A VICTORY OVER MARI AND THE FALL OF EBLA* Alfonso Archi and Maria Giovanna Biga Università di Roma “La Sapienza” superio...
280 downloads
1321 Views
3MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
A VICTORY OVER MARI AND THE FALL OF EBLA* Alfonso Archi and Maria Giovanna Biga Università di Roma “La Sapienza” superior stabat lupus
1) The Supremacy of Mari; 2) {I-daåar of Mari; 3) Relative Chronology of Isar-damu’s Reign (Ministers Ibrium and his Son Ibbi-zikir); 4) The Alliance between Ebla and Mari; 5) The Defeat of Mari; 6) After the Victory; 7) The Peace with Mari and the Triumph of the Minister Ibbi-zikir; 8) The Marriage of Kesdut with the Son of the King of Kis; 9) The Destruction of Ebla
During an initial phase Mari succeeded in conducting an expansionist policy. A letter by the king Enna-Dagan clearly has the aim of intimidating the king of Ebla.2 The tone used is threatening. The letter lists a series of victories won by Mari
1) The Supremacy of Mari For no more than ˜fty years during the twentyfourth century B.C. , the political scene in northern Syria and the region of the Middle Euphrates was dominated by two equally powerful cities: Ebla and Mari. All the other city-states were obliged to submit to the hegemony of one of these two great centers, on occasion passing from one camp to the other.1
conclusion reached by Viganò in “Mari and Ebla: of Times and Rulers,” ibid., 3–24. P. Michalowski, “Mari: The View from Ebla,” in Mari in Retrospect. Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), ed. G. D. Young, 243–48, could not use the corrections which A. Archi, “Le synchronisme entre les rois de Mari et les rois d’Ebla au IIIe millénnaire,” MARI 4 (1985) 47–51 (especially p. 47, n. 4), introduced into his previous list of the Mari kings, where the ministers Arennum/Arrukum, Ibrium and Ibbi-zikir were still considered as kings of Ebla. A complete dossier of the relations between Ebla and Mari is in preparation. 2. TM.75.G.2367, preserved in the central archive of the royal palace of Ebla, was originally published by G. Pettinato, “Bollettino militare della campagna di Ebla contro la città di Mari,” OA 19 (1980) 231–45, and ˜rst commented on by B. Kienast, “Der Feldzugsbericht des Ennadagan in literarhistorischer Sicht,” OA 19 (1980) 247–61. It was, however, D. O. Edzard, “Neue Erwägungen zum Brief des Enna-Dagan von Mari (TM.75.G.2367),” SEb 4 (1981) 89–97, who gave the correct interpretation of this letter, which has been reedited by P. Fronzaroli as ARET XIII 4. For an extensive historical and geographical interpretation of this see M. C. Astour, Eblaitica 3 (1992) 26–39; see also J.-W. Meyer, AoF 23 (1996) 156–69.
*Abbreviations used in this article: AAM = Annual Accounts of Deliveries of Precious Metals; MAT = Monthly Accounts of Deliveries of Textiles; D. = DILMUN (determining gín); EDL = Enna-Dagan’s Letter; Ibr. = the minister Ibrium; I.Z. = the minister Ibbi-Zikir. 1. The political and economic relations between Ebla and Mari have been treated by A. Archi, “I rapporti tra Ebla e Mari,” SEb 4 (1981) 129–66.; Id., “Les rapports politiques et économiques entre Ebla et Mari,” MARI 4 (1985) 63–83; F. Pomponio, “Considerazioni sui rapporti tra Mari ed Ebla,” VO 5 (1982) 191–203; Id., “Funzionari di Ebla e di Mari,” in Anatolia Antica. Studi in memoria di F. Imparati (Eothen 11; Firenze: LoGisma, 2002), eds. S. de Martino and F. Pecchioli Daddi, 653– 63. The older economic documents have been ordered chronologically by L. Viganò, “Mari and Ebla: the Archives Reports,” in L. Viganò, On Ebla. An Accounting of Third Millennium Syria (Aula Orientalis Supplementa 12; Sabadell: Editorial AUSA, 1996), 25–51. The present authors cannot accept the
1
JCS 55 (2003)
2
ALFONSO ARCHI AND MARIA GIOVANNA BIGA
in the area of the Middle Euphrates, each of which was swiftly followed by the destruction of the enemy’s city. This expansion was begun by the ˜rst two kings, Anubu and Saåumu.3 Istup-(i)sar reached as far as Emar and annihilated the city. Finally, Iblul-Il ranged repeatedly up and down the valley of the Euphrates, as far as the territory of {a-su-wa-anki, upriver from Karkemis, sowing terror and destruction in his wake.4 In order not to see her own territory invaded, Ebla paid a heavy tribute which was handed over to Mari near Mane (downriver from Emar), the site that continued to act as Ebla’s port on the Euphrates.5 Enna-Dagan does not claim any undertaking other than the completion of a military expedition begun by Iblul-II. It is obvious that the letter, in which Enna-Dagan makes clear his program of continuing Iblul-Il’s political hegemony, was
3. F. Pomponio, AfO 35 (1988) 166, has highlighted that in obv. ii 1 one has to read the PN A-nu-KA. The text has perhaps: A-nu-KA[(x†U)]. A. Alberti, NABU 1990/124, has suggested to identify the An-bu of the Sumerian King List with this Anubu; see also J. S. Cooper, Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions I (New Haven: The American Oriental Society, 1986) 4 n. 12. Other identi˜cations with fragmentary names in the List have been proposed by M. J. Geller, Eblaitica 1 (1987) 144–45. The Tell Leilan recension shows now that the six Mari kings of the List are not those attested in the Ebla documents, see C.-A. Vincente, ZA 85 (1995) 241–42, 257–60. 4. Pettinato’s edition has to be corrected here, obv. ix 1–13: in Ne-ra-at ki ù in åÀ-aski (!) {a-su-wa-anki è Ib-lul-il lugal Ma-rí ki ù mu-DU Ib-laki . . . “Against Nerat and åAåas of {asuwan moved Iblul-Il, the king of Mari. The delivery of Ebla he received inside Mane.” The toponym åÀ-aski could be perhaps identi˜ed with åÀ-su/suki, a small center in the territory of Ebla (at least in later times), which is, however, never connected with {asuwan, see A. Archi, P. Piacentini and F. Pomponio, I nomi di luogo dei testi di Ebla (Archivi Reali di Ebla Studi 2; Roma: Missione archeologica italiana in Siria; 1993) (= ARES 2), 134–36. The identi˜cation of {asuwan with later {assum/{assuwa, see ARES 2, 266–67, is not accepted by M. C. Astour, “{assu and {asuwan. A Contribution to North Syrian History and Geography,” UF 29 (1997) 1–66. 5. M. C. Astour, “The Geographical and Political Structure of the Ebla Empire,” in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla (Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 2; Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1988), eds. H. Waetzold and H. Hauptmann, 146 n. 47, identi˜es this toponym with URUMani-e of the Chaldean Chronicle, see D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626–556 B.C.) (London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1961), 54–55:7: “Manê, Sahiru and Balihu . . . .” See further M. C. Astour, Eblaitica 4 (2002) 111–15.
written soon after he assumed the throne. Events were, however, to take a diˆerent turn as he was soon to die. The document TM.75.G.1953, sums up “the deliveries, tributes,” mu-DU (as they are appropriately de˜ned by Enna-Dagan) paid in gold and silver by Ebla to Mari during the reigns of Iblul-Il, Nizi and Enna-Dagan. The Eblaite administration, for ideological reasons, preferred to call these “gifts,” níg-ba: the obligation to deliver a mu-DU was applied to an individual or a city that had been forced to submit to another authority. The amounts involved are staggering and unparalleled for such an early date (1 ma-na = 470 gr): 6 Silver (ma-na) Iblul-Il (king) 1,164.20 ábba “elders” ,184.18 maskim-e-gi4 ,272.38 “envoys” Nizi (king) ,154.30 ábba “elders” , 49.30 , 77.17 maskim-e-gi4 “envoys” Enna-Dagan (king) ,153.50 ábba “elders” , 53.48 maskim-e-gi4 , 77.50 “envoys” Totals
2,188.01
(kg)
Gold (ma-na)
(kg)
,547.23 , 86.61 ,128.13
89.30 . 0 14.46
42.06
, 72.61 , 23.26 , 36.32
17.27 . 0 . 3
8.19
, 72.29 , 25.28 , 36.57
8.03 . 0 1.40
0.78
1,028.30
134.26
63.15
6.93
1.41 3.78
This document reveals to us the existence of a Mari king by the name of Nizi (Ni-zi), Iblul-Il’s immediate successor, omitted in Enna-Dagan’s letter, perhaps because nothing of great importance happened during his reign. Nizi received the same amount of silver as Enna-Dagan, but ˜ve more kilos of gold. In all probability this tablet was written on the death of Enna-Dagan and marks the start of a new phase, in which Ebla would exchange “gifts,” níg-ba, with Mari on an equal footing within the context of ceremonial exchanges. Certain factors indicate that EnnaDagan only ruled for a few years. The tablet ARET II 4 xv 2–xvi 1 records the death of Iblul-Il: GIBIL-za-il La-da-ad Íl-zi-da-mu 6. Archi, SEb 4 (1981) 132–35; see also Archi, MARI 4 (1985) 64–65 (T. a).
A VICTORY OVER MARI AND THE FALL OF EBLA Ig-na-da-mu su-mu-“tag4” Ib-lul-il lugal DI† mu ug7 ÉxPAP “(gifts which) PN1-PN4 have brought (for) Iblul-Il, the king (of Mari, in) the year of (his) death (for) the funerary ceremony.”7 These four people were among the principal o¯cials (called lugal, “lord,” at Ebla8) during the ˜rst period documented in the archives, corresponding to the reign of Igris-{alab. The death of a king of Mari (together with that of a king of Kakmium) also provides the date for a cattle account, TM.75.G.1574 obv. iii 2–rev. i 4: in DI† mu lugal Ma-rí ki ús ù en [Kak-]mi-umki [ú]s “in the year the king of Mari died and the king of Kakmium died.”9 Darmia, who appears in this document, was the principal “lord,” lugal, during the reign of Igris-{alab. During the last years of Igris-{alab, Arrukum10 was a “lord,” lugal.11 He also appears in ARET II 4 ix 5 on the occasion of a journey to Mari. When Arrukum became minister, Irkab-damu was already king. In the documents of Arrukum the death of Igris-{alab is not mentioned and it is probable that Irkab-damu had only come to the throne a few years earlier. In fact, the main o¯cials mentioned in the mu-DU documents before the period of Arrukum were already in service at the time of king Igris-{alab. Arrukum held the post of minister for perhaps less than ˜ve full years, as he appears in four annual muDU texts, in four Annual Accounts of the distribution of Metals [AAM], and in about sixty Monthly Accounts concerning the distribution of Textiles [MAT].12 He died a few months before 7. On ÉxPAP “funerary ceremony,” see A. Archi, Amurru 1 (1996)17–18. 8. See A. Archi, “Les titres de en et lugal à Ebla et des cadeaux pour le roi de Kish,” MARI 5 (1987) 37–52. 9. SEb 7 (1984) 68–69. 10. This name Ar-EN-LUM was ˜rst read as Ar-en-núm, then as Ar-ru12-lum and now, by the present writers, as Arru12-gúm. 11. The relevant documents for the synchronism between Ebla and the kings of Mari are quoted in Archi, MARI 4 (1985) 48–49. At that time, the ministers Arrukum (Arennum), Ibrium and Ibbi-zikir were erroneously considered kings of Ebla. 12. The four mu-DU texts are listed by A. Archi, “The ‘lords,’ lugal-lugal, of Ebla. A Prosopographic Study,” VO 12 (2000) 19–58 (see pp. 35–36). The monthly documents registering textiles that mention Arrukum will be edited by F. Pomponio.
3
his master Irkab-damu.13 Of the four o¯cials who carried funerary gifts to Mari for Iblul-Il, only GIBIL-za-Il was still active under minister Arrukum.14 Iblul-Il must therefore have died either during the very last years of Igris-{alab or in the ˜rst year of Irkab-damu’s reign, if we attribute to this king about eight to ten years on the throne. Baba, the spouse of Iblul-Il, is mentioned in four documents.15 The death of Nizi is recorded in TM.75.G.1299 (SEb 4, 137–39: T. 3) rev. iv 3–4: in ud Ni-zi ús-ús DI† mu “the year in which Nizi died.” In this document Arrukum ˜gures among those sent by Ebla to deliver tribute to the king of Mari (obv. iii 3). Some of the people mentioned here, however, were only active in the period preceding that 13. Archi, Amurru 1 (1996) 23–26. 14. The lists of the lugals were published by Archi, VO 12 (2000) 48–55. 15. For the identi˜cation of this queen see F. Pomponio and M. G. Biga, NABU 1989/114, who interpreted correctly l. 4 of the Mari inscription MP 12 of I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des Dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. (FAOS 7; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1990) 12: [Ib-lul]-il lugal Ma-rí ki Pa4-ba4 nin “[Iblul]-Il, king of Mari (and) Paba, the queen.” She is also attested in ARET VII 3 obv. v 5, rev. iv 7; 7 rev. i 3; 12 obv. iii 1. The prosopographic data con˜rm the dating of these three documents to the last years of king Igris-{alab. Another document, TM.75.G.1559 (= T. 9 in SEb 4 [1981] 155–62), from the time of Enna-Dagan, covers four years and mentions Enna-Il, the steward of Pa4-ba4, in obv. I 2. The title of the queen was nin, see also TM.75.G.2460 (to be dated to the minister Ibbi-Zikir) obv. v 14–vi 1: lugal Ma-rí ki . . . nin Ma-rí ki. The spouse of {I-daåar, the last king of Mari known from the Ebla archives had the same name, ARET VIII 533 viii 13–16: Ba-ba4 dam {I-da-ar Ma-rí ki “(gifts for) Baba, the spouse of {I-daåar, (the king) of Mari” (this document has to be dated to the very last years of the central archive). Pa-a-ba4, ARET I 44 obv. i 7, rev. ii 3, must be another writing of the same name. W. Sallaberger, Subartu 4,2 (1998) 36–37, has suggested that Pa4-ba4, attested to in: F. Ismail, W. Sallaberger, Ph. Talon and K. van Lerberghe, Administrative Documents from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1993–1995). Subartu 2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1996) (= Subartu 2), 23 i 1, is to be identi˜ed with the spouse of Iblul-Il of Mari. This suggestion could hold true if Paba was a princess from Nagar given in marriage to Iblul-Il. It is also possible that this Paba was the spouse of king {I-daåar, who visited Ebla about two years before the destruction of the city, see ARET VIII 533 viii 13– 21: Ba-ba4 dam {i-da-ar Ma-rí ki lú gi4 mi-nu Ib-laki si-in Ma-rí ki “Baba, the spouse of {I-daåar (king) of Mari who returned from Ebla to Mari” (see below, at the end of § 8). In this case, the chronology of the tablets from Tell Beydar suggested by Sallaberger should be lowered (see also note 68).
4
ALFONSO ARCHI AND MARIA GIOVANNA BIGA
which saw Arrukum at the head of the administration, such as Ladat “the judge,” di-kud (obv. iii 6–7). Ladat is also attested in TM.75.G.1987 (SEb 4, 139: T. 4) and in ARET VII 1 + TM.75.G.12683, obv. ii 1 (!). The two “judges” of the four yearly mu-DU documents of the minister Arrukum were Enna-I(l) and Ibdur-isar.16 The latter had taken the place of Ladat, who was “judge” together with Enna-I(l) in the years immediately preceding. Arrukum, who appears regularly in the documents relating to Nizi, is the head of the delegation to Mari in TM.75.G.1866 (SEb 4, 139–140: T. 5). Nizi reigned for at least three years: ARET VII 1 + TM.75.G.12683 rev. x 4–7: dub-gar Ni-zi lugal fimu-flDU 3 mu “document (concerning) Nizi, the king: delivery (for) three years.” ARET VII 16 (41): dub-gar lú su-ba4-ti in ud Ni-zi lugal 3 mu “document of what was received (in Mari) when Nizi (was) king (in his) third year.” ARET VII 16 (19) mentions Ma-ra-AN en Na-gàr ki “M. king of Nagar.” This king is possibly to be identi˜ed with AMAR-AN dumu UR-dUTU.†A [en?] Nagarki, who dedicated a statue of Iblul-Il to Inanna-ZA.ZA in Mari.17 Enna-Dagan, who succeeded him, already appears in some of his predecessor’s documents as the receiver of gifts.18 ARET VII 17 relates to the ˜rst year of Enna-Dagan’s reign, rev. vi 1–3: ás-du En-na-dDa-gan lugal 1 mu “since EnnaDagan has been king: one year.” Of the two o¯cials mentioned in obv. ii 4–6, Iba-zinu and Isgi-daåar, only the latter was still active when Arrukum became minister. Some other documents of king Enna-Dagan must, for prosopographical reasons, be dated to the period immediately before Arrukum was minister, such as MEE II 13 obv. i 3–ii 7:19 mu-DU Ig-na-da-mu ul-ki . . . mu16. Archi, VO 12 (2000) 35–36. 17. Gelb and Kienast, Königsinschriften, 12, no 12 (= MAM 3, 318–19 no 11). See Sallaberger, Subartu 4,2 (1998) 35 with n. 59. 18. TM.75.G.1299 (SEb 4, 137–38: T. 3) rev. II 2–3; ARET VII 1 obv. iii 6, rev. iii 1, vii 2; 16 obv. vi 8, viii 1, rev. i 4. An Enna-Dagan from Mari was active for several years as a messenger after the death of the king of the same name, see TM.75.G.1923 obv. xii 8; 2507 rev. xix 8. 19. Rev. v 3–5 + vi 3 reads: ás-du En-na-dDa-gan lugal 1 mu. This document, therefore, comes from the same year of ARET VII 17.
DU Ti-ir è níg-ba En-na-dDa-gan lugal “delivery of Igna-Damu, the ulki; . . . delivery of Tiåir: expenditure (as) gift (for) Enna-Dagan, the king (of Mari).” Tiåir, one of the most important “lords” before Arrukum, remained in the administration under Arrukum; Igna-damu, instead, withdrew from service. TM.75.G.1233 (SEb 4, 145–54: T. 8) must be of the same date as MEE II 13. The text MEE II 35 rev. x 3–5 shows that Enna-Dagan was king for more than two years: dub-gar níg-ba En-na-[d]Da-gan [1/2+]2 mu “document of the gifts (for) Enna-Dagan (for) 3/4 years.” This text, which refers to a number of years, must have been drawn up immediately after the death of king Irkab-damu, rev. viii 9–XI 1: in ud níg-ba en su-mu-“tag4” ÉxPAP “(silver as gift for PN) on the occasion of the gift (which) the king (of Ebla) has brought (to his own?) funeral ceremony.”20 Apart from the famous letter which allows us to reconstruct the expansion of the Mari state, the archives of Ebla also include another document from Enna-Dagan, TM.75.G.1913+, which deals with events of his reign.21 When Nizi died, certain o¯cials were still in service who would then disappear under minister Arrukum. The latter died a few months before his king, Irkab-damu, and had held his post for four years and several months.22 The period of EnnaDagan’s reign covers those few years in which Arrukum was minister, and began at least one year earlier. During the reign of Irkab-damu, Mari suˆered a defeat, possibly at the hands of Ebla. ARET VII 115 rev. i 1–ii 6: sikil dåÀ-da Ìr-kabda-mu sikil in mu Ma-rí ki àga-kár ás-ti åÀ-ti-ni ki “puri˜cation of the god Hadda, Irkab-damu has puri˜ed (?) in the year (in which) Mari was vanquished by åAtini.”23 This must have been a minor con˘ict seeing as it is mentioned nowhere else. 20. The expression PN su-mu-“tag4” ÉxPAP has been discussed by A. Archi, ZA 92 (2002) 184. Minister Arrukum, who died several months before king Irkab-Damu, is mentioned in obv. viii 5. 21. This document has been published by P. Fronzaroli as ARET XIII 1. 22. See note 12. 23. On the sikil ceremony, see A. Archi, NABU 2000/65.
A VICTORY OVER MARI AND THE FALL OF EBLA
The locality åAtini appears to occur only in this document.24 It is uncertain if the news of a defeat of Mari registered in the MAT TM.75.G.1405 (to be dated to the king Irkab-damu, because the minister is Arrukum) refers to the same event, obv. vi 12–vii 1: (1 cloth) Bù-da-ma-lik lú En-na-ì dikud níg-mul Ma-rí ki til “(1 cloth for) Buda-malik, the man (i.e. son ?) of Enna-i(l), the judge, (for) the news (that) Mari was defeated.” Iku(n)-isar, Enna-Dagan’s successor, is mentioned in an AAM from the ˜rst year of minister Ibrium (in the ˜rst months of the same year in which king Irkab-damu died): TM.75.G.1705 (Ibr. 1.b) rev. vi 4–10: tar kù-gi I-ku-i-sar en Ma-rí ki Du-tum Ma-rí ki su-mu-“tag4” “30 (shekels) of gold for Iku-isar, king of Mari, Dutum of Mari has brought.” The only other reference to this king is in ARET I 11 (17): I-ku-sar en Ma-rí ki I-ga-is-ru12 su-mu-“tag4” “(garments for) Iku(n)-(i)sar, king of Mari, Iga-isru has brought.” This MAT registers in section (41) the gifts for Tahir-malik, daughter of minister Ibrium, on the occasion of her marriage. It has to be dated to the same year as the AAM Ibr. 1.b, which mentions “the marriage of a Ibrium’s daughter” in rev. XI 18–21: in ud nígmu-sá dumu-mí Ib-rí-um and has other parallel sections. All these elements suggest that Enna-Dagan of Mari and Irkab-damu of Ebla died during the same year. MEE II 35 is, therefore, the summary of gifts sent to Mari during the reign of EnnaDagan. 2) {I-daåar of Mari The successor of Enna-Dagan of Mari, Ikunisar, is only mentioned in the ˜rst AAM of Ibrium (Ibr. 1.b) and in one MAT from the same year, which was also his ˜rst year (see above). The name of {I-daåar, who succeeded Ikun-isar, never appears in the AAMs, but only in some MATs from the ˜nal years of Ebla, that is about thirty years later (see Table 1). 24. If this åAtini is to be identi˜ed with A-ti-in/ni/nu/núm ki, a small center belonging to Ebla (see ARES 2, 120), this unfavorable event for Mari had to be just a clash.
5
1) TM.75.G.1249 rev. v 4–6: 2 maskim {I-da-ar Ma-rí ki (in rev. v 21–26, marriage of the princess Tagris-Damu with the crown prince of Nagar;25 last two/three years of Ebla). 2) ARET VII 64 (2): NI-ba-ku-tu dumu-nita {Ida-ar (in section [1]: Ni-zi Na-gàr ki: about the same year as the preceding document). 3) TM.75.G.2241 obv. i 2–4: {I-da-ar lugal Marí ki (in obv. vii 4–8: death of Zugalum, queen of {arran. The Eblaite princess Zugalum married the king of {arran in I.Z. 1; she is mentioned in I.Z. 3 and I.Z. 6. Her death does not appear in the preserved section of the AAMs. It has to be occurred, therefore, in the last three years of Ibbi-zikir, whose AAMs are extremely fragmentary). 4) TM.75.G.2270 obv. XI 13–XII 1: †um-da-ar dumu-nita {I-da-ar lú Ma-rí ki (in obv. vii: gifts of the queen for Za-åà-se, daughter of Ibbi-zikir, who had married the crown prince Ir-åà-ag-da-mu; last years of Ibbi-zikir). 5) TM.75.G.2278 rev. ix 5–8: †um-da-ar dumunita {I-da-ar Ma-rí ki (year of the peace after the victory of Ebla on Mari). 6) TM.75.G.2328 rev. iii 19–22: 3 dumu-nita tur maskim dumu-nita {I-da-ar. 7) TM.75.G.2334 obv. vii 5–8: A-ha-ar-sè dumunita {I-da-ar Ma-rí ki (last year of Ebla; death of the priestess Tarib-Damu, who is still alive in I.Z. 15) 8) TM.75.G.2353 obv. xi 16–18: maskim-e-gi4 {I-da-ar lugal Ma-rí ki (in obv. ii 1–2: expedition against Za-bur-rúmki; last years of Ibbi-zikir). 9) ARET VIII 521 vi 14–18: Ab-ba-ì-lum I-tinu maskim {I-da-ar (last two/three years of Ebla). 10) ARET VIII 522 xv 5–8: {I-da-ar Ma-rí ki . . . ábba-sù (last two/three years of Ebla). 11) ARET VIII 525 xx 16–19: †u-ma-dAs-dar Puzur4-ra-BE 2 maskim {I-da-ar (last two/ three years of Ebla). 12) ARET VIII 529 xxii 1–4: A-hu-DÙG maskim {I-da-ar Ma-rí ki (last two/three years of Ebla). 25. See M. G. Biga, Subartu 4,2 (1998) 18–19.
6
ALFONSO ARCHI AND MARIA GIOVANNA BIGA
Table 1 Kings of Ebla
Ministers years
Kings of Mari years
Abur-lim Agur-lim Ibbi-damu Baga-damu Enar-damu Isar-malik Kun-damu Adub-damu Igris-{alabd Irkab-damu
Synchronisms with Babyloniaa
Ikun-Marib Ikun-†amaganb Ikun-†amasb Anubuc Saåumc Istup-isarc Iblul-Ilc d 1 (?) 2 3
Isar-damu
years
NIzi
1
(three years?)
