Shepherds of the black-headed people - New York Art Resources ...

Shepherds of the Black-headed People:The Royal Office vis-à-vis godhead inancient MesopotamiaEdited byKateřina Šašková, Lukáš Pecha and Petr CharvátCentrum blízkovýchodních studiíFakulta filozofickáZápadočeská univerzitaPlzeň 2010

Západočeská univerzita v Plzni, 2010-12-15ISBN 978-80-7043-969-2© Mgr. Kateřina Šašková, Th.D.PhDr. Lukáš Pecha, Ph.D.Doc. PhDr. Petr Charvát, DrSc.

ContentsPreface .............................................................................................. 7The third millenniumAdelheid Otto, Walther Sallaberger, Petr Charvát: Signs fromsilence: The seals, sealings and texts of archaic UrPetr Charvát: Introduction - Archaeological data concerningthe seals and sealings of archaic Ur 15Adelheid Otto: The iconography and use of the Ur SIS 8-4seals reconsidered 19Walther Sallaberger: The city and the palace at archaic Ur 31Petr Charvát: Inscriptions on sealings from archaic Ur 39Pavel Král: Naram-Sin’s deification 75Luděk Vacín: ‘Youth known to An among the gods’: A new lookat the ‘Coronation Hymns’ of king Šulgi 89The second millenniumLukáš Pecha: The sad story of the fall of the Old Babylonianstate: What we know and what we will never know113Michel Tanret: Kings, seals and priests 1295

The first millenniumKateřina Šašková: Esarhaddon’s accession to the Assyrianthrone 147Karel Nováček: The University of West Bohemiaarchaeological expedition to Arbil in northern Iraq 179Index ............................................................................................. 189Bibliography ................................................................................. 201Abbreviations ............................................................................... 2256

from October 5 th to October 7 th , 2010, submitted contributionsincluded in this volume of studies. The individual papers neatly fallinto contributions focusing on the third, second and first pre-Christian millennia.For the third millennium we were fortunately able to thoroughlydiscuss some topics linked with research on texts, seals andsealings found at the Sumerian city of Ur in strata datable to theearly third millennium B.C., with our colleagues from München(Munich), Berlin and Mainz. The scholarly exchange on issues of thesecond millennium and especially on the demise of the OldBabylonian state, brought forth remarkable results also thanks tothe paper by our colleague from Ghent. Finally, the first-millenniumthemes received a most welcome supplement in a review paper onthe University of West Bohemia archaeological exploration of thehuge site of Erbil in northeastern Iraq. In the last-named case, theeffort of the Pilsen scholars enriched our knowledge of the site bymost welcome information on the post-Assyrian history of Erbil.How, the, can we envisage the position of the Mesopotamian rulersvis-à-vis their gods and goddesses? This is hardly fitting into thepopular clichés pertinent to the ancient Oriental rulers. Kings andqueens of ancient Mesopotamia did not grovel in the dust below thefeet of their deities, slavishly executing what they deemed to havebeen "celestial orders". Neither, however, can they be likened untoSardanapal the tyrant of the famous painting by Eugène Delacroix,who, when he felt his own death approaching, put to death anddestruction all that belonged to him including his harem. Should wechoose a modern simile that may seem shocking, we propose thatthe relations among the Mesopotamian kings, their subjects andtheir deities may be figuratively compared to a soccer match inwhich the royal and the non-royal sectors of Mesopotamian societyrepresent the two player teams, while the playground and the rulesof the game are defined and provided by the divinity institutions.Though the political courses of ancient Mesopotamian states mighthave sometimes led them into dire straits, the Sumerians,Babylonians and Assyrians learned well that what had always toremain stable and unmoved, was the underlying cultural pattern,the "blueprint" on which their civilization rested, defined, by andlarge, by religion. Much the same role was played by religion withrespect to the set of rules regulating supra-kinship ties withinMesopotamian societies. Bearers of the ancient Mesopotamiancivilizations felt no need for any office of high priest, a papal curia,or an Inquisition office, though religious institutions they did know8

well. To a certain extent, it might be said that for the ancientMesopotamians, religion was society and society was religion.Prague and Pilsen, in this month of October 2010.Kateřina ŠaškováLukáš PechaPetr Charvát9

The third millennium

Signs from silence: The archaic texts, seals andsealings from UrA workshopAdelheid OttoWalther SallabergerPetr Charvát

IntroductionArchaeological data concerning the seals and sealings ofarchaic UrPetr Charvát, University of West Bohemia, PlzeňSeveral authors have recently commented on the finds of thesealings of archaic Ur of the incipient third millennium B.C. andtheir archaeological context. 1These assessments bring arguments for dating the SIS 8, (andpossibly also -7?), layers into the early ED I period. 2 Layer(s) SIS 7and 6 are related to the latest graves of the "Jemdet Nasrcemetery", still within the ED I age; 3 it seems that SIS 7 underliesthese interments, and SIS 6 accumulated over them. 4 The SIS 6 maythus belong to the early ED II period. 5 After an interval, comprisingobviously a prolonged period of time, the SIS 5-4 strata weredeposited. 6 Dietrich Sürenhagen dates these into the ED II – ED IIIatransition period. 7On the other hand, Richard Zettler, who has investigated thepottery profiles impressed into the jar sealings of the SIS 8-4 layers,suggests a date in ED I and/or ED I-II. 8 The question is obviously atricky one, and we will probably do best to date the SIS 8-4 strata toa time before the early ED IIIa.1 Published as UE III, on the find context see Woolley, in UE III pp. 1-2, mostrecently Sürenhagen 1999, 180-187, and section drawing on Taf. 47, aswell as Zettler 1989, Dittman 2006, 38-39, and Marchetti 2006, 71-83, esp.pp. 72-76.2 Sürenhagen 1999, 183 and 207 (occurrence of solid-footed goblets).3 Sürenhagen 1999, 210-211 and 224 (continuity of solid-footed gobletsthroughout the cemetery).4 Sürenhagen 1999, 236, and Conclusions, 242-243.5 Sürenhagen 1999, summarizing table on p. 250.6 Sürenhagen 1999, table on p. 208.7 Sürenhagen 1999, summarizing table on p. 250.8 Zettler 1989, 379.15

ReferencesDittman, Reinhard (2006):Bemerkungen zu Ur, in: Pit F, "Baghdader Mitteilungen" 37, 23-44.Marchetti, Niccolò (2006):La statuaria regale nella Mesopotamia protodinastica (Atti dellaAccademia Nazionale dei Lincei Anno CDIII, 2006, Classe discienze morale, storiche e filologiche, Memorie, Series IX,Volume XXI, Fascicolo I), con un Appendice di Gianni Marchesi(205-271), Bardi Editore, Editore Commerciale, Roma.Sürenhagen, Dietrich (1999):Untersuchungen zur relativen Chronologie Babyloniens undangrenzender Gebiete von der ausgehenden ´Ubaidzeit bis zumBeginn der Frühdynastisch II-Zeit 1, Studien zurChronostratigraphie der südbabylonischen Stadtruinen von Urukund Ur, Heidelberger Orientverlag, Heidelberg.UE III:Leon Legrain: Ur Excavations volume III: Archaic Seal Impressions,London and Philadelphia: The Trustees of the Two Museums (TheBritish Museum and The University Museum), by the aid of aGrant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York 1936.Zettler, Richard (1989):Pottery Profiles Reconstructed from Jar Sealings in the Lower SealImpression Strata (SIS 8-4) at Ur: New Evidence for Dating, in:A. Leonard, Jr., B. B. Williams (edd.), Essays in AncientCivilizations Presented to Helene J. Kantor (SAOC 47), OrientalInstitute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, 369-387.DiscussionSallaberger: From my own experience I can say that the texts fromSIS 8-4 display the same orthography, metrology andprosopography. I am convinced that they were written over arelatively short period of time. How does that accord with the longintervals assumed to have separated the particular strata?Charvát: I must say this is a puzzle to me. There appear to be quitemassive layer sequences separating the individual SIS, like those16

etween SIS 6 and 5 which comprise two layers of house débris.But my impressions are rather close to yours – I also believe thatthe individual sealing groups are not very much apart in time. Soeither the rate of accumulation of natural and anthropogenousstrata within the SIS area was fairly quick, or there is somethingwrong with the stratigraphical data at our disposal.17

The iconography and use of the Ur SIS 8-4 sealsreconsideredAdelheid Otto, Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität MainzAbstractIn this paper the author attempts to find the position of the seals ofarchaic Ur (cca. 3000 – 2700 B.C.) vis-à-vis the general developmentsequence of the Mesopotamian glyptic art from the Late Uruk to themature Early Dynastic period. Most of the Ur motifs are derived fromLate Uruk glyptic, and few relations to those of the ED II period can beobserved, which may give us a hint for the dating of the SIS 8-4 seals. TheSIS 8-4 art represents a local development of Late Uruk creations, and itmay thus constitute a "missing link" between Late Uruk oeuvres and thefully fledged style of ED I-II periods. A major change is the ushering in ofthe man-in-the-kilt (sovereign) figure who kills people and participates atbanquets.Keywords: History of ancient Mesopotamia, Early Dynastic period,Sumer, Ur, seals, glyptic art.This contribution will focus on the iconography, administrativebackground and dating of the sealings from the SIS 8-4 levels of theSumerian city of Ur.A considerable number of scholars have approached variousquestions pertaining to the seals and seal impressions of archaic Ur.Among others Pierre Amiet, Donald Hansen, Norbert Karg whowrote his dissertation on them, Harriet Martin, Roger Matthews,Holly Pittman and Richard Zettler. Most of them did, however,concentrate on questions linked with the dating or the iconographyof the seal images or the reverse of the sealings.The questions that I am going to tackle in this contribution are thefollowing:What are these lumps of clay, and how did they come here?What does the apparent similarity of many seal images mean?What evidence of contacts between the city of Ur and othersites or regions do they give?19

What informations on the organization and administration ofthe city do they offer?In order to stress the pecularity of the SIS 8-4 seals, let us have aquick look at the earlier and the later glyptic motifs and styles. Letme begin with pointing out some of the chief iconographic themesof the glyptic art confined to the Late Uruk period. The main themesof the usually large seals in a (mostly) well modelled style are1) the Mann im Netzrock, possibly the king,2) victims of military actions, domineered by this verypersonage,3) facades of monumental buildings,4) files of persons walking,5) files of animals walking.In addition to these narrative compositions, where the figuresbehave in a relatively natural way, there exist completely differentcompositions involving heraldically, symmetrically disposed animalsor composite creatures on their hindlegs.Another group of clearly contemporary seals, which were formerlyunderstood as posterior crude seals of the Jemdet Nasr period,differ in style (mechanically executed with drill and cutting wheel),size of the cylinder (small, squat seals) and the themes depicted,before all the "pigtailed women". They are named here the LateUruk "simple seals".As against this, later seals of ED II-III date depict mainly (except forbanquet scenes and few other motifs) animals in an upright positionon their hind legs, artificially arranged and forming continuousbands ("Figurenband"), while stylistically there is (at least in somesites) a certain development from elongated and narrow figures tothose with a marked complexity of forms which tend to besomewhat swollen and have more bodily character (Körperlichkeit).It can thus be observed that a complete break opens between LateUruk and ED II seal iconography in terms of the depiction ofhumans and animals. In between these two units, at least someexamples of seals datable to ED I-II are known from such sites asNippur, Fara or Kiš. Specific features displayed by this ED I-II"interim phase" are20

1) animals walking on its four legs, with only the attackinglions on their hind legs (in cases),2) depictions of a male person wearing a flat cap and a kiltreaching down to the ankles, the front part gathered in frontand tucked up behind the girdle.In fact, such depictions have little in common with Late Urukimagery either, concerning the motifs and the style, the figuresbeing clumsy and squat and the field crowded with secondary (or"filling") motifs.The above described differences – animals in a relatively "natural"position or upright on their hind legs, the type of hero and the style– led Dominique Collon (1987) to replace the quite sophisticatedearlier divisions of the ED glyptic periods by a simpler division intotwo broadly conceived phases, ED A (= ED I-II) and ED II (= ED II-III).Let us return to the Late Uruk "simple seals", differing from thehigh-standard products by their cruder execution, displaying mostlythe motifs of the "pigtailed women" and various animals andgeometric motifs. The reasons for this difference have been soughtin various factors:1) the traditional explanation seeing in them chronologicallylater products belonging to the Jemdet Nasr age has beendisproved, as it transpired that these run parallel to thehigh-standard quality seals in time;2) the idea that these might have been collective seals asagainst the high-standard individual seals has also beenrefuted, because the seal impressions from variousadministrative units at Uruk-Eanna (Boehmer 1999) speaksagainst this explanations.Another explanation could be that the difference lies in the regionaldiffusion of these seal types: the simple seals turn up in northernMesopotamia, Syria, Anatolia and the Zagros range while highstandardseals constitute a mark of southern Mesopotamia.In our reasoning about the stylistic transformations of sealiconography and imagery, a crucial role obviously falls to the site ofJemdet Nasr. The Langdon expedition of 1926 and 1928 hasuncovered remains of a substantial building on mound B of which itis now believed that it was once a palace. Interestingly, the seals21

and seal impressions found therein belonged to three distinctgroups:1) high-standards seals parallel to the Mann im Netzrockseries with depictions of herds, processions and monumentalarchitecture,2) simple seals, mechanically executed with drill and cuttingwheel,3) and finally, ornamental seals coming from most diversesources including the Zagros- and Taurus-related items,"Brocade-style" items, "Piedmont Jemdet Nasr" pieces,"Glazed Steatite" seals, of which Holly Pittman observed agreat variety and a considerable diffusion sphere reachingas far as southeastern Iran (Shahr-i Sokhta), as well as thosedisplaying links with Proto-Elamite glyptic.These seals show, that the two different glyptic branches – theelaborate and the simple seals – were developed further in theJemdet Nasr period, and additionally a great variety of North-Eastern local styles appeared, including those of Nineveh V,"Brocade", "Piedmont Jemdet Nasr", Glazed Steatite, Proto-Elamiteand, finally, also the Early Dynastic glyptic of Mesopotamia proper.In answering the question what were the peculiarities of this lastcategory, the seals and sealing of archaic Ur are of primeimportance.Given the nature of the strata in which the SIS were encapsulated, Iwish to point out that any archaeologist supervising a soundingproceeding deeper and deeper in a refuse area, will haveconsiderable difficulties in defining the stratigraphy, because thereare no horizontal strata he or she is taking off, but numerous pitlikestructures, often one intrusive in the other. My impression is thatthe SIS 8-4 strata cannot be effectively subdivided or differentiated,and that their mutual stratigraphic relations cannot be firmly fixed.Materials from these strata definitely include some later intrusions,such as UE III: 298 which must be much later, of ED IIIa or even EDIIIb date, with parallel from Tells Beydar or Brak. 9 In total, theremay be some twenty intrusive sealings in the SIS 8-4 sequence. Therest is then fairly homogenous.The largest corpus of sealings with one common theme are theoften-commented "City-league seals". There seem to be about 1809 See Matthews (D.) 1997.22

different sealings (see extensively R. Matthews 1993). One wouldlike to know why they are so similar and yet so different. Looking atthe photos of the sealings, one wonders how the different sealscould have been distinguished without a long-lasting investigation.In addition to this, we would, of course, be delighted to know whythe cylinder seal impressions are so often accompanied by theimpressions of stamp seals.These "City-league seals" (henceforth CLS) had made their firstappearance at the site of Jemdet Nasr. The relevant seal impressionis borne by thirteen tablets referring to circulation of textiles andfruits. 10 One impression of a CLS turned up at Uruk, Eanna level III.The reverses of most of the SIS 8-4 CLS show impressions of doorlocks, while sealings of mobile containers are much rarer amongthem, which points to the assumption that the CLS would haveoriginally closed storage facilities. This implies that the storagefacilities belonged to some centrally managed administration unit,since in private houses sealings tend to occur – if at all – on tablets,not on apertures of storage spaces.Let us now proceed to comments on individual motifs of the SIS 8-4seals. It has to be stressed that the comparisons given here are justa tiny part of the extant ones.- 1. There is a symmetrical, heraldic variant of animal contest(Tierkampf) where two upright lions, of which the tails are crossed,attack two bulls. 11 A parallel for this may be cited from Susa,Acropole level 18. 12- 2. One or two lions attacking a bull or caprid where thecaprid stands on four legs but the lions on two is a differentcomposition of the same theme. 13 Here again parallels from theLate Uruk period may be cited. 14- 3. A scene of an eagle hovering above two caprids turningtheir backs towards each other. The heads of the caprids are10 See Matthews (R.) 1993.11 UE III: 215, 217. Our definition of the seal motif groups follows to acertain extent the one established by Karg 1984, but concentrates on largegroups.12 Amiet 1972, Pl. 4 No. 463.13 UE III: 228-238.14 See van Driel 1983, Nos. 27 (Jebel Aruda), and Amiet 1972, Pl. 7, Nos.507-509 (Susa).23

oriented towards a treelike element. 15 A related theme from Susamay be adduced. 16- 4. Two slightly different series of scenes usher in the themeof animal husbandry and milk processing, involving reed huts with arounded tip and other, rectangular architectural creations. 17 Thefirst series differs from the second mainly in the position of the maleperson (sitting vs. standing) and in the presence or absence ofcattle protruding from the hut. The similarity of the different sealswithin one series is striking. It may legitimately be asked why suchmotifs occur in so many examples and why the individualtreatments are so close to one another. The motifs are visiblyderived from representations of the Late Uruk period, where thereed hut, the cattle, and the squatting person processing milk in alarge jar with round bottom are well attested (e.g. at the Anuziggurat of Uruk 18 and in Habuba Kabira South). 19- 5. A personage, represented en face, sitting on the groundwith widely spread legs, 20 also heeds towards Late Uruk for itspredecessors. 21In addition to the above mentioned themes which are derived fromthe Late Uruk tradition, the SIS 8-4 sealings also betray influencesof more contemporary artistic creations such as the Glazed Steatiteglyptic. 22 Sealings like UE III: 167-169 combine standard decors ofthe Glazed Steatite glyptic style with motifs which are developedfrom Late Uruk animal files or pigtailed women scenes.In general, a continuous development from Late Uruk imagery tothat of the Ur SIS 8-4 strata can be observed, with distinctive ED Imarkers appearing gradually but visibly. One of these is definitelythe banquet theme, an innovation of the ED period. 23 Thebanqueters drink beer and eat bread and fish. However, theinvolved offering bearers, especially on UE III: 379, seem to be15 UE III: 207-214.16 Amiet 1972, Pl. 5, 471.17 First series: UE III: 45 (SIS 6-7) and 336-351; second series: 353-362.18 Boehmer 1999, Abb. 89, 90; Collon 1987, no. 12.19 Strommenger 1980; see Boehmer 1999, Abb. 117, 85 Abb. XIX.20 UE III: 42 (SIS 6?), and 268-270.21 Amiet 1972, Pl. 14, 616-618 (from Susa); compare also the figure (a longheareddaemon?) on sealings from Uruk-Eanna (Boehmer 1999, Abb. 65,66).22 See Pittman 1994.23 UE III: 373-383.24

derived from Late Uruk models. 24 Boat scenes, known from LateUruk art, have undergone a certain re-adjustment at archaic Ur, 25but still are much closer to the Late Uruk forerunners than to ED IIboats scenes. 26 We also meet here the now familiar male figure intucked-up kilt smiting or stabbing a human figure, presumably asovereign in a scene of military triumph. 27These signs of continuous development imply that the SIS 8-4glyptic may be perceived as a sort of "missing link" between LateUruk creations and the fully fledged style of ED I-II, as far asconcern art history. Also as concerns style, the SIS 8-4 seals are farcloser to Late Uruk than to ED II times. But does this imply also,that the administrative background of the SIS 8-4 sealings can beconceived comparable to the one of the Late Uruk sealings?One conspicuous feature of the Ur sealings is the large number ofmotifs relatively close to one another. Especially, when we try todayto distinguish the individual seal images on the lumps of clay, weremark the close similarities, which render the identification of theindividual seal as difficult, as it is easy to recognize the seal group.In seeking explanation for this, we might very well take into accountthe situation at Uruk. Several buildings in Uruk-Eanna have yieldedsealings where the same theme or motif is rendered with slightvariations. For example in Buiding C, level IVb the motif ofheraldically disposed lions in attested in at least 3 variants; inbuilding C, level IVa the motif of birds, which are arranged insquare fields and divided by interwoven, guilloche-like snakes,occurs in 4 variants 28 (the examples could be continued). The mostconvincing explanation for this phenomenon is, that the buildingshoused particular "departments" within the Uruk administration,and the officials working in these departments shared common sealmotifs, while the individual seals differed in details.Counter-sealing or counter-marking (Gegensiegelung) representsanother very visible characteristic of the Ur SIS 8-4 material. Oneexplanation is that more than one individual was involved in thesealing process. However, Roger Matthews’s measuring of sealdiameters shows that one and the same seal might have been used24 For a Susa parallel see Amiet 1972, Pl. 16, 649 and 655. Compare furtherfrom Uruk: Boehmer 1999, Taf. 1-7.25 For the Ur version see UE III: 300.26 For the famous boat seal from Uruk see e.g. Collon 1987, no. 807; for EDboat scenes see e.g. Karg 1984, Taf. 12, 5, 6, 8-10.27 UE III: 286, 297, 388.28 Boehmer 1999, Abb. 27-29; Abb. 68, 1-5.25

for rolling its surface on the clay of the sealing, and for impressionof one its butts into it. In one of the Ur cases, the counter-markingseal sunk so deep into the sealing clay that we may clearly see apart of a cylindrical surface easily compatible with the idea of acylinder-seal butt. 29But why would the Ur seal bearers so meticulously use one seal fortwo different procedures? One of the possible factors at playrepresents a simple solution – to enhance the visibility, and henceidentity, of an individual seal-bearer, the often unclear and blurredseal rolling might have received a supplement in stamping one ofthe seal ends onto the soft clay bearing the maze of the sealpattern. 30 Another possible explanation is that the use of thecylinder’s side and butt enlarges the possible statements in complexadministrations, in the way that the office and the individual arerepresented by the butt and the side respectively (Matthews 1993).By way of conclusions, I wish to make the following observations:1) Though the sealings are mixed in the layers of the pits, theydo constitute a fairly homogenous material group exceptsome intrusive pieces.2) Most of the motifs are derived from Late Uruk glyptic, andfew relations to the ones of the ED II period can beobserved, which may give us a hint for the dating of the SIS8-4 seals.3) The SIS 8-4 art represents a local development of Late Urukcreations, and it may thus constitute a "missing link"between Late Uruk oeuvres and the fully fledged style of EDI-II periods.4) A major change is the ushering in of the man-in-the-kilt(sovereign) figure who kills people and participates atbanquets.5) The CLS, present since Jemdet Nasr times, bear out certainlinks among southern Mesopotamian municipalcommunities.6) The majority of motifs turn up in several (up to ten)variants, which seems to correspond to administrativeand/or economic units. If this interpretation is right, it can29 UE III: 38 and 38a.30 See, for instance, photographs of UE III: 393 and 398.26

e concluded by the number of variants that the unit orunits which used the City seals, was or were by far thelargest one.7) It is hard to tell whether there was a relation between sealmotifs and administrative units (for instance, livestockmanagement), but the occurrence of variants with live stockmotives could point to this direction.8) Equally, we cannot say whether the sealing depositsrepresent traces of activity of administrative units situatednearby. But it is hard to imagine that the clay lumps weretransported over large distances, in order to be thrownaway.ReferencesAmiet, Pierre (1972):Glyptique susienne des origines à l'époque des Perses achéménides- Cachets, sceaux-cylindres et empreintes antiques découverts àSuse de 1913 à 1967, Geuthner, Paris.Amiet, Pierre (1961/1980):La Glyptique Mésopotamienne Archaique, Paris.Boehmer, Rainer M. (1999):Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, Endberichte, Bd. 24, in: R. M.Boehmer (ed.), Uruk. Früheste Siegelabrollungen, Verlag Philippvon Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.Collon, Dominique (1987):First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East, TheUniversity of Chicago Press / British Musum Press,London/Chicago.van Driel, Govert (1983):Seals and sealings from Jebel Aruda, "Akkadica" 33, 34-62.Karg, Norbert (1984):Untersuchungen zur älteren frühdynastischen Glyptik Babyloniens,BaF 8, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.27

Matthews, Donald M. (1997):The early glyptic of Tell Brak – Cylinder seals of third-millenniumSyria [OBO 15], University of Fribourg Press and Vandenhoeckund Ruprecht, Fribourg and Göttingen.Matthews, Roger J. (1993):Cities, seals and writing: archaic seal impressions from Jemdet Nasrand Ur, Materialien zu den frühen Schrifterzeugnissen desVorderen Orients [MSVO] Bd. 2., Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin.Pittman, Holly (1994):The Glazed Steatite Glyptic Style - The Structure and Function of anImage System in the Administration of ProtoliterateMesopotamia [BBVO 16], Dietrich Reimer Verlag, Berlin.Strommenger, Eva (1980):Habuba Kabira. Eine Stadt vor 5000 Jahren, Ausgrabungen derDeutschen Orient-Gesellschaft am Euphrat in Habuba Kabira –Syrien, Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.UE III:Leon Legrain: Ur Excavations volume III: Archaic Seal Impressions,The Trustees of the Two Museums (The British Museum and TheUniversity Museum), by the aid of a Grant from the CarnegieCorporation of New York, London and Philadelphia 1936.Zettler, Richard L. (1989):Pottery Profiles Reconstructed from Jar Sealings in the Lower SealImpression Strata (SIS 8-4) at Ur: New Evidence for dating, in: A.Leonard jr. / B. B. Williams (eds.), Essays in Ancient Civilizationpresented to H.J. Kantor [SAOC 47], Chicago, 369-387.DiscussionCharvát: I am not quite certain about the identity of the diametresof cylinder-seal rollings and the stamp-seal impressions. I have triedto do this work myself and it is very rarely that we may say withcomplete certainty that the two diametres are identical.Sallaberger: Do different counter-marks on the same seal impressionsexist?28

Charvát: Yes, they do. UE III: 297, a military-triumph scene, iscounter-marked with a boar image. In UE III: 131, the same scene iscounter-signed by a rosette. The underlying triumph scene which Iobserved on the item in the University Museum of Archaeology andAnthropology of the University of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia wasnot drawn in UE III: 131, perhaps by mistake or forgetfulness.Otto: On the other hand, UE III: 212 and 214 are counter-signed bya very similar signet representing perhaps a spider- or scorpionimage. This makes an assumption that one or two people mighthave been present when the door was closed probable.Sallaberger: Seals represent rather administrative offices thanpeople, therefore it is difficult to see in them any personal(-ized)markings. At any rate, what can be said about the city seals?Charvát: Hardly anything of undoubtable certainty. They representa cluster (confederation?) of municipal communities of Sumer whichchose to materialize whatever relations existed among them bycirculation of material goods. Some of these goods came in as IL 2 (=tax, collection), but in most cases we cannot assess theadministrative usages directing the flow of the goods. My ownimpression is that this was an attempt at recreation the one-timeunity of the (Late-) Uruk polity, after it had decomposed into agrouping of its small-size replicas.Sallaberger: Are there tablets from temples only?Otto: What, in fact, is a temple? If we define it as a highlysophisticated architectural unit, then the answer is yes. But untilthe Akkadian period we dispose of no safe evidence for religion andreligious structures. A sprinkling of seals – but very few – do showgods but hardly any conclusions can be based on this.Charvát: I have pointed to at least one instance of signs of writingon purely secular objects, such as spindle whorls, in my book. 3131 Petr Charvát, Mesopotamia Before History, London and New York:Routledge, Tylor and Francis 2002, 154 fig. 5.16.29

The city and the palace at archaic UrWalther Sallaberger, Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität MünchenAbstractThis paper takes up the issue of the archaic texts of Ur (cca. 3000 – 2700B.C.). Throughout the whole group, the same features are displayed bytheir orthography, metrology, prosopography and terminology in spite oftheir divergent findspots, showing thus the fact that they must have comeinto being throughout a relatively short period of time. The texts showthat the administration of this Sumerian city included a) the king in itsinner quarter, responsible for political decisions for state, palaceeconomy and palace goods; b) the royal quarter, AB, which managed thecity state, especially its agricultural products and cared for the upkeep ofpeople attached to it (bread and beer texts), and c) the city of Ur andsmaller hinterland settlements of the city state under their respectiveensi 2 's, managed by the royal quarter with recourse to the agriculturalenterprise, but autonomous as political entities.Keywords: History of ancient Mesopotamia, Early Dynastic period,Sumer, Ur, cuneiform texts, king, city.In studies of the ancient history of Mesopotamia, we usuallyconcentrate our attention on the figure of the ruler, in accordancewith his prominence in the sources. Ancient rulers were, of course,depicted in works of art but, frankly speaking, the knowledge ofpolitical history is denied to us. This is so because most of our textsbelong to the sphere of administration, not of politics.Things being as they are, we may seek a certain guiding principle inthe sovereigns’ titles and his residence, the 'palace'. For the mostancient period, these may be subsumed as follows:Uruk IV (late fourth millennium) – en;Uruk III (beginning of third millennium)– en, residing in theAB (= èš), cf. the palace excavated at Jemdet Nasr;Fara/ED IIIa (cca. 26 th century B.C.) – énsi(-GAR), lugal, é-gal.Fara seems to have constituted a member of a confederacy underthe sway of the king of Kiš, a lugal who disposed of his own é-gal.31

This state of affairs then brings about a question how did it come topass that the en – AB combination developed into the lugal titletogether with the é-gal. In this investigation, the texts from archaicUr may yield precious and welcome help.The texts, of which there are some 330, have turned up in the SIS 4-5 strata but also in SIS 6-8. They seem to represent discards froman administrative building situated not far from their findspot. Theirpublication by Eric Burrows saw the light in 1935. 32 It has becomeknown recently that the British Museum still possesses someunpublished texts from archaic Ur and work on these is currentlybeing undertaken by Lorenzo Verderame and Camille Lecomte.We shall do well to keep in mind that these texts constitute a groupmarkedly homogenous as to its metrology, orthography andprosopography. All points to the conclusion that they were writtenover a short period of time, and we thus have to seek theinstitutional background for their emergence.Eric Burrows, the publisher of these texts, saw in the AB a palace ortemple, without any chance to distinguish between the two. Withinthe AB, he discerned the sangu, whom he deemed a recipient ofstaple goods and a representative of lugal. He noted that the textsdo not contain any reference to lugal Ur, only a passing mention oflugal Lagaš (UET II, p. 17). One administrative text (UET II 205B)does refer to a lugal Lagaš, but this singular mention is unclear andof dubious value. The reference of Burrows to the priest Enannatumrefers in fact to the daughter of Išme-Dagan.William W. Hallo 33 noted the first occurrences of lugal, é-gal, andPA(.TE).SI in the archaic texts of Ur. He also identified the PA.SI asa writing for PA.TE.SI = énsi. The next scholar who tackled thearchaic Ur texts was Henry T. Wright, but his interests focused ontheir economic and productional aspects and refrained from a socialor political interpretation.After Piotr Steinkeller, 34 the challenge of the archaic Ur texts wastaken up by Petr Charvát 35 who published several texts targetingthe issues on which they were capable of giving evidence. First andforemost, he tried to identify Ur itself as the "èš of Nanna", and theèš of Nanna as the owner, or at least administrator, of the "fields ofNanna", as it harvested grain from them. For him, èš was a32 UET II.33 Hallo 1957.34 Steinkeller 1988.35 Charvát 1979; Charvát 1997.32

sanctuary and saŋŋa a priest. Charvát also envisaged an importantrole of the "assembly", in view of the occurrence of the GAL.UKKINtitle. As against this, in his later treatise he ascribed a universal,that is, either sacred or profane, role to the AB of Ur. Here I wish topoint out that the purely religious role of the AB is attested to in thesources only later.Up to now, that last specialist to have commented on the archaic Urtexts has been Giuseppe Visicato. 36 He gives account of some 140texts constituting an archive of the Nanna temple at Ur and notesthat the PA.SI urí ki , as well as the é-gal, attest to the presence ofpalace administration.Let me now take up the evidence, and see how far may we go in theinterpretation of the key terms.First and foremost, we will have to decide whether the AB is atemple or a palace. The AB is commonly equated with èš,"sanctuary" or "temenos". Most famous of these is, of course, Enlil'sèš of Nippur. What was the situation at archaic Ur? The occurrenceof the sanga title seemingly confirms the religious character of theinstitution, but sanga is also known as a profane manager oradministrator of the é-gal in Lagaš. AB can also be translated as agreat complex, or precinct (Bezirk). The lexeme turns up in manycity names and may well have signified something like "place", in aquite general sense; note that in UD.GAL.NUN orthography AB/UNUGcorresponds to ki "place".The second sign, ŠID, is usually read sanga (saŋŋa) and interpretedas a "priest" or "administrator", "manager" and the like. The signmay also be read as umbisag with a meaning "scribe", "author", "theresponsible one". In addition to this comes also the reading of thissign as šed = "calculate", "count".Now we may try to discern whether SANGA EŠ 3 is really a "priest ofthe sanctuary". Unfortunately, as late as the Fara times both signsdisplay a high degree of fluidity and polyvalence. Let us see how thesituation looks like in some particular documents from Ur. Text UETII: 162 has a subscript lugal ŠID še while UET II: 182 has ŠE ŠIDAB. Both subscripts can easily be brought back to a common modelformula of še lugal ŠID ("accounts of grain of the king settled") andše AB ŠID ("accounts of grain of the precinct settled"). Text 162 alsocontains a clause of še lugal sanga, "grain of king andadministrator".36 Visicato 2000.33

Text UET II: 95 then displays a subscript of še gu 7 AB, "grainconsumed in the AB (building or institution)". Interestingly, this textrefers both to AB and to URI 5 (= ŠEŠ.AB). Lines 1-3 of the sametext say: 73 (gur?) šam 2 babir 2 (NINDA 2 ׊IM), AB, urim 5 ="73 (Kor?of grain) as price for sourdough (for the production of beer) (for) AB(and) Ur."Another text, UET II: 93, gives us the following formula: ii 3-4: 10KAL inda 3 , 1 dug AB. Then comes ii 5-7: 10 KAL inda 3 , 1 dug urim 5 ,AN E 2 . Is AN É a name? Should we read it é dingir "house ofgod(s)"? The interpretation as a name may safely be excluded sincethe term appears only here, whereas all important persons appearmore often in similar contexts. So it must be e 2 diŋir "the temple(s)of the god(s)". The whole can then be rendered as: Expenditure for:"Temples of the gods in the AB and in Ur".Well then, is AB a temple? We have no evidence of offering todeities being brought or made there. The name of Nanna appears inthe field-name "field of Nanna”, and the high priestess of this god,bearing the title zirru, is attested, too. Usually, land was given overto temples by the palace which managed it. AB and Urim in UET II:95 may thus be explained as "palace and city”, similarly as in Eblawhere we find the formula sa.za x wa Ibla, "Palace and Ebla”.I thus believe that the AB does not represent the temple of Nanna,but a precinct within the city of Ur. It would seem to me thatreferences to institutional consumption in Ur texts relate to that ofthe AB. This, in fact, is not contradicted by other documents. Text348 shows the following subscript: /x\ AB e 2 lugal,MUNUS.MAŠ?.NANNA.ZI (= zirru), being x "precinct, house of theking, the highpriestess (of Nanna)”. Text UET II: 112 gives, in a listof persons, nu-bànda é-gal, "lieutenant of the palace”.The PA.SI, or PA.SI urim 5 (= énsi), referred to in a group of texts, 37may then mean something like "mayor", as the lexeme turns up withtoponyms known to have designated fields.Let me now present my conclusion on the whole Ur arrangement.The palace, situated in the AB, "royal precinct", which included theactual residence or seat of the king, was managed by the sanga. Thegovernment of the city of Ur then belonged to the énsi, "mayor".The archaic Ur texts represent the regional perspective, while theCity-league seals visualize connections of Ur within southernMesopotamia. Piotr Steinkeller believes that in the time of archaic37 UET II: 83 i 2, UET II: 86 i 2, UET II: 88 i 3.34

Ur, the shipments of goods marked by the rosette still went toInanna in Uruk, 38 but as most of the CLS are on doors, it is difficultto see how could such deliveries be leaving Ur.I propose that the king (lugal), residing in the inner quarters of thePrecinct, took responsibility for political decisions. The City and theadjacent settlements in its rural hinterland fell under the sway ofthe énsis and behaved like autonomous political entities, but theiragricultural activities were managed by the royal quarter. So ourinvestigation of the archaic texts from Ur leads to the followingreconstruction of three levels of political institutions, visiblethrough the documents of the middle level, the Royal quarter, AB:- * King in inner quarter: political decisions for state, palaceeconomy, palace goods- Royal quarter, AB: manages city state, especially agriculturalproducts, cares for feed of people attached to it (bread and beertexts)- * City of Ur and smaller settlements of the city state under theirrespective ensi 2 's, managed by royal quarter concerningagriculture, but autonomous political entitiesReferencesCharvát, Petr (1979):Early Ur, in: "Archív Orientální” 47, 15-20.Charvát, Petr (1997):On people, signs and states - Spotlights on Sumerian Society, c.3500-2500 B.C., The Oriental Institute, Academy of Sciences ofthe Czech Republic, Prague.Hallo, William W. (1957):Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles, American Oriental Society, NewHaven, Conn..38 Steinkeller 2002.35

Steinkeller, Piotr (1988):Grundeigentum in Babylonien von Uruk IV zur frühdynastischenPeriod II, in: B. Brentjes (ed.), Das Grundeigentum inMesopotamien, Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Berlin, 11-27.Steinkeller, Piotr (2002):30) More on the Archaic City Seals, "N. A. B. U." 2/2002 (juin), 29.UET II:Eric Burrows: Ur Excavations, texts II: Archaic Texts, Trustees ofthe two Museums (The British Museum and The UniversityMuseum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia), London andPhiladelphia 1935.Visicato, Giuseppe (2000):The Power and the Writing – The Early Scribes of Mesopotamia,CDL Press, Bethesda, MD.Wright, Henry T. (1969):The Administration of Rural Production in an Early MesopotamianTown, Museum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan,Ann Arbor, Michigan.DiscussionOtto: It thus appears as a possibility that sealings featuring the ABsign would have belonged to the administration of the AB.Sallaberger: The seal-cutters could well have depicted fish butapparently they ate sheep.Otto: Are there any references to dairy products?Sallaberger: Not in the texts. Sheep for slaughter are noted.Otto: Any mentions of wool?Sallaberger: Not in the texts either. But there is a huge amount ofgrain brought into storage, probably for making bread and beer,and this bread and beer are then given out. As to livestock, there isa lonely reference to grain given out to oxen (as fodder?), but noother word on that.36

Otto: However, in later periods of Ur history, for instance, underthe Ur III dynasty, temples were important. Is it possible that achange occurred since the ED times? And would the AB be only thepalace or the whole temenos?Sallaberger: This is a difficult question and it is not so sure. Insofaras a priestess of Nanna turns up in the texts, she does so as aprivate person. Again, no offerings are mentioned – it is difficult toimagine the presence of temples.Charvát: Your idea of the precinct and City appeals to me, as thereappears to have been an "inner" and "outer" sector of the Ureconomy.Otto: Who is the head of the AB?Sallaberger: This must be the king, as he is above the énsi.37

Inscriptions on sealings from archaic UrPetr Charvát, University of West Bohemia, PlzeňAbstractA functional classification of the sealings of archaic Ur (c. 3000 – 2700B.C.), according to the inscriptions which they bear, is submittedherewith. From the very earliest times, the sealings can be divided intothree categories: a) devices showing a centripetal movement of goods,giving, most probably, names of the agencies which supplied their goodsto Ur; b) informations of "stationary" character, identifying the contentsof the storage facilities; and c) marks visualizing a centrifugal direction,namely the ultimate destination of the commodities kept in the sealedstructures. Describing the functioning of the Ur redistribution system, theauthor ventures an opinion concerning the very purpose of thesecommodity transfers with respect to the Ur administration (carrying out areligious? ceremony).Keywords: History of ancient Mesopotamia, Early Dynastic period,Sumer, Ur, seals, seal impressions, redistribution.Several authors have recently commented on the finds of thesealings of archaic Ur of the incipient third millennium B.C. andtheir archaeological context. 39 These assessments bring argumentsfor dating the SIS 8, (and possibly also -7?), layers into the early EDI period. 40 Layer(s) SIS 7 and 6 are related to the latest graves ofthe "Jemdet Nasr cemetery", still within the ED I age; 41 it seemsthat SIS 7 underlies these interments, and SIS 6 accumulated overthem. 42 The SIS 6 may thus belong to the early ED II period. 43 Afteran interval, comprising obviously a prolonged period of time, theSIS 5-4 strata were deposited. 44 Dietrich Sürenhagen dates theseinto the ED II – ED IIIa transition period. 4539 Published as UE III, on the find context see Woolley, in UE III pp. 1-2,most recently Sürenhagen 1999, 180-187, and section drawing on Taf. 47,as well as Zettler 1989, Dittman 2006, 38-39, and Marchetti 2006, 71-83,esp. pp. 72-76.40 Sürenhagen 1999, 183 and 207 (occurrence of solid-footed goblets).41 Sürenhagen 1999, 210-211 and 224 (continuity of solid-footed gobletsthroughout the cemetery).42 Sürenhagen 1999, 236, and Conclusions, 242-243.43 Sürenhagen 1999, summarizing table on p. 250.44 Sürenhagen 1999, table on p. 208.45 Sürenhagen 1999, summarizing table on p. 250.39

On the other hand, Richard Zettler, who has investigated thepottery profiles impressed into the jar sealings of the SIS 8-4 layers,suggests a date in ED I and/or ED I-II. 46 The question is obviously atricky one, and we will probably do best to date the SIS 8-4 strata toa time before the early ED IIIa.Early sealingsPublicationNo.UE III: 1: (=Scott 2005, No.215) – found atthe JN gravelevelUE III: 9 (=Matthews1993, No. 65 =Scott 2005, No.82),found inSIS 8UE III: 14 (=Matthews1993, No. 78 =Scott 2005, No.84), found inSIS 8Carriercontainer(cloth-coveredbasket)Reed mattingpackagepot withcoveringCounter-mark Inscription0 (col. I) X;ŠIDIM E 2 ; X;(col. II) NUN,PAP, BULUG 3= DIM 4 =MUNU 4 ,; DUR 2X X X; X;deliveringagencies?0 URI 3 +AB?Deliveringagency?0 KAM = tu 7 . 47liquid food?46 Zettler 1989, 379.47 TU 7 = not in ZATU but related to a group of signs HI x DIŠ, HI x AŠ, KAMa KAM 4 (Steinkeller-Postgate 1992, table on p. 16). Piotr Steinkeller pointsto the occurrence of this sign in a text of archaic Ur (UET II: 18: iii: 3) andinterprets its meaning as "soup". Also, KAM = tu 7 = ummaru = "eine Suppeoder Fleischbrühe" (Bauer 1989-1990, 86), "soup" (Gelb-Steinkeller-Whiting 1991, 293). In later ED Ur, a receptacle called HI x AŠ = sùrsometimes assumed gigantic proportions, as no less than 500 minas ofcopper were needed for its production; the lexeme also denoted a giganticand cumbersome weapon there (Alberti-Pomponio 1986, 97 ad text 44).40

UE III: 24 (=Matthews1993, No. 79 =Scott 2005, No.227), found inSIS 6-7UE III: 25 (=Matthews1993, No. 116= Scott 2005,No. 219), foundin SIS 6-7UE III: 26,found in SIS 6-7UE III: 34 (=Matthews1993, No. 76 =Scott 2005, No.217), found inSIS 6-7container(bale) or doorpeg 48 0 ŠA 3 or TU 7 ,KUŠU 2 orSUKUD, 49 ŠA:seafood incontainerscontainer? 50 0 (col. I) RU;GA 2 x NAGAR;NAM 2 LA; X;(col. II)NIMGIR; LU 2 ;UZ; X (anotherfragment)LA 2 (?) SA; X;,KISAL. 51Deliveringagencies?"lock"? 0 NAM 2 , 52deliveringagency or acollectionpoint?container(cylindricalvessel) 53 0 AB+AŠ 2 , 54deliveringagency oragenda ofdocuments inpot?UE III: 35 (=Scott 2005, No.226), found inSIS 6-7"lock"?? Rathera peg sealing(container?),base of peg hasspiral ribbing0 NAM 2 LA,deliveringagency or acollectionpoint?48 Matthews 1993, 70: door peg.49 http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. tu 7 ), KUŠU 2 orSUKUD.50 Matthews 1993, 73: door peg.51 For giš RU = tilpānu, "(shooting) bow", see Wilcke 1991; on the later e 2 -uzgasee Dahl 2006, 83.52 http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. nam 2 .53 Matthews 1993, 70: door peg.54 http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. abba.41

