The Seal of the Sanga: On the Old Babylonian Sangas of Šamaš of Sippar-Jahrūrum and Sippar-Amnānum

The Seal of the Sanga

Cuneiform Monographs Editors

t. abusch – m. j. geller – s. m. maul f. a. m. wiggermann

VOLUME 40

The Seal of the Sanga On the Old Babylonian Sangas of Šamaš of Sippar-Jarūrum and Sippar-Amnānum

By

Michel Tanret

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2010

Cover drawing of the seal by E. Smekens. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in Publication data Tanret, Michel. The seal of the sanga / by Michel Tanret. — 1st ed. p. cm. — (Cuneiform monographs) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17958-5 (hard cover : alk. paper) 1. Priests—Iraq—Sippar (Extinct city—History. 2. Priests—Iraq—Sippar (Extinct city—Family relationships—History. 3. Inheritance and succession—Iraq—Sippar (Extinct city—History. 4. Ebabbar Temple (Sippar—History. 5. Ebabbar Temple (Sippar—Administration—History. 6. Temples—Iraq—Babylonia—History. 7. Marduk (Babylonian deity) 8. Seals (Numismatics—Iraq—Sippar (Extinct city) 9. Sippar (Extinct city)—Antiquities. 10. Sippar (Extinct city)—History—Sources. I. Title. DS70.5.S55T36 2009 935—dc22 2009033258

ISSN: 0929-0052 ISBN: 978 90 04 17958 5 Copyright 2010 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

contents

v

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xv

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 7

I. THE TEXTS AND THE SEALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I.A. THE SANGA OF ŠAMAŠ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Sangas Not as Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. The Named First Sangas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1. Warad-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2. Annum-pī-Aja . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3. Warad-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.4. Annum-pī-Aja . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.5. Ilšu-ibni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.6. Sîn-aam-iddinam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. The Named Second Sangas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1. Marduk-mušallim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2. Etel-pī-Nabium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3. Unnamed Sangas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.1. Real Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.2. Temple Related Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.3. Economic Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.4. Social Standing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5. A Distorted Perspective: Discarded or Not Discarded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Sangas in the Witness Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. After the Sanga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Before the Sanga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. General Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 11 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 18 20 20

I.B. THE FIRST SANGAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. Warad-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Annum-pī-Šamaš Son of Warad-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscription of the Seal Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Šamaš-tappašu Son of Annum-pī-Šamaš . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscription of the Seal Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Lipit-Ištar Son of Šamaš-tappašu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21 21 21 21 21 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 25 25 25

vi

contents 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. The Order of the Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. The Order of the Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Dating Undated Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. The Title Sanga NÍG dutu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6. The Change of Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Comments on Individual Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1. Seal Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2. Sealing Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Warad-Sîn Son of Lipit-Ištar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Unusual Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. The Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. The Seals: His Father’s or His Own . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Comments on Individual Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Sealing Ladies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. Annum-pī-Aja Son of Warad-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Inversions in the Witness List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. The Ghost of Annum-pī-Aja . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Sealing Together or Alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. An All Time Low . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. His Own Seal and... A New Father’s Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Discussion of Single Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI. Šamaš-tappašu Son of Annum-pī-Aja . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. CT 6, 33a and CT 47, 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Another Šamaš-tappašu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. The Same Šamaš-tappašu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Whose Seal? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Comments on Individual Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. The Servant Line: From God to King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII. Warad-Sîn Son of Šamaš-tappašu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscription of the Seal Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26 27 27 28 29 29 29 32 32 33 33 33 33 35 35 35 38 38 38 39 39 40 40 42 43 44 44 44 49 49 49 49 49 49 51 51 54 56 56 56 57 57 57 57 57 58 58 58 60 60 61 61 61

contents 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Other Second Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII. Annum-pī-Aja Son of Warad-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Two Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Comments on Individual Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. A Small Note on Inherited Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX. Sîn-iqīšam Son of Warad-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscription of the Seal Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Two Breaks in the Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. The Place of ARN 174 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X. Ilšu-ibnīšu Son of Sîn-iqīšam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Patronymic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Two Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Comments on Individual Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI Nūr-Kabta Son of Ilšu-ibni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Attestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Atypical Names and Genealogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XII. Sîn-aam-iddinam Son of Sîn-iqīšam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscription of the Seal Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. A Problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. The Seal Legend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. The End of the Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii 62 62 62 63 63 63 63 64 64 64 64 65 65 66 66 67 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 69 69 70 70 70 71 71 71 71 71 72 72 73 74 74 74 74 74 75 75 75 75 76 76 76 76 76 77

viii

contents

I.C. BEFORE THE SECOND SANGA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Ilum-mušallim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Seal Inscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d. Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Imlik-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Attestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Būr-Nunu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Seal Inscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c.1. The First Overseer Ever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c.2. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c.3. Comments on Individual Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c.4. Sealing Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Adad-rēmēni Son of Damu-galzu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Ilabrat-bāni, Son of Būr-Nunu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excursus 1: The Būr-Sîn Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Family Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Brothers and Sisters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Seal Legends of the Būr-Sîn Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Būr-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. His Sister Erišti-Aja . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. His Daughter Aja-šitti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. His Daughter Aja-tallik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. His Granddaughter Aja-rīšat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6. His Son Ilabrat-bāni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7. His Grandson Ninšubur-mansum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8. His Grandson Sîn-bāni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9. His Great Grandson Būr-Nunu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excursus 2: The Damu-galzu Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Family Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. Damu-galzu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. His Son Adad-rēmēni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3. His Grandson Kalūmum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4. His Great Grandson Eidimana-mansum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79 79 79 79 79 80 80 80 81 81 81 81 82 82 82 83 83 84 84 84 85 85 86 86 86 86 86 86 87 87 87 87 89 89 89 89 89 91 91

I.D. THE SECOND SANGA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Išar-Šamaš . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. When Did It All Start? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Sîn-ennam Son of Sîn-imitti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscription of the Seal Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. The Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. In Search of His Father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93 93 93 93 93 94 94 94 94 94 94 95 95

contents 3. Šu/amu-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. The Name: Šu- or Ša-? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Kinship? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. In Absentia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. The Restoration of the Legend of Seal A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1. The First Possible Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2. The Second Possibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3. The Third Possibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Family? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Etel-pī-Nabium Son of Šalim-pali-Marduk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscription of the Seal Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Exit a Ghost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. A Remarkable Spelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. The Sealing Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Sîn-iddinam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Drawing and Inscription of the Seals Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Family? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. The Servant Line of the Legend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Sîn-bāni Son of Asallui-mansum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Seeming Interferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Another Inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. A Remarkable Novum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Whose Seal? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. Išme-Sîn Son of Ikūn-pī-Uraš . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix 95 95 95 97 97 97 98 98 98 99 99 100 100 100 101 101 101 102 103 103 103 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 106 106 107 107 107 107 108 108 108 108 109 110 110 110 111 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 113

x

contents 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Sanga arpanītum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Another Text? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Sealing Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. Sîn-erībam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscription of the Seal Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. Marduk-mušallim Son of Marduk-nāir Adoptive Son of Sîn-erībam . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Etel-pī-Nabium Son of Marduk-mušallim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Two Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Not Witness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. First Witness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Sealing Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. Marduk-nāir Son of Etel-pī-Nabium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscription of the Seal Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

114 114 114 115 115 115 115 116 116 116 116 117 117 117 117 117 117 118 119 120 120 120 120 121 121 121 121 122 122 122 123 123 123 123 124 124

I.E. THE SANGAS OF ŠAMAŠ OF THE EDIKUDA TEMPLE IN SIPPAR-AMNĀNUM . . . . . Overlapping Careers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overlaps Resolved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Nūr-Šamaš . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Šamšatum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Utu-urbara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Šumi-eretim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. Narām-Sîn Son of dEN.[...] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. Sîn-nādin-šumi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. Etel-pī-Marduk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. Sîn-išmeanni Son of Utu-urbara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. A Father... Far Away . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. A Well-Attested Witness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3. The Edikuda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4. Outside Ur-Utu’s Archive but in Sippar-Amnānum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5. Career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

125 125 126 126 126 127 127 128 128 129 129 130 130 131 131 131 131

contents

xi

2. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Seal B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Seal C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Seal D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Unidentified Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Ikūn-pī-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seal Inscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Attestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Location of the Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. Ibni-Šērum Son of Sîn-ibni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Seals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Careers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Genres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

131 131 132 132 132 133 134 134 134 134 134 134 135 135 135 135

II. THE SEALS AND THE TEXTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.A. CATALOGUE OF THE SEAL IMPRESSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Seals of the First Sangas of the Ebabbar in Sippar Jarūrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. Seal of Annum-pī-Šamaš Son of Warad-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Seal of Šamaš-tappašu Son of Annum-pī-Šamaš. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3. Seal of Lipit-Ištar Son of Šamaš-tappašu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4a. Seal of Warad-Sîn Son of Lipit-Ištar Used by Himself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4b. Seal of Warad-Sîn Son of Lipit-Ištar Used by His Son and Grandson . . . . . . . . . 1.5. Seal of Annum-pī-Aja Son of Warad-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6. Seal of Šamaš-tappašu Son of Annum-pī-Aja . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7. Seal of Warad-Sîn Son of Šamaš-tappašu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8a. First Seal of Annum-pī-Aja Son of Warad-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8b. Second Seal of Annum-pī-Aja Son of Warad-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9. Seal of Sîn-iqīšam Son of Warad-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10. Seal of Ilšu-ibnīšu Son of Sîn-iqīšam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11. Nūr-Kabta Son of Ilšu-ibni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12. Seal Used by Sîn-aam-iddinam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Seals of Temple Officials as Second Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Seal of Ilum-mušallim, Doorkeeper of the Gate of the Gagûm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Seal of Būr-Nunu, Overseer of the Nadiātum of Šamaš . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Seal of Damu-galzu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4a. Seal of Adad-rēmēni Son of Damu-galzu with Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4b. Seal of Adad-rēmēni Son of Damu-galzu without Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Seals of Second Sangas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Išar-Šamaš . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Seal of Sîn-ennam Son of Sîn-imitti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Seal of Šumu-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4a. First Seal of Šalim-pāli-Marduk Son of Sîn-gāmil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4b. Second Seal of Šalim-pāli-Marduk Son of Sîn-gāmil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. Seal of Eel-pī-Nabium, Son of Šalim-pāli-Marduk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6a. Seal of Sîn-iddinam Son of Enlil-a[...] without Legend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6b. Seal of Sîn-iddinam Son of Enlil-a[...] with Legend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7a. Seal of Sîn-bāni Son of Asallui-mansum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7b. Seal Used by Sîn-bāni Son of Asallui-mansum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7c. Another Seal Used by Sîn-bāni? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8a. Seal of Išme-Sîn, Son of Ikūn-pī-Uraš Sanga arpanītum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

137 139 145 145 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 154 155 156 156 157 157 159 160 161 162 162 163 163 164 164 165 166 167 167 168 169 169 170

xii

contents 3.8b. Seal of Išme-Sîn, Son of Ikūn-pī-Uraš Sanga of Šamaš Servant of ammurabi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8c. Seal of Išme-Sîn, Son of Ikūn-pī-Uraš Sanga of Šamaš Servant of Samsu-iluna 3.9. Sîn-erībam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10a. Seal of Marduk-mušallim, Son of Marduk-nāir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10b. Seal of Marduk-mušallim, Son of Sîn-erībam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11a. Seal of Etel-pī-Nabium, Son of Marduk-mušallim Servant of Ammi-ditana . . 3.11b. Seal of Etel-pī-Nabium, Son of Marduk-mušallim Servant of Ammi-aduqa . . 3.12. Seal Used by Marduk-nāir Son of Etel-pī-Nabium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Seals Used by the Sangas of the Edikuda, the Šamaš Temple of Sippar Amnānum . . A–G. Seals Used by the First Six Sangas of the Edikuda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. Seals Used by Sîn-išmeanni, Sanga of the Šamaš Temple of Sippar Amnānum . . . a) His Own Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Uninscribed Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) Seal with Legend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d) Seal of Lama?-ilum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Seal Used by Ikūn-pī-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. Seal Used by Ibni-Šērum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

171 172 173 173 174 175 176 176 177 177 177 177 178 179 179 180 181

II.B. ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Seals of the First Sangas of Šamaš from Sippar Jarūrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Syntax: The Scene and the Legend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Seals of Temple Officials Acting as Second Witnesses before the Existence of the Second Sanga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Description and Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Seals of the Second Sangas of Šamaš, later the Sangas of Aja . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Themes and Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. General Conclusions on the Seals of the Ebabbar Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. The Seals of the Sangas of the Edikuda in Sippar Amnānum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. General Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

182 182 182 184 185

II.C. THE SEAL OF THE SANGAS’ DAUGHTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Damiqtum Daughter of Šamaš-tappašu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Awāt-Aja Daughter of Warad-Sîn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Lamassī Daughter of Sîn-ennam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Šāt-Šamaš Daughter of Sîn-ennam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

195 195 196 197 197

III. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III.A. THE NAMES AND FAMILIES OF THE SANGAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The First Sangas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Second Sangas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

199 201 201 202

III.B. THE LEGENDS OF THE SANGAS AND OFFICIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. First Sanga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. Second Sanga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

205 205 205 206 206

186 186 187 187 188 189 191 191 192 192 193 193 194

contents

xiii

2. Analysis of the Seal Legends of the Sangas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. The Travelling Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Non-Standard Order for the First Sangas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Non-Standard Order for the Second Sangas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. The Changes in the Servant Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Servant Line on the Legends of the First Sangas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Servant Line on the Legends of the Second Sangas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Allegiance to the King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Addition of .ke4 to the King’s Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Changing Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. The Second Sangas as Sangas of Aja . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Legends of the Temple and Gagûm Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Father’s Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. More than One Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

208 208 209 210 211 212 212 213 213 214 215 216 217 220

III.C. THE SEALING PRACTICE OF THE SANGAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Stage 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Stage 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Stage 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Stage 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. A Word on Inversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

223 223 224 224 225 225 226

III.D. THE SANGA AS WITNESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. For the Priestesses Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Developing Wealth? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. To Witness or Not to Witness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Types of Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Uncharacteristic Genres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. No Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Nine Nadītums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Erišti-Aja, Daughter of Ilšu-ibbīšu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Salatum, Daughter of Utu-duga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Bēlētum, Daughter of Akšak-iddinam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Erišti-Aja, Daughter of Rubbuqum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Šerikti-Aja, Daughter of Šamaš-liwwir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Bēltāni, Daughter of Sîn-māgir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Narāmtum, Daughter of Ubar-Šamaš . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. Erišti-Aja, Daughter of Lu-Ninšubur.ka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. Amat-Šamaš, Daughter of Ilšu-ibbīšu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

229 229 230 231 231 232 234 234 234 235 235 235 235 235 235 236 236

III.E. CAREERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

237

III.F. THE SEAL STONES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

240

III.G. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

244

IV. LISTS AND CONCORDANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANNEX I. The Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANNEX II. The Genres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANNEX III. Concordance Museum–Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANNEX IV. Concordance Publication–Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

251 253 265 271 281

xiv

contents

V. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

287

VI. SEAL PLATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Seals of the First Sangas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Seals of the High Officials Acting as Second Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Seals of the Second Sangas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Seals of the Sangas of the Edikuda in Sippar-Amnānum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Seals of the Sanga’s Daughters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

291 292 295 296 298 299

VII. INDEXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

301

introduction

xv

PREFACE

It is a real pleasure to express our thanks to the persons and institutions who provided invaluable help for our undertaking. Jon Taylor, assistant keeper of the cuneiform collections and the British Museum student’s room staff were helpful as ever, even when they were asked to supply tablets beyond the call of duty. John Curtis, Keeper of the Middle East collections and he Trustees of this venerable and indispensable institution will find here the expression of our gratitude for the permission to work in the Museum and to publish a number of seal impressions from their collections. Madame B. André, keeper of the Ancient Oriental collection of the Louvre allowed us to collate several tablets and put at our disposal a number of photographs. Especially in the difficult material circumstances of the department at the time, now fortunately resolved, her help is all the more appreciated. Joachim Marzahn curator of the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin was also very helpful in allowing collations of several published tablet cases and seal impressions. Mark Geller and Florentina Badalanova Geller most kindly provided photos of a number of tablets and seals. Eleanor Robson, kind and efficient as ever, sent us the photo which allowed to read correctly the name of Ikūn-pī-Uraš, father of the eighth second sanga. Caroline Waerzeggers collated a text, allowing to take an unwanted ‘nu’ out of the name of UtuUrbara, father of a sanga of the Edikuda. Els Woestenburg kindly allowed us to use some of her unpublished transliterations. No less than four colleagues read through our manuscript and pointed out many a mistake or inconsistency. Marten Stol put his profound knowledge of all things (Old) Babylonian at our disposal, genereous as ever, and added a number

of references and corrected our text. Katrien De Graef offered very valuable comments on the whole text, as well on the content as on the form. Guido Suurmeijer supplied corrections on the first part. Our heartfelt gratitude goes to them. Dominique Collon bravely undertook the task of correcting our English, pointed out editorial inconsistencies and commented on the contents. Her remarks were always pertinent and the text has become much more readable thanks to her many corrections. We cannot thank her enough for this. The drawings of the seals have been made by Erik Smekens on the basis of numerous photographs of partial seal impressions often slightly distorted. He managed, as always, to combine incredible accurateness with elegance of drawing. His infinite patience and equanimity, each of the many times a detail had to be added or changed, more than deserves our gratitude. Our thanks also go to the publisher, Brill, who, through the good works of the acquisitions editor for the Ancient Near East, Ms. J. Pavelko, have accepted this study for publication in the renowned series of the Cuneiform Monographs. It goes without saying that the kindness of all of these colleagues is one of the nicest presents one can ever wish to receive. We only hope that the final product will be worthy of their help, if not, the author alone is to blame. Last but not least, our gratitude goes to the late Prof. L. De Meyer who unfailingly supported our efforts and encouraged us most generously to study the archive of Ur-Utu, source of so much invaluable information on the Old Babylonian period.

xvi

introduction

introduction

1

INTRODUCTION1

This study grew out of the very simple question whether, during the Old Babylonian period, some people had distinctive seals revealing by their design and/or legend the function or social role of their owner. It was assumed that if this were the case then the higher classes and professions would be the most likely to own such distinctive seals. Among these it was not difficult to single out the sangas, considered to be the heads of temples and among these the sangas of Šamaš of Sippar seemed the most adequate since they are the highest officials of the main temple of the city. If anyone in this society had the opportunity and means to have seals carved at will and convenience, the sanga of Šamaš, head of the temple administration, certainly had. No less important is the fact that they are among the best documented persons of their time, albeit in a very special way. In the vast majority of texts they appear as witnesses. Only exceptionally do we find them in another capacity. This renders a thorough study of their economic and religious role quasi impossible, at present, but is a quite ideal situation for a study of their seals and sealing practice, much better probably than for any other profession or occupation during the Old Babylonian period. We started our investigation with a few basic principles, to be verified in the course of our work. The mention of a person, in casu a sanga of Šamaš, in the text and the impression of his seal on the envelope (or on the tablet itself) are complementary in such a way that even the absence of the one in presence of the other is, in the case of the sanga of Šamaš, to be considered as meaningful. It soon appeared that the sangas did not always use their own seal, that they did not always seal and that their seal could even appear on tablets on which they were not mentioned. It thus became apparent that seal use had to be a part of our study if we wanted to attempt any understanding of the value these seals had for their owners and users.

We consider that the apposition of a seal is primarily a(n additional) certification of the presence of the person and authenticates the transaction. It is indispensable on the envelope of the tablet, which would lose most of its raison d’être without it. As very aptly put by J. Renger (1977), “A legal document in ancient Mesopotamia was generally sealed either by the witnesses or by the party to an agreement who relinquished a right (for instance, the seller in a sale) or assumed an obligation (the debtor in a loan).” But there is more to this than meets the eye. The use by some persons of their father’s or even their grandfather’s seal reveals the function of the seal as marker of the continuity within the family. At the outset of the research, many years ago, G. Colbow, then post-doctoral researcher at Ghent University in the Department of Assyriology, collected all sanga seals from the tablets of the galama archive of Sippar-Amnānum. She visited the British Museum in London and the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin to collate and collect further seal impressions. On the basis of this excellent corpus she produced a first descriptive catalogue of the seal impressions as well as a first analysis and made provisional drawings. This was the basis for this part of the study, which we discussed together. G. Colbow left the Department and, as years went by, the study of the tablets on which the sangas were mentioned progressed, the seal legends were further read, more seals were added, the catalogue and analysis were reworked and expanded. Finally, supplemented by many photographs, new and completed drawings were made by E. Smekens. A few years ago, a seal impression database was added to our prosopographical database of Old Babylonian Sippar. This seal base now comprises over two thousand impressions (and several thousand more have been photographed and are being added to the base). The impressions are recorded in drawing or photo (or both) together with all

1 This study presents research results of the Interuniversity Pole of Attractions Programme VI/34 funded by

the Belgian State, Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs.

2

introduction

pertinent information, among which a first categorization of the iconography, the dates of the tablets on which they are impressed and the place of the impression on the case or tablet. This proved to be a great help in dating some iconographical elements as well as giving a first idea of their frequency. As the study evolved further through the years more information was extracted from the iconography, the seal legends and the tablets. As the insights advanced, the seal catalogue too was completely rewritten and reorganized, the conclusions of this part were completely reformulated. The aim of this study is to go beyond a mere juxtaposition of general information about textual and iconographical data. These data have to be collected and presented separately to start with but then, in our conclusions, we tried to bring them all together, which in some cases worked better than we could have hoped and produced new insights. In general, as will become clear in the following pages, the information is very scanty and unevenly distributed, a given for all things Assyriological. As a consequence we were often tempted to try and combine what little evidence there was into more or less meaningful hypotheses. We have attempted to tread carefully but no doubt have sometimes slipped. Our consolation is that since all of the basic evidence is presented, the reader has the necessary data to estimate the amount of slippage. In general, the study of the sanga seals was facilitated through the indispensable and essential works of D. Collon (1982, 1986, 1987). More specifically we build on Blocher’s study (1992a) in which several of the earlier sanga seals were drawn and some of the tablets on which they appeared were listed. The important article by B. Teissier (1998) was also extensively used. As to the names, order and family relations of the sangas, it is evident that we build upon preceding overviews, mainly those of J. Renger (1967) and R. Harris (1975, 155). Much new material has become available since then through several recent publications, among which MHET, utilized by E. Woestenburg in her outline (1997/98). To this we can now add considerable evidence from the unpublished material of the Ur-Utu archive from Sippar-Amnānum. Our prosopographical database of the Old Babylonian Sippar region allowed us to select the corpus of texts in which the sangas were mentioned. The database covers documentary texts only, being mainly contracts, legal and

administrative texts and letters, including the MHET and the Ur-Utu archive material, over six thousand in all. For the composition of our corpus we chose not to proceed by archives because they contain many different seals of many different persons, and relatively few of the archive owner himself, for understandable reasons. Moreover, as shall be discussed further on, we believe no archive of a sanga of Šamaš has yet been unearthed. Organization of This Study In PART I the textual evidence will be presented. We will first (A) summarize the meagre information we have on the office of sanga of Šamaš in Sippar. To this we add a presentation of all of the texts in which these sangas are not witnesses but otherwise active. Finally, to gain some more information on their social status we will examine who can precede them in the witness lists of the contracts, a very exceptional and thus somewhat informative circumstance. We then enter into the quick of the matter with a full presentation of the twelve first sangas of Šamaš of the Ebabbar in Sippar (B). We will list and describe their appearance in the texts, nearly exclusively as witnesses, discuss the inscriptions on their seals and the place on the envelope (or the tablet, or the “Quasi-Hülle”) where the seal was impressed, as compared to the other seals. We will then comment on some high officials of the Ebabbar temple in Sippar-Jarūrum (C) because, before the office of second sanga was created, other high officials were second witnesses after the (first) sangas. We will study their seals and try to sketch the families to which they belong. Then come the second sangas (D). It is well known that the Šamaš temple in Sippar-Jarūrum started out with one sanga and it was only after some time that a second office of sanga was created, with, at the start, the exact same title sanga Šamaš but quite distinct in ranking. The most evident expression of this distinction (others shall be given further on) was that, except for very rare exceptions, these new sangas always were second witnesses after the other ones. There was no permeability between the two offices. We will show that, contrary to the opinion of some, none of the ‘new’ sangas ever rose in rank to be first sanga. This is why we will designate the older ones as first sangas and the occupants of the new office as second sangas, instead of ‘junior’ sangas

3

introduction which holds a notion of possible promotion to ‘senior’ sanga. Finally we will introduce a third category (E). Indeed, it soon appeared that we had to separate from these two a third group, also bearing the same title sanga Šamaš, who were in fact sangas of the Edikuda temple in Sippar-Amnānum, as indicated by the few occurrences for some of them of their full title: sanga Šamaš Edikuda. They were of course less important than their colleagues from the main temple in Sippar-Jarūrum, a fact that is reflected, as we shall see, in their seal ownership and use. In PART II we give the descriptive catalogue of the seals of the first sangas, the high officials and the second sangas. We start with a catalogue (A), followed by an analysis (B), followed by comments on the few seals of daughters of sangas we have (C). PART III consists of our Conclusions where we draw together all the information and interpretation organized in six topics: the seal legends, the sealing practice, the names of the sangas, the witnessing role of the sangas, their careers and finally the measurements of the seal stones used to produce the impressions. In PART IV we assembled graphic overviews, lists and concordances. We give a chronological list of all tablets in which a first or a second sanga (or a high official—second witness) of the Ebabbar in Sippar-Jarūrum is mentioned, in chronological order. This is a general overview of this material in which it will be easy to find the different sangas, following their order, to see which first and second sangas appear together and on which tablets they appear alone. The dates of the tablets are given as well as their genres. When their seal was rolled on a tablet this is mentioned, stating which seal it is (their own or otherwise) and where on the tablet it was rolled. An overview of the different genres of texts, per king is given and finally the concordances between museum numbers of the tablets and publications and, especially for the tablets from the British Museum, concordances between the old and the new museum numbers. These tables should allow to look up texts and to find out for which sangas they have been used. A Bibliography and plates with the enlarged (150%) seal drawings close the volume.

Practicalities E. Smekens has drawn the seal scenes with his usual care and craftsmanship. As is well known, this is no easy task since impressions are often slightly—or more—distorted. The task was rendered more difficult even because the drawings are composite in order to be as complete as possible: in some cases they had to be assembled from several photos with all due corrections of perspective and deformations. The legends were drawn by us, as precisely as possible, reproducing the place of the original signs relative to each other. It is through a painstaking examination of the legends that we were able to discover that some sangas had used two seals with the same inscription, different only in the spacing of the signs or variations in their shape which cannot be attributed to deformation. We also chose to try and reassemble scenes which had been split on the impression. Since the seal legend always was the foremost part that had to be impressed, the result could be a figure to its left and one to its right, whereas both in fact could belong to one scene, such as a presentation. In this case we moved one of the figures to the other side in order to restore the original setup. On a terminological level, we have chosen in some rare cases to use Akkadian words instead of translations. The basic reason for this is that there is no good match in English and that the use of approximate equivalencies creates, to our mind, more problems than it solves. The word gagûm is used rather than ‘cloister’, the word nadītum (with plurals nadītums or nadiātum) rather than ‘nun’ or such like. Last but not least, we will call a sanga a sanga, not high-priest or the like. By ‘sealing order’ we mean the order of the seals on the case or the tablet, not necessarily the order in which the seals were actually rolled on the tablet.

The Corpus: A First Overview 1. Tablets and Cases Our corpus consists of all the envelopes and tablets mentioning a sanga of Šamaš or Aja of the Šamaš temple in Sippar-Jarūrum and the one in Sippar Amnānum. Chronologically, our corpus covers a period of some 300 years, being the reigns of the independent

introduction

4

rulers of Sippar, Buntatun-ila, Immerum, IiSumu-abum and the kings of Babylon from Sumu-la-El to Ammi-aduqa (we have no sanga of Šamaš attestation under the last king of the dynasty, Samsu-ditana). Within this period there are some remarkable gaps in our sanga documentation. From Si 31 to Ae “e”, i.e. 11 years we have no attestation for a first sanga and from Si 25 to the same Ae “e”, i.e. 17 years, there is no mention of a second sanga. A second gap is situated between Ad 5 and 20. The explanation must not necessarily be sought among the sangas, there rather seems to be a general slump in our overall documentation in these periods. Our catalogue consists of 251 pieces, counting cases and tablets as separate entities. Most of these are published, but forty-four of them are part of the unpublished archive of the galamas Inannamansum and Ur-Utu in Sippar-Amnānum. Furthermore, as far as our available information went, we added five unpublished tablets from the rich collections of the British Museum. These 251 pieces are the following: 130 tablets and their cases, which can be counted as 65 units 79 unsealed tablets which have lost their cases 11 tablets still in their case 6 cases which lost their tablets 11 “Quasi-Hülle” tablets 13 sealed tablets that probably never had cases 1 fragment with a seal impression only These can be divided into two groups: tablets which still have or originally had a case and those that never had one. The first group consists of the first five categories enumerated above, being 161 case tablets (of which 79 cases and 6 tablets are lost) and the 11 First Sanga 1. Annum-pī-Šamaš 2. Šamaš-tappašu 3. Lipit-Ištar 4. Warad-Sîn 5. Annum-pī-Aja 6. Šamaš-tappašu 7. Warad-Sîn 8. Annum-pī-Aja 9. Sîn-iqīsam 10. Ilšu-ibnīšu 11. Nūr-Kabta 12. Sîn-aam-iddinam Totals

Total 4 4 32 34 64 8 8 8 3 12 1 1 179

C+T 3 1 13 13 26 2 2 4 — — — — 64

T in C — — 2 3 4 — 1 — 1 — — — 11

“Quasi-Hülle” tablets, a new format that began to replace the case tablets from the middle of the Old Babylonian period onwards. This brings the total number of case tablets and related ones to 172. The second group consists of the sealed tablets, without a case, which are 13 in number. Whereas the Quasi Hülle tablets are a purely formal evolution, starting in our corpus in Si 9, the use of sealed tablets has another meaning. These tablets, the first of which appears in our corpus in Si 7, are used to support other genres of texts such as loans, rents of divine weapons and field leases. Their presence in our corpus can be the consequence of the fact that the sangas start to witness other genres of texts or that earlier texts of this type had not been kept. The total of the two groups thus represents 185 units, to which the lone fragment which probably was part of a case must be added, yielding the total of 186 original units. A complete overview of our corpus is given in our ANNEX I, but to give an idea of the distribution of these tablets over the different first and second sangas, we give the two tables below. The abbreviations used are C+T for cases and tablets belonging together, T in C for tablets still in their case, C alone for cases without tablets and T alone for the reverse, QH stands for “Quasi Hülle” and sT for sealed tablet (without a case). 2. Seals The focus of our study will be the 113 seal impressions on these tablets and cases made by the first and second sangas of Šamaš. To provide an idea of the distribution of these impressions over the different sangas we add a column containing the total number of impressions we have per sanga.

C alone — — — 3 3 — — — — — — — 6

T alone 1 2 17 15 31 4 4 2 1 — — — 77

QH — — — — — 2 1 2 — 5 1 — 11

sT — — — — — — — — 1 7 — 1 9

Frgm — 1 — — — — — — — — — — 1

Seal impressions 2 1 7 11 21 4 3 6 2 7 — 1 65

(continued on next page)

5

introduction (cont.) Second Sanga

Total

C+T

T in C

C alone

T alone

QH

sT

Frgm

Seal impressions

1. Išar-Šamaš 2. Sîn-ennam 3. Šumu-Sîn 4. Šalim-pali-Marduk 5. Etel-pī-Nabium 6. Sîn-iddinam 7. Sîn-bāni 8. Išme-Sîn 9. Sîn-erībam 10. Marduk-mušallim 11. Etel-pī-Nabium 12. Marduk-nair

3 1 33 18 14 6 15 17 2 6 10 1

— — 11 8 8 2 4 6 1 2 — —

— — 3 1 — 1 2 1 — — 1

— — 1 1 — 2 — — — — — —

3 1 18 8 6 1 9 8 1 2 — —

— — — — — — — 1 — 2 4 1

— — — — — — — 1 — — 5 —

— — — — — — — — — — — —

— — 9 7 5 3 4 6 1 4 8 1

Totals

126

42

9

4

57

8

6

0

48

The difference between our totals given above and those in these tables resides in the fact that, for the first sangas, they do not occur on every tablet.

For the second sangas the differences are more important because they appear at a later date than the first ones and are more frequently omitted.

6

introduction

abbreviations

7

ABBREVIATIONS

General C excl. L.E. L.Mg. Lo.E. QH

R.E. sT T uppi l.r. U.E.

case ( = envelope of a tablet) exclusively, used for a seal impression occurring alone on one of the edges of a tablet or case left edge left margin, when not specified further, the margin of the obverse is meant lower edge Quasi-Hülle tablet. This type of tablet received its name from C. Wilcke. It looks exactly like a tablet in a case (envelope), with squared edges and is sealed likewise, mostly with a typical left margin reserved for sealing. However, there is no tablet inside but a solid filling. This a purely formal development, making the scribe’s task easier: he no longer had to write the text twice, once on the tablet and once on the case. right edge sealed tablet (without envelope) tablet uppi lā ragāmim, in which the loosing party in a trial promises not to raise the claim again upper edge

Chronological1: The Kings Earlier king from ana Ii-Sumu-Abum ISA Partially contemporaneous Buntatun-ila Bti Immerum Im Sumu-la-El Sle The Babylonian kingdom Sabium Sa Apil-Sîn AS Sîn-muballi Sm ammu-rabi a Samsu-iluna Si Abi-ešu Ae Ammi-ditana Ad Ammi-aduqa A Samsu-ditana Sd

his death is commemorated in a year name in oath formula together with Sle in oath formula together with Sle in oath formula together with Sa 1784-1749 1748-1735 1734-1717 1716-1697 1696-1654 1653-1616 1615-1588 1587-1551 1550-1530 1529-1499

Museum Collections AO BM CBM CBS Como CUA Di HG

Antiquités Orientales in the Louvre Museum, Paris British Museum, London Catalogue of the Babylonian Museum, University of Pennsylvania Catalogue of the Babylonian Section of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania Collection of the Museo Egizio, Como Catholic University of America Excavation number of the Tell ed-Dēr tablets Museum number of the Musée de Rouen

1 We use the New Chronology as established in Gasche, Armstrong, Cole and Gurzadyan 1998. The difference

with the so-called “Middle Chronology” is –96 years for the reigns of the Old Babylonian kings.

8 LB MAH Ni O Sip VAT YBC

abbreviations de Liagre Böhl collectie, Leiden Musées d’Art et d’Histoire, Genève Old Babylonian Nippur collection of the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul Collection des Antiquités Orientales, Muséés Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, Bruxelles Si is the excavation numbers of the Sippar tablets as listed in scheil (1902) modified by us into Sip to avoid confusion with our abbreviation Si for king Samsu-iluna Vorderasiatische Tontafelsammlung, Vorderasiatische Museen, Berlin Yale Babylonian Collection, Yale

Bibliographical Bibliographical abbreviations are listed alphabetically in our Annex V. Bibliography.

i.a. the sanga of šamaš

I. THE TEXTS AND THE SEALS

9

10

i. the texts and the seals

i.a. the sanga of šamaš

11

I.A. THE SANGA OF ŠAMAŠ

ša ku-nu-uk sanga dutu sanga da-a ù ku-nu-uk-ka-at-ku-nu ba-aq-ra ku-nu-uk ma-an-ni-im-ma im-ma-a-a-ar If the seal of a sanga of Šamaš, a sanga of Aja and your seals are being contested whose seal will (ever) be acceptable? AbB 11, 901

The aim of the present study is not the definition of the office of sanga of Šamaš at Sippar during the Old Babylonian period. Although some remarks can be made, on most points we cannot go much further than what has already been excellently stated by J. Renger (1967) and R. Harris (1975). A general picture may be summarized here from their studies. The sanga is the head of the temple. He is not only the administrator but also performs cultic functions. It is clear that the sanga of Šamaš in Sippar must be distinguished from the other sangas of locally less important deities. The religious and economic importance of the Šamaš temple implies that its head had a very high social status. Up to now, this is only reflected in the first position in the witness lists of documentary texts. We remain in the dark concerning his actual wealth, daily activities and his precise insertion in the social network of Sippar. The reason for this lack of information is a simple one: up to now no archive of a sanga has come to light. This absence of information does not imply that the sangas did not play an important role in the society and economy of their time, as is abundantly shown by comparison with the archive of the galamas of Annunītum at SipparAmnānum. Before their archive was unearthed these galamas could be considered as non participants in the society of their time, especially in its economic aspects. Now we know they in fact played a major part, as e.g. large land owners, payers of impressive taxes and moneylenders. We are convinced the same and more holds for the

1 In the translation given in AbB 11 we have changed «high-priest» into sanga, in accordance with the principles stated in our introduction.

sangas of Šamaš, although there is an important difference. In contrast with the galamas, the sangas of Šamaš are very well attested outside their own archives, albeit (nearly) always in the same role: that of first and second witnesses for the first and second sanga respectively. R. Harris (1975, 160) had concluded on this basis that they were not integrated in the social and economic life of Sippar. It will be clear that we differ on this point. Their social and economic integration will no doubt appear fully when one of their archives is found, but the fact that they witness such a large number of private transactions shows, in our opinion, that they were very well integrated indeed. We fear there may be another similarity with the galamas. Even with their large archive we remain rather ill informed about their religious role in the temple. We now have their private accounts, sales and acquisitions, loans given out, and a number of temple ration lists and disbursements or incomes from certain cultic functions (Tanret, Van lerberghe 1993) but their precise religious activity in the temple, other than that, will have to be carefully culled from indirect evidence, if it is retrievable at all. The same might well be the case for the sangas. It may even be that a temple archive, provided such a thing existed at that time, might not hold more information on this account. This being said, there is a limited number of mentions of sangas of Šamaš in documentary texts in other roles than witnesses. We will discuss each of these below and extract what information we can from them, small pieces of a very incomplete mosaic. Concerning their rank in the social hierarchy of that time, information can be gained from texts in which the sangas of Šamaš are witnesses but not

i. the texts and the seals

12

first ones. Who precedes them? These instances will also be discussed below2.

1. Sangas Not as Witnesses Eight named sangas appear in texts in roles other than witnesses. Six3 of them are first sangas, two second ones. In eight other instances the title of sanga of Šamaš or Aja is given without a name. 1.1. The Named First Sangas 1.1.1. Warad-Sîn, Sanga of Šamaš, First Sanga from Apil-Sîn to Sîn-muballi4 He is the owner of a neighbouring field in Sm 13 according to the field sale RSO 2, 562. The field sold is described as situated ina Bamātim, along the Aja-egal watercourse, which runs next to the wall of the Gagûm (Frayne 1990, 332-3)5. The sanga is also first witness in this text. 1.1.2. Annum-pī-Aja Sanga of Šamaš, First Sanga from Sm 17 to Si 7 or 8 In VS 9, 42/43 (a 31/4/2), among other property, 2 sar of empty house plot (é kisla) are sold by the palace to a nadītum of Šamaš for one mina of silver. The text has no witnesses. Instead, seven persons are listed as gìr, a term designating a responsible administrator. This change of the habitual procedure is no doubt linked to the fact that the seller is the palace. None of these gìr has a patronymic on the tablet and their names are not preserved on the case. The first of them is Annum-pī-Aja, no doubt the first 2 Although no doubt much more could be gained from mentions of sangas in general, without the name of a deity or from sangas from other deities, we will limit this overview to those explicitly bearing the title of sanga of Šamaš or Aja or the ones that are to be identified with them although their title is shortened to sanga. 3 On OLA 21, 7, dated Si 24, no sanga appears in the text but a sanga seal is rolled on the reverse. Although, through this seal, there is a sanga symbolically present in this text, we will not discuss it here, but under Šamaš-tappašu, the sixth first sanga. 4 The dates given for the sangas are those of the first and last text in which they appear. As will be explained infra in the detailed discussion of each of them, their career length is difficult to establish exactly. They did not necessarily have a document written, mentioning their name, on the first and last day of their professional life. 5 The field is sold by the children of Sîn-nāir to their cousin Aja-tallik nadīt Šamaš, daughter of Utu-Lugalankia. Another piece of this dossier is CT 48, 1, dated one year earlier, from which can be learned that the father Sîn-nāir, son of Šamaš-rabi has died and there is a litigation over

sanga of Šamaš in view of the fact that we know no other person of that name at this time and that he is head of the list. The second one is Išme-Sîn who, at that time, is sanga of arpanītum, the spouse of Marduk (and will later become sanga of Aja, cf. infra second sanga 7. Sîn-bāni and 8. Išme-Sîn). The first two gìr are sanga and the last two are overseers of the nadiātum, but the three in between are not connected to a temple as far as we know. The fourth gìr is Mār-Ištar, son of the well known burgomaster of Sippar, Išar-Lim, of Mari origin. This composite group prevents us from interpreting the gìr-ship of these people as a manifestation of the growing influence of the palace over the temple. We rather think that palace sales did not need witnesses since they are institutional business. However, the nadītum who bought the unbuilt plot (é kisla) for a high price might have wanted witnesses and what we see here is a compromise, including witnesses but not naming them as such, replacing the igi by gìr to stay within the institutional vocabulary. The inclusion of Išme-Sîn, sanga of arpanītum, as second gìr might be a reference to Babylon or it may have been the prelude to his becoming sanga of Aja. With this text we have a reference to an institutional role played by a sanga. 1.1.3. Warad-Sîn, Sanga of Šamaš from Si 25 to Si 30 In Di 312, dated Si 30, the last known reference of this sanga, Warad-Sîn owns a neighboring field. The text itself is an excerpt, summarizing different sale contracts, all acquisitions of fields by his property with the children of Ubar-Šamaš (maybe also cousins?). In a 6 (CT 48, 3), thirteen years later, very probably the same plot is vindicated by the children of Sîn-nāir from their uncle Utu-Lugalankia and his children. What might have been of interest to us is that the neighbours of the field are given again. Unfortunately only two are mentioned, others than in RSO 2. These must have changed in between (one of them is Amat-Šamaš, daughter of Jakum-arari whose acquisition may be documented in YOS 13, 12, a recapitulative list dated Ad 15) and the fact that Warad-Sîn is not mentioned as neighbour might be interpreted as meaning that his ownership did not change, in contrast to the two others. This although we know that in a 6 his son had already taken over the office of sanga since at least ten years. As a last corollary to this affair, we note that in the exact same passage (lines 17-20) of YOS 13, 12 where the acquisition by the new neighbour AmatŠamaš may be documented, an exchange with Šallurum, ša é dutu according to line 4 of the same text, is mentioned. So, at least two persons related to the Šamaš temple owned property in this neighbourhood.

i.a. the sanga of šamaš Lamassāni, nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Sîniddinam. The fields are situated pani a.gàr gu.la, “in front of the watering district Gula”. 1.1.4. Annum-pī-Aja, Sanga of Šamaš from Si (post 30) to Ad 5 In BM 96982 a woman is freed and made a kisal. lu, a court sweeper, in the service of Aja, by her (adoptive) father. She will provide sustenance for her father as long as he lives. Annum-pī-Aja will be responsible in case a claim is raised against her. His title is not given but his seal is rolled on this ‘Quasi-Hülle’ tablet. What we witness here is a unique instance of the sanga’s responsibility for the temple personnel. 1.1.5. Ilšu-ibni, sanga of Šamaš, First Sanga from Ad 32 to A 11 This sanga appears in no less than five texts in roles other than that of witness. Di 984, dated A 6, is a broken loan text in which Ur-Utu galama lends silver to e.g. Ilšuibni sanga of Šamaš. In Di 821 (A 11) and Di 1674 (post A 5) this sanga rents out a divine weapon to the same galama. In MHET 906, dated A 14, the sanga owns a field next to one rented out to his now well known homonym the ugula gidri erén Šarrum-Laba (De Graef 2003). The situation of the field in the ugārum Nagû, at the other side of the Irnina fits very well with the localisation of Šarrum-Laba by De Graef. MHET 702 has lost its date but must be Ammiaduqa because of the presence of Ilšu-ibni. The sanga rents a field in the ugārum 9 gán, south of the Irnina, from the nadītum Ina-libbi-eršet. 1.1.6. Sîn-aam-iddinam Son of Sîn-iqīšam, First Sanga in A 13 The only text in which this sanga appears is a silver loan (Di 684) where he is not a witness but the debtor. 1.2. The Named Second Sangas The two second sangas who appear in roles other than witness are Marduk-mušallim and his successor Etel-pī-Nabium.

6 Date derived from the presence of Nūr-ilīšu sanga (of Sîn) attested from Samsu-iluna (BE 6/I, 62) to Abi-ešu (BE

13

1.2.1. Marduk-mušallim, Second Sanga, Sanga of Aja, under Abi-ešu or from Abi-ešu to Ad 5 A Marduk-mušallim sanga (no deity) is mentioned as the buyer of a house in MHET 633 (s.d.). We know two sangas by this name, one of Aja, second sanga of the Ebabbar, attested from Abi-ešu to Ad 5 and one of Annunītum, attested at the end of Ammi-ditana and under Ammi-aduqa (Di 979 Ad 37 and Gordon, 1952, 48 A 4). In view of the presence in this text of other persons dated from Samsu-iluna to Abi-ešu6 it seems more probable that the sanga of Aja is referred to in MHET 633 and that this text should be dated to Abi-ešu. It describes a location of the house similar to that of BE 6/1, 22 (a 35) in the neighbourhood of the Lugalbanda and the Gula streets, probably in Sippar-Jarūrum. It is interesting to note that the text describes several neighboring houses as being the property of e.g. another sanga: Nūr-ilīšu sanga of Sîn, two gala-priests and a nadītum of Šamaš. This points to a concentration of houses of temple personnel, similar to what we had remarked for Sippar-Amnānum (janssen e.a.1994, 92-93). So far only the second and other sangas are attested in it, not the first one. 1.2.2. Etel-pī-Nabium, Second Sanga, Sanga of Aja, from Ad 20 to A 5 In Di 1128, Ad 32, he leases out his field (location broken) to a adiammer-Šamaš, son of Asirum. The only witnesses of this text are Šamaš and Aja. In Di 933, Ad 36, he brings a consignment (šūbultum) of silver from Inanna-mansum galama to the sanga of arpanītum in Babylon. In OLA 21, 6, A 5, he rents out a journey of the divine weapon of Šamaš to a gudapsûm priest and another person. Payment has to be made in the Šamaš temple. In a conflict concerning fields, a house and animals, one party seeks and finds the help of the influential Utul-Ištar in Babylon. The other one is under the patronage of the sanga of Aja, Etel-pī-Nabium. It is no surprise that the Babylon connection is more powerful than the second sanga of Sippar. (AbB 7, 93).

6/I, 68), as well as from the presence of Šamaš-nāir son of Palê-Šamaš, attested from Si 7 to Ad 4.

14

i. the texts and the seals

1.3. Unnamed Sangas Unnamed persons bearing the title of sanga of Šamaš or Aja are found in eight texts in roles other than witnesses. 1.3.1. A sanga of Šamaš is the first cited in a list of barley due and paid (OLA 21, 3 d.l.). Several people mentioned are to be dated A 17 and 18, Šallurum dumu.é.dub.ba.a even up to Sd 17. Because of the date, this must be a first sanga. It is somewhat frustrating that precisely for these times we have no name of a sanga of Šamaš and that a text such as this one mentions the sanga but does not give us a name. Another fine example of how the texts work in their own way and not in ours. 1.3.2. A sanga of Šamaš is cited in a cultic context, a list of silver for/from rites of Annunītum where he contributes an offering (muuru) of silver (MHET I, 66 ± Ammi-aduqa). Because of the date, this must be a first sanga. 1.3.3. In AbB 11, 90 dated by the greeting formula to Ammi-aduqa, the sangas of Šamaš and Aja sealed a contract. Afterwards someone contravenes the stipulations of this contract and the letter-writer wonders that if even a document sealed by sangas can be neglected, “whose seal will (ever) be acceptable?”.7 A good indication of the function of seals in general and the greater authority of sanga seals in particular.

land along this watercourse, this must have been the case for Sîn-iddinam too. 1.3.6. A sanga of Šamaš is the adressee of a letter by a certain Nidnat-Sîn (AbB 7, 110). The point of the letter seems to be that a nadītum from KārŠamaš has asked the sanga of Šamaš to intercede in her favor concerning a field. The burgomaster of Kār-Šamaš has declared that this field was assigned to the reed-carriers. Nidnat-Sîn proposes to meet with the sanga and to summon the burgomaster in order to return the field to the nadītum. 1.3.7. A sanga of Aja is cited in a text concerning the rites of Annunītum, alongside with high officials, each being ‘responsible’ for a rite of Annunītum executed by another person with a cultic object. The structure of the entries is: cultic function, name of the person executing the rites, unnamed official (as stated in MHET I, 96). In two cases the high responsible is a sanga of Aja. In both these instances the rite is executed with a cultic object called “seal” (na4kišib) (MHET I, 65 ± Ammi-aduqa). 1.3.8. In a letter sent by king Abi-ešu to the authorities of Sippar, the king gives orders to open a house, under supervision of the clerks (šatammū), the chief shepherds (ú.tul.meš), the judges (di.kud.meš), the sangas, the gudapsû8 priests, the ērib bītim priests and the qabba’ū9 (AbB 2, 65).

1.3.5. An indirect indication of ownership of fields is to be found in Goetze (1957, 22 n° 9-Si 9) where a namkar sanga dutu is cited. Elsewhere (Tanret, 1998, 119-120) we showed that in all probability this same namkarum was later called the namkarum of the descendants of Sîn-iddinam, thus showing that the unnamed sanga in question must have been the second sanga Sîn-iddinam (a 15-18). Since the names of persons given to namkarums indicate that these persons owned

From a sanga archive? In view of what has been said earlier it is worthwhile to examine if any of these texts could originate from the archive of a sanga himself. In other words, did the clandestine excavations or those of Scheil10 touch a sanga archive? The following texts could be expected to come from such an archive (the numbers refer to the texts given above): - 1.2.2: the renting out of a field by a sanga (Di 1128). - 1.3.6: a letter adressed to a sanga (AbB 7, 110). - 1.2.1: Marduk-mušallim buys a house (MHET 633). - 1.2.2: Etel-pī-Nabium rents out a divine weapon (OLA 21, 6).

7 These are the lines we chose as an epigraph for this chapter. 8 According to the CAD, the highest rank of the class of gudû (litt. annointed one) priests.

9 Not translated by the dictionaries. The CAD, volume Q, p. 2 gives ”(an official)”. 10 As reported by V. Scheil in Une Saison de Fouilles à Sippar ( = SFS).

1.3.4. In the letter AbB 7, 88 sangas of Šamaš and Aja send a letter probably in favour of the seizure of a field by nadītums. Ibni-Sîn and the judges of Sippar write to ‘our lord’ (bēlīni) about this.

i.a. the sanga of šamaš - 1.1.5: Ilšu-ibni rents a field (MHET 702). - 1.3.1: an unnamed sanga of Šamaš is cited first in a barley list11 (OLA 21, 3). In fact, most of these texts could come from other archives. The house sale could be part of a chain of transmission and have traveled through several archives. The rent documents could be the exemplars of the debtors. The barley list could be part of the archive of some other responsible authority. In fine only the letter should have been found in the archive of the adressee although such a nice exemplar could always be an ‘exercise copy’ or still be part of still another archive as we found some rare letters addressed to other people in Ur-Utu’s archive. 1.4. Conclusions However sparse, these few texts allow us a glimpse of the social and economic position of the sangas of Šamaš and Aja. 1.4.1. Real Estate We do not have the archive of any sanga which would more fully document his real estate ownership. We have only one sale document of a sanga that probably ended up in another archive, as part of a chain of transmission. This is the acquisition of a house in the ‘religious quarter’ of Sippar Jarūrum. The reason why we think it was not retrieved from his archive is very simple. Had the illicit diggers who unearthed MHET 633 touched upon the archive of the second sanga Mardukmušallim, then the 94-1-15 collection would have contained other documents of his archive, which it does not. The few other scraps of information we have pertain to four first sangas. Warad-Sîn, Annumpī-Aja, Warad-Sîn and Ilšu-ibnīšu. Each of them owned a field and each of these fields was situated in a different ugārum. Two second sangas are documented likewise, apart from Marduk-mušallim cited above, Etel-pī-Nabium and Sîn-iddinam. We can be absolutely certain that this is only the tip of the iceberg. The sangas must all have owned fields, as did all prominent citizens. The

11 In the Ur-utu archive we found similar ration lists, headed by Ur-Utu or his father. 12 We will see further on that the cylinder seals of the sangas had caps from Sîn-muballi on (with one earlier exception under Sumu-la-El). Coincidence or meaningful convergence of data? 13 BE 6/1, 34 (a 41). We refer to our discussion of

15

few indirect references we have span the time from Sîn-muballi12 to Ammi-aduqa, only the very beginning is not documented. It is true that of the earliest sangas there are only very few texts, but Lipit-Ištar is one of the best attested sangas and yet not a single even indirect reference is to be found to his ownership of real estate. Supposing the sangas, like the galamas of Annunītum, bought fields, orchards and houses, where would we expect their sale documents to end up? The fact that the whole first sanga line, as we shall see further, an uninterrupted succession from father to son over a few centuries and to brothers at the end, means that some of the real estate acquired earlier on may have been transmitted from father sanga to son sanga right down to the last one. If they were inherited from generation to generation, it would even be possible that a tablet, documenting the acquisition of some real estate by an early sanga, ended up in the archive of the last one. All other properties acquired and transmitted from sanga to sanga would be added to this and likewise end up in the archive of the last sanga. Since no such archive has been unearthed yet, these documents and the real estate they represented remain unknown to us. We must not forget, however, that it is very improbable that all of these sangas would have had only one son each. We know for certain that some had daughters (cf. infra The seal of the sanga’s daughters) and there is no reason they would have consciously limited themselves to one son. The other sons no doubt inherited their shares of the real estate owned by their father, just like the sons of the galama Inanna-mansum all inherited parts of his fields and houses. The remarkable fact is that, although the sangas and their sanga sons are well documented, we found only a single mention of a non-sanga son of a sanga13. At least not as far as we can see. If a text omits the title of the father, which certainly happened, it would not be easy at all to ascertain whether the father in question was sanga or not, especially with frequently used names such as Warad-Sîn or Lipit-Ištar. We could only hope to gain any knowledge of this through a general prosopographic study of Sippar,

the text infra under VI. Šamaš-tappašu—The same Šamaštappašu. The mention, in the witness list on the case, of a Šamaš-tappašu son of Annum-pī-Aja could refer to the (future) first sanga. On the tablet we find, in the same place, a Nakkārum son of Annum-pī-Aja, maybe a brother of the (future) sanga.

i. the texts and the seals

16

combined, for the real estate, with reconstructions of chains of transmission. Both are very delicate tasks and do not even guarantee results. Again, as far as we know, we have no inscribed seal of someone who calls himself son of PN sanga of Šamaš, only the sanga daughters seem to do this. For the moment, this question cannot be adequately resolved but it is clear that in the absence (or supposed absence) of sanga’s brothers, the real estate possessions inherited from their fathers remain hidden to us. This too explains why we have such a limited view on this matter. The underlying reality might be quite different.

may be, this does not indicate a very flourishing economic situation. 1.4.4. Social Standing As high officials the sangas of Šamaš are also called upon by the king to officially open a house (AbB 2, 65) concerning which there was discussion of ownership and they are responsible (gìr) concerning the sale of an unbuilt plot (é kisla) by the palace (VS 9, 42/43). 1.5. A Distorted Perspective: Discarded or Not Discarded In fact, there is a clear-cut chronological division. In all of the texts mentioning a sanga from the beginning of the period to the end of the reign of Abi-ešu there are five instances in which this sanga is not (only) a witness. In four of them he is mentioned as a neighbour15. In one text he is administratively responsible (gìr) instead of witness (VS 9, 42/43—a 31) but this is no real exception as we have interpreted gìr as an administrative witness. From the reign of Ad onwards this situation changes. We now find the sanga in the roles of:

1.4.2. Temple Related Matters It comes as no surprise that the sanga, in casu Annum-pī-Aja (sanga VIII), is responsible in case of a claim on a freed slave girl entrusted as court sweeper (kisal.lu) to the goddess Aja. We have a first sanga (Ilšu-ibni, X) and a second one (Etel-pī-Nabium, 11) renting out a divine weapon. They are contemporaries and it appears that both could rent out the divine weapon, although there may be a difference in that the first sanga rents to the galama and the second one to a lower ranked gudapsûm priest. It is further evident that the sangas defend the interests of the nadiātum (AbB 7, 88 and 110), a matter that we would indeed only expect to find in writing in a letter. We see that they were also involved with cultic activities in other temples, e.g. the Annunītum temple in Sippar-Amnānum (MHET I, 47,65, 66).

– – – – – – – – –

1.4.3. Economic Matters Inanna-mansum, galama of Annunītum entrusts a consignment (šūbultum) of silver to be brought to the second sanga Etel-pī-Nabium in Ad 36 (Di 933).14 Ur-Utu, his son and successor, entertains a business relationship with the first sanga Ilšuibni. Ur-Utu owes him silver in A 6 (Di 984) and, a few years later, Ilšu-ibni rents out a divine weapon to him twice (A 11, Di 821 and post A 5, Di 674). The same Ur-Utu also lends silver to Sîn-aam-iddinam, the next, and last first sanga in A 13 (Di 864). The meaning of this last loan is not easy to ascertain. At the very least it indicates a temporary shortage of ‘cash’. Whatever its exact meaning

Only once is he mentioned as a neighbor (MHET 906—A 14). Why this chronological divide? No less than six of the nine texts listed above stem from the archive of the galamas in SipparAmnānum. In this archive they are part of the living archive, starting after Ad 28 (Tanret 2004). The answer is clear: we observe the sanga in other than real estate documents in an archive that has not been cleaned up, that is, still developing. It is possible, even probable, that similar texts would have been present in the family archive of Inannamansum in Sippar-Jarūrum but that they were removed from it when he moved and kept only

14 15

The transaction is witnessed by the first sanga Ilšu-ibni. RSO 2, 562—Sîn-muballi (also witness); Di 2119-Si

responsible for temple personnel owner of a field (leasing it out) transmittor of consignment renting out a divine weapon debtor in a silver loan renting out a divine weapon debtor in a silver loan renting out a divine weapon leasing a field from a nadītum

BM 96982 Di 1128 Di 933 OLA 21, 6 Di 984 Di 821 Di 864 Di 1674 MHET 702

Ad 2 Ad 32 Ad 36 A 5 A 6 A 11 A 13 (post A 5) d.l.(Ammiaduqa)

19; Di 312-Si 30. In OLA 21, 77, a text we included in our corpus, there is no sanga at all, only his seal.

17

i.a. the sanga of šamaš the documents he really needed, mainly as proof of his property rights on real estate. The same might hold true for the three non-Di texts, coming from other archives, obviously still living under late Ad and Ammi-aduqa but stopped there through an external ‘intervention’. Extending this picture even further, we could suppose that most of the earlier texts of our corpus were unearthed from late archives after they had traveled from archive to archive each time the property they documented was donated, inherited, exchanged or sold. The other, non real estate documents would have been sorted out much sooner and discarded. If this procedure had been strictly applied (which it was not) we would now have an enormous amount of real estate documents and only late Old Babylonian representatives of other genres. Why is this not the case? We think this is because the easiest and most often applied way of discarding tablets was to simply throw them away, on the floor, in the street or, less often, putting them in a hole under a floor. To (accurate) archaeologists this makes a difference, but not so to clandestine diggers, who dig up tablets indiscriminately: those preciously kept by their owner as well as the ones disdainfully discarded by him. We must not make the mistake of thinking that the survival of all the clandestinely dug tablets, sitting by hundreds of thousands in the museum collections means that they had all preciously been

kept in archives in antiquity. It is our contention that many of them had already been discarded. The museum collections provide us with a mix of documents from archives and of documents which had already been put in the ‘poubelles de l’histoire’ by the ancient Babylonians themselves. To unmix the mixed is a most difficult and ultimately impossible task. The study of an archive such as that of the galamas of Sippar-Amnānum will provide some insights in these matters.

2. Sangas in the Witness Lists Another source of information as to the social position of the sanga is provided by the witness lists of the many private contracts in which they appear. This is based on the observation that in more than 90% of the cases the sanga is first witness, which must mean that if someone precedes a sanga of Šamaš in the witness list, this must be a person with a higher social standing.16 Before we examine who can precede the sangas, we will take a brief look at the ones following them. 2.1. After the Sanga If, as we believe, the order of the witnesses in the witness lists of the contracts is a reflection of the social hierarchy (for the top of the list at least), he outranks some other officials such as:

Title head of the assembly chief dirge singer of Šamaš and Annunītum

gal.ukkin.na gala.ma

overseer of the merchants

ugula dam.gàr

captain manager of the house judicial officer17 judges

ugula gidri ugula é maškim di.kud18 di.kud

16 The same reasoning cannot be indiscriminately applied throughout the witness lists. After the most important people, there seems to be a much less strict order, if any. The subject of the witness lists, including the differences between tablet and envelope, would merit a study of its own. 17 Harris (1975, 129) translates ‘commissioner’; the

Date

Reference

Ad 6 Ad 36 A 5 A? Sm a A 11 Ae “aa” a a

BDHP 50 Di 933 (Šamaš) Di 1804 (Šamaš) charpin, RA 82, 29 sq SFS 98 PBS 8/2, 261 CT 6, 6 BE 6/1, 76 MHET 132 BDHP 65 passim

CAD gives sub rābiu (R, 20sq.) «(an official representative of and commissioned by a higher authority, attorney). 18 The copy has PA di.kud. In view of the uniqueness of this title, M. Stol (personal communication) proposes to read PA., i.e. maškim, which is much more common.

18

i. the texts and the seals

In texts until the end of Samsuiluna he regularly precedes the overseer of the nadiātum followed by doorkeepers (ì.du8), in other words a group of temple personnel19. 2.2. Before the Sanga There are seven instances in our corpus in which the sanga of Šamaš is not the first witness. As will become apparent in the discussion of the following texts, the first and most obvious reason is that the person(s) preceding him belong to a higher social rank. This is true for the first four instances. 1. In MHET 109, dated to Sîn-muballi by the oath, the sangas Warad-Sîn and Šamu-Sîn are preceded in the witness list by: – ()abdi-ra, son of Ali-tillati and servant of Apil-Sîn according to his seal inscription – Sîn-immātim whose patronymic is broken on the seal inscription but who is also servant of Apil-Sîn. There is no other text in which these persons occur together. Thanks to CT 8, 1a we know ()abdi-ra to be mayor (rabiānum) of Sippar under Sîn-muballi at least20. We have no title for Sîn-immatim. His patronymic probably is Šumma-Šamaš as is recorded on BAP 91 (Sm 19) and VS 8, 92 (a 3). The only conclusion that can be drawn from MHET 109 is that the mayor of the city is more important than the sanga. Sîn-immatim must also be of high rank, he may belong to the city administration under the mayor. The sealing order on the case does not reflect this. The witnesses seal from the top of the left edge/margin downwards but the seals of the sangas are nowhere to be found. They may have sealed on the now lost upper edge, in which case the sealing order would be quite different from the witness list.

of Sumu-Adad of Qaara (Stol 2000, 461 n.27). 3. The tablet of Di 696b (a 8) is broken from the beginning of the witness list onwards, but the case is complete. Here, the two sangas are again preceded by Iltāni, explicitly named the daughter of the king and another lady, Amat-Šamaš, daughter of Mašum. Here, the princess and no doubt a lady of her entourage take precedence over the local sangas. A nice contrast can be made with Al-Adami 1997 where Ajjalātum, daughter of Sumu-la-El is third witness after the sangas. This could be resolved by the date of this text. Whereas CT 47, 47 and Di 696b have a daughter of ammu-rabi as first witness and are dated under this king, Al-Adami 1997 is dated AS 1, i.e. two kings later than Sumu-la-El. It would seem that there was less prestige bestowed on the daughter of a long deceased king than on that of a still living one. We can imagine Ajjalātum must not have been in her prime anymore fifteen years after the death of her father but respect for old age was no reason to outrank the sangas either. We find her also in CT 8, 29b where she is eighth witness after the temple personnel but as the first one of the nadītum witnesses.

2. In one instance the sanga is preceded by two other persons for very understandable reasons. In this text, CT 47, 47 (ammu-rabi), the first witness is none other than king ammu-rabi’s daughter herself, Iltāni. The second witness, Amat-Šamaš, is also a princess, the daughter

4. In CT 47, 30 (a 10) the two sangas are preceded by one illi-Ninkarak without a title, as well on the tablet as on the case. The case of CT 47, 30 is complete, yet no seal of either sanga can be found on it although they are witnesses. As far as can be ascertained, the father of the nadītum, who donates property to his daughter, seals first on the top of the left margin of the obverse. Then, after an open space, follow the seals of some witnesses. The top of the left edge is also unsealed. Does this mean that a place was left open for illi-Ninkarak and the sangas to seal, which never happened? The problem with illi-Ninkarak is that there were probably several persons with this name at about the same time. There is a scribe (dub.sar), son of Nidnuša, there is a steward (šāpir bītim) and a shepherd (sipa). Other than that, several texts mention a person of that name without

19 This group can often easily be identified in the witness lists of early texts even if no occupations are mentioned, by the fact that they appear as a group without patronymics before or after other names with patronymics. 20 CT 8, 1a is a division of an inheritance in which

the mayor Abdi-ra heads the witness list followed by the famous Nūrātum and other persons but no one from the temple. In CT 8, 4a, another inheritance text, also dated under Sîn-muballi, he holds the same position with many same witnesses as in CT 8, 1a, but no temple personnel either.

i.a. the sanga of šamaš title, who can be any of them or yet someone else. The ‘manager of the house’ (see Charpin 1999, 99) (šāpir bītim)21 and the shepherd (sipa) we can guess, were lower in rank than the sangas (cf. supra). In three texts a illi-Ninkarak without title is first witness. This important position is confirmed by CT 48, 3, a 6, where he not only is first witness but is cited in the text between Sîniddinam, the mayor of Sippar and the kārum of that town. In MHET 692, s.d., he is followed by the rabiānum and others without title. We just saw that the rabiānum could outrank the sangas. So if illi-Ninkarak outranks the mayor, he must be of very high ranking. And this must be the case in CT 47, 30 too, where he supersedes both sangas. Unfortunately this is neither confirmed nor denied by the sealing order since, on this last text, the sangas nor illi-Ninkarak seal. The fifth text withholds the identity of its first witness. 5. CT 45, 16(9), dated Sîn-muballi, is a tablet with a part of the case adhering to its reverse. Unfortunately the adhering part hides most of the name of the first witness, whose name and/ or title cannot be identified. The next witnesses are Warad-Sîn and Šalim-pališu, the first and second sanga, followed by e.g. temple personnel. These are the same sangas as our text 4, which means that, here too, illi-Ninkarak could be first witness. The sixth text changes the expected order on the tablet only. 6. In CT 8, 44a, dated by the oath to Sumu-la-El, the sanga Lipit-Ištar is first witness on the case, where his title is given, whereas on the tablet he comes only fourth. This must be an instance of the case being the ‘official’ version and the tablet a less strictly written one.

21 As a ‘manager of the house’ illi-Ninkarak is third witness after the two sangas in MHET 130 and 132 (both ammu-rabi). Some texts in which he bears no title can be added here: CT 6, 22b, s.d. where he is third witness after the sangas; CT 8, 48a, a 11, in the same position; VS N.F. 13, 34, ammu-rabi, where he is second witness in absentia of the second sanga. He is followed by a person who is steward, so maybe this title could apply to both of them; Di 696, a 8, in which he is fifth witness, after the princess Iltāni and another lady (cfr infra) and the two sangas. In CT 4, 45c, ammu-rabi, he has moved one position down.

19

The order of the witnesses in the seventh text can be explained in two ways: people from Babylon or an order of witnesses typical for early texts. 7. CT 4, 50a is a sale contract with a double oath to Šamaš and Immerum, the local god and the ruler of Sippar, and to Marduk and Sumu-la-El, the god and the ruler from Babylon. The first six witnesses are given without a title; they are followed by a group of personnel of the Ebabbar, headed by the sangas. Why are the sangas preceded by six persons without a title or a patronym? R. Harris (1975, 55 note 106) suggested that they—but also the seller—were ‘subjects of the king of Babylon’ and therefore took precedence. D. Charpin (2004, 93) remarked that in general the status of texts with double oaths is not yet solved satisfactorily22. What about this text? A first point is that the first witness is a brother of the seller. This might mean that the whole group of the first six witnesses belonged to the seller’s entourage. The buyer is a nadītum and the temple witnesses could then represent her side. It is true that the first six witnesses do not appear in other Sippar texts but the seller, aliqum son of Arwium is mentioned in VS 8, 6/7 of the same date. The fact that these people are not Sipparians known from other texts could easily be explained by the scarce documentation we have of these early times, it does not necessarily mean that they come from Babylon—for which there is no proof whatsoever. More important is that, as we have seen in other instances above, if the sanga of Šamaš witnesses after people from Babylon this is not just after anybody from that city but after important persons such as a princess. A brother of a seller and five others without title do not qualify as important people. The order of the witnesses of this text may well have been determined by something quite different. In early texts we sometimes find a group of temple personnel in the witness list. This group is not listed before the other witnesses, on the contrary, e.g., in BDHP 31, dated Sumu-la-El and Buntatun-ila

He now is fourth witness, after the sangas and Sîn-bāni, who may well be the overseer of the nadiātum at that time. 22 Edzard (1957, 58 n 268) gives as signs of relative autonomy of a (local) king that he has his own year names but that the oath is taken by the overlord. He cites CT 4, 50a as an example of this, but in this text an Immerum year name is used and Immerum is the first one in the oath formula, followed by Sumu-la-El of Babylon. This looks more like an outside king appearing within the realm of the local one, recognised but not deferred to as overlord.

i. the texts and the seals

20

by the oath, it comes in the middle of the witness list23. In CT 4, 47b, dated Ii-Sumu-Abum, the same group appears, with the addition of Lu-dāri, after the date formula. In these texts the grouping is the only important factor, the place in the list is still rather indifferent, as far as we can see. The lower place of the sangas in this witness list would then not be meaningful.

master of Sippar, princesses or a high ranking person without title25. Seeming irregularities can be due to the loss of the case, the tablet being less strictly written. The order in the witness lists is different in the earliest texts.

3. General Conclusions Although the sanga titles are not followed by a deity, the following reference is given because it illustrates better than our 6. the importance of people from Babylon. 8. In CT 45, 121(54), s.d., Erišti-Aja, a nadītum of Šamaš, buys a field from the king. The witnesses are two overseers of the ‘barbers’ (ugula šu.i), two archivists (bisag~.dub.ba), and on the fifth and sixth place we find Awīl-Sîn and Mardukmušallim each defined as sanga, without a deity. Although we know a Marduk-mušallim sanga of Aja under Abi-ešu, a first sanga Awīl-Sîn is a hapax in our corpus. The explanation must lie in the fact that the nadītum buys her field from the king (ki šar-ri-im) and because of that, the witnesses are not inhabitants of Sippar but officials from Babylon24. Indeed, persons such as the ugula šu.i Nūr-ilīšu, Balāssu-lirik, and the diviner (máš.šu.gíd.gíd) Ištar-ilīšu do not occur elsewhere in our Sippar corpus. The name of the father of one of the archivists, Esagil-mansum, also points to Babylon. So, both sangas could also be from the capital. The buyer, Erišti-Aja, daughter of Lu-Iškura is of course attested in our material and so helps to date this text under ammu-rabi or Samsu-iluna. 2.3. Conclusions In conclusion, when the sangas are not the first witnesses this is due to the fact that more important people are involved. This can be the burgo-

23

The personnel is: Ilum-mušallim, fifth witness, Damugalzu sixth and Utu-ENGUR.A-nīšī seventh. The order is exactly the same on tablet and case. 24 The fact that no oath is taken in this sale contract of a field could also be related to the presence of the king as seller and his officials from Babylon as witnesses. See Stol 2002, 737-8.

Although no archive of a sanga of Šamaš of Sippar has been recovered yet, we have some indications on his wealth and standing. Sangas were land owners and we would not expect otherwise, land being the main way to (re)invest one’s earnings. Of temple related matters we learn, as was feared at the outset, precious little. That the sanga should be responsible for his personnel and cultic equipment (the divine weapon) is not really surprising. His daily life and tasks still remain in the dark. From the end of Ammi-ditana and later, we have a few indications, thanks to the galama archive, that sangas borrowed silver from Inannamansum and his son. We will keep this in mind as a possible indicator of economic hardship. It is telling that the sangas can be called upon by the palace. This could indicate a subordinate position of the temple vis à vis the king, at least in the later part of the Old Babylonian period. Finally, it is clear that the sangas were of the highest standing within the local community, but lower in rank than a king’s daughter (another indication of the balance of power between temple and palace). The mayor of Sippar outranked the sanga26, as did a few people without title. With these few indications of the sanga’s social rank we end this introductory chapter and move on to the detailed discussion of all of the attestations of the different holders of this high office in Sippar.

25

Apart from illi-Ninkarak, one thinks of course of Ipiq-Annunītum son of Sîn-iddinam first witness (without title) from end Ammi-ditana to A 7. 26 Maybe as chief of the city assembly, no doubt composed of representatives of the higher strata of the city.

21

i.b. the first sangas

I.B. THE FIRST SANGAS

In this chapter we will discuss the attestations of the first sangas. In the heading we give a reconstructed transcription of the seal inscription; parts that do not appear in any of the extant impressions are put between straight brackets. In the tables of attestations, footnotes give the precise parts of this inscription remaining on each tablet, when nothing is lacking the footnote just states that it is complete.

0. Warad-Sîn Warad-Sîn is only attested as the father of Annumpī-Šamaš. The reason for including him here as a possible sanga will be given below in our discussion of the names of the first sangas.

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš Son of Warad-Sîn 4 Attestations, Immerum and Immerum-Sumu-la-El 1. Seal Inscription of the Seal Used (B 30)1

(Fig. 1) dingir-pi4-d┌utu┐ dumu ìr-dEN.[ZU] sanga d[utu]

2. Attestations2 Text VS 8, 4 VS 8, 5 BDHP 146 ” CT 4, 50a MHET 7 ”

1

T C T C T T C

Date

Genre

Name

Title3

Seal

Location of seal

Im oath [”] Im oath ” Im+Sle Im oath ”

wedding ” inheritance ” sale garden sale house ”

Annum-pī-Šamaš [...] Annum-pīšu ” Annum-pī-Šamaš Annum-pī-Šamaš [...]

sanga dutu [...] — [...] sanga sanga [...]

— own4 — own7 — — [?]

— L.E. top5 — U.E. excl. — — [U.E. and L.E. gone]

The last sign of the second line of the inscription was completed on the basis of the recurring sequence WaradSîn—Annum-pī-Aja (fourth and fifth first sanga and seventh and eighth). There certainly is an intended pattern here. Apart from this, Warad-Sîn is infinitely more common in Sippar than the alternative Warad-Enlil. Warad-Enki is not attested in Sippar. The third line is completed on the basis of the title used in VS 8, 4. For the abbreviation B (= Blocher 1992a) and others used here, we refer to our Abbreviation list.

2 3

cfr. already R.Harris (1975, 157). This is the title as given in the text, not the seal inscrip-

tion. 4 Only the utu at the end of the first line remains, together with part of the figure. We use “own” to denote that the sanga does not use his father’s seal, as will be the case for other ones later.

i. the texts and the seals

22 3. Comments

The first sanga in our documentation is Annumpī-Šamaš, whose name is abbreviated once to Annum-pīšu. We find him four times during the reign of Immerum. In all four texts he is a witness, three times the first one, the fourth one being CT 4, 50a where he is seventh witness. We commented upon this text above, arguing that the lower position of the sanga was either a consequence of the presence of people from Babylon or from the order of witnesses in early lists. It is impossible to find out how long he held his office. The paucity of remaining texts from the beginning of the Old Babylonian period precludes any conclusion. He is the only sanga we know under Immerum and one of his attestations gives a synchronism with Sumu-la-El. His son and successor is only attested under Sumula-El. Since we have no indication of the length

Witness 1

Witness 2

Annum-pī-Šamaš

Ilum-mušallim, gatekeeper of the gagûm

”

Imlik-Sîn, singer,

CT 4, 50a

”

Būr-Nunu, overseer of the nadītums, his son

MHET 7

We will expand on this subject further in our chapter concerning the second witnesses before the second sangas. Suffice it to state here that the succession Imlik-Sîn—Būr-Nunu is assured as they are father and son. Since there is continuity between father and son, we assume that Ilum-mušallim precedes both. This has a chronological consequence. If we order our texts this way we have: VS 8, 4 and BDHP 14 oath by Immerum, followed by CT 4, 50a oath by Immerum and Sumu-la-El and then MHET 7 again oath by Immerum. Which means that a text with an oath to both Immerum and Sumu-la-El comes in between those with an oath by Immerum alone. A reflection of changing political alliances or circumstances?

5

Only small fragment. Tablet = BM 82450. The case, BM 82451, was incorporated in BDHP 14 only insofar as it varied from the tablet copied. Both were collated. 6

of Immerum’s reign (only four year names are known) this does not help. According to his seal, the name of his father is (in all probability) Warad-Sîn. We have no trace of him and don’t know if he was already a sanga of Šamaš. In view of the name sequence of later sangas, we would tend to think he was. Since our first attested sanga of Šamaš was already in office under Immerum, a local ruler of Sippar, before Babylon took over, the temple must have been more ancient too. There are no direct references to temple building activities by Immerum, except an Inanna temple. Some indirect evidence, though, points to the existence of the Šamaš temple in his time: one of Immerum’s year names refers to the building of the wall of the gagûm, an institution associated with the Šamaš temple (BDHP 37). The order of the references above has been established on the basis of the second witnesses:

Reference VS 8, 4, BDHP 14

4. The Location of the Seal Three of these tablets have a preserved case, only CT 4, 50a does not. This raised high hopes as to the identification of his seal and indeed it is to be found on the two cases: Reference VS 8, 4 BDHP 14

Location of the seal L.E. top U.E. (partly broken) excl.

Of the case of VS 8, 4 only the left edge is partly available. According to the description by Klengel-Brandt (1989, 334 sub n° 100) this left edge shows four seal impressions stemming from two similar seals. Her seal 100a clearly is that of Ilum-mušallim, the second witness. She does not mention a seal of Annum-pī-Šamaš but

7

dingir-pi4-d┌utu┐ dumu ìr dEN.[ZU] sanga d[utu]

23

i.b. the first sangas collation has shown this to be the topmost one of the same left edge. In the text, the sanga is first witness so it is not clear who could have sealed the now lost upper edge. This could have been Annum-pī-Šamaš too. Another possibility is given by later examples, showing that when a party to the transaction seals, she/he does so before the sanga. This might also have been the case here: a party sealing the upper edge and the sanga the top of the left edge. On BDHP 14 the seal of the sanga is the only one on the upper edge. The seal of the second witness, the doorkeeper Ilum-mušallim is rolled at the top of the left edge. The seal of the third witness, the last one of the group of temple personnel, Damu-galzu, is not recognisable among the seal impressions8, although enough remains of the case. Did he use another seal? On MHET 7, according to Blocher (1992a, 24), there is a seal of a doorkeeper on the left part

of the upper edge. Contra Blocher, as drawn there, seal B 24 is not rolled on the upper edge but on the lower edge. Because nothing much remains of the case, obverse and reverse were inadvertently inverted by him. Seal B 24 is that of Ilum-mušallim, fourth witness9. It would have been awkward to have a fourth witness seal the upper edge. Of the real upper edge and the left edge nothing remains.

5. Conclusion The only conclusion we can draw from these two cases is that the order of sealing goes from the upper edge to the top of the left edge and that the sangas seal on the upper edge or, maybe, when a party to the contract seals there, on the top of the left edge.

II. Šamaš-tappašu Son of Annum-pī-Šamaš

4 Attestations Sumu-la-El 1. Seal Inscription10 of the Seal Used (B 84)

(Fig. 2) utu-tab.ba-šu ìr é.babbár dumu dingir-pi4-dutu d

8 As compared with his seal on TCL I, 186 (cfr infra our chapter on the second witnesses) = GW 1988, 182. 9 Collation indeed shows the first sign of the third line to be ká and not ┌dumu┐. The inscription is then to be read: dingir-[mu-ša-lim] ì.[du8] ká [ga-gu-um] From this it follows that B 24 = B 26. It is tempting to add B 51 to this equation. Blocher does not give a drawing of this seal but refers to GW 182 a. The sitting figure could be the same as that on B 26/24.

What remains of the inscription could be a part of the du8 on line 2 and the final gu-um on the third line (instead of an unexpected dNusku). This seal is impressed on BDHP 31, a tablet we did not study because there is no mention of a sanga on it. As can be seen on Blocher’s scheme of seal impressions (1992a, 30) seals 26 and 51 are impressed next to each other on the reverse. This could simply be B 26 rolled twice. 10 Although we have no complete seal legend of this seal as rolled by Šamaš-tappašu himself, his son also used it and here we have a complete legend.

i. the texts and the seals

24 2. Attestations11 Text12 CT 6, 30a CT 45, 2 ” CT 2, 35 Al-Rawi/Dalley 2000, 87

Date

Genre

Title

Seal

Location of seal

Second witness

T

Sle oath

inheritance

—

—

—

Būr-Nunu

T

Sle oath

sale ki.bal.[...]

—

—

—

Būr-Nunu

C

”

”

sanga NÍG dutu

[?]

[U.E., Lo.E. gone]

T

Sle oath

inheritance

—

—

—

Damu-galzu

—13

d.l. (Sle?)

(fragment)

—

own14

[fragment only]

[...]

3. Comments Harris (1975, 157) already had indicated there was a Šamaš-[...] sanga during the reign of Sumula-El. Her only reference was the incomplete line on CT 45, 2. The traces as copied in CT 45 can now be completed to Šamaš-tappašu since his seal as used by his son and successor Lipit-Ištar was drawn by Blocher (1992a, no. 8415). Nothing much can be said about the length of his career. His predecessor Annum-pī-Šamaš is attested in Sumu-la-El as is his successor, so he must have been sanga for less than the 36 years of this king. We have added Al-Rawi/Dalley 2000, 87 here which is only a seal legend (and a figure) without the rest of the tablet on which it was rolled. It might have been used by him but his son Lipit-Ištar also uses this seal, so we cannot be certain by whom this impression was made, in the absence of the tablet with the witness list. 11 In CT 6, 41c, the first witness is dutu-tab.ba-e, doorkeeper of the gagûm and not dutu-tab.ba-šu the sanga. The copy of the last sign of the name is not an -e, but not really a -šu either (compare with the šu on line 2). Our choice in favor of Šamaš-tappê is based on two arguments. The first one is that CT 6, 41c is part of a group of three field leases by uššutum. The two other ones, BDHP 4 and 6 have the same doorkeeper as first or second witness. The second argument is that sangas only very exceptionally witness field leases. We have only three examples in our corpus: Di 1147, MHET 2702 and 906, all Ammi-aduqa, all witnessed by Ilšu-ibnīšu. 12 It is difficult to establish a relative order for these texts. In CT 6, 30a and CT 45, 2 (according to our collation) Būr-Nunu is second witness but this does not really differentiate them from CT 2, 35. In this last text Būr-Nunu is only seventh witness, but this must be a scribal error: his name is listed among the women (witnesses 5 until the end). He obviously belonged among the temple personnel (witnesses 1 to 3). The now lost case must have given the right order. CT 6, 30a may be earlier than the other texts because Utu-ENGUR.A-nīšī, a messenger of the Šamaš temple (rá.gab NÍG é d┌utu┐) according to CT 45, 1 (case of BDHP 31), still appears in it (as third witness) and not in the two other texts. His career starts under Immerum (for the year

”

It is puzzling that his occupation is not mentioned on his seal inscription, this is rare for a first sanga. The order of the lines of the inscription is odd too: the ìr line comes after his name and before his patronymic16. However, there can be no doubt as to his being the sanga: he is designated as such on his daughter’s seal (B 24717): da-mi-iq-tum dumu.munus dutu-tab.ba-šu sanga dutu On CT 6, 30a and CT 2, 35 he appears as first witness, without title. The now lost cases of these tablets may have had the title and no doubt his seal. We can nevertheless be certain that he is the sanga, because he heads a group of temple personnel. Under Sumu-la-El there still is no second sanga and Būr-Nunu, the overseer of the nadiātum name see Horsnell (1999, 6), one of the early Sippar rulers (CT 4, 47b in fact, according to the year name, the year in which ISA dies) (VS 8, 4/5), Buntatun-ila and Sumu-la-El (CT 45, 1/BDHP 31) and Sumu-la-El only (Walker 1978, 236 and CT 6, 30a). He further appears in three undated texts, all belonging to the dossier of Innabatum (CT 33, 42 and 43, MHET 784). 13 Only the three line inscription with one figure is copied, no copy of a tablet or case. 14 d utu-tab.ba-[šu] ìr é.ud.[ud] dumu dingir-pi4-┌d┐[utu] 15 Drawn from CT 48, 31 (case of CT 8, 44a, cfr. infra sub Lipit-Ištar). The legend, as transliterated in CT 48, is incomplete. As drawn by Blocher (1992a, 39) it is complete. Maybe the missing parts were filled in with the help of CT 6, 40c, also a document sealed by the son Lipit-Ištar with the father’s seal. 16 We will come back to this in our concluding chapters on the seal legends of the sangas. 17 Blocher (1992a, 82) did not have a complete legend: the sanga in the last line is missing. Collation shows enough traces to be certain of the presence of this sign. See our listing of the sanga’s daughter’s seals infra.

i.b. the first sangas continues to occupy the second witness place after the sanga18. 4. The Location of the Seal There remains no impression of his seal, made by the sanga himself. We know it only because his son used it.

25

On CT 45, 2 the sanga is first witness but his seal is nowhere to be seen on the remains of the case. This is probably due to the loss of the upper edge. The second witness, Būr-Nunu19, seals topmost on the left edge which shows that the sanga, first witness, must have sealed on the upper edge. On the tablet, the first four witnesses of the case, i.e. the officials of the temple, including the two sangas, are not listed.

III. Lipit-Ištar Son of Šamaš-tappašu

32 Attestations, Sumu-la-El—Apil-Sîn 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used his fathers’ seal (B 84)

(Fig. 2) utu-tab.ba-šu ìr é.babbár dumu dingir-pi4-dutu d

his own seal (B 21920)

(Fig. 3) li-pí-it-iš8-tár dumu dutu-tab.ba-šu sanga dutu

18 CT 6, 30a is an exception: it has only three witnesses: the sanga (without title), the lessee of the field and a certain Warad-Nergal. 19 For this correction of CT 45, 2, cf. infra before the second sanga.

20 Blocher (1992a, 82) refers for the seal of Lipit-Ištar, his 219, to GW 1988, 186 a and 186.5(!) which only shows part of the figure and no legend.

i. the texts and the seals

26 2. Attestations Text21

Date

Genre

Title

Seal

Location of the seal

Second witness/ sanga

CT 8, 44a22

T

Sle oath

sale kisla23

—

—

—

(Būr-Nunu)24

CT 48, 31

C

”

”

sanga NÍG dutu

father’s25

U.E. excl.

”

MHET 18

T

Sle oath

sale field

—

—

—

”

d

C

”

”

sanga NÍG utu

[?]

[U.E. gone]

”

CT 2, 33

T

Sle /-/-

freeing of slave

—

—

—

”

CT 2, 34

T

Sle oath

uppi lā ragāmim

—

—

—

”

CT 6, 26a

T

Sle+Sa26

wedding

—

—

—

”

C

”

”

[...]

[broken]

[U.E., Lo.E. gone]

[”]

VS 8, 12

T

Sa oath

inheritance

—

—

—

”

VS 8, 13

C

”

”

sanga

[?]

[U.E. gone]

”

CT 47, 1

T

Sa oath

donation

—

—

—

”

MHET 28

T

Sa oath

donation

—

—

—

”

CT 6, 40c

T

Sa 2

loan silver 28

—

—

—

(Adad-rēmēni29)

BM 8251330

C

”

”

sanga (?)

father’s31

U.E. excl.

”

CT 48, 27

T

s.d.

litigation

—

—

—

”

”

27

BM 17105

d

”

C

Sa oath

”

sanga NÍG utu

[broken]

[U.E. mostly gone]

”

CT 6, 19a32

T

Sa oath

sale house

—

—

—

(Ilabrat-bāni)33

MHET 30

T

Sa oath

adoption

—

—

—

Išar-Šamaš

BDHP 68

T

Sa-/-/-

inheritance

—

—

—

”

CT 2, 3

T

Sa 13/7/-

sale field

sanga dutu

—

—

”

MHET 567

T

s.d.(Sa 14)

inheritance

—

—

—

Sîn-ennam

CT 8, 29b

T

AS 1/-/-

adoption

—

—

—

Šumu-Sîn

—

—

Šamu-Sîn

sanga┐[?]

[34]

[U.E.?]

”

sanga

—

—

Šumu-Sîn

U.E. right

[...]

Al-Adami 1997 ” CT 48, 29 ”

T

AS 2/-/-

litigation

C

”

”

T

AS oath

inheritance

C

”

”

d

sanga utu ┌

sanga

own

35

(continued on next page) 21 The criteria for the ordering of these texts are given below sub 3. Comments. 22 On the tablet, Lipit-Ištar is fourth and Būr-Nunu is first witness, the former without and the latter with title. On the case, Lipit-Ištar is first witness and Būr-Nunu second, both with their respective titles. This again shows the carelessness with which the tablet could be written vis à vis the case. 23 kisla (ki.ud) on the tablet, ki.bur.bal on the case (three times), which shows that these words refer to (nearly?) identical types of plots. 24 Not second sanga but overseer of the nadiātum (ugula lukur), occupying the place of second witness before there was a second sanga (cfr infra Before the Second sanga). 25 d┌ utu┐-[tab.ba]-┌šu┐ ìr [é].┌babbár┐ ┌ dumu┐ dingir-[pi4]-dutu 26 Oath by two kings cfr. Charpin 2004, 93. 27 Unpublished case, composed of BM 17015, 17015A and

17119. The composition and the seals are given in Blocher 1992a, 42 (his tablet XX). 28 Loan from Šamas, which might explain the presence of a sanga. 29 Son of Damu-galzu, only his name is given in the text. 30 This case is unpublished, seal scheme drawn by Blocher (1992a, 43, seal n° 84), collated by us. 31 Complete. 32 The Ištar is omitted from the sanga’s name. 33 Son of Būr-Nunu, no patronymic is given in CT 6, 19a. He succeeds to his father as overseer of the nadiātum. 34 We suppose that, in keeping with the other cases, the first sanga rolled his seal on the upper edge. The text as copied in Sumer 49, 93-96 does not give drawings of the seals. The transcription provided ibidem does not mention the seal. As a result we do not know if Lipit-Ištar still used his father’s seal at that time or had started using his own.

27

i.b. the first sangas (cont.) Text21

Date

Genre

Title sanga dutu

CT 47, 7

T

AS oath

inheritance

CT 47, 7a

C

”

”

CT 48, 5938

T

AS oath

inheritance

”

C

” 41

[sanga utu] —

own

37

— 40

Second witness/ sanga

—

Šamu-Sîn

Lo.E. twice excl.

”

—

(Ilabrat-bāni39)

—

own

U.E. twice

”

sale field

—

—

—

Šamu-Sîn

sanga dutu

[broken]

[?]

”

T

”

C

”

”

MHET 66

— 36

d

Location of the seal

”

CT 45, 10(6)

AS oath

Seal

T

AS oath

inheritance

—

—

—

Šamu-Sîn

C

”

”

—

[own?]

[Lo.E. gone]

”

CT 8, 29c

T

AS -/-/-

donation

—

—

—

Šumu-Sîn

CT 8, 49a BM 8245442

T C

AS oath

inheritance (fragment)

—

—

—

Šumu-Sîn

CT 45, 12(7)

T

AS oath

donation

—

—

—

Šumu-Sîn

CT 45,91(41)

T

s.d. (AS)

donation

—

—

—

[...]mu-Sîn

T

AS oath

sale field

—

—

—

Šamu-Sîn

—

—

—

[...]-Sîn

sanga

—

—

Šamu-Sîn

[?]

—

”

CT 47, 5 43

MHET 61

T

AS oath

sale field

TLB I, 218

T

AS oath

sale field

TJDB pl. 49

T

AS oath

sale field45

Di 673

46

CT 6, 46

47

TC

TC50

44

d

—

Šamu-Sîn

48

Lo.E. twice

(Sîn-bāni)49

Lo.E. right52

Šumu-Sîn

[AS]

inheritance

sanga utu

own

AS 13/2/-

sale field

sanga dutu

own51

3. Comments 3.1. The Order of the Texts Except for MHET 567, CT 45, 91(41) and the broken Di 673 (to which we will return under 3.4 below), all of these thirty-two attestations mention a king but only three have a year name 35

li-pí-it-iš8-tár dumu dutu-tab.ba┐-šu [sanga dutu] 36 Both sangas are given on the same line. The end of this line is broken, but we suppose it contained the title, applicable to both. 37 Complete. 38 Tablet = BM 82432; case = BM 82423. Same numbers, different order, any pun intended? 39 Not second sanga but overseer of the nadiātum (ugula lukur). Cf. infra: ‘Before the second sanga: the second witnesses’. 40 Complete. 41 The oath on the tablet is by Šamaš, Marduk ù (vacat), on the case the king’s name is added. 42 Only small piece of a case with the seal of Nabi-ilīšu son of Šamaš-īn-matim. 43 Of the name only [...]-Ištar remains. In view of the position as first witness, followed by other temple personnel, we assume it was Lipit-Ištar. 44 After the name of Lipit-Ištar no title is given but on the next line the name of Šamu-Sîn is followed by ┌sanga┐.meš. ┌

allowing the precise dating of the text within the king’s reign. In the absence of year names in most of our texts we have ordered them according to the following principles: 45 This text is related to the preceding one, TLB I, 218, which is referred to on the left edge: ezub uppīšu panim ša 0.0.2 iku eqlim “rest of his earlier tablet concerning a 2 iku (= ± 7.200 m2) field”. 46 cfr. Voet 1991, 31. 47 Unopened case. 48 li-┌pí┐-it-[iš8-tár] dumu dutu-tab.ba-[šu] sanga dutu With kišib: [kišib] ┌li┐-pí-it-iš8-tár 49 No title, no patronymic. Could this be an early attestation of the future overseer of the nadiātum, descendant of Būr-Nunu? (Cf. infra Before the Second Sanga). 50 Unopened case. 51 li-pí-it-┌iš8-tár┐ dumu dutu-tab.ba-┌šu┐ sanga dutu 52 It is clear from the seal impression that the first sanga sealed first, before the second sanga who also sealed on the lower edge.

28

i. the texts and the seals 1. their distribution throughout the reigns of three successive kings allows us to classify them in successive groups: Sumu-la-El (4), Sumu-la-El and Sabium (1), Sabium (10) and Apil-Sîn (17). 2. within these groups we have different second witnesses, allowing further classification of the texts: – the overseer Būr-Nunu (always under Sumu-la-El, in the Sumu-la-El-Sabium text and under Sabium) – the messenger Adad-rēmēni (under Sabium) – the overseer Ilabrat-bāni son of Būr-Nunu (under Sabium) – the first second sanga Išar-Šamaš (under Apil-Sîn) We will show infra, in our treatment of the second witnesses before the existence of the office of second sanga, that there may have been a small gap between Būr-Nunu and his son Ilabrat-bāni at the beginning of Sabium’s reign. Indeed, in Sa 2 (CT 6, 40c) it is Adad-rēmēni, son of Damu-galzu, who is second witness (just like in CT 48, 27 Sa no year name). Ilabrat-bāni appears as second witness, after the sanga and before Adadrēmēni in CT 6, 19a, also dated Sabium but alas without a year name. The first precisely dated mention of Ilabrat-bāni, overseer, we have, is dated Sa 12 (his seal, rolled on CT 2, 50 case). The reconstruction might thus be that we have Būr-Nunu until the very beginning of Sabium, followed by a few texts without an overseer as second witness (CT 6, 40c and CT 48, 27) after which Ilabrat-bāni takes over (CT 6, 19a). This is the order we have chosen. Another possibility would be that Būr-Nunu or Ilabrat-bāni were simply not available for witnessing and sealing CT 6, 40c and CT 48, 27. 3. within the Apil-Sîn group, the texts dated Apil-Sîn 1 and 2 come first, the one dated Apil-Sîn 13 at the end. TJDB 49 refers to TLB I, 218 as “uppīšu ša panim” conseqently TLB I, 218 is listed before TJDB 49. These are our chronological criteria. To this we have added a completely arbitrary one, meant to group texts according to the fact that: a. they have the identified seal of the first sanga b. they have a broken case with some seals,

allowing to make some deductions or build a hypothesis concerning the location of the sangas’ seals c. they have no (sealed) part of the case preserved. These three last criteria are applied within each of the groups defined by our three chronological criteria above. When texts cannot be classified by any of these, they are listed in alphabetical order of the abbreviations of their publication. There are two exceptions. Di 673 we have classified as the penultimate in the list, because of its sealing pattern (cf. infra 6.2. Sealing practice). CT 48, 29 we have classified before CT 47, 7/7a because the second sanga uses his own seal, whereas in CT 47, 7/7a he uses that of Sîn-ennam (cf. Second sanga Šamu-Sîn below) 3.2. Career This sanga is attested during the reign of Sumula-El and during all fourteen years of Sabium. He is well attested under Apil-Sîn until his son Warad-Sîn replaces him. As usual with the early texts, almost none of them bears a year name. Sumu-la-El’s reign lasts for 36 years. In it we have three sangas: Annum-pī-Šamaš, Šamaštappašu and our Lipit-Ištar. The first one is already attested under the preceding king, Immerum; the second one under Sumu-la-El only and Lipit-Ištar under Sumu-la-El, under the next king, Sabium, and the one after that, Apil-Sîn. This shows that Lipit-Ištar was in office during the later years of Sumu-la-El. We have two dated tablets that shed some chronological light on the end of Lipit-Ištar’s career. The first one is CT 6, 46 which shows that in Apil-Sîn 13 Lipit-Ištar was still first sanga. The second one is BBVOT I, 115 dated Apil-Sîn 17 (see our comments in the next section). Here WaradSîn has taken his place. If we add Sabium’s fourteen years to at least thirteen years of Apil-Sîn this gives us twentyseven years, to which must be added at least one Sumu-la-El year (five attestations). This makes for a career of minimum twenty-eight years. If we make him last until Apil-Sîn 17 and add some more Sumu-la-El years, we easily exceed thirty years in office. In general, we must remark that the number of attestations does not necessarily reflect the number of texts originally witnessed by the sangas.

i.b. the first sangas

29

3.3. The Order of the Witnesses It is interesting to note that in Al-Adami 1997 the third witness is Ajjalātum, daughter of Sumu-laEl, the preceding king. She does not occupy the first witness place, as the daughter of a livng king would do (see Sanga’s not first witnesses, above).

another means of dating it. Lipit-Ištar uses his own seal, which he does only under Apil-Sîn (cfr the table above). CT 45, 91(41) is not dated either but in view of the fact that the second sanga is Šumu-Sîn it must belong in the earlier part of Apil-Sîn. The presence as third witness of Ilabrat-bāni, the overseer of the nadiātum, who holds this position under Sabium and the beginning of Apil-Sîn, confirms this.

3.4. Dating Undated Tablets MHET 567 bears neither title nor oath. Since Lipit-Ištar is first sanga, it must be dated Sumula-El, Sabium or Apil-Sîn. The second sanga, Sînennam, allows us to narrow this down. A Sumu-la-El date is excluded because, under this king and during the first years of Sabium, the overseer of the nadiātum Būr-Nunu (followed by Adad-rēmēni and Ilabrat-bāni) is consistently second witness after the sanga. In other words: there is not yet a second sanga at that time. Under Sabium we have a second sanga, IšarŠamaš. His career does not extend beyond this reign and one of the texts he witnesses is dated Sabium 13, the penultimate year of this king. This leaves two time-slots for Sîn-ennam and MHET 567. Either he was sanga before Išar-Šamaš, i.e. somewhere before Sabium 13 and after the first years of this king, when Būr-Nunu was still second witness. Or he was sanga after Išar-Šamaš, i.e. after Sabium 13 and before Apil-Sîn 1, when ŠumuSîn starts his career as second witness. One piece of evidence tips the balance in favour of the sequence Išar-Šamaš—Sîn-ennam— Šumu-Sîn as second sangas. Šumu-Sîn nearly always uses Sîn-ennam’s seal53 which points to a direct succession. In all fairness we have to add that we do not know which seal was used by Išar-Šamaš, so, theoretically he could also have used the seal of Sîn-ennam. But then, three succeeding generations would have used a seal not bearing their own name, which would not be impossible but exceptional. We cannot exclude this absolutely but tend to the simpler solution. A consequence is that, since Sîn-ennam would come between Išar-Šamas and Šumu-Sîn, MHET 567 has to be dated Sabium 14. Di 673 must also be dated under Apil-Sîn. In this text there is no second sanga but we have

3.5. The Title Sanga NÍG dutu Our first sanga, Annum-pī-Šamaš, is attested with his title in three texts. Once, under Immerum, as sanga dutu. In two other instances, dated Immerum and Immerum+Sumu-la-El, this is shortened to simply sanga. Of his son and successor Šamaš-tappašu, we have only one attestation of the title, under Sumula-El, which is sanga NÍG dutu. The present first sanga Lipit-Ištar continues the same usage of sanga NÍG dutu or simply sanga during the reign of Sumu-la-El and the first years of Sabium. His first attested use of the title without the NÍG is dated in the penultimate year of Sabium. The loss of the NÍG is contemporaneous with the appearance of the second sangas, who never use it. There is only one recurrence, when Lipit-Ištar’s son, Warad-Sîn, once reverts to the old formula in a text dated to Apil-Sîn (MHET 60). Even if we consider this text to be the first attestation of Warad-Sîn, this cannot be a continuity of the use of the NÍG in the title because Lipit-Ištar himself uses the shorter version at least four times at the end of his career. It is interesting to compare the title in the texts with that on the seal legends of these sangas. Annum-pī-Šamaš (I) has the title sanga dutu on his seal and never uses the NÍG in the texts. His son Šamaš-tappašu (II), who uses the NÍG in the texts, does not mention his title on his seal. LipitIštar (III) does not have the NÍG on his seal but uses it a number of times in texts. However, our documentation shows that there is a correlation with the use of his father’s (i.e. Šamaš-tappašu’s) seal. At the beginning of his career he uses his father’s seal (which has no title in the legend) and uses the NÍG in the texts. When he starts using his own seal (with title but without the NÍG) his

We mainly have tablets found in a haphazard way by illicit diggers, which survived ‘natural’ loss in the Mesopotamian soil as well as excavation.

53 Although he is not his son but maybe his nephew as will be shown below in our discussion of the second sangas.

i. the texts and the seals

30

title always is sanga dutu in the texts. This means that, during the whole period in which the NÍG is used the title-less seal of Šamaš-tappašu is used, either by himself or by his son. There is of course no relation between the use of the NÍG and the absence of a title on the sanga seal, it is an unfortunate coincidence which prevents us from finding out whether the NÍG would have made it to the seal legend. Seals of other temple personnel provide this information. Indeed, the NÍG also appears in the titles of the overseers of the nadiātum, the doorkeepers and, of course, the nadiātum themselves. We will briefly take a look at these.

– ugula lukur NÍG dutu Būr-Nunu, the first person with this title, attested under Sumu-la-El and the beginning of Sabium always has the NÍG in his title as written in the texts: ugula lukur NÍG dutu, whereas all of his successors omit it. On his seal, however, he is ugula nin.dingir dutu.54 Would this mean that the NÍG was used in the texts but never in the seal legends? Būr-Nunu’s sister herself contradicts this. On her seal we read ugula lukur NÍG dutu and in a witness list55 she quite consistently is ugula lukur NÍG dutu. – ì.du8 NÍG ká gagûm We have three seals of doorkeepers of the gagûm:

other temple officials (four seals of doorkeepers of the gagûma) Name Ilum-mušallim Ammurrum-bāni Idadum Šamaš-tappê

Title on seal

In texts

Date

Seal published

ì.du8/ká ga-gu-um ì.du8/ ša ká ga-gu-um ì.du8 NÍG dutu (no title)

ì.du8 no title ì.du8 ì.du8 ká ga-gi-im

Im Sle AS Sm

B 26 (our fig. 12) B 81 B 280 (unpublished)

a

We do not include Bulālum (seal B 164 and 112), Idadum (B 262 and B 280) and Sabium-ili (BT 32) because they are simply ì.du8 or ì.du8 (šá) Šamaš without mention of the gagûm (seal B 164 and 112) and might thus be doorkeepers of the Ebabbar. The single mention of Idadum ì.du8 NÍG Šamaš is dated under Apil-Sîn.

Incidentally, we note that the seals have ga-gu-um, without declension, as an Akkadogram57, whereas in the text the word is declined as ga-gi-im. The Akkadogram clearly has more status. We note that Amurrum-bāni uses a ša, not a NÍG, which shows that NÍG functioned as a relative pronoun. No titles are given in these texts. When Idadum’s title is given in a text it is always Aum-kīnum

shortened to ì.du8. Amurrum-bāni never has a title in the texts. Ilum-mušallim is cited with his shortened title once (CT 4, 50a) and once we find him as ì.du8 ká ga-gu-um. The title with the NÍG then disappears and is revived in texts under ammu-rabi and Samsuiluna:

ì.du8 NÍG ká gagîm

a 31

CT 47, 41

”

”

”

ì.du8 NÍG ga-gu-um

a 33

MHET 854

Iškur-mansum

ì.du8 ša ga-gu-um

Si 5

MHET 864

Erib-Sîn

ì.du8 NÍG ká gagîm

Si 7

CT 4, 44c

Warassa

58

Nannatum

– rá.gab NÍG é gagîm We have the seal of one messenger. This is Adadrēmēni who has the title rá.gab NÍG é ga-[gu-um]

on his seal (B 10059) impressed on CT 6, 40c, dated under Sabium. In the one text where his title is given, this is simply rá.gab MHET 66 (Apil-Sîn).

54 Impressed on MHET 18 and CT 8, 44a. His name is not mentioned in CT 8, 28a although his seal is rolled on its left edge and right edge. On CT 45, 2 his title is not given in the text. 55 Walker JCS 30, 235 E. 56 The forward slash indicates that the title was split over two lines of the text.

57 Our attention was drawn to this by M. Stol (private communication). 58 And two others whose names are unreadable. 59 Misread as šitim [...] there.

31

i.b. the first sangas – nin.dingir ša Šamaš Jailatum

daughter of

(unnamed)

This is our only attestation of an ugbabtum priestess with the relative pronoun in her title. We note that a ša is used, not a NÍG.

Sle 33/6/-

CT 6, 22a

no absolute rule but a tendency. To show this we have listed below in two tables the contemporaneous texts in which nadītums had their title with and without the addition of the NÍG, respectively.

– lukur NÍG dutu For the nadītums the situation is less clear, probably because we have more attestations. There is nadītum NÍG Šamaš Innabatum Lamassi [...] Hiššatum Takumatum Munawwirtum Salimatum Takumatum Lamassi Bēlessunu Lamassi Amat-Šamaš

daughter of

Ištar-rēmim

daughter of (daughter of daughter of daughter of daughter of daughter of

Alikum Amurrûm) Nusku-la-šanān... Nēmelum Amurrûm Nūr-Šamaš

daughter of daughter of

Nakkārum Akbinānum

Im s.d. s.d. Bti date; Sle+Bti ” Sle Sle Sle “b”+1 Sle+Sa Sa AS 13/2/s.d.

MHET, 8 CT 45, 93 (± Im) MHET 663 (±Im) BDHP 31(tablet) CT 45,1(case) ” MHET 18 CT 8, 28c MHET 23 (case of C6, 42a) BE 6/1, 9 CT 47, 1 CT 6, 46 CT 4, 21b (±AS-Sm)

nadīt Šamaš Rībatum Takun-matum Aassunu Nuubtum Betutetum Šāt-Aja Šamatum Bettani Nuubtum Šāt-Aja Betatum Amat-Adad

daughter of daughter of daughter of daughter of daughter of daughter of sister of daughter of daughter of daughter of daughter of

Amurrûm Abīja Sîn-abūšu Awīl-Adad Ilu-nada Warad-ilīšu (unnamed) Dada-waqar Annum-pīša Lu-Ninšuburka Awi/bu[...]

As can be seen, under Immerum and Sumu-la-El there are nine titles with the NÍG (two of which are in one text) and only five without it. Under Sabium it is the other way round: one with and seven without. Again, as with the other titles, there is a resurgence of the NÍG under Apil-Sîn in two texts and then no more. There is one nadītum who appears in both tables. Taku(n-)matum, daughter of Amurrûm

Im Im date;Im+Sle oath Sle 13 Sle Sle Sa 11?/2/25 Sa 13/ezen abi/ ” Sa 13/tirum/Sa Sa ”

BE 6/1, 4 CT 4, 50a MHET 19 CT 4, 42a TLB I, 217 BDHP 1 CT 48, 14 ” CT 02, 3 CT 02, 16 BE 6/1,013 ”

is attested twice under Sumu-la-El with the NÍG and once without it in a text dated by a double oath to Immerum and Sumu-la-El. Lamassi daughter of Nakkārum is the buyer of a field in CT 6, 46. Her title is given as lukur NÍG dutu. This text, dated Apil-Sîn 13, has our Lipit-Ištar as first sanga and first witness, with the title ‘sanga dutu’ without the ‘NÍG’. The use of the relative pronoun went out of fashion for

i. the texts and the seals

32

the sanga before it did for the nadītum. One early instance of males being more fashion conscious than females. In general it can be said that, under Immerum the use of the NÍG is introduced, it further develops under Sumu-la-El and peters out under Sabium. Under Apil-Sîn it is exceptionally revived, no doubt as a link with olden ways. As far as we know this use seems to be exclusive for the titles linked to the Šamaš temple, although we do not have many titles linked to other gods in these early times. 3.6. The Change of Seal This sanga uses two seals: first his father’s, under Sumu-la-El and at least the beginning of Sabium, then his own, certainly under Apil-Sîn.

Unfortunately, in Al-Adami 1997, there is no drawing of the sangas’ seal. This is particularly frustrating since it could be one of the first instances where Lipit-Ištar used his own seal (cf. our table above and infra: 3.6. The change of seal). The change of seal might have occurred at the beginning of Apil-Sîn’s reign but might also be concomitant with the advent of the first second sanga towards the end of Sabium. It is impossible to determine whether either one of these circumstances prompted the change of seal. The dossier of the next sanga will shed more light on this. 4. The Location of the Seal The following table gives an overview of the sealing by the first and second witness:

One sanga only Date

Reference

U.E.

Seal

Lo.E.

Seal

Sle

CT 48, 31

witness 1 = sanga (2x)

father’s

witness 2 = Būr-Nunu (2x)

own

Sle

MHET 18

[witness 1 = sanga?]

[...]

witness 2 = Būr-Nunu and his sister

own

Sa

CT 6, 26a

gone

Sa Sa 2 Sa

gone

VS 8, 13

[witness 1 = sanga?]

[...]

witness 2 = Būr-Nunu

own

BM 8251360

witness 1 = sanga

father’s

witness 2 = Adad-rēmēni

own

CT 48, 27

faint traces

[...]

gone

Two sangas Al-Adami 1997

no indication given

AS

CT 48, 29

witness1 = sanga 1

own

witness 2 = sanga 2 witness 3 = Ilabrat-bāni

own61 own

AS

CT 47, 7/7a

witness 2 = sanga 2 witness 3 = Ilabrat-bāni

Sîn-ennam own

witness1= sanga 1 (2x)

own

AS

CT 48, 59

witness1 = sanga 162 (2 x)

own

gone63

AS

CT 45, 10(6)

gone

AS

MHET 6664

witness 2 = sanga 2

AS

Di 673

unidentified seal

witness1 = sanga 165 (2x)

own

CT 6, 46

unidentified seal

witness1 = sanga 1 witness 2 = sanga 2

own Sîn-ennam

AS 2

AS 13

60

Case of CT 6, 40c. This would be the only instance where Šumu-Sîn uses his own seal instead of that of Sîn-ennam (cf. infra our discussion of this second sanga). 62 Rolled twice on the upper edge. In between these two impressions is another one, unidentified. 63 Ilabrat-bāni, son of Būr-Nunu is second witness. 61

no indication given

partly gone and witness 8 ! = Ilabrat-bāni Sîn-ennam

64

own

gone [sanga 1?]

