Life at the Bottom of Babylonian Society Culture and History of the Ancient Near East

Founding Editor M.H.E. Weippert

Editor-in-Chief Thomas Schneider

Editors Eckart Frahm W. Randall Garr B. Halpern Theo P.J. van den Hout Irene J. Winter

VOLUME 51

The titles published in this series are listed at: www.brill.nl/chan Life at the Bottom of Babylonian Society

Servile Laborers at Nippur in the 14th and 13th Centuries B.C.

By Jonathan S. Tenney

LEIDEN • BOSTON LEIDEN • BOSTON 2011 This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Tenney, Jonathan S. Life at the bottom of Babylonian society : servile laborers at Nippur in the 14th and 13th centuries, B.C. / by Jonathan S. Tenney. p. cm. -- (Culture and history of the ancient Near East, ISSN 1566-2055 ; v. 51) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-20689-2 (hbk. : alk. paper) 1. Working class--Iraq--Nippur (Extinct city)- -History. 2. Labor--Iraq--Nippur (Extinct city)--History. 3. Social status--Iraq--Nippur (Extinct city)--History. 4. Families--Iraq--Nippur (Extinct city)--History. 5. Nippur (Extinct city)--Population--History. 6. Nippur (Extinct city)--History--Sources. 7. Nippur (Extinct city)--Social conditions. 8. Nippur (Extinct city)--Economic conditions. 9. Babylonia--Social conditions. 10. Babylonia--Economic conditions. I. Title. HD4844.T46 2011 305.5’620935--dc22 2011011313

ISSN 1566-2055 ISBN 978-90-04-20689-2

Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. CONTENTS

Preface �� ix List of Examples �� xi List of Figures �� xiii List of Tables �� xv List of Abbreviations �� xvii Selected Rulers of Kassite Babylonia �� xxi

Chapter One. Servile Laborers in a Favored Province �� 1 Introduction �� 1 Prior Work �� 2 Current Approach �� 5

Chapter Two. Sources �� 7 Introduction �� 7 Process of Selection �� 7 Terminology �� 9 Simple Rosters �� 14 Inspections �� 15 Transfers of Personnel �� 18 Summaries �� 20 Undetermined �� 22 Remarks �� 23 Ration Rosters �� 23 Barley or Oil Allocations as Rations (šE.BA and Ì.BA) to Persons and Families (for Periods of Six Months or Less?) �� 25 Barley Allocations as Rations (šE.BA) to Persons Divided into Tenēštu Groups by Occupation (Period Undetermined) �� 25 Barley Allocations for Various Purposes to Animals and Humans by Location outside of Nippur (Period Undetermined) �� 26 Barley Allocations as Rations (šE.BA) and Date Allocations to Persons for Periods of More Than Six Months �� 27 vi contents

Ration Allocation Summaries for Groups in a Single Location, Including a Numerical Personnel Census �� 27 Remarks �� 31 Purchases of Personnel �� 31 Purchases of Personnel in Groups �� 31 Purchases of Single Individuals �� 32 Miscellaneous Texts �� 34 Concluding Remarks on Sources �� 36

Chapter Three. Population: Sex, Age, Death, and Health �� 37 Introduction �� 37 The Data Base �� 37 The Data and Their Limitations �� 39 Problems of Preservation and Access �� 41 Chronology of the Statistical Corpus �� 42 Problem of Personal Name Repetition �� 43 Groups as Recorded: A Caution �� 47 Descriptive Statistics for the Worker Population �� 47 The Entries �� 48 Males and Females �� 48 Demography, Statistics, and the Sex Ratio �� 50 Young versus Old �� 53 Sex Ratio by Sex and Age Classification �� 56 The Dead (Úš, BA.Úš, and IM.Úš) �� 58 The Blind (NU.IGI, IGI.NU.GÁL, and NU) �� 60 The Ill (GIG) �� 62 Travelers (KASKAL) �� 62 Concluding Remarks on Population �� 63

Chapter Four. Family and Household �� 65 Introduction �� 65 The Families of BE 14 58 and Related Documents �� 65 Identification of Family Units within the Text Corpus �� 71 The Household �� 76 Comparisons with Other Premodern Societies �� 82 Slaves and Households �� 83 The Conjugal Family Unit �� 84 Conjugal Family Size and Composition �� 85 Single Mothers �� 86 Polygyny �� 88 contents vii

Death and Marriage �� 90 Conclusions on Family and Household �� 91

Chapter Five. Work, Flight, Origins, and Status �� 93 Introduction �� 93 Organization of the Servile Labor Pool �� 94 Tasks and Occupations of the Workers �� 98 Administration and Supervision of Workers �� 102 Flight and Diminution of the Working Population �� 104 Identification of Escapees in the Texts (ZÁḪ or ḫalāqu) �� 105 The Meaning of ḫalāqu (ZÁḪ ) �� 106 Basic Statistics on Runaways �� 107 Circumstances of Flight �� 111 Escape as a Cause of Work-Force Depletion �� 113 Recapture and Reassignment �� 115 Confinement: Prisons and Fetters �� 118 The šandabakku and the King �� 120 Origins and Civil Status �� 121 Origins �� 121 Civil Status �� 129 Concluding Remarks on Work, Origins, and Status �� 132

Chapter Six. The Servile Work Force in Local and National Perspective �� 135 Introduction �� 135 Population Size and Proportion �� 136 Nippur in its Spatial Context �� 138 Nippur in National Context �� 140 Future Research �� 144

Appendix One. Selected Households from Middle Babylonian Sources �� 147 Introduction �� 147 Households �� 151

Appendix Two. Size and Composition of Select Mobile Work Groups �� 211 Introduction �� 211 Size and Composition of Select Mobile Work Groups (Table) �� 213 viii contents

Appendix Three. Sex and Age Classification of Attested Occupations in Middle Babylonian Rosters �� 229

Select Bibliography �� 233 List and Index of Cuneiform Sources �� 245 General Index �� 253 Index of Select Akkadian Words and Logograms �� 266 PREFACE

The initial draft of this book was written in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Chicago. The topic was first suggested by J. A. Brinkman, who served as the chairman of the dissertation committee and presented me with an initial list of texts and notes. The depth of his knowledge on the Kassite Period is without peer, and his assistance during the genesis of the manuscript was invaluable. It was an honor to study under him, and it would be impossible to return his kindness and understanding. I am proud to call him a friend. Professors Matthew Stolper and Stephan Palmié also served on the dissertation committee, and I would like to thank them for their interest and comments. Revision and expansion of the initial manuscript into its final form was done while I served in positions at Loyola University New Orleans and the Center for Identity Formation at the University of Copenhagen. I am very grateful to both institutions for their support. During several visits in the 1970s, Professor Brinkman was able to study the unpublished Middle Babylonian tablets from Nippur kept in the collections of the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul, and he provided me with transliterations and notes for the Ni. tablets that appear in this work. The transliterations of these texts are provisional, and many of these readings may be improved once the documents become available for further study. I would like to express my gratitude to the faculty of the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations of the University of Chicago, particularly to Walter Farber and McGuire Gibson for their past and continued support. I wish also to thank Profs. Wolfgang Heimpel, Mogens Trolle Larsen, and John Nielsen, who each read and commented upon drafts of this work. Roger S. Bagnall, whose research with Bruce W. Frier has set a high standard for ancient population studies, was of considerable help in puzzling out some of the more difficult aspects of the quantitative data that appears in the following pages. I would also like to acknowledge the humor and friendship provided by Hratch Papazian, which proved invaluable during the final stages of the writing process. x preface

I must recognize the assistance of the Division of the Humanities of the University of Chicago, the Elisabeth and A. Leo Oppenheim Scholarship Fund, the Doolittle Harrison Fellowship, and my gracious friend Elisabeth Lanzl. Additional financial support was given by The American Academic Institute of Iraq (TAARII), who selected me as a fellow in 2009 and funded most of the research costs incurred since the approval of the dissertation. I extend my sincerest thanks to Barry Eichler, Grant Frame, Erle Leichty, and Steve Tinney of the Babylonian Section of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology for allowing me access to its collection of Middle Babylonian tablets. Ilona Zsolnay also provided considerable help while I was working in the Section in 2010–11. The unpublished documents held by the University of Pennsylvania Museum that were used for this study are scheduled to be published by this author in a future Brill volume. The family is a deep well of strength to which the new author may always return for aid. Therefore, my final thanks go to my two brothers and their wives and especially to Alison Whyte for her steadfast kindness, support, and understanding. This book is dedicated to my mother, Susan, to whom I owe every- thing. Like her, the texts in this study exemplify the struggles of single mothers, past and present.

Jonathan S. Tenney København, Danmark May 18, 2011 LIST OF EXAMPLES

1. An Example of Standard Inspection Phraseology (Full Form) �� 16 2. Excerpt from Inspection Text Ni. 1348 �� 17 3. Excerpt from Inspection Text Ni. 2228 �� 18 4. Example of a Transfer between Locales �� 19 5. Excerpt from CBS 11531 �� 21 6. Excerpt from CBS 11978 �� 21 7. Excerpt from Legal Text BM 17626 �� 34 8. Ni. 826 �� 35 9. Excerpt from CBS 11106 �� 116 10. Excerpt from BM 17626 �� 116 11. Excerpt from Ni. 1333 �� 117

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Map of Mesopotamia in the Late Bronze Age �� xxii 2. An Illustration of Columns and Subcolumns �� 11 3. Function and Body Format in Simple Rosters �� 15 4. Function and Body Format in Ration Rosters �� 24 5. Vertical Arrangement of Tabular Register of Ration Allocation Summaries for Groups in a Single Location, Including a Numerical Personnel Census �� 28 6. Preservation of Tablets: Document Table vs. Personnel Table �� 42 7. Distribution of Male and Female Workers by Age Group �� 54 8. The Composition of the Worker Population in Rosters Listing Individuals and in Ration Roster Summaries Including a Personnel Census �� 55 9. Sex Ratio by Age Group �� 56 10. The Household of Dayyānī-šamaš �� 73 11. Sample Diagrams of Household Types �� 77 12. Sex-Age Distribution of the Offspring of the Conjugal Family Unit (CFU): Offspring of Single Mothers versus Offspring of Families with Fathers Present �� 89 13. Map of Geographic Origin and Relative Proportions of Foreign Constituents of the Servile Population �� 123

LIST OF TABLES

1. Body Format of Simple Rosters �� 15 2. Body Format of Ration Rosters �� 24 3. Selected Published and Unpublished Purchases of Personnel in Groups �� 31 4. Published and Unpublished Purchases of Single Individuals �� 33 5. Number of Rosters by Category in the Document and Personnel Tables �� 40 6. Personnel Table Entries and Preservation of Personal Names �� 44 7. Repetition of Personal Names �� 44 8. Frequency of Occurrences of Homonyms among Names that are Completely Preserved or can be Plausibly Reconstructed �� 45 9. Male and Female Workers for which Sex and Age Designation is Available �� 49 10. Male Workers Listed Individually by Sex-age Designation �� 53 11. Female Workers Listed Individually by Sex-age Designation �� 53 12. Deaths by Sex and Age Group �� 59 13. The Blind by Sex-age Category �� 61 14. Number of Members of Households by Type �� 78 15. Attested Households by Type and Frequency �� 81 16. Percentages of Attested Households by Type for the Servile-Worker Population in Kassite Nippur Compared with General Populations of Medieval Tuscany and Roman Egypt �� 83 17. Offspring of Conjugal Family Units by Sex-age Category �� 85 18. Comparison between the Children Belonging to Conjugal Family Units with and without Biological Father Present �� 87 xvi list of tables

19. Frequency of Occurrence of Mobile Groups of Particular Sizes �� 96 20. Sexes and Ages of Escapees �� 109 21. Language of Personal Name for Escapees �� 113 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

All abbreviations employed in the dissertation are adapted from those appearing in Volume 18 (T) of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary pp. ix–xxvii. Some of the more common abbreviations encountered in this dissertation, as well as several additional abbreviations not included in Volume 18 of the CAD, are given below.

ADOG Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. AfO Archiv für Orientforschung. AHw von Soden, W. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 volumes. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1965–81. AJA American Journal of Archaeology. AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament. AOS American Oriental Series. ArOr Archiv Orientální. AS Assyriological Studies. ASJ Acta Sumerologica (Japan). B. Tablets in the Babil collection of the Istanbul Archaeological Museums. BaF Baghdader Forschungen. BBVO Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient. BE The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania Series A: Cuneiform Texts. BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis. BM Tablets in the collections of the British Museum. CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956–2011. CBS Tablets in the collections of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. CT Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. DN Divine name. EA El Amarna, referring to numbers assigned to the letters from El Amarna by J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln, Anmerkungen und Register bearbeitet von O. Weber und xviii list of abbreviations

E. Ebeling, 2 vols. VAB 2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1907–15; and in the later supplement by A. F. Rainey, El Amarna Tablet 359-379: Supplement to J. A. Knudtzon Die El-Amarna Tafeln. AOAT 8. Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon und Bercker and Neukirchener-Verlag, 1970. FLP Tablets in the collections of the Free Library of Philadelphia. GMTR Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record. HANE Histories of the Ancient Near East: Studies. IM Tablets in the collections of the Iraq Museum, Baghdad. JA Journal asiatique. JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society. JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies. JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies. KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi. KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi. MANE Monographs on the Ancient Near East. MBTU Gurney, O.R. The Middle Babylonian Legal and Economic Texts from Ur. Oxford: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1983. MHEM Mesopotamian History and Environment, Memoirs. MRWH Petschow, Herbert P. H. Mittelbabylonische Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena. Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse, vol. 64/4. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1974. MSKH Brinkman, J. A. Materials and Studies for Kassite History. MUN Mittelbabylonische Urkunden aus Nippur, referring to numbers assigned to the tablets from Nippur by Leonhard Sassmannshausen in Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft Babyloniens in der Kassitenzeit, 2001. MVAG Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft. N Tablets in the collections of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. NBC Tablets in the Nies Babylonian Collection, Yale University Library. Ni. Tablets excavated at Nippur, in the collections of the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul. OIC Oriental Institute Communications. list of abbreviations xix

OIP Oriental Institute Publications. PIHANS Publications de l’Institut Historique-archéologique Néerlandais de Stamboul. PN personal name. RGTC Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes RIMB The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian Periods. SAA State Archives of Assyria. SAAS State Archives of Assyria Studies. SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization. StOr Studia Orientalia (Societas Orientalis Fennica). TuM Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht- Sammlung Vorderasiatischer Altertümer im Eigentum der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena. UE Ur Excavations. UET Ur Excavations Texts. UF Ugarit-Forschungen. UM Tablets in the collections of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie.

Selected Rulers of Kassite Babylonia

Kadašman-Enlil I (1374)–1360 B.C. 15 years Burna-Buriaš II 1359–1333 27 Kara-ḫardaš 1333 Nazi-Bugaš 1333 Kurigalzu II 1332–1308 25 Nazi-Maruttaš 1307–1282 26 Kadašman-Turgu 1281–1264 18 Kadašman-Enlil II 1263–1255 9 Kudur-Enlil 1254–1246 9 šagarakti-šuriaš 1245–1233 13 Kaštiliašu IV 1232–1225 8 Enlil-nādin-šumi 1224 1? Kadašman-Ḫarbe II 1223 1? Adad-šuma-iddina 1222–1217 6 Adad-šuma-usuṛ 1216–1187 30 Meli-šipak 1186–1174 15 Figure 1. Map of Mesopotamia in the Late Bronze Age. (Locations of Sites Approximate) CHAPTER ONE

SERVILE LABORERS IN A FAVORED PROVINCE

Introduction

In the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C., Nippur with its temple of the god Enlil served as the religious capital of Babylonia. The king made pilgrimages to the site, usually around the time of the New Year. The governor of Nippur enjoyed the royal favor and played a role in the divine cult. Among the contemporary archives from the site were found letters from magnates in far-off regions, including the king of Assyria and the Babylonian administrator in Dilmun. The local governor controlled a wide range of resources and industries, oversaw the supply system servicing temples and shrines, and supervised a large public work force of unfree laborers. It is that public work force with which the present study will be concerned. The cuneiform text documentation tracking this group is abundant: hundreds of rosters and administrative memoranda, legal texts, and a few letters. These texts inventory thousands of persons listed by sex and age (ranging from infants to the elderly) under official control, working at a variety of jobs sometimes under harsh conditions. Archaeological provenience would be expected to provide some context for these documents, but the tablets were excavated under less than ideal conditions toward the end of the nineteenth century by archaeologists working for the University of Pennsylvania. Archaeo logical methods of the day were haphazard, the excavators’ time and resources were limited, and the find spots for most of these tablets were not recorded.1 John Peters noted that he found Kassite tablets during his 1889–90 excavation season close to the southwest wall of the building known as the Court of Columns (Area WA) at an elevation lower than the building itself.2 John H. Haynes stated that in 1893–94 he

1 Unfortunately, the handwritten entries by Hilprecht in the official Catalogue of the Babylonian Section were more often based on his reinterpretation of data than on the expedition’s records. 2 The building is located in the northwest part of the city, opposite the Enlil temple. John Punnett Peters, Nippur or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates: 2 chapter one found a huge collection of tablets on the western mound south of WA, some “placed on their edges, reclining against each other like a shelf of leaning books” and others scattered about the floor.3 Albert T. Clay remarked that a significant number of the Middle Babylonian4 tablets could also have come from other parts of the city.5 Sadly, further details about the provenience of the Kassite tablets studied here have never been published; and more recent excavations of the site have not yielded additional rosters directly pertaining to the servile work force or other comparable material from this period. The majority of the documents to be used in this study are administrative rosters that list the names, sex, general age category, family relationships, location, and supervisors—among other details—for these workers. The quantitative data contained in these rosters give rise to many of the issues to be discussed in this work. The discussion focuses on the principal area illuminated by the documentation, that is on the condition of the public servile laborer and his/her family rather than on the institutional apparatus that controlled them (the latter topic will not be altogether neglected, but it falls almost completely outside the purview of the available documentation).

Prior Work

In 1906 Albert Clay published in two volumes the first substantial number of Middle Babylonian tablets from Nippur (BE 14–15). In the introductions to these volumes, he singled out for attention a group of people qualified by a set of sex and age designations whom he identified as employees of the “temple” (É.GAL) who received grain as “wages” (ŠE.BA = ipru). Such employees were sometimes grouped by family (qinnu). Clay also noted that the same sex-age designations were

The Narrative of the University of Pennsylvania Expedition to Babylonia in the Years 1888–1890, vol. 2 (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1897): 188. 3 According to Clay, BE 14, page 1, quoting also Peters and Hilprecht. Haynes’ figure of 25,000 tablets indicates that over half the tablets he found were not from the Middle Babylonian period. Brinkman, who has studied the Kassite corpus in depth, once estimated that the Middle Babylonian tablets from Nippur number around 12,000 (J. A. Brinkman, Materials and Studies for Kassite History, vol. 1 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1976): 41). 4 Regarding Middle Babylonian as a chronological period: this study follows the CAD wherein it is equivalent to the time of the Kassite dynasty as explained by J.A. Brinkman in BiOr 23 (1966): 294 2c-d. 5 Clay, BE 14, page 2. servile laborers in a favored province 3 used to describe slaves in sale documents. The amount paid in employee wages or as a slave price was directly correlated to the individual’s age and sex.6 Harry Torczyner treated the same group of texts in 1913. While he continued to support the idea that the institution involved was the temple, he interpreted epru (=ipru) as “food” and translated two important collective terms, tenēštu and amīlūtu, sometimes applied to ipru- recipients, as “slaves.” He also noted a case in which most of the slaves had non-Semitic names. This marked an advance by establishing that at least a portion of ipru-personnel were not free workers and that some were probably of foreign origin.7 In 1974 Herbert Petschow edited a small collection of Middle Babylonian legal and administrative texts from Nippur. Two of these texts list persons qualified by sex-age designations and usually grouped by qinnu. Petschow did not comment on the status of these persons, though he translated two occurrences of ARAD (after a number) in the second document as “Sklaven.” He referred to each document simply as a personnel list (Personenliste).8 In 1976, Inez Bernhardt published cuneiform copies of the same texts and catalogued each of these two as a “guruš-Liste,” focusing on the distinctive sex-age terminology.9 In 1980 and 1982, J. A. Brinkman published two articles dealing with the documents mentioned above and with several hundred more unpublished rosters of similar type. He categorized the personnel in these texts as servile laborers working under duress, though sometimes

6 Albert T. Clay, BE 14, pp. 5, 34, 36 and BE 15, pp. 6–7, 22. Also see the descriptions of the tablets in the catalogues, e.g., BE 14, p. 65 (for the description of BE 14 58: a “record of salary payments”) and BE 15, p. 62 (for the description of BE 15 96: “salary payments of temple officials”). 7 Harry Torczyner, Altbabylonische Tempelrechnungen, Denkschriften der Kaiser lichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, vol. 55 (Vienna: A. Hölder, 1913). See the definitions of epru and a-mi-lu-tum ibid., pp. 110–11 and the discussion of BE 15 190 ibid., p. 68. 8 Herbert P. H. Petschow, Mittelbabylonische Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena, Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf ten zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse, vol. 64/4 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1974). The texts are MRWH 50 and 51 found on pp. 97–101. Unfortunately, the two alleged occurrences of ARAD ša in MRWH 51:3 and rev. 3’ should actually be read NIM.MA (and translated as “Elamite”). 9 Inez Bernhardt, Sozialökonomische Texte und Rechtsurkunden aus Nippur zur Kassitenzeit, Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht-Sammlung Vorderasiatischer Altertümer im Eigentum der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Neue Folge, vol. 5 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1976). MRWH 50 = TuM NF 5 34 and MRWH 51 = TuM NF 5 63. 4 chapter one with an intact family structure. He left open the question whether these laborers were chattel slaves, semi-free, or in some other status. He posed a number of topics for future study, including whether the texts describe a uniform social or economic class within society, what the role of these workers was in the economy, whether they were under government or private control (or both), and what was the source of this group (e.g., war booty, purchase, relegation for debt).10 Petschow in 1983 wrote an article on the slave-purchasing activities of Enlil-kidinnī, a governor of Nippur in the mid-fourteenth century. In his analysis of slave sales and terminology, he asserted that qinnu (family), a common collective term in the ration lists, is used only for unfree people.11 In 2001, Leonhard Sassmannshausen remarked that slavery was widespread in Kassite Babylonia. He based his observation on eighteen slave-sale documents, many texts mentioning fugitives, and other tablets dealing with imprisonment. He reiterated Brinkman’s caution that fugitives need not necessarily be regarded as slaves. He presented individual studies on ten key terms (amīlūtu, ardu, etc.), but did not attempt an integrated picture of the laboring classes at Nippur or their juridical or social status.12 Three years later, Brinkman observed that most of the attested foreigners in Middle Babylonian texts from Nippur were low-status servile laborers who were controlled by large institutions.13 For almost a century, scholars have observed the presence of servile laborers in the personnel rosters from Nippur. They have noted that these workers are marked by specific administrative terms, such as sex- age designations; but no one has yet undertaken a full-scale systematic study of this group.

10 J. A. Brinkman, “Forced Laborers in the Middle Babylonian Period,” JCS 32 (1980): 17–22 and “Sex, Age, and Physical Condition Designations for Servile Laborers in the Middle Babylonian Period,” in Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus, eds. G. van Driel, Th. J. H. Krispijn, M. Stol, and K. R. Veenhof (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1982), 1–8. 11 Herbert P. H. Petschow, “Die Sklavenkaufverträge des šandabakku Enlil-kidinnī von Nippur,” Orientalia N. S. 52 (1983): 143–55, especially p. 154. 12 Leonhard Sassmannshausen, Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft Baby loniens in der Kassitenzeit, Baghdader Forschungen, vol. 21 (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2001), 117–23. 13 J. A. Brinkman, “Administration and Society in Kassite Babylonia,” JAOS 124 (2004): 284–85. servile laborers in a favored province 5

Current Approach

Our investigation of the servile laboring population at Nippur will use traditional philological analysis and the application of quantitative methods, historical demography, and historical-ethnographic comparison. These combined approaches have been insightful for other premodern populations (e.g., Roman Egypt, Medieval Tuscany),14 and the same should be true for the Mesopotamian laborers under consideration here. In this study, we will begin by discussing the genres and functions of the source documentation (Chapter 2), most of which remains unpublished more than a century after its excavation. Administrative documents form the bulk of this corpus; and, even though bureaucratic records concerning laboring groups are attested from many of the major historical periods of Babylonia, those available from the Kassite period provide an unusual amount of detail on the condition and relative age of each individual worker. The sheer mass of information in these texts facilitates the use of an approach that will be both qualitative and quantitative. Chapter 3 will present a detailed statistical analysis of the worker population. It will begin with a discussion of the raw data and their limitations, the details of how the data were organized into a data base, and the dates for the composition of the corpus. The main thrust of the chapter will be a quantitative analysis of the composition of the population (male vs. female, young vs. old, etc.) and a discussion of how one key demographic indicator, the sex ratio, can provide further insight into the population and the reliability of the data set. Comments will also be made on mortality rates and disabilities. Chapter 4 will discuss patterns of family and household within the servile population. Through the use of demographic methods developed by historians of the family, several basic household structures will be identified. The role of the nuclear versus the extended family will be explored, and Appendix 1 will describe and present diagrammatic

14 E.g., Roger S. Bagnall and Bruce W. Frier, Demography of Roman Egypt, Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy, and Society in Past Time 23 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994) and David Herlihy and Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, Tuscans and Their Families: A Study of the Florentine Catasto of 1427 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). 6 chapter one

representations of the one hundred and seven best attested households in the documentation. Chapter 5, with Appendices 2 and 3, will consider the milieu in which the servile population lived and worked. It will rely less on the methodologies of social science than on the traditional positivist approaches of Assyriology, comparative history, and simple descriptive statistics. The documents presume a basic understanding of the socio-economic environment of Kassite Babylonia and the administrative bureaucracy of Nippur and provide little orientation for the researcher who attempts to understand the structure of the system. But we will examine what little evidence is provided for understanding the organization and supervision of the work force, the tasks performed, the problems of worker flight and imprisonment, the origins of the workers, and the civil status of the laboring population. The concluding chapter will try, as far as the limited data permit, to present an integrated picture of the public servile workers and their environment and to situate them within a larger geographical and historical context. It also will mention topics for further research, aimed at broadening future understanding of this important socio-economic group. CHAPTER TWO

SOURCES

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to survey the principal ancient textual sources used in this study. These will be broken down into the following three groups: rosters of workers, purchases of personnel, and miscellaneous administrative documents. Rosters and purchases merit detailed discussions because they form the bulk of the pertinent documentation (82% and 5%, respectively) and are the backbone of our reconstruction. The miscellaneous administrative documents deal with a variety of subjects, e.g., the handling of escapees, the imprisonment of workers, and residence records for laborers; none of these categories is attested in sufficient numbers to warrant discussion as a separate group. The second section of the chapter describes the criteria used to identify those personnel texts which deal primarily with the servile population. The next three sections focus on the principal data source, the worker roster. Section three presents basic terminology for understanding the roster corpus, a text type which has not been systematically studied. Sections four and five discuss the format and function of the two types of rosters (simple rosters and ration rosters). Sections six and seven contain brief analyses of the purchase documents and of the miscellaneous texts, all of which have been discussed to some degree by earlier writers. The final section is a concise resume of source categories.

Process of Selection

For some time, scholars have noted in Middle Babylonian texts the presence of workers classified by distinctive categories of sex and age, such as “elderly male,” “adult male,” “adult female,” “adolescent female,” as well as by characteristic designations of physical condition, 8 chapter two e.g., “blind,” “ill,” “escaped,” “dead.”1 They also have pointed out the presence of other select vocabulary (amīlūtu, aštapīru, munnabittu, piqdānu, qinnu, tenēštu, etc.) used to describe the same groups of workers.2 This restricted terminology stands out in the record and marks a specific type of worker at Nippur.3 An initial selection of texts pertinent to servile laborers was identified through the occurrence of these categories and terms. It was found that the terminology was prominent in lists of working personnel (rosters), where sex-age designations, physical-condition designations, and several other key terms often occurred in a single text. Purchases of persons were added to the corpus because the individuals being sold are classified by the same designations of sex and age and are frequently referred to collectively as amīlūtu or aštapīru. Additionally, a number of miscellaneous texts, mostly of administrative character, contained one or more of our key vocabulary markers and dealt with the same laborer population. For example, documents dealing with the escape and recapture of individuals were initially identified because the same term, ZÁḫ , used to designate escaped workers in the rosters, is also employed in these texts. As research progressed, other texts were added to the corpus because of prosopographical linkage or improved understanding of administrative practice. This yielded a total corpus of five hundred twenty texts.4 Four hundred twenty-six are rosters: two hundred and fifty-three (59.4%

1 ŠU.GI, GURUŠ, SAL, SAL.TUR, NU.IGI, GIG, ZÁḫ , ÚŠ, etc. These sex-age and condition designations are described later in this chapter. Albert T. Clay, BE 14, p. 34 and BE 15, pp. 6–7; Harry Torczyner, Altbabylonische Tempelrechnungen, Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, vol. 55 (Vienna: A. Hölder, 1913), 65–69 (discussions of BE 14 60, 91a, and BE 15 190); J. A. Brinkman, “Forced Laborers in the Middle Babylonian Period,” JCS 32 (1980): 17–22 and “Sex, Age, and Physical Condition Designations for Servile Laborers in the Middle Babylonian Period,” in Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus, eds. G van Driel, Th. J. H. Krispin, M. Stol, and K. R. Veenhof (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1982), 2–8. 2 Harry Torczyner, Altbabylonische Tempelrechnungen (1913); see the definition of amēlūtum ibid., pp. 110–11 and the pages cited in footnote 1 above. Also Herbert P. H. Petschow, Mittelbabylonische Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden der Hilprecht- Sammlung Jena, Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse, vol. 64/4 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1974), 99–101; Leonhard Sassmannshausen, Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft Babyloniens in der Kassitenzeit, Baghdader Forschungen, vol. 21 (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2001), 117–23. 3 This will be discussed more fully in subsequent chapters. 4 The documents can be found in the collections of the Babylonian Section of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul, sources 9 of rosters) list workers with no mention of rations and one hundred forty-seven (34.5%) list workers along with their rations. The remaining twenty-six (6.1%) rosters could not be assigned to either category because they are too poorly preserved. Twenty-five purchase documents and sixty-three pertinent miscellaneous texts have been identified to date. Five fragments were too damaged to place into any category.

Terminology

The overwhelming majority (more than 80%) of source materials for the study of Middle Babylonian servile laborers are rosters, which are lists of workers and/or working groups. These documents are written in a terse, bookkeeping language for the use of institutions and functionaries at Nippur. There are two main types of roster: those which list workers, but not rations (simple rosters) and those which list workers and rations (ration rosters). Before delving into the appearance and function of these texts, we must first establish an appropriate terminology for them. For this we are indebted to Eleanor Robson, whose work on tables in the cuneiform record5 has clarified issues encountered with our body of rosters. To fit our roster corpus, our terms “tabular register,” “short- tabular register,” “non-tabular register,” and “qualitative summary” have been adapted from Robson’s “table,” “numerical list,” “prosaic” (document), and “explanatory interpolation.” Robson’s “row label” and “heading” have been renamed “entry label” and “subcolumn heading”; and her “axis of calculation” has been borrowed without modification. We begin with some miscellaneous, but necessary terms which lay the foundation for this discussion. First, a work group is defined as all

the Free Library of Philadelphia, the British Museum, the Yale Babylonian Collection, the Hilprecht-Sammlung in Jena, and the Louvre. The portion of unpublished documents held by the University of Pennsylvania Museum that were used for this study are scheduled to be published by this author in a future Brill volume. Many of the textual categories provided in the remainder of this chapter will be further explained there. 5 “Tables and Tabular Formatting in Sumer, Babylonia, and Assyria, 2500 B.C.E.-50 C.E.” in The History of Mathematical Tables: From Sumer to Spreadsheets, eds. M. Campbell-Kelly et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003): 18–47, esp. p. 20 and “Accounting for Change: The Development of Tabular Bookkeeping in Early Mesopotamia,” in Creating Economic Order, eds. Michael Hudson and Cornelia Wunsch, International Scholars Conference on Ancient Near Eastern Economies, vol. 4 (Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 2004): 107–44, especially p. 116. 10 chapter two laborers enumerated on a single tablet, excluding supervisors, officials, and other functionaries. A subgroup (of workers) is a division of a work group as specified on the tablet. Additionally, a ration is barley, wool, or oil disbursed to a worker (ŠE.BA, SÍG.BA, Ì.BA). On account tablets small indentations were sometimes made with a stylus, usually placed at the left of a worker’s name, presumably to indicate whether the listed ration has been issued. We will call these check marks. Rosters can include an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. The body is the main section of a roster, listing workers and/or work groups and any rations disbursed to them. The introduction is the portion of a roster which precedes the body; it can contain several types of information: a description of the work group, the name of a supervising official, the source of rations, the standard of measurement (the type of sūtu) used for grain disbursals, an explanation why the text was composed (i.e., the function of the document), and the date of composition. The conclusion is the part of the text that follows the body; it may include any of the items found in the introduction, sometimes duplicating the same data, plus grand totals of the amount and type of rations and the number of workers, sometimes subdivided into various categories. A roster may lack an introduction, a conclusion, or both; but it will always have a body. At this point we should introduce the concepts of column, subcolumn, row, and cell—all terms describing the way space is divided up on a tablet. A roster may be arranged in one or more vertical sense units, which we will call columns. We will maintain this identification even if only a single column occurs on the obverse or reverse of a tablet. If there is more than one column per side, we will number them with lower case roman numerals. (This differs slightly from the traditional usage for column in Assyriology, which does not classify a vertical sense unit as a column if there is only one on a side of a tablet; the issue here is one of classification rather than labeling, since both our usage and the traditional usage utilize the same numbering practice.) We are adjusting this terminology so that we can maintain a clear separation between the meanings of column and subcolumn. Otherwise, what is considered a subcolumn in one text could be labeled a column in another text. The column is a feature of a whole roster: introduction, body, and conclusion. In contrast, subcolumn, row, and cell are features of a roster body only. A subcolumn is a vertical subdivision of a column; it is often sources 11 marked by a line of separation drawn down the column.6 Subcolumns will be designated with lower-case letters. Figure 2 provides an illustration of such divisions. A row (or, sometimes, line) is the horizontal arrangement of data. A cell is the spatial unit at the intersection of one row and one subcolumn. Body format is the style in which workers are listed and described in the main section of a roster, i.e., the spatial arrangement of data. There are three body formats: the tabular register, the short-tabular register, and the non-tabular register.

Figure 2. An Illustration of Columns and Subcolumns (Image of CBS 9803, Reverse).7

6 As are columns when there is more than one per side. 7 Note that the curvature of this tablet distorts the image; making some subcolumns, especially those on the left side, appear narrower than they are. Vertical lines drawn on the tablet are not always parallel for the same reason (photograph by the author). 12 chapter two

A tabular register arranges data in three or more subcolumns. A short-tabular register displays data in just two subcolumns (this is the most common format found in these rosters). A non-tabular register lacks subcolumns or vertical subdivisions; its entries are written across a column and resemble written prose. The terms cell entry, row entry, entry label, and subcolumn heading, are appropriate only to tabular or short-tabular registers. A cell entry is the data written in a single cell. It is the basic element of a tabular or short-tabular register. A row entry is all the cell entries running horizontally across a row of the register. A row entry contains data pertaining to a single worker (in texts that list workers by personal name) or sub-group (in texts which list them as work units). Row entries are characterized by an entry label, which is the primary identifying element—usually the personal name of a worker or an occupation name—of the row, around which all its other data revolve. Entry labels are always contained in the same subcolumn on the tablet. This is usually the ultimate subcolumn on the right; but, on a few tablets, the penultimate subcolumn may contain the entry label, and the final subcolumn a ration amount or other information. The vertical correspondent to the entry label is the subcolumn heading, written at the top of a subcolumn. This heading usually provides a description of the contents below or an explanation how the subcolumn functions. Cell entries are composed by entering quantitative and/or qualitative data in accord with the body format. In rosters, quantitative data are measured substances (e.g., rations) or enumerated persons. These data may be summed up in a total. The axis of calculation refers to the direction in which the quantitative data are added up. Documents with a vertical axis of calculation total data from top to bottom; those with a horizontal axis calculate data from left to right. If a summation concerns only a portion of the quantitative entries in a series, this is a subtotal. Totals and subtotals can appear either as individual cell entries or as part of the conclusion of a roster. Qualitative data in rosters are non-quantitative characteristics, properties, or attributes of a worker or group of workers. The qualitative data in the body of a roster can include: (a) personal names; (b) sex-age designations; sources 13

(c) physical-condition designations; (d) family relationships; (e) occupations; (f) names of supervisors; (g) subgroups; (h) place of (last known) residence; (i) geographic origins of workers; (j) the function of the document. This subset of words and phrases which describe the non-quantitative features of workers or work groups will also be referred to as descriptive elements. Sex-age designations are a set of standardized terms classifying workers by sex and relative age group.8 The sex-age designations for males are: (a) old (ŠU.GI); (b) adult (GURUŠ); (c) adolescent (GURUŠ.TUR or GURUŠ.TUR.GAL); (d) child (GURUŠ.TUR.TUR); (e) weaned (pir-su); (f) nursing (DUMU.GABA). The female sex-age designations are: (a) old ( (SAL.)ŠU.GI); (b) adult (SAL); (c) adolescent (SAL.TUR); (d) child (SAL.TUR.TUR); (e) weaned (pir-sa-tu(m) ); (f) nursing (DUMU.SAL.GABA).9 The sex-age classification of a worker may condition the amount of ration received, e.g., adult males may receive more food than

8 The English translations for GURUŠ.TUR, GURUŠ.TUR.GAL, GURUŠ.TUR. TUR, SAL.TUR, and SAL.TUR.TUR (i.e., “adolescent” and “child”) are approxima- tions. For a study of age categories in Assyrian documents, see Yigal Bloch, “The Order of Eponyms in the Reign of Shalmaneser I,” Ugarit Forschungen 40 (2008): 159–69. 9 J. A. Brinkman, “Sex, Age, and Physical Condition Designations,” (1982), 2–4. 14 chapter two adult females. Sex-age designations can be applied to individuals, groups, and subgroups. Physical-condition designations are also a set of standardized terms indicating whether a laborer is unavailable for work or is able to work only at a reduced level. They are: (a) dead (ÚŠ, IM.ÚŠ, BA.ÚŠ); (b) ill (GIG); (c) blind (IGI.NU.GÁL and perhaps NU);10 (d) escapee (ZÁḫ ); (e) recent escapee (ZÁḫ GIBIL); (f) non-recent escapee (ZÁḫ LIBIR.RA); (g) deceased escapee (ZÁḫ ÚŠ); (h) returned escapee (ZÁḫ DU-kam); (i) fettered (ka-mu); (j) imprisoned (ki-lum); (k) freed (za-ka-at);11 (l) (on the) road (KASKAL).12 Often a series of individual row entries in a short-tabular or tabular register may be interrupted by a qualitative summary, which groups and qualifies the immediately preceding entries. A quantitative subtotal for these entries may appear in the same line/row as the qualitative summary.13

Simple Rosters

Simple rosters can be divided into the following categories based on function: inspections, transfers, summaries, and undetermined (this last category is a catch-all for texts which lack an expressed or demonstrable function). Simple rosters are attested in all three body formats. Short-tabular registers are the most common (at least 58.1%), followed by tabular registers (27.3%), and non-tabular registers (7.5%).

10 For an additional viewpoint on the meaning of the logograms, see Walter Farber, “Akkadisch ‘blind’.” ZA 75 (1985): 221–33. 11 Attested to date in only one case (for a female). 12 Brinkman, “Sex, Age, and Physical Condition Designations,” (1982), 5–6. 13 With the format: subtotal + qualitative summary. sources 15

Table 1. Body Format of Simple Rosters. Body format Number of texts Tabular registers 69 Short-tabular registers (clear examples) 107 Short-tabular registers (probable examples) 40 Non-tabular registers 19 Insufficiently preserved 18 Total 253

There is some correspondence between body format and function. Inspections and summaries are drawn up as tabular registers, usually with horizontal and/or vertical rulings.14 Transfers are generally non- tabular registers; in a few cases, it has been impossible to ascertain whether a transfer is a non-tabular or short-tabular register.15 All three body formats, not surprisingly, are attested in the undetermined category.

Inspections Inspections record the results of an official review of a work group. Varying descriptive elements are included in the body of each text, suggesting that inspections were not always conducted in the same

Tabular Registers Short-tabular Non-tabular Registers Registers Inspections x Transfers (unclear) x Summaries x Undetermined x x x Figure 3. Function and Body Format in Simple Rosters.

14 There is one inspection, Ni. 1627, whose format is that of a short-tabular register and is therefore an exception to this rule. It is also worth noting that its statement of inspection on edge 2–3 is different from the standard statement. 15 Because it is not clear if the sex-age designation and personal name of the worker were in separate subcolumns. 16 chapter two manner or for the same reasons. Workers are listed individually by personal name in the tabular register body. Almost all inspection texts can be identified by the appearance of a standard phrase based on the idiom rēša + našû, in its fullest context including a description of the work force, the name of the inspecting authority, and a date.16 The statement of inspection can be found in the introduction, the heading of the entry label subcolumn (before “MU. BI.IM”), or the conclusion.

Example 1. An Example of Standard Inspection Phraseology (Full Form). top edge 1. GURUŠ GURUŠ.TUR te-lit GÚ.EN.NA ša i-na ITI.KIN.dINNIN m d 2. ša MU.8.KAM Ša-ga-rak-ti-šur-ia4-aš LÚ- AMAR.UTU 3. GÚ.EN.NA re-⌈e⌉-ša ⌈iš⌉-šu-ú GURUŠ and GURUŠ.TUR, tēlītu of the šandabakku, whom Amīl- Marduk, the šandabakku, inspected in the month Ulūlu of year 8 of Šagarakti-Šuriaš.17

Most inspection texts belong to one of two types: (a) those which focus on the occupation and age group of individual male workers,18 and (b) those which focus on the physical condition and sex-age category of individual workers of either sex. We will use Ni. 1348 as an example of the first kind of inspection. This text begins with the introduction quoted above in Example 1, followed by a tabular register with the subcolumn headings “adult male/ adolescent male/ his (lit.: its) name(s).”19 Subcolumn c contains the entry labels. (In rosters, MU.BI.IM is usually the heading for the entry-label subcolumn). Two personal names are written in the entry labels: the first belonging to the person being inspected and thesecond

16 There is one inspection which does not utilize the rēša + našû formula. The closing statement of Ni. 1627 (edge, ll. 2–3) states that this text lists the names of seventy workers(= ÉRIN.MEŠ) who have been “inspected/accounted for” (amrū) and the names of three prisoners and at least two escapees, all of whom have been subtracted (šūlû) from the totals. 17 Ni. 1348. 18 This is especially true for inspections conducted by or on behalf of the šandabakku. 19 GURUŠ/ GURUŠ.TUR/ MU.BI.IM. sources 17 probably belonging to someone who held a position of authority or responsibility over the first-listed person.20

Example 2. Excerpt from Inspection Text Ni. 1348. a b c obverse 1. GURUŠ GURUŠ.TUR MU.BI.IM m d m 2. 1 EN5.SI Ki-din- Gu-la A-na-da-ar-kit-tu 3. 1 UŠ.BAR mdIM-ŠEŠ-SUM-na mKab-bu-šu 4. 1 MIN mKi-din-dIM MIN 5. 1 ḫa-za-an mEN-mu-šal-lim mḫu-ru-uk-ku lu-ub-di 6. 1 mḫi-in-na-ni-it MIN …

Subcolumns a and b indicate whether the first-named person in subcolumn c was an adult (GURUŠ) or an adolescent (GURUŠ.TUR) male, as listed in the subcolumn headings. Adults have a cell entry in subcolumn a, while adolescents have a cell entry in subcolumn b. Cell entries in subcolumns a or b are mutually exclusive: there can be an entry in one or other subcolumn, but not both (i.e., a person can be either an adult or an adolescent). Since the work group being inspected contained males from a variety of occupations, the cell entry in subcolumn a or b is a vertical wedge standing for “1” followed by an occupation name (or MIN) or a simple “1.” The text ends with a short conclusion that gives several subtotals for the group and describes them as “ÌR É.GAL te-lit ⌈GÚ⌉.EN.NA.”21 Ni. 2228 is an example of the second type of inspection. Such tabular registers list which members of a group were added (because they were newborn or had returned from flight), subtracted (because they fled or died), or remained in the group; and these registers probably served as assessments of the work capacity and/or the potential ration needs of the group. Looking at our example, we see that it is a five-subcolumn tabular register which operates in a manner similar to the previous type of inspection. The subcolumn headings are

20 This is inferred from the fact that in most simple rosters that feature such PN1 PN2 entries, MIN, mMIN, or mKI.MIN(= “ditto”) is often used in place of the second personal name to indicate a previously listed name. 21 Rev. 1’. 18 chapter two

“newborn (or: addition)22/ returned escapee/ (unreturned) escapee/ dead/” and the statement of inspection. Personal names are written in subcolumn e, and cell entries in the preceding subcolumns are sex-age designations. No cell entry in subcolumns a-d probably means that none of the categories in a-d apply, i.e., the worker is a continuing member of the group.23

Example 3. Excerpt from Inspection Text Ni. 2228. a b c d e 1. il-du ZÁḫ ZÁḫ ÚŠ MU.16.KAM Ku-ri-gal-zu 2. DU-kam mARḫ UŠ-šú-dNIN.IB re-ša iš-šu-ú 3. DUMU.GABA mBA-šá-dMAŠ 4. DUMU.GABA mdLa-ta-ra-ak-še-mi 5. DUMU.GABA mKi-din-dGu-la 6. fBur-ru-uq-tum … 13. GURUŠ. mI-na-É.SU.GAL-mil-ku TUR 14. DUMU. mDan-nu-mu-u-šu GABA … All of the subcolumns are added up along the vertical axis (omitted in the example) at the end of the register, and the statement of inspection is repeated in the conclusion.

