Tablets from outside the temple
In 1956, a small group of tablets was found in a street alongside the temple, and Parker noted that they would “be published later”. During his visit to Baghdad in 1961 most of these tablets were copied by Alan Millard, but he was unable to complete the study in the time at his disposal, and while I was in Baghdad in the 1970s he entrusted me with his copies. Eventually in 2021, finding myself in the Iraq Museum in search of unpublished Nimrud tablets from the 1952 season I realized that this gave me the opportunity to see the 1956 Balawat tablets, and they were almost instantly retrieved from the storeroom by the museum staff, for whose helpful collaboration I am most grateful. I was able to collate almost all of Prof. Millard’s copies. Although they were only provisional, they were only rarely in need of correction, so that they are reproduced here without the need for a replacement. I am most grateful to him for allowing me to include them in this article, and it is a great sadness that he has not survived to see them in print. They are now supplemented by the remaining tablets from 1956 of which I was able to complete copies. Prof. Millard’s copies were inked for publication; my own I have left in their original pencil, since improved technology has made them sufficiently clear, and inking them would only have introduced inauthentic deviations. Photographs I took in 2021 have occasionally allowed me to improve on the copies, both Prof. Millard’s and my own. These were never intended for publication, but at the urging of the Editors have been made available at the following link https://doi.org/10.1017/irq.2025.10030.
The 1956 tablets are numbered BT 20-36, 39 and listed in Curtis & Tallis (eds.) Reference Curtis and Tallis2008: 91, with their provenances taken from the field catalogue. The group was described by Parker as “thrown out into the street”, and the context is specified as “in debris outside the south-west wall of the building” (i.e. of the temple; Oates Reference Oates1974:176). The catalogue states that BT 23-36 were found in the street west of the Mamu Temple “associated with flattened and broken potsherds at street level”. Isolated finds were BT 20 and 21 from “Trench 2, 1 m below surface about 3 m from W. end of trench at N. edge”, BT 22 from Room 4 of the Mamu Temple, and BT 39 whose provenance was not recorded. BT 37 is an inscribed brick and BT 38, a stone tablet, both with an inscription of Aššurnasirpal (see Finkel in Curtis & Tallis (eds.) Reference Curtis and Tallis2008: 95), and they are not considered here. Here we give an edition of 18 tablets from 1956, followed by four 1957 tablets which were not included in Parker’s Reference Parker1963 article.
To judge purely from their dates, the 1956 tablets fall into three groups: the pair of sales in 693 (or perhaps 688: Nos. 1 and 2), the main group of various transactions in the 660s to 640s (Nos. 3-4, 6-13), and a third much later pair (Nos. 14-15). Nos. 6 and 8 are post-canonical dates, but belong in the 640s (Nabu-dainanni: Reade 645 Parpola 642) and Nabu-nadin-ahi (both Reade and Parpola 647). So, while Nos. 1 and 2 are outliers, and No. 1 is also different on the basis of its provenance, the majority of the transactions form a fairly coherent group, with the same individuals occurring at different times. Even the two late texts seem to belong with the main group despite the lapse of as much as 30 years because the creditor Uarsi in Nos. 14-15 is presumably the same as Urasi in No. 13 (658), where he gives a loan to Kis/šu, well known from still earlier tablets (e.g. Nos. 4, 7 and 12).
It is axiomatic that conveyance tablets should be retained by the purchaser as proof of ownership. Hence it would appear that the street group included tablets we would expect to find in the possession of Šumma-ilu (No. 1), Rimut-Bel[-Harran] (No. 2), Tabalaya (No. 3), Kišu (No. 4), U(a)r(i)si (No. 5), and perhaps Sagab (No. 7). Similarly, contracts, such as loans, would remain in the possession of the creditor until the debt was paid, and hence it is understandable that Kis/šu and Urisi, purchasers in Nos. 4 and 5 respectively are also found as creditors in Nos. 12 (Kisu) and 13-15 U(a)r(a)si.
Nabu-le’i, creditor in No. 9, acted twice as a witness (Nos. 5 and 11). What is perhaps more unexpected is that in No. 3 Tabalaya, the purchaser, is also one of the sellers. The same dual role applies to Urisi in No. 5, where he is found as one of three sellers but also as the sole purchaser. It is probably not coincidental that in both cases the conveyance is of a woman, since joint “ownership” of a woman probably has its origin in a family relationship.
Most in evidence is Nani, who features sometimes as a seller, once as “recipient”, once as a neighbour, and three times as a witness (Nos. 4; 5; 8; 10-12). Kisu is also a protagonist in Nos. 7 and 13, and turns up as a witness in No. 9. Sa/ilu, the seller in No. 3, acts as a witness in three other texts (Nos. 5; 11; and 13). Likewise, Ṣil-šarri who is a “recipient” in No. 10 is a witness in No. 11. Ahu-lamur appears as a witness (No. 6), as a neighbour (No. 8), and is listed in the administrative text No. 18. Several other men act as witnesses to more than one transaction (Nabu-naṣir, 3 times; Ṣil-Bel-ta/illi, 7 times; Še’i–Aššur, 4 times). Two men, Ahu-lamašši and Šulmu-šarri, acted as witnesses to both the two loans, one of silver and one of grain, which Uarsi made late in life to Aššur-bani (Nos. 14-15).
The multiple overlaps between documents indicate that the 1956 tablets were not randomly associated but kept together for some reason, even if they are clearly not the archive of a single person or family. Unlike the 1957 tablets, none of the principals in the documents are given any professional designation suggesting a connection with the temple. As mentioned above, there are however several documents which relate to agricultural affairs and imply relationships with the countryside and its villages (Nos. 8; 9; 10; 11 and 13).
Balawat 1956
1 Seal of […], seal of […], seal of […], seal of […]. Total 4 men [owners of the slave? being sold].
(seal impression)
6 Qurdi-[….and ……, Šumma-ilu] enacted (the procedures) and purchased (and) acquired the(se) people from these men in exchange for 2 [minas of silver].
10 The price has been paid in toto, the people [are] legally purchased. There is no (further) withdrawal, lawsuit or litigation. Whoever, whether these men, or their [sons] or [their brothers o]r their officer who [in the future] at any time arises and initiates [leg]islation (or) litigation [against] Šumma-ilu and [his] sons (and) contravenes (the agreement), shall pay 5 minas of silver. They shall ple[ad] in their lawsuit (but) they shall not succeed.
23 Witnesses: Nabu-ra’im-napišti, bodyguard. Issar-ši, centurion. Ilu-dala. mer[chant]. Nergal-ahu-uṣur. Bal[a…]. Dade. [….]. Naranu. [.…]. Tikusu. [….]. Ahu-iddina. Nabu-…-ahhe[…]. Banašu. Balasi. Ninurta-ibni. Ambu[ru]. Nabu-ban-apli [….]. Nabu-šumu-iqiša, the scri[be], who drafted the conveyance.
36 Month of Ayyaru (II). Eponymate of Iddin-ahhe, (governor) of the land of Ku[…].
Notes
5: the translation assumes the expected formula (such as en.meš un.meš tadāni). Here and in following texts the conventional translation “Owners of the people being sold” has been retained, although strictly it should probably be rather “the persons responsible for the sale of the people” (as noted in Herbordt et al. Reference Herbordt2019: p. 21 note to l. 2).
6: in view of the “people” in ll. 9 and 11 we have to assume that a second person was mentioned here, and in that case there hardly seems room for the expected “their slaves”.
7: the purchaser’s name has to be restored from l. 18.
18: this name may fairly confidently be restored because a man of this name is well known in the archive from the Mamu Temple.
21: the formula requires here idabbubū-ma.
26: the sign after ba does not seem to be la, and there are several other possibilities, including h[u.
30: these traces collated.
32: the “horizontal” of MAŠ slopes and one cannot rule out reading the sign as ŠÚ.