In MHET, between lines 2’ and 3’ of the reverse of this tablet we find the remark “1 uninscribed + 1 inscribed seal”. This should be deleted since line 3’ comes immediately after line 2’. Collation has shown there are no seals between them. 65 The text only has a sanga as first witness. The next witnesses are the children of Nanna-mansum.

i.b. the first sangas 5. Comments on Individual Texts CT 45, 10 looks like the odd one out. The very broken case of this tablet has lost its upper edge and of the lower edge only the right part is preserved. On this right part we find the seal of Ilabrat-bāni, overseer of the nadītum and son of Būr-Nunu. In the text this is the eighth witness, a very unusual rank to seal on such a prominent place. In fact, we know that at that time Ilabratbāni appears in the witness list immediately after the sangas (cf. infra Before the second sanga: the second witness). Why is he given here in such a lowly position? When we take a closer look at the witness list we can distinguish two parts: witnesses 1 to 5 are given without patronymic, they belong to the temple. The other witnesses all have a patronymic. In the midst of this last group we find Ilabrat-bāni, without patronymic. The scribe must have forgotten him when listing the temple personnel and added him, belatedly, among the others. Where should he have been placed? We think in his rightful place, immediately after the sanga. Since CT 45, 10 has two sangas, the seal plan will have been the same as that of CT 48, 29: the first sanga seals on the upper edge, the second one and the third witness seal together on the lower edge. Contrary to what seemed at first glance, there is nothing out of the ordinary, but this shows, if proof need be, that the sealing order and the order in the witness list both independently reflect social status. When a mistake is made in the witness list, this does not affect the sealing order. There are some oddities in the sealing order of MHET 66 too. For the sangas nothing out of the usual (except for the inversion U.E./Lo.E.): the first sanga probably sealed the (now gone) lower edge while the second sanga occupies the upper edge. A real oddity is that the third witness, Ilabratbāni, the overseer of the nadiātum, seals twice on the reverse. A seeming oddity is that the left edge is completely empty except for one seal in the middle: that of the twelfth witness. This is Idadum, a doorkeeper of the gagûm. He is not mentioned on the tablet and on the case he is not listed together with the other temple officials who head the list (witnesses 1 to 4) but after some nadiātum, which is unusual. Again, the scribe probably had forgotten to write his name in the proper place, i.e. after the four other temple-people. In fact he should have

33

been the fifth witness. When the case had to be sealed, he rolled his seal on the expected place: the left edge, leaving space above him for the third and/or fourth witness. We then obtain the sealing order: first sanga on the (now broken) lower edge, second sanga on the upper edge, third witness on the reverse (he should have sealed at the top of the left edge, now vacant), fourth witness (did not seal), theoretical fifth witness Idadum, the only seal on the left edge. The only oddity left is the fact that the third witness sealed on the reverse. On Di 673 also, only one sanga is mentioned in the text, as first witness. The order of sealing can be established: he seals on the lower edge, the second witness at the top of the left edge, the following witnesses seal further on the left edge and the reverse. There is a seal on the upper edge but this bears no inscription and is not yet identified. In view of the fact that this is an important place and the seals of the first witnesses are identified elsewhere on the case, this seal might well belong to the testator, Narubtum, a nadītum, daughter of Inim-Nanna. On CT 6, 46 both sangas have migrated to the lower edge. There is a seal on the upper edge, rolled twice and repeated at the top of the reverse. But whose is this? It bears no legend so it can not readily be identified. This must be the seller’s seal. 6. Conclusions 6.1. Seal Use The new sanga starts by using his father’s seal and does so certainly until Sabium 2. Lipit-Ištar’s career started during the last years of Sumu-laEl. If we add to this the 14 years of Sabium, and maybe even a few years of Apil-Sîn until he had his own seal, he must have used his father’s seal during about 15 to 20 years. Subsequently, he has a seal made to his name which is attested under Apil-Sîn. 6.2. Sealing Practice Under Sumu-la-El and Sabium, as long as there is only one sanga, he always seals on the upper edge. The second witness always seals on the lower edge. This is the case for the overseer of the nadiātum Būr-Nunu, the messenger (rá.gab) of the gagûm Adad-rēmēni and probably even Ilabrat-bāni, also overseer of the nadiātum (the Lo.E. of CT 48, 59 is gone but was probably

i. the texts and the seals

34

sealed by Ilabrat-bāni, second witness in the text in absentia of Šumu-Sîn, the second sanga). We have six texts of this period, of which only two have preserved their upper and lower edge, showing this sealing pattern. Two others have the second witness on the lower edge but a broken upper edge. The two last ones have neither upper nor lower edge left. Though incomplete, none of these contradicts the sealing pattern described. When the second sanga appears, under ApilSîn, this same sealing practice is continued: the first sanga seals on the upper edge, the new second witness, the second sanga, seals on the lower edge. This can be ascertained on one text only, but this is enough to show that the sealing practice started under Sumu-la-El was continued under Sabium and Apil-Sîn. Consequently, the three other texts where upper or lower edge or both are broken, can be safely restored in the same way. One text inverses the sangas: the first one now seals the lower edge and the second one the

Sle Sa

AS

66

Case of CT 6, 40c.

upper edge. That this was not an isolated instance is shown by another text where the lower edge is gone but the second sanga’s seal is preserved on the upper edge. These inversions can be easily explained. They may simply be due to the fact that the tablet was (inadvertently?) presented to the sangas upside down, the main principle being that they should seal on opposite (upper and lower) edges. The two last sealed cases of these sangas present another pattern. The upper edge is now occupied by an unidentified seal, almost certainly that of a party to the contract: a testator and a seller respectively. The sangas both migrate to the lower edge, which seems now to be reserved for them. That this happens in the last third of Apil-Sîn’s reign is shown by CT 6, 46 (AS 13) and that is the reason we have classified Di 673, showing the same practice of a party sealing on the upper edge, here too. To summarize this and show the proposed restorations, we have:

U.E.

Lo.E.

Reference

sanga

witness 2 (Būr-Nunu)

CT 48, 31

[sanga]

witness 2 (Būr-Nunu)

MHET 18

[sanga]

[witness 2 (Būr-Nunu)]

CT 6, 26a

[sanga]

witness 2 (Būr-Nunu)

sanga

witness 2 (Adad-rēmēni)

VS 8, 13 BM 8251366

[sanga]

witness 2 (Adad-rēmēni)

[sanga 1]

[witness 2 = sanga 2]

sanga 1

witness 2 = sanga 2

CT 48, 29

sanga 2

witness 1 = sanga 1

CT 47, 7/7a

sanga 1

witness 2 = sanga 2

CT 48, 59

[sanga 1]

[witness 2 = sanga 2]

sanga 2

[witness 1 = sanga 1]

testator?

witness 1 = sanga 1

seller?

witnesses 1+2 = sanga 1+2

CT 48, 27 Al-Adami 97

CT 45, 10(6) MHET 66 Di 673 CT 6, 46

35

i.b. the first sangas IV. Warad-Sîn Son of Lipit-Ištar 34 Texts Apil-Sîn—Sîn-muballi

1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used Father’s seal (B 219)

Own seal

(Fig. 3) li-pí-it-iš8-tár dumu dutu-tab.ba-šu sanga dutu

(Fig. 4A) [ìr]-d[EN.ZU] sanga d[utu] ┌ dumu┐ [li]-pí-it-[iš8-tár] ┌ ┐ d ìr a-[a]

2. Attestations Text1

Date

Genre

Title

Seal

Location of seal

Second sanga

TCL I, 63

T

AS oath2

sale garden

sanga dutu3

—

—

Šamu-Sîn

TLB I, 222

T

d.l.

real estate

[...]

—

—

Šamu-Sîn

CT 47, 78

T

AS oath

donation

—

—

—

Šamu-Sîn

CT 47, 78a

C

”

[father’s]

[U.E.?]

BAP 36

T

AS oath

—

—

5

MHET 48

C

” 6

” sale field

[...] 4

d

sanga utu

”

[...]

[father’s] 7

MHET 60

TC

AS oath

inheritance

sanga NÍG d utu

father’s

TLB I, 230

C8

AS oath

inheritance

sanga dutu

[father’s?]

” Šamu-Sîn

[...]

”

Lo.E. excl. twice

Šumu-Sîn

[...]

Šamu-Sîn (continued on next page)

1

The texts are grouped per second sanga. Šumu-Sîn occupies this function in all of the Apil-Sîn texts and in CT 8, 39b, MHET 85 and TCL I, 203, dated under Sîn-muballi. Šalim-pališu is second sanga in the other texts, all dated Sîn-muballi. TCL I, 63 inverses the order of the first and second sangas in the witness list, this is why we list it at the top of the attestations (see our comments infra). We have listed together those with the sanga’s father’s seal, the unsealed and uncertain ones and ended with those bearing the sanga’s own seal (cfr infra 3.4.). Within each group the texts only dated by the oath are listed in alphabetical order of their publications. Two texts, dated AS 17 and 18 respectively, are listed at the end of the Apil-Sîn texts although it is of course possible that several of the ones dated to Apil-Sîn by oath only should be classified between or after them. The same holds for the two texts dated Sm 13. For our purpose this does not make any difference. Exception in the alphabetical ordering of texts has been made for two couples of texts. BBVOT 1, 6, grouped with TCL I, 68/69 because it is a (near) duplicate. TLB I, 230(Apil-Sîn) could be related to CT 45, 11(6) (Apil-Sîn) as both are inheritances

mentioning uššutum, the first five witnesses are the same in the same order and three more appear in both lists. It is not impossible that TLB I, 230 is part of the case of CT 45, 11. On these grounds we have listed them one after the other. Finally, we have arbitrarily placed CT 8, 29a after BBVOT 1, 147 because of the sealing pattern (cf. infra). 2 Of the king’s name in the oath formula only A[...] can be read. This initial, by itself would suffice and, combined with the presence of the sangas Warad-Sîn and Šamu-Sîn as witnesses one and two, it seems certain that this must be Apil-Sîn. 3 Šamu-Sîn is first witness, Warad-Sîn sanga dutu is second one. 4 Again, the title is added after the name of the second sanga but must apply to both. The line reads: igi Warad-Sîn ù Šamu-Sîn sanga dutu. 5 Only part of the case, no seals preserved. 6 Tablet still in case. 7 Complete. 8 Only part of the reverse of the case, no seals preserved.

i. the texts and the seals

36 (cont.) Text1

Date

Genre

Title

Seal

Location of seal

Second sanga

BE 6/1, 17

T

AS oath

adoption

sanga

—

—

Šamu-Sîn

CT 6, 43

T

AS oath

sale house

—

—

—

Šumu-Sîn

CT 48, 17

T

AS oath

inheritance

sanga dutu

—

—

Šamu-Sîn

MHET 53

T

AS oath

inheritance

sanga dutu

—

—

Šumu-Sîn

d

MHET 55

T

AS oath

adoption

sanga utu

—

—

Šamu-Sîn

BBVOT I, 105

T

AS oath

donation

—

—

—

Šamu-Sîn

BBVOT I, 147

C9

AS 1610

—

father’s11

U.E.12

Ša[mu-Sîn]

TC13

AS oath

adoption

—

father’s14

L.E., L.Mg. top, Rev bottom

Šumu-Sîn

T

AS 1715

sale field

sanga dutu

—

—

Šamu-Sîn

T

AS 18

inheritance

sanga

—

—

Šamu-Sîn

—

Šumu-Sîn

Lo.E.

[...]

CT 8, 29a

BBVOT 1, 115 CT 45, 11(6) CT 8, 39b

16

T

Sm oath

MHET 112

C

Sm 1

MHET 85

T

Sm oath

” TCL I, 203

C T

” s.d. (Sm21)

”

sale field ” donation ” field lease22

d

sanga utu [...]

— father’s

17

—

—

—

Šamu-Sîn

—

father’s18

Lo.E. right19

[...]20

sanga dutu

—

—

Šamu-Sîn (continued on nex page)

9 Although this is not mentioned in the publication, BBVOT 1, 105 and 147 are tablet and case. 10 The tablet, as copied, has no date formula, but on the case, at the very end of the witness list, there is the beginning of a year formula: mu bàd┌x┐. According to Charpin (1988, 81) this year formula belongs to AS 1, 2 or 5 because these all start with ‘mu bàd’. However, this is not possible in view of the presence of Warad-Sîn as first sanga. AS 12 also starts with bàd but is still no good since Warad-Sîn’s father, Lipit-Ištar, is still first sanga in AS 13 (CT 6, 46). There is no other possibility than to assign this (beginning of a) formula to one of the years AS 14 to 18, unless we suppose the scribe made a mistake. Comparison with the different Apil-Sîn year names shows that the broken sign copied after the bàd can only be a part of a ma. Our best option would be AS 16 for which we have a formula mu bàd gal [...]┌ba.dù┐ recorded in the Sippar year list published in Al-Rawi 1993, 30 line 20’. This would imply that the gal is not a mistake as was suggested by Al-Rawi and furthermore that our bàd ma would have to be a variant of this. 11 [li]-pí-it-iš8-[tár] [dumu] dutu-tab.ba-šu [sanga] d[utu] (not [ìr] d[...] as given in BBVOT 1 p. 16 no. 147. 12 BBVOT 1 p. 16 mentions there are seals on the left edge, the upper and the lower one, without specifying which seals are where. Thanks to the kindness of B. André, Keeper of the tablet collection of the Louvre, who lent us photographs of the case, we have been able to locate the seals. 13 Tablet still in case. 14 Complete. 15 BBVOT 1, 115 n.d. Al-Rawi 1993, 27 identifies this as Apil-Sîn 8. Horsnell (1999, II, 81 note 31), on the other hand identifies the year name of this text as Apil-Sîn 9. Both are impossible in view of the fact that Lipit-Ištar is still attested as sanga in AS 13 (CT 6, 46 supra). As copied, the year name is: mu bará an.na na4 za.gìn /ká.dingir.raki a-pil-sin mu.na.an.dím. A better possibility would be AS

17, also recounting the building of a high dais for Šamaš in Babylon. In fact, the date of BBVOT 1, 115 has some unique features, none shared by the known exemplars of AS 9 nor 17: the na4 za.gín, the AN.NA (the AN.NA-ra of one of the exemplars of AS 9 as listed by Horsnell (1999, II, 88) must be a mistake for dutu.ra) and the place of the name Apil-Sîn just before the verb. This last feature might provide the key. In one of the ús.sa dates for AS 18, repeating the formula for AS 17, the king’s name is written just before the verb too. Finally, in the compendia, the main difference between the very similar AS 9 and 17 names resides in the presence of ká.dingir.raki in AS 17 and its absence in AS 9 (I, 239-240). AS 17 it must be. 16 The name of the sanga is gone but since Warad-Sîn is attested in Apil-Sîn and Sîn-muballi and this text dates from the last year of Apil-Sîn, it must have been him. 17 [li-pi-it-]iš8-tár [dumu dutu]-tab.ba-šu [sanga┐ d]utu 18 li-pi-it-┌iš8-tar┐ dumu d[utu]-tab.ba-šu [sanga d]utu MHET has to be corrected accordingly. 19 The rest of the lower edge is completely gone. The upper edge is nearly completely gone, except for faint traces of a figure and an inscription. 20 The transcription of the first witness line on the case is given in MHET as [igi...-dEN].ZU. We propose to restore this as [igi ìr-dEN.ZU igi ša-mu-u-dEN].ZU. 21 Bēlessunu, daughter of Ilima-abum rents out fields in two other texts, dated a 10 (MHET 155) and 17 (MHET 194). TCL I, 203 must be earlier. In view of the presence of Warad-Sîn sanga and Šamu-Sîn, second sanga, the latest we can date it is under Sîn-muballi, before Šalim-pališu replaces Šamu-Sîn as second sanga. 22 This is the earliest preserved field lease witnessed by the sangas.

37

i.b. the first sangas (cont.) Text1

Date

Genre

Title

Seal

Location of seal

Second sanga

CT 47, 11

T

Sm oath

sale field

sanga

—

—

Šalim-pāliMarduk

CT 47, 11a

C

”

”

sanga

father’s23

U.E. left

[ ” ]

CT 45, 16(9)24

T

Sm oath

adoption

—

—

—

Šalim-pālišu25

Di 2017

T

Sm oath

sale kisla

—

—

—

Šalim-pālišu

”

C

”

”

—

father’s26

U.E.

”

Di 190727

T

Sm oath

uppi l.r.

sanga

—

—

Šalim-pālišu

”

C

”

”

sanga

[?]

[ U.E.?]

”

d

MHET 87

T

Sm oath

litigation

sanga utu

—

—

Šalim-pāliMarduk

MHET 102

T

Sm oath

donation

sanga dutu

—

—

Šalim-pālišu

C

”

”

—28

[?]

[U.E. lost ]

Šalim-pāli[i...]

MHET 107

T

Sm oath

sale field

sanga dutu

—

—

Šalim-pālišu

MHET 10929

T

Sm oath

sale house

—

—

—

Šalim-pālišu

C

”

”

sanga dutu

[?]

[U.E.?]

”

”

d

MHET 844

T

Sm oath

sale field

sanga utu

—

—

(Adad-rēmēni)

MHET 926

T

d.l. (Sm30)

sale house

—

—

—

Šalim-pālišu

VS 8, 2131

C

s.d. (Sm32)

real estate33

sanga dutu

own34

U.E. left

[...]

VS 8, 50

T

Sm oath

sale field/ house

sanga [dutu]

—

—

Šalim-pāli[...]

VS 8, 51

C

”

”

[sanga dutu]

[?]

[only rev. of case]

Šalim-[pāli...]

(continued on nex page)

23

As transliterated in CT 47 the seal inscription is: li-pí-[it-...] dumu ┌im┐-┌gur┐-[...] ┌ ┐ d ìr [...] Although only very faint traces remain, collations shows: li-pí-[...] dumu ┌dutu┐-[...] ┌ sanga┐ d[...] 24 The sangas are witnesses 2 and 3 after the gods Šamaš and Aja “ilī wāšibūt Ebabbarim”. The name of the first witness is hidden by a part of the case adhering to the tablet. It might be illi-Ninkarak (see Sangas not first witnesses, above). 25 Abbreviated form of Šalim-pali-Marduk. 26 li-pí-┌it-iš8-tár┐ dumu dutu-[tab].ba-šu sanga d[utu] 27 Di 1907 is a tuppi lā ragāmim concerning the plot bought in Di 2017, that is why we place the documents in this order. 28 After the name, no title is given. The next line gives the name of the second witness and MHET restores the end of this line with the title (which would then have to be applied to both sangas) but this is a conjecture only.

29 The first sanga, Warad-Sîn, and the second one, Šalimpali-Marduk, are witnesses 3 and 4, after Abdi-ara and Sîn-immatim (cfr supra ‘Sangas not first witnesses’). 30 Because of the combination of Warad-Sîn and Šalimpališu the date must be Sîn-muballi. 31 Only fragments preserved. The seal of Warad-Sîn is visible on the upper edge. He must have been the first witness but this cannot be verified since the beginning of the witness list is gone. 32 The fragments of the case published as VS 8, 21 have not preserved Warad-Sîn or a second sanga in the text. We have his seal though, on a small fragment. We classify it in the latter part of Sîn-muballi’s reign since Warad-Sîn used his own seal, which he doesn’t do under Apil-Sîn. It could be argued of course that the presence of his seal does not prove that he was the one who used it. Indeed, his son Annum-pī-Aja, first sanga after him, uses this same seal under ammu-rabi. There are nevertheless two arguments to date the text under Sîn-muballi: – the presence of Sabium-abi (probably the gatekeeper of the cloister, ì.du8 é gagîm), son of Abum-ilum, who is also attested in the unpublished Di 2177 dated Sm 17. – another seal, that of Marduk-nīšu, son of Amurrumšadi, which is not, as far as we know, used by a son. Theowner also is a witness under Sîn-muballi (MHET 107).

i. the texts and the seals

38 (cont.) Text1

Date

Genre

Title

Seal

Location of seal

Second sanga

TCL I, 68

T

Sm oath

adoption

sanga dutu

—

—

Šalim-pāliMarduk

TCL I, 69

C

”

”

”

own35

U.E. left

”

YOS 14, 163

T

Sm oath

litigation

sanga dutu

—

—

—

BBVOT 1, 636

C

[Sm]

adoption

[sanga dutu?]

[own?]

[U.E.?]

[Šalim-pāliMarduk]

CT 4, 49b

T

Sm 13/5/4

sale house

sanga dutu37

—

—

Šalim-pāli[šu]

”

”

sanga d[utu]

own38

U.E. left

Šalim-pālišu

Sm 13

sale field40

sanga dutu

own41

Lo.E.

Šalim-pālišu

MHET 121 RSO 2

C TC39

3. Comments 3.1. Career The last dated reference of his father, Lipit-Ištar, is AS 13 (cfr. supra). The earliest dated occurrences of Warad-Sîn are AS 16(?), 17 and 18, but in view of the large number of Apil-Sîn texts without year name mentioning him, we can suppose that he must have been in office most of the last five years of Apil-Sîn. The last dated reference of Warad-Sîn is Sm 13. The first one of his successor is Sm 17.

We furthermore classify it as the first one of Šalimpali-Marduk on the basis of its supposed sealing practice (cf. infra). 33 As copied, the obverse of this case has a kišib and the beginning of three lines referring to some kind of real estate measuring 1 sar. Other parts belong to the reverse and list witnesses. Three smaller parts bear seals. 34 ┌ ┐ d ìr - EN.ZU ┌ sanga┐ dutu dumu li-pi-it-iš8-┌tár┐ ìr da-┌a┐ The copy in VAS 8, 21 has not been integrated in ours because the spacing of the signs is arbitrary. 35 [ìr] d┌EN┐. [ZU] [sanga] d[utu] [dumu li]-pi-it-[iš8-tár] [ìr] d┐a-[a] cfr. al-Gailani-Werr 1988, mentioned as no. 196e (no drawing). 36 BBVOT 1, 6 is a near duplicate of TCL I, 68/69 (see also Charpin 1994, 79). As far as we can see both AO 1763b = TCL I, 69 and AO 1746=BBVOT I, 6 are parts of cases with similar but not identical witnesses. It is broken from line 9 to the third witness. Since the fourth and fifth witnesses are the same as on TCL I 68/69 we suppose that the two sangas were the first witnesses on BBVOT 1, 6 too. The

Adding all of this up, we come to a maximum career of twenty one years: five under Apil-Sîn and sixteen under Sîn-muballi. For the minimum it is too improbable to have him start in the last year of Apil-Sîn, all of his twelve texts would then belong to the same year. So we allow for a few years Apil-Sîn and only thirteen years under Sîn-muballi. This amounts to about fifteen years. 3.2. Unusual Order On TCL I, 63, dated Apil-Sîn by the oath, ŠumuSîn is first witness and Warad-Sîn second.

seal of the second sanga, Šalim-pāli-Marduk is transcribed in the catalogue of BBVOT 1, without localisation on the case. From the drawing of the parts of the case it is clear that there was a left margin for seals, well preserved next to the beginning of the text. This is the spot on TCL I, 69 where the seal of the second sanga is to be found. Unfortunately, the tablet is in too bad a shape to allow collation. Nevertheless, we provisionally conclude that the seal of the second sanga on BBVOT 1, 6 was also rolled at the top of the left margin. The seal of the first sanga is rolled on the upper edge of TCL I, 69, a part that is not present anymore on BBVOT 1, 6. 37 The names of the first and second sangas are given on the same line, followed by a single title, which applies to both of them. 38 [ìr-dEN.ZU] ┌ sanga┐ [dutu] [dumu li-pi-it-iš8-tár] ┌ ┐ d ìr [a-a] 39 Tablet still in case. 40 Warad-Sîn sanga dutu is first witness and neighbour. One of the sellers is another Warad-Sîn, since he is a son of Sîn-nāir. Cf. our remarks on this dossier supra sub Sangas not as witnesses 1.1.1. Warad-Sîn. 41 According to Harris (1961, 117) the seal of Warad-Sîn is rolled on the case, she does not mention where.

39

i.b. the first sangas The reason for this inversion could be that this is the tablet, not the envelope and some scribal sloppiness may have been involved. The inversion could nevertheless be significant because a similar situation occurs with the next first sanga, Annumpī-Aja, who is listed in three witness lists, his first attestations, after his second sanga. Again, these are all tablets whose case is lost, so, again, the order could have been corrected on the case. Still, in view of the fact that this is no isolated occurrence, and that it occurs with different sangas, we tend to think this is meaningful. The new first sanga may have left the first place to the long established second one, at the very start of his career. That is why we have placed TCL I, 63 at the top of our table. We will come back on this in our Conclusion C. 3.3. The Title In MHET 60, Warad-Sîn has the title sanga NÍG d utu. Why he uses the old formulation, just this once, is difficult to explain. A whim of the scribe is the easiest way out. Whatever was meant, it is an archaising feature and might indicate that MHET 60 is to be placed among the first attestations of this sanga, who, at the beginning of his career, might have wanted to show his attachment to tradition. In view of the uncertainty we have not done so. 3.4. The Seals: His Father’s or His Own There is a clear chronological pattern in the seal use. He starts using his father’s seal and does so during the reign of Apil-Sîn and some years into Sîn-muballi. Seven cases with the father’s seal are preserved. This means that cases where the seal of the first sanga is not preserved and which are dated under Apil-Sîn probably had the father’s seal too. There are three of those (CT 47, 78a; MHET 48 and TLB I, 230). This makes ten cases with the father’s seal. Somewhere under Sîn-muballi he starts using his own seal. We can observe this on five cases. Cases where the seal of the first sanga is not preserved and which are dated without year name under Sîn-muballi could have had either seal. We have four of these (Di 907, MHET 102, 109 and VS 8, 51). The career of Šamu-Sîn, second sanga, and the use of the father’s seal by the first sanga both continue some years into the reign of Sîn-muballi.

It is tempting but unwarranted to associate both and to suppose that the first sanga started using his own seal when a new second sanga was appointed. The only firm chronological anchors we have, are Sm 1, for the father’s seal, and Sm 13 for his own seal. For the new second sanga we know he was not yet appointed in Sm 1 but occupied the office in Sm 13. Which means there is a lot of time for both events to have occurred separately. Warad-Sîn uses his father’s seal from the beginning of his career, at the earliest AS 14 since his father is attested until AS 13, and some years under Sîn-muballi. This would make a maximum of seventeen years, counting five years under Apil-Sîn and twelve under Sîn-muballi, until his own seal is attested for the first time in Sm 13. We note that the change of seals did not coincide with the royal succession, and probably not with the arrival of the new second sanga either. The (approximate) simultaneity observed for the previous sanga must then either have been idiosyncratic or just a coincidence. We can thus group the nineteen tablets as follows: Reference

Date

Seal

Second sanga

CT 8, 29a

AS

father’s

Šumu-Sîn

CT 47, 78a

AS

[father’s]

Šamu-Sîn

MHET 48

AS

[father’s]

Šamu-Sîn

MHET 60

AS

father’s

Šamu-Sîn

TLB I, 230

AS

[father’s]

Šamu-Sîn

BBVOT 1 147

AS

father’s

Ša[mu-Sîn]

CT 8, 29a

AS

father’s

Šumu-Sîn

MHET 85

Sm

father’s

Šamu-Sîn

CT 47, 11a

Sm

father’s

Šalim-pāliMarduk

Di 2017

Sm

father’s

Šalim-pālišu

Di 1907

Sm

[?]

Šalim-pālišu

MHET 102

Sm

[?]

Šalim-pālišu

MHET 109

Sm

[?]

Šalim-pālišu

VS 8, 21

(Sm)

own

[...]

VS 8, 51

Sm

[?]

Šalim-pāli[...]

TCL I, 69

Sm

own

Šalim-pāliMarduk

BBVOT 1, 6

[Sm]

[own]

Šalim-pāliMarduk

MHET 121

Sm 13

own

Šalim-pālišu

RSO 2, 4

Sm 13

own

Šalim-pālišu

i. the texts and the seals

40 4. The Location of the Seal

(The following abbreviations have been used throughout: s = sanga, ŠS = Ša/umu-Sîn, ŠP = Šalimpāli-Marduk, w = witness) Reference

Date

U.E.

Seal

L.E. and L.Mg.

CT 47, 78a

AS

[s 1?]

[father’s?]

MHET 48

AS

[lost]

MHET 60

AS

s 2 ŠS

TLB I, 230

AS

[lost]

BBVOT 1, 147

AS

s1

CT 8, 29a

AS

MHET 112

Sm 1

s 2 ŠS

Lo.E.

Seal

[w 3]—w 4

s 2 and w 4

Sîn-ennam

[lost]

[lost]

Sîn-ennam

s 1 excl. (2x) [lost]

father’s

s 2 ŠS ┌

Seal

┐

Sîn-ennam ┌

Sîn-ennam

┐

[lost]

s 2 ŠS

Sînennam’s

Šamaš-tajjar ì.du8

own

s 142

father’s

Idadum ì.du8

own

(unidentif. seals)

s1

father’s

s1

father’s

MHET 85

Sm

s 2 ŠS

father’s

(illegible)

CT 47, 11a

Sm

s1 s 2 ŠP

father’s own

L.Mg. witn 4-6 L.E. sellers e.g.

Di 2017

Sm

s1 s 2 ŠP

father’s own

two unidentif. seals, inscribed

Di 1907

Sm

s 2 ŠP [+s1?]

own

unidentified

MHET 102

Sm

[s 1 and 2?]

—

MHET 109

(top gone)

—

w9

Sm

[s 1 and 2?]

—

w7

VS 8, 21

(Sm?)

s 143

own

(gone)

VS 8, 51

Sm

[lost]

TCL I, 69

father’s

[lost] 44

own

[lost]

Sm

s1 his daughter

own own

top s 2 ŠP

BBVOT 1, 6

[Sm]

[s 1?]45 [his daughter?]

[own]

top L.Mg. s 2 ŠP

MHET 121

Sm 13

s1 s 2 ŠP

own own

top: first seller

w 6 and 11

own

RSO 2

Sm 13

sellers 1+246

own

witnesses

s1, s2 + w6

own

5. Comments on Individual Texts47 On CT 47, 78a the first sanga must have sealed the upper edge, now gone. The second sanga seals the lower edge, together with Imgur-Sîn, fourth witness. Imgur-Sîn is the burgomaster of alalla (Stol 1998a). His social status no doubt explains the rolling of his seal on an ‘important place’, together 42

Rolled on the L.E. from the Rev. to the Obv. The copy does not specify where the fragment on which the seal is rolled fits in. Collation by G. Colbow has specified on which part of the case the seal was rolled. 44 The same seal appears as the lowest one on the left edge of the reverse, which means it was rolled from the left margin of the reverse continuing on the left edge of the obverse. The third witness, Ninšubur-mansum, using his father’s seal, rolls it on the left margin of the obverse, right under the second sanga. 43

own

w 4 and 5

with a sanga. In the witness list, on the other hand, he is only fourth, after the sangas and the messenger (rá.gab) Adad-rēmēni. Here, the grouping of the temple personnel has prevailed. And, reflecting this order, he has also sealed the left edge, no doubt under the (now gone) seal of the third witness Adad-rēmēni, as a fourth witness should. On MHET 60 the first sanga seals on the lower edge (twice), the second one on the upper edge, 45 The place of the seals of the first sanga and his daughter was determined on the basis of the parallelism with TCL I, 68/69. 46 Between them we find the seal of witness 15 out of seventeen, as if when all other witnesses had rolled their seal, there was no other place left for him than the space left by the sellers between their sealings. 47 Since the fragments of cases MHET 48, TLB I, 230 and VS 8, 51 do not contain seals at all, they will not be discussed here.

i.b. the first sangas

41

again an inversion we attribute to the scribe (inadvertently) holding the tablet upside down. The only ones to seal on the left edge and left margin are witnesses 6 and 7. These are not just anybody but again Damiqtum, daughter of the sanga Šamaš-tappašu and Lamassi, daughter of the second sanga Sîn-ennam. We also note the presence of Šāt-Šamaš, probably another daughter of Sîn-ennam48, as ninth witness. BBVOT 1, 147 has the seal of the first sanga on the upper edge, followed by that of the second sanga, at the top of the left edge. The lower edge is sealed by Šamaš-tajjar, the fifth witness. The order of sealing is clear: from the upper edge to the left edge, down to the lower edge. CT 8, 29a also has the sangas on the upper edge and the top of the left margin, but astonishingly in the reverse order. The second sanga alone seals on the upper edge. The seal of Warad-Sîn’s father is rolled at the top of the left edge and left margin. It is followed by that of Damiqtum, daughter of the former first sanga Šamaš-tappašu, aunt of WaradSîn, and Lamassi, daughter of Sîn-ennam, the previous second sanga. All three seals are rolled through on the reverse, where they appear on the bottom of the left margin. The lower edge is occupied by the seal of the doorkeeper Idadum who is not mentioned in the witness list. Although the sealing order of the two sangas is inversed, in the witness list the order of the sangas is normal. A scribal error in rolling the seals? We think not, because as well the seals of the sangas as those of Damiqtum and Lamassi are rolled in inverse order. We will come back on this in our conclusion C when we discuss all inversions. There is yet again an inversion on MHET 112 where the seal of the first sanga is to be found on the lower edge, together with an unidentified figurative seal. The middle of the upper edge is gone, only small parts of its left and right side remain. These bear figurative seals, not yet identified. A figure and the last sign of the last line of Sîn-ennam’s seal, used by his son Šumu-Sîn, are the faint traces of the presence of the second sanga’s seal on the upper edge. Again, an inversion upper/lower edge dependent on the presentation of the tablet for sealing. A similar inversion happened on MHET 85, where the seal of the first sanga is to be found on the right side of the lower edge. The left side

of this edge is broken. The upper edge has only faint traces of a seal impression: UD and part of a figure can be seen. This must be the seal of Sînennam, used as we know, by Šumu-Sîn. On CT 47, 11a we find the seals of both sangas on the upper edge. This might be due to the fact that the scribe has written on the lower edge. The remaining space must have been judged insufficient by the sanga who left it to one of the women witnesses from the end of the witness list. It is remarkable that, on this same upper edge, there is another seal identified by the accompanying kišib as belonging to the ninth witness (seventh on the tablet). The sellers seal on the left edge. On Di 2017 the sangas seal on the upper edge. The next witnesses seal in their exact order of the text, first from the top to the bottom of the left edge, continuing from the top to the bottom of the left margin of the obverse. The lower edge has two, as yet unidentified, seals. Di 1907 has the seal of the second sanga on the preserved part of the upper edge and an unidentified seal on the lower edge. It is probable that the first sanga, whose seal we find nowhere else on the preserved part of the case, sealed on the now lost part of the upper edge. Of the case of MHET 102 only the lower left part is preserved. It shows that the tablet had a left margin on the obverse, reserved for seals. The seals impressed there are different from those on the left edge. In all, six seals are visible. Three of them have readable legends. They belong to witnesses. MHET 102 could have the same sealing pattern as MHET 109. Its upper edge is completely lost, as is the top of its left margin. The fact that the lower edge is sealed by the ninth witness shows that the sangas must have sealed both on the upper edge or on the upper edge and top of L.E. respectively. Since on MHET 109 the sangas seal on the upper edge with the seventh witness on the lower edge, we propose to restore the same pattern on MHET 102. The case of MHET 109 is completely preserved except for the upper edge of which nothing remains. There is a left margin reserved for seals. These are the same as on the left edge. The two topmost seals here are those of the first two witnesses: ()abdi-ra and Sîn-immatim. Indeed, the first and second sangas come after these two in the text. The other three seals on the left margin

48 We suppose they were both daughters of the same Sîn-ennam, in view of the uniqueness of his name. We are

aware that there was usually only one nadītum daughter per family, except maybe in a sanga’s family?

42

i. the texts and the seals

of the obverse (and the left edge) have no legends and are not identified, but it is certain that they are not the seals of either of the sangas. The lower edge is sealed by the overseer Ninšubur-mansum together with someone else whose seal does not have a legend and is not identified. On the left margin of the reverse further witnesses seal. If the seals of the sangas were impressed on this case, they must have been on the now lost upper edge. This would mean that, notwithstanding the order of the witnesses in the list, where they are only third and fourth, the sangas continue to seal on their usual place: the upper edge. VS 8, 21 is a fragment of an envelope. It is probably the upper left corner of the obverse. On the small part of the upper edge we can recognise the seal of Warad-Sîn. The seal of the second sanga is not to be seen. It may have been present on the upper edge but nothing remains of it. As copied in VS 8 and collated by G. Colbow, there are traces of another seal inscription on the upper edge but the remains cannot be identified. Collation has revealed the seals of the top of the left edge and margin but none of these belongs to the second sanga either. Where the seal of the second sanga was rolled, we do not know. If there is any parallelism with the other Šalim-pāli-Marduk texts, it would be on the lost part of the upper edge. On TCL I, 68/69 Warad-Sîn rolls his own seal on the upper edge between two sealings of his daughter Awāt-Aja49 (who is not mentioned in the text). The second sanga seals on the left margin of the obverse and the left edge. Beneath him, the third witness Ninšubur-mansum, overseer of the nadiātum, uses his father’s seal. He is followed by his sister Aja-rīšat, also overseer but not mentioned in the text. Then comes an unidentified seal of a woman, daughter of Uštašni-ilum, not to be found in the text either. The lower edge is sealed by witnesses four and five. Obviously, the second sanga could not seal on the upper edge because this was already fully occupied by the first sanga and his daughter. He had to seal on the next best place: the top of the left margin and edge. It is remarkable that the first sanga’s daughter should take precedence over the second sanga. Even more so since she is not even mentioned in the text. The act seems to have been quite

49 She is attested as a witness on CT 8, 25a (Sm 7) and CT 45, 16(5) (Sm oath).

conscious and wilful on her part since she sealed the upper edge twice, leaving no space for anyone except her father. The catalogue of BBVOT 1 informs us that the seal of the second sanga is to be found on the case BBVOT 1, 6 but does not tell us where. On the basis of the fact that this is a (near) copy of TCL I 68/69 and on the basis of the drawing of the remains of the case on plate 2, we situate this seal at the top of the left margin of the obverse. Continuing the parallelism, the first sanga’s seal should then have been rolled on the now lost upper edge. On MHET 121 both sangas seal on the upper edge. At the top of left edge and margin we find the uninscribed seal, with kišib, of the first seller, Aja-tallik, a nadītum, daughter of Lirbi-Sippir. Her brother is second seller but, significantly, he does not seal the document. The seals of the witnesses follow down the left edge and margin, the lower edge and the reverse. On RSO 2, both sangas seal the lower edge. Two of the sellers seal the upper edge, the left margin is sealed by witnesses 5, 4, 7 and 3 in that order. It is clear that the sealing parties have ‘pushed down’ the sangas, not to the left margin/edge but to the lower edge. There are no less than thirteen (maybe even fourteen) seals rolled on this tablet which is a little overcrowded, which explains that the scribe, in order to put in the seals of witnesses 6 and 15, squeezed them in, respectively on the lower edge (with the sangas) and on the upper edge (with the sellers). 6. Conclusions Two phases can be distinguished among the fifteen envelopes sealed by Warad-Sîn and his second sanga. The dividing line is not the transition from Apil-Sîn to Sîn-muballi but may coincide with the change of second sanga. During the career of the second sanga ŠumuSîn, under Apil-Sîn and part of Sîn-muballi, we can observe two competing sealing patterns: the sangas sealing on opposite edges, upper and lower (three documents certainly, two restored) or on adjoining edges, upper and left (two documents). In fact these are the two patterns attested for earlier sangas.

43

i.b. the first sangas It would seem that with the accession of the new second sanga, Šalim-pāli-Marduk, or at least at this time, as far as our attestations go, a new sealing practice was introduced with the two sangas both sealing on the upper edge. At first sight TCL I, 69 and its parallel text BBVOT I, 6 seem to be an exception to this but in fact they are not. It is only because the first sanga’s daughter seals with her father on the upper edge that the second sanga is ‘pushed down’ to the top of the left edge. So in fact there are no exceptions at all. Finally, in a text dated Sm 13, a variation on this pattern is attested: the parties, in casu the two sellers, seal the upper edge and both sangas move to the lower edge instead of being ‘pushed down’ to the left edge. This same phenomenon had occurred at the end of Lipit-Ištar’s career (in AS 13) where we had found an unidentified seal on the upper edge, probably belonging to a party and both sangas had sealed the lower edge (CT

King

U.E.

Le.E.

AS AS AS 16

s1

s2 s1

6, 46). It might be interpreted as a continuation of the two sangas sealing on the same edge, not on the upper one because this was occupied by the two sellers, but on the remaining lower edge. 7. Sealing Ladies At least two ladies, not mentioned in the text, seal on important places on the case TCL I, 69, together with the first and the third witnesses, the first sanga and an overseer of the nadiātum. Here we may of course be misled by the fact that only the case is complete. They could have been mentioned on the tablet, albeit that the case is normally the better and more official version as compared to the tablet. We must conclude that the daughter of a first sanga is higher in (sealing) rank than a second sanga, but not independently, since she seals together with her male kin. We will come back on this point infra in our chapter “The Seal of the Sangas’ Daughters”.

Lo.E.

Second sanga

Reference

[s 1?]

s2+w4

Šamu-Sîn

CT 47, 78a

s2

s1

Šamu-Sîn

MHET 60

Šamu-Sîn

BBVOT 1, 147

AS

s2

Šamu-Sîn

CT 8, 29a

Sm 1

s2

s1

Šamu-Sîn

MHET 112

Sm

s2

s1

Šamu-Sîn

MHET 85

Sm

s1+s2

Šalim-pāli-Marduk

CT 47, 11a

Sm

s1+s2

Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Di 2017

Sm

[s 1] + s 2

Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Di 1907

Sm

[s 1 + s 2?]

Šalim-pāli-Marduk

MHET 102

Sm

[s 1 + s 2]

Šalim-pāli-Marduk

MHET 109

Sm

s 1 [+ s2?+x]

Šalim-pāli-Marduk

VS 8, 21

Sm

s1

s2

Šalim-pāli-Marduk

TCL I, 69

Sm

[s 1?]

s2

Šalim-pāli-Marduk

BBVOT 1, 6

Šalim-pāli-Marduk

MHET 121

Šalim-pāli-Marduk

RSO 2

Sm 13

s1+s2

Sm 13

two sellers

[s 2?]

s1 + s2

i. the texts and the seals

44

V. Annum-pī-Aja Son of Warad-Sîn

64 Texts Sm 17—Si 7 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used Seal with father’s name (BT 59)

His own seal (BT 56)

(Fig. 4B) ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga dutu dumu li-pí-it-iš8-tár ìr da-a

(Fig. 5) dingir-pi4-da-[a] ┌ sanga┐ dutu ┌ dumu┐ ìr-dEN.ZU ┌ ┐ d ìr a-a

2. Attestations Text Di 2029

Date 1

Sip 10

Genre

Title

T

Sm 17

sale vacant plot

T

Sm oath

donation

2

5

Seal

Location of seal

Second sanga

sanga utu

—

—

Šalim-pālišu3

sanga dutu

—

—

Šalim-pālišu4

sanga utu

—

—

Šalim-pālišu6

d

d

Sip 77

T

Sm oath

inheritance

CT 8, 39a

T

Sm7

sale field

sanga dutu

—

—

Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 8, 35b8

T

a /—/—

sale slave+ox

—

—

—

”

L.Mg. second

”

BM 92644A

C

”

”

(sanga) d

9

own

10

TCL I, 77

T

a 1/7/11

sale vacant plot

sanga utu

—

—

Etel-pī-Nabium

VS 9, 211+213

C

”

”

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

CT 47, 21

T

a 2/—/—

sale house

[...]

—

—

Etel-pī-Nabium (continued on nex page)

1

In Di 2029 Sîn-bāni is not yet overseer of the nadiātum, in Sip 10 he is. We list Sip 77 together with Sip 10 because of the relation between both. 2 é.kisla 3 Also with inversion of the sangas in the witness list of the tablet. 4 The order of the sangas is inverted. On the same line sanga 2 is followed by sanga 1. This could be a sloppiness on the tablet, corrected on the (now lost) case. But in view of other occurrences of the same phenomenon, we think it might be meaningful, cfr infra. Šalim-pālišu is the abbreviated form of Šalim-pāli-Marduk, as is shown by CT 47, 11/11a. 5 The lines concerning the way this property is transferred (and to whom) are broken. It may be an inheritance or a donation. The text belongs to a dossier together with Sip 10 and Sip 89. 6 Same inversion of first and second sanga as on the preceding tablet. 7 Harris (1975, 157 and 158 n. 16) had assigned this text, with a year formula she read “mu gibil íd.da lugal” to Sm 13 and not to Sm 3 (both years with a watercourse). Horsnell (database on CD) remarks that this should be Sm 13 or 4 since it is a gibil year (1992 vol. 2, 95 and 92 n. 7). He assigns it rather to Sm 9 because neither Sm 13 nor Sm 4 have a provisional (gibil) formula. However, the presence of the second sanga Etel-pī-Nabium definitively places it after Sm 17 (latest attestation of his predecessor).

Since the text has an oath by Sîn-muballi, it must be dated Sm 17 (after Di 2029), 18, 19 or 20. As compared with the copy of CT 8, 39a, none of these fits. The reading of Harris was no doubt wrong but Horsnell’s correction into mu gibil i7 gál.é is also problematic. First of all, in this period ús.sa should be used and not gibil. As Horsnell (1999, 142) states, the period between Si 29 and Ae 3 represents the transition between ús.sa and gibil. Earlier occurrences are exceptions such as this text, one with an unidentified year name and a few without a king’s name. The second anomaly is the inverted gál.é instead of é.gál, which is also very unusual. Collation is clearly needed and a scribal error is not excluded. A very wild hypothesis would be to read bàd (~gibil) a-ku (~i7) sum (~gál.é) which would be a nice Sm 18 date. 8 We tentatively classify this text here because of the inversion of the sealing order for the sangas (see our comments on these inversions in our Cocnlusion C). The witness list has the normal order. 9 After the name of the first sanga no title is given, although there is room on the line. On the next line, after the name of the second sanga, the title is given simply as ‘sanga’. Could this be meant for both? 10 [dingir]-┌pi4┐-da-[a] [sanga] d┌utu┐ [dumu] ┌ìr┐-dEN.[ZU] ┌ ┐ d┌ ┐ ìr a -[a]

45

i.b. the first sangas (cont.) Text Di 696 Di 696b

T 11

MHET 13213

Date

Genre

Title

Seal

Location of seal

Second sanga

a 8/—/—

sale field

[...]

—

—

[...]

U.E. right

Etel-pī-Nabium

—

”

d

C

”

”

sanga utu

own

T

a oath

inheritance

sanga dutu

—

12

14

”

C

”

”

[...]

own

U.E. left

”

Di 677

T

a 9/—/—

sale field

sanga dutu

—

—

”

”

C

”

”

sanga dutu

own15

U.E. left

”

16

T

a 10/3/20

donation

—

—

—

”

CT 47, 30a

C

”

”

—

—

—

”

MHET 15817

T

a 10/8/[]

sale house

sanga dutu

—

—

”

CT 47, 30

”

C

”

”

[...]

[...]

[U.E.,L.Mg.top gone]

”

CT 8, 48a

T

a 11/—/—

adoption

sanga dutu

—

—

”

BM 8242718

C

”

”

sanga dutu

own19

U.E. excl.

”

MHET 161

T

a 11

sale field

—

—

—

”

MHET 13020

T

a oath

inheritance

sanga dutu

—

—

”

CT 4, 45c

T

a /—/—

sustenance

—

—

—

”

CT 6, 22b

T

s.d.

inheritance

—

—

—

”

VS N.F. 13, 34

T

a oath

inheritance

sanga utu

—

—

none21

MHET 172

T

a 14/[]/5

sale field

sanga dutu

—

—

none22

MHET 180

T

a 15/[]

inheritance

sanga dutu

—

—

Sîn-iddinam

”

C

”

”

”

[...]

[U.E., L.Mg. top gone]

”

TC23

a 16/—/—

sale field

sanga dutu

own24

U.E. right

”

Di 707

d

(continued on nex page) 11

The witness list of the tablet is not preserved. On the case, Annum-pī-Aja is witness 3, Etel-pī-Nabium witness 4, after Iltāni dumu.munus lugal and Amat-Šamaš dumu. munus Mašum, cf. supra A.2.2. Before the sanga, sub 3. 12 dingir-pi4-da-[a] ┌ sanga┐ dutu ┌ dumu┐ ┌ìr┐-dEN.ZU ìr d[a-a] 13 A rough chronological situation for this text is given by comparison with CT 47, 42, lower in this same table. MHET 132 stipulates that uššutum, daughter of Ilšu-bāni, left her property to Lamassi, a nadītum of Šamaš. In CT 47, 42 some of this property is given by Lamassāni (the difference between Lamassi and Lamassāni might be due to a scribal error—or a modern one) to another woman (no doubt another nadītum). CT 47, 42 is dated a 32, which means that MHET 132 must be anterior to that date: under ammu-rabi because of the oath and before a 32. More precisely, for the intercalation of MHET 132 here, we refer to the sealing practice of the second sanga. He seals on the upper edge in a 9 (Di 677), but on the left margin in a 11 (CT 8, 48a). If there is some consistency in this, MHET 132 should be situated around a 9 and before a 11. 14 ┌ dingir┐-pi4-d[a-a] ┌ sanga┐ dutu ┌ dumu┐ ìr-dEN.ZU ìr da-a 15 dingir-pi4-da-[a] ┌ sanga┐ dutu ┌ dumu┐ ìr-d[EN.ZU] ┌ ┐ d ìr a-a 16 Annum-pī-Aja is second witness after illi-Ninkarak (no title). His name is given without title but with patronymic dumu Warad-Sîn; Etel-pī-Nabium is third witness,

without title but with patronymic: dumu Šalim-pāli-Šamaš, as well on tablet as on case. This last name is a mistake for Šalim-pāli-Marduk (see our remarks sub C. The second sangas 5. Etel-pī-Nabium). 17 There is no third sanga dutu after the first two ones: line 23. igi [case] sanga dutu, should be deleted in MHET 158, as shown by collation. To this text should be added: (inscribed) seals on the left margin of the obverse. 18 Described by B. Teissier (1998, 177). 19 dingir-pi4-da-[a] ┌ sanga┐ d[utu] ┌ dumu┐ ìr-[d]EN.[ZU] ┌ ┐ d ìr [ a-a] 20 This text, the two next ones without year name and the undated one are given after the other ones but could belong anywhere in the reign of ammu-rabi, up to a 11 (because of the presence of the second sanga Etel-pīNabium) and in fact even to a 14 because the next second sanga is only attested from a 15 on. 21 illi-Ninkarak is second witness; Liburam and E-idimana-mansum are witnesses five and six. These temple functionaries are also mentioned in CT 6, 22b (classified here because of the second sanga Etel-pī-Nabium). illi-Ninkarak is not mentioned later and the two other ones in a few texts only. This is why we have placed VS 13, 34 here. 22 [...] ugula lukur is second witness in absentia of the second sanga. 23 Unopened case. Part of the case is broken, showing some ends of lines of the obverse of the tablet. 24 dingir-pi4-da-[a] ┌ sanga┐ d[utu] ┌ dumu┐ ìr-dEN.┌ZU┐ ìr da-┌a┐

i. the texts and the seals

46 (cont.) Text CT 47, 26

T

Date

Genre

Title

Seal

Location of seal

a 16

sale field

sanga

—

—

25

Second sanga ”

T

a 18

sale house

[...]

—

—

[...]

C

”

”

sanga dutu

own26

U.E. right

Sîn-iddinam

Di 2142

C

d.l., a oath27

inheritance

L.E., L.Mg. top

Sîn-[iddinam]

VS 9, 169

C

a oath29

(fragment)

—

Sîn-iddinam

MHET 200 ”

MHET 238 ”

[sanga dutu] father’s28 — d

sanga utu

—

T

a 30/9/25

sale field

—

—

Sîn-bāni

C

”

”

”

father’s30

U.E. twice excl.

”

31

d

CT 8, 37a

T

a 30 /—/-

sustenance

sanga utu

—

—

”

VS 9, 4232

T

a 31/4/2

sale é.kisla

—

—

—

(Išme-Sîn)

VS 9, 43

C

”

”

[...]

father’s33

L.E., L.Mg. top

[...]

CT 47, 41 Di 1430 CT 47, 42

37

”

d

T

a 31/7/1

sale é.kisla

sanga utu

—

—

Sîn-mansum34

TC35

a 32/10/20

sale é.kigal

sanga dutu

father’s36

L.E.,L.Mg. top

Sîn-bāni

T

a 32/12d/9

inheritance

[...]

—

—

Sîn-bāni

d

C

”

”

sanga utu

[?]

[edges, L.Mg. broken]

[Sîn-bāni]

BDHP 66

T

a 32/[...]

inheritance38

sanga dutu

—

—

Sîn-[bāni]

CT 47, 43

T

a 33/1/20

sale field

sanga dutu

—

—

none39

—

—

Sîn-bāni

MHET 250 CT 45, 26(13) MHET 255

T

a 33/5/1

inheritance

d

sanga utu d

T

a 33/11/30

sale field

sanga utu

—

—

”

TC40

a 34

inheritance

(sanga d utu)41

—

—

” (continued on nex page)

25

MHET 200 dates this text “a 18 or 24” but it has only a few signs of the year name: mu [...]┌x┐ den.líl.lá. The identification hinges on the identity of the ┌x┐. One of the writings of a 18 is ‘mu gu.za bará.ma den.líl.lá. One of the forms of a 24 is mu ídti.lim.da den.líl.lá. Collation of the tablet clearly shows that the ┌x┐ before the den.líl.lá is a ‘ma’ not a ‘da’, consequently the year is a 18. Horsnell (1999 vol. 2, 169 n.151) excludes a 17, and adds 39 as a possibility to a 24. 26 dingir-[pi4-da-a] ┌ sanga d┐[utu] ┌ dumu┐ ┌ìr┐[dEN.ZU] (as shown by collation; correct the dumu dingir-[...] in MHET 200) ìr ┌d┐[a-a] (not listed in BT) 27 This text is classified here because the presence of the second sanga Sîn-iddinam places it at least somewhere between a 15 and 30. The use of Annum-pī-Aja’s father’s seal allows to further specify that it must be dated after a 18 (until which date he uses his own seal see infra 4.1). 28 ìr-d[EN.ZU] sanga d[utu] dumu li-pí-it-[iš8-tár] ìr da[-a] 29 The presence of the second sanga Sîn-iddinam dates this text between a 15 and 30. 30 ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga d[utu] dumu li-pí-it-[iš8-tár] ìr da-[a] 31 The year name is broken but can be restored to: mu ús.sa [...] alan dša.[la], a shortened form of the ús.sa formula for a 30. 32 Annum-pī-Aja is not witness but first responsible (gìr) out of seven. The text does not have any guaranteeing clauses, no oath and no witnesses. For Išme-Sîn, the second

gìr, cfr. infra sub 7. Sîn-bāni, second sanga 3.2.2.. 33 ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga d[utu] ┌ dumu┐ li-pí-it-┌iš8┐-[tár] [ìr] da[-a] 34 Scribal mistake for Sîn-bāni cf. sub our Second sanga 7. Sîn-bāni 3.2.2.2. 35 Unopened case. 36 ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga d[utu] [dumu] li-pí-i-[iš8-tár] ìr d[a-a] 37 This text is related to MHET 132 (cf. the beginning of this table). 38 Bēltāni, daughter of Sîn-māgir, inherits as she did in MHET 180, dated a 15, seventeen years earlier. 39 Second witness is a Būr-Sîn without patronymic. After this name there is only one erased sign, the rest of the line is empty. The following witness is the merchant Ilšu-bāni, son of Ibbi-Ilabrat (title not given in this text). The next four are the sons of Apil-ilīšu (the seller?). The next three are doorkeepers of the Gagûm (title given), followed by the son of a former doorkeeper. Finally come three nadiātum. Had it not been for the merchant, we would have concluded that the witnesses all belong to one of three groups: temple, Gagûm or family of the seller, which would have prompted us to fit Būr-Sîn in one of these three. As things are now, no conjecture can be made. The only Būr-Sîn with a title, about this time, is a judge, a function linked to that of the overseer of the merchants (ugula dam.gàr). Is this the link between witnesses 1 and 2?. 40 The only preserved part of the case is adhering to the tablet; it shows no seal impressions. 41 The title is given after the name of the second sanga on the next line, this could be meant for both.

47

i.b. the first sangas (cont.) Text

Date

Genre

Seal

Location of seal

Second sanga

sanga utu

—

—

none42

d

CT 47, 44

T

CT 47, 44a

C

”

”

[...]

[...]

[only part of Rev.]

[....]

Di 2172

T

a 36

inheritance

sanga dutu

—

—

Sîn-bāni

Di 2113 ” Di 2136 ” CT 45, 28(14) MHET 318 MHET 131

sale house

T

a 37/4/28

inheritance

[...]

—

—

[Sîn-bāni]

C

”

”

[...]

father’s43

U.E. left, L.Mg. top

[Sîn-bāni]44

T

a [37]

inheritance45

[...]46 d

Sîn-bāni 47

48

C

”

”

sanga utu

father’s

L.Mg. top

T

a x/4/[]49

sale field

—

—

—

”

—

—

”

T 51

a 34/8/5

Title

a [...]

50 52

d

inheritance

sanga utu

”

T

a oath

inheritance

[...]

—

—

Sîn-[...]

CT 2, 41

T

a 38/6/13

inheritance

sanga dutu

—

—

Išme-Sîn

Di 1438

T

a 39/5/12

exchange

sanga dutu53

—

—

”

d

54

C

”

”

sanga utu

father’s

L.E., L.Mg. top

”

CT 8, 5a

T

a 41/6/11

inheritance

sanga dutu

—

—

”

VS N.F. 13, 25

T

a 41/11/—

sale field

sanga dutu

—

—

”

MHET 85955

T

a 42/4/28?

sale house

sanga dutu

—

—

Išme-Sîn56

”

C

”

”

[...]

[...]

[unsealed part of Obv.]

[...]

CT 47, 47

T

a 43/1/—

inheritance

sanga dutu57

—

—

Išme-Sîn

”

58

59

CT 47, 47a

C

”

”

[...]

father’s

Di 2016

T

a 43/—/—

sale house

[sanga dutu]

—

—

[...]

”

C

”

”

”

father’s60

U.E. twice 61

none62

BDHP 6563

T

a oath

inheritance

sanga dutu

—

—

Išme-Sîn

L.Mg. third

[...]

(continued on nex page) 42

Second witness is Sîn-bāni ugula lukur (cf. Before the second sanga Excursus 1: The Būr-Sîn family). 43 ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga d[utu] dumu li-pí-it-[iš8-tár] ìr da-[a] 44 The presence of Sîn-bāni, second witness, is revealed by the use of his father’s seal. 45 In this text, the inheritance of Sîn-rēmēni is described. He divided with his brother Pala-Adad and his sister ErištiAja. In Di 2113 the parts of the brother and sister are described. The date of Di 2136 is broken but must be the same as that of Di 2113. 46 Hidden under the case. 47 Only [ìr] da-a, i.e., part of the last line of the inscription, remains. The position of the seal and comparison with Di 2113 allow to conclude that it must be the first sanga using his father’s seal (cf. infra our comments on the individual texts). 48 Left edge and upper edge are broken. 49 Classified here because of the presence of the second sanga Sîn-bāni, attested until a 37. 50 idem as the preceding note. 51 MHET 131 reads the first witness as “dingir-ba-[...] ┌ ┐ x ” which should be corrected to Annum-pī-Aja. Fifth witness is Rapaš-illi-Ea, overseer of the nadiātum, whose first appearance with this title is in CT 2, 41, our next text. On the other hand he is already mentioned, without the title, in a 31, in VS 9, 42. We thank G. Suurmeijer who drew our attention to this information. 52 The text is inserted here, supposing without proof that the second witness Sîn-[...] is Sîn-bāni and not his predecessor Sîn-iddinam. This is based on the dates of attestation of the other witnesses: Rapaš-illi-Ea (a 31-Si

25); Marduk-lamassašu (a 38-Si 9); Abum-waqar son of Šamaš-nūr-mātim (Si 1-9) and Rīš-Šamaš son of ImgurAkšak (once in a 2 but mainly from a 40 to Si 14). 53 The names of the two sangas are given on two consecutive lines. After the name of the second one, sanga d utu is added on a separate line, which must apply to the first one as well. 54 ┌ ┐ d┌ ìr - EN┐.[ZU] ┌ sanga┐ d[utu] [dumu] ┌li┐-pi-it-iš8-tár ┌ ┐ d ìr a-a 55 Of the name, only ┌dingir┐ remains, the title is readable at the end of the line. MHET 860 (not in this table) is a litigation about this sale, without sanga witnesses. 56 MHET 859 “SIG-[...] meš” is to be corrected accordingly. 57 The title is given at the end of the line, after the names of both sangas. 58 ìr-d┌EN.ZU┐ sanga d[utu] dumu li-pi-it-iš8-tar ìr d[a-a] 59 The upper part of the left margin is lost. The sanga’s seal is the third of the still visible ones. We cannot be certain that there were no more seals on the lost part, all we can say is that this is not necessarily so. 60 ┌ ┐ d┌ ìr - EN┐.[ZU] ┌ sanga┐ d[utu] ┌ dumu┐ li-pí-it-[iš8-tar] ┌ ┐ d┌ ┐ ìr a -[a] 61 Fragment of case only, could be upper or lower edge. 62 Second witness is uzālum dumu [...]. 63 This text and the three following ones are classified here because they lack a year name. They are listed in the

i. the texts and the seals

48 (cont.) Text

Date

MHET 324

T

PBS 8/2, 261

T

Di 689 Di 1131 ”

66

TC

Genre

Title d

Seal

Location of seal

Second sanga

—

none64

d.l., a oath

uppi l.r.

sanga utu

—

d.l., a oath

sale [...]

sanga dutu

—

Si 1/5/4

donation

d

sanga utu

T

Si 2/3/7

sale field

[...]

C

”

”

[...]

67

69

d

—

none65

68

L.E., L.Mg. top

Išme-Sîn

—

—

[none?]

father’s70

L.E., L.Mg.top

[none?]

—

—

none71

father’s

TCL I, 108

T

Si 2/7/-

sale house

sanga utu

VS N.F. 13, 16

T

Si 2/10/-

sale field

sanga dutu

—

—

Išme-Sîn

C

”

”

[...]

[...]

[broken]

[...]

T

Si 4/9/1

sale house

[...]

—

—

none72

”

C

”

”

sanga dutu

father’s73

U.E.,L.E.,Obv., R.E.top

”

CT 47, 56

T

Si 4/12/20

sale field

sanga dutu

—

—

none74

CT 47, 56a

C

”

”

”

” Di 2117

CT 4, 46a Di 2121

T

Si 6/12/4

sale house

father’s75 L.E., L.Mg., R.E.top76 d

sanga utu

—

”

—

none77

T

Si 7/1/12

sale house

—

—

—

Išme-Sîn

”

C

”

”

[...]

father’s78

L.Mg. top

[...]

Speleers 1925 24179

T

Si [.../...]/30

sale house

[...]

—

—

Išme-Sîn

Di 2122

T

Si [...]

uppi l.r.

[...]

—

—

[...]

[...]

[...]

none80

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

” Di 2115 ” Di 211982

C

”

d

”

sanga utu d

T

Si 19/5/14

inheritance

sanga utu

C

”

”

”

C

Si 19/[...]

sale field

alphabetical order of their publication references. 64 Second witness is Lugal-Utu son of Ilšu-nāir. 65 Second witness is Ilšu-bāni overseer of the merchants (ugula dam.gàr.meš). 66 Unopened case. 67 The names of the two sangas are given on the same line, at the end of which we find the title. 68 ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga d[utu] ┌ dumu┐ lí-pí-[it-iš8-tár] ┌ ┐ d ìr [a-a] 69 The name and title are completely broken, Annum-pīAja’s presence is deduced from the presence of his seal. We can be fairly certain about this because, as far as we know, his son does not use this seal. In the absence of the second sanga’s seal we assume he was not present but cannot be absolutely certain of this. 70 [ìr]-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga d[utu] dumu li-pí-┌i┐-[iš8-tár] ìr da-[a] 71 Second witness is Iddin-Erra, son of Tappi-ge[rrišu]. The restoration of the father’s name was suggested in a personal communication by M. Stol. This fits very well and we can add that this is an abbreviation of Tappi-gerri-Šamaš attested as father of Iddin-Erra a number of times at the end of a and the beginning of Si. Which means we could also restore ge-[ri-dutu]. 72 Second witness is Awīl-Amurrim gala.ma 73 ìr d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga d[utu] dumu li-pi-it-[iš8-tár] ìr da-[a]

[...]

81

83

74

qinni.

Second witness is Akšak-iddinam, son of Itti-Enlil-

ìr d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga d[utu] dumu li-pi-[it-iš8-tár] ìr da-[a] 76 Rolled from the left edge over the left margin, the obverse (visible under the text) until the right edge. 77 Second witness is Nūr-Šamaš, son of Ibni-Adad. 78 ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga dutu [dumu] li-pi-it-iš8-tár ìr da-a 79 The last four texts are ordered arbitrarily according to the fact that they mention Išme-Sîn, have him probably or do not mention a second sanga. Speleers 241 comes first because Išme-Sîn is still mentioned. Di 2122 follows because there probably was a second sanga (now broken), who must have been the same Išme-Sîn since he is still attested under the next sanga. Di 2115 and 2119 are given at the end because they concern the same property. The first sanga is no witness but neighbour (certainly on Di 2115 and probably on the broken 2119). Furthermore, he must be a ghost neighbour in both texts (see Tanret 1999). Why this is so will be explained in our Comments below. 80 Second witness is Nūrātum son of Ipiq-Annunītum. 81 Not witness but neighbour, must be a ghost neighbour, cfr. Tanret 1999. 82 The field sold here is the one inherited in Di 2115. Both are dated in the same year (month and day broken on Di 2119). Only fragments of this case are preserved. Since it is the same field and the text is dated in the same year, we suppose the neighbours have not changed. 83 Not witness but neighbour, must be a ghost neighbour. 75

i.b. the first sangas 3. Career The new first sanga continues the family tradition by following in the footsteps of his father Warad-Sîn. His career is long: at least four years under Sîn-muballi (years 17-20), forty-three years under ammu-rabi and seven or eight years under Samsu-iluna, i.e. fifty-four or fiftyfive years. The first text of his son and successor is dated Si 9/2 which makes a nice fit. 3.1. Inversions in the Witness List The first text dated by year name in which Annum-pī-Aja appears is dated Sm 17 (Di 2029). Remarkably, the second sanga, Šalim-pālišu, is first witness here, while the new first sanga is second witness. This same inversion is repeated on two other texts dated under Sîn-muballi (Sip 10 and 77). In fact, these are the last texts mentioning the second sanga Šalim-pālišu and the first ones in which Annum-pī-Aja occurs. With the advent of ammu-rabi, a new second sanga takes over this office. Whether this is intentional or coincidental, whether, in reality, this is a false perception due to our incomplete documentation, we do not know. The inversion is a fact; it is as if the older second sanga, during his last three years in office, takes over the first place, maybe because Annum-pī-Aja is still young? The same phenomenon was observed with the (probably) first attestation of the preceding first sanga. Again, these are all tablets. The order might have been other on the cases. The fact that we don’t have any cases prevents us from observing whether this inversion was also reflected in the sealing order. 3.2. The Ghost of Annum-pī-Aja There are two more attestations of him in texts of the Inanna-mansum/Ur-Utu archive. Both Di 2115 and 2119 mention him, both are dated Si 19. This could seem to be a problem, since his son and successor is attested from Si 9 onwards. In fact Annum-pī-Aja is not a witness in these texts

84 OLA 21, 9 is only an apparent exception: it has the seal of the second sanga only, but the sangas are not mentioned in the text.

49

but a neighbour, more precisely, a ‘ghost’ neighbour, i.e., he has passed away but as long as his property remains in the family it can be referred to as ‘the field of Annum-pī-Aja’ (Tanret 1999). In all he is contemporary with no less than five second sangas. 3.3. Sealing Together or Alone It is noteworthy that, during the first forty odd years of his career, in fact until the end of ammu-rabi, Annum-pī-Aja invariably witnesses together with his second sanga. The only exception is CT 47, 44, dated a 34, where the overseer of the nadītum priestesses is second witness. This could have been otherwise on the case but it is too damaged to allow verification. During his last ten years, however, he witnesses as often without a second sanga as with one. On the other hand, the second sangas never witness without him84. 3.4. An All Time Low Another remarkable fact is the gap in our documentation between a 18 and 30. Within these twelve years we have only one document witnessed by the two sangas. This is Di 2142, to be dated between a 19 and 30 (see table above). After a 30, Annum-pī-Aja reappears but the second sanga has changed. This is certainly related to a general diminution of the number of texts preserved from this period. A rough count shows that for the years a 8-18 we have a little more than 9 texts per year. For a 19-29 this drops to a mean of 6, whereas for a 30-40 it jumps to more than 14. Unfortunately for us, the transition in seal use from his own to his father’s, is also to be situated somewhere within these ‘dark twelve years’ (cfr infra The location of the seal). 4. The Location of the Seal The sangas 1 and 2 are witness 1 and 2, except when otherwise stated. The names of the second sangas are abbreviated: EpN = Etel-pī-Nabium; Si = Sîn-iddinam; Sb = Sîn-bāni; IS = Išme-Sîn.

i. the texts and the seals

50 Reference

Date

BM 92644A

85

VS 9, 211+213

a oath 87

U.E. witness 4

Seal own

L.Mg./L.E. top: sanga 2 twice EpN second:sanga 1

a 1

[...]

a 8

left: w. 1 = Iltāni right: w. 3 = sanga 1

own own

a oath

left: sanga 1 right: sanga 2 EpN

own own

Di 677

a 9

left: sanga 1 right: sanga 2 twice EpN

own own

MHET 158

a 10

[sanga 1?]

[own]

second: sanga 288 twice EpN

own

top: sanga 2 twice EpN

Di 696b MHET 132

89

a 11

sanga 1 excl.

a 15

[...]

Di 707

a 16

sanga 1 uninscr. seal=sanga 2? Si

own own?

MHET 200

a 18

right: sanga 1 left: sanga 2 Si

own own

a oath

sanga 2 twice Si

father’s father’s

Di 2142

own

[...]

MHET 180

BM 82427

Seal

86

own

[...]

top: sanga 1 twice

father’s

MHET 238

a 30

sanga 1 twice excl.

top: sanga 2 Sb

own

VS 9, 43

a 31

witness 4

top =gìr 1 = sanga 1 2nd=gìr 2 = sanga arpanītum

father’s own

Di 1430

a 32

unidentified seal (testator?)

top: sanga 1 second: sanga 2? Sb

father’s own?90

CT 47, 42

a 32

[...]

(L.E. gone)

CT 47, 44a

a 34

[...]

[only part of the Rev. is extant]

Di 2113

a 37

left: sanga 1 right: another witn.

Di 2136

a [37]

[...]

Di 1438

a 39

first exchanging party

MHET 859

a 42

[...]

[only unsealed part of Obv.]

CT 47, 47a

a 43

[lost]

third (?): sanga 1 fourth (?): sanga 2 IS

Di 201691

father’s

own

top: sanga 1 second: sanga 2 [Sb]

father’s father’s

top: sanga 1 second: sanga 2 Sb

father’s father’s

top: sanga 1 second: sanga 2 IS

father’s own father’s father’s

a 43

sanga 1

father’s

[lost]

Di 689

Si 1

unidentified seal (donor?)

?

top: sanga 1 twice

father’s

Di 1131

Si 2

[lost]

top: sanga 1

father’s

VS N.F. 13, 16

Si 2

[lost]

Di 2117

Si 4

sanga 1

CT 47, 56a

92

Si 4

seller, twice

Di 2121

Si 7

unidentified seal (seller?)

Di 2122

Si [...]

[sanga 1?]

85

Case of CT 8, 35b. Only on left margin. At the top of the left edge we find the seal of Kalūmum, also twice. The seal of the first sanga is rolled on left edge and left margin. 87 Case of TCL I, 77. 88 This seal is rolled on the left margin only, not on the left edge. 89 Case of CT 8, 48a. 86

[lost] father’s

top: sanga 1 93

[”?]

father’s

top : sanga 1

father’s

top: sanga 1

father’s

top: witness 2

90 This is a seal without inscription, representing an animal combat. Since it is rolled under that of the first sanga, it probably belongs to the second sanga. 91 No second sanga in the text, so his seal is not to be expected on the case. 92 No second sanga in the text, so his seal is not to be expected. 93 Also on left edge, Obv. and R.E.

i.b. the first sangas On CT 47, 30, dated a 10 the sangas are witnesses but they did not seal. The upper half of the left edge is empty as is a space just beneath the donor’s seal rolled at the top of the left margin. It is as if a space had been reserved for the sangas to seal, beneath the donor at the top of the left margin and at the top of the left edge, but for some reason this was never used. 4.1. His Own Seal and... a New Father’s Seal A most remarkable feature of this sanga’s seal practice is that he starts out using his own seal, until a 18, after which there is a twelve year gap in our documentation. From a 30 on, until the end in Si 7, he uses a seal with the name of his father Warad-Sîn. Even more remarkable is that this is not the seal which had been used by his father. The comparison between the impressions can leave no doubt. Although the text of the legend is the same, the signs used and their disposition on the lines is slightly different. Most striking is the fact that the seal that was used by his father has a Lamma facing the framed legend from the left, whereas the seal he uses (and which will be used later by his son, as we shall see further on) has a hero with a mace to the right of the legend (probably facing a Lamma to his right). The question is when this second Warad-Sîn seal was made. Warad-Sîn uses his own seal, as we saw above until his last dated text in Sm 13. Since the first dated attestation of his son is Sm 17 this leaves an undocumented gap of four years between both. Annum-pî-Aja could have succeeded to his father in Sm 13 at the earliest or Sm 17 at the latest. Even this last possibility leaves only four years in which WaradSîn could have had another seal made which he could have used on tablets now lost to us. This is not much but it is not impossible. However, there is more to this. Indeed, the new Warad-Sîn seal is not used immediately by Annum-pî-Aja. It is only after more than twenty years in office that he starts using the new seal. It thus seems more probable that this seal was made on his orders towards a 30. This stresses even more his determination to use his father’s seal: the fact that he didn’t have the original did not deter him, he had another one made. What could have prompted this determination cannot be deduced from our texts, we will try and 94 MHET 859 and CT 47, 44a from the table above will not be discussed here, since no relevant parts of their cases have been preserved.

51

formulate a hypothesis, after comparison with the seal use of the other sangas, in our conclusions. 5. Discussion of Single Tablets94 The sealing of BM 92644A (unpublished case of CT 8, 35b) is odd. The seal of the second sanga (second witness) is rolled twice at the top of the left margin, followed by the seal of the first sanga (first witness). How to explain this? It might show that the scribe was the one who rolled the seals on the tablet, as we could in fact expect. We can imagine he was given the seals of the sangas and mistakenly rolled the one of the second sanga first. On this case, the upper and lower edges were not seen as places to roll the most important seals: they have those used by the fourth and fifth witnesses. On Di 696b we find the seal of Iltāni, the king’s daughter, twice, and that of the first sanga once, both on the upper edge. This perfectly reflects the order in the witness list, where the king’s daughter of course precedes the sangas, as we remarked above. The seal of the second sanga is nowhere to be seen. On the left margin and the left edge other witnesses seal as well as on the reverse. The second witness, Amat-Šamas, may be the user of the seal rolled as last one on the reverse. We cannot be absolutely sure, since the legend of this seal is barely legible. If so, we have another example of a difference between the order of the witness list and that of the seal impressions. In the witness list, Amat-Šamas immediately follows Iltāni, probably as a lady of her retinue. When rolling the seals, the princess takes precedence over the sangas, whereas Amat-Šamas, as a nadītum, seals last. On MHET 132 the sangas both seal on the upper edge. The top of the left edge and left margin have one unidentified seal and the seals of two ladies, situated quite low on the witness list of the tablet (the case is broken here). On Di 677 the upper edge is reserved for the sangas. The next witnesses follow on the lower edge and the list is continued on the left margin of the obverse and the left edge, ending on the reverse left margin. Apart from the upper and lower edges, the order of the witnesses on the other sealed parts of the case is loose vis à vis the witness list but all of those on the obverse (left

i. the texts and the seals

52

margin and left edge) are higher in the witness list than those on the reverse. The seller seals on the left part of the lower edge. The only preserved piece of the case of MHET 158 is a part of its obverse, adhering to the reverse of the tablet. Its left margin was used for seals. The ones that remain are, from top to bottom: the second sanga, Sîn-bāni the ‘overseer’, Sabiumili the ‘doorkeeper’ and Kalūmum of the Damugalzu family (cfr infra Before the second sanga). The top of the left margin/left edge is broken and it is difficult to see if the broken part could have contained a seal. If not, then the seal of the first sanga will have been rolled on the (now lost) upper edge, followed by that of the second sanga on the left margin. If there was room for a seal above that of the second sanga, then BM 82427 (case of CT 8, 48a) provides the solution: there the second sanga seals twice at the top of the left margin. BM 82427 is the unpublished case of CT 8, 48a. Its seals are described by B. Teissier (1988, 177 sub 82427). The first sanga is the only sealer on the upper edge, the second sanga’s seal is rolled twice at the top of the left margin. The further left margin and the lower edge are sealed by other witnesses. On Di 707 the first sanga seals the right part of the upper edge. On the left part a seal without a legend, representing an animal combat, is rolled. Could this be used by the second sanga, Sîn-iddinam? This may be so since no other seal on the tablet seems to be his. Unless, of course, he did not seal. On MHET 200 only a few sealings remain. On the upper edge the first sanga seals on the right side. On the left side there is a seal but only the first sign of the first line of the inscription remains. In view of its position, we ascribe it to the second sanga, Sîn iddinam (cfr. infra). The bottom of the left edge is preserved and contains, apart from an unidentified seal, that of Kalūmum, the well known doorkeeper of the gagûm of the Damugalzu family. His name must have been mentioned in the broken part of the witness list. On the lower edge, we found the seal of the seventh witness, Warassa in the witness list, Warad-ilīšu on the seal95. Starting with the two sangas on the upper edge, the order of the sealings probably followed that of the witness list. The lower edge visibly had no special significance.

95

Identified by B . Teissier (1998, 141-2). Teissier (1998, 129-30, nr. 39) rolled on MHET 201 (a 18). 96

Di 2142 has the seal with the name of the first sanga’s father at the top of the left edge and left margin (twice). This allows us to restore the broken name of the first witness as dingir-pi4[a-a]. The second sanga, Sîn-iddinam, seals the upper edge twice. The text is not dated by year name. As stated above, it should be dated between a 19 and 30, because the sanga uses his own seal until a 18 (MHET 200). It would then be the first document on which this seal (fig. 5) is used. The sealing order of the sangas is inverted although their order in the witness list is normal. We will come back to this in our Conclusion III. MHET 238 shows a clear order. The first sanga seals twice on the upper edge. The second sanga once at the top of the left edge and margin. The third, fourth and fifth witnesses seal under him until the bottom of the left edge and margin. The sixth witness occupies the lower edge (twice) and seals again on the left margin of the reverse. There, he is followed by witnesses seven, eight and ten in that order. Only fate is to blame for the fact that two different Sîn-bāni’s seal this tablet. The second sanga of that name at the top of the left edge and margin, the overseer of the nadiātim on the lower edge. This case is one of the rare examples of a sealing order nearly completely conforming to the order of the witness list. Apart from the scribe, only Uur-me-Šamaš, a doorkeeper of the Gagûm, ninth witness, did not roll his seal, although we know he had one96. It should also be remarked that there is but one difference between the witness lists of tablet and case: on the former the eighth witness is Elalum, on the latter this is Warassa. As could be expected, the sealings conform to the version of the case. VS 9, 43 (cfr supra Sangas not witnesses) is a sale of real estate by the palace to, a nadītum of Šamaš among others. Instead of witnesses, seven persons are listed as ‘gìr’, ‘responsible official’. The first one, Annum-pī-Aja, can be identified as the first sanga of Šamaš97. The second one is IšmeSîn, who, at that time, is sanga of the spouse of Marduk, arpanītum (cf. infra our Comments sub second sanga 7. Sîn-bāni), according to his seal. He takes the place of the second sanga of Šamaš, a title he will obtain only seven years later (cf. infra). The most important place on the case, for the seals, is the left edge/margin: at the top we have

97 As can be seen from the table above, he uses his father’s seal. This explains why we find Warad-Sîn’s seal on this document and answers R. Harris’s question (1961, 117).

i.b. the first sangas the seal of the sanga of Šamaš, probably rolled over the whole width of the tablet, maybe even in two successive rows, followed by that of the second gìr, the sanga of arpanītum. The third and last seal of the left edge/margin is that of the third gìr. The upper and lower edges are deemed less important since they are sealed by the fourth gìr. What is left of the reverse is sealed by the fifth (and maybe the sixth and seventh) gìr. Again, the sealing order follows that of the witness list, first on the left edge/margin, the upper and lower edges and finally the reverse. On Di 1430 the first sanga rolls his seal at the top of the left edge and the left margin of the obverse. The second seal on these two places is an animal combat without inscription. This same seal is also rolled in the middle of the lower edge, next to that of the third witness. It is very probable that this is a seal used by the second sanga Sînbani (cf. infra Sîn-bani second sanga) especially since the seals of witnesses 3 to 9 are rolled on the left margin/edge of the obverse and the left margin of the reverse (not in strict order). On the upper edge an as yet unidentified seal with religious legend is rolled twice. This could either belong to another witness or, more probably, to a party to the transaction, in casu the testator. This is Erišti-Aja, a nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Sîn-māgir. The left margin of the obverse (as well as the upper edge) of CT 47, 42a is broken which explains why we do not find the seals of the sangas on it. They are not to be found on the preserved part of the left edge, lower edge or the left margin of the reverse. On Di 2113 the seal of the first sanga is rolled on the left part of the upper edge, and topmost on the left margin of the obverse and the left edge. The next seal on the left margin and the left edge is that of Asallui-mansum, sanga of Marduk, father of the second sanga of Šamaš Sîn-bāni (cf. infra sub our seventh second sanga Sîn-bani). On the right side of the upper edge there is another seal, belonging to a Nanna-ibila-mansum (patronymic broken), ìr Ebabbar, rolled twice. Since the witness list on tablet and case is very damaged, we cannot determine his place. Di 2136 has traces of a seal at the top of its left margin of the obverse. Only the last line of the inscription: [ìr] da-a remains. Since it is rolled at the top and followed by the seal of the second sanga, we can be certain that this is the first sanga’s seal. But which one? Both his father’s and his own have ìr da-a as their last line. Here, Di 2113 comes to our rescue. Both texts belong to the

53

same inheritance dossier. Di 2136 describes the part of Pala-Adad and his sister Erišti-Aja (stipulating that he will be her heir) after division with their brother Sîn-rēmēni. Di 2113 is Sîn-rēmēni’s part, after division with Pala-Adad and Erišti-Aja. These texts must have been written on the same day, which allows us to restore the broken date of Di 2136 as a 37. The sealing sanga thus is Annum-pī-Aja. On Di 2113 the first sanga uses his father’s seal at the top of the left margin. This must be true for Di 2136 too. The second sanga sealing under him also uses his father’s seal, rolled from left edge to right edge, over the obverse of the case. This seems to be the only seal rolled so extensively. After him come other witnesses on the left margin (same as on left edge), lower edge and reverse. On Di 1438 Erišti-Aja, daughter of Šamašrabi, who exchanges a house for another, seals the upper edge. The witnesses seal from the top of the left edge and margin downwards, starting with the two sangas. Since the first exchanging party seals, this text must come from the archive of the second exchanging party: Šerikti-Aja, daughter of Šamaš-liwwir. On CT 47, 47a the sealing practice perfectly reflects the order of the witness list. We had already explained (cf. Sangas not first witnesses, supra) that in this text the sangas were only third and fourth witnesses because the first ones were the princess Iltāni and a lady of her retinue. This is why, exceptionally, the sangas do not seal at the top of the left margin of the obverse but at the bottom of it. Above them there is a seal with a Sumerian legend and one with only a dutu preserved, the very top of the left margin is broken. We may assume that the two ladies, being the first witnesses, had sealed there. The contrast of this text, dated a 43, with Di 696b, dated a 8, illustrates the evolution of sealing practice. On Di 696b the U.E. was still the most important place to be sealed and the princess seals there, ‘pushing’ the sanga down to the top of the L.Mg.. Thirty-five years later, the most important place for the witnesses has become the top of the L.Mg. and that is why princess Iltāni seals there, ‘pushing’ the sangas further down. Another difference is that the second witness, no doubt a lady of princess Iltāni’s entourage also seals before the sangas, whereas a lady in the same position was probably relegated to the reverse of Di 696b. The upper edge is completely lost but, since all of the top witnesses can be accounted for, this was probably sealed by a party to the contract.

i. the texts and the seals

54

Di 2016 is only a fragment of an envelope bearing the seal of the first sanga. It could as well be a part of the upper as the lower edge. Compared to the other tablets sealed by this sanga, the lower edge must be excluded. On Di 689 the order of the sealings, in accordance with the witness list, is: left margin of the obverse and left edge (seals of witnesses 1—first sanga’s father’s seal twice—and 4), lower edge (seal of witness 4, twice), reverse (seal of witness 4, witness 3 and unidentified). The seal on the upper edge is not identified, it could belong to a party to the contract. The seal of Išme-Sîn, second sanga 8 is nowhere to be found. On Di 1131 the first seal at the top of the left edge and left margin is that of the first sanga’s father. This is followed by the seller and the other witnesses, a rare instance of the sanga sealing before a party. The text itself is too broken to allow us to find out if there was a second sanga witness. The upper and lower edges are lost. The order of the sealings seems to imply there was only one sanga. On Di 2117 the first sanga uses his father’s seal on the upper edge and from the top of the left edge, over the obverse, to the right edge. There is no second sanga in the witness list. On CT 47, 56a the first sanga rolls his father’s seal at the top of the left edge, the obverse Date

(including the left margin) and the right edge, in one straight line. Underneath, the other witnesses seal. The upper edge is sealed twice by Naramtāni, the seller. She uses the seal of her father Rīš-Šamaš, son of Akšaja. The sanga seals immediately after her. There is no second sanga in the witness list. On Di 2121 the upper edge bears a seal without legend, possibly of the seller. The sanga again is the next sealer: at the top of the left margin, followed by the other witnesses. The second sanga, present in the witness list, did not use either of his two seals on this tablet. The second seal on the left margin is that of Rapaš-illi-Ea, the overseer of the nadiātum. Only parts of the case of Di 2122 are preserved. Nothing of the upper or lower edges remains but the fact that witness 2, Nūrātum, son of IpiqAnnunītum, seals towards the top of the left edge, followed by the third witness, allows us to suppose that the first sanga sealed on the upper edge, or on the (lost) top of the left margin, if we want to allow a space on the upper edge for the seal of the party who may not raise a claim anymore. There is no second sanga in the witness list. 6. Conclusions A summary of all of the sealed cases is given below:

U.E.

L.Mg./E. top

L.Mg./E. sec.

Reference

w4+5

s 2 (2x)

s1

BM 92644A98

a 1

[...]

[...]

a 8

Iltāni + s 199

Di 696b

a oath

s1+s2

MHET 132

a 9

s1+s2

a 10

[s 1?]

s 2 (2x?)

MHET 158

a 11

s1

s 2 (2x)

BM 82427100

a 15

[...]

[...]

MHET 180

a 16

s 1 + s 2?

a 18

s1+s2

a oath

s 2 (2x)

s1

Di 2142

a 30

s 1 (2x)

s2

MHET 238

a oath

VS 9, 211+13

Di 677

Di 707 MHET 200

a 31

w4

s 1 (gìr)

sanga arpanītum! (gìr)

VS 9, 43

a 32

testator?

s1

s 2?

Di 1430

a 32

[party/s 1?]

[s 1/2?]

[s 2?]

CT 47, 42

a 34

[...]

[...]

[...]

CT 47, 44a

a 37

s1+w

s1

s2

Di 2113

[...]

s1

s2

a [37]

Di 2136 (continued on nex page)

98 99

Case of CT 8, 35b. No seal of the second sanga.

100

Case of CT 8, 48a.

55

i.b. the first sangas (cont.) Date

U.E.

L.Mg./E. top

L.Mg./E. sec.

s1

s2

a 39

exchanger

a 42

[...]

a 43

[party?]

third?: s 1

a 43

s 1101

[...]

Di 2016

party or s 2

s1

Di 689

Si 1 Si 2

[party/s 1?]

Si 4

s1

Si 4 Si 7 Si [...]

seller (2x) seller? [s 1/party]

103

No second sanga in the text. Probably no second sanga in the text. No second sanga.

fourth?: s 2

CT 47, 47a

102

Di 1131

s 1103

Di 2117

s1 s1

104

CT 47, 56a

105

s1

Di 2121

[s 1?] + w 2

Sealing Pattern 1: Upper Edge or Upper Edge and Top of Left Edge The first pattern has both sangas sealing on the upper edge or the first sanga on the upper edge and the second sanga at the top of the left edge. This is attested for Annum-pī-Aja from the beginning of ammu-rabi’s reign, consistently to a 31 on eight cases. Variations on this theme are: the second sanga did not seal (Di 696b) or there was no second sanga in the witness list (and thus no seal of his) (Di 2117, Di 2122). Within this period there are two exceptions on which the fourth witness seals the upper edge and both sangas the left margin. Both texts are peculiar in other ways too. CT 8, 35b/BM 92644A is the sale of a slave and an ox, a kind of text not normally witnessed by sangas in this time. The sealings of the sangas are inversed. VS 9, 42/43 is a sale of real estate by the palace without guaranteeing clauses, without an oath and with ‘responsible administrators’ (gìr) instead of witnesses. They seem to show that the top of the left margin becomes more important as the sealing place for the first witnesses. It is, after all, the front of the tablet, the place where reading 102

Di 1438 MHET 859

From now on, all texts are dated by king and year, as far as they are preserved. This allows for an objective reconstruction of the evolution of sealing patterns. In general a consistency in sealing practices is indeed present, which goes some way in justifying the groupings we operated among the earlier documents, in part based on this assumption. Three sealing patterns appear from our corpus of 28 (in part restored) sealed cases.

101

Reference

Di 2122

starts and where all the important information is concentrated. It allows the sanga(s) to signal their presence from the start of the text onwards, since in the text itself they only appear in the witness list, mostly on the reverse of the tablet. Two texts from this time span (a 1-31) are too broken, both on the upper edge and on the left edge, to allow conclusions. Sealing Pattern 2: Left Margin or Left Edge Only: The Appearance of the Party From a 32 onwards a new pattern emerges in which a party to the contract, exchanging, selling or testating, seals on the upper edge. The sangas then occupy the left margin/edge. We have this on six texts. Sealing Pattern 3: Upper Edge and Top of Left Edge with a Difference Four other texts still exhibit the former pattern but in a special way. The first sanga seals on the upper edge but also at the top of the left margin where he is followed by the second sanga. This is certainly so on Di 2113, 2136, 2117 and probably on Di 2016 where the upper edge is sealed by the first sanga but the left edge is broken. It is as if pattern 2 is applied but with the variation that the first sanga also seals the upper edge instead of the party. In one case, Di 1131, the upper edge is broken and the first sanga sealed on the top of the left edge. If a party sealed the upper edge this belongs to pattern 2, if it was the first sanga, we have pattern 3. Four texts are too broken to allow conclusions, they have either pattern two or three. 104 105

No second sanga. No second sanga in the text.

i. the texts and the seals

56

VI. Šamaš-tappašu Son of Annum-pī-Aja

8 Texts Si 8 – Si 24 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used his grandfather’s1

his own

(Fig. 4B) ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga dutu dumu li-pí-it-iš8-tár ìr da-a

(Fig. 6) utu-tab.ba-[šu] sanga d┌utu┐ dumu dingir-pi4-da-a ìr sa-am-su-i-lu-┌na┐ d

2. Attestations Reference CT 6, 33a 3

CT 47, 66 Di 709 CT 2, 5

CT 45, 33

Date

Genre

Title

T

Si 8/4/—

inheritance

sanga dutu2

—

—

Išme-Sîn

T

Si [...]/5/4

inheritance

sanga dutu

—

—

Išme-Sîn

QH

Si 9/2/3

inheritance

sanga dutu

own4

L.E.,L.Mg., R.E. top

”

—

—

L.Mg. Rev. bottom

[broken]

T

Si 9/ 7/26

C

6

Si 9/2/10

sale field

—

”

5

T

Si 13/9/10

sale field

C

”

”

┌

OLA 21, 77

QH

Si 24/11/[...]

inheritance

—9

MHET 459

T

Si[]/[]/20

litigation

d

”

Di 1453

1

T

Si [...]

uppi l.r.

d

Place of seal

— 7

[?] ┌

MHET 425

Seal

grandfather’s ┐

Second sanga

sanga utu

—

—

Išme-Sîn

sanga dutu┐

own8

L.E., L.Mg. top

[Išme-Sîn]

grandfather’s10

L.Mg. Rev bott. twice

—

—

—

Išme-Sîn

—

—

—12

11

[sanga utu?] d

sanga utu

Probably not used by him, see our comments in section 5. infra. 2 Of the name, only dingir[...] is preserved. For the reason to classify it here cf. our Comments below. 3 The reason to list this text here are given in our Comments below. 4 d utu-tab.ba-[šu] sanga d[utu] dumu dingir-pi4-da-[a] ìr sa-am-su-i-┌lu┐-[na] 5 There are no sangas mentioned in this text. 6 On this remarkable difference in dating between tablet and case, see our comments in section 5. infra. 7 [ìr dEN.ZU] sanga dutu dumu [li-pí-it]-iš8-tár ìr da-[a] Not the seal of Gimil?-Sîn as copied in CT 45, 33 cf. supra.

8

After collation, the seal inscription in MHET should be corrected as follows (as already remarked by Woestenburg 1997/98, 354): d [utu]-tab.ba-[šu] not dutu-tab.┌ba┐-[we-di]-┌im┐ [...] ┌ ┐ x sanga dutu dumu dingir-[pi4]-da-[a] ìr [sa-am-su]-i-lu-┌na┐ (inscription reconstructed from Obv L.Mg. + L.E). 9 There are no sangas mentioned in this text. For our reasons to include it here, see section 5. infra. 10 ìr d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga d[utu] dumu li-pí-[it-iš8-tár] ìr d[a-a] 11 The two sangas are given on the same line, after both names the title is given. 12 Second witness is Nūrātum, son of Ipqu-Annunītum.

i.b. the first sangas 3. Comments 3.1. Career The second sanga of Šamaš of this name after his great-grandfather, he succeeds to his father and will be succeeded by his son. The length of his career is very unsure. OLA 21, 7 does not provide an end date since he is not mentioned in it, although a seal with the name of his grandfather is impressed on it. There are only two texts mentioning him which give dates, Si 9 (Di 709) and 13 MHET 425). The other two do not mention sangas but are given here because they have a sanga seal. This means he could have been in office for only four years and seven months. Our maximum calculation starts from the last attestation of his father in Si 7 (counting CT 6, 33a dated Si 8 as belonging to Šamaš-tappašu— see our comments below) and ends with the first certain attestation of his son Warad-Sîn in Si 25, which makes a career of 18 years. 3.2. CT 6, 33a and CT 47, 6613 In CT 6, 33a, dated Si 8, the line of the first witness is broken and only the first sign of the name remains: dingir which is unfortunately common to Annum-pī-Aja and Šamaš-tappašu, his son and successor. There is no case, so the seals cannot help us to decide. Išme-Sîn is second sanga under Annum-pī-Aja and Šamaš-tappašu, so this cannot help us either. We have classified the text here, because it has (nearly) the same witness list as CT 47, 66, a text which has Šamaš-tappašu and Išme-Sîn as first two witnesses. Both texts are inheritances of nadiātum and all their witnesses are the same, in the same order, except that in CT 6, 33a Iltāni, who inherits in CT 47, 66, is also witness, whereas in CT 47, 66, Bēlessunu is also witness, who inherits in CT 6, 33a. Although the texts were not written on the same day—there is a three month difference—their near identical witness implies a chronological proximity. This being said, it is equally possible that CT 6, 33a

13

We thank G. Suurmeijer for drawing our attention on these texts and their witness lists. 14 Only on the case. He is omitted on the tablet, where another witness is added: Nakkārum, son of Annum-pīAja. Does one brother replace the other? This would be a rare instance where we would have the name of a sanga’s brother. The same Nakkārum is also attested in BDHP 80

57

would be one of the last texts in which Annumpī-Aja is a witness and CT 47, 66 one of the first in which his son Šamaš-tappašu is a first witness. Our choice thus remains arbitrary. 3.3. Another Šamaš-tappašu In CT 6, 41c, the lease of a house by a nadītum, a Šamaš-tappašu is first witness, without title. The text is not dated and does not include an oath, but the other two witnesses allow us to date it under Sîn-muballi/ammu-rabi. This date does not fit our Šamaš-tappašu sanga, who starts his career only in Si 9. The person of the same name could be someone else, and surely there are candidates. We know, e.g., of a Šamaš-tappašu son of Sîn-rabi (JCS 11, 2 and Ballerini, 1908-9, 541), a son of Šamaš-liul (RSO 2, 541) or another one, son of Nanna-mansum (CT 8, 4a and CT 8, 1a where we learn that he is gìr.níta). All of these references are Sîn-muballi and the first witness in CT 6, 41c could be any of them. 3.4. The Same Šamaš-tappašu Šamaš-tappašu, son of Annum-pī-Aja, unmistakably ours, also appears in BE 6/1, 34, without title, as second witness out of four14. In this text, Rībatum, nadītum of Šamaš, rents a house to Šamaš-āzir. The problem is the date of the text: a 41. This is too early for him to be sanga, because his father still occupies the function at that time. So this is a rare instance of a future sanga, already active before he takes up his office15. Furthermore, it shows that, in this case at least, there was no change of name when he became sanga, unlike Bēlšunu who became Ur-Utu when he became gala.ma (Janssen 1992, 47-8). Does this allow us to consider that CT 6, 41c could also have been witnessed too by the future sanga? In the absence of the patronymic (and of any sealing) and in view of the other Šamaštappašus operating at that time we choose to conclude negatively.

(n.d. but approx. Sîn-muballi/ammu-rabi) as witness 6 out of more than eleven. 15 This shows how important the variations between case and tablet can be for our documentation. Had this case not been preserved, we would not have known that Šamaš-tappašu had been ‘active’ before he became a sanga.

i. the texts and the seals

58 4. The Location of the Seal Reference

Date

Genre

U.E.

L.Mg./L.E.Obv.

Seal

Lo.E.

L. Mg rev

Di 709

Si 9/2/3

inheritance

testator, twice

sanga 1 sanga 2

own

witn.

witn.

CT 45, 33

Si 9/2/10

sale field

no seals

seller, witn.

(gone)

last: sanga 1

MHET 425

Si 13/9/10

sale field

seller

sanga 1 sanga 2

witn.

(gone)

OLA 21, 77

Si 24/11/ [...]

inheritance

no seals

testator, witn.

witn.

last: sanga 1 (2x)

4.1. Whose Seal? As can be seen in the table above, during Šamaštappašu’s term of office two seals are used: his own and one with the name of his grandfather Warad-Sîn (but never used by him), made for his father. When he is a witness he uses his own; the grandfather’s seal is used when no sanga is mentioned in the texts. We will elaborate on this point in our comments on the individual texts. 5. Comments on Individual Texts Šamaš-tappašu is a witness in two texts. On Di 709 the upper edge is sealed by the testator. Witnesses one to four, starting with the two sangas, seal on the left edge and margin. The next ones are to be found on the lower edge and the left margin of the reverse. MHET 425 is sealed in the ‘traditional’ order. The seller, Šerikti-Aja, a nadītum, seals twice on the upper edge. The other witnesses start on the

16 CT 45, 33 (case) and CT 2, 5 (tablet) are, as far as the former is preserved, completely identical, except for the date: both are Si 9 but CT 45, 33 is month 2 day 10 and CT 2, 5 month 7 day 26. What could explain the difference of five months and 16 days? We could imagine that both represent subsequent sales of the same property, with exactly the same witnesses in the same order and that, by an extraordinary stroke of fate, the tablet of the first sale and the case of the second one have been preserved. Even so, the situation would not be straightforward since the seller in both texts is the same person: Aja-bēlet-nīši. This would imply that the first sale was annulled for some unknown reason and she sold again. We know that in such cases, especially when the two operations were this close in time, on the second sale (CT 2, 5) a remark would have been added explaining that the first sale had been voided. This amounts to the sheer impossibility that these two texts would refer to different sales. We consider them to be tablet and case of the same text (although their BM registration numbers are not consecutive: 88-5-12, 114 and 155). We cannot even suppose there were two copies of this text since

own own

Seal

grandfather’s

grandfather’s

left edge and margin, downwards to the lower edge, which is sealed twice by the fifth witness. The first two sealings at the top of left edge and margin are those of the sangas. The next two texts have no sanga witness but a sanga seal is rolled on their reverse. CT 45, 33 (Si 9) is part of a case of which CT 2, 5 must be the tablet16. At the top of the left margin (and left edge?) there is a byscript (kišib) of Aja-bēlet-nīši17, the seller. She is followed by the witnesses. The beginning of the witness list is lost on the case but fully preserved on the tablet, CT 2, 5, and there is neither a first nor a second sanga in it. All the other witnesses appear in the exact same order on tablet and case. The conclusion must be that there were no sanga witnesses neither on the case nor on the tablet. It comes as something of a surprise then that a sanga’s seal is rolled on the case. It is more astonishing even that it was rolled as the last one on the left margin of the reverse, a most unusual place for a sanga. As if this were not enough, the

it is a real estate contract. If this tablet and this case belong together as they must, we can see no other explanation for the later date of the tablet than a scribal error or a willful antedating. For what purpose? In case of a contestation the case would be broken and the tablet’s date revealed. 17 Her name is broken but can be restored on the basis of CT 2, 5, the tablet. There are numerous Iltāni’s but we have only three references to an Iltāni daughter of Apil-ilīšu: CT 2,5/CT 45,33 dated Si 9; Goetze 1957, 9 (CUA 43) dated Si 9 and MHET 446 dated Si 27. As to the sealing, Goetze 1957, 9 has lost its case and MHET 446 is an unsealed memo. In all three texts she buys real estate. In the first two she buys from Aja-bēlet-nīši daughter of Ludlul-Sîn, in the irrigation district (ugārum) Ii(a)tum. Whether CT 4,49b/MHET 121 (discussed here under VI. Warad-Sîn) where a person with the same name and patronymic buys a 1 1/2 sar house also belongs here is uncertain in view of its date: Sm 7, nearly sixty years earlier. On this document the same Warad-Sîn seal is rolled but here in a normal way: he is first witness and seals on the upper edge.

i.b. the first sangas seal used is not that of an active sanga but one that had ben made for and used by his father. It bears the name of Warad-Sîn18, son of LipitIštar, and since the text is dated Si 9/2/10 (or Si 9/7/26), it could not have been used by his son Annum-pī-Aja, since this sanga is succeeded by his son, Šamaš-tappašu, at the latest seven days earlier: Si 9/2/3 (Di 709). Who rolled this seal? There is no sanga in the text and, as far as we know, no one in the witness list is linked to the Šamaš temple. The only links to this institution are the seller and the buyer, both nadītums of Šamaš. It would be odd that Šamaš-tappašu would roll his grandfather’s seal on a document he himself had not witnessed. Even if he had been a witness he would surely have rolled his own seal as he had done on other documents. It seems more likely that an ‘anonymous’ entity like the temple would have wanted to add its authenticating signature without any of its representatives being present. The problem would thus be which seal to use. As far as we know, institutions did not have a seal of their own. The solution was to use the seal naming a late sanga and, in this case, none would be better than the seal of Warad-Sîn which had been ‘revived’ by his son Annum-pī-Aja during 20 years. We note that Šamaš-tappašu’s father had already been using this same seal for many years and that it must have become well known as the sanga’s seal. We note that although this is a sanga seal, it does not get the normal precedence over the others in the sealing order. The reason must be that no sanga was actually present. This would imply that in such a case the difference between present and absent witnesses (of this rank) was reflected in the order of sealing. This would in turn

18

Contra CT 45, 33 (pl. 17) where “Gimil-Sîn” is transcribed (on the basis of the three impressions of the seal on the left margin and obverse) as the first line of the seal. We quote CT 45: gi?-mil?-dEN.Z[U] sag~ a dutu dumu li-pí-it-eštar ìr da-a There is no such sanga. Collation reveals that the signs gi-mil are not really visible and ìr is not excluded. This reference to a sanga of Šamaš named Gimil-Sîn as given by Renger (1967, 109) must be deleted. 19 Iltāni, nadītum of Šamaš (father’s name broken) inherits. In view of the numerous persons with this name we cannot know if she was the daughter of Apil-ilīšu like Iltāni of CT 2, 5/CT 45, 33. If so, this would provide a link

59

mean that in all the other cases, where their seals were rolled on the appropriate places, the sangas were physically present. The question remains as to who would have brought this ancient sanga seal to the scribe. OLA 21, 77 is dated Si 24. This makes its attribution to the term of office of Šamaš-tappašu possible but not certain. Indeed, his son Warad-Sîn is attested from Si 25 onwards but may well have been in office much earlier, since Šamaš-tappašu’s last attestation is Si 13. We have arbitrarily classified it under Šamaš-tappašu because it belongs to the same dossier as CT 45, 33 and exhibits the same—exceptional—sealing practice. OLA 21, 77, an inheritance among nadītum priestesses19, is a “Quasi-Hülle” tablet sealed in the same way. Here it is the testator who seals at the top of the left edge and margin, followed by the other witnesses in the order of the witness list (except for the inversion of 5 and 6), down to the lower edge and further on the left margin of the reverse. The last witness, Warad-Kubi, does not seal. He probably is the scribe20. The two last impressions on the reverse were made with the seal of the sanga Warad-Sîn. In view of the date this must again have been used by (or in the name of) his grandson21, although he is—again—not mentioned in the witness list. Here too there is no mention of a second sanga. For reasons unknown, an anonymous, institutional authority adds its seal after a normally witnessed and sealed document. To this dossier, a third piece may be added: the nadītum field sale Goetze 1957, 9 (CUA 43). This text belongs to the same dossier22 as OLA 21, 77 and CT 2, 5, dealing with the acquisitions of land in Iiātum by Iltāni, the daughter of Apililīšu23.

between the two documents sealed with the Warad-Sîn seal. 20 There is a scribe of that name in a 14, some thirtyeight years earlier (VS 8, 125). 21 We assign the use of the seal of the old Warad-Sîn to Šamaš-tappašu because of its use on CT 45, 33, albeit some fifteen years earlier. That is the reason why we include this text here. We cannot, of course, exclude that Šamaš-tappašu’s son Warad-Sîn was already in charge in Si 24 and used his great-grandfather’s seal at the very beginning of his career, but we think this is less likely. 22 In fact, CT 45, 33 (case CT 2,5) and CUA 43, only twenty days distant, have an identical witness list. They have the same last witness, scribe, Ipiq-Aja. OLA 21, 77 is the only one that has Warad-Kubi as last witness. 23 Broken in OLA 21, 77 but to be restored.

60

i. the texts and the seals

Goetze 1957, 9 has lost its case but we can suppose this also may have had the seal of the sanga at the bottom of the left edge of the reverse, although neither it nor the tablet mention a sanga in their witness list. 6. Conclusion We have two cases and two ‘Quasi-Hülle’ tablets (the first ones in our sanga dossiers) with the seals used by this sanga. Out of these, two (a “Quasi-Hülle” and a case tablet) conform to the usus introduced by the preceding sanga: the sangas seal on the top of the left margin, after the party who alienates property, in casu the testator and the seller. The two other ones document a new and unique phenomenon. The sanga’s seal is the last one on the reverse. We interpret this as a possible institutional authentification in absentia of temple officials as witnesses. If there were other tablets on which the same practice was applied, we would only be aware of this if they were ‘Quasi-Hülle’ or case tablets of which the case was preserved. Both are relatively rare, which might explain why we only have two examples of this usus. 7. The Servant Line: From God to King Šamaš-tappašu is the first sanga to use the king’s name in the servant formula of the last line of his seal. Two remarks are in order here. His father Annum-pī-Aja was sanga until Si 8. His last dated sealing is Si 7 but at that time he had been using his father’s (i.e. Warad-Sîn’s) seal for quite some time. In any case it is clear that he did not have a new seal cut at the accession of Samsuiluna.

The earliest impression we have of Šamaštappašu’s seal with the allegiance to Samsuiluna is dated Si 13. Since he became sanga at the very earliest in Si 7 this gives us the earliest possible date for the cutting of this seal. In the case of the second sanga, the allegiance to the king occurred for the first time some twenty years earlier with a first attestation of ìr ammu-rabi in a 30 (cf. Sîn-bāni second sanga infra). We can conclude that at this time the allegiance to the king is not strong enough to prompt the first sangas to have a new seal cut at the accession of a new king. This expression of allegiance cannot be interpreted as something brought about by a royal decree ordering them to do so. It rather seems to be some kind of a new fashion they follow and apply on their seal legend when they have their seal cut at the beginning of their career, starting with Šamaš-tappašu. The more radically formulated conclusion of R. Harris (1961, 118) that by the time of ammu-rabi ” (...) the sanga had become a royal servant” must be softened somewhat, as is her statement that there would be “no occurrence of the phrase “the servant of the Ebabbar” in seal inscriptions which date from the period of Hammurapi and later”. Indeed, this formula is to be found on a number of seals, such as that of Sabium-ili, a doorkeeper (BT 32 on MHET 158 dated a 10) and of Sîn-bāni, son of Šamaš-ilum and overseer of the nadiātum (BT 64B on Di 1430 dated a 32) among others. The ‘take-over’ by the palace must have been much more gradual. A consequence of this new usus is that, from now on, the seals of the first sangas are dated by the king’s name in their legend.

61

i.b. the first sangas VII. Warad-Sîn Son of Šamaš-tappašu

8 Texts Si 25/10/29—31/6/5 1. Seal Inscription of the Seal24 Used

(Fig. 7) ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga (star25) d[utu] dumu dutu-tab.┌ba┐-[šu] ┌ ┐ ìr sa-am-su-i-[lu-na]

2. Attestations On all of these texts, tablet and case and ‘Quasi-Hülle’, Warad-Sîn has the title sanga dutu added to his name26. Reference

Date

Genre

Seal

Location of seal

Second sanga

—

Sîn-erībam

YOS 12, 469

T

Si 25/10/29

inheritance

—

CT 47, 65

T

Si 25/12/30

inheritance

—

— 27

Sîn-erībam 28

CT 47, 65a

C

”

”

own

L.E., L.Mg. top

TLB I, 224

T

Si 26/5/10

sale é.kigal

—

—

none29

BE 6/2, 8630

QH

Si 30/2/1

uppi l.r.

own31

L.E., L.Mg. second

none32

MHET I, 1, 2

T

Si 30/10/15

sale field

—

—

[none]

C

”

”

own

L.E. top

none34

CT 8, 9b

T

Si 30/11/8

sale house

—

—

none35

Di 31236

T

Si 30/12/30

excerpt

—

—

—

Di 180337

TC

Si 31/6/5

donation

[...]

[...]

none

”

24 Wilcke 1983, Abb. 7, provides a photograph of an impression of this seal on BE 6/2, 86. 25 A star-shaped design is intercalated in the middle of this line. M. Stol adds that this feature is often found on cylinder seals in modern collections (personal communication). 26 On YOS 12, 469, the end of the line is broken, but there is ample room for the title. On the tablet CT 47, 65, both sangas are given on the same line, at the end of which we find the title sanga d[utu], maybe even with the plural suffix meš. 27 [ìr-dEN.ZU] [sanga STAR] ┌d┐[utu] ┌ dumu┐ dutu-tab.┌ba┐-[šu] [ìr] ┌sa┐-am-su-i-[lu-na] See the discussion by Wilcke (1983, 66) citing the collation by I. Finkel concerning seal B. The author corrects the filiation of the sanga Warad-Sîn contra Renger (1967, 110sq. and 119 sq.) and Harris (1975, 159). 28 The seals of the sangas are preserved on a part of the case that adheres to the tablet.

33

”

29

Second witness is Ipq-Annunītum son of I[...]. Collated by Wilcke (1983) 63 seal B who gives the whole text. 31 ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga (star) d[utu] dumu dutu-tab.┌ba┐-[šu] ìr sa-am-su-i-[lu-na] 32 Second witness is Awīl-Ištar, son of Nannatum, first of a college of six judges. 33 ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga (star) d[utu] dumu dutu-tab.┌ba┐-[šu] ìr sa-am-su-i-[lu-na] A drawing of the seal impression is provided in this publication. 34 Second witness is Marduk-nīšu, PA lukur dutu.meš. 35 Second witness is Nūrātum, son of Ipqu-Annunītum. 36 Warad-Sîn is not witness but neighbour in this text. 37 Only a small part of the case, adhering to the reverse of the tablet. No seals preserved. 30

62

i. the texts and the seals

3. Comments 3.1. Career The eighth sanga of Šamaš follows in the footsteps of his father. He has the same name as his great-grandfather first sanga under Apil-Sîn and Sîn-muballi at least some 65 years before him. The last date of his career depends on our attribution of Di 1803 to him. In fact, the name of the first witness is broken on the tablet where only the title remains. The case does not help us since we only have a fragment of it which does not contain the beginning of the witness list (nor any seals). Given the date, the first witness might be WaradSîn (his last attestation) or his son Annum-pīAja (his first attestation). The broken space which contained the name would not fit much more than three signs (as compared with the previous line) and that is why we have chosen to restore ìr-dEN.ZU rather than the longer dingir-pi4-da-a. This makes Di 1803 Warad-Sîn’s last reference. It follows that his career lasts five years and a little more than eight months since he starts in Si 25/10/29 and ends in Si 31/6/5. Again, this might be an illusion brought upon us by the extant text corpus. The last attestation of his father Šamaštappašu is Si 24/11/[...] and the first mention of his son and successor is Ae “e”, probably the fourth year of this king (Horsnell 1999, 79). The extent of his career could then have been nearly nineteen years at the most. The last but one reference, Di 312, allows us another glimpse of the economic position of the sanga. In this text the sanga is not a witness but a neighbour, which means that he owned a field. The text lists a number of fields described as “pani a.gàr gu.la”, bought from different people by Lamassāni, nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Sîn-iddinam. 3.2. Other Second Witnesses Formerly, a second sanga could exceptionally be absent (f.i. MHET 172, a 14) but here it is noteworthy that out of the seven texts which WaradSîn witnesses, he is only accompanied twice by a sanga as second witness.

This is no mere absence of the second sanga in the middle of his career. Indeed the second sanga Sîn-erībam is attested twice only, in Si 25 months 10 and 12. The next attestation already has another second sanga, Marduk-mušallim, and is dated under Abi-ešu, with the next first sanga. We will discuss this more fully under the ninth and tenth second sangas infra but there are only two solutions: either this is due to a gap in our documentation or there was an interruption of some years in the line of second sangas. In fact there is a general gap in our documentation for both sangas, beginning somewhat earlier for the second sangas: the first ones are attested until Si 31, the second ones until the end of 25, both titles reappear in Ae “e”, which may be the fourth year of this king. This means a ten year gap for the first ones and sixteen years for the second ones. The unanswerable question remains: are these gaps an illusion due to the vagaries of textual conservation or are they real, reflecting a temporary dysfunction of the Šamaš temple towards the end of Samsu-iluna’s reign? When there is no second sanga, who acts as second witness? The first sanga is followed by: – Ipiq-Annunītum, son of I[ddin-Erra?] (TLB I, 224; Si 26). There is a judge of that name, son of Iddin-Erra, third witness in Si 16 (CT 2, 13 no title) and Si 30 (BE 6/2, 86). – seven judges (BE 6/2, 86; Si 30). The second of which is an Ipiq-Annunītum son of IddinErra. – Marduk-nīšu ugula lukur dutu.meš (MHET I, 2; Si 30). Known with this title from Si 19 (Di 2115) until Si 30 (this reference). – Nūrātum son of Ipqu-Annunītum (CT 8, 9b; Si 30). He is attested from a 38 up to Si 36, always among the first witnesses (see also Voet and Van Lerberghe 1989, 530 sq.) There is nothing out of the ordinary here. Judges, an overseer of the nadiātum and the famous Nūratum are to be expected in second position after a sanga. The overseer even reminds us of the times before the existence of a second sanga.