Transfers of Personnel Transfers are records of the movement of working personnel from one economic unit (institution, estate) and/or geographic region to another. A primary focus of transfers is to record the name of the transferring official and the total number of individuals moved.

22 The preserved parts of this subcolumn list not only babies (DUMU.GABA and DUMU.SAL.GABA) but also male adolescents (GURUŠ.TUR and GURUŠ.TUR. TUR). 23 In this excerpted text being discussed here (Ni. 2228), all of the personnel for whom there is no cell entry in subcolumns a–d are women, and that they are in the minority in the listing (of the 35 sufficiently legible lines, only 8 have no cell entry). They occur bunched together (six in sequence on the obverse, two on the reverse). I am unsure whether this has any significance. sources 19

The names of the individual workers or the place of previous residence were not always provided. Transfer documents exhibit diversity in format and in the amount of information included. Some transfers record the relocation of workers from one place to another. We will call these texts transfers between locales. Transfers between locales are written in a non-tabular body format and begin with a list of names of transferred workers, followed by a total, a qualitative description of the group,24 and the operative administrative statement PN ultu GN ušēlâ (“PN transferred [the above listed personnel] here from GN”). Ni. 1332 is an example.

Example 4. Example of a Transfer between Locales (Excerpt from Ni. 1332). 1. SAL Bu-ru-uq-t[um…] 2. DUMU.SAL mEn-n[a…] m d 3. GURUŠ.TUR DI.KU5- ⌈x⌉[…] 4. DUMU.GABA mA-mar-šá-dx[…] 5. SAL I-na-Ì-si-in-GAL ⌈x⌉[…] 6. SAL I-na-Ul-maš-šar-ra[t…] … 8. PAP 5 DUMU.SAL mEn[-na…] 9. mdUTU-SUM-na DUMU m⌈x⌉[…] 10 LÚ.NU.GIŠ.SAR 11. TA URU DUMU A-ḫi-⌈tu⌉-ú-[ti…] 12 ⌈ú⌉-še-la[-a]25

Only tablets recording the bringing of workers to Nippur from outside areas are preserved in the known archives.26 On at least one occasion, a transfer of a slave (ardu) from As-su-⌈ka?⌉ (a city?) sparks a lawsuit regarding the ownership of the person being moved.27 There are two similar texts (CBS 3472 and Ni. 11149) that record transfers of groups of workers to Nippur primarily from houses or

24 E.g., PAP N DUMU.SAL PN. 25 Restoration of line 12 based on UM 29-15-461:11 in which the verb is complete. 26 Since the tablets were found at Nippur, it is probable that the ventive ending of šūlû indicates that the people in question had been transferred to that city. 27 The dispute concerns whether the slave was owned by Enlil-kidinnī, the gover- nor of Nippur, or another individual (CBS 8089). 20 chapter two

28 estates (e.g., PN1 ultu bīt PN2 šūsâtạ ). In Ni. 11149, it is stated that the laborers were returned to their original location (šūsâtạ turrat), which may mean that CBS 3472 documents an earlier phase of the same administrative process.29 Most of these groups were composed of a single family unit or combination of family units and nearly all were headed by a woman.30 It is worth noting that the Š-stem of asụ̂ is also used to describe the process of reassigning captured runaways in some legal and administrative texts.31 The transfer texts that do not fit this pattern also mention the individuals overseeing the transfer, but tend to omit workers’ names in favor of sums and categories. They differ in their administrative language and may be difficult to interpret. Ni. 656, for example, is a sealed tablet containing a statement about twenty amīlūtu, described as šūlût mār mŠi-⌈in-di⌉, who were transferred by order of Enlil-kidinnī.32 A second official, Kilamdi-Ubriaš, sent Enlil-nāsiṛ and Ur-x-x to take responsibility for the amīlūtu being transferred and to release them (for work assignments). Enlil-nāsiṛ sealed the transaction. Transfers can also be simple memoranda, such as Ni. 689, which merely states that two men brought 6 (number damaged) male adults and 3 female adults to their (?) boss.33

Summaries Simple roster summaries are records of the disposition and condition of multiple working subgroups drawn from more detailed field records. These use large tabular registers which enumerate workers collectively by category rather than list them individually by personal name. There are two types of summary documents. The first type enumerates workers by numbers in sex-age categories (listed in subcolumn headings) and groups them by occupation (indicated by entry

28 Note that these groups are construed as feminine singular. Most transfers in these two texts use šūsụ̂ as the operative administrative word, but šūlû occurs at least once (CBS 3472 rev. ii’ 13’). 29 “It (the group) was brought out here (to Nippur), and it was returned.” 30 In one preserved instance (Ni. 11149 iii 10’) the work group is referred to explicitly as a qinnu (“family”). 31 See “Miscellaneous Texts” (pages 34–36) and “Recapture and Reassignment” (pages 115–18), especially Examples 9–11. 32 Presumably the fourteenth-century šandabakku, but without title here. 33 ⌈m⌉dIM-ni-ši-šu [ù m]dBa-ú-e-ri-iš ⌈a-na⌉ be-⌈lí-šu?⌉ na-šu-ú ⌈6?⌉ GURUŠ.MEŠ 3 SAL.MEŠ. sources 21 label in the far right subcolumn). Totals are then calculated by both horizontal and vertical axes.34 Example 5. Excerpt from CBS 11531. a b c d e f 1. GURUŠ GURUŠ.TUR GURUŠ. DUMU. PAP[ ] [ ] TUR.TUR GABA … ? 10. 8 ⌈1⌉ 2 11 LÚ.Ì.[DU8 ] 11. 6 1 2 9 LÚ.N[A?.GAD?] 12. 4 6 1 11 LÚ ŠU ⌈x⌉[ ] 13. 5 1 1 7 LÚ pa-ḫa-⌈rù⌉ 14. 20 5 3 ⌈29⌉ LÚ.MUḫALDIM 15. 21 8 1 30 LÚ.NU.⌈GIŠ⌉[.ŠAR] … 17. PAP 1 ME 46 59 31 14 2 ME 50 …

Note the similarity of this text with Example 2, an inspection of males (only adults and adolescents). The second type of summary lists additions and subtractions from a work force by listing the numbers of “dead” (BA.ÚŠ), “escaped” (ZÁḫ ), and “(new)born” or “addition” (ildu) in each of several groupings (perhaps based on occupation, supervisors, or something similar).35 Example 6. Excerpt from CBS 11978. a b c d 1. ⌈BA⌉.ÚŠ ZÁḪ il-du [ ] 2. 57 47 73 ⌈x⌉[ ] 3. 6 6 10 ⌈x⌉[ ] 4. 7 1 1 [ ] … 14. PAP 92 70 103 ⌈x⌉[ ] 15. 11 2 7 [ ] 16. 98 8 23 [ ] 17. 31 4 ⌈25⌉ [ ] (space) 18. ŠU.NIGIN 232 84 15[8] ⌈x⌉[ ]

34 At least in all texts which are sufficiently preserved. 35 But this is just a guess, since there are as yet no known examples containing a fully preserved final subcolumn. 22 chapter two

Note the similarity between the categories used in this text and the inspection document in Example 3. Some summaries, such as Example 6, presume an earlier census with which comparison was being made (workers escaped, newborns, etc.). Only one summary preserves a date—to the year and king only (thus suggesting that these texts may have been drawn up annually).

Undetermined Texts in the undetermined category fall into two groups: (a) complete or nearly complete texts with no expressed or demonstrable function,36 and (b) fragmentary texts whose state of preservation makes it impossible to determine function. We will discuss the few common characteristics of texts of undetermined group one; texts of group two are too poorly preserved for analysis (or may be fragments from inspections, transfers, or summaries). Texts of the first undetermined type do not have much in common—explained in part by the fact that this is an artificial, catch-all category. All of them mention workers individually by personal name and (when dated at all) are dated by the month and year. Some texts of undetermined type can be linked together by prosopography (demonstrated below). Otherwise, these texts are attested in each of the three body formats and can vary widely in content. Six illustrative texts are presented in the following paragraphs. BE 14 120, BM 82699, and PBS 2/2 48 are non-tabular registers which list personnel individually by name subgrouped by occupation, but without sex-age designation.37 At least fourteen individuals appear on both BM 82699 and BE 14 120. PBS 2/2 48 shares at least two persons with BM 82699 and six with BE 14 120, which means that all three of these documents are snapshots of the same work group at different times.38 They are not exact copies. In all but one case,39 physical-condition designations or occupations, if any, are given after the personal name.40 None of these texts have an introduction, but the

36 Although possible functions can be proposed based on the descriptive elements. 37 All of the preserved names are those of males. 38 BE 14 120 is dated to Kudur-Enlil year 5 (1250) and PBS 2/2 48 is dated four years later to the first month of the accession year of Šagarakti-Šuriaš. 39 In PBS 2/2 48 9’, ki-lum appears before the personal name. 40 Occupations are written after the personal name only once in BM 82699 (line iv 4’) and PBS 2/2 48 (line 5’) and only twice in BE 14 120 (lines ii 12 and 33). sources 23 conclusions of two of them41 provide a date and an indication that the group was the responsibility of one Nāsiru—thẹ name of the first worker listed on BE 14 120.42 Two other texts, CBS 4906 and 11899, have strong stylistic and slight prosopographical links with these three documents and may also refer to work groups under the same supervisor (even though the personnel may change). CBS 11505 is a non-tabular register with just a single column per side. It lists male and female workers by name and sex-age designation, grouped into two households (qinnu) for which the household head is listed first, followed by subordinate members (with the relationship of each to the head indicated).

Remarks We have broken down the simple rosters into four types. The categories of inspection, transfer, and summary are based on expressed or demonstrable function. Texts that could not be fitted into either of these categories have been placed into a group of undetermined type.

Ration Rosters

We will now turn our attention to ration rosters. Some of these texts contain various types of disbursals, such as feed (ŠUK/kurummatu) for animals and work materials (ÉŠ.GÀR/iškaru) for craftsmen, in addition to rations. We will only discuss five principal types. They are: (a) barley or oil allocations as rations (ŠE.BA and Ì.BA) to persons and families (for periods of six months or less?); (b) barley allocations as rations (ŠE.BA) to persons who are divided into tenēštu groups by occupation (period not given); (c) barley allocations for rations and other purposes to animals and humans grouped by location outside of Nippur (period undetermined); (d) barley (and date) allocations as rations (ŠE.BA) to persons for periods of more than 6 months; (e) ration allocation summaries for groups in a single location, including a numerical personnel census.

41 Found in BE 14 120 and PBS 2/2 48. BM 82699 lacks a conclusion (its end is preserved). 42 ŠU mNa-si-ruṃ . The ŠU in PBS 2/2 48 is not preserved. 24 chapter two

Table 2. Body Format of Ration Rosters. Body format Number of texts Tabular registers 109 Short-tabular registers (clear examples) 18 Short-tabular registers (probable examples) 11 Insufficiently preserved 9 Total 147

Ration rosters that do not fit into these categories are typically unique texts which have some similarities to the above types or are too poorly preserved to categorize. Ration rosters are attested in two body formats. Tabular registers are the more common (at least 74.1%), short-tabular registers less frequent (at least 19.7%). Each text category is drawn up in only one body format (Figure 4). Types a through c are found as short-tabular registers, and types d and e as tabular registers. Basically, ration rosters covering allocations to individuals or families (types a–d) for which an allocation period is available are written as short-tabular if the disbursal period lasts six months or less, as tabular if it covers more than six months.

Ration Roster Category Tabular Short-tabular Registers Registers a. Barley or oil allocations as rations to persons and families for periods x of 6 months or less (?) b. Barley allocations as rations x to tenēštu groupings c. Barley allocations to animals x and humans d. Barley (and date) allocations as rations to persons for periods x of more than 6 months e. Ration allocation summaries for groups x Figure 4. Function and Body Format in Ration Rosters. sources 25

Barley or Oil Allocations as Rations (ŠE.BA and Ì.BA) to Persons and Families (for Periods of Six Months or Less?)43 These single column texts are distinguished by a short-tabular body format44 which lists individual workers and families—sometimes divided into subgroups based on occupation45—and rations allocated to them (ŠE.BA and Ì.BA).46 Only one text mentions a disbursal period (6 months).47 Expressions of familial relationships among the listed workers are common,48 but sex-age designations for them are rare and used only in exceptional cases.49 Some allocations of this type contain check marks and/or statements that the rations were “given out” (SUM-nu), which makes it likely, but not certain, that all texts of this category are records of rations disbursed rather than rations calculated. The size of the sūtu used to measure the barley varies, and in only one case50 is the location of the disbursal given (outside Nippur). The supervisor’s name may also be included.

Barley Allocations as Rations (ŠE.BA) to Persons Divided into Tenēštu Groups by Occupation (Period Undetermined).51 Ration rosters of this type are remarkable for their large size,52 multiple columns (at least three per side), short-tabular body format,53 and the number (in the hundreds) and sex-age classifications of the

43 Examples include BE 14 138; MUN 101, 103, and 112. BE 14 138 does not involve oil (Ì or Ì.GIŠ) as such, but ghee (Ì.NUN = ḫimētu). 44 MUN 103 is completely damaged along its left side, and there is no way to be completely sure of the number of subcolumns originally in the texts (i.e., whether it had a short-tabular or tabular body format). This could also explain the anomalies mentioned in notes 47 and 50, page 25 (below). 45 I.e., listed as PN or qinni PN. 46 MUN 112 has no preserved indication that the barley was for ŠE.BA, but the text is damaged at its beginning and end where one would normally find such statements. 47 MUN 103:1. This text is also the only one in this category that mentions geographic location. 48 Such as PN1 DUMU(.SAL) PN2, PN DAM/DUMU(.SAL).A.NI. 49 Usually for small children. 50 MUN 103:3. 51 Published examples include BE 15 188 and 190. BE 15 184–85 and 200 are similar, but with different entry styles and subtotal styles and with some allocations to animals. 52 E.g., BE 15 190 measures 18.8 × 11.55 × 5.8 cm. Texts of this type are significantly thicker (usually 5–6 cm in total thickness) than most other ration rosters. 53 One could argue that these texts were written as tabular registers because a separate subcolumn containing the sex-age designation can be seen within a few columns 26 chapter two workers listed on them. Workers are predominantly women and children provided with personal name, sex-age designation, and sometimes father’s name and are usually divided into large subgroups of tenēštu. All allocations are intended as rations (ŠE.BA); and, if an allocation was disbursed, a check mark was placed to the left of the recipient’s name. Measurement standard, allocation period, and location for the disbursal are not preserved.

Barley Allocations for Various Purposes to Animals and Humans by Location outside of Nippur (Period Undetermined).54 These one-column texts have a short-tabular body format which records various types of barley allocations to humans and animals that were disbursed in locations outside of Nippur. Barley is disbursed to humans as rations for consumption by workers (ŠE.BA), as materials for production (ÉŠ.GÀR),55 or as “gifts” (rīmūtu). Ration recipients are listed as individuals or families, with no subgroups or sex-age designations given.56 Barley is disbursed to animals for fodder (ŠUK); and the animals are listed by number, type, and sometimes the individual in whose care they are placed. All disbursals are made with a standard measurement (GIŠ.BÁN GAL), and the text may include the name of the disbursing official. The intended allocation period for the disbursals listed is not clear. The period is six months in the lone case where an allocation period for all of the disbursals is given (months I–VI).57 This is contradicted in the same text by some individual entries which state that the rations are intended to cover a period of ten months (months III–XII). The other documents in this category do not give a disbursal period for all of the listed disbursals, but some individual entries state that they cover a span of three months.58 on some of these rosters. This is a rare feature that is not always maintained throughout a tablet and may be due to a scribe’s choice to draw a ruling down the text to separate the designation from the personal name. What is important is that the contents of row entries are basically the same: sex-age designation/personal name/(ration), with the sex-age designation and personal name written together in the same subcolumn or separate in adjacent subcolumns. 54 Published examples include BE 14 60, 62, 91a; BE 15 160. 55 Typically for brewing beer. 56 With one exception: the names and sex-age designations of the members of the qinnu of mdNuska-erība are laid out at the end of BE 15 160. 57 BE 14 91a. 58 BE 14 60:8–9, 62:3–14. sources 27

Barley Allocations as Rations (ŠE.BA) and Date Allocations to Persons for Periods of More Than Six Months.59 These tabular registers provide a monthly accounting of barley alloca- tions60 to individuals during a period of from seven months to a year in locations outside of Nippur. Workers are listed individually in the entry labels (MU.BI.IM) by personal name, sex-age designation, and physical-condition designation (if applicable). The worker’s occupation and a statement declaring that the worker listed is the wife, son, or daughter of a previously listed person may follow the personal name.61 In one text, sex-age and condition designations are written in a separate subcolumn which precedes the entry labels.62 There are no expressed subgroups, but family members are usually listed in sequence. Ration allocations make up the bulk of the tabular register—one subcolumn for each month. Several subtotals of the allocations, calculated along both the vertical and horizontal axes, may be written in key locations throughout the register, such as in the final row entry or in subcolumns dedicated specifically to this task.63 Allocations are measured out by the “ration sūtu” (GIŠ.BÁN ŠE.BA) and perhaps the “six-qû sūtu.” 64 There are no indications as to whether the rations were actually disbursed to the workers.

Ration Allocation Summaries for Groups in a Single Location, Including a Numerical Personnel Census.65 These texts all date from years 13–20 of Kurigalzu II and were compiled from information contained in other texts. The four preceding types of ration rosters would be likely source candidates, though none of them provide all of the required data. The function of allocation summaries is to give: (a) the number of workers by sex-age category

59 Published examples include BE 14 58, BE 15 96 and 111. 60 BE 14 58 contains disbursals of barley and dates. 61 DAM.A.NI, DUMU.A.NI, and DUMU.SAL.A.NI. 62 BE 14 58. 63 E.g., subcolumns g, n, o, and line 47 in BE 14 58. 64 But this requires the restoration “[ŠE GIŠ.BÁN]⌈6⌉ SÌLA” in BE 14 58:51. 65 There are at least 34 known documents and fragments of this type of text (including the second group written under the reign of Šagarakti-Šuriaš and another variant text (MUN 111) ). Published examples include BE 14 19–20, 22; BE 15 180; MUN 86–91, 93–95, 105, 108–11; PBS 2/2 9 and 132. 28 chapter two assigned to a particular supervisor, work assignment, geographic/ ethnic group (gentilic), or larger kin group, (b) the total amount of barley disbursed as rations (ŠE.BA) to each subgroup by location, and (c) the month(s) during which the disbursal(s) took place. The attested disbursal periods usually cover a single month with one or two exceptions: BE 14 19 and possibly MUN 86 (both texts would concern disbursals given for two months each). Geographic location, or conceivably institution, mentioned is most commonly Bīt(-)Ninlil with other ambiguous names of towns occuring twice.66 A tabular register of allocation summaries can be divided vertically into three discrete parts, with quantitative data in the first two parts (census of workers and measurements of barley) and qualitative data (the names of supervisors and occupations, family groups, etc.) in the third. Part 1 enumerates workers in up to five sex-age categories: “adult male”(GURUŠ), “adolescent male” (GURUŠ.TUR.GAL or GURUŠ. TUR), “male child” (GURUŠ.TUR.TUR), “adult female” (SAL), or

Figure 5. Vertical Arrangement of Tabular Register of Ration Allocation Summaries for Groups in a Single Location, Including a Numerical Personnel Census.67

66 BE 14 22 (Zibbat-Kartaba)and MUN 95 (Pattu). 67 The tablet in Figure 5 is the obverse of MUN 93, published by Sassmannshausen in BaF 21 (2001). Only the top portion of the tablet is shown (photograph by the author). sources 29

“(other) people” (tenēštu). These categories are listed in the subcolumn headings of this part of the register. The number of workers in each category and other notations are written in the cells below. The entire section acts as a census of workers, divided into categories, under each supervisor.68 The texts do not supply personal names or family data for individual workers. The heart of part 2 is the subcolumn(s) totaling the amount of barley provided to the workers in each row. For the sake of clarity we will call these disbursal subcolumns. In all but one or two cases, there is one disbursal subcolumn with the month name in the heading, i.e., covering a single month.69 A subcolumn with the heading “BAD” always follows the disbursal subcolumns. At present, the function of this subcolumn is unclear, and we will use the neutral reading BAD.70 Cell entries in the BAD subcolumn are rare and consist of measures of barley. The third part contains entry labels or qualitative summaries. Entry labels mention the names of supervisors71 or occupations,72 or larger family groups.73 The qualitative summaries (summing up multiple

68 The large percentage of names of supervisors that seem to be of non-Akkadian origin is striking and significantly out of line with the percentage among the worker population in general (See Appendix 2). Since “supervisor” is after all an interpretation, it is possible that these names might rather represent eponyms of work groups, i.e., the names of the principal leaders of the cohort. 69 Exceptions are BE 14 19 and possibly MUN 86, which both cover two months. 70 The sign has been read as TIL(=gamru) by Leonhard Sassmannshausen in BaF 21 (2001): 266. He has also stated that only check marks occur in this subcolumn (p. 266), but this is incorrect as these marks are usually on the masculine personal wedge in the final subcolumn or, lacking this determinative, a corresponding first sign and often right on the vertical subcolumn dividing line. The only clear entries in this subcolumn give amounts of grain (MUN 93 i 4, iii 22 and MUN 95: 8–10, 12, 14, and 20). There is no tenable evidence for or against a reading ÚŠ (“dead”), the sign’s most frequent usage in laborer rosters, on these texts. This is contrary to statements that I made in my dissertation (University of Chicago (2009): 37–38 n. 56). In fact, the two signs read by Sassmannshausen as ÚŠ in this text (MUN 95: 6 and 9) which led to those statements are both in fact NU. For additional certain examples of NU in these subcolumns, see BE 14 22: 6, 9, and 22; uncertain examples include MUN 88: 4 (perhaps also NU, faint), MUN 91:6 and 9 (damaged), and MUN 95: 22 (damaged). One would also expect a greater number of entries with the reading ÚŠ, based on the frequency of dead workers in the rest of the roster corpus. Perhaps in the future, if one could make sense of the ration figures in these texts, one could propose a solution—but this would be a significant undertaking. 71 Male supervisors predominate heavily, though there are a few females (notably in MUN 93 and 94). 72 E.g., LÚ.LUNGA.MEŠ (MUN 86:25’, rare). 73 E.g., DUMU.MEŠ PN (BE 14 19:57–59). 30 chapter two groups) are occupation names,74 geographic names/gentilics,75 super visors,76 family groups,77 the collective piqdānu,78 or are left blank (the group being totaled is not labeled).79 There is no indication of a measurement standard (sūtu) or whether the rations were actually disbursed (other than the check marks on the tablet). There is a second slightly different group of documents, dating from the reign of Šagarakti-Šuriaš eighty years later, one from his eighth year80 and four from his twefth year.81 Geographic location plays a significant role in these allocation summaries. In all cases, these locations are outside of Nippur. These do not mention a place or institution in the introduction,82 but only in the grandtotal at the end of the text; or, if barley was distributed in several locations, the places of distribution are named in the appropriate subcolumn headings.83 There are no qualitative summaries (subtotals) in these texts. The grand totals, where readable, state that these are groups of ÉRIN.84 The disbursal subcolums are also constructed differently in these texts: a subcolumn with the heading “1 ITI” was inserted before the disbursal subcolumns to indicate the amount of ration required for a single month.85 The subcolumns which follow give a combined barley total for several months at this rate. All of these texts,

74 E.g., LÚ.BÁḫAR.MEŠ (BE 14 22:23 and MUN 95:23), AD.KID.MEŠ (BE 14 22:26 and MUN 95:26). 75 NIM.MA.KI.MEŠ PN (PBS 2/2 9:14 and PBS 2/2 132:14, parallel texts). 76 E.g., CBS 3474 i 19’ and MUN 93 ii 8 (parallel texts). 77 MUN 89 rev. iv 17’. 78 BE 15 180:22. Piqdānu is a poorly understood administrative term derived from paqādu (to entrust (something)). 79 MUN 89 rev. iv 9’. 80 MUN 105. 81 MUN 108–11 (possibly also 113). 82 Instead they use ŠE.BA N ITI, where N is the number of months covered by the ration disbursals (maximum attested number of months is 5). MUN 105 deals with only one month, and the heading is ŠE.BA ITI.NE.NE.GAR. It is also the only text lacking checkmarks, and it has several entries stating that some work groups did not take their grain allocation (ŠE.BA NU TUK). 83 A large proportion of these subcolumn headings are damaged. 84 Akkadian = sābụ (“people,” rare). E.g., ÉRIN.ḫ I.A É ⌈dEn⌉-líl (MUN 105:20), ÉRIN.ME É ⌈dEn⌉-líl (MUN 110:24), and ⌈ša dul-li ÉRIN.ḫ I⌉.[A] (MUN 108:25). 85 E.g., MUN 108, 110–11. Note also the presence of several atypical subcolumns in MUN 108 (subcolumns h–k) and MUN 109 (subcolumn i and perhaps one or two of the subcolumns with damaged headings which precede it). sources 31 except MUN 105, include the BAD subcolumn after the disbursal subcolumns.86

Remarks We have analyzed five significant categories of ration rosters and found that all of them function as records of recipients and allocated goods and that a typology can be created by analyzing information conveyed, such as goods disbursed, intended recipients, geographic location, time span covered, and text format.

Purchases of Personnel

Documents recording the purchases of personnel are of two principal types: (a) purchases of two or more persons, sometimes members of a family, and (b) purchases of a single person, usually a very young child. Several scholars have previously discussed these texts.87

Purchases of Personnel in Groups With one exception, all presently known group purchases are attested in documents from Nippur. These texts range in date from c. 1370 (Kadašman-Enlil I) to 1186 (Meli-Šipak).

Table 3. Selected Published and Unpublished Purchases of Personnel in Groups. Number of Individuals Text Regnal Year Purchased B. 143 + B. 227 Meli-Šipak 1 3 BE 14 7 Burna-Buriaš II 8 8 MUN 8 Burna-Buriaš II 7 (+) 9 (+)

(Continued)

86 MUN 111 , NBC 7959, and (probably) Ni. 1110 are still another variant type, dealing only with adult males (therefore having only one census subcolumn (in Ni. 1110 this subcolumn is destroyed)) with entries such as DUMU.ME/.MEŠ mPN. They record disbursals from year 6 of Kadašman-Enlil (NBC 7959), year 12 of Šagarakti-Šuriaš (MUN 111), and the accession year of a king whose name is broken away (Ni. 1110). NBC 7959 and Ni. 1110 list some of the same personal names. 87 J.A. Brinkman, Materials and Studies for Kassite History, vol. 1 (Chicago: Oriental Insititute of the University of Chicago, 1976): 383–84; O. R. Gurney, The Middle 32 chapter two

Table 3. (Cont.) Number of Individuals Text Regnal Year Purchased MUN 9 + PBS 13 6488 Burna-Buriaš II 22 Ni. 1574 Burna-Buriaš II 18 8 Ni. 1854 (lawsuit about Kadašman-Enlil I 18 a purchase) Ni. 6192 [Burna-Buriaš II] 25 Ni. 6558 Kurigalzu II 6 2 PBS 2/2 25 Nazi-Maruttaš 10 24 PBS 8/2 162 Burna-Buriaš II 24 4 TuM NF 5 65 Burna-Buriaš II 18 2 (MRWH 2) TuM NF 5 66 Burna-Buriaš II 17 2 (MRWH 1)

Most of these deal with the acquisition of 2–8 persons, but there are examples of 18, 22, 24, and 25 slaves being purchased at once. These legal documents often provide information on each slave: name, relationship to others in the group, sex-age, price, and place of origin (if non-native). They also indicate the names of the principals involved in the transaction: seller, buyer (or buyer’s agent), future owner,89 and witnesses, as well as the full price, how the price was paid, and the date.

Purchases of Single Individuals Purchases of single individuals are attested from three sites: Nippur, Ur, and Imlihiye (in the Diyala region). These usually describe a very young child by sex, age, size (lānu),90 country of birth, and names of parents.

Babylonian Legal and Economic Texts from Ur (Oxford: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1983): 3–8, 14–15, 17–28, 74–92, 179–81; Herbert P. H. Petschow, “Die Sklavenkaufverträge des šandabakku Enlil-kidinnī von Nippur,” Orientalia N. S. 52 (1983): 143–55; Sassmannshausen, BaF 21 (2001): 203–08, 211–13. 88 This join should be credited to Daniel Nevez. 89 Enlil-kidinnī, the governor of Nippur, employed proxies in his slave purchases; and these individuals are listed on the tablet as the person(s) who paid the seller(s) for the slaves, even though Enlil-kidinnī eventually took possession of them. 90 Expressed in ammatu by the stereotyped formula “(numeral) KÙŠ la-an-šu/ša.” The attested dimensions of ½, 1, and 2 cubits are unlikely to refer to height, since half sources 33

Table 4. Published and Unpublished Purchases of Single Individuals. Text Regnal Year Individual Sold BaM 13, pp. 57–60, no. 1 Kaštiliašu IV 2 girl (Kassite) BE 14 1 Burna-Buriaš II 8 boy (native Babylonian) BE 14 128a Šagarakti-Šuriaš 2 girl (native Babylonian) CBS 10733 Kudur-Enlil girl (native Babylonian) MSKH 1 9 Kadašman-Ḫarbe II girl (native Babylonian) accession year UET 7 1 Kadašman-Enlil 3 girl UET 7 2 Kadašman-Ḫarbe II boy (native Babylonian) accession year UET 7 21 Adad-šuma-iddina boy (native Babylonian) accession year UET 7 22 no date preserved boy UET 7 23 Adad-šuma-iddina boy accession year UET 7 24 year 2 (king’s name girl (native Babylonian) not preserved) UET 7 25 Kaštiliašu IV 3 girl (native Babylonian) UET 7 27 Kaštiliašu IV 4 girl

The documents also give the names of buyer and seller, the price, the names of the witnesses, and the date. In the texts from Ur, the designation for young male is LÚ.TUR rather than the GURUŠ.TUR used at Nippur. The time range of these texts is 1352–1224 (Nippur), 1261– 1223 (Ur), and 1231 (Imlihiye).91 Purchases from Nippur are significant in this study because the people being sold in them are categorized by the same sex-age designations and many of the same collective terms, notably amīlūtu, that characterize servile workers listed in rosters. Sales from Ur use slightly different sex-age terminology and are therefore useful comparisons.

a cubit (or slightly under 25 cm) is too small to indicate a viable child. This metrology might be a standard which refers to age, rather than actual size. Petschow, “Die Sklavenkaufverträge,” (1983): 144 n. 8. 91 The type is not confined to the Kassite period in Babylonia. There is a heavily damaged child-purchase text of the same format (for one child from the land of Lullumu, sex unknown) from the reign of Adad-apla-iddina in the Isin II dynasty: UM 29-15-598 (from year 5 or 15 of the reign—1064 or 1054 B.C.—M[U.(x+)]⌈5⌉.KAM). Reference courtesy Brinkman. 34 chapter two

Miscellaneous Texts

The final category consists of sixty-three miscellaneous texts dealing with workers that either do not occur in sufficient numbers to warrant a separate category or are unique documents in the study sample. We will not describe each of these texts, but will look at only a few examples. Some texts in this category are legal or administrative texts92 which deal with the escape, recapture, imprisonment, and subsequent disposition of aberrant laborers. The first six lines of BM 17626 will serve as an example:

Example 7. Excerpt from Legal Text from BM 17626. 1. mSUD-dU.GUR DUMU mfta-x-x(-x)93 2. ZÁḫ -ma md NIN.IB-SUM-aḫ-ḫe 3. il-qa-áš-šu-um94-ma 4. i-na ki-li ik-la-šu-ma 5. m⌈ŠES?⌉-du-tum DUMU mIm-ma-ti-ia 6. pu-us-su im-ḫa-as-̣ ma ú-še-si-šụ … “Rīš-Nergal, the son of ta-x-x(-x), escaped, and Ninurta-nādin-aḫḫē brought him back and held him in prison. Aḫēdūtu, the son of Immatīya, assumed a guarantee for him and effected his release.”

The following portion of the text lists the consequences should Rīš- Nergal escape again, die, etc. It concludes with a list of five witnesses, the full date, and the fingernail mark of Aḫēdūtu. There are fourteen

92 Legal texts contain conditions for the person’s release, witnesses, seals, etc. These items are lacking in the administrative texts. 93 For personal names written with both the masculine and feminine personal determinatives, see J.A. Brinkman, “Masculine or Feminine? The Case of Conflicting Gender Determinatives for Middle Babylonian Personal Names” in Studies Presented to Robert D. Biggs: June 4, 2004, eds. Martha T. Roth et al. (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2007), 1–10. 94 This does not necessarily indicate a dative according to Middle Babylonian orthographic practice. sources 35 other texts95 that describe comparable situations and use similar phraseology.96 Other texts in the miscellaneous category are non-roster administrative texts and ad hoc notes dealing with disbursals of barley to workers.97 For example, Ni. 826 is a ten-line text which lists the rations (ŠE.BA) for nine months for two dead women. The text is dated to the month and day and mentions the women’s supervisor who seals the tablet.98

Example 8. Ni. 826. 1. 1 GUR 2 PI 3 BÁN ŠE.BA fSu-un-⌈x⌉-am-ma BA.ÚŠ

2. TA ITI.APIN.DU8.A 3. EN ITI.ŠU.NUMUN.NA 4. 1 GUR 2 PI 3 BÁN ŠE.BA fḫu-un-zu-ʾ-ti BA.ÚŠ

5. TA ITI.APIN.DU8.A 6. a-di ITI.ŠU.NUMUN.NA 7. PAP 3 GUR ŠE.BA 2 BA.ÚŠ.MEŠ rev. 8. ŠU DUMU fKu-up-pi-ta-ti

9. ITI ŠU.NUMUN.NA U4.28.KAM 10. KIŠIB DUMU fKu-up-pi-ta-ti

A few Middle Babylonian letters are also relevant, especially with regard to amīlūtu. In one letter, an official is ordered to give barley to nine amīlūtu under the authority of a brewer of Āl-šēlebi “according to [their] status as amīlūtu” as well as to residents of the city.99 Another letter contains an unclear passage that could be interpreted either as a reminder from the writer to his superior that the amīlūtu-status of

95 Examples include BE 14 11, 127, 135; BM 17626; CBS 8600A, 11106, 11453; Ni. 1333, 1390, 2204, 7195; PBS 8/2 161; TuM NF 5 67; and UM 29-13-984. Some scholarly commentary is available: Herbert P. H. Petschow, MRWH (1974): 31–36 and Sassmannshausen, BaF 21 (2001): 194, 218–19. 96 Specifically, pūta + maḫāsụ “to assume guarantee (for somebody).” 97 E.g., CBS 15178 and Ni. 826. 98 There is no counterpart seal impression on the tablet, raising the possibility that this tablet is a draft or a copy. 99 ana pī amīlūt[ī š u n u ] BE 17 83:16 (collated May 2010). A restoration of amīlūt[ī š u ] (“his status as amīlūtu”) in line sixteen is also possible. See CAD A/2, p. 62 (amīlūtu, 4) and note the translation of aššābu in this passage by the CAD as “alien(?) resident (of low status) in a town.” CAD A/2, p. 461 (aššābu, 1.c). 36 chapter two some ḫazannus has been set down on a document or as a statement that the (names of?) certain amīlus subject to the ḫazannus have been recorded.100 Other unique texts, which may be related to this corpus, need to be further studied. For example, BBSt 33 is a damaged stone document of undetermined date, though probably late Middle Babylonian or very early Neo-Babylonian, which lists male and female workers inherited as part of an estate; these are described by the same distinctive sex-age categories that are elsewhere applied only to servile laborers. Another significant text from Dūr-Kurigalzu, also damaged, lists many men and women by name, often adding information on place of residence and family/group relationships.101 Texts of the miscellaneous category are important to this study because they contain information that supplements the data drawn from rosters and purchases— specifically, what happens to servile laborers who desert their assignments, and what was the social status of the workers listed on the rosters.

Concluding Remarks on Sources

The available sources for a study of the servile laborer consist of rosters of workers, purchases of personnel, and miscellaneous administrative texts (including letters). Rosters are the most important; and these can be divided into simple rosters, which list workers but not rations, and ration rosters, which list workers and rations. Simple rosters can be separated into types based on function; and ration rosters can be divided into categories based on a variety of factors, such as geographic location of the disbursal, goods disbursed, intended recipients, time span covered, and body format. Purchases of personnel contain the details of sales of groups of people or of individual children. The final category consists of miscellaneous texts which touch upon the servile population, but do not belong in the more common text categories.

100 awīlūssunu ina lēʾi ša bēliya šatraṭ BE 17 51: 17–19. CAD A/2, p. 61 (amīlūtu, 2.b). 101 IM 50990, published in Iraq 11 (1949): 131–49, no. 8. Some of the qinnu (families or work groups?) may total as high as 50 or 60 individuals, but the meaning of the formulary beginning PAP qin-nu + number needs further elucidation (see page 98). CHAPTER THREE

POPULATION: SEX, AGE, DEATH, AND HEALTH

Introduction

The next part of this chapter (section 2) describes the data base that was used to process the information contained in the sources. Section 3 discusses the quality of the data and suggests ways to lessen the impact of the data’s limitations. The main contribution of the chapter is section 4, which is a detailed statistical analysis of the worker population. It includes remarks about the composition of the population: sex ratio, age categories, mortality, disability, and absences. The chapter ends with a conclusion (section 5) summarizing some of the more significant results of the statistical analysis.

The Data Base

Microsoft Access, a current data base program, has been used to organize information about the tablets and the individuals listed on them. These data have been entered into two distinct, searchable tables—a Document Table and a Personnel Table—that are linked together so that one can query both tables with a single action. The purpose of the Document Table is to gather basic information about each document (e. g., tablet condition, date, contents, style, transliterations, photographs). It includes all texts that fit the selection criteria mentioned in section 2 (“Process of Selection”) of Chapter 2, even those unpublished sources for which full transliterations or photographs were unavailable. The Document Table functions as a searchable catalogue of the corpus and an access point for the digitized transliterations and photographs available for most tablets. Each of the 520 tablets and fragments that make up the corpus was entered separately into the table, and the appropriate data for each tablet were included for the following fields:1

1 Except where some fields did not apply or the information was not available. 38 chapter three

(a) museum number, excavation number, and publication informa tion; (b) physical appearance and dimensions; (c) date (if present); (d) text type, format,2 and a short description of the contents; (e) presence of: key vocabulary, sex-age and physical-condition designations, occupational categories, gentilics, and check marks; (f) disbursal of commodities and the measuring standard used; (g) photographs and transliterations. In most cases, the information to be entered in a field was circum- scribed, i.e., there could be only a few possible answers; and this aspect was engineered into the data base to speed up the entry process and to facilitate standardized responses.3 At other times, the answers for particularly complicated or anomalous situations were customized. The Personnel Table collects information on every individual person listed on the 307 tablets from the University of Pennsylva nia Museum, the British Museum, the Hilprecht-Sammlung in Jena, and the Louvre. The texts housed in Istanbul and the Yale Babylonian Collection could not be collated, and so the individuals listed on these documents were not entered into this table. However, transliterations or detailed notes for each of the Istanbul and Yale tablets are available; and these were used to explore questions that the other texts did not provide enough information to answer. Each occurrence of a personal name on the tablets was given a single entry in this Personnel Table (total 5816 entries). The table includes the following fields:

(a) personal name (spelling, transcription, alias); (b) citation (text, side, column, line, subcolumn4); (c) function (e.g., worker, supervisor, household head, non-worker father or mother,5 witness, etc.); (d) sex-age category; (e) current condition (alive, dead, ill, blind, escaped, imprisoned, fettered, travelling);6

2 As described in the preceding chapter. 3 Primarily by creating pull-down menus. 4 The subcolumn letter is given after the line number because it refers to a portion of a line, i.e., a single cell (box) within a line. The citation style used in this study is explained on pages 10–11. 5 I.e., patronym or matronym. 6 If a worker is not listed as dead, he or she is presumed to be alive. population 39

(f) occupation and/or job description; (g) name(s) and relationship(s) of other household members; (h) name of supervisor and description of supervisory role

(e.g., PN1 PN2, amīlūtu ša PN); (i) membership in a qinnu and the eponym of that qinnu (qinni PN); (j) gentilic; (k) residence or place of work-assignment (region, town, insti tution); (l) notable administrative term applied to the principal’s status or his/her work (e.g., tenēštu, amīlūtu, mandattu); (m) personal barley allocation and amount (total and/or monthly amount); (n) other commodities received and amounts; (o) reference(s) to the same person in other texts. As with the Document Table, there were a limited number of possible answers for many fields in the Personnel Table. For example, the “sex” field presented the following choices: “male”, “female”, “insufficiently preserved”, and “not indicated”; and this was factored into the data- entry process.7 Provisions were also made for detailed or unexpected answers. Some fields were not applicable to a person (e.g., sex-age designations for patronyms); or the information was not available, even if the text passage was fully preserved. Data were entered whenever present. For example, if an individual was mentioned on a tablet, but his/her personal name was destroyed; any information that remained (e.g., profession, sex-age designation, patronym) was entered into the data base. By following this principle, the data base provided as complete a picture as possible; and any search, sort, query, or report drawn from it was as comprehensive as possible.

The Data and their Limitations

The 520 texts fitting the selection criteria formed the basis for the Document Table, and the information on the individuals listed on 307 of these texts was entered into the Personnel Table. The information

7 Again, primarily through pull-down menus. 40 chapter three written into these two tables8 makes up the data base used for this study. A great majority (82%) of the tablets featured in these tables are rosters, and the individuals found on the rosters of the Personnel Table are the source of nearly all the statistical information appearing in this chapter; so it is worth examining how these documents reflect the textual categories laid out in the preceding chapter. There are 253 simple rosters, 147 ration rosters, and 26 unassigned rosters (for a total of 426) in the Document Table. A search of the Personnel Table reveals individuals listed from 140 simple rosters, 98 ration rosters, and 8 unassigned rosters for a total of 246 rosters in that table. Numbers of rosters by textual category found in the Document and Personnel Tables are given in Table Five below:

Table 5. Number of Rosters by Category in the Document and Personnel Tables. Document Table Personnel Table Simple rosters Inspections 71 32 Transfers 13 9 Summaries 2 2 Undetermined type 167 97 Total simple rosters: 253 140 Ration rosters9 Allocations—types (a, d, e) 7 6 Allocations—tenēštu-groups (b) 24 20 Allocations—animals and humans (c) 7 5 Summaries—numerical census (f) 35 24 Other 32 28 Insufficiently preserved 42 15 Total ration rosters: 147 98 Unassigned rosters 26 8 Total 426 246

8 And the queries, the derived reports, and the forms designed to assist in data entry. 9 Letters follow those given in Figure 4, page 24. The categories barley or oil allo cations as rations (ŠE.BA and Ì.BA) to persons and families (for periods of six months population 41

Before we study the data from the rosters, we will first discuss how our analysis will be conditioned by tablet damage, the lack of dates on the texts, and the manner in which individuals and groups are recorded on the tablets.

Problems of Preservation and Access More than 94% of the documents used in this study are damaged. Figure 6 is a stacked column graph comparing the state of preservation of all tablets available for statistical analysis on the worker population (Personnel Table) with all known tablets available on the topic (Document Table).10 Each column in Figure 6 is marked off into five categories (A–E) corresponding to the degree of preservation of the tablets. Category A: fully preserved tablets that have all four corners and the center preserved with undamaged writing. Category B: mostly—but not completely—preserved tablets that have all four corners and the center preserved, but the text is damaged in some small way. Categories C and D have at least 40% of the tablet body preserved; but C includes tablets with mostly readable writing and an identifiable format, while the writing on tablets of category D is mostly unreadable and the format has not been identified. Category E includes small portions of a tablet, such as a corner or a flake of the surface that represents less than 40% of the original tablet, with an unidentified format or few words readable. These categories served as guidelines in creating Figure 6, and on occasion assignment of a tablet to a category had to be based on esti- mates of tablet size, etc., that are hardly incontrovertible. Unavailable tablets had to be placed in a category based on information recorded on previous transliterations or notes, which were sometimes laconic in their descriptions.

or less?), barley (and date) allocations as rations (ŠE.BA) to persons for periods of more than six months, and ration allocation summaries for groups in one location including a numerical personnel census (i.e., categories a, d, and e) were combined in this table because of the low numbers represented by each. 10 I.e., tablets entered in the Document Table and the subset of them that was available for the Personnel Table. 42 chapter three

Figure 6. Preservation of Tablets: Document Table vs. Personnel Table.