2
Arrukum
3
4
2
Enna-Dagan
1
5
3
(four years?)
2
6
4
3
7
5
4
1
1
1
2
Ibrium
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4+x
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
First defeat of Kis
9
9
Conquest of Aksak
10
10
11
11
Conquest of Kis by Ensakusana
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
Ibbi-zikir
1
20
2
21
3
22
4
A VICTORY OVER MARI AND THE FALL OF EBLA
7
Table 1 Kings of Ebla
Ministers years
Kings of Mari years
23
5
24
6
25
7
26
8
27
9
28
10
29
11
30
12
31
13
32
14
33
15
34
16
35
17
years
Synchronisms with Babyloniaa Conquest of Adab by Lugalzagesi 1–7
in MA and NA.11 This occurs in the stative (e.g., na(-as)-saku, “I carry,” for earlier nasåaku, na(-as)-su, “they carry,” for naså¿), in the perfect (e.g., it-ta-su, “they have lifted, brought,” for ittaså¿, it-ta-sa, “he brought here,” for ittasåa(m), and in the imperative (e.g., is-sa or i-sa, “bring (sg.) here!,” for isåa(m)).12 Since there is independent evidence for a sound change /s/ > /s/ in later Assyrian, this cluster was pronounced [så] from MA onwards,13 and the fact that it was written with a simple or geminate <s> suggests that /s/ was pronounced as a glottalized consonant, i.e., as [s’]. Thus Aro concludes that “Assyrian s before and after 1000 B.C. was pronounced more or less like s with a following (or concomitant) glottal stop.”14
5. M.-C. Simeone-Senelle, “The Modern South Arabian Languages,” in Hetzron, The Semitic Languages, 382. 6. See P. Ladefoged and I. Maddieson, The Sounds of the World’s Languages (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 369: “there is no sharp distinction between ejectives and plosives accompanied by a glottal stop.” Similarly, Catford, Fundamental Principles, 69. 7. Geers’ Law stipulates that in Proto-Semitic roots with two emphatics only one of these may remain emphatic in Akkadian, see F. W. Geers, “The Treatment of Emphatics in Akkadian,” JNES 4 (1945) 65–67. E.g., Akkadian sabatum “to seize” corresponds to Arabic dabata, and Akkadian qatnu “thin, small” to Hebrew qaton, see W. von Soden, Grundriß der akkadischen Grammatik, 3., ergänzte Au˘age, Analecta Orientalia 33 (Rome: Editrice Ponti˜cio Instituto Biblico, 1995), 65 § 51e. 8. E. E. Knudsen, “Cases of Free Variants in the Akkadian q Phoneme,” JCS 15 (1961) 84–90. His proposal was approved by Edzard, ZA 73 (1983) 134, and Bomhard, “The Proto-Semitic Consonant System,” 115–16. Knudsen’s other arguments for the glottalized nature of emphatics in Akkadian are refuted by Faber, Genetic Subgoupings, 146–47. For the tendency to avoid accumulation of glottalized consonants, see P. J. Hopper, “Glottalized and Murmured Occlusives in Indo-European,” Glossa 7 (1973) 141–66, and Faber, Genetic Subgoupings, 145 (who correctly points out, however, that these dissimilation
phenomena can provide no more than “meager, but not conclusive, evidence for ejectives in Akkadian” (147)). Moreover, F. Wedekind, “Glottalization Constraints and Ethiopic Counter Evidence,” Folia Linguistica 24 (1990) 127–37, cites numerous examples from Ethiopic languages that contradict the existence of such a tendency. 9. Aro, “Pronunciation of the “Emphatic” Consonants,” 8. See also R. Voigt, “A note on the Alleged Middle/Neo-Assyrian Sound Change så(*så) > ss<s>,” JNES 45 (1986) 53–57. 10. The vowel elision rule dictates that a short vowel in the penultimate syllable is elided if the preceding syllable is also short, see GaG 16–17 § 12, K. Hecker, Grammatik der Kültepe-Texte, Analecta Orientalia 44 (Rome: Ponti˜cium Institutum Biblicum, 1968), 68f § 44, and especially the extensive discussion in E. L. Greenstein, “The Phonology of Akkadian Syllable Structure,” Afroasiatic Linguistics 9/1 (1984) 13–42. 11. The discovery that the forms with s are part of the paradigm of nasaåu is due to Parpola (S. Parpola, “The alleged Middle/Neo-Assyrian Irregular Verb *nass- and the Assyrian Sound Change † > S,” Assur 1/1 (1974): 1–10). Parpola’s claim that na-sa stands for phonemic /nassa/ is justi˜ably criticized by Voigt, “Middle/Neo-Assyrian Sound Change,” 53–54. 12. For references, see Parpola, “The alleged Middle/NeoAssyrian Irregular Verb *nass-,” 6–10. 13. See section 9 with note 64. 14. Aro, “ ‘Emphatic’ Consonants,” 8.
EVIDENCE FOR POST-GLOTTALIZED CONSONANTS IN ASSYRIAN
The aim of this paper is to show that this peculiarity of the verb nasaåu ˜nds an exact parallel in Old Assyrian (hence: OA) in the paradigm of the verbs wasaåum, “to go/come out,” masaåum, “to be(come) able, su¯cient,” and kasaåum, “to be(come) cold,” and in the noun kusåum, “cold, winter.” This provides strong evidence for the post-glottalized nature of the emphatic sibilant /s/ in OA. I will further argue that a comparable peculiarity in the OA conjugation of the verb nadaåum, “to lay down,” does the same for the emphatic dental plosive /t/. 2. The verbs masaåum, wasaåum, kasaåum and nadaåum and the noun kusåum show a peculiar spelling pattern in those forms in which the second and third radical are adjacent. The resulting cluster of s or d plus aleph can be expressed in writing in three diˆerent ways. The ˜rst and most common way is a broken spelling, in which s or d is immediately followed by a V or VC sign.15 The second way, which is also very common, is what I will call the “alephless” spelling, in which the glottal stop (aleph) seems to be completely ignored. In some forms a third type of spelling may be used, which I will call the “glide spelling.” In a glide spelling the vowel that is subject to elision according to the vowel elision rule is preserved in the orthography. To give an example, one of the few verb forms that are found in all three spellings is the preterite usi of wasaåum when it is followed by an ending, such as the ventive ending -am: this form can be spelled us-am or usa-am with a broken spelling, ú-sa-am with an alephless spelling, and ú-sí-am or ú-sí-a-am with a glide spelling (see below for references).
15. This use of a V or VC sign in the middle of a word violates the basic syllabi˜cation rule that every syllable (at least in the middle of a word) should start with a consonant, and thereby reveals the presence of a preceding consonantal element. If we know from other sources that the word in question contains aleph, we are justi˜ed in assuming that the consonantal element to be supplied is aleph (otherwise, it could also be j or w).
77
The evidence for these spellings in the four verbs concerned is as follows:16 a) Masaåum, “to be(come) able, su¯cient,” frequently shows alephless spellings in the stative besides broken spellings, and once in the imperative plural besides more common glide spellings: Stative: 1s ma-sa(-a)-ku, Kienast ATHE 59: 18+, ma-sa-ku-um (< -ak(u)-kum) PAOT 18: 35; ma-saki-im (< -ak(u)-kim) Kienast ATHE 44: 22; 3sf ma-sa-at BIN 6, 30: 10, 1p ma-sa-a-ni BIN 6, 8: 14; 3sm subj. ma-sú-ni BIN 4, 76: 7+. The same forms also occur with broken spellings, e.g., 1s ma-as-a-ku PAOT 14: 33+, 1p ma-as-a-ni CCT 5, 3a: 28; 3pm subj. ma-as-ú-ni TCL 4, 27: 12, etc. No glide spellings of the stative (**ma-sí-a-ku, etc.) are known to me. Imperative plural: an alephless spelling is mìsa CCT 2, 41b: 16; more common is the glide spelling mì-sí-a AKT 3, 87: 14+. b) Wasaåum, “to go/come out,” has alephless spellings interchanging with broken spellings in the perfect, alephless spellings interchanging with both broken and glide spellings in the preterite, and a case of alephless spelling in the stative: Perfect: 3s vent. i-ta-sa-am CCT 3, 20: 32+, 2p subj. ta-ta-[s]a-ni BIN 4, 83: 14; 3pm vent. i-ta-súnim TPAK 1, 27: 16. Cf. the corresponding broken spellings i-ta-as-a(-ma) KKK 762: 8u+; i-ta-as-akum VS 26, 16: 7+ and i-ta-as-ú-nim ib. 6 (but ita-sa-am in line 5!). I am not aware of any glide spellings of the type **i-ta-sí(-a)-am. Preterite: 3sm vent. ú-sa-am AKT 2, 26: 26+; 3sm vent. subj. ú-sa(-a)-ni VS 26, 54: 14; KTS 1, 15: 25+; 2sm subj. tù-sú(-ni) AKT 3, 92: 3 and 6+; 2sm vent. subj. tù-sa-ni KKK 443: 28; 2sf vet. e la tú-sí RA 51, 7: 38; 1s prec. vent. lu-sa-ma AKT 3, 94: 36; 3pm vent. ú-sú-ú-nim KKK 683: 5; 3pm prec. lu-sú VS 26, 54: 28; 2p tù-sa TPAK 1, 57: 12. Most of these forms can be matched with corresponding broken spellings, such as 3sm vent. ús-a-am JCS 41, 37: 11+; 3sm vent. subj. us-a-ni JCS 14, 17 no. 11: 31+; 3pm us-ú ICK 2, 290: 5u;
16. “+” after a reference indicates that more instances of the form are attested; s = singular, p = plural, du = dual, m = masculine, f = feminine, vent. = ventive, subj. = subjunctive, prec. = precative, vet. = vetitive.
78
N. J. C. KOUWENBERG
3pm vent. ús-ú-nim KKK 762: 5u; 3pm prec. luus-ú RA 81, 14 no. 3: 12u+. Occasionally we ˜nd glide spellings of the preterite: 3sm vent. subj. ú-sí-a-ni TCL 4, 9: 4; úsí(-a)-am BIN 4, 112: 6, KKK 430: 43 and TPAK 1, 190: 6; 3sm subj. ú-sí-ú KKK 550: 4. This is also the normal spelling for the present ussiå¿, ussiåam, and some of the forms mentioned here may indeed be present rather than preterite.17 Stative: 3pm wa-sú kt k/k 102: 10.18 c) The verb kasaåum, “to be(come) cold,” has a 3pm stative (¿m¿) kà-sú, “the weather is (lit. the days are) cold” kt 91/k 530: 21,19 thus with an alephless spelling. In this case the main evidence comes from the derived abstract noun kusåum, “cold, winter.” It is once attested with a broken spelling: ku-us-um CCT 4, 29a: 10; elsewhere it has alephless spellings: ku-sú-um CCT 4, 45b: 6. 22+, gen. ku-sí-im JCS 14, 12 no. 6: 27+.20 d) Nadaåum commonly has alephless spellings in the stative, the perfect and the imperative of the G-stem and in the preterite of the N-stem, interchanging with broken spellings:21 Stative: 1s subj. na-dá-ku(-ni), 2sm. subj. na-dátí(-ni), 3sf subj. na-dá-at(-ni), 1p na-dá-ni, 3pm subj. na-du-ú KKK 574: 23+; na-du-ni CCT 4, 33b: 26+. These forms interchange with, for instance, 1s na-ad-a-ku CCT 1, 38b: 3+; 2sm na-ada-tí VS 26, 55: 28; 3sf na-ad-a-at BIN 4, 4: 12+; 3pm na-ad-ú VS 26, 56: 39+. Perfect: 3pm i-ta-du-ú kt n/k 204: 22;22 3du ita-dá. Corresponding broken spellings are 3du + 17. The easiest way to explain the unusual glide spellings of masaåum and wasaåum is to assume that they are caused by occasional interference of III/ÿ verbs, as a result of the fact that these two verbs belong to the vowel class i/i, which is the proper domain of III/ÿ verbs. In these forms aleph may have weakened into a palatal glide j (a common development for a glottal stop) with an epenthetic support vowel to dissolve the cluster: /misåa/ > /misja/, phonetically [mis ija]. 18. Unpublished, courtesy K. Hecker. 19. Unpublished, courtesy K. R. Veenhof. 20. Cf. Hecker, Grammatik, 46 § 28d. 21. Forms that contain the sign are unreferenced here, because a more complete enumeration including references will be given in section 5. 22. Quoted in J. G. Dercksen, The Old Assyrian Copper Trade in Anatolia, Uitgaven van het Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 75 (Leiden: HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1996), 80 note 272.
accusative su¯x “me” i-ta-ad-a-ni (/ittadåani/) JCS 14, 8 no. 4: 35, and 3sm + -anni, “me,” i-ta-ada-ni (/ittadåanni/), Kienast ATHE 65: 29. Imperative plural: i-dá, but also with broken spelling id-a(-a) TCL 19, 31: 21+. Preterite N: 3sm subj. i-ni-du BIN 4, 31: 17. Normally broken spellings are used: 3sm subj. i-niid-ú(-ni) BIN 6, 28: 10; Jankowska KTK 68: 3; 3sm vet. + accusative su¯x –anni, “me,” (e) i-ni-id-a-ni KKK 433: 9, but there is also an instance of a glide spelling: 3sm subj.23 i-ni-dí-ú-ni Hecker Giessen 49: 8. No other glide spellings of the type **na-dí-a-ku, **na-dí-ú, **i-dí-a, **i-ta-dí-a-ni, etc. are known to me in the paradigm of nadaåum. 3. The peculiarity of the four verbs and the noun of section 2 consists in the fact that they are the only forms that regularly use broken spellings and alephless spellings. All other third weak verbs of OA almost exclusively use broken spellings and glide spellings, in slightly diˆerent proportions depending on the nature of the weak third radical. So there are two questions to be answered: ˜rst, why is the alephless spelling so common in these particular words and virtually unused elsewhere? Second, what is the relationship between the broken spelling and the alephless spelling, which at face value seem to be contradictory, since one of them indicates the presence of aleph (albeit indirectly), and the other one apparently ignores it? To answer these questions properly we ˜rst have to know what happens to post-consonantal aleph in general in OA. It is well known that aleph is a weak consonant that is often dropped or replaced by a glide. However, as a general rule aleph is preserved in Assyrian in the position with which we are concerned here, namely immediately following a consonant.24 This can be estab-
23. Construction obscure: possibly 3pm subj., an N-stem with active meaning like nasaåum N? 24. This is not easily inferred from the literature. The main handbooks on Akkadian and OA grammar, Von Soden’s GaG and Hecker’s Grammatik, are incomplete and contradictory
EVIDENCE FOR POST-GLOTTALIZED CONSONANTS IN ASSYRIAN
lished beyond any doubt from the regular use of broken spellings. The most telling evidence comes from the paradigm of the II/aleph and III/aleph verbs, especially if we restrict these terms to verbs whose aleph goes back to an etymological aleph (å1 in traditional Assyriological notation).25 The preterite of II/aleph verbs such as saåamum, “to buy,” saåalum, “to ask,” and maåadum, “to be(come) numerous,” shows the presence of post-consonantal aleph through its consistent use of broken spellings,26 e.g., is-a-am /isåam/ CCT 5, 22a: 23+ “he bought,” 3pm is-ú-mu /isåum¿/ ICK 1, 1: 25, ta-ás-e-li /tasåelÿ/ OIP 27, 57: 4 “you asked me,” e im-i-da-ku(-ma) /imåidakkum(ma)/ CCT 4, 6d: 21 “may it not become (too) much for you,” with plene writing im-i-id /imåid/ AAA 1, 56 no. 3: 18u. Relevant forms from other verbal stems include the imp. Gt of saåalum, “to ask,”: síit-a-al KTS 2, 34: r.10u, or sí-it-al KKK 472: 30 (both /sitåal/), and the †-stems lu-sa-am-i-id /lusamåid/ Archivum Anatolicum 3, 136: 64 “I will multiply,” and nu-sa-ás-a(-ma) /nusasåam(-ma)/ kt n/k 122: 13 “we will make (PN) buy.”27 Likewise, genuine III/aleph verbs such as kalaåu, “to detain,” malaåum “to be(come) full,” ka-
about the development of aleph in Assyrian (see note 44 below). This being said, data on post-consonantal aleph can be found for OA in Hecker, Grammatik pp. 42–44 § 27a/c; for MA in W. Mayer, Untersuchungen zur Grammatik des Mittelassyrischen (Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1971), 20–21 § 16, and for NA in J. Hämeen-Anttila, A Sketch of Neo-Assyrian Grammar, State Archives of Assyria Studies 13 (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000): 13. See also D. O. Edzard, “Silbenschließendes [å] im Altassyrischen?,” in St. Veenhof (see note 1) 133–35. 25. The re˘exes of the other Proto-Semitic gutturals (h, h, ç and À, i.e., å2–5) will be left out of account for the present moment. In a separate article which is in preparation (provisional title: “Aleph in Old and Middle Assyrian”), I will argue that—in contrast to what seems to be the communis opinio— the Proto-Semitic gutturals did not develop all in the same way in OA, but that only the pharyngeal plosive ç became aleph, whereas the other gutturals, which were all fricatives, became zero or a palatal glide. Therefore, broken spellings in words with original h, h and À (in so far as they are attested) are more likely to stand for j than for aleph, and cannot be adduced here as evidence for post-consonantal aleph. 26. K. Hecker, Grammatik, 152 § 91c. For the exceptions he mentions (the “weak forms”), cf. note 32. 27. Quoted in Dercksen, Copper Trade, 143 note 447.
79
taåum, “to take as a security,” tamaåum, “to swear,” and nasaåum, “to lift, to carry,” consistently show the presence of post-consonantal aleph in those forms in which the penultimate vowel is dropped as a result of the vowel elision rule. This applies, for instance, to the perfect forms ta-ak-ta-al-a /taktalåa/ KTS 2, 36: 32 “you (pl.) have detained,” and im-tal-ú /imtalå¿/ ICK 2, 147: 10u “they have become full,” to stative forms such as na-ás-a-ku /nasåaku/ BIN 6, 179: 4 “I have with me” (and similar forms passim), kà-at-at /katåat/ OIP 27, 35: r.9 “it (i.e., un¿tum, a collective for household utensils) has been taken as security,” from kataåum, and ta-am-ú /tamå¿/ TCL 20, 143: 4u “they have sworn,” from tamaåum, and to imperative forms such as ki-il5-i-su /kilåÿsu/ KT Hahn 6: 15 “hold (fem.) him!” and ta-am-a-am /tamåam/ CCT 4, 22a: 22 “swear to me!.” Post-consonantal aleph is also present in deverbal nouns of these II/aleph and III/aleph verbs, such as a pirs form nisåum, “gift,” from nasaåum in (ana) ni-is-e-em /nisåem/ KTS 1, 50c: 6, and timåum, “oath,” from tamaåum in ti-im-a-am /timåam/ KKK 735: 21u, and the mapras(t) forms namåudum, “majority, increase,” from maåadum28 and naråamtum, “love,” from raåamum, “to love,” as a feminine proper name Na-ar-am-tum KKK 467: 3.29 There seem to be very few genuine exceptions to the rule that etymological aleph in postconsonantal position is preserved in OA.30 In fact,
28. For references see CAD N/1 207b s.v. namåadu. 29. This name is also attested in a form without aleph: Nara-am-tum ICK 1, 17: 3 and cf. also Na-ra-am-diskur BIN 6, 29: 15 and Na-ra-am-[. . .] CCT 6, 2b: 7. These forms can be explained as examples of the well-known fact that Akkadian proper names show many kinds of shortenings that are not attested in other kinds of words. Numerous instances occur already in Old Akkadian, see the extensive account in M. Hilgert, Akkadisch in der Ur III Zeit, IMGULA 5 (Münster: Rhema, 2002), 65–79. This is exempli˜ed in OA by the many diˆerent forms of the name †alim-ahum, see, for instance, the index of AKT 3, 205 s.v. Another possible solution is to assume that they are in˘uenced by the common OA name Naram-Sîn (spelled Na-ra-am-ZU), which is doubtless a Babylonian name borrowed from that of the famous king NaramSîn of the Akkad dynasty. 30. In words in which aleph goes back to ç (see note 25) there is a stronger tendency for aleph to be dropped, but even
80
N. J. C. KOUWENBERG
apart from some instances in proper names alluded to in note 29, I am only aware of one pair of words in which this aleph may be dropped: the nouns ma/eråum, “son,” and meråutum, “daughter,” of which forms such as ma-ru-su TCL 4, 64: 7 “his sons,” and me-re-tí, “my daughter,” KTS 1, 1b: 3 are occasionally attested.31 Hecker mentions a number of other putative exceptions, but most of these are better explained otherwise.32 What is important is that Hecker’s conclusion “Nach Konsonanten stehen Formen mit und ohne Aleph nebeneinander” 33 misrepresents the actual state of aˆairs: indisputable forms in which post-consonantal aleph is not preserved are exceptional. 4. Consequently, among the forms in section 2 with a cluster of s or d plus aleph, those with a broken spelling are in agreement with the rule on post-consonantal aleph, whereas those with an alephless spelling seem to violate it. The problem is, therefore, how to explain these alephless spellings. If we omit nadaåum for the moment, they all have the emphatic sibilant s as their second radical. This can hardly be coincidental, so that any solution we might propose should in a non-ad
here the number of exceptions is small. Interestingly, most instances I know of are imperatives, a verbal category that is known for its predilection for short forms: 2sm vent. tí-ba(-ma) AKT 2, 30: 33 and KTS 2, 65: 3u “stand up!” (elsewhere tí-iba(-ma) /tibåam(ma)/ VS 26, 83: 47+) from tabaåum “to stand up, to rise” (Sem. TBç, if we may go by Ugaritic tbç, “to rise, to depart”), and sí-ma-(ma) TCL 19, 30: 9 “hear!” (pl.) (for normal sí-im-a-(ma) /simåa(ma)/, e.g., VS 26, 89: 3+ (pl.) from samaåum (Sem. †Mç). 31. For other instances see Hecker, Grammatik, 46 § 28d and I. J. Gelb, OIP 27, p. 21–23. For å1 in these nouns cf. their Arabic cognates imruåun, “man,” and imraåatun, “woman,” which become al-maråu and al-maråatu after a de˜nite article. 32. They are scattered over various sections of his Grammatik, especially p. 46 § 28d, p. 152 § 91c and p. 162 § 95d. Most of them can be explained as scribal errors and doubtful or incorrect interpretations of ambiguous forms. I intend to discuss them in detail in the article mentioned in note 25. 33. Hecker, Grammatik, 46 § 28d.
hoc way account for the fact that s plus aleph behaves in a diˆerent way from other consonants plus aleph. This can be attained by establishing a causal relationship between some inherent feature of s and the absence of a following aleph. Such a feature can be found in the post-glottalized pronunciation of s. If we assume that s was pronounced with a glottal closure following its basic alveolar articulation, in other words, as a post-glottalized consonant [s’] comparable to those in Modern South Arabian (see section 1), this explains both the irregular absence of post-consonantal aleph in these particular words and the use of the two seemingly contradictory spellings. For instance, the alternative spellings ku-us-um and ku-sú-um will then represent [kus’åum] and [kus’um] (or rather [kuss’um], see below), respectively. In kuus-um the original cluster [s’å] is expressed analytically, as it were, whereas in ku-sú-um it is expressed synthetically, with aleph subsumed in the post-glottalized consonant. Of course we have no idea of the actual pronunciation of OA, but we may hypothesize that the post-glottalized closure of [s’] and the subsequent glottal stop could merge into a single articulatory gesture, so that the acoustic eˆect of the cluster [så] was identical to, or at least very similar to, that of [s] by itself. It is clear from the phonetic literature that it is often hard to distinguish between consonants with a double or secondary articulation and parallel consonant clusters, such as the cluster /kw/ and the labio-velar /kw/; this also applies to glottalized or ejective consonants and the corresponding cluster of plain consonant and glottal stop.34 Since a cluster is prosodically equivalent to a long consonant, it seems plausible that /så/ interchanges with a geminate /s/, i.e., with [ss’] rather than [s’]. For OA this cannot be veri˜ed directly, because OA does not normally indicate consonant length, but it is suggested by the fact that in a form such as i-ta-sú-nim TPAK 1, 27: 16 there is no vowel assimilation (which would give **/ittu34. See, for instance, the quotation from Ladefoged and Maddieson in note 6, and also Catford, Fundamental Problems, 69–70.
EVIDENCE FOR POST-GLOTTALIZED CONSONANTS IN ASSYRIAN s¿nim/).35 This implies that the syllable with /ta/ is long; the easiest way to account for this is to assume that the consonant following a is geminated: /ittass¿nim/, phonetically [ittass’¿nim]. The ˜rst spellings with an explicit geminate appear in MA (see section 8).
