259 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — ASSYRIOLOGIE 260

ASSYRIOLOGIE Babylonian Corpus” by S. Tinney. On the other hand, we have texts dealing with specific aspects of the contributors’ RADNER, K., and E. ROBSON (eds.) — The Oxford Hand- interests. These articles might give a summary of the con- book of Cuneiform Culture. Oxford University Press, tributors’ current research or might be an article with new Oxford, 2011. (25 cm, XXI, 805). ISBN 978-0-19- insights in its own right eg.; “The Scribe of the Flood Story 955730-1. £ 110.00; $ 150.00. and his Circle” by F. van Koppen, “Learned, Rich, Famous The last couple of years the field of Assyriology has seen and Unhappy: Ur-Utu of Sippar” by M. Tanret, “Music, the the publication of many reference works. These books fall Work of Professionals” by N. Ziegler, and “From Street broadly into one of three categories: Altar to Palace: Reading the Built Environment of Urban (1) Translations of groups of cuneiform texts. Examples are; Babylonia” by H.D. Baker. the long-running TUAT series (since 1982), the three- Both the “overview/general” and more “specific” contri- book series The Context of Scripture, edited by W.W. butions have their merits. As somebody with an interest in Hallo and K. Lawson Younger jr., and the volume His- Old Babylonian studies, the following four contributions torical Sources in Translation, The Ancient Near East caught my eye. In “Music, the Work of Professionals” N. edited by M. Chavalas from 2006. Ziegler has made her research from Florilegium Marianum (2) Encyclopaedic works. The most famous example in IX available to the English-speaking public. M. Tanret has Assyriology is of course the Reallexikon der Assyriolo- written a very useful introduction to the still largely unpub- gie (started in 1932 and continuing up to this day). Other lished Ur-Utu archive in “Learned, Rich, Famous and examples are Dictionnaire de la civilization mésopotam- Unhappy: Ur-Utu of Sippar”. “The Scribe of the Flood ienne, edited by F. Joannès (2001), Mesopotamia: assiri, Story and his Circle” presents original research by F. van sumeri e babilonesi by E. Ascalone from 2005, Hand- Koppen into the life of a scribe from Sippar. D. Charpin’s book to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia by S. Bertman “Patron and Client: Zimri-Lim and Asqudum the Diviner” from 2003, and the Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, reprises the dossier from ARM XXVI/1 around the influential edited by P. Bienkowski and A. Millard, published in Asqudum. 2000. The earlier mentioned book The Babylonian World and (3) Handbooks. These are often books written by one or two The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture are very similar authors on a specific subject. For example; the series in goal and purpose. This is seen by the fact that six con- Guide to the Mesopotamian Textual Record or the OBO tributors are to be found in both books; both have seven 160 series edited by M. Wäfler, P. Attinger and W. Sal- thematic chapters and a lot of the contributions resemble laberger. Another type of handbook typically contains each other thematically; e.g., “Literacy and Gender” by B. several contributions by scholars in the field. Under this Lion in The Oxford Handbook and “Women and Gender” by latter heading fall books like The Babylonian World L.D. Steele in The Babylonian World, or “Numeracy and edited by G. Leick in 2007, but also the book under Metrology” in The Oxford Handbook by G. Chambon, and review; The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture. “Mathematics, metrology, and professional numeracy” by E. Robson in The Babylonian World. The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture represents a There is a clear trend among publishing houses to publish collection of thirty-five articles by some of the world’s most more and more reference works, not only in Assyriology but prominent assyriologists. The book is edited by the noted also other academic domains. Fortunately, this trend has not scholars K. Radner and E. Robson, who categorized the influenced the quality of scholarship in The Oxford Hand- contributions around seven themes (Materiality and Litera- book of Cuneiform Culture. Thanks are due to the K. Radner cies, Individuals and Communities, Experts and Novices, and E. Robson for the care with which they edited this volu- Decisions, Interpretations, Making Knowledge, and Shap- minous book. ing Tradition). Each theme carries an introduction with bib- liographical references written by the editors. Leiden University Rients DE BOER The editors aim to bridge the gap between socio-eco- nomic studies and intellectual/culture studies. By doing so, * the book seeks; “to restore context and coherence to the * * study of cuneiform culture by approaching it holistically” (p. xxviii). In order to accomplish this, the contributors SCHNEIDER, T.J. — An Introduction to Ancient Mesopo- were asked; “to transcend the political, geographical, tamian Religion, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., chronological, and linguistic boundaries that have been con- Grand Rapids, 2011. (23 cm, X, 146). ISBN 978-0- structed by modern research over the past century or more, 8028-2959-7. $ 18.00 and to cut across conventional temporal and spatial catego- ries” (p. xxix). Recently we have seen an increase in the number of books Despite these words we see in practice that most of the published on ancient Mesopotamian religious thought. After contributors are doing what they do best: writing about their the masterful La plus vielle religion; en Mesopotamie by respective specializations. This results in two types of con- Bottéro (Gallimard, Paris 1998, which in 2001 was translated tributions (or a mix of them); on the one hand texts that aim into English, titled Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia) to give an overview of a certain subject; examples are appeared, in chronological order, Brigitte Groneberg, Die “Accounting in Proto-cuneiform” by R.K. Englund, “The Götter des Zweistromlandes. Kulte, Mythen, Epen, Artemis Person in Mesopotamian Thought” by B. Foster, “Freedom & Winkler, Stuttgart 2004, a few years later followed by my in Ancient Near Eastern Societies” by E. von Dassow, or La religione dell’antica Mesopotamia, Carocci, Roma 2009, “Tablets of Schools and Scholars: A Portrait of the Old and finally the book considered here.

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 259259 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 261 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXIX N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2012 262

One should also take into account the book by D. Snell, chooses to deal with the lexical lists of names of gods, in Religions of the Ancient Near East, Cambridge University which it is difficult to visualize the arranging principle. The Press, Cambridge 2010, and the booklet by M. Krebernik, Author comes close to Veldhuis’ interpretation2), who recog- Götter und Mythen des Alten Orients, C. H. Beck, München nises in the god-lists “the place where all things divine did 2012 which both are dedicated to the more general topic of come together”. the religions of the Ancient Near East. Treating the principal divine figures, she considers them This rich offering of studies geared towards the non-spe- not only synchronically, but also along the diachronic axis cialized world of educated people, might be the result of an (“History and Evolution of the Pantheon”, pp. 54-57). A acquired stabilized level of knowledge. In this regard I have paragraph on the Personal God(s) concludes the chapter (pp. another point of view than that of the Author, as expressed 63-65). on p. 128 “modern study of ancient Mesopotamia is still Very suitably Schneider dedicates chapters 6 (“The Tem- fairly young”. It could be, hopefully, that the ‘mythical’ ples pp. 66-78) and 7 (“Religious Personnel”, pp. 79-90) to moment Michalowski referred to has finally arrived when he the cultic aspects of the ancient Mesopotamian religion, with stated “the immense difficulties involved with basic matters inclusion of not only textual data, but archaeological as well. of establishing reliable text editions, … have provided a Both chapters put into social context concepts regarding the seemingly impenetrable barrier of arguments against critical divinities and their mythology which she had addressed ear- reflection, and have conspired to postpone interpretative lier in the book. issues to a mythical time when groundwork will have been All of the textual material that could be considered stricto laid, and a happy generation of grateful scholars will have sensu not pertinent to the topic of religion is the object of the leisure to indulge in such undignified and unscholarly chapter 8 (“Religious Texts” pp. 91-100). The inclusion in labors”1). this chapter of texts of different categories enables the reader The book by Tammi J. Schneider confirms this hope of to have a wider understanding of the specific peculiarities of mine. It is, in fact, a valuable tool for those who are new to the Mesopotamian thought. The Author describes texts the Mesopotamian religious world: the central features and belonging to the category of the belles-lettres, which contain traits are logically arranged, making it easy to get acquainted mythological tales, i. e. the “Disputes”, which refer to cos- with this ancient civilization. Between the pages of the book, mogonic concepts, the lexical lists and the “Wisdom Litera- the Author also highlights the problems and limits of our ture”, which all introduce the less familiar reader to the current knowledge. She has included an extensive bibliogra- extent of religious concepts, therefore leading to a wider phy (pp. 131-140), thus making the book a useful instrument. breadth of thought. It is divided into 11 chapters, a chronological table is pro- A rare balance is found in chapter 9 (“Rituals” pp. 101- vided, and an analytical index of proper names and notable 116). The most important rituals are exposed here, and this things. topic entails complex speculations about their symbolic value In the ‘Introduction’ the Author very clearly outlines both – among them the difficult theme of the ‘Sacred marriage’. the targets and limits of her book, its primary function and The Author chose in chapter 10 (“Kingship, Religion and the selected point of view of her approach (“An Introduc- the Gods” pp. 117-125) an accurate chronological setting to tion”: p. 2). She then defines the chronological and geo- evaluate the complicated relationships between kingship and graphical focus of interest of the book, and touches on the the divine world. topic of “Religion” (p. 5), where she then cautions the The conclusion (chapter 11 pp. 126-130) focuses on the researcher of the possible conditioning of his own thoughts human awareness of life and its ups and downs. The last by the influence of Christendom. This introductory chapter sentence of the book is an inspiring suggestion by the Author ends with a paragraph starting with the sentence “Please do herself. She recounts to her readers the advice Siduri gave to note what is not in this volume” (p. 6), an honest as well as Gilgamesh, who had reached the extreme border of the clear sentence pinpointing the goals of her work. world. So writes T. Schneider “… we should remember Chapter 2, “Tools for the Study of Ancient Mesopotamian more often to go home, hug our kids, our spouses, eat some Religion” (pp. 9-16) followed by “History of Mesopotamia” good food, and enjoy a nice beer”. (chapter 3, pp. 17-33), provide those readers not acquainted A common thread that runs throughout this book deserves with Assyriological studies a synthetical overview of the particular attention: it is the idea that Man was created in subject. order to serve the gods, and, more specifically, to feed them It is with chapter 4 that the Author enters the heart of the by means of sacrifices (p. 40, 44, 85, 90, 103, 117, 125 and theme. On pp. 38-50 she relates the plots of those mytho- chap. 11). Although true, said like this, this thought is so logical poems which more fully inform the reader of cosmo- restrictive that it becomes misleading. Verse 191 of the poem logical as well as anthropogonical concepts. For Sumerian Atrahasis, when the gods decided to create mankind, in order literature she quotes a group of myths about Enki, and for to replace the inferior gods in their cosmic work, says: “And Akkadian, the two poems Enuma elis and Atrahasis. To out- let the man bear the toil of the gods”3). It is necessary to line the topic of the world of the dead, she recounts both carefully evaluate these words, especially in the light of the versions, the Sumerian and the Akkadian, of Inana’s/Istar’s sacrifice of one of the gods, who was killed, mixing clay Descent to the Netherworld. with his flesh and blood in order to create Man. This new- On pp. 51-65, chapter 5 “The Gods”, the world of the born being had both the nature and duties typical of those of divinities is described. It is noteworthy that the author 2) N. Veldhuis, Religion, Literature, and Scholarship: The Sumerian 1) P. Michalowski, Presence at the Creation, in: T. Abusch – J. Hueh- Composition Nanse and the Birds, Brill, Leiden & Boston 2004: 11-13. nergard – P. Steinkeller eds., Lingering over Words, Harvard Semitic Stud- 3) W. G. Lambert – A. R. Millard, Atra-hasis – The Babylonian Story ies 37, Scholars Press, Atlanta GA, 1990: 381. of the Flood, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1969: 56-57.

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 260260 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 263 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — ASSYRIOLOGIE 264

a divinity, although at a lower level: the gods alloted man- documents of ancient Mesopotamia, but if a Latin word had kind a different destiny from that of a humble servant. When to be used, instead of propaganda, I would select the exact dealing with this aspect Michalowski notes “this concept … opposite, preservanda11). As a matter of fact, texts of this asserts the place of humanity in the universe, not as a blind kind, that were a charter of legitimation12), were composed slave of the gods, but as an independent, creative being”4). (and subsequently copied) less to influence the attitude of the In Mesopotamian thought this principle plays a paramount community than to preserve the connection with the divine, function, and from it other basic concepts stem. They are: a) making use of the symbolic power of the word. This power the individual person’s birth, as result of the action of divine provided by the word, and above all by the written one, con- entities, therefore a person is called “son of his god”5), thus stitutes the prime propulsive strength to realize the divine confirming his partially divine nature; b) the possibility of designs13). It is a legacy to be preserved, rather than to dis- identification with the divine; c) the transmission of knowl- sipate and propagate: this is the meaning the Ancients attrib- edge, as a modality to organize the human work to run the uted to the compositions of legitimation and to the other ones cosmos in an orderly way conforming to the plans of Heaven; too, quoted above at point c). The legitimation of the dynas- d) the function of kingship. ties of Ur III and Isin we come across in the Sumerian King The Author has indeed touched these points. On point a) List, can be understood as a charter of conformity to a tradi- on pp. 63-64, she provided a diachronical outline regarding tion descending from Heaven, dating back to the very begin- the ‘personal god’. b) The Author did not deal with this topic ning of human history, a charter addressed therefore to separately, but it can be related to the paragraph “Prophecy” Heaven and not to the human community. (pp. 85-88), yet this phenomenon is limited to an area near In an excellent book, P. Matthiae14) clarifies the role of the Syria, namely Mari and Assyria. The topic “Divine Kings” Mesopotamian king. When any sovereign has achieved his (pp. 121-125) is also relevant to this point: we should remem- task of bringing the order of the divine design, he eventually ber that king Shulgi became a star at his death6). On this topic might dedicate himself to building (or restoring) the temple see Abusch7) and the present reviewer8). With reference to of the gods where he will put his own image, as a statue, point c) we must pinpoint that all knowledge (“arts of civili- placed in perpetual prayer in front of the statue of the divin- zation”, p. 56), including the art of healing, comes from the ity. The placing of inscriptions referring to the deeds of sov- gods (and Berossus in the 3rd century BC confirms the hand- ereigns in the courtyard of the temple Ekur of Enlil in Nippur ing down of knowledge to humanity through the mythical transmits this meaning: in that courtyard, those inscriptions Oannes): it is the goddess Gula who heals the patient, by are preserved15), in the same way as many pre-Sargonic means of the action of the physician. On p. 16 Schneider inscriptions from Girsu16). Neither are instances of propa- mentions the anonymity of the authors, where we can quote ganda – just to quote two among the most popular monu- the text edited by Lambert9): the main texts of the Mesopo- ments from ancient Mesopotamia – the Code of Hammurabi tamian cultural tradition, either mythological poems or divi- (which is not a document of promulgating law, as the Author natory and exorcistic handbooks, are said to be dictated by the states on p. 120), nor the Assyrian reliefs of the royal pal- god Enki / Ea or by the sages who continued that tradition. aces. Any analogy with, for example, the reports of newspa- This transmission is analogous to the one mentioned in pers of regimes controlling countries where one party is in another text, which was edited by Lambert as well10), on the power is incorrect. Both the former17) and the latter18) con- “art of the diviner, the barûtu”. Point d): the Author deals vey a sense specific to that culture, a sense which is com- precisely with the topic of kingship in chapter 10. pletely remote to the function of objects of political propa- Nonetheless, I do not agree with the Author when she ganda (newspapers, advertising, etc.) used in modern times. summarily, even if based on previous research, classifies the As a matter of fact, on p. 5 the Author does not neglect this Sumerian King List and other lists of names of sovereigns as methodological item and indirectly warns against the projec- “propaganda” (p. 30, also p. 118). Few people could read at tions of categories belonging to the world of the scholar into that time, so the only target which one could address this the studied culture, albeit she circumscribes it to the influ- “propaganda” would had been the scribes of the academies. ence of Christianity only. Many scholars adopt the idea of “propaganda” regarding the Minor imperfections occur which do not lower the value of the book. In the Enuma elis it is Enlil who abdicated for

4) P. Michalowski, Presence at the Creation, in: T. Abusch – J. Hueh- nergard – P. Steinkeller eds., Lingering over Words, Harvard Semitic Stud- 11) I thank Dr. Andrea Parolin for this lexical suggestion. ies 37, Scholars Press, Atlanta GA, 1990: 387-389. 12) P. Michalowski, History as Charter: Some Observations on the 5) J. Klein, ‘Personal God’ and Individual Prayer in Sumerian Reli- Sumerian King List, Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983): gion, Archiv für Orientforschung – Beiheft 19 (1982): 295-306. 237-248 6) See, most recently, with bibliography, P. Lapinkivi, The Sumerian 13) J. Bottéro, Mesopotamia, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Sacred Marriage and Its Aftermath, in: M. Nissinen – R. Uro, Sacred Mar- & London 1992 (original publication: Mesopotamie – L’écriture, la raison riage, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake IN 2008: 7-41, in particular 39 fn 118. et les dieux, Gallimard, Paris 1987): 97-101. 7) T. Abusch, Ascent to the Stars in a Mesopotamian Ritual, in: J. J. 14) P. Matthiae, Il sovrano e l’opera, Laterza, Roma e Bari 1994. Collins – M. Fishbane eds., Death, Ecstasy and the Other Worldly Jour- 15) P. Michalowski, History as Charter: Some Observations on the neys, State University of New York Press, Albany NY 1995: 15-39. Sumerian King List, Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983): 8) P. Mander, The Mesopotamian Exorcist and His Ego, in: M. G. Biga 239. – M. Liverani eds., Ana turri gimilli, studi dedicati al Padre Werner R. 16) Cf. J. S. Cooper, Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions: Mayer, S. J., Quaderno di Vicino Oriente V, Dipartimento di Scienze The Lagash-Umma Border Conflict – Sources from the Ancient Near East Storiche Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Università “La Sapienza”, 2/1, Undena Publications, Malibu CA 1983: 12. Roma 2010: 177-197. 17) Cf. V. A. Hurowitz, Inu Anum Òirum, Occasional Publications of the 9) W. G. Lambert, A Catalogue of Texts and Authors, Journal of Cunei- S. N. Kramer Fund, 15, Philadelphia PA 1994: 4; M. Molina Martos, La form Studies 16 (1962) 59-77. ley más antigua, Trotta, Madrid 2000:23. 10) W. G. Lambert, Enmeduranki and Related Matters, Journal of 18) J. M. Russel, The Writing on the Wall, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake Cuneiform Studies 21 (1967), pp. 126-138. IN, 1999: 230.

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 261261 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 265 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXIX N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2012 266

Marduk, the latter assuming a number of names, 50, equal to author’s 2004 book, pp. 237-244. Ten of the papers included the number of the former (p. 57)19). Mis pî must be translated in this volume were published within the last seven years. “washing” and not “opening” of the mouth (p. 111), an oper- Indeed, three were still in press by the time this volume ation, this latter, that is performed in that same ritual, but appeared. This is a little odd, I feel. The price is hardly which is precisely named pit pî “mouth opening”. A distinct attractive to the casual reader, so one cannot pretend that the category of magic existed, black magic, labelled as kispu (p. aim was to spread the word to the masses. Libraries of Ori- 113). I do not agree that “no recent introduction to the archae- ental Institutes and Near Eastern Departments must wonder ology of Mesopotamia is widely available” (p. 129): I pro- as they buy it, if it is money well spent. Could not Rochberg pose R. Matthews, The Archaeology of Mesopotamia, Rout- have put together a freely-available website with pdfs of the ledge, London & New York 2003, which is not out-dated. papers instead, they may ask. The exercise smacks a little of Bright interpretations compensate for these imperfections; elitism. Are our Ph.D. students in the history of the ancient I agree on that written about the goddess Inana / Istar (p. 47, sciences all so well-off that they can afford 150 Euros for the 61). modest gain that the owning of this book offers over a ring binder of offprints and photocopies? Università di Napoli “l’Orientale” Pietro MANDER I was also surprised when I started reading In the Path of the Moon that there was nothing in the title to alert the pur- * chaser to the fact that there is almost no new material in this * * book. I expect a collection of an author’s works to be, well, collected by someone else, or at the very least to be labelled ROCHBERG, F. — In the Path of the Moon. Babylonian as such. Take, for example, Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Stud- Celestial Divination and Its Legacy. (Studies in Ancient ies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, also pub- Magic and Divination, 6). Brill Academic Publishers, lished by Brill in 2001, but edited by Shalom Paul, Michael Leiden, 2010. (24,6 cm, XXII, 445). ISBN 978-90-04- Stone and Avital Pinnick, or Sebastian Brock’s Fire in 18389-6. ISSN 1566-7952. / 152,-. Heaven, Studies in Syriac Theology and Liturgy, Ashgate 2006, in which the word “studies” appears in the title and This handsome looking book brings together 21 articles indeed is published as one of the previously published by Francesca Rochberg between 1982 Variorum Collected Studies . This book may be the sixth in Brill’s and 2011, arranged chronologically according to when they Series Studies in Ancient series, for which incidentally Rochberg were written, which does not always correspond with when Magic and Divination is one to the editors, but the previous five have not included they were published. The introduction to the book is also a collection of the papers of one individual. If this is a trend based largely on an article published by Rochberg in 2008. on the part of academic publishers, it is not one we should The preface states that the purpose of the book “is to make support. Rochberg reused seven previously published articles available a body of work which will be useful to readers with in her 2004 book, though in that case the articles were updated an interest in the intellectual cultures of the Near Eastern and and edited for continuity (see Rochberg 2004: xviii). Mediterranean antiquity,” and to bring together in one place All that said, I did enjoy reading Rochberg’s articles again, papers concerned with “Babylonian celestial sciences and and there is something to be said for reading them chrono- their legacy in the Greco-Roman world.” Later in the preface logically. Despite the bourgeois illusion of agendaless schol- it is hoped that the papers cast a few spots of light on the arship, one can still detect a human voice and an academic legacy of Babylonian celestial science beyond the Greco- trajectory, in which the influence of the views of now- Roman world in Western Europe, Iran and India. The papers deceased mentors gradually fades, for example. Rochberg have, for the most part, not been reedited, although a few writes well, and her language becomes richer as time passes. bibliographical and cross references have been added. Most It is also clear, however, that she is not the most self-reflex- usefully the book ends with a ca. 350-entry bibliography and ive of writers. Changes in her own opinions over the years a ca. 400-word index to all the papers. A list of figures, are not noted, for example, and she shies away from engag- tables, abbreviations and acknowledgements separate the ing with differing views, choosing rather to pass over them contents from the preface. The work on the book was com- in silence. This makes her work incomplete at best, at worst pleted in the spring of 2010. arrogant, as if the views of others working in this field are A positive, descriptive review by Henryk Drawnel ( Bibli- beneath consideration. The book, through dint of being a col- 1(2011): 205-10) is already available online as I cal Annals lection of articles, many of which were written for differing write, which offers a brief outline of each chapter and notes audiences, also suffers from excessive repetition. The intro- a few typos. It is not my intention here to offer the same. ductory sections of many chapters are very similar, many The question that immediately arises for a reviewer who citations are identical and in some cases whole chapters is already familiar with Rochberg’s work is, why? Why has could have been cut without any serious loss. Rochberg agreed to gather together 22 of her papers in a Chapter 1 shows evidence of the young scholar’s com- volume? None of the articles were published in obscure jour- mand of the cuneiform and classical material on divination, nals, volumes or Fest-/Gedenkschriften, except perhaps the mastery of the style of discursive academic writing and with one which formed the basis of the introduction, and the mate- that tendency common to younger scholars of placing too rial therein was in any case for the most part covered in the much information in footnotes. Chapter 2, published two years later in 1984 is still Rochberg’s most significant con- tribution to date on the question of Mesopotamia’s intellec- 19) See Lambert’s translation: W. G. Lambert, Mesopotamian Creation Stories, in: M. J. Geller – A. Rapoport-Albert – J. Klier eds., Imagining tual legacy, for here by publishing tablet BM 36746, she was Creation, IJS Studies in Judaica 5, Brill, Leiden & Boston 2008: 59, verses able to draw a convincing line connecting court-based cunei- 135-152. form astral divination of the Neo-Assyrian period, cuneiform

