More on the End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire

Author(s): Małgorzata Sandowicz

Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 74, No. 2 (October 2015), pp. 197-210
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/682337 .
Accessed: 15/10/2015 14:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal
of Near Eastern Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:35:48 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
More on the End of the Neo-Babylonian
Empire
Małgorzata Sandowicz, University of Warsaw*

Introduction 1956,2 then updated by Herbert P. H. Petschow in

a note published in 1987.3 Shortly afterwards, Paul-
From mid-539 bc, Babylonia was preparing for an
Alain Beaulieu reconstructed the steps that the Eanna
attack that was to bring about the end of its last in-
temple of Uruk took in preparation for the forth-
digenous dynasty. It was only in Tašrītu, the seventh
coming invasion.4 A view from the north was recently
month of the local calendar, that the Persian army un-
added by Stefan Zawadzki, who published a document
der Cyrus II the Great ultimately entered Babylonia.
revealing that the city of Sippar was also getting ready
Early in that month, Cyrus defeated the Babylonian
for an attack.5 The present article will add six docu-
army at the border town of Opis. Shortly afterwards,
ments to the body of the forty already-known tablets
on the fourteenth of Tašrītu, the Persians captured
drafted in Uruk and Sippar in the last four months
Sippar, and in another two days they entered the city
before their capture by Cyrus. These texts will provide
of Babylon.1
data allowing a more detailed reconstruction of the
Thanks to an unusual wealth of sources, the months
final episode of Neo-Babylonian history.
preceding the Persian Blitzkrieg may be restored in
remarkable detail, revealing a fascinating picture of a
state on the eve of an invasion. The textual evidence Boats for Eanna
on the period shortly before and after the major Baby-
Apart from military preparations, the Babylonians
lonian cities were taken by the Persians was first put
undertook steps aimed at providing security for their
together by R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein in

*  I am indebted to Elizabeth Payne for the collation of YOS 6 2 

207, to Stefan Zawadzki for reading and commenting on the paper,
and to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive remarks and
suggestions. The Trustees of the British Museum are kindly ac-
knowledged for permission to publish tablets under their care. My
research in the Museum was possible by a grant from the National
Science Center (DEC-2012/07/B/HS3/01126). Cuneiform texts
are cited according to the abbreviation system of the Chicago As-
syrian Dictionary.
1 
Nabonidus Chronicle III.9–12 (A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and
Babylonian Chronicles, TCS 5 [Locust Valley, 1975], 109, hereafter
Grayson, ABC).
R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology
626 B.C.–A.D. 75 (Providence, RI, 1956), 13–14.
3 
H. P. H. Petschow, “Zur Eroberung Babyloniens durch Cyrus.
Die letzten vorpersischen und ersten persischen Datierungen aus
den Tagen um die persische Eroberung Babyloniens – Bemerkun-
gen zu CT 55, 191,” NABU 1987/84.
4 
P.-A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–
539 B.C., YNER 10 (New Haven, 1989), 220–24, and “An Episode
in the Fall of Babylon to the Persians,” JNES 52 (1993): 241–61.
5 
S. Zawadzki, “The End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire: New
Data Concerning Nabonidus’s Order to Send the Statues of Gods
to Babylon,” JNES 71 (2012): 47–52.

[JNES 74 no. 2 (2015)] © 2015 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 022–2968–2015/7402–001 $10.00. DOI: 10.1086/682337

197

This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:35:48 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
198  F  Journal of Near Eastern Studies
gods. Several major temples were ordered to bring their
divine statues to the capital, which was assumed to be
safer than the provincial centers. Such precautions were
occasionally followed in the course of preparation for
wars: Merodach-Baladan II took several cult statues to
the marshes when fleeing before the Assyrians in 709
and 700 bc; the gods of Kiš, Šapaṣṣu, and Sippar sought
shelter in Babylon during the war against Assyria in
626/625 bc; the usurper Nebuchadnezzar IV brought
the Lady of Uruk to the capital upon the approach of
the army of Darius I in 521 bc.6
Still, the decision of Nabonidus to transport the
gods to Babylon must have been considered extraor-
dinary; the issue occupies the central place in the brief
and laconic Nabonidus Chronicle, a major historio-
graphic source of this period.7 The royal order brought
about drastic changes in the everyday routine of the
affected temples. Babylonian gods were provided for
daily by highly specialized staff, following very strict
rules; any infringement upon these regulations could
bring about a cultic catastrophe. With the gods taken
away, the temple system had to be reorganized com-
pletely. The priests followed their gods to Babylon in
order to carry on with their duties, while the person-
nel back in the provincial temples were charged with
sending the provisions required for the divine meals.
The amounts of products necessary to keep the divine
table full were, as will be argued below, significant.
A major difficulty entailed by this operation was
obviously the shipment of sacrificial products. The
most convenient means of transporting them to Baby-
lon was by boat, but one imagines that few temples
possessed a fleet sufficiently large for such purposes.
Temple officials had no choice but to rent.
Several boat rental contracts from this period of un-
rest survive among documents of the Eanna of Uruk,
one of the temples that agreed to dispatch their gods
to the capital. The link between these documents and
the transport of sacrificial goods to Babylon was first
suggested by Grant Frame,8 and then elaborated by
6 
See M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and
Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E., SBL Monograph
Series 19 (Missoula, MT, 1974), 30–33, and P.-A. Beaulieu, “An
Episode in the Reign of the Babylonian Pretender Nebuchadnezzar
IV,” in Extraction & Control. Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stol-
per, ed. M. Kozuh et al., SAOC 68 (Chicago, 2014), 17–25. On
the spoilation of divine statues in the ancient Near East in general,
see Cogan, Imperialism and Religion, 24–41.
7 
Grayson, ABC, 104–11.
8 
Grant Frame, “Some Neo-Babylonian and Persian Documents
Involving Boats,” OrAn 25 (1986): 38. References to texts in this
article will be identified as “Frame, ‘Boats’.”
This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:35:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Paul-Alain Beaulieu9 who, having put the contracts
together with evidence from letters and royal in-
scriptions, demonstrated beyond doubt their Sitz im
Leben.10 Beaulieu has shown that six such boat-rental
contracts were concluded by the Eanna over a short
period between Dūzu (month IV) and Ulūlu (VI) of
the seventeenth year of Nabonidus. Below, another
four contracts belonging to the same dossier will be
edited. With these documents included, the body of
evidence becomes large enough to allow a study of
further details of the remarkable operation carried out
by the Eanna.
The Eanna Boat Documents: Texts 1–4 11
For the first four documents, please see Figures 1–4.
Text 1. BM 114453 (1920-6-15, 49). 5.8 cm × 4.2 cm
1. [ul]-tu u4.1.kám šá iti.ne ⸢mu.17.kám⸣
2. dnà-i lugal tin.tir.ki a-di u4.1.kám šá iti.⸢kin⸣
3. giš.má šá 1 me 50 gur i-de-ku-ú šá mmu-ra-nu
4. a-šú šá mden-šeš.meš-su šá ina igi mba-la-ṭu a-šú
5. šá mdna-na-a-dù-uš a-na 5½ gín kù.babbar
6. a-na i-di-šú a-na é.an.na id-din kù.babbar-a4
5½ gín
7. i-di giš.má-šú ul-t[u] é.an.na e-ṭi-ir
8. mim-mu šá la 1 me 50 gur i-ma-ṭu-ú
9. a-ki-i šá kù.babbar-šú a-ḫa-meš ip-pa-lu
rev.
10. ina gub-zu šá mdnà-gin-numun lú.šà.tam é.an.na
11. a-šú šá mna-di-nu a mda-bi-bi mdnà-šeš-mu
12. lú.sag lugal lú.en pi-qit-tu4 é.an.na
13. lú.mu-kin-nu mìr-din-⸢nin⸣ a-šú šá mba-laṭ-su
14. a m⸢zálag⸣-d30 mdna-na-a-šeš-mu a-šú šá
­ u.gur-ina-sùḫ-sur
md
9 
Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 222, and “An Episode in the
Fall”: 244–47.
10 
One more letter that possibly refers to the Eanna’s operation
is YOS 3 53, in which the qīpu Anu-šar-uṣur writes to four scribes
of the Eanna from Babylon (following the introductory formula),
asking for grain (200+500 kor on top of that sent earlier on).
The amounts correspond to those shipped by the Eanna in the
discussed period. The letter is not dated, but it could have been
written in the last year of Nabonidus: the period when both the
qīpu and the scribes were in office extends from the latter part of
the reign of Nabonidus until the fourth year of Cyrus (cf. K. Kle-
ber Tempel und Palast. Die Beziehungen zwischen dem König und
dem Eanna-Tempel im spätbabylonischen Uruk, AOAT 358 [Mün-
ster, 2008], 31, 35–36). The letter mentions that part of the grain
should be sent with Ubār. Could he be identical with the boatman
of YOS 6 215?
11 
The tablets are reproduced at their approximate original size.
 More on the End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire  F 199