81
In the same way as the verbs with s as their second radical provide evidence for a glottalized pronunciation of s, the alephless spellings of nadaåum provide evidence for a glottalized pronunciation of the emphatic dental plosive /t/. The crucial evidence lies in the fact that, if the alephless spelling is used and the cluster /då/ is followed by the vowel a, the resulting syllable is virtually always written with the sign . Cf. the following list of attestations:36 1) Stative: na-TA-ku BIN 4, 116: 5; TuM 1, 27b: 9; kt c/k 260: 33; 264: 2. 4. 9. 17. 25; na-TA-ku-ni RA 59, 43: 4; TCL 14, 22: 12; na-TA-tí Belleten 218, 44: 6; na-TA-tí-ni ICK 1, 1: 31; na-TA-at TCL 19, 81: 28; kt n/k 1270: 14; na-TA-at-ni CCT 4, 35b: 13; KT Blanckertz 10: 6; na-TA-ni KTS 1, 25b: 16.37 2) Imp. pl.: i-TA(-ma) Hecker Giessen 30: 19; TCL 19, 68: 13; Innaya p. 110 no. 79: 11; CTMMA 1, p. 105 no. 77: 29; RA 85, 106: r.4u; Or. 50, p. 103 no. 3: 25. 3) Perfect: i-ta-TA(-ma) (3du) kt a/k 339: 31.38
The only form of this verb in which a sequence /da/ occurs which is not from -dåa- is the in˜nitive nadaåum. Interestingly, in this form /da/ is spelled more often with than with : I know six instances of the genitive na-da (-i)-im (BIN 6, 113: 14; KKK 619: 8; TCL 4, 19: 26; TCL 14, 15: 7; JCS 14, 15 no. 10: 18; Innaya p. 413 LB 1226: r.9u), but only two of na-TA(-i)-im (Hecker Giessen 45: r.10u and AKT 3, 90: 16). Assuming that this is representative, it suggests that the alephless spelling with in the stative, imperative and perfect is not merely a convention connected with this particular verb, but has a real phonological background.39 When these forms are quoted in the dictionaries and elsewhere, is assigned the value (as I did in section 2), which seems the obvious thing to do. In OA the sign has two common uses: for /ta/ (with a voiceless dental plosive) and for /ta/ (with its emphatic counterpart), conventionally indexed ; it may also be used for /da/ (indexed ), but this is far less common; normally /da/ is rendered by .40 This means that there is nothing problematic about the use of in itself for the alephless forms of nadaåum: the question is, why these forms employ this sign with such remarkable consistency, and why they avoid with the same consistency. The answer is clear if we assign the normal value to the forms of nadaåum listed above
35. For the vowel assimilation rule, often inappropriately called vowel harmony in Akkadian grammar, see, for instance, Hecker, Grammatik, 19–21 § 10. Note that in the perfect of the G-stem (iptaras) only forms without ending are aˆected by this rule, e.g., imtuqut < *imtaqut “he has fallen,” but pl. imtaqt¿, because the presence of an ending causes the vowel elision rule to apply, which in its turn blocks vowel assimilation. This accounts for i-ta-sú-nim versus the regular 3sm i-tí-sí /ittisi/ÿ/ < *ittasiå (e.g., Hecker, Giessen 41: 6). 36. It is doubtless not exhaustive, but it is based on a su¯ciently extensive perusal of OA texts to be regarded as representative. Only one exception is known to me: AKT 2, 23: 19 i-da (imp. pl.); however, this text is only published in a (not always accurate) transcription, so that it may be a misspelling of i-dá. 37. Incorrectly quoted in Hecker, Grammatik, 167 § 97c as na-da-ni. 38. Unpublished, courtesy J. G. Dercksen.
39. If aleph is followed by u or i, there is no comparable diˆerence, because OA uses only one sign for any dental plus u or i (DU and DÍ). Instances of -dåu- were quoted above in section 2; the sequence -dåi- is only possible in the 2sf (imp. idåÿ, perfect tattadåÿ), of which I have found no instances in OA. 40. Cf. Veenhof, Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Terminology, Studia et Documenta ad Iura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentia (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), 226, and K. Hecker, “Altassyrisch DA-TA-an ‘sie gibt’,” in St. Veenhof (see note 1), 173– 79. Hecker has collected quite a number of instances of the use of with the value on pp. 174–77, but he insists that “ihre Zahl im Verhältnis zum Gesamttextbestand äußerst gering ist” (174). He succeeds in establishing some patterns and some possible motives, but the results of his study are in general inconclusive. One such pattern is the frequency of for /dá/ in the present iddan of tadanum “to give.” His suggestion that the spellings in the paradigm of nadaåum are caused by the occasional confusion of tadanum and nadaåum sounds rather desperate.
5.
82
N. J. C. KOUWENBERG
rather than the unusual value , and assume that emphatic t had a glottalized pronunciation. This turns the interchange of na-ad-a-ku and naTA-ku into an exact parallel of that of ma-as-a-ku and ma-sa-(a)-ku, so that it can also be interpreted as the interchange of a cluster of a plain dental plosive plus aleph and a post-glottalized dental plosive. It is no problem that there is no emphatic d in Akkadian, because in a cluster such as /då/ it seems likely that /d/ was devoiced through assimilation to å,41 so that we should actually interpret na-ad-a-ku phonetically as [natåaku].42 Thus the broken and the alephless spellings of this verb represent [natåaku] and [nat’aku] (or rather [natt’aku]) respectively, forms that are completely parallel to the “analytic” and “synthetic” spellings in the words with s as second radical. This means that we should transliterate the forms of nadaåum presented above as na-tá-ku, na-tá-at, i-tá, i-ta-tá, etc., and spellings with DU as na-tùni, etc., however strange this may seem at ˜rst sight. 6. In conclusion, the interchange of broken and alephless spellings in the forms listed in section 2 provides strong evidence for the claim that the emphatic consonants s and t had a post-glottalized pronunciation in OA. This claim establishes a direct causal link between the anomalous behavior of post-consonantal aleph in these particular words and the phonetic nature of the consonants
41. It is, however, far from certain that the diˆerence between t and d was one of voicedness rather than some other realization of a fortis vs. lenis distinction, see Lipinski, Semitic Languages, 104. Glottalized consonants are almost always voiceless, since the glottal closure prevents voicing, see Spencer, Phonology, 23; J. H. Greenberg, “Some generalizations concerning glottalic consonants, especially implosives,” International Journal of American Linguistics 36 (1970) 124–25. 42. Actually, this is conjectural: normally such assimilation processes are invisible because (C)VC signs do not distinguish between voiced, voiceless and emphatic in syllable-˜nal position, see Von Soden, Grundriß, 23 § 19a. The only cases of assimilation that may be visible in cuneiform writing are found in syllable-˜nal sibilants and nasals, see GaG 38 § 30f/g and 39–43 § 31–33.
involved, and thus explains this behavior in a non-ad hoc way. Of course it is possible to think of other solutions. We might claim, for instance, that there is an optional vowel contraction rule (as in later Old Babylonian) after /s/ and /d/ (/ittasâm/ < *ittasiåam and /nadâku/ < *nadiåaku),43 or that postconsonantal aleph may be elided exclusively after these consonants. Such solutions are conceivable from a theoretical point of view but are inferior, since they do not make it clear why this putative process of contraction or elision is restricted to this particular environment.44
43. There is no regular vowel contraction in OA, as there is in Babylonian, but it does occur sporadically, see Hecker, Grammatik, 31–33 § 19. Most instances concern contraction of identical vowels separated by a glide; Hecker mentions (la) ú-sé-lu < /useluå¿/. Note that another putative instance of vowel contraction mentioned by Hecker on p. 27 § 16f, sá-haa-at BIN 4, 34: 9, should be canceled: according to collation by K. R. Veenhof, the text actually reads em-sa-at “(the land) is hungry” (emasum). In any case, vowel contraction cannot serve to explain the systematic exception we are concerned with here. 44. A question that naturally comes to mind is what the handbooks on OA have to say about the alephless forms. As already intimated in note 24, their account of post-consonantal aleph in Assyrian is unsatisfactory. Hecker mentions some instances of alephless spellings in the appropriate sections of his Grammatik about the weak verbs, but does not comment on them. With regard to kusåum, he points to the two spellings ku-us-um and ku-sú-um and draws the following conclusion: “Wo es [i.e., post-consonantal aleph, NJCK] als 3. Radikal in pars-, pirs- und purs-Formen ausfällt, wird die vorausgehende (. . .) Silbe zum Ersatz gedehnt” (Grammatik, 46 § 28d). Thus, without stating this explicitly, he seems to interpret kusú-um as /k¿sum/ or /kussum/, as in Old Babylonian. Von Soden also discusses kusåum (Grundriß, 19 § 15b): he interprets ku-sú-um as k¿sum from *kusjum with compensatory lengthening of the preceding syllable and characterizes the alternative spelling ku-us-um as a “gelegentliche Ausnahme[n].” However, this is the exact opposite of what actually happened, because ku-us-um with aleph preserved is the form we expect, and ku-sú-um is in need of an explanation. He also comments on the perfect forms of wasaåum: ‘das anstelle des i getretene å fällt aA bisweilen aus, wobei der folgende Vokal gedehnt wird (s. z. B. (. . .) ittasam [wsÿ] “herauskommen sollte” TC 3, 25: 17 u (GaG 185 § 105j). Thus he posits a development ittasiam > ittasåam > ittasam. This is completely unacceptable: ˜rst, there is no evidence at all for any of these changes, nor for the long vowel in the ˜nal syllable of ittasam. Second, this contradicts his explanation of ku-sú-um, which implies lenthening of the preceding syllable. It seems that both Hecker and Von Soden are unduly in˘uenced by the
EVIDENCE FOR POST-GLOTTALIZED CONSONANTS IN ASSYRIAN
However, the fact that two competing spellings are used raises a di¯cult question: do these spellings represent diˆerent forms or are they merely orthographic variants of a single form? There does not seem to be a clear pattern in the distribution of the two spellings over the available OA material,45 but if we may speculate on the basis of other instances of competing spellings in OA, the most likely assumption seems to be that they do not represent diˆerent forms, but that the alephless spelling is the most accurate expression of the clusters /då/ and /så/ and that the broken spelling is morphophonemic.46 The fact that for the words in question broken spellings are no longer used in the later stages of Assyrian, when a different orthographic system is used, may provide additional support for this assumption (see further section 8). Finally, one further point should be mentioned here. Since for articulatory reasons the glottalized fricative [s’] tends to go back to a glottalized aˆricate [ts’],47 the post-glottalized pronunciation of /s/ proposed here oˆers further evidence for the claim that the sibilants s, z and s were aˆricates in Proto-Semitic and the older stages of Akkadian.48
situation in Babylonian, where post-consonantal aleph is regularly dropped with compensatory lengthening of the preceding syllable: *milåum > mÿlum “˘ood,” a pirs form of malûm, “to be(come) full,” (Semitic MLå) and where -ia- may contract to -â-. 45. In this respect it is remarkable that the writer of the letter VS 26, 16 uses two broken spellings followed by an alephless spelling of the perfect of wasaåum in three consecutive lines (quoted in section 2 s.v.). 46. See E. Reiner, Linguistic Analysis of Akkadian, Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 21 (The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1966), 55–56. 47. See R. Voigt, “The Alleged Middle/Neo-Assyrian Sound Change,” 55–56 with further literature. For this phenomenon in Ethiopic languages, see G. Gragg, “Geçez Phonology,” in The Phonologies of Asia and Africa, Vol. 1, ed. A. S. Kaye (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 174. 48. See especially A. Faber, “Akkadian Evidence for ProtoSemitic Aˆricates”, JCS 37 (1985) 101–7, the contribution of W. Sommerfeld to the 3rd edition of Von Soden’s Grundriß, 35–36 § 30, and the comments of J. Huehnergard in OrNS 66 (1997) 438–39.
83
7. Before turning to the later stages of Assyrian, it seems worthwhile to examine whether the same phenomenon is attested in other words in OA. It is signi˜cant that all four verbs involved come from genuine III/aleph roots, i.e., with etymological aleph. Masaåum and wasaåum have a reliable Semitic etymology: masaåum is doubtless cognate to Ethiopic masåa, “to come, to reach,” Aramaic mså, “to be able,” and Hebrew masa “to ˜nd.”49 Wasaåum, too, is generally derived from a root WS⁄å with aleph as third radical.50 The other two verbs do not have obvious cognates in other Semitic languages, but their primary aleph can be established on the basis of internal Akkadian evidence. Nadaåum shows the typical behavior of the III/aleph verbs in OA in that it has a strong preference for broken spellings and alephless spellings in the forms mentioned in section 2, whereas we would expect it to have a preference for glide spellings if it were a III/ÿ verb.51 Therefore, it seems justi˜ed to assume that nadaåum is a III/aleph verb as well.52 Kasaåum with its purs derivation kusåum has no known cognates in Semitic either, but is doubtless a III/aleph verb because it belongs (at least originally) to the vowel 49. For the variety of meanings of this root, the Akkadian verb kasadum, “to arrive, to reach, to acquire, to be su¯cient, to be able,” oˆers a striking parallel within a single language. See also J. Blau, “Marginalia Semitica II 4. Proto-Semitic mzå/ mtå ‘arrive’, ” Israel Oriental Studies 2 (1972) 67–72. W. Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Geçez (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987), 370 s.v. masåa only mentions Akkadian mussû “to make reach,” but this verb primarily means something like “to spread, to open wide,” (see AHw 1498a s.v.), and is a late form of wussûm, which rules out any connection with Semitic MTå. 50. See. AhW 1475b s.v., and W. Leslau, Comparative Dictionary, 605–606 s.v. wadåa. (Note that in his Grundriß Von Soden still considered wasaåum as a III/ÿ verb, see the quotation in note 44). 51. The only instance of a glide spelling of nadaåum known to me is i-ni-dí-ú-ni quoted in section 2 s.v. The absence of glide spellings is inexplicable if nadaåum is a III/ÿ verb. It is true that spellings with dí are very common for this verb, but only in forms that are not aˆected by the vowel elision rule, such as G pret. iddi, G present inaddi, all Gtn forms, etc. 52. Nadaåum is associated with III/ÿ verbs in other Semitic languages by Von Soden, AHw 705b s.v.: Hebrew jdÿ, Ethiopic wdj “to throw,” although the alleged cognates have w or y as ˜rst radical. Leslau, Comparative Dictionary, 605 s.v. wadaya does not mention Akkadian nadû as a cognate.
84
N. J. C. KOUWENBERG
class a/a; as far as we can tell, all third weak verbs with a/a have etymological aleph (cf. the ˜rst four III/aleph verbs mentioned as examples in section 3).53 Thus we should look for verbs with a dental or sibilant as second radical and etymological aleph as third radical. Apart from the four verbs discussed here, there are two other verbs that meet this condition, as far as I am aware: kataåum “to take as security,” and hataåum “to sin, to commit an error.” 54 However, among the few relevant
53. The dictionaries assign kasaåum to the vowel class i/i on the basis of the Standard Babylonian form i-ka-as-si Oppenheim, Glass Fragm. c 11u+. However, in Standard Babylonian forms with a occur as well: 3sm present G i-ka-sa TDP 224: 52+, Gtn ik-ta-na-as-sa TDP 220: 34. There is also a MA 3pm present i-ka-su-ú in E. C. Cancik-Kirschbaum, Die mittelassyrischen Briefe aus Tall †eh Hamad, Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall †eh Hamad/D¿r-Katlimmu, Band 4, Texte 1 (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1996), 117 no. 6: 11u, which cannot be from *ikassi(å)¿, because i + ¿ does not contract in MA, see Mayer, Untersuchungen, 18 § 12 and the examples on pp. 81– 83 § 80. It points either to u/u (for which there are no other indications), or to a/a (which agrees with the Standard Babylonian a/a forms). Thus i-ka-su-ú stands for /ikassuå¿/ < *ikassaå¿ with vowel assimilation. This verb is one of the many third weak u/u and a/a verbs that occasionally show i/i forms in Standard Babylonian and later. 54. All other common third weak verbs with a sibilant or dental as second radical seem to have j, w or å2–5 as third radical. For instance, sasaåum, “to call,” and mataåum, “to decrease, to be(come) insu¯cient,” are III/ÿ. Pataåum, “to open,” (Semitic PTH) and masaåum, “to wash, to purify” (Semitic MSH) both have å3, and verbs with å3 as third radical have adopted the conjugation of the III/ÿ verbs (see note 24). Broken spellings of III/ÿ verbs conceal j rather than aleph: pá-at-a-at CCT 4, 18a: 8 is /patjat/ “it is open” and sí-is-a TC 1, 25: 6 is /sisja/ “summon!” (imp. pl.). There is also an adjective pasjum “white” (Babylonian pesûm). It has no etymology, but the fact that it is mostly written with glide spellings suggests that it is from a III/ÿ root, e.g., pá-sí-um TCL 21, 161: 1; pá-sí-ú-tim/tum Kienast, ATHE 66: 23+; a few broken spellings also occur: páas-ú-tim ICK 1, 92: 2+ (with for /ju/). A di¯cult case is radaåum “to follow, to accompany.” J. Huehnergard, “Further South Semitic Cognates to the Akkadian Lexicon,” in: Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau, Vol I, ed. A. S. Kaye (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991), 698–99, suggests that the rather complex meaning of redûm re˘ects the falling together of two or even three Proto-Semitic roots attested in South Semitic, one of which has aleph: Ethiopic radåa 1. “to help, support”, 2. “to pursue, hunt down”. This is semantically attractive but raises certain formal di¯culties if we compare the extant OA forms with forms from Old Akkadian and Old Babylonian. Akkadian rather suggests a root RDç. If that is correct, the imp. with
forms of these verbs and their derivations no alephless spellings are known to me.55 With regard to the nature of the phoneme q, for which a (post)glottalized pronunciation may safely be assumed,56 I have found no evidence in OA comparable to the evidence for s and t. There seem to be no verbs with a velar as second and aleph as third radical which could theoretically show alephless spellings.57 8. In so far as these verbs are attested in the later stages of Assyrian, they show the same kind of behavior as in OA. For s, MA oˆers the following relevant forms: From usaåu (corresponding to OA wasaåum) we ˜nd a preterite 3sm vent. subj. (kÿ . . .) ú-sa-an-ni AfO 17, 277: 54 “(when) he came forward,” and from masaåu a 2sm stative ma-sa-ta VAS 19, 15: 13, “you are able.” Both
ventive ri-[d]am RA 58, 126: 22 “bring here!,” which alternates with ri-id-a(-ma) /ridåam(ma)/ BIN 4, 112: 31+), can be explained along the same lines as the alephless spellings of nadaåum: /ritt’am/. 55. From hataåum, a verbal adjective hatåum is attested with a broken spelling: ana kaspim ha-at-i-im “for bad silver” TCL 4, 104: 7; from kataåum we only have the stative form quoted in section 3 s.v. 56. As for instance in the third edition of GaG 34 § 28a. The validity of this assumption follows from typological evidence alone: according to I. Maddieson, Patterns of Sounds, Cambridge Studies in Speech Science and Communication (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 105 and 120, almost all languages that have a dental ejective stop [t’], also have a velar ejective stop [k’]. I do not think that the NA assimilation of qt > qt can be regarded as evidence for a change of pronunciation from glottalized to pharyngealized, as J. Huehnergard, OrNS 66 (1997) 438, suggests. If we assume that q was a postglottalized velar plosive, this change represents a development from suppression of the post-glottalized release of q in qt (thus phonetically [kt]) towards a natural cluster [kt’] which is post-glottalized as a whole. 57. Laqaåum, “to take, to receive,” seems an obvious example, but it has å3 (Semitic LQH) and thus is conjugated as a III/ÿ verb, cf. note 54 (thus the imp. pl. li-iq-a KKK 433: 15 is /liqja/). Naqaåum “to sacri˜ce” is a III/ÿ verb according to the predominance of glide spellings in the deverbal pirs form niqjum “sacri˜ce”: e.g., accusative singular ni-qí(-a)-am (versus 1x ni-iq-a-am according to CAD N/2, 254 s.v. niqû b-2u), both standing for /niqjam/.
EVIDENCE FOR POST-GLOTTALIZED CONSONANTS IN ASSYRIAN
85
forms are exactly parallel to the OA forms of these verbs listed in section 2 and may be interpreted as /ussanni/ and /massata/ respectively. Note that there is no vowel contraction rule in MA, so that these forms cannot be derived from **usi(å)anni and **masi(å)ata.58 In addition, there are two instances of kusåum, one of which oˆers the earliest proof that this s was geminated: nom. ku-us-su Ebeling Wagenpferde 38: 17a, and gen. (sa) ku-se ib. 16 Ac 2. The same type of form is still used in the corresponding NA forms: from masaåu there is a stative 1s subj. ma-as-sa-ku-ni SAA 10, 294: r.28, a 1p subj. ma-as-sa-ni-ni SAA 10, 289: r.13 and a 3pm ma-su SAA 10, 278: r.5. Also the noun kusåu is often spelled with <ss> in NA, e.g., ku-us-su and ku-us-si-im-ma ABL 302: r.1–3, ku-us-si SAA 10, 236: 5.59 To my knowledge relevant forms of the verb kasaåu are not attested in MA and NA. Preterite forms of usaåu with explicit <ss> are very rare in NA: I have found a preterite 3sm subj. us-su-u-niº SAA 10, 67: 14, and a precative 3pm vent. lu-us-su-u-ni SAA 10, 259: r.12. Similar forms without explicit <ss> include 3pm ú-su SAA 15, 119: s.1 and 3sm vent. ú-sa SAA 8, 28: 4u.60
The verb nadaåum has disappeared from normal usage in MA and NA. However, a 3rd p. fem. stative form is found in MA in a legal formula in which a tablet is quali˜ed as ana hi-pi na-DA-at (once na-TA-at), i.e., “has to be broken,” lit. “is put down for breaking.”61 The use of the obsolete verb nadaåu demonstrates that it is a traditional formula; this is con˜rmed by the single instance of na-TA-at, a spelling which is directly inherited from OA, because the value of the sign is unknown in MA.62 In the other extant instances the spelling is “modernized” by means of , which is the usual sign for /ta/ in MA; so we can still interpret the forms phonetically as [natt’at].63 In one important respect, however, the situation has changed: instead of the two alternative spellings current in OA, only the alephless spelling is used in MA and NA. This suggests that the competition between the “analytic” pronunciation of /så/ and /då/ as a cluster and their “synthetic” pronunciation as a post-glottalized consonant has been decided in favor of the latter. Alternatively, if we assume that the two spellings were of a purely orthographic nature, this means that the
58. See Mayer, Untersuchungen, 18 § 12 and 82–83 § 80e. All MA statives of third weak verbs mentioned by Mayer either have a glide spelling (e.g., la-qi(-a)-at) or contain an explicit aleph (e.g., sa-al-å-at, ta-am-å-a-ta). This clearly demonstrates the special status of ma-sa-ta caused by the presence of s. 59. The MA and NA forms of this noun are identical with the Babylonian form kussu(m), but according to the proposal made here they have a quite diˆerent background. In Babylonian, post-consonantal aleph is dropped with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel, see GaG 19 § 15b (see note 44); therefore we expect k¿sum in Babylonian. Nevertheless, the most frequent spelling shows a geminate s: ku-ussú-(um), etc., AHw 516a s.v. D. O. Edzard plausibly explains this form on the model of its antonym ummum “heat, summer” (ZA 73 [1983] 135). 60. In NA several preterite forms of usaåu occur in which the original stem vowel i appears again, e.g., ú-si-a SAA 1, 160: r.1, SAA 13, 158: 8u, CTN 5, 120: 9 and ú-si-ú in CTN 5, 130: 1. Rather than interpreting these as instances of glide spellings, as in OA, I prefer to explain them as representatives of a new preterite conjugation built on the endingless forms, such as 3sm and 2sm forms usi and tusi. By analogy with the regular verb, e.g., iqbi “he said” å iqbi¿ “they said” and iqbia “he said to me,” new forms of the type si¿ “they went out” and usia “he (or: I) came out” were created from usi/tusi as alternatives to the inherited forms uss¿ and ussa, which were not
only irregular in structure but perhaps also too poorly diˆerentiated from the corresponding present forms ussuå¿ and ussaåa. (The original OA present ussi was replaced in MA and NA with ussa, in which a is subject to vowel assimilation, see Mayer, Untersuchungen, 88–89 § 81 sub 5.). 61. See K. Deller and C. Saporetti, “Documenti MedioAssyri redatti per annullare un precedente contratto,” OA 9 (1970) 29–59. Na-DA-at occurs on the pages 30: 11; 31: 24; 33: 15; 35: 20; 36: 12; 37: 10; 39: 9; na-TA-at on page 40: 12. An additional instance in fem. pl. is VAS 19, 38: 11 na-DA-a (in CAD N/1, 141a s.v. nahru B, erroneously referenced as VAS 19, 21: 22 (I am grateful to Klaas Veenhof for revealing the correct reference to me). 62. Apart from one (other) exception, see Mayer, Untersuchungen, 8 sub no. 102. 63. J. J. Finkelstein, JCS 7 (1953) 127b, D. J. Wiseman, Iraq 30 (1968) 178, and AhW 768b s.v. natû III 3, derive these forms from the adjective natûm, “˜t, suitable,” (178). The correct derivation is from nadaåu (see Deller and Saporetti, “Documenti Medio-Assyri”, 44, and CAD N/1, 88a s.v. nadû v. 2h); this is proved by instances from Old Babylonian Susa (quoted in CAD l.c.) and Larsa (RA 85 [1991] 17 no. 5: 8–9 tuppu ana hepê na-di (I am grateful to Klaas Veenhof for pointing out this instance to me).