36-7: The name was collated in 2021: the i is virtually certain, and the traces of the following signs permit us to restore -din-pab.meš. There are no other limmu names in the first half of the 7th century which fit. One eponym named Iddin-ahhe held office in 693, and a second, presumably not the same person, in 688, but was governor of Ṣimirra. In modern listings the first Iddin-ahhe has been described as governor of Dur-Šarruken. However, the only cited instance of this toponym appears to be on Bu.91-5-59 + 98. The date there was copied by Johns as ADD 264 edge 1-2: ] lim-mu 1 aš–pab.meš/[ ] ME ME ….[ ]. Ungnad did not give a transcription of edge 2, but it is given in SAA 6 106.r.7 as [lú.gar.kur uru.bàd.luga]l ! –ú ? -k[in !], and this evidently dubious reading (accepted in Millard Reference Millard1994: 95 but not mentioned in Parpola’s (Reference Parpola1979: 42) collation of ADD 264) plainly needed a renewed collation in the light of Millard’s clear copy of l. 37 here giving us KUR ku[-. This cannot equate to any form of Ṣimirra, but must give the beginning of the 693 eponym’s province.
We are therefore left with two unresolved problems. The first is how to restore the 693 toponym. Both the KUR and the ku- would seem to rule out Dur-Šarruken (which was not a land but a city). Toponyms beginning KU[ and occurring elsewhere in the limmu lists include ku-muh, tuš-ha-an, and perhaps ku(l)-la-ni-a, but there is no good reason to opt for any of these.
The second problem is how the toponym in Bu.91-5-59 + should be restored, presumably to agree with either Ṣimirra (688) or KUR ku[… (693). Collation of edge 1 confirms ] lim-mu 1 aš–pab.meš, and of edge 2 the upper parts of three signs are preserved. The SAA reading of luga]l ! –ú ?-k[in !] is certainly wrong, but the remnants of the second and third sign could be reconciled with either uru ṣ[i- or uruB[ÀD, although there is little space at the end of the line to complete either toponym. Unfortunately, the traces before the presumed URU do not resemble either NA]M or GA]R which would allow us to reconstruct “[govern]or”. Since we do not require three different toponyms the neatest solution seems to be to read: ….]x uru ṣ[i-mir-ra] and assign ADD 264 (=SAA 6.106) to 688. BT 126 also dates to 688 as Ṣimirra is clearly preserved, but Nos. 2 and 21 here are more likely (but not certain) to belong like No. 1 to the first Iddin-ahhe in 693 BC (see note to No. 2 rev. 4).
Commentary
This is the only tablet recovered from Room 4 of the temple. While it is not obvious why it was found apart from the main group of temple tablets, it is plain from the persons mentioned that it belongs with them, and Room 4 is immediately adjacent to Room 8 (Oates Reference Oates1974, Pl. XXV). The names of the sellers are lost in ll. 1-4, but from l. 18 we know the purchaser was Šumma-ilu, and he is a “principal character” (Parker Reference Parker1963: 86). He was a purchaser in BT 107, and a creditor making a loan in 103, 105, 113, 116, 120, 127 and probably 118. In 114 he is a witness, and his precise role in BT 119 is unclear, but there, and very likely also in BT 118:1 he is given the title šangu “priest”, while in BT 120 he lends silver which is described as “belonging to Ištar of Arbail”, reinforcing the impression that he belonged to the temple staff, perhaps the predecessor of Mamu-iqbi. Moreover, among the witnesses here we find the merchant Ilu-dala, who recurs in BT 107, 120 and 139, and Naranu, who is found in nine tablets from 1957. Balasi (l. 31), acts as witness in BT 102, 113, 114, 120, 136 and 140, and Nabu-ban-apli (l. 33) in BT 113, 126.
The text is a conveyance of presumably two persons, one a man whose name begins with Qurdi-[, and the purchase price will have been between 2 and 3 minas of silver. Other details of the operative section are lost.
1 Instead of th[eir] seal they impressed their nail. Nail of Karubu. Nail of Manadamû. Total 2 men, owner(s) of the slave being sold.
(nail impressions)
4 […]danama, their slave, Rimut-Bel-Harran enacted (the procedures) and [in exchange for] 30 minas of sil[ver ….
(remainder of Obv. and upper part of Rev. broken away)
Rev. 1’ [Witnesses: (…)]taqu… […]-šallimšunu, the scribe, who drafted the [con]veyance.
Rev. 3’ Month of Si[manu (III)], 12th day, eponymate of Iddin-ahhe.
Rev. 5’ Witnesses: Tarhu-ṣabui. Mani.
Notes
Rev. 4: That the limmu’s governorate is not mentioned makes it likely that he is the first eponym of this name (in 693) rather than his namesake, governor of Ṣimirra (688). See on No. 1:36-7. The same applies to No. 21 from the temple.
Commentary
Rimut-Bel-Harran purchases the slave [.]danama from two previous owners for the surprisingly large sum of 30 minas of silver. Although the signs after MA.NA are damaged, they cannot be URUDU(.MEŠ).
1 Seal of Sai[lu]. Seal of Tabal[aya]. Seal of Ninurt(a)-ili. Total 3 men, owner(s) of the woman being sold.
(seal impressions)
(about 5 lines broken)
11 by a lawsuit (and) liti[gation has] taken. (?) 12 Whoever in the future and at any time arises and contravenes (the agreement), whether Tabalaya, or Ninurt(a)-ili or S[a]ilu, or their sons, [or] their [sons’] sons or their brothers or their brothers’ son(s), or [….] or the[ir] centurion, or anyone of theirs, 20 who initiates legislation (or) litigation against Tabalaya (or) his sons or his sons’ sons, 24 shall pay 5 minas of purified silver (and) place 1 mina of refined gold in the lap of Ninurta who dwells in Kalha. 26 He shall return the [(purchase) price] 10-fold [to] its [own]ers. He shall plead in his lawsuit (but) not succeed.
29-39 Witnesses: [….]. Ṣil-Bel-talli. […]naṣir. [….]. Nabu-eriba, Adad-…. Ṣa[…]…, Abda-mannu(?) […]-ibni, Dur--…. Sab‘a(ya). Še’i-Aššur. Aya[…]. […]ku. Ereš(?), the […]. Mannu-ki-[…]. TAR-[…]. [….], T[a …].
40 Month of […., nth] day, eponymate of Ma[r-larim]
Notes
3, 15: this name seems clearly to be written d maš–ti–dingir, but it is not obvious how this should be normalized. See PNA 2/I, 550-1 and 558 for names rendered there Inurta-ila’ī and Inurtî.
4: pab 3 was added retrospectively in the left margin.
11: This line is difficult to restore with confidence, but a form of laqā’u is required. The phrase ina dēni dabābu is not expected here. Without the preceding lines it is hardly possible to reconstitute the text.
29: the traces as copied seem closer to TI than to dal. A man bearing this name features often in an archive from the Town Wall Houses at Kalhu (CTN 6, p. 279; updating PNA 3/i.1172), regularly written with -tal-. In these Balawat documents the name is written in four different ways. In No. 4:35, -tal-li is written, but in Nos. 9 and 12 -til (BE) and in No. 10 -til-li, which authorizes us to transcribe the -TI- here and in Nos. 5 and 11) as -tìl. If /di/ or /dil/ were intended it is unlikely the signs TI or til would have been selected, and it seems as though the final component of this name should therefore be normalized as /talli/ or /tilli/. This can scarcely be dallu “poor”, as was hitherto understandably assumed, and the name now to be normalized as Bel-talli-ilaya, attested once in a lexical list and once on a tablet from Ma’allanate (PNA 1/ii.289) suggests that Bel-ta/illi is some form of divine persona, the alternation between a and i perhaps an indication that we should not see the second component as linguistically Akkadian.
34: the numeral as copied resembles ⸢6⸣ rather than 7, but the tails of verticals from a higher line sometimes show. For the name ud.7.kám-a-a “(born on) 7th day” see PNA 3/I,1098 (though it should not be normalized Sebettaiu).
39: cf. 1 tar-hu-ṣa-bu-i (no. 2 T.E. 5’).
Commentary
While in most respects this appears to be a regular slave sale, though with three “owners”, it has the peculiarity that the purchaser has the same name as, and presumably is the same person as, one of the three sellers. In other words, Tabalaya seems to be “buying out” the other two previous “owners” to secure sole ownership. Without knowing how the three men came to be joint owners in the first place, it is hard to say more. Conceivably they could have been brothers inheriting from their father, but that is only one speculative possibility.