Figure 1—BM 114453 (Text 1) Figure 3—BM 114473 (Text 3)

Figure 2—BM 114465 (Text 2) Figure 4—BM 114486 (Text 4)

This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:35:48 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
200  F  Journal of Near Eastern Studies
15. a lú.é.bar-bára lú.umbisag mki-na-a
16. a-šú šá mnumun-ia unug.ki iti.šu
17. ⸢u4⸣.30.kám mu.17.kám ⸢dnà⸣-i
u.e.
18. lugal tin.tir.ki
[(For the period) fr]om the first of Abu of the seven-
teenth year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, until the
first of Ulūlu, (Balāṭu) has rented to the Eanna a boat
that takes a 150-kor (load), the property of Murānu/
Bēl-aḫḫē-erība that is at the disposal of Balāṭu/
Nanāya-ēpuš, for five-and-a-half shekels of silver.
He has received from the Eanna the said five-and-a-
half shekels of silver, the rent of his boat.
Whatever (part of the boat-load) will be missing to
(the total of) 150 kor, they will mutually make adjust-
ment with regard to his silver.
In the presence of: Nabû-mukīn-zēri/Nādin//
Dābibī, the chief administra-
tor of the Eanna,
Nabû-aḫu-iddin, the royal super-
visor of the Eanna.
Witnesses: Arad-Innin/Balāṭsu//Nūr-Sîn,
Nanāya-aḫu-iddin/
Nergal-ina-tēšê-ēṭir//
Šangû-parakki.
Scribe: Kināya/Zēria.
Uruk, the thirtieth of Dūzu, seventeenth year of Na-
bonidus, king of Babylon.
Text 2. BM 114465 (1920-6-15, 61). 5.7 cm × 4.0 cm
1. ul-⸢tu u4.1⸣.kám iti.ne
2. šá mu.1[7.kám dn]à-ní.tuku lugal tin.tir.ki
3. a-di u4.1.kám šá iti.kin ⸢giš⸣.má
4. šá mìr-din-nin a-šú šá m⸢damar⸣.utu-b[a-šá?]
5. a<<-šú šá>> mḫu-un-zu-ú a-na ⸢6½ gín⸣
[kù.babbar]
6. a-na i-di-šú(over erasure) a-na é.an.na id-din
[kù.babbar-a4]
7. 6½ gín i-di giš.m[á-šú]
8. mìr-din-nin e-ṭ[ir]
rev.
9. ina gub-zu mdnà-gin-numun (erasure)
10. lú.šà.tam é.an.na a-šú šá mna-din [a]
11. m(over erasure)da-bi-bi mdnà-šeš-mu lú.sa[g lugal]
12. lú.en pi-qit-ti é.an.na
13. lú.mu-kin-nu mìr-din-nin a-šú
This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:35:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14. šá mdin-nin-šeš.meš-mu a mden-ú-sa-⸢tu4⸣
15. mmu-še-zib-den a-šú šá mtin-su a mlú-didim
16. lú.umbisag mba-la-ṭu a-šú
u.e.
17. šá mmu-še-zib-den ⸢unug.ki iti.šu⸣
18. u4.30.kám mu.17.kám ⸢dnà-ní⸣.[tuku]
l.h.e.
19. lugal tin.tir.ki
(For the period) from the first of Abu of the [seven]
teenth year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, until the
first of Ulūlu, Arad-Innin/Marduk-iqī[ša?]//Ḫunzû
has rented a boat to the Eanna for six-and-a-half shek-
els [of silver].
Arad-Innin re[ceived the said] six-and-a-half shekels
[of silver], the rent of [his bo]at.
In the presence of: Nabû-mukīn-zēri/Nādin[//]
Dābibī, the chief administra-
tor of the Eanna,
Nabû-aḫu-iddin, the [royal su-
per]visor of the Eanna.
Witnesses: Arad-Innin/Innin-aḫḫē-iddin//
Bēl-usātu,
Mušēzib-Bēl/Balāṭsu//
Amēl-Ea.
Scribe: Balāṭu/Mušēzib-Bēl.
Uruk, the thirtieth of Dūzu, seventeenth year of
Naboni[dus], king of Babylon.
Text 3. BM 114473 (1920-6-15, 69). 5.7 cm × 3.9 cm
1. ⸢ul ⸣-tu u4.1.kám šá iti.ne mu.17.kám
2. dnà-i lugal tin.tir.ki a-di u4.1.kám šá iti.kin
3. giš.má šá mdutu-a-a a-šú šá mdna-na-a-mu
4. a-na 6½ gín kù.babbar a-na i-di-šú a-na
5. é.an.na id-din kù.babbar-a4 6½ gín
6. ⸢i⸣-di giš.má-šú ul-tu é.an.na
7. e-ṭi-ir
rev.
8. ina gub-zu šá mdnà-gin-numun lú.šà.tam é.an.na
9. a-⸢šú⸣ <šá> mna-din a mda-bi-bi mdnà-šeš-mu
10. lú.sag lugal lú.en pi-qit-tu4 é.an.na
11. ⸢lú.mu⸣-kin-nu mìr-din-⸢nin⸣ a-šú šá mdù-dinnin!
12. a mšu-dna-na-a mba-ni-ia a-šú
13. [šá] ⸢m⸣dnà-pab a mdnà-šar-ḫi-dingir
14. [lú.umbisa]g m⸢na⸣-din a-šú šá mden-šeš.
  meš-⸢ba⸣-šá
 More on the End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire  F 201
15. [a me]-gì-bi unug.⸢ki⸣ iti.šu u4.30.kám
u.e.
16. [mu].17.⸢kám⸣ dnà-i lugal e.ki
(For the period) from the first of Abu of the seven-
teenth year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, till the first
of Ulūlu, Šamšāya/Nanāya-iddin has rented a boat to
Eanna for six-and-a-half shekels of silver.
He has received from the Eanna the said six-and-a-half
shekels, the rent of his boat.
In the presence of: Nabû-mukīn-zēri/Nādin//
Dābibī, the chief administra-
tor of the Eanna,
Nabû-aḫu-iddin, the royal super-
visor of the Eanna.
Witnesses: Arad-Innin/Ibni-Ištar//
Gimil-Nanāya,
Bānia/Nabû-nāṣir//
Nabû-šarḫi-ilī.
[Scrib]e: Nādin/Bēl-aḫḫē-⸢iqīša⸣[//E]gibi.
Uruk, the thirtieth of Dūzu, seventeenth year of Na-
bonidus, king of Babylon.
See p. 203 for Bazūzu, the brother of the first wit-
ness Arad-Innin/Ibni-Ištar//Gimil-Nanāya, and his
involvement in the transport of sacrificial grain.
Text 4. BM 114486 (1920-6-15, 82). 5.6 cm × 4.1 cm
1. giš.má šá 2 me gur i-de-ku-ú šá
2. mdnà-ùru-šú a-šú šá mdnà-ib-ni
3. ul-⸢tu⸣ u4.23.kám šá iti.ne a-na
4. iti 7 gín kù.babbar a-na i-di-šú
5. a-na níg.ga dgašan ⸢šá unug.ki id⸣-[din]
rev.
6. ina gub-zu šá mdnà-gin-ibila l[ú.šà.tam]
7. é.zi.da mdnà-gin-numun lú.⸢šà.tam⸣
8. ⸢é⸣.an.na lú.mu-kin-nu mla-ba-ši-d⸢amar.utu⸣
9. a-šú šá mìr-den a me-gi-bi
10. mdutu-gin-ibila a-šú šá mddi.ku5-šeš.meš-mu
11. a mši-gu-ú-<a> lú.umbisag
12. mre-mut a-šú šá msum-nu-nu unug.ki!
13. iti.ne u4.21.kám mu.17.<kám>
u.e.
14. dnà-i lugal tin.tir.ki
(Concerning) a boat that takes a 200-kor (load), the
property of Nabû-uṣuršu/Nabû-ibni: he has (hereby)
ren[ted] it to the treasury of the Eanna for seven shek-
This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:35:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
els of silver monthly. (The contract comes into effect)
on the twenty-third of Abu.
In the presence of : Nabû-mukīn-apli, [the chief ad-
ministrator] of the Ezida,
Nabû-mukīn-zēri, the chief ad-
ministrator of the Eanna.
Witnesses: Lâbāši-⸢Marduk⸣/Arad-Bēl//
Egibi,
Šamaš-mukīn-apli/
Madānu-aḫḫē-iddin//
Šigū<a>.
Scribe: Rēmūt/Iddinunu.
Uruk, the twenty-first of Abu, seventeenth year of
Nabonidus, king of Babylon.
This contract differs from the other ones in several
respects. Firstly, there is no mention of the payment
received and no temporal limitation to the rental is
named. These are presumedly only formulaic nuances.
The second irregularity is the appearance of two of-
ficials: the chief administrator of the Ezida of Borsippa
(on which, see below p. 203), and Lâbāši-Marduk,
the supervisor of the Eanna’s bakers. As follows from
a letter published by M. Weisberg,12 Lâbāši-Marduk
accompanied the statue of Ištar to Babylon, and coor-
dinated the supplies of sacrificial products from there.
His presence in Uruk must have been temporary; per-
haps he was accompanying the šatammu of the Ezida.
Contracts for Boat-Rentals
The documents follow a standard formulary of boat-
rental contracts:13 they identify boat owners and
boatmen, specify rental periods, rental fees, and oc-
casionally also vessel capacities (see Table 1). Their
operative sections close with receipt clauses confirm-
ing that the rental fees were paid. The lists of witnesses
that follow open with the names of temple officials in
whose presence the documents were drafted.
Three sets of documents were produced on the
same days; this coincidence offers insight into the
temple’s daily chancellery practice. Two texts written
on the twenty-ninth of Dūzu (Frame, “Boats” no. 5,
and YOS 19 11) were, as expected, drafted by the same
12 
M. Weisberg, “A Neo-Babylonian Temple Report,” JAOS 87
(1967): 8–12. For collations and an extensive commentary on the
letter, see Beaulieu, “An Episode in the Fall”: 248–57.
13 
Cf. Frame, “Some Neo-Babylonian and Persian Documents
Involving Boats”: 36.
202  F  Journal of Near Eastern Studies