86
N. J. C. KOUWENBERG
phonetic spelling as a glottalized consonant has ousted the morphophonemic spelling as a cluster. 9. However, the potential of MA and NA with regard to the issue at hand is not yet exhausted. If the emphatic consonants did indeed have a glottalized pronunciation in Assyrian, the peculiar paradigm of nasaåu in MA and NA as drawn up by Parpola (see section 1) is no longer an isolated oddity. The spellings with simple or geminate s of the forms of this verb that in OA have a /så/ cluster are quite parallel to the forms with a /så/ and a /då/ cluster discussed in this paper. Thus Aro’s observation quoted in section 1 that these spellings indicate a glottalized sibilant is fully substantiated. The diˆerence from the other cases is that they ˜rst appear in the MA period and are dependent on the occurrence of the sound change /s/ > /s/. Most evidence for this change is derived from transcriptions of Assyrian names in Hebrew and Aramaic sources and dates from NA times.64 The forms with s in the paradigm of nasaåu prove that this sound change must have started as early as the MA period, as indicated by Parpola, but that OA /s/ was not yet pronounced [s]; otherwise we should have found spellings with s already in OA.65 In this respect their appearance in MA is 64. See Parpola, “The Alleged Middle/Neo-Assyrian Irregular Verb *nass-” (see note 11), 2; F. M. Fales, Aramaic Epigraphs on Clay Tablets of the Neo-Assyrian Period, (Rome: Università Degli Studi “La Sapienza,” 1986), 61–63 and J. Huehnergard, OrNS 66 (1997) 439–40, with further literature. 65. Perhaps it was a fricative lateral, as argued by R. C. Steiner, The Case for Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic, American Oriental Series 59 (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1977) 144–48. According to C. Girbal, “Zur Phonologie des Akkadischen,” AoF 24 (1997) 172–81, <s> was pronounced /s/ already in Proto-Semitic. Although he does not mention OA explicitly, he seems to imply that this applies to OA as well. This is contradicted by the facts presented here.
an independent development, a new stage in a repetitive process in which a new form is aˆected by a change as soon as it meets the phonological requirements. Finally, nasaåu does not show any broken spellings beside the spellings with s: there is no **naas-ú beside na-(as)-su in MA or later. 66 This indicates that also in this verb the competition between the “analytic” and the “synthetic” treatment of the cluster was decided in favor of the latter. 10. The results of this paper can be summarized as follows: 1. In OA the “emphatic” phonemes s and t were post-glottalized ([s’], [t’]) as in Modern South Arabian rather than pharyngealized as in Arabic. This supports the view that in Proto-Semitic the emphatic consonants were (post-)glottalized, too. 2. The forms with alephless spellings of the OA verbs wasaåum, “to go/come out,” masaåum, “to be(come) able or su¯cient” kasaåum, “to be(come) cold,” and nadaåum, “to lay down,” cannot be construed as exceptions to the general rule that in OA aleph is preserved in post-consonantal position. 3. The use of <s> in the spelling of the cluster /så/ in the MA and NA paradigm of nasaåu, “to lift, to carry,” is parallel to the alephless spellings in the verbs just mentioned, and testi˜es to the sound change /s/ > /s/ in MA. 4. The post-glottalized pronunciation of /s/ supports the view that the sibilants s, z and s were actually aˆricates.
66. See Parpola, “The alleged Middle/Neo-Assyrian Irregular Verb *nass-,” 2.
EVIDENTIARY PROCEDURE IN THE MIDDLE ASSYRIAN LAWS Raymond Westbrook The Johns Hopkins University
Introduction1
the rapist’s punishment is imposed on the basis of a mere accusation, without su¯cient evidence. Cardascia attempts to re˜ne Driver and Miles’ approach, suggesting that the two verbs represent a gradation of evidence: burru means to gather su¯cient evidence for a presumption of guilt; kunnu means to provide irrefutable proof.6 In this way, Cardascia is able to account for ˜ve of the cases where burru is used alone (A §§3, 14, 18, 19; N §2) as having a weaker meaning, as where a man brings charges that he is unable to sustain.7 He further manages to eliminate two (A §25 and §36), by asserting that the verb has a special meaning, “to claim (property).”8 Nevertheless, there still remain two instances that Cardascia is forced to label true exceptions: A §12, the case of the rapist already mentioned, and A §7, a parallel case in which witnesses testify that a woman laid a hand on a man. Furthermore, if Cardascia’s theory of gradation is followed, the dual expression would seem super˘uous: what is the point of mentioning a prima facie case when irrefutable proof is demanded?
The phrase ubtaååer¿(s) uktaååin¿(s) appears (with slight variations) some twenty times in the Middle Assyrian Laws (MAL).2 Both verbs are well known, having the same basic meaning in the D-stem (“make ˜rm”). Nonetheless, the exact meaning of the couplet has proved elusive. In their classic commentary, Driver and Miles called it “a curious phrase” and translated “they have brought charge (and) proof against him.”3 In their interpretation, the subject is always the accusers or witnesses. The verb ubtaååer¿ refers to an accusation and uktaååin¿ to adducing su¯cient evidence.4 They admit, however, that the presence or absence of the procedure in the Laws seems arbitrary. More di¯culty is caused by the fact that in nine instances the verb burru appears alone, as in A §12, where a man is to put to death for rape if witnesses ubtaååer¿s.5 Following Driver and Miles’ interpretation, this would mean that 1. This article was ˜rst presented as a paper at the annual meeting of the American Oriental Society in San Diego on March 14, 2004, and in longer versions to the Institut für Orientalistik, Universität Wien, on March 19 and the École Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris, on May 25, 2004. I am grateful to all the participants for their helpful comments and criticisms. The usual caveats as to responsibility for errors apply. 2. Tablet A §§1 (/si), 9, 15, 16, 20, 21, 40, 47 (/sunu), 53; B §§4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 20; C+G §§3 (/su), 8 (/su), 10 (/su), 11 [restored] (/su); E §1; L §3. 3. G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The Assyrian Laws (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1935), 339. 4. The Assyrian Laws, 341–43. 5. The other cases are: A §§3, 7, 14, 18, 19, 25, 36; N §2.
6. Les Lois Assyriennes (Paris: Cerf, 1969), 94–95 n. c. 7. Even this interpretation requires adding nuances to the literal meaning. In §18, anaku ubaååer baåura la ilaåe la ubaååer, literally “(saying) ‘I will make ˜rm, but he cannot make ˜rm, he does not make ˜rm” becomes “. . . je porterai des charges . . . , (s’il) ne peut porter des charges (et s’)il n’a pas chargé (su¯samment).” 8. “réclamer.” Cardascia’s translation of §36 actually reads (inadvertently?) “il prouvera (les faits)” (col. V 1).
87
JCS 55 (2003)
88
RAYMOND WESTBROOK
Two more recent translations adopt a diˆerent approach. Roth translates “they prove the charges against him and ˜nd him guilty”9 and Borger similarly “man es ihm beweist und ihn überführt.”10 As Driver and Miles already noted, this translation requires a shift in subject between the two verbs, between the witnesses (who prove) and the court (that convicts). They therefore rejected this solution, on the grounds that it was more likely that both verbs would have the same subject. 11 The shift in subject has the merit of accounting satisfactorily for the use of burru alone, but at the same time leaves the dual phrase with more than a whiˆ of super˘uity about it. It stumbles, however, at the hurdle of A §1, where the two verbs are used as alternatives: lu-ú ub-ta-e-ru-ú-[si] lu-ú uk-ta-i-nu-[si] (col. I 6– 7). This cannot logically apply to two successive, complementary stages in the judicial process. The context is that a god is consulted to determine the punishment of a woman who has committed sacrilegious theft. A rule that the procedure applies either when the charges have been proved or when she has been found guilty is absurd. Borger, translating correctly, walks into the trap: “man es ihr beweist oder sie überführt.” Roth, sensing the logical di¯culty, translates here: “they prove the charges against her and ˜nd her guilty.” In the same way, one interpretation in CAD takes the phrase as hendiadys: “they prove it of her by means of witnesses KAV 1 i 8 (Ass. Code §1), and passim in this phrase in the Ass. Code,” as if it were the same form as elsewhere in the code.12 The Assyrian form l¿ . . . l¿, however, can only mean “either . . . or.”13
9. M. T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, Writings from the Ancient World 6 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 153–94 ad loc. 10. R. Borger, “Die mittelassyrichen Gesetze,” in Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments I/1: Rechtsbücher, ed. R. Borger et al. (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1982), 80–92 ad loc. 11. The Assyrian Laws, 341. 12. Vol. K 168 sub mng. 4; similarly AHw 109a bâru(m) III sub mng. D 4b: “meist vor uktaååin¿s als Hendiadyoin: sie ihn (sie) völlig überführen.” 13. Cf. A §3 (col. I 23–24): sum-ma lú lu-ú ma-ri-is lu-ú me-et. A man cannot be ill and dead at the same time.
One Line Short
Methods of Proof If the dual phrase is not to be dismissed as meaningless repetition,14 a separate role must be found for it that leaves the individual verbs with discrete functions and neither con˘icts with those functions nor renders them super˘uous. I propose the following hypothesis: the couplet ubtaååer¿(s) uktaååin¿(s) refers to the burden of proof on the accuser and more speci˜cally to the diˆerent methods of proof required to discharge that burden in court. In its use in MAL, burru means proof by rational methods, such as witnesses or documents, whereas kunnu means proof by suprarational methods such as the oath or the ordeal. It should be noted that these conclusions are unique to MAL. The combination of burru and kunnu is attested elsewhere only in reverse order, in two literary compositions in the Standard Babylonian dialect. In †urpu it occurs in a list of sins, in a context that reveals nothing of the two verbs’ function; they could simply be synonyms (II 60: ukannu ubarru usasbaru). Their context in the Assyrian Dream-Book, on the other hand, implies that the verbs are cumulative, not alternative. The omen in question reads (330 r. ii 40–41): If he walks constantly in dark waters, a hea[vy] law-suit [ ], they will sum[mon him] ana kunni u burri. Because the lawsuit is a di¯cult one, the witness will be obliged to furnish more than one mode of proof. The reverse order of the verbs in these late sources is signi˜cant, as it may re˘ect an earlier diˆerence between the Assyrian and Babylonian dialects. In Old Babylonian sources, the two verbs, appearing individually, have the same functions as proposed here, but with exactly the opposite application: burru is used of proof by supra-rational
14. This is the role assigned to it by CAD vol. B 130: “if they establish and prove that . . .”
EVIDENTIARY PROCEDURE IN THE MIDDLE ASSYRIAN LAWS
means, whereas kunnu is mostly used of proof by rational means.15 Only two forms of supra-rational evidence are positively attested in Mesopotamia, namely the evidentiary oath and the river ordeal. The ordeal is far less common than the oath and its procedure is not well understood.16 Both are imposed by the court and are decisive. The evidentiary oath is imposed on one side— on the party or his witnesses or both.17 If taken, it decides the case in favor of the oath-taker. It is, however, a burden as well as a privilege, for a person may be reluctant to expose himself to the wrath of god or king through a self-curse. Thus there are many attested instances of the imposition of the oath leading to a last-minute compromise settlement.18 On the other hand, the danger arising from the oath’s self-curse is merely potential, which might tempt a hardy or desperate soul to risk its consequences.19
15. See E. Dombradi, Die Darstellung des Rechtsaustrags in den altbabylonischen Prozessurkunden, 2 vols, FAS 20 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1996), 335 for the evidence from private legal documents. The distinction is clear-cut in Codex Hammurabi: burru: §§23, 120, 126, 240; kunnu: §§1, 2, 3, 5, 42, 106, 107, 108, 113, 116, 124, 127, 133, 141, 194, 255, 265, 282. In §2, if witchcraft is not proved, then they resort to the river ordeal. 16. Although there are references to the river ordeal from all periods (for a survey of the sources, see HANEL [= A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook (Leiden: Brill, 2003)], 155, 196–97, 375–76, 495–96, 529, 575–76, 891, 925), the only accounts of the procedure come from OB Mari: Durand, “L’ordalie,” in AEM I/1 (= ARM 26), 509–39. It sometimes involved an agreement between the parties. An oath or oaths may also have been required: see F. Joannès, “La pratique du serment à l’époque néo-babylonienne,” in Jurer et maudire, ed. S. Lafont, Méditerranées 10–11 (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1997), 172–73. 17. For a detailed account based on the Old Babylonian sources, see E. Dombradi, Die Darstellung des Rechtsaustrags in den altbabylonischen Prozessurkunden I, 330–34. See also S. Lafont, “La procédure par serment au Proche-Orient ancien,” in Jurer et maudire, ed. S. Lafont, Méditerranées 10–11 (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1997), 185–93. 18. See e.g., CT 4 47a; 48 1 (Old Babylonian). 19. An Old Babylonian prayer to Nanna documents a case of successful perjury: UET 6 402, edited by D. Charpin, Le Clergé d’Ur au Siècle d’Hammurabi (Geneva: Droz, 1986), 326–29.
89
The ordeal applies to parties, not to witnesses. It appears to have been imposed on one side, but could be undertaken by substitutes.20 As with the oath, there are cases where a party refuses to undergo the ordeal. Unlike the oath, it involves immediate risks and immediate results, which would make the subject of the ordeal even more reluctant to undergo the procedure. The court has a discretion whether to impose the oath or ordeal and on which side. The most common form of oath is an exculpatory oath on the defendant. Otherwise, the sources, especially the law codes, refer to particular circumstances in which the court imposes an oath or ordeal, but never articulate the principles underlying the exercise of its discretion. The Verbs burru and kunnu Most of the cases in which the two verbs appear in MAL, whether as a couplet or burru alone, do not provide us with su¯cient context to determine what sort of evidence they refer to, whether rational or supra-rational. A few cases in which burru appears alone, however, indicate that rational evidence is meant. In A §17 a man makes the assertion that another man’s wife is notoriously promiscuous: If a man says to a man, “Your wife is always being slept with,” and there are no witnesses, they shall make a contract and go to the River. In the absence of witnesses, that is, of rational evidence, supra-rational evidence is expressly prescribed, in the form of the ordeal. In A §18 a man makes the same allegations, but then rashly declares that he will prove it (burru): If a man says to his companion, whether in private or in a dispute, “Your wife is always being slept with,” and “I will prove it,” but he cannot and does not prove it (a-na-ku ú-ba-ar ba-ú-ra
20. Durand, “L’ordalie,” 518–21.
90
RAYMOND WESTBROOK
la-a i-la-å-e la-a ú-ba-e-er), that man shall be beaten with forty strokes . . . The proof must refer back to what was stated to be missing in §17, namely the testimony of witnesses. In A §12 a man is charged with seizing a married woman as she is passing in the street and raping her. He is to suˆer the death penalty “whether he is caught upon the married woman or witnesses prove that he had intercourse with the woman” (col. II 20–22: lu-ú i-na ugu dam-lú ik-su-du-us ù lu-ú ki-i munus i-ni-ku-ú-ni se-butu ub-ta-e-ru-us). In my view, the protasis is canvassing the two standard types of rational proof: seizing in the act and testimony ex post facto.21 There would be no need to impose an oath on the witnesses, whose credibility is not in issue. This law is not about setting a minimum level of proof. The point being made by the apodosis is that the death penalty applies whether the culprit is caught in the act or not. The context is the principle commonly found in ancient legal systems that being caught in ˘agranti delicto aggravates the oˆence.22 It is a stylistic feature of MAL to give a list of alternatives in order to show that the ruling is indiˆerent to them.23 I shall return to this point below.
21. A third type, documentary, applies essentially to transactions. A confession might also be regarded as a form of proof. See S. Lafont, Femmes, Droit et Justice dans l’Antiquité orientale (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1999), 165. Seizure in the act does not at ˜rst sight look like an independent type of evidence, since there will still be testimony about it at the time of trial. It becomes su¯cient proof in itself when it is such as to exclude deniability by the culprit. See below. 22. E.g., a thief caught in the act, as in CH §25, suˆers the death penalty. Cf. the case of Laban’s stolen idols in Gen. 31: 30–32, where the death penalty is to be imposed on the thief caught in possession after a hot pursuit. The distinction is expressed in early Roman law as between manifest and nonmanifest theft. See F. de Zulueta (ed.), The Institutes of Gaius Pt. I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946), III §§184–85, 189–90. 23. Compare the list of diˆerent circumstances of a rape in A §55: “whether in the town or in the country or at night in the street or in a granary or at a town festival . . .” As Landsberger put it, they signify “Tatort gleichgültig”: “Jungfräulichkeit,” in Symbolae David II, ed. J. A. Ankum, (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 63 n. 1.
A §25 makes a clear distinction between rational and supra-rational modes. The text reads (col. III): 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94.
sum-ma munus i-na é a-bi-sa-ma us-bat ù mu-us-sa me-e-et ses-mes mu-ti-sa la-a ze-e-zu ù dumu-sa la-ás-su mi-im-ma du-ma-a-qé sa mu-us-sa i-na ugu-sa is-ku-nu-ú-ni la hal-qú-ú-ni ses-mes mu-ti-sa la-a ze-zu-ú-tu i-laq-qé-ú a-na re-ha-a-te dingir-mes-ni ú-se-et-tu-qú ú-ba-ar-ru i-laq-qé-ú a-na didi-id ù ma-mi-te la-a is-sa-ab-bu-ú-tu
If a woman is dwelling in her father’s house and her husband dies, her husband’s brothers have not divided, and she has no son, her undivided husband’s brothers may take any jewelry that her husband placed upon her that is not lost. As regards the remaining (property?), they shall cause the gods to move past (it) and shall prove and take (it). They shall not be seized for the River God or the oath. The brothers must engage in a procedure involving the gods, the content of which is not clear, but would seem to engage the gods as witnesses. It is not an oracular procedure, for which diˆerent terminology is used, as we shall see. Nor is it one of the two known supra-rational means of proving an assertion in court, for they are expressly excluded. The brothers must in any case still prove (burru) their claim to the items of property. The conclusion must be that burru alone is used when rational means of proof are intended. Finally, A §1 is the sole source in MAL in which both burru and kunnu appear together but not as a couplet. The text reads (col. I): 1. [su]m-ma munus [lu-ú] dam lú 2. [lu]-ú [dumu-mu[nus lú] 3. [i-na] é-dingir [t]e-ta-ra-ab
EVIDENTIARY PROCEDURE IN THE MIDDLE ASSYRIAN LAWS
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
[i-na] é-dingir [mi]-im-ma [. . . ] tal-ti-i[-]ri-iq [(lu-ú) i-na qa-ti-sa?] is-sa-bi-[it] lu-ú ub-ta-e-ru-ú-[si] lu-ú uk-ta-i-nu-[(ú)-si] ba-e-ru-ta [. . . ] [d]ingir i-[s]a-åu-[ú-lu] [k]i-i sa-a [dingir a-na e-pa-se] i-[q]a-ab-[bi-ú-n]i e-ep-pu-su-ú-si
If a woman, whether the wife of a man or the daughter of a man, enters a temple and steals something . . . , (and) it is seized [in her hand], or ubtaååer¿si or (else) uktaååin¿si, [they shall perform] a divination and shall inquire of the god. They shall treat her as [the god] orders. Notes 5. Coll. Freydank, AoF 21, 204. 6. The dubious verbal form led Postgate to suggest (tentatively) iz-za-qa[p], with an unattested intransitive meaning “come to light, turn up” (Iraq 35, 21). Otto proposes the Neo-Assyrian verb zaqapu B, “vor Gericht erscheinen (um Klage zu erheben)” but then translates “völlig überführt” (“Die Einschränkung des Privatstrafrechts . . . ,” in Biblische Welten, ed. W. Zwickel, OBO 123, Freiburg 1993, 158 n. 49). Claiming, however, is far from proving, and the form would in any case be izzaqqup. 7. A duplicate fragment (Postgate, Iraq 35, 19– 21) reads ù lu-ú ub-ta-e-ru-si [. . . 9. On the form, see Deller AfO 34, 65. In this paragraph, three diˆerent types of proof are presented as alternatives: being caught in possession of the stolen goods or perhaps in the act of stealing, and two others. In the light of the paragraphs previously discussed, it is reasonable to suppose that the remaining two would be the testimony of witnesses, and the results of a suprarational procedure, possibly an ordeal. Thus MAL presumes three standard modes of proof: seizure in ˘agranti delicto, ex post facto testimony, and referral to the divine court. As we have seen in A
91
§12, the ruling itself concerns punishment, not proof. Its point is that whatever means were used to prove the woman’s guilt, her punishment is to be determined by consulting the oracle. The Couplet ubtaååer¿(s) uktaååin¿(s) A preliminary objection to my interpretation of the dual phrase is that the oath, and more particularly the ordeal, would normally be imposed on a single person, whereas the verbs in the dual phrase are in the plural. The answer is that the third person plural of the verbs should be understood as an impersonal form. Consequently, the unspoken subject may and often will be an individual: the plaintiˆ, a witness, or the victim (as in A §16, where the victim testifying is the plaintiˆ’s wife), whoever they may be. A §40: 94–106 reveals the individual behind the impersonal phrase: If a man sees a slave woman veiled and lets her go; he does not seize her and bring her to the gate of the palace; ubtaååer¿s uktaååin¿s; he shall be struck with ˜fty strokes of the rod, his ears shall be pierced, threaded with a cord, and tied at his nape. His denouncer (batiqansu) will take his garment. He shall do the king’s corvée for a month. The denouncer is thus the hidden subject who has to testify as to the accused’s dereliction of duty and to con˜rm his testimony by submitting to the oath or ordeal. A more serious objection to my interpretation is that it has not solved the problem of redundancy. If the method of proof is to be a suprarational procedure, why require rational evidence as well? The answer lies in what I will call the condition of threshold credibility. Supra-rational procedure is the removal of the case from the human tribunal and its referral to a divine tribunal. The human court has ˜rst to decide under what circumstances it will refer a case, then which procedure is to be applied and which assertion is to be tested, the plaintiˆ’s or the defendant’s (or their witnesses’). The most obvious reason for a referral is the absence of evidence.
92
RAYMOND WESTBROOK
For example, in an Old Babylonian suit by a seller reclaiming property from a buyer, “The royal judges gave Haliyaåum (the buyer) to the oath because they had ˜xed a day and his witnesses could not be present.”24 Nonetheless, in many cases the court would only reach its decision after considering the evidence. Thus in another Old Babylonian case, where one heir sued the purchaser of land from another heir, the plaintiˆ relied on a tablet of division of the estate, but the defendant adduced witnesses to the existence of a later division. “The judges heard their statement (saptisunu) that there was a later division and the judges ordered them to speak their testimony (sibussunu) before the god. . . .”25 In a royal decision from Ugarit, the content of the witnesses’ evidence determines who is to take the oath (ll. 17–34): Takia (the debtor) said as follows: “I paid the son of Zibaia (the creditor) the 800 shekels of silver that I owed him and I have witnesses: Attanu and Aiu.” If his witnesses say, “(The debt) is settled: Takia paid the 800 shekels of silver to the son of Zibaia,” then let Takia swear together with his witnesses and let the son of Zibaia relinquish his claim. And if Takia’s witnesses say it is not so, let the son of Zibaia swear together with his (Takia’s) witnesses and let Takia pay him his silver.26 The court might therefore decide that for an assertion to be tested by supra-rational procedure, 24. OECT 13 91: 12–15: di-ku5–lugal ha-li-ia-ú-um as-sum u 4– mu is-ku-ú-ma si-bi-su ú-la i-ba-as-su-ú-ma a-na ni-is dingir [i]d-di-nu-su. The example is Old Babylonian. Unfortunately, there are no litigation documents from the Middle Assyrian period to illustrate the oath or ordeal in practice, but there is a rich fund of sources from Mesopotamia in other periods (especially the Old Babylonian period), and the basic principles of supra-rational procedure appear to remain constant throughout the cuneiform record. 25. BE 6/2 49: 25–29. The plaintiˆ thereupon agreed to a compromise settlement rather than allow the witnesses to swear. 26. RS 20.22 = Ugaritica V no. 27: 5–34. For a legal analysis of this and the preceding text, see S. Loewenstamm, “The Cumulative Oath of Witnesses and Parties in Mesopotamian Law,” in Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures, AOAT 204 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1980), 341–45.
the person making the assertion must ˜rst have attained a certain threshold of credibility, whether through testimony, documents or material evidence. The condition is more appropriate to the oath than to the ordeal, because the oath was applicable to a wider range of persons and was open to abuse by a party with a weak case or by a dubious witness. The immediate peril of the ordeal would have acted as more of a deterrent against the temptation of perjury. Nonetheless, it was not an absolute deterrent, and threshold credibility could be regarded as necessary for the ordeal, depending on the circumstances of the case.27 In many instances where the dual phrase is used in MAL, it is reasonable to infer that the court heard evidence before deciding whether to impose the oath or the ordeal and on whom. Thus the landowner who claims that a neighbor has encroached upon his land would need to bring some prima facie evidence of title before the court would impose the oath (or ordeal) on him rather than on his neighbor who also claims the land (B §§8, 9, 13, 14, 20).28 Again, the victims of fraudulent practices in C+G §§8, 10 and 11 would need ˜rst to show that the property of which they were defrauded was theirs. C+G 3 imposes a punishment on a creditor who sells abroad a son or daughter held as pledge, unless the debt equals their full market value.29 The procedure ubtaååer¿s uktaååin¿s is invoked against him. Aside from the question of sale abroad, the debtor, who is the father of the pledged child, needs to show that the child was given as a pledge and not sold as a slave, and furthermore that the child was not pledged for its full value. The issue is one of the
27. Lafont argues that A §17 shows that rational and irrational modes of proof were in theory mutually exclusive, because the ordeal is prescribed in the absence of witnesses (Femmes, Droit et Justice, 259). As I shall hope to show below, the paragraph represents a much narrower principle. 28. Where boundaries are ˜xed by tradition of usage they are hard to prove; there will be no deeds of sale, and boundary stones are notoriously movable. 29. The object of the latter clause, an Assyrian man or woman, refers to an Assyrian citizen, not an inferior social class. See S. Lafont, “Middle Assyrian Period,” in HANEL, 530–31.