1 Seal of Nani, owner of the woman being sold.
(seal impression)
5 Kišû enacted (the procedures) and in exchange for 1 mina of silver acquired the woman, 3 Kallat-ša-Ninua, the female slave of Nani.
7 The price is paid in toto, that woman is purchased (and) acquired. There is no (further) withdrawal, lawsuit (or) litigation. 10 Whoever in the future at any time contravenes (the agreement), whether Nani or his sons, (and) initiates legislation (or) litigation against Kišû, his sons, or his sons’ sons, shall pay 3 minas of silver. 15 He shall return the price ten-fold to its owners. He shall plead in his lawsuit but not succeed.
19 (Guarantee against) seizure (and) epilepsy for 100 days, criminality for all time.
21 Witnesses: Siya. Maniyu. Hari-ilu. Nanuki. Dainsi. Barburu. Harranaya. Kakalate. Nabu-[…]. Ilu-tagaba. Nabu-naṣir. Aššur-iddin. Še’i-Aššur. […]mu. Nabu-eriba. Armatasu(?). Ṣil-Bel-talli. Abda[…].
37 Month of Tašritu (VI), eponymate of Mar-larim (668).
38 Witness: Šamaš-deni-amur, the scribe.
Notes
7: note šuātu unexpectedly referring to the female slave.
8: faint traces of at least a second vertical are visible in ru (coll.)
22: the sign after ma is possibly a (after collation); cf. 1 ma-a-ni (No. 2 r.6’).
25: the first sign resembled da on collation.
31: pab (coll.).
32-36: several of these witnesses also witnessed No. 3:29-34, from the same year. There they are listed first, here at the end. The name in l. 34 is restored after No. 5 rev. 2’, and it is tempting to restore the name in l. 33 after the name HAR-na-mu-u in No. 5:2, but I can see no way of reading the traces to achieve this.
38: –d[e- coll.
Commentary
Kišû here purchases a female slave from Nani, who is also one of three sellers in No. 5. The unfamiliar witnesses in ll. 21-30 are perhaps associated with Nani.
1 Seal of Nani. Ditto of HARnamû. Ditto of Urisi.
(seal impressions)
4 Owner(s) of the woman being sold.
6 Urisi enacted (the procedures) and in exchange for 1 mina of silver has acquired 4 Gallusu their woman.
7 The price is paid in toto, [th]at [woman] is purchased (and) acquired. There is no [(further) withdraw]al, lawsuit (or) litigation. [Whoever ….ari]ses [……]
(Remainder of Obv. and upper part of Rev. broken)
Rev. 2’ [Witnesses A]rmatas[u]. Nani. Aššur-šezibanni. Ṣil-Bel-tilli. Sa’alu. Še’i-Aššur. Nabu-le’i. Ahu-ipu.
Notes
3: The third seller’s name, written here 1 ú-ri-si, is written 1 ú-ra-a-si in No. 13, 1 ú-ar-s[i] in No. 14, and 1[ú]-ar-si in No. 15. Hardly Akkadian, it is interesting that despite the variation in the second syllable, the final syllable is consistently given as /si/.
4: this name, the feminine of Gallulu, is attested at Nimrud (PNA 1/ii.420).
12: there is possibly enough room after l. 12 for a date, but space is also needed to complete the penalty, and dates on conveyances are normally at the very end of the tablet, unlike contracts.
Rev. 2’: name restored in the light of No. 4:34 where the witness’ name seems to begin ar-ma-.
Rev. 5’: For this name see on No. 3:29.
Rev. 6’: this may be Sa’ilu (see No. 3:1, 16).
Rev. 9’: the signs -i-pu are clearly written. Since BU is rarely if ever used logographically in Neo-Assyrian personal names it seems probable that this is a syllabic writing. The witness’ name written pab -ú-pu in No, 13:15 may well be the same. A derivation from (w)apû “to appear” is tempting but lacks parallels.
Commentary
This tablet was unusually poorly written and forms like sum-an, de-e-ni and za-pat, while not unparalleled, are noticeably ungrammatical. As in No. 4, three sellers are listed as sealing the tablet, but one of them (Urisi) appears to have been also the purchaser of the woman. The rather convoluted social relationship this implies may partly explain the reappearance of Nani as both a seller and a witness. The informality of the document is underlined by the possibility that it may not have been dated.
1 Seal of Mannu-iqbi, [ow]ner of the slave being sold.
(seal impression)
3-4 (lines not deciphered)
5 penalty(?) of Man[nu-iqbi ….]
6 in exchange for 33 shekels of silver he [acqui]red the [slave?].
7 The price is paid in toto, that man is purchased (and) acquired.
10 [There is] no (further) withdrawal, lawsuit (or) li[tigation]. Any[one ….] that [whet]her Man[nu-iqbi, or his sons] or his grandsons, [or] his [broth]ers(?), or anyone of his, who 17 initiates [legislation] (or) litigation 15 [against PN, or ] his [son]s (or) his grandsons
18 shall place 5 minas of purified silver (and) 1 [mina of (refined) gold] in the lap of Ištar who dwel[ls in Arbail (?)].
20 He shall return the price ten-fold to its owners. He shall plead in his lawsuit but not succeed.
23 (Guarantee against) seizure (and) epilepsy for 100 days, criminality for all time.
25-32 Witnesses: Biru[…]. Ga[…]. Dadi[…]. [….]a. Šepe-Aššur. Ahu-l[amur]. Dari-šarru. Pa[…]. [……….]. Sukkaya. Kibaku. […]. Dauari.
33 Witness: Urdu-ahhe, the scribe, who drafted the conveyance.
35 Month of Ayyaru (II), eponymate of Nabu-nadin-ahi (PC).
Notes
1: the sign following man here and in ll. 5 looks more like k[i, but the very clear -bi suggests that we should read nu, noting that a Mannu-iqbi is known from BT 138.
5: the ti seems clear; the reading of the first two signs is taken from the photo, though the winkelhakens of ár were not seen when the copy was made.
7: some form of laqā’u is needed here; possibly rather i-se-qe.
14: “his brothers” would normally follow his name, but the traces of the sign preceding MEŠ do not lend themselves to either ŠE]Š or PA]B.
15: the name of the new owner will have stood here.
18: there is perhaps space for [sag-ru] at the end of the line.
31: if this name is Kibaku it is otherwise unattested. Kilaku is known, but the sign here definitely looks like ba, not la.
35: the post-canonical eponym Nabu-nadin-ahi is assigned to 647 BC by both Reade and Parpola.
Commentary
In the absence of ll. 3-4 it is impossible to identify the purchaser, since l. 1 makes it clear that the previous owner of the slave is probably called Mannu-iqbi. One would expect l. 3 to begin with the slave’s name, and l. 4 somehow to identify the purchaser (perhaps introduced by the single vertical Personenkeil surviving in the middle of the line), but the remaining traces do not lend themselves to a convincing restoration. If sarti is correctly restored in l. 5 this may account for the absence of the expected ûppiš or ūtappiš, assuming that previous legal processes prescribing a penalty (sartu) obviated the necessity for the procedures referred to by uppušu, which quite possibly included public announcements. The rather high “price” of 33 shekels of silver may also be associated with the “penalty”.
1 Seal of K[isu].
2The daughter of Kisu, (as) the bride of Sagab, Kisu has given (as payment of) his debts.
8 His daughter is [legally] acquired(!). They are [mutually] acquitted. No one shall litigate against any one. Whoever contravenes shall pay 1 talent of sil[ver].
Witnesses: Muna[…], third rider. Adad-remanni. Šamaš-[… and 4 more].
23 Month of Arahsamna (VIII), 18th day, eponymate of Gabbaru (667).
Notes
8: at the end of the line the tablet seems stubbornly to have é.gal which is improbable; reading laq-qi seems the best solution, although it should be feminine (laqi’at).
14: this is an unusually high figure for a fine.
