 5 are almost identical tablets, but the reason for their
close similarity is not obvious.
VS 27 25 = AWAB 164 is duplicated by Nik I 5. These texts are interesting because they use
the archival term mu-bi-šè e-sar, “he has written (this) to their names”. They also provide another
good example of how the two different number sign notations are used to make distinctions between
items: here one type of number sign notation is used for the donkey-teams returned (curvelinear) and
the other for those still owed (cuneiform).
VS 25 101 = AWAB 195 records the distribution of work on a weir and has DP 653 as quasi-
duplicate. The latter text differs from the former in that the subscript-colophon is incomplete: instead
of listing each individual’s duty, it gives only the professional groups responsible for the work. The
two texts may have served different purposes with respect to the labour organisation.
Highly unusual are the inventory lists of the possessions of Geme-Baba, VS 27 75 = AWAB
169 and VS 27 26 = AWAB 170, which were issued in successive years. Other than their subscripts,
the texts are almost identical. However, the subscript of AWAB 170 records that items enumerated
were handed over to Di-Utu , the head of a plough team.
2.2.2. Excerpts: The term sar-ru- a m 6 , means something like “summarising excerpts“ (see
above 2.1.5). This interpretation of the term was already proposed by V. Christian (1959/60, 130f.);
the reading sar-šub is not excluded. With reference to the above discussion (see 2.1.5) of the
dub-tur-tur-phrase in the texts DP 246 and 248, DP 280, a document recording l á - a book debts
might be interpreted as a summary of the various debt entries of the fishermen mentioned. The text
corroborates this interpretation. We read in v 3: lá-a 1. 2. 3. t é š - t é š - a e - ŋ a r : “He has compiled
(here) the debt notes of the first, the second (and) the third (years)”. The same interpretation is
possible for DP 330, CTNMC 1 and Nik I 91 (cf. AWEL, 307f.). For the cloth distribution list DP
194, however, another interpretation seems necessary.
Two pisaŋ-dub texts, Nik I 129 and 165, show that these summarising excerpt lists were
kept separately: the first document refers to barley field allotments and leaseholds, and the second
concerns the inventory of small cattle.
2.2.3. Section lists (“Ausschnittslisten”). By this term I refer to complex transactions
documented on more than one tablet. In several instances we find an archival term, which explicitly
mentions that a transaction was documented on more than one tablet. Thus we find the phrase d u b -
bi- 2- am 6 , “there are two tablets for this” in DP 438 iv 3, 580 iv 1(?), and 593 vii 1[?]; and in VS
14 71 iii 4, 72 x 4, VS 27 72 = AWAB13 vi 1, VS 25 93 = AWAB 73 ii 6, and VS 25 21 = AWAB
294 Akkade is King
176 v 2. - The phrase dub-bi-3-am 6 , “there are three tablets for this (transaction)”, is attested in
VS 14 23 iv 1. These phrases were previously misunderstood.38 VS 27 72 = AWAB 13, a document
concerning emmer and barley deliveries by the princess from the estate b a r á - G U R 5 - a , allows the
reconstruction of the chronological sequence VS 27 4 = AWAB 12 followed by VS 27 72 = AWAB
13, and finally VS 14 23.
VS 25 93 = AWAB 73 concerns land allotments to a variety of persons. For the first part of the
text (i 1-ii 6) a preliminary tablet must have been issued in advance.
VS 25 21 = AWAB 176 is a land register concerning the field U r ì - r ú - a ( ? ) . Its predecessor
tablet is still unidentified; but that the text belonged to a series is without doubt.
2.2.3.1 Comparable to the meaning of term just discussed is the phrase 2 - k a m - m a g u 7 -a -
am 6 , “it is the second consumption”, which is attested in VS 14 137, a document concerning the
festival provisions for the funeral of Bara-namtara. The first tablet of this series is TSA 9, which
records different groups of people provisioned at that event.
2.3. Many similar observation concerning the archival structure of this comparatively small
corpus are possible. To mention just one further example: The offering lists for deities extensively
studied in Selz 1995 include a number of documents containing the phrase ( u d u - ) g u 7 - a - PN - k a m ,
“this is the consumption (of sheep and goats) of PN”, which refers to the disbursement of foodstuffs
from the office of PN. A comparison of all the offering lists also shows that the offerings came from
different offices, and that only later were these separate lists compiled into a “complete” offering list,
which was indicated by the subscript níŋ - ŋ i š - t a g - g a “offering material”.
3. Results
In this paper I have tried to show that the study of cuneiform “archives” needs to take full
account of various features, which so far have received little attention. One must consider not only
the messages of the texts, but take full account of the medium on which, and the manner in which, the
texts have been written. This is not an easy task but, as I have tried to show, quite rewarding.
38 See recently Marzahn 1991, 10 and cf. the forthcoming commentary to VS 25 21 = AWAB 176 v 2.
Bibliography
Christian V. 1959/60: “Sumerische Miszellen”, Archiv für Orientforschung 19, 128-131.
Cohen, A. C. 2001: “Dehistoricizing Strategies in Third-Millennium B.C.E.: Royal Inscriptions and Rituals”,
in: T. Abusch, et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the XLV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale: historiography in
the cuneiform world (CRRAI 45; Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press), 99-111.
Deimel, A. 1926: “Die Viehzucht der Šumerer zur Zeit Urukagina’s”, Orientalia 20, 1-61.
Englund, R. K. 1990: Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei (BBVO 10; Berlin: Reimer).
Fitzgerald, M. 2003: “Pisan-dub-ba and the Direction of Cuneiform Script”, Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin
2003:2.
Foster, B. R. 1982: Umma in the Sargonic Period (Hamden, Ct.: Published for the Academy by Archon Books).
Franz, E. G. 1989: Einführung in die Archivkunde (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft).
Huh, S. K. 2008: Studien zur Region Lagaš. Von der Ubaid- bis zur altbabylonischen Zeit (AOAT 345; Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag).
Krebernik, M., J. Marzahn, and G. J. Selz 2005/2006: “Eine Fara-zeitliche ‘Tabelle’”, Archiv für Orientforschung
51, 45-52.
Hruška, B. 1990: “Das landwirtschaftliche Jahr im Alten Sumer”, Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 5, 105-114.
––––––– 1995: Sumerian Agriculture: New Findings (Berlin: Prinprints of the Max-Planck-Institut für
Wissenschaftsgeschichte).
LaPlaca P. J. and M. A. Powell, 1990: “The Agricultural cycle and the calendar at pre-Sargonic Girsu”, Bulletin
on Sumerian Agriculture 5, 65-104.
Maekawa: K. 1973/75: “The Development of the é-mí in Lagash During Early Dynastic III”, Mesopotamia
8/9, 77-144.
Magid, G. 2001: “Micromanagement in the é-mí / é-dBa-ú: Notes on the Organization of Labor at Early
Dynastic Lagash”, in: T. Abusch et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the XLV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
: historiography in the cuneiform world (CRRAI 45; Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press), 313-328.
Marzahn, J. 1989: Die Grundlagen der sumerischen Getreideproduktion in Lagaš (Jena: PhD dissertation).
––––––– 1991: Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Girsu/Lagaš (Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der

Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin ; n.F., Heft 9 (25); Berlin: Akademie-Verlag)
––––––– 2003: “Die Keilschrift”, in: W. Seipel (ed.), Der Turmbau zu Babel. Ursprung und Vielfalt von Sprache
und Schrift (Wien: Kunsthistorisches Museum), 81-92.
Matthiae, P., F. Pinnock, and G. Scandone-Matthiae 1995: Ebla. Alle origini della civiltà urbana—Trent’anni
di scavi in Siria dell’ universitá di Roma, La Sapienza (Milano: Electa).
Nissen, H. J., P. Damerow, and R. K. Englund 1990: Frühe Schrift und Techniken der Wirtschaftsverwaltung
im alten Vorderen Orient (Hildesheim: Verlag Franzbecker).
Papritz, J. 1983: Archivwissenschaft (3 vols., 2nd rev. edition; Marburg: Archivschule).

296 Akkade is King
Picchioni, S. A. 1984-85: “The Direction of Cuneiform Writing: Theory and Evidence”, Studie Orientali e
Linguistici 2, 11-26.
Pedersén, O. 1998: Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500-300 B.C. (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press).
––––––– 2005: Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon. Die Tontafeln der Grabung Robert Koldeweys 1899-1917
(Saarbrücke: Saarländische Druckerei und Verlag).
Powell, M. A. 1981: “Three Problems in the History of Cuneiform Writing, Origins, Direction of Script,
Literacy”, Visible Language 15, 419-440.
Sallaberger, W. 1999: “Ur III-Zeit”, in: W. Sallaberger, and Aa. Westenholz, Mesopotamien. Akkade-Zeit und Ur
III-Zeit (OBO 160/3; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 199-390.
Selz, G. J. 1989: Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden der Eremitage zu Leningrad, Altsumerische

Verwaltungstexte aus Lagaš (FAOS 15/1 =AWEL; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag).
––––––– 1993a: Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden aus amerikanischen Sammlungen. Altsumerische

Verwaltungstexte aus Lagaš. Teil 2, 1. Abschnitt: Die Texte aus dem Harvard Semitic Museum (FAOS 15/2-1 =
AWAS; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag).
––––––– 1993b: Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden aus amerikanischen Sammlungen. Altsumerische

Verwaltungstexte aus Lagaš. Teil 2, 2. Abschnitt: Die Texte aus der Free Library Philadelphia; Yale University
Library, Babylonian Section; Indices, Textkopien, Photos. 415-748 und xxix Tafeln (FAOS 15/2-2 = AWAS;
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag).
––––––– 1995: Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadtstaates von Lagaš (Philadelphia;
Occasional Publications of the Samuel noah Kramer fund, 13).
––––––– 1999: “Vorm ‘vergangenen Geschehen’ zur ‘Zukunftsbewältigung’. Überlegungen zur Rolle der
Schrift in Ökonomie und Geschichte”, in: B. Böck et al. (eds.), Munuscula Mesopotamica. Festschrift für
Johannes Renger (AOAT 267; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag), 465-512.
––––––– 1999/2000: “‘Wirtschaftskrise—Legitimationskrise—Staatskrise’. Zur Genese mesopotamischer Rechts-

vorstellungen zwischen Planwirtschaft und Eigentumsverfassung”, Archiv für Orientforschung 46/47, 1-44.
––––––– 2010: “‘He put in order the accounts ...’. Remarks on the Early Dynastic Background of Administrative
Reorganisations in the Ur III State”, in: L. Kogan et al. (eds), Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale Vol. 2: City Administration in the Ancient Near East (Babel und Bibel 5; Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns) 5-30.
––––––– (forthcoming): Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden aus Berlin (AWAB; Neue Beihefte zur
WZKM; Wien: LIT-Verlag).
Sigrist, M. 1992: Drehem (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press).
Visicato, G. 1995: The bureaucracy of Šuruppak : administrative centres, central offices, intermediate structures
and hierarchies in the economic documentation of Fara (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag ).
Yamamoto, Sh. 1979/1980: “The Agricultural Year in Pre-Sargonic Girsu – Lagash (I)”, Acta Sumerologica 1,
85-97, (II) Acta Sumerologica 2, 169-187.
Altakkadische Duelle
WALTER SOMMERFELD, MARBURG
Zu den spannendsten, anregendsten und produktivsten wissenschaftlichen Auseinander-