UE III : 43,found in SIS 7UE III: 480,two items,datable to J-Nor early ED I 56container(vessel), cutopen while claystill wet"lock"? andtag? boredthrough0 TUR.NUN,humangrasping longsinuous curves.Deliveringagency (elitepersonage)? 550 ŠAM 2 , origin ofstored goods(purchased)?As may be seen, the earliest stage of the Ur sealings, dating to thevery beginning of the third millennium, does already show a ratherhigh degree of sophistication of the administrative machinery of thisearly Sumerian state.First, we have the very simplest form of goods’ movement –comestibles delivered in movable containers, presumably for directconsumption.Next, there are commodities in mobile containers bearing sealswhich denote sets of institutions, offices and communities. Thesemay perhaps visualize exchange of token commodity volumesamong such entities, perhaps as a sign of their social (political?)coherence.Finally, the evidence of sealing of storage spaces under the namesof various dignitaries bearing traditional (Uruk-age) titles hints atredistribution of goods on behalf of the Ur polity, though it isunclear whether the dignitaries delivered the goods to Ur orcollected them from the city which might have acted as a collectionpoint of such deliveries.Nevertheless, in view of the fact that these sealings turned up in thesame find contexts as later seals, and thus presumably went55 See Charvát 2006.56 UM catalogue entry: "Ur, found 7 ½ to 8 m below brick pavement, datedca. 3100 B.C. in the prehistoric settlement. Includes decorated pottery;clay animal; a number of seal impressions on clay jar stoppers; clay copiesof shell bugle beads; bone tubular bead; copper needle, etc. Palmetteenclosed (sealings)".42

through the same administrative procedure surmised later, 57 I aminclined to think that most of them document agencies supplyingtheir goods in a centripetal motion towards the centre of the Uradministration.Sealings from SIS 5-4Delivering/receiving agenciesPublicationNo.CarrierCountermarkInscriptionUE III : 77 "lock" 0 KIB, Sippar of the(ms) 58 Euphrates river 59UE III : 78(ms)container (jarstopper),wrapped intextile, tiedover withcords andcontained in abale of reedmatting?0 KIB, Sippar or theEuphrates riverUE III: 80 (ms) jar stopper 0 BU + BU + NA 2 ,57 I am reconstructing the administrative routine for the SIS 5-4 sealings asfollows: 1) material deliveries were carried to Ur under whatever title thismight have taken place, and deposited in storage spaces; 2) the storagespaces were sealed by the suppliers of the goods, or alternatively, by"royal" officials charged with supervision of the correctness of suchmaterial deliveries; 3) the sealed storerooms were then counter-signed, orcounter-marked, by (other?) officials of the administrative centre,presumably to show secondary branches of the redistribution process, andthe flow of goods collected for the centre towards those consumersprivileged to share revenues collected by the centre; 4) the storeroomswere opened and the goods stored went their various ways; 5) the sealingswere collected by officials of the administrative centre, and the correctnessof all deliveries was checked by the central registry office; 6) finally, whenall the controls showed the completeness and lawfulness of the wholeprocess, all the administrative materials were discarded.58 The abbreviation ms means that the inscription on the sealing is written byhand.59 KIB.NUN (NA) = Euphrates, absent from archaic Ur texts but probablyidentical with the d KIB.NUN of Fara (Woods 2005a, 10-12); see alsod UD.KIB ki = Sippar at Abu Salabikh (Woods 2005b).43

UE III: 105(ms)UE III: 134UE III: 155"lock" onplaited-workwallcontainer(vessel)container (baleof plaitedwork?)KA0 UB0 PAP manuallywritten 600 GAN 2 KI ligature,disposedcrosswise intofour directionsUE III: 172 ?? 61 0 AB?UE III: 227 ?? 0 UBUE III: 234 ?? 0 UBUE III: 254 "lock" countermarkedwithAN (?)rosette 62UE III: 281 "lock" repeatedly (5x)countermarkedwith rosetteAN AN UB X XUE III: 325 ?? 0 BAD? 6360 PA 4 = PAP = ZATU No. 427 p. 263, MSVO 1 pp. 133-134. A title PAP.ENdoes exist. Another possibility is that mentioned by Selz 1995, 272:Maurice Lambert says that the Fara texts have a simple PAP = munusinstead of PAP.PAP, translating the term as "La Fertilisatrice"; Selzproposes here "die wachsen lässt, grosszieht", a form possibly identicalwith the nominal form bulug 3 = PAP.PAP = rubbû(m), read currently mostoften as munu 4 . "She who fosters growth?" But this sign may also refer toan "unfinished, open transaction"(Selz 1993, 186, "Archivvermerk".).Seealso Krebernik 2004 (ED: "Personennamen…lassen sich hinsichtlich ihrerAussagen gut auf die Königin [von Lagaš, pch] beziehen"; in later lexicaltradition "eine weibliche, der Muttergöttin oder Ištar nahestehenderGestalt").61 The double question mark means the the state of preservation of thesealing reverse does not allow safe conclusions.62 On the rosette see most recently Selz 2004, 201 (= Sumerian ul, "verypowerful symbol of life").63 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. bad = beopen, thresh grain. Here the third-millennium sources, in which BAD =44

UE III: 370 ?? 0 two rosettes (ANAN?), coitus,spread-leggedwoman, nakedbearer of twoharesUE III: 429a kind of"lock"?package/box? 64 0 NAMEŠDA, Nibru(EN.KID), GAN 2U 4 + toponyms:Keš, X, Ur, Adab,Larsa (high kingand the "Cityleague")UE III: 431,four items"lock", ??,"lock" on pegof wood,"lock", takenoff while claystill wet andpressedtogethercountermarkedwithrosette (twiceof four items),once sealapplied atsame time asthe main seala group oftoponyms,dignitaries,revenues, servilepersonnel;date(?)=BALA.NAGAR or BALA.BULUG 465UE III: 438 ?? 0 E 2 +UR 2 , NIN,PIRIG?, DU 6 ,GA 2 xAN or ESIR 2or defectivewriting for I 7 ?UE III: 441 test strip 0 SU 3 , 66 U 4 , GIŠ,DU; BA, GARA 2 ,NUN, TI (PNNUN-ba-gara 2 -ti,"Enki gives life toBagara?" ), DUB,animal head, X;SAL?, SAL+Y?;ŠE+NAM 2 (=bēlum (Steinkeller 2004, 12-13), seem to be more relevant than BAD = sun= labīrum, "assignment to a specific kind of labour" (Charpin 1987).64 Matthews 1993, No. 1.65 That is, "boundary stele" (Peterson 2009, 238), with possible readingNAGAR = bulug 4 ; ibid. 238 fn. 13.66 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. su3 =empty, naked, strip.45

dignitary?)UE III: 442 "lock" 0 dignitaries,institutions,products(textile?)UE III: 443,(SIS 2?)?? 0 NIN TUR DU 3 , ŠETAB X, Y NINDA 2or SA 10 , E 2KAŠ+AŠ, Y(Nintur of the"royal graves"?)UE III: 471 ?? 0 AB+AN, filled inwith mountains?Matthews1993, No. 81(SIS 4)Matthews1993, No. 98(SIS, placeuncertain)Matthews1993, No. 108(SIS, findplaceuncertain)Matthews1993, No. 112(SIS 3)Scott 2005,No. 796,( nocontext)Scott 2005,No. 878, (nocontext)?? 0 KIB 67door peg 0 X, ANdoor peg 0 scorpion?,UNUG?door peg 0 X, URI 3door peg 0 UBdoor peg 0 URI 367 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. kib = anobject. KIB.NUN (NA) = Euphrates, absent from archaic Ur texts butprobably identical with the d KIB.NUN of Fara (Woods 2005a, 10-12); seealso d UD.KIB ki = Sippar at Abu Salabikh (Woods 2005b).46

Scott 2005,No. 892, (nocontext)Scott 2005,No. 958, (nocontext)?? 0 URI 3Basket 0 URI 3The entities denoted here seem to be identical with institutions,offices and communities of ancient Sumer. In some instances theyrepresent production facilities (GAN 2 KI). At this time, Sumer couldstill have been administred by the NAMEŠDA office for which one ofthe Ur sealings offers evidence.The geographical range of these "delivering agencies" reaches fromEridu to Nippur and beyond, comprising Sippar or the Euphratesregion.Does the unspecified BAD = bēlum refer to one of the "northernlords", 68 perhaps the king of Kish?Delivering/receiving agencies plus materials storedPublicationNo.CarrierCounter-mark InscriptionUE III: 84 (ms) "lock" 0 inscription:PAP, AB 2 , UDU,ZATU 742, E 2or SIG 2 ,manuscriptover UE III:238, lionsattackingbulls 6968 Steinkeller 2004, 12 on the emergence of this logogram in northernBabylonia.69For PAP and PAP.PAP see now Krebernik 2004 (ED:"Personennamen…lassen sich hinsichtlich ihrer Aussagen gut auf dieKönigin [von Lagaš, pch] beziehen"; in later lexical tradition "eineweibliche, der Muttergöttin oder Ištar nahestehender Gestalt"). Is this thequeen’s (or a goddess’s) storage space for animal products?47

UE III: 91 (ms)"lock" onwattle wall?Sealed basket?0 MUŠEN PAPDIŠ X XUE III: 114(ms)UE III: 117(ms)"lock" 0 GIR 2 , RU,HAL 70"lock" 0 ZATU 762 +NIM 2 , MENUE III: 119(ms)UE III: 396"lock" with pegof striatedmaterial =wood?"lock"? orcontainer (jar?)0 AZ SUMUN X 710 UB KAB 72UE III: 413"lock" (3x),unknown (2x)countermarkedbyrosette, 1 of 5Edinnu, ŠU 2 , 73SILA 4 ?, EŠDAor GU, 74ARARMA 2 , X("City league"and textiles)UE III: 423 door peg 0 ŠE, AB+X,DUG, UNUG,AB+Y ("Cityleague" and70 For HAL = min 5 = uru-min 5 , "une ville étrangère” see Durand 2003; forgiš RU = tilpānu, "(shooting) bow", see Wilcke 1991.71 On AZ see now Attinger 2006.72 ZATU No. 277 p. 227, MSVO 1 p. 116 ("snail-like sign"). Steinkeller 1995,702 sub No. 277: this sign stands for both KAB and TUKU. Englund 1990,147-149 fn. 467: KAB.IL = baskets in which fishermen carry fish, of anintake up to 120 sila; unaccompanied by the reeds determinative. In EDproverbs, Bent Alster reads this sign as NUMUN 2 (Alster 1991-1992, 37).The sign seems to alternate with TUKU and thus NUMUN 2 may not be theonly reading possible. It refers to reed material used for mat-making andpossibly also for the confection of a kind of clothing (túg-bar-dul 5 ) (Alster1991-1992, 24 ad line 47). An ED proverb says that haš 4 -sikil ur númungu 7 -è = "a girl’s lap is a reed-eating dog", meaning that it is neversaturated (Alster 1991-1992, 18, ad line 168, see also commentary on p.30). In ED Lagaš, KAB = "Gehilfe" may be related to the lexeme GÁB (Selz1995, 59 fn. 266, also in register on p. 399).73 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. šu 2 .74 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. gu.48

grain?)UE III: 428 ?? 0 UNUG??, DUG,UNUG?AB+AŠ?("Cityleague" inpots?)UE III: 434 door peg countermarkedwiththe edinnu signToponyms:GAL??, X,GANA 2 orAK,URU?,GANA 2 or AK ,X; spreadeagle, SUR, 75LU 2 , X ("Cityleague" withagriculturalproduce?)UE III: 454UE III: 474(ms)"lock"?,pressedtogether afterremoval 76 0 edinnu,svastika andAB, DUG+DUG,UB, DUG,UNUG,NIMGIR, U 4and NI = I 3 =77LID 2Tablet, tag? 0 legcross;quantifieddelivery (DA) ofthe legcrossentity, in potsof malt and afragrantsubstance(PAP.DAIR.DA). Thesemight have75 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. kisura =border.76 Matthews 1993, No. 12 = Scott 2005, No. 239: door peg (22x), unknown(6).77 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. NI = bur,gana, i 3 , lidga, nunuz, zagin.49

een sealed(RA); KISALMatthews1993, No. 31(SIS 4-6 or 8)"lock" (3x)countermarkedwithrosette (1 of 3)UB, KID, 78legcross?Matthews1993, No. 33Matthews1993, No. 102(SIS 4)pot withcovering 79 0 MUNU 4 DU 3 ,MUNU 4 twice,AN, legcross(malt pots)?? 0 ARARMA 2 ,ŠENNUR, X(fruit)The individual suppliers of the system sent grain, malt, fruit, animalproduce and various kinds of, art and craft output (textiles but alsofragrant substances) to Ur. In some instances the manner ofdelivery, or rather the type of container used to deliver the goods,was noted.Sealing UE III: 114 may refer to an "arsenal" (bows anddaggers/swords) either delivered by the HAL entity, or for use inexpeditions abroad. Of some interest is the sealing UE III: 434,counter-marked with the edinnu sign. Here the edinnu entity gotback at least some of the goods which it had put into the system."City league" sealingsPublicationNo.CarrierCounter-mark InscriptionUE III: 209pot withcovering 1x,unknown 1x 80 0 edinnu, U 4UE III: 397 container (a 0 E 2 , U 4 , UB78 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. KID =matting?79 Matthews 1993, No. 33 (pot with leather covering) = Scott 2005, No. 238,pot with covering.80 Scott 2005 No. 359.50

eed box?)UE III: 398 "lock" (3x) rosette (1x of4)legcross, ŠU,NUN,UNUG+U 4 ,ARARMA 2 ,UNUG+U 4 (U 4upside down),UB, AG;svastika ofhuman headsUE III: 400 ?? 0 U 4 +NUN(Adab), UB,bird, Keš, URI 3 ,AN, edinnuUE III: 401container(bale)?0 legcross, URI 3 ,ADAB, KešUE III: 403pot without 0 Adab, Ur, Kešcovering 81UE III: 404 "lock" Rosette TIN, ŠEŠ?, UB,U 4 , E 2 ?, IŠ =KUŠ 7 = ŠUŠ 3 =SUS/A/, 82 alsoAN, AB?UE III: 407reed matting 0 Nippur, Larsa,package 83 AdabUE III: 408 ?? 0 ABxX, XUE III: 409 door peg 0 ABxX ABxYABxZUE III: 410 ?? 0 Nippur,NIMGIR, Larsa,Ur, legcross,KešUE III: 411 "lock" 0 URI 3 , legcross81 Matthews 1993, No. 20.82 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. kuš 7 . Seealso Beal 1992 and Cavigneaux 1992 on reading of this sign as SUS/A/.83 Matthews 1993, No. 16.51

UE III: 412 ?? 0 GU, 84 Larsa,AB?, svastikaUE III: 416UE III: 417"tag" = test 0 U 4 , BAD?, 86strip 85 URI 5 , X, edinnuin an ovalcontainer(bag?) or pot 87 0 ARARMA 2 ,UNUG+X(birdimage),UNUG+Y,edinnu andlegcross inovalsUE III: 418UE III: 419UE III: 420Container(box?) =package?reed mattingpackageprobablyleather-coveredpot0 edinnu,legcross, [A]B= store name?,ARARMA 2 =LarsaURI 5 , legcross,edinnu0 legcross andAB with asuperimposedbird like in UEIII: 417UE III: 421 ?? 0 AB+X, spreadeagle, legcross,URI 3 +AN,ARARMA 2UE III: 422 ?? 0 LegcrossUE III: 424 "lock" countermarkedwithrosetteURI 5 ?, X,UNUG, X84 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. gu = cord.85 Matthews 1993, No. 9 = Scott 2005, No. 93.86 Here the third-millennium sources, in which BAD = bēlum (Steinkeller2004, 12-13), seem to be more relevant than BAD = sun = labīrum,"assignment to a specific kind of labour" (Charpin 1987).87 Matthews 1993, No. 10: pot.52

UE III: 425 ?? 0 ARARMA 2 ,AB+XUE III: 426 ?? countermarkedwithhuman faceUE III: 427 ?? countermarkedwithrosette,impressedclose to time ofmain sealingUE III: 446 door peg countermarkedwithrosetteUE III: 447 "lock" countermarkedwithrosetteURI 5 , KUR?UBGAN 2 +X, AB,edinnuedinnu + E 2UE III: 455 ?? 0 edinnu,contains DU 3 ,AB+AŠ,AB+LAGAB?UE III: 458 "lock" 0 edinnu, AN?Matthews1993, No. 14"lock"countermarkedwithrosette, on 3 of5ARARMA 2 ,AB+KI, IL 2 , 88legcross ("Cityleague", as tax)Matthews1993, No. 18(no context)Matthews1993, No. 27(SIS 4-7)door peg 0 legcross, Keš,UNUG, DIŠ,UNUG?? 0 edinnucontainingUNUG?, [A]N,ANMatthews1993, No. 29?? countermarkedwithlegcross,UNUG?88 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. il 2 (= tax).53

(SIS 4)rosetteMatthews1993, No. 40(SIS 4-6)door pegcountermarkedwithrosetteARARMA 2 ,URI 5 , edinnu?Matthews1993, No. 50(SIS 4)?? 0 URI 3 , ABMatthews1993, No. 53(PG1332 andsurroundingarea)reed mattingpackage 1x,unknown1x,door peg 1xcountermarkedwith anillegible motifedinnu, UB, X,XMatthews1993, No. 58(no context)probable potcountermarkedwithunclear lineardesignURI 3 , edinnu?Matthews1993, No. 90(SIS 4-6)door peg, reedor palm frondmidribcountermarkedwithrosetteAB or AdabMatthews1993, No. 93(SIS 4)door peg, palmfrond midrib?0 UNUG, edinnu?The City-league deliveries came in as a regularly collected fee ortax. 89Does the counter-marking with a human face in UE III: 426 send offa secondary flow of goods to a human agency, possibly population ofa geographically circumscribed area?Both storage-area and mobile-container sealings turn up in thiscategory. In one instance, the city of Ur delivers both with edinnuand with legcross. 90 In sealing UE III: 447, the edinnu disposes ofits own E 2 . The edinnu sign may appear with single toponyms, andmay thus indicate "that part of the edinnu entity falling under thesupremacy of the power referred to by the GN".89 Matthews 1993, No. 14.90 UE III: 419.54

In the case of the "City league" the phenomenon of "travellingseals" may be observed at least once. 91 Some seals marked bothgoods in mobile containers and storage facilities. I interpret thisfact as evidence that such seals "went out" and markedcommodities packed for different recipients in their respectivedeparture points, and then, "at home", they denoted apertures ofstorage spaces to which goods previously marked with them weresupplied.Even potted "City league" commodities could have been countermarked.92Designation of goods stored and storerooms usedPublicationNo.CarrierCounter-mark InscriptionUE III: 89 (ms) storage jar, 0 AL = "hoegoods", "whathas beenproduced byhoe work"? 93Or simply"hoes","agriculturaltools"?UE III: 90 (ms) "lock" 0 BULUG 3 =DIM 4 = MUNU 4X X (= malt)91 Matthews 1993, No. 53.92 Matthews 1993, No. 58.93 AL = ZATU No. 24 p. 173 = MSVO 1 p. 88. AL = "hoe", "digging tool"(Alster 1997, 503), also Attinger 2005, 269-270 ("hoe"). Selz 1995, 256 fn.1223: in Fara times, the reading of AL was mah 2 , which may be connectedwith the goddess nin-mah. Eventually, our sign could also be read MAH =ZATU No. 341 p. 241, but in MSVO 1 there is only MAH+NA on p. 123,same as in MSVO 4 (p. 63). In Fara texts the terms AL-DÙ and AL-AK mean"worked with the hoe", much as in Presargonic Girsu. Ur-III textsdistinguish between al-du 3 and al-ak, and the al-du 3 procedure lasts threetimes shorter than al-ak (Pomponio-Visicato 1994, 222). In the "archaickudurrus", áb = littum = "cow", counted in units (Gelb-Steinkeller-Whiting1991, 297). In ED Lagaš, al___dù = "mit der Hacke anlegen" (Selz 1995,244 fn. 1177).55

UE III: 142 container (pot) 0 GADA(textile) 94UE III: 160 ?? 0 ŠENNUR(fruit) 95UE III: 311 ?? 0 DUGUE III: 323 door peg 0 EŠ 2 twiceamongsacrificialitems 96UE III: 329"lock", carvedpeg of woodwith mouldings0 DIN (betweenfigures ofnakeddancers) 97UE III: 330 ?? 0 DUG DUGDUG 98UE III: 390 ?? 0 TU 7 , DILMUN,TUN 3 , UNUG,X, UDU, LUM?,X, KAM/GAM(food?, Dilmunaxes, …)UE III: 392 ?? 0 GA 2 +AŠ, X,URU?, [A]N,AN, XUE III: 405 ?? 0 IŠ = KUŠ 7 =ŠUŠ 3 = SUS/A/,GAR+GAR,KAŠ+AŠ, breadand beerfrom/for Susa?94 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html, s. v. gada.95 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html, s. v. šennur =plum) or ULUL.96 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. eš2 = flour.97 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html, s. v. kurun ="beer".98 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. dug = ban,dug, ŠID.56

UE III: 406 door peg (2x) 0 DUB/KIŠIB?,GAN 2 ?,LAGAB+ŠITA,KAK = DU 3 =RU 2 , 99ŠEŠ?,KISAL. 100UE III: 432 "lock" 0 Inscr. I: ŠILAM= cow 101 =livestock orlivestockproducts? ,date(?)=BALA.DU 3 , LIBIR,products?,institutions,orchardry;Inscr. II:revenue fromarable andlivestock?UE III: 433 "lock" 0 textile productswith date(LIBIR), fieldproduce,dignitariesUE III: 436container (baleof organicmatter)0 UR 4 UDU DUG?(sheep fleece)UE III: 439 door peg countermarkedwithrosetteX, GAN, 102 YUE III: 461 2 test strips, 1pot without0 edinnu,svastika, ŠU 210399 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. du.100 For a parallel in an ED II cylinder seal: Buchanan 1981, No. 253, pp. 99and 443.101 = ZATU No. 648 p. 316. Krecher 1983, 187 : šilam = "Mutterkuh".102 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. šaĝan =flask.57

coveringUE III: 464reed mattingpackagecountermarkedwithrosetteX, GA 2 orLAGAB(designation ofcontainers orstoreroom)?Matthews1993, No. 89(SIS 4, 5, 6 or8),Scott 2005, No.770, (nocontext)jar stopper 0 GADA GADAGADApackage 0 GADA (textile)Unpublished,UM 33-35-327(SIS 4-5) (ms)"lock"cylinder sealimpression,countermarkedwithtwo, rosettesKU 6Among the commodities deposited in the storage facilities of the Uradministration, we find agricultural produce (flour, malt, fruit,beverages, sheep fleece, livestock- and orchardry products) orpossibly agricultural tools, output of the uncultivated landscape(fish), various kinds of food (bread, beer, soup?), and of craftproducts (textile, Dilmun axes), . These deliveries are sometimesbrought into connection with particular offices or officials.In some instances, only the container form (DUG = pottery vessels,storage jars?, GAN) or a particular storeroom (GA 2 +AŠ,LAGAB+ŠITA) is referred to. It is especially this last category thatseems to me to bear out the assumption that the sealings of archaicUr denote suppliers of goods. It seems logical to expect that somekinds of produce were "addressed" directly to the storage facilitiessingled out for them by the Ur administration.103See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. šu2("cover").58

Purpose of delivery (ritual)UE III: 79 (ms)container (jarstopper)0 NINDA 2 UR 2BAD 104UE III: 81 (ms) jar stopper 0 UR 2 , SUS/A/ XUE III: 83 (ms) "lock" 0 UR 2 , ŠE, ŠE,AMA, BAR(grain for theUR 2ceremony?)UE III: 85 (ms) "lock" 0 LAL 2 , ALAM?,AN, for a divinestatue?UE III: 102 =Matthews1993, No. 70(betterdrawing; ms)door peg 0 NUN,GIŠ 3 +UR 2 ,SAL? ZATU 644or -645 =SUMUN?,(sexualintercourselinked to a GN)UE III: 202 "lock"?? 0 UR 2 , KAK =DU 3 = RU 2repeated twice(also "building",planting,fecundation)UE III: 238 "lock" 0 DUG, UR 2UE III: 239 "lock"2x 0 UB, and eitherUH 3 or UR 2(with a panel of"hourglass"motifs) 105UE III: 252 "lock" 0 UR 2 DIN104 Here the third-millennium sources, in which BAD = bēlum (Steinkeller2004, 12-13), seem to be more relevant than BAD = sun = labīrum,"assignment to a specific kind of labour" (Charpin 1987).105 Umma to/and UB, or UB for ritual.59

UE III: 257container(storage jar)0 UR 2 (between alion and maleattacking lionwith spear) 106UE III: 275Bale of reedmatting tiedover withorganic-mattercord?countermarkedtwicewith grillepatternAK 107UE III: 296 "lock" 0 UR 2108UE III: 304container(vessel)0 AN, KAK = DU 3= RU 2UE III: 315 ?? 0 BAD AN BADAN – the "lord"to AN? 109UE III: 349 "lock" 0 UR 2 (withmilking sceneand buildingwith flags andspread eagle)UE III: 395container (box)andconstruction ofreed stalks,countermarkedwithrosette (once,and once inKAB [UR 4 ] 110UR 2ALAM 111 [DU 8 ]112106 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. ur2.107See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. ak,offering, offering matter?108 Sign UR 2 occupies one of the "rooms" of a two-compartment building, anaked male stands in the other; spread eagle above the building, secondmale carrying game to building.109 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. bad = beopen, thresh grain. In third-millennium sources BAD = bēlum (Steinkeller2004, 12-13), which seems more appropriate than the BAD = sun =labīrum, "assignment to a specific kind of labour" (Charpin 1987).110 ZATU No. 592 p. 305, missing in MSVO 1. Steinkeller 1995, 710 sub No.592: identification "not beyond doubt". Ur 4 = "to shear sheep" (Visicato2000, 144) = esēdu = "einsammeln, zusammenraufen" (Zgoll 1997, 310).MEA No. 594 p. 243 = harvest, and also clip = wool shorn from sheep.Bauer 1989-1990, 85: ur 4 = "(Schafe) raufen".111 ZATU No. 25 p. 173, missing in MSVO 1. In Sumerian proverbs ALAM ="statue?" (Alster 1997, 503), also Attinger 2005, 272. In ED Lagaš, a60

three items inallfour othercases)UE III: 402 "lock" 0 UD.NUN (=Adab), Keš, ANAN UB, UR 2 ,spread eagleUE III: 430reed-mattingpackage0 NAGAR?? NUN,UB+KID(Nippur?),AB+X, E 2 orKID.U 4 (=shrine of Šamašat Larsa orSippar orGirsu?)GA 2 xAN,TAK 4 , 113 ŠA 3number of statues and one stele received regular offerings on festiveoccasions in the É-šag 4 shrine, of a square ground-plan with square side3.715 metres long (Rosengarten 1960, 162). Statues of divinities but also ofworldly magnates constituted foci of special interest. A likeness of Šagšag,consort of Uruinimgina, made of rare substances, mainly from silver(according to text VAT 4853) received regular offerings even while the ladydepicted was still alive. Statues were usually built of precious materialsand solemnly introduced to their residences in temples. The initiation intotheir "cultic activity” took place with a ritual referred to as ka-du 8 = pīt pī,"mouth-opening”, the statues received food and were clothed and attired.Conquerors frequently had statues taken off their pedestals and thrones,robbed and desecrated ("thrown into a well”, for instance). A notablecircumstance is the fact that the destruction of the statue brought aboutthe death of the divinity (here, of Baba; Selz 1992, cf. also Selz 1995, 384,in register).112 ZATU No. 85 p, 188, MSVO 1 p. 95, UET II : No. 71, LAK No. 119. MEANo. 167 p. 107: also GABA, a confrontation; DU 8 = to open, to release, toliberate, to brim over, also bounty, plenty. Du 8 = "to free", "to manumit"(Gelb-Steinkeller-Whiting 1991, 102). du 8 = "to break", "to break into"(Alster 1974, 58 line 63 and p. 110). In ED Nippur, a month bore the namegiš apin-du 8 -a (Cohen 1993, 112); the evidence gathered by Mark Cohensuggests that šu du 8 = "to take in hand something", while du 8 = "to laysomething down, aside". An ED proverb says ninda a-ta nam-du = "you willnot bake bread of water" (Alster 1991-1992, 18, 21). In ED Lagaš, DU 8 ="ouvrir, libérer", where the baking of pastry takes place (Rosengarten1960, 192-195). Wilcke 1996, 45: du 8 = "freikaufen". In later ED Ur, DU 8may denote an age group, "weaned child" (Alberti-Pomponio 1986, 111-114ad text 49).113 The TAK 4 .ALAN ceremony is attested to in Šuruppak texts, in ED LU 2 , atEbla (with a reading la-a-núm) and at Nippur. The Šuruppak texts mention61

UE III: 437?reed fastening countermarkedwithrosetteIŠ(?) KID ("Cityleague" for theTAK 4 ritual?)toponyms(?):??DU 8 ??, AB orDU+AN(?),KUŠ 2 114 orŠUR 2115UE III: 440 ?? 116 pot? 117 countermarkedwithrosetteDIM, 118 DIŠ (?=breadth?),MAGUR,NINDA 2 or NE,DIŠ (?), GAN(the MAGURritual?)UE III: 460"tablet", rather 0 LUMa jar handle 119 (fecundation?)120UE III: 463 door peg 121 0 edinnu + KAK122= DU 3 = RU 2("building", alsoplanting,a structure called é-TAK 4 .ALAN. It may refer to a statue in a votiveinscription (ABW 2 p. 342) (Pomponio 1987, 474). TAK 4 .ALAN is likely todenote a statue and possibly also a sculptor (Gelb-Steinkeller-Whiting1991, 69). In Abu Salabikh, TAK 4 .ALAN = lan x ; UD-lan x could mean an-lan x= "scolpire il divino” = "to carve a deity” (Mander 1986, 52). In ED Lagaš,a number of statues and one stele received regular offerings on festiveoccasions in the É-šag 4 shrine, of a square ground-plan with square side3.715 metres long (Rosengarten 1960, 162). The ceremony may bedepicted on a cylinder seal found in the Jemdet-Nasr level at Ur (Legrain1951, 11, No. 30 on Pl. 2).114 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. kuš2 =tired, troubled.115 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. šur2 =furious, angry.116 Matthews 1993, No. 100.117 Scott 2005, No. 477.118 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html, s. v. dim =post, also knot, bond.119 Matthews 1993, No. 88 = Scott 2005, No. 24.120 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. lum.121 Scott 2005, No. 173.122 See http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. du.62

Matthews1993, No. 26pot withleather andcordfecundation??)0 X, Y, U 4 , UR 2 ,U 4 +AŠ (=date= 1month), ZAgainst the assumption that UR 2 denotes a toponym, I present thefollowing arguments.UR 2 = also URUM(?), ZATU No. 588 p. 304, MSVO 1 p. 160. UR 2 =sūnu = "thigh", MEA No. 203 p. 117,http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html s. v. ur2 =root, base; limbs; loin, lap . Also, in general, "human body from thewaist down", "lap", "foundation", but also "to sleep" and "tofecundate" (rehû). Sūnu: CAD S pp. 386-388, "lap", "crotch", "sexualorgans".The lexeme occurs in Fara-age personal names (Visicato 1997, 101).In Instructions of Šuruppak, ÚR.AŠ may be a honorific epithet ofŠuruppak (Alster 1974, 25). Westenholz 1987, 43, refers to a binarylexeme A 2 + UR 2 , attested to in Agade-period texts, probably a 2 -ur 2= mešrētu, limbs, described as "right" and "left". This seems toallude to limbs of the human body above, and below, the waist, mostprobably to arms and legs of statuettes produced separately fromthe bodies. Cf. also Alster 1991-1992, 19 and 21, ad ll. 192-193 (ur 2 -sikil = "a girl’s lap" ), and Mander 1986, 96 ( d ur 2 = "il dio dellefondamenta"?).; Selz 1995, 285 ( d ur 2 -nun-ta-e 3 -a = "Die aus demSchosse des Fürsten hervorgegangene"), interprets this name (=rain cloud, a fertility symbol) as that of one of the septupletdaughters of the goddess Baba, lukur priestesses, venerated in theGudea-period d lama-ša 6 -ga temple of Lagaš. Seven lukur priestessesare known as early as ED Lagaš where they were nin ensi 2 -ka. Seealso Ur 2 -ni = "his lap" = "the deity’s lap", a scribe’s name on an EDIIIa-style highly prestigious cylinder seal: Buchanan 1981, No. 303pp. 115 and 443-444.The gunnû-form of the UR 2 sign (UR 2 x TAG 4 ), probably linking upwith sign LAK 289, later evolved into the UMBIN sign, denoting akind of vessel or receptacle. One UMBIN may equal 2 SILA 3 . Asimilar case is UR 2 x GAR, attested to in the Old Babylonian period(Gelb-Steinkeller-Whiting 1991, 54). Is the UR 2 delivery a rewardfor the holding of the TAG 4 ceremony, supplied in hollow measures?All this leads me to believe that in the sealings of archaic Ur, thesign UR 2 referred to a particular event linked with fertility and63

procreative force. This seems to me to suggest a ceremonytriggering off these powers of nature and crucial for the fecundationof the land and its denizens. I assume that such a ceremony hadbeen taking place in Sumer at least since the Late Uruk period, 123and that its presence at archaic Ur may be hinted at by sealiconography displaying overtly sexual connotations. 124 I thereforepropose to interpret the UR 2 ceremony as the equivalent of the NA 2proceeding of the Late Uruk times, ritual triggering-off ofprocreative forces of nature and living beings which alter evolvedinto the "sacred marriage" rite celebrated by kings of the Thirddynasty of Ur and of Isin. 125The most explicit statement concerning this procedure is that of UEIII: 102 (NUN, GIŠ 3 +UR 2 , SAL? ZATU 644 or -645 = SUMUN?).Here we have a reference to sexual intercourse (GIŠ 3 +UR 2 , SAL?)bound to a geographical (or divine?) entity (NUN). I confess that Ido not understand the meaning of the SUMUN sign, unless it refersto "old" entities (arrears of due payments?). Here it seems that thecarrying out of the UR 2 procedure is done by means of sexualintercourse, and on behalf of geographical communities. To me, thisis suggestive of the traditional NA 2 fertility-triggering ceremony ofthe Uruk age, and I suspect that this may be one of the earlypredecessors of what later evolved into the "sacred marriage"ceremony.The UR 2 links up with geographical entities and commoditiesdelivered for its purpose are named either in kind (ŠE, DIN?) orwith reference to containers in which they came (NINDA 2 , DUG,DIN?). Statues (ALAM) obviously played a role in the proceedingslinked with this event. Seal iconography shows that the procedure islikely to have taken place in a building (temple?) displaying thespread-eagle emblem. 126Other religious ceremonies obviously took place at archaic Ur aswell. Some of the sealings mention "offering", "offering matter" orthe like (AK). 127 Similar cases may include references to deities withdesignations of containers 128 or of delivering agencies(?). 129Another procedure which may refer to cultic matters is the TAK 4event, "touching a statue", possibly a bearer of procreative force,123 Charvát 2005, 168-170.124 See the intercourse scenes in UE III: 364-370.125 On this see most recently Nissinen-Uro 2008.126 UE III: 296.127 UE III: 275.128 UE III: 304, AN KAK = DU 3 = RU 2 .129 UE III: 315, BAD AN BAD AN.64

for the purpose of charging oneself with fertility. 130 Theinvolvement of statues in the UR 2 ceremony would correspond tosuch an assumption. The UR 2 event links up with an actiondesignated as DU 8 , which may perhaps occur independently in somesealings. 131 Another case concerns the "boating ritual", MAGUR,referred to in one case. 132 A handled pot with designation LUM 133may point to still another cultic proceeding, but nothing else isknown about this.OtherUnpublished, UM 33-35-418 (SIS 4-5), administrative document,assignment of labour hands?, tablet envelope, broken(intentionally?).ConclusionsThe world visualized by the sealings of archaic Ur did alreadyassume a fairly complex character. A number of agencies deliveredtheir goods to Ur in order to be consumed there, however theparticularities of that process may be imagined. These suppliercommunities included institutions, offices and communities from allover Sumer up to Sippar, and possibly even some "northern lords".It is not excluded that the NAMEŠDA, known from the protoliteratetexts, office still operated in these times in conjunction with the"City league". The "City league" itself is amply attested to in the Ursealings as goods’ supplier, sometimes in the form of a tax (IL 2 ), butwhether this might have been an early form of the ki-en-gi polity ornot would be most difficult to say. On the other hand, there is nosign of LUGAL within this "outer shell" of the socially engineeredmovement of goods within Early Dynastic Ur.The delivered commodities filled in the storage facilities of the Uradministration, and went their way after having been dulydocumented by the central registry. In some instances, such storagespaces were denoted not with reference to where the goods camefrom, but according to what goods were stored in them.130 See Charvát 1997, 11-12, 57-58.131 UE III: 437?132 UE III: 440.133 UE III: 460.65

As to the purpose of the deliveries, it seems that the chief concernof the entire supply system was the carrying out of a ceremonydenoted by the UR 2 sign, which I interpret as a fertility-triggeringritual like unto the NA 2 procedure of the Late Uruk times. The UR 2event is likely to have included real or symbolic sexual intercourse,did involve statues in one way or another, and was probably carriedout on behalf of particular beneficiary communities. Other termslikely to refer to cultic proceedings are DU 8 , MAGUR, TAK 4 andpossibly also LUM.The sealings of archaic Ur constitute without any doubt a historicalsource of prime importance. They offer a glimpse into the societythat ultimately produced the unique "royal graves". How far theinterpretation of these sealings may help us understand the latterphenomenon, still a crux for scientific interpretation, will be shownby future research.I was fortunate enough to inspect the collections of the NearEastern Section of the University Museum of Archaeology andAnthropology (University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, U. S.A.) in 2003-2004 during my study stay in the USA, financed by agrant from the Prague establishment of the John William FulbrightFoundation (No. 2003-28-02), and in 2005 thanks to a Franklingrant conferred on me by the American Philosophical Society. Forpermissions to study in the collections, and to publish my findings,as well as for manifold help and support, I am deeply obliged toRichard Zettler and Shannon White of the Near Eastern Section ofthe said University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.ReferencesAlberti Amedeo, Pomponio Francesco (1986):Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic texts from Ur edited, in: UET 2,Supplement (Studia Pohl, Series Maior 13), Biblical InstitutePress, Rome.Alster, Bendt (1974):The Instructions of Shuruppak – A Sumerian Proverb Collection(Mesopotamia vol. 2), Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen.66

Alster, Bendt (1991-1992):Early Dynastic Proverbs and other Contributions to the Study ofLiterary Texts from Abū Ṣalābīkh, "Archiv für Orientforschung"38-39, 1-51.Alster, Bendt (1997):Proverbs of Ancient Sumer – The World’s Earliest ProverbCollection I-II, CDL Press, Bethesda, MD.Attinger, Pascal (2005):A propos de l´AK, "faire", "Zeitschrift für Assyriologie" 95/I, 46-64,and 95/II, 208-275.Attinger, Pascal (2006):37) Aza "ours", "N. A. B. U." 2/2006 (juin), 33-34.Bauer, Josef (1989-1990):Altsumerische Wirtschaftsurkunden in Leningrad, "Archiv fürOrientforschung" 36-37, 78-90.Beal, Richard (1992):Is KUŠ 7 the Reading of IŠ = kizû?, in: N.A.B.U. No. 48, 1992, 38-39.Buchanan, Briggs (1981):Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection, YaleUniversity Press, New Haven and London.ePSDhttp://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.htmlCavigneaux, Antoine (1992):103) SAHAR = kuš 7 ?, "N. A. B. U." 4/1992 (décembre), 78-79.Charpin, Dominique (1987):75) La mise à jour des listes nominatives, "N. A. B. U." 3/1987(septembre), 40-41.Charvát, Petr (1997):On people, signs and states - Spotlights on Sumerian Society, c.3500-2500 B.C., The Oriental Institute, Academy of Sciences ofthe Czech Republic, Prague.Charvát, Petr (2005):The iconography of pristine statehood – Painted pottery and sealimpressions from Susa, southwestern Iran, Karolinum Press,Prague.67

Charvát, Petr (2006):"Hail, Thou son of the Noble", An inscribed sealing from Archaic Ur,in: "Studia Hercynia" vol. X (Jan Bouzek and Iva Ondřejovávolume), Prague, 7-9 and Pl. VIII.Cohen, Mark E. (1993):The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East, CDL Press,Bethesda, Maryland.Dahl, Jacob (2006):Revisiting B a l a, "Journal of the American Oriental Society" 126.1,77-88.Dittman, Reinhard (2006):Bemerkungen zu Ur, Pit F, "Baghdader Mitteilungen" 37, 23-44.Durand, Jean-Marie (2003):111) *Halhu-sur-Euphrate, "N. A. B. U." 2003/4, décembre, 122-123.Englund, Robert K. (1990):Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur-III-Fischerei, Dietrich ReimerVerlag (Berlin).Gelb Ignace J., Steinkeller Piotr, Whiting Robert M., Jr. (1991):Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus,The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill..Krebernik, Manfred (2004):(d) PAP.PAP, in: D. O. Edzard (ed.), Rallexikon der Assyriologie undVorderasiatischen Archäologie Bd. 10, 5./6. Lieferung (Panzer-Pflanzenkunde), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin und New York, 328.Krecher, Joachim (1983):Eine unorthographische sumerische Wortliste aus Ebla, "OriensAntiquus" 22, 179-189.LAK:Anton Deimel: Die Inschriften von Fara I: Liste der archaischenKeilschriftzeichen, J. C. Hinrich’sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig1922.Legrain, Leon (1951):Ur Excavations vol. X: Seal Cylinders, London and Philadelphia, TheTrustees of the Two Museums (The British Museum and TheUniversity Museum), by the aid of a Grant from the CarnegieCorporation of New York, New York.68

Mander, Pietro (1986):Il panteon di Abu-Ṣālabīkh, Contributo allo studio del panteonsumerico arcaico, Istituto universitario orientale, Dipartimentodi studi Asiatici, Series Minor XXVI, Napoli.Marchetti, Niccolò (2006):La statuaria regale nella Mesopotamia protodinastica (Atti dellaAccademia Nazionale dei Lincei Anno CDIII, 2006, Classe discienze morale, storiche e filologiche, Memorie, Series IX,Volume XXI, Fascicolo I), con un Appendice di Gianni Marchesi(205-271), Bardi Editore, Editore Commerciale, Roma.Matthews, Roger J. (1993):Cities, seals and writing: archaic seal impressions from Jemdet Nasrand Ur. Materialien zu den frühen Schrifterzeugnissen desVorderen Orients (MSVO) Bd. 2., Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin.MEA:René Labat: Manuel d’épigraphie akkadienne. Sixième édition parFlorence Malbran-Labat, Geuthner, Paris 1988.MSVO 1:Robert K. Englund, Jean-Pierre Grégoire, Roger J. Matthews: TheProto-Cuneiform Texts from Jemdet Nasr I: Copies,Transliterations and Glossary, (Materialien zu den frühenSchriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients Bd. 1), Gebr. MannVerlag, Berlin 1991.Nissinen Martti, Uro Risto (eds.) (2008):Sacred Marriages – The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor fromSumer to Early Christianity, EISENBRAUNS, Winona Lake,Indiana.Peterson, Jeremiah (2009):Two New Sumerian texts Involving the Netherworld and FuneraryOfferings, "Zeitschrift für Assyriologie" 99/II, 233-246.Pomponio, Francesco (1987):La prosopografia dei testi presargonici di Fara, "LaSapienza",Roma.Pomponio Francesco, Visicato Giuseppe (1994):Early Dynastic Administrative Tablets of Šuruppak, IstitutoUniversitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici (Seriesmaior VI), Napoli.69

