YOS 6 225: A Dispute about a Sesame Delivery more

YOS 6 225: A DISPUTE ABOUT A SESAME DELIVERY* Muhammad A. Dandamayev and Cornelia Wunsch O riental Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London The document YOS 6 225, which comes from the archives of the Eanna temple at Uruk and was published 1920 in autograph copy by Raymond Philip Dougherty, is of considerable interest. It was drafted in Uruk on the sixth day of the month abau in the twelfth regnal year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon (24 January 543 BC), in the presence of the chief administrator (atammu) of the Eanna temple, Zriya, son of Ibnaya of the Egibi family.1 All the other Urukeans mentioned as witnesses to the document are well known from other administrative and legal records from the Eanna archives.2 The central figures, one man who had dispatched a batch of sesame to the Eanna and the agent who delayed its delivery, are, however, otherwise unattested in the published corpus.3 * Muhammad A. Dandamayev wishes to express his gratitude to Nadia Czechowicz and Golda Kaplan for their comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Research by Cornelia Wunsch for this article was funded in part by the U. S. National Endowment for the Humanities Collaborative Research Grant for the project “Neo-Babylonian Trial Procedure” directed by Bruce Wells and F.Rachel Magdalene. Any views, conclusions or mistakes are those of the authors alone. The authors owe thanks to Elizabeth Payne who kindly confirmed that the copy by Dougherty matches the text on the tablet and to Magorzata Sandowicz for a thought-provoking discussion of its legal aspects. 1 Zriya was active twice during the reign of Nabonidus as the chief administrator or ‘bishop’ of Eanna: in 560–559 BC and, for the second time, during 555–543; see Kümmel (1979), 142–43 and 146, for references. 2 For details, see the table on p. 68. 3 The Eanna archive covers the period from the late seventh to the early fifth centuries, peaking during the reigns of Nabonidus (555/539 BC), Cyrus (538/530 BC), and Cambyses (530/522 BC); and it consists of about 8000 tablets, mainly in the museum collections of Yale, Princeton, Paris, Berlin and London that acquired them through the antiquities market at the beginning of the twentieth century. Hundreds of stray tablets from the same sources found their way into numerous other small collections, especially in the USA. A large number of — rather small — tablets and fragments were discovered during the German excavations at Uruk (as summarized by Jursa 2005, 138, with further literature). The collections from Yale, Princeton, London and St. Petersburg have been published only partially. A large number of unpublished texts have been transcribed and used by members of the Vienna START project, but this material is unavailable to the authors and could not be considered for this study. Any argument from silence, therefore, must remain preliminary. 62 MUHAMMAD A. DANDAMAYEV & CORNELIA WUNSCH The text under discussion is, in principle, a straightforward receipt for a delivery of sesame that was sent to the Eanna temple by Adad-nru, son of Ilu-nâdu, as an erbu contribution. He had instructed a certain Marduk-um-ibni, son of Bl-erba from the Dannêa family, to handle the conveyance on his behalf. Because the sesame had not reached its destination, two witnesses to the transfer, the brothers Marduk-umuur and Erba-Marduk (the sons of Bl-uballi from the Bu family, who also appear in other records about administrative and legal matters of the Eanna temple) informed the chief administrator of the Eanna temple that thirty-three litres of sesame had indeed been handed over to Marduk-um-ibni with the appropriate instruction ‘Give it to the Eanna!’ (l. 6f.). They insinuated that Marduk-um-ibni might have kept the sesame for himself (ittai, l.7). An administrative inquiry ensued. Upon examination, Marduk-um-ibni explained the reasons why he had been unable to accomplish this delivery in a timely fashion and professed to having intended to make up for it as soon as circumstances would permit. Because the temple records showed no sign of the delivery being received and the witnesses were willing to repeat their accusatory statement under oath, Marduk-um-ibni finally delivered the overdue amount. As a result, this unusually lengthy receipt was issued by the Eanna authorities. It provides a recounting of the events, including the wording of the oath, and, therefore, allows some glimpses into the administrative and legal procedure within the Eanna. Furthermore, it is one of the few records that allude to the thoughts and intentions (mens rea) of the protagonist. Unfortunately, the right edge of the tablet, including its right lower corner, is damaged and leaves several lines in need of partial restoration. Moreover, some uncommon terms and idioms have hampered a conclusive interpretation of the tablet thus far. This problem concerns especially Marduk-um-ibni’s excuse as to why he was unable to make the delivery immediately after having taken over the consignment. This reason was evidently compelling enough for the Eanna authorities not to treat this case as an attempted theft or embezzlement of temple goods but, rather, as a delayed delivery procedure. The text reads as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ˘™AMAR.UTU-MU-URÙ ù ˘eri-ba-™AMAR.UTU Av á ˘™±EN-TIN-i A ˘bu-ú-u á a-na ˘NUMUN-ia ßÀ.TAM É.AN.NA A-ú á ˘ib-na-a A ˘e-gi-bi ù ßUMBISAGv á É.AN.NA iq-bu-ú um-ma 5(BÁN) 3 SILÀ E.GI.