ШАН;
TORONTO
LIBRARY
Tw Й D. t
ADM DA.
hr
DAT LM
A
че
THE BABYLONIAN EXPEDITION
OF
Re UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
SERIES A: CUNEIFORM TEXTS
Ре VM SIN = | C^ АМ
VOLUME XVII, PART 1
HUGO RADAU A р
«ECKLEY BRINTON COXE, JUNIOR, FUND”
PHILADELPHIA
Published by the Department of Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania
1908
€ The Editor determines the material to constitute a volume and
reports to the Committee of Publication on the general merits of
the manuscript and autograph plates submitted for publication ; but
the Editor is not responsible for the views expressed by the writer.
LETTERS
CASSITE KINGS
Oenple Archives uf Грип
Ву
HUGO RADAU
Sixty-eight Plates of Autograph Texts. Twelve Plates
of Halftone Reproductions
PHILADELPHIA
Published by the Department of Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania
1908
МАССАТЛА & Co. Inc., Printers
C. H. James, Lithographer
WEEKS PHOTO-ENGRAVING Co., Halftones
To
Mrs. Sallie Crozer Dilprecht
My Benefactress
Hs a very small token of profound and
lasting gratitude
PREFACE
ABOUT the same time when the children of Israel were invading the land of
Canaan preparatory to their final conquest these letters (DUB™™) were inscribed on
clay. They form part of the ‘Temple Archives” (РОВ МО”) of the Cassite
period, situated on the west side of the Shatt-en-Nil. In all probability these Archives
were found in one or several buildings (connected with each other), known as the
É.DUB shá É.GAL and including the Temple Library and the Temple School. Тһе
Cassite Kings at this time were the chief administrators of the affairs of the Temple of
Enlil at Nippur; for they are known by the title shakkanakku Enlil, characterizing
them as the representatives of Enlil on earth, who had "Чо put the seal” (kanáku)
of the god to each and every transaction made by and for the Temple. Nothing
could be done without their consent, approval, or authority (seal). While the
“Temple Archives” proper give us a picture of the business methods of the Temple
administration, under the chief supervision of the King, these letters represent the
correspondence about those methods.
Among them we find complaints from governors about non-delivery or delay in
the delivery of goods by the chief bursar of the Temple, medical reports about the
sickness of certain ladies connected with the sanctuary, complaints about goods
asked for, but not received, accounts of the disposition of taxes gathered, requests for
wages, building material, food, clothing, and the like.
The Temple of Enlil being a richly endowed institution, royal officers kept watch
over its proper administration and welfare and reported about the various affairs of
Enlil’s property to his earthly representative, the King. Thus we find reports about
the deplorable condition of canals, about the prospects of the harvests on the fields be-
longing to the Temple, about building operations with suggestions as to desirable im-
provements, about certain expeditions undertaken in defence of Еп Гв earthly
possessions, etc.
Though most of these letters are addressed to Ше “Lord,” i.e., the '^King" who
had his residence at least temporarily in Nippur, some of them may be classified as
part of an “official eorrespondence between Temple or State officers.
even letters in these archives written by the kings themselves (comp. Nos. 75 and 93).
vi
” There are
уйі LETTERS ТО CASSITE KINGS
This collection of official letters from Nippur forms an exact parallel to the
letters from the so-called Kuyunjuk collection of Nineveh, which constitutes the
remains of the famous library of King Ashshur-bän-apal excavated by Layard and
Rassam.
The letters here published have been copied during the winter of 1906-07 from
the originals to be found in the Babylonian Museum of the University of Pennsyl-
vania. Nos. 33a, 59a, 60a, 73a and 95-99 have been added after the plates had been
arranged and prepared for the press (November, 1907). With the exception of three
(Nos. 33a, S4, S5) these letters are mostly fragmentary, badly damaged, and poorly
preserved. This being the case, it was my aim to reproduce, as nearly as possible, all
the marks and wedges of every sign in question, bearing in mind that a reliable
сору must and ought to be an exact reproduction of the “original” as it presents itself
to the eyes of the copyist, and not of his ‘‘thoughts” or of what he ““expects”” to find
in а particular passage. This principle having been strictly adhered to, Ї came to the
result that the following signs are used interchangeably: (1) di and ki; (2) Й, bi, ni,
ir, lit, sha; (3) ib, ur, lu; (4) ish, ma, ba, zu, shag (libbu), su; (5) ku, shá, lu; (6) im,
ah, a’, mur; (7) du, ush, ta, sha, ra; (8) az, ug; (9) ad, si, mir; (10) бе, nu; (11) al, shit,
etc., etc.
As the texts here submitted have been written by more than fifty scribes, and as
each seribe has his own peculiar ductus, I tried to imitate that ductus in the best
apart from the copyist's own ability of writing
manner possible. This is the reason
cuneiform signs—for the varied execution of the copy of the letters here published.
The copyist, in fact, did not try to give in the following pages an exhibition of his
ability in copying inscriptions, but he rested content with a faithful reproduction of
all the peculiar characteristics of the ductus of the several seribes. After the letters
had been copied and translated, the copy was once more compared with the originals.
In this wise I flatter myself to have obtained an absolutely reliable copy. It is,
therefore, the fond hope of the copyist that the prospective decipherer will not commit
a mistake like the one the writer of No. 45 complains of when he writes to his “Lord”:
“І have written concerning ‘pots’ that they be brought down, but they were ‘straw’!
What for has my ‘Lord’ sent this?" The ‘‘Lord’s” order-filler misread apparently
the two signs: A men = KAN NIE агата = оро ог y = [Net =
ти" (Hebr. jan) = “straw”!
These letters forming, so to speak, the connecting link between those of the
Hammurabi and Amarna periods on the one hand and those of the later Assyrian and
Babylonian on the other, it is, of course, quite natural to find that they show the
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. їх
several characteristic features of the periods mentioned. Thus the sign PZ is still
used, at least sometimes, for wi; а ¢ does not yet exist; we have di-im, te-e-ma and
NE-ma. Тһе latter ought to be transcribed rather by de-ma than by te-ma. The
q begins to make itself felt in quite a good many instances. Yet, wherever / is
written for qi, I transcribed accordingly.
It will be noticed that I read the name NIN.IB Errish(t). This reading I am
still prepared to maintain, not only on account of the gloss urash, but also on account
of the identity of ““NIN.IB and ""Er(r)ish, see The Monist, Vol. XVII, No. 1 (Jan.,
1907), p. 142. The Aramaic transcription of NIN.IB is not ЛЁ) but DCN,
as is now beyond question, it being plainly written in the latter fashion on several
unpublished tablets in Constantinople, and also on an ostracon from Nippur pre-
served in the Babylonian Section of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania
(private communication of Prof. Hilprecht; see also р. 41, note). MEIN appa-
rently does not represent the pronunciation (this is Errish(t)), but an attribute of
i" NTN.IB and all those gods who, in the Babylonian “Trinity in Unity,” at one
time or another, played the rôle of Ше “Боп” It is, therefore, not exclusively
confined to ""NIN.IB, the “Son” of ""En-ll. I propose to read MIN = en
usäti = “lord of help," an attribute ascribed, among others, also to "Marduk, the
“Son” of “Ш.А; cf. the nom. propr. " "“Marduk-en-usäti, quoted by Delitzsch,
H.W. B., p. 1076, under usáti. Instead of usáti we find, at the time of the Cassites,
also the writing ú-za-ti, cf. В. E., XIV, 125: 12, "En-á-za-ti, a noteworthy peculiarity
which shows that usáti, uzáti has to be connected with the Sumerian A.ZU = ású =
“helper, physician.” We know that "IB (gloss urash) is = i"NTN.IB (see Bel,
the Christ, p. 16, note 8; p. 18, III; p. 19, 2), but /B (gloss urash) is also = barû (П В.
62, 36a), and бата is = A.ZU (Reisner, Hymnen, р. 7, 18. 19). From this it follows
that IB = A.ZU, and '*NIN.IB ="“NIN.A.ZU (cf. ILR. 57, 51a,b, where the star (mul)
iuNTN.A.ZU is identified with “NIN.IB). Again, "IB is also=""MASH, but mash
changes with тазі, cf. mash-pad = másh-pad (Е. B. H., p. 256, note 16); mash-shu-gid
(Cyl. A 20 :5) = mäsh-shu-gid (Cyl. A 12 : 16, 17), and тазі, is likewise = barů =
A.ZU. Itake, therefore, NEUN to stand for 1 = en = NIN, and ла” = usáti = игай
(the abstract for the concrete noun) = A.ZU = IB = MASH. In other words,
“ІВ or ™MASH is “the helper," “the physician” (hence the patron god of the
physicians), and “NIN.IB or '"NIN.A.ZU the “lord of help," the “helping lord.”
As such a “lord о) help” he is the veriest ““Saviour”
a saviour that saves not only
from bodily or(!) spiritual harm (notice that sickness is the result of the evil spirits
within a person; if these demons are cast out, the sick person recovers!), but also
one who delivers mankind from death, destruction, and the grave. He is the **mer-
x LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
ciful one” (réménii, К 128 = Jensen, Kosm., р. 470), the ‘‘merciful god” (Ши réménü,
І В. 17: 19), the “опе who gives life" (qa-ish TI.LA, І В. 17: 19), ‘‘who gives
the spirit of life" (qà' ish napshäti, Jensen, l.c.), ‘‘who quickens the dead” (muballit
meltüti], Jensen, l.c.), who delivers the dead out of the nether world: ‘‘who has been
brought down into the nether world, his body thou bringest back again” (sha ana
arallé shürudu pagarshu tuterra, Bêl, the Christ, р. 45, note 2; cf. ф ixl. 15, “God
will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol”; or 4 xvi. 10, ‘‘For thou will not
leave my soul to Sheol”).
From these considerations it follows that the оп” of the Nippurian Trinity
(Enlil—NIN IB—NIN.LIL = Bau) was the prototype not only of Nin.Girsu in the
Girsu Trinity (2nlil—Nin.Girsu—NIN.LIL = Bau) or of Marduk in the Eridu Trinity
(2.A—Marduk—Damkina = Sarpanitum), but even of Christ in the Christian Trinity
)
(Father—Son— Holy Spirit); in each and every case Ше “Хоп” was the Saviour,
the en usäti; hence Christ was rightly called the “Jesus” and was greeted, when
entering Jerusalem, with joyful ‘‘Hosannahs,” МУРО, “Save (now, O Lord)!”
While writing this Preface, there lies before me a copy of ‘The so-called Peters-
Hilprecht Controversy." Prof. Hilprecht's critics make so much ado about the
“*probable” place of provenance of the so-called Lushtamar letter, all of them claiming
that if the envelope were opened and the contents read, its place of origin would be
settled for all time to come. This very clamor proves better than anything else that
those gentlemen never have read a Babylonian letter! To help clear the atmosphere
a little in this respect, I may be permitted to say a few words about the place of
origin of letters in general.
1. In no letter thus far published is there ever found an absolute reliable indi-
cium about its place of origin. The only thing in a letter which might possibly help
solve such a question is the so-called invocation frequently found after the address.
If, e.g., for the protection of his correspondent, a writer invokes certain gods wor-
shipped in a certain city, it is probable that that writer hailed, resp. sent, his letter
from that city the gods of which he invoked. Cf. here No. 89, where the writer
Pán-AN.GA L-lu-mur invokes the gods of Dúr-ilu for the protection of the addressee;
hence the probability is that the writer hailed and wrote from Dúr-ilu. But this, as
I said, is and must remain a probability only, for we find in the letters here published
another example in which the writer invokes the gods of Nippur. This letter (No. 38)
has likewise been found in Nippur. Now it is not at all likely that the writer, when
sending his letter to the “Lord” at Nippur, was himself in Nippur. If he were, he
would most assuredly have appeared before the “Lord” in person, thereby saving
himself the trouble of writing a letter, which had to be baked, encased in an envelope,
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. xl
addressed, sealed and handed over to a messenger in order to be delivered. What
then is the inference from this invocation? Does the invocation prove that the
letter was sent from Nippur to Nippur, where it was found? Such a thought would
be simply ridiculous. All we can say is this: the writer of No. 38, because he invokes
the gods of Nippur, was in all probability a Nippurian, but was away from Nippur
when writing that letter. The invocation of that letter, then, does not prove any-
thing at all with regard to the place whence that letter has been sent.
2. Prof. Hilprecht has some very good, convincing, and absolutely reliable
reasons why he assigns the Lushtamar letter to the business or administrative
section of the Temple Library of Nippur. We believe his words a thousand times
more than those of his accusers, which, at the very best, are merely hearsay. In
fact, his critics have absolutely nothing to bring forward in corroboration of their
claim that “the Lushtamar letter did not come from the ruins of Nippur, but from
those of Мірраг." In corroboration of this hearsay talk Prof. Hilprecht’s critics now
point out that the seal impression of the Lushtamar letter mentions certain persons
who are known from tablets that have been found at Sippar. What is there on the
envelope of the Lushtamar letter to justify such a strange conclusion? Besides the
address “Чо Lushtamar (а-па Lu-ush-ta-mar)”’, I find a seal impression which reads:
Ilu-shü-Ba-ni dam-qar | mar I-bi-"NIN.SHAH | ardi ""МІХ.ААНАН-де. The same
persons occur again on a tablet published in В. E., VP, 50 : 19, 20, which tablet
was ‘probably’
H
excavated in Sippar. ‚The critics draw the conclusion, it seems,
that, because the same persons occur on both tablets (the Lushtamar letter and B. E.,
УГ, 50), and because В. E., УГ, 50, was * probably " found in Sippar, the Lushtamar
must have been found in Sippar likewise. But can anyone imagine that Ilu-shü-Ba-ni,
a resident oj Sippar, would write to Lushtamar, another resident oj Sippar, which he must
have done if the letter had been found at Sippar? If Lushtamar had been a resident of
Sippar, like /lu-shá-Ba-ni, is it not much more probable that the latter would have
gone in person to the former and communicated to him his wishes orally? Instead of
this contention being against Prof. Hilprecht, it much rather speaks decidedly for him.
We may admit that the /lu-shü-Ba-ni of the Lushtamar letter and the /lu-shú-Ba-ni
of B. E., УГ, 50, are both one and the same person; we also may admit that both
were residents of Sippar; but from this it by no means follows that the addressee,
Mr. Lushtamar, lived likewise in Sippar. On the contrary, the fact that /lu-shú-
Ba-ni, a possible inhabitant of Sippar, did write to Lushtamar would prove a priori
that the latter was not a resident of Sippar, but was, as Prof. Hilprecht, for reasons
given in his ‘Controversy, quite rightly and correctly claims, а resident ої Nippur.
In conclusion, I must apologize to the Editor and the Publication Committee for
ХИ LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
the length of the Introduction to the letters here published. In view of the extra-
ordinary importance of these letters for the history, religion, language, grammar,
and lexicon of the Babylonians, but more especially for a correct understanding of
the terms ‘Temple Archives," ‘Temple School” and ‘Temple Library,” it was
absolutely necessary that the wrong impressions created by those who hold a con-
trary view should be set aright. If I have done nothing else but created a basis
upon which to reconstruct the system of administration, education, and worship of
the Babylonians at 1500 B.C., I shall be more than repaid for my labors in connec-
tion with this volume.
It only remains to thank here the Provost of the University, Dr. C. C. Harrison,
and the Direetor of the Museum of Science and Art, Mr. S. F. Houston, for their
hospitality, kindness, and courtesies shown to me during my sojourn in the Museum.
To express my gratefulness to Mr. Eckley Brinton Coxe, Jr., through whose gen-
erosity the Museum is enabled to publish the following pages, gives me special pleasure.
I am sure I voice the sentiments of all Assyriologists when I say that this noble and
unselfish benefactor ereets by these publications, the elegance of which is not attained
by any other similar works, much less surpassed, an everlasting monument upon
which all scholars look with admiration and gratefulness. To my friend and teacher,
Prof. Dr. H. V. Hilprecht, who so generously and freely assisted me in words and
deeds during the course of the preparation of this volume, whose valuable time,
profound scholarship, and learning were at all times most abundantly at my dis-
posal, who not only read the proof-sheets, but who constantly and continually helped
me most liberally with his valuable advice, I am especially most grateful. I only
hope and pray that the work of the pupil may be worthy of the master. It is a
special delight to be able to express publicly my sincere gratitude to Mrs. Sallie
Crozer Hilprecht for her most generous benefactions bestowed upon me during the
last two years while here in Philadelphia. Were it not for her help I never could
have written this book. May she graciously condescend to accept this work as a
very small token of my profound and lasting gratitude.
Ново Барат.
Philadelphia, Pa., May 1, 1908.
В. Е..
Bél, the Christ
CEB Are
Creation Story
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
-Hugo Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen.
.. “The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures,” edited by R. Е. Harper.
..Bruno Meissner, Beiträge zum Altbabylonischen Privatrecht.
„Раш Haupt, Akkadische und Sumerische Keilschrifttexte.
Beiträge zur Assyriologie und vergleichenden Semitischen Sprachwissenschafts, edited by Friedrich
Delitzsch and Paul Haupt.
“Тһе Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania,” edited by Н. V. Hilprecht.
‚Hugo Radau, “ Bel, the Christ of Ancient Times."
.. “Catalogue of the Babylonian Collections in the Archeological Museum of the University of
Pennsylvania,” prepared by H. V. Hilprecht.
Hugo Radau, “The Creation Story of Genesis I, а Sumerian Theogony and Cosmogony.”
.. “Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, ete., in the British Museum.” Printed by order of
the Trustees.
“The E. A. Hoffman Collection of Babylonian Tablets in the General Theological Seminary, New
York City.”
..Hugo Radau, “Early Babylonian History.”
В. Е. Harper, “Assyrian and Babylonian Letters belonging to the К Collection of the British
Museum.”
гЬ. У. King, “The Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi.”
... Friedrich Delitzsch, Assyrisches Handwörterbuch.
Journal of the American Oriental Society.”
... “Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.”
... Kuyunjuk Collection.
...Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, edited by E. Schrader.
«С. Н. У. Johns, “Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts, and Letters.”
. ... Leipziger Semitistische Studien, edited by A. Fischer and Н. Zimmern.
..Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung, edited by Е. E. Peiser.
„Е. E. Peiser, Urkunden aus der Zeit der dritten Babylonischen Dynastie.
...“ Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology.”
... “The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia,” edited by Sir Н. С. Rawlinson.
„Е. Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Königsinschrijten.
“Надо Winckler, Untersuchungen zur altorientalischen Geschichte.
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete, edited by C. Bezold.
xiii
CONTENTS.
PAGE
Mis АО АСЕ ОК ам ENTER S ere а sae 1-12
II. LETTERS BETWEEN TEMPLE AND STATE OFFICIALS ........... 13-28
ПІ. LETTERS BETWEEN OFFICIALS OF THE TEMPLE OR STATE AND THE KING 29-58
IV. RESULTS:
(а) The Genealogy of the Cassite Kings of this Period............ 59-71
(b) The Seat of Residence of Ше Cassite Kings .................. 72-76
(c) The Nature and Purpose of the so-called Temple Archives and
them kRelationto Royal Arehives ы шз. шз к ти 76-93
V. TRANSLATION OF SOME SPECIMEN LETTERS. ..................... 94—144
VI. CONCORDANCE OF PROPER NAMES:
I. Names of Persons:
[МИ ое ШӘ to 222... 145—150
Ze епа тите Маш е ты A аа а es Oe 150
ШЕ" Brotessional апа бер Пе Names. . : „3. os as e 150—152
PENAT esto а сео SR E САК куллы Ларс ы NEN 158—154
IW Nig ско абез аа ы ыллык ушеу. TTE 154
Мшез of Houses апа l'emples.- г... сто на see Eus 154-155
ҮЗІ Матова cta 22... 155
WIGS: Талес ро Gods e e у fr cr an ае оре чы: 155-157
УП. DESCRIPTION Or TABLETS:
(а AwrtoeraphsEreprOoOU blond аа а RIS 158-172
(0) Бо отара Reproductions. SG аа فف 172-173
(c) Numbers of the Catalogue of the Babylonian Museum 73-174
МАЛО CUNETIRORMEREXTS ЕС ТРИИ Plates 1-68
INEA TE TONE REPROD СТОЕК ...... PlatesI-XII
xv
М
қық
РО >
TIME AND АСЕ OF THE LETTERS.
All the tablets here published are Letters—DUB, dup-pi, dup-pa, IM.
They were excavated in Nippur during the second to fourth expeditions' of the
University of Pennsylvania (1889-1900), and form part of the so-called Temple
Archives of Nippur, partly published by Clay, B. E., XIV and XV. The facts
that these letters were found, when unpacked by Prof. Hilprecht, intermingled with
the tablets of B. E., XIV and XV, which are all dated in the reign of certain Cassite
Kings, that they are of the same peculiar ‘‘color of clay," have the same “form”
and ‘‘writing’’ as those of the Temple Archives, would, a priori, make it reasonably
certain that we have to assign them to the Cassite period. Apart from these criteria
there are others which prove, beyond a doubt, that the letters here published did,
and actually do, belong to the reigns of either one or the other of the following Cassite
kings (see Hilprecht, B. E., XX', p. 52, note 1):
REIGNED ACCORDING, LAST YEAR FOUND
Kınas ¡To “List or Kings.” ох NirPUR TABLETS ABOUT
iBurnasBurisshalho tI созоавофаосотавсвв. |возазаасензооовабосов 25 (or 27°) 1450-1423 B.C.
КҮ ЕНД По обнове ава о ово завеса о боса 25 | 235 1421-1396 B C.
NazMaratias Moneta 26 | 24° 1396-1370 B.C.
Kadashman-Turgu (воп)....................... 17 167 1369-1352 В.С.
Кааап (вол) e [Ці or ПР | 6° | 1852-1340 B.C.
Kadar ЕПШШ (18007) вото на 222222222... стору Ў ви) | 1389-1881 B.C.
Shagarakti-Shuriash (2d(?) воп)................ 13 | 12(1) | 1331-1318 В.С.
Kashtiliashunll (S00) аа ы аа 8 | 6n 1317-1309" B.C.
| |
1 СЕ. Hilprecht, В. E., Series D, Vol. I, pp. 289-568. For the second expedition see also Peters, Nippur, Vol. П,
p- 188.
2 “Temple Archives,” to mention it here, were called at the time when all these documents were written: DUB
MUmesh DUB shü-ma-(a-)ti, DUB.SHA.RA, DUB MU.BI.IM, DUB GISH, DUB za-kar-tum. For a discussion of
these terms see below under “Results,” p. 83.
з Тһе last year thus far known was the 25th. Cf. B. E., XIV, 9: 5ff. arhuENGAR.GAB.A йти 10*am
shattu 2559". Bur-na-Bu-ri-ia-ásh LUGA L-E. But Prof. Hilprecht informs me that Burna-Buriash II seems to have ruled
1
2 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
Among these criteria and indicia may be mentioned (a) that the persons intro-
duced in these letters are to be found—to a great extent at least—also in the dated
documents of the Temple Archives. The following few examples will illustrate it.
"In-na-an-ni, who figures so conspicuously in the texts of B. E., XIV, as one
who transaets (i-na 440 the business of the Temple’s storehouses at Nippur and
elsewhere? during the 18th," 21st, and 234" year of Kuri-Galzu" and the 1st'* and 201?
at least twenty-seven years, according to a fragmentary tablet of the Cassite period recently catalogued by him (No.
12907), which though insufficiently dated: “Shabátu, 12th day, 27th year,” according to internal evidence must be
assigned to the reign of Burna-Buriash or Kuri-Galzu, in all probability to the former. After an examination of the
personal proper names occurring on this tablet I agree entirely with Prof. Hilprecht's conclusions.
‘That this Kuri-Galzu has to be identified both with З Kuri-Galzu, the son of Burna-Buriash," and with “ Kuri-
Сами sihru, the son ої Kadashman-Harbe,” will be shown below sub “Chronology,” рр. 63ff.; hence the “gap” between
Burna-Buriash and Kuri-Galzu.
s B. E., NIV, 38 :15f. (9... ] йти 16” shattu одкат i'i Kur)-e-[Gall-zu.
* В. E., XIV, 86 : 15. (Case) аги A SIT A АХ йти 17^ *" shattu 24ка" Na-zi-Mu-ru-ut-ta-ásh.
7 B. E., XIV (pl. 61), 114a ( = E. А. H., 179): 5f. ^" SH ЕС. СА йти З" shattu 1654". Ka-dash-man-Tur-gu.
з For this ruler see Clay, B. E., XIV, p. 4, and l.c., No. 116 : Sff. arhu A SHAAN shattu бкат ilu Ка-дахћ-тат-
Uu Еп-Ш. j
з This is the last year mentioned in the published texts from the Temple Archives that I can find. Clay, B. E.,
XIV, рр. 3, 71 (whom Hilprecht, В. E., ХХ!, p. 52, note 1, follows), gives the year 9 as the last, referring to /.c., No.124:
1Sf. But here we have clearly the year 8, for we read: © Зи НЕ shattu S() и Ku-dir-ri-"" Enlil]. Cf. here l.c.,
123 : 24 and P. 135 : 22—both of which are likewise dated in the Sth year.
0 Hilprecht, B. E., XX!, р. 52, note 1, has shown that the tablet B. E., XIV, 139, is not dated from the 22d
(Clay, l.c., pp. 3, 72), but from the 2d year; hence the last recorded date is found іп В. E., XIV, 138 : 32, "САМ
йти 1059? shattu 1[2](сї. 1. 2%" Sha-ga-ra-ak-ti-Shur-ia-dsh LUGAL. Cf. also P. 111 : 15 | 131 : 18, and especially
ST : 148. (““ЗЕХСАЕ САВА йти 5Кат (лани) 12%" [Sha-gar}-ak-ti-Shur-id-üsh ( = 6) [LU]GAL KI-SHÀ R-RA
( — kishshati). E
п B. E., XIV, 144 : 9 [shattu] 654” Kash-til-ia-shü LUGAL-E. For the pronunciation of Bi as Kash in this
name, ef. Thureau-Dangin in O. L. Z., 15th February, 1908, Sp. 93.
? Or possibly about 1296-1289 B.C. Cf. III R. 4, No. 2 (Sennacherib's capture of Babylon, i.e., either the first
(702 B.C.) or the second (689 B.C.) took place), “600 years after Tukulti-NIN.IB,” who reigned seven years over
Babylon, following immediately upon Kashtiliashu.
в Е. g., Za-rat-IM#, В. E., XV, Nos. 3, 63,86. Kár*“NIN.IBF, В. E., l.c., No. 99. Du-un-na-a-hi**, Le., No.
112. 4" Za-rat-Dür-"Gu-la**, lc., Nos. 114, 128. @и руди Marduk, le., No. 120. Kár-UD.NUN"', іс. Nos.
124. 135. Bit-"É.KU R-MU-MU, l.c., Nos. 138, 139, ete., etc. See also pp. 81; 85, note 3; 110.
“В. E., NIV, 29-3; 30:3. The tablet, l.c., 23 : 8 (dated in the 13th year of Kuri-Galzu), where it is reported
that KU.MUN was paid (nàd-nu) to (ог by?) "In-na-an-nu, was not taken into consideration here.
5 В. E., XIV, 35:3.
е B. E., XIV, 38 : 10, where it is stated that certain animals, which had been loaned out, are to be returned to
(inamdin ana) Innanni.
п From the 22d year of Kuri-Galzu Innanni shared honors with his successor, "Mar-tu-ku, B. E., XIV, 36 : 3.
в В. E., XIV, 41a (pl. 56) : 3, ef. 1. 128.: икру и Innanna shattu ПК" ЧирГ( = Na!)-zi-Ma-ra-ta-ásh.
з В.Е. XIV, 42 :2, 198. “%LQGUD.SI.SI(= di) йти gkam shattu экат Чи Na-2;-Ma-ru-ut-ta-ásh LUGA L-E.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 9
year of Nazi-Maruttash'—7.e., during a period of at least ten years’—is represented
in our texts as the recipient of four letters, two" of which have been addressed to
him Бу” ““NIN.IB(resp. "“MASH)-TUR.USH-SE-na? From the contents and
the tone of these two letters it is apparent that Innanni was the ‘‘chief bursar””
of the Temple's storehouses, where nothing could be either received or expended
without his knowledge and consent, and that Errish-apal-iddina was likewise a
person of no mean rank; for he hires workmen, and dares to command Innanni:
226
““Thou, hurry up, give the seed corn to the city. Apparently then he was at the
head of a city. More than this, he even had certain prefects (hazannätı) under
him, for he requests Innanni in another letter: ‘Thou shalt not accept the sesame
of the prefects.’” This latter passage shows that Errish-apal-iddina, because he
?
had authority over hazannáti, ‘‘city prefects," must have been a “governor,” a
‘bêl paháti."* Comparing these results with the texts of B. E., XIV and ХУ,
we learn that a certain place, called either Dür-" ““NIN.IB-TUR.USH-SE-na'"
or Ви" ""М ASH'*(resp. " !'"NIN.IB")-TUR.USH-SE-na*', flourished as a ‘‘barley
depot” during the 13th year of Kuri-Galzu" and the 19th,'* 22d,'* and 24th'* year
of Nazi-Maruttash—+.e., during a period of at least thirty-two years, including
1 The statement in В. E., XIV, p. 8: “All the tablets in which this name (1.е., Innannu) occurs, with the exception
2,
of one, which is dated in the reign of Nazi-Maruttash, belong to the reign of Kuri-Galzu,” will have to be modified
accordingly.
2 Cf. here also the Bit-"In-na-an-ni (situated in Nippur, B. E., ХУ, 115 : 5; 135 : 6) which flourished from at
least the 22d year of Kuri-Galzu (B. E., XIV, 36 :2, 11) to the 15th year of Nazi-Maruttash (B. E., XIV, 65 : 7, 14).
Add here to Bit-Innanni ої В. E., XV, the following references: 66 :6| 117 :2 |141 : 22 | 155 : 20, 22. A Már-"In-na-
a[n-ni is mentioned in the 6th and the 7th year of Shagarakti-Shuriash (B. E., XIV, 132 : 22).
3 Nos. 83-86.
* Nos. 83 and 84.
5 Possibly to be read Errish(t)-apal-iddina. For the possible reading of NIN.IB resp. MASH as Errish(0), sce
The Monist, XVII (January, 1907), pp. 140ff. Clay reads this name either NIN.IB-mär-iddina (B. E., XIV, p. 49a) or
NIN.IB-apal-iddina (B. E., XV, p. 38a). Why this change, considering that in all the passages known to me the
writing TUR.USH = apal is found?
в No. 83 : 24 ù at-ta ha-mu-ut-ta al-ka-am-ma SH E.ZER а-па ülu-ki i-din, see p. 112.
1 Мо. 84 : 3, SH E.GISH.NI shá ha-za-an-na-a-ti la ta-ma-ha-ar at-ta, etc., see p. 114.
8 This follows also from a comparison of, e.g., В. E., XIV, 99a (pl. 59 = E. A. H., 195): 4, 7, 16, 26, 29, 41 with
В. E., XIV, 168 : 59, 51, 26, and especially І. 40, i.e., in this latter tablet, which is an "inventory of cattle,” the “shá
Віт Чи ММ IB-TUR.USH-SE-na" apparently stands for pi-hat ™ i'" NTN IB-TUR.USH-SE-na.
? В. E., XIV, 18:7 (notice that KI-II refers back to Dür- of 1. 6). In B. E., XIV, pp. 49a, 58b, this name
is read NIN.IB-már-iddina'? resp. NIN.IB-már-iddina, but in l.c., p. 58a, Dür-” UUNIN.IB-már(read: араћ)-гда та“.
0 В. Е, XIV, 76 22.
и В. Е. XIV, 79 :4|84 :2.
22 ВЕ SIV, 18S ЛД,
з BE AAN 16): 2) 8.
M B. E., XIY, 79:4, 11.
15 B. Е. XIV, 84 : 2, 9.
4 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
the time during which Innanni was the “chief bursar” at Nippur. Hence
Innanni and ™ ‘“Jrrish-apal-iddina, the founder, owner, and occupant of Dir
(resp. Bit)-" ‘“Irrish-apal-iddina, were contemporaries."
Again in No. 9 : 21 a certain mBana-a-sha-""Marduk, when writing to his
“Lord” (be-N), states that he has, in order to corroborate the truthfulness of his
communications, ‘‘made to be his witnesses" a certain ” ““Nergal-Ba-ni, the prefect
(ha-za-na) of Rakanu, and the prefect (ha-za-an-na) of Bit-"Ki-din-ni,’ upon whom
his “Lord” may call, if he desires confirmation of the truth. The prefect of
Bit-Kidinni was, of course, Kidinni? This statement of Baná-sha-Marduk, no
doubt, indicates that he stood in some kind of a relation to the prefeet Kidinni.
What this relation was we may gather from а tablet,’ dated in the 20th year of
Kuri-Galzu, which reports that Baná-sha-Marduk received certain cereals’ “оп the
authority" ог “by order” of" "Ki-di-nu-ú ` the latter apparently being the superior
of the former. But we can go a step farther. B. E., XIV, 99a (=E. A. H., 195): 35,
1 Cf. here also В. E., ХУ, 124, where a certain ™Ri-esh-Shamshu(-shu) ог ™Ri-esh-Shamshi-shu (this reading prefer-
able to Clay’s Ri-esh-tü-shu (B. E., XV, p. 40b) or Ri-esh-ümi-shu (Z. A., ХХ (1907), р. 417f.) in view of such names as
mRi-esh-na-pa-ah-shü, B. E., XV, 24:7, and "Ri-esh""En-lil, l.c., 19 : 16) receives from (ina 440 Innanni a certain
amount of grain as KU.QAR-wages, which grain was taken from that belonging to (ina libbi SHE shá) т ilu M ASH-
TUR.USH-SE-na. The tablet is dated in the 22d year (sc. doubtless of Kuri-Galzu). In B. E., XV, 136 (dated the
23d year, sc. of Kuri-Galzu), Innannu endorses the payment of GIG ( = kibätu, “four,” Jensen, K. B., VI, p. 485) to
certain pa-te-si hi.a “by order of” or “in the employ of "—thus receiving the amount specified “on the authority ов
i.e., “per” (= qût; in this differing from Clay, B. E., XV, pp. 5, 6, who translated qût “in the hands of” or “paid to”;
qût may or may not (as here) be expressed before the second name in “lists of payments”) ™ uM ASH-TUR.USH=
SE-na. These two tablets prove beyond a doubt that Innanni and Errish-apal-iddina were contemporaries during
the 22d and 23d year (of Kuri-Galzu).
? No. 9 : 21, а-па shi-bu-li-ia " Чи Nergal-Ba-ni ha-za-na sha aluRa-ka-nu й ha-za-an-na «һа Bit-"Ki-din-ni dsh-la-
ka-an, see p. 106.
3 Notice that in our letter the prefect of Bit-Kidinni is not mentioned by name, simply because there was no other
prefect of the “house of Kidinni” than Kidinni himself—a fact quite well known to the “Lord.”
«В. E, XIV, 34:6.
5 ASH.AN.NA (wheat), GU.GAL (beans), and sih(= ZAG)-hi-li (caper, cf. Hilprecht, B. E., Series D, Vol. I,
p. 555).
* Thus I translate, because the name of Kidinü follows that of Baná-sha-Marduk.
? Kidinni is a shorter form of Kidin(n)ü. The latter is, as the long ú indicates, a hypocoristicon of some such
name às Kidin-NIN.IB, -Nergal, -Rammän (ef. No. 33 : 12), -Sin, -Ulmash, ete. See “List of Names” in B. Е., XIV, p.
16b. Cf. also 18 : 22, "Кі-аї-пі; 23 : 23, тк дп "Marduk, and B. E., IX, р. 610, and l.c., X, p. 53b, " Ki-din.
* Owing to the fact that the writer was in Europe while reading the proofs of his E. B. H. (thus having no access
to the E. A. H. Collection), it happened that E. A. H., 195 was erroneously reckoned to the Neo-Babylonian period; it
should have been read, E. В: H., р. 328 sub e: “Тһе dynasty of the Cassites, 175-195,” instead of 194. Clay, B. Е.,
XIV, p. 2, note 3, however infers from this inaccuracy that the writer did not understand the nature of the tablet in
question. Turning to the “Table of Contents” of B. E., XIV, p. 69, No. 99a, I find that its author does not give its
contents either. I take this opportunity to state what I regard to be the contents of this and two exactly similar tablets
(B. E., XIV, 168 and 99), which are interpreted somewhat differently by Dr. Clay, who sees in No. 168 a “record of
-
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. Э
informs us that there lived in the 11th year of Kadashman-Turgu (І. 46) a certain
mKi-diznu-ú who was one of the prefects, hazannáti (1.с., col. XV : 22), belonging
to the pi-hat of " '"En-lil-bél( = EN)-nishé"**-shu (1. 41). Now, as "Ki-di-nu-ü
collections” (see le., р. 73), while No. 99 in the same volume is pronounced to be a “record of the collection of
taxes in animals” (see l.c., p. 69). All three tablets just referred to are inventories. Cf., e.g., 99a : 46 (and see 99 : 1),
mi-nu LIT.GUDHLA à GANAM.LUHI.A NIN.ANMesh “the number of large and small cattle belonging to the
NIN.ANMesh” The latter were two “beings”; one was called NIN AN.GAL, П. 13, 34 (cf. B.E., ХІУ, 89:1, 9;
104 :3; 131 : [1], 18; 136 : 16; 138 : 31), and the other NIN.AN.TUR, 1. 44 (cf. B. E., XIV, 89 : 1, 16; 136 :29 (1),
and, per analogy, we ought to expecta NZN.AN.TUR also in І. 21. What these NZN.AN"*9^ were, cannot be
made out as yet. From Letter No. 85 (see р. 115) I would like to infer that Inbi-Airi was such a NIN.AN or
qadishtu. From the arrangement of the tablet in question we might draw the conclusion that the “large cattle"
were under the chief supervision of the kash-shu (not — Cassite) "Ki-lam-du, li. 1, 2, 14; while the “small cattle"
were under that of the kash-shu "Ате-Ва-пи-й (if kash-shu were = “Cassite,” Amel-Banü would be one with a good
Babylonian name), ll. 22, 23, 35 (the traces given in В.Е. XIV, are, no doubt, wrong). Each kash-shu, it seems, had several
(three or more?) bél piháti under him. And as, according to our tablet, the three pi-hat included in the kash-shu of
Kilamdu are exactly the same as those of the kash-shu of Amel-Banú, it is most likely that a kash-shu is the general
overseer of either the large or the small cattle, irrespective of territory; in other words, a kashshu has the supervision ol
all small or of all large cattle of a NIN.AN scattered over all the different provinces (pihäti). I propose, therefore,
to derive kashshu from WW, “to gather" (Jensen, К. B., ҮШ, pp. 322, 562), here in the sense of "опе under whose juris-
dietion are gathered a number of bél piháti,” i.e., “governor- or overseer-in-chief." А bel piháti, on the other hand,
is responsible for the flocks of both the large and small cattle herded in his territory, which responsibility is always expressed
by 446 = “per”, see ll. 11 (сі. 1. 7); 12 (ef. 1. 4); 17, 20 (ef. 1. 16); 32 (notice the w(!) and cf. ll. 29 and 26); 42 (ef. 1.
41); hence we have to translate, e.g., 1. 11, “total 10 (sc. oxen of six years) a-na za-bal KU.QAR amelu RIQ ù K A.ZID.DA
ай (= SHOU) т ilu Spamash-nädin-ahömesh » by “(are employed) for the carrying (zabäl = inf.; ef. our No. 34 : 40,
i-na 98 M. A R.GID.DA IN ki-i az-bi-la, when I was bringing straw in the harvest (lit. “long”) wagons, the horses, etc.)
of the KU.QA R-wages of the vegetable- and grain-gatherers ‘per’ (sc. order, information of) Shamash-nádin-ahé (the
bel pi-hat, 1. 7)”; or 1. 17, “total 83 cattle, the property (na-kam-tum) ої Már-Idinanni-Shamash, “per” (order, infor-
mation of) Enlil-bél-nishé shu (the bél pi-hat, 1. 16).” The territory of a pi-hat was subdivided into two to six (cf. 11.
2. З and 35-40), or possibly more, hazannäti, and each hazannu or “prefect” had one (ef. Il. 2, 3, ete.), two (cf. 1. 27,
28 and 36, 37) or more na-gid or “shepherds” under him. The nagid, hazannu, bel piháti, kashshu of this tablet corre-
spond exactly to the nagid, nu-banda(-gud), PA, pa-te-si of the “inventory” lists of the Ur dynasty tablets, as published
in E. В. H., pp. 333-361 (for nu-banda = hazannu see, e.g., Meissner, Ideogramme, No. 1159). It will be noticed that
the cattle introduced by TA = itti or EN = adi are never counted, hence TA = itti cannot mean here “together with,”
nor can adi be translated by “in addition to”. TA = itti has to be rendered by “besides,” and EN = adi by “apart
from." For ТА cf. eg., 1. 43, TA 15 ki-is-bu, 1.е., "besides 15 (that were given for a) sacrifice to the dead." For
kisbu see, besides Zimmern, Ritualt., p. 160, 11; Jensen, K. B., УП, рр. 446, 517; also B. E., ХУ, 185, 1:5; 200, I : 6,
ki-si-bu à ri-im-ku. For EN = adi ef. 1. 5, EN 1 shul (not lam, as Clay’s copy gives, see ХТУ, 168 : 16, EN 5 shul-ma-
ni and cf., l.c., 1. 15, shul-ma-na-a-tum; ХУ, 199 : 21, 22; shul( = DI)-ma-nu)-ma-nu, i.e., “apart from one (that was
given for a) peace(-offering)." Cf. also 1. 18, EN 2 GUD MU- ù 1 LIT shá i-na Kär-EN.KUR.KUR® bu-uk-ku-ra,
i.e., “apart from two oxen, four years old, and one cow which are being taken care of in Kär-EN.KUR.KUR.” For
bukkura cf. also XIV, 168 : 55, shá i-na shattu kam фи-ид-ди(!)-га, and l.c., 1. 16, tab-ki-ir-(XIV, 99a : 10, tab-kir(!)-
ti)tum shá ma-du-tu ü-pa(!)-ak-ki-ru-ni, which shows that we have here a verb bagáru = радіти = Hebr. 7р2, Piel:
“to eleave, discern, to look after a thing”; met with also in Neb., Winckler, I : 18 (quoted by H. W. B., p. 1810),
where mu-ba-ak-ki-ir ga-ar-ba-a-tim should be translated by “who looks after the fields,” i.e., “who takes care of them. ja
A tapqirtu, accordingly, would be a “flock which requires special treatment,” a “special looking after,” and XIV, 168 :
16, quoted above, might be translated: “the flock(s) requiring a special looking after of the several shepherds they
take care of them.” Lastly cf. 1. 43: EN 20 za-bit-ti MU 114am i.e., “apart from 20 (special) ‘holdings’ of the 11th
6 LETTERS ТО CASSITE KINGS
(the hazánu and superior of Baná-sha-Marduk') is only another writing for "А
din-ni (the hazànu of Bit-"Ki-din-ni and the high and influential witness of Вапа-
sha-Marduk, the writer of Letter No. 9), there can be absolutely no reason against
our identifying both and establishing the fact that Banä-sha-Marduk, the writer
ої No. 9, must have lived between the 20th year of Kuri-Galzu’ and the 11th of
Kadashman-Turgu,* or during a space of about forty-three years.
In like manner we might go through the whole ‘‘List of personal names" or
year" (cf. 1. 32, si-bi-e-t = special holdings of the 10th and the 11th vear—here, because not introduced by EN, they
are counted. Cf. also 99 : 65, GANAM.LUP а shá si-bi-ti sha iluPykul-ti-Be-l*, i.e., “small cattle of the special
holdings of the city T."). The root of za-bit-ti —si-bi-e-ti = si-bi-li is Л2У, and we have here the same word as уши,
which Delitzsch, H. Y
herding the cattle of the ХІХ АХ" had among their herds very often animals belonging to other people, which
7 B., р. 562b, 2, translates by " Eigentum." These examples show that the different shepherds
animals were designated either by nakamtu, “property” (XIV, 99a : 17), or by sibitti, “special holdings"; cf. here
also XIV, 99 :16, i-na MU 11*em lu Ka-dash-man-Tur-qu a-di тега у i-na 8 En-lil'! it-ta-an-ma-ar [fol-
lows enumeration], i.e., “in the ТИВ year ої К. there were seen in Nippur in addition to his (i.e., of "р... 1141)
cattle also the following.” Clay, B. E., XIV, p. 52b, also mentions a title or office, ki-mu, as oceurring alter the name
Shamash-nádin-ahé in 99a : 11, 32. These two references are an evident mistake, yet KI MU does occur in 99a : 38
(after? ч Shamash-násir) and in 1. 40 (after ™ ""Shamash-igisha). For still other occurrences of KI MU alter proper
names see, e.9., B.E., XV, 132 : 23, т Daian-!“Marduk KI MU "EN( = Adi or Bél)-ma-ti-ilu (notice that we have two
names in this line only )) ; l.e., 174 : 11 (again in this line only two names); l.c., 96 : 14, ТВизип-па “Аб KI MU UD.DA-
ge; B. E., NIV, 168 : 25, etc., etc. The meaning of this expression we gather irom B. E., XIV, 168 : 34, 3 LIT.GAL shá
i-na DU B.SHA.RA shä shattu 10^?» MU ( = shum) "Qu-un-nu-ni shat-ru, i.e., “3 large cows which are entered (shatru)
in the inventory tablet(s) (which form part of the “Temple Archives") for the year 10 under the name of Qunnuni.”’
KI.MU, when standing between two (proper) names, has to be transcribed ki shum and must be rendered by “for the
name”: hence 7X na-gid ki shum "У na-gid is a “shepherd whose name is entered in the inventory tablet ‘for’ that
of another, the real or original, shepherd who, at the time when the inventory was taken, happened to be away from his
flock": in other words, "X ki shum "Y is as much as “X, the substitute for Y.” In conclusion I may mention here
that several mistakes are to be found in this tablet, as, e.g., col. VIT : S, read “19” instead of “20” (1. S, cols. I-V only 19
cattle are enumerated; the mistake has probably its origin in І. 8, col. 1); col. X : 34 gives as “grand total” 376, but if
we add together the totals of col. X, as given in the copy, we receive the sum 386, or 10 too many. These 10 “too many ”
are found in col. X : 25, where we ought to read, according to the different items of cols. LIX, 83, instead of 93, as the
copy givesit. As the grand total is correctly given as 376, we must suppose that the mistake is not attributable to the
original) but to the copyist. These notes, I hope, will convince the reader that we have to see in B. E., XIV, 99a (and all
similar tablets, called in Vol. XIV “records of the receipt of taxes in animals") an “inventory” of the flocks (including at
the same time an inventory of the “butter” (М. МОУ, col. VIII, Obv.) and “wool” (Бо. col. XII, Rev.) yielded by
them)-of the great and small cattle of the МІМА №"! under the chief supervision of two kash-shu. This inventory
includes such additional notes as might be found necessary to account for certain “absent” or “present” cattle that
originally did, or did not, form a component part of the flocks mentioned. For inventory tablets from the time of the
kings of Ur ef. Hilprecht, B. E., Vol. I, part 2, Nos. 124, 126, and my E. B. H., pp. 333-361.
1 Bäna-sha-Marduk, the contemporary ої Amel-Marduk, No. 3 : 16, has probably to be differentiated from this
one here. "The former lived and flourished during the time of Shagarakti-Shuriash.
: B. E., XIV, 34 : 6.
3 B. E., XIV, 99a ( = E. A. H., 195) : 35.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. @
““seribes”* and show that they lived during the reign, or were contemporaries, of
one or the other of the above mentioned Cassite kings. Seeing that such an investi-
eation would lead too far here, we reserve it for Series C.
We need not, however, rely entirely upon the ''persons" introduced in these
documents to establish for our letters a Cassite origin and age. There are other
means at our disposal which lead to the same result. Among these might be enum-
erated:
(b) The Cassite names of the persons mentioned as, e.g., "Gu-za-ar-AN ( = Ши?)
"Si-ri-da-ash? Mär-"U-su(!)-ub-Shi-pak,‘ — Már-" Ü-da-shá-ásh? | "Na-ei-""En-lil,
1MArdi-GASHAN ( = Ват), the writer of No. 5, is mentioned іп В. E., XIV, 40 : 30 (dated in the 21st vear
of Kuri-Galzu, 1. 23) as DUB.SAR or “seribe.” СІ. also the DUB.SAR Erba-Marduk ої В. El XIV, 127 214
(dated “the beginning of the reign ої Shagarakti-Shuriash”; for the expression cf. The Monist, XVII (January, 1907),
р. 150), with the writer(s) of Nos. 13, 14 (S1?), 82, and see pp. 14, note 7; Паў pte
2 No. 87:3. СЕ. "Gu-za-ar-za-ar-Bu-ga-ash, C. В. M., 3532 : 16 (quoted by Clay, В. E., XV, р. За, and 1.с.,
р. їх), which, no doubt, is the same as ”Gu-NI(!)-za-ar-Bu-ga-ash (thus read by Clay, В. E., XIV, p. 43b, and quoted
from С. B. M., 3646), seeing that NI might be read zal = zar. The interchange of l and тіп the different languages
is too well known аз to require further examples. Gu-zar-zar resp. Gu-zal-zar “might” be an intensive form of Gu-zar,
which latter we find in our text. If AN be read ¿lu we would have here a “mixed” name—partly Cassite, partly Baby-
lonian; for such names cf., e.g., Kadashman-!' Enlil, Kudur-! ^ Enlil, NIM.GI-shar-ili, ete. In view of such names as
Guzarzar-Bugash, Guzalzar-Bugash, we might be justified in reading our name here Guzar-Bugash, thus identifying the
Babylonian AN with the Cassite Bugash and attributing to the latter the róle played by 4 N in the Babylonian pantheon.
3 No, 28 : 5 in [Bít]-",Si-ri-da(or shá?)-ash. Is this name to be compared with Si-ri-ia, B. E., XV, 198 : 30, and
Si-li-[ia; for this emendation ef. Clay, Z. A., ХХ (1907), p. 417f.], l.c., 88 : 2, with interchange of l and 7?
1 Мо. 55:2. For the reading Shi-pak, instead of Shi-hu, see B. E., ХУ, 190, VI : 15, Me-li-Shi-pa-[ak], and Clay,
l.c., р. 3, note 4. Cf. here the names Ü-zu(!)-ub-Shi-pak, Scheil, Textes Шат. Sém., Т, р. 93, І, 3; Ü-zu-ub-H A ЩА (sic,
against Clay, l.c., XIV, p. 545), В. E., XIV, 132 : 27, and U-zu-ub-SH I-ia-SAH, Clay, l.c., XV, р. 45b. For the inter-
change of s and г cf., among others, also za-bit-ti, В. E., XIV, 99a : 30, with si-bi-ti, l.c., 99 : 65, and si-bi-e-ti, l.c., 99a : 32.
In view of this interchange we cannot connect U-su-ub = U-zu-ub with 21% and see in our name a formation similar
to that of Nabü-u-zu-bu (“Nebo ist Entgelt?”), quoted by Del., Н. W. B., p. 356. Uzub, Usub, no doubt, is a side-form
of u-zi-ib = e-te-rum, Del., Sprache der Kossúer, р. 26 : 42. For the interchange of i and u cf., e.g., lish-ki(!)-nu, No.
35 : 33; li-mi-ish-shi-ru-ni, 55 : 12, etc. Ü-su-ub-Shi-pak, then, is = £tir-Marduk, i.e., “Protect, oh Marduk!” Üzub-
НА ГА =“ Protect my portion” (sc. oh god!) ; Uzub-SHI-ia-SAH =“ Protect my face (= me), oh Shamash,” or possibly
“the protector of my face is Shamash.” See here also the remarks to МІМ.СТ, introduction to No. 33a.
5 Thus to be read according to B. E., XV, 168 : 4, where we have ash for ásh. According to 55 : 8, 16, 20 this
person was the messenger of King Burna-Buriash, see p. 53, note 2.
в Хо. 24:25. This half Cassite and half Babylonian name is found again in С. B. M., 3520 : 13 (В. E., XV, p.
38a). Whether the element Na-zi be the same as Na-ah-zi, which Clay, В. E., XV, p. 4, note 2, thinks to be possible,
cannot be made out as yet. It is, however, a fact that ah and a’ very often change in these texts—a phenomenon
overlooked by the author of Vols. XIV and XV, as seen from В. E., ХУ, p. 37, note 1, where we have Mi-na-a-a’-di-a-
na-AN ( = ilu) for Miná-ahti-ana-ili. For this interchange of ah and a’ cf. Ki-shd-ah-bu-ut (34 : 1), resp. Ki-shah-bu-ut
(35 : 1), with Már-”Ki-shá-a' -bu-ut, B. E., XV, 188, 1:25 (not registered by Clay), П: 13 (І.с., p. 49a, wrongly has
ah for a); 414 Mär-"Ba-ah-lu-ti, B. E., XV, 1590 : 5 (the @“Sihru-"Ba-ah-lu-ti and all others quoted under ^" Sihru
in В. E., XIV, p. 58b, and XV, p. 53b, have, of course, to be corrected into "Мат; ef. Фи shá Mär-Shelibi in Scheil,
Textes ат. Sém., I, р. 100) with [Már]-"Ba-a'-lu-ti, B. E., XV, 120 :3. From this we might infer that Na-ah-zi
could also be written Na-a’-zi and become Na-zi. But the intermediate form Na-a’-zi has not yet been found; hence the
dentification of Na-ah-zi and Na-zi must, at the present, be left open.
5 LETTERS ТО CASSITE KINGS
"Me-li-Shi-pak, and lastly "Me-li-""Shu-qa-mu-na,; who, as regards his name, 18
a thorough Cassite, but who, as regards his national sentiments, was a good Baby-
lonian eitizen, for his son? bears the unmistakably Babylonian name ” ™PA.KU-
SH ESH-SE-na = Nusku-ah-iddina.*
(c) Certain cities or places peculiar to both, our letters here and the dated
tablets of the Cassite kings. Among these may be mentioned "Ат - САЗНА УК
= Вай), Bit-"Ki-din-m BAR.TUR*? Dûr- IN.KUR.KUR# Dúr-"“En-
' No. 17 : 32. Also mentioned in B. E., XIV, 125 : 8 (13th year of Ku[ri-Galzu]) and l.c., ХУ, 190, VI : 15.
з №. 59:14. In B. Е. XV, р. 4, this name is considered to have a Babylonian element. As Meli is correctly
recognized as a Cassite element, the god Shuqamuna is evidently regarded as a Babylonian divinity. The fact, however,
that Shuqamuna was not known in the Babylonian pantheon till the time of the Cassites proves, apart from other con-
siderations, that he must have been introduced by them. For Shu- also the writing Shú- occurs, see B. E., XIV, 132 :
11; XV, 136 : 10.
“Оп account ої mâr (not märe”e%) ) 14, I do not hold т" Bu-un-na-lUNIN.IB, l. 12, to be a son of Meli-
Shugamuna.
“No. 59 : 13.
š Nos. 13:7 | 66:24. In 18:10 we have ^" Ardi-NIN ( = Вей and in 11:20 “'“Ardi-GASHAN*™ Тһе
latter writing is found also in В. E., XIV, 123a ( = E. А.Н. 150) :5 (Sth year of Kudurri-Enlil, 1. 13).
е Nos. 9:23 | 44:15. For the hazánu "Кі віта = ™Ki-din-ni see above, pp. 4ff.
"Хо. 23 : 3$, to be read (according to Br. 6900) Pa-rak ma-rikt (so also Clay, Z. A., XX (1907), p. 417f., cor-
recting B. E., XIV, p. 57b, passim). The märi is, of course, the Nippurian mdr xar &£oyf», i.e. VUNIN.IB. From
B. E., XIV, 133 : 3, 6 we learn that it existed in “the seventh year of Shagarakti-Shuriash,” 1. 13. Cf. here also the
KAS @luParak-märi in B. E., XIV, 107 :3, and see below, p. 10, note 3.
"Хо. 17 : 18, 26. EN.KUR.KUR in our letters is used either of ÜUNIN.IB or of Чи En-lil, never of Marduk
of Babylon, see, e.g., No. 24 : 14, 17, and cf. "?"*Nam.ga-ri-shá-EN.KUR.KUR in No. 59:9. For the omission of ¿lu
before names of gods cf. among others, also la-ma-as-si, B. E., XV, 163 : 38 (the city mentioned in B. E., XV, 159c: 12
has to be read û“ и ро ТІ IGI BAR.RA, i.e., “Enlil looks favorably upon,” and not (Clay, l.c., p. 52a) “u Bél-lim-
mas-su(?)) ; Ishtar (U.DAR), l.c., 185 : 36 | 188, I : 13 | У :15; Sarpanitum, 1.с., 163 : 31; Sham( = Ü)-shi, l.c., 96 : 10;
Shamshu( = Ор)“, lc., 167 : 33, 34; NIN.AZAG.BI, lc., 186 :24; Sin ( = XXX), іс, 164 :7 | 166 :5; Е.А, Lc;,
186 : 6; En-lil, l.c., 132 :16 | 175 : 65 | 154 : 27; Marduk, l.c., 96 :20; Nusku, C. B. M., 3472, ete., etc. A Dür-EN.-
KUR.KUR® is mentioned in В. E., XIV, 5:6 (11th year of Burra-Buriash). Cf. also “uDür-be-el-KUR.KUR in
B. Е., XV, 64 : 1 and the Dúr-EN.KUR.KUR.GA L, l.c., 159c : 10. The correct reading of the different writings would
be “и Dür-böl-mätäti-(rabü), “the fortress (wall) of the (great) lord of lands, ” ¿.e., of Enlil of Nippur. Now we know from
such passages as В. E., ХУ, 37 : 1, that the temple of Enlil as the bél-mátáti-rabü is very often referred to simply as É.A N
— bit-ili, i.e., the house of the god" par excellence, and that Enlil himself is very often spoken of as the AN or ilu, i.e.,
“the god” (B. E., XIV, 16 : 1, see below, p. 80); hence Enlil, “the great lord of lands," might also be called “the
great god of lands." | Furthermore, it is well known that KUR.KUR = mätäti = lands (= “world,” *'cosmos") is
also = KALAM = тама = lands ( = Babylonian world = Shumer and Akkad), hence the reading ВІСІМ. СА L
En-lil* defended in Z. A., XX (1907), р. 419, must be abandoned in my judgment. There із по god UN.GAL! B.E.,
XIV, 148 : 15, 18, has to be read B-AN.KALAM.GAL-EN.LIL™ = Bit-Ili-mátáti-rábü Хірриг'ї, i.e., “the temple of
the great god of the lands at Nippur,” which temple is the É.KUR inhabited by Enlil-NIN.IB-Nusku or better, which
is occupied by the Nippurian Trinity in Unity: Enlil (Father) —NIN.IB (Son)—Ninlil = Gula (Mother, resp. wife of
the Son), ef. for the latter also В. E., XV, 34 :2, В "иа й AN.KALAM.GAL-EN.LIL® ie., “the temple of Gula
and NIN.IB” ( = Enlil; the temple of the god standing for the god’s name, cf. apil-É-shàr-ra = NIN.IB). Cf. here
also the note оп AN.GAL = КАРІ = Enlil farther below, p. 20.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 9
E ED K Сагы? and lastly ZA AB BAS
1 No. 39 : 21, or written also Dir!“ Enlil. No. 3 : 33, 38, 41, which latter is mentioned in B. E., XIV,
5:10 (11th year of Burra-Buriash) and l.c., 78 : 4 (22d of Nazi-Maruttash). А Guppy ilu ри we find in
В. E., XIV, 118 : 1, 30 (5th year of Kudur-Enlil), and a Раг gy ji]mes^- in |с, XIV, 127 : 4 (beginning of the
reign of Shagarakti-Shuriash). In this last passage the same city is mentioned in 1. 7, where its name is “Dir Bn
lil-li-e*!—a most interesting writing, showing that even at the time of the Cassite kings "БМ ТЛІ, was pronounced
and read Enlil resp. ЕШ, or still better: Enlilà with a plural Enlilé, the long û or ê still betraying the fact that we have
here а Semiticized Sumerian word. For such formations cf., e.g., ди-га = kussü = Hebr. ND2, "throne." Clay’s
view, 4. 7. S. L. L., XXIII, рр. 269f., that Enlil was always pronounced Enlil must be modified, as will be shown
elsewhere. The name Enlil, signifying originally the chief god of Nippur, was in course of time applied to each and
every god that played the same röle in the religious conception of the Babylonians as did Enlil of Nippur. The same
holds good of NIN.LIL = Ваш, E.KUR = temple, ""Innanna = Ishtar = goddess, AN = ilu = god; cf. the German
word “Kaiser” = Cesar, etc. In other words: Enlil, originally the name of a god, became later on a title, as such signi-
,
fying “the highest lord," the bêl кат é£oyv, just as AN became later on “the god par excellence.” Enlil, when
a пате, is read and pronounced Enlil, resp. ЕШ, but when a title, it must be pronounced bêl. Not only linguistically,
however, but also from a religio-historie standpoint is this name and writing important. It shows us that ever since
the time of the “kings of Ur and of the four corners of the world," when Enlil of Nippur was referred to as “YEn-lil-li
Еп-Ша (Е. B. H., р. 279, 1. 5) or as En-lil*-a ! En-lil-li (E. B. H., р. 269, note 11; p. 271, 1. 5), i.e., “Enlil of the
Nippurians” or “the Nippurian Enlil” (for the formation En-lil"-a = Nippurian, see GISH-HU%a (E. B. H., р.
79, 1. 28; р. 81, 1. 55) = 9"GISH.HU™ (E. В. Н. p. 76, ll. 5, 8; р. 81, note 1, et Dass). Hrozny's theory, Z. A.,
ХХ (1907), p. 421f., to read GISH.HU = Umma or Alma is untenable. From the fact that HU has the pronunciation
Umma or Alma, it does not yet follow that GISH.HU has to be read likewise Umma or Alma), there came to be known
in Babylonia a “collection” (hi.a) of Enlils, among them Sin (of Ur), Dagan (of Isin), Shamash (of Larsa), Marduk
(of Babylon), AN-SHAR = Ashshur (of Ashhur), and the Cassite Enlil = Harbe, thus demonstrating beyond a shadow
of a doubt that Enlil ceased very early to be a name and became a title. There is no old Enlil or Bél as over against
a new or later Bél ( — Marduk), but all gods called Enlil have simply put on the jacket of the chief god of Nippur,
i.e. they were identified with him—an observation clearly showing that the “religion” of Nippur formed the pattern
after which the religion of all other Babylonian cities was formed. СІ, my remarks in Old Penn, February 16, 1907, p. 3.
This latter statement is not contradicted by В. E., ХУ, 102: 13, 14, where we hear of two cities called Dûr-
iv M A R.TU-labiru( = SH A)? (Clay, l.c., р. 52b, Dür-Amurru-ü^) and KI-II( = Dür-!“MAR.TU)-eshshu( = ВП
(Clay, ibid., Dür-BIL(NE)*), for here labiru, resp. eshshu, does not refer to АГА Б ТО, but to Dûr; i.e., we have here
an “old” and a “new” Dûr!“ Martu, or two parts (hence no items given for “new” Dûr“ Martu) of one city, cf. the
German Alt- and Neu-Stettin.
? Nos. 45 : 23 | 57 : 15, 20, or only Dür-Ku-ri-Gal-zu, Nos. 13 :7 | 23 :29. From No. 13 :7 it is evident that
this city cannot have been too far away from Nippur, it being connected with it by а ki-sir( = BU)-ti or “stone алт,”
hence the same canal that passed by Nippur must have passed by Dür-Kuri-Galzu (and ^'^ 47di-Bélit) likewise. The
ruins represented at the right of No. I, below No. III (see the Plan of Nuffar in Hilprecht, В. E., Series D, Vol. І, р.
305, and regarded by Hilprecht as covering the ruins of the fortified palace of the patesis of Nippur, which, like the
palace of Sargon at Khorsabäd, formed a bulwark in the fortification line of Nippur), in all probability represent those
of Dür-Kuri-Galzu. Notice also that the “canal” which starts from the Shatt-en-Nil (for which see No. V), between
Nos. I and IV, passes the lower part of the ruins to the right of No. І. The first occurrence of this place is in an omen-
tablet (inspection of a liver) from the 11th year of Burra-Buriash, В. E., ХІУ, 4:11, LU.ARDU”*sh Y_mur-ma а-па
Dür-Ku-ri-[Gal-zu] li-she-bi-l[am]. This passage is not referred to in В. E., XIV, nor in the corrections, Z. A., XX
(1907), p. 417f. It is again mentioned in В. E., XIV, 12 : 42, dated i-na "WUuKIN-Umnanna II-tu (i.e., shanütu) «һа
shattu 4Кат Ku-ri-Gal-zu. These two passages prove that this place was founded not by Kuri-Galzu sihru, but by the
older Kuri-Galzu. Notice in this connection that the last quoted tablet gives us the first occurrence of a second Elul
for the Cassite period, being called there not ^" КИМ (!“Innanna) П" (В. E., NV, 46 : 4) nor ФРУКТА Си тата)
Пат та (В. E., XV, 46 : 3 | 69 : 11 | 106 : 5), but °2“KIN-"“Innanna Ичи. This month had its origin, as we know,
10 ^ LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
(d) Certain peculiarities which our letters here have in common not only with
at the instigation of Hammurabi, see King, Letters, No. 14 : 6, where it is called ати IN" nnanma Шат-та_ It was
not recognized іп В. Æ., XIV, р. 62, No. 12, where the month is left out.
3 Nos, 22 : 15(?) | 37:10 = "9 Pamtim, the “sea country.” For the close relation between Babylonia and the
sea country at the time of the Cassites see Weissbach, Babyl. M iscellen, p. 7, where (В. E., 6405) a certain Ü-la-Bu-ri-ia-
ash appears both as “king of "YA. AB.BA” and as “son (TUR) of Bur-na-Bu-ra(!)-ri-ia-ash” (probably the same as
Burna-Buriash II, the son of Kuri-Galzu I, see p. 71). Cf. now also King, Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian
Kings, and Winckler, О. L. Z., November, 1907, where it is recorded that Ulam-Bur(i)ash, the brother of Kashtiliashu I,
conquers the “sea country," and that Agum, the son of Kashtiliashu I, “goes out against" the same country and З captures
Dür-E.A.” For the occurrences of A.AB.BA = “sea” or “sea country," see also В. E., XIV, 58 : 50, 53 (13th year of
Nazi-Maruttash) | 168 : 15, 22, 23 | ХУ, 199 : 26, 27, 33, 38, 40, and the GIR.RI A.AB.BA in В. Е. XIV, 147 (= E. A.H.,
182) :6. In connection with the reading and the signification of the last mentioned expression, Clay, B. E., XIV,
р. 3, finds sufficient reason to correct a statement made in Е. B. H., р. 329, where the question was asked, “Is this
latter (Le, GIR.RI A.AB.BA) to be classed among the kings of this dynasty?" He, although admitting that “it is
not impossible that it is a ruler's name," thinks, however, that “the faet that there is no gap in that part of the list
of kings which these archives represent, into which it would fit, speaks against it being a ruler's name." However,
what is assumed by Prof. Clay to be a fact, can only be regarded as a theory
a theory from which other scholars,
the present writer included, beg to differ. No valid reason has as yet been brought forward to show that, e.g., Kuri-
Galzu was the immediate successor of Burna-Buriash. On the contrary, there exists a great divergence of opinion with
regard to the succession of Kuri-Galzu upon the reign of Burna-Buriash. To illustrate this I quote such prominent
scholars as Winckler, Das alte West-Asien, p. 21; Delitzsch, Chronologische Tabellen; Weissbach, Babyl. Miscellen, p. 2t. ;
Hilprecht, B. E., ХХ', p. 52, note 1. The latter, e.g., when speaking of the succession of Kuri-Galzu upon Burna-Bur-
iash’s reign, expresses himself (/.c.) quite carefully, saying: “Kuri-Galzu, his (¿.e., Burna-Buriash's) son and possibly
not his immediate successor." From this divergence of opinion it will be apparent that it is by no means a “fact” that
there is no gap in that part of the list of kings which these archives represent. For a full discussion of the questions
here involved see рр. 59ff. Clay, however, is doubtless correct in denying to GIR.RI A.AB.BA the title “king,” and
likewise in seeing in him no “person” at all. I also accept his proposition to read Gir-ri Támtu, but I am unable to
agree with his interpretation of Girri-Támtu as a “place name," as which we find it (/.c., p. 58а) mentioned in the list
of “Names of Places.” For both his reading and its identification with the name of a “place” he invokes as ““conclu-
sive evidence" a passage in B. E., XIV, 134 : 2, “where Girru ( = KAS) Tam-tim is written," comparing this with
Girru ( = KAS) Dár-ilu? (1.с., XIV, 161 : 7) and with Gir(sic Clay)-ir-ru, Mi-is-ru (Trans. Dep. of Arch. С. of P.,
Vol. I, Part 3, p. 223f.). On account of the importance of this new interpretation proposed by Prof. Clay, it is necessary
to examine that author's “places” mentioned under Girru, B. E., NIV, р. 58a, a little more carefully. We begin with
В. E., XIV, 134, which reads: 3 да NI DUG.GA | а-па KAS ( = діти or harránu) Tam-tim | “ХІХ IB-DUGUD-
SHESH (sie copy; sc. Тез зу | GAR-nu | *"*SH EG-a-an | shattu 8а" | ? ^ Sha-garak-te-Shur-ià-a[sh]; i.e., either
**8 qa of good oil for the journey to the sea(-country) which N. is making,” or, possibly better, “3 qa of good oil which
NIN.IB-kabtu-ahc-shu (= N. is the most important one of his brothers) has put up (GA R-nu = shaknu"" = permansive;
cf. in this connection ma-hi-ir = permansive, as e.g., В. E., ХУ, 86 : 6) for (а-па) the КАЎ, i.e., the journey (lit. the
way) to the sea." Then follows date. ACCORDING TO THIS TRANSLATION THE “PLACE” GIRRU-TAM-TIM RESOLVES
ITSELF INTO A “JOURNEY TO THE SEA.” В. E., XIV, 161 reads: 17 qa 1 DUG GU.ZI.NI GISH.BAR-SHE.BA | 18
(qa) NI GISH.BAR-5-qa | 37 qa SHE.GISH.NI GISH.BAR-SHE.BA |*'^*DUL.AZAG | йти 26**" | shattu 2377 | KAS
(= girru, harránu) Раг | "агч. ВАТ IN.SAR; і.е., “17 qa (in) one vessel, kásu(see Meissner, 14еодг., No.
2048)-oil, GISH.BAR provender, 18 (qa in one vessel) sesame-oil, GISH.BA R-5-qa, 37 qa of sesame, GISH.BAR provender,
month Tishri, the 1Sth, year 23. Journey to Dür-ilu. Nür-DIL.BAT has entered” (sc. in the “Temple Archives,” (cf. sha
i-na DUB.SHA.RA. ...shat-ru, В. E., XIV, 168 : 34, 43) as having paid out or received). В. E., XIV, 147 (= E. A. H.,
182, cf. E. B. H., p. 329) reads: 28 (gur) ZID.DA | "I-D-ish-man-ni | *""SHE.KIN.KUD | йти kam | shattu 10527. |
gir-ri A.AB.BA ; i.e., “25 gur of flour Ili-ishmanni (sc. has received or put up or given). Adar, Ше 13%, year 10. Journey
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. al
the ‘“Temple Archives," but also with the letters from the Hammurabi and the
Amarna periods. Among these may be mentioned:
(a) The use of álu-ki, or a-li-ki,? “city,” for simple Фи.
(2) The use of DISH before be-li'—a peculiarity so far met with only in
tablets of the Amarna* period.
to the sea." There is lastly a text which is of the highest importance in this connection here, but which has not been
referred to by Clay, it being quoted by him neither under Girru (В. E., XIV, p. 58a) nor under “ВАР. ТОРА (1.с., p-
570). Itsimportance consists in the fact that there is to be found between KAS ( = girru) and ВА R.TU RF! the determi-
native for “city,” а/ш, thus showing conclusively that KAS does мот belong to ВАА. ТОКЕ: if it did, such a place
would have to be written ““KAS.BAR.TURF, and not KAS “ВАЕ. ТОЕ", as we find it here. The text, В. E.,
XIV, 107, reads: 34 да ZID.DA | 24 (qa) SHE.BAR | KAS ( = girru, harránu) ПРВАК TUE? | 2 qa SHE.BAR а-па
te-e-ni | йти 17kam | ^ САР shattu 1акат | ilu Ka-dàsh-man-Tur- -gu LUGAL.E; i.e., “34 qa of flour, 24 qa of barley
(for the) journey to Parak-mári (and) 2 qa of barley for grinding" (téni = DR S = KkuA = да-ти-й = GAZ =
hashálu, cf. Н. W. B., р. 698b, and В. E., XIV, 84:4 | 91:4 | ХУ, 171 : 11, KU.QAR GAZ ZID.DA). Then follows
date. In the above given texts, then, the KAS Tam-tim, KAS Dür-ilu®', Gir-ri A.AB.BA, KAS ?" BÀ В ТОК! are
not “places,” but “journeys” to the places named after KAS resp. Gir-ri, and the tablets in which these expressions
occur do not represent “payments” (Clay, Table of Contents, В. E., XIV, p. 71f.), but are what the Germans would
call “ Verproviantirungs-Bescheinigungen" resp. “Anweisungen.” As such they are exactly similar to, e.g., that pub-
lished by Thureau-Dangin, R. T. Ch., No. 351, which reads: “X. ga zid-gu lugal | ud ЗК" зпад uru | X. да гід KAS(!)-
shit | Gimil-I-N lugh | ù Ib-ku-shá dumu nu-banda | A.AB.BA(!)-shú mu-gha-shü gin( = РО)-па”; i.e., “so and so many
qa of GU-flour, royal quality, for (a) three days (stay) in the city, so and so many qa of flour to Gimil-Ili, the sukal,
and to Ibkusha, the son of the nu-banda, for the journey (KAS-shü) to the sea (A.A B.BA-shù) which they make (lit.
‘go’) for the purpose (shi) of fishing (mu-gha).” Here is KAS-shüu A.AB.BA-shü exactly the a-na KAS Tam-tim of
B. E., XIV, 134. A journey to the sea from Nippur demanded on account of its distance and duration some kind of
" Verproviantirung." This, likewise, is true of a journey to Dür-ilu on the Elamitic boundary, and if so, then Parak-
mári cannot be sought in the immediate neighborhood of Nippur, but must have been some distance away from the
latter place. This note, I trust, will have shown the necessity of removing the KAS resp. Girru-Tamtim and the Girru-
Dir-ilu™ from the list of “places,” and of assigning to Girru-M isru, i.e., “The Misru-road” = “road to Misru” its proper
,
place among the “highways” of Babylonia.
* Cf. Nos. 24 :22| 27 : 20 | 28 : 17 | 34 :39| 38 : 6 | 52 : 6,20 | 66 : 14, 27 | 83 : 17, 26. See here also álu-ki kard Ash-
tab-gan-tug, B. E., XIV, 23 : 2; älu-ki, В. E., XIV, 5 : 3; älu-ki-Kal-bi-ia, B. E., XV, 66:2. Whether KA A .GUR.DA-
älu-ki, B. E., XIV, 29 :2, may be mentioned in this connection, or whether álu be here = ri (cf. the god Za-za-ru and
Za-za-rí, E. B. H., р. 53, note II, 10), i.e., whether we have to read Pi- närircki, must remain, in view of В. E., XIV,
35 1192. Pi-i-Na-a-ri™, doubtful. For the Amarna period see the passages cited by Bezold, Oriental Diplomacy, p.
71; for the Hammurabi period ef., e.g., C. T., VI, 97b : 17, 24, 30, álu-ki; C. T., ТУ (Bu. 83-5-12, 689), pl. 45 2212
älu-ki UD.KIB.NUNF, and for the time ої Naram-Sin, see Scheil, Textes Blam. Sém. „опора 3, 13.
“Хо. 29:14. This is, however, doubtful, for a-li-ki may be taken here also as a first pers. praet. (sic!) of np?
and be translated “ (as many as) I have taken,” see pp. 100, note; 108, note 1.
* No. 20 : 1, 8, 9, 11, but in l. 4 it is omitted.
^ Bezold, l.c., p. XVI, says that DISH is found in the Amarna letters of the L. collection before aiab **foe," iashi
сё “
“ше,” amelu “man,” hazánu
prefect,” märu “son,” ramäni-ia “myself,” and sharru “king,” but he omits EN = bélu
In view of our letter, quoted above, we have to see in places like Amarna, L. 16 : 1, 21 ог L. 52 : 1, pass., where the sign
for EN has the peculiar form of I-en, the determinative DISH + EN and read either "EN = bélu or IEN = bélu.
Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, has, quite correctly, recognized this DISH,
12 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
) The use of hal; also written ásh-ásh, to express the lural.
) 1 e
an observation showing
(e) Even glosses? seem(!) to appear in our letters
that we have to do here with an originally non-Babylonian people.
! No. 33a : 3, 21, 414501: l.c., 1. 15, an-nu-ú-tum ( = plural) дива“, Clay, В. E., XIV, р. 58a, is inclined to regard
this in l.c., 166 : 25 (read 24) as a new city, ““HAL ог Вага, but there Glut! is a plural, as a comparison with Il. 4,
S, 13, 16, 19 clearly shows. An älup AL (Clay, corrections іп Z. A., ХХ (1907), p. 4171.) does likewise not exist in
В. Е. XV, 132 : 1, where we are told what amounts of grain were paid out (nad-nu) in the cities (аш!) of Ishtar-
apal-iddina, who, therefore, must have been a bûl pihäti with several hazannáti (eity prefeets) under his command.
For other occurrences of hal = ásh-ásh вее, e.g., B. E., XIV, 18 : 2, dluásh.deh; B. Е., XV, 185 I: 6 | 200 I : 7,
Ё ANäsh.äsh: В. E., ХУ, 178:3 | 200 IV :9, MUúsh.ásh (Clay’s copy gives in the last quoted passage zér for MU, but
this may be а peculiarity of the scribe). These passages quoted from Vols. XIV and XV for the use of hal as a plural
sign may be compared with King, Letters, 39 : 5, Ба дива and Bezold, l.c., р. 71, under Фи.
? While we have in No. 6 : 7 only ZSH, and in No. 24 : 9 ip-ru, we find in No. 53 : 36, [...] + 10 gur ISH e-pi-ri,
with which cf. Amarna, L. 16 :3, ISH, i.e., e-bi-ri. Is No. 28 : 24, A ти-й ma-a’-du à zi-na-nu it-tal-ku, to be com-
pared with Amarna, L. 31 : 10, Amesh ie. mima?
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 15
ШЕ
LETTERS BETWEEN TEMPLE AND STATE OFFICIALS.
The letters published in this volume may be conveniently subdivided into three
classes:
(a) Letters of diverse writers addressed а-па be-li-ia, “то MY LORD,” i.e., letters
written by various royal and Temple officials and addressed TO THE KING, Nos. 1-74.
(b) One! letter from a king (LUGAL) to Amel-Marduk, or, more specifically,
a letter of King Shagarakti-Shuriash to his sheriff-in-chief and attorney of state
(GU.EN.NA), No. 75, see pp. 132ff.
(c) Letters of several writers to certain persons named in the address; in other
words, letters constituting an official correspondence between officers of the Temple
and the State, Nos. 76ff.
For the sake of convenience and in order to show the fundamental difference
А
between the letters of Class (а) and those of Class (c), as regards their ‘‘address”’
and “greeting,” we begin with the letters between Temple and State officials. Among
these letters we find:
1. One? addressed by a father to his son. Both hold official positions in store-
houses (Кагії), but neither the name of the father nor that of the son is given.
2. One® written by a certain ” ""A-shur-shum-étir(K AR) to the governor‘
miu во ПБС = EN)-nishé"""-shu]? who flourished at the time of Kadashman-
Turgu.
3. Two written during the reign of Burna-Buriash by the celebrated trader in
slaves, " ""En-[il-ki-di-ni, and addressed
! [n all probability No. 93 is a fragment of a royal letter.
? No. 76. For a translation see below, р. 144.
NOS
* The bêl piháti; this follows from the greeting in І. 5, ù а-па pa-ha-f[i-ka] lu-ú shul-mu.
5 Thus I propose to read his name, identifying him with the bél pihäti mentioned in B. E., XIV, 99a : 16, 41; cf.
ibid., M. 17, 20, 42 (dated the 11th year of Kadashman-Turgu). He was a contemporary of the hazánu " Ki-di-nu-ü
and of ”Bana-a-sha-''“Marduk, the writer of No. 9, see p. 5.
9 For further details see below, pp. 54ff.
14 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
(а) To "A-Ahu-shi-na.'
(b) То "Чт-дичгі
4. Eight letters, addressed to certain officials, in which the writer calls himself
"brother," ahu, of the one to whom he addresses his letters. Among these the
following are to be mentioned:
(a) One' written sometime between the 12th year of Nazi-Maruttash and
the 14th year of Kadashman-Turgu and addressed by " "“En-Ll-mu-kin-apal
(= TUR.USHY to "А-ті-|Ці-іа.?
(b) Two from " Erba-"" Marduk’ and addressed
(а) To the sheriff-in-chief at the time of Kudurri-Enlil, "Ahu-á-a-Ba-ni,"
(3) To е Da-ni-ti-ia.’
1 No. 78. An ™A-hu-shi-na is mentioned also in В. £., ХІУ, 25: 12, 15, 23 (17th year of Kuri-Galzu) and in
Le. 167 : 11, 12 (25th or better 26th year, which can refer only to the reign ої Burna-Buriash, because Enlil-kidinni
is mentioned in all other tablets as living only under that ruler’s reign). From this we may infer that King Burna-
Buriash reigned in fact at least twenty-five or twenty-six years. See also p. 1, note 3.
? No. 79. This person, although not mentioned in B. E., XIV, XV, has to be identified with "Im-gu-rum, the
writer of Nos. 22, 23. See introduction to No. 23, below, p. 94.
з This, no doubt, is to be understood. сит grano salis and parallel to Burna-Buriash's calling himself “thy brother,”
when writing to the king of Egypt (ef., e.g., Amarna, L. 2). That we are in many cases forbidden to take the term
“brother” literally is shown, e.g., by C. T., XXII, PL. 3, No. 11, where the writer "SH ESH"'*^- M U-!!* Marduk addresses
his letter to his “brothers,” УНЕ БН! among whom is to be found another n"SITESH"*s-MU-!vMarduk. И
"brother" were to be taken in its literal sense here, we would have two brothers of the same name—a thing impossible even
among the Babylonians. Ahu in this connection means probably nothing more than “friend.”
* No. 80.
5 Cf. В. E., NIV, 55 : 4 (12th year of Nazi-Maruttash); l.c., 56a : 24 (13th year of ditto); l.c., 60:2 | 62 : 2 (14th
year of ditto); l.c., 65 : 12 (15th year of ditto); l.c., 99a : 20 (11th year ої Kadashman-Turgu); l.c., 106 : 2 (14th year
of ditto).
е In this form it is found neither in B. E., XIV, nor XV. Is РА-ті the ma(!)-hi-su (sic! not ZU.HI.SU, Clay,
B. E., XV, p. 26b; cf. H. W. B., p. 400a, and Meissner, A. P., p. 115, note 1), l.c., ХУ, 37 : 15 (13th year of ?) to be
“mein Männchen.”
compared with Amili-ia as " Kosename" ; cf. the German
7 Erba-Marduk, the author of No. 81, hailed either from Larsa or more probably from Sippar, while the writer
of No. S2 was, no doubt, a Nippurian, see p. 23. The latter I would identify with the DUB.SAR Erba-Marduk of
B. E., XIV, 127 : 14 (dated in the beginning of the reign of Shagarakti-Shuriash) and with the writer of Nos. 13, 14.
The former, being a contemporary of Ahu-ú-Ba-ni, lived during the time of Kadashman-Enlil (see following note)
and Kudur-Enlil. Cf. also Már-Innibi, 81 : 9, with Innibu, B. E., XIV, 56а : 20 (13th year of Nazi-Maruttash) and
Ilu-MU.TU K.A-rému (Meissner, Ideogr., No. 3857), 81 : 16, with the person of the same name іп В. E., XIV, 116 : 6
(6th year of Kadashman-Enlil) and l.c., 124 : 17 (Sth year of Kudurri-Enlil). For possibly still another Erba-Marduk,
see introduction to No. 35, p. 121, and cf. p. 107.
5 No. 81. А son of Ahu-i-a-Bla-ni], Nüàr-Shuqamuna by name, is mentioned in B. E., XIV, 119 : 32 (5th year
of Kudurri-Enlil). The father, then, probably lived during the time of Kadashman-Enlil and possibly was still alive
during Kudurri-Enlil's reign.