Rosengarten, Yvonne (1960):Le concept sumérien de consommation dans la vie économique etreligieuse - Etude linguistique et sociale d’après les textesprésargoniques de Lagaš. Editions E. de Boccard, Paris.Scott, Sarah Jarmer (2005):Figure, Symbol and Sign: Semiotics and Function of Early DynasticI Cylinder Seal Imagery from Ur, A Dissertation in The History ofArt Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvaniain Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor ofPhilosophy, Philadelphia, January 2005.Selz, Gebhard (1992):Eine Kultstatue der Herrschergemahlin Šaša: Ein Beitrag zumProblem der Vergöttlichung, "Acta Sumerologica Japan" 14, 245-268.Selz, Gebhard (1993):Altsumerische Wirtschaftsurkunden aus amerikanischenSammlungen 2 (FAOS 15.2), Franz Steiner, Stuttgart.Selz, Gebhard (1995):Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadtstaatesvon Lagaš (UGASL), Occasional Publications of the Samuel NoahKramer Fund, Philadelphia.Selz, Gebhard J. (2004):Early Dynastic Vessels in ´Ritual´Contexts, Wiener Zeitschrift fürdie Kunde des Morgenlandes 94, 185-224.Steinkeller, Piotr (1995):Review of ZATU, "Bibliotheca Orientalis" 52/5-6, 689-713.Steinkeller, Piotr (2004):13) On the Writings of bēlum in Sargonic and Earlier Sources, "N.A. B. U." 1/2004 (mars), 12-14.Steinkeller Piotr, Postgate J. Nicholas (1992):Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the IraqMuseum, Baghdad, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake (Indiana).Sürenhagen, Dietrich (1999):Untersuchungen zur relativen Chronologie Babyloniens undangrenzender Gebiete von der ausgehenden ´Ubaidzeit bis zumBeginn der Frühdynastisch II-Zeit 1, Studien zur70

Chronostratigraphie der südbabylonischen Stadtruinen von Urukund Ur, Heidelberger Orientverlag, Heidelberg.UET II:Eric Burrows: Ur Excavations, texts II: Archaic Texts, Trustees ofthe two Museums (The British Museum and The UniversityMuseum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia), London andPhiladelphia 1935.UE III:Leon Legrain: Ur Excavations volume III: Archaic Seal Impressions,The Trustees of the Two Museums (The British Museum and TheUniversity Museum), by the aid of a Grant from the CarnegieCorporation of New York, London and Philadelphia 1936.Visicato, Giuseppe (1997):Indices of Early Dynastic Administrative Tablets of Šuruppak,Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, Dipartimento di StudiAsiatici, Series Maior VI A, Napoli.Visicato, Giuseppe (2000):The Power and the Writing – The Early Scribes of Mesopotamia,CDL Press, Bethesda, MD.Westenholz, Aage (1987):Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Philadelphia 2, MuseumTusculanum Press, Copenhagen.Wilcke, Claus (1991):17) Zur Herstellung von Reflexbögen, "N. A. B. U." 1/1991 (mars),14.Wilcke, Claus (1996):Neue Rechtsurkunden der altsumerischer Zeit, "Zeitschrift fürAssyriologie" 86/I, 1-67.Woods, Christopher (2005a):On the Euphrates, "Zeitschrift für Assyriologie" 95, 7-45.Woods, Christopher (2005b):67) A Unique Writing for Sippar at Abū Salābīkh. d UD.KIB ki(Addendum to ZA 95 [2005], 7-45), "N. A. B. U."3/2005(septembre), 73-74.71

ZATU:Hans-Jörg Nissen, Margaret Green, Peter Damerow, Robert K.Englund: Zeichenliste der archaischen Texte aus Uruk, Gebr.Mann Verlag, Berlin 1987.Zettler, Richard (1989):Pottery Profiles Reconstructed from Jar Sealings in the Lower SealImpression Strata (SIS 8-4) at Ur: New Evidence for Dating, in:A. Leonard, Jr., B. B. Williams (edd.), Essays in AncientCivilizations Presented to Helene J. Kantor (SAOC 47), OrientalInstitute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, 369-387.Zgoll, Annette (1997):Der Rechtsfall der En-hedu-Ana im Lied nin-me-šara [AOAT 246],Ugarit-Verlag, Münster.DiscussionOtto: How numerous are the door sealings, are they in themajority?Charvát: Yes, they are, but these changes with time. In earliersealings, mobile-container items were more frequent, and even inthe SIS 5-4 these were still present.Sallaberger: Seals are likely to have been signs of institutions, so itis hard to believe in seal inscriptions describing the kind of goodsdeposited in the storeroom. At any rate, interpretation possibilitiesare quite wide: does a seal inscription mentioning fish refer to apersonal name (Mr. or Ms. Fish), or to goods deposited, or to someagency concerned with fish?Otto: Do you have any quantitative data from the seal inscriptions?And how much of the commodities were deposited in thestorerooms?Charvát: None whatsoever, just the indications of the kind ofgoods. As to the storeroom intake, there are no data of which Iwould be knowledgeable.Sallaberger: I have some comments on your reading of signs. Iprefer to read the ŠIM sign as BAPPIR. Then, could DU 8 be read asTUH, "bran"? The sign TU 7 is admittedly difficult, but could thishave been maybe cheese? Or a department concerned with this typeof food? With the BAD sign, I would proceed most carefully, as there72

are so many reading possibilities. With respect to the NAMEŠDA, Iam inclined to think the that NAM 2 element refers rather to quality,but of course, NAMEŠDA would definitely denote a "superiorquality"ruler.Otto: Can any correlation between seal inscriptions and theiriconography be observed?Charvát: To my regret I must say that up to now, I have not tackledthis question.73

Naram-Sin’s deificationPavel Král, University of West Bohemia, PlzeňAbstractThe deification of king Naram-Sin of the Akkadian dynasty (2254-2218B.C.) is a research topic that has been fascinating students of ancientMesopotamian history for a long time. Promulgated at a point when theking’s rule was already fairly advanced, this deification was presumablyintended to provide a cementing link of the Akkadian empire which, inNaram-Sin’s times, began to show signs of power erosion and loss ofcoherence. Probably a device to bring the king’s name to constantattention of his subjects rather than to enhance his status beyond that ofa simple mortal being, the deification worked for a while, but ultimatelygave way in times of Šar-kali-šarri, Naram-Sin’s successor.Keywords: History of ancient Mesopotamia, Akkadian period, Sumer andAkkad, king, deification.Akkadian Empire’s time is one of the most important periods ofMesopotamian history. In the second half of the 24 th century B.C.Sargon of Akkade founded the Empire which influenced the courseof events in the ancient Near East for a period of approx. 140 years.First of all Sargon had subjugated Mesopotamia and then he tookmilitary campaigns against the neighboring areas. Thus the firstMesopotamian territorial state arose and this state survived itsfounder. Rimuš and Man-ištušu, Sargon’s sons, followed theirfather’s policy. Naram-Sin, the fourth Akkadian king was to famousthat he became a principal character of some literary works,likewise his grandfather Sargon. In this paper we will deal withNaram-Sin’s deification which influenced the Mesopotamian royalideology in the following centuries.First years of Naram-Sin’s reignNaram-Sin ascended to the Akkadian throne after the death of Maništušuand years of his reign are at present commonly stated as2254-2218 B.C.. 134 According to the Sumerian King List Naram-Sinreigned for 56 135 years. In fact Naram-Sin probably ruled only for134 Oppenheim 2001, 252.135 Reign of 56 years that is the same time as the time of Naram-Sin’sgrandfather Sargon. (Frayne 1993, 84).75

37 years. The chronology of Naram-Sin’s reign is beset withdifficulties. In our precarious position the so-called ”divinedeterminative” (see below) has helped us with determination ofchronology. The divine determinative was written before Naram-Sin’s name after he was deified. This is usually 136 the way todistinguish at least the events before deification and after it. 137 Inanalogy to divine determinative also the changes of royal titulaturycan help us to a certain extant with the chronology. Naram-Sin wastitled "King of Akkade”, "King of four quarters” or "Smiter ofArmanum and Ebla”. 138 On the ground of these facts D. R. Fraynehas tried to sort Naram-Sin’s inscriptions and year names. 139Naram-Sin, after he ascended to the throne, carried out severalmilitary campaigns. Probably after some years of his reign the socalled"Great Revolt” broke out. A number of Mesopotamian citiesrose up against the Akkadian supremacy. Northern cities were ledby Iphur-Kiš from Kiš and at the head of southern cities was Amar-Girid from Uruk. Also Enlil-nizu, governor of Nippur, took part inthe Great Revolt. It seems that this general insurrection was time ofheavy political crisis of the Akkadian Empire. Naram-Sin defeatedall the rebels and thus saved the existence of Akkadian Empire. Ourknowledge on the Great Revolt comes from a few texts that aredescribing these affairs. 140The Great Revolt is very important for today’s research becauseserious change in royal ideology took place after it. Akkadian kingwas deified although he was still living. This happened for the firsttime in Mesopotamian history. We can read about deification in aninscription on the statue base from Basetki. 141 The inscriptionshortly mentions the suppression of the rebellion and the eventsthat followed."… he was victorious in nine battles in one year, and the kingswhom they (the rebels[?]) had raised (against him), he captured. Inview of the fact that he protected the foundations of his city fromdanger, (the citizens of) his city requested from Aštar in Eanna,Enlil in Nippur, Dagan in Tuttul, Ninḫursag in Keš, Ea in Eridu, Sinin Ur, Šamaš in Sippar, (and) Nergal in Kutha, that (Naram-Sin) be136Westenholz is skeptical to usage of divine determinative as achronological indicator. (Sallaberger, Westenholz 1999, 47).137 Sallaberger, Westenholz 1999, 46-47.138 Potts 1999, 107.139 See Frayne 1993, 85-87.140 Frayne 1993, 84-85.141 This village is located about 70 kms northwest of Mosul. (Frayne 1993,113).76

(made) the god of their city, and they built within Agade a temple(dedicated) to him…" 142It could appear that the inscription gives us a clear account of howand why the deification took place. We must be aware that theinscription was affected by the royal ideology. As we will see belowthe Naram-Sin’s deification probably happened in a differentmanner than the inscription states.Theory of deificationBefore we deal with Naram-Sin’s deification in detail, we should saysomething about the theoretic principles of deification. Deificationof a ruler had several consequences. Probably the most frequent iswriting "divine determinative” DINGIR (in Sumerian "god”) (signAN) before the king’s name. The determinative DINGIR is a markwhich Mesopotamian writers usually used before the names ofdeities. 143 We know other determinatives too, for example MUNUS(SAL, MÍ), which marks a female person or LÚ, which marks ahuman male. The determinative KI which marks geographicalnames is somewhat special because it is positioned behind thenames. Determinatives in general originated from logograms. 144In case of divine determinative we encounter a problem. Sometimesit isn’t explicit whether DINGIR is a determinative or a logogram.That is for us quite a serious problem because we don’t knowwhether we shall read the said sign as ilum (i.e. the Akkadianreading of the sign AN/DINGIR) or we shall regard it only as ascribal mark. We have arguments for both possibilities. 145DINGIR which occurs in texts before Naram-Sin’s name is inscientific literature usually mentioned as a determinative. However,Westenholz is convinced that it isn’t a determinative and we shouldread the sign as logogram, thus ilum. He argues that such event asdeification of living ruler would show itself more than just in writing142 Frayne 1993, 113-114.143 DINGIR could be written also before cultic subjects. (Oppenheim 2001,82) The divine determinative could also occur before phenomena such asfor example rivers, fire, demons or fertile strength (Lachar and Ašnan).These phenomena stand beyond human being, but they were subordinateto the deities. However they occur in lists of the deities too. Bottero explainit so the DINGIR initially didn’t mark only the deities but it mark all thatstand beyond human being. (Bottero 2005, 83-84).144 Nováková, Pecha, Rahman 2000, 15, 20.145 For particular arguments see Hallo 1957, 56-59.77

the divine determinative which, as Westenholz is warning, wasmeaningful only for literate people. According to him if DINGIR issituated before Naram-Sin’s name, we should read it as "divineNaram-Sin”. 146The other consequence of deification is receiving the title "god”(ilum) as one of royal titles put behind the name of king. AlsoNaram-Sin received this title so in the specific group of texts (seebelow) we can find following phrase: "Naram-Sin, god of Akkade”(DINGIR a-gà-dè.KI). 147Regarding the practical consequences of deification, in templescultic statues of deified kings were treated as well as the statues ofgods. 148 In case of some deified kings we have records of priests ofthese kings or of temples dedicated to these kings. 149The deification of a ruler can seem as something strange but wemust keep in mind that in the ancient Near East the institution ofkingdom as such had divine origin. The king was the elect of godsand he had to fulfill the demands of gods. The king was accountablefor his acts only to gods. 150 We sometimes come across the recordsof rulers who considered themselves sons of gods. However at thesame time they recognized also their earthly nascency. The divinefiliation ensured them the unique status among other people. Theking was thus a mediator between people and gods and so he was togods nearer than other people. 151 The king’s declaration of patrondeity of certain city or state emphasized the divine aspect ofkingdom.Reasons for deificationNaram-Sin’s deification had number of reasons. It might have beenan attempt of integration of the Akkadian Empire throughproclaiming the ruler a patron deity of the whole Empire. AsNaram-Sin was the fourth Akkadian king, the Akkadian Empire wasa state without a long tradition and the idea of territorial state wasstill relatively young. The political integration of various regionsprobably was to be supported by the creation of "a god of Akkadian146 Sallaberger, Westenholz 1999, 47.147 Hallo 1957, 59.148 Prosecký et al. 1999, 193; Leick 2005, 123.149 Postgate 1995, 401.150 Prosecký et al. 1999, 193.151 Eliade 1995, 83-83.78

Empire”. 152 Since the patron deity was Naram-Sin himself, itensured the interconnection of the profane and religious powers.That’s a very good way to integrate an empire.The next possible reason for deification can seem similar but it isslightly different. The deification could be seen as an attempt tosupport royal authority. Naram-Sin’s deification brought greatprestige for the king and his residence, the city of Akkade. This citydidn’t have a long tradition as for example Eridu or Uruk. 153 Withregard to aforementioned Great Revolt this reason seems verylogical. Although Naram-Sin saved his domination, it was clear thatthe Empire experienced a heavy political crisis. It was necessary tofind a way how to prevent next rebellions. In this regard thedeification of a ruler is a perfect measure. Who would have thenerve to resist the deities? Naram-Sin proved himself to be really a"favorite” of gods.Within the scope of the cult of divine king it was the divine kinghimself who had the main say. The deification could have been anattempt to create the opposition to the influence of temples, mainlyto the influence of Enlil’s temple at Nippur. However, Naram-Sin’sstatus at pantheon was relatively low. Although he was the patrondeity of Akkad he was still subject to the power of great gods.Therefore Naram-Sin had certain religious influence but he had totake into account the influence of the temples.One of the theories says that we should regard Naram-Sin’sdeification as a propagandistic act to justify the numerousadministrative and economic reforms. After the creation ofAkkadian Empire many changes of political system took place. Thesystem of city states was transformed into the system of oneterritorial state and that brought a lot of changes. 154Theoretically the deification could happen just as it is described inthe above mentioned inscription on the statue base from Basetki.That isn’t probable but we must realize that some inhabitants ofAkkad were really happy that Naram-Sin defeated the Great Revoltand saved the Empire which protected the Akkadian inhabitantsand ensured their wealth. If it was indeed so as the text says itwould be the deification out of people’s will and it would be veryinteresting.152 Postgate 1995,401.153 Leick 2005, 123.154 Leick 2005, 123.79

Implications of Naram-Sin’s deificationJust like other rulers also Naram-Sin accomplished a number ofbuilding projects. Especially after the suppression of Great Revolthe built or re-built some temples. Maybe he wanted to show hisgratitude to gods for their help in the desperate situation when fourquarters rose up against him at the time of the Great Revolt. 155Extensive building projects can be explained in other way too. WhenNaram-Sin was deified he had to gain the support of temples. Suchevent as deification of a living king could irritate some people andso it was necessary to gain due support. We know that Naram-Sinbuilt for example the temple of goddess Aštar or the temple of godEnlil at Nippur. Naram-Sin also installed some cultic officials. Aninstalled priestess was a king’s daughter. 156 Naram-Sin perhapstried to strengthen his power. After the suppression of the GreatRevolt the king probably attempted to prevent the next uprising andEnlil’s temple could provide the necessary support and authority.The deification of the living king was at that time somethingunprecedented and without the support of the priests it could be afiasco alike later Akhenaton’s religious reform.Probably the most striking declaration of Naram-Sin’s deification ison the monument known as Victory Stele. This stele is made fromlimestone and it is 2 meters high. It shows the Akkadian armyheaded by Naram-Sin as winning over enemies. The inscription onthe stele is in a very bad condition but we know that the defeatedenemies were Lullubu people. 157 This jewel of Akkadian art is soimportant mainly because the king is there displayed with tiara, i.e.headgear with horns of bulls. That was a characteristic headgear ofgods. If the tiara had only one pair of horns, it could be a symbol ofa deified king. 158 That was just the case of Naram-Sin. Only one pairof horns could show ruler’s low status in pantheon because Naram-Sin no doubt could not compare himself with great gods such asAnum, Enlil, Ea or Ištar.As mentioned above, Naram-Sin’s deification showed itself in textstoo. However the set of texts that is at our disposal can bemisleading because a lot of texts certainly haven’t been found yet.We still lack for example the texts from the city of Akkade wheresurely royal archives were and reputedly there was also a templededicated to Naram-Sin. The texts of these institutions probably155 Sallaberger, Westenholz 1999, 54.156 Frayne 1993, 85.157 Frayne 1993, 142-143.158 Prosecký et al. 1999, 310.80

could help us to better understand the Naram-Sin’s deification. Ifwe should deduce something from the texts which we keep at ourdisposal we can divide them into some groups. Firstly we have textswhich contain no mark of deification of the king. These texts aren’tfor us very useful. The more important are the texts that containeither divine determinative or both divine determinative and thetitle "god of Akkade”. We can also see the case when the textcontains the title "god of Akkade” but the divine determinative ismissing. 159Texts containing both the divine determinative and the title "god ofAkkade” are usually very short. We have several inscriptions on theseal impressions from Tello (Lagaš), 160 on one seal cylinder, 161 oneplaque 162 and one hemispherical bowl. 163 These inscriptions don’tcome from Naram-Sin but usually from his servants or familymembers. This can explain the fact that the king’s name is followedonly by title – "god of Akkade”. This short titling could be causedalso by the lack of space on seal cylinders and the describedobjects.The texts which contain only the divine determinative constitutemore varied group. We can find the divine determinative infollowing kinds of texts: the texts describing militaryachievements, 164 dedicatory inscriptions of the king, 165 dedicatoryinscription of a high official 166 or governor, 167 inscriptions on claybricks (Nippur, Adab and Tell Brak), 168 inscriptions on a variety ofobjects (only king’s name and titling), 169 short and fragmentary OldBabylonian copies of Naram-Sin’s inscriptions, 170 inscriptions onseal impressions 171 and the inscriptions of royal family members. 172The DINGIR occurs before Naram-Sin’s name also in a personalname. The name can by translated as "Divine Naram-Sin is my God"159 The text was found on a clay bulla from Tello which bears a sealimpression. (Frayne 1993, E2.1.4.2009).160Frayne 1993, E2.1.4.2003, E2.1.4.2013, E2.1.4.2014, E2.1.4.2020,E2.1.4.2023.161 Frayne 1993, E2.1.4.53.162 Frayne 1993, E2.1.4.2018.163 Frayne 1993, E2.1.4.2007.164 Frayne 1993, E2.1.4.13, E2.1.4.26, E2.1.4.31.165 Frayne 1993, E2.1.4.31, E2.1.4.37, E2.1.4.50.166 Frayne 1993, E2.1.4.2002.167 Frayne 1993, E2.1.4.2005, E2.1.4.2006.168 Frayne 1993, E2.1.4.15, E2.1.4.16, E2.1.4.22 respectively.169 Frayne 1993, E2.1.4.27, E2.1.4.41, E2.1.4.42.170 Frayne 1993, E2.1.4.46, E2.1.4.47, E2.1.4.49.171 Frayne 1993, E2.1.4.2004, E2.1.4.2015, E2.1.4.2016.172 Frayne 1993, E2.1.4.18, E2.1.4.20, E2.1.4.54.81

(DINGIR-na-ra-am- d EN.ZU-i 3 -li 2 ). 173 Some of these texts are of greatinformative value. For example the inscription on the bricks fromTell Brak reflects Naram-Sin’s effort to establish his power at thatfar province. The described bricks come from a fortress which wasprobably supposed to strengthen the military position of Akkadianarmy. 174 The fact that the king’s name was written with divinedeterminative suggests that the king was particular about that hehad due respect in far provinces too. Naram-Sin tried to strengthenhis position also in other parts of the Empire. He built or re-builtalso at Susa. Two brick fragments were found there containing aninscription "Naram-Sin, mighty king, king of Ur, king of fourquarters …". This inscription is quite unique because it’s the onlybuilding inscription of Akkadian kings in eastern provinces. Due tothe damage of the inscription we, unfortunately, don’t knowwhether the divine determinative preceded Naram-Sin’s name ornot. 175 However the usage of title "king of four quarters” cansuggest that this inscription was written after the suppression ofGreat Revolt, i.e. approximately at the time when Naram-Sin wasdeified.Another text, Akkadian-Elamite treaty, is also unique butunfortunately again fragmentary and ambiguous. In the document,written in Old Elamite, the god’s names are written with divinedeterminative but Naram-Sin’s name is written without it and so wecan assume that the text comes from early years of Naram-Sin’sreign. This treaty concluded between Naram-Sin and an unnamedElamite king, probably Hita, was supposed to regulate Akkadian-Elamite relations. Susa, where the text was found, was at the time apart of the Akkadian Empire. There were Akkadian officials presentand evident akkadianization was taking place. 176 However the peaceat eastern provinces didn’t last long. We draw information onEastern Campaigns from Naram-Sin’s inscriptions which mentionthe conquest of Azuḫinnum, Lullubum and the Area of Mount Ebiḫ(Simurrum, Ḫašimar and Niqqum). All these campaigns took placeafter his deification. 177 Probably the most known campaign is thecampaign against the Lullubu people. The record of this campaignsurvived on the aforementioned Victory Stele. It appears thatneither the Akkadian-Elamite treaty, nor the Naram-Sin’sdeification brought peace to Eastern Provinces. A question arisehow the people in provinces or even people outside AkkadianEmpire perceived Naram-Sin’s deification. As we have mentioned173 Sallaberger, Westenholz 1999,54.174 Frayne 1993, 125.175 Potts 1999, 107.176 Potts 1999, 111; König 1965, 29-34.177 Frayne 1993, 87.82

above, at Tell Brak were found bricks which bear Naram-Sin’s namewith the divine determinative. It might have been caused by the factthat the construction was probably initiated by the capital. Howpeople at Susa perceived the deified king is very hard to tellbecause we have a great lack of sources. The position of peopleoutside the Empire on the matter is also unclear. Naram-Sin wasonly a patron deity of Akkad. Other regions had their own patrondeities. Non-Mesopotamian regions had their own great gods inaddition. Naram-Sin’s religious influence beyond the AkkadianEmpire was probably quite weak. We have other evidencesuggesting that the deification of the Akkadian king had almost noinfluence on the relations with neighboring regions. Naram-Sin’sson, Šar-kali-šarri, was also deified. However at the time of hisreign the Akkadian Empire had to face frequent attacks of enemies.Šar-kali-šarri, although he was deified, didn’t have such supremacyas his father. Therefore it’s probable that the king’s supremacy wasbased on military achievements. Naram-Sin’s deification may havehelped him in the military campaigns as it wasn’t so common tohave the own patron deity right on the battle field. Naram-Sin’spresence could jack up the esprit de corps and also intimidate theenemies. However that is presumably the only influence ofdeification on foreign policy.Similarities and differences to deification of other rulersNaram-Sin was the first deified living king but by no means the last.Moreover we know some earlier mythical kings that were deifiedafter their death (Lugalbanda, Gilgameš) and it happened evenbefore the deification of Naram-Sin. 178 These kings had allegedlydivine parents so their post mortal enlistment into Gods List isn’t sostrange act. 179 Therein is Naram-Sin’s deification different. 180 Hewas deified during his life time and he also placed almost noemphasis on divine parents. However one mention we can find in aninscription where it states that Naram-Sin dedicated an image ofhimself to the god Enlil, his father. 181 The fact that Naram-Sindidn’t emphasize his divine parents can signalize a different process178 Names of these rulers are mentioned in Gods list from Fara which comefrom 26 th century B.C.. (Prosecký et al. 1999, 106, 215).179 Bottéro 2005, 82-83.180 However Bottéro has supposed that deification of Naram-Sin and furtherrulers happened under the influence of old Sumerian tradition becauseSumerian conception of term "deity” was relatively open and thereforewasn’t so hard to cross the border between earthly and heavenlycategories. (Bottéro 2005, 82-83).181 Frayne 1993, E2.1.4.50.83

of deification. While the divinity of earlier kings was based on therelationship to gods, Naram-Sin was deified because, as mentionedabove, his city requested him from gods to be the god of their city.If we compare the deification of Naram-Sin and of later kings, wecan find an interesting similarity. The first Sumerian deified livingking, Šulgi, received title "strong god of his land”. That is verysimilar to the title "strong god of Akkade” used by Naram-Sin. Thisparallel can indicate Šulgi’s effort to consolidate his empire throughthe creation of a patron deity of the whole Ur III Empire. 182 In oneaspect is Šulgi’s deification different. He followed partially from theearlier tradition. In some hymns is Šulgi designated as the son ofgoddess Ninsun (A Praise Poem of Šulgi A) 183 or brother ofGilgameš (A Praise Poem of Šulgi C). 184 Thanks to archeologicalresearch we know another similarity between Naram-Sin’s and UrIII King’s deification. As Naram-Sin had allegedly his temple withinAkkade, so also one of Šulgi’s descendent, Šu-Sin had his owntemple at Ešnunna. 185In conclusion I would like to pronounce, an idea, for somebodymaybe too provocative. If we translate the term "DINGIR”, not as"god” but as "holy” or "saint”, a new parallel can arise. The pope,the head of Catholic Church, is called "Holy Father”. He of courseisn’t regarded as a god, but he can be regarded as a connectionbetween the God and people. It was similar in case of Naram-Sinwho, as a deity, had religious authority and he was the link betweengods and people. Also some other already dead persons obtainedthe epithet "holy” or "saint”, for example saint Wenceslas, St.Stephen, St. Paul and many others. Their statues and pictures are inchurches and many churches are consecrated to them. Some saintshave in addition various roles, for example the mentioned St.Wenceslas is regarded as the patron of Bohemia. Saints canintercede with the God for the people just like the patron deities inancient Mesopotamia could intercede with great gods for theirpeople.The next parallel with Naram-Sin’s deification is again ratherstrange. Thanks to suppression of Great Revolt Naram-Sin obtainedthe admiration which we can compare to the fame of somecontemporary sportsmen, actors or singers who are often adored. If182 Postgate 1995, 401.183 http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.4.2.01# (3 rd March2009).184 http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.4.2.03# (3 rd March2009).185 Postgate 1999, 401.84

we consider the fact that somebody can earn boundless respect forhis deeds today, so it could have been possible before. For theinhabitants of Akkade Naram-Sin could have been a real hero whosaved them.ConclusionNaram-Sin had to deal with the Great Revolt. He suppressed itsuccessfully and consequently he was deified. We can come acrossvarious theories about how and why the deification took place. It’sdifficult to say which theory is right because we have botharguments and counterarguments for each theory. Therefore it ishard to draw some unambiguous conclusions. However we can saythat the deification of Akkadian king probable didn’t produce theexpected results. It appears that Naram-Sin’s authority didn’t relyon being considered the patron deity but on being an excellentconqueror. The deification also didn’t consolidate Akkadian Empirewhich after Naram-Sin’s death slowly started to fall apart. Thedeification showed itself in particular in writing the divinedeterminative which can help us estimate the chronology of events.The occurrence of title "god of Akkade” suggests that Naram-Sinhad the authority of god mainly with the persons that were near tohim. Far away in provinces or even behind the empire’s frontiersthe deification of the king had no obvious implication. Although thedeification of a living ruler may seems as something strange it wasreally an understandable act. In the following centuries some rulersemulated Naram-Sin and they were also deified.ReferencesBottéro, J. (2005):Nejstarší náboženství Mezopotámie, (La plus vieille religion: EnMésopotamie), Academia, Praha.Eliade, M. (1995):Dějiny náboženského myšlení I. (Histoire des croyances et des ideésreligieuses I, De l’âge de la pierre aux mistères d’Eleusis),OIKOYMENH, Praha.Frayne, D. (1993):Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334-2113 BC), University of TorontoPress, Toronto, Buffalo, London.85

Hallo, W. (1957):Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles, American Oriental Society, NewHaven.König, F. W. (1965):Die elamischen Königinschriften, Archiv für OrientforschungBeiheft 16, Graz.Leick, G. (2005):Mezopotámie - Počátky měst, (Mesopotamia: the Invention of theCity). BB/art, Brno.Nováková, N., Pecha, L., Rahman, F. (2000):Základy starobabylónštiny, Karolinum, Praha.Oppenheim, A. L. (2001):Starověká Mezopotámie: Portrét zaniklé civilizace. (AncientMesopotamia: Portrait of Dead Civilization), Academia, Praha.Postgate, J. N. (1995):"Royal Ideology and State Administration in Sumer and Akkad”, in:Sasson, J. M., ed., Civilization of the Ancient Near East, Vol. I,Scribner’s, New York.Potts T.(1999):The Archeology of Elam, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Prosecký et al. (1999):Encyklopedie starověkého Předního východu, Nakladatelství LIBRI,Praha.Sallaberger, W., Westenholz, A. (1999):Mesopotamien – Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, UniversitätsverlagFrieburg, Freiburg.http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.4.2.01#,(online), (3 rd March 2009)http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.4.2.03#,(online), (3 rd March 2009)86

DiscussionSallaberger: How do we, in fact, think about gods or God? Inantiquity, the popular figures known from TV emissions did notexist, and at least the king was constantly on the minds of thepeople. This must have been brought about by many ritualscentered on the king’s person, and we must say that thinkingconstantly about someone does constitute an important factor. Ibelieve that it is this what made the gods into true existences forthe people. For this reason, the Bassetki statue carries a highmeasure of importance. Its religious side is just one aspect of thesituation, its political and social significance another one. Thesolution appears to have been a complex one: Rimuš, Naram-Sin’spredecessor, had considerable difficulties in his regnal period andhad to fight hard, but the idea of deification did obviously not occurto his advisers. On the other hand, no revolts are recorded inconnection with Šar-kali-šarri’s accession on the Akkadian throneand thus Naram-Sin’s step might have had the desiredconsequences in gaining respect for the dynasty. I also agree withyour suggestion dating the revolt into Naram-Sin’s early years.Král: I believe that this is indicated by the considerable number oftexts recording Naram-Sin’s name with the DINGIR sign – thisshows that he remained on the throne quite a time after deification.Charvát: I think Naram-Sin’s deification is most interestingbecause it is apparently founded on what might be termed "populardemand". It is thus a deification vis-à-vis the people. Šulgi’sdeification possessed a diffferent character: he did not need any"popular demand", as he was a god in himself since the moment ofhis conception: a deity assumed his father’s appearance and begothim on his mother. I believe that this is an indirect but very powefulpolemic against the deification of the Akkadian king, whichultimately produced the "Curse of Agade", a text delegitimizing theAkkadian dynasty.Sallaberger: There definitely existed "gods of the land", such asGudea. I view Šulgi’s deification as a political act, taking place in avery similar historical situation. Both Naram-Sin and Šulgi were notthe first rulers of their dynasties, but they both felt the urge to finda concept that would hold their enormous empires together. Itmight be useful to add Sargon of Akkad to the deified rulers, as hereceives offerings in texts from Nippur.87

‘Youth known to An among the gods’: A new look at the‘Coronation Hymns’ of king ŠulgiLuděk Vacín, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, BerlinAbstractThe author proposes that the Šulgi hymns G, P and F, whose ‘forerunners’(if there were any), once composed to celebrate the king’scoronations in the three capitals of the kingdom, might have served asideological underpinnings and literary celebrations of Šulgi’s elevation tothe divine realm after their reworking (or composition). Their contentseems to indicate that the deification might have assumed the form of are-coronation in each of the capitals. However, the inherent ambiguity ofmany phrases in those compositions, whose authors, only exceptionallyadmitting Šulgi’s divinity openly, used traditional literary topoi ofkingship, appropriate to a human as well as divine king, thwarts drawingdefinitive conclusions, much as the current lack of evidence from othersources.Keywords: History of ancient Mesopotamia, Ur III period, Sumer andAkkad, Šulgi, king, cuneiform texts, royal hymns, deification.The circumstances of the accession of king Šulgi, the n a - g a d as i p a s a ĝ - ĝ i 6 - g a (Šulgi A, l. 5): ‘a herdsman, a shepherd of theblack-headed ones’ 186 par excellence in Mesopotamia towards theend of the third millennium B.C., are still very poorly understood asare the similarly elusive circumstances of his elevation to divinestatus later in his reign. In the present paper I will offer an analysisof the so-called ‘Coronation Hymns’ of Šulgi in an attempt to showthat while these texts may have served to celebrate the coronationof the Ur III sovereign, they may have been reworked and reusedlater to ideologically support his deification. 187186 See Klein 1981b, 188. For a recent detailed treatment of Šulgi A seeDelnero 2006: 1865–1909 (score transliteration), 739–849 (line-by-lineanalysis of textual variants).187 Needless to say, the following discussion is based on the assumption thatthe Šulgi hymns, while preserved almost exclusively in OB copies (the onlyexception being Ni 4254 [SLTN 82], a manuscript of Šulgi A attributed tothe Ur III period; Šulgi A is also listed in the Ur III literary catalogue YBC3654, l. 30), were composed during the Ur III period and transmittedwithout major corruptions until the decline of Sumerian learning at the endof OB times. This needs to be said because there is a strong alternative89

Despite all the references to Šulgi’s royal status in numeroushistorical as well as literary sources the only explicit statementconcerning his accession to the throne of Ur is the formulaic yearname m u š u l - g i l u g a l (RTC 273): ‘Year, Šulgi (became) king.’Since we currently do not possess any other historical sources, thesearch for more details regarding this significant event ofMesopotamian history and its circumstances is necessarily limitedto relevant literary texts.There seems to be a consensus among scholars that Šulgi ascendedthe throne after his father had lost a battle with the ‘Gutian’ enemyand died shortly afterwards (as described in hymn Urnamma A, the‘Death of Urnamma’). 188 In the opinion of some the details of hiscoronation are conveyed in the ‘Coronation Hymns’ Šulgi G, P andF, featuring important deities of Nippur, Uruk and Ur, andaccordingly thought to reflect the king’s consecutive coronation inthe religious, ancestral and residential centre of his dynasty. 189 Oneshould note here that there are only 10 hitherto identified textwitnesses for all these hymns (Šulgi G: 1, Šulgi P: 4, Šulgi F: 5), 190which is in stark contrast to the number of tablets inscribed withother important texts of the Šulgi hymnal repertoire (especiallyŠulgi A and B) and shows that the ‘Coronation Hymns’ were notparticularly popular among Old Babylonian scholars and theirstudents. The apparent lack of interest in these texts could perhapsbe explained by changes in royal ideology in the Isin-Larsa periodwhen the complex rhetoric of hymns G, P and F, painstakinglyportraying Šulgi as a (god-)king intimately related to major deitiesof the three most important cities of his realm, was no longersuitable to the needs of rulers who let the authors of their ownhypothesis according to which the hymns mentioning Ur III rulers wereactually authored in the OB period (see e.g. Brisch 2007: 30–1, with n. 35;Dahl 2007: 20, n. 78). The discussion of this issue goes beyond the scope ofthe present paper. I touch it elsewhere (Vacín [forthcoming]) and intend toaddress it in detail at a future date. Interestingly, virtually the same debatecurrently takes place among Egyptologists who also deal with later schoolcopies of literature referring to earlier events and people. One groupinsists that those texts were composed in the era they refer to (pointing outi.a. that the language of the later copies is closer to that of earlier times),the second group advocates a later date of composition. Significantly, an‘original’ (i.e. a copy stemming from the time of the described events) ofone of the texts concerned has recently been discovered (I am grateful toEgyptologist Jiří Janák for this information).188 Note, however, the reservations of Flückiger-Hawker 1999, 7, 164 (ad 6–7 with references).189 See especially Frayne 1981, 153–163 with references; Frayne 1997, 92;Wilcke 1974, 181; Klein 1981a, 25.190 See Klein 1991, 292, 1981a, 34; Wilcke 1976, 50; Klein 1981b, 40–1.90

hymnal compositions focus on more traditional aspects of kingshipwhile the ideology of royal divinity together with the genre of royalhymn gradually declined and by the end of the Old Babylonianperiod entirely disappeared. 191The idea of a group of hymns pertaining to Šulgi’s triple coronationis based on a well documented analogy of king Ibbīsuʾen assumingroyal insignia in the three cities. 192 There is no reason to doubt thatsuch a custom existed already in Šulgi’s times, because it clearlyconstituted a vital component of Ur III royal ideology. According tohymn Šulgi E the king was crowned in Eridu too. 193 Yet, there is noother piece of evidence to support this. The content of Šulgi G, Pand F is extremely focused on the king’s predestination, future andwell-being and packed with investiture rhetoric, which explains whyscholars singled these compositions out as referring to the ruler’sactual coronations. Apparently, the possibility that the investiturerhetoric was added by Old Babylonian scribes for educational orother purposes, as in the case of e.g. hymn Urnamma D, 194 isunlikely, because royal investiture constitutes the very topic ofthese texts.An Overview of the Contents of the ‘Coronation Hymns’1) Šulgi G (BM 96706 = CT 36 26–27)The hymn Šulgi G, edited by Jacob Klein, 195 and labelled ‘Šulgi andthe Ekur’, deals exclusively with the birth of Šulgi, his royalinvestiture and his cultic function as a provider of Enlil’s mainsanctuary. It is an exquisite piece of religio-political propagandaapparently composed to underpin Šulgi’s position by depicting in asemi-mythological fashion his intimate relationship to major deities191 A handy comparison of royal ideologies of Šulgi and Išmedagān can befound in Tinney 1996, 74–80. For the Larsa royal literature see Brisch2007.192 See Jacobsen 1953, 36, n. 2; Sollberger 1953. See further Sjöberg 1972(1973), 109 with n. 1. Cf. Sigrist 1989.193 ETCSL, 2.4.2.05, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi E)’, l. 9: sig 4 eridu ki -ga-taaga zi ak-me-en.194 Tinney (1999) has shown by analysing three different versions ofUrnamma D that the investiture rhetoric seemingly describing thecoronation of Urnamma (see Hallo 1966) was inserted by OB scholarsapparently for the sake of pedagogy.195 Klein 1991. Cf. also Klein 1997 for another translation. In a shortintroduction to it Klein states: ‘The hymn was no doubt composed duringŠulgi’s reign, on the occasion of Šulgi’s coronation in Nippur.Subsequently, it may have been put to periodical use in the cult.’91

of the state, especially to the gods of Nippur. Scholars whounderstand this composition as a reflection of Šulgi’s coronation inthat city emphasize that its reassuring mood and concern withŠulgi’s legitimacy point to the need of universal recognition of hisright to the throne after the kingdom was weakened by Urnamma’sdeath. 196 This view seems to be bolstered by an unusual descriptionof Šulgi’s birth in ll. 13–20, the core of the composition, assuringeverybody of his legitimacy. It contains an oracular promise of longand stable rule made by Enlil to the king by virtue of the merits ofhis father (called only l ú - z i , ‘the righteous, rightful one’, in thetext), a short passage on Nanna’s intercession in the birth-givingprocess, and a statement that it was Enlil himself who broughtabout Šulgi’s birth. Let us quote the passage in full here:13 é-kur lú-zi-dè ì-dù-e mu da-rí-kam14 dumu lú-zi-da-ke 4 ĝidri mi-íb-sud-re 6 ĝiš gu-za-bi nu-kúr15 nam-bi-šè é-kur-ra sig 7 mi-ni-ĝar d áš-ím-babbar-re16 a-a-ni d en-líl inim-ma bí-sì ama di-da mi-ni-in-túm17 é-du 10 -ga d nanna dumu-nun-né níĝ al ba-ni-du 1118 en-né šà-tur-šè ĝál-la-na lú-zi mi-ni-ù-tu 19719 d en-líl sipa á-kala-ga-ke 4 mes-e pa bí-è 19820 dumu nam-lugal bára-ge 4 ḫé-du 7 šul-gi lugal-àmŠulgi G (Klein 1991, 302).13 ‘The righteous one (i.e. Urnamma) will (re-)build the Ekur,(thereby acquiring) lasting fame,14 the son of the righteous one shall long hold the staff, theirthrone shall not be overthrown.’15 Therefore Ašimbabbar supplicated in the Ekur,16 he communicated his wish to his father Enlil, (and) brought thebirth-giving mother there,17 Nanna, the princely son, expressed his desire in the ‘GoodHouse’,18 (and thus) the lord made the righteous one be born from thewomb which he had at hand,196 See Klein 1991, 297–9.197 Sallaberger 1997, 155, n. 36, suggests that the prefix - n i - in the latterverbal form points to Enlil as the agent.198 Marchesi 2004, 193 and n. 223, rightly argues that ll. 18–19 form aparallelism and therefore e n in l. 18 refers to Enlil.92

19 Enlil, the shepherd of exceeding power, made the young manemerge,20 the son fit for kingship and the throne dais, king Šulgi.There has been a number of different and sometimes extremelycomplex interpretations of this difficult passage based on theassumption that the word e n in l. 18 refers to Šulgi’s mother.Thorkild Jacobsen suggested that she may have been an e n (-priestess) of Nanna physically celebrating the ‘sacred marriage’ ritewith the king, the result of their union being the crown princeŠulgi. 199 This view has been adopted and elaborated on by WilliamHallo, who concluded that engendering an heir seems to have beenthe all-important purpose of the rite. 200 Finally, Klein has arguedwithout indulging in further speculations in his edition of this textthat the mother was simply an e n -priestess. 201 However, the titlee n never designates women in Sumerian royal hymnology but onlykings or gods. The parallel l. 19 makes clear who is the agenthidden behind that title in l. 18 and it is no surprise to find Enlilthere.2) Šulgi P (Ni 4420 = ISET 1 25, Ni 2437 = SLTN 80, CBS13991 = TAPS 71/7: fig. 2, HS 1592 = TMH NF 4 10)Let us turn to hymn Šulgi P now. Edited by Jacob Klein, 202 andlabelled ‘Šulgi, Ninsun and An’, it presumably reflects Šulgi’scoronation in Uruk. The reason for such an assumption is theobvious focus on Šulgi’s intimate relationship to his divine parents,Urukean deities Ninsun and Lugalbanda, especially Ninsun whointercedes here on behalf of Šulgi with the most senior Urukean godAn. Thus the text communicates that the king’s legitimacy wasgranted by the gods of Uruk, and then continues with Lugalbanda’snaming Šulgi with a ‘throne-name’ after which comes theinvestiture passage.199 Jacobsen 1957, 126–127, n. 80.200 Hallo 1987, 48–49.201 Klein 1991, 295. In another article on this topic (1987) Klein analysed allthe previous hypotheses and offered his own as to the identity of thesupposed e n -priestess. Cf. Hallo 1987, 50.202 Klein 1981a, 21–42. Cf. van Dijk 1954, 85, for ll. 3–9; van Dijk 1960, 80,for ll. 43–48; Falkenstein 1952, 73–75, for ll. 11–25, 38–39.93