63

i.b. the first sangas 4. The Location of the Seal Reference

Date

Genre

U.E.

L.E./L.Mg.

CT 47, 65/65a

Si 25/12/30

inheritance

[testator?]

top: sanga 1 second: sanga 2

BE 6/2, 86

Si 30/2/1

uppi l.r.

condemned

top: condemned second: sanga 1

MHET I, 1, 2

Si 30/10/15

sale field

seller

top: sanga 1 (no L.Mg.)

CT 45, 65/65a is an inheritance. The testator is Awāt-Aja, a nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Sînerībam. Part of the case, i.e. the upper part of the left edge and obverse still adhere to the tablet. The other part is also preserved except for the upper edge and the very damaged reverse. Still, the sealing order is clear: the first witnesses, the two sangas, seal the top of the left edge and margin. After them come witnesses 3, 4 and 5. The last one also seals the lower edge. The rest can be completed. The upper edge must have held the seal of the testator. The reverse (some of) the other witnesses. BE 6/2, 86 is a uppi lā ragāmim with the history of the property. The seal of Ipiq-Annunītum, son of Sîn-māgir, is to be found on the upper edge (four times) and at the top of the left edge and margin. His claim is rejected and he is ordered not to litigate again. He is followed by the first witness, the sanga. Then come the other witnesses in the exact order of the text38.

MHET I, 1,2 is a land sale. The same sealing pattern can be observed here. The seller, AmatŠamaš, daughter of Sîn-iqīšam, seals on the upper edge (also four times), the witnesses seal down the left edge (the left margin is gone), the lower edge (witness 5) and the reverse. On the reverse, the order is less strict: we find witnesses 10, 8, 7, 9 and 11, in this order. The first witness, the sanga, seals at the top of the left edge. 5. Conclusions All three documents show exactly the same pattern. The party handing over the tablet as proof of the transaction or the one who promises not to vindicate in future, seals the upper edge and once also the top of the left edge and margin. The other witnesses follow down the left edge and margin, the lower edge and the reverse. The sangas are the first ones after the party concerned and seal on the left edge and margin.

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja Son of Warad-Sîn 8 Texts Abi-ešu “e”—Ammi-ditana 5 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used This sanga uses two different seals with the same legend. They can easily be distinguished by the

(Fig. 8A) dingir-pi4-da-[a] sanga d[utu] dumu ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] ìr a-bi-e-šu-[u.ke4] 38

Witnesses 3 to 6, 8 and 11 have no seals with legends. These can be identified because of the strict order of the sealing.

different shape of the sanga sign and the disposition of the dingir and EN signs on line three.

(Fig. 8B) dingir-pi4-da-a sanga dutu dumu ìr-dEN.┌ZU┐ ìr a-bi-e-šu-u.┌ke4┐

i. the texts and the seals

64 2. Attestations39 Reference40 Di 1851 CT 47, 69 CT 47, 69a

Date

Genre

Seal

Place of seal

Second sanga

QH

Ae “e”/9/23

disadoption

A41

L.E.,L.Mg. top

Marduk-mušallim

T

Ae “h”/12/30

sale house

—

—

none42

C

”

”

A

Di 2035

T

Ae”m”/9/10

donation

Di 1547

C

”

”

BE 6/1, 76

T

Ae “k”/8/10

sale house

L.E.,L.Mg. penultimate

—

—

44

” Marduk-mušallim

L.Mg. second

”

—

—

”

A

Di 2111

T

Ae /10/30

inheritance

—

—

none46

Di 1802

T

Ae [...]

sale field

—

—

none47

C

”

”

A48

QH

Ad 2/6/22

adoption

B

T

Ad 5/1/12

sale é.kigal

—

” BM 9698249 BBVOT 1, 111 BBVOT 1, 112

C

45

43

”

50

”

3. Comments 3.1. Name This sanga of Šamaš bears a name similar to that of the first known sanga of Šamaš in Sippar, Annum-pī-Šamaš. This name is now adapted to Annum-pī-Aja by his great-grandson, four generations later. The name will be taken up again by the great-grandson of Annum-pī-Aja, a good thirty years later. We note that the second sanga becomes sanga Aja instead of sanga Šamaš also under Abi-ešu and will come back on this in our conclusions.

39 In all of these attestations Annum-pī-Aja has the title sanga Šamaš. Di 1802, tablet and case are broken at the place of the title, as is BBVOT 1, 111 (tablet). 40 The texts are ordered according to the provisional classification of Horsnell 1999, 73: Ae e = 4, Ae h = 8, Ae m = 21?, Ae k = 25? 41 dingir-pi4-d[a-a] ┌ sanga d┐[utu] [dumu ìr] d[EN.ZU] [ìr...] (see our Comments infra). 42 Second witness is Šamaš-nāir, son of Šamaš-tillassu, the first of two judges, followed by an overseer of the nadiātum. 43 dingir-pi4-d[a-a] sanga d[utu] dumu ìr d┌EN┐.[ZU] ìr a-bi-e-šu-[u.ke4] 44 dingir-┌pi4-d┐[a-a] sanga d[utu] dumu ìr d[EN.ZU] ìr a-bi-e-┌šu┐-[u.ke4] 45 Year name not identified. 46 Second witness is Bunene-abi, son of Sîn-ga[...].

L.Mg. fifth

51

L.E. second (twice)

52

B

” Marduk-mušallim

—

”

L.E.,L.Mg. top (twice)

”

3.2. Career Annum-pī-Aja is the only first sanga attested during the reign of Abi-ešu. His father was attested until Si 31. Exactly where the one ends and the other begins must lie somewhere between Si 31 and Ae “e” (probably 4) a gap of eleven years. His last mention is Ad 5 and his brother takes over from Ad 20 on. This is a large gap in our documentation: there isn’t a single mention of a sanga during these fifteen years. This reflects a general slump in our Sippar documentation around this time. For Ad 5 we have twelve texts, the next years less than ten a year, often even less

47

Second witness is [...] son of Utu-dikud. dingir-pi4-da-[a] sanga d[utu] dumu ìr d┌EN┐.[ZU] ìr a-bi-e-šu-u.[ke4] 49 K.R. Veenhof’s transcription is now published in van Koppen (2001, 216 note 16). 50 The adopted lady is given an income by being made a courtyard sweeper (kisal.lu) to the godess Aja. Annumpī-Aja is not witness but responsible in case of a claim on the adopted and freed lady (this clause is discussed in Westbrook 1988, 33). His title is not mentioned but in view of his name and his role it must be him (see our ‘Sangas not witnesses’ above) 51 dingir-pi4-da-a sanga d┌utu┐ dumu ìr-dEN.┌ZU┐ ìr a-bi-e-šu-u-┌ke4┐ 52 dingir-pi4-da-a sanga dutu dumu ìr-dEN.[ZU] ìr a-bi-e-šu-u.┌ke4┐ 48

65

i.b. the first sangas than five. Only from Ad 27 onwards this number rises again, never falling under ten and going up to seventy one in Ad 37. The maximum extent of his career is from Si 31 to Ad 20, a duration of fifty-five years; the minimum, supposing he came into office during the fourth year of Abi-ešu and ended his career in Ad 5, would be thirty years. In the next section his seal inscription will allow us to shorten the maximum career length by seven years, to 48. 3.3. Two Seals On his first text Annum-pī-Aja already uses his own seal, which he does consistently until his last reference. It is impossible to determine whether he ever used his father’s seal. If he started his career under Samsu-iluna, somewhere after the last attestation of his father, there would have been time enough to do so. There is one interesting but insoluble question. If his career does not start in the reign of Abi-ešu but before, still under Samsu-iluna, he may have had a seal with the name of Samsu-iluna in the servant line. Our first attestation, although dated under Abi-ešu, could still have had Samsu-iluna in its servant line, unfortunately this is broken. We will come back on this point immediately but let us first consider the second seal of this sanga. The two last attestations of seals used by this sanga have been made with another seal. The

difference, however, between these two seals, is minimal. The lines of the inscription are the same, it is only by comparing both seal impressions one next to the other that we see the difference in some signs (especially the sanga sign) and the way the signs are disposed within the line. In view of this it is clear that the first seal was lost or broken and Annum-pī-Aja had a new one made. It is interesting to note that although this second seal is attested in Ad 2 and 5, the servant line is still devoted to Abi-ešu. The obvious reason is of course that the first seal was lost and the second made before the end of the reign of Abi-ešu. We note that the change of kings did not cause our sanga to change seals in order to have one with the servant line devoted to Samsuiluna. Although we are very close to the beginning of Ammi-ditana’s reign, we are not close enough to find out whether the change of seals would not have taken place under Ammi-ditana’s reign after all. The first sangas obviously did not change seals, even if their term of office extended into the next reign. This means that Annum-pī-Aja must have started his career under Abi-ešu, otherwise he would have kept his Samsu-iluna seal. This reduces the maximum length of his career to 48 (=28+20) years if he started in the first year of Abi-ešu, which is not documented. The minimum stays the same: 30 years.

4. The Location of the Seal Reference

55

L.E./L.Mg.

T

Ae “e”/9/23

unsealed

sanga 1 = top sanga 2 = second

CT 47, 69a

C

Ae “h”/12/30

[gone]

sellers + grandfather = 1-4 sanga 1 = fifth

Di 1547

C

Ae”m”/9/10

[gone]

donor= first sanga 153 = second (twice) sanga 2 = third

Di 1802

C

Ae[...]

[gone]

sanga 1 = fifth no second sanga

QH

Ad 2/6/22

adopting person

sanga 1 = second (twice)54 sanga 2 = third

C

Ad 5/12/1

seller (thrice)

seller = top sanga 155 = second sanga 2 = third

BBVOT 112

54

U.E.

Di 1851

BM 96982

53

Date

Not on left edge, only on left margin. Rolled through over the obverse and on the right edge. Correct BBVOT 1, 14: the seals of both sangas are

rolled from the left edge, over the obverse (under the text) and unto the right edge.

66

i. the texts and the seals

5. Comments on Individual Texts In Di 1851, Ibni-Marduk’s adoption by Marduknāir is annulled. The text is witnessed exclusively by temple personnel, headed by the two sangas. The sealing order is the now usual one: first the two sangas then the other temple people, from the top of the left edge and margin down. Exceptionally though, the upper and lower edges are unsealed, which means that Marduk-nāir, the dis-adopting person, did not seal. This may be linked to the fact that this tablet was part of his archive. Of the obverse of CT 47, 69/69a only the left edge remains. The reverse is in better shape, though not complete. In the publication, the left edge of the obverse is copied together with the reverse and should thus be read upside down, as indicated by the upside down copies of two byscripts (kišibs) and the numbering of the seals. Apart from the two topmost seals of this left edge (CT 47, 69a seals 1 and 2), for which see infra ‘A small note on inherited seals’, the identification and order is straightforward: seals 3 and 4 belong to the second and third sellers (out of three). The fifth seal is that of the first witness, our sanga, followed by the second witness, a di.kud, not a second sanga. The lower edge probably was used by the third witness, since on the left edge of the reverse we find the seals of witness five, the father of witness seven, witness four, the father of witness six, witness eight and witness nine with a kišib. The sanga again seals after the party handing over the document. The upper edge must have been either empty or sealed by a person lower in the witness list. The upper and lower edges of Di 1547 are broken. On the left margin we first have an unidentified seal, probably belonging to the donor Ur-Inanna. Then follow the witnesses, whose seals are continued on the reverse. The first sanga, first witness, seals twice on the left margin immediately below the first seal. The second sanga comes next on left edge and margin. Again, the upper edge was either empty or sealed by someone else. With BM 96982 we have a somewhat different situation. A woman is adopted, freed and placed in the service of Aja as a court sweeper (kisal.lu). Her adoptive father will sustain her and when he 56 CT 47 reads dEN.ZU [...] for the first line. Traces are very faint but comparison with the same seal on CT 47, 51 leaves no doubt: this must be dingir-šu-[ba-ni].

dies she will be answerable to no one. Annumpī-Aja will take over the ‘father’ role after the death of her adoptive father and be responsible (Westbrook 1988, 33) in case of any claim on her (Annum-pī-Aja abūša ana zaqipīša izzâz). Since the first sanga plays a role in the text, the first witness is the second sanga. The sealings start on the upper edge and the top of the left edge and margin with the seal of the man who adopts, frees and installs the slave girl as a court sweeper. Then follow the seals of the two sangas (the first one twice) and the other witnesses. Although the first sanga is not a witness in this text, the sealing order still is: party, sanga 1, sanga 2. The first sanga’s place in the sealing order derives from the fact that he is a party in the transaction, and thus precedes the first witness (sanga 2). BBVOT 1, 12 follows the same scheme. The first seal on the upper edge and the top of the left edge is that of the seller, Awāt-Aja, daughter of Warad-Sîn. Then the two sangas follow. The first sanga’s seal is also to be found on the right edge, probably rolled until there over the obverse. 5.1. A Small Note on Inherited Seals Who were the owners or users of seals 1 and 2 on CT 47, 69a? To clarify the situation we give the family tree: Ipiq-Adad Ilšu-bāni (seal 2)

Ibbi-Ilabrat

Ipiq-Annunītum

Sîn-āzir

Marduk-mušallim (seal 3)

Iddin-Ilabrat (seal 4)

The three brothers of the last generation sell the property. This stems from Ibbi-Ilabrat, their uncle, according to the text. Since they sell, their uncle and their father must have passed away. The broken legend of the second seal can be completed as follows56: dingir-šu-[ba-ni] dumu i-pí-iq-d[iškur] ìr dnin.┌šubur┐

This is the pater familias, the father of the original owner. We find the same seal on CT 47, 51. He is attested from a 27 (MHET 226) to Si 2 (CT

67

i.b. the first sangas 8, 24b). His seal has been inherited by his grandchildren, who no doubt use it to authentify their right of ownership when they sell family property.

A [Ipiq-Annunītum] dumu d┌EN┐.[ZU-a-zi-ir] ìr dnin.[šubur]

The first seal is more of a problem. The remaining part of the legend can be completed in three ways:

B [Ibbi-Ilabrat] dumu dingir-┌šu┐-[ba-ni] ìr dnin.[šubur]

Our A means that the first seller uses his own seal, just like the other two sellers do (seals 3 and 4). We have no (other) impression of IpiqAnnunītum’s seal, so we cannot compare. The two other possibilities, our B and C, refer to the uncle or the father of the sellers. One of them would have left his seal to his nephews/sons who would have used it here. Only for Sîn-āzir can we compare with an impression on another case: CT 47, 65a, where the servant line is indeed devoted to Ninšubur. Possibility A is the most elegant. This would mean that the three sellers sealed each with his own seal and added their grandfather’s seal as a supplementary certification of ownership. This would give the following order: the first seller seals first, followed by the grandfather’s seal (which he may have held as oldest brother?) and then the seals of the other two sellers. Possibility C is not to be discarded, since it could mean that the first seller, being the oldest son, inherited his father’s (and maybe also his grandfather’s) seal and used it/them as his own. This might explain why we have no seal impression made with a seal to his name. In this case, we have the order: grandfather—father—sellers 2 and 3. This is a nice familial order in which the first seller, as new head of the family, uses his grandfather’s and father’s seals instead of his own. Possibility B gives the order: grandfather— uncle—sellers 2 and 3. At first sight this may look a little odd. Why would the first seller not use his father’s seal but his uncle’s? There could be a very good reason for this. The property stems from the uncle and the fact that the first seller uses the uncle’s seal, showing that he had inherited it, proves he had full rights on the late uncle’s

C [Sîn-āzir] dumu dingir-┌šu┐-[ba-ni] ìr dnin.[šubur]

properties too. The use of the grandfather’s seal would furthermore prove that there were no other branches of the family who could rightfully dispute this inheritance. Here again, the inheritance of the seal would be a symbolic proof of the inheritance of the property. 6. Conclusion The sealing order seems well fixed now. The party or parties giving out the tablets seal first, all the witnesses follow over the left edge/margin down the lower edge and the reverse. The order on the obverse corresponds more to the witness list of the case than the sealings of the reverse, where the order is somewhat looser. A new feature is that, in one instance, the upper edge is not used for sealing. This is a continuation of the loss of importance of the upper edge in favour of the left margin/edge. The first seals are to be found at the top of the left margin/edge. Two more cases have lost their upper edge but they probably also might not have had any sealings on it since the seals of the parties are to be found at the top of the left edge/margin. On the other hand, they might have had a sealing on the upper edge, repeated on the left margin, as so often happens. In two instances there certainly is a party sealing on the upper edge. In two instances the first sanga seals twice, consecutively. The second sanga, when present, follows the first one. The Abi-ešu documents all have no seal on the U.E., whereas the two Ammi-ditana ones have a party sealing there. Of course, this may be due to our limited documentation rather than to an underlying reality.

i. the texts and the seals

68

IX. Sîn-iqīšam Son of Warad-Sîn 3 Texts Ammi-ditana 20—30

1. Seal Inscription of the Seal Used

(Fig. 9) EN.ZU-i-qí-ša-[am] sanga d[utu] dumu ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] ìr am-mi-di-ta-na.┌ke4┐1 d

2. Attestations Reference

Date

ARN 174

T

Di 690 TCL I, 151

TC 5

sT

Genre

[...] 3

litigation

Ad 20/2/12 Ad 30/7/24

6

sale field

Title d

sanga utu d

sanga utu

sale field

3. Comments 3.1. Career In both texts with preserved dates Sîn-iqīšam is first witness, followed by Etel-pī-Nabium, sanga of Aja. Since his predecessor is attested until Ad 5 and his successor from Ad 32 on, he can have occupied his office of sanga twenty-six years at the most. Taking only his own dates into account, this is a minimum of ten years. 3.2. Two Breaks in the Tradition His seal inscription can be completed by the use his son Ilšu-ibnīšu makes of it on Di 2129 and Di 2163, both dated Ad 32. From the legend we learn that Sîn-iqīšam also was a son of Warad-Sîn, which means he was a brother of the preceding sanga, Annum-pī-Aja, a novum in the succession

1 The legend is reconstructed with the help of the later rollings of this seal by his son. 2 Second witness is [...] son of Dadâ. 3 Tablet still in case. 4 d EN.ZU-[i]-qí-┌ša┐-[am] sanga d[utu] dumu ìr [d]┌EN┐.[ZU] ìr am-mi-di-ta-na.[ke4] 5 Cfr. Colbow (1998, 173: 2502:3; 189). No drawing of the seal. 6 This year name is very similar to Ad 5. The difference can be made, according to the versions given in Horsnell

[...]

Seal

Location

Second sanga

—

—

none2

own

4

own

7

L.Mg.,R.E, third L.Mg. second

8

Etel-pī-Nabium Etel-pī-Nabium

which up to now had been strictly from father to son. This is the reason why he does not have a traditional sanga name, another novum. It is possible that Annum-pī-Aja did not have any sons, or that his son, who would have been called Šamaš-tappašu, following the traditional succession of sanga names, died before him. The last hypothesis is not impossible since the length of his career was somewhere between 30 and 55 years. This is the first time in some two hundred years that such a situation arises. Since, as we saw before, the names given at birth were not changed, the brother kept his name Sîn-iqīšam, breaking the old tradition of sanga names of the family. 3.3. The Place of ARN 174 The witness list of this text is broken and all that remains of the first witness is [....] dumu Warad-

(1999, 277 sq and 312 sq), on the basis of the presence or absence of the pronominal suffix after alan. Ad 5 does not have it, and Ad 30 does (with few exceptions). On TCL I, 151 the suffix is present. 7 [dEN.ZU-i-qí-ša-am] sanga d[utu] dumu ìr [dEN.ZU] ìr ┌am┐-[mi-di-ta-na.ke4] Correct Colbow (1998, 173:2502:3) accordingly. The seal was omitted on TCL I, LXXXII n°151. 8 Continued on the obverse under the text.

i.b. the first sangas Sîn sanga Šamaš. This would normally be no problem, since the next sanga always was the son of the preceding one. However, as we just saw, Sîniqīšam is a brother of his predecessor Annum-pīAja and so this could apply to the preceding sanga as well. The second sanga cannot help us because there is none in this text. The date of the text is lost and the only chronological information to be derived from prosopography is that Mardukmuballi, son of Sîn-erībam (last witness) also appears in OLA 21, 54, dated Ad 4 and MHET 911, dated A 16, assuming this is the same person. The reason we have placed this text as the very first one of Sîn-iqīšam is the addition of the patronymic in the witness list. This is most unusual for a sanga and thus probably is an indication of a special situation. Another text, mentioning Ilšu-ibnīšu, Sîn-iqīšam’s son and successor, also adds the father’s name, but this text is dated. This allows us to see that, as far as our scarce attestations go, this is the first text in which Ilšu-ibnīšu uses his own seal (he starts by using his father’s). This first use of a seal to his name is accompanied in the text by the mention that he is Sîn-iqīšam’s son, stressing the fact that the succession is from father to son. Why was it felt necessary to stress this? This might be because for his father this had not been the case: he was not the son but the brother of his predecessor. The restoration of the normal procedure had to be explicitly stated. But, we may wonder, if the restoration was marked, would, a fortiori, the break of the tradition not have been marked? And here ARN 174 could fit in. If, as the text allows, we date it somewhere towards the beginning of Ammi-ditana (after Ad 5, last attestation of Annum-pī-Aja) it could be the first attestation of Sîn-iqišam, marking through the mention of the patronymic in the witness list the very special situation of a brother succeeding instead of a son, something that had never occurred before.

69

4. The Location of the Seal On Di 690 the sellers take precedence in sealing. They seal on the upper edge, but because they are four, they continue sealing on the left edge/ margin. First comes the seal of the first seller, Amat-Šamaš, a nadītum of Šamaš, on the upper edge and the top of the left edge and margin. She is followed on left edge and margin by the second seller, her brother. The next sealing on the left edge is that of the first sanga, whose seal also appears on the right edge. After him, still on the left edge, we find the second sanga. On the left margin of the obverse the fourth seller then follows. The third seller, his brother, does not seem to seal. On the lower edge and the reverse the other witnesses roll their seal. TCL I, 151 is the first sealed tablet on which a sanga seals. It is remarkable that a field sale should be written on anything else than a tablet with a case or a ‘Quasi Hülle’. The explanation might be that there originally was an envelope to this tablet and that, exceptionally, both were sealed. The upper edge and top of the obverse and right edge are sealed by the seller, Amatbēltim, a nadītum. The second seal on the left edge and obverse belongs to the first sanga. The third seal on the left edge and obverse is that of the second sanga. 5. Conclusion The pattern of sealing observed for the previous sanga at the beginning of Ammi-ditana is continued: the upper edge and, when there is not enough space there, the top of the left edge are sealed by parties to the contract, followed by the witnesses among whom the sangas rank first.

i. the texts and the seals

70

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu9 Son of Sîn-iqīšam 12 Texts Ammi-ditana 32—Ammi-aduqa 1110 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used his father’s

his own

(Fig. 9) EN.ZU-i-qí-ša-[am] sanga d[utu] dumu ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] ìr am-mi-di-ta-na.┌ke4┐

(Fig. 10) dingir-šu-ib-┌ni┐-[šu11] sanga d[utu] dumu dEN.ZU-┌i-qí-┐[ša-am] ìr am-mi-a-┌du┐-[qá.ke412]

d

2. Attestations13 (the name of the second sanga Etel-pī-Nabium is abbreviated as EpN in the rightmost column) Reference Di 2129

Date QH

Ad 32/[]/10

Genre

Name

sale field

Location of the Seal

Ilšu-ibnīšu

L.E. third. (L.Mg. broken)

Owner 14

father’s

15

2nd Sanga EpN ”

Di 2163

QH

Ad [32]/[]/10

certificate

Ilšu-ibnīšu

L.E., L.Mg. third

father’s

Di 933

sT

Ad 36/2/1

consignment

Ilšu-ibni

Obv. left, third (?)

[?]

(”)16

Di 1147

sT

A 3/1/26

field lease

Ilšu-ibnīšu17

Rev.

own18

none19

Di 1804

QH

A 5/[...]/2

donation

Ilšu-ibnīšu

[not preserved]

Di 984

sT

A 6/8/6

(unclear)

(Ilšu-ibni)21

[not preserved]

22

Di 821

sT

A 11/7/14

hire divine weapon

(Ilšu-ibni)

MHET 906

sT

A 14/1/17

field lease

(Ilšu-ibni)25

none20 —

L.E.,R.E. top,U.E.,Rev. bottom

own

—

—

23

[...]24 —

(continued on nex page)

9

First identification in Charpin (1988, 31). For MHET 906, dated A 14, cfr. Comments infra. 11 We opt for the addition of the -šu to the name in the seal legend as being the unabridged name, although all of the impressions are broken past the first part of the name and the seal of his son has ‘dumu dingir-šu-ib-ni’ without the –šu. This last point is not really indicative, since the second sanga Šalim-pāli-Marduk also has his name shortened in the seal legend of his son, where we find ‘Šalim-pālišu’. 12 All preserved impressions break off after the -du but the disposition of the signs allows for a .ke4. 13 In all of these attestations the title sanga dutu is present. First we give the dated texts, then the four with broken dates, in the alphabetical order of the abbreviation of their publication. 14 d EN.ZU-i-qí-ša-[am] sanga d[utu] dumu ìr d┌EN.[ZU] ìr am-mi-di-ta-na.┌ke4┐ 15 d EN.ZU-i-qí-ša-[am] sanga d[utu] dumu ìr d┌EN┐.[ZU] ìr am-mi-di-ta-na.┌ke4┐ 10

16 Not second witness but party to the loan. Second witness is Asallui-bāni gala.ma. 17 The text adds dumu Sîn-iqīšam, confirming our restoration of the broken seal legend. 18 dingir-šu-┌ib┐-[ni-šu] sanga d[utu] dumu dEN.ZU-[i-qí-ša-am] ìr am-mi-a-[du-qá.ke4] 19 Second witness is an ugula dam.gàr, third one a dub.sar. 20 Second witness is a gala.ma of Šamaš, third one an ugula lukur. 21 Not a witness but party. 22 Not a witness, rents out the divine weapon. 23 dingir-šu-[ib-ni-šu] sanga [dutu] dumu dEN.ZU-i-[qí-ša-am] ìr am-mi-a-┌du┐-[qá.ke4] 24 The names of all of the witnesses on this tablet are gone. 25 Not a witness but a neighbour, given as: i-ta a.šà dingir-šu-ib-ni sanga dutu. 26 dingir-[šu-ib-ni-šu] sanga [dutu] dumu dEN.ZU-i-┌qí┐-[ša-am] ìr am-mi-a-┌du┐-[qá.ke4]

71

i.b. the first sangas (cont.) Reference Charpin 1988, 29

Date QH

post A 5 27

Di 1473

QH

A [...]

Di 1674

sT

[post A 528]

MHET 702

sT

31

(d.l.) Ad/A

Genre

Name

Location of the Seal

Owner

2nd Sanga

donation prebend

Ilšu-ibni

L.E., L.Mg. third

own26

EpN

(fragment)

Ilšu-ibni

[UE, LoE, L.E., Obv broken]

[...]

EpN

hire divine weapon

(Ilšu-ibni)29

R.E. [rolled through from L.E.?]

own30

—

33

—

field lease

3. Comments 3.1. Patronymic Although his patronymic is partly broken on his seal, there can be no doubt that he is the son of his predecessor Sîn-iqīšam. This is confirmed by the very explicit statement on Di 1147, dated A 3, where line 22 on the reverse gives the first witness as follows: igi dingir-šu-ib-ni-šu sanga dutu dumu sin-i-/ qí-ša-am

It is probably not by chance that this rare addition is to be found on the first tablet (see our comments on Di 933 below) where he uses his own seal. This reminds us of ARN 174, 27 (cf. supra sub Annum-pī-Aja), another exceptional attestation of a sanga with patronymic. We linked this to the unusual succession between brothers. Which means that in both these cases the addition of the patronymic could be meaningful, not just a whim of the scribe. 3.2. Variants As to the variant writings, it is well known that this name can be written with or without the final -šu, as is the case with the homonymous wellknown overseer of the merchants. 3.3. Two Seals On Di 2163/2129, dated Ad 32, he rolls his father’s seal. From his first attestation under Ammi-

27

The text is unreadable up to the oath. The presence or absence of Ur-Utu cannot be established, so we do not know if it is to be dated before or after A 5, date of his first attestation as gala.ma. 28 Because of the presence of Ur-Utu. 29 Not a witness, rents out the divine weapon. 30 dingir[-šu-ib-ni-šu] ┌ sanga┐ [dutu] ┌ dumu┐ ┌dEN┐.[ZU-i-qi-ša-am] ìr am-mi-[a-du-qá.ke4]

32

(Ilšu-ibni)

Rev.

own

aduqa, in the third year of this king, onwards he uses his own seal. This first attestation is dated A 3 and has Ammi-aduqa’s name in the servant line, which shows that his seal was cut somewhere between A 1 and 3. 3.4. Career This first sanga with an atypical sanga name, just like his father, is attested from Ad 3234 to A 14. The last attestation, MHET 906, dated A 14, is problematic at first sight, since already in A 11/8/24 there is another sanga of Šamas, NūrKabta, probably the son of Ilšu-ibni, who is first witness. The solution is that in MHET 906 Ilšu-ibni is not an active participant. His name is used to specify a neighbouring field. He may still have been alive but no longer active as a sanga or he may have passed away and become a ‘ghost neighbour’. The ownership of the neighbouring field must have remained in the family and was still known, and recorded, as the field of the former (now deceased) owner. The last document where he certainly was alive is the preceding one, dated A 11/7/14 (Di 821). The last attestation of his father and predecessor is Ad 30. This allows us to calculate that his career has a maximum length of nineteen years, from Ad 30 to A 11; the minimum, i.e. his own attestations only, from Ad 32 to A 11, is seventeen years.

31

Date deduced from the presence of Ilšu-ibni. Not a witness, leases a field from a nadītum. 33 dingir-šu-ib-ni-[šu] sanga d[utu] ┌ dumu┐ [dEN.ZU-i]┌qí-[ša-am] [ìr am-mi-a-du-qá.ke4] 34 The restored mention of a witness Ilšu-ibnīšu ┌sanga?┐ d┌ ┐ a -[a] in MHET 890, dated Ad 5, must be an error, as is confirmed by this person’s seal, on which he is the son of Ea-bēl....and a servant of Adad. 32

i. the texts and the seals

72 4. The Location of the Seal35 Reference

Date

U.E.

L.E./L.Mg.

Rev.

First sanga seal

Di 2129

Ad 32/[]/10

sellers 1-336

sellers 2-3 = first and second seals sanga 1 = third [L/Mg. broken] sanga 2 = fourth

(other witnesses)

father’s

Di 2163

Ad [32]/[]/10

[sellers 1-3]

sellers 2-3 = first and second seals sanga 1 = third sanga 2 = fourth

(other witnesses)

father’s

Di 933

Ad 36/2/1

(vacat)

sanga 2 (party)37, sanga 1 (witness 1) and witness 2

witness 2

┌ ┐

Di 1147

A 3/1/26

lessor 1

lessors 1-4

sanga 1 second witness

own

Di 1804

A 5/[...]/2

donator

donator =top [sanga 1 = second?]

Di 984

A 6/8/6

party?

same party

unidentified

Di 821

A 11/7/14

sanga 1

sanga 1 (+ R.E.,U.E.) = top

sanga 1 = bottom

charpin 1988

post A 5

[ gone]

parties = first and second sanga 1 = third ( = D) sanga 2 = fourth ( = E)

Di 1674

[post A 5]

[sanga 1?]

sanga 1 = top

MHET 702

(d.l.) Ad/A

—

—

5. Comments on Individual Texts Di 2129 and 2163 show a striking parallelism in sealing, as could be expected. Indeed, they are a sale contract and a ‘certificate’ belonging to the same dossier. Inanna-mansum, galama of Annunītum, has bought a field but some previous documents concerning sales of this field are missing. As a result of this, a ‘certificate’ is drawn up, starting with the characteristic ‘aššum uppi ummātim u uppāt šurdê’ to guarantee the rightful ownership of Inanna-mansum and to make up for the loss of documents. Both were drawn up (probably) on the same day, before the same witnesses who use their same seals. The order is clear. The three sellers seal on the upper edge (broken but to be reconstructed on Di 2163) and the second and third one again on the left edge and left margin downwards. The second seller even rolls his seal twice on the L.E. and L.Mg. Then follow the witnesses of whom only the first two, the sangas, appear on the obverse (left edge and left margin), the others follow on the lower edge (one seal) and the reverse (margin and bottom).

35

Di 1473 is only a fragment. It is the lower part of the reverse. It contains no seals of sangas and has thus been omitted here.

?

own own

sanga 1 (lessee)

own

On Di 933, a sealed tablet recording a consignment (šūbultum), the seal of the first sanga (=first witness) is probably to be found on the left side of the obverse, under the text, after that of the second sanga Etel-pī-Nabium who is a party in the text: he will bring silver to Babylon. The state of preservation of the tablet, unfortunately, does not allow us to determine whether Ilšu-ibni uses his father’s or his own seal. This is particularly frustrating because the date of the text places it possibly at the transition point between the use of both seals. The upper edge is not sealed. On Di 1147, another sealed tablet, the upper edge, the left edge and (probably) the lower edge are sealed by the four lessors of the field. On the lower part of the reverse, the two witnesses (not the scribe who is last witness) rolled their seal: the first one being our sanga Ilšu-ibni, using his own seal, probably for the first time. The second one is the overseer of the merchants Ibni-Adad. Ilšu-ibni uses his own seal and in the text his patronymic is added, which could be interpreted as two related facts: the normal sequence of father to son is now re-established after the parenthesis

36 37

All three use their father’s seals. Among whom the second sanga.

i.b. the first sangas of his father succeeding to a brother. This is not marked in the text as long as he uses his father’s seal but as soon as he uses his own. If this is so, then Di 1147, dated A 3 would be the first document on which he rolled his own seal. This would mean that on Di 933, dated a few years before, he still used his father’s seal. Di 1804 is a donation tablet from Inanna-mansum, chief dirge singer (galama) of Annunītum to his wife Ilša-egalli. In fact, the original donation document had been lost and Di 1804 ‘revives’ it38. To us, it is interesting to note that, to witness a (private) document of a galama, the sanga of Šamaš from Sippar Jarūrum, Inanna-mansum’s ‘colleague’ Asallui-bāni, the galama of Šamaš (as in Di 933), an overseer of the nadiātum and the famous Sîn-nāir son of Ipqu-Annunītum appear in this order, followed by several others. Like in Di 933 the galama of Šamaš occupies the place otherwise reserved for the second sanga. This tablet, a ‘Quasi-Hülle’, is sealed by the donator on the upper edge (twice) and the top of the left margin. Underneath this, the left margin is broken, but the presence of the seal of the third witness lower down, indicates that those of the first two witnesses, the sanga of Šamaš and the galama of this same deity, must have been rolled on this, now lost, place. That the presence of high dignitaries from Sippar-Jarūrum was no exceptional situation is shown by Di 933, just mentioned, a sealed tablet concerning the consignment (šubultum) of a sizeable amount of silver from Sippar to Babylon. Here too, the sanga of Šamaš of Sippar-Jarūrum, Ilšu-ibni, and the same galama of Šamaš witness the document. Di 984 has rollings of four seals only. The size of the document shows there cannot have been more than three or four witnesses. The first sealing is rolled on the upper part of the tablet: upper edge, top of left and right edge. It could be the seal of one of the parties. The traces are not clear enough to allow identification. The bottom part is sealed by the second witness: obverse, right and lower edge. Again, this is Asallui-bāni, the chief dirge singer (galama) of Šamaš (whose seal we also found on Charpin (1988, 29), seal F and on Di 933). The left edge seems to have another sealing, which may belong to the first witness, Ur-Guanaka, another gala.ma. The sealings on the reverse are too faint to be identified. There is no identifiable trace of Ilšu-ibni’s seal. 38

For a full discussion of this text cfr. Janssen 1992.

73

Di 821 is a small tablet concerning the rent of a divine weapon by the galama Ur-Utu from the sanga of Šamaš, just like Di 1674. There are only two seals rolled on the remains of the tablet, the lower edge is broken away completely. The first one, rolled seven times on left edge, right edge, upper edge and reverse, is that of Ilšu-ibni the sanga, the lessor in the text. This confirms, if need be, that Ur-utu kept in his archive the lease documents sealed by the lessor. The second one, rolled twice on the reverse only, is unidentified. Unfortunately the names of all of the witnesses on the tablet are broken. Charpin 1988, 29 is the donation of a prebend. The top of the document is broken, so the upper edge is gone. On the left margin we find the seals of two sons of Ipqatum, who, according to the text, will not raise a claim in the future. The sons of Sîn-nadin-ae who fall under the same obligation, and are cited before those of Ipqatum in the text, must have sealed the upper edge. After these parties to the contract, follow the first and second sanga, still on the left margin. On Di 1674 we have four seals and five persons: lessor, lessee and three witnesses. Probably the scribe did not seal. At the top of the left edge there are faint traces of a seal legend that could be Ilšu-ibni’s. The upper edge is gone. Since Ilšuibni is not a witness here but the one who leases out the divine weapon, his seal is to be expected at the place where the parties seal : the upper edge and the top of the left edge. The other seals are to be found on the right edge, the lower edge and on the reverse beneath the text. MHET 702 records a field lease to Ilšu-ibni sanga of Šamaš of a one eše and one iku (=± 2,52 ha) field in the irrigation district (a.gàr) 9 gán by a nadītum. It is witnessed by Awīl-Sîn, the overseer of the nadiātum, Adad-šar-ili and Ina-palēšu, the doorkeeper of the gagûm. The seal of the sanga is to be found on the reverse. Normally parties would seal on the upper edge, unfortunately this is very worn, as is the left edge, where we suppose the witnesses sealed. Why the lessee sealed on the reverse is unclear. As it is sealed by him, this document must have been kept in the archive of the lessor. 6. Conclusions The parties to the transaction seal on the upper edge and regularly ‘spill over’ on the top of the

i. the texts and the seals

74

left margin. This means that witnesses such as the sangas seal further down on this margin. On smaller tablets this can even mean that they move to the reverse. When the sanga is not a witness but a party to the transaction, his seal is of course to be found on the upper edge (or all over the tablet as on Di 821).

This sanga still uses his father’s seal under Ammi-ditana but has his own at the latest in A 3. The fact that the servant line contains the name of Ammi-aduqa proves this was not done earlier than the accession of this king. His seal is attested on a Quasi-Hülle tablet, on a sealed tablet but not on a case.

XI. Nūr-Kabta Son of Ilšu-ibni 1 Attestation Ammi-aduqa 11 No seal extant. 1. Attestation Reference CT 6, 6

QH

Date

Genre

Title

Location of seal

Second sanga

A 11/8/4

litigation

sanga dutu

[L.E. penultimate]

Marduk-nāir

2. Comments The text states that Nūr-Kabta, sanga of Šamaš, is the son of Ilšu-ibni. This can hardly be someone else than the preceding sanga. He is the third sanga in a row who states his patronym. A new trend seems to have been set. Unfortunately, this isolated attestation does not allow us to see whether he did this only in one text, which would then be his first one. 2.1. Career His father is attested until A 11/7/14, which means there is not much of a gap between the two: twenty days. This would sustain the idea that CT 6, 6 was his first text and this was the reason to put in the patronym. At the earliest Nūr-Kabta could have started on A/11/7/15 and since his successor is first attested in A 13/11/9, his career can have lasted two years and a little less than four months at most. A minimum length cannot be calculated on the basis of a single attestation. Succession is now rapid: in 44 years there are four sangas. 2.2. Atypical Names and Genealogy Nūr-Kabta is our last certain first sanga of Šamaš. This is the third sanga in a row who does not

39 All ages are given purely for the sake of the argument, they are based on plausibility only.

bear a typical sanga name. Does this mean that the name sequence had been abandoned? Not necessarily. An extract from the sanga family tree will clarify this: VII. Warad-Sîn VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

IX. Sîn-iqīšam

Ad 20-30

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

Ad 32-A 11

Ae-Ad 5

XI. Nūr-Kabta

Ibbi-Ilabrat

A

It could be argued that when Annum-pī-Aja dies and leaves no successor, his brother Sîn-iqīšam, not originally destined to become a sanga, did not have one of the typical sanga names. It is even possible that when he unexpectedly became first sanga, he already had his son Ilšu-ibnīšu who had already received a ‘non sanga’ name. Pushing the argument still further, it could even be that at that same time, Ilšu-ibnīšu already had a son, who would not normally have become a sanga and therefore had no sanga name either. In numbers this could work as follows39:

75

i.b. the first sangas – Annum-pī-Aja has a long career as a sanga (from 30 to 55 years); – when he leaves office (dies?) he might have been about 65 and his younger brother Sîniqīšam takes over at about age 45; – Sîn-iqīšam, being 45, could easily have had a son of 25, Ilšu-ibnīšu; – Ilšu-ibnīšu, being 25, could have a son of 5 years old, Nūr-Kabta; To this we can even add: – a theoretical Šamaš-tappašu, only (surviving) son of Annum-pī-Aja and destined to succeed him, could have died five years before his father; – just before he died, neither Sîn-iqīšam, nor his son Ilšu-ibnīšu would have expected to become first sanga and would have had no reason to choose special sanga names for any of their sons.

the left edge and margin. From there on a zigzag order is followed: the second seller seals on the left edge, the third one (at the same height) on the left margin; one further down the left edge is broken but must have had the seal of the fourth seller, at the same height the left margin is damaged and only the servant lines of the seal impression remain (servant of Sîn and Adad) which must belong to seller 5; one place further down the left edge is still completely gone and this is very unfortunate since this was the place where the first witness, i.e. our first sanga, would have sealed. The left margin becomes readable again and here we have, as expected, the seal of the second witness, being the second sanga (he uses his father’s seal); next on the left edge is the third witness and, at the same height in the left margin we find the fourth witness’ seal. The sealing continues on the lower edge (witness 5) and the left margin of the reverse (witnesses 6 to 11, in good order40

3. The Location of the Seal On CT 6, 6 the order of sealing is very systematic. The first seller seals the upper edge and the top of

XII. Sîn-aam-iddinam Son of Sîn-iqīšam 1 Attestation Ammi-aduqa 13 1. Seal Inscription of the Seal Used41

(Fig. 11) [...] ┌ dumu dEN.ZU-i┐-[qí-ša-am] ìr dnin.┌si4┐.an.[na]

2. Attestation Reference Di 864

sT

Date

Genre

Titles

Filiation

Seal

Second sanga

A 13/11/9

loan of silver42

sanga dutu

son of Sîn-iqīšam

seal + kišib

none

40 The seal of witness 8 is not rolled but between the seals of witnesses 10 and 11 there is a seal that could have been used by him, although it has a legend of which neither the name nor the patronymic correspond: the witness is the judge Nabium-lamassašu, son of Ibni-Adad and the seal is

that of an Ibbi-Ilabrat, son of Ilšu-ibni, servant of Ilabrat. Six years later the owner of the seal uses it himself on TCL I, 170 (A 17). See Colbow, 1998, 175, 184a. 41 The patronymic on the seal legend has been completed on the basis of the text of the tablet.

i. the texts and the seals

76 3. Comments

3.1. Career With his attestation in A 13 he comes some two years and three months after Nūr-Kabta, the preceding first sanga. Since he is the last attested first sanga we do not know until when he held office. 3.2. A Problem? There is another attestation, in Di 878, dated A 10 (broken month, eleventh day) of a Sîn-aamiddinam, son of Sîn-iqīšam, sanga d[...] without seal. Because of the date and the patronymic he could hardly be other than the son of the same sanga of Šamaš, appearing in Di 864, three years later. If this is true then there is an overlap with the preceding first sanga, Nūr-Kabta, attested in A 11. A solution could be to list Sîn-aam-iddinam with the sangas of the Edikuda in SipparAmnānum (cf. infra) but, if he is to be placed there, his attestations for A 10 to 13 would overlap with Ikūn-pī-Sîn (A 12) and Ibni-Šērum (A 13), sangas of Šamaš of the Edikuda. The only way out we have—apart from the improbable assumption that there was more than one first sanga at the same time—is to suppose that it is indeed the same person, but that he started out in A 10 as sanga of another deity. This is indirectly confirmed by the fact that in Di 878 (where the deity is broken) he is only second witness after a person without a title. A second position would befit the sanga of another deity much more than the sanga of Šamaš. If this were true, his only attestation as sanga Šamaš is A 13/11/9. The consequence is that he then could belong in the Edikuda as the successor of Ibni-Šērum. Ibni-Šērum is attested there as sanga of Šamaš in a single document dated A 13/7 and Sîn-aam-iddinam would then fit in a few months later, in A 13/11. The same argument could place him in the Šamaš temple in Sippar-Jarūrum. He could come after Nūr-Kabta (A 11), still supposing he was sanga of another deity in A 10. There is one more reason to put him here. He is the son of Sîn-iqīšam (as stated explicitly in both references) and there is a person of that name, grandfather of Nūr-Kabta. If these two Sîn-iqīšams are the same this would give the following family tree: 42

The sanga is not witness but debtor. Son of Sîn-iqīšam.

In this case, the office of first sanga would have gone from grandfather to father to son to uncle. As can be seen, since the time-span of succession is so short, this would not create chronological incompatibilities. 3.3. The Seal Legend Only parts of the last two lines of the legend are preserved. The patronymic is readable as Sîni[...], which, in view of the Sîn-aam-iddinam dumu Sîn-iqīšam in the text, can be restored as Sîn-i[qīšam]. There may however be an element of doubt since a byscript is added over the seal, indicating that it was Sin-a-a-am-i-din-nam who used this seal. We may wonder why this should be added if the legend bore his name in its first line. Such a combination is attested but only exceptionally. Could he have used someone else’s seal? Although this happens often, it would be exceptional for a first sanga of the Ebabbar. On the other hand a seal without the title and with a servant line dedicated to Ninsiana is odd. We have opted to reconstruct the father’s name as Sîn-i[qīšam], implying that Sîn-aam-iddinam’s name was the first line. Theoretically this could also be the seal of a brother, which would explain the absence of the title and the un-sanga-like servant line. In any case it could not be the seal of the brother Ilšu-ibnīšu since this is very different. Our choice will have to be verified on further impressions of this seal, if any ever show up. 4. The Location of the Seal The beginning of Di 864 is broken but enough of it remains to identify the contents. Sîn-aamiddinam takes a loan of silver from Ur-Utu. In fact the latter owes this silver to the storehouse

i.b. the first sangas (nakkamtum) of Sippar-Amnānum but instead of paying it back directly he first lends it, no doubt to make some additional profit. Sîn-aam-iddinam, as debtor, is the first to seal and he does so at the top of the left edge. 5. The End of the Line With this sanga we have reached the end of our attestations of first sangas of the Ebabbar. After

77

A 13/11/9 none is attested, although we still have documents from Sippar-Amnānum until A 18 and from Sippar-Jarūrum well into Samsuditana. It is true that the general number of texts declines in this period and that sales or inheritances of real estate—the text genres in which the sangas appear most often—are very scarce. But, as is well known, absence of evidence does not necessarily equate evidence of absence.

78

i. the texts and the seals

79

i.c. before the second sanga

I.C. BEFORE THE SECOND SANGA From the time of the independent rulers of Sippar and the first kings of Babylon until somewhere during the reign of Sabium, the sanga of Šamaš appears alone, not accompanied by a second sanga. Although there was no second sanga, we see that the role of second witness was filled by people

who must then have occupied the second highest rank in the temple hierarchy. We will discuss the careers of five persons occupying this place from the earliest texts until the appearance of the second sanga.

1. Ilum-mušallim1 a. Seal Inscription (B 262 = 243 = 514 = GW 1980 14a = GW 1988 pl. XXIV 182a)

(Fig. 12) dingir-mu-ša-lim ì.du8 ká ga-gu-um

b. Attestations Text5

Date

Genre

—

First sanga

T

Im oath

wedding

—

VS 8, 5

C

”

”

[...]

L.E. second

BDHP 14

T

Im oath

inheritance

—

—

Annum-pīšu

—

8

”

C

”

”

c. Comments In our two earliest documents the second witness is Ilum-mušallim, whose profession is not given in the texts but appears from his seal impression on the case of, e.g., BDHP 14 to be doorkeeper of the gagûm (ì.du8 ká ga-gu-um) which, contrary See already Harris (1975, 194). The seal inscription, as transliterated in Blocher 1992a, p. 25 only gives the first sign of each line. Since Ilum-mušallim is the only doorkeeper in the text, it must be his seal. 3 Again, the inscription is broken but what remains of it together with the figure allows us to identify this with Ilum-mušallim’s seal, especially since he is one of the witnesses. B 24 is to be found on MHET 7. 4 This is the impression of this seal on CT 45, 1 (a drawing is also given in the CT volume), given in Blocher 1992a as tablet X. We have not listed it since it contains no sanga. 2

Seal

VS 8, 4

7

1

Title

L.E. top

Annum-pī-Šamaš 6

[...]

to what might seem, must not have been a lowly function9. We have six texts in which he is a witness10. Concerning the sealing order as reflecting the hierarchy, we have to distinguish between his absolute and his relative position in the witness list. 5 For the order of the texts, we refer to our discussion of the first sanga Annum-pī-Šamaš, son of Warad-Sîn, above. 6 Only the figure is visible, not the seal legend. 7 Only the textual variants vis à vis the tablet are given in BDHP, not the seals. 8 Complete legend. 9 Cf. the similar remarks in Harris (1975, 165) concerning the courtyard sweeper of the Ebabbar (kisal.lu é.babbar). 10 CT 4, 47b (mu Ii-Sumu-abum ba.ug cfr Podanyi 2002, 1=Im); VS 8, 4/5 (Im); BDHP 14 (Im); CT 4, 50a (Im+Sle); MHET 7 (Im); BDHP 31/CT 45,1 (Sle+Bti).

i. the texts and the seals

80

As to his absolute position in the whole of the witness list, he is second, fourth, fifth, eighth or ninth witness. How are we to interpret this changing position? Generally, in these early times, the group of temple personnel as a whole appears in the middle of the witness list. They are always recognisable by the fact that they have no patronymics, in contrast with the other witnesses. Visibly only the presence of a sanga could move this group to the top of the list, as in VS 8, 4, BDHP 14 and MHET 7, though not always, as in CT 4, 50a (cf. supra Sanga’s not fist witnesses). This absolute position is thus not relevant for the determination of the temple hierarchy. As to the his position relative to the other temple personnel, it is clear that as soon as the overseer of the nadiātum is present, under Immerum, he takes the second place after the sanga and Ilummušallim moves to the third place.11 In MHET 7 (Im), he even moves to the fourth place after the sanga, Būr-Nunu the overseer and Būr-Nunu’s sister who also is an overseer. Exceptionally, he heads the temple personnel in CT 4, 47b (year Ii-Sumu-Abum died) and BDHP 31/CT 45, 1 dated Sumu-la-El-Buntatun-ila, no doubt simply in the absence of the overseer and the sanga. In all of his six texts Ilum-mušallim comes before people known to be messengers (rá.gab) from other texts: Damu-galzu12, Lu-dāri13 and UtuENGUR.A-nīšī14. In other words, Ilum-mušallim ranked lower than the sanga and the overseer of the nadiātum (as soon as there was one) but higher than the other temple personnel, being the messengers, except for a singer (nar), as we shall see in the next section. Amurrum-bāni, his son, will follow in his father’s footsteps as doorkeeper of the gagûm, as we learn from his seal inscription (B 8115) rolled

11

Lion 2001, 28 n 64 quite correctly states that the reading of this seal in al-Rawi/Dalley 2000, 126 is mistaken: the last line is not é lugal ┌gu?-du8?-a?┐ but ká ga-gu-um, a reading that (with some goodwill) can be reconciled with the copy on plate 53. 12 Attested once as dub.sar in CT 4, 47b (year in which Ii-Sumu-abum died) and rá.gab NÍG é dutu in MHET 7 dated to Immerum. Out of the six texts (see note 11) he is absent in CT 4, 50a only. He always comes right after Ilum-mušallim. 13 He is rá.gab according to CT 4, 50a, dated to Immerum and Sumu-la-El. Present in CT 4, 47b, VS 8, 4/5 and CT 4, 50a. 14 Who is rá.gab NÍG é dutu in CT 45, 1 (case of BDHP 31), dated to Sumu-la-El and Buntatun-ila. Present in CT 4, 47b, VS 8, 4/5 and BDHP 31/CT 45, 1.

on CT 48, 3116 dated to Sumu-la-El. His career extends from Sumu-la-El to Sabium17. Amurrumbāni will never take the second witness position which confirms our idea that the two texts in which his father was second witness were exceptions. When Amurrum-bāni, the son of Ilummušallim, takes over the title of doorkeeper, under Sumu-la-El, he moves yet one more place down because the order now is: sanga, overseer, rá.gab, doorkeeper. This order is maintained during the reign of Sumu-la-El18. In conclusion, Ilum-mušallim had to be mentioned since he sealed two documents after the sanga but in reality he did so—in all probability— only because an overseer was absent or otherwise engaged. d. Location of the Seal As a second witness, he rolls his seal under that of the first sanga on the left edge of the case. When the sanga seals on the upper edge, the seal of Ilummušallim is the top one of the left edge (BDHP 14). When the sanga seals at the top of the left edge, the seal of Ilum-mušallim is the second one on this same edge (VS 8, 5). The next two second witnesses, Imlik-Sîn and Būr-Nunu, belong to the well known family of overseers of the nadiātum of Šamaš. We will discuss their sealing practice and elaborate a little on their family.

2. Imlik-Sîn a. Seal There is no seal impression available for this person.

15 d

[mar].tu-ba-ni dumu dingir-mu-ša-lim ì.du8 ša ká ga-gi-im 16 Case of CT 8, 44a. 17 CT 6, 26a, CT 47, 1 and MHET 28. Later, there is an Iballu son of Ilum-mušallim who is ugula lukur dutu (CT 6, 33b, AS 8) also mentioned without title but with patronymic in CT 6, 46 (AS 13), CT 6, 35a (s.d.) and MHET 661 (s.d.). It seems probable that this is a younger brother who is overseer of the nadiātum under Apil-Sîn. 18 Without a sanga as first witness he is second in CT 33, 42 (s.d.), CT 33, 43 (s.d.), MHET 784 (s.d.), Walker 1978, 235-36 (Sumu-la-El). With a sanga he is third in CT 47, 1 (Sumu-la-El), CT 6, 30a (Sumu-la-El), CT 45, 2 (Sumu-la-El), CT 33, 43 (Sumu-la-El).

81

i.c. before the second sanga b. Attestation Text CT 4, 50a

Date

Genre

Title

First witness

Seal

Im+Sle

sale garden

nar

Annum-pī-Šamaš sanga

none

In CT 4, 50a Imlik-Sîn19 the singer (nar), son of Būr-Sîn20, is intercalated between the sanga and Ilum-mušallim21 which shows that a singer took precedence over a doorkeeper. Again, this is so because there is no overseer in the text. We will come back on him in our next section, on his son Būr-Nunu. 3. Būr-Nunu a. Seal Inscription (= B 73 = Klengel-Brandt 1989, 257 fig. 322)

This seal provides us with the link to Imlik-Sîn since the texts themselves do not give a patronymic. b. Attestations The oldest attestation we have of a Būr-Nunu dates under Ilumma-ila (MHET I, 3) but it is impossible to know whether it might be this one25. His title of overseer appears for the first time under Sumu-la-El, in MHET 18. The texts with temple personnel as witnesses, headed by the sanga, during Būr-Nunu’s career26, are the following (the order of the texts is the same as the one used in our discussion of the first sangas supra):

(Fig. 13) bur-nu-nu ugula nin.dingir dutu23 dumu im-lik-dEN.ZU (figure) ìr é.babbár24 Text MHET 7 ” CT 6, 30a CT 45, 2 ”

Date T Im oath C

”

T Sle oath

Subject

First witness

Sec. witn.

Title of second witness

Seal sec. witn27

sale house

Annum-pī-Šamaš

Būr-Nunu

—

—

”

”

[...]

[...]

(U.E., L.E. broken)

inheritance

Šamaš-tappašu

Būr-Nunu

—

—

T Sle oath sale real estate C

”

”

—

—

—

—

Šamaš-┌tappašu┐

Būr-Nunu

[ugula KU lukur] NÍG dutu

L.E. top

19 Imlik-Sîn is first witness out of nine in MHET 4, where his father’s name, Būr-Sîn, is added. Harris (1975, 175) wrongly lists him as Imgur-Sîn. 20 There is a problem with the name of Imlik-Sîn’s father. MHET 4 (collated) gives gives Imlik-Sîn as the son of burd EN.[x] which must surely be completed to Būr-Sîn on the tablet (the case is broken at this point), whereas al-rawi/ dalley 2000, text 113 give Būr-Aja, according to their copy ‘dumu bur-da-a’ on pl. 50 (but listed erroneously as burīja in the Index, p. 148 under im-lik-Sin). The BUR looks more like a SANGA, but this does not make much sense, since the title sanga Aja does not yet exist and the formulation ‘son of the sanga of Aja’ would be exceptional. The name Būr-Aja exists in Sippar although it is less common than Būr-Sîn. In view of the position in the witness list among the temple personnel, it is not very likely that there would have been two Imlik-Sîns, and that their respective father’s names would both have started with Būr-. Can this be a scribal error? Awaiting further evidence, we opt for Būr-Sîn as the father’s name.

21 The fact that six witnesses precede Annum-pī-Šamaš is not important here, it is the order of the sanga and the following witnesses that counts (cf. supra The sanga of Šamaš not first witness). 22 The drawing of this seal in this publication is very fragmentary; the legend is not copied. 23 In these texts ugula nin.dingir dutu and ugula lukur d utu must mean the same, since in a number of them his profession is written with lukur whereas it is nin.dingir on his seal. See now m. stol 2000, 458, where definitive proof is given for this equation. 24 This line is not written within the frame of the legend but between the figures of the seal. That is probably the reason why it is omitted in CT 48, 31. 25 We know for a fact that there were other Būr-Nunus at that time. 26 Or at least the traces of it in our documentation. 27 Legend complete on CT 45, 2, CT 48, 31, MHET 18 and VS 8, 13.

i. the texts and the seals

82 Text

Date

CT 2, 35

T Sle oath

CT 8, 44a

T Sle oath

CT 48, 31

C

MHET 18

T Sle oath

”

”

C

”

Subject

First witness

Sec. witn.

inheritance

Šamaš-tappašu

Damu-galzu

sale threshing floor

—

”

Li[pit-Ištar]

sale field

Lipit-Ištar

”

”

Būr-Nunu

28

Title of second witness

Seal sec. witn27

—

— d

ugula [KU? lukur NÍG] utu

—

”

”

Lo.E.

Būr-Nunu

—

— d

[ugula] KU lukur NÍG utu Lo.E.29 twice

”

CT 2, 33

T

Sle /-/-

freeing

Lipit-Ištar

Būr-Nunu

—

—

CT 2, 34

T Sle oath

uppi l.r.

Lipit-Ištar

Būr-Nunu

—

—

CT 6, 26a

T

wedding

Lipit-Ištar

Būr-Nunu

ugula KU lukur NÍG dutu

— [...]

BM 17105 VS 8, 12

30

Sle+Sa

C

”

”

”

[...]

[...]

T

Sa oath

inheritance

Lipit-Ištar

Būr-Nunu

—

— d

VS 8, 13

C

”

”

”

”

ugula KU lukur NÍG utu

Lo.E. twice

CT 47, 1

T

Sa

donation

Lipit-Ištar

Būr-Nunu

—

—

—

—

MHET 28

T

Sa oath

bequest

Lipit-Ištar

There is another text, MHET 17 and its case CT 8, 28a32 (= Blocher 1992a, 73), dated Sumu-la-El by the oath, in which Būr-Nunu is not mentioned although his seal is impressed on the bottom of its left edge, whereas he usually seals on the upper edge, lower edge or the top of the left edge. This reminds us of the first sanga Šamaš-tappašu (our first sanga VI). During his office the sanga seal33 was impressed on the bottom of the reverse of two cases, also a most lowly place. As in the case of this first sanga, the lower position of the seal may be linked to its use in absentia of Būr-Nunu. Its presence can be explained by the fact that this is a litigation in the Šamaš temple and both parties are ladies, most probably nadiātum.

Būr-Nunu

31

is another matter. He is the father of Būr-Nunu. Normally we would suppose the father ended his career before the son began, but in this case they hold different offices: the father is singer and the son is overseer. The one did not inherit the title from the other. Basing ourselves on the fatherson sequence and the fact that the father is never attested together with his son, we tend to favour the sequential rather than the contemporaneous order. This would mean that Imlik-Sîn, attested under Immerum/Sumu-la-El, could have been second witness because there was no overseer yet.

c.1. The First Overseer Ever The first attested overseer of the nadiātum is Būr-Nunu, from Immerum on. Why is he not always second witness? In our discussion of Ilum-mušallim we supposed that he was second witness when the overseer was absent. Imlik-Sîn

c.2. Career After Imlik-Sîn, who is attested only once in the position immediately after the sanga34, his son, Būr-Nunu, an overseer of the nadiātum35 will consistently hold this second position in all of the texts where the sanga of Šamaš is first witness. His career starts under Immerum, probably at the end of this king’s reign since he is attested only once under Immerum and eight times under Sumu-la-El. He lasts the whole thirty-six years of Sumu-la-El and some years into the reign of

28 On the tablet Lipit-Ištar’s name is omitted and BūrNunu is first witness (with title). 29 With his sister Erišti-Aja, daughter of Imlik-Sîn. She also is an overseer of the nadiātum, according to her seal inscription (B 78). The patronymic on the seal is erroneously transcribed as im-lik-dIM in CT 48, 31. 30 Unpublished case, composed of BM 17105, 17015A and 17119. The composition and the seals are given in Blocher 1992a, 42 (his tablet XX). 31 Erroneously given as Kununu in MHET. 32 This text was not cited in our chapter on the first sangas, since it does not mention one (neither on tablet

nor on case) and is not sealed by one. 33 A seal with the name of his grandfather was used in these instances. 34 Unless, of course, the Sîn-imitti appearing before Imlik-Sîn and other temple personnel in al-Rawi/Dalley 2000 text 113 is a sanga (cf. infra Sîn-ennam second sanga). 35 He is not to be confused with Būr-Nunu (no title) son of Nanna-mansum (also Im: BAP 35). To add to the confusion, this Nanna-mansum has another son, Šamaštappašu (gìr.nitá in CT 8, 1 only) who is of course not the sanga. Finally, under Apil-Sîn, there is a Nanna-mansum ugula lukur dutu (CT 45, 11(6), dated AS 18).

c. Comments

83

i.c. before the second sanga Sabium, a total career of nearly forty years. In all, he is second witness under no less than three successive sangas of Šamaš. Due to the absence of year names on most of the Sabium texts it is difficult to pinpoint the end of his career more precisely. In CT 6, 40c, dated Sa 2, where temple personnel witness, not he, but Adad-rēmēni of the Damu-galzu family is second witness (cf. infra). In Sa 12 (MHET 45) his son Ilabrat-bāni has taken over as shown by the mention of his overseership on his seal36. This must mean that Būr-Nunu’s career was over by then. Whether it had already stopped in Sa 2 we cannot say. c.3. Comments on Individual Texts CT 45, 2 is a problem. On the tablet there is no sanga, nor an overseer of the nadiātum among the witnesses. They only appear on the case, where they are the first witnesses, followed by two other persons, probably also temple personnel. The sanga of Šamaš is Šamaš-tappašu. The second witness’ name is broken but the end of the line seems to have [N]ÍG dutu according to the transcription in CT 45 (no copy of the case is given). If the text had been later we would no doubt have concluded, as did the author of CT 45, that the second witness was the second sanga. The problem is that, at this time, under Sumu-la-El, there is not yet a second sanga. And even if there had been one, this title is never written with NÍG. What would fit here is [ugula KU lukur N]ÍG dutu, implying that the broken name was Būr-Nunu. This fits in nicely with the fact that his seal is rolled at the top of the left edge, a position befitting a second witness. The sanga will no doubt have sealed the upper edge which is now gone. Collation indeed reveals that there are traces of the second line of the witness list, which can be read ┌bur-nu┐ [...]37. Which solves the problem. The text CT 2, 35 is an exception at first sight. Here Damu-galzu is second witness after the sanga whereas Būr-Nunu is only seventh. We can be confident that this is a scribal mistake. Indeed, the first three witnesses are the sanga, Damu-galzu, the messenger (rá.gab), and Amurrum-bāni, the doorkeeper of the gagûm, son of Ilum-mušallim38. Then follows the brother of the nadītum who bestows her inheritance in the text. Finally there is a group of seven nadiātum. Būr-Nunu is given 36

In Sa 13 we find the first mention of his title in texts. The restoration of the fourth witness as bu[r nu-nu] dumu [i]m-li[k dEN.]ZU by CT 45, 2 must then be discarded. 37

after the first two of these. The scribe must have forgotten him and added his name as soon as he realised his mistake. On the, now lost, case of this text the names were in all probability given in the right order. It is clear that Būr-Nunu should have held the second place, as he does e.g. in CT 6, 26a (Sabium oath) where we find the same persons in the ‘normal’ order: the sanga (now Lipit-Ištar), Būr-Nunu, the overseer, Damu-galzu, the messenger (rá.gab), and Amurrum-bāni, the doorkeeper (ì.du8). So, in fact this text is no exception to the second place of Būr-Nunu. c.4. Sealing Practice Date

Reference

Location

Sle

CT 45, 2

left edge top

Sle

CT 8, 28a

left edge lowest

Sle

CT 48, 31

lower edge

Sle

MHET 18

lower edge twice

Sa

VS 8, 13

lower edge twice

On CT 45, 2 the seal of the sanga Šamaš-tappašu is no longer to be found, which is no doubt due to the loss of the UE. Būr-Nunu seals at the top of the left edge. On CT 8, 28a the left edge is sealed first with two uninscribed seals followed by that of BūrNunu. The upper edge also bears an uninscribed seal. On the lower edge the first judge of this trial rolled his seal. There are no seals on the reverse. At this time the upper and lower edges seem to be the most important sealing places and this is confirmed by the present document insofar as the first judge seals the lower edge. This means that on CT 8, 28a the most important people sealed the upper and lower edges and the others followed on the left edge of the obverse. Būr-Nunu’s seal is then the last one and this although he must have ranked high. As we supposed above, the explanation might lie in his absence from the witness list of tablet as well as case. This reminds us of first sangas whose seal used in absentia was added as the last one too. This is confirmed, by contrast, by CT 48, 31 where Būr-Nunu seals on the lower edge and the sanga Lipit-Ištar (using his father’s seal) on the upper edge; on the left (and right) edge we find 38 Their titles are not given in CT 2, 35 but known from other texts.

i. the texts and the seals

84

the seals of other witnesses. The difference with CT 8, 28a is that in the witness list of this case Būr-Nunu is present as second witness39. On MHET 18 we observe the same pattern. The upper edge is now lost but Lipit-Ištar, the sanga, must have sealed there. On the lower edge we again find the seal of Būr-Nunu but this time he is not alone there: his siter Erišti-Aja, also overseer of the nadiātum seals beside him although she is not mentioned in the text. Obviously, the sister could seal with her brother. VS 8, 13 also has lost its upper edge where, no doubt, the seal of the same sanga was rolled. Būr-Nunu seals twice on the lower edge (without his sister) and the remaining parts of the left and right edge show traces of seals among which that of Adad-rēmēni, third witness.

The second pattern is illustrated by the other documents. Here the most important witnesses seal on the upper and lower edge; the next ones seal down the left edge. There is one exception, CT 8, 28a, where the seal of Būr-Nunu, second witness, is the last one to be rolled, apparently because he was absent, as his name is not to be found in the witness lists of neither case nor tablet. As stated above, when Būr-Nunu’s career stops, his son Ilabrat-bāni takes over, somewhere during the reign of Sabium. 4. Adad-rēmēni Son of Damu-galzu There may have been a (small?) gap between the father and the son. Indeed, there are two texts in which no overseer is mentioned after the sanga. Instead, Adad-rēmēni, son of Damu-galzu is second witness in both. From his seal on the second tablet we know he is a messenger (rá.gab). He is mentioned as a witness in a number of texts (see further under the Damu-galzu family) but only twice immediately after the sanga:

d. Conclusion Two clearly distinguished sealing patterns are illustrated here. The first one, with a sealing order going from the upper edge to the top of the left edge and further down is illustrated by the earliest document, CT 45, 2. Date

Genre

First witness

Sec. witness

Title sec.w.

Seal sec.w.

CT 6, 40c

T

Sa 2

silver loan

Lipit-Ištar

Adad-rēmēni

—

—

BM 82513

C

”

”

”

”

—

own40 Lo.E.

T

s.d.

litigation

”

”

—

—

C

Sa

”

”

”

—

CT 48, 27 ”

It may be that Būr-Nunu died (or relinquished his office) before Sa 2 and his son did not take over immediately. The two texts cited above would then date from that gap and thus not have an overseer as second witness. We might even go a step further on the basis of MHET 35 (Sabium) where the last two witnesses are Adad-rēmēni and Ilabrat-bāni in that order. They are certainly the sons of Damu-galzu and Būr-Nunu respectively,

as proven by their seals on the cases. Could this be construed as a sign for a temporary precedence of Adad-rēmēni over the young Ilabratbāni? Another interpretation, equally possible, is that, for whatever reason, Būr-Nunu or his son were absent when these two texts were written. A consequence of this would be, as stated above, that in Sa 2 either Būr-Nunu or his son could have been in office.

5. Ilabrat-bāni, Son of Būr-Nunu Date CT 6, 19a

T

Genre Sa

sale house

39 On the tablet he is first witness and the sanga fourth, see supra III. Lipit-Ištar. 40 d iškur-[re-me-ni] rá.[gab]

First witness Lipit

41

41

Sec.witness

Title

Seal

Ilabrat-bāni

—

—

šá é ga-[gu-um] ìr d┌utu┐ [da-a] The text stops after the Lipit-, omitting the –Ištar.

85

i.c. before the second sanga The fact that he is second witness instead of his father seems to indicate that he has replaced him, although the title is not given in this text. Since his father is still overseer in a few texts dated Sabium (without a year name), CT 6, 19a must be dated after the first years of this king. In the same text Adad-rēmēni now takes up his expected place as third witness. The first precisely dated attestation of a second sanga is Sa 13, the penultimate year of this king (Išar-Šamaš in CT 2,3 where Ilabrat-bāni is third witness), which makes the probability that CT 6, 19a predates it statistically more probable. This would then be another second witness before the existence of the second sanga. We cannot absolutely exclude that this text is dated in Sa 13 or 14 and that Ilabrat-bāni witnessed as second in line, in absentia of the second sanga, just like in CT 48, 59 dated under Apil-Sîn (when Šumu-Sîn is second sanga) where he is second witness after the same first sanga Lipit-Ištar. We have, up to now, encountered two families: that of Imlik-Sîn, singer, son of Būr-Sîn, father of the first overseer and that of Damu-galzu and his son Adad-rēmēni, both messengers of the temple. It seems clear that the overseers have second witness status and the messengers only obtain this in absentia of the overseers. We will

now explore these more in detail, with special attention to their seals. Excursus 1: The Būr-Sîn Family 1. The Family Tree42 The oldest known representative of this family is Būr-Sîn43, father of Imlik-Sîn (MHET 4). BūrNunu, son of Imlik-Sîn, has a sister, Erišti-Aja, who also is overseer of the nadiātum. This parallelism of brother and sister overseer is continued over the next generations. As far as we know, Būr-Nunu has four children, two sons and two daughters. He may have had many more but those being overseers of the nadiātum are much more present in the textual corpus since, ex officio, they witnessed transactions. One of these four children, Ilabrat-bāni has a son and a daughter, both overseers. The other son of Būr-Nunu, Šamaš-ilum (Apil-Sîn: CT 8, 31 and CT 8, 29c with patronymic), has a son, Sîn-bāni (Sîn-muballi (CT 8, 39a) to a 4 (CT 47, 44)). After three generations, the name BūrNunu reappears44, under a and here we end our short incursion. Schematically, this can be represented as follows: Bªr-Sîn (-Aja?)

Imlik-Sîn nar

1. Bªr-Nunu PA lukur ßá utu (Sle - Sa)

B. Aja-ßitti PA.munus lukur utu (Sa? - AS)

C. Aja-tallik PA.munus lukur utu (AS - Sm)

2. Ilabrat-båni PA lukur utu (Sa 12 - AS)

3. Ninßubur-mansum PA lukur utu (AS 18 - Sm 17...)

D. Aja-rºßat PA lukur utu (Sm)

Eriß-ilum (Im)

A. Erißti-Aja PA.munus lukur utu (Sle)

fiamas-ilum — (AS)

Aja-tallik lukur utu (AS)

4. Sîn-båni PA lukur utu (Sm - ·a 34)

5. Bªr-Nunu PA.munus lukur utu (·a 8 - 34)

The Būr-Sîn family. The numbers indicate the sequence of male overseers, the letters that of the female ones45. 42

See already Stol 2000, 438-439 with note 15. Or Būr-Aja, cfr supra. 44 There is no direct statement that this Būr-Nunu is the son of Ninšubur-mansum but on Di 707 (a 16) he uses 43

the seal of his grandfather, precisely the same seal which was also used by Ninšubur-mansum until the end of his career. If he uses this seal in a 16 we suppose he must have inherited it from his father, i.e. Ninšubur-mansum.

i. the texts and the seals

86

A notable fact is that none of the overseers in this family had a name with Šamaš in it. The only person with a Šamaš name was Šamaš-ilum, and he never was overseer. All lady overseers on the contrary, have an Aja name. The male family tradition obviously was the driving force for name giving. For the ladies, their priestly destination was the determining factor (at birth?) as is abundantly proven by the standard stock of nadītum names. 2. Brothers and Sisters There is a tradition in three successive generations of this family to have a brother and sister overseer of the nadiātum: Brother

Sister

generation 1 generation 2

Būr-Nunu Ilabrat-bāni

generation 3

Ninšubur-mansum Sîn-bāni Būr-Nunu

Erišti-Aja Aja-šitti Aja-tallik Aja-rīšat — —

generation 4

Aja-šitti, daughter of Būr-Nunu, is female overseer certainly under Apil-Sîn (MHET 66; remarkably her title is given in the text but not on her seal rolled on the reverse of this tablet). She is attested earlier with patronymic but without the title (Sa 10 BM 82449, Sa 11 BDHP 22/23 and CT 8, 29b). She is succeeded by her (younger) sister Ajatallik who holds the title in Apil-Sîn (CT 8, 29a with her seal46, giving the patronymic; with title only: CT 6, 43, CT 48, 17) and Sîn-muballi (title but no patronymic: BDHP 24, CT 45, 16(9)). She leaves the title to her niece Aja-rīšat47 under Sîn-muballi. We note that among the children of Būr-Nunu, there were two who became successive ugula lukurs. How could Būr-Nunu foresee that the first one, Aja-šitti, would not live long enough to be succeeded by her niece but that her sister,

45 There are two Aja-talliks in this family. The first one is our C, a female overseer of the nadiātum, daughter of Būr-Nunu whom we know by her seal on CT 8, 29a (the first line of the seal is broken but can be restored with the help of the witness list). The second one is a simple nadītum, daughter of Ilabrat-bāni, and thus niece of the preceding. She is known from BE 6/1, 17 (Apil-Sîn) where her office is not written after her name but where she is listed among well known nadiātum. Eriš-ilum, brother of Būr-Nunu is

Aja-tallik, would take over the title before the niece did? It is possible that he gave a name with Aja to all of his daughters. This is confirmed by the next generation, where we know two daughters of Ilabrat-bāni: Aja-rīšat and Aja-tallik. The former was ugula lukur, the latter was a simple nadītum and never became overseer. 3. The Seal Legends of the Būr-Sîn Family 3.1. For Būr-Nunu’s seal, see above. It has a three line legend: name, office and patronymic, followed by ìr Ebabbar between its figures. Why did the lapicide not cut four lines to contain all of the legend? This may indicate that this is a reused seal. Three lines fitted over one figure and the lapicide did not want to remove the figure with the flowing aryballoi to fit in his fourth line (see our comments in the seal catalogue infra). 3.2. His sister has a seal (B 78, only the legend) found e.g. on MHET 18 lower edge, together with her brother’s, although she is not mentioned in the text. It has the following legend: e-ri-iš-ti-da-a dumu.munus im-lik-dEN.ZU gemé da-a ka-la-tim ugula KU lukur NÍG dutu

3.3. His daughter, Aja-šitti has a seal with a legend found e.g. on MHET 66 where we also find the seal of her brother Ilabrat-bāni: d

a-a-ši-ti dumu.munus bur-nu-nu gemé dutu ù da-a

3.4. His other daughter, Aja-tallik (B 263, top line missing) is found on CT 8, 29a without her brother: [da-a-tal-lik] ugula munus lukur dutu dumu.munus bur-nu-nu gemé dutu da-a

attested in MHET 7 (Im) only. He is a witness in this text, among the temple witnesses but without a title. 46 Blocher 1992a, 263. The first line of this seal is broken but, as suggested by Blocher ibidem, it can hardly be someone else than Aja-tallik, the only person with that name and title in the text. 47 She seals TCL I, 68/69 (Sîn-muballi) with her own seal, together with her father Ninšubur-mansum who still uses his father’s seal on this tablet.

i.c. before the second sanga 3.5. His granddaughter, Aja-rīšat has a seal to be found on TCL I, 68 d a-a-ri-ša-at dumu.munus dnin.šubur-ba-ni ugula munus lukur dutu.meš gemé dutu da-a

Without going into this any further, we remark that Aja-šitti, the first daughter of Būr-Nunu to become overseer, does not mention her title in her seal legend. She is the only one to have a three line inscription. Būr-Nunu’s sister already had the title on her seal, albeit as the last line. Further, there is a great variation in the order of the lines. The name of course always comes on the first line but the patronymic can come on the second or third line, the ‘servant’ line can be third or fourth and the title can come second, third, fourth or be absent. Finally, the ‘servant’ line of the first overseer Erišti-Aja records the name of Aja kallatim, ‘the veiled Aja’48 which is unique in a seal legend. 3.6. Ilabrat-bāni, son of Būr-Nunu, uses two seals. Until Sa 10/7/8 (MHET 44, case of CT 6, 47a) Ilabrat-bāni does not have the title of overseer in the texts and uses a seal without a title (B 115) which we also find on MHET 35 (case of CT 4, 26b) (Sabium oath): d

nin.šubur-ba-ni dumu bur-nu-nu ìr é.babbár

The reason is obvious: until then his father BūrNunu must have been the overseer. When his father dies and he inherits the title, he has a new seal cut (B 126 = BT 63), which we find from Sa 12/11/- (MHET 45) on. In Sa 13 he is first mentioned with his title in texts (CT 48, 14 and CT 2,3) and this continues during the first years of Apil-Sîn (CT 45, 10(6), CT 47, 7, CT 48, 29 and MHET 66): d

nin.šubur-ba-ni dumu bur-nu-nu 48

See Powell 1989, 449 with footnote 20. There is an Ilabrat-bāni attested in AS 8 (CT 6, 33b) with neither title nor seal. This must be another person. 50 Stated explicitly in MHET 107 (Sîn-muballi). 51 CT 47, 11a and 12a, MHET 107, 109, 121 (Sm 13), TCL I, 68/69 and RSO 2 (Sm 13). On this last case the impression of the first two lines only is preserved, so, theoretically, it could be either of his father’s seals. In view of the other Sîn-muballi texts, we think it must be the one with the title. 52 It is a little annoying that in the edition of the seals of the VS volumes VII-IX (Klengel-Brandt 1989) no mention 49

87

ugula lukur dutu ìr é.babbár

His career (and life?) ends under Apil-Sîn, before AS 649, because, in this year, his son Ninšuburmansum has taken over (MHET 77, with title). It is noteworthy that Ilabrat-bāni’s latest attestations are under the first sanga Lipit-Ištar (his Apil-Sîn references are given above). The first ones of his son are under the new first sanga Warad-Sîn. This is probably a coincidence since the office of overseer is inherited and we have no reason to suppose the change of first sangas prompted the death or early retirement of Ilabrat-bāni. 3.7. Ninšubur-mansum, son of Ilabrat-bāni50 and grandson of Būr-Nunu, continues the family tradition as overseer of the nadiātum. He has no seal with his name and always uses his father’s. We note that in his first attestation, AS 6 (MHET 77), he uses his father’s first seal, without title, although he himself has the title of overseer in the text. It is odd that he should have inherited the one seal and not yet the other. For all of his other Apil-Sîn attestations we have no seal impression. Under Sîn-muballi51 he constantly uses his father’s second seal, with the title. The last text with year name mentioning him is Di 2029, dated Sm 17. Sip 10 was probably even later but has no year name to prove this. It is of course not because these texts have precise year names that they are the earliest and latest ones. Whatever may be the case, these dates allow us to calculate a minimum career length of twenty-five years. 3.8. We have an impression of the seal Sîn-bāni, grandson of Būr-Nunu and son of Šamaš-ilum, used before he became overseer, as it was rolled on the reverse of the case VS 8, 5052 (Sîn-muballi, no year name): d

EN.ZU-ba-ni [dumu] dutu-dingir [ìr] ┌é┐.┌babbár┐ is made of a possible relation of this seal inscription with the drawing of the seal described (ibidem, 276-278). Since VS VIII, 50 is only a fragment of the reverse of a case and the legend is drawn in the VS VIII volume at the top of the left margin of the fragment, leaving a large blank space open under it, it is possible that the seal drawn on KlengelBrandt 1989, 278 under n° 17 belongs together with this legend copied in VS VIII, 50. If the two belong together, the figures on the seal are completely different from those on the other seal(s) owned by Sîn-bāni.

i. the texts and the seals

88

The third line of the seal already shows his connection to the temple, even when he had no title yet. When he has become overseer he uses a new seal (BT 64A), found from a 10 (MHET 158) until a 18 (CT 48, 8): d

EN.ZU-ba-ni dumu dutu-dingir ugula lukur dutu.meš ìr é.babbár

In a 28 (CT 8, 12c), 30 (MHET 238) and 32 (Di 1430) he uses a seal (BT 64B) with the same legend but where lines two and three are inverted: EN.ZU-ba-┌ni┐ ugula lukur dutu.┌meš┐ dumu dutu-┌dingir┐ ìr é.┌babbar┐ d

The comparison of the figures as drawn by B. Teissier (BT 64A and 64B) and collation of the originals shows that the figure to the right of the legend is very similar, which means that he had a new seal made with the same scene. And then, surprisingly, he uses his first seal again. Indeed, in a 34 (CT 47, 4453), his last attestation, we find: d

EN.ZU-ba-ni dumu [dutu-dingir] ìr é.babbár

This is not, as one might think, a sign that he would have left office, since the text clearly adds his title to his name. It is not unimportant to remark that an overseer of the nadiātum had three different seals. The beginning of Sîn-bāni’s career, must be situated at the end of Sîn-muballi, since he is attested with the title overseer only once under that king (CT 8, 39a) and many times under ammu-rabi. The last text in which he appears is dated a 34 (CT 47, 44) which would make for a career of some thirty-five years. We have some indication of his position prior to his accession to the office of overseer54. In three

53 Unfortunately nothing much of the figures must have been visible on this case since Teissier 1998, 175 lists this tablet but gives “ND x 4” in the seal column: four times no drawing. Comparison even of the smallest remains of an impression with the drawing in Klengel-Brandt 1989, 278 n° 17 would have been interesting. 54 There is an early mention of a Sîn-bāni, second witness after the first sanga Lipit-Ištar (Di 673, Apil-Sîn). We refrain from identifying him with the descendant of Būr-Nunu,

texts, dated under Sîn-muballi, he appears in the witness list with his patronymic but without title. In VS 8, 50/51 (Sîn-muballi oath) and Di 2029 (Sm 17) the two sangas are first witnesses, followed by Ninšubur-mansum (grandson of BūrNunu), the overseer of the nadiātum. Then come Šamaš-tajjar and Liburram, the doorkeepers of the gagûm. After these we have our Sîn-bāni son of Šamaš-ilum, without title55. Sip 10 (Sîn-muballi oath) has a more complex witness list. It starts with the two sangas (in reverse order just like Di 2029) then come a number of people, and in fourteenth to sixteenth position Sîn-bāni (son of Šamaš-[ilum]), Šamaš-tajjar and Liburram. In the first two texts, he follows the group of temple personnel but does not have a title yet. In Sip 10 no title is given but here Sîn-bāni comes before the two doorkeepers and this is exactly the same position in which we find him, now with title, in CT 8, 39a (Sîn-muballi oath): the two sangas, Ninšubur-mansum, Sîn-bāni ugula lukur dutu, Šamaš-tajjar, Liburram and two others, doorkeepers. The sequence of events must thus be reconstructed as follows. Sîn-bāni is up and coming but has no title yet. His position is reflected by the order of the witness lists: he comes just after the temple personnel. This is what we see in VS 8, 50/51 and Di 2029. This last text provides a precise date: Sm 17. This is when he uses his first seal (on which he already is ìr Ebabbar). Sîn-bāni becomes overseer and is placed accordingly in the witness list, before the doorkeepers and after the older overseer, his cousin, Ninšubur-mansum. This is what appears from the texts Sip 10 and CT 8, 39a. Both do not have a year name but can now be dated between Sm 17 and 20, in one of the last three years of this king. This must be when he starts using his second seal (actually only attested from a 10 onwards). As stated above, he uses a third seal from somewhere after a 32 before reusing his first seal in a 34.

because the text gives no title, no patronymic and no seal, but it is not to be absolutely excluded either. 55 It is tempting, but wrong, to suppose that he maybe started out as a doorkeeper and climbed up to the position of overseer. VS 8, 50/51 precludes this: after Šamaš-tajjar and Liburram the scribe has written ì.du8.meš ká ga.gi.a, then comes Sîn-bāni. In other words, he is clearly separated from that group.

89

i.c. before the second sanga 3.9. Under ammu-rabi, the son of Ninšuburmansum takes up the name Būr-Nunu. He consistently uses the second seal (the one with the title) of his grandfather the overseer Ilabrat-bāni on Di 707, dated a 16 and MHET 238, a 30. His father Ninšubur-mansum never had a seal with his own name but always used one of his father Ilabrat-bāni, first the one without then the one with the title. The grandson Būr-Nunu inherited this last seal, continuing the family tradition. He is overseer at the same time as his cousin Sîn-bāni. We witness here the transmission of a family seal in one branch of the family. The other branch had to have its own seals made. This Būr-Nunu is attested from a 8 to a 34. In the ten texts56 in which we find him as a witness, he is always accompanied by his cousin Sîn-bāni and a few times by a Nannatum, all holders of the same office. We have no seal impressions of him.

1.1. Damu-galzu Damu-galzu is active under the early kings: Buntatun-ila and Sumu-la-El (CT 45, 1/BDHP 31), Immerum (CT 4, 47b, year ISA died, VS 8, 4; MHET 7; BDHP 14), Sumu-la-El (CT 6, 30a; CT 2, 35; CT 8, 44a; Walker 1978, 235) and Sabium (CT 6, 26a). In CT 4, 47b, he is a scribe (dub.sar). He is ‘messenger’ of the Šamaš temple, rá.gab NÍG é dutu57 (only in MHET 7, Im), but we also have a seal used by him, preserved only on TCL I, 186, a small part of a case with only the seal impression and consequently not datable, which reads58:

(Fig. 14) da.mu-gal.zu kisal.lu é.babbár.ra ìr dutu da-[a]

d

Excursus 2: The Damu-galzu Family 1. The Family Tree This family only exceptionally rises to second witness status with Damu-galzu and Adad-rēmēni and is hierarchically lower than the overseers of the nadiātum. Damu-galzu rá.gab N‡G é utu/kisal.lu⁄

Adad-r™m™ni rá.gab/ì.duÒ

Iballu† ßa ká gagîm

Kalªmum ì.duÒ ká gagîm

E-idimana-mansum ì.duÒ ká gagîm

ISA, Bti, Im, Sle

Sa - Sm

Sm

Sm - ·a

56 a 8 (Di 696), a 16 (Di 707), a 30 (MHET 238, CT 8, 37a), a 31 (CT 47, 41), a 33 (CT 47, 43, MHET 250), a 34 (MHET 255) and a (year broken) (MHET 318, CT 45, 28). 57 Al-Rawi/dalley 2000, 120 mention a collation by C.B.F. Walker of MHET 7, revealing a rá.gab 20 šá é dutu. This is either a hitherto unattested title or the work of an overzealous scribe, adding two extra wedges after the gab. 58 For Damu-galzu kisal.lu see also Harris 1968, 164-5.

Damu-galzu is second witness after Ilum-mušallim in the earliest texts and is still listed after the same in the Immerum texts but there Annum-pī-Šamaš heads the list, making Damu-galzu third or even lower when Būr-Nunu appears after the sanga (MHET 7). Under Sumu-la-El and Sabium (one reference only) the ranking is sanga—overseer (Būr-Nunu)—messenger (Damu-galzu), although others may be intercalated or the sanga and the overseer be omitted, making Damu-galzu first witness once (Walker 1978, 235). 1.2. His Son Adad-rēmēni (also cf. supra) His son, Adad-rēmēni59, is attested from Sabium until Sîn-muballi. His earliest precisely dated attestation is Sa 2 (CT 6, 40c), the latest ones are MHET 85 and CT 47, 11 under Sîn-muballi.

The seal is reproduced in Delaporte 1920 (II, Pl. 117:12 A 574). The only other seal of a kisal.lu known to us is that of Warad-Šamaš (cfr. Harris, 1975, 165), also with title and without patronymic but the ìr line is different (collation of the original confirms that there was no fourth line): ìr-dutu kisal.lu ìr é.babbar.ra 59 cfr Möller 1985 with references to previous literature.

i. the texts and the seals

90

He was a messenger (rá.gab), like his father, although this title is explicitly stated in only one text (MHET 66, AS). His seal (B 10060), already used in Sa 2 (CT 6, 40c/BM 82513), but only on this one text, confirms this:

d

(Fig. 15A) iškur-[re-me-ni]

rá.[gab] šá é ga-[gu-um] ìr d┌utu┐ [ù da-a]

He has a second seal (B 166 = 26161) which reads:

d

(Fig. 15B) iškur-re-me-ni

dumu dda.mu-gal.zu ┌

ìr é.babbár┐

This is found on texts dated to Sabium (MHET 35, VS 8, 13), Apil-Sîn (CT 47, 7, CT 8, 29a and BBVOT 147) and Sîn-muballi (CT 47, 11a). When he starts his career as a ‘messenger’, at the beginning of Sabium, he uses his seal with this title (CT 6, 40c, Sa 2). He either lost this seal, broke it or decided to replace it, still under Sabium, and from then on until the end of his career under Sîn-muballi he uses the three line seal without his title. Under Apil-Sîn he becomes a doorkeeper (ì.du8) as is mentioned in MHET 61, and maybe in TCL I, 22062. It is not certain at all that this was a promotion since, as a messenger, he always came before the doorkeepers in the witness lists. Could the ancient scribe have made a mistake and have erroneously written ì.du8 after Adad-rēmēni’s 60

F. Blocher reads the title as ŠITIM! [...] and consequently does not connect the owner with our Adad-rēmēni. Collation of the seal shows that the sign is not DÍM but RÁ. 61 F. Blocher distinguishes this seal (his 166) from his 261 although his drawings of both can be combined in a single one without any problem. Collation shows them to be the same indeed. 62 M. Stol suggests the unclear title after Adad-rēmēni’s

name, just like he correctly did on the next line, behind Idadum’s name? Could it be a namesake? We think this is not very probable, especially since Adad-rēmēni’s son, Kalūmum, will be doorkeeper after him. It is true that Adad-rēmēni’s position in the witness list did not change when his title changed: he still heads the doorkeepers, and more, as we shall see. Could there be something in connection with the title rá.gab? Could it be that this was not a permanent but an occasional title? It is much less frequently used than the other temple titles and apart from Damu-galzu and his son Adad-rēmēni we see no transmissions from father to son, as is often the case with the other titles. This certainly is a subject for further investigation. As we just remarked, there is something noteworthy concerning his place in the witness lists. From the beginning of his career, as a messenger, he comes between the overseer and the doorkeepers. This pattern is maintained with Būr-Nunu and Ilabrat-bāni as overseers, under Sabium and Apil-Sîn. When Ilabrat-bāni’s son, Ninšuburmansum takes over, however, in a number of texts in which they both witness, under Apil-Sîn and Sîn-muballi, Adad-rēmēni comes immediately after the sangas and before the new overseer63. A most unusual place for a doorkeeper (or even a messenger). When Kalūmum takes over from his father, Adad-rēmēni, at the latest in Sm 7 (CT 8, 25a), the normal order is re-established: Kalūmum always takes his place between the other doorkeepers, this whole group being preceded by Ninšubur-mansum the overseer. What could have prompted the unusual order of the overseer and the doorkeeper? First, it is true that Adad-rēmēni was Ninšubur-mansum’s senior in office. The former starts toward the beginning of Sabium, the latter starts in AS 6 at the latest, a difference of twenty years. On the other hand their overlap is large: it could have been from AS 6 to Sm 6 (in Sm 7 Kalūmum has taken over from his father). This still makes nineteen years. It could be somewhat shorter if Kalūmum took over earlier, which is not excluded: name on line 22 might also be ì.du8 (personal communication). He points to two further attestations of this person in Isma’el 2001 (two undated texts from Sippar). 63 We know of only one exception: CT 45 12(7) where Ninšubur-mansum comes before Adad-rēmēni. In view of the many other texts consistently giving the inverse order, this must be an exception.

i.c. before the second sanga there are only a few Sîn-muballi texts in which both Ninšubur-mansum and Adad-rēmēni witness together. Apart from seniority, we do not see why this inversion would have been made and maintained for so many years. 1.3. His Grandson Kalūmum Kalūmum is attested as doorkeeper of the gagûm under Sîn-muballi only. His earliest precise date is Sm 6 (MHET 113). This could be the year he took over from his father. On two of the texts in which he is a witness (Di 2017 and MHET 121) we have his seal. Again, this has a three line inscription, without a title:

91

ka-lu-mu-um dumu diškur-re-me-ni ìr é.babbar

1.4. His Great Grandson Eidimana-mansum Eidimana-mansum, of the same title, is attested from Sîn-muballi (CT 8, 39a) to a 26 (MHET 219). His career probably starts at the end of the reign of Sîn-muballi, since of his twenty-six attestations there is only one dated under this king. He consistently uses his father’s seal. This is attested in a 9 (Di 677), a 10 (MHET 158), a 11 (CT 8, 48a), a 16 (Di 707) up to a 18 (MHET 200).

92

i. the texts and the seals

93

i.d. the second sanga

I.D. THE SECOND SANGA

It is well known that, from somewhere during the reign of Sabium onwards, the sanga of Šamaš of the Ebabbar in Sippar-Jarūrum is nearly always accompanied in the witness lists by a second sanga, sometimes called ‘junior sanga’ by assyriologists although in ancient times there was initially no difference in title. During a good hundred and twenty years, from Sabium to Abi-ešu, both were sanga of Šamaš. It is only from the reign of Abi-ešu on that the title of the second sanga was changed to sanga of Aja, Šamaš’ divine spouse.

The order of appearance in the witness lists and the order in which they seal clearly indicate who was first and who second. There are only very few exceptions to this. Their careers were quite separate: never does a second sanga rise to the rank of first one1. Again, the existence of these second sangas is revealed to us nearly exclusively through the witness lists of the texts. We will examine them in chronological order and comment on their seal use, often referring to or summarising our findings for the first sangas.

1. Išar-Šamaš 3 Texts, Sabium 1. Attestations Reference MHET 30 BDHP 68 CT 2, 3

2

Date

Genre

Title

Seal

First sanga

T

Sa

adoption

—

—

Lipit-Ištar

T

Sa-/-/-

inheritance

—

—

Lipit-Ištar

—

Lipit-Ištar

T

Sa 13/7/-

sale field

2. Comments 2.1. Career After a doorkeeper (ì.du8), a singer (nar) and mainly the overseer of the nadiātum (PA lukur), under Immerum, Sumu-la-El and some years of Sabium, the place of second witness is occupied by a second sanga.

1 Contra Renger (1967, 120 and table p. 115). Although this is not stated explicitly, his reasoning is based on the order of the witnesses in the texts. In TCL I, 63 (Apil-Sîn) as we noted above (sub first sanga Warad-Sîn) there is an inversion between the first and second sanga, the former being second and the latter first witness in the text. If this inversion is an indication of their rank, then we would have to conclude that Warad-Sîn started out as second sanga (TCL I, 63 would then be his first attestation, which is possible) and then became the first one. This would also mean that Šumu-Sîn started as first sanga and was demoted to second one which is very improbable. Furthermore Warad-Sîn was the son of the preceding first sanga and Šumu-Sîn may have been related to other second sangas (cf. infra). We could explain this away as a scribal error maybe due to the fact that this is the tablet, not the usually more carefully

d

sanga utu

The first of these second sangas is Išar-Šamaš, whom we have in three texts up to now: MHET 30, BDHP 68 and CT 2, 3. As fate will have it, none of them bears the impression of his seal. All three texts are dated under Sabium, CT 2, 3 more precisely to Sa 13, this king’s penultimate year. Lacking better information we suppose that Išar-Šamaš took up his office around this date. His name is exceptional3 but we have at present no idea where he could have come from. written case, but it happens a few times, at the very beginning of the career of a new first sanga. It is thus more probable that it was a usus (cf. supra) not an indication of who was first sanga and who second. As to the only other text listed by J. Renger where WaradSîn would be second witness, this is erroneous since VS 8, 21 does not give the beginning of the witness list, but a copy of Warad-Sîn’s seal legend. 2 MHET reads Išar-dIškur. This would be the only reference to such a name. Because of this and his position as second witness, after Lipit-Ištar, we propose to read IšarŠamaš which is confirmed by collation of the tablet. He is not the son of Ilabrat-bāni as given in MHET 30: the dumu should be corrected in an igi: Ilabrat-bāni is the next witness. 3 We know one other Išar-Šamaš only, the son of a Nūr-ilīšu (TCL I, 63 and VS VIII, 17 both dated Apil-Sîn).

i. the texts and the seals

94

Since we have deduced a Sa 14 date for the next second sanga, this does not leave a very large time span for Išar-Šamaš. If we accept that it in fact all started in Sa 11 then he would have remained in office for less than three years. 2.2. When Did It All Start? We can only interpret the doubling of the sanga function as a strengthening of the Šamaš temple under Sabium, after his predecessor Sumu-la-El had developed and strengthened the basis of the Babylonian kingdom. The year names of Sumula-El mention an Utu canal, dug by the king (year 1) but no location is given. This king also (re)built the wall of Sippar (year 29). The first explicit mention of the Ebabbar is to be found in the eighth year name of Sabium who declares that he (re) built it, with stone blocks according to the Akka-

dian version of this year name. In his eleventh year this king even brought a golden statue of himself into the Šamaš temple. Sabium seems to have been generally quite active in the Sippar region since he built the wall of Kār-Šamaš in his first year and in his fourth year dug the Sabium-canal, which originates in the Irnina and runs close to Sippar (Tanret 1998, 73). The doubling of the sangaship is probably to be linked with these building activities and embellishments, increasing the status of the temple and the city. Our first mention of IšarŠamaš, precisely dated by year name, is Sa 13 and with a little stretch of the imagination we might even fantasize about a ritual inauguration of the newly built/restored temple at which occasion a golden statue of the king was introduced and a second sangaship installed in Sa 11.

2. Sîn-ennam Son of Sîn-imitti 1 Text, s.d. (Sa 14) 1. Seal Inscription of the Seal Used (B 220)

(Fig. 16) EN.ZU-┌en┐-[nam] sanga dutu dumu dEN.ZU-i-mi-ti ìr é.babbár d

2. Attestation Reference MHET 567

T

Date

Genre

Title

Seal

First witness

s.d. (Sa 14)

inheritance

—

—

Lipit-Ištar

3. Comments 3.1. The Title In MHET 567 the second witness, after the sanga Lipit-Ištar, is a certain Sîn-ennam. Neither for Lipit-Ištar nor for him a title is added on this tablet, unfortunately without case. To add to our misfortune, the text contains no date, neither a year formula, nor an oath. When we examine the witness list we come to the conclusion that the text must be dated Sa 14 (cfr supra sub Lipit-Ištar).

We can deduce Sîn-ennam’s occupation from the fact that he is second witness after the first sanga, which—at this time—must imply he is second sanga. A more tangible proof is to be found on his seal. Since the case of MHET 567 is not preserved, this seal is not to be found on the only tablet (up to now) where his name appears. But, for once, we are lucky, because Šumu-Sîn, second sanga after him, (nearly) invariably uses his predecessor’s seal. In the seal legend the function of Sînennam is specified as sanga dutu.

95

i.d. the second sanga 3.2. In Search of His Father The seal also informs us of the name of Sînennam’s father, Sîn-imittī. Different persons with this name are known in Sippar, all attested only once: a son of Nabi-ilīšu (BE 6/1, 5, Immerum) a son of X X X X4 (PBS 8/2, 195, Immerum) a son of Iddin-Enlil/Sîn5 (al-Rawi/Dalley 2000, text 113, Sumu-la-El)

This last one might be a good candidate, because, in the cited text, he heads a group of temple personnel (the singer Imlik-Sîn, two messengers (rá. gab) and a doorkeeper (ì.du8)). Unfortunately, his title is not given but his position at the head of the group shows he must have been important although not related, as far as we can see, neither to the Būr-Sîn nor the Damu-galzu family.

One thing is certain: Sîn-ennam is no son of his predecessor Išar-Šamaš and we have no way of knowing whether they were otherwise related. One of his daughters, Lamassi, is a nadītum of Šamaš and another one, Šāt-Šamaš, has a typical nadītum name and is mentioned together with nadītums but we do not have her title (see f.i. MHET 60 dated Apil-Sîn and infra The seals of the sanga’s daughters). 3.3. Career His career is very short: it lasts one year and five months at the most: Išar-Šamaš is attested until Sa 13/7 and the next second sanga, Šumu-Sîn appears in AS 1. It is remarkable that the first two second sangas seem to hold their office for short periods of time only.

3. Šu/amu-Sîn 33 Texts Apil-Sîn—Sîn-muballi 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used his seal (B 287)

his predecessor’s (B 260)

(not drawn)

(Fig. 16) EN.ZU-en-nam sanga dutu dumu dEN.ZU-i-mi-ti ìr é.babbár

šu-mu-u-[d]EN.[ZU] dumu ┌nu-úr-dEN┐.[ZU] ìr d[...]

d

2. Attestations Reference CT 8, 29b

T

Date

Genre

Name

Title

Seal

First sanga

AS 1/-/-

freeing+adop.

Šumu-Sîn

—

—

Lipit-Ištar

d

T

AS 2/-/-

litigation

Šamu-Sîn

sanga utu

—

”

C

”

”

”

sanga [?]

[?]

”

CT 48, 29

T

AS oath

inheritance

Šumu-Sîn

sanga

—

”

C

”

”

”

sanga

Al-Adami 1997 ”

own

” 6

(continued on nex page) 4 The register of names in PBS 8/2 reads “iqbi-ašir” which does not really seem to correspond with the copy. 5 al-Rawi/Dalley 2000, 119 read line 22 dumu i-dind EN.LÍL/ZU, with a remark on p. 120 “Al Rawi reads definitely d EN.ZU”. The copies on the two plates are inconclusive but, in the light of his father’s name and that of his successor Šamu-Sîn (who always uses his seal and must thus be from the same family) as well as the frequency of Sîn names, we opt for Iddin-Sîn.

6 Very fragmentary. Possibly completing the transcription in CT 48: šu-mu-u-[d]EN.[ZU] dumu ┌nu-úr-dEN┐.[ZU] ìr d[...] Collation of this case only revealed very slight traces, not readable any more. Listed in Blocher, 1992a as n° 287, photo ibidem on pl. 3b.

i. the texts and the seals

96 (cont.) Reference

Date

Genre

Name

Title

Seal

First sanga

CT 47, 7

T

AS oath

inheritance

Šamu-Sîn

sanga dutu

—

”

CT 47, 7a

C

”

”

Šamu[-Sîn]

[...]

Sîn-ennam7

”

CT 45, 10(6)

T

AS oath

sale field

Šamu-Sîn

—

—

” ”

”

C

”

”

”

sanga utu

[broken]

MHET 66

T

AS oath

inheritance

Šamu-Sîn

—

— Sîn-ennam

”

Šumu-Sîn

—

—

”

Šumu-Sîn

—

—

”

C

CT 8, 29c

T

AS -/-/-

donation

CT 8, 49a

T

AS oath

inheritance

”

”

[...]

BM 82454

C

”

” 9

—

”

10

”

8

”

[...]

CT 45, 12(7)

T

AS oath

donation

Šumu-Sîn

—

—

”

CT 45, 91(41)

T

s.d. (AS)

donation

[..]mu-Sîn

—

—

”

CT 47, 5

T

AS oath

sale field

Šamu-Sîn

—

—

”

—

”

MHET 61

T

AS oath

TLB I, 218

T

AS oath

TJDB pl. 49

T

AS oath

TC14

AS 13/2/-

CT 6, 46 TCL I, 63

T

AS oath

11

sale field sale field 13

sale field

sale field sale garden

—

[...]-Sîn

12

Šamu-Sîn

sanga

—

”

Šamu-Sîn

[?]

—

”

Šumu-Sîn

sanga dutu

Sîn-ennam15

”

16

[?]

—

Warad-Sîn

Šamu-Sin d

TLB I, 222

T

d.l.

real estate

Šamu-[ EN. ZU]17

[?]

—

”

CT 47, 78

T

AS oath

donation

Šamu-Sîn

—

Sîn-ennam

”

CT 47, 78a

C

”

”

”

[?]

[...]

” ”

d

BAP 36

T

AS oath

sale field

Šamu-Sîn

sanga utu

—

MHET 48

C

”

”

[...]

[...]

[...]

MHET 60 TLB I, 230

18

TC

20

C

AS oath AS oath

inheritance sustenance

Šumu-Sîn Šamu-Sîn

— ┌

┐ d

sanga [ utu?]

” 19

Sîn-ennam [...]

” ”

BE 6/1, 17

T

AS oath

adoption

Šamu-Sîn

sanga

—

”

CT 6, 43

T

AS oath

sale house

Šumu-Sîn

—

—

”

CT 48, 17

T

AS oath

inheritance

Šamu-Sîn

sanga dutu21

—

”

d

MHET 53

T

AS oath

inheritance

Šumu-Sîn

sanga utu

—

”

MHET 55

T

AS oath

adoption

Šamu-Sîn

sanga dutu

—

” (continued on nex page)

7

d

EN.ZU-en-nam sanga dutu dumu dEN.ZU-i-mi-ti ìr é.babbár Instead of the cryptic AN X BA SUHUŠ MU? /sanga dutu/ dumu dEN.ZU-i-mi-ti/ìr É.UD.[UD] as transcribed in CT 47. 8 On the case, the names of the first and the second sangas are written on the same line, leaving no space for their title. The next two witnesses there, Ilabrat-bāni and Adad-rēmēni, are written on separate lines and have their titles, ugula lukur.i.a and rá.gab respectively. On the tablet, the sangas are given on consecutive lines, without title, just like Ilabrat-bāni and Adad-rēmēni. 9 d EN.ZU-┌en┐-[nam] sanga d┌utu┐ dumu dEN.ZU-i-┌mi┐-[ti] ìr é.babbár 10 Only a fragment of a case with the seal of Nabi-ilīšu, son of Šamaš-īn-mātim. 11 Of the name, only [...]-Sîn remains. On the basis of his second position in the witness list, followed by other

temple personnel, we assume him to be Ša/umu-Sîn. 12 After the name of Šumu-Sîn, the title is given as sanga.meš, including the first sanga on the line before. 13 Related to the preceding entry, TLB I, 218, referred to on the left edge: “ezub uppīšu pānim ša 0.0.2 iku eqlim”. 14 Unopened case. 15 d EN.ZU-[en-nam] sanga dutu dumu dEN.ZU-i-mi-ti ìr é.babbár 16 The order of the sangas is inverted: Šamu-Sîn is the first witness and Warad-Sîn the second one. 17 Here too, the order of the sangas is inverted. 18 Tablet still in case. 19 d EN.ZU-┌en┐-[nam] sanga d[utu] dumu dEN.ZU-i-┌mi┐-[ti] ìr é.babbár 20 Only part of the case preserved, no seals. Tablet lost. 21 The line reads igi Warad-Sîn ù Šamu-Sîn sanga!d!┌utu┐.

97

i.d. the second sanga (cont.) Reference

Date

Genre

Name

Title

Seal

First sanga ”

BBVOT 1, 105

T

AS oath

donation

Šamu-Sîn

—

—

BBVOT 1, 147

C

AS 1622

”

Ša[mu-Sîn]

[?]

Sîn-ennam23

”

—

25

”

24

TC

AS oath

BBVOT 115

T

26

CT 45, 11(6)

T

CT 8, 39b MHET 112

CT 8, 29a

adoption

Šumu-Sîn

d

Sîn-ennam

sale field

Šamu-Sîn

sanga utu

—

”

AS 18

inheritance

Šamu-Sîn

sanga

—

[Warad-Sîn27]

T

Sm oath

sale house

Šumu-Sîn

sanga dutu

—

”

C

Sm 1

”

[...]

[...]

[Sîn-ennam?]

[...]

MHET 85

T

Sm oath

donation

Šamu-Sîn

[case broken]

—

Warad-Sîn

”

C

”

”

T

s.d. (Sm)30

TCL I, 203

AS 17

lease field

3. Comments 3.1. Career Lipit-Ištar is still in function when a third second sanga becomes ‘second witness’. This one though, will outlive him. We have three precise chronological references for this second sanga. The first and most important one is provided by CT 8, 29c dated to AS 1. Since Išar-Šamaš and Sîn-ennam both are second sanga during Sabium, it is probable that Šumu-Sîn started his career with the new king. The second and third dates are AS 13 (CT 6, 46) and AS 18 (CT 45, 11) which do not help very much because we know Šumu-Sîn held his position under the following king too. In all, his career must have lasted at the very least nineteen years, if all three texts dated Sînmuballi are from the first year of this king. Out of the seventeen attestations of the next second sanga, all under Sîn-muballi, two have the year name for year 13, one for 17, all the other ones are dated by the oath formula only. This does not help very much for the calculation of 22 For this date, see our remarks on BBVOT 1, 147 in the table listing the attestations of first sanga Warad-Sîn (our IV). 23 d [EN.ZU-en-nam] sanga d[utu] dumu dEN.ZU-i-mi-ti ìr é.babbár Arnaud (1989, 16) adds r[a] after the é.babbár. This is very unlikely since the same seal is always used. The photo of this tablet, kindly put at our disposal by Mad. B. André, Conservatrice en chef du Département des Antiquités Orientales du Louvre, shows there is not really enough room for this sign. 24 Unopened case.

28

—

[...]

Šamu-Sîn

d

sanga utu

29

Sîn-ennam —

” ”

a maximum career length for Šumu-Sîn. An educated guess would be that his successor occupied the greater part of Sîn-muballi, leaving an approximate maximum of somewhere in the lower twenty years for Šumu-Sîn. In the whole of our Sippar documentation there is only one other mention of a Šumu-Sîn. We did not include it in the table above because it is dated a 13 (CT 8, 12a). In this text, Šumu-Sîn is not an active participant, but the owner of the neighbouring house. In view of the uniqueness of the name and the fact that a neighbour can always be a ‘ghost’ neighbour (Tanret 1999), we would tend to consider this to be a reference to a property still belonging to him or, more probably held in common ownership by his descendants since some thirty years separate this mention from the last one we have of an active Šumu-Sîn. 3.2. The Name: Šu- or Ša-? Out of the thirty two attestations, two have lost the initial syllable of the name, nineteen have ŠamuSîn, eleven Šumu-Sîn. As can be observed in the table above, there is a random chronological distribution of the two orthographies. EN.ZU-┌en┐-[nam] sanga d[utu] dumu dEN.ZU-i-mi-ti ìr é.babbár 26 For the date of this tablet, different from the one given in BBVOT 1, see our discussion in footnote to this text in the table of the attestations of the first sanga Warad-Sîn (IV). 27 Restored on the basis of the date. 28 Line 18 of the case has [...] ZU. We propose to restore: [igi ìr dEN.ZU igi šu/a-mu-u-dEN].ZU. 29 Only the figure and the UD of the last line remain. 30 Dated on the basis of the presence of Bēlessunu, daughter of Ilima-abum (see footnote on this text in our first sanga chapter IV. Warad-Sîn). 25 d

i. the texts and the seals

98

It may be an indication that, although nearly twice as many attestations start with Ša-, his seal legend has Šumu-Sîn. This should then be the preferred version. Although there is a variation in the spelling, the few instances where we have case and tablet are consistent, as could be expected. As to the individual scribes, three of them can be readily identified in the group of texts mentioning him. Ibni-Gibil wrote TCL I, 63, and used Šamu-, but we have no other text written by this scribe and mentioning his name. Enlil-abi, a scribe attested from AS 1 to Sm 13, wrote CT 45, 10(6) and MHET 61. In the first text he writes Šamu-. Unfortunately, the beginning of the name is lost in MHET 61, leaving only –Sîn. With Amat-Šamaš, female scribe, we are more fortunate. She explicitly gives her name (and title) [AS 1 AS 17 AS 18

CT 8, 29b BBVOT 1, 115 CT 45, 11(6)

šu-] šaša-

It is thus certain that one scribe did not always use the same vowel. Whether there was—in the case of Amat-Šamaš—a chronological factor involved, as implied by our list above, is by no means certain: the two šu- writings, dated under Apil-Sîn by the oath only, could of course also be AS 17 or 18. The reason for the hesitation between the /a/ and the /u/ has no grammatical justification. It must be due to the pronunciation of the vowel, probably near to an /o/. 3.3. Inversion As already noted in our discussion of the first sanga Warad-Sîn, the names of the sangas are inverted on two documents, TCL I, 63 and TLB I, 222. The first one is dated by the oath to AS, the second one either had no date or lost it. In view of the attested practice of inversions of sangas at the beginning of the career of the first sanga, we have classified them as first documents on which the sanga Warad-Sîn is mentioned as a witness 31 She did not add her name as last witness but rolled a seal over which she wrote her kišib: Amat-Šamaš (geméd utu) dub.sar. 32 CT 45, 64(31), to be dated Sîn-muballi, has a third witness Nūr-Sîn who is the son of a Sîn-i[...]. We know of no other reference to a Nūr-Sîn with a patronymic beginning like this. The first choice would of course be to complete this father’s name as Sîn-iddinam, the most frequent

in three texts mentioning the name of our sanga (CT 6, 46, CT 48, 2931 and CT 45, 11(6)). Three further texts do not mention a dub.sar but have Amat-Šamaš, daughter of Enlil-abum as a witness. It is tempting to connect both of them with the homonymous scribes: the daughter would have been educated by the father. AmatŠamaš’s seal would have been good evidence, unfortunately for us, she used an exclusively figurative seal to which she added her kišib (CT 48, 29 with title). Only in one of these texts, BBVOT 1, 115 (AS 17), is she last witness. In CT 8, 29b (AS 1) she is witness 9 out of 17, in BE 6/1, 17 (Apil-Sîn) she is witness 6 out of 15. Although it is not proven that she is the same, or, if she is, that she was the scribe of these two last texts, we add all of these references, putting the two where she is not last witness between square brackets:

AS AS [AS

CT 6, 46 CT 48, 29 BE 6/1, 17

šušuša-]

4. The Seal Throughout his career Šumu-Sîn only once used a seal with his name, in all other instances he rolled that of his predecessor Sîn-ennam (cf. supra). He could have started out using his own seal and then taken over that of his predecessor since on his own seal no title was mentioned. This would mean that CT 48, 29 (Apil-Sîn) was earlier than CT 48, 7/7a (Apil-Sîn). There is no objection to this order since neither text has a year name. The personal seal he uses only once is unfortunately broken. Enough of it remains to establish that he is the son of Nūr-dEN[...], probably but not certainly Nūr-Sîn. 5. Kinship? If Šumu-Sîn is not the son of Sîn-ennam, why would he so often use his seal? It seems improbable that he would have inherited it if he was not (closely) related to him32. Old Babylonian name. However, if this name were to be completed to Sîn-imittī, this would allow us to reconstruct this family as follows. Nūr-Sîn and Sîn-ennam would be brothers as sons of Sîn-imittī. Since Šumu-Sîn is the son of a Nūr-Sîn, he could be the nephew of Sîn-ennam, which would provide us with the relationship we were looking for. But can one broken reference suffice to uphold a family tree? We think not.