setzungen meines Lebens gehören die Debatten mit Aage Westenholz. Unsere Korrespondenz,
die wir 1987 aufgenommen haben, ist seitdem auf den Umfang von insgesamt einigen Hundert
Seiten angewachsen, hinzu kommen noch umfangreichere Anlagen von vorläufigen Manuskripten,
Materialien usw. In einigen persönlichen Treffen haben wir die alte Kunst des a - d a - m ì n d u 11 -ga
aufleben lassen.1
Die diskutierten Themen sind weit gespannt und haben kaum einen Bereich der philologischen
Methoden, der altakkadischen Orthographie, Phonologie und Morphologie ausgelassen. Wir haben
Serien von schwierigen Textstellen und unklaren Etymologien diskutiert, uns wechselseitig neue
Ideen sowie Manuskripte und Entwürfe zur Begutachtung vorgelegt. Aber ebenso haben wir auch
grundsätzliche Auseinandersetzungen über den Sinn der Altorientalistik geführt, die Lage im Irak
und die internationale Politik erörtert, über den Umgang mit Funden aus Raubgrabungen gestritten
und Neuigkeiten ausgetauscht.
Selten waren wir gleich einer Meinung, oft führten die Debatten zum Resultat, daß ich meine
ersten Entwürfe und Konzepte umgestaltet habe, und immer habe ich von den enormen Kenntnissen
und der unnachgiebigen Kritik des Gesprächspartners profitiert, Ideen weiterentwickeln und eine
Fülle von Details verbessern können.
Dieser Anlaß gibt mir nun Gelegenheit, mit einer kleinen Auswahl von Zitaten aus 20 Jahren
Korrespondenz zu illustrieren, wie lebendig, vielseitig und herausfordernd der wissenschaftliche
Austausch mit AW ist, und damit einige der wunderbaren Eigenschaften des Kollegen und Freundes
deutlicher werden zu lassen.
AW liebt wechselseitige, permanente Kritik, scharf und kräftig, schonungslos formuliert:
Noch einmal: das scheint mir methodisch verfehlt. (5.12.1987) – Meine erste Reaktion, als ich
sah … war „Unmöglich! Nur ein Assyriologe kann so denken“. (15.2.1988) – Bei der Lektüre habe
ich oft den Eindruck gehabt, dass das Arabische eine Art Tyrannei auf Ihr Denken ausübt, als ob Sie
sich vorstellten, dass das Altakkadische eine Abart vom Arabischen, in Keilschrift geschrieben, sei.
… Ich muss gestehen, dass nach meinem Empfinden Sie es eher sind, der den Charakter verkennt,
nicht nur von der altakkadischen Orthographie, sondern auch von dem Wenigen, was wir eigentlich
1 Einige Einblicke in diese Werkstatt der Altakkadistik hat Cale Johnson gewonnen, auf die er sich
folgendermaßen bezieht (2006): „In fact, Sommerfeld’s proposals have undoubtedly been further strengthened
by a fascinating dialogue that has taken place over the years between Sommerfeld and Aage Westenholz, which
I was privileged to observe on several occasions while preparing a catalogue of ED IIIb and Old Akkadian
tablets for inclusion in the catalogue of cuneiform tablets maintained by CDLI.“
298 Akkade is King
wissen. (30.11.88)
Mit diesem Brief sende ich Ihnen zwei Artikel – bitte kritisieren! (10.3.1990) – Schliesslich
möchte ich dankbar anerkennen, dass Sie sich meiner Deutung gegenüber so kritisch verhalten
haben. Ist das doch unendlich mehr befördernd als respektvolle Zustimmung! (28.6.1990) – Für
jedwede Kritik wäre ich sehr dankbar! (19.10.90)
Unmöglich. (12.9.96) – Ihre Mitteilungen … sind interessant, wenn auch etwas unbefriedigend.
(12.1.98) – Ihre Deutung muss falsch sein! (28.5.98) – Leider bin ich überzeugt, dass Ihre Lesung …
falsch ist. (9.2.99) – Dieser Brief wird nur davon handeln, dass Sie Unrecht haben! (14.12.04)
Ich hoffe, dass diese Bemerkungen Sie interessieren und zu Widerlegung provozieren werden.
(12.9.96) – Ich möchte … Ihnen das Manuskript zur scharfen Kritik senden. (17.4.97) –
Ich wäre Ihnen sehr verpflichtet, …, wenn Sie das Ganze kritisch durchlesen möchten und
scharf rügen, was Sie unzufriedenstellend finden; ich bin sehr gespannt darauf! (10.6.97) –
Bitte laufend kritisieren. (18.1.99) – Es würde mich interessieren, was Sie mir erwidern könnten.
…Widerstand, bitte! (14.12.04) – Kritische Bemerkungen von Ihnen sind stets hochwillkommen!
(20.1.06)
Natürlich erhielt er meine Repliken in dichtem Takt:
Ich muß leider bemerken, daß ich Ihre Interpretation für recht unwahrscheinlich halte,
sprachlich und sachlich. (WS 16.7.90) – Hier bin ich allerdings überzeugt, daß ich recht habe – aus
folgenden Gründen [sechs Punkte]. Genug Argumente?! (WS 9.5.99) – Völlig unglaubwürdig! (WS
11.3.03)
Die Antwort kam mail-postwendend: Hier verstehe ich Ihre Einwände wirklich nicht. …Wie
Sie sehen, gebe ich nicht ohne Schwertschlag auf. Es würde mich jedoch freuen, wenn Sie Ihre
Ansicht etwas breiter darstellen könnten. (12.3.03)
Als Resultate der Dispute stellte sich Innehalten ein:
Ich hoffe, Sie werden keinen Anstoss an diesen Bemerkungen nehmen; sie sind keineswegs so
dozierend gemeint wie sie lauten. Ich weiss nur nicht, wie ich es anders sagen könnte. (5.12.1987) –
Mich haben Ihre Einwände sehr nachdenklich gemacht. (WS 2.9.88) – Ich habe den Eindruck, dass
wir nach allen diesen Auseinandersetzungen, Meinungen und Gegenmeinungen vielleicht einander
doch nicht so fern stehen. In vielem habe ich meine Ansichten umgemodelt. … In vielen Einzelheiten
und vielleicht sogar grösseren Sachen sind wir natürlich nach wie vor verschiedener Auffassung
… (26.1.89) – Respectfully submitted by Aage Westenholz, the Devil’s Advocate and Citizen of the
Scholarly Community. (18.12.99) – Ich gebe zu … zweitens, dass Sie recht haben. (20.1.06)
Mitunter konnten wir uns auch gütlich oder sogar mit Begeisterung einigen:
Glänzend! Das hatte ich nicht entdeckt. … Auch möchte ich noch einmal dankbar anerkennen,
wie viel ich von der Auseinandersetzung mit Ihrer sorgfältigen Arbeit gelernt habe. (30.11.88) – Ihre
Einwände gegen meine Deutung … überzeugen. (24.7.90) – Dieser Aufsatz erfasst glänzend, was
wir über die letzten zehn Jahre herausgefunden haben, und ich bin natürlich zum allergrössten Teil
W. Sommerfeld: Altakkadische Duelle 299
einig. (18.3.99) – Sie haben mich völlig überzeugt! (6.2.2002) – Ihr Artikel ist glänzend, daher habe
ich nichts dazu zu bemerken! (24.7.02)
Dominante Eigenschaften von AW sind ferner Hilfsbereitschaft, die Freude an der
Zusammenarbeit und Dankbarkeit:
Es würde mich sehr interessieren, das Werk noch vor der Publikation zu sehen; ich möchte
nach Vermögen dazu beisteuern, wenn Sie wollen. (5.12.1987) – Wie immer finde ich Ihre Briefe
besonders anregend. (3.7.97) – Ich setze meine Hoffnung auf Ihre Belegsammlungen. (9.2.99) – Aber
manches verstehe ich nicht. Helfen Sie mir, bitte! (6.2.02) – Je mehr gute Leute an jener Überlieferung
arbeiten und zusammenarbeiten, umso glänzender werden die Erfolge. (7.4.02) – Zuerst ein rib-ba
Dank an Sie … (8.11.02)
Und schließlich sind wir auch zu einem Fazit unserer wissenschaftlichen Duelle gelangt:
Sie und ich haben es wohl verdient, Akkade zu finden, glauben Sie nicht? (21.8.97)
Bemerkenswert ist der Mut von AW zur Unvollkommenheit, sein Bekenntnis zur Berechtigung
von Spekulationen:
Alles was wir tun, ist nur bruchstückhaft und vorläufig, aber andere können darauf
weiterbauen. (5.12.1987) – Alle diese Erwägungen, die ich hier gemacht habe, scheinen mir reichlich
spekulativ zu sein, aber doch nicht mehr als Ihre Ausführungen auf p.63 Mitte. (15.2.1988) – Ad-hoc
Erklärungsversuche sind leider ein notwendiges Übel, besonders wenn wir es mit einem so dürftigen
Material wie das Altakkadische zu tun haben; irgendwo muss man ja anfangen. Daher wimmeln
unsere Arbeiten, Ihre wie meine, mit solchen Versuchen. (26.1.89) – Leider ist mir nichts eingefallen.
(28.5.98) – Verzeihen Sie mir bitte diese losen Spekulationen. (18.3.99) – Zwar gebe ich trotzdem
zu, dass meine Idee Spekulation bleibt; aber Ihre handfeste Aussage … setzt m.E. grösseres Wissen
voraus als wir wirklich haben. … Aber wie so oft: ich weiss es einfach nicht. (1.7.99) – … wie ich
vermute (schon wieder ein unrecherchierter Schuss im Nebel!) … Ich weiss es nicht. … Ich weiss
wohl, dass damit ein methodisches Sumpfland geöffnet wird; aber es ist wohl ebenso methodisch
verfehlt, darauf nicht zu achten. (20.1.06)
Zur selbstkritischen Distanz gesellte sich bisweilen auch ein Anflug von Pessimismus:
Das Studium des Altertums ist ja heute ebenso bedroht wie das Land Iraq; keiner schenkt,
wenigstens in Nordeuropa, unserer Arbeit die geringste Würde. Man will uns nicht. Wir sind ein
Überbleibsel des 19. Jahrhunderts, das nur bis heute überlebt hat, weil wir die Gesellschaft so wenig
kosten. Aber das gilt nicht mehr. Wir Assyriologen müssen uns ständig rechtfertigen, müssen uns
ständig anpassen an die Forderungen des Wirtschaftslebens.
… Also sind wir überflüssig, eine lästige Ausgabe ohne Gewinn; und wir erziehen unsere
Studenten zur Arbeitslosigkeit. … Glauben wir wirklich, dass es für die Menschheit wertvoll wäre,
eine altakkadische Grammatik von den Händen W. Sommerfelds zu haben? (19.10.04)
Stereotypien waren in den zwei Jahrzehnten unserer lebhaften Korrespondenz sehr selten, zwei
allerdings sind ständig zu verzeichnen. Einmal die wechselseitige Frage: „Was halten Sie davon?“
300 Akkade is King
(passim). Zweitens durchzieht die Briefe als roter Faden die Klage, dass die Verpflichtungen überhand
nehmen und zu wenig Zeit für die Forschung bleibt: „Leider habe ich vorläufig gar keine Zeit, ihn
[den Brief] zu beantworten. Die Ruhe zur ungestörten Arbeit, die ich vorgesehen hatte, hat sich noch
nicht eingefunden.“ (1.7.99)
Einen Rat gab mir AW am 5.12.87 auf den Weg:
Ist es doch mehr fruchtbar, das was Sie wissen, mitzuteilen, so unvollkommen es auch sein
mag. Wenigstens mag es einen [Name eines Kollegen] anreizen, in einer Rezension das Fehlende
nachzutragen; aber wenn Sie – der Vollkommenheit zuliebe – gar nichts mitnehmen, das zufällig
nicht direkt in den frühen Texten bezeugt ist, kann er natürlich nichts verbessern. Dazu gibt es ein
hübsches rabbinisches Diktum: Zwar ist es dir nicht gegeben, das Werk zu vollenden; aber es dir
auch nicht gegeben, deinen Teil davon nicht zu tun. Das gilt ja von unserer Arbeit überhaupt.
Ich gebe zu, dass ich mich an diesen Rat in den letzten 20 Jahren kaum gehalten, sondern
es favorisiert habe, nur gut recherchierte und sorgfältig ausgearbeitete Beiträge zu publizieren.
An dieser Stelle möchte ich jedoch anhand von zwei Beispielen die aktuelle Bilanz zu Problemen
mitteilen, die unabgeschlossener Gegenstand unseres Austausches geblieben sind. Hier konnten wir
entweder keine Einigung herstellen, oder die Sachlage ist so komplex, daß die Diskussion nur einen
vorläufigen Zwischenstand darstellen kann.
1. … UM EINE PRINZESSIN
Tu-da-na-ap-šum erscheint in der Akkade-Zeit als agile Tochter des Königs Naram-Sin in der
Überlieferung von Ešnunna, Gasur, Girsu, Isin und Nippur in multiplen Funktionen.2
Die Deutung des Namens, die allgemeine Akzeptanz gewonnen hat, lautet: Tūta-napšum
„Sie hat Leben gefunden“. Während Gelb in seinem Referenzwerk 1957, 82. 188. 204 bei der
Interpretation noch große Zurückhaltung walten läßt („doubtful“, „unknown“), vertritt AW ohne
Bedenken diese Analyse 1975, S. 16, wenn auch lediglich in Form der Transkription Tūta-napśum,
und sodann zusammen mit J.G.W. 1983, 387 in einer kleinen Studie über „Die Prinzessin Tutanapsum“
auch expressis verbis mit der soeben wiedergegebenen Übersetzung, allerdings ohne vertiefende
Diskussion.
So weit verbreitet und etabliert diese Etymologie inzwischen auch ist,3 sie ist sehr wahrscheinlich
falsch: Sie bereitet beträchtliche lexikalische und grammatische Probleme, und die Varianten in der
Überlieferung des Namens sind damit nur unter der Annahme von sinnentstellenden Schreibfehlern
zu vereinbaren. Außerdem steht eine alternative Deutung bereit, bei der sich diese Schwierigkeiten
ganz einfach und elegant auflösen.
2 S. zuletzt ausführlich mit weiterer Lit. Such-Gutiérrez 2003, 45-47; Weiershäuser 2008, 198. 256-259.
Zu den hier behandelten Belegen sind noch nachzutragen: Banca d’Italia II S. 51 I-59 Rs. 4; HSS 10 218: 10.
3 Sie wird als Selbstverständlichkeit z. B. in den Texteditionen Gelb and Kienast 1990, Frayne 1993
wiedergegeben.
Im akkadischen Lexikon gibt es kein Lexem napšum „Leben“,4 hierfür findet sich stets
das Femininum napištum, altakkadisch napaštum.5 Die Kreation eines Lexems ad hoc, um eine
erwünschte Deutung zu erzwingen, ist methodisch ziemlich fragwürdig.
Als Objektkasus zu einer finiten Form des transitiven Verbums watûm „finden“ wäre der
Akkusativ zu erwarten, also Tūta-napśam. Zwar führt Edzard 1998-2001, 108 zur Rettung der
Interpretation ein passendes grammatisches Gesetz ein: „Dem steht eine Tendenz gegenüber, einen
zusammengesetzten PN zu univerbieren, d. h. als einheitliches Nomen zu flektieren; vgl. aAk.
Tuta-napśum „sie hat das Leben (napśam) gefunden“. Hier wird indessen nur ein Circulus vitiosus
f
geschaffen, und diese vermeintliche Regel läßt sich durch den dokumentierten Befund unmittelbar in
Frage stellen, vgl. etwa aus dem Obelisken des Maništušu die Namen Tu-li-id-da-nam „Sie hat einen
Starken erzeugt“, ELTS 40 A XVI 12, neben U-li-id-ì-lum „Der Gott hat erzeugt“, ELTS 40 B V 8.
Übt der ebenfalls enigmatische Name des Sinfluthelden Ut(a)-napišti(m) eine suggestive
Fernwirkung aus? George 2003, 153 sieht jedenfalls eine semantische Zwangssituation:
„The name of Narām-Sîn’s daughter, Tūta-napšum (tu-tá-na-ap-šum), shows a similar disregard
for the rules of normal grammar but must mean ‘She has found life’, i.e. the baby survived birth and
the crucial perinatal period.”
Eine alternative Deutung hat von Soden im AHw S. 1391a unter ṭiābu(m) Dtn vorgeschlagen.
Hier transliteriert er den Namen als Tu-ṭa-na-ab-šum, der demzufolge etwa zu übersetzen wäre als:
„Sie (die Göttin) bereitet ihm (dem König) immer wieder Gutes“.
Obwohl diese Deutung ohne Frage eine sinnvolle Option darstellt, ist sie von der Fachwelt
bislang fast völlig ignoriert worden;6 nur ganz vereinzelt wird darauf Bezug genommen, dann aber in
ablehnender Form. So kommentiert Edzard 1996, 68: „der in AHw. Tu-ṭa-na-ab-šum gelesene aAk.
PN ist gewiß als Tu-tá-napšum zu analysieren, ‚Du-hast-das-Leben-gefunden’ (nominalisiert)“.7
Varianten des Namens erbringen jedoch eine starke Stütze für die Interpretation von Sodens.
Neben der häufigeren Schreibweise Tu-DA-na-ab-šum findet sich zweimal auch die einfachere
Form Tu-DA-ab-šum (JANES 12, 38 III 2; OSP 2, 178, 6), die gewöhnlich als Schreibfehler Tu-
tá-<na>-ap-šum erklärt wird. Die Ableitung von ṭiābum kommt hingegen ohne Annahme einer
defektiven Schreibweise aus: Es alterniert D Präsens Tuṭāb-šum mit dem iterativen Dtn Tuṭṭanāb-
šum. Derartige Verbalstammwechsel sind im Akkadischen weit verbreitet.
4 CAD N/I 318 setzt in En. el. VI 129 ein Hapax legomenon napšu „life, breath“ an, das jedoch nicht
zwingend ist, eher liegt ein Stativ von napāšu vor, s. von Soden 1984, 33. – Zu amurritisch napśum „Leben“ s.
Gelb 1980, 334 usw.; Streck 1998-2001, 128b; 2000, 221: § 2.121; 222-223 § 2.122; 321 § 5.7.
5 Vgl. Edzard 1982, 74, auch zu weiteren Nebenformen.
6 Das CAD erwähnt den Vorschlag von Sodens im Band Ṭ nicht und schweigt sich auch sonst zur
Deutung dieses Namens aus.
7 Zur später (Edzard 1998-2001, 108) modifizierten Auffassung unter Annahme einer 3. Ps. Sg. fem.
als Subjekt s.o.
302 Akkade is King
Altbabylonisch lebt der Name im Dijala-Gebiet weiter, allerdings ohne Dativsuffix:

Tu-ṭá-na-ab NIN.DIN GIR Ahmad 1964 Nr. 9: 10
f
Tu-ṭá-na-ab DUMU.MU NUS PN TIM 5 4: 25.
Auch hier ist die Ableitung von ṭiābum Dtn grammatisch einwandfrei, die Verbindung mit
watûm müsste wiederum Schreibfehler annehmen: Tu-ṭá-na-ab-<šum>.
Theoretisch könnten Tu-DA-na-ab-šum und Tu-TA-na-ab auch enēbum Dt zugeordnet werden:
tūtannab(-šum) „Sie ist (für ihn) zur üppigen Frucht gemacht“.8 Allerdings erzwingt die einfachere
Form Tu-DA-ab-šum dann ebenfalls die Annahme von Schreibfehlern.
Als Fazit ergibt sich, daß die Deutung von Sodens als Tu-ṭa-na-ab-šum / Tuṭṭanāb-šum die höchste
Plausibilität besitzt, während die Analyse Tu-tá-na-ap-šum / Tūta-napšum als Fehlinterpretation zu
bewerten ist – die aber wahrscheinlich unausrottbar bis zum Ende der Assyriologie weiter kolportiert
werden wird.
2. DER SUMERISCHE MONDGOTT dEN-ZU

Nach konventioneller Auffassung erscheint der Mondgott unter den beiden verschiedenen
Namen Nanna und Su’en/Sîn, deren Differenzierung nach sprachlicher Zugehörigkeit und kulturellen
Kontexten allerdings gut möglich ist. So befindet Krebernik 1993-1997, 360: „In Mesopotamien sind
zunächst zwei Gottheiten verschiedener – vermutlich sum. (Nanna) bzw. semitisch-akk. (Su’en) –
Herkunft miteinander verschmolzen, deren individuelle Züge nicht mehr faßbar sind.“ Ebd. 361:
„Akk. Äquivalent von Nanna ist Su’en/Sîn. … Die akk. Herkunft ist aus der Verteilung von dNanna
und dEN.ZU auf sum. bzw. akk. Namen präsargonischer und sargonischer Zeit zu erschließen.“
Die Verteilung von dNanna und dEN.ZU auf sumerische bzw. akkadische Kontexte mag in der
späteren Zeit als Resultat einer langen und komplexen Entwicklung auch so der Fall gewesen sein,
für die frühdynastischen Perioden zeigt die Beleglage ein konträres Bild. Das Auftreten Nannas ist
fast ausschließlich auf die lokale Überlieferung aus Ur und Umgebung beschränkt. Hier spielt Nanna
eine signifikante Rolle im Kult, im Rahmen von Festen und bei der Benennung von Monatsnamen
nach besonderen Ereignissen.9 Als theophores Element von Personennamen10 erscheint er schon in
den archaischen Texten (ED I-II) sehr zahlreich. Die Zame-Hymne 611 in der Überlieferung von Tell
Abū Ṣalābīkh nennt Nanna den Herrn (lugal) von Ur. Darüber hinaus ist Nanna kaum bezeugt; die
8 Vgl. AHw, 1421b. 1553b. Zu enēbum D gehört wohl der PNF Tu-na-ab-šum AS 22 54 Rs. 1.
9 S. Alberti and Pomponio 1986, 124-133; Amiet 1980, 214: 1068; Behrens and Steible 1983, 382;
Visicato and Westenholz 2005, 69-71; Westenholz 1974, 71.
10 ED I-II s. Burrows 1935, Pl. 2 12 usw.; ED III s. Alberti and Pomponio 1986, 120-123; Behrens and
Steible 1983, 403; Visicato and Westenholz 2005, 69.
11 Biggs 1974, 47: 36.
Belege beschränken sich auf vereinzelte Personennamen,12 Götterlisten13 und einen isolierten Auftritt
in literarischem Zusammenhang.14 Selbst in Orten, aus denen eine umfangreiche Überlieferung
erhalten ist, läßt er sich entweder gar nicht nachweisen (Girsu/Lagaš15) oder höchstens in einigen
Personennamen (Fara16). Auch in der Akkade-Zeit erscheint Nanna nur äußerst selten außerhalb von
Ur.
EN.ZU dagegen gehört zu den „großen Göttern“, die über den Rahmen der lokal begrenzten
d
Kulte und nur intramural verehrten Gottheiten hinaus überregionale Bedeutung für Sumer insgesamt
hatten, und er agiert weithin in genuin sumerischem Kontext. Dies bezeugt sehr deutlich die Geierstele,
in der dEN.ZU als einer der Schwurgötter im Konflikt zwischen Lagaš und Umma erscheint.17 Auch
Lugalzagesi beruft sich auf das Kollektiv der „großen Götter“ Sumers und nennt sich in diesem
Rahmen sukkal-mah „Großwesir“ des dEN.ZU.18
Selz 1995, 274-275, bewertet den Befund folgendermaßen: „Der bereits zur Fāra-Zeit
‚anagraphisch’ geschriebene Name des semitischen Mondgottes ist in unseren Quellen, im Unterschied
zum sumerischen Mondgott Nanna, zwar belegt, scheint aber in Lagaš selbst nicht kultisch verehrt
worden zu sein. Su’en ist wohl eine der ältesten semitischen Gottheiten, die in das sumerische
Pantheon inkorporiert wurden. … Die Nennung des Su’en unter den Eidesgottheiten der Geierstele
ist sicherlich durch seine Stellung über den Lokalgottheiten von Lagaš und Umma zu erklären. Da Ur
als eine seiner Hauptkultstätten genannt wird, ist die Identifikation des dortigen Stadtgottes Nanna(r)
mit dem semitischen Su’en bereits zur as. Periode offensichtlich abgeschlossen.“
Die Verehrung des d EN.ZU ist frühdynastisch in Tell Abū Ṣalābīkh, Fara, Girsu, Nippur
und Ur nachzuweisen. Als theophores Element ist er in der Fara-Zeit (ED IIIa) ausschließlich in
sumerischen Personennamen zu finden (aus Tell Abū Ṣalābīkh, Fara, Isin, Kiš und Nippur); erst in
der präsargonischen Periode (ED IIIb) kommen entsprechende akkadische Namen hinzu.19
Aus diesem Sachverhalt wird auf einen frühen und ausgedehnten Synkretismus geschlossen.
So urteilt beispielsweise Selz 1995, 294: „Überraschen mag auch, dass der Mondgott unter seinem
semitischen Namen dsu’en und nicht als dnanna angerufen wird. Dies ist zweifellos ein Indiz für
12 Fara: s. Pomponio 2001, 113; Zabalam: Ur- d Nanna Powell 1978, 34: 1 i 7; zu einem unsicheren
Beleg aus Tell Abū Ṣalābīkh s. Biggs 1974, 34.
13 S. Krebernik 1986, 196 usw.; Mander 1986, 158 usw.
14 Veldhuis 2006: 2, 1 ii 5.
15 Selz 1995, 275.
16 Pomponio 2001, 113.
17 RIM E1.9.3.1 passim; s. Selz 1995, 293.
18 RIM E1.14.20.1 i 21-22.
19 Zu den Belegen s. die zeitlich und regional gegliederte umfangreiche Zusammenstellung Sommerfeld
2010.
304 Akkade is King
ein beträchtliches Mass an sumerisch-semitischem Synkretismus, mit dem man bereits in der
altsumerischen Epoche rechnen muss.“ Erklärungsbedürftig bleibt dann aber auf jeden Fall der
Umstand, dass außer d EN.ZU keine weitere semitische Gottheit im Kontext sumerischer offizieller
Inschriften erscheint oder in vergleichbarem Umfang in die regionalen sumerischen Kulte sowie in
die Namengebung integriert worden ist.20
Als Fazit ist festzuhalten: d EN.ZU ist weit verbreitet, also wahrscheinlich der normale Name
für den Mondgott bei den Sumerern, der auch in Ur erscheint. Nanna dagegen begegnet frühdynastisch
fast nur im lokalen Kult und Onomastikon von Ur, darüber hinaus ist seine Präsenz marginal. Dieser
Sachverhalt setzt sich nahezu unverändert in der Akkade-Zeit fort, wo weithin d EN. Z U , nicht aber
Nanna, überregional außerhalb von Ur auftritt.
Es gibt signifikante Anhaltspunkte für die Annahme, daß sich hinter der einheitlichen
Schreibweise dEN.ZU zwei sprachlich voneinander unterschiedene Gottheiten verbergen: der
sumerische dEn-zu und der akkadische Su’en. Diese waren anscheinend ursprünglich keineswegs
identisch, sondern sind erst in einem komplexen Prozeß integriert worden, dessen Verlauf sich
allerdings nur schwer beobachten läßt, da die fehlende Differenzierung im Schriftbild Einzelheiten
nicht unmittelbar preisgibt.
Der Name des akkadischen Mondgottes Su’en endet mit konsonantischem Auslaut -n, der
zuerst im zweisprachigen Vokabular aus Ebla dokumentiert ist und für den sich dann erst seit der
Akkade-Zeit weitere eindeutige Nachweise finden.21 Im sumerischen Kontext dagegen ist für
20 Die in der altorientalistischen Fachliteratur nicht selten festzustellenden Bemühungen, den