3) Šulgi F (HS 1411 = TMH NF 4 11, AO 8845 = TCL 16 86,Ni 2413 = BE 31 24 [+] Ni 626 = SLTN 78, Ni 4564 = ISET 122–3, N 6529)The ruler’s coronation in the political capital, Ur, is thought to bereflected in hymn F, labelled by Klein ‘Šulgi, King of Abundance’. 203The prologue of this composition is preoccupied with stressingŠulgi’s predestination, and with assurance from mostly Urukeandeities (but note the important role of Utu) 204 that only he was ableto guarantee well-being to Sumer. Thus encouraged, Šulgi metNanna at Ur and promised him that he would defend Sumer andrestore all its institutions, should his legitimate claim to kingship beconfirmed. Because such a matter could have been settled only bythe supreme decision maker in the pantheon, Enlil, Nanna is thensaid to have travelled to Nippur to make a plea before his father onbehalf of Šulgi. His request was granted and he returned to Ur toannounce this favourable news to the king. Consequently, a selfpraise of Šulgi containing an investiture passage ensues. 205Historical Setting of Šulgi G, P and F: ‘Coronation’,‘Deification’ Hymns or Both?While hymns G, P and F are in their content and structureseemingly true ‘Coronation Hymns’, analogous in the pursuit tolegitimize Šulgi – to show that he was duly crowned – as well as inthe motif of divine intercession (especially P and F), the possibilitythat they were composed shortly after his accession seems unlikelyfor two reasons.First, Walther Sallaberger has pointed out that only two Šulgihymns (A and R, relating events corroborated by date formulae forŠ6/7 and Š8) can be placed in time, and therefore the dating of the203 See Klein 1981a, 11–12, 25. A full edition of this lengthy, yet veryfragmentary, composition is still lacking. For partial transliterations/translations/comments see Römer 1969, 133–4; Wilcke 1970, 88–89; 1974,181 with nn. 79–80, p. 184 with n. 131, p. 215; Klein 2001, 285–286;1981b, 47, n. 105.204 The appearance of Utu looks unusual indeed. Wilcke (1974, 181)suggested that Šulgi may have served as a military governor in Uruk at thetime of Urnamma’s death, and upon learning the bad news he would haverushed back to Ur via Larsa, Utu’s abode, hence the appearance of Utubefore Nanna. However, the context makes it clear that Utu acts herepurely as a source of life-giving force causing vegetation to flourish. Hence,there is nothing historical about Utu’s appearance in the prologue of thishymn.205 See Klein 1981a, 12 with n. 38.94

‘Coronation Hymns’ is arbitrary, based only on the presence ofexcessive investiture rhetoric. Such rhetoric was also included inŠulgi R (and A), whose topics were however not related to theking’s actual coronation. 206 While one may object that theinvestiture passages in epilogues of hymns R and A clearly depict aconfirmation of divine favours for the legitimate ruler in return forhis achievements, whereas the ‘Coronation Hymns’ are preoccupiedwith Šulgi’s legitimation only, Sallaberger is right to insist that thisis not enough to allow an assignment of the latter compositions tothe very beginning of Šulgi’s reign. 207Second, according to Klein ‘it is hardly conceivable that Šulgi, veryclose to his accession, could have inspired his poets to compose forhim hymnal epics of such magnitude, or that his poets could havebrought the literary genre of the royal epics to such high level ofdevelopment’. 208 But is there any solid evidence to support thisclaim? Actually, it is impossible to say exactly at which level thecompositional art of court poets was upon the accession of Šulgi butgiven that they apparently learnt much from the Lagaš II literarylegacy, the level is likely to have been high. 209 Thus, the possibilitythat the ‘Coronation Hymns’ were composed at the occasion ofŠulgi’s accession cannot be entirely excluded.Still, it is unlikely that such great works of literature could becreated in the initial years of Šulgi’s reign, a time of crisis after theuntimely death of his father. It seems much more likely that thebulk of the Šulgi hymns were produced at the scribal academiesfounded by the king in Nippur and Ur according to ll. 308–10 ofhymn Šulgi B to train scholars but undoubtedly also clerks, andwhich seem to have been founded in the middle of the third decadeof Šulgi’s reign judging from the swelling of state administrationfrom that time on.206 Sallaberger 1999, 144–145, and nn. 80–81. For Šulgi A see pp. 146, 307.See the epilogue of this text, ll. 84–102, in Klein 1981b, 200–203.207 On the basis of the cultic context of hymn R he argues that the investiturerhetoric in the Šulgi hymns points to a regular renewal of the king’s power,perhaps during the annual festival in Tumal. However, if the power of anUr III king had to be often ‘renewed’, one would expect such a ceremony tobe somehow reflected above all in administrative texts not only from thelast decades of Šulgi’s reign but from the reigns of all his successors aswell, which is not the case.208 Klein 1981a, 25–6, n. 133. Similarly also ibid., 13, n. 44.209 See Klein 1989 for a study of the dependence of the Šulgi hymns onGudea’s literature.95

Therefore, I agree with Klein that there could have been lesselaborate ‘forerunners’ refined later in Šulgi’s reign. 210 Yet, whilethis makes sense when it comes to hymns praising Šulgi’s pastachievements, thus spreading his renown as a competent andcaring sovereign, one wonders why the king and his poets shouldhave deemed it necessary to rewrite texts whose sole purposeapparently was to show him as a legitimate ruler, and to describehis coronations. For, if the ‘Coronation Hymns’ were reworkedyears or decades after the actual events, when Šulgi’s legitimacywas already widely recognized, what was the use of elaborateinvestiture propaganda? One may assume that these texts couldhave been put to cultic use upon their rewriting to be recited intemples, thereby reminding the respective deities of their blessingsand Šulgi’s legitimacy. However, this is true in the case of Šulgi G(an a d a b of Enlil) only, because the other two ‘Coronation Hymns’do not contain any liturgical rubrics but do contain substantialnarrative sections. Thus, cultic use obviously was not the primarypurpose of their composition, though they may have been sung intemples afterwards. But after what?The answer could be that there must have been either a crisis, or anoccasion comparable only to coronation, or both, later in Šulgi’sreign, which urged the king ideologically to ‘prove’ his legitimacyonce again, or even for the first time, if we assume that the‘forerunners’ actually did not exist, and the hymns were composedon the occasion of that later special event.Since available sources do not inform us about any severe crisisduring Šulgi’s long reign, one needs to look for another possibility.It is known that Šulgi was deified some time between his tenth andtwenty-first regnal year, and scholars generally tend to the viewthat this happened shortly before the year Š21. If one deems thisdating correct, one can suppose that at least the ‘CoronationHymns’ were rewritten/composed on the occasion of Šulgi’sdeification or shortly afterwards. An event of such significance, atthat time unparalleled for any ruler who deemed himself‘Sumerian’, and effectively changing the very nature of the king’sperson, must have been accompanied by spectacular rituals, lavishofferings, court ceremonies, and perhaps even public festivitiesidentical to or even surpassing past coronation rites, thus markingthe change and its divine approval. 211 Accordingly, it must have210 Klein 1981a, 25–6, n. 133.211 One can only regret that the scarcity of administrative records from thefirst half of Šulgi’s reign obstructs more secure dating as well as anyinsight into the circumstances of his deification.96

een well ideologically underpinned and explained by royalpropagandists. The ‘Coronation Hymns’ would have met the needfor justification perfectly.Assuming that Šulgi’s coronation may have been repeated in thethree cities on the occasion of his deification, 212 let us have a look ifthe texts themselves support such a hypothesis.1) Šulgi GEnlil’s oracle in Šulgi G is preceded by an introduction, which one istempted to call ‘mystical’, emphasizing the importance of upcomingŠulgi’s birth. Thus, we are informed that Enlil came up with a ‘greatthing’, that he let ‘his holy thoughts’ be known, that the matter ofŠulgi’s birth was a ‘holy matter’, a ‘pure matter’, a ‘truecornerstone (literally: ‘true brick of fate’) at the bottom of the deep,something most precious.’ 213 This flood of superlatives implies thatEnlil decided that Šulgi was to be born an extraordinary humanbeing, inherently capable of surpassing the limits of humanity.Although Enlil’s oracle as such is neutral and may have referred toa human, or divine king just as well, the following unprecedentedbirth episode is puzzling. It refers to Šulgi as a son of humanparents. His father is identified by the epithet l ú - z i . Šulgi’s motheris referred to simply as a birth-giving mother.Yet, the detailed birth episode, describing the special nature ofŠulgi’s father, the role of Nanna, the decisive creative act of Enlil aswell as the supposed location of Šulgi’s birth (the Ekur), the axismundi of Sumer, strongly suggests that there was somethingbeyond humanity about Šulgi. 214 Next, one should note that theexpression d u m u in l. 20 after the birth episode does not have tomean expressly ‘child’ but can stand for ‘son’, ‘offspring’,‘descendant’ (namely of Urnamma) just as well. This means that interms of time the composition did not need to have anything to dowith the ruler’s actual birth and its immediate aftermath.212 Actually, the attestation of Ibbīsuʾen’s coronation in Nippur, Uruk and Urdiscussed above seems to indirectly support this view, because he, as wellas all Šulgi’s successors, became god-king right upon accession. Thus, heneeded to be crowned just once, whereas Šulgi, not deified from the start,is therefore likely to have needed another coronation as god-king.213 See Klein 1991, 302, ll. 9–12.214 The king’s name is not preceded by the divine determinative in the singlemanuscript of Šulgi G at hand. But this is of no significance as regards thedate of composition of the text, preserved in an Old Babylonian copy only.See Sallaberger 1999, 152, n. 99.97

There are also other, though more ambiguous, indications thathymn Šulgi G was reworked or composed on the occasion of Šulgi’sdeification. Enlil, while naming the king with a ‘throne-name’ in ll.21–3, calls him ‘the one providing the "highland” (or "mountain”, or"foreign land”) generously’, which one would not expect in a textthat supposedly originated in the beginning of Šulgi’s reign whenthe very existence of his kingdom was insecure. 215 Likewise, thecouplet: ‘At the irresistible foreign land he roars for him (namely forEnlil), he stabilizes the countryside, the people lie (in peace) at hisfeet,’ 216 seems to fit better in a time when Šulgi really ‘roared’ atthe lands and the countryside was already ‘stabilized’. Finally, thesimilarly warlike l. 33, ‘the king defeated the rebellious land withInana’s axe’, 217 can point to a campaign against a rebellious regionaround the year Š21, or even allude to Šulgi’s preparations for hispolicy of conquest, predominant in the latter part of his reign.However, it is likewise possible to understand it with Klein as anallusion to a punitive expedition meant to revenge the death ofŠulgi’s father in the beginning of his reign. 218 But as I have arguedabove, the hymn seems to have been rewritten or composed later inŠulgi’s reign, presumably (if not certainly) on the occasion of hisdeification. Is it not possible then that such general bellicoseexpressions could well have referred to both the remote and recentmilitary accomplishments, and perhaps even to those which did nottake place yet but were at hand?Klein further insists that because Šulgi G uniquely stresses theking’s humanity it has nothing to do with his divinity, 219 with whichI cannot agree. For, the human parentage alone does notautomatically imply that the text is about Šulgi’s human side only.After all, the basic problem of divine kingship is the king’s humanityand this composition could have been meant to tackle this problem.Indeed, the hymn seems to show that Šulgi was equally at home inboth the human and divine spheres, without explicitly mentioninghis divinity. Conceivably, such an intriguing elaboration of thistheme may even have been necessary considering that this hymn,dedicated to Enlil, was obviously intended for use in the Nippurcult, where an open deification rhetoric of a ‘Sumerian’ ruler could215 Note, however, that the scribe could have omitted the sign é before k u r .Even if the present wording of the line is correct, one can always say thatthe poet could have actually meant the Ekur or even Enlil (with his epithetk u r - g a l , ‘great mountain’, present in l. 66 of the hymn), or that it is just ahymnal cliché without any relation to historical reality.216 See Klein 1991, 304, ll. 58–9.217 Ibid., lu[gal-x](?) aga 3 -kár- d inana ki-bal-a bí-sì.218 Ibid., 298.219 Klein 1987, 101–3.98

have left an inappropriate impression. This idea seems to bebolstered by l. 40 where the king is called ‘the property of Nanna,the "house-born slave” of the Ekur’. Is it not possible to understandthis legal phraseology as inherently pointing to Šulgi’s status of aminor deity? A human born by the most noble humans allegedly inthe Ekur itself after Enlil had conceived his birth as ‘somethingmost precious’ and ‘made him emerge’, Šulgi not only became kingbut also a member of major deities’ households, i.e. a minor god. 2202) Šulgi P and FThe hymns Šulgi P and F are not bothered with elaboratetheological considerations, which may have been influenced by thefact that they were not composed primarily for liturgical purposes.Generally, royal bombast and emphasis on the king’s divinity arepointedly stronger in hymns addressed to the king or self-laudatoryhymns than in liturgical divine hymns referring to the king. 221 Thereis nothing human about Šulgi in these two ‘Coronation Hymns’. Andthere is nothing contrary to the interpretation of them as‘Deification Hymns’. Apart from the legitimation rhetoric, emphasison the king’s divine parentage, his role as the channel for fertilityand abundance, and his military prowess (hymn F only), thesehymns contain extremely interesting passages directly bearing onthe idea that they came into being in their present form to markŠulgi’s deification.38 B a-a ugu 4 -zu kù d lugal-banda 3 da -a39 B šul an-né zu diĝir-re-ne mu-šè [m]u-rí-in-sa 4Šulgi P (Klein 1981a, 36).38 Your father, who engendered you, holy Lugalbanda,220 Klein (1987, 103) emphasized that Šulgi is never explicitly or implicitlycalled a ‘son’ of either Enlil or Nanna in this hymn, and that divine andhuman parentage are mutually exclusive in Sumerian royal hymns.Therefore, according to Klein one would not expect to find a description ofŠulgi’s birth on both the human and divine levels in this composition. Kleinis certainly right in this respect and my interpretation is not at variancewith his observations, because Šulgi was surely born a human, in reality aswell as in hymn G, but the hymn seems to show that he was predestined tobe more than a human, more than a king, more than a priest, namely abeing adopted into the divine realm. Note that in l. 376 of Šulgi B,glorifying the ruler as a god-king, Šulgi is called ‘the house-born slave ofAn’ (e m e d u 2 a n - n a ).221 See Klein 1981b, 222–4 for a succinct typology of the Šulgi hymns.99

39 called you by the name: ‘Youth known to An among the gods.’168 d nin-sún-na-ke 4 mu-tud-e-èn169 d nin-ḫur-saĝ-ĝá-ke 4 (!) šul-gi šu[l(?)-x]170 šul an-né(!) zu mu-šè mu-sa 4Šulgi F (Klein 1981a, 26).168 I have been born by Ninsun,169 Ninḫursaĝ called me by the name:170 ‘Noble youth, … youth known to An.’Do these variant ‘throne-names’ not imply that Šulgi must havebeen deemed a god, so that An could have known him among all thedeities? 222nibru ki -ta sig 4 uri ki 2 -ma-ka From Nippur he enteredim-ma-da-an-ku 4 -ku 4the brick-work Ur,šà-ge pà-da-ni-ir gù mu-na-dé (and) called to the one chosenin his heart:d en-líl-le á-ĝál kalam-ma-ka ‘Enlil perfected the poweršu mu-ra-ni-in-du 7of the Land for you,šà-ge bí-in-pà-dè-enhe chose you in the heartdumu d nin-sún-ka lugal šul-gi son of Ninsun, king Šulgi,ĝidri ? -zu mu-ra !? -an !? -túm he provided your staff for you.’[u]r 5 -gin 7 ḫu-mu-na-ab-d[u 11 ] Thus he spoke to him.Šulgi F, approx. ll. 91–9 (Römer 1969, 134). 223Now, let us quote the following two lines from hymn Šulgi G:22 é-kur-ta nam-nir-ĝál sum-ma lugal u[ri 2 ki ]-ma42 šul-gi sipa kalam-ma saĝ d en-líl-le zuŠulgi G (Klein 1991, 302–5).222 Klein (1981a, 41) i.a. quotes a parallel name given to Gudea in his Cyl. B,and identically structured Ur III personal names, seemingly disproving thisassertion. Note, however, that such names could refer to both the humanand divine individuals, as Klein (1981a, 26, n. 137 [‘a man (sag) or a juniordeity (dingir)’]), has pointed out. It seems unlikely to me that this toposshould have referred to the deified king as a human, especially in hymnswhose vocabulary stresses his divinity.223 Asterisks denoting collations are omitted here. See also Kramer 1974,167–9.100

22 The one given superiority from the Ekur, the king of Ur.42 Šulgi, the shepherd of the Land, the servant known to Enlil.Obviously, the latter line accords well with l. 39 of Šulgi P and l.170 of Šulgi F, and is preceded by references to Šulgi as a‘property’ and ‘house-born slave’ of major gods in l. 40, discussedabove, which combined with the statements of hymns P and F seemto point to his status of a minor deity in the pantheon. However, theformer seems to be nothing else than a usual royal epithet based ona topos recurring in royal inscriptions and hymns in variousmodifications from Early Dynastic times onwards. This is certainlytrue but the context of this epithet in hymn Šulgi G and of its moreelaborate variant in hymn F is peculiar. In Šulgi G it constitutes apart of the lengthy ‘throne-name’ given to the king by Enlil, in ŠulgiF it is included in Nanna’s announcement of Enlil’s decision onŠulgi’s future. Additionally, such topos is attested in hymn D+X (D l.12; X l. 107), 224 and interestingly also in the self-praising epilogueof Šulgi A (l. 98). 225 Significantly, Šulgi is also explicitly called a godin l. 6 of hymn A. 226 This statement, together with that in l. 81 ofŠulgi B, 227 represents the only open admission of the king’s divinityin his entire hymnal corpus. 228 The divine banquet described in ll.79–83 of Šulgi A is also interesting in this respect. The king is saidto have drunk beer with Utu in a palace founded by An, and hisconsort Inana should have joined him there. This shows that Šulgi Amust have been at least updated on the occasion of Šulgi’sdeification or even later to expound his past achievement of makingthe roads of Sumer straight as well as his supposed run between224 Klein 1981b, 72, 140: sipa zi á sum-ma d en-líl-lá (‘Righteous shepherd,endowed with strength by Enlil’); lugal d en-líl-le á sum-ma a-ba mu-da-ĝáĝá(‘Who can rival the king to whom Enlil has given strength?’).225 Klein 1981b, 200: á-maḫ sum-ma d nu-nam-nir-ra, ‘Whom Nunamnirendowes with superior strength’. Note also the specific reference to the‘lofty royal power’ three lines before (l. 95): á-maḫ lugal-la-kam mí du 11 -ga,which could imply that the ‘superior strength’ given to Šulgi by Enlil wassomething even loftier, i.e. divine.226 Ibid., 188: nir-ĝál diĝir kur-kur-ra me-en, ‘I am the noble one, the god ofall the foreign lands’, daringly playing on the abundantly attested epithet ofmajor gods like An, Enlil or Inana.227 ETCSL, 2.4.2.02, ‘A praise poem of Šulgi (Šulgi B)’: d šul-gi diĝir namĝuruš-asaĝ-kal erin 2 -na me-en, ‘I am Šulgi, god of manliness, the foremostof the troops’.228 The only attestations of explicit statements about Šulgi’s divinity outsidethe hymns are inscriptions on a cylinder seal and a steatite plate dedicatedfor the king’s life. Šulgi is called the ‘god of his Land’ there. See Frayne1997, 223, 228 (E3/2.1.2.2038, E3/2.1.2.2046).101

Nippur and Ur on a single day (Š6/7) in the light of his newstatus. 229Now, the preserved part of the fragmentary date formula of theyear Š23 reads: m u d š u l - g i l u g a l - e á - m a ḫ d e n - l í l s u m - m a -n i (IB 542a+b+): ‘Year in which king Šulgi, having been grantedsupreme power by Enlil.’ 230 The topos of ‘entrusting (supreme)power to the king by Enlil’, is not attested in other Šulgi hymns orinscriptions except hymns G, F, D+X and A. 231 Therefore, one istempted to suggest that the wording of the year name could havebeen influenced by the hymnal statements, which is not impossible,because the date formulae were also a vehicle of the king’s selfrepresentation.Further, in the light of the above observations itdoes not seem exaggerated to suggest that this year name couldhave been meant to commemorate an important event directlyresulting from Šulgi’s deification. 232 Indeed, it seems to me that thetopos of ‘endowment/perfecting with/of (superior) power by Enlil’,attested from the time of Eanatum of Lagaš (2454–2425) on, 233 hada special meaning during the reign of Šulgi: not just endowmentwith kingship and military prowess but the bestowal of divinity aswell.229 Actually, a later date is more likely, for the king is called the ‘king of thefour quarters’ in l. 4. See Klein 1981b, 188. It is assumed that Šulgiadopted this title during his twenty-sixth regnal year. See Sallaberger1999, 145, 180.230 See Wilcke 1985, 302. The Nippur list of Šulgi’s date formulae (BE 1/2125), thus far the only other source for this year name apart from the Isinlist of year names quoted above, has only (rev. 2) mu lugal á-maḫ: ‘Year inwhich the king (assumed) great power.’231 The reason why such an epithet was not included in Šulgi P could be thatthe text does not have anything to do with Enlil or Nippur whatsoever. Aclose parallel featuring the god Nindar and constituting a part of the nameof a partly preserved Šulgi statue, dedicated to Nindar by an official mostlikely for the life of Šulgi, may have been chosen precisely because of theimportance of this epithet as an allusion to Šulgi’s deification. Nindarreplaced Enlil here because the statue was dedicated to him and thecontext undoubtedly increased the god’s importance. See Frayne 1997,216–8 (E3/2.1.2.2031). Needless to say, the choice of titles as well asepithets, which were to be included in inscriptions, very much depended onthe current political climate.232 However, in view of the general lack of explicit references to Šulgi’sdivinity it is unlikely that the as yet unknown latter part of the year namewould contain any information on the king’s deification as such. At leastindirect data of that kind could be expected in administrative records fromaround these years, which are, however, too scarce to permit a reasonablereconstruction of events during that period of Šulgi’s reign.233 See Hallo 1957, 136.102

Accordingly, the ‘throne-names’ conferred upon Šulgi by Enlil,Lugalbanda and Ninḫursaĝ in the ‘Coronation Hymns’ G, P and Fcan be taken as ‘deification names’, i.a. perhaps reflecting theapproval of Šulgi’s divine status by the religious institutions.Previous hypotheses regarding Šulgi’s ‘throne-names’, put forth byKlein, suggested that they were conferred upon him right after hisbirth, which effectively meant a designation of little Šulgi as acrown prince. 234 This opinion resulted from an understanding of thesequence of events in Šulgi G as a reflection of historical reality.However, the semi-mythological nature of the narrative itselfdisproves this notion, because the poet speaks of Šulgi’s birth,‘designation’, coronation and cultic activities as of events happeningalmost at once. Historically, all of this did not happen at the sametime or immediately one after another, of course. Moreover, ÅkeSjöberg in his study on the divine parentage of early Mesopotamianrulers quoted a text (PBS 5 76) describing a coronation in Uruk andshowing that a ‘throne-name’ (m u n a m - e n - n a , ‘name oflordship’) seems to have been promulgated on the occasion of theking’s coronation to replace his original name (m u n a m - t u r - r a ,‘name of childhood’). 235 Therefore, a designation of a crown princeupon his birth by giving him a ‘throne-name’ seems to be out ofquestion. 236 But if Šulgi is a ‘throne-name’ which the king receivedupon accession, the names given to him by the gods in hymns G, Pand F, especially those in Šulgi P and F, clearly playing on the nameŠulgi itself, may have been elaborations of the king’s current name234 See Klein 1981a, 9 and 26, n. 136; 1987, 100, 103.235 Sjöberg 1972 (1973), 111.236 Note that the conferral of ‘throne-names’ upon Šulgi in hymns P and F ispreceded by simple statements that he was engendered by Lugalbanda andborn by Ninsun, which does not mean at all that the naming must havetaken place right after his birth. Note further an attempt of Becker (1985,292–5) to corroborate the supposed designation of Šulgi as a crown princein hymn G with a highly speculative interpretation of a gravely damagedscene on the ‘Urnamma Stele’. She argues that the preserved toes of afigure sitting on the lap of a deity (unknown due to damage), in front ofwhich stands the reverent Urnamma, might belong to Šulgi as a child, andthat the scene actually might depict the designation of Šulgi as an heirapparent by Enlil. However, the most recent reconstruction of themonument disproves Becker’s considerations. According to it the toesbelong definitely to an adult and the scene perhaps depicts Urnammabefore Nanna holding his wife Ningal on his knees. See Canby 2001, 13and pl. 10, register I. Another attempt to incorporate Šulgi into the‘Urnamma Stele’ has been undertaken by Börker-Klähn (1975) whoimagined the young prince coming out of bath before Urnamma in thefourth register of the monument’s ‘poor face’. Canby (2001, 24 and pl. 11)argues that the figure is actually engaged in a wrestling match in front of adeity. However, in either case one cannot exclude that the figure is Šulgi,but one cannot prove it either.103

meant to mark the shift of Šulgi’s status during his re-coronationsas a god-king. 237ConclusionThus, the Šulgi hymns G, P and F, whose ‘forerunners’ (if therewere any) could have been created to celebrate the king’scoronations in the three capitals of the kingdom, in my opinion doseem to contain indications that after their reworking (orcomposition) they could have served as ideological underpinningsand literary celebrations of Šulgi’s elevation to the divine realm. Astheir content makes clear, that event might have transpired in theform of a re-coronation in each of the capitals. However, theinherent ambiguity of many phrases in those compositions, whoseauthors, only exceptionally admitting Šulgi’s divinity openly, usedtraditional literary topoi of kingship, appropriate to a human as wellas divine king, thwarts drawing definitive conclusions as does thecurrent lack of evidence from other sources.237 There is a passage in the Early Dynastic corpus very similar to the namegivingloci in the Šulgi hymns, namely Ean. 1 iv 20–3 (see now Frayne2008, 129 [E1.9.3.1]) where Inana calls Eanatum by a long (and new?)‘throne-name’, incorporating the elements of his usual (throne?-)name (i.e.é a n - n a and t ú m ), in the context of the ruler’s nurture and upbringingby the gods, upon which seems to follow his endowment with kingship overLagaš by Ninĝirsu (v 13–17), which is the usual sequence of ideologicaltopoi. Significantly, the lengthy ‘throne-name’ is repeated in v 23–9 andfollowed by an account of Eanatum’s warlike dream and battle againstUmma. It is tempting to surmise that the long ‘throne-name’ of Eanatum(who was not deified) was promulgated as a sort of ‘war-name’ before theclash with Umma and that Šulgi may have drawn upon this example whileseeking ideological support for his deification, especially considering thathe seems to have been deified only a few years before the onset of hisnorth-eastern and northern military campaigns.104

ReferencesBecker, Andrea (1985):Neusumerische Renaissance? WissenschaftsgeschichtlicheUntersuchungen zur Philologie und Archäologie, BaghdaderMitteilungen 16, 229–316.Börker-Klähn, Jutta (1975):Šulgi badet, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und VorderasiatischeArchäologie 64, 235–40.Brisch, Nicole M (2007):Tradition and the Poetics of Innovation: Sumerian Court Literatureof the Larsa Dynasty (c. 2003–1763 BCE), Alter Orient und AltesTestament 339, Ugarit-Verlag, Münster.Canby, Jeanny V (2001):"The Ur-Nammu” Stela, University Museum Monographs 110, TheUniversity Museum, Philadelphia.Dahl, Jacob L. (2007):The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Prosopographical Analysis ofan Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago, Publications del’Institut historique et archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul108, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden.Delnero, Paul A. (2006):Variation in Sumerian Literary Compositions: A Case Study Basedon the Decad, PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.Dijk, Jan J.A. van (1954):La fête du nouvel an dans un texte de Šulgi, Bibliotheca Orientalis11, 83–8.Dijk, Jan J.A. van (1960):Sumerische Götterlieder: Teil II., Universitätsverlag C. Winter,Heidelberg.ETCSL:Black, Jeremy A. (†) et al. (1998‒), The Electronic Text Corpus ofSumerian Literature. http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk (accessedOctober 24, 2010).Falkenstein, Adam (1952):Sumerische religiöse Texte, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie undVorderasiatische Archäologie 50, 61–91.105

Flückiger-Hawker, Esther (1999):Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition. Orbis Biblicus etOrientalis 166, Academic Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,Fribourg and Göttingen.Frayne, Douglas R. (1981):The Historical Correlations of the Sumerian Royal Hymns (2400–1900 B.C.), PhD diss., Yale University.Frayne, Douglas R. (1997):Ur III Period (2112–2004 BC). Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia:Early Periods 3/2, University of Toronto Press, Toronto andBuffalo and London.Frayne, Douglas R. (2008):Presargonic Period (2700–2350 BC). Royal Inscriptions ofMesopotamia: Early Periods 1, University of Toronto Press,Toronto and Buffalo and London.Hallo, William W. (1957):Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles: A Philologic and HistoricalAnalysis, American Oriental Series 43, American OrientalSociety, New Haven.Hallo, William W. (1966):The Coronation of Urnammu, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 20, 133–41.Hallo, William W. (1987):The Birth of Kings. In: Love and Death in the Ancient Near East:Essays in Honour of Marvin H. Pope, John H. Marks and RobertM. Good (eds.), Four Quarters, Guildford, 45–52.Jacobsen, Thorkild (1953):The Reign of Ibbī-Suen, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 7, 36–47.Jacobsen, Thorkild (1957):Early Political Development in Mesopotamia, Zeitschrift fürAssyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 52, 91–140.Klein, Jacob (1981a):The Royal Hymns of Shulgi King of Ur: Man’s Quest for ImmortalFame. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 71/7,American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.106

Klein, Jacob (1981b):Three Šulgi Hymns: Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King Šulgi ofUr, Bar-Ilan University Press, Ramat Gan.Klein, Jacob (1987):The Birth of a Crownprince in the Temple: A Neo-Sumerian LiteraryTopos, in: La femme dans le Proche-Orient antique: CompteRendu de la XXXIII e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale(Paris, 7–10 juillet 1986), Jean-Marie Durand (ed.), ÉditionsRecherche sur les Civilisations, Paris, 97–106.Klein, Jacob (1989):From Gudea to Šulgi: Continuity and Change in Sumerian LiteraryTradition, in: DUMU-E 2 -DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W.Sjöberg, Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah KramerFund 11, Hermann Behrens and Darlene M. Loding and MarthaT. Roth (eds.), The University Museum, Philadelphia, 289–301.Klein, Jacob (1991):The Coronation and Consecration of Šulgi in the Ekur (Šulgi G), in:Ah, Assyria…: Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient NearEastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, ScriptaHierosolymitana 33, Mordechai Cogan and Israel Ephʿal (eds.),Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 292–313.Klein, Jacob (1997):The Birth of Shulgi in the Temple of Nippur, in: The Context ofScripture 1, William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger (eds.), E.J.Brill, Leiden and New York and Cologne, 552–553.Klein, Jacob (2001):The Genealogy of Nanna-Suen and Its Historical Background, in:Historiography in the Cuneiform World: Proceedings of the XLV eRencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Part I, Tzvi Abusch etal. (ed.), CDL Press, Bethesda (MD), 279–301.Kramer, Samuel N. (1974):Kingship in Sumer and Akkad: The Ideal King, in: Le palais et laroyauté (archéologie et civilization), Paul Garelli (ed.), P.Geuthner, Paris, 163–76.Marchesi, Gianni (2004):Who Was Buried in the Royal Tombs of Ur? The Epigraphic andTextual Data, Orientalia Nova Series 73, 153–97.107

Römer, Willem H. Ph. (1969):"Königshymnen" der Isinzeit und Königsinvestitur, Zeitschrift derDeutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (Supplementa) 1/1,130–47.Sallaberger, Walther (1997):Nippur als religiöses Zentrum Mesopotamiens im historischenWandel, in Die orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch.Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 1, Gernot Wilhelm(ed.), Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag, Saarbrücken, 147–68.Sallaberger, Walther (1999):Ur III-Zeit, in: Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit. OrbisBiblicus et Orientalis 160/3, Walther Sallaberger and AageWestenholz (eds.), Academic Press and Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, Fribourg and Göttingen, 121–414.Sigrist, Marcel (1989):Le deuil pour Šu-Sin, in: DUMU-E 2 -DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor ofÅke W. Sjöberg. Occasional Publications of the Samuel NoahKramer Fund 11, Hermann Behrens and Darlene M. Loding andMartha T. Roth (eds.), The University Museum, Philadelphia,499–505.Sjöberg, Åke W. 1972 (1973):Die göttliche Abstammung der sumerisch-babylonischen Herrscher,Orientalia Suecana 21, 87–112.Sollberger, Edmond (1953):Remarks on Ibbīsĩn’s Reign, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 7, 48–50.Tinney, Stephen J. (1996):The Nippur Lament: Royal Rhetoric and Divine Legitimation in theReign of Išme-Dagan of Isin (1953–1935 B.C.), OccasionalPublications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 16, The UniversityMuseum, Philadelphia.Tinney, Stephen J. (1999):Ur-Namma the Canal-Digger: Context, Continuity and Change inSumerian Literature, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 51, 31–54.Vacín, Luděk. (forthcoming):Šulgi Meets Stalin: Comparative Propaganda as a Tool of Miningthe Šulgi Hymns for Historical Data, in: From the 21 st CenturyBC to the 21 st Century AD: Current Issues in Neo-Sumerian108

Studies, Manuel Molina and Steven Garfinkle (eds.),Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.Wilcke, Claus (1970):Eine Schicksalsentscheidung für den toten Urnammu, in: Actes dela XVII e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, UniversitéLibre de Bruxelles, 30. juin–4. juillet 1969, André Finet (ed.),Comité Belge de Recherches en Mésopotamie, Ham-sur-Heure,81–92.Wilcke, Claus (1974):Zum Königtum in der Ur III-Zeit, in: Le palais et la royauté(archéologie et civilization), Paul Garelli (ed.). P. Geuthner, Paris,177–232.Wilcke, Claus (1976):Kollationen zu den sumerischen literarischen Texten aus Nippur inder Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena. Abhandlungen der SächsischenAkademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig (PhilologischhistorischeKlasse) 65/4. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.Wilcke, Claus (1985):Neue Quellen aus Isin zur Geschichte der Ur-III-Zeit und der I.Dynastie von Isin. Orientalia Nova Series 54, 299–318.109

The second millennium

The sad story of the fall of the Old Babylonian state:What we know and what we will never knowLukáš Pecha, University of West Bohemia, PlzeňAbstractIn spite of long-term efforts, we still do not know what caused the declineand fall of the Old Babylonian state ((roughly 2004-1595 B.C.). Variouscauses have been put forward by students of its history, most of themseeing the chief problem in the economic failure of the state and with thecollapse of its power structures. Nevertheless, up until the very end of itsexistence no serious complications hampering the exercise of publicadministration by Babylonian kings are apparent in the sources. Theprominence of cultic proceedings in the year names of later kings of theHammurabi dynasty, as against the preference of military undertakings inthe year names of its earlier sovereigns, suggests an impoverishment ofthe state. Later Babylonian kings could obviously not bear the expensesof the costly and burdensome military campaigns so typical of theirpredecessors.Keywords: History of ancient Mesopotamia, Old Babylonian period,Babylonia, king, crisis.The decline and demise of states, which is amply attested inMesopotamian sources during the long Mesopotamian history,undoubtedly represents a very interesting and promising subject ofthe scientific research. The states which were functioningsuccessfully for several generations and which were able to developeffective economic and administrative systems enabling them togovern vast territories and, if necessary, also to expand beyond theborders of Mesopotamia proper, came for some more or lessobscure reasons to a phase of decline which eventually led to acomplete disappearance of those states.One of the ill-fated states was the Old Babylonian state which wasgoverned by the I st Dynasty of Babylon. This state which wascreated largely thanks to the systematic effort of king Hammu-rabiduring the 18 th century B.C., disappeared in the early 16 th centuryB.C., (if we adhere to the so-called Middle chronology), during thereign of king Samsu-ditana (1625–1595 B.C.). The demise of the OldBabylonian state was not a bolt from the blue, however. It waspreceded by a relatively long period, dubbed Late Old Babylonian113

period by the historians, which comprises the reigns of the four lastmembers of the I st Dynasty of Babylon, that is: Abī-ešuḫ (1711–1684B.C.), Ammī-ditana (1683–1647 B.C.), Ammī-ṣaduqa (1646–1626B.C.) and Samsu-ditana (1625–1595 B.C.). In some degree, also thereign of their predecessor Samsu-iluna (1749–1712 B.C.), the sonand immediate successor of Hammu-rabi, could be added as well, asa kind of prelude to the crisis.It is interesting to note that there are very few systematic studiesdevoted to the Late Old Babylonian period. In some overviews ofBabylonian history, written by renowned specialists, we mostly findhardly more than several sentences which describe in very generalterms the decline of the Old Babylonian state.For example, Marc Van de Mieroop in his History of the AncientNear East, published in second edition in 2007, argues:"The end of this period is something of a mystery. (…) The writtenevidence from the region shows a continuation of administrativeand economic practices, and there are no indications of aweakening of the Old Babylonian state [my emphasis]. Yet it existedin a void, surrounded by sparsely inhabited regions. The onlypolitical powers equal to it were located at a great distance innorthwestern Syria and in Anatolia. Conflict between those statesultimately affected Babylon. In 1595, King Muršili of the Hittites,after a campaign in northern Syria, led his troops down theEuphrates river, seemingly without much resistance. He sacked thecity of Babylon, ending its famous dynasty, and left the regionleaderless." 238Here, the fall of the Old Babylonian state is basically presented as aresult of a struggle for power between the Hittite state and otherpowerful states of this period, especially Jamhad in northern Syria.Van De Mieroop expresses the opinion that there are no traces ofany crisis of the Old Babylonian state in the preserved sources. Inthis connection, he points out to the supposed internal politicalstability of the Old Babylonian state, which is reflected by relativelylong reigns of the rulers: "Each one of Hammurabi’s successorsruled for more than two decades, a situation that is usuallyindicative of political stability." 239 Indeed, there are no indicationswhatsoever of any internal problems or struggles within the rulingclass of the Late Old Babylonian state.238 Van De Mieroop 2007, 118–119.239 Ibid., 118.114

William W. Hallo describes very briefly the last period of the OldBabylonian state: "Samsu-ditana (1625–1595) was no match for theHittite conqueror." 240 Nothing is said on the background of thispolitical event.Dietz Otto Edzard in his Geschichte Mesopotamiens, published in2004, tells nothing about the last phase of the Old Babylonianhistory. He only quotes some other specialists (e.g., Rosel Pientka),who think that there were some ecological problems inMesopotamia in the period from the 18 th until the 16 th century. 241He solely indicates that the fall of the Old Babylonian state couldhave been somehow related to the military activities of the hostileKassites:"Aber die eigentliche interne Gefahr für das reduzierte Königtumvon Babylon unter Samsu-iluna und seinen vier Nachfolgernerwuchs durch die Kassiten." 242And further:"Der Hethiterkönig Muršili (um 1600 v.Chr.) soll im 32. und letztenJahr des babylonischen Königs Samsu-ditāna Babylon erobert unddamit die gut dreihundertjährige von uns so genannte I. Dynastievon Babylon beendet haben." 243To sum up, the information we get from the above mentionedgeneral studies is not very promising. According to them, the fall ofthe Old Babylonian state is a mystery (Van De Mieroop), or it wasperhaps somehow caused by the Kassites (Edzard), or it was simplya result of an attack of the Hittite ruler, for whom Samsu-ditana"was no match" (Hallo).The specialists have produced just a handful of studies which touchthis subject in a more detailed way, mainly in connection with somemore general questions related to the late Old Babylonian history(notably Norman Yoffee, Rosel Pientka, Hermann Gasche and SethRichardson). First, we must mention Norman Yoffee who studiedthe economic and administrative structure of the late OldBabylonian state with great enthusiasm and besides, he alsoproduced several studies dedicated to the study of the ancient statein general.240 Hallo – Simpson, 105.241 Edzard 2004, 139.242 Ibid., 140.243 Ibid., 141.115

His study The Economic Role of the Crown in the Old BabylonianPeriod, which was published in 1977 is a very useful source ofinformation on the LOB period.Yoffee’s interpretation of the decline of the Old Babylonian state isprimarily based on the evaluation of economic and administrativedocuments. He considers the supposedly bad and non-effectiveadministrative system of the state once created by Hammu-rabi asthe main source of its later economic and political weakness thateventually led to its ultimate destruction by the Hittites. After thesouthern parts of the Old Babylonian state had been lost in the timeof Samsu-iluna, the Babylonian state was deprived of its incomescoming from those economically important regions and therefore, itwas no more able to maintain large squads of labourers andsoldiers. The rulers of the Late Old Babylonian state were not ableto adapt the administrative system of the state to this changedsituation and therefore, the state fell into a deep and long crisis:"The empire built by Hammurapi experienced a long decline, notthrough the personal inefficiency of succeeding rulers, but becauseHammurapi’s system was too inflexible to adapt to changing socialand economic conditions. The highly centralized state had becomeinitially quite prosperous from the tribute and taxes exacted fromfar-flung provinces. Through this new wealth, the crown in Babylonwas able to remunerate its dependents and to undertake massivebuilding and waterworks projects. When the southern, western andeastern provinces were able to break away, however, the resourcesneeded by the crown to maintain its ambitious building projects andto finance its labor and military forces were severely curtailed.Without a drastic change in the idea of government on the part ofthe crown, the power of the Babylonian state, subject to thesenegative feedback mechanisms, could only weaken further overtime."Another important monograph was written by a Germanassyriologist, Rosel Pientka, whose study represents a very usefulguide to the late Old Babylonian history. This monumental study iscomposed as a source of information on the chronology and on thelate Old Babylonian texts that are catalogued here extremelythoroughly and systematically. Of course, Pientka also touches thepainful problem of the fall of the Old Babylonian state, but this isdefinitely not the main subject of her study.In her book, Rosel Pientka only briefly resumes the factors that mayhave contributed to the decline of the Old Babylonian state. Sheviews the late Old Babylonian period as a period of a deep and116

prolongued economic crisis which is documented especially by ahigh number of royal edicts abolishing the debts of the population.As she stresses, the royal edicts in the LOB period are morefrequent than in any other period of the Babylonian history:"Obwohl königliche Gnadenerlasse sowohl zeitlich als auchgeographisch weit verbreitet waren, wird in keiner anderen Epocheso häufig auf sie Bezug genommen wie in derspätaltbabylonischen." 244In this part of her monograph, she summarizes some archaeologicaland textual data which bear witness of a considerable economiccrisis in the late Old Babylonian period. In a very concise way, shedescribes a lethal cocktail of events and developments that in heropinion led to the ultimate fall of the Babylonian state. 245 First, shementions wars in southern Babylonia in the reign of Samsu-iluna aswell as some supposed ecological problems (shift of the river bed ofEuphrates and the progressive salinization of the soil):"Bereits unter Samsuiluna ließen sich erste Anzeichen eineswirtschaftlichen Verfalls erkennen. Neben den zahlreichenkriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen in Südbabylonien bewirktendie Flußbettverlagerungen des Euphrat und eine möglichevoranschreitende Bodenversalzung eine Massenabwanderung derBevölkerung."Further, the secession of the southern part of Babylonia causedgrave economic problems in the remaining northern regions of thestate which is attested by a general rise in prices as well bynumerous royal edicts abolishing the outstanding debts of thepopulation:"Der endgültige Verlust der süd- und mittelbabylonischen Gebietezog eine starke Einschränkung des Warenangebots inNordbabylonien nach sich. Die Folge waren eine allgemeineTeuerung und Verarmung der Bevölkerung, Selbst häufigeSchuldenerlasse und andere stabilisierende Maßnahmen konntendie Verhältnisse nicht nachhaltig verbessern. Das Agrarland wurdeübermäßig ausgebeutet, es standen kaum Mittel zur Instandhaltungder Kanäle zur Verfügung. Versalzung und häufigeÜberschwemmungen trieben den wirtschaftlichen Verfall voran."Moreover, the weakened state was attacked by hostile Kassitetribes:244 Pientka 1998, 243.245 Pientka 1998, 252–256, see mainly "Ausblick", 273–274.117

"Zudem wurden die babylonischen Städte von heftigen Angriffenfeindlicher Kassitenstämme heimgesucht."Finally, the invaders from the remote Hittite empire took advantageof this situation of the general decay of Babylon:"Das geschwächte Babylon fiel bei einem Eroberungsfeldzug denHethitern in die Hände – eine Ära ging zuende."In sum, she views the end of the Old Babylonian state as a result ofa combined action of many factors of ecological, economic, socialand political nature – i.e., shifts of river beds, salinization, economicproblems (e.g., high prices, indebtedness of the population, massmigrations), military threats (e.g., civil wars, attacks by Kassite andHittite enemies). She also points out to the fact that the crisis of thelate Old Babylonian state was a very long process which beganalready in the reign of Samsu-iluna.So far, there are solely two important research projects whichprimarily aim at studying the last phase of the Old Babylonianperiod from the historical point of view. The first one, led byHermann Gasche (University of Ghent, Belgium), concentratesmainly on the chronological problems connected with the dating ofthe fall of Babylon. The results of this project which combined theuse of both archaeological and textual sources, were presented in amonograph Dating the Fall of Babylon. 246 There is another study bythis scholar, published in 1989, which is concerned mainly with thearchaeological evidence of the gradual abandonment of cities insouthern and central Babylonia. 247 In the summary of his study,Gasche suggests that some ecological factors (such as heavy floods)may have contributed to the crisis in the late Old Babylonian period.The I st Babylonian dynasty, whose rule had already been weakenedby numerous wars and by the loss of vast territories in thepreceding years, was not able to cope with this unfavourablesituation. 248The other project is extremely important for us, because its maingoal is to reconstruct the process of the decline of the late OldBabylonian state. It is the project of Seth Richardson (University of246 Gasche 1998; see also Gasche 2003.247 Gasche 1989.248 Gasche 1989, 140–142.118