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 262262 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 267 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — ASSYRIOLOGIE 268

astral divination composed for individuals in the late Persian referred to by classicists as Hellenistic, albeit Macedonian or Hellenistic period, Geminus’ Exeligmos and Ptolemy’s rule over Mesopotamia was a mere interregnum in a period Tetrabiblos. It demonstrated at once the enormous signifi- of Iranian dominance of the area. It was taken over into other cance the Babylonian formulations of personal astral divina- scripts in other areas ruled by the descendants of Alexander’s tion had on all subsequent Greco-Roman and indeed Indian generals and later the Romans, including Demotic, Aramaic, versions of the art. In particular, Rochberg was able to show and Hebrew, and was adapted to the respective cultures and the debt of the classical material to the cuneiform texts in elaborated in those scripts, although little remains of those terms of the theory of the aspect. Although as much had been elaborations, as indeed little remains of cuneiform personal suggested before by Schott and Schaumberger in 1941 (credit zodiacal astrology. Greek was but one of the languages in for this is referenced in Chapter 5 n21, but not in Chapter 2 which records survive that show us that adaptations and itself, although their work is cited there in n29), BM 36746 elaborations of Babylonian astral science took place, as provided the missing step between court divination and indeed are Latin, Parthian and Sanskrit. But “Greek astrol- Geminus. ogy”, if by this is meant astrology written in Greek, is cer- Chapters 5, 6 and 7 appeared around 1987-88, simultane- tainly not “entirely a Hellenistic Greek product”. Rather, ously with the author’s monograph on the eclipse tablets of “astrology in the Hellenistic period” was Babylonian in the omen series Enuma Anu Ellil, the reworking of her 1980 essence, including that written in Greek, though, of course, Ph.D. They and part of the introduction to the monograph many local adaptations were made. Many of the ancients also consider the legacy of Babylonian divination in the knew this, and indeed Rochberg discusses some of the Greco-Roman world. The author’s voice is more confident, sources that attribute astral science to the Chaldaeans, but the size of the footnotes is much reduced, for example, but dismisses their validity in this regard. the contributions are also smaller. Chapter 5 treats an already Some ancient scholars writing on Greek astrology drew published Hellenistic period text TCL 6 13 because it sits on Aristotelian cosmology, on pre-Hellenistic notions of the between the omen divination of Enuma Anu Ellil and Greco- structure of the heavens, of cosmic sympathy or of causal Roman divination. It too (apparently) deals with trine aspect connections between celestial sign and mundane event, in a diagram on the reverse, but nothing is added to what we none of which find parallels in cuneiform writings, but knew from Chapter 2. TCL 6 13 does assign an order to the these notions did not pre-date Greek awareness of Babylo- planets, though, and is closely related to the cuneiform horo- nian celestial science, but were a reaction to them. Astrol- scopes, work on which was to concern Rochberg for many ogy written in Greek did not derive from a set of assump- years to come. The Babylonian order of the planets was first tions established by classical philosophers, which then discussed by Boll in 1912, who noted parallels with Greek trickled down to practitioners, who then merely appended doctrines ascribed to Chaldaeans, for example in the context some Babylonian methods to their art. There is nothing of “terms” in Tetrabiblos 1,21: 12-19. In the note to line 7 comparable to the cuneiform omen compendia or to zodia- on p125, the copy editor failed to remove “Appendix III.1” cal astrology in Greek before the Hellenistic period, and from the original article. nothing in Greek astronomy suggests that the planetary The short article behind chapter 6 picks up the question of positions necessary for horoscopes could have been calcu- the benefic and malefic planets. It is cross-referred on p124 lated by anything other than Babylonian and Babylonian- of chapter 5 in the note to line 4, but again the copy editor type methods until the second century CE. Ptolemy, it was, failed to correct the page number from the holding “0000”. who in that century finally compiled a system of astronomy The volume is littered with rather too many such errors. On using principles of circular motion and trigonometry ade- p141 Rochberg attempts to answer the question as to why the quate to the job of producing horoscopes. In another work, astronomical cuneiform texts should have adopted an astro- the Tetrabiblos 1,2, he situates astrology within the context logical order, by connecting this with the evaluations of the of Aristotelian cosmology, but Greeks had been writing planets in the older omen series. She considers only Mars, horoscopes for at least two centuries before that. Ptolemy but the connections are solid, as is the encoding that a bright was responding to the vibrant market in personal astrologi- benefic bodes well, while a dim one bodes ill, and vice versa cal divination in Alexandria, and produced a version of both for the malefics, as I showed later in 2000, Ch. 3 D. astrology and astronomy that sat well with certain ancient In Chapter 7 Rochberg writes on p. 143 that “despite the Greek ideas of cosmology. The long term success of his incorporation of Babylonian elements at the inception of achievements hides the fact that until the fourth century CE, Greek astrology, the overall character and rationale of Greek the vast bulk of astrology in Greek used astronomical meth- astrology remains entirely a Hellenistic Greek product,” a ods that closely mirrored Babylonian methods, used omens view which echoed that of Neugebauer, and is remarkable that resonate with cuneiform examples, and assigned the for its Eurocentrism. Having done more than most to show same basic values to the planets, used the same zodiac, cal- how many of the details of horoscopes written in Greek can culated planetary locations in terms of degrees of the zodiac, be traced back to cuneiform precursors, it comes as some- interpreting these in comparable ways, as well as using what of a surprise that Rochberg should continue to uphold what Rochberg calls (p146) “a small number of substantive Neugebauer’s view. Here is the first of four areas in the connections”, namely the exaltations, the dodekatemoria, study of Mesopotamian astral science where my views and and the trine aspect. These detailed parallels serve only to those of Rochberg differ. show that not only the basic principles of cuneiform per- Astral divination by omens, and personal astral divination sonal zodiacal astrology passed to the Greeks, but many by means of interpreting the configurations of the calculated specifics passed as well, presumably the result of high-level positions of the planets in the zodiac at the moment of birth, contact between experts. These many points are argued in or at other moments, were Babylonian inventions and con- more detail in my forthcoming The Interactions of Ancient tinued to be practised in cuneiform throughout the period Astral Science.

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 263263 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 269 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXIX N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2012 270

Further to this, in n. 66 on p164 Rochberg admits that her heavens - was developed in Mesopotamia to service first the particular description of Greek astrology applies only to one royal celestial omen divination industry and later the private end of a continuum running from those who regarded the zodiacal one, and could not be explained by such noble heavenly bodies as mere signs (just like the cuneiform schol- western ideals as “science for its own sake” or calendar ars) to those who held hard deterministic views. She goes on control, which Neugebauer and others had favoured. In to say that her “point is not meant to over-generalize about chapter 9, first published in 1999, Rochberg looks at the Greek astrology”, and yet that is precisely what she has done intimate relationship between cuneiform texts of a divina- in this and other chapters. tory or astrological nature and the astronomical ones, and Her brief analysis in Chapter 11 of the sometimes striking takes a middle line that the “interests and goals of astrology parallels between passages in the Mandaic Sfar Malwasia and astronomy converge and diverge” (p208). However, in and cuneiform omen collections is similarly Eurocentric. For Chapter 12, pp252-3, she considers briefly the question of her the question is (p235) whether the “Mesopotamian ele- why scribes produced the Diaries, Almanacs, Ephemerides ments enter apart from and possibly before the Hellenistic and copies of the celestial omen series late into the Arsacid Greek transmission”, as if “Greek astrology” (p235) acquired period, despite the lack of royal support. She mentions only some sort of monopoly over the industry from Ptolemy calendar control and the weight of tradition as possible rea- onwards. The industry was practised in many ancient lan- sons for temple support, but while she correctly distances guages in areas under Parthian influence, Greek being but this activity from the practice of religion, she ignores the one of them and there is no reason to assume that scholars in production of personal zodiacal divination (horoscopes) as that region privileged versions in Greek over versions in a source of income for scribes and temple alike as a possi- other languages as so many modern scholars seem to want to ble reason for their ongoing production. I addressed this in do. In Chapter 13, first published in 2003, Rochberg dis- Brown 2008. cusses the lunar data recorded in cuneiform horoscopes In favour of not seeing the reason for astronomy’s inven- occurring at times other than at the moment of the client’s tion in the astrology industry, Neugebauer had noted that the birth. Amazingly, the dates of recent syzygies and eclipses, majority of surviving cuneiform Ephemerides predicts plan- and references to the nodes of the Moon and its latitude are etary phases, while the horoscopes require the location of the paralleled in later Greek horoscopes. Here is still further evi- planets at any given moment. However, the vagaries of sur- dence that astrology in Greek in the Hellenistic period was vival and recovery had misled Neugebauer. By 2003 and essentially Babylonian, but Rochberg’s view on this matter Chapter 13, p260, Rochberg had at last accepted the notion remains unchanged. that the Ephemerides had a central role in the producing of Chapters 3 and 4 offer an analysis of text stability within data for horoscopes, based partly it seems on the interpreta- the genre of cuneiform astral divination in the late second tion of the unusual text A 3405 by Steele in 2000. Interest- and early first millennia BCE. The former appeared in that ingly, Steele also pointed out in 2003 that descriptions of productive year 1984, the latter in 1987, but must have been how to produce daily-motion Ephemerides are to be found in written around 1984 as the two articles are intimately linked. a large number of so-called “Procedure Texts”, despite only Chapter 10 is similar, as it deals with continuity and change very few day-to-day Ephemerides being attested, and the rea- in omen literature, but it is not a strong contribution, in my son for this is that a typical Ephemeris which predicted opinion, elaborating as it does on the somewhat self-evident phases had a long-term applicability, while a daily-motion claim (p220) that the “revealed character of its knowledge Ephemeris had only a short-term usefulness. Steele suggests made the text (of Enuma Anu Ellil) unalterable”. It first the latter might not have been considered worth preserving appeared in a Festschrift, which perhaps explains why the in cuneiform, and that the daily location of a planet would now established scholar could publish something that was have been calculated as and when needed, drawing on the not up to her usual high standards, though I would level the data preserved in the “library-copy” phase-type Ephemeris. critique that many of Rochberg’s later articles take too long Perhaps these ad hoc calculations were typically prepared on to make their points and are rather over-padded with irrele- perishable documents, for we know that at this time Greek vant theory. Rochberg takes most of p216 to conclude that a and Aramaic were commonplace in Babylonia. It is a shame text attributed to sa pî Ea “from the mouth of the god Ea” that Rochberg has not published again on the purpose of the does not actually mean that Ea authored it, but that he was Ephemerides in the light of these suggestions. Incidentally, regarded instead as its authority! Note 33, on p220 general- large parts of Chapter 13 appear in Chapter 3 of Rochberg izes unexpertly on the Hermetic tradition, which also makes 2004, though this is not credited. In both, Rochberg trans- the point that it is not always wise to republish uncorrected lates parts of BM 47494, which was published later by Hun- works over a decade old, for the field moves on. Chapter 12 ger in 2004, in the same Festschrift as Chapter 14 here. It is repeats the material already covered in Chapter 10, but oth- thus all the more surprising that no mention of his edition erwise provides a useful overview of what is known about was added to Chapter 13. the authors of cuneiform celestial works from the Neo- In 2005, I reviewed Chapter 14, when I reviewed the orig- Assyrian to Arsacid period. It is worth noting, though, that inal volume in which it appeared. There I corrected her inter- the original article appears only slightly augmented as Chap- pretation of the values of the distances in A 3427, and ter 6 of Rochberg’s 2004 book. This is thus its third appear- pointed out some errors in her calculations, which had led to ance in print! some odd interpretations. None of these have been incorpo- This takes us to the second area, where my and Roch- rated. Very little updating has taken place in this collection. berg’s views differ, though hers has steadily approached Chapters 15 to 17 discuss Mesopotamian religion and its mine over the years. I argued in my 1995 Ph.D., which relationship to celestial divination, in particularly the issue Rochberg read in that year, (now Brown 2000), that astron- of why the heavenly bodies were sometimes addressed as omy - the striving to predict the state and phenomena of the gods themselves, and at other times were described as agents

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 264264 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 271 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — ASSYRIOLOGIE 272

or manifestations of the gods. The treatment is generally —, 2010, Disenchanted with the gods? The advent of accurate pre- thoughtful, but monolithic, and this is the third area in which diction and its influence on scholarly attitudes towards the I disagree with Rochberg’s view, for at no point is an evolu- supernatural in ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Greece. H.D. tion in approach in Mesopotamia over the many centuries Baker, E. Robson & G. Zólyomi, eds., Your praise is sweet: a memorial volume for Jeremy Black from students, col- considered. The authors of Enuma Elis share the same world leagues, and friends. British Institute for the Study of Iraq: view as the Neo-Assyrian scholars, apparently. I have argued London: 11–28. (e.g 2010) that a change in approach towards the gods was Hunger, Hermann, 2004, Stars, Cities, and Predictions. Charles brought about by the advent of astronomy. Notable, however, Burnett, Jan P. Hogendijk, Kim Plofker, and Michio Yano are Rochberg’s efforts to draw parallels with Biblical and eds., Studies in the History of the Exact Sciences in Honour of Hellenistic sources, culminating in her study of the concept David Pingree. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 16-32. of waters above the firmament in Chapter 17, which takes Rochberg, Francesca, 2004, The Heavenly Writing – Divination, the reader as far as the mediaeval period. Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture. Cam- Chapter 18 offers little that is new, repeating as it does bridge: Cambridge University Press. Steele, John, 2000, A 3405: An unusual astronomical text from earlier discussions in Ch. 14, for example. It is noteworthy Uruk. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 55: 103-35. for its view that the goal of Babylonian astronomy “was —, 2003, Planetary Latitude in Babylonian Mathematical Astron- fully consistent with (its) divinatory and astrological con- omy. Journal for the History of Astronomy 34: 269-289. text” (p371), its fallacious characterisation of “Greek” astronomy as purely kinematic-trigonometric, and its unwill- Berlin/Wolfson College, Oxford 26.03.12 David Brown ingness to engage with this reviewer’s work on the divina- tory purpose of the ideal periods found in EAE and MulApin, * for Rochberg insists these are forms of early astronomy, our * * fourth area of disagreement. Chapters 19, 20 and 21 cover the same material, (20 repeats ROBSON, E. — Mathematics in Ancient Iraq. A social much of 19 verbatim) analysing as they do the logic of the history. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2008. omen series, with an array of impressive sounding references (24 cm, XXVII, 441). ISBN: 978-0-691-09182-2. to scholars from outside the field working on cultural psy- £ 29.90. chology. Her Structuralist analysis from p380 on, the men- tioning of vertical and horizontal readings, the wordplay asso- The scribal culture of Mesopotamia is not only literate, it ciations of protasis and apodosis, discussion of impossible is also numerate: arithmetics, mathematics. The history of protases, whether one should use the word “science” for the latter is given in this book, in the context of literacy, and omen divination, and the inappropriateness of analyzing them as a response to the demands of society. This is the first time in terms of concepts such as “magical thinking”, however, that a book like this is written. Earlier surveys were short and are remarkably similar to my analysis of the same material in studied mathematics in isolation (O. Neugebauer, K. Vogel). my 2000 book p130 on, though no reference is made to this. Meanwhile, the number of relevant texts has increased, pro- A detail from p135 of my book is mentioned in Chapter 21, gress has been made (notably by J. Høyrup), and the book note 4 on p413, however, so Rochberg was obviously familiar profits from all this. with it. No reference is made, either, to Larsen’s article on the The earliest texts are studied in chapter II, “Before the use of such Structuralist categories to analyse Mesopotamian mid-third millennium” (p. 27-53), beginning with the texts published in the Reiner Festschrift, which Rochberg “tokens” which were seen as the predecessors of writing, edited! On p400 she writes instead that the “question of what developed in the administrations of goods, etc. (33-38). Uruk the conditional form might suggest about the meaning and texts show how they calculated the barley and malt in brew- purpose of omens has not been adequately addressed because ing beer (38-40). Here, we come across the first “pedagogi- of certain assumptions about the origin of omens in empirical cal exercises” (29). “The first explorations of the aesthetic connections….” My study in 2000 §3.2.1 is entitled “The qualities of numbers and words in the middle of the third rules of omen invention” and is very critical of the assump- millennium BCE” (44). The gaming board from Ur invites tion that cuneiform omens were based on the false logic of to a new and original exposition on symmetries, known in post hoc ergo propter hoc. Adequate it may not have been, in ethno-mathematics, and diagrams (45-51). Chapter III, “The Rochberg’s eyes, but it certainly covers the same issues of later third millennium” (p. 54-84): maps and plans appear in encoding phenomena and decoding their meaning, and at the Old Akkadian and Ur III periods. They were not aware some length. Reading these last three chapters it would be of the importance of the radius of the circle (61-67). The Ur easy to come to the conclusion that Rochberg was the first III texts are full of computations and the author decided to Assyriologist to write on these matters. select “land and labour management” problems as the focus of her book (25, 67). Here, she discusses an annual balanced Brown, David, 2000, Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrol- account of agricultural labour (69-73, 79 f.; TCL 5 AO ogy. Styx: Groningen 5676). The sexagesimal place value system (SPVS) came to —, 2005, Review Article of Charles Burnett, Jan P. Hogendijk, full deployment. Reciprocal tables were instituted and modi- Kim Plofker, and Michio Yano eds., Studies in the History of fied later (81 f., 86 f.). the Exact Sciences in Honour of David Pingree, Brill: Leiden/ The richest source of mathematical texts is the Old Baby- Boston, 407-28. lonian period, Chapter IV, “The early second millennium” —, 2008, Increasingly Redundant: The Growing Obsolescence of the Cuneiform Script in Babylonia from 539 BC. John Baines, (p. 85-124). The “types” of exercises, often referred to in the John Bennet & Stephen Houston eds., The Disappearance of book, are listed on p. 99. Exercises are now formulated as Writing Systems – Perspectives on Literacy and Communica- “word problems” (87-90). Mathematics had its place in the tion. London: Equinox: 73-101. curriculum in “school”, under the supervision of the goddess

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 265265 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 273 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXIX N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2012 274

Nisaba (p. 116-119) – this is less visible in the Neo-Babylo- worked out to calculate the celestial positions (218), and nian period (194-196). A “school” was excavated in the pri- once, the prediction of a lunar eclipse turned out to be vate house F in Nippur (97-102, 107). Up till now, such wrong (260). A few families of scholars wrote many of information was never given in histories of mathematics. The these texts and the book offers complete surveys in several terminology is now algebraic (“cut-and paste geometric alge- tables, with translations of the colophons (221-225, 227- bra”, 89, 124). Some years ago, Robson offered a new inter- 240). New in mathematics is now that “numbers have pretation of the famous Plimpton Tablet, a school tablet with become separated from the objects and sets they quantify” a predecessor of the Pythagorean theorem in it (110-115, 355 (261). The Epilogue, Chapter IX (p. 263-290), sees three f., n. 43). In 2003, she won the Lester R. Ford Award of the phases in the role of mathematics in Mesopotamian society: Mathematical Association of America for this discovery. numerate apprenticeship in its beginnings (Chapter II), How they solved a word problem is explained step by step; metrological justice (Chapters III-IV), stimulated by royal problem H in MCT (p. 89-91). In the Epilogue of the book, standardisation; divine quantification, predictions in astron- a characterisation of Old Babylonian mathematics is given, omy, applied in the temple cults (263-268). The following comparing it with later and Euclidean procedures (281). In pages look back at the history of modern scholarship (268- the Ur III and Old Babylonian periods, kings promulgated 284) and the relations with the Greeks, Pythagoras and standard measures and they are pictured with the measuring Euclid (281, 284-290). tools “rod and ring”. The author sees in this a “metrologi- Appendices conclude the book: A. “Metrological sys- cal” (or “numerate”) justice” (119, 120-124). tems” (291-297); B. “Published mathematical tablets”: in Chapter V, “Assyria” (p. 125-150), includes Mari. Now chronological order, and according to find spots (299-344). we discover decimal thinking, more and more (130, 143, Here, the user must be aware of the fact that not all mathe- 167). Discussions of Sargon’s reports on his booty in Urartu matical texts are given. The Old Babylonian texts from Ur (139-141) and Assyrian chronological computations on past are not here; see D. Charpin, Le clergé d’Ur (1986) 481 kings are given (137-141). There are some traces of Assyrian (there are more texts). This reviewer missed CT 44 38-42 mathematical speculations (145-149). Chapter VI, “The later and he found some of them mentioned under their museum second millennium” (p. 151-182): tabular accounting numbers (39 = 80209; 42 = BM 80150, an important text). becomes increasingly important among the Babylonian The word problem G. Dossin, TCL 18 154, published earlier “Kassites” (157-166), as illustrated by BE 14 136 and TuM by F. Thureau-Dangin (AO 6770) is not here; cf. R. Borger, NF 5 23 (note H.P.H. Petschow, Mittelbabylonische Rechts- HKL I (1967) 85 f. The book by A.A. Vaiman on Sumero- und Verwaltungsurkunden der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena Babylonian mathematics (1961) is not in the bibliography. [1974] 54-62 no. 17) (Nippur). The calculations on three This, more texts, and literature can be found in E. Robson, boundary stones are explained (BBSt 4, Hinke; p. 167-172; OECT 14 (1999) 307 ff., Index of texts discussed, and 290 R. Borger, AfO 23 [1970] 12 [sic]; p. 361 n. 39). The family ff., References. The “charts“ and the “Bibliography for of scribes named after their ancestor Arad-Ea is studied (171- cuneiform mathematical texts“ in the book by K.R. Nemet- 176); for his descendant Uballissu-Marduk (175 f.), see now Nejat, Cuneiform mathematical texts as a reflection of eve- F.A.M. Wiggermann, Studies M. Stol (2008) 223-225. Note ryday life in Mesopotamia (= AOS 75) (1993), p. 104-148, that the goddess Nin-sumun here is identical with Ninsun. 251-290, are useful in this respect. One realizes that Rob- Special attention is paid to the remarkedly precise numbers son’s book does not intend to be comprehensive. – Correct mentioned in the Gilgamesh Epic (177-181). The Neo-Bab- on p. 307, below, no. 92 into (OBTI) no. 292. ylonian period, in “The early first millennium” (Chapter After the Notes and the Bibliography, the Index of Tablets VII) (p. 183-213), has new capacity measures (185). Robson follows. This is an indispensable tool because it gives the studies the remarkable problem text published by M. Jursa, museum numbers of the texts, with references to their publi- AfO 40-41 (1993-94) 71 (BM 78822; p. 186-190). The cation: in this book texts are quoted according to museum groups of texts, found in the various places, in their archaeo- numbers (this is the rule in books on mathematics). It takes logical contexts (if known), are surveyed: Nippur, Babylon, some time to find the text publication. For example, the Kish (190-198). Field and house plans (186-192, 214-212) “three tablets” of p. 230-237 are: E. von Weiher, SpbTU IV with measures or calculations, some of which are studied in 172, 173, 176 (with J. Friberg, Baghd. Mitt. 30 [1990] 140). detail, one for the first time (BM 78822; p. 186-190); or nos. The basis for comparing reciprocals given by two ancient 3 and 24 published in the book on field plans by K.R. Nemet- scholars, two centuries apart (243), are SpbTU IV 174 and Nejat (p. 207-211). The businesses of a family in Borsippa TCL 6 31. are followed; an example of “numeracy in home econom- One philological remark. “To raise the head”, here said of ics” (198-206). a field (p. 169, 173 f.), was studied by K.R. Veenhof in Mis- Chapter VIII, “The later first millennium” (p. 214-262), cellanea Babylonica. Mélanges offerts à Maurice Birot covers the Achaemenid (Persian) and Seleucid (Greek) (1985) 297 f. (“to assess, to measure“) (also in Hebrew); see periods. The number of mathematical texts can be doubled now CAD N/2 107 f. by taking into account the astronomical procedure texts This excellent guide is most welcome in Assyriology. (precepts) (218-227). Many texts come from two centers, Reviews appeared in Historia Mathematica 36 (2009) 428- Babylon and Uruk. Texts from Babylon compute the size 433 (D.J. Melville), The Mathematical Intelligencer 32 of its main temple Esagila (216-218; A.R. George, Babylo- (2010) 65-67 (J. Høyrup). nian topographical texts [1992] 109 no. 13). Problems where in the Old Babylonian period cut-and-paste proce- Leiden M. STOL dures were applied (cf. 113), are now solved by repeated factorisation (280; another example of innovation on p. 226 * f.). Predictions now become important: two methods were * *