frühdynastischen sumerischen Götterhimmel mit semitischen Gottheiten zu bevölkern, beruhen vor allem auf
etymologischen Spekulationen und stellen sich bei vertiefter Analyse als substanzlos heraus, vgl. Sommerfeld
2006, 73-74.
21 Zu VE 799 s. z. B. Krebernik 1993-1997, 361-362; Steinkeller 1990, 59; Waetzoldt 1990: 95. Für die
Akkade-Zeit s. beispielsweise den Kurznamen d EN.ZU-núm Tutub 1 II 14. –
Ein Problem bereitet die Analyse von ki- d EN.ZU, das sicherlich auf -n auslautete und folglich Argumente
für die frühe Form Su’en liefern könnte. ki- d EN.ZU bezeichnet nach Sallaberger 1993, 50, die „,Stelle des
Su’en’ … die Position Su’ens, des Mondes, am Himmel, die der Zeremonie den Namen gibt, also gleichzeitig
einen astronomisch durch die Bewegung des Himmelskörpers bestimmten Zeitpunkt“. ki- d EN.ZU ist seit
der Fara-Zeit belegt (IAS 41 II 6ʹ // OSP 1, 9 II 9ʹ ˹ZU.EN-ki ˺). In dem literarischen Text MBI 2 aus der
Akkade-Zeit heißt es: d EN.ZU An-da ki- d EN.ZU ì-tu „d EN.ZU hat bei An die Stelle des d EN.ZU
hervorgebracht“ (III 8f.). Entsprechend ist wohl in II 9-10 zu ergänzen: … me-mah / [ki]- d EN.ZU-na.
Der hier bezeugte n-Auslaut korrespondiert mit dem Lehnwort gizinakku (neben kizinû), s. dazu CAD K 477;
Krebernik 1993-1997, 361-362; Sallaberger 1993, 50-51 Anm. 210. Es scheint mir jedoch möglich, daß die
Schreibweise ki- d EN .ZU auf einer sekundären Interpretation beruht, die durch eine Kontamination mit si-
ùn-na „Zenit“ entstanden ist. si-ùn-na wird in der sumerischen Literatur gerne in Verbindung mit Nanna/Sin
gebraucht. Z. B. heißt es, daß Sin „für den Zenit zur Zierde wurde“ (d EN.ZU dumu ki-ág-gá d En-líl-l á
dingir/en si-ùn-na me-te-aš bí-ib-gál), Lugalbanda in the mountain cave s. ETCSL 1.8.2.1 Z. 208-209;
weitere Belege s. in ETCSL. Wegen der ambivalenten Etymologie des ki- d EN.ZU bleiben Schlußfolgerungen
d
EN.ZU kein konsonantischer Auslaut festzustellen. Hier wäre die explizite Kennzeichnung des
Auslauts am ehesten in Verbindung mit Postpositionen zu erwarten, insbesondere, wenn ein in sich
genitivischer Name wiederum in eine erweiterte syntaktische Konstruktion eingebettet ist. Hierfür
kenne ich keine präsargonischen Beispiele. In der Akkade-Zeit sind solche Bildungen selten und m.
W. nur in Umma (Textgruppe B) bezeugt:
(šu-nígin n ud 5 udu) Ur- d EN . Z U-k a-k am 22 „es ist das des Ur-Enzu“ (*U r-E n z u - a k -
ak-am).
Bei der Form *Ur-Su’en-ak-ak- a m „es ist das des Ur-Su’en“ wäre zumindest gelegentlich
eine Schreibweise mit -na zu erwarten, so wie auch sonst in diesem Archiv Genitivpostpositionen
häufig dargestellt werden.23
In Ur- d EN.ZU wird der Genitiv nie markiert,24 die postulierte Form *U r- d EN. Z U - n a gibt
es nicht; sie erscheint zuerst in der Ur III-Zeit.25 Damit kontrastiert der Befund, daß in Namen der
Struktur Ur-GN-ak der Genitiv keineswegs selten schriftlich fixiert wird.26 Es ist also gut möglich,
daß d EN .ZU in sumerischem Kontext vokalischen Auslaut aufwies und folglich mit der Form
korrespondiert, die die Ausspracheglosse in einer späteren Götterliste angibt:
en - zu d
EN.[ZU] CT 29 46: 27 (gefolgt von si-in, s. Krebernik 1993-1997, 362).
Des Weiteren ist die häufige Verkürzung Z U für d EN. Z U sehr auffällig. Die Verwendung des
theophoren Elementes ZU ist bereits präsargonisch belegt, allerdings läßt sich erst in der Akkade-
Zeit in Umma eindeutig nachweisen, daß mit Z U tatsächlich eine verkürzte Form für d EN. Z U
vorliegt.27
also wenig belastbar.

22 MAD 4 23: 15 (ähnlich 29: 17, 35: 12, 40: 15, 42 Rs. 2ʹ, 53: 15, 76 ii 8, 100: 6, 159: 9, MC 4 20: 4);
vgl. aber auch Ur- dEN.ZU-kam (in MAD 4 24, 28, 38, 58, 63, 83, 94, 96, 102, 139; USP 59). Vgl. ferner im
selben Kontext Ur-dŠára-ka-kam MAD 4 23: 9, MC 4 20: 2 u. ö.
23 Z. B. Ur-sipa-da MAD 4 29: 20, 76 iii 4, 137: 5 (neben Ur-sipa 30, 11); NAG-ku 5 Inim-ma-
ni-zi-da-ka/šè MAD 4 93: 4; 99: 2, MC 4 19: 3, Ur- d En-líl-lá MAD 4 22: 2 (sonst in der Akkade-Zeit
mehr als 10 Mal mit -lá, ohne -lá mehr als 50 Mal).
24 Z. B. BIN 8 14 ii 3ʹ, 60 i 6, MAD 4 S. 115-116 passim (11 Mal); MC 4 19: 4, 21: 15, OIP 14 60 i 4,
OSP 1 23 v 2, 2: 3 Siegel, USP 49 1.
25 Z. B. CTNMC 29 9; PDT 2 943 Siegel.
26 Vgl. neben Ur- d En-líl-lá (s. o. Anm. 23) z. B. noch Ur- d En-ki-ka (OSP 2 13 iii 2, 145: 3ʹ, 186:
13, neben üblicherem Ur- d En-ki) oder Ur- d I 7 -da (ECTJ 103 3) bzw. Ur-I 7 -da (BIN 8 152 ii 12, 250: 9, CT
50 99: 5, OSP 2 100 vii 15ʹ, 120: 4) neben Ur-I 7 (BIN 8 82 iv 2, MAD 4 145: 2, TSA 7 vi 3).
27 Ur- d EN .ZU tritt oft neben d Utu-mu(-gi 4 ) sipa in zusammengehörigen Verwaltungstexten auf
(MAD 4 23, 24, 34, 44, 58, 61, 83, 94, 100, 116, 138 d Utu-mu-gi 4 , MC 4 20). Zweimal erscheint Ur-
ZU neben diesem d Utu-mu (MAD 4 109) bzw. d Utu-mu-gi 4 (92) in sehr ähnlichen Texten, so daß die
Prosopographie keinen Zweifel daran läßt, daß es sich um dieselbe Person handelt. Ur-ZU ist in diesem
Archiv noch öfter bezeugt (101, 124, 142 Ur-SU), wobei Identität wahrscheinlich ist, sich aber nicht schlüssig
306 Akkade is King
Die Abkürzung ZU, die überwiegend in sumerischen, aber auch in einigen akkadischen
Personennamen erscheint, paßt sehr gut in die Verkürzungstypologie des sumerischen Onomastikons
(vgl. Krebernik 2002). Wenn folglich das Element Z U zur Identifizierung der Gottheit genügte,
spricht einiges für die Annahme, daß EN als lexikalisches Namenselement verstanden wurde
und vermutlich mit dem gängigen Appellativum en- identisch ist, das auch bei einigen anderen
Götternamen fakultativ verwendet werden konnte.28
Die frühen Semiten Mesopotamiens haben dann die Schreibweise d EN. Z U für ihren Gott
Su’en adaptiert, vergleichbar mit d UTU für Šamaš usw., und bei der allgemeinen großen Abhängigkeit
des akkadischen Schriftsystems von der sumerischen Schreibtradition also anscheinend neben der
Vollform d EN.ZU auch die Kurzform ZU zur Wiedergabe von Su’en übernommen.
Dieser Kontext stützt folglich die Annahme, daß d EN. Z U (Kurzform Z U ) nicht semitische
Entlehnung ist, sondern ein genuin sumerischer Name des Mondgottes, der überregional in ganz
Sumer verbreitet war und als eine alte, weitere Benennung vergleichbar dAŠimbabbar (s. Krebernik
1993-1997, 362-363) zu verstehen ist; als Beinamen verselbständigte Epitheta waren bekanntlich
auch bei anderen wichtigen Göttern üblich.
Entgegen der weitverbreiteten Annahme, derzufolge der Einfluß der Semiten auf die sumerische
Religion auch in der präsargonischen Epoche für wesentlich gehalten wird, scheint dieser in der
Frühzeit nur äußerst marginal zu sein. Wegen der überwiegend konstanten Schreibpraxis, die in
der Regel keine Unterscheidung zwischen sumerisch d E n - z u und akkadisch Su’en erlaubt, ist der
Prozeß der Synkretisierung, der vielleicht schon in der Akkade-Zeit, bestimmt aber seit der Ur III-
Zeit eintrat, nicht mehr im Einzelnen beobachtbar.
d
EN.ZU läßt sich also dementsprechend als „e n Z U “ analysieren. Die Deutung des Elementes
ZU, das vielleicht vokalischen Auslaut hatte, ist nicht möglich. Das gängige Verbum z u „wissen“
paßt nicht. Anscheinend gehörte das Lexem Z U in der gut dokumentierten historischen Sprachphase
des Sumerischen nicht mehr zum produktiven Wortschatz. Rein spekulativ kann man eine Verbindung
mit dem Element zu, das in abzu oder g i z z u erscheint, erwägen mit der denkbaren Bedeutung
„schwarz, Schwärze“. „Herr Schwarz“ wäre also der nächtliche Herr der Himmelsschwärze (so wie
das tiefe Meer dunkel erscheint und der Schatten die ‚Baumschwärze’ ist). Die moderne Philologie
stößt hier ebenso an ihre Grenze wie der Sumerer Gudea – d EN. Z U m u -n i l ú n u -d u 8 - d è „seinen
Namen kann niemand lösen“ (Statue B VIII 48)!
Zum Abschluß dieser Ausführungen möchte ich noch ein Zitat aus einem Brief von AW
demonstrieren läßt. – ZU ist als Bestandteil von akkadischen und sumerischen Personennamen üblicherweise
nur in Orten belegt, in denen auch d EN.ZU regelmäßig bezeugt ist, insbesondere in Tutub, wo der Hauptgott
d
EN.ZU passim erscheint, allerdings auch das verkürzte Element ZU besonders häufig nachzuweisen ist, s.
Sommerfeld 1999, 155-156. 195 usw. – Zur späteren Verwendung des theophoren Elementes ZU in der Ur
III-Zeit und im altassyrischen Onomastikon s. Krebernik 1993-1997, 361.
28 Vgl. etwa Cavigneaux – Krebernik 1998-2001, 607 zu Nudimmud, l. c. 614 zu Nunamnir; Krebernik
1986, 203 zu d (En-)TAG. NU N (weitere Belege s. Krebernik 1998-2001, 140-141 sub d NÁM.NUN).
(17.8.05) wiedergeben, dem ich mich uneingeschränkt anschließe: „Ich freue mich noch auf eine
Fortsetzung unserer Duelle wegen d EN.Z U und der anderen Streitfragen. ku-li-za-kam“.
308 Akkade is King
ANHANG
Dieser altakkadische Brief aus einer Privatsammlung, dessen Kenntnis ich der Freundlichkeit
von Aage Westenholz verdanke, weist einige Besonderheiten auf, die einer ausführlichen Behandlung
wert sind. Hier wird zunächst nur die Kopie wiedergegeben, die Bearbeitung aber einstweilen noch
zurückgestellt.
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
Ahmad, A. K. A. 1964: Old Babylonian Loan Contracts in the Iraq Museum from Tell al-Dhiba’i and Tell
Harmal, Baghdad (Dissertation; Baghdad: University of Baghdad).
Alberti, A. and F. Pomponio 1986: Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic Texts from Ur Edited in UET 2, Supplement
(Studia Pohl: Series Maior 13; Rome: Biblical Institute Press).
Amiet, P. 1980: La glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque, Deuxième édition revue et corrigée avec un
supplément (Paris: Éditions du CNRS).
Behrens, H. and H. Steible 1983: Glossar zu den altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften (Freiburger
altorientalistische Studien 6; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag).
Biggs, R. D. 1974: Inscriptions from Tell Abū Ṣalābīkh (Oriental Institute Publications 99; Chicago, Ill.:
Burrows, E. 1935: Archaic Texts (Ur Excavations Texts 2; London: Printed by order of the Trustees of the two
museums).
Cavigneaux, A. and M. Krebernik 1998-2001a: “Nudimmud, Nadimmud”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und
Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 607.
––––––– 1998-2001b: “Nunamnir”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 614.
Edzard D. O. 1982: “Zu den akkadischen Nominalformen parsat-, pirsat- und pursat-”, Zeitschrift für
––––––– 1996: Die Iterativstämme beim akkadischen Verbum. Die Frage ihrer Entstehung; ihre Funktion;
ihre Verbreitung (München : Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften ; in Kommission bei C. H.
Beck).
––––––– 1998-2001: “Name, Namengebung (Onomastik). B. Akkadisch”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und
Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 103-116.
Frayne, D.1993: Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334-2113 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early
Periods 2; Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
Gelb, I. J. 1957: Glossary of Old Akkadian (Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 3; Chicago, Ill.: University
of Chicago Press).
––––––– 1980: Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite (Assyriological Studies 21: Chicago, Ill.: University of
Chicago Press).
Gelb, I. J. and B. Kienast 1990: Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr.
(Freiburger altorientalistische Studien 7; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag).
George, A. R. 2003: The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Johnson, J. C. 2006: Review of: Hasselbach, R., Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of
the Syllabic Texts, Review of Biblical Literature 04/2006.
310 Akkade is King
Krebernik, M. 1986: “Die Götterlisten aus Fāra”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie
76, 161-204.
––––––– 1993-1997: “Mondgott. A. I. In Mesopotamien”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen

––––––– 1998-2001: “dNÁM.NUN”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 140-141.
––––––– 2002: “Zur Struktur und Geschichte des älteren sumerischen Onomastikons”, in: M. P. Streck, and S.
Weninger (eds.), Altorientalische und semitische Onomastik (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 296; Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag), 1-74.
Mander, P. 1986: Il Pantheon di Abu Ṣālabīkh. Contributo allo studio del pantheon sumerico arcaico (Napoli:
Istituto universitario orientale, Dipartimento di studi asiatici).
Pomponio, F. 2001: “Deities in the Fara Administrative Tablets”, in: H. P. Martin et al. (eds.), The Fara Tablets
in the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press),
103-114.
Powell, M.A. 1978: “Texts from the Time of Lugalzagesi, Problems and Perspectives in Their Interpretation”,
Hebrew Union College Annual 49, 1-58.
Sallaberger, W. 1993: Der Kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit (Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und
Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
Selz, G. 1995: Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadtstaates von Lagaš (Occasional
Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 13; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum).
Sommerfeld, W. 1999: Die Texte der Akkade-Zeit. 1. Das Dijala-Gebiet: Tutub (IMGULA 3/1; Münster:
Rhema).
––––––– 2006: “Die ältesten semitischen Sprachzeugnisse – eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme”, in: G. Deutscher,
and N. J. C. Kouwenberg (eds.), The Akkadian Language in its Semitic Context. Studies in the Akkadian of the
Third and Second Millennium BC (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden
106; Istanbul: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten), 30-75.
––––––– 2010: “Prä-Akkadisch. Die Vorläufer der ‚Sprache von Akkade’ in der frühdynastischen Zeit”, Babel
und Bibel 4, 77-163.
Steinkeller, P. 1990: “More on the Name of Nergal and Related Matters”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und
Streck, M.P. 1998-2001: “Name, Namengebung. E. Amurritisch”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und
––––––– 2000: Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit. Band 1: Die Amurriter. Die
onomastische Forschung. Orthographie und Phonologie. Nominalmorphologie (Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 271/1; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Such-Gutiérrez, M. 2003: Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur im 3. Jahrtausend (Materiali per il Vocabolario
Sumerico 9; Rome: Universita degli Studi; “La Sapienza”).
Veldhuis, N. 2006: “Another Early Dynastic Incantation”, Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2006:2, 1-2.
Visicato, G. and Aa. Westenholz 2005: “An Early Dynastic Archive from Ur Involving the lugal”, KASKAL.
Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico 2, 55-78.
von Soden, W. 1984: Review of: The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Vol. 11, Part I u. II: N., Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 79, 31-34.
Waetzoldt, H. 1990: “Zur Lesung und Aussprache von dEN.ZU am Ende des 3. Jahrtausends”, Nouvelles
Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 73-74/95.
Weiershäuser, F. 2008: Die königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur (Göttinger Beiträge zum Alten Orient
1; Göttingen: Göttingen Universitätsverlag).
Westenholz, Aa. 1974: “Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in the National Museum of Copenhagen”,
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 26, 71-80.
––––––– 1975: Early Cuneiform Texts in Jena. Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic Documents from Nippur and Fara
in the Hilprecht-Sammlung vorderasiatischer Altertümer, Institut für Altertumswissenschaften der Friedrich-
Schiller-Universität, Jena (Copenhagen: Munksgaard).
Westenholz, Aa. and J. Westenholz 1983: “Die Prinzessin Tutanapsum”, Altorientalische Forschungen 10,
387-388.
THE CAREERS OF SOME BUREAUCRATS IN ED IIIB AND SARGONIC GIRSU
GIUSEPPE VISICATO
The role and importance of the various ancient Sumerian institutions and their officials changed
during the course of the third millennium B.C. Whereas it is not always easy to identify these changes
on the basis of single documents, this is feasible through archival studies. Several of the extant
archives that date prior to the Ur III period cover only a short span of time, usually a few years. This
is the case with the archives of ED IIIa Šuruppak, late ED IIIb Umma and the Sargonic archives
of Umma, Kiš, Ešnunna and Gasur. In other instances, archives coming from the same site cover
different periods. Such is the case with the texts from Nippur and Adab,1 where we can find several
archives dated to the ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Early Sargonic, Middle Sargonic and Classical Sargonic
periods, each spanning a short period of time. The documents from ED IIIb Girsu mostly belong to
only one generation, and consequently, it is possible to identify the careers of various institutional
officials in the documentation from Girsu with some degree of certainty. It is more difficult to outline
the careers of bureaucrats in Sargonic and post-Sargonic Girsu, because it is not always possible to
date the individual texts any with certainty. We shall try to reconstruct these where possible.
THE ARCHIVE OF ED IIIB GIRSU