Chicago) which resulted in his dissertation Collapse of a ComplexState. 249In his dissertation, Richardson analyses the huge amount of late OldBabylonian written sources as well as available scientific studiesdevoted to this period in order to interpret the possible sources ofthe crisis of the Old Babylonian state.He draws our attention to a group of late Old Babylonian letterswhich mention some mysterious enemies whose military activity isattested even in the very core of the Babylonian state (literally, "inthe heart of the land" = ŠÀ mātim) and who represented aconsiderable threat to major Babylonian towns. 250 The letters, datedto 15 th regnal year of Ammī-ṣaduqa, are adressed to royal officialsin Sippir.But who were those enemies? It is important to note that thosepeople are never identified as members of any ethnic group, so itwould not be wise to view them as Kassites or members of someWestern Semitic tribes. We may assume that they were ethnicallyheteregeneous.Richardson makes an attempt to identify those enemies withinhabitants of fortresses that were scattered in several parts ofBabylonia, especially along main watercourses in Babylonia and asa result, they largely controlled the river traffic. So far, littleattention has been devoted to those fortresses, mainly due to theregrettable fact that those sites are very poorly documented in ourtextual evidence. Richardson argues that the scientific studiesrelated to the late Old Babylonian period which have beenpublished so far are too much concentrated on the traditional citiesand their population. Instead, we should pay much more attentionto the rural population whose impact on the contemporary politicaland social development may be considerably underestimated.Those fortresses were administered by satellite state institutionswhich were responsible for commerce, defense, control over localpastoral groups, and (later) also for primary production. 251The population of those fortresses was ethnically heterogeneousand consisted of Kassites, Sutians, Ahlamu people etc. Thefortresses were essentially part of the royal domain and had to be249 Richardson 2002; see also Richardson 2005 where the main results of hisdissertation are presented in a more concise way.250 AbB 1,2; AbB 6,59; AbB 6,64; AbB 7,47–50; AbB 10,150; CTMMA I,69.251 Richardson 2002, 52.119

supported by the neighboring cities such as Sippir. However, theincreasingly independent administrative and official structures inSippir were rather reluctant to deliver regular rations to themilitary personnel of the fortresses.As a result, the inhabitants of the fortresses gradually developedparticularized cultic identities as well as independent politicalallegiances with villages and tribes occupying their hinterlands,becoming more and more independent from the state. 252However, it seems that the economic situation of the militarypersonnel residing in the fortresses was gradually deteriorating. So,the end of the Late Old Babylonian state was brought about by arevolt led by the hungry unpaid soldiers.The problem with this theory is, that it can not be proved (but alsodisproved). Richardson’s study is heavily based on the textualevidence from Sippir, but it must be noted, that those texts hardlylend any support to his theories. As Richardson himself admits: "NoSippar text will come along to prove or disprove this scenario.” 253He only quotes some analogies with similar rebellions ofmercenaries in other periods of the Babylonian history (e.g. Išbi-Erra from Isin).Richardson justifiably points out that the existing theoriesexplaining the fall of the Old Babylonian state have relied on thetextual evidence from major Babylonian cities whose inhabitantsrepresented just a portion of the Babylonian population, althoughthis group was undoubtedly very wealthy and powerful. He is rightthat we should pay more attention to the inhabitants of the countryas well, but the fatal paradox consists in the fact that thosecountrymen left us (almost) no written records and therefore, wemust search for relevant information on them again in the textscomposed by city dwellers. As noted above, Richardson himself hadto work primarily with texts from Sippir. We know that there werenumerous small settlements in Babylonia, some of which surelyserved military purposes and therefore we may call them"fortresses". However, we have very limited information on thecomposition of their inhabitants, on the inner structure of thosesettlements, on their relations to the state administration and ontheir impact on the political situation of the Late Old Babylonianstate.252 Ibid.253 Ibid., 57.120

Moreover, there are no texts which would enable us to establish anylinks between the mysterious enemies mentioned in the group ofOld Babylonian letters and the inhabitants of the fortresses in thecountry. The letters give us absolutely no information on thoseenemies and hence, there is no reason to share Richardson’s viewthat they were marauding underpaid and hungry mercenaries fromthe fortresses.Another interesting question is, how the state would have reacted tothis situation which is described in Richardson’s study. If therereally was a group of underpaid (or even unpaid) mercenaries, whodisposed over considerable military power, it must have been aserious threat to the state and the Babylonian kings must have beenaware of it. It is hardly to imagine that the kings just stood bywithout any attempt to change that unfavourable situation. Or wasthe administrative system of the Old Babylonian state really so rigidand unable to adapt itself to changing conditions as Norman Yoffeesurmises?Still another problem lies in the question, whether the mercenarieswere really "hungry and underpaid”? We have hardly anyinformation on the economic situation of the people living outsidemajor Babylonian cities. The texts which according to Richardson’sview originate from such settlements (e.g. Kullizum) suggest (in myopinion) that the inhabitants of those towns enjoyed a considerableindependence, both political and economic, from the stateauthorities. For example, Richardson himself describes the situationin Kullizum in the following way: "(…) places like Kullizum wouldhave been larded with all the assets and resources provided bycentralized, urban administrations, but staffed and settled bypersons who were marginal to those structures (…) We know thatthe principals of this archive dealt in large quantities of barley,silver, animals and the administration of military personnel (…)”. 254So, where is the mob of hungry and desperate mercenaries?Now, we can summarize, what we know about the development ofthe Babylonian state in the late Old Babylonian period. That periodis generally viewed as a period of a gradual decline of the OldBabylonian state. One of the most important arguments supportingsuch an interpretation is a marked decrease in the number ofpreserved written sources, as well as a gradual shrinking of theterritory, on which the written sources are documented. Indeed,from the reign of Samsu-iluna, some 3000 published tablets are254 Richardson 2002, 230.121

available. 255 The numbers of texts datable to the reigns of other lateOld Babylonian rulers are given by Rosel Pientka in her bookdevoted to the late Old Babylonian period – from the period of thelast four kings (Ae, Ad, As, Sd, that is the period between 1711 and1595, that is more than one hundred years), there are just some1700 tablets. 256Further, the territory which shows traces of scribal activity wasconsiderably reduced during the reign of Samsu-iluna, indeed. Inthat time, due to some largely obscure reasons, a significantdecrease in the population of southern Babylonia can be traced onthe basis of both archaeological and textual evidence. Thisdevelopment seems to have been very dramatic, and some cities inthat region were probably more or less completely abandonedduring a relatively short span of time. Not excluded were even thebig cities which belonged to the leading economic, administrative aswell as religious centres of the South in the previous periods – Isin,Larsa, Uruk, Nippur.From that period on, the focus of the Old Babylonian scribal activityis limited to the northern part of Babylonia with Sippir as the by farmost abundant source of tablets dated to the post-Samsu-ilunaperiod.This state of affairs is generally interpreted in that way that the OldBabylonian state suffered from a deep crisis which enabled theHittite invaders to use this favourable situation. The Hittite kingMuršili I took Babylon and formally terminated the rule of the I stDynasty of Babylon.The study of the decline of the Old Babylonian state is charged witha bunch of grave problems. The most irritating problem lies in thefact that the closer we approach the proper end of the OldBabylonian state the less sources we have at our disposal. The reignof the last Old Babylonian king, Samsu-ditana, is the leastdocumented phase during the late Old Babylonian period. There areno preserved royal inscriptions of Samsu-ditana so far and thenumber of both written and archaeological sources for that period isvery low. For this reason, it is very difficult to develop somescenarios answering the questions of how the Old Babylonian statedisappeared from the Mesopotamian history. Such a task requires ahighly speculative interpretation of a very restricted sample of data.255 Personal communication by Frans van Koppen, 2 nd March 2008.256 Pientka 1998, 277.122

In this regard, another related problem must be mentioned. Manyscholars studying the Mesopotamian history (and this holds true notonly for the study of the Old Babylonian period) implicitely suggest,that the level of political and economic success of any state inMesopotamia is proportional to the number of preserved texts fromthe particular period. If there are a lot of texts in a period, it is oftengenerally interpreted as the climax of the development of a state. Ifthe number of texts begins to drop, it is understood as a sign of adecline.But the relationship between the (bad or good) condition of thestate and the number of preserved texts must be more complex.Only one thing is sure: if there are rich archives (private or officialones, or both) in a particular period, it means solely that there wasa strong need to record some transactions in that period. On theother hand, if a particular period is less documented by writtensources, then we can only say that the need to write down thosetransactions was probably not so strongly felt in that period. Thisdoes not necessarily mean that the period with few written sourceswas a period of a crisis: perhaps the written record was considerednot so necessary because some changes of the economic and socialstructure had occured in the meantime, or because the state (ortemple) administration and/or private entrepreneurs had switchedto different administrative methods in which the written record wasdeemed not so important. In sum, a low number of preserved textsis not necessarily to be taken as a sign of weakness or even crisis ofa state.If we want to detect traces of a possible crisis, we have to take intoaccount not only the number of preserved texts itself, but we mustalso undertake a thorough analysis of their content. So, when couldwe speak about a crisis of a state? A state is in a critical situation, ifthe available sources suggest that the efficiency of the stateadministration declines in a long perspective and to such extentthat the state was no more able to fulfill its essential tasks, to whichin ancient Mesopotamia belonged: protection of the country againstenemies, protection of the inner order of the state (law, security),care for religious matters (that means supporting the temples andthe cult of Mesopotamian deities) as well as concern over theeconomic prosperity and well-being of the population (agriculture,irrigation, crafts, long-distance trade).Indeed, it seems that we can trace some signs of such a long-termdecline in the material from the late Old Babylonian period. Thegeographical extent of the Old Babylonian state is substantiallyreduced as compared to the area of the state created by Hammu-123

abi and inherited by his son Samsu-iluna. The vast territories insouthern Babylonia including such major urban centres like Isin,Larsa, Nippur, Ur or Uruk have been lost to the Babylonian statewhatever the reasons for the abandonment of those cities may havebeen.Further, large building projects (for example, irrigation canals,reconstructions of temples, city walls, palaces etc.) as well assuccesful military campaigns are described less and less frequentlyin the royal inscriptions and year names of the late Old Babylonianrulers. Instead, the year names increasingly mention dedications ofcultic objects to temples – this was perhaps an emergency solutionfor the ruler of a declining state, because the dedication of a culticobject was undoubtedly much cheaper and easier than performing alarge-scale building or military activities.Moreover, it seems that the security on the territory governed bythe late Old Babylonian state was deteriorating and the state wasno more able to protect from military threats not only the peripheralregions, but also the core of the state itself (this is documented by agroup of letters dated to the year As 15 which mention someenemies threatening cities in that region; see above).Further, the kings repeatedly issued edicts abolishing outstandingdebts of several groups of people which suggests that theindebtedness of the population was increasing to that extent that itwas considered as a potentially critical factor by the stateadministration. However, the frequent issuing of edicts showsclearly that the state was not able to cope effectively with thatproblem.For all those reasons, it is possible to consider the late OldBabylonian period as a phase of decline of the Old Babylonian state.But what caused this decline? It must be stressed that we will neverbe able to answer that question with any certainty. The only thingwe can is to reconstruct some factors which may have contributedto the demise of the state, but we will never be able to evaluatetheir relative importance. A coherent story describing the fall ofBabylon will remain a chimera forever.We can just say, that generally, there are several groups of factorsthat can contribute to the decline of a state:I) Natural(climate changes, shifts of river beds, deterioration of the soil)124

II) Cultural1) Internal (economic, social, political, demographic development)2) External (interaction with other states and/or ethnical groups)It must be stressed that the decline of a state is always caused by awhole cluster of mutually connected factors. Some of the factors aredominant, the others play only a minor role. The relative importanceof individual factors can be reconstructed only approximately,however.I can not offer any comprehensive scenario which would explainwhy the Old Babylonian state came to an inglorious end after about400 years of more or less succesful existence. I would like toemphasize that the state administration in the very final phase ofthe Old Babylonian period was no more able to conduct largebuilding projects and to launch major military campaigns, which isin a very striking way reflected in the contemporary royalinscriptions and, especially, in the year names. It can be inferredthat the late Old Babylonian state had not enough means to pay theworkers and soldiers whose labour was necessary to accomplishsuch projects. That surely means that the state finances were not ingood shape.But what were the reasons of that crisis and why there was such anessential shortage of the state finances, remains unclear. Thefinancial crisis was perhaps somehow connected with the taxationsystem which was not efficient enough to enforce the regularpayments of all the necessary taxes and fees for the state. In otherwords, there were no means to ensure the regular incomes for thestate. In order to precise this hypothesis, a thorough and systematicstudy of the fiscal system of the Old Babylonian state, not only inthe late Old Babylonian period, but also in the previous phases ofthe Old Babylonian period must be undertaken. But this is a task forthe future.125

ReferencesEdzard, Dietz Otto (2004):Geschichte Mesopotamiens. Von den Sumerern bis zu Alexanderdem Großen, München.Gasche, Hermann (1989):La Babylonie au 17 e siècle avant notre ère: approche archéologique,problèmes et perspectives (MHE, Series II, Memoirs 1), Ghent.Gasche, Hermann (1998):Dating the Fall of Babylon. A Reappraisal of Second-MillenniumChronology (MHE, Series II, Memoirs 4), Ghent – Chicago.Gasche, Hermann (2003):"La fin de la première dynastie de Babylone: une chute difficile",Akkadica 124, 205–220.Hallo, William W. – Simpson, William Kelly (1997):The Ancient Near East. A History, New York – Chicago – SanFrancisco – Atlanta.Pientka, Rosel (1998):Die spätaltbabylonische Zeit. Abiešuh bis Samsuditana. Quellen,Jahresdaten, Geschichte, Münster.Richardson, Seth (2002):The Collapse of a Complex State: A Reappraisal of the End of theFirst Dynasty of Babylon, 1683–1597 B.C., PhD. diss., ColumbiaUniversity.Richardson, Seth (2005):"Trouble in the Countryside ana tars(.)i Samsuditana: Militarism,Kassites, and the Fall of Babylon I", in: W. H. van Soldt (ed.),Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia. Papers read at the 48thRencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, 1–4 July 2002,Leiden, 272–289.Van de Mieroop, Marc (2007):A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000 – 323 BC, Secondedition, Oxford.Yoffee, Norman (1977):The Economic Role of the Crown in the Old Babylonian Period(BiMes 5), Malibu.126

DiscussionSallaberger: Thank you for this convenient summary of the currentopinions on the crisis of the Old Babylonian state. Of course onemust bear in mind that many specialists, including Yoffee andRichardson, project their own perspective of the problem into theinterpretation of the evidence. It seems to me that hypotheseswhich may be neither proved nor disproved should be avoided.What, indeed, are the functions of the state? Some of them werecertainly not indispensable, and people could very well go on livingeven without kings. I also think that the desertion of southernBabylonian sites should properly be dissociated from the end of theOld Babylonian state. We must thus ask which functions of this statedid end at the close of the Old Babylonian period? Of course,renting of tax-collection to private persons, for instance, didprobably bring about considerable difficulties; this might haveresulted in the shortage of funds with which the palace could havepaid hired labour.Pecha: I agree that functions of state could very well have beentaken over by local authorities, but, of course, the powers of thesewere more limited than those of the state. I believe that thedisintegration period lasted only for a short time and, in a situationwhere local forces were unable to step in, the functions of the staterenewed quickly.Sallaberger: For instance, the letters from Sippar do describeacitivites of local authorities (those of the Kullizu "fort").Pecha: Yes, but these letters were written by royal administrators;it seems to me that the labour hands were local, but theadministrative framework and logistics were provided by the state.When the state was weak, it lacked the ability to organize largescaleprojects.Sallaberger: May this impression have been brought about, forinstance, by the extinction of our sources?Pecha: I suspect critical factors at play which prevented the stateto fulfil its functions. For instances, the year names of late OldBabylonian kings refer to dedications of objects in temples insteadof building projects or military campaigns. Was this because thededications required less funds to be carried out?127

Sallaberger: Could the military undertakings bring about lessprestige, for instance? What would you think about the texts fromDūr Abī-ešuḫ?Pecha: I think they are rather limited in their extent; can we usethem for historical analysis?Sallaberger: Did fragmentation of the state occur? In fact, in thesetexts the community seems to have functioned well and smoothly.Pecha: I see these documents as a parallel to "fort" texts. The"forts" were obviously independent, but could they, in fact, haverepresented a factor of potential threat to the state? After thedemise of the Old Babylonian kingdom, the inhabitants of these"forts" could well have switched over to a different mode ofexistence.Sallaberger: I believe that a most welcome study theme would bethe gradual weakening and loss of power of the Old Babylonianking.Charvát: The Babylonian "forts" and their garrisons constitute afascinating parallel to the Syrian military cheifs known in thisperiod especially as the Hyksos rulers of Egypt. The Hyksos seem tohave been a miliary elite the members of which lived by war, andconsidered war to have been their business. They wereprofessionals of a sort, who maintained a disctinctive way of life,defined first and foremost by their own social status, without regardto ethnicity or language. Does this offer any parallel with theBabylonian situation?Sallaberger: The "fort" people seem to have been military groupsbelonging to the standing army.128

Kings, seals and priests 257Michel Tanret, Universiteit te GhentAbstractDated and sealed cuneiform documents from Old Babylonia Sippar allowthe discernment of iconographical trends in seal images throughout theOld Babylonian period (roughly 2004-1595 B.C.). The substitution of theking-in-majesty scene, peculiar to the earlier seals of the period, slowlygave way to the depiction of the king as officiant of (one of the) divinecults, especially in the function of the purveyor and bringer of offerings.This might be brought into connection with the transformation of theessence of Old Babylonian royal power. At the onset, the Babyloniandynasty put through its claims by vigorous military action. As time wentby, Babylonian kings had to rely more and more on the support of localelites, whom they befriended by doing homage to the divine cultsparticular to the municipal communities of their realms.Keywords: History of ancient Mesopotamia, Old Babylonian period,Babylonia, Larsa, cuneiform texts, cylinder seals, king.A hitherto nearly unexplored source of information on OldBabylonian kings is their appearance on seals, as well in theiconography as in the legend. The representations of the king areinteresting because they show that they were part of theiconographical repertoire of the time and were chosen (or not) bypersons acquiring a seal; they thus give an indication of thepopularity of the royal image throughout the period. Theappearance of the king’s name in the legend furthermore gives usan insight on which seal owners did this which becomes even moreinteresting when we know their title, because this tells ussomething about the allegiance to the crown of certain (membersof) professional categories and how this evolves through time. Theadded value of studying the seal impressions instead of the sealsthemselves is that the impressions appear on documentary tabletsand thus can be dated. We now have compiled a (still growing)database of the attestations of the impressions of more than 7.000different seals rolled on Sippar tablets during the Old Babylonianperiod and this will be the basis of the present investigation.257 This article is the result of research undertaken within the framework ofthe Interuniversity Pole of Attraction Programme VI/34 – Belgian State.Federal Office for Belgian Science Policy.129

A. The iconographyAs is customary on Old Babylonian seals, the depiction of personsnever refers to a specific individual and this is also the case for thekings. The figure representing the king is recognisable mainly bythe typical broad rimmed cap he is wearing.There are several kinds of representations of the king on OldBabylonian seals from Sippar: 2581. the seated king, being the focal point of a presentationscene2. the king presenting a sacrificial animal to a god3. a figure of a king standing with one arm raised, hand infront of his face, in most cases facing a god4. the king with the mace (sometimes the mace is omitted)5. the smiting king, wielding a weapon and trampling anenemyIt is evident that these can be divided in three groups. The first oneconsists of the presentation scene of which not a god but the king isthe focus. This is a scene continued from the preceding Ur IIIperiod. It has been analysed by I. Winter in her famous article "Theking with the cup” in the Porada Festschrift. 259 According to thisanalysis the king occupies the place of the god but is, in most cases,clearly distinguished from him by his headgear, his robe and thecup he is holding. Both the scenes with a god and with a kingrepresent "parallel statements of authority and effectiveness” (ibid.,264). With the king the setting is secular and is the expression ofthe royal power "to deliver justice and to grant petitions andoffices” (ibid.).The second group is of a cultic nature. It comprises the king facinga god, with or without a sacrificial animal, as an expression of royalpiety and foremost role in the cult. These are also scenes taken overfrom the Ur III period. The king with a sacrifical animal is anadaptation of the bald/bearded figure with the same role and thestanding king with his hand before his mouth is to be found on twoseals in Collon 1982 (pl LII 470, 471).258 The categories are derived from our seal impression database but seealso Collon 1986, 35-37.259 Kelly-Buccellati 1986, 253-268.130

With the third one we clearly are in a military context: the king aswarrior and smiter of enemies. The latter already appears on an UrIII seal (Collon 1982, pl. LII 472).The chronological spread of these three groups will show to berevealing of the way kingdom was perceived during this period.Chronological distributionSince our corpus of over 7000 seal impressions from Old BabylonianSippar is not spread evenly over time we calculated the percentageof seals with each of the five representations of the king in regardof the total number of seals for the reign of each king of theḪammu-rabi dynasty.a. The seated kingKINGS 260 seatedkingtotalsealsSli 3 35Sa 3 106AS 12 213Sm 14 491Ha 8 1021Si 1 648Ae 1 255Ad 3 1503Aṣ 6 2573Sd 1 75Vis à vis the total number of seals this yields the following graph:260 The names of the kings of this dynasty are abbreviated as follows: Sli =Sumu-la-el; Sa = Sabium; AS = Apil-Sîn; Sm = Sîn-muballiṭ; Ḫa = Ḫammurabi;Si=Samsu-iluna; Ae = Abi-ešuḫ; Ad = Ammi-ditana; Aṣ = Ammi-ṣaduqa; Sd = Samsu-ditana.131

seated%121086seated%420Sli Sa AS Sm Ha Si Ae Ad Ac SdThe graph shows a general downward trend from beginning to end,except for a remarkable high under kings Apil-Sîn ans Sîn-muballiṭ.The general trend can be understood as the result of thecontinuation of the dominant scene form the preceding Ur IIIperiod, gradually to be replaced by other representations of theking and thus fading out. The small revival towards the end, underAmmi-ṣaduqa and Samsu-ditana is also remarkable. This may be theexpression of nostalgia for the past.b. The cultic setting: king standing in prayer or presenting asacrificial animal to a godKINGS animal standing total DBSli 10 4 35Sa 21 15 106AS 40 21 213Sm 44 33 491Ha 139 61 1021Si 7 10 648Ae 25 22 255Ad 59 61 1503Aṣ 35 95 2573Sd 11 16 75Calculated as a proportion of all of the seals for each reign, thisgives the following chart:132

504540353025animal%standing%20151050Sli Sa AS Sm Ha Si Ae Ad Ac SdNotwithstanding the variations it is clear that originally the kingcarrying a sacrificial animal was more popular and that a switchtook place under king Samsu-iluna when the standing, praying kingtakes the overhand. Again, as stated above, these are scenes takenover (and adapted) from the Ur III period. There is a general declineof the animal bearer (and some clear dips under Samsu-iluna andAmmi-ṣaduqa) with a revival under Samsu-ditana. The standing,‘praying’, king on the contrary becomes quite popular after thereign of Ḫammu-rabi.c. The military setting: king with the mace and smiting kingKINGSwith amace smiting total DBSli 7 2 35Sa 24 9 106AS 52 7 213Sm 73 4 491Ha 182 28 1021Si 22 2 648Ae 31 4 255Ad 75 14 1503Aṣ 75 30 2573Sd 3 3 75Which gives the following chart of seals vs. the total number:133

60504030mace%smiting%20100Sli Sa AS Sm Ha Si Ae Ad Ac SdThese two representations of the king are new. The king with themace is a very popular figure, more and more so, until the reign ofSamsu-iluna (with a slight slump under Ḫammu-rabi). From thenonwards it quickly diminishes until the end of the period. Thesmiting king is a much less popular representation, peaking underSabium, descending and maintaining a low profile, with a smallpeak towards the end, under Ammi-ṣaduqa.Conclusions concerning the iconographyIt is possible to link the popularity of these representations in ageneral way to the history of the period.The figure of the seated king, representing royal power in the OldBabylonian society slowly declines, it was probably considered to bean image of the past. From Samsu-iluna onwards the kingdomshrinks and in what remains local elites tend to rise in importance.The religious image of the king maintains its popularity, switchesfrom animal bearer to ‘praying’ king under Samsu-iluna and evenrises markedly towards the end. The Old Babylonian kings had quitesoon extended their power over the temples and were thus seen asforemost in religious matters. Towards the end of the dynasty theyear names of these kings, as had already been remarked byPientka (1998), do not mention military achievements anymore butcenter on cultic aspects, which might well explain the growingpopularity of the king in a religious context.134

The evolution of the military representations of the king also fits inthis same scheme. At the beginning of the period they areconquerors enlarging their territory and this trend culminatesunder Ḫammu-rabi. Samsu-iluna is the last one to wage warrepeatedly, trying to defend or reconquer his territory, under hisreign the king with the mace rises the most. The later kings are notcapable anymore to play this strong role. As a consequence themilitary image of the king wanes, never to return. As the historicfate of the kings evolves, the choice of the seal bearing elites tendsto choose other, more adapted represntations of the king on theirseals.B. The seal legendsThe third line of a typical Old Babylonian seal legend starts with ìr,‘servant of’. In most cases this line holds the name of one or twogods, sometimes this is the name of a temple, in Sippar mostly theEbabbar, the temple of the city god Šamaš, but, more exceptionallywe find there the name of a king. This mention is meaningful in thissense that it shows a strong link with the god (Charpin 1990), withthe temple or with the king.Chronological distributionWhen we list the number of seals in which a person declares himselfto be servant of the king and put this in relation with the number ofseals with legends we have for the different reigns, we obtain thefollowing numbers:Kingservant ofkingtot withlegend% withkingSli 1 15 6,67Sa 4 34 11,76AS 7 70 10SM 0 126 0Ha 18 298 6,04Si 27 70 38,57Ae 18 63 28,57Ad 62 296 20,95Ac 36 464 7,76Sd 4 39 10,26135

Which can be expressed in the following graph:% with king454035302520% with king151050Sle Sa AS SM Ha Si Ae Ad Ac SdThe practice of declaring oneself to be a servant of the king seemsto grow a little at first. It takes a plunge under Sîn-muballiṭ whichcannot be due to our incomplete documentation since we have 491seals dated under this king, out of which no less than 126 have alegend. With Ḫammu-rabi and Samsu-iluna there is a steep rise,followed by a nearly as deep plunge under the next kings. Apartfrom the inexplicable absence under Sîn-muballiṭ, the rest of thegraph is not difficult to understand. The rise and fall must be due tothe rise and fall of the dynasty. The power of king Ḫammu-rabigrows during his reign and his son Samsu-iluna must havecontinued this strengthening of the royal power, even if it slippedform his hands. After that the dynasty never regained its erstwhilestrength.Combined with titlesIt is interesting to observe which functions and titles are combinedwith the servant of the king line in the seal legend, in other wordswhich professions come under the influence of the king.Three groups can be distinguished. The scribes (dub.sar) some ofwhom were always ready to declare themselves servants of theking, no doubt because they worked in the royal administration.Higher temple personnel: the temple administrators (sanga), theoverseer of the nadītum priestesses (ugula lukur Utu), the chief136

dirge singers (gala.maḫ) but not the simple dirge singers (gala). Thediviners (máš.šu.gíd.gíd), overseers of the merchants (uguladam.gàr) but not the merchants (dam.gàr), the judges (di.kud) andfatteners (lú ku 7 ). The third group are the higher military officers:‘general’ (ugula Amurrim) and ‘captain’ (PA.PA).dub.sarsanga Šamašsanga Ajasanga Marduksanga Ṣarpantumsanga Kabtasanga Sînug.lukur Utugala.maḫ Šamašgala.maḫ Sînmáš.šu.gíd.gídugula dam.gàrdi.kudlú ku 7ugula AmurrimPA.PASle Sa AS Sm Ha Si Ae Ad Ac SdAlthough there is a general slipping away of the dedication to theking under the later kings, some people clearly connect their fatewith the king: these are the local elites (from the temple, themilitary and others) whose growing fortunes depend on their goodconnections with the palace, not so much in subservience as inderiving income and making profits from assets that wouldotherwise completely go to the crown.C. Priests and kings: resistance through sealsA special case is presented by the sangas of the Ebabbar inSippar 261 . From the time of there are two of these. The first sangasare members of a single family throughout the Old Babylonianperiod, the sangaship is transmitted from father to son. For thesecond sangas the situation is more complex: some of them arefather and son, some belong to different families.261 For a full documentation, see Tanret 2009.137

The fifth of the first sangas, Annum-pî-Aja shows a remarkable sealuse. He starts by using his own seal, from the beginning of Ḫammurabito the eighteenth year of this king: 262In the next years no seal is attested but from Ḫammu-rabi 30 toSamsu-iluna 7 he uses a seal to the name of his father:262 All seal drawings were made by E. Smekens and are taken from Tanret2009.138

This seal is clearly different from the only one we know from hisfather:We know of a number of persons who first use the seal of theirfather and, after some time, start using their own seal but thereverse is exceptional.The appearance of this second seal used by Annum-pī-Aja coincideswith another phenomenon: a change in the servant line.When we list the servant lines of the first sangas we can observethere is a radical change between Samsu-iluna 7 and 9:First sangasservant of date attested RemarksI. Annum-pī-Šamaš — Im, Sle no servant lineII. Šamaš-tappašu Ebabbar Sle second line out ofthreeIII. Lipit-Ištar — Sle-Sa-AS no servant lineIV. Warad-Sîn Aja AS-Sm first uses hisfather's seal139

V. Annum-pī-Aja Aja Sm-Ḫa 18Ḫa 30-Si 7first uses his sealthen a new father'ssealVI. Šamaš-tappašuSamsuilunaSi 9 – 13career completelyunder Samsu-ilunaVII. Warad-SînSamsuilunaSi 25 – 30 "VIII. Annum-pī-Aja Abi-ešuḫ Ae – Ad 5 two (nearly)identical sealsIX. Sîn-iqīšamAmmiditanaAd 20 - 30career completelyunder Ammi-ditanaX. Ilšu-ibnīšu Ammi-ṣaduqaAd 32 – Aṣ11uses his father'sseal under AmmiditanaXI. Nūr-Kabta — Aṣ 11 no seal knownXII. Sîn-aḫamiddinamNinsiana Aṣ 13From Samsu-iluna 9 onwards the sangas declare themselves to bethe servants of the kings.This same transition can be observed for the second sangas :Second sangasservant of1. Išar-Šamaš2. Sîn-ennam Ebabbar Sa 143. Šumuḫ-Sîn AS - Sm4. Šalim-paliḫ-Marduk Marduk Sm5. Etel-pī-Nabium Nabium Ḫa 1 - 116. Sîn-iddinam Ebabbar Ḫa 15 - 187. Sîn-bani Ḫammu-rabi Ḫa 30 - 37140

8. Išme-Sîn Ḫa - Si Ḫa 38 – Si 139. Sîn-erībam Si 2510. Marduk-mušallim Ae - Ad Ae "e" – Ad 511. Etel-pī-Nabium Ad – Aṣ Ad 20 - Aṣ 512. Marduk-nāṣir Aṣ 11Here, the transition takes place earlier: between Ḫa 18 and 30. Thisreminds us, however, of the appearance of Annum-pī-Aja's secondseal: from Ḫammu-rabi 30 onwards.So Annum-pī-Aja stops using his first seal at the same time that thesecond sangas declare themselves to be servants of the king.Coincidence or connection?Let us first consider why the second sangas operate this change.The change for the second sangasReconsidering the table above, adding the family relationships andinformation on their allegiance yields the following:Second sangasservantofRemarks1. Išar-Šamaš office of second sangainstalled2. Sîn-ennam Ebabbar Sa 14 still in Ebabbar circles3. Šumuḫ-Sîn AS - Sm son of the precedingone4. Šalim-paliḫ-MardukMarduk Sm connection withMarduk5. Etel-pī-Nabium Nabium Ḫa 1 – 11 son of the precedingone6. Sîn-iddinam Ebabbar Ḫa 15 - 18 again Ebabbarconnection141

7. Sîn-bani ḪammurabiḪa 30 - 378. Išme-Sîn Ḫa - Si Ḫa 38 – Si13son of a sanga ofMardukwas a sanga ofÁarpanºtum9. Sîn-erībam Si 25 son of preceding one10. Mardukmušallim11. Etel-pī-NabiumAe - AdAd – AṣAe "e" – Ad5Ad 20 - Aṣ5son of a sanga ofMardukson of the precedingone12. Marduk-nāṣir Aṣ 11 son of the precedingoneWhere it can be observed that the first three second sangas belongto the Ebabbar circles. The next two, however, are clearlyconnected to Marduk. This god is the city god of Babylon and thedynastic god. In other words, these two sangas represent theinfluence of Babylon and the king entering into the Ebabbar ofSippar. With the next sanga the Ebabbar allegiance returns butafter him it definitively disappears in favour of the Marduk peoplewho now consistently declare themselves to be servants of the king.What we witness here is the growing influence of the king on theEbabbar. This can now be dated to somewhere between Ḫammurabi18 and 30. Why, may we then wonder, did the first sangas notfollow suit at the same time, especially since Annum-pī-Aja stopsusing his own seal precisely at that time?Events reconstructedAnnum-pī-Aja uses his own seal until after Ḫāmmu-rabi 18. Then wecan suppose there was some pressure exerted on the first andsecond sangas to declare themselves to be the servants of the kingin their seal legends. The second sangas have no problem with thissince they come from Marduk circles. The first sanga however,descendant of a long standing Sippar family does not want to give ineasily. It is at that moment that he 'finds' his father's seal and startsusing it, with a servant line to Aja. We know that his father neverused this seal and that in all probability it was a 'fake'. It is onlywhen the next sanga takes over the office that the tide cannot bestemmed anymore and he declares himself to be a servant of theking.142

Until then Annum-pī-Aja had put up a 'resistance' to royal influencethrough his seal.General conclusionThis first exploration of the possibilities of the study of theiconography and legends of seal impressions on Old BabylonianSippar tablets has shown that the choice of the representation ofthe king is not haphazard but linked to a general trend in theperception of the king throughout this period. The allegiance to theking expressed in the servant line of the seal legend denotes a closeconnection with the royal institution and is clearly exhibited more inthe second half of the period than in the first one. Typically it ischosen by members of local elites who, towards the end of theperiod take over local affairs and greatly profit from their link withthe king because a large number of products as well as silver passesthrough their hands, coming from the palace or going back to it,enriching them. Among these elites there is the family of the firstsangas, a real Sippar family from beginning to end, over more thanten generations. As proud and prominent local figures they resistthe endencey to link up with the king, but finally also give in.It is amazing that all this should be expressed on seals, tiny objects,seen by very few people only.ReferencesWinter, I. (1986):"The king and the cup: Iconography of the royal presentationscene on Ur III seals”, in: Kelly-Buccellati, M., Matthiae, P.& Van Loon, M. (eds.) Insight Through Images: Studies inHonor of Edith Porada (= Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 21),Malibu, 235-268.Collon, D. (1982):Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum,Cylinder Seals II, Akkadian-Post-Akkadian-Ur III Periods,London.Tanret, M. (2009):The Seal of the Sanga (= Cuneiform Monographs 40), Boston-Leiden.143

Pientka, R. (1998):Die Spätaltbabylonische Zeit (Abiešuḫ bis Samsuditana),Quelle, Jahresdaten, Geschichte (= Imgula 2), Münster.Charpin, D. (1990):"Les divinités familiales des Babyloniens d’après les légendesde leurs sceaux-cylindres”, in : Ö. Tunca (ed.), De laBabylonie à la Syrie, en passant par Mari. Mélanges offertsà Monsieur J.-R. Kupper à l’occasion de son 70°anniversaire, Liège , 59-78.144

The first millennium

Esarhaddon’s accession to the Assyrian throneKateřina Šašková, University of West Bohemia, PlzeňAbstractThough Esarhaddon (681-669 B.C.) was not the first-born son ofSennacherib, his father ultimately chose him as his successor in the royaloffice. The fact that Sennacherib changed his mind twice with respect tothe appointment of his heir apparent was probably one of the factorsbehind his assassination. Esarhaddon, who was not present in the capitalat the moment of Sennacherib’s death, nevertheless reacted promptlyand put forward his claim by means of a show of military force. Thisproved to be the right action at the right time, but down to the end ofEssarhaddon’s reign the documents show how strongly was hepreoccupied with the problem of smooth transition of royal power to thechosen successor after his own death.Keywords: History of ancient Mesopotamia, Neo-Assyrian period, Assyria,Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, king, kingly office.IntroductionEsarhaddon was undoubtedly one of the most distinctive rulers onAssyrian throne. He conquered Egypt, tied it down to the vastempire, and thus he enlarged the Assyrian territory to anothercontinent. He renovated and pretentiously beautifully the shrine ofAššur within the city of Aššur, 263 he restored Babylon includingEsagila 264 and zikkurrat Etemenanki. 265 On the other hand, henever gave back the statue of Marduk to Babylonia, 266 and thereforethe akītu festival could not be celebrated during his reign as well asin the times of his father. 267 However, Esarhaddon is also known asan extremely pious person apprehensively attending to his ownhealth and the health of his whole family, and as a ruler who isconstantly afraid of conspiracy and insurrection. The largest part ofAssyrian queries to the god of divination Šamaš is dated just from263 E.g. Borger 1956, 87-88 (AsBbE: 17-rev. 8a), and 3 (Ass. A).264 RIMB, B.6.31.11.265 RIMB, 164ff.266 The statue was returned to Babylon by his son Aššurbanipal in his firstregnal year (Grayson 1975, 84 (Chronicle I: iv. 34-36) and 127 (EsarhaddonChronicle: 31-37)).267 Grayson 1975, 127 (Esarhaddon Chronicle: 32) and 131 (Akitu Chronicle:2-4).147

his reign. In these queries, Esarhaddon asks the sun-god aboutvarious matters dealing with political decisions as well as thingsrelated to the members of royal family. 268And just the factors influencing Esarhaddon’s reign andcircumstances that formed - or could formed - his deeds andattitudes are the very subject of this text. Consequently, the greatemphasis will be laid on Esarhaddon’s life before he became theAssyrian ruler rather than on the political events during his reign,his campaigns and building activities. The text deals also partly withhis "private life”, however, I allow the fact that any informationregarding crown prince or Assyrian king is not actually the privatematter, and we learn about this from official sources.1. FamilyA considerable factor which influenced the whole reign ofEsarhaddon was the situation inside the royal family. Esarhaddonhimself speaks on his ancestry in several inscriptions and his wordsare following: "Esarhaddon, great king, mighty king, king of theworld, king of Assyria, king of the four quarters (of the world),viceroy of Babylon, king of the land of Sumer and Akkad,descendant of the eternal line of Bēl-bāni, son of Adasi, king ofAssyria, precious scion of Baltil (Aššur), (one of) royal lineage (and)ancient stock." 269In connection with the reconstruction of the temple of Aššur,Esarhaddon names even the first Assyrian rulers as his forefathers,especially Ušpia, the builder of the first temple of Aššur. He writes:"The former house of Aššur which Ušpia my father, priest of Aššur,had constructed before fell in ruins and Erišum son of Ilu-šumma,my father, priest of Aššur (re-)built (it). 126 years went by; it againfell in ruins and Šamšī-Adad son of Ilu-kapkapu, my father, priest ofAššur (re-)built (it). 434 years went by; the temple was levelled by araging fire. Šulmānu-ašarēd son of Adad-nārārī, my father, priest ofAššur (re-)built (it).” 270268 See SAA IV.269 RIMB, B.6.31.10: 15'-17' (= Borger 1956, Brs. A; also Mnm. A: rev. 15-18;RIMB, B.6.31.11: 13-14 (= Borger 1956, Npr. A); RIMB, B.6.31.15 (=Borger 1956, Uruk A), Borger 1956, Klch. C and AsBbA).270 Steele 1951, 4-5 (= Borger 1956, Ass. A: 16-32).148

FatherBut the most important person of Assyrian royal dynasty whoformed the way of Esarhaddon’s reign was his father Sennacherib.After his accession, Esarhaddon followed his father in manyrespects. Nevertheless, his efforts were in some aspects quitedifferent. 271 Sennacherib was powerful and capable king. But hisreign was also one of the most inconsistent in Assyrian history, andsometimes, he absolutely abandoned the Assyrian royal tradition.This energetic man - whom Esarhaddon names in the most part ofhis inscriptions as well as his grandfather Sargon 272 - undertookeight campaigns in the first half of his reign whose culmination wasthe conquest and exhaustive destruction of Babylon. 273 However,Sennacherib didn’t set on any other campaign during nine followingyears and he chiefly concentrated on cultural rise of Assyria andconstruction of his new residential city Nineveh. It is possible thathe moved the royal court from his father’s residence Dūr-Šarrukēnin order to disavow Sargon’s reputed sin. 274 Besides the destructionof Babylon, cessation of Assyrian expansion and displacement ofroyal seat, another uncommon Sennacherib’s act was his efforttowards the supremacy - or even replacement - of Assyrian Aššurover the head of Babylonian pantheon Marduk. 275271 See below.272 He writes in AsBbA: "Sohn Sanheribs, des grossen und mächtigen Königs,Königs des Weltreichs, Königs von Assyrien, Sohnes Sargons, Königs desWeltreichs, Königs von Assyrien, Statthalters von Babel, Königs von Sumerund Akkad." See also RIMB, B.6.31.11: 13-14 (= Borger 1956, Npr. .A),B.6.31.13 (= Borger 1956, Npr. C), B.6.31.15 (= Borger 1956, Uruk A),B.6.31.16 (= Borger 1956, Uruk B), B.6.31.17 (= Borger 1956, Uruk C),and Borger 1956, Ass. A (Sargon is not mentioned), Ass. B, Ass. D, Ass. E,Ass. G (Sargon is not mentioned), Klch. A, Klch. C (also Bēl-bāni and Adasiare named), Klch. D, Nin. A-D. , Nin. G, Nin. J, Nin. K, Nin. L, Nin. M, Nin.R (the name of Sargon perhaps damaged), Npr. C, Uruk E, F and G., Mnm.A., Mnm. C (Sargon is not mentioned).273 Luckenbill 1924, 83-84: 50-54.274 See SAA III, no. 33 and Frahm 1999, 78ff.275 In two literary texts found in Nineveh and Aššur, there is described theimprisonment and ordeal of Marduk as a punishment for his rebellionagainst Aššur after the defeat of Tiāmat (SAA III, nos. 34 a 35). In anothertext, Sennacherib states that he decorated the gate of bīt akīti with therelief depicting Aššur’s combat with Tiāmat (Luckenbill 1924, 139-141 andPečírková 1969, 170-173: 2-16); Also the logogram AN.ŠAR 2 written inconnection with Aššur, which appears already in the times of Sargon (e.g.Mayer 1983, 68-69: 13), was used by Sennacherib more frequently. Seealso Cohen 1993, 418ff.149