° Хо. S2. Before Danitia there is neither a DISH nor a SAL to be found. As in the texts of this period all
nom. propr. have either the “male” or “female” determinative, it is apparent that Daniti-ia must be a kind of “Kose-
name” or possibly one signifying a “profession.” Notice in this connection the difference between TUR.SAL "(У Ма-
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 15
(с) One! from "Gu-za-ar-A № to the Temple official ”In-nu-ü-a 2
(d) One? from "Pán( = SHI)-AN.GA L-lu-mur,! an inhabitant of Dür-iu*',
to a high Temple and State officer of Nippur, ”NIN-nu-ü-a. This letter, although
it had been sent to ^"UD.KIB.NUN*"', ie. to Sippar, where "NIN-nu-á-a
happened to be at that time, was found by the Expedition of the University of
Pennsylvania at Nippur.
(e) One® written during the time of Burna-Buriash and addressed by ”I-N-ip-
pa-ásh-ra? to ["]Da(?) -Li-Hi-sh[á?].*
(D One from " ™Sin( = XXX)-érish( ENGAR) 19 a storehouse official,
du-du (B. E., XV, 163 : 13), on the one hand, and TUR.SAL (sie!) ma-an-di-di (B. E., NV, 155 :7 | 164 : 4) resp. TUR
shá-an-gi-e (B. E., XV, 168 : 17) on the other. Cf. also our “Smith” and “smith.” Notice further that whenever а
nom. propr. is found without the determinative DISH (or SAL) it does not signify the name of a person (kings are
excepted because they are gods /), but a place called after that person, see, e.g., латах (= U D)-tu-kul-ti (sic! with-
out álu, DISH, and ki), 16 : S, 12; iluGir-ra-ga-mil, 3 : 13, 17, 20, but also âluQir-ra-ga-mil, 3:38, 40 + fr. d, resp.
alu iluGir-ra-ga-mil, 3 : 31. The name Daniti-ia by itself looks like a feminine of Бапа (for which cf. H. W. B., p.
223a) + ia, but if it were a feminine then the ka-shá (1. 5) and ta-ash-pu-ra = second pers. (1. 10) would be, to say
the least, quite strange; we would expect kashi resp. tashpuri. The name is not to be found in B. E., XIV, ХУ.
1 No. 87. ? For this name see p. 7, n. 2. 3 No. 89. 4 See pp. 19ff.; 25, п. 4; 27, n. 8.
5 In view of the fact that NIN has very often not only the pronunciation NJ but also that of IN, we would
be justified in identifying "Nin-nu-ú-a (No. 89) with "In-nu-ú-a (No. 87). For NIN = NI cf., eg., “u (ТММ.
ІМ(тастиуві TIT В. 68, No. 3, 51, and see II В. 60, 23a + 22b; UNIN (*?)-sa-a, ІП В. 69, No. 5, 64; TANIN (7 дата),
GA.KAS, III В. 69, No. 4, 64 (see also «EN (0778), GA.KAS in III R. 68, 21а); " NIN.PISH has the gloss ni( — NIN)
+ ki-li-te (= PISH), III В. 68, No. 3, 46. For NIN = IN cf., e.g., (т) ММ ner-gàl nin-e-ne-ge = “ditto e-tel-lit
be-li-e-ti, A. S. К. T., No. 11, col. III, 61f. (= II В. 18, 63); IV В. 55, 8b, with TUNIN ner-gal sag-gig-ga, IV В. 56,
12a; 29b. This shows conclusively that NIN = NI = IN, and hence "N7N-nu-iü-a “might” be read "In-nu-ú-a and
be identified with the addressee of No. S7. Neither "In-nu-ú-a пог "N7N-nu-ii-a are to be found in В. E., XIV,
XV. Comparing these two names with such formations as "A hu-ú-a(-Ba-ni, No. 81 : 1), "In-na-an-nu-ü-a (В. E.,
XV, 37 : 24), it would be better to transcribe ”In-nu-v-a, "NIN-nu-v-a and regard the va as the pron. suffix of the
first person, my." In that case these two names would be either “Kosenamen” or hypocoristica.
8 No. 88.
1 For the writing NI.NI = 1-0, a plural of majesty signifying always the highest god, whether he be Anu, Enlil,
Sin, Dagan, Shamash, Marduk, Ashshur, etc., see The Monist, XVI (October, 1906), р. 637, and l.c., XVII (January,
1907), p. 145, where it was shown that N/.NI may change with DINGIR.RA, AN, ANMesh and AN.AN. An
Чы = A N)-ip-pa-ásh-ra, the father of NIN.IB-Ba-ni, is mentioned in В. E., XIV, 2 : 9 (6th year of Burna-Buriash).
8 The Da might possibly be ik or SHESH, and the sha ia. To judge from ka-shá (not kashi), 1. 5, this name
is that of a male person. A ™Da-li-lu(!)-shá (= male) occurs іп B. E., ХУ, 156 : 23, but in l.c., XIV, 58 : 7 (13th year
of Nazi-Maruttash); ХУ, 163 : 8| 188 П: 17 (here li = NT) that very same name is a female. If, after all, this name
should have to be read as given above and should prove to be (notwithstanding the ka-shdin 1. 5) a female, then cf. В. E.,
XV, 163 : 35, /In-na-ni-ia (not I In-na-an-ni-ia as given by Clay, List of Names, l.c., pp. 34a, 48a) with "In-na-an-nu-ú-a,
В. E., ХУ, 37:24. Dalili-ia, considered by itself, might be taken as а hypocoristicon and be translated “my obedience "'
sc. “is towards that or that god "—2a name applicable to both male and female persons.
9 No. 90.
10 According to В. E., XIV, this person lived during the 24th year of Nazi-Maruttash (/.c., 86 : 14) and the 7th
(l.e., 94 : 5), 10th (l.e., 98 : 4), and 14th year of Kadashman-Turgu (1.с., 106 : 12 | 111 : 6). From these passages we
learn that he was the son of "Nür-[ . . . . Тапа the father ої Ahudutum and Nergal-nádin-ahé.
16 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
stationed, as it seems, at different points' at various times, and addressed, no doubt,
to "Irim(Meissner, Ideogr., No. 3857)-shu-"NIN.IB; the chief bursar at Nippur
during the time of Kadashman-Turgu.
(9) Опе? written by the royal official (probably #0) ”ZIl-li-ia' during the reign
of Nazi-Maruttash and addressed, as it seems, to the chief bursar of Nippur, Martuku.
5. Four” letters addressed to "/n-na-an-ni, the chief bursar of the Nippurian
Temple storehouses during the reign of Kuri-Galzu.
(a) Two‘ of these were written by the governor " ““NIN.IB (or MASH)-
TUR.USH-SE-na.
(b) And two’ by a lady of high rank, in all probability а NIN.AN.GAL" or high
priestess, М п-Бі-А і-гіч by name.
6. One® from " ""D(T)ar-hu-nür( = SAB)-gab-ba,* a merchant, to "и
(=[DI]-KUD)-L-[mur].*
“Іа В. E., NIV, 86:3 ће appears as a witness at a transaction in the storehouse of Kär-Zi-ban®; in KC,
98 :2 the chief bursar of Nippur, "Zrim-shu-"“NIN.TB, transacts business for (Кі qût) " ilu Nergal-nádin-ahé"*, son of
milusin(= XXX)-érish 8) at Kar Вази! in Le., 106 : 12, he is found among certain witnesses at dluSnar-mash;
in 111 : 6 ™ ?'vNergal-nádin-ahé"**^, son of т iluSin-êrish 5"). receives grain from (ina qût) т ilu En-lil-zu-lu-li and
т I-tm-shu-''* NIN.IB at the storehouse (i-na bit karû) of Nippur; andin our letter he seems to have been connected with
абат Г... 90 :5.
? Although the name is broken off, yet the eireumstances of the time and the contents of the letter justify such
an emendation. For this official see also Clay, В. E., XIV, p. S.
з №. 92.
* A person with this name occurs В. E., ХІУ, 48a : 7 (6th year of Nazi-Maruttash). That he was a royal official
I conclude from 92 :24f., ha-mu-ut-ta shú-up-ra-am-ma а-па LUGAL lu(!)-ta-pu-ush à nikasi(= NI(G).SHIT)-ni
itti a-ha-mi-ish î ni-pu-ush-ma, and that his position must have been a high one, such as was that of an it, follows
from 92 : 9, ù SHE.BAR mad ...., ef. 1. 22!] bêlê (= ЕМутезһ pi-ha-[ti, cf.1.20; . . . ] ul i-ma-gu-ru . . .
5 The name is broken off. The contents of the letter and the time when it was written justify this emendation.
5 Nos. 83-80. 7 See pp. 3ff.; 1108.
8 Nos. 83, 84. ? Nos. 85, 86.
? Or possibly a NIN.AN.TUR. For both of these expressions see pp. 4, note 8; 115.
п This “fruit of Ціаг is not mentioned in B. E., XIV, XV. Because she was writing to Innanni, she must have
flourished during the time of Kuri-Galzu. For further details see “Translations,” pp. 115f.
Мо: 91.
12 The first sign in this name is the last variant given in the “Sign List” ої В. E., XIV, No. 28; ef. B. E., ХУ,
151 : 2, " Lu-dar(!)-be-h. For the identity of Tar-hu, Tar-ku, Tur-gu, see Hilprecht, Assyriaca, p. 119. Tar-hu, being
called bere “the light of everything (= the whole = the world)”, is as such identified, not only with Shamash (cf., e.g.,
Ranke, B. E., Series D, ПІ, p. 147a, Shamash-nu-ür-ma-tim), but also with Sin (Ranke, l.c., p. 163a, Sin-nür-máti ,
see also Clay, B. E., XIV, 19:23). Sin (= XXX) is according to П В. 48:33 = TUR.KU (gloss du-mu-gu),
hence D(T)ar-hu = Sin = Tur-k(g)u. As regards the linguistic difficulties cf., for the change of a and шіп proximity
of an г, Hilprecht, B. E., ХХІ, p. 17, note 4, and for the change ої k and В, ef. Катти and hammu, Jensen, К. B., УГ,
рр. 385, 568. After -ba there is broken away a -та.
14 As the DI and mur are missing, we possibly might read ["I-na]-sil( —K U D)-li. . . J. With "[Dlin-li-[mur],
i.e., “may he see judgment," cf. 27 : 18 "Di-in-ili(= AN)-lu-mur, “тау I see the judgment of god." Neither Tarhu-
nür-gabba nor Din-limur is mentioned in B. E., XIV, XV.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. ІШІ
7. To this elass have been added, after the plates and the MS. had been prepared
for the press, several fragments, of some of which it may be doubtful whether they
belong here or to the letters addressed “Чо my Lord.”
As only one letter from this period has been published so far, it would seem
advisable to treat of this elass of literature in its general aspeets more fully here.
Each and every letter consisted originally—as it does at our present time —of
two integral parts: the ENVELOPE and the LETTER proper. None of the ENVELOPES
of this class of letters has been preserved to us—an unmistakable sign that all these
communications had been received and read by the addressee. From the analogy
of other letters known to us and partly preserved in the collections of the University
of Pennsylvania, we may, however, conclude that the envelope originally exhibited
(a) an address, reading either (а) а-па "Y., i.e., “То "Y." (here giving the name of
the addressee) or (3) dup-pi "X. а-па "Y., i.e., “Letter of "X. (= writer) бо "Y."
(= addressee),* and (b) the seal’ impression of the writer. In no case, however,
ras a date or the place of the writer or addressee ever put on the envelope—an
omission which seriously hampers us in determining the time when or the place
where or to which each letter was written.
The fact that all of these letters have been found at Nippur does not yet justify
us in maintaining that they have been originally addressed to that place; for it
can be shown that at least one of them, though found in Nippur, was yet sent to
Sippar, whence it was brought back to the city of Enlil and deposited there with
the rest of the Temple Archives. The purpose of the envelope, then, was to insure (1)
privacy, (2) safe delivery to the person named, (3) authenticity.
The contents of the LETTER PROPER divide themselves easily into three parts:
! Nos. 93ff.
2 This is to be found in ЕЕ. Peiser, Urkunden aus der Zeit der dritten babylonischen Dynastie in Urschrift,
Umschrift und. Ueberselzung, Berlin, 1905, under P. 114. Its introduction reads:
A-na ™A-mur-ri-ia ki-bé-ma | [um]-ma " *luSin(= XXX)-MU-LSE]"" SHESH-ka-ma | iluSin (= ХХХ) а-а
А јутезћ kul-lat | nap-shá-ti-ka li-iz-zu-ru, which cannot be rendered with Peiser by “Sin der Vater der Götter möge all
deine Seelen bewahren,” but must be translated by: “Sin and(!) the father of gods may protect all thy souls”; this follows
clearly from li-iz-zu-ru = plural! Although this letter is very fragmentary, yet this much can be made out with certainty:
The boundary stone of a certain piece of. property could not be found, and hence its boundaries could not be determined
exactly. А certain ” tluSin( = ХХ X)-tab-ni-usur knew the position of that stone; he, therefore, was asked: al-ka-ma
mi-is-ri-ti kul-li-im й ku-du-[ur-ru . . . .], i.e., “come, show the boundaries and the boundary stone." The rest of the
letter is too fragmentary to warrant any translation.
з Cf. the celebrated Lushtamar tablet with the address а-па "Lu-ush-ta-mar or the letter from the Sargonic
period which is written a-na Lugal-ushumgal.
4 Cf. per analogy the address of No. 24, dup-pi " Ка Аби] а-па be-li-shú.
5 Traces of а seal impression are still discernible on No. 24. Оп the Lushtamar and the Sargonic tablets the seal
is quite distinct and clear.
3
>
15 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
(a) address, (b) greeting, which is eoupled in some instances with an invocation to
the “gods” to bless and protect the addressee, (c) subject matter. With the excep-
tion of No. 76, where the subject matter of the communication is introduced quite
abruptly by ‘thus (saith) thy father” (um-ma a-bi-ka),! the address of these letters
is clad, in sharp contrast to those published under Nos. 1-74, into one of the
following two formulas:
Into (а) а-па? "Y. ki-bé-ma? um-ma "Х.-та, i.e., "Чо Y. speak, thus saith X."
Into (b) а-па? "ҮЛ ki-bé-ma? um-ma "X. ahw-ka-ma?, i.e., “Чо Y. speak, thus
saith X., thy brother.
In none of these letters, then, does the writer ever call himself “hy servant,
nor does he ever express the humble petition, *'bejore the presence of ту Lord may 1
come!" —an observation which is, as we shall see, of the highest importance for the
correct. understanding of the nature of the letters here and those of Nos. 1-74.
The greeting, whenever it occurs in one of these letters, invariably takes its
place after the emphatie -ma terminating the address." Its simplest form is a-na
kasha? lû shulmu," i.e., “unto thee greeting." If the addressee happens to occupy
an especially high position in life, the writer may extend his greeting, as is done in
No. 77, even to ‘‘the house" and the “ domain" of his correspondent: а-па ka-a-shá
: This peculiar introduction of what the father had to say to his son is, no doubt, due not so much to the parental
or any other relation as to the mental strain under which the father labored at the time when writing the letter. The
son was negligent in making his report (di-e-ma) to the “barley overseer” (be-el АНЕ ВАК), who in turn caused Ше
“father” to delay his report to the “Lord” or King. For a translation of this tablet see below, p. 144.
? Nos. 77, 78, 79, S3, 84, 85, 86, 91.
3 Also written ki-bi-ma, so in Nos. 77, 81, 82, SS, 91.
‘This emphatie -ma is invariably found at the end of the address, and as such a -ma lengthens the preceding
syllable, the name of the writer of No. 85 cannot be /In-bi-Ai-ri-im, but must be /In-bi-Ai-ri.
5 This is also the stereotyped formula used by Hammurabi when writing to his subjects, such as, e.g., Sin-idinnam.
For a justifieation of the above given translation of this formula see King, Letters of Hammurabi, Vol. ПІ, р. ХХУ,
note 1: Delitzsch, В. A., Vol. IV, р. 435 below; Nagel, B. A., Vol. IV, pp. 477ff. Knudtzon’s translation (Die El-Amarna-
Tafeln, pass.), “hat gesprochen," is out of place.
* Nos. 80, 81, 82, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92.
7 In case the writer wishes to express his particular devotion to his correspondent he may add alter а-па Tu:
some such words as shá a-ra-mu-shu, **whom I love," cf. No. 89.
з Written either SH ESH-ka-ma, Nos. 80, 81, 87, 88, 89, [90], 92, or a-hu-ka-ma, No. 82.
? As ahu-ka is here the attribute to "X., hence an inseparable part of the latter, the emphatic -ma naturally takes
its place after the attribute.
0 For the signification of this term see already above, p. 14, note 3.
п Те. after "N -та or after ahu-ka-ma.
12 Written either ka-shá, Nos. 82, 87, 88, 89 (90, 92], or ka-a-shá, Nos. 77, 81.
13 Written lu in Nos. 88, 89, or lu-ú in Nos. 77, 81, 82, 87.
м Shul-mu in Nos. 77, 81, 82, 89 [90], or shú-ul-mu in Nos. 87, SS, 92. DI-mu has not yet been found.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 19
bilti-ka] й а-па pa-ha-t[i-ka] lu-ú shul-mu, i.e., “to thee, thy house, and to thy pahät
7)
greeting. In many cases there is coupled with this greeting an invocation to the
> > ~ > >
gods of the writer's city in the form of а prayer for the well-being and protection of
the addressee. These invocations are of the highest importance, both for deter-
mining the exact domicile of the writer and for a correct understanding of the
religion of the Babylonians. To illustrate this by one example I may be permitted
to quote the “invocation” of No. 89 in extenso, gathering from it the facts that (1)
Pán-AN.GA L-lu-mur (i.e., “Мау I see the face of AN.GAL”), the writer, was а
ce
resident of Dür-ilu^:; whose gods he invokes, and that (2) the “divine court” of
Dúr-ilu** was formed after the pattern of the Nippurian court, as such consisting
of Father (AN.GAL), Son (TAR), and Mother (NIN.LIL)—three persons, though
distinct, yet one: a veritable Trinity in a Unity” It reads (89 :41.):
4 AN.GAL y “NIN.LIL “TAR й AN.GAL and NIN.LIL, TAR and GU,
aut
! See also 89 : 24, 26.
2 СЕ. The Monist, XVII (January, 1907), р. 148, and Old Penn, V, No. 21 (February 16, 1907), p. 3, col. DIT.
3 That the divinity AN.GAL cannot be here = Чиді (II В. 57, 13a), the wife of tluSHAG.ZU (= Enlil, Sin,
Rammän, Shamash, Marduk), a female, but must be a male, is apparent from his being coupled with “NIN. LIL.
AN.GAL й “@NIN.LIL are male and female, husband and wife. A male AN.GAL as god of Dir-ilu® occurs also in
Jensen, K. B., VI, p. 64, 21 (cf. l.c., p. 62, 20, where the verb i-pu-la = mase. (not ta-pu-la!) refers back to AN.GAL).
Among the tablets of the Ur dynasty, now being copied and published by Dr. Myhrman, I saw a variant of date No. 12
(E. B. H., p. 255), reading mu AN.GAL [Dür-rab-ilu**] é-a ba-tur, instead of, as it is commonly found, mu iluKa-di Dûr-
Кі»
Dangin, S. A. К. І., р. 229, 7. This proves that AN.GAL = iluKa-di, and if AN.GAL be a male, then “Ka-di must
be a male likewise. Again, in an inscription translated in Е. B. H., р. 255, note 12 (see Thureau-Dangin, l.c., р. 176, 2
rab-ilukt é-a ba-tur, i.e., “in the year when AN.GAL was brought into his temple in Dúr-rab-ilu see also Thureau-
A N-mutabil, the shakkanakku of Dür-ilu**, calls himself the mi-gir ilu Ka-di na-ra-am ““Innanna, i.e., “the favored
one of Kadi, the beloved of Ishtar.” Here Kadi is coupled with and in opposition to Ishtar, hence must be a male
and the husband of Ishtar (= NIN.LIL). Lastly, in II R. 57, 54a йиКа-аї is identified with ““Nin-Gir-su and with
iluNTN.IB, both being male divinities and gods of thunder and lightning; hence Thureau-Dangin (/.c., p. 176, 2, and
passim), Huber (Die Personennamen in den. Keilschrifturkunden aus der Zeit der Kónige von Ur und Isin, A. B., XXI,
р. 174, note 14, who thinks that Kadi “war die Hauptgóttin von Dúr-ilu, die Gemahlin des САТ”) and others, who see
in !luKa-di a female, are wrong. The pronunciation of the name of this god is neither Ka-di nor Ka-silim (Huber,
l.c.) but *""Gu( 2 KA)-sir( DI NU!); as such he is the same as Uu U.NU-ra (= Gu-sir-ra). For the reasons of
this identification see my forthcoming volume on the Religious Texts of Nippur. “UNIN.LIL, here coupled with
AN.GAL, hence his wife, is, of course, the same who otherwise is known as *the wife of Enlil," and who, as
wife of Enlil, is “the mistress of Enlil?” e, ilunIN.EN.LIL*, II R. 59 : 9. But in the passage just
quoted she appears not as the wife of Enlil, but as that of “UNIN.IB or "MASH. We have seen above that AN.GAL
or “Каі was identified with ““NIN.IB. From this it follows that Kadi originally played Ше rôle of the “Son”
(just as Enlil did in the Trinity: AN-EN.LIL-AN!), but was, when һе became the chief god of Dür-ilu, identified also
with the Father, 7.e.,with Enlil, whose wife now becomes also his (.e., Kadi's) wife. In the róle of the “Son” we find Kadi
also in such proper names as ” iluKa-di-da-bi-ib (bi, ba; В. E., XIV, 14 :4; XV, 86: 18, ete.), i.e., “Kadi is speaking,”
зс. through, or by means of, the thunder; ” iluKq-di-da-bi-En-lil*'( B. E., XV, 119 : 10. Omitted by Clay. Thus
І read on account of the ¿in bi), which name might be translated either by “ Kadi is the good (= tabi, sc. child) of Nippur"
20 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
(1.е., Enlil; ef. Marduk арії Eridu, where Eridu, the city ої god E.A, stands for the god himself), or by “Kadi is the
dabî (= SHACH = humsiru = “pig,” the emblem of NIN.IB, see The Мот, XVII (January, 1907), р. 143) of Nippur
(= Ей) Again, if N/N.LIL, “the mistress or queen ої Nippur,” becomes the wife of AN.GAL, the highest god of
Dür-ilu, she ipso facto acquires also the title “mistress or queen of Dür-ilu." This now helps us to understand the
passage in Meissner, Bauinschriften Assarhaddon's, В. A., ПТ, p. 238, 42f. = l.c., р. 297, 42 (К. 2801), together with its
parallel text and variants in lec., р. 307, ЗАГ, (К. 221 + 2669), which has been completely misunderstood by all who
took AN.GAL resp. Kadi to be a female, The passage reads: AN.GAL shar-rat Оат-йи® "sir "UBe-lit-baláli
(= TILA) "“Dúr(= KU)-ru-ni-tum ЧЧЅАС erbuBu-bi-e ki-rib biti а-па Dür-ilu* áli-shu-nu ú-tir. Tt will be seen
that in this passage the gods of Dür-ilu are not connected by “and,” but are simply enumerated in their succession.
From what was said above it follows that we have here “three pairs” consisting of husband and wife; have, therefore,
to translate: “AN.GAL (and) the queen (= NIN.LIL = bélit = sharrat) ої Dür-ilu[variant: ““GASHAN (= Bélit,
mistress of) Di-ri (= Dür-ilu)], Sir (and) the Bölit-baläti (= “mistress of life”) [variant: YYEN.TI.LA = “lord of
life" !], Dür-ru-ni-tum (= fem. ої "ЧК О/(Фсти-пау NA, ТИ R. 68, 9а) (and) SAG in the month Bu-bi-e into the temple
in Dür-ilu, their city, I brought.”
According to the Nippurian pattern we can now establish the following Trinity for Dür-ilu:
IN.GAL (Father) Sir (Son) | Bélit-baláti (wife of the Son) | | Sharrat Dür-ilu (Mother)
AN GAL (Father pir (Don
1 Bel-baläti (masc.!) 7 | Belit Di-ri
which corresponds exactly to that of Nippur, viz.:
( Ва-и (Gula) (wife of the Son) 1
| NIN.IB (masc.!)
EN.LIL (Father) NIN.IB (Son) 1 | = NIN.LIL (Mother)
NIN.DIN.DUG.GA
| NIN.EN.LILK > |
Іп the Nippurian pattern NIN.IB appears as the ur-sag, “chief servant,” or sukkal, “prime minister, ambassa-
dor," or арії, “son” of Enlil, and Sir is called in the Dür-ilu Trinity the me-ru, “son” (or if read ship-ru, then = “mes-
senger”) of (shá) "YKa-di, see Scheil, Textes Elam. Sém., І, p. 91, 23 (= Plate 17). NIN.IBis the apil E-shär-ra, and in
V R. 52, 1:19, 20 “Sir is identified with 4She-ra-ah and termed the ra-bi-is É-shàr-ra, “the watchman ої Esharra,”
i.e., of the house of the totality, the Universe. NIN.IB as Пиј, or as Y" En-kur-kur is the same as his father Enlil, and
in У В. 31, 2, Rev. 30, “Sir is identified with his father ?""Ka-di. NIN.IB is both male and female. As male he is
the husband and called also “IB, and as female he is the wife, then known also as Ba-ú, Gula, or NIN.DIN.DUG.GA =
muballitat miti, who restores the dead to life” (see also The Monist, XVII (January, 1907), p. 141f.). The wife of
Sir appears here likewise both as a female (Bélit-baláti, “mistress of life”) and as a male (Bél-baláti, “lord of life”);
hence she is paralleled exactly by NIN.DIN.DUG.GA = Ba-ú = NIN.IB: female and male! From this we may infer
(1) that Sir played the same rôle in Dür-ilu as did N/N.IB in Nippur; (2) that Kadi must have been the “god of Esharra"
according to the people of Dür-ilu, just as Enlil was the “god of Esharra” according to the Nippurians, i.e., Kadi =
Enlil, and the wife of Kadi — NIN.LIL (cf. here also the name AN.GAL — Kadi with AN.GAL.KALAM.MA, the
name of Enlil of Nippur; B. E., XIV, 148 : 15, 18 | XV, 34 : 2); (3) that the “Son” in each and every case is the same
as the “Father,” NIN.IB = Enlil; Sir = Kadi; (4) that the “wife of the Son" is = Ше “Son” (hence male and female):
they are “one flesh." Again, the “wife of the Son” is also identified with the latter's “Mother”: !UNIN.EN.LILK =
Ва-4 = NIN.DIN.DUG.GA is also = ""NIN.LIL, the Вай кат оди, who otherwise was known also as
Ishtar. But Ishtar is, as is well known, male and female and appears in the inseription of AN-mutabil as the wife of
Ka-di, while in our letter the wife of AN.GAL (= Kadi) is called Y“NIN.LIL; hence Ishtar is = YY"NIN.LIL and
both are male and female. (Cf. here also the “Géra = AN = Antum = NIN.LIL, the wife ої “"“É-kur = AN =
Anu = Enlil, hence Enlil = AN and NIN.LIL = AN: both are one—male and female; see Bel, the Christ of Ancient
Times,p.17). Now if the wife of Kadi = A N.GA L be male and female, then the same observation applies, mutatis mutandis,
also to Kadi, i.e., Кай, the husband ої NZN.LIL = Ishtar must be also a female; as such а female he appears in П R.
57, 15а and in Sp. 1, 331 (= 2. A., VI, p. 241) compared with Reisner, Hymnen, p. 146, 44, Тһе net result of this
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 21
last observation is this: (1) the wife of the Son is not only one with the Son, but is also the same as the “Mother”;
(2) the Mother being identified with the Father, the Father is thus proven to be one with the Mother (or third person)
and one with the Son (second person); in other words the divine court of each and every eity, though consisting of
three persons, clearly distinct: the begetter (Father), the conceiver (Mother), the begotten (Son), are yet one: clearly and
unmistakably a veritable Trinity in a Unity.
But how are we to account for ““Dúr-ru-ni-tum and ilus AG on the one, and “TAR and luGU on the other
hand? Р
It Hu Dür-ru-ni-tum be not опу a fem. of “uDu(r)runa, but also the wife of "SAG, аз was claimed above, it
would follow that “SAG is the same as iluDu(r)runa, the masc. of Durrunitum. From ІП R. 68, да we learn that
їм Ди(г)гипа was the first (SAG) of the seven [gud?]-balanga (or is [gud]-balanga to be read here = rabisu?) A N.NA-ge,
i.e., “tambourines” (= tambourine-beaters, heralds, creatures who proclaim “the glory of God”) of AN.NA. In Pinches,
J. R. A. S., January, 1905, p. 143f. (= 81-8-30, 25), Obv. col. IT, 7, 6, Ши ЗАС is called SAG.GAR, i.e., Haupt-
macher" = captain, chief (= the first (SAG), ef. Du(r)runa, the first of the “seven”!) and is identified with “MIR,
which latter is according to /.c., ll. 19, 20, not only = ilu] М, “the god of lightning," but also = En-di-zu-gim = GU
(Pinches, l.c.,1.4). In our letter Чиб 7 is coupled with "TAR, who is to be read according to ПІ В. 68, No. 2, 53, ki-
tam-ma, and is called there the LUGH ог зиккайи iluKa-di-ge, i.e., “the (chief) messenger of Ka-di.” Taking all these
passages together we might derive the following results:
1. God TAR, the messenger of. Kadi, being coupled with GU, must be the latter's husband—in other words,
GU is here a female.
2. GU, although a female, appears also as a male, being identified not only with MIR but also with ГМ —both
male gods, and gods of thunder and lightning—nay, even with SAG.
3. SAG being coupled with the female ilu Dúr-ru-ni-tum, and being identified with MIR, IM and GU, must be
a male and the masc. counterpart of Dür-ru-ni-tum, i.e., he is the same as Du(r)runa.
4. GU, the wife of TAR, is the same as SAG, the husband of Durrunitum-—i.e., husband and wife are ONE, hence
also male and female. (Cf. for TAR + GU also AN + KI = shamé + irsilim = Anu + Antum = husband and wife =
AN + AN = AN, Ва, the Christ, ete., р. 20f. Is the ПиТат-ди an artificial (foreign, Cassite? or Elamitic?) name,
consisting originally of раг and “GU = husband and wife = опе: ilu Tar-gu?).
”
5. “SAG, because called “Hauptmacher” and identified both with the “god of storm and lightning,” and with
йи ит (гута, the first of the seven heralds ої AN.NA, must have been the “Hauplmacher” ог chief, the first of the
“seven,” which seven can only be the “sevenfold manifestations" of the powers of nature, i.e., of the lightning and
storm. The “seven” correspond on the one hand to the “seven sons" of Bau (Creation Story, pp. 45 and 23, note 6),
and on the other hand to “the seven gilts of the Holy Ghost” or the “seven archangels," or the “seven virgins," the
emblem of the church, the sphere of the Holy Ghost, the “bride of the Lamb,” “ the вору (1) of Christ." These “seven”
were in the Babylonian religion always identified not only with the “Son” whose “servants ” (nu-banda = ekdüti = hazánu)
they were, but also with the “Mother,” resp.“ the wife of the Son"—hence Labartu (Myhrman, Z. A., XVI, 153 = Weiss-
bach, Babyl. Miscellen, p. 42) and Ishtar had “seven names” (Reisner, Hymnen, р. 109, 571.), hence also the remarkable
name of Üu(NIN.LIL=) NIN.GAL in У В. 30, Аба, where she is called "4Si-VII-bi, i.e., “the goddess Seven." (Cf.
here also the seven names of **NIN.LIL, III В. 68, 5с, dff. = ПІ В. 67, 20a. bf., the fourth of which is ""Su-kur-ru,
who is identified in Thureau-Dangin, R. T. Ch., 10 : 3, with Im-gig-ghu, a cognomen of ilu Nin-Gir-su = ИиМ МВ, the
god of thunder and lightning. See further the “seven sons” of ÜluNIN.KA.SI or (817%) RIO (the wife of Ka-di),
ІП В. 68, No. 1, 26e. /Н.; “the seven sons” of ilu Pap-nigin-gar-ra and ilu Nin-pap-nigin-gar-ra (i.e., of NIN.IB and Gula)
in ПІ R. 67, No. 1, 25c, dff. ; the seven sons of ilu En-me-shär-ra, ПТ В. 69, No. 3, 64a, b, ete., etc.). This name shows clearly
that “the seven” were considered to be “one” (notice also that in the religious texts very often the singular is used in connec-
tion with the ““VJJ-bi)—just as the “sevenfold gift” of the Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost in her (!ruah is feminine) com-
pleteness, or as the “seven virgins” are “the Church,” the “bride of the Lamb.” These “seven,” when pictorially repre-
sented on seal-eylinders, ete., appear as seven weapons—six of them are to be found generally on the back of the god or
goddess and one (the twin-god = Shär-ür and Shar-gaz, etc.) in his or her hand, or as seven curls, braids (Gilgamesh!
Samson: in the hair lies the strength!), or as seven rays or beams of light, ete., ete. And as these seven represent the
fulness of the power of the divinity, the number seven became in course of time the " number of the fulness of the
22 LETTERS ТО CASSITE KINGS
5 AN" a-shib E-DIM.GAL the gods that inhabit É-DIM.GAL-
KALAM.MA' KALAM.MA,
6 nap-shá-ti-ka li-is-su-ru may protect thy life (lit. souls),
7 ki-bi-is-ka li-shal-li-mu keep thy steps!
$ libbi" а-па a-ma-ri-ka (How) my heart has urged me
9 is-si-ha-an-n? to see thee!
10 тап-пи pa-ni-ka ba-nu-ti П- та“ Whosoever may be permitted to see thy
gracious face
11 à da-ba-ab' [HI (= 40)“ and who is of ““good words,”
12 ki(?)*-na NIN(D- ....) to
godhead,” it became the divine and sacred number par excellence. Cf. the sevenfold candlestick, the emblem of the
”
fulness of the divinity in the Old Testament. See here my article “ The Latest Biblical Archeology ” in the Momi-
letic Review, February, 1908 (written March, 1907), рр. 100ff. To make the certain doubly certain 1 may
mention in this connection that there appears in ІП R. 68, Па, as the third of the seven tambourine(-beaters, heralds,
angels) a certain '“Galu-An-na, to be read in Assyrian ilu А mel-ili, who is in Hebrew none other than the well-known
Gabri-el. “the man of El or ilu"—one of the seven archangels, the heralds and proclaimers of the glory of God when he
appears under thunder and lightning and through whom he reveals himself! For a full discussion of all questions
raised here see my forthcoming volume on the Religious Texts of the Temple Library of Nippur. In conclusion I shall
give here the two parallel Trinities of Dür-ilu as gathered from our letter and from the building inscriptions of
Assarhaddon:
AN.GAL (Father) iluTAR (Son) “GU (wife of Son)= *WNIN.LIL (Mother)
AN.GAL u J CBRE | | ""Shar-rat Dir-ilu**
~ 4774 baläti = с
iluKa-di ў | ““ва- || ЧЕНО MuBalit-Diri
lus AG (husband) ““Durrunitum (wife) 1
Пис [7 | The first of the seven manifestations of the powers
Ниу в f of nature (= Son). [
ilu Du(r)runa )
1 If the Trinity of Dür-ilu be formed after the pattern of the Nippurian, it follows that the temple of that eity
must bear the same or similar names as that ої Nippur. #-DIM.GAL-KALAM.MA means “The temple (Ё) whieh
is the great (gal) firmament (lit. ‘band, DIM = riksu) of the world (se. here the ‘Babylonian world’ as microcosmos
formed after the macrocosmos).” Among the names of Enlil's temple at Nippur we find, e.g., Dur-an-ki, i.e., “the
firmament (dur = riksu) of heaven and earth (ї.е., the world, the maerocosmos)" ; see also Већ, the Christ, ete., р. 21
and notes.
зг of WS. Cf. N. Е. 63 : 50, in-ba na-shi-ma а-па a-ma-ri sa-ai-ah and see Jensen, К. B., УП, pp. 411, 440, 469.
> That is, “all who are in thy immediate entourage, who have the privilege of appearing before thee, who are
thy frieztds and equals." Cf. here the New Testament phrase, “to see the face of Christ” = “to be like Christ,” the
highest honor conferred upon Christians.
1 Those “of good words” (lit. “speaking”) are the friends outside the immediate environs of a person. All
persons, near and far, who are not slanderers may listen.
5 Supplemented according to 38 : 7f., ma-an-nu pa-an ba-nu-tum shá be-h-ia li-mur [й] man-nu da-ba-ba HI-ab
= tab) [а-па] be-l-ia li-il-te-mi ит-та-а а-па be-h-ia-ma.
* According to the passage quoted in the preceding note, we would expect here a-na ahi-ia or better a-na "NIN-
nu-ü-a. The traces on the tablet are, however, as reproduced. The sign NIN(?) looks rather like a SAL + ma =
mimma; besides, if NIN (2) were the beginning ої NIN-nu-ü-a, we miss a DISH before the nom. propr.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 23
13 lish-te-[me] may listen!
14 ит-та-[а а-па ahi-ia-ma] The following to my brother:
Again, Nos. 81, 82 seemingly appear to have come from the same writer, Erba-
Marduk. Yet the fact that the writer of No. 81 invokes ‘‘Shamash and Marduk,”
while he of No. 82 implores “the significant lord, speaks, no doubt, in favor of a
separation of both writers. I believe, therefore, that the author of No. SI was an
inhabitant of either Larsa ог Sippar, and that the writer of No. 82 hailed from Хірриг,!
being at the time when this letter was written away from his seat of residence. То
deduce from the invocation in each and every case the exact domicile of the writer is, of
course, not possible, because we do not know as yet all Babylonian cities with their
chief gods. Thus it would, e.g., be useless trying to determine the habitat of the
writer of No. 87, who invokes for the protection of the life of his brother “Че gods
that inhab t the great heavens." An argument ex silentio is rather precarious, yet
the complete absence of any form of greeting or blessing or endearing term as “brother”
in all letters addressed to "/n-na-an-ni, the severe and sometimes disagreeable’
chief bursar of the Temple storehouses at N ppur, is significant.
The subject matter of a letter, following, as it does, immediately upon the address,
or, if the address be coupled with a greeting? resp. an invocation, upon the latter, is
! No, 81 : 4, «UD а “Marduk na p-sha-ti-ka li-is-su-rum.
2 Хо. 82 : 6, be-li kab-tum [nap-shá]-ti-ka li-is-sur. Kabtu, when used figuratively, has the signification “heavy ”
(se. in quality, not quantity), gewichtig, bedeutungsvoll, significant, weighty, important, foremost, first (= asharidu),
and when attributed to а god makes that god play the rôle of the “Son”; i.e., an ilu kabtu is in every case the god
of “lightning, thunder, and storm." This title is attributed, among others, to Nabü (the preacher, or herald of the Father,
ТУ В. 14, No. 3 : 13, 14), NIN.IB (cf. the nom. propr. ™ ÜuNTN.IB-kabtu (= DUGU D)-ahé(!)-shu, B. E., XIV, 134 : 3.
Only by reading ahé (even if written without me or mesh) instead of ahi (Clay) does this name give any sense: * NIN.IB
is the weighty one among his brothers"), En-lil (ТУ В. 24, No. 2, 11, 12, 23, 24. Enlil is here not the “god of heaven
and earth," but “the lord of the LIL or storm "—one of the few passages which betray the fact that Enlil originally
played the róle of the “Son,” and this he did in the Trinity: AN (Father), ilu En lil (Son), AN = !' NIN.LIL (Mother)).
3 Seeing that Larsa (UD.UN UG"). is mentioned neither in these letters nor in B. E., XIV, XV, while Sippar
(UD.KIB.NUN!) occurs quite frequently (see, e.g., No. 89 : 24, 26, and the Kár-UD.KIB.NUN*!, В. E., XV, 109 : 1),
I prefer to regard Sippar as the home of the writer of No. 81.
4 Where NIN.IB was worshiped as Ше “Son,” the бе-П kab-tum.
5 No. 87 : 5, ANMesh shá a-si-bu ina sha-me-[e rabüti]. Thus I propose to read, and by doing so I take the sign
looking like rat to stand for sha-me-[e]. Cf. here an analogous passage in В. E., X, 96 : 5, where Clay, l.c., p. 69a,
finds a city Kab-ri(tal)-li-ri-im-me-shi, but where me-shi has to be separated from the name of the city and has to be
read sha ina (= те) рат (= shi); see The Monist, XVII (January, 1907), p. 154.
* Nos. 83-56.
1 This applies also to Ahushina (78 : 1), as the expression li-ti-ga-am аа shows. Тһе slave-dealer Enlil-kidinni
was dissatisfied with the actions of Ahushina.
8 In 39 : 2 the introductory um-ma-a а-па be-l-ia-ma stands, quite strangely, before the greeting.
24 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
invariably introduced directly, either without! or with the help of wm-ma-a, or
um-ma-a ana "Y maz Аз most of the letters published in this volume do not
deal with one subjeet only, but discuss, on the contrary, very often as many as ten
different affairs, it is of the highest importance to be aequainted with certain particles
and phrases that are employed to introduce either (a) a completely new subject
matter, not referred to in a previous communication, or (b) the answer to a former
inquiry or note.
Among the particles or phrases used by the writer in order to introduce his
answer (um-ma-a') to a former note ог inquiry may be found the following:
(1) азћ-аћите ; (2) shá"; (3) i-na bu-ut ; (4) sha ta-ash-pu-ra® ; (5) shá т.т. sha
|78 :4|84 :3 | 85 : 3. СІ. here for the letters discussed under
4|37:7|40:3|49:2|52:5.
!So among other places also іп Nos. 76:
9
Chap. III, Хов.3:4|7:4|8:3|12:4|21:4|22:5| 2: :4]33: Т |85:
2 Nos. S1 :5 | S3 :3. This introductory um-ma-a is not to be found in Nos. 1-74; ef. the following note.
3 Nos. 80:4 | 82:8 | 87 :7 | 92:4. To therum-ma-a а-па ту -ma corresponds in Nos. 1-74 an um-ma-a а-па
be-Dh-ia(-a)-ma, which is most generally found in connection with the address: ardi-ka "Х. а-па di-na-an be-N-ia lul-lik,
where it follows either (a) immediately upon lullik, so in Nos.1:3]4:4|21:3|29: 3]39:2]40:2|41:2|[45::3],
ог (b) upon the “greeting,” as in Nos. 9:5| 11:3 | 26-: 3 |27 :3 | 34 :5—but in 39:2 it stands before the
greeting!—or (c) upon the “invocation,” soin No. 38 : 11. In connection with the address: а-па be-Ì-ia ki-be-ma um-ma
MX ста ardi-ka-ma а-па di-na-an be-Ì-ia lul-lik it is found in three passages only, viz.,in Nos. 13:4 |14 :4| 17:6. In
No. 26 :3 we have wrongly Бе-й-та for be-R-ia-ma.
1 Sometimes also um-ma, instead of um-ma-a, is found. Notice here that the um-ma-a resp. um-ma, in connection
with these partieles or phrases, may (1) introduce the answer to an inquiry (= “I beg to state that”), (2) introduce a
quotation. from a previous communication (= “saying”), (3) may be left out altogether. For examples, see under the
following notes, passim, and cf. below sub 11, pp. 26 and 27, note 8.
5 I.e., “as regards.” Cf. S1 : 6f., ásh-shum näremesh Ni-ib-bu-rum shá GU .EN.N A-ka ash-shü-mi-ka im-ta-na-
ah-ha-rum um-ma-a а-па Már-" [n-ni-bi а-па di-ni [. . . J; i.e., “as regards the Nippurians whom thy (deputy) sheriff
has received on thy account (= upon thy command) (sc. for the purpose of holding them as prisoners), the following:
“To Mär-Innibi for judgment [they have been brought, or he has brought them].’” Cf. here also Nos. 11 : 4 | 14 : 5 |
23 :33126:8, 12, 17 | 27 : 15 | 28 :5 | 34 : 19 | 35 : 13, 15, 25, 30 | 57 :2, 4] 60 : 8| 69:3
в With the same meaning as ásh-shum, i.e., “as regards," Nos. 83 : 8. 15 186 : 16 | 87 : 8 (followed by sha iq-ba-[a],
cf. p. 25, note 3b; p. 26, note 5). See also Nos. 3 : 21, 24 | 17 :7,8 | 81 :11, 15, 25, 27 | 34 : 33 | 60 :9.
7 With the same or similar meaning as shá or dsh-shum, see also p. 25, note 4, and cf. 83 : 19 (context mutilated),
translation on p. 112. Among the letters addressed to the “Lord” we find it, e.g., in 44 : 7, izna bu-ut KU? be-N la
i-sa-an-ni-ig-an-ni, cf. below, p. 109. The i-na bu-ut di-qa-ra-ti a-na ra-di-i al-ta [par] of 45 : 10 does not belong
here; see p. 142.
s “With regard to what thou hast written," or “replying to your recent communication," so far not yet found
in this class of letters. It corresponds in the letters, Nos. 1-74, to shá be- Ù ish-pu-ra, “with regard to what my Lord
has written,” which latter may be found either with, so in З : 29 | 26 : 3, or without following um-ma-a, cf. 39 : 38,
concerning which my Lord kas inquired (s ‚ I beg to say that = um-ma-a) а-па be-N-ia ush-te-bi-la, ‘I have sent nom to
my Lord." Cf. here also 62:7? Um-ma-a in 33a: 6 introduces a quotation from a previous communication; the
answer to this quotation begins with um-ma-a a-na be-h-ia-ma, 1. 9; for a translation see р. 137. Cf. here also 34 : 18
and [i-na-aln-na ki-i shá be-h i-shá-pa-[ra] in 3 : 60
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 25
ta-ásh-pu-ra', or abbreviated, shá т.т. ta-ásh-pu-ra?; (6) ásh-shum x.x. shá ta-ash-
ри-ғаз; (7) а-па bu-ut x.x. shá ta-ash-pu-ra'; (8) x.x. зра tash-pu-ra resp. taq-ba-a’ ;
1 “With regard to x.x. concerning whom (which) thou hast written (lit. sent),” see No. 86 : 18Ё: shá "E-mi-da-
Marduk shá ta-ásh-pu-ra ul na-ka-rum shúzú a-hu-ia um-ma a-bi-ta lu shü-pi-is-su at-ta am-mi-ni ki-i ar-di te-te-pu
us-su; i.e., “as regards Emida-Marduk concerning whom thou hast written (sc. I beg to state = um-ma-a) “he is not the
enemy (evil person), he is my brother,’ (therefore), please (ит-та) grant him his wish, ete." Notice in this connection
that lu is connected here with the Imperative. Or have we to suppose that shupissu is = shupussu, Permansive ПІІ?
Prof. Hilprecht translates differently, regarding the lu as a mistake for ku(=ka), “thy,” and taking abita in the sense
of command, order, edict, in which it generally appears in the letters of the Kuyunjuk Collection: “ As regards Emida-
Marduk, concerning whom thou hast written: “he is not the enemy, he is my brother,’ (I beg to state) thus: “make
ЕУ
him execute thy order (abitaku). Cf. in this connection p. 110, note 3.
* The ain га shows that this is a relative clause, i.e., that а shá has to be supplied before ta-ásh-pu-ra. (For another
similar abbreviation see below, note 3). Cf. 86 : 4, sha АЛАС GI ta-dsh-pu-ra um-ma-a shá maremesh EN LILK
AZAG.GI has(!)-su-na(!) shú-ú i-na EN.LIL*! amelup A М.ОА R™esh, ete.; ie., “as regards the gold (hurásu) concerning
which thou hast written I beg to say (um-ma-a, so better than ‘saying,’ and making what follows a quotation): “һе
of the Nippurians who keeps the gold is in Nippur, may the merchants, ete." Notice here the form has-su-na =relative
clause as indicated by the a of па. It must be a Permansive ПІ; but how is the a of has to be explained? We would
expect hus-su-na. Have we to suppose that has had also the value hus? The forms ba’i = bw, Delitzsch, Gram., p. 270;
Jensen, К. B., УП, р. 350, or ba'amma = bu’amma, Jensen, l.c., p. 372, are hardly analogous here, because in these
latter forms the и is due, no doubt, to the Б. In view ої the imperative татті, Gr., Le., for rummik, we might see
in hassuna a dialeetical Nebenform of the Permansive for hussuna. Prof. Hilprecht regards hassuna as being differen-
tiated from the regular hussuna, Perm. ПІ, under the influence both of the final “a” of this word and of the“ à" in the
preceding huräsu, to facilitate the pronunciation of the two words (containing both А and s) by avoiding three “u”
words immediately following each other. Per analogy, we would expect in Nos. 1-74 a phrase like: shá x.x. shá be-Ù ish-
pu-ra, but this is not found in our letters. Instead of it we have, so far, only dsh-shum т.т. shá be-li ish-pu-ra; see the
following note.
’ With the same signification as shá т.т. shá ta-ásh-pu-ra, cf. also shá and ásh-shum. Cf. S2 :9, ásh-shum
ameluAZ AG.GIM( =kudimmu) [sha] ta-ash-pu-ra, context mutilated. This phrase corresponds in Nos. 1-74 to (a) ásh-shum
т.т. shá be-h ish-pur-ra, so in 14 : 16 |23 :19|26 : 15, for which see pp. 99, 119. Cf. also 27 : 12, ásh-shum NI.GISH
pish-shat bit be-li-ia shá be-D. ish-pu-ra 1 (gur) 24 (ча) NI.GISH pish-shat shatti Y**" 1 qa NT.GISH ulad-din, i.»., “as regards
the oil, ointment for the house of my “Lord,” concerning which my “Lord” has written (sc. I beg to state that) “of the
1 gur 24 qa of oil, ointment for one year, I have not (yet) given (paid, delivered) a single qa? ” Or 27 : 18, äsh-shum
™Di-in-ili-lu-mur shá ђе-ћ ish-pu-ra um-ma-a a-bu-us-su-ú sa-ab-ta-ta i-na älu-ki i-na a-shab be-lr-ia а-па be-li-ia [a]k-(a ?]-be
(or bi?)-ma; i.e., “as regards Din-ili-lümur, concerning whom my ‘Lord’ has written, saying (= um-ma-a, introduces here
quotation from previous communication, not the answer): ‘Art thou interceding for him?’ (the long й in a-bu-us-su-ú
indicates a question, Gr., p. 215, y) (sc. I beg to say that = um-ma-a = answer to inquiry) ‘I have spoken in the
‘city’ (Le., Nippur) in the presence of my ‘Lord’ to my ‘Lord,’ ete." See here also 27 :27 | 57 :2 | 59:16. (b) To
ásh-shum т.т. shá be-l iq-ba-a, 23 :14, 24, see рр. 98, 99. (с) To dsh-shum x.x. be-N ish-pu-ra (sc., shá before
be-l and cf. above, note 2), cf. 26:17 (see р. 119); 28:5, ásh-shum ™Iz-gur-"“DIL.BAT shá і-ца Вар
P Si-ri-da-ash be-W [ish-pu-r]a [u]m-ma-a IM ER.KU R ВА" ¿a li-i}m-ta-ah-ra-ni й aln-nu-um-ma 1|4-(а-һа-а um-m[a-a
IMER].KUR.RA"*8k ат-та-ат-та mûr ship-ri-ia i-li-ki-ma i-lak; i.e., “as regards /zgur-DIL.BAT (= Ishtar), who is
(at the present) in Bit-Siridash, concerning whom my ‘Lord’ has written, saying (um-ma-a — quotation): “let him receive
my horses’ (I beg to say, sc., um-ma-a): ‘Behold he spoke as follows (um-ma-a): “I shall (will) examin the horses, but
now
my messenger shall (will) take (them) and go. Notice the peculiar form i-lak = illak! (А reading i-shet = “he
,
shall run, ё.е., go away, leave instantly with the horses," might also be possible.)
+ This is used here in apparently the same signification as shá resp. ásh-shum т.т. shá ta-ash-pu-ra—hence i-na
ог а-па (see instantly) bu-ut = shá resp. ásh-shum (cf. р. 24, note 7). See here 89 : 15f.: а-па бри-иј [sc., dini amelé]
4
26 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
(9) the **objeet" concerning which there was a reference in a former letter, and to
which now the answer is to be viven, is placed at the beginning of the sentence
without any introductory part cle whatever"; (10) shwm-ma ta-sap-pa-ra or ta-al-ta-
аї-та? ; (11) ит-та or ит-та-а; (12) if more subjects than one are referred to in
shá ta-ash-p[u-ra um-ma-a] a-mi-li-e K[U.DA] ki Ül-qu-ü-[ni] Ü-ta-al-shü-nu-ti ù it-ta-an-na shü-nu-ti, i.e., “replying to
your recent communication [concerning the judgment (or fate) of the men] I beg to state th» following (um-ma-a):
“he has examined the men after they had taken (stolen?) the wheat flour, and (in consequene of this examination:
й = result; the à may be translated here also by but; cf. for this й between sentences, Jensen, А. В., УП, рр. 325, 336,
337, 339, and Johnston, J. A. 0. S., ХІХ, р. 50) acquitted them.” For I? sha’älu, used of judicial eross--xamination, see
Jensen, l.c., р. 531. t-ta-an-na-shü-nu-ti I take as I? PN (from which we have алли, “ Zusage”): Ü-la-nana, itta-
nana, аппа; the a at the end indicates the third person of a chief sentence. A “possible” derivation from Hebr.
DJ, “to answer," which “might” seem to be preferable here on account of the following (1. 21) um-ma-a (see p. 27, n. 8),
does not fit. Or should we derive it from MN, Н. W. B., р. 98b (from which we have тапа, “Ruhelager”), and
translate “he impriso лед them”? The “he” according to the context must be some unnamed GU.EN.NA, "sheriff,"
or possibly a judge or king. Among the letters addressed to the “Lord” we find a similar expression, e.g., in 39 : 4,
i-na bu-ut АНА shá Tuk(= KU)-kul-ti-B. KUR™ shá bfe-N) ish-pu-ra ik-te-di-ir[-ru?], see translation on р. 127.
5 “(As regards) the x.x. concerning whom (which) thou hast written or spoken” is, after all, only a shorter form
of shä, äsh-shum, or i-na (a-na) bu-ut x.x. shá ta-ash-pu-ra, ef. (5)-(7). Although not to be found in Nos. 76ff., it does
occur, e.g., in No. 27 : 35, й melusf A.KUD.DA (= mäkisu, tax-gatherer) shá ђе-ћ, ish-plu-ra . . . .]-ma i-la-am-mi-
(24, “and as regards the poll-gatherers concerning whom my Lord’ has written (I beg to state that) ‘he... . and shall
find out.” Хо. 34 : 17, à SIG SHIG sha be-l ig-ba-a [ush]-she-bi-la, “and with regard to the ‘good wool’ about which
my ‘ Lord’ has spoken (sc., in a former letter, I beg to state that) ‘ I have sent it.’ ”
® This is a still further abbreviation of (8); in other words, it is the same as (5)-(7) with both shá, ásh-shum,
i-na (а-па) bu-ut and shá tashpura (resp. shá be-lv ishpura) left out, so that only the v.s. = object remains. Cf. here
35:10, й 70 РОНА" shá be-D-ia iq-bu-ú, “and as regards the 70 (gur) of kasü-root (see Meissner, Ideogr.,
No. 3796) belonging to my * Lord’ (sc. concerning which my ‘ Lord’ has written, I beg to state that) “they informed me
that, ete. 7; see translation, р. 123. See also 42 : 4, А JSSHAG"5^ shá ђе-ћ, id-di-na ™U-bar-ru а-па be-li-ia iq-bu-ú um-
ma-a A.SHAG®®®% un-di-shi-ir a-na-ku ul ush-shi-ir: “as regards the fields, which my ‘Lord’ has given and concerning
which (ig-bu-ú = relative!) Ubarru has reported to my ‘Lord’ saying: ‘he has forsaken (them),’ (sc. I beg to state
ررر
that) ‘I have not forsaken (them). A construction like this elucidates clearly the terseness and businesslike
character of these letters.
те (And) when thou writest or askest ” is found in the letters addressed to the “Lord” (Nos. 1-74) under the Гоги
shum-ma ђе-ћ, i-sap-pa-ra or shum-ma be-li il-ta-al-ma. For the former see 31 : 9, shum-ma be-W i-sap-pa-ra li-sha-
nim-ma(?) a-na-ah zi-li-shi-ma; i.e., “(and) when my ‘Lord’ writes: ‘they (one) may repeat’ (sc. the treatment formerly
applied to the sick person, I must tell my Lord that) “her side (= Hebr. ЭХ) is too weak (sc. for such а repetition). ”
In this connection notice the shi after zi-li for shá, dueto assimilation, facilitated by the preceding sibilant and
repeatedly known also from the tablets of the Murashú archives. For the latter cf. 56 : 5, shum-ma 0е-П il-ta-al-ma
АДНО] + SI shá ru-ku-bi shá be-li-ia i-pu=shú a-na-ku lu-us-ba-at-ma lu-pu-ush-[ma]; “when my ‘Lord’ asks that
they make the pole(s or shafts) for the chariot of my ‘Lord’ (sc. may I beg my Lord that) I be permitted to take hold
ої it (them) and make it (them)?” For С. HU + SI cf. B. Е., ХУ, 32 : 1, ?5"ü-hi-nu; for HU + SI see Meissner,
Ideogr., No. 1206 = hinnu, and for hinnu, Del., H. W. B., 284a: 91 НО + SIMA = hi-in(-nu, sic!) e-lip-pi = “ein Theil
eines Schiffes.” АП of which passages sh w that HU + SI has here the pronunciation hin and that sishÚ HU + SI has
to be read accordingly "hin. It must be here the “shaft” or “pole” of the wagon and is distinct from the hin (not
uhin!) of а ship. The “2% ¿-hi-nu of 91 :5 was probably a stone of the shape of a “pole,” i.e.. “finger,” and the 2
í
ú-hi-in-nu huräsi of Str., IV, 116 : 2 (cf. l.c., 220 : 12, “5 ú-ki-nu”) are, therefore, “2 gold bars." This would prove
that the Babylonians had besides “ the money in rings ” also that “in bars.”
Әт
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 27
the letters, they are introduced either (a) directly or (b) by i or (с) by й and one
of the above given particles or phrases.”
Letters not in answer to a previous communication are much simpler in form
and construction. In these the subject matter is stated either directly," or the
5 Whenever these particles are found they take up either (а) the um-ma after ki-bé-ma or (b) the um-ma-a of the
introduction: um-ma-a а-па ™Y.-ma resp. ит-та-а а-па be-li-ia-ma ог (c) some other um-ma(-a) in the text of the
letter; they are, therefore, nothing but particles that introduce direet speech by quoting either from a previous com-
munication or by giving the answer to an inquiry or note; see р. 24 notes 2,4. For ит-та 86 : 188. is instructive.
While]. 19 contains the “answer” (with um-ma-a omitted) to the ‘Lord’s’ inquiry concerning Emida-Marduk, we still
find another sentence introduced by um-ma in 1.20. This um-ma must take up a preceding um-ma(-a), to be found
either in the text of the letter or in the introduction, seeing that it otherwise stands quite isolated. I think we may trans-
late this um-ma by: ‘(seeing that this is so) therefore, please (um-ma), grant him his petition (or will), ie., let him doit
(but ef. p. 25, note 1). For um-ma-a cf., e.g., 89 :21f. L.c., П. 171. (see р. 25, п. 4), contain the answer to an inquiry
of "NIN-nu-ú-a with regard to the fate (judgment?) of certain men who had taken (stolen?) wheat flour. L. 21f.,
introduced by um-ma-a, which latter takes up the [um-ma-a] ої 1. 14, contains an answer to another inquiry, resp. гергі-
mand, which had been expressed (in a former letter addressed to Pän-AN.GAL-lümur) in probably some such words as
“Why hast thou not communicated by a messenger the result of the trial of these men long ere this?" Answer: 1. 21f.,
um-ma-a mär ship-ri-ia shá a-na ам ВМ ТАТА а-па m ий sharri (= LUGAL) ash-pu-ru (erasure) ki (erasure) i-mu-ru-ka
ma-la a-sap-rak-ku ід-Ба-а um-ma-a i-na “'“UD.KIB.NUN™ shu-ú таг ship-ri-ia ul ash-pu-rak-ku mär ship-ri-ia
а-па WuUD.KIB.NUNK al-tap-rak-ku um-ma-a ana " NIN-nu-i-a-ma de(= NE)-im-ka ù shú-lum-ka shü-up-ra ;
ie, “(But as regards thy reprimand in thy letter of recent date I beg to assure thee of) the following
(um-ma-a): “my messenger whom I had sent to Nippur to the king was, when he saw (= would
see) thee, to have told everything I had written thee, But he (the messenger, when he had returned to me) said
(ит-та-а): “ һе (i.e., "NIN-nu-ü-a) is in Sippar." (This is the reason why) I have not sent my messenger to thee
(and why) I have (now) dispatched my messenger to thee at Sippar with the following note (um-ma-a): “To "NIN-nu-
ü-a. Send Шу news and thy greeting (7.e., with this letter, asking for an answer by “return mail")."'" Тһе events dis-
cussed in this letter are the following: (а) NIN-nu-v-a of Nippur has written to Pän-AN.GAL-lümur ої Dür-ilu concern-
ing the fate of certain men who had taken wheat flour, at the same time reprimanding him for his negligence in not
having communicated to him by messenger the outcome of the trial long ere that. (b) Pán-AN.GA L-limur, wishing
“to kill two birds with one stone," entrusted the answer to the inquiry and reprimand to his messenger, whom he had
to send to the king at Nippur anyhow. (c) The messenger found the king at Nippur, but not NIN-nu-ü-a, being informed
that the latter had left for Sippar, where he could be addressed. (d) Pán-A МО А L-lümur, anxious to avoid receiving
a second reprimand and to show his “brother” (1. 3) that his accusation of negligence was unmerited, at the same time
wishing to assure him that “he still loves him” (1. 1), and that “he wants to see him personally and explain matters to
him" (1. Sf.), dispatches at once, in order not to lose further time, his messenger with this letter to Sippar, asking for a
reply. (e) This letter was received by NZN-nu-á-a at Sippar, brought back with him to Nippur, deposited by him
among the “Temple Archives," where it was excavated by the Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania,
and carried thence to Philadelphia to the Museum of Science and Art. To the um-ma(-a) of these letters corresponds
an um-ma-a а-па be-li-ia-ma of Nos. 1-74. See 33a : 9, 12, 18 compared with 1. 5 (see рр. 137f.); 45 : 18 compared with
1. [3] (see p. 143); 48 : 26 compared with 1. 3.
9 Cf. e.g., Nos. 11 : 19, 20, 22 | 12 : 14 | 17 : 27 | 24 : 24, 32, 36 | 26 : 20 | 27 : 30, 32 | 28 : 16 | 34 : [16], 17 | 35 : 10,
17, 24|37 :15, 20 | 89. : 7, 12, 17 | 45 : 7, 10 | 48:16, 20| 58:7, 12 | 60 : 9, 11 | 66:27 | 81 : 15, 18 | 83 : 19, 24, 27 |
84 : 11, 13 | 92 : 9.
10 зра, 3 :40 + fr. d. | 27 : 38; ù x.x. shá be-D ish-pu-ra, 27 : 27; ù shá be-h ish-pu-ra, 34 :18, etc., etc.
11 Cf. 76 : 2, i-din ра-пи-й-Ка; 78 : 5, li-ti-ga-am at-ta; 84 : 4, la ta-am-ha-ar at-ta; 85 : 4, 9, 11, i-di-in; 83 : 3 begins
with a question expressing asurprise : am-mi-ni ash-pu-r[a-ak-ku] la ta-al-li-i-m{a?], which is introduced by wm-ma-a v. p. 111.
28 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
writer may use as a kind of introduction some such words or phrases as:
eninna, inannas anumma,' Бе-№ 1-01 Кі? ete., ete. -
1 Хо. 40 :S, [en?]-ni, “behold.”
? “ (Behold) now." Written either e-nin, 34 : 6; ог e-nin-na, 34 : 41, or e-ni-en-na, 20:6 143: ІШ | 69: 5.
also the following note. ЈЕ
"Now. Cf. 3:19 (ef, with parallel passage in ). 30, where we have i-na-an-na-a(!), and see a-nu-um-m -а
note 4). 40|24:27 | 31 :35 | 58 :2 13:60, [i-na-a]n-na. ki-i shá be-h i-shd-pa-rfa]. See also à i-na-an-na,
[1] i-na-an-na а-па be-N-ia al-tap-ra, З : 23; й i-na-an-na be-l it-ti-di, 24 : 26. Cf. also preceding note,
"Хом" See 86:8, and cf. an-nu-um-ma-a, 24 : 11, with i-na-an-na-a, note 3.
зе Му Lord knows that," 42 : 16 | 43 : 4; 6е-й i-di shá, 71 : 15; а-па be-N-ia al-tap-ra be-W lu i-di, 11 : 28.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 29
IM.
LETTERS BETWEEN OFFICIALS OF THE TEMPLE OR
STATE AND THE KING.
Even a most perfunetory perusal will and must convince the casual reader
of the fundamental difference in language and address as exh bited in the “letters
between Temple and State officials” and those to be discussed here. In the former
the writer addresses his correspondent, whose name he always mentions, simply
by “thou”: “лои shalt do this and that,” “to thee I have sent,” “with regard to
what thou hast written,” ete.,ete. In the latter the addressee is invariably “he Lord,”
without ever being mentioned by name, and is spoken of as “ту Lord”: “may ту
Lord do this and that,” “to my Lord I have sent,” ‘‘with regard to what my Lord
has written,” “the following to my Lord,” etc. Surely such a formality must have
a historic basis, must have been required by etiquette, must have been rigidly
enforced, and must have been absolutely necessary. Considering, furthermore, the
fact that the various writers who sent their letters to this “Lord” lived at diverse
periods during a space of about 150 years, it at once becomes evident that the
term “Lord” here employed cannot have meant a single person, but must have
been applied to several individuals holding the office of “Тога.” Taking these
a priori considerations as my guide, I was able to collect and publish in this volume
seventy-eight letters (Nos. 1-74) addressed to the ‘‘Lord’’—fifty of them having the
address ‘‘to my Lord,” ete., either completely or partially preserved, while the rest
(twenty-eight) refer to the “Lord” in their text.
In the Table of Contents has been given a complete list of all writers addressing
their letters to the “Lord”; we may, therefore, dispense with a recitation of their
names here, though this would, in many cases at least, help us materially towards
a right appreciation of the exact position and relation of the various writers to their
“Lord.” Ап investigation of this kind would necessarily lead us far beyond the
scope of these introductory remarks here; it must, therefore, be reserved for Series С.
All we are concerned with here is to determine, if possible, the meaning of the expression
“my Lord,” be-li or EN-li; and by doing this we will, ipso facto, it is hoped, arrive at
tangible results which are both absolutely necessary for a correct understanding of
30 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
the nature of these letters here published, and of the highest importance for deter-
mining the exact relation between Temple and State, or, to express it in more modern
phraseology, ‘‘between Church and State,” as represented by Enlil, the god of
Nippur on the one hand, and the Cassite king or kings on the other.
The question, then, has (о be asked and answered: Who is the BE.NI, ёе,
be-N, or **Lord," of these letters?
When trying to answer this question it would seem necessary to discuss in
extenso here all those passages which may or may not, as the case may be, shed any
light upon this term. The most important among these passages are (1) the address;
(2) the greeting; (3) such incidental references in the text of the various letters which
elucidate the position of the “Lord” in his relation to the writer or the Temple.
All letters to be diseussed in this paragraph, like those treated in the previous
chapter, were orig nally enclosed in an envelope, which was sea'ed with the writer’s
seal and addressed, as may be gathered from No. 24,' where, fortunately, a portion
of the envelope has been preserved, as follows:
dup-pi "X. (giving here the name of the writer) а-па be-lt-shú; i.e., “Letter
of X. to his Lord.”
The fact that a letter could be addressed to and safely received by a person
called simply “Lord” suffices to call our attention to the pre-em пепсе of the
addressee: he must have been a “Lord” par excellence, a “Lord” l'ke unto whom
there was none other—a person who went and was known throughout the country
by the title be-N.
Unfortunately for our investigation, there have not been published among the
so-called “Letters of Hammurabi’? any that are written to King Hammurabi
himself. If such letters were known to us, it would be a comparatively easy task
to ascertain how he as king was addressed by his subjects. And yet, thanks to
Hammurabi’s well-known habit of quoting frequently from his correspondent's
letters when answering them, we are able to establish the important fact that Ham-
murabi, though king, was yet addressed by his subjects" not as LUGAL = sharru,
1 Here we have to read: dup-pi ”"Kal-[bu], а-па be-Ì-shú. ™Kal-bu was the writer, according to l.c., 1. 9.
21, W. King, The Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, Vols. 1-ПІ.
з In King, lc., Vol. I, No. 1,11. 8f., Hammurabi quotes from a letter of Sin-idinnam, saying: “And thou (1.6.,
Sin-idinnam) answeredst: “Those four temple servants he (i.e., Ibni-/" MAR.TU) caused me to conscribe as per his
sealed contract, but one of them, a certain Gimillum, І (і.е., Sin-idinnam) sent а-па ma-har be-li-ia, before my Lord
(1.е., Hammurabi).’ This is what thou hast written. Now they have brought before me (a-na ma-ah-ri-ia) that certain
Gimillum whom thou hast sent.” Cf. also the quotation from Sin-idinnam’s letter, King, l.c., Vol. I, No. 4, 1. 13: be-l
li-ish-pur-am, “тау Lord (i.e., Hammurabi) may send,” and also that in King, l.c., Vol. I, No. 8,1. 10 (compared with 1. 14):
shum-ma be-N i-ga-ab-bi, “if my Lord (again Hammurabi) thinks.” Taribatum speaks to Hammurabi, King, l.c., Vol.
ПІ, р. 62 (No. 75),1. 5: “the crews of the ships shá be-W i-si-ha-am, which my “Lord” has desired,” and “YEN .ZU-ma-gir
refers to the seal of Hammurabi as the ka-ni-ik be-R-ia, “the seal of my ‘Lord,’ ” King, l.c., Vol. І, No. 26, йо
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 31
“King,” but as be-N or ‘‘Lord.” It must, however, be conceded here that at the
time of the Hammurabi dynasty the title Бе- was not exclusively used of a king. Оп
the contrary, several letters are known to us, written by persons calling themselves
«hy servant" (ardi-ka) and addressed to the “Lord,” where the title be-lù expresses
nothing but the position of a “higher” with regard to a "Чомег? person; 7.e., where
be-li indicates simply the rank of the * master" as opposed to that of the ‘‘servant”’
(атди).
Again, when we examine the so-called Tell-Amarna letters (written at
about the same time as those published here) with regard to the usus loquendi
of the title “Lord,” we find that both governors and kings’ may be designated
by it.
The fact, however, that the title “Lord” might be and actually was used both
during the Hammurabi and the Amarna periods as a title of the king is not yet proof
sufficient to warrant a conclusion that the be-N of our letters designates in each and
every case a king likewise. Such a conclusion must, in order to stand the closest
scrutiny and severest criticism, be absolutely beyond the pale of skepticism and
1Cf., e.g., C. T., II, р. 19 (Bu. 91-5-9, 290), а-па be-h-ia ki-bé-ma ит-та Be-el-shü-nu ardi-ka-ma. С. T., П,
p. 20 (Bu. 91-5-9, 294), а-па бе-й-та ki-bé-ma um-ma Hut D-ra-bi-ma. (sic! without ardi-ka-ma). C. T., П, p. 48 (Bu.
91-5-9, 2185), а-па be-li-ia ki-bé-ma ит-та Ib-ga-tum ardi-ka-ma. С. T., IV, p. 19 (Bu. 88-8-12, 278), a-na be-N-ia
ki-bé-ma ит-та Ата *Ul-mash-tum-ma (without ardi-ka-ma!). C.T., УТ, p. 27 (Bu. 91-5-9, 413), а-па be-h-ia ki-be-
ma ит-та Ta-tu(?)-ur-ma-tum amat( = GIN)-ka-ma. C. T., VI, p. 32 (Bu. 91-5-9, 585), a-na be-li-ia ki-bé-ma um-ma
ilu EN. ZU-ta-ia-ar-ma (without ardi-ka-ma). Cf. also C. T., IV, р. 1 (Bu. 885-12, 5), ki-ma be-lv абма ti-du-ú, with
C. T., П, р. 20 (see above), 1. 4, ki-ma бе-й i-du-ú.
2 CF., e.g., Amarna, В. 219, [а-па] amelug AT, ТЕХ (га ki-bé-ma шт-та) Ba-PI(= ia)-di ardi-[ka-ma], to which
title Winckler, K. B., V, p. xxxiv, note 2, remarks: “Zu diesem wird hier gerade so gesprochen, wie sonst zu dem Kónig.
Man kommt auf die Vermutung, dass der Schreiber gemeint hat den ‘grossen König’ (sharru statt amelu)." Seeing that
we find the same address іп ІЗ. 146, [a-na amjelu GAL EN-ia [ki-be-ma шт-та) Hi-bi-PI( = ia) ardi-ka (cf. 1. 8,
11; Rev. ll. 7, 8) I do not think that ameluG AT, is here a title of the king, but in all probability that of a high official
(governor?) ої the king. In Amarna, В. 40, Aziri addresses his “father,” the governor of Amurru (l. 15, cf. with B.
92:1, amelu ûlu A_mu-ur-ra) as follows: а-па "Du-ú-du "EN-ia a-bi-ia шп-та m A-2i-rj mär-ka атаї-Ка. Winckler,
A. O. F., Vol. II, p. 312 (whom Johns, L. C. L., р. 330, follows) finds in the expression (а-па) a-PI-lim sha ilu Marduk
ú-ba-al-la-tu-shú, i.e., “the man whom Marduk may keep alive” (V. A. Th., 793 = Meissner, В. A., Ш: р. 579), the
title of а (the) king during the Hammurabi dynasty. Though amelu is used in the Code of Hammurabi for “nobleman,”
“one that lives in a palace,” I cannot accept this view, simply and solely because we find in the phrase just quoted
besides amelu (see also C. Т., П, p. 29; C. T., ТУ, р. 24) also shá-bi-ri-ia (C. T., IV, р. 12; ef. with this title also our letters
No. 52 : 11, shá-piri-shú-nu; 21 : 20, shd-pi-ir{. . . 1; Delitzsch, H. W. B., р. 683b; Johns, A. D. D., III, p. 327) and
a-bi-ia (C. T., УТ, p. 32).
3 See here, e.g., the letter of Akizzi addressed to the king of Egypt in the following words (Amarna, L. 37), a-na
MN am-mur-[ia] таг Па be-l-ia um-ma "[A-ki-iz]-zi “™elvardi-ka-ma, and cf. B. 29, а-па be-N (sic!) LUGAL
mátu.ki (э) Mi-is-ri-e a-bi-ia ki-bé-ma шт-та "Zi-iqka]r mar LUGA L már-ka-ma ; i.e., “to the Lord (sic! not ‘my Lord,”
which had to be be-li-ia), the king of the land of the Egyptians, my father, ete.,” instead of the more commonly used
а-па LUGA L Ье-й-та LUGAL Misri or а-па LUGA L Misri be-li-ia.
62 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
reasonable doubt; in other words, it must be warranted by facts which cannot be
controverted.
Somewhat farther we would advance, it seems, if we were to compare the
"address" as exhibited in the letters to the "Тога" with that discussed in Chapter
II. While the address in the “letters between Temple and State officials’? runs
simply ““То Y. speak, thus saith X.,” it reads here either
(а) “То ту Lord speak, thus saith "X.(= name of writer), thy servant," which,
with the exception of two letters (Nos. 8 and 46), is invariably followed by what
might be called a ''Hóflichkeits "-formula: “before the presence ој my ‘Lord’ may I
come": а-па be-l-ia® ki-bé-ma um-ma "X. ardi-ka-ma? а-па di-na-an* be-M-ia lu-
ul(or lul)-li-ik (or lik); or
(b) “Тһу servant "X. (= name of writer). Before the presence of my ‘Lord’
may I come”: ardi-ka " X.-m(a)" а-па di-na-an be-li-ia lul-lik (or lu-ul-Li-ik) л
The difference in the address between the letters written to the “Lord” and
those discussed in Chapter II is marked and fundamental and may be briefly summed
up as follows:
(1) In the letters spoken of above tbe writer never called himself ardu or
"servant;" on the contrary, И he wanted to express any relation at all, he did so
by applying to himself the term **brother," ahu.
(2) He never addressed his correspondent by be-li, “my Lord," but simply
mentioned the name of the addressee without any title whatever.
(3) He never used the phrase ‘‘before the presence of my ‘Lord’ may I come.”
The last mentioned peculiarity is also the distinguishing feature between our
letters here and those of the Hammurabi period, in which the writers, it is true,
called themselves “ағам” and their addressee be-li, but in which they never used
the ‘‘Höflichkeits”-formula а-па di-na-an be-M-ia lul-lik. On account of the
absence of this phrase the letters of the Hammurabi period prove themselves
at first sight— without even considering their contents—to be nothing but simple
epistles of an inferior (servant) to a superior person (lord).
1 For a justification of this translation see below, рр. 58, note 2; 104, note 1.
? Notice here the difference between the address of the letter proper and that of the envelope. While the
former is always addressed “to my(!) Lord," а-па be-N-ia, the envelope has “to his(!) Lord,” а-па be-li-shi.
з That this emphatic -ma indicates the end of the address proper we have seen above, р. 18, notes 4, 9.
1 So always; а possible di-na-ni has not yet been found in these letters.
$ Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, $710, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 25, 30, 37 [43, 44, 49, 50, 51].
в For -ma ef. Хо. 4 : 1 ("]A-na-ku-rum-ma; the -ma in No. 21 : 1, "Ilu-MU.TUK.A-réma"^ (Meissner, /deogr.,
No. 3857), may(!) be a phonetic complement to rému; for m ef. Mukallim (Nos. 31, 32, 33), Shirigtum (No. 38),
Ubarrum (Nos. 39, 40), etc. This -ma or m terminates the address proper, see note 3.
1 Nos. 1, 4, 9, 11, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28 29, 31, 32, 33, 33a, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 [45, 47, 48].
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 3
It would seem, then, that a correct interpretation of the words “before the
presence of my ‘Lord’ may I come,” as regards their application to persons, might bring
us somewhat nearer to a valid understanding of the term “чау Lord." Examining
all letters so far published with regard to the usage of the phrase а-па di-na-an be-li-ia
lul-lik, we find that it may be employed in letters addressed either (a) to an official
called “LUGH = sukkallw or (b) to the King, LUGAL = sharru2 Now, as the
^" sukkallu as ““ambassador” or ''chief representative” (for that is the meaning
of the term sukkallu in those letters) shares the king's honors, we might suppose
that the be-li of our letters was such a chief representative of the king or kings of
the Cassite dynasty. As representatives of the Cassite kings—especially with
regard to the affairs of the Temple, resp. its storehouses—appear, as we learn from
B. E., XIV, XV, a certain Innanni, the chief bursar during the time of Kuri-Galzu,
and his successors Martuku (time of Kadashman-Turgu), Irimshu-NIN.IB
(time of Kadashman-Turgu and Kadashman-Enlil), ete? That none of the
three chief bursars just mentioned can be meant by the be-N here is obvious. For-
tunately we possess four letters, addressed to Innanni, which are absolutely void
of any of the three fundamental criteria; in them the writers do not call them-
І See e.g., H., VII, 748, ardi-ka ™ "YA G-ú-shal-lim (cf. also below, Н., VII, 747, a letter by the same writer
addressed to the king) а-па di-na-an ULUGH be-N-ia lul-lik um-ma-a а-па Әе-П-4й-а-та. H., УШ, 781, ardi-ka
m иш Marduk-SHESH-ir а-па di-na-an *"*"ILUGH Бела hul-lik @A-nim u Ishtar [ај па, ULUGH be-h-ià
lik-ru-bu um-ma-a а-па Mel LUGH be-N-ia-a-ma. H., VIII, 805, ardi-ka " Mar-duk а-па di-na-an amel LUGH Бела,
cf., 1. 5] lul-lik "AG [ù Wu Marduk] а-па be-h-ia lik-ru-b[u ит-та-а] а-па ULUGH be-I-[ia-a-ma]. H., VIII, 844,
ardi-ka "Чи N-shu-nu а-па di-na-an ДЕН Бе-Гу-іа lul-lik “Marduk u ilu Sar-pa-ni-tum а-па be-N-ia lik-ru-bu
ит-та-а а-па be-N-ia-a-ma.
2 In connection with a modified form of address (a)—see р. 32—we find it, e.g.,1n H., У, 516, а-па LUGA L be-li-ia
ardi-ka ™ и EN-SE-na а-па di-na-an LUGAL be-li-ia lul-lik “AG u "Marduk а-па LUGAL be-l-ia lik-ru-bu um-ma-a
а-па LUGAL be-N-ia-a-ma. H., VIII, 793, а-па LUGA L be-li-ia ( = Ashshur-étil-ili”*", son of Ashshur-bän-apal) ardi-ka
m ilu EN-ib-ni а-па di-na-[an] LUGA Т, be-li-ia lul-lik “AG u Пиј Marduk] а-па LUGA L be-li-ia lik-[ru-bu].
In connection with address (b)— see p. 32—it occurs, e.g., in H., IV, 422, ardi-ka "АР-іа-КІ-іа а-па di-na-an
SICLUGAL.GI.NA (= Sharru-ukin) be-li-ia [sc., lullik, left out here] lu-ú [sc., shul-mu] а-па eLUGAL.GI.NA be-li-ia
um-ma-a а-па LUGAL be-h-ia-a-ma. H., УТ, 542, ата (Ка "Х..... а-па di-na-a]n ““LUGAL-ú-kin LUGAL SHU
(= kishshatu) be-l-ia lul-lik "ДС u “Marduk а-па LUGA Г, lik-ru-bu um-ma-a а-па LUGAL be-li-ia-a-ma tmu-us-su
а-па ba-lat ZI"*9^( = napsháti) sha LUGAL be-h-i ЧЕМ u “UAG úsal= NI)-li. H., УП, 698, ardi-ka ™ WEN.
BA.SHA а-па di-na-an LUGAL [sic! H., but nothing is missing] sha Бе-й (! = the king of the lords) be-N-ia lul-lik
“AG u "Marduk а-па LUGAL be-l-ia lik-ru-bu um-ma-a а-па LUGAL be-li-ia-a-ma. H., VII, 721, [ardi]-ka
т ilu Marduk-MU-SE-na [а] та di-na-an LUGAL be-li-ia lul-lik um-ma-a а-па LUGAL be-N-ia-a-ma. H., VII, 747, 749,
ardi-ka ™ ilu AG-ú-shal-lim (749 has т Да DI-im, cf. also above, H., УП, 748, a letter by the same writer addressed to
the @meluLUGH) а-па di-na-an LUGAL be-ħ-ià lul-lik um-ma-a а-па LUGAL be-l\-ia-a-ma. H., VIII, 803 [ardi-ka
m ilu Mar]duk-MU.MU “перу [NAM а-па di}-na-ni(!) LUGAL be-h-ia [lul-lik “AG u Y] Marduk а-па be-l-ia
lik-ru-bu [um-ma-a а-па be]-N-ia-a-ma. H., VIII, 832, 833, 835, 836, 837, ardi-ka " "ФАС ЕХ МО" ana di-na-an
LUGAL be-li-ia lul-lik um-ma-a а-па LUGAL be-l-ia-a-ma.
3 Cf. Clay, B. E., XIV, p. 8.
5
34 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
selves ‘‘thy servant," nor do they beg to be permitted ‘‘to come before his presence,"
nor do they term him ‘‘my Lord."
Though we d d not yet arrive at a positive result, we may claim at least a nega-
tive one, and that is: the be-M of these letters cannot have been a representative of
the Cassite king, such as Innanni, the chief bursar of the Temple storehouses at
Nippur, was at the time of Kuri-Galzu.