The texts of ED IIIb Girsu were compiled over a period of about two decades, from the reign
of Enentarzi to that of Uru’inimgina. They can, for the most part, be dated to the reign and the year of
2
each of the three kings, thus making it possible to establish a secure internal chronological continuity.
Most of the texts come from the e 2 -mi, renamed the e 2 - d b a-b a during the reign of Uru’inimgina. It
was the household managed by the queen. It is possible to identify elements indicating a change in
the role of seven officials in the Girsu administration.
We shall examine the careers, and where it is possible, the roles of those seven institutional
officials. The first three officials are the scribes: Abasa (a - b a - s a 2 ) , Mašda (m a š - d a 3 ) and Ašne
(aš 1 0 - ne 2 ). They worked contemporaneously for many years in various sectors of the administration,
and we can subdivide their activity into various periods. The first period runs from the reign of
1 The documents from Nippur were published by Westenholz 1975a, 1975b, 1987. They span the ED
IIIa to Sargonic period, even if the bulk of the documents come from the Sargonic period. The documents of
Adab were published by Luckenbill 1930; Yang 1989; Pomponio, Visicato and Westenholz 2006, and Visicato
and Westenholz 2008. A collection of about 350 Sargonic tablets from Adab from the Real Academia Hispanica
and about 1000 Sargonic tablets from Adab housed in the Cornell University will be published in the near
future. Also, six hundred tablets housed in the Istanbul Museum and about two hundred tablets in the Schøyen
Collections still remain unpublished. All the tablets date from between the ED IIIa and the Sargonic period,
although the bulk of the documents come from the Sargonic period.
2 For the list of the published texts from ED IIIb Girsu and Lagaš see Selz 1995, 9-10.
314 Akkade is King
3
Enentarzi to the second year of Lugalanda (L2 ). During that period, Abasa, Ašne and Mašda
received allocations of emmer, wool and plots of agricultural land for their sustenance.4 Mašda is the
5
person in charge of the allocation of bread to 12 female millers (g e m e 2-k i k k en 2) in L1. They are
also mentioned in texts regarding the various stages of maintenance work on the irrigation canals.6
According to this data, Abasa, Ašne and Mašda seem to have been part of the institution that compiled
AWAS 75 and DP 195 during the reign of Enentarzi and RTC 75; DCS 8; Nik I, 30; 44; 125 in L1 and
L2. This administration must have been headed first by Dimtur, wife of Enentarzi, and subsequently
by Baranamtara, wife of Lugalanda. It must have been the core of that structure which took the name
e 2 - mi 2 in L1. Maekawa 1973-1974, 101-107, supposes that these officials, who initially belonged
to the e 2-gal, were transferred for a period of some years together with other officials, who were
employed in production and accounting to constitute the e 2-m i 2.7
The second period runs from L3 to L5. In this period none of the three officials received
allocations of barley or emmer. Abasa is the recipient of a plot of 9 i k u in L3.8 Abasa, Ašne and
Mašda receive textiles in L4 and L5.9 However, in L3 Abasa and Mašda are in charge of considerable
amounts of institutional (ni 3-en-na) barley, property of Baranamtara,10 probably for the sustenance
of their subordinate personnel working on the canals. Mašda receives amounts of barley and amounts
of barley and emmer destined for the sustenance of the e n s i 2 in L5.11 In addition, Mašda is in charge
of the barley rations of 15 geme 2 -kikken 2 in the third year.12 It should be added that Mašda occurs
3 The article uses the following abbreviations for year dates: EN for Enentarzi, L for Lugalanda and U
for Uru’inimgina. The number following the name of the ruler is the year of reign. Ue indicates the year when
Uru’inimgina was ensi 2 , which coincides with L7, whereas U1 is the first year when the same ruler became
lugal.
4 Abasa and Ašne receive emmer in AWAS 75 obv. i 7; iii 8 (EN2); Abasa, Ašne, and Mašda in DCS 8
obv. ii-iii 3 (L1) and in DP 231 obv. iiiʹ 10ʹ-13 (L?2); Ašne and Mašda in Nik I 125 rev. iii 3; iv 3 (L2); Abasa
and perhaps Ašne and Mašda receive wool in DP 195 obv. ivʹ 1ʹ (EN); Abasa and Mašda receive 1 1/2 iku
and 3 iku 40 sar of land respectively in Nik I, 30 rev. i 2-4; iv 1-2; Mašda receives 6 iku in Nik I, 44 obv. ii
2-3 (EN/L1) and Abasa receives 2 1/2 iku in RTC 75 obv.iii 3-4 (L1).
5 VS 25 8 obv. v 4-6.
6 aš 10 -ne 2 and maš-da 3 in DP 617 obv. i 4-ii 3 (EN/L1); DP 641 obv. v 6-rev. i 2 (L2); a-ba-sa 2 ,
amar-girid 2 ki , aš 10 -ne 2 and maš-da 3 in DP 622 obv. vi 7-rev. i 2 (L2). For the relationship between DP 622
and DP 641 cf. Maeda 1984, 35.
7 For recent studies on this topic, see Wu 2001, 101-128.
8 VS 25 40 obv. iii 4-5.
9 Nik I 130 obv. iii 4-6; DP 192 obv. iii 3-5.
10 Nik I, 79 obv. iii 9-11.
11 Nik 83 obv. ii 6-8; Nik I, 97 obv. iii 3-5.
12 RTC 52 obv. iii 11-iv 2
G. Visicato: The Careers of some Bureaucrats in ED IIIb and Sargonic Girsu 315
in a sa 2- du 11, “regular offerings” text, in the twelfth recorded offering of L1.13 He is mentioned
in this text type in all subsequent years until U2. Due their absence from the ration texts, it would
seem that our three officials were not, in this second period, supported by the administration of
Baranamtara, but that they continued to have a series of occasional relationships with that institution,
as can be seen from the fact that all the texts in which they occur are related to Eniggal (e n - i g - g a l ),
the nu-banda 3 of e 2-mi 2 and the queen. Perhaps only Mašda had a continuous relationship with it:
in fact, from L1 to L5 this official is regularly mentioned as responsible for the personnel and does
occur in sa 2-du 11 texts.
The third period runs from L6 to U1. The three scribes, belonging to the category of the
lu 2 - š uku- dab 5 -ba ,14 are mentioned as recipients of rations of 72 s i l a 3 of barley in the second
5
distribution of L6.15 In L6 Abasa, Mašda and Ašne receive clothes, and in L7,16 together, plots of land.
In addition, they together with šeš-tur d u b - s a r are responsible for amounts of barley coming from
different ni 2-en-na fields in the same year.17 On the one hand, Mašda continues to be responsible for
the barley for the ša-du-nita and ša-d u - m i 2 , “males and female young workers”18 in the twelfth
distribution in L6,19 and in charge of young workers, nita and g e m e 2 in the others.20 He occurs in the
s a 2- du 11 texts in the years L6 and L7. In Ue, on the occasion of the second distribution, Abasa and
Amar-giri (amar-giri 1 6 k i ), together with two other d u b - s a r, U2.U2 (U 2. U 2). and Enbi (e n - b i ) ,
receive an extraordinary allocation of 1 g u r of barley (AWAS 5 obv. v 5-7) which differs from all the
other recipients mentioned in the text who receive normal rations. Mašda, who has in the meantime
become an agrig 21, receives 72 sila 3. This seems to indicate that while Mašda must already have
13 DP145 rev. iv 1-7

14 Deimel 1931, 21, translates “Leute, denen ein Stück Land vom Tempel als Arbeitslos (šuku) festgesetzt
(dab 5 -ba) wurde” opposite to the lu 2 -iti-da, “die monatlich ausgelöhnt wurden”. This interpretation is
followed by Selz 1993, 38, 74, “Gerstezuteillungen für die Leute, die ein Versorgunslos übernommen haben”.
Englund 1990, 53, n. 181, is, however, of a different opinion, “es sind Gersterationen der Empfanger festen
Rationen”. Thus Deimel and Selz believe that šuku is an abbreviated form of <aša 5 >-šuku and so here it is
a question of personnel who had normally, for their usual work, the use of parcels of agricultural land, and who
are recruited in case of particular collective necessity like the digging of canals, military service and so on. The
interpretation of Englund, on the other hand, should be linked to the meaning of the term lu 2 -šuku(r)-ra,
“people of šuku-provisions” in the Ur III texts see Waetzoldt 1986, 120, n. 26.
15 RTC 54 obv. iv 7-10
16 DP 193 obv. ii 5-7; VS 25 39 obv. i 5-6; rev. ii 1-2.
17 VS 25 41 rev. v 9-12
18 For this meaning see Selz 1993, 198 sub 9:13.
19 TSA 10 obv. viii 4-5.
20 VS 27, 7 obv. iv 7-9.
21 It should be noted that in the Ue-U1 period, Mašda is identified as an agrig in some texts, while
in others he continues to be identified as a dub-sar. An example of this would be the sa 2 -du 11 texts (Nik I
316 Akkade is King
been in the employ of the e 2- mi 2, these four d u b - s a r must have been permanently incorporated into
this structure on the ascent to the throne of the new king, and that the amount of this particular ration
is linked to that. In the same year Mašda a g r i g and four unnamed d u b - s a r, who should be identified
as Abasa, Amar-giri, U2.U2 and Enbi, receive an allocation of 4 b a n 2 of emmer.22 There are no more
mentions of Ašne in ration texts. It is probable that he was transferred to another administration.23
The fourth period goes from U2 to U4. In U2, the two remaining scribes of this group Abasa
and Mašda, are regularly mentioned as recipients of monthly rations of barley and emmer24 and of
plots of land. But they are not mentioned together.25 Mašda is no longer listed with a d u b - s a r in the
ration texts but with two other agrig, Barazi and Urmud, while Abasa, with two other scribes Amar
43 obv. 1; DP 152 obv. iv 10-11; DP 156 obv. iv 9-10; DP 155 obv. v 10-11; AWAS 30 obv. iv 9-10; VS 25 66
obv. rev 7ʹ-8ʹ; AWAS 31 obv. v 4ʹ-5ʹ), and those where he is responsible for the barley for the geme 2 -dumu
workers (CT 50, 33 obv. vii 8-9; AWAS 19 obv. vii 7-8). Again, in U1, in a land allocation text, he is titled
dub-sar (VS 25 70 obv. vi 6-7), while in a text of the same type from the same year he is called an agri g
(AWAS 39 obv. ii 1213). In a text from U1 regarding canals, DP 637 obv. v 8-9, he is still mentioned as a dub-
sar but this mention is distinct from that of the four other dub-sar mentioned in rev. i 3-7. This happens in
all the documents where he is mentioned as an agrig. It is probable that the scribe who compiled the tablet
continued to refer to him as a dub-sar out of habit even though he knew that his responsibilities and his status
had changed.
22 AWAS 4 obv. iv 5-6; 11-12.
23 Ašne, who is regularly mentioned in texts until L6, appears only once in Ue as the recipient of textiles
(DP 194 obv. ii 4). After U1, he only occurs as the official in charge of a group of ki-siki who receive barley
rations as dumu-di 4 -di 4 -la-ne in the fifth year in Nik I, 20 obv. iii 9ʹ-10ʹ (ki-siki-me aš-ne dub-sar
ugula-bi, “they are the wool workers of whom Ašne, the dub-sar is in charge”). In a text from the fourth
year, Ašne is titled with igi-bar (perhaps an abbreviation of igi-bar-lu 2 -ti) as a ki-siki (DP 567 obv. ii
1-3) and must be identified with our dub-sar. In this regard the dumu-di 4 -di 4 -la-ne personnel should be
regarded as substantially extraneous to the e 2 -mi 2 and belong to the e 2 -nam-dumu, the household of the sons
of the ruler (Selz 1993, 290; Maekawa 1973-1974, 98 and 131-132). The hypothesis that Ašne was transferred
to this administration from the first year of Uru’inimgina seems to be substantially correct.
24 They are recipients of rations of 72 sila 3 of barley in AWAS 6 rev. i 9-12; iv 5; TSA 20 obv. vi 3-4;
5-8, VS 27, 6 obv. iii 13; rev. iii 4, allocations of emmer in Nik I, 13 rev. i 2; iv 1 and plots of land in VS 25 79
rev. ii 10-11; iv 1; 4.
25 Abasa occurs in two similar texts, VS 27, 4 obv. iii 5-6 and VS 27, 71 obv. i 1-2. In these texts he seems
in charge of barley and emmer of the same month for the estate (bara 2 -guru 5 -a) of geme 2 -sila-sir 2 -sir 2 -
ra dumu (according to Bauer 1972, 139, Gemesilaširšira is a daughter of Uru’inimgina), še bara 2 -guru 5 -a
geme 2 -sila-sir 2 -sir 2 -ra dumu a-ba-sa 2 dub-sar šu-na gal 2 -la-am 6 iti guru 7 -im-du 8 -a. In VS 27,
71 obv. ii 1-iii 1, the grain is delivered by Eniggal nu-banda 3 , en-ig-gal nu-banda 3 ganun giš-kin-ti-
ta e-ne-ta-gar 2 dub-be 2 2-am 6 .VS 27 4 and 71 because of their typology should be connected to AWL
35 and DP 143. VS 27 4 is undated, whereas VS 27, 71 records only the year of the reign, 2, but not the name
of the sovereign. Because of the mention of Gemesilaširšira, Marzhan 1996, 12 dates VS 27 4 and 71 to U2.
giri and Enbi, are listed separately.26 Mašda occurs in s a 2-d u 11 texts from the ninth offering of U2:
the records of the tenth are missing, but he is not mentioned in the extant records from the eleventh.
There, another agrig appears in his place. From that period onwards, Mašda disappears from the
texts with the one exception: a text from U3 where he is the recipient of 1 1/2 s i l a 3 of n i n d a .27
It is probable that at the end of the second year he retired from active service. In U3 Abasa is the
recipient of rations of barley and emmer,28 but he is not mentioned as a recipient of land plots. In U4,
on the other hand, he is the recipient of plots of land,29 but he is not mentioned in ration texts. In the
period between U2 and U4, Abasa seems to have risen to a position of greater responsibility. In fact,
he is mentioned in two texts as the person in charge of allocating grain.30 There is no other mention
of our scribes in the texts of the fifth year, which are in any case rare. Finally, in the sixth year they
are mentioned exclusively in ration texts; while Abasa continues to receive 72 s i l a 3 , the ration for
Amar-giri decreases to 48 sila 3 . While, on the one hand, it shows clearly the different ranks of the
two officials, on the other, it is a very precise index of the difficult political and economic situation
in which Girsu found itself from the fourth year of the reign of Uru’inimgina as a consequence of the
war with Lugalzagesi. The first incursion of the king of Umma into the territory of Lagaš should, in
fact, be dated in the fourth year of Uru’inimgina (DP 545 rev. i 3-4), since the third incursion refers
to the sixth year of this sovereign (Nik I, 227 obv. ii 4-rev. i 4). Consequently, it is probable that the
second should be dated in the fifth year.
Another official is the scribe Enku (e n - k u 3 ). He is mentioned as a d u b - s a r in RTC 17 obv. ii
7, a contract from the reign of Enentarzi, and in VS 25 40 obv. i 8-ii 1, a text concerning the allocation
26 In the same year, Amar-giri had the use of a rented plot of land, 4 iku inextent (VS 25 93 obv. ii 1-4)
and a-ba-sa had one of 6 iku (TSA 8 obv. ii 7ʹ).
2
27 DP 130 rev. i 10.

28 Barley in AWAS 7 rev. iv 3-6; 8 rev. iv 3; 9 rev. iv 5-7; 10 rev. iii 7-10 and emmer in AWAS 68 rev. ii 5ʹ-7ʹ.
29 TSA 7 obv. iv 11-14; rev. v 2-3; DP 603 obv. ii 5-6.
30 AWL 19 (obv. ii 4-iii 1): gig a-ba-sa 2 dub-sar šu-na gal 2 -la-am 6 2, “(allocated) grain which
a-ba-sa2, the scribe, has in his hand, (the allocation of the) second year” and VS 25 95 rev. iii 1-3: ku 2 -a a-ba-
sa 2 -i 3 -e dub-sar 2,“(grain) for eating (under the responsibility of) Abasa, the scribe, (the allocation of the)
second year”. It should be noted that both texts are dated in the same year: in fact, VS 25 95 records three
allocations of grain, the first of which coincides with the only one recorded in AWL 19 (obv. i 1-ii 3: 4 (ban) gig
gig-numun aša 5 -en-ne 2 -gu 3 -ba-de 3 -a-še 3 a 2 -ni-kur-ra sag-apin-na-ke 4 šu-ba-ti. In VS 25 95
(obv. i 1-4: 4(ban 2 ) gig gig-numun aša 5 -en-ne 2 -gu 3 -ba-de 3 -a-še 3 šu-ba-ti) the name of the king is
not mentioned. He should be identified as Uru’inimgina because the same official is mentioned, with a similar
function, as the person responsible for 30 gur of barley destined for both cattle and sheep in DP 545 obv. ii 4-5,
a document dating from the fourth year of this sovereign. DP 257 and 567 must also date from U where Abasa
receives analogous mention (DP 257 v. II: 1-4 šu-nigin 2 98 bappir 3 -kas-sig 15 zi-zi-ga a-ba-sa 2 dub-
sar-kam 4 and DP 567 rev. ii 1-iii 1: šu-nigin 2 5(gur) 2(bariga) 2(ban 2 ) ziz 2 -sig 15 gur-sag-gal 2
ziz 2 šu-a gi 4 -a-am 6 a-ba-sa 2 dub-sar-re 2 e-ag 2 4).
318 Akkade is King
of land for the maintenance of the ensi 2 31 from L3. After L3 he disappears from the documents. He
reappears later as um-mi-a, that is, in the highest position and probably at the end of his career as
a scribe: in U2 he appears exclusively in s a 2 -d u 11 texts. It would seem, however, that there is no
mention of him from L3 until the first distributions of U2. From L1 to U3, an official with the same
name is described as a kurušda, “responsible for livestock”, who is almost always mentioned in
sheep texts in relation to maš-da-ri-a offerings, and to feasts. His task is to check and count the
sheep entering and leaving (ba-se 1 2 ), to carry out inspections (k u r u m 7 - m a e - a k ) and to deliver the
sheep to the palace and to the e 2 -mi 2 (ba - t u m 2 e 2 -g al -l a; e 2 -m i 2 -a š u -a-b i 2 -g i 4 ). A passage in
DP 246 rev. ii 2-iii 2, dated to L3 (en-ig - g a l n u - b a n d a 3 en -k u 3 k u ru š d a-d a d u b -b e 2 e-d a
bal, “Eniggal, the general administrator [of the e 2 -m i 2 ] with Enku, the person in charge of livestock,
in his tablet [of the deliveries] transferred”),32 suggests that the Enku in question could himself be
a scribe who should be identified with his namesake a d u b - s a r from the time of Lugalanda. If
indeed Enku is mentioned for the first time as u m - m i - a in a text from U2, as we have seen above,
the last mention of his namesake the kur u š d a can be found in DP 130 rev. i 1-2, a document from
U3. Similarly, we can observe that at the beginning of U3, a certain U2.U2 is mentioned as k u r u š d a
while his namesake the agrig disappears from the texts. Thus, it appears from our documentation
that the term kurušda could often be an abbreviation of d u b - s a r / a g r i g k u r u š d a or at least that
33
a scribe was in charge of checking the organization of the husbandry.
Another official connected to the activity of a k u r u š d a is U2.U2 a g r i g , whom we have already
discussed in relation to Enku. He occurs as a g r i g from L2 until U1 and as a k u r u š d a from U3 until
U6. In L2 and L4 he is responsible for sheep “for eating” (n i 3 -k u 2 -d e 3 ),34 and in L5 he receives
allocations of barley for the sustenance of the sheep (RTC 51 rev. iv 7ʹ-10ʹ). In L4 and L5, U2.U2 is
35
the agrig in charge of counting the tools and bundles of firewood in the Ekisala . In L6 and U2 he is
31 aša ki-uzug (KAxU) šuku l ugal-an-da ensi 2 . For the reading uzug for KAxU and the
interpretation of aša 5 ki-uzug 5 <-ga> as a field name cf. Selz 1989, 434, sub 8:3 (Nik I, 194 rev. iv 3).
Hruška 1995, 31, has interpreted aša 5 ki-u 2 -du 11 <-ga> as “pasture field (with rich overgrowth),” but we
cannot seperate the ligature KAxU 2 into u 2 -du 11 .
32 It should be noted that a similar clause which concludes DP 246 rev. i 2: sar-RU-am 6 dub-tur
tur-ta e-ta-[sar],“This is the tablet (where) from the small tablets he wrote (it),” also concludes DP 248 obv.
iii 3-rev. i 1: kuš-šu-a-gi 4 -a-am 6 en-ku 3 kurušda 5 dub-tur-tur-ta e-ta-sar sar-RU-am 6 5, “the
hides (of the animals) brought in, Enku, the kurušda, (in the) fifth year from the small tablets he copied (it),
this is the tablet which gathers them.” This clause seems to indicate clearly the scribal activity of our official.
For sar-šub (RU), see CAD I/J, 138 sub (im)sar-šubbû.
33 For the interchange PN kurušda/dub-sar kurušda also in the documents of the Ur III period, see
Grégoire 1970, 75, 4.
34 AWL 108 obv. iv 5; DP 338 rev. iii 1ʹ-2ʹ.
35 Nik I, 280 rev. ii 1-3; DP 430 rev. i 6-ii 2.
mentioned as the person in charge of rations for the i g i - n u - d u 8 š a 3 -d u b -d i d l i 36 personnel. With

Eniggal nu-banda 3 he is responsible for the counting of goods in L7 (DP 435 rev. iii 2-3). From L6
until U2 he is mentioned in sa 2 -du 11 texts.37 In the texts from U2, Enku the u m - m i - a is mentioned
for the first time as a recipient. A certain U2.U2 k u r u š d a appears in this kind of document from U3
until U6.38
It seems probable that in U2, the k u r u š d a Enku left his office to become u m - m i - a ; and the
agr ig U2.U2 succeeded him with the title of k u r u š d a and the attendant dues although he continued
to maintain some of the responsibilities of his previous office. In fact, he continues to be the person
in charge of the rations of the same subordinates39 as he had been in L6 and Ue
Another official Girinebadab (gir i 3 -n e 2 -b a-d ab 5 ) appears as d a m - g a r 3 in texts from the
time of Enentarzi to the first year of Lugalanda.40 From L3 until U3 a g a: raš with the same name
appears in a text related to river trading and allotments of fields for sustenance.41 Finally, Girinebadab
appears with the title of ga:ra š-ma h in a text dated to fifth year of an unknown ruler (perhaps
Uru’inimgina) dealing with goods from river trading which he brought to the palace.42 He appears
without a title in a contract (RTC 189), probably from the time of Enentarzi, as the superior of a man
who is a recipient of a field for sustenance (Nik 30 obv. ii 2-4), and in a text dealing with butter (DP
266 obv. i 3; ii 1). He never occurs in ration lists and appears in short texts extraneous to the e 2 -
m i 2.
The last official we want to discuss is Enšugigi (e n - š u ( - g i 4 -g i 4 ) ) who appears as an a g r i g
for the first time in U1 (DP 416 obv. ii 2-rev. i 1), as the official who transported timber logs felled
in the garden of Ur-ki/du 6 to the e 2 -g a l . In U2, he received bread, dark beer and sheep in the
36 VS 25 71 rev. iii 14-15; VS 25 11 rev. iii 5-9; Nik I, 9 rev. ii 1-6.