18: the reading d šá-[ is from the photograph, correcting the copy.
Commentary
This is a unique, and laconic, document, which appears to record that Kisû has given his daughter in marriage to Sagab in fulfilment of his debts. The quit clause in ll. 9-10 belongs in a receipt, rather than a conveyance, and is presumably there to confirm that Kisû has hereby paid off all that he owed.
1 Seal of Birdaku(…), Seal of PN, seal of [Na]ni, s[ea]l of Asu……
(seal impressions)
5 An estate of 3 homers, 2 cubits and 3 grains in the town of Husanu 7 PN enacted (the procedures) and took in exchange for 13 shekels of sil[ver].
9 He will enjoy (the land) for 6 years.
10 A plot of 4 sūtu adjacent to Asupura, ad[jacent to …]liguza, [adjacent to] Ahu-lamur [adjacent to]…., adjacent to Aduni, adjacent to <adjacent to> Basikisi? (…);
16 a tabriu adjacent to Nani, adjacent to the orchard of Gabbarau?, adjacent to Ba…qi, ad[jacent to …]bi.
19 A plot of 2 [ho]mers of field in the upland, adjacent to [….], adjacent to Aššur-naṣir.
21 Witnesses: […]-amur. Iqbi-hagal. Lisinu. Denu–lamur. Kenuti the chief of 50. Sin-[… ….], [….]. [.]sia, the ša[…]. Gabbi?–ahhe. Nergal–ahu–uṣur. Bel–ahu–uṣur. Issi-Mar[du]k-ahu [….].
33 Mo[nth] of Arahsamna (VIII), 20th day, eponymate of Nabu-da”inanni (PC).
Notes
4: this PN is probably the same as that in l. 10, but I am unable to reconcile the final traces of the two spellings. After this line there is a ruling above the seal impressions, not shown in the copy.
5: field dimensions are not usually given values of cubits and “grains”. One would expect a subdivision of a sūtu to be expressed in qû, and I know of no other case of ŠE acting as an area measure.
6: An orchard at the same village is the subject of a legal case in No. 10 (written in 668 and so some 20 years later). A town (or village) written uru hu-sa-na is listed in ND 2728:8 from the North-West Palace at Kalhu (Parker Reference Parker1961: 46) as being in the environs (qanni) of Arbail. The same toponym is also found in Middle Assyrian documents from Assur (Nashef Reference Nashef1982: 133; for a town called uru hu-sa-na-nu see Freydank Reference Freydank1982 (=VS 21) No. 17:42 and No. 21:25).
7: this line must contain the name of the leaser.
8: the function of the ME here is dubious, since l. 7 indicates only a single leaser (unless it is a Gtn form).
10: this neighbour was one of the “sellers” (in l. 4).
16: Nani is presumably the seller listed in l. 3. The nature of the agricultural facility called tabriu remains unknown.
18: the sign after ba is uncertain; if it were šid one might compare Ba/iṣidqi (PNA 1/ii, 348-9) although there is no evidence for a value ṣid.
21: it is not certain of this line begins IGI, and the final sign is not certainly mur.
22: the name is obviously uncertain; there is a possibility that the same name is in l. 2. The first sign may have been kir (rather than iq).
34: Nabu-da’inanni is assigned to 645 by Reade and 642 by Parpola.
Commentary
This is a land lease for six years, the land in question totalling 3 homers and a fraction. This is in two or three segments including 0.4 homers (l.10) and 2 homers (l. 19), leaving 0.6 homers plus 2 cubits and 3 grains which may have been listed at the start of l. 13. Whether the tabriu would have been included in the l. 5 total is uncertain.
The document lacks any supplementary clauses.
Nani, familiar from Nos. 4-5 and as a witness in text 12, appears here both as “seller” and as a neighbour of the property. Likewise the “seller” in l. 4 is probably the neighbour in l. 10.
1 1 ½ minas of silver, belonging to Nabu-le’i, at the disposal of Kaššudu, at the disposal of Bau-šumu-iddina. They have taken it as a loan.
6 Instead of interest on the silver: an estate of 8(?) homers of field. 8 [It will increase] at one-fourth. Two (seasons) cultivation, 2 (seasons) fallow.
11 (If) they deposit the silver at the th[reshing-heaps], they will redeem their field.
13 Month of Šabaṭu (XI), eponymate of Mar-larim.
15 Witnesses: Sagab. Kisû. Ṣil-Bel-tilli. Kimama.
Notes
7: from photo, this figure looks like a 5 separated by a small gap from two superimposed wedges, the combination looking most like a Neo-Assyrian 8.
8: what the scribe means here is perhaps “They shall enjoy the field for 4 years in all” (pab 4 mu(.an.na.meš) a.šà ekkulū) but (s)he seems to have accidentally reverted to the phrase used for defining interest, perhaps because of the figure 4. On collation traces of signs were seen on the right edge, possibly for tarabbi as restored.
10: on the broken edge possibly restore a form of ekkulu “they shall enjoy” (e.g. kú.meš, as in No. 8:9).
11: collated.
12: collation indicated the presence of the two final signs not shown in the copy.
16: for this name see the Note on No. 3:29 (and No. 10:20 which has -til-li).
Commentary
This loan of 1.5 minas of silver to Kaššudu and Bau-šumu-iddina gives the creditor Nabu-le’i four years usufruct of 8(?) homers of field in lieu of interest. Since the debtors are entitled to redeem their field on payment of the capital after the harvest, the motivation for this contract must be to provide the silver as a loan, rather than to give the creditor a guaranteed four years’ usufruct of the land. As suggested above, the interest phrase in l. 8 is probably erroneous (since l. 6 quite explicitly says that the field usufruct replaces interest). For this type of contract see Postgate Reference Postgate1976: 51, §3.7.6.
1 Judgement ab[out] the orchard (in) Husanu (village).
3 1/2 mina and 10 shekels (of silver measured) by [the light (mina)].
4 [PN1], Nani, Šu[…], Tabri-šarri, Aršan[u], Ṣil-šarri, Iluku[…] – in all these 7 men have concluded (the dispute) from Nasi[…] (and) from Kabri, in exchange for 1/2 mina [and 10 shekels] of silver by the light (mina).
13 They are mutually acquitted. No-one shall litigate against anyone. Whoever in the future at any time contravenes (the agreement) shall place 10 minas of silver in the lap of Ninurta who dwells in Kalhu. He shall plead in their invalid lawsuit but not succeed.
19 Witnesses: Nabu-naṣir. Nabidad(?). Ṣil-Bel-tilli [.…]. Ṭab-šar-[…]. Mannu-ki-ahhe. In all 4 wi[tnesses] from Burqu village. 23 [….]. Hari-ilu. In all 2 witnesses [(from … village)].
Witness: Še’u.
25 Month of Ayyaru (II), 18t[h] day, eponymate of Mar-larime.
Notes
3: restored after l. 12; note that the scribe does not specify “silver”.
4. Given the Personenkeil this line must have given the first of the seven names, perhaps, in view of the space, with a profession.
6: In the light of the MAN, which can hardly stand for anything other than šarru, tab-ri in the first half of the name should perhaps be Akkadian, despite the West Semitic etymology suggested by Zadok for Tabri-ammi at Til-Barsip (PNA 3/ii.1301).
9-10: ta* igi (= issu pān(ī)) regularly precedes the name of a person (or persons) handing over an item in exchange for its purchase price (e.g. No. 1:9; and CTN 6 Nos. 61:6; 62:7; 63:5; 64:6; etc.). It is then followed by the item conveyed and by a form of laqā’u “he/they received”.
11-12: it rather looks as though the scribe forgot the 10 shekels and had to add them after the silver in the next line.
12: there would appear to be a single sign before -u-ni, hence probably a logogram. The only way to find the verb laqā’u here would be to assume the sign transliterated as ŠUB is mis-copied for TI, but given the ru in the following line and the experienced copyist, this seems improbable. Moreover, there is no object for such a verb in ll. 9-12, and noting that this is the record of a lawsuit, not a purchase conveyance, one must assume that the intended verb is not laqā’u. The verb is presumably 3rd plural ventive, and in the translation the words (these men) have concluded are meant to suggest a meaning consistent with the outcome of a judgement between two parties, but without any certainty as to which verb the scribe intended. ŠUB is of course the logogram for nadû. This verb is more Babylonian than colloquial Assyrian, but it might give the meaning “drop, abandon” (a claim), although it is not to my knowledge attested elsewhere in Assyrian legal documents.