Ì ˘™IKUR-nu-ú-ru A-ú á ˘DINGIR-na-a-du a-na ˘™AMAR.UTU-MU-DÙ A-ú á ˘™EN-SU A ˘dan-ni-e-a ki-i id-di-nu um-ma a-na É.AN.NA i-din E.GI.Ì a-na É.AN.NA ul id-din E.GI.Ì it-ta-i ˘NUMUN-ia ßÀ.TAM É.AN.NA ˘™AMAR.UTU-MU-URÙ ˘eri-ba-™AM[AR.UTU] ù ˘™AMAR.UTU-MU-DÙ i-bu-kam-ma ina UKKIN ˘™Ú-MU-DÙ i--a-a-l[u] um-ma E.GI.Ì á ˘™IKUR-nu-ú-ru id-dak-ka mi-nam-ma [(…)] a-na É.AN.NA ul ta-ad-din ˘™AMAR.UTU-MU-DÙ a-na ß[À.TAM] iq-bi um-ma E.GI.Ì á ˘™IKUR-nu-ú-ru id-di-nu [(…)] ki-ib-su lu-ma-a-ka ina ú-du-ú at-ta-[di x x x (x)] YOS 6 225: A Dispute about a Sesame Delivery 63 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 um-ma Á NA RU kib-su li-li-il ù lu-e-rib-ma a-[na É.AN.NA] lu-ud-di-in ßÀ.TAM ù ßUMBISAGv i-t[im-mu-ma] UD-mu 2-ú á ki-ib-su i-li-lu la «x»[x x (x)] E.GI.Ì la i-nu-ú ina ›KIIB-ú-nu x [ ] ina É.AN.NA i-mu-ru ù ˘™AMAR.UTU-[MU-URÙ] ù ˘SU-™AMAR.UTU ina ™±EN ù ™±AG ™GAAN á [UNUGˆ] u ™na-na-a a-di-e a ™±AG-NÍ.TUK LUGAL TIN.TIR[ˆ] ù ˘™±EN-LUGAL-ÙRU DUMU LUGAL it-mu-ú ki-i E.GI[.Ì] á a-na mu-i a-na ßÀ.TAM ni-iq-bu-ú la ku-um-[mu-ru] ma-le-e lìb-ba-a-tum á ˘™AMAR.UTU-MU-DÙ ni-iq-bu-ú [(…)] E.GI.Ì á ˘™IKUR-nu-ú-ru [erasure] a-na ˘™AMAR.UTU-MU-DÙ id-di-nu i-nu-ú E.GI.Ì a4 5 (BÁN) 3 SILÀ ir-bi á ˘™IKUR-nu-ú-ru ˘™AMAR.UTU-MU-DÙ ina É.AN.NA IGI-ir i-na GUB-zu á ˘NUMUN-ia ßÀ.TAM É.AN.NA A-ú á ˘ib-na-a A ˘e-gi-bi ßmu-kin-nu ˘™AMAR.UTU-MU-MU A-ú á ˘™±AG-PAP-TIN-i A ˘ba-la-u ˘™30-APIN-e A-ú á ˘™±AG-MU-SI.SÁ A ˘DÙ-DINGIR ˘ÌR-™±EN A-ú á ˘il-la-a A ˘MU-™PAP.SUKKAL ˘™±EN-ib-ni A-ú á ˘bul-lu A ßU.KU6 ˘ki-na-a A-ú á ˘NUMUN-ia ˘mu-ra-nu A-ú ᢙ±AG-DÙ-E A ˘É.KUR-za-kir ˘ba-la-u A-ú á ˘™30-DÙ A ßSIPA-GU4 ßUMBISAG ˘na-din A-ú á ˘™±EN-Ev-BA-á A ˘e-gi-b[i] UNUGˆ £ZÍZ UD 6.KAM MU 12.KAM ™±AG-I LUGAL [TIN.TIRˆ] Trans lation ( This is about the case initiated by) Marduk-um-uur and Erba-Marduk, the sons of 0 2 Bl-uballi from the Bu family, who have 4 spoken 2 to Zriya, the chief adminiistrator of the Eanna, 3 the son of Ibnaya from the Egibi family, and the scribes of the Eanna, 4 thus: 5 ‘When Adad-nru, son of Ilu-nâdu, 6 delivered 5 0;0.5.3 kur of sesame to Mardukum-ibni, son of Bl-erba from the Dannêa family, (speaking) 6 thus: “ 7 Deliver (it) 6 to the Eanna”, 7b he (i.e., Marduk-um-ibni) did not deliver 7a the sesame to the Eanna. 7c He carried (it) off.’ 8 9 Zriya, the chief administrator of Eanna, had Marduk-um-uur, Erba-Marduk, and Marduk-um-ibni brought to the assembly (and) asked Marduk-um-ibni 10 thus: ‘Why 11 did you not deliver 10a the sesame that Adad-nru gave you 11a to the Eanna?’ Marduk-um-ibni 12 spoke 11a to the chief administrator, 12a thus: ‘(Regarding) the sesame that Adad-nru gave me: [something happened and] 13 my clothes were soiled; in distress I aban[doned (?) my plan (?)]14 (saying): “… I shall clean (my) clothes and (then) bring (the sesame) in and give (it) to the [Eanna].”’ 64 15 MUHAMMAD A. DANDAMAYEV & CORNELIA WUNSCH The chief administrator and the scribes hea[rd] this. 16 (That) on another day, when his clothes were clean, he had not [returned/entered (the temple) and] 17 he had not again (attempted to deliver) the sesame, 18 they learned from their records [(…)] in the Eanna. Marduk-um-uur and 19 Erba-Marduk took an oath by the gods Bl and Nabû, the Lady-of-[Uruk] 20 and Nanaya, and by the majesty of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, 21 and Belshazzar, the crown prince, as follows: ‘(May we be cursed) if the sesame— 22 about which we have spoken to the chief administrator — was not pil [ed up (or if )] 23 we have spoken with malice against Marduk-um-ibni.’ The sesame that Adad-nru 25 had given to Marduk-um-ibni, he (i.e., Marduk-umibni) delivered again. This sesame, 26 0;0.5.3 kur of Adad-nru’s erbu contribution, 27 was received in the Eanna (from) Marduk-um-ibni. 24 In the presence of Zriya, the chief administrator of Eanna, son of Ibnaya from the Egibi family. Witnesses Marduk-um-iddin, son of Nabû-a-bulli, descendant of Balu; Sîn-re, son of Nabû-um-lir, descendant of Ibni-ili; Arad-Bl, son of illaya, descendant of Iddin-Papsukkal; Bl-ibni, son of Bullu, descendant of Biru; Knaya, son of Zriya; Mrnu, son of Nabû-bn-ai, descendant of Ekur-zkir; Balu, son of Sîn-ibni, descendant of Ri-alp. Scribe Ndin, son of Bl-a-iqa, descendant of Egibi. Place and date Uruk, 6. XI., year 12 of Nabonidus, king of Babylon. Notes 5 The patronym ˘DINGIR-na-a-du is a rare name and may be understood as ‘the gods may be praised.’ One might further consider the emendation ˘™na-<na>-a-GIN but this also results in a name that is barely attested. When a feminin theophorous element such as Innin(na)/Itar is complemented with the verb kânu in logographic writing it normally has an accusative object as well. For Gula and Tamtum the combination with GIN is apparently unattested. Without an object, only for Nanaya the syllabic spelling -ka-na-ta exists, and the setting points to a West Semitic origin (AfO 51 [2005/06], 198, l. 5, 9, 12, 16, 21). This makes the emendation unlikely. 10 There are, possibly, no signs lost at the end of this line. 12 The break at the end of this line could allow for the restoration of some three to five signs, but it is equally possible that there might be no text loss. However, between the phrases ‘(regarding) the sesame that PN gave me’ and ‘my clothes became/were soiled’, one might expect the mention of some action or event that happened after the receipt of the sesame and which resulted in dirty cloths, such as ‘I fell down’, ‘I was attacked’, or ‘it rained’, or it may be a reference to the time frame, such as ‘later that day’. YOS 6 225: A Dispute about a Sesame Delivery 65 13–16 The editors of CAD offer the following translation (reflecting the understanding in 1958, CAD E, 81, s.v. ellu): ‘(why did you not deliver the three silas of sesame to Eanna? he answered,) E.GI.Ì a PN iddinu […] kibsu lu-ma-a-ka ina ú-du-ú at-ta-[…] umma NÍG.NA up-<ra-ma> kibsu li-li-il u luribma a[na Eanna] luddin “With regard to the sesame which PN gave [to me] I have become polluted as to the ‘path’ … ” (he said) as follows, “Send me a censer so that the ‘path’ may become clean (again), and (then) I shall deliver (the sesame) to Eanna” YOS 6 225: 14, cf. mu anû a kibsu i-li-lu la i[ddin] two days after the “path” became clean he (still) did not give (the sesame) ibid. 16 (NB).’ 13 The word kip/bsu (with variant kispu) can have a variety of meanings, and the context does not provide a real clue as to which one is applicable here: cf. CAD K, 336, s.v. kibsu A ‘track, steps’, ‘path’, ‘deduction, allowance’; CAD K, 339, s.v. kibsu B ‘a piece of linen fabric’ and CAD K, 425, s.v. kispu (kipsu) ‘funerary offering’; see also AHw, 483 and 487. While the editors of CAD E chose to translate ‘path’ (see above), at a later point they seem to have abandoned this translation, as it is not referenced in later volumes. We prefer to regard kibsu in our context as a piece of linen fabric, i. e., some kind of canvas, cloth, cape, or some other object fit to be worn as an outer garment. The absence of the determinative GADA or TÚG is noteworthy but not unusual for this term. According to Zawadzki (2006, 40), kibsu items regularily appear in texts from the Ebabbar temple of Sippar in a cultic context and are used, i.a., to cover cultic objects during processions. The term could also refer to the fabric type used to fashion specific textiles (ibid., 104). Some texts refer to a length of six cubits for kibsu items or a measurement of 3  2 metres (ibid., 136–37). They are provided to all deities and deified objects, apparently indiscriminately of their relative ranking within the pantheon, except for the quality of the cloth (ibid., 12, 159–61). Worn items could be re-used as blankets (ibid., 107, 135; id. 2010, 412). Several texts attest to the cleaning and/or mending of such items (e.g., Nbn. 694; ibid. 14). For lu-ma-a-ku, see CAD L, 258f. luû v. ‘to defile, desecrate, dirty’ (note: YOS 6 225 is not cited there). The form lumâku for the first person sg. stative shows the intervocalic shift  > m in keeping with Neo-Babylonian phonology. For the understanding as ‘I became soiled with respect to (my) garment’, i.e., ‘my clothes became soiled’, cf. the translation in CAD E, 81 (although assuming some ‘path’ to be the object). This focus on the acting person makes it more likely that kibsu is a piece of personal apparel rather than some cloth serving to carry the sesame. It also makes it unlikely that a contamination of the sesame itself is referenced here. For ina ú-du-ú at-ta-[di (?)…] several translation possibilities exist, depending on the understanding of udû as ‘container, equipment, utensil’, etc. (CAD U/W, 22) or du ‘trouble, difficulties’ (ibid., 25) in combination with the plentiful meanings of nadû or another verb. The protagonist might, e.g., have ‘taken off ’ or ‘thrown away’ the garment in despair, but this presumably would have removed the offending defilement, and he should have been able to continue on his way. Alternatively, he might have ‘thrown’ the garment or the sesame into a container. The verb nadû may also refer to abandoning or disregarding of tasks, plans, orders, ways, etc. (CAD N/1, s. v. nadû 1c 4´). Given the reported change of mind, expressed in a self-quote in the next line, one might think of attadi [mu/arrnu] ‘I gave up (my) plan/journey (to deliver the sesame)’ or the like (both idioms are attested, although CAD does not provide a NB example). 