EVIDENTIARY PROCEDURE IN THE MIDDLE ASSYRIAN LAWS
state of accounts between the creditor and debtor, for which some rational evidence would be required, before allowing the debtor to swear an oath (or submit to an ordeal). Supra-rational procedure, therefore, does not necessarily eliminate the need for rational evidence as a preliminary step. It follows that the dual requirement in the couplet ubtaååer¿(s) uktaååin¿(s) is not redundant. It is a gradation, although not in the sense that Cardascia meant. The law could simply have prescribed an oath or ordeal, deeming that the circumstances warrant it. It does so in A §17 where, as we have already seen, the ordeal is expressly provided where there are no witnesses. The law thus orders (or empowers) the court to apply a supra-rational procedure instead of rational evidence. The dual phrase is not used. I would argue a contrario that the dual phrase was used only in cases where the law chose not to eliminate the preliminary step, but to require (or perhaps to allow) the court to proceed to the ordeal (or the oath) once that threshold requirement had been satis˜ed. By far the most common application of the oath or ordeal was exculpatory, to allow a defendant to disprove an accusation. It is not surprising, therefore, that most of the paragraphs of MAL that prescribe the oath or ordeal in explicit terms refer to an exculpatory procedure. In six paragraphs, the law imposes an oath using the verb tamû. In two of these (B §10; C+G §1), the tablet is too broken to establish the context, but in A §§22 and 56, an exculpatory oath is imposed upon the accused. In A §5, the oath is imposed upon the accuser, but is analogous to an exculpatory oath, in that the alleged victim of theft must prove that he did not incite the theft. The ˜nal instance, A §47:16–17, also concerns an unconventional oath that is exculpatory in purpose: a hearsay witness exonerates himself (zaku) by proving what an eyewitness told him. Likewise, of the three cases of ordeal in MAL, at least two (A §§22 and 24) are undergone by the accused and are clearly exculpatory. The dual phrase, by contrast, refers exclusively to proof in support of an accusation. Herein, I suggest, lies both the rationale for its existence—
93
to indicate an application of supra-rational procedures that was less common—and the rationale for its duality. It is precisely because the oath or ordeal was being imposed upon an accuser, not a defendant, that threshold evidence was regarded as necessary.30 It is signi˜cant that A §17, which as we have seen imposes the ordeal not by the dual phrase and explicitly excludes threshold evidence, also appears to impose the procedure on the accuser.31 The Dual Phrase in Action The rationale for prescribing the procedures indicated by the dual phrase may be illustrated by contrasting two fairly straightforward cases from MAL, one that uses the dual phrase and one that uses burru alone. A §20 reads: If a man has intercourse with his companion and ubtaååer¿s uktaååin¿s, they shall have intercourse with him and turn him into a eunuch. A man claims that he was sodomized by an associate. Two factors aˆect the evidentiary procedure to be applied. First, there would be no outside witnesses to such an intimate sexual act. Second, the evidence of the accuser himself is a statement against interest. As Daube has pointed out, the oˆence is not homosexuality at large but imposing upon a free man the despicable passive role in intercourse, treating the victim sexually like a woman. Hence the punishment of the oˆender—to be treated like a woman and turned
30. A similar distinction exists in CH: tamû is used where the oath is exculpatory (§§206–7, 227), ina mahar ilim burru for accusations or claims of lost property. 31. Driver and Miles argue that the ordeal was undergone by the wife, in order to clear herself of suspicion, which would make it exculpatory (The Assyrian Laws, 68–69). In order to maintain that interpretation, they are obliged to regard the statement about the wife not as slander but as a friendly word to the husband. As Cardascia points out, the maker of the statement must be the same as in the following paragraph, where his allegation is de˜nitely an unfriendly act (Les lois assyriennes, 127–29).
94
RAYMOND WESTBROOK
into a woman.32 For the victim to admit publicly that he had played the passive role, whether willingly or unwillingly, would be deeply shaming. Accordingly, the personal, uncorroborated evidence of the victim will cross a threshold of credibility—not enough to prove his accusation outright, but enough to persuade the court to refer it to a divine tribunal, for example by imposing the oath upon him.33 A §36 considers the case of a man who has gone abroad, or perhaps just to the provinces (a-na a-sà i-it-ta-la-ak), apparently on business, and fails to leave his wife with provisions or to send her provisions from abroad.34 After ˜ve years she is free to remarry, and if the husband subsequently returns he has no right to reclaim his wife. There is one exception, however (col. IV 103–V 3): If he is delayed beyond ˜ve years but was being held against his will or a . . . seized him and he ˘ed or he was seized as a criminal and delayed, on his return he shall prove it (ú-baa-ar) and give a woman like his wife, and he may take his wife. The absentee claims that he is entitled to take his wife back because his absence beyond the statutory limit was due to force majeure, in particular judicial measures taken against him. Again, two factors in˘uence the evidentiary procedure prescribed. First, other evidence would be available, even though the events in question took place elsewhere, since they would have been witnessed by fellow merchants or be demonstrable from court records.35 Second, he has a strong incentive 32. “The Old Testament Prohibitions of Homosexuality,” ZSS 103 (1986) 447–48. 33. In this and the following example, I will assume for the sake of argument that the more common supra-rational procedure, the oath, was intended. 34. Lit.: “to the ˜eld.” See Cardascia’s discussion of the context: Les lois assyriennes, 187–89. 35. Sources from the Old Assyrian Period show that the Assyrian courts had great experience in dealing with the problems of witnesses or parties absent abroad and the time needed to gather evidence. See Veenhof, “The Old Assyrian Period,” in HANEL, 443–45.
One Line Short
to lie in his own self-interest. Accordingly, the claimant’s personal testimony su¯ces neither to prove his claim outright nor to cross the threshold necessary for referral to a divine tribunal. He must prove his case by rational means alone; he is not to be granted the bene˜t of an oath. Two more complex cases, both revolving around the de˜nition of seizure in the act, illustrate further details of the dual procedure in practice. I distinguished above between three standard types of evidence: seizure in ˘agranti delicto, testimony, and oath or ordeal. Seizure in ˘agranti does not at ˜rst sight look like an independent type of evidence, since there will still be testimony at the time of trial. It becomes su¯cient proof in itself when it is such as to exclude deniability by the culprit. Lack of deniability arises from the circumstances of the seizure, which may cover a broad spectrum of time, place, or actions: in a public place, in a private place where there can be no innocent explanation for the culprit’s presence, in possession of incriminating material in the immediate aftermath of the crime. Thus the rapist caught in the act in public by a crowd of bystanders has no deniability (MAL A §12), nor does the burglar caught trespassing, especially at night (LE §§12–13), nor the thief in whose possession stolen goods are found after a hue and cry and formal search (Gen. 31:22–35). Seizure in the act may fail to exclude deniability, on the other hand, where it is done by an interested party alone, or where an innocent explanation is available for the presence of the accused, or where too much time has elapsed between the crime and the seizure. The court will then need to revert to other modes of proof in order to establish the link between seizure of the accused and the alleged crime. The law on witchcraft in A §47 rules that seizure of incriminating materials does not exclude deniability. In laying down further evidentiary requirements, it reveals the key elements inferred by the dual phrase: duplication of testimony and oath by an individual witness in support of an accusation. The opening lines read (col. VII 1–6):
EVIDENTIARY PROCEDURE IN THE MIDDLE ASSYRIAN LAWS
If a man or a woman practices witchcraft and they (the items) are seized in their hands;36 ubtaååer¿sunu uktaååin¿sunu; the makers of witchcraft shall be killed. Witchcraft was regarded as a danger to public safety. In the war against witchcraft, the palace needed to be informed and could take extreme steps to identify and apprehend sorcerers. At the same time, false accusation was all too easy, since the link between cause and eˆect was intangible. Seizure of “incriminating” items was not enough; the accuser had to testify as to the practice of witchcraft and also take an oath or submit to an ordeal. The ˜nal section of the law con˜rms that he had in fact to take an oath. The eyewitness has informed another who in turn informs the palace but the eyewitness then denies his statement. Evidently fear of the sorcerer deters the eyewitness from testifying. The palace, however, has a remedy (ll. 20–23): The king shall interrogate him as he is able and shall see his back (lugal ki-i i-la-å-ú-ni ilta-na-å-al-su ù ku-tal-lu-su e-em-mar) and the exorcist shall cause the man to speak when he is puri˜ed . . . The meaning of this enigmatic phrase is in my opinion that the king will interrogate the reluctant witness under torture, so as to counteract fear of the sorcerer with an equal terror.37 If the purpose were merely to gain information, there would be no problem, but it emerges from the continuation of the law that as a result of his “interrogation” the eye-witness has sworn an oath by the king and the prince (ll. 24–31):
36. i-na qa-ti-su-nu is-sa-ab-tu. The reference is to magical preparations or products: see Cardascia, Les lois assyriennes, 230–31. 37. The use of torture in judicial interrogation is attested in Neo-Babylonian times, when a “ladder of interrogation” was used to extract confessions: M. Jursa, “Akkad, das Eulmas und Gubaru,” WZKM 86 (1996) 199, 210. The phrase “see his back” could refer to a reversal of his denial. I am grateful to Professor Jursa for this suggestion.
95
He (the exorcist) shall say: “He will not release you (pl.)38 from the oath that you swore to the king and his son. You swear in accordance with the tablet that you are swearing to the king and his son.” The exorcist is on hand to reassure the witness that the sorcerer will not be able to release him from the curses attendant upon his oath, which the sorcerer might perhaps justify on the grounds that the oath was not given voluntarily. From our point of view, the signi˜cance of the law is that it reveals that not only must seizure of incriminating evidence be corroborated by testimony, but that the testimony itself must be con˜rmed by oath. Con˜rmation by testimony and oath of what at ˜rst sight seems to be covered by seizure in ˘agranti delicto may also be behind a use of the dual phrase in A §15 that has puzzled commentators. In this case, it is a cogent parallel that supplies the context. The paragraph reads (col. II: 41–57): 41. sum-ma lú is-tu dam-ti-su lú is-sa-bat 42. ub-ta-e-ru-ú-us 43. uk-ta-i-nu-ú-us 44. ki-la-al-le-su-nu-ma 45. i-du-uk-ku-su-nu 46. a-ra-an-su la-ás-su 47. . . . 41–46: If a man seizes a man with his wife, ubtaååer¿s uktaååin¿s, it is both of them that shall be killed; he has no liability. 47–57: If he seizes them and brings them to the king or the judges, ubtaååer¿s uktaååin¿s; if the woman’s husband will kill his wife, then he shall kill the man. If he will cut oˆ his wife’s nose, then he shall turn the man into a eunuch and his whole face shall be mutilated; if he will let his wife oˆ, he shall let oˆ the man.
38. Possibly a reference to the oath-taker’s family, who would be included in the curse.
96
RAYMOND WESTBROOK
A husband catches his wife “with” another man, that is, strictly speaking not in ˘agranti delicto but in circumstances that could be construed as indicating an adulterous relationship. The distinction may seem overly subtle, but is con˜rmed by the brutally graphic language of A §12, where the rapist is caught “upon” (ina muhhi) the woman.39 The second part of the law not unreasonably requires the husband to prove the case against the man before a local or royal court (ubtaååer¿s uktaååin¿s) and also to refute any suspicion of entrapment by punishing his wife and her lover in equal measure (ll. 47–57). The ˜rst part of the law creates a di¯culty in that seems to allow the husband to exercise summary justice (ll. 41–46), but with the same requirements, including ubtaååer¿s uktaååin¿s. Driver and Miles postulated an informal trial with the neighbors as witnesses, citing Greek parallels.40 In an earlier study on the law of adultery, I conjectured that the proving might refer to a procedure ex post facto of the husband killing the lovers on the spot, in a trial in which he was the defendant.41 The result would be that any oath sworn by the husband would be exculpatory. The conclusions of the present study, that ubtaååer¿s uktaååin¿s refers only to an accusatory procedure, render my earlier conjecture, which was di¯cult to reconcile with the syntax, untenable.42 At the same time, they reveal a closer parallel in the Gortyn Code, one of the Greek sources mentioned by
39. Driver and Miles noted the diˆerence in terminology, but dismissed it as unimportant (The Assyrian Laws, 48); Cardascia took the same view but was troubled by the fact that proof by witnesses should also have been required in a case of seizure in ˘agranti delicto (Les lois assyriennes, 120 note a). Native sources were conscious of the distinction, however. The report of a trial from Old Babylonian Nippur relates that the husband actually tied his wife and her lover caught in the act to the bed and brought them, bed and all, to the court. See S. Greengus, “A Textbook Case of Adultery in Ancient Mesopotamia,” HUCA 40–41 (1969–1970) 33–44. Cf. also Lafont, Femmes, Droit et Justice, 68, arguing in favor of the distinction. 40. The Assyrian Laws, 45–46, 50. 41. “Adultery in Ancient Near Eastern Law,” Revue Biblique 97 (1990) 552–53. 42. See also the criticisms of Lafont, Femmes, Droit et Justice, 69–70.
Driver and Miles, which gives added credibility to the scenario that the latter postulated.43 The Gortyn Code discusses the case of a man seized while committing adultery (moikion) with a free woman in the house of her father, brother, or husband (col. II: 20–28).44 The text continues (28–45): Let him (the captor) before three witnesses declare to the relatives of the one seized that he is to be ransomed within ˜ve days. . . . If he is not ransomed, it is for the captors to do (with him) as they wish. If he (the captive) claims to be the victim of fraud, the captor is to swear . . . with ˜ve others, each cursing himself solemnly, that he was taken committing adultery, and was not the victim of fraud. It emerges from this account that the adulterer is held by the accuser, who makes a formal declaration before witnesses but does not bring him before a court. If the accused claims, presumably before those witnesses, that it was a fraudulent trick, then the captor must swear a declaratory oath. Apparently this procedure also takes place in the captor’s home, where the accused is being held, not before a court. It thus conforms with Driver and Miles’ reconstruction of the circumstances in the ˜rst part of MAL A §15. From our point of view, what is important is that this extrajudicial procedure is twofold: a declaration before witnesses of the circumstances of the seizure and a supra-rational stage.45 43. Ed. R. Willetts, The Law Code of Gortyn (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1967). 44. The Greek term moicheia covers a broader scope than adultery in the ancient Near Eastern sense, being illicit intercourse with a woman under the authority of any close relative. 45. The Gortyn law requires oaths not only by the captors but also by four others, whom I take to be members of the captor’s family who would be suspect of conspiring with him to entrap an enemy (and who probably stood to pro˜t with him from the ransom). The older view that they were oathhelpers whose sole task was to establish the principal witness’s credibility has been disproved. See M. Gagarin, “The Function of Witnesses at Gortyn,” Symposion 1985, 29–54, esp. 51–52. A further illuminating feature of the Gortyn law is its shift between single (captor) and plural (oath-takers) subject,
EVIDENTIARY PROCEDURE IN THE MIDDLE ASSYRIAN LAWS
There is, however, an important diˆerence between the Greek and the Assyrian law. The Greek oath is in fact two-fold: an accusatory positive oath that the oath-taker seized the accused in adultery and an exculpatory negative oath that it was not a fraudulent scheme to entrap the accused. Adultery was an oˆence against the husband; if he agreed to another sleeping with his wife, he would have no claim against him.46 The second oath is not present in the Assyrian version because a diˆerent safeguard is employed against entrapment, namely the requirement (emphasized by the enclitic –ma in line 44) that both the wife and the lover be killed. The result is the same: the husband will be immune from future suit by the relatives of the man he killed, a suit in which he would be the defendant. Nonetheless, in the present extra-judicial procedure the oath is accusatory, not exculpatory.47
and impersonal verbs. A similar background would account for the switch between singular and plural verb forms in MAL A §15 that has disturbed commentators: see Driver and Miles, The Assyrian Laws, 48–50, and Lafont, who argues on the basis of the 3rd person plural verb forms in lines 42–45 (ubtaååer¿s uktaååin¿s . . . idduk¿sunu) that the ˜rst part of A §15 is a formal procedure before the court just like the second part (Femmes, Droit et Justice, 71–72, 90). As I have argued above, these forms can not only be impersonal but can hide an individual subject. 46. See Westbrook, “Adultery,” 564–68. 47. Note that the husband’s immunity is described as aransu lassu (cf. A §59), whereas in A §47: 17 the exculpatory oath makes the oath-taker zaku.
97
The Assyrian procedure is a hybrid born of the special circumstances of the case. The husband is allowed to execute summary justice on the lovers without recourse to a court. As a safeguard against abuse, he must ˜rst demonstrate their guilt in two stages. Firstly, by rational means, namely presentation of the lovers to witnesses in the compromising circumstances in which they have been found. This is insu¯cient to prove the case de˜nitively (should the alleged paramour deny wrongdoing) but is su¯cient to cross the threshold of credibility, thus opening the way to proof by supra-rational means, presumably an oath. In that respect there is a trial, before a divine tribunal. The procedure may therefore justi˜ably be called ubtaååer¿s uktaååin¿s, in spite of its informal setting. Conclusions MAL express the requirement of a suprarational evidentiary procedure in two ways. They either set out the procedure explicitly, whether by oath or ordeal, or they employ the enigmatic phrase ubtaååer¿(s) uktaååin¿(s). The latter is used in order to substantiate an accusation, when both rational and supra-rational means of proof are required. Accordingly, I would propose as a (non-literal) translation of the phrase ubtaååer¿(s) uktaååin¿(s) wherever it occurs in MAL the following: “(if) the burden of proof against him(/her/ them) has been discharged by all means, human and divine.”
BOOKKEEPING PRACTICES AT THE EANNA TEMPLE IN URUK IN THE LIGHT OF THE TEXT NBC 48971 Stefan Zawadzki Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan
1
Animal husbandry in Neo-Babylonian times has been the subject of many important studies, including the pioneering treatise by M. San Nicolò2 and G. van Driel’s studies published in the last decade.3 A great many among the numerous published texts concern the delivery of animals to
the temple and the receipts given to individual herdsmen. Texts accounting for the development of a speci˜c herd during a longer period, which could facilitate the study of Neo-Babylonian bookkeeping practices, were unknown until 1999, when R. Sack published the remarkable tablet NBC 4897.4 In 1993, the text was discussed by G. van Driel,5 and again by the same scholar with K. Nemet-Nejat in 1994.6 The text is an account of the herd of sheep and goats which the managers of the Eanna temple entrusted to Nabû-ahhe-sullim, son of Nabû-sumiskun, and covers the period from his ˜rst account in year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to the spring of year 1 of Neriglissar. Sheep and goats are dealt with separately, each species broken down by sex and age groups. Thus, the ˜rst set of columns in the account refers to rams, ewes, male lambs and female lambs, and concludes with the total number (the “horizontal total” as van Driel calls it); the second set of columns accounts for full-grown hegoats, she-goats, male kids and female kids, and is followed by their total number (the second
1. I would like to express my profound gratitude for the discussion on the issues of the breeding of sheep and goats to A. Gut, Head of the Department of Sheep and Goat Breeding of the University of Agriculture in Poznan, Michael Jursa, John MacGinnis, and to my collaborators at the Department of the History of the Ancient Near East: Jaroslaw Maniaczyk, Witold Tyborowski, Joanna Paszkowiak, as well as to Rafal Kolinski of the Department of Archeology of the Adam Mickiewicz University. I would like to give particularly warm thanks to Paul-Alain Beaulieu, who kindly collated certain passages at Yale. The results of his collation are acknowledged where applicable. I also owe thanks to John MacGinnis, who kindly improved my English. 2. M. San Nicolò, “Materialien zur Viehwirtschaft in den neubabylonischen Tempeln,” I Or 17 (1948) 273–93; II, Or 18 (1949) 288–306; III, Or 20 (1951) 129–50; IV, Or 23 (1954) 351– 82; and V, Or 25 (1956) 24–38. 3. G. van Driel, “Neo-Babylonian Sheep and Goats,” BSA 7 (1993) 219–58; “Cattle in the Neo-Babylonian Period,” BSA 8 (1995) 215–40. See also E. Gehlken, Uruk. Spätbabylonische Wirtschaftstexte aus dem Eanna-Archiv. Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, Endberichte 11 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1990), 19–55 and A. C. V. M. Bongenaar, The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and Its Prosopography. (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1997), 415–22. An important study concerning animal husbandry in Sippar in early Neo-Babylonian times has been published by R. Da Riva, Der Ebabbar-Tempel von Sippar in frühneubabylonischer Zeit, AOAT 291 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002) 173–309.
4. R. H. Sack, “Some Notes on Bookkeeping in Eanna,” in Sudies in Honor of Tom B. Jones, eds. M. A. Powell and Ronald H. Sack. AOAT 203 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979), 111–18. 5. BSA 7 (1993) 233–35. 6. G. Van Driel, K. R. Nemet-Nejat, “Bookkeeping Practices for an Institutional Herd at Eanna,” JCS 46 (1994) 47–58. For convenience the transliteration and translation of the text is appended to the end of the article.
99
JCS 55 (2003)
100
STEFAN ZAWADZKI
“horizontal total”). The ˜nal item of the account is the grand total (the sum of the two “horizontal totals”). Separate entries in the columns refer to the dead animals (called “hides”) and the payments of the wages (idÿ ) to the herdsmen and for the shearing. Van Driel has solved many problems, yet he has failed to explain several signi˜cant points, or has proposed interpretations that require reevaluation. In particular, we will scrutinize van Driel’s calculations of the numbers of stock in the herd and the average yield of wool per sheep, and demonstrate that they are partly based on a mistaken reading of the text, which aˆected the quality of his calculations. According to the extreme right column, two accounts were delivered each year in Nbk 37–38 and Nbk 41–42, one each year in AmM 1 and AmM 2, and none in Nbk 39 and 40. The acceptance of two yearly accounts would entail, in turn, that virtually each ewe gave birth twice a year. In fact, in the so-called uncontrolled mating, when rams are allowed to stay with ewes all the time (as was the case here), some ewes may give birth more often than once a year, but it is certainly impossible for them to have two lambs repeatedly each year.7 The dating of the individual accounts is contradicted by line 39, according to which the document covers the period from Nbk 37 to Ner 1, which must refer to the entire time rather than selected years only. Although the fact, which misled the accountant, cannot be recognized,8 the dates of the annual accounts must unavoidably be emended in the way that van Driel did it.9 The 7. Still, a ewe may well have bred three times in two years. Although lambing usually took place in the months Adaru– Aiaru, we also know of births in the summer, see J. N. Postgate (with a contribution of S. Payne), “Some Old Babylonian Shepherds and Their Flocks,” JSS 20 (1975) 14. 8. Van Driel’s explanation, JCS 46, 54, that “if the ‘accountant’ had a complete ˜le, he would ˜nd the same data in tablets dealing with the consecutive years: once at the end of one text and again at the beginning of the succeeding year” is not satisfactory because it does not clarify why some years were completely omitted. 9. See, BSA 7, App. IV on p. 258: text year suggested 37 36* (asterisk denoting corrected year) 37 37
phrase in line 39 that the account covers the period “from 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar . . . until 1st year of Neriglissar,” although the herd was entrusted to Nabû-ahhe-sullim in year 36, suggests that the accountant meant the period from the ˜rst to the last account. Van Driel’s discussion of the accountant’s method of reckoning is correct. The starting point of each subsequent account is the number of stock in the herd speci˜ed in the account for the previous year,10 from which the scribe subtracted (from the corresponding items, i.e., rams from rams, ewes from ewes etc., and from the horizontal totals) the dead animals (called KU† = masku, “hides”), the animals given as wages (idÿ) and for shearing (referred to as “x animals ina gizzi” in “Grand total”). This indicates that shearing provided the opportunity to count the stock and that the herdsmen were paid for the shearing after its completion. Most important, male and female lambs (and kids) mentioned in the previous account were shifted to the rams or ewes (and he- and she-goats) in the next account. In light of this observation it is certain that when they appeared for the ˜rst time in the text they were about a year old. During the second year they reached maturity and male lambs (and kids)11 were shifted to the ram (and full grown he-goats) category, while young ewes (and young she-goats) gave birth to a new generation of male and female lambs (and kids) which,
38 38 38 39* 41 40* 41 41 42 42 [42] (my reconstruction based on the observation of two accounts each year)
[43]* (van Driel’s reconstruction is not valid, but emendation is right)
No further emendations. 10. So it was already in the Old-Babylonian period, see F. R. Kraus, Staatliche Viehhaltung im altbabylonischen Lande Larsa (Amsterdam: Nederlandse Akademie Van Wetenschappen, 1966), 25. 11. Incidentally, modern goats are able to breed at a much younger age than ewes, becoming fertile at 5–7 months only: thus, a one-year-old goat may have her ˜rst kid(s). The discussed text suggests that the age of maturity of the Mesopotamian goats was the same as that of the ewes.
BOOKKEEPING PRACTICES AT THE EANNA TEMPLE IN URUK
again, appeared in the text only after a year. For this reason, for example, 52 male and female lambs mentioned in l. 5 cannot be the oˆspring of the 101 ewes mentioned in the same line, but were born of ewes that were mentioned in the previous report, i.e., of 90 ewes. The lack of data on the numbers of animals born in the herd in the spring litters may lead to the conclusion that the temple was surprisingly indiˆerent to this issue. In fact, some information contained in the text allows us to establish how many of the new-born animals were to be assigned to the temple herd. According to both YOS 6, 155 (a contract between the Eanna temple and its naqidu) and the Arsam contracts,12 the herdsman was obliged to supply to the owner 66%-6 (or 66@-3) new-born animals per 100 ewes each year. The owner’s pro˜t had to be speci˜ed in such detail because in practice it was impossible to supervise the herdsman during a period of several months in a year, when the herd was grazing in distant pastures; another advantage of this stipulation was that it precluded possible contention or fraud. The terms of the contract being what they were, the owner did not need to record the numbers of new-born stock, and was interested only in the quota to be supplied, which was speci˜ed as a percentage of the number of ewes. The texts of the contracts also suggest that if the number of the new-born animals was lower than expected, the holder was nevertheless obliged to provide the agreed number of new stock. Accordingly, we infer that a yearly account in the “horizontal total” (col. V) does not cover all the stock in a herd, since the number does not include new-born animals. The quota to be supplied to the owner was calculated based on the number of ewes at the moment when the herd was entrusted to the herdsman (in this document, based on 90 ewes). Furthermore, the contract provided for losses for which the holder could not be blamed, and which could not exceed 10% of the total number of the stock. In order for such losses to be recognized, the holder had to document 12. Concerning these documents, see van Driel, BSA 7, 222–23.