2. Sennacherib’s choices of crown princeSennacherib was - in addition to Esarhaddon and the onlydocumented daughter Šadītu (Šaddītu) 276 who was apparentlyEsarhaddon’s full sister 277 - father of at least five another sons 278among whom he could chose his successor. The eldest son wasAššur-nādin-šumi, 279 nevertheless, the order of the other sons is notcertain. The second-eldest son of Sennacherib was probably Aššurilī-muballissuwho was apparently from birth destined for someimportant priestly office possibly in the temple of Aššur. 280 Thethird from the sons, Aššur-šumu-ušabši, 281 probably died in 700B.C., approximately five years after the Sennacherib’senthronement. 282 Another royal sons named in evidence are Arda-Mullissi (or Urdu-Mullissu) 283 and the prince whose name can bereconstructed as Nergal-šumu-[ibni] or - with a rather lessprobability - Nergal-šumu-[uṣur]. 284Sennacherib changed his decision concerning his successor perhapsa least twice. The first son who should after his dead ascend thethrone of Assyria was his eldest son Aššur-nādin-šumi. 285 However,very soon, in the year 700 286 or 699 287 B.C., Sennacherib appointedAššur-nādin-šumi as a Babylonian ruler. This event is mentioned inSennacherib’s own inscription 288 as well as in one of Neo-Babylonian chronicles. 289 Nevertheless, there is a question whether276 See e.g. PNA 3/I, 1115; Teppo 2005, 34 and 43; Melville 2004, 39 and 42;Melville 1999, 17-18; SAA VI, no. 251 and SAA X, no. 273.277 See Melville 1999,18.278 See PNA 3/I, 1114. The inscription written in a tablet found in Ninevehcontains a list of names among them are – beside the names of mythicalheroes (e.g. Gilgameš and Enkidu) – mentioned also the names of names ofdocumented sons of Sennacherib together with unknown persons (Frahm1997, 212-213). These men could be other princes, nevertheless, it isimpossible to prove their identity for a certainty (PNA 3/I, 1115).279 See PNA 1/I, 202-203; PNA 3/I, 1114.280 See PNA 1/I, 189; PNA 3/I, 1114-1115.281 See PNA 1/I, 226.282 See PNA 3/I, 1115.283 See ibid..284 See PNA 2/II, 956; PNA 3/I, 1115.285 Melville 1999, 17 and 21.286 PNA 1/I, 220; PNA 3/I, 1114.287 RIMB, 160; SAA VI, XXXII and XXXIV.288 "In my fourth campaign (...) I placed on his (Marduk-apla-iddina's) royalthrone, Aššur-nādin-šumi, my oldest son, offspring of my loins (knees).I puthim in charge of the wide land of Sumer and Akkad." (OIP II, 34-35, textH 2 : iii 50 and 72-74).289 Grayson 1975, 77 (Chronicle I: ii 30-31): "Sennacherib put Aššur-nādinšumi,his son, on the throne in Babylon."150

this solution was considered to be a definitive, as TheodoreKwasman and Simo Parpola 290 suppose, and Aššur-nādin-šumiwould be "only” king of Babylonia after his father’s dead. Thesecond scenario is that he should, after Sennacherib’s demise,ascend the Assyrian throne and take an official post at the head ofthe both states. At any rate, the army of the Elamite king Ḫallušu-Inšušinak I burst into Babylonian territory in 694 B.C., Aššur-nādinšumiwas imprisoned, deported to Elam and there is no evidenceconcerning his further fate. It is likely that he died in Elam. Thisincident is also documented by Neo-Babylonian chronicle 291 andsome sources affirm that Babylonians themselves caught him andgave him into Elamite hands. 292As concerns following period, scholars suggest several theoriesdealing with a choice of the next crown prince. Simo Parpola andTheodore Kwasman assume that already a year after Aššur-nādinšumiascended the Babylonian throne - in 698 B.C. - Sennacheribdesignated Arda-Mullissi as a new crown prince who shouldundertake the throne of Assyria. 293 An argument for that affirmationis that certain Aplāia, ‘third man’ of Arda-Mullissi, 294 started just inyear 698 B.C. to gather estate, and this fact denotes his rising socialrank. And because the status of the servants wholly depended onthe status of their master, Aplāia’s estate transactions shoulddenote the rising position of Arda-Mullissi as well. 295 On the otherhand, however, Aplāia entitles himself as "‘third man’ of Arda-Mullissi, the crown prince" 296 only in the contract dated to the 12 thday of the month Tašrītu in 694 B.C.. 297 And this is the very year inwhich was Aššur-nādin-šumi dragged away to Elam. On thecontrary, Sarah C. Melville assumes that the promotion of Arda-Mullissi already in 698 B.C. is not well-founded sufficiently and shejudges that "it is extremely unlikely that if Urad-Mullissu had beenthe official crown prince of Assyria for fifteen years he could havebeen expelled (without being executed) in favor of the king’s290 SAA VI, XXX II.291 Grayson 1975, 78 (Chronicle I: ii 36-43): "The sixth year of Aššur-nādinšumiSennacherib went down to Elam and ravaged (and) plunderedNagitum, Ḫilmi, Pillatum, and Ḫupapanu. Afterwards, Ḫallušu-(InšušinakI), king of Elam, marched to Akkad and entered Sippar at the end of themonth Tašrītu. He slaughtered (its) inhabitants. Šamaš did not go out ofEbabbarra. Aššur-nādin-šumi was taken prisoner and transported to Elam.For six years Aššur-nādin-šumi ruled Babylon."292 RIMB, 160; PNA 3/I, 1114; PNA 1/I, 220.293 SAA VI, XXXII and XXXIV; also Nissinen 1998, 17.294 See SAA VI, nos. 100-108. See also PNA 1/I, 115-116.295 PNA 3/I, str. 1115; SAA VI, str. XXXII.296 SAA VI, no. 103: 4-5.297 Ibid., rev. 9-10.151

youngest son." 298 And then she concludes that Arda-Mullissi wasnever designated as a crown prince, but he awaited such apromotion. 299 However, I think that this conclusion is contradictedby the above mentioned contract dated to the year 694 B.C. becauseAplāia would hardly use the official title on such a weightydocument unless his master was the crown prince.Notwithstanding, there are some indications that in the time whenthe crown prince was perhaps Arda-Mullissi, bears this title alsoanother son of Sennacherib, Nergal-šumu-[ibni]. 300 TheodoreKwasman and Simo Parpola came to this conclusion because ofreferences to certain Sama’ 301 whose name is written among thewitnesses on three contracts dated to the period between 694 and693 B.C.. 302 His title is "horse raiser of the mār šarri" 303 in twocases, and "horse raiser of Nergal-šumu-[...]" in the third. 304Unfortunately, the name of the master of Sama’ is damaged, butaccording to the documented names of Sennacherib’s sons, there isa possibility that the name was Nergal-šumu-[ibni]. TheodoreKwasman and Simo Parpola find in this situation a parallel to thefurther succession arrangement of Esarhaddon. Pursuant to thisidea, Arda-Mullissi was the crown prince of Assyria, whereasNergal-šumu-[ibni] was the crown prince of Babylonia andsuccessor of his older brother Aššur-nādin-šumi. 305In the month of Nisannu 683 B.C., 306 however, Sennacherib made avery strange decision and instead of Arda-Mullissi who, perhaps,was already at least ten years in the position of crown prince, 307 hedesignated his youngest son Esarhaddon. 308 We don’t know the298 Melville 1999, 22.299 Ibid..300 See PNA 2/II, 956.301 See PNA 3/I, 1081.302 SAA VI, XXXIII; See PNA 2/II.303 SAA VI, no. 40: rev. 4 (date: 693-I); and no. 37: rev. 7 (date: 694-VII-1).304 Ibid., no. 41 rev. 5 (date: 693-I).305 Ibid. VI, XXXIII; However, Sarah C. Melville disclaim this proposition veryradically (Melville 1999, 20).306 Frahm 1997, 18; PNA 3/I, 1115; Melville 1999, 20; Parpola and Kwasmanassume that it happened ten years before, in 693 B.C. (SAA VI, XXXIV).307 See above.308 It is very likely Esarhaddon was the youngest prince, nevertheless, hewas undoubtedly the youngest among the Sennacherib’s sons who couldclaim to the Assyrian throne because he writes: "Although I was youngerthan my big brothers" (SAA II, XXVIII; also Borger 1956, 40 (Nin. A),Thompson 1931, 9, and Melville 1999, 18. And also: "Eben mich,Esarhaddon, hast du, um jenem Übelstand abzuhelfen, inmitten meinerälteren Brüder getreulich berufen und deinen wohltuenden Schirm über152

circumstances that made Sennacherib to do such an appointment,nevertheless, Esarhaddon himself in one of his inscriptions impliesthat the preference of younger royal son was somethingextraordinary: "Although I was younger than my big brothers, myfather and begetter, by command of the gods, justly preferred me tomy other brothers, saying: ‘This is my heir.’" 309The role of Sennacherib’s wives: Tašmētu-šarrat andNaqī’aEsarhaddon was born between the years 713-711 B.C. during thereign of his grandfather Sargon II 310 when his father Sennacheribwas the crown prince and head of Sargon’s network of scouts on theboundaries with Urarṭu. 311 It comes to this that Esarhaddon was atthe time of his designation roughly thirty years old. His mother wasNaqī’a, called Zakūtu in Akkadian, who was Sennacherib’s secondwife, 312 while the mother of Sennacherib’s older sons was possiblythe first queen Tašmētu-šarrat. Even though, some scholars allowfor existence of another queen who preceded Tašmētu-šarrat andNaqī’a, and she might be the mother of some of Sennacherib’s oldersons, at least Aššur-nādin-šumi. They understand this idea from theinscription written on a stela found in Aššur between the stelae ofAssyrian queens Sammu-ramāt and Libbāli-šarrat. 313 However, thename is illegible because of the damage and it is possible 314 that itconcerns just Tašmētu-šarrat. Nevertheless, in case that Tašmētušarratwas not the mother of Aššur-nādin-šumi, then she was thesecond queen 315 and her position at the royal court was fairlysignificant. This presumption is proved by Sennacherib’s colossiinscription written on the statue of lion guarding the entrance intoher private rooms in the palace in Nineveh where Sennacherib titlesher as "my beloved wife". 316 But it is possible that she became amich ausgebreitet." (Borger 1956, Bab. A-G: Episode 11: A (Haupttext) undD.).309 SAA II, XXVIII (also Borger 1956, 40, Nin. A (= Thompson 1931, 9)).310 Melville 1999, 13.311 See SAA I, nos. 29-32.312 Eventually, she was the third wife (see below).313 Frahm 1997 184; Andrae 1913, 9-10.314 PNA 3/I, 1114-1115.315 For more see Teppo 2005, 38-39; Melville 1999, 18. On the contrary,Frahm states that Tašmētu-šarrat was the later wife and Sennacheribmarried her roughly in the year 695 B.C. (Frahm 1997, 4).316 See Frahm 1997, 121; Melville 1999, 18; PNA 3/I, 1114; Teppo 2005, 38-39; Tašmētu-šarrat is also known from the label inscription of two vasesfound in Aššur where is written: "belonging to Tašmētu-šarrat, the queen of153

queen earlier then Esarhaddon’s mother Naqī’a, and, at leastinitially, in the time of writing the colossi inscription, she wasSennacherib’s favorite wife. 317 However, it is not entirely clearwhether Naqī’a displaced Tašmētu-šarrat in position of Assyrianqueen or whether Sennacherib had even two queens for a certainperiod. 318 What we even know for sure is that Naqī’a was themother of Esarhaddon 319 but not of the other princes, 320 especiallyAššur-nādin-šumi and Arda-Mullissi. 321It is generally assumed that Naqī’a played a very important role inthe sequence of events that came to the designation of Esarhaddonas a crown prince in 683 B.C.. 322 In connection with the origin ofNaqī’a, there appears a number of assumptions, 323 but at presentwe can say for certain only that her name is of Aramaic origin, andthus she was possibly of Aramaic origin as well. 324 Naqī’a is mainlyknown from the period of her son’s reign when she presentedherself as an energetic and ambitious woman. Therefore it is verylikely that she was characterized by the same attributes already asa wife of the king Sennacherib, and if she exercised almost noinfluence on her husband, she could at least support the ambitionsof her son Esarhaddon, 325 of course, with a vision of the growth ofher own puissance as a queen mother. Sarah C. Melville mentionsthat the Naqī’a’s influence on Sennacherib could not be so deep toaffect a change of succession and it was certainly not the primaryfactor. 326 She even states that there is even no evidence that Naqī’aSennacherib, king of Assyria" (KAH I, 50; Luckenbill 1924, 152; Frahm1997, 184).317 Nissinen 1998, 18, note 62.318 See PNA 3/I, 1114; Melville 1999, 18; Teppo 2005, 38-39 and 41.319This fact is documented by great deal of inscriptions dated toEsarhaddon’s reign. E.g. the text "Fragment of Land Grant of Sennacherib”states: "for the mother of [Esarhaddon], crown prince of the succe[ssion]palace [......]." (SAA XII, no. 23: rev. 6-7).320 PNA 3/I, 1115; Nissinen 1998, 18.321 Melville 1999, 17.322 Frahm 1997, 18; Nissinen 1998, 18; PNA 3/I, 1115, Borger, Hinz andRömer 1984, 392 etc..323 For more see Melville 1999, 13-16.324 E.g. Nissinen 1998, 18. Saana Teppo mentions the West-Semitic origin(Teppo 2005, 36-38).325 The close relationship between mother and her son is approved by thefollowing inscription: "To the god [... I, Zakūtu, the queen of Sennacherib,king of Assyria, for the life of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, her son, and forher own life, has donated." (Nissinen 1998, 18, note 64). Other indicescould be also seen in prophecies addressed to Naqī’a during Esarhaddon’sstruggle for the throne (see below).326 Melville 1999, 16-17.154

ecame an official queen neither she was particularly mighty andprivileged. 327 However, there is a question what weighty reasonscould made Sennacherib for a change of the succession after morethen ten years. And moreover, to change it in favour of the youngestson who probably suffered from serious health troubles. 328 SimoParpola gives an assumption that Esarhaddon was the only son ofSennacherib who was born after Sargon II acceded to the throne ofAssyria, and this might explain Sennacherib’s choice. 329Notwithstanding, the Esarhaddon’s own ambitions and Naqī’a’sinfluence over her son and husband took place right in thissituation. Borger states that besides the queen, the clergy playedcertain role in the designation of the new successor. 330 After all, itis implied by the fact that the crown prince was appointed after theruler received the positive answer to his query to the god Šamaš. 331This assumption could be also approved by later prophetic textsaddressed to Esarhaddon and Naqī’a 332 in which it was emphasizedthat Esarhaddon was designed for the reign in Assyria just from hisbirth during which the highest Assyrian gods assisted, and afterthat they guarded and protected him. 333 Ištar of Arbela is evendesignated as his midwife and nurse, 334 and she call him in theprophetic text "Esarhaddon, ri[ghtful] heir, son of Mul[lissu]". 335Esarhaddon’s namesAfter his ceremonial election as a future king, Esarhaddon - inkeeping with an Assyrian tradition - moved together with hishousehold 336 into the bīt rēdûti, House of Succession. 337 , And327 Ibid., 21-29.328 See below.329 Melville 1999, 23, note 63.330 Borger, Hinz and Römer 1984, 392.331 An affirmation on the successor by extispicy was the standard practice inAssyria, and Esarhaddon himself states: "Respecting the weighty decree ofŠamaš and Adad, he assembled the people of Assyria, great and small, mybrothers and the seed of my father's house, and before Aššur, Sîn, Šamaš,Nabû and Marduk, the gods of Assyria and the gods inhabiting heaven andearth, made them pronounce their weighty names in order to protect mysuccession." (SAA II, XXVIII (= Borger 1956, 40 (Nin. A: i 8-19), Thompson1931, 9). See also Nissinen 1998, str. 19.332 See SAA IX, nos. 1, 2 (date: 679 B.C.), 3 (date: 680 B.C.), 4 (date: 680B.C.), and 5.333 Ibid., no. 1: especially 1.4. and 1.6..334 Ibid., no. 1: especially 1.6..335 Ibid., no. 1: especially 1.6. (iv 5, 20).336 See Šašková 2009, 66.155

ecause Esarhaddon’s name - Aššur-aḫu-iddina ("Aššur has given abrother") - was the one of relatively common type, 338 and possiblybecause it excessively referenced to the fact that his bearer is notthe first-born royal son, 339 Esarhaddon obtained a new moreportentous name 340 Aššur-etel-ilāni-mukīn-apli which means "Aššur,the prince of the gods, is the one who establishes the heir!". 341 Thisnew name was sometimes abbreviated as Aššur-etel-ilāni-mukīnni –"Aššur, prince of the gods, is the establisher”. 342 On the occasion ofthe award of a new name, Sennacherib bestowed to his son alsoseveral precious objects from the booty of Bīt-Ammukāni:"Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria — golden braceletsinlaid with ivory, a golden crown, a golden necklace, rings for theupper arm; all these pieces of jewellery, inlaid with agate, ..., andchalcedony, weighing 1 1/2 minas and 2 1/2 shekels, I gave toEsarhaddon, my son, who henceforth shall be called Aššur-etellumukīn-apli,as a token of love. (From) the booty of Bīt-Ammukāni." 343Nevertheless, Esarhaddon did not use this pretentious namefrequently - may be for its length and elaborateness - and theprimary name Aššur-aḫu-iddina predominate in the evidence evenafter his accession to the throne. In connection with the crownprince, the name Aššur-etel-ilāni-mukīn-apli appears only in thecited text and in a inscription found in Nineveh. 344 Being the king,Esarhaddon used his new name only once, 345 and its abbreviatedform is used in a letter of Esarhaddon’s daughter Šeru’a-eṭirat337 "In a propitious month, on a favourable day, according to their exaltedcommand, into the House of Succession, the place of awe, wherein isdestiny of royalty, joyfully I entered and the true fact of (my) successionwas brought home to my brothers." (Thompson 1931, TH. 1929-10-12, 1: i20-23 (= Borger, Nin A)).338 PNA 1/I, 146.339 Streck 1916a, CCXXXVIII- CCXXXIX.340 Frahm 1997, 18; PNA 1/I, 146 and 184; Streck 1916a, CCXXXIX, note 1.341 PNA 1/I, 184.342 PNA 1/I, 184; Streck 1916c, 691.343 SAA XII, no. 88.344 "Aššur-etel-ilāni-mukīn-apli, der Kronprinz vom bīt ridûti, der an ...vollkommen( ?), an Verstand hervorragend ist, ... dessen Sinn mit allerWeisheit vertraut ist, [Sohn des Sanherib, Königs des Weltreichs], Königsvon Assyrien, Sohnes des Sargon, Königs des Weltreichs, Königs vonAssyrien. ... mitten in der Stadt, Sand ... " (Borger 1956, Nin. J: 1-5).345"Ich Aššur-etel-ilāni-mukīn-apli, König des Weltreichs, König vonAssyrien, Sohn Sanheribs, Königs des Weltreichs, Königs von Assyrien,Sohnes Sargons, gleichfalls Königs des Weltreichs und Königs vonAssyrien." (Borger 1956, Ass. F: 1-4).156

which is addressed to the wife of future king Aššurbanipal Libbālišarrat.Šeru’a-eṭirat writes about herself as "the eldest daughter ofthe Succession Palace of Aššur-etel-ilāni-mukīnni, the great king,mighty king, king of the world, king of Assyria". 346Health conditionThe first thing which crosses ones mind in connection withEsarhaddon is his poor health about which, however, we have someevidence just from the times when he already ruled the Assyrianempire. Nevertheless, we can in terms of some hints conclude thatEsarhaddon was not healthy obviously even before his accession.For instance, his court physician Ikkāru 347 mentions in connectionwith the remedies prepared for Esarhaddon the period when he wasthe crown prince, and he talks about "fever lingered [in (his)e]yes". 348 And also in a contract dated to the year 697 B.C., there isnamed among the witnesses certain Šemaḫu, the physician ofEsarhaddon. 349Besides the common seasonal diseases 350 and cold, 351 Esarhaddonsuffered in accordance to the later evidence from quite a number ofchronic illnesses 352 that were not only of physical but also of mentalcharacter, and their symptoms got worse as to how Esarhaddongrew older. 353 In the periods between attacks 354 of disease,Esarhaddon was able to concern himself with politicalobligations, 355 however, these intervals were during a time shorter,and the king suffered more frequently with ague 356 or fever, 357inflammation of the eyes, 358 toothache 359 and earache, 360 and he346 SAA XVI, no. 28.347 See PNA 2/I, 509.348 SAA X, no. 328: 15-18 (= LAS 258): "When the king, my lord, was crownprince and went [to ... N]abû'a, a fever lingered [in (his) e]yes just [like inthose of the k]ing." See also Parpola 1980, 178, note 37.349 SAA VI, no. 126: 5 (date: 697).350 SAA VIII, no. 1 (date: 672-05-00 or 671-08-00).351 SAA X, no. 236 (date: 672-05-00).352 Geller 2010, 81.353 Parpola 1983, 230-231.354 "I am also sending a salve. The king should anoint himself on the day of[his] (acute) period (of illness)." (SAA X, 315: r. e. 18 (date: 670-02-00)).355 E.g. in the text ABL 660, there appears a mention: "[When] Bēl took awaythe illness of the king [...]." (SAA X, no. 200: 10 (date: 670-00-00 or 669-06-00?)).356 Ibid., no. 241 (date: 670-02-00).357 Ibid., no. 242 (date: 670-03-00) and no. 315 (date: 670-02-00).358 Ibid., no. 243 (date: 670-02-00).157

vomited a lump with the bile settling. 361 He also complained to thecourt physicians about total weakness, 362 burning of whole body, 363blotches on his skin, 364 and rash. 365 These physical troubles werealso linked with the psychical ailments, and Esarhaddon sufferedtime after time with an inappetence, 366 he did not come to light, 367and lapsed into melancholia. 368Of course, Esarhaddon himself wanted to know what caused hisillness, and how it would be possible to heal him. Urād-Nanāiia,Esarhaddon’s chief physician, cited in one of his answers the king’squestion: "Why do you not diagnose the nature of this illness ofmine and bring about its cure?" 369 However, the same questionafflicts the present scholars, but, unfortunately, the result of thisresearch can be never entirely unambiguous and doubtless becauseof the character of the evidence. 370 Esarhaddon’s illness has beenformerly considered to be rheumatism, 371 but Esarhaddon oftensuffered with cutaneous inconveniences which is not current in acase of rheumatism. In addition to the mentioned rash, there is inone - unfortunately badly damaged - letter addressed to the king amention of his mangu disease. 372 The term mangu is explained to bea paralysis, cramp, stiffening, convulsion, 373 but also a skindisease. 374 This word, mangu, appears very often together withother diseases, 375 but the translations vary from paralysis to skindisease as well. 376 Nevertheless, as far as concerns Esarhaddon,359 Ibid., no. 302 (date: 670-00-00) and no. 320 (date: 672-00-00 to 669-00-00). See also Geller 2010, 85.360 SAA X, no. 323 (date: 672-00-00 to 669-00-00) and no. 324.361 Ibid., no. 217 (date: 669-03-00).362 Ibid., no. 242 (date: 670-03-00).363 Ibid., no. 302 (date: 670-00-00).364 Ibid., no. 325 (date: 669-03-14).365 Ibid., no. 318 (date: 680-00-00 to 669-00-00).366 Ibid., no. 43 (date: 670-02-24).367 Ibid., no. 196 (date: 670-00-00 to 669-05-02).368 Ibid., no. 316 (date: 670-02-00).369 Ibid., no. 315 (date: 670-02-00; = LAS 246).370 Parpola 1983, 231-232.371 Ibid., 230.372 SAA X, no. 37 (date: 680-00-00 to 669-00-00).373 Parpola 2007, 59 and 66; CAD M 1 , 211.374 CDA, 195; Sallaberger 2006, 17.375 E.g. Langdon 1917, 17.376 E.g. A. R. George translate the line "[l]i-!i man-gu šá i-di-ka u lu-’-tú lit-baa[ina bir-ki-ka]" in the fourth tablet of The Gilgameš Epic as "let thestiffness of your arms depart and feebleness go forth [from your knees]"(George 2003, 600-601: 242 and George 2003, 820). Similarly, in the text ofMaqlû, there is the line "man-ga lu-'-u-tú ú-mal-lu-in-ni" translated "mitLähmung und Schwäche mich anfüllten" (Meier 1937, 11: 102).158

mangu was certainly the skin disease because the physiciansrecommended for the palliation of symptoms this method: "the kingshould rub himself with bird fat; it should protect the king fromdrafts. The clean water with which the king regularly washes hishands in the washbowl should not be hot. The rash will soon begone (if the king acts in this way)." 377 In a letter in whichEsarhaddon asks about the nature of his illness, Urād-Nanāiiaanswers: "Formerly I spoke to the king at the audience and couldnot clarify his symptoms. (...) Let the king apply this lotion (sentwith the letter), and perhaps this fever will leave the king, my lord. Ihave prepared this lotion of oil for the king, my lord, (already) 2 or3 times — the king knows it. If the king prefers, he may apply ittom[orrow]. It will remove the illness. (...) The king should anointhimself on the day of [his] (acute) period (of illness)." 378 Accordingto described symptoms, Simo Parpola assumes that Esarhaddonsuffered from systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus erythematosusdisseminatus, abbr. LED). 379Succession treatyConsequently, Sennacherib designated as his successor hisyoungest son who, in addition, suffered from serious and incurableillness. Esarhaddon’s health condition was probably a publicknowledge 380 because the symptoms were perhaps visible at aglance. 381 Indeed, the designation of such a successor brought onastonishment in the whole country. In some spheres, moreover,Sennacherib’s act gave a rise to the opposition which wassupported by older princes, chiefly frustrated Arda-Mullissi. That iswhy Sennacherib decided to ensure Esarhaddon’s succession andthe loyalty of all the Assyrians, and especially Esarhaddon’sbrothers, by taking an oath. Text of this treaty dated to 683 or 682B.C. is almost completely preserved, 382 and likewise Esarhaddonmentions this event in one of his inscriptions discovered in Nineveh.Nevertheless, in the text of Ludlul bēl nēmeqi is the almost same passage"man-gu iṣ-ṣa-[bat] i-di-ia lu-uʾ-tu2 im-ta-[qut] e-li bir-ki-ia" translated thisway: "A skin disease has seized my arms. Debility has affected my knees"(Ludlul II, rev. 5-6; http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/cgibin/oracc?prod=text&project=cams/gkab&text=P338350&line=P338350.77&frag=P338350.71#a.P338350.71 (4 th October 2010)).377 SAA X, no. 318 (date: 680-00-00 to 669-00-00). See also Geller 2010, 82.378 SAA X, no. 315 (date: 670-02-00; = LAS 246). See also Geller 2010, 82-84.379 Parpola 1983, 230-236.380 Melville 1999, 24.381 Parpola 1983, 234. See also Nissinen 1998, 12-20.382 SAA II, no. 3.159

He is writing: "Respecting the weighty decree of Šamaš and Adad,he assembled the people of Assyria, great and small, my brothersand the seed of my father’s house, and before Aššur, Sîn, Šamaš,Nabû and Marduk, the gods of Assyria and the gods inhabitingheaven and earth, made them pronounce their weighty names inorder to protect my succession." 383Nevertheless, even the imposed oath did not appease the situationat the Assyrian royal court, and the inscription of Esarhaddoncontinues in this way: "the true fact of (my) succession was broughthome to my brothers, and the (way) of the gods they abandoned andto their own violent deeds trusted, plotting evil, evil tongue, lyingslander, 384 against the will of the gods, they set afoot against meand (with) unholy disloyalty behind my back they planned rebellionwith each other. (Any) who interpreted my father’s wish, against the(intent of the) gods they made him angry against me (any) who wasdeep of heart, him they treated kindly, his eyes (i.e. apparent intent)being set as though to sustain my royalty.” 385ExileDissensions among the royal sons become acute in Nisannu 681B.C., 386 when Esarhaddon left the capital and he writes: "accordingto the wisdom of the great gods, my lords, in the face of evil doingsthey let me dwell in a secret place, their kindly aegis over me theyspread and safeguarded me for the royalty.” 387 Thus the questionarises of what nature were the relations between the king and thecrown prince. Some scholars suppose that Esarhaddon really fellinto disfavour due to evil-speaking, as could imply his inscription,and that is why he fled into the security of Western provinces, fromwhere his mother Naqī’a may originated. 388 But, however, why didnot Sennacherib change his successor in such a case? The second383 SAA II, XXVIII (also Borger 1956, 40 (Nin. A: i 8-19), = Thompson 1931,9).384 Simo Parpola assumes that these aspersions "may have been malevolentreferences to the physical "debility" of the prince" (Parpola 1983, 235).However, this assumption is disclaimed by Sarah C. Melville, who arguesthat Esarhaddon’s health condition was a public knowledge, and hence, itcould not be the object of aspersions (Melville 1999, 24).385 Thompson 1931, 10: i 23-31 (= Melville 1999, 24, and Borger 1956: Nin.A).386 PNA 3/I, 1115, Parpola 1980, 175 and 178, note 38, 40, and Nissinen1998, 20.387 Thompson 1931, 10: i 38-40 (= Borger 1956: Nin. A).388 Borger, Hinz, Römer 1984, 392. As for the question of Naqī’a’s origin, seeabove.160

scenario is that the king realized the danger threatening the crownprince at the royal court very well, and he himself sent him to thesufficiently safe place. 389A number of very important reports come from this and contiguousperiod. Besides several prophetic texts addressed to Esarhaddonand his mother 390 that very accord with later Esarhaddon’s royalinscriptions, 391 in particular, there are two letters. The first wassent by certain Mardî who, among other things, writes to the kingthese sentences: "I grasped [the feet of the crown prince], savedmyself from it in darkness and hunger, and fled to the Tower [withthe crown prince], my [l]ord." And then he continues: "I constantlyprayed to [B]ēl, Nabû and Šamaš for the king, my lord, saying, "Maythe crown prince, my lord, seize the royal throne of his father’shouse!"” 392 The author of the second letter is the astrologer Bēlušēzibwho says: "Why [did the king my lord sum]mon prophets andprophetesses w[hen I disclosed] the many [th]ings I had heard inNineveh, (while) [I, who] blocked the exorcist with my mouth and[we]nt to pay homage to the crown prince my lord, who evadedexecution [by fleeing] to the Tower, 393 whose murder along withyour servants [was plotted] every day, and who told the omen of thekingship of my lord the crown prince Esarhaddon to the exorcistDadâ and the queen mother, saying: "Esarhaddon will rebuildBabylon and restore Esagila, and [honor] me."” 394 It is apparentthat Esarhaddon did not leave for the city of Tower alone, but hewas followed by a number of his servants who stayed on his side.Furthermore, he was accompanied by substantial lifeguard intendedfor his protection. 395389 Parpola 1980, 175, Melville 1999, 24-25, and Nissinen 1998, 20.390 E.g.: "I am the Lady of Arbela. To the king's mother: Because youimplored me, saying: "You have placed the ones at the (king's) right andleft side in your lap, but made my own offspring roam the steppe" — Nowfear not, my king! The kingdom is yours, yours is the power! By the mouthof the woman Aḫat-abiša of Arbela." (SAA IX, no. 1: v 12-24).391 See Nissinen 1998, 14ff.392 SAA XVI, no. 29 (ABL 916). In PNA 2/II, the author of this letter isconsidered to be a Babylonian living in the reign of Esarhaddon (PNA 2/II,704), however, regarding the content of the letter and the letter ABL 1216,I suppose - pursuant to the opinion of Simo Parpola – that this Mardî is theservant of the governor of Barḫalzi (PNA 2/II, 703), and the text is relatedto the crown prince Esarhaddon (Parpola 1980, 178-179).393 URU.a-ši-ti.394 SAA X, no. 109 (ABL 1216).395 Nissinen 1998, 21.161

3. The struggle for accession and the assumption ofpowerThe death of SennacheribIn the meantime the animosity between the king and adversaries ofEsarhaddon in Assyria headed by Arda-Mullissi increased. Therightful successor was in exile, however, there was no legal way toeliminate him unless Sennacherib himself would like to depriveEsarhaddon of his privileged position. Esarhaddon describes theatmosphere in Assyrian capital in inscription dated to 673 B.C.:"Thereafter my brothers went mad and whatever was wickedagainst gods and men they did, and plotted evil". 396 Among theconspirators, there were engaged not only older royal sons but alsosome of the high-ranking officers and close servants of the king.Although the information on the planned regicide was shortlybefore the attack disclosed, the man who wanted warn the king wasdetected and abolished by the conspirators from the Sennacherib’sclosest circles. 397 After this incident, the conspirators had to actquickly, and therefore Sennacherib was murdered on 20 th of themonth of Ṭebētu 681 B.C. 398 in front of the bull colossi 399 apparently396 Thompson 1931, 10: i 41-42.397 This information is known from the letter ABL 1091 addressed to the kingEsarhaddon shortly after his accession. Its author wanted to warn the newking that some persons involved in his father’s murder are still at the court,especially the chariot driver of Sennacherib Nabû-šuma-iškun (see PNA2/II, 888) and Babylonian magnate Ṣillāia (see PNA 3/I, 1173-1174):"(Beginning destroyed) … our [brothe]rs, [citizens of] Babylo[n ...] [Šulm]uaḫḫēin the house [...] When they heard about the [tre]aty of rebellionwhich [...], one o[f them] ap[pealed] to the king before .... Nabû-šuma-iškunand Ṣi[llāia] came and ques[tioned him]: "[What] is your appeal to the kingab[out]?" He (answered): "It is about Arda-[Mullissi]." Th[ey covered] hisface with his cloak and made him stand before Arda-Mul[lissi himself],saying: "Look! [Your appeal] is being granted, say it with your own mouth!"He said: "Your son Arda-[Mullissi] will kill you." They uncovered [his] face,and after Arda-Mu[llissi] had interrogated him, th[ey] ... hi[m] and hisbrothers. When [...] of the men — Šarḫiia, N[N ...] Nabû-aḫa-ereš, [he didnot] believe it. [He sho]uld question the men of the house of Ard[a-Mullissi]. No[w then th]ey [ha]ve [rec]eived [all kinds of] nice [wo]rds about[...] [When th]ey [w]rote to the ki[ng, our lord], the king [our lord] … (restdestroyed)." (SAA XVIII, no. 100 (ABL 1091)). For more see Parpola 1980,171-182.398 Parpola 1980, 171.399 His grandson Aššurbanipal writes: "Den Rest der Ûberlebenden bei denStierkolossen, wo man Sanherib, meinen Großvater, hingemetzelt hatte,damals machte ich diese Leute zu seinem Totenopfer." (Streck 1916b, 38-39: iv 70-73).162

guarding some temple. 400 Nevertheless, the name of the city wherethe murder took place stayed unclear. The cities Babylon, Nineveh,Dūr-Šarrukēn and Kalḫu can be taken in consideration, and Ninevehseems to be the likeliest possibility. 401 After all, Esarhaddon himselfvalidates this assumption when he says: "they drew the sword in themidst of Nineveh godlessly: to exercise the kingship against eachother they rushed like young steers.” 402 On the contrary, the Neo-Babylonian chronicle merely states that: "On the twentieth day ofthe month Ṭebētu Sennacherib, king of Assyria, was killed by hisson (lit. his son killed him) in a rebellion. For [twenty-four] yearsSennacherib ruled Assyria." 403Esarhaddon ś fight with the rebelsThe regicide embroiled whole Assyria and there took place a civilwar which lasted for two months. 404 The assassination ofSennacherib presumably provoked the abomination to hismurderer(s), 405 and Esarhaddon states that "The people of Assyriawho the covenants by the oath of the great gods had sworn withwater and oil to guard my royalty, went not to their aid." 406 Theposition of Esarhaddon was also hardened by a number ofprophecies in which the highest Assyrian gods proclaimed theirsupport and affirmed his claim to the throne. 407Esarhaddon was in a close connection with his supporters atAssyrian court, especially with his mother Naqī’a 408 who informedhim and encouraged by all means. Therefore, the crown prince gotknowledge of the cruel fate of his father very soon, 409 and almost400 Parpola 1980, 175.401 Frahm 1997, 19.402 Thompson 1931, 10: i 43-44.403 Grayson 1975, 81-82: 34-36.404 "The rebellion continued in Assyria from the twentieth day of the monthṬebētu until the second day of the month Addaru. On the twentyeighth/eighteenthday of the month Addaru Esarhaddon, his son, ascendedthe throne in Assyria." (Grayson 1975, 81-82: 35-38)405 Nissinen 1998, 21.406 Thompson 1931, 11: i 50-52.407 SAA IX, nos. 1 and 5. The prophecies SAA IX, nos. 2 and 3 are related tothe period shortly after the Esarhaddon’s accession. See also Nissinen1998, 14-30.408 Melville 1999, 28.409 "I, Esarhaddon, who by the help of the great gods, his lords, hath notturned his back in the midst of battle, soon heard of their wicked doings,and, crying "Woe!” rent my princely robe and uttered lamentation. Like alion I roared and my spirit was stirred. To carry on the royal rule of my163

immediately, in the month of Šabāṭu, he set forth at the head of hisarmy to Assyria. 410 A part of his troops was clearly his lifeguardwith which he left for exile. However, there are some assumptionsthat Esarhaddon essentially presupposed the dead of his father andhe prepared the march against the conspirators and gathered thearmy some time before. 411 But even his enemies did not procrastinateand they set forth with their own troops against Esarhaddon.The encounter battle is described by Esarhaddon as follows:"In front of me in the land of Ḫanigalbat all their stout warriorstaking post in front of my expedition, sharpened their weapons. Thefear of the great gods, my lords, overwhelmed them and they sawthe fierce front of my array, and became as though possessed: Ištar,the lady of war and battle, who loveth my priesthood, took her standat my side and shattered their bows, broke up their well-knit battlearray and amid themselves they spake thus: "This is our king.” Byher supreme command they returned to my side, coming after me.Weak as young lambs they besought my lordship. The people ofAssyria who had sworn agreements by the name of the great godsbefore me came into my presence and kissed my feet, while, as forthose scoundrels who were making rebellion and revolt, they heardof the march of my expedition and deserted the troops who werehelping them, and fled to an unknown land." 412Esarhaddon assumption to the throneAccording to the Babylonian chronicle the fights went on until thesecond day of the month of Addaru. 413 Esarhaddon and his troopsfather's house I clapped my hands: to Aššur, Sîn, Šamaš, Bēl, Nabû, andNergal, Ištar of Nineveh, Ištar of Arbela, I raised my hands, and theyreceived my prayer with favour: with their true "yea” they sent a helpfuloracle thus: "Go, stay not: We will march at thy side and destroy thineenemies.”” (Thompson 1931, 11: i 53-62).410 "One day, two days I waited not, the van of my army I did not inspect, norsaw the rearguard; nor did I consider the trappings of the horses, theharnessing of the yokes, nor the furniture of battle, nor issue provisions formy campaign. I feared not the snow (or) cold of Šabāṭu, the rigorous frost,Like the flying ...(?) to overwhelm my enemies I spread my forces. The roadto Nineveh with difficulty and in ail haste I took." (Thompson 1931, 11-12: i63-69).411 Nissinen 1998, 21.412 Thompson 1931, 12: i 70-84.413 "The rebellion continued in Assyria from the twentieth day of the monthṬebētu until the second day of the month Addaru." (Grayson 1975, 81-82:36-37).164

crossed Tigris, on 8 th Addaru he victoriously entered Nineveh, 414and on 18 th or 28 th day of the same month he officially assumed thereign as a new Assyrian king. 415 Presumably just before hisaccession, 416 Esarhaddon made Assyrians took an oath in which hebound his servants to unreserved allegiance and loyalty, reportingall the iniquities spoken of the ruler. 417 Nevertheless, Esarhaddonhad to fumble with the aftermaths of the rebellion during thefollowing years and he writes as follows: "The transgressors whohad induced my brothers to the evil plans for taking over thekingship of Assyria I searched out, each and every one of them,imposed a heavy punishment upon them, and destroyed theirseed.” 418ConclusionThe events before and during Esarhaddon’s accession had, withoutquestion, a very deep influence on the form of his reign. However,at least the same - if not greater - was the impact of his poor healthcondition. 419Health conditionJust the ruler’s health troubles significantly formed the compositionof Assyrian royal court but also his relations the other members ofroyal family. During the reign of Esarhaddon, there was a lot ofscholars at the court who were educated in various disciplines, andtheir main duty was the wellbeing of the king. Naturally, these414 "I reached the embankment of the Tigris and, upon the command of Sînand Šamaš, the lords of the harbor, I let all my troops jump across thebroad river Tigris as if it were nothing but a ditch. In the month of Addaru,a favorable month, on the 8 th day, the day of the eššēšu festival of Nabû, Ijoyfully entered into Nineveh, the residence of my lordship, and happilyascended the throne of my father. The Southwind, the breeze of Ea, wasblowing — the wind whose blowing portends well for exercising thekingship. Favorable omens in the sky and on earth came to me. Oracles ofprophets, messages of the gods and the Goddess, were constantly sent tome and they encouraged my heart." (Nissinen 1998, 14 (= Thompson 1931,12-13: i 84 - ii 11, and Borger 1956: Nin. A)).415 "On the twenty-eighth/eighteenth day of the month Addaru Esarhaddon,his son, ascended the throne in Assyria." (Grayson 1975, 81-82: 38)416 SAA II, XXVIII.417 SAA II, no. 4 (date: 681).418 Nissinen 1998, 14 ((= Thompson 1931, 12-13: i 84 - ii 11, and Borger1956: Nin. A)).419 Parpola 1983, 234ff.165

scholars were objectively needful in consideration of the king’shealth condition, however, among the symptoms of Esarhaddon’sdisease there were possibly the psychical difficulties as well, andsuch a number of scholars was perhaps one of the manifestation ofthis disease. The ruler suffered from melancholia and excessiveapprehension that intensified his demands for the number and workeffort of physicians, exorcists, astrologers and diviners. And finally,more letters and reports related to magic, astrology, and medicineale dated to the reign of Esarhaddon then to the reign of hispredecessors and successors in total. It is nonnegligible fact, 420even if we have a respect to the reality that we know only a hardlyconjecturable part of texts written in ancient Assyria. 421Physicians and other scholars at the royal courtThere are preserved two lists of scholars in the most importantdisciplines of Mesopotamian scholarship who were active at theEsarhaddon’s court. 422 The prominent of these astrologers 423(ṭupšar Enūma Anu Enlil, or only ṭupšarru), lamentation priests 424(kalû), exorcists 425 (āšipu), diviners 426 (bārû) and physicians 427(asû) 428 formed the closest circle of the king’s servants 429 who caredfor ruler’s physical health and for his purity in relation to the gods.Nevertheless, they also influenced Esarhaddon’s political andprivate decisions by their recommendations and advices. 430 Royalscholars did not operate separately but they very closely cooperatedand they were grouped in some teams of specialists, 431 whichsometimes led to the rivalry 432 and aversion for the colleagues. 433Particularly, in the field of medicine, the most significantcompetitors were chief physician Urād-Nanāiia and chief exorcistAdad-šumu-uṣur. 434 Moreover, these scholars were very often the420 Ibid., 135.421 Ibid., XII.422 SAA VII, nos. 1 and 2.423 See Fincke 2003/2004, 117, SAA X, XIII and XXXIV, note 1.424 See SAA X, XIII and XXXIV, note 1.425 See ibid..426 See ibid..427 See ibid..428 SAA X, no. 160: b. e. 49.429 Parpola 1983, XVI.430 See Geller 2010, 75-88.431 SAA X, XXIV, and SAA IV, XXXI.432 Parpola 1983, XVIII.433 E.g. LAS nos. 36, 121, 224, 264 and especially 12 (= SAA X, no. 23) and65.434 See Geller 2010, 79ff.166

members of a few prominent families,435 and they could thanks tothe influence over the king assert their own intentions.Extispicies, queries to the gods and ritualsConcern for the ruler’s health is also expressed in several preservedqueries to the sun-god Šamaš. 436 By virtue of the faith that thediseases are caused by activities of evil powers of different nature,there was perform a number of rituals necessary to theirdistraction, to keeping or renewal the cultic purity of the king, andto ensure the security in general. The most part of recordsconcerning rituals deals with the ritual of substitute king (šar pūḫi)which performance is documented in most cases just during theEsarhaddon’s reign. This ritual was performed at least six times, 437and three of these performances were even undertaken for Assyriaand Babylonia together. 438 Besides of the ritual of substitute king,there were performed some another prophylactic rituals, forinstance Maqlû, 439 ritual against the curse, 440 against thunder and435 Parpola 1983, XVII-XVIII. For more about the families of Assyrian andBabylonian scholars, see Hunger 1968, 17ff.436 SAA IV, no. 183 (date: 672-00-00), no. 184 and 185 (date: 000-04-22).437 See Parpola 1983, XXIII. However, during the years 679 and 669 B.C., theeclipse of sun and moon appeared in a very short time, hence, there is apossibility that particular ritual took place for both eclipses. The ritualfollowing the eclipse is documented for the years: 679 or 674 B.C. (SAA X,no. 1 (date: 679-06-15 or 674-06-15); ibid., no. 2 (date: 679-08-15 or 674-08-15); ibid., no. 3 (date: 679-09-25 or 674-09-25)), 677 B.C. (Parpolasuggests ibid., no. 219, but in SAA X, 172, is this letter dated to 669-03-26),twice in year 671 B.C. (ibid., no. 189 (date: 671-04-00); ibid., no. 11 (date:671-06-04); ibid., n. 347 (date: 671-04-17); ibid., no. 314 (date: 671-06-00to 671-07-00); ibid., no.12 (date: 671-06-19); ibid., no. 350 (date: 671-07-22); ibid., no. 240 (date: 671-10-13); ibid., no. 351 (date: 671-10-20); ibid.,no. 352 (date: 671-09-00 to 671-10-00)) 670 B.C. (ibid., no. 45 (date: 670-08-28); ibid., no. 71 (date: 670-09-13 to 670-09-1); ibid., no. 377 (date: 670-10-00)), and 669 B.C. (ibid., no. 25 (date: 669-02-29); ibid., no. 148 (date:669-02-29); ibid., no. 209 (date: 669-03-09); ibid., no. 210 (date: 669-03-12); ibid., no. 211 (date: 669-03-12); ibid., no. 26 (date: 669-03-13); ibid.,no. 128 (date: 669-03-14); ibid., no. 325 (date: 669-03-14); ibid., no. 212(date: 669-03-17); ibid., no. 216 (date: 669-03-00); ibid., no. 219 (date: 669-03-26); ibid., no. 220 (date: 669-04-10); ibid., no. 221 (date: 669-04-12)).438 Parpola 1983, XXV. The complete eclipse of sun requiring the substituteking for Assyria and also for Babylonia occurred in 679 B.C., and completeeclipse of moon occurred in the years 674 and 671 B.C. (see Parpola 1983,XXIII).439 SAA X, no. 274 (date: 670-05-00).440 Ibid., no 15 (date: 670-04-00 or 669-04-00).167

lightning, 441 earthquake, 442 unfavourable celestial constellation, 443sorcery, 444 against epilepsy, 445 malaria and plague, 446 and againstsome evil in general. 447The concern for health of members of the royal familyAn experience with his own chronic disease eventuated inEsarhaddon’s fear for the health condition of his relatives, and thus,there is a large number of reports, letters and queries related to thehealth and ritual purity of the members of the royal family. All theroyal children 448 were cared for at all points from their birth.Esarhaddon apprehensively attended to their progress, and he wasfrequently apprised of their health. Royal children grew up in thecharge of the priests and other scholars who took care not only oftheir health and education, but they also paid attention to avoidsome trespass in the cultic sphere. The major person of theseletters and reports is naturally the crown prince, 449 but there arealso the mentions of the other royal children. 450 When the crownprince fell ill, Esarhaddon made his tender to send him detailedreports on medical treatments, 451 and through the diviners he askedthe gods whether the prince should undergo certain treatment, 452and whether he recovers. 453 The same attention was given byEsarhaddon to his mother Naqī’a, and therefore, we have reports onher illness and recovery, 454 on rituals performed for her, 455 andqueries to the gods as well. 456441 Ibid., no. 42 (date: 670-01-00), no. 69 (date: 670-01-00).442 Ibid., nos. 55 (date: 669-03-00), 56 (date: 669-03-00), 202 (date: 670-04-00?), and 203 (date: 670-04-28?).443 Ibid., nos. 67 (date: 671-01-03) and 206 (date: 669-01-00).444 Ibid., nos. 256 (date: 670-09-00) and 296 (date: 671-12-01).445 Ibid., no. 238 (date: 672-00-00 to 671-00-00).446 Ibid., no. 296 (date: 671-12-01).447 Ibid., no. 254 (date: 670-08-00).448 Some of Esarhaddon’s children are named e.g. in text Menzel 1981, T17f:no. 15). See also Parpola 1983, 117-119.449 E.g. SAA X, nos. 323: 7-12, and 193 (date: 672-00-00 to 669-00-00);450 E.g. ibid., nos. 321, 328 (date: 675-00-00 to 669-00-00), 329, 319, and 320(date 672-00-00 to 669-00-00).451 E.g. ibid., nos. 322: 1-14, 191 (date: 672-00-00 to 669-00-00), 310 (date:680-00-00 to 669-00-00), 322 (date: 672-00-00 to 669-00-00), and 323(date: 672-00-00 to 669-00-00)452 E.g. SAA IV, no. 187: 1-9 and rev. 8-12.453 E.g. ibid., nos. 188, 189, and 199.454 SAA X, nos. 244 (date: 670-04-00), and 297 (date: 670-04-00); SAA IV, no.190.168

