Tell Leilan-Texts-2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PART I THE LETTERS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Chronological and Archival Context 1.1.1. Précis of Historical Background As outlined by Ristvet and Weiss in their introduction to this volume, recent research on both archaeological and documentary evidence from Tell Leilan and other sites has produced detailed discussions of the identification of the site and its place in the history of Northern Mesopotamia in the late third to early second millennium B.C., so that few remarks on the historical background are needed.1 First, it may be useful to reiterate that the identification of Tell Leilan with ancient fieÓn⁄/ fiubat-Enlil can be considered definitely established. Any possible doubts left by the analyses pre- sented by Charpin (1987a) and Whiting (1990b) are removed by the 1987 evidence.2 On the other hand, the problems concerning the relationship between Apum/m⁄t Apim and fieÓn⁄/fiubat-Enlil remain unresolved, and the new evidence provides no firm conclusions on this issue. All that can be said is that Apum, in the texts here, refers to areas near the capital fieÓn⁄/fiubat-Enlil.3 The name fiubat-Enlil is sparingly used in the texts published here, but was almost certainly applied to the town by the mighty fiamÍ‹-Adad 1 (ca. 1833–1776 B.C.), whose association with the 1. The following brief remarks summarize information and discussion found especially in publications by Weiss (see Bibliography); Whiting 1990a and 1990b (for the Leilan evidence); Charpin 1986 and 1987a; and Charpin, ARMT XXVI/2, pp. 31ff. (for the Mari evidence). 2. This follows not so much from any single piece of evidence, but from the cumulative weight of cor- roborative data. To mention but two aspects: numerous administrative documents record transactions as tak- ing place “in fieÓn⁄,” and in all seven cases in which fiubat-Enlil is mentioned in the letters (see index) the logical contextual implication is that the letter was received by someone residing in this town. 3. As correctly pointed out by Charpin (1987a, 137ff.; and Charpin 1990b, 117 with notes 4–5; for a dif- ferent etymology of the name Apum, see Cohen 1993, 260), extant Old Babylonian references (including those from the new Leilan material) provide a clear distinction between Apum as the area or country around Leilan and fieÓn⁄/fiubat-Enlil as the actual ancient city, but some problems persist. First, the Old Assyrian ref- erences to Apum should be to a town (like other localities along the Old Assyrian routes) and, second, divine compounds like B2let-Apim usually involve the name of a town rather than a land. Unfortunately, the new evidence does not solve the difficulties. In [84], in a rather broken and not too clear context, we find a mí-tur uru a-‚pa?Ÿ-a-yi‚kiŸ. If the reading is correct—and the sign uru not added by mistake—this reference seems to prove the existence of a town Apum, but the evidence is slim. In [101] the king of fiun⁄, located somewhere west of Leilan, reports that he has prepared the defense of “the town of fiun⁄ and the Óalla‰ of the country of Apum,” and at the end of the letter he states that “the town of fiun⁄ and the country of Apum is well” (cf. also [102], 26f.). This seems to indicate that fiun⁄, a vassal kingdom of Leilan, was actually within the territory of Apum and that a town Apum perhaps was located west of Leilan. fiun⁄ itself is not yet mentioned in any third-millennium or Old Assyrian sources and could be a candidate, especially if we compare the Old Assyrian “route” through the Habur to the Old Babylonian “itinerary” and assume that fiun⁄ in the latter substitutes Apum in the former (cf. below I.1.2.4). 1 2 THE ROYAL ARCHIVES FROM TELL LEILAN Habur Plains harks back almost to the beginning of his reign. This evolves clearly from the Mari Eponym Chronicle (Birot 1985), in which the annotation for the third regnal year of fiamÍ‹-Adad mentions that he was defeated by the Lulleans, i.e., a local hill population, at Lazap⁄t(um), a town located in the region south of Leilan (see I.1.2.4). fiamÍ‹-Adad possibly conquered the city from an earlier ruler, but the name of this ruler—or, indeed, the name of any other pre-fiamÍ‹-Adad ruler of Leilan—is still unknown. The archives from Mari and Chagar Bazar (Talon 1997) provide us with the names of a number of officials active in fiubat-Enlil, but otherwise give few details about the city. From Leilan itself there is some evidence from this period, primarily from the buildings exca- vated on the Acropolis in 1985 (Whiting 1990a and 1990b), but also from the Eastern Lower Town Palace, where several rooms have yielded sealing fragments bearing legends of fiamÍ‹-Adad, IÍme- Dagan, and some of their officials.4 Events during the phase immediately following the death of fiamÍ‹-Adad and the disappearance of YasmaÓ-Addu from Mari are still poorly known, and a more precise elucidation must await retrieval or publication of additional sources. It is clear, however, that even before the death of the king himself, and while his power seems to have reached its zenith, Leilan and the surrounding area were not under his complete control. Evidence from Mari documents shows how the “barbarian” Turukkeans, deported from the east Tigris region and settled close to fiubat-Enlil (in Amursakkum), rebelled and caused fiamÍ‹-Adad and his sons considerable difficulties (Eidem 1993a). To what extent the sons of fiamÍ‹-Adad managed to retain control of the Habur Plains after the death of their father is difficult to ascertain, but we know that the old official Samiya stayed in control of fiubat-Enlil some five years into the reign of Zimri-Lim. Texts from Mari show that Samiya was in conflict with Turum-natki, who was supported by inhabitants of fiubat-Enlil itself. Together they solicited help from Zimri-Lim of Mari to get rid of Samiya, and promised him the “treasures of fiamÍ‹-Adad,” apparently still somewhat intact, in return. Likewise Samiya received a letter from SimaÓ-ilânem of Kurd⁄, who offered to kill Turum-natki and join the country of Apum to fiubat-Enlil. Thus Turum-natki is the first documented figure who may have had legitimate, i.e., “pre-fiamÍ‹-Adad,” claims on Apum, but there is as yet no explicit evidence for this. This situation came to an end in the year ZL 3', when Ibal-pî-El II of EÍnunna invaded the Habur Plains supported by Qarni-Lim of Andarig. Samiya disappears from view, and Turum-natki somehow Another solution might be that Apum and fieÓn⁄ (for an etymology “Hot (Springs),” see Bonechi 1998, 221f.) originally referred to two different aspects of the Leilan settlement, its extensive lower town and the ancient core represented by the citadel. These two realities are, of course, termed respectively adaÍÍum and kerÓum in Old Babylonian northern texts, and this “double” nature of major tells, which dates back into the third millennium B.C., could have created different names for parts of the same settlement (cf. the situation at ki Ebla, where a special designation [sa-zax ] was used for the citadel). Since the k⁄rum merchant quarter in Leilan was located in the lower town, the Assyrians would then have used the name Apum rather than fieÓn⁄. None of this, however, is very convincing on present evidence, and we must conclude that the problem cannot be solved yet. 4. For the 1987 material, cf. the example published here in Appendix 2, no. 7 (fiamÍ‹-Adad). Other fig- ures attested in such evidence include Kani-PI, son of °atni-Addu, servant of IÍme-Dagan [L.87-1281]; Sam‹ya, servant of fiamÍ‹-Adad [L.87-1279]; Lîter-Íarr›ssu, servant of fiamÍ‹-Adad (cf. Parayre 1991b, 138 no. 14; a bulla with the seal of this official has been found also at Acemhöyük, see Tunca 1989, 483). Samiya and Lîter-Íarr›ssu (Whiting 1990a and 1990b; for Lîter-Íarr›ssu, see D. Charpin, ARMT XXVI/2, p. 29 c) are well-known figures in this phase of Leilan history, and both are known to have been stationed at fiubat-Enlil toward the end of the period. Kaniwe(?) is not attested previously. THE LETTERS 3 came to grief, since we hear that Qarni-Lim inters him in Apum, mourns him, and then places one of his sons on the throne of Apum (see Eidem 1994). The new king was possibly a certain Z›zu, who is known from a few Mari texts. One of these is ARM X 122+ (Durand 1987h = DEPM III, no. 1140), in which Zimri-Lim, campaigning in the north, reports to his queen fiiptu that he has broken the enemy lines and managed to join his allies Z›zu of Apum and the troops of EluÓut.5 Another reference to Z›zu, in A.350+ (Charpin 1990b = DEPM I, no. 333), concerns reports of his death, attributed consecutively to an illness, to a serious accident, and finally to “natural causes.” Following this event, officials of Bunu-IÍtar of Kurd⁄ arrive to seal the residence of Z›zu and retain a caravan of his, assembled to transport grain from AzamÓul to SapÓum, while Qarni-Lim of Andarig, presumably then residing in fiubat-Enlil, proceeds to install °⁄ya-abum as king. This and other texts from that time reflect a situation in which the Sinjar city-states of Andarig and Kurd⁄ seem to share control of Apum.