101
them by producing the hides and tendons of the dead animals. The numbers of male and female lambs speci˜ed in the accounts refer to the animals assigned to the owner and remaining from the previous year’s quota. It was very important to record all the losses, which decreased those numbers, since this allowed a calculation of the updated size of the owner’s herd. Another reason to register the losses of young female lambs (and the associated expenses) was that the number of the females left in the herd and taken care of by the holder was included in the number of ewes, which in turn provided the basis for determining the number of the young to be supplied to the owner by the herdsman during the following year (66%-6 per year and per 100 ewes). Thus, we infer that not only the losses (“hides”) and “wages” (“idÿ ”), but also the “payment for shearing” was deducted from the quota to be supplied to the owner. This leads to a very important conclusion, which could not be deduced from either YOS 6, 155 or the Arsam contracts: That the quota of 66%-6 young animals per 100 ewes was a gross amount, from which losses and expenses were subsequently deducted. We will ˜nd further proof of this conclusion if we compare the herdsman’s share13 with the losses of male and female lambs and the associated expenses. His quota of new-born animals hardly covers losses and expenses. The herdsman, who acted as an entrepreneur, obviously would not accept a contract whose terms did not oˆer to him a realistic opportunity for pro˜t, even if losses—as was the case of the discussed document—were within the ordinary limits. When negotiating the terms of the contract, the herdsman must have also considered the possibility that the losses might exceed the acceptable number, in which case he still wanted to realize a pro˜t, albeit a small one. Doubts arise when we recall that the entry on the payment for shearing (idÿ ) appears in the last column (“grand total”) rather than in a separate 13. The herdsman’s pro˜t is the diˆerence between the estimated lambing percentage and the quota to be delivered to the owner (66%-6 sheep per 100 ewes).
102
STEFAN ZAWADZKI
row, as losses and wages were recorded. Although the layout of the text diˆers from those known from the contracts,14 a more likely explanation is that idÿ was included in the “grand total” column because it refers almost exclusively to one category of stock, i.e., male lambs (BAR.GAL) culled regularly at the beginning of a year. The Quality of the Accounts In order to construe the text properly, it is essential to establish whether the account calculations are correct. Below we will discuss only accounts that contain accountant’s errors or whose interpretations were based on erroneous transliterations or bad copies of the texts. According to van Driel, the data in lines 2–4 refer to year 36, but the accountant made many mistakes: (a) the total number of sheep in line 2 col. V, or the horizontal total of the ˜rst four items, should be 124, while the text speci˜es it as 133;15 (b) l. 5 speci˜es 101 ewes, while according to van Driel’s calculations there should be only 93: 81 (90 reduced by 6 hides and 3 ewes given as wages) plus 12 ewes (15 younger ewes16 reduced by 2 hides and 1 given as wages, l. 4).17 Although it is not my purpose to uphold the reputation of the ancient accountant, let me explain how he came up with the ˜gure of 101 ewes in l. 5 and the horizontal total of 133 in l. 2. “101 ewes” might be the result of the subtraction of 8 hides (6 hides of ewes and 2 hides of female lambs, l. 3) from the 90 ewes and 15 female lambs in l. 2 (a total of 105), and then of adding to the result (97 ewes) 4 sheep given as wages (3 ewes and 1 female lamb, l. 3). This assumes that the accountant’s error resulted from adding the ˜gure in l. 4 to the subtotal
14. “wages,” or “idÿ,” were not reported in other contracts from that period. 15. Considering the ˜gure 124 to be the scribe’s error, van Driel emends (BSA 7, 258) “6 hides” to “9” and “15 parrat ” to “25” which gives the horizontal total of 134 sheep; yet, he does not justify his corrections. 16. Younger ewes, rams etc., were animals, which in the report in question had been shifted to the proper group of fullgrown animals from a group of young animals. 17. JCS 46, 56.
of 97 sheep instead of subtracting it. If one accepts this explanation, it follows that both the horizontal total of sheep in l. 2 (133 instead of 124) and the grand total (137 instead of 127) are wrong. This is how van Driel construed the data in l. 2. Still, the ˜gures in ll. 2–5 may be correct if one assumes that the accountant’s procedure was slightly different than in the subsequent accounts: 101 might also be the result of the subtraction of just the wages in l. 4 (3 ewes and 1 female lamb) from the total of 90 ewes and 15 female lambs (105 total sheep).18 The horizontal total of sheep in l. 2 would be the result of the addition of the item 1– 4 in this line to the “hides” in l. 3. Further proof of the correctness of the horizontal total of 133 in l. 3 is the fact that the sum of this ˜gure and the horizontal total of goats is the grand total of 137 animals. Thus, unlike in the subsequent accounts, the data in l. 2 refers not to the size of the herd in the year 36, but only to those animals in the herd of Nbk 36 that had survived until the time of the drawing up of the account early in Nbk 37. Accordingly, to reconstruct the size of the herd at the moment when Nabû-ahhe-sullim took it over, one has to add the ˜gures from col. 1–4 in l. 2 (total 124 animals, not 133) and from col. 1–4 in l. 3 (9 animals),19 coming up with the number 133, as in the horizontal total of l. 2. If we assume this interpretation of the ˜gures in l. 2, then in order to establish the number of sheep at the beginning of the year 37, it is enough to subtract the data in l. 4 from the total of the ewes and female lambs. Regardless of the problems created by ll. 2–4, line 5 is obviously a statement of the size of the herd at the beginning of the year 37, after the birthing and the shearing. At that juncture, the herd consisted of 171 sheep and 5 goats, or a total of 176 animals. The 2 lambs (BAR.GAL) given as
18. However, this explanation cannot apply to the 18 rams in l. 5, since the sum of 7 rams and the 12 male lambs (shifted to rams) in l. 2, is 19. Apparently, the accountant reduced the number of rams by one “hide” (l. 3). The subsequent calculations base on the ˜gure of 18 rams. 19. Interestingly, the horizontal total of hides in l. 3 is 9 rather than 12. The error must have resulted from adding the hides and wages from ll. 3 and 4 and leaving out the hide of one ram.
BOOKKEEPING PRACTICES AT THE EANNA TEMPLE IN URUK
wages for shearing must further reduce this number. Thus, in the spring of 37, the temple actually owned 169 rather than 171 sheep. The next accounts are essentially correct, if only one reduces the ˜gures in the respective columns by the numbers of animals given as wages for shearing. I will now discuss only those accounts where the accountant’s calculations are mistaken, and attempt to explain the probable reasons for these errors. Note that the ˜rst line in the account is the result of the last settling and point of departure for the next one, seen in the last line of the account; see for example the second account below, where l. 5 comprises the result of former account (spring 37) and l. 8 the new settling made in the spring 38. The second account: spring 38 (lines 5–8) and third account: spring 39 (lines 8– 11), are correct. In the fourth account: spring 40 (lines 11–14), the number of 54 rams seems incorrect: 36 old rams (40 reduced by 3 “hides” and 1 ram given as wages) + 21 (23 younger rams reduced by 2 lambs for shearing) = 57 instead of 54 as in the text. Since Beaulieu’s collation con˜rms the accuracy of Nemet-Nejat’s copy, we can only emend either 54 to 57! or 2 BAR.GAL to 5! BAR.GAL. The argument justifying the latter improvement of the text is that otherwise the wages for shearing would be reduced dramatically. The ˜fth and sixth accounts (lines 14–17 and lines 17–20) are correct. The seventh account (lines 23–26) is correct if we assume that the number of 3 ewes in the grand total in l. 23 was really recorded by mistake. As van Driel has already noted in his transliteration, the scribe tried to erase it, although 3 UDU is still legible. The eighth account (lines 26–31), including the augmentation of the ˘ock by the irbu sa Adari AmM 0), could be considered correct; however, because of certain complications, we discuss here in detail the method of counting used by the accountant: Rams: 119 (131 old rams augmented by 5 old rams from the irbu sa Adari AmM 0 but reduced by 13 hides and 4 given as wages) + 51 (48 former male lambs reduced by 5 given for shearing and
103
augmented by 8 former male lambs from the irbu sa Adari AmM 0) = 170. Ewes: 298 (275 old ewes augmented by 68 old ewes from the irbu sa Adari AmM 0, but reduced by 34 hides and 11 given as wages) + 92 (90 younger ewes augmented by 20 younger ewes from the irbu sa Adari AmM 0, but reduced by 11 hides and 7 younger ewes given as wages) = 390. The horizontal total of 55 hides in l. 29 is 58, as noted already by van Driel.20 Evidence of the accountant’s error is that the grand total of the sheep plus 3 goat’s hides would be 61. The interpretation of line 27, concerning 5 rams, 68 ewes, 88 male lambs and 200 female lambs (total 101 animals) “from the income of the month Adaru AmM 0” added to the ˘ock in the ˜rst year of Amel-Marduk, presents certain di¯culties. It should be noted that at the time when the sheep were entrusted to Nabû-ahhesullim, most of them were considered fully-grown, except for 28, which were listed as lambs. The high number of 68 ewes suggests that at some point between Adaru and the time in AmM 1 when Nabû-ahhe-sullim took custody of them, at least some of them had been shifted to the category of “full-grown.”21 Still, we are unable to establish the precise ages and numbers of animals in each category as of Adaru AmM 0. It is utterly inconceivable that these animals should be the oˆspring of the ewes of Nabû-ahhe-sullim’s herd, since the number of newly-born lambs was higher than that of the potential ewes in the herd; besides, the lambing season only begins in Adaru. Thus, it is more likely that the managers of the temple decided, for reasons unknown to us, to increase the herd by animals from other sources.22 The ninth account (Simanu Ner 1) is correct: Rams: 148 (170 reduced by 16 as hides and 6 given as wages) + 61 younger rams (66 reduced by 5 lambs taken in the spring of AmM 2 for shearing) = 209. 20. Beaulieu’s collation has con˜rmed the accuracy of Nemet-Nejat’s copy in this case as well. 21. Likewise, 2 goats were classi˜ed as she-goats, and 1 as a female kid, which is further evidence in favor of the ˜rst half of AmM 1. 22. Possibly from the king’s irbu.
104
STEFAN ZAWADZKI
Ewes: 340 (390 reduced by 39 hides and 11 ewes given as wages) + 113 (13323 reduced by 13 as hides and 7 female lambs given as wages) = 453. The ˜nal reckoning (lines 34–36) is correct, but several errors appearing both in the copy and in van Driel’s transliteration must be recti˜ed. Line 34 speci˜es the size of the herd before the ˜nal reckoning. It must be borne in mind that the lambs given in Uruk and those given for shearing in the spring of Ner 1 (cf. grand total) must be subtracted from the ˜gure of 888 sheep. In fact, the accountant extracted the number of rams instead of the number of male lambs. Unfortunately, we cannot establish the reasons for the additional remuneration amounting to 8* lambs paid in Uruk. Line 35 speci˜es in detail the part of the herd, which was actually brought to the inspection in Uruk, and l. 36, the unsettled portion; Rams: 209 is reduced by 8*24 lambs, 3 lambs given for shearing and 5 which were inspected, which resultes in 193 uninspected rams. Ewes: out of 453, only 13825 were inspected, i.e., 315 ewes remained uninspected. Male lambs: out of 80, only 14 were inspected, i.e., 66 male lambs remained uninspected.
23. Van Driel reads mistakenly 193 female lambs while the copy gives clearly 133. The horizontal total of 759 is correct. Thus his calculations in JCS 46, 57 from point (3) to the end of the article are wrong. (Incidentally, the name of the editor of The Animal Life Encyclopedia is Grzimek, not Grizmek). 24. The result of substraction in ll. 33–35 would be correct if the number of lambs given to the shepherd were emended to 8 and not 9 lambs, or if 9 is correct we should emend 3 lambs to 2! lambs. Another argument to support this improvement is that 922 sheep and goats (grand total in line 34) reduced by 11 lambs (8!+3 or 9+2!) and 208 inspected sheep and goats (grand total in l. 35) equals exactly 703 sheep and goats (grand total in l. 36), (not 714 as suggested by van Driel, JCS 46, 55). Beaulieu’s collation speaks for the reading 8*+3. Below I cite in extenso his observations: “The tablet apparently has 8 UDU BAR.GAL instead of 9 as copied by Nemet-Nejat, but there is a crack running through the number which was not copied, and therefore we cannot be certain if it is 8 or 9, although 8 seems slighty more likely in my opinion. Further down the line the tablet has a clear 3 BAR.GAL, as copied.” 25. This number 138 (not 198 as in van Driel copy and translation) is in Nemet-Nejat’s copy.
Two Lines Short
Female lambs: out of 146, only 4126 were inspected, i.e., it remains 105 uninspected female lambs. The Herd and Its Condition To assess the condition of the ˘ock one must analyze such factors as the absolute and relative growth of the ˘ock, the lambing percentage, and the time of the reproduction of the original animals. The Absolute27 and Relative Growth of the Flock “Absolute growth” is the actual number of sheep left in the ˘ock, which in all the cases equals the number of animals given in the horizontal total (col. V) minus the animals given “for shearing.” “Absolute growth A” and “Relative growth A” are the absolute and relative growth of the number of sheep since the previous year, while “Absolute growth B” and “Relative growth B” are the absolute and relative growth of the number of sheep since the date of the ˜rst account (Table 1). As we can see, the average yearly growth of the herd (excluding the addition of new animals in AmM 1) was about 18%. Counting from the ˜rst account from spring 36, when it was 133 sheep in the ˘ock,28 its number was duplicated during about four years, i.e., before the spring Nbk 40 and again after next four year, before the account of spring AmM 1 has been made. The
26. In this place Sack’s copy is better than Nemet-Nejat (in her copy 51). The correctness of Sack’s copy may be proven by a simple arithmetical operation: 5 rams, 138 (!) ewes, 14 male lambs and 41 female lambs add up to 198, i.e., exactly the same ˜gure as in the horizontal total. Delete the numeral 268 written in bold type in Van Driel’s translation. Beaulieu comments, “The tablet has a clear 41, indeed, but the scribe has written 51 and then erased one of the Winkelhaken to make 41. This is re˘ected on Dr. Nemet-Nejat’s copy, which has dots encircling the ˜fth Winkelhaken.” 27. The absolute growth means the actual number of sheep left in the ˘ock, i.e., without losses and all expenses. 28. However, without new-born animals.
BOOKKEEPING PRACTICES AT THE EANNA TEMPLE IN URUK
105
Table 1 Year
Number of sheep
Absolute growth A
Relative growth A
Absolute growth B
Relative growth B
Nbk 36 Nbk 3729 Nbk 38 Nbk 39 Nbk 40 Nbk 41 Nbk 42 Nbk 43 AmM 1 AmM 1a AmM 2 Ner 1
133 16930 20331 24132 28633 33934 39635 46236 53937 640 75439 87740
36 34 38 45 53 57 66 77 178 114 123
ca. 27.06 20.01 15.76 15.73 15.63 16.8 16.66 16.66 ca. 33.038 17.8 16.3
36 70 108 153 206 263 332 399 577 691 814
ca. 27.06 52.6 81.2 115.0 154.9 197.7 249.6 300.0 433.8 519.5 612.0
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
rapid growth in AmM 2 was caused by the augmentation of more than a hundred sheep as irbÿ of AmM 0, but during the whole period the ˘ock grows quite quickly and its condition seems to have been very good. The Lambing Percentages, the Sex of the New-Born Animals Assigned to the Owner’s Herd and the Holder’s Pro˜t The data contained in the texts refer only to the part of the herd that was assigned to the owner, and therefore it may appear risky to try to establish the lambing percentage based on the known number of the young animals left in the herd a year after they had been born, although we can calculate the size of the yearly quota of new-born
29. Nbk 37, Nbk 38 etc. means exactly “the growth of ˘ock till spring Nbk 37, Nbk 38 etc.” 30. I.e., 171 animals reduced by 2 animals given for shearing. 31. I.e., 207 animals reduced by 4 animals given for shearing. 32. I.e., 246 animals reduced by 5! lambs (see supra). 33. I.e., 292 animals reduced by 6 lambs given for shearing. 34. I.e., 341 animals reduced by 1 lamb and 1 ewe given for shearing. 35. I.e., 403 animals reduced by 7 lambs given for shearing. 36. I.e., 469 animals reduced by 7 lambs given for shearing. 37. I.e., 544 animals reduced by 15 lambs given for shearing. 38. Including the irbu of AmM 0. 39. I.e., 759 animals reduced by 5 lambs given for shearing. 40. I.e., 888 animals reduced by 18* lambs “given in Uruk” and 3 lambs given for shearing.
animals for the owner based on the number of ewes. Accordingly, the following calculations are estimates only, even if one may limit the possibility of error by making certain assumptions. First of all, one must decide whether the temple expressed any preferences concerning the sex of the animals in the quota of 66%-6 per 100 ewes, or whether the natural ratio of sexes was preserved. As possible evidence of the former possibility, we may quote above all the fact that one-year-old male lambs were used as sacri˜cial animals, and most of them were collected during the ˜rst year of their lives. In fact, after a year the number of male lambs usually amounted to slightly less than half of the number of female lambs. 41 During the second year, the managers of the temple agreed to assign several male lambs as the payment for shearing, but not as the payment of the “wages” (“idÿ ”); furthermore, they did accept any “losses” in this group.42 Thus most of the male
41. Likewise in other texts from Uruk and Sippar; see BSA 7, 253–55. 42. It is altogether incredible that there should be no losses among the male lambs during the second year of their lives. Apparently, the occurring losses were either replaced by the herdsman, or, equally possibly, the owner agreed to a reduction of the number of stock of another category (rams, ewes or female lambs). It is striking that the losses in the group of ewes usually amount to 10%. Perhaps when a male lamb died, it was the accepted practice to deduct an old ewe from the stock.
106
STEFAN ZAWADZKI
Table 2
Number of ewes
66 young animals per 100 ewes for the owner
Number of the owner’s female lambs a year later
Owner’s maximal possible number of male lambs
Owner’s young animals a year later
Taken away from the owner’s young animals during the ˜rst year (mostly male lambs)
90 101 119 138 158 182 209 237 343 390
60.1 67.5 79.5 92.2 105.5 121.5 139.6 158.3 229.1 260.5
36 40 45 53 60 65 80 90 133 146
24.1 27.5 34.5 39.2 45.5 56.5 59.6 68.3 96.1 114.5
52 58 68 80 91 105 121 138 199 226
8.1 9.5 11.5 12.2 14.5 16.5 18.6 20.3 30.1 34.5
lambs that lived to be one year old must have been transferred to the ram herd; we also infer that male lambs were used as sacri˜cial animals (or possibly slaughtered for food, albeit rarely) only during the ˜rst year of their lives.43 On the other hand, one may question whether the temple actually demanded more male than female lambs, and whether the markedly lower number of the males in comparison with the females did result from so many male lambs being collected for sacri˜ces.44 The temple might have indeed needed considerably fewer male lambs from its herds than one may expect. Since the Eanna temple kept many herds, sacri˜cial male lambs might have been collected from all of them simultaneously, if only in order to prevent an undesirable future increase or decrease of the number of the rams. The sexes of the new-born animals assigned to the temple’s quota may be established with much reliability in the following way: Knowing the number of ewes, we begin by calculating the total quota to be supplied to the temple, and since the losses among the female lambs were negligible during the ˜rst year, this allows us to ˜nd out the maximum number of male lambs, which in fact 43. Apparently mature rams were slaughtered for food only when they were old or sick. 44. JCS 46, 55 with n. 7.
may be somehow overestimated because of the reasons outlined above. The diˆerence between the original number of male lambs and their number reported after a year is the number of the male lambs collected from the herd during the ˜rst year of their lives, most probably as sacri˜cial animals (Table 2). It turns out that among the new-born animals delivered to the owner each year, there were more female than male lambs.45 This must have resulted from the essential task assigned to the holder, which was to raise the size of the herd quickly. The only means of carrying out this task was to leave a fairly high number of female lambs in it and to start taking them away only when it was decided that no further male lambs should be taken away. If, as we have assumed, the losses among the female lambs were negligible during the ˜rst year, and usually amounted to 15% by the second year (7.5% per year), than 80–85% of the original number of female lambs were transferred to “ewes.” Another surprising conclusion is that virtually all new-born female lambs were probably 45. The lambing percentages were most probably a little higher, because the losses among new-born animals must also have occurred during the ˜rst year of their lives, even if they are not recorded in the text. The conclusion is in opposition to Van Driel’s statement that “The owner was especially interested in young male lambs” (BSA 7, 234).
BOOKKEEPING PRACTICES AT THE EANNA TEMPLE IN URUK
107
Table 3
Number of ewes
Estimated total number of the newborn animals
90 101 119 138 158 182 209 237 343 390
72 80 90 106 120 130 160 180 266 292
Lambing percentages 80% 79.2 % 75.6% 76.8 % 75.95 % 71.42% 76.5 % 75.95 % 77.55 % 74.9% ca. 76.4%
Number of new-born animals for the owner
Number of new-born animals for the holder
Percentages of young animals for the holder
60.1 67.5 79.5 92.2 105.5 121.5 139.6 158.3 229.1 260.5
11.9 12.5 11.5 13.8 14.4 8.5 20.4 21.7 36.9 31.5
16.5 15.6 12.7 13.0 12.0 6.5 12.7 12.0 13.9 10.8 ca. 12.6%
assigned to the temple herd. We draw this conclusion from the assumption that statistically the numbers of new-born male and female lambs during a long period was almost equal. We have also pointed out that according to the accounts, the number of female lambs at the beginning of the second year of their lives was the same as after the lambing season or only insigni˜cantly lower. If losses occurred within this group, or if only a part of the new-born female lambs were assigned to the owner, then by doubling this number and comparing it with the number of the ewes, we would arrive at a lambing percentage lower than the actual ˜gure. In fact, however, the average lambing percentage determined in this way amounts to 76.4% and is close to that from Old-Babylonian Larsa (75–80%).46 It seems that in the herdsman’s share the female lambs were extremely rare and in a very small amount. The diˆerence between the total number of the new-born animals and the quota supplied to the owners is the holder’s pro˜t. If our calculation is correct, then Nabû-ahhe-sullim’s net pro˜t was fairly low. We may infer that holders decided to conclude such contracts only because the entire cost of the tending of the stock was normally paid 46. F. R. Kraus, Staatliche Viehhaltung, 126–27, 139–40 (cited already by van Driel, JCS 46, 54 n. 4).
Year Nbk 36 Nbk 37 Nbk 38 Nbk 39 Nbk 40 Nbk 41 Nbk 42 Nbk 43 AmM 1 AmM 2
by the owner; since the holder tended the owner’s herd (or herds) jointly with his own, this procedure might have reduced the cost of keeping the former’s herd (Table 3). The Reproduction in the Herd, or the Rate of the Replacement of the Original Animals We assume that the animals removed from the herd, whether due to death or as herdsmen shearling wages, were primarily the oldest ones. Although we realize that this is inaccurate, since among the ewes in particular the dead animals certainly included the younger ones, it is interesting to consider the period after which the entire original population of the ewes was replaced. In the spring (Nbk 37) the herd consisted of 90 ewes. The following numbers of animals were removed during the subsequent years: 1. 87 (90 minus only? 3 given as idÿ ) Nbk 37 2. 74 (87 minus 10 dead and 3 given spring Nbk 38 3. 59 (74 minus 14 dead and 4 given spring Nbk 39 4. 40 (59 minus 16 dead and 5 given spring Nbk 40
till spring as idÿ ) till as idÿ ) till as idÿ ) till
108
STEFAN ZAWADZKI
Table 4
Year
Rams
Absolute growth
Nbk 37 Nbk 38 Nbk 39 Nbk 40 Nbk 41 Nbk 42 Nbk 43 AmM 1 AmM 2 Nrg 1
18 30 40 54 68 89 111 131 170 209
12 10 14 14 21 22 20 39 39
Growth % 66.6 33.3 35.0 26.0 30.9 24.7 18.0 29.65 23.0
Ewes
Absolute growth
Growth %
Total rams and ewes
Total growth
101 119 138 158 182 209 237 275 390 453
18 19 20 24 27 28 38 115 63
17.8 16.0 14.5 15.2 14.8 13.4 16.0 41.8 16.2
30 29 34 38 48 40 58 154 102
25.3 19.5 19.1 17.9 19.2 13.4 16.6 27.5 15.4
5. 23 (40 minus 18 dead and 5 given as idÿ) till spring Nbk 41 By the next, sixth year (Nbk 42), the last of the original rams must have been removed from the herd. This is to be expected, as the reproductive potential of sheep diminishes sharply after their seventh year. The original sires were replaced after the same period of time. It is particularly enlightening to compare the rates of the growth of the numbers of fully-grown rams and ewes (Table 4).47 Although in terms of absolute numbers the number of the rams increased at a slower rate than that of the ewes, their percentage growth was quicker than that of the females (except for AmM 2, when the herd increased suddenly as new animals were added to it); thus, the ratio of ewes to rams decreased. The fact that there were more rams in the herd than mere reproduction would warrant is indirect evidence of the essential purpose of the breeding: It seems that the ewes were kept only at a number that ensured steady and quick increase of the size of the herd. The fast growth of the number of the rams proves that the purpose of the multiplication of the herd was not the supplying of milk and dairy products
47. In view of the di¯culties with the interpretation of the data in ll. 2–4, our considerations will base on the ˜gures for the year 37 (l. 5).