Trying to determine the exact significance of the expression be-li, we get, it would
seem, a good deal farther in our investigation if we examine the formula of greeting,'
ana . . . . shul-mu (which here, as in the letters above, is very often coupled with
an invocation), and all those incidental references in the text of the letters which allude
to the personality of the bearer of this title. In doing this we learn that the Lord was in
possession of (1) a “house,” bitu*; (2) a “house and field," bitu й strut; (3) a “house, city,
and field," bitu älu-ki à sir; (4) a “field,” едім; (5) a “city and field," álu-ki à
siru (resp. siru*)'; (6) a “city, field, and house," álu-ki siru (resp. si-ri) à bitw ;
(7) “large and small cattle," LIT.GUD"* à GANAM.LU®“:; (8) “young cows
and oxen,” (41 bu-ra-ti й alpé bu-ru-ti^; (9) “harvests of the land and [pastures] of
the field," i-bu-ri sha m[a-ti ù т1-Ц(?) siru" ; (10) **eanals and ditches,” пати?, nam-
> mûr ship-r(*; (12) ‘workmen, resp. ‘soldiers,
ga(r)-ra*; (11) ‘‘messengers,’
With the exception of No. 39 to be found always after lullik and before the introductory ит-та-а а-па
be-N-ia-ma. No. 39 has the greeting, quite strangely, after the last mentioned introductory phrase.
2 Always written either shü-ul-mu ог shul-mu; DI(= shil)-mu has пої yet been found.
3 Nos. 22 : 4 | 23 : 3 (writer "Im-gu-rum); 35 : З (writer " Ki-shah-bu-ut, cf. also note 5): а-па E be-N-ia shü-ul-mu.
Cf. also the bab shá Е be-N-ia in 26 : 19 and the NI.GISH pish-shat É be-h-ia in 27 : 12.
4 №. 11 : 2 (writer " Be-Ia-nu) : а-па É й EDIN shá be-li-ia shul-mu. For EDIN cf. р. 75, note 1.
$ No. 34 : 2 (writer " Ki-shá-ah-bu-ut, ef. also note 3): а-па Е be-li-ia ülu-ki à [EDIN shá be-M-ia shú-ul-mu.
8 Cf. No. 46 : 5, A.SHAG-ka, “thy field,” i.e., the Lord's.
? No. 9:3 (writer "Bana-a-sha-!"" Marduk): а-па álu-ki ù EDIN shá be-l-ia shú-ul-mu. Хо. 17 :5 (writer
т iluNTN.IB-GA.BU-AN"'*9')- а-па dlu-ki à ЕРІМ shá be-li-ia shu[l-mu].
8 Nos. 26 :2|27 :2|28 :3 (writer "Ku-du-ra-nu): а-па älu-ki EDIN (26 : 2, si-ri) й É be-li-ia shü-ul-mu.
з No. 51 : 4 (name of writer broken away): [а-па LIT.GUD®-“ ù) GANAM.LUF@ shá [be-D-ia shul-mu]. No.
16 :4 (writer " “NIN IB. . . 4): а-па LIT.GUDE-@ à GANAM.LUF-“ shfü-ul-mu] ù shá be-li-ia shü-ul-mu, i.e.,
“to the large and small cattle, greeting; and to all that belongs to my Lord, greeting" For LIT.GUDE-@ à GANAM.
18 (= аре à şênê) cf. also B. E., XIV, 99 : 1 | 99a : 46 | 132 :1
0 No. 10 : 4 (writer[. . . 24 Marduk): [а-па LI T"*5" bu-ra-ti] à Ор" bu-ru-[ti]. Cf. also No. 60.
и Хо. 25 : 4 (writer "UR-!"NIN.DIN.DUG.GA): а-па i-bu-ri shá m[a-ti à ri-ti(?) EDIN shü-ul-mu.
12 He was at least совае, cf. No. 40 : 21 (writer "U-bar-rum): me-e "Gu = A.GUR) Ilu( —AN)-i-pu-ush й
me-e а A.GUR) Na-la-ah me-e zi-it-ti shá be-li-ia; for translation see р. 132. Cf. also the mà (=A) be-Ì-iain 1 : 11.
13 No. 40 : 15, й shú-ú а-па pa-an nam-ga-ri shá be-l-ia a-shi-ib; l.c., 1. 20, nam-gar-ra shá be-N-ia li-mash-shi-ir.
1 › , , 4
| No. 8 : 17 (writer ”Ba-il-"'“Marduk): тат ship-ri shá be-N-ia. Cf. [34 : 21] | 53 : 37, таг ship-ri-ka.
-
f
е
o2
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 3
ummûni (= SAB"), sûbê (= SAB""):; (13) “servants,” ardu; (14) shattam
and РАД ENGAR®; (15) ий; (16) ‘‘tax-gatherers,” mákisw ; (17) ''sheriffs,"
! №. 39 : 17 (writer "U-bar-rum): ŞA BE“ shá be-D-ia. СІ. 46 :9, SAB®-“[ka] and 58 : 12, SAB shá ђе-ћ,
im-hu-ru. From 9:17, 100 БАВЕ а (ту gi-in-na-ta ki-i ig-nu-na SA Втевһ(1) shá be-li-ia ir-ta-pi-is, it is apparent that
,
there seems to have been a difference between SA ВЕ and SA Bmesh- the former are = “men,” while the latter are = “sol-
diers”; for a translation see р. 106. In B. E., XIV, ХУ, SA BP and SAB" are used interchangeably; cf., e.g., l.c.,
XIV, 56a : 26, PAD 27 SABMesh shá ú-ga-rize i-pu-shu, i.e., “food (wages) for 27 ‘men’ who have tilled (made) the
fields," and according to l.c., 1. 30, the ameluRIQ and KA.ZID.DA have SA втезії,
2 This follows not only from the term “servant” which the various writers apply to themselves when writing to
their “Lord,” but also from the fact that very frequently other persons are referred to in these letters as “thy (i.e., the
Lord's) servant," ardi-ka. Among the persons thus spoken of as the “Lord's” servant we find, e.g., "Brba-""Marduk,
27 : 30, 32 | 29 :4[5]| 35 : 17 | 65:9 (ef. here also mErba""“Marduk, the writer of letters Nos. 13, 14, 81, 82);
т iluNIN.IB-SHESH-SE-na, 1:16, 17; "ВА НА ЧМ, 34 : 34, 35; "I-na-É.KUR.GAL, 24:32; т ““DIL.BAT-
Ва-пі, 14 :18; "Ku-du-ra-ni, 35 : 31 (cf. also the writer of Nos. 26, 27, 28); т Me-li-Shi-pak, 17 : 32; "Na-ah-zi-
ГЕ“МағашА, 42 : 12, 13; "SH ESH-shá-ásh-ra, 45 : 7; mý SAG.I L-zu-ri-ia [ardi-ka], 9 : 15. Cf. 21 : 27, П ardi-ka.
з №. 39 : 3 (writer ”U-bar-rwm); [45 : 4, name of writer broken off]: а-па SHAG.TAM (ог possibly better
A.SHAG, cf. 39 :4) à amelupA ENGAR «һа be-li-ia shi-ul-mu. То SHAG.TAM (=UD) = plural and without
amelu, cf. 35 : 33, be-Ì а-па ЗНАЄ ТАМ li-ish-pu-ra-ma NI.GISH shub(= RU)-ta lish-ki-nu-[ma], see translation p. 125.
See also 21 : 4, itu ОСУД АС ТАМ shá а-па shul-mi-shü al-li-ku shi-ul-ma shá be-l-ia ish-ta-la-an-ni (original gives
ir), “the ità of the shattam for whose welfare (interest) I have come, has asked me about the welfare (here = ‘news,’
as in de-im й shú-lum = “good news’) of my ‘Lord’ ”; 27 : 15, dsh-shum NI.GISH i-tu-ü SHAG.TAM-mi e-she-ir, “as
regards the oil (sc. concerning which my Lord has written, I beg to state that) ‘the itd of the shatammi (so, no doubt,
better than: “as regards the oil of the 4/0, the shattammi, ete.” and this because (1) the letter is addressed to the “Lord”;
(2) shattammi, terminating in i, requires а noun on which it is dependent; (3) if shattamm i were the subject we would expect
a form esh(i)rü) із taking care of it; " 54:25, ^"e'vSH A[G-T]AM. Тһе SHAG.TAM, in all passages quoted, being
closely connected with the watching, guarding, taking care of (27 : 15) or storing (35 : 33) of the NI.GISH or sesame
oil, must have been an official in charge of the oil of the Temple or Palace. Delitzsch, H. И. В., р. 6966,
“ein Berujsname”; Meissner-Rost, В. S. S., Ш, р. 359, and Zimmern, Ritualt., p. 93 = zamméru, “Sänger”,
Jensen, К. B., УП, pp. 531, 532 = shaknu, дбри, “Statthalter” ; King, Letters of Hammurabi, ПІ, p. 57 : 3, “overseer of
cattle"; Delitzsch, В. A., IV, p. 486, on the basis of Letters of Hammurabi, 39 : 5, SHAG.TAMMesh shá E.“ дуба! ка
compared with l.c., 37 :7 and No. 15 = “Tempelverwaltung, ein höheres Tempelverwaltungsamt." amelupA ENGAR
is hardly better than “eu gishENGAR, seeing that the sign PA looks rather like GISH. amelupA ENGAR =
akil errishé, ikkaré, ‘overseer of the farmers ог irrigators." If read amelu gishYNGAR, this official would be one who
had charge of the “works of irrigation:” "е палас, see also р. 127, note 2.
4™Kj-shah-bu-ut, the writer of No. 35, after having passed through the positions of na-gid, ENGAR, RIQ, calls
himself, l.c., 1. 25, a-na-ku i-tu be-Ì-ia. As itt he was in charge (of the storehouse affairs) of the city ріг Чирд КОРІ
(see below, р. 120). ”Kal-bu, the writer of No. 24, who had been entrusted by royal grant with the administra-
tion of the eity Mannu-gir-""“IM, calls himself, l.c., 1. 36, a-na-ku i-tu [be-liJ-ia. In 26 : 17 the ¿-tu-ú MTz-gur-"[UNIN.IB
“puts up” shu-ki-i: ásh-shum shü-ki-i shá i-tu-ü MTz-gur-!UNIN.IB shá-ak-nu-ma be-D, ish-pu-ra а-па bab shá bit be-Iı-ia
ul i-la-ak; for translation see p. 119. Cf. also 21 : 27, GAL i(?)-tu? Also other persons had an itd. The writer ої No.
11, "Be-la-nu, says, l.c., 1. 21, i-tu-ü-a та-ат-та ia-a'-nu, and ™ Чи En-Lil-ki-di-ni, the slave dealer, commands ”A-hu-
shi-na (78 : 4): Már-" Mu-ra-ni i-tu-ú-a li-ti-ga-am аа. In 21 : 4 we have an ¿tu ameluSHAG.TAM, and in 27 : 15
an i-tu-ú SH AG.T AM-mi (see preceding note). Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 157a, gives only “itd, ein Berufsname.” Тһе
root of this word is MMS, “to see”; to the same root belongs also another itd, “side, boundary." А side of a house
(or of a piece of land, ete.) is any of its four extremities which “looks” towards a certain direction, either north, south,
east, or west. The extremities of a piece of land which look towards or in the different direetions are its itd, pl. ité, or
“boundaries”; hence the person called id is “опе who looks out towards or in the different directions, or sides or bound-
36 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
GU.EN.N A*; (18) na-'i-ri-e na-'i-ra-a-ti SAL E-di-ir-ti à bitw ; (19) “cities,” аи“;
» d
aries—may they be those of property or of other business interests—of his master," “one who looks out that the various
sides of his master's interests be protected.” Such a person who “looks out” for his master's interests (as did Kalbu,
after having been entrusted by royal grant with the administration of Mannu-gir-"'“IM) at the time of Ur-Ninna, king
of Shirpurla, was called an A.N/.TA = “one who is at his side.” The latter, then, is the exact Sumerian counterpart of
the Semitic-Babylonian ¿td = itu + Фи = “one who is аб the side of somebody, who guards his interests" (cf.
Nippurü = Nippur-áju, one who lives at, belongs to, Nippur, а Nippurian), “his administrator, his representative ” :
just as the sides (iû) represent a piece of property, guard it against trespassing, so an 2/4 represents and guards and
looks out for the interests of his master.
$ №. 27 : 35 (writer " Ku-du-ra-nu) : "USHA (= NIG).KUD.DA shá be-N ish-pu-[ra]. For SHA.KUD.DA cf..
besides the passages quoted in В. E., ХІУ, XV, also l.c., XIV, 5:5|18:2|125 : 14 | ХУ, 122 :7 | 131 : 17 | 157 : 25 |
166 : 15, ete.
* For this officer see introduction to No. 75, below, рр. 1381.
? The passages in which this phrase occurs as part of the greeting are the following, No. 36 : 3 (writer [ ГМ.
LUGAL.AN™®") ; [ana .. . . ВАШ, E-di-ir-tim [à É be-li-ia sh]i-ul-mu [. . . . ma-a'-di-ish. shi-ul-mu; 31 : 3
(writer " Mu-kal-lim) : а-па па- i-ri-e na-'i-ra-ti ù Е be-li-ia shü-ul-mu SAL E-di-ir-ta li-pi-tu an-ni-tum il-ta-pa-as-si(? or
зи?) а-па TUR.SAL "Ku-ri-i й TUR.SAL "Ahu(=SHESH)-ni shú-ul-mu shi-ir-shi-na da-ab; 32 :4 (writer "Ми-
k[al-lim]): [а-па] na~i-ri-e na-[i-ra-ti SAL] E-di-ir-ti [й] E be-li-ia shi-u{l-mu]; 33 : 4 (writer [”M ]u-kal-[lim)) : [а-па]
na-'i-ri-e паг i-ra-a-ti [SA]L E-di-ir-(i] à É be-D-ia shü-ul-mu. | má' iré, па тай are participles masc. and fem. plur. of
N), which Delitzsch, Н. W. B., р. 439b, translates by “schreien, brüllen." Jensen, К. B., УГ, p. 588, assigns to
п ти a signification *klagend." We have to combine both significations here and translate ná'iré, nä’iräti by “howlers
(mase. and fem.) of lamentations” = “lamentation men and women,”
who began their operations, as is well known,
at the time of sickness, death, or funeral of a person. This is apparent also from the texts quoted above, for all of
them are nothing but reports of a physician about the progress of the sickness of certain ladies connected, no doubt,
with Enlil's sanctuary. Cf., e.g., 31 : 9f., shwm-ma be-li i-sap-pa-ra li-sha-nim-ma а-па-ай zi-li-shi(Y)-ma (for trans-
lation see p. 26, n. 7) «йа TUR.SAL "Mush-ta-li (cf. 32 : 7) i-shä-ta-tu ba-al-da shá (cf. 32 :13) pana i-gi-en-ni-hu
i-na-an-na ul i-gi-en-ni-ih «һа TUR.SAL "Ilu( = AN)-ip-pa-ásh-ra Ш i-shá-tu shá uh-hu-ra-tum shi-i-pa it-ta-di, ete.
For i-shá-ta-tu, II i-shá-tu cf. lc., 1. 26, mi-shi-il i-shá-ta-ti [shá(?) uh]-hu-ra; 1. 28, i-shá-ta-tu shá si-li (cf. zi-li, 1. 10 =
Hebr. yos, “side”) shá uh-hu-ra, and 33 : 24, i-shá-ta-tum. Ishätätu (ti, tum) is either a plural of ishätu = “fire,
fever" (for formation cf. Delitzsch, Gr., p. 18S), or, less probably, a plural of ishátu (= eshitu?), syn. of ka-ra-ru-u,
which Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 1435 (sub eshitu), translates by “eversiones.” The II i-shá-tu is, no doubt, “the double
fever" in the sense of either “intermittent fever" or, more probably, of “chills and fever." Ba-al-da = Permansive
Г, third pers. plur. fem. after ishätätu. For ganähu cf. the Talmudic lexica sub MM = “to suffer from angina pec-
loris," and for shipa nadü, “to grow, become old,” see Jensen, К. B., УП, p. 511; here, because used of sickness, it has
the meaning “to become chrome.” Те passage, then, might be translated: “With regard to the daughter of Mushtali
(I beg to report that) the fevers are improving; what was suffering before is not suffering any more now. With regard
to the daughter of Ilu-ippashra (I beg to report that) the “double fever' which is remaining (= third pers. sing. fem.
Perry. II! after II i-shä-tu = singl.) has become chronic,” i.e., it appears at regular intervals. Cf. also 33 : 7f., йти
28(?) 40M shá mu-shi ish-te-en a-ka-la it-ti pa-pa-si 1-ші ú-ga-at-ti ba-ra-[a]r-tum ki-i ig-tu-ú ит-ти [is]-sa-bat-si, and l.c.,
1. 25f., йти 29M UD na-pa-{hi] таг ship-ri-ia ul-te-sa-a ki-i shá be-li iq-ba-a te(!)-e-im mu-shi a-lam-ma-ad-[ma(?)
i-nja "ЩУР na-pa-hi a-s(há]-ap-p[a-r]a [te-e]-im su-ma-nu а-Пат-упа-а4 та à(?) а-а ra-bi-e a-[shá-a]p-pa-ra [shá(?)]
dup-pa а-па [muh] be-li-ia [ul-te]-bi-la. With the exception of ishtén akdla itti papasi everything is plain. Is this a
food prepared with the papasi? For papasu cf. also В. E., XIV, 163 : 42, III Чи аи (= RI) pa-pa-su “ЧА ОСЕ,
which shows that papasu was taken from the river, and is probably the “slime” of the river; ef. also Küchler, Medizin,
р. 128, “Brei, Schlamm." Also in B. E., XV, 44:23 it is paid, like MUN, GU.GAL, GU.TUR, sih-hi-li, to certain
(work)men ; is, therefore, different from pappasu, Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 534a (against Clay, B. Е., XIV, p. 25, note to No.
8, 1.4). From the above given passage it appears that the n4 iré and ná'irüti began their operations (ba-ra-ar-tum =
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 37
““guards,”” massartu’; ''fortress(es)," bi-ir-ta!°; *'chariots," ""narkabtu" and sak-
о ) 55 ) ) ,
shup-par?; (20) ''carriages,". ru-ku-bi^; and last, but not least, (21) ''ereatures,"
“lamentation”; Del., H. W. B., p. 188a, mentions only a bararum, syn. ikkillum, “Wehklage”; see also 47 : 4) while the
lady was still under treatment (ul ugatti) and sick. No wonder, then, that she was seized with fever (ummu) after
those men and women had finished their lamentations. In the elosing lines Mukallim reports that he will send out his
messenger early at dawn of the 29th day, “as his ‘Lord’ had commanded,” in order to learn through him how the siek
person had passed the night (te-e-2m mu-shi) and how the su-ma-nu (= samänu, the u on account of the m, Н. W. B.,
р. 503; Jensen, К. B., УГ, р. 574?) was progressing. Women, by the name SAL E-di-ir-tum, are mentioned in В. E.,
XIV, 40 :3, 12, 14, 19 (21st year ої Kuri-Galzu, Il. 31, 23) and а TUR.SAL GAB E-di-ir-tum occurs in l.c., 58 : 42
(13th year of Nazi-Maruttash). As this lady is closely connected with the lamentation men and women, it seems
probable to suppose that she was at the head of that profession. What the real meaning of li-pi-tu an-ni-tum il-ta-pa-
as-si (or su? = il-ta-pa-at-shi or -shu, i.e. у DÌ, so, no doubt, better than a “possible” /D3™ or Лай) in No.
31 : 5 is, is not clear to me. With lipit(t)u lapätu cf. Amarna, B. 6, Rev. 3, 7, 9; В. 218, Rev. 3, 4. It is construed
with double accusative, as here, also in IV R., 15*, col. I : 14, 15, ap-pa u ish-di i-sha-a-ti lu-pu-ut-ma ana marsi si-bit-
ti-shu-nu ai it-hu-u; but neither the signification given by Delitzsch, Н. W. B., р. 382a, “umstürzen, anrühren,” nor that
by Jensen, К. B., УП, р. 379, “berühren, schlagen, werfen," nor King's (Letters of Hammurabi, ПТ, р. 279), “о over-
throw, to destroy," nor Nagel's (В. A., IV, р. 479), “zögern, verzögern,” nor even Küchler’s (Med., p. 75), “stossen,
,
anstossen, berühren, umstossen, vernichten, antippen," seem to fit here. Cf. also the li-bi-it ilim(= AN), “visitation of
god," Ham. Code, XXXVIII, 77, and our letter No. 47:9, 14, a-di shá me-e la-pa-ti. Also this letter treats of
sickness, cf., e.g, 1. 18, ù shá pa-na ma-a’-da i-ni-Ü-i-shü i-na-an-na ul Ü-i-ish—an expression exactly parallel
бо shá ра-па i-gi-en-ni-hu 1-па-ап-па ul ü-gi-en-ni-ih in Nos, ЗІ : 13 | 32 : 13; hence eshü must signify a
suffering from a certain malady and not merely a “Verwirren,” Küchler, Med., рр. 137, 138; Delitzsch,
Н. W. B., p. 143a. What sickness this was is indicated in 1. 4, i-na ba-ra-ri (cf. above ba-ra-ar-tum) ki V-i-shü.
Another letter that touches upon sickness, to mention it here, is No. 22:8 (writer "Im-gu-rum), di-im mur-si-shá
ki ish-a-lu-shi ri-ik-sa ki e-si-hu ü-ra-ak-ka-su-shi. "Mu-kal-lim, the writer of Nos. 31, 32, 33, and possibly
of 47, was, no doubt, a physician. And as physicians are always under the patronage of goddess Gula, the azugallatu
rabitu or “great physician," the one who muballitat miti, **quickens the dead” (sic), I propose to identify our writer
with the "Mu-kal-lim mentioned after the bit "сила in B. E., XIV, 148 :9 (the 17th year), who lived during the
time of Burna-Buriash. As such a physician and priest in the Temple of Gula he had to look after the welfare of the
»
“ladies of the sanctuary,” for notice that Mukallim sends not only greetings (shulmw) and good wishes (da-ab = lú
ta-ab, 31 : 8) for the well being (shi-ir-shi-na, lit. their flesh, their body) of “the daughter of Kuri” and “the daughter
,
of Ahuni," who had, no doubt, recovered from their sickness under his care, but he reports also about the sickness of the
following women: (1) “The daughter of Mushtali” (31 :11 | 32 :7); (2) “the daughter ої Ilu-ippashra” (31 : 15);
(3) the lady La-ta (? or shá) (31 : 20); (4) the sic A h-la-mi-ti (i.e., “the nomad”; 31 : 25 | 32 :8. СІ. also В. E., XV,
188 У: 11, SAL Ah-la-mi-tum, and ah-la-mu-ü, l.c., XIV, 16 : 6; ХУ, 154 : 26, besides the passages quoted by Clay in
l.c., XV, р. 51a); and (5) the daughter (TUR.SAL) of the lady (SAL) Ush (ог Ba)-baH. . . Л (31:27).
8 Мо. 33а : 3, а-па dlu2@! massartu(-EN.NU.UN) shá be-li-ia sh u-ul-[mJu. For аша! = plural, see p. 12, note 1.
° For EN.NU.UN = EN.NUN = massartu see Delitzsch, H. W. B., р. 478a, and ef. H., II, 187, Rev. 5 (a letter
of "Ishdi-!"* PA to the mdr sharri be-D-ià), shulmu (= DI)" а-па EN.NUN"*sk gab-bu, “greeting to all the guards,”
and H., II, 186, Rev. 1 (by the same writer), ZN.NUN shá LUGAL.
10 No. 33a : 31, 36, bi-ir-ta shá be-li-ia.
и No. 33a : 6, 10, 13, 22, 29, 31, 34, 35. Chariots are also mentioned in B. E., XIV, 124: 10 | XV, 13 : 2 | 21 :7;
they are to be distinguished from the ru-ku-bi and ОМА В СТО. ОА, see below, note 13.
2 No. 33a : 27f., ит-та-а а-па be-Di-ia-ma be-li а-па sak-shup(= RU)-par liq-bi-[ma] IT Ö"narkabtu а-па gir-ri shá
be-N i-gab-bu-vi lil-li-ik ù a-na-ku lu-uk-ka-li-ma i-na II ®"narkabtu bi-ir-ta shá be-D-ia lu-us-sur; for translation see
p.139. In B.E., XV, 154 :41 (not mentioned by Clay) а sak(=SAG)-shup-par LU[GA L]is mentioned, and from L.e., 13: 5
(not mentioned by Clay) we learn that a certain "Er-ba-a-tum, the | s]a-ak(sic!)-shup-par, received (im-hu-ur) from (i-na
38 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
NI(G)-GAL-tum nap-ti. On account of the difficulties that are to be encountered
in this expression it is necessary, it would seem, to give the passage in which it
occurs in full. It is found in the ““greeting” of a letter (No. 38) written by a certain
"Shi-ri-iq-tum, an inhabitant of Nippur (älu-ki, 1. 6), whose gods he invokes for
the protection of his ** Lord." The writer, unfortunately, is not mentioned in any
of the tablets published in B. Æ., XIV, XV. Though a "Shi-riq-[tum] is to be
440 " Mar-tu-ku, the chief bursar of the Nippurian Temple storehouses during the reign of Nazi-Maruttash, 3 ma-na ZAG.SA
(a metal, or a kind of leather?) а-па ha-d(t)il (or -bit; -bat; -ziz) sha 9" narkabtu; i.e., either for the “mounting” (metal) or
“covering” (leather) of a chariot. Seeing that a sak-shup-par is in each and every case closely connected with “chariots,”
which he may command when they are sent out on an expedition (see p. 139, ll. 28ff.), we may conclude that a shup-par
is a “charioteer,” and a sak-shup-par, a “chief, commander, captain, general of the charioteers.”
The word shup-par
has to be derived fom 7290, “to govern,” from which root, as Jensen, K. B., УП, p. 440, has shown, we have also
the words ishpar (a form like ikribu, irrishu) = eshpar = (Sum. ESH.BAR =) “Zaum, Zügel,” shipru, “Zaum, Gebiss”
and ushparu = “Insignie des Königs” = “Zaum.” With ishpar Jensen, l.c., quite correctly compares the Syriac NOD
= “Haljter” (for such changes of radicals ef. e.g., Sum. SHÚ.NIR = Assyr. shurinnu; Assyr. lahru = Hebr. 5m,
ete.). According to this a shuppar would be “one who governs, directs the chariots by having hold of the ¿shpar, eshpar,
ushpar" =Зуг. NIFIR, or “bridle” of the horses. Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 685a, mentions an officer called “™€“shai-
UD-SAG, “Oberst, General." That this cannot be read with Delitzsch, l.c., shud-shagü, but must be transcribed with
Winckler, Forschungen, I, p. 476, 2 (and before him Guyard, Notes de lexicographie Assyrienne, Paris, 1883, $ 33) by
shu-par-shaq (or better saq) is evident from the passages quoted above. Furthermore, in view of the analogy that
exists between sak-shuppar and shuppar-saq on the one hand and gal + galu = lugal (cf. gal + ushum = ushumgal,
||
ete.) on the other hand, I propose to identify both. Аз gal + (ga)lu, “the great one among men" (ef. GAL.SAG
rab-saq = the great one among the зад) becomes the “great man," кат’ é£oy4v, i.e., the lugal or “king,” so
sak-shuppar, “the chief among the charioteers," becomes the shuppar-sak, i.e., “the charioteer of the chief," and as
such the “chief's (1.6., ої the kings) foremost charioteer,” “the charioteer-in-chief.” From this, however, does
not yet follow that we have to correct with Hoffman, Z. A., II, p. 54f.; Marti, Gram. des Bibl. Aram., p. 53, the
NIDIIN, Ezra 5 :6 (ef. also Ezra 4 :9, 7202795, NDƏN) into NDD in order to make it agree with shup(p)ar-saq(k).
A change from N into D is much harder to imagine than a simple aberration of the eye from one D to another D, which
took place if we suppose that КЗОЗВК stood for N^20703N, i.e., DDN, emphatic NIDƏN (which is the Syr.-Aram. word
for “Haljter” (Jensen), better “bridle,” “bridle-holder” = Assyr. a(i, u)shpar—the ushpar as insignia of the king
represents him as one who “holds the bridle” = who “governs” the people) + (8)20 (= sa-aq(k)). The N’IDIIN =
N'207O3N, then, were “the bridle-holders," " governors-in-chief.” This also against Hinke, В. Е, Ser. D, IV, p. 185.
13 No. 56 : 6, 5^ Ü HU + SI (= w-hin, “pole, shaft,” see p. 26, п. 7) shá ru-ku-bi shá be-li-ia, cf. also the "HU + ST.
SI shá Әе-П-іа іп 51:18. See in this connection also Friedrich, O. L. Z., August, 1906, 465, on бцы. Rukubi
are to be distinguished from 99^ M A R.GID.DA, which latter signify, аб this time, either “harvest wagons" (lit. *long
wagons" = eriqqu, Meissner, Гаеодт., No. 4148, ef. No. 34 : 39, i-na oish Mr AR СТР Ір) IN ki-i az-bi-la IMER.KUR.
RATES ete.; i.e., “while I was fetching the straw іп. the harvest wagons, the horses, ete.”) or “wagon loads," cf. the
sish M A R GI D.DAT'*5^ te-li-tum=“the wagon loads of the crop, harvest (sc. of grain)," No. 52 :35 and B.E., XIV, 118 :1,
29, 30. In B. E., XV, 91 : 1, 2 (cf. our No. 54 :7;52 : 33), the harvest (te-li-tum) of the pa-te-si is computed according to
95^ M AR.GID.DA, “wagon loads." For the various amounts of grain paid as “hire” (ID) for “harvest wagons,” see,
e.g., B. E., NIV, 144 :6 | XV, 28 : 11 | 101 : 12 | 103 :10. In В. E., XV, 155 : 36 a certain amount of grain is men-
' we have the proof
tioned as bi-la-at ?* M AR.GID.DA ; as this here can mean nothing but “hire for harvest wagons,’
that JD = “hire” has to be read bi-la-at, from biltu, * Abgabe, Steuer, Tribut” (Н. W. B., p. 232), and "hire." Cf.
also the SHE shá 959 M AR.GID.DA"'*9 naphar shá а-па ûli (= Nippur) shü-ru-bu, B. E., XV, 107 : 6, and see
the AMAR LUGAL (?!) in B. E., XIV, 124: 16, and the “AMAR AZAG.UD in our No. 28 : 16.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 39
found in a letter of "Gu-za-ar-AN to "In-nu-ü-a (87 : 8), we are still unable to
assign No. 38 definitely. In all probability Shirigtum lived sometime during the
reign of Kuri-Galzu, 7.6., somewhere between 1421-1396 B.C. That part of the
letter with which we are concerned here reads (38 : 1ff.):
1 ardi-ka ™Shi-ri-ig-tum а-па d[i-na-an] 'Thy servant Shiriqtum; before the pres-
ence
2 be-li-ia lu-ti-ul-li-[ik | of my “Lord” may I come!
3 WSUGH" й shar-rat ““EN.LIL["] SUGH and the queen of Nippur
! From a religious standpoint this greeting is most important. It teaches us that the Nippurian Trinity—Enlil,
NIN.IB, Ninlil or Gula (Bau)—was known also as
SUGH (Father) NIN.IB (Son) iluNTN.MAGH(wile of the Son) = shar-rat м En-lil*? (Mother).
Without going into details here (see my forthcoming volume on the Religious Texts from the Temple Library oj
Nippur), I may be permitted to show briefly that the gods mentioned in this letter form indeed a parallel “ Trinity
in Unity.”
iluŞUGH (thus the sign has to be read, and not DAR (Jensen), see my forthcoming volume) was originally
the name of a god playing the rôle of the “Son.” This is still evident from IHR, 50 Ох. 1. 35, с, а, where
iluŞUGH (with the gloss Tishhu) is identified with “NIN. ІВ, who in our letter occupies the position of the “Son.”
Cf. also "ЧЗУСН EN um-ma-ni, “the lord of hosts," Zimmern, Shurpu, IV, p. 24, 74; iluSUGH (gloss sud) NIGIN =
mu-bal-lu-ü ai-bi, “the destroyer of the enemy,” К. 2107, 19—two attributes of the “Son,” who, as the personification
of the powers of nature (“the seven,” “the Igigi” and “the Anunnaki," ete.), protects the faithful and destroys the
wicked. Just as ™NIN.IB (the Son) was also = Чи В, and this one = Пиј KUR, “the god of Ekur," i.e., Enlil (see Bêl, the
Christ, p. 17), so ““SUGH (originally the Son) appears in this letter at the head of the Nippurian Trinity—is, therefore,
here = Enlil, the “Father” or “first person,” and as such clearly a male. SUGH = Enlil, as the highest god of Nippur,
is, of course, “the king of Nippur,” and his wife would naturally be called “the queen of Nippur,” shar-rat En-lilk*,
The latter is coupled in this invocation with SUGH ; hence SUGH and shar-rat Еп-Ш are husband and wife. That
the “queen of Nippur" was indeed none other but ÜluNIN.LIL follows also from other considerations, of which I shall
mention only one: NIN.IB, “the son of Enlil,” is called in K. B., I, p. 175, 18, the ilitti Ku-tu-shar béltu, **the one borne
by Kutushar, the mistress (béltu = NIN)”; but Kutusharis according to III R., 38, За = shar-ra-tu or “queen.” Hence
sharratu must ђе the wife of Enlil (= SUGH), i.e., she is "" NIN.LIL, the “queen of Nippur.” Furthermore, Enlil,
the “Father” or “first person of the Nippurian Trinity," is in every case identified with his wife, the “Mother,” or
“third person of the Trinity": they are, as “husband and wife," “one flesh." This Unity is still clearly attested to
by the inseriptions themselves. Above we saw that SUGH or Enlil was a male divinity, but “YSUGH is according to II
R., 35, 18a the same as “Ishtar of Eridu,” generally called Ап-пи- (пої ni)-tum or Antum, Antum again is identified
with "ага, the wife ilu kur = Enlil (see Bêl, the Christ, p. 17). The wife of Enlil is called also Ninlil or sharrat
Еп И (our letter), hence Пиб ЕН is on the one hand the same as Enlil and on the other = ilu Ninlil; i.e., the “Father”
and the “Mother,” or the “first” and the “third person” of the Nippurian (and of any other Babylonian) Trinity are
one: male and female in one person. What this Unity means we know: it is nothing but the Babylonian prototype of the
Greek Obpavöc ка? Taia, “the heaven and earth” or “the firmament of heaven and earth” ; the upper part, “the firmament
of heaven,” or “heaven” is the husband or “Father,” and the lower part, the “firmament of earth” or “earth” is the
“Mother”: “Mother earth.’ This oneness, this unity, is also expressed in such names of Enlil as *Dur-an-ki ог
iluDur-an ог AN, the Savy ó кбаџос Babvlówoc (see Bêl, the Christ, p. 21).
The “heaven and earth” or cosmos had a son, called Y“NIN.IB. The Babylonian name for cosmos is not only
an-ki, but also B.KUR or É-shàr-ra, hence ХІХ ІВ is termed the bu-kur Nu-gim-mut i-lit-ti EIU ка В Пр. 22: 25
the ари Е КОВ, IR. 15, УП : 55; the bu-kur ilu En lil bi-nu-ut É-shàr-ra ; TR 29: Т6 (= Же Бо p: 174 215,16),
40 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
4 nap(sie!)-ti be-N-ia li-is-su-rum may proteet the life (lit. souls) of my
«Тота
5 “МХ ІВ и ""NIN.MAGH a-shib NIN.IB and NIN.MAGH who inhabit
the dumu-ush (= арії) E-shär-ra zi-kir-shu, Craig, Rel. Texts, I, р. 43 : 17; the apil É-shàr-ra, IV В. I, 34a. Seeing
that the “cosmos” is represented by Enlil (= SUGH) and Ninlil (= sharrat Ен), NIN.IB appears also as the
EN дити "or En-Lil-lal-ge = тағ "чао, Reisner, Hymnen, p. 123 : 6f., or as the L dinairNIN.IB dumu SL,
K. 170, Rev. 14, and as the ilittu Ku-tu-shar (= sharratu, see above) béltu, K. B., I, p. 175 : 18. As such a “Son” he is
his Father’s “voice” (qulti, cf. the Ур of Jahveh), ITI R. 67, 68c, d, through whom the Father speaks and reveals him-
self; he is his “messenger,” the sukkal É.KUR, У К. 51 : 26a, whose business it is to enforce and guard the commands
of his Father: “ХІХ ІВ näsir (SHESH) purussé (ESH.BAR) а- "Ето, П R. 57, Obv. 24, 25c, d. Не can do it,
for he is the ur-sag kal-ga, “the mighty hero” (lit. “head-servant”), “who has no equal” (gab-ri nu-tug-a), and he does
do it by means of his “seven sons" (cf. HuNTN.IB = чРар-підіп-дат-га, II В. 57, Rev. 57b, who, according to
III R. 67. No. 1 : 25c, dff. (= II R., 55 : 59а, Б), has “seven” sons, among whom (І. 35) is to be found a certain И Ür-
NUN-ta-u[d-du-a]. The latter appears also among the “seven” sons of Bau and Nin-Girsu (Creation Story, p. 23: 6,
where É-nun must be read, instead of kalam)), who are his TUR.DA or ekdüti, “mighty ones” (German: Recken). The
chief one (NU ог ma-lik) among these “seven mighty ones," since the time of the kings of Ur, is ПРА КО or
Мизи, while ™NIN.IB himself is the VULUGAL.TUR.DA, “the king of the mighty ones." That these “seven sons”
are nothing but the sevenfold manifestations of the powers of nature, i.e., of NIN.IB, the god of lightning and storm,
has been indicated on p. 21, and will be proved in detail in my fortheoming volume. And as the “seven powers of nature,"
headed by Nusku, are simply manifestations of the “Son” or NIN.IB, through which he reveals himself, Nusku came
to be identified with NIN.IB (see Bél, the Christ, p. 2, note 10, and p. 3, notes 14). NIN.IB, again, was, as “Боп,”
identified with his “Father,” Enlil; ef. here the names WL, *!uEN.KUR.KUR, HuSUGH, all of which stand for Enlil
and NIN.IB; hence the “Father” is = the “Son” and the latter is = Nusku, the (chief of the) seven powers of nature:
all are one and yet distinct. In this wise it happened that “the seven” came to stand for the “fulness of the Babylonian _
godhead,” just as in the Christian religion the “seven gifts” of the Holy Ghost stand both for the “fulness of the Holy
Ghost” and for “the godhead,” or as the sevenfold candlestick represented the “fulness of the godhead” in the Old
Testament. On account of this symbolic significance, the “seven” was looked upon as the most sacred and the most
evil number: it being both holy and tabú. So is also the Holy Ghost. He is on the one hand the most gracious comforter,
and on the other the only being that does not pardon a sin committed against him: the sin against the Holy Ghost being
unpardonable (see here also my review of Prof. Hilprecht's В. E., ХХІ, in the Homiletic Review, February, 1908, рр. 100ff.,
which was written, however, in March, 1907).
iluNTN.MAGH, who appears also in ПТ R. 68 : 21g, h (cf. ЇЇ. 19, 17) as the DAM-BI-SAL] of “UNIN.IB, must
be here likewise (because coupled with him) the wife of NIN.IB. Butin ПР. 59: 19; ПІК. 68 : 199, (ef. 1. 17) there
appears as the wife of HuMASH = Чи NIN.IB the goddess NIN.EN.LILF'|, i.e., the “mistress of Nippur,” who was, as we
saw above, the same as Ku-tu-shar, the “queen and mistress of Nippur.” Again, in Reisner, Hymnen, p. 47, No. 23, Rev.
22,23, NIN.MAGH is called the А М ( —ummu), “mother,” of В.А = I" NIN.IB, From thisit follows that the “wife
of the Son” is the same as the “Mother” or the “third person” of the Babylonian Trinity; in other words, the “Son”
marries or may marry his own “Mother”! The explanation of this extraordinary phenomenon is simple enough. The
“Mother,” we saw, was the earth, and the “Son” was said to be the powers of nature: the wind, rain, storm, lightning,
ete. The “Son,” although begotten by the “Father” and borne by the “Mother,” marries every spring his own * Mother";
i.e., the rains of the spring unite themselves with “Mother” earth, in consequence of which she becomes, after the dead
and barren season of the winter, fructified, brings forth new life, quickens the dead (muballitat miti): the vegetation
and the (seven) equinoctial storms (the seven sons). And because the “Son” marries his own “Mother” he now
becomes “one flesh with her," hence “4NIN.IB and iluNTN.M AGH (sic! not NIN.ENGAR!?) are identified, are one:
III Е. 68 : 18g, h (cf. ll. 21, 17). Cf. also iluNIN.MAGH = Antum, П. В. 54, No. 2, 1. 2 (Hommel, S. L., p. 48, 36).
Antum = М ІВ, Bel, the Christ, etc., pp. 16, 18. iluNIN.MAGH is, therefore, a name signifying the “Son,” the
“wife of the Son,” and the “Mother.”
In conclusion I may add a few words about the pronunciation of “uNIN.IB. In my review of Clay's volume
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 41
6 shá álu-ki NI(G = GAR, sha)-G AL the city (се, Nippur) may protect
(= ik)-tum nap(sic!)-ti-ka thy creatures (subjects)!
7 li-is-su-rum ma-an-nu pa-an' Whosoever
8 ba-nu-tum shá бе-й-га li-mur may see the gracious face of my “Lord”
9 [ù] man-nu da-ba-ba täb(= HI)“ [and] whosoever be of ““good words”
10 [a-n]a be-li-ia li-il-te-mi may listen to my “Lord”!
11 [um]-ma-a апа b]e-I[i-:]a-| ma] The following to my “Lord”:
Two peculiarities of this text require some words of explanation. The first is
the word nap-ti in ll. 4 and 6. According to the greeting of 89 : 6° we would expect
entitled Business Documents of Murashü Sons oj Nippur ( = В. E., X) I tried to show (see The Monist for January,
1907 (Vol. XVII, No. 1), р. 139) that NIN.IB was originally an Amurritish god coming from the “westland,” where he
had been identified with ““MAR.TU, and where he was called Irrishu, resp. Irrishtu. Three months after my review had
appeared, Dr. Clay read a paper before the American Oriental Society, on April 5, 1907, in which he had reached the
same conclusion, viz.: NIN.IB has to be identified with Пи МАТО. Though I naturally was sorry not to find in his
treatise any reference to my review, and to learn from p. 2 of the J. А. О. S. for 1907 that the reading Irrish(t)u was
known to him only from “private communication," I still greeted Clay's discovery with rejoicing. Upon the basis of
his investigations Clay thought to be justified in rejecting any and all readings of the name NWN so far proposed.
He accordingly proceeded, being encouraged in this by Jensen’s reading (nwusht = namushtu = namurtu), and identified
NWN (thus has to be read, see “ Preface") with En-washtu = Enmashtu = En-martu. The objections to such a reading,
however, are evident to every Assyriologist: MAR.TU, a Sumerian ideogram, cannot be treated as an Assyrian word,
martu, to which one applies Semitic-Babylonian phonetic laws (the change of r to sh before t), making тати mashtu.
Surely, every Assyrian would unhesitatingly translate a word En-mashtu (martu) by “the lord oj the daughter” or “owner
of a daughter." A Sumerian ideogram MAR.TU, signifying “westland,” according to Assyro-Babylonian grammar,
cannot become a “daughter,” or martu. The god MAR.TU played in the westland the same róle as did, e.g., Enlil in
Nippur, or Sin in Ur, or Marduk in Babylon, i.e., he was the highest god among the Amurrites, hence being identified
not only with WUKUR.GAL, “the god of the great mountain" or “world” (an attribute of Enlil, Sin, Marduk, ete.;
this shows that KUR.GAL cannot be read in each and every case Amurru, but must be understood quite
frequently of Enlil or Anu or Sin or Marduk, cf. ВЕ = bêl = Enlil and Ea), but also with От = WS (cf. here
also C. T., II, 12 (Bu. 88-5-12, 212), 1. 30, ilu Матаці (1) à “аг “МАЕ ТО, i.e., “Marduk and Sin-Amurru”).
There were known in Babylonia a “Sin of Ur,” a “Sin of Harran,” a “Sin of Amurru,” a “Sin of Nippur” (ef. here
the date of Dungi, E. B. H., p. 256, 15: mu ding Uru-ki En-lil™ é-a ba-tur. Of this Nippurian Sin we have quite a
number of hymns and prayers in our Museum), and many others. I also beg to differ from Prof. Clay’s explanation
of the dingir dingir in the name Warad-dingir-dingir-Mar-tu, found in his paper referred to above (p. 7 of the reprint),
in which, upon the suggestion of Prof. Jastrow, he states with regard to dingir-dingir that it is a pluralis majestatis
corresponding to the Hebr. сок. That name has to be read Warad-AN-!" MA R.TU and shows that MAR.TU was
identified, as is to be expected, with the highest and oldest Babylonian god AN. A N-H* MA R.TU is, therefore, parallel
to the AN si-ru-um "“EN.LIL (Code of Hammurabi, Y : 1, see The Monist, Vol. XVI (October, 1906), p. 634) or to the
well-known "YEN. LIL ili “Marduk. Cf. also for the formation Warad-AN-!"MAR.TU names like Galu""Ba-ú-
Mar-tu (or is Mar-tu here a title?), Reisner, Telloh, 159, VI : 23; Galu-!“DISH-AN, Reisner, l.c., 154, ІП :4. This
last name is especially interesting, showing us that Пи ТАН was not only Чив A (Br. 10068), but also AN; notice also
that DISH is = 60, which is the number of AN, and AN is = ilu.
! For this and the following see above, р. 22.
2 The traces visible seem to be against such an emendation, but the parallel text, 89 : 11, justifies it, see p. 22,
з ANmesh o shi; É.DIM.GAL.KALAM MA nap-shá-ti-ka li-is-su-ru,
6
42 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
here the word nap-shä-t for nap-ti. Should the writer have made twice the same
mistake of omittine shá, or have we to see in naptu a synonym, resp. side form of
napshäti? Аз I personally cannot imagine that our writer could be guilty of com-
mittine the same error twice in a space of only three lines, I prefer to consider nap-ti
not as a mistake for nap-shd-ti, with the shá left out, but as a synonym of пар ћи,
from the root ЯЖС), "soul," “life.” The second peculiarity is met with in
the expression NI(G).G À L-tum nap-ti-ka. If these two words have to be connected,
thus taking NI(G).GAL-tum as the nomen regens of nap-ti, we will have to admit
that this is a rather singular status constructus relation. We would expect either
NI(G).GAL-tum shá nap-ti-ka or NI(G).GAL(ti, -at) nap-ti-ka. However, such
status constructus relations may be paralleled, ef. e.g., Ши пти"“ (for йт) sa-a-ti,
Neb., У R. 64, 1:9; kima púrim séri, haránam namrasa, quoted by Delitzsch, Gram.,
p. 192, note. If, then, NI(G).G AL-tum nap-ti-ka be one expression we may com-
pare with it the well-known NI(G).ZI.GÀL = shiknat napishti = NI(G).GAL-tum
+ ZI
SAL)-in-si-na, the ám kalam-ma ZI.GAL kalam gim-gim-me, “the mother of
the world, who creates the creatures (ZI.GÀL = NI(G).ZI.GÀL = shiknat napishti)
of the world,” E. B. H., p. 202, note I, 1, but also to Shamash, the be-el shik-na-at
napishtim"", ТУ В. 28, No. 1, 7, 80. This gives us the important result that the
shikittum nap-ti = creatures—an attribute ascribed not only to ““NIN (var.
writer Shiriqtum ascribes in this passage divine attributes to his “Lord,” which would
be not at all surprising if it can be proved that the “Lord” was in each and every
case the “King”; for we know that the Cassite kings of this period, like their Egyptian
contemporaries, were deified, as is indicated by the sign Ши, so very often found
before their names. The intended signification of this passage, then, is clearly this:
“May SUGH and the queen of Nippur protect ‘the life of my Lord," i.e., my Lord
himself, “апа may NIN.IB and NIN.MAGH that inhabit the city (sc. of Nippur)
protect my ‘Lord’s’ creatures’’—a prayer for the protection of the “Тога” and his
“subjects. "2
! See Clay, List of Names, В. E., XIV, and especially Hilprecht, B. E., Series A, Vol. RX, Partly р. 52.
? If it were possible to read instead of ki (in álu-ki) = DUL (сі. Clay, List of Signs, B. E., XIV, No. 136) we
might be tempted to transcribe 1. 6, shá äluDUL.NI(G).GAL-tum nap-ti-ka, and translate: “that inhabit the ‘mountain
"ої the
of creatures," thus taking DUL.NI(G).GAL-tum to be another name for DUL.AZAG, “the holy mountain’
nether world, of which ““NIN.IB was, as we know, the “king” (LUGAL). But this cannot be done, simply because
ki is absolutely certain. A third explanation might be suggested by taking N7(G).GA L-tum nap-ti (1. 6) as standing in
opposition to nap-ti = “soul” (1. 4); SUGH and the queen of Nippur may protect the “soul” of my Lord, and NIN.IB
and NIN.MAGH may protect “thy body.” This would fit very well, for we know that the wife of NIN.IB was “the
great physician," who cared for the “spiritual” (пар!) and “bodily welfare" (NI(G).GAL-tum пар!) of her people.
However, a signification “body” = NI(G).GÀ L-tum napti is not known to me. Hence the only translation that seems
linguistically justified is the one given above. For ZI.GAL cf, also Jensen, 2. A., VIII, p. 221, note 5.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 45
Even though it be admitted that the “Lord” was in possession of all that has
been enumerated above, it might still be objected that, e.g., a sukkallu or the “тт
representative" was designated here by the title ђе-ћ, and this the more as he “арра-
rently shared honors with his royal masters”; for we saw on p. 33 that certain writers
used the phrase ‘‘before the presence ої my ‘Lord’ may I come" not only in their
letters to the king, but also in those which they addressed to his “representative.”
Surely such a high officer of the king would naturally have been in possession of
cities, guards, houses, lands, wagons, chariots, fields, cattle, and servants. Or it
might be said that a governor, bel paháti, was meant by be-l in our letters; for he
as the head of a government and the superior of the hazannäti or city prejects had,
as a matter of course, under his command cities, chariots, servants, houses, lands,
ete., etc., and writers, addressing their letters to such an official, would quite natur-
ally include in their greeting some kind of a wish for the prosperity and the safe-
keeping of their Гога’ possessions.
Fortunately for our investigation here we have a letter, published in this volume,
that has been written to a governor. And how does the writer address the governor?
By be-N or “Гога”? Does he beg to be permitted to “*come before the face" of his
Lord? Does he call himself ‘‘thy servant"? Nothing of the kind. Тһе writer
simply names his addressee by name and extends his greeting to him, his house, and
his government. An address in a letter to a governor at this period, then, reads
(Мот):
1 а-па """En-ll-[bél( = EN)-nishé"*"- To Enlil-bél-nishé-shu
shu' |
2 ki-bi-Ima шп-та] speak, thus saith
3 m iu A-shur-shum-étir( = KA[R]"-ma] Ashur-shum-étir:
4 а-па ka-a-shá bilti-ka] to thee, thy house
5 wa-na pa-ha-t[i-ka] and thy government
6 ш-й shul-[mu] greeting!
Again, in No. 24 Kalbu, the writer, itd, “dust and loving servant," after having
> РД 7 2 2 e 2 >
reported to his ‘‘Lord” that a city and its gate had been destroyed, adds in 1. 29ff.:
29 Moz Also Мат... .],
30 bel paháti (=EN.NAM?) а-па ardi- the governor, when he had come to thy
ka ki-i il-li-ku um-ma-a servant (i.e. to the writer), said:
1 For this emendation and for the time when this governor lived (11th year of Kadashman-Turgu) see p. 13, n. 5,
? For EN.NAM = bel pahäti see Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 5190,
44 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
31 abulla(=KA.GAL)" i-ma-ad-di tu- “They make lamentations on account
shá-an-na-ma taddan( = SE)-na? (of the loss) of the gate. Duplicate
(10)
In this passage the “governor” evidently is quite a different person from the
be- or “Lord”; nay, he, although a bêl paháti, has to go to the ¿tú Kalbu with the
request, no doubt, that the latter report the loss of the gate to the “Lord,” in
order that a new one be made.
That also a “representative” or sukkallu of the king cannot be meant by the
“Гога” in our letters is evident from a passage of No. 35 : 24ff., which reads:
24 й Общи (= SH EG) іа-а'-пи There are also no adobes!
25 ásh-shum a-na-ku i-tu be-li-ia As regards this that I, the йй of my
> Bord
26 al-li(? or la?)-ka а-па " Erba-"" Mar- have come (gone up to thee saying):
duk ““Send to Erba-Marduk
27 shü-pu-ur-ma а-па " Ku-du-ra-ni that he send to Kuduráni —
28 [li ]-ish-pu-ra-ma sukkalmahhu “so may the sukkalmahhu (і.е., Erba-
( -PAP.LUGH ? M AGH) li-ig-bi] Marduk) finally give orders (sc. to
Kuduräni)
29 libittu (= ЗНЕС)"е" [i-il-bi-nu that adobes be made (lit. that they
make adobes).”’
A beautiful example of ‘‘red tape” for this remote period! The sense of this pas-
sage is apparently the following: Kishahbut, the writer and їі (р. 35, n. 4), living in
Dür-Nusku during the reign of Kadashman-Turgu, had at some previous time gone
(up) to his “Гога” with the request that the sukkalmahhu (a higher officer than
a sukkal) Erba-Marduk be instructed to issue orders to Kuduräni (the chief brick-
! Tn. view of the fact that matü = LAL (8? 142), which latter in the Temple Archives of this period signifies
“a minus,” “a loss," one might be inclined to translate “the gate is gone." Against this must be said, however, that
bäb-GAL.LA = арши is feminine, hence we would expect ta-ma-ad-di. I-ma-ad-di I take, therefore, as a third pers.
plur. for imattü. For î, instead of й, cf. Delitzsch, Gram., p. 252, and for the signification “klagen, stöhnen u. dergl.,"
Jensen, К. B., VU, pp. 364, 557: “They (i.e, the inhabitants, or the German indefinite man) make lamentations
on account of the gate,” i.e., “they deplore its loss."
? Ву translating as given above I consider tushannama tadanna as a continuation of the “speech” of the governor,
and not as a request of the writer. If the latter were to be preferred we should expect a phrase be-N lishanna-ma
(= lushanna-ma), cf. 1. 34, be-li a-ma-as li-mur-ma. Tushannama tadanna is a £v бій боото = “thou shalt duplicate and
give" = “thou shalt give again.”
з For PAP.LUGH = LUGH = sukkallu cf. ІП В. 67, 55, "“LUGH = ditto (i.e., 'PAP.LUGH).
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 45
maker) that adobes be made. The writer, after having returned from his “Lord,”
and having waited for some time to see whether his request had been complied
with or not, finds that this had not been done. He, therefore, takes in this letter
another opportunity to remind his “Гога” once more of his former request. “May,”
he says, “the sukkalmahhu Erba-Marduk upon thy command now finally issue
orders for the making of adobes. This is very urgent, seeing that there are abso-
lutely no adobes at hand” (І. 24). The “тей tape” in connection with this order
(the itt writing to the be-li that he give instructions to the sukkalmahhu that this one
issue orders to the chief brickmaker that the latter induce his men to make adobes)
shows clearly that the sukkalmahhu was the inferior of the be-lv: he had to receive
instructions from his “Гога” before he could issue the necessary orders, and the
writer, knowing this, does not write directly to the sukkalmahhu, but directs his
request to the proper authorities, the be-l+. Only by doing this could he (the writer)
expect that his wishes were ever conformed with. The be-D, being here the superior
of the sukkalmahhu, cannot possibly have been a sukkal.
There is, however, still another and last possibility to be considered in соппес-
tion with this title. In Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 457a, we are told that the manzaz
рата, 1.е., “опе who takes his stand before the king," was the ''Ranghóchster,
höchster Würdensträger” (sc. of the king). Is not perhaps this highest of all royal
officials intended by be-I in our letters? The answer to this supposition is given
by a letter (No. 48 : 27) in which the writer, whose name is unfortunately broken away,
assures his “Lord,” бей? ul mu-shá-ki-lu? a-na-ku lu man-za-az pa-ni a-na-ku,
1.6.) “not а mischief breeder, but a manzaz рат am І.” Surely, no manzaz рат
could or would ever speak to another manzaz páni in this manner, because (1) there
was not or could not have been another highest(!) official by this name; (2) even if
there were, no official would ever humiliate himself as far as to call his brother officer
“ту Lord,” nor would he humbly beg **to be permitted to appear before his equal's
face”! Such things might be possible at present, but they are absolutely excluded
and wholly unthinkable, nay, absurd for a period to which these letters belong,
the time of the Cassite kings, when petty jealousies reigned supreme. If, then,
the “Гога” of this manzaz páni could not possibly have been a “brother” officer,
but was, as the title indicates, that official's “Lord,” then the only conclusion to be
1 Cf. Scheil, Textes Élam. Sé m., 1, р. 97 : 13, ma-an-za-az рат (= SHI) LUGAL.
2 Cf. 48 : 2, а-па di-[na-Jan ђе (= а lul-{lik], and le., M. 3, 26, um-ma-a а-па be-li-ia-ma.
“TID of ака = musha kilu, sc. qarşê, lit. “one that nourishes false accusations.” Cf. here also No. 20 167
е-пі-еп-па an-nu-tu-ma-a ka-ar-su-ü-a-a shá а-па #ре-И-га i-ku-lum um-ma-a 9 *"be-[, а-па pa-ni-shü ul-te-shi-ba-an-ni,
etc.
46 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
arrived at under these circumstances is that the **Lord" of the manzaz рат must
have been and actually was the King.
We need not, however, content ourselves with emphasizing merely what the
“Lord” was not or could not have been. Thanks to the wonderful collection of
Babylonian letters preserved in the Museum, of which only a very small part is
published here, there are abundant direct proofs at hand which, if correctly explained,
establish once and for all the truth of the conclusion above arrived at by a process
of elimination.
To enumerate all the data which furnish direct proof for our conclusion would
lead me far beyond the scope of the present investigation. I must content myself,
therefore, with the following:
(a) The address as it is found in No. 24 could never have been written to any
official, high or low, but the King. It reads (No. 24 : 1ff.):
A-na be-li-ia:
1 As-mi lu-ul-Li-i zerü ishtu( = ТА) shame( = AN)-[e]
2 la та-й“ an-ni gü-ra-di li-e-i й-рі-ө 5]
3 nu-ür ahé( -SH ESH)"*'-shw* PI-in-di-e na-ma-a-ri
1In view ої such forms as lu-ú-ul-li-ik, No. 38 : 2; li-ish-pu-ü-ra-{am-]ma, No. 39 : 23, and many others, one
might be inclined to see in this sign a variant of ik and read lu-ul-li-i-ik, “may I come.” But against this is to be
said that (1) in all texts of this period only the regular form for ik, as given by Clay, Sign List, B. E., XIV, No. 257,
is to be found; (2) the TA.AN [+ one sign] would be completely left in the air; (3) having examined this sign
repeatedly, I am absolutely confident that it is none other but ZER = zéru, “seed.” The TA.AN then is easily amended
to ishtu shame{e]. For an analogous attribute of a Cassite king cf. the inscription of Agum-Kakrime (Jensen, K. B.,
ПО, р. 134, col. I : 3), where this king calls himself zéru el-lum sha luShi-qa-ma-nu, “the pure seed of Shuqamuna."
Cf. also in this connection the sign of god, ilu, before the names of the Cassite kings of this period.
2 So rather than la ba-ir an-ni, “who does not deny grace.” The attribute here ascribed to the “Lord” has its
origin in the fact that the writer had to report to his be-Ì rather sad news, which possibly might be attributed to his
(the writer’s) negligence. see ll. 11ff.
3 For it-pi-shi see Hilprecht, B. E., XX!, p. XII, note 7.
“Та this expression two divine attributes fall together, viz., núr тай resp. nûr áli-shú or nûr gab-ba, ascribed
especially to Sin, Shamash, and D(T)ar-hu (р. 16, п. 13), and asharid ahé-shu(sha), found in connection with NIN.IB
and Ishtar, i.e., with all gods who played the röle of the “Son” and “ his wife.”
5 Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 532a, mentions a word pindé, which he takes to be a plural, quoting III R. 65, 9b, “wenn
ein neugeborenes Kind pi-in-di-e ma-li voll ist von р." Im our text PI-in-di-e is apparently a noun in the genitive
(after апа, 1.1) and the regens of na-ma-a-ri. As such а noun it is a fifál of MN: vit-di-e = vid-di-e = vin-di-e
— vi-in-di-e, which latter, when graphically expressed, becomes PI-in-di-e. This “Lord,” being the “light,” i.e., the
ne
first and foremost of his brothers, has, of course, the power, authority, and right to “order, appoint” the namäri
—a function of the sun in the early morn; he is, therefore, identified here with the moon, who as “Father” asks his
“Son” (the sun) to do his bidding: “to lighten the world." Hilprecht takes PJ-in-di-e as a [a'al form : vaddaj =
vaddé = vandé = vendé (a with following n is often changed to e ог 2) = vindé = “ appointer, commander."
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 47
4 ki-ib* kab-tu-ti ra-ásh-ba-nu-ú-t1?
5 e-pi-ir um-ma-ni pa-ásh-shwur ni-shi
6 e-tel ki-na-te-e-shüt shá "A-nu *" En-lil и *" Е.А
та ™Be-ht-i-l( =NI.NI) ki-ib-ti du-um-ki
1 Ki-ib, ki-ib-tu = діри, діри. Delitzsch, Н. W. B., p. 584a, defines a діри to be one “der mit etwas betraut ist,”
and of qiptu he says, l.c., that it is a “Darlehen, spec. zinsenfreies Darlehen(?)." On the basis of our passages here it
would be better to see in a діри “one (may he be king, governor or common man) who holds something in trust as
a gratuitous gift from a higher person (god or king), for whom he administers, rules, governs it." This “something”
thus held, administered, governed is a kiptu. What this “something” in each and every case is has to be determined
by the context. It may be a city, or money (cf. here the faithful steward of the New Testament who used or adminis-
tered the kiptu, i.e., the talents gratuitously given him, wisely), or even an empire. As the “Lord” here referred to is
the King (see under b), the kiptu is the “kingship” held in trust by him as a gratuitous gift from the gods of the whole
world, for whom he has to administer it in such a way as to tend towards “grace and righteousness," hence dumki à
mishré are objective genitives. To take them as subjective genitives would be senseless, because everything that
comes from the gods is in itself gracious and righteous. A king that administers his kibtu in such a way is a shar
mi-shá-ri-im, Neb. Grot., I, 1. For ki-ib =gipu, see also 46 : 17, ki-ib-ka (i.e., the Lord's) a-a-um-ma ul i-mu-ur.
2 A plural of rashbánu, and this a form in -ân (which forms adjectives and nouns, Delitzsch, Gram., $ 65, p. 175,
No. 35) of rashbu.
з E-pi-ir . . . . pa-ásh-shur. The correct explanation of these words depends upon whether we see in them
participles or nouns. If e-pi-ir be the participle ої epéru, “sättigen, versorgen” (Jensen, K. B., ҮП, pp. 435, 572)
we might see in it a translation of the well-known title of, e.g., the kings of Isin, Larsa, Warka, who call themselves
in their inscriptions UA= épirum, zäninum (Delitzsch, Н. W. B., p. 115b). Cf. for the kings of Isin: Sin-mägir (Thureau-
Dangin, А. S. К. I., p. 204, No. 4, 1. 2), Ishme-Dagan (l.c., р. 206, No. 5, 1. 2); for the kings of Larsa: Sin-iddinam
(l.e., р. 208; No. 5, І. 3; p. 210, 1. 8 above; d, 1. 3), Arad-Sin (l.c., p. 212b, 1. 5; c, 1. 7; p. 2144, 1. 8), Rim-Sin (l.c., p.
210a, 1. 13; p. 218c, 1. 10; p. 220, 1. 11 above; f, 1. 11); for the kings of Warka: Sin-gáshid (/.c., р. 222c, 1. 8). If épir
be a participle then pashshur must be one likewise, in which case the latter might stand for развит = päshir, Delitzsch,
Н. W.B., p. 549b: “Löser, der sich gnädig annimmt, Erbarmer” (cf. У В. 21, 53a, b; 65a, b, nap-shü-ru syn. of re-e-mu).
As, however, a writing pa-ásh-shur for päshir would be somewhat strange for this period, it is preferable to take pa-ásh-
shur in the sense of pashshüru, “platter,” and then, of course, e-pi-ir not as a participle, but, on account of the parallelism,
as a stat. constr. of epru (so also Hilprecht and Hommel in personal communications), “the food of people, the platter
(rwa£) of men,” from which, i.e., from whose (the Lord's) grace they all eat. For epéru as a divine attribute
ef. also the proper names ” v Ej [il-e-pi-ir, В. E., XV, 181 : 12; " ilu En lil-e-pir (sic! neither tu, Clay, l.c., р. 28b, nor
“perhaps” tir, Clay, Corrections(!) in Z. A., XX (1907), p. 417f.), l.c., 37 :9; "X X X-i-pi-ra-an-ni, l.c., 180 : 17;
'Bélit(— GASHAN)-e-pir-ra-at, l.c., 155 : 27; " iluSH Ü UD.DA-e-pir(ir) (sic! Clay, l.c., р. 33b, wrongly Ilu-shu-urra-e-
pir(ir)), l.c., 186 : 10. For ЗНС .UD.DU cf. the proper name in R. T. Ch., 330, Rev. 2, a name like "Mar-duk. From
this it follows that the “Lord” as e-pi-ir um-ma-ni has a divine attribute: he was deified.
4 The long ё in ki-na-te-e-shui is noteworthy. I take kindté as a plural of kinätu, Н. W. B., р. 3386. СГ. also
Н. III, 333 : 1, LUGAL ki-na-a-te. Besides this plural the B. E. publications give us two others: ki-na-ta-ti, В. Б. IX,
5: 3| 22: 7, and ki-na-at-ta-ti, l.c., 45:6 |106: 5. Hilprecht ascribes the long ê to the open syllable under the verse accent.
5 Notice here the ü before Bélit-ili and the u between Enlil and É.A. The first three gods represent the “whole
world," the cosmos as it was known since the time of the Enuma elish epic, i.e., since the time when Babylonia proper
(Ki-en-gi-ki-BU R.BUR = Shumer and Akkad = kalam = “high and lowland”) had extended its confines south over the
lowlands as far as and embracing the Persian Gulf (“the lower sea” = apsu) and north over the Armenian mountains
and the “westland” (notice that these two lands are likewise known as BUR.BUR = Akkad = highlands) up to and
including the Mediterranean Sea (“the upper sea"). In this wise it happened that the kalam became a kur-kur and
the dingir LUGAL.KALAM.MA а Чт" LUGAL.KUR.KUR; in other words, the microcosmos became a macrocosmos
which included the two oceans and was called É-shür-ra, being as such inhabited by Anu (heavenly ocean —upper sea),
48 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
8 ù mi-ish-ri-e' ¿sh-ru-ku-ú-shú
9 be-N-ia ki-bé-ma um-ma " Kal-bw ip-ru
10 % ar-du na-ra-am-ka-ma?
TRANSLATION.
To my '' Lord "—
І Glorious in splendor, Seed out of heaven;
2 Not summoning punishment, Strong, powerful, wise one;
3 Light of his brothers, Ordering the dawn;
4 Ruler of mighty, Terrible lords;
5 Food of the people, Platter of man;
6 Hero of his clan, Whom the triad of gods
7 Together with Bélit Presented a fief
8 Tending towards grace And righteousness—
9 to my “Lord” speak, thus saith Kalbu, thy dust
10 and thy loving servant:
The attributes here ascribed to the ‘‘Lord’’—such as the strong опе, the power-
ful, the wise one," ‘‘the ruler of weighty and mighty ones,” ‘‘hero of his family”; his
being identified with the gods, as such being called ‘‘зее out of heaven," “light of
his brothers," ‘‘the orderer of the dawn’; his holding in trust the administration of a
"fief tending towards grace and righteousness", which was gratuitóusly given him
by the gods of the whole world and not by any human being, shows absolutely
and conclusively that we have here a divinely appointed ruler, who holds his king-
t
Enlil (kur-kur — kalam, the terra firma, as consisting of the upper (= BUR.BUR) and the lower (ki-en-gi) firmament),
ЕА (terrestrial ocean = apsu = Persian Gulf), see Bél, the Christ, р. 14, note 3. Bélit-ili, because identified in the
inscriptions with Antum, Ninlil, and Damkina, represents here the feminine principle of the “world,” “cosmos,
Esharra. What the writer, then, wants to say with these words is this: “the whole world, as represented by its triad
of gods, united in bestowing upon the Lord the ki-ib-ti du-um-ki ù mi-ish-ri-e"—not a ruler made by man, but a
divinely appointed sovereign is the “Lord” of the writer Kalbu.
1 Though we have forms with e, instead of 7, in the third pers. singl. or plur. (ef. e-si-ki-ir-ma, З : 18; e-pi-(it-)te-ma,
3 : 19, 30, 32; e-ri-ba-a, 26 : 13, ete.), yet we never find an e used as a phonetic complement in these forms, hence I read
here-not e-ish-ru-ku-ú-shú, but mi-ish-ri-e(!) ish-ru-ku-ü-shü. Mi-ish-ri-e I take as a plural of misharu = mishru
(ef. epiru, ерги; дітіти, gimru; Delitzsch, Gram., р. 105, $ 45), “righteousness” (hence not of meshrü, “riches,” Н. В. W.,
p. 688a), and dumgi, on account of the parallelism, in the sense of “grace,” H. W. B., р. 222b (against Jensen, К. B.,
УГ, p. 448, “Schönheit, Gutheit, gute Beschaffenheit”). The e may(!), however, stand for 4 (cf. 92 : 27) = " behold!”
2 Neither the name of this writer nor that of any other person occurring in this letter (cf. " E-tel-bu тат "Ush-
bu-la, 1. 12; "Lna-É.KUR.GAL, 1. 32; "Na-2i-"“En-lil, 1. 25, and the city 4" Man-nu-gi-ir- "IM, ll. 13, 18) is mentioned
in B. E., XIV, ХУ. See now, however, the Bit-"Ush-bu-la, Neb. Nippur, ПІ, 5 (=Hinke, В. E., Series D, IV, р. 148).
3 In view ої 89 : 1, shá a-ra-mu-shu, “whom (the addressee) E (the writer) love,” I prefer to translate ar-du na-ra-
am-ka-ma as given above, and not as “thy beloved servant." It is hardly to be expected that the “Lord” loves the
“dust,” but the “dust” loves his “Lord,” is delighted to come in contact with his Master.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPÜR. 49
ship by the special favor of, and governs his people for, his gods in order that gracious-
ness, truth, and uprightness may forever reign supreme. As such a divinely
appointed ruler, he has, of course, also the bodily welfare of his people at heart—
he is both their food” and their “platter”: by him and through him the gods are both
the “givers” and the “gift.”
(b) To make the eertain doubly certain we may be permitted to consider briefly
another section of this letter. The paragraph, important for our discussion here,
reads (24 : 18ff.):
18 à ""Man-nu-gi-ir-"IM* sha LUGAL Even the city Mannu-gir-Rammán, with
ra-in ga-|ti] which the King is entrusting me
(1.е., which I hold as fief of the king)
19 ù Бе- а-па rid-sabé (= MIR.NIT. and which my Lord has handed over to
ТА?) an-nu-ti id-di-na* these conscribers,
1 A city called after the name of a person. In such cases the DISH before the proper name is, if preceded by
älu, always omitted, cf. Фи Apqi-GASHAN, 66 : 24; alu luGir-ra-ga-mil, Знае älugir-ra-ga-mil, 3:39; or only iluGir-
ra-ga-mil, З : 13, 17, 20; Иш D-tu-kul-ti, 16 : S, 12, but Bit-" Ki-din-ni, 9 : 23, so always after Bit- in our letters. The
name of the person means “who is like Rämman,” and corresponds to the Sumerian A-ba-di"airTM-gim. The gi-ir,
therefore, in this name represents the Sumerian G/M or the regular Babylonian kima (or ki). As the a in ana or ina
may be omitted and the » assimilated to the next consonant, so the a of kima has been omitted here and the m assimi-
lated itself (by first becoming an n) to the following r, but this it could do only if ЧИТ М was actually read ЧиБаттіт.
This writing, then, proves that ПИТ M was not read, at the time of the Cassites, Adad but iluRammân. For the change
of k to д ef. akanna = aganna, р. 53, note б.
? The ti which is broken away stood originally on the right edge of the tablet, in the break indicated in the copy.
Ra-in = ra-im, m before q (even if the q belongs to another word, ef. ana, ina, kima above) may become an n, Delitzsch,
Gram., $ 49a. For ВКЛ c. double acc. see Н. W.B., p. 604a, 2, “Jem. mit etwas begnaden, а. №. beschenken”; here
lit.: “with which the king entrusted my hand." It is the term. technicus used in the so-called “boundary stones" for
a “royal grant,” ef. e.g.. Scheil, Textes Elam. Sém., I, р. 89. Our writer Kalbu, then, has received the city Mannu-
gir-Rammán by “royal grant.”
з MIR.NIT.TA. King, Letters of Hammurabi, ТП, p. 99, note 5, was the first to recognize that the sign which
looks like SZ has to be read MIR. It is found with either two (Letters of Hammurabi, 3 : 7, 11 | 26 : 10, 16 | 36 : 14 |
43 :4, 7, 19, 23, 27, 29) or three (BY 418 (= С. T., УТ, 27) : 14) or four (Letters of Hammurabi, 1 : 19, 22) wedges at
the beginning. Delitzsch, B. A., IV, 485, read this sign BARA which in our letters looks quite differently, ef. 3 : 13 |
41:8 (BAR = parakku shá hu-lu-up-pi) | 66 : 7 (parakku Пиру и). Cf. also Z. A., XVIII, 202f. and l.c., p. 393; Harper,
Code of Hammurabi, List of Signs, No. 135. The latter quotation shows that the signs wrongly read IP.USH or TU.
ОБН (E. B. H., p. 423 passim) are to be transcribed MIR.NIT. Although Delitzsch read wrongly BARA for MIR,
yet he was the first to recognize its true meaning. While King, l.c., translated our signs by “captain of troops," “driver
of slaves," and Nagel (B. A., IV, 437) by “Truppenfúhrer,” Delitzsch rendered it (Lc.) Бу “Militárbehórde.” The
an-nu-ti shows that MIR.NIT.TA must be masc. plur. TA apparently contains only the “overhanging” vowel
of USH = NIT. MIR.NIT.TA is = rid-sabé = a composite noun in the plural, in which case only the last noun
has the plural form. Harper, Code of Hammurabi, p. 183, probably gives the best translation of rid-sabé, rendering
it by “recruiting officer; one who impresses men for the corvée.” In view of the fact that the phrase of the Hammurabi
Letters, ana MIR.NIT shafáru resp. типа (Delitzsch, B. A., IV, 487 = conscribere), corresponds exactly to our a-na
MIR.NIT.TA nadänu, I prefer to translate as given above. From this it is evident that Kalbu held the eity Mannu-
gir-Rammán by “royal grant,” subject to military service. All royal “grants” were, therefore, fiefs.
4 iddina = relative after shá, І. 18.
7
50 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
20 i-na la-me-e na-di zu-un-na i-na is destroyed by inundations: rains out
sha-me-e of the heavens
21 à mila i-na mak-b? ki-i i-di-mw? and floods out of the depths are, when
sha'-ku (after) he had handed her over,
overflooding her!
22 älu-ki shá be-M i-ri-man-ni i-na la- Yes, the city with which my Lord has
me-e entrusted me 1s destroyed
25 па°- а-па ba-la-ad a-i-ka-a lul-lik by inundations! Where shall I go to
save my life?
Kalbu, ‘е dust and loving servant," reports here to his Lord, who is gracious
and pardoning, that a great misfortune had overcome the city with which he had been
endowed by royal grant: a tremendous flood has destroyed it. As a result of this
the writer is in danger of losing his own life, crying, therefore, out in despair:
"Where can I possibly go to save myself?" The change of tenses іп 1. 18 (ra-in
ga-ti) and 1.22 (i-ri-man-ni) pictures quite vividly the progress of the flood. While
in 1. 18 Kalbu is still the possessor of the city, holding it in trust for his Lord, he
has lost it in 1. 22, appearing as one that has been holding it.
If we compare in this paragraph the words “the city Mannu-gir-Rammán
with which the KING is entrusting me" (І. 18) with those of І. 22, ““the city with
which my Lord has entrusted me,” we will have to admit that the writer refers
in one sentence to the KING and in the other to his LORD as the one who had given
him (the writer) authority over the city. But if we admit this, then we will have
to admit also the other, viz., that the Lord (BE-LI) is the King (LUGAL).
(с) And because the “Lord” is the ““King,” therefore could our writer, in one
and the same letter, speak of his master as be-N and as LUGA L, when he complained
in the closing lines as follows (24 : 36f.):
! La-me-e is apparently used here in the same sense as edélu, 1. 15. Literally translated it means “is cast into
encircling.” What this encircling was the words that follow tell us: it was an encircling caused by “rain and floods,"
hence an “inundation, a deluge.”
* То “rains out of the heavens and floods out of the depths" cf. the parallel expressions of the biblical flood story,
07201-10 DUI? and DINA луур, Gen. 7 : 11.12 | 8 :2.
$ То i-di-nu, which refers back to id-di-na, 1. 19, hence = id-di-nu, ef. besides 1. 37, i-di-na-an-ni, also 83 : 29, la
ta-di-in, ST : 17, shá ta-di-na and 57 : 18, Кети (= KU) ma-ad-gan (ef. В. E., XIV, 106c : 2; XV, 181 : 4; Delitzsch,
Н. W. B., p. 436a) shá lu-ta-tu (root пио, Delitzsch, Н. W. B., р. 366a, Jensen, К. B., УП, р. 442. Notice that
lu'tu, pl. lu-ta-tu is а syn. ої mursu = GIG.BA, which latter we find again in KU.GIG.BA = kibätu (Jensen, К. B., УП,
p. 485), hence lu-ta-tu, a kind of coarse, dirty flour) а-па PAD РАМ li-di-nu. A possible derivation from Фи or
even danánu is out of place here.
* This older form of shá I found, so far, only here. Cf., however, В. E., XIV, Sign List, No. 272. Тһе permansive
expresses here the idea that the overflooding is still going on.
* Nothing is missing before na-di.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. ІІ”
36 й a-na-ku i-tu Ые-й на а-па a-la-a-ki And I, the ¿tú of my “Lord,” though I
have written to the “King” concern-
ing my going (away, 7.е., leaving)
37 а-па LUGA І, ki-i ash-|pu-r]a LUGAL yet the “King” has not given me (an
ul i-di-na-an-nt : answer or permission to do 80').
Kalbu, who was looking out for the interests of his “Lord” continually and in all
directions (1й), feels somewhat slighted that he should be treated by the “King”
in the way he was. He had, in a previous note dispatehed to the King, asked
“where to go” (ef. also 1. 23), but the King had not advised him what to do, hence
his renewed complaint here.
(d) At the same result we arrive if we study another letter published under
No.55. Though the beginning? and the end of that letter are broken away, yet the
passage important for our investigation is, fortunately, preserved and clear. From
this epistle we learn that the King (LUGAL, 1. 8), upon the instigation of ” ""En-
lil-ki-din-ni, commanded his messenger Már-" Ü-da-shá-ásh to “оо and send certain
persons” (І. 10f.). But in І. 20 of this very same letter the royal messenger refers
to his King’s command by saying (І. 21f.), “when " ""En-lil-ki-di-ni had spoken
to my Lord (be-li-ia), my Lord (be-N) sent word to me saying: send the
persons, etc.” (follow the exact words which the king had spoken to his messenger
and which the messenger now quotes, l. 9f.). Here, then, again one and the same
person is referred to as both King (LUGAL) and Lord (бе). But this could
be done only if the Lord was indeed the King. The letter, as far as it concerns
us here, reads (55 : 2f.) :
2 Már-"Ü-su-ub-Shi-pak i-di ù lu-ü Már-Usub-Shipak knows. And with
RURTURET regard to the young slaves
3 shá na-shá-nu* Li-il-ta-a'-a-lu um- whom we are holding prisoners let them
та-а 1-па a-[ma-as-su-nu] inquire as follows:
! Or * adjudged me worthy of an answer,” see р. 104, note 5.
? On account of the absence of the address it is very doubtful whether this letter-belongs to those “ addressed
to the * Lord?” or whether it ought to take its place behind No. 75.
I
, ,
з ТОК ТОЕ" to be read according to І. 5, si-ih-hi-ru-ti, are here “youngsters,” “young slaves.’ Cf., however,
H., ІП, 289, a-mat LUGAL а-па ате "““T am-tim-a-a amelu A В. p Amesh а mU gmesh(yy ardiresh_ia (see also H.,
III, 296, 297, V, 518) with H., III, 295, a-mat LUGAL a-na amelu mátuRa-sha-a-a "А B. BAmesh u sip( = МЕ))-
ru-u-ti.
4 Perm. П, first pers. plur. for nashá-ni of №2; here with the same meaning as, e.g., Letters of Hammurabi, No.
1:23, ka-an-ki-im shá Ib-ni-!“MAR.TU na-shu-ú, “the contract which Ibni-Martu holds,” i.e., “which he has in his
possession, which he keeps”; it being above in opposition to mushshuru, “dismiss,” Il. 12, 13, requires here some such
signification as “to hold as prisoner."
52 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
4 ma-ti shd-a’-ma-tu-nw й TUR. “When are ye finally going to decide
TUR"“* na-shá-nu-ma? their affairs, seeing that we are hold-
ing the young ones as prisoners?"
5 Мас" Ásh(?)-pi-la-an-dw? | si-ih-hi- After Mär-Ash(?)pilandu had committed
ru-ti ki i-ki-ba-na-shi* to us the young ones
6 ki-i ni-il-li-ku а-па " ** En-lil-ki-din- and we had gone we spoke (as com-
ni manded) to Enlilkidinni.
7 ni-ig-ta-bi " "“En-Ll-ki-din-ni а-па And after Enlilkidinni had informed the
LUGAL KING,
8 ki-i 14-іи-й LUGAL Már-"Ú-da- the KING gave orders to Már-Udashash
shá-ásh
9 di-maî il-ta-ka-an ит-та-а shú-pu- as follows: ‘‘Send
ur-ma
10) өлем А MEO ARES УМ М Й TORE the agents and the young slaves
1 Shîmu с. ina, “to decide,” “determine the fate with regard to something,” “to give a decision with regard to
something,” “to decide an affair.”
? See note 4, page 51.
3 The reading of this name is not certain. If the ásh which is written here strangely at the lower end of DISH
does not belong to the name we might read Már-"Pi-la-an-du. Also some such readings as Már-" Á sh-pi-la- "DU
or Már-"Pi-la-! DU might be possible. A reading Már-" Na-ásh-la-an-du (resp. Чи DU) is, however, less probable.
4 For діри (here c. double acc.), “to entrust something to somebody," see p. 47, note 1.
5 Jensen, К. B., УП, p. 412, doubts whether shakánu may be construed with double accusative. Неге and p. 125,
п.8, itis. Dima (=téma) shakánu c. acce., lit. “to make news to somebody,” i.e., “to make them known to somebody,”
“to report," and as it is here the king who “makes these news known to his messenger,” it is equivalent to “to order,”
“to command.” It is interesting to observe that the following verbs may be used in connection with ти:
(a) lamádu, “to learn news," here only with the first pers. of the verb, hence = “to inform one's self of some-
thing." Cf. 57 : 21; di-im Е[А N] a-la-ma-ad; 33 : 28, te(!)-e-im mu-shi a-lam-ma-ad; 33 : 30, [te-e]-àm su-ma-nu a-lam-
ma-ad. See also C. T., VI, 34 : 24, а-па te-im a-va-tim shi-a-ti la-ma-di-im.
(b) nadänu, “to give news,” “to inform.” Cf. B. E., NIV, 114 : 4, shá HA(= fish) LUGAL di-e-mi i-din. . .].
(c) sha’älu, “to ask for news about something,” “to inquire about it.” Cf. 22 : 8, di-im mur-si-shä ki ish-a-lu-shi.
(d) shakánu, “to give news,” “to report,” “to command,” “to order." Cf. 59 : 10, di-e-ma i-shá-ak-ka-nu; 67 : 6,
dima lu-ush-ku-na(?) ; 80 : 13, di-ma shü-kun-ma; 92 : 21, 31, te(!)-e-ma shú-kun; 9 : 16, shakin (= GAR)” de(= NE)-
mi (here not an “officer,” but a permansive: “is reporting concerning (shá) Bit-Sin-issahra”). From this it will be evident
that ап ”elushakin(-in) tömi may be (a) either a reporter," who keeps his “superior” informed about the affairs of certain
cities or territories, etc., ог (b) he may be (if he be, e.g., a king, etc.) one that “gives commands" to his inferior. СГ.
furthermore 55 : 9, di-ma il-ta-ka-an; 55 : 23, [di-ma il-ta-ak-na-an-ni. In view of the two latter phrases we cannot
explain 34 : 38, бе di-e-ma il-KU (!)-na-an-ni as standing for bel têma il-qu(!)-na-an-ni—which would be without
any sense—but we must, seeing that the sign KU has also the value tuk(g), postulate that value here and read il-tuk(!)-
na-an-ni, or we must suppose that KU could be read (besides tuk(g)) also tak(g): il-tak( —KU)-na-an-ni. In the latter
case we would have here a new value for KU, viz., tak(g).