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 266266 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 275 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — ASSYRIOLOGIE 276

MAIOCCHI, M. — Classical Sargonic Tablets chiefly from und Prosopographie gelingt Verf. die Abgrenzung mehrerer Adab in the Cornell University Collections. (Cornell „Archive“ (oder Dossiers), die sich trotz ihrer Gleichzeitig- University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology, keit in Duktus und Tafelformat unterscheiden (s. unten zu Nr. CUSAS 13). CDL Press, Bethesda, 2009 (29 cm, 337 p. 74). Verf. behandelt diverse Aspekte der Verwaltung; für die XXXVIII p. pls.), ISBN 978-1-934309-12-4. $ 90.00. Mesag-Texte liegt eine separate Untersuchung des Verf. vor, für Opfer- und Gabenlisten wäre auf einen Aufsatz von M. Seit dem Irak-Embargo in den 1990er Jahren sind hunderte Such-Gutiérrez zu verweisen.10) Die übrigen Texte ordnet (prä)sargonische Keilschrifttexte über den Antikenhandel in Verf. (zuweilen ohne Begründung) Esnunna (Nr. 161), Girsu verschiedene Sammlungen gelangt.1) M. Maiocchi, der (Nr. 162), Isin (Nr. 163), Umm-el-Hafriyat (Nr. 165–166) bereits mehrere Aufsätze zu Texten des 3. Jt. vorgelegt hat,2) oder Umma (Nr. 171) zu oder macht keine Zuordnungsvor- publiziert in dem hier zu besprechenden Band 215 Texte der schläge.11) Die Textbearbeitungen, die den Hauptteil des Cornell University. In der Einführung bestimmt Verf. anhand Buches bilden, enthalten gelungene Kopien, Umschriften, von Kalender, Prosopographie, Kulttopographie und Ono- Übersetzungen und Kommentare. Sumerisch wird unter Ver- mastikon für Nr. 1–160 Adab als Herkunftsort,3) das inklu- zicht auf die Kennzeichnung des velaren Nasals g nach sive der rund 1000 Texte in Chicago und Istanbul nun mit BCE,12) Akkadisch nach dem System von I. J. Gelb umschrie- mehr als 3300 Texten der bestdokumentierte vor-Ur III-zeit- ben.13) Maßangaben sind in Stellennotation, keilförmige Zahl- liche Fundort Südmesopotamiens ist.4) Mehrere hundert prä- zeichen in Kursivsatz wiedergegeben. Vorbildlich erschlossen bis spät/postsarg. Texte sind bereits publiziert,5) unter ver- werden die Texte durch Indizes zu Personen-, Götter-, Tem- schiedenen Aspekten ausgewertet6) oder werden zur pel-, Orts- und Monatsnamen, Berufsbezeichnungen, Ver- Publikation vorbereitet.7) Verf. unterteilt die Adab-Texte zeichnisse belegter und kommentierter Begriffe sowie eine paläographisch und prosopographisch in eine mittel-/klass.- nach MesZL organisierte Zeichenliste, die Zeichenformen sarg. (Nr. 1–44) und eine klass.-sarg. Gruppe (Nr. 45–160).8) und Belege notiert. Da Tafelteil und Zeichenliste die Texte Das Fehlen sumerischer Verbalformen mit e-Präfix bestätigt nach Museumsnummern zitieren und nicht angeben, ob eine diese Einteilung; insgesamt lassen sich die Texte in die Zeit Zeichenform aus Adab oder einem Text anderer Herkunft des Naramsin bis Sarkalisarri datieren.9) Anhand von Texttyp stammt, muß der Leser häufig auf die Konkordanz zurück- greifen. Für eine künftige Adab-Paläographie wird die Zei- 1) S. den Überblick bei A. Westenholz, Fs. B. R. Foster (2010) 453–462. chenliste trotzdem sehr hilfreich sein. Ein Anhang enthält 2) Babel und Bibel 5 (2010) 141–152; JCS 62 (2010) 1–24; ZA 101 exzellente Fotos von 38 Texten, die übrigen sind (bis auf (2011) 191–203. 14 3) Zur Herkunft aus Adab, die wegen der sumer. Vokalharmonie in BdI wenige Ausnahmen) in der CUSAS-Datenbank zugänglich. ) zunächst bezweifelt wurde, und zu einer Lokalisierung in Mound IV s. M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 36; I. Schrakamp, BiOr. 65 (2008) 665–669. Für Die folgenden Einzelbemerkungen zu den Textbearbeitun- Adab sprechen auch die nur dort belegten Zeichen(formen) UMBIN×LU und gen sollen der weiteren Erschließung des Materials dienen.15) X6, s. zu Nr. 29 und Nr. 181, sowie typische Verwaltungstermini wie giri3- gen-na und mus-tum2. Text Nr. 1: Gold als Feldabgabe wäre singulär und ist daher 4) Zum Textbestand s. M. E. Milone, BdI Adab (2006) 66; M. Such- unwahrscheinlich. Gutiérrez, Pantheon 1f.; G. Visicato/A. Westenholz, CUSAS 11 (2010) 4f.; 2 ist nach Format und Paläographie klass.-sarg. und dokumentiert A. Westenholz, Fs. B. R. Foster (2010) 456f. und unten Anm. 5. 5 wohl Zahlungen von Feldabgaben. passim: Lies ku3-babbar. Rs. 4: ) Für Editionen aus dem Kunsthandel stammender oder zuvor überse- d hener Adab-Texte s. G. Pettinato, L’uomo cominciò a scrivere. Iscrizione nin-mug ist spätestens für Ur III sicher, s. H. Limet, Anthropony- cuneiformi della collezione Michail (1997); M. E. Milone, RSO 75 (2001) mie (1968) 555; J. Bauer, OLZ 98 (2003) 531; M. Such-Gutiérrez, 1–5; N. Al-Mutawalli/P. A. Miglus, AoF 29 (2002) 3–11; F. Pomponio/G. Pantheon 28; Th. E. Balke, OLZ 103 (2008) 348; OLZ 106 (2011) 2 1 Visicato, SEL 19 (2002) 5–8; M. Widell, CDLJ 2002:2; M. Civil, JCS 55 173 Anm. 9. Rs. 12: „SAM2×2“ ist LAK107 „ ⁄3 Sekel“, lies „ ⁄3 2 (2003) 49–54; M. G. Biga, Fs. J. Klein (2005) 29–38; F. Pomponio et al., Mine (und) ⁄3 (Sekel)“, vgl. etwa OSP 2, 52 = SRU 101 Rs. 9. BdI Adab (2006), s. dazu I. Schrakamp, BiOr. 65 (2008) 661–711 und Th. 3 dokumentiert Zahlungen von Feldabgaben. Vs. 3: Lies asa5 E. Balke, OLZ 106 (2011) 172–177; M. E. Cohen, Fs. D. I. Owen (2010) mu-nunu -maÌ, s. G. Visicato/A. Westenholz, CUSAS 11 (2010) 75–83; G. Visicato, Babel und Bibel 5 (2010) 266f., 269; G. Visicato/A. 11 123. Rs. 3: zikum(LAGAB×ÎAL) oder zikum (LAGAB×A) möglich. Westenholz, CUSAS 11 (2010); S. Brumfield, CDLN 2011:5; P. Notizia/I. x Schrakamp, AoF 37 (2011) 242–251 (Adab?); P. Steinkeller, CUSAS 17 (2011) 11f., 15–17. Für weitere Adab-Texte s. G. Marchesi, HANE/S 10 (2006) 62 Anm. 289; AttiANL IX/XXI 1 (2006) 210 Anm. 24; S. 3 Anm. unten zu Nr. 29. Hinsichtlich Paläographie und Tafelformat stehen einige 12 des besprochenen Bandes und die CDLI-Datenbank. der als „MS/CS“ klassifizierten Texte der von F. Pomponio/G. Visicato, 6) G. Visicato, AulaOr. 19 (2001) 309–312 behandelt ein mittelsarg. SEL 19 (2002) 5–8 bearbeiteten Urkunde über Vieh mit Abrollung eines Kaufmannsarchiv; M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon behandelt die Götterwelt Naramsin-zeitlichen Siegels nahe, dessen Inschrift den Herrschernamen und insbes. Opfer- und Gabenlisten; C. Wilcke, EANEL (2007) 183–204 noch ohne Götterdeterminativ schreibt. Zu vergleichen ist auch die proso- bearbeitet in BdI Adab publizierte Rechtsurkunden; M. Maiocchi, Babel pographisch an die „MS/CS“-Texte des vorliegenden Bandes anzuschlie- und Bibel 5 (2010) 141–152 wertet das Archiv des „Mundschenks“ Mesag ßende Urkunde M. E. Cohen, Fs. D. I. Owen (2010) 75f. Nr. 1, die e-Prä- aus; G. Visicato, Babel und Bibel 5 (2010) 263–271 behandelt die politi- fixe zeigt. Auch unter den klass.-sarg. Texten in Chicago finden sich schen Ereignisse zur Zeit Meskigalas; F. Pomponio, in: W. Sallaberger/I. Tafeln, die weniger scharf konturierte Ecken und weniger gerade Kanten Schrakamp, Arcane Vol. 2 (im Druck) liefert einen Abriß der Geschichte aufweisen, als die Kopien in OIP 14 und SargInscAdab zeigen; ein Beispiel von Adab. Beachte, daß die Textsiglen bei Such-Gutiérrez von denen im bietet mit OIP 14, 127 = SargInscAdab A.924 (CDLI-Nr. P215983) eine besprochenen Band abweichen; so steht NES 99–08–091 für CUNES Tafel, die e-Präfix zeigt und damit sicherlich älter ist als die übrigen Chi- 49–08–091, etc. cago-Texte. 7) S. Anm. 1. 10) S. Anm. 5. 8) Für diese paläographische Einteilung zitiert Verf. G. Visicato, BdI 11) Zur Herkunft von Nr. 162, 181, 185 und 201 s. unten. Adab (2006) 72; zu verweisen wäre zur Adab-Paläographie noch auf A. 12) Für eine konsequente Umschrift nach aB Standard s. P Attinger apud Alberti/F. Pomponio, StPohl sm 13 (1986) 9–18, Z. Yang, SargInscAdab C. Mittermayer, aBZL (2006) ix–xi; NABU 2007/37. (1989) 38–46 sowie M. E. Milone, RSO 75 (2002) 3–5 zur Definition der 13) Zur Umschrift sarg.-akk. Texte s. W. Sommerfeld, Imgula 3/1 mittelsarg. Stufe. S. jetzt M. Maiocchi, ZA 101 (2011) 192–197. (1999) 22–28. 9) Die älteren, paläographisch als früh/mittelsarg. eingestuften BdI 14) http://test.cuneiform.library.cornell.edu/collections/classical_sargo- Adab-Texte zeigen regelmäßig e-Präfixe, während im vorliegenden Band nic/overview. nur ein Text e-Präfix zeigt, s. I. Schrakamp, BiOr. 65 (2008) 665–668 und 15) Zur Wiedergabe sumer. Texte s. Anm. 12.

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 267267 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 277 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXIX N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2012 278

ges 5 Vs. 1: lies ku3-babbar2. Rs. 1: Lies balag. WO 18 (1987) 7–19; C. Wilcke, EANEL (2007) 53. Rs. 1–8: Nach 6 Vs. 3: ges-te ist Boots- und Wagenteil, s. z. B. ÎÌ IV (MSL Rs. 11 ergänze jeweils [1]. Rs. 12: „Sklaven“ werden nie als surx ges ges 5, 182) 382 te ma2 = Òi-hu MIN (eleppi), V A (MSL 6, 39) 29 te (s. 9 Vs. 5) summiert; lies wie z. B. BdI Adab 156 Vs. 1–3; CT 50, mar-gid2-da, s. M. Civil, ARES 4 (2008) 108. Vs. 6: BAD zeigt wie 104 Rs. 5–6 [lu2] gub-ba. in 39 Vs. 5, BdI Adab 175 Vs. 1 und BdI Adab 176 Vs. 1 noch die 13 passim: „x“ ist Merk- oder Archivzeichen, s. I. Schrakamp, ursprüngliche Form und ist von TIL zu unterscheiden, s. P. Stein- BiOr. 65 (2008) 697; ZA 100 (2010) 147; B. R. Foster, Fs. V. keller, Or. 48 (1979) 55 Anm. 4; ZA 71 (1981) 22–32; J. Krecher, Donbaz (2010) 147 mit Lit. Vs. 1: Lies ur-a2, s. ur-a2-dam CUSAS Gs. R. Kutscher (1993) 115f.; J. Bauer, OBO 160/1 (1998) 491f. 13, 12 Rs. 9, ur-a2-zi-da Nisaba 11, 47 Vs. 5, ur-a2-sum2-ma ArOr. (d) Rs. 4: M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 30 vermutet hinter PA das 62, 240 I 870 Vs. 11. Vs. 4: Statt du11-ga-ni wäre auch ka-ga-ni

„vergöttlichte Zepter“ und liest ur-gedru. Rs. 6: „X3“ könnte das denkbar, s. G. J. Selz, AoF 25 (1998) 323 Anm. 65. Vs. 7: Lies da im (prä)sarg. in Umma bezeugte, von M. A. Powell, HUCA 49 lu2-banda3 (PN). Rs. 2: Für Lesungvorschläge zu ad-KID s. z. B. (1978) 21 als Var. zu „MAΓ (anders B. R. Foster, Mesopotamia 7 G. J. Selz, AWEL (1989) 84; AWAS (1993) 90 mit Lit. Rs. 3–4: [Kopenhagen 1982] 80; USP [1982] 164 Anm. 10) gedeutete Zei- Zur Stelle vgl. M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 40 Anm. 428. chen sein. 14: Da nach Foto in Vs. 1–2 DIS PN und in Vs. 3 AS PN zu lesen 7 Vs. 1: Lies k[u3-babbar]. Vs. 2 Komm.: ugula e2 ist Titel. Vs. und das Rubrum dumu-ninta2 in Vs. 4 wegen fehlender Kopula nur d 4: Nach Foto utu-Ìi-li-kam. Vs. 5–6: ku3 se-a/zu2-lum-a sa10 heißt auf Vs. 3 zu beziehen ist, dienen DIS und AS zur Kennzeichnung „Silber eingetauscht in Datteln/Gerste“, s. C. Wilcke, EANEL Erwachsener und Heranwachsender. Für vergleichbare Notationen (2007) 77; Th. E. Balke, AOAT 331 (2006) 54 Anm. 246f. Rs. 6: s. 209, Personenlisten der Gruppe C.5. bei B. R. Foster, USP (1982) Lies ba-de6 „brachte weg“, s. W. Sallaberger, Fs. M. Schretter 125f.; s. für präsarg. R. K. Englund, BBVO 10 (1990) 104f., für Ur (2003) 557–576; V. Meyer-Laurin, ZA 100 (2010) 1–14. Rs. 7: III etwa P. Steinkeller, AOS 68 (1987) 78–80; N. Koslova, BPOA Lies su-i2 (LAK 193, REC 135, RSP 119) statt -i1. In BdI Adab 155 5 (2008) 165. Vs. 1: S. zu 8 Vs. 4. Vs. 7: Für eine mögliche sumer. Vs. 3, Rs. 7 ist I2 mit sechs Keilen geschrieben. Rs. 8: Nach Foto Herleitung von da-da s. P. Steinkeller, Fs. W. W. Hallo (1993) 238. be-l[i2-l]i2-kam. 15 Vs. 1: Nach A. Alberti, Or. 56 (1981) 256; P. Steinkeller, Fs. 8 Vs. 4: Lies ses, s. J. Bauer, Altor. Notizen (21–30) (1985) 2; W. W. Hallo (1993) 238f.; W. Sommerfeld, Babel und Bibel 5 Or. 77 (2008) 73 mit Lit. Vs. 5: A. Westenholz, JNES 31 (1972) (2011) 90; V. Meyer-Laurin, WO 41 (2011) 43 (mit Lit.) bu3-la-li2. 381 schlägt lugal-nam2-maÌ statt lugal-TU9-maÌ vor; H. Limet, 17 Vs. 5: Wegen elam „Elamer“ wäre für LUL „Lullubäer“ zu Anthroponymie (1968) 474 erwägt für Ur III lugal-dur2-maÌ. Rs. erwägen, s. A. Westenholz, OBO 160/3 (1999) 94 Anm. 436; E. L. 1: Lies ses, s. Vs. 4. Rs. 3: Ist NIN-mu-da kurz für NIN-mu-da-kus2? Cripps, BARIntSer. 1835 (2010) 20 Anm. 31 mit Lit. Vs. 6: lu2- da G. Marchesi, Or. 73 (2004) 186–189 setzt für NIN „Herrin“ eres an, banda3 , nach Kontext hier sicherlich als Titel zu deuten, spricht vgl. M. Krebernik, ZA 76 (1986) 199 s.v. NIN, s. aber K. Rohn, für einen Ansatz NU-banda3, s. 10 Vs. 2, 5; beachte aber nu-gal in ges OBO SA (2011) 129 Anm. 154, die NIN in Anlehung an D. O. 11 Vs. 3 Vs. 7: Lies gu-z[a-la2]. Rs. 8: Erhalten ist GES.TUG2[…], Edzard, AfO 22 (1968/69) 15 Anm. 43 in NIN-na-ni als Var. zu lies azl[ag3–5]. nin9-na-ni deutet. Rs. 5: Unsicher, zur Lesung s. 12 Vs. 13. Rs. 8: 18 Vs. 1: Lies ur-u4-su13, s. D. O. Edzard, SRU (1968) 153; H. Nach Foto ad-da-VkamU statt -VRUU. l. Rd.: ab-ta-sa10 heißt wohl Limet, Anthroponymie (1968) 476; P. Steinkeller, MesCiv. 4 „wurde verkauft“, s. P. Steinkeller, FAOS 17 (1989) 161; C. Wil- (1992) 35 und vgl. [lu]gal-u4-su3-[se3] 61 Vs. 2. Vs. 3: Zu lu2-igi cke, EANEL (2007) 77. Das Fehlen von Zeugen könnte auf einen s. J. Bauer, BiOr. 50 (1993) 179; I. Schrakamp, BiOr. 65 (2008) Entwurf, der Randvermerk hingegen auf spätere Archivierung hin- 702. deuten. 19 Vs. 5: Lies ur-AB, da eine Kurzform für ur-ab-zu MesCiv. 4, 9 passim: Lies jeweils 1. Vs. 1 Komm.: S. P. Steinkeller, Fs. D. 4 Rs. iv 17’, ur-AB.SU4 MesCiv. 4, 5 Vs. 3, ur-es3-lil2-la2 u.a. vor- I. Owen (2010) 239–244; X. Wang, AOAT 385 (2011) passim; R. liegen könnte. K. Englund, CDLN 2011:6. Vs. 5: ERIN2 hat in Adab den Lw. surx, 21 passim: Zu „ד s. zu Nr. 13. Vs. 8’ und passim: Da sita-URU s. I. Schrakamp, BiOr. 65 (2008) 692; ZA 100 (2010) 144 Anm. 9 hier Orten zugeordnet sind, wäre für URU eri „Stadt“ denkbar, zur mit Lit. Vs. 9: Statt ur-tur wohl ur-dumu, zur Deutung von (d)TUR Lesung s. R. de Maaijer/B. Jagersma, AfO 50 (2003/04) 355; P. s. J. Bauer, JESHO 18 (1975) 198; W. Sommerfeld et al., Babel Attinger, NABU 2008/72 S. 104; I. Schrakamp, ZA 100 (2010) 144 und Bibel 2 (2005) 195; M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 12. Rs. 5 mit Anm. 8; V. Meyer-Laurin, WO 42 (2011) 222 Anm. 342. Komm.: Vsig-taU nach Foto wohl korrekt. CUSAS 11, 141 bietet aber die Graphie sita-URU×A. Vs. 11: Z. 10 Vs. 1: Zu la2-ux(NI), s. 49 Rs. 7 Komm., s. W. Sallaberger, Yang, JAC 3 (1987) 121–125; R. de Maaijer/B. Jagersma, AfO BiOr. 52 (1995) 445, der für la2-NI eine Deutung als erstarrter Impe- 44/45 (1997/98) 286; N. Veldhuis, CunMon. 22 (2004) 215; G. rativ erwägt, sowie G. J. Selz, AfO 46/47 (1999/2000) 8 Anm. 35; Marchesi, AttiANL IX/XXI 1 (2006) 210 Anm. 25 setzen für ki ki R. K. Englund, Fs. D. I. Owen (2011) 107, die präsarg. la2-a und UD.NUN urabu an. Rs. 3–4: Möglich auch „chief farmer (and) la2-NI durch die Lesung la2-ia3 /laja/ harmonisieren; vgl. B. sita-eri“. ur-NIG2 engar erscheint auch in BdI Adab 87 und 197. Rs. Jagersma, AfO 42/43 (1995/96) 223. Vs. 2, 5: Lies NU-banda3, s. 10: i3-ra2-ra2 bedeutet „Ölmischer“ und „Parfumeur“, s. H. J. Bauer, WO 39 (2009) 252 und das nach Kontext als Titel zu Brunke/W. Sallaberger, Fs. D. I. Owen (2010) 53. Rs. 11: Lies da ges bestimmende lu2-ban[da3 ], s. 17 Vs. 6. Vs. 3: Lies lugal-LU, s. P. gigir2. Rs. 12: Lies ma-NU11 statt -SIR, s. 3 Vs. 3. Notizia/I. Schrakamp, AoF 37 (2011) 247. Vs. 5: Lies NU-banda3 22 Vs. 1–4: Keilförmige Zahlen, lies n. Vs. 1: Lies 20 wie in LUL-gu-aka, s. F. Pomponio, WO 13 (1982) 95f.; P. Attinger, ZA Vs. 3. Vs. 1, Rs. 3: Für GA2-dub-ba werden die Lesungen pisan- 95 (2005) 53. dub-ba und sa14-dub-ba vorgeschlagen, s. M. A. Powell, JCS 25 11 Vs. 1: Für eres statt nin s. 8 Rs. 3. Vs. 5: Zu Asgi s. M. Such- (1973) 182f. Anm. 25; W. Farber, BiOr. 34 (1977) 338; A. Sjö- Gutiérrez, Pantheon 7; P. Attinger apud C. Mittermayer, aBZL berg, Fs. H. Limet (1996) 133; die Schreibung GA2-dub ist z.B. (2006) 13, 193f.; NABU 2007/37; J. Bauer, WO 39 (2009) 251. OSP 2, 141 Vs. 5 belegt. Vs. 4: Lies ur-u4-su13, s. 18 Vs. 1. Rs. 2: Lies surx (s. 9 Vs. 5) gub-ba-am3 „es ist eine eingesetzte 23 Vs. 3: Nach Foto 1 ur-me. Vs. 4: Lies ur-u4-su13, s. 18 Vs. (Arbeits-)Truppe“; die Trennung zwischen „military“ und „civi- 1. Rs. 2’: Lies ka-ku3 als Kurzform zu ka-ku3-ga-ni-mu-ba, s. G. J. lian personnel“ ist künstlich, da Beschäftigte großer Wirtschafts- Selz, AoF 25 (1998) 322. Rs. 3’: Für eine akk. Etymologie von einheiten arbeits- und wehrpflichtig waren. Die Summe weicht von i3-lu-lu s. A. Catagnoti, Subartu 4/2 (1998) 50; J. Keetman, NABU Vs. 1–7 ab. 2007/25 mit Lit. Rs. 8’: „5/6“ ist unsicher, da KA.AL wohl ein Gerät 12 Vs. 14: /ur-gigir/ wird immer mit ges geschrieben, zu den bezeichnet, s. W. Heimpel, JNES 46 (1987) 208; J. Bauer, AfO Lesungsmöglichkeiten für ur-LAGAB×U/LAGAB×TIL/LAGAB×BAD s. G. 40/41 (1989/90) 95; E. Quintana, NABU 1997/70; D. A. Foxvog, J. Selz, AWAS (1993) 175, 385 mit Lit. Vs. 14–15: Für Interpreta- NABU 1998/7. tionen zu PN sag sa10-am3 s. P. Notizia/I. Schrakamp, AoF 37 24 Vs. 1’–3’: Nach Foto jeweils eher 2.0.1. Vs. 2’: Nach Foto (2011) 245f. Vs. 13 und passim: Lies urdu2 statt arad2, s. J. Krecher, Vx-maU statt VxU-u[r]. Vs. 4’–6’: Nach Foto jeweils eher 1.0.1. Vs.