Table 1—Eanna boat rentals in the seventeenth year of Nabonidus.

Text Date Boat owner // boatman Capacity Rental Rental period Officials
(in kors)1 fee present
YOS 6 215 28.4.17 Ubār/Nabû-šumu-ibni (170) 6š 1 month –
(1.5–1.6)
Frame, “Boats” 29.4.17 Aḫušunu (slave of Nabû-rēmu-šukun) 30 3š 1 month šatammu
no. 5 (PTS 2301) ↪Nabû-mušētiq-uddī/Nabû-uṣalli (1.5–1.6) bēl piqitti
YOS 19 11 29.4.17 Ea (temple) 180 6.5 š 1 month šatammu
↪Lāqīpi/Ea-kāṣir (1.5–1.6) bēl piqitti
Text 1 30.4.17 Murānu/Bēl-aḫḫē-erība 150 5.5 š 1 month šatammu
↪Balāṭu/Nanāya-ēpuš (1.5–1.6) bēl piqitti
Text 2 30.⸢4⸣.17 Arad-Innin//Marduk-iqī[ša?]//Ḫunzû (180) 6.5 š 1 month šatammu
(1.5–1.6) bēl piqitti
Text 3 30.4.17 Šamšāya/Nanāya-iddin (180) 6.5 š 1 month šatammu
(1.5–1.6) bēl piqitti
YOS 6 195 8.5.17 Kināya/Bēl-nā’id 150 5š 1 month šatammu
(10.5–10.6) bēl piqitti
Text 4 21.5.17 Nabû-uṣuršu/Nabû-ibni 200 7š from 23.5 on šatam Ezida
šatam Eanna
TCL 12 121 6.6.17 Murānu/Bēl-aḫḫē-erība 150 5.5 š 1 month šatammu
↪Balāṭu/Nanāya-ēpuš (6.6–6.7) bēl piqitti
YOS 19 12 [6].6.17 Nabû-šar-aḫḫēšu/Ea-taqbi-līšir 120 4.5 š [1] month šatammu
↪Guzānu/[. . .]-ṣānu-ēreš ([6].6–6.7) bēl piqitti
  1  The numbers in brackets are either adopted from contracts with identical rent or calculated based on the assumption that one shekel was enough to ship
an average of 28 kors (values of 27–30 kors are attested in the dossier).