99

i.d. the second sanga 6. In Absentia Within the time span of Šumu-Sîn’s career, in two instances, other persons are second witnesses after the first sanga. The first one is the overseer Ilabrat-bāni (CT 48, 59 Apil-Sîn), of the Būr-Sîn family. This exception can be explained by the fortuitous absence or unavailability of Šumu-Sîn at the moment this contract was drawn up. As overseer Ilabrat-bāni was the next in line.

The other one is Di 673 (date lost), where a Sîn-bāni (without title or patronymic) is second witness, not followed by temple personnel. The presence of the first sanga Lipit-Ištar postulates an Apil-Sîn date at the latest for this text. If Sînbāni is the overseer of the nadiātum, also of the Būr-Sîn family, this is a very early attestation since his earliest explicit attestation as overseer is dated under the next king, Sîn-muballi and he holds his title well into the reign of ammu-rabi33. Here too, the second sanga must have been unavailable.

7. The Location of the Seal Reference Adami 1997

Date

Genre

seal

Second sanga

First sanga

AS 2

litigation

[...]

[...]

[...]

AS oath

inheritance

his

Lo.E. left

U.E.

CT 47, 7a

AS oath

inheritance

Sîn-ennam

UE left

Lo.E.

CT 45, 10(6)

AS oath

sale field

[...]

[...]

[...]

MHET 66

AS oath

inheritance

Sîn-ennam

U.E. twice excl.

[Lo.E.?]

CT 48, 29

CT 6, 46

AS 13/2/-

sale field

Sîn-ennam

Lo.E. left

Lo.E. right

CT 47, 78a

AS oath

donation

Sîn-ennam

Lo.E. (frgmt.)

[U.E.?]

MHET 48

AS oath

sale field

[...]

[...]

[...]

MHET 60

AS oath

inheritance

Sîn-ennam

U.E. twice excl.

Lo.E. twice excl.

TLB I, 230

AS oath

sustenance

[...]

[...]

[...]

AS 16

donation

Sîn-ennam

L.E. top

U.E.

BBVOT 1, 147 CT 8, 29a

AS oath

adoption

Sîn-ennam

U.E. twice excl.

L.E., L.Mg. top

MHET 112

Sm 1

sale house

[Sîn-ennam?]

[U.E.?]

Lo.E.

MHET 85

Sm oath

donation

Sîn-ennam

U.E.

Lo.E.

At the beginning, the opposition between upper and lower edge, with an occasional inversion, seems to be the pattern under Apil-Sîn during the office of Lipit-Ištar as first sanga. At the very end both sangas seal the LoE (CT 6, 46). When his son Warad-Sîn succeeds him the two patterns known up to then are applied: the opposition upper—lower edge and the succession upper

33 He would, as far as we know, have had a career of 63 years or more: a year (or more?) under Sîn-muballi, the whole reign of Sîn-muballi (28 years) and, according to his last attestation, 34 years under ammu-rabi.

edge—top left edge and/or left margin, also with an occasional inversion. The order of the texts in the table above is for a large part based on these sealing patterns, in reality practices may have been more mixed. The two documents dated at the beginning of Sîn-muballi show the upper— lower edge pattern.

i. the texts and the seals

100

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk 18 Texts Sîn-muballi

1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used

┌

A

B

(Fig. 17A) ša┐-lim-pa-li-i-d┌AMAR┐.[UTU] [dumu] ┌dEN┐.ZU-ga-┌mil┐ [ìr d]AMAR.┌UTU┐ [sanga] d┌utu┐

(Fig. 17B) ša-lim-pa-li-i-dmarduk dumu dEN.ZU-ga-mil sanga dutu ìr dmarduk

2. Attestations Reference

Date

Genre

Name

Title

Seal

First sanga

sanga

—

Warad-Sîn

sanga┐

A1

”

CT 47, 11

T

Sm oath

sale field

Šalim-pāliMarduk

CT 47, 11a

C

”

”

Ša[lim-pāliMarduk]

CT 45, 16(9)

T

Sm oath

adoption

Šalim-pālišu2

—

—

”

Di 2017

T

Sm oath

sale vacant plot

Šalim-pālišu

—

—

”

C

”

”

”

—

B3

”

T

Sm oath

uppi l.r.

Šalim-pālišu

—

—

”

4

” Di 1907 ”

”

”

—

B

”

MHET 87

T

Sm oath

litigation

Šalim-pāliMarduk

sanga dutu

—

”

MHET 102

T

Sm oath

donation

Šalim-pālišu

sanga dutu

—

”

[B?]

”

”

C

C

”

┌

”

”

d

Šalim-pāli[šu] [sanga utu?] d

MHET 107

T

Sm oath

sale field

Šalim-pālišu

sanga utu

—

”

MHET 1095

T

Sm oath

sale house

Šalim-pālišu

—

—

”

C

”

”

”

sanga dutu

[B?]

”

”

6

MHET 926

T

d.l.(Sm)

sale house

Šalim-pālišu

—

—

”

VS 8, 51

T

Sm oath

sale field

Šalim-[...]

[...]

—

”

VS 8, 50

C

”

”

Šalim-pāli[...]

[...]

[B?]

”

(continued on nex page) ┌ ┐ ša -lim-pa-li-i-d┌AMAR┐.[UTU] [dumu] ┌dEN┐.ZU-ga-┌mil┐ [...d]AMAR.┌UTU┐ [...] d┌utu┐ 2 The sangas are witness 3 and 4 after Šamaš and Aja. 3 ša-lim-pa-li-i-[dmarduk] [dumu] ┌d┐EN.ZU-ga-[mil] sanga dutu ìr d┌AMAR┐.[UTU] 1

[ša]-┌lim┐-pa-li-i-[dmarduk] [dumu] ┌d┐EN.ZU-┌ga┐-[mil] [...] d[utu] [...] dAMAR.[UTU] 5 The sangas are witnesses 3 and 4. Cfr supra Sangas not first witnesses. 6 Because of the combination of Warad-Sîn and Šalimpālišu the date must be Sîn-muballi. 4

101

i.d. the second sanga (cont.) Reference

Date

Genre

Name

Title

Seal

First sanga

YOS 14, 163

T

Sm oath

litigation

Šalim-pālišu

sanga dutu

—

”

TCL I, 68

T

Sm oath

adoption

Šalim-pāli (sic)

—

—

”

TCL I, 69

C

”

”

Šalim-pāliŠamaš (sic)

sanga dutu

B7

”

BBVOT 1,6

C8

(lost)

(lost)

[Šalim-pāliMarduk]

[?]

B9

[Warad-Sîn]

CT 4, 49b

T

Sm 13/5/4

sale house

Šalim-pālišu

sanga dutu10

—

Warad-Sîn

MHET 121

C

Ballerini 1908-9

C

Di 2029

12

”

”

Šalim-pālišu

d

B

”

13

”

sale field

Šalim-pālišu

sanga utu

B

T

Sm 17

sale vacant plot

Šalimpālišu14

sanga dutu

—

”

Sip 1015

T

Sm oath

bequest

Šalimpālišu16

sanga dutu

—

Annum-pī-Aja

Sip 77

T

Sm oath

inheritance

Šalimpālišu17

sanga dutu

—

”

3. Comments 3.1. The Restoration of the Legend of Seal A As can be observed above, the legend of this seal, is incomplete. The first two lines pose no problem, the last two do. Of lines 3 and 4 we have: [...] dmarduk [...] dutu

The two obvious candidates for the beginnings of these lines are ‘sanga’ and/or ‘ìr’, but which goes where? There are in fact three possibilities which we will examine and weigh against each other. ┌

sanga utu

11

Sm 13/-/-

It is very possible that one more text should be added here. VS 8, 21 is a fragment with the seal of the first sanga Warad-Sîn. We date it under Sîn-muballi (cfr. supra sub first sanga WaradSîn, our IV). It may have contained the name (and seal) of our second sanga too.

ša┐-lim-pa-li-i-dmarduk [dumu] dEN.ZU-ga-mil sanga d[utu] ┌ ìr d┐marduk As already remarked by D. Charpin (1990, 71 n. 86), R. Harris 1961, 118 n 4 must be corrected: he is not ìr Šamaš but ìr Marduk. 8 Pieces of a case. 9 ša-lim-pa-li-i-dmarduk [dumu] dEN.ZU-ga-mil sanga d[utu] [ìr dmarduk] 10 The title is given at the end of the line, after the names of the two sangas. 11 [ša-lim]-pa-li-i-d┌AMAR.UTU┐ [dumu] ┌d┐EN.ZU-ga-mil ┌ sanga┐ dutu 7

d

3.1.1. The First Possible Restoration ša-lim-pa-li-i-dmarduk dumu dEN.ZU-ga-mil [sanga] dmarduk [ìr] dutu

A first question we must answer (and this goes for seal B too) is to whom the sanga title refers. Is it Šalim-pāli-Marduk on the first line or his father Sîn-gāmil on the second one? The question must be asked because a seal legend like that of Damiqtum shows that the title on the third line can refer to the father on the second one: da-mi-iq-tum dumu.munus dutu-tab.ba-šu sanga dutu

There is a difference, however. The legend of a sanga’s daughter’s seal could hardly be formulated [ìr d] ┌AMAR┐.UTU Correct MHET which reads ┌ìr┐ dutu [d]┌AMAR┐.UTU (correction confirmed by collation) 12 Tablet still in case. 13 ša-lim-pa-li-i-dmarduk [dumu] dEN.ZU-ga-mil sanga d[utu] ìr d[amar.]utu 14 Inversed order of sanga, the date seems to be correct. 15 Sîn-bāni, overseer of the nadiātum now heads the group of temple personnel, which was not yet the case in Di 2029. Sip 77 is related to Sip 10 (and the very broken Sip 89), all parts of the same donation/inheritance. This is why we group Sip 10 and 77. 16 The order of the sangas is inversed. 17 Same inversion of sangas as preceding and following texts.

102

i. the texts and the seals

otherwise and is completely unambiguous. For the seal legend of Šalim-pāli-Marduk we also have two certainties. The second (dumu Sîn-gāmil) and the fourth line ([ìr] Šamaš) unambiguously refer to Šalim-pāli-Marduk himself. If lines 2 and 4 refer to him, it would be logical, in this case, to assume the same for line 3. Furthermore, there can be no doubt because of seal B. If the title refers to the father, Sîn-gāmil, it must do so on seal A and B, for they have the same order of lines. This would imply that Sîngāmil would first have been sanga of Marduk (our restoration of A) and then sanga of Šamaš (as stated on seal B). In itself this may seem possible but it is most improbable that this change would be specified on the seal of his son because we would imagine that the father’s career was over (and certainly would not make such important changes) when the son was in his floruit. That is why the title must refer to Šalim-pāli-Marduk. It is true that Annum-pī-Šamaš and Lipit-Ištar, our first and third first sangas have seal legends of the type name—patronymic—sanga dutu in which the title could, without problem18, refer to the son as well as to the father. Since this cannot really be decided, we generalise the one provable case of Šalim-pāli-Marduk. The seals of Mardukmušallim, our tenth second sanga, on the other hand will show that, in his case, another interpretation can be argued. This interpretation leads us to the surprising conclusion that Šalim-pāli-Marduk would have started out as a sanga of Marduk and not of Šamaš. This is not an isolated case of a relation with the Marduk temple because later, under ammu-rabi, Sîn-bāni, second sanga of Šamaš, is the son of a sanga of Marduk and the same holds true for Marduk-mušallim, sanga of Aja under Abi-ešu and Ammi-ditana; Išme-Sîn is a sanga of arpanītum (Marduk’s spouse) who becomes second sanga. We can safely assume that the Marduk temple in Babylon is not referred to here. It would indeed be quite surprising and, as far as we know, very improbable that the head of the main temple of the capital would become second in command in the main temple of Sippar. Demotion is of course

not to be excluded so this must remain a possibility but a better solution would be that he was the sanga of the Marduk temple in Sippar, in which case even a second position in the main temple of the city must have been a promotion. In Sippar, at least one other sanga of Marduk is known, Ipiq-eretim (CT 45, 24; a 26). The presence of a Marduk temple (or chapel?) in Sippar-Jarūrum is never mentioned explicitly in Old Babylonian texts but cult and personnel are attested (Sommerfeld, 1982, 98 sq) and r. harris (1975, 146 and 186) is quite positive about its existence.19 According to our reconstruction, he would have been ‘servant’ of Šamaš on his first seal and would have changed this to Marduk when he became sanga of Šamaš, maybe as a reminder of his former function. In conclusion, if ‘sanga’ is restored on line 3 of seal A this would mean that Šalim-pāli-Marduk was a sanga of Marduk, whereas in the two documents on which he rolls this seal he occupies the second witness place just like a second sanga of Šamaš (in one of them he is simply ‘sanga’, in the other one he has no title). This, we think, is not really possible. To use a seal on which he is sanga of one deity (Marduk) whereas the order in the witness list implies that he is a (second) sanga of another deity (Šamaš) seems to stretch things too far or would at the very least be unique. We could of course suppose he occupied the second sanga position as sanga of Marduk, before he became second sanga of Šamaš, but this too is improbable. In the archive of Ur-Utu there are a few mentions of sangas of Marduk as witnesses but they are never associated with a sanga of Šamaš and seem in general to be of a much lower status. After having explored all of the implications of our first hypothesis we think it is not very probable.

18 In the case of Annum-pī-Šamaš this would yield interesting information because it would indicate that his father, the first Warad-Sîn, would already have been a sanga of Šamaš. He would then be(come) our earliest sanga.

19 Much later, under Aššur-etel-ilāni, a sanctuary of Marduk, called É.èš.ér.ke4 is attested in Sippar-Aruru (= Jarūrum) (see George 1993, 83 n° 269).

3.1.2. The Second Possibility ša-lim-pa-li-i-dmarduk dumu dEN.ZU-ga-mil [ìr ]dmarduk [ù] dutu

i.d. the second sanga The fact that, in this case, no profession is mentioned on the seal, should be no problem. This would be his first seal, used once only (as far as preserved), and we can suppose it dated from before his accession to the post of second sanga. Soon afterwards he could have had another one made, with his sanga title, our B. It is not infrequent that a person declares himself to be the ‘servant’ of two deities on his seal but although we have found a number of combined gods20, there seems to be no other example of the combination of Marduk and Šamaš, which weakens this proposal. 3.1.3. The Third Possibility ša-lim-pa-li-i-dmarduk dumu dEN.ZU-ga-mil [ìr ]dmarduk [sanga] dutu

This corresponds to seal B, with an inversion of the order of these two lines. Šalim-pāli-Marduk would then have been sanga of Šamaš from the start. To justify the existence of the second seal, our B, we must suppose that he had lost or broken his first seal. It might seem unusual to have the sanga of Šamaš title added after the ìr line. The comparison of the seal legends of all of the second sangas, given below in our conclusions, will show however, that the line with the title appears in all possible locations, from the first to the last line of the inscriptions. Another argument in favour of this restoration is that his son, Etel-pī-Nabium, is ìr Nabium on his seal, so maybe the god in the father’s name was also reflected in the ìr line of his seal.

20 The combinations we found in the Sippar seals are: Šamaš + Aja, Šamaš + Šaan, Enki + Damgalnunna, Ea + Ilabrat, Sîn + Il-Amurrum, Sîn + Amurrum, Adad + Šamaš, Adad + Ninsiana, Nanna + Ningal, Ilabrat + Ištar, Bunene + Nì.si.sá, Lugalbanda + Ninsun, Girra + Nusku and [...] + Nabium. Most of hese can be grouped as male gods and their wife, main gods and lesser ones. Only the

103

In conclusion, the third possibility seems the most probable one. 3.2. Family? We have no idea who his father, Sîn-gāmil, was and whether he was related to any of the preceding second sangas21. 4. Career He is second sanga to Warad-Sîn during the reign of Sîn-muballi though not from the earliest years on. We know this because his predecessor, Šumu-Sîn, who starts his career under Apil-Sîn, still appears in two texts dated under Sîn-muballi. The last attestation of Šalim-pālišu is Sm 17 where he is second sanga to the new first sanga Annum-pī-Aja. The first attestation of his son and successor is a 1. The reign of Sîn-muballi lasts 20 years, so the length of Šalim-pālišu’s career must have been somewhere between fifteen and nineteen years. Only three of his attestations are dated by king and year: Sm 13, Sm 13/5/4 and Sm 17. Remarkably, on this last text the order of the sangas is reversed. Unfortunately, we have no seals of this document. It is probably no accident that this is the first text in which the new first sanga, Annum-pī-Aja is attested. Could it be that the new first sanga was less important than the well established second sanga? We will consider this possibility in our conclusions. Four years later, in the next attestation, Annum-pī-Aja is first sanga and Šalim-pālišu has disappeared. His son has replaced him.

combination of Adad and Šamaš can be seen as a grouping of two major gods. 21 There is another tenuous link here. In MHET 40, dated Sabium year “a”, there is a witness Sîn-gāmil son of Sînimitti. If this were the same as Sîn-ennam’s father, then Sîn-gāmil would be the brother of Nūr-Sîn and Sîn-ennam. Šalim-pāli-Marduk would then have succeeded his cousin.

i. the texts and the seals

104 5. The Location of the Seal Reference

Date

Genre

Seal

Place of seal

Seal of first sanga

CT 47, 11/11a

Sm oath

sale field

A

U.E.middle

U.E.

Di 2017

Sm oath

sale vacant plot

B

U.E. left

U.E.

Di 1907

Sm oath

uppi lā ragāmim

B

U.E. (fragmt)

[U.E.]

MHET 102

Sm oath

donation

[B?]

(U.E. lost)

(U.E. lost)

MHET 109

Sm oath

sale house

[B?]

(U.E. lost)

(U.E. lost)

VS VIII, 50

Sm oath

sale field/ house

[B?]

[...]

[...]

TCL I, 69

Sm oath

freeing of slave

B

L.E.,L.Mg. top

U.E.

BBVOT 1, 6

[Sm]

freeing of slave

B

L.E.,L.Mg. top

[U.E.?]

MHET 121

Sm 13/5/4

sale house

B

U.E. right

U.E.

Sm 13

sale field

B

Lo.E. right

Lo.E. left

Ballerini 1908-9

This second sanga normally seals on the upper edge, together with the first sanga. On TCL I, 68/69 (and BBVOT 6) this is not so because the first sanga and his daughter seal there, so he moves one place down to the top of the left edge or margin. On Ballerini 1908-9 the last (or penultimate) document sealed by Šalim-pāli-Marduk, we find his seal on the lower edge. On the upper edge we find the seals of the first two sellers (and of the last witness, no doubt because there was no place elsewhere). This is the first appearance of a

sealing pattern that we shall find later from a 32 onwards only. Why this is already applied here, we do not know. Another oddity is that as well on the obverse as on the reverse the sealing order, in part, proceeds from bottom to top. On the left margin of the obverse we find, starting from the bottom, the seals of witnesses 3, 7, 4 and 5. On the reverse, from the bottom, the seals of witnesses 9, 13 and 14. If this simply was because the tablet was inadvertently held upside down when sealed this would not be an exception and nicely fit in the pattern for all of these tablets.

105

i.d. the second sanga 5. Etel-pī-Nabium Son of Šalim-pāli-Marduk 14 Texts Sîn-muballi—a 11 1. Seal Inscription of the Seal Used (BT 57 = BT 841)

(Fig. 18) sanga┐ d[utu] e-te-el-pi4-dna-bi-[um] dumu ša-lim-pa-li-i-šu ìr dna-bi-um ┌

2. Attestations Reference

Date

Genre

Title

Seal

First sanga

CT 8, 39a

T

Sm2

sale field

sanga

—

Annum-pī-Aja

TCL I, 77

T

a 1/7/11

sale ékisla

sanga dutu

—

Annum-pī-Aja

VS 9, 211+13

C

”

”

[...]

[...]

[...]

CT 47, 21

T

a 2/-/-

sale house

[...]

—

Annum-pī-Aja

Di 696a

T

a 8/-/-

sale field

[...]

—

[...]

d

—

Annum-pī-Aja

Di 696b

C

”

”

sanga utu

MHET 1323

T

a oath

inheritance

sanga dutu

”

own

[...]

—

—

Annum-pī-Aja

sanga dutu

own5

”

—

—

”

”

—

—

”

sale house

sanga dutu

—

C

”

”

Di 677

T

a 9/-/-

sale field

”

C

”

”

CT 47, 30

T

a 10/3/20

donation

CT 47, 30a

C

”

MHET 1586

T

a 10/8/[ ]

” CT 8, 48a BM 82427

8

” 4

[...]

” 7

C

”

”

[...]

own

”

T

a 11/-/-

adoption

—

—

”

C

”

”

sanga

own

9

”

(continued on nex page) 1 Collation has shown these two impressions, on CT 8, 35b and MHET 158, to have been made with the same seal. On the latter there is a faint trace of the sanga and the dingir in the middle of the first line of the seal inscription. On BM 82427, the unpublished case of CT 8, 48, given in Teissier 1998, 177, both BT 57 (with reference to BT 84 on p. 131) and B 84 are said to be present. In fact this is the same seal rolled twice, once at the top of the left margin and a second time just underneath this. 2 For the dating of this tablet, see our chapter on Annumpī-Aja. 3 Intercalated here because the second sanga seals on the U.E., like on Di 677 and not yet on the left edge as on CT 8, 48a. 4 [sanga dutu] [e-te-el-pi4-dna-bi-um] dumu ša-lim-pa-li-i-[šu] ìr dna-bi-[um]

Correct the reading of the third line in MHET 132 (pa-lie-[šu]) and add the first line. 5 ┌ sanga┐ d[utu] e-te-el-pi4-dna-bi-[um] dumu ša-lim-pa-li-i-[šu] ìr dna-bi-um 6 There is no third sanga dutu in this text (contra MHET 158). Line 23. igi [case] sanga dutu, of the transcription should be deleted, as confirmed by collation (cf. also E. Woestenberg’s review in AfO 44/45, 352 sub n°158). 7 [sanga] d[utu] e-te-el-pi4-dna-bi-[um] dumu ša-lim-pa-li-i-┌šu┐ ìr dna-bi-┌um┐ Correct the reading of the first line in MHET ([...] dingir). 8 The case as a whole is unpublished but its seals have been published in Teissier 1998, index p. 177.

i. the texts and the seals

106 (cont.) Reference

Date

Genre

Title

Seal

First sanga

MHET 161

T

a 11/-/-

sale field

—

—

”

MHET 130

T

a oath

inheritance

sanga dutu

—

”

CT 4, 45c

T

a oath

sustenance

—

—

”

CT 8, 35b

T

a oath

sale slave + ox

sanga

—

BM 92644A

C

”

”

sanga

own10

”

CT 6, 22b

T

s.d.

inheritance

—

—

”

3. Comments 3.1. Career This second sanga follows in the footsteps of his father Šalim-pāli-Marduk. He is second witness to the first sanga Annum-pī-Aja from (late) Sm to a 11. Between this last date and a 15, when his successor appears, we have no dated texts mentioning him. His father is attested until Sm 17. From this date until his successor, he would have had a career of eighteen years. Counting his own attestations only, he lasted a little more than ten years. 3.2. Exit a Ghost In CT 47, 30/30a he is third witness after the šāpir bītim illi-Ninkarak and the first sanga (cf. our introduction: Sangas not first witnesses). On the tablet as well as on the case the first and second sangas are given without their title but with their patronymics. For Etel-pī-Nabium the father’s name is Šalim-pāli-Šamaš (on both tablet and case) instead of Šalim-pāli-Marduk

This same mistake is made in TCL I, 68/69, a text mentioning Šalim-pāli-Marduk himself and sealed by him. Here the name is misspelled on the case (the tablet stopped after Šalim-pāli, which my be a sign of the doubts of the scribe as to the ending of the name). This certainly is a mistake since the seal clearly gives Marduk at the end of the name. Since the seal of Etel-pī-Nabium shortens the father’s name to Šalim-pālišu, this same proof cannot be adduced for CT 47, 30/30a. That is why R. Harris (1975, 157 note 15) only cites the father’s name with Šamaš. In view of the succession and the error during the father’s lifetime, we think there was no Šalim-pāli-Šamaš, only a Šalim-pāli-Marduk. 3.3. A Remarkable Spelling On the seal legend the beginning of the name of this sanga is spelled e-te-el-...which is a very exceptional spelling. In all of the witness lists this is e-tel-...just like the later sanga with the same name (11). The scribe who wrote the seal legend must have intended to do something special.

4. The Location of the Seal His seal is to be found on the following cases: Reference MHET 132 Di 677 MHET 158 BM 8242712 BM 92644A

9

10

13

Date

Genre

Seal of second sanga

Seal of first sanga

a oath

inheritance

U.E. right

U.E.

a 9/-/-

sale field

U.E. right

U.E.

a 10/8/[ ]

sale house

L.Mg., second seal (top broken)11

[U.E.? ]

a 11/-/-

adopt. slave

L.Mg. top twice

U.E.

a oath

sale slave

L.Mg. top twice

L.Mg. second

[sanga] d┌utu┐ [e]-┌te-el-pi4┐-[dna-bi-um] dumu ša-lim-pa-┌li-i┐-šu ìr dna-bi-um ┌ sanga d┐[utu] e-te-[el]-pi4-dna-bi-[um]

dumu ša-lim-pa-li-i-šu [ìr] dna-bi-um 11 The seals on the left edge are different from those on the left margin. 12 Case of CT 8, 48a. 13 Case of CT 8, 35b.

107

i.d. the second sanga This sanga always uses his own seal. His seal is not to be found on Di 696b, an otherwise sealed document on which he is second witness. The upper edge is sealed by Iltāni, the king’s daughter, together with the first sanga. The first seal on left edge and left margin, where we would have expected the second sanga, is that of the overseer of the nadiātum.

If there is some consistency in the sealing practice, MHET 132 (without year name) belongs around Di 677 (a 9) where Etel-pī-Nabium also seals on the upper edge. BM 92644A, also without year name rather belongs with BM 82427 (a 11) where the second sanga also seals on the left margin. The first sanga always seals on the upper edge (except on BM 92644A). Twice the second one seals there with him (at the right side). Twice the first sanga occupies the upper edge alone and the second one, logically, seals at the top of the left margin. There is a clear tendency for the second sanga to abandon the upper edge and to migrate to the left edge/left margin.

4.1. The Sealing Order As stated above in our discussion of the first sanga Annum-pī-Aja, the sealing order of BM 92644A is odd. The sangas occupy the left edge but their order is inverted, the second one seals before the first.

6. Sîn-iddinam 6 Texts a 15—a 18 1. Seal Drawing and Inscription of the Seals Used

(Fig. 19A)

(Fig. 19B) [d]EN.ZU-i-[din-nam] ┌ sanga┐ [dutu] dumu den.líl?-a?-[...] ┌ ┐ ìr é.┌babbár┐.[ra]

2. Attestations Reference MHET 180 ” Di 707 CT 47, 26 MHET 200

Date T

a 15/[ ]

Genre inheritance

Title d

sanga utu

Seal

Place

First sanga

—

—

Annum-pī-Aja

C

”

”

”

[?]

—

”

TC14

a 16/-/-

sale field

sanga dutu

animal combat?

U.E. left

”

T

a 16

sale field

sanga

—

—

”

T

a 18

sale house

[...]

—

—

[...]

”

C

”

”

sanga dutu

own15

U.E. left

Annum-pī-Aja

Di 214216

C

d.l. a oath17

division

[...]

own18

U.E. twice

”

[...]

”

VS 9, 169

C

a oath

(fragment)

d┌

sanga utu

14 Unopened case. The case is partially broken and a small part of the obverse of the tablet is visible inside, but not the witness list. 15 Only the first sign of the first line: d[...] remains. 16 The name of the second witness is broken after the Sîn- but the seal confirms that this is Sîn-iddinam and not his successor Sîn-bāni. Especially since the latter is not the son of the former and never uses his seal. 17 This text can be dated after a 18 and before a 30. Until a 18 the first sanga Annum-pī-Aja uses his own

┐

19

[broken]

seal which he does not do on this text, he uses his father’s seal instead (which he will continue doing until the end of his career). From a 30 there is another second sanga. 18 [d]EN.ZU-i-[din-nam] sanga [dutu] dumu den.líl?-a?-[...] ìr é.┌babbár┐[.ra] 19 Only a small part of the reverse of the case remains. Collation shows there is no seal of Sîn-iddinam to be found there.

i. the texts and the seals

108 3. Comments

3.1. Career Still under the same first sanga, Annum-pī-Aja, Sîn-iddinam appears as second sanga in texts dated from a 15 until a 18. The next second sanga, Sîn-bāni, is attested for the first time in a 30. Di 2142 must be situated somewhere after a 18 and before a 30 (cf. footnote to the table above), which means this is the last ‘datable’ text of Sîn-iddinam. If we want to calculate the minimum extent of his career, we start from a 15, his first attestation and end in a 19, the earliest possible date of Di 2142, which means a minimum career of five years. Since his predecessor Etel-pī-Nabium is attested until a 11 and his a 4/1/30 a 33/5/1 a 33/11/3

CT 8, 18b MHET 854 CT 45, 26

4. The Location of the Seal

Di 707 MHET 200 Di 2142

Genre

Date

Place of seal

sale field

a 16

U.E. left

sale house

a 18

U.E. left

division

post a 18

U.E. twice

On Di 707 there is no inscribed seal to his name. The seal next to that of the first sanga on the upper 20

3.2. Family? Sîn-iddinam is the successor of Etel-pī-Nabium but we don’t know if they are related. The seal legend is unfortunately very worn. If he is the son of an Enlil-a[...], then Enlil-abum/abi would be a good possibility. There is indeed a Sîn-iddinam attested as son of an Enlil-abi three times around the same period as our sanga:

witness 8 out of 8 witness 13 out of 13 witness 14 out of 14

The father could be the well attested scribe (dub.sar) active under Apil-Sîn and mainly Sînmuballi, but the son probably also was a scribe (as attested e.g. in CT 2, 26 Sm 19 and a few ammu-rabi texts with the title dub.sar) as is shown by his position as last witness in the three texts above. It is true that we know next to nothing of the social/professional background of the second sangas and about as much of the social mobility in the Old Babylonian society, so we have no ground to exclude completely the identity with the scribe Sîn-iddinam. However, it seems improbable that someone should start out as a scribe, become a second sanga for a few years and finally revert to his scribal occupations. In conclusion, we do not know where this second sanga came from.

Reference

successor from a 30 on, this makes a maximum career of nineteen years. There is a gap of eleven years, between a 18 and 30 in our sanga documentation (see our comments supra on the first sanga Annum-pī-Aja) in which Di 2142 must be situated somewhere.

The two seals of the upper edge are not listed in Teissier 1998.

field sale sale vacant house plot (é.kigal) field sale

edge does not have an inscription. It represents an animal combat and could, in view of its position, be the one used by Sîn-iddinam. Another candidate is a seal with religious legend, rolled on the top of the left margin of the obverse, repeated on the lower edge and the reverse. The seals of/used by witnesses 3 and 4 are to be found on the left edge or margin. With the second seal on the upper edge and the one at the top of the left margin we have two seals between those of the first witness (upper edge) and witnesses three and four. That is one too many. The selling party, Lamassāni, daughter of Nūr-Šamaš could have sealed the document. If so, she would have done this either on the upper edge, or at the top of the left margin. In the absence of (other) impressions of her seal we cannot decide by elimination which one was used by Sîn-iddinam. Because it seems less probable that a second sanga would have rolled his seal on several parts of the envelope and because he seals on the upper edge on the two other envelopes, we propose to attribute the animal combat to him. On MHET 200 there are two seals on the upper edge20. The one to the right is that of the first sanga. Of the seal on the left only the first sign of the first line of the legend remains: dingir. This could be Sîn-iddinam’s seal, in view of the place where it is rolled. The top of the left margin and

i.d. the second sanga edge are damaged, further witnesses’ seals are found at their bottom. The lower edge has the seal of witness seven, which shows this was no special place for sealing anymore. On Di 2142 there is an inversion: the seal of Sîn-iddinam is to be found twice on the upper edge like on the other cases but the first sanga seals twice on the top of the left edge, followed by the other witnesses. Is this a sign of the L.E. gaining in weight vis à vis the upper edge? We will come back on this in our conclusions. As far as can be seen, this second sanga seals together with the first sanga (and even without

109

him) on the upper edge. He may have used two different seals, one inscribed and one anepigraphic. 5. The Servant Line of the Legend The fourth second sanga Šalim-pali-Marduk declares himself to be a servant of Marduk in his seal. The fifth one, Etel-pī-Nabium, is a ‘servant’ of Nabium. There is a clear relation between the god in their names and in their servant lines. With the sixth one, we revert to the olden ways: he is a servant of the Ebabbar. The seventh one will introduce yet another type of servant line.

i. the texts and the seals

110

7. Sîn-bāni Son of Asallui-mansum

15 Texts a 30—37 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used (his seal = BT 4411) His seal

Father’s seal

(Fig. 20A) [d]EN.ZU-ba-[ni] ┌ sanga┐ d[utu] d [dumu] asal.lú.i-┌ma┐.[an.sum] ┌ ┐ ìr a-am-mu-ra-[bi]

(Fig. 20B) asal.lú.i-ma.an.[sum] ┌ sanga┐ d┌marduk┐ [dumu] a-wi-il-d[...] [ìr] dna-bi-um

(Fig. 20C)

┌d┐

2. Attestations Reference MHET 238 ”

T C

Date

Genre

Title

Seal

First sanga

a 30/9/25

sale field

sanga dutu

—

Annum-pī-Aja

”

” 3

”

own d

2

”

CT 8, 37a

T

a 30? /-/-

sustenance

sanga utu

—

”

CT 47, 41

T

a 31/7/1

sale vacant plot4

sanga dutu5

—

”

TC6

a 32/10/20

sale vacant plot7

sanga dutu

?8

”

Di 1430 9

T

a 32/12d/9

inheritance

sanga utu

—

”

CT 47, 42a

C

”

”

[...]

[...]10

”

BDHP 6611

T

a 32/[12d/...]12

inheritance

sanga dutu

—

”

MHET 250

T

a 33/5/1

inheritance

sanga dutu

—

”

—

”

CT 47, 42

CT 45, 26(13) MHET 255 Di 217214 Di 2113 ”

15

T

a 33/11/30

d

d

sale field

sanga utu d

13

TC

a 34/-/-

donation

sanga utu

[...]

”

T

a 36/-/-

inheritance

sanga dutu

—

”

T C

a 37/4/28 ”

inheritance ”

d

[sanga utu] ”

—

” 16

father’s

”

(continued on next page)

1

As rolled on MHET 238 d EN.ZU-ba-[ni] ┌ sanga┐ d[utu] [dumu] dasal.lú.i-┌ma┐.[an.sum] ┌ ┐ ìr a-am-mu-ra-[bi] Correct line 3 in MHET 238 seal, accordingly. 3 Only the beginning of the year formula remains: mu ús.sa alan ┌x┐. a 30 would be a good candidate with ‘mu ús.sa alan dša.la’. 4 é.kisla. 5 The scribe misspelled the name as dEN.ZU-ma.an.sum, a hapax. Cfr. our comments infra ‘Seeming interferences’. 6 Unopened case. 7 é.kigal. 8 Seal without inscription cf. our Comments infra. 9 There are two Sîn-bānis in this text, as in a number of other ones: the first one is sanga, the other one overseer 2

(PA lukur dutu). Both are witnesses here (the second one without title). 10 Only part of the left margin, the lower edge and the left margin of the reverse are preserved. They contain no sanga seal. 11 Of the name, only Sîn-[...] is preserved but the title and the date allow to supplement the rest. 12 On the restoration of the month, see our comments supra under the first sanga Annum-pī-Aja. 13 Only a small part of the case is preserved, without seals. 14 The scribe forgot to write the last syllable of the name. 15 Name broken. His presence is revealed by the seal of his father, the date and the parallelism with Di 2136. 16 ┌d┐ asal.lú.i-ma.an.[sum] ┌ sanga┐ d┌marduk┐ [dumu] a-wi-il-d[...] [ìr] dna-bi-um

111

i.d. the second sanga (cont.) Reference

Date

Genre

Title

Seal

First sanga

Di 2136

T

a [3717]

inheritance

[...]18

—

”

”

C

”

”

sanga dutu

father’s19

”

CT 45, 28(14)

T

20

a x /4/[]

sale field

—

—

”

MHET 318

T

a [...]

inheritance

—

—

”

MHET 13121

T

a oath

inheritance

[...]

—

”

3. Comments 3.1. Career This is the third second sanga to hold office together with the first sanga Annum-pī-Aja. Since his predecessor is attested until a 18 and his successor from a 38 onwards, we can calculate a maximum career length of twenty years. The minimum, i.e. his own attestations, amounts to seven years and seven months. 3.2. Family As indicated by his own seal inscription and his father’s seal, he is the son of Asallui-mansum, sanga of Marduk and he is a grandson of Awīl[...]22. This Asallui-mansum is not to be found elsewhere in our Sippar documentation. As we remarked in our discussion of the second sanga Šalim-pali-Marduk above, there are not many references to personnel of the Marduk temple in Sippar texts, although there probably was such an institution in Sippar. Like sangas of other deities, the sanga of Marduk ranks lower in the hierarchy in Sippar than the sanga of Šamaš. The preceding sanga, Sîn-iddinam, was the son of his predecessor, but in the case of Sîn-bani we can be certain: there is a break in the line of second sangas. Is this interruption just a consequence of the extinction of the family, or is the fact that the new second sanga of Šamaš is the son of a sanga of Marduk significant? However this may be, it must 17 Year restored on the basis of parallelism with Di 2113: both describe parts of the same inheritance. 18 Hidden under case. 19 ┌d┐ asal.lú.i-ma.[an.sum] ┌ sanga┐ dAMAR.[UTU] ┌ dumu┐ a-wi-il-┌d┐[...] [ìr] dna-bi-um 20 Of this date, only mu ús.sa [...] remains. The only ús.sa dates of ammu-rabi from a 18 on (last attestation of the preceding second sanga) are: a 18, 24, 27, 30 and 32 (Horsnell, 1999, 144). In view of the general date range of the Sîn-bani texts, either 30 or 32 would fit best. 21 The second witness is given as dEN.┌ZU┐-[...] in MHET. Since the first line can now be restored to Annum-pī-Aja,

be noted that the line of first sangas of Šamaš is not interrupted, only the office of second sanga seems to be open for newcomers. For once we see that such a newcomer belongs to a family already into sangaship. We may wonder why Sîn-bāni did not succeed to his father as sanga of Marduk. Maybe this is because another son was destined for this office, as is illustrated further under Marduk-nāir sanga of Aja and his two sons Marduk-mušallim sanga of Aja and Etel-pī-Marduk sanga of Marduk. 3.3. Seeming Interferences 3.3.1. Sanga of arpanītum In a 31 (VAS 9, 42) Išme-Sîn, without title, is second responsible administrator (gìr) after Annum-pī-Aja and rolls his seal on the left edge, under that of the first sanga. His place after the first sanga could imply that he was the second sanga, thus interfering in the career of Sîn-bāni. In fact his seal tells all23: Išme-Sîn Seal A

(Fig. 21A) [iš-me]-┌dEN┐.[ZU] [sanga dar]-pa-ni-┌tum┐ [dumu i-ku]-un-pi4-┌d┐[Uraš24] [ìr] ┌a┐-am-mu-ra-┌bi┐

the second witness must be a second sanga. As to the choice for Sîn-bāni rather than Sîn-iddinam, based on the dates of attestations of the other witnesses, we refer to our remarks on this text in our chapter on Annum-pī-Aja. 22 The seal impression is broken after Awīl-d[...] on both the extant impressions. 23 The drawing given is based on the present state of the tablet. We express our thanks to M. Geller who provided us with a digital photograph. At the time VS 9 was published, more remained, which allowed us to complete parts of the legend. 24 The name of the god is supplied by the impressions of the next seal of Išme-Sîn, recorded infra sub 8. Išme-Sîn.

i. the texts and the seals

112

He is sanga of arpanītum, the spouse of Marduk, and not of Šamaš25. This seal is the second from the top on the left edge and on the obverse. The topmost one is that of Annum-pī-Aja’s father Warad-Sîn. There could be a relation with the fact that the plot, in Sippar, is bought from the palace, thus involving Babylon. This fits in with the fact that the name of his father, Ikūn-pī-Uraš, is otherwise unknown in Sippar. This Išme-Sîn will later become second sanga of Šamaš, at the end of Sîn-bāni’s career (see further under Išme-Sîn our eigth second sanga). 3.3.2. Sîn-mansum In the same year a certain Sîn-mansum is second witness after Annum-pī-Aja and bears the title sanga dutu (CT 47, 41 dated a 31/7/1). This name is otherwise unknown in Sippar. If we translate it into Akkadian, it becomes Sîn-iddinam and could thus refer to the previous second sanga. But why would he reappear during Sîn-bāni’s career? This must be a scribal error. The scribe should have written Sîn-bāni but added a wrong second part to the name. Unfortunately we do not have the case of this tablet which could have enlightened us by the seals. 3.3.3. Utu-urbara For Utu-urbara, who is sanga dutu in a 33 (MHET 860), we refer to our next chapter ‘The sangas of the Edikuda’. 3.4. Another Inversion This is the second sanga to start out with his own seal (attested once, in a 30), later replacing it with his father’s seal. We will try to find an explanation for this practice in our conclusions, below.

inscription. His father, sanga of Marduk, probably under ammu-rabi too, still had Nabium in his servant line. Sîn-bāni has a seal made to his name in which he declares himself to be the servant of ammu-rabi. This happens in a 30 and thus corroborates the idea of R. Harris (1961) that this change in allegiance from the temple (better: a god) to the palace occurred under ammu-rabi at least for the sangas (cfr. C.Wilcke, 1983, 66). The last occurrence of the seal of his predecessor Sîn-iddinam is in a 18. He declared himself to be the servant of the Ebabbar, a reminiscence of an old devotion and maybe also a mark of a new family line in the second sangaship. The one before him, Etel-pī-Nabium, has a god in the ìr line just like his two predecessors. His seal is attested until a 11. So there is a shift of allegiance from the (personal) gods (never Šamaš) or the temple (Ebabbar) to the king. This shift is to be situated somewhere between a 18 and 30. What we witness is not an obligation imposed by the crown to change the ìr line as from a certain date. People continue to use their existing seals. Only when a new seal is cut, do they conform to the new usage of declaring themselves to be ‘servant’ of the king. This change can be monitored more precisely with the second sangas than with the first. With the latter we only see it under Samsu-iluna. Annum-pī-Aja, servant of Aja, lasts so long that only his successor under Samsu-iluna declares his allegiance to the new king when he has his seal cut. We will examine this phenomenon more closely when dealing with the inscriptions on the sanga seals in our conclusions. 4. The Location of the Seal

3.5. A Remarkable Novum This is the first second sanga to mention the name of the king in the servant line of his seal Reference

25

Sîn-bāni seals the following cases:

Date

Owner

Seal Second Sanga

Seal First Sanga

MHET 238

a 30/9/25

his

L.E.,L.Mg. top

U.E.

Di 1430

a 32/10/20

his?

L.E.,L.Mg. second

L.E., L.Mg. top

Di 2113

a 37/4/28

father’s

L.E., L.Mg. second

L.E., L.Mg. top, U.E.

Di 2136

a [37]

father’s

L.Mg. second?26

[L.E.], L.Mg. top, [U.E.]

Confirmed by collation and already by KlengelBrandt 1989, 305: “mehrere Siegel nur mit Legenden (...)”. Teissier (1989, 66 n°58) cites Wilcke (1983, 66)

who erroneously identifies this sanga arpanītum seal with the sanga Šamaš one. 26 The left edge is broken. The L.Mg. is damaged, the seal could be second or third.

113

i.d. the second sanga On MHET 238 the second sanga seals at the top of the left edge and margin. The first sanga alone seals on the upper edge. On Di 1430 the first sanga seals at the top of the left edge and margin. The seal below his, without inscription, could belong to the second sanga. It represents an animal contest scene, without a legend27. The upper edge bears a seal with a religious inscription, rolled twice, which could belong to the testator. Di 2136 and Di 2113 belong to the dossier of the inheritance of Sîn-rēmēni, Pala-Adad and their sister Erišti-Aja. The first text specifies the part of the former, the second text that of the brother and sister. On Di 2113 the first and second sanga seal on the left edge and margin in this order. The second sanga uses the seal of Asallui-mansum, sanga of Marduk, his father28. The first sanga also seals on the left side of the upper edge, next to the seal of Nanna-ibila-mansum, son of Utu-[...] ìr é.babbar. Who could roll his seal next to the sanga? There seems to be no direct relation with anyone in the text. Could this be a seal inherited from an ancestor, used when the family property is divided? Unfortunately the history of this family cannot be reconstructed beyond the father.

Di 2136 is broken but the remaining part of the case shows the same sealing pattern as Di 2113. Of the seal of the first sanga, at the top of the left margin, only the dingir of the last line remains. The upper edge, with probably another rolling of the first sanga’s seal and maybe the Nanna-ibilamansum seal, is completely broken. 5. Whose Seal? An interesting point is that Sîn-bāni first uses his own seal and afterwards uses that of his father. In between it is possible that he uses a seal without a legend (on Di 1430). Would this mean that he broke or lost his own seal, used an ‘anonymous’ one and then took over his father’s seal? Would breaking or loss be the reason to change from one’s own to one’s father’s seal, or is there another reason and is the (unproven) use of another seal in between just a coincidence? 6. Conclusion There seems to be a shift in sealing practice. The first sanga can still seal the upper edge, sometimes alone, sometimes with a party. Or the party can take over the upper edge and both sangas then seal on the left edge and margin.

8. Išme-Sîn Son of Ikūn-pī-Uraš 17 Texts a 38—Si 13 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used (BT 5829; GW 213.430) Seal B31

Seal C

(Fig. 21B) iš-me-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga d[utu] dumu i-ku-un-pi4-d┌uraš┐ [ìr] a-┌am-mu┐-ra┌-bi┐

(Fig. 21C) iš-me-dEN.┌ZU┐ sanga d┌utu┐ dumu i-ku-un-pi4-duraš ìr sa-am-su-i-lu-na

27 It is different from the animal contest scene on the upper edge of Di 707, a seal which we tentatively assigned to his predecessor. 28 Which means that Asallui-mansum probably had passed away at the latest in a 37, when his son uses his seal. 29 On the seal legend as copied by in Teissier (1998,

132) from CT 47, 47A there is no indication of an ìr line. Al Gailani-Werr (1988, no. 213.4) gives no drawing. Our Di 1438 proves that such a line was indeed present. 30 Without drawing. 31 His sanga arpanītum seal is his seal A.

i. the texts and the seals

114 2. Attestations Reference CT 2, 41 Di 1438 ” CT 8, 5a

Date T

a 38/6/13

Genre inheritance

—

Annum-pī-Aja

T

a 39/5/12

exchange

sanga utu

—

”

C

”

”

”

B32

”

d

—

”

d

T

a 41/6/11

inheritance

sanga utu

a 41/11/-

sale field

sanga utu

—

”

T

a 42/4/28?

sale house

—

—

”

C

”

”

[...]

[...]

”

d

CT 47, 47

T

a 43/1/-

inheritance

sanga utu

—

”

CT 47, 47a

C

”

”

[...]

B33

”

d

VS N.F. 13, 16 ” Di 2121 ”

T

a oath

inheritance

sanga utu

—

”

TC34

Si 1/5/4

donation

sanga dutu

—

”

T

Si 2/10/-

d

sale field

[sanga ]utu

—

”

C

[”]

”

[...]

[...]

[...]

T

Si 7/1/12

sale house

—

—

”

C

”

”

[...]

[...]

”

d

35

OLA 21, 9

sT

Si 7/1/28

harvest lab.

sanga utu

C

CT 6, 33a

T

Si 8/4/-

inheritance

sanga dutu

—

Annum-pī-Aja

Speleers 241

T

Si []/.../30

sale house

sanga d[utu]

—

”

Di 709 MHET 425 ”

d

36

QH

Si 9/2/3

inheritance

sanga utu

C

T

Si 13/9/10

sale field

[sanga] dutu

—

d

—

Šamaš-tappašu ”

37

”

C

”

”

[sanga] utu

C

MHET 459

T

Si[]/[]/20

litigation

[sanga dutu]

—

”

CT 47, 66

T

Si []/5/4

inheritance

sanga dutu

—

”

3. Comments 3.1. Sanga arpanītum There can be little doubt that this Išme-Sîn is the same person as the sanga of arpanītum we encountered above. He was second responsible (gìr) after the sanga Annum-pī-Aja in a 31 (VS 9, 42 with his sanga arpanītum seal), seven years before his first attestation as second sanga of Šamaš. So we have another case of people from the Marduk temple being integrated in the higher ranks of the Šamaš temple hierarchy. Again, they

35

d

First sanga

T

BDHP 65

34

sanga utu

Seal

MHET 859

Di 689

33

d

VS N.F. 13, 25 ”

32

Title

iš-[me]-d┌EN┐.[ZU] ┌ sanga┐ d[utu] [dumu i-ku-un]-pi4-d┌uraš┐ [ìr a-am]-mu-ra┌-bi┐ iš-[me-dEN.ZU] sanga d[utu] dumu i-ku-un-┌pi4┐-[duraš] [ìr a-am-mu-ra-bi] Unopened case. iš-me-d[EN.ZU] sanga d┌utu┐ dumu i-ku-un-pi4-duraš ìr sa-am-su-i-[lu-na]

do not become first sanga but find their place amongst the second ones. We may wonder if the change from sanga of arpanītum to second sanga of Šamas was a promotion or if other reasons prompted this. In so far as the Šamaš temple was the main temple, the promotion seems probable. Another aspect is that the sanga of arpanītum could have been ‘second sanga’ to the sanga of Marduk. This usage could have prefigured the change of title from sanga of Šamaš to sanga of Aja for the second sanga of the Šamaš temple which was effected under Abi-ešu. The last sign of the father’s name is copied as UTU in OLA 21,9. Thanks to the help of E. Leichty and the virtuoso handling of the digital camera by E. Robson we can correct this to URAŠ. There is no witness list on this tablet. 36 iš-me-d[EN.ZU] sanga dutu dumu i-ku-[un-pi4]-d[uraš] [ìr sa-am-su-i-lu-na] 37 iš-me-dEN.┌ZU┐ sanga d┌utu┐ dumu i-ku-un-pi4-duraš ìr sa-am-su-i-lu-na

115

i.d. the second sanga 3.2. Career His predecessor is attested until a 37 and he himself from a 38 on, so for once there is no large gap between them. He is attested until Si 13 and his successor from Si 25, which leaves a gap of twelve years. The maximum career of Išme-Sîn is thirty years, not counting his time as sanga of arpanītum which must have lasted at least seven years. The minimum is eighteen years. Išme-Sîn is the fourth second sanga to assist the first sanga Annum-pī-Aja. He will survive him and also be second sanga to Annum-pī-Aja’s son Šamaš-tappašu from Si 9 on.

The father’s name is a hapax in Sippar. So much so that, as well in MHET 425 (transliteration of the seal) as in OLA 21, 9 (copy of the seal), the Uraš has been mistaken for an Utu. Only the transliteration of the seal in CT 47, 65a makes the difference, it does not read utu but ┌ma┐ at the end of the name. Collation has shown that Uraš should be read on all of these impressions. This exceptional name may well indicate that IšmeSîn’s father was a non-Sipparian and may have come from Dilbat. 3.4. Another Text? It is possible that CT 45, 33 (and its tablet CT 2, 5), dated Si 9, should be added here. On the preserved part of the case, the seal of the first sanga is to be found. The seal of the second sanga could have been present but is now lost. The witness lists do not help us, since the beginning of the list on the case is broken and the fully preserved one on the tablet does not give any sanga (see our discussion of this text supra under the first sanga Šamaš-tappašu).

3.3. Seal Including his sanga arpanītum seal, we have three seals of Išme-Sîn. He consistently uses his own seal. It is remarkable that he had a new seal cut at the latest in Si 7 (but no doubt earlier) in which the only change is the last line: modified from ìr ammu-rabi to ìr Samsu-iluna. This is certainly not the same seal with a ‘recut’ last line. The sanga sign on the second line is also quite different as is the disposition of the signs on the lines. The interesting question is of course whether the change of seals was prompted by the accession of the new king or by other, more personal reasons such as the loss of the first seal.

Reference38

Date

4. The Location of the Seal On the following envelopes, ‘Quasi-Hülle’ tablets and sealed tablets his seal should be found because he is second witness after the first sanga:

Genre

Seal

Seal of second sanga

Seal of first sanga

Di 1438

TC

a 39/5/12

exchange

B

L.E., L.Mg. second

L.E., L.Mg. top

CT 47, 47a

TC

a 43/1/-

inheritance

B

L.E.,L.Mg. bottom

L.Mg. third

Di 2121

TC

Si 7/1/12

sale house

—

—

L.Mg. top

OLA 21, 9

sT

Si 7/1/28

harvest lab.

C

under the text, only seal

—

Di 709

QH

Si 9/2/3

inheritance

C

L.E., L.Mg.,R.E. second

L.E., L.Mg., R.E. top

MHET 425

TC

Si 13/9/10

sale field

C

L.E., L.Mg. second

L.E., L.Mg. top

On Di 1438, an exchange of fields, the sangas seal on the left edge and margin; the upper edge is sealed by one of the parties to the transaction. Of CT 47, 47a the upper edge is broken completely but the sealing order is clear: a party, the testator, must have sealed there. The sangas seal in the left margin. Their seals come after those of the princess Iltāni and a lady of her retinue. Di 2121 has the second sanga as second witness, but his seal does not appear on the tablet. The seller probably seals the upper edge, the first 38 On Di 689 Išme-Sîn is second witness but his seal is nowhere to be found.

sanga seals the top of the left margin, followed by the overseer of the nadiātum Rapaš-illi-Ea. There must be some extra textual reason for Išme-Sîn not to seal. Could he be without a seal? Exactly 16 days later he uses his new seal (C) for the first time. Was his seal still in the making when Di 2121 was written? OLA 21, 9 is a memo about harvest labourers. Twenty-four of them were probably delivered by three named individuals. The party receiving these labourers to employ them is not named, but the

i. the texts and the seals

116

tablet is sealed by someone who doesn’t appear in the text: the second sanga Išme-Sîn. This is the only seal on this tablet and it illustrates the fact that in this kind of short note or memo the seal alone can replace a formula like ‘received by PN’ in the text. Whether this was temple business or a private matter cannot be made out. If it is temple business, why doesn’t the first sanga seal it? It is also interesting to wonder in whose archive this memo would have been kept. Most probably that of one of the three named individuals, but which one? On Di 709 the upper edge is sealed by the testator and the sangas seal on the left edge and margin. On MHET 425 the seller seals the upper edge and, again, the sangas take the left edge and margin.

Since we find the seal of the first sanga on CT 45, 33 (Si 9/2/10), Išme-Sîn could have been second witness. Unfortunately the names of the first witnesses are broken and his seal does not appear on the preserved part of the case. 5. Sealing Practice All of our documents exhibit the same sealing practice. The party handing out the tablet seals the upper edge and the sangas seal on the left edge and margin. On one occasion the seal of the second sanga is missing. On another text he is the one to seal, as a mark of his involvement in the transaction itself.

9. Sîn-erībam 2 Texts Si 25 1. Seal Inscription of the Seal Used (Predecessor’s Seal C)

(Fig. 21C) iš-me-dEN.┌ZU┐ sanga dutu dumu i-ku-un-pi4-duraš ìr sa-am-su-i-lu-na

2. Attestations Reference

Date

Genre

Title

First sanga Warad-Sîn

YOS 12, 469

T

Si 25/10/29

inheritance

sanga utu

—

CT 47, 65

T

Si 25/12/30

inheritance

sanga d[utu]

—

CT 47, 65a

C

”

iš-[me]-dEN.┌ZU┐ ┌ sanga┐ d┌utu┐ ┌ dumu┐ i-ku-un-pi4-d┌uraš┐ ┌ ┐ ìr sa-am-su-i-lu-na For the collated reading of this seal and the attribution to Išme-Sîn, cfr. Wilcke (1983, 66). Renger (1967, 110) had found a Sîn-erībam, son of Šamaš-tappašu in this text and in YOS 12, 469. In the texts themselves no patronymic is 39

”

┐ d

Seal

┌

d

sanga utu

” 39

predecessor

”

given, so he must have based the relationship on the first seal of the left edge and margin of CT 47, 65a. Although the name of the sanga owner of this seal is broken we can restore it, without doubt, as Warad-Sîn. The reading of the Uraš in the third line of the seal legend is not to be found in C. Wilcke’s article; it is the result of our collation and comparison with other sealings by Išme-Sîn (cfr. supra sub 8.).

117

i.d. the second sanga 3. Comments On CT 47, 65/65a he uses the seal of Išme-Sîn, his predecessor, as was established by Wilcke (1983, 66). This may mean they were father and son or at least closely related (e.g. nephew and uncle). On YOS 12, 469 his name is broken: Sîn-┌e?┐[ri-ba]-┌am┐ but enough can be read to be sure he is the second witness and bears the title sanga of Šamaš. 3.1. Career The new second sanga is attested in Si 25 only. Since his predecessor is attested until Si 13 and his successor from Ae ‘e’ (probably Ae 4 according to Horsnell, 1999, 79), his career could have lasted from two months (i.e. his own attestations) to twenty-eight years. There is no proof that his career started in Si 25 (contra Wilcke, 1983, 66). As remarked above sub Warad-Sîn, this second sanga appears only twice. After Si 25 the first

sanga is followed by other persons, not sangas, as second witnesses. Could this mean that there was an interruption in the second sanga line? The next one is attested from Abi-ešu on only. Is it possible that during sixteen years (from Si 26 to Ae 3) there was no second sanga? Or did they simply abstain from their witness activities? There is possibly a somewhat smaller gap between his predecessor Išme-Sîn and himself: twelve years between Si 13 and 25. 4. The Location of the Seal The seal of this sanga is rolled only on CT 47, 65a. We find it as the second seal on the left edge and left margin, under that of the first sanga, WaradSîn. The upper edge must have been sealed by the testator.

10. Marduk-mušallim Son of Marduk-nāir Adoptive Son of Sîn-erībam 6 Texts Abi-ešu—Ad 5 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used Seal A

Seal B

(Fig. 22A) marduk-mu-┌ša┐-[lim] dumu dmarduk-na-i-[ir] sanga dmarduk ìr a-bi-e-šu-u.[ke4]40

(Fig. 22B) marduk-mu-ša-[lim] sanga da-a dumu dEN.ZU-e-ri-┌ba-am┐ [ìr] am-mi-di-ta-[na.ke4]

d

d

2. Attestations Reference41 MHET 63342 Di 1851

T QH

Date

Genre

Seal

First sanga

s.d.43

excerpt44

—

—

Ae “e”/9/23

disadoption

A

45

Annum-pī-Aja

(continued on next page) 40 None of the extant impressions preserve this sign but the spacing of the signs of the last line suggests its presence. The same goes for seal B. 41 The Abi-ešu texts are classified according to Horsnell’s (1999, 79 sq.) provisional equation Ae “e” = 4; Ae “m” = 21; Ae “k” = 25. 42 The sanga is not first witness but buyer of a house plot (cf. supra Sangas not first witnesses). 43 For the approximate date, see our discussion of this

text supra Sangas not first witnesses. 44 An excerpt is a partial copy of (mostly but not always, several) sale documents on one tablet. In most cases the sale formulas, price, oath and witnesses are omitted. Sometimes, as here, the date is left out too. As far as we know, these are documents drawn up by a scribe when he sorts out archival documents in order to establish the chain of transmission of real estate.

i. the texts and the seals

118 (cont.) Reference41

Date

Genre

Seal

First sanga

Di 2035

T

Ae”m”/9/10

donation

—

”

Di 1547

C

”

”

A46

”

T

Ae “k”/8/10

sale house

—

Annum-pī-Aja

BE 6/1, 76

47

BM 96982

48

BBVOT 1, 111 BBVOT 1, 112

QH

Ad 2/6/22

adoption

T

Ad 5/1/12

sale vacant plot50

C

”

”

B

49

B

51

” ” ”

In all of these texts, except the first one, Marduk-mušallim has the title sanga Aja.

3. Comments This second sanga is the first one to use the title sanga Aja, on his second seal, first attested in Ad 2. E Pluribus Unum As can be seen in the seal legends above, Mardukmušallim is the son of two different fathers. On the seal he used first, he is said to be the son of Marduk-nāir, on the one he used subsequently he is the son of Sîn-erībam. How can this be? A very simple answer would be that these are in fact two different sangas and that, as fate would have it, they both had the same name. Although there is no proof one way or the other, we think this is very unlikely. The fact alone that two subsequent sangas would have the same name is very improbable but more arguments can be adduced to show this must have been one person. A Tale of Two Fathers To unravel this tale of two fathers we first have to find the answer to two questions: who is the sanga of Marduk of the first seal and who is the ‘second father’, Sîn-erībam of the second seal? Who Is Sanga of Marduk? A first point that has to be determined is to whom the title sanga Marduk of the first seal refers. Indeed, the legend of this seal can be interpreted 45

d

marduk-[mu-ša-lim] dumu dmarduk-┌na┐-[i-ir] sanga d┌marduk┐ ìr a-bi-e-šu-u.[ke4] 46 d marduk-mu-┌ša┐-[lim] dumu dmarduk-na-i-[ir] sanga d┌marduk┐ ìr a-bi-e-[šu-u.ke4] 47 In BE 6/1, 76 (Ae “k“), after his name and title we read “Sîn-erībam”. There is a break between both, too small to fit ‘dumu’ into it, but copies—however good—can be misleading. Indeed, his seal inscription leaves no doubt as to his patronymic.

in two ways: the title sanga Marduk can refer to Marduk-mušallim (line 1) or to his father (line 2). In the two texts on which this seal is rolled, Maruk-mušallim is explicitly designated as sanga Aja. Since, as with Šalim-pali-Marduk, our fourth second sanga, we do not believe a person could be a sanga of a different deity on his seal and in the text, we must conclude that here, the title refers to Marduk-nāir. There is a Marduknāir sanga of Marduk attested in Di 1153 dated under Ammi-ditana which confirms this. If this is indeed the same, this means that the father and the son were both sanga (albeit first and second) at the same time, under Ammi-ditana. The one of Marduk, the other of Aja. The reason why Marduk-mušallim did not succeed to his father as sanga of Marduk is revealed to us by Di 1882, dated Ad 30. In this text an Etel-pī-Marduk sanga of Marduk is mentioned who is a son of Marduk-nāir. This can only mean that one son of the sanga of Marduk succeeded to his father, the other one became sanga of Aja, still during his father’s lifetime and career. Quite a powerful family this must have been. Who Is Sîn-erībam? It is more than probable that the Sîn-erībam father of Marduk-mušallim on the second seal was our ninth second sanga, son of Ikūn-pī-Uraš.

48 Unpublished document. We are most thankful to E. Woestenburg who kindly put her transliteration at our disposal. 49 [dmarduk-mu-ša-lim] [sanga] da-[a] [dumu] dEN.ZU-e-ri-┌ba┐-[am] [ìr] am-mi-di-ta-[na.ke4] 50 é.kigal. 51 d marduk-mu-ša-[lim] sanga da-a dumu dEN.ZU-e-ri-┌ba-am┐ [ìr am-mi-di-ta-na.ke4]

119

i.d. the second sanga The Solution The career of Marduk-mušallim must have evolved in two stages, reflected in his use of two seals. He is the son of a sanga of Marduk and becomes second sanga of the Ebabbar. He is not the eldest son, this is Etel-pī-Nabium who inherited the sanga of Marduk position from his father. His family is clearly extending its power from the Marduk temple towards the Ebabbar. After some time he is adopted by Sîn-erībam, the previous second sanga, the brother of Išme-Sîn, who was sanga before him and who started out as a sanga of arpanītum. In other words, Sîn-erībam also stems from a family connected with the Marduk temple. Whether the families of Sîn-eribam and of Marduk-mušallim are in fact one or not is interesting but cannot be ascertained52. Mardukmušallim must have felt a need to anchor himself in the position of second sanga and to become part of the line of second sangas since Išme-Sîn (a line that will be continued from then on till the end), and that is why we interpret his second seal as a sign of his adoption by Sîn-erībam.53 When

did this adoption take place? The first mention we have is in BE 6/1, 76 dated Ae “k” = 25, which specifies the new patronymic in the text. The fact that not only the title but also the patronymic of a sanga should be given in a witness list is exceptional enough to show something special must have happened here, making it necessary to specify whose son he now was. Some Numbers This was certainly no adoption of a young child. Marduk-mušallim was adopted after he had been in office for at least twenty-one years (from Ae “e” = 4 to Ae “k” = 25). Is this possible vis à vis the age of Sîn-erībam? He is attested in Si 25 but we do not know if his career started then. His predecessor is attested until Si 13, so his career could have started in Si 14 at the earliest. The age of Sîn-erībam at the moment of his adoption of Marduk-mušallim can then approximately be calculated as follows, having him start his career at the age of twenty:

Start of career

Number of years up to adoption

Age

Si 14 Si 25

24 under Si + 24 under Ae = 48 13 under Si + 24 under Ae = 38

20 + 48 = 68 20 + 38 = 58

The adoption clearly was a late one but if we have him start his career at the age of twenty, we arrive at very acceptable ages at which Sînerībam, who maybe had no sons of his own, could have adopted his successor. Even if he started when he was ten years older, this would not be impossible. Marduk-mušallim was not adopted to transmit the title to him, because he already had it, the reasons must have been of a more general nature, to insure continuity in the line of the second sangas and, in view of Sîn-erībam’s age, his inheritance may also have played a part.

3.1. Career

52 It is in any case certain that adoptions within a family occurred, mostly nephews or, in the case of nadītums, nieces. For the nadītums the inheritance (in exchange for sustenance) was the object, for the males, the nephews, it was a question of inheriting a title, as well as (part of) the inheritance.

53 If this is true, then prosopographists beware! dumu can mean biological son as well as adoptive one, without any mark of difference between the two.

Marduk-mušallim is attested from Ae “e” to Ad 5. This is a career of 26 years, if we accept A “e”=4. His predecessor is attested in Si 25 and his successor from Ad 20 onwards. This gives us a maximum career span of 54 years. Again, we note a large gap: 18 years between Sîn-erībam and Mardukmušallim. Could this mean they witness fewer and fewer documents? Again we must be clear: the gap is in our documentation, not necessarily in the existence of sangas. Once more, as the saying goes: absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence.

i. the texts and the seals

120 4. The Location of the Seal Reference Di 1851 Di 1547

Date

Genre

Title

Place seal

QH

Ae “e”/9/23

disinheritance

sanga Aja

L.E., L.Mg. second

C

Ae“m”/9/10

donation

sanga Aja

L.E., L.Mg. third

BM 96982

QH

Ad 2/6/22

adoption

sanga Aja

L.E., L.Mg. third

BBVOT 112

TC

Ad 5/12/1

sale vacant plot

sanga Aja

L.E., L.Mg. third

On Di 1851 the upper edge is not sealed. The sangas seal at the top of the left edge and margin. The disinheriting party who might have occupied the upper edge did not seal. The upper edge of Di 1547 is broken. The first seal of the left margin is that of the donating father. We have observed in a number of cases that the upper edge and the top of the margin can be sealed by the same person, so his seal could have been on the upper edge too. The sangas follow on the left edge and the left margin. BM 96982 is sealed on the upper edge by the man who adopts/frees the slave. The same seal is

to be found at the top of the left edge, rolled twice. Then follow the first sanga, also rolled twice, and the second one. On BBVOT 112 the seller seals on the upper edge and at the top of the left edge and margin, followed by the sangas. As is customary in this period, the sangas always seal after the party handing out the tablet. That is why the second sanga occupies the third place on the left edge/margin, except once, when there is no party sealing. The party seals on the upper edge alone, or on the upper edge and the top of the left edge/margin.

11. Etel-pī-Nabium Son of Marduk-mušallim 10 Texts Ad 20—A 5 1. Seal Inscriptions of the Seals Used Seal A

Seal B

(Fig. 23A) A e-tel-pi4-dna-┌bi┐-[um] ┌ sanga┐ da-[a] d dumu marduk-mu-ša-┌lim┐ ┌ ìr am-mi-di┐-[ta-na.ke4]

(Fig. 23B) B54 e-tel-pi4-┌d┐[na-bi-um] ┌ sanga┐ da-[a] d dumu marduk-┌mu┐-[ša-lim] ìr am-mi-┌a-du┐-[qa.ke4]

2. Attestations Reference

Date 55

Di 690

TC

Di 2001

sT

Genre

Seal 56

Ad 20/2/12

sale field

A

Ad 22/4/5

(broken)

A57

54 No impression of this seal by Etel-pī-Nabium himself can be identified with certainty. His son Marduk-nāir uses it once. 55 Unopened case. 56 [e-tel-pi4-dna-bi-um] ┌ sanga┐ da-[a] dumu [d]marduk-mu-┌ša┐-[lim] ìr am-mi-di-ta-na[.ke4]

57

58

First sanga Sîn-iqīšam none58

e-tel-pi4-dna-┌bi┐-[um] ┌ sanga┐ da-[a] dumu dmarduk-mu-┌ša┐-[lim] [ìr am-mi-di-ta-na.ke4] The second sanga is first witness.

121

i.d. the second sanga Reference TCL I, 151

Date sT

Ad 30/7/24

Genre sale field

Seal

First sanga

A

59

Sîn-iqīšam

60

Ilšu-ibnīšu

Di 2129

QH

Ad 32/[ ]/10

sale field

A

Di 2163

QH

Ad [32]/ [ ]/ 10

certificate

A61

”

sT

Ad 32/6/13

field lease

—

—

64

62

Di 1128 Di 933

63

OLA 21, 665

sT

Ad 36/2/1

šubultum

A

sT

A 5/7/21

hire div.weapon

B66 67

Charpin,1988

QH

[...] (post A 5)

donation prebend

B

Di 1473

QH

A [...]

fragment68

[?]

Ilšu-ibni — Ilšu-ibni ”

In all of these references Etel-pī-Nabium has the title sanga.

3. Comments 3.1. Name His name was presumably chosen as a reference to the second sanga of that name (our fifth second sanga) at the beginning of ammu-rabi’s reign. In his seal legend the former’s name was spelled e-te-el-..., whereas this one spells e-tel .. on seal A and on B. In their textual attestations both are always written with e-tel-.. 3.2. Career Son of the preceding second sanga, he occupies the office under Sîn-iqīšam at least from Ad 20 to 30 and under Ilšu-ibnīšu from Ad 32. The last reference to his predecessor is Ad 5 and the first one to his successor A 11. This gives him a career of maximum thirty-four years; the minimum length is the time span between his own attestations: from Ad 32 to A 5 (the earliest possible date of Charpin 1988) i.e. eleven years. e-tel-pi4-dna-┌bi┐-[um] ┌ sanga┐ da-[a] dumu dmarduk-mu-ša-[lim] ┌ ìr am-mi-di┐-[ta-na.ke4] The copy of this seal is completed in Colbow (1998, 192, Abb. 36) where the utu on the second line has to be replaced by a-a. 60 e-tel-pi4-dna-┌bi┐-[um] ┌ sanga┐ da-[a] dumu d]┌marduk-mu-ša┐-[lim] [ìr am-mi-di-ta-na.ke4] 61 e-tel-pi4-dna-┌bi┐-[um] sanga da-[a] [dumu dmarduk-mu-ša-lim] [ìr am-mi-di-ta-na.ke4] 62 Not witness but owner of the field. Only Šamaš and Aja are witnesses. 63 Not second witness, he will bring the amount of silver as consignment (šūbultum) to Babylon, to Šumum-libši, sanga of arpanītum. First witness is Ilšu-ibni, first sanga of Šamaš. Second witness is Asallui-bani, gala.ma. 64 e-tel-pi4-d[na-bi-um] 59

3.3. Two Seals This second sanga uses two different seals to his name. His seal B differs from A by the fourth line: the name of the king in the servant (ìr) line has now been changed from Ammiditana to Ammiaduqa. The signs of the other lines are spaced differently on both seals too. Careful comparison of the impressions and the copies in OLA and Charpin (1988, 29sq.) allows us to decide that the last two have the same seal as the one used by Etel-pī-Nabium’s son on CT 6, 6 (cf. infra) which means this is seal B. Etel-pī-Nabium acknowledged his allegiance to the new king on his seal B and the earliest date we have for this is A 5 (OLA 21, 6). Other examples (cf. supra) show that this was not done immediately, at the accession of the new king, but could take several years.

┌ sanga┐ d[a-a] dumu [dmarduk-mu-ša-lim] ┌ ┐ ìr [am-mi-di-ta-na.ke4] 65 Not witness, rents out divine weapon. 66 [e-tel-pi4-dna-bi-um] [sanga] da-[a] [dumu d]marduk-┌mu┐-[ša-lim] [ìr am-mi-a-du-qa.ke4] The servant (ìr) line is not impressed but the disposition of the signs as compared with CT 6, 6 (use of seal B by the son of this sanga, cfr. infra) allows us to see that this must also be seal B. 67 e-tel-pi-d[na-bi-um] sanga d[a-a] ┌ dumu┐ dmarduk-┌mu┐-[ša-lim] [ìr am-mi-a-du-qa.ke4] The ìr line is not impressed but the disposition of the signs as compared with CT 6, 6 (use of seal B by the son of this sanga, cfr.infra) allows to see that this must also be seal B. Charpin (1988, 30) had restored the last line with the name of Ammiditana. 68 The remaining part of the text starts with the oath.

i. the texts and the seals

122

3.4. Not Witness We get another glimpse of the economic position of the second sanga: in Ad 32/6/13 (Di 1128) Etel-pī-Nabium is not witness but owner of a field that he leases out. The only witnesses to this text are Šamaš and Aja. In OLA 21, 6 we find him in a temple function: he rents out the divine weapon to a gudapsû priest.

3.5. First Witness Exceptionally for a second sanga, he is first witness in Ad 22/4/5 (Di 2001). This may be related to the change in first sangas: Sîn-iqīšam’s last reference is Ad 20/2/12 (Di 690) and Ilšu-ibni‘s first one is Ad 32 (Di 2129). Was there an interregnum? Or was the text (a contract with an ‘ana baqrīšu’ clause) not deemed important enough for a first sanga to witness it?

4. The Location of the Seal Reference Di 690

TC

Date

Genre

Place seal

Seal

Ad 20/2/12

sale field

L.E. fourth

A

Di 2001

sT

Ad 22/4/5

broken

Reverse

A

TCL I, 151

sT

Ad 30/7/24

sale field

L.E.,Obv. third

A

Di 2129

QH

Ad 32/[]/10

sale field

L.E.,[L.Mg.] last

A

Di 2163

QH

Ad [32]/ [ ]/ 10

certificate

L.E, L.Mg., lower half

A

Di 933

T

Ad 36/2/1

loan silver

L.E. second

A

OLA 21, 6

sT

A 5/7/21

hire div. weapon

Reverse

B

Charpin, 1988

QH

[...] (post A 5)

donation

L.E., L.Mg. fourth

B

Di 1473

TC

A [...]

fragment

[L.E.,L.Mg.,U.E and Lo.E. broken]

[?]

On Di 690 three of the sellers seal first on the upper edge and at the top of the left margin. Then come the two sangas, below them on the left margin. Di 2001 is a very broken contract, only the ‘ana baqrīšu kīma imdat šarrim’ clause is readable, implying that this text may be a sale of a slave or an animal. The text is witnessed by three persons: our Etel-pī-Nabium sanga Aja, Ili-usāti and Sîn-erībam, overseer (ugula). The left edge is gone and, apart from this, the tablet is sealed on the upper edge (one seal, uninscribed), the lower edge (two seals, uninscribed) and the reverse. On the lower part of the reverse the seals of the witnesses Etel-pī-Nabium and Sîn-erībam are rolled. This implies that the seals on the upper and lower edge must be those of parties of the contract. The reason for the absence of the first sanga from the witness list might be that he was a party to the transaction, more precisely the buyer. The seal of the seller is probably the one on the upper edge and the buyer does not seal a sale document. On the other hand, the last text witnessed by the preceding first sanga, Sîn-iqīšam, is dated Ad 20, the first one by his successor, Ilšu-ibni, is Ad 32, which means that Di 2001 is situated in between these at the beginning of a period of twelve years without attestation. Was there no sanga at this time?

On TCL I, 151 the seller seals on the upper edge, at the top of the left edge and on the obverse. She is followed by the two sangas on the left edge and obverse. For the fact that this is a field sale on a sealed tablet, see our remarks in our comments on the first sanga, Sîn-iqīšam. Di 2129 and Di 2163 belong together. The former is a sale contract and the latter a certificate concerning this dossier. Their witness lists are the same and they were written on the same day. On the upper edge we find, from left to right, the seals of the father of the first seller, the father of the second seller and the third seller. On the left edge and margin we again find the seal of the second seller (twice), followed by the third seller. Then come the witnesses’ seals, headed by the sangas. That is the reason why the second sanga’s seal is only fifth. Di 933 is a consignment (šubultum), from Inanna-mansum, the galama of Annunītum, to be transmitted by the second sanga Etel-pīNabium. It is witnessed by two and sealed by four persons. The first seal, at the top of the left edge, is too worn to be identified but could be that of the first witness, the sanga of Šamaš Ilšu-ibni (cf. supra). The second one is that of Etel-pī-Nabium. Why a second sanga of Šamaš of Sippar-Jarūrum transmits a payment due by a galama of SipparAmnānum to Babylon cannot be dealt with here.

123

i.d. the second sanga This will be treated in a separate study of the šubultum texts. OLA 21, 6 is a rent of the divine weapon of Šamaš69. It is a small tablet with thin edges. Only the obverse and reverse are fit to receive seal impressions. We find one on the reverse only. The very damaged legend can be restored as that of Etel-pī-Nabium, the official from whom the divine weapon is rented. We already mentioned two texts (Di 1674 and Di 821) in which the first sanga Ilšuibnīšu rented out the divine weapon. Now we see that the second sanga too could do this. The text explicitly states that the weapon is rented for the sesame harvest in Sippar-Amnānum. Charpin 1988, 29 is the donation of a prebend. The top of the document is broken, so the upper edge is gone. On the left margin we find the seals of two sons of Ipqatum, who, according to the text, will not raise a claim in the future. The sons of Sîn-nādin-aê who fall under the same obligation, and are cited before those of Ipqatum in the text, must have sealed the upper edge. After

these parties to the contract, follow the first and second sanga, still on the left margin. Di 1473 is only the lower part of the reverse, starting with the oath. The left margin of this reverse is sealed but, as could be expected, not by a sanga. 5. Sealing Pattern In all of the above instances the same pattern is apparent. The party or parties handing out the contract seal on the upper edge and on the left margin and edge if necessary. Sometimes the sealings of the upper edge are repeated on the left margin. Then follow the witnesses headed by the sangas. OLA 21, 6 belongs to another type. This document has thin edges which cannot be sealed. The only seal is on the reverse. It is that of the sanga, not a witness here, but the party handing out the document.

12. Marduk-nāir Son of Etel-pī-Nabium 1 Text A 11 1. Seal Inscription of the Seal Used

(Fig. 23B) e-tel-pi4-┌d┐[na-bi-um] sanga da-[a] d ┌ mardukmu┐-[ša-lim] dumu ìr am-mi-┌a-du┐-[qa.ke4]

2. Attestations Reference CT 6, 6

69

QH

Date

Genre

Title

Role

Seal

First sanga

A 11/8/4

litigation

sanga Aja

witness 2

father’s

Nūr-Kabta

See, for this genre, Harris (1968, 217-224).

124

i. the texts and the seals

3. Comments

4. The Location of the Seal

This second sanga is attested only once, on CT 6, 6, dated A 11/8/4, a ‘Quasi-Hülle’ tablet. He is the sanga of Aja, second witness, after Nūr-Kabta, sanga of Šamaš. The text adds that he is the son of Etel-pī-Nabium. For once, a single reference is very informative as it allows us to put Marduk-nāir in the family line of the second sangas.

We find his father’s seal B on this tablet, as the fourth seal on the left margin of the obverse. Since the sealing is in zigzag order between the left margin and the left edge of the tablet, he comes after the first sanga Nūr-Kabta who had impressed his seal on the left edge, unfortunately on a part now lost. Before them the five sellers have sealed. After them we find the seals of witnesses 3 (on the left edge) and 4 (on the left margin).

i.e. the sangas of šamaš of the edikuda temple in sippar-amnnum

125

I.E. THE SANGAS OF ŠAMAŠ OF THE EDIKUDA TEMPLE IN SIPPARAMNĀNUM

Ten persons bearing the title sanga of Šamaš do not fit in the succession of sangas given above.1 Apart from Sîn-išmeanni and Narām-Sîn, they are all attested only once, but most of them right in the middle of the careers of other, better attested, sangas of Šamaš. Our basic reason for distinguishing these ten sangas of Šamaš from the first sangas of the Šamaš temple in Sippar-Jarūrum, is that the latter form an uninterrupted family line from the first to the last one. Although there are chronological gaps between the successive sangas of this family (no doubt due to our incomplete documentation) we think the line was never interrupted, as is shown in many instances when a son uses his father’s seal to stress the continuity. Sanga Šamaš

Until Abi-ešu, a confusion is possible with both the first and the second sanga of Sippar-Jarūrum since they all use the same title ‘sanga Šamaš’. From Abi-ešu on, this title is reserved for the first sanga of Šamaš in Sippar-Jarūrum only, the second one now is ‘sanga Aja’. From this king on, the possible confusion is consequently restricted to the first sangas only. For the first five there is an overlap with the first sanga and, in most cases, with the second sanga, of the Šamaš temple in Sippar-Jarūrum:

First sanga Šamaš

Dates

Second sanga

Dates

Im/Sle Sle Sle/Sa/AS

(Imlik-Sîn) (Būr-Nunu) ”

Sle Sle/Sa ”

Sîn-iddinam/Sîn-bani

a 15—37

Sîn-bāni

a 30—37

Išme-Sîn

a 38—Si 13

”

”

Nūr-Šamaš

Sle

Annum-pī-Šamaš Šamaš-tappašu Lipit-Ištar

B

Šamšatum

a 27

Annum-pī-Aja

Utu-urbara

Overlapping Careers

Dates

A

C

We will first give an overview of the overlaps.

a 34

”

D

Šumi-eretim

Si 1

”

E

Narām-Sîn

Si 7

”

Sm 17 to Si 7 or 8

The next five sangas can only be confused with the first sangas of Šamaš of Sippar-Jarūrum, because the second ones now have another title. Sanga Šamaš

Dates

First sanga Šamaš

Dates

F

Sîn-nādin-šumi

Ae “t” (=10?)

Annum-pī-Aja

Ae “e” (=4?)—Ad 5

G

Etel-pī-Marduk

Ad 30/4/6

Sîn-iqīšam Ilšu-ibnīšu

Ad 20—Ad 30/7 Ad 32—A 11

H

Sîn-išmeanni

Ad 29—A 8

Ilšu-ibnīšu

Ad 32—A 11

I

Ikūn-pī-Sîn

A 12/2/10

Nūr-Kabta

A 11

J

Ibni-Šerum

A 13/7/13

”?

The overlap shows they must belong elsewhere, but where?

1 There is an Elali sanga dutu attested in a 20 (PBS 8/2, 248) who will not be discussed here, because we think he is no sanga of Šamaš. In view of the fact that both in BM 92596, dated a 3, and VS 13, 32, dated a 13, an Elali clearly is sanga Adad, we would tend to interpret the sanga dutu of PBS 8/2, 248 as a mistake for diškur, a mistake

probably made by the modern copyist. The misreading may have been facilitated by the fact that the iškur/utu sign was written at the end of a long line of the obverse, on the right edge, no doubt in a rather compressed way. That such a misreading can occur is illustrated by Išar-dutu, our first second sanga, erroneously read as Išar-diškur in MHET 30.

i. the texts and the seals

126 Overlaps Resolved

How can the overlaps be resolved? The title borne by two of them provides the answer: they were sanga dutu é.di.kud.dá, sanga of Šamaš of the Edikuda. This temple is the Šamaš temple of Sippar-Amnānum (Janssen et alii 1994, 93 and note 9), situated in the ‘religious quarter’ of this city, between the Lugal-gudua and Annunītum avenues, in the vicinity of the Annunītum temple. In other words, this means that parallel with the mighty sangas of Šamaš of the great temple in Sippar-Jarūrum, there were sangas of what must have been a much more modest establishment in Sippar-Amnānum.2 All the insertions between the well attested sangas of Sippar-Jarūrum and the ten mentioned above can be resolved in this way. They did not exercise their sanga office in Sippar-Jarūrum but in Sippar-Amnānum. The fact that the Edikuda is more modest reflects upon the standing of these sangas in the

documents in three ways, which we can use as a further diagnostic to distinguish between the sangas of the two localities: 1. They are never accompanied by a second sanga as second witness. 2. They do not necessarily occupy the first place in the witness list, contrary to the sangas of Šamaš of Jarūrum. The persons preceding them are not of a specially high status,. 3. None of them—as far as this is documented— seems to have had a seal of his own mentioning his sanga-ship in the legend.3 A supplementary criterion is, of course, that the sangas of Amnānum will appear more in the texts from that locality as they do in the archive of the galamas.4 We will now proceed to discuss these ten sangas of Šamaš of the Edikuda and the seals they use.

A. Nūr-Šamaš 2 Attestations MHET 21

T

Sle5

CT 8, 44b

C

”

sale of a house ”

sanga dutu ”

One attestation only (on separately published tablet and case) and no other identifiable member of the temple organisation in the witness list, make it probable that this sanga did not head the temple in Jarūrum.

first witness ”

— (no seal)

Furthermore, he cannot be a first sanga of Jarūrum because there is an uninterrupted line there. He cannot be a second sanga either because, under Sumu-la-el, this function does not exist yet and Būr-Nunu is still second witness.

B. Šamšatum 1 Attestation CT 48, 22

T

a 27/6/7

division of property

2 There was a parallel Šamaš temple in Babylon, called the é.di.kud5.kalam.ma (George 1993, 74-75, n° 151). For both temples/chapels cited together in one text cf. Veenhof 2003, 316. We have no names of sangas of this temple. 3 Renger (1977, 77) lists five possibilities when a person who has no seal has to use a seal: 1) in Nippur a burgul seal is made, 2) the hem of his garment is impressed, 3) his fingernails are impressed, 4) a byscript is written over an empty sealing place, 5) a byscript over a seal with legend without a link to anyone in the tablet, which could be an

sanga dutu

first witness

(no seal)

heirloom seal or “that a person unrelated to the transaction lent his seal to one of the parties”. In the case of the sangas of the Edikuda, we are closest to this very last possibility: seals with and without legend were used, mostly with a byscript. 4 Note that not all of the tablets in the Inanna-mansum/ Ur-Utu archive come from Sippar-Amnānum. Apart from the property deeds included in the “chains of transmission” and coming from different archives, all texts dated before Ad 1 were certainly brought by Inanna-mansum from SipparJarūrum (cf. Tanret 2004).

i.e. the sangas of šamaš of the edikuda temple in sippar-amnnum This sanga appears once, in a division of property, as first witness. Second witness is no sanga but a Puzur-Sîn, son of Sîn-erībam. Most of the names in this text are rather unique vis-à-vis the Sippar corpus, even the scribe Sînšeme is not known elsewhere in our documentation. Only three of them appear in other texts. The easy way out would thus be to suppose that this text does not belong to the Sippar corpus. This is impossible since the oath is taken by Šamaš, Marduk, ammu-rabi and the city of Sippar. So it must be a Sippar text but the oath formula does not allow us to distinguish between the two Sippars. We saw above that there is an overlap with the career of Annum-pī-Aja, first sanga, but not with the second sangas. Šamšatum would fit nicely in the twelve year (documentary?) gap between the second sangas Sîn-iddinam and Sîn-bāni. If he was a second sanga, this would mean that, in the absence of the first one, he was first witness. Although later on, under Ammi-ditana, this happens, in this period the second sangas (Sîn-

127

iddinam and Sîn-bāni, together seventeen texts) are always preceded by the first sanga. The first position in the witness list does not imply, in this case, a very high social rank. He is just the only one with a title. Furthermore, there are some links with Sippar-Amnānum. The mention of a kalûtum in the text could be a link with the kalû priests in Sippar-Amnānum, although we know there were kalû priests of Šamaš too. Two of the persons from CT 48, 22 appearing in other Sippar texts are Wedu-rigimšu and Kabtatšeressu son of Warassa. The first one is attested in MHET 870, a record of fields allotted to soldiers (ibtu-fields) in the territory of Sippar-Amnānum. The second is first witness to a donation (Di 708) concerning, among other property, a field in the irrigation district (ugārum) Pauum and a house in Sippar-Amnānum (Sippar gal in the text). The common denominator is the link with SipparAmnānum. Therefore, we situate CT 48, 22 and Šamšatum, sanga of Šamaš in that locality.

C. Utu-urbara 1 Attestation MHET 8556

T

a 34/3/-

sale of a house

In this text Utu-urbara is fifth witness out of eight, which would be an exceptionally low position for a sanga of Šamaš of the Ebabbar but is consistent with the place of other less important sangas such as the sanga of Šamaš of the Edikuda. He is preceded by a sanga of Amurrum whose presence is certainly linked to the fact that the house sold is adjoining to the Amurrum temple/chapel. The text does not inform us of the town where the house was situated. The neighbouring house is property of a nadītum and the buyer is a nadītum too. This in itself is not enough since we know that although these wealthy ladies mostly lived in Sippar-Jarūrum, they bought and sold property in the wider Sippar region.

sanga dutu

fifth witness

no seals

This attestation overlaps with the career of Annum-pī-Aja, sanga of Šamaš, attested regularly for the period between Sm 17 and the beginning of Samsuiluna, fifth in our list. It also overlaps with the second sanga Sîn-bani, attested from a 30 to 37. Combined with the single attestation of Utu-urbara this tips the balance towards Amnānum for him. One more argument is that Utu-urbara’s son Sîn-išmeanni is attested as sanga of Šamaš of the Edikuda (cf. our H infra). The son followed in the footsteps of the father, though not directly: some others came in between.

D. Šumi-eretim 1 Attestation Di 1986

sT

Si 1/8/22 rent of a house

5 The year name is “mu bàd dal.batki su-mu-la-èl ba.dù”. The place of this year name is unknown, according to Horsnell 1999. 6 We thank C. Waerzeggers for her collation which has shown that the transcription ‘dutu-nu-úr-bar.ra sanga dutu’

first witness

sanga dutu

[seal?]

in MHET is to be corrected, the ‘nu’ should be deleted. Veenhof 2003, 316, restores the broken name in BM 96998, Rev 60 as dutu-[nu-ú]r-bar.ra, on the basis of MHET 855. This must now also be corrected to dutu-[ur].bar.ra and to Utu-urbara on p. 319.

i. the texts and the seals

128

Šumi-eretim is the first witness of this text. The text does not mention the town where the house is situated, so we cannot establish if it was Amnānum or Jarūrum. We classify him here for two reasons. First, he comes in the middle of the

careers of first and second sangas Annum-pī-Aja and Išme-Sîn. Second, he is attested only once. His seal, which should be present on the tablet, can no longer be recognised.

E. Narām-Sîn Son of dEN.[...] 2 Attestations Di 680 ” OLA 21, 16

T

Si 7/12/20

sale field

sanga é.di.kud.dá

witness 4

—

C

”

”

[...]

witness 3

(traces of seals)

T

(date lost)

sale field

sanga

buyer

—

Narām-Sîn is the first one attested with the title of sanga of the Edikuda temple. This resolves the problem of his insertion within the career of Annum-pī-Aja. In Di 680 he is fourth witness on the tablet and third on the case. The people preceding him are known from other Sippar-Amnānum documents, always without a title. OLA 21, 16 is classified here because the combination of name and title (albeit without god) make the identification probable. No other sanga of this name is known. Unfortunately the text is very broken. It nearly gives his patronymic: he is the son of dEN.[...] which does not fit any of the preceding known sangas of the Edikuda. As to the date, there is none left on the remaining part of the tablet, even the oath is gone. The only other remaining name, Ilšu-bāni, is very common and impossible to place because of the broken patronymic. The only element that gives some chronological information is the use of the bukannum clause which places the text before Abi-ešu (C. Wilcke 1976) which fits nicely with

the date of Di 680. His lowly position in the witness list and mention in a Sippar-Amnānum text all concur to place him in Amnānum. Another Narām-Sîn There is another reference to a Narām-Sîn, sanga, which certainly cannot be the same as the preceding one. TeD 77 is a list of amounts of barley, each followed by a name. The first one mentioned is a Narām-Sîn. He is the only one with a title: ša-gu-um. This is the only instance in our corpus where the akkadian word for sanga is used. The document is not dated but prosopography allows to place it under Im-Sa.7 The text was excavated in Sippar-Amnānum and this attestation is contemporaneous with the other, better attested, sangas of Šamaš. What prevents us from inserting it at the top of our Edikuda list is the fact that the title does not include the name of the god. In other words, this Narām-Sîn could have been a sanga of another deity.

F. Sîn-nādin-šumi 1 Attestation BE 6/1, 68

T

Ae “t”/3/-

conc. Šamaš temple

sanga dutu

third witness

(no seals)

In this Abi-ešu text, Sîn-nādin-šumi, sanga of Šamaš, is third witness after two judges. These judges are well attested: Ili-iddinam is second witness after the famous Sîn-iddinam son of Nūrātum in two other texts (BE 6/1, 119 Ad 4

and BM 96956 Ae “5”8). Ipiq-Annunītum, judge, son of Awīl-Adad is third witness after two sangas in Si 25 (CT 47, 65, provided it is the same: there is no patronymic in this text). In all of these references the order is normal. Our reference, BE 6/1,

7 One of the other persons in the text, Iku-pīša, son of Mannum-šāninšu is also mentioned in BE 6/1, 4 (Im oath) and BE 6/1, 12 (Sa oath).

8 Published by Dekiere (1991/110), added remarks by Woestenburg and Jagersma (1991, 28), and now Veenhof 2003, 321.

i.e. the sangas of šamaš of the edikuda temple in sippar-amnnum 68 seems to be an exception. Nowhere else does a sanga of Šamaš, if he belongs to the temple in Jarūrum, come after the judges. Another anomaly is that, if we classify Sînnādin-šumi among the Sippar-Jarūrum sangas, he must come before Annum-pī-Aja because this sanga is attested from Abi-ešu to Ad 5. If so, then he comes between a father, Warad-Sîn, and

129

his son, Annum-pī-Aja. To this we can add that he is not a candidate for the second sanga-ship either, because from Abi-ešu on these have the title of sanga Aja. Both these arguments taken together shift the balance in favour of a sanga-ship in Amnānum. This would of course not prevent him from witnessing a document in Jarūrum.

G. Etel-pī-Marduk 1 Attestation Di 1852

sT

Ad 30/4?/6

loan of silver

As stated above, this sanga is contemporaneous with the second sanga Etel-pī-Nabium who holds his office from Ad 20 to A 5 at least. Sîn-iqīšam is first sanga from Ad 20 to Ad 30/7/24. This would create a possibility to intercalate our Etelpī-Marduk in the line of the first sangas because the reading of the month name of Di 1852 is uncertain: only the first sign remains, probably but not certainly the šu of šu.numun.a, the fourth month. If this were one of the months from eight to twelve, Etel-pī-Marduk might have been the successor of Sîn-iqīšam, especially since the next first sanga is attested from Ad 32 onwards only. Nevertheless, we refrain from placing him there because he would come between a father and son first sanga in a family that otherwise held the first sangaship during the whole of the Old Babylonian period. Our conclusion is that Etel-pī-Marduk must belong to the Edikuda. Our Etel-pī-Marduk is second witness in Di 1852 after a Tarībuša son of Sîn-imguranni, a person without a title, which is another indication that he cannot be a first sanga. The third witness is Annum-pī-Ištar, a kalû priest. There seem to be only three seals on this tablet. The first one, rolled on the upper edge and the top of the left edge probably was used by the debtor. The second one on the left (and right) edge has a five-line inscription in all probability in Sumerian. The traces do not allow a reading, and we know of no other impression of this seal. The third seal has no legend. In the absence of a clear legend or other attestations of this sanga it is impossible to find out which seal was used by him. This sanga of Šamaš is attested in SipparAmnānum only. Di 1852 gives the name of his father Ibni-Marduk, an unusual feature. The

sanga dutu

son of Ibni-Marduk

witness 2

reason might well be that the scribe wanted to avoid confusion with a namesake, also a sanga. Another Etel-pī-Marduk Indeed, in Di 1882, also dated Ad 30 and in Di 1022 Ad (year lost), we find another Etel-pīMarduk, but he is sanga of Marduk and son of Marduk-nāir according to Di 1882. His seal has a five line Sumerian legend (different from the one on Di 1852). This sanga of Marduk is first witness in both texts, and seals second on the left edge, after the party to the transaction. This must be the brother of Marduk-mušallim second sanga of Šamaš (cfr. supra our tenth second sanga). Is There a Life after the Edikuda? There are two further mentions of an Etel-pīMarduk son of Ibni-Marduk both without a title: Di 2130 with a broken Ammi-ditana date and Di 1856 dated A 17 where he leases out a field to Ur-Utu. The absence of the title must be significant, it means he is no longer sanga dutu. The fact that he already appears without the title under Ammi-ditana shows his tenure did not last very long but his life went on, at least for 24 years and he still was a man of means.

H. Sîn-išmeanni Son of Utu-urbara 23 Texts Ad 29—A 8 Sîn-išmeanni, is mentioned in no less than twenty three texts. His title is either given in full (sanga d utu é.di.kud.dá) or is shortened (sanga dutu):

i. the texts and the seals

130 Text BM 96998

Date 10

Ad 29/10/26

Title

Genre

Seal9

Kišib

Role

full

juridical record

no

—

witness 6 out of 8

Patronymic d

utu-[ur].bar.ra

Di 1084

Ad 31/11/2

full

barley loan

[?]

x

witness 1 out of 2

Di 2087

Ad 31/11/16

short

barley loan

A

x

witness 1 out of 2

Di 2173

Ad 36/2/13

full

sale of an ox

A

x

witness 2 out of 3

d

utu-ur.ba.ra

Di 1201

Ad 36/10/24

[...]

consignment

[?]11

?

witness 1 out of 4

d

utu-ur.ba.ra

Di 1094

Ad 36/11/18

full

barley loan

[?]

—

loans barley (1 gur)

Di 2165

Ad 36/xx/[]

full

barley loan

B

x

witness 1 out of 2

Di 1171

Ad 37/3/12

broken

silver loan

A

[x?]

witness 2 out of 4

Di 2107

Ad[...]/10/21

full

silver loan

A

x

loans silver (2 gín)12

Di 1050

A 1/7/20

full

barley loan

A

—

loans barley (2 gur)

Di 1014

A 1/10/28

full

harvest labour

A

x

witness 1 out of 2

Di 2085

A 1/10/28

short

barley loan

A

x

loans barley (2 gur)

Di 1429

A 1/11/1

full

barley loan 2 gur

[?]

—

witness 1 out of 2

Di 1138

A 1/12/3

short

harvest labour

A

x

witness 2 out of 2

Di 1412

A 3/6/6

short

sale female slave

C

x

witness 1 out of 4

Di 1466

A 3/11/3

short

conc. rites

[?]

—

witness 2 out of 3

Di 2081

A 4/7/3

short

silver loan

A

x

witness 1 out of 3

Di 1060

A 4/10/16

short

barly loan 1.0.3

[?]

—

witness 2 out of 3

MHET 898

A 6/1/21

short

field lease

[?]

—

witness 1 out of 3

Di 1431

A 7/2/10

13

sale of a plot

D

x

witness 8 out of 10

Di 1379

A 7/8/11

short

silver loan

D?

x

witness 1 out of 2

Di 871

A 8/1/1

short

unclear

[?]

—

witness 1 out of 3

Di 1551

A []/11/4

short

harvest labour

[?]

—

witness 1 out of 2

full

d

┌d

utu-ur.bar.ra

utu┐-ur.bar.ra

d

utu.úr.bar.ra

All of these are sealed tablets, except BM 96998 and Di 1431, which are ‘Quasi-Hülle’.

1. Comments 1.1. A Father... Far Away As revealed by BM 96988, Di 2173, 1201, 1050, 1412 and 1431, he is the son of Utu-urbara. The latter must be the sanga of Šamaš of SipparAmnānum under a (our B). How can we explain the long time span between father and son? The father was active in a 34 and the son is documented from Ad 29 to A 8. The reigns in between, of Samsu-iluna and Abi-ešu, make sixty-six years. If we add to those, nine years of a the twenty-nine years of Ammi-ditana, the whole of the gap is 103 years. Can this be? If 9

For a description of the seals, see below. Published in Veenhof 2003. 11 Three seals on the left edge. The first one is certainly not Sîn-išmeanni’s, the two other ones have unreadable kišibs. The lower edge is gone, the upper edge is sealed under the text, the seal is unidentifiable. 12 For one month only. 13 The full title follows after the patronymic. We are sure that the son already bore the title at that point, but we also know the father occupied the same function before him. Which means the title can refer to either one of them here. 10

the father was very young, say 20, but already sanga in a 34 and had his son Sîn-išmeanni very late, say at 60, this son would be 64 in Ad 29. In the last year he was attested, A 8, fourteen years later, he would have been 78. This would seem to stretch life spans to the extreme. Yet, the father’s name is so unique14 and coupled with the profession, this is a strong indication for a very healthy and long-lived family. The alternative is that the name Utu-urbara was not as unique as would appear from our data. Papponymy is well attested, so there is a possibility that there was a repetition of the same name in the same family. 14

As it is a Sumerian name we wondered whether it might have been in use in Ur III but the name as such is not listed in Limet 1968. He gives a name Ur-bára (p. 221) which he translates as “Serviteur (ou servante) de l’autel domestique”. In our name the bára would then be written syllabically but we fail to see how this could be combined with the preceding Utu: it is difficult to imagine Utu as the servant of the house shrine. Limet cites a god name d utu-bar.ra also used as a personal name (p. 135 with note 4) but here we fail to see what the ‘ur’ would mean in the middle of the god’s name.

i.e. the sangas of šamaš of the edikuda temple in sippar-amnnum 1.2. A Well-Attested Witness Sîn-išmeanni is a witness in nineteen texts, he is otherwise active in four other ones. In Di 1094, Di 1050 and Di 2085 he takes large loans of barley (one and two gur). In Di 1094 he loans silver. We may wonder if this is in connection with his professional activities. The reason why we see him appearing so suddenly in our documentation is of course that he loans from Inanna-mansum and is a witness in his and his son’s texts. This links him to the galama archive from Sippar-Amnānum. No other archive has been unearthed yet in which he plays a role. 1.3. The Edikuda His presence as a witness in BM 96998 (Ad 29) has a specific reason. In this record of juridical proceedings an oath is taken in front of two emblems of Šamaš: one of the Edikudkalama and one of the Edikuda. We know (George 1992, 327 and 329) that the first one was situated in Babylon and the second in Sippar-Amnānum. In the witness list we find, among others, Sinî, son of Ipiq-Aja sanga of Šamaš of the Edikudkalama15, followed by Sînišmeanni, son of Utu-urbara sanga of Šamaš of the Edikuda. It is said in the text that both these emblems were to be placed in the gate of Šamaš of the Edikuda (Rev. 39) which fits perfectly with the mention Obv. 10 that the proceedings took place in Sippar-Amnānum. Both sangas were present and witnessed because they brought the emblems. The genre of the texts Sîn-išmeanni witnesses, especially the loans of barley otherwise unattested for sangas, and the fact that in seven out of nineteen occurrences as witness he does not head the list, concur with our findings about these sangas of the Edikuda.

131

(A 6). The latter, although outside the archive, is closely related with it because Ur-Utu is mentioned in it as the first lessor (and a kišib of Ur-Utu is written over a figurative seal (De Graef, K. and Tanret, M., 2001). Both documents belong to the 1902-10-11 collection of the British Museum and this again confirms the close connection of these tablets with Sippar-Amnānum. 1.5. Career The career of this sanga extends from Ad 29 to A 8 in our documents, i.e. seventeen years. His predecessor is attested in Ae “t” (probably 10) and the next sanga only appears in A 12, which means his career could have been as long as sixtysix years. 2. The Location of the Seal Significantly, Sîn-išmeanni, sanga of the less important Edikuda, does not have a seal with an inscription to his name. Quite remarkably he seems to use no less than four different seals. It is no wonder that, to show he was the one who used these seals, a kišib with his name was added to them. We find this, associated with two seals without legend and two seals with a legend but not to his name (for the description cf. our Catalogue).

1. Seal A

(Fig. 24A)

1.4. Outside Ur-Utu’s Archive but in SipparAmnānum The only two texts outside Ur-Utu’s archive where we find him are BM 96998 (Ad 29) and MHET 898

This seal does not have a legend. It is rolled on ten tablets. Sîn-išmeanni’s kišib is written over it on nine of these. This is the reason we suppose it was he who used this same seal on the one other tablet without kišib (but in which he is debtor):

15 We should, in fact, have listed him separately, since he represents a third brand of sangas of Šamaš: those of the Edikudkalama. Up to now, he is the only one explicitly named as such. We should be aware that it is not impossible

that some of the sangas we have listed here as sangas of the Edikuda, but who never have this full title, could in fact belong to the Edikudkalama, although the fact that this temple is located in Babylon makes this improbable.

i. the texts and the seals

132 Reference Di 2087

Date

Genre

Location seal

Location kišib

Ad 31/11/16

witness 1 out of 2

L.E., R.E. bottom, Lo.E.

L.E.

Di 2173

Ad 36/2/13

witness 2 out of 3

Lo.E.

Di 1171

Ad 37/3/12

witness 2 out of 4

Lo.E.

Lo.E.

Di 2107

Ad [....]/10/21

loan silver

L.E. top, R.E., U.E.

L.E. top

Di 1050

A 1/7/20

loans barley

L.E., R.E. top, U.E.

none

Di 1014

A 1/10/28

witness 1 out of 2

L.E., Obv. bottom

L.E.

Di 2085

A 1/10/28

loans barley

L.E. top, U.E.

L.E.

Di 1429

A 1/11/1

witness 1 out of 2

L.E. bottom

L.E.

Di 1138

A 1/12/3

witness 2 out of 2

L.E. bottom

L.E.

Di 2081

A 4/7/3

witness 1 out of 3

L.E. bottom

L.E.

┌

Lo.E.?┐16

Di 2107 and Di 2085 show the same pattern: when the seal is rolled on the upper edge and on the top of the left edge, the kišib is written on the left edge impression only. In accordance with this, we expected a kišib on the top impression of the left edge of Di 1050, but there is none. As can be expected, when Sîn-išmeanni is a debtor, his seal is the first one. When he is first witness, it is second, when he is second witness it is third. The exceptions are Di 1138 where it is second, the first witness having sealed the lower edge (instead of the upper one), and Di 2173 where it is fourth, although the sanga is second witness.17 Di 1014 has an unusual kišib: ‘kišib sanga mu.ni’ to be understood as “byscript: the sanga’s name”. The fact that he uses this seal over a period of eleven years from Ad 31 to A 4, presumably means it was his own. It is not certain that the few tablets too damaged to allow identification of his seal had seal A. Indeed, seals B and C are used during the same period.

The U.E. and top of L.Mg./L.E. are broken away, so it is no longer possible to elucidate the sealing order.

2. Seal B

4. Seal D Lastly, we find his kišib written over a seal with a full legend. Strangely enough, the name of the seal owner and that of his father are not attested anywhere else in Sippar18:

3. Seal C We find his kišib associated with a third seal, of which only an unreadable framed legend survives:

(Fig. 24C)

[...] [...]x KA? [...] [...] DINGIR [...] Reference Di 1412

Date

Role

Place seal

A 3/6/6

witness 1 out of 4

L.E. second

His seal is second, after that of the seller, as it should be.

(Fig. 24B) Reference Di 2165

Date Ad 36/[...]

Role

Place seal

witness 1 out of 2 L.E. bottom

16 Faint traces, it is not certain that they are the remains of a kišib. 17 There is only one seller, so who are the three people sealing before him, apart from the seller and the first witness? The third and last witness seals on the reverse. 18 Unless the patronymic is to be identified with illaku

whom we find as a father of a witness whose name is covered by an adhering piece of a case on BDHP 27, rev 5. This text is dated Sîn-muballi by the oath, and this would imply that Sîn-išmeanni would have used a very old seal, which is certainly possible.

i.e. the sangas of šamaš of the edikuda temple in sippar-amnnum

133

(Fig. 24D) 19

la -ma?-dingir dumu mi-la-qum ìr ša20 d┌iškur?┐ Reference

Date

Role

Place seal

Di 1431

A 7/2/10

witness 8 out of 10

Re. bottom

Di 1379

A 7/8/11

witness 1 out of 2

L.E. bottom

On Di 1431 the seller seals on the upper edge and the top of the left edge and margin, followed down the left edge/left margin, the lower edge and the left edge/margin of the reverse. As well the kišib, as the strict order in which the seals follow the witness list allows us to assign this seal, on the lower reverse, to Sîn-išmeanni. Sîn-išmeanni is first witness in Di 1379 and, as it should, his seal is rolled on the left edge/margin of the obverse, under that of the creditor of this Reference

Role

Place seal

Di 1084

Ad 31/11/2

witness 1 out of 2

Lo.E. and Rev. bottom

Di 2081

A 4/7/3

witness 1 out of 3

L.E. middle

Conclusions on Seal Use There is a clear difference between the seals used. Seal A is used first and most frequently, from Ad 31 to A 4. Two other seals appear, only once each, during this period: our B in Ad 36 and our C in A 3. We can conclude that Sîn-išmeanni had his own seal, without a legend, our A. He used this, except when, exceptionally and for reasons unknown to

With a filling element between la and ma. We only have nine seal legends in our Sippar database with a NÍG between the ìr and the god. They are spread over time: 2 on Apil-Sîn documents (B 240 and 241), 5 on ammu-rabi texts (BT 5, 65, 77, 103 and 107), 1 Ammi-ditana (unpublished, on CT 45, 43) and 1 on an Ammi-aduqa document (an unpublished seal on CT 8, 20

5. Unidentified Seals We find his kišib over seals too worn to be identified. Presumably they are one of the seals given above:

Date

On Di 1084 his seal is the fourth or fifth because there are three debtors. As first witness on Di 2081, he seals second, after the debtors.

19

loan who sealed on the upper edge and the top of the left edge/margin. Here too the kišib and the place of the seal concord to attribute it to Sîn-išmeanni.

us, he did not have it at his disposal and utilizes other seals, always with his kišib. The fourth seal, our D, is used twice in A 7 probably also at a moment the sanga did not have his own seal. The fact that this is later than the last attestation of seal A is not necessarily meaningful. It can be due to our lack of documentation: maybe seal A was used in A 7 and 8 too, but on tablets that have not survived or have not yet been found. A last remark is in order concerning these other seals used exceptionally. It is clear that, when Sînišmeanni did not use his own seal, he did not use one replacement seal, but several ones.