Figure 6 suggests that the documents used to compile population statistics are generally in better condition than the corpus as a whole. A greater percentage of them are complete or are mostly preserved (Categories A and B), and slightly smaller percentages fall under the categories of at least 40% preserved (C and D) and very little preserved (E).11

Chronology of the Statistical Corpus The rosters used to compile the Personnel Table were composed over a period of at least 89 years, from year 13 of Kurigalzu II to year 1 of Kaštiliašu IV (c. 1320–1232),12 and at least one text is attested from the reign of each king ruling during the period.13 Twenty-eight rosters are dated to king and year, i.e., at least royal name and regnal year are sufficiently preserved for identification.14

11 The statistics on the preservation of documents could be affected in the future: (a) by the discovery of still more texts in these categories; (b) by more joins within the corpus. 12 The entire research corpus (Document Table) covers a greater range of dates from c. 1370 to 1186 (both terminal texts are legal documents pertaining to slaves). 13 Seven kings ruled Babylonia at this time: Kurigalzu II (1332–1308), Nazi- Maruttaš (1307–1282), Kadašman-Turgu (1281–1264), Kadašman-Enlil II (1263– 1255), Kudur-Enlil (1254–1246), Šagarakti-Šuriaš (1245–1233), and Kaštiliašu IV (1232–1225). 14 BE 14 19, 22, 58, 60, 62, 91a, 105, 120; CBS 7726; MUN 86–93, 103, 105, 108– 111, 284, 418; UM 29-13-378, -382, -816. population 43

Three texts are dated just by regnal year or have the regnal year only preserved.15 Nine texts mention a regnal year without a royal name within the text, meaning that the year is not the explicit date of composition but occurs in an individual entry or qualitative summary as a year marking some administrative action.16 Four of these twelve texts refer to high regnal years, and so they either date to or postdate years within the reigns of Kurigalzu II or Nazi-Maruttaš (the only two rulers in the sequence who reigned more than 18 years). BE 15 111 is dated to year 21; and CBS 3646, 8509, and 15178 mention years 23, 21, and 27, respectively, within the text. One text dates to the eighth year of Šagarakti-Šuriaš or later, because there is a reference to that year within one of the qualitative summaries.17 Six others can be dated to a particular king, but not to a specific year.18 There are two explanations for the lack of dates by regnal year and king. In the first place, some complete rosters have either no date or just the regnal year, which indicates that reign and year were not always required for certain types of documents. Secondly, some of these tablets have sustained considerable damage in significant locations. Almost all dates are written in the introduction or conclusion of the text, which means that they are typically found on the obverse top left and reverse bottom left corners of a multi-columned tablet, or on or near the upper edge either as the beginning or end of the text. These are the thinnest and most exposed parts of the tablet and are therefore the most likely to be damaged or broken off.

Problem of Personal Name Repetition The prime identifier of an entry in the Personnel Table is the personal name (PN) associated with it. Table 6 gives statistics on the relative preservation of these names. Of the 5816 entries, just over 92% have at least part of the personal name preserved and 59.5% have names that are completely preserved or can be fully restored.

15 BE 15 111; CBS 12572 and 15178. 16 CBS 3646 obv. i’ 12’ and ii’ 18’ b, 8509 obv. ii’ 10’ b, 8510 obv. iii 6’ b, 10700 obv. i’ 13’ and rev. ii’ 6, 11873 rev. 13’ e’, 13322 obv. 2, 13490 obv. i’ 9’; UM 29-13-644 obv. iii’ 7’ b’; UM 29-15-253 obv. ii’ 2’ b. 17 CBS 7092+ obv. i’ 8’’ a’. 18 CBS 3816; MUN 94–95, 101, and 112; UM 29-15-370. 44 chapter three

Table 6. Personnel Table Entries and Preservation of Personal Names. 5816 Total Entries 5371 Entries with at least part of the PN preserved. 3459 Entries with the PN completely preserved or plausibly reconstructed in its full form.

Table 7. Repetition of Personal Names.19 3459 Entries with the PN completely preserved or plausibly reconstructed in its full form. 1886 Different names that are completely preserved or can be restored. 572 Names that occur in more than one entry.

Table 7 shows the number of different names that can be found among the entries with at least a partially preserved name.Worth noting is that 30.3% of the different names occur more than once. Table 8 provides additional statistics on completely preserved or plausibly reconstructed personal names (complete or reconstructed in their full form). It lists how often the same or homonymous names appear in the documentation, the total number of different names attested, the number of entries, and the percentage of the total. There are 1886 different names attested and 572 of these names occur in more than one entry. The majority of names (69.7%) show up just once in the record, and only forty-two names (2.2%) appear eight times or more. Table 8 also uncovers a problem that most historians of Babylonia eventually encounter: when faced with multiple occurrences of a name, how does one distinguish among those which are (a) references to one individual, and (b) references to different individuals (and, with names occurring a significant number of times, there could be multiple individuals with multiple references each)? Failing to distinguish individual people with the same name can lead to statistical distortion.

19 At least six workers are known by two different personal names. This phenomenon is expressed in the entry as: “PN1 ša MU-šu/ša PN2.” See page 112, note 118 for further discussion. population 45

Table 8. Frequency of Occurrences of Homonyms among Names that are Completely Preserved or can be Plausibly Reconstructed. Different Homonymous Names Total Number of Occurrences As percentage of the Frequency of Number whole repertoire of Number of As percentage occurrence of names attested names occurrences of the whole 1x 1314 69.7% 1314 38.0% 2x 264 14.0% 528 15.3% 3x 119 6.3% 357 10.3% 4x 57 3.0% 228 6.6% 5x 41 2.2% 205 5.9% 6x 29 1.5% 174 5.0% 7x 20 1.1% 140 4.0% 8x 11 0.6% 88 2.5% 9x 8 0.4% 72 2.1% 10x 3 0.2% 30 0.9% 11x 6 0.3% 66 2.0% 12x 4 0.2% 48 1.4% 13x 4 0.2% 52 1.5% 15x 1 0.05% 15 0.4% 16x 1 0.05% 16 0.4% 24x 1 0.05% 24 0.7% 30x 1 0.05% 30 0.9% 36x 2 0.1% 72 2.1% Total (s): 1886 3459

Yet this is not always possible in context because the vast majority of personal names in these rosters lack further indication of distinction such as occupation or parentage (patronym, matronym). Despite these limitations, the data contained in these tablets are useful. An authoritative quantitative study of any segment of the population of Babylonia has yet to be written,20 and even an initial attempt at compiling demographic statistics may be a step forward.

20 Especially if the source includes women and children, who tend to be lost in the record. 46 chapter three

Fortunately, the number of commonly repeated personal names is minimal;21 and there are ways to reduce the impact of these on the overall statistical picture by linking occurrences of the same name with a single individual through prosopography. With this material, there are at least two methods for making such prosopographical connections: (1) persons in work groups tend to be listed in a specific order, and this sequence is often repeated when the same work group appears in other documents (the reasonable conclusion is that personal names shared between such separate groups represent the same individual);22 and (2) attestations of the same personal name, combined with the same physical-condition designation, supervisor, patronym, or qinnu, suggest a prosopographical link.23 Sometimes one can connect multiple occurrences of the same name by using both methods, and this strengthens the prosopographical linkage.24 Prosopographical identifications have made at least slight progress. Around three and a half percent of the 5816 entries have been connected to at least one other entry. The process is frustrated some- what by the fact that the most frequently used names are usually hypocoristics (Tarību). On a positive note, there are some distinctive

21 For the purposes of this study, a commonly repeated name is one which occurs eight times or more. These account for only 2.2% of the total. 22 For example, BE 15 200 obv. ii 16–24 b lists nine individuals in the following order: Yāʾu-bani, Ildu-aḫīya, Ulūlītu, Libūr-nādinša, [mārat] Sapsapāni, Ina-Ekur- tašmânni, Yāʾūtu, Tarâš-ina-Sagil, and ⌈mārat⌉ Salimūtị mušēniqtu. The same sequence of names is found in BE 15 184 obv. i’ 7’–15’ b (these are not the only names that the two texts share). BE 15 200 also has connections with BE 15 185: e.g., the damaged names written in BE 15 200 obv. i 9–19 are probably the same as those found in BE 15 185 obv. i 8’–18’. 23 Two examples may suffice. Adad-šemi is attested as a personal name twice (CBS 3736 obv. 12 and CBS 10741 rev. ii’ 10’ b). In both cases the person associated with the name is a worker who has escaped (ZÁḪ ), which suggests that the two occurrences of the name are for the same person. Asûšu-namiṛ is listed as the name of an escapee three times (N 1953 obv.? ii’ 3’, UM 29-15-212 rev. i 6, and CBS 10741 rev. ii’ 8’); but, since the name is attested for male workers ten other times, it is less likely, although not impossible, that all three can be connected to the same worker. 24 E.g., the first two work groups mentioned in note 22 above (BE 15 200 obv. ii 16–24 b and BE 15 184 obv. i’ 7’–15’ b) are summarized as amīlūtu ša Yāʾu-bani, i.e., the names are listed in the same sequence and have the same supervisor. Yāʾu-bani is also the first member listed in both groups. population 47 names that stand out in the record (Gubbuḫu, Gabbaša-inbu); and they are usually a good place to begin looking for prosopographical links. It is also easier to find multiple listings of the same individual if that person is associated with a physical-condition designation, e.g., “blind.”

Groups as Recorded: A Caution Statistics and conclusions concerning groups, whether they are work cohorts, families, qinnus, or something else, can only be based on the group as recorded in the document. There is no way of being certain that the document includes all members of that group, i.e., that no other members alive at the time of the tablet’s writing are omitted. The effects of this on the study are obvious, and one example should be sufficient. In the next chapter, the family and household structure of ancient Mesopotamia will be discussed. The documents used in this study are a particularly good source for this topic because they tend to list family members together in order of sex and age. This information is useful for discussions regarding the typical size of the Mesopotamian household, the average number of children per married couple, and the ratio of male to female children in a household. There is no way at present to detect whether any member of a family has been excluded from a roster; but, if this did happen, it would affect statistics presented here about family size and structure. The same limitation applies to any other cohort, such as one organized by occupation or work task.

Descriptive Statistics for the Worker Population

The completed data base is an important source for qualitative and quantitative data on the servile population. This section of the chapter presents statistics—mostly dealing with the sex, age, and other recorded factors (death, blindness, etc.)—about the worker population. The first part discusses the number of entries made inthe Personnel Table by function (worker, supervisor, patronym, etc.) and the number of worker entries that contain sex and age designations, i.e., viable entries for demographic analysis. Parts two and three analyze the distribution of sexes and age categories within the worker population. Part four briefly makes the case for using sex ratio, an important demographic measure, as a tool for gaining insight into the 48 chapter three population as recorded. Parts five through eight provide simple statistics on death, blindness, illness, and traveling workers.

The Entries Of the 5816 personnel entries, 4130 are associated with workers, 808 with supervisors, 435 or 436 with non-worker parents (patronyms and matronyms), and 442 or 443 with miscellaneous functions (eponym of a qinnu, witness, buyer or seller of a slave). Males make up 3484 of the entries (2119 workers, 774 supervisors, 395 non-worker fathers, and 196 with miscellaneous functions), females account for 1657 (1524 workers, 34 supervisors, 40 or 41 non-worker mothers, and 58 or 59 with miscellaneous functions). The sex of 675 individuals is not known. This study focuses on the lives and living conditions of the workers. One of its stated goals is to learn as much as possible about the size of this group and how its members are divided among sex and age categories. One can draw from the data in the Personnel Table to begin answering these questions. Most of these data were originally written in rosters that list workers individually25 or rosters listing workers in groups by numbers.26 Because there are no personal names attached to individual workers and because the groups cannot be broken down by sex or age27 in the second type of tablet (workers in groups by numbers), those workers could not be entered into the Personnel Table.28 However, as will be shown later, documents of this type play a significant role in our discussions of the adult sex ratio and population viability.29

Males and Females The sex of a listed person can be determined by the sex-age designation, by the presence/absence of a male or female personal name

25 Most rosters enumerate workers individually. 26 Found in simple roster summaries and ration allocation summaries for groups in a single location including a numerical census. 27 Because of the use of the indefinite catchalltenēštu , whose meaning can vary from one tablet to another. 28 The tablets do contain the names of the workers’ supervisors, and their names are entered into the data base along with the number of people (by abbreviated sex and age groups) that each supervisor oversaw. 29 Pages 54–56 (in “Young versus Old”) and 113–15 (“Escape as a Cause of Work- Force Depletion”). population 49 determinative, or by the personal name itself.30 Sex alone (male versus female) can be determined for most of the 4130 worker entries,31 but age classification is preserved for just 2256 of the entries. These 2256 entries are those available for detailed demographic study. Although a seemingly small number by modern census standards, this is a considerable sample size for the ancient world and is over double that used in the influential study of the demography of Roman Egypt by Bagnall and Frier.32 Table 9 lists how these 2256 entries break down among the sexes. Worth noting is the difference between the total number of male workers versus female workers (595 more males), contrasted with the difference between the number of male and female workers used in the demographic study (110 more males), i.e., a greater percentage of the total female entries have an available sex-age designation. In cases where sex-age designation was not available, it is more likely a result of tablet damage than scribal omission among female entries (49.9%)

Table 9. Male and Female Workers for which Sex and Age Designation is Available. Males 2119 Total male workers. 388 Sex-age designation not preserved. − 548 Sex-age designation not given. 1183 Individually listed male workers for detailed demographic study. Females 1524 Total female workers. 225 Sex-age designation not preserved. −226 Sex-age designation not given. 1073 Individually listed female workers for detailed demographic study. Total: 2256 Workers for detailed demographic study.

30 Some name types are typical of male or of female bearers; but at least a few names are borne by both men and women. 31 Naturally, worker entries exclude supervisors, non-worker parents (patronyms), etc. 32 Their study included 1,084 entries in the PERSONS data base. Roger S. Bagnall and Bruce W. Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994): 39–40. 50 chapter three than male entries (41.4%), making it a real possibility that sex-age designation was more often recorded for women than men. If this is true, one explanation might be that this is due to the use of the adult male sex-age designation (GURUŠ) as the default entry for male workers in some tablets.33 In these texts, sex-age designation is recorded for all individuals except (suspected) adult males. As a result, the data base entries for these individuals would then be counted among the “Sex- age designation not given” subtotal.34

Demography, Statistics, and the Sex Ratio Scholars have used census data to make demographic studies of premodern societies, and it is tempting to do the same with the material from Kassite Nippur.35 However, we will limit most of our discussion to descriptive statistics, rather than traditional demographic measures, for three reasons. The first is that because such a small number of the documents can be assigned a precise date (by king and regnal year), one cannot track chronological trends and developments in the composition of the population. Second, most meaningful demographic measures, such as the crude birth rate, general fertility rate, age- specific fertility rate, crude death rate, and infant mortality rate, require that the data be drawn from a single year, thus creating a snap- shot of the population at one moment in time.36 The rosters used in this study were composed over a period of at least 89 years, which makes most of these demographic indicators inapplicable; and it is also unlikely that every person recorded was alive at one time. Third, the texts record a worker’s age only in a relative age-group scale instead of the modern practice of stating a person’s age in years. This is

33 E.g., BE 14 138. 34 These individuals were still counted as male. 35 Some examples are Roger S. Bagnall and Bruce W. Frier, Demography of Roman Egypt (1994), David Herlihy and Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, Tuscans and Their Families: A Study of the Florentine Catasto of 1427 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), W.V. Harris, “Demography, Geography and the Source of Roman Slaves,” The Journal of Roman Studies 89 (1999): 62–75, Walter Scheidel, Death on the Nile: Disease and the Demography of Roman Egypt (Mnemosyne bibliotheca classica Batava Supplementum, volume 228 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), and Willy Clarysse and Dorothy J. Thompson,Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt (2 volumes; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2006). 36 K. Srinivasan, Basic Demographic Techniques and Applications (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1998): 65–68, 86–87 and Colin Newell, Methods and Models in Demography (New York: Guilford Press, 1988): 64. population 51 because the sex-age classifications were used to determine the work capacity and food requirements of each individual. Designations are probably related to age, but are not intended to function as an exact measure of age. This is a subtle difference that needs tobe acknowledged. Of these three reasons only the third is of significance to the study. The first two mean that it is impossible to obtain the quality of statistics that a modern society might yield; but, since many of these demographic measures are essentially unchanging in an early society, they are of trivial importance. However, the lack of ages for members of the population is decisive and is a problem that cannot be remedied.37 With these limitations in mind, we will nonetheless present the statistics here as if the individuals listed on the texts were contemporaries and the sex-age designations at least partially related to age. As Middle Babylonian prosopographical studies progress, a relative chronology for the rosters may be established that will make it possible to do a demographic analysis of the population in more depth. There is one demographic measure, the sex ratio, that can be of use, especially since it is a valuable tool for comparing the demographic situation in Kassite Nippur with other premodern societies. Sex ratio is a common measure representing the sex composition of a population and is defined as “the ratio of males to females in the population. It is normally expressed as the number of males per 100 females,”38 usually reduced to just a single number, i.e., a ratio of 103:100 is usually expressed as 103. A number greater than one hundred indicates that there are more males than females in the sample; a number less than one hundred means that the population has more females than males. The normal, accepted sex ratio at birth is 105; and, because in most of the modern, developed world the mortality rate for men is higher than for women, it tends to drift towards 100 as the population ages. In regions where female mortality is greater,39 such as twentieth century southern and eastern Asia, the sex ratio is higher (e.g., the ratio for India in 1971 was 107.5).40

37 My thanks to Roger Bagnall for his assistance in evaluating the weight of each of these three obstacles. Like the Middle Babylonian data, his Egyptian material (see page 50, note 35) was limited primarily by its quantity and the representativeness of the sample. 38 Newell, Methods and Models (1988): 27. 39 Due to complications in childbirth and the poor nutrition of young girls. 40 Ibid., 30. 52 chapter three

Sex ratio can also help to assess whether our material is likely to be a source of representative demographic data. If the calculations from the Nippur data result in a ratio that is close to normal, then one might feel more confident that these documents are an accurate record of the actual population. Ratios that differ significantly from the norm must be explained, either as the result of poor sampling, inaccurate census- taking, disease, war, deliberate manipulation of the population, or something that would similarly affect the recorded numbers. When drawn from a subset of a population, unusual sex ratios can also be explained by the constitution of the subset. This is likely the case with the people studied here. The basic sex ratio (total male entries versus total female entries in the data base) of the material collected for Nippur workers is 139. This ratio favors males to a greater degree than ratios drawn from the documentary records of other premodern societies, such as Roman Egypt (ratio=110.4)41 and Medieval Tuscany (ratio=110.3),42 and is closer to the sex ratio of slaves in the American South in the Eighteenth Century (117–130).43 This initial result of 139 is a crude measure that will be refined in the pages that follow.44

41 Bagnall and Frier, Demography of Roman Egypt (1994): 92. 42 Herlihy and Zuber, Tuscans and Their Families, (1985): 132. 43 The following sex ratios are available on American slave populations during the eighteenth century: Chesapeake 117, North Carolina 125, and South Carolina 130 (Marvin L. Kay and Lorin Lee Cary “A Demographic Analysis of Colonial North Carolina with Special Emphasis upon the Slave and Black Populations” in Jeffrey J. Crow and Flora J. Hatley (eds.), Black Americans in North Carolina and the South (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984): 76–78 and 93–103; Allan Kulikoff, “A’Prolifick’ People: Black Population Growth in the Chesapeake Colonies, 1700–1790,” Southern Studies 16 (1977): 393–96 and 403–06; and Philip D. Morgan, “Black Society in the Lowcountry, 1760–1810,” (1983): 90–92). Moreover, it seems that the sex ratio was even higher (skewed towards males) in the Seventeenth Century when the slave population was being established (Russell R. Menard, “The Maryland Slave Population, 1658–1730: A Demographic Profile of Blacks in Four Counties,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series 32 (1975): 33, 38–39 and “Slave Demog raphy in the Lowcountry, 1670–1740: From Frontier Society to Plantation Regime,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine 96 (1995): 286). 44 Sex ratios can be calculated on the slave population of Post-Republican Rome (200 or 233) and privately held slaves in Babylonia from the seventh to fourth centuries b.c. (236), but the data from both sources are problematic. The statistics from Italy were calculated from epitaphs, whose bias has been discussed (W. V. Harris, “Demography, Geography and the Source of Roman Slaves,” The Journal of Roman Studies 89 (1999): 69 and Walter Scheidel, “Human Mobility in Roman Italy, II: The Slave Population.” The Journal of Roman Studies 95 (2005): 73). The Neo-Babylonian statistics were drawn from numbers given in Muhammad A. Dandamaev. Slavery in Babylonia from Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (626-331 b.c.), rev. ed., translated population 53

Young versus Old The only way to determine any sort of age for a worker is by sex-age designation. The designations of every individually listed worker have been compiled in the data base. The data appear here as Tables 10 and 11, which give the number and percentages of each sex-age designation for males and females, respectively. There are 704 (59.5%) individually listed male adults45 versus 479 (40.5%) male children. The total number of individually listed female adults is 638 (59.5%)46 versus 401 (40.5%) female children. The ratio of children to adults is 0.67:1 (a little over one child per two adults), which is less than the 1:1 ratio usually required for a population to maintain its numbers. If servile workers were able to procreate only

Table 10. Male Workers Listed Individually by Sex-age Designation. Number Percentage 9 0.8% Elderly males 695 58.7% Adult males 254 21.5% Adolescent males 82 6.9% Weaned males 143 12.1% Nursing males Total: 1183 Male workers for demographic study

Table 11. Female Workers Listed Individually by Sex-age Designation. Number Percentage 4 0.4% Elderly females 634 59.1% Adult females 179 16.7% Adolescent females 63 5.9% Weaned females 193 17.9% Nursing females Total: 1073 Female workers for demographic study

by Victoria A. Powell (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984):218. These are likely Neo-Babylonian household slaves, who tend to have a different demographic profile than slave populations working in a larger, institutional context. 45 Including the nine elderly males. 46 Including the four elderly females. 54 chapter three with other forced laborers (endogamy), then the entire servile population probably would have experienced a net natural decline without the addition of new members (migration, voluntary or forced).47 A comparison of the two sets of data (Figure 7) reveals that the elderly, adult, and weaned age-groups make up roughly the same percentages in the male and female populations, e.g., adult males comprise roughly 58.7 % of the recorded male population and adult females comprise 59.1 % of the total female population. The female population tends to have a greater percentage of nursing children, while the male population has a greater percentage of adolescents. Very few people survived to old age. However, texts which list workers individually are not the only window into the sex-age distribution of the worker population. Ration allocation summaries for groups in a single location, including a personnel census can also tell us something about the relative percentage of each sex-age group in the worker population. As stated in the

60%

50%

40%

30% Percentage 20%

10%

0% Elderly AdultAdolescent WeanedNursing Male 0.8% 58.7%21.5% 6.9% 12.1% Female 0.4% 59.1% 16.7%5.9%17.9% Age Group Figure 7. Distribution of Male and Female Workers by Age Group.

47 Note that this is a child-to-adult ratio similar to what is seen in early slave populations in the Americas (Russell R. Menard, “The Maryland Slave Population, 1658–1730: A Demographic Profile of Blacks in Four Counties.” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series 32 (1975): 38 and 40). See page 58 for further discussion. population 55 previous chapter on sources, these texts list the number of male adults, male adolescents, and usually, but not always, the number of male children, female adults, and workers of other sex-age groups (collected under the rubric tenēštu) under the charge of individual supervisors. If we collect the number of workers in each category for those work groups where all age group tallies are fully preserved (total: 331 work groups)48 and determine what percentage of the entire population is made up of each sex-age classification, we can compare these numbers to those available on individually listed workers (Figure 8). Both types of documents show similar percentages for female adults.49 They differ in the percentages for adult and adolescent males and all other age and sex categories. This is due in part to slight differences in classification for the male adolescent population (GURUŠ. TUR.GAL and GURUŠ.TUR.TUR in ration roster summaries and

Figure 8. The Composition of the Worker Population in Rosters Listing Individuals and in Ration Roster Summaries Including a Personnel Census.

48 The data from 286 of these groups are given in Appendix Two. 49 When this material was presented in my Ph.D. dissertation (University of Chicago (2009): 70) the data set was much smaller (121 working groups), and it exhibited similar percentages for both male adults and female adults (within just a few percentage points in each case). 56 chapter three

GURUŠ.TUR, GURUŠ.TUR.TUR, and pirsu in rosters listing individual workers), and the non-designation of the age and sex of individuals who are included in the tenēštu category of the roster summaries. It is a question of which categories used in rosters listing individuals correspond to the categories lumped together by tenēštu. Although there are differences, the fact that both sources show that female adults make up roughly the same percentage of the population in each data set makes the recording of the adult population seem a more reliable measure of sex ratio.

Sex Ratio by Sex and Age Classification It was noted earlier that the basic sex ratio for all individually listed workers was 139—a crude measure made by adding up the total number of male entries versus the number of female entries. The picture is different if we examine the sex ratio among particular age cohorts. The sex ratio for adults is 109.6. For adolescents, the ratio is 141.9 (many more boys than girls) and 74.1 (many more girls than boys) for nursing infants. Figure 9 is a graph representing these figures. There are several things in Figure 9 worthy of comment. First, the statistics for the adult population (ratio=109.6) again seem a more reliable measure of the sex ratio of the population than the sex ratio derived from counting up all male and female entries (ratio=139). For one thing, it eliminates counting a person more than once because he/she is listed several times at different stages of the relative life cycle. It also yields a sex ratio that is both closer to normal expected demographic patterns and the attested sex ratios from other premodern

Figure 9. Sex Ratio by Age Group. population 57 societies. It is possible that the ratios calculated for adolescents and nursing infants are not accurate representations of the actual population (but rather a subset of the population), which would certainly account for the very high basic sex ratio.50 There is also no single clear explanation for why the sex ratio for adolescents is heavily skewed towards males, and towards females among nursing infants.51 It may be that one sex is promoted through the lower sex-age classifications at a faster rate, or perhaps the rate of promotion varies for each classification, i.e., males and females advance their classification at different rates at different life stages. This would mean that the designations for males and females are not equivalent in terms of age; and perhaps promotion is determined by something else, e.g., physical development (onset of puberty or the like) or marriage. Unfortunately, this cannot be determined at this time. One also needs to remember that the available population statistics are a by-product of the texts themselves, and it is the function of the text that determines the people who will be listed on the tablet. This is certainly the case in those texts which list workers from just a single sex (or the only workers for which there is evidence of sex are all female) or just of certain age groups.52 In most cases this is probably due to a division of labor among the sexes.53 Noteworthy are a number of inspection texts listing adult and adolescent males only (younger males and all females are absent).54 This could be at least a partial factor explaining the high number of males in the adolescent sex ratio (sex ratio of 141.9, rather than closer to 100). It is well documented that more males are born than females, but that male children are less likely to survive infancy.55 A high incidence of male infant deaths may also be contributing to a sex ratio favoring females among nursing infants. There are probably other factors influencing the adolescent and nursing sex ratios as they are preserved in the documents, and it is

50 Unless, there has been significant manipulation or disruption of its membership, such as male infanticide, a preference for nursing girls in households (for whatever reason), or perhaps a culling of certain sex-age groups by selling off potentially troublesome/marriageable youth or the like. 51 This is also reflected in Figure 7, above. 52 BE 14 138, CBS 3648, 10934, 13311, and 13508. 53 This seems to be the case for boatmen (NBC 7955). 54 See Example 2, page 17. 55 Newell, Methods and Models (1988): 30 and Bagnall and Frier, Demography of Roman Egypt (1994): 95. 58 chapter three likely that each ratio is a result of a multiple factors. One well-studied historical population that had skewed sex ratios throughout all age ranges was black slaves in the American South, especially at the time when the plantation system was being established (e.g., South Carolina from 1670–1740).56 The same oddities were observed among the white, European migrants to North America, although the differences were not as severe.57 Nevertheless, the evidence presented here suggests that the conditions in which these people lived promoted a sex ratio that favored males in the adult population. This is the opposite of what we would expect of most contemporary populations, but in agreement with sex ratios determined for other premodern societies around the Mediterranean.

The Dead (ÚŠ, BA.ÚŠ, and IM.ÚŠ)58 The majority (53.4%) of the 236 individually listed dead persons are male. An argument could be made that this statistic goes against the prior assertion that there are more adult men than women in the population (as reflected in the sex ratio). However, of the 126 dead males, the sex-age designation of only 12 of them is known (see Table 12),59 which could mean that many of these males may have died in the first years of their life and would have not reached adulthood. Dead workers are mentioned in 128 texts,60 and the data on 79 of these texts were available for statistical study.61 Fifty-one of these seventy-nine texts list the dead individuals by name; the other twenty-eight documents are either poorly preserved or list the total

56 Russel R. Menard, “Slave Demography in the Lowcountry, 1670–1740: From Frontier Society to Plantation Regime,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine 96 (1995): 280–303 and David Eltis and Stanley L. Engerman, “Was the Slave Trade Dominated by Men?” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 23 (1992): 237–57. 57 Ibid., 242–46. 58 In this study, the word mortality should be understood in its common usage (generically with a meaning such as “measure of death”), rather than the precise, mathematical definition used by demographers. 59 Because a physical-condition designation and sex-age designation are often mutually exclusive, i.e., there is usually just one cell in which sex-age or physical condition can be recorded, and the physical-condition designation (e.g., “dead”) takes preference. The sex-age designation must have been recorded in another document or perhaps had ceased to be significant after the person’s death. 60 128 texts out of a complete corpus of 520 (25% of all texts mention one or more dead people). 61 I.e., 25.7% of the tablets used to compile the Personnel Table have at least one dead person. population 59

Table 12. Deaths by Sex and Age Group (Individually Listed/Named Persons, Not Persons Recorded Only as Part of a Group). Sex Total N Male 126 (53.4%) 95 Sex-age designation not given 19 Sex-age designation insufficiently preserved 12 Sex-age designation available: Adults 7/12 (58.3%) Adolescents 4/12 (33.3%) Nursing children 1/12 (8.3%) Female 84 (35.6%) 39 Sex-age designation not given. 14 Sex-age designation insufficiently preserved 31 Sex-age designation available: Adults 18/31 (58.1%) Adolescents 6/31 (19.3%) Nursing children 7/31 (22.6%) Insufficiently 26 (11.0%) preserved Total dead: 236 number of dead workers in qualitative summaries or conclusions. Table 12 compiles the mortality statistics available on individually listed persons. The corpus actually records many more dead individuals than those used to compile Table 12. In texts where persons are not enumerated individually, the dead are represented by a total number of people who died while assigned to a particular supervisor. It is impossible to cite a direct cause of death for any of these workers, but something can be said about the circumstances surrounding the deaths of some. Fifteen of the deceased died after or during flight, and it is possible that their death was related to their escape attempt: either from a lack of food or water, an injury, or murder. Evidence for particularly hard conditions could be inferred from the very high percentages of dead workers attested for some groups: rates as high as 72.7%, 46.2%, 40.9%, 31.25%, and 23.5% are deceased.62

62 Again, the percentages refer to the number of workers within a work group that are listed as dead and are not to be confused with the standard demographic measure of mortality rate (which cannot be calculated from the data, see pages 50–51). 60 chapter three

There are also eleven families (qinnu), size unknown, of which every single member is dead.63 In one particular type of text, the dead from each family (household) are tallied separately from other members of the family (along with escapees) and are then subtracted (elû) in the roster subtotals of eligible workers.64 The ill and the blind are not removed in these totals, but remain counted among the members of the family (and therefore still eligible for food or required to work). Dead workers do appear on ration rosters, but there is only one preserved case where a dead worker is allocated grain.65 However, this grain had presumably been issued before the worker died.

The Blind (NU.IGI, IGI.NU.GÁL, and NU) Fifty-two of the individually listed workers are classified as blind (NU. IGI, IGI.NU.GÁL, or NU), and a sex-age category is preserved for forty-five of them (Table 13).66 This means that 1.26% of all workers

Eight of the eleven members of the unit recorded in UM 29-13-441 (iii’ 28’–39’) are dead. High mortality is similarly attested in Ni. 5989 (twelve of the twenty-six workers whose vital status (living/deceased) can be ascertained are listed as deceased), CBS 3225 + 3291 (9 out of 22), CBS 10700 (10 out of 32), and Ni. 373 (4 out of 17). Evidence of difficult conditions can also be found in the texts housed in Istanbul. There are ninety-five individuals listed in Ni. 1066+1069 for which one can determine if they are alive or dead, i.e., the sex-age or physical-condition designation is preserved. Twenty- one (22.1%) of them are dead and six (6.3%) have run away. Female-headed families on this tablet have it particularly hard: three of the four children of the family of Baba- šarrat and two of the three children of Bēletu are dead (rev. ii’ 12’–16’, 24’–27’). 63 The heads of three of these families were entered into the Personnel Table (Iqīša- Marduk (BE 14 142 rev. i 16 b), Bur-x-[…] (UM 29-13-694 obv. ii’ 13’ b), and one whose name is completely lost (CBS 7092+ ii’ 10’) ). The other eight families are listed in two texts: Ni. 2793 obv. iii’ 20’ and rev. iv 11” and Ni. 6261 obv. ii’ 6’–9’ and rev. ii’ 1’–3’. 64 There are 18 texts of this type (BE 14 142; CBS 10810, 11051; Ni. 6033, 6047, 6068, 6078, 6142, 6165, 6169, 6174, 6464, 6804, 6816, 11817, and 11197; and UM 29-15-292 and -298) and four other damaged texts that probably also belong in this category (Ni. 2595, 2646, 8164, and 11816). CBS 7092+ has the same type of subtotals, but differs in that it also records transfers and other details. 65 Rabât-Gula is listed as dead in BE 15 188 obv. ii 14’ b, but is still assigned 2 BÁN of barley. 66 Most of the blind workers are labeled as NU (35 workers), with eleven indicated by IGI.NU.GÁL, and seven as NU.IGI. Professions are given for four of the NU-blind: three are herdsmen (SIPA.ÁB.GU4.Ḫ I.A), and one is a water sprinkler (?) (sālihu). All of the NU.IGI-blind appear in a single document (BE 14 120) and are assigned the same supervisor. Six are listed as LÚ.SAG (two of them are brothers), while the seventh worker is listed as a tābiḥ ̮u/tabbiḥ ̮u. See Walter Farber, “Akkadisch ‘blind’.” ZA 75 (1985): 210–33. For IGI.NU.GÁL as a possible metaphor for “unskilled worker,” population 61 recorded by personal name were blind.67 In comparison, 0.59% of the world’s population suffered from blindness in the year 2002.68 Blind workers are attested in forty-six texts, but just nineteen of these texts were available for collation and data entry. Of these nineteen, only fourteen could contribute to the personnel data base. The information from the remaining five texts was not included because the texts listed the workers collectively as a total number of blind in a group (and therefore with no personal name recorded), or the names were unreadable. Although the sample is small, it is worth noting that females make up the majority (56%) of those blind individuals whose sex is identifiable. This is consistent with what is known about blindness in the modern world, i.e., studies agree that females are more likely to suffer blindness in all parts of the world and in all age groups.69 Absent are elderly women and nursing children of either sex.70

Table 13. The Blind by Sex-age Category. Male Female Elderly (ŠU.GI) 171 Elderly (SAL.ŠU.GI) 0 Adult (GURUŠ) 8 Adult (SAL) 12 Adolescent (GURUŠ.TUR) 1 Adolescent (SAL.TUR) 3 Weaned (pirsu) 0 Weaned (pirsātu) 2 Nursing (DUMU.GABA) 0 Nursing (DUMU.SAL.GABA) 0 Age group unknown 10 Age group unknown 8 TOTAL: Male 20 Female 25

see Paul Garelli, Dominique Charpin, and Jean-Marie Durand, “Rôle des prisonniers et les déportés à l’époque médio-assyrienne,” in Horst Klengel, Gesellschaft und Kultur im alten Vorderasien (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1982): 69–72. 67 Calculated by dividing the number of blind workers (52) by the total number of workers in the Personnel Table (4130). 68 Calculated by dividing the number of estimated blind worldwide (37,000,000) by the estimated worldwide population (6,224,150,112). The sources for this data are: World Health Organization Fact Sheet Number 282 (www.who.int/mediacentre/ factsheets/fs282/en/) and U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/ idbagg). 69 See WHO fact sheet number 282 (web address given in note 68, above). 70 Perhaps nursing children were so young that their parents could not identify their blindness. Only four elderly women are attested in the population; so the lack of elderly blind women is not surprising. 71 This elderly man has a wife who is an adult, but not elderly (UM 29-13-694 obv. i 11’–12’). 62 chapter three

As stated previously, the blind are not removed (elû) in that genre of texts which group workers by qinnu.72 They are eligible to receive rations. The rosters say nothing about how these workers lost their sight or the severity of their sight loss. Some possible causes are cataracts, birth defects, vitamin A deficiency,73 or (in the case of prisoners of war) deliberate blinding.74 This is a topic worth further consideration.

The Ill (GIG) Five workers are characterized as ill (GIG).75 All of those for whom sex can be identified are male (4 workers) and attested in various types of rosters. One is an adult, and the sex-age classifications for the others are not given. None of them is given an occupation or gentilic (one is identified by patronym), nor are they listed with family members or associated with a particular qinnu.

Travelers (KASKAL) Six workers are absent from their normal work groups and not allocated rations from their usual source because they are travelling (KASKAL), lit. “(on the) road.” This physical-condition designation should be distinguished from “escaped (ZÁḪ )” because both KASKAL and ZÁḪ can be found in the same text.76 KASKAL is an absence presumably sanctioned by those in charge, but ZÁḪ is not an approved absence. All six attested “travelers” are male (four adults, two adolescents).77 Destinations are not mentioned; but one text, BE 14 58, states that the adolescent Arad-Nuska had been travelling since the month Tašrītu, and one can determine from his ration allocations that he has been

72 Page 60. 73 Marten Stol, “Blindness and Night-Blindness in Akkadian,” JNES 45 (1986): 297. 74 I. J. Gelb, “Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia,” JNES 32 (1973): 87. 75 The ill workers are Šamaš-sulūlị̄ (BM 82699 obv. ii 9), Bukāšu-ina-Ekur (BM 82699 obv. ii 10), name unclear (CBS 3465 i’ 7’), Liltabbir-ilu (CBS 3649 rev. iii’ 12 e), and the son of Šittan(n)i (CBS 7212 rev. 26’). Note also the sick animal ŠUK ANŠE GIG (CBS 7212 rev. 4’). 76 BE 14 58. 77 Found in three texts: Arad-Nuska, Ibašši-uznī-ana-ili, Ḫumba(n)-napir, and Ina-šār-Marduk-allak are listed as travelling in BE 14 58 8 q, 13 q, 43 q, and 45 q; Ittīša- ahbut̮ in CBS 13272 obv. ii’ 1 d; and Ḫun-[…] in UM 29-15-244 obv. ii’ 11’ c. population 63 away for half a year.78 The other three travelers in BE 14 58 have been away for at least one year. Because of these long absences, we can deduce that any person labeled as “(on the) road” was not expected to return soon. Each of these people was taken out of his normal work group—sometimes away from his family79— for an extended period of time, but was expected to return some day. Hence, the administration continued to list them among their original work cohort, rather than remove them from the records of their group or transfer them to another group. Some possible reasons for this were that they were enlisted in a tem- porary mobile work group (travelling from one work site to another for a year or two), or used as part of a military, diplomatic, or trading campaign whose destination was at a distance.

Concluding Remarks on Population

Personnel rosters, although designed for another purpose, can be used as a source of descriptive statistics about a lower-class population within and around Nippur during the Kassite period. When used with caution, these statistics can contribute to our understanding of the size, composition, and living conditions of some working groups. Just the short analyses presented in this chapter are enough to conclude that the conditions in which these workers lived favored the male population, that some groups faced particularly harsh and dangerous conditions, and that they had a fairly high rate of blindness by modern standards. The adult sex ratio resembles the ratios attested from Roman Egypt and Medieval Tuscany, but its all-age sex ratio is closer to that of a recently established slave population. There are also statistical oddities in the population data due to one or more distortion factors, such as incomplete or inaccurate records, or possibly even population stress and migration.

78 BE 14 58: 8 q. 79 Ibid.

CHAPTER FOUR

FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD

Introduction

This chapter begins (section two) with a brief discussion of several servile families who appear in the cuneiform record over a decade and a half, an exceptional length of time in the world of these rosters. It serves as a useful introduction to the sections that follow. Section three considers the methods used to identify servile families in the corpus and the familial terms that are used in later parts of the chapter. Section four discusses what these families reveal about the size and nature of the Middle Babylonian servile household and the statistics available on each household type. Section five discusses the nuclear family, especially the information available on the offspring of single mothers. Sections six and seven present the evidence for polygamy and age discrepancies between husband and wife.