,
(е) shapáru, “to send news." Cf. 53 : 40, di-im ta-sap-pa-ra-am-ma; 84 : 11, di-im ta-ash-pu-ra; 57 : 17, di-e-ma
li-ish-pu-ra-am-ma; 76 : 5, di-e-ma в/мі-ир-та-ат-та; 94 : 8, te(!)-ma shú-up-ra; 89 : 29, de( = N E)-im-ka ù shú-lum-ka
shú-up-ra—the latter phrase being used for “a request of a letter in answer to a note sent.”
(f) turru, “to return news," “to advise," “Bericht erstatten." Cf. 76 : 9, di-e-mi а-па be-el lu-te-ir.
FROM THE TEMPLE
11 «Ла " ""En-lil-ki-di-ni shú-pu-ur-ma
12 li-mi-ish-shi-ru-nv'
13 тағ ship-ri LUGAL? а-па mu-ush-
shú-rint
14 ki-i il-li-ka shú-ú ki ú-si-bi-ta-na-shi
15 а-па mu-uh LUGAL ul-te-bi-la-na-
shi
16 LUGAL апа Mär-” Ü-da-shá-ásh
шт-та-а
17 shá-al-ma-at* ag-ta-ba-ak-ku um-ma
18 ta-al-ta-pa-ar-ma ТОК. ОК" о"
19 sha ” ""En-lil-ki-din-ni
shi-ru-ni-?
20 Már-" Ü-da-shá-ásh
iq-ta-bi
un-di-ish-
a-ka-an-na-a^
21 um-ma-a " ""En-lil-ki-di-mi а-па
be-li-va
22 ki-i 14-би-й be-li а-па ia-a-shi
23 [di-ma i]l-ta-ak-na-an-ni um-ma-a
24 [shú-pu-ur-m]a АИО Ао
и тов PURSE
ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 59
of Enlilkidinni— send, that
they dismiss them (ü.e., set them free).
(Now) when the royal messenger had
come for the purpose of dismissing
us (i.e., of securing our release) (then)
he, after he had seized us,
brought us before the KING.
Whereupon the KING said to Mär-
Udashash:
““Нахе I not sent greetings (1.е., a letter
containing greetings) unto thee and
commanded thee saying:
‘Thou shalt send that they |
dismiss the young slaves of Enlil-
kidinni’?”
Mär-Udashash answered under those
circumstances
as follows: “After Enlilkidinni had
spoken to ‘MY LORD,’
MY ТОВ»
commanded me saying:
‘Send [that they dismiss] the agents and
young slaves [of Enlilkidinni], etc.”
1 Stands for lu + umashshird-ni. Lu + u- (if 3 pers.) or lu + i- = li, so always! For the iin mi-ish = mash cf. also
un-di-ish-shi-ru-ni-i, 55 : 19; li-si-el-li-lu-ma, 66 : 22; e-ki-ir-ri-im-ma, 23 :10; li-ri-id-du, 60 : 13; ü-si-bi-ta-na-shi, 55 : 14;
li-si-bi-tu-shü-nu-ti, 58 : 11; i-di-ik-ku-ü, 40 : 7, ete., hence an emphatie a with 7 preceding or following may become
an i.
2 The royal messenger here referred to is Már-"" Ü-da-shá-ásh, 1. 8.
3 Lit. “for our dismissal"; the infinitive being treated here as a noun, hence -ni for -na-shi (M. 14, 15).
! Shá-al-ma-at here not a plur. of shalimtu, but a permansive = (lu) shalmät(a), “peace (greeting) be unto thee.’
,
This would make it appear that the Cassite kings, when writing to their subjects and using any greeting at all, employed
the following formula: shulmu iashi là shalmáta, “Lam well, mayest thou be well." The later Babylonian resp. Assyrian
kings said, as is well known, in its stead, shulmu iashi libbaka là täbka (resp. libbakunu là tábkunusha).
5 Undishshirá = umdashshirú. The long iin ni-i I take as the sign of a question, hence standing for original u: û
instead of u on account of the i in ni.
в Cf. here also a-ka-an-na, З : 35, 37 | 41 :4|63 : 2 | 95 :8.
B. E., ХІУ, 2 : 13 | 8 :10, 13; a-ka-an-na-ma, 67 : 7.
See also e-ka-an-na-am, 52 : 25, on the one and a-gan-[na], 21 : 9, 14; a-ga-an-na, 71 :9, on the other hand. For the
last ef. also Behrens, L. S. S., Ш, p. 2.
1 To be completed and translated according to ll. 91.
54 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
We need not, however, be satisfied merely with the result that the **Lord" is in
each and every case the “King,” but we can go a step farther and identify definitely
the King of No. 55.
Enlilkidinni, who plays such an important rôle in this letter and who clearly
must have been a person of influence and affluence, he being in possession of **young
slaves and agents’ and having access to the King (who listens to his entreaties and
acts accordinely), appears also as the writer of the two letters, Nos. 78, 79, and is as
such a contemporary of Usub-Shipak,* of Már-Udashash, of Ahushina (78 : 1). Тһе
last is mentioned as patesi in the 17th year of Kuri-Galzu (B. E., XIV, 25 : 12),
receiving PAD LU.ARDU in the 26th(!) year (of Burna-Buriash, В. Е., XIV, 167:
12, ef. 1. 11) and KU.QAR “narkabtu in the За year (ої Kuri-Galzu, В. E., XV, 21 : 7),
and is found together with a certain Muránu in a tablet from the time of Kuri-Galzu
(cf. Innanni, 1. 25), B. ER ХУ, 194 : 7,8. This Muránu* was a son of Meli-Shah and a
patesi, living during the 18th year of Kuri-Galzu, B. E., XIV, 28:5. A “son of
Muránu," Már-" Mu-ra-ni, who likewise is a patesi, is mentioned not only during
the 13th year of Ku[ri-Galzu, sic! against Clay], B. E., XIV, 125 : 6, 8,13, but he
appears also in the letter No. 78 : 4 аз а contemporary and itü(!) of Enlilkidinni. From
No. 79 : 1 we learn that Enlilkidinni was a contemporary of Imguri, who again, as
writer of Nos. 22, 23, is contemporaneous with Huzalum (22 : 6) and Kidin-Marduk
23:23). But Huzalum as well as Kidin-Marduk figure as witnesses in certain
business transactions executed between Enlilkidinni and some other parties at the
time of Burna-Buriash, more particularly Huzalum?'is mentioned as witness in the
2156 year of Вита Buriash (B. E., XIV, 8 : 30) and Kidin-Marduk* in the
19th (or 18th?) year of the same king, B. E. XIV, 7:34. Taking all
these passages together, there can be absolutely no doubt that the Enlikidinni
of Nos. 55, 78, 79 is the same person as the one who appears in the tablets of В. Е.,
ХІУ, as liv ng during the 3d (l.c., 1:6, 30, Clay wrongly 1st) 6th (l.c., 2 : 7, 19,
29), 19th (1.с., 7 : 14, 38) and 21st (1.с., 8 : 22, 25, 33) year of Burna-Buriash. From
this it follows that the “Lord” and “King” of No. 55, the contemporary of Enlil-
kidinni, was none other but King Burna-Buriash.
Having established the identity of the King, we can now more specifically de-
termine the occupation of Enlilk dinni. Above we saw that Enlilkidinni was in
! Written either т tl Bn-lil-ki-din-ni, 55 : 6, 7, 19, оғ” lu En-lil-ki-di-ni, 55 : 11, 21 | 78 :3 | 79 : 3.
2 Identical with Uzub-Shipak in Scheil, Textes Elam. Sém., I, p. 93, I : 3 (а kudurru from the time of Kashtiliashu).
’ The name of this royal messenger is, so far, not mentioned again.
! The Muränu of B. E., XIV, 128 : S, living at the time of Shagarakti-Shuriash (1st year) is another person.
5 Son of m *Hn-lil-bél(= EN)-ANMesh
$ The father of "Ta-ki-shum.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 55
possession of agents (DAM.QAR), young slaves (TUR.TUR™* = si-ih-hi-ru-ti) and
of an itü, "опе who looked out for his superior’s interests." If we compare this
with the tablets of B. E., XIV, we find that Enlilkidinni was the son of ” “NIN.
IB-na-din-SH ESH"*^ (l.c., 1:6|7 :14, here: SE-SHESH.SH ESH), living in Bit-
т iu Hn-lil-ki-di-ni (1.с., 2:8), where һе kept slaves (NAM.GALU.LU es СИН
lu-t, l.c., 2 :6, 8), whom he bought from (KI... . IN.SHI.IN.SHAM, l.c., 1:4,
8| 7:12, 15) other slave-dealers (DAM.QAR, l.c., 1: 4); he had even his own
agents (No. 55 : 10, DAM.QAR""') and representatives (її, Már-Muráni by name,
No. 78 :4) who had continually to look out for their employer's interests. Here
it is especially interesting to note that one and the same person could be a pa- e-si
and at the same time also an йй for a dealer in slaves, as was the case with Mär-
Muráni. This business must have been quite profitable and must have carried with
it a great influence at the King's court, for Enlilkidinni need only appear before
King Burna-Buriash, requesting the release of his slaves, and his wishes are instantly
complied with. No wonder then that the “house of Enlilkidinni” became rich and
powerful, flourishing as late as the time of Rammän-shum-usur and Meli-Shipak.
The boundary stone, London, 103, the provenance of which is unknown, has been
stealthily abstraeted (by some workmen employed by the 5. E. of the University of
Pa.?) from the ruins of Nippur. On this stone are mentioned not only the GU.EN.NA
or ““sheriff”” of Nippur (I: 20, 48, ПІ: 7) and the ‘‘pihat ої Nippur” (III: 42) —which
by themselves would show whence that stone came —but also such names as Bit-” ""Еп-
lil-ki-di-ni (IV : 29, 44; У : 31) and Ahu-da-ru-ú, the ““son” (mâr, i.e., = ‘‘descend-
ant") of т ™En-lil-ki-di-ni (IV :13, 40; V : D); who was, ав we just saw, a rich
and influential slave-dealer at Nippur during the time of Burna-Buriash. Cf. fur-
thermore the writer of No. 25: 2, "Ur-"NIN.DIN.DUG.GA, with the person bearing
the same name ‘п London, 103, І :6; also the ^"Parak-mári* (І. c., V, 15, with our
No. 53 : 38) and the “canal of Dür-"Enlil," Nam-gar-Dür-"" Enlil, І. c., ПІ, 23, with
! Preserved in the British Museum, No. 103 of the Nimroud Central Salon, and published by Belser, 5. A., II,
р. 187f. A translation was given by Е. E. Peiser in К. B., ПГ, р. 154.
2 For mär = “descendant,” see below, Chapter IV, pp. 64, 65.
3 The following members of the “House of Enlilkidinni” are known:
m ilu М] м IB-na-din-SH ESH"'*5*^ (oy SE-SHEH.SHESH).
m ilu Fn-lil-ki-di-ni, the founder of the house.
| 2 (тат here “descendant.”)
MA hu-da-ru-ú (see К. B., ПГ, pp. 158, 160, IV : 12, 45).
|
m ilum lil-shum-iddina (= MU.MU).
Ahu-darú lived during the time of Rammän-shum-usur and Meli-Shipak, and Enlil-shum-iddina during the
latter's reign.
56 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
our Nos. 3 : 33, 34, 38, 41 | 39 : 41; В. E., XIV, р. 58a; XV, p. 52a; X, р. 70a.
Such identity of names and places cannot be accidental. {
(e) И now it Бе admitted, as it undoubtedly must be, that the “Lord” of our
letters is always and invariably the * King," then, of course, it is not at all surprising
that we should find in this colleetion epistles written by the King himself. Prof.
Hilprecht informs me that he has seen several of them (one of them sent by King
Nazi-Maruttash) while examining in Constantinople the tablets of the Nippur find.
Fortunately I am in the position to publish at least one! of them here. It isa
"royal summons" sent by King Burna-Buriash to his sheriff (GÜ.EN.N A),
"А теі" Marduk, to arrest certain men accused of lese majesté.?
(D At last we are in a position to account for the peculiar characteristics of
the Amarna Letter, B. 188—characteristics which put this letter into a class all by
itself, as such separating it from all the rest of the Amarna Letters, whether they
belong to the Berlin or the London collections. The peculiarities of this letter
‘ (
consist in the wording of its *'address" and its *'ereeting," forming, as it were, an
exact parallel to the address and the greeting of all of our letters addressed to the
"Lord," бей. Seeing that this letter does form such a striking corroboration of
our eontention, I shall give it in full, though its lamentable condition would hardly
warrant a complete and satisfactory translation. The letter? (Amarna, B. 188)
reads:
1 а-па ™be-li-ia To my “Lord”
2 ki-be-ma um-ma speak, thus
3 TUR.SAL LUGAL-ma saith the princess:
4 а-па ka-shá nar kabûti™™-ka Unto thee, thy chariots,
5 [alu ù biti-ka] thy cities, and thy house
6 lu-ú shü-ul-mu greeting!
Т AN" shá "Bur-ra-Bur(!)-ia-ásh The gods of Burra-Buriash
1 Another royal letter is possibly that published under No. 93.
? No. 75. For a translation see below, p. 135.
3 Since the above has been written there appeared in the Vorderasiatische Bibliothek a new translation of the
Amarna letters by J. A. Knudtzon. This scholar, when speaking of this letter in the Preface to his translation, says
(Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, pp. 20f.): “Der erstere (i.e., No. 12 — B. 188) stammt nach seiner Schrift wohl am ehesten aus
Babylonien, was auch nach dem Ton möglich und nach dem wahrscheinlichen Inhalt von 2. 7 das Nächstliegende ist. . . . .
Wenn mit dem, was über die Herkunft dieses Briefes gesagt ist, ungefähr das Richtige getroffen ist, so ist der “Herr,” an den
er gerichtet ist, kaum anderswo als in Ægypten zu suchen.” Kundtzon differs (l.c., р. 98, No. 12) in the following points
from the translation (and emendation) as given above: 1. 5, [a}-m[i}-[u-t]i for alu! (but cf. Rev. 1. 5); І. 11, ’i(!)-ir-ma,
wandele; Rev. 1. 3, si-ir-pa he translates by ‘gefärbten Stoff,” but then Rev. ll. 5f. is left in the air. Rev. ll. 7f., it-ti(!)
li(!)-bi-ka, 8 Ца] ta-[dJa-[b]uf-up—9 й ia-a-shi it-ku Ца | te-te-en-da-ni which is rendered by “Mit deinem Herzen wirst
(or sollst) du чаем ее . . . ., und mir wirst (od. sollst) du . . . . n[ic]ht errichten."
--
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. ВУ!
8 it-ti-ka li-li-ku
9 shal-mi-ish a-li-ik
10 ù i-na shá-la-me in peace!
may go with thee!
Walk in and out
11 ti-ir-ma biti-ka a-mur Thy house, I behold,
12 i-na pa-[. . - | in former times |. . . .]
Reverse:
1 a-ka-an-n|a .... but now
2 ит-та-а машта... thus: “Since I sent Gi- . . .,
3 таг ship-ri-ia si-ir-pa my messenger, with a letter
4 ú-she-bi-la а-па containing
5 фи“ -ка à bitim'"-ka greeting to thy cities
6 lu-t [shú sic!]-ul-mu and thy house,
7 it-ti-[nu, sic] i-na bi-ka they gave upon thy command
S
9 ù ia-a-shi id тача and with regard to me remember (know)
10 te-te-en-da-ni all thou hast told me.”
11 ardi-ka "Като" IM Thy servant is
12 i-shá-ak-ni Kidin-Rammän.
13 а-па di(!)-na-an Before ће presence
14 бе-П-Да! lu-ul-lik of my “Lord” may I come!
her epistle to ‘‘my Lord."
a king,”
The writer of this letter is a “daughter of a king,
Я
"а “princess.” She addressed
This “Lord,” being the “Lord” of a “daughter of
cannot be anyone else but a “king.” Now I cannot agree with Winckler,
K. B., V, p. X, that this letter was addressed to the k'ng of Egypt. On the con-
trary, the princess, by using а *'greeting" and a ““phrase” (ana dindn beli-ia lullik)
so far met with in no other Amarna Letter—a “greeting” and ‘‘phrase”’ paralleled
only by our letters here published—shows that she was of Babylonian origin, i.e.,
she was a Babylonian princess, having been given in marriage to the king of Egypt.
We have to see, then, in this letter a “copy?” of an original sent to her father, the
! From. Amarna, London, 1, e.g., we know that a sister of Kadashman-Enlil had been given in marriage by, her
father, the king of Babylonia, to the Egyptian king. It may not be impossible that this princess is that very same
sister about whom Kadashman-Enlil complains in a letter to the king of Egypt that “nobody has ever seen her, whether
she is alive or dead," and that this letter is an assurance on her part that she is still well and among the living.
? Which happened to be preserved with the other Amarna tablets in the same way as was the “copy” of the
»
letter of Ni-ib-mu-a-ri-a, the king of Egypt, to Kadashman-Enlil (Amarna, L. 1). For its being a “copy” speaks also
the hastiness and earelessness in which it has been written, cf. e.g., ul-mu for sh u-ul-mu (R. б), be-li-i for be-li-ia (К. 14),
id for i-di (R. 9), it-ti for it-ti-nu (Rev. 7). For several other Egyptian copies among the Amarna letters see also
Knudtzon, l. c., p. 16.
8
o8 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
“Lord” and “King” of Babylonia. This princess, after having communicated
her wishes to this “Lord,” finds that, according to good woman fashion, a postseript
is proper and in order. She forgot to introduce Kidin-Rammän, who, no doubt,
brought this letter to the Babylonian king, as ‘ћу servant," assuring in this wise
the king that the servant is reliable and may be entrusted with an answer to her
letter. Nay, more than this. The princess, finding, after her extended sojourn
in the land of the Nile, that she had not employed the correct form of address custom-
ary among Babylonians' when writing to their “Lord” and “King,” as we know
now, adds another postscript, saying: а-па di-na-an? Бе-Гь-іа lul-lik, “before the
presence of my Lord may I come.” And by using this phrase as well as the greeting,
`
(i А : ” қ А hal Ај іт ^ ,
to the cities and thy house greeting" (а-па а/ш” à Бит ка lu-ú shú-ul mu,
Rev. 5f.), the princess proves herself to be a real daughter of the Babylonian king,
who, when addressed by his subjects, is always called “ту Lord,” be-N.
1 When foreigners like, e.g., an Egyptian king write to a Babylonian king they never fail to mention the exact
title of the king of Babylonia, calling him invariably shar (= LUGAL) ™4Ka-ra-!™Du-ni-ia-ash, Amarna L., 1, et
passim. For Пи Du-ni-ia-ash see Hüsing, O. L. Z., December, 1906, р. 664, оп the one, and M. Streck, Z. A., January,
1908, p. 255f., on the other hand.
2 For dinánu cf. also 24 : 33, ash-shü di-na-[ni-Jia, “on my account” = ash-shumi-ia. Knowing, as we do, that the
highest honor conferred upon a servant of the king is to see the king's “face,” and remembering that mortal beings
always pray for their being permitted “to see the face of such and such a god" (cf. "Pán-AN.GAL-lu-mur and the
New Testament promise that the faithful shall see the “face” of Christ, shall see him from “face to face," ¿.e., shall
be admitted into Christ's presence), I translate dinán by “presence,” though its real signification is “Selbst, Selbst-
heit.” By doing this I am, however, unable to find the difficulty which Behrens, №. S. S., II, p. 27, thinks he finds;
for it is, of course, self-evident that the writer did not mean to imply in these words that he himself may be permitted to
appear before the presence of the Lord. All the writer wants to convey through these words is this: may І by and
through the mediation of this letter appear before the Lord; in other words, may the King himself graciously condescend
to listen to me by means of this letter when I speak as follows to my Lord (um-ma-a a-na be-li-ia-ma). The writer
thus pleads that his letter may not be prevented by the “red tape” surrounding the person of the King from reaching
his “Lord” and master. He wants a personal interview, he desires that the King himself shall see the letter, and if the
writer’s wish be granted he, ipso facto, is admitted through his epistle to the presence of the King, to the King himself.
Nor are the words mûr shipri-ia ana shulmi sharri sisê u şabê айарга, occurring in H., УП, 721 : 5 (writer ” “UMarduk-
MU-SE-na) and H., VIII, 832 :5; 833 : 5; 835 : 5; 836 : 5; 837 : 5 (all written by ^ ilu AG-EN-MU"'**^) to be trans-
lated with Behrens, l.c., by “meinen Boten habe ich mit Gefolge (Pferde u. Krieger, d. i. berittene Krieger?) zur Begrüs-
sung des Königs geschickt.” The sisé u sabé belong, on account of their position, to the king, thus making him a king
of “horses” = cavalry (cf. the “horses” = cavalry of the Old Testament, аз, e.g., in Deut. 11 :4: the army of Egypt—
their “horses” (= cavalry) and their chariots) and of “men” = infantry—a veritable “war-lord.”’
IV.
RESULTS.
The fact that the be-l in all our letters is the KING is of the highest importance
for a correct understanding of (a) The genealogy о) the Cassite kings of this period;
(b) Their seat о) residence, and (с) The nature and purpose о) the so-called Temple
Archives.
(a) The various investigations conducted by scholars! with regard to the gene-
alogy of the kings of this period has, as was to be expected, led to widely divergent
results. Without going into any controversy here, I shall confine myself to stating
what seems to me the most probable solution of this rather difficult, tangled up, and
knotty problem.
From the so-called Synchronistic History? (= S. Н.) we learn that at the
time of Ashshur-uballit, king of Assyria? Ше Cassites (SAB”®" Kash-shi-e)! had
revolted and killed "Ка-та-Наг-да-азћ, the king of Babylonia,’ the son (TUR) of
т Mu-bal-li-ta-at-"She-ru-á-a, a daughter of Ashshur-uballit, raising a certain
"Na-zi-Bu-ga-ash to the kingship over them. Whereupon Ashshur-uballit, to
1 Cf. e.g., Winckler, Das alte Westasien, p. 21f.; Delitzsch, Chronologische Tabellen (not accessible to me); Weiss-
bach, Babylonische Miscellen, p. 2f.; Clay, B. E., XIV, p. З (see p. 10, note 3); Hilprecht, B. E., ХХ! р. 52, note 1;
and Thureau-Dangin in Z. A., XXI (1907-1908), р. 1768., a reprint of which has just reached me. After a lengthy
discussion of all historical data furnished, this last scholar established a chronology all his own and confesses: “Seule
la donnée de Nabonide, relative à Shagarakti-Shuriash serait inexplicable: si, en effet, suivant U’hypothese la plus probable,
les 800 ans sont comptés de la fin du règne de Shagarakti-Shuriash à Pavenement de Nabonide, ce chiffre serait trop fort de
prés d'un siècle (exactement de 90 ans). Our scheme given on p. 1 does justice both to Nabonid's statement with regard to
Shagarakti-Shuriash (sc. that the latter lived 800 years before him, i.e., 539 (end of the reign of Nabonid) + 800 = 1339;
above we gave 1331-1318 as the probable time of Shagarakti-Shuriash), and to that of Sennacherib (p. 2, note 12).
But, more than this, I believe, with Thureau-Dangin and Ed. Meyer (Das chronologische System des Berossos in Beiträge
zur alten Geschichte, III, pp. 131ff.), that the beginning of the first dynasty of Babylon has to be placed at 2232, and
Hammurabi, its sixth ruler, accordingly at 2130-2088. Now, її Nabonid informs us that Hammurabi lived 700 years
before Burna-Buriash (II) (see Bezold, P. 5. В. A., Jan., 1889), the latter ruler must be put somewhere between (2130 —
700 =) 1430 and (2088—700 =) 1388 B.C, On p. 1 we assigned to Burna-Buriash the time between 1450-1423; hence
our chronology, given above, comes as near the truth as it is possible at the present.
2 See Winckler, С. А. G., p. 148 (= К.В. I, р. 194), ll. 8f.
3mAshshur-ü-TI.LA MAN там Ashshur.
+ Not necessarily “Cassite soldiers," for ЗА Бе at this time is used simply for ummäni, “people,” changing
frequently with SA B2-, see also р. 35, note І.
5 MAN "t" Kar-Du-ni-ash.
° A-na LUGA L-ú-te а-па muh-shu-nu ish-shu-iá.
[59]
60 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
avenge [” Ka-rla-In(!)-da-ash (notice this name), went to Babylonia, killed ["Na]-
zi-Bu-ga-ash, made [" Ku-r]i-Gal-zu si-ih-ru, the son (TUR) of "Bur-na-Bur-ia-ash,
to be king, and put him ‘‘upon the throne of his father" (ina "ОСЛА AD-shu).
The questions to be asked and answered in connection with this text are the
following:
(D Why should the S. H. say that Ashshur-uballit went out to avenge Kara-
Indash? We would expect that the king of Assyria went out to ““avenge rather the
murdered Babylonian King Kara-Hardash." Who is this Kara-Indash, that
Ashshur-uballit should display such an interest? Іп what relation does he stand
to the king of Assyria on the one hand and to the murdered king of Babylonia,
Kara-Hardash, on the other?
(2) What do the words "риє him (7.е., Kuri-Galzu sihru) upon the throne of his
father" mean? Does ‘‘father’’ refer here to Burna-Buriash or to Kara-Hardash? If
it refers to the former, then who was Burna-Buriash? In what relation did he
stand to Kara-Indash or Kara-Hardash or to the Assyrian king that he (the latter)
should be so anxious as to secure the Babylonian throne for his (Burna-Buriash's) son,
Kuri-Galzu? Why was the son and heir of the murdered Kara-Hardash not put
upon the throne of Babylon? But if the term “father” refers, as we would expect,
to Kara-Hardash, thus making Kuri-Galzu sihru the son and successor of his mur-
dered father, then why should Kuri-Galzu be called here (and elsewhere) the ‘‘son
(TUR) of Burna-Buriash”?
Some of these questions we can answer with the help of Chronicle P. ( =Ch. P.),!
where we are told that a certain ” Ka-dash-man-Har-be was the son (TUR) of "Kar-
In?-da-ash and of (sic! cf., le., 1. 12) Muballitat-Sherua? the daughter of Ashshur-
uballit,‘ king of Assyria; hence Kara-Indash (S. H.) = Kar-Indash (Ch. P.) was the
husband of Ashshur-uballit's daughter, Muballitat-Sherua, and the father of Kadash-
man-Harbe. Ashshur-uballit in avenging Kara-Indash acted, therefore, in the
interests of his nearest, relations—his daughter and his son-in-law—to preserve the
Babylonian throne for the rightful heir. But the rightful heir in this case was
the ‘‘son of the murdered King Kara-Hardash.” This would force us to the con-
clusion that the term “father” of the S. Я. meant Kara-Hardash and not Burna-
1 So called after its discoverer, Theodore С. Pinches, J. В. А. S., October, 1894, p. 811 (= р. 816), 1. 5f. Cf.
also Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, 1 Reihe, p. 298(= p. 115)f. ў
¿This IN, according to Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tajeln, р. 35, and Delitzsch, Abh. der sächs. без. d. Wiss.,
Vol. XXV, is absolutely certain. So also Ungnad, O. L. Z., März, 1908, Sp. 139. Peiser, ibid., р. 140, and Winckler
А. О. F., I, рр. 116, 298, read Ka-ra-Har-da-as.
з Written /Mu-bal-lit-ai- EDI N-u-a.
t Written "A N.SH À R-DI N-if.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 61
Buriash, and that Kara-Hardash (S. H.) is only another name for Kadashman-
Harbe. This is corroborated by the further statement of Ch. P. which relates (col.
І, 10f.) that the Cassites revolted against and killed ” Ka-däash-man-Har-be, and
raised “Чо the kingship over them”” a certain ”"Shü-zi-ga-ash, а Cassite, ‘е son of
a nobody.” Whereupon Ashshur-uballit, the king of Assyria, went to Babylonia‘
to avenge "Ka-dàsh-man-H ar-be, ће son of his daughter?,” [killed] "SAu-zi-ga-ash
and put ["Ku-ri-Gal-zu зійти, the son (sic!) of "Ka]-dàsh-man-Har-be, upon the
throne [of his father]."
If we were to arrange the genealogies as given by 8. H. and by Ch. P. in parallel
columns we would have to do it as follows:
SYNCHRONISTIC History. | CHRONICLE P.
ВАВУТОМІА. ASSYRIA. | BABYLONIA. ASSYRIA.
Burna-Buriash Ashshur-uballit Ashshur-uballit
Kara-Indash Muballitat-Sherua Kar-Indash Muballitat-Sherua
| ит, | Pel ie
Kara-Hardash | Kadashman-Harbe
|
Nazi- bugash | Shuzigash
Kuri- Galzu sihru Bor: абы]
All scholars have—and, по doubt, correctly—admitted the identity of Nazi-
Bugash and Shuzigash”; we need, then, not lose any words about this point. But
if we do admit their identity we cannot very well deny the other, viz., that Kara-
Hardash and Kadashman-Harbe are likewise only two different writings of one and
the same person. And here it is that I beg to differ from all the other scholars who
either take Kara-Hardash to be a mistake for Kara-Indash (so Winekler), or who
remove him altogether from the list of kings (so Weissbach). What might possibly
1 Here nishé (UN)Mesh Kash-shi.
2 Notice that the shu in І. 10 refers back to 1. 5.
3 A-na LUGA L-ú-tu а-па muh-shu-nu.
1 måtu Кау Dun-ia-ash.
5 TUR TUR.SAL-shu = Muballitat-Sherua.
в The words in [—] are broken away, but they have been added here because they are the only rational and
logical emendation of the text. See for this emendation also Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, l.c.
7 Denied now, as I see, among others, also by Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, p. 38. The reasons—if they
may be called so—adduced by Knudtzon against the identity of these two persons are not at all convincing, in fact,
they are against both the S, H, and the Ch, P,
ір LETTERS ТО САЎ ІТЕ KINGS
have been the reason of these two seemingly widely divergent readings, Kadashman-
Harbe (Ch. Р.) and Kara-Hardash (5. H.)?
If I were to put before the various scholars in the realm of Assyriology a com-
bination of signs, such as "AU "“L, asking them to transcribe, read, and translate
it. what would be the result? One would read it kakku "“NIN.IB, the other kakku
Enlil. the third kakku ""Nin-Girsu, and translate it “the (a) weapon is (of)
NIN.IB, or Enlil, or Nin-Girsu.” А fourth, if he suspected a nomen proprium in
that combination and knew that it was taken from a tablet belonging to the Cassite
period and was aware that, at the Cassite period, the names of “cities called after a
person” may be written without the determinative DISH (ef. ""Gir-ra-ga-mil, ""UD-
tu-kul-ti, ete., in “List of Cities”), might read that very same combination Tukulti-
“Буй (NIN.IB, Nin-Girsu) and think it represents a “city.” А fifth, again, would
object seriously, pointing out that the “names of the Cassite kings” are likewise very
often written without the DISH (cf. e.g., Burna-Buriash in B. E., XIV, 1 :30 | 2 : 29 |
| : 18, ete., ete.), and read accordingly (translating it back into Cassite) Kadashman-
“Harbe (or Enlil, or NIN.IB, or Nin-Girsu). А sixth, lastly, would maintain that
Cassite kings were gods or were identified with gods, hence a name "" KU "ZL should
express the “name” or the “attribute” of a god; he aecordingly would see in that com-
bination such an attribute and would read and transcribe it by ‘‘weapon of god
Г.” which would be in Cassite—what? Апа why is there such a difference of opinion
among scholars when reading and transeribing personal names? Answer: Any
modern Assyriologist has, or he thinks he has, the privilege to transcribe ideographic-
ally written names—be they those of persons or of gods—according to his own
notions; thus one may see in the name ““SUGH a male, the other takes it to be a
jemale, and the third declares both are wrong: ""SUGH is : ‘‘hen(-goddess)’’. То
be sure, all three are right and all three are wrong. What modern scholars do now,
the old scribes did 3,000 years before them. The name Kadashman-Harbe means
in Cassite “my support is Harbe,” and Harbe translates the Babylonian “Enlil.
Kadashman-Harbe, when written ideographically, may be ""KU-"EN.LIL
(*Ê.KUR, ™L, ete.), but this might, per se, be translated also by “Ше (my, а)
weapon is (of) Enlil (E.KUR, L, ctc.)." Should the writer of the S. H. have mis-
taken the “*KU = tukulti, “support,” for “КО = kakku, ‘‘weapon,” and have
it translated back into the Cassite language by kar(a), ‘‘weapon”? If we knew
the Cassite word for *^weapon" it would be a comparatively easy task to ascertain
whether this suggestion or supposition might hold, but unfortunately we do not
know it—at least I do not; and as long as this word is not known to us just so long
the hypothesis will have to stand that the writer of S. H. mistook the “КО =
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 63
шшы = Kadashman, ‘‘support,” thinking it was the same as "РКО = kakku
= kar(a), ““weapon”. And if “КО could have been mistaken for Каа)
(instead of фики), the ideogram expressing Harbe = Enlil might likewise have
been mistranslated by Hardash. If Hardash be a composite word consisting of
Hard + ash we might compare it with Bugash = Bug-ash. Should Hard + ash be
= 5 (x) 10 = 50 = “Т, and Bug + ash = 6 (x) 10 = 60 = АМ or ilu (see р. 7, note 2,
under Guzar-AN)? If this could be proved then the original ideographic writing of
this name might have been ™KU-™L. : S. Н. translating it by Kar(a)-Hard + ash
= a weapon of (is) "І, and Ch. P. by Kadashman-Harbe = my support is Enlil.
For “L = "Enlil, see p. 40, note. (The ash in Hard-ash resp. Bug-ash is hardly the
same as iash = mätu = KUR; if it were, Hard-ash might represent either É.KUR
or KUR.GAL, likewise names of Enlil and AN). If, on the other hand, Hardash
be a simple (not composite) name, it might translate such ideographs as "МАВ
(= Enlil, У В. 44, 46c), “АВ (= Enlil, Ш В. 67, No. 1, Obv. Па, 6; cf. І. 20,
iwNIN.LIL dam-bi-sal, i.e., of “АВ = “Enlil; in Weissbach, Babyl. Miscellen,
ВЕ 6,405), 1.8, АВ is = Anu (AN): AB AN) USAR SAR (=
Enlil) “SUR.UD (= ЕА.) "ММ.МАСН = fem. principle of the world, cf.
No. 24 : 6 (p. 47, n. 5), Anu, Enlil, В.А, Вей), or “IB (= Enlil, AN, NIN.IB). At
any rate, the circumstance that we are not yet able, owing to our ignorance of the
Cassite language, to say definitely which ideographic writing was before the eyes
of the compiler ої S. H. does not preclude the possibility that Kadashman-Harbe
and Kara-Hardash are one and the same person. This much we can say, however,
that the original ideographie writing consisted of "КО + a name ої a god which
could be translated both by Harbe and by Hardash. We must maintain the identity
of Kara-Hardash and Kadashman-Harbe till we know that it is wrong and abso-
lutely impossible.
Somewhat more difficult is the task to reconcile the two genealogies of Kuri-
Galzu. If we knew nothing about the S. H. and had only the Ch. P., in which
Burna-Buriash is not mentioned with one syllable, nobody would ever have attempted
to amend the broken text of Ch. P. differently from what was done above, viz.,
that Ashshur-uballit went out to avenge Kadashman-Harbe,' ““the son of his daughter
(1.e., his grandson)," who had been killed by the Cassites and whose throne had
1 Notice here the difference between S. H. and Ch. P. According to the former Ashshur-uballit went out to
avenge his “son-in-law, Kara-Indash" ; and according to Ch. P. the same king wanted to avenge his “grandson, Kadash-
man-Harbe.” Аз the latter statement is far more to the point, it shows that the narrative of Ch. Р. is to be preferred
to that of S. Н. Cf. also the writing Kara-Hardash (S. I7.) with Kadashman-Harbe (Ch. P.); the latter, no doubt,
represents the better tradition.
64 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
been usurped by Shuzigash, in order to regain and preserve, of course, the Baby-
lonian throne for the rightful heir of his grandson. But the rightful heir in this case
was none other than the son of Kadashman-Harbe, Kuri-Galzu, who naturally
must have been still a “little child,” a s/hru, seeing that his great-grandfather, the
Assyrian king Ashshur-uballit, was still living. But if Kuri-Galzu was according to
Ch. P. the son and rightful heir to the throne, it follows that the words of S. H.,
"put him upon the throne of his father,” can mean only that Ashshur-uballit
put Kuri-Galzu sihru upon the throne of his murdered father, Kara-Hardash =
Kadashman-Harbe; hence the word “father” in S. H. does not refer to Burna-
Buriash, as the interpreters want it, but must refer to Kara-Hardash. "Thus, even
according to S. H., Kuri-Galzu sihru may very well, yes, must have been the son of
Kara-Hardash = Kadashman-Harbe. And by being put upon the throne of his
murdered father, Kuri-Galzu ipso facto was put also upon that of Burna-Buriash,
seeing. that the son? of Burna-Buriash, Kar(a)-Indash, was his (Kuri-Galzu's)
grandfather.
But if Kuri-Galzu was the ''son of Kara-Hardash = Kadashman-
Harbe," as has been maintained, then he cannot have been, at the same time,
the “son of Burna-Buriash," as S. H. informs us. Weissbach, who was the last to
diseuss the genealogies of this period, failed utterly, simply and solely because he did
not recognize the true meaning of “son” (TUR) in Kuri-Galzu TUR Burna-Buriash.
In the Black Obelisk of Shalmanassar II (858-824 B.C.), inscription to pictures II
(ef. also ПІ R., 5, No. 6, Il. 25, 26), we are told that Jehu ("Ча-й-а) was the “зоп”
(TUR) of Omri ("Hu-um-ri-i. But according to what we know from the Old
Testament, Jehu was by no means a son (II Kings 9 : 2), but simply a ruler in “Ше
land of the house” of Omri, being the fourth in the succession of his so-called father.
Hence the TUR = mûr, ‘‘son,” in Kuri-Galzu TUR Burna-Buriash does not neces-
sarily have to signify ‘‘son,” but may, and here must, mean “а later (descendant
and) ‘ruler of the house’ of Burna-Buriash," "опе that was of the ‘line of reign’
of Burna-Buriash." This follows also from the following consideration: from
several inscriptions published by Hilprecht* we know that Nazi-Maruttash was the
1 For зійти in this sense cf. also H., ПІ, 289 : 2; 296 : 2; 297 :3; H., V 518 :3, galu y В. Вдте ў TURmesh.
which changes in H., III, 295 : 2, with galu A B,BAM°Sh u sib( = N E)-ru-i-ti, thus showing that зійти “young” is in
opposition to AB.BA = shébu, “old.”
2 Tt should be noticed, however, that there is, so far, no inscription known which states that Kar(a)-Indash was
the “son of Burna-Buriash." The above conclusion is nothing but an inference from 8. Hs words: " Kuri-Galzu,
,
son of Burna-Buriash," see below, pp. 65ff.
3 See, e.g., Hilprecht, B. E., Г, Nos. 53, 55, 56, 58, 78, 75 + 136 + 137 (ef. Zimmern, 2. A., XIII, р. 302);
B. E., XIV, 39 : 9.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 65
son of Kuri-Galzu, and from a boundary stone of Nazi-Maruttash' we learn that
this latter ruler was “the son (TUR) of Kuri-Galzu and the SHAG.BAL.BAL of
Burna-Buriash.” Now SHAG.BAL.BAL means in each and every case nothing
but “one who is of the reign(ing house) of,” libbi palê. Hence the mar (TUR) of
the 8. H., because it corresponds here to SHAG.BAL.BAL, must likewise be taken
in the signification of /ibbi palê; in other words, the expression már (TUR) Burna-
Buriash of S. H. designates Kuri-Galzu not as son, but as “one who belonged to
the line of rulers of the house of Burna-Buriash." As such he may have been the
third, fifth, tenth, or hundredth in the line.’ Kuri-Galzu was, and still 18, the son of
Kadashman-Harbe — Kara-Hardash, and this he was and is not only according
to B. E., XIV, 39: 8f. (ishtu Ku-ri-Gal-zu TUR ““Ка-аа-авһ-тап-Нат-бе a-di
! Scheil, Textes Élam. Sém., I, p. 86 (cf. plate 16), col. I, Il. 1-5.
2 Weissbach, Babyl. M iscellen, pp. 2f., by first trying to establish for SHAG.BAL.BAL an impossible meaning,
“ Enkel,” puts the cart before the horse, and at the end of his investigations has to admit after all that SHAG.BAL.BAL
in all passages cited by him means either “Urenkel,” “fernen Nachkommen,” or “einen um Jahrhunderte späteren
Nachkommen." This alone ought to have been sufficient to convince Weissbach that SHAG.BAL.BAL іп IV ДЕ;
38, I, 20-26, could likewise not have the signification “Enkel.” Not heeding this warning, Weissbach arrived at results
which were both impossible and disastrous: he had to maintain three Marduk-aplu-iddinas, three Kadashman-Harbes,
three Kuri-Galzus; had to remove Kara-Hardash altogether from the list of kings and make Kuri-Galzu sihru, “the
son” of Burna-Buriash, the ahu abi, the “brother of the father” of Kadashman-Harbe, i.e., had to make him a brother
of Kara-Indash. Such manipulations are altogether too subjective to be taken seriously, and overlook the fact that
а person at this time is designated only as “Х., the son of Y."; in no case is there ever mentioned a grandfather.
«X mûr У. таг Z means at this time “X., the son of Y., belonging to (the house of) Z”(!) and stamps such a person as
being of high, special, influential, or distinguished rank. Hinke’s (В. E., Series D., IV, рр. 133, 174) Nabü-zér-l'ishir mar
Itti-Marduk-balátu таг Ardi-B.A, because parallel to Sha ріки mar Itti-Marduk-balätu STAG.BAL.BAL А rdi-B.A, makes
Ardi-É.A the founder of the distinguished and celebrated surveyor family of which the two brothers, Nabü-zér-lishir and
Shápiku, were later members (not necessarily grandchildren). Again, if mûr be = SHAG.BAL.BAL = “belonging to
the reign(ing house) of," then it is, of course, quite natural that Meli-Shipak should call himself (В. E., 6378 = Weissbach,
l.c., p. 2) таг Kuri-Galzu. Why? Because Meli-Shipak was an usurper. But someone might object that in London,
103 (Belser, B. A., II, p. 187f. = Peiser, К. B., ПІ, p. 160), IV, 31, the immediate predecessor of Meli-Shipak,
Rammän-shum-usur, is referred to as “thy (ie, Meli-Shipak’s; cf. lc., 1. 17) father (a-bu-ka).” How can he be a
usurper if his father occupied the throne before him? Apart from the list of kings, where Me-li-Shi-pak is not designated
by TUR-shu (i.e., the son of Rammän-shum-usur), the fact that a father, bearing a Babylonian name (as Rammán-
shum-usur undoubtedly does), would call his son (Meli-Shipak) by a Cassite name is simply impossible in the history of
the Cassites and without any parallel. Only the opposite may be admitted, i.e., а Cassite father may call his son Бу a
Babylonian name; but never would a Babylonian degrade himself so far as to acknowledge his oppressors by naming
his son with a name which was despised among them. Meli-Shipak, then, by calling himself mdr Kuri-Galzu, lays
“rightful” claim to the inheritance of the throne of Babylonia, which he would have as “one belonging to the house"
(mär) of Kuri-Galzu. The same desire is evidenced by Meli-Shipak’s son, Marduk-aplu-iddina (notice the Cassite
father and the Babylonianized son!), who does not call himself (IV R., 38, I, 20-26 = К. B., ПГ, p. 162) grandson of
Rammán-shum-usur, but “the son (TUR) of Me-li-Shi-pa-ak (ef. also List of Kings: ™ ilugHU-A-MU TUR-shu, i.e.,
son of Meli-Shipak), the SHAG.BAL.BAL of Kuri-Galzu LUGAL la-a sha-na-an!” For a later example of mdr (resp.
aplu) = “of the,” or “belonging to the, house of," cf. Rim at (i " MASH) ари sha Muräshu, and see Hilprecht, B. E.,
IX, p. 15.
9
à
66 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
duNa-zi-Ma-ru-ut-ta-ash TUR "“Ku-ri-Gal-zu), but also according to Br. Mus.,
$3113: where he (written here ""Awu-ri-Gal-zu) calls himself “Ме mighty king,
the king of Babylon, the son (TUR) of ""Ka-dásh-man-Har-be, the king without
equal (LUGAL (а shá-na-an)."*
But though it might be admitted, as it must, that Kuri-Galzu, “the son”
of Burna-Buriash of S. H., was de facto the ‘‘son of Kadashman-Harbe (Ch. P.)
Kara-Hardash”, as such belonging to the reigning house of Burna-Buriash (TUR
SH AG.BAL.BAL = libbi palê), we still owe an explanation of the fact that there
are other tablets in existence in which this self-same Kuri-Galzu is not only called,
but even calls himself “son (TUR) of Burna-Buriash.” The question is this:
Why should this self-same Kuri-Galzu (sihru) call himself or be called on the one
hand “son of Kadashman-Harbe = Kara-Hardash," and on the other “son of
Burna-Buriash"? What were the reasons, if any, for this playing hide and
seek?
We learned from S. H.and Ch. P. that the father of Kuri-Galzu, Kadashman-Harbe
— Kara-Hardash, was killed by his own kinsmen, the Cassites, who had revolted
against him, and who went even so far as to put a king of their own choice and
liking, viz., Nazi-Bugash = Shuzigash, upon the throne of Babylon. We also
heard that Kuri-Galzu did not occupy the throne of his murdered father by the
wish and the consent of the Cassites, but, on the contrary, by and through the grace
of his great-grandfather (on his mother's side), Ashshur-uballit, who forced him while
still a child (sihru) upon the dissatisfied Cassites. Is it not more than natural to
suppose that the Cassites would feel rather inimical towards their new king, who was
in their eyes nothing but an usurper,’ occupying the throne of Babylon and swaying
the royal scepter over them by the intervention and brutal force of a foreign king so
inimieal to their own interests? And was it not a wise and diplomatie stroke of
! See Winckler, Z. A., II, p. 307f.
2 This very same attribute is ascribed to Kuri-Galzu also in a boundary stone (IV 12, 38, I, 20-26 = КОВ;
ПІ, p. 162) quoted p. 65, п. 2. Kuri-Galzu, “the son of Kadashman-Harbe,” is identical with Kuri-Galzu, the prede-
, І 1 I 2 , I
cessor of Meli-Shipak and Marduk-aplu-iddina (see p. 65, n. 2, end).
З Зее, eg., А. В. С. 146 (Lehmann, 2. A., У, 417); Hilprecht, B. E., I', Nos. 35, 36, 39; l.c., P, 133 (see also
Zimmern, Z. A., XIII, p. 304); Scheil, Textes Élam. Sém., 1, p. 93, col. I, 18.
1 One of the maxims in Babylonian history is that whenever a ruler or king terms himself “the legitimate" this
or that, such a ruler is invariably an usurper. The truth of this maxim is clearly established also in Kuri-Galzu's case.
One of his favorite titles is réjaum kinum, “the legitimate shepherd,” see Hilprecht, B. Е., Г, Nos. 41 + 46:3
(cf. Hilprecht, l.c., р. 32, and Zimmern, Z. A., XIII, p. 304); l.c., І”, 133 : 5, 6 (Zimmern, l.c.). Also Kuri-Galzu's
son, Nazi-Maruttash, claims this very same title, Hilprecht, B. E., 12, Nos. 75 + 136 + 137 (Zimmern, l.c., p. 302): 5.
What Kuri-Galzu lacked in favor from his subjects he made up in empty assertions.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 67
policy on Kuri-Galzu’s part not to call himself ‘‘son of Kadashman-Harbe,” thus
avoiding to remind continually the enraged Cassites of their revolt and their murder
committed? The Cassites hated any and every allegiance with the Assyrians,
thrust upon them by the marriage of Kar(a)-Indash to Muballitat-sherua, knowing
quite well that such a friendship would eventually lead—as it actually did—towards
disaster. They preferred to have their country return to the status quo it occupied
before this infamous intermarriage—to the first years of the reign of Burna-Buriash,
*'the ancestor" of Kuri-Galzu, when he warned the Egyptians, in a letter addressed
to their king Ni-ip-hu-ur-ri-ri-ia ( = Amen-hotep ТУ; Amarna, London, No. 2 : 31f.),
not to listen to the machinations of the Assyrians, ‘‘my subjects" (da-gi-il pa-ni-ia).
Kuri-Galzu, knowing this and eager and willing to appease his dissatisfied Cassites,
‘all himself! “son
did not— great diplomat and ‘‘king without equal” who he was
of Kadashman-Harbe, ” "but ‘‘descendant (таг) of Burna-Buriash’’; thus he main-
tained on the one hand his ““rightful,” “legitimate” (kinum) succession to the throne,
and on the other he avoided to remind the enraged Cassites of their revolt and
murder.
From all this it would follow that Kuri-Galzu sihru was de facto а ““son of
Kadashman-Harbe," whom he followed upon the throne of Babylonia, but de arte
diplomatica a ‘‘son of Burna-Buriash " ; hence we have to place between the reigns of
Burna-Buriash and Kuri-Galzu those of Kar(a)-Indash, Kadashman-Harbe =
Kara-Hardash, and Nazi-Bugash = Shuzigash.?
With the publication of these letters the period just discussed receives some
new and additional light. Above we showed that all letters addressed to the ** Lord ”
7)
were intended without any exception for the *'king." Who this “кто” is or was
cannot be said, except it be determined in each particular case from the so-called
“internal evidence" as gathered, e.g., from the names of persons occurring in a
specific letter, from the circumstances of time and place, ete., etc. We also saw
that the letter published under No. 24 was especially instruetive in this respect.
And this it was not only because of its wonderfully poetic introduction—an intro-
duction such as may be found only in a letter addressed to a king—but also because we
learned from it that the writer had been entrusted by a “grant” from his “Lord” and
““king” with the supervision (tû) and administration of the city Mannu-gir-Rammán.
! T.e., at least “not generally."
2 Hilprecht’s statement, B. E., XX! p. 52, note 1, “ Kuri-Galzu, his (7.e., Burna-Buriash’s) son, but possibly not
his immediate successor," I would like to modify by substituting: “Kuri-Galzu, the son of Kadashman-Harbe, the
descendant of Burna-Buriash, the successor of his murdered father." — Clay's view (В. E., XIV, p. 9), “there is no gap
in that part of the list of kings which these archives represent," differs [rom what I have above stated, p. 10, n. 3.
68 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
Now it happens that the writer of No. 24, Kalbu by name, mentions in the course of his
communication, addressed to his Lord and king, the latter's father, "Na-zi-""En-Ul.
A priori we are justified in assuming that if the “Lord” to whom Kalbu addressed
his letter was a “king,” the “Lord's” father was in all probability one likewise. И
зо, we would have to see in "Na-zi-'"" En-lil a new and, so far, unknown king of the
Cassite period. The question then arises to what time of the known Cassite
kings have "Na-zi-""En-lil, together with his son, the бей of No. 24, to be
referred.
The passage which mentions this new king is unfortunately somewhat mutilated,
so that its real sense has to remain, for the present at least, still doubtful. If I
understand the paragraph in question correctly, it would seem that Kalbu, after
having communicated to his **Lord" the news about the dreadful flood which had
overtaken the eity Mannu-gir-Rammán and himself, threatening him even with the
loss of his own life, complains here that the same flood had destroyed also the **gates,
together with the ‘‘herds” which were kept in their environs, in consequence of
which destruetion and loss he is left without any means of subsistence both for him-
self and for the inhabitants of the city. In fact there is nothing left that could be
“taken” or “given.” That portion of the letter which mentions the “Lord's”
and “king's” father, "Na-zi-" En-lil, may be transcribed and translated as follows
(24 : 241.) :
24 à abullu ( = KÁ.GAL) erü (URU- Also the mighty bronze-gates together
DU)" DA? u lahru ( = GA- with the two-year-old ewes which
NAM y shattu-I sha ish-tu b[E]-na-tı" (were kept there) since the time
95 sha "NA-zi-"En-lil a-bi-ka й adi of Nazi-Enlil, thy father, even unto
(= ЕМ) йт (this) day,
1 Abullu erümesh is a composite noun in the plural, for the formation of which see Delitzsch, Gram., p. 193, S 73.
2 DA here to be taken probably in the sense of le’, Abel-Winckler, Keilschrifttexte, Sign List, No. 221; Meissner,
Ideogramme, No. 4762.
з For САХАМ = lahru, “езе,” see E. B. H., р. 343, and for MU-II, ibidem, рр. 3691.
5 Ish-tu b[£]-na-ti....à adi ( = EN) ümi"!, Тһе ish-tu be-na-ti, standing here in opposition to adi ита,
must signify in this connection some kind of a terminus-a quo. Bénáti is, no doubt, related to bennu, which Delitzsch
H.W. B., р. 180b, translates by “father”; cf. also Zimmern, Shurpu, р. 54, 35, who renders it by “Ahnherr.” If this be
true, I would like to see in bénáti either a plural of bénütu — (binnütu —biniütu =) binuttu, which latter word occurs also in
Amarna, В. 24 : 22, mûr ship-ri-ka i-na bi-nu-ut-ti [ki-i] il-li-ka, i.e., *when thy messenger came formerly," or a forma-
tion like sátu, ahräti, вагай, rugäti, for which see Delitzsch, Gram., р. 189, and l.c., $ 65, No. 37, on р. 177, above. Bénéti
in our passage refers undoubtedly to the “times of the father” of the “Lord,” hence must mean something like “tin.e
of preceding generation,” “the time when one’s father was living.” The root, then, would be ратй, from which we have
рапа, “father, begetter." Adi тї" stands here for adi ити an-ni-i.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 69
26 [e]-ka-kut(?) à i-na-an-na be-lr it-ti- (the floods) have destroyed. And now
[di sha} my “Lord” knows that
27 [i(D)-la-ka-an-ni i-na-an-na ki-i i-li- they (the inhabitants of the city) will
[ka-an-n |v? come to me: (sc. for pay, 1. 29).
Now, when they have come (7.е.,
when they are there),
28 [à zu-un-n]a* LU (?)"*" lahru ( -GA- what shall I take and give (them), see-
NAM) злайи-П i-si-ru* mi-na-a|?J ing that the floods have encircled
the flocks and the
29 [lul -qa-am-ma lu-ud-di-in* two-year-old ewes?
As the succession of the Cassite kings from Kuri-Galzu sihru down to Kashtiliashu
is well known and absolutely controllable both by the publications of the В. Е.
and the “List of Kings," and as Nazi-Enlil cannot have reigned before Burna-
Buriash—for no documents of the Cassite period have been found at Nippur which
antedate the last-named ruler—it is at once evident that Nazi-Enlil, together with
his son, the be-lù of No. 24, must have reigned during the time that elapsed between
Burna-Buriash and Kuri-Galzu sihru.
We saw that the Cassites revolted during the reign of Kadashman-Harbe —
Kara-Hardash against their king, killing him, and selecting in his stead a king of
their own choice, a certain Nazi-Bugash or Shuzigash. We also heard that Ashshur-
1 E-ka-ku. One might expect e-ka-lu, but against this is to be said: (1) the ku, although somewhat doubtful,
cannot be very well lu. Having examined the sign repeatedly I am unable to discover even the faintest indication of a
middle perpendicular wedge; (2) if this were a form of akálu, one would look for i-ku-lu. A present tense, e-ka-lu =
ik-ka-lu, is senseless here. In view ої these difficulties I am inclined to connect this form with akúkáti(?), H. W. B.,
р. 53a, which Delitzsch, however, leaves untranslated. Seeing that a&ükáti is a syn. ої a-sham-shü-tum and this =
IM.GHUL.LA resp. IM.RI.GHA.MUN (Del., l.c., p. 146a, Orkan) І propose to translate akúkáti by storm-flood (ef.
also КОНА МОМ, an attribute of Каттап, the bêl abübu), used either literally or figuratively. In the latter sense it
, ,
is used also of “spears,” which are “thrown” in such numbers into a city that they practically “pour down upon" ог
“overflood” a city. In this meaning it is to be found in Sarg. Ann. 164, ana puhur álánishunu a-ku(?)-ka-a-li ad-di-ina,
“into all their cities I threw a veritable flood (of spears)." The root of e-ka-ku would be рр» ог 120, it standing
for ¿“kakú = ékakü, with a in the Preterit. The subject of ékaku is the zunnu и mila in ll. 20, 21 : the floods have
overflooded = destroyed.
2 These emendations are, of course, very doubtful, but they seem to me the most probable ones. For aläku c.
acc., “о go, come to,” see besides Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 66a, also Jensen, К. B., УП, pp. 464, 475. И the emendations
be correct, these forms would stand for ¿-la(resp. i-li-)-ku-in-ni.
з The traces of these signs cannot possibly be amended to КАСА І, erümesh pj 4mes& 1.24. For LU = UDU =
INS, see E. В. H., рр. 343ff.
4 Eséru, “to encircle,” is here parallel to lamů, used of “floods”; see above, 1. 20, i-na la-me-e na-di.
5 Hardly anything missing after mi-na-a.
в For the force of this Ev фа доо сЁ, e.g., В. E., XIV, 38 : 9, 10, “that and that,” РХ. i-lig-ga-am-ma а-па
ту, і-пат-дїп, " X. shall take and give to Y.,” i.e., “X. shall pay back to Y.," апа l.c., 111 : 10, 11, “the grain .,,.
at harvest time," is-si-ra-am-ma i-nam-din-ma, “he shall put up and give,” i.e., “he shall return.”
70 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
uballit, king of Assyria, eager to secure and preserve the Babylonian throne for
his great-grandehild, Kuri-Galzu, went out, killed Nazi-Bugash and put Kuri-
Galzu upon the throne. Now it is not at all likely that the Cassites would have
acquiesced in such a despotic act of the Assyrian king as to kill the king of their
choice and liking; nor is it human nature to suppose that the enraged Cassites would
have joyfully received the new child-king by the grace of Ashshur-uballit. On the
contrary, they will have endured this insult only as long as they had to; they will
have waited eagerly for the first moment, for the first opportunity to strike back
and rid themselves of a king who was forced upon them. This opportunity came
when Ashshur-uballit died, which he, no doubt, did soon after Kuri-Galzu had
been seated upon the throne, seeing that he must have been well advanced in years
if he could put a great-grandchild upon the Babylonian throne. With Ashshur-
uballit out of the way and Kuri-Galzu still a child, the time was propitious to strike
and to strike hard. And the Cassites did strike. The result of this “striking” is
embodied in letter No. 24: they put up a king who was a king indeed—a king by
the voice of the people. Et vox populi est vox dei: he was a divinely appointed ruler,
a ruler “whom Anu, Enlil, В.А, and Bélit-ili themselves had presented with a king-
ship excelling in grace and righteousness.” I see then in the бе-й of No. 24 a counter-
king of Kuri-Galzu during at least the first years of the latter’s reign. But if the
be-I was a contemporary of Kuri-Galzu, then the Lord’s father, Nazi-Enlil, must
have lived at the time of Nazi-Bugash. In view of the fact that both these names
beein with Nazi, and considering how easy it is to misread and mistranslate the name
of a god when ideographically written, I propose to identify both. The Synchronistic
History is, as we saw above, rather arbitrary in transeribing names expressed by ideo-
graphs. Now as “Ен may also be written ™E.KUR, which latter is according to
ПР. 54, No. 3, 10, identified with Anum," and as Anum changes with Bugash in such
proper names as Gu-zar-AN and Gu-za-ar-za-ar-Bugash, Gu-zal-za-ar-Bugash, it is not
unlikely that the name Nazi-Enlil was written Na-zi-“E-K UR in the original from
which S. H. compiled his story. This Na-zi-"" É.KUR S. Н. read Nazi-Bugash, and
Ch. P. shortened it to Shuzigash.
Furthermore, Kalbu, the writer, praises his Lord and king as “light of his
brothers,” which implies that the be- had brothers. It happens that there is
mentioned in B. E., XIV, 10 : 56, a certain m E-mid-a-na-""Marduk, who is termed
TUR LUGAL, ‘‘son.of the king," and who lived, aecording to that tablet, in the
first year of Kuri-Galzu (l. 1). This Emid-ana-Marduk cannot have been the son
1 See also my Bel, the Christ, pp. 17, 16.
? Thus identifying пи KUR according to П R, 54, No. 3, 10 with AN(=Bugash), instead of iluẸN.LIL. For
AN as a name of ilu Ẹnlil see p. 80.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 71
of Kuri-Galzu, because the latter was himself a child, nor can he have been a son
of Kadashman-Harbe, i.e., a brother of Kuri-Galzu, because if he were he would
have to be a younger(!)! brother; but a younger brother of a sihru, “а child,” would
not receive “salary,” nor can he have been an Assyrian prince Мз name speaks against
such a supposition; hence the only conclusion at present possible to reach is that
Emid-ana-"" Marduk was a son of Nazi-Bugash = Nazi-Enlil and a brother of the be-l
of No. 24.
On the basis of the above-given investigations we are prepared to establish the
following succession of the Cassite kings covering both periods, the Amarna and
that which follows immediately upon it. During the latter our letters here pub-
lished have been written.
ASSYRIA. | BABYLONIA. EGYPT.
| Kara-Indash I |
| C) |
Burna-Buriash I
ee. o
Kadashman-Enlil I | Nimmuria (= Amen-
hotep IIT)
| — (== А
Kuri-Galzu Г; daughter daughter; Naphuria
2 а) (= Amen-hotep IV )
Ashshur-uballit | Burna-Buriash II, * ances- !
| | tor of Kuri- Galzu П”
| | (son ?)
| | Sees aS E
Muballitat-Sherua | Kar(a)-Indash Ш; U-la-
| Bu-ri-ia-ash? king of
| na A.A B.BA
Kadashman-Harbe= Kara-
Hardash
Nazi-Bugash = Shuzigash | = "Na-zi-" En-lil
| | |
| =
Kuri- Galzu II, sihru,* “of | | е- (No. 24); Emid-ana-
> . |
the house of Burna-Buriash” | Marduk
| ||
Nazi-Maruttash
(to be followed by the kings
! For footnotes see page 72. as given above, por
12 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
(b) The seat о) residence of the Cassite kings at the time when the letters here
published were written.
1 If he were the older brother, he (and not the child Kuri-Galzu) would have been the rightful heir to the throne
of Babylon.
? Por a complete rendering of this letter see below under “Translations.
3 Mentioned in В. E., 6405 (Weissbach, Babylonische Miscellen, р. 7), where he is called the “son (TUR) о) Bur-
na-Bu-ra(!)-ri-ia-äsh.” | Cf. now also Thureau-Dangin, O. L. Z., January, 1908, Sp. 31f., who is of different opinion.
‘Through the kindness of the Editor, Prof. Hilprecht, who gave me special permission (letter of June 22, 1908)
to do so, I am enabled to add here a note about the several papers, treating of the same period discussed above, which
have appeared since the MS. had been approved and sent to the press. These papers are (a) F. E. Peiser, Chronik P
und synchron. Geschichte, O. L. Z., January, 1908, Sp. 7f., and again, l.c., Sp. 140f.; (b) A. Ungnad, Zur Chronologie der
Kassitendynastie, l.c., Sp. 11f., and ibidem, Sp. 139f.; (с) J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna- Tafeln, рр. 34ff., especially p.
38 (reached me March, 1908); (d) Thureau-Dangin, Z. A., ХХІ (1907-8), рр. 176ff. (see also above, p. 59, note 1);
O. L. Z., January, 1908, Sp. 31f.; Journal Asiatique, Janv.-Fév., 1908, рр. 117ff. (received July 1, 1908), and the correc-
tions to the last-named paper, O. Г. Z., June, 1908, Sp. 275f. (was not accessible to me till July 14, 1908).
Peiser's and Knudtzon’s genealogy of the kings of this period is nothing but Weissbach re-edited with some slight
modifications, hence we need not dwell on their arrangement here. Ungnad omits Burna-Buriash I (why?) and Kara-
Indash II. About the latter he remarks (1.с., Sp. 13): “Ein anderer Karainda’ war wohl der Gemahl der M uballitat-
Serna, ist aber selbst kaum König gewesen.” It is hardly to be expected that the Assyrian king Ashshur-uballit with his
pronounced intentions towards the Babylonian throne would give in marriage his daughter M uballitat-Sherua to a Baby-
` Jonian prince who was not, at some time or another, destined to become the king of Babylonia, nor would he have been so
anxious to avenge his “son-in-law” if it had not been for the fact that he wanted to preserve the throne of Babylon for
“his own family," ze, for the descendant of his own daughter. Ungnad’s (and Knudtzon’s) reading Kadashman-Harbe
(instead of Kadashman-Enlil) is quite arbitrary. Though the Cassite Harbe was identified with Enlil, from this it does
not yet follow that Enlil in Cassite names has always to be read Harbe. We know that ilu Бп із = "кит =
An, but it would be preposterous to read Enlil = An, or An = “Enlil (sce also Thureau-Dangin, J. A., 1908, p. 121,
17). Though Ungnad establishes otherwise the same succession as the one given above, yet I cannot agree with
him in details. His argument, l.c., Sp. 12, 2, based upon the expression ishtu . . . . adi ої B. E., XIV, 39:8, to
show that Kuri-Galzu, the son of Kadashman-Harbe, was the same as our Kuri-Galzu I, the son of Kadashman-Enlil I,
contemporaries of Amen-hotep III, are contradicted by No. 24 : 24, ish-tu bé-na-ti shá mNa-2i-"YEnlil a-bi-ka(!)
ù adi йті, for which see above, p. 68, note 4. Ungnad's statement (l.c., Sp. 12, note 1) that abbu (with double b)
has to be always a plural is simply an assertion without any argument. Abbu, like ahhu, is very often nothing
but a graphie peculiarity of these times. With regard to the investigations of Thureau-Dangin the following:
In his latest attempt (O. L. Z., 1908, Sp. 275) this scholar arranges the predecessors of Kuri-Galzu (the father
of Nazi-Maruttash), to whom he assigns the 22d place among the Cassite kings, in the following fashion: (16)
Kara-Indash I; (17) Kadashman-Harbe I, his son; (18) Kuri-Galzu I, his son (contemporary ої Amen-hotep ПТ); (19)
Kadashman-Enlil І, his son; (20) Burna-Buriash, his son (contemporary of Amen-hotep IV); (21) Kara-Indash II, “© petit-
fils(?) de Burna-burias” ; (Nazi-Bugash, “usurpateur”) ; (22) Kuri-Galzu, “ зесопа(7) fils de Burna-burias” and father of
Nazi-Maruttash. A comparison of this arrangement. with the one postulated above will show the following differences:
(a) Kadashman-Harbe — Kara-Hardash is left out. The reason for this omission is given by Thureau-Dangin, J. A.,
1908, р. 127, in the following words: “Ката-һатаа: et Kara-indas mentionnés par U Histoire synchronique représentent le
méme personnage (but why?). Опа supposé que Kara-inda’ pourrait ¿tre le père de Kara-harda&. Mais le rédacteur wa
,
pu vouloir dire qw A&ur-uballit était venu pour venger le pire du roi assassiné.” But this is exactly what he did want to
say, see above р. 60. (b) With regard to Kadashman-H arbe Thureau-Dangin (O. L. Z., 1908, Sp. 275) refers to Knudtzon,
l.e., p. 34, note 2, to Ungnad, O. L. Z., 1908, pp. 12, 15, and to his own remarks in J. A., 1908, p. 128, where he says:
"l'introduction de ce personnage a peut-étre son explication dans le fait que le rédacteur de la Chronique P aura confondu
Kuri-galzu le Jeune, fils de Burna-burias, avec Kuri-galzu 1%, fils de Kadashman-harbe. Il faut sans doute restituer à
1 , g ,
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 73
Prof. Winckler, when discussing the алое invasion under Kitin-hutrutash!
at the time of ” ®EN.LIL.MU.MU (т.е., Enlil-nädin-shumu, generally. read Bêl-
nádin-shum), who is mentioned in the ‘‘List of Kings” immediately after Kashtiliashu
11, says (Das alte Westasien, р. 20): ‘‘Unter dem nur 15 Jahre regierenden Bel-nadin-
shum I, fällt Kitin-hutrutash, König von Шат, in babylonien ein, verwüstet Dur-ilu
А . und erobert Nippur, das von den Kassiten Königen bevorzugt und wohl vieljach
als Residenz benutzt wurde."
Indeed, Nippur has been the favored city of the Cassites since they ascended
the throne of Babylon, for already Gandasb?, the first of the Cassite kings, called
Nippur “my city"? but that it ever had been used as а Cassite residence has,
though it was surmised by Winckler, never been proved.
Without going into details here, І am prepared to maintain, upon the basis of
the evidence furnished by these letters, that ever since the time of Burna-Buriash II till
Kashtiliashu II, and possibly longer, as the campaign of Kitin-hutrutash against Nippur
would indicate, Nippur was, if not the, then at least a royal residence о) the Cassite
l'histoire de Kadashman-harbe, pire de Kuri-galzu 1%, le récit de la guerre contre les Sutéens." Не accordingly assigns to
this Kadashman-Harbe, the son of Kara-Indash (Ch. P., I, 5f.), place No. 17, and identifies him with Kadashman-
Harbe, the father of Kuri-Galzu I (B. E., XIV, 39:8; Winckler, Z. А. П, p. 309). Though the latter identification is
undoubtedly correct (see above, p. 64), vet the Kuri-Galzu, the son of Kadashman-Harbe, is not Kuri-Galzu I, but Kuri-
Galzu II, sihru (see above, p. 64). From this it follows that Ch. P. did not only not confound Kuri-Galzu, the son of
Burna-Buriash, with Kuri-Galzu, the son of Kadashman-Harbe, but, on the contrary, knew that both Kuri-Galzus were
опе and the same person. For the reason why Kuri-Galzu sihru should have called himself both “son of Burna-Buriash"
and “son of Kadashman-Harbe” see above, p. 66. (с) With regard to No. 19 I may be permitted to ask: “On what
authority does Thureau-Dangin maintain his statement that Kadashman-Enlil I is the son of Kuri-Galzu I?" (d)
Burna-Buriash, whom he mentions under No. 20, Thureau-Dangin identifies on the one hand with [ . . . . Fri-ia-ash,
the son of Kadashman-Enlil (Hilprecht, O. В. I., Г, No. 68), and on the other with the Burna-Buriash known from
Knudtzon, l.c., 9, 19 (ef. No. 11, Rev. 19), where this ruler calls Kuri-Galzu “my father,” a-bi-ia, maintaining at the
same time that the expression “father” has to be taken in the sense of “ancêtre” (O. L. Z., 1908, Sp. 275). Though
it is true that abu may, and very often does, mean “ancestor” (Tigl.-Pil. I, col. VIII, 47; Knudtzon, l.e., 16 : 19, com-
pared with M. D. O. @., No. 25, p. 40) —just as TUR == таги very often means ‘‘descendant’’—yet Thureau-Dangin
still owes the arguments resp. convincing reasons that аби of Knudtzon, l.c., 9, 19, has to or must be taken in the sense
of ancestor. Again, the name [. . . .}ri-ia-ash ої O. B. I., ТІ, No. 68, may be read with Hilprecht, B. E., ХХ', p. 52,
note 1, [Sha-garak-ti-Shú]-ri-ia-ash (the space is large enough for this emendation), see above p. 1. Thirdly, following
Thureau-Dangin's methods, we might quite as well maintain that the dumu-sag of O. В. I., I', No. 68, means “principal
descendant," thus making Shagarakti-Shuriash a “grandson” (instead of a “second? son”) of Kadashman-Enlil. By the
way, on what authority does Thureau-Dangin claim that Shagarakti-Shuriash was the son of Kudur-Enlil? (е) Why does
Thureau-Dangin (following Ungnad) omit Burna-Buriash I? Does he identify him with Burna-Buriash, the son (resp.
grandson) of Kuri-Galzu I and ancestor (resp. father) of Kuri-Galzu II, sihru? What are his arguments for doing so?
The result: Thureau-Dangin has failed to bring in any convincing arguments which would force us to modify the above-
given arrangement.
! See Ch. P., col. IV, 14f.
? Written "Ga-ad-dásh (= UR).
з Ali-ia Ni-ip-pu (sic!), see Winckler, С. A. G., p. 156, No. 6, І. 11.
10
74 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
kings. This follows (1) from the fact that these letters, having been addressed to
the be-N, i.e., to the king, were found in Nippur: letters, if discovered at Nippur and
found to be addressed to the king, presuppose that the king must have lived at that
place; (2) from internal evidence. (a) Kishahbut, when answering an inquiry of the
king concerning ‘‘wool,” says, 35 : 13, ásh-shum SIG" i-na En-lil" а-па be-li-ia
aq-ta-bi , i.e., “ав regards the wool (I beg to say that) I have spoken about it to my
‘Lord’ in Nippur.” This shows that Kishahbut, although “out of town" when he wrote
his letter, must have been at one time in Nippur, where he reported to his “Lord”
about the disposition of the wool; but this he could not do except the king himself
was residing in Nippur. Now, as Kishahbut was a contemporary of Kadashman-
Turgu (see below, pp. 120ff.), it follows that this king lived in Nippur. (9)
Pän-AN.GAL-lu-mur, a resident of Dür-ilu, when explaining to NIN-nu-ü-a why
he had not sent a messenger previously, says, 89 : 21f.: mdr ship-ri-ia sha а-па,
“Еп-Ше а-па muh LUGAL ash-pu-ru ki i-mu-ru-ka тама a-sap-rak-ku iq-ba-a, i.e.,
“ту messenger whom I had sent to Nippur to the king was, when he would see thee,
,
to have told everything I had written thee." Nothing can show more plainly than
this passage that the king actually did live and reside in Nippur, where he received
not only the reports of his trusted servants, but where he also (y) gave orders for
the disposal of certain goods, see 27 : 29f.: II Би sha En-lil ява be-lv ú-she-bi-la
й ХХ ma-na shá ardi-ka "Erba-"“Marduk id-di-na ki-i ú-za-i-2u XL ma-na SIG"
ir-te-hu-ni-in-ni; i.e., “(and with regard to) the two talents (of wool) of (= for)
Nippur which my “Lord” has ordered to be brought and the 20 ma-na which thy
servant Erba-Marduk has paid, (I beg to state that) after they had divided them,
they left me (a rest of) only 40 ma-na.” The “Lord” to whom Kuduräni sends this
letter (No. 27) is again Kadashman-Turgu; hence also according to this epistle that
king must have resided in Nippur.
The king, however, did not always stay in Nippur, but made, like every good
: father of his country," occasional visits to other towns, where he condescended to
hear the complaints and grievances of his subjects; of such an incident we read in
23 :33£.: ásh-shum """"USH.BAR"" an-nu-ti shá спа ^"Pa-an-Ba-li* ka-lu-ü
ena Ü-pi-i* а-па be-li-ia aq-ta-bi ù shá-la-shi-shú а-па mu-uh be-Ì-ia al-tap-ra
be-li Li-ish-pu-ur-ma li-il-qu-ni-ish-shi-nu-ti, i.e., “ав regards these weavers who are
being held in Pán-Bali, (I beg to state that) I have not only spoken about them
to my ‘Lord’ in Юрі, but I have written three times to my “Lord.” My ‘Lord’ may
at last send that they take them away (ü.e., that they be liberated)." According to
1 Cf, here also such passages as 27 : 20: i-na úlu-ki i-na a-shab be-li-ia а-па be-li-ia aq-ta-bi-ma; i.e., “in the city
(1.е., Nippur) in the presence of my ‘Lord’ I have spoken to my ‘Lord.’ " See also З : 22.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 19
this the king was at one time іп Upi, where he received the writer [Imgu]rum in
audience. The king had promised him to “do something" for the imprisoned
weavers, but had, after leaving Upi for Nippur, forgotten all about his promise. The
writer was determined that the weavers should be liberated; he had written four
times to his Lord, reminding him of his promise, by addressing this (No. 23) and
three previous communications to him at Nippur. As Imgurum, the writer, was a
contemporary of Burna-Buriash (see below, p. 94), it follows that also Burna-Buriash
must have resided in Nippur.
In this connection a passage of Ch. P., col. ІП, 9, receives a new and welcome light.
There it is recorded that Kuri-Galzu, after having conquered the ”““Tam-tim, col.
II, 1. 6], added also Babylon and Borsippa unto his country. How could this be
done, seeing that Kuri-Galzu had been seated by Ashshur-uballit upon the throne of
Babylon? How could he possibly have added Babylon and Borsippa to his land, if
he resided, as ‘‘king of Babylon," in Babylon? Surely, if we are able to read between
the lines, the succession of events during the reign of Kuri-Galzu must be recon-
structed in the following fashion: Ashshur-uballit, after having killed Nazi-Bugash
and after having proclaimed his great-grandson king of Babylon, foresaw, no doubt,
some such event as was pictured on p. 70, 1.е., he feared that the Cassites would arise
again and, if possible, get rid of his **child-king." In order, therefore, to insure the
safety of Kuri-Galzu he established him, not in Babylon, nor perhaps even in Nippur,
but possibly in Dür-Kuri-Galzu
a fortress founded by the older Kuri-Galzu?
and situated near Nippur. Here he probably lived as long as the be-N of No. 24°
had power enough to maintain his independence. As soon as Kuri-Galzu felt that
he was sufficiently strong to cope with his enemies, he went out and conquered them,
first of all the Cassite party in allegiance with Nazi-Bugash or his sons, then the sea
country, in order to prevent a possible attack from the rear, and last of all Babylon.
As soon as Kuri-Galzu had gotten rid of the be- of No. 24, he established, as is
to be expected, his residence in Nippur, where he lived till he had conquered Babylon.
After the conquest of Babylon he possibly might have resided also in that city,
though there is as yet no proof to that effect.
! Ch. P., Ш, 9, DIN.TER® u Bar-sap™ muh séri( = EDIN)-ia lu-ü-sha-at-tir; i.e., * Babylon and Borsippa I
caused to write ( — I had them written, added by means of a treaty after a successful war) to my land (lit. field).
To EDIN cf. here the greeting, “to the field (EDIN), ete., of my ‘Lord’ greeting," which shows that EDIN in the
passages given above (p. 34) means the whole territory over which the * Lord" was king.
СІ. В. E., XIV, 4 : 11f., where Dür-Kuri-Galzu is mentioned in the 11th year of Burna-Buriash. See already
above, p. 9, note 2.
* Who likewise must have resided—for a time at least—in Nippur, or else this letter could not have been
excavated there.
76 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
As long, then, as we have such indisputable evidence as to the royal residence
of the Cassite kings at this period we will have to look upon Nippur as a, if not the,
residence oj all Cassite kings from Burna-Buriash П to Kashtiliashu IT; and if so, we
will surely find, at some future time, if the excavations of the University of Pennsyl-
vania are to be continued, as is to be earnestly hoped and desired, a royal palace
befitting the glory and splendor of the ‘‘king without equal," of Kuri-Galzu зійти
and his descendants. Prof. Hilprecht regards the largely unexplored lofty group of
mounds forming the eastern corner (ef. the map in Series D, Vol. I, p. 305) of the
temple complex as the probable site of the palace of the early patesis of Nippur and
also of the Cassite rulers—a palace which, like the Sargon palace at Khorsabäd, at
the same time constituted the strongest bastion in the huge outer temple wall.’
(c) The nature and purpose o] the "Тетріє Archives," including the letters
here published, and their relation to ** Royal Archives.”
When I studied Prof. Clay's introduction to B. E., Vol. XIV, purporting to
give a general survey of the nature of “Temple Archives," as far as they had been
published by him, the questions uppermost in my mind, about which I hoped to
receive some information and instruction, were: What are ‘Temple Archives”?
What is their nature and purpose? What do they represent? Clay answers these
questions in the following manner (B. E., XIV, p. 5): “With the exception of
about fourteen? documents these inscriptions (i.e., the “Temple Archives’) are
records of the receipt of taxes or rents from outlying distriets about Nippur; of
commercial transactions conducted with this property; and the payment of salaries
of the storehouse officials as well as of the priests, and others in the temple service.
In other words, they refer to the handling and disposition of the taxes after they
had been collected." If I understand his explanation of the contents of these tablets
?
correctly, I gather that, according to his interpretation, ‘‘archives,” such as have
1 Cf. Hilprecht in В. E., Series D, Vol. I, р. 485, and “The So-called Peters-Hilprecht Controversy," р. 254.
See also above, p. 9, note 2.
2 The fourteen documents which form the exception are enumerated, l.c., p. 2, note 1. They аге Nos. ME
S. 11, 39, 40, 41, 119, 123, 127, 128a, 129, 135. It will be noticed that, e.g., neither the “inventory” tablets nor the text
published in В. E., XIV, 4, are enumerated among these exceptions. I therefore drew the natural inference from the
above given enumeration that tablet No. 4 (B. E., XIV) was likewise regarded by the author of the volume as “a
record of the handling and the disposition of the taxes,” ete., especially as in the “Table of Contents,” l.c., p. 61, sub
4, not а word was said with regard to the peculiar contents of this tablet. Cf. my statement in Old Penn, February 16,
1907, р. 3, col. III, below. However, in a later issue of Old Penn (February 23, 1907, р. 8, col. III), my attention was
called to a passage occurring in Clay’s “Light on the Old Testament from Babel,” р. 312, from which I learned with pleas-
ure that the true nature of the text in question was stated there. Cf. now also Jastrow, Die Rel, Bab., p. 277, note 4.
As a religious text of a similar type as those known from the Library of Ashurbánapal it is preferable to exclude this
tablet No. 4 from our present discussion,
--
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. (4
been published by him, are “records oj the handling and the disposition oj the taxes
from outlying districts about Nippur after they had been collected!” | Clay's reasons for
calling these archives Temple Archives are the following (B. E., XIV, p. 6). The
taxes are temple revenues because:
(1) Payments аге made out of the mashsharti sha ска (written E.GAL),
““temple stipend ” (XV, 47); out of the GISH.BAR.GAL bit-ili, “full tax of the house
of god” (XV, 37); to the ardu and amtu ékalli (= E.GAL), ‘‘male and female temple
servants” (ХУ, 152 : 15 and 200, III(!) : 9, 38).
(2) “Priests” (ishshaku), ‘‘the temple gateman” (a-bil babi bit-a-nu (sic), ХУ,
93), “the temple shepherd” (nägidu shá biti, XIV, 132 : 15), “the singer” (zamméru,
XIV, 6 : 4) are salaried officers.
(3) The property handled is spoken of as the possession of the god, cf. VI
(sic, read I SHU)! gur she'um GISH.BAR.GAL sha ili (NIV, 16 : 1), “60 gur of grain
of the full tax the property of the god.”
(4) The temple in these archives is usually called bitimu, ‘‘our house,” cf. VI
qur LXXXIV да SHE.BA(!) a-mi-lu-ti sha biti-nu, “УІ gur LXXXIV qa, wages
for the men of our house" (no reference given’), or simply bitu, ““house,”” cf. ipru
mûrê biti(-ti), **wages for the sons of the house" (XV, 200, 16733):
With regard to the relation of the Temple to the State, Clay, l.c., p. 6, comes
to the following conclusion:
“There is little in the documents (г.е., the Temple Archives) to show that the
revenues were collected in the interests of the State, or that the king was a bene-
ficiary, unless perhaps tablet No. 26 : 3 of Vol. XV, which reads: sha a-na SHE.BA(!)
Меррит“ й Dür-Ku-ri-Gal-zu, **which is for the maintenance of Nippur and Dür-
Ku-ri-Gal-zu." This statement is made even in view of the fact (l.c., р. 7) that
“amounts are also paid (XIV, 148), sha si-ri-bi-shu sha sharri, а-па nu-ri sha
sharri, а-па sharri.”
It was necessary to state Clay’s views about Temple Archives at some length
here, because I beg to differ from him upon important points. But before stating
my own view with regard to the character and contents of the Temple Archives,
it seems desirable to add a few words about two terms often occurring in these texts.
The chief reason why Clay did not recognize the true character and nature of
1 SHU is an abbreviation ої shü-shu = soss = 60, just as та is abbreviated from ma-na. For SH Ü cf. also B. E.,
XV, 19:20 | 73 : 15 | 149 : 44 | 154 : 45 | 199 : 29, 40, and see the later KU = rubü or “prince” among the numbers,
which shows that KU has to be read shù(shu).