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 268268 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 279 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — ASSYRIOLOGIE 280

1 6’: Lies ur-nigar, s. M. Krebernik, ZA 76 (1986) 199; A. Zgoll, ZA 35 Vs. 1: Lies 40 la2 2 ⁄2. Vs. 3: su-a – gi4 heißt „erstatten“, s. 87 (1997) 190 Anm. 58; R. de Maaijer, OLZ 97 (2002) 73; Th. E. W. Sallaberger, Fs. J. Klein (2005) 249f. Rs. 3: Nach Textformular Balke, OLZ 103 (2008) 343. Vs. 9: Zum PN s. 23 Rs. 2’. Rs. 10: und Zeichenbildung (vgl. DU für kux, die mit SE gebildeten ku4- Lies 5.0.0 ÎAR-an-ne2, zum PN s. C. Wilcke, EANEL (2007) 197 Formen LAK 208, REC 144–145 und SU.SE bei J. Krecher, ZA 77 Anm. 63. Rs. 11’: Lies bu3-la-li2, s. 15 Vs. 1. [1987] 21) ist für ba-SE+DU die Lesung ba-kux „wurde eingeliefert“ ki 25 Rs. 1: Lies e2-i3-gara2 als Kurzform für e2-i3-gara2-su3 bzw. zu erwägen; e2-si-sa2-a ließe sich wegen e2-si-sa2 in 27 als Loka- e2-i3-gara2-sux(TAG) statt -si3 OSP 1, 45 Rs. i 5, s. J. Bauer, BiOr. tiv deuten. tu9 34 (1977) 197; WO 9 (1977) 4; ZA 79 (1989) 8f. 36 Vs. 2: Lies ib2-ba-du3 . Vs. 3: la2 5 (gig4) nicht übersetzt. Rs. 26: Auf dem Foto unter http://test.cuneiform.library.cornell.edu/ 1 Komm.: Nach PNN wie lugal-men, NIN-men wohl aja2 „Vater“. content/48-04-125 ist die Tafel besser lesbar, lies Vs. 1–6 [… ig]i 37 Vs. 3–6: Lies tu9. ges 6 gal2, [… ]gigir2-kam, […]-sa3-ra, [an]-na-sum2, [i]ti ga2-udu- 38 Vs. 1: Nach Foto i3 s[aÌa]? Vs. 2: NIG2 nach Foto unsicher. ur4. Wurde die Kopie vor Reinigung der Tafel angefertigt? Vs. 4: Nach Foto wohl lugal-Vusur3U oder -Vma2U. Rs. 4: Lies 27: Statt gurdub ab-si3 „placed in baskets“ lies gurdub AB.SUM ka-ku3, s. 23 Rs. 2. „Körbe (mit) AB.SUM(-Fisch(produkt))“: ab-si3 ist als Var. zu ab-si 39 Vs. 1: „reed mat“ für ge-su-AK ist unsicher, s. P. Attinger, ungebräuchlich, gurdub(-a) ab-si hieße „ist auf den Korb gefüllt“, ZA 95 (2005) 251 mit Lit. Vs. 3: Lies se ges ra. Vs. 5 Komm.: Zu während „einfüllen“ Lokativ erfordert, SargInscAdab A.745 e2 a2 GES.BAD s. J. Bauer, AfO 36/37 (1989/90) 90; M. A. Powell, BSA me me3-ka an-si „ist in das Haus der Kampfausrüstung eingefüllt“, 6 (1990) 111; G. J. Selz, ASJ 16 (1994) 225; N. Veldhuis, Eleme- A.821 und Nr. 78 Vs. ii 11 ma2-a ab-si „ist auf das Schiff gefüllt“; tary Education at Nippur (1997) 172, 185f.; W. Röllig/H. Waet- ITT 2, 5799 gurdub-a ba-gar „wurde in den Korb gesetzt“, s. D. zoldt, RlA 8 (1995–99) 329, zu BAD s. 6 Vs. 3. Vs. 6: Lies an-kux, O. Edzard, HdOr. 71 (2003) 100. Zu AB.SUM (und AB.SUM.DAku6) s. s. 34 Rs. 2. A. Salonen, Fischerei (1970) 148; PSD A/2, 152; G. J. Selz, 40 Vs. 1–3: Vgl. M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 6 mit Anm. 45 AWEL (1989) 500; J. Bauer, AfO 36/37 (1989/90) 89f.; F. Pom- (mit Lesung IB.GA). Vs. 2: Eher la2 1 ma-na? Rs. 1: Zu su-a – gi4 ponio et al., BdI Adab (2006) 187. Die Gleichung 1 gurdub = 30 s. 35 Vs. 3. sila3 ist für Vs. 1–2 und Vs. 3–4 korrekt, geht aber in Vs. 5–Rs. 1 41: Zum Text s. M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 37 mit Anm. 385 ! ki nur dann auf, wenn man DISüberDIS×ASc.ASc.ASc in Vs. 5 1.1.3 und passim. Vs. 1: Zum e2-igi-nim , S. 16 vorbehaltlich als PN liest. Da in Rs. 4–5 nicht 30, sondern 26 sila3 für 1 gurdub ver- gedeutet, s. M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 43. Vs. 5: Zu Asgi s. zu zeichnet werden, ist DISüberDIS×ASc.ASc.ASc in Vs. 5 wohl Schreib- 11 Vs. 5. fehler für DIS×ASc.ASc.ASc und 1.0.3! zu lesen. Auf dieser Lesung 43 passim: Lies tu9. Vs. 10: Lies eri statt uru, s. 21 Vs. 8’. beruht die Deutung von a-Ìur-um als Nebenform zu uÌurra’um (s. 44 Vs. 5: Der Anregung im Komm. folgend vielleicht se inda3- noch B. R. Foster, Or. 62 [1993] 446); tatsächlich liegt aber die e mu-n[a]-si-dib „Gerste für Brot hat er ihm herübertransferiert“, a-mur-um zu lesende Kurzform eines PN des Typs amur-GN vor, vgl. P. Steinkeller, FAOS 17 (1989) 285 zu 84 Vs. 9. s. M. Hilgert, Imgula 5 (2002) 237 Anm. 237; M. Such-Gutiérrez, 45 Vs. 5: Zu lugal-TU9-maÌ s. 8 Vs. 5. Pantheon 4. Der Text ist sumerisch. 46 Komm.: S. die Bemerkung zu Nr. 1. Vs. 4: Zu ensi2-gal – ges 29: Vs. 1: Lies gigir2 nig2-su e2-ba „nig2-su-Wagen mit Auf- „Alt-Stadtfürst“ ist sarg. nicht belegbar – als ziviler Funktionär, ges bau“, vgl. gigir2 e2 umbinx(UMBIN×LU) 4 BdI Adab 45 Vs. 2 und Kultbediensteter oder Priester s. C. Wilcke, Or. 54 (1987) 301–303; s. J. Bauer, AfO 36/37 (1989/90) 90; B. Kienast/K. Volk, FAOS W. Sallaberger, UAVA 7/1 (1993) 120 Anm. 548; Th. Jacobsen, 19 (1995) 49; H. Waetzoldt, RlA 11 (2006–08) 215; M. Civil, AulaOr. 9 (1991) 113f.; W. Sallaberger/F. Huber-Vulliet, RlA 10 ARES 4 (2008) 104. Vs. 6: pisan i3-gal2 „(available) in 2 boxes“ (2003–05) 636; G. Marchesi, Or. 73 (2004) 169 mit Anm. 103; ist unsicher, da man bei e-na-sum2 Rs. 5 e-gal2 erwarten würde; zu AttiANL IX/XXI 1 (2006) 255. Vs. 9: Zu Asgi s. zu 11 Vs. 5. Vs. Vokalharmonie und mittelsarg. Datierung s. I. Schrakamp, BiOr. 10: Lies eri statt uru, s. 21 Vs. 8’. 65 (2008) 667. e-Präfixe zeigt auch der paläograph. mittelsarg. Text 47 passim: Lies ku3-babbar. Vs. 8: Unklar. Vs. 5: Zum ON s. 1 M. E. Cohen, Fs. D. I. Owen (2011) 75f. Nr. 1 (vgl. BdI Adab 213), 21 Vs. 11. Vs. 10: Lies V1U+ ⁄2 gig4. Rs. 1–3 zeigen noch Zeichen- der prosopographisch an die mittelsarg. Texte des vorliegenden reste. Rs. 7: Ergänze [ba]-ta-e3-am3, s. 55 Rs. 2. Bandes anzuschließen ist. Rs. 4: Nach Foto vielleicht ur-L[I]. Rs. 48 Vs. 1: Lies ku3-babbar. Vs. 2: zabar uruda bezeichnet nicht ki 5: Ist ur-VxU-[ra] a-ga-de3 e-na-sum2 „dem Ur-x hat er/man/ist es „copper (casted) in a mirror“, sondern eine Metallqualität, s. H. für Akkade gegeben“ zu übersetzen? Limet, JESHO 15 (1972) 10, 16; K. Reiter, AOAT 249 (1997) 188, 30 Vs. 2’ Komm.: Ist se Ìa-zi(-na) in FAOS 5/1 Ukg. 4/5 vi 7/v 341f. Anm. 141; W. Sommerfeld, Babel und Bibel 3 (2006) 155. 27 gemeint? Vs. 4’: Lies LAL3. Rs. 1’–6’: Da ma-nam kein Akku- Vs. 3–4: Übersetze „Erstattung/Rückgabe des (= durch) lugal- sa7 sativ von mana’um sein kann und man St.Abs. erwartet, ist ma-sim sag; in BdI Adab 92 steht su-a gi4-a „Erstattung/Rückgabe“ in zid2-gu „Mehlsieb“ zu lesen, s. dazu H. Brunke, Essen in Sumer Opposition zu bar-ra gal2-la „Außenstände“, in BdI Adab 149 Vs. (2011) 91 Anm. 88. Der Text ist sumerisch. Rs. 8’: Statt atakkal 3–4, 156 Vs. 4–6 bezeichnet nominales su-a gi4-a PN-kam „Erstat- ist auch eine Kurzform zu a-da-gal-di denkbar, s. D. A. Foxvog, Fs. tung des (= durch) PN“, s. W. Sallaberger, Fs. J. Klein (2005) A. D. Kilmer (2011) 76. 249f.; I. Schrakamp, BiOr. 65 (2008) 689. 31 Vs. 2: Lies ka-ku3, s. 23 Rs. 2. Vs. 4, Rs. 2: Lies sus3 49 passim: GANA2 ist nach Flächenmaßen ein nicht mitzulesen- „(Ober-)Hirte“, s. G. J. Selz, AWEL (1989) 87; R. H. Beal, NABU des Deutezeichen, s. C. Wilcke, ZA 86 (1996) 4 mit Lit. Vs. 4: Lies 1 1992/48; A. Cavigneaux, NABU 1992/103; G. J. Selz, CunMon. 7 1.1.4 ⁄2. Rs. 7: Zu la2-NI s. 10 Vs. 1, übersetze „das Defizit wurde (1998) 192 Anm. 101; 198f. Anm. 197. Rs. 4: Genauer URU×TILki, nicht erstattet“. s. 6 Vs. 6. Rs. 5: Ventiv, übersetze „sind herausgebracht“. 50 Vs. 2: Relation ist überlicherweise 1 Sekel Silber, s. J. Kre- 32 Zu Paläographie und Datierung vgl. F. Pomponio/G. Visicato, cher, ZA 63 (1973) 217; P. Steinkeller, MesCiv. 4 (1992) 92. Vs. V U (d) d SEL 19 (2002) 5–8. Vs. 6, 8: Nach Foto ur- zikum(x) -ma, ama-ab- 6: Zu TUR s. 9 Vs. 9. Der ensi2 ur- TUR ist wegen des fehlenden zu-si. Vs. 12: Zu lugal-TU9-maÌ s. 8 Vs. 5. Rs. 9: Zu lu2-kisal-le Titels wohl nicht gemeint, ein Namensbeleg in BdI Adab 251 Vs. vgl. G. Marchesi, MesCiv. 14 (2011) 126 Anm. 272. 9 aber epigraphisch möglich. 33 Rs. 1 Komm.: Lies e2 nig2-gur11. 52 Vs. 1: Für u3-mu-i3-li2, u3-mu-ni-ni, u3-mu-ni-zal als Lesun- ki 34 Vs. 2: Zu UD.NUN s. 21 Vs. 11. Vs. 3: Lies aja2-giri17-zal, s. gen zu U3.MU.NI.NI S. A. Westenholz, OSP 2 (1987) 198; I. J. Gelb H. Limet, Anthroponymie (1968) 236 und vgl. lu2-giri17-zal. Rs. 2: et al., OIP 104 (1991) 103; J. Bauer, WO 24 (1993) 24; P. Stein- Lies mu-kux(DU), s. J. Krecher, ZA 77 (1987) 7–21; W. Sallaberger, keller, Fs. W. W. Hallo (1993) 238; M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon ZA 84 (1994) 307f.; G. Marchesi, AttiANL IX/XXI 1 (2006) 216f. 35; C. Wilcke, EANEL (2007) 194. Vs. 5: Lies „Aufseher (ist) Anm. 55, 62; P. Attinger apud C. Mittermayer, aBZL (2006) 194 Dudu“ oder „Aufseher des Dudu“. Nr. 64; NABU 2007/37; für Adab I. Schrakamp, BiOr. 65 (2008) 53 Vs. 1: Zu NIN s. zu 8 Rs. 3. Vs. 3: Alternativ wäre eine Kurz- 691, vgl. aber C. Wilcke, Babel und Bibel 5 (2010) 7 Anm. 10. form digir-mu-da(-kus2) denkbar. Vs. 4: Lies su-i2. Rs. 1: Lies mu-

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 269269 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 281 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXIX N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2012 282

tum2, zu tum2 als Basis für „bringen“ von Personen s. W. Sallaber- sila3 zabar (s. S. 20) s. jetzt S. Brumfield, CDLN 2011: 5; M. E. ger, Fs. M. Schretter (2003) 557–576. Cohen, Fs. D. I. Owen (2010) 75f. 54 Vs. 4–5: Lies ba-tum2, s. 53 Rs. 1. Vs. 5: Zum GN s. M. 72 Vs. 1: Nach Foto [2]+3 se gur-ta. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 23. 73 Vs. 2 und passim: Die Lesung von LU2.SIM, LU2.SIM×NIG2, LU2. 55 Vs. 6: Zu den Lesungsvorschlägen eren-da-ni, ses4-da-ni, BI×NIG2, LU2.BI×DIS ist unsicher, s. P. Steinkeller, FAOS 17 (1989) rim/nx-da-ni für EREN-da(-ni) s. H. Limet, Anthroponymie (1968) 291; P. Attinger apud C. Mittermayer, aBZL OBO Sb. (2006) ges 331, 409; B. R. Foster, USP (1982) 25f.; P. Steinkeller, WZKM 77 34–35, 195. Zu la2-NI s. zu 10 Vs. 1. Rs. 2, 6: Lies kiri6. Rs. 7: (1987) 191; G. Visicato, The Power and the Writing (2000) 126 Nach Foto 0.3.0 se kas. Anm. 104. Rs. 1: Lies s[es (tab/min)]; die Ergänzung müßte 74 Die Gerstenausgabe an die „Brauer“ e2-ur2, lu2-BI×NIG2, sila-ta d begründet werden. Zu ses s. 8 Vs. 4. Rs. 2: ba-ta-e3 steht in BdI und ur- inana ist prosopographisch an Brauerei-Texte wie OIP 14, Adab 239 in Opposition zu PN-da e-da-gal2 und PN-e mu-kux und 83–87, 122, 140, 177; BdI Adab 219, 241, 245, 246, 255 und die in 49 in Opposition zu nu-ta-e3, so daß in Übereinstimmung mit B. mus-tum2-Texte Nr. 94–98 anzuschließen, s. 3f., 9f. und I. Schrakamp, R. Foster, JNES 36 (1977) 300 „wurde herausgebracht“ zu über- BiOr. 65 (2008) 668f. Obwohl diese Texte gleichzeitig sein müssen, setzen ist. heben sich 74 und 98 (akkadisch!) durch schärfer konturierte Ecken 56 Zum Text M. Maiocchi, Babel und Bibel 5 (2010) 149 Anm. und geradere Kanten von den übrigen, mehr abgerundeten Tafeln ab; d 33. Vs. i 1’: Lies […] VLAGAB×BAD/TIL/UU. Vs. i 2’: Zu asnanx(TIR) sie veranschaulichen das Nebeneinander verschiedener Schreibstile, s. M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 9 mit Lit. Vs. i 3’: LUL nicht kor- vgl. W. Sommerfeld, Imgula 3/1 (1999) 7–13. Vs. 5–6: S. zu 73 Vs. rekt kopiert. Vs. ii 7’: Lies lugal-ad2-gal, s. P. Attinger, ZA 95 2 und beachte das Nebeneinander von LU2.BI×DIS und LU2.SIM×NIG2. (2005) 262f., anders G. Marchesi, HANE/S 10 (2006) 112; D. A. 75 Rs. 1: Nach la2-NI (s. zu 10 Vs. 1) folgt noch 0.2.0 [(x)], da Foxvog, Fs. A. D. Kilmer (2011) 76. Vs. ii 8’: Lies lu2-banda3 . übersetze „Es ist vorhanden/verfügbar, Defizit: 0.2.0“. Vs. ii 9: Lies ur-AB, s. zu 19 Vs. 9. Vs. ii 17: Lies su-i2-me. 76: Für eine vergleichbare Urkunde s. M. E. Cohen, Fs. D. I. 57 Rs. 1: Vielleicht lu2 anse-[(surx)]-ka. Rs. 3: su-gal5/TE.LA2-um Owen (2010) 82. Vs. 5: Nach Foto lugal-igi-tab nar. Vs. 6: Nach bezieht sich wohl nur auf Rs. 2; zur Lesung s. P. Steinkeller, JNES Foto 0.0.2? Vs. 4: Zu sila3 zabar s. zu 71 Vs. 7. Rs. 6’: Für eres 52 (1993) 145; A. Westenholz, Fs. M. T. Larsen (2004) 602. statt NIN s. 8 Rs. 3. Rs. 8: Lies il-ili, s. etwa W. G. Lambert, Or. 64 58 passim: Da sumun bei Gegenständen, bei Personen und Tie- (1995) 136; J. Keetman, NABU 2007/25. ren aber libir verwendet wird, ist ug7/us2 „tot“ zu lesen, zum Verb 77 Vs. 9: Lesung unsicher, zum Namenselement GU2 s. A. s. P. Attinger, ELS (1993) 190; J. Keetman, Babel und Bibel 3 Alberti/F. Pomponio, StPohl sm 13 (1986) 63. (2006) 9f. Anm. 1; P. Attinger, NABU 2011/6. Vs. 1: Nach Foto 78 Vs. i 7: Zu Lesung, Schreibung und Deutung von /addir/ s. 2 gurus. Vs. 6: Nach Foto [10]+10 la2 [(1)]+2 dumu ninta2. Rs. 1’: P. Attinger, ZA 95 (2005) 265; I. Schrakamp, BiOr. 65 (2008) 680 ki da Nach Foto noch Zeichenreste. Rs. 2’: Zu UD.NUN s. 21 Vs. 11. mit Lit. Vs. i 10–11: lu2-banda3 ist PN, s. 94 Vs. 1–2. Vs. ii 3: 59 Vs. 3–4 sind wegen der Summe in Rs. 2 jeweils 1+n statt Lies il-ili, s. 76 Rs. 8. Vs. ii 14: Zu Lesungs- und Deutungsmög- 10+n zu lesen. Vs. 4 Komm.: Zu lu2-nig2-bara4-ga s. J. Krecher, lichkeiten von lugal-KU s. J. Bauer, Fs. G. Pettinato (2004) 2; P. ZA 63 (1973) 247; P. Steinkeller, JNES 52 (1993) 144; M. Kre- Notizia/I. Schrakamp, AoF 37 (2011) 247 mit Lit. Rs. i 1, 3: Lies bernik, AOAT 296 (2002) 34f. Anm. 180; F. Pomponio et al., BdI eri, s. 21 Vs. 8. Rs. i 2: Zu ur-PA s. 6 Rs. 4. Rs. i 8: Zu lu2-igi s. Adab (2006) 223. Vs. 5: Nach Foto eher 2. Vs. 10: ges-kig2-ti ist 18 Vs. 3. Rs. i 14: Nach SargInscAdab A.718 Rs. 5 e2-Vasa5U-i7 ist ! Oberbegriff für „Handwerker“. Rs. 2: Lies 24. Rs. 3: Könnte wie e2-asa5-i7 (A) zu lesen. Rs. ii 11: NU-banda3 (s. 10 Vs. 2) ma2-gid2 z. B. in CT 50, 99–100; ITT 1, 1065 ein Rubrum en-nu-[me] „sie heißt „Hauptmann der Treidler“, s. G. J. Selz, ArOr. 66 (1998) sind Wachen“ vorliegen? 258; R. K. Englund, Fs. D. I. Owen (2010) 101–104. Rs. ii 13’: (d) 60: Vs. 2: Zu TUR s. 9 Vs. 9. Der ensi2 wäre sicherlich mit Lies a-mur-um, amur-um, s. 27. da ? Titel genannt. Vs. 4: Lies 1 lu2-banda3 (PN). 79 Vs. 3: Nach Kopie eher a-sa3 en[si2 ](PA.T[E…]), Foto unklar. 62 Komm.: Nach den fehlenden Personenkeilen Rs. 9–14 liegt Vs. 5: Lies ses, s. 8 Vs. 4. Vs. 6: Für Deutungen von para10 ru-a s. eine (vorgefertigte) Präsenzliste vor, vgl. 68 und s. I. Schrakamp, I. Schrakamp, BiOr. 65 (2008) 679 mit Lit. sowie D. A. Foxvog, BiOr. 65 (2008) 681 mit Lit. Vs. 4: Vielleicht a-mu[r-…]. Vs. Fs. A. D. Kilmer (2011) 72, der den PN para10-ru-a mit para10-si-ga d 11–12: Unsicher. Vs. 14: Lies es5-pes, s. M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pan- vergleicht und „placed dais“ übersetzt. Rs. 1: „GIR3×IGI“-maÌ ist d theon 16. Rs. 6: Lies NU-banda3, s. 10 Vs. 2. Rs. 9: Nach Foto ALIM-maÌ, das letzte Zeichen auf dem Foto aber nicht erkennbar. ges ges vielleicht giri3-ni-b[a-dab5]. Rs. 10: lu2-ter ist nach Kontext eher 80 passim: Lies gigir2. Vs. 3: Lies 5.2.0 gigir2, Zu Asgi s. PN. Rs. 11: Nach Foto Zeichenreste am Zeilenende, [l]ugal-[igi-ta] zu 11 Vs. 5. Vs. 4: Nach Foto eher e2-an-ta. Vs. 5: Wahrscheinli- ? (d) d b statt lu2-VxU? cher als gala alla – zu NAGAR s. M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 63 Vs. 5’: Zu (d)TUR s. 9 Vs. 5–6. 24f. mit Lit. – ist gala nagar „Gala, der Zimmermann“. Rs. 1: 64 Vs. 2’–3’: Nach dem Kontext wäre sila-si, dam- Beachte die Schreibung mit MUSEN, s. 107 Rs. 1. () delmun zu erwägen. Vs. 6’: Eher ninta2-nam2-maÌ, s. 8 Vs. 5. 81 Vs. 2: Lies 1.3.0 6 sila3. d d 65 Rs. 2’: ur- VURI3.MASU (s. S. 17) ist durch ur- URI3.MAS in der 82 Vs. 2: Zu Asgi s. zu 11 Vs. 5. Urkunde S. Brumfield, CDLN 2011:4 Vs. 2, die nach Onomasti- 83 Vs. 3: Nach Foto 0.1.1 V4U sila3. Zu Asgi s. zu 11 Vs. 5. kon, dem aus SargInscAdab A.684 bekannten GANA2.IS (s. M. Such- 84: Zum Text M. Maiocchi, Babel und Bibel 5 (2010) 146. Vs. Gutiérrez, Pantheon 43) und nach dem Vermerk giri3-gen-na Adab 3: Zu Asgi s. zu 11 Vs. 5. Rs. 2: M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 42 zuzuweisen ist, gesichert. Rs. 5: Lies usur3. erwägt für AB.DU eine Deutung als Kurzform für es3-sa/es3-sa2-ab- 66 Vs. 3: Der ensi2 wäre sicher an anderer Stelle und mit Titel DU „der im Heiligtum (umher)geht/(bereit)steht“, vgl. G. J. Selz, genannt. Vs. 7: Zu lugal-TU9-maÌ s. 8 Vs. 5. AWAS (1993) 274. 67 Vs. 3’: Zu igi-du versus palil s. P. Attinger apud C. Mitter- 86 Vs. i 3’: S. P. Attinger, BiOr. 68 (2010) 105 zu M. P. Streck, mayer, aBZL (2006) 198 Nr. 233; J. Bauer, OLZ 103 (2008) 512. RlA 11 (2006–08) 595. Vs. i 4’: Zu lu2 kig2-du3(-a) s. bereits I. Rs. 1: Lies 20. Schrakamp, BiOr. 65 (2008) 697. Vs. i 5’ Komm.: Für Belege s. P. 68 Vs. 10: Zu Asgi s. zu 11 Vs. 5. Steinkeller, ZA 75 (1985) 39–46. Vs. i 9’: Lies abbax eri, s. 21 Vs. 69 könnte auch eine Liste über Aufseher und ihre Mannschaften 8’. Vs. ii 4’: Für mögliches lu2-sum im prä/frühsarg. Adab s. Th. E. sein. Vs. 2: Zu UD.NUNki s. 21 Vs. 11. Balke, OLZ 106 (2011) 174 (anders I. Schrakamp, BiOr. 65 [2008] 70 Vs. 3: Unsicher. 683). Rs. i 1–2: M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 42, 44 Anm. 521 über- 71 Vs. 6: amar-EZEM×ÎAL ist Kurzform für amar-EZEM×ÎAL- setzt „AB.DU und die kleinen/kleinsten Heiligtümer”, zu AB.DU s. 84 sa3-ga im präsarg. Lagas, zu PN und Abgrenzung von LAK614 und Rs. 2. Rs. i 8: S. zu 73 Vs. 2. Rs. 2. Rs. ii 4: Zum GN s. 11 Vs. 5. EZEM×BAD s. F. Carroué, Or. 50 (1981) 123f. Anm. 13; J. Bauer, 87 Vs. 3: a-Ìu-GES×ERIN2 ist sicherlich Var. zu a-Ìu-GES.ERIN2, AfO 36/37 (1989/90) 79; G. J. Selz, Götterwelt (1995) 20 Anm. aÌu-damiq, s. A. Westenholz, ARES 1 (1988) 115; J. Krecher, 14; R. Borger, AOAT 305 (22011) 98f., 308f. mit Lit. Vs. 7: Zu MARI 5 (1987) 623f.; R. Di Vito, StPohl sm 13 (1996) 214.