One Line Short
but of wool and meat, of which rams yield more than ewes. Wool Production In his discussion of this issue, van Driel assumes that according to the available Neo-Babylonian texts, 1!-2 minas of wool were expected per sheep (ram and ewes).48 Van Driel correctly identi˜es the ˜rst nine items of data as accounts of deliveries of wool from Nbk 37 to AmM 2, but commenting the entry of 14 talents and 5 minas in l. 35 (which according to his calculations is the yield of 563!-3 sheep) concerning the inspection of 208 sheep, he remarks that “we can reasonably assume that more than the sheep inspected were ultimately present.”49 By adding this amount to 58 talents and 36!-2 minas (l. 36), van Driel comes up with the total of 72 talents 41!-2 minas, or the yield of 2900 sheep, which is utterly incommensurable with the size of the herd of 888 sheep in Ner 1 (l. 33). Using sophisticated methods, van Driel eventually concludes that 947 animals were shorn in Ner 1, yielding 27 talents and 25!-2 minas of wool, or 1.74 minas per sheep. In fact, as the list below demonstrates, the grand total of wool for the entire period of the account was 58 talents and 36!-2 minas. If this has been 48. BSA 7, 222–23. Obviously, the production over 1!-2 minas per sheep belonged to the herdsman. 49. JCS 46, 55.
BOOKKEEPING PRACTICES AT THE EANNA TEMPLE IN URUK
dif˜cult to establish, it is because of the errors in both the copy and the transliteration.
Nbk 37 Nbk 38 Nbk 39 Nbk 40 Nbk 41 Nbk 42 Nbk [43] AmM 1 AmM 2 Ner 1 total
1 talent 20.5 minas (l. 5)50 1 talent 55!.[5!] minas (l. 8) 2 talents 24.5 minas (l. 11) 2 talents 45.5 minas (l. 14) 3* talents *18.5 minas (l. 17) 5 talents 39.5 minas (l. 20) 7 talents 1.5 minas (l. 23) 8 talents 43.5 minas (l. 26) 11 talents 22.5 minas (l. 30) 14 talents 5.0 minas (l. 35) 54 talents 276.5 minas (l. 36) (I.e., 58 talents 36.5 minas.)
l. 8: van Driel reads 50 [MA SÍK.H]I.A, but my reading is justi˜ed by the following arguments: (a) according to the copy of Nemet-Nejat, the text in this place is written over an erasure; (b) other passages mentioning speci˜c quantities of wool and the ˜nal total of wool (58 talents 36!-2 minas) are preserved very well; the proposed reconstruction of the badly preserved entry in l. 8 (which, to make things worse, seems to have been written over an erasure and is ambiguous) is the only means of clarifying this issue. According to Beaulieu’s collation, “the reading ª58º [MA.NA SÍG.H]I.A is possible, but not certain, as the numerals are very cramped on the tablet, and this is re˘ected on the copy. These numerals are followed by a possible erasure, and then by a break which extends to the edge.” l. 17: van Driel reads 4 (talents) 8 minas, but as the signs are very small, our suggested reading of 3* (talents) 18* minas is also possible (NemetNejat’s copy is not clear to me). This reading is supported by the fact that the wool production rose by ca. 30 minas between the two successive reports, while according to the reading known so far (4 talents 8!-2 minas), the increase would amount to 1 talent 23!-2 minas, which is too much 50. Lines are given according to the copy of Nemet-Nejat.
109
with respect to the growth of the number of animals in the herd. An additional argument in favor of the suggested reading is that the total of individual deliveries is the same as the grand total in l. 35. Beaulieu comments: “the reading 3 (GUN) 18 MA SÍG.fiHIfl.A is indeed very likely. The horizontal of 4 (GUN) is close in shape to a Winkelhaken, and should therefore be the numeral 10 going with 8 to form 18.” The Yearly Wool Production per Sheep We deduce from the grand total in l. 2 that Nabû-ahhe-sullim received the herd early in year 36, either immediately after the shearing, or after the animals had been shorn in Uruk and the wool had been immediately delivered to the temple— therefore this fact is not recorded in the account. The average production of wool per sheep depends on the age the sheep are shorn for the ˜rst time. We must assume that male and juvenile lambs were shifted to the category of “fullygrown” when they reached reproductive maturity, approximately at 1!-2 years of age.51 One may reasonably suppose that they were shorn for the ˜rst time about a year after they appeared in the text, i.e., when they were about two, but in this case the average yield of wool per sheep would be very small. Therefore, one must also consider the possibility that a sheep was shorn for the ˜rst time only a year after it had been transferred from the group of “the young” to “the mature” or that the temple demanded wool only a year after the young sheep were transferred to the mature group. We shall deal with both possibilities, since we cannot identify the correct one: If an animal was ˜rst shorn upon being transferred from the “young” to the “mature group,” then in order to establish the average production of wool per sheep we must divide the amount of wool in the grand total by the total of rams and ewes in a given line (Table A). If, however, the stock were ˜rst shorn only a 51. They were transferred to “adults” after a year, which means that they were ˜rst listed in the reports at the age of at least six months. See the diˆerent opinion of J. N. Postgate and S. Payne, JSS 20 (1975) 14–15 and 19–20.
110
STEFAN ZAWADZKI
Table A 1 talent 20.5 minas (4830 s): 1 talent 55!.[5] minas (6930 s): 2 talents 24.5 minas (8670 s): 2 talents 45.5 minas (9930 s): 3* talents *18.5 minas (11910 s): 5 talents 39.5 minas (20370 s: 7 talents 1.5 minas (25290 s): 8 talents 43.5 minas (31410 s): 11 talents 22.5 minas (40750 s): 14 talents 5 minas (50700 s): = 58 talents 36.5 minas (=210990 s):
119 sheep52 = 40.6 s each 149 sheep = 46.5 s each 178 sheep = 48.7 s each 212 sheep = 46.8 each 250 sheep = 47.64 s each 298 sheep = 68.35 s each 348 sheep = 72.67 s each 406 sheep = 77.36 s each 560 sheep = 72.76 s each 662 sheep = 76.7 s each
Nbk 37 Nbk 38 Nbk 39 Nbk 40 Nbk 41 Nbk 42 Nbk 43 AmM 1 AmM 2 Ner 1
3182 sheep = 66.3 s per sheep.
Table B 1 talent 20.5 minas (4830 s): 1 talent 55!.[5!] minas (6930 s): 2 talents 24.5 minas (8670 s): 2 talents 45.5 minas (9930 s): 3* talents 1*8.5 minas (11910 s): 5 talents 39.5 minas (20370 s): 7 talents 1.5 minas (25290 s): 8 talents 43.5 minas (31410 s): 11 talents 22.5 minas (40750 s): 14 talents 5 minas (50700 s): = 58 talents 36.5 minas (=210990 s):
year after the transfer, then we must divide the amount of wool in the grand total by the total of rams and ewes from the previous account, reduced by the hides, wages for the herdsmen and wages for shearing (Table B).52 53 The data in Table A yield the average production of wool per sheep amounting to 64.2 shekels; although the productivity increased with time, in Nrg 1, or after several years, the production was still appoximately 20% lower than the expected 1!-2 minas.
52. I.e., rams and ewes. 53. 92 sheep, if we subtract only 3 ewes given as wages and two given for shearing (on the problem with interpretation of this line, see supra). If we also subtract the hides, the result would be 4830 shekels of wool divided by 87 = ca. 60 shekels per sheep.
94 sheep = 51.4 s53 each 104 sheep = 66.6 s each 130 sheep = 66.7 s each 156 sheep = 63.6 s each 184 sheep = 64.7 s each 218 sheep = 93.4 s each 260 sheep = 97.3 s each 304 sheep = 103.3 s each 412 sheep = 98.9 s each 488 sheep = 103.9 s each
Nbk 37 Nbk 38 Nbk 39 Nbk 40 Nbk 41 Nbk 42 Nbk 43 AmM 1 AmM 2 Nrg 1
2350 sheep = 1 mina 38 s per sheep.
An important argument in favor of the second method of counting is that by dividing the total amount of wool (210,990 shekels) by the 90 shekels due to the owner per each ram or ewe, one arrives at the result of 2344.3 sheep, which is very close to the ˜gure of 2350 sheep resulting from adding, according to the second method, the number of the sheep shorn during the whole period.54 As we can observe in Table B the average production was almost exactly 1!-2 minas, increasing rapidly from a much lower value at the beginning of the period to more than the expected 1!-2 minas at its end. The relatively low initial yield may be explained to a degree by the young age of
54. The small diˆerence probably results from the mistakes made by the scribe; see above, “The Quality of the Accounts.”
BOOKKEEPING PRACTICES AT THE EANNA TEMPLE IN URUK
the shorn animals and the small number of rams, which give more wool; the latter’s ratio to sheep increased rapidly over the following years. The average yield of wool decreased during the shearing of AmM 2: the addition to the herd of 73 young sheep from the “income of AmM 0” (probably shorn for the ˜rst time) lowered the average result, which rose again in the following year. Obviously, the percentage of young animals decreased with time, and the average yield of wool increased consequently. The growing number of rams in the herd had a particularly notable eˆect on this increase. The turning point may be observed after the shearing of Nbk 41: the average production of wool per head rose substantially when the number of the rams approached half of the number of the ewes. It was probably these two factors—the increasing ratio of rams among the shorn animals and the considerable fall of the percentage of the less productive young sheep— that caused such dramatic increase in the yield of wool after Nbk 41. The quota of 1!-2 minas demonstrates that the herd was fully mature, i.e., it consisted of animals several years old, just like the herd leased out by Arsam. Still, the Table shows that while in YOS 6, 155 and in the Arsam contracts the quota for the owner was ˜rmly ˜xed (1!-2 minas per sheep), under the terms of the discussed text the owner received a ˜xed share of the total wool produced per sheep, which for the whole period gave the same average amount of 1!-2 minas of wool per sheep per owner. The diˆerence is most probably caused by the fact that the herd tended by Nabû-ahhe-sullim was young, and its productivity was quite low at the beginning. Goats The herd entrusted to Nabû-ahhe-sullim at the beginning of year 37 included four goats: 1 fullgrown he-goat, 2 full-grown she-goats, and 1 female kid. As in the case of the sheep, we will discuss only the accounts where the calculations are incorrect. The fourth account (lines 11–14) is incorrect: there is only 1 full-grown he-goat, while we expect
111
2. Because the total number of goats is correct (9), the accountant apparently deducted a male kid as wages instead of female kid. Once made, the error was repeated throughout the account. The sixth account (lines 17–20): we expect 3 full-grown he-goats (1 old and 2 younger) instead of 2 in l. 20, and 8 she-goats (8 old and 2 younger, reduced by one hide and one female kid as wages) instead of 9. The extra animal should be probably moved to full-grown he-goats as wages or a hide. The ˜nal reckoning (ll. 34–36): out of 34 goats, only 10 were inspected (8 she-goats plus one male kid and one female kid). The accountant made two mistakes in the number of “remains” (l. 36): there should be 8 full-grown he-goats (not 7) but 9 she-goats (not 10). Only the grand total of “remaining goats” (24) is correct. An examination of the consecutive horizontal totals reveals that between the autumn of year 37 and the spring of year 42, the herd increased by exactly two heads a year. During the next years the rate of growth was slightly faster, amounting to 3 or 4 head per annum. It is conspicuous that throughout the period covered by the text, the number of male and female kids was twice lower than that of their she-goats, while goats almost always give litters of two kids. The fact that so few young goats were left in the herd must have resulted from a deliberate policy of keeping the population of this species low, although the ratio of goats to sheep grows steadily in the subsequent accounts: 1. 133 sheep : 4 goats, i.e., 1 goat per 33.25 sheep. 2. 171 sheep : 5 goats, i.e., 1 goat per 34.2 sheep. 3. 207 sheep : 7 goats, i.e., 1 goat per 29.5 sheep. 4. 246 sheep : 9 goats, i.e., 1 goat per 27.3 sheep. 5. 292 sheep : 11 goats, i.e., 1 goat per 26.5 sheep. 6. 341 sheep : 13 goats, i.e., 1 goat per 26.2 sheep. 7. 403 sheep : 15 goats, i.e., 1 goat per 26.8 sheep. 8. 469 sheep : 18 goats, i.e., 1 goat per 26.05 sheep.
112
STEFAN ZAWADZKI
9. 544 sheep : 22 goats, i.e., 1 goat per 24.57 sheep. 10. 640 sheep : 25 goats, i.e., 1 goat per 25.6 sheep. 11. 759 sheep : 30 goats, i.e., 1 goat per 25.3 sheep. 12. 888 sheep : 34 goats, i.e., 1 goat per 26.1 sheep. The numbers of the male and female kids kept in the herd were usually the same; if their total was an odd number, the extra animal was female. This ensured better reproduction and might also indicate a larger demand for male kids, both for religious sacri˜ces and for meat. Goat Hair The accounts dated between Nbk 37 and AmM 1 do not mention deliveries of goat hair. The text mentions supplies of this product only three times: AmM 1 AmM 2 Ner 1 Total:
8 minas 50 shekels (l. 26) 20 minas 50 shekels (l. 31) ª11º minas [10 shekels] (l. 35) 40 minas 50 shekels (l. 37)55
l. 35: van Driel reads here 1[0 MA SÍ]G.ÙZ but numeral 11 is clear in Nemet-Nejat and Sack’s copies. It seems to me that Nemet-Nejat’s copy can be read 11 ªMAº [10] ªGÍN SÍGº.ÙZ. Such a reconstruction of the original text is justi˜ed by the parallelism with the account of sheep wool, where the last amount was the grand total for the whole period covered. If the last amount of goat hair, i.e., 40 minas 50 shekels, were the production of the ˜rst year of Neriglissar, as suggested by van Driel, this would be evidence of the rapid growth of both the number of the goats and the productivity per goat, which is completely unacceptable. According to Beaulieu the passage is “in fact an erasure and should be disregarded. It has 11 at 55. Thence, the amount of 40% - 6 minas of goat hair is the total of all deliveries, rather than the last delivery, as van Driel construes it.
One Line Short
the beginning, and ÙZ at the end, neither of which were completely erased by the scribe.” Accepting this, it would be a question why the text was written and why it was erased. Because sometimes it is di¯cult to recognize if the text was erased or simply damaged, I think that the above arguments speak rather for the second possibility. Yearly Production of Goat Hair According to YOS 6, 155 and the Arsam contracts,56 the holder of the ˘ock was to receive 50 shekels of goat hair per each full-grown goat. In light of this quota, the total amount of goat hair mentioned in our text (40 minas 50 shekels) must be construed as the produce of exactly 49 animals: 8 minas 50 s (530 s) 20 minas 50 s (1250 s) ª11 minas 10º s (670 s) Total:
: 50 shekels = 10.6 goats AmM 1 : 50 shekels = 25 goats
AmM 2
: 50 shekels = 13.4 goats Ner 1 49 goats
However, the accounts also specify the actual number of goats in the ˘ock, and if we divide the amount of goat hair by the number of goats, the resulting productivity per goat is very diˆerent from that known from the contracts. Additionally, the major diˆerences between individual entries have to be noted. Here we encounter the same problem as when we tried to estimate the productivity of sheep: it is not certain whether the amount of goat hair should be divided by the number of adult goats of both sexes entered in the same line, or by the number of adult goats from the previous account, reduced by dead animals, wages and the animals given in payment for shearing.57 56. Only she-goats are mentioned in the Arsam contracts, but the ˜gures most probably also account for full-grown hegoats as van Driel, BSA 7, 223 also supposed. 57. Since the second method seems to be correct in estimating the productivity of wool, here we should expect the same in respect to goat hair.
BOOKKEEPING PRACTICES AT THE EANNA TEMPLE IN URUK
Table A 1 8 minas 50 s : 16 goats = 33.1 s each (530 s) 20 minas 50 s : 22 goats = 56.8 s each (1250 s) ª11 minas 10º s : 25 goats = 26.8 s each (670 s) Table B 1 8 minas 50 s : 12 goats = 44 s each (530 s) 20 minas 50 s : 16 goats = 78.1 s each (1250 s) ª11 minas 10º s : 19 goats = 35.3 s each (670 s)
AmM 1 AmM 2
113
We admit to being unable to establish which of the two possible methods of determining the amount of goat hair to be delivered to the owner was applied in this text. This ambiguity may be explained by scribal or accounting errors.
Ner 1 Wages AmM 1 AmM 2 Ner 1
Whatever the method of calculation, the yield of hair per goat is very diˆerent from the quota known from YOS 6, 155 and from the Arsam contracts. The average production, based only on the ˜rst and third items of data,58 calculated by means of method A, is ca. 30 shekels of hair per goat, while the second method gives the value of ca. 40 shekels of hair per goat. The rather large amount of hair in AmM 2 could not have been come from 16 or 22 goats. It is possible that this ˜gure comprises goat hair that was to be supplied in Nbk 37–43 but was not listed under those years. In this case, if we use the ˜rst method (Table A), then we must add the 42 fullgrown goats from the accounts of 37–4259 to 22 goats (a total of 64 goats), which would make the average yield ca. 20 shekels per goat, and if we use the second method (Table B), we must consider a total of 16 + 3460 = 50 goats, their productivity per head being 25 shekels. In both cases the calculated productivity is so low that the reconstruction seems implausible.
58. We exclude the second because the quota per goat is evidently too high. 59. I.e., 4 (l. 5) + 5 (l. 8) + 6 (l. 11) + 7 (8 reduced by one full-grown he-goat given for shearing) (l. 14) + 9 ( l. 17) + 11 (l. 20) = 42. 60. I.e., 3 (l. 2) + 4 (l. 5) + 5 (l. 8) + 6 (l. 11) + 7 (8 reduced by one full-grown he-goat given for shearing, (l. 14)+ 9 (l. 17) = 34.
Since no other published Neo-Babylonian document mentions the wages (idÿ ) paid upon the yearly settlement of accounts, such stipulations in the contract between Nabû-ahhe-sullim and the Eanna temple might have been exceptional. Most of the idÿ consisted of sheep; only in exceptional cases goats were given.61 The summary of the categories of sheep given as idÿ throughout the period between Nbk 37 and Ner 1 gives interesting conclusions. Rams 23
Ewes 58
Male lambs 0
Female lambs 36
In terms of absolute numbers, the idÿ consisted in the ˜rst place of ewes, and then of female lambs; rams were the least numerous group. The total absence of male lambs, as well as kids, in the idÿ proves that the temple was not willing to part with its young male animals. If, however, we consider the ratio of the animals given as idÿ to the total number of a certain group of animal at a given time, then the data provides evidence of a diˆerent nature (Table 5). The group from which most animals were deducted as the idÿ were female lambs (between 5 and 6.6%, 5.65% on the average), and then rams (an average of 3.2%), and ewes (2.86%). The low expenditure of ewes, in terms of percentages, must have been due to a preference for keeping the animals, which provided the greatest advantages as the suppliers of oˆspring as well as wool. Likewise, the relatively low number of rams in the idÿ may be explained by the large losses due
61. Throughout the period, a total of only two she-goats and two female kids were given, and not a single full-grown he-goat or male-kid. The temple certainly took surplus animals of the latter categories for sacri˜ces.
114
STEFAN ZAWADZKI
Table 5 Rams up to Nbk 37 up to Nbk 38 up to Nbk 39 up to Nbk 40 up to Nbk 41 up to Nbk 42 up to Nbk 43 up to AmM 1 up to AmM 2 up to Ner 1 Total
0 from 18 (0 %) 1 from 30 (3.3.%) 1 from 40 (2.5 %) 2 from 54 (3.7%) 2 from 68 (ca. 2.95%) 3 from 89 (ca 3.4 %) 4 from 111 (ca 3.6 %) 4 from 131 (ca 3.05%) 6 from 170 (3.5 %) 23 from 711 (3.2%)
Ewes
Female lambs
3 from 90 (3.3%) 3 from 101 (ca. 3.0%) 3 from 119 (2.52 %) 4 from 138(ca.2.9%) 5 from 158 (ca. 3.2%) 5 from 182 (ca. 2.75%) 6 from 209 (ca. 2.9%) 7 from 237 (ca. 2.95%) 11 from 343 (ca.3.2%) 11 from 390 (2.8%) 58 from 2025 (2.86%)
1 from 15 (6.6%) 2 from 36 (5.5%) 2 from 40 (5.0%) 3 from 45 (6.6%) 3 from 53 (ca. 5.6%) 3 from 60 (ca. 5.0%) 4 from 65 (ca. 6.15%) 4 from 80 (5.0%) 7 from 110 (ca. 6.36%) 7 from 133 (ca. 5.3%) 36 from 637 (5.65%)
to natural causes (“hides”), which, combined with the idÿ, caused a prompt replacement of the original animals of this category. Since the temple culled the majority of male lambs and some of them were additionally given for the wages for shearing, then the idÿ necessarily consisted mainly of female lambs, whose number did not decline for of any other reason than natural deaths. This accounts for the high proportion of female lambs in the idÿ. As the size of the herd increased, the amount of the wages also went up, although the criterion for these increases cannot be easily identi˜ed. The proportional rate of wages was one head of livestock for the custody of 30–33 animals. When only ewes and female lambs were given as idÿ, then there were always more ewes than female lambs (typically one or two more); when rams were given as well, then ewes accounted for a half or nearly a half of the idÿ. The payment of idÿ from the temple’s share to the shepherds (?) might have reduced the holder’s cost, as the wages were spent on the tending of the whole herds, including both the temple’s and the holder’s stock.
under discussion.62 The breakdown of the losses into groups is so intriguing that one needs to ask if these ˜gures described actual losses, or were merely calculated percentages; obviously, we cannot answer this question with any certainty. The amounts of the losses in all the groups (rams, ewes and female lambs) seem to result from the following formulae: 1 animal per 10, 2 animals per 15–25 3 animals per 26–35 4 animals per 36–45, etc. On rare occasions the number of lost animals was higher by one. The lack of losses reported in the group of male lambs throughout the account period indicates that the temple managers did not allow deductions in this category; the herdsmen must have replaced such animals that were inevitably lost over such a long stretch of time with their own livestock.63 Shearing
Losses (“Hides”) Van Driel notes that the Neo-Babylonian contracts allowed for a 10% annual death rate in a herd, under condition that the skin of the dead animals had to be produced. He also observed that losses never reached this amount in the text
The additional payment for shearing was paid in male lambs, or in animals of the most prized category (a total of 41 animals), and occasionally 62. BSA 7, 235; JCS 46, 54. 63. See M. Van de Mieroop, BSA 7 (1993) 168.
BOOKKEEPING PRACTICES AT THE EANNA TEMPLE IN URUK
in ewes (1), and young he-goats (1). The fact that additional wages were paid for shearing, and that the most valuable animals were given for this purpose, demonstrates that the temple managers considered e¯cient shearing a priority. The amount of the wages steadily increased, but it was not proportional to the number of the sheep shorn in a given year.64 It is interesting to note that male lambs used for shearing wages are always described as BAR.GAL rather than as kal¿mu, a term referring to male animals retained in the temple ˘ock. The Akkadian reading of BAR.GAL and its meaning are not certain. W. von Soden (AHw 834) and R. Borger (ABZ No. 74) construe it as the logogram of parru, “male lambs.” The reading par-gal would pose the question of whether it was a pseudologogram for parru or whether it should be pronounced pargallu. 65 Van Driel’s view is that “kal¿mu do not have the same meaning, a kal¿mu is younger than a parru.”66 This cannot be true, at least in the text under discussion, because both kal¿mus as well as BAR.GAL were born in the same lambing season. The only suitable de˜nition of BAR.GAL in this context is that the term describes animals removed from the kal¿mu, which cannot constitute the temple’s puhalu.67 Conclusions Why did the temple managers decide to set apart one herd and entrust it to Nabû-ahhesullim? Since the delivery of milk and dairy products are not mentioned among Nabû-ahhesullim’s obligations—and such an obligation does 64. Thus, e.g., we calculate that 218 and 260 sheep were shorn in the sixth and seventh year respectively, but on both occasions the wages were the same (7 male lambs); during the following two years, the number of shorn sheep rose substantially, but the wages fell, in both cases amounting to 5 male lambs. 65. See M. Jursa, “Neu- und spätbabylonische Texte aus den Sammlungen der Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery,” Iraq 59 (1997) 101–2. 66. BSA 7, 231. Note that van Driel reads BAR.GAL both as parru as well as pargallu. 67. See the similar opinion of van Driel, BSA 7, 231: “Male lambs retained are called kal¿mu, but those removed are BAR.GAL.ME.”