13: For this standard phrase in “receipts”, confirming the relinquishing of any mutual claims, see Postgate Reference Postgate1976: 57 §4.3 b).
16-17: išakkan is expected here, often written gar-an, but the copy suggests -ma, and either the modern or more likely the ancient scribe seems to have placed these signs at the end of l. 16 instead of l. 17.
20: Ṣil-Bel-tilli is presumably the same person found here in other transactions, so it is a little surprising to find him apparently among the residents of Burqu; or reformulated, it seems likely that Burqu, not otherwise attested, is close to Imgur-Enlil [the village or town of uru bu-ru-qi (CTN 2 No. 64:6) is said to be in the province of Halahhu, further north where Dur-Šarrukin was later to be built].
24: presumably the home village (possibly Husanu) of these two witnesses was written onto the now broken right side of the tablet.
Commentary
It appears that the seven men in ll. 5-8 have paid 40 shekels of silver (by the light mina) to Nasi and Kabri in ll. 9-10. Since l. 1 states that the document relates to an orchard in the village of Husanu (see on No. 8:6), the sum of silver presumably is some kind of compensation as determined by the legal authority. L. 5 mentions Nani, also encountered in No. 8 as one of four owners leasing their fields in the village of Husanu to a man whose name is unfortunately illegible. We would expect Nos. 4, 5, tablets recording Nani’s purchase of slaves, to have been in his custody, and here it seems probable that he and his six fellows have secured rights to the orchard, and it is therefore understandable that this tablet was found with the others naming him, whether or not the other six also had copies.
The tablet may not have been sealed, but was not seen by me in 2021.
1 Seal [of ….] 2-3 [….] 4 their [….] 5 [….] Total 2 “hands” (?). (Seal impression).
6 Mannu-ki-[… ……]. 715 sheep, share of …. Kakusu. 15 sheep 1 ox, share(?) ….
10 [of …]-le’i. 15 sheep, 1 ox [of HA]Rnamu.
12 [I]f they do not place(?) he(?) will return the share …
14 Settlement (has been reached) between them, whoever contra[venes ….]
(break)
r.1’ Witnesses: [PN]. Nani. Nabu-le’i. Ṣil-šarri …. Ṣil-Bel-tilli. Sa’alu. Še’i-Aššur.
r. 8’ Month of Kislimu (IX), 1st day, eponymate of Labasi.
r.10’ Witness Parakutu.
Notes
5: the final sign appears to be ŠU.2, but the state of the surface is so poor that the scribe may have intended pab 2 udu.meš, which would be easier to reconcile with the remainder of the text.
10: the name Nabu-le’i is found in Nos. 5 and 9, and as one of witnesses here in Rev. 3’.
11: this name is restored after No. 5:2 where HARnamu is one of three men selling a woman.
12: this reading is doubtful, since the Assyrian form should be išakkunū. Moreover if the verb is indeed šakānu without an object the precise meaning is unclear.
13: utarra “He shall return” would make good sense but I have no plausible suggestion for the final sign; one possibility might be -šun “to them”, but the traces as copied hardly support this.
Rev. 4’: Ṣil-šarri is well attested as a complete name (and is found here in No. 10:7), so the remainder of this line may have been some kind of professional title.
Commentary
This text is unique, but the surface is badly eroded and consequently convincing restorations are often impossible. It is a formalized (being sealed) record of agreement about some division of domesticated livestock. In ll. 7-11 there appear to be three shares assigned to different individuals, each share comprising 15 sheep and twice also one ox. Whether Mannu-ki-… in l. 6 was also in receipt of a share is unclear because of the damage, and the damaged lines at the beginning of the text will also have identified the other party to the transaction, who must have been the subject of utarra in l. 13. It is noticeable that all the witnesses whose names we can read on the Reverse feature in other texts in the archive, some several times.
1 Half a mina of silver, [belonging to K]isû, at the disposal of […]-sunqi. 4 He took it as a loan. It will increase at one-third.
6 Month of Kanunu (X), 5th day, eponymate of Mannu-ki-šarri.
8 [Witnesses]: Nabu-naṣir. Nabu-eṭir. Mannu-ki-Adad. Ṣil-Bel-tilli. Dapinani. Nani.
Notes
3: it seems unlikely that this name involved sunqu “famine”.
Commentary
This is an entirely straightforward silver loan. The creditor Kis/šu purchases a female slave in No. 4, sells a daughter in No. 8, acts as a witness in No. 9 and takes out a loan of grain in No. 13.
1 10[(+x)] homers of grain, belonging to Urasi, [at] the disposal of Kisû. 4 Instead of interest on the grain he shall enjoy an estate of 1.2 homers of field. He shall enjoy the field for 6 years.
10 Whoever pays the grain shall redeem the field.
13 Month of Addaru (XII), 19th day, eponymate of Ša-Nabu-šu(!).
15 Witnesses: Ahu-upu. Sa’ilu. […]lu. […].
Notes
1: collation indicates at least 1 vertical wedge before ANŠE.
2: for this name with its variant spellings see on No. 5:3.
11: to put it mildly, an unusual writing of the more normal Neo-Assyrian iddunū.
14: this unorthodox writing of the well known eponym Ša-Nabu-šu was already noted in Millard Reference Millard1994:120 and as listed there is also attested in ND 2337 (Iraq 16 Pl. IX). This may be compared to the alternation in these Balawat tablets of the two sibilants in the name Kis/šû (e.g. SU in l. 3 here, and ŠU in No. 4).
15: see No. 5 r. 9’ on Ahu-i-pu.
Commentary
The clause in ll. 10-12 makes it clear that we should view this as a commercial venture of Urasi who is securing cultivation rights on a plot of land over a period of 6 years (probably three of them fallow, to judge from similar texts which specify this) by meeting the need of Kisu for a loan. The document does not state what transpires after the lapse of six years: would a debt novation be required to extend the loan of the grain for a further period, or would the debt be written off in recognition of the value secured by Urasi from his six years of cultivation?
Translation of envelope
1Seal of Ištar-šum-ibni, seal of Aššur-bani.
3 4 shekels of silver, belonging to Uarsi (….). At their disposal. They [have] taken it on loan. It will increase at 25%.
7 Month of Ayyaru (II), 5th day. [Eponymate] of Aššur-matu-[taqqin.]
9 Witnesses: Ubru-[Nabu]. Šamaš-[mukin-zeri]. …nu… Šulmu-[šarri]. Ahu-lamaš[ši].
Notes
E.1: this name is also on the tablet, l. 3. It is tempting to wonder if the sign after MU, better preserved on the tablet, is the beginning of a q[i- rather than a DÙ to give the same name as in No. 15, but I did not see this tablet and was unable to collate the signs in question. Provisionally it is preferable to accept the evidence of the copy of l. 3 of the tablet.
E.2: it is uncertain whether this name, also a borrower in No. 15, should be read as Aššur-bani or Aššur-ibni (cf. PNA 1/i. 158 and 187).
E.5: it[taṣū] is restored here in view of the two borrowers, although on the tablet the scribe has used the singular form ittiši.
E.7: on the tablet the date is copied as 2. Collation is needed.
E.9: this name is restored after Ubru-Nabu, who acts as a witness in No. 15.
E. 11-13: these three witnesses are additional to the two listed on the inner tablet, who are listed first here in ll. 9-10.
E12: no doubt to be restored as Šulmu-[šarri] who is listed as a witness after Ahu-lamašši in No. 15:13.
Commentary
A simple silver loan to two borrowers, with 25% (annual) interest and no repayment conditions specified.