33a). Three of these use ša (the Apil-Sîn ones and one of the ammu-rabis), the six other ones use NÍG. The gods on these servant lines are Ilabrat (the two Apil-Sîn texts an one ammu-rabi), probably Adad (one ammu-rabi), Sîn and Amurrum (one ammu-rabi), Nergal ( dgìr) (one Ammi-ditana); on three legends the god is not preserved.

i. the texts and the seals

134

I. Ikūn-pī-Sîn 1. Attestation A 12 1. Seal Inscription Faint traces between figures: ┌X┐ BA GI6 IGI.GAB.┌ŠÈ┐ (meaning unknown)

(Fig. 25)

2. Attestation Reference MHET 52921

Date

Genre

Title

Role

Place seal

A 12/2/10

lease field

sanga dutu

first witness

L.E. second, after lessee

3. Comments This sanga poses a problem. Is he a first sanga of Sippar-Jarūrum or is he a sanga of the Edikuda in Amnānum? What indications do we have? MHET 529 is not a tablet from the Ur-Utu archive but is n° 379 of the Bu 91-5-9 series which contains many texts from Amnānum, although not exclusively (cf. G. Kalla 1999, 211 sq.). Chronologically this sanga would fit in after Nūr-Kabta, our eleventh and last first sanga, attested once only, in A 11/8/4, seven months before him. On the same basis he would fit just as well after Sîn-išmeanni, sanga of the Edikuda, attested until A 8.

The fact that it is a field lease, a less important text, and that it concerns the ugārum Pauum in the vicinity of Sippar-Amnānum would indicate an Amnānum connection, without definitive proof. 4. The Location of the Seal The seal has a few signs inscribed between the figures. They do not seem to spell a name and we have no idea what they mean. The user of the seal is identified by the kišib of Ikūn-pī-Sîn written over it. He sealed second on the left edge, underneath the lessor and before the second witness.

J. Ibni-Šērum Son of Sîn-ibni 1 Attestation A 13

(Fig. 26) Reference Di 974

Date

Date

Genre

Title

Place seal

sT

A 13/7/13

silver loan

sanga dutu

U.E., top L.E.

21 A seal, not that of Ikūn-pī-Sîn but of the lessor, is rolled on the upper edge and this is repeated at the top

of the left edge. A kišib is written only on the latter. The same usus again.

i.e. the sangas of šamaš of the edikuda temple in sippar-amnnum In this only attestation, Ibni-Šērum is not a witness but party to the loan. He lends silver from Ur-Utu in order to buy a commodity. The text specifies that Ibni-Šērum is the son of Sîn-ibni. There are only two witnesses, both gods. The first one is Šamaš, the second one is broken but must have been Aja. Their presence is of course linked to Ibni-Šērum’s occupation. If he comes immediately after Ikūn-pī-Sîn and lasts to the end of Sippar-Amnānum in A 18, his career can have lasted six years at the most. The reason to include him here, is the fact that he lends money from Ur-Utu, that he is not accompanied by a second sanga and is attested in a Sippar-Amnānum text only. The seal, identified by a kišib, is rolled on the upper edge and top of the left edge, as we would expect.

Conclusions The scarcity of our documentation and its very thin chronological spread do not allow us to draw wide ranging conclusions concerning the sangas of the Edikuda of Sippar-Amnānum. We will comment on their seals, their career and the genres of texts in which they are found. 1. Seals We have seal impressions for only two out of ten sangas of the Edikuda. Neither of these has a legend naming the sanga. On the other hand, our only well documented sanga, Sîn-išmeanni, uses no less than four different seals. The absence of legends with his name is compensated by the use of byscripts, kišib. The ownership of a seal without the particular identifying mark of a legend must be interpreted as a sign of a lesser economic power and/or status of these sangas. They acquired a ‘standard’ seal, maybe out of a series in stock at the seal cutter’s. A seal with a legend had to be ordered especially and would no doubt have been more expensive. The seals with legends mentioning other people, used by Sîn-išmeanni, pose another problem: how come he could use them? Were they seals belonging to members of his family?

135

2. Careers The few attestations we have allow us to have a very approximate idea about the length of their careers. Utu-urbara could at most have been sanga for sixteen years. Šumi-eretim, six, NarāmSîn thirty one, Etel-pī-Marduk forty-nine, Sînišmeanni eighteen and Ikūn-pī-Sîn nineteen. Even if these numbers seem to indicate careers of more than ten years for each of them, we must not forget that our documentation is very incomplete, with only one attestation for most of them. A few new sangas in between the documented ones would suffice to lower these numbers significantly. Within this group of ten we were only able to find one father and son, for most of the other ones we do not know whether they were related and the information usually provided by a seal legend is sadly lacking. They all have different names, unlike the first and second sangas of Šamaš of Sippar-Jarūrum. This office seems to have been more of an individual achievement, remaining in one family no more than one generation, at least as far as we can ascertain this. 3. Genres All of the older texts, dating from Sumu-la-El, ammu-rabi and Samsu-iluna and witnessed by the sangas of the Edikuda, are property transfers. These are property deeds, passed down through the generations and kept in more recent archives. They have passed through the filter of time and survived the cleaning up of archives (cf. Tanret 2004) which eliminated all other genres and consequently they cannot be seen as representative for all of the genres witnessed by these sangas. The documents found in the archive of the galamas of Sippar-Amnānum give a better idea of the genres witnessed: some sales but mainly loans and a few harvest labour contracts. This stands in contrast to the texts witnessed by the sangas of Šamaš of Jarūrum. The general impression is that the sangas of the Edikuda witnessed less important documents since they ranked lower than their colleagues of Jarūrum, a fact also visible in their ranking as second witness after people without a title. One variable we cannot trace is a possible evolution through time of the status of these sangas of the Edikuda. If our list is correct, this office

136

i. the texts and the seals

already existed during the reign of Sumu-lā-El, i.e. from the beginning of the Old Babylonian period. The last one is attested in A 13. One can imagine that over such a long period of time changes could have occurred but no trace of this is apparent from our scanty documentation.

One thing is certain, these sangas too were active participants in the economic life of their time, as buyers, debtors and lessors.

general remarks

II. THE SEALS AND THE TEXTS

137

138

ii. the seals and the texts

139

general remarks

GENERAL REMARKS The Sippar Seals In her groundbreaking work on Old Babylonian seals, studied through their impressions, L. AlGailani-Werr (1988) has proposed a general line of evolution for the Old Babylonian Sippar glyptic which we will briefly summarize here in order to have a comparative background for our description of the sanga seals. According to her outline (35-58), the earliest seals, datable to Buntatun-ila and Sumu-la-El and in general to the pre-ammu-rabi era, are of high quality and most frequently represent offering and devotional scenes before an enthroned king, thus continuing the Agade and Ur III glyptic traditions. Under Sîn-muballi at least two workshops emerge and then flourish under ammu-rabi. The most visible and exclusive characteristic of Workshop I is the “triple undulating line used to render the flounces of the garments”. Also typical is the abandonment of “a unified scene in favor of a juxtaposition of a number of divine figures apparently unrelated to one another.” The iconography is rather limited. As to the gods represented, “The god Šamaš is rendered in his ascending posture”. “Ištar is usually depicted holding her weapons with one foot placed on her lion.” Also, “The god with the mace and the figure with the mace are both present in the impressions, though not as frequently as in Workshop II.” Still in Workshop I, the drill use increases during the reign of Samsu-iluna. The author remarks that “Individual seals were probably also made to order.” Inscriptions were rather rare. Under Samsu-iluna this Workshop becomes less popular. Workshop II was also established from the beginning of Sîn-muballi’s reign. The author sees it as a continuation of a pre-existing local seal cutting industry. The most obvious difference with Workshop I is the treatment of the flounces as straight incised lines. Another feature is the

nude priest with pail and sprinkler, absent from Workshop I. Here too, seals could be made to order. Seal legends are numerous at the beginning of Sîn-muballi’s reign, accompanied by a god or figure with a mace. The Drill Style used later on produces larger figures. Under Ammi-ditana the seals become smaller.

A Limited Corpus A preliminary remark should be made about the limitations of our corpus. Although it consists of 186 texts, only 97 of them have seal impressions. This is of course mainly due to the fact that many tablets have lost their seal-bearing cases. Of these 97, a good number are broken or damaged in such a way that the seal impressions are only partly preserved, and sometimes precisely the seals we need, those of the sangas or the high temple officials, are now missing. To this we must add that a number of impressions only partly show their figurative scenes and that some scenes are (partly) obliterated by the subsequent impression of a neighbouring seal. This explains why our harvest is limited although it covers more than two hundred years of sangaship. As stated above, in our introduction to this study, we were able to collect 65 impressions of first sanga seals and 48 of second sangas, most often but not always on the same cases or tablets. These impressions were made with 13 first sanga seals and 17 second sanga ones. The tables below give the number of impressions we have for each sanga, either made with their own seal or with their father’s. On two tablets, a seal with the name of the grandfather is rolled. When two numbers are given with a plus sign, the sanga had two seals to his name. Sanga V rolled a seal with his father’s name on fourteen documents but, as we saw above, this was a new seal, never used by his father.

ii. the seals and the texts

140

For the first sangas we have 65 impressions, made with 13 different seals:

Own

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

XI

XII

Total

2

1

5

4

7

2

3

4+2

2

5

0

1

38

2

7

14

2

0

Father’s Grandfather’s

25

2 2

Total

1

7

11

21

4

2 3

6

2

7

0

1

65

For the second sangas we have 48 impressions, made with 17 different seals:

Own

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Total

0

0

1

1+6

5

1+2

1+2+1

1+2+3

0

2+2

6+2

0

38

1

10

0

0

9

7

5

3

4

6

4

8

1

48

Father’s Total

8

1

If we add to these the seals of the second witnesses before the second sangas, the seals of the sangas of Šamaš of the Edikuda and the seals of the sanga’s daughters we have: Seals

Imprints

First sangas

13

65

Second witnesses

5

17

Second sangas

17

48

Edikuda

6

18

Sanga’s daughters

3

7

Total

44

155

Distribution of the Corpus Before we analyse the iconography of the sanga seals, we must say a word about the geographical distribution of our seal corpus. There can be no doubt that, since the first and second sangas of Šamaš lived and worked in Sippar-Jarūrum, their seals were cut in that city. But can we know where the other seals were made? The sangas of Šamaš of the Edikuda temple of course lived and worked in Sippar-Amnānum, and would probably have had their seals made locally, although Sippar-Jarūrum was so close that they could have preferred having them cut there with the added incentive to have them made in the same place chosen by their more prestigious sanga colleagues of the Šamaš temple there. However, as we saw above, their seals are of a very different kind. First of all, none of the sangas of

1

Šamaš of the Edikuda has a seal inscribed to his name, let alone with his title. Identification of their seals is mainly based on the presence of a byscript (kišib) since most of them do not have a legend and when they do it is not inscribed with their own name. One of them, Sîn-išmeanni, even uses four different seals: three without a legend and one with an inscription referring to someone else. We will come back on these differences in our conclusions. The sangas of the Edikuda probably did not have their seals specially cut, so there was no reason to get them from SipparJarūrum, unless, of course, all seals of the larger Sippar area were cut there. Could the origin of the tablets on which these seals are impressed tell us something about the origin of the seals? Or did sangas of Jarūrum seal Amnānum tablets and would Amnānum people have witnessed and sealed contracts in Jarūrum? The galama archive from Amnānum would seem, at first sight, to provide a simple answer to this, since it contains texts witnessed and sealed by the sangas of Šamaš of Jarūrum or documents in which they are parties. We should nonetheless be cautious, because the simple fact that a document was found in the galama archive does not mean it was written and sealed there. Numerous older property deeds finished their journey through various archives in the house of the galamas but were written elsewhere in the same town or quite often in Jarūrum. In fact, all of the tablets from Inanna-mansum’s archive, dating from before Ad 1, were written in Jarūrum. When he became galama of Annunītum in Ad 1, he moved with

141

general remarks his possessions and some tablets to Amnānum. An exception has even to be made for some real estate documents which were transferred to the galama’s archive after that date, and were originally written for other people living in one of the two sister towns (see Tanret 2004 for the mixed composition of archives).

Because this galama archive gives us a unique opportunity to observe the presence of inhabitants of Jarūrum in texts written in Amnānum it is worthwhile to elaborate a little on this point. In our corpus (see ANNEX I) we have thirteen texts from the galama archive, dated later than Ad 1 in which one or two galamas of the Ebabbar of Sippar-Jarūrum are mentioned:

Note: the name of the earlier archive owner, Inanna-mansum is abbreviated to IM. The number between brackets in the column Role of sanga indicates whether one or two sangas were witnesses, when two roles are given as for Di 933, a first and a second sanga are involved. Excav. nr.

Date

Genre

Role of sanga

Remarks

Di 690

Ad 20

field sale

witness (2)

IM buys from nadītum (e.g.)

Di 2001

Ad 22

(broken sale of a slave or an animal)

witness (1)

(broken)

Di 2129

Ad 32

field sale

witness (2)

IM buys from nadītum (e.g.)

Di 2163

Ad 32

certificate

witness (2)

(related to Di 2129)

Di 1128

Ad 32

field lease

lessor

not related to galamas

Di 933

Ad 36

consignment

transports witness(1)

Di 1147

A 3

field lease

witness (1)

Archive of Utul-Ištar

Di 1804

A 5

reviving of a donation

witness (1)

IM to his wife

Di 984

A 6

(conc. silver)

party

(text fragm.) lessee is Ur-Utu gala.ma

Di 821

A 11

hire div. weapon

lessor

Di 1473

A [...]

(fragment, only witn.)

witness (2)

Di 1674

[...]

hire div. weapon

lessor

lessee is Ur-Utu gala.ma

Di 864

A 13

silver loan

debtor

creditor is [Ur-Utu]

In eight of these texts a sanga (or two) witnesses a document. Did they come to Amnānum to do this or were these texts written in Jarūrum and then brought to Amnānum? Three cases are easily explained. In Di 690 and Di 2129 and the related 2163, the galama buys from a nadītum of Šamaš (and her brothers). If we accept that these priestesses lived in Sippar-Jarūrum, then we must conclude that these sales were written there since this was always done in the house of the seller. The fact that they were nadiātum no doubt was the reason for the sangas to witness their contracts. Di 2001 is broken but the formulas indicate that a slave or an animal was bought. If the seller was a nadītum too, the same explanation could apply for this contract. The two hires of divine weapons (Di 821 and 1674) were of course written in Jarūrum since 1 There are consignment texts in the archive mentioning silver that has to be brought to Babylon.

the ‘weapon’ was lent by the sanga of the Ebabbar. The fact that they were kept in the galama archive is not surprising since he needed proof of his payment for hiring. The consignment Di 933 states that the second sanga had to bring a large quantity of silver to the sanga of arpanītum. It is no doubt the involvement of the second sanga which prompted the witnessing by the first one. The temple of Marduk and arpanītum meant here probaly was the one in Babylon1. The text was kept by the galama in his archive because it was his silver, but where was it written? Did the galama go to Jarūrum or did the sangas come to Amnānum? In view of the fact that two sangas appear in the text, one as a party and one as a witness, we tend to think this document was drawn up in Jarūrum and then taken to Amnānum by the galama.

142

ii. the seals and the texts

The two field leases (Di 1128 and 1147) have no relation with the galamas. In the first one the sanga is the lessor and the lessee is not related to the galama as far as we know. The second has Utul-Ištar as a lessee, the lessor is also unrelated to the galamas. Both have a sanga witness. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose these texts were written in Amnānum. They must have been written and witnessed in Jarūrum, after which they were brought to Ur-Utu. There are more texts in the galama archive which have no relation to them; why they were kept there we still do not know other than a general idea of safekeeping. Another case is presented by the ‘reviving’ of a donation tablet in which Inanna-mansum had given property to his wife. The tablet had been lost, Inanna-mansum had died and a new tablet was drawn up (Di 1804), ‘reviving’ the donation. Although this was an Amnānum affair, a sanga, a galama and an overseer of nadiātum, all belonging to the Jarūrum Šamaš temple are the first witnesses. In this case we cannot be sure where this was done. This may well have been a matter to be handled in the Šamaš temple rather than that higher Šamaš personnel came to Amnānum. The only document which must have been written in Amnānum is the silver loan Di 864 in which a second sanga is debtor: he must have come to the house of the galama to receive his silver and to have the document written. Finally, Di 984 and 1473 are too fragmentary to allow interpretation. In conclusion, although thirteen texts mentioning at least one sanga from the Ebabbar were kept in the archive of the galamas, it appears that this cannot be seen as a result of visits of the Jarūrum sangas to Amnānum. It was only when a second sanga needed silver that he went to Amnānum, which, as far as we can see, was an exceptional event, recorded in the very latest text of our corpus. As for the sealing of Amnānum documents by Jarūrum sangas of Šamaš we can conclude that, as far as we can see, there was none. When they sealed documents this was done in Jahrūrum even if these were destined to be kept in an archive in Amnānum. The geographical attribution of seal impressions and even more that of original seals requires a lot of caution. As we have just shown, tablets can travel as well as people and, certainly among the higher ranks of society, there seems to have been a fair degree of mobility.

Unfortunately, the iconography of the seals too is of no help to distinguish Amnānum from Jarūrum, as we shall see. Even if differences existed, the sanga seals unfortunately do not contribute much to this question, no doubt because they are too few in number and too traditional in their iconography to elucidate this point.

The Catalogue The identification of each sanga seal is either based on the seal inscription or on a byscript (kišib) written over the impression. This information is then combined with the findings collected in the preceding parts of this study. The distinction between seal owners and seal users is also based on these. In creating the catalogue, the order developed in the first part of this study was followed. Seals of first sangas are discussed in a first chapter, those from high temple officials as second witnesses in a second one and those from second sangas in a third. The seals of the sangas daughters are treated in a separate part. Within these chapters the impressions of the seals are chronologically classified on the basis of the classification in the preceding parts where this classification is justified. It is of course true that the date of an impression is always only a terminus ante quem for the fabrication of the seal. The study of texts and seal use in the preceding chapters allows us to untangle some chronological knots which again proves, if need be, the necessity to combine philological and iconographic sources. Each catalogue entry comprises a composite drawing of the seal on a scale of 1/1, the dimensions, description, transliteration of the seal inscription, the list of impressions, the “life-span” of each seal, references to the form and to the type of the sealed document, a bibliography for the seal in question and, when necessary, comments. The impressions are always described from the left to the right, filling elements are listed from bottom to top. Descriptions comprise what could be reconstructed of a seal design by combining all available impressions. Drawings of the seal impressions enlarged 1.5 times are given at the end of this volume, completing the catalogue entries.

143

general remarks Practicalities The impressions of each seal are listed in full. Provenience of different impressions, former citations in literature and parallels are indicated. The museum number is always added to facilitate identification and comparison. For the actual state of publication of seal impressions the reader is invited to consult the original. The citation of text publications follows the traditional assyriological standards. To indicate the state of publication for each parallel letter codes are applied: CI = complete impression = the full seal scene is published FI = fragment of impression = the seal scene is only partly published R = representation = only a scene is either preserved or published L = legend = only an inscription is either preserved or published FR = fragment of representation = only a part of a scene is either preserved or published FL = fragment of legend = only a part of the inscription is either preserved or published. The impression numbers published in Blocher 1991 (= B) and those in Teissier 1998 (= BT). Bibliographical references to text copies and transliterations of documents bearing seals already published are not repeated here. Figure numbers refer to the plates at the end of this publication.

Drawing the Seals A final remark is in order concerning the composite description and drawing of the seal representations. When an impression does not completely render the seal design, other publications provide a drawing of the incomplete seal impression just like it appears on the cases and tablets. We have attempted to put the extant figures in their original place. The practice of sealing is such that on all impressions with a legend the seal is rolled out in such a way that this legend is the central feature. This is done in order to fulfill as best as possible the identifying function of the seal impression. When we have an impression with a legend flanked by

figures on both sides there are two possibilities. Both figures can be turned towards the legend which is then the central feature. This is attested among our seals, though only exceptionally. It is also possible that the figures are not related to the legend and are part of one or more separate scenes. This disposition is much more common in our corpus. In such cases, it happens that a scene is divided over two sides of the legend by the way the seal was impressed. We discuss this in our descriptions of the seal design below and when appropriate, we have moved figures to the other side in our drawing and description of the seal, in order to try to restore the original seal design.

Dimensions According to Collon (1981, 12) there is a tendency for Old Babylonian seals to conform to a model with the height of the seal stone being almost twice its diameter. The calculation of this ratio is very useful since, when a seal diverges markedly from it by having a diameter (much) less than half the height, this can indicate that the seal was reworked. Ideally the ratio should be somewhat less than 2:1. For practical purposes we will consider a ratio between 1.70:1 and 1.90:1 to be about standard. A lower number indicates that the seal stone was wider than expected, a higher number that it was thinner. This can be taken further in the case of seal impressions. For most of the impressions we cannot know whether they represented the wole seal scene. For some of them, depicting frequently occurring compositions of figures, we can make an educated guess and the calculation of the ratio can provide some help here. In most cases the full height of the impression is preserved. The circumference is not, since most of the impressions are partial rollings of the seal, always showing the legend if there is one and the figures closest to it. The width of the impression (called length by others) allows us to calculate an approximate diameter (width divided by 3.14) and if we combine this with the height, this gives us an approximation of the ratio (height divided by diameter) of the seal stone. As stated above for the seal stones, if the measurements of the impression yield a large ratio, over 3:1, this would indicate that the seal was very thin, maybe reworked, but this conclusion would only be valid if we were certain that the

144

ii. the seals and the texts

impression represented the whole seal design. The high ratio could however also be a consequence of the fact that the impression was only a part of the seal design. In this last case, which is by far the most frequent, the ratio could add to the argument of incompleteness suggested by the seal design itself. For instance, if we have a ‘king with a mace’ with his back to the legend we can suppose there might have been a Lamma facing him. If, furthermore, the ratio calculated on the basis of the extant impression is high (over 3:1), we could interpret this as an incomplete impression and, indeed, when we theoretically add to the width the space needed for such a Lamma and this yields a ratio of two or lower, we can conclude that the high ratio substantiates the supposition based on the compostion of the seal scene. To this we must immediately add a word of caution. D. Collon established her calculations 2 We thank D. Collon for this necessary cautionary remark.

on the basis of seal stones and not on impressions of the seals. It is clear for everyone who has worked with seal impressions that measuring impressions involves some uncertainty and trying to go from these measurements to a calculation of the actual size of the seal stone is a very risky endeavour. Seal impressions will have distortions due to the actual process of rolling the small seal on the soft clay, often on narrow sides of tablets. In view of the approximate measurements we have, our calculated ratios should be considered with due caution. That is why we will never use these ratios on their own but always in combination with conclusions drawn from seal design. We should also note that the drying and baking of cases and tablets causes shrinkage of the clay with the effect that the seal itself will have been slightly taller than the impressions we have of it2.

145

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions

II.A. CATALOGUE OF THE SEAL IMPRESSIONS 1. The Seals of the First Sangas of the Ebabbar in Sippar Jarūrum 1.1. Seal of Annum-pī-Šamaš Son of Warad-Sîn (Fig. 1)

1. Dimensions H: 2.13 cm Approx. W: 4.13 cm 2. Description The first part is a presentation scene. A Lamma facing right is preceded by a very fragmentary figure of a worshipper in an open robe and they both face a sitting god. The second part of the seal design has a fragmentarily preserved bull-man holding a three-lines legend. Between the partially preserved seated god and the worshipper a part is lacking. This is the only seal of our corpus where the rendering of the Lamma’s dress is visible as undulating lines. If, as drawn in our fig. 1, we suppose there was no other figure standing in between them and complete the figure of the god, adding his knees (comparing with our seal 3), we arrive at an approximate full width of 4.13 cm. This translates into a diameter of 1.32 cm and, combined with the height of 2.13 cm, a ratio of 1.59:1. This is well below the standard ratio of 1.70:1—1.90:1 and means the seal stone had a large diameter. The extant impressions seem to represent the entire design of the seal. 3. Inscription 1) dingir-pi4-d┌utu┐ 2) dumu ìr-dEN.[ZU] 3) sangad[utu]

1) Annum-pī-Šamaš 2) son of Warad-Sîn 3) sanga of Šamaš

4. Impressions Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

1. VS 8, 5 seal 1

VAT 638

LE, upper part

(Im)

FI

BM 82451

UE

(Im)

FI

2. BDHP 14

Remarks = Blocher 1992a no 30 tablet VII

5. Document form Cases. 6. Document type Wedding, inheritance 7. Literature Blocher 1992a no 30. 8. Comments The identity of the god is unknown. Šamaš, also represented on the seal of the second sanga, would be a possibility.

ii. the seals and the texts

146

1.2. Seal of Šamaš-tappašu Son of Annum-pī-Šamaš (Fig. 2)

1. Dimensions H.: 2.46 cm (with setting above and below) W: 4.83 cm 2. Description The first scene represents a clean-shaven worshipper facing the god Šamaš in ascending position. In front of Šamaš a disk inscribed in a crescent appears as a filling motif. The second one depicts a god holding down a bull, standing with one foot on its back and grasping one horn and the tail. He faces a Lamma cut only half as tall as the other figures. The three-lines framed legend stands independently. In this case we are fortunate to have the complete seal width, 4.83 cm, which gives a diameter of 1.54. When we combine this with the height of 2.46 cm, this yields a ratio of 1.6:1. This is in the same range as the preceding seal. The impression represents the complete design of the seal. The seal stone had undecorated caps. 3. Inscription 1) dutu-tab.ba-šu 2) ìr é.babbár 3) dumu dingir-pi4-dutu

1) Šamaš-tappašu 2) servant of the Ebabbar 3) son of Annum-pī-Šamaš

4. Impressions Used by himself? Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Remarks

IM3

—

—

CI

—

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Remarks

1. CT 48, 31

BM 82439

UE

(Sle)

CI

= Blocher 1992a no 84, tablet XVII

2. BM 825134

(unpublished)

UE

Sa 2

CI

= Blocher 1992a no 84, tablet XXI

1. Al-Rawi/Dalley 87 Used by his son Lipit-Ištar Reference

5. Document form Fragment (used by himself), cases (used by his son). 6. Document type Sale of an uncultivated plot, loan from the Šamaš temple.

3 4

Museum number not given in the publication. Case of CT 8, 44a.

147

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions 1.3. Seal of Lipit-Ištar Son of Šamaš-tappašu (Fig. 3)

1. Dimensions H: 2.4 cm W: 5.23 cm (legend and figures only = 3.4 cm) 2. Description The whole seal design consists of a single scene. A bull-man stands facing to the right, holding the three-lines framed legend. A seated deified king, holding a cup faces the inscription from the opposite direction. Again, we have the complete seal scene and legend. The width of the legend with the two figures is 3.4 cm; however, there was some blank space on both sides, as we can see on two impressions of this seal on the lower edge of MHET 60. With this blank space, the total width becomes 5.23 cm and the diameter 1.67 cm which gives a ratio of 1.44:1, again in the low range of the two preceding seals. The impression represents the complete design of the seal. 3. Inscription 1) li-pi-it-iš8-tár 2) dumu dutu-tab.ba-šu 3) sanga dutu

1) Lipit-Ištar 2) Son of Šamaš-tappašu 3) sanga of Šamaš

4. Impressions Used by himself Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Remarks

1. CT 48, 29

BM 82424a

UE right

(AS)

CI

= Blocher 1992a no 219 tablet LXVII

2. CT 47, 7a

BM 17060a

LoE

(AS)

CI

= Blocher 1992a no 219 tablet LVII

3. CT 48, 59

BM 82423

UE twice

(AS)

CI

= Blocher 1992a no 219 tablet LXVI

Di 673

LoE

[AS]

CI

BM 82435

LoE right

AS 13

CI

4. (unpublished) 5. CT 6, 46

= Blocher 1992a no 219 tablet L

Used by his son Warad-Sîn Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Remarks

6. CT 8, 29a

BM 82048

LE, LMg top

(AS)

CI

= Blocher 1992a no 219 tablet LXIV

7. MHET 60

BM 79502

LoE twice

(AS)

CI

= Blocher 1992a no 219 tablet LXIII

8. BBVOT I 147

AO 7856

UE

(AS)

FI

= seal 5 in BBVOT

9. MHET 112

BM 82461

LoE

Sm 1

FI

10. MHET 85

BM 17073A

LoE right

(Sm)

L

11. CT 47, 11a

BM 16819A

UE right

(Sm)

L

Di 2017

UE

(Sm)

CI

12. (unpublished)

= GW 1988, 186.a (only seated god)

5. Document form Cases. 6. Document type Inheritances, real estate sale (used by himself); donations, adoption, inheritance, real estate sales (used by his son).

ii. the seals and the texts

148

1.4a. Seal of Warad-Sîn Son of Lipit-Ištar Used by Himself (Fig. 4A)

1. Dimensions H.: 2.67 cm Rem. W.: 2.5 cm 2. Description Although the entire height is not preserved, traces of the seal borders allow us to measure it. On the left side of a four-line framed legend a Lamma is facing right towards the legend. Such a seal composition can be limited to this one figure. This would mean that, in this case, the preserved width would approximately be the whole original width. The diameter would be 0.86 cm and the ratio 3:1. This would then be a very thin seal. However, we know that there could be a sizeable blank space and, taking this into account, we could arrive at a normal ratio if the seal width would be around 4.5 cm, giving a diameter of 1.43 cm and a ratio of 1.87:1. The extant impressions may represent the complete seal design (except for the blank space). 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

[ìr]-d[EN.ZU] sanga d[utu] dumu [li]-pí-it-[iš8-tár] ┌ ┐d ìr a-[a]

1) 2) 3) 4)

Warad-Sîn sanga of Šamaš son of Lipit-Ištar servant of Aja

4. Impressions Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Remarks

1. VS 8, 21

VAT 1256

UE, left

(Sm)

FI

= Klengel 1989 5d (not drawn)

2. TCL I, 69

AO 1763A¡

UE, left

Sm

FI

= GW 1988, 196e5

3. MHET 121

BM 92586A

UE, right

Sm 13

FI

Como 4

LoE

Sm 13

FI

4. RSO 2, 46

5. Document form Cases. 6. Document type Adoptions, sales real estate. 7. Literature Klengel-Brandt 1989, 258, n. 10 mixes references to 4A and 4B. 8. Comments The association of the legend with a Lamma facing it from the left is attested here for the first time in our corpus and will recur on later sanga seals.

5

No drawing. The description given by Ballerini (1908-09, 562) leaves no doubt that this is 4A: ”...non si scorge che un braccio 6

levato nella posa di offerire un pane o un frutto.” Fruit or no fruit, this cannot be a king with a mace with his back to the legend as on 4B.

149

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions 1.4b. Seal of Warad-Sîn Son of Lipit-Ištar Used by His Son and Grandson (Fig. 4B)

1. Dimensions H.: 2.3 cm Rem. W.: 2.82 cm 2. Description This is another seal but with with the exact same wording of the legend as the preceding one. What marks the difference is a slightly different disposition of the signs, a slightly but clearly different sanga sign and a different figure. To the right of a framed four-lines legend, stands a king with a mace, with his back towards it. Since we do not have a complete impression it is very well possible that there was one more figure, such as a Lamma, facing the king, as this is a quite common composition (see Collon 1986, pl. XV-XIX). Can the dimensions of the seal stone contribute some information here? The height is 2.3 cm; the preserved width is 2.82 cm giving a diameter of 0.9 cm. If this were the whole seal, it would have a ratio of 2.56, meaning the seal was very thin. However, if we suppose there was a Lamma facing the king and add the width needed for her, this would easily make a width of 3.85 cm. To arrive at the normal ratio, the Lamma would have to stand a little further away or there would have been a blank space behind her, which is also documented on many other seals. This space can be quite large as e.g. on Collon 1986, n° 179 where it takes up 36% of the seal surface. In fact, on some of the impressions of this seal there is a blank space to the left of the legend which makes this solution probable. Extending the width to 4 cm would give a ratio of 1.81. The difference in height between seals 4A and 4B, the latter one being the taller, excludes the possibility that seal B was a recut of seal A. The impressions probably do not represent the complete seal design. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga dutu dumu li-pí-it-iš8-tár ìr da-a

1) 2) 3) 4)

Warad-Sîn sanga of Šamaš son of Lipit-Ištar servant of Aja

4. Impressions Used by his son Annum-pī-Aja Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

1. (unpublished)

Di 2142

LE top, LMg, top

(a)

FI

2. MHET 238

BM 92650A

UE twice

a 30

FI

3. VS 9, 43

VAT 644B

LE top, LMg, top

a 31

L

4. (unpublished)

Di 1430

LE top, LMg, top

a 32

L

5. (unpublished)

Di 2113

UE left, LMg top

a 37

FI

6. (unpublished)

Di 2136

LMg top

a [37]

FI

7. (unpublished)

Di 1438

LE top, LMg, top

a 39

L

BM 16821A

LE, LMg third

a 43

FI

8. CT 47, 47a

7 8 9

No drawing. No other seal bearing parts of this case are preserved. No drawing.

Remarks = BT 59

= GW 1988, 213.b7

ii. the seals and the texts

150 Reference 9. (unpublished)

Mus. no.

Location

Di 2016

UE

8

Date

State

a 43

FI

10. (unpublished)

Di 689

LE top, LMg top

Si 1

FI

11. (unpublished)

Di 1131

LE top, LMg top

Si 2

L

12. (unpublished) 13. CT 47, 56a 14. (unpublished)

Di 2117

UE, LE top, LMg top

Si 4

L

BM 17055A

LE top, LMg top

Si 4

FI

Di 2121

LMg top

Si 7

FI

Remarks

= GW 1988, 226a9

Used in the time of his grandson Šamaš-tappašu Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

15. CT 45, 33

BM 78258

Rev LMg bottom

Si 9

L

16. OLA 21, 77

CBS 1600

Rev LMg bottom

Si 24

FL

Remarks

5. Document form Cases. 6. Document type Division, sales real estate, inheritances, exchange of real estate, donation (used by his son); sale real estate, inheritance (used by his grandson) 7. Literature Teissier 1998, 133 gives references to 4B but mixes in Ballerini 1908-9 and VS 8, 21 which belong to 4A. 8. Comments This seal was never used by Warad-Sîn himself, as far as our documentation goes. His son Annum-pī-Aja first used his own seal and then started using this one.

1.5. Seal of Annum-pī-Aja Son of Warad-Sîn (Fig. 5)

1. Dimensions H: 2.3 cm (including the setting) W: 3.1 cm 2. Description A suppliant goddess (Lamma) faces a seated deified king in a cap with wide rim, who lifts his right hand holding a cup. There is a four-line framed inscription behind the king. The seal has a height of 2.3 cm including the caps. The width of the scene is 3.1 cm and we can be sure this is complete since the Lamma standing in front of the enthroned king reappears at the other side of the legend on MHET 132. The diameter is thus 0.99 cm and the ratio 2.32:1, which is a thin seal. The impressions represent the whole seal design. The seal was set in undecorated caps 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

dingir-pi4-da-[a] ┌ sanga┐ dutu ┌ dumu┐ ìr-dEN.ZU ┌ ┐ d ìr a-a

1) 2) 3) 4)

Annum-pī-Aja sanga of Šamaš son of Warad-Sîn servant of Aja

151

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions 4. Impressions Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

1. (unpublished)

Di 696b

UE right

a 8

FI

2. MHET132

BM 17352A

UE left

(a)

FI

3. (unpublished)

Di 677 seal 8

UE left

a 9

CI

= BT 56

4. (unpublished)10

BM 82427

UE excl.

a 11

FI

= BT 56

5. (unpublished)11

BM 92644A

LMg second

a -

FI

= BT 56

Di 707

UE right

a 16

CI

BM 82469

UE right

a 18

FI

6. (unpublished) 7. MHET 200

5. Document form Cases. 6. Document type Real estate sales, inheritance, adoption, slave sale. 7. Literature Teissier 1998 no 5612. 8. Comments After this, Annum-pī-Aja used a seal with the name of his father (our 4B), certainly from a 30 onwards. 1.6. Seal of Šamaš-tappašu Son of Annum-pī-Aja (Fig. 6)

1. Dimensions H: 2.33 cm Rem. W: 2.5 cm 2. Description A four-lines framed legend is followed by a king with a mace standing facing right. If this were the complete design, we would have a width of 2.5 cm and a diameter of 0.8 cm. Combined with the height of 2.33 cm this gives a ratio of 2.91 which is very thin. If, however, just as for seal 4A we suppose there was a Lamma facing the king, we would easily arrive at a width of about 3.6 cm yielding a diameter of 1.15 cm and a ratio of 2.03. A blank space, bringing the width to nearly 4 cm, would lower the ratio under 2. The preserved impressions may not represent the whole seal drawing. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

d

utu-tab.ba-[šu] sanga d┌utu┐ dumu dingir-pi4-da-a ìr sa-am-su-i-lu-┌na┐

1) 2) 3) 4)

Šamaš-tappašu sanga of Šamaš son of Annum-pī-Aja servant of Samsu-iluna

4. Impressions Reference 1. (unpublished) 2. MHET 425

10 11

Case of CT 8, 48a. Case of CT 8, 35b.

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Di 709 BM 82443

LE, LMg, RE top

Si 9

FI

LE, LMG, top

Si 13

FI

12 There is as yet no copy nor transliteration of the sealed envelope BM 82427.

ii. the seals and the texts

152

5. Document form Quasi-Hülle, case. 6. Document type Inheritance, real estate sale. 7. Literature None. 8. Comments This seal is analogous in design to seal 4A of Warad-Sîn. 1.7. Seal of Warad-Sîn Son of Šamaš-tappašu (Fig. 7)

1. Dimensions Rem. H: 1.92 cm to be completed to 2.63 cm Rem. W: 2.17 cm 2. Description Four-lines framed legend. From the right side a sitting person, probably an enthroned deified king, holding a cup, faces a four-line legend. This is a very exceptional scene which we already encountered on the seal of Lipit-Ištar (fig. 3). Only the uplifted arm is preserved with the hand holding the cup. Above this there is a disc inscribed in a crescent as a filling motif. A star is cut as a filling motif within the second line of the seal legend, between the ‘sanga’ and the ‘dutu’. There may be faint traces on CT 47, 65a of an indistinct figure standing on the left of the legend but the traces are too faint to be certain. They have not been drawn. For this seal we only have incomplete impressions. The remaining height is 1.92 cm, which can be completed to about 2.63. The remaining width is 2.17 cm to which the rest of the enthroned king should be added, making about 0.7 cm more, which brings us to about 2.90. This is a diameter of 0.92 cm and a ratio of 2.86:1 which is large. Is it possible that there were more figures? There could be a figure to the left of the legend, of which no trace subsists, e.g. a bullman as on Lipit-Ištar ‘s seal (fig. 3). This could extend the width to about 4.5 cm and the ratio would be 1.84:1. The impressions do not represent the whole seal design. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

ìr d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga d[utu] dumu dutu-tab.┌ba┐-[šu] ┌ ┐ ìr sa-am-su-i-[lu-na]

1) 2) 3) 4)

Warad-Sîn sanga of Šamaš son of Šamaš-tappašu servant of Samsu-iluna

4. Impressions Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

1. CT 47, 65a

BM 16812A

LE, LMg top

Si 25

FL

2. BE 6/2 86

CBS 4485

LE, LMg sec.

Si 30

L

3. MHET I, 1

Di 201

LE top

Si 30

FI

5. Document form Cases, Quasi-Hülle. 6. Document type Inheritance, uppi lā ragāmim, real estate.

Remarks = Wilcke 1983, 63 Siegel B.

153

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions 1.8a. First Seal of Annum-pī-Aja Son of Warad-Sîn (Fig. 8A)

1. Dimensions Rem. H: 2 cm Rem. W: 2.1 cm

2. Description Four-lines framed legend. Part of a figure facing this from the right. Only a raised arm remains. An arm of this shape could belong to several types of figures but would not readily be associated with a Lamma because of the lacking sleeve. A more probable figure would be the robed female figure with a kerchief, as described and drawn in Collon (1986, 39), which starts to appear under Abi-ešu, precisely the date of the impressions we have of this seal. A comparison with seal B shows that this figure might also be a worshipping king. We neither have the complete height nor the width of this seal. The remaining height is 2 cm and the remaining width is 2.1. Not much is lacking of the height, which must have been around 2.13 cm, taking into account the missing signs of the legend. As to the width, if we consider the figure to be a Lamma and complete it, the width would be about 2.7 cm, which is a diameter of 0.85. This gives a ratio of 2.79:1 which is high. From a width of 3.5 cm on, supposing there would either be a large blank space or a figure to the left of the legend, we reach a ratio under 2:1. The impressions do not allow us to know whether there were more figures. This seal had caps decorated with horizontal lines. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

dingir-pi4-da-[a] sanga d[utu] dumu ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] ìr a-bi-e-šu-[u.ke4]

1) 2) 3) 4)

Annum-pī-Aja sanga of Šamaš son of Warad-Sîn servant of Abiešu

4. Impressions Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

1. (unpublished)

Di 1851

LE, LMg top

Ae “e”

FL

2. CT 47, 69a

BM 17067A

LE, LMg penultimate

Ae “h”

FI

3. (unpublished)

Di 1547

LMg second

Ae “m”

FL

4. (unpublished)

Di 1802

LMg fifth

Ae [...]

FI

5. Document form Cases. 6. Document type Sales of real estate, donation, disadoption. 7. Literature Colbow 1992, 130 b)1.

ii. the seals and the texts

154

1.8b. Second Seal of Annum-pī-Aja Son of Warad-Sîn (Fig. 8B)

1. Dimensions H: 2.21 cm (with setting) W: 2.83 cm 2. Description From the left edge of the impression a king (identified by his broad rimmed cap) as worshipper, exceptionally with both hands raised, faces a four-lines framed legend. The whole width is preserved, since on BM 96982 the seal is rolled continuously twice on the left margin of the obverse. This width is 2.83 cm, which represents a diameter of 0.9 cm. The height of the seal is 2.21 with the caps. The result is a thin seal with a ratio of 2.46:1. The first seal is a little less high than the second one but in view of the small diference (0.08 cm) we must allow for the possibility that they were of the same height (especially since the caps might hamper our measurements. If the height is no objection, then seal B could be a recut of seal A since it is thin. The impressions represent the whole seal design. The seal-stone was set in metal caps whose rims were decorated with horizontal lines. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

dingir-pi4-da-a sanga dutu dumu ìr-dEN.┌ZU┐ ìr a-bi-e-šu-u.ke4

1) 2) 3) 4)

Annum-pī-Aja sanga of Šamaš son of Warad-Sîn servant of Abiešu

4. Impressions Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

1. (unpublished)

BM 96982

LE second (twice)

Ad 2

FL

2. BBVOT112

AO 7816

LE, LMg top (twice)

Ad 5

CI

5. Document form Cases. 6. Document type Sales of real estate, donation, disadoption. 7. Literature Colbow 1992, 130 b)1. 1.9. Seal of Sîn-iqīšam Son of Warad-Sîn (Fig. 9)

1. Dimensions Rem. H: 2 cm Rem. W: 1.5 cm 2. Description Four-lines framed inscription. The partial impressions we have of this seal do not preserve a figure. We can only try to approximate the complete measurements of the legend. Its width is

155

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions

1.5 cm, the remaining height is 2 cm. Since there is not much lacking, this can be restored to about 2.2 cm. We can exclude the possibility that these were the original dimensions because this would be a very thin (0.48 cm) and long (2.2 cm) seal, with a ratio of 4.58. A width of 3.5 to 4 cm would have yielded the standard ratio of 1.98:1 to 1.73:1. This would easily have allowed the presence of two figures. The extant impressions do not represent the whole seal design. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

d

EN.ZU-i-qí-ša-[am] sanga d[utu] dumu ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] ìr am-mi-di-ta-na.┌ke4┐

1) 2) 3) 4)

Sîn-iqīšam sanga of Šamaš son of Warad-Sîn servant of Ammiditana

4. Impressions Used by himself Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Di 690

L.Mg., R.E. third

Ad 20

FL

AO 2502

L.Mg. second

Ad 30

FL

Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

3. (unpublished)

Di 2129

LE third

Ad 32

FL

4. (unpublished)

Di 2163

LE, LMg third

Ad [32] 13

FL

1. (unpublished) 2. TCL I, 151 Used by his son

5. Document form Case, sealed tablet (used by himself), Quasi-Hülle. 6. Document type Real estate sales, certificate. 7. Literature None. 1.10. Seal of Ilšu-ibnīšu Son of Sîn-iqīšam (Fig. 10)

1. Dimensions Rem. H: 2.93 cm; complete: ± 3.12 cm Rem. W: 3.56 cm 2. Description A suppliant goddess faces a four-line inscription from the left. The drill, characteristic of the later seals, has been used to shape her headdress, necklace and hands. Other seals of the same period have this as a complete seal design. This is the tallest seal up to now, the only one with a height over 3 cm. The width of the Lamma-like figure and the 13 This text deals with the same land sale as Di 2129, it might therefore be dated to the same date as this document (Ad 32/10/x).

ii. the seals and the texts

156

legend together is 3.56 cm, which gives a diameter of 1.13 and a ratio of 2.76:1. This would be a tall and thin seal. As such it could have been recut from another one. If we want it to conform to the ratio, the width should be more than 5 cm. Another figure (a Lamma) could have stood on the other side but even then a sizeable amount of blank space would be required to add up to the 5 cm. The impressions may represent the whole seal design. There are traces of a setting above, with granulated decoration14. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

dingir-šu-ib-┌ni┐-[šu?] sangad[utu] dumu dEN.ZU-┌i-qí┐-[ša-am] ìr am-mi-a-┌du┐-[qá.ke4]

1) 2) 3) 4)

Ilšu-ibnīšu sanga of Šamaš son of Sîn-iqīšam servant of Ammiaduqa

4. Impressions Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

1. (unpublished)

Di 1147

Rev bottom, RE center

A 3

FI

2. (unpublished)

Di 821

LE, RE top, UE, Rev bottom

A 11

FI

3. Charpin 88 seal D

HG 96

LE, LMg third

A 5+

FL

4. (unpublished)

Di 1674

LE top [UE, LoE gone]

A 5+

FL

BM 80458

Rev

(A)

FL

5. MHET 702

5. Document form Sealed tablets, Quasi-Hülle. 6. Document type Donation prebend, rents of a divine weapon, field leases.

1.11. Nūr-Kabta Son of Ilšu-ibni (No Seal Impression Attested) 1.12. Seal Used by Sîn-aam-iddinam (Fig. 11)

1. Dimensions Rem. H.: 2.7 cm; complete ± 3 cm Rem. W: 1.1 cm 2. Description Three-line inscription. Only a part of the legend is preserved on the single impression we have. The approximate height of the seal must have been about 3 cm. This means that in order to obtain the standard ratio, a width of 5 cm or more would be required. Although this reconstruction is very conjectural, the dimensions of this seal come very close to those of his brother Ilšu-ibnīšu (sanga X). 3. Inscription 1) [...] 2) ┌dumu dEN.ZU-i┐-[qí-ša-am]

1) [...] 2) son of Sîn-i[qīšam]

14 According to Buchanan 1957, 47, this kind of decoration suggests that the caps were made of gold.

157

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions 3) ìr dnin.┌si’┐.an.[na]

3) servant of Ninsiana

Byscript: kišib dEN.ZU-a-a-am-i-din-nam Seal of Sîn-aam-iddinam

4. Impressions Reference (unpublished)

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Di 864

LE

A 13

FI

5. Document form Sealed tablet. 6. Document type Loan. 7. Literature None. 8. Comments According to the byscript, Sîn-aam-iddinam, a sanga of Šamaš, used this seal. The first line of the seal legend must have contained his name since in the text itself he is explicitly named as the son of Sîn-iqīšam. We have however refrained from completing this first line because the example of the preceding first sanga, Nūr-Kabta, shows that the seal of a brother could be used. The seal scene is lost.

2. Seals of Temple Officials as Second Witnesses During the formative years of the First Babylonian Dynasty, there was no second sanga yet and the place of the second witness was occupied by other temple officials. These were no doubt the highest ranking officials of the temple at that time. Whereas we tried to be exhaustive concerning these second witnesses, we did not strive to be so concerning their seal impressions15. We list the seal(s) they use and give a number of references to tablets on which these were impressed. To find and list all of their occurrences lies outside the scope of the present study. Although the families of Būr-Nunu and Damu-galzu have been studied more extensively above, we will only present the seals of those persons who were effectively second witnesses before the existence of the second sangaship: Ilum-mušallim, Būr-Nunu. We add a discussion of the seals of Damu-galzu and his son Adad-rēmēni although they each were only second witness respectively once and twice in this period. Imlik-Sîn will not be included here because we have no seal impression made by him. 2.1. Seal of Ilum-mušallim, Doorkeeper of the Gate of the Gagûm (Fig. 12)

1. Dimensions H: 2.4 cm W: 4.3 cm 15 The seals of the daughters of these ‘second witnesses’ will not be drawn or discussed here. This would have led us too far from our topic.

ii. the seals and the texts

158

2. Description Adoration scene. From the left to the right we see a Lamma with raised hands standing behind a worshipper figure bearing a sacrificial animal, all facing right. They face a seated figure of an enthroned ‘deified king’ holding a cup. Between the worshipper and the ‘deified king’ there is a solar disc on a lunar crescent. Behind the seated figure is a three-lines framed seal legend. On the other side of the legend there is a king with a mace, with his back towards it. We have placed the king with a mace to the right of the legend because there is an often attested composition in which we have a legend and such a figure with his back to it. However, in this composition there are no figures to the left of the legend. What we have here is a rare combination of an introduction scene on the one side of the legend and a king with a mace on the other. For a similar composition see GW 1988, 128/l with a bull-man instead of the king with a mace. The scene seems to be complete with four figures and a three-line legend. We have the complete width, which gives a diameter of 1.37 cm and a good standard ratio of 1.75:1. The impressions give the complete seal drawing. 3. Inscription 1) dingir-mu-ša-lim 2) ì.du8 3) ká ga-gu-um

1) Ilum-mušallim 2) doorkeeper 3) of the gate of the gagûm

4. Impressions Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

1. VS 8, 5

VAT 638B

LE second

(Im)

R

2. BDHP 14

BM 82450

LE top

(Im)

FI

= B 26 tablet VII

3. MHET 7

BM 17442A

UE

(Im)

FI

= B 24 tablet VI

(no sanga present)

BM 82050

Rev

(Sle+Bti)

FI

= B 51 tablet X

(no sanga present)

4. CT 45, 1

16

Remarks

5. Document form Cases. 6. Document type Wedding, inheritance, sale real estate, litigation. 7. Literature Blocher 1992a no 26 = 24 = 51; GW 1988, no 182 a (only enthroned king, legend and king with a mace), eadem, Table, 41 no 14a, Harris 1975, 194; Klengel-Brandt 1989, 100a. 8. Comments L. Gailani-Werr draws the seal from CT 45, 1 (GW 1988, 182a p. 88 and pl. XXIV-5). She draws the seal legend box and to its left the seated figure and the disc and crescent. To the right of the legend she draws a king holding a mace. Klengel-Brandt 1989 (p. 334 n° 100 and p. 335 n° 100a found on VS 8, 5) adds to this a standing figure in front of and facing the seated one, but the impression on VS 8, 5 does not show the king with the mace. Blocher 1988 (p. 25 tablet VII seal 26, as rolled on BDHP 14) refers to GW’s drawing and only gives the transcription of the legend. His n° 51 (p. 31, on tablet X = CT 45, 1) has traces of the legend, the king with the mace, the seated figure and adds two figures to the left of it: an animal bearer and a Lamma. The scene on this seal can be divided into three parts: an adoration of a seated figure, a legend and a king with a mace.

16

Case of BDHP 31.

159

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions 2.2. Seal of Būr-Nunu, Overseer of the Nadiātum of Šamaš (Fig. 13)

1. Dimensions H: 2.1 cm W: 3.67 cm 2. Description From the left to the right, a bald, long robed figure (a worshipper) and a figure with a sickle sword, face right. A six-locked hero stands frontally but with feet to the right. From a vessel held against his chest two streams of water flow into two aryballoi at his feet. A three-lines framed legend is followed by a king with a mace in a high cap facing right. Between the figure with the sickle sword and the hero «ìr é.babbar» is inscribed. The figure with the sickle sword looks very much like the rare warrior god (see Collon 1986 pl. XXX fig. 409) because of his hair done in a fish tail and his clothing, rather than the king with a mace holding such a sword (ibidem fig. 417). The figure of a nude hero with streams is of course a revived Old Akkadian figure (Collon, 1986, 90). Both these figures are associated on another seal (B 168) impressed on a tablet dated under Sabium (CT 8, 23c). It would of course be possible to put the king on the left side and consider the whole to be a procession of four figures. We did not do this because this would make the composition very awkward: the king, the bald worshipper and the god would all be facing a nude hero. Furthermore, as Blocher (1992a, 115) remarked, a procession would be unique among Old Babylonian seal representations. Finally, the king with the mace is notably smaller than the other figures, showing, according to us, that he did not belong with them. A scene composed of a worshipper standing behind a god who faces another figure is rare but there is a parallel (Collon 1986, fig.399). Since the right aryballos seems to cut into the frame of the legend and the servant line is added between the figures, it may well be that the legend was added later. What was cut away to make room for it cannot be ascertained. We can be certain that this is the whole scene since the seal is rolled continuously, repeating the first and last part. The width of 3.67 cm corresponds to a diameter of 1.17 cm, which, combined with the height gives a a good standard ratio of 1.79:1. The impressions give the complete seal drawing. 3. Inscription 1) bur-nu-nu 2) ugula nin.dingir dutu 3) dumu im-lik-dEN.ZU between figures: 4) ìr é.babbar

1) Būr-Nunu 2) overseer of the nadiātum of Šamaš 3) son of Imlik-Sîn 4) servant of the Ebabbar

4. Impressions Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Remarks

1. CT 45, 2

BM 82492

LE top

(Sle)

CI

= B 73 tablet XVIII

2. CT 8, 28a

BM 82052A

LE, RE last

(Sle)

CI

= B 73 tablet XV

3. CT 48, 31

BM 82439

LoE

(Sle)

CI

= B 73 tablet XVII

4. MHET 18

BM 82350

LoE twice

(Sle)

CI

= B 73 tablet XVI

5. VS 8, 13

VAT 959

LoE twice

(Sa)

CI

= Klengel 1989, 256 n° 3

ii. the seals and the texts

160

5. Document form Cases. 6. Document type Sales real estate, litigation, inheritance 7. Literature Blocher 1992a n° 73 8. Comments On CT 8, 28a Būr-Nunu is not mentioned in the text (neither tablet nor case) but his seal is rolled on the case. Klengel-Brandt (1989, 256 n° 3) draws the very partially preserved impression on VS 8, 13 with the legend box to the left. blocher (1992a n° 73) gives the complete drawing with the box to the right. The seal has three parts: the worshipper with the god and a six-locked hero, the three-lines framed legend, and the king with a mace. 2.3. Seal of Damu-galzu (Fig. 14)

1. Dimensions H.: 2.27 cm Rem.W.: 3 cm 2. Description Four-lines framed legend. A Lamma is facing right, standing behind a badly preserved figure with his feet to the right, a fold of his open long robe around his right foot. This open robe is often worn by a worshipper (sometimes a king, with or without an animal offering). The impression stops here and resumes with the well known priest, with his back close to the legend, and holding a pail in one hand and a cup or sprinkler in the other one. There may be traces of a kind of pedestal (Collon 1986, 34). This priest is facing the other two figures which means that the whole scene could be centered around a missing central figure. If the badly preserved figure is indeed a worshipper, the presence of another figure, being a god (most often Šamaš or a warrior god in this position) would be necessary. The preserved dimensions of this seal can be of some assistance here. Nearly the whole height is preserved and this can be easily completed to 2.27 cm. As to the width, we can measure 3 cm, which gives a diameter of 0.96 cm and a ratio of 2.36:1. A width of slightly over 3.5 cm would yield a ratio lower than 2:1. This would imply there could have been one more figure, which could be the missing god of this presentation scene. The one impression we have, typically is centered around the legend: to its right there is the Lamma, to its left the priest. The scene is incompletely preserved. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

d

da.mu-gal.zu kisal.lu é.babbár.ra ìr dutu da-┌a┐

1) 2) 3) 4)

Damu-galzu court sweeper of the Ebabbar servant of Šamaš and Aja

4. Impression Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Remarks

TCL I, 186

AO 7599

LE bottom

[...]

FI

= Delaporte 1923, A 574

161

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions 5. Document form Case. 6. Document type Fragment. 7. Literature Delaporte 1923, 153 and pl. 117 fig. 12. 2.4a. Seal of Adad-rēmēni Son of Damu-galzu with Title (Fig. 15A)

1. Dimensions Rem. H.: 1.1 cm17 Rem. W.: 2.67 cm 2. Description The one impression we have of this seal provides us with the framed seal legend (4 lines) and, with his back to it (at some distance), part of (probably) a king with a mace. On many seals the king with a mace is accompanied by a Lamma facing him, but our incomplete impression does not go that far. Only half the legend and half of the figure are preserved. The total height must have been about 2 cm, corresponding to the height of the lower edge. The remaining width of 2.67 cm must be completed since the king is incomplete and another figure such as a Lamma may have been present. In such a way the whole width may have been somewhat over 3 cm, which would yield a ratio slightly under 2:1. The impression does not give the complete seal design. 3. Inscription 1) d┌iškur┐-[re-me-ni] 2) rá.[gab] 3) šá é ┌ga┐-[gu-um] 4) ìr d┌utu┐ [da-a]

1) 2) 3) 4)

Adad-rēmēni messenger of the gagûm servant of Šamaš and Aja

4. Impression Reference CT 6, 40c seal 3

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Remarks

BM 82513

LoE

Sa 2

FI

= B 100 tablet XXI

5. Document form Case. 6. Document type Loan Šamaš temple. 7. Literature Blocher 1992a n° 100

17 Blocher 1992a measures a remaining height of 1.9 cm by which he must mean the width of the broken lower edge as a whole.

ii. the seals and the texts

162

2.4b. Seal of Adad-rēmēni Son of Damu-galzu without Title (Fig. 15B)

1. Dimensions H: 2.37 cm Rem. W.: 2.2 cm 2. Description Just as on his other seal, only the legend (here three lines) and a king with a mace remain. As rolled on the tablets, the king stands with his back to the inscription and just like for the first seal it is possible that there would be another figure facing him. As far as we can see, both seals have the same design. All impressions give the legend and the leftmost part of a figure. The complete height is 2.37 cm. As to the width we have to complete the one figure and probably add another one, just like on the previous seal. If the total width was about 4 cm, which is very well possible, the ratio would drop to just under 2:1. If the width was smaller, towards 3 cm or less, then the sealstone woud have been quite thin, which could lead us to suppose that seal A was recut into seal B. The height of the seals seems to preclude this, however. Seal A was about 2 cm high, whereas B certainly was 2.37 cm. Also, the distance between the figure and the legend box is different, which shows these are two different seals. The scene is incompletely preserved. 3. Inscription 1) diškur-re-me-ni 2) dumu dda-mu-gal-zu 3) ┌ìr é.babbár┐

1) Adad-rēmēni 2) son of Damu-galzu 3) servant of the Ebabbar

4. Impressions Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Remarks

BM 82429A

LE top

(Sa)

FI

= B 166 tablet XXXVIII

2. VS 8, 13

VAT 959

LE bottom

(Sa)

L

3. CT 47, 7

BM 17060A

LE middle

(AS)

FI

= B 166 tablet LVII

4. CT 8, 29a

BM 82048

LE bottom

AS

FI

= B 261 tablet LXIV

1. MHET 35

18

5. BBVOT 147

AO 7856

LE

(AS)

FI

6. CT 47, 11a

BM 16819A

LMg top

(Sm)

FI

5. Document form Cases. 6. Document type Litigation, inheritances, adoption, donation, sale real estate.

3. Seals of Second Sangas During the reign of Sabium the office of second sanga was created. These sangas will, from then on, witness and impress their seals on most documents together with the first sangas, as second witnesses.

18

Case of CT 4, 26b.

163

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions 3.1. Išar-Šamaš No seal attested. 3.2. Seal of Sîn-ennam Son of Sîn-imitti (Fig. 16)

1. Dimensions H: 2.53 cm Rem. W: 4.33 cm to be completed to 4.83 cm 2. Description Presentation scene. An animal bearer presents his offering to Šamaš, facing him. Šamaš stands in ascending position, i.e . with one foot raised on a symbolic mountain, and holds a saw. Between the two figures there is a star-disc and crescent. Šamaš stands with his back to the four-lines framed seal legend. To the right of the legend stands an Ištar as warrior goddess with her foot on a lion’s neck and holding a double lion mace in her right hand. The different seal impressions allow us to compose this part of the seal. No impression allows us to ascertain whether there were more figures but comparison with other similar compositions shows that usually a Lamma would have stood behind the worshipper. A close parallel is seal B 43 (Immerum) with an adoration composed of a king with a mace, a Lamma, a king as worshipper all facing a standing Šamaš with a saw and a warrior Ištar behind him. The main difference is of course the presence of a four-line legend on the seal of Sîn-ennam. Although the composition is not unique, it seems fair to say that it is exceptional. The whole height is preserved, this is 2.53 cm. The preserved width (with half of the animal bearer and 3/4 of the Ištar) is 4.33 cm. We can complete this to 4.83 cm, supposing there were no more figures. This gives a diameter of 1.54 and a standard ratio of 1.64:1. If there were more figures, such as a Lamma and a king with a mace this would lower the ratio beneath the standard one. The preserved impressions probably represent the whole seal. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

d

EN.ZU-en-nam sanga dutu dumu dEN.ZU-i-mi-ti ìr é.babbár

1) 2) 3) 4)

Sîn-ennam sanga of Šamaš son of Sîn-imittī servant of the Ebabbar

4. Impressions Used by himself: none. Used by his successor Šumu-Sîn Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Remarks

1. CT 47, 7a

BM 17060A

UE left

(AS)

FI

= B 220 tablet LVII = GW 186.b (no drawing)

2. MHET 66

BM 82425A

UE twice excl.

(AS)

FI

BM 82435

LoE left

(AS)

FI

= B 220 tablet L = B 220 tablet LXIV

3. CT 6, 46 4. CT 8, 29a

BM 82048

UE twice excl.

(AS)

FI

5. CT 47, 78A

BM 16814A

LoE, right

(AS)

FI

6. MHET 60

BM 79502

UE twice excl.

(AS)

FI

= B 220 tablet LXIII

ii. the seals and the texts

164 7. BBVOT 1,147 8. MHET 85

AO 7856

LE top

AS 16

FI

BM 17073A

UE

(Sm)

FI

5. Document form Cases. 6. Document type Inheritances, donations, real estate sale, adoption. 3.3. Seal of Šumu-Sîn (No Drawing) Šumu-Sîn consistently used his predecessor’s seal but he may once have impressed his own seal on a document that mentioned him. On the LoE of CT 48, 29, dated AS by the oath, a three-line seal inscription appears (seal 2 of CT 48, 29 = B 287) on the place where we expect the second witness to apply his seal. According to Blocher 1992a sub n° 287 C. Walker had already indicated that this seal 2 as published in CT 48 was unreadable. The tentative reconstruction of this legend (no figures are preserved), based on our collation of the faint traces, could be as follows: 1) šu-mu-u-dEN.[ZU] 2) dumu nu-úr-┌dEN┐.[ZU] 3) ìr d[...]

1) Šumu-Sîn 2) son of Nūr-Sîn 3) servant of [god x]

3.4a. First Seal of Šalim-pāli-Marduk Son of Sîn-gāmil (Figs. 17A)

1. Dimensions Rem. H.: 2 cm (complete about 2.1 cm) Rem. W.: 2 cm 2. Description To the right of a four-lines framed legend a partially preserved king with a mace is facing right, the rest of the scene (if there was one) was not impressed on the tablet. There may have been another figure facing the king as is often the case. The maximum height visible on the impression is 2 cm. As can be reconstructed, this lacks very little to be complete, about 0.1 cm. The maximum visible width is 2 cm which gives a diameter of 0.64 and a ratio of 3.13:1. A ratio under 2 supposes another figure and some blank space, extending the width to about 3.5 cm, the diameter to 1.11 cm which produces a standard ratio of 1.89:1. The scene, as preserved, probably is incomplete. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

┌

ša┐-lim-pa-li-i-d┌marduk┐ [dumu] [d]┌EN┐.ZU-ga-┌mil┐ [ìr d]AMAR.┌UTU┐ [sanga] d┌utu┐

1) 2) 3) 4)

Šalim-pāli-Marduk son of Sîn-gāmil servant of Marduk sanga of Šamaš

4. Impressions Reference CT 47, 11a seal 14

5. Document form Cases.

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

BM 16819A

UE right side

(Sm)

L

165

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions 6. Document type Real estate sale. 7. Literature None. 3.4b. Second Seal of Šalim-pāli-Marduk Son of Sîn-gāmil (Figs. 17B)

1. Dimensions H.: 2.37 cm Rem.W.: 2 cm 2. Description To the right of a four-lines framed inscription a king with a mace stands with his back to it. In other words, the same design was used as on his earlier seal. What changed was the legend. The remaining width is 2 cm, which gives a diameter of 0.64 cm and a ratio of 3.7:1 which is a very thin seal. The seal could have been recut, but not from Šalim-pāli-Marduk’s first seal since that is only 2 cm high. The remaining width could also not be the whole original width. We could suppose there was another figure facing the king. If this extends the width to more than 4 cm we arrive at a good standard ratio. The preserved scene probably is not complete. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

ša-lim-pa-li-i-dmarduk dumu dEN.ZU-ga-mil sanga dutu ìr ┌d┐marduk

1) 2) 3) 4)

Šalim-pāli-Marduk son of Sîn-gāmil sanga of Šamaš servant of Marduk

4. Impressions Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

1. (unpubl.)

Di 1907

UE

(Sm)

FI

2. (unpubl.)

Di 2017

UE

(Sm)

FI

3. TCL I, 69

AO 1763A

LE, LMg top

(Sm)

FI

4. BBVOT 1, 6

AO 1746

5. MHET 121

BM 92586A

LE, LMg top

19

UE, right side

[Sm]

FI

Sm 13

FI

Remarks

= L. Delaporte 1923, A 519 A

5. Document form Cases. 6. Document type Sale real estate, adoptions. 7. Literature Delaporte 1920, A 519A. 8. Comments This seal has the same layout as the first one, only the two last lines are inverted. Close examination of the impression shows the seal was not recut but a new one was made with the same scene (as far as this can be observed on the preserved parts).

19 The text is undated, but given that it is a near duplicate of TCL I 68/69 it should be dated to Sîn-muballi’s reign. This supports a reconstruction of Šalim-pāli-Marduk as

second witness in the witness list. The location of the seal impression, too, has been reconstructed from this very same observation.

ii. the seals and the texts

166

3.5. Seal of Eel-pī-Nabium, Son of Šalim-pāli-Marduk (Fig. 18)

1. Dimensions H: 2.5 cm Rem. W: 2.36 cm 2. Description On all of the extant impressions where she appears, a suppliant goddess is facing left and behind her there is a four-line inscription. The Lamma could in fact also have been facing the inscription from the right. In that case there would be no other figure. Comparison with parallel seals such as collon 1998, pl. XLII and sq. shows that a Lamma facing an inscription from the right usually stands close to it and a blank space, which can be quite large, separates her back from the frame of the legend. On the other hand, a Lamma with her back close to the legend, as is the case here, usually faces another figure, mostly a king with a mace (see ibidem nos. 177, 185, 209, 211 e.g.). The width is 2.36 cm, which gives a diameter of 0.75 cm. The height is 2.53. This is a very slender seal with a ratio of 3.33:1. In order to obtain the standard ratio, the width should be more than 4 cm, which would suppose there was another figure and/or a large blank space. In view of the comparanda this seems to be the most likely situation. It is probable that there were more figures. The seal had undecorated caps. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

┌

sanga┐ d[utu] e-te-el-pi4-dna-bi-[um] dumu ša-lim-pa-li-i-šu ìr dna-bi-um

1) 2) 3) 4)

sanga of [Šamaš] Etel-pî-Nabium son of Šalim-pālišu servant of Nabium

4. Impressions Reference 1. MHET 132 2. (unpubl.)

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Remarks

BM 17352A

UE right

(a)

FI

= BT 84

Di 677

UE right

a 9

FI

3. MHET 158

BM 16853

LMg second

a 10

FI

= BT 84

4. (unpubl.)

BM 8242720

LMg top twice

a 11

FI

= BT 84

5. (unpubl.)

BM 92644A21

LMg top twice22

(a)

FI

= BT 5723

5. Document form Cases. 6. Document type Inheritance, sales real estate, adoption, sale slave and ox.

20

Case of CT 8, 48a. Case of CT 8, 35b. 22 The copy of the document cited by B. Tessier is that of the tablet, the case is unpublished. The same is true 21

for the preceding document BM 82427 with tablet 82438 (= CT 8, 48a). 23 Teissier 1998, 57 is the same as her 84.

167

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions 3.6a. Seal of Sîn-iddinam Son of Enlil-a[...] without Legend (Fig. 19A)

1. Dimensions H.: 2.2 cm W.: 3.43 cm 2. Description Four figures can be seen. A lion-griffin opens its jaws over the head of another figure. To the right, a lion stands facing left with open jaws, holding an animal upright. This is a seal without a legend, an animal contest divided in two pairs of figures. The whole width can be determined because the seal is rolled continuously. The width is 3.43 cm, which gives a diameter of 1.09 cm. The height is 2.2 cm, and this gives a slightly high ratio of 2.02:1. The impression has the complete scene. 3. Inscription None. 4. Impression Reference (unpublished)

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Di 707

UE left

a 16

FI

5. Document form Case. 6. Document type Sale real estate. 7. Literature 8. Comments The attribution of this seal to Sîn-iddinam is not absolutely certain in the absence of a legend or byscript. It is based on the place of the seal on the upper edge next to the first sanga. 3.6b. Seal of Sîn-iddinam Son of Enlil-a[...] with Legend (Fig. 19B)

1. Dimensions Rem. H.: 2 cm (to be completed to ± 2.3 cm) W.: 2.77 cm 2. Description The impression on MHET 200 shows a four-lines framed legend with a Lamma quite close to and facing its right side. The impression on Di 2142 shows the back of the Lamma followed by a blank space of about 0.64 cm before the legend. The two taken together give us the whole seal design which is then similar to the design we reconstructed for the seal of the preceding second sanga Etel-pī-Nabium (fig. 18). The preserved height of 2 cm is to be completed to about 2.3 cm. The width is 2.77 cm, which gives a diameter of 0.88 cm. The ratio is 2.61:1 which means this was a thin seal. In view of

ii. the seals and the texts

168

the diameter, seal B could have been recut from seal A but since B is taller than A this is not possible. This is the whole seal design. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

[d]EN.ZU-i-[din-nam] ┌ sanga┐ [dutu] ┌ dumu┐ den.líl?-a[.........] ┌ ┐ ìr é.┌babbár┐.[ra]

1) 2) 3) 4)

[Sîn-iddinam] sanga of [Šamaš] son of Enlil?-a[...] servant of the Ebabbar

4. Impressions Reference 1. MHET 200 2. (unpublished)

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

BM 82469

UE right

a 18

L

Di 2142

UE twice

a oath

FI

5. Document form Case. 6. Document type Sale real estate. 3.7a. Seal of Sîn-bāni Son of Asallui-mansum (Fig. 20A)

1. Dimensions Rem. H: 1.5 cm (complete: 2.07 cm) Rem. W: 1.63 cm 2. Description On the one extant impression, a Lamma stands on the right with her back very close to a four-lines legend. At the other side of the legend there is some 0.3 cm of blank space before the end of the impression. In all probability, this means that we can expect that there was at least one more figure facing her. The one extant impression allows us to calculate an approximate height of 2.07 cm. The remaining width is 1.63 cm but this too has to be completed. We suppose there was at least one other figure, facing the Lamma. If the width, including another figure, was around 3.5 cm, the diameter would be 1.11, which would give a standard ratio of 1.8:1. The impression does not represent the whole seal design. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

[d]EN.ZU-ba-[ni] ┌ sanga┐ d[utu] [dumu] dasal.lú.i-ma.[an.sum] ìr a-am-mu-┌ra┐-[bi]

1) 2) 3) 4)

Sîn-bāni [sang]a of [Šamaš] son of Asallui-ma[nsum] servant of ammu-rabi

4. Impression Reference 1. MHET 238

5. Document form Case. 6. Document type Sale real estate.

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Remarks

BM 92650A

LE, LMg top

a 30

FI

= BT 44

169

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions 3.7b. Seal Used by Sîn-bāni Son of Asallui-mansum (Fig. 20B)

1. Dimensions H: 2.14 cm (with setting) Rem. W: 2 cm 2. Description To the right of a four-lines framed legend a suppliant goddess is facing right, with her back quite close to the inscription. The impressions do not go further to the left than the framed legend. In view of the position of the Lamma and for the same reasons as the preceding seal, there must have been at least one more figure, facing the Lamma. We have two impressions of this seal used by Sîn-iddinam but originally belonging to his father, according to the legend. The height is 2.14 cm (including the caps) and the remaining width 2 cm, which is a diameter of 0.64 cm. The ratio is 3.34:1. Here too, with one more figure, the width could augment to about 4 cm which would give a diameter of 1.27 cm and a standard ratio of 1.69:1. The preserved part of the seal probably does not give the whole seal design. The seal has a plain setting above. There no doubt also was one below but we have no trace of it on the extant, incomplete, impressions. 3. Inscription 1) ┌d┐asal.lú.i-ma.an.[sum] 2) ┌sanga┐ dAMAR.┌UTU┐ 3) [dumu] a-wi-il-d[...] 4) [ìr] dna-bi-┌um┐

1) 2) 3) 4)

Asallui-mansum sanga of Mar[duk] son of Awīl-d[...] servant of Nabium

4. Impression Used by his son Sîn-bāni Reference

Mus. no.

1. (unpublished)

Di 2136

2. (unpublished)

Di 2113

Location LMg second

?24

LE, LMg second

Date

State

a [37]

FI

a 37

FI

5. Document form Cases. 6. Document type Inheritance. 7. Literature None. 8. Comments The scene seems to be of the same type as that of Sîn-bāni himself. 3.7c. Another Seal Used by Sîn-bāni? (Fig. 20C) It is possible that Sîn-bāni used still another seal on Di 1430 (a 32). The first sanga sealed this tablet at the top of the left edge and left margin. The next seal, which we would expect to be the second sanga’s, is an animal combat without legend or kišib. There is no certainty that it belonged to Sîn-bāni or that it was indeed him who used it. This seal is similar to one of the seals used by his predecessor Sîn-iddinam in a 16 (on Di 707).

24

The LE is broken.

ii. the seals and the texts

170

1. Dimensions H.: 1.67 cm W.: 2.14 cm 2. Description A bull-man is shown frontally with legs turned left, to his right a six locked hero holds a lion upside down, then a kneeling human figure holds a lion-griffin who opens its jaws over his head. No legend. Since we have continuously rolled impressions of this seal we can be certain that it holds the whole scene. The height of this seal is 1.67 cm, its width 2.14 cm which gives a diameter of 0.53 cm and a proportion of 4.04:1. A very thin seal. The impression represents the whole seal design. 3. Inscription None. 4. Impression Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

(unpublished)

Di 1430

LE second

a 32

FI

5. Document form Quasi-Hülle tablet. 6. Document type Sale real estate. 7. Literature None. 3.8a. Seal of Išme-Sîn, Son of Ikūn-pī-Uraš Sanga arpanītum (Fig. 21A)

1. Dimensions Rem. H: 1.7 cm (to be completed to about 2.2 cm) Rem. W: 1.73 cm 2. Description Four-lines inscription. No figure is preserved on the extant impression. The width of the four-line framed legend is 1.73 cm, the height of the seal can be approximately calculated as about 2.2 cm. The width of the scene and legend should be about 4 cm to have a standard ratio. The impression does not preserve the complete composition of this seal.

25 M. J. Geller most kindly provided us with a digital photograph of this seal. It appears that at the time the copy in VS 9 was made more of it was still readable. Our transcription is based on a combination of both. For fig. 21A

we used the digital image only since it appears the copy of the legend in VAS 9 does not respect the exact placing of the signs.

171

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions 3. Inscription25 1) 2) 3) 4)

[iš-me]-dEN.[ZU] [sanga dar]-pa-ni-┌tum┐ [dumu i-ku]-un-pi4-d[uraš] [ìr] ┌a-am┐-mu-ra-┌bi┐

1) 2) 3) 4)

[Išme]-Sî[n] [sang]a of arpanīt[um] son of Ikūn-pī-[Uraš] servant of ammu-rabi

4. Impression Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

VS 9, 42

VAT 644+

LE second

a 31

FL

5. Document form Fragmentary case. 6. Document type Sale real estate. 7. Literature None. 8. Comments This is the earlier seal of Išme-Sîn, still as sanga of arpanītum. There is no doubt that he is the same person as our sanga of Šamaš26. 3.8b. Seal of Išme-Sîn, Son of Ikūn-pī-Uraš Sanga of Šamaš Servant of ammu-rabi (Fig. 21B)

1. Dimensions H: 2.2 cm Rem. W: 2.68 cm 2. Description To the right of a four-line inscription a king with a mace is facing right, with his back towards the inscription. Since the king with the mace does not appear elsewhere alone with an inscription, it seems plausible to assume that he was at least accompanied by a Lamma facing him. The remaining dimensions of the impressions allow this. As preserved, only the legend and the king are visible, as well as some blank space at the left of the legend. This makes a width of 2.68 cm, corresponding to a diameter of 0.85 cm and a ratio of 2.59:1. If we add some space for a Lamma and some space behind, the width could be about 4 cm, which would make a diameter of 1.27 cm and a good ratio of 1.73:1. Since this second seal used by Išme-Sîn has the same heighth as the first one, this could also be seal A recut. This would imply that it should be a good deal thinner which may be the case if only the minimal space for the Lamma is calculated, but this cannot be substantiated since neither A nor B provide us with a complete width. The impressions probably do not give us the whole seal design. The seal has undecorated caps. Only the upper cap has left traces. 3. Inscription 1) iš-me-d┌EN┐.[ZU] 2) sanga d[utu] 3) dumu i-ku-un-pi4-┌duraš┐

1) Išme-Sîn 2) sanga of Šamaš 3) son of Ikūn-pī-Uraš

26 The inscription of this seal is drawn in VS 9, 42/43. Teissier (1998) p. 66, n° 58 cites Wilcke (1983) 66, where it is erroneously taken as being identical with the second and later seal of Išme-Sîn (seal B).

27

No drawing.

ii. the seals and the texts

172 4) [ìr] a-┌am-mu┐-ra-┌bi┐

4) servant of ammu-rabi

4. Impressions Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

1. (unpublished)

Di 1438

LE, LMg second

a 39

FI

BM 16821A

LE, LMg bottom

a 43

FI

2. CT 47, 47a

Remarks = GW 1988, 213.c27 = BT 58

5. Document form Cases. 6. Document type Exchange of houses, inheritance. 7. Literature Teissier 1998 n° 58 draws only the first three lines of the legend because, on CT 47, 47a this seal is rolled on the very bottom of the left edge and margin and there was no room for the servant line. 3.8c. Seal of Išme-Sîn, Son of Ikūn-pī-Uraš Sanga of Šamaš Servant of Samsu-iluna (Fig. 21C)

1. Dimensions H.: 2.23 cm (to be completed to about 2.37 cm) Rem. W.: 2.7 cm 2. Description A four-lines framed legend is the only part of this seal visible on two of the impressions. On Di 709 there is a king as animal bearer preserved to the right of the legend, facing away from it, after a blank space. There must at least have been a god facing the king. The reconstructed height is 2.37 cm and the remaining width 2.7 cm which gives a diameter of 0.86 cm and a ratio of 2.59:1. If we add a god the width could easily become 4 cm, which gives a diameter of 1.27 cm and a standard ratio of 1.76:1. Since it is taller than seals A and B, this seal cannot be recut from them. The impressions do not represent the whole seal design. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

iš-me-dEN.┌ZU┐ sanga dutu dumu i-ku-un-pi4-duraš ìr sa-am-su-i-lu-na

1) 2) 3) 4)

Išme-Sîn sanga of Šamaš son of Ikūn-pī-Uraš servant of Samsu-iluna

4. Impressions Used by himself Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

1. OLA 21, 9

CBS 95

under the text

Si 7

FI28

2. (unpublished)

Di 709

LE, LMg, RE second

Si 9

FI

BM 82443

LE, LMg second

Si 13

FI

3. MHET 425

28 Teissier (1998) erroneously dates this text to the reign of Ammi-aduqa. K. Van Lerberghe, OLA 21 text 9 copied d utu in the second line of the inscription instead of uraš.

173

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions Used by his successor Sîn-erībam Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

CT 47, 65a

BM 16812A

LE, LMg second

Si 25

FI

5. Document form Sealed tablet, Quasi-Hülle, case tablet. 6. Document type Harvest labourers contract, inheritance, real estate sale. 3.9. Sîn-erībam Of his sanga we only have one single impression, made with the last seal (21C) of his predecessor. In the absence of a patronym we do not know in which way they were related. 3.10a. Seal of Marduk-mušallim, Son of Marduk-nāir (Fig. 22A) As explained above in our chapter on this second sanga, Marduk-mušallim used two different seals consecutively. On the first one the legend states he is a son of Marduk-nāir, on the second one he is a son of Sîn-erībam. For our reasons to treat these two seals as referring to one and the same Marduk-mušallim, notwithstanding the different patronymics, see our chapter 10 of the second sangas.

1. Dimensions H: 2.6 Rem. W: 2.66 cm 2. Description To the right of a four-line inscription traces of a king with a mace are visible on Di 1851. He is facing right. There probably was at least one more figure, such as a Lamma, facing him. The remaining width of 2.23 cm should be completed. A width of 4.5 would be needed to reach a diameter of 1.43 cm and a standard ratio of 1.82:1. The seal has undecorated caps. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

d marduk-mu-┌ša┐-[lim] dumu dmarduk-na-┌i┐-[ir] sanga dmarduk ìr a-bi-┌e┐-šu-u[.ke4]

1) 2) 3) 4)

Marduk-mušallim son of Marduk-nāir sanga of Marduk servant of Abi-ešu

4. Impressions Reference

Mus. no.

Location

1. (unpublished)

Di 1851

LE, LMg second

Ae “e”

FI

2. (unpublished)

Di 1547

LE, LMg third

Ae “m”

FI

5. Document form Case. 6. Document type Disadoption, donation.

Date

State

ii. the seals and the texts

174

7. Literature None. 8. Comments In our discussion of this sanga we came to the conclusion that the title sanga Marduk of the third line of the inscription refers to the father, since Marduk-mušallim himself is explicitly sanga of Aja in all texts. 3.10b. Seal of Marduk-mušallim, Son of Sîn-erībam (Fig. 22B)

1. Dimensions H: 2.27 cm to be completed to about 2.47 cm Rem. W: 2.6 cm 2. Description The raised arm of a robed female figure with a kerchief29 facing right is preserved. Four-lines framed legend. With a height of 2.47 cm and a width of 2.6 cm, giving a diameter of 0.83 cm, we have a ratio of 2.98:1. If we complete the figure, we could reach a width of 3 cm, but a width of 4 cm would be needed (in the shape of a blank space or another figure turned towards the legend from the right) to reach a ratio under 2:1. On the other hand, since seal B is smaller than A and may also be thinner, if we stick to the 3 cm width, it could be a recut seal. This may be the whole seal design. The seal had caps decorated with lines. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

d

marduk-mu-ša-[lim] sanga da-a dumu ┌d┐EN.ZU-e-ri-┌ba-am┐ [ìr] am-mi-di-ta-[na.ke4]

1) 2) 3) 4)

Marduk-mušallim sanga of Aja son of Sîn-erībam ┌ servant┐ of Ammi-dit[ana]

4. Impressions Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

1. (unpublished)

BM 96982

LE, LMg third

Ad 2

FI

2. BBVOT 112

AO 7816

LE, LMg third

Ad 5

L

5. Document form Quasi-Hülle, case. 6. Document type Adoption, real estate sale. 7. Literature Colbow 1992, 132 b)4 (description only).

29 Not a Lamma because of the absence of the typical sleeves of the Lamma dress.

175

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions 3.11a. Seal of Etel-pī-Nabium, Son of Marduk-mušallim Servant of Ammi-ditana (Fig. 23A)

1. Dimensions Rem. H.: 2.26 cm (to be completed to about 2.4 cm) Rem. W.: 1.6 cm 2. Description Four-lines framed legend. All impressions are fragmentary and none goes further than the legend. This might be due to the fact that the seal was rolled between other ones. On some of the tablets quite some empty space is visible to the right of the impression (= to the right of its first line), which may show that if there was a figure this must have been standing to the left of the legend. The largest width we can measure is 1.6 cm, being only the legend. If the complete width were 4 cm the diameter would be 1.27 cm and the ratio 1.89:1, within our standard range. The seal has a granulated setting with four-lines of granulations above and below. The impressions do not give the whole seal design. The seal had caps decorated with granulation. 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

e-tel-pi4-dna-┌bi┐-[um] sanga┐ da-[a] dumu dmarduk-mu-┌ša-lim┐ ┌ ┐ ìr am-mi-di-┌ta┐-[na.ke4]30 ┌

1) 2) 3) 4)

Etel-pī-Nabium sanga of Aja son of Marduk-mušallim servant of Ammi-ditana

4. Impressions Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

1. (unpublished)

Di 690

LE fourth

Ad 20

L

2. (unpublished)

Di 2001

Rev

Ad 22

L

3. TCL I, 151

AO 2502

LE, Obv third

Ad 30

L

4. (unpublished)

Di 2129

LE, [LMg] last

Ad 32

L

5. (unpublished)

Di 2163

LE right, lower half

Ad [32]

L

6. (unpublished)

Di 933

LE second

Ad 36

FI

Remarks

= Delaporte 1923, A 562

5. Document form Case, sealed tablet, Quasi-Hülle. 6. Document type Real estate sales, certificate, consignment (šūbultum) contract. 7. Literature Colbow 1998 fig. 3631.

30 The presence or absence of the ke4 after the royal name in the servant line will be discussed in our Conclusion B. The legends of the sangas.

31 The drawing has to be corrected as shown here on fig. 31.

ii. the seals and the texts

176

3.11b. Seal of Etel-pī-Nabium, Son of Marduk-mušallim Servant of Ammi-aduqa (Fig. 23B)

1. Dimensions Rem. H: 2.2 cm (to be completed to about 3.2 cm) Rem. W: 2.77 cm 2. Description A robed female figure with a kerchief is turning to the right to face a four-lines inscription. Again, as such the composition does not need another figure but there could have been blank space behind the figure before the legend. This is a tall seal of over 3 cm. Since only a part of the first line is missing and a small part of the female figure, the minimum width may have been somewhere around the 3 cm. This would give a diameter of 0.96 cm and a ratio of 3.33:1. A very thin seal but not a recut from his first seal since that is about 0.8 cm shorter. If we want to approach the standard ratio we have to suppose there was quite some blank space or an extensive scene, with a width over 5 cm. The impressions may represent the whole seal design (without the blank space). 3. Inscription 1) 2) 3) 4)

[e]-┌tel-pi4-d┐[na-bi-um] ┌ sanga┐ da-[a] dumu dmarduk-[mu-ša-lim] ìr am-mi-┌a┐-┌du┐-[qa.ke4]

1) 2) 3) 4)

Etel-pī-Nabium sanga of [Aja] son of Marduk-mušallim servant of Ammi-aduqa

4. Impressions Used by his son Marduk-nāir Reference 1. CT 6, 6 seal 5

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

BM 80156

LMg,under text, RE fourth

A 11

FI

2. OLA 21, 6

CBS 80

Rev

A 5

FI

3. Charpin 1988

HG 96

LE, LMg fourth

post A 5

FI

5. Document form Quasi-Hülle. 6. Document type Real estate sale. 7. Comments Although the impressions on OLA 21, 6 and Charpin 1988 do not have the distinctive last line, the very precise copies allow us to compare the disposition of the signs and to see that both were made with seal B. 3.12. Seal Used by Marduk-nāir Son of Etel-pī-Nabium In all of the impressions we have of him he only uses his father’s seal.

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions

177

4. Seals Used by the Sangas of the Edikuda, the Šamaš Temple of Sippar Amnānum With the sangas of the Edikuda in Sippar-Amnānum we enter another realm. These are quite different from the prestigious sangas of the Ebabbar in Sippar-Jarūrum, although their shortened title, sanga Šamaš, is the same as that of their illustrious ‘colleagues’. They could and have been confused with them and our overview is a first attempt to disentangle both. The study of their seal ownership and design will give us the opprtunity to compare these with the corpus of Ebabbar sangas. A–G. Seals Used by the First Six Sangas of the Edikuda For the the first seven sangas of the Edikuda, Nūr-Šamaš, Šamšatum, Utu-urbara, Šumi-eretim, Narām-Sîn, Sîn-nādin-šumi and Etel-pī-Marduk no seal impressions were found, which is no doubt due to the very limited number of attestations we have for them. H. Seals Used by Sîn-išmeanni, Sanga of the Šamaš Temple of Sippar Amnānum32 (Figs. 24A, B, C and D) a) His Own Seal (Fig. 24A)

1. Dimensions H: 2 cm W: 3.5 cm On some of the impressions this seal is rolled in such a way that some figures are repeated. Because of this we know that we have the complete width. This gives a diameter of 1.11 cm and a standard ratio of 1.8:1. The impressions give the whole scene. 2. Description Two presentation scenes. The first one, to the left, consists of a king as animal carrier facing Šamaš to his right who lowers his hand, holding a knife or a small saw. The second one has a divine figure in a short kilt holding a stick upright, and turning towards a probably divine figure who raises one hand and puts the other on the waist. Between these figures there are filling elements. In the first adoration scene a worshipper raising his hand and a drilled rosette are placed between the two figures. Between the two scenes there are two strings of globes. In the second scene there are a kneeling adorant and a crescent between the figures. Behind the second scene we see a “balance” and a vase with flowing water. All of the impressions of this seal are accompanied by a byscript (kišib), except Di 1050. Di 1014 has an exceptional kišib: kišib sanga?.mu?.ni “the seal of the sanga, his name». When the seal is impressed at different places on the tablet, among which is the LE, the kišib is always to be found on the LE. Byscript: kišib den.zu/d30-iš-me-a-ni seal of Sîn-išmeanni

32 For his father Šamaš-urbarra who was likewise Sanga of the Šamaš-Temple of Sippar Amnānum no seal is attested yet.

ii. the seals and the texts

178 3. Impressions Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

1. (unpublished)

Di 2107

LE, RE, UE

Ad [...]

FI

2. (unpublished)

Di 2087

LE, RE bottom, LoE

Ad 31

FI

3. (unpublished)

Di 2173

LoE

Ad 36

CI

4. (unpublished)

Di 1171

LoE

Ad 37

FI

5. (unpublished)

Di 1050

LE, RE top, UE

A 1

FI

6. (unpublished)

Di 1014

LE, Obv bottom

A 1

FI

7. (unpublished)

Di 2085

LE top, UE

A 1

FI

8. (unpublished)

Di 1429

LE bottom

A 1

FI

9. (unpublished)

Di 1138

LE bottom

A 1

FI

10. (unpublished)

Di 2081

LE bottom

A 4

FI

4. Document form Sealed tablets. 5. Document type Loan of grain, loan of silver, cattle sale. 6. Literature None. 7. Comments Sîn-išmeanni used this seal so often that we may suppose he was the owner. b) Uninscribed Seal (Fig. 24B)

1. Dimensions Rem. H: 1.57 cm Rem. W:1.2 cm The one impression we have of this seal is too fragmentary to allow any reconstruction of the original sealstone. 2. Description Animal combat. Only three figures remain: from left to right a figure en face (?), an animal held upside down by a lion (?). The impression does not give the full scene. Byscript: kišib den.zu-iš-me-a-ni seal of Sîn-išmeanni 3. Impressions: Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

(unpublished)

Di 2165

LE bottom

Ad 36

R/FI

4. Document form Tablet. 5. Document type Barley loan. 6. Literature None. 7. Comments The owner of this seal is unknown. Sîn-išmeanni used it only once.

179

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions c) Seal with Legend (Fig. 24C)

1. Dimensions Rem. H: 1.73 cm Rem. W: 1 cm Here too no reconstruction is possible. 2. Description Three-lines framed legend over which the byscript is written. No figures are visible on the impression and the legend is unreadable except for a few incoherent signs. 3. Inscription 1) [......] x KA [.....] 2) [.....] DINGIR [.....]

kišib dEN.ZU-iš-me-a-ni 4. Impressions: Byscript:

seal of Sîn-išmeanni

Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

1. (unpublished)

Di 1412

LE second

A 3

FI

5. Document form Sealed tablet. 6. Document types Slave sale. 7. Literature None. 8. Comments The owner of this seal is unknown. Sîn-išmeanni used it only once. d) Seal of Lama?-ilum (Fig. 24D)

1. Dimensions H: 2.24 cm Rem. W: 2 cm 2. Description To the left, a robed female figure with a kerchief stands, hands raised, towards a three-lines framed legend with a filling element in its first line. In view of the type of scene, the impression may represent the whole original width. The diameter would then be only 0.64 cm which is very thin and the ratio 3.5:1. This may mean that there were more figures or that there was a blank space. The ideal width, in view of the standard ratio would be around 4 cm. 3. Inscription 1) la-ma?-DINGIR 2) ┌dumu┐ mi-la-qum 3) ┌ìr┐ ša d┌iškur┐?

1) Lama?-ilum 2) son of Milaqum 3) servant of Adad?

ii. the seals and the texts

180

kišib dEN.ZU-iš-me-a-ni 4. Impressions: Byscript:

seal of Sîn-išmeanni

Reference

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

1. (unpublished)

Di 1431

Rev bottom

A 7

FL

2. (unpublished)

Di 1379

LE bottom

A 7

FL

5. Document form Sealed tablet. 6. Document types Field sale. 7. Literature None. 8. Comments The owner of this seal is not mentioned in the document. His relationship with Sîn-išmeanni is unknown. Sîn-išmeanni used this seal twice. The impressions of two other seals used by Sîn-išmeanni are very worn. The first one is to be found on Di 1084 (dated Ad 31) on the lower edge or the bottom of the reverse, and the second one on Di 2081(dated A 4) on the central part of the left edge. Their very faintly preserved representations can neither be attributed to one of the seals above, nor can they be counted as independent examples. I. Seal Used by Ikūn-pī-Sîn (Fig. 25)

1. Dimensions H: 1.9 cm W: 3.1 cm 2. Description The scene is composed of four figures. The one on the right is the warrior goddess, standing full face, holding the double lion headed mace upright with her right hand. To her left stands a figure, which may also be en face. The third figure, to the left of them, is another figure standing full face, with the left arm bent inside at the height of the waist. Between the last two figures there is a filling element in the shape of a head. A fourth figure stands with the right arm stretched downwards to its side and maybe faces the third figure. Next to this figure there is a small figure used as a filling element. Between the warrior goddess and the figure to her left there are faint traces of a line of cuneiform, given below as the inscription. The impression we have gives a diameter of 0.99 cm and a ratio of 1.92:1. This is a little high, so there may have been another figure. 3. Inscription ┌ ┐ X BA GI6?.IGI.GABA.┌ŠÈ?┐ Byscript: kišib i-ku-un-pi4-d30 Seal of Ikūn-pī-Sîn 4. Impression Reference MHET 529

5. Document form Sealed tablet.

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

BM 80245

LE second

A 12

FI

181

ii.a. catalogue of the seal impressions

6. Document type Field lease. 7. Literature None. 8. Comments According to the byscript, Ikūn-pî-Sin, sanga of Šamaš, used this seal. The signs inscribed between the figures certainly do not spell his name.

J. Seal Used by Ibni-Šērum (Fig. 26)

1. Dimensions H: 1.9 cm Rem. W: 3.63 cm 2. Description33 Presentation and emblem holders. A very partially preserved figure faces a god who stands with one foot on a pedestal. To their right a bullman faces to the left. A second bull-man and a nude (?) hero touch a staff which takes the whole height of the seal. The dimensions of the only impression give a diameter of 1.16 cm and a standard ratio of 1.64:1. Since the leftmost figure is only partially preserved something must be added to the width, which further lowers the ratio. kišib ib-ni-dše-rum

Byscript:

Seal of Ibni-Šērum

3. Impression Reference (unpublished)

Mus. no.

Location

Date

State

Di 974

LE

A 13

FI

4. Document form Sealed tablet. 5. Document type Loan.

33 For once, we describe from the right to the left, in this case from the clearer towards the vaguer figures.

182

ii. the seals and the texts

II.B. ANALYSIS 1. The Seals of the First Sangas of Šamaš from Sippar Jarūrum a. Descriptions The seal of Annum-pī-Šamaš (sanga I, fig. 1), son of Warad-Sîn, attested under Immerum, shows a typical early Old Babylonian adoration scene1 before a partially preserved seated god (maybe Šamaš2?) and a rare second motif of a bull-man holding the three line framed legend. The style of the seal apparently was exceptional3, its quality very high. The bull-man (or bison-man) or kusarikku is associated with the sun god (see Wiggermann 1981/82, 103 and 1992, 174-176). A bull-man turning to the right and holding an inscription appears only once on another seal. It is no coincidence that this is a seal of a later sanga of Šamaš, Lipit-Ištar (cf. infra sanga III, fig. 3), the son of Šamaš-tappašu, to be dated under ApilSîn. The dress of the Lamma is decorated with undulating lines but this cannot be brought in relation with al-Gailani-Werr’s Workshops since these start only under Sîn-muballi. The seal of the sanga Šamaš-tappašu (sanga II, fig. 2), son and successor of Annum-pī-Šamaš, attested under Sumu-la-El and the beginning of Sabium, shows a similar mixture of conventional and rare elements. The composition is unique in the Old Babylonian period, although certain elements are common. An adoration scene before an ascending Šamaš and a scene with a god subjugating a large bull, holding its horn and its tail, one foot on its back, are carved side by side. The god who triumphs over the animal faces a suppli-

1 Cfr. Blocher, 1992a 56 ss. and Blocher 1992 a) commentary on fig. 1 for a definition of these scenes. 2 As, f.i. on the seal B 7 (on MHET 10 dated Im 1). 3 As Blocher (1992a, 122) remarks, the flounces of the divine garments are undulated. This becomes a principal characteristic of the so-called Sippar I style otherwise appearing later in the Old Babylonian period and first defined by al-Gailani (1988) 40 sq. 4 For bull-men facing the legend see also De Clercq (1885 n° 246) but the composition is different. 5 This conclusion is corroborated for the Ur-III dynasty by the fact that seals with this theme were regularly donated by the king to his administrators. Cf. Winter 1986, 253268 and Owen, D. & Mayr, R. 2001 for an example from Iddin-Dagan’s reign.

ant goddess depicted in small format not exceeding the height of a filling element. Behind this goddess there is a three line framed inscription. According to Blocher (1992a, 114) this group rather is a worshipping scene than figures facing the legend. This means that the seal is composed of three parts: adoration, subjugation, worshipping and legend. Its style seems to be conventional, its quality is again very high. This is the first sanga seal for which we have traces of a setting: two undecorated metal caps have left parallel lines on the impressions. Furthermore, it is unique for Old Babylonian sanga seals that Šamaštappašu’s title is not mentioned in the inscription. Lipit-Ištar’s seal (sanga III, fig. 3), attested under Apil-Sîn and Sîn-muballi, shows a meeting of protective spirits carved on opposite sides of the three-lines inscription. A bull-man, kusarikku, stands on the left of the inscription panel and holds it with two hands4. At the right side of the panel there is an enthroned deified king, turning to the left, towards the legend, and holding a cup. Usually, the figure of the deified king is the focal point of an adoration scene. In receiving a sort of worship it acquires a god-like quality, although its appearance is purely human. During the Ur III period, this figure could have represented the actual5 king, honoured or even worshipped by his subjects6. In the Old Babylonian period, it probably came to symbolize kingship itself (Collon 1986, 60). The scene is unique in the corpus of Old Babylonian seal representations. This example seems to be the earliest one that shows the composition concept of two figures arranged on

6 The Old Babylonian iconographical repertory developed two main variants of the king’s image. An older one of the seated king, and a more recent one of the standing figure with the mace. But all of these variants seem to have undergone the same evolution during this period. The ruler became more and more a supernatural being. He most probably was included in the circle of protective spirits who were responsible for human welfare (as is a.o. expressed in personal names including the name of a deified former king). In imagery this was finally expressed with royal figures who, at least on seal representations, could appear on places in the scene that normally were occupied by divinities.

ii.b. analysis

183

the opposite sides of an inscription7. Its style is rather conventional, its quality excellent. Warad-Sîn, Lipit-Ištar’s son (sanga IV), uses two seals consecutively (figs. 4A and 4B). The first one (fig. 4A) is attested under Sînmuballi only, the only remaining figure is a Lamma to the left of a four line framed legend. There is a second seal, with the same legend as his first one, which he never used himself. It had in fact been made for his son and was even used at the time of his grandson, so it was in use from ammu-rabi 30 until Si 7, some twenty years. The seal design has a king with a mace to the right of the four line framed legend, with his back towards it. There probably was a, now lost, Lamma facing him. It is important to note that seal B cannot have been recut from seal A, because it is taller. The legend of both seals has the same wording, the main difference being the change of the accompanying figures. First a Lamma facing the legend as a second motif separate from the legend and then a king with a mace (and a Lamma). Why this change? The king with the mace facing a Lamma is a motif that existed already in the early Old Babylonian period and which, according to Collon (1986, 101), remained popular until the reign of Samsu-iluna. On the other hand, a Lamma facing the legend, under Sîn-muballi is early. Warad-Sîn himself used a completely new figure for his seal. On the other seal, not used by himself but of course referring to him, a more traditional figure or group of figures was used. The possible meaning of these choices will be discussed in our conclusions. The seal of Warad-Sîn’s son, Annum-pī-Aja (sanga V, fig. 5), attested from a 8 to 18, has a legend and a simple adoration scene but no figure facing the inscription. A suppliant goddess approaches the enthroned deified king. This, clearly was an older theme8 picked up again, showing an accentuation of tradition. Just like his great-grandfather Šamaš-tappašu, Annum-pīAja’s seal had a setting. On the impression, the undecorated lower borders of these caps appear as horizontal bands above and below the scene. The style of the seal representation is a common one, its quality again rather high.

Annum-pī-Aja’s son and successor, Šamaštappašu owned a seal (sanga VI, fig. 6), attested twice: in Si 9 and 13. A king with a mace stands with his back to a four line framed legend and is facing a now lost figure. This design is similar to that of seal 4B with the name of Warad-Sîn but made and used by his father during the second half of his career. In other words, through this seal, Šamaš-tappašu marks continuity. The style of the seal cannot be identified, the quality seems to have been good. With this sanga, the servant line undergoes an important transformation: he no longer proclaims himself to be a servant of the Ebabbar temple or the goddess Aja but of the king. On the seal of Warad-Sîn, son of Šamaštappašu (sanga VII, fig. 7), attested from Si 25 to 30, there is, to the right of the four line framed legend and facing it, an enthroned deified king holding a cup in his uplifted hand, of which only the uplifted arm, hand and cup are still visible. Above the arm there is a solar disc on lunar crescent. There might have been a figure standing to the left of the legend and facing it but only very faint traces of this remain. The scene is a rare one among North Babylonian seal designs dating from Samsu-iluna’s reign. A legend with a filling element, a star between the sanga and dutu signs on the second line, is new for sanga seals. The composition concept as well as the iconography are similar to those of Lipit-Ištar’s seal (fig. 3). Again, there seems to be a desire to refer to a previous sanga seal. Warad-Sîn’s son and successor, Annum-pī-Aja (sanga VIII), also uses two seals. The first one (fig. 8A) is attested under Abiešu only (“e”, “h” and “m”). An uplifted sleeveless arm is all that is left. This may belong to a robed female figure with a kerchief, a figure which starts appearing precisely at this time as stated by D. Collon (1986 39). When we compare it with the better preserved figure on seal 8B it might also be a worshipping king. This figure faces a four line inscription from the right. In view of the dimensions of the impressions there must have been more: either a large blank space or another figure. As such it takes up a seal design of a figure facing the legend used by previous sangas.

7 Two attestations from the reign of Sabium (Blocher 1992a no. 164 and 166) are too badly preserved to be conclusive. Buchanan 1957, 46 mentions a seal (on CUA 57– not Sippar) with a suppliant goddess and an enthroned king on opposing sides of the legend but its servant line dates

it to Samsu-iluna. He states (ibid.) that this is the earliest appearance of this design. A seated figure facing the legend is quite popular in Kassite times, still according to him, but already present on some early Old Babylonian seals. 8 See for example Blocher, 1992a, 63, fig. 16, 17.

184

ii. the seals and the texts

Furthermore, it had a setting of caps, which produce parallel lines above and below the representation. His second seal (fig. 8B) shows an original figure of a worshipping king, also with uplifted arms. This figure stands to the left of the four line framed legend and faces it. This seal also has caps producing parallel lines on the inscription. Again, these two seals have the same legend (with differently spaced signs), the main difference is the accompanying figure. One is tempted to suppose that it was a similar royal figure in both instances, the distinction being made by the position of this figure on opposing sides on both seals. The seal of Annum-pī-Aja’s brother and successor, Sîn-iqīšam (sanga IX, fig. 9), attested from Ad 20 to Ad 32, is known to us only from partial impressions showing most of its four line framed legend and no more. Annum-pī-Aja’s nephew and second successor Ilšu-ibni (sanga X, fig. 10) has a Lamma standing on the left of a four-line inscription, facing it. This is the second tallest seal we have, over 3 cm. We do not have a seal impression of the penultimate of our first sangas, Nūr-Kabta (sanga XI). The last of our first sangas, Sîn-aam-iddinam (sanga XII), uses a seal probably to his name (the first line is broken), of which only part of the legend survives (fig. 11). This too was a tall seal, just 3 cm.

Despite the fact that the iconographical repertory of the seals belonging to the sangas of the Šamaš temple in Sippar Jarūrum is clearly defined and limited, this repertory was not restricted to seals owned by sangas. The king with the cup, the bull-man (kusarikku), the figure with the mace, which may have been seen as the victorious king and protecting power9, or a suppliant figure, a Lamma or a female figure with a kerchief, appear on other seals too, which belonged to members of a manifold range of professions10. These figures are implemented in very different iconographical contexts showing that they were not fixed to a single function within a seal representation. As L. al-Gailani-Werr (1988, 40) remarks “At

Sippar it is the combination, arrangement, and the repetition of the same subjects that make these seals distinctive.” Scenes on sanga seals were similarly never reserved to those pieces alone. Presentation scenes are widely used and vary in many ways. Even the rather exceptional figures facing an inscription were used by a broader community of seal owners, many of the officials from the farther or nearer surroundings of the Šamaš-temple and the cloister (gagûm) in Sippar Jarūrum11. There are some rare scenes and combinations of figures on the first sanga seals with an adoration and a subjugation or with a bull-man and a deified king on both sides of the legend. D. Matthews shed more light on the principles of composition of Old Babylonian seals in his excellent study of the glyptic of the later second millennium in which he outlines the principles of composition of the seals of this period (1990, 27-54). He states that “The decorative and functional role of seals would be adequately provided for by a system which specified the mode of engraving, the repertory of elements and the outline structure of the scenes. Free combination of elements would then be the most efficient method of producing a variety of different scenes. Instead we find that there are restrictions on these productive rules, which can only be explained by some doctrine carrying a ‘meaning’, analogous to the grammar of a language.” What is interesting to us here is the fundamental productive principle of combination of elements even if it is not unlimited. As stated by Matthews, it is this principle that allows the seals to fulfil their functional role. In this way a very large number of distinct seals could be produced. Here we are able to introduce a focussed diachronic aspect. The specificity of our corpus is that we have, for the first sangas at least, the seals of one single family, fathers and sons, over more than two centuries. A study of the sanga seals as compared with the other seals of their time cannot be undertaken here, all we can say in this respect is that there does not seem to be any single iconographic or syntactic characteristic which would allow to make the sanga seals stand out and recognizable as such. Our diachronic view

9 For the latest interpretation of this figure see Otto, 2000, 227-228. 10 Lammas turning to an inscription, for instance, adorned the seals of several animal fatteners, several scribes,

an overseer of the merchants and a diviner. 11 Cfr. Blocher, 1992a, Abb. 21 and 22, with commentary 113f. He counts 10 of his 15 examples directly related to the Šamaš temple.

b. Syntax: The Scene and the Legend

ii.b. analysis of one single family line of seals, however, gives us another perspective. The real specificity of the first sanga seals seems to reside in the recurrence of motifs, shaping them as a whole into an interreferential group. There is a variation in the scenes, the figures, their orientation and their relation to the legend in the seals of the successive first sangas and this variation does not seem to be random. As we saw above in the description of the individual seals, figures and scenes are varied and repeated in such a way that most if not all seals incorporate one or more references to preceding ones. It is as if a kind of ‘intersigillarity’ is developed between the seals of the first sangas of Šamaš. The first three seals systematically vary the relation of the scene to the legend, being oriented towards it or not. The fourth seals A and B also are contrasted in this way. The fifth and sixth are the last ones with scenes independent of the legend. All the following seals have figures oriented towards it. As for the individual figures, there is a god depicted on the first two seals only. This may be Šamaš in both cases. It may look like a very evident choice for sangas of this god but if this were the reason, why would it be abandoned on all further seals? Is it significant that instead of having further depictions of gods on their seals, they chose the figure of the (deified) king(ship) instead? We saw above that at a certain point in time the servant line of the sanga seals changed from a devotion to a god to that of the reigning king. Is this a similar development? There seems to be no direct relation between both because of the difference in time. No gods are depicted on the sanga seals after Apil-Sîn but the change in the servant line is much later, from Samsu-iluna on. On the first and third seals a bull man holds the legend from the left. On the third seal there is an enthroned king on the right side of the legend, facing it. This same figure is to be found on the seventh seal but unfortunately the left side of the legend is broken so we cannot know whether the seal design of seals 3 and 7 was completely the same. On the fourth (B) and sixth seals we probably have similar scenes with a king with a mace. The fifth seal is linked to the third one by the figure of the enthroned king, now faced by a Lamma, which of course reminds us of the first seal where a Lamma is facing an enthroned god. After the third seal, the sangas start adopting the standard scene of a Lamma (later a lady with

185

kerchief) facing the legend for their seals. In this they follow a very general trend in seal design starting around this time. Teissier (1998, 120) remarks “From Sumulael to Sîn-muballi Sippar was an exception (see Blocher 1992a) but by Hammu-rabi’s reign, the iconography of Sippar seals had lost its vivacity and had begun to stagnate.” The two seals used by the eighth sanga also show a figure oriented towards the legend but this seems to be a worshipping king rather than a Lamma, an original trait within the general trend. The interesting point here is that for such sequences to be meaningful we must suppose that the sangas made a well defined choice when they had their seals cut. If they just chose at random or by personal whim, there would be much less coherence. Their choice, as is suggested by the corpus, was to be linked but different. The linking could refer as well to the sanga function as to their descent, since all of them belonged to one family. It will be interesting to compare this with the seal syntax of the second sangas since we know these did not all belong to one lineage. c. Conclusions The transfer of almost identical and interreferential iconographical information over several generations no doubt reflects the conscious creation of a tradition by the first sangas of the Šamaš temple of Sippar-Jarūrum. This was no doubt strengthened by the use of the father’s seal. Linking to the past through an unbroken chain of references is a pervasive concept in this society as a way of justifying one’s position through genealogies, or one’s possessions through chains of transmission. By the creation of an intersigillar network the sangas confirm their position in the line of tradition and justify the continuation of this line within one family. The setting of the sealstones with caps, no doubt was an expression of their special status and social prestige. In this light, the change in iconography from the eighth seal onwards must also be significant. The uniform scene of a Lamma or lady with the kerchief facing the legend no longer links these seals to the preceding ones. At this time the sangas chose to abandon their own line of tradition and to conform to a more general trend which would ultimately make this scene the dominating one in the later Old Babylonian period. It is of course also possible that the popularity of this scene was due to its use by the sangas who may have set the

186

ii. the seals and the texts

trend. Even if this is true it does not change the fact that the adoption of this scene broke their line of iconographic tradition. This clearly is a phenomenon generated by processes beyond the iconography and we will come back on it in our general conclusions when we take up and try to combine all the different strands of our study. To sum up, figures turning to a legend or revivals of scenes from the beginning of the millennium seem (as well as the inscription itself) to be the most characteristic elements of the seal designs that can be associated with a sanga of the Šamaš temple of Sippar Jarūrum. Even if they have some distinctive appearance as a result of the original combination of certain figures or design concepts or the revival of earlier scenes it is clear that not a single one of these seals could be identified as a sanga seal on the basis of its iconography. When taken as a group however, they show a remarkable degree of intersigillarity.