37 RTC 67 obv. ii 2-3 (L6); AWAS 29 rev. i 5-6 (L7/1); AWL 43 rev. i 7 (Ue/2); DP 152 rev. vi 11
(Ue/3); VS 25 66 rev. ii 1-2 (Ue/6); DP 155 rev. i 2-3 (Ue/7); AWAS 30 obv. vii 2-3 (Ue/9); VS 25 66 rev. ii
1-2 (U1/1); AWAS 31 obv. vii 9-rev. i 1 (U1/3); DP 158 obv. vii 10 (U2/4); Nik I, 60 rev. i 5 (U2/9); Nik 64
rev. i 1 (U2/11).
38 TSA 34 rev. i 7-8 (U3/4); Nik I, 59 rev. i 8-9 (U3/5); TSA 36 rev. ii 1-2 (U3/10); Nik I, 63 rev. i 1-2
(U3/11); AWAS 32 rev. i 3-4 (U4/2); CT 50, 37 rev. i 5-6 (U4/4); AWAS 33 rev. i 7-8 (U4/8); AWAS 65 obv. vʹ
9ʹ-10ʹ (U4/?); CTNMC 3 obv. vii 9-10 (U5/2); AWAS 34 rev. i 1-2 (U5/5); AWAS 35 rev. i 8-9 (U5/6); TSA 35
rev. i 2-3 (U5/13); NIK I, 57 rev. ii 8-10 (U6/1).
39 CT 50, 36 rev. vi 14-15 (U3/6); AWAS 121 rev. vi 18-19 (U3/8); AWAS 16 rev. v 18-19 (U3/10);
AWAS 120 rev. iv 18-19 (U4/2); TSA 14 rev. iv 18-19 (U4/4); TSA 15 rev. v 14-15 (U4/7); AWAS 36 rev. i
8-9; ii 4-6 (U4/?); DP 115 rev. iv 5-6 (U4/?); DP 114 rev. iv 14-15 (U6/3); TSA 16 rev. iii 15-iv 1 (U6/8); TSA
17 rev. v 3- 5 (U6/?).
40 DP 92 obv. i 4-5 (EN 4); RTC 17 rev. ii 4-5 (EN); Nik I 256 obv. i 2-3 (L 1).
?
41 DP 59.
42 RTC 21 obv. ii 4-5.
320 Akkade is King
palace together with several sanga and a s a g i - m a h .43 He reappears subsequently only in U5 and
in U6 as the agrig performing the duties of the n u - b a n d a 3 with (VS 27, 1 rev. iii 3-4), or in place
of Eniggal and therefore in charge of the allocation of rations and distribution of s a 2 -d u 11 (š e - b a
e- ne- ba; sa 2 -du 11 e-ta-gar). He is never mentioned either as an a g r i g or a d u b - s a r in the texts
of Lugalanda but an official with the same name who in the time of Lugalanda occurs as a l u 2 -IGI .
NI GI N 2 / 4 immediately after the nu-ba n d a 3 Eniggal in some personnel lists44 and immediately
after several dub-sar in texts concerning the allocation of textiles.45 This second Enšugigi might
be identified with our agrig. We can note that in the time of Lugalanda, another namesake with the
function of ka-šakan, the superintendent of the oil and fat, appears.46 An identification with our
agrig is possible but uncertain. In fact, when Enšugigi k a - š a k a n disappears in L6, then Enšugigi
agrig appears. From L6 to U6 another k a - š a k a n , Gi-nim, appears in the texts in place of Enšugigi.
Whatever his identity was before the reign of Uru’inimgina, in U1 and U2, this a g r i g was still part
of the administration of the e 2 -gal. Only in U6, was he in the employ of the e 2 -m i 2 , possibly in a
position just below that of Queen Sasa in place of Eniggal the nu - b a n d a 3 .
The information we found in the texts seems to document, with a degree of certainty, the
various possible steps in the careers of officials. All of them were originally officials of high rank
playing an important role in the institution. It is possible that they came from elite families that in
reality managed the power in ED IIIb state of Lagaš.
The Sargonic documentation from Girsu comprises about 1800 texts (cf. Foster 1982, 6), but
the exact number of tablets contained in the archive cannot be established (cf. Foster-Donbaz 1982,
vii, n. 1). Almost all Sargonic texts from Girsu are kept in the Istanbul Museum and come from de
Sarzec’s excavations. The texts of the Istanbul Museum should probably be attributed to the Sargonic
period or to the one immediately following.47 A batch of tablets, complete ones and fragments, from
the excavations of de Sarzec was transferred to the Louvre with the permission of the Ottoman
43 TSA 3 obv. i 4-5. Similar text is TSA 4.

44 AWL 130 obv. i 5 (L4); DP 226 obv. i 5 (L4); DP 132 obv. i 5 [L5].
45 DP 192 obv. iii 7 (L4?); DP 193 obv. ii 8 (L6).
46 Nik I, 125 rev. vi 1; 301 rev. iv 2 (L2). DP 624 obv. i 2 (L3). DP 268 rev. ii 3 (L5). VS 25 11 rev. ii
14; 44 obv. iii 10; 71 rev. iii 3; AWL 118 rev. i 1; 119 rev. i 1; DP 269 obv. i 2 (L6). He also occurs in other
texts that do not bear the name of the king. It is however possible that the reigning king was Lugalanda, based
on previous attestations: DP 264 obv. i 3 (2); 270 obv. i 3 (3); Nik I, 17 rev. v 6 (3); DP 514 rev. iii 3 (4); Nik
I, 45 obv. i 2 (6). In VS 27, 12 obv. i 3-4 he is recipient of sheep for šuku, in the year 1 but it is impossible to
state the name of sovereign.
47 We shall indicate the Istanbul texts exclusively with the Museum catalogue number. In this paragraph
the texts whose copies can be found in ITT are recognizable because beside the catalogue number they carry
an indication of the line or column: for example, L 1042 rev. 3 or L 1449 rev. i 3. On the other hand, the texts
whose copies have been published in STTI have the STTI number and the indication of the line in brackets
beside the Museum number: for example, L 1095 (S6) rev. 4ʹ.
authorities. The complete tablets from the Sargonic period were published by F. Thureau-Dangin
in RTC 77-171, but the fragments remain unpublished.48 A part of the Sargonic documents from
clandestine digs or stolen from de Sarzec’s excavations, are scattered in various museums and most
have been recently published.49
This documentation should be considered as the total amount of the records of the e 2 - g a l
(Foster 1982b, 18) for a period which cannot be delimited precisely, but falls certainly between the
reign of Naram-Sîn and that of Šarkališarri and which must have largely coincided with the period
when Lugal-ušumgal was city ruler of Girsu. This e n s i 2 , as documented by his seal impressions,
was certainly a contemporary both of Naram-Sîn (RTC 165; 166; 170) and of Šarkališarri (RTC
136; 161; 162). Some of the documents probably belong to the period of the e n s i 2 Puzur-Mama,
who succeeded Lugal-ušumgal (RTC 83; 181). However, it appears clear, in agreement with Foster
1982b, 18, that most of the documentation should be dated to the reign of Šarkališarri. It cannot,
however, be excluded that many documents belong to the latter part of the reign of that sovereign
and the subsequent period.
A comprehensive study of the Sargonic documentation from Girsu has never been carried
out. A study of the allotment field texts was done by Foster 1982b, 17-45; 45-52, in the context of
the analysis of the land distribution system in the Sumerian cities during the Sargonic period. This
study showed that the allotment holders were members of the court, the administration and of the
temple hierarchies; in other words, all the officials connected with the management of power and
of the local economy. New was the role of people like Etib-mer, holder of vast tracts of agricultural
land both in the territory of Girsu and in that of Umma. In agreement with Foster 1982b, 35-37, he
must be regarded as the head of the royal Sargonic settlement in the regions of Girsu and Umma and
hierarchically superior to the ensi 2 of both cities, Mesag and Lugal-ušumgal.
Another group of texts analyzed by Foster 1980, 29-42, concerns the records of allocations
of different types of goods to members of the royal family (l u g a l , n i n , d u m u - n i t a / m i 2 l u g a l )
and to high-ranking officials of the kingdom, both royal and local, on the occasion of journeys made
by the king and his followers to the Sumerian cities. This group of tablets certainly comprises L
1212+4672; 1472; 2940; 4548; 4566; 4686; 4699; 5791; 9374; 9428; RTC 127; 134; 135; CT 50,
17250. Foster links RTC 221-223 to these texts: they are documents with controversial dating which
48 The fragmentary tablets from the Sargonic and Post-Sargonic period in the Louvre which come from
de Sarzec’s excavations, series AOTb, are still unpublished. They will be published by J.-J. Glassner.
49 CT 50, 49-51; 82-187 (82 and 109 are of uncertain attribution); MVN 3, 42-44; 47-48; 50-51; 76, 89;
114; BIN 8, 225. To these should be added PUL 23-24; 26; 38; some tablets published in DCS, and probably
YBC 5107-5124. Other unpublished documents are at present in Yale University Museum, in the Louvre, in the
Ashmolean Museum, and in The Royal Scottish Museum in Edinburgh.
50 To these texts, it is perhaps possible to add other documents (L 3072; 4548; 4638; RTC 102; 103)
which could be regarded as falling into the categories analyzed in Foster 1980.
322 Akkade is King
Foster wishes to date late in the reign of Šarkališarri (Foster, 1980: 32-36).51
The five officials in these archives are:
Amar-kun (amar-kun), who appears as s u k k a l in RTC 81 obv. 11 and in RTC 82 rev. 5 as
a witness. The former document records the sale of a slave bought by Lugal-ušumgal ruler of Girsu
(see Edzard 1968, 49, nos 97-98), and the latter records a protocol dealing with two oxen and seven
donkeys (see Edzard 1968, 87, 143). As s u k k a l - m a h he appears in L 1384 obv. 3 (S 53), a record
of bread, beer and cakes delivered by Amar-kun and [ x ] - z i u g u l a . Finally, he appears, untitled,
in L 4356, a record of the delivery of sheep from a dependent of Amar-kun. The title s u k k a l of
Amar-kun in RTC 81 and 82 could be a short form of s u k k a l - m a h if RTC 81, 82 and L 1384 are
contemporaneous, or they could indicate a previous step in the career of this bureaucrat if L 1384 is
later than RTC 81 and 82.
Lu- za h (lu 2 -z ah 3 ) as kurušda appears in L 3011, an account of fish that our official and
Lu-Utu the scribe took into their charge and in RTC 91 rev. iiiʹ 3ʹ a record of personnel who resided
at an unknown location, among them our k u r u š d a . He occurs as a d u b - s a r in L 4680, as the official
who signs a summary of 117 guards,52 and in AOTb 248 obv. i 11 concerning barley distribution.
He is titled nu-banda 3 -gu 4 in L 3079 obv. 2 (S 94), a record of expenditures of wrought copper
(urudu k in). He appears untitled together with Lu-Utu in L 45 62 rev. 2 (S 129), a record of bronze
received by Lu-zah and Lu-Utu, and in RTC 99 rev. 1, a record of wrought copper received by Lu-
zah. It might be possible to identify him with his namesake who functioned as a n u - b a n d a - g u 4 .
Lu-zah without any designation occurs in L 2838 where he delivered rams, and in L 2955 where he,
together with Amarsu (who occurs elsewhere as n u - b a n d a 3 ) is entrusted with rams belonging to the
house of the city ruler, Lugal-ušumgal. He also occurs in RTC 136 ob. iii 3ʹ; rev. i 5ʹ, a fragmentary
account of oxen and cows in relation to several people, among them Lu-zah and Uš d u b - s a r, when
51 Maeda (1988, 27-31) holds a different opinion. He attributes RTC 221-223 to the period when Ur-
Ningirsu, son of Gudea, was ensi 2 and identifies the unnamed lugal mentioned in these texts as Utu-hegal,
the king of Uruk. Carroué (1994, 67) agrees with Maeda as regards the dating of RTC 221-223, but disagrees
with the identification of the lugal in RTC 221-223; he believes that he was one of the Gutian kings. Volk
(1992, 23; 27) thinks that RTC 221-223 belong to the period immediately after the reign of Šar-kali-šarri and
identifies the lugal in question as Puzur-Mama, the ensi 2 who seems to have succeeded Lugal-ušumgal,
on the basis of L 6758 (puzur 4 -ma-ma lugal lagaš ki ) and AO 11353 iiiʹ 6ʹ-7ʹ (puzur 4 -ma-ma lugal
lagaš ki -kam). Furthermore, while Maeda seems to have established that the period of time which separates
Šar-kali-šarri from Ur-Nammu is relatively long, Glassner (1994, 9) believes that the time lapse between the
end of the reign of Šarkališarri and the beginning of that of Ur-Nammu is not more than 30 years. If, on the one
hand, it seems to complicate the chronological situation considering the number of ensi 2 who seem to have
reigned in this period in Lagaš, on the other, it could explain some peculiarities arising from the long duration
of officials who were in active service in the Sargonic period still working in the administrations of subsequent
ensi 2 .
52 Visicato (2000, 150) formed the hypothesis that Lu-zah kurušda and Lu-zah dub-sar were the
same man. If this is true, the real title of Lu-zah was dub-sar kurušda.
Lugal-ušumgal was the city ruler. Finally he occurs as n u - b a n d a 3 e 2 - g a l , in a fragment, in relation

to a transaction where Ur-gigir the cupbearer, was the inspector. We can speculate that Lu-zah during
the reign of Lugal-ušumgal was initially the scribe of cattlemen, later became the administrator of
livestock and finally the administrator of palace of the ruler.53
M esag (Me-sa g 2 ) appears as sa g i in L 1454 obv. 2-3, a record of delivery of fish and in
L 5812, a list of people. As sagi-gal, he occurs in L 4457, a record of delivery of unknown goods
(perhaps fish) belonging to Mesag, head of cupbearers, which Ur-DU (an official who appears, also
untitled, in L 1083, 4446 in relation to fish) brought to Akkad, Lu-Utu (probably a d u b - s a r with the
same name, see above) was the inspector. Untitled he occurs in L 4561, a record a ducks, eggs, fish
and birds delivered by Mesag, L 4464, a record of ducks in the charge of Mesag, and in RTC 114 rev.
1, a large fragment of a list of officials concerned with bread, beer and sheep.
U r- Ba ga ra (Ur-ba -gara 2 ) as d u b - s a r, is mentioned in AOTb 321 rev. iii 13ʹ-14ʹ and
together with the scribe URU.KI, in AOTb 321 rev. ii 11ʹ.54 He appears during a very controversial
period.55 Ur-Bagara, who occurs without a title in about forty texts, is described in RTC 221 as n u -
banda 3 e 2 -gal. URU.KI occurs without a title in about fifteen texts. Ur-Bagara and U R U . K I
occur together in AOTb 321, as well as in 11 other texts, nine of which have identical content. These
are summary accounts of flour and bread for which Ur-Bagara is responsible and beer and beverages
of which URU.KI is in charge: they were probably regular allocations. In similar texts (L1332;
1455; 4384) Ur-gigir is mentioned together with Ur-Bagara in place of U R U . K I .56 In L3057 both
URU.KI and Ur-gigir occur together with Ur-Bagara. Ur-Bagara and U R U . K I probably occur
together in L1062 in relation to slaves and cattle belonging to (iš-de3 ) Lugal-ušumgal and in L1129,
in relation to wrought copper received perhaps in Girsu.57 Ur-Bagara occurs in L4539 with Abba
i 3 - du 8 and Lu-Utu, perhaps the scribe, in connection with d u m u - n i t a , d u m u - m i 2 and d u m u - g a ,
probably under their responsibility. It may be possible to identify our official with the u r- b a - [ x ]
53 We do not know if Lu-zah was administrator before or after Ur-Ištaran, who was nu-banda 3 e 2 -gal
during the reign of Lugal-ušumgal. Surely he was nu-banda 3 e 2 -gal before Ur-Bagara, who perhaps was
administrator during the reign of Puzur-mama (see below).
54 AOTb 321, an unpublished document is a “Grand texte de 2x6 colonnes, 3 cassè; compte d’une
matière dont le nom est perdu, mesurée en sicles et en minas; parmi les gens cités: šu-ku 6 -me et mušen-
du 3 -me, sipa-anše-me, gala-mah, nu-banda 3 -gu 4 ”, private communication by J.-J. Glassner.
55 It is the period of the compilation of RTC 221-223.
56 Ur-gigir should probably be identified with his namesake sagi who occurs in L 4497. Ur-gigir occurs
about twenty times, more frequently without a title (L 1416; 2833; 2981; 4354; 4406; 4427; 4539; 4545; 4670;
4689; 5824; 5892; 9441; RTC 115; CT 50, 129; 186) or with the title of ugula (L 1305; 1448). The maškim
supervisor who occurs in RTC 127 rev. i 4ʹ must be identified with this latter official.
57 Both in L 1062 and in L 1129, the name of Ur-Bagara has been restored (L 1062.2 ur-[ba-ga]ra 2 ;
L 1129 rev. 4 ur-ba-[gara 2 ]). This restoration has been suggested by the contemporary presence of URU.KI
in L 1062 rev. 4 and in L 1129 (S9) rev. 5.
324 Akkade is King
mentioned in RTC 124 v. ii 4ʹ, a summary account of enormous amounts of barley dated to one of the
years of Šarkališarri. On the basis of these references, we can say that while Ur-Bagara was probably
the person in charge of the flour needed to make bread, and of the bread itself, which was regularly
allocated to the highest ranking officials by the administration (see for example, RTC 124-127),
URU.KI was the person in charge of beverages. If we recognize Ur-Bagara as the person who later
became the nu-banda 3 e 2 -gal in RTC 221, he must have been the scribe in charge of the supply
and distribution of grain and of its by-products for the palace administration in a previous period. Ur-
Bagara occurs, as the official who incurred the expenditure, in a group of documents, the greater part
of which are certainly Post-Sargonic, RTC 230, 236, DCS 4, 30; MVN 6, 12; 22; 86; 250. He also
occurs in MVN 6, 29; as the recipient of i 3 -d u 1 0 - g a and in MVN 6, 77 as the m a š k i m supervisor.
U r- d Ištaran occurs as nu-band a 3 in L 4498 a letter where the sender charged his master to
bring his cart to Ur-Ištaran the nu-band a 3 , and in L 3006 a record of rams delivered by Ur-Ištaran.
Titled nu-banda 3 e 2 -gal, administrator of the rulers palace, he is mentioned in RTC 81 obv. 12
13, a sale contract of a slave bought by Lugal-ušumgal, ruler of Lagaš, where he appears as witness.
Untitled, he occurs in L 3027, 3062 and 4357 records of deliveries of sheep by people who were
dependents of Ur-Ištaran and in L 1284, a record of sheep and oxen in the charge of Ur-Ištaran and
Lugal-TAR. The similarity of these texts with L 3006 suggests that this untitled official is likely the
namesake nu-banda 3 . It appears that Ur-Ištaran as n u - b a n d a 3 was an overseer of livestock who
subsequently became the administrator of the palace of the city ruler. His career appears similar to
that of Lu-zah but it is impossible to establish a chronological sequence between these officials.
The above evidence seems to indicate the kinds of career or change of role possible for some
of the officials discussed such as Lu-zah, Ur-Bagara and Ur-Ištaran. The evidence does not indicate
a real progression of the careers of the other officials discussed: Amar-kun and Mesag. As matter of
fact, the Sumerian scribes had the habit, documented from the Fara texts, of sometimes abbreviating
names and professions. Consequently the title s u k k a l of Amar-kun and s a g i of Mesag could be
abbreviations for sukkal-mah and sag i - g a l respectively.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bauer, J. 1972: Altsumerische Wirtschaftstexte aus Lagasch (StPohl 9; Rome: Biblical Institute Press).
Carroué, F. 1994: “La situation chronologique de Lagaš II”, Acta Sumerologica 16, 47-75.
Charpin, D. and J. M. Durand 1981: Documents cunéiformes de Strasbourg (DCS; Paris: Editions A.D.P.F).
Deimel, A. 1931: Sumerische Tempelwirtschaft (AnOr 2; Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico).
Donbaz, V. and B. Foster 1982: Sargonic Texts from Telloh in the Istanbul Archaeological Museums (S;
Philadelphia: University Museum).
Englund, R. K. 1990: Verwaltung und Organisation der Ur III-Fisherei (BBVO 10; Berlin: Reimer).
Foster, B. 1980: “Notes on Sargonic Royal Progress”, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 12, 29-42.
––––––– 1982a: “Archives and Record-Keeping in Sargonic Mesopotamia”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und
––––––– 1982b: Administration and Use of Institutional Land in Sargonic Sumer (Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag).
Glassner, J.-J. 1994: “La Fin d’Akkadé: approche chronologique”, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Bréves et
Utilitaires 1994/9.
Grégoire, J.-P. 1970: Archives Administrative Sumérienne (Paris: P. Geuthner).
Limet, H. 1973: Étude de documents de la période d’Agadé appartenant à l’Université de Liège (PUL; Paris:
Société d’éditions “Les Belles lettrès”).
Maeda, T. 1988: “Two Rulers by Name Ur-Ningirsu in Pre-Ur III Lagash”, Acta Sumerologica 10, 27-31.
Marzahn, J. 1991: Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Girsu/Lagaš (VS 25; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag).
––––––– 1996: Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Girsu/Lagaš (VS 27; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag).
Pettinato, G. 1977: Testi economici di Lagaš del Museo di Istanbul (MVN 6; Roma: Multigrafi ca editrice).
Pomponio, F. G. Visicato and A. Westenholz 2006: Le tavolette cuneiformi di Adab delle collezioni della Banca
d’Italia (Roma: Banca d’Italia).
Selz, J. G. 1989: Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden der Eremitage zu Leningrad, Altsumerische