The Families of BE 14 58 and Related Documents

Perhaps the first Kassite tablet published in photograph was BE 14 58, a ration roster that records allocations of barley to forty-six servile persons over a twelve-month period in Nazi-Maruttaš year 13 (1295 B.C.).1 The first fifteen subcolumns of the table contain information on the grain disbursed, the sixteenth usually the sex-age status of the recipient,2 and the last the recipient’s name and sometimes more information, e.g., occupation or family relationship. Additionally, physical- condition designations are often given in the sixteenth or seventeenth

1 The earliest published photograph of which this author is aware appears in John Punnett Peters, Nippur or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates: The Narrative of the University of Pennsylvania Expedition to Babylonia in the Years 1888–1890, vol. 2 (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1897), plate immediately following page 188. The best published photographs are in BE 14, plates 5 and 6. 2 The sex-age designations are listed and explained on pages 13–14. 66 chapter four subcolumns for persons who do not draw rations, usually because they have died, have escaped, or are traveling.3 Each recipient is listed as an individual; and, where there are other members of the same family, these are listed in adjacent entries. In the case of families, the name of the head of the household, male or female, is listed first; the spouse of the head, if there is one, is in second position with the children following in descending order of age. This tablet exhibits most of the characteristics covered in the preceding two chapters (tabular format, sex-age designations, physical- condition descriptions, etc.); and, because of the precision and near-perfect preservation of its seventeen-subcolumn tabular roster, it has been singled out by at least one scholar as a prime example of the sorts of texts produced by administrative scribes at Nippur during the Kassite period.4 Even more noteworthy is the fact that many members of the work group listed on BE 14 58 remain on the administrative rolls for at least sixteen years and can be tracked through seven other texts found at Nippur.5 During this time, workers are dropped or

3 For a list of the attested physical-condition designations, see page 14. For statistics on rates of death and travelers, see pages 58–60 and 62–63. 4 Eleanor Robson, “Tables and Tabular Formatting,” (2003): 19. 5 BE 14 60, 62, and 91a, CT 51 19, Ni. 6775 and 12412, and UM 29-15-760. Only four of these tablets preserve full dates by month, regnal year, and king’s name, but a relative chronology can be established for almost all of them. Dates are preserved on BE 14 58 (Nazi-Maruttaš year 13), BE 14 60 (Nazi-Maruttaš IV-3-year 14), BE 14 62 (Nazi-Maruttaš IX-11-year 14), and BE 14 91a (disbursals listed end in Kadašman- Turgu VI-year 3). Ni. 6775 has the date of VII-27-year 15 (king not preserved) written on its left edge. A comparison between the sex-age designations of Etirtụ between BE 14 58 and Ni. 6775 (from DUMU.SAL.GABA to SAL.TUR.TUR) makes it likely that the date refers to the reign of Nazi-Maruttaš. Ni. 12412 mentions years 22 and 23 without king’s name in a broken passage (rev. 3), and must have been written during or after the 23rd year of Nazi-Maruttaš (for reasons similar to those stated in the previous sentence). As far as relative chronology, BE 14 58 seems to be the earliest and CT 51 19 is the latest. The fragment UM 29-15-760 is most likely the bottom right corner of an annual summary with format and content similar to BE 14 58, but it was probably drawn up at least a year later (because Qaqqadānu, the escaped doorkeeper, is listed as returned ([Z]ÁḪ DU) in UM 29-15-760 rev. 2). Ni. 12412 was written after BE 14 58 and precedes BE 14 91a and CT 51 19. It lists Kidin-napirša, an Elamite, as a member of the work group. He does not appear in BE 14 58, but is found in texts in the series that are definitely written after BE 14 58 (e.g., BE 14 91a and CT 51 19). Ni. 12412 probably precedes the last texts in the series (BE 14 91a and CT 51 19) because Mišarītu is listed as a single person in Ni. 12412 (as she is in the first document of the series BE 14 58), but appears as a household head in BE 14 91a and CT 51 19. It is true that in Ni. 12412, the name of Mišarītu is preceded by a broken KI.MIN, which may stand for a qin-ni written in a preceding line. However, according to the available transliteration, in a following line (Ni. 12412 obv. 10’) qin-ni is given in the same cell entry as the personal name rather than an entirely separate subcolumn as we see with family and household 67 added to the group (22 of the original 46 original members are listed on the latest dated text);6 and the total number of families increases from seven to nine. Because the texts state that rations were allocated to these people in at least four different geographic locations, it is possible that the group was used as a mobile labor force.7 A brief survey of six of the families introduced in BE 14 58 illustrates many of the topics and issues that will be explored in the rest of this chapter. By following these families through the eight texts in which they appear, we learn that servile families were identified by a male or female head, that the eldest son or daughter could assume this leadership position if something were to happen to the original head, that family composition was not always stable, and that there is evidence of a high mortality rate among the very young. The family of Dayyānī-Šamaš, the porter, may be the most consistent and best attested of the families in this tablet series and is the first to be listed in BE 14 58. This family is mentioned in all but two of the documents;8 but, in both of these cases, only a fragment of the entire document is preserved, and the section where Dayyānī-Šamaš and his kin were likely to have appeared is missing.9 In 1295 B.C., the family has six members: the KI.MIN of Mišarītu, i.e., the KI.MIN of Mišarītu is very likely shorthand for something other than qin-ni. BE 14 60 and 62 are close to being copies of each other and date to the year following BE 14 58. It is possible that these two texts were used to compile some of the information that is summed up in the annual summary UM 29-15-760, i.e., written between BE 14 58 and UM 29-15-760. BE 14 58, UM 29-15-760, BE 14 60 and 62 all precede CT 51 19 and BE 14 91a. In all four of them, Bēlta-balāta-̣ īriš is still alive and in control of her qinnu (which is later taken over by her eldest daughter Rabâ-ša-Išḫara in CT 51 19 and BE 14 91a). Finally, CT 51 19 may illustrate the group’s composition at a date after BE 14 91a because Innamar seems now to be the head of the qinnu once run by her mother, Ina-Akkade-rabât, or has started a family of her own. If I were to propose a possible reconstruction (although there are other possibilities) of the chronological order of these eight texts, I would suggest the following: (1) BE 14 58, (2) BE 14 60, (3) BE 14 62, (4) UM 29-15-760 (perhaps summing up the year covered by BE 14 60 and 62), (5) Ni. 6775, (6) Ni. 12412, (7) BE 14 91a, and (8) CT 51 19. 6 BE 14 91a (Kadašman-Turgu, year 3=1279 B.C.). 7 Zarāt-Karkara (BE 14 58:1 and 47), Dunni-aḫi (BE 14 62:1), Kār-Adab (BE 14 91a:1), and another location whose reading is damaged and elusive (BE 14 60:1). Only these four texts preserve their introductions or conclusions (where geographic location was usually written). 8 BE 14 58:5-10, 60:10, 62:5, 91a:6; CT 51 19:3; Ni. 12412 obv. 3’. 9 Based on the order of entries in similar documents in the series. In UM 29-15- 760 this family would have been enumerated individually by personal name in the section preceding what is left of the obverse, and I am not sure where it would have appeared in Ni. 6775 (probably before what remains of the reverse, but it is impossible to say on which side of the tablet). 68 chapter four

(a) Dayyānī-Šamaš (father and head of household); (b) Tambi-Dadu (his wife); (c) Dalīlūša (daughter and eldest child, an adolescent who works as a teaseler); (d) Arad-Nuska (eldest son, an adolescent who has been traveling and not drawing local barley rations since the month Tašrītu), (e) Nuska-kīna-usuṛ (son, a young boy); (f) Gab-Martaš (son, still nursing). Any alterations in family composition that may have happened over this period are obscured by the fact that in all of the texts written after BE 14 58 the family appears in a single, collective entry (qinni Dayyānī- Šamaš) without enumeration of its individual members.10 Since Dayyānī-Šamaš remains as family head throughout the entire time span and none of the members appear by themselves or with a different family affiliation in any other of these documents, one could argue that this family was relatively stable in terms of leadership.11 Two noteworthy items about them is that Dayyānī-Šamaš changes occupations (from porter to brewer),12 and that the names of the family members could be in as many as three languages.13

10 The same is true of most of the families first seen in BE 14 58. 11 Another possible way to determine if the family grew or shrunk during this time is to look for an increase or decrease in the amount of barley the entire family received. Ration amounts are preserved in four of the documents in the series (BE 14 58, 60, 62, and 91a). BE 14 58 is not useful as a comparison because the rations given out in that text were measured by a different standard, the 6(?)-SÌLAsūtu (BE 14 58:51 ? “[ŠE GIŠ.BÁN] ⌈6 ⌉.SÌLA TA ITI.BÁR MU.13.KÁM EN ITI.ŠE.KIN.KU5 ša MU.13. KÁM Na-zi-mu-ru-ut-ta-aš i-na ŠÀ ŠE ša ŠU mHu-na-bi i-na ŠÀ ŠE KÁ.GAL i-na ŠÀ ŠE ša Za-rat-IMki ù ZÚ.LUM ša A.AB.BA SUM-na”), rather than the great sūtu, ŠE GIŠ.BÁN GAL, which was used to dole out rations in the other three documents. In both BE 14 60 and 62, the entire family receives 1 GUR, 1 PI, 1 BÁN, and 5 SÌLA (37 BÁN + a fraction (5 SÌLA, perhaps one-half BÁN) ) of barley over a three-month period (three-month range given after the family’s name in BE 14 62, but omitted in BE 14 60). In BE 14 91a, fifteen years later, the family received 2 GUR, 3 PI, and at least 4 BÁN (damaged, but possibly as much as 5 BÁN) (82 (or 83) BÁN) over a period of six months. This increase in barley allocation over time (37 BÁN + a fraction (for 3 months) x 2 = c. 75 BÁN over 6 months, i.e., less than recorded for the 6-month period in BE 14 91a) may mean that the family grew in size; but it could also reflect an increase in barley allocated to the children of the original family as they moved up in age category or some other factor, such as members who ran away or were unable to work at full capacity. Unfortunately, the way the texts are written restricts the information available to answer questions of this sort. 12 BE 14 58:5 and BE 14 91a:6. 13 Dayyānī-Šamaš has a Babylonian name, his wife’s name could be Hurrian (Hölscher questions whether the name is Hurrian or Akkadian: Monika Hölscher, family and household 69

Tukultī-Adad, another brewer, and his wife, Bāltī-Adad, started off with two daughters in 1295 B.C.14 The eldest, Bittinnatu, was reported as having run away, and the youngest, Ētirtu,̣ was unweaned. In the seventh month of 1293 B.C., Ētirtụ is listed in the next sex-age category (young girl), and Bāltī-Adad had borne another daughter, Bārihtu,̮ bringing the number of daughters up to three.15 Bittinnatu is still away at this time, but by 1279 B.C. she had been brought back and returned to the rolls.16 Families with women as their head are just as long-lived, but are perhaps less stable in terms of composition and leadership. Ištar- bēlī-usrị̄ has five children when first attested,17 and they are cited as a family unit part-way through the following year.18 Afterwards, the family disappears from the record until two members are listed individually with no obvious trace of family relationship in a text written in 1279 B.C.19 Ištar-bēlī-usrị and her eldest son are not registered on this or any subsequent text; and the youngest daughter, who was once a nursing baby, has grown up and is now married to someone outside of the group.20 Another single mother from BE 14 58, Bēlta-balāta-īriš,̣ has a young son who works as a weaver and two nursing daughters in 1295 B.C.21 Their family unit appears as a group twice in the following year22 and perhaps again around 1286-85 B.C.23 Fifteen years later, Bēlta-balāta-̣ īriš is not listed as a member of the work group, the elder daughter has

Die Personennamen der kassitenzeitlichen Texte aus Nippur, IMGULA 1 (Münster: Rhema Verlag, 1996): 216–17) and the children all have Babylonian names except for the youngest, who has a Kassite name. 14 BE 14 58:39–42. 15 Ni. 6775 rev. 4’–6’. 16 BE 14 91a:20. 17 BE 14 58:12–17. 18 BE 14 60:13, 62:7. 19 They are listed in order of birth, but one would not know that without first reading BE 14 58. The reference is BE 14 91a:8-8a. 8a refers to a line missing in Clay’s original copy but noted in the “Additions and Corrections” page after pl. XV at the end of BE 14. The line reads: 2 PI 3(+)BÁN ŠE.BA m!Ḫu-la-la-tum DAM m⌈Di?⌉-ik-di-ia-en-ni (read by Hölscher as Kikkija-enni). 20 Ištar-bēlī-usrị̄ is presumably deceased or married and living in another household (perhaps less likely since she is unattested in any other document). The eldest son was said to be travelling sixteen years earlier, and there is no record whether he returned from his journey. 21 BE 14 58:18–21. 22 BE 14 60:14, 62:8. 23 f ? Ni. 12412:4’ (“[…]⌈ GAŠAN ⌉-TI.LA-UR[U4-iš]”). 70 chapter four acquired a family of her own, and her son and the second daughter stand by themselves in the text.24 This unmarried daughter, Dīn(ī)- ili-lūmur, has followed her brother into the textile industry and is now working as a spinner/braider (tāmītụ ). There is even the occasional glimpse into the effects of death on family life in the Late Bronze Age. For example, the single mother Ina- Akkade-rabât is caring for two daughters, perhaps twins, who are both very young and still nursing when first identified in BE 14 58.25 Amat- Nuska, the younger daughter, dies in infancy.26 Ina-Akkade-rabât and her surviving child may stay together for as many as sixteen years27 until Ina-Akkade-rabât disappears from the record.28 Sometime later we learn that this daughter has started her own family (although there are no indications that she has become someone’s wife (DAM) ).29 Also, Mīšarītu is a single, adult woman for nearly the entire time span of this textual series,30 but she is listed as a family head by the third year of Kadašman-Turgu.31 This brief introduction has focused on a select working group to produce a number of noteworthy insights into family life among the servile population, e.g., the presence of male and female family heads and the effect of death on the organization of the families. It also stands as a reminder that these tablets are the only known records of the lives of past people and that many of the circumstances they faced are similar to those faced in the modern day. In the remainder of the chapter, we will take a broader and deeper look at the Middle Babylonian servile family through the quantitative and qualitative data contained in our text corpus. In particular, we will present the methods for identifying families in these texts, the size and

24 BE 14 91a:10, 12, and 14. There is no mention of the elder daughter becoming a wife, so it is possible that she took over leadership of her mother’s family rather than starting a family of her own. However, all known children of her mother are counted outside of Rabâ-ša-Išḫara’s qinnu at this time, so if she did take control over her mother’s qinnu, then it would have included children born to Bēlta-balāta-īriṣ̌ that are otherwise unattested. 25 BE 14 58:23–25. 26 Ibid., line 25. 27 BE 14 60:16 (as family unit only, no individuals), BE 14 62:10 (as family unit only, no individuals), UM 29-15-760:6’–8,’ Ni. 12412: 6’ ([…] KI.MIN fI-na-A-ga-d[è-ra?- bat]), BE 91a:16 and 43 (listed in nonconsecutive lines of the text). 28 Last attested in BE 14 91a:43 and listed separately from her daughter (line 16). 29 CT 51 19:9 (2 PI 1 BÁN 5 SÌLA qin-ni f⌈In⌉-[na-mar]). 30 BE 14 58:22, 60:15, 62:9, UM 29-15-760:5’, Ni. 12412:5’. 31 BE 91a:15 and CT 51 19:8. family and household 71 composition of a household and nuclear family, and the ways in which simple families headed by males (almost all two-parent households) differed from those headed by females (single mothers), among other topics.

Identification of Family Units within the Text Corpus

The previous section introduced some of the more detailed ways in which families appear in the corpus, but a wider discussion of the range of available evidence needs to be presented. The remainder of this chapter considers how families are distinguished in the texts and what the data reveal about the size, composition, and organization of servile families in Kassite Nippur. The word “family” is used here in a generic sense and encompasses parents and children, siblings, and other further removed relatives by blood or marriage (grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, in-laws, etc.). It also tends to include the more specific terms developed in the following paragraphs. Therefore, when encountered here, family should be interpreted loosely and in light of the context in which it appears. Any concept of a larger descent group, such as a clan or lineage, is lacking in the textual record being studied.32 This means that we must establish a better means of distinguishing the many types of arrangements or structures that are subsumed under the English word “family” so that our analysis can be precise and unambiguous. Our terminology should make a distinction between domestic units (household) and blood relations (conjugal family unit). In 1972, Peter Laslett, the founder of the Cambridge Group for the History of Population Studies, published a set of definitions that are helpful and meet the needs of our discussion.33 They have been adopted here with little modification. The first term to be discussed is the conjugal family unit. It is the most basic element of family organization, reproduction, and marriage; and it is sometimes referred to as the simple or nuclear family.

32 Such groups may have existed, but do not show up in the documentation. Perhaps this is due to the status of the persons being recorded (e.g., slaves, prisoners, etc.). 33 “Introduction: The History of the Family,” Chapter 1 in Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972): 28–30. Note that similar schemes had been developed prior to Laslett’s publication. 72 chapter four

Laslett defined the conjugal family unit as “a married couple, or a married couple with offspring, or a widowed person with offspring.”34 But, because of the population being studied, the definition needs to be expanded to include single women (whose marital status is not known) with their children. Unfortunately, such an exception raises problems with Laslett’s use of the term conjugal—which is a direct reference to matrimony—because it means that in some cases there is no way to determine if children were the product of a formal marriage. For historical demographers, marriage is merely a proxy for the point at which a woman begins regular sexual relations; so conjugal family unit will still be used throughout this discussion with the caveat that in some cases there is no way of verifying whether a formal marriage took place.35 With that in mind, the data on conjugal family units are discussed in detail in section five of this chapter. A household, according to Laslett, is a domestic and residential unit made up of related individuals (by blood or marriage) who share a residence or are considered by the recording party to share a residence. It may consist of one or many conjugal family units and their relatives.36 In the Kassite texts that make up our corpus, the household appears as a sublist of individuals, linked together by their blood or marital relationships, found within a larger list of individuals recording the names and sometimes status (sex-age and/or physical-condition) of servile workers or slaves.37 The sense of co-residence is implied rather than stated, though it may be noted that this format was used in a previous period to mark individuals who clearly occupied the same residence.38 It is also difficult to imagine that the members of a conjugal

34 Ibid., 29. 35 I.e., a conjugal family unit is used for the following cases: husband-wife without children, husband-wife with children, male with children but without listed partner, female with children but without listed partner. 36 Laslett,”The History of the Family,” (1972): 28–29. 37 I.e., within lists contained in rosters. Two hundred and eight (40%) tablets in the Document Table have some sort of family relationship expressed in them. These data range from a simple patronymic to lists of large, multi-family households. Forty-three (8.3%) of the tablets have at least one known or suspected household as defined on pages 71–75, and eleven (25.6%) of these household documents are of a type that use elaborate qualitative summaries for qinnu-groups (see page 60 and page 105, note 86). For an example of a household listing and further details, see the discussion about Figure 10 (page 73). 38 An Old Babylonian text from Kish, Ki. 1056, uses similar listings to indicate the membership of twenty-two households (bītu). Veysel Donbaz and Norman Yoffee,Old Babylonian Texts from Kish Conserved in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Bibli otheca Mesopotamica 17 (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1986), 57–65 and 92–93. family and household 73 family unit—who make up the majority of these households—would live separately, or that the institution tracking these people would have any other reason to list people in this manner. Additional support for this assumption comes from the fact that households have been a long-standing means of organizing slaves (for reasons of social stabil- ity and ease of supply) and workers in other societies.39 Each household has a head, who is the principal person with which the household is identified. In most cases this is usually the husband or father, but it can be the mother if the father is dead, or even the eldest son/brother. Households are characterized by the logograms that follow the name of each household member (other than the head). These logograms state a person’s relationship to their household head (e.g., DAM.A.NI=“his wife”); and, when several of these appear on a tablet one after the other, it indicates the presence of a family.40 An example illustrates the basic format (Figure 10).

GURUŠ Dayyānī-Šamaš SAL Tambi-Dadu DAM.A.NI (“his wife”) SAL.TUR Dalīlūša DUMU.SAL.A.NI (“his daughter”) GURUŠ.TUR Arad-Nuska DUMU.A.NI (“his son”) GURUŠ.TUR.TUR Nuska-kīna-usuṛ DUMU.A.NI (“his son”) DUMU.GABA Gab-Martaš DUMU.A.NI (“his son”) Figure 10. The Household of Dayyānī-Šamaš ( BE 14 58:5–10 p–q).

39 Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery, vol. 1 (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1974):127. 40 In all documents, the relationship is written as a logogram. The possessive suffix (usually A.NI, rarely simple .NI) is as a rule written in Sumerian; but, in at least ten texts, the relationship is written in Akkadian (sometimes Sumerian and Akkadian suffixes occur in a single document, e.g., CBS 7092+, Ni. 6068, and 8164). Unfortunately, a full transliteration is available for just two documents with the relationships expressed in Akkadian (CBS 7092+ and Ni. 5989) and exact line references cannot be made for the remaining eight texts. Regardless, the known attestations of family relationships meant to be read in Akkadian are: CBS 7092+ (selected instances: DAM-su (i’ 2’, 5’, and rev. ii’ 16’), DUMU-ša (rev. iii’ 8’), DUMU-šá (i’ 6’–7’ and rev. ii’ 17’), DUMU-šu (i’ 1’ and 11’), DUMU.SAL-sa (rev. ii’ 20’ and 28’), DUMU.SAL-su (rev. iii’ 20’) ), Ni. 5989 i’ 4’ (DUMU-šá), Ni. 6068 (DAM-su, ŠEŠ-šu, and DUMU-šú), Ni. 6143 (ŠEŠ-šú is attested, but the text may be listing brothers rather than entire families), Ni. 6758 (DUMU-šú and DUMU.SAL-su), Ni. 6804 (DAM-su, DUMU-šú, and DUMU. SAL-su), Ni 8164 (DUMU-šú), Ni. 11182 (DUMU-šá), Ni. 11197 (DAM-su, DUMU. SAL-sa, and DUMU-šú), and Ni. 11373 (DUMU-šú and DUMU.SAL-su). The references for relationships with Sumerian pronominal suffixes are too numerous to cite here. However, the following are attested: DAM.A.NI (“his wife”), DUMU.A.NI 74 chapter four

In this example, the name of the head (Dayyānī-Šamaš) is given first,41 followed by the names of the other family members (Tambi-Dadu, Dalīlūša, Arad-Nuska, Nuska-kīna-usur,̣ Gab-Martaš). A household may include the head’s spouses and children, mother,42 siblings,43 44 brother’s wives and children, and kallatu (É.GI4.A), i.e., unrelated females brought into the household upon the agreement that they will wed the head or one of the other males in the household.45 There are

(“his/her son”), DUMU.SAL.A.NI (“his/her daughter”), NIN.A.NI (“his/her sister”), ŠEŠ.A.NI (“his/her brother”), AMA.A.NI (“his/her mother”). Note also the pleonastic usage ŠEŠ.A.NI-ša in BE 14 128a:4 (the DAM.A.NI-ša in the following line is presumably a mistake for DAM.A.NI-šu, unless we want to presume the Babylonians were early quiet practitioners of same-sex marriage). The same usage is found in MSKH 1 9:3, 6, and 8, but this is not in a household listing (cf. MU.NE-ša in line 2). 41 Sometimes with patronymic or occasionally, in the case of female household heads, the name of her deceased husband. 42 Only attested if the head is male. 43 Especially unmarried brothers and sisters. 44 Evidence suggests that when a man died, his wife and children were brought into the household of the dead man’s eldest brother. See page 75, note 46. 45 Of the 1657 total females, only 13 are tagged as kallatu. Five of these attestations occur among individuals where there is no indication—because they were never written or are not fully preserved—of family relationships among the listed individuals, i.e., the details of the adopted household of these kallatu are not available (BE 14 58 i 48; CBS 3484A rev. ii’ 5’ and 6’ (KI.MIN), 3646 ii’ 23’, 11868 ii’ 8). [...]ur/lik-Baba (CBS 7752 rev. ii’ 6) is a kallatu listed as the next to last member of the family of the widower Imgugu. The text does not indicate whether she was betrothed to Imgugu or one of his three sons. She has a child, Adad-šumu-līšir (rev. ii’ 7), at least according to the usual style of listing household members. There are twokallatu s within the household of the first wife of ̮ānibuH (deceased) where there are two, perhaps three, sons listed whom they might have been expected to wed (CBS 11937 i’ 14’ and 17’; Appendix 1 Household 49). Another kallatu, known only by patronym (Karzi-Ban), appears in BE 14 126; there is also one in CBS 7092+ rev. ii’ 23’. There are also one kallatu each included among two (possibly three) large families of slaves being sold: one in a text dated to the reign of Burna-Buriaš II (MUN 9 + PBS 13 64: 6), one in a legal text now housed in Istanbul (Ni. 1574:8), and a third in a legal text that is damaged, but also probably part of a slave sale (UM 29-15-730: 12’). In only one of these cases is it indicated who the future husband might be, and it seems that a kallatu is not necessarily betrothed to an individual listed in close proximity to her name on the text. In CBS 7092+ (Household 30), a note was inserted between two lines (rev. ii’ between lines 23’ and 24’) stating that a kallatu by the name of Bēltu-rīšat had become the wife of the next-to-eldest son (rev. ii’ 18’). The slim evidence available on age category suggests that kallatu entered their new household as adults or nearly adults. Three of the attested kallatu are adults (SAL) and two are adolescents (SAL.TUR). An age category is not preserved in the other eight instances. One would expect that an adult kallatu would have been made a wife by adulthood and would have been listed as such (DAM.A.NI instead of kallatu or

É.GI4.A), but this is not the case. For the purposes of our discussion, kallatus, until they are officially married and listed as a wife (DAM), are considered to be dependents of the household in which they are living (i.e., comparable to lodgers and servants in Laslett’s scheme). This means that a simple family does not become an extended or multiple family household until the girl is married. family and household 75 no clear examples of either an elderly father or the children of a widowed sister of a head belonging to the head’s household.46 Members typically appear in the following order (if the head is male): (1) Male head; (2) Wife of the head; (3) Mother of the head (if alive and a widow); (4) Children of the head,47 along with their wives and children and any kallatu that are betrothed to the head, his sons, or his grandsons;48 (5) Siblings of the head along with their spouses, children, grandchildren, and kallatus. Female-headed households follow the same rules, but in a manner that reflects their particular situation: the first person listed is the female head, followed by her children (eldest son first), brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces. Where entries are not well preserved, it is sometimes difficult to determine the exact relationship of some members of a household to one another.49 It is also sometimes hard to distinguish the signs NIN (“sister”) and DAM (“wife”) from one another in the documents, especially when the text is damaged or carelessly written; and there are a few cases where one cannot be sure if an adult woman is the wife or sister of the household head.50 Context can favor one reading over another, but this is not always the case.

46 A man would remain the head of his own household until his death. His household may or may not include his children and their offspring. A sister would not return with her children to her agnate family upon the death of her husband, but instead would stay with her affinal relatives as is demonstrated by one possible interpretation of Household 70 of Appendix 1. This is indicative of patrilocal residence. 47 Usually in descending order of age, but there are variations in this pattern, e.g., the listing of a male child before a female child even though the male is of a (presumably) younger age class (Appendix 1, Households 2, 15 (reconstructed), 46, and 58). 48 Kallatus are usually the last to be listed, and it is impossible to do more than guess at which member of the family they will wed (except for one case, see page 74, note 45 and Appendix 1, Household 30). Another possibility, proposed by Donbaz and Yoffee, is that kallatus are females in the household who are betrothed to males in another household but have not yet moved into their marriage home (Veysel Donbaz and Norman Yoffee, Old Babylonian Texts from Kish (1986): 63). If they are correct, then one would have to alter both the definition appearing above and the interpretive diagrams of Households 7, 41, 49, and 67. 49 For examples, see Appendix 1, Households 102, 104, and 105. 50 The principal difference between the two signs is an additional horizontal wedge in the center of the second, rectangular element of the DAM-sign. This fourth horizontal wedge is impressed on top of and along the same horizontal plane as the 76 chapter four

The Household

Texts from the Document Table were examined for the presence of households.51 The study revealed that there are 105 households (out of a total of 131 identified) whose composition is fully preserved or can be reconstructed to the point of being statistically and analytically useful. This includes two slave families who are enumerated in different legal texts in a list formatted in the same manner as in administrative texts.52 Information on and diagrams of one hundred and seven of the best preserved households have been compiled and are presented as Appendix 1,53 and scholars interested in the details of these households should refer to that. Three basic household types can be observed among the population: the simple-family household (a conjugal family unit and its dependents), the extended-family household (a conjugal family unit plus other family members and dependents), and the multiple-family household (two or more conjugal family units and dependents). Each household type will be further defined in the pages to follow. The frérèche, a household type consisting of adult brothers and their conjugal families, is considered to be a multiple-family household and is subsumed under that term. There is no reliable way of identifying solitary households (a household consisting of just a single person) in the texts.54 Diagrammatic representations of all three basic types of middle (second) horizontal wedge. Some examples of the confusion this generates can be found in Appendix 1, Households 39, 47, and 54. The difficulty in distinguishing these two signs in an Old Babylonian document has been previously discussed: Donbaz and Yoffee, Old Babylonian Texts from Kish (1986): 63. 51 This is in contrast to the study done in the previous chapter, which used only tablets from the University of Pennsylvania Museum, the Free Library of Philadelphia, the British Museum, the Hilprecht-Sammlung in Jena, and the Louvre (pages 38–39). 52 Ni. 1574:1–9 and Ni. 6192:2’?-8’. (Households 67 and 78 from Appendix 1). Ni. 6192 lists the sale of at least 25 slaves. At least seven of the members on this damaged text are related. Six of them are sisters and at least two of them are nursing girls; sex-age designations for the other sisters are not preserved. The purchase of three slave families is recorded on the legal text MUN 9 + PBS 13 64, but the family relationships can only be partially reconstructed. 53 Two households (49 and 104) whose household type could not be identified because of tablet damage or uncertainty are included in the appendix (hence the number 105 in the preceding paragraph, but 107 households appear in the appendix). These households were significant in other quantitative analyses—i.e., size and composition of conjugal family units—when household identification was unimportant. 54 One might imply that single persons with no mentioned relatives are solitary, especially when some groupings of a text are by family. However, since there is no way to test this hypothesis, it must be left for future consideration. family and household 77 households can be found in Figure 11. Males are indicated with triangles, females with circles, the head of household with solid fill, and the entire household enclosed with a dotted rectangle.55 Theoretically, kallatus can appear in all three household types, but they are so far unattested in multiple-family households. The simple-family household is a domestic group that consists of a conjugal family and any kallatus residing with it (kallatus are attested just once among single-family households).56 It is the most common type of household, accounting for over seventy-five percent of all households for which household type can be identified. Most of the attested household members belong to a simple family (Table 14).

Figure 11. Sample Diagrams of a Simple-Family Household (a), an Extended-Family Household (b), and a Multiple-Family Household (c).

55 For further explanation, consult Laslett, “The History of the Family,” (1972): 36–44, especially pp. 41–42. 56 Household 67 in Appendix 1 (Ni. 1574:1–9). All references to kallatus have been discussed at length in page 74, note 45. 78 chapter four

Table 14. Number of Members of Households by Type (Includes All Members). Household Type Number of Members Simple-family household 320 Extended-family household 55 Multiple-family household 160

Many of the features pertaining to the simple-family household (such as size and composition) are shared by the conjugal family unit because a simple-family household consists of a single conjugal family unit and its dependents. These shared issues are taken up in the next section of the chapter. A striking statistic about simple-family households is that the majority (61%) of them were headed by a woman,57 and this could have many causes. The most likely scenario would be that these women were widows.58 One cannot be sure why so many married women would have outlived their husbands, but it may point to a large age discrepancy between men and women at marriage (husbands die before their wives because they are older).59 This topic is taken up again in section seven of this chapter (pages 90–91). The argument that adult men were more likely to die (from overwork, etc.) than adult women

57 The number of female-headed households was determined by adding up the number of simple-family households of types 1.e and 1.f in Table 15, i.e., simple- family households consisting of single women (male partner not listed) with children + single women (husbands listed as deceased=effectively single mothers) with children. 58 Even though one can prove that only 7 of the 48 claimed female household heads were ever married, i.e. their husband is listed as deceased on the text (=husband recently dead or has died since the last previous inspection?), while no husband/father is listed for the other 41 households (=husband/partner had died long ago or before the last previous inspection?). 59 This has been observed by other scholars of Mesopotamia, but an average age at marriage for women or the average age difference between spouses (both in terms of years) has yet to be convincingly established (mostly because Babylonians very rarely stated anyone’s age in years). See Martha T. Roth, “Age at Marriage and the Household: A Study of Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian Forms,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 29 (1987):736–37, 746–47; Erlend Gehlken, “Childhood and Youth, Work and Old Age in Babylonia—A Statistical Analysis,” in Approaching the Babylonian Economy: Proceedings of the START Project Symposium Held in Vienna, 1–3 July 2004, eds. Heather D. Baker and Michael Jursa, AOAT 330 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005): 102–03, 107–108; and the comments by Yigal Bloch, “The Order of Eponyms in the Reign of Shalmaneser I,” Ugarit- Forschungen 40 (2008): 159–64. family and household 79 does not agree with the sex ratio of the adult population (109.6), but it does agree with the meager information we have on workers listed as dead.60 In addition, widows may have found it more difficult than widowers to remarry.61 It is also possible that their male partners (father(s) of their children) were absent from the rolls because they were working at a different location and listed on another tablet; but this would go against the pattern of the available evidence, which generally records families together in rosters.62 Another reason could be that the male partners of these female household heads were never a part of the administrative system,63 perhaps because they were living as free persons in Babylonia not subject to servile status,64 or they were dead or separated from their families before the latter fell under the jurisdiction of the administration. The latter case could arise from the taking of prisoners, when the assaulting party selectively chose women or children, and killed any adult males they encounter. This would only be true of some work groups, however, since the sex ratio of the adult population favors males.65 A final possibility could be that children were regularly born in the absence of a stable pairing (a pattern that some slave systems would produce). None of these options completely explains the high incidence of female-headed households, and it is probably a phenomenon with several contributing factors. The extended-family household is comprised of one conjugal family unit plus other family members and dependents (kallatus and perhaps servants). The household is extended upwards (or up) when a relative is of a generation earlier than the household head (e.g., the widowed mother of the head), and it is extended downwards (or down) if the

60 The sex ratio for the entire population and for all age groups except nursing infants always favors males. On the other hand, 5.9% of the male workers listed are classified as dead, while just under 5.5% of the female population is said to be dead. Of those listed in the rosters as dead, 53.4% are male, 35.6% are female, 11.0% are of unknown sex. These statistics were first discussed on pages 48–60. 61 There are four certain attestations of women who are married to men who are not the father of at least one of the woman’s children (Households 28, 30, 31, and 96). There is no way to determine if these women were ever married to the father(s) of the children that issued from the previous sexual relationship. 62 Pages 65–71 contain many examples of families working together. 63 And/or did not marry their female partners. 64 As would be the case when some members of a family were forced into service in payment for a debt. 65 See pages 51–58. 80 chapter four relative is from a generation later (grandnephew, grandniece, or grandchild without parent). Lateral extension occurs when a brother, sister, or cousin of the head or his spouse is included. Most of the extended-family households in this study are extended laterally, with five out of seven persons constituting the extension being siblings of the same sex as the head of household: if the head is male, then the laterally extended individuals are his brothers; if the head is female, then she usually has a sister living with her. In four cases, the mother of the head is included in the household (upward extension).66 The final type of household attested in the documentation is the multiple-family household. This is a domestic group that includes two or more conjugal family units that are connected by blood or marriage, though not all household members need be part of a conjugal family unit (i.e., single brothers of the household head). The conjugal family units that make up the multiple-family household may be simple or extended (vertically or laterally). The secondary conjugal family unit—the one not including the head—is disposed upward if it is a generation earlier than the head, and downward if the generation is later. The attested multiple-family households can be complex, but there are two noteworthy trends in the data. The first is that most multiple- family households consist of siblings with their conjugal families67 (if any) or a formerly simple household that brings in a bride for one of the sons.68 The second is the lack of kallatus among multiple-family households.69 The frequency of each household type is summarized in Tables 14 and 15. The largest percentage of identifiable households are of the simple type (60%), followed by multiple families (13%) and extended families (7%). Twenty percent of the households could not be placed into any category because they were poorly preserved or difficult to interpret.

66 Appendix 1, Households 7, 24 (stepmother), 41, and 67. 67 Ibid., Households, 59(?), 68, 71, 72, 101, 102, 104, and 105. 68 Ibid., Households 39, 54, 69, and 103. 69 One of the interpretations presented for Household 49 (i.e., the lower of the two diagrams) could offer an exception, but the manner in which the household is listed in the text presents many problems and it is uncertain whether this was an extended- or multiple-family household. family and household 81

Table 15. Attested Households by Type and Frequency. 1. Simple-family households a. Couples without children 4 b. Couples with children 21 c. Single men with children 0 d. Remarried men with children 3 e. Single women (husbands listed as deceased)70 with children 7 f. Single women (male partner not listed) with children 41 g. Remarried women with children (husband not the father) 3 Total simple-family households: 79 2. Extended-family households a. Upwards 2 b. Downwards 0 c. Laterally 7 Total extended-family households: 9 3. Multiple-family households71 a. Upwards 0 b. Downwards 4 c. Laterally 8 d. Upwards and laterally 2 e. Downwards and laterally 3 Total multiple-family households: 17 72 4. Uncertain or insufficiently preserved 26

Only three households appear more than once in texts that list the members of the household individually.73 All three are simple-family households and they do not experience a change in household type from one text to the next, but in two instances a new child is born. This does not mean that households were frozen in one particular type of domestic arrangement, but rather that we have reference to them at only one particular point in time. It has already been demonstrated that some household members could break off and form their own households or take over an existing household when the original head

70 f m Or the entry has the format PN1 DAM (“wife of”) PN2 (with the husband’s name not otherwise listed). 71 Possible polygynous families are included in this household category. 72 See page 76, note 53. 73 Households 3, 4, and 6 in Appendix 1. 82 chapter four dies; and it is likely that the form of each household was fluid and could change.74

Comparisons with Other Premodern Societies It was demonstrated in the previous chapter that the Middle Babylonian servile laborer population shared some basic characteristics with the populations of Roman Egypt, Medieval Tuscany, and especially black slaves in the American South. The same cannot be said of the frequency of household types among three of these populations. If one accepts the method of household identification given here (pages 71–75), it is apparent that the simple-family household was significantly more common among the servile population at Nippur than in the other two premodern societies (Table 16).75 Scholars generally agree that the simple-family household (rather than the extended-family household or multiple-family household) has been the most common domestic arrangement in premodern societies; and this idea is backed up with solid demographic evidence.76 However, the fact that nearly three quarters of the households are simple is remarkable and may be an indication of the low status of the population or perhaps the result of direct manipulation by the administration of the population and its residence patterns. Perhaps the population under study is not typical or representative of the general population, but an artificially constituted working group selected (or recorded) for reasons of which we are unaware.

74 Pages 67–71. 75 Information on slave households is not available (presumably mostly simple households or even barracks in some cases). 76 The evidence is extensive, but was first discussed in Francis L.K. Hsu, “The Myth of Chinese Family Size,” American Journal of Sociology 48 (1943): 555–62 and Olga Lang, Chinese Family and Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1946). For a greater analytical scope, see Marion J. Levy Jr., “Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure” in Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure, eds. Ansley J. Coale et al. (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1965): 40–63 and Thomas K. Burch, “The Size and Structure of Families: A Comparative Analysis of Census Data,” American Sociological Review 32 (1967): 347–63, especially p. 358. For specific case studies, see Bagnall and Frier, Demography of Roman Egypt (1994): 61; Dale B. Martin, “The Construction of the Ancient Family: Methodological Considerations.” The Journal of Roman Studies 86 (1996): 40; and Richard Wall, “The Household: Demographic and Economic Change in England, 1650–1970,” in Family Forms in Historic Europe, eds. Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983): 493. family and household 83

Table 16. Percentages of Attested Households by Type for the Servile-Worker Population in Kassite Nippur Compared with General Populations of Medieval Tuscany and Roman Egypt.77 Medieval Tuscany Roman Egypt Kassite Nippur Simple-Family 65.1% 54.4% 75.0% household Extended-family 12.6% 19.0% 8.5% household Multiple-family 22.2% 26.5% 16.5% household

Slaves and Households There is no evidence of any households owning slaves. On the other hand, the heads of at least two female-headed households are labeled as slaves in a roster text.78 It is not indicated on the tablet whether the children were also considered slaves. Additionally, a handful of slave sales are included in the corpus. Among these legal texts are three tablets recording the sale of partial, if not complete, families.79 This may be a significant clue as to one way in which families entered the servile system. Arad ekalli, a title which may refer to an occupation rather than a legal or social status, is given for three individuals listed in a household.80 Some qinnu that contain households may include slaves, but

77 Statistics for Tuscany and Egypt drawn from Table 3.1 in Bagnall and Frier, Demography of Roman Egypt (1994): 60. Household types not attested (or undetermi- nable) in the Nippur material (i.e., solitary and no household types) were excluded from the statistics from Medieval Tuscany and Roman Egypt. 78 These two families are both found in Ni. 6444 rev. i’ 9’–13’, a text fragment listing slaves and their children. The slave status of Ilti-aḫḫēša (Household 82) is indicated logographically (GÉME), and she has two young boys (pirsu and DUMU.GABA). Bēltani’s status (Household 83) is indicated in Akkadian (andu), and she has one young daughter (pirsatu). At least 40% of preserved individuals listed on this fragment are dead or have run away. The presence of these terms for slave (GÉME and andu) may indicate that either this text—as opposed to other texts—is using different criteria for applying this terminology or perhaps even in certain contexts andu and ardu could refer to household servants or another more defined occupation. 79 MUN 9 + PBS 13 64, Ni. 1574 and 6192. 80 CAD, following Oppenheim, gives arad ekalli as a possible occupation name for first-millennium documents only (CAD A/2 p. 211). For its possible extension into 84 chapter four this is not an indication that these slaves were part of the household (just part of the same qinnu).81

The Conjugal Family Unit

The conjugal family unit, also known as the nuclear family, consists of a married pair (with or without children) or a single parent (including a widow or widower) with children.82 Because of the different types of domestic arrangement observed among the servile population, some households (e.g., the multiple-family household) contained more than one conjugal family unit. The conjugal family unit is of statistical importance for determining the fertility and life expectancy of each mating pair, regardless of residence pattern (household), and permits comparisons between the fertility of mating pairs from different household types internally within a population and externally among different populations. A survey of all households revealed the presence of 125 conjugal family units; 119 of them appear on administrative texts that include individuals of both sexes, but the available documentation lists a full sex-age designation for all members of only 59 of these conjugal family units.83 Because the conjugal family unit refers to blood relation among parents and their children, and the administrative records express this relationship directly—unlike our definition of household, which assumes the texts reflect a residential arrangement— the quantitative statistics on the conjugal family unit are secure, at least from a minimal point of view.84

Kassite period material and further references, see J.A. Brinkman, “Administration and Society in Kassite Babylonia,” JAOS 124 (2004): 294–95. 81 CBS 7752 rev. i’ 8–10 and rev. ii’ 12’. Qinnu is discussed in detail in the following chapter, pages 97–98. 82 To be more specific, the conjugal family unit may manifest as (1) a married couple alone, (2) a married couple and their offspring, or (3) a single person with offspring. 83 On a total of 49 texts. Some administrative documents may list persons exclusively of one sex (usually because they list individuals of a single occupation that favors one sex, e.g., boatmen), and there are several possible reasons for this. One possibility could be that particular documents list just males or females. The family listed is probably not complete. 84 I.e., A few of the numbers could be larger (because of omission of family members or tablet damage), but not smaller. family and household 85

Conjugal Family Size and Composition According to the assembled data, the average nuclear family was of modest size, consisting of 4.22 people and 2.7 children.85 This may seem small for a population lacking modern birth control, but it is in line with other premodern populations with high mortality.86 As many as eight conjugal family units were childless.87 The records of the 119 families that list the sex of all offspring show the presence of more males (62.7% of all children or at least 1.57 sons/ family) than females (37.3% or 0.96 daughters/family), which may be because daughters married and left the family at an earlier age. This is supported by the evidence drawn from conjugal families for which we can identify the offspring’s relative age (Table 17). Among these 59 nuclear families, male offspring outnumber females by a larger margin overall (1.80/family versus 1.07/family) as well as in the two oldest age categories (1.04/family versus 0.56/family).

Table 17. Offspring of Conjugal Family Units by Sex-age Category (169 Total Issue among 59 Conjugal Family Units).88 Total Percentage Average Number Category Number of Males per Family Male Adult (GURUŠ) 27 25.4% 0.46 Adolescent (GURUŠ. TUR) 34 32.1% 0.58 Child (GURUŠ.TUR. TUR) 7 6.6% 0.12 Weaned (pirsu) 13 12.3% 0.22 Nursing (DUMU.GABA) 25 23.6% 0.42 (Continued)

85 There are 502 individuals (319 children) among 119 families. 86 Egyptian families during the Roman period averaged 4.3 persons (Bagnall and Frier, Demography of Roman Egypt, (1994): 67–68, and the households of Tuscany in A.D. 1427 averaged 4.42 (Herlihy and Klapisch-Zuber, Tuscans and Their Families, (1985): 282). Thomas K. Burch has written that throughout the 20th century, the average family size worldwide was between 3 and 6 persons (Thomas K. Burch, “The Size and Structure of Families” (1967): 347–63, see specifially Tables 2, 3, and 7. 87 These can be found in and among Households 11, 32, 56, 68(?), 69, 75, 103, and 106. 88 This table includes only families for which the sex-age designation for all children is known. 86 chapter four

Table 17. (Cont.) Total Percentage Average Number Category Number of Females per Family Female Adult (SAL) 15 23.8% 0.25 Adolescent (SAL.TUR) 18 28.6% 0.31 Child (SAL.TUR.TUR) 1 1.6% 0.02 Weaned (pirsatu) 11 17.5% 0.19 Nursing (DUMU.SAL.GABA) 18 28.6% 0.31

Nursing children are common among nuclear families. Thirty-four out of the fifty-nine conjugal family units have at least one nursing infant. Eleven of these families had more than one nursing child,89 which could be a by-product of the age classification system (children in this category may not actually be subsisting on their mother’s milk)90 or may be evidence of wet-nursing of foundlings or orphans by lower class families.91

Single Mothers A significant presence of female heads among single family households has already been noted. Among those in charge of conjugal

89 The families of Ina-Akkade-rabât (2 nursing daughters—one dead) in BE14 58:23–25 and UM 29-15-760 6’–8’ (Household 4 in Appendix 1), Ištar-bēlī-usrị̄ (5 children, 1 nursing son and 1 nursing daughter) in BE 14 58:12–17 (Household 2), Bēlta-balāta-īriṣ̌ (3 children, 2 nursing daughters) in BE 14 58:18–21and UM 29-15- 760:1’–4’ (Household 3), Šaqât-ina-Akkade (8 children, 3 nursing—2 boys, 1 girl) in CBS 3472 i 9’–17’ (Household 13), Ilassunu (5 children, 2 nursing—1 boy, 1 girl) in CBS 3472 i’ 4’–9’ (Household 15), Nūr-Bēlti-Akkade (7 children, 3 nursing—1 boy, 2 girls) in CBS 13455 ii’ 6–18’ (Household 51), […]-x-x-Šamaš (3 children, 2 nursing- boy and girl) in CBS 3650 rev. i’ 4’–8’ (Household 23), fPi-ši-ir-⌈du?⌉ (5 children, 2 nursing boys, her son is the head of household) in a family of slaves being sold off in Ni. 1574:1–9 (Household 67), a family with the name of the head not preserved in Ni. 6192:2’?–8’ (6 daughters, 2 nursing) (Household 78), Bārihtu̮ (2 sons, both nursing) in Ni. 11149 i 16’–18’ (Household 89), and Dayyanti-ina-Uruk (3 children, 2 nursing daughters) in Ni. 11149 ii 7’–10’ (Household 90). 90 Bagnall and Frier, who worked with the Egyptian comparative material, believe that infancy in Roman Egypt ended sometime before the age of five (Demography of Roman Egypt(1994):35). 91 Occupations are rare among females (only 73 out of 1524 female workers are given an occupation), but two women are listed as wet nurses (mušēniqtu): the daughter of Salimūtụ (BE 15 184 i 15’ and BE 15 200 ii 24) and one whose name or affiliation is not fully preserved (BE 15 200 i 33). family and household 87 family units, 34.4% of the heads are single mothers (instances where a male partner is deceased or not listed),92 which is greater than half (53.8%) the total number of conjugal family units where the father is still present.93 It is also noteworthy that single mothers average slightly more offspring, have a greater percentage of offspring in the youngest age group, and are more likely to have daughters than conjugal family units headed by males.94 Statistics supporting these claims can be found in Table 18 and Figure 12.

Table 18. Comparison between the Children Belonging to Conjugal Family Units with and without Biological Father Present (Parents not Included).95 Families with the Biological Families of Single Mothers Father Present Total Number of Average Total Number of Average Individuals by Per Family Individuals by Per Age Category Age Category Family Male Adult 19 0.44 3 0.13 Adolescent 22 0.51 10 0.43 Child 4 0.09 2 0.09 Weaned 9 0.21 2 0.09 Nursing 12 0.28 14 0.61 (Continued)

92 Or 43 out of 125 conjugal family units. It must be cautioned that one must not confuse female heads of household with single mothers. The female household head is a woman in charge of a household (which can consist of a single, extended, or multiple family), while single mothers are females in charge of a conjugal family unit, i.e., a mother and her offspring without a father present (which can be part of a larger household whose head is not the single mother). Households 59 and 70 contain examples of single-mother nuclear families within households where the single mother is not the head. 93 Among heads of conjugal family units, there are 80 males, 43 females, and 2 of unidentified sex. Of the conjugal family units headed by females, only 23 (53.5%) provide sex-age designations for the offspring; of those headed by males, only 43 (53.8%) families provide sex-age designations for the offspring. 94 Nuclear families with the father present average 0.70 female and 1.53 male offspring per family (total= 2.23 offspring per family). At least 20.8% of these offspring belong to the youngest age group. Nuclear families of single mothers average 1.0 female and 1.3 male offspring per family (total 2.3 offspring per family). At least 42.6% of these offspring belong to the youngest age group. See also Table 18 and Figure 12. 95 The conjugal family units of remarried widows were excluded from the table because they did not contain the biological father of the children and were not headed by a women. 88 chapter four

Table 18. (Cont.) Families with the Biological Families of Single Mothers Father Present Total Number of Average Total Number of Average Individuals by Per Family Individuals by Per Age Category Age Category Family Female Adult 8 0.19 4 0.17 Adolescent 8 0.19 6 0.26 Child 1 0.02 0 0.00 Weaned 5 0.12 4 0.17 Nursing 8 0.19 9 0.39

The reasons why single mothers had more offspring is puzzling. If one removes families without issue from the statistics (all of which still have the husband present), the average number of offspring for single mothers equals that of married or widowed fathers (2.3).96 On the other hand, there are examples of high death rates in the families of single mothers. In one such case, three out of the four children of Baba-šarrat are marked as dead.97 The one surviving child, Dipārītu, is probably a toddler (pirsatu) and is the last one listed, presumably because she is the youngest member of the family.