з Butlsee B. Е. XV, 41 : 3.
is LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
the “Temple Archives” is to be found in the fact that he failed to see any difference
ékallu
between É.GAL **palace," sc. of the king, and Ели, ‘‘our house,"
‘‘our temple.”
ÉGAL or ékallu in our letters as well as in В. E., Vols. XIV and XV, does
not signify the temple" (Clay, В. E., XIV, p. 6; XV, p. 18, transl. of No. 7, above),
but always the ‘royal palace." This follows evidently from B. E., XV, 50—-a tablet
which I translate and interpret differently than Dr. Clay; see Lo р №, NO E
On account of its importance I may be permitted to reproduce it here in transcrip-
tion, adding to it the translation as given by Clay:
1 3 (GUR) 90 (Clay wrongly 84) (qa) 3 gur 84 qa of ashanna grain of the full
ASH.AN.NA GISH.BAR.GAL
2 m ilu X X X-is-sah-ra
tax,
Sin-issahra
ат ) В E.GAL (= ékalli)
й-зйе-15-за-ат-та
a-na "In-na-an-ni
i-na-an-din
ai" ASH.A.AN
shattu 1577"
3 (GUR) 90 (Clay again wrongly 84)
(ga) ХХХ)
(under) the seal of the temple
'arried away,
and to Innannu
he shall pay.
(Date.)
3 gur 84 qa of ashanna grain
10 ASH.AN.NA (® is-sah-ra Sin-issahra
11 ina SHE.BAR GUR LUGAL in the royal seed gur
12 Еп-Ше of Nippur [shall measure.]
13
m ilu X X X-is-sah-ra
[Seal of] Sin-issahra.
Against this translation is to be said: (1) The expression ina SHE.BAR GUR
LUGAL En-lil® (ll. 11, 12) can never mean “Чо the royal seed gur of Nippur,” but
would have to be translated, if En-lil* really does belong to the preceding line, ‘‘in (or
“according ") to the grain-measure of (а) G UR of the king of Nippur”; (2) but this
translation shows at once that Еп cannot belong to LU GAL, because, firstly, the
Cassite kings, though residing at Nippur, do not take the title ‘‘king of Nippur," and
secondly, a royal gur was every where the same, the Nippurian did not differ from that
of Babylon or Sippar; (3) the expression “DUB E.GAL u-she-is-sa-am-ma (ll. 3, 4)
can be rendered only “рег sealed order ("DUB = anything that is sealed, “letter, ”
ete.) of the É.GAL (as such to be distinguished from the DUB
’ Sin-
“order,” ‘‘decree,”
E-nu, B. E., XV, 36 : 19) he caused to go out, ” or “he caused to carry away.’
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 79
issahra comes to Innanna, the chief bursar of the Temple storehouse, with a sealed
order of the B.GAL calling for З gur and 90 qa of wheat. Innanni honors this order
at once and gives permission to Sin-issahra to have it removed, but stipulates
that the wheat is to be returned or paid back to him again. Accordingly ll. 1-8
are a “statement” of Innanni in the “form of a note of indebtedness” (Schuldschein),
and as such quite different from a simple “note of indebtedness.” (The latter
would have to read: X gur of wheat Sin-issahra has per order of the E.GAL received
(imhur) from (ina qût) Innanni. РОВ " чи X X X-issahra). But any “statement
in the form of a note of indebtedness" has, if it is to be valid, to be signed by the
debtor. Sin-issahra, being the debtor, signs it in the briefest possible way: 5
gur 90 ga of wheat Sin-issahra (sc. has received) according to the GUR(barley)-
measure of the king.—Nippur.—Sin-issahra." Taking ll. ЭН. in this sense they
contain the signature of the debtor in the form of a receipt, which makes the ‘‘state-
ment of indebtedness” a regular “note of indebtedness.” But, and this is important
here, Sin-issahra wants grain “рег order of the E.GAL,” and receipts for it as having
been given him “according to the king’s, i.e., the royal GUR.” This shows quite
clearly that in orders for the E.GAL royal measures were or had to be used, hence
É.GAL cannot be the “Temple,” but must have been the palace 0] the king. At the
same conclusion we arrive when considering sundry other passages. Cf. e.g., В. Е.,
XIV, 167 : 10, where the amount of grain designated as PAD E.GAL is differentiated
from that intended for the BÄR (= parakku) *"En-lil (1. 8), ete., ete. If, then, the
É.GAL be the “royal palace," we have to see in the karú E.GAL a “palace or royal
storehouse.” Such a storehouse is mentioned in the archives and is called karú
ASH.TAB.BA.GAN.TUG*.: Wheat which was paid at the kart ASH.TAB.BA.
GAN.TUG** is called in the closing paragraph (В. E., XV, 38c : 27), ASH.AN.NA
sha ina mah-ri-im im-hu-ru а-па ZER É.GAL падпа"; i.e., ““wheat which they
(= German ‘‘man’’) received formerly and which was given (paid) for (as) seed-
corn of the ‘palace. Again, B. E., ХУ, 96 is, as Clay correctly recognized (l.c.,
р. 22), “almost identical” with В. E., XV, 111, which was written two years later.
As both tablets are payments of salaries to various officials whose names are iden-
tical, or nearly so, in both tablets, and as the one (No. 111) mentions ASH.TAB.BA.
GAN.TUG' (1. 24) as the place where the payments to these officials were made,
while the other (No. 96 : 1, 25) informs us that it was Кап-ди-ги #4 |, we are justified
1B.E., ХУ, 135 :7, so and so much flour (ki-mw), interest (HAR.RA), a-na karú É.GAL a-na karü ASH.TAB.
BA.GAN.TUGF ^ Nu-na-ak-te ish-shi, “to the palace storehouse, i.e., to the storehouse of (or “called”) ASH.TAB.BA.
GAN.TUG Nunakte took." Cf. here also the harrán Ash-ta-ba in Bu. 91-5-9, 381 (C. T., ШІ; 37) 1.6.
2 В. E., ХУ, 38c : 1, ASH.AN.NA shá i-na karû АБН.ТАВ.ВА GAN.TUG™ GISH.BAR 5 да nadnu"”,
80 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
in identifying both: ASH.TAB.BA.GAN.TUG" is = Kan-du-ru-[ú |, maintaining
at the same time that both were a “palace storehouse.” Аз over against the E.GAL
or ''palace" (sc. of the king) the ‘“Temple” is called E.A-nu, ie., “House of
A-nu," B. Е., XV, 93: 5. Clay, B. E., XIV, p. 6, reads bit-a-nu, ‘‘our house.”
But in view of the faet that (a) such a monstrous Babylonian form—half Sumerian
and half Semitic: L.A-nu = bit-a-nu = biti-nu—would be, to say the least, very strange
for this and later periods ? (Б) that in our letter, No. 35: 15, B.A-nu is followed imme-
diately by báb A-n[u-um]; (c) that the determinative for *'god," ilu, is very often
omitted before the names of gods in these texts, I prefer to read as given above.
But in this connection it ought to be remembered that A-nu is simply the semiticized
Sumerian for Zu, signifying in each and every case the highest god of a city, whether
that god be AN or Enlil or Marduk, or whether the city be Nippur or Babylon or
Dúr-ilu, ete. In this way it happened that Enlil, the god ої Nippur, was simply
called AN (B. E., XIV, 16 :1| 132 :3, 4, 54; XV, 97 :3 | 115 : 11 | 143 :2 | 163 : 28),
and the Temple of Enlil at Nippur was termed not only É.KUR (B. E XIV, 148 : 2),
but also É.AN.KALAM.GAL, “the temple of the great god of the (Babylonian)
world" (B. E., XIV, 148 : 15, 18; XV, 34 :2), or merely ВАМ (В. Е. XIV, 24 216;
ХУ, 37:1). That this É.AN or “Gotteshaus” was indeed the temple of Enlil of
Nippur is evident from a passage in В. E., XV, 128 : 14, which mentions the É.AN(!)
En-lil® shá i-na libbi-nu, “the house of god (= temple) ої Nippur which is in our
midst." Of £his house the Nippurians speak as the E.AN E-nu, the “house of
god our temple," B. E., XIV, 159 :2, or simply as E-nu, “our temple”; see, among
other passages, also В. E., XIV, 148: 45,47; XV, 38 : 2 | 44:6 | 71 :6| 73 : 10 | 77 :5 |
79 :4| 89 : 3 | 92 : 16 | 127 :5 | 154 :21 | 168 : 26. As there was a DUB E.GAL
(B. E., XV, 50 :3) so there existed also a DUB E-nu (B. E., XV, 36 :19), as there
are mentioned ardi resp. amat E.GAL (see p. 77) so there occur also a-mi-luti
shá E-nu (B. E., XV, 41:3). All this, then, forces us to separate the E.GAL ог
ы esh sha
1 Also written Кап-ди-т-еб , see List in B. E., XV. It is also mentioned in our letters 18 : 38, [. .
Kan-du-ri-e [. .. .]it-ta-al-ku-ni [. . . .] а-па mu-uh-hi be-N-ia [ul-te-la]-a. СІ. here also kadurrü = kaddurrü = kandurü,
Delitzsch, Н. W. B., p. 319a; B. A., IV, 485, and Nagel, l.c., р. 482: (1) Frohndienst, (2) Frohnarbeiter, Leibeigener.
The city read by Clay, B. E., XV, p. 53b, She(?)-du-ru-ü-er-tu** has to be transcribed, of course, kan-du-ru-ú ау pki,
2 For other occurrences of É.GAL cf., e.g., the ardi É.GAL in letter No. 34 : 11 and В. E., ХУ, 84 : 2 | 152 : 15|
200 III :38; У : 6; amat (GIN) É-GAL, В.Е. XV, 200 II : 33, 37; III : 2, 9, 21; libittu(?) É.GAL, letter No. 50 : 11;
shá-lam-ta-shú а-па É-GA L shú-bi-lam, 59 : 4; mash-shar-ti sha É.GAL = “special fund (of 10 GUR) set aside by the
palace for the payment of certain officers or otherwise," B. E., XV, 47:1. For mashshärtu = “special fund," see p. 96, note 4.
з Cf. here also the amelu shá muh É.A-nu, i.e., “overseer of the house of god,” H., VIII, 855 : 1, and see the EN É
in B. E., XIV, 122 : 4.
+ And is differentiated from the É.GAL which precedes the B.A-nu!
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 81
““palace” from the É-nu resp. E.AN, E.A-nu or ““Temple.”* If we thus distinguish
between É.GAL and É.A-nu, the tablet published in B. E., XV, 93, becomes
of special importance. We learn from it that a certain "Ате-Ва-пи-й, who is a
a-bil babi É.A-nu, a ‘‘doorkeeper of the Temple,” i.e., а Temple official, receives
a certain amount of grain in i" K'an-du-ri-e from Innanni, the chief bursar of the
Temple storehouses during the time of Kuri-Galzu. But Kanduré was, as we saw
on p. 80, the same as ASH.TAB.BA.GAN.TUG", the “Palace storehouse’’—hence a
T'emple official is paid out of the Palace storehouse, and Innanni, the chief bursar of
the Temple storehouses, appears here also as the chief bursar of the Palace store-
house; in other words, /nnanni, the chief bursar, and Amel-Banü, the gatekeeper
of the E.A-nu, were both Temple and Palace, i.e., royal officials, otherwise Гипатия
could not have exercised authority over the royal storehouse, nor could Amel-
Banü have been paid out of it. No wonder, then, that Martuku, who succeeded
Innanni in the capacity of chief bursar of the Temple storehouses during the reign
of Nazi-Maruttash, is called in B. E., XIV, 56 :9, a-rad LUGAL, ““servant of the
king."
Is it under these conditions to be wondered at that even the king himself—
directly or indireetly— should appear as a beneficiary of the revenues of Enlil of
Nippur? In proof of our contention that the king actually was such а beneficiary
ef. the following expressions, occurring in the “Temple Archives": bil-la-ti sha
LOCA В. ВУ, о: Ве LUGAL, Te. ХУ, 33, 34; bronce а-па i-ter(hardly
shul, kar, see p. 88, note 1)-ti ^" MAR LUGAL, l.c., XIV, 124 :16; a-na LUGAL,
l.c., XIV, 148: (43), 44, 46; na-gid sha LUGAL, С ХІУ, 182 : 17; sak-shup-par
LUGAL, Lc, XV, 154 :41; a-ra-ad sharri l.c., ХУ, 199 :30; a-rad LUGAL, l.c.,
ШЕ ОС SAG LUGAR, Ге, XIV, 132. 2, CUPN NA EN LIE Ес,
XIV, 136 : 1, etc., etc. Cf. also the facts indieated on p. 79, namely, that a royal
measure (gur LUGAL) is employed in a Temple storehouse, and that Sin-issahra,
though acting as the head of the Palace storehouse of Kanduré and as such giving
grain a-na É-nu, i.e., “бо our Temple" (В. E., XV, 89 : 3), receives grain “рег order
of the Palace" (É.GAL) from Innanni, the bursar-in-chief of the Nippurian Temple
storehouses. Cf. also the ina muh LUGAL, p. 84, note 9.
This result, derived solely from the ‘Temple Archives” as published by Clay,
is more than corroborated by several passages from the letters here published.
! See here also the Ей = biti in B. E., ХУ, 200 І: 17, and the ku-tal ри, “the rear palace of the ИИ іп І.с., ХУ,
SO :11 (ef. Letters, No. 23 : 13, ku-tal; 23 : 8, ku-tal-li, and 60 : 8, zer ku-tal). An ЕМ É = bel biti occurs, e.g., in В. E.,
XIV, 122: 4. Whether this 4 means “palace,” or more probably “temple ” cannot be made out as yet with certainty.
The bel Е is, no doubt, the same as the amelu shá muh E.A-nu, cf. H., VIII, 855 : 1.
11
82 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
In Chapter III we have shown that all letters addressed to the be-l or oras
were intended for the king. Bearing this in mind I included in this collection, for
definite reasons, the peculiar tablet published under No. 60. Whosoever merely
elanced at the “Temple Archives” known from В. E., XIV, XV, will recognize a
similar doeument in the Obverse of No. 60, while the Reverse apparently is a letter
addressed to the “Lord” (be-N) or king, in which an unknown writer begs him to
command that, among other things, certain oxen of the patesi’s be brought down.'
Now, as the Obverse is a record concerning the receipt of grain (SH E) from certain
erops (har-bu) of the patesi’s, and as the Reverse contains a letter addressed to the
king, the natural inference to be drawn from this letter is that the king was the person
to whom such records had to be sent. In other words, this tablet proves that the
Temple Archives were records made and kept jor the king, as the highest official о) the
Temple oj Enlil at Nippur. The “Temple Archives," therefore, at the same time are
Royal. Archives.
What was the purpose of these archives? Kishahbut, when answering an
inquiry of king Kadashman-Turgu whether sesame-oil had been forwarded or not,
writes to his “Lord” as follows (35 : ЗО.) : ásh-shum shamnu ( = NI.GISH) sha бе-П-ла
na-shá-[ma?] il-ta-na-su а-па " Ku-du-r[a-ni] [ardi]-ka ki-i aq-bu-& um-ma-a shamnu
(=NI.GISH) i-na qáti-ia [i-din] be-N а-па shatammi ( = SHAG.T A M) li-ish-pu-ra-ma
shamnu (= МІСТЯН) shub( = RU)-ta lish-ki-nu-[ma], i.e., ‘Аз regards the sesame-
oil of my ‘Lord’ (I beg to report): ‘It has been removed’ they read, when I spoke
to Kuduräni thy servant: ‘Give the sesame-oil to me.’ My ‘Lord’ may now send
to the shatammi that they store up the oil."
The expression i-ta-na-su (P of пре?) refers here apparently to the action of
consulting a tablet recording that such and such an amount of sesame-oil had been
removed (nashi) by a certain person in the name of the king or “рег order of the
palace," “DUB É.GAL. Everything that was either received from (shá ina
qût . . . . тайги) or paid out to (shá ina libbi shá . . . . ana... . nadnu) or
removed (shá ishtu . . . . nashá) or taken away from (shá ishtu . . . . laqú) or
delivered to (shá ana . . . . shulü) or taken to (shá ana . . . . nashü, resp. гада)
the different storehouses or possessions of the Temple under royal administration
had to be faithfully recorded on tablets under the name of the donor or recipient, for
future reference (as here) or for the examination by the king, resp. his representatives.
Hence the Temple Archives primarily are “Records” embodying statements about
many things in connection with the royal administration of the Temple property ;
=>
1 No. 60 : 9, й shá alpe 5^ shá pa-te-si^*5^ . . . „ be-li li-ish-pu-ra-am-ma li-ri-id-dud. . . 4.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 83
they are “Administrative Records," more particularly “Royal Administrative
Business Records in connection with the Temple property, resp. its revenues.” Ав
such they give us an insight into the methods employed by the king, resp. his repre-
sentatives, while administering these revenues.
The action of recording a certain item under the name of a person, city, ete., or
names of persons, etc., in the so-called *"Temple Archives," is referred to in such
expressions as тт. shá ina DUB.SHA.RA'....MU "X shat-ru (B. E., XIV,
168 : 34, 43) or |хх. shá] ina DUB «һа ^"Ardi-Bélit( = GASHAN)™ shä-at-ru
(B. E., XV, 199 :37). “То record," then, is shatáru ina, and ‘‘Temple Archives"
are called DUB, resp. DUB.SHA.RA. Besides these two there occur still the
following names for “Archives,” viz., DUB shü-ma-ti* (thus especially where several
?
items are recorded under various names), or [DUB] shü-ma-a-t?, or dup-pi shü-ma-ti®,
ог dup-pi shü-ma-a-ti/ or DUB MU" or only MU”; thus apparently desig-
nated on account of the expression MU.BI.IM' = shumäti, found so often on tablets
of this character. And as we meet instead of MU.BI.IM also GISH" or za-kar(!)-tum”
we may not be wrong in saying that ‘Temple Archives" were termed also DUB
MU.BI.IM; DUB GISH"; DUB za-kartum; DUB MU.BI.* At the end of each
1 [f the document records that the items are for a certain period, say, e.g., a year, this is entered here, thus зла
shatti с ат, i.e., “for the year so and so,” cf., e.g., B.E., XIV, 168 : 33.
2Or we might transcribe DUB.SH Á.RÍ(— uru).
3 This shows clearly that Ardi-Bélit, because a tributary storehouse to that of Nippur, had to keep its own
records.
1 B. E., XIV, 168 : 55; ХУ, 199 : 33, 37, 38, 44.
5 B. Е., XIV, 168 : 22, 58.
* B. E.. XIV, 99 : 66.
1B. E., XIV, 99:31.
BER KEV, 168 : 17:
з Afn-bi-A-a-ri writes to the chief bursar Innanni, 85 :8, SHE.BA М0"! а-па т 3v X X X-is-sah-ra i-di-in,
“the wages for those persons (= МО") give to Sin-issahra,” i.e., the wages as recorded on the tablet giving the
“names” of the persons hand over to Sin-issahra; во, no doubt, better than shu'atu, because in business cransactions
the amount of wages must always be specified. But the specification was to be found on a tablet containing the M тезі
= MU.BI.IM or “names.” See p. 116, note 6.
10 See В. E., XIV; ХУ passim. For MU.BI.IM we have also MU.BI, e.g., В.Е., XIV, 51, 1.
LEBTEN У, 50122)
EI DANIEL) евр
13 Of. here also the interesting variant in B. E., XV, 59:12, SHE.HAR.RA GISH-rum(!) which corresponds
to lc., ll. 1, 2, SHE.HAR.RA .... GISH, hence GISH. = GISH-rum = zikarum" "" = za-kar-tum.
и Cf, here also the MU.NE.NE in Cassite Tablets published by Е. Peiser, e.g., Р. 89 : 15; P. 100 : 6 (І. 5 only,
MU.NE).
54 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
year, 1.е., either in the second! (so most generally), or the last,? or the sixth,’ in other
words, around the end of the first resp. sixth month, the different heads of the store-
houses or of the possessions (e.g., flocks, ete.) of the Temple were required, it seems,
to make their yearly! reports, 2.e., “Чо draw the balance of accounts” (epésh nikasi,’
resp. ri-ha-a-nu sha DUB.SH AR"*") or ‘аке the inventory" of the stock (mi-nu
зла) in the presence of (shá ú-kin-nu) a royal(!) official, either the ™™SAG LUGAL*
or the GU.EN.N A, i.e., sheriff, of Nippur, when they (the shepherds or other parties
1 Cf. B. E., NIV, 57, SHE GISH.BAR 6 aa shá i-na libbi te-li-ti shá shatti 19kam ilu Na. 2i-Mu-ru-ut-ta-ásh. i-na
Za-rat-IM*! а-па pa-te-sib'-@ nadnu™, but dated, 1. 35, *"^"GUD.SI.S] зћаџи 138, В. E., XV, 23 : 7, ak-lu ishtu
а вис (72.81.87 sha shatti Skam adi ?""GUD.SI.S] shá shatti дат, В. B., XV, 25:6, ak-lu GISH.BAR SHE.BA
ishtu "LUGU D(shá)shatti am adi "QU D(shá)shatti 10ка", B. E, XV, 28 :1, SHE ASH.AN.NA shatti 11(1)**"*, but
dated 1, 12, ? ^U D.SI.SI shattu 12%”, See here also В. E., ХТУ, 133:10,ak-lu 19 ( Clay’s copy is wrong and misleading)
ати ishtu йті 1а" shá ачр 51.8) shá shatti 6*9" adi ата 30° shá “EBA R.ZAG.GAR shatti тат, The dup-pi
ri-ki-ish-ti (B. E., XIV, 42) was drawn up at the end of the year, ¿.e., at the time of the epésh nikasi. Here probably
belong also tablets like В. Е., XIV, 48 : 20 | 52 : 1 | 80а : 9; B. E., ХУ, 112:9. In view of these examples it is most
likely that also at the time of the kings of Ur the yearly epésh nikasi did not take place in the first ("^ SHE.]L.LA)
but in the second (“СА М.М ASH) month—just as at our present times, when the books resp. their accounts are bal-
anced in February. Dr. Myhrman informs me that he has definite proofs which show that not GAN. MASH but SHE.
ТЪГА was the first month of the year at the time of the kings ої Ur. GAN.MASH is mentioned so prominently in
the tablets of the Ur dynasty because it was, as second month, that of the epésh nikasi. See Dr. Myhrman's forthcoming
volume.
з B. E., XIV, 58 : 51, so and so much shá ishtu "EUBAR shá shatti 1389. adi @EUSHE.KIN.KUD shá shatti 13*a7
. nadnu?". Cf. here tablets like B. E., XIV, 124 : 18; B. E., XV, Nos. 12, 52, 53, 119, 120, 130. In B. E., XIV,
123a : 2 the copyist (Clay) must have made some mistakes. While we read l.c., 1. 13, naphar 13 ma-na 195 TU (sc.
URUDU) ZI.GA MU 8(!)*“™, the copy reads in ll. 1, 2, URUDU ZI.GA . . . . ishtu “®“KIN (so the traces given)
shá shatti т бет adi "НЕ shá shatti 860. According to this the ZI.GA would extend over a space of one and a
half years—a thing absolutely impossible and against 1. 13 where the Z/.GA is only for the Sth year; hence read in 1. 2,
ishtu ИВА R(!) shá shatti 8(1)Кат adi “2“SHE shá shatti SEM,
3 В. Е. ХУ, 16 : 10, ak-lum . . . . ishtu “EKIN shá shatti 4kam adi “LUKIN shá shatti кат, dated, 1. 13,
arhug [N-I'4Thnanna. йти 29т shattu 584" һепсе the last month excluded. В. E., XV, 10 : 11, ¿shtu ати p N-itu
Innanna shá shatti 1%? adi "ЗИМЕ GAR «һа shatti 2*9". i.e., both months included.
1 For half-yearly reports see, e.g., B.E., XIV, 56a: 31, ishtu ^""DUL.AZAG adi "ВВА КЛАС САВ. В.В. ХУ,
111 : 1, ishtu ^" DUL.AZAG shá shatti 20**" adi "ИВА R.ZAG.GAR shá shatti 21kam. i.e., the last month excluded,
cf. 1. 23; so also 1.с., 96 : 1. But B. E., XIV, 117 : 1, ishtu arb" [)U [, adi ^" SH E, i.e., bothincluded. B.E., XIV, 91a :2,
ishtu ^'^" BA В adi "Ви КАМ shá shatti ЗТ, i.e., the last month included. For quarterly reports cf. e.g., B.E., XV, 7 : 10,
ishtu ^" ASH.A.AN ай *'GUD.SI [SI].
5 СЕ. Letters No. 56 : 28, ù at-ta [NIG].SHIT-shú(?) e-pu-ush-ma,; 92 : 26, й NIG.SHIT-ni it-ti a-ha-mi-ish i ni-pu-
ush-ma; B. E., XIV, 99: 36, VIG.SHIT ip-shü; l.c., 140 : 4, ishtu NIG.SHIT-shü ip-shii; l.c., 168: 23; i-na NIG.SHIT
shá знані 159"; В. E., XV, 39 : 16, i-na NIG.SHIT KU.DA ul id-di-in shú-ú i-pal.
S" DB S XIV, 136.21.
7B. E., XIV, 99 :1 | 99a : 46 | 132 : 1.
5 B. E., XIV, 132 :-1, [mi-nu LIT.GUD| ù GANAM.LUF-“ shá i-na shatti 6°" Shá-ga-ra-ak-ti-Shur-
iá( = abnu)-ásh ["Amel(?) 4] Marduk *"*'"SAG.LUGA L ú-kin-nu-ma. Cf. р. 134.
з В. Е. XIV, 136 : 1, ri-ha-a-nu shá РОВ.ЅНА В"! зра NIN.ANMESh sha ™Amel-''“Marduk GU.EN.NA
En- 1%] i-na ОТРИ NE shá shatti 9" Shá-ga-ra-ak-ti-Shur-ia-ásh. i-na muh LU[GA L]ui-kin-nu. For the signification of
GU.EN.NA = sheriff, see “Translations,” pp. 133f. Notice the ina muh LUGAL = “for (in place of) the King."
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 85
concerned) had to testify to the truth of their statements' before “Сор” (AN =
Ен). This having been done the ''records" were sent to ““headquarters,” t.e.,
to Nippur. For how could it possibly happen, 1 ask, that, e.g., a document like
that of B. E., XIV, 37, was found in Nippur—a document which records how much
erain (SHE) was received (mah-rum) and stored up (tab-ku) in the storehouse (1-па
kará) of Bu-un-na-"Marduk" during the 22d year of Kuri-Galzu? Surely,
the fact that this document was excavated in Nippur shows that the ‘‘head”’ of the
storehouse at Bunna-Marduk had to make his report and send it to Nippur. In
this connection our letter published under No. 76 is especially interesting. In it
the father asks his son, ‘‘Send the report to the ‘lord of the barley’,” 1.е., the store-
house official, “in order that I may send my report to the ‘Lord (be-el) 222 No better
evidence than the one contained in this letter could be expected to establish our conten-
?
tion that the archives are ‘‘administative records." Or, I ask again, why should В. E.,
XIV, 65, have been dug up in Nippur, seeing that that tablet states the amount
of grain (SHE) which Apil-Rammän has removed (ish-sha-a) by means of ships
(i-na “*M A) from (ish-tu) Du-un-ni-A-hi*'? And again the answer has to be:
It is a “record” of the expenditures in connection with the storehouse in Dunni-
Ahr“ during the first month of the 15th year of Nazi-Maruttash which had been
forwarded to headquarters. In this wise it happened that we found among these
‘Temple Archives” so appallingly many documents which apparently came from
other places than Nippur? Nippur, therefore, must have been the central ‘‘record-
ing office," the executive department of the administration of the Temple properties
under royal supervision. Such documents, thus forwarded and excavated in Nippur,
cannot but be records (yearly, half-yearly, ete., as the case might be) of the receipts,
resp. expenditures of grain, ete., in connection with the particular “depot” or
“storehouse” from which they come; in other words, they are business records giving
us an insight into the administration of the several *'depots" or “‘storehouses’’ connected
with that of the Nippurian Temple under the chief supervision of the Cassite kings;
they are administrative business records of the Temple properties, resp. Из revenues,
made and kept for the king.
These administrative records, having arrived at and been received by the executive
1 More particularly to three things: (а) shá pi ( — KA) ki-ni (= col. 1); (b) [shá а-па e-s]i-ri nadnu"" (resp. shá а-па
e-si-ri kun-nu, col. II); (c) й RI.RI.GA na-gid”esh а-па рап (—SHI) AN (= ili = Enlil) ish-pu-ru (resp. shá а-па mah-ri
AN shap-ru, col. III), B. E., XIV, 132. Notice that amounts of cols. II + Ш are= col. I!
2 See below, under “Translations,” p. 144.
3 Cf. here the “List of Places” as given in В. E., XIV, ХУ, and notice that Innanni, the ehief bursar of. Nippur,
had authority not only over the Nippurian Temple storehouses, but also over all those mentioned above, Chapter I (p. 2
note 13); yes, even over the karú E.GAL, ASH,TAB.BA,GAN,TUG, resp. Kanduré; see рр. 51, 110.
S6 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
department in Nippur, had necessarily to have a place where they could be deposited
for future reference, resp. for inspeetion by the king or his representatives. This
place was the Е "РОВ or also called Е ku-nu-uk-ki; resp. É DUB shá É.GAL;
where they have been excavated by the Babylonian Expeditions of the University
of Pennsylvania. And as Hill VI (Hilprecht, В. E., Ser. D, Vol. I, p. 305, Plan of
the Ruins ої Nuffar) represents the place where all the * "Temple Archives”, together
with the letters here published, have been found, there is nothing which might prevent
us from identifying the ruins of Hill VI with the """DUB shá E.GAL, so called
because the E.GAL or “Palace,” resp. its occupant, the be-li or king, had to administer
the temporal affairs, resp. earthly possessions, of the ‘Temple of Enlil at Nippur.”
This he did either personally or through his trusted servants, the arad LUGAL (cf.
Матићи, the ‘‘servant of the king," who is the chief bursar at the time of Nazi-
Maruttash, В. E., NIV, 56 : 8). Now we also understand the reason why the Cas-
site kings of this period very often ascribe to themselves the title which precedes all
others—even that of ‘‘king of Shumer and Akkad,” resp. that of **king of the four
corners of the world "—the title GI R. МГГА or shakkanakku “Enlil.
! B. Е. XIV, 101: 6. Cf. Letter 84 : 7, 10, p. 114.
? В. E, ХУ, 53:12. Notice in this connection the а-па En-lil® after É ku-nu-uk-ki, thus showing that this
building was indeed situated in Nippur.
з B. E., XIV, 124 : 6.
+ Cf., e.g., the inscriptions ої Kuri-Galzu (sihru) in I R., 4, XIV, Nos. 1-3; Winckler, К. B., ПИ, p. 154a-c. For
other occurrences of shakkanakku see, e.g., Gudea, Cylinder B, VII : 20; VIII : 7; Statue B, IV :13; E. B. H., p. 255,
note 12 (AN-Mu-ta-bil the shakkanakku ој Dür-ilu**), and Hinke, В. E., Ser. D, Vol. IV, pp. 312a, 173. For the read-
ing of the ideogram GIR.NITA (not NER.ARAD) see Thureau-Dangin, Z. A., XV, p. 46f. With GIR.NITA is
closely connected the well-known official title GIR, so often found in tablets from the second dynasty of Ur. In my
E. B. Н., p. 424, І said: “The GIR seems to have been an officer resembling very much a ‘quartermaster.’ Не had to
look after the food of the royal officers as well as that of the priests, and even of the royal flocks." This will now have
to be modified. The СІР who figures so conspicuously in the Ur tablets was what we might call an “auditor,” опе
who had to approve the expenditures, resp.receipts, mentioned in those tablets, who had to “O. К.” them—put, so to speak,
his seal to them. Such a function of an “auditor” was also exercised by Innanni and his suecessors as chief bursars of
the Nippurian Temple storehouses. This is evident not only from the “checkmarks,” but also from such tablets as
В. E., ХУ, 1 and 2; Le., ХУ, $ and 9; Lec., 23 and 25. Clay, who translated the first two mentioned, thinks that they
were “salary payments," adding, “in this class of tablets the seal impression of, another is frequently made upon the
document, evidently by an officer who recorded the payment or delivered the goods mentioned" (B. E., XV, p. 19;
cf. B-E., NIV, p. 14). This latter explanation contains the reason why Clay misunderstood the character of the tablets
just mentioned. The seal found on a tablet always proves that the person to whom the seal belongs was the debtor, was
the one who
с
“received” the amount specified in the tablet. Payments of salary at the time of the Cassite kings were
well regulated, as is apparent from, e.g., B. E., XIV, 58. If B. E., XV, 1,2 were, as Clay claims, such payments of salary,
there would be, at least in Innanni's case, no regulation whatever; ¿.e., the so-called salary received by Innanni for the
fifth day of the first month (B. E., XV, 2) would be completely out of proportion to that received for the period extending
from the first day of the tenth to the fourth day of the first month (В. Е., ХУ, 1). No,not salary payments are those tablets,
nor do they indicate that payments had to be or were made to Innanni. They are nothing but Anweisungen, or “cheques”
or “drafts” on certain storehouses endorsed by the chief bursar; they were “bills” “O. K."-ed by Innanni. When some
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 87
From the position the Cassite kings hold in relation to the administration of
Enlil’s earthly possessions, it is at once evident that shakkanakku cannot be derived,
with Delitzsch and others who follow him, from “sha? + “kanakku’” and be trans-
lated “Verschliesser, Thürhüter, Vorsteher, Machthaber” (Deliztsch, H. W. B., p. 338a),
or ‘‘the one of the door" (Jensen, Z. A., VII, р. 174, 1), but that it must be taken
as standing for “sha” + “kanáku” (= qanáqu), i.e., “the one who exercises the function
of the ‘sealing,’ one who ‘seals,’ the man of the ‘seal’ of Enlil.” The Cassite kings
of this period, then, are the authoritative representatives о) Enlil, through whom
Enlil, ‘‘the king of heaven and earth,” exercises his power and his authority, through
whom he administers his kingdom, through whom he shepherds and feeds his people
— they are “the food of the people, the platter of man." Nothing could be done,
nothing could be either removed from or be added to the possessions of Enlil, except
the king first gave his authorization (seal); and if the king did, Enlil acted through
and by him. The king's approval is Enlil’s seal and authority. In this sense the
Cassite king, as shakkanakku of Enlil, was but the earthly representative of his eod
—a representative whose business it was to administer and ‘‘regulate the tithes of
É.KUR and Nippur.”” Now, as the ‘Temple Archives," 7.e., the Archives of the
Temple É.KUR, the sanctuary of Enlil of Nippur, concern themselves with the
administration of Enlil’s possessions, and as the king as shakkanakku “Enlil has to
seal, to approve them, it follows that these ‘Temple Archives” are at the same time
governor or other person sent his mär shipri to the chief bursar with the request that certain amounts of grain or certain
cattle were to be given to the writer, the chief bursar, after having satisfied himself that the request was justified, sat down,
wrote an Anweisung to the storehouse, stating what was to be given to the bearer of the draft or Anweisung (who in this
case was Ше mdr shipri), at the same time “endorsing ” it (that it was “O. К) by putting his name toit. The head of the
storehouse, not knowing the már shipri, thus not being sure that the things asked for would fall into the right hands, asked
for identification. The mdr shipri identified himself by producing the endorsed or “О. K."-ed draft of the chief bursar.
Whereupon he (the má» shipri) received the goods, but had to give up the draft, which now insured the head of the
storehouse against any loss or fraud, for he (the head) could cover the expenditure with the certified draft of the chief bursar.
These drafts, together with the DUB MUMesh to which they belong, were sent to the executive department and, after
having been examined, were deposited in the В DUB. In case where such a draft bears the “seal” of a certain
person, this seal proves that person, thus represented by it, to be the one who “had actually received” the goods speci-
Sed in the tablet or draft, and served thus as a safeguard not only for the chief bursar, but also as a means of preventing
the head of a storehouse from “cheating —from saying that certain goods had been delivered to a certain party, while
in fact they were not—for the head of a storehouse might possibly imitate an endorsed draft, but he could not very
well imitate a “seal impression.” Lastly, the “recipient” by putting his seal on the draft could not venture to deny
the receipt of the goods, which he otherwise might possibly do by saying that the head of the storehouse had delivered
the goods to another party or had forged the “draft.” Cf. in this connection the interesting passa ge in 83 : 35, 36, where
Innanni is threatened with an accusation, “thou hast given to Már-Tádu (1.е., to another person) an order on my barley.’
“To give to somebody an order on something” means at this time “ushshuru а-па "X. i-na libbi xx.”
1 No. 24 : 5.
Sa-dar DI.KA (! = satuk) É.KUR ù ЕМ ЛИР, Hinke, В. E., Ser. D, IV, p. 144, II : 3.
55 LETTERS ТО CASSITE KINGS
Royal Archives; hence the Ё “DUB is at the same time an Ё "DUB зра E.GAL,
because it contained the official administrative documents о) the Temple as approved,
sealed by the king.
Right here some one may object that the Е “"“DUB, resp. the В мр В
shá E.GAL, if certain passages of В. E., XIV and XV, and Letter No. 84 are taken
into consideration, was used also for ““storechouse”” purposes. Upon closer observa-
tion this objeetion will be found to be of no avail. In B. E., XIV, 104 :3 we read
of a certain amount of butter (NI.NUN) belonging to the NIN.A[N™*"] shá i-na
shatti 13” Ka-dash-man-Tur-gu "Irim-shu-"NIN.IB im-hur-ma а-па В "= ОВ
ü-she-ri-bu а-па 4 УРА (2) sha-pi-ik, “which Irim-shu-NIN.IB received in (during)
the 13th year of Kadashman-Turgu and which he (they?) caused to bring to the
É "DUB, having it put up (or putting it up) in 4 SAG-jars." В. E., XIV, 124 : 61.
informs us of two amounts of bronze (erd) which "Ilu-MU.TUG.A-ri-ma receives
(ma-hi-ir). The first of these amounts is specified as shá Ё "РОВ shá E.GAL shu-
us-si shu-sa-a, i.e., ‘‘which the É DUB «Ла E.GAL caused to go (1.е., sent) out,”
and the other as coming shá qût " Na-ah-zi-""Marduk, “рег order of Nahzi-Marduk."
Both amounts were received а-па i-ter(?)-t? "МАВ LUGAL “as an indemnity for
the royal wagons (chariots).” В. E., ХУ, 53 : 11f. mentions wheat flour (ZID.DA
ASH.AN.NA) «һа Е ku-nu-uk-ki а-па En-lil" ish(? or na?)-shú-ú, “Әле to (or
belonging to) the Е .ku-nu-uk-ki (and which) they brought to Nippur." Finally
Letter No. 84 : 5f. contains the following exhortation addressed to Innanni: “та-
an-nu SHE.GISH.NI |i-is-hu-tu-ü-ma NI.GISH а-па Е “DUB li-she-ri-bu à
at-ta SHE.GISH.NI-ka su-hu-ut-ma NI.GISH a-na Е "DUB shü-ri-ib,” i.e.,
АП who press out sesame must bring oil (in)to the Е "DUB, therefore press out
thy sesame and bring the oil (in)to the ID) NE
Examining these passages we find that B. E., XV, 53, is an administrative
record (having been forwarded to Nippur from Za-rat-IM"), which enumerates
the expenditures in wheat made during the course of a year, being therefore dated
from the 29th day of the 12th month. At the end of the regular expenditures two
additional notes are added, one of which, quoted above, implies that the E ku-nu-
uk-ki at some previous time must have sent orders to Zarat-IM " that they
(=German ‘‘man’’) take wheat flour to Nippur. The E ku-nu-uk-ki here apparently
denotes as much as “the head of the Ё ku-nu-uk-ki,” and is as such exactly parallel
to our “such and such a house has ordered these and those goods.” The same is
1 For i-ter-tum, “indemnity,” see Hilprecht, B. E., IX, 41 : 7, e-ter-ti i-nam-din-w' а-па, “shall pay an indemnity
10:4
2 Cf. here p. 114, notes 3, 4.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 89
true of B. E., XIV, 124, where the Е “"“DUB shá E.GAL, i.e., the head of the
house mentioned, shussi shusá the bronze. These two passages, then, show that
orders were sent out from the Ё DUB to certain men or branch storehouses.’
But this could be done only if the Ё “DUB of Nippur was a building containing
the administrative and executive department of the various branch storehouses con-
nected with the Temple of Nippur. From here orders were sent out for the delivery
of goods to this building, and, after having arrived there, they were distributed
to wheresoever it was found necessary. It served, therefore, as a kind of a central
clearing house, which again is paralleled at our present day by the fact that a great
business corporation, such as the Temple of Enlil must have been, has likewise a
central clearing. house which is generally connected with the main office or executive
department. In this sense B. E., XIV, 104, and Letter No. 84 have to be under-
stood. Isit under these circumstances at all surprising that in this central executive
office, from which the manifold possessions of the Temple of Enlil were administered,
letters should be found which were addressed to the administrator-in-chief, the
representative of Enlil, the be-N or king?
We had to find such documents in this building, because each and every corre-
spondence carried on about the administration, resp. methods in connection with
the administration of Enlil's property, had necessarily to be addressed (a) either
to the highest official, 1.е., the king as “shakkanakku о) Enlil," or (b) to the king's
representative, i.e., his chief bursar, etc. And, if so, we had to find a correspondence
i.e., between officials outside of Nippur and the
)
also between ''officials and officials,
king's representatives at Nippur. Both classes of correspondence are represented:
Nos. 1-74 contain letters addressed to the king, and Nos. 76ff. are those addressed
to the king’s representatives in one capacity or another. With these facts before us,
the title of this volume, ''Letters to the Cassite Kings," 1s not only justified, but is,
in fact, the only proper one.
But the question may be asked, and quite rightly, how have we to aecount
for the fact that letters written by the several kings themselves were recovered
from this É “РОВ «һа E.GAL, which was, as has been claimed, е adminis-
trative department (of the king as highest executive officer) of the Temple of Enlil?
'Then, again, numerous scientific, historic and religious texts, such as omens, hymns,
prayers, incantations, ete., have been found in this ‘‘administrative building (resp.
buildings connected with each other)." How, I ask, can we account for the presence
of such texts in the É """DUB shá E.GAL? А comprehensive answer to the latter
! Resp. that the heads of the storehouses sent their “orders” to the “central” office at Nippur to have them
“filled? see No. 45, pp. 142f.
12
90 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
question will be given when the several classes of texts will be published. At the
present only this much: At the time of the Cassite kings the É """DUB shá É.GAL
emibraced in its walls the administrative resp. the executive department о) the Temple,
by which and through which the shakkanakku ""Enlil, the king, governed and
officially directed both the temporal and the spiritual affairs of the worshippers of
Enlil. In this wise it happened that the Û ®“™DUB shá E.GAL became the ‘‘Min-
isterium" with its different departments—administrative, religious, educational —as
such containing tablets which are either ‘‘administrative records" (Temple Ar-
chives) or religious (Temple Library) or educational (Temple Library and Temple
School) in charaeter. This I maintain in the face of and notwithstanding the
clamor of certain men who, on account of their inability to read and interpret cunei-
form inscriptions or who on account of their lack of acumen to discern between the dif-
ferent classes of texts, can, in the ruins of Hill VI", not see anything but a ‘‘kitchen
midden,” and in the tablets there excavated, but so much * dried mud,” “роівһегав,”
*'dead, meaningless, insignificant bricks."
The tablets recovered from the É """DUB shá É.GAL form thus an exact
parallel to those found in the rightly famous Library of Ashshur-bán-apal. To
uncover here a// the various parallels with regard to the several classes of texts would
lead me too far, and is, in fact, beyond the scope of these introductory remarks. How-
ever, as we are concerned with the “Letters” of the É “DUB «Ла É.GAL, I
may be permitted to compare these briefly with those of the К. Collection, i.e.,
with those letters which form an integral part of the Royal Library of Ashshur-bán-
apal.
1. Though we find in Ashshur-bän-apal’s Library? some letters that are addressed
to the ''prince" TUR LUGAL; ““princess,” TUR.SAL LUGAL, or “queen
mother," JM LUGAL; by far the greater number are written to the “KING,”
LUGAL. Of the one hundred and three letters here published seventy-eight" are
addressed to the be- or king.
2. In the Library of Ashshur-bän-apal, Royal Library as it undoubtedly was,
we also find a correspondence between officials; thus we meet with letters addressed
! Situated on the west side of the Shatt-en-Nil; see Hilprecht, В. E., Ser. D, I, p. 305, Plan of the Ruins of Nuffar.
* Here I take into consideration only those letters which are designated as “К,” omitting the D. T., Bu., and
all other collections.
з Cf. К. 641 (H., I, 10); К. 629 (H., I, 65); К. 1101 + К. 1221 (Н., II, 152); К. 614 (H., П, 175); К. 589 (H.,
II, 187); K. 1048 (H., II, 189); K. 1303 (H., V, 500).
+ К. 476 (H., I, 54).
5 К. 478 (Н. III, 254); К. 825 (H., III, 263); К. 523 (H., III, 324); К. 980 (H., VI, 569).
* Nos. 1-74 + 33a, 59a, 60a, 73a.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 91
to the (a) “""ENGAR! or ikkaru, originally “farmer,” here probably a high
official; (Б) *""[A.B]A КОВ» Secretary of the State”; (с) “А ВА EGAL,
“secretary of the Palace"; (d) “уй É.GAL, “major domo”; (е) “= И?
or sukkallu, ''ambassador"; (f) ITI’ or abbarakku; (9) "*GAL.SAG” or
rab-shaq; (h) """" EN.N А М? or bel paháti, “governor”; (i) amelu shá muh Е А-ти,
“тап who is over the house of God,” i.e., “Ше Temple superintendent." In the
administrative department of the Temple under the Cassite kings we also have a
correspondence between “Temple resp. State officials." If it be objected to
my including such letters into a volume ostensibly called “Letters to the Cassite
Kings," І ask my would-be critics why they do not object to calling the Library of
Ashshur-bän-apal a Royal Library, seeing that it includes not only a correspondence
between “officials and officials" but even such unmistakably “private” documents"
as letters from " “AG-EN-shu-nu to "Ashshur-mu-dam-me-ik? ; from "Um-
ma-ni-ia to **A-ma--gu-nu,? “his brother’ (SHESH-shu); from ” *“Nergal-
SHESH-ir to " "“AG-ú-shal-lim,” “his brother’ (SH ESH-shu) ; from ” "WEN -ü-
HU to "Ku-na-a,* “his father" (AD-shu); from "МОМА to ” ""Nergal-
SH ESH-ir^; from ” A-qar-[" E N-lu-mur| to "EN-ib-n?*; from an unknown writer
to ” ®«PA-IK-shi and last, but not least, a letter to "X X X-man-nu-GAR-. . . .]
from "ХХХ-КАК- тј“ ‘thy servant" (ardi-ka), ete.’ If it be not objected
! K. 568 (H., I, 4); K. 1197 (H., I, 15); K. 1049 (H., I, 38); K. 113 (H., II, 183); K. 112 (H., II 223); K. 13,000
(H., III, 332); K. 88 (H., VIII, 816).
ZUR БА (Ее 1, 62); К. 175 (EDS Ш, 221);
з К. 1274 (H., II, 220).
“К. 485 (Н. I, 112).
5 К. 1070 (H., I, 70); К. 655 (H., II, 132); К. 986 (H., VIII, 844).
К. 910 (H., II, 145).
1 K. 597 (H., ПІ, 283).
5 K. 1376 (H., VIII, 830).
9 K. 1226 (H., VIII, 855).
10 Cf. Nos. 76-99.
п Private(!), because both the writer and the addressee appear in these letters without any titles whatsoever.
2 К. 1396 (H., II, 185).
2 К. 831 (H., II, 214).
н Cf. above, Part II, p. 14, note 3.
15 K. 1228 (H., III, 229). Cf. K. 830 below, note 18.
1 К. 1239 (H., П, 219).
1 Cf. our Letter No. 76, which is written by a “father” to his “son,” p. 144.
в К. 830 (H., V, 527). СЕ. К. 1228 above, note 15,
? K. 1158 (H., VIII, 854).
Ke 578 (Н., ПТ, 273):
21 К. 585 (H., У, 523).
a Cf. К. 186 (H., II, 222),
92 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
to such apparently ‘‘private’ letters forming part ої a Royal Library, it need not
worry us to have ineluded in our volume of “Letters to the Cassite Kings" twenty-four
specimens representing а correspondence between officials and officials.
Q
3. But the most remarkable of all is that there have been found in the Library
of Ashshur-bän-apal letters—decerees— written either by himself or by other kings.
We have ‘‘royal decrees” (a-mat LUGAL а-па) бо “ће Nippurians" (EN.
LI[L*-a]'; to “the people of the sea country, old and young, my servants"
(emeu таи ат-ит-а-а mw A B. B Д тез. u TUR” агдетее-та)?; to “the Gambulzans”’
("*"Gam-bu-la-a-a) ; to “the Rasheans, old and young" (me "i"Ra-sha-q-g,
ane A B. В Ano u sih( =N E)-ru-ú-ti)*; to ‘‘Shadu and the people of Erech, old and
young, my - servants” ("Sha-du u У ОМ Об ен RAB BALE ао nsus
^
атаб" ла)“ ; to **Nabu- . . . . and the people of Erech, old and young, my servants’
(n AGT. оте (TN UGE meh атеш A Б Ame TUR Orden Ta) бод HUNE Dg
(or КАК); to " “ХХ X-tab-ni-usur (= ЗНЕЗН)?; to " '" AG-ibash( = IK)-shv ; to
"A -shi-pa-a" ; to " ' EN-étir (= SHUR)"; фо " "X V-[ná' id (= Г]; to "Zéru-&-[a]* ;
and last, but not least, a royal decree to ‘‘the *Not-Babylonians' " (a-mat LUGAL
а-па la *"*" DIN T ER"), We furthermore find in this Library royal “orders” (or
decrees, a-bit LUGAL а-па) to “the Babylonians” (чик А DIN сш ее eo
т uP A-shar( = MAN)-ahé( = PAP)"*-shu”; to the ““queen-mother” (SAL АМ
sharri (= MAN)"; to "Man-nu-ki-""IM® ; to "A-shi-pa-a” ; to " ““PA-dir( = BAD)-
“Ко 94 (в. II) 287):
2K. 313 (H., III, 289).
$ K. 1054 (H., ПІ, 293).
К. 1139 (НІ. TIT, 295).
5 Cf. К. 5457 (H., VII, 754).
* K. 1162 (H., III, 296); cf. 83-1-18, 27 (H., V, 518).
7 К. 1271 (H., ПІ, 297).
$ K. 95 (H., IIl, 288); K. 828 (H., III, 291); K. 938 (H., III, 292). Cf. also 67-4-2, 1 (H., IV, 399); 82-5-22,
97 (H., IV, 400); 83-1-18, 31 (H., IV, 402).
9 K 824 (Н. ПТ 290).,
9 Қ. 1085 (H., ПІ, 294); ef. 82-5-22, 91 (H., У, 517).
п К. 1883 (H., ПІ, 298); cf. a-bit LUGAL а-па "A-shi-pa-a, К. 592 (H., ПІ, 305).
2 К. 18135 (H., ІШ, 299):
із К. 13154 (Н., ПІ, 300); cf. a-bit LUGAL а-па ** X V-nàá'id (= Г), S. 1942 (H., IV, 417).
и 83-1-18, 30 (H., IV, 401).
5 Bu. 91-5-9, 210 (H., IV, 403). Though numbered “Bu.” this tablet undoubtedly belonged originally to the
K. Collection.
в К. 84 (H., ПІ, 301).
и К. 96 (H., III, 302).
18 К. 486 (H., ІП, 303).
Wake SSS (EL, 111.304):
2 К. 592 (H., ПІ, 305); cf. a-mat LUGAL а-па "A-shi-pa-a, К. 1883 (H., III, 298).
A
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 93
usur (= PAP)'; nay even an “order” of a ““princess” to ! ““Ashshur-sharrat (a-bit
TUR.SAL LUGAL а-па SAL “SH AG( = libbu).ER-shar-rat)? and a letter of a
“prince” (IM TUR LUGAL) to the """Sha-na-?. How have we to account for the
presence of royal letters in a Royal Library? Did Ashshur-bän-apal extend his
activity in procuring the best and choicest specimens of Babylonian and Assyrian
literature as far as to have his scribes copy even royal letters? Or are we to suppose
that those royal decrees have never been delivered to the various addressees, thus
happening to be found in this Library, to which they really do not belong? Or, if
they had been delivered, have we to maintain that it was customary to have copies'
made of letters like these, and have those copies deposited in a Library, so that
the king could “keep track” of his various orders and decrees? Or, lastly, did the
messengers to whom these decrees had been entrusted go and communicate them
to the several addressees and, after having read them to the persons named, bring
them back with them and deposit them for future reference in the Royal Library
of Ashshur-bán-apal? How, I ask again, could such royal letters possibly be found
in a royal library? Whatever reply we may make to these questions, the same with
equal force holds good of the royal letters—one or possibly two of which (Nos. 75
and 93) have been published here—to be found among the administrative records of
the Temple under royal supervision. And as long as there is no objection made to
the fact that the Royal Library of Ashshur-bán-apal тау(!), as it actually does,
include in its collection of documents both an official and private correspondence,
just so long will I be justified in maintaining that the letters here published form a
part, small and fragmentary though it be, of that collection of tablets now known
as “Temple Archives," which with the tablets of the Temple Library and the Temple
School constitute the contents of the E ™“DUB shá É.GAL, or simply Ё "РОВ, the
bit tapshuhti,’ “the place of the appeasing’ of Enlil.
1 К. 622 (Н., ПІ, 306).
? К. 1619 В (Н., ІШ, 308).
* R. M. 72 (H., ТУ, 430), probably belonging to Ashshur-bän-apal’s Library.
* Cf. here above, Chapter III, for the several copies to be found among the Amarna Letters, sce p. 57, note 2.
5 Cf. К. 11,174 (= B. A., V, p. 634), Rev. Il. 13, 14.
* Г.е., then as now the favor of a god can be obtained only by contributing freely, in the form of tithes and taxes,
towards the maintenance of the worship, ritual, and priesthood of the great Erlil of Nippur. A god can be appeased
only by offerings—for the benefit of his (the god's) priests.
94 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
M:
TRANSLATION OF SOME SPECIMEN LETTERS.
In order to illustrate more fully the general eharacter of the letters here pub-
lished I may be permitted to submit a few of them in transcription and translation,
adding such critical notes as might be found necessary to elucidate their contents
more clearly. While in the autograph plates the letters have been arranged alpha-
betically according to the names of the writers, I have followed here the, no doubt,
more scientific method of giving them in their historical sequence.
Г.
No. 23 (= С. В. М. 11,090). (СГ. photographic reproduction, Pl. У, 12, 13.)
Imgurum, a royal official stationed at Dür-Kuri-Galzu, reports to his “Lord,” King
Burna-Buriash, about the affairs in connection with the administration of his
offiee. About 1430 B.C.
The author of this letter, Imgurum, has to be identified not only with the writer
of No. 22; but also with the addressee ”/m-gu-r1 of No. 79 :1, a contemporary of
the slave-dealer ” "En-LlI-ki-di-ni, who flourished, as we saw above (рр. 54ff.),
during the time of King Burna-Buriash. From this it would follow that Imgurum
was likewise a contemporary of Burna-Buriash. This result is corroborated by the fol-
lowing two considerations: (1) In 22 :6 Imgurum mentions a certain "Hu-za-lum, who
appears in В. Е., XIV, 8:30 (dated the 21st year of Burna-Buriash) among the
witnesses at a legal business transaction executed by ” "En-Ll-ki-di-ni (ЇЇ. 22, 25).
(2) "Ki-din-" Marduk? referred to in our letter (l. 23) is mentioned, B. E., XIV,
7 :34 (dated the 18th, better 19th, year of Burna-Buriash), as the father of a certain
mTa-ki-shum, who appears likewise as one of the witnesses at a slave sale executed
between the two brothers " '"NIN.IB-SH ESH and ” ivNTN.IB-MU-MU (sellers)
and ™ WEn-hl-ki-di-ni (buyer). According to 1. 29 Imgurum was apparently sta-
1 In both the greeting is the same and in both the writer records about the disposition of adobes, resp. burnt bricks.
2 Called here "Hu-za-lum тат ™ ilu Ẹn-lil-bêl(= EN)-ili( = AN)mesh,
з Cf. also the Фи shá "Ki-din""Marduk in В. E., XIV, 166 : 9.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 95
tioned at Dúr-Kuri-Galzu, where he had charge both of certain building operations
in connection with its palace or temple (ef. ll. 4-18) and of the weaveries and its
personnel: The fact that No. 79 was found in Nippur would show, however, that the
writer must have been living, for some time at least, also in Nippur.
The contents of this letter are the following:
(a) The disposition of adobes, ll. 4-10.
(b) The disposition of burnt bricks, ll. 11-15.
(c) Elulis the propitious time for transferring the resting chambers (of the god),
ll. 14-18.
(d) Bel-usätum has not yet delivered the bleached wool, 1. 19-20.
(e) Accounting of the disposition of wool, ІІ. 21-28.
(D Complaint, ll. 29-32.
(9) Request that certain weavers be finally dismissed out of the prison at Pán-
Bali, 11. 33-39.
The letter reads:
1 [ardi-ka "Іт-диргит а-па di-na- Thy servant Imgurum; before the pres-
ап be-li-ia ence of my “Lord”
2 [lu-ul -i-ik may I come!
3 [а-па bit be]-I-ia? shú-ul-mu To the house of my “Lord” greeting!
4 [... P+ 6 M libittu( = SH EG-gunà*) x + 6000 adobes have been made dur-
a-di* йті 4” la-ab-na-at* ing four days.
5 [....] М Hbittu( = SHEG-gunü) I caused to fetch y + 1000 adobes to
а-па pi(?)-i na-ak-ba-ar? the entrance of the excavation
! As Imgurum reports (22 : 5) about the condition of /Ga-ga-da-ni-tum, the zammertu, who is sick, it would seem
that he superintended also the personnel of the Temple or Palace, for a zammertu or “songstress” was, no doubt, connected
with both the Temple and the Palace.
? Emendation according to 22 : 4
greeting see also 35 : 3, p. 121.
hence also our reading of the writer's name, |" т-ди ]-rum. For this form of
3 The space is too small for dsh-shum. Here and in І. 5 a larger number has been broken away.
4 For SHEG-gunü (not given by Clay, List of Signs) cf. Thureau-Dangin, R. E. C., No. 129. Cf. also П. 5, 11.
In 35 : 29 the simple SH EG occurs.
5 “Up to the fourth day,” i.e., “during four days,” “in the space of four days." Cf. H., IV, 392, Rev. 16, a-du
ümó"**^ 7 8, i-ba-lat, “he will be well within a space of seven (or) eight days.”
8 For the construction labnat, singl. after x + 6000 Би, see Hilprecht, В. E., IX, р. 35, note to No. 6, li. 1, and
ef. p. 137, note 3.
7 Here, of course, not Grab, Begräbniss, Delitzsch, Н. W. B., p. 580a, but "cellar," “excavation.” The p? nagbar
is the “entrance to the cellar," or that place where the cellar empties into the open air or into another room. A “mouth’’
(ра) is ascribed not only to a “cellar,” as here, but also to a “canal” (No. 34 : 22; cf. В. E., XIV, 29 : 2, ina р(= КА)
nári(=A.GUR.DA) äli-ki, i.e., “at the mouth of the canal of the city” or “at the mouth of the Shatt-en-Nil, the canal of
the city (sc. of Nippur) par excellence," where the little hamlet, called Pi-nárik?, was situated) and to a natbaktu, see 12:9,
i-na pi(= KA) na-at-ba-ak-ti, cf. p. 96, note 5.
96 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
6 du-ul-li-ia^ &-ra-ad-da-ma? I am working at;
Таг ina """Tashritu( = DUL. and till I shall lay the foundations in
AZAG) ush-sh® a-na-an-du-ü the month Tishri,
$ i-ga-ra shá i-na ku-tal( = RI)-li' ad- I shall have torn down the wall which is
du-ti-ma in the rear (palace).
9 20 na-at-ba-ku* uh-hu-ru" The remaining twenty heaps I shall
! For the various significations of dullu see, besides Dehtzsch, M. W. B., p. 219b, also Behrens, L. S. S., IT,
р. 8. Here it is to be taken in the sense of “working at," ef. H., V, 471 : 18, dul-li shá É.SAG.IL, “the working at
Esagil,” to be compared with /.c., Rev. 7, which shows that the letter refers to building operations.
з Ü-ra-ad-da-ma, because construed here with а-па, cannot be taken as a IT! of III mîn, Delitzsch, Н. W. B.,
р. 6135 (this has eli). Jensen, К. B., УП, p. 317, has shown that there is only опе MT), although the various significa-
tions assigned to this verb by him (fliessen, nachfolgen, hinterhergehen, treiben) ought to be enlarged so as to include
also the meaning führen (Behrens, L. S. S., П', p. 6, note 2), and “to take,” “to fetch," ef. Nagel, В. A., IV, p. 480, and
see Letters of Hammurabi, No. 78 : 18, ish-te-en ta-ki-il-ka а-па Babili* li-ir-diza-ásh-shú-nu-ti, “one of thy trusted servants
may bring, take, fetch them to Babylon.” The II! of. MM is here “causative,” i.e., “to cause to bring, fetch.” Uradda
for uraddi because it stands in the chief sentence.
з Ushshi a-na-an-du-ü = anaddü, with the signification “to lay the foundations" sc. of my dulli (1. 6), i.e., of
the building I am at present working at. Addü-ma, here of the “completed action in the future” = “I shall have torn
down” == “I have torn down."
+ For ku-tal see besides Delitzsch, H. W. B., р. 362a, also Jensen, К. B., УП, p. 464, and below, 1. 13, ku-tal na-
ka-si. In No. 60 :S Ше zer Гида! is mentioned and in B. E., XV, S0 : 11 we are told of the mash-shar-ra-tum shá i-na
Била БОС tab-ku, i.e., ої the mashsharräti(= pl. ої mashshártu) which are “poured out,” i.e., stored up in the rear
of the “house.” This latter passage shows that the translation “stipend” for mashshärtu (Clay, IBSEN XIV, p. 30,
note below, who follows Delitzsch, H. W. B., р. 433b) is out of place here. A “stipend,” surely, could not and was not
“stored up.” Mashshärtu signifies at this time the “reserve fund,” hence it is not only “stored up," but out of it pay-
ments are made; cf. B. E., XV, 76:2, SHE....shá i-na ШЫМ mash-shar-ti "WA B.UD.DU... .nadnu"%; le., XV,
106 : 1, SHE shá i-na libbi mash-shar-ti i-na * Kal-bi-ia** i-na( = “as”) GISH.BAR.GAL nadnu™; le., 164 : 1,
SHE...shá i-na libbi mash-shar-tim shá "In-na-an-ni ”Ta-ki-shü nadnu"" (notice here the reserve fund of Innanni!).
In B. E., XIV, 92 :2 the mash-shar-ti shá karû Kár-Zi-ban*! is mentioned and in B. E., XV, 47 : 1 we are told that
payments were made i-na libbi 10 GUR mash-shar-ti sha B.GAL, i.e., out of the Palace’s reserve fund of 10 GUR. B.E.,
ХУ, 40 : 5 mentions the total of SHE nadnu™“ i-na libbi mash-shar-ti which SHE is according to l.c., 1. 1, that shá i-na
Таға ASH.TAB[BA.JGAN.TUG™ nadnu"", From this it follows that the Palace, the several storehouses, officials
(like Innanni), and even months had each their special “reserve funds." Im some passages, as e.g., Str., IV, 374 : 10,
mashshártu might be translated even by “collateral security.” — Mashshártu, then, is “something that is left over (mush-
shuru) to insure the payments of certain obligations." у
5 Na-at-ba-ku here (and in 22 : 15, [na F-at-ba-ki [at-t]a-ba-ak) apparently a singl. masc., although after the num-
eral 20; for construction see р. 95, note 6. Also а fem. form of this word is found, see, e.g., З : 15, 21, shá na-at-ba-ak-ti;
3 : 19, а-па na-at-ba-ak-ti (so also l.c., 11. 80, 32); З : 20, mu-ú ul-tu na-at-ba-ak-ti shá ™“Gir-ra-ga-mil(= a city!) li-zu-ni ;
68 : 26, eqlu(= A.SHAG) shá na-at-ba-ak-ti shá Kár"%AG; cf. also 12 : 6, 10. In 3 : 17, 55 we have na-at-ba-ak-ta,
and according to 12: 9, i-na pi(= KA) na-at-ba-ak-ti, it has an “opening,” a “mouth,” an “access” to which опе
may come. The plural of natbaktu is found in 12: 4, x na-at-ba-ka-a-ti. The root is, of course, tabäku, “to
pour out”; here, because used of bricks, “to store, pile up." A matbaku, natbaktu accordingly would be “some-
thing that is stored, piled up,” a “heap,” “pile,” comprising a certain number of bricks. For tabäku in this signification
cf. e.g., В. E., XIV, 37 :2, SHE mah-rum зра i-na karú...tab-ku; В. E., ХУ, 122 : S, the grain which а-па libbi
SHE.GAL tab-ku, i.e., “which has been added to the great grain (das Stamm-, Haupt-korn)." See also note 4 and
cf. В. E., XIV, 144 : 4, 10 GUR 1 PI(= 36 qa) tu-bu-uk-ku-ú i-na 1 GUR 1 РІ, i.e., “10 дит and 36 qa ‘stored up’ (extra)
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 97
10 e-ki-ir-ri-im-ma? a-tab-ba-ak pile and store up.
11 10 M agurru( = SHEG-gunü AL?) 10,000 burnt bricks of (by?) the ür-ra-gal
amen (ЈН ОВ (ог UR).RA.GAL"“" have been made.
la-ab-na-at
— for each gur (cf. 1. 3) 1 РІ (or 36 qa)." One gur of grain stored up at harvest time lost in volume during the time of
its being stored up, ¿.e., it dried up, it shrunk—hence at the end of, say, one year 1 gur of grain would be equal not to
180 да but only to 180 — 36, i.e., to 144 qa. The shrinkage of grain at this time, then, was computed at the rate of
1 PI or 36 да to 1 GUR or 180 qa, i.e., at the rate of 1 to 5 да. Grain or cereals thus stored up to insure against shrinkage
were called BAL or ti-ib-ku or tab-ki, out of which, if not used, payments might be and were made. For (SHE) BAL
CEB E XV MIS СІ | 144726)| 794252 Гог (SHE) tab-ki see, e.g., B. E., XV, 10: 7 | 29 :6 | 115 : 1, 4. and for (SH E)
ti-ib-ku(-ki), B. E., XV, 80 : 1 (here it is simply stated that a tibku was added to the different items of grain); B. E.,
XV, 66 : 3 (here we have GISH.BAR ti-ib-ki instead of the more commonly used GISH.BA Р tab-ki, hence tibki — tabki).
How many bricks such a natbaku or natbaktu comprised, cannot be made out as yet. In view of the fact that the bricks
exeavated at Nippur, and now preserved in the Babylonian Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, were at all
times of a certain “standard size and thickness," and that tibki in the historie inscriptions signifies the “height” of a
“brick” or “layer of bricks," then a “measure of length” (ef. the German “so und soviel Backsteinschichten hoch"), Prof.
Hilprecht is inclined to see in a natbaku a quadrangle or rectangle comprising a certain number ої tibki, hence a “pile
which is of a certain height, length and breadth."
в Stands either for shá uhhuru, masc. singl. on account of natbaku, or it may be taken as an adjective, Delitzsch,
Gram., p. 241b. Cf. here 68 : 34, zóru shá uh-hu-ru; 68 : 10, II har-bi uh-hu-ru; 68 : 24, ПІ (дит) гт а-па ma-li-e uh-hu-úr;
31 : 26, mi-shi-il i-shä-ta-ti [shá(?)uh]-hu-ra; l.e., 1. 28, i-shä-ta-tu shá si-li ( = yox! shá uh-hu-ra; 37 :16, II C SHE
GUR «һа üh-hu-rum, l.c., M. 20, 25, shá-ma-a-ti. . . зра wh-hu-rum; 31 : 16, II i-shá-tu shá uh-hu-ra-tum; see also З : 5 |
18 : 18 | 33 : 15 | 66 : 10. From these passages it will be evident that uhhuru has the meaning “that which is left over, n
“the rest, balance in one's favor, which one either has or which is due him from another." This “rest in one's favor,”
if ideographically expressed, is called ]B-KID and is to be distinguished from LA L.NI, “the rest, remainder still to be
paid, which is against one, one's loss, debt, liability." In other words, in records that are epésh nikasi (balances of
accounts) the items marked 1B.KID represent the “assets,” a plus, and those called LÀ L.NI are the "liabilities," a
minus. For 1B.KID or “assets,” “amounts still outstanding in one's favor," ef. especially B. E., XIV, 33 :2, col. ПІ.
Col. I gives the “whole amount due,” col. II that “which has been received (mah-rum)" and col. III the “amount still
outstanding (1B.KID)"—hence if we subtract from the «whole amount due" the “item(s) that have been received”
we obtain the “ÌB.KID,” i.e., “which is still due in one's favor, one's assets. ” For IB.KID cf.also B. E., XIV, 41a :1 |
92 :1 | 99 : 49; XV, 68 : 2 | 141 : 8, and for LAL.NI see В.Е. XIV, 65 :27 | 99 : 40, 42 | 136 14 | 144 :8; XV, 78: 12 |
141 :25 | 196 : 1 (similar to В. E., XIV, 33 : 2). A synonym, if not a translation, of (LA L.NI ог 7) 1B.KID seems to be
ri-ha-a-nu, B. E., XIV, 136 : 1, 4. Ungnad, O. L. Z., 1907, Sp. 141, by reading TUM.KAD (resp. ib-kad) and trans-
lating “rest” is only partially correct.
т E-ki-ir-ri-im-ma, because parallel to a-tab-ba-ak, I propose to derive from ПР, i.e., ekirrim-ma stands for
original agarrin-ma, hence |7) has а side-form (igarrin), iqrin for the usual ¿qrun (Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 596b).
The г (for и) is due to the influence of the n, ef. 35 : 33, shub( = RU)-ta lish-ki(!)-nu (for lish-ku-nu). See p. 125, note
8. For the iin ki-ir, see already above, р. 53, note 1, and for the e (instead of a) ef. uk-te-ir-ri-ib, 23 : 13; ik-te-di-ir-[ru],
39 : 6; Delitzsch, Gram., р. 85 and below, р. 119, n. 5. А possible derivation from 27р ( = aqarrib-ma) is less probable,
and a form ekirrim = akarrim (root 072, Delitzsch, Н. W. B., 354a) is against context and parallelism.
8 Shortened form for SHEG.AL.GUSHUR.RA = agurru, “burnt bricks.” СІ, also 22 : 11, М + 300 a-gur-ra
as-sa-ra-ab, and see following note.
з What kind of an office this name represents I do not know. Ате we to suppose that the seribe misplaced the
ameluy Tf so, we might read GUSHUR.RA (which has to be connected with SHEG-gunú AL, cf. note 8) amelug Д Lmesh,
Or is it a shortened form of amelusrn ЕС A L.GUSHUR.RA сатте! “chief brickmakers "—the SHEG.AL being
omitted either by mistake or to avoid repetition?
13
QS LETTERS TO
12 и ата 4” agurru (= AL-li)!
ab-ta-ta-ar-ma*
13 а-па Киа ( = RI) na-ka-s? uk-te-
ir-ri-ib*
14 äsh-shum bit *“irshé( = МАР)"
зла libbi a-su-up-pa-ti*
15 sha бей à( = NI)-sa-a’ iq-ba-a
16 dup-pa ki a-mu-ru i-na """Ululu (=
KIN-""Innanna) а-па (= NT)-si-e
da-ab*
17 be-li li-ish-pu-ra-am-ma shum-ma shá
10 = ND-si-e
18 lu-us-si
CASSITE KINGS
After having examined the burnt bricks
during (the last) four days,
I brought them to the rear of the
slaughtering house.
With regard to the resting chambers
which are in the asuppati
(and) which my “Lord ” has commanded
to bring out (I beg to state that)
the month Elul is, as I learned from
communications, propitious for
bringing them out.
My “Lord” may send word when I shall
bring them out.
ІЛІМІ = SHEG.AL, 1. 11? But cf. allu, Del., Н. W. B., р. 70b: “ein Gerät der Ziegelstreicher."
° Ab-ta-ta-ar-ma I propose to take as а pres. І" (circumstantial clause) of MI, “to examine," see Meissner,
Б. A., III, p. 523, and Nagel, B. A., IV, p. 478. By itself a form I of patäru (Н. W. В., p. 555a) ог рати would
likewise be possible, but with what meaning? Cf., however, Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 522b, under patäru 112: agurri
tahlubtisha up-ta-at-ti-ir-ma, “war geborsten," and see р. 122, note 8. Or should we translate after all, “since the fourth
day having loosened (departed from, set free) the allu ( = term. techn. for “to stop to make bricks," cf. mesirru patáru
= “den Gürtel lösen,” Jensen, К. В., УП, p. 474) I brought," ete.? This latter translation is preferred by Prof.
Hilprecht.
3 With na-ka-si cf. @meluna-ki-su, Delitzsch, Н. W. B., p. 463a.
"А IP (= causative) of 27). The common signification of garábu ana, “to go, march against," is here
against the context. For other forms of garábu, to be met with in these letters, see 26 : 16, ki-ri-ib; З : 25, ú-ga-ri-bu;
12 : 16, ik-te-ri-ib ana.
5 For SANAD (= irshu), as distinguished from NÀ D.KI ( = maialu), see Jensen, К. В., УГ, p. 409, and for
É 981 МАШ, cf., e.g., H., 1, 65 : 9, “the bed-chamber of iluy G”
A “bed-chamber, " because it can be carried, ete., was,
ої course, not an Є or bitu, “house,” in its commonly accepted sense. Whose “chamber” is meant here, is not said.
, ~
* Cf. bit a-zu-ub-bu bit ka-a-ri, Str., II, 499 : 1.
For the interchange of s and 2 ef. on the one hand ”U-su-ub-
Shi-pak ( = Uzub-Shipak), 55 : 2, and on the other ™Shd-la-zu-[nu], В. E., ХУ, 188 У : 18; [/B]e-li-zu-nu, l.c., IV : 20;
za-bit-ti, B. E., XIV, 99a : 30, 31, 43, and its plural zi-ba-a-ti, B. E., XIV, 121:6
| 122: 6 (standing for si-bi-ti, si-bi-e-ti =
sibittu, sibtu, see above, p. 6, note); qa-az-zu tur-(Clay's copy gives tab)ra-at, B. E., ХУ, 158 : 5, for дац = SHÜ)-su
tur-rat, В. E., XV, 99 : 14 (cf. here also l.c., ХУ, 39 : 5, qût "X. tur-rat; ХУ, 90 : 45, shá ga-tum tur-ra-tum; ХУ, 6 :9 |
19 : 12 | 124 : S, даа ú-ta-ar, ete.,ete.). I beg to differ from Prof: Clay, who reads MAR.RAT (instead of tur-rat) and
regards this to be a profession (see В. E., XIV, p. 57a; ХУ, р. 515). Qût resp. qát-su tur-rat evidently means “his
portion is returned, has been paid."
7 ]-sa-a; i-si-e (І. 16, 17), 1-зи-и (21 : 16) is the infinitive of NY), cf. аай and idü, “to know."
° For construction and meaning cf., ед, H., IV, 406 : 16f., ina muh LUnigemesh shá LUGAL ђе-ћ ish-pur-an-ni
ina arhi an-ni-e da-ba a-na e-pa-a-shi, and H., 1,77, Rev. 3f., da-a-ba a-na a-la-ki йти 11а" da-a-ba йти IVkam a-dan-
nish da-a-ba. Any action undertaken by the Babylonians had to be determined by the bará priest with regard to its
most propitious time.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 99
19 [ásh]-shum ta-bar-rü shá be-li ish-pu- With regard to Ше tabarri(-wool) concern-
ra ing which my “Lord” has inquired
20 [hur-h]u-ra-t? i-na qût "Bél(=EN)- (I beg to state that) I have not yet
ú-sa-tum ul am-hu-ur received the bleached(?) wool from
B él-usátum.
21 [ásh-shum hur]-hu-ra-tum? shá а-па As regards the bleached(?) wool which
ma-an-da-at-Li-ia I have kept
22 [al ]-qu-á as my due
23 [sha бей i]g-ba-a а-па "Ki-din- and concerning which my *Lord" has
™ Marduk spoken to Kidin-Marduk—
24 |бе-0 i-di ki 2.) + 10 ma-na ta-bar-ri' “my ‘Lord’ knows that I have received
an-da-har only x + 10 ma-na of tabarri(-wool),
25 [ina libbi-shü x.) + 10 ma-na а-па x + 10 ma-na of which I have applied
du-ul-li-ia as compensation
26 [alt ]a(?)-ka-an' for my work,
27 [x.] + 20 ma-na а-па mu-uh be-li-ia and x + 20 ma-na I have sent
28 [ul -te-bi-la to my “оға.”
29 [л Jur-hu-ra-tum: i-na Dür-Ku-ri-Gal- There is no bleached(?) wool
zu
30 [shú(?) J-ú-biu-ú? ia-nu to be gotten in Dür-Kuri-Galzu.
1 Ta-bar-ri, here without the determinative SIG = shipäti, is a certain kind of “wool” (Delitzsch, А. УТ. В. р:
701a) or a "garment" (Tallquist, Sprache, р. 142). Here, because measured according to ma-na (І. 24), it must be
“wool,” more particularly “dirty(?) wool."
2 So we have to read according to ll. 29, 31 (not uh-hu-ra-tum). It is here a kind of wool. In Esth., 1 :6| 8 : 15,
we hear of a certain WM (LXX, Воссос) and in Isa., 19: 9, of "УП, in both of which passages the idea of
“white” (garments) is predominant. Hurhuratum accordingly I propose to explain as “wool that is washed, cleaned,
bleached, white" (ef. also Arabie hûra, havvara, “to wash white, bleach"), taking it to be a fem. pl. (sc. shipäti) of hurhuru,
and this а reduplicated form of hur = MM.
3 Cf. also 27 : 28, man-da-at-ta ki-i ü-ga-tu-ü at-ta-din, 35:18, garments which а-па ат и) SH ВАР à ka-si-ri ki-i
man-da-at-ti-shü-nu id-di-nu; B. E., ХУ, 200, III : 9, naphar 1 (дит) 6 GIN (i.e., female servants) É.GAL a-na man-da-
[at-ti-shi-na], all of which passages show that mandattu was at this time a certain kind of “stipend,” “wages,” in the
form of “wool,” “garments,” ог “grain,” i.e., “food and clothing" for work performed (І. 25).
1 Shitkunu с. асс. and ana, “to take something for something,” “to make something бо be something” (cf. 9 : 21,
а-па shi-bu-ti-ia "X, ù ТҮ, ásh-ta-ka-an), here “to apply something as compensation for.”
5 ТЕ my emendation be correct—the traces visible speaking decidedly for shú (ku or ù being out of question)—
then shü-ü-bi-u-ü may be either (а) the infinitive ІП! of XD), i.e., shuvpu'u = shúpwu = зара. But the significa-
tion of this verb does not fit into the context. Or, what is more probable, we may consider it (b) as an infinitive ITI’
of NNI, i.e., shub’uiu = shub'à. И this be true, there remain two peculiarities to be explained, viz.: (1) the long 4
in shü-u and (2) the presence of the iin bi. For the graphically (not morphologically) long û cf. such forms as lu-ú-
ul-li-i[k], 38 : 2, and li-ish-pu-vi-ra-[am]-ma, 39 : 23, With regard to the presence of the ¿in biit should be noticed
that we may have in Babylonian, resp. Assyrian, an euphonie i or u after the first radical in all those forms where this
100 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
31 [hu ]r-hu-ra-t* бей li-she-bi-lam-ma’ May my “Lord” send bleached(?) wool!
32 [а Ju-ul-li la a-ha-ad-di I have no pleasure in my work.
33 ásh-shum “"“ishpare( = ОБН. As regards these weavers
ВАК)" an-nu-ti
34 shá i-na ""Pa-an-Ba-li** ka-lu- who are being held prisoners in Pän-
Bali
35 i-na Ü-pi-i*^ а-па be-N-ia aq-ta-bi (I beg to remind my Lord that) I have
spoken to my “Lord” in Upi (about
them)
36 ù shá-la-shi-shú а-па mu-uh бе-й-та and that I have written three times to
my “Lord”
37 al-tap-ra about them:
38 be-li li-ish-pu-ur-ma my “Lord” may (finally) give orders
39 li-il-qu-ni-ish-shü-nu-t? that they take them away.
Ш
No. 55 (= С. В. M. 10,497). (СІ. photographic reproduction, Pl. III, 6, 7.)
Dispute about the exact words of a message sent by King Burna-Buriash with
regard to the release of young slaves belonging to Enlil-kidinni, a slave-dealer.
About 1440 B.C.
For introduction, transcription, translation, and notes see above, Chapter III,
pp. 51ff.
radical generally is vowelless. With regard to an euphonic i after the first radical ef. among other forms li-ki-ri-ku( —
likrikú), H., I, 100 : 6; i-qi-bu-ni( = igbüni), H., ПІ, 311, К. 8; li-gi-ru-ru( —ligrurü), H., ТУ, 387, В. 24; i-qi-ti-bu-ni-shu
(= igtibünishu), H., У, 515 : 9; mu-sha-ki(?)-rik( — mushakrik), H., 1,21, В. 1; ü-she-hi-lig( = ushehlig), H., IV, 430 : 7,
and possibly a-li-ki(= alqu? However, a-li-ki = city is likewise to be considered), No. 29 : 14. With regard to the
euphonic u after the originally vowelless first radical the following forms are interesting: i-su-hu-ra(— ishura), H., У,
515, В. 6; i-zu-qu-pu(= izqupu), H., ТУ, 381 : 7; lu-qu-ba-ki( = lugbaki), Magli, I: 59. Cf. here also the Hebrew
verbs with Chatef vowel under the first radical in the imperfect, Ges.-K., Gr.5, 210, 2, notes a, b, on p. 49. Shú-ú-
bi-"u-ú, then, as infinitive III! f ЯКО stands for shub’û, the i being inserted to prevent the assimilation of the guttural
to the preceding b (shub'uiu = shub'ü = shubbü, which latter would be the infinitive ТП of NIX, “to satisfy"). An
infinitive III! of 2 (shubu”u = shub"u = shubi’u) is less probable. Delitzsch, Н. W. B., p. 161a, gives only a II!
of 782 with the signification “to seek," “to ask." ПП would be causative and the sense might be: “there is no
bleached wool in D. to make one ask for it,” i.e., there is none that one might, could ask for—hence the request of 1. 31.
! See note 2 on preceding page.
2 For lishebilam = lushebilam, see Chapter III, p. 53, note 1. 3 J.e., “I am disgusted with my job.”
г “The face of. Ból"—an Amurritish name? Probably to be sought in the neighborhood of Dür-Kuri-Galzu.
5 Cf. B. E., XIV, 2:8, five slaves of Enlil-kidini who are i-na Bit” Чи En -Ul-ki-di-ni ka-lu-ú; l.c., ХУ, 152 : 14,
the slave. . .shá i-na ЧІМ ka-lu-ú ; l.c., XIV, 135: 3, i-na ki-li....ik-la-shi-ma. In 3: 33, 42 |15 : 5, 14, ka-
11-й resp. ka-la-a signifies the “destruction by water,” cf. Delitzsch, Н. W. B., p. 329b under II 192: ka-lu-ú shá те-е.
в Although not registered by Clay, yet а "айч U-pi-i occurs, e.g., in В. E., XIV, 132 : 43, 46, 52.
7 For ll. 33ff. cf. Chapter IV, р. 74.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 101
TE:
No. 24 (= C. B. M. 19,793). (СІ. photographie reproduction, Pls. I, II, 1-5.)
Official report about various oecurrences, among which a disastrous flood, under a
hitherto unknown Cassite King. About 1430 B.C.
The contents of this letter may be conveniently subdivided into the following
parts:
(a) Introduction and address, poetie in its arrangement and conception, ll. 1-10.
(b) The complaint oj the tenants oj the fields oj “The Lord oj Lands" about the
actions of Etelbu таг ™Ush-bu-la' in causing waters to overwhelm their possessions,
ML 1117.
(c) The city Mannu-gir-Rammän, which the writer held as fief of the crown, 15
deluged by “rains out of the heavens and floods out of the depths," ll. 18-23.
(d) Gates and cattle are destroyed; there is nothing left wherewith to keep alive
or pay the inhabitants, 11. 24-29.
(e) Report about the request of the governor Már-"[...] for a new gate, ll.