14 The signs Á NA RU do not yield a meaning; for the emendation in CAD, see the comments to ll. 13–16. Tentatively, one might expect something like: ‘first I will clean my clothing and (then) bring in and give (the sesame) to Eanna’, or an exclamation of anger, disappointment, or despair. 14 & 16 The verb ellu is used here to describe the reversal of the state of defilement or dirtiness (luû). Does the choice of this verb indicate an additional aspect of (cultic) purity over 66 MUHAMMAD A. DANDAMAYEV & CORNELIA WUNSCH and above mere cleanliness? It should be noted that Neo-Babylonian laundry contracts regarding everyday clothes use zukkû (ana zikûti) or âru (ana ti) to describe the cleaning process (Waerzeggers 2006, 93). The cleaning referenced here may, therefore, have a cultic connotation. 15 The restoration is based on parallels, see, e.g., Nb n. 720//TCL 13 219 (edited in Wunsch 2000, no. 90; with additional pieces joined). 16 The restoration is not certain. Although line 25 was formulated with a parallel in mind, the scribe seems to have made there a syntactical error that necessitated an erasure. The sequence nadnu … anû of l. 25, therefore, cannot serve as the basis for restoring this line. The copied remnants might suggest a form of târu or erbu. 23 At the end of the line, there may be no sign missing. 25 inû is either a plural form or a singular in the subjunctive that we both do not expect. The scribe seems to have changed the structure of the sentence somewhat, as there is an erasure at the end of line 24. The translation in CAD /1, 399, s.v. anû A 1.a (see below, comments to ll. 25–27) assumes that anû is used in hendiadys with the preceding verb nadnu, with Adad-nru as a subject. But in l. 17, where a similar formulation occurs (although not an exact parallel), anû is used without hendiadys and it clearly refers to Marduk-um-ibni’s repeated action. Furthermore, anû, when used in hendiadys precedes, in the majority of cases, the second verb and would then — more often than not — be connected with enclitic -ma (cf. ibid.) Our sentence, therefore, does not match the typical pattern. Apart from this, the record only makes sense if we presume a change of subject, as it were unlogical to expect Adad-nru, who verifiably has already delivered the sesame to Marduk-um-ibni and does not take part in this legal procedure, to act again in the same matter. We, therefore, assume that the scribe erroneously used the subjunctive form with anû because it follows iddinu (which ends the preceding subordinate clause). 25–27 For the receipt clause with a passive stative specific to Uruk texts of the type: (object) PN mair ‘(object) has been received (by the temple from) PN’ see Jursa (2005), 46–47. This insight was not yet available when the editors of CAD /1, s.v. anû A 1.a, translated the phrase by using the active stative: ‘amaamm a PN ana PN2 iddinu i-nu-ú … PN2 ina Eanna mair the linseed which PN gave again to PN2, PN2 received in Eanna.’ The usage of the active stative would be appropriate in texts issued at other places, e.g., the Ebabbar temple of Sippar — although then the deliverer should be introduced by ina U" and our text would require an emendation in this case. Jursa’s literal translation aid for the Uruk receipt clause (2005, 47, n. 262) produces, when applied to our text, a clear-cut phrase: ‘Marduk-um-ibni is in the state of having had this sesame — being the erbu obligation of Adad-nru — received from him (Marduk-um-ibni) in the temple.’ Accordingly, Marduk-um-ibni is the deliverer, erbu a Adad-nru qualifies the sesame and the temple is the unstated recipient (assuming that ina Eanna is meant in a local sense). This solves the problems for the text’s legal interpretation that were previously insurmountable. The delivery under dispute is designated by the rather unspecific term erbu, lit. ‘(temple) income/entrance’, that can refer to regular (and probably compulsory) tithe obligations owed by tax collectors to the temple, as well as to donations proper which may have been voluntary and on certain occasions, e.g., gifts by the king or a high official in connection with a visit to the temple, gifts by ordinary worshippers when petitioning a deity (with or without a temple visit), or a donation deposited in a cashbox at the temple gate as some sort of entrance fee.4 It often applies to silver, but may 4 Jursa (2010), 511, 513, 565. YOS 6 225: A Dispute about a Sesame Delivery 67 also apply to commodities or animals. The opaque character of erbu does not allow any conclusion as to the nature of the delivery in this case, but the modest amount of thirty-three litres (or about two buckets full) seems to indicate that the donor sent this sesame in a private capacity rather than as an agent for a group of people. The avoidance in this record of rent-related terms (such as stu) may point to a non-regular and/or the voluntary nature of the gift. The donor Adad-nru himself cannot be identified beyond doubt in other texts. The lack