This document and the grain loan No. 15 are from the post-canonical eponymate of Aššur-matu-taqqin (in the reign of Sin-šarru-iškun, assigned to 626 by Reade and 623 by Parpola). Uarsi, the creditor here, is already making a grain loan to Kisu in No. 13, in 658 BC, so at least 30 years before Nos. 14-15, as well as purchasing a slave girl in No. 5 (the date of which is lost).
1 30 homers of grain, capital, belonging to [U]arsi, 3 at the disposal of Ištar-muqiya, at the disposal of Aššur-bani. 5 They have taken (it) as a loan. It will increase at 25%.
8 Month of Ayyaru (II), 5th day, eponymate of Aššur-matu-taqqin.
11 Witnesses: Šamaš-ramu. Ubru-Nabu. Ahu-lamašši. Šulmu-šarri. Ninu-uri. Abda-limu.
Notes
2: as in No. 14 the creditor here is Uarsi, in whose possession we would expect the document to have been kept.
4: for this name see on No. 14 E.2.
Commentary
This grain loan has the creditor, at least one borrower, and the date the same as No. 14. Moreover Ahu-lamašši, and probably Šulmu-šarri and Ubru-Nabu act as witnesses to that transaction also.
Notes
1-2: these two lines presumably stated the purpose of the list. All that survives is the name of the person Si’ilu, whose role is now lost in the breaks. He is presumably the individual also named in other texts here as Sa’alu and Sa’ilu.
4: obscure. eme can of course mean the “blade” of a weapon, but this seems out of place.
6: the first half of the kam sign was seen on collation.
7: the signs after nu do not seem to be -la-mur (cf. No. 8:24).
9: possibly rather aš-šur (as opposed to DINGIR).
10: the wedges of 3 are sloping, as in the copy; the left part of su is visible on photo; the vertical of DU was confirmed by collation.
12: the traces after -šá in the copy may be merely damage.
13: coll. from photo.
23: this line gives us the Assyrian for three “quarters”.
32: the copy shows a clear 2 before udu, but collation saw the heads of 3 vertical wedges with damage below, and the clear 4 in l. 13 suggests that this is the correct reading here. The apparent Winkelhaken at the end of the line is probably nothing.
Commentary
This tablet lists 9 amounts of bronze associated with personal names (in ll. 5-12), totalling 14 minas and 50 shekels (plus an unknown amount in l. 3). This is followed by 4 ewes (l. 13) and a further 13 (+3?) amounts with personal names in ll. 14-30, totalling 33 minas 35 shekels (+x), adding up to 48 minas 25 shekels (+ x), save for the unknown quantities in the damaged lines (ll. 3-4 at the top of the list and ll. 16, 19 and 24). Using the “light” talent of 30 minas (cf. Postgate Reference Postgate1976:64-5) the total weight in l. 31 would have amounted to (2x30)=60+15 = 75 minas, leaving 26 minas 35 shekels unaccounted for. Even this seems an unexpectedly but not inconceivably large amount to retrieve from the damaged lines. Thanks to the damaged heading, we have no way of knowing whether the persons listed were receiving, delivering, owing or promising to deliver the bronze and the sheep.
Notes
Obv. 4’: hardly related to kāsu “cup”; the best guess seems to be kāsâtu from kasû “to bind”, a word attested as equivalent to níg.lá (see AHw 454a citing CT 17 33:2).
5’: CAD M/i.380 s.v. mašlû A, this instance tending to confirm the Tell Halaf reading kuš maš-lì-e.
6’: the exact nature of duhšiu leather remains uncertain; for Middle Assyrian instances see Postgate 2013: 166.
7’: kutāhu “lance” (CAD K.603a; SAA 7 No. 89:11), but perhaps rather “javelin” if kept in a container (é).
9’: for GIŠ.KAK.TI = ū(ṣ)ṣu see CAD U/W.289b.
10’: for luppu “leather bag” see CAD L.252, no Neo-Assyrian occurrences listed there.
11’: for kutummu “mat” or similar, see CAD K.612b: no Neo-Assyrian instances listed there, but the Old Babylonian kutum buqūmim offers a construct form kutum and buqūmum (“shearing”), so could suggest reading the final sign SÍG, although the traces after the apparent KU sign are sparse and minimal, so perhaps túg “textile” is safer.
14’: conceivably pab ša lim-mu “Total of the eponymate ….”, but the second sign does not seem to have the sloping wedges present in ša in Rev. 2’, and one might rather expect a line similar to Rev. 11’.
Rev.: this face is not severely damaged, but hard to read; a further collation might yield results.
Rev. 4’: cf. names with ti = balāṭu (PNA 2/ii.665-6) or beginning Lute[ or Luti[ (PNA 2/ii.672).
Rev. 10’: the traces do not favour a form of nah(l)aptu or of naṣba/utu.
Commentary
It is possible that Rev. 11’ should be understood to summarize the items on the Reverse as “at the disposal of”, i.e. “owed by” the PN in this line, but the breaks at the lower edge make it impossible to be sure if a similar note was written recording someone else’s obligation in respect of the longer list on the Obverse, which looks like a package of military equipment.
The unbroken lower edge of this tablet acts as the base for both faces, so that the tablet needs to be rotated sideways round its vertical axis, not from top to base as is normal. It is uncertain from the textual content which face should be read first, but side B is somewhat convex and side A flatter, suggesting that Side A should be considered the Obverse.
Notes
A.4’: this name perhaps already registered in PNA 2/ii/, 679 under Mannu-de’iq.
A.5’: the photo suggests that the first syllabic sign is NI rather than IR, enabling the reading ì.gá[l–d]ingir-a-a (PNA 2/i.499).
A.7’: if correctly restored this is for Ahu-(it)tabši, a name attested in Neo-Babylonian texts.
A.8’: the DI looks much clearer in the photo (though it could also be k[i], and the m]eš does have at least three rather short and sloping wedges intersecting its horizontal. Unfortunately, this does not suggest a convincing name, not even an Egyptian one to which an initial pu-ṭ[i- might have belonged.
A.9’ for Lešeru see PNA 2/ii.659-60. Unclear if this is a singular or plural verb (cf. the plural verbs such as Lipūšū (not Libūšū, from puāšu, cf. CAD P.473-4), Lidbubū etc.).
A.10’: for Gabbu-ilani see PNA 1/ii.414.
A.12’: or -ti-šu ! -ni at the end.
A.13’: “Total: 24 sons of the town [(x)]” (see note on B.4’ below). Due to damage I was unable to determine if the writing continued round the edge after URU.
B.4’: If the total of 13 refers to men, rather than commodities, it is hard to see how as many as 13 names could have been accommodated on the broken part of face B (since to judge from face A there cannot have been many more than 7 or 8 lines including ll. 1-3’. This suggests that the 13 does in fact refer to commodities, and this leads one to wonder if we should understand A.13’ as meaning “Total 24 (items) from/for the sons of the town”.
B.9’: there is no writing below this line, and one is forced to conclude that the scribe did not complete the document.
Commentary
Parts of at least 20 names survive on face A, suggesting that only four are missing in the lost lines at the top: they are described either as “sons of the city” (or perhaps rather “town” or “village”) or of a toponym whose name is lost at the end of the line. Neither on this face nor on face B do we learn what items were being counted.
Balawat 1957
Tablets from the Mamu temple
In Iraq 25 (1963) Barbara Parker published copies and editions of 29 cuneiform tablets excavated at Balawat in the 1957 season under the direction of M.E.L. Mallowan. These were the best preserved of a total of 40 tablets found east of the cella of the temple of Mamu, on the floor of Room 8 (except for BT 104 from Room 7, which is much later than the others); for a single tablet found in 1956 in Room 4 see No. 1 above. For the location of Rooms 4 and 8 see Curtis & Tallis Reference Curtis and Tallis2008:150 with Fig. 49, and Oates Reference Oates1974:174 with Pl. XXV. Some “marginalia” to these texts were offered in Deller Reference Deller1965.
Below, as text Nos. 19-22, four more of the Mamu Temple tablets which I saw in 2021 are published (BT 110, 111, 120 and 121). They are not in good condition, and indeed were dismissed by Parker as “too badly preserved to give a useful text”, but in fact each has points of interest. The remaining unpublished 1957 tablets were not seen in 2021, but are listed in Table 2.