Polygyny

Polygamous marriages are attested at least four, possibly as many as six, times among the servile population. In all cases it takes the form of polygyny (one man having multiple wives), and the husbands all have two wives. In CBS 11937, two women, whose names are badly damaged or completely lost, are listed as wives of Ḫānibu.98 Since Ḫānibu is not given a separate entry in the text but appears only in the capacity of

96 Excluding what are presumed to be remarried widows (page 79, note 61), there are two conjugal family units without issue listed in texts that provide the sex-age category of all offspring, all with husband still present. Removing them from the statistics yields an average of 2.3 offspring per family for families with offspring and the father present—which equals the 2.3 offspring per family of single mothers. 97 Appendix 1, Household 60. 98 i’ 11’, 19’ and Household 49 in Appendix 1. family and household 89

Figure 12. Sex-Age Distribution of the Offspring of the Conjugal Family Unit (CFU): Offspring of Single Mothers versus Offspring of Families with Fathers Present. his wife’s husband (listed after her name in the same entry), he may have been dead at the time the text was composed. The first wife takes the position of household head and is listed first, followed by her eldest son, her sister, and then a collection of two kallatu and three sons whose parentage is unclear (the primary wife or the kallatu?). The second wife is listed last and without children. Her only connection to the previous family is the mention of her husband;99 and, according to the method of household identification laid out at the beginning of this chapter, would now form her own household.100

99 Specificially line 19’: “[f…D]AM mḪa-ni-bi. 100 f In rosters, an entry of PN1 DAM(or DUMU.SAL) PN2 followed by other personal names with family relationship expressed (DUMU.A.NI) indicates the presence of a female-headed household. Following this rule, both wives became heads of their own households which included themselves and any children (and children’s wives and grandchildren) that they had with Ḫānibu. In other words, even though both women once lived in the same household, once Ḫānibu died, their familial link was broken and both sides of the household became independent, presumably simple- family, households. Of course, this hinges on the idea that Hānibu is deceased rather than alive, but not listed on the tablet for unknown reasons. 90 chapter four

The second attested polygynous family can be found among the members of a large household listed on Ni. 2793. In this unfortunately damaged section of the text, a man named Paliḫ-Adad is listed with his two wives. Both women have borne multiple children, and this may indicate that all three parents are fairly old.101 Two other cases of polygny can be found in CBS 7092+ (Bēlīyūtu, two wives and at least two sons) and UM 29-15-292 (Guzarzar, two wives, five sons, one with a wife of his own).102 Two more possible references to polygyny are open to question, and the hurdles involved are too complicated to discuss here. The two main issues center on the reading of unclear cuneiform signs and establishing how several family members are related in a damaged passage.103 Full details can be found in Appendix 1, Households 54 (Ni. 1066+1069 i’ 10–15’) and 57 (Ni. 1066+1069 ii’ 14’-19’).

Death and Marriage

Statistics for death among the entire servile population were covered in a previous chapter, and it was revealed that a slightly greater percentage of the male population (5.9%) is listed as dead than the female population (5.5%).104 We have also observed that there is an unexpect- edly high incidence of female-headed households and single mothers among servile workers. While these two findings are noteworthy by themselves, they may be part of a larger social phenomenon reflected in the statistics for deaths among married individuals. It comes as no surprise to note that there are more husbands (8) than wives (5) who are labeled as dead.105 If one were to suppose that all female-headed households arise from the death of the husband/father, then the number of dead husbands or male partners could be as high as fifty (against 5 dead mothers).

101 rev. iv’ 4’–19’ and Household 72 in Appendix 1. 102 CBS 7092+ i’ 8’–12’ (Household 29) and UM 29-15-292 rev. ii’ 4’–12’ (Household 103). 103 Ni. 1066+1069 i’ 10’–15’ (Household 54) and ii’ 14’–19’ (Household 57). 104 Pages 58–60 (males=126/2119, females=84/1524). 105 For dead husbands see Appendix 1, Households 8, 69, 70 (perhaps as many as 3 dead husbands total in the household), 73, 86, and 104. Page 79, note 61 contains evidence of the possible death of four other husbands (the women may be remarried widows, but this is not clear). For dead wives, consult the same Appendix, Households 39 (absent), 41 (absent), 57 (first wife), 71 (absent), and 77. In Households family and household 91

There are five possible cases of three-generation households (Households 24, 39, 41, and 70, two possible examples); but only three of these yield relatively clear cases of a living grandparent (all grand mothers).106 The two less likely cases are a possible paternal grandfather in Household 39 (unlikely)107 and another paternal grandmother in Household 70.108 A population in which extended-family and multiple-family households occur but which has a low incidence of three- generation households is typically one whose members do not live very long;109 but this does not really in itself explain why married women would survive longer than married men. All of these observations—more deaths recorded both among males for the entire population and among males who are married; a high incidence of both widowed mothers and grandmothers (compared to widowers and grandfathers)—could have many explanations, but one major contributing factor could be the age at marriage of men and women at this time. Previous research on this topic has suggested that husbands were notably older than their wives when they wed.110 This would mean that wives—if they did not die in childbirth—were more likely to outlive their husbands simply because they were younger. Also this social custom would help to explain the high incidence of female heads of household and single mothers. It would not explain it entirely, but it would have been an important factor in the observable sex distribution ratios.

Conclusions on Family and Household

Several significant conclusions on Middle Babylonian servile families have been reached in this chapter. It has been shown that families as

71 and 77 one of the children is also dead; so it is possible that the mother died in childbirth or was stricken by an ailment at the same time as their child. However, some time may have passed between the death of the mother and the death of the child in Household 71 because the mother has already been removed from the rolls, while her daughter is still listed (as deceased). 106 Yāʾūgu in Household 24, Bēltūa in Household 41, and Pakkutu in House hold 70. 107 Bunna-Ninsar, father of mār Elamî (interesting double patronym?). 108 Baltīya, sister or wife of Meli-mašhu.̮ 109 Levy, “Apects of the Analysis of Family Structure” (1965):49, reiterated by Burch, “The Size and Structure of Families” (1967): 350. 110 Page 78, note 59. For an actual example of age discrepancy in marriage in this corpus, see page 61, note 71 where an elderly man is in a different age class from his wife, who is an adult, but not elderly. 92 chapter four such were recognized and tracked by the administrative powers at Nippur and at least occasionally used as a means of organizing the servile population. Scribes used a loose and cumbersome, yet functional means of listing the members of each family on the same administrative records that were used to regulate the entire servile population. A set of definitions was established in order to understand the recorded data. These definitions proposed differentiating the household from the conjugal family unit. It was demonstrated that there were three attested household types: the simple-family household, the extended-family household, and the multiple-family household. The simple-family household is by far the most common type of domestic arrangement, and its frequency in the servile population at Nippur during the Late Bronze Age is greater than in some other premodern populations of the Mediterranean and Near East. We have learned that the nuclear family, here called a conjugal family unit, was small; but this is not unexpected among a population that experienced high mortality. Lastly, women played a significant role in what are traditionally known as the decision-making positions among families. Females account for the majority of heads of household among simple families. Likewise, nearly thirty-one percent of all nuclear families were run by single mothers. It was proposed that this situation could have been due to several factors, including the stringent living conditions imposed on this population and a practice of older men marrying younger women. However, it must be cautioned that the data are atypical in many ways; and some of the oddities observed could have been by-products of the recording process or a result of direct manipulation and selection of the population by the government and other institutions. CHAPTER FIVE

WORK, FLIGHT, ORIGINS, AND STATUS

Introduction

The documents available for use in this study were produced for Nippur administrators to keep track of the size, physical condition, wherea- bouts, and supply needs of the servile population. Taken as a whole, these texts are probably the largest concentrated body of material by subject matter from the Kassite levels of the site, comprising roughly 5% of its excavated Middle Babylonian tablets.1 There is little doubt that the management of this population was a significant concern of the political administration at Nippur. Although this textual documentation is abundant, the information it conveys is limited. The texts were composed for practical purposes and tend to be terse and formulaic, presuming basic knowledge of how the large-scale labor and supply system functioned and affording only momentary glimpses into its inner workings. Trying to reconstruct a fuller picture of the system inevitably involves much extrapolation based on minor details incidental to the documentation itself, with all the uncertainties that such a process entails. Much of this reconstruction may be recast as further research is undertaken. Nonetheless it is important that a start be made in trying to recover the milieu in which the servile population lived and worked. Earlier chapters have dealt with the demography of the laboring population and with its family and household structure. Now we will begin to place the laborers in a broader context within their political and

1 I.e., approximately 600 of the 12,000 MB tablets from Nippur. For the total number of MB texts from the site, see J.A. Brinkman, “The Monarchy in the Time of the Kassite Dynasty,” in Le Palais et la royauté, XIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed. Paul Garelli (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1974): 395. To date, less than 15% of the officially excavated Kassite period tablets from Nippur have been published ( J. A. Brinkman, “Administration and Society in Kassite Babylonia,” JAOS 124 (2004): 288). The number of documents identified as relevant to the servile population at Nippur is expected to grow as ongoing prosopographical studies progress. 94 chapter five socio-economic world. Succeeding sections of this chapter will deal with what little is known about the organization of the laboring pool (section 2), the tasks and occupations of the workers (section 3), their administration and supervision (section 4), the problem of flight and diminution of the work force (section 5), the origins and civil status of the workers (section 6), and conclusions (section 7).

Organization of the Servile Labor Pool

In trying to reconstruct how the Nippur administration organized the servile population into an effective labor pool, we start by analyzing the groups and subgroups of laborers listed in the texts, especially in the rosters of various types. First, it must be observed that there seem to have been no clear-cut general principles according to which members of the population were grouped or posted. As laborers, they could be assigned in a set or singly to a place (generally suburbs or villages near Nippur),2 to a large institution (particularly a religious organization),3 to a household,4 or to a private individual.5 In some texts, no place, institution, or person is mentioned as responsible for the laborers; and such tablets are presumably internal memoranda (with the posting unexpressed). A few texts may list all their workers as connected with a single occupation or with related occu pations rather than as assigned to a posting; for example, there are texts concerned exclusively with distinctive classifications such as

2 E.g., Dunni-aḫi (BE 14 62), Tukultī-Enlil (CBS 3465). 3 A temple (such as the temple of Ninlil, e.g., PBS 2/2 11, MUN 89) or a religious functionary (such as a NIN.DINGIR (=ugbabtu or ēntu), e.g. Ni. 943,) or the šatammu of a temple (e.g., CBS 7726 rev. 5–6). 4 E.g., CBS 3646 rev. i’ 5’. It can be difficult to determine whether these references refer to the posting of a laborer (“[assigned to the] house/estate of PN,” i.e. workers not related to PN) or to the kin-group of a laborer (“[these are kinsmen belonging to] the House of PN”). Similarly, another expression, DUMU.MEŠ PN, “sons of PN,” occasionally appears in qualitative summaries or entry labels, raising the same issues. Is it a reference to the previously listed workers (a group of related persons perform- ing a common work obligation (without further specification as to whether they were part of a nuclear or extended family, brothers with independent households, or remoter descendants of one man) ) or to their supervisors (“[assigned to] the sons of PN”)? 5 E.g., UM 29-16-108 (heading: a-mi-lu-tum ša i-tu mPN). For other examples of servile workers assigned to individuals, see the discussion of “Recapture and Reassignment” documents on pages 115–18. work, flight, origins, status 95

textile workers,6 boatmen,7 gardeners,8 irrigators,9 herdsmen,10 and even escapees.11 Of particular interest are ration rosters dealing with large mobile groups,12 some of which contained more than 800 individuals on the tablet.13 These rosters do not record the names of individual workers, but tally them only as numbers within various sex-age categories assigned to a subgroup. Names are listed only for the supervisors of each subgroup and for the manager of each series of subgroups. These large work forces stay in one place for a period usually ranging between one and seven months;14 and their locations can be tracked through statements about the places where their grain was supplied.15 Among these large mobile groups, some of which are attested in more than one text,16 there are 286 subgroups for which the number of available workers is sufficiently well preserved to allow us to study the comparative sizes of individual subgroups. The full data for these subgroups are available in Appendix 2 below, but a summary of its contents is presented in the following table. The median size of a mobile subgroup is four workers, with the largest unit having 153 persons and the smallest units having either

6 E.g., PBS 2/2 142, CBS 3465, Ni. 943. 7 E.g., NBC 7955, Ni. 1642. 8 E.g., CBS 11835. 9 E.g., CBS 10734. 10 E.g., CBS 3816. 11 E.g., CBS 3736. 12 There are 34 known documents and fragments of this type, and the data from 20 of them were available and entered into the Personnel Data Base. Published examples: BE 14 19–20, 22 and BE 15 180; PBS 2/2 9 and 132; MUN 86–91, 93–95, 105, 108–111. These tablets are also important in establishing the sex-age ratio of the adult population in Chapter 3 (pages 54–56). For a detailed discussion of their structure, see pages 27–31 in Chapter 2. 13 E.g., MUN 93, with its missing numbers restored with the aid of the parallel rosters listing the same personnel (CBS 3474, 8899, 11670, 11826, N 1803, and Ni. 11458). 14 Examples: one-month assignments (MUN 90, 93), seven-month assignment (BE 15 111). Note that rations are occasionally listed month-by-month for longer periods, e.g., up to a full year in BE 14 58. 15 E.g., BE 14 22 (Zibbat-Kartaba), MUN 95 (Pattu). 16 E.g., a group sometimes attached to the Ninlil temple appears in MUN 93 and various unpublished parallels (census ration lists from other months probably spread over several years; see page 95, note 13 for parallel texts) from the time of Kurigalzu II (1332–1308 B.C.). Another notable group appears in BE 14 22 and MUN 95 (and probably MUN 91). 96 chapter five

Table 19. Frequency of Occurrence of Mobile Groups of Particular Sizes (Number of Workers).17 Number of workers Number of in the group groups 0 12 1 34 2 34 3 40 4 35 5 18 6 16 7 16 8 9 9 20 10 10 11 8 12 6 13 5 14 2 15 6 16 3 17 1 18 1 19 2 20 1 21 1 24 1 25 1 29 2 36 1 153 1 Total: 286 no assigned workers (twelve units)18 or just a single worker (thirty- four units). Over four-fifths (85.4%) of the subgroups have ten or fewer members; and only eight subgroups (2.8%) have twenty or more

17 Data drawn from Appendix 2. Note that groups with insufficiently preserved entries in any of the personnel census cells have been omitted. 18 The subgroups from which no workers are available can be compared to the whole families listed on other rosters as deceased, e.g., CBS 10743 ii’ 5’, 7’. work, flight, origins, status 97 members.19 So it seems that, while most of these individual subgroups were small,20 the combined size of subgroups recorded on a single tablet—sometimes amounting to several hundred persons—would have had a considerable impact working on the same project. With the exception of such possibly-large mobile units and their distinctive rosters, workers were more often organized—according to the texts—into subgroups, either explicitly or implicitly, by various criteria: by occupation, by common (foreign) geographic origin, by family or household, or by work squad or cohort (a collection of unrelated individuals living together). There are more than forty occupations21 cited in the text corpus; and, because of the wide range in these occupations, they are discussed separately in the next section of this chapter. Geographic origin22 is indicated usually by a gentilic adjective or the equivalent;23 the most common foreign lands or kingdoms occurring in this connection are Elam, Hanigalbat, Lullubu (Lullumu), Assyria, and Arrapḫa.24 Family or household is indicated collectively as qinni PN (with the personal name here standing for the head of the household, male or female),25 or perhaps by bīt PN (literally, the “House of PN”);26

19 The extraordinary number of persons in the largest subgroup and the fact that it is more than four times as large as the second-largest subgroup raise the suspicion that this entry (MUN 93 i 4) may in itself represent an administrative unit with further (unexpressed) subdivisions. Atypically, and in contrast to the rest of the entries in its text, this entry is immediately followed by a double horizontal line. 20 The small size of the mobile subgroups generally corresponds to the number of active members in qinnu families/households/cohorts, which range from 0 to 27 persons, with a median size of 5. 21 I.e., forty-two identifiable occupations, plus three further instances in which other occupations are listed, but cannot yet be satisfactorily interpreted. 22 For the use of gentilics to indicate place of origin rather than ethnicity in a more modern sense, see Brinkman, “Administration and Society in Kassite Babylonia,” JAOS 124 (2004): 284. 23 I.e., a geographical name such as “Elam” (NIM.MA.KI). 24 Less frequently occurring are the areas of Arūna and Ullipi. There are also gentilic adjectives which may be more ethnic than geographical in emphasis, e.g., Kassite, Akkadians, Aḫlamû, and Amurrû. Most of these groups are further discussed below (pages 121–29). 25 E.g., CBS 3695:9, which reads: 3 qin-ni faḫ-la-⌈mi-ti⌉ (the preceding three lines list Aḫlamītu and her two sons); similarly CBS 11505. As mentioned in the preceding chapter, if family members are listed individually, the family relationships are expressed after the personal name. 26 Although many of these instances could refer to the posting of the worker (page 94, note 4). One needs to be aware that, because of the wide variety of meanings associated with bītu—which can range anywhere spatially from a room to a large estate (or even a province) and socially from a nuclear family to a tribe or tribal con- federacy— it is not always possible to pin down the precise meaning of Bīt PN in brief or broken contexts. 98 chapter five workers in such groups are often listed together with their family members, who also draw rations in proportion to their sex and age.27 The designation qinni PN, literally “family of PN,” was also used in some cases in the extended sense of “(work?) squad of PN” covering unrelated individuals, presumably residing together or at least drawing rations28 as a unit (with the PN here standing either for a supervisor external to the squad or for the most prominent member of the squad).29 The two types ofqinnu -groups can be distinguished by the presence or absence of expressions of familial relationship (DUMU.A.NI, ŠEŠ.A.NI, etc.) linking all (not merely some) members of the group together. These administrative qinnu-units have a median size of 5 persons— nearly the same average size as the mobile groups just mentioned (4 persons)—and are the second most common type of cohort (169 units). Within a single roster, division into subgroups may be set up corresponding to two or more of these criteria.30

Tasks and Occupations of the Workers

Although it is hard to imagine that the performance of specific tasks was not the major purpose behind the assembling and maintaining of this large laboring force, there are almost no overt references in the documentation to actual work assigned or performed. There are a few texts, dealing with small-scale production of goods, such as wool furnished for textile workers or various materials provided for the construction of chariot parts;31 but the principal clues for the activities of the larger laboring groups lie in the occupation names recorded for individual workers or series of workers. Here one is presuming, in the light of the functional brevity of these administrative texts, that the explicit listing of occupations has relevance to the actual employment of the workers.32 A search of the data

27 Or they can be listed simply as a unit, e.g., qinni PN, and as drawing common rations. 28 Although they occur primarily on simple rosters, i.e., no ration allocations recorded on the text. 29 Individuals in such groups could be transferred from one qinnu to another, e.g., CBS 10934 rev. 3’–4’ (and passim in this text), Ni. 6430:2’–11’ (five persons, transferred individually), Ni. 6470 ii’ 16’–19’; cf. Ni. 8282:1’–6’. 30 E.g., CBS 11797, FLP 1313. 31 E.g., textile workers: PBS 2/2 142, Ni. 943; chariot builders: CBS 3465 rev. ii’ 4’–11’. 32 Hardly a necessary conclusion. work, flight, origins, status 99 base reveals that only 11.5% (478 individual entries) of the population are given occupation names in the texts. A full listing of the identified occupation names is included in Appendix 3 below, together with statistics for the numbers of persons attested in each occupation, broken down by sex-age category. Of the members of the population who are listed with an identified occupation (454 entries),33 the largest percentage deal with the care and management of animals or poultry (21.2%),34 followed by textile workers (18.1%),35 food preparers (17.0%),36 gardeners and agricultural laborers (14.8%),37 craftsmen (12.2%),38 gate keepers and guards (5.5%),39 attendants (4.2%),40 entertainers (3.3%),41 inspectors, officials, and scribes (2.0%),42 and a few less frequently attested worker types with three or fewer representatives.43 In addition, Ni. 1642 and NBC 7955, tablets which were not collated and so not incorporated into the personnel data base, list 78 male workers of various ages44 operating as boatmen (malāḫu) around Pī-nāri, Arad-bēlti, and other unspecified sites, presumably near significant waterways. Five of the boatmen in NBC 7955 are described as Elamites.45 About 32% of these occupations (17 out of 44) are attested for both males and females; but females represent only 15% (73 out of 477) of the total personnel who are listed with occupations in these texts. Males served in all the attested occupations except wet nurse. Females

33 There are a total of twenty-four persons spread among the three occupation names which cannot as yet be satisfactorily interpreted. 34 Including herders and bird caretakers (fowlers). 35 Including weavers, spinners, teaselers, fullers. 36 Including millers, brewers, cooks, butchers. 37 Including gardeners, farmers, irrigators. 38 Including reed- and leather-workers, potters, carpenters, lapidaries, bow and arrow makers, and specialist craftsmen (ummânu). 39 Gate keepers (āpil bābi), gate guards (masṣ aṛ abulli), porters (atû), guards in general (masṣ arụ ). 40 I.e., the ša rēši. 41 Including singers, actors, prostitutes. NBC 7959 is known to list adult male singers under various supervisors, but the text was not available for collation and is therefore not part of the statistical study on occupations. 42 Foremen, agricultural tax collectors (mākisu), distributors of rations (mādidu), and scribes (tupšarrụ ). The presence of individuals in positions of authority raises the specter of having to reconsider the status of some individuals listed on the texts as not necessarily servile (were non-servile workers sometimes written down on certain texts dominated by servile workers?). 43 E.g., builders, water-sprinklers, wet nurses. 44 In addition to adult males, who form the largest percentage of these names, there are also younger males (GURUŠ.TUR and even three GURUŠ.TUR.TUR) and one elderly man (ŠU.GI) in the same boatmen rosters. 45 I.e., e-la-mu-ú, lines 30–34. All these men bear Babylonian names. 100 chapter five were concentrated in a few industries such as textile work (27.4%), food preparation (17.8%), and horse herding (17.8%); but they also were found doing leather work (11.5%), serving as entertainers (8.2%), making pottery and working as lapidaries (8.2%), among other occupations. In the rosters, exclusively male occupations46 include gardening and agriculture, herding and animal management (for all animals other than horses), guarding, building, a few crafts (such as reed working and carpentry), and butchering.47 Textile workers are particularly common in this corpus, especially among women.48 This sex distribution parallels what is known from studies of earlier Mesopotamian weaving industries.49 One would like to know more about how rosters dealing with textile workers relate to other Middle Babylonian documents from Nippur concerned with textile production, and there are promising clues in unedited texts for future research on the topic. Several female textile workers in some of the larger ration rosters50 appear also in a detailed production summary that records amounts of wool given out as raw material (SÍG. Ḫ I.A mandattu) to each of 28 women working in the establishment of a high priestess (NIN.DINGIR.GAL) in the seventh and eighth years of Šagarakti-Šuriaš (1239–1238 B.C.) and the number and type of luxury garments produced by each worker.51 Other production documents of the sort survive, as do dozens of large inventories of finished textiles,52

46 I.e., to judge from the occurrence of occupation names in the servile rosters and related texts. 47 It must be stressed that these occupations are not yet attested for females in the rosters; this pattern may change as more rosters become available, especially the unpublished Istanbul material. 48 Even though males outnumber females 3:1 among total textile workers, only 17.7% of males with identifiable occupations worked in the textile industry, while 27.4% of females with such occupations did (i.e., roughly 1 out of 6 males were such workers, versus roughly 1 out of 4 females). 49 Hartmut Waetzoldt, Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textilindustrie, Studi economici e tecnologici 1 (Rome: Centro per le Antichità e la Storia dell’Arte del Vicino Oriente, 1972) and Benjamin Studevent-Hickman, “The Organization of Manual Labor in Ur III Babylonia” (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 2006): 73–75, 124–28, 171–80, 194, and 312. 50 BE 15 188, 190, 200. 51 Ni. 943. Some of these women include: Yāʾūtu (BE 15 190 rev. v’ 6 b, 200 ii 22 b, and Ni. 943: 8 f); Dayyanti-ina-Uruk (BE 15 188 rev. vii 8 b, 200 i 32 b, and Ni. 943:11 f); Ippayītu (BE 15 188 iii 28’ b, 200 ii 31 b, and Ni. 943: 30 f); and Banītu (BE 15 200 iii 16 b and Ni. 943: 26 f). Each of the women listed in Ni. 943 who worked full time was given 6 minas of wool per year and over the two-year period produced two muḫtillû and two naḫlaptu garments. 52 See, for example, Jussi Aro, Mittelbabylonische Kleidertexte der Hilprecht- Sammlung Jena (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1970). work, flight, origins, status 101 which may have fed into the prominent foreign export trade at the capital Dūr-Kurigalzu.53 In any case, the textile industry at Middle Babylonian Nippur seems to have been a thriving concern; and servile labor seems to have been an important component of the enterprise. Occupation names are also listed for children. Of the 263 workers with occupations for whom sex-age designations are available, 26 (9.9%) are children (i.e., GURUŠ.TUR.TUR, SAL.TUR.TUR, or younger). The statistics for these present interesting patterns. The majority of child workers—21 out of 26—are very young children (i.e., unweaned/nursing, marked as DUMU.GABA or DUMU.SAL.GABA). Of this very youngest category, 9 were male, 12 female. The unweaned males were split among several occupations: potter, leather-worker, textile workers of various types, horse herder, and even a specialist craftsman.54 Of the twelve unweaned females, the majority were either horse herders (four) or leather-workers (four), plus two textile workers, one cook, and one lapidary.55 There are no children in the second- youngest age categories (pirsu, pirsatu) who are listed with occupations, and there are only males in the next older category (GURUŠ.TUR. TUR).56 Thus there were no females listed with occupations between adolescent (SAL.TUR) and unweaned (DUMU.SAL.GABA). This distribution raises the question whether the very youngest workers were likely to be working alongside their parents and thus often under their parents’ supervision.57

53 Amply documented in the early twelfth century, e.g., the text dealing with woolen textiles released from the capital’s storehouse to Assyrian merchants: IM 49992 (Iraq Supplement 1945, pl. 22; for a transliteration of the final lines of this text, see Brinkman, “Assyrian Merchants at Dūr-Kurigalzu,” NABU 2001/73). More than 10% of the tablets found in the main palace at Dūr-Kurigalzu in the 1942–45 excavations were textile inventories (oral communication, J.A. Brinkman, January 2009). 54 CBS 3523 rev. ii’ 12. Is the young boy in question to be viewed as an infant prodigy or as a young helper assisting one of the UM.MI.A listed immediately before him in the roster? 55 Again, in the case of the cook and the lapidary, one must consider the possibility that these young girls were assistants in the professions rather than full-fledged practitioners. 56 These males were gardeners (nukarribu, 3 instances), a weaver (išparu), and a builder (bānû). 57 The only explicit evidence currently available for a very young child sharing the occupation of a parent is the father-daughter combination serving as teaselers in BE 14 58:34, 38. But it is possible that texts such as BE 15 190, arranged in tenēštu groupings by occupation, may also have included parent-child working teams— unfortunately now undetectable because family relationships are so seldom made explicit in the text. 102 chapter five

Administration and Supervision of Workers

The šandabakku, i.e., the governor of Nippur, seems to be the chief local administrator in charge of the public servile working population. Though he does not appear often in the rosters or other supporting documentation, he can occasionally be seen in key roles: accepting personnel granted to him by the king and assigning them to various officials at Nippur,58 purchasing slaves on the open market,59 supervising the inspection (or counting) of servile workers,60 arranging for the release and reassignment of recaptured fugitive laborers,61 and creating documentation used in later lawsuits to determine whether or not a person has servile status.62 Though there is clear evidence for privately owned slaves outside the official servile system,63 these private interests are not nearly so well attested in the documentation—presumably because it is the institutional archives which have been unearthed by excavation (which has often tended to concentrate on large buildings in public areas). Given the accidents of finds, it would be futile at present to try to estimate from the written remains the absolute numbers or relative proportions of either the public servile work force or of privately held slaves. Despite the strong role of the governor, the rosters and other texts generally deal with the servile laboring system at its lowest level of management and thus in a apparently decentralized light. Usually only the immediate supervisors of work groups are indicated, with occasional references—especially in the rosters dealing with mobile work forces—to the next higher level, the managing supervisor. How the

58 Ni-ra-a-a-ú š[a] PN1 mār PN2 suḥ ̮ur[ti] šarri kī šipirti šarri Kaštiliašu ⌈il⌉qâm⌈ma⌉ ana mAmīl-Marduk šandabakki iddinu⌈ma⌉ mAmīl-Marduk ana qīpūtišu upaqqidu (CBS 7726:1–6, collated). The only other official whose title is preserved in the text is the šatammu of Ekur. 59 Either directly, e.g., BE 14 1, BE 14 7, or indirectly, e.g., through a ša rēši official (PBS 8/2 162). Slaves are purchased from merchants, private owners, or officials. 60 E.g., Ni. 1348. Inspection documents are discussed above in Chapter 2, pages 15–18. 61 E.g., Ni. 1333. These recapture-and-reassignment documents are discussed below in section 5. 62 CBS 8089. 63 E.g., Ni. 6558; cf. documents confirming purchases of slaves from private individuals, e.g., BE 14 7. One may also note Ni. 2885, an unpublished legal text which deals with a female slave in a private household who had won her freedom as the result of a royal decree (the key passage is cited by Brinkman in a book review in JNES 32 (1973): 259). B. 143+B. 227, a legal text from Babylon dated in the reign of Meli-Šipak, also deals with the purchase of slaves by a private person. work, flight, origins, status 103 supervisors connect hierarchically with the governor is not covered in the presently available documentation.64 In the rosters, supervisory roles are indicated in a variety of ways. In the mobile work-group rosters, the immediate supervisors are indicated for each group in the far right-hand column of each line entry (the entry label), following the census of workers and the ration amount given out.65 At the end of each series of such groups, the amount of rations is totaled; and the name of the next-level supervising manager is given.66 In other texts, one of the following formulae can usually be found to indicate a supervisor (almost always in a qualitative summary): (a) amīlūtu (ša) PN67 (b) napḫaru n (ša) PN68 (c) pīḫat PN69 (d) qāt PN or ša qāt PN70 (e) qinni PN71 (f) ša PN72 (g) tenēštu PN.73 As many as 34 of the 842 supervisors are females. Eleven (32%) of these females are known only by patronym, usually in a subtotal of the type napḫaru n DUMU.SAL mPN (with the father’s title sometimes indicated after the personal name).74 This is not an oblique method of

64 In contrast, the chain of command is clearly spelled out in the private herding contracts dealing with state cattle. At the lowest level is the herder (rēʾû) who tends the flocks. His immediate boss is theh ̮azannu, a local administrator, a word sometimes translated “mayor” (but perhaps not in all cases bearing political territorial responsibility). Theh ̮azannu in turn is responsible to a poorly attested next level, an official labeled the kaššû (even though many of these individuals dubbed “Kassite” by title have Babylonian names), who is directly under the governor (preceding information courtesy of a private communication from J. A. Brinkman, January 2009). 65 E.g., MUN 93. 66 E.g., MUN 93 i 24, ii 8. 67 E.g., CBS 3650 rev. i’ 3’ (without ša); BE 15 184 i’ 16’ and CBS 10450:11’ (with ša). 68 n = number (of workers or amount of rations for a group of workers). Without ša: e.g., CBS 3523 ii’ 9’, CBS 3638 ii’ 15’. With ša: e.g., BE 15 185:37. 69 pi-ḫat is always written syllabically. Examples: CBS 3474i19’, rev. ii 21’; CBS 9803 i 9’, 13’. 70 qātu is such cases is always written ŠU. Examples: ŠU PN (BE 14 120:42; CBS 11501: 5, 9); ša ŠU PN (CBS 3649 i 16’. 21’). 71 E.g., NBC 7975:6. Also occasionally PAP N qinni PN, e.g., CBS 10585 ii’ 4’. 72 Commonly in a line entry such as PN1 ša PN2 (e.g., most entries in CBS 3488, CBS 11873). 73 E.g., CBS 11937:10’. 74 E.g., CBS 3472 ii 3. 104 chapter five reference used only for women, since men in supervisory positions are also sometimes referred to just by patronym.75 The reason for such usage, common enough in the Kassite period, has yet to be satisfactorily explained.76 How supervisors controlled their workers is not revealed in the texts. Occasionally work rosters list individuals as being “(in) prison”77 or “fettered”;78 so troublesome laborers could be confined or restrained. On the other hand, some workers seem to have been entrusted with jobs requiring their absence from their regular work station and are labeled in the texts as being “(on the) road,”79 sometimes for several months;80 and servile laborers plied the waterways around Nippur as boatmen (malāḫu),81 with no indication that they were guarded or individually watched while at work. In effect, given the negative evidence, we simply do not know how closely individual workers were kept under surveillance.

Flight and Diminution of the Working Population

More information is available about flight and its consequences than many other aspects of the life of servile workers. Administrative personnel realized that each successful disappearance reduced the work capacity of the population, and they incorporated details about each escapee into the laconic roster format. In addition, there are other legal and administrative documents which provide information on a network of custodians, prisons, and guarantors who handled recaptured fugitives. Most of these texts include a description of the individual captive,82 the person responsible for his detention, and details of the captive’s reassignment for work—with this master explicitly standing guarantee for the laborer’s return.

75 CBS 3472 rev. ii’ 13’; CBS 3521:20’. 76 See Clay, Personal Names of the Cassite Period, p. 45 and Hölscher, Personennamen, p. 7 for a description of the usage. 77 Ni. 1627 iv 6 and twice in preserved totals in the same text (iii 7’, edge 2). 78 Ni. 6237:8’, 16’. 79 KASKAL (ḫarrānu). These men, of course, could have been travelling as part of a group. 80 BE 14 58 records four workmen as KASKAL (lines 8, 13, 43, 45), one for six months, the other three for a full year. 81 E.g., NBC 7955, Ni. 1642. 82 Usually bearing a trademark designation for the servile population, e.g., sex-age designation, a classification such as amīlūtu, or the like. work, flight, origins, status 105

There is little direct information about factors which would have influenced servile laborers to run away. The high death rate for personnel in some rosters83—whether due to overwork, mistreatment, malnutrition, or a combination of these—would undoubtedly inspire flight. It is also noteworthy that some members of the population are marked as “fresh” or “new (arrivals),”84 possibly implying a comparison, i.e., that persons who had been in servitude longer were less fit for work. The significant number of individuals fleeing to other places is a clear signal that some workers were greatly dissatisfied with their situation. In the following pages of this section, we discuss the phenomenon of flight, which is the only readily identifiable aspect of the servile population’s resistance to their situation and probably their only effective means for avoiding it. This section also treats administrative attempts to counter the flow of escapees, either by prior physical restraint or by recapturing fugitives and returning them to the work force.

Identification of Escapees in the Texts (ZÁḪ or ḫalāqu) Escapees can be identified in rosters by the labels “escapee” ̮ (ZÁH), “recent escapee” (ZÁḪ GIBIL), “non-recent escapee” (ZÁḪ LIBIR. RA), “deceased escapee” (ZÁḪ ÚŠ), or “returned escapee” (ZÁḪ DU (-kam) ) that accompany the personal name of the runaway or appear in a total of persons listed as missing from a group.85 They occur in simple rosters86 and ration rosters.87

83 Death rate here refers to the percentage of workers within a work group listed as dead; not to be confused with any sort of standard demographic measure. The highest recorded percentage of dead workers in a single, still functioning group is 72.7% (UM 29-13-441 iii’ 28’–39’); and there are at least ten families (qinnu) where all of their members are dead (see pages 59–60, note 62 for references). 84 GIBIL.MEŠ (e.g., PBS 2/2 132:139, 144). By contrast, seventeen other people are labeled da-lu-ú LIBIR.RA.MEŠ (NBC 7958:7), even though they all have sex-age designations as either GURUŠ or GURUŠ.TUR (not ŠU.GI, the usual designation for an elderly person). LIBIR.RA.MEŠ in such contexts refers to “old” (in the sense of no longer fresh) or perhaps in the sense of experienced. 85 Physical-condition designations are discussed in Chapter 2 (page 14). 86 Primarily in transfers, inspections, and texts of undetermined function (see pages 15–23). Of note is the regular occurrence of escapees in a type of simple roster that records individuals by personal name and grouped by qinnu. Rosters of this type have elaborate qualitative summaries that give subtotals by sex-age and physical-condition groups within each qinnu. Dead or escaped workers are listed as “removed/subtracted” (elû). More information on these texts including a list of documents of the type can be found in Chapter 3, page 60 and note 64. 87 Attested in the ration-roster types: barley allocations as rations (ŠE.BA) to persons who are divided into tenēštu groups, barley allocations as rations (ŠE.BA) and 106 chapter five

In non-roster legal and administrative documents,88 the runaways are recorded as having escaped (the writings ZÁḪ -ma and ḫa-li-iq-ma are attested).89 The verb ḫalāqu also may appear in the penalty sections of the text where it is spelled out syllabically.90 These documents, which are referred to here as “recapture-and-reassignment” documents, will be discussed in detail below.

The Meaning of ḫalāqu (ZÁḪ ) Before we go any further, we must briefly discuss why we have chosen to translate ḫalāqu, as “escape/flee” rather than “be(come) absent.” The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary provides two meanings for ḫalāqu: (1) to disappear, vanish, to become missing or lost, to perish, and (2) to escape, to flee.91 All twenty-five of the quoted, non-figurative, instances of the first translation in the G-stem refer to inanimate objects (property, sealed documents, dye-marks, boats, jewelry, etc.), organs or ill- nesses, domestic animals (pigs, sheep), or locations (road, towns, etc.). For the second meaning, “to escape, flee,” all instances refer to slaves who are absent without permission, soldiers or monarchs running from battle or invasion, employees who abscond with livestock or are gone for very long periods, and people who disappear from prison or are deceased. Therefore, the use of the verb, when referring to the actions of human beings, tends to deal with activities that are illegal (theft), cowardly (fleeing from battle), or done without permission (flight of slaves or breaking out of prison). Moreover, in terms of actual recorded behavior, the previously mentioned legal documentation shows a pattern that supports the second meaning of ḫalāqu.92 In these texts, individuals who have fled (haliqma) seem to be pursued by people who want to return the runaway to date allocations to persons for periods of more than six months, ration allocation summaries for groups in a single location, including a numerical personnel census, unique ration rosters that do not fit into any of the previously established ration roster categories, or ration rosters that are insufficiently preserved to place in any category. See Chapter 2, pages 25–31. 88 Pages 34–36. The structure of these documents is discussed toward the middle of this chapter (pages 115–18). 89 ZÁḪ -ma: in BM 17626:1; CBS 11106:2, 11453:2; Ni. 2204:2, ḫa-li-iq-ma: Ni. 1333:4, PBS 8/2 161:3. 90 The person who assumes guarantee for the runaway is penalized if the worker runs off again. 91 CAD vol. 6 pp. 36–38. 92 See the preceding paragraph. work, flight, origins, status 107 captivity. Once the individuals are seized they are detained in a prison (ina kīli + kalû), a clear indication that their activity was illegal and that they were likely to run again. Also many of the reassignment documents list the individuals responsible if the captive again runs away and sometimes detail a penalty to be exacted from the guarantor.

Basic Statistics on Runaways There are 189 escapees listed on 60 rosters included in the Personnel Data Base, which represents 4.6% of the total recorded worker population (4130) and 8.4% of the population available for statistical study (2256).93 There are two, perhaps three, people mentioned by personal name as having escaped and returned; but several more persons are listed statistically in this category—but not by personal name—in other rosters.94 At least 7.9% (fifteen, all male) of all escapees are listed as “escaped (and) deceased” in the rosters. Since the recording parties knew of the death of the runaway, it is possible that they were present at or had reliable second-hand knowledge of the runaway’s death. Otherwise, the runaway would have continued to be listed on the tablets as merely escaped instead of escaped and deceased. The death may have even occurred during the escape or a recapture attempt. Sex-age designations are rarely given for escapees, principally because the two different types of designations (physical-condition and sex-age) are generally mutually exclusive in the rosters with the

93 There is little repetition among these personal names. Only eight personal names are attested multiple times, and each of these names was counted only once in the total number of escapees (189): Asûšu-namiṛ (CBS 10741 rev. ii’ 8’ b, N 1953 ii’ 3’ b, and UM 29-15-212 rev. I 6 b), Aba-ul-īdi (CBS 3736:10 and N 1906 i’ 2’ b), Adad-šemi (CBS 3736:12 and CBS 10741 rev. ii’ 10’ b), Arad-Enlil (CBS 10715 ii’ 3’ b and UM 29-15-212 rev. i 5 b), Kubšiya-Saḫ (BE 14 58 i 30 q and UM 29-15-760 edge i 2 b’), Tarība-Gula (CBS 11051 ii’ 1 b and CBS 11801 ii’ 7’ b), Urti-Adad (CBS 8510 ii’ 4’ b and UM 29-13- 646 rev. iv’ 12’ b), and Usātūša (CBS 3472 ii 6’ b and 9’ b). Note that Usātūša appears as both a working member and eponym (supervisor?) of her work group in CBS 3472, and one can be sure that the references are to the same individual since they bear the same patronym. Her appearance here is also interesting because it seems that she was appointed as an internal member of the group (instead of an outsider with a different status) and that she still chose to run away, despite her elevated status. 94 Indicated by ZÁḪ DU: CBS 10713 ii’ 11’ b, UM 29-15-760 rev. i 2 b’, and possibly CBS 10667 i’ 11’ 8. Also note that once the Personnel Table (Data Base) is expanded to include the material in Istanbul (Ni. texts) this number will increase. At least five rosters there (Ni. 1076, 2228, 6243, 7455, 11373) are known to mention returned escapees. 108 chapter five indication of physical-condition taking precedence over the sex-age category. In other words, the two types of designation are written in the same cell in a tabular register, and the sex-age designation is generally left out of the cell in favor of marking the person as an escapee (or sick, blind, dead, etc.). Statistics drawn from the Personnel Table regarding the sexes and ages of escapees have been compiled in Table 20, and they provide some valuable insights. Roughly 91% of escapees whose sex can be identified are male, a statistic that is remarkably similar to the sex distribution in known escape attempts by slaves in the American South in the eighteenth century. In Virginia and North Carolina, runaways are estimated to have been 89% male, with male escapees accounting for 78–82% of the total number of runaway slaves in South Carolina.95 The male:female ratio seen among Middle Babylonian escapees goes far beyond the slightly male-favoring sex ratio (109.6) seen among the greater Middle Babylonian adult worker population, so the 91% rate is not directly attributable to a corresponding number of males in the general population.96 Therefore, an explanation for these statistics must lie elsewhere.

95 See Lathan Algera Windley, “Profile of Runaway Slaves in Virginia and South Carolina from 1730 through 1787” (Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1974): 65; Gerald W. Mullen, Flight and Rebellion: Slave Resistance in Eighteenth-Century Virginia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972):89 and 103; Daniel C. Littlefield, Rice and Slaves: Ethnicity and the Slave Trade to Colonial South Carolina (Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1981): 144; and Philip D. Morgan, “Black Society in the Lowcountry, 1760–1810” in Ira Berlin and Ronald Hoffman (eds.), Slavery and Freedom in the Age of the American Revolution (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983): 100 (Table 12). 96 Sex ratios in the Chesapeake Bay area and both Carolinas heavily favored males as well; but, as with our documents, the sex ratio of escapees far exceeds the sex ratio of the entire population. The following sex ratios are available on American slave populations during the eighteenth century: Chesapeake 117, North Carolina 125, and South Carolina 130. Also consider that the gross, uncorrected, sex ratio available for the entire Middle Babylonian worker population is 139 (note that this ratio may be affected by the quality of the documentation and only the adult ratio (109.6) is supported by multiple sources of evidence, see Chapter 3, pages 54–56). Sex ratios for American slaves are drawn from Marvin L. Kay and Lorin Lee Cary “A Demographic Analysis of Colonial North Carolina with Special Emphasis upon the Slave and Black Populations” in Jeffrey J. Crow and Flora J. Hatley (eds.),Black Americans in North Carolina and the South (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984): 76–78 and 93–103; Allan Kulikoff, “A’Prolifick’ People: Black Population Growth in the Chesapeake Colonies, 1700–1790,” Southern Studies 16 (1977): 393–96 and 403–06; and Philip D. Morgan, “Black Society in the Lowcountry, 1760–1810,” (1983) :90–92. work, flight, origins, status 109

Table 20. Sexes and Ages of Escapees. Sex or Age Total Males Females Unknown Escapees Adults97 23 9 N/A 32 Adolescents98 2 0 N/A 2 Children99 1 0 N/A 1 Weaned 100 0 0 N/A 0 Nursing101 2 0 N/A 2 Sex-age Designation 128 6 18 152 Not Known or Not Present Totals 156 15 18 189

This evidence, bolstered by the information provided in Appendix 1, suggests that the conjugal family or lack thereof played a significant role in a worker’s decision to flee. Over 99% of runaway males are not listed as having a spouse or offspring and so were presumably single adults or children.102 There is only a single clear instance of a male head of household or father of a conjugal family unit (in this case, he is both) who runs away leaving his family behind and even he eventually returns.103 As many as eight, but no more than fifteen, escaped males come from work groups who also list an escaped female as a member; and it is possible, although not stated in the text, that these escaped males and females formed a romantic pair.104 In total, the data suggest that somewhere between 8 and 11 of the 156 male escapees had a female partner and that, in all but one case, the pair escaped together.