Table 2—Witnesses and scribes of contracts drafted on 30.4.17Nbn

Text Text 1 Text 2 Text 3
Ina ušuzzi- šatammu šatammu šatammu
witnesses bēl piqitti bēl piqitti bēl piqitti
Witnesses Arad-Innin/Balāṭsu//Nūr-Sîn Arad-Innin/Innin-aḫḫē-iddin// Arad-Innin/Ibni-Ištar//
Nanāya-aḫu-iddin/ Bēl-usātu Gimil-Nanāya
Nergal-ina-tēšê-ēṭir//Šangû-parakki Mušēzib-Bēl/Balāṭsu//Amēl-Ea Bānia/Nabû-nāṣir//Nabû-šarḫi-ili
Scribe Kināya/Zēria Balāṭu/Mušēzib-Bēl Nādin/Bēl-aḫḫē-iqīša[//E]gibi

scribe and before the same set of witnesses. The same
is the case for the two documents written on the sixth
of Ulūlu (TCL 12 121 and YOS 19 12).
On the other hand, three contracts of the thirtieth
of Dūzu were drafted by three different scribes before
different witnesses and yet still said to be “in the pres-
ence of ” the šatammu and bēl piqitti (see Table 2).
These documents could have been produced in the
course of three consecutive sittings. Alternatively, the
three groups of witnesses and scribes worked side-by-
side in the Eanna chancellery; in that case, the men-
tion of the šatammu and the bēl piqitti was merely
conventional. Whichever the case, it speaks of an un-
usual workload for the temple’s “legal department”
during this turbulent period.
Parties to the contracts: officials
Beaulieu noted that, in distinction from the Eanna
boat rentals in other years, those drafted in the sev-
enteenth year of Nabonidus were witnessed by the
temple’s high functionaries, the šatammu and bēl
piqitti. This observation is also true of the four new
documents edited here, with the exception of Text 4,