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 270270 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 283 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — ASSYRIOLOGIE 284

la.ki ki 88 Rs. 2: Das sarg. weitgehend mit KU zusammengefallene, brei- 107 Vs. 1: Für eine Lesung lagasx(NU11.BUR) bzw. la-gasx s. tere DAB5 ist hier, noch deutlicher in 139 Vs. 5 und in RSO 75, 1f. G. Marchesi, AttiANL IX/XXI 1 (2006) 211 Anm. 31; P. Attinger Rs. 6 noch von KU zu unterscheiden; zur Differenzierung der Zei- apud C. Mittermayer, aBZL (2006) 13; NABU 2007/37, 37, 39 chen s. A. Westenholz, OSP 1 (1975) 4 zu OSP 1, 48; W. Som- Anm. 2; J. Bauer, WO 39 (2009) 252. Vs. 2: Lies wie Vs. 7’, Rs. ges merfeld et al., Babel und Bibel 2 (2005) 189f. mit Lit. und M. E. 8’ 10 inda3 10 sila3 [kas]. Vs. 9: Lies . Rs. 8–11: Nach Foto ist ki Milone, RSO 75 (2002) 3f. für Adab. Rs. 8–9 lu2-u5 lagas(NU11.BUR.LA) und Rs. 10–11 vermutlich lu2- ki 89: Zum Text s. M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 37 mit Anm. 385 [u5] umma(GES.KUSU2) zu lesen. l. Rd.: Ergänzung [su+nigen2] und passim. Vs. 6: Zu AN.DUB.ME s. M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 42. aufgrund der vorangegangenen Zeilen unsicher. ges 90 Vs. 3: S. zu 57 Rs. 3. Vs. 7: Lies nu- kiri6 Vs. 10: Nach 108 Vs. 7–8: Zu Asgi s. zu 11 Vs. 5. Rs. 3: Statt dumu-gir15-ni Foto eher lugal-LU, s. 10 Vs. 3. Vs. 11: Lies eres, s. zu s. 8 Rs. 3. gala vielleicht dumu-gir15 ni-is-ku (auf dem Foto nicht sichtbar, s. Vs. 12: Lies eri statt uru, s. 21 Vs. 8’. Rs. 1: Für SU.KU6 ist sukud2 109 Vs. 12)? Rs. 5: su+nigen2 nicht kopiert. etabliert, s. R. K. Englund, BBVO 10 (1990) 227–236. Rs. 2: Zu 109 Vs. 10: Lies 3 inda3 2 [dug kas]. Vs. 12 Komm.: Zu den (d)TUR s. 9 Vs. 9. Rs. 3: M. Maiocchi, Babel und Bibel 5 (2010) 146 ni-is-ku s. meine in Druckvorb. für Imgula befindliche Dissertation. Anm. 26 übersetzt inda3 ne-sag UMBIN×LU vorbehaltlich „bread in Vs. 13: Lies eri statt uru, s. 21 Vs. 8’. Vs. 14: Lies su-i3-li2-s[u]. shape of a wheel“, doch könnte wie bei inda3 da-NAGAR ein Behäl- Rs. 2: Lies ur-nigar, s. 24 Vs. 6’. Rs. 1: lu5-wa-ir-ma-d[am] ist ter gemeint sein, vgl. P. Steinkeller, MesCiv. 4 (1992) 29; A. Wes- keine Var. zu lu5-ur2-mu-de3 (S. 17) in 130 Vs. 4, da nach Foto eher tenholz, JAOS 115 (1995) 536; Th. E. Balke, OLZ 106 (2011) 174. lu5-wa-ir-ma N[AR] o.ä. vorliegt, vgl. aber lu2-wa-ir-ma MCS 9, 246 Rs. 4: Da lu2-eme in Brot-und-Bier-Texten aus dem klass.-sarg. = E. L. Cripps, BAR IntSer. 1835 (2010) Nr. 18 Vs. 10. Rs. 3: Lies ges Umma neben mas-su-gid2-gid2 und NAR vorkommen, s. B. R. Fos- . Rs. 4: Lies wohl lugal-KU, s. 10 Vs. 3; der kopierte senkrechte ter, USP (1982) 99, 113; M. Molina, AulaOr. 9 (1991) 141, ist Keil von „UDU“ ist nach Foto wohl Beschädigung. Rs. 5: Nach Foto lu2-KA×DIS – sofern nicht doch KA×ME vorliegt, Var. zu lu2-eme. Rs. lu2 lu2-ese2-gid2. Rs. 8: Lies NU-banda3, s. 10 Vs. 2. Rs. 10: Lies (d) 7: Für Lesungsvorschläge zu DI- utu s. P. Steinkeller, Fs. W. W. surx-kalam, s. 9 Vs. 1 und FAOS 19 Ad 16 Vs. 1–6. Rs. 11: Ergänze Hallo (1993) 239; G. Marchesi, AttiANL IX/XXI 1 (2006) 206 nach 105 Rs. 2, 107 Rs. 5 pu3-zu2-r[u-sa]. Rs. 13: mas2 unsicher. Anm. 1; W. Sommerfeld, Fs. R. Haase (2006) 4 Anm. 8, 15 Anm. 110 Rs. 2: Lies gug2 imga[ga3], s. 106 Vs. i 2. ges 53. Rs. 8: Zu bansurx(ASARI) s. den Kommentar des Verf. zu 105 111–112 sind unter http://test.cuneiform.library.cornell.edu/ Rs. 2 und s. noch J. Bauer, Altor. Notizen (31–44) (1987) 3; P. sites/default/files/49-08-091_0.jpg mit einem Fragment, das die Steinkeller, WZKM 77 (1987) 189; die bei M. Such-Gutiérrez, Zeilenanfänge enthält, und Nr. 111 gejoint, s. die Anmerkung des Pantheon 6 mit Anm. 47 unter dASARI gebuchen sarg. Belege sind Verf. zu Nr. 111; beide Textnummern sind bei M. Such-Gutiérrez, ges verlesenes bansurx(ASARI) ensi2 „Tafel des ensi2“. Pantheon 37 Anm. 381 und passim unter NES 99–08–091 als eine 91: Zum Text s. M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 19f. mit Anm. Gabenliste klassifiziert. 181. Vs. 4’, 6’: Zu Asgi s. zu 11 Vs. 5.. Rs. 4’: Lies eres-digir, s. 111 Vs. 7: Zu Asgi s. zu 11 Vs. 5. Rs. 8: Zu AN.DUB.ME s. zu 89 8 Rs. 3. Vs. 6. Rs. 9: Lies nach Foto dnisaba statt dIN (so auch M. Such- 92–93 Vs. 2: Da kas-GIR3 neben kas-sig5 steht und in 103 Vs. 3 Gutiérrez, Pantheon 30 Anm. 317). auch munu4-GIR3 vorkommt, könnte es sich um eine Qualitätsbe- 112 Rs. 3’: Lies as-ni sagga, zum PN as(10)-(a/sa4-)ni s. G. J. zeichnung analog zu Ur III-zeitlichem GIR3.ARAD handeln, vgl. H. Selz, AWAS (1993) 546; W. Sommerfeld et al., Babel und Bibel Brunke, Essen in Sumer (2011) passim. 2 (2005) 199 mit Lit. und s. BdI Adab 241 Vs. 6 as10-a-ni sagga. da !? 94 Vs. 1–2: Wegen dam „Gattin“ ist sicher lu2-banda3 i3-ra2- Rs. 5: GIR3 unsicher; [m]u-Vkux U 3-kam wäre aufgrund des Kon- ra2 „Lubanda, Ölpresser“ zu lesen, vgl. 78 Vs. i 10–11. textes plausibel, epigraphisch aber problematisch. Denkbar wäre 95–97 passim: Zu kas-GIR3 s. 92 Vs. 2. eine Zeitangabe, vgl. Z. Yang, SargInscAdab (1989) 244. 95 Rs. 6: Lies nach 96 Rs. 5–6 [mus]-tum2. 114: S. M. Maiocchi, Babel und Bibel 5 (2010) 145. Vs. 4: Zu 96 Rs. 1: Zu lugal-TU9-maÌ s. 8 Vs. 5. Rs. 2: Lies 20 , be-li2-GU2 s. 77 Vs. 9. Rs. 9: Zum MN iti SE:SE.KIN-a s. J. Bauer, s. zu 92 Vs. 2. Der ensi2 wäre sicherlich mit Titel und an anderer AfO 36/37 (1989/90) 85; W. Sallaberger, KultKal. (1991) 9 Anm. Stelle genannt. Rs. 4: S. zu 92 Vs. 2. 24; M. Civil, AulaOr. Supp. 5 (1994) 36, 90, 167–171; J. Bauer, 99 Vs. 4: Lies [i-ti-l]um, jiddin-ilum, s. J. J. M. Roberts, ESP Or. 67 (1998) 122. (1972) 122; A. Archi, StEb 4 (1981) 184 vi 6//124 zur Var. i-ti- 116 Vs. 4, Rs. 6: Nach den bei H. Brunke, Essen in Sumer lum/i3-lum; R. DiVito, StPohl sm 16 (1993) 139, 310, oder idi-ilum, (2011) 135f. bezeugten Mengenangaben für inda3-gug2 wäre analog 1 s. R. DiVito, StPohl sm 16 (1993) 247, 310; M. Hilgert, Imgula 5 zu inda3 su-ra gug2 ⁄2 statt gug2 0.0.1 denkbar. Vs. 7: Lies eres- (2002) 297 Anm. 9, 299 Anm. 17. Vs. 5: Lies 2. digir, s. 8 Rs. 3. Rs. 1: M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 32 (mit ges d 101 Vs. 2–3: ur-zu lu2 gigir erscheint in JCS 55, 49–54 Rs. Lesung GIR3.E.E) vermutet eine Schreibung für Sakkan/Sumuqan. 10. Vs. 5, Rs. 2: Zu kas-GIR3 s. 92 Vs. 2. Rs. 2: Ist wirklich e2-se3 oder e2-ese2/zid2 zu lesen? ges 102 Vs. 2: Lies b/pansurx, s. 90 Rs. 8. mar-Ìa-si ist wohl Per- 117 Vs. 2: Nach Kontext an „An“, s. M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pan- sonenbezeichnung. Rs. 4: Zur Lesung von NE.NE-gar s. G. J. Selz, theon 4 mit Anm. 27. Vs. 3: Lies „weaned“, s. P. Steinkeller, NABU 1989/38; M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 39. Rs. 8. Rs. 2: JESHO 24 (1981) 133. Vs. 6: Zu Asgi s. zu 11 Vs. 5. Rs. 6: Lies Lies i-ti-lum, s. 99 Vs. 4. Rs. 3: Lies 6 kas GIR3, s. 92 Vs. 2. 20 sila3 tu7. Rs. 8: Lies mu-kux, s. 34 Rs. 2. 103 Vs. 1: Lies 14 BA[BIR…], da Bierzutaten folgen. Vs. 2: 118–119: S. M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 37 mit Anm. 385 und ba-ba ist kein Brei, s. H. Brunke, Essen in Sumer (2011) 159–164. passim; M. Maiocchi, Babel und Bibel 5 (2010) 146. d Vs. 3: GIR3 ließe sich auch als Qualitätsbezeichnung deuten, s. 92 118 Vs. 6: Nach Foto [1] udu SU4.ÎAL-e2-si, zum GN s. M. Vs. 2. Rs. 5: Lies ges. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 44; P. Steinkeller, CUSAS 17 (2011) 17; 104 Rs. 2: Zu ab-DU s. 84 Rs. 2. vgl. G. Visicato/A. Westenholz, CUSAS 11 (2010) 124 X4. Vs. 9, ges 105 Vs. 2 Komm.: Lies b/pansurx, s. 90 Rs. 8. Vs. 3’: Lies Rs. 7: S. zu 116 Vs. 4. Vs. 10: Zahl unsicher. Rs. 3: Lies eres- ur-AB, s. 19 Vs. 5. Rs. 6: Zum GN s. 11 Vs. 5. Rs. 8: Lies eres- digir, s. 8 Rs. 3. Rs. 5: Nach 116 Vs. 8–Rs. 2 und 119 Rs. 2–4 wäre d d digir, s. 8 Rs. 3. statt GIR3.X12 der GN GIR3.E.PA5 zu erwarten. M. Such-Gutiérrez, d 106–120: Zu Listen über Opfer und Gaben s. M. Such-Gutiér- Pantheon 32 liest GIR3.E.E, s. zu 116 Rs. 1, nach Foto wäre allen- d ! rez, Pantheon 36–44. falls GIR3.VPA5 U möglich. Rs. 6: S. zu 116 Rs. 2. Rs. 10: S. M. 106 Vs. i 2 und passim: Für ZIZ2.AN wird imgaga3 angesetzt, s. Maiocchi, Babel und Bibel 5 (2010) 143. P. Steinkeller, MesCiv. 4 (1992) 57; G. J. Selz, AWAS (1993) 406. 119 Vs. 6: Lies SU4.ÎAL-e2-si, s. zu 118 Vs. 6. Vs. 9, Rs. 8: S. Vs. ii 1: Zu Asgi s. zu 11 Vs. 5. Vs. ii 4: Lies eri statt uru, s. 21 zu 116 Vs. 4. Rs. 1: Lies eres-digir, s. 8 Rs. 3. Rs. 3: Zum GN s. 1 Vs. 8’. Rs. i 4: Statt 1 lies ⁄3 sila3 kas. zu Vs. i 2. Rs. i 5: Zu zu 118 Rs. 5. AN.DUB.ME s. zu 89 Vs. 6. Rs. ii 11–14: Wohl korrekt, anders M. 120 Vs. 7: Lies eres-digir, s. 8 Rs. 3. Vs. 8, Rs. 3: Lies ku3- Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 38 Anm. 403. babbar.

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 271271 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 285 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXIX N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2012 286