of an ancestor’s name indicates that he did not belong to the well-endowed urban elite circle who held prebends at the temple. In addition, upper-class families rarely used the theophoric element Adad in personal names; it rather appears with common people and often is combined with West Semitic verbal elements.5 The name Adad-nru itself does not occur often in the Eanna texts. There is a namesake without patronym mentioned among the Eanna herdsmen in a roughly contemporary text regarding offerings (niqû) of oxen and sheep on behalf of the king.6 Among those sacrifices, four oxen and 110 sheep are mentioned in connection with a certain Adad-nri. It remains open whether or not this attestation refers to the same person as in YOS 6 225. If this were the case, it might be possible that the sesame delivery somehow had to do with the royal offerings at Eanna. In view of the small amount, however, this incident may have arisen just as well from an unrelated private affair. The donor does not deliver the sesame to the temple himself but chooses to entrust his shipment to a certain Marduk-um-ibni from the Dannêa family. This person appears only once in the published Eanna records, which leads us to conclude that he did not belong to the higher echelon of Eanna officials who figure prominently in the temple records.7 His family name is common in Babylon, but it is also attested in other cities, such as Sippar, Kutha, Borsippa, and Uruk.8 Hence, the lack of other attestations does not preclude the possibility that he was a native Urukean with some kind of temple connection. The two brothers from the Bu9 family who testified against Marduk-um-ibni are known from a number of temple documents. Marduk-um-uur10 regularily acted 5 6 7 8 9 10 This point is studied in detail by Zawadzki (forthcoming). TCL 12 123, ll. 35 and 43. The possible connection was already pointed out by Kümmel (1979, 54). Dannêa does not occur among the family names of prebendaries in Uruk who were studied by Kümmel (1979). There are, however, a number of prebendary professions that are rarely attested in the records as their work does not require the issue of materials (e.g., gatekeepers, singers, etc.) and the Dannêa family might well have been among them. See the table in Wunsch (in press) that collects the most common family names in Babylonia and indicates their local distribution. Nielsen (2010, 186) refers to Dann (probably a variant of Dannêa) in mid-seventh century Uruk where the name occurs in a two-tier filiation. The family name Bu (just as the aforementioned name Dannêa) is known since the seventh century from Babylon (information courtesy John Nielsen), and by the sixth century also attested in Borsippa, Uruk and Dilbat. The name does not occur among the family names of prebendaries in Uruk who were studied by Kümmel (1979), but cf. YOS 6 37:7; 39:12; 66:2–3; 93: 16, etc. where Marduk-umuur is mentioned in connection with maartu. In the text Figulla (1951), ll. 30–31, from the second year of Cambyses (concerning the theft of ducks belonging to the temple), he is listed immediatly before a royal official (read ˘EN-KAR-™AG a11SAG “Bl-eri-Nabû, a-ri official” instead of the editor’s “master of the Nabû quay and officer”; the title, therefore, does not refer to Marduk-um-uur). 68 MUHAMMAD A. DANDAMAYEV & CORNELIA WUNSCH Marduk-um-iddin/Nabû-a-bulli//Balu Sîn-re/Nabû-um-lir/ /Ibni-ili Arad-Bl/illaya/ /Iddin-Papsukkal Marduk-um-uur/Bl-uballi//Bu Bl-ibni/Bullu/ /Biru Ndin/Bl-a-iqa/ /Egibi Knaya(Itar-mukn-apli)/Zriya Mrnu/Nabû-bn-ai/ /Ekur-zkir Balu/Sîn-ibni/ /Ri-alp Erba-Marduk/Bluballi//Bu Table 1 The protagonists of YOS 6 225 in other records of the Eanna archive (only such texts are included where at least three of them appear; this list is sorted by date and based on published texts; no attempt at completeness was made). Text Date YOS 6 92 17. IX. 7 Nbn Kleber2008no.10 20. XII. 8 Nbn YOS 6 167 30. VI. < > Nbn YOS 6 170 13. X. 11 Nbn YOS 6 205 [ ]. X. [ ] Nbn YOS 6 232 20+ I. 12 Nbn . AnOr 8 27 10. IV. 12 Nbn GCCI 1 380 20. V. 12 Nbn YOS 6 222 4. VII. 12 Nbn YNER1 3 4. VII. 12 Nbn YOS 19 51 20+ IX. 12 Nbn . YOS 6 155 30. IX. 12 Nbn YOS 6 225 6. XI. 12 Nbn YOS 6 203 5. XIIb. 12 Nbn YOS 6 214 12. XIIb. 12 Nbn YOS 6 191 12. XIIb. 12 Nbn YOS 6 206 15. XIIb. 12 Nbn YOS 6 235 27. XIIb. 12 Nbn YOS 19 65 [ ]. XIIb. [ ] [ ] AnOr 8 30 9. I. 13 Nbn YOS 6 204 11. IV. 13 Nbn YOS 19 1 13. [ ]. 