This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:35:48 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 More on the End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire  F 203
in which the bēl piqitti is missing.14 In all the contracts,
the šatammu and bēl piqitti represented the temple,
and thus their role was closer to that of contractors
than witnesses.
Personal supervision by top officials indicates the
importance attached to these transactions by the
temple. The only document of the dossier from which
these officials are missing is the earliest contract, YOS
6 215, drafted on the twenty eighth of Dūzu; already
the next day, the šatammu and bēl piqitti were present
at the transaction. This could mark the moment when
officials begun to supervise the rentals personally. The
shipments could not have started much earlier.
A surprising ina-ušuzzi-witness appears in Text 4,
where the šatammu of the Eanna is accompanied by
Nabû-mukīn-apli, son of Šulāya of the Šikkûa family,
the šatammu of the distant Ezida temple of Borsip-
pa.15 According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, the gods
of Borsippa were not sent to Babylon,16 so the cultic
routine of the Ezida could have gone on undisturbed,
and the constant presence of the šatammu in Borsippa
was not essential. Was Nabû-mukīn-apli’s visit to Uruk
linked to the operation the Eanna was carrying out?
Could he have been supervising the shipments in any
way or helping out his colleagues at Uruk?
Parties to the contracts: boat-owners
and boatmen
Five documents17 are third-party rentals, in which the
first party (introduced by eleppu ša PN) is the boat
owner, while the second (ina pāni PN2) is the person
in charge of the boat, presumably its boatman. An
unusual owner appears in YOS 19 11: the god Ea (i.e.,
the Ea temple, presumably a local Urukean sanctuary
14 
Beaulieu’s observation is further strengthened by the absence
of the officials in three yet-unpublished Uruk boat rentals drafted
out of this period (BM 114596, BM 114610, and BM 114662).
15 
Cf. C. Waerzeggers, The Ezida Temple of Borsippa. Priesthood,
Cult, Archives, Achaemenid History 15 (Leiden, 2010), 73. The
presence of the šatammu of the Ezida in Uruk in this month is
further confirmed by TCL 12 119, a record of an investigation into
misappropriation of temple sheep. Since the case was not linked to
the Ezida’s businesses in any way, it seems possible that the Ezida
official was asked to attend sittings of the local high body for reasons
of prestige.
16 
III.11–12: dingir.meš šá bar-sip.ki gú.du8.a[.ki] u sip-par.ki
nu ku4.meš-ni, “The gods of Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar did not
enter (Babylon)” (Grayson, ABC, 109).
17 
Frame, “Boats” no. 5; YOS 19 11; Text 1; TCL 12 121; and
YOS 19 12.
This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:35:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of the god).18 The Eanna temple was evidently look-
ing for boats among both private and institutional
entrepreneurs.
The men who rented the boats to the temple seem
to have been local Urukeans (rather than men from
other cities attracted by business opportunities), as
suggested by the names characteristic of the Uruk
onomasticon.19 They are identified by their fathers’
names only, and not by the three-tier filiation char-
acteristic of Babylonian urban elites. Thus, they were
seemingly not members of the temple staff, but rather
simple Urukeans. It is true of most individual boat
owners in these texts, as well as boatmen. Arad-Innin,
son of Marduk-iqī[ša?] of Text 2 is an exception: he
was a member of the influential Ḫunzû family, which
produced three governors of Uruk and numerous
scribes.20
Arad-Innin was not, however, the only prebendary
to have engaged in the boat-rental business in this
time of unrest. YOS 19 94, written at Kār-Nanāya on
the fifth of Abu of the seventeenth year of Nabonidus,
relates that a certain Bazūzu, son of Ibni-Ištar of the
Gimil-Nanāya family “rented a boat in Babylon saying:
‘I will deliver barley for regular offerings of the Lady
of Uruk to Babylon’.”21 The document records for-
mal proceedings carried out before the mār banê, but
since the text is damaged, the difficulties that Bazūzu
encountered are regrettably unclear. It is noteworthy
that, six days earlier, Bazūzu’s brother Arad-Innin had
acted as a witness to boat rental Text 3.
Rental terms and conditions
Most contracts were to come into effect on the first
day of the following month. Exceptions include agree-
ments concluded later, in Abu and Ulūlu: TCL 12 121
and possibly YOS 19 12 (to come into effect on the
sixth day of the month), YOS 6 195 (on the tenth),
and Text 4 (on the twenty-third). TCL 12 121 is in
18 
For the cult of Ea in Uruk, see P.-A. Beaulieu, The Pantheon
of Uruk during the Neo-Babylonian Period, Cuneiform Monographs
23 (Leiden, 2003), 337–38.
19 
Cf. Nanāya-ēpuš in Text 1 and TCL 12 121, Nanāya-iddin
in Text 3.
20 
H. M. Kümmel, Familie, Beruf und Amt im spätbabylonischen
Uruk. Prosopographische Untersuchungen zu Berufsgruppen des
6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. in Uruk, ADOG 20 (Berlin, 1979), 131,
139–40.
21 
Cf. Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 221–22, and “An Episode
in the Fall”: 245.
204  F  Journal of Near Eastern Studies
fact a re-rental: Murānu, son of Bēl-aḫḫē-erība, had
let his boat to the Eanna over a month earlier for the
entire month of Abu (Text 1). The same scenario is
possible also in the case of the other three contracts
which came into effect later in the month: they may
represent renewed rentals, with earlier documents
missing from the dossier at our disposal. This pos-
sibility is significant, as it suggests that in reality even
more boats had been contracted and, consequently,
the quantities of sacrificial goods transported could
have been in fact higher than calculated below.
In contrast to earlier documents, TCL 12 121 (and
possibly also YOS 19 12) was to come into effect im-
mediately, on the day it was drafted. This suggests
that by Ulūlu the temple must have been under a lot
of pressure.
In all but one contract, the rental period was one
month.22 A boat trip from Uruk to Babylon took ap-
proximately three weeks, and another seven days were
needed to sail back downstream.23 Thus, the boats
were clearly rented for the sake of specific shipments
only. Text 4 is the sole document in which the rental
period was not named, but since the rental fee was
specified in a month’s term, the same provision may
be assumed.
The carrying capacity of boats is always given by
their load: eleppu ša x kur idekkû, “a boat that takes X-
kor (load).”24 The vessels that the Eanna rented were
standard, ranging from 30 to 200 kor. The average
capacity of a Neo-Babylonian boat fell between 100
and 200 kor, although boats as large as 350 kor have
been attested.25 The quantities fit the middle-size quf-
fas used in Iraq still in the previous century: quffas
of 1.8–3 m in diameter carried loads of 3–7 tons.26
It cannot be excluded, however, that what the Eanna
rented were reed rafts, wooden mashhūfs, or plank
riverboats.27
22 
For year-long rentals in Uruk, see M. Weszeli, “Schiff und
Boot. B. In mesopotamischen Quellen des 2. und 1. Jahrtausend,”
in RlA XII (2009): 167, and BM 114610.
23 
A boat with a load of 60 kor made 9–10 km a day traveling up-
stream, and 30–35 km downstream (M.-Ch. de Graeve, The Ships of
the Ancient Near East [c. 2000–500 B.C.], OLA 7 [Leuven, 1981],
152). Uruk lies about 177 km away from Babylon.
24 
Another form of description was boat width: A. Salonen, Die
Wasserfahrzeuge in Babylonien, StOr 8.4 (Helsinki, 1939), 154–58,
and Weszeli, “Schiff und Boot”: 162.
25 
Ibid.: 162. For the capacities of Mesopotamian boats in gen-
eral, see Salonen, Wasserfahrzeuge: 154–60.
26 
De Graeve, Ships of the Ancient Near East, 86.
27 
Cf. ibid., 89–93, 107–108, and 109–22 respectively.
This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:35:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The rental fees were always expressed in shekels
paid per month. The range is not very wide:
30 kor – 3 shekels (Frame, “Boats” no. 5)
120 kor – 4.5 shekels (YOS 19 12)
150 kor – 5 shekels (YOS 6 195); 5.5 shekels
  (Text 1 and TCL 12 121)
180 kor – 6.5 shekels (YOS 19 11)
200 kor – 7 shekels (Text 4)
Excluding the first text, the average price for shipping
100 kor of cargo was three-and-a-half shekels. The no-
tably high fee in Frame, “Boats” no. 5 was presumably
linked to the relatively small size of the boat (involving
proportionately high transport costs). No additional
costs (e.g., wages of crews, towers, their food rations,
harbor dues) were ever mentioned;28 they must have
been covered by the boatmen out of the rental fee
received. These fees did not diverge from ones attested
in similar contracts drafted in more peaceful times,29
thus, the high demand for boats in Uruk did not raise
the prices in a significant way.
Yet another clause that appears in several docu-
ments is mimmu ša lā X kur imaṭṭû akî kaspišu aḫāmeš
ippalū “Whatever (part of the boat-load) will be miss-
ing to (the total of) X kor, they will mutually make
adjustment with regard to his (i.e., the boatman’s)
silver.”30 This ambiguous stipulation is found only in
third-party contracts; indeed, it is not missing from
any contract of this type. Its two alternative functions
may be considered. The clause could have provided
against theft: should the boatman steal part of the
cargo, the equivalent of the missing amount would
be deducted from his fee. However, since no puni-
tive damages are mentioned, another possibility seems
more likely: the clause provides for cases in which the
Eanna did not dispose of the entire boat-load. Should
this have happened, the rent would be proportionately
28 
For such costs, see G. Ries, “Miete. B. II. Neubabylonisch,“
in RlA VIII (1993): 178–79.
29 
See Fr. Joannès, Textes économiques de la Babylonie récente
(Paris, 1982), 329, Frame, “Some Neo-Babylonian and Persian
Documents Involving Boats”: 33, and Ries, “Miete”: 179. Add:
BM 114610 (3Cyr, Uruk): six-and-a-half shekels monthly, BM
114596 (9Cyr, Uruk): four shekels monthly; BM 114662 (1Camb,
Borsippa): ten shekels monthly, though nowhere is the carrying
capacity of the boat given. Note also the divergent rents paid by
the Eanna during an operation of sending cult statues to Babylon
under Nebuchadnezzar IV: three shekels (Beaulieu, “An Episode in
the Reign,” 21) and twelve shekels (YOS 17 302, cf. ibid., 21–22).
30 
Frame, “Boats,” no. 5, YOS 19 11; Text 1, TCL 12 121, and
YOS 19 12.
 More on the End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire  F 205
reduced. The fact that the clause appears only in third-
party contracts is difficult to account for, but perhaps
boatmen did not always dispose of the entire capaci-
ties of the boats under their care, but had to allow for
shipments that boat owners contracted independently.
Shipments
With four new documents added to the dossier, the
data on quantities of sacrificial products shipped to
Babylon has become quite extensive. This is especially
true with regard to Abu (month V), covered by eight
contracts.31 Six boats were contracted for the entire
month (the first of Abu to the first of Ulūlu), and
another two were to sail out of Uruk on the tenth
and the twenty third of Abu, respectively. Taking into
consideration just this first coherent group of six con-
tracts referring to the entire month of Abu, we arrive
at a surprisingly high amount of products that the
Eanna sent to Babylon: these six boats were to trans-
port a total of 890 kor, which in barley makes 160,200
liters (approximately 100,926 kilos).32 This means that
Ištar’s offerings consumed about 30 kor a day.
These numbers seem very high when compared
with other data from Uruk. According to the Seleucid
ritual prescriptions from Uruk TCL 6 38, merely 108
sūtu (about 648 l, or 408 kg) of barley and emmer
were spent daily on the ginû-offerings of all Urukean
gods.33 The Seleucid Rēš temple was, however, con-
siderably smaller and less important than the Neo-
Babylonian Eanna. Moreover, one should add to the
ginû the grain spent during festivals; the amounts
were usually significant. Stefan Zawadzki has calcu-
lated that the Ebabbar spent a monthly average of 20
large kor (about 4,300 liters) of barley on the šalam
bīti ceremony alone.34 An Uruk text OIP 122 82 men-
tions a yearly issue of as much as 350 kor of barley for
the same purpose in Uruk.35
The calculation of the amount of grain sent to
Babylon from Uruk is burdened by the fact that
boat capacity may have been conventionally given
31 
YOS 6 215; Frame, “Boats” no. 5; YOS 19 11; Text 1; Text 2;
Text 3; YOS 6 195; and Text 4.
32 
One litre of barley weighs ca. 0.63 kg.
33 
Cf. M. J. H. Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon: The
Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practice, Cune-
iform Monographs 25 (Leiden, 2004), 134.
34 
S. Zawadzki, Neo-Babylonian Documents from Sippar Pertain-
ing to the Cult (Poznań, 2013), 34.
35 
Including malītu-income (cf. ibid.).
This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:35:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in kor-load, while shipments could have included
various other goods. In letters sent by the Eanna’s
functionaries from Babylon, requests were made for
wool,36 and animal offerings and beer should also be
taken into consideration. But even if the total of 100
tons does not include grain alone, this number still
gives an idea of the scale of the Eanna’s sacrificial
economy.
Similarly copious amounts of sacrificial products
must have been delivered to Babylon by other temples
that had followed the royal order and dispatched their
gods. After having been presented to the gods, the of-
ferings were ordinarily distributed among priests and
members of the cultic personnel. Now that most of
those entitled to the sacrificial remains stayed at home,
it is difficult to resist the suspicion that by bringing the
gods to Babylon, Nabonidus tried to score more goals
than one: to protect divine statues, to boost morale
among the defenders, but also to attract to the capital
supplies necessary to hold out against a long siege—a
siege that never took place.
Urukeans in Babylon
In his 1993 and 2014 studies, Beaulieu showed that
several Eanna officials followed the statue of Ištar to
Babylon. They escorted the statue to the capital, took
care of the daily needs of the goddess and oversaw reg-
ular deliveries of sacrificial goods from Uruk. Among
these officials were supervisors of the temple’s two
most important prebendary groups (bakers and brew-
ers), trustees (qīpānu), and the chief rent farmer.37 As
follows from Text 4, officials tended to travel: the su-
pervisor of bakers, Lâbāši-Marduk, formerly in Baby-
lon, was in Uruk in the end of Abu. The text published
below (see Fig. 5) demonstrates that the movement
of functionaries between Uruk and Babylon in this
period was even more dynamic.
Text 5. BM 114477 (1920-6-15, 73). 5.7 cm × 3.9 cm
1. [x+]3 gur zú.lum.ma i-mit-ti a.šà
2. ⸢šá⸣ i7-šá-mdidim-šeš.meš-gi
3. ⸢níg⸣.ga dgašan šá unug.ki u dna-na-a (erasure)
4. ⸢šá⸣ giš.bán šá mkal-ba-a a-šú šá mba-šá
5. ⸢a⸣ mba-si-ía šá ina muḫ-ḫi giš.bán
6. ⸢šá⸣ dgašan šá unug.ki ina muḫ-ḫi mdnà-šeš.meš-gi
7. a!-šú šá mdù-dinnin a lú.gal.dù <<aš>>
36 
Beaulieu, “An Episode in the Fall”: 249–50.
37 
Ibid.: 247–49, 251, and “An Episode in the Reign,” 19–20.
206  F  Journal of Near Eastern Studies