121 Vs. 3’: Nach Foto eher Kurzname lugal-VkurU. Vs. 6: Lies 149 Vs. 3: Unsicher, vielleicht TU9-igi-du8 „Schleier“? Vs. 4: u2 tu9 gamun oder gamun2 „Kümmel“, s. J. Bottéro, RlA 6 (1980–83) bar-dul5 aga3-la2 ist ein Kleidungsstück, „das am Rücken/an der tu9 289; G. J. Selz, AWEL (1989) 356; P. Steinkeller, MesCiv. 4 Krone hängt“, vgl. bar-dul5 gu2-la2 DP 75 Vs. iii 7. d tu9 (1992) 77. Vs. 8’: Lies es5-pes, s. 62 Vs. 14. Vs. 12: Auch VzikumU 150 Vs. 1–4: Lies . Rs. 2: Zu la2-NI s. 10 Vs. 1. oder VzikumxU möglich, s. 4 Rs. 3. Rs. 5: Lies eri statt uru, s. 21 Vs. 151 ist aufgrund des Abriebs an mehreren Stellen unsicher. Vs. nu tu9 tu9 8’. Rs. 10: Zu LAK614 s. 71 Vs. 6. l. Rd.: Lies asa5 V nu11U-maÌ, passim: Lies . Vs. i 11–14: Lies 1 sa3-ge-dab5, 1 ib2-la2, 1 bar- s. 3 Vs. 3. si, 1 kiseb (je eine Zeile vertauscht bzw. ausgelassen). Vs. i 16 ki 122 Rs. 1’: Zu UD.NUN s. 21 Vs. 11. Rs. 3’: Lies ka-ku3, s. 23 („15“): Lies eri statt uru, s. 21 Vs. 8’. Vs. ii 1–5: Jeweils 1 […] Rs. 2. Rs. 5’: Wohl [mu]-kux; das Foto zeigt keine Spuren von AL, erkennbar. Vs. ii 1: Vielleicht 1 kiseb. in akk. Kontext ist erstarrtes mu-kux wahrscheinlich. 152 Vs. 6: Lies sag nig2-gur11. Nach Foto wäre anschließend wie 123: Vs. 2 Komm.: S. zu 90 Rs. 4. Vs. 6: kas 0.1.0 ist Rs. 11 eine Ergänzung SU.T[U.A.BI](?) denkbar, sofern ein PN vor- „Bier mit 60 Liter Gerste pro Krug gebraut“, vgl. etwa M. A. liegt. Rs. 11: Da der Kontext kaum zu der von W. Sallaberger, Fs. Powell, RA 70 (1976) 98f.; H. Brunke, Essen in Sumer (2011) J. Klein (2005) 223–253 bestimmten Bedeutung von de5 paßt, wäre 40f. Anm. 60. Rs. 5–6: Lies 3 utul2 gal, 6 utul2 tur „3/6 große/ angesichts des unorthographischen su ba-ti-is in Rs. 6 zu überlegen, kleine Suppentöpfe“, s. H. Brunke, Essen in Sumer (2011) 170– ob de5 für de6 steht; für Ur III-Belege s. W. Sallaberger, Fs. M. 173, 178. Schretter (2003) 560. tu9 tu9 ! 124 Vs. 1: Lies ku3-babbar. Vs. 2: tukul, genauer „Waffe, 153 passim: Lies . Vs. 4: Nach Foto wohl eher sa3-[g]a -du3 ges (d) Keule“, wird üblicherweise mit geschrieben. Vs. 4: Zu TUR s. als tu9 sa3 tuku5 du3 (?). Vs. 5: Statt lu2-azlag2-maÌ, genauer „Mann tu9 d 9 Vs. 9. Vs. 5, Rs. 3–4: Lies . Rs. 4 Komm.: Zum ki- utu-Fest des Ober-Wäschers“, liegt wohl azlag7-maÌ oder, da der „Oberwä- im sarg. Adab s. Z. Yang, SargInscAdab (1989) 215; W. Sallaber- scher“ in 212 und OIP 14, 118 azlag4/azlag7-gal heißt, der PN lu2- ger, KultKal. 1 (1993) 215 mit Anm. 1025; M. Such-Gutiérrez, oder [l]ugal-TU9/nam2-maÌ vor, s. 8 Vs. 5. Vs. 7: Lies usur3 statt d Pantheon 39 zu SargInscAdab A.985. Rs. 5’: Lies enim- utu. Rs. usar3. Rs. 1–4: Lies jeweils [x]+1, zu su-a – gi4 s. 35 Vs. 3. Rs. 5: 7’: Lies e2-i3-gara2, s. 25 Rs. 1. Lies ur-AB, s. 19 Vs. 5. Rs. 6: Oder [a]-ra2 10-kam? tu9 125 Vs. 2: Lies ku3-babbar. Rs. 2: Lies mu-kux, s. 34 Rs. 2. 154 passim: Lies . Lies i3 ab-a5 „Fett ist aufgetragen“, s. P. 126–129: Zu masdaria-Texten s. M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon Attinger, ZA 95 (2005) 64, 229; Th. E. Balke, OLZ 106 (2011) 174 41f., zu den PN mit i7 „Flußgott“ (anders S. 7) s. C. Woods, ZA Anm. 16. 95 (2005) 33f.; M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 18. 155 Vs. 1: Lies tu9. Vs. 3: Wegen des Bruchs eher [lug]al-zi. 137 Rs. 1: Anhand des Fotos schwer nachvollziehbar. 156 Vs. 2: Lies gesbalag. Vs. 7–8: Zum GN s. 11 Vs. 5. Rs. 2: V U 138: S. M. Maiocchi, Babel und Bibel 5 (2010) 146, 147. Zu amar-LAK614 s. 71 Vs. 6. Rs. 4: Lies a2 -ni-ta. Rs. 6: Zu la2-NI 139 Vs. 2: ÎI×DIS wäre utul2. Komm.: AB2.KU ist unu3-d zu lesen, s. 10 Vs. 1. s. etwa G. J. Selz, AWAS (1993) 86f.; P. Attinger apud C. Mitter- 157: Zu Text und Realien s. M. Maiocchi, Babel und Bibel 5 mayer, aBZL (2006) 202 Nr. 352. Vs. 5: Die Form von dab5 (s. 88 (2010) 143f. mit Lit. Vs. 1: Zu su-gar = susmarrû s. noch J.-M. Rs. 2) weckt Zweifel an der Datierung in klass.-sarg. Zeit. Durand, ARM 21 (1982) 357f.; M. Guichard, ARM 31 (2005) 140 Vs. 4: Lies UR.SAG-num2, ursanum, s. MAD 3, 68. 311–314; M. Civil, ARES 4 (2008) 84. Vs 6: Das Foto zeigt kein 141–143: Zu den Listen über Gaben von Kleinvieh s. M. Such- Zahlzeichen. Vs. 7: Zu su-la2 s. W. Sallaberger, ZA 84 (1994) 146; Gutiérrez, Pantheon 36–38. MHEM 3 (1996) 108; Vs. 9: „mirror“ ist unsicher; P. Steinkeller, 141: Zum Text s. M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 37 mit Anm. 385 ASJ 9 (1987) 349 Anm. 5; J. G. Westenholz, Fs. B. R. Foster und passim. Vs. 3: ÎI×DIS UNUG müßte Göttername, vergöttlichter (2010) 463–484 befürworten eine Gleichsetzung mit dugsita bzw. d Gegenstand oder ein Ort sein. Vs. 7: Lies es5-pes, s. 62 Vs. 14. Deutung als Trinkgefäß; M. Civil, ARES 4 (2010) 69 Anm. 142 Rs. 6: Lies e2-gedru e2-gal „Egedru des Palastes“, s. M. Such- hält „Spiegel“, so auch M. Guichard, ARM 31 (2005) 243f., wegen na4 Gutiérrez, Pantheon 37 Anm. 385, 43. ma-sa-lum za-gin3 UET 3, 795 Vs. 3 für unwahrscheinlich. 142 Vs. 5: Lies dnin-dulum, s. A. Cavigneaux/M. Krebernik, 158 Vs. 1 Komm.: Präsarg. (und frühsarg.?) sum uruda deutet RlA 9 (1998–2000) 74f., 340f. man als „Erntesäge, -sichel“, s. I. Schrakamp, RlA 12 (2011) 443 143 Vs. 5, 7: Lies eres-digir, s. 8 Rs. 3. mit Lit. BIN 8, 130 summiert 12 urudasum mit für Sicheln üblichen 144: S. B. R. Foster, in: C. Michel/M.-L. Nosch (Hg.), Textile Gewichten von 125 g; das schwere, in UET 3, 735 neben bulug zabar Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from genannte urudasum ist wohl ein anderes Gerät. Vs. 3: Lies nach Foto the Third to First Millennia BC, Ancient Textiles Vol. 8 (2010) 141 VaU-da-gal2 „ist bei den Schmieden vorhanden“ (Kollektivplural). mit (nicht zwingender) Deutung als „school exercise (…) balanced 159 Vs. 1: W. Sallaberger, GMS 2 (1989) 315, 324 Anm. 34; account for woolen garments“. Vs. 4–5: „turban“ ist bei 17,5 H. Waetzoldt, BSA 6 (1992) 130f., 140 Anm. 55; M. Molina/M. tu9 Minen Gewicht auszuschließen. Vs. 6: bar-dul5 sal2-la ist der Such-Gutierrez, JNES 63 (2004) 7 Anm. 25; M. P. Streck, RlA 12 „feine/dünne Mantel“, U3.LA2 eine Materialbezeichnung, s. H. (2011) 184 lesen ge-sid „Spaltrohr“, „starkes/entlaubtes/gespalte- Behrens/H. Steible, FAOS 6 (1983) 125; H. Waetzoldt, RlA 6 nes und geklopftes Rohr“, „defoliated reed“. Vs. 3: Zu ma2-gid2 s. (1980–83) 588, 593; G. J. Selz, FAOS 15 (1989) 533f. mit Lit. Vs. 78 Rs. ii 11. Rs. ii 11. Vs. 1 5: Zu ad-KID s. zu 13 Rs. 2. Rs. 2: tu9 6, 8: Jeweils . Rs. 4: Lies ges-dal. Rs. 6: Zu la2-NI s. 10 Vs. 1. Lies ses, s. 8 Vs. 4. Rs. 5: Aufgrund der großen Summe sind die e Rs. 8 Komm.: es5-kam wohl korrekt. im Listenteil erhaltenen Zahl wohl anders zu lesen. ges 145 Vs. 14: Zu i3-lu-lu s. 23 Rs. 3. Rs. 2: Lies ka-ku3, s. 23 Rs. 160 passim: Lies gusur. Vs. 3: Zu ensi2-gal s. zu 46 Vs. 4. Vs. ges- 2. Rs. 4: Lies ur-AB, s. 19 Vs. 5. Rs. 9: Zu NIN s. 8 Rs. 3. 4: GU2 scheint ein Produkt des Holzschlages zu bezeichnen, da tu9 tu9 146 Vs. 2–7: Lies . Vs. 2: Lies ’a3-da-mu-um „rotes Klei- gusur stückweise gezählt werden; übersetze „2 (Holz-)…, 2 Holz- ges dungsstück“, s. AHw. und CAD A ada(m)mu. Vs. 6: silig7(KA×IGI) Stämme“, vgl. 1 GU2 ÌasÌur RTC 221 Vs. vi 17 und s. A. Sjö- ist unsicher, nach Foto wäre auch KA×UD möglich. Rs. 2: Lies berg, Fs. J. Renger (1999) 529f. Vurdu(2)U, s. 12 Rs. 8. Rs. 8: Ist u-ga-an wirklich (Kurz-)Name? 161 Vs. 5: Statt 0.1.2 TE a-ra2 2-kam lies nach Foto 0.1.2 VxU tu9 147 Vs. 1–6: Lies . Vs. 5: Zu U3.LA2 s. 144 Vs. 6. Vs. 7: sila3 a-ra2 2-kam, vgl. Vs. 8, 10. Vs. 6: Zu SIG-da-um, se11-da-um Ebenso unklar wie tu9 sa3 sila-ka-kam „garments through (…) „weaver?“, so P. Steinkeller, MesCiv. 4 (1992) 92, s. die Ein- (regular supply) ‘channels’“ bei B. R. Foster, C. Michel/M.-L. wände von A. Westenholz, JAOS 115 (1995) 537 und CAD S/2, ! Nosch (Hg.), Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East 256. Vs. 11: Lies a-ra2 2 (1)-kam. Vs. 12: Für eine Lesung ba-liÌx (2010) 141. Daher wäre eine Deutung von sa3-TAR als PN und eine s. M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 9 mit Anm. 78. Rs. 1: Lies ses, s. Wiedergabe als „es ist das der Textilien des SaTAR“ zu erwägen. 8 Vs. 4. Rs. 1: Zu su-a – gi4 s. 35 Vs. 3. 162 ist der ausführlichste sargonische Duftöltext. Da Duftöl- 148–150 Vs. 4: Lies tu9. texte auch außerhalb von Girsu belegt sind, bleibt die Herkunft 148 Vs. 3: Zu su-a – gi4 s. 35 Vs. 3. unbekannt; für kommentierte Zusammenstellungen mit Lit. s. J.

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 272272 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 287 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — ASSYRIOLOGIE 288

Bauer, Altor. Notizen (1–4) (1976–80) 6–8; P. Steinkeller, MesCiv. (2006) 185; H. Waetzoldt, RlA 12 (2010) 356. Rs. 2: Lies ses-gu10, 4 (1992) 78f.; M. Jursa, RlA 10 (2003–05) 335f.; M. Civil, ARES s. 8 Vs. 4 und P. Steinkeller, Fs. C. Wilcke (2003) 283 Anm. 8 zum 4 (2008) 102–106; CUSAS 12 (2010) 207; H. Brunke/W. Sallaber- PN. Rs. 4: Zu A.IGI.AN i3-ma-a5, auf dem wohl die Zuweisung nach ger, Fs. D. I. Owen (2010) 41–74. Vs. 1–3: Hier sind wahrschein- Umma beruht, s. noch P. Attinger, ZA 95 (2005) 231 mit Anm. su-me lich die meist zu Beginn genannten eren, su-me, surmenx (und 107. Var.) zu ergänzen. Vs. 4: Ergänze VzaU-[ba-lum], s. H. Brunke/W. 172 Vs. 2: Lies 0.2.4 la-mu-um (oder 0.2.0 ZIZ2 la-mu-um). Sallaberger, Fs. D. I. Owen (2010) 50. Vs. 5: Lies ad2 „Myrthe“, 173 Vs. 1: Die Identifikation des letzten Zeichens als DAR ist s. M. Molina/M. Such-Gutiérrez, JNES 63 (2004) 9f.; P. Attinger, sehr unsicher; einen weiteren Beleg bietet der mittelsarg. Text ZA 95 (2005) 263; M. Civil, ARES 4 (2008) 104 Anm. 261. Vs. CUSAS 11, 351 Rs. 1; G. Visicato/A. Westenholz, CUSAS 11 6: Zu ba-lu-Ìum s. M. Civil, ARES 4 (2008) 105; H. Brunke/W. (2011) 96, 124 (Foto Pl. 77) geben das Zeichen vorsichtig mit „X7“ Sallaberger, Fs. D. I. Owen (2010) 50. Vs. 7: Lies ge „(Süß-) wieder. Rohr“, s. H. Brunke/W. Sallaberger, Fs. D. I. Owen (2010) 50. Vs. 174 Vs. 3: Lies ur-nigar, s. 24 Vs. 6’. 8: Lies al-gazum(x), s. J. Bauer, Altor. Notizen (1–4) (1976–80) 8; 175 Vs. 5: Lies ba-de6, s. 7 Rs. 6. H. Brunke/W. Sallaberger, Fs. D. I. Owen (2010) 50. Vs. 9: Lies 176 passim: Lies se-mus, s. noch M. Stol, RlA 8 (1993–95) 349; ! sem NI -gi4-ib-tum, s. H. Brunke/W. Sallaberger, Fs. D. I. Owen G. J. Selz, AWEL (1989) 303; A. Sjöberg, Fs. G. Pettinato (2004) (2010) 50. Vs. 10: Übersetze „ambra“, s. AHw. 45 s.v. amrum II; 266f. mit Lit. Zu ku3-ta „in Silber (umgerechnet)“ s. R. K. Eng- V. Donbaz/B. R. Foster, STTI (1982) 2 zu 27. Vs. 11: Lies sem lund, BBVO 10 (1990) 52 Anm. 177. gam-gam-ma, s. M. Civil, ARES 4 (2008) 105. Rs. 1: Lies sem 177 könnte als Notiz zur Überstellung einer Person auch „1 PN. ? su-sa2 d[u10 ], s. M. Civil, ARES 4 (2008) 105f. Rs. 2: Zu kukru s. Dumumas (ist) Hauptmann“ übersetzt werden. Vs. 3: Lies NU- M. Civil, ARES 4 (2008) 105; H. Brunke/W. Sallaberger, Fs. D. I. banda3, s. 10 Vs. 2. Owen (2010) 51. Rs. 3: Nach Foto eher 6 m[a]-n[a] Vdug3U-gan, s. 181: Übersetze „1 A-VxU hat Urlu, der Torwächter, hergebracht. MesCiv. 4, 43 Vs. 3’ [x] ma-na dug3-gan. Rs. 6: Lies sem-tal2-tal2, Lugal…maÌ ist er gegeben. Auf der Großtafel ist er nicht hinzuge- s. M. Civil, ARES 4 (2008) 105. Rs. 7: Lies li „Wacholder“, s. H. fügt“. Zu X6, das vielleicht taÌx zu lesen ist, s. schon I. Schrakamp, Brunke/W. Sallaberger, Fs. D. I. Owen (2010) 51. Rs. 8: Da Duf- BiOr. 65 (2008) 694f. zu BdI Adab 194 (anders Th. E. Balke, OLZ töle wegen der häufigen Verwendung von Zedernholz auch als 106 [2011] 175) und M. E. Cohen, Fs. D. I. Owen (2010) 78 Nr. 2 „Zedernöl“ bezeichnet werden, s. H. Brunke/W. Sallaberger, Fs. für einen weiteren Adab-Beleg. Da X6 nur in Adab vorkommt, D. I. Owen (2010) 49, ist sem eren 7 dug i3-kam „es ist Zeder(nöl) stammt sicher auch vorliegender Text von dort. Vs. 4: Lies mu- von 7 Ölkrügen“ zu lesen. Rs. 9–12: Gemeint ist Ähnliches wie tum2, s. 53 Rs. 1. VS 27, 86 v 1 ges a-ra2 2 ga2-ga2-bi, das H. Brunke/W. Sallaberger, 182: Da Naramsin in Datenformeln nie als LUGAL bezeichnet Fs. D. I. Owen (2010) 53 „die dafür (für das Fett) zweimal dazu- wird, muß eine Eidformel ohne pa3 vorliegen, vgl. B. R. Foster, zugebenden Hölzer“ übersetzen. V-am3 xU 1 ist nach Foto unsicher WO 13 (1982) 19 Nr. 6 und s. B. R. Foster, NABU 1996/4 zur und nach der verdoppelten marû-Basis unwahrscheinlich (Rasur?); Mißdeutung einer Eidformel mu sar-ga-li2-LUGAL-ri2 lugal a-ga- ki ki wäre -bi, -de3 denkbar? de3 als Jahresname. Var-wa-num2 U ist anhand des Fotos nicht 163 Vs. i 1: Lies ninta. Vs. i 3: Lies dab4(DUB)-si-ga, s. I. J. Gelb, nachvollziehbar; für neue Armanum-Jahresnamen s. E. Salgues, Fs. OAIC (1952) 193f.; P. Steinkeller, RA 78 (1984) 88; Fs. W. W. A. Westenholz (2011) 253–272. Hallo (1993) 242f. Vs. i 4: Lies wohl enim-dutu, vgl. G. J. Selz, AoF 184 Vs. 4 Komm.: Für einen weiteren Beleg s. S. R. Bridges, 25 (1993) 320, 321. Vs. i 9: Vielleicht [ma]skim-se3 „als maskim“. The Mesag Archive (1981) 475 Vs. 9. Vs. ii 1’–3’: Möglich wäre „Wegen der Gerstenabgabe des Feldes 185: Die nicht ausgefüllte Notiz über Lebensmittelzuteilungen von Lugalnintazida hat er (es/sie?) für ihn ergriffen“, zu se gub-ba an ranghohe Beamte steht sicherlich mit einer Herrscherreise in „Gerstenabgabe, Feldpacht“ s. G. J. Selz, AWEL (1989) 319, AWAS Zusammenhang; der sabra e2 und Je†ibmer erhalten auch in (1993) 651 mit Lit. Vs. ii 6: Schreiberfehler, lies gessu-<>, der nach G. Visicato, Fs. B. R. Foster (2010) 436 Anm. 5 aus ! gessu -na-ni-du10, zum PN s. J. Bauer, AfO 36/37 (1989/90) 81. Rs. Adab stammenden Urkunde CUNES 52–13–031 (für Adab vgl. i 5: Lies su-i2. Rs. ii 5: Für KI.A wäre ki-duru5 „bewässertes Land“ OIP 14, 150), in CT 50, 172 aus Girsu u. a. Urkunden als Ange- plausibel. Daher vielleicht se gub-ba egir ki-duru5 bi2-X7-a su ba-ti-es2 hörige der herrscherlichen Entourage Lebensmittel zugeteilt, s. Z. se-ba enim-ba al-til „Gerstenabgabe – nachdem man/er auf dem Yang, SargInscAdab (1989) 215f.; R. K. Englund, BBVO 10 bewässerten Feld X7 gemacht hat, haben sie (sie) erhalten.“ X7 ist in (1990) 153; W. Sommerfeld, Fs. R. Haase (2006) 9f. mit Lit. Isin vielleicht in MAD 4, 153 Vs. ii 3 belegt, s. J. Krecher, ZA 63 Daher ist auch für vorliegende Urkunde eine Herkunft aus Adab (1974) 222–223 und zur Herkunft P. Steinkeller, MesCiv. 4 (1992) 7. denkbar. 164 Vs. 2, Rs. 6: Zu ad-KID s. zu 13 Rs. 2. Vs. 3 Lies ka-ku3, s. 186 Vs. 2: Zu ges-te s. 6 Vs. 3’. Vs. 3: Das in Bündeln 23 Rs. 2. Vs. 4: Wegen -se3 in-[si-la2] zu ergänzen, vgl. C. Wilcke, gezählte(!) sum2-GAZ ist eine Zwiebelart, s. H. Brunke, Essen in EANEL (2007) 90, 91, 101. Vs. 5: Lies ku3-babbar. Rs. 4: Zu ges- Sumer (2011) 41f. Vs. 4: ku6 se6 heißt „gebratener/geräucherter ges te s. 6 Vs. 3’. Rs. 5: Gemäß BCE kid ges-nu2. Rs. 6: DIS ist wohl Fisch“, s. R. K. Englund, BBVO 10 (1990) 216–219; H. Brunke, Schreiberversehen oder Merkzeichen. Essen in Sumer (2011) 171f., 186f. Vs. 5’: Gemeint ist wohl ku6 165–166: Zur Zuweisung nach Umm-el-Hafriyat s. A. Westen- sag-[PAP/KUR2], s. R. K. Englund, BBVO 10 (1990) 212f. Vs. ges holz, Fs. B. R. Foster (2010) 458–460. 10–12: Lies gesnu3 oder ges-nu2 (BCE) umbin gud „Bett mit 165 passim: Lies ku3-babbar. Vs. 5: Nach Foto 0.2.3 SE. Vs. 10: Stierfüßen“, s. P. Steinkeller, OrAnt. 19 (1980) 81. Rs. 3’: Lies Lies eres-ad2-gal, s. 8 Rs. 3, 56 Vs. ii 7. da-NAGAR gid2-da „langer Kasten“; der „Speer“ heißt ges-gid2-da, 166 Vs. 9: Wegen ku3-babbar a-na ur5 „als Darlehen“ zu lesen. s. I. Schrakamp, RlA 12 (2011) 630f. mit Lit. Rs. 10: X8-ma2 ist 167 Vs. 1: gurdub2 nicht korrekt kopiert. Vs. 2: Lies 30. Rs. 1: nach Foto SE3.BUüberBU.MA2, ein Zusammenhang mit ese2-ma2-gid2 Lies 40. Vs 6: Zu ba-ba munu4 s. 103 Vs. 2. Rs. 3: ese2 ma2-gid2 wohl unwahrscheinlich. heißt „Treidelseil“, s. M. Civil, ARES 4 (2008) 130; H. Waetzoldt, 187 Vs. 1: i3-ab2 ist „Kuhsahne“. Vs. 5: Vnu-da-de2U heißt „ist/ RlA 12 (2010) 356; R. K. Englund, Fs. D. I. Owen (2011) 108f. wurde dort nicht ausgegossen/konnte nicht ausgegossen werden“, Rs. 10 Komm.: Plural. zum Terminus de2 s. G. J. Selz, AWEL (1989) 480. Vs. 9, Rs. 3: 168 Vs. 7: Da ME nach Kontext kaum Titel sein kann, ist tu9na- 10 sa sa gud heißt „10 (Bündel) Rindersehnen“. Rs. 8–9: Lies mu- me 2 as2-pa-ra zu lesen, s. MAD 2 , 23. kux, s. 34 Rs. 2. 169 Rs. 4: Lies „like my father“. 190: Wegen Ìar zabar „Bronzering“ und sag zabar, das wohl 170 Vs. 6: a-na im-ri-im gehört sicherlich zu imrû(m) „Mastfut- auch ein Schmuckstück bezeichnet, vgl. R. D. Biggs, OIP 129, 167 ter“. IM 114992 Vs. 8 1 gid2 uruda sag za-gin3 mit Lit., wäre gestu zabar 171 Vs. 2: Zu KA×SA und den (sarg.) Var. KA×KID, KA×SAR s. „… Bronzeohrring“ erwägenswert, vgl. OIP 104, 32 App. Vs. iii noch P. Fronzaroli, NABU 2007/12; F. Pomponio et al., BdI Adab 8. Liegt tatsächlich EREN vor (kein Foto)?

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 273273 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 289 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXIX N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2012 290