97 GURUŠ (male) or SAL (female). 98 GURUŠ.TUR (male) or SAL.TUR (female). 99 GURUŠ.TUR.TUR (male) and SAL.TUR.TUR (female). 100 Pirsu (male) and pirsatu (female). 101 DUMU.GABA (male) or DUMU.SAL.GABA (female). 102 As many as nine of them may have run away with a brother. Three brothers from the same work group are listed as escaped in CBS 11051 ii’ 1–3; and in CBS 3736 lines 2–5 and 11–12, a text which provides the names of runaways from four cities, three pairs of brothers are listed among the escapees. 103 Adad-ibni in Household 52 in Appendix 1 (Ni. 177 rev. ii’ 6’). There is no indication whether his return was forced or voluntary. 104 The evidence for this statement is laid out in the following paragraph and corresponding footnotes. 110 chapter five

Females, on the other hand, were significantly less likely to run; and, if they did, they probably did so in the company of a male and brought their children along with them. Of the fifteen female runaways, there is evidence suggesting that at least eight may have escaped with a male partner.105 In each of these cases, one or more members of their work group (many times appearing immediately adjacent in the text and almost always with at least one male) have also run off. This evidence is certainly not proof that these people escaped together, for there is no way of determining if it was a coordinated action (exact dates or precise details about any escape attempt are never recorded); but it is worth noting in light of the comparative evidence.106 Moreover, the available evidence suggests that the nursing boys listed as escaped did so as part of a group containing at least one adult female, presumably the boy’s mother, although familial relationships are not indicated in the text. One of the nursing boys, Arad-Amurru son of Apil-Šamaš, is followed in the roster by an adult female escapee, Šamaš-nūrī; and one may surmise they escaped together.107 The other infant, Ninurta-apil-idīya,

105 Women who seemingly escape by themselves are Usātūša (CBS 3472 ii 6’), fia-a-a-[…](BE 14 105:8 d), and perhaps Bittinnatu (BE 14 58 i 41 q), although there is a high percentage of male escapees within Bittinnatu’s larger work group. Female runaways who belong to work groups containing other runaways: (1) šamaš-nūrī escapes with a child (UM 29-15-335 ii’ 5’); (2) Ur?-Adad-[(…)] (CBS 7092+ rev. ii’ 34’ b) has at least 2 other runaways, both males, in her work group (likely a qinnu); (3) […] (name not preserved)(N 1934 rev. ii’ 3’ b) is followed on the roster by two other persons who have also escaped; (4) Rabât-[DN] (CBS 10715 ii’ 4’ b)—both men preceding her on her roster and in her work group have also escaped; (5) Ulūlītu (CBS 10671 i’ 7’ e) has escaped with an adult male as well as with (6) šunuhtu̮ (8’ e), another female from her work group; (7) Aḫātī-aqrat (CBS 10669 ii’ 12’ b) is listed as escaped along with three male members of her qinnu; (8) fi-[…] (CBS 10713 ii’ 11’) is listed as escaped (and probably returned ZÁḫ.⌈DU?⌉)—at least five men from her work group are also marked as runaways, two as escaped and deceased; and (9–10) Asûšạ -x[…] and fx-na-a-be-let x […] (CBS 7092+ obv. ii’ 6’’’ and 9’’’ b) are listed with two other escapees, both males. There are two uncertain situations that are less clear, but for which a case can be made. Urti-Adad (work group attested in two tablets: CBS 8510 ii’ 4’ and UM 29-13- 646 iv’ 12’, here a recent escapee (ZAḫ GIBIL)) seems to have escaped by herself, but the work group immediately following her own on one of the rosters in which she appears (the other is severely damaged in the parallel text, CBS 8510) marks at least four out of ten workers as escaped. Another woman (UM 29-13-441 iii’ 40’ b), whose name is almost completely destroyed, is listed as part of a work group that is not fully preserved and the number of runaways from that group cannot be determined. It is worth noting that escapees and deceased individuals are particularly common on this last roster. 106 See notes 111–12 below. 107 Despite the fact that the father of Arad-Amurru may also be a supervisor: the same PN, Apil-Šamaš, is listed in a qualitative summary immediately preceding these two entries (UM 29-15-335 ii’ 3’–5’). work, flight, origins, status 111 is listed in a damaged but reconstructable passage with three other escapees (two adult females and one adult male) from the qinnu of the Daughter of the Boatman.108 As with the previous case, one of these women is likely to be his mother. Lastly, there is a female-headed household consisting of a mother and a single daughter who have escaped together.109 In contrast to these examples, the female Usātūša (also the eponym of her work group) runs off and abandons her young children and the rest of her work group.110 It has already been shown in chapter four that the family was a significant institution for both the workers and the administrative powers, who used families as an organizing principle. It also seems that respon- sibilities to the immediate family may have been a strong factor considered by workers who were contemplating going on the run.111 Males were considerably more likely to escape than females; and, although the evidence is not ideal, it seems that the high rate among male escapees could be attributed to the men being young and unattached to an immediate family. Conversely, women were less likely to escape because of familial ties; and, when they did run, they would do so with a man and/or bring their children along with them.112

Circumstances of Flight The penalties of some legal and administrative documents suggest that there were fears that workers would run off when they were entrusted

108 CBS 10671 obv. i’ 7’–11’. 109 See Appendix 1, Household 81 (Ni. 6444 rev. i’ 7’–8’). 110 See Appendix 1, Household 14 (CBS 3472 ii’ 6’–10’). 111 It was certainly not the only factor. Men and boys may have found themselves in positions with less oversight and so were presented with more opportunities to run. In a preceding section (page 99) of this chapter, it was revealed that certain occupations granting a fair amount of freedom of movement, such as boatmen and herders of domestic animals other than horses, are given only to male workers. NBC 7955 lists over forty adult males as boatmen, who could have been plying the rivers and canals with relative freedom. It is also possible that the boatmen of NBC 7955 had little freedom of movement, e.g., they may have been used as part of a large labor force that hauled large barges on the water. This question is worth exploring in the future, especially in light of the fact that, in the American South, the slave working on the river was considered a flight risk. See Philip Morgan, “Colonial South Carolina Runaways: Their Significance for Slave Culture,” in Out of the House of Bondage: Runaways, Resistance and Marronage in Africa and the New World, ed. Gad Heuman (London: Frank Cass and Company Limited, 1986): 63. 112 The same reasons are given for the high numbers of male escapees among the American slave population. Gad Heuman, “Introduction” in Out of the House of 112 chapter five to private individuals. This is true of laborers who were loaned out both by political institutions and prisons holding recaptured escapees.113 There is also an administrative text which involves the allocation of workers with mention of consequences for the supervisor if there is an escape.114 Roughly one quarter (24.4%) of all rosters contain some sort of geographic reference (place name, institutional name, gentilic, etc.); and statements regarding the place(s) from which fugitives escaped are equally uncommon. CBS 3736 lists fifteen escapees who have run away from Dūr-Kurigalzu, Arad-Bēlti, and Nippur. BE 15 160 gives the name of an escapee who would have been supplied with rations in Namkar- ešēgi.115 There are also five escapees from a mobile work group that was operating around Zarāt-Karkara, although the five may have escaped when the group was working somewhere else.116 There is even less information available on the runaway’s destination. Only a few recaptured persons are said to have been brought back from a specific location: Uruk and Opis.117 This may not necessarily mean that major cities—rather than small towns, the countryside, wil- derness, etc.— were the hiding places of these workers (where they might be less easy to detect). Rather these may have been the places where people were transferred after their initial recapture. It is worth noting that the majority (94.1%) of escapees whose names are well enough preserved to be analyzed bear Akkadian names (Table 21).118 There are many problems with using personal names as

Bondage: Runaways, Resistance and Marronage in Africa and the New World (London: Frank Call and Company Limited, 1986): 6. 113 For information on the loaning out of escapees being held in prison, see the section titled “Recapture and Reassignment” below (pages 115–18). For the loaning out of slaves of the šandabakku, see BE 14 2. 114 PBS 2/2 55. 115 BE 15 160:8. 116 BE 14 58 117 Uruk (CBS 11106), name lost (Ni. 2204), Opis (PBS 8/2 161). It is also possible that these people were caught in the small towns and villages located close to the major city. 118 There are two additional issues at work here. First, the assumption is that people were not given a new name once they entered the servile population, a custom that was widely practiced among the Romans for their foreign captives. On the same note, several members of the worker population are recorded as having two names. The six examples from the Personnel Table are mIqīša-Marduk a.k.a. mUb-[…] (BE 14 142 rev. i 20 b), fIna-x-[…] a.k.a. fIna-[…] (CBS 3486 ii’ 2’ b), fIK-ri-ia a.k.a. ⌈fId⌉-di-ia (CBS 7092+ i’ 2’ b), mĒdiš-bītī-lūmur a.k.a. mNergal-mušallim (CBS 7092+ rev. ii’ 10’–11’ b), work, flight, origins, status 113

Table 21. Language of Personal Name for Escapees. Percentage of the Percentage of Language of Number of Total Number of Escapees with Personal Name Escapees Escapees Language Identified Akkadian 111 58.7% 94.1% Hurrian 1 0.5% 0.8% Kassite 6 3.2% 5.1% Language 8 4.2% N/A unknown Insufficiently 63 33.4% N/A preserved an indication of place of origin. However, one wonders how many escapees spoke Akkadian as a native tongue and whether language influenced the direction in which they ran. Would they try to resettle in their homeland or another place where their native tongue was spo- ken, making it easier to reintegrate into society? To sum up, the evidence suggests that workers were able to flee in varied circumstances (from major cities,119 mobile work groups, or perhaps when they were farmed out for labor to private individuals) rather than in a common situation or environment where oversight was less rigid, such as working alone in rural areas for private individuals. Some escapees were shipped from major cities back to the Nippur area (raising the question whether they were captured in these cities), but most were never apprehended.120

Escape as a Cause of Work-Force Depletion Every unrecovered escapee diminished the available work force, and the loss of workers (through flight and death) was tracked in almost fBēltu-rīšat a.k.a. Yâtu (CBS 7092+ rev. ii’ 23’–24’ b), and mTarībatu a.k.a. mbu-x[…] (CBS 10810 i 5’). 119 CBS 3736. 120 In fact, the Personnel Data Base indicates that people were more likely to die (15) during or after their escape attempt than to be recaptured (4). There is some comparative historical evidence that suggests it is difficult for a large-scale, state-organized apparatus to find and return escapees. For example, when the state-run Soviet gulag was at its height in 1947, only 27.7% of escapees were caught. Note that this statistic comes from Soviet reports which may have been inaccurate (Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History (New York: Anchor Books, 2003): 394–95). 114 chapter five all types of rosters. In fact, death and flight are the only significant ways by which workers seem to have been lost (elû) from an active qinnu- group; and it generally seems to be the case for work groups of all types.121 Just how significant were the losses to the work force through flight and death? Were these depletions in manpower tracked merely to recalculate ration issues, or were they substantial enough that the institutions regularly needed to find new sources of labor? One way to answer the question is to ask whether the population was able to replenish itself, i.e., through new births. It has already been established that the ratio of children to adults is lower (0.67:1) than the rate necessary to prevent a net natural decline in population (1:1).122 There are two additional ways to tackle the problem. Neither procedure provides a strong argument (mostly because of the poor preservation of the documents); but taken together they suggest an interesting trend. If one examines just the gross data, the Personnel Data Base contains 236 dead workers and 189 escaped workers, for a total of 425 losses over the time frame of the corpus. It also records 336 nursing children over the same period, which results in a ratio of additions to losses of 336 to 425. This is not a precise measure of the population’s viability, but there are in addition a group of summary rosters whose specific function was to record the number of additions (ildu(=population growth)123 and returned escapees) and subtractions (deaths, runaways) occurring in each work group.124 These summaries suggest that losses may have exceeded additions in the work groups recorded on the texts.125 The two texts of this type that are well enough preserved to

121 This also has repercussions as far as the relative freedom of these people, i.e., the only means to escape is by death, flight, or grant of freedom (rare). 122 Page 53. 123 E.g., Ni. 2228, where the subcolumn headings read ildu / returned escapees / escapees / deceased (i.e., additions to or subtractions from the work force). Note that the subcolumn headed ildu includes not just persons classified as DUMU.GABA or DUMU.SAL.GABA (which could fit for newborns), but also older boys in the GURUŠ. TUR and GURUŠ.TUR.TUR categories. See page 127, note 198. 124 See pages 21–22 for a full description and examples. 125 There are only two texts of this type with complete or reconstructable subcolumn headings: Ni. 2228 and CBS 11978 (see note 123 above for a full explanation). Three other texts (Ni. 8254, Ni. 8291, and UM 29-15-77) do not have preserved headings, but likely omitted the “escaped and returned” subcolumn like CBS 11978. Ni. 7033 and UM 29-15-222 could be a similar type of summary; but almost nothing is preserved of Ni. 7033 and UM 29-15-222, if it is an addition and subtraction text, work, flight, origins, status 115 recover some statistics give us ratios of 316 losses (deaths and runaways) to 156 additions (ildu) (CBS 11978)126 and 49 losses to somewhere around 20 additions (Ni. 2228);127 but it must be stressed that neither of these texts is complete. The evidence, even if crude, hints that the work force lost more members through death or flight than were added by birth (internal reproduction) or by the return of fugitives. Even if births and deaths were equal, social subtractions (in this case flight) would represent a loss in population numbers (if the population was stationary). This background helps to explain why the state went to such lengths to keep workers from running off (to be discussed presently) and why care was taken to add workers from outside sources by purchase or by importation of war captives.128

Recapture and Reassignment There is a collection of legal and administrative texts, henceforth called “recapture-and-reassignment texts,” that provide details on the networks and procedures that were used to deal with runaways who were recaptured.129 These legal and administrative documents, some of them poorly preserved, can be identified by distinctive terminology near the beginning of the text. These lines state who ran away,130 who was custodian of the runaway after his capture,131 and who offered the guarantee would have to have a different arrangement for its subcolumns than seen elsewhere. The subcolumns for UM 29-15-222 could just as easily be reserved for particular occupations or other categories. 126 With a fourth subcolumn, presumably for returned escapees, almost entirely destroyed. 127 The final totals for Ni. 2228 include ⌈20⌉ [(+?)] ildu, an unknown number of returned escapees, 7 escapees, and 42 deceased. 128 Low child to adult ratios have been found to be characteristic of long-distance migration and plantation slavery. See Menard, “Slave Demography in the Low Country” (1995): 289, Table 5 and David Eltis and Stanley L. Engerman, “Was the Slave Trade Dominated by Men?” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 23 (1992): 242. 129 To be more precise, these documents deal with workers who ran away, were caught, placed in prison, and eventually released after guarantee was furnished by another party. To date, no equivalent legal document for runaways who were caught, imprisoned, and never released has been found (although there are documents listing inmates of particular prisons). These texts have been previously discussed and listed in Chapter 2 (pages 34–35) with references given in footnote 95 of that chapter. 130 Usually expressed in the first two lines as: PN1 (DUMU PN2 + occupation name) + ḫalāqu (ZÁḪ -ma and ḫa-liq-ma attested). 131 Continuing the documentary formula for recaptured runaways in the previous footnote, this is usually expressed as: PN3 (DUMU PN4) (ištu GN + šūlû or leqû) ina kīli + kalû. 116 chapter five that resulted in the escapee’s release and reassignment.132 Some of the documents contain all of these elements, with the entire subset of documents being linked by three key elements: (1) PN1 ḫalāqu, (2) PN2

(ina kīli) kalû, and (3) PN3 pūta + maḫāsụ /emēdu). Three examples will demonstrate the variation in phraseology found in the opening lines texts of this type:

Example 9. Excerpt from CBS 11106. 1. mGAL-šá-DINGIR DUMU mKit-ta-ti 2. ZÁḪ -ma TA URU.UNUG.KI 3. ⌈DUMU⌉ mŠi-⌈in-di⌉-dEn-líl ú-še-la-šu-ma 4. ⌈i-na ki-li⌉ ik-lu133-šu-ma 5. GIG-ma mKit-ta-tum ⌈a⌉-bu-⌈šu⌉ 6. pu-us-su im-ḫa-as-̣ ma 7. ú-⌈še⌉-si-šụ “Rabâ-ša-ilī, son of Kittatu, escaped, and the son of Šindi-Enlil brought him up from Uruk and held him in prison. He (Rabâ-ša- ilī) became ill, and Kittatu, his father, assumed guarantee for him and effected his release…”

Example 10. Excerpt from BM 17626.134 1. mSUD-dU.GUR DUMU mfta-x-x(-x)135 2. ZÁḪ -ma mdNIN.IB-SUM-aḫ-ḫe 3. il-qa-áš-šu-um-ma 4. i-na ki-li ik-la-šu-ma 5. m⌈ŠEŠ?⌉-du-tum DUMU mIm-ma-ti-ia 6. pu-us-su im-ḫa-as-̣ ma ú-še-si-šụ … “Rīš-Nergal, the son of ta-x-x(-x), escaped, and Ninurta-nādin-aḫḫē brought him back and held him in prison. Aḫēdūtu, the son of Immatīya, assumed guarantee for him and effected his release.”

132 Again following the previous documentary formula for recaptured runways, expressed as: PN5 (DUMU PN6) pūta + maḫāsụ + šūsụ̂ . 133 -lu- may be a mistake for -la-. 134 The same lines of BM 17626 were given as Example 7 on page 34 when these documents were first discussed. 135 For personal names written with both the masculine and feminine personal determinatives, see Brinkman, “Masculine or Feminine?” ( 2007): 1–10. work, flight, origins, status 117

Example 11. Excerpt from Ni. 1333. 1. mLa-qí-pu […] 2. DUMU mŠEŠ-SI.SÁ-d[…] 3. Ì.ŠUR 4. ḫa-li-iq-ma 5. mdEn-líl-⌈ki-di⌉-ni 6. ik-la-šu 7. mdAMAR.UTU-mu-šal-lim 8. ú-še-sị … “Lā-qīpu […], the son of Ahu-līšir-[DN̮ ?], the oil-presser, escaped; and Enlil-kidinnī held him (in prison). Marduk-mušallim effected (his) release…”

The documents identify the runaway, custodian, and the guarantor (or person arranging the release). Nine runaways are recorded in such texts, and many of their names are partially or completely lost.136 All of these names except Rabâ-ša-ilī occur in the personnel rosters; but there is no way, either through comparing relatives, occupation, or other information, to identify any single person as present in both types of document. The relationship between the guarantors and the escapee is generally not given, but in one case the guarantor is the father of the escapee who is taking charge of the prisoner, because the captive became ill while in jail. It is not entirely clear why someone with no relationship to the escapee would became a guarantor (especially in light of the penalties if the person ran away again), but one could surmise that one reason would be to use the prisoner for work outside the prison. He would be fed and cared for by the guarantor, which would remove the cost of the prisoner’s upkeep from the captor (and perhaps operator of the prison) while the final destination of the escapee is being determined. This echoes the general practice mentioned in the second section of this chapter, wherein workers controlled by the šandabakku or

136 The names are completely or partially preserved for six of the nine runaways: (1) Rīš-Nergal, the son of mfta-x-x(-x) (BM 17626:1), (2) Rabâ-ša-ilī, son of Kittatu (CBS 11106:1), (3) Rabâ-ša-Gula (patronym lost) (Ni. 2204:1), (4) Yāʾūtu, the cook, son of Kuzub-nišī, son of Ištar-tukultī (PBS 8/2 161:1–2), (5) mAl-⌈lu-at⌉-ra (CBS 11453:1), and (6) Lā-qīpu, son of Ahu-līšir-[DN̮ ?] (Ni. 1333:1–2). The names of the runaways are not preserved in BE 14 11, CBS 8600A, and Ni. 7195. 118 chapter five by large institutions were seen to have been loaned out to private individuals and estates. While there are a variety of penalties when the guarantor fails to meet his obligations, there seem to be no penalties if the escapee dies.137 Custodians of captives include Ninurta-nādin-aḫḫē(=šanda- bakku?),138 the son of mŠindi-Enlil,139 the son of […]-Šamaš,140 Enlil-AL. 141 m ŠA6(=šandabakku?), and Na(ḫ)zi-Marduk, the son of Gu-NI-NI- Bugaš.142 Although the names of the custodians in two texts are not preserved, only one of these men seems to be listed as custodian for more than one person.

Confinement: Prisons and Fetters The use of prisons (kīlu) as a holding area for escapees has been noted in the previous few pages. However, there are several other administrative and legal documents that mention the use of prisons and/or restraints to control members of the population for other reasons.143 Most of the people in shackles or prison listed in the rosters (as opposed to the recapture texts) are not known by personal name because the worker’s name is not preserved, the imprisoned workers appear without name in a subtotal, or the text is unclear as to which of the listed workers are imprisoned. A check of the Personnel Table produces the name of just two imprisoned workers, both males, and two fettered workers, one male and one female.144 At first glance these numbers seem too low, but 50% of the rosters known to contain references to imprisoned workers (kīlu)145 and 77% of the rosters known to mention fettered workers (kamû)146 have yet to be included

137 BM 17626:7–8: mSUD-dU.GUR (runaway) i-ma-at-ma (l. 8) mA-ḫi-du-tum (guarantor) za-ku. 138 BM 17626:2 and perhaps BE 14 11:3’ (heavily damaged passage). 139 CBS 11106:3. 140 Ni. 2204:3. 141 PBS 8/2 161:3. The final sign is partially damaged. 142 CBS 11453:3–4. Balkan, Kassitenstudien (1954): 53 prefers to read this patronym as Guzalzal-Bugaš and treats guzalzal as a variant of guzarzar (ibid.: 149). The patronym Guzarzar-Bugaš is attested in PBS 2/2 83:30, and the simple name m⌈gu-za-ar⌉- za-ar occurs in the roster UM 29-15-292 rev. ii’ 12’, cf. ibid. ii’ ⌈4⌉. 143 Some examples are CBS 7240:2–19, PBS 2/2 116:2–5, 10, and 19–20, Ni. 1627 rev. iv 6’, Ni. 8221:2’, BM 82699 ii 11, MUN 418 iii’ 5.’ 144 BM 82699 ii 11, CBS 3493 ii 6’ b and 7092+ rev. ii’ 52’ b, and Ni. 1627 rev. iv 6’. 145 I.e., three out of the six rosters known to contain references to imprisoned (kīlu) workers. 146 I.e., ten out of the thirteen rosters known to contain references to fettered (kamû) laborers. work, flight, origins, status 119 in the Personnel Table because they are housed in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul and could not be collated.147 The number of available names will increase once this material can be added to the data base. Sometimes there is no way of determining why someone is being detained; so it is difficult to tell whether the imprisoned person was a member of the servile population or a person of higher status who had committed a crime. However, the presence of sex-age or physical- condition designations, words typically used to mark the servile population (amīlūtu, qinnu, etc.), and context are reliable ways to identify members of the servile population. Members of the servile population—such as escapees or those recently added to the work force, but not yet assigned to any particular working group—are held in prison alongside common criminals. For example, PBS 2/2 116 is a list of persons (ÉRIN.MEŠ) in a prison run by Sîn-apil-Ekur; and it is suspected that some of these individuals are there because they are going to be added to the servile labor force, i.e., they were given to (nadānu) or received by (maḫāru) the šandabakku or they were taken (leqû) from Babylon.148 The other inmates are being held for criminal offenses: e.g., they had struck their mother or elder brother, or made use of personnel belonging to a temple or to the governor without permission.149 Another example would be CBS 7240. It is a severely damaged roster which lists, among other things, a number of imprisoned individuals interspersed with long prose descriptions that offer infor mation on the circumstances surrounding their imprisonment in a manner similar to that of PBS 2/2 116.150 Depending on how one reconstructs the first seven or eight broken lines, the first three prisoners mentioned, a father, wife, and son, are not only counted among the ten people listed as in prison (PAP 10 ki-lum), but it is also recorded that they have been put in shackles.151 The listing of this family is done in the same format as seen in personnel rosters (discussed in chapter four).

147 “Ka-mu” and “ki-lum” as physical conditions seem to be frozen writings. One might have expected ka-mu-ú or inflection for feminine for fettered persons (Brinkman, “Sex, Age, and Physical Condition Designations” (1982): 6 n. 34). 148 Lines 2–5, 10, and 19–20. 149 Lines 7–9, 15, and 11–12. 150 CBS 7716, which is heavily damaged, may be the same sort of text. 151 CBS 7240 line 7 “[…] ù ⌈ša⌉-šu-nu ú-pa-a-du-šu-nu-ti.” 120 chapter five

The texts do not provide details as to the location or physical structure associated with any prison, e.g., stockade, building, a secure place of a private house or compound, etc. Prisons are identified simply by the person or official who is in charge of the prisoners; this, other than the names of the inmates and sometimes the reasons behind their incarcerations, is all that is really known about each place of detention in this period.152 Restraints or fetters are also a means of restricting the movement of the population. Notations regarding fettered workers are found in only thirteen of the rosters,153 suggesting that the practice was not widespread. All indications are that shackled people, for the most part, were kept within the work group. In texts listing qinnu work groups, the workers placed in fetters are not removed (elû) from the work force and could have been used for assignments. There are no indications as to what form these restraints took (neck-stocks, shackles, other types of bindings, etc.).

The Šandabakku and the King There are other indications about the involvement of specific šandabakkus in the recapture and release documents. Enlil-kidinnī, who held the governorship during the reign of Burna-Buriaš II, is mentioned as the person responsible for the imprisonment of an escapee.154 In BE 14 135, a document that is nearly identical with a recapture text, but which lacks the statement that the imprisoned person was a runaway, details the release of a prisoner being held by a later governor, Amīl-Marduk.155 With regard to the king, there is one damaged passage in the legal deposition Ni. 2891 which may point to the involvement of king Šagarakti-Šuriaš with the imprisonment of someone;156 the gover- nor Amīl-Marduk is also mentioned as conducting an interrogation.157

As noted above (page 118), Ninurta-nādin-aḫḫē and Enlil-AL.ŠA6—

152 PBS 2/2 116: 1: “ÉRIN.MEŠ ki-lum ŠU m30-IBILA-É.KUR.” 153 CBS 3493, CBS 10713, CBS 11103, Ni. 1066 +1069, Ni. 1075, Ni. 5993, Ni. 6033, Ni. 6068, Ni. 6237, Ni. 6244, Ni. 6468, Ni. 6470, and Ni. 11055. 154 Ni. 1333:5. 155 BE 14 135:3. 156 See the following lines: (24) “[…]⌈x⌉-ú-⌈tum? ša⌉ ki-li LUGAL (25) “…⌈iḫ?⌉-li- iq-ma.” The king is probably Šagarakti-Šuriaš, since he is mentioned in the document (lines 15 and 32). 157 Line 12: mLÚ-dAMAR.UTU iš-al-šu. work, flight, origins, status 121 without titles in the texts, but identified as governors elsewhere—were also custodians of captives.

Origins and Civil Status

In this section, we address two questions basic to the present research: where did these workers come from, and what was their civil status in Babylonian society. As previously observed, our information is limited because the source documents presume a fundamental understanding of the socio-economic milieu in which the workers found themselves and provide little explanation that is directly relevant to answering these questions. We will discuss what meager evidence is available.

Origins On the question of origins, we would like to consider two aspects: (1) from what regions did the workers come, and (2) by what means were laborers incorporated into this work force. First of all, the texts indicate the place of origin for only a very small fraction of the workers, perhaps less than three percent of the total.158 Explicit references to native Babylonians (akkadû) are absent in the texts used here for statistical analysis of the population, but six Babylonians are so identified in one of the simple rosters in Istanbul.159 Also one of the children purchased by the governor Enlil-kidinnī in the time of Burna- Buriaš II (1359–1333) is described as a native of Babylonia (ilitti māt

158 An exact figure is impossible to determine, since many of the designations of origin (e.g., gentilics) are given only as collectives, e.g., lul-lu-ba-⌈a⌉-[ú], aš-šur-a- a-[ú], a-ru-na-a-a-⌈ú⌉ in Ni. 6932:9’–11’, without indication of the number of persons in the category. But only a tiny proportion of the population is ever designated by a gentilic. Although personal names in languages other than Babylonian (Hurrian, Elamite, and Assyrian) are common among the servile population, they are an unreli- able indicator of an individual worker’s geographic or ethnic origin; see J. A. Brinkman, “Administration and Society in Kassite Babylonia,” JAOS 124 (2004): 284–85. However, there are occasions when a large percentage of workers with names in languages other than Akkadian occur together on a tablet which, when taken as a whole, leaves the impression that many of the listed workers may be foreign: for example, a significant portion of the supervisors in MUN 93 and parallel texts (CBS 3474, 8899, 11670, 11826, N 1803, and Ni. 11458) have Hurrian names, an occurrence that is unusual for so extensive a group of mobile laborers. Although of little help for statistical purposes, such evidence provides circumstantial evidence that outsiders played a major role in Nippur’s servile labor pool. 159 PAP 6 ak-ka-du-ú in Ni. 1627 i 8. 122 chapter five

Karduniaš).160 Otherwise, all statements about place of origin refer to foreign lands; the collected data are visually summarized on page 123 (Figure 13).161 Each region from which foreign workers are attested is represented by a circle,162 with the size of the circle corresponding to the relative volume of each region’s contribution to the servile labor force at Nippur (the map does not indicate the geographic extent of each locale).163 The placement of each region on the map should be regarded as approximate only. As the map shows, foreign servile laborers came from areas to the east, northeast, north, and northwest of Babylonia, with the distant Anatolian region of Arūna (thought to lie between Kizzuwatna and Hatti)164 particularly worthy of note. Elam, Hanigalbat, and Lullubu are the principal attested sources of foreign workers (29%, 20%, and 18% respectively); Assyria and the region of Arrapḫa furnish slightly smaller numbers, according to present indications. In the preceding historical period (Old Babylonian), some of these regions were known to be sources for slaves sold by merchants.165 By what process or processes were persons incorporated into the work force at Nippur? There are diverse clues spread thinly across the documentation, but clear and explicit linkage from point of origin to membership in the servile system (laboring crews) is lacking. There are a few roster entries that describe worker groups as “booty” or

160 BE 14 1:1. It is not known whether this boy was added to the servile labor pool. 161 This is a modern map with contemporary geographical features such as waterways and coastlines, which may have differed significantly in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C 162 Gentilic adjectives which may have been more ethnic than geographic in emphasis, e.g., Kassite, Akkadian, Aḫlamû, and Amurrû, are not represented on the map. 163 This is a preliminary estimate based on crude numbers drawn from the data base: total number of individually listed workers and references to foreign groups of workers divided by the total number of individually listed workers and total references to groups of workers. It is expected that this estimate will become more precise once the material from Istanbul can be included in the data base (foreign workers seem generally to be more common in the Istanbul rosters). 164 For the location of Arūna, see Massimo Forlanini, “La regione del Tauro nei testi Hittiti,” Vicino Oriente 7 (1988): 145 and 170 (map) and Giuseppe F. del Monte and Johann Tischler, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte, RGTC 6 (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1982): 41 (citing earlier literature). 165 Frans van Koppen, “The Geography of the Slave Trade and Northern Mesopotamia in the Late Old Babylonian Period” in Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited, eds. Hermann Hunger and Regine Pruzsinszky. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 32 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004): 9–33. work, flight, origins, status 123

Figure 13. Map of Geographic Origin and Relative Proportions of Foreign Constituents of the Servile Population.166

“captives.”167 Areas attested with such removals are indicated on the map (Figure 13) by circles with an outline. A few workers were granted by the king to the governor at Nippur through the intermediation of a royal official.168 Some workers were purchased by the governor as slaves (termed amīlūtu or aštapīru).169 Other means of entrance into the servile work force could be by birth into a servile family or possibly by enslavement for debt (attested only by inference from a passage open to several interpretations). Refugees (munnabittu) from foreign lands are also attested in the rosters, but the processes by which they may have come under the jurisdiction of the Nippur administration are not elaborated. The recapture-and-reassignment texts (covered above

166 The circle representing the contribution of Ullipi is included for comparison by size only. Its location has not been determined. 167 To be discussed in detail in the two immediately following paragraphs. 168 CBS 7726, discussed below. 169 Amīlūtu (written syllabically or NAM.LÚ.U18(=GIŠGAL).LU, sometimes with omission of the final LU) is the term used in BE 14 7, PBS 8/2 162, and TuM NF 5 65, aštapīru in MUN 9+PBS 13 64, Ni. 1574, and Ni. 6192. 124 chapter five in detail in section 5 of this chapter) deal with reentry of escapees into the work force, not with their initial assignment as servile laborers. With the exception of this last category, we will discuss the other means of incorporation in more detail in the succeeding paragraphs. There is only slight and ambiguous evidence for servile personnel as war booty or prisoners of war. Three rosters specify that a group of workers was considered as ḫubbutānu,170 a hitherto unattested Akkadian term presumably meaning something like “booty” or “captives.”171 Two of these rosters, dealing with the same collection of servile groups and individual laborers separated by a four-year interval,172 state that the ḫubbutānu represent a period starting from year 20[(+x?)] of a king whose name is now missing down to year 9 of Šaga[rakti- Šuriaš] in one case and down to the accession year of Kaštiliašu (IV) in the other—therefore a range of at least 49 years.173 The same two rosters also list several foreign groups of workers by place of origin: men from Ullipi, Elam, Lullubu, Assyria, and Arūna.174 The third roster has ḫubbutānu in the entry label subcolumn (furthest to the right) in a damaged section, without a time qualification and perhaps as a qualitative summary/subtotal;175 this roster also contains references to men from Hanigalbat, Elam, Ullipi, Lullubu, Assyria, and Arūna. There is no evidence for the place of origin of laborers covered in the ḫubbutānu category, but they are listed in entries parallel to groups whose origin is explicitly indicated. There are other cryptic references in roster texts and related documents which record the transportation of foreigners during specific years. The best preserved of these references occurs in Ni. 11111, a ration roster without preserved date, which refers to lul-lu-ma-a-a-ú ša

170 In each case written ḫu-bu-ta-nu. 171 Related to ḫubtu, “captive, prisoner-of-war” and ḫabātu, “to rob, plunder.” 172 The individual and group listings also appear in the same sequence in the two texts. 173 The last Kassite ruler before this time to have reigned at least twenty years was Nazi-Maruttaš (1307–1282); but Kurigalzu II (1332–1308) and Burna-Buriaš II (1359– 1333) would also be possibilities. The ḫubbutānu entries here are in the form ḫu-bu- ta-nu ša TA MU.20[(+x?).KAM RN ] / EN MU.SAG.NAM.LUGAL.LA kaš-[til-ia-šu … ] (Ni. 7050:18’–19’); the corresponding entry in the Šagarakti-Šuriaš text is much more damaged, but concludes EN MU.9.KAM ⌈šá-gar⌉-[…] (Ni. 6933:18’–19’). 174 In each case by gentilics, without specifying the number of individuals involved (Ni. 6932:6’–11’, Ni. 7050:6’–11’). 175 Ni. 5860 iv 17. The number subcolumns to the left of this entry are destroyed at this point; so it is impossible to determine whether this line represents a qualitative summary/subtotal. work, flight, origins, status 125 i-na MU.⌈11⌉[(+x).KAM] ka-dáš-man-túr-gu le-qú-ni, i.e., Lullubians176 “who were taken away in the year 11[(+x)] of Kadašman-Turgu.”177 There are similarly ambiguous phrases referring to (a) the year 23(?) and Kurigalzu (the source of deportees is almost entirely destroyed),178 (b) Elamites in a now-missing year and Nazi-Maruttaš,179 and (c) years 10–14 and Kadašman-Turgu (dealing with Kassites from Tupliyaš).180 The texts merely state that the people in question were moved in certain years of certain kings, and these need hardly be interpreted as military activities of a specific king in a specific year. Despite the uncertainties involved in interpretation of these short passages, they seem at least worth mentioning because of the relative rarity of references to military activities on the part of Kassite monarchs. No royal inscription of a Kassite ruler records a military campaign; and pertinent statements from chronicles, votive texts, and letters are few and far between.181 If it weren’t for the extreme sparsity of material dealing with Kassite military matters, these vague allusions would not be worth mentioning; but they should be kept in mind as possible clues to the poorly understood political history as the period becomes better known.182 A single text documents a royal grant of servile personnel to Nippur authorities. CBS 7726, an administrative memorandum dated in the first year of Kaštiliašu IV (1232 B.C.), records the king’s gift of ten persons to Amīl-Marduk, the governor of Nippur, and the gover- nor’s subsequent assignment of these individuals to local officials.183

176 The gentilic occurs as both lullubāyu and lullumāyu. See Nashef, RGTC 5 188–189. 177 i 15’–16’. Leqû is the verb most commonly used in rosters and related texts to designate transport of servile personnel from one location to another, even in peaceful context. 178 Ni. 11111 i’ 3’–4’ 179 Ni. 7050:20’–21’, less well preserved in the parallel Ni. 6932:20’–21’. 180 Ni. 11111 i’ 11’–12’. Tupliyaš was not included on Figure 13 because it was in the Diyala and therefore part of Babylonia. 181 The evidence has last been summed up by Brinkman, “The Monarchy in the Time of the Kassite Dynasty,” pp. 401–02, with citation of additional literature; see also idem, “Foreign Relations of Babylonia from 1600 to 625 B.C.: The Documentary Evidence,” American Journal of Archaeology 76 (1972): 271–81. 182 Evidence regarding the taking of prisoners for labor purposes in the Late Bronze Age can also be found in Babylonia’s northern neighbor Assyria, specifically the city of Kalhu̮ (J.A. Brinkman, “Kassiten,” in RlA 5/5–6, eds. Erich Ebeling et al. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980): 470). 183 Described collectively as qīpūti (gen.) ša EN.LÍL.KI. The title of only one of these officials is preserved: LÚ.ŠÀ.TAM É.KUR [( )] in rev. 6’. A similar conveyance 126 chapter five

Each individual is identified by personal name and categorized by a traditional sex-age designation.184 The conveyance to the governor at the king’s order (kî šipirti šarri Kaštiliašu) is effected through thes uḥ ̮urti šarri, an official of the central government.185 Purchases of slaves by the Nippur governor are better attested in our texts, perhaps because at least a portion of the documentation may have come from the archives of the governor. The purchases of slaves by Enlil-kidinnī, governor in the time of Burna-Buriaš II (1359–1333), are well known and have been the subject of a separate study by Herbert Petschow.186 There are eight surviving legal texts recording Enlil-kidinnī’s purchases of slaves, usually in family groups, between year 8 and year 24 of Burna-Buriaš.187 The largest recorded slave group in a single purchase contains 25 persons;188 the smallest acquisition deals with one young boy.189 Most of the purchases are made directly by Enlil-kidinnī; but in at least one case Adad-šar-ilī, his ša rēši official, acts as purchaser190 and, in two other instances, Enlil- kidinnī is listed as the buyer, but other men pay the price of the purchase.191 Note in addition the register of law cases involving Enlil-kidinnī, several of which are concerned with the acquisition of slaves.192

Enlil-AL.ŠA6, governor of Nippur in the time of Nazi-Maruttaš (1307– 1282), was also involved in a question of ownership of slaves, according to a laconic administrative memorandum,193 and a legal dispute in which the brother of a woman sought her release because she was

of lower-level personnel by a ruler (presumably Šagarakti-Šuriaš) to a šatammu at Dūr-Kurigalzu was routed through a ḫazannu official (Gurney,Iraq 11 (1949) 132–133 no. 2). 184 Only the categories GURUŠ and SAL GAL are attested in the six preserved entries. 185 The operative verbs in the pertinent relative clause are: (ša)…ilqâmma…iddinu. The function of the suḥ ̮urti šarri (sometimes expressed also as suḥ ̮urtu ša šarri in Middle Babylonian) has not yet been determined. 186 “Die Sklavenkaufverträge des šandabakku Enlil-kidinnī von Nippur,” Orientalia 52 (1983): 143–55. 187 To the texts cited by Petschow in his 1983 article may be added Ni. 1574 and Ni. 6192. Also CBS 14198 (PBS 13 64) may be joined to UM 29-16-296 (MUN 9). 188 Ni. 6192. 189 BE 14 1. 190 PBS 8/2 162. 191 TuM NF 5 65, 66. 192 TuM NF 5 68. 193 PBS 2/2 25. Lines 5–8 of the text read: (5) 24 a-mi-lu-ut-su (6) it-ti mdEN.LÍL-AL.