2. The Seals of Temple Officials Acting as Second Witnesses before the Existence of the Second Sanga At the beginning of our documentation, when sangas of Šamaš were first witnesses in private documents, different temple officials occupied the place of second witness. Soon this came to be the overseer of the nadiātum after which this position was held by a second sanga of Šamaš—or sanga of Aja, as was his title still later—ranking just below the first sanga as is shown by their nearly fixed order as respectively first and second witnesses. The officials occupying the place of second witness before these second sangas were not many in number and probably belonged to a few families only. It is difficult to conclude anything in general about the few scenes represented on the seals of these temple officials. Five seals belonging to four temple officials with different titles and from different families are too few and too disparate to allow any global conclusions concerning the syntax of their seal designs. However, some points can be made as well as some comparisons with seals of their contemporaneous first sangas. a. Description and Syntax The seal of our earliest second witness, Ilummušallim, doorkeeper of the gate of the gagûm (fig. 12), attested from Immerum to Sabium,

was decorated with a standard adoration scene consisting of a Lamma and a worshipper bearing an offering who faces an enthroned deified king holding a cup, followed by a three-line inscription. A king with a mace is added after this, facing right. This seal may have been (partially) recarved, because the seated king’s elbow is interfering in the frame of the inscription. The style of this seal was common among early Old Babylonian seal impressions and the quality of the figures and the inscription is good. The enthroned deified king appears on the seals of the first sangas under ApilSîn (seal of Lipit-Ištar, III) but not in an adoration context. Later on, under ammu-rabi, the seal of Annum-pī-Aja has a real adoration scene of an enthroned king but without the offer bearing worshipper. One gets the impression that Ilummušallim’s seal is more traditional as opposed to the more original composition of the first sanga’s seals. The representation on the seal of the first known overseer of the nadiātum Būr-Nunu (fig. 13) consists of a worshipper advancing towards a god and a water-spouting-six-locked hero. On the other side of the legend there is a king with a mace. The slight overlap with the frame of the legend and the fact that the whole legend does not fit within the frame may indicate that the legend covers a previous design. This is a remarkable design with remarkable figures. The first overseer of the nadiātum obviously wanted a special seal, chosen for its design, to which he probably added his legend. At the same time the presence of the king with the mace, here as an independent feature, seems to have become a standard element. The seal of the ‘court sweeper’ (kisal.lu) Damu-galzu (fig. 14), attested once only, on an undated fragment, probably held an adoration scene composed of a Lamma, a worshipper, a (now lost) god and a priest with pail and cup. To the right of this there is a four line framed legend. This kind of scene is not exceptional and is attested from early on (B 35 dated Immerum) but is not often associated with a legend (cfr. Blocher pl. 71-75), the only clear exception being the seal of the gatekeeper Idadum, dated Apil-Sîn (B 280 only partly preserved with a Lamma and a priest on opposing sides of the legend). In conclusion, this seal is typical early Old Babylonian and its design has nothing out of the ordinary. From the representation of the seals used by Adad-rēmēni, the messenger (rá.gab) of the gagûm, attested from Sabium to Sîn-muballi (figs. 15A and B), only fragments are preserved. On the

ii.b. analysis seal mentioning his title, our A, attested once only, in Sa 2, a four line inscription appears on the left side of the impression beside a barely preserved figure, probably depicting a king with the mace facing right, at some distance from the legend. A king facing a Lamma or another figure combined with a framed legend is indeed quite common. E.g. Ilabrat-bāni, overseer of the nadiātum, son of Būr-Nunu has such a seal (B 126 = BT 63). His seal with his patronymic but without his title, attested from Sabium to Sîn-muballi, our B, probably had the same design. We see a fragmentary figure with the mace to the right of the inscription at some distance, with its back to it. Here too, another figure could easily be added. The different height of the two seals (the later one being taller) shows that the second seal was not a recut of the first one. We may wonder why Adad-rēmēni changed seals, especially since his second seal does not have a title anymore. We know that, at that time, he was a ‘doorkeeper’ (ì.du8), and that there were people with this same title who had seals mentioning it, also under Sabium, Apil-Sîn and Sînmuballi12 Comparable designs are to be found on the seals of the first sangas Warad-Sîn (IV) under Sîn-muballi and Šamaš-tappašu (VI) under Samsu-iluna. b. Conclusions A first and striking observation is that three out of our four seals have a common element: a king with a mace, already from Immerum onwards. The presence of this figure is no doubt to be linked to its popularity during the first part of the Old Babylonian period (Collon 1986, 100 sqq.). It also appears on the seals of the first sangas but much later, under Sîn-muballi with the seal of Warad-Sîn. This difference could be due to the fact that first sangas I to III chose an original seal design rather than a popular one. This is the general impression we retain from these few seals. Most of them seem to have more or less standard designs. In other words, the seals of the personnel of the Šamaš temple in SipparJarūrum were in no way special, at least when we compare them with the seals of the early first sangas.

12 Such as Bulālum (seal B 164), Idadum (two seals, both with his title B 262 and B 280) and Šamaš-tappê (unpublished seal).

187

The only and significant exception is Būr-Nunu who has an original seal design, with rare figures. This must be related to the fact that, as far as we know, he was the first person to have the title of overseer of the nadiātum. He must have wanted to stand out. Another difference with the sangas is that the four temple officials in the role of second witness never used the seals of their predecessors. It is clear that the early sanga seals have a more complex and more unique design than that of the other temple officials and, as the sangaship was hereditary, this allowed the use of father’s seals, a practice which seems to appear somewhat later for the other officials too. It is also striking that this usus can first be observed with the generation of officials just after the instauration of the office of second sanga: Ninšubur-mansum, son of Ilabrat-bāni does not have a seal of his own, as far as we know, but uses his father’s seal. The same goes for Eidimanamansum, grandson of Adad-rēmēni: he consistently uses his father’s seal. Either we witness the development of a new habit in seal use at this beginning of the Old Babylonian period, or we are misled by the scarcity and/or selectiveness of our sources. In conclusion, there are no scenes or figures allowing to identify any of these seals as specific for a certain profession. There does not seem to be any unifying principle or intersigillary referentiality, which is not surprising since these four seals belong to individuals from three different families and with three different titles. It would be interesting to further study these seals within the corpus of the families of these overseers, messengers (some of which we have listed above) and other holders of the same temple offices. This of course lies outside the scope of the present study.

3. The Seals of the Second Sangas of Šamaš, later the Sangas of Aja From somewhere during the reign of Sabium onwards, a second sanga usually is second witness after the first one. Up to the end of Samsuiluna’s reign his title is sanga Šamaš, just like the first sangas, afterwards this becomes sanga Aja.

188

ii. the seals and the texts

The second sanga was not always present. During the reign of ammu-rabi, but particularly often during that of Samsu-iluna, other temple officials or persons without a title could follow the first sanga. Most of these persons, too, owned or at least used seals. Their seals are nevertheless not discussed here, because this would lead us too far from our subject. a. Description No seal is yet known from Išar-Šamaš, the first sanga who is mentioned as second witness, dating from the reign of Sabium. The seal of Sîn-ennam (fig. 16), the successor of Išar-Šamaš, has an adoration before Šamaš and, as a second motif, the warrior goddess, to the right of the four line inscription. The composition of the adoration with the warrior goddess is not unique but exceptional. The seal is of the common Old Babylonian style and its quality is high, befitting a high official of the main temple of Sippar-Jarūrum. Sealwise, this cannot be distinguished from the first sanga seals. Šumu-Sîn once seems to use a seal of his own but the impression we have of this only gives fragmentary traces of a legend and no figures (no drawing is attempted). He otherwise uses the seal of his predecessor. The next second sanga, Šalim-pali-Marduk (second sanga 4) is not the son of his predecessor Šumu-Sîn. He successively uses two seals which are very similar (fig. 17A and B). Both have a partially preserved standing figure to the right of the framed legend, in both cases probably a hero with a mace. On seal 17A the figure seems to be somewhat closer to the frame of the legend than on seal 17B. The most obvious difference between them is the legend. The first two lines are identical (with slightly different positions of the signs) but the two last ones are given in a different order. Seal 17A first has the servant line and then the title, as if it had been added afterwards (an attractive but improbable hypothesis since this line is written in the same box as the others) whereas on seal 17B the servant line has become the last one which is standard, although the title line is now cut after the patronymic, which is non standard. We note that seal 17A was used once only, as far as our documentation goes. If we compare these seals with those of the first sangas, a similar figure with a mace with his back to the legend is also to be found on first sanga seals from Sîn-muballi onwards (seal of Warad-Sîn sanga IV) and if there

is an influence then it must be from the first sanga to the second since Warad-Sîn’s seal antedates that of Šalim-pali-Marduk’s (see our comments on this first sanga). From the figurative representation of the seal of his son Etel-pî-Nabium (our fifth second sanga, fig. 18) only a suppliant goddess facing left survived, with her back towards a four line framed legend. The comparanda as well as the preserved dimensions of the impressions make it probable that the composition consisted of a Lamma facing another figure, probably a king with a mace. It should be noted that the inscription mentions the seal owner’s title before his name. This is very unusual, not only for the sangas. Etel-pī-Nabium is succeeded by a Sîn-iddinam (our n° 6, seals 19A and 19B) who is not his son. As stated above in our section on Sîn-iddinam, it is possible that he used a seal without a legend, with an animal contest (19A). His seal with a legend to his name, 19B, has one figure only, a Lamma facing the legend from the right. With the next second sanga Sîn-bāni (our n° 7, seals 20A, B and C), there still is no clear succession line since he too is not the son of his predecessor. There is an oddity in his seal use. He first uses his own seal (fig. 20A) and only later that of his father sanga of Marduk (fig. 20B). This is similar to the seal use of the first sanga WaradSîn (IV) who also used a seal with the name of his father in a later phase of his career after he had used his own. In both cases the inverted seal use is to be dated during the reign of ammu-rabi. The difference being that we can suppose but not really know that the father of Sîn-bāni really had used his seal himself. These two seals are very similar. Both have a four-lines inscription. To the right of this, a suppliant goddess is standing with her back to the legend no doubt facing a now lost other figure on her right. The seal (20B) of the father, Asalluimansum, bore a plain setting. For his son’s seal (20A) this feature is lacking. If the presence of a setting is an indication of wealth or status then we would have to conclude that the seal of a sanga of Marduk was more prestigious than that of a second sanga of Šamaš. Be that as it may, the choice of scenes and their disposition (as far as we can see) are very similar, maybe pointing to a family tradition stronger than a differentiation between the sanga offices in the service of two different gods. On the other hand, a suppliant goddess facing another figure is a very common scene, and both the father and the son may just have followed the fashion of their times. The fact

ii.b. analysis that the sanga of Marduk would also have done this is noteworthy. This second sanga may also have used a seal with an animal contest (20C). The following sanga of Šamaš, Išme-Sîn (our n° 8, seals 21A, B and C), has left us impressions with three different legends. These impressions can be dated and every two successive ones differ by one line only. On the first one he is sanga of arpanītum, the spouse of Marduk. On the second one he has become (second) sanga of Šamaš. On the third one the servant line (identical on the two previous ones) is modified to acknowledge his honoring of the new king, Samsu-iluna. A small but important difference between the first and the second one is the presence on seal 21B of a small vertical wedge in the sanga sign, between the two verticals at the end, which, as collation revealed, is not present on 21C. There can be no doubt then that these are three different seal inscriptions13. The surviving portions of the designs on the second and third seal show that the figures were different: a figure with the mace facing right and a king as animal bearer. Only 21B had caps. The figure of 21B is similar to those of Šalimpāli-Marduk’s (17A and B), second sanga 4, dated to Sîn-muballi and those of first sangas IV (fig. 4B) and VI (fig. 6). The next second sanga, Sîn-erībam (our n° 9) is attested with one seal impression only, made with his predecessor’s third seal. Whether he was his son is not known. Marduk-mušallim son of Marduk-nāir is the tenth second sanga. His seal (22A) has a four line legend and part of a standing figure to the right of this legend with its back towards it. In all probability the figure is the king with a mace. The seal had a plain setting, from which only the upper part has survived. This same sanga later uses another seal in which he is said to be the son of Sîn-erībam, which we suppose to be the result of an adoption (see our discussion in the chapter devoted to this sanga). Of his seal (22B) we have the four-lines framed legend which is faced from the left by a robed female figure with a kerchief. The seal had caps decorated with lines. The penultimate and twelfth sanga known from our sources to act as a second witness is Etel-pîNabium, son of Marduk-mušallim. We have two different seals with his name (23A and B). Both

13

It is of course possible but in no way provable that the same seal-stone was used and twice completely erased.

189

give his title as sanga of Aja. One, 23A, had caps with granulated settings, the other is too incompletely impressed to allow to verify whether it had caps. The difference resides in the servant line. On the one seal this is a devotion to Ammiditana, the other has a devotion to Ammi-aduqa. Comparison of the impressions shows these are two different seals of different height. From the first one (23A) only the inscription survived, but there is some blank space to the right of it, suggesting that there may have been figure(s) on the left. The second seal (23B) shows a robed female figure with a kerchief facing the legend from the left, just like on the second seal of his predecessor (22B). It is possible that both his seals had the same composition of a figure facing the legend from the left. Since the only seal impression we have from his son and successor was made with his second seal, this is the last seal of a second sanga we have. With the figure facing the inscription, this seal fits well with the preceding ones, conforming to the main iconographical trends of the period. It exhibits no special characteristics and thus shows that the seals of the second sangas, just like the ones of the first sangas around the same time, blended in with the common use and had lost any distinguishing features. b. Themes and Syntax Some patterns are apparent in the second sanga seals. At the very beginning, Sîn-ennam (2), has a complex seal design with two scenes: an adoration before Šamaš and a lone warrior Ištar frontally on either side of the legend (fig. 16). As was remarked above, this can be seen as a reference to the first sanga seals, especially the earlier ones. Unfortunately we do not have the seal of IšarŠamaš, the first second sanga, which could have confirmed this kind of reference. The combination of an adoration before Šamaš with a single figure de face, is completely parallel to the first sanga’s seal with the adoration and the figure de face. It is parallel to the second first sanga seal with the adoration in front of an ascending Šamaš. This means that when the office of second sanga was created, the first person to occupy it may have

At any rate the three impressions have approximately the same height.

190

ii. the seals and the texts

modelled his choice of seal scenes on that of the early first sangas. Since the third one, Šumu-Sîn, only uses his predecessor’s seal (with one very fragmentary exception), during some twenty years, nothing can be said here about a possible evolution of the choice of seal scene. This consistent use certainly was intended to stress the continuity between himself and Sîn-ennam. From the fourth second sanga onwards all of them either have a king with a mace (once a king as animal bearer) or a Lamma (later replaced by the figure with a kerchief), close to the legend. In all instances except one, too little remains to be certain of the whole composition of the seals and only a king with a mace or a Lamma are visible. The only exception is the complete impression of the seal of Sîn-iddinam with a Lamma to the right of the legend and facing it. For the other seals we must necessarily limit our comments to what we have. Further and more complete impressions of these seals may reveal other scenes and warrant other interpretations. We do not interpret the use of these two figures as a conscious choice in order to establish a continuity but rather as a conformation to a general trend of the time14. Lammas and kings with maces are certainly not unique to sanga seals. As far as we stand now, the only feature which distinguishes these seals is the legend when present. Still, within this group, there is an expression of continuity of another kind, which is the exclusive use of the predecessor’s seal by Šumu-Sîn, Sînerībam and Marduk-nāir. We know that the last one was the son of his predecessor, for the other two we have no information on possible family relations. They must have been related to their predecessor because otherwise we would have to suppose that these seals became some kind of official second sanga seal handed over to the next holder of the title, a supposition that cannot really be substantiated. In two other cases, a father and a son held the same office consecutively but used their own seal. Šalim-pāli-Marduk had two seals, both with a king with a mace facing away from the legend to his left (fig. 17A and B). His son Etel-pī-Nabium had a seal with a Lamma facing away from the legend to her right (fig. 18). If we complete these scenes in both cases to a king with a mace facing a

14

The earliest example of a combination king with a mace and facing Lamma from Sippar we have until now

Lamma, then we have a use of the same scene by the father and the son, differentiated by its placing to the left or the right of the legend. In practice, this difference is determined by the blank space on the seal. If there is a blank space between the king and the legend but the Lamma stands close to it, then, when the legend is impressed on the tablet and the impression is not very wide, all we will see is a Lamma to the left of the legend and some blank space to its right. If there is a blank space between the Lamma and the legend but the king stands close to it, then, when the legend is impressed on the tablet and the impression is not very wide, we will see a king to the right of the legend and some blank space to its left. In one instance the father and the son held different offices and each had his own seal. This is the case for Sîn-bāni, our seventh second sanga and his father Asallui-mansum who was sanga of Marduk. Sîn-bāni has a Lamma to the right of his seal legend, just like his father sanga of Marduk. Marduk-mušallim uses two seals consecutively: one with a king with a mace to the right of the legend, facing away from it and one with a feminine figure with a kerchief facing towards the legend from the left. Judging from these figures alone, this could again be a nice contrast adding to the distinction between two consecutive seals of the same sanga. His son Etel-pī-Nabium also uses two seals. Of the first one we only have the legend, the second one has a female figure with a kerchief facing the legend from the left. In this way its preserved part of a figure is completely similar to that of his father. It would have been interesting to know what the scene on his first seal was. Furthermore, the grandson of Marduk-mušallim exclusively used the second seal of his father, making the female figure with a kerchief standing on the left of the legend a figure and disposition used by three consecutive generations. There may have been some conscious effort to establish a tradition, linking the successive sangas not through seal design but through the use of the same seal. In all instances enumerated above when a son succeeds to his father there seems to be a wish to establish a continuity by using the same figures. It is remarkable that this also happens when the father was sanga of another deity, which leads us to the hypothesis that family relations determined

is the seal of Sîn-iddinam son of Šū-Kabta, on BDHP 37 dated Immerum (=B13).

ii.b. analysis a linked choice of figures or scenes, just as for the first sangas. However this may be, a link may have been intended in some cases but this did not provide a distinctive feature since this same figure and disposition were also to be found on other seals of this time15. A last point is the presence for two of our second sangas of a seal without a legend. Sîn-iddinam used a seal with a legend to his name in a 18. He may have used another one, earlier, in a 16. The only impression we have of this earlier seal is on Di 707, on the left side of the upper edge. Here, it stands next to that of the first sanga. On the left margin and edge we find the seals of witnesses 3 to 5. The only one missing is that of Sîn-iddinam, second witness, and, in view of the place, this could well be the one without the legend on the upper edge. Sîn-bāni used two seals with a legend to his name, respectively in a 30 and a 37. It may be that he used a seal without a legend in a 32, on Di 1430. The reason to suppose this is that on the left margin and left edge of this case, this seal was impressed on the tablet just below that of the first sanga and before that of witnesses four and three. If these legend-less seals were indeed used by these two sangas we may wonder why. In Sîniddinam’s case this seal is used before the one with a legend but this cannot be the explanation since Sîn-bāni would have used it in between his two seals with a legend. Is it simply a consequence of the sanga having forgotten his own seal? Why was there no kišib written over it? Unfortunately, the scarcity of our data prevents us from drawing any conclusion.

191

had a different design when they wanted to stress some important change in the legend. The general impression is that except for the first ones, these seals offer no specific iconography and conform to the use of their time. Nothing other than the legend allowed a second sanga seal to be visually distinguished from other people’s seals.

4. General Conclusions on the Seals of the Ebabbar Officials

After being inspired by the first sangas to have more complex seal designs, the second sangas seem to have opted for more simplicity from Sînmuballi onwards. Some efforts to create continuity were made through the use of the predecessor’s seal, and fathers and sons had related but differentiated seal designs. Continuity seems to be linked more to family ties than to the function. Some second sangas had more than one seal, always used consecutively, which had an identical seal design when they just wanted to adapt the legend but otherwise an effort was made to show that it was a replacement of their first one. They

We have shown that, at the beginning, the first sangas of Šamaš had special seal designs, mostly combinations of two existing themes into an original whole. These themes alternate and refer to earlier seals, creating a unique ensemble of first sanga seals, a web of ‘intersigillarity’. These interconnections are further strengthened by the use of father’s seals. The importance of these persons as heads of the main temple of Sippar and the fact that they all belonged to the same family will no doubt have lain at the base of this homogeneity. Under Abi-ešu the seals loose their originality and conform to the then prevailing standard design of a Lamma facing the legend. The few officials occupying the place of second witness after a first sanga at the beginning of the period show no great originality in their seal design. They are indeed mostly of good quality but the scenes they represent are among the ones common in their time. An adoration of a “deified king” on the first one prefigures the same on the seal of the first first sanga. There seems to be a developing preference for figures facing the legend, although this is hard to measure on a few examples only. The seal of the first overseer of the nadiātum stands out as original. These officials consequently used several seals but never used a predecessor’s seals, at least not until the office of second sanga was created. As could be expected, when the second sangas have their seals cut, they start by copying the first ones in their choice of themes. As far as the seals of the following second sangas allow us to judge, already under Sîn-muballi, simple designs seem to be chosen but it is impossible to see if this was the complete picture since we have only a few figures left at most. We may venture that there might be a more determined trend towards uni-

15 A search through our Sippar seal impressions database resulted in seven other seals with a female figure with a

kerchief facing the legend, spread in time from Abi-ešu to Samsu-ditana.

c. Conclusions

ii. the seals and the texts

192

formity for these seals but this must remain very hypothetical in view of the scarce evidence. When they had several seals, always consecutively, the designs were used to underscore the similarity or difference of the legends. Some second sangas used their father’s seal, just like the first sangas, in order to demonstrate continuity. The lesser homogeneity and greater conformity to contemporaneous trends in the seal designs of officials and second sangas may well be related to the higher degree of openness of their functions. In contrast to the function of the first sanga, the function of the second sanga was not the monopoly of one family.

5. The Seals of the Sangas of the Edikuda in Sippar Amnānum a. Description For the identification of the various persons we count among these, although most of them only have the title sanga dutu, we refer to the discussion above in Part I.E. Possibly already under Sumu-la-El, there might have been a sanga of Šamaš in the Edikuda temple of Sippar-Amnānum, called Nūr-Šamaš. He as well as others after him: Šamšatum, Utu-urbara, Šumi-eretim, Narām-Sîn and Sîn-nādin-šumi, did not leave us an impression of their seal on the few tablets mentioning them. The seventh one, Etel-pī-Marduk (our G), had a seal, in all probability a five line inscription in Sumerian but the traces are too faint to allow a reading. No figurative part of this seal has been preserved. It is finally with the eigth one, Sîn-išmeanni (our H), attested from Ad 29 to A 8 that we get a fuller picture. He certainly is an Amnānum sanga because in some of his texts he has the full title of sanga dutu é.di.kud.dá, sanga of Šamaš of the Edikuda. Up to now, there are only two mentions of him (on a total of 23) outside the galama archive. He sometimes is debtor of loans but more often first or second witness. In six of these texts he is identified as the son of Utu-urbara, in all probability the former sanga of the Edikuda. A first point is that Sîn-išmeanni used different seals, none of which bore a seal legend to his name. He can thus not be identified as a seal 16

For this type cf. Colbow 1991, 278–297.

owner by the impressions alone. However, one seal (no. 24A), of which we have ten impressions, can be attributed to him through kišibs on nine of them. This seems to be a strong indication that he was not only the user but also the owner of this seal. The representation consists of two adoration scenes side by side carved in an exuberant drill style. Most of the iconographical and stylistic features on the Sîn-išmeanni seal fit well in the later reign of Ammiditana or the early years of Ammiaduqa. Only one attestation is preserved for each of the two other seals used by this sanga, given here as our 24B and C, the fourth one, attested twice is our 24D. None of the seal representations is entirely preserved on the impressions we have. All of them are identified through the byscript (kišib) written over them. Seal B is anepigraphic, the impression shows three figures the middle one of which is a kind of lion standing on his forepaws; this might be an animal contest. Seals C and D have a legend but, as far as their owners can be identified on the fragmentary legends, a relationship between them and Sîn-išmeanni can not be established. Seal D belongs to a certain Lamailum, son of Milaqum, whose name and father’s name are otherwise unknown. The inscription was decorated with a filling element, a feature that became more and more common in framed legends during the time of Ammi-aduqa. To the left of it stands a Lamma, facing it. To sum up, the seals used and the one probably owned by Sîn-išmeanni seem to be quite different. Ikun-pī-Sîn (our I) used a seal (fig. 25) with one line of cuneiform written between the figures. Although most of its signs can be identified, it is not clear what it means. We can besure he used it, since a byscript with his name is written over it. As far as it is preserved, it is decorated with four figures, three of which seem to stand de face, including a rather rare figure type of the warrior goddess, in a flounced garment, holding the double lion headed mace16. Since we only have this one impression it is not possible to ascertain whether this was Ikūn-pī-Sîn’s own seal or a borrowed one. The last of these sangas of Šamaš, Ibni-Šērum (our J) used a seal, again an uninscribed one (fig. 26). A standing bull-man and a six locked figure hold a staff together. A second scene is an adoration of which a long robed figure is preserved facing a

ii.b. analysis god in a long robe opening in the front. Behind the god there are traces of another bull-man. The line of these sangas extends further than that of the ones in Sippar-Jarūrum, making them the last attested Old Babylonian sangas of Šamaš. This may be misleading since we are particularly well documented for Amnānum thanks to the late Old Babylonian archive of the galamas there. b. Syntax With only six seals, most of which are only partly preserved and four of which were used by the same person, it is not very relevant to try and find syntactical patterns. We will come back in our conclusions to this part on the use of other people’s seals. One fact stands out: we have seals of three different sangas of the Edikuda and on each of these seals (counting only seal A for Sîn-išmeanni as being his own) there is a juxtaposition of two scenes, with two figures each. On Sîn-išmeanni’s seal A these are two adorations, probably to two gods. On the seals of Ikūn-pī-Sîn and Ibni-Šērum there is only one adoration scene. On IbniŠērum’s seal this is directed towards a god similar to that of Sîn-išmeanni’s A seal (long split robe, arm down), on Ikūn-pī-Sîn’s seal the worshipped figure is too broken to allow comparison. This means there is a degree of similarity in theme and syntax between these seals. Whether this makes them stand out vis à vis the other seals of their time is another matter. Indeed, comparison with other seals shows that this similarity is probably due to the popularity of this combination of theme and syntax at this time and not to any special features linked to the sangaship. Sîn-išmeanni’s seals B-D do not have to be taken into account here since they were used only once (D twice) and were probably borrowed seals. c. Conclusions The representations on the seals of the sangas of the Edikuda in Sippar-Amnānum clearly belong to traditions different from those of the first sangas in Sippar-Jarūrum. This is another illustration of the important differences between them. The seals used by the sangas of the Edikuda seem to be much less outstanding and fit perfectly into the iconography of their time. The first one comprises emblem bearers and probably an adoration motif,

193

the second one only an inscription. These are common late Old Babylonian themes. The style of these seals, too, meets contemporaneous standards. Whereas the drill style of Sîn-išmeanni’s A seal gives it a very modern appearance for its time, that of Ikūn-pī-Sîn is more traditional. As can be proven from other Sippar material, both styles existed simultaneously in the latter part of the Old Babylonian Period. Unfortunately, the impressions of the seals are too badly preserved to allow further specifications. No conclusions can be drawn concerning the evolution of the seals of the sangas of the Edikuda. Using Other People’s Seals The usage of seals of others may have occurred repeatedly with the sangas of the Šamaš temple of Sippar-Amnānum but it is difficult to ascertain in every case, in view of the scanty information we have. A particular case is Sîn-išmeanni, the best known among the sangas of the Šamaš temple of Sippar-Amnānum acting as first, but also as second or further witness. He used no less than four seals, one supposedly being his own. The original owners of the three seals he borrowed could not be identified and their relationship with him remains unknown. The social context in which the transfer of a seal from loosely connected family members or even strangers took place remains undetermined for the moment. The fact that seal borrowing happened, which was the case only for the last of the first sangas of Jarūrum and never for the second ones, is meaningful in itself. When a first or second sanga of Jarūrum uses his father’s seal this is a way to stress continuity. When a sanga of Amnānum borrows a seal this is another matter entirely. Since the borrowed seal is identified by the use of a byscript, this means the seal itself has lost—or is stripped off—its tie with its (original) owner whether it is inscribed or not, and is used as a “neutral” element filled with meaning through the use of the byscript. It comes as no surprise that in such a context the themes and syntax, even of the ‘own’ seals of these sangas do not single them out among seal owners. We have the impression that the same holds for sangas of many other deities but this is a matter for further research.

194

ii. the seals and the texts 6. General Conclusions

As a whole, the seals of Old Babylonian sangas of the Šamaš temple in Sippar, be it Jarūrum or Amnānum, belonged to the common Old Babylonian style. It is not really possible to divide the seals of our corpus among al-Gailani’s Workshops. Some of the later pieces belong to the late Old Babylonian drill style, another very widespread style. The presence of settings adds to the high standard of the seals as well as the owners. They appear on most sanga seals from ammu-rabi/Samsuiluna onwards.

17 This is confirmed by the seal of a sanga of Šamaš from another town: Nūr-ili, fist witness in YOS 13, 89 dated

The iconography of the sanga seals and that of the seals of high temple officials belongs to a common stock of scene types. At the beginning we witness a clear originality in the choice and combination of scenes, later the scenes become more and more standardized, conforming to the general iconographical trend of this period17. In general, the second sanga seals seem less original and more easily conforming to general use. The main distinctive feature of these seals is the references of later seals to earlier ones, showing that the aim never was to develop a distinctive sanga iconography but to establish links with seals of earlier members of the family. This same effect is pursued with the use of father’s seals.

under Ammi-aduqa. Here too the scene is composed of a Lamma facing the legend. The trend seems to be general.

ii.c. the seal of the sangas’ daughters

195

II.C. THE SEAL OF THE SANGAS’ DAUGHTERS It is not an easy task to single out sanga’s daughters because different people were homonymous with the sangas, a fact that did not prevent them from having daughters. For instance, there are no less than seven women, probably all of them nadiātum, who had a father called Warad-Sîn. One of them, a Šāt-Aja, is even attested in six texts. Counting only those instances where the seal inscription informs us about the sangaship of their father, we know no more than two daughters of sangas. The earliest one is Damiqtum, daughter of the first sanga Šamaš-tappašu, attested under Apil-Sîn. The second one, attested under Sîn-muballi, is Awāt-Aja, daughter of Warad-Sîn, Šamaštappašu’s grandson. To these two we can safely add Lamassi, whose seal states that she is a daughter of a Sîn-ennam. In view of the rarity of the father’s name and the fact that she always appears in witness lists together with either Damiqtum or Awāt-Aja, we have included her here. Finally, we have tentatively added Šāt-Šamaš, for similar reasons. We find her, also as a daughter of a Sîn-ennam, together with Lamassi and Damiqtum in one text. In the later texts we have found no other women who could safely be identified as daughters of sangas. This may, of course, be due to the fragmentary state of our sources and lack of thorough prosopographic studies. 1. Damiqtum Daughter of Šamaš-tappašu (B 249, our Fig. 27)

(Fig. 27) da-mi-iq-tum dumu.munus dutu-tab.ba-šu sanga dutu 1 There is a Manâ, daughter of Sîn-ennam, even lower in this witness list, in the nineteenth place. In view of this very low place (and the fact that she is not listed together with Damiqtum) we do not think this is another daughter

Description of the Seal Presentation scene. From the left, a Lamma stands behind an animal bearer and both are facing Šamaš, holding his saw and raising his foot on a pedestal. Between the animal bearer and the god there is a filling motif in the shape of a rosette. Behind Šamaš there is a three line framed legend. The remaining width is nearly the whole width of the scene which is 4,33 cm. The height is 2,42 cm. The diameter must have been 1,38 cm and the ratio a good 1,75.

Comments Damiqtum is mentioned in seven witness lists but her seal is to be found on four of these texts only. All are dated under Apil-Sîn. On the case CT 47, 7a she is fourteenth witness after the sangas, two overseers of the nadiātum, two doorkeepers of the gagûm, five men and two women1. She is not mentioned in the witness list of the tablet. Her brother Lipit-Ištar, first sanga, is first witness. The first sanga seals on the lower edge. The second sanga, together with the third witness, overseer of the nadiātum, seals on the upper edge. Damiqtum’s seal is the first one on the left edge and she is followed by the other overseer, witness four. This means her sealing position is much higher than her witness position. From the position of her seal we can deduce that she was fourth in rank and not fourteenth as in the witness list. In MHET 60 she is the sixth witness after the two sangas, two male overseers of the nadiātum and the female overseer Aja-šitti. She seals at the top of the left edge and margin where she is followed by Lamassi, daughter of the second sanga Sîn-ennam. The lower edge is sealed by her nephew, the first sanga Warad-Sîn (using the seal of his father Lipit-Ištar). The second sanga Šamu-Sîn seals

of the second sanga. She might be Manâ the female scribe (munus dub.sar) who is mentioned in three slightly later texts (all without a patronymic): VS 8, 55 (Sm) CT 48, 56 (Sm) and 52 (a 4) see Lion and Robson 2005.

196

ii. the seals and the texts

on the upper edge. This means her sealing rank is again higher than her witness rank because the order is upper edge-lower edge-top of left margin/ edge. We do not know if and where the witnesses 3 to 5 sealed the case. In CT 8, 29a she is the seventh witness, after the two sangas, two male overseers of the nadiātum a doorkeeper of the gagûm and the female overseer of the nadiātum Aja-tallik. She is followed by Lamassi, daughter of the second sanga Sîn-ennam. The second sanga seals on the upper edge, the top of the left edge is sealed by the first sanga (her nephew, who uses her brother’s seal), then comes Lamassi, the daughter of the previous second sanga (cfr. infra) and Damiqtum comes only third, which is still higher than her place in the witness list would warrant. This is a very interesting case of inversion. In CT 6, 43, probably the case of BBVOT 1, 12, she is seventh witness after the two sangas and other personnel, and comes just after the ugula lukur Aja-tallik and just before Lamassi, daughter of Sîn-ennam, the predecessor of the second witness, sanga Šumu-Sîn. On BBVOT 1, 12, her seal is to be found, but it is difficult to reconstruct where it was rolled on the tablet. On CT 48, 17 she is tenth witness, again preceded by Aja-tallik as overseer and again followed by Lamassi, daughter of the previous second sanga Sîn-ennam. On BE 6/1, 17, she is witness eight and is followed by Lamassi, daughter of Sîn-ennam. The two sangas head the witness list and are followed by temple personnel, as usual. Damiqtum is not preceded by an overseer but by two women without title. After Damiqtum and Lamassi we find an Aja-tallik daughter of Ilabrat-bani. On CT 45, 12, she is seventh witness, after Ajašitti, overseer, and before Lamassi, daughter of Sîn-ennam.

2 Because of the presence of the first sanga Warad-Sîn and the second one Šalim-pāli-Marduk. 3 Cf. Colbow, 1992, 131 b)2. Some information in this article has to be corrected: the seal of Awāt-Aja appears on the upper edge and on the uppermost part of the left edge. L4 must thus be corrected in L2. L2 further down on the same drawing of the left edge should be read as L3. The direction of all vertical markers indicating legends

2. Awāt-Aja Daughter of Warad-Sîn (Fig. 28) Seal inscription

(Fig. 28) inim-da-a dumu.munus ìr-dEN.ZU sanga dutu

Seal Description Only part of the legend remains with a height of 1,87 cm which may be completed to about 2,13 cm. To reach the standard proportion, the width, of which now only 1,17 cm remains, should be larger than 3,5 cm. Awāt-Aja is attested in three texts dated under Sîn-muballi. Her seal is attested on a document dated under the same king but which does not mention her in the witness list. VS 8, 21 (VAT 1256) is fragmentary, its date is lost but must certainly be Sîn-muballi2. The beginning of the witness list is also gone. On the preserved lower edge Awāt-Aja is the third witness, after two names which could be feminine. Her seal is not to be found on the remaining fragments. Although she is not present in the text (neither tablet nor case) of TCL I, 68/69 she sealed twice on the upper edge3. Between these two sealings we find the seal of her father Warad-Sîn, the first sanga. The second sanga, who should have sealed together with the first one on the upper edge is moved to the top of the left edge/margin as a result of this. There is a seal of another daughter of Warad-Sîn on this tablet, second on the left margin of the reverse, she is a nadītum but unfortunately her name is no longer legible.

are meant to be horizontal. The “Legendenspuren” on the lower edge, number 2 and L on the reverse of AO 7816 represent a seal inscription reading 1) géme-be-el-[tim] 2) dumu.mí SIG-an-nu-[ni-tum] 3) géme d[utu] 4) ù da.[a]. This lady was the third witness out of four. Bēltani, using a seal on the reverse and mentioned in a kišib there is of course not the buyer as stated in the article but the last witness out of four.

ii.c. the seal of the sangas’ daughters On CT 8, 25a, dated Sm 7, she is eleventh witness after the overseer Aja-tallik. In this text we find neither Damiqtum nor Lamassi. On CT 45, 16, dated Sîn-muballi by the oath, we find Awāt-Aja, daughter of Warad-Sîn as eleventh witness following the gods of the Ebabbar, the sangas, temple personnel, the overseer of the nadiātum Aja-tallik and Lamassi, daughter of the second sanga Sîn-ennam.

3. Lamassī Daughter of Sîn-ennam (Fig. 29) Seal inscription (B 260)

(Fig. 29) la-┌ma-sí┐ dumu.munus dEN.ZU-en-nam geme dutu da-a

Seal Description The height of this seal is 2,48 cm and the remaining width 2,83 cm. To reach standard proportions the width should be 4 cm or more. A small bald head is the remaining part of a figure facing to the right, towards a standing god (?) with one arm raised and the other bent. To their right there is a three line framed legend. Between the two figures there is a rosette, behind the god (?) there are traces of another filling motif. As far as our attestations go, Lamassi is attested in Apil-Sîn and Sîn-muballi. She never appears together with her father, which is not astonishing since we have no text in which he is witness, but always with his successor Šamu-Sîn. She is always attested in company of a first sanga’s daughter. In the next five texts she appears together with Damiqtum, daughter of Warad-Sîn. We only have

197

envelopes for the first two. For a fuller description of the witness list and sealing order we refer to our section on Damiqtum above. In CT 8, 29a, dated AS, Lamassi is eighth witness after Damiqtum. She seals on the left edge, before Damiqtum and after the first sanga. Again, we see that the position in the witness list of these female relatives of the sangas does not correspond to their higher sealing rank. In MHET 60, dated Apil-Sîn, she is witness seven, after Damiqtum. She also seals after her, second on the left edge. On CT 6, 43, she is eighth witness after Damiqtum. On CT 48, 17, she is eleventh witness, preceded by Damiqtum. On BE 6/1, 17, she is witness nine, after Damiqtum. For CT 45, 16, dated Sîn-muballi, we refer to Awāt-Aja, daughter of Warad-Sîn above. Lamassi appears as tenth witness, before Awāt-Aja.

4. Šāt-Šamaš Daughter of Sîn-ennam In MHET 60, dated Apil-Sîn, we find as ninth witness a Šāt-Šamaš, daughter of Sîn-ennam, after Damiqtum, sixth, Lamassi seventh and Munawwirtum daughter of Lugal-Utu. The text does not state her title and the case does not have her seal but we can be fairly certain that her father is sanga. There seems to be a consistent difference between the witness lists and the order of the seals. The lists always start with the sangas, followed by temple personnel, then may enumerate some other persons but will always give the nadītum priestesses as last witnesses. This is a fixed order applied whether there are sanga’s daughters among the nadiātum or not. When it comes to sealing however, social precedence takes over and the sanga’s daughters seal close to the sangas.

198

ii. the seals and the texts

iii.a. the names and families of the sangas

III. CONCLUSIONS

199

200

iii. conclusions

201

iii.a. the names and families of the sangas

III.A. THE NAMES AND FAMILIES OF THE SANGAS 1. The First Sangas When we list the names of the first sangas of Šamaš of Sippar-Jarūrum during the Old Babylo-

First series

Second series

Third series

Last ones

(Warad-Sîn)

Warad-Sîn

Warad-Sîn

Sîn-iqīšam

Annum-pī-Šamaš

Annum-pī-Aja

Annum-pī-Aja

Ilšu-ibnīšu

Šamaš-tappašu

Šamaš-tappašu

—

Sîn-aam-iddinam

Lipit-Ištar

—

—

Nūr-Kabta

After an initial series of four different names in as many generations of sangas, the sequence was started all over again. As can be seen, we have put a Warad-Sîn at the head of the first series, although we have no attestation of a sanga of that name there. We only know that this was the name of Annum-pīŠamaš’s father. Our reasoning is that if the second and third series start with a Warad-Sîn, it follows logically that the first Warad-Sîn was the starting point of this tradition. The as yet unanswerable question is whether he was a sanga of Šamaš, too. Since his son is active under Immerum, one of the early independent Amorite rulers of Sippar, he must have belonged to the very poorly documented century between the fall of Ur III and the first kings of Babylon. It is remarkable that there is no reference to Šamaš in his name, unlike his two successors. Can we interpret this as a sign of a newcomer to the sangaship? Or must we see no more in this than the use of a very popular name throughout the Old Babylonian period? The name of the fourth sanga, Lipit-Ištar, might incite us to opt for the second possibility as it too does not refer to the titulary deity of the city, although the family had the sangaship firmly in hand for at least two generations. In view of the fact that the office of first sanga of Šamaš is transmitted from father to son (and, at

1

nian period, there is a partially recurring sequence for the first nine ones that can be divided in three series, followed by the completely different names of the last four sangas:

E.g. Asallui-mansum, galama of Šamaš (Charpin 1988); Balani-enbir (AbB 2, 89); Dingir-šaga (YOS 13, 12); Ur-Guanaka (VS 16, 61); Ur-Sa˜gkud (MHET 909). For special function names see Charpin 1986, 396-402. This

the end, to a brother and his sons) over a period of more than two centuries, we could expect some reflection of this in the names of these sangas. We could think that it would have been clear from the moment of birth who would become the next sanga and nothing would stand in the way of reflecting this in the choice of their names. The reality is that only two of the names, out of the four recurring ones, express a devotion to Šamaš. The third one has a name relating him to Ištar. This could be due to a conscious choice for which we have no explanation other than a father’s whim or some other extratextual reason but it could also be the result of the premature death of the son with a Šamaš name who was originally destined to succeed his father. Another son, not having received such a name, would then have become sanga. The first as the second hypothese both show that there was no change in name when the new sanga was installed. This is different from the galamas, where we know that Ur-Utu, galama of Annunītum under Ammi-aduqa, began his life as Bēlānum. This may have been a procedure reserved for the galamas, who in many cases bore special names, in Sumerian, not used by their contemporaries1. The first sangas of Šamaš, on the contrary, used common names, borne by many other persons. Whatever the reason for the use of the name LipitIštar, it was probably felt to be an anomaly by

might also be the case for the sangas of Marduk since there too we find an Asallui-mansum (see the seals of Sîn-bāni, fig. 20A and B).

202

iii. conclusions

the sanga family itself, because when it should have recurred in the fixed sequence of names, it did not and the sequence of four names was shortened to three. Since the names used are not special and do not all contain the name of Šamaš, their repetition must be ascribed to family tradition rather than function. Another change that operated in the recurring sequence of names is that the original Annumpī-Šamaš is now changed to Annum-pī-Aja. This follows the allegiance to that goddess expressed in the servant (ìr) line of the seal inscription, already expressed in his father’s seal inscription as ìr Aja (see Conclusion B. Seal legends). The four last sangas do not follow the sequence of names any more, a fact that is initiated in the second part of the reign of Ammi-ditana by a brother succeeding instead of a son. How this could come to be is explained supra in our discussion of the seventh first sanga Nūr-Kabta. We note that this breach in the tradition was marked in the witness list, where, exceptionally, the name of Sîn-iqīšam is followed by the indication that he was the son of Warad-Sîn and not his predecessor. When his son Ilšu-ibnīšu takes over, this is again written in the witness list. The next one, NūrKabta, continues what must have become a usus. The fact that a brother, not originally destined to take over the office of sanga, had—and kept—a name different from the traditional familial sequence, again shows that no name change took place upon the installation of a new sanga. As explained above, this does not necessarily mean that the tradition was broken because, astonishing as it may seem, the four last sangas could already have been alive (and been given their names) when Annum-pī-Aja’s (not documented) son Šamaš-tappašu died. The name of the ‘ancestor’ Warad-Sîn is repeated twice and not eliminated from the sequence, which again shows that the family tradition prevailed upon the possible wish to have names with Šamaš in them. The difference with Lipit-Ištar is that whereas the latter name is the odd one out, the former represents the starting point of the family in the office of first sanga, a fact that they would be more than willing to save from oblivion through the use of this name as a start-

2 An example of this is provided in our comments on the first four of them.

ing point for each of their recurring sequences of names. One could go a little further and imagine that by restarting the sequence of names with Warad-Sîn, it is as if the family reinstated its original claim to the office of first sanga. The sequence may have been meant to be repeated after three generations, the grandson taking the name of the grandfather. As described above, the first time round this may have been prevented by the premature death of a WaradSîn (not documented), son of Šamaš-tappašu. His brother Lipit-Ištar became first sanga in his place but gave the name Warad-Sîn to his eldest son. The second time round, all went as planned (with only a change of Annum-pī-Šamaš to Annumpī-Aja). The third time, things went wrong again. Once more a prematurely deceased (not documented) first sanga was replaced by his brother.

2. The Second Sangas For the second sangas the picture is completely different. There is no sequence of recurring names, which is not surprising since we saw that the title of second sanga only passes from father to son in four out of twelve successions. As we see it, this is an office that did not stay in one family for long, except towards the end. Beyond this, it is of course possible that there were more family relations between the second sangas than we can see. So far, no clear and certain links can be established.2 A recapitulation of our findings is given below. No relation is known between Išar-Šamaš (1) and his successor Sîn-ennam (2), son of Sîn-imitti. Although the same goes for Sîn-ennam and Šumu-Sîn (3), son of Nūr-Sîn, we may suppose some kind of family relation between them since the former systematically uses the seal of the latter. The next two are father and son: Šalim-pāliMarduk (4), son of Sîn-gāmil, and Etel-pī-Nabium (5), son of Šalim-pāli-Marduk. There is no way to link them to the preceding nor the following second sanga. Sîn-iddinam (6), son of Enlil?-a[...] seems to stand alone. For the next one, Sîn-bāni (7), we are fortunate to have his father’s as well as his own seal.

iii.a. the names and families of the sangas These inform us that he is the son of Asalluimansum and the grandson of Awīl-d[...], sanga of Marduk. As far as we can see, this is quite another family, holding office in another temple. There is no apparent link to preceding second sangas. The next one, Išme-Sîn (8) is very interesting since we have a seal in which he is sanga of arpanītum, the consort of Marduk. He leaves this office to become second sanga of Šamaš. This is a clear connection with the preceding one, Sînbāni, if not as a member of his family, certainly through the Marduk-temple connection. The next sanga, Sîn-erībam (9), must be related to Išme-Sîn since he uses his seal but their precise link eludes us. The connection with the Marduk temple continues with the next second sanga: Mardukmušallim (10), son of Marduk-nāir sanga of Marduk. According to our hypothesis (see our comments on this second sanga) he was subsequently adopted and had a new seal made to mark this. Finally, the last two are, Etel-pī-Nabium (11), the son, and Marduk-nāir (12), the grandson, whose name refers to his great-grandfather. Schematically this would yield the following: a. Išar- Šamaš–Sîn-ennam: no relation known b. Sîn-ennam–Šumu-Sîn: related (but how?) because of the systematic use of his seal c. Šalim-pāli-Marduk–Etel-pī-Nabium: father and son, unrelated to preceding and following; the father states in his seal legend that he is a servant of Marduk d. Sîn-iddinam: no relation known to preceding and following e. Sîn-bāni: son of sanga of Marduk, comes from another group altogether f. Išme-Sîn–Sîn-erībam: related (type of relation

Šamaš

Sîn

unknown); Išme-Sîn formerly was sanga of arpanitum g. Marduk-mušallim: son of a sanga of Marduk, also comes from Marduk circles and is adopted into the family of the preceding sanga Sînerībam h. Etel-pī-Nabium–Marduk-nāir: son and grandson of Marduk-mušallim.

This allows us to reconstruct the following scenario. Whether the first ones belong to one family (our a. and b.) cannot be ascertained but we tend to group them as people who belong to the Ebabbar circles. With our c. something else seems to happen: someone who marks his allegiance to Marduk takes over and leaves the office to his son. Whether Sîn-iddinam (our d.) continues this line or is someone from the first group cannot be ascertained. With the next sanga (our e.) the Marduk connection reappears, never to be left again. Sîn-bāni is the son of a sanga of Marduk; Išme-Sîn formerly was a sanga of arpanītum and his son succeeds him; Marduk-mušallim is the son of a sanga of Marduk, adopted by the former second sanga of Šamaš and his son and grandson are his successors. This ‘intrusion’ by Marduk-temple people is of course very interesting. It could be one of the rare occasions in which we can witness the ambition of families from one temple to access office in another one. In Sippar, the Ebabbar must have been the more prestigious one, so what we witness is the ascent of a number of Marduk-related officials. The names of the second sangas all mention a god and, according to these, can be divided into four groups:

Marduk

Nabium

4. Šalim-pali-Marduk

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

10. Marduk-mušallim

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

1. Išar-Šamaš 2. Sîn-ennam 3. Šumu-Sîn 6. Sîn-iddinam 7. Sîn-bāni 8. Išme-Sîn 9. Sîn-erībam

203

12. Marduk-nāir

204

iii. conclusions

It is not surprising that six out of twelve second sangas have a name with Sîn, the most popular god in Old Babylonian personal names. This again shows that the names of these sangas were not chosen or changed in function of their work in the Šamaš temple. Išar-Šamaš stands isolated. He is the first second sanga and in this light it does seem improbable that he was destined from birth to take up this office. The Šamaš in his name must be fortuitous or his name was changed when he took up his office. The latter seems less probable because it is not attested for any other first or second sanga, so we are left with the former. The name Išar-Šamaš is not a very common one. Under Apil-Sîn there is another one, son of Nūr-ilīšu3. From the second one onwards we have what seems to be a symmetric sequence: 2 Sîn names, a Marduk name and a Nabium one 2 Sîn names 2 Sîn names, a Marduk name, a Nabium one and a Marduk one.

Since these people come partially from different families and there is no reason to suppose that they changed their names when becoming second sanga, there cannot have been a grand scheme of things at work here. How was this harmonious sequence then reached? We can reconstruct this as follows. After Išar-Šamaš, two people who were probably related (since the second one systematically used the seal of the first one), both with Sîn names, take over. Then comes the first ‘intrusion’ of people from Marduk circles who, for once appropriately, have a Marduk and a Nabium name. The next one, Sîn-iddinam, cannot be linked to the preceding or following sanga. Like second sangas 2 and 3 he had a Sîn name but this can hardly be meaningful as his name is the most frequent one in Old Babylonian Sippar. The seventh, Sîn-bāni, is the son of a sanga of Marduk and he too has a very common name4. With the eigth and ninth we still are in the rather frequent Sîn names. This changes with

3

He appears in two texts as seller/neighbour in TCL I, 63 and is seventh witness with a kišib over a seal in VS 8, 17. Under Sîn-muballi possibly the same person appears as father of Sîn-abūšu in VS 13, 34 and TCL I, 74.

Marduk-mušallim, the adopted son of the ninth second sanga, natural son of a sanga of Marduk (whence the Marduk) who consciously makes the effort to integrate in the second sanga line by having himself adopted. His son, the penultimate second sanga, is Etel-pī-Nabium. This might refer to the fifth second sanga of the same name but in a family related to the Marduk temple it might as well refer to one of his ancestors just like the name of his brother. Marduk-mušallim’s other son, the last known second sanga. His name refers back to his grandfather Marduk-nāir. This overview of the first and second sanga names clearly shows that family traditions prevailed in name giving, even for sangas. We know that for some offices, like that of chief dirge singer (galama), there was a change of name when the office was taken up,5 but can suppose that the original name was given according to family traditions. We observed the same phenomenon for the Būr-Sîn overseer family where none had a Šamaš name but all had names relating to the family tradition. For this same overseer family we observed that female name giving functioned in another way: all female overseers had an Aja name. The names of the nadiātum also show that for women the function determined the choice of a name. Shortened Names Three sangas add their contribution to the dossier of shortened names. Annum-pī-Šamaš (I) is shortened to Annumpīšu in BDHP 14. The unpalatable Šalim-pāli-Marduk (4) likewise becomes Šalim-pālišu more often than not: twelve times out of seventeen attestations, of which two are broken and one has Šalim-pāli on the tablet and Šalim-pāli-Šamaš! on the case (TCL I, 68/69). Ilšu-ibnīšu (X) becomes Ilšu-ibni in eight of his twelve attestations. In this case there might be a chronological distribution: his four attestations with the –šu are among the five earliest.

4

So much so that there is a contemporaneous homonym who is overseer of the nadiātum, and who is attested in some texts together with the Sîn-bāni second sanga. 5 Janssen 1992, 47-48 and Charpin 1986 396-402.

iii.b. the legends of the sangas and officials

205

III.B. THE LEGENDS OF THE SANGAS AND OFFICIALS

1. The Inscriptions We will first list all of the seal legends used by the sangas and then analyse and compare them. The officials acting as second witnesses before the existence of the second sangas are also given, as well as the few seals of the sangas of the Edikuda which have legends. Finally, the legends of the sanga’s daughters seals are added. a. First Sanga I.

Annum-pī-Šamaš Im, Im + Sle (Fig. 1) dingir-pi4-d┌utu┐ dumu ìr-dEN.[ZU] sanga d[utu]

II. Šamaš-tappašu Sle; seal used by his son (Fig. 2) d

utu-tab.ba-šu ìr é.babbár dumu dingir-pi4-dutu

III. Lipit-Ištar Sle, Sa, AS; uses his father’s seal and (Fig. 3): li-pí-it-iš8-tár dumu dutu-tab.ba-šu sanga dutu

IV. Warad-Sîn AS, Sm; uses his father’s seal and (Fig. 4A): ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga dutu dumu li-pí-it-iš8-tár ìr da-a

V. Annum-pī-Aja Sm, a, Si; uses his own seal (Fig 5), then a seal with his father’s name (Fig. 4B): dingir-pi4-da-a ┌ ┌ ┌

sanga┐ dutu

dumu┐ ìr-dEN.ZU ìr┐ da-a

ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU]

sanga dutu dumu li-pí-it-iš8-tár ìr da-a

VI. Šamaš-tappašu Si 9—Si 13; uses his own seal (Fig. 6) and a seal with his grandfather’s name (Fig. 4B): d utu-tab.ba-[šu] sanga d┌utu┐ dumu dingir-pi4-da-a ìr sa-am-su-i-lu-┌na┐

ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga dutu dumu li-pí-it-iš8-tár ìr da-a

VII. Warad-Sîn Si 25—30 (Fig. 7) ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] sanga [star] d[utu] dumu dutu-tab.┌ba┐-[šu] ┌ ┐ ìr sa-am-su-i-[lu-na]

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja Si xx—Ae (Fig. 8A and B) dingir-pi4-da-[a] sanga d[utu] dumu ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] ìr a-bi-e-šu-[u.ke4]

dingir-pi4-da-a sanga dutu dumu ìr-dEN.ZU ìr a-bi-e-šu-u.ke4

iii. conclusions

206 IX. Sîn-iqīšam Ad 20—30 (Fig. 9): EN.ZU-i-qí-┌ša┐-[am] sanga d[utu] dumu ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] ìr am-mi-di-ta-┌na┐.[ke4]

d

X.

Ilšu-ibni(šu) Ad 32—A 11 (Fig. 10): dingir-šu-ib-┌ni┐-[šu] sanga d[utu] dumu dEN.ZU-┌i-qí┐-[ša-am] ìr am-mi-à-┌du┐-[qa.ke4]

XI. Nūr-Kabta A 11 (no seal impression known)

XII. Sîn-aam-iddinam A 10—13 (Fig. 11): [...] ┌ dumu dEN.ZU-i┐-[qí-ša-am] ìr dnin.si’.an.[na]

b. Officials 1.

Ilum-mušallim Im (Fig. 12): dingir-mu-ša-[lim] ì.du8 ká ga-gu-um

2.

Ilum-mušallim doorkeeper of the gate of the Gagûm

Būr-Nunu Im, Sle-Sa (Fig. 13): bur-nu-nu ugula nin.dingir dutu dumu im-lik-dEN.ZU ìr é.babbár (between figg.)

3.

Damu-galzu, Bti, Sle, Im-Sa (Fig. 14): d da.mu-gal.zu kisal.lu é.babbár.ra ìr dutu da-┌a┐ servant

4.

Būr-Nunu overseer of the nadiātum of Šamaš son of Imlik-Sîn servant of the Ebabbar

Damu-galzu court sweeper of the Ebabbar servant of Šamaš and Aja

Adad-rēmēni Sa-Sm (Fig. 15A):

still rá.gab in a text dated AS (Fig. 15B)

d

[d]iškur-[re-me-ni] dumu dda.mu-gal.zu ìr ┌é.babbár┐

iškur-[re-me-ni] rá.[gab] šá é ga-[gu-um] ìr d┌utu┐ [ù da-a]

Adad-rēmēni messenger of the Gagûm servant of Šamaš and Aja

c. Second Sanga 1.

Išar-Šamaš; Sa (no seal impression preserved)

2.

Sîn-ennam son of Sîn-imitti; Sa 14 (Fig. 16) d EN.ZU-en-nam sanga dutu dumu dEN.ZU-i-mi-ti ìr é.babbár

3.

Šu/amu-Sîn AS, Sm; uses Sîn-ennam’s seal and once: šu-mu-u-[d]EN.[ZU] dumu ┌nu-úr-dEN┐.[ZU] ìr d[...]

Adad-rēmēni son of Damu-galzu servant of the Ebabbar

iii.b. the legends of the sangas and officials

207

4.

Šalim-pāli-Marduk/šu son of Sîn-gāmil; Sm (Fig. 17A and B):

5.

Etel-pī-Nabium son of Šalim-pālišu; a 1-11 (Fig. 18):

6.

Sîn-iddinam son of Enlil?-a?[...] a 15—18; seal with an animal combat (Fig. 19A) and one with a legend (Fig. 19B):

┌

ša┐-lim-pa-li-i-d┌marduk┐ [dumu d]┌EN┐.ZU-ga-┌mil┐ [ìr ]d┌marduk┐ [sanga] d┌utu┐

┌ ┐ ša -lim-pa-li-i-dmarduk [dumu] dEN.ZU-ga-mil sanga dutu ┌ ìr d┐marduk

┌ sanga┐ d[utu] e-te-el-pi4-dna-bi-[um] dumu ša-lim-pa-li-i-šu ìr dna-bi-um

EN.ZU-i-┌din-nam┐ sanga [d]utu dumu den.líl?-a?-[...] ìr é.┌babbár┐ d

7.

Sîn-bāni son of Asallui-mansum; a 30-37; uses his own seal (Fig. 20A) and his father’s (Fig. 20B) and an animal combat (Fig. 20C): [d]EN.ZU-ba-[ni] ┌ sanga┐ d [utu] [dumu] dasal.lú.i-ma.[an.sum] ┌ ┐ ìr a-am-mu-ra-[bi]

8.

asal.lú.i-ma.an.[sum] sanga┐ d┌marduk┐ [dumu] a-wi-il-┌d┐[...] [ìr] dna-bi-um ┌

Išme-Sîn son of Ikūn-pī-Uraš; a 38—Si 13; has a seal as sanga arpanītum (Fig. 21A) and two of his own (Fig. 21B and C): [iš-me]-dEN.[ZU] ┌ sanga┐ [dar]-pa-ni-┌tum┐ dumu i-ku-un-pi4-d[uraš1] ìr a-am-mu-ra-bi

9.

┌d┐

iš-me-dEN.ZU sanga dutu dumu i-ku-un-pi4-[duraš] ìr a-am-mu-ra-bi

iš-me-dEN.ZU sanga dutu dumu i-ku-un-pi4-duraš ìr sa-am-su-i-lu-na

Sîn-erībam successor of Išme-Sîn, uses his predecessor’s seal only

10. Marduk-mušallim son of Marduk-nāir, (Fig. 22A) and (adopted) son of Sîn-erībam (Fig. 22B); Ae—Ad 25: marduk-mu-┌ša┐-[lim] dumu dmarduk-na-i-[ir] sanga dmarduk ìr a-bi-e-šu-u.[ke4] d

d marduk-mu-ša-[lim] sanga da-a dumu dEN.ZU-e-ri-┌ba┐-[am┐ [ìr] am-mi-di-ta-[na.ke4]

11. Etel-pī-Nabium son of Marduk-mušallim Ad 20—A 5 (Fig. 23A and B): ┌ ┐

e -tel-pi4-dna-┌bi┐-[um] sanga┐ da-[a] dumu dmarduk-mu-┌ša┐-[lim] ┌ ┐ ìr am-mi-di-┌ta┐-[na.ke4] ┌

e-tel-pi4-d[na-bi-um] sanga da-[a] dumu dmarduk-┌mu┐-[ša-lim] ìr am-mi-┌á-du┐-[qa.ke4]

12. Marduk-nāir son of Etel-pī-Nabium, uses his father’s second seal Sangas of the Edikuda in Sippar-Amnānum Sîn-išmeanni (Ad 29-A 8) uses two seals without a legend (Fig. 24A and B), a seal with only traces of a legend (Fig. 24C) and the seal of a Lama?-ilum (Fig. 24D): la-ma?-dingir dumu mi-la-qum ìr ša diškur?

1 The name of the god is supplied by the impressions of the next seal of Išme-Sîn, recorded infra sub 8. Išme-Sîn.

iii. conclusions

208

Ikūn-pī-Sîn (A 12) uses a seal with one line (not his name or title) inscribed between the figures (Fig. 25) Ibni-Šērum (A 13) uses a seal without legend (Fig. 26) d. Daughters of Sangas Damiqtum daughter of Šamaš-tappašu AS (Fig. 27): da-mi-iq-tum dumu.munus dutu-tab.ba-šu sanga dutu

Awāt-Aja daughter of Warad-Sîn Sm (Fig. 28): KA- da-a dumu.munus ìr-d┌EN┐.[ZU] ┌ sanga┐ d┌utu┐

Lamassi daughter of Sîn-ennam AS—Sm (Fig. 29): la-ma-sí dumu.munus dEN.ZU-en-nam gemé dutu da-a

2. Analysis of the Seal Legends of the Sangas a. The Travelling Title Although most of the legends adhere to one order of lines, some deviate. In the tables below, we will represent the different lines of the seal legends as N(ame), P(atronymic), T(itle), S(ervant line). We have added the approximate dates to the names of the sangas, in order to show the evolution of the line order through time. The table is of course left open for the sangas for whom we have no seal, either because no impression is extant or because they use someone else’s seal exclusively.

1. Annum-pī-Šamaš

2. Šamaš-tappašu

3. Lipit-Ištar

4. Warad-Sîn

5. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Šamaš-tappašu

7. Warad-Sîn

8. Annum-pī-Aja

9. Sîn-iqīšam

10. Ilšu-ibnīšu

11. Nūr-Kabta

12. Sîn-aam-iddinam

The first sangas:

Im

Sle

Sle-AS

AS

Sm-Si

Si

Si

Si-Ae

Ad

Ad-A

A

N

N

N

N N

N

N

N

N N

N

N

[N]

P

S

P

T T

T

T

T

T T

T

T

P

T

P

T

P P

P

P

P

P P

P

P

S

S S

S

S

S

S S

S

S

A

(continued on next page)

209

iii.b. the legends of the sangas and officials The second sangas:

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

6. Sîn-iddinam

7. Sîn-bāni

8. Išme-Sîn

9. Sîn-erībam

10. Marduk-mušallim

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

12. Marduk-nāir

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

3. Šumu-Sîn

Sa

2. Sîn-ennam

1. Išar-Šamaš

(cont.)

Sa

AS-Sm

Sm

a

a

a

a-Si

Si

Ae—Ad

Ad-A

A

N

N

N N

T

N

N

N N

T

P

P P

N

T

T

P

S

S T

P

P

P

T S

S

S

S

S

It can be observed that one order of lines is predominant: N-T-P-S. It is applied in seventeen out of twenty-six seal inscriptions. This is an order encountered in many other seals where a title is mentioned. Seals without a title have the basic order N-P-S, which means that the usual place to insert the title is, very logically, after the name and before the patronymic. The first sangas’ legends conform about as frequently (nine out of thirteen) to this NTPS sequence as those of the second sangas (eight out of thirteen). The ‘anomalies’ lie at the very beginning and end for the first sangas with a homogeneous series in between. For the second sangas the ‘anomalies’ are interspersed between the ‘normal’ legends. In the next paragraphs we will try to find out why the ‘normal’ order was not always followed. 1. Non-Standard Order for the First Sangas The sanga seals not conforming to the order are the first three and the last one. For the first three one could suppose that the pattern may not have been fixed yet. Contrary to the later ones, they only have three lines. For two of them this is because they do not have a S(ervant) line but place the title on the third line instead2. As such, they conform to the sequence prevalent in the earlier Old Babylonian period. Blocher (1992) lists 59 pre-ammu-rabi seals with a legend stating the owner’s name. The earliest twelve of these seals (dated under Buntatun-ila, 2 The title could also be seen as belonging to the father, since it immediately follows the father’s name. We do not choose this interpretation and will give our reasons infra.

N

N

N N

T T

P

T

T T

P P

T

P

P P

S S

S

S

S S

Immmerum and Sumu-la-el) show a preference for the N-P-T sequence (6) followed by the N-P-S (4) and three other sequences N-P (2), N-T-P (1) and N-S-P (1). Under Sabium and Apil-Sîn there are 39 seals and the main sequence is now predominantly N-P-S (21) followed by N-P-T (4) and a whole series of diverse orders. The first sanga seals conform to this N-P-S sequence and intercalate the title after the name. The seal of Šamaš-tappašu has its servant line, ìr Ebabbar, in an odd place: between the name and the patronymic. As far as we know, this is unique in the whole corpus of Old Babylonian Sippar seal legends. It is as if he wanted particularly to stress his connection to the temple, rather than mention his title. We can be certain that he used his title, as he did in a witness list (case of CT 45, 2) and also on the seal of his daughter Damiqtum (cf. The seals of the sanga’s daughters). Why not have it on his own seal? One reason might be the wish to state his lineage clearly (by the patronymic) but vary his legend, as well as his very elaborate seal design. His son, Lipit-Ištar, reverts to the same type of legend as his grandfather and has a seal design that very obviously also refers to his grandfather’s seal. The fourth sanga is the first one to use both the title and the servant line, in the order that will become the standard for the following first sangas: N-T-P-S. He does so on both his seals. However, the servant line is not dedicated to the Ebabbar but to the goddess Aja. This may be a

210

iii. conclusions

conscious distinction with the second sangas, who have appeared in the meantime and use the servant of Ebabbar formula. We will come back to the changing servant line below. The seal of the last known sanga of Šamaš does not conform either, but for another reason. If the impression we have is that of his seal (the name is lacking) he uses a three line seal, without a title. This could be related to the fact that he may not have been destined for the sangaship (cf. our discussion of this sanga above), nevertheless he became a sanga but had no seal made with his title. Is it meaningful that this should happen with the very last sanga of this series? Is something happening with this institution towards the end of the period? These are questions that must be left unanswered for the moment. 2. Non-Standard Order for the Second Sangas Here, the ‘standard’ order of the lines starts a little earlier, under Sabium, with our first known second sanga seal. This may give us a more precise date for the change. It is under Sabium, as we have shown in our comments on Išar-Šamaš, the first of the second sangas, that a reorganisation of the Šamaš temple may have occurred. This appears most clearly from the fact that in his reign the second sangaship is created and may be reflected in the order of the lines on the sanga’s seal legends. It is not visible on the seals of the first sangas because the third one, Lipit-Ištar, consistently uses a seal that was made under Sumula-El. It is only when his successor has a new seal cut, under Apil-Sîn, that the ‘new order’ of the lines is realised. Of the thirteen seals of second sangas we know, five have a different order of lines. The third one, Šumu-Sîn, is no real exception. He only once uses what must have been his ‘private’ seal, dating from before his sangaship, at the beginning of his career, before taking over and consistently using his predecessor’s (N-TP-S) seal. The fourth one, Šalim-pāli-Marduk, has an odd sequence of lines. He adds the title after the sequence N-P-S instead of intercalating it after his name, although the ‘normal’ sequence had already been adopted years before, by Sîn-ennam. Another change is that, whereas this same Sînennam had declared his allegiance to the Ebabbar (ìr Ebabbar), Šalim-pāli-Marduk states that he is a servant of Marduk (ìr Marduk). This may be linked to the fact that that this god was part

of his name, just like his son Etel-pī-Nabium will declare himself to be a servant of Nabium. Whereas there is a link between Šumu-Sîn (3) and his predecessor Sîn-ennam (2) through the use of the same seal, there seems to be a break with Šalim-pāli-Marduk. The different order of the lines of the legend and the servant line may have been used to mark this. We note that, just as for the first sangas, the reference to the temple is only made by the ìr Ebabbar line in the earliest seal (Sîn-ennam) we have. After that the Ebabbar reference disappears completely for the first sangas and only reappears once (Sîn-iddinam) for the second ones. Šalim-pāli-Marduk uses this seal with the added sanga title only once (as far as our documentation goes) and then has another seal cut, on which the first two lines are left unchanged but the title moves one line up and the servant line becomes the last one again, which puts it in its ‘normal’ place. Why not move the title two lines up and have a ‘standard’ legend? Is this the manifestation of a desire to differentiate oneself? It is as if the aim is to have seals that are different from his predecessor’s and even from his own first seal, a desire that seems to be continued by the next sanga. It must also be remarked that all of these legends differ from the now standardized N-T-P-S sequence of the first sanga legends. Could this be the aim? The overseer of the nadiātum Sîn-bāni (Sîn-muballi—ammu-rabi) also moves lines of his legend between his seals 2 and 3: from NPTS to NTPS, i.e. from a non standard to a standard order. Incidentally, the fact that the title just moved up is another proof that even if it now comes after the patronymic this does not mean that it refers to the father—as we had already established on other grounds in our discussion above on the restoration of the broken lines of this seal legend (cf. our discussion of this sanga). The fifth second sanga, Etel-pī-Nabium, also adds his title to a standard N-P-S legend but now in the reverse order from that of his predecessor: he does not add it at the end but at the beginning, which gives the order: T-N-P-S. In doing so he chose for the title the only position that it had not yet occupied and it is difficult not to interpret this as a conscious choice to be different, not only from his predecessors, but from the first sangas as well. The next sangas come back to the ‘standard’ order.

211

iii.b. the legends of the sangas and officials The deviating order of the lines on the seal of the tenth second sanga is very simply explained by the fact that the title of sanga Marduk belongs to his father and not to himself. That is why it is N-P-T-S. For the first sangas there is a clear pattern in the sequence of the lines of their legends. After some initial hesitation and maybe a wish to diversify within the tradition, the ‘standard’ pattern is adopted and kept until the last sanga who astonishingly has a seal without his title. The second sangas show a somewhat different evolution. The first seal we have, belonging to the second of them shows they adopted the ‘standard’ N-T-P-S sequence early on. The fourth and fifth of them seem to be doing their utmost to be difFirst sangas3

ferent from this. They are (see our discussion in The Names of the sangas) the first father and son sequence we have in the second sanga line. Would their wish to distinguish themselves from their predecessors tend to show they did not belong to the same group? b. The Changes in the Servant Line As can be seen in the transcription of the seal legends above, the devotion of the sangas, as expressed in the ‘servant line’ of their seal legends changes over time. We will now take a closer look at this evolution and try to determine what the meaning of these changes could be. First, we give an overview of the evidence.

Servant of

Date attested

Remarks

—

Im, Sle

no servant line

Ebabbar

Sle

second line out of three

III. Lipit-Ištar

—

Sle-Sa-AS

no servant line

IV. Warad-Sîn

Aja

AS-Sm

first uses his father’s seal

V. Annum-pī-Aja

Aja

Sm-a-Si 7

first uses his seal then a new father’s seal

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

Samsu-iluna

Si 9—13

career completely under Samsu-iluna

VII. Warad-Sîn

Samsu-iluna

Si 25—30

”

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš II. Šamaš-tappašu

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

Abi-ešu

Ae—Ad 5

two (nearly) identical seals

IX. Sîn-iqīšam

Ammi-ditana

Ad 20—30

career completely under Ammi-ditana

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

Ammi-aduqa

Ad 32—A 11

uses his father’s seal under Ammi-ditana

—

A 11

no seal known

Ninsiana

A 13

(broken)

XI. Nūr-Kabta XII. Sîn-aam-iddinam Second sangas

Servant of

Remarks

1. Išar-Šamaš 2. Sîn-ennam

no seal impression attested Ebabbar

Sa 14

3. Šumu-Sîn

AS—Sm

uses a personal seal and then his father’s has a second seal with the same legend

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Marduk

Sm

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

Nabium

a 1—11

6. Sîn-iddinam

Ebabbar

a 15—18

7. Sîn-bāni

ammu-rabi

a 30—37

first his own then his father’s (a 37)

8. Išme-Sîn

a—Si

a 38—Si 13

two seals a, one Si (from Si 7 on)

Si 25

uses second seal of his predecessor only

9. Sîn-erībam 10. Marduk-mušallim

Ae—Ad

Ae “e”—Ad 5

has a new seal from Ad 2

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Ad—A

Ad 20—A 5

has a new seal from A 5

A 11

uses his father’s seal exclusively

12. Marduk-nāir

3 Some first and second sangas use two or more seals to their name, the servant line on these seals is the same, except

for Išme-Sîn, Marduk-mušallim and Etel-pī-Nabium who are servants of two subsequent kings on their different seals.

212

iii. conclusions

In his article on family deities according to the seal legends Charpin (1990, 70-71) cites the case of Šalim-pāli-Marduk son of Sîn-gāmil second sanga of Šamaš and, according to his seal legend, servant of Marduk, to prove that the servant clause, even in the case of sangas where an institutional devotion is expected, does not relate to the god in whose service he is. This can now be further specified. 1. The Servant Line on the Legends of the First Sangas In the case of the first sangas it is clear that their servant clause does not refer to a family god: for the first ones it refers to the Ebabbar, further ones are servants of the goddess Aja and the later ones are servants of the king. It could of course be argued that the second of these, the devotion to Aja, is in fact a family devotion as the two sangas, Warad-Sîn and Annum-pī-Aja, who proclaim themselves to be servants of Aja, are father and son. The choice of deity would incline us towards another motive. As male priests/administrators, the first sangas would declare their devotion to the female head deity of the Ebabbar, just like, somewhat later, the second sangas would change their title from sanga Šamaš to sanga Aja4. The servant line of the seal legends of the first sangas would then exclusively refer to their institutional affiliation: to the temple or its goddess (servant of the Ebabbar, of Aja) or the palace (servant of the king). This progression can be seen as a gradual shift in allegiance, or rather as a reflection of the changing balance of power. In the Early Old Babylonian period the kingdom was still being organised and its territory extended. In such a time one can easily imagine that a local temple such as the Ebabbar in Sippar wielded much (local) power. All its personnel then has the servant of the Ebabbar line in its seal legend (provided a servant line is present, which is not always the case). Under Sabium, and maybe precisely in his tenth year, as we proposed above, things change. The palace may have prompted changes in the Ebabbar in Sippar. The second sangas who appear at this

4 It must be remarked that in our database of over a thousand Old Babylonian Sippar seal inscriptions there are surprisingly few with an ìr Šamaš formula. Nadiātum of Šamaš have of course the ‘amat Šamaš u Aja’ formula. Some men, probably connected with the temple, such as Damu-galzu, the courtyard sweeper of the Ebabbar, have the male counterpart of this: ‘warad Šamaš u Aja’. The seal

same time—on the one occasion where we can observe this, with the seal of Sîn-ennam—declare themselves to be servants of the Ebabbar. The first sangas subsequently change their servant line from the Ebabbar to Aja, maybe to distinguish themselves from the other temple personnel who remain servants of the Ebabbar in their seal legends. The two first sangas who declare themselves to be servants of Aja are Warad-Sîn and his son Annum-pī-Aja; which means the son has Aja in his servant line and in his name. Furthermore, for the first sangas we have remarked supra that Annum-pī-Aja should in fact have been called Annum-pī-Šamaš like his ancestor. It is no doubt the ‘new’ allegiance to Aja which prompted this modification of the ancestor name. Finally, under Samsu-iluna (documented in the seal legend) but maybe already under ammurabi (undocumented in the seal legend) the palace becomes the main institution, also in Sippar, and the king’s name is from then on consequently used in the servant line5. Again, the seal of the last sanga, Sîn-aamiddinam, stands out. This really is a ‘private’ and not a sanga seal. 2. The Servant Line on the Legends of the Second Sangas For the second sangas, the servant line also evolves in three stages, but one of these is different from the first sangas. Whereas we have Ebabbar>Aja>king for the first sangas, for the second ones we have Ebabbar>Marduk, Nabium, a return>Ebabbar and then>king. As can be observed in the table above, the servant of the Ebabbar line is attested on one seal only, that of Sîn-ennam, attested from Sabium to Sîn-muballi since it was used by Sîn-ennam’s successor too. The first of the second sangas has left us no impression of his seal. Around the same time when the first sangas no longer are ‘servants of the Ebabbar’ according to their seal legends, the fourth second sanga, Šalimpāli-Marduk, declares himself to be a servant of Marduk and his son Etel-pī-Nabium, the fifth one, is servant of Nabium. It is striking that their

of Bēlšunu, son of Šamaš-nāir (OLA 21, 17), has ‘warad Šamaš’, but this clearly is an exception. 5 We must stress that the evolution thus sketched is specific for the sangas. Some other people had an allegiance to the king much earlier on their seals, e.g. Nakkārum, son of Sîn-erībam, servant of Sumu-la-El (Blocher n° 255, 85, impressed on CT 47, 6a, a tablet dated AS).

iii.b. the legends of the sangas and officials allegiance is reflected in their name (or the other way round). Especially since Marduk and Nabium are gods unrelated to the Ebabbar, this cannot be fortuitous. It rather points to Babylon, to the palace. We remarked above that the seal legends of precisely these two sangas have a unique placing of the title line, as if they consciously wanted to be different. Their servant lines now point in the same direction. With the sixth second sanga Sîn-iddinam, the expression of the link with the temple is revived, as he declares himself to be the servant of Ebabbar just like Sîn-ennam (and Šumu-Sîn who uses the same seal). It really looks as if Šalim-pāliMarduk and his son Etel-pī-Nabium represent a parenthesis. This reversal does not last long because from the seventh second sanga on, somewhere in the middle of ammu-rabi’s reign, they now all declare themselves to be servants of the king. In this last allegiance they set a trend that will soon be followed by the first sangas who do this for the first time in Si 9. We may wonder why the first and second sangas did not change their servant clause towards the king at the same time although they were members of the same institution in the same city. This is what we will now examine. 3. The Allegiance to the King The first sangas, as can be observed in the table above, declare their allegiance to the king from the reign of Samsu-iluna onwards, according to their attested seal impressions. The second sangas start declaring themselves servants of the king earlier, already under ammu-rabi, the first attested impression of such a line being a 30. Before that, the sixth first sanga Sîn-iddinam is attested from a 15 to 18 and he uses a seal with a devotion to the Ebabbar6. This would imply that the allegiance to the king was introduced for the second sangas somewhere between a 18 and 30. How much earlier is this than the first sangas? Here too, attestations leave a margin of interpretation. It is true that Šamaš-tappašu is the first first sanga to have a king, in casu Samsu-iluna, written in the servant line of his seal and that this is first attested in Si 9. But is this really the date of the

6 The attestation of his seal in a 18, on MHET 200, is very fragmentary: only the first sign of the first line remains. Since we have no indication that Sîn-iddinam would have

213

introduction of this practice? The very unusual seal use of his predecessor Annum-pī-Aja does not help us at all here: he uses his own seal until a 18 and then a seal to the name of his father until the end of his career. This same year a 18 is precisely the end date of the second sanga Sîniddinam who had a seal in which he was servant of the Ebabbar. The picture that now emerges is that of an important change for the first as well as for the second sanga around a 18: the first one starts using a new seal, to the name of his father, a puzzling procedure since he used his own during so many years up to then; the new second sanga starts declaring himself the servant of the king. This sheds new light on the strange seal use of Annum-pī-Aja. Why did he abandon his own seal after more than twenty years to use a seal to his father’s name during the remaining twentyone years of his career? If he had lost or broken his own seal, why did he not have a new one made? Was he reluctant to change his devotion to Aja into that of the king but was some gesture expected? Instead of having a new seal made to his name with a devotion to the king, he started using what must have looked like a venerable family seal (which will occasionally also be used by his son Šamaš-tappašu), to his father’s name, Warad-Sîn, which was also the name of the father of the very first first sanga, adding to its venerability. This goes even further. Some cunning was involved here since this venerable seal that could not be contested by anyone, was in fact—as we showed above in our discussion of this sanga—a new seal, made for this occasion. It has the same legend as the original one but was never used by WaradSîn himself as far as we know. Who would have known this, other than Annum-pī-Aja, the seal cutter and some faithful scribe? There is a very clear intention here to resist the encroachment of the palace. The second sangas did not show such a resistance. 4. The Addition of .ke4 to the King’s Name As can be seen in our transcription of the seal legends above, in the servant line we have added. ke4 between square brackets to the name of some kings. This addition is based on the fact that the length of the lines shows there is some space after the last syllable of the king’s name and that we

had another seal, we take this as the last attestation of his seal, and thus the last attestation of ìr Ebabbar.

iii. conclusions

214

know that in this period, the reigns of Ammiditana and Ammi-aduqa to be more precise, this suffix was added in this place. The identification of this suffix is not difficult: it is the same used to express the Sumerian genitive –(a)k in combination with the ergative –e. Whereas the genitive can be understood as the link of the king’s name with the ìr: servant of the king, the ergative can have no meaning here, since there is no sentence in which it could function. We rather see it as a standardized addition, taken over from Sumerian texts in which it is often added to (mostly divine) names understood to be composed of two parts. Pientka 1998, 160 discusses this suffix in her treatment of the Sumerian of late Old Babylonian documentary texts. In these texts it is typically used in the formula designating the owner of a field (be-el a.šà.ke4) and is in fact just a rendering of the genitive. She calls it a “Genetiv-Determinativ” which would fit the use in the servant line as well. Although it is certain that this custom was in vogue from Ammi-ditana onwards, it is not easy to give certain examples because the servant line is usually broken, not impressed or overwritten precisely towards its end. Luckily some of our sanga seals have preserved the.ke4. In the whole of our seal impression database we have twenty seals with a servant line dedicated to Ammi-ditana or Ammi-aduqa7. Out of these we have only four on which the.ke4 is preserved. There seems to be no clear example of the absence of this suffix after the name of these kings8. This is not an isolated phenomenon. On some seals dated in the same period another servant formula also has this suffix, but after the Ebabbar,

e.g. the seal of Sîn-mušallim, son of Nidnuša, (on BM 92620 published as CT 33,41 with mention of the seal) has the servant line ‘ìr é.babbar.ra.[ke4]’9, servant of the Ebabbar temple. 5. Changing Kings What happened when a sanga had a seal with a servant line dedicated to a king and a new king came to power? Was the seal adapted or changed or not? To gain some chronological perspective, we refer to some interesting remarks made by P. Steinkeller (1977, 46) concerning the Ur III period. He writes about the existence of “numerous examples of two or more seals belonging to the same person and invoking two different rulers or dignitaries...” and adds “Very often the outdated seal was used for quite a while until a new seal was acquired.” We note, for our purposes, that in Ur III already, as could be expected for seals mentioning the name of a king, the practice existed to change seals when a new king acceded to the throne. The interesting point for us is that, then too, this change was not operated immediately but could take some time. – First Sangas From Si 9 onwards the king is the object of the servant line of five first sangas and we may wonder what happened when a new king came to power. An answer can only very partially be provided by the seals of the first sangas since three of them held office during the reign of one king only (VI, VII and IX). Another one used his father’s seal under one king and his own under the next (X):

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

Samsu-iluna

Si 9—13

career completely under Samsu-iluna

VII. Warad-Sîn

Samsu-iluna

Si 25—30

”

Abi-ešu

Ae—Ad 5

two (nearly) identical seals

IX. Sîn-iqīšam

Ammi-ditana

Ad 20—30

career completely under Ammi-ditana

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

Ammi-aduqa

Ad 32—A 11

uses his father’s seal under Ammi-ditana

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

his first seal was Ae “k” (= 25?) and his new seal is attested in Ad 2 and 5. The servant line of both seals mentions king Abi-ešu, so he must have lost his first seal towards the end of this king’s reign

Annum-pī-Aja (VIII) is the only one who kept his title under the next king, albeit for five years only and interestingly had two seals which he used one after the other. The last dated attestation of

7 We have four with Samsuditana in the servant line, unfortunately none is complete enough to ascertain the presence or absence of the.ke4. 8 The seal of Marduk-mušallim, son of Rīš-Marduk, might be an exception (AbB 7, 156 transcription: ìr am-mia-du-qá). This would need collation.

9 This is no doubt the reason why Charpin (1988, 30) systematically adds this to the (always broken) ìr line of seals D, E and G (ìr am-mi-di-ta-na-[ke4]), as well as to I and J ( ìr é.babbar.ra.[ke4]).

iii.b. the legends of the sangas and officials and had another one made still under Abi-ešu, with the same legend, which he then continued to use until the end of his career in Ad 5. This shows that he did not feel obliged to have a new seal with the servant line mentioning the name of the new king, and this at least five years into the new reign. Would Annum-pī-Aja eventually have changed his seal if his career had continued much longer or not? We tend to think that if it

Second sanga

was not done after five years, it would never have been done. It is only when the next sanga has a seal made that this change is acknowledged in the legend. – Second Sangas From ammu-rabi 30 onwards, four second sangas have the name of the king in their servant line. This is summarized in the table below:

Servant of

Dates seals

7. Sîn-bāni

a

a 30—37

8. Išme-Sîn

a—Si

a 38-43 —Si 7-13

10. Marduk-mušallim

Ae—Ad

Ae “e”-”m”—Ad 2-5

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Ad—A

Ad 20-36 —A 5

The first one, Sîn-bāni uses his seal under ammu-rabi only. The three others (8, 10 and 11) changed the servant line of their seal inscription to acknowledge a new reign. Išme-Sîn (8) is the only sanga for whom we have three attested seals. On his second seal he is ìr ammu-rabi and on his third one ìr Samsu-iluna. The last attestation of this ìr ammu-rabi legend is dated a 43 and the first one of ìr Samsu-iluna is dated Si 7. The change in allegiance to the new king may have been the cause for the change to a third seal. This can unfortunately only be dated approximately within a period of seven years, somewhere between Si 1 and 7. Marduk-mušallim (10), son of Marduk-nāir and later adopted by Sîn-erībam, first uses a ‘private’ seal without his title (but with his father’s) and a servant line dedicated to Abi-ešu (attested in Ae “e” and “m” = 21 and 25?). Afterwards, when he is adopted by Sîn-erībam, he has a new seal with his title and with a servant line to the reigning king, Ammi-ditana (attested in Ad 2 and 5). In view of the reason for the change in the servant line of second sangas 8 and 11 it probably was the accession of the new king which prompted the cutting of a new seal, allowing Marduk-mušallim to add his adoptive father’s name and his title at the same time. Etel-pī-Nabium (11) has a last attestation of his ìr Ammi-ditana seal in Ad 36. He uses a second seal which is attested twice from A 5 on. Unfortunately the servant line is broken on both of these impressions but comparison with the impression of this same seal used by his son in A 11 allows us to be sure that Ammi-aduqa was in the ser-

215

vant line. Since the legends of his two seals are the same, except for the servant line, the cutting of the new seal must also have been prompted by the accession of the new king. The time span within which the change of seals happened is five years at the most: between A 1 and 5. The second sangas seem to respond to the advent of a new king with quite some diligence by changing their seal legend, probably not long after the event. For Išme-Sîn, whose three seals have exactly the same height, and for Mardukmušallim, whose second seal is less tall than his first one, the seals could have been recut. For Etelpī-Nabium, however, this is impossible because his second seal is taller than his first one. It is as if the first sangas were more independent or wanted to show more independence from the palace. This fits in with the fact that they all belong to one family which held the office throughout the dynasty. The second sangas in contrast seem to belong to different families and people linked to the Marduk temple seem to take over the office. The Marduk cult of course refers to the capital and the dynasty. It is no wonder then that they are much more sensitive to royal influence in general and successions in particular. 6. The Second Sangas as Sangas of Aja The second sangas start out as sangas of Šamaš, without any distinction in title with the first sangas, until, under Abi-ešu, Marduk-mušallim son of Marduk-nāir, has the title sanga Aja added to his name in the texts. On his first seal he has no title, only the title of his father is given, as we concluded in our discussion of this sanga. In

iii. conclusions

216

his second seal this new title appears for the first time in a legend. The first impression of this seal we have is dated Ad 2. We do not know why this change is operated and can only guess it is related to the (re)organisation of the temple. The movement towards Aja was initiated under Apil-Sîn when the first sanga Warad-Sîn had declared himself to be a servant of Aja. Then, under Samsu-iluna, this same sanga chose the name of a previous first sanga for his son but changed this from Annum-pī-Šamaš to Annumpī-Aja. The change of title of the second sangas is no doubt a further mark of this evolution ending in the adoption of the title sanga Aja by the second sangas under Ammi-ditana. There may be even more to this. When we consider the second sanga who introduced the new title we must observe that he is not just a member of one of the families who held this office but the son of a sanga of Marduk. This could be relevant here because we know that the usus of naming the second sangas after the head god’s consort

already existed in the Marduk temple. In fact, we have a very good example of this with our eighth second sanga Išme-Sîn, who, under Samsu-iluna, started out as a sanga of arpanītum, the divine wife of Marduk, according to the legend of his first seal. It took some time before this usage was taken over but it may be significant that it happened when another son of a sanga of Marduk became second sanga.

3. The Legends of the Temple and Gagûm Officials It is not possible to draw any general conclusion from the legends of the four officials given above because they all have different titles: a doorkeeper, an overseer of the nadiātum, a court sweeper and a messenger. Furthermore they belong to different families. Their legends can be schematised as follows:

Fig.

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Servant of

Ilum-mušallim

12

N

T

T (continued)

—

no servant line

Būr-Nunu

13

N

T

P

—

Ebabbar (btw. figures)

Damu-galzu

14

N

T

T (continued)

S

Šamaš and Aja

Adad-rēmēni

15A

N

T

T (continued)

S

Šamaš and Aja

15B

N

P

S

—

Ebabbar

”

Nothing out of the ordinary. We remark that on those seals where the title is inscribed on two lines because it is too long: ì.du8/ká ga-gu-um, kisal. lu/é.babbár.ra and rá.gab/šá é ga[gûm], no patronymic is given, as if the second line of the title pushed out the line with the patronymic. Where the title takes only one line (Būr-Nunu and the second seal of Adad-rēmēni) the patronymic is added. Again, there seems to be a preference for three line legends on these early seals (they date from Immerum to Sabium). The servant line is absent on the first seal only. On the next one, that of Būr-Nunu, it was added between the figures; the three other seals all have the servant line. Ilum-mušallim and Būr-Nunu both had seals with three framed lines. Since Ilum-mušallim’s title took two lines there was no room left for a servant line. For Būr-Nunu the servant line was added between the figures. Both Damu-galzu and Adad-rēmēni (seal A)

had four line legends. Since their titles took two lines, the patronymic was left out. Adad-rēmēni had a private seal with three lines which allowed him to state his name, patronymic and allegiance. In conclusion, the most expandable item seems to be the patronymic. On the seal of Damu-galzu it is stated that his title is court sweeper of the Ebabbar which makes a servant line devoted to the Ebabbar tautologous, instead the gods of the Ebabbar, Šamaš and Aja, are chosen. Seal A of Adad-rēmēni states that he is messenger of the Gagûm and here too the gods of the Ebabbar are chosen for the servant line. The reason may be that the ‘institution’ to which he was affiliated was already mentioned in his title. On Adad-rēmēni’s second seal no title is given but the connection with the Ebabbar is indicated in the servant line. We know from one text, CT 8, 29a dated Apil-Sîn, that he used this second seal without title although the text does give his messenger title.

iii.b. the legends of the sangas and officials 4. The Father’s Seal Another puzzling point is that a number of sangas, both first and second ones, use their father’s or their predecessor’s seal, exclusively, before or after their own. There were similar situations for the overseers of the nadiātum. Ninšubur-mansum first used his father’s seal without title although he himself had the title already. Only later does he use his father’s seal with the title. His son will use this second seal (i.e. his grandfather’s) throughout. Sîn-bāni first uses a seal without title and when he becomes overseer he uses a new seal, with a title; he then changes this for another one, differing by the inversion of two lines and then, once, at the very end, he reuses his first seal, without title, although he is still overseer. Which means this subject certainly is not specific for the sangas and would need a broader treatment, outside of the scope of the present study. We will only summarize here what the contribution of the sangas is on this point. Seven out of twenty four sangas use their father’s (or, in one case, predecessor’s) seal during a part or the whole extent of their office. First Sangas The table below gives an overview of the available data as well as the dates we have for the attestations of the different seals. First sanga III. Lipit-Ištar IV. Warad-Sîn V. Annum-pī-Aja X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

Fahter’s seal

Own seal

Sle—Sa

AS

AS—Sm

Sm

a 30—Si 7

a 8—18

Ad 32

A 3—11

Among the first sangas there are four using a seal other than their own. They are the first sangas III, IV, V and X. Although it may seem that this is one type of practice, there is an important difference. The first two and the last sanga start with their father’s seal but Annum-pī-Aja (V) starts with his own seal and, somewhere in the middle of his career, has a new seal made with the name of his father which he then consistently uses until the end. This same seal is used during the sangaship of his successor Šamaš-tappašu but not necessarily by him, since on the documents where it appears, he is not mentioned in the text. We argued above that this could be a sign (the only one we have) of an institutional use of a sanga seal.

217

Returning to this use of a father’s seal we may wonder whether this practice was not more widespread than we can observe. Is it possible that our scanty documentation misleads us? Would it not be possible that all of the first sangas (except Annum-pī-Aja) started by using their father’s seal? Do the gaps between our data allow this? For Annum-pī-Šamaš (I) we only have two seal impressions and Šamaš-tappašu (II) is attested with only one. In view of the scarcity of attestations we cannot exclude they also started by using their father’s seal. We know for a fact that sangas III and IV started with their father’s seal. Annumpī-Aja (V) is an exception (but might he be the exception that proves the rule?). Between Šamaštappašu (VI) and his predecessor there could be a gap of one year at most. If this belongs to his career and not to his father’s, he could have used his father’s seal during this—very short—time. Is it possible that the practice continued with sangas VII, VIII and IX? For Warad-Sîn (VII) too there would have been only one year at the most to use his father’s seal. The last attestation of his father is Si 24/11 and the first one of his own seal is Si 25/12. Compared to the ones who certainly use their father’s seal, this is very short. Annum-pī-Aja (VIII) is first attested, with his own seal, in Ae “e”. If this is the fourth year of Abi-ešu there is an eleven years gap between this and the last attestation of his father Warad-Sîn. If a sizeable part of this gap belongs to Annumpī-Aja he could have used his father’s seal for some ten years. Sîn-iqīšam (IX) has an even longer undocumented time span in which he could have used his father’s seal. His predecessor is attested until Ad 5 and he is first attested, with his own seal, from Ad 20. If he started his sangaship in Ad 6 he would have had fourteen years during which he could have used his father’s seal. Quite surprisingly, the documentation would allow that every first sanga (except Annum-pīAja) started by using his father’s seal. The time spans during which they could have done so vary widely, which means that there certainly was not a fixed number of years during which they used their father’s seal before using their own. The practice, which certainly was applied by some and maybe more if not all, must have been based on something else than a fixed term. To find out what this might be, we will now take a closer look at those sangas who certainly did use their father’s seal.

218

iii. conclusions

The first one to do so is Lipit-Ištar, son of Šamaš-tappašu. Under Sumu-la-El and Sabium he uses his father’s seal, under Apil-Sîn his own, although the precise transition is not known: it could be towards the end of Sabium or at the beginning of Apil-Sîn. If we count one Sumula-El year and all of Sabium, he changed seals after some fifteen years in office. The change could coincide with the beginning of the second sanga office (somewhere under Sabium) or a new reign (Apil-Sîn). The reason for the change could be one of these two circumstances or something of a more personal/familial nature. His son and successor, Warad-Sîn (IV), also starts by using his father’s seal, during Apil-Sîn and some years into Sîn-muballi. The number of Apil-Sîn years could be five, because his father is attested until AS 13. Warad-Sîn is attested in Sm 13 but whether this is his last year or not we cannot say: his son appears in Sm 17. This is really too vague to allow any calculation. In this case there is certainly no correlation between the start of his own seal and a new king. Annum-pī-Aja (V), son of Warad-Sîn starts out with his own seal, attested from a 8 to a 18, (a minimum of) ten years. Surprisingly, he then has a new seal made to the name of his father which he will use during twenty-one years, from a 30 onwards until Si 7, the end of his career. He is attested as sanga from Sm 17 on, so he used his own seal during twenty-two years (until a 18). The large gap of twelve years in our textual documentation between a 18, last use of his own seal, and a 30, first use of his new father’s seal should be added in part to the one and the other but in what proportion we don’t know. This transition cannot be correlated with the accession of a new king. Above, we have seen that the transition in the seal use of this sanga is contemporaneous with a change in the servant line of the legend: from now on this will be devoted to the king. We have surmised that the first sangas may have shown some resistance to this. Annum-pī-Aja then abandoned his own seal (with a devotion to Aja) and had a new one made, not with a devotion to the king but a copy of his

father’s seal (with a devotion to Aja). The use of a father’s seal was not exceptional (although not in this way) and may have allowed him not to comply with the new royal expectations. Šamaš-tappašu (VI), son of Annum-pī-Aja, uses his own seal, but the new seal his father had made to the name of Warad-Sîn, Šamaš-tappašu’s grandfather was also used. This happens twice, typically when Šamaš-tappašu was not present (and not mentioned in the text)10. It may be that this was some kind of an institutional use of a sanga seal but the practice does not seem to have been very successful since outside of these two attestations there is no other occurrence of it under later sangas. Ilšu-ibnīšu (X), son of Sîn-iqīšam, is the last one to use two seals. At the end of Ammi-ditana he uses his father’s and under Ammi-aduqa he starts using his own. This change is probably marked by the mention of his patronymic in the witness list of the first text in which he uses his own seal. This mention signifies the return to the tradition of father—son succession, broken by his father. The eleventh sanga follows what now might have become a usus probably in his first attestation too. We do not think this change was prompted by the fact that the seals of the sanga by then included a servant line devoted to the reigning king which had to be changed at the advent of a new king. We saw above that the first sangas probably did not do this. In conclusion there does not seem to be a clear and single reason why some sangas used their father’s seal, apart from the marking of the tradition within the family. However, if this were the main reason, why didn’t all sangas use their father’s seal? And what determined the change to their own seal? It was certainly not a set period of time. We will now take a look at the second sangas and then try to combine all this.

10 One might think there was a similar situation with the overseer Būr-Nunu. Although he is not mentioned in the text, his seal was impressed on CT 8, 28a and in a lower

position than is usual for him. However, this is different. It was done during his lifetime.

Second Sangas The second sangas who use a predecessor’s or father’s seal are:

219

iii.b. the legends of the sangas and officials Second sanga 3. Šumu-Sîn 7. Sîn-bāni 9. Sîn-erībam 12. Marduk-nāir

Predecessor’s seal

Father’s seal

Own seal

AS—Sm

—

AS

—

a 37

a 30

Si 25

—

—

—

A 11

—

Šumu-Sîn (3) starts by using his private seal once and then always uses his predecessor’s seal. Sîn-bāni (7) uses his own seal once in a 30 and his father’s twice (on two related documents) in a 37. This is doubly remarkable. Not only is the use of his own and his father’s seal inversed, just like the first sanga Annum-pī-Aja, but his father is a sanga of Marduk. Somewhere between a 30 and 37 he exchanges his own seal with the mention of his title of sanga Aja for his father’s seal on which the title is sanga Marduk. Why would he have done this? We cannot imagine he could not have afforded a new seal to his name if he had lost his own seal. This must have been a conscious change. What could have been its aim? The main difference between the two seals is that in the second one a reference is made to the Marduk temple. Would Sîn-bāni have wanted to emphasize the Marduk-links of his family? We will come back on this point in our general conclusions. Sîn-erībam (9) is attested in two texts only and on one of these we find the only preserved seal rolled by him: it is the seal of his predecessor Išme-Sîn. Since no text gives his patronym we do not know the exact relationship between both. The length of his career is difficult to establish: it could have been anything from two months to twenty eight years as we calculated above. This means there could have been plenty of time for him to use a seal to his name. Marduk-nāir (12) has left us one attestation of the seal he used. This is his father’s seal. For him too we have no idea of the length of his career, so he could have used a seal to his name later. Although we have quite a number of texts, attestations are too few to allow really precise conclusions. Three second sangas exclusively use their predecessor’s/father’s seal but the (possible) length of their career would allow for quite some time in which they could have used their (unattested) own seal. One second sanga first uses his seal and then his father’s sanga of Marduk seal. Summarizing all this we can distinguish three practices of seal use by the sangas (first and second):

– most do not seem to use their father’s seal ever – some seem to use only their father’s seal – some start by using their father’s seal and then after a varying number of years switch to their own – two (one first and one second) reverse this: they first use their own seal and then their father’s

When we divide the sangas over the first three practices we must be aware that our (lack of) attestations can be deceiving. It may seem as if some only use their own or their father’s seal because our documentation is incomplete. A Hypothesis Is there a way to explain practices one, two and three? We propose the following hypothesis. When a sanga took office he received and used his father’s seal if his father was still alive. When the father died a new seal had to be made and this was to the name of the new sanga. The sangas who always seal with their own seal became sanga after their father died. They never got to use his seal. The ones who always seal with their father’s seal did so because their father lived until the end of their career. The ones who started by using their father’s seal changed this to their own when he died. The same explanation does not seem to hold for the two sangas of the fourth practice. They both use their father’s seal after their own but in both cases there is something special going on. Annum-pī-Aja does not really use his father’s seal. He uses a seal with his father’s legend which his father himself had never used. So he does not really use an old seal but has a new one made. His motive is not known. Above we proposed that this may have had something to do with the expected apparition of the king’s name in the servant line, and a way of avoiding this. Sîn-bāni shows the same sequence of seal use. The father’s seal he uses is special for another reason: it very clearly marks the relation with the Marduk temple. He is the first one for whom a connection with the Marduk temple can be made: the son of a sanga of Marduk becomes second sanga of the Ebabbar. It must be that after a

iii. conclusions

220

number of years Sîn-bāni wanted to stress this connection even more and there was a means at hand to do this: the use his father’s seal. Could we go one step further here and suppose that the same practice applied in the Marduk temple? The father would have transmitted his sangaship of Marduk to one of his sons, a brother of Sîn-bāni. This son would have used his father’s seal during the time his father was still alive. When the father died, the brother would have made and used a seal to his own name. From that moment on, the father’s seal could have been used by Sîn-bāni to mark his family allegiance and his link to the Marduk temple.

In both cases we interpret the unorthodox use of a father’s seal as a conscious means to stress something: a reluctance to acknowledge the king in temple matters or an eagerness to express the connection with the Marduk temple. 5. More than One Seal Several sangas, as well first as second ones use more than one seal with their name in the legend. This was not always a matter of having lost their seal, as we saw above. We first give an overview of all instances:

First Sangas IV. Warad-Sîn VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

4A 4B

same11

Lamma (left) facing legend king with a mace (right)

8A 8B

same

king as adorant? king as adorant

Official Adad-rēmēni

15A 15B

with title without title

king with a mace (right) king with a mace (right)

Second Sangas 4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

17A 17B

inversion of 2 lines

king with a mace (right) king with a mace (right)

6. Sîn-iddinam

19A 19B

no legend

animal contest Lamma (right)

7. Sîn-bāni

20A 20B 20C

father’s own with legend animal contest

Lamma (right) Lamma (right)

8. Išme-Sîn

21A 21B 21C

sanga of Šarpanītum sanga of Šamaš ìr a sanga of Šamaš ìr Si

(not preserved) king with a mace (right) king as animal bearer (right)

10. Marduk-mušallim

22A 22B

son of Marduk-nāir son of Sîn-erībam

king with a mace (right) figure with kerchief (right)

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

23A 23B

ìr Ammi-ditana ìr Ammi-aduqa

(not preserved) lady with kerchief (right)

Several situations must be distinguished. As has been remarked, Warad-Sîn, first sanga IV, never used the second seal with his name. This had been made for his son, for reasons presented in our conclusion A. Whereas Warad-Sîn himself had a seal with a Lamma which was quite new in his time, his son, who had the second seal made in order, e.g. to stress continuity and tradition, chose for a less original figure, that of a king with 11 By which we mean that the text is the same, but in all cases some signs are written differently and the spacing between the signs is different.

a mace. In fact this sanga does not belong in the group of the ones who had two seals, he only used one. Annum-pī-Aja did use two seals with the same legend, unfortunately on his seal A, only an arm remains. This is not enough to decide whether this could be an original lady with kerchief or a king in adoration like on his seal B. If it were the king then the two seals would be contrasted

iii.b. the legends of the sangas and officials by having the same figure but on opposite sides of the legend: a nice way of having a new seal with nothing new vis à vis the old one but which could be distinguished from it by the place of the figure. We see no other reason for the existence of this new seal than the loss of the previous one12. The case of Adad-rēmēni is not difficult to understand, he had a seal without his title and one with it. We refrain from using the term ‘private seal’ for the former since we do not believe that this was more private than the other one, nor do we believe that the seal with the title was a ‘professional’ seal. The remarkable point here is that, in Sa 2 he uses the seal with his title of messenger (rá.gab), but further under the same king and the next two, Apil-Sîn and Sîn-muballi, he uses his seal without the title, although, according to one witness list, under Apil-Sîn (MHET 66) he is still a messenger and according to another one (MHET 61), still under the same king, he is/ becomes a doorkeeper (ì.du8). If he had two seals, why not both with a title? He could already have had a seal before he became a messenger. When he acquired the title, he had a new seal made, mentioning his title. When he subsequently lost this seal, he might have gone back to using his old one. Šalim-pāli-Marduk has a new, very similar, seal made on which only the order of the last two lines of the legend differs: ìr Marduk / sanga dutu becomes sanga dutu / ìr Marduk. It is difficult to imagine that the rearrangement of these two lines would have been a reason to have a new seal made. He must have lost or broken his first seal, had a new one made with the same seal design but took this opportunity to have his legend rearranged. The change of the order of the lines brought the legend more in conformity with the standard pattern. It is clear from the height of both seal impressions that this was not the same seal stone. Sîn-iddinam and Sîn-bāni each had one seal 12 Loss of a seal, a very small object, is not too difficult to imagine and is documented in texts, cf. Hallo (1977) and Klengel (1968).

221

with a legend but we suppose they both used a seal with an animal contest once, without a legend, in between the attestations of their own seals. This must be a matter of not having their seal available at the time of these two transactions. For Sîn-bāni’s use of his father’s seal we refer to the previous section. Išme-Sîn has a new seal cut when he changes from sanga of arpanītum to sanga of Šamaš and another one when the advent of a new king necessitated a change of his servant line. The situation is different here. No need to suppose a seal stone was lost or broken. Išme-Sîn really wanted new seals and used a different scene on each of them, as far as we can see. He wanted them to be different and distinguishable. There is a possibility that we have a trace of a sanga between seals here. Išme-Sîn uses his seal B for the last—attested—time on a 43/1/– (CT 47, 47a) and he uses his new seal, dedicated to Samsu-iluna, for the first—attested—time on Si 7/1/28 (OLA 21,9). In between, his name appears as second on the witness list of a text dated Si 7/1/12 (Di 2121). His seal, however, was not impressed on this tablet, sealed by the other witnesses, starting with the first sanga. Could it be that his new seal had been ordered but was not ready yet and that he did not want to use the older one, dedicated to ammu-rabi, anymore? Marduk-mušallim too wanted different seals for a very good reason, if our interpretation about his adoption is right. When he changed his patronymic, he wanted to mark this change in his seal design too. He now belonged to a sanga family. For Etel-pī-Nabium the situation probably was the same as for Išme-Sîn: he wanted to change his seal to mark his allegiance to the new king. We only have the legend of his first seal so we do not know whether his change of seal would have prompted him to change his seal design. He may have wanted to mark the change and would then, just like Išme-Sîn, have chose another scene.

222

iii. conclusions

iii.c. the sealing practice of the sangas

223

III.C. THE SEALING PRACTICE OF THE SANGAS Our study of the attestations of the different sangas and their seals has provided us with a precise indication of the places on the cases and tablets where their seals were rolled. These were of course not haphazard and certain patterns were described for individual sangas. We can now summarize all these separate findings and, since our corpus spans over two centuries, see if general patterns emerge, evolving through time. It is clear that if these patterns exist they are part of the general sealing practices of their times. Our study can only contribute in a modest way to such a broader view. Previously sealing practices have been studied and the basic work in this respect is of course the 1977 collection of contributions on seals and sealings published by McG. Gibson and R. D. Biggs. The chapter by P. Steinkeller in this volume (41-53) allows us to gain some chronological perspective. He collected 123 Ur III sale documents, of which 63 have preserved their sealings. On all of these documents a party, a guarantor, an official or—astonishingly—even the object of a sale (being a slave) are the only sealers. No witnesses seal. This, then, is how it all started. In the same volume, R.M. Whiting comments on sealing practices on house and land sale documents at Ešnunna in the Isin-Larsa period (67-74), where he singles out a sale between private persons but sealed by a palace official. He remarks that in this case the witnesses do not witness the sale but the sealing by the official. Here too the witnesses do not seal the document. Which means that the sealing of documents by all or a substantial number of the witnesses is a characteristic feature of the Old Babylonian period. In the volume in honour of E. Porada, M. KellyBuccellati (1987, 136) gave interesting observations on some sealed Terqa documents, roughly contemporaneous with Samsu-iluna of Babylon. She states that “Usually when the seller does seal the document his seal is the topmost seal on the left margin or edge”. By which she means the top of the left margin or the upper edge, as is clarified further. She adds “After the uppermost rolling we may have rollings of witnesses, indemnified witnesses, or even names not otherwise mentioned in the text, in no special order.” A very interesting point is that in Terqa case tablets are sealed

as well on the case as on the tablet. Usually—but not always—the same seals appear on both and not necessarily in the same order. The implication is that, besides the party to the contract, there is no set order for the witnesses who seal. C. Wilcke published a number of contracts in his 1983 article and compared the order of the names in the document with the order in which the sealings appear on it. One of his conclusions (p. 63) was that the ‘verpflichtete Partei’ sealed on the upper part, followed by the witnesses. E. Klengel-Brandt (1986) had likewise concluded that on VAT 712, dated by the oath to Sîn-muballi, some of the heirs had sealed on the upper edge whereas the sealing witnesses did so on the left margin of the obverse and on the lower edge. As a result of her study of sealed documents from the collections of the British Museum dating from ammu-rabi’s time, B. Teissier (1988) was able to specify this further: “The place and order of sealing by witnesses can be followed approximately in certain documents [...] but there appears to be no designated place or order for non-witnesses to seal. In sales, the seller’s seal(s) can be found on the lower or upper edge of the tablet, but not necessarily so” (p. 111), and ”... in long term documents persons of high status sealed first, but not necessarily in strict order” (p. 114). There is one pattern that seems to be described here as a rather unchanging one: the party seals on the top edge or the top of the left margin, the others seal below without any set order. The sangas can add something specific here. In the texts of our corpus there are two kinds of sealing instances: the party/parties to the transaction described in the text and the witnesses. Within this last category the sangas clearly occupy a very specific place. In nearly all cases they are the most important witnesses, listed first and sealing first. Their easily observable presence will allow us to further specify the general sealing practice.

1. Stage 1: Upper Edge or Top of Left Edge Im At first, there is only one sanga of Šamaš. He appears in the witness lists at the head of a group of temple personnel. Most often the person

224

iii. conclusions

immediately following him is an overseer of the nadītum priestesses. We only have two cases with the seal impression of the first sanga Annum-pī-Šamaš. On one of them, VS 8, 5, he seals on the upper edge. On the other one, BDHP 14, he might also have sealed there, but this part of the case is lost, we only have his seal on the top of the left edge. The other witnesses follow under him on the same left edge. It is of course possible that we find the sanga at the top of the left edge because someone else, maybe a party to the contract, sealed on the upper edge. A third case, MHET 7, might have added something to this, were it not that both its upper and lower edges are lost. Of Šamaš-tappašu, the next first sanga, we have no impressions of his seal by himself. The case of CT 45, 2, the only one we have for this sanga, has lost its upper edge but the top of the left edge is sealed by the overseer of the nadiātum, which implies that the sanga must have sealed on the upper edge.

2. Stage 2: Upper and Lower Edge, Lower Edge Alone Sle–Sa–AS–Sm With the next sanga, Lipit-Ištar, who starts his career under Sumu-la-El, our documentation improves. We have no less than fourteen cases with seals. Until somewhere in the reign of Sabium, we still have one sanga, mostly followed by the overseer of the nadiātum. We have six sealed cases from this period and, although not all of them are complete, enough remains to conclude the following. The sanga still seals on the upper edge, but the second witness, the overseer, now seals on the lower edge. This means that the ‘natural’ order, from the upper edge downwards, is abandoned in favour of the two opposite edges for the two main persons witnessing and sealing the document. This might indicate that the second witness position became more important and was consciously singled out. This, in turn, leads to a new development. Within the reign of Sabium, the function of ‘second in command’ after the sanga has now gained so much in weight that a second sanga position is introduced. It is perhaps no coincidence that, at this same time, Sippar is definitively made part of the kingdom of Babylon. This may

have boosted the importance of the Šamaš temple, necessitating an enlargement of its administration. It may also mean that Sabium (re)organized this powerful institution. The second sanga continues the practice of the former second witness, and seals on the lower edge. The main point is that the two sangas seal on opposite sides of the case. The fact that their order is inverted a few times under Apil-Sîn, with the second sanga on the upper edge and the first one on the lower, simply means the scribe (unintentionally) held the tablet upside down when sealing and has no special meaning. On two cases, one dated under Apil-Sîn by the oath and one precisely in his thirteenth year (out of his eighteen year reign), this opposition seems to be abandoned and both sangas seal on the lower edge. What happened here is that the upper edge was sealed by the party to the contract, in these two cases the testator and the seller. There was no more room there, so the first sanga went down to the next best place: the lower edge. This way, the contrast with the other witnesses was maintained. The implication is that both sangas sealed on the lower edge only when there was no sealing room on the upper edge because a party to the contract had sealed there. The next first sanga, Warad-Sîn, son of LipitIštar, is well documented too with no less than fifteen sealed cases. The opposition between upper and lower edge is maintained during the rest of Apil-Sîn and the beginning of Sîn-muballi. Of the three preserved examples two are inverted, with the first sanga on the lower edge. Already under Apil-Sîn, however, another pattern emerges.

3. Stage 3: Back to Upper Edge and Top of Left Edge or Upper Edge Alone AS–Sm–a 30 Still during the career of the sanga Warad-Sîn, the two sangas start sealing on the upper and the left edge or both on the upper edge. The lower edge is abandoned. Two cases show this pattern under Apil-Sîn and nine others under Sîn-muballi. In one instance the sanga’s daughter (not mentioned in the text) seals with him on the upper edge, pushing the second sanga to the top of the left edge and margin. Under his son, the sanga Annum-pī-Aja, this practice is continued. This is our best attested sanga of all: we have 61 texts mentioning him,

iii.c. the sealing practice of the sangas among which 24 have sealed cases (to which five broken ones can be added). The sangas go on sealing on the upper edge (and the top of the left edge) on tablets dated from a 1 to 30.

225

and last first sanga, Sîn-aam-iddinam, seals as debtor of a silver loan on one tablet only. As a party to the transaction he seals first at the top of the left edge.