191 Vs. 2: Gemeint ist wohl ku6 giri3(-us2). Rs. 3 Komm.: Zu Zeichenformen. Die Verweise beziehen sich auf die Bemer- zi-sa s. I. Schrakamp, Babel und Bibel 3 (2006) 172; M. Civil, kungen zu den Texten. ARES 4 (2009) 126; CUSAS 12, 209 21:09 sowie SF 43 viii 19. 192 Rs. 1–2: Lies […] Vgud?U-KASKAL, […] VanseU-KASKAL. Nr. 1: AS und DIS sollten unterschieden werden, s. M. Such- Gutiérrez, Pantheon 16 Anm. 55. Nr. 3: S. zu Text 118 Vs. 6. Nr. 193: e3-da-ni und ma-la2 sind Präterita. 194 ist kein Brief, sondern ein Zeugenprotokoll. Vs. 3’: Nach „32“: S. zu 171 Vs. 2. Nr. 59: S. zu 146 Vs. 6. Nr. „61“: S. zu 90 Rs. 4. Nr. „96“: S. Z. Yang, SargInscAdab (1989) 32; M. Such- Foto [SA]G.DUN3 (oder [u]r-ur) statt [1] VxU-VurU. Vs. 7: Lies [AB] Gutiérrez, Pantheon 43. Nr. 113: BAD und TIL sind zu differenzie- BA2--ut [(…)] en-ma da-da (…) iq-bi2-u3-ni „Zeugen davon, daß Dada (…) gesagt hat“; der Subj. sichert die im Komm. erwo- ren, s. zu 6 Vs. 6. Nr. 115: SIR und die gunierte Form NU11 sollten gene Deutung, vgl. I. J. Gelb, OAIC (1955) 187f.; MAD 2, 170f.; unterschieden werden, s. M. Krebernik, BFE (1984) 275; OBO D. O. Edzard, ZA 53 (1959) 302. 160/1 (1998) 276 mit Lit. Nr. „160“: UMBIN×LU ersetzt in Adab 195 Vs. 4: Präsentisch zu übersetzen; zu tum als marû-Basis einfaches umbin, s. Z. Yang, SargInscAdab (1989) 39; B. Kienast/K. 3 Volk, FAOS 198 (1995) 49; H. Waetzoldt, RlA 11 (2006–08) 215; von de6 s. W. Sallaberger, Fs. M. Schretter (2003) 557–576; V. Meyer-Laurin, ZA 100 (2010) 1–14. I. Schrakamp, BiOr. 65 (2008) 680. Nr. 183b: S. zu 173 Vs. 1. Nr. 196 Vs. 3: M. Such-Gutiérrez, Pantheon 22 vermutet in -LI.LI ein 252: S. zu 7 Rs. 7. Nr. 567b: Zu SU+NIGEN2 s. A. Alberti, WO 18 theophores Element. (1987) 20–25; M. Maiocchi, Babel und Bibel 5 (2010) 142. Nr. 197: A. Westenholz, Fs. B. R. Foster (2010) 460 zählt Nr. 197 579: Für SE+DU = kux s. 35 Rs. 3. Nr. 612: S. zu 9 Vs. 5. Nr. 640, (zitiert als CUSAS 13, 216) zu den wenigen spät-/postsarg. Texten Nr. 659: ÎI×AS, ÎI×DIS (s. zu Zeichenliste Nr. 1), ÎI×MAS, ÎI×TIL werden nicht klar getrennt, vgl. Z. Yang, SargInscAdab (1989) und vermutet in dem Adressaten den ensi2 von Adab. 198 Vs. 1’: Ergänzung unklar. Vs. 3: Wohl [na]m-maÌ. Rs. 1’: 39–43; P. Steinkeller, MesCiv. 4 (1992) 15–18; W. Sallaberger, ZA 84 (1994) 145; C. Wilcke, EANEL (2007) 190 Anm. 36; I. Schra- Zu ma2-gid2 s. 78 Rs. ii 11. 199 Vs. 1: Lies ku -babbar. kamp, BiOr. 65 (2008) 697. Nr. „703“: S. zu 79 Rs. 1. Nr. 808: 3 S. zu 88 Rs. 2. Nr. 810b: S. zu 121 Vs. 12. LAK614: S. zu 71 Vs. 200 passim: Lies urdu2 statt arad2, s. 12 Vs. 13. Vs. 12: Lies lugal-sila als Kurzform zu lugal-sila-si. 6. X3: S. zu 6 Rs. 6. X4: S. zu 9 Rs. 5. X6: S. zu 181. X7: S. zu 201 Vs. 6: Da ein ur-LI nagar auch in RTC 96 v 12 vorkommt, 163. X8: S. zu 186 Rs. 10. X12: S. zu 118 Rs. 5. S. 299: GES×ERIN2: wäre eine Herkunft aus Girsu zu erwägen; vgl. P. Notizia/I. Schra- S. zu 87 Vs. 3. URU×BAD: Lies URU×TIL, s. zu 6 Vs. 6. kamp, AoF 37 (2011) 247. Von dort stammen könnten auch M. Maiocchi ist für eine gelungene Textedition zu danken, CUSAS 17, 4–5 und das Urukagina-Fragment F. Vukosavovic, RA 102 (2008) 5–7 = CUSAS 11, 352; A. Westenholz, Fs. B. R. Fos- die das Quellenmaterial insbesondere zum sarg. Adab ter (2010) 458 hält für diese Inschrift auch eine andere Herkunft für wesentlich erweitert und dank der nützlichen Einführung, der guten Kopien, der ausführlichen Indizes und der Zeichenliste möglich. Rs. 2: Lies ka-ku3, s. 23 Rs. 2. Rs. 6: Nach Foto ur-LUM- ma. Rs. 8: VLIU auf dem Foto nicht erkennbar. leicht zugänglich macht. 202 Vs. 2–3: Falls sumerisch, ist statt Vka-kaU Venim-du11U als Kurzform zu enim-du11-du11-ga-ni-an-dab5 und a-da-gal als Kurz- Freie Universität Berlin, Januar 2012 Ingo SCHRAKAMP form zu a-da-gal-di zu lesen, s. B. Jagersma, AfO 42/43 (1995/96) 223 und s. 30 Rs. 8. * 203 Rs. 6 Komm.: Wohl nicht zu ges-rin2 – dab5, s. P. Notizia/I. * * Schrakamp, AoF 37 (2010) 247. 204 enthält auf Vs. und Rs. Multiplikationstabellen mit dem Ein- bis Siebenfachen von 7 und dem Ein- bis Zweifachen einer anderen BARJAMOVIC, G. — A Historical Geography of Anatolia Zahl ohne Ergebnisse und ist nach der unregelmäßigen Form, dem in the Old Assyrian Colony Period. (CNI Publications, einfachen Duktus und der beidseitig nur teilweise angebrachten vol. 38). Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhagen, Beschriftung als Übung zu deuten. Rs. 5 nennt wohl den Schreiber. 2011. (30 cm, XVIII, 519, loose map). ISBN 978-87- 205 Rs. 4: Zu LU2.SEM×NIG2 s. 73 Vs. 2. 635-3645-5. ISSN 0902-5499. / 134,-. 206 Rs. 3’: Zu bu-zu-zu (S. xxi „doubtful etymology“) s. A. Catagnoti, Subartu 4/2 (1998) 45. In the last years the historical geography of Bronze Age 207 passim: Lies imgaga3, s. 106 Vs. i 2. Rs. i 10’: Lies NU- Anatolia has attracted more and more interest from scholars banda3, s. 10 Vs. 2. working in the field of both Old Assyrian and Hittite studies. 208 ist unter http://test.cuneiform.library.cornell.edu/sites/ The volume under review is a substantial achievement and default/files/49-13-101.jpg mit einem Fragment mit den Zeilenan- the first work of this type and size, offering an exhaustive tu9 tu9 fängen gejoint, lies Vs. 1 1 nig2-lam sig, Vs. 3 3 bar-dul5, Vs. tu9 treatment of the geographical aspects of the huge Old Assyr- 4 2 tu9-su. passim: Lies . Rs. 2 Komm.: Zu tu-di3-da s. H. Klein, kus ian corpus, where documents, published or still unpublished, ZA 73 (1983) 255–284. Rs. 9: Lies ku3-babbar. Rs. 11: Lies . 209 summiert unterschiedliche Wollmengen für gurus, geme and field archaeological research as well are systematically 2 exploited. The author is a pupil of the Danish Assyriologist und dumu. Rs. 2 ist nach Foto 3 oder 3 geme2 zu lesen, so daß sich die Summe von 26 Minen aus 2×6 Minen pro gurus + 3×4 Minen Mogens Trolle Larsen and a member of the international pro geme2 + 1×2 Minen pro dumu herleiten läßt; s. R. K. Englund, team of OATP (Old Assyrian Text Project) and his research BBVO 10 (1990) 104 für einen präsarg. Vergleichstext. has been subsidised by the Carlsberg Foundation. The prep- 210 Vs. 4’: Lies tab-si-ga, s. 163 Vs. 1. Vs. 7: Deutung unsi- aration took him seven years including a total 12 months of cher, PN? fieldwork in Turkey. Throughout the book he makes also use tu9 tu9 tu9 211–212 passim: Lies sa3-ge-dab5, bar-dul5, nig2-lam2, of the Hittite evidence concerning the places he studies. azlag7-gal. Hence, his work must be considered as a complete and 213 Vs. 2: lu2-lil(LAK94)-la ist PN, s. J. Krecher, ZA 63 (1974) 232; ZA 77 (1987) 20 Anm. 43; P. Steinkeller, Fs. W. W. Hallo updated reference book for the geographical aspects of Old (1993) 240. Assyrian studies and, at the same time, as a research in pro- ki gress, with the aim at reconstructing the map of the areas 214 Vs. 4: S. 34 Vs. 3. Rs. 3–5: Unklar, lies e2-duru5-ensi2 . 215 Vs. 1: Nach Foto 12 siki gun2. Vs. 2: LA2 nicht kopiert. travelled by Old Assyrian merchants, offering a discussion on each topic and presenting new original assumptions. Die folgenden Bemerkungen zur Zeichenliste beschränken The first three chapters act as an introduction as they give sich auf Identifikationen von Zeichen und Adab-typische basic information on history and character of Old Assyrian

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 274274 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 291 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — ASSYRIOLOGIE 292

trade in Anatolia, exchanged products, and agreements with for our purpose only if we were able to reach a detailed local authorities. The history of the research (starting more chronological reconstruction of the activity of the merchants than one century ago) is also taken into account and is fol- involved, but even in this case we could only be able to make lowed by a vivid description of the physical geography, land- assumptions. Only a small percentage of the texts allow us scapes, and natural trade-routes produced by the configura- to establish possible geographical connections between two tion of the terrain. Some explanations about Old Assyrian or more towns; but the best ones are the memoranda, i.e. lists writing, its transliteration, and the normalization used for of expenses drawn up by a merchant at the end of a journey: rendering place names would have been welcomed by schol- since entries are connected with towns or stages of a journey ars not acquainted with this branch of the research (e.g.: why they could yield a geographical sequence, but we are allowed PurusÌaddum instead of BurusÌattum?). In order to avoid to take it as an itinerary only if we are sure that the memo- further confusion I will follow here the normalisation of randum has been compiled in a chronological order, that the ancient names chosen by the author. places it mentions correspond to daily stops, and also that the One of the Topics discussed in the first section (p. 8-9) is pathway chosen by the merchant was following the shorter the presence, together with the Assyrians, of merchants com- line between two places or a complex circuit including ing from other regions (Eblaites or Akkadians): it seems that detours. A memorandum containing only expenses registered they tried to exclude each other from Anatolian areas where “in” different localities (ina list) is hard to use as an itiner- they had a sort of monopoly and that explains why so many ary, unless one has further pieces of evidence confirming it. important places in southern Anatolia never occur in Old But there are memorandums connecting the expenses not to Assyrian documents. But, in spite of what the author states, single places but to consecutive stages of the travel, where the presence in the karum of Kanes of other groups of mer- each stage is defined “from” a place to “another” one (istu- chants, although they must have been a minority, is not unat- adi lists) and the end of a stage is the beginning of the next tested: cf. K. Hecker, “Zur Herkunft der hethitischen Keils- one; only this kind of memorandum among Old Assyrian chrift”, Richard F.S. Starr Memorial Volume, SCCNH 8, documents can be safely used to establish roughly a true itin- 1996, 291-303, and now C. Michel, “Deux textes atypiques erary and can match Hittite evidence, such as military or découverts à Kültepe”, JCS 62, 2010, 73-82. With regard to festival itineraries and religious inventories recorded by trav- a possible estimation of total quantities of products traded elling surveyors or classified according to provincial divi- per year by the community of the merchants, the author sions. stresses the fact that the documents currently available are In chapter 4 Barjamovich studies the main towns in the less than half of the total corpus kept in museums and col- Anatolian region east of Kanes, placed on the routes coming lections and that the great majority of them date back to the from Assur and northern Mesopotamia through the Euphrates years 1889-1859 BC (according to the Middle Chronology crossings. In this area Hittite evidence is scanty and we must and to the published eponym lists), a time span to be com- mainly rely on Old Assyrian sources, with some help from pared to the total length of the karum period (almost 250 Mari documents dating back to the beginning of the 18th cen- years). He then studies the infrastructure of trade, such as tury (the early Ib period of Kültepe). But, since that was bridges or river crossings, guard posts on the roads and the mainly a transit area for reaching central Anatolia from logistic, animals or chariots, inns and guides, summarized northern Mesopotamia, we may infer that each crossing point through useful tables containing references to textual evi- on the Euphrates was preferably connected with one of the dence. In the discussion about the “perils of trade” he pro- possible alternative routes; hence the possibility to rely, poses for the word sikkatum the meaning “war” producing more than for central Anatolia, on the statistical tables and several passages that may favour his assumption. bar graphs proposed by the author. This is the case of The two core chapters of the book are divided in para- ÎaÌÌum, frequently associated with Timelkiya but not with graphs, each of them devoted to one among the towns occur- Tegarama (Hitt. Tegaramma) or Îaqa (probably Hitt. Îakka), ring in the corpus and the chapters are organized according and of Zalpa, largely mentioned together with Timelkiya but to two principal geographic areas: in chapter 4 the settle- also with Tegarama and even more with Îaqa. The rich evi- ments lying on the routes connecting upper Mesopotamia dence about ÎaÌÌum produced by the author shows that its with Kanes, thus belonging to the eastern area, in chapter 5 territory was bordering on those of Timelkiya and Badna, the settlements located north and west of Kanes. Each para- that the Euphrates crossing near ÎaÌÌum was at Îabnuk or graph devoted to a single settlement contains a list of other Îirasta (p.110 n.315) and that a revolt took place in ÎaÌÌum towns occurring together with it in the documents, the num- overthrowing its king, who was probably replaced by an oli- ber of times they appear together and a reference to the texts garchic government, perhaps the same who made a treaty where they are mentioned. The statistical results are also with the Assyrians (p. 106). As far as Old Assyrian Zalpa is shown by means of a bar graph diagram; follows a discus- concerned, Barjamovic (p. 107-109) correctly dissociates sion on the textual passages bearing information about geo- among this Zalpa near the Euphrates, Zalp(uw)a on the Black graphical connections and locations (with a translation in the Sea, ZalpaÌ in the BaliÌ valley and Zalb/war east of the text, and a transliteration in the notes), at the end of which Amanus range; it is worthwhile to note that N.Marchetti Hittite evidence is also displayed to achieve a proposal about (Kinku. Sigilli dell’età del bronzo dalla regione di Gaziantep the position of the settlement on the map and a possible iden- in Turchia, Bologna 2011, 23), who directed the last excava- tification with an archaeological site. tions of Tilmen Höyük, inclines now to agree with me (my At this point I think it is suitable to make a digression on proposal goes back to: “Remarques géographiques sur les the value of Old Assyrian documents for the geographical texes cappadociens”, Hethitica 6, 1985, 55) in identifying research, a value to be checked each time. Many texts men- this important archaeological site with Zalbar. The author tion only one place name or more than one, but without intel- does not devote a separate paragraph to Abrum, but he writes ligible geographical connections; such texts could be used about it in the paragraph of Zalpa and accepts the possibility

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 275275 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 293 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXIX N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2012 294

that this settlement was located on the Euphrates crossing should reflect the common (and controlled) route from north- near Zalpa (n. 315), whereas he places Îaqa on the eastern ern Mesopotamia towards Kanis after the Antitaurus’ cross- side of this crossing near the mountains on the base of Kt g/k ing. Besides, if a merchant, reaching Anatolia, wanted to take 220 (111, n. 322); I would not be so sure that this text can the Narrow Track towards the north, he could do it from prove this assumption, since it mentions travel expenses in Timelkiya or Îurama but had to avoid reaching SalaÌsua (cf. the following order, that seems to be only partially a geo- Kt 93/k 694, p. 176 n. 614, and Kt 91/k 416, p. 171 n. 592). graphical one: from Assur to Apum, from Apum to Îaqa, Among the settlements located in the area of Kanis some from Îaqa to Tegarama, in the City (Assur), in the mountain new names are suggested by Barjamovic (p.234-235). One of Îaqa, on the Euphrates crossing. of them, Tubezi, deserves our attention, since we know from In the section concerning Tegarama, the author remarks a letter of Ma≥at (HKM 96) a land of Tupazziya connected that this station is associated with several toponyms that are with the Upper Land, likely the same mentioned in the elsewhere unknown (cf. p.122), he probably refers to place Annals of Suppiluliuma (KUB 19. 18 I 11’,14’; names such as Apaludana, Banisra, Kakaruwa, Sukuli, H.G.Güterbock, Fragm. 15, JCS 10, 1956, 75-77) in the con- Samisuna, Talpa, Ziluna, and Zukua, that appear in the sta- text of a campaign in the direction of Tuwanuwa (Class. tistical table (p. 123); two of them are known in the Hittite Tyana), probably starting from central Cappadocia. texts, Talpa as a town in the land of Tegaramma (cf. p.128) In chapter 5, as we have seen above, both northern and and Ziluna, a place where Mursili II learned of an Egyptian western Anatolian towns are handled. It starts with DurÌumit defeat while he was also deciding whether to fight against and ends up with PurusÌaddum, and the discussion on vari- Tipiya in the north-east (Complete Annals, 7th year); hence ous topics all through the chapter is aimed at demonstrating the possibility that Ziluna was on the king’s way to Tipiya the new original proposals of the author about the locations and not far from Tegaramma. Among the other place names, of these centres, that he places at the northern and western Samisuna has of course nothing to do with the western Hit- ends of the area respectively: DurÌumit in northern Îatti tite village of Samissana in Îarziuna (CTH 225, KUB 26. 43 (near today Merzifon or Amasya) and PurusÌaddum at the Obv. 22; KUB 26. 50 Obv. 14’), but might be compared to western border of the Hittite empire towards later Arzawa, Classical Semissos in Melitene (Ptol. Geogr. V 6. 21). near today Bolvadın. Of these assumptions the latter seems A discussion about the “narrow track” (p. 149 ff.) is to be really a new one, the former instead goes rather back placed after the paragraph devoted to Timelkiya, the last sta- to the previous proposals, made before the publication of tion before entering central Anatolia. The author refers to the KUB 48. 105. specific study by K.R.Veenhof, Aspects of Old Assyrian I would like to summarize here the reassessment of this Trade and its Terminology, Leiden 1972, 322-336, who con- problem I have recently presented (“The historical geogra- cluded (p. 335) that the “Ìarran suqinnim is not the name of phy of Anatolia and the transition from the karum-period one and the same smuggler’s road, but is a term generally anto the Early Hittite Empire”, Anatolia and the Jazira Dur- used for any type of “less easily passable, fairly uncommon ing the Old Assyrian Period, J.G.Dercksen Ed., Leiden 2008, by-road…”, and explains that the new localisation he sug- 59-74; “On the middle Kızılırmak, II”, Studia Asiana 5, gests for DurÌumit (Hitt. Turmitta) in north-eastern Anatolia Roma 2009, 49 f.), first focusing on the problem of DurÌu- requires a new interpretation of the texts; but of course mit/Turmitta. The localisations of PurusÌaddum/PurusÌanda Veenhof, was writing without being influenced by the local- and DurÌumit/Turmitta are mainly based on the combination ization of Turmitta on the middle Halys that I have proposed of two primary sources: the Old Assyrian itinerary of TC 3. only in 1979; when he was writing about the Narrow Track, 165 (a perfectly consecutive istu-adi memorandum, giving Turmitta was generally supposed to lay in the north, near the sequence: Kanis-WasÌaniya-Ninassa-Ulama-PurusÌad- modern Merzifon, or between Zile and Sivas (cf. del Monte, dum, cf. p. 318, n. 1313) and the late Hittite tablet KUB 48. RGTC 6, 1978, 443), a position similar to that proposed here 105+ KBo 12. 53, containing in the preserved lines the cult by Barjamovic, and in fact he noted (o.c., 334): “..DurÌu- inventories of the provinces WasÌaniya, Turmitta, Kassiya mid, the main commercial centre in the north…”. and Tapigga. The position on the same road and in a con- Îur(ra)ma and Sal(l)aÌsuwa are mentioned together both secutive order of Kanis, WasÌania and Ninassa is confirmed in Old Assyrian and in Hittite texts and must have shared the by other Old Assyrian documents, whereas the second and same area east of Kanis. At p. 190 the problem of the loca- third towns of the province Turmitta mentioned in the Hittite tion of Îurama and SalaÌsuwa and their distance from Kanes inventory are Nenassa and Uwalma (Ulama). I have also is discussed. In fact I have argued in favour of a closer asso- remarked that Mallitaskuriya, the sixth town of the province ciation of SalaÌsuwa to Kanes on the base of Kt g/t 42+ and Turmitta in the inventory, was in the time of Arnuwanda I I do not understand why Hittite documents such as the (beginning of the XIVth century BC) included in the prov- Annals of Îattusili I (CTH 4) would invalidate this argu- ince Kassiya, hence the possibility that the first three prov- ment, since it is clear that the rebellions of Nenassa, Ulma inces of the inventory were mentioned in a geographical (Akk. Ullumma), SallaÌsuwa, and SanaÌÌuitta (Akk. San- order (they all also share the gifts sent by the king of aÌut) were only episodes of a general upheaval of inner Tumanna), whereas Tapikka was not connected with them adversaries of the king (who says that “only Îattusa remained (no mention here of the king of Tumanna). Besides, the cult loyal”) helped by Hurrian mercenaries, and that these towns of the river Marassanda (Halys) in the Hittite period is belonged to the Hittite heartland. A similar situation occurs attested both in Nenassa and in Turmitta, and the cult of in the Annals CTH 13, where instead Îurrama is attacked by the Kanisite deity Pirwa is attested in our inventory in the Îurrian army. I also think that ATHE 62 (cf. p. 172 n. three towns of the province of Turmitta at least. A part of 599) confirms this general arrangement, since we read that this province was occupied by Kaska tribesmen, who, in the princess of Kanes had sent messengers to LuÌuzattiya, different times, raided Îattian territories as far as Nenassa Îurama, SalaÌsuwa, and “her own country”: this sequence during the reign of TutÌaliya II (formerly III), Tapapanuwa

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 276276 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 295 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — ASSYRIOLOGIE 296

during the reign of Mursili II, TuÌpiya, Ippasana and Suwat- the karu of DurÌumit, Îattus, Tamniya, TuÌpiya “as far as ara in the time of Muwattalli II; the mention of Nenassa in Ninassa”) to understand that Turmitta was not included in this context fits what we have seen above, Tapapanuwa was the area of the northern centres, but was a trade market located to the west of the Halys/Marassanda, whereas we located in central-western Îatti, connected with them and might compare, at least as a toponym, Suwatara with Classi- acting as an outlet towards the west. cal Soatra in Lycaonia. In addition to the cult of Pirwa, pre- To prove his assumption, Barjamovic was compelled to sent in her province, a ritual written by Zuwi, a woman com- destroy arguments favouring a location of Turmitta on the ing from Turmitta, shows a Luwian rather than a Îattian middle Halys summarized above (he does it on p. 248-255). typology, whereas Mallidunna, another woman from Tur- He affirms that the towns of Nenassa and Uwalma of the mitta, authoress of a ritual as well, bore a Luwian name (cf. province Turmitta should not be confused with the towns of Hutter, “Aspects of Luwian Religion”, Chapter VI of The the itinerary TC 3. 165, but that both are a case of homon- Luwians, C.Melchert Ed., 249). The location of Turmitta we ymy (p. 249-250), and also that the Mallitaskuriya of Tur- can infer from all these sources is on the middle Halys, north mitta must be dissociated from the Mallitaskuriya of Kassiya of the Salt Lake (Tuz Gölü), a position between Îatti, to the (p. 254 n. 966); according to him the frequent mentions of east, and the western Hittite territories (Kassiya and Îarziuna DurÌumit together with western towns should not prove that for instance), hence the possibility to identify it with the they were in the same area but only that products from the important Hittite site of Büklükale. The Old Assyrian texts northern DurÌumit were sent preferably to western towns. show that Turmitta was connected on the one hand with the The objections that there is no place for Turmitta in the itin- western circuit of the merchants (PurusÌaddum, WaÌsusana eraries of the Hittite expeditions toward the north (notably and Salatuwar) and on the other hand with central and north- toward Nerik, cf. now also: Forlanini, “La région autour de ern Îatti (TuÌpiya, Tamniya/Tawiniya, Kuburnat, Îanaknak), Nerik selon les sources Hittites”, SMEA 52, 2011, 119-135) hence the inference that Turmitta was the main market of the and that the town is not mentioned in the texts from Ma≥at Hattian metallurgical products to be traded toward the west; and Ortaköy, are rejected on the ground of the particular the statistical table and the bar graph given by Barjamovic scope of the archives of Ma≥at and Ortaköy, or because it (p. 243-244) are revealing: Turmitta is mentioned roughly 80 “depends on where one locates Nerik”. Of course one can times together with towns of the western circuit, 47 times remark at this point that we would not expect to find sanctu- with northern and central Îattian towns, and 34 with towns aries of Pirwa, or women performing Luwian rituals, in the east of Kanis. Several old Assyrian texts (like Kt 91/k 424) north and that the historical geography in this region is far suggest that Turmitta was anyway included in the western better known, because of sure (Tapikka at Ma≥at, and Sap- circuit inuwa at Ortaköy) and almost sure localizations (Ankuwa at The strong belief of Barjamovic in a northern location of Ali≥ar, and SamuÌa at Kayalıpınar, but also Nerik at Oymaa- DurÌumit has likely originated from his interpretation of the gaç, nearly confirmed by the recent findings) and because of Old Assyrian memorandum (ina type) Kt 91/k 437 as a true a much higher number of towns and villages mentioned in itinerary, and from the identification of Tapakkas with Hittite Hittite texts in connection with this area than with any other Tapikka. Veenhof, the editor of this text (“Travelling in part of Anatolia (a northern Nenassa or a northern Uwalma Ancient Anatolia: Two New Sources from Karum Kanesh”, never occur in the texts). At the end, I believe that the Old in Studies in Honour of Hayat Erkanal, Istanbul 2006, 778- Assyrian evidence produced here, when taken cautiously, 783), was more cautious (since the final destination of the cannot be used against the Hittite evidence, favouring a loca- caravan seems to have been WaÌsusana) and I think we have tion of DurÌumit/Turmitta on the middle Halys. To confirm not to force the interpretation of such a document (cf. my the identification proposed by me of DurÌumit with article “New Evidence and Recent Suggestions on the Ana- Büklükale on the Halys’ crossing of an important ancient tolian Geography in the Old Assyrian Period”, in DUB.SAR road, we must wait for the results of K. Matsumura’s excava- É.DUB.BA.A Studies Presented in Honour of Veysel Don- tions, but we can presently realize, according to the report baz, Istanbul 2010, 139-140). Other pieces of evidence pro- presented by him at the 8th International Congress of Hittitol- duced by the author (Kt 93/k 694, Kt 91/k 416, Kt 94/k 441) ogy in Warsaw (September 2011, cf. also his article in KST show that merchants were frequently travelling from Kubur- 32/4, 2011, 411-420), that this large fortified city of the nat (Hittite Kappurnanda, probably in northern Îatti) to empire period cannot be WaÌsusana (as cautiously proposed DurÌumit, but the two towns were not necessarily in the by Barjamovic, p. 389, 400-401), capital of a kingdom and same region; AKT 6. 150 shows that one could reach through one of the main trade centres during the karum II period that, the Narrow Track either DurÌumit or Tismurna (l. 27-32, being destroyed at its end (p. 349), lost later its importance p.257 n. 979). But, before inferring that the two towns were and almost disappeared from Hittite history. On the other located in the same area, one should read in the same docu- hand, the identification of Büklükale with Turmitta would be ment (l. 21-22, cf. Larsen’s edition) “You will bring the possible only if traces of an Old Assyrian karum will be kutanus up to either Îattum or BurusÌaddum”, where Îat- found somewhere under the Hittite layers. tum and BurusÌaddum were of course in opposite directions. I agree with the conclusions drawn in the book about a One may then add that the identification of the copper centre position of SinaÌuttum west of the Çekerek /Zuliya (p. 291), of Tism/purna with Hittite Zisparna (p. 279) is a pure guess, since, as I have shown (“The Central Provinces of Hatti: an since the latter occurs surely only once in the Hittite corpus, Updating”, Eothen 16, 2008, 156-7), the town has been men- in the list of KBo 4. 13 and could be everywhere inside Îatti. tioned in the description of the withdrawal of the prince At the end it is sufficient to compare the two documents of TutÌaliya (the future TutÌaliya IV) across the Zuliya under Kuliya’s archive, AKT 5.3 (the circular letter of Karum the pressure of Kaskean enemies; the town was then not far Kanes to the wabaratum of Kuburnat, Îanaknak and Tis- from the left bank of the river, on which probably the village murna) and AKT 5. 2 (the circular letter of Karum Kanes to of Surista was situated. SinaÌuttum, together with Amkuwa