The appointment of the crown princeAs concerns his reign, Esarhaddon differed from his father in manyrespects. He did not share Sennacherib’s antipathy to Babylon andhe decided to reopen Assyrian expansion. However, on the otherhand, Esarhaddon followed his father in some cases. After his eldestson and crown prince Sîn-nādin-apli 457 untimely died, 458Esarhaddon concludes to resolve the question of succession in aninnovative way. As his successor he designated one of his youngerson Aššurbanipal, while the older Šamaš-šuma-ukīn was appointedas a future Babylonian king. Assyria, therefore, had two crownprinces - the Assyrian and the Babylonian. Although Šamaš-šumaukīnwas subordinated to his younger brother, his name appearsrather often next to the name of Aššurbanipal. Aššurbanipal is inthese texts titled as the crown prince that means the future king ofthe whole empire, and Šamaš-šuma-ukīn is called the crown princeof Babylon. 459The promotion of the younger son Aššurbanipal is sometimesexplained in the same way as the earlier designation of Esarhaddon- by virtue of the influence of the queen, Aššurbanipal’s motherEšarra-ḫammat. 460 Although we have no evidence about Ešarra-ḫammat when she was alive, and moreover, she was not the onlywife of Esarhaddon, 461 her position at the royal court was very455 SAA X, nos. 200 (date: 670-00-00 a-669-06-00?), and 201 (date: 670-00-00a-669-06-00?).456 SAA IV, nos. 190 and 191.457 Concerning the appointment of Sîn-nādin-apli, there is preserved a queryin which Esarhaddon asks Šamaš: "Šamaš, great lord, give me a firmpositive answer to what I am asking you! Should Esarhaddon, king ofAssyria, strive and plan? Should he enter his son, Sîn-nādin-apli, whosename is written in this papyrus and placed before your great divinity, intothe Succession Palace? Is it pleasing to your great divinity? Is it acceptableto your great divinity? Does your great divinity know it? Is the entering ofSîn-nādin-apli, son of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, whose name is writtenin this papyrus, into the Succession Palace, decreed and confirmed in afavorable case, by the command of your great divinity, Šamaš, great lord?Will he who can see, see it? Will he who can hear, hear it?" (SAA IV, no.149: 1-10).458 However, the later texts give no reference to Sîn-nādin-apli whichindicates that he probably untimely (Streck 1916a, CLXXXV; PNA 3/I,1138).459 E.g.: "I have given instructions about the offerings for Aššurbanipal, thegre[at crow]n prince, for Šamaš-šuma-ukīn, the crown prince of Babylon,for Šeru’a-eṭirat, for Aššur-mukīn-palēi’a, and for Ašš[ur-et]el-šamê-erṣetimuballissu."(SAA XIII, no. 56: rev. 6-10).460 PNA 1/I, 160. For more see PNA 1/II, 406-407, and PNA 1/I, 160ff.461 Teppo 2005, 32, 39, and 41.169

important. It may seem that she was overshadowed by queenmother Naqī’a but Ešarra-ḫammat was so much revered andappreciate that her dead in 672 B.C. is mentioned even in oneBabylonian chronicle. 462 The demise of the queen affectedEsarhaddon in such a degree that he arranged a pretentiousburial 463 and built a mausoleum 464 where were brought offerings, 465and crown prince Aššurbanipal himself was responsible for thebuilding. 466 Even though Ešarra-ḫammat was likewise the mother ofŠamaš-šuma-ukīn, 467 she had probably closer relation to youngerAššurbanipal, and Aššurbanipal gave reasons for his appointment bythe desire of his dead mother, whose ghost visited him and blessedhim. 468The persisting influence of Naqī’aDuring the Esarhaddon’s reign, likewise the influence of Naqī’aqrew, and she undertook a very important and privileged functionas a queen mother. Therefore the most part of evidence mentioningher name is dated just to this period, and it is apparent that herhousehold was similar to the household of the queen. Some textseven outline that Naqī’a could be actually more honoured 469 andwealthier 470 then the queen herself. 471 Perhaps, Naqī’a inconjunction with Ešarra-ḫammat exerted influence up thedesignation of her grandson Aššurbanipal as a Assyrian crown462 "On the fifth day of the month Addaru the king's wife died." (Grayson1975, 85: 22). The name is not mentioned, nevertheless, by virtue of otherindices, it is possible that the queen was really Ešarra-ḫammat.463 See SAA X, nos. 233 (date: 673-12-09), 234 (date: 673-12-18), and 235(date: 673-12-19).464 Borger 1956: Ass. I.465 SAA XII, no. 81 and perhaps SAA VII, no. 197.466 Menzel 1981, T17f no. 15, and also PNA 1/I, 160.467 PNA 1/I, 161, PNA 1/II, 404, and Teppo 2005, 39.468 "[The crown prince] explained [it to] my [... as follows]: "Aššur and Šamašordained me to be the crown prince of Assyria because of her (= the deadqueen's) righteousness." (And) her ghost blesses him in the same degree ashe has revered the ghost: "May his descendants rule over Assyria!" Fear ofthe gods creates kindness, fear of the infernal gods returns life. Let the[king, my] lord, give the order." (SAA X, no. 188).469 For example, the king’s chief scribe (rab ṭupšarrē) and ummânu Issāršumu-ērešaddressed to the queen mother a blessing written in the samemanner as the blessings addressed to the king and crown prince (SAA X,no. 16).470 In the lists of palace personnel possibly dated to the year 672 B.C., thereappear also the employees of the household of queen mother (SAA VII, nos.9 (date: early 672) and 12 (date: early 672).471 Teppo 2005, 36-38.170

prince, and, shortly after the death of Esarhaddon, sheadministered an loyalty oath to his brothers, Assyrian magnates andofficers and all the Assyrians in favour of Aššurbanipal. 472Fears of insurrections and loyalty oathsNevertheless, likewise Esarhaddon himself, who was steadily afraidof an insurrection, wanted to guarantee safeness and trouble-freeaccession to the throne. Indeed, Esarhaddon’s apprehensions werewell-founded. They partly resulted from his own experiences - fromthe tragic dead of his father and following fights with conspirators -and moreover, he discovered a number of plots after hisaccession. 473 Therefore he put some of queries concerninginsurrections to the god Šamaš during his reign. 474 And when the472 "The treaty of Zakūtu, the queen of Senna[cherib, ki]ng of Assyria,mother of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, with Šamaš-šuma-ukīn, his equalbrother, with Šamaš-metu-uballiṭ and the rest of his brothers, with theroyal seed, with the magnates and the governors, the bearded and theeunuchs, the royal entourage, with the exempts and all who enter thePalace, with Assyrians high and low: Anyone who (is included) in this treatywhich Queen Zakūtu has concluded with the whole nation concerning herfavourite grandson [Aššurba]nipal, anyone (of you) who should [...]fabricate and carry out an ugly and evil thing or a revolt against your lordAššurbanipal, king of Assyria,in your hearts conceive and put into words anugly [sch]eme or an evil plot against [your lord] Aššurbanipal, king ofAssyria, [in yo]ur [hearts] deliberate and formulate an ugly suggestion andevil advice for rebellion and insurrection against your lord Aššurbanipal,king of Assyria, (or) plot [with] another [...] for the murder of your lord[Aššurbanipal, king] of Assyria: [May Aššur, Sîn, Šamaš], Jupiter, Venus,Saturn, Mercury, [Mars, and Sirius ...... sou]th and [north]. )[And if] youfrom this day on (hear) an ugly [word] of rebellion and insurrection beingspo[ken against] your lord Aššurbanipal, king of Assyria, you shall comeand inform Zakūtu his mother and Aššurbanipal, [king of Assyria], yourlord; and if you hear of (a plan) to kill or eliminate your lord [Aššur]banipal,king of Assyria, you shall come and inform Zakūtu [his mother] and yourlord Aššurbanipal, king of Assyria; and if you hear of an ugly [scheme]being elaborated against your lord Aššurbanipal, king of Assyria, you shallspeak out in the presence of Zakūtu his mother and your lord,Aššurbanipal, king of Assyria; and if you hear and know that there are meninstigating armed rebellion or fomenting conspiracy in your midst, be theybearded or eunuchs or his brothers or of royal line of your brothers orfriends or any one in the entire nation - should you hear and [know] (this),you shall seize and [kill] them and bring them to Zakūtu [his mother and toAššurbani]pal, [king of Assyria, your lord.]" (SAA II, no. 8).473 E.g. in 675 B.C. (SAA X, no. 112 (date: 675-00-00)), 671 B.C. (ibid., no.240 (date: 671-10-13)), 670 B.C. (ibid., no. 316 (date: 670-02-00)), and 670or 669 B.C. (ibid., no. 199 (date: 670-00-00 s-669-05-00?)).474 See SAA IV, nos. 139-148.171

designated Aššurbanipal as his successor on 12 th Ajjaru 672 B.C., 475he summoned his vassals to Assyria and made them to undertakethe loyalty oath in behalf of the crown prince. 476 Similar oath had toundertake the scribes from the great Assyrian cities Nineveh, Kilizi,Arbela, and Aššur, 477 but also the haruspices, exorcists, physiciansand augurs already in the first half of the month of Nisannu 672B.C.. 478After Esarhaddon’s death, Aššurbanipal assumed the reign withoutany serious conflicts - perhaps thanks to his grandmother Naqī’a, 479however, afterwards he, as well as his father Esarhaddon, did notavoid the bloody war against his brother, Babylonian ruler Šamaššuma-ukīn,in 652 B.C.. 480ReferencesAndrae, W. (1913):Die Stelenreihen in Assur, J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung,Leipzig.Baker, H. D. (ed.) (2000):The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: Ḫ-K [PNA 2/I],Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.475 Streck 1916b, 2-3, l. 11ff. See also SAA II, XXIX.476 SAA II, no. 6. See also Wiseman 1958 and SAA II, XXIX-XXXI.477 See SAA X, no. 6: "The scribes of the cities of Nin[eveh], Kilizi and Arbela(could) ent[er] the treaty; they have (already) come. (However), those ofAššur [have] not (yet) [come]. The king, my lord, [knows] that they arecler[gymen]; If it suits the king, my lord, let the former who have (already)come, enter the treaty; the citizens of Nineveh and Kalḫu would be freesoon and could enter (the treaty) under (the statues of) Bēl and Nabû onthe 8 th day. Alternatively, (if) the king, my lord, orders, let them go, dotheir work, and get free (again); let them reconvene on the 15 th , come hereand all enter the treaty in the said place at the same time. However, it iswritten as follows in the hemerologies of the month Nisannu: "He shouldnot swear on the 15 th day, (or else) the god will seize him." (Hence) theyshould en[ter] the treaty on the 15 th day, at d[awn], (but) conclude it only inthe night of the 16[ th ] day before the stars."478 See SAA X, no. 7: "The scribes, the haruspices, the exorcists, thephysicians and the augurs staying in the palace and living in the city willenter the treaty on the 16 th of Nisannu. Now, let them conclude the treatytomorrow."479 Naqī’a’s treaty (see above) could be a reaction to the repugnance againstEsarhaddon’s volition of his successor.480 Streck 1916b, 28-39.172

Baker, H. D. (ed.) (2001):The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: L-N [PNA 2/II],Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Baker, H. D. (ed.) (2002):The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: P-Ṣ [PNA 3/I],Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Black, J; George, A.; Postgate, N. (1999):A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian [CDA], Harrassowitz Verlag,Wiesbaden.Borger, R. (1956):Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien, [AfO Beih. 9],Graz.Borger, R.; Hinz, W.; Römer, W. H, Ph. (1984):Rechts- und Wirtschafturkunden Historisch-chronologische Texte:Historisch-chronologische Texte I [TUAT I/4], GütersloherVerlagshaus.Cohen, M. E. (1993):The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East, CDL Press,Bethesda, Maryland.Cole, Steven W.; Machinist, Peter (1998):Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Priests to Kings Esarhaddonand Assurbanipal [SAA XIII], Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Fales, F. M.; Postgate, J. N. (1992):Imperial Administrative Records, Part I [SAA VII], HelsinkiUniversity Press, Helsinki.Fincke, J. C. (2003/2004):The Babylonian Texts of Nineveh, Archiv für Orientforschung 50[AfO 50], Wien, 111-149.Frahm, E. (1999):Nabû-zuqup-kēnu, das Gilgameš-Epos und der Tod Sargons II,Journal of Cuneiform Studies 51 [JCS 51], New Haven-Baltimore,73-90.Frahm, E. (1997):Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften, Institut für Orientalik derUniversität, Wien.173

Frayne, Douglas (1995):The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian Period, Rulersof Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End ofAssyrian Domination [RIMB 2], University of Toronto Press,Toronto.Geller, Markham J. (2010):Ancient Babylonian Medicine: Theory and Practice, Wiley-Blackwell.George, A. R. (2003):The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, Volume I and II, Oxford UniversityPress, New York.Grayson, A. K. (1975):Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, J. J. Augustin Publisher, NewYork.Hunger, H. (1968):Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone [AOAT 2], Neukirchen-Vluyn.Hunger, H. (1992):Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings [SAA VIII], HelsinkiUniversity Press, Helsinki.Kwasman, T.; Parpola, S. (1991):Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh,Part I [SAA VI],Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Langdon, S. (1917):Sumerian Grammatical Texts [PBS 12/1], The University Museum,Philadelphia.Livingstone, A. (1989):Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea [SAA III], Helsinki UniversityPress, Helsinki.Luckenbill, D. D. (1924):The Annals of Sennacherib [OIP II], The University of ChicagoPress, Chicago.Ludlul bēl nēmeqi:Ludlul II, in: CAMS: (4 th October2010).174

Lukko, M.; Buylaere, G. Van (2002):The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon [SAA XVI], HelsinkiUniversity Press, Helsinki.Mayer, W. (1983):Sargons Feldzug gegen Urartu [MDOG 115], Berlin.Meier, G. (1937):Die assyrische Beschwörungssammlung Maqlu. Neu bearbeitet vonGerhard Meier [AfO Beih. 2], Biblio-Verlag, Osnabrück.Melville, S. C. (2004):Neo-Assyrian Royal Women and Male Identity: Status as a SocialTool , in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 124/1 [JAOS124/1], American Oriental Society , 37-57.Melville, S. C. (1999):The Role of Naqia/Zakutu in Sargonid Politics [SAAS 9], HelsinkiUniversity Press, Helsinki.Menzel, B. (1981):Assyrische Tempel, Band 2 [Studia Pohl: Series Maior 10/2], BiblicalInstitute Press, Roma.Messerschmidt, L. (1911):Keilschrifttexte aus Assur, Historischen Inhalts, Erstes Heft [KAH I],Leipzig.Nissinen, M. (1998):References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources [SAAS VII],Vammalan Kirjapano Oy, Helsinki.Parpola, S., Watanabe, K. (1988):Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths [SAA II], HelsinkiUniversity Press, Helsinki.Parpola, S. (1997):Assyrian Prophecies [SAA IX], Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Parpola, S. (2007):Assyrian-English-Assyrian Dictionary, Helsinki University Press,Helsinki.Parpola, S. (1993):Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars [SAA X], HelsinkiUniversity Press, Helsinki.175

Parpola, S. (1970):Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon andAssurbanipal [AOAT 5/1; LAS I], Neukirchener Verlag,Neukirchen-Vluyn.Parpola, S. (1983):Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon andAssurbanipal [AOAT 5/2; LAS II], Neukirchener Verlag,Neukirchen-Vluyn.Parpola, S. (1987):The Correspondance of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria andthe West [SAA I], Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Parpola, S. (1980):The Murderer of Sennacherib, in: Alster, Bendt (ed.), Death InMesopotamia [Mesopotamia 8], Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen,171-182.Pečírková, J. (1969):Stavební nápisy Sargona II. a Sinacheriba, Universita Karlova,Praha.Radner, K. (ed.) (1998):The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: A [PNA 1/I],Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Radner, K. (ed.) (1999):The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: B-G [PNA 1/II],Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Reade, J. (1995):Grants, Decrees and Gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period [SAA XII],Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Reynolds, F. (2003):The Neo-Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon and Letters toAssurbanipal and Sin-šarru-iškun from Northern and CentralBabylonia [SAA 18], Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Roth, Martha T. (ed.) (1977):The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University ofChicago, Vol. 16 [CAD M 1 ], The University of Chicago Press,Chicago.176

SAA Online: (29 th September2010)Sallaberger, W. (2006):Leipzig-Münchner Sumerische Zettelkasten, München(29 th September 2010)Starr, I. (1990):Queries to the Sungod [SAA IV], Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Steele, F. R. (1951):The University Museum Esarhaddon Prism, in: Journal of theAmerican Oriental Society 71/1 [JAOS 71/1], New Haven, 1-12.Streck, M. (1916a):Assurbanipal, Teil I., J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig.Streck, M. (1916b):Assurbanipal, Teil II., J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig.Streck, M. (1916c):Assurbanipal, Teil III., J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig.Šašková, K. (2009):Asyrský korunní princ In Acta Fakulty filozofické Západočeskéuniverzity v Plzni, p. 54-74, Plzeň.Teppo, S. (2005):Women and Their Agency in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, University ofHelsinki, Faculty of Arts, Institute for Asian and African Studies,Helsinki.Thompson, R. C. (1931):The Prisms of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, Oxford UniversityPress, London.Wiseman, D. J. (1958):The vasal treaties of Esarhaddon, in: Iraq 20, Part I, British Schoolof Archaeology in Iraq, London, 1-100.177

The University of West Bohemia archaeologicalexpedition to Arbil in northern IraqKarel Nováček, University of West Bohemia at PilsenAbstractThe city of Erbil, the past of which has been explored by a mission of theUniversity of West Bohemia at Plzeň (Pilsen) since 2006, does display asettlement history reaching back to the late 6 th millennium B.C. andpossibly even further (finds of Middle Palaeolithic stone tools). InAssyrian times, a royal palace and the temple of Ištar of Arbela areattested to in written sources, and hints for the location of one (or both)of these structures have possibly been offered by results of a geophysicalsurvey. Fortifications which probably enclosed the Assyrian Lower cityhave been traced by non-destructive archaeological methods. With thecourse of time, the settlement foci left the citadel and moved to the Lowercity, with the first Islamic community settling down west of the citadel.During the Middle Ages, the city received new fortifications makingpartly use of the old Assyrian ramparts. Surface surveys of the vicinity ofErbil were also carried out, with abundant and positive results.Keywords: History of ancient Mesopotamia, history of medievalMesopotamia, Neo-Assyrian period, Assyria, king of Assyria, Ištar ofArbela, Islamic settlement, city fortifications.The site of Arbil represents one of the most important historicalsites, if the the most important historical site, in the Kurdishautonomous region of northern Iraq. 481Its historical significance stands out clearly, and the city has madehistory for more than the last four millennia. It gained fame as theIštar shrine and royal palace of the Assyrian period (Fig. 1), but itsdocumented past reaches as far back as the age of king Šulgi of theThird dynasty of Ur (2095–2047 B.C.). The Czech expedition foundevidence for still earlier settlement traces datable to the period ofthe Ubaid culture, and it can now be observed that the citadel areaof Arbil has been continuously settled for more than six millennia ofhuman history.481 This brief overview of the results is synopsis from the comprehensivepaper devoted to the Arbil´s historical topography which is now preparedfor publication. The research and the completing of this paper wassupported by the Czech Science Foundation, project No. 404/09/0043.179

Fig. 1: Assyrian relief from Nineveh with the view of Urbilum (Arbil)(source: http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/arbela/arbela.html, citedOctober 10 th , 2010)The mound of the Arbil citadel, a most impressive cultural andhistorical monument, rises 28–32 m above the surrounding plain,and has been found to consist entirely of anthropogenous strata.The overall strategy of the Czech team with respect to theinvestigation of the Arbil city and region, but especially the citadel,has been conceived during the first campaign on the site which tookplace in 2006, and we set before us the following tasks:1) securing of the very basic documentation, especially a siteplan, as the existing documents, insofar as they areavailable, do not supply the necessary information;2) getting knowledge of the stratigraphy and chronology of themonument;3) sharing of information with, and training, of the local staffand students of the Department of archaeology, SalahaddinUniversity at Arbil180

4) gathering all the available information on the historicaldevelopment of the city and its region, and5) creation of an information system.As to the investigation of the essential spatiotemporal contextsconcerning the site, three small-scale exploratory soundings and anextensive surface survey covering the accessible areas of the citadelmound have enabled us to outline the essential historical stages ofoccupation of this important site. The early evidence of humansettlement in the area of the Arbil citadel reaches back into theMiddle Palaeolithic times. This is the date of a group of stoneimplements found in secondary context. Material datable to theNeolithic and Chalcolithic periods follows next, and then, as was tobe expected, we observed a great prominence of Late Assyrian ware(including so-called palace beakers). This was followed by potteryfinds of Hellenistic age, and next we registered the presence ofnumerous examples of Islamic wares including 9 th -century luxuryware, possibly brought from Basrah in southern Iraq. 482In terms of the geophysical survey of the site, we investigated amicro-gravimetric section of the citadel along its N-S axis. The mostimportant information that this procedure brought forth is theexistence of a concentration of coarse stone blocks and rubble atthe depth of 16-22 m in the northern part of the citadel. Anotherconcentration of what may be stone débris was recorded east of themain citadel area, in roughly the same depth (14-22 m). Both ofthese may represent remains of Late Assyrian monumentalarchitecture. The small-scale excavations contributed but materialsof the 20 th century A.D..The Czech team also engaged in the investigation of the sites´sarchitectural heritage. The citadel area was rather abruptlyevacuated in 2007, and the habitation structures, left over to theelements, began to deteriorate. As a number of these representvaluable remains of Late Ottoman domestic architecture, wedecided to launch an evaluation- and recording campaign of thesestructures. This resulted in the total number of 75 house complexessingled out for restoration.In the year 2009, we concentrated on exploring the fortificationlines of the citadel. City walls of the Medieval and Post-medieval482 For comprehensive description of the first results see: Nováček, K., ChabrT., Filipský D., Janíček L., Pavelka K., Šída P., Trefný M. and Vařeka P.2008: Research of the Arbil Citadel, Iraqi Kurdistan, First Season, Památkyarcheologické XCIX, 259–302.181

periods constituted the target of our endeavour, and these werefound to consist of mudbrick curtain walls more than 2–2. 5 m thick,probably pierced by bastions, resembling the still existing medievalfortifications of Kirkuk citadel.One of the goals of our research was the assembly of a unifiedinformation system where all the data concerning the Arbil citadelwould be rendered acccessible to specialists, students and thepublic. Such a system was actually created under the abbreviatedname of CIVIS 483 in cooperation with GemaArt Group company andCzech Technical University Prague. The system is intendedprimarily for description of the architectural heritage of the citadelbut cam be extended easily by adding of archaeological modules.The hinterland of Arbil tell is important component of our research.The information which we collected consisted of environmentaldata, as well as of a number of historical sources of relevance.These included- medieval written sources,- travelogues,- aerial and satellite imagery and- results of fieldwork.By the analysis of written sources as well as of twenty-fivetravelogues we have managed to pinpoint some sixty monumentalbuildings existing in the town from the Late Sasanian throughIslamic ages. In terms of aerial and satellite imagery, we have beenfortunate enough to gain access to a series of historical aerialphotos made before the year 1936, in 1938, 1947 and 1952 by theRAF of the United Kingdom. We also secured the CORONA imagesof 1969, which can be profitably compared with Google Earthimagery.Of the minor archaeological operations, I wish to mention thedocumentation of an earth section 9 m high, laid abre duringbuilding of a commercial centre in the lower town of Arbil. Thesequence consisted of Islamic layers on the top, underlied by asequence of settlement layers of uncertain date, a sand-and-gravellayer, pre-Neolithic loess stratum, another sand-and-gravel layerand with a stratum with Mousterian stone industry at the verybottom of the pit.483 This system can be consulted online at http://lfgm.fsv.cvnt.cz/citadel/(cited October 10 th , 2010).182

Remote-sensing technology has been used to lay bare traces of twofortification systems of Arbil (Fig. 2). System I displayed a rampartbody some 20 m thick, with outer sloping glacis and a ditch in frontof it. The North part of the fortification probably included a risallitegate. This construction finds parallels in rampart systems ofAssyrian cities such as the western part of the Aššur city wall, orthe fortification of Nineveh which is 45 m thick. An Assyrian stonerelief shows well the mighty crenellated ramparts which onceprotected Arbil of the Assyrian age. System I once enclosed anirregularly round area of 3 km 2 , and was probably linked directly toramparts of the citadel in the way which left the East portion of thecitadel mound open to the landscape.System II was represented by a thinner wall accompanied by anouter ditch, and its later age is borne out by the superposition ofthis wall over the ditch of System I. In its southeastern part, theoutline of the wall features a series of lighter spots lying close toeach other, possibly to be interpreted as buttresses or turrets of thewall. System II may date from the Middle Islamic period. It seemsthat System II re-used the fortification lines of Assyrian age but thatit enclosed a somewhat reduced area.In addition to all this, the analysis of aerial imagery brought forthdocumentation of a series of hollow ways forming a clearlycentripetal set centred on possible tell in NE vicinity of the citadel.This makes it likely that it emerged as a settlement focus in theBronze Age, since this is the date accorded mostly to such systemsby recent researches in North Jazira and elsewhere. The parallelexistence of the tell nearby the Arbil citadel, integrated in the townfortification, provokes considerations about another characteristicfeature of the Assyrian residential towns – the secondary citadel.Two towers visible on its summit of the tell may be identifiedtentatively with the fortress named Khuftidakān az-Zarzāwī,mentioned in the first half of the 13 th century by Ibn Khalikan.183

Fig. 2: Archaeological map of Arbil according to satellite/aerialimagery and survey (light grey = tells, dark grey = wadis, hatchedareas = cemeteries, lines = hollow ways and other linear features,dashed lines = roads)In comparison with the major centres of the Assyrian world such asNineveh or Kalḫu, Arbil does appear as smaller. Yet, it possesses anumber of interesting structures, firstly the tell northeast of thecitadel. Square structures of unknown date have been documentedby remote sensing on the South outskirt of the Lower Town. Thesemight represent habitation structures as well as tombs: similar Neo-Assyrian burial features has been investigated by the German teamin 2009.In terms of Post-Assyrian Arbil, sources refer to the western part ofthe ancient Lower Town as to the "old city" in the 12 th century A.D.184

It was there that the Congregation mosque was built then, includingthe Xoli minaret, the only structure of Medieval Arbil that is stillstanding. Soundings in its vicinity carried out in 1960´s yieldedmaterials of Umayyad and Early Abbasid dates. These findings seemto confirm the traditions of early Arab urban settlement in this area.In 2009, a small tell called Gird Baxçan was explored by us.Situated 4 km southwest of Qalat Arbil, it furnished us with findsdating to the Halaf culture, the Ninevite V age, Middle to LateAssyrian periods and the Early and Middle Islamic epochs.Geophysical survey was conducted as part of this investigation.Conclusions1) The earliest evidence of the settlement on the central tell(citadel, Qalat Arbil) comes from the Late Ubaid period.2) Assyrian Urbilum displays the usual structure of a majorurban centre: a fortified lower town surrounding the citadelwith building layout and tombs(?), and a secondary centrenortheast of the citadel.3) Post-Assyrian Arbil retained the status of a regional capital.The first Early Islamic settlement emerged on the westernperimeter of the Sasanian city nucleus, perhaps at adistance from the local Christian establishments. The citadelkept its importance in the 8 th -9 th centuries A.D., and thewhole city underwent a re-structuration in the 12 th century,including erection of the city wall and of communalbuildings.DiscussionOtto: In fact, this is a huge site, even if you are comparing it withmegalopoleis of the Assyrian world. Could it be possible to excavatethe risallite gate?Nováček: Unfortunately, it has been entirely obliterated by modernbuilding activities.Otto: How far did such destruction go, and where wouldexcavations be possible?185

Nováček: In fact, they could take place only with excavation worksinside the city. Outside the citadel they could be easier, and we arecurrently negotiating for an excavation permit within the citadelarea.Otto: As a matter of fact, one side of the tell seems to me to consistof a milder slope than other sides. Could you dig there? And did youcome across any traces of paving of the road within the citadel inyour geophysical survey? Can you see such features through thepavements?Nováček: Yes, this is possible. We used the micro-gravimetricmethod withich measures tiny differences in the earth’s gravitationforce. This means that what is being measured here are differencesin structures of sediments. Thereby, we are getting a splendidinformation about the mound itself as it consists entirely ofsediments, with the exception of possible ruins.Sallaberger: Have you come across any traces of secondmillenniummaterials?Nováček: At present, we have only a few Middle to Late Assyrianpottery finds. This makes the surface collection gathered during ourearlier research a valuable contribution, in spite of the fact that it isclearly highly biased. For example, we have not managed to obtainany data on fourth-millennium settlement.Charvát: You have mentioned Sasanian structures situated outsidethe citadel. Are there any more detailed data on these?Nováček: Yes, there are. According to sources including also thefamous Chronicle of Arbela, at least three early Christian churchesand a monastery were established in the Lower town, probably inforefront of the southern citadel gate, which seems to have been theonly entrance to the citadel throughout the Middle Ages.186

IndexNot included are the following entities: logograms, SIS, names ofscholars, "City-league seals", Ur Excavations and Ur Excavation textsvolumes.A"A praise poem of Šulgi" 84; 91;101Abī-ešuḫ 114; 128; 131; 140Abu Salabikh 43; 46; 62Adab 45; 51; 54; 61; 81; 96Adad 148; 155; 160; 166Adad-nārārī 148Adad-šumu-uṣur 166Adasi 148Addaru 163; 164; 165; 170administration 20; 23; 25; 26;31; 33; 36; 39; 43; 58; 65; 96;113; 120; 121; 123; 124; 125;136administrative 19; 21; 25; 26;27; 29; 32; 42; 43; 65; 68; 79;95; 96; 102; 114; 115; 116;120; 122; 123; 127administrator 32; 33; 127; 136Aḫat-abiša 161Ahlamu 119Aja 137; 138; 139; 140; 141;142; 143Ajjaru 172Akhenaton 80akītu festival 147Akkad 75-85; 87; 89; 148; 149;150; 151Akkadian 29; 75-85; 87; 153Akkadian Empire 75-85Akkadianization 81Amar-Girid 76Ammī-ditana 114; 131; 140Ammī-ṣaduqa 114; 119; 131;132; 133; 134; 140Amurrum, in ugula Amurrim 137An 89; 93; 100; 101Anatolia 21; 114animal 20; 21; 23; 24; 42; 45;47; 50; 121; 130; 132; 133;134animal contest (see alsoTierkampf) 23Annum-pī-Aja 138; 139; 140;141; 142; 143Annum-pī-Šamaš 139anthropogenous 17; 180Anu, Anum 24; 80; 166Apil-Sîn 131; 132Aplāia 151; 152Aramaic 154Arbela, Arbil (see also Erbil andUrbilum) 155; 161; 164; 172;179-186archaic Ur 13-73architecture 22; 24; 29; 181;182189

Arda-Mullissi (or Urdu-Mullissu,Urad-Mullissu) 150; 151; 152;154; 159; 162Armanum 76"arsenal” 50Ašimbabbar 92Aššur 147-172; 183Aššur-aḫu-iddina (see alsoEsarhaddon, Aššur-etel-ilānimukīn-apli,Aššur-etel-ilānimukīnniand Aššur-etellumukīn-apli)156Aššurbanipal 147; 157; 162;169; 170; 171; 172Aššur-etel-ilāni-mukīn-apli (seealso Esarhaddon, Aššur-aḫuiddina,Aššur-etel-ilānimukīnniand Aššur-etellumukīn-apli)156Aššur-etel-ilāni-mukīnni (seealso Esarhaddon, Aššur-aḫuiddina,Aššur-etel-ilāni-mukīnapliand Aššur-etellu-mukīnapli)156; 157Aššur-etellu-mukīn-apli (see alsoEsarhaddon, Aššur-aḫuiddina,Aššur-etel-ilāni-mukīnapliand Aššur-etel-ilānimukīnni)156Aššur-etel-šamê-erṣetimuballissu169Aššur-ilī-muballissu 150Aššur-mukīn-palēi’a 169Aššur-nādin-šumi 150; 151; 152;153; 154Aššur-šumu-ušabši 150Assyria, Assyrians, Assyrian 8;147-172; 179; 180; 181; 183;184; 185; 186Assyrian period 179; 185Aštar 76astrologer (ṭupšar Enūma AnuEnlil, or only ṭupšarru) 161;166augur 172Azuḫinnum 82BBaba 61; 63Babel (see also Babylon) 149Babylon 113-128; 142Babylonia, Babylonian,Babylonians 8; 47; 63; 81; 90;91; 97; 113-128; 129-143;147; 149; 150; 151; 152; 161;162; 163; 164; 167; 169; 170;172Baltil (see also Aššur) 148banquet 13; 14; 19; 21; 102Barḫalzi 163Basetki 76; 79; 87Basrah 181beer 24; 31; 34; 35; 36; 56; 58;101Bēl 148; 149; 157; 161; 164; 172Bēl-bāni 148; 149Bēl-ušēzib 161bird 25; 51; 52; 159bīt akīti 150bīt rēdûti (see also House ofSuccession and SuccessionPalace) 155190

Bīt-Ammukāni 156boat 25boat scene 25"boating ritual” 65bowl 81; 159bread 24; 31; 35; 36; 56; 58; 61British Museum 32"Brocade style" 22Bronze Age 183bull 23; 47; 80; 162bulla 81Ccap 21; 130caprid 23captain (PA.PA) 137cattle 24ceremonies, religious 39; 59; 61;62; 63; 64; 65; 66; 95; 96; 155Chalcolithic 181chief dirge singers (gala.maḫ)137-138chief exorcist 166chief physician 158; 166chief scribe (rab ṭupšarrē) 170Christian, Christians 8; 185; 186"Chronicle of Arbela” 186citadel 179-186colossi inscription 153Congregation mosque 185container 23; 40; 41; 42; 43; 44;48; 50; 51; 52; 54; 55; 56; 57;58; 59; 60; 64; 72CORONA images 182coronation 89-104"coronation hymns" 89-104counter-mark, counter-marking,counter-sealing (see alsoGegensiegelung) 25; 26; 28;29; 40; 43; 44; 45; 47; 48; 49;50; 52; 53; 54; 55; 57; 60; 62crown prince 93; 103; 147-172"Curse of Agade" 87cylinder seal 23; 26; 28; 57; 58;62; 63; 81; 101; 129-143Czech expedition 179-186Czech Technical University,Prague 182DDadâ 161daemon 24; 77Dagan 32; 76; 91"Death of Urnamma” (UrnammaA) 90deification 75-87; 89; 94; 96; 97;98; 99; 101; 102; 103; 104Department of archaeology 184determinative 45; 74; 75; 76;79; 80; 81; 84; 97Dilmun 56; 58diviner (bārû, máš.šu.gíd.gíd)137; 166; 168door lock 23; 41; 42; 43; 44; 45;46; 47; 48; 49; 50; 51; 52; 53;55; 56; 57; 58; 59; 60; 61191

door peg 41; 45; 46; 48; 49; 51;53; 54; 56; 57; 59; 62Dūr Abī-ešuḫ 128Dūr-Šarrukēn 149; 163EEa (see also Enki) 76; 80; 165Eanatum (of Lagaš) 102; 104Eanna 21; 23; 24; 25; 76Early Abbasid 188Early Dynastic 15-73; 101; 104Early Dynastic Ur 65Early Islamic 185Ebabbar, Ebabbarra 135; 137;139; 140; 141; 142; 151Ebla 34; 61; 76eclipse 167economy, economic 26; 31; 32;35; 37; 79; 113; 114; 115;116; 117; 118; 120; 121; 122;123; 125edinnu 48; 49; 50; 51; 52; 53;54; 57; 62Egypt 128; 147Egyptology, Egyptologist 90Ekur 91; 92; 97; 98; 99; 101Elam, Elamite 22; 82; 151Enannatum 32Enki (see also Ea) 45Enkidu 150Enlil 33; 76; 79; 80; 83; 91; 92;93; 94; 96; 97; 98; 99; 100;101; 102; 103; 166Enlil-nizu 76Enūma Anu Enlil 166epic 95; 158Erbil (see also Arbela andUrbilum) 8; 179Eridu 47; 76; 79; 91Erišum 148Esagila 147; 161Esarhaddon (see also Aššuretellu-mukīn-apli,Aššur-aḫuiddina,Aššur-etel-ilāni-mukīnapliand Aššur-etel-ilānimukīnni)147-172Ešarra-ḫammat 169-172Ešnunna 84eššēšu festival 165Etel-pī-Nabium 140-142Etemenanki 147Euphrates 43; 46; 47; 114; 117exorcist (āšipu) 161; 166; 172extispicy 155; 167FFara (see also Šuruppak) 20; 31;33; 43; 44; 46; 55; 63; 83fattener (lú ku 7 ) 137Figurenband 20First Dynasty of Babylon 113;114; 122fish 24; 36; 48; 58; 72fruit 23; 50; 56; 58GGegensiegelung (see alsocounter-marking, counter-192

sealing) 25GemaArt Group 182general (ugula Amurrim) 137geometric 21Gilgameš 83; 84; 150; 158Gird Baxçan 185Glazed Steatite glyptic 22; 24glyptic 19-29Gods List 83Good House 92governor 76; 81; 94; 161; 171grain 32; 33; 34; 36; 44; 49; 50;59; 60Great Revolt 76; 79; 80; 84; 85Gudea 63; 87; 95; 100guilloche-like snakes 20Gutian, Gutians 90HHabuba Kabira 24haruspices 172headgear 80; 130Hellenistic 181heraldic, heraldically 20; 23; 25herd 22herdsman 89Hita 82Hittite, Hitites 114; 115; 116;118; 122House of Succession (see alsobīt rēdûti and SuccessionPalace) 155; 156Hyksos 128hymn 84; 89-104hymnology 93ḪḪallušu-Inšušinak I 151Ḫammu-rabi 113-116; 123; 131;133; 134; 135; 136; 138; 140;141; 142Ḫammu-rabi dynasty 113; 131Ḫanigalbat 164Ḫašimar 82Ḫilmi 151Ḫupapanu 151IIbbisin, Ibbisuen 91; 97Ibn Khalikan 183iconography 19-29; 64; 73; 129-143Ikkāru 157Ilšu-ibnīšu 141Ilu-kapkapu 148ilum 77; 78Ilu-šumma 148Inanna (see also Ištar) 35; 98;101; 104insignia 91Iphur-Kiš 76Iran 22Iraq 8; 179-186Išar-Šamaš 140193

Išbi-Erra 120Isin 64; 90; 102; 120; 122; 124Isin-Larsa period 90Islamic 179; 181; 182; 183; 185Išme-Dagān 32; 91Išme-Sîn 141; 142Issār-šumu-ēreš 170Ištar (see also Inanna) 44; 47;80; 140; 155; 164; 179Ištar of Arbela 155; 164; 179Ištar of Nineveh 164JJamhad 114jar 15; 24; 40; 42; 43; 48; 55;58; 59; 60; 62Jazira 183Jebel Aruda 23Jemdet Nasr 15; 20; 21; 22; 23;26; 31; 39; 62judge (di.kud) 137KKabta 137; 140Kalḫu 163; 172; 184Kassite, Kassites 115; 117; 118;119Keš 45; 51; 53; 61; 76Khuftidakān az-Zarzāwī 183Kilizi 172kilt 19; 21; 25; 26king of four quarters 76; 82;102; 148Kirkuk 182Kiš 20; 31; 47; 76Körperlichkeit 20Kullizum 121; 127Kurdish autonomous region 179Kutha 76LLachar 77Lady of Arbela (see also Ištar ofArbela) 161Lagaš 32; 33; 44; 47; 48; 55; 60;61; 62; 63; 81; 95; 102; 104lamentation priest (kalû) 166Larsa 45; 51; 52; 61; 90; 91; 94;122; 124; 129Late Assyrian 181; 185; 186Late Old Babylonian period 113;114; 115; 116; 117; 118; 119;120; 121; 122; 123; 124; 125;127Late Ottoman 181Late Sasanian 182Late Ubaid period 185Late Uruk period 19; 20; 21; 23;24; 25; 26; 29; 64; 66;legcross 49; 50; 51; 52; 53; 54Libbāli-šarrat 153; 157lion 21; 23; 25; 47; 60; 153; 163Lipit-Ištar 139livestock 27; 36; 57; 58logogram 47; 77; 149long-heared daemon 24194