ŠA6 (7) a-na le-qé-em-ma (8) di-nam da-ba-bi. work, flight, origins, status 127 married.194 Unfortunately, it has not been possible to identify any single slave in the purchase texts (dating in 1336 and earlier) with a person also occurring in the worker rosters (which date for the most part after 1307).195 It is common historical knowledge that slaves in ancient Rome and the Americas were often renamed when captured or sold; and some of the workers appearing in rosters are known by two names.196 This is merely a possible indication of slavery, and the conclusion that people in possession of two names were slaves cannot be reached on this evidence alone. Offspring born into worker families were incorporated into the servile population. This can be seen in cases where the history of a single family is covered over several years in extant documentation.197 Also, one may suppose that at least some of the youngest personnel recorded in the ildu subcolumns of accounting rosters resulted from natural increase within laborer families.198 The offspring of mixed unions, e.g., between a free male and a servile female, were also incorporated into the servile population (and thus at least have been eligible for public worker status); the unpublished legal text Ni. 2885 deals with a case in which the former owner of a freed woman199 who wishes to have her back in his household is told that he must take her formally as his wife so that future children born to them will be recognized as his (i.e., free).200

194 CBS 7242. His reasons are cited as direct speech in two worn lines 10–11: (10) fNIN-su-nu (11) ⌈a⌉-ḫa-ti ⌈aḫ-za⌉-at-mi (“Bēlessunu, my sister, is married”). The restoration, specifically the -aḫ-, is uncertain. 195 Texts from the reign of Kurigalzu II (1332–1308) are generally census-type rosters, which list supervisors and the number of their subordinate workers. Rosters nam- ing individual workers are generally from the time of Nazi-Maruttaš (1307–1282) and later. 196 See pages 112–13, note 118. 197 E.g., in the family of Tukultī-Adad, the brewer, the infant girl Bārihtu̮ is not listed in the earliest roster (BE 14 58, covering months I-XII of Nazi-Maruttaš year 13 (=1295 B.C.) ), but appears as the junior female (DUMU.SAL.GABA) in Ni. 6775 rev. 5’ dated eighteen months later (VII-27(+)-year 15 (=1293 B.C.) ). 198 See pages 17–18, 21–22, and 114–15. Does this imply a lengthy interval between censuses or that ildu may have had a wider meaning than simply “offspring, progeny”? 199 It is never stated whether the freed woman was owned by a private individual or the šandabakku (i.e., a public servile laborer), although she is freed by an act of the king. 200 The sister of the freed woman who is negotiating for the woman’s return to her former owner makes her demand plain: aḫātī šumma ḫašḫāta u ana bītīka tušerrebši fPN qinna libni u mārē līlida lū aššatka šī mārūša lū mārū (Ni. 2885:16’–18’). 128 chapter five

There are no clear instances of enslavement for debt as yet attested in Kassite Babylonia. But there are two cases in which circumstantial evidence may indicate the possibility of this type of situation or a similar reduction in the status of an individual, i.e., when members of the same family are apparently of unequal civil status. One case involves a father and a son: the son, Rabâ-ša-ili, an escapee, falls ill in prison; and his father, Kittatu, obtains his release and stands surety for his return.201 It seems unlikely that Kittatu would have been allowed to make this com- mitment and to seal a legal document, if he had not been a free person. How then did his son come to be in the servile system?202 In the second case, dealt with in the preceding paragraph, there are two sisters: one had been sold into slavery and obtained her release by virtue of a general zakûtu decree enacted by Šagarakti-Šuriaš freeing women born in Nippur;203 the second sister, presumably a free person all along, acted on behalf of her freed sister in negotiating the latter’s return—at a higher status—to the household of her former owner.204 These cases can also be interpreted in other ways, but nonetheless seem worth noting here. The last category of entrants into the servile working pool to be dealt with here is refugees (munnabittu, singular). In most rosters, munnabittu occurs only as an entry for a group of unspecified geographical origin, often parallel with collective gentilics such as Assy rians, Elamites, Hanigalbatians, etc.205 In a single roster,206 it occurs in the heading of the text (qinnātu ša munnabittī ša ina Lubdi ašbū, “families of refugees who live in Lubdu”) and then in the first subtotal ([napḫaru] 5 qinnū munnabittū, “total: five families, refugees”).207

201 CBS 11106. 202 Enslavement for debt is only one possibility. Debt slavery occurs when a person is forced into slave-status by his creditor, which would not be the case if a father is selling his own family members to a third party to pay his own debts (which would just be a simple slave sale, perhaps with a manumission clause). In order to be a debt-slave, the son himself would have had to have been in debt to the šandabakku or some type of government institution. 203 The freeing of women native to Nippur may not have applied to women born into the lowest servile classes; at least there is no indication of wholesale manumission within the population covered by the rosters. 204 Ni. 2885 (as described in the preceding paragraph). 205 E.g., Ni. 1235:13’, Ni. 1276 ii’ 14’, Ni. 5890:4’. 206 Ni. 643 (simple roster, no date preserved). 207 Or possibly qinnu munnabittu. It is difficult to determine in some instances whether the words are singular (in a collective sense) or plural; the singular and plural of each of these two words are indistinguishable in their common syllabic writings (except when qinnu exhibits its alternative feminine plural, qinnātu). work, flight, origins, status 129

In non-Nippur texts from Kassite Babylonia, two cases of refugees are attested; and these two individuals met very different treatment at the hands of the king. In one instance, a craftsman who had fled from Hanigalbat made harnesses for the king and was rewarded with a tract of land in eastern Babylonia.208 In the second case, an Elamite refugee was handed over by the king to a temple official at Dūr- Kurigalzu, who placed him in fetters and then assigned him to a brewer for work.209

Civil Status Determining the civil status of the servile population is constrained by the narrow window offered by the available documentation as well as by the lack of a comprehensive study on Middle Babylonian society as a whole. While it is tempting to envisage the Middle Babylonian servile population as occupying a niche in society comparable to that of disadvantaged classes in other times and locations, such as serfdom, indentured servitude, and chattel slavery, the accessible information is inadequate to the task. Such cross-cultural comparisons would require arbitrary definitions for terms in broad use and are likely to elicit unfruitful and distracting debate involving modern assumptions about ancient social conditions. Therefore, our discussion here on civil status will be restricted to what is revealed in the ancient source material and to usage of basic Akkadian terminology by administrators dealing with the servile population. The most common term applied to servile personnel in this period is amīlūtu. The word has two basic functions in Middle Babylonian; it can serve as a collective designation for a group of persons or as an abstract term for civil/social status. In most legal documents dealing with sales of more than one person, the individuals being sold are listed by their personal names and sex-age classification; and the group is then summed up in a statement such as “total: n (=number of persons) amīlūtu.” 210 Occasionally, the word aštapīru is used in place of amīlūtu in such contexts.211 The abstract use of amīlūtu is less common; one fairly clear example occurs in the letter BE 17

208 MDP 2 95–96. 209 IM 49975, published by Gurney, Iraq 11 (1949) 132–133 no. 2. 210 E.g., BE 14 7:9, TuM NF 5 65:3. 211 E.g., MUN 9+PBS 13 64:25’, Ni. 6192:9’. 130 chapter five

51:17–19: awīlūssunu ina lēʾi ša bēlīya šatraṭ , “their a.-status is recorded on a document in my lord’s possession.”212 Also in rosters amīlūtu is attested as a collective designation for seg- ments of the working population. While the vast majority of rosters do not record the civil status of their personnel, twenty-three of these documents—slightly more than five percent of the total—213 refer to their laborers as amīlūtu.214 Thus purchase documents and rosters on occasion use the same term to designate their personnel; and they also employ the same distinctive sex-age categories (GURUŠ, etc.) to classify servile individuals.215 Though one cannot identify specific individuals in the purchase documents with persons mentioned in the rosters216 and though there is no evidence that workers in the rosters were ever sold, the common designation of these groups as amīlūtu and their common categorization by the same sex-age markers (not otherwise applied in this period) suggest that these persons were on an equal footing in civil society. Purchased persons were bought and sold and thus treated as property. In one instance, when twenty-five such persons belonged to a private individual, the Nippur governor paid their owner for them.217 But we have no additional information on these purchased persons other than that they were sold (and, in one instance, freed).218 In the rosters and related documentation, there is no indication that their servile laborers were regarded as saleable property (but also there is no context in which the subject was addressed). But we do have incidental information about the living environment of roster workers. Public servile laborers were allowed to have families and even participate in at least some Babylonian marriage institutions (as indicated by the presence of kallatus in their households); patronyms could be used for identification purposes.219 Some held positions

212 Lēʾi is defectively written here (GIŠ.

.U5.UM). For other examples of amīlūtu as an abstract, see CAD A/2 sub voce, usage 4. 213 Representing over five percent of known rosters whose type can be identified (simple roster or ration roster). 214 E.g., BE 14 58:1, CBS 3695:10’. 215 These sex-age designations are not employed in Middle Babylonian other than for the servile population. 216 As explained above on page 127. 217 Ni. 6192. 218 Ni. 1854. 219 E.g., CBS 7752 rev. ii 12, CBS 11969 i’ 7’ (see also the household listings in Appendix 1). This is contrary to the views of the great scholar of comparative slavery, work, flight, origins, status 131 of trust—e.g., scribes, foremen, distributors of rations. Some were allowed to travel. Very few seem to have been physically restrained (notations of “fettered,” i.e., ka-mu, and “prison,” ki-lum, are compara- tively rare in the texts). Some served in mobile work groups and were moved about the Nippur countryside as needed. Yet there were obvious negative aspects to their condition. The number of escape attempts, successful and unsuccessful, indicates a certain level of dissatisfaction with their living and working conditions; and not even the threat of incarceration acted as a deterrent in such cases. The only ways of breaking out of the servile system were the granting of freedom (zakû), flight, and death. References in the rosters to the granting of freedom are so rare that, statistically speaking, a worker had a better chance of dying during an escape attempt (15 individuals) than being freed (2 individuals). This suggests a nearly closed system from which there was almost no chance of legitimate release. Were all the members of the servile laboring pool of equal status? This question arises from the circumstance that in at least nine of the rosters a few isolated individuals were tagged as ardu (ÌR) or andu (GÉME), titles often translated as “male slave” or “female slave,” —with a possible implication that the other persons in these rosters were not of that status. The only published example of such a roster is BE 15 190, where an adult male, Iltapputta, (i 42’) is labeled ÌR and an adult female, Etērša-rabi,̣ (ii 17’) is labeled GÉME220—more than ninety other sufficiently preserved entries in this text bear no such notation. Nine other rosters provide at least sixteen additional cases of such isolated designations in contexts where the overwhelming majority of personnel are not so marked. Is this to be interpreted that only these persons, among the thousands of listees in the rosters, are to be considered slaves in a particular sense that distinguished their status? Or should we seek another meaning for ardu and andu in such cases, perhaps something akin to “household servant”?221 There is insufficient context to make a

Orlando Patterson. Patterson suggested that the defining characteristic of a slave is not that he is property, but that he is a socially dead person, kinless and completely alien- ated to any ties of natality. Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1982), 7–8, 26, and 38. 220 There is also another occurrence of GÉME in iii 19’, but it is not clear there whether any other sign(s) may have followed. 221 See pages 83–84, especially note 80. 132 chapter five judgment, but there seem to be no other indications that ardu or andu designated a particular occupation or assignment (these words do not occur parallel to other occupations in their texts). The members of this population could have been unfree even in the absence of a word that can be safely translated as “slave,” and need not be marked as such in administrative texts (especially when most of these documents were internal memoranda). This is a puzzle yet to be solved, but it does add a potential complication to any unqualified interpretation ofamīlūtu as slave. Unfortunately there is not yet enough information to make more precise determinations about the civil status of the servile laboring population. Further answers may eventually be suggested by comparison with documents outside the corpus under consideration, especially those concerning servile populations from other places and periods within ancient Mesopotamia.222

Concluding Remarks on Work, Origins, and Status

This chapter has shown that the administrative and legal documents concerning the public servile population at Nippur—the largest concentrated body of material from the Kassite levels of the site known to date—allow significant but incomplete glimpses into the daily lives of servile laborers. Members of the population could be assigned in a set or singly to a place, to a large institution, to a household, or to a private individual. Especially noteworthy were substantial mobile forces of laborers (with a median size of four workers per subgroup), who were shifted about the Nippur countryside for various unspecified work tasks. Occupation names are the only significant source of information on the jobs performed by the population, with the three most common categories of workers concerned with the care of animals and poultry, textile production, and food preparation. It was also revealed that women are common among textile workers, mirroring what is known from studies of earlier Mesopotamian weaving industries, and that the very youngest servile children worked alongside their parents.

222 Including the Middle Assyrian šiluḫlu. work, flight, origins, status 133

Although the rosters for the most part deal with the labor pool at its lowest level of management, the šandabakku (governor) of Nippur appears to have been the chief local administrator in charge of the public servile working population. He plays some key roles at the top of the system: accepting personnel granted to him by the king, purchasing slaves on the open market, supervising the inspection (or counting) of servile workers, and arranging for the release and reassignment of recaptured fugitive laborers. The largest part of the chapter was dedicated to flight and its consequences. It was revealed that ninety-two percent of escapees were male, usually in instances where there was a lack of close family ties. Most runaways succeeded in escaping the system, but those who were recaptured ended up in prison and then were reassigned to a new master. It was also argued that the public servile work force lost more members through death or flight than were added by birth or by the return of fugitives. Consequently, the governor would have had to add replacement workers to maintain a steady population size. The most significant research questions, those concerning worker origins and civil status, are the most difficult to answer with the available documentation. Outsiders from regions to the east, northeast, north, and northwest of Babylonia are attested in the servile laboring pool at Nippur; and the possibility that they may have been forcibly removed from their homelands is worth further consideration. Be that as it may, there are indications that individuals may have entered the work force by a variety of means: through purchase, through capture in war, through royal grant, through settlement of debt obligations (on their own part or the indebtedness of others), or through flight from other lands. Present evidence, however slight, indicates that the same terms and categories were used for persons bought and sold (akin to chattel slaves) and persons listed in the rosters; but a simple equation of the status of these two groups may be premature, since only a very few persons in the data base are designated by the customary Middle Babylonian terms for “slave” (ardu, andu), while most are not.

CHAPTER SIX

THE SERVILE WORK FORCE IN LOCAL AND NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Introduction

This study is the first systematic attempt at understanding a large corpus of cuneiform tablets from Nippur dealing with servile laborers in the Kassite period. Using qualitative and quantitative methods of research, we have investigated multiple facets of the lives of these workers and the social and economic environment in which they lab- ored. We have observed that this group was under abnormal population stress, lived in relative poverty, and worked under duress. This servile environment favored males: its adult sex ratio of 109.6 is generally in line with that of other free premodern societies,1 and its all-age sex ratio of 139 is consonant with that of a recently established slave population.2 Other statistics are less easy to explain. For instance, even though male newborns are more likely than females to die in infancy, the sex ratio among nursing children seems to favor females (74.1) to an abnormal degree. The situation is reversed in the adolescent age group where males outnumber females (141.9). In essence, the sex ratios of certain adolescent and younger sex-age categories and of the complete population suggest severely stressful living conditions, an artificially manipulated population, or an inaccurate sample of the younger members of this overall group. The small number of elderly in the rosters and the almost total lack of three-generation households suggest that these workers had a short life expectancy. The data also show that this population was not able to sustain its size through natural reproduction and so was not

1 E.g., those of Roman Egypt and medieval Tuscany, which have been extensively and systematically studied on the basis of available documents. Roger S. Bagnall and Bruce W. Frier, Demography of Roman Egypt (1994) and David Herlihy and Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, Tuscans and Their Families: A Study of the Florentine Catasto of 1427 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). 2 Specifically the early slave population of the American South. 136 chapter six viable without the continual import of fresh workers. Laborers could be moved or reassigned as needed. Some workers were foreigners, originally from areas to the east, northeast, north, or northwest of Babylonia. Family life and household structure for these laborers seem to exhibit different patterns than for other intensively studied premodern populations. The simple-family household was far more common, and the majority of nuclear-family households were headed by a woman. In many cases, these were single mothers caring for young children only (such as multiple unweaned infants), which may indicate that the mother was young. The conjugal family unit was small (on average, 4.22 people), and the parent(s) rarely cared for more than two or three children. Females played a significant role not just as wives and mothers, but also as workers contributing their labor to the Babylonian economy. We have noted that women left their birth household and married at an earlier age than men and later were often left without a husband. Women seem to be the principal workers in the state-run textile industry (although not limited to these jobs), and they were able to maintain a relatively stable family life by bringing along their children to their work site. This demographic picture helps to explain why so many workers fled to areas outside the control of the servile laboring system and why the authorities had an elaborate recovery network for absent workers. Over ninety percent of the runaways were male, most of them without family ties; and it seems nearly all of them were successful in avoiding recapture.

Population Size and Proportion

It is impossible to estimate the size of this public labor force, but it was large and important enough to be a prime concern of Nippur administrators. Currently there are over 4100 statistically usable worker entries in the data base, and the number of entries will probably double once materials in Istanbul become available. However, the rosters were composed over a period stretching for more than eighty years (there is some clustering of texts) which may mean that there were fewer than the estimated total number of entries (c. 8000) in any given year. On the other hand, calculating from rosters simply on the basis local and national perspective 137 of the average number of workers per year (about 92 workers/year) would yield a seriously inaccurate picture of the size of the population because some rosters list several hundred workers at a time. We also cannot determine the proportion of servile laborers within the population of Nippur; nor can we estimate the total size of the Nippur population based only on inconclusive archaeological traces reflecting the occupied area of the site in Kassite times. Any determi- nation of the servile workers as a minor or major part of the population (as far as proportion is concerned) must await the completion of further research. A major factor inhibiting further insight in this area is that the picture presented by our tablets is obviously incomplete. Significant portions of Nippur residents and workers are missing in the documentation, in effect leaving us with no equivalent group with which to contrast the servile population. The corpus tells us little about privately held slaves, political and religious officials, or average free citizens of Nippur, i.e., most of the private work force. The texts also give us what is a largely urban view centered on Nippur itself with only occasional references to satellite towns, villages, and hamlets (some near waterways). Missing are the vast bulk of agricultural and irrigation workers3 as well as private herders—three categories of laborers that were essential to the function of an economy based principally on agriculture and animal husbandry.4 Kudurrus indicate that landown- ers were responsible for the maintenance of countryside infrastruc- ture, such as roads, irrigation networks, and bridges, and for furnishing corvée labor for other public projects; these activities lie entirely outside the documentation under consideration here. Lastly, there are no references to involvement of our work force in building construction

3 There are only six farmers (iššakku) and twenty-eight irrigation workers (dālû) among the 453 workers with indentified occupations in these texts (see Appendix 3)—i.e., 7.5% of the total. It is always possible that some of the servile laborers with unspecified occupations were engaged in agricultural activity, but there is no information on this in the texts. 4 This is not to say that there are no texts dealing with agriculture or animal husbandry, but rather that their focus is primarily on crop yields, taxes, etc. and on stock- taking rather than on personnel issues. See Maria deJ. Ellis, Agriculture and the State in Ancient Mesopotamia, Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 1 (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1976), 109–132, 146, 164–65 and Olof Pedersén, Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East, 1500–300 B.C. (Bethesda MD: CDL Press, 1998), 115 (which mentions some of the major text types and attempts to estimate archival distribution). 138 chapter six at Nippur, although royal building inscriptions relating to Nippur are attested for more than the full chronological range of our texts, i.e., from the time of Burna-Buriaš II (1359–1333) to that of Meli-Šipak (1186–1172).5

Nippur in its Spatial Context

It is possible to reconstruct a general picture of the physical layout of Nippur and the nearby countryside in this period. Recently, archaeologists have suggested that the group of mounds representing ancient Nippur, after having been virtually abandoned for nearly four hundred years beginning in the eighteenth century,6 was fully occupied within the city limits—represented by the newly constructed city wall—during the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries. The density of occupation has yet to be established, but it has been suggested that large Kassite houses constructed just inside the city walls at WC-1 and WC-3 were built within gardens (which are indicated in this area on the roughly contemporary Nippur city map).7 Temples were also rebuilt, and the excavators have uncovered Kassite levels on both the east and west mounds and recorded considerable surface sherd scatter dating to the Kassite period along the low “apron” of the tell that slopes away from the southern corner of the site.8 The surrounding region seems to have become significantly more rural than it was in the Old Babylonian period, which may explain why a large portion of the servile labor force was working outside of the city in mobile groups. Khaled Nashef has published the names of fifty-nine ancient toponyms from the same period as our archives which he would locate in the area surrounding the city, most of them

5 Brinkman, MSKH 1: 41–42. The majority of monumental building may have been accomplished by Kurigalzu I (early 14th century) before the decades covered by our corpus. 6 Van Lerberghe and Voet have stated that the suspected abandonment may have occurred later in the Old Babylonian Period than previously thought and that portions of the people of Nippur may have fled to Babylon and Dūr-Abiešuḫ (A Late Old Babylonian Temple Archive from Dūr-Abiešuḫ, CUSAS 8 (Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 2009): 1, 3, and 6–7). 7 McCown and Haines, Nippur I (1967) plate 4. 8 The findings are best summarized by McGuire Gibson, “Patterns of Occupation at Nippur,” in Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed. Maria de Jong Ellis. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 14. (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1992): 35, 42–43, and 45. local and national perspective 139 small towns, villages, and estates.9 The presence of toponyms described as tents (e.g., Zarāt-Dūr-Gula) in Middle Babylonian texts, mostly from the administrative archives of the Nippur bureaucracy, may also point to government interaction with less sedentary or impermanent dwellings.10 This reconstruction complements the picture presented by the intensive surface survey done in the area. In the Kassite period, Babylonia as a whole was continuing to undergo a long-term process of ruralization, begun in Early Dynastic II and reaching its climax only in the early Neo-Babylonian period (probably in the middle of the eighth century), whereby an increasing percentage of the population came to live in small towns and villages, i.e., those settlements covering an area of ten hectares or less. The most dramatic growth in that direction seems to have taken place in the Nippur-Uruk corridor between the Old Babylonian and Kassite periods, when the percentage of rural dwellers rose from 29.6% to 56.8% of the population. In the immediate hinterland of Nippur, i.e., within a 15 km radius of the city, the settlement shift in the Kassite period is marked. Despite an overall decline of 27% in total settled area in the Nippur-Uruk corridor following the Old Babylonian period, the settled area close to Nippur experienced substantial growth, rising by 54% (from 50 to 77 hectares). The settlement hierarchy was realigned: the one larger Old Babylonian settlement in Adams’ category 4 (=10.1–20.0 hectares) disappeared; settlements in category 5 (=4.1–10.0 hectares) increased in number from 3 to 5 (but maintained an almost constant percentage of the total settled area, increasing only from 42.0% to 45.5%); and the smallest settlements, in category 6 (=0.1–2.0 hectares), tripled in number (from 7 to 21) and almost doubled in percentage of the total hectarage (from 28.0% to 54.5%). A significant amount of the new settlement took place immediately to the south and southeast of Nippur: in the Old Babylonian period this had represented 22.0% of the settled

9 Khaled Nashef, “The Nippur Countryside in the Kassite Period,” in Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed. Maria de Jong Ellis. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 14. (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1992): 154 n. 17. 10 Stephanie Dalley, Babylonian Tablets from the First Sealand Dynasty in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 9 (Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 2009): 9. An examina- tion of the appropriate volumes of the Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes (RGTC) and Sassmannshausen (BaF 21 (2001):465) reveals that there are nine attested toponyms of this type from the Middle Babylonian Period, but none attested from the preceding or following historical periods. Groneberg, RGTC 3 (1980); Nashef, RGTC 5 (1982); and Zadok, RGTC 8 (1985). 140 chapter six area, in the Kassite period it represented 55.8% of the total (and almost three-quarters of this, 74.4%, was in newly built-up sites). Nippur and its immediate vicinity were substantially changed, with new agricultural territory opened up and many of the small settlements more directly dependent on the province capital.11

Nippur in National Context

After the collapse of the First Dynasty of the Sealand in the fifteenth century, the Kassite kings consolidated southern Mesopotamia into a single territorial state. Within a few decades, Babylonia became one of the major powers in the Near East, on equal terms with Egypt, Mittani, and Hatti. It participated actively in the political and diplomatic interchanges of the Amarna period and played a dynamic role in the Late Bronze Age commercial networks which stretched from Egypt and the Aegean east to the Persian Gulf, Iran, and Afghanistan. Babylonian merchants, commercial agents, and envoys worked these networks, transporting horses, chariots, luxury textiles, precious met- als and stones, fine jewelry, seals, and unguents to and from southern Mesopotamia; and Babylonians with special skills, such as stone carv- ers and physicians, were in demand as far away as Hatti. The principal states of the Near East underwent a major realign- ment during the middle decades of the fourteenth century. Mittani weakened and lost its independence. Assyria grew in stature and became a political rival to Babylonia. After the end of the Amarna archive, diplomatic relations with Egypt—at least from our Mesopo tamian vantage point —plunge into undocumented obscurity.12

11 The survey data on which these conclusions are based are taken from Robert McC. Adams, Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), especially pp. 138–39, 166–67, 172–73. For the long-term process of ruralization, see also J. A. Brinkman, “Settlement Surveys and Documentary Evidence: Regional Variation and Secular Trend in Mesopotamian Demography,” JNES 43 (1984): 169–80. It should be kept in mind that the surface survey was unable to cover large areas immediately to the west of Nippur because these were under cultivation. 12 I.e., compared to the correspondence preserved in the Amarna archives (which in their coverage are unique for the Near East in the Late Bronze Age). Note, however, that Egyptian items are still attested in inventories at Nippur in post-Amarna times (e.g., PBS 2/2 130:37) and that an Egyptian drew food rations at Nippur in the fifth year of Nazi-Maruttaš (i.e., 1303 B.C.; Ni. 158), and Babylonia remained on the gold standard throughout these decades. local and national perspective 141

Almost all the archival materials from Kassite Nippur, including the documents pertaining to servile laborers, fall into this lesser-known time period, which begins just as the Amarna age is closing during the reign of Burna-Buriaš II (1359–1333)13 and then continues through the reign of Kaštiliašu IV (1232–1225).14 These are decades for which the political history and international relations of Babylonia are almost unattested. What sparse documentation is available at present—brief mentions in chronicles, a damaged epic, and some diplomatic correspondence preserved in Hatti15—sheds light principally on a few Babylonian contacts with Assyria (often adversarial) and with Hatti (mostly friendly). There are also two pieces of evidence pointing to Babylonian aggression against Elam under Kurigalzu II (1332–1308).16 The Nippur archives do not help to fill in more of this picture, but they do provide evidence for Assyrian merchants and messengers visiting Babylonia in more peaceful roles.17 In general, there seems to have prevailed a rough political equilibrium between Babylonia and Assyria in these decades, with neither party gaining a decisive upper hand— all the more remarkable because the little-known Kassite kings of this time ruled opposite three strong Assyrian monarchs: Adad-nirari I, Shalmaneser I, and Tukulti-Ninurta I (the early part of the latter’s reign). Our servile-laborer texts fall into this era of relative quiescence in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries, when there were no major disruptions and Babylonia was able to prosper economically. This era—and the coverage of the Nippur archives—were brought to an abrupt end when the Assyrian Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243–1207) invaded

13 Some of the earliest purchase documents date to the reign of Burna-Buriaš II, who was a participant in the Amarna correspondence. However, the administrative rosters all post-date the Amarna kings. Also note that the great international network of the Late Bronze Age was already in decline during the period in which the Amarna letters were written: J. A. Brinkman, “Foreign Relations of Babylonia,” (1972): 274. 14 E.g., one of the child-purchase documents (MSKH 1 no. 9) is slightly later, dating from the time of Kadašman-Harbe II (1224). 15 References in Brinkman, MSKH 1 (1976): 135–36, 155, 207–08, 262. 16 BE 1 43, an agate tablet with a votive inscription of Kurigalzu to Ninlil, telling of the capture of a palace of the city Ša-a-ša (Susa?) in Elam. Chronicle P iii 10–19, a poetic passage describing Kurigalzu’s defeat and capture of Hurbatila (Hurpatila?), an otherwise unknown Elamite ruler. A much later literary text of dubious historical value, VAS 24 91, lists supposed marriages between Elamite princes and Babylonian princesses, one of which seems to involve Burna-Buriaš II. 17 ⌈DAM.⌉GÀR aš-šur.KI (CBS 11849:7). Note also W. H. van Soldt, “Kassite Textiles for Enlil-Nērāru’s Messenger,” AoF 24 (1997) 97–104. 142 chapter six

Babylonia18 and the Elamites followed in his wake with raids on the land.19 No sustained attempt has yet been made to reconstruct the internal history of Babylonia during these peaceful decades. One of the main reasons for this is that most of the known contemporary documents from this time have yet to be edited. Of the approximately twelve thousand texts from Nippur, fewer than 15% have been published. From the two royal cities, Dūr-Kurigalzu and Babylon, we have even less material: of the approximately 220 texts found at Dūr-Kurigalzu during the 1942–45 excavations, fewer than 55 have been published even in photo (i.e., under 25%);20 and, of the 564 texts excavated by the German expedition at Babylon, only one non-scholarly text (administrative) has been published—and that by accident.21 The legal and administrative texts from Ur have almost all been published,22 but these are from private archives and for the most part of purely local relevance. So trying to place our Nippur laborer materials within a historical context at Nippur, much less against a broader background extending over Babylonia as a whole, would at present be an exercise in futility. Nonetheless, a few general observations can be made. During the Kassite period, the three most important urban centers in southern Mesopotamia seem to have been Babylon, Dūr-Kurigalzu, and Nippur. The relationship between Babylon and Dūr-Kurigalzu, the two royal residences, has yet to be satisfactorily elucidated. Nippur, the religious center containing the principal temple of Enlil, the national patron deity, was a favored provincial capital whose governor bore the distinctive title šandabakku (as opposed to šakin māti or šaknu in other provinces). The Nippur archives, even in their presently underinvesti- gated state, exhibit a series of direct connections between that city and

18 MSKH 1 313–17; note especially Ni. 65, a text from Nippur dated in the accession year of Tukulti-Ninurta (MSKH 1 386 no. 13). 19 Chronicle P iv 14–22 (Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (1975): 176–77, chronicle 22); line 15 of the text mentions the scattering of the people of Nippur. 20 Information courtesy of J. A. Brinkman, who read and catalogued these texts in Baghdad, 1968–69. 21 VAT 17908, published by L. Jakob-Rost, FuB 12 (1970): 51 no. 1 (with the royal title misread as LUGAL E.KI and so mistakenly dated as early Neo-Babylonian). The dating has now been corrected by Pedersén, ADOG 25, p. 85 M5.29. 22 Gurney, UET 7 1–72 and MBTU. There remain a few small Middle Babylonian fragments from Ur as yet unpublished, as well as a few minor texts from the Isin II dynasty. local and national perspective 143

Dūr-Kurigalzu. Chariots, grain, and textiles were shipped from Nippur to Dūr-Kurigalzu.23 Horses recorded as belonging to Dūr-Kurigalzu were pastured at Nippur.24 Gold was sent from Dūr-Kurigalzu to Nippur, especially for smelting,25 and then returned to Dūr-Kurigalzu.26 Jewelry from both Dūr-Kurigalzu and Nippur were sent to the town of Arad-bēlti, a small suburb of Nippur, presumably for either safekeep- ing or repair.27 Nippur craftsmen (ummânī) were sent to Dūr- Kurigalzu,28 and servile workers—including a weaver—were sent from Dūr-Kurigalzu to Nippur.29 In general, much more is known at present about Nippur’s incidental relations with Dūr-Kurigalzu than with Babylon, the nearer of the two royal residential cities.30 Nippur’s connections with Babylon are known to have included offering provisions for travelers between the two towns and accepting servile workers from a royal official in Babylon for local assignment in Nippur.31 There is also a Nippur text which includes in its inventory jewelry located in Babylon and Dūr-Kurigalzu.32 The ties between Nippur and Babylon will undoubtedly be better understood as research progresses on the Middle Babylonian archives from the two cities.33 Nippur’s relations with other parts of Babylonia have also to be further studied. It is known that the Sealand furnished young cattle for Nippur flocks34 and dates that were handed out as rations to servile workers.35 There are also letters in the Nippur archives from a Babylonian official in Dilmun reporting on the vicissitudes befalling the date crop there.36 So Nippur had fruitful direct contacts with

23 E.g., Ni. 2939, BE 15 26:4, Ni. 887. 24 E.g., BE 14 12:42. 25 E.g., UM 29-15-447. 26 E.g., CBS 11442:5. 27 E.g., PBS 13 80. 28 E.g., Ni. 6052. 29 E.g., Ni. 6871. 30 The only evidence from either Dūr-Kurigalzu or Babylon for a servile population similar to that at Nippur is one text from Dūr-Kurigalzu which contains references to qinnu groups, murdered persons, etc. (O. R. Gurney, “Texts from Dūr-Kurigalzu.” Iraq 11 (1949): no. 8). 31 E.g., CBS 3681:7, CBS 7726. 32 Ni. 7019. 33 I wish to express my gratitude to J. A. Brinkman, who provided much of the unpublished material discussed in this chapter. 34 E.g., BE 15 199:27. 35 BE 14 58:2, 52. 36 P. B. Cornwall, “Two Letters from Dilmun,” JCS 6 (1952) 137–145. 144 chapter six regions even farther away than the two royal cities. Again we await further research to appraise Nippur’s role in the national economy.

Future Research

We close this presentation with a few remarks on how our initial foray into the administrative documentation at Nippur can be improved by further research, adding a simple cautionary note about demographic study of Mesopotamian populations. The Personnel Table, i.e., that portion of the data base used for statistical study of the worker population, presently includes all data on persons recorded on identified administrative texts located in the University of Pennsylvania Museum, the Free Library of Philadelphia, the British Museum, the Hilprecht-Sammlung in Jena, and the Louvre. Once the documents housed in Istanbul and Yale have been collated and added to the Personnel Table—which is expected roughly to double the number of worker entries and therefore the known size of the population—a more complete picture of this laboring group should emerge.37 Descriptive statistics for escapees, foreigners, and other types of workers will be drawn from a larger data set; and some of the abnormal sex ratios observed for certain age categories, e.g., unweaned children, may be adjusted to less (or possibly more?) distorted levels. There are a few instances where one can identify the same work group across several different texts, but the prosopographical study of the full text corpus from Kassite Nippur is still in its infancy. Hölscher’s Die Personennamen der kassitenzeitlichen Texte aus Nippur (1996) is of immense value for its coverage of the texts published before that date; but it must be supplemented by the personnel in Sassmannshausen’s Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft Babyloniens in der Kassitenzeit (2001), which published more than 450 new texts, and even by Clay’s Personal Names from Cuneiform Inscriptions of the Cassite Period

37 Other factors might expand the data set: (a) identification of new (unnoted to date) Middle Babylonian Nippur tablets that belong to the already defined categories; (b) linkage of known Middle Babylonian Nippur texts in various museums that currently lack the distinctive markers of the servile population through prosopographical studies; and (c) joins of other tablet fragments to tablet pieces in the already attested corpus. local and national perspective 145

(1912), which cites tablets that are still unpublished.38 But, taken together, these volumes cover less than 15% of the documentation. As work progresses on the prosopography of the unpublished texts, it is expected that more questions regarding the administration of the servile population, the process of writing the tablet corpus, and, most importantly, the chronology of the source documentation, will be able to be answered. One possible finding may be that the sources will tend to cluster toward the beginning and end of the period during which the servile roster corpus was composed (e.g., during the reign of Nazi- Maruttaš or the reigns of Šagarakti-Šuriaš/Kaštiliašu IV).39 If one could place more of the sources in chronological order, or at least in the reigns of individual rulers, it should become more feasible to track changes in the composition and viability of the servile population over time. Another potentially fruitful topic for study is the allocation of sus- tenance within the ration rosters: how much food (or drink) was issued per individual depending on his or her age, occupation, and status. There is enough material here to calculate the amount of the basic daily food ration issued per individual, and an estimate could be made of its nutritional value. There are as yet insufficient data on oil and wool rations allotted to servile laborers. We end with a comment on demography and ancient Mesopotamian society. Our study of the Middle Babylonian servile laborer has uti- lized quantitative data to analyze the population, but we have limited the discussion to descriptive statistics rather than true demographic measures.40 Until one finds a cache of texts similar in coverage to those available for the Middle Babylonian servile laborer, but with the age for the listed people given in years41 and preferably at least two

38 Brinkman, in a review of Hölscher’s Die Personennamen in AfO 50 (2003–04): 396–400 discusses in some detail what type of entries in Clay’s Personal Names (1912) have not been superseded by Hölscher’s publication. 39 Such a double chronological clustering exists for a distinctive type of flour-issue text (published examples: BE 14 73, MUN 271–273, PBS 2/2 118), with more than fifty examples with long personnel lists dating either in the second decade of the reign of Nazi-Maruttaš or in the time of Šagarakti-Šuriaš. According to presently available evidence, the personnel in these lists do not appear to be linked with the servile work force. 40 With the exception of sex ratios, which have been cited here with the necessary cautions about their limitations. 41 This is extremely unlikely, given the wide range of texts from all periods available to date and the paucity of data about year ages. The Mesopotamians hardly ever 146 chapter six chronologically articulated, discrete personnel data sets within the material, a true and reliable demographic study of any Mesopotamian population (using measures such as crude birth rate, general fertility rate, and infant-mortality rate, and tools of estimating population dynamics such as model-life tables) cannot be attempted.

recorded age in years for human beings and probably would not have even known the age of almost anyone older than a child. What could be hoped for, reasonably, is that we gain a better appreciation of what the sex-age categories may have actually represented in ranges of age-years. APPENDIX ONE

SELECTED HOUSEHOLDS FROM MIDDLE BABYLONIAN SOURCES.1

Introduction

This appendix includes descriptions of one hundred and seven of the best preserved households attested in the research corpus. Twenty- four households were too poorly preserved to be included, but all 131 households were used to compile the data featured in Chapter 4.2 For the sake of presenting a clear argument, the precise details of each household (except for a few remarkable instances) were compiled in this appendix rather than included in the chapter. The methodology for locating a household in Middle Babylonian administrative and legal texts was explained in detail in chapter four, but it is worth briefly restating the criteria again (without the footnotes used in the corresponding chapter). In the Kassite texts that make up our corpus, a household appears as a sublist of individuals, linked together by their blood or marital relationships, found within a larger list of individuals recording the names and sometimes age and status of servile workers or slaves. Each household has a head, who is the principal person with whom the household is identified. In most cases this is usually the father or husband,3 but it can be the mother if the father is dead or even the eldest son/brother. Households are characterized by the logograms that follow the name of each household member (other than the head). These logograms state a person’s relationship to his/her household head (e.g., DAM.A.NI=“his wife”). An example (BE 14 58:5–10 p-q, Household 1) illustrates the basic format: GURUŠ Dayyānī-Šamaš SAL Tambi-Dadu DAM.A.NI (“his wife”)

1 A household, for the purpose of this study, is defined on pages 71–75. 2 Pages 65–92. 3 The husband, i.e., the primary male even if not marked as a father because there are no children in the family. 148 appendix one

SAL.TUR Dalīlūša DUMU.SAL.A.NI (“his daughter”) GURUŠ.TUR Arad-Nuska DUMU.A.NI (“his son”) GURUŠ.TUR.TUR Nuska-kīna-usuṛ DUMU.A.NI (“his son”) DUMU.GABA Gab-Martaš DUMU.A.NI (“his son”) In this example, the name of the head (Dayyānī-Šamaš) is given first, followed by the names of the other family members (Tambi-Dadu, Dalīlūša, Arad-Nuska, Nuska-kīna-usur,̣ Gab-Martaš). A household may include the head’s spouses and children, mother, siblings, brother’s wives and children, and kallatus (É.GI4.A), i.e., unrelated females brought into the household upon the agreement that they will wed one of the males in the household. Members typically appear in the following order (if the head is male): (1) Head; (2) Wife of the head; (3) Mother of the head (if alive and a widow); (4) Children of the head, along with their wives and children and any kallatus that are betrothed to the head, his sons, or his grandsons;4 (5) Siblings of the head along with their spouses, children, grandchildren, and kallatus. Female-headed households follow the same rules, but in a manner that reflects their particular situation: the first person listed is the female head, followed by her children (eldest son first), siblings, nephews, and nieces. The majority (66.4%) of the households featured in the appendix appear on eleven simple rosters,5 and six of these rosters are of one particular type.6 Every household included in this appendix is designated by a number, e.g., Household 3. The description begins with the text

4 Kallatus are usually the last to be listed; and, in most cases, it is impossible to do more than guess at which member of the family they will wed. There is only one potential grandfather acting as household head (unlikely). See this appendix, Household 39. 5 The following eleven tablets list more than two households: BE 14 58 (6 households); CBS 3472 (8 households), 7092+ (11 households), and 7752 (6 households); Ni. 1066+1069 (13 households), 2793 (6 households), 5989 (4 households), 6444 (3 households), and 11149 (8 households); UM 29-15-292 (3 households) and 29-15- 298 (3 households). 6 The primary feature of these texts are elaborate qualitative summaries that give the total number of members that fall into each of the sex-age and physical-condition categories (e.g., GURUŠ, pirsatu, ka-mu, ZÁḪ ). selected households 149 reference(s) and date(s) for the household followed by a list of the known household members by name (column 1), relationship as expressed in the text (column 2), sex (column 3),7 sex-age designation (column 4), other information, such as the person’s patronymic or physical status (column 5), and concludes with a diagram of the household and a discussion (if necessary).8 There is no standard method for diagramming households in academic publications, but most generally follow the scheme proposed by Peter Laslett in 1972.9 Males are indicated with triangles, females with circles, persons of unknown gender are indicated with a diamond, and the head of household with solid fill. Married and/or sexual partners are connected by vertical and horizontal lines below the symbols for the individual members of the partnership. Brothers and sisters are connected by vertical and horizontal lines above the symbols for the siblings. Uncertain relationships are indicated with dotted lines. This appendix uses the same methodology with the following additions and modifications: 1. Abbreviations for sex-age designations, arranged in order of sex and age: male ŠG ŠU.GI old G GURUŠ adult GT GURUŠ.TUR adolescent GTT GURUŠ.TUR.TUR child P pirsu weaned DG DUMU.GABA nursing female SŠG (SAL.)ŠU.GI old S SAL adult ST SAL.TUR adolescent STT SAL.TUR.TUR child

7 M=Male, F=Female, Ø=sex not given, [ ] = sex not preserved, and [Ø] = uncertain whether sex-age designation was ever present. 8 Any difficulties or challenges in reconstructing the household are described prior to the household diagram. 9 “Introduction: The History of the Family,” Chapter 1 in Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972): 41–42. 150 appendix one

PT pirsatu weaned DSG DUMU.SAL.GABA nursing Other notations Ø sex-age designation is lacking [ ] sex-age designation present originally, but now missing. [(Ø)] uncertain whether sex-age designation was ever present. 2. To reduce clutter, conjugal family units are not enclosed by a sinuous, closed line. 3. If an individual is the suspected head of household, or his/her headship is based on a reconstruction, that head of household has a diagonal fill instead of solid black fill. 4. Households are outlined with dotted lines instead of the solid lines used by Laslett. Patronymics are not included in these outlines, but deceased individuals are included if they are listed as household members in the text. 5. All individuals given an entry in a household listing are depicted in the diagram. Deceased members whose names are mentioned are included in the household box. Patronymics and individuals presumed dead (but not listed) are not included. Therefore (dead) spouses of widows or widowers—unlike Laslett who leaves the place of dead spouses blank—may appear on the diagram. 6. Laslett’s system was based on European households which lack the institution of the kallatu. Since kallatus are dependents of the household but lack marital10 or blood ties to other members of the household, kallatus are—for the purposes of the diagram and statistical analysis—treated as servants, lodgers, or non- related dependents according to Laslett’s scheme, i.e., included in the diagram, but not connected to the conjugal family. They also do not affect the household type (from simple-family household to multiple-family household) until they are labeled as a wife (DAM).

10 Although they are to wed someone in the household at a future date. selected households 151

The general principle followed in the arrangement of the elements of the household diagrams (circles, triangles, lines) is the determina- tion that pronouns in family relationships (e.g., A.NI) refer back to the head of household unless there is a compelling reason to believe otherwise. One common exception occurs when a conjugal family unit of a son or sibling of the household head interrupts the pronoun sequence, because the pronouns for the members of the son or sibling’s conjugal family unit will refer back to the son or sibling, not the head (Households 69 and 68, respectively). There are two other common problems that complicate the interpretation of a household listing. Where entries are not well preserved, it is sometimes difficult to determine the exact relationship of some members of a household to one another. This is particularly frustrat- ing when the damaged section once contained the beginning of the household listing and the name of the household head.11 It can also be a challenge to distinguish the signs NIN (“sister”) and DAM (“wife”) from each other in the documents, especially when the text is damaged or carelessly written; and so there are a few cases where one cannot be sure if an adult woman is the wife or sister of the household head.12 Context can favor one reading over another, but this is not always the case. Because there are other ambiguous entries that can be interpreted in more than one way, care was taken to discuss each exceptional circumstance before the corresponding household diagram. For the compilation of statistics used in chapter four, persons marked as “deceased” members of a household are still counted as full members in the diagrams (since the recording scribe was still counting them as well).

Households

Household 1 (NM I-XII–Ø–y 13 (=1295 B.C.) ) BE 14 58:5–10 (CBS 3323) Head: Dayyānī-Šamaš M G Porter (atû). Tambi-Dadu DAM.A.NI F S

11 For examples, see Appendix 1, Households 102, 104, and 105. 12 See pages 75–76 and footnote 50 (same pages). Some examples of the confusion this generates can be found in Appendix 1, Households 39, 54, and 70. 152 appendix one

Dalīlūša DUMU.SAL.A.NI F ST Teaseler (kunšillu). Arad-Nuska DUMU.A.NI M GT Traveling since Tašrītu. Nuska-kīna-usuṛ DUMU.A.NI M GTT Gab-Martaš DUMU.A.NI M DG

Household 2 (NM I-XII–Ø–y 13 (=1295 B.C.) ) BE 14 58:12–17 (CBS 3323) Head: Ištar-bēlī-usrị̄ F S Ibašši-uznī-ana-ili DUMU.A.NI M GT Traveling for the entire year. Duqqin-ilu DUMU.A.NI M GTT Builder (bānû). Basundu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F ST Teaseler (kunšillu). Ḫulālatu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG Ina-pī-Marduk-dīnu DUMU.A.NI M DG

Household 3 (NM I-XII–Ø–y 13 (=1295 B.C.) and afterwards) BE 14 58:18–21 (CBS 3323) UM 29-15-760:1’-4’ Head: Bēlta-balāta-īriṣ̌ F S Not preserved in UM 29-15-760. Lultamar-Nuska DUMU.A.NI M GTT Weaver (išparu). Rabi-Nergal DUMU.A.NI M GTT Not included in BE 14 58 (earlier text). selected households 153

Rabâ-ša-Išḫara DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG Eventually head of own household.13 Dīn(i)-ili-lūmur DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG This household is attested in two separate texts of the same format. In the later text (UM 29-15-760), the entry for Bēlta-balāta-īriṣ̌ has been destroyed (indicated by a diagonal circle with dotted outline in the diagram) and there is an entry for the child Rabi-Nergal, who is not included in the earlier text (BE 14 58). The diagrams below depict the household as recorded in both texts.

BE 14 58 UM 29-15-760

Diagram used for statistical study

Household 4 (NM I-XII–Ø–y 13 (=1295 B.C.) and afterwards) BE 14 58:23–25 (CBS 3323) UM 29-15-760: 6’-8’ Head: Ina-Akkade-rabât F S Innammar DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG Amat-Nuska DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG Deceased.

Household 5 (NM I-XII–Ø–y 13 (=1295 B.C.) ) BE 14 58:34–38 (CBS 3323) Head: Apuški M G Teaseler (kunšillu). Ūsīyạ DAM.ANI F S

13 Qinni Rabâ-ša-Išḫara in BE 14 91a:14 and CT 51 19:5. 154 appendix one

Talziya-enni14 DUMU.A.NI M GT Ūrī DUMU.SAL.A.NI F ST Adad-nādā DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG Teaseler (kunšillu).

Household 6 (NM I-XII–Ø–y 13(=1295 B.C.) and [NM] VII–27[(+)]–y 15(=1293 B.C.) ) BE 14 58:39–42 (CBS 3323) Ni. 6775 rev. 4’-6’ Head: Tukultī-Adad M G Brewer (sirāšû). Bāltī-Adad DAM.A.NI F S Bittinnatu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F Ø Escaped (ZÁḪ ). Ētirtụ DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG/STT Bāriḫtu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG Bāriḫtu is born sometime between NM XII- Ø -13 and NM VII- 27–15. The following diagram reflects the family at its larger known size.

14 Personal name spelled mTal-zi-ia-ni here, in BE 14 58:36 and in BE 14 57:31, but written m⌈Tal⌉-zi-ia-en-ni in BE 14 91a:19. See Hölscher, Personennamen (1996): 216. selected households 155

Household 7 (ŠŠ III–Ø–acc. year) BE 14 126:1–6 (CBS 6078) Head: Adad-bāni M Ø Son of Adad-šumu-līšir. Šalittu AMA.A.NI F Ø Daughter of Kidin-Ulmaš, perhaps wife of Adad- šumu-līšir. Mannu-ibbak-dīnšu ŠEŠ.A.NI M G mārat Karzi-Ban É.GI4.A F Ø

patronymic

kallatu

Household 8 (ŠŠ VI– [(Ø)] –y[ ]) ) BE 14 142 rev. i 7–8 (CBS 3477) Head: Mu-iš?-x-[x]-ti-x M Ø Deceased, second name is Rabâ-ša?- x-ia. Tarībtu DAM.A.NI F S Šimdi-Šuqamu[na] DUMU.A.NI] M G Mandīdat[u] [DUMU.SAL.A.NI] F S Usbi-Enlil DUM[U.A.NI] M DG Rīš-Nergal ŠE[Š.A.NI] M G

deceased 156 appendix one

Household 9 (ŠŠ VI– [(Ø)] –y[ ]) BE 14 142 rev. ii’ 5–15 (CBS 3477) Head: [Š]igi-Bugaš M [ ] […]-ú-ni-tum DAM.A.NI F [ ] [Ki]ribti-Marduk DUMU.A.NI M [ ] [Bur]ra-mašḫu DUMU.A.NI M [ ] [Ḫ ]anbu DUMU.A.NI M [ ] [B]ūnānu DUMU.A.NI M [ ] [Ēm]id-ana-Marduk DUMU.A.NI M [ ] […]-⌈x⌉-ši-ri-bu DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Šimdi-Šuqamuna DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Binnānu DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Šagarakti ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ]

Household 10 (no date preserved) BE 15 185 ii’ 12’-13’ (CBS 3440) Head: Ina-Isin-šarrat F S Baltī-Nergal DUMU.SAL.A.NI F S This is an atypical text for two reasons. First, most individuals listed in the text are females. Second, this is the only family relationship preserved in the text. Therefore, it is unclear whether these entries represent a complete household. selected households 157

Household 11 (No date preserved) CBS 3465 obv. i’ 16’–17’ Head: [A]gab-šenni M Ø Sasinnu. Upâq-ana-dīnīša DAM.A.NI F

Household 12 (no date preserved) CBS 3472 i 2’-6’ Head: […]-⌈x⌉-bāltī F [ ] Daughter of Amīlīya. Sîn-abūša DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ] Ulūlītu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ] Kissilīmītu KI.MIN F [ ] Kidin-Šuqamuna DUMU.A.NI M G? Sex-age designation partially preserved.

patronymic

Household 13 (no date preserved) CBS 3472 i’ 9’-17’ Head: Šaqât-ina-Akkade F [ ] Bēlta-nādā DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [S] Mīnâ-ēgu-ana-ili KI.MIN M G Igāršu-ēmid KI.MIN M GT Ilīma-a⌈bī⌉ KI.MIN M GT Iqīša-Marduk KI.MIN M GT 158 appendix one

Taklāku-ana- KI.MIN M DG Šuqamuna Iddin-Adad KI.MIN M DG Rabât-bēlet-Akkade KI.MIN F DSG Only the ends of the sex-age designations for the seven younger children of Šaqât-ina-Akkade are preserved. Also “her daughter” (KI.MIN repeating the DUMU.SAL.A.NI for Bēlta-nādā) is used to express the family relationships of all the children even though several are clearly male.