14 Nbn YOS 19 93 10. XII. 15 Nbn Kessler 2006 [ ]. IV. 16 Nbn PTS 2291* 14. VII. 10+ Nbn YOS 7 5 4. I. 1 Cyr TCL 13 124 1. V. 1 Cyr YOS 7 7 6?. VI. 1 Cyr TCL 13 131 x+2. XIIb. 1 Cyr YOS 7 20 [9. III. 2 Cyr] AnOr 9 15 18. V. 2 [Cyr] YOS 7 18 15. V. 3 Cyr OIP 122 36 26. XII. 3 Cyr Jursa2004no.4 19. V. 4 Cyr YOS 7 49 7. IX. 4 Cyr YNER1 1** 29. XI. 4? Cyr AnOr 8 45 9. XII. 4 Cyr AnOr 8 46 10. XII. 4 Cyr Geller 1995 14. V. 5 Cyr AnOr 8 48 15. VII. 5 Cyr Spar1979no. 33 16. XI. 7 Cyr YOS 7 71 18. IV. 8 Cyr YOS 7 70 13. VIII. 8 Cyr Figulla 1951 12. X. 2 Cam 9. XII. 4 Cam YOS 7 167 W2 W2 W2 W3 W3 W1 W1 W2 W1 W1 W2 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W3 W6 W5 W11 So So W3 SE1 So W1 So So So So So W2 So W1 W4 SE2 W3 W2 W4 W2 W3 W5 So So So W4 W3 W4 W5 W6 W3 So S!o So W2 W3 W5 So W5 W3 W4 W7 W3 W4 W1 W3 W2 W2 A1 A2 W2 W5 W1 W2 W2 W4 W5 W9 A6+ W5 W7 A2+ W1 W2 W2 W4 W1 W1 W1 W1 W3 E2 W2 W2 W1 W1 W1 W4 E7 W7 W4 W3 So W3 SE1 W2 SE1 W2 So W3 W1 SE SE1 SE1 So? S1 W5 W7 W3 W1 W4 W2 W4 W7 E4 W6 W4 W4 S1 W3 So SE2 So So W5 W6 SE2 SE3 SE4 So W3 W2 SE SE2 SE2 W4 S2 W7 W4 W2 W7 W3 W5 W4 W3 SE SE3 SE3 S3 W8 W12 W5 W3 W8 W4 W6 So So SE SE4 SE4 S4 W9 W13 W4 W9 W5 W7 W5 W5 Function within the document: A accuser; E person identified as a temple enterer; SE person identified as Eanna scribe (although not acting as a scribe in this particular document); So one scribe only; W witness; numbers refer to the ranking within the document; indicates an anomaly in ranking. * to be published by G. Frame; ** see new edition based on collation results in Payne (2008). YOS 6 225: A Dispute about a Sesame Delivery 69 as a witness to records with a judicial background. The same holds true for all the witnesses to the document under discussion, as they appear — in various combinations — in many records of this period. Table 1 (on p. 68) lists tablets in chronological order in which at least three of the parties or witnesses of YOS 6 225 are found together and indicates the protagonists’ function and rank within the record. A clear hierarchical pattern emerges (with minimal exceptions that are highlighted) that remains stable over almost two decades, even undisturbed by the dynastic change in 538 BC. Four of the protagonists held the title of ‘scribe of the Eanna’ (upar ayakki).11 The contents of these tablets vary, but the majority relates to judicial procedures and highprofile temple affairs, including matters of cult and ritual. We, therefore, may assume that the present document pertains to an affair that was considered to be of some import. The record does not indicate who triggered the investigation because it reflects an advanced stage of the procedure and only refers sketchily to its previous steps. The donor Adad-nru may have inquired about the delivery and requested a receipt from Marduk-um-ibni. As the latter was apparently unable to produce such document, the donor may have approached the temple authorities who demanded him to bring written proof or witnesses of the original sesame transfer. It is, however, indicative that the donor, according to our tablet, does not appear as an accuser or in any other capacity during the hearing and that the decision record does not oblige Mardukum-ibni to hand over a receipt to him. The donor, therefore, had either acted only at an earlier stage in the procedure (which may or may not have been documented at the time) and had charged the two witnesses with making an accusation on his behalf, or — maybe more likely — was not involved or was even unaware of the fact that his consignment had not reached its destination. If the latter were true, we may conclude that the donor was not answerable to anyone for the sesame delivery (otherwise, he would have needed and demanded proof of delivery). The erbu contribution, therefore, most likely was a personal offering. This may also be supported by the fact that the missing erbu delivery was not detected by an administrator checking the accounts for expected but unreceived shipments, but, according to our record, the Eanna registers were only consulted after the accusation had been made. Hence, the investigation was most likely triggered for the benefit of the intended recipient, i.e., the Eanna temple, by the two brothers with close links to the Eanna who witnessed the original sesame transfer from Adad-nru to Marduk-um-ibni. It is not clear whether they accidentally observed the transaction or whether the donor had called upon them deliberately in order to have trustworthy witnesses in the absence of a written receipt. If the accusation should have been made by the two brothers without instigation from the donor on the basis of some accidental observation (which is quite possible), one might ask what prompted them to do this, as they seem to have assumed voluntarily an informer’s function on behalf of the temple. The judicial body dealing with 11 These were Ndin/Bl-a-iqa//Egibi; Knaya(= Itar-mukn-apli)/Zriya; Mrnu/Nabû-bnai//Ekur-zkir; Balu/Sîn-ibni//Ri-alp: Kümmel (1979), 144; Kleber (2008), 35–36. For Mrnu, the text YOS 19 1 should be added. It, therefore, appears that all four of them held the title by the year 14 Nbn at the latest. 