Ludlul bēl nēmeqi 159Lugalbanda 83; 93; 99; 103Lullubum 80; 82lupus erythematosusdisseminatus 159Mmangu disease 158; 159Man-ištušu 75Mann im Netzrock 20; 22Maqlû 158; 167mār šarri (see also crownprince) 152Mardî 161Marduk 137; 140; 141; 142;147; 149; 150; 155; 160Marduk-apla-iddina 150Marduk-mušallim 141; 142Marduk-nāṣir 141; 142medieval 179; 181; 182; 183megalopoleis 185merchant (dam.gàr) 137metrology 16; 31; 32Middle Ages 179; 186Middle Assyrian 185; 186Middle chronology 113Middle Islamic period 183; 185Middle Palaeolithic times 179;181military 20; 25; 29; 75; 76; 81;82; 83; 94; 98; 99; 102; 104;113; 115; 116; 118; 119; 120;121; 124; 125; 127; 128; 129;131; 133; 134; 135; 137; 147military triumph 25; 29milk processing 24Mount Ebiḫ 82Mousterian 182Mullissu 150; 151; 152; 154;159; 162Muršili 114; 115; 122mythological 91; 103NNabium (see also Nabû) 140;141; 142Nabû (see also Nabium) 155;160; 161; 162; 164; 165; 172Nabû-aḫa-ereš 162Nabû-šuma-iškun 162Nabû'a 157nadītum 136Nagitum 151Nanna, Nannar (see also Sîn)32; 33; 34; 37; 92; 93; 94; 97;99; 101; 103Naqī’a (see also Zakūtu) 153;154; 155; 160; 163; 168; 170;172Naram-Sin 75-87Neo-Assyrian 147-172; 179; 184Neo-Babylonian 150; 151; 163Neolithic 181; 182Nergal 76; 150; 152; 164Nergal-šumu-[ibni] 150; 152Nergal-šumu-[uṣur] 150; 152?Nindar 102195

Nineveh 22; 149; 150; 153; 156;159; 161; 163; 164; 165; 172;180; 183; 184Nineveh V 22Ningal 103Ninḫursaĝ 76; 100; 103Ninsiana 140Ninsun 84; 93; 100; 103Nintur 46Nippur 20; 33; 47; 51; 61; 76;79; 80; 81; 87; 90; 91; 92; 94;95; 97; 98; 100; 102; 122; 124Niqqum 82Nisannu 152; 160; 172Nūr-Kabta 140Ooffering 24; 34; 37; 60; 61; 62;64; 87; 96; 129; 169; 170offering bearer 24official 25; 43; 58; 80; 81; 82;102; 119Old Babylonian 8; 63; 81; 90;91; 97; 113-143Old Elamite 82oracular 92orchardry 57; 58ornamental 22orthography 16; 31; 32; 33overseer of the merchants(ugula dam.gàr) 137overseer of the nadītumpriestesses (ugula lukur Utu)136PPalaeolithic 179; 181physician (asû) 157; 158; 159;166; 172Piedmont Jemdet Nasr glyptic22pigtailed women 20; 21; 24Pillatum 151pīt pī (mouth-opening) 61plaque 81Post-Assyrian 8; 184; 185Post-medieval 181post-Samsu-iluna period 122pot, pottery 15; 40; 41; 42; 49;50; 51; 52; 54; 56; 57; 58; 62;63; 65; 181; 186pre-Neolithic 185procession 22prosopography 16; 31; 32Proto-Elamite 22QQalat Arbil 185Rrebellion 76; 79; 120; 149; 160;162; 163; 164; 165; 171re-coronation 89; 104reed hut 24reform 79; 80Rimuš 75; 87rite 64; 93; 96ritual 59; 61; 62; 64; 65; 66; 87;196

96; 167; 168ritual of substitute king (šarpūḫi) 167rosette 29; 35; 44; 45; 48; 50;51; 52; 53; 54; 57; 58; 60; 62Royal Air Force (RAF) 182royal hymn 89-104SSabium 131; 134sacred marriage 64; 93sacrifical animal 130; 132; 133Salahaddin University at Arbil180Sama’ 152Sammu-ramāt 153Samsu-ditana 113; 114; 115;115; 122; 131; 132; 133Samsu-iluna 114; 115; 116; 117;118; 121; 122; 124; 131; 133;134; 135; 136; 138; 139; 140sanctuary 33; 91Sardanapal 8Sargon (II) 149; 153; 155; 156Sargon (of Akkad) 75; 87Sasanian, Sasanians 182; 185;186scorpion 29; 46scribe 33; 63; 91; 98; 136; 170;172seal 8; 15-73; 81; 101; 129-143seal impression 15-73; 81; 129-143sealing 8; 15-73; 129-143Sennacherib, Sanherib 147;149-163; 169Shahr-i Sokhta 22sheep 36; 57; 58; 60simple dirge singer (gala) 137Simurrum 82Sîn (see also Nanna) 76; 131;132; 136; 137; 133; 137; 138;140; 141; 142; 155; 160; 164;165; 169; 171Sîn-aḫam-iddinam 140; 142Sîn-bani 140; 142Sîn-ennam 140; 141Sîn-erībam 141; 142Sîn-iddinam 140; 141Sîn-iqīšam 140Sîn-muballiṭ 131; 132; 136Sîn-nādin-apli 169Sippar, Sippir 43; 46; 47; 61;65; 76; 119; 120; 122; 127;129; 130; 131; 135; 137; 142;143; 151Smiter of Armanum and Ebla 76snake 25Southwind 165St. Paul 84St. Stephen 84St. Wenceslas 84stamp seal 23; 28statue, statuette 59; 60; 61; 62;63; 64; 65; 66; 76; 78; 79; 84;87; 102; 147; 153; 172stele 45; 61; 62; 80; 82; 103;153197

storage 23; 36; 39; 42; 43; 47;54; 55; 58; 60; 65stratigraphy, stratigraphic 17;22; 180Succession Palace (see alsoHouse of Succession and bītrēdûti) 157; 169Sumer, Sumerian 8; 19; 29; 31;35; 39; 42; 43; 44; 47; 60; 64;65; 75; 77; 83; 84; 89; 93; 94;96; 97; 98; 99; 101; 148; 149;150Sumerian King List 75Sumu-la-el 131Susa 23; 24; 25; 56; 82; 83Susa, Acropole level 23Sutian, Sutians 119svastika 49; 51; 52; 57Syria 16; 113; 129systemic lupus erythematosus159ṢṢarpantum 137Ṣillāia 162ŠŠabāṭu 164Šadītu, Šaddītu 150Šagšag 61Šalim-paliḫ-Marduk 140; 141Šamaš (see also Utu) 61; 76;135; 137; 139; 140; 141; 147;151; 155; 160; 161; 164; 165;167; 169; 170; 171; 172Šamaš-metu-uballiṭ 171Šamaš-šuma-ukīn 169; 170; 171;172Šamaš-tappašu 139; 140Šamšī-Adad 148Šarḫiia 162Šar-kali-šarri 75; 83; 87Šemaḫu 157Šeru’a-eṭirat 156; 157; 169Šulgi 84; 87; 89-104; 179"Šulgi and the Ekur” 91"Šulgi, King of Abundance” 94"Šulgi, Ninsun and An” 93Šulmānu-ašarēd 148Šulmu-aḫḫē 162Šumuḫ-Sîn 140; 141Šuruppak (person) 63Šuruppak (see also Fara) 61Šu-Sin 84TTašmētu-šarrat 153-154Tašrītu 151Taurus 22Tell Beydar 22Tell Brak 22; 81; 82Tello 81temenos 33; 37textile 23; 43; 46; 48; 50; 56; 57;58The Gilgameš Epic 158198

Third dynasty of Ur (see also UrIII dynasty) 37; 64; 179Tiāmat 149tiara 80Tierkampf (see also animalcontest) 23Tower 161"travelling seals” 55treaty 82; 159; 171; 172treelike element 24Tumal 95Tuttul 76ṬṬebētu 162; 163; 164UUbaid culture 179; 185Umayyad 185Umma 59; 104ummânu 170University Museum ofArchaeology andAnthropology of theUniversity of Pennsylvania atPhiladelphia 29; 66Ur III dynasty (see also Thirddynasty of Ur) 37; 88-110Ur III Empire 84; 89-104Ur III period 84; 89-104; 130;131; 132; 133Ur, Urim 8; 15-73; 89-104; 124;130; 131; 132; 133; 179Urād-Nanāiia 158; 159; 166Urarṭu 153Urbilum (see also Arbela andErbil) 180; 185Urnamma 90; 91; 92; 94; 97;103Urnamma Stele 103Uruinimgina 61Uruk 19; 20; 21; 23; 24; 25; 26;29; 31; 35; 42; 64; 66; 71; 76;79; 90; 93; 94; 96; 97; 103;122; 124; 148; 149Uruk-Eanna 21; 24; 25Ušpia 148Utu (see also Šamaš) 94; 101;136; 137VVictory Stele 80; 82WWarad-Sîn 139; 140Western Semitic tribes 119West-Semitic 154wool 36; 60XXoli minaret 185ZZagros 21Zakūtu (see also Naqī’a) 153;154; 171ziggurat, zikkurrat 24; 147199

BibliographyAlberti Amedeo, Pomponio Francesco (1986):Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic texts from Ur edited, in: UET 2,Supplement (Studia Pohl, Series Maior 13), Biblical InstitutePress, Rome.Alster, Bendt (1974):The Instructions of Shuruppak – A Sumerian Proverb Collection(Mesopotamia vol. 2), Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen.Alster, Bendt (1991-1992):Early Dynastic Proverbs and other Contributions to the Study ofLiterary Texts from Abū Ṣalābīkh, "Archiv für Orientforschung"38-39, 1-51.Alster, Bendt (1997):Proverbs of Ancient Sumer – The World´s Earliest ProverbCollection I-II, CDL Press, Bethesda, MD.Amiet, Pierre (1961/1980):La Glyptique Mésopotamienne Archaique, Paris.Amiet, Pierre (1972):Glyptique susienne des origines à l'époque des Perses achéménides- Cachets, sceaux-cylindres et empreintes antiques découverts àSuse de 1913 à 1967, Geuthner, Paris.Andrae, W. (1913):Die Stelenreihen in Assur, J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung,Leipzig.Attinger, Pascal (2005):A propos de l´AK, "faire", "Zeitschrift für Assyriologie" 95/I, 46-64,and 95/II, 208-275.Attinger, Pascal (2006):37) Aza "ours", "N. A. B. U." 2/2006 (juin), 33-34.201

Baker, H. D. (ed.) (2000):The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: Ḫ-K [PNA 2/I],Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Baker, H. D. (ed.) (2001):The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: L-N [PNA 2/II],Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Baker, H. D. (ed.) (2002):The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: P-Ṣ [PNA 3/I],Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Bauer, Josef (1989-1990):Altsumerische Wirtschaftsurkunden in Leningrad, "Archiv fürOrientforschung" 36-37, 78-90.Beal, Richard (1992):Is KUŠ 7 the Reading of IŠ = kizû?, in: N.A.B.U. No. 48, 1992, 38-39.Becker, Andrea (1985):Neusumerische Renaissance? WissenschaftsgeschichtlicheUntersuchungen zur Philologie und Archäologie, BaghdaderMitteilungen 16, 229–316.Black, J; George, A.; Postgate, N. (1999):A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian [CDA], Harrassowitz Verlag,Wiesbaden.Boehmer, Rainer M. (1999):Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, Endberichte, Bd. 24, in: R. M.Boehmer (ed.), Uruk. Früheste Siegelabrollungen, Verlag Philippvon Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.Borger, R. (1956):Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien, [AfO Beih. 9],Graz.202

Borger, R.; Hinz, W.; Römer, W. H, Ph. (1984):Rechts- und Wirtschafturkunden Historisch-chronologische Texte:Historisch-chronologische Texte I [TUAT I/4], GütersloherVerlagshaus.Börker-Klähn, Jutta (1975):Šulgi badet, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und VorderasiatischeArchäologie 64, 235–40.Bottéro, J. (2005):Nejstarší náboženství Mezopotámie,(La plus vieille religion: EnMésopotamie), Academia, Praha.Brisch, Nicole M (2007):Tradition and the Poetics of Innovation: Sumerian Court Literatureof the Larsa Dynasty (c. 2003–1763 BCE), Alter Orient und AltesTestament 339, Ugarit-Verlag, Münster.Buchanan, Briggs (1981):Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection, YaleUniversity Press, New Haven and London.Canby, Jeanny V. (2001):"The Ur-Nammu” Stela, University Museum Monographs 110, TheUniversity Museum, Philadelphia.Cavigneaux, Antoine (1992):103) SAHAR = kuš 7 ?, "N. A. B. U." 4/1992 (décembre), 78-79.Charpin, D. (1990):"Les divinités familiales des Babyloniens d’après les légendes deleurs sceaux-cylindres”, in : Ö. Tunca (ed.), De la Babylonie à laSyrie, en passant par Mari. Mélanges offerts à Monsieur J.-R.Kupper à l’occasion de son 70° anniversaire, Liège , 59-78.Charpin, Dominique (1987):75) La mise à jour des listes nominatives, "N. A. B. U." 3/1987(septembre), 40-41.203

Charvát, Petr (1979):Early Ur, in: "Archív Orientální” 47, 15-20.Charvát, Petr (1997):On people, signs and states - Spotlights on Sumerian Society, c.3500-2500 B.C., The Oriental Institute, Academy of Sciences ofthe Czech Republic, Prague.Charvát, Petr (2005):The iconography of pristine statehood – Painted pottery and sealimpressions from Susa, southwestern Iran, Karolinum Press,Prague.Charvát, Petr (2006):"Hail, Thou son of the Noble", An inscribed sealing from Archaic Ur,in: "Studia Hercynia" vol. X (Jan Bouzek and Iva Ondřejovávolume), Prague, 7-9 and Pl. VIII.CIVIShttp://lfgm.fsv.cvnt.cz/citadel/.Cohen, Mark E. (1993):The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East, CDL Press,Bethesda, Maryland.Cole, Steven W.; Machinist, Peter (1998):Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Priests to Kings Esarhaddonand Assurbanipal [SAA XIII], Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Collon, D. (1982):Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum,Cylinder Seals II, Akkadian-Post-Akkadian-Ur III Periods, London.Collon, Dominique (1987):First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East, TheUniversity of Chicago Press / British Musum Press,London/Chicago.204

Dahl, Jacob (2006):Revisiting B a l a, "Journal of the American Oriental Society" 126.1,77-88.Dahl, Jacob L. (2007):The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Prosopographical Analysis ofan Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago, Publications del’Institut historique et archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul108, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden.Delnero, Paul A. (2006):Variation in Sumerian Literary Compositions: A Case Study Basedon the Decad, PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.Dijk, Jan J.A. van (1954):La fête du nouvel an dans un texte de Šulgi, Bibliotheca Orientalis11, 83–8.Dijk, Jan J.A. van (1960):Sumerische Götterlieder: Teil II., Universitätsverlag C. Winter,Heidelberg.Dittman, Reinhard (2006):Bemerkungen zu Ur, in: Pit F, "Baghdader Mitteilungen" 37, 23-44.Durand, Jean-Marie (2003):111) *Halhu-sur-Euphrate, "N. A. B. U." 2003/4, décembre, 122-123.Edzard, Dietz Otto (2004):Geschichte Mesopotamiens. Von den Sumerern bis zu Alexanderdem Großen, München.Eliade, M. (1995):Dějiny náboženského myšlení I. (Histoire des croyances et des ideésreligieuses I, De l’âge de la pierre aux mistères d’Eleusis),OIKOYMENH, Praha.205

Englund, Robert K. (1990):Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur-III-Fischerei, Dietrich ReimerVerlag (Berlin).ePSDhttp://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html.ETCSL: Black, Jeremy A. (†) et al. (1998‒):The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. http://wwwetcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk.Fales, F. M.; Postgate, J. N. (1992):Imperial Administrative Records, Part I [SAA VII], HelsinkiUniversity Press, Helsinki.Falkenstein, Adam (1952):Sumerische religiöse Texte, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie undVorderasiatische Archäologie 50, 61–91.Fincke, J. C. (2003/2004):The Babylonian Texts of Nineveh, Archiv für Orientforschung 50[AfO 50], Wien, 111-149.Flückiger-Hawker, Esther (1999):Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition. Orbis Biblicus etOrientalis 166, Academic Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,Fribourg and Göttingen.Frahm, E. (1997):Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften, Institut für Orientalik derUniversität, Wien.Frahm, E. (1999):Nabû-zuqup-kēnu, das Gilgameš-Epos und der Tod Sargons II,Journal of Cuneiform Studies 51 [JCS 51], New Haven-Baltimore,73-90.206

Frayne, D. (1993):Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334-2113 BC), University of TorontoPress, Toronto, Buffalo, London.Frayne, Douglas (1995):The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian Period, Rulersof Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End ofAssyrian Domination [RIMB 2], University of Toronto Press,Toronto.Frayne, Douglas R. (1981):The Historical Correlations of the Sumerian Royal Hymns (2400–1900 B.C.), PhD diss., Yale University.Frayne, Douglas R. (1997):Ur III Period (2112–2004 BC). Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia:Early Periods 3/2, University of Toronto Press, Toronto andBuffalo and London.Frayne, Douglas R. (2008):Presargonic Period (2700–2350 BC). Royal Inscriptions ofMesopotamia: Early Periods 1, University of Toronto Press,Toronto and Buffalo and London.Gasche, Hermann (1989):La Babylonie au 17 e siècle avant notre ère: approche archéologique,problèmes et perspectives (MHE, Series II, Memoirs 1), Ghent.Gasche, Hermann (1998):Dating the Fall of Babylon. A Reappraisal of Second-MillenniumChronology (MHE, Series II, Memoirs 4), Ghent – Chicago.Gasche, Hermann (2003):"La fin de la première dynastie de Babylone: une chute difficile",Akkadica 124, 205–220.Gelb Ignace J., Steinkeller Piotr, Whiting Robert M., Jr. (1991):Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus,The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill..207

Geller, Markham J. (2010):Ancient Babylonian Medicine: Theory and Practice, Wiley-Blackwell.George, A. R. (2003):The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, Volume I and II, Oxford UniversityPress, New York.Grayson, A. K. (1975):Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, J. J. Augustin Publisher, NewYork.Hallo, William W. – Simpson, William Kelly (1997):The Ancient Near East. A History, New York – Chicago – SanFrancisco – Atlanta.Hallo, William W. (1957):Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles: A Philologic and HistoricalAnalysis, American Oriental Series 43, American Oriental Society,New Haven.Hallo, William W. (1966):The Coronation of Urnammu, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 20, 133–41.Hallo, William W. (1987):The Birth of Kings. In: Love and Death in the Ancient Near East:Essays in Honour of Marvin H. Pope, John H. Marks and RobertM. Good (eds.), Four Quarters, Guildford, 45–52.Livius - Articles on Ancient Historyhttp://www.livius.org/ap-ark/arbela/arbela.html.Hunger, H. (1968):Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone [AOAT 2], Neukirchen-Vluyn.208

Hunger, H. (1992):Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings [SAA VIII], HelsinkiUniversity Press, Helsinki.Jacobsen, Thorkild (1953): The Reign of Ibbī-Suen, Journal ofCuneiform Studies 7, 36–47.Jacobsen, Thorkild (1957):Early Political Development in Mesopotamia, Zeitschrift fürAssyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 52, 91–140.Karg, Norbert (1984):Untersuchungen zur älteren frühdynastischen Glyptik Babyloniens[BaF 8], Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.Klein, Jacob (1981a):The Royal Hymns of Shulgi King of Ur: Man’s Quest for ImmortalFame. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 71/7,American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.Klein, Jacob (1981b):Three Šulgi Hymns: Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King Šulgi ofUr, Bar-Ilan University Press, Ramat Gan.Klein, Jacob (1987):The Birth of a Crownprince in the Temple: A Neo-Sumerian LiteraryTopos, in: La femme dans le Proche-Orient antique: CompteRendu de la XXXIII e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale(Paris, 7–10 juillet 1986), Jean-Marie Durand (ed.), ÉditionsRecherche sur les Civilisations, Paris, 97–106.Klein, Jacob (1989):From Gudea to Šulgi: Continuity and Change in Sumerian LiteraryTradition, in: DUMU-E 2 -DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W.Sjöberg, Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah KramerFund 11, Hermann Behrens and Darlene M. Loding and Martha T.Roth (eds.), The University Museum, Philadelphia, 289–301.209

Klein, Jacob (1991):The Coronation and Consecration of Šulgi in the Ekur (Šulgi G), in:Ah, Assyria…: Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient NearEastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, ScriptaHierosolymitana 33, Mordechai Cogan and Israel Ephʿal (eds.),Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 292–313.Klein, Jacob (1997):The Birth of Shulgi in the Temple of Nippur, in: The Context ofScripture 1, William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger (eds.), E.J.Brill, Leiden and New York and Cologne, 552–553.Klein, Jacob (2001):The Genealogy of Nanna-Suen and Its Historical Background, in:Historiography in the Cuneiform World: Proceedings of the XLV eRencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Part I, Tzvi Abusch et al.(ed.), CDL Press, Bethesda (MD), 279–301.König, F. W. (1965):Die elamischen Königinschriften, Archiv für OrientforschungBeiheft 16, Graz.Kramer, Samuel N. (1974):Kingship in Sumer and Akkad: The Ideal King, in: Le palais et laroyauté (archéologie et civilization), Paul Garelli (ed.), P.Geuthner, Paris, 163–76.Krebernik, Manfred (2004):(d) PAP.PAP, in: D. O. Edzard (ed.), Rallexikon der Assyriologie undVorderasiatischen Archäologie Bd. 10, 5./6. Lieferung (Panzer-Pflanzenkunde), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin und New York, 328.Krecher, Joachim (1983):Eine unorthographische sumerische Wortliste aus Ebla, "OriensAntiquus" 22, 179-189.Kwasman, T.; Parpola, S. (1991):Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh,Part I [SAA VI],Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.210

LAK: Anton Deimel:Die Inschriften von Fara I: Liste der archaischen Keilschriftzeichen,J. C. Hinrich´sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig 1922.Langdon, S. (1917):Sumerian Grammatical Texts [PBS 12/1], The University Museum,Philadelphia.Legrain, Leon (1951):Ur Excavations vol. X: Seal Cylinders, London and Philadelphia, TheTrustees of the Two Museums (The British Museum and TheUniversity Museum), by the aid of a Grant from the CarnegieCorporation of New York, New York.Leick, G. (2005):Mezopotámie - Počátky měst, (Mesopotamia: the Invention of theCity). BB/art, Brno.Livingstone, A. (1989):Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea [SAA III], Helsinki UniversityPress, Helsinki.Luckenbill, D. D. (1924):The Annals of Sennacherib [OIP II], The University of ChicagoPress, Chicago.Ludlul bēl nēmeqi:Ludlul II, in: CAMS: (4 th October2010).Lukko, M.; Buylaere, G. Van (2002):The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon [SAA XVI], HelsinkiUniversity Press, Helsinki.211

Mander, Pietro (1986):Il panteon di Abu-Ṣālabīkh, Contributo allo studio del panteonsumerico arcaico, Istituto universitario orientale, Dipartimento distudi Asiatici, Series Minor XXVI, Napoli.Marchesi, Gianni (2004):Who Was Buried in the Royal Tombs of Ur? The Epigraphic andTextual Data, Orientalia Nova Series 73, 153–97.Marchetti, Niccolò (2006):La statuaria regale nella Mesopotamia protodinastica (Atti dellaAccademia Nazionale dei Lincei Anno CDIII, 2006, Classe discienze morale, storiche e filologiche, Memorie, Series IX, VolumeXXI, Fascicolo I), con un Appendice di Gianni Marchesi (205-271),Bardi Editore, Editore Commerciale, Roma.Matthews, Donald M. (1997):The early glyptic of Tell Brak – Cylinder seals of third-millenniumSyria [OBO 15], University of Fribourg Press and Vandenhoeckund Ruprecht, Fribourg and Göttingen.Matthews, Roger J. (1993):Cities, seals and writing: archaic seal impressions from Jemdet Nasrand Ur. Materialien zu den frühen Schrifterzeugnissen desVorderen Orients [MSVO] Bd. 2., Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin.Mayer, W. (1983):Sargons Feldzug gegen Urartu [MDOG 115], Berlin.MEA: René Labat:Manuel d´épigraphie akkadienne. Sixième édition par FlorenceMalbran-Labat [MEA], Geuthner, Paris 1988.Meier, G. (1937):Die assyrische Beschwörungssammlung Maqlu. Neu bearbeitet vonGerhard Meier [AfO Beih. 2], Biblio-Verlag, Osnabrück.212

Melville, S. C. (1999):The Role of Naqia/Zakutu in Sargonid Politics [SAAS 9], HelsinkiUniversity Press, Helsinki.Melville, S. C. (2004):Neo-Assyrian Royal Women and Male Identity: Status as a SocialTool , in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 124/1 [JAOS124/1], American Oriental Society , 37-57.Menzel, B. (1981):Assyrische Tempel, Band 2 [Studia Pohl: Series Maior 10/2], BiblicalInstitute Press, Roma.Messerschmidt, L. (1911):Keilschrifttexte aus Assur, Historischen Inhalts, Erstes Heft [KAHI], Leipzig.MSVO 1:Robert K. Englund, Jean-Pierre Grégoire, Roger J. Matthews: TheProto-Cuneiform Texts from Jemdet Nasr I: Copies,Transliterations and Glossary, (Materialien zu den frühenSchriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients Bd. 1), Gebr. MannVerlag, Berlin 1991.Nissinen Martti, Uro Risto (eds.) (2008):Sacred Marriages – The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor fromSumer to Early Christianity, EISENBRAUNS, Winona Lake,Indiana.Nissinen, M. (1998):References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources [SAAS VII],Vammalan Kirjapano Oy, Helsinki.Nováček, K.; Chabr, T.; Filipský, D.; Janíček, L.; Pavelka, K.; Šída,P.; Trefný, M.; Vařeka, P. (2008):Research of the Arbil Citadel, Iraqi Kurdistan, First Season, in:Památky archeologické XCIX, 259–302.213

Nováková, N., Pecha, L., Rahman, F. (2000):Základy starobabylónštiny, Karolinum, Praha.Oppenheim, A. L. (2001):Starověká Mezopotámie: Portrét zaniklé civilizace. (AncientMesopotamia: Portrait of Dead Civilization), Academia, Praha.Parpola, S. (1970):Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon andAssurbanipal [AOAT 5/1; LAS I], Neukirchener Verlag,Neukirchen-Vluyn.Parpola, S. (1980):The Murderer of Sennacherib, in: Alster, Bendt (ed.), Death InMesopotamia [Mesopotamia 8], Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen,171-182.Parpola, S. (1983):Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon andAssurbanipal [AOAT 5/2; LAS II], Neukirchener Verlag,Neukirchen-Vluyn.Parpola, S. (1987):The Correspondance of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria andthe West [SAA I], Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Parpola, S. (1993):Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars [SAA X], HelsinkiUniversity Press, Helsinki.Parpola, S. (1997):Assyrian Prophecies [SAA IX], Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Parpola, S. (2007):Assyrian-English-Assyrian Dictionary, Helsinki University Press,Helsinki.214

Parpola, S., Watanabe, K. (1988):Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths [SAA II], HelsinkiUniversity Press, Helsinki.Pečírková, J. (1969):Stavební nápisy Sargona II. a Sinacheriba, Universita Karlova,Praha.Peterson, Jeremiah (2009):Two New Sumerian texts Involving the Netherworld and FuneraryOfferings, "Zeitschrift für Assyriologie" 99/II, 233-246.Pientka, R. (1998):Die Spätaltbabylonische Zeit (Abiešuḫ bis Samsuditana), Quelle,Jahresdaten, Geschichte (= Imgula 2), Münster.Pittman, Holly (1994):The Glazed Steatite Glyptic Style - The Structure and Function of anImage System in the Administration of Protoliterate Mesopotamia[BBVO 16], Dietrich Reimer Verlag, Berlin.Pomponio Francesco, Visicato Giuseppe (1994):Early Dynastic Administrative Tablets of Šuruppak, IstitutoUniversitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici (Seriesmaior VI), Napoli.Pomponio, Francesco (1987):La prosopografia dei testi presargonici di Fara, "LaSapienza",Roma.Postgate, J. N. (1995):"Royal Ideology and State Administration in Sumer and Akkad”, in:Sasson, J. M., ed., Civilization of the Ancient Near East, Vol. I,Scribner’s, New York.Potts, T.(1999):The Archeology of Elam, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.215

Prosecký et al. (1999):Encyklopedie starověkého Předního východu, Nakladatelství LIBRI,Praha.Radner, K. (ed.) (1998):The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: A [PNA 1/I],Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Radner, K. (ed.) (1999):The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: B-G [PNA 1/II],Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Reade, J. (1995):Grants, Decrees and Gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period [SAA XII],Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Reynolds, F. (2003):The Neo-Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon and Letters toAssurbanipal and Sin-šarru-iškun from Northern and CentralBabylonia [SAA 18], Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Richardson, Seth (2002):The Collapse of a Complex State: A Reappraisal of the End of theFirst Dynasty of Babylon, 1683–1597 B.C., PhD. diss., ColumbiaUniversity.Richardson, Seth (2005):"Trouble in the Countryside ana tars(.)i Samsuditana: Militarism,Kassites, and the Fall of Babylon I", in: W. H. van Soldt (ed.),Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia. Papers read at the 48 thRencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, 1–4 July 2002,Leiden, 272–289.Römer, Willem H. Ph. (1969):"Königshymnen" der Isinzeit und Königsinvestitur, Zeitschrift derDeutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (Supplementa) 1/1,130–47.216

Rosengarten, Yvonne (1960):Le concept sumérien de consommation dans la vie économique etreligieuse - Etude linguistique et sociale d’après les textesprésargoniques de Lagaš. Editions E. de Boccard, Paris.Roth, Martha T. (ed.) (1977):The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University ofChicago, Vol. 16 [CAD M 1 ], The University of Chicago Press,Chicago.SAA Online: (29 th September2010)Sallaberger, W. (2006):Leipzig-Münchner Sumerische Zettelkasten, München(29 th September 2010)Sallaberger, W., Westenholz, A. (1999):Mesopotamien – Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, UniversitätsverlagFrieburg, Freiburg.Sallaberger, Walther (1997):Nippur als religiöses Zentrum Mesopotamiens im historischenWandel, in Die orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch.Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 1, Gernot Wilhelm(ed.), Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag, Saarbrücken, 147–68.Sallaberger, Walther (1999):Ur III-Zeit, in: Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit. OrbisBiblicus et Orientalis 160/3, Walther Sallaberger and AageWestenholz (eds.), Academic Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,Fribourg and Göttingen, 121–414.Šašková, K. (2009):Asyrský korunní princ In Acta Fakulty filozofické Západočeskéuniverzity v Plzni, p. 54-74, Plzeň.217

Scott, Sarah Jarmer (2005):Figure, Symbol and Sign: Semiotics and Function of Early DynasticI Cylinder Seal Imagery from Ur, A Dissertation in The History ofArt Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania inFulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor ofPhilosophy, Philadelphia, January 2005.Selz, Gebhard (1992):Eine Kultstatue der Herrschergemahlin Šaša: Ein Beitrag zumProblem der Vergöttlichung, "Acta Sumerologica Japan" 14, 245-268.Selz, Gebhard (1993):Altsumerische Wirtschaftsurkunden aus amerikanischenSammlungen 2 [FAOS 15.2], Franz Steiner, Stuttgart.Selz, Gebhard (1995):Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadtstaatesvon Lagaš [UGASL], Occasional Publications of the Samuel NoahKramer Fund, Philadelphia.Selz, Gebhard J. (2004):Early Dynastic Vessels in ´Ritual´Contexts, Wiener Zeitschrift fürdie Kunde des Morgenlandes 94, 185-224.Sigrist, Marcel (1989):Le deuil pour Šu-Sin, in: DUMU-E 2 -DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor ofÅke W. Sjöberg. Occasional Publications of the Samuel NoahKramer Fund 11, Hermann Behrens and Darlene M. Loding andMartha T. Roth (eds.), The University Museum, Philadelphia, 499–505.Sjöberg, Åke W. 1972 (1973):Die göttliche Abstammung der sumerisch-babylonischen Herrscher,Orientalia Suecana 21, 87–112.Sollberger, Edmond (1953):Remarks on Ibbīsĩn’s Reign, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 7, 48–50.218

Starr, I. (1990):Queries to the Sungod [SAA IV], Helsinki University Press, Helsinki.Steele, F. R. (1951):The University Museum Esarhaddon Prism, in: Journal of theAmerican Oriental Society 71/1 [JAOS 71/1], New Haven, 1-12.Steinkeller Piotr, Postgate J. Nicholas (1992):Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the IraqMuseum, Baghdad, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake (Indiana).Steinkeller, Piotr (1988):Grundeigentum in Babylonien von Uruk IV zur frühdynastischenPeriod II, in: B. Brentjes (ed.), Das Grundeigentum inMesopotamien, Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Berlin, 11-27.Steinkeller, Piotr (1995):Review of ZATU, "Bibliotheca Orientalis" 52/5-6, 689-713.Steinkeller, Piotr (2002):30) More on the Archaic City Seals, "N. A. B. U." 2/2002 (juin), 29.Steinkeller, Piotr (2004):13) On the Writings of bēlum in Sargonic and Earlier Sources, "N.A. B. U." 1/2004 (mars), 12-14.Streck, M. (1916a):Assurbanipal, Teil I., J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig.Streck, M. (1916b):Assurbanipal, Teil II., J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig.Streck, M. (1916c):Assurbanipal, Teil III., J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig.219

Strommenger, Eva (1980):Habuba Kabira. Eine Stadt vor 5000 Jahren, Ausgrabungen derDeutschen Orient-Gesellschaft am Euphrat in Habuba Kabira –Syrien, Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.Sürenhagen, Dietrich (1999):Untersuchungen zur relativen Chronologie Babyloniens undangrenzender Gebiete von der ausgehenden ´Ubaidzeit bis zumBeginn der Frühdynastisch II-Zeit 1, Studien zurChronostratigraphie der südbabylonischen Stadtruinen von Urukund Ur, Heidelberger Orientverlag, Heidelberg.Tanret, M. (2009):The Seal of the Sanga [CM 40], Boston-Leiden.Teppo, S. (2005):Women and Their Agency in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, University ofHelsinki, Faculty of Arts, Institute for Asian and African Studies,Helsinki.Thompson, R. C. (1931):The Prisms of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, Oxford UniversityPress, London.Tinney, Stephen J. (1996):The Nippur Lament: Royal Rhetoric and Divine Legitimation in theReign of Išme-Dagan of Isin (1953–1935 B.C.), OccasionalPublications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 16, The UniversityMuseum, Philadelphia.Tinney, Stephen J. (1999):Ur-Namma the Canal-Digger: Context, Continuity and Change inSumerian Literature, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 51, 31–54.UE III: Leon Legrain:Ur Excavations volume III: Archaic Seal Impressions, London andPhiladelphia: The Trustees of the Two Museums (The BritishMuseum and The University Museum), by the aid of a Grant fromthe Carnegie Corporation of New York 1936.220

UE III:Leon Legrain: Ur Excavations volume III: Archaic Seal Impressions,The Trustees of the Two Museums (The British Museum and TheUniversity Museum), by the aid of a Grant from the CarnegieCorporation of New York, London and Philadelphia 1936.UET II:Eric Burrows: Ur Excavations, texts II: Archaic Texts, Trustees ofthe two Museums (The British Museum and The UniversityMuseum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia), London andPhiladelphia 1935.Vacín, Luděk. (forthcoming):Šulgi Meets Stalin: Comparative Propaganda as a Tool of Miningthe Šulgi Hymns for Historical Data, in: From the 21 st Century BCto the 21 st Century AD: Current Issues in Neo-Sumerian Studies,Manuel Molina and Steven Garfinkle (eds.), Eisenbrauns, WinonaLake.Van de Mieroop, Marc (2007):A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000 – 323 BC, Secondedition, Oxford.van Driel, Govert (1983):Seals and sealings from Jebel Aruda, "Akkadica" 33, 34-62.Visicato, Giuseppe (1997):Indices of Early Dynastic Administrative Tablets of Šuruppak,Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, Dipartimento di StudiAsiatici, Series Maior VI A, Napoli.Visicato, Giuseppe (2000):The Power and the Writing – The Early Scribes of Mesopotamia,CDL Press, Bethesda, MD.Westenholz, Aage (1987):Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Philadelphia 2, MuseumTusculanum Press, Copenhagen.221

Wilcke, Claus (1970):Eine Schicksalsentscheidung für den toten Urnammu, in: Actes dela XVII e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Université Librede Bruxelles, 30. juin–4. juillet 1969, André Finet (ed.), ComitéBelge de Recherches en Mésopotamie, Ham-sur-Heure, 81–92.Wilcke, Claus (1974):Zum Königtum in der Ur III-Zeit, in: Le palais et la royauté(archéologie et civilization), Paul Garelli (ed.). P. Geuthner, Paris,177–232.Wilcke, Claus (1976):Kollationen zu den sumerischen literarischen Texten aus Nippur inder Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena. Abhandlungen der SächsischenAkademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig (Philologisch-historischeKlasse) 65/4. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.Wilcke, Claus (1985):Neue Quellen aus Isin zur Geschichte der Ur-III-Zeit und der I.Dynastie von Isin. Orientalia Nova Series 54, 299–318.Wilcke, Claus (1991):17) Zur Herstellung von Reflexbögen, "N. A. B. U." 1/1991 (mars),14.Wilcke, Claus (1996):Neue Rechtsurkunden der altsumerischer Zeit, "Zeitschrift fürAssyriologie" 86/I, 1-67.Winter, I. (1986):"The king and the cup: Iconography of the royal presentation sceneon Ur III seals”, in: Kelly-Buccellati, M., Matthiae, P. & Van Loon,M. (eds.) Insight Through Images: Studies in Honor of EdithPorada [BiMes 21], Malibu, 235-268.Wiseman, D. J. (1958):The vasal treaties of Esarhaddon, in: Iraq 20, Part I, British Schoolof Archaeology in Iraq, London, 1-100.222

Woods, Christopher (2005a):On the Euphrates, "Zeitschrift für Assyriologie" 95, 7-45.Woods, Christopher (2005b):67) A Unique Writing for Sippar at Abū Salābīkh. d UD.KIB ki(Addendum to ZA 95 [2005], 7-45), "N. A. B. U."3/2005(septembre), 73-74.Wright, Henry T. (1969):The Administration of Rural Production in an Early MesopotamianTown, Museum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan,Ann Arbor, Michigan.Yoffee, Norman (1977):The Economic Role of the Crown in the Old Babylonian Period(BiMes 5), Malibu.ZATU:Hans-Jörg Nissen, Margaret Green, Peter Damerow, Robert K.Englund: Zeichenliste der archaischen Texte aus Uruk, Gebr.Mann Verlag, Berlin 1987.Zettler, Richard L. (1989):Pottery Profiles Reconstructed from Jar Sealings in the Lower SealImpression Strata (SIS 8-4) at Ur: New Evidence for dating, in: A.Leonard jr.; B. B. Williams (eds.), Essays in Ancient Civilizationpresented to H.J. Kantor [SAOC 47], Chicago, 369-387.Zgoll, Annette (1997):Der Rechtsfall der En-hedu-Ana im Lied nin-me-šara [AOAT 246],Ugarit-Verlag, Münster.223

AbbreviationsABLHarper, R. F., Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, Chicago 1892-1914.AdAmmī-ditanaADDJohns, C. H. W., Assyrian Deeds and Documents, Cambridge 1898-1923.AeAbī-ešuḫAfOArchiv für Orientforsching, Wien 1923 -.AfO Beih.Archiv für Orientforsching, Beiheft, Berlin, Graz and Horn, 1933 -.AOATAlter Orient und Altes Testament, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1968-.ASApil-SînAṣAmmi-ṣaduqaAdAmmi-ditanaAeAbi-ešuḫBBVOBerliner Beiträge zum Vorderer Orient, Berlin 1982-.225

BEThe Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia 1893-.BiMesBibliotheca Mesopotamica, Malibu 1975-.BMMuseum siglum of the British Museum, London.CADThe Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University ofChicago, Chicago 1956-.CAMSCorpus of Ancient Mesopotamian Scholarshiphttp://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/cams/.CBSMuseum siglum of the University Museum in Philadelphia,Catalogue of the Babylonian Section.CDABlack, J; George, A.; Postgate, N, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian,Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 1999.CLSCity-league seals.CMCuneiform Monographs, Groningen 1992-.CTCuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum,London 1896-.EDEarly Dynastic Period I-III.226

ETCSL:Black, Jeremy A. (†) et al. (1998‒): The Electronic Text Corpus ofSumerian Literature. http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk.FAOSFreiburger Altorientalische Studien, Freiburg 1975-.HSTablet siglum of the Hilprecht Collection in Jena.ḪaḪammu-rabiIraqIraq, British School of Archaeology in Iraq, London 1934-.ISETKramer, S. N.; Çig, M.; Kizilyay, H.: Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerindebulunan Sumer edebi tablet ve parcalari (Sumerian LiteraryTablets and Fragments in the Archaeological Museum ofIstanbul), I/Il, Ankara 1969/1976.JAOSJournal of the American Oriental Society, New Haven 1893-.JCSJournal of Cuneiform Studies, New Haven - Baltimore 1947-.KAH IMesserschmidt, L., Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen Inhalts,Erstes Heft, Leipzig 1911.LAKAnton Deimel: Die Inschriften von Fara I: Liste der archaischenKeilschriftzeichen, J. C. Hinrich´sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig1922.227

LAS IParpola, S., Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddonand Assurbanipal [AOAT 5/1], Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970.LAS IIParpola, S., Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddonand Assurbanipal [AOAT 5/2], Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1983.LOB periodLate Old Babylonian periodMDOGMitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft zu Berlin, Berlin1898-.MEA:René Labat: Manuel d´épigraphie akkadienne. Sixième édition parFlorence Malbran-Labat, Geuthner, Paris 1988.MesopotamiaMesopotamia, Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology, Copenhagen,1972-.MSVOMaterialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients,Berlin 1991-.MSVO 1:Robert K. Englund, Jean-Pierre Grégoire, Roger J. Matthews: TheProto-Cuneiform Texts from Jemdet Nasr I: Copies,Transliterations and Glossary, (Materialien zu den frühenSchriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients Bd. 1), Gebr. MannVerlag, Berlin 1991.NMuseum siglum of the University Museum, Philadelphia (Nippur).228

N. A. B. U.Nouvelles Assyriologiques Bréves et Utilitaires, Paris 1987 -.NiMuseum siglum of the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul (Nippur).OBOld Babylonian.OBOOrbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Freiburg Sweitzerland 1973-.OIPOriental Institute Publications, Chicago.PBSPublications of the Babylonian Section, University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia 1911-.PNAThe Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Helsinki1998-.RIMBThe Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian periods,Toronto.RTCF. Thureau-Dangin, Recueil des tablettes chaldéennes, Paris 1903.SaSabiumSAAState Archives of Assyria, Helsinki 1987-.SAASState Archives of Assyria Studies, Helsinki 1992-.229

SAOCStudies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, Chicago 1931-.SdSamsu-ditanaSdSamsu-ditanaSiSamsu-ilunaSISSeal-Impression Strata.SLTNS. Kramer, Sumerian Literary Texts from Nippur in the Museum ofthe Ancient Orient at Istanbul, 1944.SliSumu-la-elSmSîn-muballiṭTAPSTransactions of the American Philosophical Society.TCLTextes cunéiformes, Musées du Louvre, Paris 1910-.TMH NFTexte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection,Neue Folge, Berlin 1961-.TUATTexte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, Gütersloh 1982-.230

UE IIILeon Legrain: Ur Excavations volume III: Archaic Seal Impressions,London and Philadelphia: The Trustees of the Two Museums (TheBritish Museum and The University Museum), by the aid of aGrant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York 1936.UET IIEric Burrows: Ur Excavations, texts II: Archaic Texts, Trustees ofthe two Museums (The British Museum and The UniversityMuseum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia), London andPhiladelphia 1935.UGASLSelz, Gebhard: Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischenStadtstaates von Lagaš, Occasional Publications of the SamuelNoah Kramer Fund, Philadelphia 1995.YBCTablet siglum, Yale Babylonian Collection, New Haven.ZATUHans-Jörg Nissen, Margaret Green, Peter Damerow, Robert K.Englund: Zeichenliste der archaischen Texte aus Uruk, Gebr.Mann Verlag, Berlin 1987.231