5. Conclusions 4. Stage 4: Left Margin and Edge, after the Parties to the Contract a 30–A A new factor is introduced: more and more, a party to the contract seals on the upper edge, pushing the sangas further down to the top of the left edge or left margin of the obverse. In a good number of cases, there is no second sanga mentioned in the witness list (and no seal of his on the case). In two instances the second sanga Išme-Sîn is second witness but his seal is not to be found on the case. The next sanga, Šamaš-tappašu, is less well documented, with only four sealed cases. The same pattern is continued. A new phenomenon appears here. In two texts no sanga is present but the seal of a former first sanga is rolled on the lower reverse of the tablet, a very untypical place for a sanga seal. What is more, this is the seal of the grandfather of the sanga in office. We surmised above that this seal may have been used as a kind of institutional guarantee in absentia of the sanga. Still conforming to the prevailing usage, the seventh and eighth sangas, Warad-Sîn and Annum-pī-Aja, are attested with three and five sealed cases respectively. The party seals on the upper edge, the sanga(s) on the left edge and/or left margin. Under Annum-pī-Aja, on one case certainly and maybe more (three are broken), the upper edge is unsealed: the parties start sealing on the left edge/margin. Of the ninth sanga, Sîn-iqīšam, we only have two sealed cases. The same pattern is further followed with the parties sealing on the upper edge and if necessary on the top of the left edge/margin followed by the two sangas. The tenth sanga, Ilšuibnīšu, seals on nine preserved cases. On two of these we find the first sanga’s seal on the upper edge but this is not an exception: in these two texts he is a party to the contract. In one case the upper edge is unsealed again. Nūr-Kabta is the eleventh one. He appears on one sealed tablet only, where his seal is missing but must have been rolled on a now broken place of the left margin, after the sellers and before the second sanga. The twelfth

There are only a few outstanding sealing places on (the case of) a tablet. The most obvious ones not covered by the text are the edges. The upper edge, the lower one and the left one. Another obvious place, although not always present, was a left margin on the obverse and the reverse of a case not used for writing but specifically reserved for seals. Such a margin was never used on a tablet and was thus a distinguishing mark of a case, insofar that when a new tablet type was developed, the so called “Quasi-Hülle”, a solid case without a tablet, slowly but never entirely replacing the earlier case tablets, this margin was always applied. Of these obvious places, the most outstanding were no doubt the upper and lower edges of the case, with a preference for the upper edge, being on top when the tablet/case was held to be read. It is not surprising then, that when the seals of the most important persons had to be rolled, these two edges were singled out for them. Who were these most important persons? They were either one of the parties to the contract recorded on tablet and case, such as the seller, testator or donator, or the first witness, especially if he was a sanga. This corresponds very well to our first stage of seal practice, under Immerum, where the few examples we have, indicate that the sanga or, maybe, a party to the contract sealed the upper edge. The sealing order then follows the left edge downwards, the lower edge and, in some instances, the lower reverse. This same pattern is picked up again in our third phase of sealing practice. The second phase is the odd one out. Why would this be so? This is because in this phase the left edge/margin is felt to be less important. Only two places count: the upper and the lower edges. As described above, this second phase starts by moving the second witness, the important overseer of the nadiātum, to the lower edge. In the light of our interpretation, this means he is singled out, a practice which no doubt reflects the greater importance this function acquires over the years. It soon becomes important enough to warrant

iii. conclusions

226

the creation of another sanga post. This second sanga naturally continues to seal on the lower edge. Towards the end of this phase, we see parties to the contract sealing and when they do so, they seal on the upper edge. Both sangas then seal on the lower edge. Although this is very difficult to ascertain, it seems that during our second phase, no parties to the contract ever seal, the sangas were so important that their seal had to be rolled on the most important place, thus excluding the parties who could, logically, not seal after the witnesses. Sippar texts not mentioning sangas show that, under Apil-Sîn and Sîn-muballi, in those instances where we can identify the seal of a party to the contract, it is either on the upper edge or the lower edge. The first witness then occupies the other place (lower edge or upper edge). This means that during this time parties did indeed seal texts but seemingly not when sangas were witnessing and sealing. It is only at the end of our second phase that the parties appear again, sealing together with the sangas. It could of course also be argued that our view is biased by the limits of the available material and that it is a coincidence that during a good part of our second phase no parties seal. In the third phase, the practice reverts to the old one: the exclusive importance of upper and lower edges is abandoned and the sequence of seals again goes from the upper edge downwards

1

6. A Word on Inversions In eleven exceptional cases the order of the sangas is inverted in the witness list or in the sealing order. We have grouped the instances of inversion below in two tables according to the kind of inversion:

Sanga 1

Sanga 2

Witness

Sealing s1

Sealing s2

Reference

Date

Lipit-Ištar

Sîn-ennam

s1—s2

Lo.E.

U.E.

CT 47, 7a

AS

2

Lipit-Ištar

Sîn-ennam

s1—s2

Lo.E.

U.E.

MHET 66

AS

3

Warad-Sîn

Šumu-Sîn

s1—s2

Lo.E.

U.E.

MHET 60

AS

4

Warad-Sîn

Šumu-Sîn

s1—s2

Lo.E.

U.E.

MHET 112

Sm 1

5

Warad-Sîn

Šumu-Sîn

s1—s2

Lo.E.

U.E.

MHET 85

Sm

We already suggested above, in our description of Stage 2 of the sealing practice, that the inversion between upper and lower edge for the seals of the sangas was a matter of holding the tablet upside down, not a way of expressing an inversion in the ranking of the first and the second sanga. The main aim was to have the seals on opposite sides.

1

via the left edge/margin are. We find the sangas seal on the upper edge if no party to the contract seals, otherwise they seal on the left edge/ margin. The lower edge has definitively lost its special value. A word can be added about the sealing practice as it appears from the material studied here. It seems that the scribes were the only ones to roll the seals on cases and tablets. The seals were handed over to them and they determined where each seal would be rolled. In doing this they always selected the legend—if there was one—as the main part to be impressed on the tablet. There seldom was enough space to impress a whole seal and this is the reason that we do not have complete impressions of some of the sanga seals even if we have many attestations of some. The scribe had a very good idea where to impress the seals of the parties and the first witnesses; the order of further witnesses was much less strict.

As can be seen in the table above, this is substantiated by the fact that the sangas are given in the normal order in the witness lists. No inversion was ever meant in these cases. It is another matter when the order of the sangas is inverted in the witness list. This cannot be other than a wilful and conscious intervention.

Sanga 1

Sanga 2

Witness

Sealing s1

Sealing s2

Reference

Date

Warad-Sîn

Šumu-Sîn

s2—s1

[...]

[...]

TCL I, 63

AS

2

Warad-Sîn

Šumu-Sîn

s2—s1

—

—

TLB I, 222

d.l.

3

Annum-pī-Aja

Šalim-pālišu

s2—s1

[...]

[...]

Di 2029

Sm 17

4

Annum-pī-Aja

Šalim-pālišu

s2—s1

—

—

Sip 10

Sm

5

Annum-pī-Aja

Šalim-pālišu

s2—s1

—

—

Sip 77

Sm

iii.c. the sealing practice of the sangas

227

Unfortunately, in none of the four cases above do we have sealings preserved which could show what happened to the sealing order. Two pairs of sangas are concerned. In our treatment of them in Part II we saw that 3-5 were the

very first attestations of Annum-pī-Aja and that 1 and 2 could be the first attestations of WaradSîn. What could be the matter here? A glimpse at our graphic representation of the chronological sequence of the sangas will clarify this:

As can be seen on this schematic drawing, the beginning of the career of Warad-Sîn and that of Annum-pī-Aja have something in common: they start when a second sanga had already been in function for a number of years. There is only one other instance of this: Šamaš-tappašu starts as a first sanga when Išme-Sîn is already a long standing second one. Why don’t we have an inversion for him? The answer might be very simple. These inversions are only attested at the very beginning of the career, maybe in the first year only and between the last attestation of Annum-pī-Aja and the first one of Šamaš-tappašu there is a gap of a maximum of two years. With some bad luck,

precisely the first text (or few texts) is lost, preventing us from observing the inversion here too. Why, in this situation of an experienced second sanga and a freshly appointed first one the order was temporarily inversed, we can only guess. Was there a transitional period at the beginning of a first sanga career in which he already had the title but was not fully sanga yet? The last three cases have the normal order in the witness list but invert the sealing order of the sangas, just like our first group. However, this cannot be a consequence of holding the tablet upside down, the seals are rolled on upper edge and left edge/margin:

iii. conclusions

228 Sanga 1

Sanga 2

Witness

Sealing s1

Sealing s2

Reference

Date

1

Warad-Sîn

Šumu-Sîn

s1—s2

L.E./L.Mg.

U.E.

CT 8, 29a

AS

2

Annum-pī-Aja

Etel-pī-Nabium

s1—s2

L.Mg. 2

L.Mg. 1

BM92644A

a

3

Annum-pī-Aja

Sîn-iddinam

s1—s2

top L.E.

U.E.

Di 2142

a

The inversion on the first one is reinforced by the parallel inversion in the sealing order of Damiqtum and Lamassi (see our chapter on the sanga’s daughters). Damiqtum is a daughter of the first sanga Šamaš-tappašu and thus the aunt of Warad-Sîn, first sanga and first witness in this text. Lamassi is a daughter of Sîn-ennam, predecessor of Šumu-Sîn, second sanga and second witness in this text. Damiqtum is seventh witness and Lamassi eighth. This order no doubt corresponds to their links with the first and second sanga respectively. The order of their seals, however, is inversed just like that of the first sangas: Lamassi seals second on the left margin/edge (just under first sanga Warad-Sîn) and Damiqtum’s seal is the third one there. As CT 8, 29a is only dated by the oath, it can be situated anywhere in the reign of Apil-Sîn. We have placed it at the very beginning, after TCL I, 63 because there can be no doubt that the inversion was intentional. The same reasons can be adduced for the inversion of the seals, the witness list already has the normal order. The second one also has a certain inversion: Etel-pī-Nabium’s seal is rolled twice on the left margin before that of Annum-pī-Aja, although their names are given in the normal order in the witness list. The text can be dated by the oath only to the reign of ammu-rabi. If we are looking for a special circumstance, it could be situated at the beginning of the career of Etel-pī-Nabium, which started at the end of Sîn-muballi. We only have one earlier text of this second sanga, CT 8, 39a (still under Sîn-muballi) which unfortunately has no seals. The question then remains why a long standing first sanga would cede his place to a new second one. Could this be a mistake?

Di 2142 has the same type of inversion but, as we saw above in our chapter on Annum-pī-Aja first sanga V, this is the very first text on which Annum-pī-Aja rolls the new seal with his father’s name. Something special happened there. The new seal is not rolled on the upper edge, as Annumpī-Aja had always done with his own seal, but this happens just the once, after this the normal sealing order is followed again. In fact, inversions also happen for other officials such as the messenger/doorkeeper Adad-rēmēni and the overseer of the nadiātum Ninšuburmansum. Although the overseer normally comes after the sangas and before other temple personnel in the witness lists, in a certain number of texts this order is inversed, specifically for these two. We have no seal impressions to verify this in the order of sealing. The remarkable point is that, as soon as Adad-rēmēni’s son Kalūmum takes over, the normal order is restored as it was just before Ninšubur-mansum. Here too, Adad-rēmēni is the older one and Ninšubur-mansum a newcomer. Again, this is a phenomenon that requires a broader investigation, not possible within the limitations of the present one. In conclusion, we have found out that there are two reasons why inversions can happen. Either the inversion is not a real one: the scribe rolls the seals of the sangas on the opposed lower and upper edges in one order or the other, or we have a real inversion. This seems to be linked with special circumstances such as a new first sanga starting when a long standing second one is still present or (in the case of Di 2142) when Annum-pī-Aja has a new father’s seal made and starts using it. CT 8,35b/BM 92644A remains unexplained.

iii.d. the sanga as witness

229

III.D. THE SANGA AS WITNESS 1. For the Priestesses Only It goes without saying that the vast majority of the texts witnessed by the sangas of Šamaš are texts in which nadītum priestesses of Šamaš play a prominent role, from the beginning of the Old Babylonian period onwards. There is an apparent exclusivity here because the sangas never witness transactions of other persons holding office in the Šamaš temple. The reason is that we have left-overs of nadītum archives but we have no archives of other temple personnel. A rapid perusal of the texts where the overseer of the nadītum priestesses (ugula lukur) or the doorkeeper of the gagûm (igi.du8 ká gagîm) appear, shows that their role is also that of a witness, the few exceptions being lists in which they probably receive rations. Their role as witnesses is linked to their institutional affiliation. Whether they had other wealth, owned fields or houses, we do not know, in the absence of any more or less fully recovered archive of one of them. It is even possible that, since they ranked under the sangas, they had less access to means of personal enrichment and were more dependent on temple rations. The sangas witnessed property deeds of rich nadītums. These documents were preciously kept and carefully transmitted from one archive to another as the property itself was sold, exchanged or inherited and it is in this way that the names of the sangas mentioned on them as witnesses were also preserved. In other words, the sangas (and other temple functionaries) are visible to us mainly because they witnessed economically important transactions. This is where two worlds meet: the sangas witnessed these texts because the nadītums belonged to the temple realm and the

texts were preserved because their subject matter belonged to the secular realm. Indeed, the nadītums, occupied a unique and well attested position in Old Babylonian society in that they partook of these two worlds: the temple and the (mostly) rich bourgeoisie. But there was a price to pay for this position in each of these worlds. Unlike the temple personnel, they did not receive rations from the temple administration. On the contrary, they had to provide for themselves and even bring in their own meat, flour and other comestibles when religious festivals were held, as is shown in their real estate sale contracts where they have these products delivered by the buyer, as an additional payment besides the price. Further proof to this effect is provided by the Samsu-iluna letter published in Janssen (1991), in which the king puts a stop to women becoming nadītums without adequate endowment, i.e. sustenance, from their families1. For their day to day needs they had to be provided for by their kin. In their worldly context, they were not allowed to bear children, in a society where offspring were highly valued. There was a very good economic reason for this: they were the depositaries and managers of a part of the family estate that would be kept and transmitted undivided (and hopefully even enlarged) back to the family, often to a nadītum niece. This economic role, an antidote to the inexorable divisions of family property at every inheritance, may even have been the main reason for the existence of the nadītum institution, the religious aspect being an ideological justification.2 On the positive side, their nadītum title provided them with a high social status and, as stated above, they received wealth from their fathers,

1 In the absence of food provided by their family, they were fed from the karê ša bēlīni, “the stores of our lord (the king)”. This is a little surprising since, because of their religious status, we would expect the temple to provide for them. However, the two can be reconciled if we interpret this as an indication of the measure in which the palace was considered to be the owner (and provider) of the temple stores. 2 If this is the main reason—and more research should be done before it is possible to ascertain this—this implies

that all nadītums represented in the first place the interests of their families, rather than those of the gagûm. This gagûm would then be (or have become) an ideological way of embedding this practice in society. The titles attached to it such as the overseer (ugula lukur) or the doorkeeper (ì.du8) could then be an extension of the institutional framework of the temple, providing a structure for the ideological construct gagûm. We do, of course, not mean to imply that the gagûm had no material structure: (small) houses and a gate are documented, no doubt part of the temple quarter.

230

iii. conclusions

in the form of landed property, houses, slaves, cattle... and could augment this wealth during their lifetime by selling and buying real estate and reinvesting their profits. These transactions were of course all put in writing and who better to be first witness to them than people belonging to the same institution but with the highest authority in the temple hierarchy, the sanga? The problem of their sustenance, when they grew older, normally solved by offspring, was solved in their case by the appointment of an heir, either a brother, a nadītum niece or, less frequently, a slave who was freed, in return for a regular allowance.3 The presence of so many records of nadiātum in modern museum collections may be due to the fact that illicit digging chanced upon their archives but we do not think this is the main reason. The many sale documents of real estate, the inheritances and donations we have, naming these women, originated in their archives but did not stay there. These documents moved again and again to the archives of the persons who subsequently inherited or otherwise acquired these properties, until they were thrown away as unnecessary documents preceding a (new) ummātum point4 or until they were prevented from moving any further by catastrophic events such as those encountered by Ur-Utu, galama of Annunītum in A 18, when his house burnt down and he had to flee the city. Why did so many of the nadītum documents reach these last archives and none of the sangas’ own property deeds (or those of other temple personnel)? We think this is due to a double cause: there were many more nadītums than sangas and, no less important, it was the aim and function of the nadītum status to enlarge the familial estate through astute investment, i.e. acquisition of land. Furthermore, each transmission of real estate to a nadītum from her father or from her nadītum aunt, had to be put in writing as an exceptional situation, whereas an inheritance between males could be valid without a written document as it 3

For the care of the elderly, see Stol 1998. The distinction between the living archive and the documents thrown away is of course often lost forever when these tablets were retrieved through illicit or insufficiently documented ‘archaeological’ digging. Illicit excavations, not taking into account whether tablets lay on a floor or beneath it (no doubt according to the general archaeological principle, musically so harmoniously proclaimed by two American voices, that one tablet’s ceiling is another one’s floor), often misleads us into thinking that all recovered tablets are (always) part of a living archive. When transmissions 4

was a normal situation. The ownership could be justified by the inherited acquisition titles and their dossiers.

2. Developing Wealth? We might wonder whether the sangas did not occupy a situation similar to that of the nadītums. As remarked above, in a very few cases we are allowed a glimpse into their ‘private’ affairs and can observe they own fields and houses. That we do not have any of their sale contracts is no doubt due to the fact that no sanga archive has yet come to light and that, if some of their sale documents have travelled into other archives, these archives have not been unearthed either. This is not so very surprising, taking into account that during the nearly three hundred year long Old Babylonian period, we count only twelve first and twelve second sangas, in all twenty-four persons out of several thousand documented ones: priestly needles in the Sipparian haystack. An interesting fact is that the earliest (indirect) reference to a sanga’s real estate is dated Sm 13. Before that we have nothing, although we know that contracts concerning real estate are kept longer than any other genre. This is no doubt due to our very incomplete documentation or the fact that these very ancient property deeds would be discarded after some time as unnecessary documents preceding an ummātum point. There might also be another reason. We know, from the archive of the galamas of Sippar-Amnānum, that the higher personnel of the temple also received rations from the institution. We also know, from the same source, that towards the end of the Old Babylonian period, Inanna-mansum and his son Ur-Utu owned large tracts of land, some inherited but others no doubt bought with the profits generated by the temple money that passed through their hands. It is not impossible that, at the very beginning of the Old Babylonian period, the sangas just lived of their of real estate are concerned, there is an added factor: discarded documents will be buried in or under a floor and never again move to another house. Their former companions, the tablets still necessary in the chain of transmission (i.e. the šurdê tablets, situated between the ummātum point and the last sale of the unchanged field) continue their travelling ways and move from house to house. What was once together is forever separated. Fate can cause illicit digging to find only discarded tablets or only ‘still moving’ ones, or both. For us it is very difficult and in fact most often impossible, to separate these.

231

iii.d. the sanga as witness rations and only progressively accumulated more wealth. This could explain the absence of real estate ownership until Sîn-muballi.

3. To Witness or Not to Witness The vast majority of texts witnessed by the sangas are nadītum texts. This may not lead us into thinking that all, or even most, of the nadītum texts were witnessed by the sangas. Precise numbers cannot be given here because this would require the establishment of the corpus of all nadītum texts5 and its division over the different genres. This falls outside of the scope of the present study. What is certain, however, is that far from all of the nadītum texts are witnessed by the sangas. If not all of them are witnessed, we may wonder whether this is related to the genre of the texts. A first and most evident supposition would be that important texts, such as transfers of property through sale, inheritance, donation, etc. would more easily be witnessed by a sanga than more ephemeral ones, such as rents or loans. We will first examine this assumption.

Type of contract

Im

Sle

4. The Types of Texts Within our corpus, we have identified eleven types of contracts represented by more than one text, and five represented by one text only. Our categorization is not very detailed but, we think, sufficient for our purpose here. References to the different texts would have implied lengthy footnotes, instead we have added a listing of our corpus ordered by the broad category for each text in our Annex II. Here, we give an overview. The total number of texts in which sangas appear is 186. Not counting six broken or unidentifiable texts, we have a total of 180 documents mentioning sangas of Šamaš. From these we have to subtract eight more texts in which the sangas are present but not as witnesses6 (see our treatment of these texts above in A.1. Sangas not as witnesses). If we group them by genre, we see that nearly all of them deal with property (sales, inheritances, donations, adoptions, litigations and their conclusions recorded in uppi lā ragāmim, sustenance texts,7 weddings, exchanges of real estate and freeing of slaves). Only four texts witnessed by the sangas are not directly related to the acquisition or ownership of property. We list all of them below by genre in decreasing order of frequency.

Sa

AS

Sm

a

Si

Ae

Ad

2

10

138

21

159

4

510

A

Total

Texts related to acquisition of property Sale real estate

2

3

Inheritance

1

2

3

11

1

18

7

1

Donation

2

5

3

1

2

1

Adoption

1

4

3

1

Litigation

1

1

2

uppi l. r.

1

Sustenance Wedding

1

1 1 2

1

1

111 3

75 44 2

1 1

16 11

1

7 6 2 2

(continued on next page) 5 A task less easily accomplished than one would think, even when using our prosopographical database of Old Babylonian Sippar. Indeed, very often the title lukur dutu is omitted in the texts and it is only through comparison with other texts that women can be assigned to this group. 6 VS 9, 42/43, Di 312, Di 984, Di 821, Di 1674, MHET 906, MHET 702. ballerini 1908/9, 562 has a sanga as a neighbour of a field but also two sangas as witnesses, BM 96982 has a sanga responsible for a kisal.lu but another sanga as witness. 7 There is an indirect relation with property: when one nadītum promises to provide subsistence to another one

(mostly niece and aunt) or when a slave promises to do the same for her mistress, this is generally rewarded with an inheritance. 8 Including VS 8, 21, a very broken text about 1 sar of real estate whose formulae are broken. 9 Including Di 312, an excerpt of five sale contracts, all acquisitions by Lamassāni daughter of Sîn-iddinam. 10 Including one certificate, i.e. the document drawn up at the time of the sale when some necessary documents of the chain of transmission were lacking. 11 This is in fact a ‘disadoption’: a person who had been adopted earlier is now rejected due to serious misconduct.

iii. conclusions

232 (cont.) Type of contract

Im

Sle

Sa

AS

Sm

a

Si

Ae

Ad

A

Total

Other sales

212

2

Exch. real est.

1

1

Freeing slave Real estate

1

1

13

1

Total

4

8

9

32

1 23

47

28

7

7

3

168

1

2

Texts not related to acquisition of property Field lease

1

Loan Consignment

1

1

14

1

Total

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

2

3

2

2

Texts in which the sanga has another role than witness Field lease Hire div. weap. Loan

2

Harvest labour

1

Total

1

2 1

1

6

8

1

2

5

10

12

185

Fragments15 Fragments and?

1

1

General total 4

9

10

32

24

48

29

7

The chronological distribution roughly reflects the general distribution of documentary texts: a general rise up to ammu-rabi, decreasing afterwards, with a marked dip under Abi-ešu and an increase under Ammi-ditana. The fact that there is no mention of a sanga of Šamaš under the last king of the dynasty, Samsu-ditana, should not worry us unduly since this can be easily explained by the scarcity of texts dated to this reign.16 A very rough estimate shows that the sangas witness about one third of all known Sippar inheritance contracts, donations and adoptions. Of all known sales, they witness a little more than one seventh. The difference between both groups is of course that the former one contains many more nadītum texts than the latter.

At any rate there is no single genre of texts that was always witnessed by a sanga of Šamaš.

12 One sale of a slave and an ox (CT 8, 35b) and a sale contract whose object is broken (PBS 8/2, 261). 13 This text, TLB I, 222, is too broken to allow further identification of the genre. 14 šūbultum in Akkadian. 15 One fragment is undated. 16 Pientka 1998, 511 counts 35 Samsu-ditana texts from Sippar, out of a total of 675 for the four last kings of the

dynasty. In the meantime we have collected 68, still a very modest number. 17 There are two more texts mentioning a sanga: Di 1128 (Ad) in which Etel-pī-Nabium, second sanga, leases out a field and OLA 21, 6 where the same second sanga leases out a divine weapon. The first one is only the tablet, its case would have held the seal, the second one is sealed by him. Since no sanga is a witness, we do not discuss them here.

5. Uncharacteristic Genres A remark must be made here concerning the four texts witnessed by the sangas but not relating directly to property. Loans and field leases are ephemeral documents. They do not belong to the category of documents of property transfer, so why did sangas of Šamaš witness and seal them? What does a closer examination of these texts17 reveal? If we classify them according to the witnessing sanga(s), the picture becomes clearer.

233

iii.d. the sanga as witness First sanga

Second sanga

Type of contract

Reference

Date

III. Lipit-Ištar

—

Loan from Šamaš

CT 6, 40c

Sa

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šamu-Sîn

Field lease

TCL I, 203

[Sm]

8. Išme-Sîn

Harvest labour

OLA 21, 9

Si

Consignment

Di 933

Ad

Field lease

Di 1147

A

—

18

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Are these texts special in some way that would justify a sanga seal? The earliest one, CT 6, 40c, dated under Sabium, is a loan of 24 shekels of silver, characterised as a tithe (ešrētum). This is borrowed from the god Šamaš and is given to an individual for his ‘release’ (ana ipterīšu). At harvest time barley will be returned to Šamaš. The first two witnesses are the sanga and Adad-rēmēni, ‘messenger’ (rá. gab) of the gagûm since this text dates from before the existence of the second sanga. Although there are other loans from the god Šamaš, none is witnessed by the sanga. The special circumstance here seems to be that the tithe of the temple is involved. What is meant by the ‘freeing’ we can only guess: is it the release of a prisoner or the ‘unbinding’ of some other obligation, such as expressed by e’iltam paārum (Janssen 1991a)? The early field lease TCL I, 203 has no date or oath but is datable by the presence of personnel from the Ebabbar, headed by the to sangas. Why the sangas witness this otherwise run-of-the-mill lease contract is not clear. The fact that a nadītum of Šamaš is involved is significant but not sufficient to necessitate the presence of the sangas. There must have been extra-textual circumstances to occasion this. The harvest labour memo, OLA 21, 9, dated Si 7, is a small tablet, just giving the number of 24 harvesters, followed by three names, probably responsible for them. Although no sanga is mentioned in the text, the seal of the second sanga was rolled on it. This could be because the harvesters were meant to work for the Šamaš temple (which is not stated in the text). It is tempting to deduce from occurrences like this one, that there was a division of responsibilities between the first and the second sanga. We could suppose that the second sanga was the one who organised the harvest on temple fields, but testis unus... The consignment (šūbultum) document Di 933 states that an amount of silver, šūbultum of 18 The second sanga, Etel-pī-Nabium, is conveyor of the silver.

Inanna-mansum, galama of Annunītum, will be taken by Etel-pī-Nabium, sanga of Aja (our eleventh second sanga) to Babylon, to Šumumlibši, sanga of arpanītum. Out of all the similar documents we have in Ur-Utu’s archive, this is the only one witnessed by a first sanga. The reason must be the involvement of the second sanga as transporter and the sanga of arpanītum as receiver, also a unique occurrence in our corpus. We note, again, a relation between the Šamaš and the Marduk temples. The field lease Di 1147 concerns a large field of 1.2.0 iku in the ugārum Birīt nārim. The field is rented from a family by a scribe. The rent is 8 gur per bur and 2 shekels of silver have already been received. There is nothing out of the ordinary with this text, nothing that would justify a sanga of Šamaš witnessing it. The only odd thing is the presence of this text in the archive of Inannamansum galama-Annunītum. No one in it seems to be related to the galama family. The exceptional witnessing by the sanga of the Ebabbar and the fact that it was deposited in the archive of the galama may indicate that, here too, there were extra-textual circumstances distinguishing it from the run-of-the-mill field leases. In conclusion, as could be expected, sangas also seal texts connected to the Šamaš temple, which is the case for the loan of tithe money, the consignment, and maybe the harvest labour contract. For the field lease no reasons can be found in the text. In all, this harvest is very meagre. We would expect the sangas to witness many more texts involving the Ebabbar. Why are there so few? Because most of them would be strewn about in different private archives. Of these four, two were found in the archive of the galamas, and this is the only Old Babylonian Sippar archive excavated scientifically. We can then consider that the haphazard way in which most of the Sippar texts came to light, through clandestine, unsystematic ‘excavations’, is the main reason why we

iii. conclusions

234

do not have more of temple related documents witnessed by the sangas.

6. No Rules In general and as could be expected, the sangas witness important texts concerning property. The transmission of property of a nadītum, in particular, seems to be the most compelling reason for the presence of a sanga of Šamaš as a witness. But even this is far from an absolute rule. There is no genre of contract that is always witnessed by a sanga. Why did the sangas not witness all of these documents? Several reasons can be adduced. First of all and most obviously, the sanga had to be available. He could be otherwise engaged, out of town or even ill. Second, he could choose to distribute his favours selectively, accepting to witness only for nadītums belonging to the most influential families.

This last supposition is not really supported by the facts. Our corpus of 168 texts witnessed by sangas of Šamaš contains texts belonging to nearly as many different persons, in most cases nadītums. As the texts have come down to us, there are not many nadītums who have more than one of their documents witnessed by a sanga of Šamaš, although we may have five or six or even ten real estate texts from them. A good example is uzalatum, daughter of Akšaja, documented from Apil-Sîn to a 14. In all, we have eleven texts in which she buys real estate19. Only the last one, MHET 172, dated a 14, is witnessed by the sanga of Šamaš.

7. Nine Nadītums There are only nine other nadītums out of well over a hundred who have, among their texts, more than one witnessed by a sanga of Šamaš. We list them here.

1. Erišti-Aja, Daughter of Ilšu-ibbīšu Reference

Date

TLB I, 21820 TJDB pl. 49

21

VS 9, 216/204

Sanga 1

Sanga 2

AS

Lipit-Ištar

Šamu-Sîn

AS

”

”

d.l.

[all witnesses lost]

[all witnesses lost]

Although we only have the first part of her name in the first two references and her father’s name is only partly preserved in the second one, we can be fairly certain this is the same nadītum. The third reference is a division of inheritance in which we find the names of more members of her family. We will never know if it had sangas as witnesses too, since the witness list is completely broken on tablet and case. She is also attested in CT 33, 26b (a 11) where she lends 1/2 shekels of silver to another nadītum, no sangas are witnesses.

A person of the same name, with the same father’s name, is mentioned in MHET 434 where she buys an unbuilt plot (é ki.gál). This text is dated Si 20 which would stretch her lifetime to the extreme: if we count a few years of Apil-Sîn, add the 18 years of Sîn-muballi, the 43 years of ammu-rabi and 20 years of Samsu-iluna, this makes for a lifetime of about 85 years, counting from her first economic activity not from her birth.

19 Under Apil-Sîn, she buys a field (CT 8, 31a). Under Sîn-muballi she buys a field (CT 47, 13), an unbuilt plot (é kisla) (CT 47, 20) and a house in alalla (BDHP 40). Under ammu-rabi she buys a ‘tower’ (an.za.gàr) (CT 47, 25; a 3), a threshing floor (CT 47, 28; a 6), a field (CT 47, 32; a 11), a field and a tower (CT 47, 33; a 12) and another field (MHET 172; a 14). Finally, she is mentioned in two contract registers without a date (CT 45, 111 and 113). There are no sangas, nor other temple personnel, witnessing any of these texts, except for MHET 172 (sanga). As far as

we can see, the two contract registers do not refer to any of the other uzalatum texts. A similar list could have been drawn up for uššutum, daughter of Sîn-puram of whom we also have eleven texts, of which only one is witnessed by a sanga of Šamaš (CT 8, 35b; a). 20 The second part of her name is broken but in view of the father’s name and the date, it must be her. 21 The second part of her name and the end of the father’s name are broken but the identification is certain.

235

iii.d. the sanga as witness 2. Salatum, Daughter of Utu-duga CT 45, 112

Sm

Lipit-Ištar

Šumu-Sîn

MHET 926

[Sm]

Warad-Sîn Šalim-pāli-Marduk

It is not certain at all that these two references mention the same Salatum. There are several nadītums of that name. We give these two references because they are close in time. In CT 45, 112, a Salatum leaves her inheritance to a Šāt-Aja, whose father will be her heir. In MHET 926, a Salatum, daughter of Utu-duga22, buys a house in the city, ina kidîm, from two sons of Sîn-iqīšam23. 3. Bēlētum, Daughter of Akšak-iddinam Di 1907

Sm

Warad-Sîn

Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Di 2017

Sm

Warad-Sîn

Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Di 2029

Sm 17

Warad-Sîn

Šalim-pāli-Marduk

In Di 2017 Bēlētum, daughter of Akšak-iddinam buys an empty plot of 3 2/3 sar from one of her brothers. In Di 1907 Rībatum, daughter of Nergal24iddinam swears not to claim this plot any longer from Bēlētum. Di 2029 is a sale contract in which Bēlētum sells another plot to Lú-natum, son of Utu-mansum, a forefather of Ur-Utu. There are no further attestations of this lady. 4. Erišti-Aja, Daughter of Rubbuqum MHET 15825 a 10 Annum-pī-Aja

Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 47, 43

—

a 33 Annum-pī-Aja

MHET 158 is the sale of a house in the gagûm by Warad-Nanna to our Erišti-Aja. In CT 47, 43 she buys a field (0.1.3 iku) alongside the Amurru (or western) road (kaskal mar.tu). In MHET 355, dated Si 6 she is a witness to an agreement concerning a common wall of a nadītum and two men. The witness list is headed by the doorkeeper of the gagûm, Šamaš-lamassašu.

22

Correct MHET 926 accordingly. In CT 8, 25a, dated Sm 7, she is mentioned as a neighbour of Aja-šarrat, probably with this same house ina kidim. 23

5. Šerikti-Aja, Daughter of Šamaš-liwwir Di 1430

a 32

Annum-pī-Aja

Sîn-bāni

Di 1438

a 39

Annum-pī-Aja

Išme-Sîn

According to Di 1430, she buys an unbuilt plot of 4 sar in Sippar-Amnānum (Sippar gula) from Erišti-Aja, another nadītum, daughter of Sînmāgir. In Di 1438 she exchanges a house of 1 1/3 sar next to her own, also in Sippar-Amnānum for another one, owned by another Erišti-Aja (daughter of Šamaš-rabi). 6. Bēltāni, Daughter of Sîn-māgir MHET 180

a 15

Annum-pī-Aja

Sîn-iddinam

BDHP 66

a 32

Annum-pī-Aja

Sîn-bāni

VAS 13, 16

Si 2

Annum-pī-Aja

Išme-Sîn

In MHET 180 she is appointed heir to Bēlēssunu her aunt, daughter of Mutum-El, and will inherit a field (next to that of the palace), a house in the gagûm and five slaves in exchange for sustenance (regular deliveries of foodstuffs). BDHP 66 is part of another inheritance document of Bēltāni. In VAS 29, 16 she buys a field from another nadītumī, Niši-inīšu daughter of Šū-pīša. 7. Narāmtum, Daughter of Ubar-Šamaš CT 45, 26

a 33

Annum-pī-Aja

Sîn-bāni

CT 47, 47/47a

a 43

Annum-pī-Aja

Išme-Sîn

In CT 45, 26, Narāmtum, daughter of Ubar-Šamaš sells a field in Burâ to another nadītum. In CT 47, 47, she bequeaths her possessions (among which another field in Burâ, maybe what was left over from the previous sale) to her brother, in return for his support in her old age. This last text is witnessed by the princess Iltāni and another lady, followed by the sangas and other temple personnel.

24

Written u.gur. MHET 158 transcribes ru-┌tu┐ [...] which might be ru-┌ub┐ [...]. 25

iii. conclusions

236

8. Erišti-Aja, Daughter of Lu-Ninšubur.ka Di 2100

a 37

—

Di 2016

a 43

Di 2018

Si 3

Di 2122

Si [...]

Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 2117

Si 4

Annum-pī-Aja

—

—

Di 689

Si 1

Annum-pī-Aja

Išme-Sîn

Annum-pī-Aja

—

CT 47, 56/56a

Si 4

Annum-pī-Aja

—

[...]

—

Di 709

Si 9

Šamaš-tappašu

Išme-Sîn

Di 2100 states that she leaves her inheritance, including a house in Sippar-Jarūrum, at the Manungal gate, to her brother, in return for sustenance. This text is witnessed by judges. Di 2016, 2118 and 2017 are her acquisitions of neighbouring houses in the same part of the town. The beginning of the witness list of Di 2018 is broken but might, in parallel with Di 2016 and 2117 also have had Annum-pī-Aja as first witness. Di 212226 Si [...] is a litigation concerning the sale Di 2018, confirming the property rights of Erišti-Aja against the children of the seller.

26

9. Amat-Šamaš, Daughter of Ilšu-ibbīšu

Text discussed in Spaey 1993, 420.

Di 689 is the adoption of a niece by Amat-Šamaš, with donation of property. Di 709 is the inheritance document concerning the same property and between the same persons. Since there are eight years between them, the first sanga has changed in between. In CT 47, 56, Amat-Šamaš buys a field in alala, along the Euphrates, from another nadītum. In CT 47, 79, dated Si 4, she witnesses a large barley loan by a nadītum. Although it is clear that these nine nadītums were wealthy women, there seems to be no precise reason why some of their texts were witnessed by sangas and others were not. Undoubtedly, thorough prosopographical studies would enlighten us, but this is work that remains to be undertaken.

237

iii.e. careers

III.E. CAREERS How long did the sangas hold office? There was no set period of time so this will have been different for each of them. To what extent does our corpus allow us to calculate the lengths of their careers?

(Warad-Sîn)

Immerum I. Annum-pº-fiamaß

II. fiamaß-tappaßu

Sumu-la-El

III. Lipit-Ißtar

Sabium Apil-Sîn

1. The First Sangas We start with an overview. On the right, the distance between two kings is not proportional to the length of their reign. The dotted lines indicate whether the career of a sanga fell within one reign or exceeded it. The table below gives the number of attestations and the first and last dates of these. In most cases there is a gap in our attestations between the sangas, which has led us to calculate a minimum length of their career (= their own attestations) and a maximum one (= between the last attestation of their predecessor and the first one of their successor). Although we should know better, we could not resist the temptation of calculating a mean length of career, being the midpoint between minimum and maximum length. As can be seen in our table, the shortest possible career was about two years (Nūr-Kabta), the longest fifty-five years (both Annum-pī-Aja V and VIII) without any certainty that these were actual career lengths.

IV. Warad-Sîn

V. Annum-pº-Aja

Sîn-muballi†

·ammu-rabi Samsu-iluna

VI. fiamaß-tappaßu

VII. Warad-Sîn Abi-eßu⁄ VIII. Annum-pº-Aja Ammi-ditana IX. Sîn-iqºßam

X. Ilßu-ibnºßu Ammi-saduqa XI. Nªr-Kabta XII. Sîn-a⁄am-iddinam

Attestations

Dates

Length of career

Mean

I.

Annum-pī-Šamaš

4

Im/Sle

?

?

II.

Šamaš-tappašu

4

Sle

10?-15?

12,5

III.

Lipit-Ištar

32

Sle-AS

28—30+

29

IV.

Warad-Sîn

33

AS-Sm

15—21

18

V.

Annum-pī-Aja

63

Sm 7-Si 7

54—55

54,5

VI.

Šamaš-tappašu

7

Si 8-24

15—18y 10m

16,5

VII. Warad-Sîn

8

Si 25-31

6y 5m—nearly 19

12,5

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

9

Ae “e”-Ad 5

30—55

42,5

IX.

Sîn-iqīšam

2

Ad 20-30

10—26

18

X.

Ilšu-ibnīšu

12

Ad 32-A 11

17—19

18

XI.

Nūr-Kabta

1

A 11

?

?

1

A 13

?

?

XII. Sîn-aam-iddinam

176

iii. conclusions

238

Our disappointing conclusion is that a precise career length cannot be determined for any sanga. For a few of them we can get very close: Lipit-Ištar about 30 years, Annum-pī-Aja about 55, Ilšu-ibnīšū about 18 and Nūr-Kabta about 2. The number of attestations is the largest from Sumu-lā-El to the beginning of Samsu-iluna, no doubt a reflection of the number of nadītum property deeds drawn up during this time. The sharp drop from Si 9 to the end of his reign is remarkable in this light.

New archives, still to be unearthed in both Sippars, will no doubt shed more light, as is proven by Ur-Utu’s archive, providing 47 new documents with sangas, or about one third of our sangacorpus as it stands now.

2. The Second Sangas We start with an overview of the second sangas.

Immerum

Sumu-la-El

(Sîn-imitti)

1. Ißar-fiamaß 2. Sîn-ennam

Sabium Apil-Sîn

3. fiumu⁄-Sîn

(Sîn-gåmil)

4. fialim-pali⁄-Marduk

Sîn-muballi†

5. Etel-pº-Nabium (Enlil-a[...])

6. Sîn-iddinam

(Asallu⁄i-mansum) sanga Marduk

7. Sîn-båni

(Ikªn-pº-Uraß)

8. Ißme-Sîn sanga Áarpanºtum>fiamaß

·ammu-rabi

Samsu-iluna

9. Sîn-erºbam

Abi-eßu⁄ (Marduk-nåsir) sanga Marduk

10. Marduk-mußallim Ammi-ditana

11. Etel-pº-Nabium 12. Marduk-nåsir

Ammi-saduqa

239

iii.e. careers The table below gives the numbers concerning these sangas.

1. Išar-Šamaš

Attestations

Dates

Length of career

3

Sa...Sa 13...

?

Mean

2. Sîn-ennam

1

(Sa 14)

max. 17 months

1 year 5 months

3. Šumu-Sîn

32

AS 1—Sm...

19—20... years

20 years

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

17

Sm—Sm 17...

15-19 years

17 years

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

13

Sm—11

10+x—18 years

14 years

6. Sîn-iddinam

6

a 15—181

5—19 years

12 years

7.Sîn-bāni

14

a 30—37

7 years 7 months—20

14 years

8. Išme-Sîn

16

a 38—Si 13

8—30 years

19 years

9. Sîn-erībam

2

Si 25

2 months—28 years

14 years

10. Marduk-mušallim

6

Ae “e”—Ad 5

26—54 years

40 years

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

10

Ad 20—A 5

11—34 years

22 years

12. Marduk-nāir

1

A 11

?

?

121

Here too, no career length can be precisely calculated. The closest we get is for Šumu-Sîn with around twenty years and Sîn-ennam with a maximum of nearly a year and a half. This last one is 1

There is one text (Di 2142) s.d. but which can be situated after a 18 (see our chapter on this sanga in Part II)

also the shortest career. The longest calculated one is fifty-four years (Marduk-mušallim but, again, we have no indication that this was ever realized.

unfortunately with no more precision than between a 18 and 30.

iii. conclusions

240

III.F. THE SEAL STONES Dimensions

are known or can be deduced. The height, when incomplete, can often be reconstructed on the basis of the legend since, in most cases, we know what part of a name, a title or a servant line is missing. The width is another matter. In the seal catalogue conjectures were made and calculated to find out whether more figures than the ones preserved could have been present. Here, these conjectures are not necessary. What we want to do here is to give an overview of all certain (or very probable) measurements we have in order to see if there were any standards of size for sanga seals. So it is only in the very few cases that we have a complete width that we calculate the diameter of the cylinder seal and, combining this with the height, calculate the ratio. Ideally this ratio should somewhat under 2. A lower number indicates that the seal stone was wider than expected, a higher number that it was too thin. In view of the difficulty there is in measuring seal impressions or assembling the measurements from different impressions, the ones we have should be considered as approximate. As stated at the outset of the Catalogue, an important factor to be taken into account here is a slight shrinking of the clay when it dries: the seal stones were thus slightly larger than the measures of their impressions given below. There could also be distortions or double sealings, rendering the measuring difficult. All incomplete measurements are put between round brackets. For the height these are preceded by an estimation of the complete height.

In the descriptive catalogue of the seals we have given the measurements for each of the seal impressions. We derived the diameter from the available width of the impression and on this basis calculated the proportion between height and diameter. As stated there, according to Collon (1981, 12) there is a tendency for Old Babylonian seals to conform to a model with the height of the seal stone being a little more than twice its diameter. This approximate proportion is very useful since, when a seal diverges markedly from it by having a diameter (much) less than half the height, this can indicate a reworked seal. This proportion has of course been established on the basis of seal stones and not impressions of the seals. Impressions are mostly partial rollings of the seal cylinder, and can be incomplete as well in height as in width. It is only exceptionally that we have the complete impression of a seal and even then it is not always possible to determine its width since there can be some blank space before and/or after the scene and legend. It is only when the impression, in one continuous movement, repeats the scene more than once that we can measure the circumference of the seal stone and from this calculate its diameter. In other instances it is through the added data from different impressions on different cases that the information can sometimes be pieced together. The tables below give an overview of the height and the width of the impression as far as they 1. The First Sangas

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš II. Šamaš-tappašu

Dates

Fig.

Height1

Width

Diam.

Ratio

Im/Sle

1

2.1

4.13

1.32

1.59:1

Sle

2

2.46

4.83

1.54

1.61:1

III. Lipit-Ištar

Sle-AS

3

2.4

5.23

1.67

1.44:1

IV. Warad-Sîn seal A

AS-Sm

4

2.67(2.34)

(2.5)

2.3

(2.82)

V. Annum-pī-Aja

Sm 7-Si 7/8

5

2.3

3.1

0.99

2.32:1

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

Si 9-24

6

2.33

(2.50)

seal B

(continued on next page) 1

The heights given include the caps when present since these were fit over the seal stones although they probably extended a little (one or two millimetres) above the seal itself.

241

iii.f. the seal stones (cont.) Fig.

Height1

Si 25-31

7

2.63(1.92)

(2.17)

Ae “e”-Ad 5

8A

2.13 (2.1)

(2.37)

Dates VII. Warad-Sîn VIII. Annum-pī-Aja seal A seal B

”

Width

8B

2.21

2.83

IX. Sîn-iqīšam

Ad 20-30

9

2.2 (2)

(1.5)

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

Ad32-A 11

10

3.12(2.93)

(3.56)

A 13

11

3 (2.7)

(1.1)

X. Nīr-Kabta

Diam.

Ratio

0.9

2.46:1

–

XII. Sîn-aam-iddinam

Can something general be said about these precariously measured and reconstructed dimensions? The height of the seal impressions is situated between 2.1 cm and 3.2 cm with most of them between 2.13 and 2.5 cm. The average is 2.45 cm. This fits in nicely with the 2.5 to 3 cm given as average standard dimensions by d. collon (1986, 12), taking into account the shrinking of the clay. Is it by chance that the last two seals are the tallest ones?

Since the diameters should be slightly less than half these heights we should expect them to lie between 1.05 and 1.6. In our small sample, they indeed vary from 0.9 to 1.67 cm. We have complete measures in a few cases only. The first three seals are rather wide, the fifth one is thin as is VIIIB.

2. The Second Sangas Dates

Fig.

1. Išar-Šamaš

Sa...Sa 13...

—

2. Sîn-ennam

(Sa 14)

16

3. Šumu-Sîn own seal 4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk seal A seal B 5. Etel-pī-Nabium 6. Sîn-iddinam

seal A seal B

7.Sîn-bāni

8. Išme-Sîn

seal A

2.53

(4.33)

AS1—Sm...

—

Sm –Sm 17...

17A

2.1 (2)

(2)

17B

2.37

(2.2)

”

18

2.5

(2.36)

19A

2.2

3.42

1.09

2.02:1

19B

2.3

2.77

0.88

2.61:1

0.53

4.04:1

”

2

(2)

20B

2.14

(2)

seal C

”

20C

2.14

1.67

seal C 10. Marduk-mušallim seal A seal B seal A seal B

Ratio

a 1—11

20A

seal A

Diam.

a 15—18

”

9. Sîn-erībam

12. Marduk-nāir

Width

seal B

seal B

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Height

a 30—37

a 38—Si 13

21A

2.2(1.7)

(1.73)

”

21B

2.2

(2.68)

”

21C

2.23(2.37)

(2.7)

Si 25

—

Ae “e” –Ad 5

22A

2.6

(2.66)

” Ad 20—A 5 ” A 11

22B

2.47(2.27)

(2.6)

23A

2.4(2.26)

(1.6)

23B

3.2(2.2)

(2.63)

—

iii. conclusions

242

CAPS2

Here too, only very few complete measurements can be made. The three for which a ratio can be calculated all are thin to very thin. This could be a result of recutting the same sealstone. In the case of Sîn-iddinam’s seal B there is a slight difference in height with seal A but if we attribute this to the error in measuring impressions vis à vis seal stones, a recut becomes possible, especially since the diameter of seal B is 0.21 cm smaller than that of seal A. Seal C of Sîn-bāni has the same height as seal B and although we do not have the diameter of B we know that C was very thin. The mean height of the second sanga seals is 2.35 cm, the smallest one being 2 and the tallest 3.2 cm. This makes them slightly smaller on average than the first sanga seals. Again, the latest seal is by far the tallest.

As can be seen on the drawings of the seals, a number of them had caps, which, when rolled on the tablet produced a band which could be undecorated, have lines or be decorated with granulation. This granulation can only be applied on golden caps (Collon 1987, 110). In general, as remarked by D. Collon (ibidem), Old Babylonian seals did not often have ornamental caps. Their presence on a number of sanga seals thus singles them out as special. The surprising fact is that not all sanga seals had such caps. Below we have listed the seals of our corpus with an indication concerning the presence or absence of caps. Many of the impressions are incomplete and do not allow us to see the borders of the seal, these we have indicated by a question mark. The certain absence of caps is indicated by a dash.

1. The First Sangas Dates I. Annum-pī-Šamaš

Caps

Im/Sle

1

—

Sle

2

undecorated

II. Šamaš-tappašu III. Lipit-Ištar

Fig.

Sle-AS

3

—

seal A

AS-Sm

4A

—

seal B

a

4B

—

V. Annum-pī-Aja

Sm 7-Si 7/8

5

undecorated

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

Si 9-24

6

—

VII. Warad-Sîn

Si 25-31

7

?

Ae “e”-Ad 5

8A

with lines

8B

with lines

IV. Warad-Sîn

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja seal A seal B

”

IX. Sîn-iqīšam

Ad 20-30

9

?

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

Ad 32-A 11

10

with granulation

XI. Nūr-Kabta

A 11

—

(no seal known)

XII. Sîn-aam-iddinam

A 13

11

?

2. The Second Sangas Dates

Fig.

Caps

1. Išar-Šamaš

Sa...Sa 13...

—

(no seal known)

2. Sîn-ennam

(Sa 14)

16

—

AS 1—Sm...

—

—

Sm—Sm 17...

17A

—

17B

—

3. Šumu-Sîn own seal 4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk seal A seal B

”

(continued on next page) 2

110.

For an overview of the use of caps, see Collon 1987,

243

iii.f. the seal stones (cont.) Dates 5. Etel-pī-Nabium 6. Sîn-iddinam

seal A

7. Sîn-bāni

seal A

a 1—11

18

undecorated

19A

— (animal contest)

” a 30—37

seal B

”

seal C

”

seal B seal C 10. Marduk-mušallim seal A seal A

We thank D. Collon for this remark.

20B

undecorated

20C

— (animal contest) ?

”

21B

undecorated

”

—

—

(no own seal known, uses 8.C)

Ae “e”—Ad 5

22A

undecorated

” Ad 20—A 5 ” A 11

There seems to be a tendency to have more caps towards the end of the period but there are too many uncertainties to conclude anything. It is remarkable that the contemporaneous first sanga Ilšu-ibnīšu and second one Etel-pīNabium had caps decorated with granulation on their seals. Unfortunately our corpus does not allow us to see whether this example was followed by their successors. Granulation seems, in any case, to be a late development which carried on into Kassite times3. When a first sanga has two seals, these both have no caps (IV) or caps with the same lines (VIII). For the second sangas the situation is not

3

?

21C

seal B 12. Marduk-nāir

?

Si 25 seal B

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

19B 20A

21A

a 38—Si 13

9. Sîn-erībam

Caps

a 15—18

seal B

8. Išme-Sîn seal A

Fig.

22B

with lines

23A

with granulation

23B

?

—

(no own seal, uses 11.B)

as clear. Sîn-iddinam probably uses two seals. It is not surprising that on a seal without legend, an animal contest, which he may have used, there are no caps. Sîn-bāni probably used three seals. The seal with an animal contest which he probably used has no caps. His second one has caps but the impressions we have of the first one do not allow to see whether it had caps. Išme-Sîn has a seal of which we do not know if it had caps, one with caps and one certainly without. The last one was made because the servant line was changed to acknowledge the accession of a new king. The new seal has a different scene but we have no idea why it did not have caps.

iii. conclusions

244

III.G. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS The Seals We began our introduction with the question that lay at the basis of our investigation. We wondered whether, during the Old Babylonian period, some people had distinctive seals revealing by their design the function or social role of their owner. At the end of our search we can answer this question in the negative. Even the sangas did not have seals with a scene that could instantly and without doubt be recognized as typical for sanga seals. As far as our investigations go, we can even propose that no profession or social group had distinctive seals in this sense. What we learned was that our initial question had to be rephrased in order to get a meaningful answer. Seal impressions are legally valid attestations of presence and responsibility. As such the primary quality of the seals must be their distinctiveness: no two seals may be identical. It was up to the seal cutter to combine the elements of his register in ever different scenes (but, as pointed out by D. Matthews [1990, 120], not with unlimited freedom). In this sense the first part of our initial question can be answered positively: not some people but everyone who had a seal had a distinctive seal. It is the second part that was shown, throughout these pages, not to be true. The distinctiveness is not related to a group of people, be they institutionally or socially defined. Nevertheless, even this last point has to be nuanced. It is true that neither scribes, merchants nor sangas had seals identifying them as such but it is also well known that not all seals were created equal. A very visible difference is of course the material the seal was made of. Its physical aspect would have been an immediate indication of its value and could single it out as exceptional. All seals in our corpus are known from impressions only, so this aspect eludes us completely. We can approximately measure the impressions and calculate missing dimensions thanks to D. Collon’s (1981, 12) indication that they tend to be a little taller 1 A rapid search through our seal impressions database produced 38 seals with caps out of 2.330 impressions. It may be meaningful that most of these have no legend. Among the few which have one, some titles are given such as scribe

than twice their diameter. This gave us an idea of the dimensions of the cylinder seals used to make the impressions. As physical objects these seals were really tiny (no wonder they could easily be lost): most of them are just under 2,5 cm and they tend to become somewhat taller towards the end, our tallest being 3,12 cm. They have diameters from 0,53 to 1,67 cm. In this, they are in no way different from all other contemporaneous seals. A special aspect is the presence of caps, surely expensive and a mark of higher status. Here our corpus of impressions gives us an advantage over collections of seal stones which would often have lost—or been robbed of—their metal caps. Unfortunately, the upper and lower borders of the seal are not always impressed. As we saw in our Conclusion F, there is a clear tendency for the sanga seals to have caps—even golden ones in some cases, if the granulation motif is an indication of this—from Sîn-muballi and ammu-rabi onwards (although one capped seal is already attested under Sumu-la-El). We remark that both first and second sangas had seals with caps but neither the overseer of the nadiātum nor the sangas of the Edikuda. This must have been a readily visible distinctive mark but, to our knowledge there is no overview of seals with caps allowing us to find out which people had these on their seals1. Another difference resides in the degree of craftsmanship and general quality of the seal. There clearly were seals finely executed and others more run-of-the-mill. Here we can be short: the seals of the first and second sangas were of very fine quality, as were those of the officials who were second witness before the existence of the second sanga. The seals of the sangas of the Edikuda were of lesser quality. Last but not least there is the seal design. This can be composed of two parts: a scene and a legend. Although in the course of the Old Babylonian period many seals had a legend this certainly was not the case for the majority of them. A seal with a legend was thus something special. In our database of seal impressions we have, up (dub.sar), diviner (máš.šu.gíd.gíd) and a female overseer of the nadiātum, Aja-tallik, daughter of Būr-Nunu (who himself had a seal without caps).

iii.g. general conclusions to now, some 25 different titles on seal legends (the most attested of which is the scribe) and it would be interesting to devote a study to which professions/titles are mentioned on seals and which are not. As for the sangas, both the first and the second ones have seals with legends.2 The high officials who were second witness before the second sangas also had seals with legends (though some also had seals without). The caesura is situated between these and the sangas of the Edikuda in Sippar-Amnānum, none of whom had a seal to his name. The Edikuda certainly was of second rank, the most important temple in Amnānum being dedicated to Annunītum.3 The legend alone would and did suffice to identify the seal owners as sangas of Šamaš but the scene also played a role here. The information from the legend was only accessible to the very few who could read, whereas the figures forming one or more scenes on the seals were ‘readable’ by everyone. It is interesting to follow the relation between legend and scene through the seals of the first sangas. On most other seals these are two separate elements but on some sanga seals a strong link is established between them. Some of the early first sanga seals have a figure holding the framed legend, integrating it in the whole seal design while stressing its presence. Seal three, the seal of Lipit-Ištar must have been the best a scribe could wish: the legend could be impressed on the tablet with just one figure to each side and this would be the complete seal design. This can be seen as the triumph of the legend being the focus of the whole seal design. The next sanga, Warad-Sîn, sets a new trend. He starts using a very common iconography for his two seals: a Lamma facing the inscription and a king with a mace to the right of it. This is the demise of the figurative part of the seal, the legend takes precedence over the standardized figures accompanying it. Once a seal was known as being that of the sanga it could easily be recognized as such, especially since some sangas had long careers and sealed many documents. Having said this, we must not forget that the impressions were made on tablets, a type of object that would normally only come into the hands of

2 Except for the two animal contest scenes, which may have been used once each by a second sanga.

245

its owner or a scribe. We must not forget either that legend and scene must have been difficult to observe for ancient Babylonians on such tiny objects worn by their owners or impressed on tablets kept in private archives. They were certainly never meant to be displayed for the general public. In this way, the social prestige to be gained by one’s seal design is very limited: the seal stone was very small and the tablets were not put on display. This does not mean that the sangas did not choose their seals carefully. They were no doubt very precious to them and a sanga seal was no doubt important even if (or because?) only a very few ever saw one. How did the sangas choose their seals? D. Collon (1987, 103) remarked that “In the Old Babylonian period (..) the majority of inscribed seals seem to have had their designs cut first and the customer would then select the seal he wanted and have the inscription of his choice cut in the place which had been left for it”. This is no doubt the general principle but it cannot be excluded that for very special persons seals could have been made on demand. Whatever the case may be, there was a choice of figures and scenes and a choice of a legend to be engraved. As we have suggested above, we do not think that this choice was made according to the personal whim of the first sangas. We think that, at least the first, non standard, seals were either made especially for them or were specifically chosen. The choices made by successive sangas, we claimed above, constituted a web of intersigillarity, elements of previous seals coming back in later ones, linking the subsequent seals through their distinctive differences. With the first sangas we have a unique opportunity to observe this since they are one family from the first to the last one, throughout the whole dynasty. Indeed, the designs of the seals of the sangas one to three, five and seven are original, combining older and newer elements and, more importantly are interreferential, adding to the connections between these eight sangas. The seals of the fourth and the sixth sanga already announce the disappearance of originality which becomes the rule from sanga eight on. References to earlier seals are no longer made. A rather standard design is used that, though

3 The matter is more complex since we have, in Sippar, seal impressions with legends of a sanga of Sîn and one of Ikunum.

246

iii. conclusions

varying as seal designs should, conforms to the standardized designs of the times. This change is operated in the latter part of the reign of Samsuiluna. A phenomenon that must be seen in a larger context. Seal scenes and legends were thus used to express continuity, especially of course in the line of first sangas. Since this referentiality was of prime importance, the sangas also used other means to achieve this. The use of fathers’ seals and the recurring names of first sangas are two other ways in which this was expressed. The latter will be summarized in the next sections; as to the former, we observed that a number of first and second sangas used their father’s seal, either exclusively or before using their own. We formulated the hypothesis that the seal of the father continued to be used as long as he lived. If he died before his son took over, then the son would only use his own seal, if not he would use his father’s seal until his father died. If the father had not died at the end of the son’s career, the father’s seal would have been used throughout by the son. In two cases a sanga first used his own seal and then his father’s. We saw that Annum-pī-Aja had a new father’s seal made probably to avoid expressing his allegiance to the king. As to the use of his father’s seal by Sîn-bāni, we suppose this was done to stress the link with the Marduk temple of which his father was a sanga. At the end of the period some linking devices disappear: the seal design has become more standardized and the recurring sequence of names of the first sangas is abandoned. Only the use of the father’s seal remains. The second sangas, and their predecessors as second witnesses, come from different families, had different seals and no recurring names (except Etel-pī-Nabium). They only had the use of their father’s seal as a link. Proof, if need be, that family ties were the determining factor. The sangas of the Edikuda have seals of a lower status with no legend and very common figures. It is interesting to observe that a number of first and second sangas subsequently use two seals with their name. They can have a second (or even third) seal because they lost the first one or because they wanted to change their legend. What happens to the seal scene in these cases? When both seals have the same legend (or invert two lines) and analogous figures, we suppose the cause of the change is the loss of the first

seal. When the new seal has a different legend we see that the figures are quite different too, there is a will to show the difference, such as an allegiance to the new king. Finally, our corpus has provided the opportunity to observe the sealing practice of the sangas throughout the whole period. As could be expected, the order of sealing evolves through time. Under Immerum the sanga seems to seal on the upper edge, followed by the overseer of the nadiātum at the top of the left edge. This changes under Sumu-la-El when the sanga still seals on the upper edge but the overseer has now moved to the lower edge. This continues under Sabium but now the second sanga appears, taking over the lower edge. Under Apil-Sîn a new pattern emerges: the sangas now seal together on the upper edge or the upper edge and the top of the left edge. Finally, from a 30 to the end the sangas seal at the top of the left margin and edge, the parties seal on the upper edge. Normally the second sanga seals after the first one but there are a number of exceptions to this rule. In a number of cases the order of the first and second sangas is inverted. Two situations can be observed. The order is the normal one in the witness list but the seal of the first sanga is found on the lower edge and that of the second one on the upper edge. This we interpret as non significant: the sangas had to seal on opposite sides, whether upper or lower. Real inversions, marked in the witness lists can be related to a young first sanga starting his career and an older second one taking precedence for a short time, as if the new first sanga was not fully instated yet.

The Sangas The First Sangas This is the history of one single family who held this office from the beginning to the end of the Old Babylonian period, more precisely from Immerum—Sumu-la-El until Ammi-aduqa. Twelve successive sangas, all father and son except for the last one who was the uncle of his predecessor. The fact that they were one family is expressed in their names. An initial series of four names is repeated twice, in the sequence ABCD, AB’C, AB’, where the title of the founding father, the first A is not known. It is remarkable that only names B and C refer to Šamaš and that, when they are

iii.g. general conclusions repeated, B changes from Šamaš to Aja (whence our ’ after the B) and C is not repeated. This means that out of the twelve first sangas only two had a Šamaš name. These were no names related to the function of sanga, like the Sumerian names of the galamas. We cannot but conclude that there was no intention at all to stress the link to this god but that, through the repetition of names, the whole stress was put on the expression of coherence within one family. An aim that was also pursued through their seals, as we saw above. Under Sumu-la-El and Sabium the title becomes sanga NÍG Šamaš in the texts. This was not originally so, which must mean that this was an intentional change. Syntactically this relative pronoun—written in an unusual way—was superfluous, which means that it was added for reasons of prestige as an artificial embellishment. A similar phenomenon appears later, under Ammiditana and Ammi-aduqa, when .ke4 is added to the king’s name in the servant line of the seal legend. An oversumerization in order to lend pride, pomp and circumstance to the seal. How long were their careers? The results of our investigation are rather disappointing. Only for four of our first sangas can we determine approximately the length of their career. The longest one was Annum-pī-Aja’s with 55 years, then comes Lipit-Ištar with about 30 years, Ilšu-ibnīšu with 18 and Nūr-Kabta with 2. The servant line of their seal tells us something about a change in allegiance, a shift towards the king. At the outset this line expresses the allegiance to the Ebabbar. Under Sabium this changes to Aja, maybe to differentiate themselves from the newly created second sangas who declare their allegiance to the Ebabbar. This change to Aja is also reflected in the name of the fifth sanga who should have been Annum-pī-Šamaš according to the name sequence but is Annum-pī-Aja. Finally the king’s name appears in the servant line under Samsu-iluna. The allegiance is now to the palace. It is added not as an obligation from a precise date onwards but as, no doubt, a pressing suggestion. This last change did not go smoothly, we think. Still under ammu-rabi, the previous sanga, Annum-pī-Aja, started by using his own seal with a servant line dedicated to Aja and then, after a 18, he switches to a seal with his father’s name. There are two remarkable points here: why does he stop using his own seal and replace it with one mentioning his father and why does he not use his real father’s seal but has a new one made? The

247

explanation is to be sought in the contemporaneous changes in the seal legends of the second sangas. Here, also after a 18, the devotion to the king is introduced: Sîn-bāni has a seal on which he is servant of ammu-rabi. As we shall develop infra, the second sangaship seems to be more permeable to outside influences, at least from the Marduk temple, and is the Marduk cult not connected with the dynasty? At the same time the first sanga changes to a new seal. In keeping with the introduction of the king on the second sanga seals we would expect Annum-pī-Aja to have a new seal with ammu-rabi on it, but this is not the case. We interpreted this as a form of resistance to outside—royal—influence and stressing the independence of the first sanga family. We note that his own seal, countering the trend towards standardization set by his father, already had iconographic references to the seals of his predecessors sanga I and III. Obviously, sometime after a 18, he had to do something, he could not just go on using his own seal. So he changed to a new seal but not one that expressed allegiance to the king. On the contrary, he chose one expressing the continuity of the sangaship within his family and what better choice could he make than his father’s seal. Surely not even the king could object to that because he could not expect to be mentioned on an older seal, dating from the time when this custom was not yet introduced. The tricky part is that this was not the real seal of his father, which for reasons unknown he did not have, but a new one, with the exact same legend as his father’s seal but remarkably with another scene. Since he started using this seal in a 30 and the last attestation of his father’s real seal was dated Sm 13, thirty seven years had gone by and probably not many people remembered what the father’s seal had looked like. The legend was the important part because it stated the name and title of the owner and a devotion to Aja, not to ammu-rabi. This same ‘false’ seal was further used in the time of Šamaš-tappašu, son of Annum-pī-Aja but maybe not by him, since neither he nor any sanga is mentioned on the documents on which this seal is impressed. We proposed to interpret this as an institutional use of a sanga seal, documented in two cases only. Towards the end of the line, under Ammiditana things change. The succession goes from Annum-pī-Aja (VIII) to his brother Sîn-iqīšam (IX). Then it goes to Ilšu-ibnīšu (X), son of

248

iii. conclusions

Sîn-iqīšam and to the next generation Nūr-Kabta (XI) but then reverts to Ilšu-ibnīšu’s brother, Sînaam-iddinam (XII). Although the sangaship is still in the same family, the sequence of sanga names is abandoned. The attestations diminish: the last two are attested only once each. Sîn-iqīšam three times. The last one with a good career length and number of attestations is Ilšuibnīšu: about eighteen years and twelve attestations. In our chapters devoted to these sangas we gave a possible scenario for the use of these very common names. If the ones destined for sangaship had died at a young age and their brother, who would unexpectedly inherit the title, already had another name this could explain the change in the name sequence. In this same period two texts from the galama archive in Sippar-Amnānum inform us that silver is lent to the last known first sanga Sîn-aamiddinam in A 13. This might be a sign of economic hardship although testis unus... The Second Sangas We have tentatively linked the appearance of the second sangas to the activities of king Sabium in Sippar. He declares in his eighth year name that he (re)built the Ebabbar, a temple hitherto not mentioned by the kings of Babylon. The conjunction of the appearance of the second sanga and the work on the Ebabbar leads us to see a connection between both. The instauration of the second sangaship could be a royal initiative. The synchronicity alone would not warrant such a conclusion but we shall see there might be other indications connecting this office and the dynasty or the dynastic god Marduk. Under Ammi-ditana their title changes from sanga of Šamaš to sanga of Aja and this may be modelled on the usus of the Marduk temple where a separate sangaship of arpanītum had been created earlier. Career lengths for second sangas are even more vague than for the first ones. Šumu-Sîn has a career of about 20 years and Marduk-mušallim could have been sanga for 54 years...or 26. Family connections between the first five of these sangas are only direct for the last two who are father and son. The other ones all have different fathers except for the ninth one, of whom we have no patronymic. Two of them, the third and the ninth always use their predecessor’s seal. This is an interesting practice which we, again, would

rather link with family ties than with the sangaoffice. If Šumu-Sîn (3) and Sîn-erībam (9) consistently use, and thus must own, the seal of their predecessors Sîn-ennam and Išme-Sîn, we suppose that they must have inherited it. Sîn-erībam could simply be the son of Sîn-ennam. Šumu-Sîn should be related to Išme-Sîn in another way since we have his father’s name, Nūr-Sîn. This is particularly striking for Šumu-Sîn who thus never had a seal to his own name during his relatively long sangaship, whereas others had two or three. This is the more surprising since he had had a previous seal, dating from before he became a sanga. We think this seal use strongly stresses the will to establish continuity, whence ŠumuSîn maybe was not the son of Sîn-ennam, which would have expressed continuity by itself. In view of the very short career of his predecessor there could be another explanation. As stated above, the son may have used his father’s seal as long as the father did not pass away. In that case, ŠumuSîn would have been Sîn-ennam’s son and the father would have lived during the whole career of his son. Interestingly, Sîn-ennam has a seal legend with the ‘classic’ sequence N(ame)—T(itle)— P(atronymic)—S(ervant). When the title passes to Šalim-pāli-Marduk (4), son of a Sîn-gāmil and later to his son Etel-pī-Nabium (5) this may represent the entry of another family in the Ebabbar priesthood. It is remarkable that both these second sangas seem to do their utmost not to have the ‘classic’ order of seal lines: Šalim-paliMarduk has the order NPST and NPTS on his two successive seals, Etel-pī-Nabium has the exceptional TNPS order. Would this be a way to mark their difference? With the next sanga, again another family, the classic order is adopted and will be maintained by all later sangas. The names of the second sangas seem to show some pattern but, as demonstrated above in our Cocnlusion A, this is illusory and based on the one hand on Marduk and Nabium names given by people related to the Marduk temple and on the other hand this is a result of using very common Sîn names. Only the last two second sangas have names probably referring to previous members of their family. As to the servant line in the second sanga seals, this changes over time, before adopting the king’s name. The second and third one use the same seal with a servant line dedicated to the Ebabbar,

249

iii.g. general conclusions which is quite logical and had been done by the first sangas earlier but only once (Šamaš-tappašu II). This is no doubt a practice taken over from other temple personnel where such a servant line was standard. With the sangas this did not last long. They soon abandon this, no doubt to distance themselves from the lower personnel. The first sangas choose Aja as a replacement before going over to the king. The second sangas follow a more sinuous way. Sangas four and five surprisingly declare themselves to be servants of Marduk and Nabium respectively. There is no doubt that this reflects the presence of these gods in their names, Šalim-pāli-Marduk and Etel-pīNabium. Again, this may mean more than is visible at first sight. R.Harris (1972, 104), referring to her earlier publication (Harris 1968a, 728), already remarked that “Undoubtedly the greater prominence of the gods Marduk and Nabium in the latter part of the period (...) reflects the growing political and cultural influence of the capital Babylon on Sippar.” The sixth second sanga, Sîn-iddinam, reverts to the servant of Ebabbar formula, as if to establish a link with Sîn-ennam (and Šumu-Sîn), closing the parenthesis of Šalim-pali-Marduk and his son. From the seventh one on, still under ammu-rabi, the king’s name is used in the servant line, a little earlier than the first sangas. It is only towards the end of the line of second sangas that a father sanga was succeeded by his two sons and, if our suggestion holds, he would have been adopted by the previous sanga who was the son of the one before him. Five successive sangas (8 to 12), from Samsu-iluna to Ammi-aduqa, belonged to the same family. This was a successful takeover by a powerful family, but there is more to this. The first one of this lineage, Išme-Sîn (8) started out as a sanga of arpanītum, the godly wife of Marduk, and only later became a second sanga of Šamaš. Sîn-erībam is his successor. He must be related to him but we do not know how: was he a son or a nephew, or maybe a brother? Then there is another newcomer, but also from Marduk circles. The biological father of Mardukmušallim (10) was a sanga of Marduk and he was adopted by Sîn-erībam (9) to become his successor. Twice people from the Marduk temple come to occupy offices in the Ebabbar, and this wasn’t the first encroachment. Išme-Sîn’s predecessor Sîn-bāni was the son of an Asallui-mansum who was sanga of Marduk. That this was no stealthy intrusion is shown by the fact that Sîn-bāni first

used his own seal on which he is said to be sanga of Šamaš and then uses his father’s which identifies the owner as sanga of Marduk. Sîn-bāni could have had another seal to his name but he chose to use his father’s stressing the family ties but at the same time proudly showing the rising power of the Marduk temple. At the same time we must stress that if families from the higher reaches of the Marduk temple take over the second sangaship of the Ebabbar, this did never affect the office of first sanga which was held uninterruptedly by one and the same family. In all, there seems to be a nearly continuous link between the office of second sanga and the king or his god, Marduk. This strengthens our assumption, supra, that the office may have been created by the king. He may have done this as a counterweight to the local and apparently untouchable family of first sangas. It is the more frustrating that we cannot find out more about this since we have near to nothing about the functioning of these offices or of the persons who held them. *** Finally, in a pessimistic vein, honesty compels us to conclude that, after this lengthy study, we do not know anything more about the office of sanga in the Ebabbar, or the Edikuda for that matter. The main reason is of course that we do not seem to have a single text from a sanga archive and know them in most cases by their appearance as witnesses only. On the basis of the few non-witness appearances they make we can be sure they were men of means, ranking among the high and mighty of their city. In one witness list a sanga of Šamaš comes after the mayor of Sippar, in other ones he follows the king’s daughter but otherwise he precedes important people such as the head of the assembly, the chief dirge singer and the overseer of the merchants. Nevertheless, many questions remain unanswered. What were the responsibilities and daily tasks of the sangas? What were their achievements and what was their personal input? Who was a good sanga and who wasn’t? What was their interaction with their city or their society? Even straightforward matters such as the length of their careers cannot nearly be calculated in about all cases. A more optimistic conclusion for this undertaking would be that the study of the 113 impressions made on some 186 tablets by forty-four very

250

iii. conclusions

small objects, a few centimetres tall and wide, has nevertheless proved to be a worthwhile endeavour. It has allowed us to gain some hitherto unsuspected insights into the families of sangas of the Ebabbar and has given us a glimpse of the sangas of the Edikuda in Sippar-Amnānum. It has given us an idea about the evolving sealing practices and a perspective on the iconography

of this particular group of seals. The legends of these seals, the order of their lines and the content of their servant line, have allowed us to learn some more about the sanga families, their independence or allegiance to the dynasty. In all, we hope to have contributed some modest facets to the still largely incomplete kaleidoscopic image of the Old Babylonian Sippar society.

annex i

IV. LISTS AND CONCORDANCES

251

252

iv. lists and concordances

Šamaš-tappašu

Annum-pī-Šamaš

Lipit-Ištar

III Warad-Sîn

IV Annum-pī-Aja

V Šamaš-tappašu

VI Warad-Sîn

VII Annum-pī-Aja

VIII Sîn-iqīšam

IX

Ilšu-ibnīšu

X

Nūr-Kabta

XI

Sec

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

First

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

II

II

II

II

CT 2, 35

CT 45, 2

CT 45, 2

CT 6, 30a

MHET 7

MHET 7

CT 4, 50a

BDHP 14

BDHP 14

VS 8, 5

VS 8, 4

Reference

T

C

T

T

C

T

T

C

T

C

T

Tbl

Sle oath

Sle oath

Sle oath

Sle oath

Im oath

Im oath

Im+Sle

Im oath

Im oath

[”]

Im oath

Date

inheritance

sale ki.bal

sale ki.bal

inheritance

sale house

sale house

sale garden

inheritance

inheritance

”

wedding

Genre

—

—

sanga NÍG d utu

—

—

[...]

sanga

sanga

[...]

—

—

—

—

[?]

—

—

own

—

own

—

sanga dutu [...]

Seal

Title

—

[U.E., Lo.E. gone]

—

—

[U.E. and L.E. gone]

—

—

U.E. excl.

—

L.E. top

—

Location of seal

(Damu-galzu)

(Būr-Nunu)

(Būr-Nunu)

(Būr-Nunu)

(Būr-Nunu)

(Būr-Nunu)

(Imlik-Sîn)

(Ilum-mušallim)

(Ilum-mušallim)

(Ilum-mušallim)

(Ilum-mušallim)

Second

—

[ugula KU lukur NÍG d utu]

—

—

[...]

—

nar

—

—

[...]

—

Title

—

own

—

—

[?]

—

—

own

—

own

—

Seal

XII Sîn-aamiddinam

—

L.E. top

—

—

(U.E., L.E. broken)

—

—

L.E. top

—

L.E. second

—

Location of seal

The second sangas are cited by number in the second column but since the tenth column gives the names of all second witnesses, the names of the second sangas can be found there.

II

I

sors of these last ones. The numbers in the two leftmost columns refer to the order of the sangas. For the second witnesses before the second sangas only those texts are listed here which mention a first sanga. These second witnesses are given between round brackets to distinguish them from the sangas. For briefness’ sake in the Genre column sale kisla is given instead of the translation sale of a threshing floor. In order to give as much information on the texts, the names of the first sangas have been replaced by numbers:

The following table gives a complete overview of our corpus, classified chronologically as far as possible, as given in our chapters on the first sangas, the second sangas and the predeces-

ANNEX I. THE CORPUS

annex i 253

Sec

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1

1

1

2

First

II

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

MHET 567

CT 2, 3

BDHP 68

MHET 30

CT 48, 27

CT 48, 27

BM 82513

CT 6, 40c

CT 6, 19a

MHET 28

CT 47, 1

VS 8, 13

VS 8, 12

BM 17105

CT 6, 26a

CT 2, 34

CT 2, 33

MHET 18

MHET 18

CT 48, 31

CT 8, 44a

Al Rawi 87

Reference

T

T

T

T

C

T

C

T

T

T

T

C

T

C

T

T

T

C

T

C

T

—

Tbl

s.d.(Sa 14)

Sa 13/7/-

Sa-/-/-

Sa oath

Sa oath

s.d.

Sa 2

Sa 2

Sa oath

Sa oath

Sa oath

Sa oath

Sa oath

Sle+Sa

Sle+Sa

Sle oath

Sle /-/-

Sle oath

Sle oath

Sle oath

Sle oath

d.l.

Date

inheritance

sale field

inheritance

adoption

litigation

litigation

silver loan

silver loan

sale house

bequest

donation

inheritance

inheritance

wedding

wedding

uppi lā ragāmim

freeing of slave

sale field

sale field

sale kisla

sale kisla

fragment

Genre

—

—

—

d

sanga utu

—

—

—

—

—

—

— [U.E. mostly gone]

—

U.E. excl.

—

—

—

—

[U.E. gone]

—

[U.E., Lo.E. gone]

—

—

—

[U.E. gone]

—

U.E. excl.

—

(fragment only)

Location of seal

[broken]

father’s

—

—

—

—

[?]

—

[broken]

—

—

—

[?]

—

father’s

—

own

Seal

—

—

sanga NÍG d utu

—

sanga (?)

—

—

—

—

sanga

—

[...]

—

—

—

sanga NÍG d utu

—

sanga NÍG d utu

—

—

Title

Sîn-ennam

Išar-Šamaš

Išar-Šamaš

Išar-Šamaš

(Adad-rēmēni)

(Adad-rēmēni)

(Adad-rēmēni)

(Adad-rēmēni)

(Adad-rēmēni)

(Būr-Nunu)

(Būr-Nunu)

(Būr-Nunu)

(Būr-Nunu)

(Būr-Nunu)

(Būr-Nunu)

(Būr-Nunu)

(Būr-Nunu)

(Būr-Nunu)

(Būr-Nunu)

(Būr-Nunu)

(Būr-Nunu)

[...]

Second

—

sanga utu

d

—

—

[...]

—

—

—

—

—

—

ugula KU lukur NÍG dutu

—

[...]

ugula KU lukur NÍG dutu

—

—

[ugula] KU lukur NÍG dutu

—

ugula [KU lukur NÍG] d utu

ugula KU lukur NÍG dutu

[...]

Title

—

—

—

—

[...]

—

own

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

[...]

—

Lo.E.

—

—

—

—

Lo.E. twice

own —

—

—

[...]

—

— [...]

—

—

Lo.E. twice

—

—

—

own

—

Lo.E.

—

— own

[...]

Location of seal

[...]

Seal

254 iv. lists and concordances

3

3

3

IV

IV

3

III

3

3

III

IV

3

III

IV

3

III

3

3

III

III

3

III

3

3

III

—

3

III

III

3

III

III

3

3

III

3

—

III

III

—

III

III

3

3

III

3

III

III

3

3

3

III

III

3

III

III

Sec

First

CT 47, 78

CT 8, 29a

TLB I, 222

TCL I, 63

CT 6, 46

Di 673

TJDB pl. 49

TLB I, 218

MHET 61

CT 47, 5

CT45,91(41)

CT 45, 12(7)

BM 82454A

CT 8, 49a

CT 8, 29c

MHET 66

MHET 66

CT 45, 10(6)

CT 45, 10(6)

CT 48, 59

CT 48, 59

CT 47, 7a

CT 47, 7

CT 48, 29

CT 48, 29

Adami 1997

Adami 1997

CT 8, 29b

Reference

T

TC

T

T

TC

TC

T

T

T

T

T

T

C

T

T

C

T

C

T

C

T

C

T

C

T

C

T

T

Tbl

AS oath

AS oath

d.l.

AS oath

AS 13/2/-

[AS]

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

s.d. (AS)

AS oath

[...]

AS oath

AS -/-/-

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS 2/-/-

AS 2/-/-

AS 1/-/-

Date

donation

adoption

real estate

sale garden

sale field

inheritance

sale field

sale field

sale field

sale field

donation

donation

[...]

inheritance

donation

inheritance

inheritance

sale field

sale field

inheritance

inheritance

inheritance

inheritance

inheritance

inheritance

litigation

litigation

adoption

Genre

—

—

—

[...]

sanga utu

—

father’s

—

—

own

sanga dutu d

— own

[?]

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

[own?]

—

[broken]

—

own

sanga dutu

sanga

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

sanga utu

d

—

—

—

— own

own

—

sanga utu

d

sanga

sanga

sanga [?]

[own?]

—

┐

[sanga dutu]

┌

sanga utu

—

d

Seal

—

Title

—

L.E., L.Mg. top, Rev bottom

—

—

Lo.E. right

Lo.E. twice

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

[Lo.E. gone]

—

[?]

—

U.E. twice

—

Lo.E. twice excl.

—

U.E. right

—

[U.E.?]

—

—

Location of seal

Šamu-Sîn

Šumu-Sîn

Šamu-[Sîn]

Šamu-Sîn

Šumu-Sîn

(Sîn-bāni)

Šamu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

[...]-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

[..]mu-Sîn

Šumu-Sîn

[...]

Šumu-Sîn

Šumu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

(Ilabrat-bāni)

(Ilabrat-bāni)

Šamu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

[...]

Šumu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

Šumu-Sîn

Second

—

—

[...]

[?]

sanga dutu

—

[?]

sanga

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

sanga utu

d

—

[...]

—

[...]

sanga utu

d

sanga

sanga

sanga [?]

sanga utu

d

—

Title

—

Sîn-ennam

—

—

Sîn-ennam

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Sîn-ennam

—

[...]

—

[...]

—

Sîn-ennam

—

own

—

[?]

—

—

Seal

—

U.E. twice

—

Lo.E. left

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

U.E. twice

—

[...]

—

[...]

—

U.E. left

—

Lo.E. left

—

[?]

—

—

Location of seal

annex i 255

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

3

IV

3

IV

3

3

IV

3

3

IV

IV

3

IV

IV

3

IV

3

IV

3

3

IV

3

3

IV

IV

3

IV

IV

3

3

IV

3

IV

IV

Sec

First

Di 2017

Di 2017

CT 45, 16(9)

CT 47, 11a

CT 47, 11

TCL I, 203

MHET 85

MHET 85

MHET 112

CT 8, 39b

CT 45, 11(6)

BBVOT 1, 115

BBVOT 1, 147

BBVOT 1, 105

MHET 55

MHET 53

CT 48, 17

CT 6, 43

BE 6/1, 17

TLB I, 230

MHET 60

MHET 48

BAP 36

CT 47, 78a

Reference

C

T

T

C

T

T

C

T

C

T

T

T

C

T

T

T

T

T

T

C

TC

C

T

C

Tbl

Sm oath

Sm oath

Sm oath

Sm oath

Sm oath

s.d. (Sm)

Sm oath

Sm oath

Sm 1

Sm oath

AS 18

AS 17

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

AS oath

Date

sale kisla

sale kisla

adoption

sale field

sale field

field lease

donation

donation

sale field

sale field

inheritance

sale field

donation

donation

adoption

inheritance

inheritance

sale house

adoption

inheritance

inheritance

sale field

sale field

donation

Genre

— —

sanga utu sanga dutu sanga dutu

—

—

—

—

sanga

father’s

—

—

father’s

—

—

sanga

father’s

—

—

father’s

sanga dutu

—

[...]

sanga utu

d

—

—

sanga dutu sanga

father’s

—

—

—

d

—

—

—

—

[father’s?]

sanga dutu sanga

father’s

[father’s]

—

[father’s]

Seal

sanga NÍG d utu

[...]

sanga utu

d

[...]

Title

U.E.

—

—

U.E. left

—

—

Lo.E. right

—

Lo.E.

—

—

—

U.E.

—

—

—

—

—

—

[...]

Lo.E. excl. twice

[...]

—

[U.E.?]

Location of seal

Šalim-pālišu

Šalim-pālišu

Šalim-pālišu

[Šalim-pāliMarduk]

Šalim-pāliMarduk

Šamu-Sîn

[...]

Šamu-Sîn

[...]

Šumu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

Ša[mu-Sîn]

Šamu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

Šumu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

Šumu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

Šumu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

Šamu-Sîn

Second

sanga utu

[...]

sanga utu

d

sanga

sanga dutu

[?]

—

sanga dutu

d

sanga utu

d

—

sanga

sanga┐[dutu?]

┌

—

—

—

sanga┐

sanga

sanga dutu

—

[case broken]

┌

—

[...]

sanga utu

d

[?]

Title

B

—

—

A

—

—

Sîn-ennam

—

[Sîn-ennam?]

—

—

—

Sîn-ennam

—

—

—

—

—

—

[...]

Sîn-ennam

[...]

—

Sîn-ennam

Seal

U.E. left

—

—

U.E. middle

—

—

U.E.

—

[U.E.?]

—

—

—

LE top

—

—

—

—

—

—

[...]

U.E. twice

[...]

—

Lo.E.

Location of seal

256 iv. lists and concordances

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

V

V

V

V

—

IV

IV

4

IV

4

4

IV

IV

4

IV

4

4

IV

IV

4

IV

4

4

IV

—

4

IV

IV

4

IV

IV

Sec

First

CT 8, 39a

Sip 77

Sip 10

Di 2029

RSO 2, 562

MHET 121

CT 4, 49b

BBVOT 1, 6

TCL I, 69

TCL I, 68

YOS 14, 163

VS 8, 51

VS 8, 50

VS 8, 21

MHET 926

MHET 844

MHET 109

MHET 109

MHET 107

MHET 102

MHET 102

MHET 87

Di 1907

Di 1907

Reference

T

T

T

T

TC

C

T

C

C

T

T

C

T

C

T

T

C

T

T

C

T

T

C

T

Tbl

Sm 18

?

Sm oath

Sm oath

Sm 17

Sm 13

Sm 13/5/4

Sm 13/5/4

[Sm]

Sm oath

Sm oath

Sm oath

Sm oath

Sm oath

s.d. (Sm)

d.l. (Sm)

Sm oath

Sm oath

Sm oath

Sm oath

Sm oath

Sm oath

Sm oath

Sm oath

Sm oath

Date

sale field

inheritance?

donation

sale é.kisla

sale field

sale house

sale house

adoption

adoption

adoption

litigation

sale field/ house

sale field/ house

real estate

sale house

sale field

sale house

sale house

sale field

donation

donation

litigation

uppi l.r.

uppi l.r.

Genre

— [?] —

sanga [dutu] [sanga dutu] sanga dutu

— own own — —

sanga dutu d

sanga [utu] sanga dutu sanga dutu sanga dutu sanga utu

d

sanga utu

—

—

[own?]

[sanga d utu?]

d

[U.E.?]

own

sanga dutu

—

—

—

—

Lo.E.

U.E. left

—

U.E. left

—

—

—

[only rev.of case]

—

U.E. left

—

—

[U.E.?]

—

—

[U.E. lost ]

—

—

[ U.E.?]

—

Location of seal

sanga utu

d

— own

—

—

sanga dutu sanga dutu

— [?]

—

—

sanga dutu sanga dutu

[?]

—

sanga dutu —

—

[?]

—

Seal

sanga utu

d

sanga

sanga

Title

Etel-pī-Nabium

Šalim-pālišu

Šalim-pālišu

Šalim-pālišu

Šalim-pālišu

Šalim-pālišu

Šalim-pāli[šu]

[Šalim-pāliMarduk]

Šalim-pāliMarduk

Šalim-pāliMarduk

Šalim-pālišu

Šalim-[pāli...]

Šalim-pāli[...]

[...]

Šalim-pālišu

(Adad-rēmēni)

Šalim-pālišu

Šalim-pālišu

Šalim-pāli[i...]

Šalim-pālišu

Šalim-pāliMarduk

Šalim-pālišu

Šalim-pālišu

Second

sanga

sanga utu

d

sanga dutu

sanga dutu

sanga dutu

sanga utu

d

sanga dutu

[?]

sanga dutu

—

—

[...]

[...]

—

—

—

sanga dutu

—

sanga dutu

—

—

—

—

B

B

—

B

B

—

—

[B?]

—

—

—

—

[B?]

—

—

— [B?]

[sanga dutu?]

—

B

—

Seal

sanga dutu

sanga utu

d

—

—

Title

—

—

—

—

Lo.E. right

U.E. right

—

L.E., L.Mg. top

L.E., L.Mg. top

—

—

[...]

—

—

—

—

(U.E. lost)

—

—

(U.E. lost)

—

—

U.E.

—

Location of seal

annex i 257

5

V

5

V

6

5

V

6

5

V

V

5

V

V

5

V

6

5

V

V

5

V

—

5

V

—

5

V

V

5

V

V

5

5

V

V

5

5

V

V

5

V

5

5

V

5

5

V

V

5

V

V

Sec

First

Di 707

MHET 180

MHET 180

MHET 172

VS 13, 34

CT 6, 22b

CT 4, 45c

MHET 130

MHET 161

BM 82427

CT 8, 48a

MHET 158

MHET 158

CT 47, 30a

CT 47, 30

Di 677

Di 677

MHET 132

MHET 132

Di 696b

Di 696a

CT 47, 21

VS 9, 211+213

TCL I, 77

BM 92644A

CT 8, 35b

Reference

TC

C

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

C

T

C

T

C

T

C

T

C

T

C

T

T

C

T

C

T

Tbl

a 16/—/-

a 15/[]

a 15/[]

a 14/[]/5

a oath

s.d.

a /—/—

a oath

a 11

a 11/—/—

a 11/—/—

a 10/8/[]

a 10/8/[]

a 10/3/20

a 10/3/20

a 9/—/—

a 9/—/—

a oath

a oath

a 8

a 8

a 2/—/—

a 1/7/11

a 1/7/11

a /—/—

a /—/—

Date

sale field

inheritance

inheritance

sale field

inheritance

inheritance

sustenance

inheritance

sale field

adoption

adoption

sale house

sale house

donation

donation

sale field

sale field

inheritance

inheritance

sale field

sale field

sale house

sale é.kisla

sale é.kisla

sale slave+ox

sale slave+ox

Genre

—

d

—

sanga utu sanga dutu

[...] own

sanga dutu sanga dutu

sanga utu

—

—

d

d

—

—

—

—

—

d

sanga utu

—

—

sanga utu own

—

d

[...]

[...] sanga dutu

sanga utu

—

—

—

—

— own

sanga utu sanga dutu

d

own

—

[...]

own

sanga utu

—

—

sanga dutu

d

[...]

[...]

[...]

—

sanga dutu [...]

own

—

Seal

sanga

—

Title

U.E. right

[U.E., L.Mg. top gone]

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

U.E. excl.

—

[U.E.,L.Mg.top gone]

—

—

—

U.E. left

—

U.E. left

—

U.E. right

—

—

[...]

—

L.Mg. second

—

Location of seal

Sîn-iddinam

Sîn-iddinam

Sîn-iddinam

none

none

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

[...]

Etel-pī-Nabium

[...]

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Second

sanga dutu

sanga utu

d

sanga utu

d

—

—

—

—

sanga utu

d

—

sanga

—

[...]

sanga utu

d

—

—

sanga dutu

—

[...]

sanga dutu

sanga utu

d

[...]

[...]

[...]

sanga dutu

sanga

sanga

Title

animal combat

[?]

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

own

—

own

—

—

—

own

—

own

—

—

—

—

[...]

—

own

—

Seal

U.E. left

[...]

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

L.Mg. top (2x)

—

L.Mg. second

—

—

—

U.E. right

—

U.E. right

—

—

—

—

[...]

—

L.Mg. top (2x)

—

Location of seal

258 iv. lists and concordances

—

7

7

7

—

—

V

V

V

V

V

V

CT 47, 44a

CT 47, 44

MHET 255

CT 45, 26(13)

MHET 250

CT 47, 43

BDHP 66

CT 47, 42

CT 47, 42

Di 1430

CT 47, 41

VAS 9, 43

VAS 9, 42

CT 8, 37a

MHET 238

MHET 238

VS 9, 169

Di 2142

MHET 200

MHET 200

CT 47, 26

Reference

Mistake for Sîn-bāni

7

V

1

7

V

—

V

7

—

V

V

7

V

7

7

V

7

7

V

V

6

V

V

6

6

6

V

V

6

V

V

Sec

First

C

T

TC

T

T

T

T

C

T

TC

T

C

T

T

C

T

C

C

C

T

T

Tbl

a 34/8/5

a 34/8/5

a 34

a 33/11/30

a 33/5/1

a 33/1/20

a 32/ [12d/..]

a 32/12d/9

a 32/12d/9

a 32/10/20

Ha 31/7/1

a 31/4/2

a 31/4/2

a 30/—/-

a 30/9/25

a 30/9/25

a oath

d.l., a oath

a 18

a 18

a 16

Date

sale house

sale house

inheritance

sale field

inheritance

sale field

inheritance

inheritance

inheritance

sale é.kigal

sale é.kisla

sale é.kisla

sale é.kisla

sustenance

sale field

sale field

(fragment)

division

sale house

sale house

sale field

Genre

—

d

[?] — — —

sanga dutu sanga dutu sanga dutu sanga dutu

[...]

sanga utu [...]

—

—

(sanga dutu) d

—

sanga utu

d

—

[...]

— father’s

sanga utu

father’s

sanga dutu

d

[...]

—

—

sanga dutu —

father’s

”

sanga utu

—

—

own father’s

sanga utu

—

—

Seal

[sanga dutu]

d

[...]

sanga

Title

[only part of Rev.]

—

—

—

—

—

—

(edges, L.Mg. broken)

—

L.E., L.Mg. top

—

L.E., L.Mg. top

—

—

U.E. twice excl.

—

—

L.E., L.Mg. top

U.E. right

—

—

Location of seal

[....]

none

Sîn-bāni

Sîn-bāni

Sîn-bāni

none

Sîn-[bāni]

[Sîn-bāni]

Sîn-bāni

Sîn-bāni

Sîn-mansum

[...]

(Išme-Sîn)

Sîn-bāni

Sîn-bāni

Sîn-bāni

1

Sîn-iddinam

Sîn-[iddinam]

Sîn-iddinam

Sîn-iddinam

Sîn-iddinam

Second

[broken]

sanga d┌utu┐

—

—

sanga dutu

sanga utu

d

sanga dutu

—

sanga dutu

[...]

—

—

[...]

—

—

—

—

[...]

—

sanga dutu

— seal without legend

sanga utu

—

—

sanga dutu

d

—

(sanga arpanītum)

—

sanga dutu sanga dutu

— own

sanga utu

d

own

own

—

—

Seal

[...]

sanga utu

d

[...]

sanga

Title

—

—

[...]

—

—

—

—

[...]

—

L.E., L.Mg. second

—

(L.E. second)

—

—

L.E., L.Mg. top

—

[...]

U.E. twice

U.E. left

—

—

Location of seal

annex i 259

8

8

8

—

—

8

—

—

8

—

—

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

8

V

8

8

V

V

8

V

V

8

V

7

V

8

7

V

V

7

V

7

7

V

7

7

V

V

7

V

V

Sec

First

Di 1131

Di 1131

Di 689

PBS 8/2, 261

MHET 324

BDHP 65

Di 2016

Di 2016

CT 47, 47a

CT 47, 47

MHET 859

MHET 859

VAS 13, 25

CT 8, 5a

Di 1438

Di 1438

CT 2, 41

MHET 131

MHET 318

CT 45, 28(14)

Di 2136

Di 2136

Di 2113

Di 2113

Di 2172

Reference

C

T

TC

T

T

T

C

T

C

T

C

T

T

T

C

T

T

T

T

T

C

T

C

T

T

Tbl

Si 2/3/7

Si 2/3/7

Si 1/5/4

d.l., a oath

d.l., a oath

a oath

a 43/—/—

a 43/—/—

a 43/1/—

a 43/1/—

a 42/4/28?

a 42/4/28?

a 41/11/—

a 41/6/11

a 39/5/12

a 39/5/12

a 38/6/13

a oath

a [...]

a x/4/[]

a [37]

a [37]

a 37/4/28

a 37/4/28

a 36

Date

sale field

sale field

donation

sale [...]

uppi l.r

inheritance

sale house

sale house

inheritance

inheritance

sale house

sale house

sale field

inheritance

exchange

exchange

inheritance

inheritance

inheritance

sale field

inheritance

inheritance

inheritance

inheritance

inheritance

Genre

—

d

—

d

sanga dutu

—

[sanga dutu]

[...]

[...]

father’s

—

— father’s

sanga utu sanga dutu

d

sanga utu —

—

sanga dutu d

father’s

[sanga utu]

d

father’s

[...]

—

sanga dutu

— [...]

[...]

sanga utu

d

sanga utu

—

—

sanga dutu

d

— father’s

sanga utu

d

sanga utu

—

[...]

sanga utu

—

—

L.E., L.Mg.top

—

L.E., L.Mg. top

—

—

—

U.E. twice

—

L.Mg. third

—

[unsealed part of Obv.]

—

—

—

L.E., L.Mg. top

—

—

—

—

—

L.Mg. top

[none?]

[none?]

Išme-Sîn

none

none

Išme-Sîn

none

[...]

[...]

Išme-Sîn

[...]

Išme-Sîn

Išme-Sîn

Išme-Sîn

Išme-Sîn

Išme-Sîn

Išme-Sîn

Sîn-[...]

Sîn-bāni

Sîn-bāni

Sîn-bāni

sanga utu father’s

[Sîn-bāni]

[Sîn-bāni]

Sîn-bāni

Second

Sîn-bāni

U.E. left, L.Mg. top

—

—

Location of seal

d

father’s

—

—

Seal

[...]

[...]

[...]

sanga utu

d

Title

—

—

sanga dutu

—

—

sanga dutu

—

—

[...]

sanga dutu

[...]

—

sanga utu

d

sanga dutu

sanga dutu

sanga utu

d

sanga utu

d

[...]

—

—

sanga utu

d

[...]

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

A

—

[...]

—

—

—

A

—

—

—

—

—

father’s

—

— father’s

[sanga dutu]

[...]

Seal

[sanga utu]

d

sanga utu

d

Title

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

L.E., L.Mg. second

—

[...]

—

—

—

L.E., L.Mg. second

—

—

—

—

—

[L.E.], L.Mg. second

—

L.E., L.Mg. second

—

[...]

Location of seal

260 iv. lists and concordances

—

8

8

8

V

V

V

—

8

—

—

8

8

VI

VI

VI

VI

VI

CT 6, 33a

8

8

V

VI

Di 2119

—

V

Di 2115

MHET 425

MHET 425

CT 45, 33

CT 2, 5

Di 709

CT 47, 66

Di 2115

—

—

V

Di 2122

Di 2122

Speleers 241

OLA 21, 9

CT 4, 46a

CT 47, 56a

CT 47, 56

Di 2117

Di 2117

VS 13, 16

VS 13, 16

V

—

—

V

V

—

V

8

—

V

—

—

V

V

Di 2121

8

V

V

Di 2121

8

V

TCL I, 108

—

V

Reference

Sec

First

C

T

C

T

QH

T

T

C

C

T

C

T

T

sT

C

T

T

C

T

C

T

C

T

T

Tbl

Si 13/9/10

Si 13/9/10

Si 9/ 2/10

Si 9/ 2/10

Si 9/2/3

Si []/5/4

Si 8/4/—

Si 19/[...]

Si 19/5/14

Si 19/5/14

Si [...]

Si [...]

Si [.../...]/30

Si 7/1/28

Si 7/1/12

Si 7/1/12

Si 6/12/4

Si 4/12/20

Si 4/12/20

Si 4/9/1

Si 4/9/1

Si 2/10/-

Si 2/10/-

Si 2/7/-

Date

sale field

sale field

sale field

sale field

inheritance

inheritance

inheritance

sale field

inheritance

inheritance

uppi l.r.

uppi l.r.

sale house

harvest lab.

sale house

sale house

sale house

sale field

sale field

sale house

sale house

sale field

sale field

sale house

Genre

[...]

d

—

sanga utu┐

sanga utu┐

┌ d

d

┌

[?]

—

sanga utu

own

—

grandfather’s

—

own

—

sanga utu sanga dutu d

—

d

—

[...]

—

sanga utu sanga dutu

d

sanga utu

—

—

father’s

[...]

[...]

[...]

—

—

—

father’s

sanga dutu

—

sanga dutu sanga dutu

— father’s

[...] sanga dutu

[...]

[...]

L.E., L.Mg. top

—

L.Mg. Rev. bottom

—

L.E.,L.Mg., R.E. top

—

—

—

—

—

[...]

—

—

L.Mg. top

—

—

L.E., L.Mg., R.E.top

—

U.E.,L.E.,Obv.,R.E.top

—

[...]

—

—

[sanga] ┌d utu┐

—

—

sanga dutu

Location of seal

Seal

Title

[Išme-Sîn]

Išme-Sîn

[broken]

—

Išme-Sîn

Išme-Sîn

Išme-Sîn

—

—

—

none

[...]

Išme-Sîn

Išme-Sîn

[...]

Išme-Sîn

none

none

none

none

none

[...]

Išme-Sîn

none

Second

—

—

[sanga] dutu

[sanga] dutu

—

—

sanga utu

d

sanga dutu

sanga utu

d

—

—

—

—

—

B

—

—

—

B

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

B d

sanga [utu]

—

[...]

—

—

—

—

—

sanga dutu

—

—

—

—

—

—

[...]

[...]

—

[sanga ]utu

—

d

Seal

—

Title

L.E., L.Mg. second

—

—

—

L.E., L.Mg., R.E. second

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

under text

—

—

—

—

[...]

—

—

Location of seal

annex i 261

—

10

10

—

—

10

10

11

—

—

—

VIII

VIII

VIII

VIII

VIII

VIII

VIII

VIII

—

VII

—

—

VII

VII

—

VII

VII

9

VII

—

9

VII

—

9

VII

Di 1453

—

VI

VII

VII

MHET 459

8

VI

Di 1802

Di 2111

BE 6/1, 76

Di 1547

Di 2035

CT 47, 69a

CT 47, 69

Di 1851

MHET 633

Di 1803

Di 312

CT 8, 9b

MHET I, 1, 2

MHET I, 1, 2

BE 6/2, 86

TLB I, 224

CT 47,65a

CT 47,65

YOS 12, 469

OLA 21, 77

—

VI

Reference

Sec

First

T

T

T

C

T

C

T

QH

T

TC

T

T

C

T

QH

T

C

T

T

T

T

QH

Tbl

Ae [...]

Ae x/10/30

Ae “k”/8/10

Ae”m”/9/10

Ae”m”/9/10

Ae “h”/12/30

Ae “h”/12/30

Ae “e”/9/23

s.d.

Si 31/6/5

Si 30/12/30

Si 30/11/8

Si 30/10/15

Si 30/10/15

Si 30/2/1

Si 26/5/10

Si 25/12/30

Si 25/12/30

Si 25/10/29

Si [...]

Si[]/[]/20

Si 24/11/[...]

Date

field sale

inheritance

sale house

donation

donation

sale house

sale house

disadoption

excerpt

donation

excerpt

sale house

sale field

sale field

uppi l.r.

sale é.kigal

inheritance

inheritance

inheritance

uppi l.r.

litigation

inheritance

Genre

—

[sangadutu?]

—

sanga dutu sanga dutu —

— own — own — —

sanga dutu sanga dutu sanga dutu sanga dutu sanga dutu sanga dutu

—

own

sanga dutu

[...]

—

—

— [...]

sanga utu sanga dutu

d

own

sanga utu sanga dutu

d

— own

sanga dutu

own

—

sanga utu

d

sanga utu

d

— —

sanga utu [sanga dutu]

d

grandfather’s

Seal

—

Title

—

—

—

L.Mg. second

—

L.E.,L.Mg. penultimate

—

L.E.,L.Mg. top

—

[...]

—

—

L.E. top

—

L.E., L.Mg. second

—

L.E., L.Mg. top

—

—

—

—

L.Mg. Rev bott. twice

Location of seal

none

none

Mardukmušallim

Mardukmušallim

Mardukmušallim

none

none

Mardukmušallim

Mardukmušallim

none

—

none

none

[none]

none

none

Sîn-erībam

Sîn-erībam

Sîn-erībam

—

Išme-Sîn

—

Second

—

—

—

sanga Aja

sanga Aja

sanga Aja

—

—

sanga Aja

sanga Aja

—

—

—

—

—

—

d

sanga utu

d

sanga┐ dutu

sanga [utu]

┌

[sanga dutu]

—

Title

—

—

—

own

—

—

—

own

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

predecessor

—

—

—

—

—

Seal

L.E., L.Mg. third

L.E., L.Mg. second

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

L.E., L.Mg. second

—

—

—

—

—

Location of seal

262 iv. lists and concordances

—

12

12

X

X

X

12

X

—

12

—

X

12

X

—

12

X

X

12

—

12

—

IX

X

Di 1147

12

IX

—

—

IX

12

Di 933

11

VIII

X

Di 2001

11

VIII

—

Di 690

11

VIII

Di 1473

charpin 88

MHET 906

Di 821

Di 984

Di 1804

OLA 21, 6

Di 1128

Di 2163

Di 2129

TCL I, 151

ARN 174

BBVOT 112

BBVOT 111

BM 96982

Di 1802

—

VIII

Reference

Sec

First

QH

QH

sT

sT

sT

QH

sT

sT

sT

sT

QH

QH

sT

sT

TC

T

C

T

QH

C

Tbl

A [...]

post A 5

A 14/1/17

A 11/7/14

A 6/8/6

A 5/[...]/2

A 5/7/21

A 3/1/26

Ad 36/2/1

Ad 32/6/13

Ad [32]/ []/10

Ad 32/[]/10

Ad 30/7/24

Ad 22/4/5

Ad 20/2/12

[...]

Ad 5/1/12

Ad 5/1/12

Ad 2/6/22

Ae [...]

Date

fragment

donation prebend

field lease

hire divine weapon

silver loan (?)

donation

hire div. weapon

field lease

consignment

field lease

certificate

sale field

sale field

(broken)

sale field

litigation

sale é.kigal

sale é.kigal

adoption

field sale

Genre

[...]

— own [...]

sanga dutu sanga dutu sanga dutu

own

sanga utu

d

[...]

sanga dutu

own

sanga dutu

sanga utu

d

[?]

father’s

sanga dutu

sanga utu

father’s

sanga dutu

d

own

[...]

sanga utu own

—

sanga dutu d

own

[...]

[...]

—

own

sanga utu

own

d

Seal

[...]

Title

[U.E., Lo.E., L.E., Obv broken]

L.E., L.Mg. third

—

L.E.,R.E. top,U.E.,Rev. bottom

[not preserved]

[not preserved]

Rev.

Obv. left third?

L.E., L.Mg. third

L.E. third. (L.Mg. broken)

L.Mg. second

L.Mg.,R.E, third

—

L.E.,L.Mg. top (twice)

—

L.E. second (twice)

L.Mg. fifth

Location of seal

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

—

none

—

none

Etel-pī-Nabium

none

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

Etel-pī-Nabium

none

Mardukmušallim

Mardukmušallim

Mardukmušallim

none

Second

sanga

sanga

—

—

—

—

—

sanga

sanga

sanga

sanga

sanga

sanga

sanga

—

sanga Aja

sanga Aja

sanga Aja

—

Title

[?]

A/B

—

—

—

—

A/B

—

A

—

A

A

A

A

A

—

own

—

own

—

Seal

[L.E., L.Mg., U.E. and Lo.E. broken]

L.E., L.Mg. fourth

—

—

—

—

Rev.

—

L.E. second

—

L.E., L.Mg. lower half

L.E., [L.Mg.] last

L.E., Obv. third

Rev.

L.E. fourth

—

L.E., L.Mg. third

L.E., L.Mg. third

Location of seal

annex i 263

Sec

—

—

12

—

First

X

X

XI

XII

Di 864

CT 6, 6

MHET 702

Di 1674

Reference

sT

QH

sT

sT

Tbl

A 13/11/9

A 11/8/4

(d.l.) Ad/A

[post A 5]

Date

loan of silver

litigation

field lease

hire divine weapon

Genre

own [own?] seal + kišib

sanga dutu

sanga utu

sanga dutu

own

d

sanga dutu

Seal

Title

L.E. top

[L.E. penultimate]

Rev.

R.E. (rolled through from L.E.?)

Location of seal

none

Marduk-nāir

—

—

Second

—

sanga Aja

—

—

Title

—

father’s

—

—

Seal

—

L.Mg. fourth

—

—

Location of seal

264 iv. lists and concordances

265

annex i

ANNEX II. THE GENRES The following overview lists the different genres of texts witnessed by the first and second sangas of the Ebabbar, in chronological order, by king. It documents the table given in our Conclusions D. The sangas as witnesses. The genres are given in the order of this table. Texts in which the sanga is not a witness are marked by an asterisk before th e publication reference. The leftmost column refers to the first sanga; the second one to the second sanga. The fourth column indicates whether we have a sealed tablet (sT), a case (C), a tablet (T), a tablet still in the case (CT) or both items separately (T+C). Immerum (4) Sale real estate I.Annum-pī- Šamaš

—

MHET 7

T+C

Im oath

Sale house

I. Annum-pī- Šamaš

—

CT 4, 50a

T

Im+ Sle

Sale garden

—

BDHP 14

T+C

Im oath

—

VS 8, 4+5

T+C

Im oath

Inheritance I. Annum-pī- Šamaš Wedding II. Annum-pī- Šamaš

Sumu-la-El (9) Sale real estate II. Šamaš -tappašu

—

CT 45,2

T+C

Sle oath

sale ki.bal.[…]

III. Lipit-Ištar

—

MHET 18

T+C

Sle oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

—

CT 8, 44a1

T+C

Sle oath

sale kisla2

II. Šamaš -tappašu

—

CT 6,30a

T

Sle oath

II. Šamaš -tappašu

—

CT 2,35

T

Sle oath

—

CT 2,34

T

Sle oath

—

CT 6,26a3

T+C

Sle+Sa

—

CT 2,33

T

Sle /-/-

—

Al Rawi 2000,87

Fragm.

d.l. (Sle)

Inheritance

uppi lā ragāmim III. Lipit-Ištar Wedding III. Lipit-Ištar Freeing of slave III. Lipit-Ištar Fragment II. Šamaš –tappašu

Sabium (10) Sale real estate III. Lipit-Ištar

1. Išar—Šamaš

CT2,3

T

Sa 13/7/-

Sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

—

CT 4, 50a

T

Sa oath

Sale house

Inheritance III. Lipit-Ištar

2. Sîn-ennam

MHET 567

T

s.d(Sa 14)

III. Lipit-Ištar

—

VS 8,12 -13

T+C

Sa oath

III. Lipit-Ištar

1. Išar—Šamaš

BDHP 68

T

Sa-/-/-

—

MHET 28

T

Sa Oath

Donation III. Lipit-Ištar

1 2

Case is CT 48, 31 Threshing floor.

3

Case is BM 17107

iv. lists and concordances

266 III. Lipit-Ištar

—

CT 47, 1

T

Sa Oath

1. Išar—Šamaš

MHET 30

T

Sa Oath

Adoption III. Lipit-Ištar Litigation III. Lipit-Ištar

—

CT 48, 27

T+C

s.d. (Sa)

—

CT 6, 40c4

T+C

Sa 2

Silver loan III. Lipit-Ištar

Apil-Sîn (32) Sale real estate III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 6, 46

TC

AS 13/2/

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 45, 10(6)

T+C

AS oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 47, 5

T

AS oath

sale field

III Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

MHET 61

T

AS oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

TLB I, 218

T

AS oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

TJDB pl. 49

T

AS oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BBVOT 1, 115

T

AS 17

sale field

5

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BAP 36

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

TCL I, 63

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

TLB I, 222

T

d.l.

real estate

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 6, 43

T

AS oath

sale house

III. Lipit-Ištar

—

Di 673

TC

[AS]

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 48, 29

T+C

AS oath

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 47, 7-7a

T+C

AS oath

III. Lipit-Ištar

—

CT 48, 59

T+C

AS oath

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

MHET 66

T+C

AS oath

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 8, 49a6

T

AS oath

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 45, 11(6)

T

AS 18

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

MHET 60

TC

AS oath

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

TLB I, 230

C

AS oath

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 48, 17

T

AS oath

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

MHET 53

T

AS oath

T+C

AS oath

sale field

T

AS oath

sale garden

Inheritance

Donation III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 8, 29c

T

AS -/-/

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 45, 12(7)

T

AS oath

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT45,91(41)

T

s.d. (AS)

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 47, 78-78a

T+C

AS oath

T+C

AS oath

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BBVOT 1, 105

7

Adoption III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 8, 29b

T

AS 1/-/

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BE 6/1, 17

T

AS oath

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

MHET 55

T

AS oath

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 8, 29a

TC

AS oath

3. Šumu-Sîn

Adami 1997

T+C

AS 2/-/

Litigation III. Lipit-Ištar 4 5

Case is BM 82513 Case is MHET 48.