Verwaltungstexte aus Lagaš (FAOS 15/1 =AWEL; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner).
––––––– 1993: Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden aus amerikanischen Sammlungen. Altsumerische

Verwaltungstexte aus Lagaš (FAOS 15/2 = AWAS; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner).
––––––– 1995: Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadtstaates von Lagaš (Philadelphia;
Occasional Publications of the Samuel noah Kramer fund, 13).
Visicato G. 2000: The Power and the Writing (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press).
Visicato, G. and Aa. Westenholz 2010: Early Dynastic and Early Sargonic Tablets from Adab in the Cornell
University Collections (in press).
326 Akkade is King
Volk, K. 1992: “Puzur-Mama und die Reise des Königs”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
Waetzoldt, H. 1986: “Compensation of Craft Workers and Officials in the Ur III Period”, in M. Powell (ed.),
Labor in Ancient Near East (AOS 68; New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society), 117-141.
Westenholz, Aa. 1975a: Early Cuneiform Texts in Jena (Copenhagen: Munksgaard).
––––––– 1975b: Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Philadelphia Chiefly from Nippur (OSP 1; Malibu,
Ca.: Undena Publications).
––––––– 1987: Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Philadelphia (OSP 2; Copenhagen: Carsten Niebuhr
Institute of Ancient Near East Studies, University of Copenhagen).
Wu, Y. 2001: “Lugalanda’s Economic Reform in the house of Lady in Girsu”, Journal of Ancient Civilizations
16, 101-128.
WHO WAS AMAN-AŠTAR?
Joan Goodnick Westenholz, Bochum
In our many rewarding discussions regarding various Old Akkadian figures, we frequently
agreed as often as we disagreed. On one recent occasion, I offered Aage an idea about the identity of
Aman-Aštar, the owner of one of his favourite seals. Since he thought it an “excellent idea”, I would
like to take this occasion to present him with a thorough analysis of this seal as my contribution for
his Festschrift.
Figure 1: Photograph of Seal of Aman-Aštar, from Charles

James Ball 1899, Light from the East. London (London:
Eyre and Spottiswoode), 153.
This unique seal has sparked controversy both over its imagery and its inscription (see figs.
1-2). The importance of this seal for establishment of the clerical hierarchy of Enlil, the high god of
Sumer, has been highlighted (J. G. Westenholz 1992).1 It was first published in 1899 by Charles James
Ball in Light from the East (London 1899, 153). At that time, the seal was housed in the Marquis of
Lorne Collection but subsequently the seal itself was lost and its present location is unknown. After
its initial publication, William Hayes Ward (1910, 81 no. 217) produced a line drawing of the seal but
interest in this seal waned over the following decades. For instance, there is its glaring omission in the
1965 publication Die Entwicklung der Glyptik während der Akkad-Zeit by Rainer Michael Boehmer.
On the other hand, in 1967, Johannes Renger (1967, 137 and n. 183) incorporated it into his study
of priesthood regarding the ēntum of Enlil in Nippur. The first edition of the seal was undertaken by
Aage Westenholz and Joachim Oelsner in 1983 as part of their study of various objects relating to
Tūta-napšum, the en-priestess of Enlil.
1 In this article, I am concentrating on the person of Aman-Aštar rather than Tūta-napšum and the issues
concerning her title.
328 Akkade is King
THE SEAL INSCRIPTION

The inscription on this seal is clearly written (fig. 2).
It reads:2
1. Tu -da-na-ap-šum
2. EN-na-at d En-líl
3. A-ma-an-Aš-dar MUNUS. Ú. ḪÚB
4. š a-at Za-bi-rí-im
5. GEMÉ-za
The translations that have been proposed are:

Figure 2: Drawing of the Seal
Tutanapsum,
Inscription by Aage Westenholz,
ēntum-Priesterin des Enlil.
from Aage Westenholz, and
Aman-Eštar, die … Joachim Oelsner 1983, “Zu
die (Angehörige/Abhängige?) des Zabirum den Weihplattenfragmenten der
(ist) ihre Dienerin (Sklavin). Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena,”
Altorientalische Forschungen
(Westenholz and Oelsner 1983, 214)
10, 215.
Tūtanapšum,
die en-Priesterin des Enlil.
Amaneštar, die …
die (…) des ZAbirum
ihre Dienerin.
(Gelb and Kienast 1990, 41 S-12)
Tūta-napšum, entu priestess of the god Enlil:

Aman-Aštar, the deaf lady, the prattler, (is) her female servant.
(Frayne 1993 RIME 2 p. 175, 2.1.4.2007)
Tutanapsum, the en-priestess of Enlil:

Aman-ashtar, …, of the Saberum family, her maidservant.
(Aa. Westenholz 1999, 73)
Tuta-napšum, ēntum of Enlil:

Aman-Aštar, daughter of Uhub of the Zabirum clan (?), (is) her maidservant.
(Suter 2007, 324)
2 Note that this seal and its transliteration can now be found on the CDLI website: P315279.
J. G. Westenholz: Who was Aman-Aštar? 329
From these varied translations, it is obvious that the identity of Aman-Aštar is uncertain. While
the earlier editions do not attempt to translate her title, the more recent ones have offered “the deaf
lady” and “daughter of Uhub”. The former translation originated with the interpretation of Piotr
Steinkeller (1993) who suggested that M U N U S . Ú . Ḫ Ú B , was a female equivalent of ú . ḫ ú b ,
Akkadian sukkuku “deaf, dumb” and for za-bi-rí-im, he analyzed the onomasticon as derived from
the lexeme ṣab(i)ru “squinting”. Douglas Frayne, in his RIME volume, proposed to understand
za-bi-rí-im as a parīsu form of ṣabāru ‘to be voluble, to prattle’. Aage Westenholz (1996, 122)
criticized this translation in his review of RIME 2: “‘Aman-Aštar, the deaf lady, the prattler’ is not
very plausible. A deaf woman would hardly be playing a musical instrument to her mistress and
ú.ḫúb = sukkuku (not su-uk-ku!) is too common as a personal name to mean ‘deaf’ or ‘stupid’. In the
present context, one would expect a profession. ša-at za-bi-rí-im must indicate Aman-Aštar’s family,
see Gelb MAD III 249f.” Characterized by hardness of hearing, visual impairment or loquacity,
Aman-Aštar seems a poor servant for the highest clerical official in the temple hierarchy of Enlil.
Furthermore, seal owners never identify themselves by highlighting their physical abnormalities
or behavioural disorders. Claudia Suter (2007, 324 n. 23) set forth to remove these deficiencies
by emending a DUMU in front of MU N U S and to interpret M U N U S . Ú . Ḫ Ú B in terms of her
patrilineal descent. Regrettably, Old Akkadian seal inscriptions do not differentiate the gender of the
owner or dedicatee of the seal.3
MUNUS.Ú.ḪÚB
Although it is commonly accepted that Ú . Ḫ Ú B is the logogram for ‘deaf’, the Sumerian
equivalent of Akkadian sukkuku(m), this meaning is only known from the Old Babylonian period
onwards and has a limited lexical distribution.4 In OB Sumerian literary texts, it is a metaphorical
description of ‘(person) difficult to teach’ ‘obstinate’ or even ‘stupid’.5 On the other hand, it is said
to occur as a proper name Ú.ḪÚB, not overly common, but usually that of a man in the third
millennium (Steinkeller 1993). However, the earliest cited instances are written Ú . T U K U 6 and
the later Ú.ḪÚB.7 The most important man with this name may be the Pre-Sargonic ensi of Kiš
3 This can be seen in the inscriptions discussed by Edzard 1968/9. In administrative and legal documents,
DUMU.MUNUS (var. MUNUS.DUMU) ‘daughter’ does occur (Gelb 1979, 31). This logogram is also
used to designate ‘girl’ vis-à-vis ‘boy’ (ibid.).
4 The OB lexical evidence is limited to OB Proto-Lu (MSL XII 52 l. 542f.). For later lexical material,
see CAD S s.v. sukkuku. This logogram is also used in Hittite, see Soysal 2001.
5 For discussions of these figurative meanings, see Sjöberg 1973, 123 and Civil 1987a, 26.
6 Instances from Fara were collected in Pomponio Prosopografia, p. 240. Further examples are: Pre-
Sargonic land sale, CT 5 3 iv 8 (= Gelb et al. OIP 104 no. 36 see copy on pl. 62) and early Sargonic ration list,
Westenholz OSP 1 25 “ii” 5’ (see copy).
7 Late Sargonic Ešnunna TA 1931, 1A, 25 (= Gelb et al. OIP 104 no. 44a i 2’) and Girsu ITT 1 1468, 3.
There is one possible example of a field name in the Ur III archives: a-šà- ú ḫúb MVN 15 295:5 (from Nippur)
330 Akkade is King
(Frayne RIME 1 p. 63 E.1.7.42 as well as Gelb and Kienast 1990, 31 VP 10). However, the latter
half of the sign ḪÚB is broken and thus the sign could be either T [ U K U ] or Ḫ [ Ú B ] . Perhaps,
two homophonous lexemes have fallen together, both in Sumerian and Akkadian. The Akkadian
references to a person close to the king (CAD sukkuku adj. usage c) do not seem to refer to a deaf
obtuse person.
MUNUS.(ME).ḪÚB
Related logograms are MUNUS. Ḫ Ú B and M U N U S . M E . Ḫ Ú B . It has been posited that
MUNUS.ḪÚB was used for a synonym for sukkal “vizier” in certain environments in OB and
later inscriptions with the reading /lagar/ in association with certain deities (Wiggermann 1988).8 As
Wiggermann (1988, 225) and Michalowski (1990, 7) have pointed out, the third-millennium lexeme
MUNUS.ḪÚB occurs in contexts that have not yet been fully understood and thus the full range of
readings of these signs is uncertain. Wiggermann (1988, 229) suggested that M U N U S . Ḫ Ú B might
have originally denoted a human official in the earlier periods and later solely a divine official. The
hypothesis of this article is that the human official, the l a g a r, functioned as a chief minister or vizier
to the en and thus the terms lagar and en were perpetuated in cultic spheres.9 In the following, some
new data will be added in reference to that amassed by Wiggermann and Michalowski in the hopes
that it may shed light on the enigmatic MU N U S . Ḫ Ú B .10
Palaeography
Wiggermann’s palaeographic study of M U N U S . Ḫ Ú B was limited to a comparison of A L

and DILM UN with MUNUS.ḪÚB. From the evidence that he collected, it seems obvious that the
peculiar sign DILMU N ending in a vertical disappears at the end of ED III (Z AT U 7 7 , L A K 5 1 4 ).
In its place are two signs, MUNUS+TU K U and M U N U S + Ḫ Ú B . In this discussion, the axiom is
that DILMUN (NI/MUNUS.TUKU ) is NOT the same sign as M U N U S . Ḫ Ú B , that they were
separate signs in all periods (pace Michalowski 1990, 5). It has been suggested that in ED, confusion
existed between the signs TUKU (ZAT U 2 7 7 , L A K 4 7 3 ) and Ḫ Ú B (L A K 4 7 4 ).11 In certain
but the lexeme should rather be interpreted as an instance of the plant name.
8 Michalowski (1990, 2; 1999) prefers sukkal x . Michalowski (1990, 3) argued that “SAL.ḪÚB
was interpreted in canonical Lu as lagar, or libir, the Eme-sal word for sukkal, unrelated to the separate
professional name lagar.” He (1990, 5-8) further developed his argument with recourse to evidence from
Ebla and came to the conclusion that the origin of the OB reading sukkal x , for SAL.ḪÚB is to be found in
the northern Early Dynastic writing GÍN .D ILMUN, which was used to write the word šaqil(um) “shekel”.
However, a lexeme based on the grapheme ḪÚB to convey the meaning “vizier” predates the western material,
see below.
9 For the en and lagar in Nippur, see J. G. Westenholz 1992, 301, 303, 308-309.
10 Their evidence will not be repeated here except when necessary.
11 Civil 1969, 12; Steinkeller 1993, 8 n. 4; Krebernik 1998, 282. In both ED Lú A and in the List of
writing traditions, seem to be a distinctive pair. For instance, Abū Ṣalābīkh seems to distinguish the
two signs in the ED Lu A list, lines 2 and 120. The two logograms, M U N U S . Ḫ Ú B and M U N U S .
ME.ḪÚB, seem to have a diachronic relationship; the former is found in ED and Old Akkadian
texts but only sporadically in Ur III texts, while MU N U S . M E . Ḫ Ú B occurs in Ur III texts.
Lexical
la -ga-ar MUN US . M E 1 2 (M UNUS . ḪÚB )

e-me MUNUS. AL
e-me MUNUS. M E (M UN US . AN Š E )
(Proto-Ea 437-439, MSL XIV 49, see Wiggermann 1988, 228)
The OB lexical evidence clearly indicates that one reading of the compound M U NU S . ( ME ) .
ḪÚB was /lagar/.13
Administrative
An Ur III administrative text from Nippur records the expenditure of five pairs of leather boots,
three pairs for the en-priestess of the god Enlil and two pairs for the M U N U S . M E . Ḫ Ú B of the
god Enlil. MUNUS.ME.ḪÚB in this context is undoubtedly a writing for l a g a r, the high ranking
cultic functionary in the cult of Enlil second in rank to the en (OIP 121 497:3, see detailed discussion
by Hilgert on pp. 69-70). These two cultic officiants appear consecutively in Old Akkadian field
assignments from Nippur (Westenholz ECTJ 74 i 4f., 120:2f.). After reviewing the evidence, Hilgert
(2003, 70) concluded “that the compound M U N U S . M E . Ḫ Ú B … should be considered a unique
orthographical variant or hybrid writing of the Sumerian word la g a r ”.
In three Ur III documents from Umma a sacerdotal cleric, M U N U S . Ḫ Ú B g a l is mentioned.
The first document specifics outlays of gold and silver for a crown (Santag 6 336: 3). The second
lists various items of jewellery: 14 gold beads, 1 pin inlaid with nir-stone and gold. 4 date-shaped
nir-stones, 2 long carnelian (beads). 1 carnelian pin and 4 date-shaped carnelian (beads) (YOS 4
267 ii 20-27). From these two references to accoutrements, it can be inferred that the M UN U S .
ḪÚB g a l is a female cleric. Finally, the last is a record of beer allotments for the city governor and the
clerical hierarchy. (Clark and Robson 2009, 1f. FSU 3: 5). The writing M U N U S . Ḫ Ú B g a l probably
represents /lagal/, a variant of lagar.14
Officials, the Fara exemplars consistently write ḪÚB rather than TUKU (see below). For a discussion of the
alternation between the sign TUKU in Abū Ṣalābīkh and the ḪÚB in Fara, see Krebernik 1998, 282. On the
identification of ḪÚB, see below.
12 For the more common reading of the diri-compound MU NUS.ME as lukur, see Wiggermann
1988, 239, s.v. 2.
13 For a review and discussion of all the lexical sources, see Wiggermann 1988, 228-231.
14 For /lagal/ as a variant of lagar see Wiggermann 1988, 238f. no. 1, Civil 2007, 20 no. 31 lagar B.
332 Akkade is King
In Girsu, there is one sealing of the ereš-dingir-priestess, Géme-Lamma.15 The inscription

reads: Géme- d La mma ereš-diĝir d Ba-Ú M UNUS . ḪÚB k i -[ág ] d B a - Ú “Géme-Lamma,
the ereš-diĝir-priestess of BaU, beloved M U N U S . Ḫ Ú B of BaU”. Thus, M U N U S . Ḫ Ú B parallels
ereš-diĝir-priestess and could conceivably refer to the priestess. the lagar (see below for another
instance).16 The question is whether these two sacerdotal titles are synonymous or complementary.
Literary
There are three unique instances of the logogram MUNUS.ḪÚB in Early Dynastic sources.
The first two come from ED IIIa Abū Ṣalābīkh but only the first is understandable:
Ákkil MUNUS.ḪÚB (var. NI. ḪÚB )-g al d Inana d N i n -ák k i l zà-m ì
In Akkil, the chief vizier of Inana, Nin-ákkil, praise
(OIP 99 50, 142-144, see Wiggermann 1988, 236, 2001, 491, zà-mì hymn)
The second citation is in the context of a mythological composition written in UD. GAL .
NUN orthography:
M U NUS.ḪÚB mu ba la ĝ ša a n u n
(OIP 99 318 ii 1, see Wiggermann 1988, 236 No. 3)17
For a possible connection between the balaĝ-instrument and the M U N U S . Ḫ Ú B , see
discussion below.
The third instance also occurs in the context of an ED IIIb mythological composition written
in standard Sumerian from Lagaš:
ki- e MUNUS.ḪÚB -na da lla ḫ a-m u -ak -e
Let Ki-Earth come forth in (all) her lavishness(?)!
(AO 4135 i 3, see Sjöberg 2002, 230)
Sjöberg (2002, 232) relates this citation to that found in an OB literary composition Two
Elegies line 138:
M U NUS .ḪÚB da m-šè mu-n i -p à-d a
š u- mu-úḫ-ti a-na mu-ti ú-za k-ki -˹ r u ˺
the/my beautiful one whom (Ninurta) has chosen as spouse18
15 The sealing was published by Fischer 1997, 155-156 no. 4 and I would like to thank Julia Asher-
Greve for bringing the inscription to my attention. This seal of Géme-Lamma does appear in a vararity of
articles (including my own) and nobody has remarked on the inscription, see most recently, Asher-Greve 2006,
70 fig. 18; Suter, 2007, 328, 352 fig. 6; and J. G. Westenholz 2009, 84-85, 98 fig. 7.
16 For lagar in Girsu, cf. la-gal in Gudea Cyl. A: é-e en ba-gub la-gal ba-gub (559, ETCSL
2.1.7).
17 This composition is part of a larger literary work, see Krebernik 1998, 350f. s.v. TSŠ 79+80.
18 This text is edited in ETCSL 5.5.3 with different lineation. The equivalent line 26 is given as: eme 5
dam-še 3 mu-ni-pad 3 -da niĝ 2 -de 2 -a-še 3 šu nu-mu-un-gid 2 -de 2 “the she-ass which had been chosen
as a mate is not accepted as an offering.” The choice of reading the logogram MUNUS.ḪÚB as eme 5 seems
As can be discerned, the translation of the ED passage: ‘in (all) her lavishness’ is dependent
on the Akkadian translation of the line in Two Elegies. Wiggermann (1998, 333-334 n. 35 s.v. b)
also discussed this attestation: “Here SA L . Ḫ Ú B must denote in some way the spouse-to-be of a
deity; the Akkadian translation šummuḫtu, “the lovely one”, may be based on a connotation of sexual
attractiveness.” His translation “the SAL . Ḫ Ú B whom he (Ninurta) has chosen as spouse does not
receive the marriage gift” fits the present context well. Thus, this line and the previous line can be
seen to make a poetic parallel couplet:
er eš-diĝir ki áĝ-ĝá-a-ni ĝi 6 -p àr-š è l a-b a-n i -i n -k u r 9 - r a r e
M U NUS .ḪÚB da m-šè mu-n i -p à-d a n í ĝ -d é-a-š è š u n u -m u -u n -g í d -d é
because his beloved ereš-diĝir-priestess did not enter the ĝipar,
The chosen spouse M U N U S . Ḫ Ú B (-priestess) does not receive the
marriage gift.
Thus, MUNUS.ḪÚB again parallels ereš-diĝir priestess and refers to a priestess, undoubtedly,
the lagar. Returning to the ED IIIb citation, it could be understood as:
ki- e MUNUS.ḪÚB -na da lla ḫ a-m u -ak -e
Let Ki-Earth come forth as his (An-Heaven’s) M U N U S . Ḫ Ú B (?)!
Consequently, these ED references provide two different nuances to the lexeme: (1) divine
vizier and (2) a marriageable priestess, whether related to human or divine marriage is difficult to
discern, most probably the lagar.
Proper Names
A divine name d Nin-MUNUS.Ḫ Ú B (OIP 99 86 iv 6, dupl. 82 v 12, see Cavigneaux and