29-31.
(D Request that the King may look into the affairs oj "1 na-E.KUR.GAL, ll. 32-34.
(g) The writer's urgent request to the King to act quickly and give an immediate
answer, ll. 34-37.
For the personality ої the King and of his father Nazi-“Enli see above under
Chapter ТУ, pp. 68ff., where also the notes to 11. 24-29 will be found. For the notes
to 11. 1-10, 11. 18-23, 11. 29-31, 11. 36-37 see Chapter III, pp. 46ff., 40ff., 43ff., 51. The
letter in its completeness reads:
1 а-па be-li-ia as-mi lu-ul-L-i zéri( = Tommy Lord:
KUL) ishtu(= TA) shame-e] Glorious in splendor,
Seed out of Heaven;
2 la ma-ir anni gu-ra-di li-e-i it-pi-sh[i | Not summoning punishment,
Strong, powerful, wise one;
3 пи-ш ahé(= SHESH)™*-shu PI- Light of his brothers,
in-di-e na-ma-a-ri Ordering the dawn;
4 ki-ib kab-tu-ti ra-ásh-ba-nu-ú-t1 Ruler of mighty and
Terrible lords;
1 Cf. now also the Bit-" Ush-bu-la in B. E., Series D, IV, р. 148, col. ІП, 5, where it is reported that it adjoined
a district “which had been given to the ‘Lord of Lands.’ ”
102
5
15
16
17
(B! 329) : 10.
unto me) if І speak as follows (шп-та-а)” is likewise possible.
e-pi-ir um-ma-ni pa-ásh-shur ni-shi
ее ki-na-te-e-shú sha ""А-пи "“En-
пі и “Е.А
й "Веи =
du-um-ki
NI.NI) ki-ib-ü
ù mi-ish-ri-e ish-ru-ku-ü-shü
be-Di-ia. ki-bé-ma ит-та " Kal-bu ip-
ru
ù ar-du па-га-ат-Ка-та
an-nu-um-ma-a* shú-ú ki-i ra-ma-ni
a-na
be-l-ia ap-ki-du-ma | " E-tel-bu таг
" Ush-bu-la
[ ]mat(?)-su ù а-па pa-an
^" Man-nu-gi-ir-""IM
[ | sa-ab-ta-ku ash-bu eqlu( =
A.SHAG) shá EN.KUR.KUR
(ит-та-а ana .... |ті-іа-та i-na
те-е 1-di-la-an-ni?
А о лћа! + о
(и? зра it-ti-ia lu ash-bu-tu
lu na-du-tu? sha EN.KUR.KUR i-na
1 An-nu-um-ma-a = an(n)umma.
the Lord,” Gen. 18, 16ff.
? Edélu ina mé, not “to shut off from water," but edélu, because a synonym of sanáqu = “to shut in” (Jensen,
К.В. УП, p. 410), has to be translated here “has shut me іп, encircled me, enclosed me with or by water."
it evidently points to the i-na (а-те-е na-di, 1. 20, e-ka-ku, 1. 26, and i-si-ru, 1. 28.
LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
Food of the people,
Platter of man;
Hero of his clan,
Whom the triad of gods
Together with B élit
Presented a fief
Tending towards grace
And righteousness—
to my Lord speak, thus saith Kalbu,
thy dust
and thy loving servant.
Behold that one, though I myself have
recommended him to my Lord, that
Etelbu, son of Ushbula,
has .... his.... even up to the city of
Mannu-gir-Rammän
he has which I possess. The ten-
ant of the field of “The Lord of
Lands’
[came and spoke thus before my ..... ]
“By means of water he has encir-
cled me.”
The cities which are with me—be they
inhabited
or be they doomed—and which belong to
Cf. ит-та-а = um-ma and see also Hammurabi, 2 : 10; S. 273 : 17; C. T., IV, 27
H ; ; ;
Jensen, К. B., УП, 475, 527, translates anumma by “nun, sofort." А translation: “Grace (please grant
Cf. the dialogue between Abraham and the “angel of
As such
The tenant or inhabitant (notice
the singl. instead of the plural!) of the fields of god EN.KUR.KUR (i.e., either Enlil or NIN.IB; for omission of ilu
before names of gods see p. S, n. S), which were situated in the immediate neighborhood of the city Mannu-gir-Rammán,
complains of his being encircled by “waters” through the negligence or spite ої еш, who failed to keep the canals
clean. These “waters” became so fierce that even Mannu-gir-Rammän was surrounded (i-na la-me-e na-di). Added to
this “the rains and floods," the city's destruction was complete. =
° Root nadü. The sense is: The complaint is made by all inhabitants—by those who have and those who have
not yet suffered from the effects of the inundation. The shá EN.KUR.KUR is parallel to that of 1,14—belongs, therefore,
to [álu? or єўїн?! 1, 16.
20
30
ol
FROM THE TEMPLE
pa-an me-e i-ha-bu-bu
ù ““ Man-nu-gi-ir-""IM зра sharru
(= LUGAL) ra-in ga-[ti |
й Бе- а-па MIR.NIT.TA an-nu-ti
id-di-na
i-na la-me-e na-di zu-un-na i-na sha-
me-e ү
а?
ù mi-la i-na nak-bi ki-i i-di-nu sha=ku-
älu-ki sha be-N i-ri-man-ni i-na la-
me-e
na-di а-па ba-la-ad a-i-ka-a lul-lik
ù abullu(= KÁ.GAL) erá"*^ DA"
u lahru(= GANAM) shattu-II sha
ish-tu b[é |-na-ti
sha " Na-zi-"" En-lil a-bi-ka à adi( =
EN) та“
[e]-ka-ku(?) й і-па-ап-па be-li it-ti-[di
sha |
(За |-ka-an-ni 1-па-ап-па ki-i i-li-
[ka-an-n |i
[ù zu-un-n]a LU (?)"** lahru( =GAN-
A M) shattu-IT i-si-ru mi-na-a[? |
[lul |-ga-am-ma
Мат 8
bel pahäti(= EN.NAM) а-па ardi-
ka ki-i il-li-ku um-ma-a
abulla( = КАСА" i-ma-ad-di tu-
sha-an-na-ma taddan( = SE)-na
à "I-na-É.KUR.GAL ardi-ka shá
а-па be-li-ia
lu-ud-di-in Y
ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR.
103
“The Lord oj Lands” cry out on
account of the waters!
Even the city Mannu-gir-Rammän with
which the King is entrusting me
and which my “Lord” has handed over
to these conscribers
is destroyed by inundations: rains out
of the heavens
and floods out of the depths are,when (or
after) he (7.e., my Lord) had handed
her (the city) over (sc. to the con-
seribers), overflooding her!
Yes, the city with which my “Lord” has
entrusted me is destroyed
by inundations! Where shall I go to
save myself?
Also the mighty bronze-gates together
with the two-year-old ewes which
(were kept there) since the time
of Nazi-Enlil, thy father, even unto
(this) day,
(the floods) have destroyed! And now
my “Lord” knows that
they will come to me; now, when they are
there (7.e., have come),
what shall I take and give, seeing that
the floods have encircled the sheep
and the two-year-old ewes?
Апа Már-"[...],
the governor, when he had come to thy
servant, said:
“They make lamentations on account
of Ше gate! Duplicate 16!”
Ina-E.KUR.GAL, thy
whom I have recommended
And
servant,
104 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
33 ap-ki-du ash-shí? di-na-[ni- ва to my *Lord"—on my account,
34 be-N a-ma-as li-mur-ma a-hi-ti-ia’ my “Lord,” look into his affairs! If I
am to get out
35 mu-ush-shü-ra-kw? ha-am-dish li-ta- of my predicament then (my Lord) may
al-Lik* act (lit. come) quickly.
36 й a-na-ku i-tu b[e-D ]-ia а-па a-la-a-kı And I, the йй of my “Lord,” though I
have written to the “King”
37 апа sharri(= LUGAL) ki-i ash- concerning (my) coming, yet the “King”
(ри-ға | sharru(= LUGAL) ul i-di- has not given me (an answer or
na-an-ni. permission).
IV:
No. 9 (= C. B. M. 11,635).
Baná-sha-Marduk reports to King Kuri-Galzu about the revolt which has broken out
in Bit-” ""Sin-issahra. About 1390 В.С.
Above (pp. 4ff.) it has been shown that our writer, Baná-sha-Marduk, lived
between the 20th year of Kuri-Galzu and the 11th year of Kadashman-Turgu, 1.e.,
during a space of about forty-three years. We may assign this letter, therefore, to the
time of Kuri-Galzu, and this the more because the Bit-" "“Sin-issahra, so named after the
head of the royal storehouse (karû) ASH.TAB.BA.GAN.TUG, situated in Kanduré",
Sin-issahra, flourished, in all probability, principally during the time of Kuri-Galzu.
From ll. 19, 20 we may conclude that our writer was a master builder, who, while
engaged in building a gate, received news about the revolt in Bit-" "“Sin-issahra,
which he, as faithful servant, communicated instantly to his Lord, King Kuri-Galzu.
Is this revolt connected in one way or another with the uprising of the Cassites
under the be-li, the son of Nazi-"" Enlil, mentioned in No. 24?
The contents are the following:
1 Not ap-ki-du-ash-shii, but ash-shu di-na-[ni]-ia is to be read. Ash-shu di-na-ni-ia again is the same as the
well-known ásh-shum-mi-ia (27 : 44) = ana shü-mi-ia (S. 274 : 17, 4) = äsh-shü-mi-ia (С. T., VI, 32 (= В! 534) : 4), of the
Hammurabi period. From this it follows that dindnu = shumu, t.e., “all that which expresses the essence of a being,”
“the being itself” (ef. MT DU), ог, as Delitzsch, Н. W. B., р. 224b, gives it, “das Selbst," see also p. 58, note 2.
? For ahitu sc. shimtu, see Н. У. В., p. 41b.
з I.e., “if T am to leave and thus be out of it forever.”
4 Not lû + tallik but lá + itallik, Г маки.
5 In view of li-ta-al-lik, “may act (quickly)!" and alkam, “hurry!” etc., we might translate here: “though I have
written to my Lord to hasten (sc. the reply to my last letter), yet the King has not adjudged me worthy (sc. of an answer).
In this case i-di-na-an-ni might be derived from 1 (= idin-anni), instead of nadánu.
* See pp. 79, 81, 110, 116.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 105
(а) Exhortation to rejoice, ЇЇ. 6—?
(b News about the revolt in Bit-" ™Sin-issahra, upon information received
from "É.SAG.I L-zu-ri-ia, ll. 15-19.
(c) The gate is finished, 11. 19, 20.
(d) The truth of the communications made in this letter may be verified by
calling upon the prefects of Rakanu and Bit-" Ki-din-ni.
1 ardi-ka "Bana( = К A K)-a-sha-" Mar- Thy servant Baná-sha-Marduk ;
duk
2 а-па di-na-an бе-0-4а lul-Lik before the presence of my “Lord” may I
come!
З а-па dlu-ki й sîra (= EDIN) shá be- To the city and the fieids of my “Lord”
li-va
4 shü-ul-mu greeting!
5 ит-та-а а-па be-li-ia-ma The following to my “Lord”:
6 ad-ru! shú?-te-su-uk Let the palace rejoice
7 Úúma(?)-hi-sa*[.... па and the soldiers let ....
8 si(?)-pr-[r*....] and the si-pi-ri let ....
9 шт-т(а а-па be-li-i Ja-ma speaking thus to my “Lord”:
10 [....] shá be-M .... Which my “Lord”
ae]
12 a-[...." М-га |É-im-zér
пр v brake. е.
13 [....] ú-ba-á[sh-shu? р
14 [.... J-ú-ma ki-ki-i* si(? ог ad?)-[. . .], QUE
15 "É.SAG.IL-zu-ri-ia ar[di-ka] E.SAG.IL-zuri-ia, thy servant,
1 For adru cf. Johnson, J. А. О. S., ХІХ, р. 52, perhaps “enclosure”; Behrens, L. S.S., ПІ, p. 47, note 1, “Palast-
gemach.”
2 So is to be connected, not ad-ru-shü te-su-uk (which latter had to be in this case tesik). Shü-te-su-uk, either
infinitive or permansive III? of рек, “to glorify” (Delitzsch’s JON, H. W. B., р. 108b, and PON, 1.с., р. 1106, belong
together).
з Ma(?)-hi-sa might stand here for mundahhisu, “soldier.”
4 СЕ. with this the “пе чуў рі гі, Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 509b. A reading e-pi-ri seems to be against the
context.
5 Very doubtful. Might be II! of O84, “to seek,” or possibly a IT of either 872 or NWI.
“Тһе context being mutilated, it is difficult to tell whether to connect [...]-ma ^ ki i-si-[...] or [... ma
ki-ki-i si(or ad)-[...].
14
106 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
16 shakin(= GAR)" de(= NE)-mi is reporting about Bit-Sin-issahra (say-
за Bit-™ “Sin( = X X X)-is-sah-ra ing :)
17 І С ummáni( - ЗАВ)" gi-in-na-ta? “100 men killed, while the
18 ki-i ig-nu-na säbe( = SAB)™*" sha families were settling down, the soldiers
be-N-ia of my Lord.”
19 ir-ta-pi-is' й Баба at-ta-di(?)-ish As regards the gate—I renewed
20 ib-ta-ta-ak* it, it is finished.
21 а-па shi-bu-ti-ia ” ““Nergal-Ba-ni Nergal-Bäni,
22 ha-za-na shá ““Ra-ka-nu the prefect of Rakanu,
23 й ћа-га-ап-па shá Bút-" Ki-din-ni and the prefect of Bit-Kidinni І have
24 ásh-ta-ka-an made to be my witnesses.
У.
No. 29 (= С. В. M. 11,956).
A letter of Marduk-mushallim, head of the storehouse at Dür-Enlil, to King Kuri-
Galzu. About 1400 B.C.
A certain Marduk-mushallim endorses in B. E., XIV, 154 : 5, the payment of a
specified amount of grain (SHE) as ri-mu-tum (a kind of wages) to a lady of the bit
a-mi-la-ti (“house of female (slave)s'”) and аз SIGISSE.SIGISSE (“offerings”) to ™Sin.
The position which the name of Marduk-mushallim occupies on this tablet makes it.
certain that he was the head of the storehouse at Dür-"En-lil". This tablet
is dated simply the “16th year" (1.7). As only the first four kings (Burna-Buriash
to Kadashman-Turgu) reigned sixteen or more years each, it is reasonably certain
that our letter belongs to the earlier Cassite kings known from the Temple Archives.
We may, however, go a step farther. The person " A-na-tukulti( = KU)-ilu(— AN)-
ma, mentioned in ll. 9, 15, I propose to identify with one of the witnesses mentioned
1 If shakin dêmi were here a title, its position would have to be before ardi-ka: shakin démi ardi-ka. I take it,
therefore, as a permansive: “is just now (while I am writing this) reporting about (shá)." Cf. here also p. 52,
note 5d. Inl 17, which contains the report, um-ma-a has been left out, as is often the case in our letters.
2 To bring out the difference in writing between SAB and SAB"*5^ I transcribed as given above. Both
(SA Ва and SA Bmesh) signify, however, at this time very often, if not always, simply “men, workmen" (ummäni), see
p. 35, note 1.
з Gi-in-na-ta. ki-i ig-nu-na = qinnáta (tem. plur.) ki iqnuná (За plur. fem. of }IP) = ginnáta qinna ki iqnuná, i.e.,
“while the families (employed on the Temple properties) were building a nest," “were settling down." For the signi-
fication of qinnu, qinnáti at this time cf., e.g., B. E., XIV, 126 : 7 | XV, 160 : 29, gin-ni; В. E., XIV, 111 : 7, gin-na-a-ti.
з Rapásu here in the sense of “to kill” (sha da-a-ki), Delitzsch, Н. W. B., p. 626a. Тһе singular being employed,
_ because “objects counted (SA ВР are such objects) are construed as singulars,” see р. 95, note 6.
5 Р of ради (Н. W. B., p. 554a; Jensen, К. B., УП, p. 319) here with passive signification: “it is built, finished.”
* See also the position of the name of Innanni in such tablets of “endorsement,” Chapter ТУ, с, р. 86, note 4.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 107
in a document from the 4th year of Kw-[ri-Gal-zu], В. E., XIV, 11:16. Erba-
Marduk of 1. 4 would, therefore, have to be identified with Erba-Marduk, the son of
Sin-nür-mäti, B. E., XIV, 19 : 23 (dated in the 13th year of Kuri-Galzu). Taking
all these facts into consideration I do not hesitate to see in the be- of 1. 2 and in the
LUGAL of 1. 6 King Kuri-Galzu, to whom this letter has been addressed. Marduk-
mushallim, then, was during the reign of Kuri-Galzu the head of the storehouse at
Dür-"Enlil“, which place must have been situated at a river, resp. canal, deep
and safe enough for the lallä-ships (1.е., *Fraeht(?)-schiffe").
The contents of this letter are:
(а) The royal provender will be shipped per lallá-ships by the 16th of this month,
11. 4-8.
(b) Request that the king send certain men to remove the workmen and
clients and to return them to their owner, ll. 9-18.
1 [ardi-ka "]"Marduk-mu-[shal- т Thy servant Marduk-mushallim ;
2 [а-па di-n Ja-an бе-0-4а lul-lik before the presence of my “Lord” may I
come,
3 ит-та-а а|-па be-li-ia-ma speaking thus to my “Lord”:
4 [ásh-shum GAR.LUGAL?] shá "Erba As regards [the royal provender | which
(= SU)-**“Marduk
5 [ardi-ka i ]k-shú-da Erba-Marduk, thy servant, was to have
taken,
6 [um-ma-a] акай (= GAR) sharri (I beg to say that) the men shall bring
(LUGAL) йти 16'"" the royal provender
7 а-па ""mà-là(— lal)-al-la-a* upon the lallá-ships
8 ummäni(= SAB)"* li-su-ü-ni by the 16th (of this month).
9 m A-na-tukulti(= K U)-ilu( AN)-ma Ana-tukulti-ilu-ma
10 а" "бика (= LUGH)-she-mi and Sukal-shemi
11 à ummäni(= ЗАВ)" sha a-la-ak- and the men of their company
shú-nu*
12 shú-up-ra-am-ma send (give orders)
13 li-zu-ü-ma lil-li-ku ° that they come,
1 Kudur-Enlilis out of question, because he reigned only six resp. eight years, see p. 1.
2 Emendation according бо 1. 6. Very doubtful. Cf., however, the MA.GAR.RA of the Hammurabi Letter,
No. 34 : 16, which likewise was put upon the “тана.
з For %ma(= elippu)-là-al-la-a see Delitzsch, Н. W. B., p. 414a (left untranslated) and King, Letters of Ham-
murabi, III, p. 7, note 2 (to No. 34 : 10), “processional boat."
4 Lit., “of their going" (aläk = infinitive), “their following."
5 Lit., “that they may go out and go (come)."
108 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
АВ)" u ki-din-na
ma-la shá a-li-k?
15 "A-na-tukulti(= KU)-du(= AN)-ma
16 а-па pa-ni-shü li-ter-ra-am-ma*
14 à чттат(
17 ha-a ]m-di-ish*
18 lik-sh и-да“
so that Ana-tukulti-ilu-ma may return to
him
all the men and protégés (clients)
which I have taken.
Let them do it
quickly.
ҮДЕ
No. 44 (= С. В. М. 19,799).
The superintendent of the Temple weaveries reports to King Kuri-Galzu about the
administration of his office. About 1400 B.C.
As the name of the writer is broken away, it is rather difficult to assign this
letter to a definite period. If, however, the emendation of 1. 16, Bit-" Kildin-ni],
be correct, I would refer this letter to the time between the 20th year of Kuri-Galzu
and the 11th of Kadashman-Turgu? Our writer was apparently the royal superin-
Where these weaveries were situated cannot
Noteworthy in this letter is the statement that one weaver had been
tendent of the Temple weaveries.
be made out.
a fugitive for one whole year, until he was brought back from the “house of Kidinni.”
That the Temple employees fled very often from their place of service is well known
from the Temple Archives; cf. e.g., Clay, B. E., XIV, p. 34. But that such a fugitive
employee, when recaptured, would not be punished is new. Nothing, apparently,
is said here of such a punishment of either the fugitive slave or of the man who
harbored him, nor is the reward of the two shekels mentioned.
The contents are the following:
(a) The .... have been put up, ll. 4-7.
(b) The King must wait for the garments, ll. 8, 9.
1 As indicated by the translation, I consider this form to stand for shá alqu; сі. p. 100, note. If one prefers
he may take it in the sense of "аз many as are of (= in) the city (= üli-ki)," see р. 11, note 2,
2 Stands here for lutéra-ma, lu + u of the 3d pers. becomes at this time always li. То “whom” shall he return
the men? To Erba-Marduk?
3 Cf. here ha-an-di-ish, 80 :13 | 93 : 5; ha-am-dish, 24 : 35, and ha-mu-ut-ta, 49 : 10 | 51 : 10 | 68 : 12 | 83 : 24 |
92 : 24.
“І.е., “May they (Ana-tukulti-ilu-ma and the other men, ll. 9f.) come, take the men, and return them to him
quickly." Likshudá —likshudá, so better than singular : “may he, i.e., Ana-tukulti-ilu-ma, do it.”
5 See the remarks to 9 : 21 above, Chapter I (p. 4ff.).
“А recaptured slave was put to death at the time of Hammurabi, Code, 8 : 30-36. А man who harbors in his
house a fugitive slave was likewise put to death, Hammurabi Code, 8 : 37-48. To him who captures a fugitive slave
are awarded two shekels of money, Hammurabi Code, 8 : 49-58.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 109
(c) The wool just sheared has been removed, Il. 10-12.
(d) The fine wool is all gone, l. 12.
(e) A fugitive weaver has been recaptured and returned by Bit-Kidinni, M.
13-17.
(р Only one workman bargained for has been received from Kish,' ll. 18-21.
1 [ardi-ka "X.... а-па di-na-an | Thy servant X.; before the presence
2 [be-N-ia lu-ul H [i-i | of my “Lord” may I come!
3 (а-ға GANAM.LU] ù bit [be-lh-ia To the cattle and the house of my
shul-mu | “Lord” greeting!
4 medals е
5 [sh ја id-[di- |пи-та which they (were to) have given,
6 be-li li-mu-ür my “Lord” may behold,
7 id-du-ü-ni (| sign фі)? they have put up.
8 i-na bu-ut lubushti( = KU)" For the garments
9 be-D la 1-sa-an-ni-1q-AN-NT do not press me, my “Lord.”
10 shipátu( = SIG)" shá na-gid"* The wool of the shepherds,
11 ma-la ba-aq-na* as much as has been sheared,
12 it-qu ba-ni-tum? та-пи they have removed. Good (sc. wool) is
not here.
13 "е зррати(<- USH.BAR) ishten” One weaver,
14 shá ul-tu ishten shattu( — MU) who was a fugitive
15 ha-al-qu for one year,
16 ul-tu Bit-" Ki-[din-ni | they have received
l7 i-te-qu-ni from (out of) Bit-Kidinni.
18 ishten” amelu li-ib-bu* Only one of
19 ummäni(= ЗАВ)"" ra-ak-su-áü-ti? the stipulated workmen
20 ul-tu Kish** they have received
21 id-te-qu-ni from Kish.
! For the different cities called Kish, see Jensen, Z. A., XV, p. 214ff., and Hommel, Grundriss?, pp. 338, 383- 390.
2 For the sign bi as variant for ni, la, see “Names of Professions" under Ha-bi(!)-gal-ba-ti-i. A possible derivation
from 272 (cf. nidbü, nindabü) would be less probable and quite peculiar in formation, (1) because of the long ú (but
cf. p. 129, 1. 23), (2) because of the ¿in bi (standing for bû). The object which was “put up" is unfortunately broken away.
3 I.e., wait a little longer for them.
* For baqünu = baqümu, “to cut off,” “to shear," see now Hinke, B. E., Series D, IV, pp. 263a, 177. Besides the
passages quoted there ef. also B. E., XIV, 128 : 1, 516% bu-qu-nu, and l.e., 42 : 12, i-ba-qa-nu (said of akdlu, shikaru,
and mi-ri-esh-tum, hence here at least it cannot mean “to cut off" or “to shear"). See also a-ba-qa-am-ma, 2 : 10.
$ For ba-ni-tum (sc. shipátu), fem. of band (syn. of damqu), in the sense of “good,” “nice,” “fine,” ete., see Jensen,
К.В. VU, p. 412. * For libbü = ina libbi shá cf. Delitzsch, А. G.?, $ 108, pp. 226f.
7 СЕ. here the dup-pi ri-ki-ish(1)-ti shá "In-na-an-nu а-па "Оте? а KA.ZID.DA ir-ku-su (B. В. XIV, 42: 1),
i.e., “the (tablet of) stipulations upon which I. has agreed with the R. and K.”
110 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
VII.
No. S3 (= С. B. M. 3315). (Cf. photographic reproduction, Pl. XII, 29, 30.)
A letter of complaints, requests, and threats written by the governor Errish-apal-
iddina to the bursar-in-chief, Innanni. Time of Kuri-Galzu, about 1400 B.C.
Above, pp. 2ff., it has been shown that Innanni, the chief bursar of the
Nippurian Temple storehouses, lived and transacted business during a period extend-
ing at least from the 18th year of Kuri-Galzu to the 2d year of Nazi-Maruttash,
and that Errish-apal-iddina, the governor of Dúr(resp. Bit)-Errish-apal-iddina",
flourished from the 13th year of Kuri-Galzu to the 24th year of Nazi-Maruttash.
Innanni, though frequently mentioned on tablets apparently emanating from the
neighboring towns around Nippur, where he was at intervals looking after the
interests or possessions of Enlil," was yet a resident of Nippur, ef. B. E., XV, 115 :5 |
135 : 6, Bit-"In-na-an-nu(ni) Nippur (= Еп-Ш)“. We also saw that during the
reign of Kuri-Galzu, i.e., at the time when "/n-na-an-ni was bursar-in-chief, " "“Sin-
issahra was the head of the royal or Palace storehouse (karú), named ÁSH.TAB.BA.
GAN.TUG* 2 But, though the head of that storehouse, he was still subordinate
to Innanni. This follows not only from No. 85 : 8, 9, where Innanni is commanded
to give to Sin-issahra the “wages for certain persons," or from B. E., XV, 50, where
he (Sin-issahra) receives grain from Innanni “per order of the Palace," but more
partieularly from such passages as B. E., XIV, 35 :3, where it is reported that a
certain = ™PA.KU-malik-AN™ receives in Кага ASH.TAB.BA.GAN.TUG
a certain amount of grain as horse-feed from (ina 444) "In-na-an-ni, which shows
clearly that /nnanni must have had and actually did have authority also over the
Palace storehouses; in other words, Innanni, though bursar-in-chief of the Temple
storehouses, was ipso facto also the chief bursar of the Palace storehouses—he was
both a Temple and a royal official, hence his successor, Martuku, is expressly called
an a-rad LUGAL (В. E., XIV, 56 :9), a “servant of the king." Innann? seems to
have been a rather slow and stingy official; the only way to make him live up to
his obligations was by threatening him (cf. 11. 12 and 27ff. and 85 : 5).
The contents of this letter are:
(a) Complaint over Innanni’s negligence, ll. 3, 4.
(b) Request to urge the workmen not to leave the city, 11. 5-7.
! See above, p. 2, note 13. 2 See Chapter ТУ, с, pp. 79; 81; сі. р. 116.
3 If the term ahu of No. 86 : 19 is to be taken in its literal sense, Innanni would be a brother of тЕ-т-да-1"Мат-
duk, 1.с.‚ 1. 18. See here the interpretation of that passage by Prof. Hilprecht, above, p. 25, note 1, and cf. Emid-ana-
Marduk, p. 71! Is Emida = Emid + ana = an = ат = а? И so, this would explain the exalted position of Innanni,
i.e., Innanni would have been a brother of the бей of No. 24.
FROM THE TEMPLE
ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 111
(c) Comply with the wishes of the RIQ officials, ll. 8, 9.
(d) Request coupled with threat, ll. 9-13.
(e) Give barley to Már-Tadu, 1. 14.
(f Pay the barley to the RIQ of Shelibi only in the “presence of the city,"
11. 15-18.
(g) Thirteen oxen are missing, ІІ. 19-21.
(h) Pay the barley to Sin-apal-érish, M. 22, 23.
(û) Hurry up and pay the seed-corn to “the city,” 1. 24-26.
(k) Complaint coupled with two threats in the form of accusations, ll. 27-37.
This letter reads:
M
[а-па "| In-na-an-ni ki-bé-ma
2 ит-та ” "Errish()(= NIN.IB)-
apal (= TUR.USH ) -iddina (= SE)
"[*-ma]
3 wm-ma-a am-mi-ni ash-pu-r [a-ak-ku |
la ta-al-Li-i-m а? |
5 um-ma-a иттат(- SAB)"" an-
nu-ti[?]
6 sha ash-pu-ra-ak-ku tu-sh|e-w-shá |-
н>
nu-ti-ma?
-1
dlu-ki la mu-ush-shú-u|r]
залата E T Omen sha Nippur (=
EN.LIL)*[*]
9 ku-ri-ib-shi-nu-ti-i-ma shá [um-
mäni(= SAB)"]* "*
10 it-ti Ni-ib-bu-ri-i пат-з[а-а га
11 shü-um-hi-ir-shü-nu-ti
To Innanni speak,
thus saith Errish-apal-iddina:
Why have I sent word to thee
and thou hast not come up?
Also the following: As regards these
men
concerning whom I have sent to thee—
(во) urge them
not to leave the city.”
As regards Ше 5 RIQ of Nippur—
“comply with their wishes!" As regards
the workmen—
“let them, together with the Nippurians,
receive the namsartu-vessels.
1 For the long 2 ef. ku-ri-ib-shú-nu-ti-i-ma, 1. 9. Тһе traces of -ma(?) speak rather for -ka. In view ot li-ish-bu-ü-
ra-am-ma, 39 : 23, a form ta-al-li-i-ka would not be impossible.
2 Tu-she-[ir-sh]-nu-ti is supplied according to І. 36, tu-she-ir. Both forms may be taken w) eith us a 11* of
"w^ (= tu-iashshir, tu'ashshir, tushshir, tu-she-ir), “in den richtigen Zustand versetzen," Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 311a,
or (b) they may be (and this is more probable) a П' of NEN (= tu’ashshir, ete., as above). According to Jensen, Ке В’,
УГ, p. 409, 410, asháru is a synonym of both pagádu and sanáqu. For sanáqu in the sense of “(о press, to urge,” see
44:8. Cf. also for UN Meissner, Supplem., p. 13 (= К. 4587, Obv. 6); Delitzsch, А. L.*; Zimmern, К. А ТО p 42l.
The sense apparently is: “urge them by putting them into the right frame of mind.” А Ш of 321 is excluded here.
з On account of shú-um-hi-ir-shú-nu-ti, 1. 11, and tw-ul-te-hi-ir-shi-nu-ti, 1. 12, I take this form as a II! of 272,
“Jemandem willfahren” (not as a II! of 27р, “to bring near").
р, g
112 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
12 shum-ma an-ni-ta ul tu-ul-te-hi-ir-
shü-nu-t?
13 ul at-tu-ü-a SH E.BAR ik-ka-lu?
14 2 GUR SHE.BAR а-па Маг-'Та-а-
du i-di-in
15 зае RIQ ““She-li-bi*'
16 9 a-mi-lu-us-su а-па pi-i a-mi-lu-
t[i-shú ]
17 1t-ti* ash-shá-bi shá ülu-ki
18 SH E.BAR id-na-ash-shü-[?]
19 ar-di i-na bu-[ut ....]
20 й ари shá ina *"[. . . . |
21 13 alpu ia-a-nu ù 10 |.... | їа-а-пи
22 SHE.BAR а-па " (= XXX)-
ара(- TUR.USH)-[érish]
23 mu-du-ud-ma i-din-ma li-ish-shá-a
24 ù аа ha-mu-ut-ta
25 al-ka-am-ma SH E.ZER
26 a-na ülu-k? i-din
27 ù SHE.BAR 10 GUR GISH.BAR
GAL «һа "Ib-ni-""“Marduk
111? of shaháru = saháru.
If this thou doest not grant unto them,
(then)
they shall (no longer) ‘eat my ‘food’. ”
Give 2 gur of barley to Mär-Tädu.
As regards the RIQ of Shelibi—
“give him the barley for his 9 men
upon the demand of his representatives
зяб
in the presence of the ‘city’.
I went down on account of ....
and the oxen which are in the city of ....
(and found) that 13 oxen are not there
and doc er are not there.
Measure and pay the barley to Sin-apal-
érish
so that he can take it away.
Also hurry up and give
the seed-corn
to the “ city ".
And as regards the barley, the 10 gur
GISH.BAR.GAL, due to Ibni-Mar-
duk—
2 As SHE.BAR at this time is the “money” or “wages” in form of “barley” which an employee receives for his
services, the phrase “to eat the barley of somebody" clearly means “to be in somebody's employ." According to this
ul at-tu-ü-a SHE.BAR ik-ka-lu would mean as much as: “ту barley, i.e., food they shall no longer eat,” “they shall no
longer be in my employ," “I will dismiss them.” But, and this is important, the threat is directed against Innanni.
We have here clearly an indication that Errish-apal-iddina, the governor, employed these men upon the instigation
ої Innanni, i.e., they were given ап office by and through the help of the “political” influence of Innanni; and the gov-
ernor, in-order to force Innanni to comply with his (the governor's) wishes, threatens him with the dismissal of his
(Innanni’s) protégés. For SHE.BAR cf. also p. 113, note 4.
з The translation of Il. 15f. depends upon whether we read, 1. 18, id-na-ash-shü or id-na-ash-shü-nu. Аз there was
ample space on the O. of the tablet for the sign -nu it would seem strange that the writer, if he wrote -nu, should have put
it on the R. E. so give them (—
idnashshunu, amilüti-shü-nu)" or “as regards the RIQ ...
We might translate accordingly: “as regards the RIQ ... and his nine men ...
so give him (idnashshu) with regard to his nine men (or for his
nine men) ... upon the demand of his representatives (amilüti-shu).”
4 The RIQ of Shelibi must have been a rather untrustworthy official seeing that grain shall be delivered to him
in “the presence of the city (1.е., the city's (= Nippur) heads).”
5 The “eity” in which Errish-apal-iddina was stationed, i.e., * Btt-Errish-apal-iddina"?
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 113
28 na-da-na aq-ba-ak-ku “I have told thee to pay it,
29 am-mi-ni la ta-di-in why hast thou not paid it?
30 shú-ú it-ti-ia te-bv' He is angry with me.
31 ul a-shi-im-ma? it-t?-ka. It will not be my fault, if he does not
32 ul i-da-bu-ub accuse thee, saying:
33 ит-та-а* SUM.SAR* à SUM.EL. ‘No onions and garlic(?)
SAR KAR”
34 a-na a-ka-li та-а-ти are there to eat,’
35 шт-та-а? а-па Mär-Ta-a-du or: “thou hast given to Már-Tádu
36 i-na libbi’(= SHAG) SHE.BAR at- an order on my barley.’ ”
tu-ú-a tu-she-ir'"
37 na-ha-sa'! aq-ba-ash-shú I told him to depart (= "бо keep quiet?)
МШЕ
No. 84 (= С. B. M. 3258). (Cf. photographie reproduction, Јој SIT ӘЛЕ 825)
Errish-apal-iddina, a governor, writes to Innanni, the chief bursar of the Nippurian
Temple storehouses, demanding of him to comply with his several wishes. Time
of Kuri-Galzu, about 1400 B.C.
For general introduction see preceding letter. The contents are the following:
(a) The sesame of the prefects must not be accepted, ЇЇ. 3, 4.
1 Permansive ої JAN.
2 Lit., ‘I shall not ordain it; I shall not cause it; it will not be my fault." The sense is: Do not blame me if
he (Ibni-Marduk) accuses thee (Гати), etc., but I would not be surprised at all if he does accuse thee.
з [1-ti here “against” ; cf. вара limnütim dabäbu itti, No. 75 : 6, p. 135.
4 Um-ma-a ... um-ma-a introduces the twofold possible accusation with which Ibni-Marduk may, and Errish-
apal-iddina does, threaten Innanni, viz., an accusation of neglect and one of fraud. It seems that Errish-apal-iddina
had to THREATEN Innanni continually in order to make him live up to his agreements (ef.1. 13). The first accusation
with which Zrrish-apal-iddina threatens Innanni is this: If thou dost not give to Ibni-Marduk the SHE.BAR he will
accuse thee of neglect by saying there are “no onions, ete., to eat!’ This shows that SHUM.SHAR, ete., belong to,
and form part of, SHE.BAR; hence “barley” at this time signifies everything that belongs to the sustenance, food,
of the people, ef. our “bread.” See also p. 112, note 2.
5 For SUM.SAR = shümu, “onions,” see H. W. B., p. 647.
8 SUM.EL.SAR probably = "garlic!" Cf. also Meissner, Ideogramme, Nos. 2970-2972. Oris ELhere=HUL?
If so, then cf. gishshu = HUL(= ü-ku-ush).SAR = “cucumber,” Н. W. B., p. 598a.
7 KAR indicates here a certain kind of SUM.EL.SAR.
в The second accusation with which Innanni is threatened by the writer is that Zbni-Marduk willsay: “Thou hast
not only withheld from me what belongs to me, but hast even given an order on my barley to Мат-Ї Тайм, and thus hast
cheated me out of my own." Cf. here p. 87, note.
9 I.e., to take “from” my grain.
10 See р. 111, note 2.
п Na-ha-sa = infinitive (cf. nihésu, Н. W. B., p. 458a, and Jensen, K. B., VI, pp. 388, 496).
15
114 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
(b) Bring the oil into “the Tablet house," 11. 5-10.
(c) Send the report about the barley, ll. 11, 12.
(d) Give three jars of Lager-beer to Hashmar, ЇЇ. 13-16.
(е) Make the GAR.RASH KU, |. 17-19.
1 a-na "In-na-an-ni ki-bé-ma To Innanni speak,
2 um-ma " "“Errish()(= MASH)- thus saith Errish-apal-iddina:
apal-(TUR.USH)-iddina(= SE)"-
ma
3 "“shamashshammu(= GISH.NI) sha The sesame of the prefects
ha-za-an-na-a-ti
4 la ta-ma-ha-ar thou must not accept.
5 alta | та-ап-те ““shamashshammu All who press out
(2 GISH.NI)
6 li-is-hu-tu-ü-ma* the sesame
7 shamnu(= NI.GISH) а-па Ё «DUB: must bring the oil (in)to the “Tablet
li-she-ri-bu* house,"
8 à ана "shamashshammi( = GISH. therefore press out thy sesame
NI)-ka
9 su-hu-ut-ma shamnu(= NI.GISH) and bring the oil (in)to
10 а-па Ё “““ФОВ shü-ri-ib the “Tablet house.”
11 ù di-im SHE.BAR> Also no report whatever
1Ma-an-nu, because construed with the plural (li-is-hu-tu-ü-ma, li-she-ri-bu), has here the signification “all those
who.”
2 The root of li-is-hu-tu-ü-ma has to be, on account of the writing su-hu-ut-ma (1. 9), ППУ. It having
here an object, must show an a in the present, hence sahätu, ¿shut (priet.), isahat (pries.), suhut (imperat.). Both
Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 564b (wrongly ПП), and Muss-Arnoldt, p. 873, leave this verb untranslated. "The action of the
sahátu shall be applied to the sheGISH.NI; the result of this is NI.GISH, which shall be brought into the É "прив.
From this it follows that sahätu means something like “to press,” “to squeeze out,” by chopping up the sheGISH.NI
(hence sahátu parallel to suhhuru, “klein machen,” see H. W. B., Lc.), and is as such the same as the German “keltern.”
“The oil of the wood,” i.e., the NI.GISH or shamnu, is, therefore, gained by chopping up, pressing, squeezing the sheGISH.
NI or “sesame leaves (resp. bark)," and is, in fact, nothing but the “oil of the sesame” ; hence the GISH in NI.GISH
is thé same as the *°GISH in *"*GISH.NI. Now we understand also what a ameluNT SUR is. From meuGESHTIN.
SUR.RA = sa-hi-it ka-ra-ni = “Weinkelterer”(!) we know that SUR = sahátu; hence a ameluNT SUR is one who
presses, squeezes, etc., the NT, i.e., the fat (sc. out of the milk);in other words he is the *butter-maker"; or if NJ in
NLSUR bethe same as the NI in NI.GISH, he would become the *sesame oil manufacturer."
3 Cf. pp. SSff. Whether this É “DUB refers to that of Nippur or, what is more probable, to that of Dûr-
Errish-apal-iddina, cannot be made out from this passage.
4 L1. 5-7 contain a generally accepted law or custom: It is the rule that .... therefore (й introduces the apodosis)
comply thou to this rule: press out, etc.
5 See introduction to No. 76, p. 143, and cf. pp. 84ff. у
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 115
12 mi-im-ma ul ta-ash-pu-ra about the barley hast thou sent.
13 à "Ha-ash-mar Furthermore as regards Hashmar
14 shá ash-pu-rak-ku concerning whom I have sent to thee—
15 8 арт 0) hikaru KASH) “give (him) upon the demand of his
а-па pi-Ü representatives
16 a-mi-li-e-shú* i-din 3 jars of Lager-beer.”’
17 ù GAR.RASH KU? sha a-di Also the .... which is for(?) my
18 li-tu-&-a*
19 e-pu-ush make.
хе
Ко. 85 (= С. В. М. 3206).
Inbi-Airi, a lady of high rank, demands of Innanni, the chief bursar of the Nippurian
Temple storehouses, the payment of barley and wages. Time of Kuri-Galzu,
about 1400 B.C.
Inbi-Airi, “fruit of Ijjar,"* must have been a lady of very high rank, seeing that
she dared to write to the bursar-in-chief, /nnanni, in words which are equal to а per-
)
emptory order: “give.” It may not be impossible that she was one of the many
ladies connected with the Temple, and hence indirectly with the Palace
ladies
who are in the “Temple Archives” quite frequently mentioned under the title NIN.
AN™*"(= gadishtu?), but whose status quo can, however, not yet be defined more
clearly. She, like the governor Errish-apal-iddina, experiences the same difficulties
in her dealings with /nnanni, having to warn him “not to act inimically towards
her,” but to do as told, or else she might lodge a complaint against him with the
King! "Iddina-""Nergal is, no doubt, the same as the one mentioned in В. E., XIV,
! DUK = karpatu is, like gur, etc., very often omitted.
2 The writer had first written BI (traces of which are still visible). He erased this and wrote over the partial
erasure the sign U = labiru, intending, by doing so, to put special emphasis upon the “old.” “Old beer" is, of course,
“ Lager-beer."
3 Here abbreviated from а-па pi-i shi-pir-ti, i.e., “upon the written order of.”
* Amelu used here (as at the time of Hammurabi) in the sense of “a certain one," ¿.e., a “representative.”
5GAR.RASH КО. Cf. B. E., XV, 44 : 6, “x. ga of flour (ZID.DA) as GAR.RASH for our house (É-nu) "Be-
la-nu (has given or received?)”; similar is l.c., 156 : 2. In lc., 79 : 5, we have: aklum É-nu GAR.RASH sil(= NUN)-
li-ha. In B. E., XIV, 117a : 3, we hear of 3 qa SHI GAR.RASH. These passages show that KU is not a part of the
ideogram. KU, however, cannot be here = Кети, “flour” ; if it were, it had to stand before GAR.RASH; see p. 123, note
10. Is it possible to take GAR.RASH KU here(!) in the sense ої akáli (shá) апа harráni = *Verproviantirung," lit.
“food for the journey "? The above-quoted passages are, however, against such a translation,
5 For li-tu-ü cf. Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 386b.
7 For another letter of Inbi-Airi see No. 86,
116 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
14
:6 (10th year of Kuri-Galzu), who appears there as the brother of "N u-ri-e-a. For
\ р}
Sin-issahra, the head of the royal storehouse, ASH.TAB.BA.GAN.TUG*, see
pp. 79, 81, 104, 110.
І
9
3
e
10
11
The contents are:
(a) Request for payment of barley to
(а) Idin-Nergal, 1. 3-7, and to
(8) ‘Dini, 1. 10, 11.
(b) “The wages for the persons" are to be handed over to Sin-issahra, 1. 8, 9.
а-па " In-na-an-ni ki-bé-ma To Innanni speak,
um-ma '!In-bi-A-a-ri-im-ma thus saith Inbi-Airi:,
3 (gur) SHE.BAR а-та "Чаїп (= Give to Idin-N ergal
SE)-"Nergal
i-di-in 3 (gur) of barley.
li-mu-ut-ta la te-ip-pu-shá-an-ni-ma? Do not act inimically towards me,
shá aq-ba-ásh-shü li-ish-am-ma' but as I have told him let him take
Li-il-qa-a* and carry away.
ipru(= SHE.BA) МО"е" а-па The wages (food) for the persons give to
т uSin( = XX X)-is-sah-ra Sin-issahra.
i-di-in
4 (gur) SHE.BAR а-па 'Di-ni тата! To Dini, the daughter of Abi-1a, give
(= TUR) "Abi(= AD)-ia
i-di-in. 4 (gur) of barley.
X!
No. 26 (= C. B. M. 19,785).
Kuduráni, the royal superintendent of the Temple storehouse at Pi-näri, reports to
King Kadashman-Turgu about the administration of certain affairs incumbent
on his office. About 1360 B.C.
1 Notice that this tablet contains іп 1. 5 the name ™ 4Sin(= XXX)-issahra(= NIGIN)'*.
2 Cf. also the ВИ-” ÜluSyn-issahra in No. 9: 16.
3 Lit., Do not make enmity towards me, but do as told by him.
+ For nashü used in connection with the removal of barley, ete., cf., e.g., В. E., ХУ, 141: 11, 16 | 100 : 3 | 55 : 3, ete.
5 For lagú, “to remove barley, etc., from (= TA —ishtu) a place to (ana) another,” cf., e.g., ВРХУ ОБАА
f In view of the fact that the amount is invariably stated and not simply referred to as “that (М umesh — shwatu)
amount," I see in this МС” the same expression as that occurring in DUB Mumesk = DUB shumäti, “Temple
record”; in other words, I take MUMesh to stand here for shumäti = "persons," as mentioned in the “Temple Archives,"
where they are generally introduced by the expression MU.BI.IM. See p. 83, note 9.
1 TUR ior TUR.SAL; the SAL having been omitted here, because the gender was already indicated by the SAL
which precedes the name Di-ni,
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. П
The writer of this and the following letters (Nos. 27, 28), "Ku-du-ra-nu, was a
contemporary of Kishahbut.‘ If so, then Erba-Marduk of No. 27
doubt, identical with the sukalmahhu of No. 35 : 28.
IO TROU SS, ANO
Taking all other passages into
consideration? I propose to identify our writer with " Ku-du-ra-ni, the son of "U-bar-ri
(see below, р. 126). ”Ku-du-ra-ni, being stationed, in the 12th year of Kadash-
man-Turgu, at Pi-nári** where a certain " Ta-ki-shü receives grain (SHE) from him
In the
same capacity he is mentioned among certain storehouse officials or superintendents
who paid, in the 13th year of Kadashman-Turgu, SHE HAR.RA (lit., “interest
(ina qût), must have been at that time the head of the storehouse at Pi-ndri™.
я А >
grain") to the city Dür-""Gu-la” А
We may, therefore, identify the be-lù of our letter
with King Kadashman-Turgu and assign the letter itself to about 1360 B.C.
The contents of this letter are the following:
(a) A plan as to how to pay barley to certain officials, ll. 3-8.
(b) Concerning fugitives, 1. 9.
(c) The “stone eyes” will be taken to the gem-cutter’s, 11. 12-14.
(d) The ploughing has been begun two days ago, ll. 15, 16.
(е) The watering tank shall not extend to the King’s palace, 1. 17-19.
(f) Wells are few in number and pastures do not exist at all, ll. 19, 20.
І ardi-ka ™Ku-du-ra-nu а-па di-na-an
be-li-ia lul-lik
2 а-па álu-ki si-r? à bit be-li-ia shú-ul-
mu
3 ит-та-а а-па be-li-ia® sha беў ish-
pu-ra
4 um-ma-a SH E.BAR sha “"Hi-ba-ri-
ti u ^" "Kár-"Nabü(— AG)
‘See introduction to No. 35, p. 120.
Thy servant Kuduránu; before the pres-
ence of my “Lord” may I come!
To the city, the field, and the house of
my “Lord” greeting!
The following to my *Lord": With re-
gard to what my “Lord” has written
saying: “The barley of the city of
H ibariti and of Kár-Nabú
2 Cf. e.g., "Nür-"""Shamash (27 : 8, here called gü-gal-lum) is mentioned аз pa-te-si in the 11th year of Kadashman
Turgu (В. E., XIV, 99а : 20). "Di-in-ili-Iu-mur (27 : 18) occurs again in the За year of Kadashman-Turgu (B. E., XIV,
91a : 12), etc., etc.
Meissner, С. (г. A., February, 1908, рр. 130-143, thinks, because " Dín-ili-lumur is followed, in
the latter passage, by da-mi-tum =tämitum, that he must have been a “woman.” That DISH, instead of SAL, may
be placed before the name of а woman is apparent especially from B. Æ., XV, 155, 19: “30 SA те among whom
(Il. 1-18, 23-34) are to be found three (1. 13, 14, 18) who are determined by DISH.
Зага SIV 112: 0.
‘В. Е., XIV, 101 414.
5 In Nos. 27, 28, written likewise by Kuduränu, we have EDIN for si-ri.
* Only here without the emphatie -ma, see p. 24, note 3,
115 LETTERS ТО CASSITE KINGS
5 ana RIO ў RA 711 = give to the riqqu and KA.ZID.DA
KU).DA? i-di-in officers” —
6 ki-i е ""МОМ'"-та ga-am-rat “so may my ‘Lord,’ as soon as the city
I C SHE.BAR GISH.BAR.GAL* MUM-ma has paid up, (first) set
aside (the) 100 (gur) of barley,
‚ GISH.BAR.GAL,
7 be-N lizmi-da-ma а-па “ЕТО for the riqqu and KA.ZID.DA officers,
adu K A ZID(— KU).DA
$ й SHE.ZER"* шмат ásh- in order that I may be able to pay the
shum ummäni(= SAB)" |...) seed-corn." As regards the men
9 shá hi-il-qu*(?) [....] who have fled(?) ....
[ers large preak.
р]
11 а-па mu-uh Бе-й-а, [ul-te-bi-la | “to my ‘Lord’ I have brought."
12 Gshz sham SSH не end esaet] With regard to the “eyes” of ... stone
! Probably the official who gathered the “vegetables” or “green things.”
? Lit., “the man who has the say (КА) over the flour (ZID.DA),” as regards its gathering and its disposition.
з K i-i shá, i.e., “when it is that," “as soon as."
‘Written MUN, but has to be pronounced here, on account of the phonetic complement -ma, MUM; cf. alan
and alam, “statue,” ete. ^" MU M may be translated either Бу “ Wüstenstadt” or by “flour (cf. р. 123, note 10) city.”
5 Notice that SH E.BAR GISH.BAR.GAL, which is “set aside," may be paid out as SH E.ZER.
° The a-ma in li-mi-da-ma indicates the chief sentence. Emédu c. acc. and ana, “etwas für jemand festsetzen,
bestimmen," *'to set aside."
т Û consecutivum.
$ For SHE.ZER = г(ги, see Meissner, Ideogr., No. 5406.
? LI. 6-8 is quite a strange answer to the inquiry of the “Lord.” In fact it is no answer at all, but a request
on the part of the writer that if he is to pay barley to the riqqu and KA.ZID.DA, the “Lord” may first of all “set aside"
the barley (ie., give orders that the barley be “set aside")—not that of Hibariti and Kár-Nabú, however, but that of
чим сме!
10 The traces speak rather for та, ta, shá.
п абпиди тег lit, “ Augensteine,” “pearls(?).” With regard to these “stone eyes ої . . . . stone” Prof.
Hilprecht writes me under date of July 2, 1908, as follows:
“ Among the numerous smaller votive objects left by the Cassite kings in Nippur (ef. Hilprecht, В. E., Series Р,
Vol. I, pp. 335f.) two classes are especially well represented in the museums of Constantinople and Philadelphia: (1)
Lapis lazuli disks, known under the name ої ASH-ME “"“yknü (cf. Hilprecht, O. B. I, Nos. 58, 59, 61, and pp. 49ff.,
and Meissner, Ideogramme, No. 28). (2) Little plano-convex round or oval objects in polished agate, resembling eyes.
Cf. Hilprecht, l.c., Nos. 29, 31, 51, 52, 65, 73, 134, 135, 139. In my ‘Description of Objects’ I called them simply
‘agate cameos.’ More exactly they are cut out of two-colored agate in such a manner that the lower white layer rep-
resents the white of the eyes, the upper smaller brown layer the pupil. Asa rule the pupil alone bears the votive inscrip-
tion, exceptionally itis engraved on the white layer (73), sometimes cuneiform signs are found on both (135). All the
“agate eyes” so far discovered in Nippur by the four expeditions, especially by the second and third, belong exclusively
to the Cassite period. In Babylon similar “eyes” in agate were found in a jeweler’s shop of the Parthian period. From
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 119
13 апа — "I-li-ah-hi-e-ri-ba^ a-[.... "Б (I beg to state that) they will be taken
ma (shall take them?)
14 i-Li-ik-qa-a? to Ili-ahhi-eriba, the ....
15 äsh-shum shá-ba-shi* «һа бе ish- With regard to the ploughing, concern-
pu-ra ing which my *Lord" has inquired,
(I beg to say that)
16 йти 27" а-па shä-ba-shi e-ki-ri-ib’ I am at the ploughing for the last two
days.
17 äsh-shum зм sha ituú "Iz- With regard to the watering tank(?)
gur-" Errish(t)(— ММВ) which the 114 Izgur-Errish
18 shá-ak-nu-ma be-li ish-pu-ra а-па babi is putting up (and) eoncerning which
my “Lord” has written (I beg to
assure my Lord that)
19 «Ла bit be-h-ia ul i-la-ak ku-bur-ra* it shall not go up (extend to) the gate
the inscriptions on some of them it becomes clear that they also belong to the Cassite period and originally came from
Nippur. There are, however, known two identical, beautiful agate eyes (formed of three-colored agate, the lowest light-
brown layer serving as a basis for the two upper layers), which date from the time of Nebuchadrezzar II, and according
to the story of the Arabs, corroborated by the inseription (running in minute but very clear characters along the outer
edge of the pupil), came from the ruins of Babylon. This inscription reads: 4 Nabü-kudurru-usur shar Bábili, арії
4Nabi-apal-usur, ana “Marduk, béli-shu igésh(-esh), *N., king of Babylon, son of N., presented it to Marduk, his lord.’
“ In view of these characteristic votive objects of the Cassite kings we are scarcely wrong in interpreting “the
stone eyes of . . . . stone” mentioned in the above passage as objects in the shape of eyes cut out of a certain stone,
the name of which is unfortunately broken away, but which according to the results of the excavations in all proba-
ررر
bility was ‘agate. Cf. in this connection the “eye of God” which sees everything!
! In view of i-li-ik-ga-a (1. 14) one might be inclined to read here mMI-li-Ah-hi e-ri-ba-a[. ... та, but this would
give no satisfactory sense.
2 We would expect here a “title” or the “name of the profession" of Ili-ahhi-eriba: “ек ldsmith,” “gem-cutter,”
ete. The traces, however, do not fit for zadimmu or kudimmu.
3 By translating as given above, I take i-li-ik-qa-a to be а 3d pers. fem. plur. IV!: illiqqû = ада, referring back
to bru и тез a fem. plural (abnu is masc., but more frequently јет.). СЕ. pp. 131, note; 141, note 2.
4The signification of sha-ba-shi is very doubtful. I would like to take it as an infinitive ої 020 = sabdsu,
for which see Jensen, K. B., VI', pp. 383, 511, who assigns to this verb the significations “um-, anrühren, dahinstürmen,
aufwühlen." The last signification is used not only of the “dust,” but also of the “sround,” i.e., “to plough.”
з E-ki-ri-ib = a-qa-ri-ib—e for а on account of the guttural p, ef. p. 97, n. 7. Qaräbu c. ana here *to go at
something," just as “a man goes at his enemy."
в Reading, form, and signification doubtful. The s/ui-ki-i must be something that is “put up" (shá-ak-nu), a
kind of building. It must be long, for “it shall not go to the house of the Lord.” If shú-ki-i be a formation like shugú
(root 20, H. W.B., p. 640a) its root might be either ПОЇ or про. Have we to see, therefore, in shü-ki-i a side
form ої shiqu, “ Tränke,” Delitzsch, Н. W. B., p. 685b? Shugü might be a fuʻûl form.
т In view of shú-ki-i, “watering tank," I am inclined to see in ku-bur-ru the same word as qubüru, a synonym of
shuttatu, which latter Delitzsch, Н. W. B., р. 697, translates by “Loch,” and Jensen, К.В. VI, p. 416, by “Grube,”
*Fallgrube." Seeing, however, that shuttatu is the same аз shü-ut-tu, and that the latter has the ideograph u (bu-ru),
which also stands for baru, “well,” I take ku-bur-ra = qubúru in the sense of “well.”
120 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
а-ті-із! of the house of my “Lord.” Of
wells there are only a few
20 й mu-ra-ku? за-а’-пи-ит and of pastures there are none.
XI.
Мо. 35 (= С. В. М. 6057).
Report of the royal superintendent Kishahbut about his affairs. Time of Kadashman-
Turgu, about 1355 B.C.
Kishahbut, the writer of this and the preceding letter (No. 34), has, if our
combinations be correct, gradually worked himself up from a rather lowly position
to that of an itü (1. 25), an “inspector,” of the king. In the 11th year (of Nazi-
Maruttash)* he acted as na-gid, “shepherd,” for (ki shum) "Ku-du-ra-ni5 In the
12th year of Nazi-Maruttash" we find him in Zarat-1 M' as one of the ENGAR,
"farmers," “irrigators,” receiving PAD or “wages.” In the 14th year of the same
ruler’ (month Tishri) he is stationed as riqqu in KI-"Ga-ir"', receiving “KU.QAR
wages" from Enlil-mukin-apal. Two months later (Kislev) we meet him in the
same capacity, but in the city Du-un-ni-a-hi*' receiving some more “KU.QAR
wages" from Enlil-mukin-apal. In the 15th year of Nazi-Maruttash’ he is still in
Du-un-ni-a-hi*', where * K U.QAR wages" are “furnished” by him to Apil-""Rammän
who is to transport them by ship to Nippur. While living in Kur(or Tar)-ri-ti* he
appears, during the 14th and 15th year of Kadashman-Turgu", again as a “payer of
5 =p : 5 т > о 5 ALS ki
wages." Finally in the 15th year (of Kadashman-Turgu") we find him in Dúr-""Nusku”,
apparently as a superintendent (itü) of the Temple's storehouse, receiving (mi-tah-hu-
- ie л z А а рол ^ T ка» nr.
гит) grain (SH E) from (i-na qût) various persons. While in Dür-" Nusku "2 Kishahbut,
* For атези = mêsu, “to be small, to be few in number (opp. ma'du),” see Jensen, К. B., УП, p. 543.
* As the last paragraph of this letter is apparently concerned with “watering tanks," **wells"—things absolutely
necessary for the pasturing of herds—I see in mu-ra-ku a maf'al-form of PM, i.e., mavraqu = mauraqu = müraqu,
“а place of green things,” “а pasture.”
3 For the different writings of this name see Chapter T, p. 7, note 6.
* B. E., XIV, 168 : 8.
° This Kuduräni is, no doubt, the same as the one mentioned in our letter, 11. 27, 31, and who appears as the
writer of Nos. 26-28. For further details see introduction to No. 26, рр. 1171.
“В.Е. XIV, 57 : 12. Я
1 В. E., XIV, 60 : 4.
з B. E., XIV, 62 : 17.
› B. E., XIV, 65 : 6.
10 B. E., XIV, 114 : 6.
"В. E., ХУ :48:2. Thus I would supply the date, seeing that Kishahbut has attained at this time apparently
his highest position; this date must, therefore, be the latest. |
12 This city must have had a “palace” (É.GAL), ап É А-ти and а bab A-nu-um, cf. 1. 15.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 121
no doubt, wrote the letter translated below. The writer's official life extended,
therefore, over a period of thirty-one years (1.е., from the 11th year of Nazi-Maruttash
to the 15th of Kadashman-Turgu), and supposing him to have been twenty
years old when first mentioned, he would have been about fifty-one years when he
wrote this letter. If our deductions be correct, the be-N of 1. 1 must have been King
Kadashman-Turgu.
Erba-Marduk,' “the servant” and sukkalmahhu of the king (ll. 17, 26), I propose
to identify with the one known from В. E., XIV, 19 : 23, as “the son of Sin-nür-
тай? According to this passage Erba-Marduk was one of the Temple or Palace
servants receiving wages due him for the last six months of the 13th year ої Kuri-
Galzu. Again supposing that Erba-Marduk was during the 13th year of Kuri-
Galzu about twenty years old, he must have been eighty-four years of age in the 15th
year of Kadashman-Turgu, when he had reached the exalted position of a sukkalmahhu.
Need we wonder that Kishahbut should have been somewhat irritated about the
slowness of this old and venerable official?
The contents of this letter might be conveniently subdivided into the following
parts:
(a) Report about a successful completion of building operations, ll. 6-9.
(b) Fifty-five out of seventy gur of kasia due to the King have been sent, ll. 10-12.
(c) The disposition of wool has been communicated to the King, while the writer
was received, in Nippur, in private audience by his “Lord,” П. 13, 14.
(d) Certain buildings (in Dür-" Nusku") need "strengthening" (2), IL 15, 16.
(е) The garments have not been paid to the weavers and fullers,‘ ll. 17-19.
(р Digression: Twofold complaint, ll. 20-24.
(9) Renewed request that adobes be ordered to be made, 11. 25-29.
(h) The sesame oil of the King has been sent, the shatammu must now store it,
ll. 30-33.
1 ardi-ka " Ki-shah-bu-u[t | Thy servant Kishahbut;
2 а-па di-na-an be-li-ia lu{l-lik | before the presence of my “Lord” may I
come!
3 а-па bit be-li-ia shá-u|l-mu | To the house of my “Lord” greeting!
1 Cf. here also above, рр. 7, note 1 ; 14, note 7; 23, 107.
? Clay, B. E., XIV, p. 43a, quotes two passages where this Erba-Marduk is supposed to have been mentioned,
but the second passage (27 : 14) is wrong. Under Sin-nür-mäti only one passage is quoted.
З Cf. 11. 25ff., and see already above, Chapter ПТ, pp. 44ff.
“Ог complaint about Erba-Marduk in not sending the garments for the weavers and fullers, see notes to 11. 17f.
16
22 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
4 ши(= TA) üm"" ак-зћи-а а |! Since the day I began, I have covered
5 ish-te-en bita pa-ar-ha? us-sa-li-Ü' one building with (flower) ornamenta-
tions.
6 übiti ru-uk-ki* shá бе-Гі i-mu-ru-ma And the farther (away) building which
my “Lord” has examined
7 bu-us-swW na-pa-la* iq-ba-a and whose front side he has commanded
to tear down
$ ki-i a-mu-ru-ma bu-hu-ur-shúl I have, after I had examined it, torn
9 bu-ud-du-ri at-ta-pa-al" it down to improve its ensemble.
1 Lit., “since the day when (sc. shá, hence the relative a in akshuda) І went at it," i.e., when I began doing it,
hence kashádu has here the signification of “to begin, to commence."
2 Pa-ar-ha. On account of the ish-te-en we cannot connect Bit-pa-ar-ha, but must take parha as objeet to ussalil,
ie, parha must signify something with which the ishten bita was “covered.” From Exod. 25 : 33; 37 :20 we learn
рата E у E ,
that a MƏ, generally translated by “flower,” was ап ornament, resp. ornamention, of the “candlestick.” There can be
+ ~ ` М ,
no doubt that we have the same word here, but whether the ornaments were in the shape ої “flowers” has to remain,
at the present, an open question.
з Т}? 55$ c. double acc., “to cover something with something." Cf. also the II' (or 112?) form in 66 : 22,
Роуд ртезій pi-si-el-li-lu-ma. For a different translation ої salálu IT! (a 112 is not mentioned), see Delitzsch, H. W.B.,
p. 568a, and Jensen, K. B., ҮП, pp. 485, 343.
+ Ru-uk-ki seems to be here in opposition to ish-te-en. If so, we might translate ish-te-en bita .... biti ru-uk-ki
by “the first (= nearer) house .... the farther (away) house.” A place name Bit-Ruggi is out of question.
5 Either for pád-su (Delitzsch, Н. W. B., p. 516a, “side”: Jensen, К. B., ҮП, pp. 414, 506, “back”; Küchler,
Medizin, “shoulder”) or for püt-su (Delitzsch, l.c., р. 517a, “front”; Jensen, lc., pp. 506, 5251., 549, 555, “back,” "Боду").
The sienification “front side” seems to be here the most appropriate one. Cf. in this connection the strange expression,
ту, (ie, always the person who puts his seal to the document, the “recipient”) bu-us-su im-ha-as-ma im-hur (e.g.,
В. E., XIV, 11:6] 127 : 6 | 135 : 6 et passim)—no doubt a religious ceremony (cf. the German “sich bekreuzen," the
Hebrew 7292, lit. io hit one's self seven times, “sich besiebenen"), indicating that the recipient “smote his breast?”
before he received the things mentioned in the “contract.” This “smiting of the breast" on the part of the recipient
was a kind of oath, signifying that he (the recipient or debtor) will abide by the terms of the contract. Meissner,
М. V. A.G., 1905, p. 308, translates pút-su mahásu by “garantiren.”
в Na-pa-la .... at-ta-pa-al, root Say Баз “to destroy," here “to tear down,” cf. Tigl., VI:28, “the
wall .... ana ma-pa-li aq-ba-shum-ma I commanded him to tear down." A possible derivation of at-ta-pa-al from
apálu (for signification see, besides H. W. B., p. 112b, also Delitzsch, В. A., IV, p. 81; Nagel, ibid., p. 478; Jensen, K. B.,
УП, р. 369) or from 95) (Jensen, l.c., р. 353) is, on account of na-pa-la, out of question here.
7 Lit., “completeness,” “totality,” here in the sense of “ensemble.” Jensen, К. B., УП, p. 507, mentions a buhru =
UD as sienilving “irgend etwas helles." If we have this buhru here we might translate “in order to improve its light
(=UD = buhru).”
з An infinitive IE of M2 (ef. the imperative bu-ut-te-ir, С. T., ТУ, 32 (= B! 598) :17 and p. 98, note 2) is
here, on account of the writing with d, excluded. It ean, therefore, be only an infinitive II! of either 7908 ог 772.
The signification of 708 does not fit here. Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 516a, mentions a root 2778. without giving a
translation. Tallquist, Sprache, p. 113, following the Hebrew 778, “fat,” translated padáru by “to be fat." From
the context we would expect here some such meaning as "improve." According to this the alpu (immeru) tap-di-ru
would be “improved” (in the sense of), “fattened,” oxen (or sheep)—oxen that had gone through a special process of
“improving” them.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 123
ОО ash ЕКОШ А) me" sha And with regard to the 70 (gur) of my
be-li-ia* "Lord's" kasia—
11 2602 55 " kasü( - PUH ADU)" “they informed (me) that they have paid
12 ish-shü-ni-ma id-di-nu-n? out 55 (gur) of kasia.”
13 ásh-shum shipätu(= SIG)" i-na As regards the wool—“in Nippur
Nippur(= EN.LIL)*"
14 а-па be-li-ia aq-ta-bi I have spoken to my ‘Lord’ about it."
15 dsh-shum E.GAL Е A-nu й bab A- As regards the palace, the “Temple of
п[и-ит | God” and the “gate of God"—
16 ki-i a-ha-mi-ish ri-i|t-ta? | “.... one with the other.”
17 à iubushti(— KU)" shá ardi-ka And as regards the garments which thy
т Hrba-" Marduk servant Erba-Marduk
1 The measure GUR із (as is often done at this time) left out here; ef. also 37 : 8 and see Tallquist, Sprache, р. 21.
2 For WUPUHADU or *¢™PUHADU.SHAR or PUHADU.SHAR = kasü (e.g., В. E., IX, 29 et passim) see
now Meissner, /deogramme, No. 3796. Hilprecht in class lectures оп В. Æ., IX, explained it (in 1898) as каса.
ЗА good example showing the difference between be-li-ia and be-li—a difference which is of the highest import-
ance for a correct understanding of many passages in the letters here published. Be-li-ia is always the genitive or
dative (used after prepositions or in a stat. constr.) and means either “of my Lord” or “to my Lord.” Be-li, on the
other hand, is either the nominative or vocative and has to be rendered “Lord” or “my Lord." This being true we
cannot translate here “the kasia wood about which my Lord has spoken” (this had to be kasi shá бе-0 ig-bu-ú or
ig-ba-a), but must render as given above. That this difference is rigidly carried through even in the letters of the Ix.
Collection has quite correetly been observed by Behrens, L. S. S., П, p. 221.
1 “They,” i.e., the storehouse officials whom I asked about the kasia.
5 Lit., “they have taken (зе. ishtu kari anni, i.e., from this storehouse) and they have given," i.e., “55 дит have been
taken from and have been paid.” The payments here referred to were apparently made in installments. The “Lord,”
however, seems to have received none so far—hence his inquiry and the answer. For a similar ёў ба vote. cf.
В. E., XV, 159 : 2, i-na qût " X. mah-ru-ma пайш", i.e., "Бу X. was paid.”
в For SIG = shipätu, see Zehnpfund, B. A., I, р. 494. Wool is weighed according to ma-na, see, e.g., 27 :31;
В.Б. XV,6:11]|11:1. For the different kinds of wool at this time cf. e.g., 44 : 101. | 23 : 19. | 44 : 12 | 38 : 15f. and
В.Е, XIV, 94 :1 | 99a; Rev., col. XII; /.c., XV, 11 : 1, etc.
1 See Chapter IV, p. 74.
8 Traces of -um are clearly visible. See also p. 80.
? Emendation doubtful, but probable. Ritta = І imperative of NDI, “to fortify, strengthen."
0 Hardly KU, i.e., ZID ог ZID.DA = qimu or better kêmu, “four,” see, besides Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 5865, also
Хо. 14:5. If so, then compare В. E., XV, 181, where the following “kinds of flour" are mentioned: KU.DA
ri-du (1. 3), cf. В. E., XIV, 117a : 6 and our No. 57 : 14 (here without КО); KU ma(!)-at(d)-gan(!) (1. 4), с Мо: 57 218:
В. E., ХІУ, 106c : 2; H.W. B., р. 436a ; KU pa-hi-du (1.5), ef. B. E., 117a : 2; KU.GIG (1. 6). The last is most
generally found without the determinative KU as, e.g., in l.c., XIV, 18: 2|24: 2; XV, 10: 2 |367: 3, ete) For
GIG = kibätu, see Delitzsch, Н. W. B., p. 317a; Jensen, К. B., УП, p. 4854. With GIG, resp. GIG.BA(— СТВ.ВА 2), сї.
also GIG.GIG.BA in В. E., XV, 46 :12| 117 : 1. Hilprecht, class lecture on В. E., IX, read (1898) GIG.BA =gulba
and translated “spelt ”; KU shi-ib-ri (1. 7), cf. Hebrew 7207; KU shi-ni-tum (1. 8), ef. B. E., XIV, 117a: 5. Besides
these I noted also the following: KU.MUN, В. E., ХУ, 19 : 16 | 164 : 4, 7; XIV, 23 : 1 | 65 : 13; also written KU.DA.
MUN, l.c., XV, 64 : 7, or only MUN, l.c., ХУ, 16 : 8 | 44:20, 22, 35 | 169 : 3 | 181 : 9, which shows that MUN at this
time was a certain kind of flour (not salt); KU ASH,AN.NA, Llc., XV, 140 : 1, or only ASH,AN,NA, our No, 37:8;
124 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
18 а-па """"jshparu(- USH.BAR) й was to have given to the weavers and
ka-si-ri fullers
19 ki-i man-da-at-ti-sháü-nw? id-di-nu as their due (I beg to state that)
20 a-shar! ú-kal-lumó таат-та ul wherever one looks—none has been
im(?)-ma-ha-ar received :
21 шп-та-а У shiglu(= T U)-ma^ huräsi “not even a half shegel of gold
(= AZAG.GI)
22 ul ub-ba-lum do they bring.”
23 шт-та-а? а-па biti К-Т a-ha-mi- “(Surely), they are, one with the other,
[ish] against the ‘house’ (sc. ої my
‘Lord’).”
24 it(?)-ta-sha-ab’ ù libittu( = SH EG)" There are also no adobes!
ta-a’-nu'!
KU UD, lc., XV, 140 : 2; KU mi-ir-qu, l.c., ХУ, 140 : 3; XIV, 117a : 4; KU USH, Іс, XV, 140 :4; KU.DA GISH.
BAR SHE.BA, l.c., XV, 14 140: 5; KU ar-ki-i (“rückständiges(?) Mehl”), l.c., ХУ, 168 : 20; ki-mu, l.c., ХУ, 59 : 20 | 144: 4,
5(not to be identified with ki MU(= shum) between two proper names, for which see p. 6, note); kimu ПАА. АА,
Іс. ХУ, 135 :7. KU.QAR, for which see Clay, В. E., XIV, p. 28, note to Хо. 8 : +, does probably not belong here.
Are also the si-hi-rum, SHI GAR.RASH ot B. E., XIV, 117a, ll. 1, 3, to be referred to here? With KU ef. 109, 1.8.
1 For kasiru = güsiru = “fuller,” see пана M.V.A.G., IX (1904), р. 52. ? See p. 99, n. 3.
3 The translation of 11. 17-21 depends entirely upon what view one takes with regard to the beginning of the
apodosis or answer. Thus per se the s translations might be suggested: (a) “as regards the garments of thy
servant—Erba-Marduk has given,” etc.; (b) “as regards the garments of thy servant Erba- Marduk—they have given"
(c) “as regards the garments which vt servant Erba-Marduk ... has given (was to have given)"—answer : l. 20f., i.e.,
«wherever one looks (where they keep them), none are (have been) received." қ
‘For this signification of a-shar cf., e.g., С. T., VI, 3 : 12, a-shar i-qa-ab-bu-á, i.e., (I will give it) “wherever he
shall say.
5 Ú-kal-lum by itself might be taken either as a II! of 515 (i.e., ukálü-ma, cf. ú-ka-a-al, Ham. L., 37 : 6; IP има,
Jensen, К. B., УП, р. 356), “to lift up” (synonym ої nashú), used not only of “the head ” but also of “the eyes,"
ге. “to see”; ef. kullu shá mimma(!), II R. 27 : 39, 40e, f. Or, if one prefers, he might see in ukallum a П! of поз
(i.e., ukallü-ma) with the signification of “to shut up," “to keep," c. ina, “in something," cf. C. T., II, 19 ( — B? 290): 4,
ka-li-a-ku, *I am shut up, kept (in the house of the abarakku)" ; B. E., XIV, 135 : 3, i-na Кеб... ik-la-shú-ma. If
taken in the latter sense, 1. 20 might be translated: “where they keep them (sc. the garments) none have been received.”
в Here “neuter” as in S. 273 : 22, akäla(= GAR) та-ат-та а-па a-ka-li-ia, " something to eat"; V. A. Th.,
809 : 8. а-па ma-am(?)-ma, “for anything," i.e., “at all events,” kaspa shu-bi-lam. See also Delitzsch, Gram., p. 142.
7 Introduces here the direct speech of the implied complaint of 1. 20.
з Stands here for А.АМ, “viz.” For the signification of A.AN behind numerals see now Hilprecht, BIES RST
p. 22, note 2, and cf. No. 33a : 13, p. 137.
Й
з It-ta-sha-ab, though parallel to ub-ba-lum, is here in the singular on account of the subject “one” implied in
ki-i a-ha-mi-ish. Я 10 See р. 95, п. 4.
п Besides ia-a’-nu (so also 11 : 22, 28 | 13 : 15 | 28 : 20 | 87 : 14, 18) there occur the following variants in these
letters: ia-a’-nu-wm, 26:20; ia-a-nu, 18:28 | 66:27, 29 | 71: 16 |83 : 21; ia-nu, 14:13 | 23 :30 | 44 : 11 | 57 : 13,
14181 : 12195 : 14; ia-a-nu-ma, 95 : 18; ia-a-nu-um-mi, В. E., XIV, 8:8. For the -mi(= -mu, -ma) cf. now Hinke,
В. E., Series D, IV, р, 282a, For this and the following lines cf. pp. 44f,
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 125
25 äsh-shum a-na-ku i-tu! be-li-ia As regards this that I, the itü of my
Bord.
26 al-[i(?)-ka? а-па " Erba-"" Marduk have come (saying): “Send to Erba-
Marduk
27 shü-pu-ur-ma а-па " Ku-du-ra-ni that he send to Kuduráni —
28 [U]-ish-pu-ra-ma | sukkalmahhu( = "so may the sukkalmahhu (т.е., Erba-
PAP.LUGH.MAGH) li-i[q-bi ] Marduk) finally give orders
29 libittu( = SH EG)" li-il-bi-nu that adobes be made."
30 ásh-shum? shamnu(= МІСТЯН)" sha As regards the sesame-oil of my “Lord —
be-li-ia na-shú-[ma? р “It has been removed” they read
31 il-ta-na-su а-па " Ku-du-r[a-ni] when I spoke to Kuduräni
32 (ағай Ба ki-i aq-bu-ú | um-ma-a thy servant: “Give the sesame-oil to
shamnu(= NI.GISH) i-na qati-ia mes
[i-din |
33 be-li а-па shatammi(— SH AG.T AM) My “Lord” may now send to the shatam-
li-ish-pu-ra-ma shamnu(=N I.GISH) mi that they store up the oil.
shub(= RU)-ta lish-ki-nu-[ma]
! See Chapter III, p. 35, note 4.
2 The а in al-li-ka shows that it is dependent upon a suppressed shá alter dsh-shum. Апа because allika is followed
by the imperative shupurma (1. 27) we have to supply an ummä before а-па ™Er-ba- “Marduk, making it a direct speech.
3 See Chapter IVc, p. 82.
t From 84 : 6 it is apparent that N7.GISH, “the fat of the tree," i.e., shamnu or “oil,” was obtained by “pressing”
(sahätu) the SH E.GISH.NI, i.e., the shamashshammu or “sesame.” | NI.GISH is, therefore, at this time the “sesame
oil.” For other occurrences of NI.GISH in our letters see 13: 14 | 21: 32|27 : 12, 13, 15 |35 : 32, 33, and for
SHE.GISH.NI cf. 8:3|65:5|84:3,5; В.Е. XIV, 136 :4. Cf. p. 114, note 2.
* Emendation doubtful, yet probable. For nashú in connection with the “removal” of goods “from” or “to”
certain places cf. among other passages also B.E., ХУ, 53 : 12, ASH.AN.NA .... sha В ku-nu-uk-ki ana EN.LILF
na-shu-á; l.c., 55 : 3, KU.DA .... shá ishtu «һа (i.e., “which from that of," Clay, l.c., р. 19, No. 14, wrongly “from’’)
aluShe-li-bi na-sha-a; l.c., 100 : 1, SHE shá ishtu EN.LIL'* na-sha-a КІ-П (i.e., SHE shá ми) ““Kal-bi-ia (sc. na-
sha-a); l.c., 115 : 25, ASH.AN.NA shib-shum shá .... а-па kart ish-shu-ni; l.c., 181 :2, KU.DA .... а-па UNUG*
ish-shu-ü, etc., ete. Cf. already p. 116, note 4.
5 This is, it seems to me, the best emendation according to the traces visible. | /-na gäti-ia i-din, “give into my
hand," is as much as idinanni, “give (unto) me.”
1 See Chapter III, p. 35, note 3.
8 Shubta shakánu, c. ace., “to put something on a place," “to make a resting place for something," i.e., “to store
it." Here (and p. 52, n. 5) shakänu is construed with double ace., the possibility of which appeared to Jensen, К. B., ҮП,
p. 412, doubtful. Notice also the vulgar preterit form (Dish-ki(!)-nu for (Dish-ku(!)-nu, due, no doubt, to the influence
of n, aided by the i of lish; cf. also р. 97, n. 7. If one prefers, he may see in lishkinu a III"! of 9, ushkin
(cf. ushmit of MD) + lu = lishkin (for lushkin), taking it as a causative of II’, for which see Delitzsch, H. ЈУ, B.,
p. 322a, “etwas an einem Ort aufstellen, niederlegen,”
126 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
ХП.
No. 39 (= C. В. M. 3661).
Ubarrum, a royal inspector, resp. superintendent, of rivers and canals reports to King
Kudur-Enlil about the results of his various inspections. About 1335 В.С.
From No. 39 :21 we learn that the writer of this and the following letter,
Ubarrum, was in one way or another connected with the city Пат ИИ.
This very same city is mentioned, among other places, also in В. Е., XIV, 118: І"
(5th year of Kudur-Enlil). It happens that this last-named tablet mentions, to а
great extent, the same persons which occur again in No. 48^ Among the names of
No. 48 is to be found also that of "U-bar-rum (48 : 7). From this it would follow
that both? persons by the name of Ubarrum, because closely connected with one
and the same city, are in all probability identical. If so, I propose to identify our
writer with the father of both Kuduräni, B. E., XIV, 112 : 7 (14th year of Kadash-
man-Turgu) and Zakirum, B. E., XIV, 114 : 17 (15th year of Kadashman-Turgu) ;
in other words, Ubarrum, the writer of Nos. 39 and 40, is the father of Kuduräni, the
writer of Nos. 26'-28. | Ubarrum, accordingly, must have lived at least from the 14th
resp. 15th year of Kadashman-Turgw (when he appears as the jather of the two sons
just mentioned) till the 5th resp. Sth year of Kudurri-Enlil (when he is introduced as
contemporary ої "Na-ah-zi-"" Marduk"), i.e., during a space of at least twenty-three
years. Supposing him to have been about forty years old when first mentioned, it
would follow that he reached an age of at least sixty-three years, and wrote the
letters in question sometime during е reign of Kudur-Enlil, i.e., when about sixty
years old (5th year of Kudur-Enlil). As both letters here published concern them-
selves with rivers and canals, it is safe to suppose that Ubarrum was, at the time of
Kudur-Enlil, a royal inspector of canals and waterways, about the condition of which
he had to and did report to his Lord and King.
1 Written here Раг “Ела, see also p. 9, note 1.
"Cf. e.g., 48 : 8, т Na-ah-zi- " Marduk = В. E., XIV, 118: 16; 124 : 14 (Sth year ої Kudur-Enlil); 48 : 11, m ilu Ram-
mán(= IM-ériskish = В. E., XIV, 118: 19; 120 : 7 (5th year of Kudur-Enlil); 48: 20, т МІ СТВ-А Мтезі =
B.E. XIV, 118% 127 ОР also 482022; тВи-па ММВ = В.Е., XIV, 115: 3 (hereson of "In-ni-bi, 13$ year of
Kadashman-Enlil). In 42 : 5, 7, "U-bar-ru appears as contemporary of ""Ве-Іа-ти (l. 17), which latter is likewise men-
tioned in В. E., XIV, 118 : 21 (Sth year of Kudur-Enlil) as the son of "KUR.GAR.RA. This last passage is, therefore,
against the signification “eunuch” which Jensen, K.B., УП, pp. 62, 9; 377, assigns to KUR.GAR,RA =kurgarú.
3 Ге. our writer of Nos. 39, 40 and that of 48 : 7.
! See introduction to No. 26, p. 117.
S BEL ХАМ 1122719422178
8 Cf. No. 48 : 7 with 1, 8 and with B, E., XIV, 118: 16 | 124 : 14,
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 12
“Т
The eontents of this letter are the following:
(а) Concerning the fields of T'ukulti-É.K U R^, ll. 4-6.
(b) Concerning a flooded district, ll. 7-12.
(c) Concerning the condition of the fields with crop belonging to Burräti, Il.
1216.
(d) Concerning Dûr Enlil ^"^" 11. 17(2)-26.
(e) Ll. 27-39, too fragmentary.
This letter may be read and translated:
1 ardi-ka ™U-bar-rum а-па di-na-an
be-l[i-ia lul-lik |
ит-т(а-а | а-па be-li-ia-ma
З ana egi(=A.SHAG?) а "чар
erishé( -PA*(?).ENGA R)shá be-li-ia
Бизий eqlé(= А.
bo
4 shú-ul-mu i-na
SH AG)»
5 sha Tuk(=
sha b[e-l1 |
6 ish-pu-ra ik-te-di-ir-|ru? р
KU)-kul-ti-É.KUR*'«
s Аа hi. 2 as
й ummàni( —SAB)"^ shá pa-te-si"**
-I
ù Па-те-е7 | me-e
8 ishtum’ | """Tuk(— KU)-kul-ti-E.