aḫḫē-šullim/Ibni-Ištar//Rab-banê and Arad-Bēl/

Aḫušunu. They will deliver (the dates) in the month
of Tašrītu.
Apart from ten kor of dates from the Brook of Sîn-
māgir that are at the disposal of Nabû-aḫḫē-šullim.
Witnesses: Innin-šumu-ibni/Nabû-bēlšunu.
Scribe: Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu/Nabû-šumu-ukīn.
Babylon, the fourth of Tašrītu, seventeenth year of
Nabonidus, king of Babylon.
One of the parties to the contract was Kalbāya, son
of Iqīšāya, one of the Eanna’s rent farmers (ša muḫḫi
sūti). Entrepreneurs like him rented large tracts of
institutional farmland in exchange for a fixed amount
of agricultural products. They then divided the land
into smaller plots that they sublet to petty business-
men or farmers.38 Nabû-aḫḫē-šullim, son of Ibni-
Ištar, and Arad-Bēl, son of Aḫušunu, must have been
a sub-renter of this sort, about whom, unfortunately,
there is nothing known otherwise. Further, neither
canal mentioned in the text (Nāru-ša-Ea-aḫḫē-šullim,
Ḫarru-ša-Sîn-māgir) has been attested in the hitherto
published Uruk texts.39
The rent farmer Kalbāya, on the other hand, is very
well known.40 He was a man of high standing with close
ties to the king himself. He and his uncle Šumu-ukīn
Figure 5—BM 114477 (Text 5) (a former rent farmer of many years) contracted the
Eanna’s farmland from Nabonidus himself (rather than
through the temple authorities) in the first year of the
l.e. king’s rule.41 Nabonidus personally defended Kalbāya
8. u mìr-den a-šú šá mšeš-šú-nu before the temple officials when arrears mounted up
9. ina iti.du6 i-nam-din-u’ and the rent farmer was unable to meet them.42
Text 5 is a common promissory note for the rent
rev. due from a sublet date grove. Its uniqueness lies in the
10. e-lat 10 gur zú.lum.ma šá ḫar-ri
11. šá lú.sin-ma-gir šá ina igi mdnà-šeš.meš-gi 38 
For a convenient survey of this institution, see M. Jursa, As-
12. lú.mu-kin7 mdinnin.na-mu(over erasure)-dù pects of the Economic History of Babylonia in the First Millennium
BC. Economic Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use
13. a-šú šá mdnà-⸢en⸣-šú-nu
of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth (with contributions by
14. u lú.umbisag mki-dutu-tin a-šú J. Hackl [et al.]), AOAT 377 (Münster, 2010), 194–206.
15. šá mdnà-mu-gin tin.tir.ki 39 
The latter is clearly different from Nār-Sîn-māgir known from
16. iti.du6 u4.4.kám mu.17.kám Nippur sources (R. Zadok, Geographical Names According to New-
and Late-Babylonian Texts, RGTC 8 [Wiesbaden, 1985], 382).
u.e. 40 
Cf. D. Cocquerillat, Palmeraies et cultures de l’Eanna d’Uruk
(559–520), ADFU 8 (Berlin, 1968), 38–39, 93–97; Kümmel,
17. md
nà-i lugal tin.tir.ki
Familie, Beruf und Amt, 105–106; Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus,
[x+]3 kor of dates, the estimated rent of the field on 117–18; and Kleber, Tempel und Palast, 54–56.
41 
Cocquerillat, Palmeraies et cultures, 38; Beaulieu, Reign of
the Canal of Ea-aḫḫē-šullim, property of the Lady of
Nabonidus, 117–18.
Uruk and Nanāya that belongs to the rent farm of 42 
YOS 3 2, a letter warning the Eanna functionaries to stay away
Kalbāya/Iqīšāya//Basia, the rent farmer of the Lady from Kalbāya, is dated between the fourteenth and the sixteenth
of Uruk, is due from the (sub-)rented land of Nabû- year of Nabonidus (Kleber, Tempel und Palast, 55–56).