Krebernik 1998-2001) appears in the ED IIIa god list from Abū Şalābīḫ. It might possibly be understood
as ‘Lady Vizier’ or ‘Lady Lagar’.19 MUN U S . Ḫ Ú B and M U N U S . M E . Ḫ Ú B alternate in the rare
personal name Ama-lagarx.20 Perhaps, lag a r x characterizes the mother as a ministering individual.
peculiar in this context of an elegy over a beloved deceased wife Nawirtum. The reading of the logogram as
eme 5 is attested in OB lexical texts (Nippur Forerunner to Hh XIII 257-269 [MSL VIII/1 88] = DCCLT OB
Nippur Ura 3 254-261) and in one literary text (Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta 599 [ETCSL 1.8.2.3]). It is a
learned reading not attested in administrative texts.
19 Cavigneaux and Krebernik’s suggestion as to meaning of logogram is “Bote” or “Tilmun”. The
CDLI transliterations of the two Abū Şalābīkh god lists (P225961, P010103) is Nin-eme 5 ‘The Lady (of the)
She-Asses’ which would be a calque on other names of divinities, such as Nin-súmun(a) “The Lady of the Wild
Cows” (Wilcke 1998-2001). As seen above, in footnote 16, eme5 is not a reading of the logogram in the third
millennium.
20 Ama-MUNUS.ḪÚB: Sommerfeld et al. 2005, 205 no. 12, Erm. 14385, 6, 8; Bridges 1981, 480,
NBC 10301: 2 (as cited in CDLI P212916); Ama-DILMU N (MUNUS+TUKU) OSP 1 23 ii 9’; ECTJ 185
+ 190 v 15 (on photograph looks as if DILMUN is MUNUS.ḪÚB). Ama-MUNUS.ME.ḪÚB: mother
of the king Ur-nigina of Uruk, see Frayne RIME 2 pp. 274-275 E.2.13.01.01a:8.
334 Akkade is King
ḪÚB
The palaeography of the pivotal sign Ḫ Ú B has been neglected. For instance, Ḫ Ú B did not
appear in ZATU but this omission was rectified in the CDLI website on line (http://www.cdli.ucla.
edu s.v. sign-lists). In ZATU, there is (1) Z AT U 7 7 ( ) identified as D I L M U N = L A K 5 1 4 ,
a sign that ends in a final vertical wedge; and (2) Z AT U 2 7 7 ( ) identified as K A B a sign
that ends in two oblique wedges. According to the CDLI database, there is no T U K U sign in Proto-
cuneiform.21 This is a strange state of affairs since T U K U is more common than K A B in ED. It is
most likely that ZATU 277 is not KAB but rather T U K U (L A K 4 7 3 )22 and that Ḫ Ú B ( ) is
a sign built on its base with the addition of two wedges, one oblique and one vertical and that L A K
474 should be identified with ḪÚB.23 In the Early Dynastic Period, Ḫ Ú B was also a basic sign as
can be seen in the acrographic list of compounds SF 7 ii 16ff. (Wiggermann 1988, 237 no. 5).
Proper sign classification is an essential base line to build any lexical theories. In particular,
the sign ZATU 277 is most important to establish the diachronic development of the logogram
MUNUS.(ME).ḪÚB. It occurs in two standard lexical lists of persons: the Archaic Lú A List and
the Archaic List of Officials.
The Archaic Lú A List, also know as the Standard Professions List, provides a compendium of
ancient human titles and designations that were already traditional in the Archaic period (Englund
and Nissen 1993, 14-19, 69-86). As enunciated by Englund (1998, 103): “indeed, this list more
than others with its nearly complete Uruk IV period forerunner text has been a substantial aid in
anchoring a number of signs from the earliest writing phase into an otherwise well known, but
heretofore poorly documented, palaeography of third millennium cuneiform.” The reading of the
Sumerian official in line 2 of this list is dependent on the correct identification of the signs. Despite
the previous identification of the signs N Á M . Z AT U 2 7 7 as N Á M . Ḫ Ú B ,24 line 2 of Archaic Lú
A was read N ÁM.KAB by Englund and Nissen (1993, 69) and accepted as the reading in DCCLT.
This line in the composite ED recension is read N Á M . T U K U on DCCLT and the ED score of line
2 given by Arcari 1982, 12 testifies to an alternation between N Á M . T U K U and N Á M . Ḫ Ú B with
the majority of cases giving NÁM.TUK U . In the comparison of the two lists, Nissen and Englund
(1993, 18) as well as Englund (1998, 105) drew N Á M . Z AT U 2 7 7 in the Archaic Lú A line 2 and
NÁM.LAK 474 in the ED Lú A line 2 which according to identifications above would be N Á M .
TUKU and NÁM.ḪÚB respectively. Most recently, Wilcke (2005, 441-443) suggested reading
21 In ZATU, one instance of an incompletely preserved sign TUKU was listed s.v. 559.
22 Similarly, Krebernik 1994, 384 who identifies ZATU 277 as ḪÚB and associates KAB with LAK
147. In his comments on ZATU 277, Steinkeller (1995, 702, 710) argues that ZATU 277 almost certainly
stands for both KAB and TUKU.
23 For this identification, see Steinkeller 1993. Krebernik (1998, 282 n. 514) posits that the forms
gathered together as LAK 474 are misleading since its identification as KAB/ ḪÚB is questionable.
24 Szarzyńska 1980.
nám- lagar x (ḪÚB) in line 2. Basing his theories on those of Civil, Wilcke linked this reading with
the Ebla glosses umuš = ú-mu-[šu]m ‘counselling’ and thus translated n á m - l a g a r x as “Wezir”.
Further he connected NÁM.ḪÚB with M U N U S . Ḫ Ú B . Furthermore, there are clear instances of
this logogram written as ḪÚB without N Á M in texts from Uruk IV and Ebla.
In the Archaic List of Officials (Nissen and Englund 1993, 19-22, 69-89), lines 14-22 contain
entries including the sign EN a with the exception of line 19: NÁ M . Z AT U 277 which could posit
as containing the sign lagar x . This line (line 18 in the DCCLT composite text) appears in the ED lists
as: NÁM.ḪÚB EN and EN NÁM.T U K U (Nissen and Englund 1993, 20). Wilcke (2005, 443)
proposed that this section relates to the household of the en-priest/cultic functionary. Since the l a g a r
as the second highest-ranking cultic functionary most commonly appears in the company of the e n ,
this officiant could conceivably hold the position of cultic minister or vizier to the en .
The official NÁM.ḪÚB was an active functionary in the archaic period, appearing in archaic
administrative texts (e.g. MSVO 3 11 ii 6, CDLI P005322). It co-occurs with the en in an Uruk
IV text, see Szarzyńska 1980, 126.25 There is one example of perhaps, a female M U NU S .NÁ M .
ḪÚB (MSVO 1 220, CDLI P005287 line 2a, Uruk III). Since it co-occurs with A M A , it may be an
early instance of the personal name Ama-lagarx written A M A . M U N U S . N Á M . Ḫ Ú B . As the title
belonged to the archaic administration, N Á M . Ḫ Ú B seems to have gone out of administrative use
already in the ED period (Szarzyńska 1980, 130).
Another ḪÚB occurs in ED peripheral texts with the function of ‘acrobat/dancer/musical
entertainer’ (Catagnoti 1997, Waetzoldt 2001, 344f.).26 There are a few possible attestations of Ḫ Ú B
with this meaning in southern Mesopotamia in the lexical traditions. As such, these lexical references
would be traditional and might refer to a function not any longer attested in the culture and society.
The first is Early Dynastic Lú A List line 120: G A L . Ḫ Ú B ‘chief Ḫ Ú B ’.27 Glosses occur in two
of the Ur sources (Ur 2 [U 30497], UET 6/3, 682 r ii 6’), which would have provided the phonetic
realization of the logogram but the glosses are not preserved. In fact, there is no compelling reason
for relating this entry in Lú with the ḪÚB entertainer.
The lexical references listed in Wiggermann 1988, 236 s.v. no. 4 have the greatest possibility
of belonging in this category of musicians composed with the logogram Ḫ Ú B ,28 since these entries
conceivably occur in the context of musical instruments or musicians, together with the balaĝ-
instrument. These references are cited as substantiation for the theory that Aman-Aštar is a musician
25 The cited text has been republished: ATU 1, 177 = ATU 5, pl. 014 W6738,b, CDLI P0000822.
26 It also occurs in second-millennium Mari (Catagnoti 1997, 587) and OB sources (J. G. Westenholz
1997, 162, note to line 136).
27 For the score of the sources to this line, see Michalowski 2003, 3 and another OB Ur source has since
been published: [GAL] [x-x-x-]x ḪÚB (UET 6/3, 682 rev. ii 6’, copy, OB).
28 For no. 6, a lexical text of names of bodies of water, see Krebernik 1998, 316 and 342. The signs
could also be combined ḪÚB.DU (rig 9 , see Catagnoti 1997, 583).
336 Akkade is King
(Frayne 1992, 622). The series in which these entries appear is Archaic Har-ra “Word List B”.29
However, various interpretations of the signs have been given:
Wiggermann Civil 1987b, 2008a CDLI P010093
OIP 99 33 viii 10ʹʹff. MEE 3 45-46 x 8ʹf. OIP 99 33 viii 10ʹʹff. OIP 99 33 viii 10ʹʹff.
PA+DIŠ MUNUS. emeraḫ b (SAL.ḪÚB. dilmun-
NI.ḪÚB-máḫ[AL]
ḪÚB AL) maḫ (LAK515[AL])
NI.ḪÚB- balag- PA+DIŠ ḪÚB- AL.ḪÚB (SAL.ḪÚB. dilmun-
máḫ balag AL)-balag maḫ(LAK515)-balag
balag […] balag balag
NI.ḪÚB- balag […] balag dilmun dilmun-balag
balag-ma-rí ba[lag-ma-rí] balag ma-rí ma-rí-balag
gi-di gi-di gi-di gi-di
a Civil incorrectly identifies the column and line numbers of the Abū Ṣalābīḫ text in his 1989
edition.
b On the reading emeraḫ, written in OB g e š U D . S A L . Ḫ Ú B , see Veldhuis 1997, 173 note to
lines 242-244. For the writing NI.ḪÚB = e m e r a h as an older writing of UD . S A L . Ḫ Ú B , see
Civil 1989, 58 n. 40 and 2008, 99 note to line 205.
As can be seen at a glance, no matter which interpretation is accepted, these entries shed little
light on ḪÚB or MUNUS.(ME).ḪÚ B . As Catagnoti (1997, 586) concluded, these references
give little support to the supposition that the profession M U N U S . Ḫ Ú B had any relation with music.
Civil (1989, 58 n. 40) suggested that NI. Ḫ Ú B apparently relates to some sort of cultic activity. This
brings us full circle to the cultic functionary la g a r.
This collected evidence testifies to a diachronic development of the logogram from ( N Á M ) .
TUKU ~ (NÁM).ḪÚB > (MUNUS). Ḫ Ú B > M U N U S . M E . Ḫ Ú B . The reading is undoubtedly
lagar x and its meaning either “vizier, chief minister” in general, or “ministering cultic functionary,
second in rank to the en, functioning as a cultic vizier”. In 1992 (J. G. Westenholz 1992, 301),
I hypothesized that the use of the titles e n and l a g a r may be innovations in the cult of Enlil in
Nippur, simplifications of existing titles written with more complicated logograms. On the basis
of the evidence gathered here, it might be possible to propose that M U N U S . ( M E ) . Ḫ Ú B is the
compound logographic writing of laga r (see also Sallaberger and Huber Vulliet 2005, 628). To
apply these conclusions to the seal inscription of Aman-Aštar, her title M U N U S . Ú . Ḫ Ú B may be
either a unique variant writing of MUNU S . ( M E ) . Ḫ Ú B in the transitional period in the diachronic
29 DCCLT probably refers to it by ‘Early Dynastic Vocabulary B’ but since there is no on line edition,
it is difficult to know. In Archi’s discussion of the transmission of Mesopotamian lexical texts at Ebla, he terms
it “List with Thematic Sections” (Archi 1992, 10).
development of MUNUS.ḪÚB > MU N U S . M E . Ḫ Ú B or a mistaken writing on the part of the

lapidary. In conclusion, Aman-Aštar was most probably the cultic functionary, the lagar, and thus her
seal portrays an image of an en and a lagar together.
The seal of Aman-Aštar and her tentative identification as a l a g a r can illuminate the relationship
between the commonly conjoined cultic functionaries the en and the l a g a r (J. G. Westenholz 1992,
299, 301, 308-309). It sheds particular light on the question of the gender of l a g a r. It has been posited
that these adjutants to the highest echelons of the temple hierarchy were male (Sallaberger and Huber
Vulliet 2005, 628). This statement led Suter (2007, 324) to identify the male nude libator in the
Enheduana relief as a lagar/l, the male assistant of e n -priestesses. Alster (1970, 117) assumed that
there was a cross-gendered relationship between the e n and the l a g a r, the former being male and
the latter being female.30 The lexical equations of l a g a r are given in the masculine form: L A G A R
= nu-gú-lum Ebla Sign List 3831 and probably, l a - g a l = L A G A R = la-gal-[lum] Proto-Aa 165:1
(MSL XIV 95). These lexical equations would indicate that the office was not marked for gender;
the masculine being the unmarked gender in Akkadian. Although Wiggermann maintained that the
holders of the office of MUNUS.ḪÚB were of both genders (1988, 229), yet, he (1988, 238f.)
posited that the cultic functionary laga r B was male. On the other hand, Michalowski (1990, 4)
surmised that the distinction between lagar (written M U N U S . Ḫ Ú B ) and sukkal is one of gender,
with the former being female and the latter male. In this discussion, it is important to note that
the gender of the ḪÚB entertainers in the Eblaite archives is always male (Catagnoti 1997, 587).
Consequently, one could deduce that there was a distinction Ḫ Ú B : M U N U S . Ḫ Ú B with the latter
term marked for gender. Taking the seal of Aman-Aštar and her tentative identification as a lagar into
consideration, it is logical to deduce that the lagar is same gender as the en she serves. This same
gender opposition would be similar to that of the divine sukkal and its divine patron. To conclude, I
would posit that the lagar was the deputy of the en and of the same gender.
ša-at Za-bi-rí-im
The combination of a determinative pronoun and a genitive noun should normally be translated
‘She of X’ as was done by Aa. Westenholz and Oelsner 1983, Gelb and Kienast 1990, Aa. Westenholz
1999 and Suter 2007.32 Steinkeller (1993, 8) and Frayne (1993) treat the noun Za-bi-rí-im as an
adjectival formation. However, Steinkeller understands ṣab(i)ru as a PN,33 from which it might be
inferred that he analyzed this phrase as ‘She of a person named Ṣab(i)ru’. Frayne, however, translates
the phrase as ‘the prattler’, which has little basis in the grammar of the phrase – an adjective in the
30 Unfortunately, the reading of his proof text TCL 16, 70 regarding the nam-en of Dumuzi and the
nam-lagar of Inana cannot be maintained, see Sefati 1998, 247-256 (DI T).
31 MEE 3 52 v 7-8, republished by Archi 1987; and for bibliography, see DCCLT.
32 For the grammar, see Gelb MAD 2 (2nd. ed.) 133-136 and MAD 3 249-255 and Hasselbach 2005,
161-164. This nominal phrase from the seal of Aman-Aštar is cited in MAD 3 253 and Hasselbach 2005, 163.
33 For this PN in Old Akkadian sources, see Za-ab-ra-am HSS 10 124:8.
338 Akkade is King
masculine (modifying a feminine person!), even a substantivized verbal adjective, and in the genitive
dependent on a determinative pronoun is an impossibility.
Without twisting this phrase, it can be interpreted as: (1) she of a person named Zabirum,
meaning one who belongs to specific person. Such a menial position similar to a slave would be
doubtful in relation to Aman-Aštar. (2) she of the Zabirum extended family (clan). This type of
kinship terminology is commonly found in Old Akkadian sources, in the affiliation ‘PN Of (the
household of) PN2’ (Gelb 1979, 27, 29, 39-51). The Aman-Aštar seal is cited as an example of this
meaning (Gelb 1979, 40 sub 1)). (3) she of the place Zabirum (Gelb 1979, 47). For geographical
designations similar to Zabirum, cf. Zabšali. A fourth plausible possibility is to separate this line
from the proceeding and assume that it is a personal name belonging to a third person. Old Akkadian
seals mentioning three persons do exist (Zettler 1977, 35-36). In these cases, the second person is
usually identified as a relation of the first, cf. seal impression of a servant of En-men-ana, daughter
of Narām-Sîn (Frayne RIME 2 p. 177 E2.1.4.2020) and seal of a servant of Bin-kali-šarrī, son of
Narām-Sîn (Frayne RIME 2 pp. 179f. E2.1.4.2023). For an example of such a seal without explicit
affiliation, cf. seal impressions of two major-domos of queen Tūta-šar-libbiš, wife of Šar-kali-šarrī
(Frayne RIME 2 198 E2.1.5.2001 and Frayne RIME 2 199f. E2.1.5.2003). According to this last
hypothesis, the seal inscription would read, Tūta-napšum, the e n -priestess of Enlil, Aman-Aštar, the
lagar – Šat-Zabirim her maidservant.
GEMÉ-za
The term ‘maidservant’ conveys the relation between the owner of the seal (most probably
Aman-Aštar, rather than Šat-Zabirim) and Tūta-napšum, the en-priestess of Enlil. Its equivalent i r 11 -
zu ‘manservant’ is the conventional style in which subordinate officials dedicate their seals to their
superiors, or according to another theory, in which subordinate officials are designated on their seals
of office (Zettler 1977). This designation does not relate to the owners having menial positions;
scribes and other members of the higher echelons of the political hierarchy identify themselves as
‘manservant’ —an ensi can be an ir 11 of a king.
Therefore, I propose the following translation of the seal inscription:
Tūta-napšum, the en-priestess of Enlil:
Aman-Aštar, the lagar, of the Saberum family, (is) her maidservant/handmaiden.
THE SEAL IMAGE