KURE
9 a-di &-ga-ri-e* shá ta-mi-ir-ti
Thy servant Ubarrum; before the pres-
ence of my “Lord” may I come,
speaking thus to my “Lord”:
To the field and the chief irrigator of my
oras
ereeting! With regard to the fields
of Tukulti-E.KUR concerning which my
“Lord” has written (I beg to state
that) they have established their
boundaries. й
And as regards the workmen of the
pa-te-si and the [flood 2] of waters
extending from the canal Tukulti-
E.KUR
to the plains in the neighborhood
! Doubtful, supplied according tol.4. Might be SHA(G).TAM., for which see Chapter III, р. 35, note 3.
“Тһе PA = akil is uncertain. We possibly might have to read amelu gishHNGAR, i.e., “one that tends the
watering machine." For VENGAR, i.e., nartabu, “Schépfwerk,” see Hilprecht, В. E., IX, p. 40, note to 1. 2, cf. Code
of Hammurabi, 38 : 11, 14, and above p. 35, note 3.
A greeting “to the field and irrigator(s)’
,
would be, it seems,
more in accord with the position of Ubarru, the royal inspector of canals and waterways.
3 Tena bu-ut = ina тии = shá or áshshum, see Chapter П, р. 24, note 7.
+ СГ. here "Тики (= KU)"-É.KUR, father of "IL-li-ia, B. E., XIV, 48a :7 (= 6th year of Na-zi-Mu-ru-tásh),
As KU has also the value tukulti, we might transcribe Tukulti( = КОН И,
5 For the double г cf. Behrens, L. S. S., IT, pp. 47, 1; 29, 4; 35. As I? has also passive signification (Delitzsch,
Gram., p. 232) we might translate: “their boundaries are established."
* So according to No. 24 : 20 (see p. 50, note 1)?
An emendation [la-]me-e or me-te-iq те-е, Hinke, В. F., Series
Y , ,
D, Vol. IV, p. 146, 1. 31, is, according to the traces visible, impossible.
7 Notice the m in ish-tum .... a-di.
* For ugáru, i.e., “Фе zur Stadt gehörigen Ländereien,” see Meissner, A. P., p. 123.
128 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
10 ha-am-r?* shá i-na mi-li ma-ha-ri-? of the hamri—the distriet which during
a former flood
11 ти-й is-ba-tu-ma ip-ti-nu-ma* the waters had seized and devoured (I
beg to state that)
12 iz-zi-zu* ih-ta-tu-ni й Ват-Би? they have subdued (sc. the [flood] of
waters of that district). And with
regard to the (field with) erop
13 «Ла ™Bu-ur-ru-ti shá i-na belonging to Burráti, which
14 ta-mi-ir-ti ha-am-ri intheinundated distriet has become free
15 za-ku* dul = dul)-ul-la? ul i-pu-ush (sc. from the waters of the flood, I beg
to state that) nothing is being (has
been) done.
16 ти-й ma-ha-ru-útum[..... ] The former waters ....
17 й ummáni(= SAB)"* shá be-l-ia And as regards the workmen of my
du(= dul) -ul-la “Lord,” (I beg to say that) the
work
1801 с
21 [.... ] зва Dar En l 2... of Dür-Enlil.
9 |
1 With ha-am-ri, cf. 1. 14; 52 : 19, zêr(?) egli(— A.SHAG) ha-am-rum ; B. E., XIV, 114 :13, 14, Ha-am-ri**,
Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 283a, mentions a hamru without giving a translation. Küchler, Medizin, p. 116, renders
hamáru by “wallen.” In our passage here hamru is apparently a kind of field, more particularly a field that has been
seized and cast into disorder by waters. Prof. Hilprecht (personal communication of July 9, 1908) compares with it,
quite correctly, the Hebr. Ann, Hab. 3:15, Ех. 8 : 19, and suggests a translation а Ueberschwemmvungsgebiet."
? Ma-ha-ri-i (a side form of mahrü) has a plural ma-ha-ru-ú-tum (1. 16); from this it follows that mu-ú (1. 16)
must likewise be a plural. `
з Ip-ti-nu-ma, root (ЛВ. The signification “to strengthen, support, protect” (Hilprecht, B. E., IX, р. 55,
note +), does not fit here, nor does any signification which Delitzsch, Н. W. B., p. 553b, assigns to it. Patänu here is
parallel to sabátu, and, because it follows the latter, expresses the result of the sabátu. Delitzsch, l.c., mentions a ріпи,
“Schlinge,” i.e., lit. “a seizer," thus showing again that patánu is a synonym of sabátu. The waters took (sabátu) and
seized (patánu) the fields during a former flood and, as a result of this, were east into disorder (cf. Arab. patana, c. ї.,
exciter, séduire); pitnat, discorde, sedition, troubles, etc.). Still better it would be to derive this patánu, with Hilprecht,
from-patánu = akálu, “to eat, бо devour,” Delitzsch, Н. W. B., р. 553b., hence patánu, iptin, гранат!
з Iz-zi-zu ih-ta-tu-ni is (like is-ba-tu-ma ip-ti-nu-ma) а fv dia бой; lit.: “as regards the workmen
they arose, subdued the waters (sc. by leading them back into their dams, ef. 40 : 19)." Ih-ta-tu-ni I take as а 1° of
nnn, “to subdue," Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 295b.
5 For har-bu see p. 130, note 6.
е Za-ku I take as a^permansive ої ПОЇ, “to be or become free of something" (Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 254a),
Translate: “with regard to .... which (is situated) in .... (and which) has become free (sc. from the water of
the flood).”
1 For dulla epéshu see also Behrens, L. 8. S., П, p. 8.
8 Cf. above, note 2.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPÜR. 129
23 [....] li-ish-pu-&-ra- [am- |та! .... may send
24-26 [....] XA
27 ит-та-а а-па be-li-ia i-na |.... | Also the following to my “Lord”: “In
28-37 |....|
38 «Ла be-li ish-pu-ra а-па be-li-ia concerning which my “Lord” has in-
quired (I beg
39 ush-te-bi-la to say that) I have sent it to my ‘Lord.’ ”
XIII.
No.40 (= C. B. M. 5134). (Cf. photographic reproduction, Pl. X, 24, 25.)
Ubarrum, the royal superintendent of rivers and canals, lodges a complaint against
the prefect of Dár-Sukal-patra*'. Time of Kudur-Enlil, about 1335 B.C.
For the general introduction see preceding letter, No. 39.
The contents of this letter, being similar to those of No. 39, may be subdivided
into the following parts:
(a) Complaint lodged against the prefect of Dür-Sukal-patra^' for neglect of
a certain canal, П. 3-20.
The answer to this complaint lodged with King Kudur-Enlil by Ubarru is, no
doubt, contained in No. 42 :4f.: “As regards the fields, which my ‘Lord’ has given
and concerning which Ubarru has reported to my “Lord” saying: ‘he has
neglected (lit. forsaken) them,' (s.c. I beg to state that) 'I have not neglected
(forsaken) them,’ " see above, p. 26, note 6. From this it follows that No. 42 is a
letter of the “prefect” (hazannu) ої Dür-Sukal-patra, addressed to Ше be-N or King
Kudur-Enlil, teaching us that the prefect held Dür-Sukal-patra as a fief of the crown
(egqlé"*^ sha be-li id-di-na, 42 : 4, cf. below 1. 11, shá i-na libbi"-shíá ú-ma-al-lu-ú), апа
that royal officers never mention their titles when writing to their “Lord,” but have
29
to be content with the attribute “servant,” ardu.
(6) Request that the King issue orders to the sheriff" that the waters of the
Ilu-ipush and Nalah canals ђе led back into their dams, П. 21-26.
1 Notice here the long й in bà and ef., e.g., 21 : 28, im-qu-ú-tu; 46 : 12, i-ra-u-ü-ub (ог i-ra-a'-ú-ub?); 38 : 2, ш-и-
ul-li-ik.
? The fact that orders shall be given to the “sheriff” shows that the waters of these two canals, in which the
King has an interest, had been criminally put to misuse.
17
130 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
1 ardi-ka " U-bar-rum a-na di-na-an be- Thy servant Ubarrum; before the pres-
П-Ца lul-lik | ence of my “Lord” may I come,
2 ит-та-а а-па бе-П-іа-а-та speaking thus to my “Lord”:
3 ha-za-an-nu shá Dúr-"Sukal(= The prefect of Dúr-Sukal-patra
PAP?)-pad-ra*"
4 nam-ga-ra? is-si-[ki- ir a-di shi-it-ta* has shut off the eanal so that they can
irrigate (water) at the most
5 ta-mi-ra-t® shá har-pi* і-зпа-ад-ди- й? only two fields with crops,
6 à 20 har-bus shá ub-bu-li® while there are 20 (fields with) crops
which
т [ish=shá(?) -ak-nu й i-di-ik-ku-ie* are perfectly dry and hence are de-
stroyed.
! For formation cf. Dür-Kuri-Galzu and Dür-" ilu Brrish(t)-apal-iddina, BES XIV, 18 97
2 For the various oceurrences and writings see under “Names of Rivers and Canals.”
3 Sakäru when used of “canals” means “to shut off, stop up, dam” (opp. рий). СІ. is-ki-ir, 40 :9; e si-ki-ir-ma,
3:13; is-si-ki-ir, 34 : 32; us-si-ki-ir, 12:5. Issikir = itsikir = itsakir (the i in the last syllable on account of the
г! see р. 97, note 7) = itsakar, a І”, so far known only from this passage.
4 Shi-it-ta here hardly the same as shettu( = LAL.SAR), “field” (Hommel, 8. L., р. 76 бо 57, 146), but the fem.
of shinä, “two”; as such in opposition to “20,” 1. 6. For the construction ef. shiná ûmê and shelalti ûmê, Delitzsch,
Gram., p. 333.
5 Tamiráti are the fields situated in the immediate neighborhood and environs of a city, ога flooded, inundated :
district, cf. No. 39 : 9, 14, pp. 127, 128.
* This writing here proves that har-bu (1. 6; Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 289a) has to be read harpu. Johns, A. D. D.,
р. 131, assigns to the word harbútu a meaning “waste,” or “cropped,” that is to say, “stubble” land. Myhrman, 2. A.,
XVI, р. 176, renders har-bi by *Verwüstung?" In view of the fact that harbu has to be read атри and that it renders
the Sumerian EBUR.GID.DA, “the great (long) harvest," and is the same word as the Hebrew AM, “harvest,”
the ta-mi-ra-ti «һа har-pi must be “fields” that are “with crops ready to be harvested." For harbu, cf. 17 : 38 | 11 : 14, 18,
24 | 39 : 12 | 68 : 29; har-bu c. numeral, 28 : 21, 22 | 40 : 6 | 60:2 | 68 : 5, 6; har-bi, 8 : 18; har-bi c. numeral, 3: 21,
37 | 34 : 28, 33, 34 | 63 : 10, 14, 15. See also P. 96 :9 and Peiser, l.c., p. 7, note.
7 I-sha-ag-qu may be taken either as 3d pers. plur. masc. pries. I": “so that they (= German indefinite ‘man’)
de
,
irrigate or can irrigate (= ein Feld tränken, bewässern, Delitzsch, H. W. B., р. 685a, b) only (up to) two fields with erops'
or, which is less probable, ishaqqî may be considered a IV! = ishshagqü, dependent upon har-pi. In this case ta-mi-ra-ti
shá har-pi would have to be considered as a kind of “composite noun,” the gender of which being determined by the
word nearest to the verb, i.e., by har-pi, а plur. masc. Translate: “so that only two fields with crops are watered.”
$ Objects counted are construed as, and stand in, the singular. Cf. here note 6 and p. 95, note 6.
з Ub-bu-li here not “Zerstörung durch Insekten," Jensen, К. B., УП, p. 580, but “ein sehr trocken sein,” i.e., “to
be very dry." Lit., “which exist” (IV! shakänu) as “very dry ones.” Ог have we to read [sha]-ak-nu == Perm. І,
with the same meaning? The size of the break would speak rather for the latter emendation.
10 The same form occurs again іп 66 : 6 (context mutilated). To derive it from 727 (i.e., пра (), Delitzsch,
H.W.B., р. 2165), “to overthrow, cast down, tear down," does not give any sense. We would expect here some such
signification as “to perish,” but this meaning is not yet established for 4а4й. Delitzsch, Н. W. B., p. 52a, mentions a
root MIN, “darben, mangeln, etw., entbehren." This would fit very well here, but on account of the writing with d
this root could not be П2%, but had to be ПРК, Le, Пр) (related with postbiblical Кру, “trouble, distress,”
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 181
[be | те-е a-a-ú-to ish-ki-ma
< о
[.... Ні nam-gar-ra is-ki-ir
10 be-M Lish-pu-ra-am-ma ta-mi-ir-ta
11 shá i-na libbi"-shü
lish-ki
12 à ub-bu-la li-sha-ak-li-ma'
ú-ma-al-lu-ú*
13 be-M mi-ig-ra à e-ri-shá
14 la i-ha-ad-di nam-gar-shá mush-shur
15 à shú-ú а-па? pa-an nam-ga-ri
16 shá be-h-ia a-shi-ib mu-ú i-na nam-
ga-ri-shu
17 тра |-а'-ди ù shú-ú а-па pa-an
18 nam-ga-ri an-ni-i a-shi-ib
My “Lord,” thus he has watered and
.... the canal he has shut off!
My “Lord” may give orders that he water
the whole field with which he has been
entrusted
and thus put an end to its being dry.
My “Lord,” may not delight in a favorite
and (or: i.e., in) an irrigator who neglects
his canal!
Let either the superintendent of the
'anal
of my *Lord"—if water be plentiful
in his canal—
or the superintendent of
this canal (sc., which has been neglected
so shamefully by the prefect)
ру, “to embarrass,” etc.). I propose, therefore, to take i-di-iq-qu as standing for i’ (адд, ittagqü, itteggú, iteqqu, 141440,
P of ар), “to be in want." The long й at the end is not the plural, but the relative in pause: ittaggaju, after shá (1. 6).
Hilprecht (letter of July 9, 1908) proposes to derive idikkü from dikû, postulating the significations: 1, “stürzen,
vernichten, zerstören” (transitive) ; 2, “umstürzen, итјаЏећ, umkommen ” (intransitive), translating “und verderben
(kommen um),” and referring this expression to the “Getreide, das die Köpfe hängen lässt, das umfallt, umknickt.”
However, if one prefers, he may see in i-di-ik-ku-u a 1 or IV! (cf. No. 26 : 14, i-li-ik-qa-a, see р. 119, note 3) ОЈ ==
пра with passive signification: “and in consequence of which (= й consecutivum) are cast down, destroyed!" The
last derivation and translation is possibly better than the one mentioned above (“are in want”).
1 A-a-ú-ti cannot be here translated by “wer, welcher” (Н. W. B., р. 470), but must Бе, on account of its position
(after the noun), an adjective. A-a-w-ti те-е = “what waters?" me-e a-a-ú-ti = “what kind of waters!” i.e., “such
waters!” This line, therefore, is a complaint in the form of ridicule and scorn which the writer expresses with regard
to the prefect’s doings: “My ‘Lord!’ (or en-ni = en-na, “behold”?) in such a way, with such waters he has watered the
fields!”
2 Read [ù зи рі? For -ma й cf. also р. 138, note 4. Translate: “Thus he has watered seeing that (ù) ‘that
one’ (shú-ú) has shut off the canal.”
3 Lit., “with which he (Ze, my “Lord”) has filled his heart," ¿.e., “which he has given him." Hence i-na
libbibi-shü = ana (ina) qáti-shú итапа, “with which he has filled his hand, which he has entrusted to him.”
* III! of поо, а synonym of ППО, and having the same meaning as sahápu, "бо cover something, to suppress it,
to bring to end, to end.”
5 Mu-ush-shur, ЇЇ! permansive in circumstantial clause: “leaving,” i.e., “who leaves." This explains how
the prefect “shut off” (is-si-ki-ir, 1. 4) the canal: he left it, paid no attention to it, neglected it (Permansive II! =
duration and intensity!). And by neglecting it, the canal was in course of time filled up with mud. This caused the
dryness (ub-bu-li, 1. 6).
в A-na pa-an .... a-shi-ib = ina рап dshib, one that dwells, is at the head of something, i.e., a superintendent,
Cf. here also 13 : 9, a-shi-ib pa-ni-shú-nu, От is it only “the one who lives near it”?
132 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
19 i-nanam-ga-ri-shü(?) те-е lil-ki-ma? lead (take) waters through (into) hiscanal
20 nam-gar-ra sha be-l-ia Li-mash-shi-ir* and (in this ease) let alone my “Lord's”
canal!
21 me-e """Ilu-i-pu-ush As regards the waters of the Пи-тризћ
22 ù me-e "^" Na-la-ah* and the waters of the Nalah —
23 те-е zi-it-ti sha be-li-ia waters in which my “Lord” has an
interest —
24 be-N a-na GU.EN.NA' shulmu (= DI) “let my ‘Lord’ send greeting to the
li-ig-bi-ma’ sheriff
25 а-па ki-sir(= ВО lish-pu-ru- that they lead (the waters) back into the
ni-im-ma* dam
26 lid-di-nu-ma e-ri-shú la i-ma-ad-di."" in order that the ‘irrigator’ do not com-
plain."
XIV.
No. 75 (= C. B. M. 12,582). (Cf. photographie reproduction, Pl. III, 89.)
Royal summons issued by King Shagarakti-Shuriash to his sheriff Amel-Marduk.
About 1325 B.C.
The King as shakkanakku “Enlil administered and looked after the Temple
property of the god of Nippur, consisting of fields, flocks, taxes, revenues, etc. In
the administration of such vast and extended holdings of god Enlil he had to depend,
in a large measure at least, upon his officials: shepherds, farmers, collectors of taxes,
prefeets, governors, ete. It is only natural that such an army of officers, differing
! J.e., into the canal of Ше hazannu (1. 3) who had neglected it by forsaking it (1. 14).
2 I.e., my Lord may command that either Ве... or he lead (take).
а
3 Seeing that the hazannu has forsaken and neglected his canal, the king shall issue orders to the “superinten-
dent" (who apparently is a higher official than the “prefect”) that the latter lead waters through (into) the neglected
canal and in this case do without the waters from the “ Lord's" canal.
1 For the situation of this canal cf. the topographical map of Nippur in T. D. A. of U. ој Pa., П, p. 223f., and see
Clay, B. E., XIV, p. 7, comparing with it what has been said under "^^" Nalah in “Names of Canals and Rivers,” below.
5 See Delitzsch, Н. W. В., p. 2655; Tallquist, Sprache, p. 70, and Meissner, A. Р., р. 104.
* For this title cf. introduction to No. 75, p. 133.
? Lit., “speak greeting."
$ With ki-sir-ti, “stone dam,” cf. also 13 : 6.
° Lish-bu-ru-ni-im-ma lid-di-mu-ma, £v бій бет»: that they (the men instructed by the sheriff, i.e., the deputy
sheriffs) may send or give orders that the waters of the two canals (Il. 21, 22) be given back, returned, led back into
their dams.
10 For i-ma-ad-di = i-ma-at-ti, root NUN, see Jensen, К. B., УП, pp. 364, 557, "klagen, stóhnen, Wehklage erheben
и. dergl.” and ef, 13 : 18, ü-ma-da = umatta.
оо
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 199
in rank and influence, eould not at all times work together in harmony and peace-
fulness. Then, as now, petty jealousies made themselves felt, which very often
took the form of slander. Wheresoever and whensoever opportunity offered itself,
one official would aceuse the other of all imaginable offenses in the administration
of his particular office. The result of such an accusation, which here is indignantly
referred to as “slander,” is this letter.
Hanibi, son of Sämi, a shepherd, had complained to the King, his highest
superior, of having been slandered by Errish-nädin-shum and others. The nature
of this slander is, unfortunately, not to be made out, as the passage in question is
very mutilated. It possibly referred to some wrong statements supposedly to have
been made by the complainant at the time when the inventory of the flocks was taken.
The King, knowing that the affairs of the Temple and State can best be administered
only if slanders, wrong accusations, and jealousies give way to peace, quietness, and
“brotherly love" among the several officials, dispatches this letter to Amel-Marduk,
summoning him to produce the orginators of the slanders and bring them before
him (the King).
Two things become evident from this letter: (1) Every offense against an
official of the Temple or State is a crime against the King—a lèse majesté. Тһе King,
therefore, appears not only as the person to whom the officials had to and did report
their grievances, but he, as good administrator, takes an interest in the happiness
and contentment of his subordinates by trying to do justice to both, offender and
offended. This he did by inquiring into the pro and con of the accusations and by
passing judgment thereon: the King becomes thus the highest judge, the court of last
appeal. (2) Amel-Marduk, to whom the royal summons was issued, is evidently an
official of the King, whose functions consisted in citing, resp. arresting, and bringing
before the King, for purposes of judgment (па), slanderers or other criminal offenders.
From 81 : 6f. we learn that such an official was known by the title GU.EN.NA, i.e.,
lit. “strength of the Lord,” who may or may not have other GU.EN.N Аз, i.e., deputy
sheriffs, under him, for we read, l.c., dsh-shum таг" N 1-ib-bu-rum sha GU.EN.N A-ka
ash-shü-mi-ka im-ta-na-ah-ha-rum um-ma-a а-па Mär-"In-ni-bi а-па di-ni |... . |, i.e.,
“as regards the Nippurians whom thy' sheriff has seized (lit. has received) upon thy
command (I beg to state) the following: “To Mär-Innibi for the purpose of judgment
[he has taken them? |” Amel-Marduk, exercising here the functions of the G U.EN.N AL
has, therefore, to be identified with the Amel-""Marduk GU.EN.NA En-lil", B. E.,
! I.e., ТА hu-ú-a-Ba-ni, Ше addressee of the letter, who, therefore, must have been a sheriff-in-chief.
? See already above, p. 24, note 5.
134 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
XIV, 136 :1. From B. E. ХІУ, we furthermore learn that Amel-Marduk lived
during the 5th' and Sth? year of Kudur-Enlil, “the beginning of the reign," and the
Sth, 9th,° and 10th? year of Shagarakti-Shuriash. As sheriff (GU.EN.N A*) he had, of
course, a prison (14-1, В. E., XIV, 135 :3), where such persons as ” пи Hrrish(t)-
nádin=shum, the slanderer, were held (Хай) for judgment; he had to be present
(ü-kin-nu) when the several seribes made their final reports (ri-ha-a-nu shá DUB.
SHAR™* sha NIN.AN"**, B. E., XIV, 136: 1) or “drew the balance of accounts.”
In short, wherever and whenever the “affairs (amäti) of the King” were in need of the
strong support of the “arm of the law,” the GU.EN.NA had to give it: he was “Ше
Lord's (EN-NA) strength (GU),” as such acting “for (or in place of) the King,”
ina muh LUGAL, р. 84, note 9.
Amel-Marduk seems to have advanced to the office of a GU.EN.NA from that of a
ovs AG.LUGAL. Та the latter position he is mentioned during the 6th and 7th
year of Shagarakti-Shuriash. I read therefore, B. E., XIV, 132 :2, |" Amel- |Marduk
ame SAG.LUGAL. In his capacity as SAG.LUGAL Бе was present (ü-kin-nu)
at the taking of the inventory of the flocks (mi-nu LIT.GUD й GANAM.LU).
This very same tablet mentions also ”Ha-ni-bi mar Sa-a-mi (l.c., l. 12), the na-gid or
“shepherd,” who appears in our letter as the complainant (1.7). There can, then, be
no doubt that the Amel-Marduk of our letter has to be identified with the @ U.EN.NA
of Nippur, and that the King who addressed this letter to his sheriff was none other
than Shagarakti-Shuriash. Our letter has, consequently, to be placed at about 1325
B.C. For documents which are clearly official reports ("2 B) of the sheriff Amel-
Мағаш» to his “Lord,” i.e., either to King Kudur-Enlil or to King Shagarakti-
Shuriash, see No. 3 (report about the condition of canals, cf. 40 : 24 | 46 : 11); В. E.,
XIV, 123a : 15 (report about the royal(!) 21.04), and B. E., XIV, 137 (report about
the liabilities, LAL.NI, of the prefeets, hazannu). Our letter may be transeribed
and translated as follows:
! B. E., XIV, 118 :19.
2 L.c., 123a : 15.
3 The Атей ч Магаш: mentioned in the 13th year of Kul .... 1, B. E., XIV, 125 : 4, belongs to the reign of
Ku[ri-Galzu!]. This against Clay, l.c.
а ис 2 95
SC LSD ВО.
је - 186-15
"Dc. 187 227.
в For other occurrences see 40 : 24 | 45 :19|46 :11 | 59 : 5; В. E., XIV, 39:1 |14228: В. В. ХУ, 191 :13;
Meissner, Ideogramme, Хо. 2050; Hinke, В. Е., Series D, IV,p.264b. For the GU.EN.NA among the gods see my forth-
coming volume on “The Religious Texts of the Temple Library.”
? The shú-la-ásh-shum after Amel-Marduk in B. E., ХУ, 171 : 6, which Clay, l.c., p. 260, takes to be a title, is,
1
of course, an Imperat. III! of пэў + shü + m(a).
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 135
1 а-па ™Amel- Marduk ki-bi-ma To Amel-Marduk speak,
2 um-ma sharru(= LUGAL)-ma thus saith the King.
3 um-ma-a а-па " Amel- Marduk The following to Amel-Marduk:
4 т iuMppish(t) (= NIN.IB)-nádin (= Errish-nädin-shum,
SE)-shum(= MU)
5 таг ™Ap-pa'-na-a-[a? | son of Appandi,
6 «Ла da-ba-ab [limnitim | who has slandered
7 ü-ti "Ha-ni-[bi id-bu-ub | Hanibi ;
8 à "Dam-qu [már ....] and Damqu, the son of ....
9 [shá i]t-4 " "X XX-[....] who has slandered Sin-. . . .
10 [da-ba аб [limniitim idbub |
pies v] ande.
ШО К AAA [emos] SUN
d ees]
tere [а buo) na)
19 [.... |-di-in
20 [.... -da-ku ee
21 [.... бе|-е da-ba-bi-shi .... his slanderer
22 а-па тип |-ia bring him
23 shú-bi-la-ash-shú. before me!
XV.
No. 33a (= C. B. M. 6123). (Cf. photographie reproduction, Pl. IV, 10, 11.)
A general's explanatory letter to the King. About 1400 B.C.
,
The expressions “guards,” “chariots,” “fortress,” “enemy,” “to campaign,”
“to go on an expedition” (ana girri aláku resp. tebú), “to plunder,” ete., ete., occur-
ring in this letter, show that the writer must have been an officer, more especially a
general commanding the chariots (ef. ash-ba-tu, 1. 22) in his King's army. Unfor-
tunately for our investigation there occurs only one name in the whole letter, and
this is not mentioned in any of the tablets published in В. £., XIV and XV. We
are, therefore, at a loss to state definitely who the King here referred to was. The
name of the writer and “general” was "NIM.GI-shar(— LUGA L)-ili( = AND meh
ie., *NIM.GI is the king of the gods"—a formation parallel to Rammdan-shar-ili
1 Or "Isin(= Ezen)-na-a-[a]?
136 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
(Хо. 36 : 1; B. E., XIV, 101 : 5 et passim), Marduk-shar-ili (В. E., XIV, 121 ШӘ)
ete. Clay, В. E., XIV, p. 455, mentions a NIM.GI-ra-bi (L.c., 142 : 5), and in В. E.,
ХУ, p. 38a, а NIM.GEra-bu (l.c., 130 : 3), adding in both cases: “(Cassite)”. This
addition he, no doubt, made on the strength of Delitzsch, Die Sprache der Kossäer,
p. 26 : 41, where the Cassite nim-gi-ra-ab is explained by the Assyrian e-te-rum, “to
protect.” As, however, NIM.GI-ra-bi, resp. NIM.GI-ra-bu, corresponds to such
names as Shamash-rabü (B. E., XV, 183 :3) or Ilu-ra-bi (В. E., XIV, 39 : 7), resp.
Пи-тађи (1.с., 106 : 4), we have to understand the so-called Cassite vocabulary cum
grano salis! NIM.GI-ra-ab (ra-bi, rabû) must be translated by “NIM.GI is (the) great
one (sc. among the gods).” This “great one” was, like NIN.IB, a god of lightning,
“one who smites the enemies,” and also “one who protects (étir) the faithful.” In
this wise it happened that NIM.GI-ra-ab came to be looked upon as the e-te-rum,
the “protector” par excellence. Such an "“E-di-ru we find among the gods of Ё-зад-М,
III R., 66, Rev. 130. And as NIN.IB was identified with Enlil, во NIM.GI, resp.
NIM.GI-ra-bi, was considered to be one with Har-be (= Enlil); hence the name
NIM.GI-ra-Har-be (С. В. M. 3446, Clay, B. E., XIV, 48b) has to be read Ёт" Н ате,
“a protector is Harbe.” NIM.GI becomes thus the name of a Cassite eod who
played originally the róle of the “Son,” but who, later on, was identified with the
*Father," with Harbe.
The several subject matters of this letter are clearly indicated by the stereo-
typed repetition of the um-ma-a а-па be-Di-ia-ma and are the following:
(a) Answer to an inquiry of the King as to whether the chariots have gone out
to the place previously designated, ll. 5-12.
(b) The five old chariots shall go out on the expedition as commanded, П. 12-14.
(c) Suggestion as to how the gouvernement and the fortress may be protected
by the cities and by the writer, ll. 15-24.
(d) Rectification of the writer's former suggestion as to the use of one chariot,
coupled with the request that the King command either the sak-shup-par or the writer
to go out with two chariots, while other two are to be left behind to guard the
fortified camp, ll. 25-37.
The letter reads:
1 ardi-ka "NIM.GI-shar(= LUGAL)- Thy servant NIM.GI-shar-ili;
(= AN)
2 а-па di-na-an be-li-ia L[u-ul-Li ]k before the presence of my “Lord” may
I come(!)
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 137
3 ana álu"^ massartu(= EN.NU. Unto the cities and the guards
UN.[NA |)?
4 зла be-li-ia shá-ul-[m ји . of my “Lord” greeting!
5 ит-та-а а-па be-li-ia-ma The following to my “Lord”:
6 зла be-l ish-pu-ra um-ma-a У Snap. With regard to what my “Lord” has
kabti?-ka written, saying:
7 ш-й am-ra-ad-ma* a-shar a-sap-pa- *Behold I have ordered out thy five
rak-ku chariots; have they started going
8 tu-si-i-ma’ tal( = PI)-lak to the place I have written thee?"
9 ит-та-а а-па be-Di-ia-ma I beg to state the following to my
Bord’:
10 at-tu-ú-a* а-па muh У ""narkabtu “I am there at the head of the five
chariots,
11 «Ла be-N i-du-á а-а ти um-ma-a asmy ‘Lord’ knows—or hastheinspector
not informed (my Lord) saying:
12 i-ba-dsh-shi7 um-ma-a а-па бе-П-та- ‘he is’?” Also the following to my
ma Рога”:
13 V-ma® *"narkabtu labirtu (= Uy “The five old chariots shall go to where-
а-па gir-ri sha be-D. soever my ‘Lord’
14 i-gab-bu-ü il-la-ale shall command.”
1 For hal resp. ásh-ásh as plural sign cf. 1. 15, an-nu-ú-tum ат!
апа see Chapter I, p. 12, note 1.
?EN.NU.UN = EN.NUN = massartu, Н. W. В., p. 478a. See also р. 37, note 9.
з Objects counted stand in, and are construed as, singulars—hence tu-si-i-ma tal-lak, 1. S—cf. i-ba-ash-shi, 1. 12;
te-ba-at, 1. 24, and see р. 95, note б. In 1. 34, П ®"narkabtu are treated, however, as a masc. singl.: lil-li-ik for là
tallik. Зее also note 10.
+ Delitzsch, H. W. B., р. 425b, mentions a root 772 without giving its signification. According to the context
marddu may have some such meaning as “to ask for,” “summon,” "(бо command) to go or bring out” (ef. Arab. marada,
* pousser"), “to bein need of." This passage shows that marádu has an a in the Pret. and Pres.: amrad, amarad.
5 Бу itself this & (ка дроп, expressed in the form of a circumstantial clause (Pret. plus Pres., Delitzsch,
Gram., $ 152, p. 362), might be taken as referring to the writer: “hast thou gone out” (then 2d pers. masc. singl.).
In no event, however, ean fu-si-i-ma be taken in the sense of either “hast thou brought out” (this had to be tushési)
”
or “thou (they) shalt (shall) go” (this required a form tussi, ef. 1. 26, us-sa-am-ma).
* Literally: “As regards me I have come to the five chariots (and am now with them), as my Lord knows—or has
the inspector not (informed my Lord) saying, ‘he has come to them’ (sc. and is now with them)?”
7 This may be either Pres. of bashü, “to be," or Pret. of bä’u, “to come,” plus shi, referring back to V SUnarkabtu.
8 For this -ma cf. 35 : 21, p. 124, note 8.
ө With U = labirtu, “old,” ef. В. E., XIV, 124 : 10, istnarkabtu SHUL.GI on the one hand and GUDE-@ SHU.GI
(В. Е., XV, 199 : 42; E. B. H., р. 370, 11) on the other.
10 By translating as given above, I connect illak with V-ma %“narkabtu, cf. 1. ЗА lil-li-ik, and see note 3.
Narkabtu, therefore, is construed in our letter both as fem. and as masc. If this translation be objected to, we would
have to render 1. 13: “he shall go with the five chariots," ete., referring the “he” to а person well known to the
18
135 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
15 an-nu-ü-tum Фи“ shá ђе-ђу As regards these cities concerning which
my “Lord” (has inquired, saying):
16 i-na mi-ni-i pihûta (= NAM)" “With what (how) shall they guard
17 li-is-su-ru the gouvernement?”
18 [um ]-ma-a а-па Бе-Пі-іа-та I beg tostate the following to my “Lord” :
19 [;]-na gi-na-a a-na-ku ash-ba-ku-ma* "T shall be campaigning in the fields
20 ù gi-na-a ir-te-ni-id-du-ma* while they (are trying to)invade the fields
21 а-па фи“ зла be-Ù shü-ul-m[u-shü |- up to the very cities the welfare of which
ni my 'Lord' has at heart.
22 1-па-ап-па V-ma *"narkabtu shá ash- Now, the five chariots which I have com-
ba-tu-ma® manded
23 [b]i-ir-ta i-na-as-sa-ru* а-па gir-ri must be going out to wheresoever my
‘Lord’ shall command,
24 «Ла be-N i-gab-bu-ü te-ba-at only while they (the cities) guard the
fortified camp.
“Lord,” concerning whom the writer had received orders to send him out with five old chariots. Aläku ana girri c.
acc., “to go (march) with something to," here apparently used of military expeditions. Cf. tebú ana girri, 1. 24.
1 Undoubtedly a shortened sentence for ashshum annütum Glu!” shá Бей ishpura ummä. Notice the position
of annütum!
2NAM = pahäti, piháti is well known. For nasáru c. acc. and ina see p. 139, note 6.
3 Cf. the later ki-i i-na 9! * X. us-ba-ku-ni. Ash-ba-ku-ma й... . ir-te-ni-id-du-ma is, like i-na-as-sa-ru . . . .
te-ba-at (note 7, д. v.), a circumstantial clause with a change of subjects. The subject of ash-ba-ku-ma is the writer in
his capacity as “general” (1.6., his chariots and men) and that of ir-te-ni-id-du-ma are the “enemies.” |
‘Notice the -ma й! Cf. here “die Wagen sha rákibushin dikima u shina mushshuräma rämänushshin ittanallard,
deren Wagenlenker gefallen war, während sie selbst verlassen waren und für sich selbst umherfuhren,”
Gram., p. 364, from Sanh., VI, 9ff.
quoted by Delitzsch,
5 Jensen, К. B., VT, p. 317, has shown (against Delitzsch, H. W. B., р. 612f., who enumerates four roots 71717)
that there is only one MM, but the significations which he assigns to this verb (fliessen, nachfolgen, hinterhergehen,
treiben) do not fit here. Nagel, B. A., IV, р. 480, argued on the basis of Letters of Hammurabi, ЗА : 7, for a meaning
“holen, nehmen,” comparing it with Jud. 14:9, “and the honey DES WIN) he took into his hands.” Тһе
best translation of P 777, because construed с. асс. and ana, would be, it seems to me, “they went (sc. to take,
plunder, ef. also 1. 27)," “they invaded,” “swept down upon.”
в For shabatu (ashbat(!), ashabat), “treiben,” see Jensen, К. B., VI', p. 533. Here, because applied to a “general”
in connection with chariots = “to command."
7 I-na-as-sa-ru .... te-ba-at is a circumstantial clause (Perm. plus Pres.), with a change of subjects. The
hal
subject of i-na-as-sa-ru is Фи“, while that of te-ba-at is V-ma Ў“
narkabtu (cf. note 3). Гог such constructions see
Delitzsch, Gram., 4152, pp. 364, 363 and above, note 3. The suggestion which the writer makes to his King's inquiry
is this: “Let me defend the open country with the chariots, while the cities, resp. the inhabitants of the cities,
must protect the fortress." To protect the open country chariots are absolutely necessary; with these the general
can hurry quiekly from place to place and thus drive away the enemy. For the protection of the fortified camp
chariots are less needed than men, soldiers, and these the cities shall furnish.
FROM THE TEMPLE. ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 139
25 ù ін а-па tur(= KU)-ru-ki-ia’
ametur om РАТ)
26 ul i-had( = PA)-d? us-sa-am-ma
27 i-hab-ba-at ит-та-а а-па be-I-ia-ma
28 be-N а-па sak-shup-par' liq-bi- [ma |
29 II ^"narkabtu а-па gir-ri shá be-t
i-gab-bu-ü
30 11-11-16 ù a-na-ku lu-uk-ka-li-ma?
31 ina П ""narkabtu bi-ir-ta sha be-li-ia
32 lu-us-sur* ù a-la-ka
33 be-li ish-tap-ra-am-ma
34 П ""narkabtu it-ti-ia lil-Li-ik?
35 ù И ""narkabtu li-ik-ka-Li-ma
36 bi-ir-ta shá Бе-й- а |
37 li-is-sur*
1 Tt-ti, sc. narkabtu, is the fem. of edu, “one.”
And with regard to the one (chariot with
which I was) to smite (the enemy)
so that (t)he (enemy)
may not(again) become fresh, go out, and
plunder, the following to my “Lord”:
“My ‘Lord’ may give orders to the sak-
shuppar
that he go with two chariots to whereso-
ever my ‘Lord’ shall command,
while / may be kept behind (back)
and guard with two (other) chariots the
fortified camp of my ‘Lord’;
but if my ‘Lord’
should write, telling me to go,
then may two chariots accompany me,
while he may be kept behind with two
chariots
and guard the fortified camp
of my ‘Lord.’ ”
2 Inf. II! of ДОЛ. Jensen, К. B., УП, pp. 421, 436, 450, 498, zer-, nieder-schlagen, Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 714a,
entzweireissen, zersprengen. Turruku is used here apparently in the sense of mahäsu, both as a means of “defense” and
“offense.” Lit. translated this line would read: “And with regard to that one (chariot) which was (to serve) for my
smiting (sc. the enemy).”
ЗА reading i-pa-di, from 779, “to destroy ” (cf. (арай, “destruction, ” Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 515b), though
possible, is against the succession of events—we would expect: go out, plunder, destroy! I-had-di = i-hat-ti from
NON, “to sin"; and as each and every sin is а “Vermessenheit (gegen Сон) I translated as given above. Prof. Hilprecht
suggests a translation, “möge sich nicht freuen (i-had-di = i-ha-di, y WM,” d. h., ** möge kein Vergnügen daran finden
auszurücken," in anderen Worten, “ möge nicht fröhlich darauf losplündern." (Personal communication of July 9, 1908.)
4 For the sak-shup-par see above, Chapter III, p. 37, note 12.
5 Notice the difference between lukkalima, 1. 30 (= 1st person) and likkalima, 1. 35 (= 3d person). Both forms
are IV! of 92 “to be kept back,” “to be retained.”
в Nasdru с. acc. and ina, “to protect, guard something with something.” Cf. р. 138, note 2.
7 As narkabtu is fem. (р. 137, n. 3), we would expect here lá tallik, cf., however, ibid., note 10.
8 The writer apparently has changed his mind since he addressed his last note to the King. He finds that one
chariot will not be sufficient to cope effectively with the enemy. Two chariots must be sent against the enemy, while
two others are needed to protect the fortified camp. (The birta of ll. 31, 36 has, of course, nothing to do with
that of 1. 231) He leaves it, however, to the King as to whom to send out or to keep behind with the chariots requested.
140 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
XVI.
No. 38 (= C. B. M. 1955). (Cf. photographie reproduction, Pl. VII, 18, 19.)
A letter of Shirigtum, a Nippurian, sent out by his Lord and King to look after the
receipts of wool and provender. About 1400 B.C.
This letter has been translated chiefly on account of its manifold peculiarities:
(D “SUGH, generally read Tishhu and identified either with NIN.IB or with
Ishtar, is here apparently a name for ““En-lil; (2) the strange form пар-ії (ll. 4, 6)
for nap-shá-ti(?) ; (3) the unusual stat. constr. in shikittum( = NIG.GAL)"" пар-и-ка
(1. 6); (4) the expression а-па li-ti for single а-па (ll. 14, 17); (5) Ше two new words
a-da-tum"** and il-hu-u; (6) the long й in lu-ú-ul-li-ik (l. 2).
Unfortunately there is no other person mentioned in B. E., XIV or XV, known
by the name Shirigtum. We are, therefore, at a loss to place this letter historically.
This much, however, we may maintain, that our writer was a Nippurian, living prob-
ably at the time of Kuri-Galzu (cf. the invocation and see above, Chapter ПІ, pp. 38ff.),
who had been sent out by his “Lord” and King to look after the receipts of wool and
provender.
'The contents of that part of the letter which is preserved are the foilowing:
(a) A-da-tum"*^ and ићи have been sent, ll. 15-18.
(b) 12 qa of barley shall be removed, as per previous order, ll. 19-21.
1 ardi-ka "Shi-ri-iq-tum а-па «Ці-па- Thy servant Shiriqtum ; before the pres-
an ] ence
2 be-li-ia lu-u-ul-L-[ik]' of my “Lord” may I come!
3 "Tishhw(—- ОСН) й shar-rat Tishhu and the queen of Nippur
^"Nippur(— EN.LIL)[*]
4 nap-ti be-li-ia li-is-su-rum may protect the life of my “Lord”;
5 “гей (= NIN TB SU “МГК. Errish and NIN.MAGH who inhabit
MAGH a-shib
6 shá älu-ki shikittum(— NI(G).GÄL)"" the city (1.е., Nippur) may protect thy
nap-ti-ka creatures!
7 li-is-su-rum ma-an-nu pa-an Whosoever
8 ba-nu-tum «һа be-Di-ia li-mur may see the gracious face of my “Lord”
1 Notice here the long й, out ої lû + a (of Ist person), in lu-ú-ul-lizik. Though this й may be called a
graphically long ú, it need not be a morphologically long й [for lu-ü-ul-li-ik may stand for lû + ú-ul-li-ik, a form well
known from the inscriptions, but not yet found in tablets from the Cassite period, Hilprecht] . But then ú-ul-li-ik
would have to be a П', while in this and all other passages it is evidently a Г!
? For introduction, ll. 3-11, see above, Chapter III, pp. 39ff.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 141
à(?) man-nu da-ba-ba táb(= HI)"
[а-па | бе-й-га li-il-te-mi
[ит-т |а-а а-па be-Di-ia- [ma |
Fr... large break |
[. и. put і-4а-би-й
а-па (і-й be-li-ia
i-li-qa-a? 2 MA? sha a-da-tum"*"
ù 2 il-hu-w
а-па li-ti be-li-ia
il-te-bi-la
ù si-di-tum^ be-li li-mur
12 [SHE].BAR i-na-[shi-t ki |
[ash-pu? |-ra-ka.*
and whosoever be of “good words"
may listen to my “Lord”!
The following to my “Lord”:
...» they say
to my “Lord”
they (he) will take. Two mana of dark-
red(?) wool
and two Ша
he has sent
to my “Lord.”
And as regards the provender, my “Lord”
may be assured
that they shall take away the 12 (ga) of
barley as
I have written thee(?).
1 For Ши cf. King, Letters of Hammurabi, І, p. XLII; Nagel, В. A., ТУ, p. 479, and especially Jensen, К. B., ҮП,
рр. 337, 403, 466, who quite correctly recognized that а-па lit (or, as in our letter, а-па li-ti) is as much as ana, “zu hin.”
2 As the context is mutilated, it is hard to tell whether this is the 3d pers. fem. (or masc.) plural ( =iliqû = iliqú =
Пада; for the vowel i, instead of a, see also Behrens, Г. S. S., Ш, р. 53), or whether this is a singular, parallel to il-te-bi-la
(1. 18), the long й at the end indicating the chief sentence.
By itself it might be also a 3d pers. plur. (or sing.) preterit
(Шай = ilgá, see p. (9, note 5), or even а IV! = illigä(ü), see above, р. 119, note 3.
(i.e., soss), cf. В. E., ХУ, 199 : 29, 40 | 19 : 20 | 73 : 15 | 154 : 45 | 149 : 44, etc.
3 MA is here an abbreviation of. ma-na (cf. also B. E., XV, 6 : 11), just as SHU is abbreviated from shú-shú
See p. 77, note 1.
1 A-da-tum”"*8 must be something that was measured according to ma-na—a kind of wool? Strange is here the
shá between MA and a-da-tum?'**^. seeing that the “object measured” follows almost invariably directly (.e., without
a shá) upon the “measure,” cf. 23 : 24 | 27 : 31, etc.
p. 315, are out of question here.
2 АС ЗУ 196, Пе
The adattu mentioned in Delitzsch, H. W. B., р. 26a, and l.c.,
The former means “ Wohnstitte,’’ and the latter “© corbeille," Thureau-Dangin,
We may, however, consider it as standing for adamatum, adamtum, adantum, adattum, adatum
(sc. shipätu), i.e., “dunkelfarbige, dunkelrote, braunrote Wolle” (cf. IL DIS, Delitzsch, Н. W. B., p. 26a).
5 ТЕ a-da-tum" es^
be one kind, 2 (sc. ma-na) il-hu-i might possibly be another kind of wool. The form (ilh)
is, however, against this supposition, for we would expect a formation like ilhit (fem. on account of shipátu) if this
existed. Or have we to suppose a reading like: 2 (57244) Д-ри-?
e
6 Si-di-tum, “provender” (Delitzsch, H. W. B.,
p. 563b: Reisekost, Proviant), occurs also in B. E., XV, 143 : 3|
154 : 45 (Clay's copy gives here ad(!)-di-tum), and si-di-su(= sidit-su) in В. E., XV, 168 : 30, 33. (Cf. here also the
si(!)-si(!)-ti of B. E., ХУ, 87 : 10?)
7 Emendation is hardly correct! We would expect ki (sha) апа be-li-ia ashpura.
142 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
XVII.
No. 45 (2 C. B. M. 11,860).
An unknown writer complains to his “Lord” and King that, though he asked for
“pots,” “straw” has been sent (о him—a mistake showing that even Babylonians
could and actually did misread their own signs: IN™™ (= straw) was read
instead of KAN.NI”""* (= pots). About 1370 B.C.
More partieularly the contents of this letter are the following:
(a) The “good reeds" have been sent to the King, ll. 4-9.
(b) Complaint about the “straw” which has been sent instead of “pots,” 11. 10-13.
(c) Request for (a) one talent of copper, ll. 14, 15; (6) for good hulup trees,
Ш 16, E
(4) The affairs of the King are being well looked after by Ше sheriffs, 11. 18-22.
(c) Communication that the writer had gone to Dúr-Kuri-Galzu for one purpose
or another, ll. 23-25.
[ardi-ka "X ....] Thy servant X ....;
2 а-па di-[na-an be-li-ia | before the presence of my “Lord”
3 [lu \l-lik ulm-ma-a а-па be-li-ia-ma | may I come,speaking thus to my “Lord”:
4 [ash-shum sh ја t[a-ash-pu-ra | [With regard to thy inquiry(?) ....]
DE- DECU G DUGI HINGA [whether ....| and the good reeds
6 [.... Ja ul-te-b[i-l Ja .... has brought
7 i? [ar di-ka " Ahu-ra(?)-ásh-shá(?)* (I beg to state that) thy servant
Ahurashsha
8 GI DUG(= НІ). СА а-па be-li-ia has brought the good reeds
9 ul-te-bi-la to my “Lord.”
10 à i-na bu-ut di-ga-ra-ti Furthermore I wrote that “pots”
11 а-па ra-di-i al-ta-p [ar | be brought down,
12 à tibnu( = IN)" Бе-Й but they were "straw"!
13 am-m? an-na-a ú-she-bi-la What for has my “Lord” sent this?
1 GI DUG.GA = дапй tabu, good, i.e., sound, reeds that are not rotten.
2 ù introduces here the apodosis.
3 Or "Ahu-shá(?)-ásh(?)-ra(?) ; both readings are very doubtful.
“Тһе only way to account for such a mistake in sending "straw" instead of “pots” is by supposing that our writer
must have used in his former letter the ideogram KAN.NI for diqaráti. The *order-filler" mistook KAN.NI for IN
and sent, accordingly, “straw.”
5 Am-mi = ana-mi = "249. Mi, therefore, is an abbreviation for minu, “what,” Jensen, К. B., УП, p. 472. For
another mi — -mu — -ma, see p. 124, note 11.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 145
14 1 biltu(= GUN) erü= URUDU) My “Lord” may send one talent
be-N
15 li-she-bi-lam-ma of copper.
16 si-it hu(?)'-Du-ub da-a-a-bi? May I bring the rest of the
17 lu-shal-li-im® good hulup trees?
18 um-ma-a а-па be-Di-ia-ma Also the following to my “Lord”:
19 a-ma-ti shá GU.EN.NA* “The affairs of the GU.EN.NA,
20 ma-la i-ba-ash-shu-ü as many as there are,
21 a-na be-li-ia are entrusted safely
22 pa-aq-da-at to my ‘Lord.’
23 а-па *"Dür-Ku-ri-[Gal-zu | To Dür-Kuri-Galzu
24 [at-ta Чай [....] I уе... 2
25 Ес
XVIII.
No. 76 (= С. B. M. 3660). (СІ. photographie reproduction, Pl. XI, 28.)
A father's peremptory order to his son to send in his report. About 1400 В.С:
From this letter we learn that the “report” (di-e-ma, 1. 5) took its origin with
the “son,” who had to send it to the be-el SHE.BAR (1. 7). The latter again had to
report to the “father,” who turned it over to the King (Ре-еї) As the report has to
be sent by the “son” to the be-el SHE.BAR, we may, and this quite rightly, assume
that the di-e-ma embodied a report about the receipts, resp. expenditures, of “barley”
in connection with a sub-station of a branch storehouse of the Temple of Enlil, over
which the “son” presided.’ This would give us the following classification of the
various storehouses: (a) sub-station of a branch storehouse (son); (b) branch
1 The sien hu looks here like si in si-it, but a word si-lu-ub does not exist; or is si-lu-ub = su-lu-up, “dates”?
As, however, the things here mentioned are apparently building materials (reeds, bronze, hulup trees), I prefer to read
as given above. If si-lu-ub = su-lu-up be preferred, we might translate : * Shall I bring the rest of the good dates?"
2 The bi has here the appearance ої TUR resp. І. Раб is a ја“а! form, expressing quality or occupation,
Delitzsch, Gram., p. 168 (5 65), No. 24. Cf. also the stress laid upon the quality of the СТ, 1. 5, 8.
з On account of the lu in lu-shal-li-im, this form cannot be the third (which had to be lishallim), but must be the
first person. But whether it be a I! or II! is doubtful. I take it to be a ІГ, for which see King, Letters of
Hammurabi, ПІ, p. 292.
4 See introduction to No. 75, р. 133.
5 It ought to be noticed here that the King, when addressed by his subjeets, is called be- or EN-(li), but when
spoken of to a third person, is referred to as either LUGA L ог be-el.
в Cf. here also the request for such a report in No. 84 : 11, see pp. 114, 84ff.
144 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
storehouse (be-el SHE.BAR); (с) main storehouse (father); (d) central office at
Nippur (King, resp. bursar-in-chief). This letter, then, shows more than anything
else that the so-called “Temple Archives” are nothing but administrative reports about
the receipts, resp. expenditures, of the various branch storehouses of the Temple of
Enlil—reports as they had to be made to the earthly representative of the god of
Nippur, the King, the shakkanakku “Enlil!
І um-ma-a a-bi-ka Thus зай thy father:
2 i-din pa-nu-ú-ka! “Give,
3 ul ib-ba-ba-lu? be good,
4 d shum-ma i-na mu-uh-hi and send, as soon as ready,
5 ti-shí? di-e-ma the report
6 shü-up-ra-am-ma to the
7 а-па be-el SH E.BAR* “lord of barley’
8 di-e-mi а-па be-el so that I may send my own
9 (SH E.BAR erasure)
10 lu-te-ir report to the ‘Lord’ (7.e., the King).”
зара
No. 89 (С. В. М. 19,764).
An official of Dúr-ilu sends а messenger with a note to the King, then at Nippur.
Another note, addressed to "NIN-nu-ü-a of Nippur, could not be delivered by
the same messenger, because the addressee had gone on business to Sippar,
fifty miles distant. Whereupon the official of Dür-ilu sent the present explana-
tory note to Sippar, whence it was brought back by "NIN-nu-ü-a to Nippur.
About 1350 B.C.
For introduction, transcription, translation, and notes, see above, Chapter II,
pp. 19-23; 25, note 4; 27, note 8.
1 Pa-nu-ú-ka might be, per se, connected either with i-din, “give thy face,” i.e., “set thyself about to do something,
arouse thyself, be determined," or with ul ib-ba-ba-lu.
2TV! of babälu. With the signification here given cf., besides Delitzsch, Н. W. B., p. 166b, also Jensen, К. B., УП,
pp. 320, 378. and B. A., III, p. 541, la bäbil páni, “freundlich, gut," lit. “one who does not put his face upon, does not
turn it towards (something else, i.e., upon or towards evil)”; here "thy face (= plur.) must not be put (sc. upon evil,"
і.е., “be good," “do not delay." А bibil-libbi, accordingly, is something towards which one's heart is turned continn-
ally, the fondest thought of one's heart.
3 vh. с. i-na mu-uh-hi = “to be at a thing,” “to be ready.”
+ SHE.BAR is here not only the “barley,” but everything that goes through the hands of the “lord,” as head
of a branch storehouse. Cf. also рр. 112, note 2; 113, note 4.
FROM THE
TEMPLE
ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR.
145
1.
CONCORDANCE OF PROPER NAMES.
ABBREVIATIONS.
addr., addressee; b., brother; ** b.,?* brother (in address) ; cf., confer; d., daughter; f., father; f., fol-
lowing page; ff., following pages; l.c., loco citato ; P.s page; PP-, pages; q.v., quod vide ; S., son; Si., sister ;
wr., writer.
Determinatives : ilu, god; mesh, plural; m., masculine; f., feminine; [.. ]=text restored; (....)—
interpretation of text; C. B. M., refers to the “Catalogue of the Babylonian and General Semitic Section of the
Archeological Museum of the University of Pennsylvania,” prepared by Prof. Dr. Н. V. Hilprecht. The numbers
refer to the cuneiform texts of the autograph plates.
I. Names or PERSONS.
1.
"А-ат, 47 :8.
А... 69:4.
MAbi(= AD)-ia, f. of ÍDizni, 85 : 10.
™Ahu( = SHESH)-ü-a-Ba-ni, addr., “b.”
ilü Marduk 81:1.
MA-hu-Ba-ni, wr., 2 : 3.
m Ah(=SHESH)-iddina (= SE)r@ м Marduk, w
MAhu(= SHESH)-ni, 31 :7.
™Ahu( = SHESH)-shá(?)-ásh(?)-ra? 45 : 7.
т A-hu-shi-na, addr., 7S : 1.
"V Ak-ka-du-d,* 54 : 11.
m Amel-Ba-ni-i, 86 : 16.
1 Cf. IIn-bi-A-a-ri.
2 Or т Пар?
3 Or "A hu-ra(?)-dsh-sha(?).
ої
MASCULINE NAMES.
MErba-
iy dig ale
MAmel-"“Marduk,
Ц Аме 25
2; айат. ориз,
MA -mi-Li-ia, “b.” ой” ™En-lil-mu-kin-apal(=TUR.L SH),
9807-71: 5.
ГА -па-Ки-тит-та У wr., 4 : 1.
тА-па- Sin ( = XXX)-tak-la-ku, 48 : 5.
MA -na-tukulti (= KU)-ilu-ma, 29 : 9, 15.
т А p-pa*-na-a-[a], f. ої ™ “NIN 1В-пайт( = SE)-shum,
75 15.
ADIL et OIA.
™Ardi-Bélit (= GASHAN),§ wr., 5 :3.
+“ The Akkadian!” СГ. “™elvAk-ka-dii 18: 25 | 41 : 14.
5 Cf. B. E., XIV, 11 : 16, or have we to read here " A-na-tukulti( = KU)-ilu-ma?
Or is Ap-pa= Isin( = EZIN) and Isin-na-a-a = “One who is from Isin?”
A p-pa-ai in В. E., XIV, p. 40а and l.c., XV, р. Эта.
7 бее note to "Ab-[ .. |], above.
8 Cf. du Ardi-NIN*® and “YA rdi-GASHAN.
19
Cf. here the nom. pr. quoted under
146
LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
Masculine Names
Ardi(?)-GAB(2)-BA(2)-ma(?) іп Bäb-Ardi-GAB.BA-ma
(qu), 81 : 14.
т Ardi-Ia-i, 48 : 9.
"Ard ^ Marduk, wr., 6 : 2.
Ar-rap-ha-a-a-[um],' 53 : 20, 27, 32.
”Ash-pi-la-an-du? 55 : 5.
m ilu A-shur-shum(— MU)-étir (= KAR), wr., [“b.”] of
m ilu nq (bél-nishé" й], 77 : 3.
(ЈА -zi-r[u-um], wr., 7:2.
"Rail “Marduk, wr., S : 2.
тБапа(- KAK)-a-sha-"' Marduk,
1. wr; 91:1.
2 3:16:
m Be-la-nu,
раў
2. 42:17.
т ПеВа(- EN)-[...]3 53:16 | 69:4.
"BAS ЕМ)-|--.1,69 :5.
™Bél( = EN)-ü-sa-tum, 23 : 20.
юв 1005704:
m Bu-na-! Errish(t) (= NIN.IB), 48 : 22.
тВи-ип-па- И" Errish(t) (=NIN.IB) 57 :4 |59 :12 | 60:6.
™Bur-ru-qi, 50 : 4.
M Bu-ur-ru-ti, 39 : 13.
[”?]Da(?)-li-li-ia, addr., “b.” ог “si.”(?) of ті і-ї р-ра-
äsh-ra, SS :1.
™Dam-qu, 75 : 8.
™Da-an-[...],’ 69 : 3, 6.
m ilu AR-HU-nür(— SAB)-gab-ba, wr., 91 : 3.
т il'DJIT, BAT-Ba-ni, 14: 18.
™Di-in-ili( = AN)-lu-mur, 27 : 18.
™Din( = [DI?]-TAR)-l-[mur?],* addr., 91 : 1.
mÉ KISH SHIR( = NU)-GAL-li-mi-ir, 37 : 18.
т E mi-da(Y'-"Marduk, b. (1.19) of l[n-bi-A-a-ri, 86 : 18.
MEN-, see "Böl-.
milupn-[....]053:16|69:4.
n м фо pH bel( = EN)-nishömesh_shu]" addr., 77 : 1.
m ilu n-lil-ki-di-ni,
1. ут. 78:3|79:9.
2. 55:11; 21. Cf. the following name.
n ilu An-lil-ki-din-ni, 55 : 6,7, 19. Cf. the preceding name.
m Побп-Ш-ти-Кт-ара (= TUR.USH), wr., "b." of
MA-mi-li-ia, 80 : 3.
m ilu Pn-lil-tu-kul-ti, 15 : 13 | 68 : 20.
т Brba( = SU)-"!" Marduk,
1. wr., “b.” of "A hu-ú-a-Ba-ni, 81 : 2.
2. wr., “b.” of Da(?)-ni-li-ia, 82 : 3.
3. 27 :[27], 30, 32 | 29 : 4 | 35 : 17, 26.
тру-ра-" Marduk,
1. wr., 13 : 2.
2. в. ої "ITu-up-pi-i, 58 : 5, 7.
3. 65 29.
™Br-ba-am-" Marduk, wr., 14 : 2.
m Пиола (0 NIN.[IB))?-[...], 52 : 39.
m Пију )(= [т !"NIN]IB)-ah(- SHESH)-iddina:
(= SB)", 1:17.
т Пири (С = NIN.IB)-älik-päani ( =
8:25.
т iluprrish(t)( = NIN.IB)-apal( = TUR.USH)-iddina
(= SE)”, wr.,83 :2.
SH[I.DU)),
1“The Ar(ra)pachean.” СІ.
B. E, XIV, 22
: 15, ”Arzrap-ha-a-a-ú-[um].
rap looks very much like LUGAL, cf. also Clay, Sign List, В. E., XIV, Nos. 158 and 89.
In our letter the sign
For the interchange of rap
and LUGAL cf. Чт" Rap(b)-kam-me-ir and 9" Lugal-kam-me-ir.
2 Also the following readings might possibly be suggested: "Pi-la-an-du, " Na-ásh-la-an-du, or ™Ash-pi-la-, resp.
™Pi-la-, resp. " Na-ásh-la-! DU, see Chapter III, р. 52, note 3.
з Or milupn-[...]?
+ m Bel-[ü-sa-tum ]?
- 5Or ™SHEL...],
з On account ої the mdr (not mûrê), 59:14, I do.not consider this person to be a brother of ” uPA KU.SHESH.
SE-na and a son of "Мелі Shu-qa-mu-na.
1 Cf. Dannu-Nergal in В. E., XIV, p. 42b.
8 Or "[I-na ]-sil-li-a- [lak ], q.v.
? See also pp. 25, note 1; 110, note 3.
»Oopmiupger...]?
и According to 1. 5 he is а bêl pa-ha-ti.
A рај т Чи En-Ul-böl-nishe-shu is mentioned in B. E., XIV, 99a : 41.
17 For the reading ої NIN.IB = Errish(t), see The Мотя, XVII (January, 1907), р. 1408. Cf. also “Preface.”
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR.
Masculine Names
т ир) (= MASH)-apal(= TUR.USH)-iddina (=
SE)"*. wr., 84 : 2.
т iluperish(t)( = NIN.IB)-GA.BU-ANT9 1 wr., 17:2]
ще e Щ
т ilu Errish(t) (= 1)-СТВ-А М тезі 2 48 : 20.
m Пи Е (о) (= NIN.IB)-nádin( =SE)-ahé (SH ESH "5^.
52 : 18.
m ilu rrish(t)(=NIN.IB)-nadin( =SE)-shum(=MU), в. of
MA р-ра-па-а-[а], 75 : 4.
m ilu Hyrrish(t)-zér-ib’-ni, wr., 15 : 1 | 16 : 2.
mÉ SAG.IL-zu-ri-ia,! 9 : 15.
m E tel-bu, s. ої "Ush-bu-la, 24 : 12.
три (= KAR)" Marduk, wr., 12 ::
(#їсу Gir ra-ga-mil;? З : 13, 17, 20.
т(ти-га-ат-А N, “b.” of "In-nu-ü-a, 87 : З.
"Ha-an-[bu?], 68 : 23.
P Ha-ni-[bi ], 75 : 7.
тНа-азі-таг, 84 : 13.
"Ни [di-ib-ti-i |1,7 f. of TAb-b[u-ul-t Ja-ni-ta, 78 : T.
™Hu-na-bi, 48 : 16.
MH u-up-pi-i, E. of т Br-ba-' Marduk, 58 : 6.
P Hu-za-lum, 22 : 6.
тру UKUR, 3 : 48.
m [bj ^ Marduk,
1. wr., 19 : 4.
2. 81:19 | 887227.
to
mIdin(= SE)-"Errish(t) (= NIN.IB), wr., 20 : 3.
MIdin( =MU)-GHE.GA L,’ 59a : 14.
зісІ4іп- Marduk,’ 59 : 18.
mIdin(SE)- Nergal,
1. f. of ”Ki-shá-tum, 56 : 4.
2. 85 :8.
"1-71-91, 4 : 5.
mI -li-1)-i[a?],° 21 : 19.
MI-li-ah-hit-e-ri-ba, 26 : 13.
т] (= NI.NI)-ip-pa-ásh-ra, wr., “Б.” of Da(?)-li-li-ia,
88 : 3.
тПи( = AN)-ip-pa-ásh-ra, 31 : 15.
"Ilu-?-lu-[?], 5 : 16.
тІш(- АМ)-МО.ТОК.А?-гета”“,
wre, 2122.
2. 81 : 16.
mihia addr- 92 : [1], 4, 29.
m ilu] M... see ™ 1! Rammän-.
тІт-ди-гі, addr., 79 : 1.
заўва
"[.-na-É.KUR.GAL, 24 : 32.
"Ena |-зй-И-а-Пак 1, addr., 91 : 1.
1 | 84:1185:
™Im-qu-rum, Wr., 22
™In-na-an-ni, addr., 83 :
™In-ni-bi, SY :9.
MIn-nu-ú-a,! addr., “b.” ої "Gu-za-ar-AN, 87 : 1.
"Igishal= BA-sha)-"Rammán (= IM), 34 : 35.
1 SOE
1 Probably to be read Errish-ga-sir-ili, i.e., “Errish is the fuller (gäsiru = ashlaku, Meissner, M. V. A. Œ., IX
(1904), р. 52) of the gods." Cf. II К, 57, 35c, а, tlu(Ti-ish-hu) SUGH | ditto (= iluN TN ІВ) sha ram-ku-ti. See also
т iluy_GIR-AN™", 48 : 20.
2 Probably to be read Errish-shakkanak-ili.
n. 4) and see my forthcoming volume on the Religious Texts.
(=kashkash)-iläni.
3 The traces speak rather for ba!
4 An Amurritish name: “E. is my rock!”
Cf. here for the present our note to GIR.NITA (Chapter ТУ, р. 86,
Clay, B. E., XIV, p. 49a, reads NIN.IB.KISH
Cf. V" Zer-ba-ni-tum!
5 Here a city named after a person. Cf. ûlu il Gir-ra-ga-mil.
в AN here in all probability the same as the Cassite Bugash, see pp. 7, note 2; 63; 70.
1 СЕ. В. E., XV, р. 32a, Hu-di-ib-til( = BE)-la, a Mitanni name.
8 See "MU.GH E.GÀ Г.
? Here a city, see under álupgin 1! Marduk.
10 Cf, MII-li-ia, father of "Tukulti(= КО) "ЕКО, B. E., 48a : 7, and see below under ""J/-li-ia. Or is У =ah?
NOT SEI UN Зола у ilu NTN.IB-na-din-ah-hi.
12 Clay, В. E., XIV, р. 45a, reads MU.TUK.A = ""“murashshú. For the sign rêmu see Meissner, /deogramme,
No. 3857.
1з Of, MII-Li-ia, father of "Tukulti( = KU)*-B.KUR, B. E., XIV, 48а : 7, and see also ”I-li-V-i[a] above.
14 Or here ["U-bar]-rum? Cf., however, introduction to No. 23 sub “ Translations,” p. 94.
5 Ог Din-li-[. ..], q.v.
19 СЕ. "NTN-nu-i-a and see Chapter П, p. 15, note 5.
148 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
Masculine Names
" [y-shá-a, 4 : 19. MA.AN.USH,' 37 :9.
MIsh-shä-ki,! 54 : 7. sic Man-nu-gi-ir-" Ramman (= IM), 24 : 13, 18.
т ilu[shlar-, see m !UuDIL.BAT-. т Man-nu-ki-“Sukal (= LUGH), s. of [. . .]-shá, 18:23.
MT z-qur- Їм Errish(t) (= NIN.EB), ий, 26: 17. Már-"[....], 24 : 29 | 60 : 3, 5.
т] z-qur-" мак (= DIL.BAT), 28 : 5. Mér-"A-na-"Sin( = X X X)-tak-la-ku, 48 : 5.
™ Kalbi( UR)-!* NIN.DIN.DUG.GA? wr., 25 :2. Mär-"Ar-di-Ia-ü, 48 : 9.
Kalbi“USH3 37 : 9. Már-" Ásh-pi-la-an-du,* 55 : 5.
m Kal-bu, wr., 24 : 9, 38. [Már-" ]Bu-ufn-. ..] 57 : 4 | 60 : 6.
P Ki-din-[. ..], 97 :5. Már-" Da-an-[. . . ], 69 : 3, 6.
[" Ki -di-in, s. (TUR.USH) of [...], 1 :13. Mär-"Hu-na-bi, 48 : 16.
["]Ki-di-ni, s. of [. . .], 18 : 22. Már-" In-ni-bi, 81 : 9.
"Ki-din-ni, 9 : 23 | 44 : 15. Мамет Man-nu-ki-4Sukal (= LUGH), 18: 23.
m Ki-din-'“ Marduk, 23 : 23. Már-" Mu-[. . .], 60 : 4.
m K i-din-" Rammán( = IM), 33 : 12. Már-" Mu-ra-ni, ій, 18 : 4.
т K i-ir-ra-ma(? ba), 21 : 29. Маг-" Чизиц = XXX)-mu-ba-lit,* 49 : 6.
MK i-shá-ah*-bu-ut, wr., ЗА : 1. Már-"She*-[...], 57 : 4.
MK i-shah-bu-ut, wr., 35 : 1. Маг-!Та-а-ди У 83 : 14, 35.
m K i-shá-tum;5 s. of "Idin-"“Nergal, 56 : 4. Már-" Ü-da-shá-ásh, 4 messenger of King Burna-Buriash,
MK i-ti-i(t?), 98 : 17. 55 : 8, 16, 20.
" Ku-du-ra-nu, Már-" Ü-su-ub-Shi-pak, 55 : 2.
1. wr. 26 :1|27:1]28::X |" м] Marduk-erba (= SU), 15 : 13
2. 35 : 27, 31 (here "K u-du-ra-ni). m ilu Marduk-W-shi, wr., 50 : 1.
™KUR.GAL-[. .], 92 : 16. [^ Y Marduk-mu-[shal- т, wr., 29 : 1.
Ku-ri-Gal-zu, see lu Dür-Ku-ri-Gal-zu. m ilu Mayduk-násir (= SHESH), З : 22, 26 | 15 : 12.
™Ku-ri-i, 31 : 7. m ilu Marduk-ra-im-kit-[ti], wr., 30 : 3.
" La-ki-pa, ardi É.GAL, 34 : 11. m Пи Marduk-shum( = MU)-iddina( = MU), "USAG,
m ilu LUGH-, see T" Sukal-. 93 : 7.
1 Notice that we find in this connection generally МА R.GID.DA shá x (= numeral) pa-te-siresh, Should
we, therefore, read “m” = 1 or 60? See under ра-іе-віл езі,
2 Cf. Kudurru, London, 103, passim, and see p. 55.
3 Or MA.AN.USH, doubtful whether a nom. pr.; it might be an official’s title.
4 For a writing a’ instead of ah, see Chapter I, p. 7, note 6.
5 Or is this a woman? If so, then cf. р. 117, note 2.
з Or UR(=Kalbi)-'“USH, doubtful whether a nom. pr.; it might be an official’s title.
“Тһе gi-ir for ki, kim(a), діт shows that ЧИЇ М was pronounced at this time “Rammán, see Chapter ПІ, p. 49,
note 1. Here this name is that of a city, see Gir=ra-ga-mil.
$ See under "А sh-pi-la-an-du.
з See under "Ви-ип-па- "Еттегћ (6).
10 Doubtful whether Mår- belongs to the name.
п A reading Mär-” ““Sin-shum(= MU)-igisha(= BA-sha) might also be possible.
2 Or ™Bu-.
13 Thus I propose to read this name. This, no doubt, is preferable to Märat-Ta-a-du. И the latter reading were
adopted the absence of SAL would be without parallel, cf. Márat( — TUR.SA L)-f(!)Ba(? or Ush?)-ba(? or ka?)-[. . . ],
31:27. Here the descent is apparently reckoned through the mother.
M Cf. B. Е. XV, 168: 4, ™U-da-shd-ash(!).
15“ М, exists.” So better than -ni-shú 7
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR.
149
Masculine Names
MMe-li-Shi-pak, 17 : 32.
mMe-li-"!WShu-ga-mu-na, f. of
59 : 14.
VME Tl GO EA
m Mu-kal-lim, wr., 31 :1 | 32 :1 | 33 : 1.
т Mu-ra-ni, 78 : +.
m MU СНЕ СА І.) 59a : 14.
т Mush-ta-li, 31 : 11 | 32 : 7.
m" Nádin( = MU)-nuhshi (= СНЕ.САГ) 59a : 14.
MNa-ah(or a’ ?)-zi-" Marduk, 42 : 12 | 48 : 8.
т Маппаті( = SHESH .KI)"!-" Marduk, 34 : 11.
MNa-zi- U En-lil, 24 : 25.
т ilu Nergal-Ba-ni, ha-za-na shá іч Ra-ka-nu, 9 : 21.
^ NIM.GlI-shar( = LUGAL)-ili (= A Nymesh 3 33а: 1.
m ilu N IN .IB-, see " ИМ Errish(t)-.
"NIN-nu-á-a, addr., “b.” of
89 : 1, [14], 28.
m ilu NIN SHA R-il-la-ti-li-ku-na, ЗА : 12.
тт (= SA В)-'15һатаѕћ = UD),
1, «neus 4G LUGAL, 1 : 5, [18].
2. gü-gal-lum, 27 : 8.
т ilu \изки( = PA.KU)-ah( = SHESH)-iddina(= SE)",
s. of @Me-li-"!"Shu-ga-mu-na, 59 : 13.
milup 4 KU-, see” Чи Nusku-,
трап(= SHI)-AN.GAL-lu-mur, wr., “5.” of "NIN-nu-
ú-a, 89 : 2.
mpi-[...],wr., 43 : 1.
mPi-la-an-du, 55 : 5.
т ilu Ваттап( = LM)-érish( ENGAR)'*",* 48 : 11.
(п 4" Rammán(— LM )-ra-im-zr, 9: 19»
ри и] Ваттап( = IM)-shar(= LUGA L)-iú(= АМутезі,,
WE 96 : 1.
m iluNusku-ah-iddina,
тРап-А N.GA L-lu-mur,
т iluRammän(= IM)-she-mi, 59a : 16.
mSin(= XXX)-[...], 8:10 | 66 : 17.
milusin-[...],75 :9, 12.
milusin(= X X X)'-apal( = TUR.USH)-iddina(= БЕ)",
83 : 22.
т ilu Şin-êrish( = ENGAR), wr., 90 : 2.
m iluSin-is-s[ah]-ra, 9 : 16 | 85 : S.
m iluSin-ga-mil, Muy ASH, 72 : 4.
m ilu Sin-kara-bi-esh-me, wr., 37 : 3.
m ilu Sin-ma-gir, 11 : 25 | 59 : 6.
m iluSin-mu-ba-lit,? 49 : 6.
ге ilu Sin-na-din-ap-lim, 68 : 32.
MSi-ri-shát-ash, 28 : 5. |
mSukal(= PAP)-pat-ra,” 40 : 3.
miluSukal(= LUGH)-she-mi, 29 : 10.
m iluSnamash(= UD)-sharru (= ПОСА), 14:16.
(sie) ilwShamash(= U D)-tu-kul-ti, 16 : 8, 12.
mShá-mi-lu-shá, ?"*"nangaru, 59 : 16.
mSHESH.KT“, see " Nannari-.
mShi-ri-ig-tum, wr., 38 : IE
Mm Shi-rig-tim, 87 : 5.
"Tar-ba-zu, 22 : 13.
ти ТА R-HU-nür( = SA B)-gab-ba, wr., 91 : 3.
Tukkulti-É.KUR, see under “Places” and * Rivers."
mÜ-ba?-[. ..], 34 : 41.
mU bar-rum,
1. wr., 39 : 1| 40 : 1.
2. 48:7.
mU-bar-ru, 42 : 5, 7.
mÚ-da-shá-ásh,% 55 : 8, 16, 20.
^U R-. see " Kalbi.
iluyy-ra-, see П Gir-ra-.
Probably to be read either "Idin-GH E.G
т ilurM(or NIN.IB, ete.)-nädin-nuhshi.
2 See АМС. СНЕ «АІ.
AL ог "Nádin-nuhshi.
The latter might be abbreviated from
? NIM.GI is probably to be read Étir, see under Translations, рр. 1351.
4 See also "In-nu-ú-a and cf. Chapter П, р. 15, note 5.
5 See MA sh-pi-la-an-du.
в For the pronunciation of Пим = ““Баттдап, сї. Man-nu-gi-ir-! "IM, Chapter III, p. 49, note 1.
7So in all names beginning with 7" ilu Sim...
в Or m ilu Sin-shum( = MU)-igisha( = BA-sha).
° Or da?
10 See also p. 129.
и Here the name of a city, cf. ““Gir-ra-ga-mil.
2 Or ™U-su-[ub-Shi-pak? }.
із Does No. 23 :1 ["U-bar}rum belong here? But see p. 94.
u Of, В. E., XV, 168 : 4, ash(!).
150 LETTERS
TO CASSITE KINGS
Masculine Names
"Ú-su-ub-Shi-pak, 9912.
™Ush-bu-la, f. "E-tel-bu, 24 : 12.
[PÚ -she-la-ag(?) - En-lil!, 18 : S.
mS Ам. | 256:
[... }th-li-li-ia,? SS : 1.
"0... RAN. PIM, 41:19.
P. T. Hshtar(= DIL.BAT), 72 : 5.
[... Marduk , WE, 10; 2.
[... -mi-il-kish-sha-ti(?), З : 5.
[.... 4 NIN.GAL, 50 :9.
[... }shd, s. of т Man-nu-ki-! Sukat( = LUGH), 18 : 23.
[.... E" Shamash(— UD), wr., 41 : 1.
[.... }wsur(= SHESH), 22 : 17.
See also 43 : 7 | 60 : 10.
2. FEMININE NAMES.
JA-[...], 78:8.
FA b-b[u-ut-t Ja-ni-ta? dr. of "Hu-[di-ib-ti-i |І, 75 : 6.
! Ba(? or Ush)-ba(? or ka?)-[. . ], 31, 27.
FDa-ak-da, ЗА : 14* | 41 : 5.
[/?]Da(?)-Li-Li-ia 5 addr., “b.” or “si.” of 7-D-ip-pa-ásh-ra,
55 : 1.
sicDa-ni-ti-ia,* addr.,
82 :1, 8.
Dini," d. of ™Abi-ia, S5 : 10.
i E-di-ir-ta, 31 : 5.
I E-di-ir-ti, 32 : 5 | 33 : 5.
[/ ]E-di-ir-tum, 36 : 3.
iGa-ga-da-ni-tum, zammertu( = LUL), 22 : 5.
[f I-lu]m(?)-mu-bal-li-iț, 31 : 23.
П. PROFESSIONAL
a-bil babi, S6 : 24.
ah-la-mi-ti, 31 : 25.
[ah Ніт-ті-ії, 32 : S.
“si.” (or “b.”?) ої "Erba-Marduk;
H [n-bi-A-a-ri, wr., si." of "B-mi-da-""“Marduk, 85 : 2 | 86 : 3.
Панча? or shá, ra?), 31: 20.
Мата = TUR.SAL)-" A-a-ri,* 47 : 3.
Märat-"Ahu(= SHESH)-ni, 31 : 7.
Мата! Ba(? or Ush?)-ba(? or ka?)-[. ..], 31 : 27.
Márat-"Ilu( = AN)-ip-pa-ásh-ra, 31 : 15.
Márat-" Ki-din-[. . .], 97 :5.
Márat-" Ku-ri-i, 31 : 7.
Márat-" Mush-ta-li, 31 : 11 | 32 : 7.
Márat-* Ta-a-du, 83 : 14, 35.
Märat{Ush(? or Ba?)-ba(? or ka?)-[. . .], 31 : 27.
TRi-shá-tum, 95 : 9.
Г Та-а-4илз, 83 : 14, 35.
TUsh(? or Ba?)-ba(? ог ka?)-[...], 31 : 27.
AND GENTILIC NAMES.
amelu A k-ka-di-i, 18 : 25 | 41 : 14.
ameluaklu(= PA) ENGAR, 39 : 3.
a-li-ik päni(= SHI)", 37 : 24.
1 J.e., “ E. makes to rejoice.”
2 Or [?]Da-li-li-ia?
з Cf. FAb-bu-ut-ta-ni-tum, B. E., ХУ, 185 : 11.
‘Here the da is doubtful; it might be also ra, then cf. Кора-ак-та TUR.SAL т *!'"AG.DI.TAR, B.E.,
XV, 188, IV : 10.
5 СЕ. TUR.SAL Da-li-lu-shá, B. E., XIV, 58 : 7.
“sister.”
ВА “Kosename.”
Here probably а “Kosename” which the writer applies to his
7 Hypocoristicon for Di-ni-ili-lu-mur, cf. B. E., XIV, 58 : 21.
$ Doubtful whether a nom. pr.
9 But see pp. 25, note 1; 110, note 3.
0 Might expect /La-ta-rak, but по trace ої rak is visible.
11 So also in all following names.
12 СЕ. IIn-bi-A-a-ri.
13 See note to Már-/Ta-a-du.
“Of, В. E., ХУ, 154 : 26, ah-la-mu-ú (not registered by Clay).
15 СЕ. MA k-ka-du-ü, 54:11.
% Or better 28% ENGAR, i. e., nartabu, see рр. 35, note 3; 127, note 2.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR.
Professional and Gentilie Names
amelu( = GALU), 44: 17; a-PI-lu, 67 :7; a-mi-la, 66 :
25; amil, 42: 9|72: 10; a-mi-li-e, 89 : 17;
a-mi-lu-ti, 83 : 16; a-me-lu-shú, 92 : 17; a-mi-li-e-
shú, 84 : 16; a-mi-lu-us-su, 83 : 16; a-PI-lu-us-
su-nu, 51 : 17,20 | 67 : 13.
1:4, 1613: 58 | 14 : 18 | 15 : 10 | 24 : 30, 32 27:
30, 32 | 34 : 34 | 35 : 17, 32 | 41 :7 | 42:18 | 45 :
65 :9 | 67 : 15; ar-du, 24:10; ar-di, 50 :6;
ardi É.GAL,
ағаш)
4
ағайтітевһ 13 :6; П ardu, 21 : 27;
ЗА БОКЕ
Ar-rap-ha-a-a-um, see “ Proper Names.’
amelu А ZAG.GIM, see kudimmu.
amelupgiru(= ВНОСНА)? 58 : 3.
amelubarû, see "печ A SH.
bil ра (= EN.NAM), 24 : 30 | 41 : 7; bélé( = ENymesh
pi-ha-ti, 92 : 10, 20.
be-el SHE.BAR, 76 : 7.
amelup AM.QARMESh 55 :
ENGAR see errishu.
EN.NAM, see bêl pihäti.
ameluerrishu(= ЕМСА В)", 11:10; amelupA ENGAR,
39:3. СІ. also e-ri-shá, 40 : 13; e-ri-shú, 40 : 26
et passim.
,
10, 24 | 86 : 7, 11.
GAL, see itü.
amelug AR, see shaknu.
GIRE NER) 22 : 5.
amelu gishHNGAR(—nartabu), see "е акш-Е МСА Е.
GU.EN.NAS 40 : 24 | 45 :19 | 46 : 11 | 59 : 5 | 81 : 7.
gu-gal-lum, 27 :8.
ameluGUSHUR.RA.GAL, see "7 БА САТ,
! See also the address of Nos. 1-74 and cf. Chapter ПТ, р. 35, note 2.
Ha-bi(!)"-gal-ba-ti-i, 53 : 28; Ha-bi(!)-gal’-tu-ü, 53 : 33.
ha-za-na, 9 : 22; ha-za-an-na, 9 : 23 | 72 : 14; ha-za-an-nu,
40 : 3 | 56 : 3; ha-za-an-na-ti, 37 :21;
na-a-ti, 51 :14 | 56 : 8 | 84 : 3.
ha-za-an-
" [sin-na-a-a, see “ Proper Names ”
amelishparu(= USH.BAR), 35:18 | 44: 12; “перен.