70 MUHAMMAD A. DANDAMAYEV & CORNELIA WUNSCH the case may have asked themselves the same question and obviously wanted to allay any suspicion regarding the temple’s operatives having acted against Marduk-umibni on alledged temple business in order to settle some personal score. The oath which the brothers take seems to allude to this fact because they do not only swear in order to confirm that the disputed delivery had taken place indeed but also to clear themselves of any suspicion of personal malice or vengeance. During the investigation, the missing delivery was treated as a mistake (i.e., an administrative matter) rather than as a criminal charge for an intentional misappropriation. The defendant received the benefit of the doubt. He was able to convince the authorities that an immediate delivery had been intended but impossible, that he meant to make up for it as soon as possible, and he probably professed or pretended not to remember whether or not this had happened. In the end, the testimony came down to one’s word against the other and the willingness of the accusers to take the oath shifted the evidence in their favour. This tablet, therefore, contains an example of the usage of the weakened assertory oath in an administrative context.12 As a result, the defendant delivered the disputed amount of sesame to the Eanna temple. The defendant’s explanation as to why the first delivery attempt had failed is the most enigmatic part of the record because of the crucial polysemic term kib/psu. The pertaining verbs, luu ‘to soil, desecrate’ (l. 13) and ellu G/D ‘to be/make clean, pure’ (l. 14, 16) indicate a concern for appropriate cleanliness or purity that prevented the deliverer from entering the temple precinct to bring in (rubu, l. 14) the offering and hand it over (nadnu, l. 15) to the person in charge. The connection of erbu (i.e., ‘income/entrance’) contribution and the description of its delivery by ‘making it enter’ the Eanna temple may not be accidental.13 One wonders whether the peculiar requirements of the delivery were the reason for the transfer of the shipment by Adadnru to Marduk-um-ibni in the first place. While access to the temple courtyard was limited to initiated persons only,14 access to storerooms and areas of manufacture was open to non-initiates, e.g., to slaves of prebendaries who performed parts of the prebendary service that did not require them to enter areas of limited access. Because of the proximity to the sacred space, however, these storeroom and workshop areas were most likely off limits for any persons who carried noticeable signs of pollution, including unwashed or dirty clothes.15 If we assume that Marduk-um-ibni’s excuse for his 12 13 14 15 On the growing importance of the weakened assertory oath in the Neo-Babylonian period and its application in administrative context, see Wells/Magdalene/Wunsch (2010). Besides the usage of the verb rubu, there is also the receipt clause that explicitely adds the information that Marduk-um-ibni had delivered the sesame in the Eanna in the end. Waerzeggers (2008, 15), discusses the gradations of sacred space and points out that it was the kisallu (temple courtyard) to which the gullubu initiation rite for priests gave access. Van der Toorn (1989, 345–53), identifies pollutants that could affect an initiated person and bar him from entering the sacred areas. Apart from eating prohibited food and touching contaminated substances or persons, it also includes going about unwashed or in dirty clothes (cited in Waerzeggers 2008, 19, n. 54). By extension, the same principle can be expected to have applied to lay persons when approaching temple storerooms or workshops. YOS 6 225: A Dispute about a Sesame Delivery 71 cancellation of the first delivery attempt was based on worries about possible cultic pollution, we can imagine why it was met with sympathy and leniency by the temple authorities. B IBLIOGRAPHY Figulla, Hugo H. 1951 ‘Lawsuit concerning a Sacrilegious Theft at Erech’, Iraq 13, 95–101. Geller, Markham J. 1995 ‘An Eanna Tablet from Uruk in Cleveland’, in Ziony Zevit/Seymour Gitin/Michael Sokoloff (eds.), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots, Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 531–42. Jursa, Michael 2004 „Auftragsmord, Veruntreuung und Falschaussagen: Neues von Gimillu“, WZKM 94, 111– 34. 2005 Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents: Typology, Contents and Archives, Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 1, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Jursa, Michael (with contributions by J. Hackl, B. Jankovic , K. Kleber, E. E. Payne, C. Waerzeggers ´ and M. Weszeli) 2010 Aspects of the Economic History of Babylonia in the First Millennium BC: Economic Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth, AOAT 377, Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Kessler, Karlheinz 2006 „Das traurige Ende eines Hundewelpen in Uruk/Warka“, BaM 37, 239–47. Kleber, Kristin 2008 Tempel und Palast, Die Beziehungen zwischen dem König und dem Eanna-Tempel im spätbabylonischen Uruk, AOAT 358, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Kümmel, Hans M. 1979 Familie, Beruf und Amt im spätbabylonischen Uruk: Proso p o graphische Untersuchungen zu Berufsgruppen des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. in Uruk, ADOG 20, Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. Payne, Elizabeth E. 2008 ‘New Evidence for the “Craftsmen’s Charter”’, RA 102, 99–114. Spar, Ira 1979 ‘Three Neo-Babylonian Trial Depositions from Uruk’, in Marvin Powell/Ronald Sack (eds.), Studies in Honor of Tom B. Jones, AOAT 203, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 157– 72. Toorn, Karel van der 1989 «La pureté rituelle au Proche-Orient ancien», Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 206, 339–56. Waerzeggers, Caroline 2006 ‘Neo-Babylonian Laundry’, RA 100, 83–96. 