This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:35:48 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 More on the End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire  F 207
fact that it was drafted in or around Babylon rather
than in Uruk. Furthermore, it was written only twelve
days before the city was taken by the Persians. Tašrītu
was a month when the date harvest was estimated,
hence it would not be surprising to find the Eanna
temple’s chief rent farmer traveling in the countryside,
supervising fields under his care. It is certainly unusual,
however, that he reached as far north as Babylon. His
presence in the capital can hardly be treated apart from
the circumstances of time.
It is possible to track the rent farmer’s journey to
Babylon. In Text 5, Kalbāya is accompanied by the
scribe Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu, son of Nabû-šumu-ukīn.
Both men appear together in YOS 6 207, a document
drafted in Maškānu on—according to Dougherty’s
copy—the first of Dūzu of the seventeenth year of
Nabonidus. The month iti.šu (Dūzu) is distinguished
from iti.du6 (Tašrītu) by a single vertical wedge only,
and thus the two signs are easily confused, whether by
scribe or copyist. A collation kindly made by Elizabeth
Payne confirms that Tašrītu is plausible and possible.43
If the proposed reading is correct, Kalbāya and Itti-
Šamaš-balāṭu were in Maškānu three days before Text
5 was drafted. Both men appear further in Joannès
Textes économiques 42 written in [Bīt]-bārî, a šīḫu-
domain of the Lady-of-Uruk. The date of this docu-
ment is damaged, but year 10+[x] of Nabonidus is
mentioned in the text; thus, Nabonidus’s seventeenth
year cannot be excluded. Moreover, both YOS 6 207
and Joannès Textes économiques 42 record identical
transactions: the receipt of slaves in lieu of outstand-
ing dues in barley owed to the Eanna.44 Thus one can
speculate as to the route taken by Kalbāya and the
scribe who assisted him: they probably left from Uruk,
passed through Bīt-bārî (Joannès Textes économiques
42) and Maškānu (YOS 6 207), to arrive finally in
Babylon (Text 5). On the way, Kalbāya attended to
his duties as rent farmer.
Text 5 was witnessed by one man only; apparently
there was no time or no need to put a larger body of
43 
E. Payne communicates: “There is a bit of damage on the
left of the month name, precisely where the small vertical wedge
distinguishing du6 from šu would be. Within this damage, however,
there is a small tick-mark. While this tick could be additional dam-
age, it could also be traces of the head of the vertical wedge. Given
this, reading the month name as Tašrītu is entirely possible. It is not
absolutely certain, but it is certainly possible.”
44 
One more similar transaction is recorded in Joannès Textes
économiques 41 written in the tenth year of Nabonidus and drafted
by another scribe.
This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:35:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
witnesses together. This single witness is Innin-šumu-
ibni, a long-term agent of the Eanna based in the
capital. He is attested as early as in the second year
of Neriglissar, handling silver brought to Babylon by
the qīpu of the Eanna for various purchases.45 In the
eighth year of Nabonidus, he bought gold for the
Eanna, again with silver sent from Uruk.46 However,
his main duty seems to have been supervising the Ean-
na’s granary in the capital. YOS 19 225 records the
receipt of “ten shekels of silver for the food rations of
Innin-šumu-ibni, son of Nabû-bēlšunu who will guard
the storage area (bīt karam) of barley in Babylon.”47
In YOS 3 140, a letter sent from Babylon to temple
scribes, Innin-šumu-ibni wrote:
8
20 mu.an.na-àm en.nun 9ina kar-am ki-i aṣ-
ṣu-ru 10mim-ma šá l[a na-ṣa]-ri ina lìb-bi 11ul
i[n]-né-pu-⸢uš⸣ en-na 12mdna-na-a-dù-⸢uš kar-
am⸣ 13ki-i ip-tu š[e.bar] 14ul-tu lìb-bi i[t-ta]-ši
For twenty years when I have guarded the storage
area, no negligence in the guarding duties has
ever taken place. Now Nanāya-⸢ēpuš⸣ opened the
storage area and took b[arley?] from there.
One can only speculate on what exactly brought
Kalbāya to the capital. The Basia family originally came
from Babylon,48 and he could have simply returned to
his hometown and family in view of the approaching
danger. It seems much more likely, however, that the
trip was linked to Kalbāya’s function as ša muḫḫi sūti.
The Eanna urgently needed agricultural products, and
the uncertainty regarding the future must have made
its officials press the temple debtors harder. The fact
that Kalbāya continued to exercise his duties and the
presence of the Eanna’s agent strengthen the latter
possibility. It is further noteworthy that during the
uprisings against Darius I, the then-chief rent farmer
Gimillu was actively involved in the operation to bring
the Lady-of-Uruk to the capital: together with his
45 
Joannès Textes économiques 60: 15 lists three minas of silver
taken by him out of the silver brought to Babylon by the qīpu of
the Eanna.
46 
YOS 6 112: 15.
47 10
10 gín kù.⸢babbar⸣ a-na kurum.ḫi.a 11šá mdin-n[in]-mu-dù a
md
nà-en-šú-nu 12šá é ka-⸢ra-am⸣ šá še.bar ina tin.tir.ki 13i-nam-ṣa-ru
(14.12.2 Nbn). The Eanna’s (bīt) karam in Babylon is mentioned
also in YOS 7 99: 1, 7 (0Camb).
48 
Cf. M. Jursa, Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Docu-
ments: Typology, Contents and Archives, GMTR 1 (Münster, 2005),
141.
208  F  Journal of Near Eastern Studies

people, he was in charge of safeguarding the divine

statue on its way to Babylon.49

Boats for the Ebabbar

The Nabonidus Chronicle states explicitly that the
northern centers of Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar did
not send their gods to Babylon.50 Various reasons for
this decision have been considered, among them the
opposition to Nabonidus in the priestly circles of these
cities, and various other political and military causes.51
Yet, as shown by Zawadzki, Sippar did take steps to
provide security for the statues of its satellite centers.52
In the very beginning of Ulūlu (VI), temple authori-
ties arranged for the transfer to the capital of the statue
of Bēl-ṣarbi of Šapaṣṣu (Baṣ), a small town that lay in
Sippar’s sphere of influence. Zawadzki considered the
dispatch of the Baṣ statue a possible gesture of good
will of the authorities seeking to show their obedience
towards the king.
Further evidence suggests that Sippar authorities
might have been less reluctant to follow the royal
order than has been previously assumed. Two texts
edited below (Text 6 [see Figure 6] and CT 55 191)
show that the Ebabbar sought to secure boat trans-
port just before the coming of the Persians. The doc-
uments cannot be confidently linked to an operation
similar to the one carried out by the Eanna, but such
a context seems very probable in view of the fact that Figure 6—BM 63873 (Text 6)
the contracts were drafted only a few days before the
city was taken by the Persians on the fourteenth of l.e.
Tašrītu. By the point at which the contracts were
7. šá giš.má i-pa-ṭar-ri
concluded, the news of the battle of Opis, in which
Cyrus defeated the Babylonian army, must have al- 8. giš.má ina igi dutu
ready reached Sippar. rev.
Text 6. BM 63873 (82-9-18, 3841) Bertin 1633. 9. lú.mu-kin-nu mdnà-sur a-šú
4.7 cm × 3.4 cm 10. šá m⸢ìr⸣-dnà a mìr-didim
11. mdutu-mu-giš a-šú šá
1. 3½ gín kù.babbar i-di ⸢giš.má-šú⸣ šá
12. mre-mut lú.dub.sar
2. mda-ad (over erasure)-di (over erasure)-i’-ia lú.qal-la
13. mmu-dnà a-šú šá mdutu-sig15
3. šá mdutu-lugal-⸢ùru⸣ ina šuii
14. a lú.sanga dutu sip-par.ki
4. mdutu-sig15 u mden-gi
15. ⸢iti⸣.du6 u4.9.kám mu.⸢17⸣.kám
5. ki-i pi-i iti 10½ gín kù.babbar
6. ma-ḫi-ir ta ugu u4-mu u.e.
49 
Beaulieu, “An Episode in the Reign,” 19–20. 16. [mdn]à-i lugal e.ki
50 
Cf. n. 16 above.
Three-and-a-half shekels of silver, the rent of his boat,
51 
See Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 223–24, and Zawadzki,
“End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire”: 51 nn. 15–16, for references
has been received by Daddīʾa, the slave of Šamaš-šar-
to theories of S. Smith, A. T. Olmstead, and M. Weinfeld. uṣur, from Šamaš-udammiq and Bēl-ušallim. In accor-
52 
Ibid.: 49–52. dance with the monthly rate of ten-and-a-half shekels.