115
appear elsewhere, for example, in the Arsam contracts—it is certain that these goods were not covered in the settling of accounts with the temple, although the herdsmen might have consumed small quantities of them.68 The slow rate of the growth of the number of goats, and the fact that herdsmen received a goat as wages on one occasion only resulted from the policy of limiting the number of this species. Because the numbers of goats could easily be doubled every year, it seems that kids aged around one year, both male and female, were taken by the temple for sacri˜ces and consumption. The goats may have also provided the small quantities of milk and dairy products required for the herdsmen’s meals. Thus, the main objective of the herdsman was to breed sheep, although the text seems to provide evidence that the two essential products of sheep, meat and wool,69 were of equal importance. The text may be considered a classic example of the way in which these two purposes were pursued in the speci˜c conditions of the temple economy. Male lambs taken during the ˜rst year were obviously used as sacri˜ces, as well as food for temple personnel. During the following years, the surviving rams and ewes were kept in the herd, the former because of their higher yield of wool (their reproductive capacity being considered only a secondary feature), and the latter, because they were at the peak of their fertility. The number of animals of both sexes was reduced by natural deaths and by culling individuals whose reproductive capacity was declining. By giving the older animals to the herdsmen as wages, the temple managed to dispose of such animals at a proper time, avoiding their negative impact on the development of the herd: the older individuals, at 68. Our observation accords with the conclusion of I. J. Gelb presented in his article on animal husbandry in the third millennium B.C., see I. J. Gelb, “Growth of Herd of Cattle in Ten Years,” JCS 21 (1967) 69 (“dairy products of cattle, goats, and sporadically sheep played a relative limited role in ancient economy”). Accidentally (or not?) both texts TCL II 5499 discussed by I. J. Gelb and our text cover a period of ten years. 69. For very interesting comments of the patterns of sheep breeding, see S. Payne, “Kill-oˆ Pattern in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles from Asvan Kale,” AnSt 23 (1973) 281–303, esp. 282–84 and ˜gs. 1–3.
1 pu-hal 2
7
116
NBC 4897* ªU8º.ME ka-lum par-rat PAP BAB-BAR-ti MÁ†.GAL ÙZ MÁ†.TUR SAL.Á† PAP GE6-tú 90 12 15 PAP 1 me 33 1 2 [1 PAP 4 6 3 1 me 1
6 2 7 8 30
10 3 1 me 19
9 3 10 1 11 40
12 3 1 me 38
12 3 13 1 14 54
14 4 1 me 58
15 5 16 2 17 68
16 5 1 me 82
18 7 19 2 20 89
18 5 2 me 9
21 8 22 3 23 1 me 11
21 6 2 me 37
24 10 25 4 26 1 me 31
23 7 2 me 75
16
2 1 36
PAP 12! PAP 4 PAP 1 me 71
18
3 2 40
PAP 15 PAP 5 PAP 2 me 7
23
4 2 45
PAP [1]9 PAP 6 PAP 2 me 46
27
4 3 53
PAP 21 PAP 8 PAP 2 me 92
31
5 3 60
PAP 26 PAP 10 PAP 3 me 41
40
6 3 65
PAP 31 PAP 10 PAP 4 me 3
41
6 4 80
PAP 35 PAP 13 PAP 4 me 69
48
8 4 90
PAP 41 PAP 15 PAP 5 me 44
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
[ [ [1
PAP 5
4
[1
[ [ [1
PAP 7
5
[ [ [1
[ [1 [2
PAP 1 PAP 9
[1 [ [2
PAP 1
6
[ [ [1
[1]
PAP 1
8
[2
[ [ [2
1
[ [ [2
[ [ [2
PAP 1 PAP 1 PAP 15
[1 [ [2
[
PAP 2
[3]
PAP 18
[1 [ [3
[ [ [3
PAP 2
9 1
3
10
1 4
PAP 11
12
PAP 13
PAP 22
STEFAN ZAWADZKI
3 1 4 5 18
PAP-ma se-e-nu NÍG.GA dGA†AN sá UNUG.KI u dNa-na-a PAP-ma 1 me 37 mdAG-†E†.ME-GI A mdAGMU-GARun MU.37.KÁM KU†.ME i-di PAP-ma 1 me 76 MU.37.KÁM 2 BAR.GAL ina gi-iz-zi IGIir 1 (GÚ) 20!-2 MA SÍG.HI.A KU†.ME i-di PAP-ma 2 me 14 MU.38.KÁM 4 BAR.GAL ina gi-iz- zi 1 (GÚ) 55! !-2! [MA SÍG.HI].A KU†.ME PAP-ma 7 i-di PAP-ma 2 me 55 MU.38.KÁM 2 BAR.GAL ina KI.MIN 2 (GÚ) 24!-2 MA SÍG.HI.A PAP-ma 22 KU†.ME i-di PAP-ma 3 me 3 MU.41.KÁM 6 uduBAR.GAL 1 MÁ†.GAL ina KI.MIN 2 (GÚ) 45!-2 MA SÍG.HI.A PAP-ma 27 KU†.ME i-di PAP-ma 3 me 54 MU.41.KÁM 1 uduBAR.GAL 1 U8 ina KI.MIN 3* (GÚ) 18* !-2 MA ªSÍG.HI.Aº PAP-ma 32 KU†.ME PAP-[m]a 11 i-di PAP-[ma] 4 me 18 MU.42.KÁM 7 BAR.GAL ina KI.MIN 5!-2 (GÚ) 9!-2 MA SÍG.HI.A PAP-[ma] 37 KU†.ME ªi-diº [PAP-ma] ª4º me 8ª7º [MU.42.KÁM] {3 UDU} (erasure) 7 uduBAR.GAL ina KI.MIN 7 GÚ.UN 1!-2 MA SÍG.HI.A [PAP-m]a 43 KU†.ME i-di PAP-ma 5 me 66 ina MU.1.KÁM LÚ-d†Ú 5 BAR.GAL ina KI.MIN 8 (GÚ) 43!-2 MA SÍG.HI.A 8%-6 MA SÍG.ÙZ
NBC 4897* 27
5
68
20
PAP 1 me 1
66
1 me 10 11 7 1 me 33
PAP 6 me 40 PAP 55 PAP 22 PAP 7 me 59
8
3 me 43 34 11 3 me 90
32 16 33 6 34 2 me 9
39 11 4 me 53
80
13 PAP 68 7 PAP 24 1 me 46 PAP 8 me 88
35 ina †À 5
1 me 38
14
41
PAP 1 me 98
36 re-hi 1 me 93 3 me 15
66
1 me 5
PAP 6 me 79
56
4 1 6
14 [3 1 [ [ 16 [4
2 1 8
7
[
[1 [4 [1 [ [4
17
[1 [ [4
[ [1 [5
8
[1
[1
10
[3
[4
PAP 1 me 4 ina ir-bi sá ITI.†E MU.SAG.NAM.LUGAL.LA LÚ-dAMAR.UTU PAP 2[5] PAP-ma 6 me 65 MU.1.KÁM PAP 3 PAP-ma 61 KU†.ME i-di PAP 30 PAP-ma 7 me 89 MU.2.KÁM 5 BAR.GAL ina gi-iz-zi {KI.[MIN]} 11 [GÚ].UN 22!-2 MA SÍG.HI.A 20%-6 MA SÍG.ÙZ PAP 3 PAP-ma 71 KU†.ME PAP 2 PAP-ma 26 i-di PAP 34 PAP-ma 9 me 22 MU.1.KÁM dU+GUR-LUGAL-URÙ LUGAL TIN.TIR.KI 8* uduBAR.GAL ina UNUG.KI! ma-hi-ir 3 BAR.GAL ina gi-iz-zi PAP 10 PAP-ma 2 me 8 MU.1.KÁM am-ru 14 GÚ.UN 5 MA SÍG.HI.A 1ª1º* [MA 10 GÍN SÍ]G.ÙZ PAP 24 PAP-ma 7 me 3 se-en 58 (GÚ) 36!-2 MA SÍG.HI.A PAP 3
40%-6 MA SÍG.ÙZ TA MU.37.KÁM dAG-NÍG.D[U-URÙ LUGAL TIN.TI]R.KI a-di MU.1.KÁM dU+GUR-LUGAL-URÙ LUGAL TIN.TIR.KI sá la re-ha-n[u sá se-e-nu la am-ru] (upper edge) NÍG.KA9 ép-su-tu sá mdKUR.GAL-LUGAL-URÙ lúqí-i-pi sá É-an-na u mNUMUN-ya lúsà-tam É-an-na it-ti lúna- GADA.ME i-pu-su ITI.SIG4 UD.28.KÁM [MU].1.KÁM dU+GUR-LUGAL-PAP LUGAL TIN.TIR.KI
* If my transliteration diˆers from that by G. Van Driel (but not from the copy by Nemet-Nejat), the signs are in bold type. Transliteration appears without emendation except for the reconstruction of the only partly preserved numerals in “grand total” in l. 8. The places where the text has to be emended are marked in translation by exclamation mark. Note that the ˜rst column gives the number of line and is added for the comfort of the readers.
BOOKKEEPING PRACTICES AT THE EANNA TEMPLE IN URUK
28 PAP 1 me 31 29 13 30 4 31 1 me 70
2
117
2
7
ewes male female Total: lambs lambs white animals 90 12 15 total: 133
3 1 4 5 18
6 3 101
fullshe-goats male female grown kids kids he-goats 1 2 1
total: 12 total: 4 total: 171 1
3
6 2 7 8 30
10 3 119 18
3 2 40
total: 15 total: 5 total: 207 1
4
9 3 10 1 11 40
12 3 138 23
4 2 45
total: [1]9 total: 6 total: 246 1
5
12 3 13 1 14 54
14 4 158
27
4 3 53
total: 21 total: 8 total: 292 2
15 5 16 2 17 68
16 5 182 31
5 3 60
total: 26 total: 10 total: 341 1
18 7 19 2 20 89
18 5 209
total: 31 total: 10 total: 403 2
1
40
6 3 65
9
2
21 8 22 3 23 111
21 6 237
total: 35 total: 13 total: 469 3
1
1
41
6 4 80
10
2
24 10 25 4 26 131
23 7 275
total: 41 total: 15 total: 544 4
1
1
48
8 4 90
12
3
68
8
20
total: 101
27
5
6
1
total: 5
1
1
total: 7
1
1 2
total: 1 total: 9
1
total: 1
2
total: 11
1 [1]
8
2
2
total: 1 2
total: 13
2
total: 1 PAP 1 total: 15 total: 2
[3]
total: 18 total: 2
3
total: 22
1
total: 3
Grand total: sheep and goats, the property of the Lady-of-Uruk and Nanaya Grand total: 137, Nabû-ahhe-sullim, son of Nabû-sum-iskun the 36th! year Hides Wages Grand total: 176, 37th year; 2 lambs were received for shearing. 1 (talent) 20!-2 minas of wool (was the result of shearing). Hides Wages Grand total: 214, the 38th year; 4 lambs (were received) for shearing. 1 (talent) 55!!-2! minas of wool (was the result of shearing). Hides Grand total: 7, wages Grand total: 255, the 39!th year; 2 lambs, likewise. 2 (talents) 24!-2 minas of wool (was the result of shearing). Grand total: 22 hides. Wages Grand total: 303, the 40!th year; 6 lambs, 1 full-grown he-goat, likewise, 2 (talents) 45!-2 minas of wool (was the result of shearing). Grand total: 27 hides Wages Grand total: 354, the 41st year; 1 lamb, 1 ewe, likewise, 3* (talents) *18!-2 minas of wool (was the result of shearing). Grand total: 32 hides Grand total: 11, wages Grand total: 418, the 42!nd year; 7 lambs, likewise, 5!-2 (talents) 9!-2 minas of wool (was the result of shearing). Grand total: 37 hides Wages Grand total: 487, the 43!rd year; 7 lambs, likewise, 7 (talents) 1!-2 minas of wool (was the result of shearing). [Gr]and total: 43 hides Wages Grand total: 566, the 1st year of Amel-Marduk; 5 lambs, likewise, 8 (talents) 43!-2 minas of wool and 8%-6 minas of goat hair (was the result of shearing). Total: 104 as income from month of Adaru, the accession year of Amel-Marduk.
STEFAN ZAWADZKI
16
2 1 36
Total: black animals total: 4
118
1 Rams
28 total: 131 343 29 13 34 30 4 11 31 170 390
56
3
4 1
16
4
4
total: 68 total: 24 1 total: 888 8
2
1
17
4
1 5
8
1
1
10
3
4
32 16 33 6 34 209
39 11 453
80
13 7 146
35 among them: 5
138
14
41
36 remains: 315 193
66
105
total: 198
total: 679 7
total: 2[5] Grand total: 665, the 1st year of (AmM). total: 3 Grand total: 61 hides Wages total: 30 Grand total: 789, the 2nd year; 5 lambs for the shearing, {likewise}; 11 (talents) 22!-2 minas of wool; 20%-6 minas of goat hair (was the result shearing). total: 3 Grand total: 71 hides total: 2 Grand total: 26, wages total: 34 Grand total: 922, the 1st year of Neriglissar, king of Babylon; 8* lambs were received in Uruk; 3 lambs (were given) for shearing. total: 10 Grand total: 208 (animals) were seen (=accounted for) in the 1st year; 14 talents 5 minas of wool; 11* minas [10 shekels of go]at hair (was the result of shearing). total: 24 Grand total: 703 animals (were not seen). 58 (talents) 36!-2 minas of wool.
40%-6 minas of goat hair (was the result of shearing) from 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon until the 1st year of Neriglissar, king of Babylon. As for the remaning [sheep and goat the account has not been made].(?) Balanced account which Enlil-sar-usur, the resident of Eanna and Zeriya, the administrator of Eanna, settled with the herdsmen. The month of Simanu, the 28th day, the 1st year of Nergal-sar-usur, king of Babylon.
BOOKKEEPING PRACTICES AT THE EANNA TEMPLE IN URUK
total: 640 4 total: 55 1 total: 22 total: 759 6
14 1
66
110 11 7 133
119
120
STEFAN ZAWADZKI
ages of approximately eight years, whose value (including their value as food) was deteriorating, were apparently not taken by the temple at all. This was probably one of the essential diˆerences between the management of a temple herd and of smaller private ones, where the eating of fullygrown individuals, whose value is declining, was conceivably a much more general practice. Appendix 1. Inspection of the ˘ocks of the Ebabbar temple at Sippar Among the texts known from Sippar BM 75503 is especially important, because its relatively good state of preservation makes it possible to make many interesting comparisons. The text, written on an elongated, pillow-shaped tablet, contains the results of the inspection of seven ˘ocks belonging to the Ebabbar temple, which had been given to “the shepherds of †amas.” The time of the inspection and the animal terminology involved (puhalu, alittu, parru and parratu), is well known from other texts from Sippar. The animals are summed up by the word senu, which reveals that they included not only sheep but also goats. The text does not mention losses, and goats are not treated separately from sheep. This circumstance reveals that the goal of the document was to establish the number of animals and their sex on the day of inspection, and to note the quantity of wool delivered to the temple, with additional information concerning its quantity delivered for cultic purposes.70 From this point of view the text diˆers from many other texts in which changes in ˘ocks which had taken place in the period from the previous inspection are included. Despite this character of the text, important observations concerning the purpose of animal husbandry are still possible. There are important diˆerences between the individual herds. The largest was the ˘ock of †amas-zer-ibni (473 animals), the smallest were
70. According to my knowledge it is the ˜rst text, which includes such data.
those of †amas-udammiq (181 animals) and Taqÿs (184+x animals). The ˘ock of Ulmasaya (236 animals) is equal to half the ˘ock of †amas-zeribni; while in the ˘ock of Nabû-eres there are only 27 animals more than half of the ˘ock of †amas-zer-ibni. The ˘ocks of Ussaya (357 animals) and of Nabû-zer-ukÿn (ca. 323 + x), although smaller than the ˘ock of †amas-zer-ibni, were recognized as viable and their augmentation was not treated as desirable or crucial. Such a conclusion is based on the fact that only one male lamb was left in each herd, while if augmentation of the ˘ock was planned we would expect an increase of rams in the ˘ock. A glance at the percentage of females left in the herds, in comparison to ewes, suggests that the ˘ocks of †amas-zer-ibni, Ussaya, Nabû-zer-ukÿn and Ulmasaya had reached their maximum desired capacity, while the ˘ocks of Nabû-eres, †amas-udammiq, and particularly of Taqÿs, should have been on the increase. †amas-zer-ibni: female lambs comprise ca. 6.1% of the ewes in the herd. Nabû-eres: 14% Ussaya: ca. 5.8% Nabû-zer-ukÿn: ca. 3.7% (probably even lower, because in the herd were certainly more than 300 ewes). Taqÿs: ca. 19% Ulmasaya: ca. 7% †amas-udammiq: ca. 13.3%. These observations suggest that the condition of the ˘ocks was quite good. The ewes were reasonably young, in good breeding condition, and their replacement with younger animals would not be necessary during the next two to three years. Only in the ˘ock of Taqÿs (and to the same degree also in the ˘ocks of Nabû-eres and †amasudammiq) was the percentage of female lambs considerably higher in comparison to the ewes, but this might have been caused by the desire to enlarge the ˘ock. The considerably smaller number of rams in each ˘ock should be noted. The comparison of the number of rams to the ewes gives the following results:
BOOKKEEPING PRACTICES AT THE EANNA TEMPLE IN URUK †amas-zer-ibni: 24 ewes to one ram; Nabû-eres: 28 ewes to one ram; Ussaya: 36.5 ewes to one ram; Nabû-zer-ukÿn: ca. 27 ewes to one ram;71 Taqÿs: only one ram to 140+x ewes! Ulmasaya: 43 ewes to one ram; †amas-udammiq: 25 ewes to one ram. It seems that an average of 30 ewes to one ram secured full impregnation of all ewes in uncontrolled putting,72 and was very close to the rational need.73 From this point of view the situation in the ˘ock of Taqÿs was dramatic. We see that in the column “rams” the numeral 8 and below it 1 udupuhal “one ram” has been added. The explanation is that the numeral 8 concerns he-goats.74 Such a small total as 140+x ewes is not the result of a conscious decision by the shepherd, but must have resulted from attacks of wild animals, disease and/or rustling. To re-establish the correct proportions eight male lambs were left in the ˘ock. In the future, when male lambs would have become rams and female lambs shifted to the ewes group, the relation of rams to ewes would be about 20+x ewes for one ram or slightly more, allowing for the possible loss of male lambs during the year. It should be also noted that in the ˘ock of †amas-zer-ibni with the highest number of rams no single male lamb was left, which suggests that this quantity was adequate. Five male lambs in the ˘ock of Nabû-udammiq could be explained by a possible decision to enlarge the ˘ock, while three in the ˘ock of Nabû-eres by the replacement of a few rams or enlargement of the ˘ock. In all seven 71. Divided here are 300 ewes by 11 rams, although it is probable that both numbers (i.e., those of ewes and rams) were higher. 72. At the beginning, when only a small number of ewes have symptoms of rut, the rams are very active and ˜ght each other, but later, when the number of ewes ready for insemination increases, the activity of the rams slows down. For this reason in such ˘ocks there were more rams than in the ˘ocks with controlled putting (in modern times). 73. The situation diˆers substantially from the texts, which were the subject of van Driel’s studies, where the number of rams was much higher than the rational need. 74. If the ram were included in this number, the phrase ina libbi, “including” would have to be added.
121
˘ocks only nineteen male lambs were left, which indicates that the main purpose was to secure the oˆering for the everyday cult in the temple. The considerably smaller number of female lambs left in the herds (149 in comparison to 1783 + ewes, i.e., only ca. 8.5%) indicates—as already mentioned above—that most of the ˘ock had reached its maximal amount, and that female lambs had been taken by the temple administration, most probably for consumption. Because it seems unlikely that the temple needed all the young animals at same time, it is conceivable that they were sent to the bÿt urê, “fattening house.” This argument, and the information concerning the destination of wool for sattukku, i.e., for the production of cultic garments, suggests that the ˘ocks belonged to the ginÿ/sattukku category, and these shepherds (not known to me from other texts) were under the power of the reåi ginê/sattukkê. One interesting observation concerns wool. The division of the amount of wool by the number of rams and ewes suggests very low productivity of wool per animal: †amas-zer-ibni:
23400 shekels of wool: 447 sheep = 52.3 shekels per sheep. Nabû-eres: 9900 shekels of wool: 229 sheep = ca. 43.2 shekels per sheep. Ussaya: 12060 shekels of wool: 337 sheep = ca. 35.8 shekels per sheep. Nabû-zer-ukÿn: 13500 shekels of wool: 311+x sheep = less than 43.4 shekels per sheep (because the number of sheep was higher than 311). Taqÿs: 9300 shekels of wool: ca. 141+ sheep = ca. 66.0 shekels per sheep. Ulmasaya: 9000 shekels of wool: 220 sheep = ca. 41.0 shekels per sheep. †amas-udammiq: 9000 shekels of wool: 156 sheep = ca. 57.7 shekels per sheep.
122
STEFAN ZAWADZKI
However, such a method of calculating productivity could contain an important mistake. It is probable that some of the animals included among the full-grown ones were recognized as being too young to be shorn during the previous year. This would mean that the amount of wool should be divided by a smaller number of animals, but what this number might be impossible to determine. The amount of wool for sattukku oˆerings from ˜ve ˜rst ˘ocks is similar, and runs from 1 talent to 1 talent 15 minas. In the ˘ock of Ulmasaya the
data concerning sattukku wool is lacking, and in the ˘ock of †amas-udammiq the amount of sattukku wool is relatively small (only 20 minas from 2 talents 35 minas of wool). However, the lack of proportion between the total amount of wool and the sattukku wool suggests that the quantity of wool delivered for manufacturing garments depended most probably on the speci˜c orders of the weavers involved in manufacturing garments for gods and goddesses.
BM 75503 (AH 83–1–18, 844) 10.7 x 4.2 cm Transliteration 1. si-e-nu a-mir-tu4 sá lúSIPA.ME† sá ªUTU sá ina garimGi-l[u-s]ú 2. am-rat ITU.SIG4 UD.11.KÁM MU.1.KÁM mKam-bu-zi-ja LUGAL E.KI LU[GAL KUR].KUR 3. pu-hal a-lit-tú par-ri par-rat SÍG.HI.A PAP m (sic) md 4. 18 4 me 29 26 6 GÚ.[UN] ª30º ma-na UTU-NUMUN5. ina lìb-bi 1 GÚ.[UN x+]3 ªmaº-na sat-tuk ªDÙº A m†u-la-a md 6. 8 2 me 21 ª3º 31 2 GÚ.UN ª45?º [m]a-na AG-KÁM 7. ina lìb-bi 1 GÚ.UN sat-tuk m 8. ª9º 3 me 28 ª1 19 3 GÚ.UN 21 ma-na ina lìb-ªbiº Us-sá-a-a 9. 1 GÚ.UN 15 ma-na sat-ªtukº A mdAG-BE-TINit md 10. x+1 3 m[e x] ª1 11 3 GÚ.UN 45 ma-na AG-NUMUN11. ina lìb-bi 1 GÚ.UN sat-tuk DU m 12. ª8º 1 me 40+x ª8 27 2 GÚ.UN ª35?º ma-na Ta-qis udu 13. 1 pu-hal ina lìb-bi 1 GÚ.UN 5 ma-na sat-tuk m 14. 5 2 me 15 ª1 15 2!-2 GÚ.UN Ul-mas-a-a md 15. 6 1 me 50 5 20 2!-2 GÚ.UN 5 ma-na UTU-SIG5iq 16. ina lìb-bi 20 ma-na sat-tuk A mRi-mut Translation 1. Sheep and goats of the shepherds of †amas, which were inspected in the tamirtu of Gil[usu]. 2. Month of Simanu, eleventh day, ˜rst year of Cambyses king of Babylon, king of Lands. 3. rams ewes male female Wool Total lambs lambs 4. 18 429 26 6 tal[ents] ª30º minas, including 1 talent x+ ª3º †amas-zer-ibni, 5. [mi]nas for the oˆering son of †¿lâ 6. 8 221 ª3º 31 2 talents ª45?º [mi]nas, including 1 talent for the Nabû-eres 7. oˆering 8. ª9º 328 ª1 19 3 talents 21 minas, including 1 talent 15 minas Ussaya, son of 9. for the oˆering Nabû-mÿta-uballit 10. x+1 300+x ª1 11 3 talents 45 minas, including 1 talent for the Nabû-zer-ukÿn 11. oˆering 12. ª8º 140+x ª8 27 2 talents ª35?º minas, including 1 talent 5 minas Taqûs 13. 1 ram for the oˆering 14. 5 215 ª1 15 2!-2 talents Ulmasaya 15. 6 150 5 20 2!-2 talents 5 minas, including 20 minas for the †amas-udammiq,
BOOKKEEPING PRACTICES AT THE EANNA TEMPLE IN URUK
123
Translation 10. x+1 300+x ª1 11 3 talents 45 minas, including 1 talent for the Nabû-zer-ukÿn 11. oˆering 1. Sheep and goats of the shepherds of †amas, which were inspected in the tamirtu of Gil[usu]. 12. ª8º 140+x ª8 eleventh 27 2 talents ª35?of º minas, including 1 talent 5 minas 2. Month of Simanu, day, ˜rst year Cambyses king of Babylon, king of Taqÿs Lands. 13. 1 ram for the oˆering 14. 5 215 ª1 15 2!-2 talents Ulmasaya 15. 6 150 5 20 2!-2 talents 5 minas, including 20 minas for the †amas-udammiq, 16. oˆering son of Rÿm¿t Comments l. 3: Instead of PAP we would have expected here rather ina IGI “at disposal” or IGI “before” or similar, but not “total”. l. 5: x + ª3º could be also [1]ª6º, or [1]ª9º minas. l. 6: the reading ª42?º minas seems less probable, but is not excluded (only the lower part of two verticals are preserved). l. 10: Because one vertical stroke is preserved, the only possible reconstruction is 3, 11, 12 or 13. Three rams in a ˘ock of over 300 hundred ewes is obviously too small, so only the numeral 12 or 13 rams could be taken into account.