BAmgmesh
ishshaku, see pa-te-si.
i-tu,® 24 : 36 | 33a : 11 | 35 : 25; itu ти SH A(G).TAM,
21:4; 11:21|26 :17 | 34:28 | 78 : 4;
i-tu-ú SH A (G).T A M-mi, 27 : 15.
kan-du-ri-e,® 18 : 38.
under "А p-pa-na-a-a.
28:38.
i-tu-ú,
ka-si-ri, 35 : 18.
ameluß A ZID(= KU).DA, 26 : 5, 7.
kixib,!° 24 :4 | 46 : 17.
amelukudimmu( = AZAG.GIM), 82 : 9.
Ku-tu-ú-a, 87 : 14.
LU L, see zammertu.
ma(?)-hi-sa, 9 : 7.
amelumakisu(= NI(G).KUD.DA)," 27 :35|57 :7.
man-za-az ра-пі, 48 : 27.
MA.AN.USH(or МІТ), 37 :9.
таг( TUR) ship-ri, 4 : 17 | 22 : 17 | 28 : 10 | 33 : 26 | 34 :
21147 :6|53 : 37 | 68:37 | 79 : 8 | 89:21, 25 | 92 :
6;
зла be-W-ia, 8 : 17; таг ship-ri LUGA L, 55 : 13.
máré( — TUR)"**^ Еп-ШК ІЗ 86 :5, 8; mûrê (=TUR)™esh
N i-ib-bu-rum, 81 : 6.
máré(— TUR)ymesh акра ўт-та, 96 : 20, 25.
ameluM ASH, 72 :4.
тат shi-ip-ri, 7 : 4| 43 : S, 11; тат ship-ri
2 Cf. В. E., ХУ, 1622 : 14, naphar 11 SHÜ.GH A"'*5* (omitted by Clay).
3 Cf. pa-ha-ti-ka, 77 : 5; pi-hat, 3 : 41.
+ Doubtful; it may be LUL
5 See introduction to No. 75 under “Translations,”
zammertu, q.v.
* So clearly here.
9:23, Bit-" Ki-din-ni(!, the sign looks like bil). See В.
(1907), р. 417f.).BI, which, when compared with l.c., 84 :
45b) Kalbi( — UR)-hatti( — PA)--h(— BI - NI).
p. 133.
At this time the bi and NJ = li are very often written alike, cf. e.g., 44 : 6, id-du-vi-ni(! = -bi!);
E., XV, 174 : 17, 175 : 45, UR.PA.NI (so Clay, Z.A., XX
5, UR-hat( = PA)-te-ia, has to be read (against Clay, l.c., p.
Ha-bi(!= NI =N)-gal-ba-tu-ü is, of course, the same as the Ha-li(sie!,
not /1)-gal-ba-tu-ii ої Scheil, Textes Élam. Sém., I, pl. 20 (opp. p. 96), 2.
7 Ba omitted by scribe.
Cf. B. E., XIV, 164: 2, Ha-bi(!)-gal-ba-tu-vi (not registered by Clay).
815 i-tú(?), 53 : 12; GAL i-tu(?), 21 : 27, to be conferred here?
Cf. here p. 35, note 4.
9 Cf. Ти Kanduré іп B. E., XIV, XV, and see Chapter IV, pp. 79ff.
10 See p. 47, note 1.
7 Doubtful; might be a nom. pr.: UR-UUSH.
1 See also Ni-ib-bu-ri-i.
м Or АВС ДМ та.
11 See р. 36, note 5.
152
LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
Professional and Gentilie Names
MIR.NIT.TA, see ridu.
amelu М). see nuhatimmu.
na-i-ri-e,' 31:3 | 33:4|33:4;
na i-ra-a-ti, 33 : 4.
na-gid, 68 : 8; na-gidmesh, 14:9.
1
ameMnakru( = РАР), 33a: 25; na-ka-rum, 86: 19.
amelu
nangaru, 59 : 16.
Ni-ib-bu-ri-i, 18: 21 | 83 : 10: märö(= TUR)Mesh Міль
bu-rum,S1 :6; máré( = TU 7 ymesh En-lil*’, 86: 5,8.
amelun](G).KUD.DA, see таи.
[NU].GISH.SHAR"esh 12 : 21,
amelunyhatimmu(= MU)", 21 : 23.
amelu pA. see aklu.
pahäti, pihäti, see bêl.
ра-е-зі"е sh 2
3/22:
24 | 8 : 18, 22 | 17 : 20
7148:4|60:9|68 : 14; pa-te-siBi-2, 68 : 5.
qüsiru, see kasiru.
діри, see ki-ib.
тГа(- SIBymesh 17 :27.
ri-du, 16 :7(7)3 rid зађе(= MIR.NIT.TA), 24 : 19.
amelu RIQ, 26 :5, 7 | 83 : 15; amelurjgmesh 83 : 8.
amelus 4G. 93 : 7; @melusAG LUGAL, 1 :5 |13 : 5, 17.
amelusak(= SAG)-shup-par,* 33a : 28.
amelusasinu, 81:18.
SÍB, see те й.
si(? or e?)-pi-[ri], 9 : 8.
su-ma-ak TI,537 : 22.
na-'i-ra-ti, 31 : 3 | 32 : 4;
[18:34] 39:
SAB, see иттата.
5; TUR.TURMeN 55.2, 4, 10, 18, 24.
shá dul-la %-she-ip-pi-shum,’ 13 : 6.
amelu SHA KUD.DA, see mákisu.
shakin(= GAR)" $ de(= NE)-mi, 9 : 16.
amelushakni( = GAR)™, 28 : 18; shá-ak-na, 65 : 4.
shá-pi-ir, 21 : 20.
ата НА R(? or ВА?).КО, 50 : 15.
LUGAL), 5:92| 94:18, 37|29:6|55 : 15,
16 | 59a : 3, 5 | 89: 22 | 92:7, 25; ит-та
LUGAL-ma, 75: 2; тағ ship-ri LUGAL, 55:
13; melu SAG LUGAL, 1 :5|13 :5, 17.
shà-tam" ( = SHA (С). TAM), 35 : 33 | 39: 3(?) ;
ameluSTA(G).TAM, 21 : 4 | 54 : 25;
SHA(G).TAM-mi, 27:1
ameluSHÚ.GHA, see bá'iru.
TUR.TUR"esh, see si-ih-hi-ru-ti.
UD.DI.TA " 37 : 10.
иттат (= ФА В)" 3:53|8:6|9:18|11:19, 22,
27 | 12 :14, 19 | 13 : 14 | 29 : 11, 14 | 66 : 14, 22,
26 | 68 : 39 |93:6;8АВ%-® 9 : 17 | 26:8 | 29:
8134: 12 | 39: 7, 17 | 44:18 | 46 :9 | 58 : 12 |
62 :4 | 67 : 8; ŞA BE. mesh 33: 9: SAB-ni, 6:8.
сте АС Атев ОЗ
amelut]SH BA R, see amelu ishparu.
amelu A DIM, see ате и casino.
zammertu( = LUL),'* 22 : 5.
si-ih-hi-ru-ti," 55:
sharru(=
i-tu-ú
5.
1 See Chapter III, p. 36, note 7.
2 See also "Tsh-shá-ki.
3 CL, however, pp. 123, note 10, and 49, note З.
* See Chapter ПІ, p. 37, note 12.
$ For this ТІ cf. also B. E, XV, 95 : 3, dam-gär TI, read by Clay, l.c., р. 516, NIN.LIL-ü.
* See p. 51, note 3.
7 Неге the same as the mushépishu of the Ham. Letters.
5 Here, however, a permansive.
* Or LU — dub?
10 See p. 35, note 3.
1 Doubtful whether an official.
Cf. here the ud-di-tú = КІ, К. 2875, 27, 28 (= B. А. V, p. 533); hence not
the title of an official, but a part (the lower?) of таи Татит?
12 See р. 35, note 1. ,
13 See p. 97, note 9.
з Doubtful, might be GIR(= NER).
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR.
III. NAMES
mátu 4. AB.BAR, see "UT ámtim.
там A-ga-a-de(= NE), 28 : 21; A-ga-de(= МЕ), 27 : 23.
áluA-ma(or ba?)-Ia®, 96 :4, 11, 21, 28; cf. 1. 7, Фічд-
mak? і
lu Ardi-Bélit(= GASHAN)? 13:7; 66:24; Ardi-
GASHAN*, 11 : 20; ^" Ardi-NIN*, 18 : 19.
ma-at А sh-shur, 20 : 18.
álu Bâb-ili( = KÁ.DINGIR.RA), 60a
DINGIR.RA®, 62 :7| 71:8.
aluBalati(= ТТ“ (7), 65 : 19.
BAR.TURF, see Parak-märi®.
Bit-"Ki-din-ni, 9 :23 | 44 : 15.
вит Чибіп( = XX X)-is-sah-ra, 9 : 16.
Вит *4Sin( = XX X)-ma-gir, 11 : 25 | 59 : 6.
Bit-" Si-ri-shá*-ash, 28 : 5.
Der (= Dür-ilu)®, 5 : 6.
âltDilmun( = DIL.BAT)*5 67 +5.
ди DU L-shá-is(?)-si-la-ah-shü-ri-ia, 59a : 11.
álunar-[...],90 : 5.
dluDür-bel(= EN)-mätäti(= KUR.KUR), 17 : 18, 26.
Ратч рипа, 3 : 34; ат-ИчЕп- и **, 3 ; 33, 38,
41; Dar En-Lilbi-a-mesh-ki 39 : 91.
Dür-ilu**, see ра“.
Dür-Ishtar(= U.DAR)-sirat(= MAGH), 68 : 28.
Dür-Ku-ri-Gal-zu,® 13:7 | 23 : 29 | 59a : 4; alu Dür-Ku-ri-
Gal-zu, 45 :23 | 57 : 15, 20.
ANIOS RAR
155
OF PLACES.
Dür-"!“Nusku(= PA.KU), 3 : 40.
Dáür-"Sukal( — РА P)-pat-ra**, 40 : 3.
Dür-U.DAR.M AGH, see Dür-Ishtar-sirat.
É-, see Bit-.
E-ka-la-ti*, 1 : 18.
uz mu-ga-at Marduk,” 66 : 3 | 67 : 3.
alu-kis Пиру Ni SAH, 73a : 15.
En-lil*, see Меррит".
aNGAT-IM=]...], 65 : 22.
alu iluQir-ra-ga-mil, З : 31; ““Gir-ra-ga-mil, 3 : 39 | 3 : 40,
73; !'"Gir-ra-ga-mil,? 3 : 13, 17, 20.
dluT;-ba-ri-ti, 26 : 4 | 27 : 36 | 34 : 33, 37 | 65 : 2.
áluldin(= SE)-" Marduk, 59 : 18.
älu-ki] M. ma, see “и Ki-im-ma.
alu ay "чи (= AG), 26 : 4; Kár “AG, 68 : 26, 30, 36.
Kér-"“NIN.LIL, see Мат-дат-Кат- NIN.LIL.
alu Kj-im-ma," 96 : 20, 25.
Kish*, 44 : 19.
ашта. AE
alu T ub-di-shá**, 99 : 6.
alu Man-nu-gi-ir-"“Rammän(= IM)," 24 : 13, 18.
àluM ASH-IM*! 2 27 :5.
4"MUM(— MUN),® 14:13; @uMUM®, 27
41:15; 4' MUM*'-ma, 26 : 6.
Міпакі 17 : 24.
: 5,4 33 |
1 Here the la is, no doubt, left out by the scribe.
2 Cf. " Ardi-Bélit.
? Identical with the city TE, E. B. H., p. 95, note 1?
+ Or аа.
5 Hardly áluish-ásh
5 See р. 9, note 2.
7 СГ. here the E-mu-gat( = SHU)-"“En-lil™ in B.E.,
ously E-mu-shu-Bél*!, registering the second passage quoted under
5 For älu-ki see Chapter I, p. 11, note 1.
9 СЕ. ?" Shamash-tu-kul-ti.
10 Or В M-ma.
и See p. 49, note 1.
2 Or МОМ, д. v.?
XIV, 18 :4 | 31 : Ш, which Clay, l.c., р. 58, reads errone-
ашу ірриги? !
13 For this city cf. e.g., В. E., XIV, 167 : 29 (omitted by Clay), and above, p. 118, note 4.
и This із doubtful. Here a reading @“MASH.IM is likewise possible. As, however, this city occurs in a
letter of Kuduránu, who was closely connected with the áluMUM**, T prefer to read as indicated.
15 Or Urukki?
20
154 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
Names of Places
dluNippur(= EN.LIL)", 38 : 3189 : 21: EN.LILK, 4 Shi-i-ti-na-li? 28 : 22.
11 : 19 |13:6| 18:20 |27 :29|35 :13 | 58:4] métuTamtim(= А.АВ.ВА)К 1 22 :15 | 37 : 10.
83:8186:7|95 : 17. СГ. shar-rat аеру ГПА, Фе Та-т-ба-а-ит, 66 : 23.
38 : 3; märdmesh EN-LILK, see “Professional ТК), see alu Bala ti.
and Gentilic Names.” Tuk(= KU)-kul-ti-B.KURF 39 : 5.
álu Pa-an-Ba-li*, 23 : 34. aluyyD.KIB.NUNK, see “и Sippar.
Pa-lak*? 1 6 : 5. UNUG"!, see ОтийА".
álu pa. Tu. 18 : 34. Ü-pi-iki 9 23 : 35; Ü-pi-i, 1:6, 4 Ü-p[i-i], 65 : 4.
Parak( = BAR)-mari* 2 53 : 38. alu Yy-ra-ga-mil, see *" Gir-ra-ga-mil.
dlupi.[...]3 72 : 14. Uruk? 17 : 24.
Фи Ra-ka-nu,' 9 : 22. Пик ађти“ 134 : 29, 32.
álus AL TUK*(?), 96 : 11. átuza-[...], 50 : 9.
d'uSippar(— UD.KIB.NUN)*, 89 : 24, 26. atur STU
!luSpamash(= UD)-tu-kul-ti,5 16 : 8, 12. [. .. bi 18 : 14.
alu She-li-bik*, 83 : 15.* [ЛД IS ша 13/15:
Glu Shi-i-tu-na(!)-[U*], 27 : 4.
IV. NAMES ок GATES.
abulla(= КАСА), 24 : 31; KA.GAL, 66 : 24. báb(— КА) Ardi(?)-GAB(?).BA (?)-ma(?),* 81 : 14.
abullu( = KA.GAL) ега(- URUDU)"ne*^ р Атезһ 24 : 24. büb(— KA) Nam-ga-ra-Bél( = BE), 27 : 33.
bäbu(= КА), 9 : 19. bab shá bit(= É) be-li-ia, 26 : 18.
bäb(= КА) A-nu, 27 : 43; bäb A-nu-um, 35 : 15.
V. Names or Houses AND TEMPLES.
É, see introduction to Nos. 1-74, pass. and Chapter III, bît be-li-ia, 26 : 19 | 27 : 12 | 50 : 3.
p- 34. bit sharri(= LUGAL), 59a : 3.
Emesh 31 : 36 | 37 :23 | 66 : 27, 28. E.DIM.GAL.KALAM.MA,® 89 : 5.
БАМ, 57 : 19, 21 | 93 : 6; É-A-nu, 35 : 15. Баби) (В 84 : 7, 10.
1 СЕ. В.Е. ХУ, 128 : 3, би Pq_la-ak**; thus to be read instead of alu Pa-ra-ash(?), Clay, l.c., p. 53a?
? For pronunciation see Br., List, No. 6900.
3 Cf. Pi-i-na-a-ri, B. E., XIV, p. 58b.
+ Or Ra-ka-be?
$ СГ. 1" Gir-ra-ga-mil.
ê Cf. the preceding name. Both are, no doubt, identical.
7 See p. 10, note 3.
s СЕ. nórvTuk-kul-ti-É.KURF, 39 : 8.
9 Cf. mätuff_pi-i in B. E., XIV, 132 : 43, 46, 52 (not registered by Clay).
9» Or Ма“ 2
и (f, В. Е., XV, 102: 13, Dáir““MAR.TU-U(= labiru)* and Le, 1. 14, KI-II(= Dár-"" MAR.TU)-BIL
(=eshshu)®. This passage, then, would testify to the existence, at the time of the Cassite kings, of an “Old ” and
a “New Erech or Warka.”
12 Cf. a-bil babi(= КА).
13 Or bab Ardi-Tab-tu-ma?
М See pp.-SOf.
15 See p. 22, note 1. See Chapter IV, рр. 968.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR.
155
Names of Houses and Temples
BEN ZU-[?], 53 : 22.
É.GAL, 34 : 11 |35 : 15 | 50 :
bit-ilu, see Ё.А М.
bit-"S“irshu( = NAD), 66:21:
23 :14 | 66 : 22.
É.KISH.SHIR( — NU).GAL, see Masculine Names.
B.KURMesh 66:23; É.KUR, see Tuk-kul-ti-É.K U К"
bit S" irshé(NAD)nesh,
E.LUGAL, see bit sharri.
ЕРМАК ТО, 73a : 3.
E-lluNergal(?), 54: 20.
É.SAG.IL, see Masculine Names.
É-SAL.AZAG, 91 :7.
Ер, see EEN .ZU-.
ku-tal-li, 23 : 8; ku-tal na-ka-si, 23 : 13.
and "érvTyuk-kul-ti-É.KU RF,
É.KUR.GAL, see "I-na-É.KUR.GAL.
parakku(= BAR) "“En-lil, 66 : 7 | 70 : 1.
VI. Names ок RIVERS AND CANALS.
náru(— A.GUR), 3:4, | 18 : 31 | 46 : 4 | 48 : 28.
nau IBE see В MEN TND,
nór"pDa.li-ta-ma-na-[.], 6 : 4.
näruDiglat(= M ASH.TIK.QAR), 34 : 26.
пати рута (= — M[ASH.TI ]K.QA R)-ilu( =
(= ЕМ) 3 :18.
піти E te].bi-[?], 3 : 8 | 66 : 6, 12.
пітибаті-тат-СА І, 3 : 9.
nûru[diglat, see "474 Diglat.
пати (= A N)-i-pu-ush, 40 : 21.
пати JASH.TIK.QAR, see "?"" Diglat.
піти Ма-1а-аћ,* 40 : 22.
nam-ga-ra, 40 : 4 | 66 : 15; nam-ga-ri, 40
nam-gar(= sha), 40 : 14 | 68 :
40 : 9, 20; nam-kar, 3 : 16; nam-qar, 66 : 8.
Nam-gar( —kar)-Dür(?)-/* En-lil, 3 65 | 71 : 15.
Nam-ga-ra-Bél( BE), 27 : 33; Nam-qar'*-Bél(— BE),
66 : 12.
Nam-gar-Kár-/ ММ ЛИТ, 68 : 22.
EN)-mätäti (=
20: Я
22; nam-gar-ra,
AN)-Nippur
пати Nam-ga-ri-shá-bél( =
59:9.
nam-kar, nam-gar, see nam-ga-ra.
räruNannar(= SHESH.KI)-gü-gal, З : 14.
пати lun TN LIL, 67 :2.
пати рој - pn-til, 28 :11.
nàrusH ESH .КІ-ай-да!, see "YN annar-gu-gal.
патитук(= KU)-kul-ti-É.KUR'',* 39 : 8.
KUR.KUR),
:15, 16, 18, 19;
VII. NAMES ок GODS.
ilu; MA-na-tukulti-AN-ma; "ати Diglat-AN-En-
и; E-.
ANmesh. milupyyish(t)-GA.BU-, т 1 Errish(t)(=L)-GIR-;
т ilu Rammän-shar-, "NIM.GI-shar-.
AN.GAL, 89 : 4; "Pán-A N.GA L-lu-mur.
AN.RA,see DINGIR.RA.
A-a-ri: ' A-a-ri; Im-bi-.
ilu AG. see “Мара.
Ари: " A-hu-; ТА -ри-и-а-.
ilu 4M AR.UD, see “Marduk.
AN: AN.RA, see DINGIR.RA ;" AN-, see ™Ilu-; пати A N-
i-pu-ush ; "Gu-za-ar-; "Di-in-AN-lu-mur; Dûr-
1 See рр. 751.
2 Hence “the Tigris of Nippur” is = “the Tigris of the god(!) of Nippur,” in other words, “the god of
Nippur ” is = “Nippur.” Cf. here also E.AN (= ilu)-Nippur(— EN.LIL)**, B. E., ХУ, 128: 14, and see р. 80.
з Ог Киа?
з Clay, В. E., XIV, р. 7, says that the me-e náruNa-la-ah occur also on С. В. M. 3527; but this apparently is a
mistake, as the tablet referred to has been published by Clay in B. E., XIV, 149 (see l.c., p. 72). Read l.c., C. B. M.
5134, instead of C. B. M. 3527.
5 Here dir looks like si-£b, while in 71 : 15 it has the appearance of si + sal( = £b?).
* Cf. also 66 : 8.
1 See Delitzsch, H. W. B., p. 555a.
в СЕ. Tuk(= KU)-kul-ti-B.KUR*!, 39 : 5.
? Chief god of Dür-ilu** ; see Chapter II, p. 19, note 3, and cf. luk A DI.
156
LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
Names of Gods
AN-TIM, 41:19.
Пи А-пы, 24 : 6; А-пи: Е- báb-; A-nu-um: báb-,
Hu A-shur: " u A-shur-; ma-at Ash-shur.
Ba-li ; Hu Pa-an-.
mA-h-i-a-, "A-hu-, ™ !"'"DIL.BAT-, " ilu Ner-
gal-; Ba-ni-i: "Атеі-; Bana-a: m Bana-a-.
ВЕ: Nam-ga-ra-BE(=bäl).
Bel, see ВЕ; EN.
Ва mátáti, see EN.KUR.KUR.
Вай, see GASHAN; NIN; V*NIN.LIL.
Vu Во (= NIND, 24:7.
tup AR. HU: Ч"рАВ.НО-.
iuDIL ВАТ, 72 :5; ^ DIL.BAT-, "Iz-gur-, 9" Dilmun.
DINGIR.RA: Bäb(= KA)-ili(DINGIR.RA jas
Ниро (?), see note to "А sh-pi-la-an-du.
йир 4,24:6. See also ““ЕХ.КІ.
E.KISH.SHIR(= NU).GAL: "É.KISH.SHIR.GAL-.
ÉKUR: Tuk-kulti-É.KU RF, "@Tuk-kul-ti-B.KUR™,
see also under “Names of Houses and Temples.”
E.KUR.GAL: "-па-.
EN: ™EN-; т ÜuEn-Ul-EN-nishe”°°"-shu.
Пију; Miu.
пару КІ: Чи. duen. KI.SAH. See also “Е.А.
EN.KUR.KUR 24 : 14, 17; "@“Nam-ga-ri-shé-; dluDur-.
Еһ, 18: 8 | 24: 6 | 66: 6 | 71 : 15; " "“En-li-;
MNa-zi-, parakku; """Pat-ti-; Nam-gar-Dür-;
руце: Dür-; ilu Ẹn-lilbi-a-mesh; Dür-;
“Еп 1, see AN.
iluErrish(t) 3 т ÜluErrish(t)-;
т]ат-, "Iz-gur-.
“uEN.ZU: É-. See also ™Sin(= ХХХ); Nannar.
E.SAG.IL: "E.SAG.IL-.
Etir, see NIM.GI.
GAB(?)-BA(?)-ma(?) ; bab Ardi-.
Gal-zu: Dür-Ku-ri-.
GASHAN А "патаў, Wu Ardi-.
iluGir-ra, Gir-ra: lu (“и Gir-ra-ga-mil.
Ва-пі :
тВи-па-, "Bu-un-na-,
114007589 :4.
Uus sir вее КА.
GHE-GAL: "Ми-.
la-í [if indeed name ої а god and not the hypocorist
ending ia -+ nominative ending u frequently
attached to names without regard to their last
element]: "Ardi-.
I-gi-gi: "I-gi-gi.
Їл = NINI)! "]-h-, A Be-lit-; cf. "I-li-, ™Il-li-.
Пи, see AN; "Пи-, ! I-lum-, Báb-, Dür-, пати у-т-ри-из!.
itul М, see ““Rammán.
Ülufshtar, see "РІЇ, ВАТ; U.DAR.
ilu shtar(= RI)-A-ga-de(= МЕ)“, 27 : 23.
iu A. DI, 5 : 6, 21.
и КО В: "Ib-ni-.
KUR.GAL: "KUR.GAL-.
Ku-ri: Dür-Ku-ri-Gal-zu ; "Ku-ri-a.
La-ta-rak: TLa-ta-rak(?).
ilu UGH: ™ "LUGH(- Sukal)-, " Man-nu-ki-.
iluMarduk(— AMAR.UD), 10 :2 |81 : 4; ?" Marduk-,
MA h-iddina-, " Amel-, "Ardi-, "Валі, " Bana-a-
sha-, "E-mi-da-, ёп E-mu-ga-at-, "Erba-, "Er-
ba-am-, "Btir-, ”Ib-ni-, “Idin-, "Ki-din-,
т Na-ah-zi-, " Nannari-.
il MAR.TU: É-.
ilu M ASH, see !4Errish(t)-.
tluNabi(= AG), 7 : 7,18; dluKär-, Kär-.
Nannari( -SHESH.KI)'! ;* Nannari- " Marduk;" "UN an-
nar(= SHESH.KI)-gü-gal. See also "“EN.ZU;
tlugin(= ХХХ).
ÜluNergal: " "Мета, É-, "Idin-.
NIM.GI [if name of a god]: "NIM.GI-shar-ili.
NI.NI, see “Й.
iluNINNÜ(= L), see ” "WErrish(t)-.
NIN: 4 4rdi-NINF, see also Bélit, GASHAN, “ММ.
LIE МИНЕ. -:1, 3.362.
iu NTN.DIN.DUG.GA : "Kalbi-.
! See p. 47, note 5.
? See p. 8, note 8.
з For this pronunciation ої ÜUNIN.IB, IB, v M ASH, 1141, ete., see The Monist, XVII (January, 1907), p.
140ff, and cf. “Preface”.
з Cf. Mu Ardi-NINF,
5 Wife of “TAR; see Chapter II, p. 21.
* For this element in proper names see T'he Monist, XVII (January, 1907), p. 144c.
1 15 to be pronounced *“Gui-str ; see Chapter П, р. 19, note 3. Не was the chief god of Dür-ilu?, a male and
also called AN.GAL,
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 157
Names of Gods
“UNIN(?).GAL, 50 : 9. ilu SUGH, see !luTishhu.
“шүТМІВі т il Errish(t)-, "Ви-па-, "Ви-ип-па-, MU Sukal: ти Sukal-, see also Пи ЕН; PAP.
"Чаїп-, ”Iz-qur-. “Yu Shamash(— UD), 33: 25, 29 | 41: 1| 81: 4; ™*'“Shamash-,
ÜlUNIN.LIL, 89 : 4; Nam-gar-Kár-, "ч Чи УТУ АГ. mNûr-.
“UNIN.MAGH? 38 : 5. Shar-rat-!4Nippur(= EN.LIL)**; 38 : 3.
“UN ГУ SHAR: т и NIN.SHAR-. SHESH.KI, see Nannar.
tWNusku(= РА КО) 2" il Nusku-, Dür-. Shi-pak( = hu): " Ü-su-ub-, " M c-li-.
“UPA КО, see “Михи. Ülu Shuoa-mu-na: " Me-li-.
PAP, see ™Sukal(= PAP)-, Dür-"PAP-. iluTAR 189 :4.
ÜluRammän(= IM): ™ !luRammän-, MIgisha(=BA-sha)-, | ""ТАВ.НО, see " " DAR.HU.
т Ki-din-, Чч Man-nu-gi-ir- 4"MASH.IM'(?) WuTishhu(= SUGH), 38 : 3.
и БІ, see "Ishtar. И), see Shamash.
SAH: дикі ilu gy KI-SAB. U.DAR(= Ishtar): Dür-U.DAR-sirat(= MAGH), 68 : 28
iluSin(= ХХХ): т чіп, "A-na "XX X-tak-la-ku, Ч“ОВ.РА, see Gir-ra.
É-"il"XXX., See also ““ЕУ.20; Nannar. Ишан: §¢Kalbi-'“USH (2).
! See Chapter III, p. 39, note 1.
2 See Chapter ПІ, р. 40, note.
3 For this gi-ir, which proves that “IM was pronounced !!“Rammän, see Chapter III, p. 49, note 1.
+ Husband of “GU; see Chapter IT, p. 21.
158 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
VII.
DESCRIPTION OF TABLETS.
ABBREVIATIONS.
c., circa; С. В. M., Catalogue of the Babylonian Museum, University of Pennsylvania, prepared by the Editor,
Prof. Dr. H. V. Hilpreeht; ef., confer; Exp., Expedition; f., following page; ff., following pages; fragm., frag-
ment (ary); inscr., inscription; L. E., Left Edge; li., line(s); Lo. E., Lower Edge; No(s)., Numbers; O., Obverse ;
р.» page; рр.» pages; R., Reverse; №. E., Right Edge; U. E., Upper Edge; Vol., Volume.
Measurements are given in centimetres, width X length (height) X thickness. Whenever the tablet (or fragment)
varies in size, the largest measurement is given. The Roman numbers under “description” indicate the several expedi-
tions: I — first; II — second; III — third; IV — fourth expedition.
A. AUTOGRAPH REPRODUCTIONS.
Text. PLATE. To From AGE. C. B. M. DESCRIPTION.
1 1 “My Lord” т Ah-iddina"*-!'"Mar- Kuri-Galzu, 11716 Baked. Light brown. Left
(а-па Бе-Й-та) duk. about 1420 B.C. part of R. and right lower
corner broken off. 4 X
5.8 X 2. Inser. 11 (O.) +
12 (RD = 231. U.
1 e т A -hu-Ba-ni. Kuri-Galzu, 10930 Baked. Ruled. Light brown
about 1400 B.C. with oceasional dark spots,
52
Left part and lower half of
tablet broken off. 4.5 X
4.5 X 2.6. Іһвег. 7 (O.) +
4 (е Пиће TIE
зи 272 “ т А mel-"!“Marduk. Shagarakti-Shuriash, 11426 Baked. Ruled. Light brown.
about 1325 B.C. Cracked. Crumbling. Several
fragments glued together.
Insertion ої fragments а and
b on place indicated very
doubtful. 14 X 8.4 X 3.2.
Inscr. 29 (О.) + 32 (R.) +
3 (U. E.) + 2 (L. E) + 4
(fragm. c) + 4 (fragm. d) =
тан. II.
4 4 из т A -na-ku-rum-ma. About 1400 В.С. 3669 Unbaked. Light brown. Lower
part of tablet broken off.
4,5 X 6.5 x 2. Inscr. 9 (О.)
TEXT. PLATE.
6
~
10
11
5
6
со
10
То
“Му Тога”
(а-па Бе--?а)
From AGE.
т Ardi-B lit.
Kuri-Galzu,
about 1400 B.C.
mA rdi- Marduk. Kuri-Galzu,
about 1400 B.C.
[ТА ]-=17-Ци-ит). About 1350 В.С.
7 Bai] 3" Marduk). Nazi-Maruttash,
about 1370 В.С.
т Bana-a-sha-!! Marduk. Kuri-Galzu,
about 1390 В.С.
Г... “Marduk. Kuri-Galzu,
about 1390 В.С.
™ Be-la-nu. Kudur-Enlil,
about 1335 В.С.
"fiy "Marduk. About 1350 B.C.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 159
C.B.M. DESCRIPTION.
+ 8 (RIE 2 (U. E) + 3
(MS 2 I
11149 Baked. Dark brown. Cracked.
Right lower corner of O.
broken off. Lower part of
R. not inscribed. 5.5 X 10
x 2.8. Inser. 16 (O.) + 7
(R.) = 23 li. І (stray tablet
found out of place).
12559 Unbaked. Light brown.
Ruled. Beginning and end
of lines crumbled away.
Lower part broken away.
В. razed off. 7.5 х 8 x
2.7. Inser.9)h. TI.
3787 Unbaked. Dark brown.
Cracked. Crumbling. Right
side and lower part of
tablet broken away. 4 X
TOX 3: mser: M (O) E
OR) 2O TE
10816 Unbaked. Dark brown.
Cracked. Glued together.
Fragment. Upper left cor-
ner of larger tablet. 4.3 X
8.2 X 4. Inser. 14 (O.) +
14 (R.) = 281. III.
11635 Unbaked. Dark brown. Lower
part broken off. 5 х 6 x 2.
Inscr. 12 (0.) + 12 (R.) =
2411. 11(?). Translation, pp.
104ff.
3837 Џпђакеа. Light brown.
Ruled. Left half and lower
part of tablet broken away.
Remainder of R. not in-
scribed. 52 x 45 x 3.
Inser. 7 (0.) + 2 (R.) =
Oh таб
19781 Unbaked. Light brown, В.
darker. О. crumbling and
greatly obliterated. 4.8 X
7.3 X 2.2. Inser. 14 (О.)
+ 2 (Lo. E.) + 14 (R.) + 1
(ОЕ) ӘСІП. TV:
11929 Baked. Light brown. Ruled,
Beginning of lines on O.
broken away. 4.5 X 7 х
14
16
17
18
19
11
11
12
13
14
14
To
(a-na be
“My Lord”
-li-ia)
LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
From
тЕт-ра “Marduk.
т Er-ba-am-! Marduk.
AGE. C.B.M. DESCRIPTION.
2. Inser. 11 (0) + 11
(R. = 221. I.
Shagarakti-Shuriash, 10804 Unbaked. Light brown.
about 1325 B.C.
Shagarakti-Shuriash,
about 1325 B.C.
т iluErrish(t)-[zêr-ib-]ni. Burna-Buriash,
about 1430 B.C.
т ilu Eprish(t)-[zer-ib-ni]. Burna-Buriash,
т ilu Brrish(t)-GA.BU-
ili mesh.
er:
тр піч Marduk.
about 1430 В.С.
About 1350 В.С.
About 1350 В.С.
Kudur-Enlil,
about 1335 B.C.
11637
10571
10951
19780
3655
19787
Cracked. O. and R. dot-
ted with dark spots. Lower
part of tablet broken away.
Lower part of R. not
inscribed. 5 X 5.2 X 3.
Inscr. 11 (0) + 7 (R.) =
181. III.
Baked. Dark brown. Lower
half of tablet broken away.
4.5 X 98 X 2. Пис. 9
(0) + 8 (R.) + 3 (U. E.)
+1 (b E 2215. II.
Baked. Light brown. Crum-
bling. Cracked. Beginning
of lines and lower part
of tablet broken away. 6
x 45 Х 25 Emser 8
(O) + S (R.) + 3 (U. E.)
= Ol. ІШ;
Unbaked. Dark. Ruled. Badly
effaced. Upper right and
lower left corners broken
away. Only upper part of
В. inscribed. 5.8 X 9.5 X
2.5. Inser. 15 (O.) + 3 (R.)
а ИВ Ше
Baked. Light brown. Very
small seript. The end of
nearly all lines is broken
away. Lower part of R.»ot
inscribed. 4.3 X 6.7 X 2.
Inser. 20 (O.) + 2 (Lo. E.)
IA (RO = BO IV.
Baked. Light brown. Most
of O. and left part of R,
broken away. б 11.5 X
2.8. Inscr. 15 (O.) 4- 25 (R.)
AMV) ППО
Unbaked. Light brown.
Ruled. O.crumbling. Lower
part of tablet broken away.
Only upper part of R. in-
scribed. 4.3 х 6.8 X 2.
Inser. 12 (0.) + 1 (R.) =
131 A
Техт. PLATE.
20 15
21 16
22 16
23 17
24 15
25 19
26 19
21
To
“My Lord”
(а-па be-li-ia)
FROM THE TEMPLE
From
"ldin""Errish(0.
"Ilu-MU.TUK.A-
гетата.
"Іт-ди-гит.
["Im-gu]-rum.
тКаї-Ри.
MRKalbi-luNIN.DIN.
DUG.GA.
"Ки-ди-га-пи.
ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR.
AGE.
Nazi-Maruttash,
about 1375 B.C.
Kadashman-Enlil,
about 1345 В.С.
Burna-Buriash,
about 1430 B.C.
Burna-Buriash,
about 1430 B.C.
Kuri-Galzu,
about 1430 B.C.
Kashtiliashu,
about 1309 В.С.
Kadashman-Turgu,
about 1360 В.С.
161
C.B.M.
19798
DESCRIPTION.
Unbaked. Light. Lower part
of tablet broken away. R.
mostly erumbled off. 5.8
x 6.3 x 24. Inser. 13
(O.) + 13 (R.) + 3 (U. E.)
= 291. IV.
10806 Unbaked. Light brown.
Lower right part of tablet
broken off. 5.3 X 8.4 X
2.3. Inser. 14 (O.) + 16
(БА) = UTEN E 2110:
E) = 93. III,
Baked.
Lower left corner broken
11101 Dark brown. Ruled.
away. Lower part of R.
not inscribed. 5.5 X 7.5
x 2. Inscr. 14 (O.) + 4
(RO нава
11090 Baked. Light brown. Ruled.
Upper and lower left corners
broken away. Beginning
of lines on R. mutilated.
Lower half of R. not in-
scribed, 7 ж 11 x 25.
Inscr. 24 (О) +15 (R.) = 39
li. II. Translation,pp. 94ff.
19793 Baked. Light. Glued together.
Part of case with address.
Faint traces of seal-im-
pression on case or envelope
Case
visible. glued to-
gether. Lower part of R.
not inscribed. 7 x 10 X
24. Inser. 19 (O.) + 4
HO CEY CAR) ©
(Саве) = 99 1. IV.
lation, pp. 101ff.
Trans-
11096 Unbaked. Light brown. Left
part and lower half of tablet
Cracked.
broken away.
Glued together. R. crum-
bling and greatly mutilated.
6.2 х 5 х 2.5. Inser.8 (O.)
+ 4 (В) + 4 (U. E) =
161i. Il.
Baked.
half of tablet broken away.
6.2 6 x 2.6. Inser.9 (O.)
19785 Dark brown. Lower
162
TEXT. PLATE.
27 20
28 21
29 22
30 22
31 23
32 24
33 25
“My Lord”
(а-па Ъе-Й-та)
LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
From Аве.
"Ku-du-ra-nu, Kadashman-Turgu,
about 1360 B.C,
"Ки-йи-та-пи. Kadashman-Turgu,
about 1360 B.C.
т ilu Marduk-mu-[shal-] Kuri-Galzu,
lim. about 1400 В.С.
m ilu Marduk-ra-im-kit- About 1350 B.C.
[ti].
MM u-kal-lim. Burna-Buriash,
about 1430 B.C.
? Mu-ka[I-Um]. Burna-Buriash,
about 1430 B.C.
[TM Ju-kal-[lim]. Burna-Buriash,
about 1430 B.C.
CB.M.
12633
10983
11956
10629
11098
11497
DESCRIPTION,
+ 11 (В) = 20 li. IV.
Translation, pp. 116ff.
Baked. Dark. Glued to-
gether. Upper and lower
right corners broken away.
65-Х 105 Ж 25. Бе
20 (О) + 4 (Lo. E.) + 20
(R. = 441. II.
Baked. Light brown. Lower
part of tablet broken away.
Part of O. razed off. 4.6 X
т Xx 2. Inser.13(0.) + 13
(R.) + 1 (U. E) + 2 (L.
E.) = 291. I (stray tab-
let found out of place).
Unbaked. Light brown.
Upper left corner broken
away. 4 Х 5 Х 2. Inscr.
9 (О) + 1 (Lo. E) + 8
(R.) =18 li. II. Trans:
lation, pp. 106ff.
Baked. Dark. Ruled. Crum-
bling. Lower part, end of
lines, and R. broken away.
4.6 x 5X 2.4.Inser.6h. ПІ.
Unbaked. Light brown.
Ruled. Crumbling. Cracked.
O.partly covered with silica.
R. upper left and lower right
corners crumbled away.
6.8 x 12.4 X 3. Inser. 19
(O.) + 21 (R.) + 1 (U. E.)
== АЦ HE
Baked. Light brown. Ruled,
Beginning and end of lines
on O., lower part of tablet
and nearly the whole of R.
broken away. Lower part
of R. not inseribed. 5.5 X
9.3 X 2.7. Inser.14 (O.) +
7 (В) = 211. IE
10514 Unbaked. Light brown, В.
darker. Crumbling. Cracked.
Greatly mutilated. Lower
part of tablet broken away.
Line at end of inscription.
6 x 9 x 8. Inscr. 18 (О.)
15 (RA = защо ІШ:
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF
Техт. PLATE. To
33а 26 "Му Lord”
(а-па be-li-ia)
From
34 27 A тк i-shá-ah-bu-ut.
35 28 Ye РК i-shah-bu-ut.
36 29 “ [ ?"Rammán-shar-
il mesh
37 29 s ™Sin-kara-bi-esh-me.
38 30 к ™Shi-ri-ig-tum.
39 31 ce MU-bar-rum.
MNIM.GI-shar-iliMesh,
NIPPUR.
ÄGE. C.B.M.
About 1400 B.C. 6123
Kadashman-Turgu,
about 1355 B.C.
Kadashman-Turgu,
about 1355 B.C.
Kadashman-Turqu,
about 1350 В.С.
Burna-Buriash,
about 1430 B.C.
Kuri-Galzu,
about 1400 В.С.
Kudur-Enlil,
about 1335 B.C.
6058
6057
10600
19783
10955
3661
165
DESCRIPTION.
Unbaked.
casional dark spots on O.
and R.
some places
Light brown. Oc-
Cracked. Signs on
chipped off,
otherwise well preserved.
2.2. Inser. 17
(O.) + 18 (R) + 2 (U. E.)
by SS ШО 56
= 37 п. ІП. Translation,
рр. 135ff.
Baked. Dark. Upper right
and lower left corner
broken away. 5.2 X 9.5 X
2.3. Inscr. 21 (О) + 21
R.) + 3 (U. E.) + 1 (L. E.)
— 461i. II.
Baked. Light brown. Upper
right corner chipped off.
On R.occasional dark spots.
4-8 зі оз X 22.
13 (О.) + 1 (Lo. E.) + 15
(R.) + 2 (0. E.) + 2 (1.. E.)
=33 li. II.
pp. 120ff.
Unbaked. Light brown. Only
Inser.
Translation,
upper right corner of О.
preserved, rest broken away.
On R. is only a part of
3 x 3.3
Inscr. 6 li. III.
Dark brown. Ruled.
sign e(?) visible.
x 2.
Baked.
R. cracked and lower right
corner chipped off. Lower
part of К. not inscribed.
5.5 Х9.5 X 3. Inser.16 (O.)
+ 107.) = 96-1: ТУ;
Baked.
part and right upper corner
Light brown. Lower
of tablet broken away. 6
Xx 6 x 2.5. Inscr. 11 (О.)
+ 9 (R.) + 1 (U. E.) = 21
li. II. Translation рр.140й.
Unbaked.
Crumbling.
Light brown.
Greatly muti-
lated. R. almost entirely
crumbled away. 5 X 8.4
Х 2.3. Inscr.17 (О.) + 19
R.) +3(U.E.) =39li. II.
Translation, рр. 126ff.
Texr.
40
4
46
PLATE.
32
о?
te
2
ow
35
36
To
“My Lord”
(а-па be-l\-ia)
LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
From
MU-bar-rum.
[Nûr “Shamash.
hazannu of Dür-Sukal-
patra, cf. р. 129.
три):
ÄGE.
Kudur-Enlil,
about 1335 B.C,
Kadashman-Turgu,
about 1350 B.C.
Kudur-Enlil,
about 1335 B.C.
About 1350 B.C.
Kuri-Galzu,
about 1400 B.C.
About 1370 B.C.
About 1350 B.C.
Nazi-Maruttash,
about 1360 В.С.
С.В.М. DESCRIPTION.
5134 Baked. Dark. Cracked.
Glued together. Lower
half of R. not inscribed.
SOX SX 25. Провери
(0) + 1 (Lo. E.) + 8 (R.)
— 261i. ПІ. Translation,
рр. 129ff.
11757 Baked. Dark brown. Cracked.
Crumbling. Left part and
lower half of tablet broken
away. Glued together. 5.2
Xx 5 X 2.5. Inser. 11 (O.) +
12 (R.) -- 3 (U. E.) =261i. II.
11498 Unbaked. Light brown. Lower
half of tablet broken away.
First line and some signs of
R. chipped off. 5 X 6x 2.5.
Inscr. 10 (O.) + 11 (R.) + 2
(U.E.)+3(L.E.)=26h. II.
19779 Unbaked. Light brown, О.
has large black spot.
Crumbling. End of lines
on O. covered with silica.
Lower part of R. not
inscribed. Line at end of R.
Бж 12 23: Inscr 18
(0) + 4(В.)- 17h. IV.
19799 Unbaked. Dark brown. Ruled.
Crumbling. Cracked. Up-
per part broken away,
Lower part of R. not in-
scribed. 5.7 X 9.3 X 24.
Inscr. 14 (О) + 6 (R.) =
201i. IV. Translation, pp.
108.
11860 Unbaked. Light brown. Crum-
bling. Cracked. Upper part
of tablet broken away. 4.5
жи хад Unser. 12 (OD E
12 (В.) = 241. II. Trans-
lation, pp. 142ff.
10952 Unbaked. Grayish brown.
O. has occasional black
spots. End of first two
lines on O. broken off.
AS ӘП ха он твое. 19
(0.) + 9 (R.) = 188. II.
10781 Unbaked. Light brown.
Cracked, Glued together.
Техт. PLATE.
48 58
49 38
50 39
51 | 39
52 40
53 4
То
“My Lord”
(a-na be-li-ia)
FROM
THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR.
From AGE. C.B.M.
Kudur-Enlil, 11893
about 1335 В.С.
Nazi-Maruttash, 10913
about 1380 B.C.
Kuri-Galzu, ў 3662
about 1400 В.С.
About 1350 В.С. 10510
Burna-Buriash, 10504
about 1430 B.C.
Shagarakti-Shuriash, 11504
about 1320 B.C.
165
DESCRIPTION.
Upper part of tablet broken
away. Line after inscrip-
tion on Uo. E. 5.7 X 7.4 X
2.3. Inser. 12 (O.) + 11
(R= 23 Пе
Unbaked. Light brown.
First two lines broken
away. Cracked. Right up-
per corner of R. chipped off.
25 00051800 25 SCE 15
(OSIRIS ОИ IT
Unbaked. Light brown.
Cracked. Upper and lower
part of tablet broken away.
Lower part of R. not in-
scribed. Line at end of
inscription. 4.5 X 48 X
2.5. Inser.8 (0.) + 3 (R.)
= Ifl. ІШ.
Baked. O. dark, R. light .
brown. Left and right side
and lower part of tablet
broken away. Line after
O. 1. 12 and at end of in-
scription. Greatly muti-
lated. Lower part of R.
not inscribed. 6.2 X 8.5
x 2:5. Inser. 13 (O) #5
(ROPAS ПЕ
Unbaked. Light brown.
Ruled. Crumbling. End of
all lines broken away. 4.5
SESS 25 теста ПО (OD
ЭОЕ) = I ІШЕ
Unbaked. Light. Cracked.
Upper part broken away.
Seript almost obliterated.
5 Хх 9 X 2.5. Inser. 18
(O.) + 22 (R.) + 1 (U. E.)
= 411. III.
Unbaked. Light brown.
Crumbling. Glued together.
Line at end of inscription.
End of lines and beginning
of O. broken away. Greatly
mutilated. 6.2 x 9.6 X
2.7. Inser. 22 (0.) + 19
BA All е
56
оќ
55
59a
60
LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
. PLATE. To From AGE. С.В.М.
12 “My Lord” About 1350 B.C. 11654
(а-па be-li-ia)
12 (9) Burna-Buriash, 10407
about 1440 B.C.
13 < Kuri-Galzu, 10822
about 1400 B.C.
43 б About 1350 В.С. 3665
44 ss Shagarakti-Shuriash, 19800
about 1320 B.C.
44 9) Kadashman-Enlil, 11703
about 1340 B.C.
45 “ Burna-Buriash, 10919
about 1430 B.C.
45 ££ About 1350 B.C. 10914
DESCRIPTION.
Unbaked. О. light, R. dark.
Upper part, left side, and
lower half of tablet broken
away. R. covered with
silica. 5 X 55 X 26:
Inscr. 14 (O.) + 12 (R.) =
20, ІШЕ
Unbaked. Light. Upper half
broken away. 7.8 X 5.9 х
З. Inscr. 10 (О) + 2
(Lo. E.) + 12 (R.) = 24 li.
ПІ. Translation, pp. 51ff.
Unbaked. Light brown.
Ruled. | Cracked. Crum-
bling. Upper half broken
away. 7 Х 5 X 2.5.
Inser. 7 (O.) + 7 (R.) = 14
П: ІШІ!
Unbaked. Dark brown, R.
dark. Upper part and left
lower corner broken away.
5.4 Х 5.3 X 2.5. Inser. 11
(OD 3 IRD OE IL
Unbaked. Dark brown.
Ruled. Cracked. Upper
and lower part as well as
whole of O. broken away.
End of lines missing. 5.5
X 8 X 25. Inscr. 13 li.
IV.
Baked. Darkbrown. O.
completely erumbled away.
R. covered with silica. 5.5
x 9.3. Х 24. Inscr. 8
(Lo. E.) + 16 (R.) = 19 li.
П.
Unbaked. Light brown.
Cracked. Greatly muti-
lated. Upper part broken
амау. 5.3 X 38 X 2.3.
Inscr. 6 (0.) + 3 (Lo. E.) +
SiR) = е. Шт.
Baked. Light brown. Ruled.
Lower part and end of li.
broken away. Temple Rec-
ord with postscript in form
of letter, сі. No. 61. 8 x
3 х 2.5. Inser. 6(0.)+5
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 167
Техт. PLATE. To From AGE. C.B.M. DESCRIPTION.
(6) + 2 (0. Е.) = 13 li.
ПІ.
60а 46 “My Lord” (?) [Belews About 1350 B.C. 3694 Baked. Light brown. Left
(a-na be-li-ia) side and upper part of R.
broken away. Line after
O. 1. 1. Cloth impression
on right lower corner of O.
—hence strictly speaking no
letten) Sox > 2:
Inser. 10 (О.) + 2 (Lo. E.)
+ 10 (Е) = 221: ТІ.
61 46 « © 12634 Baked. Brown. О. and up-
per part of R. broken away.
Postscript,cf.No. 60. Lower
part of R.not inseribed. 7
Х 13 X 2.7. Inser.8hi. П.
S Baked. Light brown. Fragm.
2)
62 47 а “ 108
N
(right lower middle part) of
larger tablet. 5.2 X 6 X
4.2. Inser. 12 (О) + 8
(В); 20. л.
63 47 сё T 10931 Unbaked. Brown. Fragm.
of larger tablet. Dark.
Ruled. R. completely
broken away. 5.5 X 3.7 X
l5. inser ie ІШ;
64 47 Сб e 10935 Unbaked. Light brown.
Crumbling. R. broken
away. Fragm. of larger
tablet. 3.5 x 4.7 x 1.8.
Inser. 101. ПІ.
65 47 T Shagarakti-Shuriash, 10954 Baked. Dark brown on O.,
about 1320 B.C. light brown on R. Upper
and lower part of tablet
broken away. End of lines
missing. Crumbling and
greatly mutilated. 6 X
6.5 Х 2.7. Inscr. 14 (O)
TUR) 25) I.
66 48 06 Kudur-Enlil, 11926 Unbaked. Dark brown. Up-
about 1339 B.C. per and lower part of tablet
broken away. End of lines
missing. Part of larger
tablet. Cf. №о. 70. 8.5 X 8
x 3. Inser. 15 (0.) + 17
(Е)= 321. Ш.
67 49 % = 11999 Unbaked. Fragm. (lower
right part) of larger tablet.
оз
69
70
«І
~
. PLATE.
50
53
«Му Lord”
(a-na be-li-ia)
LETTERS TO CASSITE
From
Kudur-Enlil,
about 1339 B.C.
About 1339 B.C.
C. B.M.
11946
10621
3836
10392
10924
1067
сл
с
10935
10853
DESCRIPTION.
O. dark, R. light brown.
R. badly mutilated. 8 X
8.5 x 4. Inscr. 17 (O.) +
13 (8) = 801. IT.
Unbaked. О. dark, В. light
brown. Upper, lower, and
right part of tablet broken
away. Inscription оп L. E.
in two columns. Cf. No. 69.
8 X 8.5 X 4. Inser. 17 (O.)
+ 14 (R.) + 9 (L. E.) = 40
li. II.
Unbaked. Light brown.
Fragm. (left lower part) of
larger tablet. В. com-
pletely broken away. Cf.
No. 68. 4 x 46x 2.2,
Inscr. 9 (O.) + 1 (L. E.) =
101. IH.
Unbaked. Fragm. of larger
tablet. Light brown. Cf.
No. 66. 4 х 4 X 3.8.
Таѕег. 5 + 6 = 11 li. II.
Unbaked. Light brown.
Fragm. (right lower part)
of larger tablet. Ruled.
4.5 X 5.5 X 3.8. Inser.10
(EST Ізі ІШ:
Unbaked. Light brown.
Crumbling. Occasional dark
spots on O. and R. Upper
part and end of lines
broken away. 4.8 X 5.5
x 2.2. Inser. 9 (O.) + 10
(RS ОП ле
Unbaked. Light brown.
Crumbling. Fragm. of
larger tablet. Only on one
side is the inseription pre-
served. 3.8 X 6.5 X 3.2.
Inser. 14 li. III.
Unbaked. Light brown.
Cracked. Fragm. (upper
middle part) of larger tab-
let. Greatly mutilated.
3:8) X 5 23. Insig
(0.) + 10 (R.) + 2 (U. E.)
— 201. III.
Unbaked. Dark brown.
Техт. PLATE.
75 54
76 55
77 55
78 56
79 56
80 57
81 57
22
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR.
To From AGE. C.B.M.
MAmel-""Marduk. “The King” (LUGA L) Shagarakti-Shuriash, 12582
(cf. No. 93). about 1325 B.C.
“Son.” “Father.” About 1400 B.C. 3660
m ива и ба | ÜNA-shur-shum-ötir. Kadashman-Turgu, 10575
nishemesh_shu]. about 1360 B.C.
MA -hu-shi-na. m ilu py Til-ki-di-ni. Burna-Buriash, 10774
about 1430 В.С.
MIm-gu-ri. m ilu Bn-lil-ki-di-[ni]. Burna-Buriash, 11931
about 1430 B.C.
А mj-li-ia. m ilu En-lil-mu-kin-apal. Nazi-Maruttash, 6056
about 1350 B.C.
MA hu-ú-a-Ba-ni. n Erba | Marduk. Kadashman-Enlil, 3692
about 1335 B.C.
169
DESCRIPTION.
Fragm. (middle part) of
tablet. Only one side pre-
served. 5.5 X 6.8 x 2.4.
Inscr. 141. III.
Unbaked. Light brown.
End of lines and lower part
of tablet broken away. R.
almost completely erum-
bled ой. 3.9 X 4.8 X 1.7.
Inser. 10 (O.) + 10 (R.) +
7 (U 195) 23: ЭШ:
Translation, рр. 1328.
Unbaked. Light brown.
Cracked. Covered with
black spots. Line after O.
1.1. В. has only one line
of inscription, rest not
inseribed. 5 + 7.5 X 2.3.
Inser.9 (O.) + 1 (R.) = 10
li. II. Translation,pp.143f.
Unbaked. Dark brown.
Cracked. Crumbling. Right
side and lower part of tablet
broken away. 4.8 X 6.8 X
22. Inscr. 10 li. III.
Unbaked. Light brown.
Lower part of tablet broken
away. Only upper part of
В. is inscribed. 4.7 X 6.5
x 2.4. Inser. 10 (O.) + 3
(R.- 135. ІП.
Baked. Brown. Left side
broken away. Badly muti-
lated. Crumbling. Lower
part of R. not inseribed. 4
x 6.8 x 2.5. Inscr. 9 (О.)
ша (в) 1315; №.
Unbaked. Light brown.
Lower half of tablet broken
away. Right upper corner
ої O. was pressed down-
ward while tablet was still
soft. 4 х 4 Х 2. Inscr.
8(0.) 4 7 (R.) + 2 (U. E.)
= 171. II.
Baked. О. light brown, В.
darker. Occasional black
spots. Lower part of tablet
170
Техт.
54
56
ss
PLATE.
59
60
62
Da-ni-ti-ia,
" In-na-an-ni.
т In-na-an-ni.
™In-na-an-ni.
т In-na-an-ni.
"т-пи-й-а.
/?]Da(2)-L-K-ia.
LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
From
mErba-""“Marduk.
m ilu yis] (t)(=NIN.
IB) -apal-iddina”“,
AGE.
Shagarakti-Shuriash,
about 1325 В.С.
Kuri-Galzu,
about 1400 В.С.
т ilu ругі (0) (= MASH)- Kuri-Galzu,
apal-iddina"^ ,
Im-bi-Ai-ri.
IIn-bi-Ai-ri.
MGu-za-ar-AN.
т] -h-ip-pa-ásh-ra.
about 1400 B.C.
Kuri-Galzu,
about 1400 B.C.
Kuri-Galzu,
about 1400 B.C.
About 1350 B.C.
Burna-Buriash,
about 1430 B.C.
СВМ.
1
~
115:
3315
3206
3663
3834
DESCRIPTION.
broken away. 4.5 X 5 X
2.3. Inser. 10 (O.) + 10
RI = 201. U.
Unbaked. Dark brown.
Greatly mutilated, О. left
lower corner broken away.
R. completely crumbled
ОП. И ЭС Ol xX M
Inscr. 101. II.
Baked. Light brown. Occa-
sional black spots on О.
Part of right side of O, and
upper right corner of R.
chipped off. Otherwise
well preserved. Line after
l 2 and at end of O.
5.5 х 9.5 x 2.2. Inscr. 18
(OD + 19 (R.) = 371i. II.
Translation, рр. 110ff.
Baked. Light brown. Per-
fect. Line after O. 1. 10.
Lower part of R. not in-
seribed. 48 X 9 X 2.3.
Inscr. 14 (О) + 5 (В) =
191. II. Translation, рр.
1138.
Baked. Light brown. R.
covered with silica. Lower
half of В. not inscribed.
DDI SG 49 SG 2 LOS CLAN]
(0) +4(R.) =11 Н. II.
Translation, pp. 115ff.
Baked. Light brown. Lower
part of tablet broken away.
48 X 5.8 x 2.3. Inser. 13
(0) + 11 (R.) + 3 (U. E.)
+ 4(L.E.) =31li. П.
Unbaked. O. light brown.
R. darker. Occasional
black spots. Lower part of
tablet broken away. 5.5
x 6 х 2. Пис. И (O.)
+ 9 (В.) + 3 (U.E.) + 2
(LE) = 251. IE
Baked. Light brown. Greatly
effaced. Lower part of tab-
let broken away. R. blank,
АСА БОО Insc. sale
IIT.
90
91
о
t2
93
94
95
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR.
ст. PLATE. To From
62 "NIN-nu-ú-a. m Pän-AN .GAL-lu-mur.
63 m ilu браће,
63 [™I-na]-sil-li-a-lak]. " iluDAR.HU-nûr-gab- About 1350 B.C.
ba.
64 ™Il-l-ia. Nazi-Maruttash,
1390 B.C.
65 “The King”(?) (ef. No. About 1400 B.C.
75).
65
66
67
AGE.
About 1350 В.С.
Kadashman-Turgu,
about 1350 B.C.
About 1350 В.С.
C.B.M.
19764
PT
DESCRIPTION.
Baked. Dark brown. Right
lower corner broken away.
4 x 6.3 x 1.7. Inscr. 14
(O.) + 14 (R.) + 2 (U. E.)
= 301. IV. Translation,
pp. 19ff.; 25, note 4; 27,
note 8.
10936 Baked. Dark. Fragm. (left
19796
19784
3074
3665
3671
10775
upper part) of tablet. 4 X
5X 23. Inser. 7 (©) + 7
(RD = ТАШ: ІШЕ
Baked. Light brown. 3 lines
on tablet. Beginning of first
section broken away. 0.1.5
is continued over the whole
ofR. Lower part of R.not
inscribed. 5 X 5 x 2.
Inser. 10 (O.) + 2 (Lo. E.)
ЗЕ) = 150. У.
Baked. Light brown. Lower
right part of tablet broken
away. 45 X 75 x 2
Inscr. 14 (0.) + 2 (Lo. E.)
+15 (В) + 3 (U. E) =
34 li. IV.
Unbaked. Fragm. (lower
right part) of tablet.
Crumbling. Cracked. Bad-
ly mutilated. Other side
of tablet completely effaced.
45 X 5.3 X 2. Inscr. 8 li.
П. -
Unbaked. Light hrown.
Crumbling. Line at end of
O. and R. Upper part of
tablet broken away. О.
completely effaced. Lower
part of R. not inscribed.
5.8 X 8.8 X 2.3. Inscr. 3
(0. + 5(R.) =8li. II.
Baked. О. light brown, К.
dark. Large black spot on
В. Ruled. Crumbling.
Upper part of tablet broken
away. 52 X 5 X 2.
Inser. 6 (O.) + 10 (R.) + 2
(ШЕ SSDS
Unbaked. О. very light, К.
+
172 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS
Тахт. PLATE. To From AGE. С В.М. DESCRIPTION.
darker. Cracked, Crumb-
ling. Fragm. (middle part)
of larger tablet. 6.8 X 9.5
x 3. Inscr. 15 (O.) + 14
(R.) = 291. III.
97 68 Kadashman-Turgu, 10922 Unbaked. Dark brown.
about 1360 B.C. Ruled. Upper part and
right side of tablet broken
away. Last line and all of
other side not inseribed.
BS SEDO DE allo аца И
ia АШ
9S 6S About 1350 В.С. 10895 Unbaked. Fragm. of larger
tablet. Dark brown. Ruled.
Crumbling. К. completely
broken away. 6.3 Х 5.8 X
15: Moser ШЕ
99 68 “ 10915 Unbaked. Brown. Fragm.
(middle part) of larger tab-
let. The other side of
tablet completely erumbled
away. Cracked. 5.4 X 6
302: inser ТОШ $ PEE,
D. PHOTOGRAPHIC (HALF-TONE) REPRODUCTIONS.
Text. PLATE. C. B. M. DESCRIPTION.
192 I O. and R. of a letter from Kalbu to the “Lord.” Cf. 19793 Cf. description of text No. 24.
Translation on pp. 101ff.
3, 4, 5 П Part of envelope, В. E. and Lo. E. of a letter from 19793 Cf. description of text No. 24.
Kalbu to the “Lord.” Cf. Translation on pp. 1018.
6,7 ІШ O. and В. of a letter referring to Enlil-kidinni. For 10497 Cf. description of text No. 55.
Translation cf. Chapter III, pp. 51ff.
8,9 ІП O. and В. of a royal letter to Amel-Marduk. Cf. Trans- 12582 Cf. description of text No. 75.
lation on pp. 132ff.
10, 11 Y O. and В. of a letter from NIM.GI-shar-ili to the 6123 Cf. description of text No. 33a.
“Lord.” Cf. Translation on рр. 135ff.
12, 43 V. O. and В. of a letter from [/m-gu]-rum to the “Lord.” 11090 Cf. description of text No. 23.
Cf. Translation on pp. 94ff.
14, 15 VI O. and R. of a letter from Mukallim to the “Lord.” 11098 Cf. description of text No. 31.
Cf. Chapter III, p. 36, note 7.
16,17 VI O. and В. of a letter from Mukallim to the “Lord.” 10514 Cf. description of text No. 33.
Cf. Chapter III, p. 36, note 7.
18,19 VII O. and В. of a letter from Shirigtim to the “Lord.” 10955 Cf. description of text No. 38.
Cf. Translation on pp. 140ff.
20 VIII O. of a letter from Amel-Marduk to the “Lord.” 11426 Cf. description of text No. 3.
21 IX R. of a letter from Amel-Marduk to the ** Lord." 11426 Cf. description of text No. 3.
FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 1077
Техт. PLATE: C. B. M. DESCRIPTION.
22, 28 X О. and В. of a letter from Sin-karabi-eshme to the 19783 Cf. description of text No. 37.
“Тога.”
24, 25 X O. and R. of a letter from Ubarrum to the “Lord.” Cf. 5134 Cf. description of text No. 40.
Translation on pp. 129ff.
26 XI R. of a letter showing the fragmentary condition of the — 10504 Cf. description of text No. 52.
collection.
27 XI O. of a letter from Imgurum to the “Lord.” 11101 Cf. description of text No. 22.
28 XI О. of a letter from a “father” to his “son.” Cf. Trans- 3660 Cf. description of text No. 76.
lation on pp. 143ff.
PAS) SO = За O. and R. of a letter from Errish(t)-apal-iddina to 3315 Cf. description of text No. 83.
Innanni. Cf. Translation on pp. 110ff,
31,32 ХП O. and R. of a letter from Errish(t)-apal-iddina to 3258 Cf. description of text No. 84.
Innanni. Cf. Translation on pp. 113ff.
C. NUMBERS OF THE CATALOGUE Or THE BABYLONIAN MUSEUM (PREPARED BY
Pror. Dr. Н. V. Нилвеснт).
C. B. M. TEXT: PLATE. C.B.M. Техт. PLATE. C. B. M. Техт. PLATE.
3000 10000 | 10930 2 1
3206 55 59 10392 71 51 10931 63 47
3255 84 59 10497 55 42 | 10935 64 47
3315 83 55 10504 52 40 | 10936 90 63
3655 15 14 10510 51 39 | 10938 73a 53
3660 76 55 10514 33 25 | 10951 16 12
3661 39 31 10571 15 12 | 10952 46 36
3662 50 39 10575 77 55 10954 65 47
3668 57 61 10600 36 29 10955 38 30
3665 94 65 10621 69 51 | 10983 28 21
3668 57 43 10629 30 22 11000
3669 4 4 10658 73 52 11090 28 17
3671 95 66 10774 78 56 11096 25 19
3674 93 65 | 10775 96 67 11098 31 23
3675 56 60 10781 47 37 11101 22 16
3692 81 57 10804 13 11 11149 5 5
3694 60a. 46 10806 21 16 11426 3 2,3
3787 Tf 6 10816 8 7 | 11497 32 24
3834 88 62 10822 56 43 | 11498 42 33
3836 70 51 10853 74 53 11504 53 41
3837 10 8 10878 62 47 11635 9 8
5000 10895 98 68 11637 14 11
5134 40 32 10913 49 38 11654 54 42
6000 10914 60 45 11703 59 44
6056 80 57 10915 99 65 11716 1 1
6057 35 28 10919 59a 45 11787 41 32
6058 34 27 | 10922 97 68 11852 82 57
6123 33a 26 10924 72 52 11860 45 35
174 LETTERS TO CASSITE KINGS.
C. B. M. Техт. PLATE. C. B. M. Text. PLATE. C. B. M. TEXT PLATE.
11893 45 3s 12582 То 54 19784 92 64
11926 66 48 12633 27 20 19785 26 19
11929 12 10 12634 61 46 | 19787 19 14
11931 79 56 19000 19793 24 15
11946 68 50 19764 89 62 | 19796 91 63
11956 29 22 19779 43 34 | 19798 20 15
11999 67 49 19780 17 13 | 19799 44 34
12000 19781 11 9 19800 58 44
12559 6 6 19783 37 29
QUNEIFORM
TEXTS
Pl 1
. Bar 4 | : |
5
10
15
20
Obverse.
иа
/ / (/ и
gf. жшт
=
ОЛО
Ж, ҰР,
N
УИ,
My Ж, 4 Жа? 4
УЖ,
VY
=
А |
Reverse.
і
Obverse.
==
ИДЕ
Ж ИЗ ARAS
e
б
A
>
пьаж ша)
Lf и Á fi U 1 b 3
25 > ДО русая EON
у Ј RUSSE
"A fes milit HD
N 7
й ИИ АЕ AR a
KA Е ) /
71 EK VL Й
Ди 7
1
Y
35 ЈЕ
r
1
АЎ Й 0 ЙА +.
“ай 7 Й / АЎ Я
до ЖЕНЕР?
ya
LAR 2
45
7 5
ЖЖ |
и
4 Й, Й 2
5
©
м
/ 7/9 9g I XX OEY
Й, ІЯ Жж У y
7, Да A ON EN GN
AA Й у 7 US АЛИЈА үз)
5
NRZ
=
a
INN
Uy
А
7 78
ОР”
L.E. 65
Pi.
РІ. 4
Erasure.
РІ.
77 КО, 7/77 са E now
fi ИДЯ и: 2 Й
M у Ты Y 9 Л My
AL 7
Ж 2 Y, ie NASE E My}
Ж 7 gui 3
ДИЧИНИ
MMM УД
7
-
ЖИ /
D 3 Pa 0)
YY WHS
И Да
/
/ Й
//
ЯҒ
У
ДИ A
AO
‚ @
ха
Г Се
ا
у “he, [4%
Ж RU / ?
7 2 4 ХХ Т)
КҮ ) пи D
N що a
? M. 7
Мост;
ТЖ
g
ATUM
PEG:
Щит
Үй
И f 77
Т?
5
®
м
N
саге
Bl.
Pl. 8
Obverse.
EC ай
ў AE AAN
BR И
А
Obverse. Reverse.
Pl. 9
11
BF 10
12
13 рі 11
Obverse.
10 М2 ERS <
~ 2
SE ¡ONES ST
nM ИЛ ҮЕ RM iE SS
MATHE дейш o
س کد W Т»
Auni
M
Reverse.
ERE
EU Tau Ася
з Ў суы щш
T
EN PARAR
>
14
Obverse. Tenore.
ха
иб,
x Pl. 12
Obverse.
N > 2
а ае
5 Ж А IH
Lem АТ),
JU P^ | 4
е) A:
Ki йн}, у
7 4
10
ЯТ
б.
ко
а “ах
Reverse.
77 ПИЙ) 777 77 тр»
Й dl 7
fez, 17 777 22 А
/Й Ж
А
f Ж Й Mi И
Я а, Зи и зи
ДА
Лу w Ж UN) Ж/ 2
/ Й УИ,
Zn iff nie 25 Ж IAS
2 Ж Ж
д
0
WAR
~
4
15
TE RN заў
rd АСА er U e
27
m ж, M ALS
EGE:
17
ÊY
а NA
ТЕ Ре 14
20 4
h
Ду
4
By)
У
SS SS
SS
S SS
А m PARA
SÍ =
ТҮ ook
1 OS
19
Y
AIR ///,
7/
с ЖИ 7 A
И,
/7//, 7
/
И
УФ 0
La у Reverse.
у 2
д г ДИ
0 МИ fh We
Я WO У АЙ 5
/ NR /
! ), у
ИЛ
ДИ
РА
/ I là
////
)
7, рф 711
Ида Y
Pl. 15
20
Obverse.
Reverse.
SIE
>
20
4
“о
Li
АП ar Е
РІ 16
21
ER PIS
о а
n ro
та.
U
23
REN]
24
Ad a t | SH
же 52
4 а
Y
TAY AN
$ ER x
АЙ
Ж
б,
Eh
25
Pl. 19
Reverse.
„#
P ^
von
A
1
а
о-о
Erasure.
Obverse.
М
á ER o NA 777
pag,
Reverse.
27
Pl. 20
PATER
tib
Lo. E.
қ RE PY
R. 25 ARIS
PER NLA
LA
BAZA
тоса 0
SEN
Pl. 21
29
a
46
207
Ж
=
bx S
7
i
)
tate що Y,
pope
| ЙДЕ “Л ш
30
Pl. 22
та t> КА і
каў rh
Al
гаў" Ма
Ши
ДЖ
Mt
O.
ЊУ
ЖУ)
WH
С
Ж ФИА
Ace 3
; fi
MMM Mae
oo ae
пра de
2
7
Р АА
ии КУУ, (у
Жуу 4
ЧНО.
40 ХР,
7 7, 2) И Ж?%
7 7
И
МУЉА И
Ж
и.к. ОО
Pl. 23
32
Obverse.
Ж
Шуу
1 И
10
| Y A
N rm V
MN) M is
S УДА
/ ИДИ Я ТЕРЕНИ У
NL AE
Reverse.
WR 7/77;
СА
16 Ж
И 27777 7
7
ИЙ,
/ 4i
Ж
Ж
ГР
77; Ly
й
у
РІ. 24
Obverse.
20 ДИ)
ЖҰҒА
и
ЕД тарла
|
' і
1! |
)
25
30
(2
y
а
UN
Й
/ WAL A N
7 ПИ x.
TV
25
Pl. 26
99 а.
34
U. E.
40
45
L. E.
P A
СИ,
ат
UN:
2). 28
35
РІ. 29
ы >
; (ПРАГА раб Tu:
5 Dia 3 УРА
РЕ L Aue
-r
үе hus LEO
Т з FEIN &
Ly У
V
АЧ
Беу
AV Миу
AN А
10 ee
Зи
: ф ү: 2) VEN A ANT ZU.
iur. ГЩ
ч А-а у Vy Alv Y
А) Y ек
NEN
X 3 E V (г v1 2 J ЕД
۳ 2 محم ^ ;
РІ. 30
38
Obverse.
5
10
ARNES
Reverse.
39
PYR IB N
ex VU
(и <
ees
HY)? GR
И
Р И iy
Ж Я ш
7, /
б. Wy
Mn. 1
С2
77
NAL
0 d
77
Й
р 44
а d
BY
Pl. 31
40
ў EN. ә 7
О зад Ваза а АДА 42 ИД "n (
5 \ 7 \
ўз Ж
268
ськ
Erasure.
Риза
ФІ 88
42
Obverse.
РІ. 34
та
>
< 7
7
Se 224 7
7 "I
///7. Di
Й
7
Д 77
22) 2
ЖЫЛД, J1
Й КУУН 2
ПАТ
10
ДИ
ЖЖ Ж
ЖУР,
2 77
и
DIE
ЖҰ. й HR Ж
И
15
АЙ 95
45
15 таа АГ ie
РІ. 36
46
47
SS
Е ҮШ Н т 46
ЦУ |
|
N
Lo. E. N
¡AY LE
MNT Ai шнде
BE IB N 7
ы AARAA
A
AQ ЛЫ A
ДЕ A расе
Bl.
[7]
48 РІ. 38
| |
0 й. з Ш>
А A 7
: Ве гай d "Ne
30% dues ай Ls i ”
49
Obverse.
qu HART 0m ТД)
(PAE p. Е
ПИТИ iy
1 гар У. (у == ИИ»; Ж 0 ip
0 EL ^ M, Wy 0 У
WALA PT «б 4. ПИГ и UM
А-2 а /
in,
AA
Do и р Wy ДИ, 777 ази
X 10 ПИЙ КАСИ И» Wy А і E77 гы Era те
0 >
аа Sn.
gn
WR ІЙ Ja
“
зо
VR
Ж“
iy / 7
GY WY
67
7
ЖА
Ur
El.
39
52
ФС 4
RT vi. 2
а Ada AC,
NA.
m у 7
Wy 4
AW %
д ~
р
7,
а Шиа PH
) 7
; 4 777 Я г)
7»
РІ. 40
53
Obverse.
Л, >
MNA, =
МЛ ЛА М
ИР СИМ
de
4 і
ы Ар}
UNES yy
A у ^
4 7, ИЙ, д
| Me
ID
41
РІ. 42
54
Obverse.
0.
рЫ
зр
CHE
>
rA T
А mA v
С 7
р do,
А >
Y D
Б E
2 Ay; ц =
2 پد
a
рр; А
ERE
/
SL Д
м
56 JEL MES
57
Obverse. Reverse.
Pl. 44
58
Er
у LE
Lo. E.
РІ. 45
ода.
и As Hie Wifi И 22 т
> he
TERRAS MU On БУл)
R. 10 TAA ا E 2
60
Reverse.
4 Lue: ru 5215)
в са
60a. Pl. 46
4 ў Р \
рана а чыыры ы =
4
7
1
62
Pl. 47
Reverse.
63
N)
ÓN [IY
7/7) 4
7 Ж 7
;
У,
Ж /
ЧИ /
0 ЖЖ
Y
y,
ЖР Ж
Obverse. БА
A111
Ж
А
А
7 X Ж
ЖФ ЖЖ
ИР АЕ
5%, Ж f % Y ПИЙ
и.
Ж Y)
А А А Й
/,
раў ў RS,
А HIN SIT, ДАЙ
20 Ч IEA С
ИҰ,
ЖЫҚ
; Y,
6 [he ар y ANG
У AL ДЕСЕ
Ж Й, ИМЕ LE, vf s ИР Ж Ж
«а e 2 ИИ
ИИ ҒА «КІРА LY е
ІІ ШТ
777
E os A (A
ИДО 25 Y
HN UN 714
ШИ vtri a
Reverse.
Ша?
РІ. 48
67
Obverse.
НЕ LHL
Ж) 4) “Me >»
ыр ОСУ Т)»
Zu 7 UK, ЦЫЙ 2 2
^r: Й /
и”
7 4,
Два 2
m ET Se plo был
SU ЮИ au,
е A YN n
H RWA pi 22
iD
И
7 уй,
Ију
GLI IHN
TA жш MT
Y) 72 УУ,
К RS
ўча,
а
a
N А»
у УРА
15 1 Й Ў
2
E
2 E 77,
EE
ССИ у
M #7 И by
Ny
7 4
ШЭ d
УЖЖ,
Ui fers
7 %
0
A UE
A Y BER га NA
7% ETS ES
7 77
55
N
И Ж ee D
A MILI
Pl. 49
68
Obverse.
Reverse а
КТК Р» 2222
р»
0 Mig > -
/ ПИ РРР
Up д QUT 71777
20
MEN iy, / 2 FE,
i MK ===
mG ЧАТА, д =
LL
АТА А
да
Y,
25
E
x
КАТИ д. oy XM >
у 1 0 77 тт EAR
2) eM АШ) \
Ж
22, 72
ЦІ, НА
0
у
30
Pl. 51
69
70
Obverse. Reverse.
e
Ж) Erasure.
71
Reverse.
Г NH $
bh y KM
A AR |
c» "VQ AN
Ду AAT dye
ee
7 7
Ту A
in, 27
Yi Ад
ІЙ»
or
7
Й,
1 ҮҮӨ
0 | Й d | | |
ўў
72
Қ
т | ПЛР
0. qu ae 2 a N
0
Wy i, 7 BA
5 2 , Ж» md V
7 а ss THAN
ЖОЙ 1 Й, и
4 Й ИДИ %% Тр,
ады
p. a? Ж
УИ НИ
ЖИ p 7
Ж ДУ, И И
^
Va
18.
| ЖЖ с
fly
Л
й 7
u о
КУД,
й шт АР ү
с,
MUG
а
Да
FL
16
А
Й
МИ
47
52
4: ЗА
а )
XA
4 ы „МА
0 іт У 7
РІ, 52
73а.
74
en
Erasure.
Pl.
53
f А
| MA
15
EKS
Pl.
54
Pl. 55
76
Or
м
i
Nip
fi
ч
у) ЧЫ"
ША Ий,
(m
lil
N
UM
“ш
ну,
у"
79
10
Reverse.
Й
ти
// Uy ў
ТИТР 0
и Ж И ЖИИ
ПИЛИ ШТ
f Wy 7 Й
, jfi И
/
ПА
Nam;
SMU HP
ORUM
Pl. 56
|
BEN
ZEWA
гаң
80
81
82
10
Reverse.
Reverse,
Рол
Pl. 58
83
77 ДЕ
а / Ж.
ЖЖ
OR ДА Ye
Ui Ж ЖУ?
>”% ll
(% % MA
A
so AAE А. с
E: OS
d
я we: пита
2 Рі. 59
ps
o UU RR AEX t
В STE
Pl. 60
86
Obverse.
87
Obverse.
н:
E
1
M NEM
ў ү yv : 52
т.
РІ. 61
а РІ. 62
88
99
| рад
0. л 5.
— BY
рота юра
po 22 Erasure,
ANANE ^ і | тазите.
= Ба i
25 n
E oo.
Obverse.
Ж Ж
7 И
90
91
И УУ
L ZA Xr LUE
D
RIGS
Pl. 64
92
лы
EAL АП РАНИ.
Pl. 65
93
2 |
Wy
10
95
Ny
Um id
HN 1
jag ALAS ZLA
T Да 7
a2]
Nip
A
MA we
Wij, gn Ag
И
Pi:
66
96
Obverse.
4
6
; Em |
262
IS ELA at
de % ~ UE
за: 2073 Ре.
10
15
Uo
Щи
Pl. 67
97 Pl. 68
ЛҮҮ
ШАРТ
4 ўш ДП
1
A
7
Я DAN га
ANA кы
Б
RES
7978 0ЄРІ 1n08V "00014 SNOYLSVSIQ У 1008У ONIX IHL 01 51804384 NEIVA
ус “ON 40 звналзч ONY 3S83A80
РЕ. ||
3. ENVELOPE 4. RIGHT EDGE 5. LOWER EDGE OF No. 24
KALBU REPORTS TO THE KING ABOUT A DISASTROUS FLOOD, ABOUT 1430 B.C.
ЛЕП)
6-7. OBVERSE AND REVERSE OF No. 55 8-9. OBVERSE AND REVERSE OF Мо. 75
6-7. DISPUTE ABOUT THE EXACT WORDING OF A MESSAGE FROM KING BURNA-BURIASH, ABOUT 1440 B.C.
8-9. ROYAL SUMMONS FROM KING SHAGARAKTI-SHURIASH TO HIS SHERIFF AMEL-MARDUK, ABOUT 1325 В С.
A UM
Ат n
PL. IV
433^
=
з
OBVERSE AND REVERSEXOF No.
A GENERAL'S EXPLANATORY LETTER TO THE KING, ABOUT 1400 B.C,
РЕМ
7978 0£p! 1n08V
“121340 SIH 30 NOILVBISINIWOV зні НИМ NOILOINNO9 NI $319339 1пову HSVIYN8-VNINB ONIX OL МПУПОМІ
£c “ON 30 3SY3A3Y ONY 3S83A80
30 180338
РҮ!
OBVERSE AND REVERSE OF No. 31
A PHYSICIAN'S REPORT TO THE KING ABOUT THE CONDITION OF SICK TEMPLE WOMEN, ABOUT 1430 B.C.
PL. VII
16-17. OBVERSE AND REVERSE OF No. 33 18-19, OBVERSE AND REVERSE OF No. 38
16-17. A PHYSICIAN'S REPORT TO THE KING ABOUT THE RELAPSE OF A SICK TEMPLE WOMAN, ABOUT 1430 B.C
18-19. REPORT TO THE KING ABOUT THE RECEIPT OF WOOL AND PROVENDER, ABOUT 1400 B.C.
PL. VIII
OBVERSE OF No. 3
A SHERIFF'S REPORT TO KING SHAGARAKTI-SHURIASH ABOUT THE CONDITION OF CERTAIN CANALS,
ABOUT 1325 B.C,
BE
REVERSE OF No. 3
A SHERIFF'S REPORT TO KING SHAGARAKTI-SHURIASH ABOUT THE CONDITION OF CERTAIN CANALS,
ABOUT 1325 B.C.
22-23.
24-25.
PL. X
24 25
22-23. OBVERSE AND REVERSE OF No. 37 24-25. OBVERSE AND REVERSE OF No. 40
REPORT TO THE KING ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF GRAIN AND WHEAT, ABOUT 1430 В.С.
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF RIVERS AND CANALS COMPLAINS TO KING KUDUR-ENLIL ABOUT THE PREFECT OF DÜR- SUKAL-PATRA,
ABOUT 1335 B.C.
BE ЖІ
26. REVERSE OF Мо. 52 27. OBVERSE ОҒ Мо. 22 28. ОВУЕН5Е ОҒ Мо. 76
26. REPORT TO THE KING ABOUT THE NON-ARRIVAL ОҒ A CERTAIN SLAVE, ABOUT 1430 B.C.
27. REPORT TO THE KING ABOUT THE ILLNESS OF A WOMAN AND THE MAKING OF BRICKS, ABOUT 1430 B.C.
28. A FATHER'S PEREMPTORY ORDER TO HIS SON, ABOUT 1400 B.C.
PL. XII
31 32
29-30. OBVERSE AND REVERSE OF No. 83 31-32. OBVERSE AND REVERSE OF No. 84
29-32. TWO LETTERS OF COMPLAINTS, REQUESTS, AND THREATS ADDRESSED BY A GOVERNOR TO THE BURSAR-IN-CHIEF, ABOUT 1400 B.C,
Bi N O
MG
| University of Toronto
| THE
| CARD
||| POCKET
library
| ро NOT.
REMOVE
FROM
THIS
|
| Acme Library Card Pocket
Under Pat. “Ref. Index File”
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU
————
س
хом
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11