2008 ‘On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests’, Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14, 1–35. Wells, Bruce/F. Rachel Magdalene/Cornelia Wunsch 2010 ‘The Assertory Oath in Neo-Babylonian and Persian Administrative Texts’, Revue Inter nationale des droits de l’Antiquité 57, 193–209. 72 MUHAMMAD A. DANDAMAYEV & CORNELIA WUNSCH Wunsch, Cornelia 2000 Das Egibi-Archiv I: Die Felder und Gärten, CM 20A/B, Groningen: Styx. in press „Babylonische Familiennamen“, in Manfred Krebernik and Hans Neumann (Hrsg.), Mesopo tamien und seine Nachbarn in neu- und spätbabylonischer Zeit, Kolloquium zu Ehren von Joachim Oelsner am 2. und 3. März 2007 in Jena, to appear in AOAT. Zawadzki, Stefan 2006 Garments of the Gods: Studies in the Textile Industry and Pantheon of Sippar, OBO 218, Fribourg/ Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. forthcoming ‘The Hindaneans in the Neo-Babylonian Empire’, in Cornelia Wunsch (ed.), 53 r d Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Moscow and St. Petersburg 2007: Late Babylonian Workshop in Honor of Muhammad A. Dandamayev (to appear in the series Babel und Bibel, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns). 0 U! DU""#GA#NI S$ MU#NI#IB#DU"" ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES IN MEMORY OF BLAHOSLAV HRU!KA edited by Lud"k Vacín 5 Dresden 2011 U4 DU11-GA-NI SÁ MU-NI-IB-DU11 Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Blahoslav Hru!ka edited by Lud"k Vacín © ISLET-Verlag Dresden Alle Rechte vorbehalten All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the permission of the publisher. Schriftsatz und Umschlaggestaltung: Cornelia Wunsch Herstellung: Quickprinter Overath Printed in Germany ISBN 13: 978-3-9808466-6-0 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Bibliography of Blahoslav Hru!ka JITKA S"KOROVÁ & LUD#K VACÍN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Blahoslav Hru!ka: An Appreciation JITKA S"KOROVÁ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 An Excerpt from a Sumerian Myth Mentioning Enlil BENDT ALSTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 On Sheep, Sumerians and the Early State PETR CHARVÁT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 YOS 6 225: A Dispute about a Sesame Delivery MUHAMMAD A. DANDAMAYEV & CORNELIA WUNSCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Die Keilschrifttexte der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München GERTRUD & WALTER FARBER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Divination or Medicine? MARKHAM J. GELLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 The Book of Esther: Revealing or Re-Veiling the Identity? MARKÉTA HOLUBOVÁ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 The Structure of the Egyptian Pantheon JI$Í JANÁK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Piling Up Barley Sheaves: A Study of SU7 – DU8 and ZAR(3) – SAL(4) KAZUYA MAEKAWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 VAT 5057: Eine fara-zeitliche Kaufurkunde JOACHIM MARZAHN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Aramäisches equ „Holz“ im keilschriftlichen Brief aus Tyros und eq in der aramäisch-keilschriftlichen Uruk-Beschwörung CHRISTA MÜLLER-KESSLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Einige neusumerische Texte aus dem Verwaltungsbereich der Textilproduktion von Umma HANS NEUMANN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 vii The Official Called !U.I (gall!bum) in the Latter Part of the Old Babylonian Period LUKÁ! PECHA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 The abbuttu and the Alleged Elamite ‘Slave Hairstyle’ DANIEL T. POTTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Mari Theomorphism: Intimation of Sacrality in the Royal Correspondence JACK M. SASSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Zur Holzwirtschaft im altsumerischen Laga" GEBHARD J. SELZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 An Old Babylonian List of Objects MARTEN STOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Gudea and Nin#i"zida: A Ruler and His God LUD$K VACÍN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Die Vermittlungsaufgabe des LÚ dU nach hethitischen Quellen !ÁRKA VELHARTICKÁ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Der Mythos Enlil und Ninlil: Vom Schrecken des Kanalbaus durch Stadt und Unterwelt ANNETTE ZGOLL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 viii