This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:35:48 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 More on the End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire  F 209

From the day he releases the boat, the boat will be at paid by two contractors. The clause stating that the
the disposal of Šamaš. boats will be “at the disposal of Šamaš” leaves no
doubt that the contracting party was the Ebabbar.
Witnesses: Nabû-ēṭir/Arad-Nabû//Arad-Ea,
The choice of the formulation ina pāni Šamaš over
Šamaš-šumu-līšir/Rēmūt.
the expected ina pāni PN (“is at the disposal of PN [a
Scribe: Iddin-Nabû/Šamaš-udammiq//
temple official]”) or ana idi ana Ebabbar iddin (“he
Šangû-Šamaš.
rented to the Ebabbar”), seems to emphasize the fact
Sippar, the ninth of Tašrītu, seventeenth year of Na-
that the boat would serve the god himself and not
bonidus, king of Babylon.
plain administrative purposes.54
CT 55 191 (BM 55705) The two men who paid the rent, Šamaš-udammiq
and Bēl-ušallim, must have been temple officials. Their
1. 6 (erasure53) gín kù.babbar i-di giš.má-šú
filiation was not given in either text, which must in-
2. šá 15.kám u4-mu.meš mdnà-numun-gál-ši
dicate that they were known figures whose identity
3. a-šú šá mre-mut ina šuII
did not have to be specified. Both texts were drafted
4. mdutu-sig15 u mden-gi
by the same scribe, who was possibly the son of the
5. ma-ḫi-ir ki-i pi-i iti 11 gín kù.babbar
first functionary. Should this assumption prove true,
6. ta ugu u4-mu šá giš.má
the official must be identical with Šamaš-udammiq/
l.e. Šūzubu//Šangû-Šamaš,55 possibly a royal merchant.
He is attested receiving silver for the purchase of sheep
7. i-pa-ṭar-ri giš.má
(CT 57 149: 2, 41Nbk; Nbn. 1130: 5, [x]Nbn),
8. ina igi dutu
luxury garments (BM 60866: 4, 6Nbn), agricultural
rev. products (CT 57 147: 9, 1AM), and rations due to
9. lú.mu-kin-nu mdutu-tin-iṭ royal merchands (Nbn. 464: 3, 10Nbn). The identity
10. a-šú šá mgi-mil-lu of his partner Bēl-ušallim is more difficult to establish.
11. mdutu-mu a-šú šá ma-ra-bi The documents vary in further details from those
12. lú.umbisag mmu-dnà a-šú drafted by Eanna scribes. The rental periods in Text 6
13. šá mdutu-sig15 a lú.sanga dutu and CT 55 191 are ten and fifteen days, respectively
14. sip-par.ki iti.du6 u4.10.kám (rather than an entire month), presumably because
15. mu!(text: u4).17.kám mdnà-i the place the boat was to reach was located not far
away. During this time, a return trip from Sippar to
u.e. Babylon (60 km) could easily have been completed,
16. lugal e.ki thus the rental period makes the capital (rather than,
e.g., Uruk) a plausible destination.
Six shekels of silver, the rent of his boat for fifteen days, The rents charged in the two texts are twice as high
has been received by Nabû-zēru-šubši/Rēmūt from as those from Uruk. The capacities of the vessels the
Šamaš-udammiq and Bēl-ušallim. In accordance with Ebabbar contracted are unknown: they could have
the monthly rate of eleven shekels of silver. been larger than those rented by the Eanna. Another
From the day he releases the boat, the boat will be at possible reason for this discrepancy is that boat rents
the disposal of Šamaš. in Sippar seem to have been generally higher than in
the provincial south.56 Lastly, rents could have gone up
Witnesses: Šamaš-uballiṭ/Gimillu,
Šamaš-iddin/Arrabi.
Scribe: Iddin-Nabû/Šamaš-udammiq//
54 
Suggestion courtesy S. Zawadzki.
55 
Bongenaar, The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its
Šangû-Šamaš.
Administration and its Prosopography, PIHANS 80 (Leiden, 1997),
Sippar, the tenth of Tašrītu, seventeenth year of Na- 456.
bonidus, king of Babylon. 56 
CT 57 79 (14Nbn) mentions a boat rented for ten shekels
and an additional two shekels paid as the boatman’s fee. A similar
These two texts differ formulaically from the Eanna rate is attested in BM 66816, in which thirty shekels were paid as a
contracts. They are shaped as receipts for boat rent two-month rent. In CT 57 87 the rent is only two shekels, but the
boat was to bring a shipment from nearby Gilūšu. The silver was
53 
Traces of ½ are visible under this erasure. issued on the 7.7.17Nbn, thus, just before the discussed boats were

This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:35:48 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
210  F  Journal of Near Eastern Studies
due to ongoing military actions, circumstances under
which people may have been ready to pay any amount of
money in order to save themselves and their possessions.
The purpose of renting the boats has not been
named in the documents, but with Uruk rentals in
mind, one is tempted to speculate that the Ebabbar
was aiming to dispatch a cargo to Babylon: the divine
statues, their paraphernalia or other temple valuables,
and perhaps also accompanying personnel. According
to a scenario offered by Zawadzki, Sippar authori-
ties did not choose to keep their gods at home, but
merely delayed the dispatch, e.g., until the feast of
the seventh of Tašrītu (VII), during which the divine
statues had to be present in Sippar.57 Building on this
contracted; however, due to formulaic differences, this transaction
has to be treated separately.
57 
Zawadzki, “End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire”: 51, cf.
A. Cavigneaux and V. Donbaz, “Le mythe du 7.VII. Les jours fa-
tidiques et le Kippour mésopotamiens,” OrNS 76 (2007): 293–335.
This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:35:48 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
hypothesis, the boat rentals could then have been part
of arrangements made by the Ebabbar authorities im-
mediately after the feast. The rapid approach of the
Persian army might have then obstructed the final
dispatch of the gods.
This scenario remains conjectural until conclusive
evidence turns up. If true, however, the Chronicle
entry mentioning that the three northern cities did
not send their gods to Babylon should not be un-
derstood as critical of Nabonidus.58 Rather, it would
state the simple fact that, for various reasons, the
gods of Borsippa, Sippar, and Cutha did not make
it to the capital before Cyrus and his army knocked
at their doors.
58 
As suggested by S. Smith, A. T. Olmstead, and M. Weinfeld
(see references in n. 51).