Table 1: the 1956 Balawat tablets in the order here used. Here, and throughout, the proposals of Reade (Reference Reade1998) and Parpola (in PNA 1/i: xviii-xix) for the years of post-canonical dates are cited
Table 2: the 1957 Balawat tablets in chronological order
The majority belong in a span of 20 years from 697 to 678, with just three widely spaced forerunners from the 8th century, two later Room 8 tablets from 666 and 657, and BT 104 from Room 7, from the eponymate of Nabu-šarru-uṣur, Palace Scribe, which is assigned variously to 629 by Parpola but 624 by Reade. These documents are therefore collectively rather earlier than the 1956 tablets found outside the temple, and on the whole the two groups have different dramatis personae. A few of the names in the 1956 group do turn up in 1957 texts, both in those in Iraq 25 and the four published here, and in the list below and in the index these instances are listed, in italics. None of the names are specially unusual, and in several cases there is a gap of some 4 decades or more between the temple and the street groups (Ahu-lamašši; Dade; Kaššudu – 66 years!; Nergal-ahu-uṣur). Solely Nabu-naṣir (668 and 665 in the street and 682 in the temple) and Tabalaya (668 street and 693/688 temple) look plausible candidates for identity.
1 One mina of silver(?), Pulu has taken as a loan from Sibina. It will increase by two shekels per month. 6 Month of Kislimu (IX), [n]th day, eponymate of Manza(r)ne.
9 Witnesses: [….]. […]ate
Notes
1: the final sign is damaged; it does not look like UD, and a reading GI (i.e. “gold”) cannot be entirely ruled out.
2: there does appear to be a sign after lu although Pulu would seem to be sufficient alone.
Commentary
If this laconic debt note concerned a whole mina of gold, rather than silver, it would no doubt belong within the administrative circle of the temple rather than being a normal commercial transaction, and this could account for its minimalist formulation.
Tablet: [Lines 1-3 lost 4 has ta]ken [on loan. 5 It will] accrue at [2 shekels of sil]ver per month.
7 Month of Šabaṭu (XI), 2nd day, eponymate of Nabu-šarru-uṣur (governor) of Marqasi (682 BC).
10 Witnesses: Bariku. Ilu-natbi. Kiqilanu. Nabu-murabbi.
Notes
1: this line presumably gave the amount of silver loaned, but it is not clear to what logogram the final plural MEŠ was attached.
2: this line presumably gave the name of the creditor.
3: this line presumably gave the name of the borrower.
8: this eponym also in BT 104; 108; and 128.
10: Bariku was also a witness in BT 128.
11: this PN not apparently attested elsewhere. Perhaps natbi = inchoative N stem stative from tebû “has arisen”.
12: Kiqilanu was also a witness in BT 115.
Commentary
A simple silver loan, the details of the item borrowed and both principals now lost.
1 1(+x) mina(s) of copper, capital, first-fruits of Ištar of [Arba]il 4 Šamaš-kumua, Hadibi (and) Tabalaya have taken on loan. 8 They shall pay (back) [at the begin]ning of the month.
9 Witness Naranu, drafter of the tablet.
11 Month of Nisanu, 2nd day, eponymate of Iddin-ahhe (693/688).
Notes
2: sag.meš (Assyrian rēšāte) “first-fruits”.
3: capital of Ištar of Arbail is also borrowed in BT 101 (from 710 BC) and BT 113 (697 BC), both early like this loan.
9: Naranu was probably a resident scribe, being attested in BT 100; 107; 116; 117; 119; 125; 127; 136; and 139.
11: There seem to be wedges between the Personenkeil and AŠ (=iddin), but they are unwanted and this name has to be Iddin-ahhe. As in No. 2, since no mention is made of his province it is likely that this is the first Iddin-ahhe, eponym for 693 BC (see Note on No. 1:36-7).
Commentary
Three borrowers take out a straightforward loan of 1 or possibly 2 minas of copper from the “first fruits”, which are capital accumulated in the control or possession of a temple of Ištar of Arbail (but not necessarily at Arbail).
1 [x minas of silver as the] price equivalent of the camels of the covers(?) of the stone overpass installation, 5 belonging to Mamu-iqbi (and) Girriya, at the disposal of Kanunaya.
8 At the beginning of the new divine (moon) of the month of Tašritu (VII) he shall pay the silver.
10 In addition(?) on 1 mina 2 shekels will accrue.
Notes
This unusual and undated text poses problems.
1: this line must presumably have contained a statement of the value of the silver mentioned. The restoration is obviously tentative but fits the traces. For grain prices a-ki ma-hi-ri see Deller Reference Deller1964: 261 (Neo-Assyrian scribes write ki-i, but not a-ki-i).
2: it seems clear that the scribe has written BA.AB in place of AB.BA!
3: if the word is correctly understood as sāhipāte it probably refers to some kind of covering, from sahāpu “to envelop”, but it is otherwise unknown. (It seems unlikely that it refers to a class of travelling woman). The pa was specifically collated to be sure that it has only two horizontals and is not therefore the second part of a HAR sign.
4: an irrigation installation called mušēbiru is mentioned in a Susa kudurru (CAD M/ii.263). If it was used for transferring something (people, or water?) across a canal it might well have been built in stone although there the determinative NA4 is not used. Whatever it was, the fact that camels were used to transport its “coverings” suggests that it was large.
5: Mamu-iqbi is one of “the principal characters” of the archive, “active between 692 and 685 B.C.” (Parker Reference Parker1963: 86), and his close association with the temple is presumably reflected in his name. Girriya is not otherwise known.
10-11: e-la is unusual in Neo-Assyrian, as is this phrase.
Commentary
Kanunaya has presumably received the camels before paying for them, and is here contracted to provide the purchase price in due course (how far ahead we cannot tell since the tablet is not dated). The lack of a date, the low rate of interest (3.33%), and the small number of witnesses suggest that this was a relatively informal transaction between parties familiar with each other, perhaps both engaged on temple affairs.
Indices
Personal names from the 1956 tablets published here are indexed here, and where the name is also attested in the 1957 tablets these instances are added. Italicized numerals refer to tablets from within the Mamu Temple (i.e. No. 1 from 1956, Nos. 19-22 from 1957, and 1957 tablets published in Iraq 25 with their BT number).
Given the large number of names with no obvious Akkadian identity,I have refrained from using circumflexes and macrons since this would be arbitrary. Asterisks (*) indicate eponym names, and w = witness.