6 7

Case is BM 82454 Case is BBVOT 1, 147.

267

annex ii Sîn-muballi (24) Sale real estate IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 8, 39b8

T+C

Sm 1

sale house

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Ballerini 1908-9

TC

Sm 13

sale field

9

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

CT 4,49b

T+C

SM13/5/4

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja 4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Di 2029

T

SM17

sale é kisla

IV. Warad-Sîn IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

CT 47, 11-11a

T+C

SM oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Di 2017

T+C

SM oath

sale kisla

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

MHET 926

T

d.l. (Sm)

sale house

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

MHET 207

T

SM oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

MHET 109

T+C

SM oath

sale house

IV. Warad-Sîn

—

MHET 844

T

SM oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

VS 8,50-51

T+C

SM oath

sale field/house

IV. Warad-Sîn

—

VS 8, 21

C

s.d. (SM)

real estate

IV. Warad-Sîn

5.Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 8, 39a

T

SM18?

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

MHET 85

T+C

SM oath

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

MHET 102

T+C

SM oath

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Sip 10

T

SM oath

Sip 77 10

T

Sm oath

BBVOT 1,6

C

[Sm]

Donation

Inheritance V. Annum-pī-Aja 4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk Adoption IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

CT 45,16(9)

T

Sm oath

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

TCL I, 68-69

T+C

Sm oath

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

MHET 87

T

Sm oath

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pālišu

YOS 14, 163

T

Sm oath

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Di 1907

T+C

Sm oath

3. Šumu-Sîn

TCL I, 203

T

s.d. (Sm)

Litigation

uppi lā ragāmim IV. Warad-Sîn Field lease IV. Warad-Sîn

ammu-rabi (48)

Sale real estate V. Annum-pī-Aja

5.Etel-pī-Nabium

TCL I, 7711

T+C

a 1/7/11

sale é.kisla

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5.Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 47, 21

T

a 2/—/—

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5.Etel-pī-Nabium

Di 696a—b

T+C

a 8

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5.Etel-pī-Nabium

Di 677

T+C

a 9/—/—

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5.Etel-pī-Nabium

MHET 158

T+C

a 10/8/[]

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5.Etel-pī-Nabium

MHET 161

T

a 11

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

MHET 172

T

a 14/[]/5

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

CT 47, 26

T

a 16

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

Di 707

TC

a 16/—/-

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

MHET 200

T+C

a 18

sale house

8 9

Case is MHET 112. Case is MHET 121.

10 11

Inheritance or donation Case is VS 9, 211+213

iv. lists and concordances

268 V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

MHET 238

T+C

a 30/9/25

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

CT 47, 31

T

a 31/7/1

sale é.kisla

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

Di 1430

TC

a 32/10/20

sale é.ki.gál

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

CT 47, 43

T

a 33/1/20

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

CT 45, 26(13)

T

a 33/11/30

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

CT 47, 44—44a

T+C

a 34/8/5

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

CT 45, 28 (14)

T

a x/4/[]

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

VS 13, 25

T

a 41/11/—

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

MHET 859

T+C

a 42/4/28?

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 2016

T+C

a 43/—/—

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

MHET 132

T+C

a oath

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

MHET 120

T

a oath

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 6, 22b

T

s.d. (a)

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

VS 13, 34

T

a oath

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

Di 2142

C

d.1., a oath

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

MHET 180

T+C

a 15/[]

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

MHET 318

T

a […]

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

Di 2136

T+C

a [37]

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

BDHP 66

T

a 32/[12d/..]

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

CT 47, 42

T+C

a 32/12d/9

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

MHET 250

T

a 33/5/1

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

MHET 255

TC

a 34

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

Di 2172

T

a 36

Inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

Di 2113

T+C

a 37/4/28

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7? Sîn-bāni

MHET 131

T

a oath

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

CT 2, 41

T

a 38/6/13

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

CT 8, 5a

T

a 41/6/11

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

CT 47, 47—47a

T+C

a 43/1/—

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

BDHP 65

T

a oath

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 47, 30—30a

T+C

a 10/3/20

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 8, 48a12

T+C

a 11/—/—

—

MHET 324

T

d.1., a oath

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 4, 45c

T

a /—/—

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

CT 8, 37a

T

a 30/—/-

8. Išme-Sîn

Di 1438

T+C

a 39/5/12

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5.Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 8, 35b13

T+C

a /—/—

sale slave+ox

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

PBS 8/2, 261

T

d.1., a oath

sale […]

Donation V. Annum-pī-Aja Adoption V. Annum-pī-Aja uppi lā ragāmim V. Annum-pī-Aja Sustenance

Exchange of real estate V. Annum-pī-Aja Other sales

12

Case is BM 82427.

13

Case is BM 92644A.

269

annex ii Fragment V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

VS 9, 169

C

a oath

Samsu-iluna (29)

Sale real estate V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

Speleers 241

T

Si […/…]/30

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 1131

T+C

Si 2/3/7

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

TCL I, 108

T

Si 2/7/-

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

VS 13, 16

T+C

Si 2/10/-

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 2117

T+C

Si 4/9/1

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

CT 47, 56

T+C

Si 4/12/20

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

CT 4, 46a

T

Si 6/12/4

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

Di 2121

T+C

Si 7/1/12

sale house

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

—

CT 2, 514

T

Si 9/2/10

sale field

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

8. Išme-Sîn

MHET 425

T+C

Si 13/9/10

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 2119

C

Si 19/[…]

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

—

TLB I, 224

T

Si 26/5/10

sale é.kigal

IV. Warad-Sîn

—

MHET I, 1, 2

T+C

Si 30/10/15

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

—

CT 8, 9b

T

Si 30/11/8

sale house

IV. Warad-Sîn

—

Di 312

T

Si 30/12/30

excerpt sales

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

CT 6, 33a

T

Si 8/4/—

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

8. Išme-Sîn

CT 47, 66

T

Si []/5/4

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

8. Išme-Sîn

Di 709

QH

Si 9/2/3

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

*Di 2115

T+C

Si 19/5/14

Inheritance

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

—

OLA 21, 77

QH

Si 24/11/[…]

VII. Warad-Sîn

9. Sîn-erībam

YOS 12, 469

T

Si 25/10/29

VII. Warad-Sîn

9. Sîn-erībam

CT 47,65—65a

T+C

Si 25/12/30

8. Išme-Sîn

Di 689

TC

Si 1/5/4

—

Di 1803

TC

Si 31/6/5

8. Išme-Sîn

MHET 459

T

Si []/[]/20

Donation V. Annum-pī-Aja VII. Warad-Sîn Litigation VI. Šamaš-tappašu uppi lā ragāmim V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 2122

T+C

Si […]

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

—

Di 1453

T

Si […]

VII. Warad-Sîn

—

BE 6/2, 86

QH

Si 30/2/1

8. Išme-Sîn

*OLA 21, 9

sT

Si 7/1/28

Harvest labour contr. —

Abi-ešu (7) Sale real estate —

10.Marduk-mušallim

MHET 633

T

s.d. (Ae)

excerpt

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

—

CT 47, 69—69a

T+C

Ae ”h”/12/30

sale house

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

BE 6/1, 76

T

Ae ”k”/8/10

sale house

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 1802

T+C

Ae […]

sale field

14

Case is CT 45, 33.

iv. lists and concordances

270 Inheritance VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 2111

T

Ae x/10/30

10.Marduk-mušallim

Di 2035

T+C

Ae“m”/9/10

10.Marduk-mušallim

Di 1851

QH

Ae “e”/9/23

Donation VIII. Annum-pī-Aja Adoption VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

disadoption

Ammi-ditana (10)

Sale real estate VIII. Annum-pīAja IX. Sîn-iqīšam

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

BBVOT 111-112

T+C

Ad 5/1/12

Sale é.kigal

12. Marduk-nāir

Di 690

TC

Ad 20/2/12

Sale field

IX. Sîn-iqīšam

12. Marduk-nāir

TCL I, 151

sT

Ad 30/7/24

Sale field

X Ilšu-ibnīšu

12. Marduk-nāir

Di 2163

QH

Ad [32]/[]/10

Certificate

X Ilšu-ibnīšu

12. Marduk-nāir

Di 2129

QH

Ad 32/[]/10

Sale field

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

BM 96982

QH

Ad 2/6/22

—

ARN 174

T

[…] Ad

12. Marduk-nāir

*Di 1128

sT

Ad 32/6/13

12. Marduk-nāir

Di 933

sT

Ad 36/2/1

12. Marduk-nāir

Di 2001

sT

Ad 22/4/5

Adoption VIII. Annum-pīAja Litigation IX. Sîn-iqīšam Field Lease — Consignment X Ilšu-ibnīšu Broken —

Ammi-aduqa (12)

Donation X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Di 1804

QH

A 5/[…]/2

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Charpin 88

QH

Post A 5

12. Marduk-nāir

CT 6, 6

QH

A 11/8/4

—

Di 1147

sT

A 3/1/26

Litigation XI. Nūr-Kabta Field Lease X. Ilšu-ibnīšu X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Di 906

sT

A 14/1/17

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

MHET 702

sT

d.1 (Ad/A)

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

*OLA 21,6

sT

A 5/7/21

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Di 821

sT

A 11/7/14

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Di 1674

sT

[post A 5]

—

Di 864

sT

A 13/11/9

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Di 1473

QH

A […]

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Di 984

sT

A 6/8/6

Hire divine weapon —

Loan silver XII. Sîn-aamiddinam Fragment/unclear

Donation prebend

271

annex i

ANNEX III. CONCORDANCE MUSEUM REGISTRATION NUMBERPUBLICATIONSANGA

A0 7812

T

BBVOT 111

Ad 5/1/12

sale é.kigal

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

10. Marduk-mušallim

A0 7816

C

BBVOT 112

Ad 5/1/12

sale é.kigal

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

10. Marduk-mušallim

AO 1628

T

TCL I, 77

a 1/7/11

sale é.kisla

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

AO 1746

C

BBVOT 1, 6

[Sm]

adoption

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

AO 1763

T

TCL I, 68

Sm oath

adoption

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

AO 1763b

C

TCL I, 69

Sm oath

adoption

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

AO 1776

T

TCL I, 203

s.d. (Sm)

field lease

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

AO 1926

T

TCL I, 63

AS oath

sale garden

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

AO 2502

sT

TCL I, 151

Ad 30/7/24

sale field

IX. Sîn-iqīšam

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

AO 4137

T

TCL I, 108

Si 2/7/-

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

AO 7806

T

BBVOT 1, 105

AS oath

donation

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

AO 7815

T

BBVOT 1, 115

AS 17

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

AO 7856

C

BBVOT 1, 147

AS oath

donation

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 16467

T

MHET 459

Si[]/[]/20

litigation

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

8. Išme-Sîn

BM 16471

T

MHET 130

a oath

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

BM 16485

T

MHET 567

sSa 14)

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

2. Sîn-ennam

BM 16489

T

CT 47, 1

Sa oath

donation

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

BM 16572

T

MHET 131

a oath

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-[...]

BM 16765

T

MHET 250

a 33/5/1

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

BM 16812

T

CT 47,65

Si 25/12/30

inheritance

VII. Warad-Sîn

9. Sîn-erībam

BM 16812A

C

CT 47,65a

Si 25/12/30

inheritance

VII. Warad-Sîn

9. Sîn-erībam

BM 16814

T

CT 47, 78

AS oath

donation

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 16814A

C

CT 47, 78a

AS oath

donation

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 16819

T

CT 47, 11

Sm oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

BM 16819A

C

CT 47, 11a

Sm oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

BM 16821

T

CT 47, 47

a 43/1/—

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

BM 16821A

C

CT 47, 47a

a 43/1/—

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

BM 16829

T

CT 47, 44

a 34/8/5

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

BM 16829A

C

CT 47, 44a

a 34/8/5

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

BM 16853

T

MHET 158

a 10/8/[]

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

BM 16853

C

MHET 158

a 10/8/[]

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

BM 16914

T

CT 47, 66

Si []/5/4

inheritance

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

8. Išme-Sîn

BM 16917

T

CT 47, 26

a 16

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

BM 16931

T

CT 47, 43

a 33/1/20

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

BM 16934

T

CT 47, 41

Ha 31/7/1

sale é.kisla

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

BM 16944

T

CT 47, 21

a 2/—/—

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

BM 16949

T

MHET 53

AS oath

inheritance

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 16959

T

CT 47, 42

a 32/12d/9

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

BM 16959A

C

CT 47, 42

a 32/12d/9

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

TC

MHET 255

a 34

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

BM 16961

iv. lists and concordances

272 BM 16975

T

MHET 28

Sa oath

bequest

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

BM 16976

T

CT 47, 5

AS oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 16987

T

MHET 318

a [

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

BM 17045

T

CT 47, 30

a 10/3/20

donation

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

BM 17045A

C

CT 47, 30a

a 10/3/20

donation

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

BM 17055

T

CT 47, 56

Si 4/12/20

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

BM 17055A

C

CT 47, 56a

Si 4/12/20

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

BM 17060

T

CT 47, 7

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 17060A

C

CT 47, 7a

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 17067

T

CT 47, 69

Ae “h”/12/30

sale house

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

—

BM 17067A

C

CT 47, 69a

Ae “h”/12/30

sale house

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

—

BM 17073

T

MHET 85

Sm oath

donation

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 17073A

C

MHET 85

Sm oath

donation

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 17105

C

(unpublished)1

BM 17340

T

MHET 55

AS oath

adoption

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 17346

T

MHET 87

Sm oath

litigation

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

BM 17352

T

MHET 132

a oath

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

BM 17352A

C

MHET 132

a oath

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

BM 17353

T

MHET 172

a 14/[]/5

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

BM 17442

T

MHET 7

Im oath

sale house

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš

(Būr-Nunu)

BM 17442A

C

MHET 7

Im oath

sale house

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš

(Būr-Nunu)

BM 17487

T

MHET 324

d a oath

uppi la rag.

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš

—

BM 17596

T

MHET 633

s.d. (Ae-Ad)

excerpt

—

10. Marduk-mušallim

BM 64368

T

MHET 30

Sa oath

adoption

III. Lipit-Ištar

2. Sîn-ennam

BM 67320

T

CT 48, 17

AS oath

inheritance

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 78180

T

CT 45, 16(9)

Sm oath

adoption

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

BM 78202

T

CT 8, 5a

a 41/6/11

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

BM 78258

C

CT 45, 33

Si 9/ 2/10

sale field

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

—

BM 78769

T

CT 4, 45c

a /—/—

sustenance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

BM 79502

TC

MHET 60

AS oath

inheritance

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 79763

T

MHET 61

AS oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 80156

QH

CT 6, 6

A 11/8/4

litigation

XI. Sîn-aam-iddinam

12. Marduk-nāīr

BM 80179

T

CT 45,91(41)

s.d. (AS)

donation

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 80193

T

CT 45, 28(14)

a x/4/[]

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

BM 80220

T

CT 8, 29c

AS -/-/-

donation

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 80233

T

CT 6, 22b

s.d.

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

BM 80234

T

CT 2, 33

Sle /-/-

freeing slave

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

BM 80242

T

CT 2, 35

Sle oath

inheritance

II. Šamaš-tappašu

(Damu-galzu)

BM 80271

C

CT 6, 26a

Sle+Sa

wedding

III. Lipit-Ištar

[(Būr-Nunu)]

BM 80271

T

(unpublished)

Sle+Sa

wedding

III. Lipit-Ištar

[(Būr-Nunu)]

BM 80274

T

CT 2, 41

a 38/6/13

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

BM 80285

T

CT 6, 30a

Sle oath

inheritance

II. Šamaš-tappašu

[(Būr-Nunu)]

1 Described by F. Blocher (1992, 42) as his case XX, composed of BM 17105, 17015A and 17119 joined.

273

annex iii BM 80426

T

CT 6, 33a

Si 8/4/—

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

BM 80428

T

MHET 161

a 11

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

BM 80458

sT

MHET 702

(d.l.) Ad-A

field lease

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

BM 80517

T

BDHP 66

a 32/[12d/

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

BM 80525

T

BDHP 68

Sa-/-/-

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

1. Išar-Šamaš

BM 80526

T

BDHP 65

a oath

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

BM 80628

T

CT 8, 37a

a 30?/—/-

sustenance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

BM 82048

TC

CT 8, 29a

AS oath

adoption

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 82265

T

CT 48, 27

s.d.

litigation

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Adad-rēmēni)

BM 82265a

C

CT 48, 27

Sa oath

litigation

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Adad-rēmēni)

BM 82349

T

MHET 18

Sle oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

BM 82350

C

MHET 18

Sle oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

BM 82361

T

MHET 102

Sm oath

donation

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

BM 82362

C

MHET 102

Sm oath

donation

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

BM 82422

T

MHET 425

Si 13/9/10

sale field

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

8. Išme-Sîn

BM 82423

C

MHET 425

Si 13/9/10

sale field

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

8. Išme-Sîn

BM 82424

T

CT 48, 29

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 82424A

C

CT 48, 29

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 82425

T

MHET 66

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 82425A

C

MHET 66

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 82427

C

(unpublished)

a 11/—/—

adoption

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

BM 82432/23

T

CT 48, 59

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

—

BM 82432/23

C

CT 48, 59

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

—

BM 82435

TC

CT 6, 46

AS 13/2/-

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 82438

T

CT 8, 48a

a 11/—/—

adoption

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

BM 82439

C

CT 48, 31

Sle oath

sale kisla

III. Lipit-Ištar

BM 82440

T

MHET 180

a 15/[]

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

BM 82441

C

MHET 180

a 15/[]

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

BM 82450

T

BDHP 14

Im oath

inheritance

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš

(Ilum-mušallim)

BM 82451

C

BDHP 14

Im oath

inheritance

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš

(Ilum-mušallim)

BM 82454

T

CT 8, 49a

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 82460

T

CT 8, 39b

Sm oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 82461

C

MHET 112

Sm 1

sale house

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 82468

T

MHET 200

a 18

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

BM 82469

C

MHET 200

a 18

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

BM 82472

T

CT 8, 44a

Sle oath

sale kisla

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

BM 82491

C

CT 45, 2

Sle oath

sale ki.bal

II. Šamaš-tappašu

(Būr-Nunu)

BM 82492

T

CT 45, 2

Sle oath

sale ki.bal

II. Šamaš-tappašu

(Būr-Nunu)

BM 82512

T

CT 6, 40c

Sa 2

silver loan

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Adad-rēmēni)

Sa 2

silver loan

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Adad-rēmēni)

2

BM 82513

C

(unpublished)

BM 92511

T

CT 2, 3

Sa 13/7/-

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

1. Išar-Šamaš

BM 92512

T

BAP 36

AS oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

2

Described by F. Blocher (1992, 43, seal n° 84).

iv. lists and concordances

274 BM 925123

C

MHET 48

AS oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 92523

T

CT 8, 9b

Si 30/11/8

sale house

VII. Warad-Sîn

—

BM 92525

T

CT 45, 26(13)

a 33/11/30

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

BM 92528

T

CT 2, 5

Si 9/ 2/10

sale field

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

—

BM 92578

T

CT 45, 10(6)

AS oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 92578A

C

CT 45, 10(6)

AS oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 92582

T

CT 4, 46a

Si 6/12/4

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

BM 92586

T

CT 4, 49b

Sm 13/5/4

sale house

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

BM 92586A

C

MHET 121

Sm 13/5/4

sale house

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

BM 92603

T

MHET 107

Sm oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

3

BM 92610

T

CT 45, 11(6)

AS 18

inheritance

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 92612

T

CT 45, 12(7)

AS oath

donation

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 92614

T

CT 6, 19a

Sa oath

sale house

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Ilabrat-bāni)

BM 92615

T

CT 4, 50a

Im+Sle

sale garden

I.Annum-pī-Šamaš

(Imlik-Sîn)

BM 92619

T

CT 8, 29b

AS 1/-/-

adoption

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 92622

T

CT 2, 34

Sle oath

uppi la rag.

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

BM 92641

T

CT 6, 43

AS oath

sale

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BM 92644

T

CT 8, 35b

a /—/—

sale slave+ox

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

BM 92644A

C

(unpublished)

a /—/—

sale slave+ox

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

BM 92650/A

T

MHET 238

a 30/9/25

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

BM 92650/A

C

MHET 238

a 30/9/25

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

BM 92657

T

MHET 109

Sm oath

sale house

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

BM 92657A

C

MHET 109

Sm oath

sale house

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

BM 96982

QH

(unpublished)

Ad 2/6/22

adoption

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

10. Marduk-mušallim

BM 97102

T

MHET 844

Sm oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

—

BM 97120

T

MHET 859

a 42/4/28?

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

BM 97120

C

MHET 859

a 42/4/28?

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

BM 97205

T

MHET 926

s.d. (Sm)

sale house

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

BM 97315

sT

MHET 906

A 14/1/17

field lease

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

CBM 49

T

BE 6/2, 76

Ae “k”/8/10

sale house

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

10. Marduk-mušallim

CBM 1806

T

BE 6/1, 17

AS oath

adoption

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

CBM 4485

QH

BE 6/2, 86

Si 30/2/1

uppi la rag.

VII. Warad-Sîn

—

CBS 80

sT

OLA 21, 6

A 5/7/21

hire divpon

—

11. Marduk-mušallim

CBS 95

T

OLA 21, 9

Si 7/1/28

harvest lab.

—

8. Išme-Sîn

CBS 1600

QH

OLA 21, 77

Si 24/11/[...]

inheritance

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

—

CBS 1612

T

PBS 8/2, 261

d.l. a oath

sale [...]

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Como 4

T

Ballerini 1908-9

Sm 13

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Como 4

C

Ballerini 1908-9

Sm 13

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Di 312

T

(unpublished)

Si 30/12/30

excerpt

VII. Warad-Sîn

—

Di 673

TC

(unpublished)

[AS]

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

—

Di 677

T

(unpublished)

a 9/—/—

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

Di 677

C

(unpublished)

a 9/—/—

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

3

BM 16724 = case; BM 92512 = tablet = APR 36 = BAP 36.

275

annex iii Di 689

TC

(unpublished)

Si 1/5/4

donation

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

Di 690

TC

(unpublished)

Ad 20/2/12

sale field

IX. Sîn-iqīšam

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Di 696

T

(unpublished)

a 8

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

Di 696b

C

(unpublished)

a 8

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

Di 707

TC

(unpublished)

a 16/—/—

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

Di 709

QH

(unpublished)

Si 9/2/3

inheritance

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

8. Išme-Sîn

Di 821

T

(unpublished)

A 11/7/14

hire div. weapon

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Di 821

C

(unpublished)

A 11/7/14

hire div. weapon

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Di 864

sT

(unpublished)

A 13/11/9

loan of silver

XII. Sîn-aam-iddinam

—

Di 878

T

(unpublished)

A 10/x/11

conctes

XII. Sîn-aam-iddinam

—

Di 933

sT

(unpublished)

Ad 36/2/1

loan silver

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

(Etel-pī-Nabium—not witn.)

Di 984

sT

(unpublished)

A 6/8/6

silver loan (?)

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Di 1128

sT

(unpublished)

Ad 32/6/13

field lease

—

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Di 1131

T

(unpublished)

Si 2/3/7

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 1131

C

(unpublished)

Si 2/3/7

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 1147

sT

(unpublished)

A 3/1/26

field lease

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Di 1430

TC

(unpublished)

a 32/10/20

sale é.kigal

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

Di 1438

T

(unpublished)

a 39/5/12

exchange

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

Di 1438

C

(unpublished)

a 39/5/12

exchange

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

Di 1453

T

(unpublished)

Si [...]

uppi la rag.

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

—

Di 1473

QH

(unpublished)

A [...]

fragment

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Di 1547

C

(unpublished)

Ae “m”/9/10

donation

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

10. Marduk-mušallim

Di 1674

sT

(unpublished)

[post A 5]

hire div. weap.

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Di 1802

T

(unpublished)

Ae [...]

field sale

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 1802

C

(unpublished)

Ae [...]

field sale

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 1803

TC

(unpublished)

Si 31/6/5

donation

VII. Warad-Sîn

—

Di 1804

QH

(unpublished)

A 5/[/2

donation

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Di 1851

QH?

(unpublished)

Ae “e”/9/23

disadoption

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

10. Marduk-mušallim

Di 1907

T

(unpublished)

Sm oath

uppi la rag.

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Di 1907

C

(unpublished)

Sm oath

uppi la rag.

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Di 2001

sT

(unpublished)

Ad 22/4/5

(broken)

—

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Di 201

T

MHET I, 1, 2

Si 30/10/15

sale field

VII. Warad-Sîn

—

Di 201

C

MHET I, 1, 2

Si 30/10/15

sale field

VII. Warad-Sîn

—

Di 2016

T

(unpublished)

a 43/—/—

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 2016

C

(unpublished)

a 43/—/—

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 2017

T

(unpublished)

Sm oath

sale kisla

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Di 2017

C

(unpublished)

Sm oath

sale kisla

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Di 2029

T

(unpublished)

Sm 17

sale é.kisla

V. Annum-pī-Aja

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Di 2035

T

(unpublished)

Ae”m”/9/10

donation

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

10. Marduk-mušallim

Di 2111

T

(unpublished)

Ae.../10/30

inheritance

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 2113

T

(unpublished)

a 37/4/28

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

Di 2113

C

(unpublished)

a 37/4/28

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

iv. lists and concordances

276 Di 2115

T

(unpublished)

Si 19/5/14

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 2115

C

(unpublished)

Si 19/5/14

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 2117

T

(unpublished)

Si 4/9/1

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 2117

C

(unpublished)

Si 4/9/1

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 2119

C

(unpublished)

Si 19/[

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 2121

T

(unpublished)

Si 7/1/12

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

Di 2121

C

(unpublished)

Si 7/1/12

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

Di 2122

T

(unpublished)

Si [...]

uppi lā rag.

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 2122

C

(unpublished)

Si [...]

uppi lā rag.

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Di 2129

QH

(unpublished)

Ad 32/[]/10

sale field

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Di 2136

T

(unpublished)

a [37]

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

Di 2136

C

(unpublished)

a [37]

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

Di 2142

C

(unpublished)

d a oath

division

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

Di 2163

QH

(unpublished)

Ad [32]/[]/10

certificate

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Di 2172

T

(unpublished)

a 36

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

HG 96

QH

charpin 88

post A 5

donation

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

IM 85928

T

Adami 1997

AS 2/-/-

litigation

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

IM 85928

C

Adami 1997

AS 2/-/-

litigation

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

IM?

s

Al Rawi 87

s.d.

[fragment]

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

LB 682

T

TLB I, 224

Si 26/5/10

sale é.kigal

VII. Warad-Sîn

—

LB 768

C

TLB I, 230

AS oath

inheritance

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

LB 1836

T

TLB I, 218

AS oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

LB 2118

T

TLB I, 222

d.l.

real estate

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šamu-Sîn

MAH 16516

T

TJDB pl

AS oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

Ni 1291

T

ARN 174

[...]

litigation

IX. Sîn-iqīšam

—

O.147

T

Speleers 241

Si [/30

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

Sip 10

T

SFS Si10

Sm oath

donation

V. Annum-pī-Aja

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Sip 77

T

SFS Si77

Sm oath

inheritance?

V. Annum-pī-Aja

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

VAT 959

C

VS 8, 13

Sa oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

VAT 960

T

VS 8, 12

Sa oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

VAT 1250

T+C

VS 13, 16

Si 2/10/–

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

VAT 1256

C

VS 8, 21

s.d. (Sm)

real estate

IV. Warad-Sîn

—

VAT 1287

C

VS 8, 50

Sm oath

sale real est.

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

VAT 1292+2141

C

VS 9, 211+213

a 1/7/11

sale é.kisla

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

VAT 1521

T

VS 8, 51

Sm oath

sale real est.

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

VAT 2160j

C

VS 9, 169

a oath

(fragment)

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

VAT 2948

T

VAS 13, 25

a 41/11/—

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

VAT 6072

T

VS 13, 34

a oath

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

VAT 638A

T

VS 8, 4

Im oath

wedding

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš

(Ilum-mušallim)

VAT 638B

C

VS 8, 5

[Im oath]

wedding

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš

(Ilum-mušallim)

VAT 644A

T

VS 9, 42

a 31/4/2

sale é.kisla

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

VAT 644B

C

VS 9, 43

a 31/4/2

sale é.kisla

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

YBC 4979

T

YOS 14, 163

Sm oath

litigation

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

277

annex iii 2. Additional Concordances A. Old BM Collection Numbers—New BM Numbers

This list allows to see at glance from which British Museum collections texts in this study stem. The excellent article of G. Kalla (1999) has shown that interesting information can be gained from this knowledge. However, the vast majority of our corpus are property deeds and these typically travel from one archive to another when the property changes hands. As we saw above, tablets from SipparJarūrum did end up in Sippar-Amnānum and the reverse was no doubt also the case. The archive where our texts ended up and from which they were ultimately unearthed to be grouped in BM collections will, in most cases, have no relation with the persons mentioned in the texts. In this way and for our purposes nothing much can be done with information about the BM collections to which some of our texts belong. 1902,10-11,36

BM 96982

unpublished4

92-7-9, 60

BM 16944

CT 47, 21

1902-10-11, 156

BM 97102

MHET 844

92-7-9, 65

BM 16949

MHET 53

1902-10-11, 174

BM 97120

MHET 859

92-7-9, 75

BM 16959

CT 47, 42

1902-10-11, 174

BM 97120

MHET 859

92-7-9, 77

BM 16961

MHET 255

1902-10-11, 259

BM 97205

MHET 926

92-7-9, 91

BM 16975

MHET 28

1902-10-11, 369

BM 97315

MHET 906

92-7-9, 92

BM 16976

CT 47, 5

89-10-14, 48

BM 79502

MHET 60

92-7-9, 103

BM 16987

MHET 318

89-10-14, 52

BM 92603

MHET 107

92-7-9, 161

BM 17045

CT 47, 30

89-10-14, 310

BM 79763

MHET 61

92-7-9, 161a

BM 17045A

CT 47, 30a

92-5-16, 3

BM 16467

MHET 459

92-7-9, 171

BM 17055

CT 47, 56

92-5-16, 7

BM 16471

MHET 130

92-7-9, 171a

BM 17055A

CT 47, 56a

92-5-16, 21

BM 16485

MHET 567

92-7-9, 176

BM 17060

CT 47, 7

92-5-16, 25

BM 16489

CT 47, 1

92-7-9, 176a

BM 17060A

CT 47, 7a

92-5-16, 108

BM 16572

MHET 131

92-7-9, 180a

BM 16959A

CT 47, 42

92-5-16, 260

BM 92512

BAP 36

92-7-9, 183

BM 17067

CT 47, 69

92-5-16, 301

BM 16765

MHET 250

92-7-9, 183a

BM 17067A

CT 47, 69a

BM 16812

CT 47, 65

92-7-9, 189

BM 17073

MHET 85

BM 16812A

CT 47, 65a

92-7-9, 189a

BM 17073A

MHET 85

92-5-16, 350

BM 16814

CT 47, 78

92-7-9, 221

BM 17105

unpublished5

92-5-16, 350a

BM 16814A

CT 47, 78a

94-1-15, 54

BM 17340

MHET 55

92-5-16, 355

BM 16819

CT 47, 11

94-1-15, 60

BM 17346

MHET 87

92-5-16, 355a

BM 16819A

CT 47, 11a

94-1-15, 66

BM 17352

MHET 132

92-5-16, 348 92-5-16, 348A

92-5-16, 357

BM 16821

CT 47, 47

94-1-15, 66a

BM 17352A

MHET 132

92-5-16, 357a

BM 16821A

CT 47, 47a

94-1-15, 67

BM 17353

MHET 172

92-5-16, 365

BM 16829

CT 47, 44

94-1-15, 156

BM 17442

MHET 7

92-5-16, 365

BM 16829A

CT 47, 44a

94-1-15, 156a

BM 17442A

MHET 7

92-5-16, 389

BM 16853

MHET 158

94-1-15, 201

BM 17487

MHET 324

92-5-16, 389

BM 16853

MHET 158

94-1-15, 310

BM 17596

MHET 633

92-7-9, 30

BM 16914

CT 47, 66

AH 82-9-18, 4345+7064

BM 64368

MHET 30

92-7-9, 33

BM 16917

CT 47, 26

AH.82-9-18, 7316

BM 67320

CT 48, 17

92-7-9, 47

BM 16931

CT 47, 43

Bu. 88-5-9, 43

BM 92511

CT 2, 3

92-7-9, 50

BM 16934

CT 47, 41

Bu. 88-5-12, 13

BM 78180

CT 45, 16(9)

4 5

Transcription courtesy of E. Woestenburg. Described by F. Blocher (1992, 42). Joined with 17105a

and 17119, resp. 92-7-9, 221a and 235 as part of the case of BM 80271.

iv. lists and concordances

278 Bu. 88-5-12, 39

BM 78202

CT 8, 5a

Bu. 91-5-9, 766

BM 80628

CT 8, 37a

Bu. 88-5-12, 45

BM 92512

MHET 48

Bu. 91-5-9, 2468/A

BM 92657A

MHET 109

Bu. 88-5-12, 114

BM 78258

CT 45, 33

Bu. 88-5-12, 135

BM 92523

CT 8, 9b

Bu. 91-5-9, 2469

BM 82424

CT 48, 29

Bu. 91-5-9, 2469a

BM 82424a

CT 48, 29

Bu. 88-5-12, 147

BM 92525

CT 45, 26(13)

Bu. 91-5-9, 2471

BM 82425

MHET 66

Bu. 88-5-12, 155

BM 92528

CT 2, 5

Bu. 91-5-9, 2471/A

BM 82425A

MHET 66

Bu. 88-5-12, 683

BM 92578

CT 45, 10(6)

Bu. 91-5-9, 2472A

BM 82427

(unpublished)8

Bu. 88-5-12, 684

BM 92578A

CT 45, 10(6)

Bu. 91-5-9, 2475

BM 82432

CT 48, 59

Bu. 88-5-12, 697

BM 78769

CT 4, 45c

Bu. 91-5-9, 2477 A

BM 82435

CT 6, 46

Bu. 88-5-12, 705

BM 92582

CT 4, 46a

Bu. 91-5-9, 2477/A

BM 82423

CT 48, 59

Bu. 91-5-9, 2480

BM 82438

CT 8, 48a

Bu. 91-5-9, 2480/A

BM 82439

CT 48, 31

Bu. 91-5-9, 2481

BM 82440

MHET 180

Bu. 88-5-12, 721

BM 92586

CT 4, 49b

Bu. 88-5-12, 722

BM 92586A

MHET 121

Bu. 91-5-9, 270

BM 80156

CT 6, 6

Bu. 91-5-9, 275

BM 92610

CT 45, 11(6)

Bu. 91-5-9, 2481/A

BM 82441

MHET 180

Bu. 91-5-9, 289

BM 92612

CT 45, 12(7)

Bu. 91-5-9, 2482

BM 82422

MHET 425

Bu. 91-5-9, 313

BM 80193

CT 45, 28(14)

Bu. 91-5-9, 2482/A

BM 82423

MHET 425

Bu. 91-5-9, 317

BM 92614

CT 6, 19a

Bu. 91-5-9, 2487

BM 82450

BDHP 14

Bu. 91-5-9, 349

BM 80220

CT 8, 29c6

Bu. 91-5-9, 2487/A

BM 82451

BDHP 14

Bu. 91-5-9, 351

BM 92619

CT 8, 29b

7

Bu. 91-5-9, 2489

BM 82454

CT 8, 49a

Bu. 91-5-9, 365

BM 80233

CT 6, 22b

Bu. 91-5-9, 2489/A

BM 82454

CT 8, 49a

Bu. 91-5-9, 366

BM 80234

CT 2, 33

Bu. 91-5-9, 2492

BM 82460

CT 8, 39b

Bu. 91-5-9, 367

BM 92622

CT 2, 34

Bu. 91-5-9, 2492/A

BM 82461

MHET 112

Bu. 91-5-9, 407

BM 80271

CT 6, 26a

Bu. 91-5-9, 2496

BM 82468

MHET 200

Bu. 91-5-9, 410

BM 80274

CT 2, 41

Bu. 91-5-9, 2496/A

BM 82469

MHET 200

Bu. 91-5-9, 565

BM 80426

CT 6, 33a

Bu. 91-5-9, 2499

BM 82472

CT 8, 44a

Bu. 91-5-9, 567

BM 80428

MHET 161

Bu. 91-5-9, 2511

BM 82491

CT 45, 2

Bu. 91-5-9, 595

BM 80458

MHET 702

Bu. 91-5-9, 2511/A

BM 82492

CT 45, 2

Bu. 91-5-9, 655

BM 80517

BDHP 66

Bu. 91-5-9, 2524

Bu. 91-5-9, 664

BM 80526

BDHP 65

Bu. 91-5-9, 2524/A

BM 82512/13

CT 6, 40c

BM 82513

(unpublished)

B. New BM Numbers—Old Ones BM 16467

92-5-16, 3

MHET 459

BM 16821

92-5-16, 357

CT 47, 47

BM 16471

92-5-16, 7

MHET 130

BM 16821A

92-5-16, 357a

CT 47, 47a

BM 16485

92-5-16, 21

MHET 567

BM 16829

92-5-16, 365

CT 47, 44

BM 16489

92-5-16, 25

CT 47, 1

BM 16829A

92-5-16, 365

CT 47, 44a

BM 16572

92-5-16, 108

MHET 131

BM 16853

92-5-16, 389

MHET 158

BM 16765

92-5-16, 301

MHET 250

BM 16853

92-5-16, 389

MHET 158

BM 16812

92-5-16, 348

CT 47, 65

BM 16914

92-7-9, 30

CT 47, 66

92-5-16, 348A

CT 47, 65a

BM 16917

92-7-9, 33

CT 47, 26

BM 16814

92-5-16, 350

CT 47, 78

BM 16931

92-7-9, 47

CT 47, 43

BM 16814A

92-5-16, 350a

CT 47, 78a

BM 16934

92-7-9, 50

CT 47, 41

BM 16944

92-7-9, 60

CT 47, 21

BM 16812A

BM 16819

92-5-16, 355

CT 47, 11

BM 16819A

92-5-16, 355a

CT 47, 11a

6 7

CT 29b in the publication. CT 29c in the publication.

8

Case of CT 8, 48a = BM 82438.

279

annex iii BM 16949

92-7-9, 65

MHET 53

BM 80285

Bu 91-5-9, 421

CT 6, 30a

BM 16959

92-7-9, 75

CT 47, 42

BM 80426

Bu. 91-5-9, 565

CT 6, 33a

BM 16959A

92-7-9, 180a

CT 47, 42

BM 80428

Bu. 91-5-9, 567

MHET 161

BM 16961

92-7-9, 77

MHET 255

BM 80458

Bu. 91-5-9, 595

MHET 702

BM 16975

92-7-9, 91

MHET 28

BM 80517

Bu. 91-5-9, 655

BDHP 66

BM 16976

92-7-9, 92

CT 47, 5

BM 80525

Bu 91-5-9, 663

BDHP 68

BM 16987

92-7-9, 103

MHET 318

BM 80526

Bu. 91-5-9, 664

BDHP 65

BM 17045

92-7-9, 161

CT 47, 30

BM 80628

Bu. 91-5-9, 766

CT 8, 37a

BM 17045A

92-7-9, 161a

CT 47, 30a

BM 82048

Bu. 91-5-9, 2183

CT 8, 29a

BM 17055

92-7-9, 171

CT 47, 56

BM 82265

Bu. 91-5-9, 2365

CT 48, 27

BM 17055A

92-7-9, 171a

CT 47, 56a

BM 82265a

Bu. 91-5-9, 2365a

CT 48, 27

BM 17060

92-7-9, 176

CT 47, 7

BM 82349

Bu. 91-5-9, 2413

MHET 18

BM 17060A

92-7-9, 176a

CT 47, 7a

BM 82350

Bu. 91-5-9, 2413/A

MHET 18

BM 17067

92-7-9, 183

CT 47, 69

BM 82361

Bu. 91-5-9, 2419

MHET 102

BM 17067A

92-7-9, 183a

CT 47, 69a

BM 82362

Bu. 91-5-9, 2419/A

MHET 102

BM 17073

92-7-9, 189

MHET 85

BM 82422

Bu. 91-5-9, 2482

MHET 425

BM 17073A

92-7-9, 189a

MHET 85

BM 82423

Bu. 91-5-9, 2482/A

MHET 425

BM 17105

92-7-9, 221

(unpublished)9

BM 82423

Bu. 91-5-9, 2477/A

CT 48, 59

BM 17340

94-1-15, 54

MHET 55

BM 82424

Bu. 91-5-9, 2469

CT 48, 29

BM 17346

94-1-15, 60

MHET 87

BM 82424a

Bu. 91-5-9, 2469a

CT 48, 29

BM 17352

94-1-15, 66

MHET 132

BM 82425

Bu. 91-5-9, 2471

MHET 66

BM 17352A

94-1-15, 66a

MHET 132

BM 82425A

Bu. 91-5-9, 2471/A

MHET 66

BM 17353

94-1-15, 67

MHET 172

BM 82427

Bu. 91-5-9, 2472A

(unpublished)

BM 17442

94-1-15, 156

MHET 7

BM 82432

Bu. 91-5-9, 2475

CT 48, 59

BM 17442A

94-1-15, 156a

MHET 7

BM 82435

Bu. 91-5-9, 2477 A

CT 6, 46

BM 17487

94-1-15, 201

MHET 324

BM 82438

Bu. 91-5-9, 2480

CT 8, 48a

BM 17596

94-1-15, 310

MHET 633

BM 82439

Bu. 91-5-9, 2480/A

CT 48, 31

BM 64368

AH 82-9-18, 4345+7064

MHET 30

BM 82440

Bu. 91-5-9, 2481

MHET 180

BM 67320

AH.82-9-18, 7316

CT 48, 17

BM 82441

Bu. 91-5-9, 2481/A

MHET 180

BM 78180

Bu. 88-5-12, 13

CT 45, 16(9)

BM 82450

Bu 91-5-9,2487

BDHP 14

BM 78202

Bu. 88-5-12, 39

CT 8, 5a

BM 82451

Bu 91-5-9,2487/A

BDHP 14

BM 78258

Bu. 88-5-12, 114

CT 45, 33

BM 82454

Bu. 91-5-9, 2489

CT 8, 49a

BM 78769

Bu. 88-5-12, 697

CT 4, 45c

BM 82454

Bu. 91-5-9, 2489/A

(unpublished)

BM 79502

89-10-14, 48

MHET 60

BM 82460

Bu. 91-5-9, 2492

CT 8, 39b

BM 79763

89-10-14, 310

MHET 61

BM 82461

Bu. 91-5-9, 2492/A

MHET 112

BM 80156

Bu. 91-5-9, 270

CT 6, 6

BM 82468

Bu. 91-5-9, 2496

MHET 200

BM 80179

Bu 91-5-9, 298

CT 45, 91(41)

BM 82469

Bu. 91-5-9, 2496/A

MHET 200

BM 80193

Bu. 91-5-9, 313

CT 45, 28(14)

BM 82472

Bu. 91-5-9, 2472A

CT 8, 44a

10

BM 80220

Bu. 91-5-9, 349

CT 8, 29c

BM 82491

Bu 91-5-9, 2511

CT 45, 2

BM 80233

Bu. 91-5-9, 365

CT 6, 22b

BM 82492

Bu 91-5-9, 2511/A

CT 45, 2

BM 80234

Bu. 91-5-9, 366

CT 2, 33

BM 82512

Bu. 91-5-9, 2524

CT 6, 40c

BM 80242

Bu 91-5-9, 375

CT 2, 35

BM 82513

Bu. 91-5-9, 2524/A

(unpublished)

BM 80271

Bu. 91-5-9, 407

CT 6, 26a

BM 92511

Bu. 88-5-9, 43

CT 2, 3

BM 80274

Bu. 91-5-9, 410

CT 2, 41

BM 92512

Bu. 88-5-12, 45

MHET 48

9 10

Described by F. Blocher (1992, 42). CT 29b in the publication.

iv. lists and concordances

280 BM 92512

92-5-16, 260

BAP 36

BM 92622

Bu. 91-5-9, 367

CT 2, 34

BM 92523

Bu. 88-5-12, 135

CT 8, 9b

BM 92641

Bu. 91-5-9, 2191

CT 6, 43

BM 92525

Bu. 88-5-12, 147

CT 45, 26(13)

BM 92644

Bu. 91-5-9, 2196

CT 8, 35b

BM 92528

Bu. 88-5-12, 155

CT 2, 5

BM 92644A

Bu. 91-5-9, 2196A

(unpublished)

BM 92578

Bu. 88-5-12, 683

CT 45, 10(6)

BM 92650/A

Bu. 91-5-9, 2440

MHET 238

BM 92578A

Bu. 88-5-12, 684

CT 45, 10(6)

BM 92650/A

Bu. 91-5-9, 2440/A

MHET 238

BM 92582

Bu. 88-5-12, 705

CT 4, 46a

BM 92657

Bu. 91-5-9, 2468

MHET 109

BM 92586

Bu. 88-5-12, 721

CT 4, 49b

BM 92657A

Bu. 91-5-9, 2468/A

MHET 109

BM 92586A

Bu. 88-5-12, 722

MHET 121

BM 96982

1902,10-11,36

BM 96982

BM 92603

89-10-14, 52

MHET 107

BM 97102

1902-10-11, 156

MHET 844

BM 92610

Bu. 91-5-9, 275

CT 45, 11(6)

BM 97120

1902-10-11, 174

MHET 859

BM 92612

Bu. 91-5-9, 289

CT 45, 12(7)

BM 97120

1902-10-11, 174

MHET 859

BM 92614

Bu. 91-5-9, 317

CT 6, 19a

BM 97205

1902-10-11, 259

MHET 926

BM 97315

1902-10-11, 369

MHET 906

BM 92615

Bu 91-5-9, 318

CT 4, 50a

BM 92619

Bu. 91-5-9, 351

CT 8, 29b11

11

CT 29c in the publication.

281

annex iv

ANNEX IV. CONCORDANCE PUBLICATIONMUSEUM REGISTRATION NUMBERSANGA Adami 1997

IM 85928

T

AS 2/-/-

litigation

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

Adami 1997

IM 85928

C

AS 2/-/-

litigation

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

Al Rawi 87

IM?

s

s.d.

[fragment]

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

Ni 1291

T

[...]

litigation

IX. Sîn-iqīšam

—

BAP 36

BM 92512

T

AS oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BBVOT 1, 6

AO 1746

C

[Sm]

adoption

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

BBVOT 1, 105

AO 7806

T

AS oath

donation

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BBVOT 1,111

A0 7812

T

Ad 5/1/12

sale é.kigal

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

10. Marduk-mušallim

BBVOT 1 112

A0 7816

C

Ad 5/1/12

sale é.kigal

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

10. Marduk-mušallim

BBVOT 1, 115

AO 7815

T

AS 17

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BBVOT 1, 147

AO 7856

C

AS oath

donation

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BDHP 14

BM 82450

T

Im oath

inheritance

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš

(Ilum-mušallim)

BDHP 14

BM 82451

C

Im oath

inheritance

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš

(Ilum-mušallim)

BDHP 65

BM 80526

T

a oath

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

BDHP 66

BM 80517

T

a 32/[12d/

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

BDHP 68

BM 80525

T

Sa-/-/-

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

1. Išar-Šamaš

BE 6/1, 17

CBM 1806

T

AS oath

adoption

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

BE 6/1, 76

CBM 49

T

Ae “k”/8/10

sale house

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

10. Marduk-mušallim

BE 6/2, 86

CBM 4485

QH

Si 30/2/1

uppi lā ragāmim

VII. Warad-Sîn

—

ARN 174

Charpin 88

HG 96

QH

post A 5

donation prebend

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 2, 3

BM 92511

T

Sa 13/7/-

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

1. Išar-Šamaš

CT 2, 5

BM 92528

T

Si 9/ 2/10

sale field

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

—

CT 2, 33

BM 80234

T

Sle /-/-

freeing of slave

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

CT 2, 34

BM 92622

T

Sle oath

uppi lā ragāmim

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

CT 2, 35

BM 80242

T

Sle oath

inheritance

II. Šamaš-tappašu

(Damu-galzu)

CT 2, 41

BM 80274

T

a 38/6/13

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

CT 4, 45c

BM 78769

T

a /-/-

sustenance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 4, 46a

BM 92582

T

Si 6/12/4

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

CT 4, 49b

BM 92586

T

Sm 13/5/4

sale house

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

CT 4, 50a

BM 92615

T

Im+Sle

sale garden

I.Annum-pī-Šamaš

(Imlik-Sîn)

CT 6, 6

BM 80156

QH

A 11/8/4

litigation

XI. Sîn-aam-iddinam

12. Marduk-nāīr

CT 6, 19a

BM 92614

T

Sa oath

sale house

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Ilabrat-bāni)

CT 6, 22b

BM 80233

T

s

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 6, 26a

BM 80271

C

Sle+Sa

wedding

III. Lipit-Ištar

[(Būr-Nunu)]

CT 6, 30a

BM 80285

T

Sle oath

inheritance

II. Šamaš-tappašu

[(Būr-Nunu)]

CT 6, 33a

BM 80426

T

Si 8/4/—

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

CT 6, 40c

BM 82512/3

T

Sa 2

silver loan

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Adad-rēmēni)

CT 6, 43

BM 92641

T

AS oath

sale

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 6, 46

BM 82435

TC

AS 13/2/-

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 8, 5a

BM 78202

T

a 41/6/11

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

CT 8, 9b

BM 92523

T

Si 30/11/8

sale house

VII. Warad-Sîn

—

CT 8, 29a

BM 82048

TC

AS oath

adoption

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

iv. lists and concordances

282 CT 8, 29b

BM 92619

T

AS 1/-/-

adoption

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 8, 29c

BM 80220

T

AS -/-/-

donation

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 8, 35b

BM 92644

T

a /-/-

sale slave+ox

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 8, 37a

BM 80628

T

a 30?/—/-

sustenance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

CT 8, 39b

BM 82460

T

Sm oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 8, 44a

BM 82472

T

Sle oath

sale kisla

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

CT 8, 48a

BM 82438

T

a 11/-/-

adoption

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 8, 49a

BM 82454

T

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 45, 2

BM 82491

C

Sle oath

sale ki.bal

II. Šamaš-tappašu

(Būr-Nunu)

CT 45, 2

BM 82492

T

Sle oath

sale kittum

II. Šamaš-tappašu

(Būr-Nunu)

CT 45, 10(6)

BM 92578+

T

AS oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 45, 10(6)

BM 92578A

C

AS oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 45, 11(6)

BM 92610

T

AS 18

inheritance

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 45, 12(7)

BM 92612

T

AS oath

donation

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 45, 16(9)

BM 78180

T

Sm oath

adoption

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

CT 45, 26(13)

BM 92525

T

a 33/11/30

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

CT 45, 28(14)

BM 80193

T

a x/4/[]

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

CT 45, 33

BM 78258

C

Si 9/ 2/10

sale field

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

—

CT 45, 91(41)

BM 80179

T

s.d. (AS)

donation

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 47, 1

BM 16489

T

Sa oath

donation

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

CT 47, 5

BM 16976

T

AS oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 47, 7

BM 17060+

T

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 47, 7a

BM 17060A

C

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 47, 11

BM 16819

T

Sm oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

CT 47, 11a

BM 16819A

C

Sm oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

CT 47, 21

BM 16944

T

a 2/-/-

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 47, 26

BM 16917

T

a 16

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

CT 47, 30

BM 17045

T

a 10/3/20

donation

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 47, 30a

BM 17045A

C

a 10/3/20

donation

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

CT 47, 41

BM 16934

T

Ha 31/7/1

sale é.kisla

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

CT 47, 42

BM 16959

T

a 32/12d/9

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

CT 47, 42

BM 16959A

C

a 32/12d/9

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

CT 47, 43

BM 16931

T

a 33/1/20

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

CT 47, 44

BM 16829

T

a 34/8/5

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

CT 47, 44a

BM 16829A

C

a 34/8/5

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

CT 47, 47

BM 16821

T

a 43/1/—

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

CT 47, 47a

BM 16821A

C

a 43/1/—

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

CT 47, 56

BM 17055

T

Si 4/12/20

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

CT 47, 56a

BM 17055A

C

Si 4/12/20

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

CT 47, 65

BM 16812

T

Si 25/12/30

inheritance

VII. Warad-Sîn

9. Sîn-erībam

CT 47, 65a

BM 16812A

C

Si 25/12/30

inheritance

VII. Warad-Sîn

9. Sîn-erībam

CT 47, 66

BM 16914

T

Si []/5/4

inheritance

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

8. Išme-Sîn

CT 47, 69

BM 17067

T

Ae “h”/12/30

sale house

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

—

CT 47, 69a

BM 17067A

C

Ae “h”/12/30

sale house

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

—

1 BM 16724 = case; BM 92512 = tablet = APR 36 = BAP 36.

283

annex iv CT 47, 78

BM 16814

T

AS oath

donation

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 47, 78a

BM 16814A

C

AS oath

donation

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 48, 17

BM 67320

T

AS oath

inheritance

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 48, 27

BM 82265+

T

s

litigation

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Adad-rēmēni)

CT 48, 27

BM 82265+

C

Sa oath

litigation

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Adad-rēmēni)

CT 48, 29

BM 82424+

T

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 48, 29

BM 82424A

C

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

CT 48, 31

BM 82439

C

Sle oath

sale kisla

III. Lipit-Ištar

CT 48, 59

BM 82432/3

T

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

—

CT 48, 59

BM 82432/3

C

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

—

MHET 7

BM 17442

T

Im oath

sale house

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš

(Būr-Nunu)

MHET 7

BM 17442A

C

Im oath

sale house

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš

(Būr-Nunu)

MHET 18

BM 82349

T

Sle oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

MHET 18

BM 82350

C

Sle oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

MHET 28

BM 16975

T

Sa oath

bequest

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

MHET 30

BM64368+

T

Sa oath

adoption

III. Lipit-Ištar

1. Sîn-ennam

MHET 48

BM925121

C

AS oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

MHET 53

BM 16949

T

AS oath

inheritance

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

MHET 55

BM 17340

T

AS oath

adoption

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

MHET 60

BM 79502

TC

AS oath

inheritance

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

MHET 61

BM 79763

T

AS oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

MHET 66

BM 82425

T

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

MHET 66

BM82425A

C

AS oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

MHET 85

BM 17073

T

Sm oath

donation

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

MHET 85

BM 17073A

C

Sm oath

donation

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

MHET 87

BM 17346

T

Sm oath

litigation

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

MHET 102

BM 82361

T

Sm oath

donation

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

MHET 102

BM 82362

C

Sm oath

donation

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

MHET 107

BM 92603

T

Sm oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

MHET 109

BM 92657

T

Sm oath

sale house

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

MHET 109

BM92657A

C

Sm oath

sale house

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

MHET 112

BM 82461

C

Sm 1

Šamu-Sîn

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

MHET 121

BM92586A

C

Sm 13/5/4

sale house

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

MHET 130

BM 16471

T

a oath

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

MHET 131

BM 16572

T

a oath

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-[...]

MHET 132

BM 17352

T

a oath

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

MHET 132

BM 17352A

C

a oath

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

MHET 158

BM 16853

T

a 10/8/[]

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

MHET 158

BM 16853

C

a 10/8/[]

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

MHET 161

BM 80428

T

a 11

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

MHET 172

BM 17353

T

a 14/[]/5

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

MHET 180

BM 82440

T

a 15/[]

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

MHET 180

BM 82441

C

a 15/[]

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

MHET 200

BM 82468

T

a 18

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

MHET 200

BM 82469

C

a 18

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

MHET 238

BM 92650/A

T

a 30/9/25

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

MHET 238

BM 92650/A

C

a 30/9/25

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

iv. lists and concordances

284 MHET 250

BM 16765

T

a 33/5/1

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

MHET 255

BM 16961

TC

a 34

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

MHET 318

BM 16987

T

a [

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

MHET 324

BM 17487

T

d a oath

uppi la rag.

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš

—

MHET 425

BM 82422

T

Si 13/9/10

sale field

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

8. Išme-Sîn

MHET 425

BM 82423

C

Si 13/9/10

sale field

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

8. Išme-Sîn

MHET 459

BM 16467

T

Si[]/[]/20

litigation

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

8. Išme-Sîn

MHET 567

BM 16485

T

s.d. (Sa 14)

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

2. Sîn-ennam

MHET 633

BM 17596

T

s.d. (Ae-Ad)

excerpt

—

10. Marduk-mušallim

MHET 702

BM 80458

sT

s.d. A

field lease

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

MHET 844

BM 97102

T

Sm oath

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

—

MHET 859

BM 97120

T

a 42/4/28?

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

MHET 859

BM 97120

C

a 42/4/28?

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

MHET 906

BM 97315

sT

A 14/1/17

field lease

10

—

MHET 926

BM 97205

T

s.d. (Sm)

sale house

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Di 201

T

Si 30/10/15

sale field

VII. Warad-Sîn

—

MHET I, 1, 2 MHET I, 1, 2

Di 201

C

Si 30/10/15

sale field

VII. Warad-Sîn

—

OLA 21, 6

CBS 80

sT

A 5/7/21

hire div. weap.

—

11. Marduk-mušallim

OLA 21, 9

CBS 95

T

Si 7/1/28

harvest lab.

—

8. Išme-Sîn

OLA 21, 77

CBS 1600

QH

Si 24/11/[...]

inheritance

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

—

PBS 8/2, 261

CBS 1612

T

d.l. a oath

sale [...]

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

RSO 2, 562

Como 4

T

Sm 13

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

RSO 2, 562

Como 4

C

Sm 13

sale field

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Sip 10

Sip 10

T

Sm oath

donation

V. Annum-pī-Aja

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Sip 77

Sip 77

T

Sm oath

inheritance?

V. Annum-pī-Aja

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

O7

T

Si [/30

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

TCL I, 63

AO 1926

T

AS oath

sale garden

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

TCL I, 68

AO 1763+

T

Sm oath

adoption

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

TCL I, 69

AO 1763b

C

Sm oath

adoption

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

TCL I, 77

AO 1628

T

a 1/7/11

sale é.kisla

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

TCL I, 108

AO 4137

T

Si 2/7/-

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

TCL I, 151

AO 2502

sT

Ad 30/7/24

sale field

IX. Sîn-iqīšam

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Speleers 241

TCL I, 203

AO 1776

T

s.d. (Sm)

field lease

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

MAH 16516

T

AS oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

TLB I, 218

LB 1836

T

AS oath

sale field

III. Lipit-Ištar

3. Šumu-Sîn

TLB I, 222

LB 2118

T

d.l.

real estate

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šamu-Sîn

TLB I, 224

LB 682

T

Si 26/5/10

sale é.kigal

VII. Warad-Sîn

—

TLB I, 230

LB 768

C

AS oath

inheritance

IV. Warad-Sîn

3. Šumu-Sîn

TJDB pl

Unpublished

BM 80271+

T

Sle+Sa

wedding

III. Lipit-Ištar

[(Būr-Nunu)]

Unpublished

BM 82427

C

a 11/-/-

adoption

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

Unpublished

BM 82513

C

Sa 2

silver loan

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Adad-rēmēni)

Unpublished

BM 92644A

C

a /-/-

sale slave+ox

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

Unpublished

BM 96982

QH

Ad 2/6/22

adoption

VIII. Lipit-Ištar. Annum-pī-Aja 7

10. Marduk-mušallim

Unpublished

Di 312

T

Si 30/12/30

excerpt

VII. Warad-Sîn

—

Unpublished

Di 673

TC

[AS]

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

—

Unpublished

Di 677

T

a 9/-/-

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

285

annex iv Unpublished

Di 677

C

a 9/-/-

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

Unpublished

Di 689

TC

Si 1/5/4

donation

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

Unpublished

Di 690

TC

Ad 20/2/12

sale field

IX. Sîn-iqīšam

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Unpublished

Di 696

T

a 8

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

Unpublished

Di 696b

C

a 8

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

Unpublished

Di 707

TC

a 16/-/-

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

Unpublished

Di 709

QH

Si 9/2/3

inheritance

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

8. Išme-Sîn

Unpublished

Di 821

T

A 11/7/14

hire div. weap.

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Unpublished

Di 821

C

A 11/7/14

hire divine weapon

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Unpublished

Di 864

sT

A 13/11/9

loan of silver

XII. Sîn-aam-iddinam

—

Unpublished

Di 878

T

A 10/x/11

conc. parum

(Sîn-aam-iddinam2)

—

Unpublished

Di 933

sT

Ad 36/2/1

loan silver

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

(Etel-pī-Nabium—not witn.)

Unpublished

Di 984

sT

A 6/8/6

silver loan (?)

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Unpublished

Di 1128

sT

Ad 32/6/13

field lease

—

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Unpublished

Di 1131

T

Si 2/3/7

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Unpublished

Di 1131

C

Si 2/3/7

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Unpublished

Di 1147

sT

A 3/1/26

field lease

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Unpublished

Di 1430

TC

a 32/10/20

sale é.kigal

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

Unpublished

Di 1438

T

a 39/5/12

exchange

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

Unpublished

Di 1438

C

a 39/5/12

exchange

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

Unpublished

Di 1453

T

Si [...]

uppi lā rag.

VI. Šamaš-tappašu

—

Unpublished

Di 1473

QH

A [...]

fragment

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Unpublished

Di 1547

C

Ae“m”/9/10

donation

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

10. Marduk-mušallim

Unpublished

Di 1674

sT

[post A 5]

hire div. weap.

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Unpublished

Di 1802

T

Ae [...]

field sale

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Unpublished

Di 1802

C

Ae [...]

field sale

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Unpublished

Di 1803

TC

Si 31/6/5

donation

VII. Warad-Sîn

—

Unpublished

Di 1804

QH

A 5/[/2

donation

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

—

Unpublished

Di 1851

QH?

Ae “e”/9/23

disadoption

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

10. Marduk-mušallim

Unpublished

Di 1907

T

Sm oath

uppi la rag.

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Unpublished

Di 1907

C

Sm oath

uppi la rag.

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Unpublished

Di 2001

sT

Ad 22/4/5

(broken)

—

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Unpublished

Di 2016

T

a 43/-/-

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Unpublished

Di 2016

C

a 43/-/-

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Unpublished

Di 2017

T

Sm oath

sale kisla

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Unpublished

Di 2017

C

Sm oath

sale kisla

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Unpublished

Di 2029

T

Sm 17

sale é.kisa

V. Annum-pī-Aja

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

Unpublished

Di 2035

T

Ae“m”/9/10

donation

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

10. Marduk-mušallim

Unpublished

Di 2111

T

Ae.../10/30

inheritance

VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Unpublished

Di 2113

T

a 37/4/28

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

Unpublished

Di 2113

C

a 37/4/28

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

Unpublished

Di 2115

T

Si 19/5/14

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

2 Probably still sanga of another deity at that time, later to become sanga of Šamaš, see our comments on the first sanga XII.

iv. lists and concordances

286 Unpublished

Di 2115

C

Si 19/5/14

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Unpublished

Di 2117

T

Si 4/9/1

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Unpublished

Di 2117

C

Si 4/9/1

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Unpublished

Di 2119

C

Si 19/[

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Unpublished

Di 2121

T

Si 7/1/12

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

Unpublished

Di 2121

C

Si 7/1/12

sale house

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

Unpublished

Di 2122

T

Si [...]

uppi lā rag.

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Unpublished

Di 2122

C

Si [...]

uppi lā rag.

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

Unpublished

Di 2129

QH

Ad 32/[]/10

sale field

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Unpublished

Di 2136

T

a [37]

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

Unpublished

Di 2136

C

a [37]

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

Unpublished

Di 2142

C

d a oath

division

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

Unpublished

Di 2163

QH

Ad [32]/[]/10

certificate

X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Unpublished

Di 2172

T

a 36

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

7. Sîn-bāni

VS 8, 4

VAT638A

T

Im oath

wedding

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš

(Ilum-mušallim)

VS 8, 5

VAT638B

C

[”]

”

I. Annum-pī-Šamaš

(Ilum-mušallim)

VS 8, 12

VAT 960

T

Sa oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

VS 8, 13

VAT 959

C

Sa oath

inheritance

III. Lipit-Ištar

(Būr-Nunu)

VS 8, 21

VAT 1256

C

s.d. (Sm)

real estate

IV. Warad-Sîn

—

VS 8, 50

VAT 1287

C

Sm oath

sale field/house

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

VS 8, 51

VAT 1521

T

Sm oath

sale field/house

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

VS 9, 42

VAT644A

T

a 31/4/2

sale é.kisla

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

VS 9, 43

VAT 644B

C

a 31/4/2

sale é.kisla

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

VS 9, 169

VAT 2160j+

C

a oath

(fragment)

V. Annum-pī-Aja

6. Sîn-iddinam

VS 9,211+213

VAT 1292+2141

C

a 1/7/11

sale é.kisla

V. Annum-pī-Aja

5. Etel-pī-Nabium

VS 13, 16

VAT 1250

T

Si 2/10/-

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

VS 13, 16

VAT 1250

C

[Si 2/10/-]

sale field

[...]

[...]

VS 13, 25

VAT 2948

T

a 41/11/—

sale field

V. Annum-pī-Aja

8. Išme-Sîn

VS 13, 34

VAT 6072

T

a oath

inheritance

V. Annum-pī-Aja

—

YOS 14, 163

YBC 4979

T

Sm oath

litigation

IV. Warad-Sîn

4. Šalim-pāli-Marduk

v. bibiliography

287

V. BIBLIOGRAPHY AbB 1 = Kraus, F.R., Briefe aus dem British Museum (CT 43 und 44), Leiden, 1964. AbB 2 = Frankena, R., Briefe aus dem British Museum (LIH und CT 2-33) (= AbB 2), Leiden, 1966. AbB 7 = Kraus, F.R., Briefe aus dem British Museum (CT 52), Leiden, 1977. AbB 11 = Stol, M., Letters from Collections in Philadelphia, Chicago and Berkeley, Leiden, 1986. AL-Adami 1997: “King Apil-Sîn confirms the judgment of Sumulael”, Sumer 49, 73-75. Al-Gailani-Werr, L. 1980: “Chronological Table of Old babylonian Seal Impressions”, Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology. University of London 17, 33-84. Al-Gailani-Werr, L. 1988: Studies in the Chronology and Regional Style of Old Babylonian Cylinder Seals (= BiMes 23). al-Rawi 1993: “A New Old Babylonian Date List from Sippir with Year Names of Apil-Sîn and Sîn-muballi”, ZA 83, 22-30. al-Rawi/Dalley 2000: Old Babylonian Texts from Private Houses at Abu Habbah, ancient Sippir, Baghdad University Excavations, London (= E.DUB.BA.A 7). ARN = çig, M., Kizilyay, H. and Kraus, F.R., Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus Nippur, Istanbul, 1952. B = Blocher, F. 1992b. BAP = Meissner, B., Beiträge zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht, Leipzig, 1983. BBVOT 1 = Arnaud, D., Altbabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden, Berlin, 1989. BDHP = Waterman, L., Business Documents of the ammurapi Period from the British Museum, London, 1916. BE 6/I = Ranke, H., Babylonian Legal and Business Documents from the Time of the First Dynasty of Babylon, Chiefly from Sippar, Philadelphia, 1906. BE 6/II = Poebel, A., Legal and Business Documents from the Time of the First Dynasty of Babylon, Chiefly from Nippur, Philadelphia, 1909. Blocher, F. 1992: Siegelabrollungen auf fruhaltbabylonischen Tontafeln in der Yale Babylonian Collection: Ein Katalog (= Münchener vorderasiatische Studien IX), München. Blocher, F. 1992a: Siegelabrollungen auf frühaltbabylonischen Tontafeln im British Museum. Ein Katalog (= MVS X), München. Boehme, S. 1993: “Bemerkungen zum Statuettentypus alan-ša3-ne-ša4, “Statuette des Flehens”, einem Symbol altbabylonischer “Beamten-loyalität gegenüber dem Herrscher”, AOF 20, 123—133. BT = Teissier, B. 1998. Buchanan, B. 1957: “On the Seal Impressions on Some Old Babylonian Tablets”, JCS 11, 45-52. Buchanan, B. 1981: Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection, New Haven/London. Charpin, D. 1986: Le clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurabi (XIXe-XVIIIe siècles av. J.-C.), Genève, Paris. Charpin, D. 1988: “Sippar. Deux villes jumelles”, RA 82, 13-32. Charpin, D. 1990: “Les divinités familiales des Babyloniens d’après les légendes de leurs sceaux-cylindres”, in tunca, ö (éd.), De la Babylonie à la Syrie, en passant par Mari. Mélanges offerts à Monsieur J.-R. Kupper à l’occasion de son 70ème anniversaire, Liège, 59-78. Charpin, D. 1994: Compte rendu de BBVOT 1, RA 88/1, 78-81. Charpin, D. 1999: “agalum, šakkanakkum de Rapiqum, et ses serviteurs” in Böck, B., Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. and Richter, Th. (Hrsg.), Munuscula Mesopotamica, Festschrift für Johannes Renger (= Alter Orient und Altes Testament 267), Münster, 99-108. Charpin, D. 2004 = charpin, d., d.o. edzard and m. stol, Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit (= OBO 160/4), Freiburg, 23-482. Colbow, G. 1991: Die Kriegerische Ištar. Zu den Erscheinungsformen bewaffneter Gottheiten zwischen der Mitte des 3. und der Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends (= MVS 8), München. Colbow, G. 1992: “Einige Abrollungen aus der Zeit Ammiditanas bis Samsuditanas im Louvre”, RA 86, 121-157. Colbow, G. 1998: “Spätaltbabylonische Siegelabrollungen aus Nordbabylonien im Louvre. Eine nachlese zu den Veröffentlichungen von L. Delaporte und L. Al-Gailani”, SMEA XL/2, 167-196. Collon, D. 1982: Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum, Cylinder Seals II, Akkadian—Post Akkadian—Ur III Periods, London. Collon, D. 1986: Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum, Cylinder Seals III, Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian Periods, London. Collon, D. 1987: First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East, London. CT 2 = Pinches, Th.G., Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Part II, London, 1896. CT 4 = Pinches, Th.G., Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Part IV, London, 1898. CT 6 = Pinches, Th.G., Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Part VI, London, 1898. CT 8 = Pinches, Th.G., Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Part VIII, London, 1899. CT 45 = Pinches, Th.G., Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Part XLV, Old-Babylonian Business Documents, London, 1963. CT 47 = Figulla, H.N., Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Part XLVII, Old-Babylonian nadītu Records, London, 1967. CT 48 = Finkelstein, J.J., Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Part XLVIII, Old Babylonian Legal Documents, London, 1968. De Clercq 1885: Catalogue méthodique et raisonné. Antiqités Assyyriennes, Paris. De Graef, K. 2003: “Two Ilšu-ibni’s, two ugula gidru’s. Šarrum-Laba‘, a Military Settlement at the Irnina”, AuOr 20, 61-97. De Graef, K., Tanret, M. 2001: “Un sceau avec le kišib d’Ur-Utu, Grand Lamentateur d’Annunītum”, NABU.

288

v. bibiliography

Dekiere, L. 1991: “Some Remarks on Sippar-Amnānum = Sippar-rabûm”, NABU 110. Delaporte, L. 1920: Musée du Louvre, Catalogue des Cylindres orientaux II, Acquisitions, Paris. Edzard, D.O. 1957: Die ,,zweite Zwischenzeit“ Babyloniens, Wiesbaden. Frayne, D.R. 1990: Old Babylonian Period (2003-1595 bc) (= RIME 4), Toronto. Gasche, H., Armstrong, J.A., Cole, S.W. and Gurzadyan, V.G., 1998: Dating the Fall of Babylon. A Reappraisal of Second-Millennium Chronology (= Mesopotamian History and Environment Series II: Memoirs 4), Ghent–Chicago. Gibson, McG. and Biggs, R. 1977: Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East (=Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 6), Malibu. George, A.R. 1993: House Most High. The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia (= MC 5), Winona Lake. Goetze, A., 1957: “Old-Babylonian Documents from Sippar in the Collection of the Catholic University of America”, JCS 11, 15-40. Gordon, C.H. 1952: Smith College Tablets (= Smith College Studies in History, vol. XXXVIII), Northampton, Ma. GW 1980 = Al-Gailani-Werr, L. 1980. GW 1988 = Al-Gailani-Werr, L. 1988. Hallo, W.W. 1977: “Seals Lost and Found” in Gibson, McG. and Biggs, R. 1977, 55-60. Harris, R. 1961: “On the process of secularization under Hammurapi”, JCS 15, 117-120. Harris, R. 1968: “The Journey of the Divine Weapon”, Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his seventy-fifth birthday. April 21, 1965 ( = AS 16). Harris, R. 1968a: “Some Aspects of the Centralization of the Realm under Hammurapi and His Successors” JAOS 88, 727-732. Harris, R. 1972: “Notes on the Nomenclature of Old Babylonian Sippar”, JCS 24, 102-104. Harris, R. 1975: Ancient Sippar. A Demographic Study of an Old Babylonian City (1894-195 BC), Leiden. Horsnell, M.J.A. 1999: The Year-Names of the First Dynasty of Babylon (2 vol.), Hamilton, Ontario. Isma’el, Kh. S. 2001: “Two Old Babylonian Texts from Sippar”, Akkadica 122, 59-63. Janssen, C. 1991: “Samsu-iluna and the Hungry Nadītums”, NAPR 5, 3-39. Janssen, C. 1991a: “E’iltam paārum: awāt adê”, in: De Meyer, L. & Gasche, H. (Eds.), Mésopotamie et Elam. Actes de la XXXVIème Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Gand, 10-14 juillet 1989 (= Mesopotamian History and Environment. Occasional Publications, Vol. 1), p. 77-107. Janssen, C. 1992: “Inanna-mansum et ses fils: relation d’une succession turbulente dans les archives d’Ur-Utu”, RA 86, 19-52. Janssen, C., Gasche, H., Tanret, M. 1994: “Du chantier à la tablette. Ur-Utu et l’histoire de sa maison à SipparAmnānum”, in: Gasche, H., Tanret, M. and janssen, C. (Eds.), Cinquante-deux réflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancien, Leuven, p. 91-123. Kalla, G. 1999: “Die Geschichte der Entdeckung der altbabylonischen Sippar-Archive”, ZA 89, 201-226. Kelly-Buccellati, M. 1987: “Sealing Practices at Terqa” in Kelly-Buccellati, M. (Ed.), Insight through Images. Studies in honor of Edith Porada ( = Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 21), Malibu, 133-142. Klengel, H. 1968: “Eine babylonische Verlustanzeige”, Or.n.s. 37, 216-219. Klengel, H. 1983: Altbabylonische Texte aus Babylon (= VS N.F. 6 [VS 22]), Berlin. Klengel-Brandt, E. 1983: “Siegelabrollungen auf altbabylonischen Tontafeln aus Babylon”, AOF 10, 65106. Klengel-Brandt, E. 1989: “Altbabylonische Siegelabrollungen (VS VII-IX)”, AOF 16, 250-356. Koppen (van), F. 2001, “Sweeping the court and locking the gate: the palace of Sippir-ērim“ in Van Soldt, W.H., Dercksen, J.G., N.J.C. Kouwenberg, Th.J.H. Krispijn, Veenhof anniversary volume. Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth birthday (= PIHANS 89), Leiden, Leemans, W.F. 1954: Old Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents, Leiden. Limet, H. 1968: L’Anthroponymie sumérienne dans les documents de la 3e dynastie d’Ur (= BFPLL 153), Paris. Lion, B. 2001: “Dame Inanna-ama-mu, scribe à Sippar”, RA 95, 7-32. Lion, B. and Robson, E. 2005: “Quelques textes scolaires paléo-babyloniens rédigés par des femmes”, JCS 57, 37-54. Matthews, D. 1990: Principles of Composition in Near Eastern Glyptic of the Later Second Millennium B.C.(= OBO Series Archaeologica 8), Freiburg-Göttingen. Matthews, D. 1992: The Kassite Glyptic of Nippur (= OBO 116), Göttingen-Fribourgh. MHET = Dekiere, L. 1994: Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents from Sippar in the British Museum, Gent. n° 1-129 = vol. II, Part I. Pre-ammurabi Documents, 1994. n° 130-341 = vol. II, Part II. Documents from the Reign of ammurabi, 1994. n° 342-466 = vol. II, Part III. Documents from the Reign of Samsu-Iluna, 1995. n° 467-563 = vol. II, Part IV. Post-Samsu-Iluna Documents, 1995. n° 564-842 = vol. II, Part V. Documents without Date or with Date Lost, 1996. n° 843-932 = vol. II, Part VI. Documents from the Series 1902-10-11 (from Zabium to Ammi-aduqa), 1997. MHET I, 1 = van lerberghe, k. and voet, g. 1991: The Ur-Utu Archive.[Miscellaneous Texts], Gent. Möller, E. 1985: “Shamutum and her family”, Akkadica 43, 16-20. Müller, G. 1998: Londoner Nuzi-Texte, Wiesbaden (= SANTAG, Bd. 4). OLA 21 = Van Lerberghe, K. (in coll. with M. Stol and G. Voet), Old Babylonian Legal and Administrative Texts from Philadelphia, Louvain, 1986. Otto, A. 2000: Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der Klassisch-Syrischen Glyptik, (= ZA Erg.-Bd. 8), Berlin/New York. Owen, D. and Mayr, R. 2001: “The Royal Gift Seal in the Ur III Period” in H.Waetzoldt (ed.), Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurück. Festschrift für Giovanni Pettinato zum 27. September 1999 gewidmet von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern (= Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient Bd. 9), Heidelberg. Pientka, R. 1998: Die spätaltbabylonische Zeit. Abiešu bis Samsuditana. Quellen, Jahresdaten, Geschichte (= IMGULA 2), Münster. Podany, A.H. 2002: The Land of Hana. Kings, Chronology, and Scribal Tradition, Bethesda. Powell, M.A. 1989: “Aia = Eos” in Dumu.é.dub.ba. Studies in honor of Åke W. Sjöberg (= Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 11), 447-455. PSB 8/2 = Chiera, E., Old Babylonian Contracts, Philadelphia, 1922.

v. bibiliography

289

Renger, J. 1967: “Untersuchungen zum Priestertum in der altbabylonischen Zeit 1. Teil”, ZA 58, 110-188. Renger, J. 1977: “Legal Aspects of Sealing in Ancient Mesopotamia” in Gibson, McG. and Biggs, R. 1977, 75-88. RSO 2 = Ballerini, F.: “Antichità Assiro-Babilonesi nel Museo civico di Como”, Rivista degli Studi Orientali, 2 (1908-9), 535-71. Sipp = SFS SFS = Scheil, V. 1902: Une saison de fouilles à Sippar (Abou Habba), janvier-avril 1894, Le Caire. Sommerfeld, W. 1982: Der Aufstieg Marduks. Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr., Neukirchen-Vluyn (= AOAT 213). Spaey, J. 1993: “Emblems and Rituals in the Old Babylonian Period” in Quaegebeur, J. (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (= OLA 55), Leuven, 411-420. Speleers, L. 1925: Recueil des inscriptions de l’Asie antérieure des Musées royaux du Cinquantenaire à Bruxelles. Textes sumériens, babyloniens et assyriens, Bruxelles. Stein, D. 1993: The Seal Impressions (= Wilhelm, G. (Hrsg.), Das Archiv des Šilwa-Teššup, Heft 9), Wiesbaden. Steinkeller, P. 1977: “Seal Practice in the Ur III Period” in Gibson, McG. and Biggs, R. 1977, 41-53. Stol, M. 1998: Stol, M. and Vleeming, S.P., The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East ( = Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East, 14), Leiden, 59-118. Stol, M. 1998a: “Die altbabylonische Stadt alalla” in Dietrich, M., Loretz, O. (eds.), “Dub.sar anta-men”Festschrift für W.Ph. Römer, Münster, 415-445. Stol, M. 2000: “Titel altbabylonische Klosterfrauen” in J. Marzahn, H. Neumann (eds.), Assyriologica et Semitica. Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner (= AOAT 252), Münster. Stol, M. 2002: “Personen um den König in altbabylonischer Zeit” in Loretz, O., Metzler, K.A. und Schaudig, H., Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux. Festschrift für Manfred Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag ( = AOAT 281), Münster, 735-758. Szlechter, É. 1958: Tablettes juridiques de la 1ière dynastie de Babylone, conservées au Musée d‘Art et d‘Histoire de Genève, Paris. Tanret, M. and Van Lerberghe, K. 1993: “Rituals and profits in the Ur-Utu-archive”, in Quaegebeur, J. (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (= OLA 55), Leuven, 435-449. Tanret, M. 1998: “Le namkarum. Une étude de cas dans les textes et sur la carte” in Gasche, H. and Tanret, M. (eds.), Changing Watercourses in Babylonia. Towards a Reconstruction of the Ancient Environment in Lower Mesopotamia. Volume I (= MHE Series II, Memoirs V), Ghent-Chicago, 65-132. Tanret, M. 1999: “The Field and the Map: of ghosts and fictive neighbours” in Landscapes and Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East. Papers presented to the LXIV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Venezia 7-11 July 1997. Vol. II. Geography and Cultural Landscapes, 159-162. Tanret, M. 2004: “Verba volant, scripta non manent. Tablettes nomades dans les archives des gala.ma à Sippar-Amnānum” in Nicolle, C. (éd.), Nomades et sédentaires dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Compte rendu de la XLVIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris, 10-13 juillet 2000 (= Amurru 3), Paris, 249-270. TCL I = Thureau-Dangin, F., Lettres et Contrats de l’époque de la première dynastie Babylonienne, Paris, 1910. Teissier, B. 1998: “Sealing and Seals: Seal-impressions from the reign of ammurabi on Tablets from Sippar in the British Museum”, Iraq 60, 109-186. TJDB = Szlechter, E., Tablettes juridiques de la Ière Dynastie de Babylone, Genève, 1958. TLB I = Leemans, W.F., Old Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents, Leiden, 1954. Tunca, Ö. (ed.) 1990: De la Babylonie à la Syrie, en passant par Mari. Mélanges offerts à Monsieur J.-R. Kupper à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire Liège. Veenhof, K.R. 2003: “Fatherhood is a Matter of Opinion” in W. Sallaberger, K. Volk und A. Zgoll (eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, Wiesbaden, 313-332. Voet, G. 1991: “Het Ur-Utu archief: evolutie in het zegelpraxis”, Akkadica 72, 20-36. Voet, G. and Van Lerberghe, K. 1989: “A Long Lasting Life” in Dumu.é.dub.ba. Studies in honor of Åke W. Sjöberg (= Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 11), 525-538. VS 8 = Ungnad, A., Altbabylonische Privaturkunden aus die Zeit von Sumu-abum bis ins 16. Regierungsjahr Hammurabis (= Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der königlichen Museen zu Berlin VIII), Leipzig, 1909. VS 9 = Ungnad, A., Altbabylonische Privaturkunden (= Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der königlichen Museen zu Berlin IX), 1909. VS N.F.13 = Klengel, H. und Klengel-Brandt, E., Spätaltbabylonische Tontafeln (= Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der königlichen Museen zu Berlin Neue Folge 13), Berlin, 2002. Walker, C.B.F. 1978: “Texts and Fragments”, JCS 30, 234-249. Westbrook, R., 1988: Old Babylonian Marriage Law (= Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 23), Horn, 1988. Wiggermann, F.A.M. 1981/82: “Exit talim. Studies in Babylonian Demonology, I”, JEOL 27, 90-105. Wiggermann, F.A.M. 1992: Mesopotamian Protective Spirits. The Ritual Texts (= Cuneiform Monographs 8), Leiden. Wilcke, C. 1976:“Zu den spät-altbabylonischen Kaufverträgen aus Nordbabylonien”, WdO 8, 254-285. Wilcke, C. 1983: “Nachlese zu A. Poebels Babylonian Legal and Business Documents From the Time of the First Dynasty of Babylon Chiefly From Nippur (BE 6/2). Teil I”, ZA 73, 48-66. Winter, I. 1986: “The king and the cup: Iconography of the Royal Presentation scene on Ur-III seals”, in: M. KellyBuccellati et alii, Insight through Images. Studies in Honor of Edith Porada, (= BM 21), 253-268. Woestenburg, E and Jagersma, B. 1992: Note 28. The continuing story of Sippar-Amnānum = Sippar-rabûm, 24-25. Woestenburg, E. 1993: Review of Van Lerberghe, K., M. Stol and G. Voet, Old Babylonian legal and Administrative Texts from Philadelphia (= OLA 21), BiOr 50, 425-433. Woestenburg, E. 1997/98: Review of Dekiere, L., MHET II, 1-4, AfO 44-45, 349-360. YOS 12 = Feigin, S.I., Legal and Administrative Texts of the Reign of Samsu-iluna, New Haven-London, 1979. YOS 13 = Finkelstein, J.J., Late Old Babylonian Documents and Letters, New Haven, London, 1972. YOS 14 = Simmons, S.D. (with the coll. of E.C. Kingsbury), Early Old Babylonian Documents (= YOS 14), New Haven, London, 1978.

290

v. bibiliography

vi. seal plates

VI. SEAL PLATES

291

vi. seal plates

292

THE SEALS OF THE FIRST SANGAS (all seal drawings are 150%)

Fig. 1. I. Annum-pī-Šamaš

Fig. 2. II. Šamaš-tappašu

Fig. 3. III. Lipit-Ištar

Fig. 4A. IV. Warad-Sîn

Fig. 4B. IV. Warad-Sîn

293

vi. seal plates

Fig. 5. V. Annum-pī-Aja

Fig. 6. VI. Šamaš-tappašu

Fig. 8A. VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

Fig. 9. IX. Sîn-iqīšam

Fig. 7. VII. Warad-Sîn

Fig. 8B. VIII. Annum-pī-Aja

Fig. 10. X. Ilšu-ibnīšu

294

vi. seal plates

Fig. 11. XII. Sîn-aam-iddinam

295

vi. seal plates

THE SEALS OF THE HIGH OFFICIALS ACTING AS SECOND WITNESSES

Fig. 12. Ilum-mušallim

Fig. 13. Būr-Nunu

Fig. 14. Damu-galzu

Fig. 15A . Adad-rēmēni

Fig. 15. Adad-rēmēn

i

vi. seal plates

296

THE SEALS OF THE SECOND SANGAS

Fig. 16. 2. Sîn-ennam

Fig. 17A. 4. Šalim-pali-Marduk

Fig. 17B. 4. Šalim-pali-Marduk

Fig. 18. 5. Etel-pī-Nabium

Fig. 19A. 6. Sîn-iddinam

Fig. 19B. 6. Sîn-iddinam

297

vi. seal plates

Fig. 20A. 7. Sîn-bāni

Fig. 20B. Asallui-mansum father of Sîn-bāni

Fig. 21A. Išme-Sîn

Fig. 21B. 8. Išme-Sîn

Fig. 20C. 7. Sîn-bāni

Fig. 21C. 8. Išme-Sîn

Fig. 22A. 10. Marduk-mušallim

Fig. 22B. 10. Marduk-mušallim

Fig. 23A. 11. Etel-pī-Nabium

Fig. 23B. 11. Etel-pī-Nabium

vi. seal plates

298

THE SEALS OF THE SANGAS OF THE EDIKUDA IN SIPPARAMNANUM

Fig. 24A. Sîn-išmeanni

Fig. 24B. Sîn-išmeanni

Fig. 24C. Sîn-išmeanni

Fig. 24D. Sîn-išmeanni

Fig. 25. Ikūn-pī-Sîn

Fig. 26. Ibni-Šerum

vi. seal plates

THE SEALS OF THE SANGAS’ DAUGHTERS

Fig. 27. Damiqtum Daughter of Šamaš-tappašu

Fig. 28. Awāt-Aja Daughter of Warad-Sîn

Fig. 29. Lamassi Daughter of Sîn-ennam

299

300

vi. seal plates

301

vii. indexes

VII. INDEXES For ease of use we have separated the sangas from the other persons mentioned in our text. When a person is mentioned in the left column of the text, an ‘a’ is added to the page number, this is a ‘b’ for the right column; a mention in both columns has no letter added to it; a mention in a footnote is referred to by ‘a’ or ‘b’ followed by ‘n.’; a mention in a column and a footnote has nothing added to the page number.

INDEX I: THE SANGAS A. The First and Second Sangas Annum-pī-Aja sanga of Šamaš V son of Warad-Sîn: 12a, 15a, 37b n., 39a, 44-55, 57a, 59-61, 101, 103b, 105-108, 110-112, 114, 115, 117, 118, 125, 127, 128, 129, 150, 151, 183, 186b, 201, 202a, 205, 208, 211, 212, 213b, 217-219, 221a, 224b, 226-228, 235-238, 240, 242, 246a, 247 Annum-pī-Aja sanga of Šamaš VIII son of Warad-Sîn: 13a, 16a, 62a, 63-69, 71a, 74b, 75a, 125, 149-151, 153-155, 183, 184, 201, 205, 208, 211, 214, 215a, 217b, 220, 225a, 237, 241, 242, 247b Annum-pī-Šamaš1 sanga Šamaš I son of Warad-Sîn: 21-24, 28b, 29b, 64a, 79, 81, 89b, 102a, 125, 145, 146, 182a, 201, 202b, 204b, 205, 208, 211, 212b, 216a, 217b, 224a, 237, 240, 242, 247 Etel-pī-Nabium sanga of Šamaš 5 son of Šalim-pāli-Marduk: 44-45, 49b, 50, 103, 105-107, 108, 109b, 112b, 166, 167, 188b, 190a, 202b, 203, 207, 209, 210b, 211, 212b, 213a, 228a, 235a, 239, 241, 243, 246a, 248b, 249a Etel-pī-Nabium sanga of Aja 11 son of Marduk-mušallim: 13-15a, 16a, 68, 70, 72, 119a, 120-124,129a, 175-176, 189a, 190b, 203, 204b, 207, 209, 211, 215, 220, 221b, 223, 232b n., 233, 239, 241, 243, 246 Ilšu-ibni(šu) sanga of Šamaš X son of Sîn-iqīšam: 13a, 15a, 16a, 24a n., 68a, 69a, 70-76, 121-122, 125, 155, 156, 184a, 201, 202a, 204b, 206, 208, 211, 214, 217a, 218b, 233, 237, 238, 241-243, 247, 248a Išar-Šamaš sanga of Šamaš 1: 26, 28a, 29a, 85a, 93-95, 97a, 125b n., 163, 188a, 202b, 203, 204a, 206, 209, 210a, 211, 239, 241, 242 Išme-Sîn sanga of Šamaš 8 son of Ikūn-pī -Uraš: 12b (sanga arpanītum), 46-49, 50 and 52b (sanga arpanītum), 54a, 56, 57a, 102a and 111b-112a (sanga arpanītum), 113-117, 119a, 125, 128b, 170-172, 189a, 203, 207, 209, 211, 215, 216b, 219a, 220, 221b, 225a, 227a, 233, 235b, 236b, 239, 241, 243, 248b, 249a Lipit-Ištar sanga of Šamaš III son of Šamaš-tappašu: 15b, 19a, 24a, 25-35, 36a n., 38a, 43a, 59a, 82, 83b, 84, 85a, 87b, 88a n., 93-95, 97a, 99, 102a, 125, 146-149, 152, 182, 183, 186b, 195b, 201, 202, 205, 208, 209b, 210a, 211, 217a, 218a, 224, 226, 227, 233, 234, 235a, 237, 238a, 240, 242, 245a, 247a 1 Sometimes shortened to Annum-pīšu (on pages 21-22 and 79).

Marduk-mušallim sanga of Aja 10 son of Marduk-nāir/Sîn-erībam: 13, 14b, 15a, 20a, 62b, 64, 66b, 102a, 111b, 117-120, 123, 129b, 173-176, 189a, 190b, 203, 204b, 207, 209, 211, 215, 220, 221b, 239, 241, 243, 248a Marduk-nāir sanga of Aja 12 son of Marduk-mušallim: 74, 111b, 120a n., 123, 177, 190a, 203a, 204b, 207, 209, 211, 219, 239, 241, 243 Nūr-Kabta sanga of Šamaš XI son of Ilšu-ibnīšu: 71, 74-76, 123-125, 134a, 156, 157, 184a, 201, 206, 208, 211, 212b, 225b, 237, 238, 242, 247a, 248a Sîn-aam-iddinam sanga of Šamaš XII son of Sîn-iqīšam: 13a, 16a, 75-77, 156-157, 184a, 201, 206, 208, 211, 212b, 227b, 237, 241, 242, 248a Sîn-bāni sanga of Šamaš 7 son of Asallui-mansum sanga of Marduk: 46, 47, 49b, 50, 52b, 53a, 60b, 102a, 108a, 109a, 110-112, 113b, 125, 127, 168-169, 188b, 190b, 191a, 201b n., 202b, 203, 204, 207, 209, 211, 215, 219-221, 235b, 239, 241, 242, 243, 246a, 247b, 249 Sîn-ennam sanga of Šamaš 2 son of Sîn-imitti: 26, 28b, 29a, 32, 40, 41a, 82b n., 94-99, 103b ., 163, 188a, 189b, 190a, 195b, 196a, 197, 202b, 203, 206, 208, 209-211, 212b, 213a, 226, 228, 239, 241, 242, 248b, 249a Sîn-iqīšam sanga of Šamaš IX son of Warad-Sîn: 13a, 68-71, 74b, 75, 76, 120-122, 125, 129a, 154-157, 184a, 201, 202a, 206, 208, 211, 214, 217b, 218b, 225a, 235a, 237, 241, 242, 247-248a Šalim-pāli-Marduk2 sanga of Šamaš 4 son of Sîn-gāmil: 19a, 35a n., 36b n., 37-40, 42a, 43-45, 49a, 70a n., 100-106, 109b, 111a, 118b, 164, 165, 166, 188, 189a, 190a, 196a n. , 202b, 203, 204b, 207, 209-211, 212a, 213a, 223, 220, 221a, 226, 235a, 239, 241, 242, 248b, 249a Šamaš-tappašu sanga Šamaš II son of Annum-pī-Šamaš: 23-25, 28b, 29b, 30a, 41a, 81-83, 125, 146, 147, 182a, 183a, 195a, 201, 205, 208, 209b, 211, 214, 217b, 218a, , 224a, 228a, 237, 240, 242, 249a Šamaš-tappašu sanga of Šamaš VI son of Annum-pī-Aja: 12a n., 15b n., 56-61, 82a, 114-116a n., 150-152, 183b, 187a, 201, 202b, 205, 208, 211, 213, 214, 217a, 218b, 225a, 227a, 236b, 237, 240, 242, 247b 2

Often shortened to Šalim-pālišu

302

vii. indexes

Šu/amu-Sîn sanga of Šamaš 3 son of Nūr-Sîn?: 18a, 26-27, 29, 32a n., 34-36, 38b-41a, 42b, 43, 85a, 93a n., 94b, 95-99, 103b, 163, 164, 188a, 190a, 195b, 196a, 197a, 202b, 203, 206, 209-211, 213a, 219, 226-228, 233-235a, 239, 241, 242, 248, 249a Warad-Sîn sanga Šamaš ? father of Annum-pī-Šamaš: 21b, 22b, 70b n., 145, 182a, 201, 202a, 205 Warad-Sîn sanga of Šamaš IV son of Lipit-Ištar: 12a, 15a, 18a, 19a, 28b, 29b, 35-39, 41a, 42, 44, 45a n., 49a, 51a, 52b n., 56, 58a, 59, 60a, 87b, 93 n., 96, 97, 98a, 99a, 100, 101, 102a n., 103b, 112a, 147-150, 183, 187a, 188, 195-197, 201, 205, 208, 211, 212, 213b, 216a, 217a, 218, 220, 224b, 226-228, 233, 235a, 237, 240, 242, 245a Warad-Sîn, sanga of Šamaš VII son of Šamaš-tappašu: 12b, 15a, 57a, 58b n., 61-62a, 63, 66b, 68, 74b, 76b, 116, 117, 129a, 152-155, 183b, 201, 202a, 205, 208, 211, 214, 217b, 225a, 227, 237, 241, 242 Sîn-iddinam sanga of Šamaš 6 son of Enlil?-a?[...]: 14, 15a, 45-47, 49b, 50, 52, 107-109a, 111, 112b, 125, 127a, 167-169, 188b, 190a, 191a, 202b, 203, 204a, 207, 209, 210b, 211, 213a, 220, 221a, 228, 235b, 239, 241, 242a, 243, 249a Sîn-erībam sanga of Šamaš 9 son of Išme-Sîn: 61, 62b, 116-119, 172-174, 189a, 190a, 203, 207, 209, 211, 215, 220, 239, 241, 243, 248b, 249a

B. The Sangas of the Edikuda Etel-pī-Marduk sanga of the Edikuda G son of Ibni-Marduk: 125, 129, 135b, 177, 192a Ibni-Šērum sanga of the Edikuda J son of Sîn-ibni: 76a, 125, 134135a, 181, 192b, 193a, 208 Ikūn-pī-Sîn sanga of the Edikuda I: 76a, 125, 134, 135, 180, 181, 192b, 193, 208 Narām-Sîn sanga of the Edikuda E son of EN[...]: 125, 128, 135b, 177, 192a Nūr-Šamaš sanga of the Edikuda A: 125, 126, 177, 192a Sîn-išmeanni sanga of the Edikuda H son of Utu-urbara: 125, 127b, 129b-133, 135a, 140b, 177-180, 192, 193, 207 Sîn-nādin-šumi sanga of the Edikuda F: 125, 128, 129, 177, 192a Šamšatum sanga of the Edikuda B: 125, 126, 127, 177, 192a Šumi-eretim sanga of the Edikuda D: 125, 127-128a, 135b, 177, 192a Utu-urbara sanga of the Edikuda C: 112a, 125, 127, 129-131a, 135b, 177, 192a

INDEX II: PERSONS MENTIONED When present, titles and/or family relations have been added to the list below, even if we did not mention them on all of the pages referred to. The father’s names have not been listed as individual entries, they are only mentioned under the name of their sons. The titles are given in English translation folowed by the Akkadian or Sumerian between round brackets, except for the long title doorkeeper of the gagûm corresponding to ì. du8 (NÍG) ká ga-gi-im/ga.gi4.a. ()abdi-(a)ra mayor (rabiānum), son of Ali-tillati: 18a, 37b n., 41b Abum-waqar son of Šamaš-nūr-mātim: 47b n. Adad-rēmēni messenger (rá.gab), doorkeeper (ì.du8), son of Damugalzu: 26, 28a, 29a, 30a, 32, 33b, 34, 37, 40b, 83a, 84, 85, 89, 90, 91a, 96a n., 157, 161, 162, 186b, 187, 216, 220, 221a, 228b, 233a Adad-šar-ilī 73b Aassunu nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Abīja: 31 Aum-kīnum doorkeeper of the gagûm: 30 Aja-bēlet-nīši daughter of Ludlul-Sîn: 58 Aja-rīšat overseer of the nadiātum, daughter of Ilabrat-bāni: 42a, 85, 86, 87a Aja-šarrat 235a n. Aja-šitti overseer of the nadiātum, daughter of Būr-Nunu: 85, 86, 87a, 195b Aja-tallik nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Utu-Lugalankia: 12a n. nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Lirbi-Sippar: 42b

overseer of the nadiātum, daughter of Būr-Nunu: 85, 86, 196a, 197a, 244b n. nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Ilabrat-bāni: 85, 86, 196a Ajjalātum daughter of Sumu-la-El: 18b, 29a Akšak-iddinam son of Itti-Enlil-qinni: 48b n. Amat-Adad nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Awi/bu[...]: 31 Amat-bēltim nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Ipiq-Annunītum: 69b, 196b n. Amat-Šamaš daughter of Akbinānum: 31 daughter of Enlil-abum: 98b daughter of Ilšu-ibbīšu: 236b daughter of Jakum-arari: 12b n. daughter of Sîn-iqīšam: 63b daughter of Sumu-Adad of Qaara: 18 nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Mašum: 18b, 45a n., 51b nadītum of Šamaš: 69b female scribe (munus dub.sar): 98a Amurrum-bāni doorkeeper of the gagûm, son of Ilum-mušallim doorkeeper: 30, 80, 83 Annum-pī-Ištar dirge singer (gala): 129a

vii. indexes Apil-ilīšu 46b n. Asallui-bāni galama of Šamaš: 70b n., 73a, 121a n. Asallui-mansum sanga of Marduk, son of Awīl-[...]: 53a, 110, 111a, 113, 168, 169, 188b, 190b, 201b n. , 203a, 207, 249 galama of Šamaš: 201a n. Awāt-Aja daughter of Warad-Sîn sanga IV: 42a, 66b, 195a, 196, 197, 208 nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Sîn-erībam: 63a Awīl-Amurrim galama: 48a n. Awīl-Ištar son of Nannatum: 61b n. Awīl-Sîn sanga: 20a overseer of the nadiātum: 73b Balāssu-lirik 20a Bēlessunu daughter of Ilima-abum: 36b n., 97b n. nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Mutum-El: 235b nadītum of Šamaš: 31, 57a Bēlšunu (becomes Ur-Utu): 57b son of Šamaš- nāir: 212b n. Bēlētum daughter of Akšak-iddinam: 235a Bēltāni daughter of Sîn-māgir: 46b n., 235b Betatum nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Lu-Ninšuburka: 31 Bettani nadītum of Šamaš: 31 Betutētum nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Awīl-Adad: 31 Bulālum doorkeeper: 30, 187a n. Bunene-abi son of Sîn-ga[...]: 64a n. Būr-Nunu son of Nanna-mansum: 82b n. son of Ninšubur-mansum: 85, 86a, 89a overseer of the nadiātum, son of Imlik-Sîn: 22, 24, 25b, 26-28a, 29a, 30b, 32-34, 80-88, 89b, 90b, 125, 126b, 157, 159, 160, 186b, 187a, 206, 216, 218 a n., 244 b n. Būr-Sîn/Aja ancestor of overseer family: 47a n., 81, 85, 86b, 95a, 99, 204b Būr-Sîn judge (di.kud): 46b n. Dadâ 68a n. Damiqtum daughter of Šamaš-tappašu sanga II: 24b, 41a, 101b, 195, 196a, 197, 208, 209b, 228a Damu-galzu messenger/court sweeper: 20a n., 23a, 24, 26b n., 28, 80a, 82, 83-85, 89a (scribe), 90b, 95a, 157, 160-162, 186b, 206, 212a n. , 216 Dingir-šaga 201a n. Eidimana-mansum doorkeeper of the gagûm: 89a, 91b, 187b

303

Elali sanga Adad: 125a n. Elalum 52b Enlil-abi scribe (dub.sar): 98a Erib-Sîn doorkeeper of the gagûm: 30 Eriš-ilum son of Imlik-Sîn: 85, 86a n. Erišti-Aja sister of Sîn-rēmēni and Pala-Adad: 47a n., 53b, 113a overseer of the nadiātum, daughter of Imlik-Sîn: 82a n., 84a, 85, 86a, 87a nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Ilšu-ibbīšu: 234 nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Lu-Iškura: 20a nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Lu-Ninšuburka: 236a nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Rubbuqum: 235a nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Sîn-māgir: 53a, 235b nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Šamaš-rabi: 53b, 235b Esagil-mansum 20a Etel-pī-Marduk sanga of Marduk, son of Marduk-nāir: 111b, 118b, 129b adiammer-Šamaš son of Asirum: 13b aliqum son of Arwium: 19b iššatum nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Alikum: 31 uššutum 24a n., 35 b n. daughter of Ilšu-bāni: 45a n. uššutum nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Sîn-puram: 234b n. uzalatum daughter of Akšaja: 234b uzālum 47b n. Iballu overseer of the nadiātum, son of Ilum-mušallim: 80b n Iballu doorkeeper of the gagûm, son of Adad-rēmēni: 89a Ibbi-Ilabrat son of Ilšu-bāni: 66b, 67 son of Ilšu-ibnīšu: 74b, 75b n., 76 Ibni-Adad overseer of the merchants: 72b Ibni-Gibil scribe (dub.sar): 98a Ibni-Marduk (dis)adopted son of Marduk- nāir: 66a Ibni-Sîn 14a Idadum doorkeeper: 30, 33, 40, 41a, 90b, 186b, 187a n. Iddin-Enlil/Sîn 95a Iddin-Erra son of Tappi-gerrišu: 48a n. Iddin-Ilabrat son of son of Sîn-āzir: 66b Iku-pīša son of Mannum-šāninšu: 128a n. Ilabrat-bāni 87a n. overseer of the nadiātum, son of Būr-Nunu: 26-28a, 29, 32, 33, 34a, 83a, 84-87, 89a, 90b, 93b n., 96a n., 99a, 187

304

vii. indexes

Ili-iddinam judge (di.kud): 128a Ili-usāti 122a Ilša-egalli wife of Inanna-mansum galama: 73a Ilšu-bāni 128a son of Ipiq-Adad: 66, 67 merchant (dam.gàr), son of Ibbi-Ilabrat: 46b n. overseer of the merchants (ugula dam.gàr): 48a n. Ilšu-ibni ugula gidri erén Šarrum-Laba: 13a Ilšu-ibnīšu son of Ea-bēl-[...]: 71b n. Iltāni daughter of king ammu-rabi: 18, 19a n., 45a n., 50, 51b, 53b, 54, 107a, 115a, 235b daugther of Apil-ilīšu: 58b n., 59 nadītum of Šamaš: 57a, 59a n. Ilum-mušallim doorkeeper of the gagûm: 20a n., 22, 23, 30, 79-81a, 82a, 83a, 89b, 157, 158, 186, 206, 216 Imgur-Sîn rabiānum of alalla: 40a Imlik-Sîn singer (nar) son of Būr-Sîn/Būr-Aja: 22, 80b, 81, 82, 85, 95a, 125, 157, 159, 206 Ina-libbi-eršet nadītum: 13a Ina-palēšu doorkeeper of the gagûm: 73b Inanna-mansum galama of Annunītum: 13b, 16a, 49a, 72a, 73a, 122b, 126b n., 131a, 140b, 141, 142a, 230b, 233b Ipiq-Adad father of Ilšu-bāni: 66, 67 Ipiq-Annunītum son of Sîn-āzir: 66b, 67 son of Sîn-iddinam: 20b n. son of Sîn-māgir: 63a judge (di.kud), son of Awīl-Adad: 128b judge (di.kud)?, son of I[ddin-Erra?]: 61b n., 62b Ipiq-eretim sanga Marduk: 102b Ipqatum 73b, 123a Išar-Šamaš son of Nūr-ilīšu/father of Sîn-abūšu: 93b n., 204 Iškur-mansum doorkeeper of the gagûm: 30 Išme-Sîn sanga of arpanītum, son of Ikūn-pī-Uraš: see Išme-Sîn sanga of Šamaš 8 in Index I Ištar-ilīšu diviner (máš.šu.gíd.gíd): 20a Jailatum ugbabtum of Šamaš: 31 Kabtat-šeressu son of Warassa: 127b Kalūmum doorkeeper of the gagûm, son of Adad-rēmēni: 50a n., 52a, 89a, 90b, 91a, 228b Lama?-ilum son of Milaqum: 133, 192b, 179, 207 Lamassāni 45a n.

daughter of Nūr-Šamaš: 108b nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Sîn-iddinam: 13a, 62a, 231b n. Lamassi nadītum of Šamaš: 31, 45 a n. nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Nakkārum: 31 nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Nūr-Šamaš: 31 nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Sîn-ennam sanga 2: 41a, 95b, 195, 196a, 197, 208, 228a Liburram doorkeeper of the gagûm: 88b Lu-dāri 20a, 80a Lugal-Utu son of Ilšu-nāir: 48a n. Lú-natum son of Utu-mansum: 235a Manâ female scribe ? (munus dub.sar), daughter of Sîn-ennam: 195a n. Marduk-lamassašu overseer of the nadiātum: 47b n. Marduk-muballi son of Sîn-erībam: 69a Marduk-mušallim son of Rīš-Marduk: 214a n. son of Sîn-āzir: 66b Marduk-nīšu son of Amurrum-šadi: 37b n. overseer of the nadiātum: 61b n., 62b Mār-Ištar son of Išar-Lim: 12b Munawwirtum daughter of Lugal-Utu: 197b nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Nusku-lā-šanān: 31 Nabi-ilīšu son of Šamaš-īn-mātim: 27a n., 96a n. Nabium-lamassašu judge (di.kud), son of Ibni-Adad: 75a n. Nakkārum son of Annum-pī-Aja: 15b n., 57a n. son of Sîn-erībam: 212b n. Nanna-ibila-mansum son of Utu-[...]: 53a, 113a Nanna-mansum 32b n. overseer of the nadiātum: 82b n. Nannatum doorkeeper of the gagûm: 30, 89a Naramtāni daughter of Rīš-Šamaš (son of Akšaja): 54b Narāmtum nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Ubar-Šamaš: 235b Narubtum nadītum of Šamaš, daugther of Inim-Nanna: 33b Nidnat-Sîn 14b Nīšī-inīšu nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Šū-pīša: 235b Ninšubur-mansum overseer of the nadiātum, son of Ilabrat-bāni: 40a n., 42a, 85-86, 87b, 88b, 89a, 90b, 91a, 187b, 217a, 228b. Nūrātum son of Ipiq-Annunitum: 18b n., 48b n., 54b, 56b n., 61b n., 62b Nūr-ilīšu sanga of Sîn: 13

vii. indexes Nūr-ilīšu ugula šu.i: 20a Nūr-Sîn son of Sîn-i[...]: 98, 103b n. Nūr-Šamaš son of Ibni-Adad: 48b n. Nuubtum nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Dada-waqar: 31 nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Sîn-abūšu: 31 Pala-Adad brother of Erišti-Aja and Sîn-rēmēni: 47a n., 53b, 113a Puzur-Sîn son of Sîn-erībam: 127a Rapaš-illi-Ea overseer of the nadiātum: 47a n., 54b, 115b Rībatum nadītum of Šamaš: 31, 57b Rībatum nadītum of Šamaš: daughter of Nergal-iddinam: 235a Rīš-Šamaš son of Akšaja: 54b son of Imgur-Akšak: 47b n. Sabium-abi doorkeeper of the gagûm, son of Abum-ilum: 37b n. Sabium-ili doorkeeper: 30, 52a, 60b Salatum nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Utu-duga: 235a Salimatum nadītum of Šamaš, daugther of Nēmelum: 31 Sîn-bāni overseer of the nadiātum, son of Šamaš-ilum: 19b n., 27, 44a n., 47a n., 52, 60b, 85, 86a, 87, 88, 89a, 99b, 101b n., 110 n. , 204b n. , 210b Sîn-erībam overseer (ugula): 122a Sîn-gāmil son of Sîn-imitti: 103b n. Sîn-āzir son of Ilšu-bāni: 66, 67 Sîn-iddinam son of Enlil-abi: 108b son of Nūrātum: 128a son of Šū-Kabta: 190b n. mayor of Sippar: 19a scribe (dub.sar): 108a Sîn-imitti 82b n. son of Iddin-Enlil/Sîn: 95a son of Nabi-ilīšu: 95a Sîn-immātim son of Šumma-Šamaš: 18a, 37b n., 41b Sîn-iqīšam 235a Sîn-mansum 46, 112a Sîn-mušallim son of Nidnuša: 214b Sîn-nādin-aê 73b, 123a Sîn-nāir son of Šamaš-rabi: 12 n. Sîn-nāir son of Ipqu-Annunītum: 73a Sîn-rēmēni br. of Pala-Adad and Erišti-Aja: 47a n., 53b, 113a

305

Sîn-šeme scribe (dub.sar): 127a Sinî son of Ipiq-Aja sanga of Šamaš of the Edikudkalama: 131a Šallurum scribe (dumu.é.dub.ba.a): 14a of the Šamaš temple (ša é dutu): 12b n. Šamaš-āzir 57b Šamaš-ilum son of Būr-Nunu: 85b, 86a, 87b, 88a Šamaš-lamassašu doorkeeper of the gagûm: 235a Šamaš-nāir son of Palê-Šamaš: 13b son of Šamaš-tillassu: 64a n. Šamaš-tajjar doorkeeper of the gagûm: 40, 41a, 88b Šamaš-tappašu son of Sîn-rabi: 57b son of Šamaš-liul: 57b gìr.níta, son of Nanna-mansum: 57b, 82b n. Šamaš-tappê doorkeeper of the gagûm: 24a n., 187a n. Šamḫatum nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Warad-ilīšu: 31 Šāt-Aja 235a nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Annum-pīša: 31 nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Ilu-nada: 31 Šāt-Šamaš nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Sîn-ennam sanga 2: 41a, 95b , 195a, 197b Šerikti-Aja daughter of Šamaš-liwwir: 53b, 235b Šerikti-Aja 58a Šumum-libši sanga of Ṣarpanītum: 121a n. Ṣilli-Ninkarak 18b, 19a, 20b n., 37a n., 45 n. scribe (dub.sar), son of Nidnuša: 18b shepherd (sipa): 18b steward (šāpir bītim): 18b, 19a n., 106a Taku(n-)matum nadītum of Šamaš, daughter of Amurrûm: 31 Tarībuša son of Sîn-imguranni: 129a Ubar-Šamaš 12b n Ur-guanaka galamaḫ: 73a, 201a n. Ur-Inanna 66a Ur-Sa˜gkud 201a n. Ur-Utu galama, son of Inanna-mansum: 13a, 15, 16a, 49a, 57b, 71a n., 73b, 76b, 102b, 126b n., 129b, 131, 134a, 135a, 141, 142a, 201b, 230, 233b, 235, 238a Uur-me-Šamaš doorkeeper of the gagûm: 52b Uštašni-ilum 42a Utu-dikud 64b n.

306 Utu-ENGUR.A-nīšī 20a n. , 80a n. Utul-Ištar 13b, 141, 142a Warad-ilīšū see Warassa Warad-Kubi scribe (dub.sar)?: 59

vii. indexes Warad-Nanna 235a Warad-Sîn son of Sîn- nāir: 38b n. Warad-Šamaš court sweeper (kisal.lu): 89b n. Warassa (shortened form of Warad-ilīšu) doorkeeper of the gagûm: 30, 52 Wedu-rigimšu 127b