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 277277 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 297 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXIX N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2012 298

and Kapitra (Hitt. Kapittara) rebelled against Îattus with the also the distance between Ulama and PurusÌaddum should help of Kanes (cf. here p. 294), so it is possible that later on not have considerably exceeded the distance between the it belonged to the Hittite Upper Country (p. 290); the border preceding stations (cf. for instance also KTS 2. 40, here p. between Îatti proper and the Upper Country should have 335, n. 1398, referring to an oath between the two cities). In been somewhere on the middle Zuliya, perhaps where the the reconstruction proposed by the author the first three linguistic watershed between an Anatolian dialect (perhaps stages of the itinerary cover a distance of 40 to 100 Km each, Nesite) and Îattian is witnessed by the toponymy, with place whereas the last stage would have reached a length of 250 names of Anatolian type like Suppiluliya and Sulupassi Km. This apparent oddity can be explained, according to the upstream, and of Îattian type, like Taptakka or Sapinuwa, author, because “‘itineraries’ between Kanis and PurusÌad- downstream. In the paragraph devoted to Tamniya/Tawiniya dum ‘telescope’ the entire journey” (p. 360) or because it is interesting to remark that ATHE 63 (p. 298, n.1198), if “there are a lot of other uncertainties in using memoranda one renounces to connect the verb erubunim with Kanis, for determining the distance between two cities” (p.362). But could witness a traverse road from Îurama past Tawiniya such arguments may be produced against his reconstruction towards WaÌsusana, bypassing Kanis and perhaps used as a of Turmitta’s location as well. In KUB 17. 19, a Hittite cult Narrow Track. The proximity of Tawiniya (located south or inventory text, two paragraphs are preserved, the first one west of Îattus) to Tismurna (p. 303) would perfectly fit the includes ParsuÌunta and PaÌÌatima, whereas the second one localisation of TurÌumit on the middle Halys. As for TuÌpia, pertains to the province of Ussa, including towns such as its position between WaÌsusana and TurÌumit can be claimed Lânda and Lusna; we may infer that PaÌÌatima belonged to only if we read (with the author, 344 n. 1432) TuÌx-pì-a for the same province where was located ParsuÌunta (Par- the place name TUR4-pì-a in Kt 91/k 424: 21; I do not know suÌanda/PurusÌanda/PurusÌaddum), but PaÌtima appears whether this reading is justified and prefer to place this town together with Mallitaskuriya in a paragraph of the gods list south of Îattusa (cf. also Studia Asiana 5, p. 45 n.37). of Muwattalli’s II Prayer. A province including PurusÌanda At the end of this chapter, after the treatment of the evi- (if Acem Höyük), the western coast of the Salt Lake, and the dence referring to Ulama, WaÌsusana and Salatuwar, the town of PaÌ(Ìa)tima, could border on the province Turmitta author approaches the problem of the localization of that included the area north of the Salt Lake (with Malli- PurusÌaddum with a new proposal, that considerably modi- taskuriya and Pittaniassa/Pitnissos) and east of it, with fies the hitherto accepted reconstruction: he proposes to Uwalma/Ulama on the road towards PurusÌaddum. A loca- place it near modern Bolvadın, in an area generally consid- tion of the city in the area south of the Salt Lake seems to be ered close to the border of Arzawa in the Hittite period. This preferable and a settlement like Acem Höyük has a certain position does not fit Hittite evidence: PurusÌanda is men- degree of probability; a possible survival of the toponym in tioned in Telepinu’s Proclamation (CTH 19) together with a the Iron Age as Parzuta has been proposed (cf. now M. group of towns conquered by Labarna and belonging, as far Weeden, “Tuwati and Wasusarma. Imitating the behaviour as we know, to the area between the Halys (Nenassa), the of Assyria”, Iraq 72, 2010, 55-58; who looks for a town not northern slopes of the Cilician Taurus (Tuwanuwa and far from Wasusarma’s sphere of hegemony, hence in the area Îupisna) and the region of Konya (Lusna). We understand of Aksaray, but does not accept its identity with PurusÌanda, that the Hittite Lower Land seems to be formed at least by only because of Barjamovic’s proposal to place the latter ParsuÌanda, Ussa (near Konya) and the river Îulaya (today near Bolvadın), whereas the possibility that the name of the the Çar≥amba); even the legend, probably created in Anato- Eber Gölü (mentioned by Idrisi, Busuranda) comes from lia, of Sargon and the king of PurusÌanda implies that the PurusÌanda (p. 408) must be rejected, since the former is, as latter was controlling the Taurus passes. The fact that the it frequently happens in that text, an Arabized and corrupted Hittite towns of later Lycaonia and southern Cappadocia, form of the Byzantine name of the lake, Tessarakonta Mar- such as Tuwanuwa, Îupisna and Lusna, are never mentioned tyron Limne, with the meaning “Lake of the Forty Martyrs” in Old Assyrian texts (see here p. 236, 361), points to an area (in Idrisi “Forty Fathers”, from late Greek form saranda = forbidden to the Assyrians “beyond PurusÌaddum” and not forty; cf. K.Belke and N.Mersich, Phrygien und Pisidien, “on the way” to her. Why then the new proposal? This is Tabula Imperii Byzantini 7, Wien 1990, 402). due to the location of WaÌsusana on the middle Kızılırmak Chapter 5 ends with a long and rich description of the proposed by the author, and to the mention of two alternative region, including a lot of images of ancient sites and land- roads connecting PurusÌaddum with WaÌsusana, the first scapes. Chapter 6 (“Beyond geography”) contains very use- passing through Salatuwar (correctly placed by Barjamovic ful considerations about the necessity to better understand to the west of the Sangarius), the second through Ulama, the conditions and characteristics of trade journeys, for since the first would imply too long a detour, if the destina- instance the connections between trade routes and products, tion was near modern Aksaray. Instead, if we start from a and to recognize that present research depends on the position of WaÌsusana near Ankara and take into account the archives known so far, since each Assyrian firm had his own wars in the west, notably the war between WaÌsusana and preferred trade network and geographical horizon. The work PurusÌattum, mentioned in the texts (cf. p.349), the problem closes with a complete and updated bibliography and specific disappears and we can place the latter in the area east of indices (Old Assyrian and Hittite texts, glossary, individuals, Konya, where Acem Höyük remains the best candidate divinities, Bronze Age toponyms, classical and modern topo- because of its size and the findings, showing the presence of nyms, topics) that will considerably help scholars. merchants coming from the Euphrates area, Mari and To summarize, the book of G. Barjamovic must be con- Karkamis, together with Assyrians. The “true itinerary” of sidered as an indispensable tool for scholars working on geo- TCL 3. 165, must be taken seriously, there are not a few Old graphical and historical problems of second millennium Ana- Assyrian documents witnessing that each station of this itin- tolia and notably for Hittitologists, who need to be informed erary was connected with the previous and the next ones and about the results of the research on the Old Assyrian corpus.

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 278278 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 299 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — ASSYRIOLOGIE 300

The updated and rich evidence he offers here anyway, must ou l’inscription cunéiforme; fait-elle partie d’une archive; be critically used and the reconstruction of the road network quel est son apport sur notre vision historique ou sociolo- and the positions on the map of ancient towns he presents gique de l’Assyrie? Certains exposés commencent par rap- cannot be accepted as ultimate truth. peler des éléments essentiels à la compréhension du sujet. Plusieurs auteurs exposent clairement l’aspect progressif de Milano M. FORLANINI la recherche, en partant de l’historique de la trouvaille par Walter Andrae, en exposant les aléas de conservation des * pièces et des notes de chantier, pour passer ensuite aux élé- * * ments nouveaux issus de ce nouveau regard (ou parfois de ce premier regard) posé sur un matériel trouvé il y a presque MAUL, S.M., und N.P. HEEßEL (Hrsg.) — Assur-For- cent ans. La plupart des articles sont illustrés par d’excel- schungen. Arbeiten aus der Forschungsstelle “Edition lentes photographies en noir et blanc, ainsi que par diffé- literarischer Keilschrifttexte aus Assur” der Heidelber- rentes cartes et dessins. En fin de volume sont proposés ger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Verlag Otto Harras- plusieurs index: thématique (principalement des noms sowitz, Wiesbaden, 2010. (24,5 cm, VIII, 254). ISBN propres), numéros de musée (tablettes et objets) et réfé- 978-3-447-06298-5. / 28,-. rences aux textes cités. Le premier article, de Jürgen Bär ( Depuis les débuts du projet d’édition des textes littéraires Eine frühdynastische , p. 1-33), étudie le cas d’une de la capitale assyrienne Assur, financé par la Bildhauerwerkstatt in Assur Heidelberger statuette en albâtre, très abimée et trouvée en février 1910. depuis 2004, plusieurs volumes Akademie der Wissenschaften Celle-ci frappe son découvreur W. Andrae par sa ressem- de textes ont été publié dans la série «KAL» ou Keils- blance avec les statuettes du sud mésopotamien (de Girsu : textes divina- chrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts et d’Adab notamment). Entre 1910 et 1913, le temple dit toires1), textes pour lutter contre la sorcellerie et l’envoûte- «archaïque» d’Ishtar est dégagé et permet d’affiner la stra- ment2), textes historiques (ou historico-littéraires)3), prières et tigraphie: cette statuette, et d’autres similaires, sont les pre- rituels4) ainsi que rituels exorcistiques5). Ce projet d’enver- mières statuettes prédynastiques (2e moitié du 3e millé- gure concernant l’édition des textes cunéiformes littéraires naire), ce qui amène W. Andrae à parler de «plastique mis au jour à Assur par les fouilles allemandes entre 1903 et sumérienne». Il considère que les fragments de la statuette 1914, ainsi que lors des nouvelles campagnes irakiennes d’albâtre sont les restes d’un orant assis, avec les caracté- (1999 et 2000) et allemandes coordonnées par P.A. Miglus ristiques typiques de cette statuaire (mèches de cheveux (2000 et 2001), soit plusieurs milliers de textes et fragments, jointives à l’arrière de la tête, vêtement épais et drapé sur s’est appuyé sur l’énorme travail d’identification des archives le bras gauche), comme on en trouve dans la Diyala ou à effectué par O. Pedersén dans les années 19806) mais égale- Mari. Une nouvelle étude des fragments a permis non seu- ment sur la digitalisation des photographies et la création lement de trouver de nouveaux fragments jointifs, ce qui d’une banque de données, permettant de trouver plus facile- permet à présent de reconstituer un orant debout et non ment les fragments jointifs. Toutefois, ces éditions ne consti- assis, mais aussi de constater que la statuette avait été bri- tuent qu’un premier pas dans l’exploitation des informations sée, réparée et améliorée dans l’Antiquité. J. Bär spécule livrées par ces textes littéraires et rituels et comme le signalent ensuite sur le lieu de production de ce type de statuettes, les éditeurs de ce volume, la série KAL ne laissait que peu de habituellement issues d’ateliers «fournisseurs officiels» du place pour des études ponctuelles et des notes plus dévelop- temple et de ceux qui le fréquentent. Aucune de ces pées que les éditeurs des différents corpus accumulaient lors échoppes n’a été identifiée pour l’instant à Assur dans le de leur travail éditorial. C’est de ce constat qu’est née l’idée complexe du temple. L’article se termine par une descrip- de rassembler ces notes, conférences et recherches annexes tion détaillée de chaque fragment (numéro de fouille, infor- dans ce volume baptisé . Assur Forschungen mations muséologiques, taille, commentaires) et par plu- Le volume contient des contributions archéologiques, his- sieurs clichés. toriques et philologiques mais la caractéristique de la plupart La contribution de Jeanette C. Fincke ( de ces sept articles est de ne pas se cantonner à l’une de ces Astrologische , trois catégories, illustrant ainsi parfaitement la dynamique Omenreporte aus Assur:Mondfinsternisse im Monat nisannu p. 35-63) nous plonge dans le monde des rapports astrolo- créée par ce projet de recherche sur les textes d’Assur: au- giques envoyés régulièrement par les spécialistes au roi, delà de son message écrit, quel est le contexte de la tablette lorsque des phénomènes notoires étaient observés dans le ciel de jour comme de nuit. Ces rapports décrivaient au souverain 1) Deux volumes abordent cette thématique, tous deux de N.P. Heeßel: tout phénomène observé dans le ciel de nuit, tout autre signe Divinatorische Texte I. Terrestrische, teratologische, physiognomische und de nature météorologique ou terrestre, ou encore une nais- oneiromantische Omina, KAL 1, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft (WVDOG) 116, Wiesbaden 2007 et Divi- sance anormale, accompagné de l’interprétation établie sur natorische Texte II: Opferschau-Omina, KAL 5, en préparation. base de la littérature divinatoire (séries de présages cano- 2) D. Schwemer, Rituale und Beschwörungen gegen Schadenzauber, niques ou non, et tradition orale). Jusqu’à récemment, de tels KAL 2, WVDOG 117, Wiesbaden 2007. rapports étaient attestés à Nimrud, Khorsabad et Ninive, mais 3) E. Frahm, Historische und historisch-literarische Texte, KAL 3, WVDOG 121, Wiesbaden 2009. pas à Assur. L’auteur en a identifié trois dans le matériel iné- 4) S.M. Maul et R. Strauß, Ritualbeschreibungen und Gebete I. Mit dit, qui concernent des éclipses (deux lunaires et une solaire). Beiträgen von D. Schwemer, KAL 4, WVDOG 133, Wiesbaden 2011. Après une description du matériel étudié (format, thématique, 5) W. Meinhold, Ritualbeschreibungen und Gebete I. KAL 6, en prépa- formulaire, expéditeur, destinataire et datation), vient l’édition ration. 6) O. Pedersén, Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur. A Survey des deux tablettes traitant d’éclipses de lune au mois de of the Material from the German Excavations, Part I, Uppsala, 1985; Part Nisannu, qui, étant le premier mois du calendrier mésopota- II, Uppsala, 1986. mien (mars-avril), revêtait une importance symbolique sur le

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 279279 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 301 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXIX N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2012 302

plan religieux et politique. J. Fincke propose ici copies, trans- translittération et traduction) ainsi qu’un commentaire philo- littération et traduction des deux textes, l’un complet et l’autre logique et historique fouillé: personnages cités, rêves décrits fragmentaire mais daté –ce qui est rare – de la 2e année de dans la lettre à la lumière des manuels d’interprétation des Sennachérib, ainsi qu’un commentaire philologique pour rêves, datation précise de la lettre par rapport à d’autres chaque ligne. documents concernant les troubles de 671-670. Il reprend Claudia Fischer exploite quant à elle du matériel issu de également les éléments prosopographiques connus sur le per- la reprise des fouilles allemandes à Assur (2001) dans son sonnage du nom de Sasî, qui est mentionné dans la lettre, et article sur la glyptique atypique d’un sceau déroulé sur une tente de concilier les deux facettes contradictoires de ce tablette médio-assyrienne7) (Vielgesichtige Götter und gött- personnage (traître et gouverneur apprécié à la cour) par un liche Proportionen, p. 65-87). Cette tablette, qui consigne possible double-jeu de Sasî. une transaction de métaux pour le palais, comporte sur la Retour au monde de la divination avec la thématique déve- tranche le sceau d’un haut fonctionnaire, un eunuque (sa-resî loppée par Nils P. Heeßel (Neues von Esagil-kin-apli. Die en Akkadien). Le sceau est assez remarquable à plusieurs ältere Version der physiognomischen Omenserie alamdimmû, niveaux. Datable de l’époque de Tukulti-Ninurta Ier (1244- p. 139-187), qui explique tout d’abord diverses notions 1208 avant J.-Chr.) sur base iconographique et épigraphique, comme l’anonymat des œuvres littéraires antiques et l’apport le sceau représente une déesse à deux visages, avec un corps des colophons pour notre connaissance de la tradition litté- en frontal et des visages de profil, probablement Istar-Assu- raire et de la transmission du savoir. L’auteur se penche ritu, à côté d’une structure architecturale, composée de 2 ensuite sur le cas particulier du savant babylonien originaire tours crénelées et d’une porte, qui représentent probablement de Borsippa, Esagil-kin-apli, dont les colophons sont extrê- une ville, et autour desquelles évoluent des porteurs d’of- mement détaillés: nom, filiation étendue, fonction, contexte frande. Devant la porte, se trouve un porteur d’offrande (?); de la mise par écrit de la tablette et parfois, mise en garde à l’intérieur de la ville, une procession de 3 personnes sans quant à l’accès restreint à donner au savoir contenu dans le barbe. Parmi ceux-ci, Cl. Fischer identifie celui du milieu texte. Le lettré est surtout célèbre pour sa réorganisation des comme le propriétaire du sceau. Une inscription à 2 lignes, présages liés à l’aspect extérieur et au physique d’une per- très abimée, laisse lire le titre du personnage, à la deuxième sonne ou d’un malade, et du diagnostic qu’il convient de ligne: sa SAG É.G[AL?] «[Sceau de X, administrateur?], poser suite à cet «examen externe». Selon son expression, eunuque du palais [de + lieu?]». L’iconographie de ce sceau les présages physiognomoniques sont rangés «de la tête aux présente des éléments assyriens (coiffe de l’eunuque, divinité pieds». N. Heeßel reprend ici un texte déjà publié dans KAL frontale avec les bras écartés) et babyloniens (deux visages), 1 (sous le numéro 51) pour illustrer la réaction des savants ce qui correspond bien avec l’idéologie de Tukulti-Ninurta, d’Assur, visiblement réfractaires à cette réorganisation, qui très influencé par la tradition culturelle de Nippur. Cl. Fis- continuent à utiliser en parallèle l’ancienne présentation des cher étudie ensuite la grande harmonie dans la forme et la présages. La copie de KAL 1, 51 (l’échelle est manquante) fabrication de ce sceau, inscrites dans une sorte de qua- est présentée ici avec une édition complète et de nombreux drillage qui obéissent à des proportions mathématiques pré- commentaires et parallèles. En appendice, N. Heeßel donne cises (rapport entre le rayon de la base du cylindre et sa une édition des textes médico-diagnostiques d’Assur, au hauteur). Cette partie de l’article manque de parallèles et on nombre de trois seulement. se demande parfois si l’auteur parle de manière générale ou Dans la thématique des savants et du monde médical, de ce sceau en particulier. l’article de Stefan M. Maul (Die Tontafelbibliothek aus dem C’est à une véritable enquête judiciaire et à une analyse sogenannten «Haus des Beschwörungspriesters», p. 189- politique tellement précise qu’elle semble contemporaine, 228) sur la bibliothèque et les archives d’une famille d’exor- que se livre Eckart Frahm (Hochverrat in Assur, p. 89-137) cistes d’Assur, active pendant trois générations sur environ dans son passionnant article sur une tablette inédite de la 60 à 80 ans, nous donne tout d’abord un aperçu détaillé et collection de Yale, qui apporte des éléments décisifs sur une bienvenu sur la découverte des tablettes et objets inscrits, des conspiration fomentée par l’élite d’Assur contre le pouvoir archives et des bibliothèques, et de la destinée tumultueuse basé à Ninive. Sous AssurnaÒirpal II, la capitale assyrienne de ces objets à l’aube de la première guerre mondiale. La se déplace à Nimrud, puis momentanément à Khorsabad sous maison des exorcistes, complètement calcinée, a livré 1242 Sargon II et enfin à Ninive, mais ne reviendra jamais à Assur, tablettes ou fragments. Des restes de diptyques en bois, qui qui reste toutefois un centre politico-religieux important. Le étaient recouverts de cire, ont également été retrouvés. La ressenti de la population et de l’élite d’Assur face à cet bibliothèque possédait un exemplaire du célèbre Manuel de écartement nous est inconnu, à l’exception de quelques l’exorciste, qui reprend la liste des compétences à acquérir et phases de révoltes contre le pouvoir, relativement bien docu- des savoirs à maîtriser pour devenir exorciste. S. Maul décrit mentées. Une lettre conservée à Yale nous donne en détail tous ces aspects et s’intéresse ensuite à l’arbre généalogique l’organisation d’un complot contre un roi assyrien, très cer- de la famille des exorcistes et à la reconstitution de la car- tainement Assarhaddon. Cette lettre, qui doit dater de 671 rière de chacun de ses membres, sur base des colophons mais avant J.-Chr., est l’œuvre d’un certain Nabû-usallim, inconnu aussi des documents administratifs conservés dans la maison. par ailleurs, mais probablement membre des réseaux d’es- La famille a été active jusqu’à la destruction de la ville et les pionnage mis en place par les souverains néo-assyriens. Elle deux plus jeunes membres étaient au service du dernier roi précède la fameuse révolte de 670 dont Assarhaddon fut vic- assyrien Sîn-sarra-iskun (623-612). time. E. Frahm présente ici une édition complète (copie, La contribution la plus archéologique est celle de Peter A. Miglus (Festungswerke von Assur im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., p. 229-243), qui se penche sur les vestiges des fortifications 7) Il s’agit de Ass.2011.D-1500+1515, trouvée dans le bâtiment où une et des murs des quartiers de la ville d’Assur, mis en relation archive administrative avait déjà été mise au jour. avec les inscriptions royales et les annales. Peu de traces

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 280280 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54 303 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — SYRIË 304

subsistent des murs paléo- et médio-assyriens. Pourtant les annales de différents rois assyriens attribuent le premier mur de la ville à Kikia, son fondateur, et se font l’écho, outre leurs réalisations respectives, de celles de certains de leurs prédécesseurs. En croisant les données littéraires, les ins- criptions de clous de fondation et les données archéolo- giques, on constate que l’activité de ces bâtisseurs (un tiers des rois assyriens) s’est concentrée principalement dans quatre zones: le nord, le flanc sud et sud-ouest, non protégé par le fleuve, et la ville nouvelle au sud. L’article propose un tableau exposant les informations des annales royales, mais manque cruellement de cartes: une carte générale du site de l’article précédent nous aide à naviguer dans la topo- graphie d’Assur, mais un zoom sur les quartiers décrits aurait grandement aidé à une lecture plus fluide de cet article qui propose une intéressante approche croisée des données historico-archéologiques.

Oriental Institute, Oxford (01/2012) Cynthia JEAN

995569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd5569_Bior_2012_3-4_03_Boekbesp.indd 281281 117/09/127/09/12 13:5413:54