Abda-limu 15:16 w
Abda-[…].nu 3:32 w
Abda-[…] 4:36 w
[Adad]-ibni 18.B.9’
Adad-remanni 7:17 w
Adad-šar-ilani 18.A.4’
Adad- … 3:31 w
Aduni 8:14 neighbour
Ahu-iddina 1:30
Ahu-i-pu 5 r. 9’ w; cf. Ahu-u-pu
Ahu-kenu 16:10
Ahu-lamašši 14.E.13 w; 15:13 w; BT 107:22
Ahu-lamur 6:27 w; 8:12 neighbour; 18.B.7’
Ahu-tabši 18.A.7’
Ahu-u-pu 13:15 w; cf. Ahu-i-bu
Ak[…] 18.A.7’
Ambu[ru] 1:32
Armatasu 4:34 w; 5:r.2’ w
Aršan[u] 9:6 recipient
Asu … 8:4: seller
Asupura 8:10 neighbour
Aššur-bani 14.E.2, T.4; 15:4 debtor
Aššur-iddin 4:32 w
*Aššur-matu-[taqqin] 14.E.8, T.8; 15:10
Aššur-naṣir 8:20 neighbour
Aššur-šezibanni 5 r.4’ w
Aštinani(?) 18.A.12’
Aya[…] 3:35 w
Balasi 1:31 w; BT 102:15; 113:9; 114:13; 120:14; 136:21; 140:17
Bal[a…] 1:26 w
Banašu 1:31 w
Barburu 4:26 w
Bariku 20:10 w; BT 128:4
Basikisi 8:15 neighbour
Bau-šumu-iddina 9:4 debtor
Ba…qi? 8:18 neighbour
Bel–ahu–uṣur 8:31 w
Belet-[…] 16:26
Bel-iqbi 18.A.3’
Birdaku 8:1 seller
Biru[…] 6:25 w
Bir[…] 16:22
Dainsi 4:25 w
Dade, Dadi 1:27 w; 6:26 w; BT 100 r.3
Daian-… 16:29
Dapinani 12:12 w
Dari-šarru 6:28 w
Dauari 6:32 w
Denu–lamur 8:24 w
Denu-[…] 16:7
Duru[…] 16:28
Dur- … 3:33 w
Ereš 3:37 w
Ereš?-[…] 16:6
e? -TI(-)GAL[(-x)] 8:2 seller
Gabbarau 8:17 neighbour
*Gabbaru 7:23
Gabbi-ahhe 8:29 w
Gab(bi)-ilani 18.A.10’
fGallusu 5:4 sold
Ga[…] 6:25 w
Girriya 22:6 creditor
Hadibi 21:5 debtor
Hari-ilu 4:23 w; 10:24 w
HARnamu 5:2 seller; 11:11
Harranaya 4:27 w
Ibašši-ilaya 18.A.5’
*Iddin(a)-ahhe 1:36; 2 r.4; 21:12; BT 126:24
Ilu-dala tamkãru 1:25 w; BT 107:26; 120:12; 139:12
Ilu-issiya 18.A.11’; *BT 115 limmu
Iluku[…] 10:7 recipient
Ilu-natbi 20:11 w
Ilu-rem(an)ni ? 16:9
Ilu-tagaba 4:30 w
Iqbihagal? 8:22 w
Issar-muqiya 15:3 debtor
Issar-ši rab kiṣri 1:24 w
Issi-Marduk-ahu 8:32 w
Ištar-šum-ibni 14.E.1, T.3 debtor
Kabri 10:10 field owner
Kakalate 4:28 w
Kakusu 11:8
fKallat-ša-Ninua slave woman 4:3 sold
Kanunaya 22:7 debtor
Karubu 2:2 seller
Kaššudu 9:3 debtor; BT 106:1
Kenuti rab hanšē 8:25 w
Kibaku 6:31 w
Kimama 9:17 w
Kiqilanu 20:12 w; BT 115:14
Kisu 7:1, 2, 5 seller/father; 9:15 w; 12:2 creditor; 13:3 debtor
Kišu 4:5, 12 buyer
*Labasi 11 r.9’; BT 109:8
Lagaza 18.A.10’
Lešeru 18.A.9’
Lisinu 8:23 w
Lu … 17 r.2’
Malu 18.A.12’
Mamu-iqbi 22:5 creditor; BT 100:8 and several other texts
Manadamu 2:2 seller
Mani 2 r.6’ w
Maniyu 4:22 w
Man[nu-da]’iq? 18.A.4’
Mannu-iqbi 6:1, 5, 13 seller ; BT 138:11
Mannu-i-ša 16:11
Mannu-ki-Adad 12:10 w
Mannu-ki-ahhe 10:22 w
*Mannu-ki-šarri 12:7
Mannu-ki-[…] 3:38 w; 11:6
*Manzanie 19:8
*Ma[r-larim 3:42; 4:37; 9:14; 10:26
MAŠ?-nu-u-š[u? 14.E.11 w
Muna[…] 7:15 w, tašlišu
Nabidad(?) 10:19 w
Nabu-ahu-iddin(a) 16:8; BT 117:8
Nabu-ban-apli 1:33 w; BT 113:8; 126:20
*Nabu-da”inanni 8:34
Nabu-eriba 3:31 w; 4:33 w
Nabu-eṭir 12:9 w
Nabu-le’i 5 r. 8’ w; 9:2 creditor; 11 r.3’ w
Nabu-murabbi 20:13 w
*Nabu-nadin-ahi. 6:35
Nabu-naṣir 4:31 w; 10:19 w; 12:8 w; BT 116:11
Nabu-ra’im-napišti ša qurbūti 1:23
*Nabu-šarru-uṣur 20:8 ša uru Marqasi; BT 104:10; 108:8; 128:10
Nabu-šumu-iqiša scribe 1.34 w
Nabu-[…] 4:29 w
Nabu- …-ahhe 1:30 w
Nani 4:1, 4. 1 seller; 5:1 seller, r.3’ w; 8:3 seller, 16 neighbour; 10:5 recipient; 11: r.2’ w; 12:13 w
Nanuki. 4:24 w
Naranu 1:28 w; 21:9 ṣābit tuppi; BT 100:11 and 9 other tablets
Nasi 10:9 field owner
Nergal-ahu-uṣur 1:26 w; 8:30 w
Ninurta-ibni 1:32 w
Ninurt(a)-ili 3:3, 15 seller
Ninu-uri 15:15 w
Panni(…) 16:27
Parakutu 11 r.10’ w
Parani 16:30
Pa[…] 6:28 w
Pudi … 18.A.8’
Pulu 19:2 debtor
Qurdi-ili 18.A.9’
Qurdi-[…] 1:6 sold
Rimut-Bel-Harran 2:5 buyer
Sa’alu 5 r.6 w; 11 r.6’ w; Sailu 3:1, 16 seller; 13: 16 w; Si’ilu 16:1
Sab‘a(ya) 3:34 w
Sagab 7:4 husband; 9:15 w
Sibina 19:3 creditor
Sin-[…] 8:26 w
Siya 4:21 w
Sukkaya 6:30 w
Ṣa[…] 3:32 w
Ṣil–Bel-tal[li] 3:29 w; 4:35 w; Ṣil-Bel-tilli 5 r.5’ w; 9:16 w; 10:20 w; 11 r.5’ w; 12:11 w
Ṣil-šarri 10:7 recipient; 11:r.4’ w
Šamaš-aplu-uṣur 18.B.6’
Šamaš-deni-amur scribe 4:38 w
Šamaš-kumua 21:4 debtor
Šamaš-mukin-zeri 14.E.10, T.10
Šamaš-ramu 15:11 w
Šamaš-remanni 18.B.8’
Šamaš-riba 18.B.5’
Ša[maš-…] 7:18 w
*Ša-Nabu-šu 13:14
Še’i–aš-šur 3:34 w; 4:32 w, 5 r.7’ w; 11 r.7’ w
Šepe-Aššur 6:27 w
Še’u 10:25 w
Šulmu-šarri 14.E.12 w; 15:14 w
Šumma-ilu 1:18 buyer; BT 103:2 and 8 more tablets
Šu[…] 10:5 recipient
Tabalaya 3:2, 14, 21 seller and buyer; 21:6 debtor
Tabri-šarri 10:6 recipient
Tarhu-ṣabui 2 r.5’ w
TAR[…] 3:39 w
Ta[…] 3:40; 17 r.3’
Tikusu 1:29 w
Ṭab-šar-[…] 10:21 w
Uarsi 14:E.4, T.2 creditor; 15:2 creditor; Urasi 13:2 creditor; Urisi 5:3 seller, 6 buyer
Ubru 18.A.8’
Ubru-Nabu 15:12 w
Ubru-[…] 14.E.9, T.9 w
Urdu-ahhe scribe 6:33 w
Urdu-ilani 18.A.11’
Urdu-Ninurta 16:24
Urdu-[…] 8:18
Zeru[…] 16:12
[…]-a 6:26 w
[…]–ahhe 8:29 w
[…]-amur 8:21 w
[…]bi 8:18 neighbour
[…]danama, slave 2:4 sold
[…]-ibni 3:33 w
[…]ku 3:36 w
[…]-le’i 11:10
[…]liguza 8:11 neighbour
[…]lu 16:25
[…]lupu … 16:25
[…]lu-u 13:17 w
[…]me 6:29 w
[…]…mu 4:33 w
[…]-naṣir 3:30 w
[…]-Ninurta 17:14’
[…]sia ša[…] 8:28 w
[…]-sunqi 12:3 debtor
[…]-šallimšunu scribe 2 r.2’ w
[…]-šumati 18.A.1’; 19:10(?)
[…]taqunu 2 r.1’ w
Open access