The scene on the seal most probably depicts Aman-Aštar standing in the presence of Tūta-
napšum and holding an enigmatic object in her hands.34 This object is generally identified as a musical
instrument.35 The incongruity between the accepted seal legend and the seal image has received
comment. The implausibility of a deaf person playing a musical instrument has been noted by Aa.
Westenholz (1996, 122) and Asher-Greve (2006, 68). In my perception, I thought it might be a rope,
such as used in priestly ordination ceremonies (J. G. Westenholz 1992, 303). Asher-Greve (2006,
68) suggested that the object in her hand might be something used to perform amusing tricks rather
than a musical instrument. In 2007, Suter (2007, 325 note 24) summarized the present state of the
discussion: “Although female musicians entertaining an enthroned audience are depicted in ED and
Akk imagery, I hesitate to interpret this object as a musical instrument (cf. Collon 1987; RIME 2;
Aa. Westenholz 1999, 88), because its shape does not correspond to any known instrument. Even if
it resembles a rope hanging from a hook, the evidence for an ordination rope (J. G. Westenholz 1992,
303) is not convincing either.”
In support of the idea of
an ordination or a ritual rope
in the hands of Aman-Ashtar,
further pertinent evidence can
be cited. In addition to the
images and texts brought in
Figure 3: Reconstruction of Archaic Uruk Sealings W. 21 004, 3 and evidence in 1992, compelling
others, after M. A. Brandes 1979, Siegelabrollungen aus den archaischen renderings of ropes/cords
Bauschichten in Uruk-Warka (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 3,
occur in Archaic, ED and Old
Wiesbaden: F. Steiner), pl. 31.
Akkadian offering scenes. In
chronological order, they are: (1) Archaic Uruk sealing, priestess holding a snake-like cord (W. 21
004, 3, fig. 3); (2) ED IIIb seal with rope on altar in libation scene, provenance unknown (Asher-Greve
2003, 38 no. 12, fig. 13); (3) ED IIIb limestone plaque with rope on altar in libation scene, Ur ĝipar
(U.6831, BM 118561, UE IV pl. 39c, UE VII pl. 63. Most recently discussed by Asher-Greve 2006,
54 and see her references to earlier treatments, fig. 4); (4) ED III shell plaque libation scene before
post from which hangs a rope (U. 7900, BM 120850, UE II pp. 282, 525 and pl. 102, found loose
in soil, fig. 5); (5) Akkadian seal depicting rope on altar in worshipper scene (BM 129479, Collon
1982, 101 no. 213). Most of these renderings show a noosed corded rope composed of several strands
twisted together (the bumps of which are visible). The symbolism of this image is not obvious. In
34 If the seal belongs to Šat-Zabirim, the two persons in the image could possibly be Aman-Aštar,
enthroned as befitting a lagar, and Šat-Zabirim standing before her.
35 Collon 1987, 125 no. 530; Frayne RIME 2 p. 175 (1993); Aa. Westenholz 1999, 72 and n. 344
(lyre?), 88 (a female musician).
340 Akkade is King
Fig. 4: Early Dynastic Shell Plaque with Libation

Scene, U.7900, found loose in the soil at Ur, from
Leonard C. Woolley 1934, The Royal Cemetery:
a report on the Predynastic and Sargonid graves
excavated between 1926 and 1931 (UE II; London
and Philadelphia: published for the trustees of the
two museums by the aid of a grant from the Carnegie
Corporation, 1934, pl. 102.
general, cords and ropes are symbols of binding. Studies

by anthropologists worldwide have noted recognition of a
“spiral ladder”, “braided rope”, or “spiral stairway” citing
in particular Mircea Eliade (1964). According to Eliade
(1964, 75, 121, 136, 226, 490-492), the symbolism of the
rope, commonly used in initiation rites of shamans, like
that of the ladder, necessarily implies communication
between earth and sky. It provided the means for mortals
to ascend to the sky. When knotted, ropes symbolize a bond of sort and possess magical properties.
In Sumerian culture, there are various corded ropes. One is the oft-shown measuring rope and rod,
symbols of kingship bestowed by deities on chosen kings. Another is the eškiri-leadrope, part of the
regalia of kingship as well as en-ship. Still another is the cord that was used not only in the ordination
of the nešakku or pašīšu priests but also of the nadītu priestesses (CT 4 18b:1). The cord might be
depicted in this seal as representing the momentous occasion when these priestesses entered into
their lifelong position. Thus, it might be said that the image on the seal is meant to be iconic, not to
show a scene from daily life. The presence of the cord might also be related to the ritual ropes in the
offering and libation scenes. One enigmatic
reference may refer to this rope:
Fig. 5: Limestone votive plaque, U.6831,

found in fill of passage in the ĝipar at Ur in
the fourth season of excavations, 1925-6,
Leonard C. Woolley 1926, “The Excavations
at Ur, 1925-6,” The Antiquaries Journal VI,
pl. LIIIa.
en d u 1 0 šà éš-lá (var.me) àm - m i - i n - l á
the good en-priest(ess) suspends closely(?) the dangling rope
(Kèš Temple Hymn 108, ETCSL 4.80.2:109).36
To conclude, on a scale of seeming reasonableness, the proposition that Aman-Aštar was a
lagar-priestess and that the lagar-priestess was the chief minister to the en-priestess seems most likely.
The image may render Aman-Aštar holding in her hands an ordination or a ritual rope, symbolizing
her installation in office or her function in cult.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alster, B 1970: “Sum. nam-en, nam-lagar,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 23, 116-117.
Arcari, E. 1982: La Lista di Professioni «Early Dynastic LU A» Esempio di metado di analisi dei rapporti tra
le scuole scribali del III millennio a. C. (Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. Supplemento
32, fasc. 3; Napoli: Istituto Orientale di Napoli).
Archi, A. 1987: “The ‘Sign List’ from Ebla,” Eblaitica 1, 91-113.
––––––– 1992: “Transmission of the Mesopotamian Lexical and Literary Texts From Ebla,” in: P. Fronzaroli
(ed.), Literature and Literary Language at Ebla, Quaderni de Semitistica 18 (Firenze: Dipartimento di
linguistica, Università di Firenze), 1-40.
Asher-Greve, J. 2006: “«Golden Age» of Women? Status and Gender in Third Millennium Sumerian and
Akkadian Art,” in: S. Schroer (ed.) Images and Gender: Contributions to the Hermeneutics of Reading Ancient
Art (Orbis biblicus et orientalis 220; Fribourg : Academic Press ; Göttingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 41-
81.
Ball, C. J. 1899, Light from the East. London (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode).
M. A. Brandes 1979, Siegelabrollungen aus den archaischen Bauschichten in Uruk-Warka (Freiburger

Altorientalische Studien 3, Wiesbaden: F. Steiner)
Bridges, S.J. 1981: The Mesag Archive, A Study of Sargonic Society and Economy, A Dissertation Presented
to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Yale University in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
(New Haven: Yale University).
Catagnoti, A. 1997: “Les listes des ḪÚB.(KI) dans les texts d’Ebla et l’onomastique de Nagar,” M.A.R.I. 8,
563-596.
Cavigneaux, A. and M. Krebernik 1998-2001: “dNin-SAL.ḪÚB,” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und

Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 484.
36 For this interpretation, see also Gragg 1969, 186 and Geller 1996, 76. Another possibility is to read:
en du 10 šà túg-ma 6 àm-mi-in-lá “The good en-priest(ess?) has on the robe of office” (Wilcke 2006, 227
233), see also Jacobsen 1987, 384.
342 Akkade is King
Civil, M. 1969: The Series lú = ša and Related Texts (Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon XII; Rome:
––––––– 1987a: “Sumerian Riddles: a Corpus,” Aula Orientalis 5, 17-37.
––––––– 1987b: “The Early History of HAR-ra: the Ebla Link,” in: L. Cagni (ed.), Ebla 1975-1985: Dieci
anni di studi linguistici e filologici: Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 9-11 ottobre 1985) (Istituto
Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor, 27; Napoli; Istituto Universitario
Orientale), , 131-158.
––––––– 1989: “The Statue of Šulgi-ki-ur5-sag9-kalam-ma, Part One: The Inscription,” in: H. Behrens, D. Loding
and M.T. Roth (eds.), DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg (Occasional Publications of
the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 11; Philadelphia, Penn.: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, University Museum),
49-64.
––––––– 2007. “Early Semitic Loanwords in Sumerian”, in M. T. Roth, W. Farber, M. W. Stolper, and P. von
Bechtolsheim (eds.), From the Workshop of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary: Studies Presented to Robert D.
Biggs (Assyriological Studies 27, Chicago, Ill.: Oriental Institute), 11-33.
––––––– 2008. The Early Dynastic Practical Vocabulary A: Archaic HAR-ra A (ARES III, Roma: Missione
Archeologica Italiana in Siria).
Clark K. and E. Robson 2009: “The Cuneiform Tablet Collection of Florida State University”, Cuneiform
Digital Library Journal 2009:2, 1-14.
Collon, D. 1982: Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum Vol 1, part 2: Cylinder Seals II,
Akkadian, Post Akkadian, Ur III Periods, (London: The British Museum Press).
––––––– 1987: First Impressions: cylinder seals in the ancient Near East (London: British Museum).
Edzard, D.O. 1968/9: “Die Inschriften der altakkadischen Rollsiegel,” Archiv für Orientforschung 22, 12-20.
Eliade, M. 1964: Shamanism: archaic techniques of ecstasy (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
Englund, R.K. 1998: “Texts from the Late Uruk Period,” in: P. Attinger and M. Wäfler (eds.), Mesopotamien,
Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastiche Zeit (Orbis biblicus et orientalis 160/1; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag
Freiburg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 15-233.
––––––– and H. Nissen 1993: Die lexikalischen Listen der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk (Ausgrabungen der
Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 13; Archaische Texte aus Uruk 3; Berlin: Mann).
Fischer, C. 1997: “Siegelabrollungen im British Museum auf Ur-III-zeitlichen Texten aus der Provinz Lagas”,
Baghdader Mitteilungen 28, 97-183.
Frayne, D. 1992: “The Old Akkadian Royal Inscriptions: Notes on a New Edition,” Journal of the American
Oriental Society 112, 619-638.
Gelb, I.J. 1979: “Household and Family in Early Mesopotamia,” in: E. Lipiński (ed.), State and Temple
Economy in the Ancient Near East (Leuven : Departement Oriëntalistiek), 1-97.
––––––– and B. Kienast 1990(†): Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr.
(Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 7; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner).
Geller, M.J. 1996: “Jacobsen’s ‘Harps’ and the Keš Temple Hymn,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und
Gragg, G.B. 1969: “The Keš Temple Hymn,” in: Å. W. Sjöberg, E. Bergmann, and G. B. Gragg (eds.), The
Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns (Texts from cuneiform sources 3; Locust Valley, N.Y : J. J. Augustin),
155-189.
Harrassowitz).
Jacobsen, Th. 1987: The Harps that Once ... Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven; London: Yale
University Press).
Krebernik, M. 1994: Review of ZATU, Orientalische Literaturzeitung 89, 380-385.
––––––– 1998: “Die Texte aus Fāra und Tell Abū Şalābīḫ,” in: P. Attinger and M. Wäfler (eds.), Mesopotamien,
Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastiche Zeit (Orbis biblicus et orientalis 160/1; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag
Michalowski, P. 1990: “The Shekel and the Vizier,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie
80, 1-8.
––––––– 1999: “Working in Stone: Remarks on a New Samsu-iluna Inscription,” Nouvelles Assyriologiques
Bréves et Utilitaires 1999/ 3 pp. 71f. no. 72.
––––––– 2003: “An Early Dynastic Tablet of ED Lu A from Tell Brak (Nagar),” Cuneiform Digital Library
Journal 2003:3.
Renger, J. 1967: “Untersuchungen zum Priestertum in der altbabylonischen Zeit,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 59, 104-230.
Sallaberger, W. and F. Huber Vulliet 2005: “Priester. A. I. Mesopotamien,” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und
Sefati, Y. 1998: Love Songs in Sumerian Literature, Critical Edition of the Dumuzi-Inanna Songs (Bar-Ilan
Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures; Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press).
Selz, G. 1998: “Über Mesopotamische Herrschaftskonzepte, Zu den Ursprüngen mesopotamischen

Herrscherideologie im 3. Jahrtausand,” in: M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), dubsar anta-men, Studien zur
Altorientalistik, Festschrift für Willem H.Ph. Römer zu Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von
Freuden, Schülern und Kollegen (AOAT 253; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag), 281-344.
Sjöberg, Å 1973: “Der Vater und sein missratener Sohn,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 25, 105-169.
––––––– 2002: “In the Beginning,” in: T. Abusch (ed.), Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern
Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, Winona Lake), 229-248.
Sommerfeld, W., K. Markina and N. Roudik 2005: “Altakkadische Texte der St. Petersburger Eremitage”, in:
L. Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, and S. Tishchenko (eds.), Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff, Babel und Bibel 2
(Annual of Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Semitic Studies. Papers of the Institute of Oriental and
Classical Studies VIII; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns), 185-232.
344 Akkade is King
Soysal, Y. 2001: “Hitit din ve sosyal hayatinda LÚ/MUNUSÚ.ḪÚB “sağir”, in: G. Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV.
Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie: Würzburg, 4.-8. Oktober 1999 (Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten
45; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), 652-669.
Steinkeller, P. 1993: “Comments on the Seal of Aman-Eshtar,” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Bréves et Utilitaires
1993 pp. 7-8 no. 9.
––––––– 1995: Review of ZATU, Bibliotheca Orientalis 52, 689-714.
Suter, C.E. 2007: “Between Human and Divine: High Priestesses in Images from the Akkad to the Isin-Larsa
Period,” in: J. Cheng and M. H. Feldman (eds.), Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context: Studies in Honor of
Irene J. Winter by Her Students (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 26; Boston, Mass. : Brill 2007),
317-361.
Szarzyńska, K. 1980: “NAM2.HUB2 — Sumerian official in the Archaic Period,” Rocznik Orientalistyczny
XLI, 125-130.
Veldhuis, N. 1997: Elementary Education at Nippur, The List of Trees and Wooden Objects (Groningen:
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen).
Ward, W. H. 1910: The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia (Washington, D.C.: The Carnegie Institution of
Washington).
Waetzoldt, H. 2001: Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungstexte aus Ebla: Archive L. 2769 (Materiali Epigrafici de Ebla
12; Rome: Università degli studi di Roma “La Sapienza,” Dipartimento di studi orientali).
Westenholz, Aa. 1996: Review of Frayne RIME 2, in Bibliotheca Orientalis 53, 116-123.
––––––– 1999: “The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture,” in: P. Attinger and M. Wäfler (eds.),
Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III Zeit (Orbis biblicus et orientalis 160/3; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag
Westenholz, Aa. and J. Oelsner 1983: “Zu den Weihplattenfragmenten der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena,”
Altorientalische Forschungen 10, 209-216.
Westenholz, J.G. 1992: “The Clergy of Nippur: The Priestesses of Enlil,” in: M. deJong Ellis (ed.), Nippur at the
Centennial, Papers Read at the 35e Recontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia, 1988 (Occasional
Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 14; Philadelphia, Penn. : Distributed by the Samuel Noah
Kramer Fund, The University Museum), 297-310.
––––––– 1997: Legends of the Kings of Akkade: the texts (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns).
––––––– 2009: “Construction of Masculine and Feminine Ritual Roles in Mesopotamia”, in B. Heininger (ed.),
Ehrenmord und Emanzipation, Die Geschlechterfrage in Ritualen von Parallelgesellschaften (Geschlecht -
Symbol - Relgion 6, Berlin: LIT Verlag), 73-98.
Wiggermann, F.A.M. 1988: “An Unrecognized Synonym of Sumerian sukkal ‘Vizier’,” Zeitschrift für
Wilcke, C. 1998-2001: “Ninsun (dNin-súmun.(a)k),” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen

––––––– 2005: “ED Lú A und die Sprache(n) der archaischen Texte,” in: W. H. Van Soldt (ed.), in cooperation
with R. Kalvelagen and D. Katz, Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia: Proceedings of the 48th Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, July 1-4, 2002 (Publications de l’Institut historique-archeologique
neerlandais de Stamboul 102; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten), 430-445.
––––––– 2006: “Die Hymne auf das Heiligtum Keš zu Struktur und „Gattung“ einer altsumerischen Dichtung
und zu ihrer Literaturtheorie,” in: P. Michalowski and N. Veldhuis (eds.), Approaches to Sumerian Literature:
Studies in Honor of Stip (H.L.J. Vanstiphout) (Cuneiform Monographs 35; Boston: Brill), 201-237.
Zettler, R.L. 1977: “The Sargonic Royal Seal: A Consideration of Sealing in Mesopotamia,” in: M. Gibson
and R. D. Biggs (eds.), Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 5; Malibu Ca.:
Undena Publications), 33-41.

Akkade Is King A Collection of Papers by

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Akkade Is King A Collection of Papers by

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Akkade Is King A Collection of Papers by

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Akkade is King:

a collection of papers by friends and colleagues presented to Aage Westenholz on the

AAE = Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy.

AI = Read as ana ittishu.

AWAS = G. J. Selz (1993): Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden aus amerikanischen Sammlungen.

BCH = Bulletin du Correspondance Hellénique.

CDG = W. Leslau (1987), Comparative Dictionary of Geˤez (Classical Ethiopic), (Wiesbaden).

ePSD = electronic version of PSD, to be found at (http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd).

FuB = Forschungen und Berichte der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin.

HL = T. M. Johnstone (1977), Ḥarsusi Lexicon (London).

JL = T. M. Johnstone (1981), Jibbali Lexicon (Oxford).

ML = T. M. Johnstone (1987), Mehri Lexicon (London).

LA = Ibn Manḏūr (1990), Lisānu l-ˤarab (Beirut).

Lane = E. W. Lane (1867), Arabic-English Lexicon (London).

MSA = Modern South Arabian languages.

RIDA = Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité.

SD = A. F. L. Beeston, s. A. Ghul, W. W. Müller, J. Ryckmans (1982), Sabaic Dictionary (English-French-

Joan Goodnick Westenholz

A. Books and Monographs

B. Books written conjointly with others

“The Earliest Akkadian Religion”, Orientalia 45 (1976), 215-216.

“Diplomatic and Commercial Aspects of Temple Offerings”, Iraq 39 (1977), 19-21.

(With J. Oelsner), “Zu den Weihplattenfragmenten der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena”, Altorientalische

“Lugalzagesi”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7 (1987), 155-157.

(With B. Alster), “The Barton Cylinder”, Acta Sumerologica 16 (1994), 15-46.

“Does Assyriology Have a Future?”, Kaskal 3 (2006), 275-283.

J.-J. Glassner, La chute d’Akkade, in: Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 87 (1992), 39-48.

E. PUBLICATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC

“Kileskriften”, Louisiana Revy. Årg. 18, nr. 3 (1977/78), 28-29.

Bendt Alster, Espergærde

As a great admirer of Aage Westenholz’s outstanding copies of cuneiform tablets, I am grateful

Some Recent Trends in the Study of Mesopotamian Proverbs

The Antiquities Market: An emesal Proverb

KA-zu a l-ze -bé-ed

Barcelona: A Proverb in the Montserrat Museum

The British Museum: Proverbs From Ur In UET 6/3

UET 6/3 651

4ʹ [...] pa ying mo re m o n ey t o a [m er]ch an t .

Cf. SP 3.65 d a m-g àr-ra k ù ta ba -a n-tur ì ù š e [ta ba -a n-tur]

5ʹ [ ... ] ˹ šu(or s i m i l ar) ˺ k ár(o r s i m i l ar)-b i g i -n a

8ʹ [When young s cri b es ] are ab s en t , i t ’s a b ad t h i n g ,

UE T 6 /2 2 7 4 [d u ]b -s a r-tu r { NÚ M U N } níŋ-gig-ga / ú a š ki ki-ná -ni / nu-um-z i

E me š a n d E n te n 1 6 2 : d u b -s ar-tu r ba r-à m níŋ-gig-ga ú aški ki-ná-bi-šè nu-zé

10ʹ Trade ... bloc k s o f l ap i s l azu l i . . . .

SP 3 .6 6 n am-d am-g àr-ra na4 la ga b-z a -gìn-na / na 4 lugal-bi-ir a-d[a ... ]

SP 2 2 v i 1 0 -1 2 n í-b u lu ŋ 5 n í n u - íl / kuš á -gá -lá š u-š è

C f . D ia lo g u e 1 , 9 9 (s o u rce s q u o te d in A ls te r 1997: 446)

12ʹ [ ... ] TÙN-bi n í ŋ - ˹ š u ˺ - ˹ x ˺ (l i k e p eš ?)

5ʹ [Like ] your mo u t h , [l i k e y o u r v u l v a].

6ʹ lú-lul-[la gal 4 -l a b a-an -ú s ]

SP 2 3 . 7 (9 ) lú -lu l-la ga l 4 -la [ba -a n-ús ]

BWL 255, K. 8338 7-10:

A lia r p u rs u e s th e vulva . A n unjus t ma n ha s tw o s ic kle s .

SP 1 . 1 5 8 [d am]-ŋ u 10 l[ú ]-lul-la ma -a n-dug 4

M y [w ife] s aid “ unfa ithful” to me ,

He who ha s a s eal . . . (o r: T h e s eal h e h as . . . )

Res t of col. iiʹ brok en

UET 6/3 876