Household 14 (no date preserved) CBS 3472 ii’ 6’–10’ Head: Usātūša F Ø Escaped (ZÁḪ ), daughter of Iddin- Nabû. Perhaps sister of head of Household 18. Mannu-balu-ilīšu DUMU.A.NI M GT Asûšu-namiṛ DUMU.A.NI M DG Kidin-Šuqamuna KI.MIN M DG

patronymic selected households 159

Household 15 (no date preserved) CBS 3472 rev. i’ 4’–9’ Head: Ilassunu F S Daughter of Ikkaru.15 Unnubtu DUMU.SAL⌈.A.NI⌉ F ST Kidin-dNIN.X [DU]MU.A.N[I] M DG Aḫa-lū[mur?] [DUMU.A.NI] M DG […]-x-[…] [DUMU.SAL.A.NI] F ST Akītu-rīšat ⌈KI.MIN⌉ F DSG

patronymic

Household 16 (no date preserved) CBS 3472 rev. i’ 20’–23’ Head: Ina-Uruk- F S Daughter of Pirrīya. šarrūssa May be the mother of the head of Household 17. Bēlessunu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F ST Taklāku-ana- [DUMU.A.NI]16 M GT dNIN.⌈X⌉

15 The patronym, Ikkaru, can also be an occupation name (plowman). See J. A. Brinkman, “The Use of Occupation Names as Patronyms in the Kassite Period: A Forerunner of Neo-Babylonian Ancestral Names?,” in If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty, eds. Ann K. Guinan et al. Cuneiform Monographs 31 (Leiden: Brill, 2006): 27. 16 Relationship inferred because individual families are ruled off separately in the format of this document. 160 appendix one

patronymic

Household 17 (no date preserved) CBS 3472 rev. ii’ 7’–9’ Head: Šumma- F S Daughter of Ina-Uruk- ⌈x-x⌉-ia šarrūssa, perhaps the same person as the head of Household 16. Ilti-aḫḫēša ⌈DUMU.SAL.A.NI⌉ F S

matronymic

Household 18 (no date preserved) CBS 3472 rev. ii’ 11’–12’ Head: Rabû-x-x-ša F S Daughter of Iddin-Nabû. Perhaps sister of head of Household 14. Burruqu DUMU.A.NI M DG selected households 161

patronymic

Household 19 (no date preserved) CBS 3472 rev. ii’ 16’–19’ Head: Ilti-aḫḫēša F S Ulūlītu [DUMU.SAL].A.NI F S Irišša-(ina-)pān-māti DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [D]⌈SG⌉ Bāltī-Nergal KI.MIN F [DS]⌈G⌉

An argument could be made that Ulūlītu is the sister (the family relationship would be restored as [NIN]⌈.A⌉.NI) rather than the daughter of Ilti-aḫḫēša, especially with the use of KI.MIN in line 19’ only. However, Household 14 (and perhaps 15) also uses KI.MIN to express the familial relationship for only the final member.

Household 20 (no date preserved) CBS 3484A ii’ 10’–11’ Head: Ātamar-rabûssu M G Adad-nādā ⌈NIN?⌉.A.NI F ST 162 appendix one

Household 21 (no date preserved) CBS 3484A rev. ii’ 8’–10’ Head: […]-x-x-Nergal [ ] [ ] Rabâ-ša-Bēltīya DUMU.A.NI M [G]T? Mannu-kī-Bēltīya KI.MIN M GT

Household 22 (no date preserved) CBS 3484A rev. ii’ 14’–16’ Head: Kidin-Ninurta M G A-pa-a-x DAM.A.NI F ⌈S?⌉ […] ša la x x DUMU.A.NI M [ ]

Household 23 (no date preserved) CBS 3650 rev. i’ 4’–8’ Head: […]-x-x-Šamaš M [ ] […]-x-nu? ⌈DAM?.A.NI F [ ] […]-ra-bi ⌈DUMU⌉.A.NI M [ ] Traces favor a son (DUMU), therefore male. selected households 163

Name left blank DUMU.A.NI M DG Name left blank DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG

Household 24 (no date preserved) CBS 3650 rev. i’ 9’–17’(+) Head: Dayyantu F S Daughter of Ina-x-[…]. Mayūtu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F S Iddin-Enlil ŠEŠ.A.NI M Ø Yāʾūgu AMA Iddin-Enlil F S Bunna-Ninurta ŠEŠ.A.NI M Ø Iltappit(t)a ŠEŠ.A.NI M Ø Rabâyūtu NIN[…] F Ø Bēltu-asât DUMU.SAL F S Rabâyū[tu] mārat Rabâyūtu F DSG

patronymic 164 appendix one

Household 25 (no date preserved) CBS 3667:1–5 Head: Kidinnītu F Ø Daughter of the Brewer (LUNGA).17 Tarâš-ina-Eanna DUMU.SAL.A.NI F Ø ⌈x-x-x⌉-šimânni DUMU.SAL.A.NI F Ø […]-bēla-usuṛ DUMU.A.NI M Ø […]-ú-a DUMU.A.NI M Ø

patronymic

Household 26 (no date preserved) CBS 3695:1’–5’ Head: Tarībtu F [(Ø)] Sister of head of Household 27. […] [DUMU.SAL.A.NI]18 F Ø Adallalu ⌈ DUMU.A⌉[.NI] M Ø Apparrītu ⌈DUMU.SAL⌉.A.NI F Ø Households 26 and 27 are clearly related (the heads are sisters), but are marked as separate entities with subtotals in lines 5’ (PAP 4 qin-ni fTa- rib-ti) and 9’(PAP 3 qin-ni fAḫ-la-mi-ti).

17 See Brinkman, “The Use of Occupation Names as Patronyms” (2006): 30 for additional attestations of this occupation name as a patronym. 18 Relationship inferred from the document format and the family total in line 5’. selected households 165

Household 27 (no date preserved) CBS 3695:6’–9’ Head: Aḫlamītu F Ø Sister (NIN.A.NI) of head of Household 26. Rīš-Ulūlu DUMU.A.NI M Ø Kidin-Gula DUMU.A.NI M Ø

See the comments written for Household 26.

Household 28 (No date preserved, but text mentions Šagarakti-Šuriaš year 8) CBS 7092+ i’ 4’–7’ Head: Izkur-Adad M [ ] Tarībti-Gula DAM-su F [ ] Ina-nipḫīša-alsīši DUMU<.SAL>-šá F [ ] Tarībatu DUMU-šá M [ ] The expected familial relationship for Ina-nipḫīša-iqbīši would be DUMU.SAL-sa.

Household 29 (No date preserved, but text mentions Šagarakti-Šuriaš year 8) CBS 7092+ i’ 8’–12’ Head: Bēlīyūtu M [ ] Kudurrānitu DAM-su F [ ] 166 appendix one

Baltānitu MIN F [ ] […]⌈x-x⌉-iqīša DUMU-šú M [ ] ⌈Adad-aḫa⌉-ē/īriš DUMU-šú M [ ] The sons in this household are likely the children ofBālt anītụ (the second wife) since they are postpositioned to her, but some (or all) of them could be the offspring of the first wife. The former reconstruction was used for statistical analysis and in the diagram below. There are faint traces of what could be another son listed in line 13’, but this cannot be confirmed on the tablet. The text breaks off after this line (13’), and more family members may have been listed in the unpreserved section.

Household 30 (No date preserved, but text mentions Šagarakti-Šuriaš year 8) CBS 7092+ rev. ii’ 15’–23’ Head: Ḫamasṣ irụ M G Balātitụ DAM-su F ⌈S⌉ Ileʾʾi-bullutạ DUMU-šá M ⌈G⌉ Kurgarrû. Eanna-līdiš MIN M G Lā-nibāš-Nergal MIN M GT Ina-Isin-rabât DUMU.SAL-sa F ST Baba-šarrat MIN F ⌈S⌉ Nergal-abūša MIN F ST Bēltu-rīšat É.GI.A! F ST Second name is Yâtu. A note was later inserted between lines 23’ and 24’ in a smaller and shallower script stating that she had selected households 167

become the wife (DAM) of Eanna-lidīš. The presence of the feminine possessive suffix (ša) in the expressions of familial relationship (DUMU-šá, DUMU.SAL-sa ) indicates that the children in this household are the result of a union between Balātitụ and someone other than the head of this household, Ḫamasṣ irụ . Therefore, Balātitụ was probably a widow or divorcée at the time of her marriage to Ḫamasṣ irụ .

kallatu

Household 31 (No date preserved, but text mentions Šagarakti-Šuriaš year 8) CBS 7092+ rev. ii’ 26’–32’ Head: Šumuḫ-Nergal M G (Ina-)Šamê-bēlet ⌈DAM/NIN⌉.A.NI F S DAM is the most likely reading, and this value is adopted for the diagram. f ⌈x-x-ša⌉-ra-bi DUMU.SAL-⌈sa⌉ F S Adad-⌈iddin?⌉ DUMU-šá M P

U4.7.KAM-bāʾilat MIN F ST Ninurta-āpil-idīya DUMU-šá M P f⌈x x x⌉-Gula DUMU.SAL-s[a] F PT Line 33’ contains a nursing female who more than likely belongs to this household, but since the familial relationship is not preserved on the tablet, it has not been included in the diagram and statistical analysis. 168 appendix one

Household 32 (No date preserved, but text mentions Šagarakti-Šuriaš year 8) CBS 7092+ rev. iii’ 2’–3’ Head:[…] M [ ] Weaver. […] ⌈DAM⌉.A.NI F [ ]

Household 33 (No date preserved, but text mentions Šagarakti-Šuriaš year 8) CBS 7092+ rev. iii’ 7’–10’ Head: […]⌈x⌉-Gula F [ ] […]-⌈x⌉ DUMU-ša M [ ] […] MIN M [ ] Arad ekalli. […]-x MIN M [ ] MIN (arad ekalli).

Household 34 (No date preserved, but text mentions Šagarakti-Šuriaš year 8) CBS 7092+ rev. iii’ 17’–20’ selected households 169

Head: Šamaš- M [ ] Has two personal names, kīna-usuṛ and the first one is not preserved. […r]i?-šat DAM-su F [ ] […]-šumu-līšir DUMU-šú M [ ] […]-ri-tum DUMU.SAL-su F [ ]

Household 35 (No date preserved, but text mentions Šagarakti-Šuriaš year 8) CBS 7092+ rev. iii’ 3’’’–6’’’ Head: […]-⌈šub⌉ši M [ ] […]⌈x⌉ ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ] […]-x-ē/īriš ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ] [Rī]mūtu NIN.A.NI F [ ]

Household 36 (No date preserved, but text mentions Šagarakti-Šuriaš year 8) CBS 7092+ rev. iii’ 10’’’–12’’’ Head:[…]⌈x x x x⌉ F [ ] Wife of Rabâ-ša-Gula. [Rab]â-ša-Ninurta DUMU-šá M [ ] [f]⌈x x x⌉-tum DUMU.SAL-sa F [ ] 170 appendix one

Household 37 (No date preserved, but text mentions Šagarakti-Šuriaš year 8) CBS 7092+ rev. iii’ 13’’’–14’’’ Head: […]Ur-Adad F [ ] Daughter of Rīmūtu. Adad-šar-māti DUMU-šá M [ ]

patronymic

Household 38 (No date preserved, but text mentions Šagarakti-Šuriaš year 8) CBS 7092+ rev. iii’ 16’’’–17’’’ Head: Baḫūtu F [ ] Daughter of Nannaya. fEN-⌈x-x⌉-tum DUMU.SAL-sa F [ ]

patronymic

Household 39 (no date preserved) CBS 7752 rev. i’ 3’–7’ Head: Bunna-Ninsar M Ø ⌈mār⌉ Elamî DUMU.⌈A⌉.[NI] M Ø Apparrītu DAM.A.NI F Ø Spouse of ⌈mār⌉ Elamî. Tārītu DUMU.A.NI M Ø Rīš-Nergal DUMU.A.NI M Ø selected households 171

Because it is difficult to determine if the sign following Apparrītu in line 5’ is DAM (more likely) or NIN, it is possible that Apparrītu is the sister of Bunna-Ninsar rather than his daughter-in-law. However, the following reconstruction reflects what seems to be standard practice in these texts: that a wife is listed immediately after her husband. If she were Bunna-Ninsar’s sister, then she would appear either before or after all of his sons. The fact that she is listed two places after Bunna- Ninsar makes it unlikely that she is Bunna-Ninsar’s wife. There is also some uncertainty as to whether Tarītu and Rīš-Nergal are the sons of Bunna-Ninsar or mār Elamî, so both options are presented below. The established rule, i.e., that the pronoun (A.NI) almost always refers back to the household head, favors the reconstruction found on the left (below). Note the possible double patronym in lines 3’-4’.

Diagram used for statistical study

Household 40 (no date preserved) CBS 7752 rev. i’ 8’–11’ Head: Tarībti-Gula F Ø Nergal-(x)-usur/nāṣ iṛ DUMU.A.NI M Ø Kidinnû DUMU.A.NI M Ø […]-⌈x⌉ DUMU.A.NI M Ø 172 appendix one

Household 41 (no date preserved) CBS 7752 rev. ii’ 1–7 Head: Imgugu M Ø Son of X-[…]. Bēltūa AMA.A.NI F Ø Tarībat-Adad DUMU.A.NI M Ø […]x-ni-ia DUMU.A.NI M Ø Šīma-ilat DUMU.SAL.A.NI F Ø

[…]⌈x⌉-ur/lik-Baba E.GI4.A F Ø Kallatu. Adad-šumu-līšir DUMU.A.NI M DG Son of […]⌈x⌉-ur/ lik-Baba. It is unclear whether Adad-šumu-līšir is the child of the kallatu, […]⌈x⌉-ur/lik-Baba, or Imgugu, or both. Since his entry follows that of […]⌈x⌉-ur/lik-Baba, interpretation slightly favors the former. The father of the child could be Imgugu, one of Imgugu’s sons, or someone else not listed as a member of the household. The three entries immediately following this household on the text (CBS 7752 rev. ii’ 8–10) list two female slaves and one male slave. This raises the possibility that they were servants of the household of Imgugu, although it is impossible to determine at present whether this was the case.

patronymi c

kallatu

Household 42 (no date preserved) CBS 7752 rev. ii’12–15 Head: Gubbuḫu M Ø Son of Kalūmu. Simānītu DAM.A.NI F Ø Tarībatu DUMU.A.NI M GT […] DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ] selected households 173

There may be another member of the household listed in rev. ii’ 16, but the traces are inconclusive.

patronymic

Household 43 (no date preserved) CBS 7752 rev. ii’ 18–23 Head: Bēlšunu M Ø Father is given as mKI.MIN, which might be a reference to the preceding qinnu head, Nāḫirānu, or to Nāḫirānu’s father (name mostly destroyed). Banītu DAM.A.NI F Ø Adad-šubši DUMU.A.NI M Ø Erība-Adad DUMU.A.NI M Ø Kidinnītu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F Ø Unnamed DUMU.SAL.A.NI F Ø MU NU.TUK written in place of name.

patronymic 174 appendix one

Household 44 (no date preserved) CBS 7752 rev. ii’ 25–28 Head: ⌈Iš⌉tar-rāʾim⌈di⌉-x-x(-x-x) F Ø […]-x-ŠEŠ DUMU.A.NI M Ø […]-Adad DUMU.A.NI M Ø This household may have included more children, but only traces of signs remain after […]-x-ŠEŠ in line 29, and any lines once written after line 29 are completely lost.

Household 45 (no date preserved, but text does mention month VII) CBS 8558:3’–5’ Head: Lā-qīpu M [ ] Inib-Kubi DAM.NI F S Šamaš-tukultī DUMU.NI M GT Šarrat-ālīša DUMU.NI F STT Note the abbreviated NI instead of the customary A.NI, and the use of DUMU instead of the expected DUMU.SAL for the daughter Šarrat- ālīša.

Household 46 (date not given) CBS 11505:1–6 Head: Sîn-nādin-aḫi M Ø Rabû-tuklūša DAM.A.NI F ⌈S⌉ selected households 175

Ninurta-ašarēd [DUMU].A.NI M GT Sîn-mušallim [DUMU].A.NI M GTT Šī-banât [DU]MU.SAL.A.NI F ST Sîn-bāltī ⌈DUMU⌉.SAL.A.N[I] F [S]T

Household 47 (date not given) CBS 11505:8–13 Head: Sîn-apil-Ekur M [ ] Biyātu DAM.A.NI F [ ] Yâtu NIN.A.NI F [ ] Akbaru DUMU.A.NI M GT Ētir-Marduḳ DUMU.A.NI M GTT Sîn-nāsiṛ DUMU.A.NI M DG As was the case with Household 39, it is difficult to determine if Yâtu is the sister or second wife of Sîn-apil-Ekur because the sign immediately following her name in line 10 could be NIN or DAM. The signs expressing relationship in lines 9 and 10 are slightly different in appearance; DAM is reasonably certain in line 9, and so I suggest reading the sign in line 10 as NIN. Therefore Yâtu could be the sister of Sîn-apil-Ekur or Biyātu, but it is impossible to be certain one way or the other.

or 176 appendix one

Household 48 (no date preserved) CBS 11937 i’ 2’–9’ Head: […]-⌈x⌉-nādin-zēri M [(Ø)] […]-⌈x⌉-Amurru DAM.A.NI F [(Ø)] […] DUMU.A.NI M [(Ø)] […]-⌈x⌉ DUMU.A.NI M [(Ø)] […]-Gula DUMU.A.NI M [(Ø)] […]-(x)-x-ú-a DUMU.A.NI M [(Ø)] […]-Marduk ŠEŠ.A.NI M [(Ø)] At the time the text was written, he was in Dēr. […]-⌈x⌉-kidinnī ŠEŠ.A.NI M [(Ø)]

Household 49 (no date preserved) CBS 11937 i’ 11’–19’ Head: [Ir]išša-ina-pān-māti F [(Ø)] Principal(?) wife of Ḫānibu (deceased ?) Sîn-aḫa-īriš DUMU.A.NI M [(Ø)] [( )]x-in-bu-x NIN.A.NI F [(Ø)]

[…]-DINGIR-ša-⌈x⌉ E.GI4.A F [(Ø)] Kallatu. Sîn-mālik-ilī ⌈DUMU.A.NI⌉ M [(Ø)] fŠa-ba-di-tum DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [(Ø)]

[…]-rēmanni E.GI4.A F [(Ø)] Kallatu. […r]⌈abi⌉ DUMU.A.NI M [(Ø)] […] F [(Ø)] Secondary(?) wife of Ḫānibu (deceased ?). selected households 177

There are several possible ways to interpret the passage for this household, and diagrams of the two most likely possibilities are given below. The main difference between the two is based on whetherSîn-mālik-ilī , fša-ba-di-tum, and […r]⌈abi⌉ are the children of the head of household or of the kallatu preceding them in the household listing. Because of the many possible interpretations (extended-family household or multiple-family household?), this household was not included among the statistics for household type (Table 15).

deceased ? kallatu

kallatu

deceased ? kallatu kallatu

Household 50 (no date preserved) CBS 11969 i’ 7’–11’ Head: [Š]īma-ina-āli F [Ø] Daughter of Arad- Šamaš. ⌈fUD⌉-ma?-ḫi-⌈ḫa⌉ DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG […]-ri-ša-tum NIN.A.NI F [Ø] Mīšarītu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG It is more likely that Mīšarītu is the daughter of […]-ri-ša-tum because she is listed immediately after her on the tablet. 178 appendix one

patronymi c

Household 51 (no date preserved) CBS 13455 ii’ 6–18’ Head: Nūr-Bēlti-Akkade M G Tarībtu DUMU.A.NI M GT Šamuḫ-Nergal DUMU.A.NI M GT Rabâ-ša-Nergal DUMU.A.NI M GT Nergal-muštāl MIN M DG Dipārša-namrat DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG Akkade-rabât DAM.A.NI F S Ilti-aḫḫēša DUMU.SAL.A.NI F S Irišša-ina-pān-māti DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG […](x) x x tu tum MIN F [ ] […]-⌈x-šar⌉-rat DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ] […]-⌈x-ni⌉-tum KI.MIN F [ ] […] MIN F [ ] There is a break in the text immediately following line 18’, which leads to the possibility that more family members may have been listed on the original tablet. The placement of the wife of the head of household in seventh, rather than second, position leads one to consider the possibility that Akkade-rabât (shortened from Ina-Akkade- rabât) was the biological mother of the final six children preserved on the text, and that the five children of Nūr-Bēlti-Akkade preceding her on the household list were born to a different mother, now deceased. selected households 179

Diagram used for statistical study

Household 52 (no date preserved) Ni. 177 rev. ii’ 6’–8’ Head: Adad-ibni M G Escaped and returned. Ališpi DAM-su F ⌈S?⌉ Daughter of mx-x. Adad-šar-ḫegalli DUMU-šú M [D]G?

patronymic

escaped and returned

Household 53 (no date preserved) Ni. 890:6’–8’ Head: Rabâ-ša-Gula M G 180 appendix one

Narubtu [DAM.A.NI] F S Banītu ⌈DUMU.SAL.A⌉[.NI] F DSG It is possible that the two deceased people preceding Rabâ-ša-Gula on the text were the head and his spouse and that Rabâ-ša-Gula and Narubtu are siblings rather than husband and wife. The reconstruction and diagram given here is based on three observations. The eponym of the qinnu to which these three belong (line 9’: qin-ni mGAL-⌈x-x-x⌉[…]) could not have been one of the individuals listed in lines 4’–5’ in the group;19 and of those people listed, the only possible candidate based on spelling is Rabâ-ša-Gula. The qualitative summary of line 9’ also states that the qinnu contained one adult male, one adult female, and one nursing female (although the dead members may have been tallied at the end of the line, now destroyed). Finally, the sex-age categories of the individuals listed in 6’–8’ follow the typical order for a household listing: adult male (household head), followed by adult female (wife), followed by child(ren). If this reconstruction is incorrect, it would not affect the statistics given throughout chapter four because both people listed in 4’–5’ are dead.

Household 54 (no date preserved) Ni. 1066+1069 i’ 10’–15’ Head: Nippurû M [ ] […]-⌈x⌉-tum DAM?-su F [ ] Principal wife of Nippurû. […]-e-ri-šat DAM?-su F [ ] Secondary wife of Nippurû. […]-⌈šu?⌉ DUMU-šú M [ ] Husband of […]-⌈e?-x?-x?⌉. […]-⌈e?-x?-x?⌉ DAM?-su F [ ] Wife of […]-⌈šu?⌉. […]-⌈x⌉ DUMU-šú M [ ] Because of the difficulty in telling the signs NIN and DAM apart in these texts, the family relationships of […]-e-ri-šat and […]-⌈e?-x?-x?⌉ are not certain. The diagram and analysis here are an interpretation based on context and the standard order in which household members are listed in tablets from this corpus.

19 mḪa-an-⌈x⌉-[…] and f⌈Ta-rib-t⌉[um], respectively. selected households 181

Household 55 (no date preserved) Ni. 1066+1069 i’ 16’–20’ (unread) Head: […]-⌈x⌉-TI M [ ] Deceased. [mā]rat Kaššî DAM?-su F [ ] […]-šu DUMU-šú M [ ] […]-⌈nu?⌉ DUMU-šú M [ ]

deceased

Household 56 (no date preserved) Ni. 1066+1069 i’ 21’–22’ Head: […]-⌈bu?⌉ M [ ] […] ⌈DAM⌉-su F [ ] Daughter of Sîn-mušabši.

patronymic 182 appendix one

Household 57 (no date preserved) Ni. 1066+1069 ii’ 14’–19’ Head: Kidin-Adad M G Aqartu DAM?-su F Ø Deceased. fḪa-na-⌈x⌉-x DUMU.SAL-su F S Daughter of Kidin- Adad and his first wife. Ka-ši-x(-x) DAM?-su F S Daughter of Erību. Previously married? Banâ-ša-Adad? DUMU-šú M P Son of Kidin-Adad and his second wife Ka-ši-x(-x). Ur-Adad? DUMU.SAL-sa F DSG Daughter of second wife Ka-ši-x(-x). Ur-Adad is the last listed member of the household, and she is said to be the daughter of Ka-ši-x(-x) (lit. “her daughter (DUMU.SAL-sa)”) rather than the daughter of Kidin-Adad (in this case it would read “his daughter (DUMU.SAL-su)”) as would be expected. This is either scribal error or indicates that Ka-ši-x(-x) has a daughter from a relationship outside of her union with Kidin-Adad. She may have been previously married or had an illegitimate daughter. Also note that Ur-Adad belongs to a younger age category than her brother Banâ-ša- Adad, i.e., she may have been born after her mother married Kidin- Adad. The second diagram is far more likely.

patronymic patronymic decease d deceased or

Household 58 (no date preserved) Ni. 1066+1069 rev. i’ 10’–13’ Head: Na-x-x F S […] M Ø Husband of household head and probably selected households 183

deceased. See next paragraph. Qīšat-dX DUMU-šá M DG Šalittu DUMU.SAL-sa F ST Bēlet-sinnišāti MIN F PT This reconstruction is based on reading rev. i’ 10’ as “SAL fNa-x-x DAM m[…],” i.e., the name of her husband was written in the damaged space after the masculine personal name determinative.

deceased

Household 59 (no date preserved) Ni. 1066+1069 rev. ii’ 1’–11’ Head: […] Uncertain [ ] [ ] […] [ ] [ ] Widow/head of household/child of someone listed in the preceding section (now lost)? […]-⌈x⌉-tum DUMU.SAL-sa F [ ] Daughter of […] (first conjugal family unit preserved). [Iz]kur-Nergal MIN F [ ] Daughter of […] (first conjugal family unit preserved). Ḫarrānša-balātụ MIN F [ ] Daughter of […] (first conjugal family unit preserved). 184 appendix one

Deyyāndi-ina-Uruk NIN.A.NI F [ ] Widow? Children listed below. Rabâ-ša-Gula DUMU-šá M [ ] Son of Deyyāndi- ina-Uruk. Tukultī-Ninurta DUMU-šá M [ ] Deceased, Son of Deyyāndi-ina- Uruk. Kunzubtu NIN.A.NI F S Widow? Children listed below. Ninurta-āpil-idīya DUMU-šá M GT Son of Kunzubtu. Riḫêtūša MIN M GT Son of Kunzubtu. Šunuḫtu DUMU.SAL-sa F PT Daughter of Kunzubtu The beginning section of the tablet in which the members are listed is destroyed, and it is impossible to determine the head of household, among other things. The head could have been the mother (name destroyed) of […]-⌈x⌉-tum, Izkur-Nergal, and Ḫarrānša-balātụ or some other individual (male or female) who at one time was listed in the missing section or in line 1’; therefore the information we have on this household is incomplete. The diagram below depicts a - por tion of the original household and does not mark the head of household.

deceased

Household 60 (no date preserved) Ni. 1066+1069 rev. ii’ 12’–16’ Head: Baba-šarrat F S Tukultī-Ninurta ⌈DUMU⌉-šá M Ø Deceased. ⌈Bēlet⌉-aḫḫēša MIN (sic!) F Ø Deceased. Ulūlītu MIN (sic!) F Ø Deceased. Dipārītu ⌈DUMU⌉.SAL-sa F PT selected households 185

deceased

Household 61 (no date preserved) Ni. 1066+1069 rev. ii’ 17’–20’ Head: Ana-sillīšu-ēmiḍ M Ø Deceased. Rabât-eli-ilī DAM-su F S Izkur-Ninurta DUMU-šá M Ø Escaped (ZÁḪ ). Rabâ-ša-⌈x-x-x-x⌉-ra DUMU-šá M G Ana-sillīšu-ēmiḍ is depicted as the head of household (dark, filled triangle) in the diagram even though he is dead, because he remains listed as the head on the tablet (as the first entry). Note also that the children are described as “her(s),” probably because her husband is dead rather than because they were from a previous marriage.

deceased

escaped

Household 62 (no date preserved) Ni. 1066+1069 rev. ii’ 24’–27’ Head: Bēletu F S Second name is Ippayītu. Ninurta-āpil-idīya DUMU-šá M P Aḫa-iddina-Marduk DUMU-šá M Ø Deceased. fBil-lu-⌈x⌉-tum DUMU.SAL-sa F Ø Deceased. 186 appendix one

deceased

Household 63 (no date preserved) Ni. 1066+1069 rev. ii’ 31’–35’ Head: Ina-Apsû-rabi M G Šunuḫtu DAM-su F S Ea-mušabši DUMU-šá M P Rabâ-ša-D[N] (Šamaš?) [DUMU-x] M P Family relationship reconstructed. ⌈x?⌉-pa-ni?-⌈x⌉-[…] [DUMU-x] F PT Family relationship reconstructed. The pronoun forEa-mušabši suggests that perhaps at least one of these children had a father other than Ina-Apsû-rabi.

Household 64 (no date preserved) Ni. 1066+1069 rev. iii’ 13’–18’ Head: […]-Gula F [ ] […] DUMU-šá M [ ] [(DN-)] ⌈a⌉-bi-en-ši DUMU-šá M [ ] […]-idīya DUMU-šá M [ ] […]-šarrat DUMU.SAL-sa F [ ] […]-tum? MIN F? [ ] selected households 187

Household 65 (no date preserved) Ni. 1066+1069 rev. iii’ 19’–23’ Head: […]-x-la F [ ] […]-⌈x⌉ DUMU-šá M [ ] […]-⌈x⌉ MIN M [ ] […]-⌈x⌉ MIN M [ ] […]-⌈x⌉ DUMU.SAL-sa F [ ] […]-la ⌈DU⌉[MU…] [ ] [ ] Family relationship restored.

Household 66 (no date preserved) Ni. 1066+1069 rev. iii’ 25’–31’ Head: […]-x-TI.LA F [ ] […]-⌈ši?⌉ DUMU-šá M [ ] […]-⌈x-x⌉-rīšat DUMU.SAL-sa F [ ] […]-⌈x⌉ MIN F [ ] […]-tum MIN F [ ] […]-⌈x⌉ MIN F [ ] […]-ni-tum MIN F [ ] 188 appendix one

Household 67 (Burna-Buriaš IV–28–y 18 (=1342 B.C.) ) Ni. 1574: 1–9 Head: Šumman-lā-Ninurta M G Designated as a slave (ardu). Amīl-Adad ŠEŠ.A.NI M G Erību ⌈ŠEŠ.A.NI⌉ M G Kidin-Ninurta ⌈ŠEŠ⌉.A⌈.NI⌉ M DG Ḫannānu ŠEŠ.A.N[I] M DG fPi-ši-ir-⌈du?⌉ ⌈AMA⌉.A.⌈NI⌉ F S Rabi-dīnša ⌈NIN⌉.A.NI F S Possibly sister, rather than wife, of Šumman-la-Ninurta.

Ina-šamē-rabiʾat É.GI4.A.NI F S Kallatu. Ni. 1574 is a legal text concerning the sale of eight slaves. Because of the difficulty in telling the signs NIN and DAM apart in these texts, the relationship of Rabi-dīnša (spouse or sister) to Šumman-lā-Ninurta and the other members of the family is unclear. Because she is listed after the brothers and mother of the head of household, rather than immediately after him as is the standard practice, I have decided to list her as a sibling.

kallatu selected households 189

Household 68 (no date preserved) Ni. 2793 iii’ 8’–17’ Head: Kaštilen-Saḫ M G Tarbâtuša DAM.A.NI F [ ] fx-x-x-x-x DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ] mx-x-pi-ša-tum DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Ilīya ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ] His wife and son (names not preserved) are also members of the household. […] DAM.A.NI F [ ] Wife of Ilīya and mother of a son (name of son not preserved). […] DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Son of Ilīya and his wife (name not preserved). […]-⌈x⌉ ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ] […] ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ] x x x ⌈NIN?⌉.A.NI F [ ]

Household 69 (no date preserved) Ni. 2793 iii’ 21’–27’ Head: Gubbuḫu M Ø Deceased. Namir-Sagil DAM.A.NI F S Ka-tar-⌈ta-ri-Saḫ⌉ DUMU.A.NI M G Tukukūtu ⌈DAM.⌉A.NI F S 190 appendix one

Ḫunābu DUMU.A.NI M GT Taqīšu DUMU.A.NI M GT […] […].A.NI [ ] [ ] Gubbuḫu is listed in first position as head of household despite being dead. This is one of seven instances (the others are Households 8, 55, 61, 73, 76, and 86) of a deceased male head remaining on the rolls with his own entry. Normally the female is listed first with mention of her husband in the same entry (PN1 DAM PN2) or the husband is not listed at all.

deceased

Household 70 (no date preserved) Ni. 2793 iv’ 7’–31’ Head: Uncertain, perhaps Turi-Rattaš Turi-Rattaš […] M G Rīšatu DAM⌈.A⌉[.NI] F S Šallī-lūmur DUMU.SAL.⌈A.⌉.NI F PT Kilamdu ŠEŠ.A.NI M Ø Deceased. Pakkutu NIN.A.NI F S Kidin-Šuqamuna DUMU.A.NI M G Son of Pakkutu. Bīštu DAM.A.NI F S Wife of Kidin- Šuqamuna. Nibi-Šipak DUMU.A.NI M P Son of Kidin- Šuqamuna and Bištu. Uribi ŠEŠ.A.NI M G Meli-mašḫu ŠEŠ.A.NI M Ø Deceased. Bāltīya ⌈NIN?⌉.A.NI F S Sibbar-ula DUMU.A.NI M G Son of Baltīya. Uppultī-līšir DUMU.A.NI M GT Son of Baltīya. mBa?-ak-ta?-ri?-⌈x⌉ DUMU.A.NI M GT Son of Baltīya. E-x-tum DUMU.A.NI M P Son of Baltīya. selected households 191

⌈x-x-x⌉-Šipak(?) ŠEŠ.A.NI M Ø Deceased. Narubtu DAM?.A.NI F Ø Deceased. Wife of ⌈x-x-x⌉-Šipak. mSi-la-⌈x⌉-Buriaš DUMU.A.NI M G Son of ⌈x-x-x⌉- Šipak and Narubtu. Dannat-šerressa NIN?.A.NI F S f⌈x-x⌉-tum DUMU.SAL.A.NI F PT Daughter of Dannat-šerressa. Šagarakti-Šipak ŠEŠ.A.NI M G ⌈x⌉-te/li-x-ku-bu ŠEŠ.A.NI M G ⌈x-x⌉-ši-GAD-ru-uk ŠEŠ.A.NI M G […]-⌈x⌉-Gula NIN.A.NI F [ ] X x (x) ⌈DUMU?.A.NI⌉ M [ ] Son of ⌈x-x⌉-ši- GAD-ru-uk and […]-⌈x⌉- Gula. The beginning of this list of household members is damaged. Turi- Rattaš is the first, definite, adult male member of the household; and he has consequently been designated in this reconstruction as head of household. It is possible that he was a sibling of the actual head, but the condition of the tablet makes this impossible to determine. As seen in many of these household listings, whether one chooses to read a sign as NIN or DAM affects the reconstruction of the household. I have strong reservations against reading the signs in lines 11’ and 16’ as NIN (as given on the available transliteration) and would prefer to read them as DAM. The main reasons for my hesitation are that 1) in household listings featuring a large number of brothers, the typical pattern is that of brother/brother’s wife/brother’s children, 2) adult brothers of the household head are typically listed ahead of adult sisters of the household head,20 and 3) one would expect that in a patrilineal and patrilocal society that married women with children would remain in the household of their husband upon the husband’s death.21 For these reasons, two different reconstructions are offered below. The first follows the readings given in the list above where NIN.A.NI is given in lines 11’ and 17,’ the second reads those lines with DAM.A.NI.

20 See Households 24 and 67. 21 If one assumes a stable society. 192 appendix one

deceased deceased deceased

Household 71 (no date preserved) Ni. 2793 rev. iii 8’–15’(+?) Head: Arduni M G Apparrītu ⌈DAM?.A.NI⌉ F S Kidin-Gula DUMU.A.NI M GT Kudurrānu DUMU.A.NI M DG Rabât-Gula ⌈DUMU?.SAL?.A.NI⌉ F S Dipārītu DUMU.⌈SAL.A.NI⌉ F ST Erību ŠEŠ.⌈A.NI⌉ M G Wife not listed. Dipārītu ⌈DUMU(sic).A⌉.NI F Ø Deceased. The text following line 15’ is not clear, and it has not been determined whether the household ends at this point.

deceased selected households 193

Household 72 (no date preserved) Ni. 2793 rev. iv’ 4’–19’ Head: not preserved [ ] [ ] Spouse: not preserved [ ] [ ] […]-⌈x⌉-Enlil ⌈DUMU.A.NI⌉ M [ ] This person is the first preserved member of the household. He is likely to be a son or nephew of the head. […]-⌈x⌉-Adad ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ] Kidinēʾa ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ] Pāliḫ-Adad ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ] […] DAM.A.NI F [ ] First wife of Pāliḫ- Adad. […]-tum? DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Son of Pāliḫ-Adad and his first wife (name not preserved). […] DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Son of Pāliḫ-Adad and his first wife (name not preserved). [Ittīša]-aḫbut DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ] Daughter of Pāliḫ- Adad and his first wife (name not preserved). […-i]na-Ekur DAM.A.NI F [ ] Second wife of Pāliḫ-Adad. […]⌈x⌉ DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Son of Pāliḫ-Adad and his second wife ([…-i]na-Ekur). […]⌈x⌉ DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Son of Pāliḫ-Adad and his second wife ([…-i]na-Ekur). The beginning and ending portions of the tablet that list the members of this household are damaged. At least six members of the group are missing: the head (the broken section at the beginning) and five individuals of unknown sex and age (the broken section at the end). 194 appendix one

members of uncertain relationship:

Household 73 (no date preserved) Ni. 2793 rev. iv 3”–6” Head: ⌈mŠu?-ri⌉-[…] M Ø Deceased. Banītu DAM.A[.NI] F S Tarību DUMU.A.[NI] M G Amīlīya DUMU.⌈A⌉[.NI] M G

deceased

Household 74 (no date preserved) Ni. 5989 obv.?i’ 3’–4’ Head: [Ina]-Esagil-rīšat F [ ] […]-in DUMU-šá M [ ]

Household 75 (no date preserved) Ni. 5989 rev.? ii’ 1’–2’ Head: […]-⌈x-x-x⌉ M [ ] Tarbâtūša DAM.A.NI F ⌈S?⌉ selected households 195

Household 76 (no date preserved) Ni. 5989 rev.? ii’ 5’–9’ Head: Šamaš-uballissu M Ø Deceased. fGAŠAN?-⌈x-x(-x)⌉-KUR DAM-su F S Šamaš-muštēšir DUMU-šú M GT Aḫa-iddina-Marduk MIN M P Aba-lā-idi MIN M DG As indicated by his name, this child was born after his father died.22

deceased

Household 77 (no date preserved) Ni. 5989 rev.? ii’ 10’–15’ Head: Šamaš-bēl-ilīšu M G Son of Ētegi-ana-ili (patronymic). Ina-Egalmaḫ-šarrat DAM-su F Ø Deceased. Šamaš-tišmar DUMU-šú M Ø Deceased. Rīš-pīšu-ina-Ekur ⌈ŠEŠ-šú⌉ M G Dayyānī-Šamaš ⌈ŠEŠ-šú⌉ M Ø Escaped (ZÁḪ ). Ninurta-nīšu ŠEŠ-šú M G

22 Or perhaps his mother did not know who the father was. 196 appendix one

patronymic

deceased

escaped

Household 78 (no date preserved) Ni. 6192:2’?-8’ Head: None preserved, nor is any spouse. […]-⌈x⌉-zi-il-lum ⌈DUMU.SAL.A.NI⌉ F [ ] […]-⌈ta?-ni?⌉ DUMU⌈.SAL.A.NI⌉ F [ ] […]-⌈x⌉-bani DUMU⌈.SAL.A.NI⌉ F [ ] […]-⌈x⌉-yāʾūtu DUMU⌈.SAL.A.⌉NI F [ ] Šī-bāʾilat DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [DS]G Ina-Nippur-šarrat DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [D]SG Ni. 6192 is a damaged legal text concerning the sale of twenty-five slaves (aštapīru). The list of slaves written at the beginning of the tablet is damaged, but it probably included at least one household and the list for the household members could have begun in 2’, 1’, or earlier. Only (some of?) the female children are preserved, and one can assume that the household head was once included on the list (because of the relationship references to him/her: DUMU.SAL.A.NI). There is no way of knowing if the text records an entire household, or just the head and his/her daughters, i.e., sons are at least presumed not to be part of the sale. The diagram below reflects the preserved sections of the text (head of household has diagonal fill). selected households 197

Household 79 (no date preserved) Ni. 6208 rev.? ii’ 1’–4’ Head: […] M [ ] Labeled a Kassite (kaššû). […]-šu [DA]M.A.NI F [ ] Family relationship partially restored. […]-⌈x⌉ DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ]

Household 80 (no date preserved) Ni. 6208 rev.? ii’ 5’–7’ Head: Te-⌈x⌉-[…]-⌈x⌉-di-Šugab M Ø Labeled a Kassite (kaššû). fMi-ši-GAD-ru-uk DAM.A.NI F Ø Tambi-Dadu DUMU.A.NI M DG

Household 81 (no date preserved) Ni. 6444 rev. i’ 7’–8’ Head: mārat Manzât-ummī. F Ø Escaped. Akītu DUMU.SAL-sa F Ø Escaped.

escaped 198 appendix one

Household 82 (no date preserved) Ni. 6444 rev. i’ 9’–11’ Head: Ilti-aḫḫēša F S Slave (andu = GÉME). Adad-lītāni DUMU-šá M P Sîn-šem-me-i MIN M DG

Household 83 (no date preserved) Ni. 6444 rev. i’ 12’–13’ Head: Bēltani F S Slave (andu). fKa-ši-ti-x DUMU.SAL-sa F PT

Household 84 (no date preserved) Ni. 6718 ii’ 2’–5’ Head: […] M [ ] Entry not preserved. Labiʾtu (Labiḫtu) ⌈DAM?.A.NI⌉ F S Rīmūt-Gula ⌈DUMU.A.NI⌉ M GT Tarība-Gula DUMU.A.NI M DG Deceased.

deceased selected households 199

Household 85 (no date preserved) Ni. 6718 ii’ 10’–14’ Head: […]-⌈x⌉-Amurru M [ ] Son of Iqīša-Amurru. […]-x-ge-e-a DAM.A.NI F [ ] […]-Adad ⌈DUMU.A.NI⌉ M [ ] […] ⌈DUMU.SAL.A.NI⌉ F [ ] […]-x DUMU.A.NI M [ ]

patronymic

Household 86 (no date preserved) Ni. 6816 rev. ii’ 6’–8’ Head: Kilamdu M Ø Deceased. Rīšatu DAM.A.NI F S Tarību DUMU.A.NI M G

deceased

Household 87 (no date preserved) Ni. 6816 rev. ii’ 13’–16’ Head: Nazi-Šipak M G Son of Pussulu. Šaqītu-rīšat DAM?.A.NI F S Gula-šumu-līšir DUMU.A.NI M P Sebûtu(?)-līšir DUMU.A.NI F ST 200 appendix one

patronymic

Household 88 (no date preserved) Ni. 11149 i 13’–15’ Head: f⌈Bu?-un?-na?-a?⌉ […] ⌈x⌉[…] F S Nūr-Bēlti-Akkade DUMU.A.NI M G Ana-Sîn-ēgu KI.MIN M G

Household 89 (no date preserved) Ni. 11149 i 16’–18’ Head: Bāriḫtu F S Taqīša-Gula DUMU.A.NI M DG ⌈Ke⌉š-ālūša DUMU.SAL.A.NI M DG The final household entry (line 18’) is inconsistent in gender marking. Keš-ālūša (“Kesh is her city”) is given a masculine personal name determinative (m) and sex-age designation (mār irti), but is said to be the daughter (mārassa) of the head of household. There is no problem with a pronoun of feminine gender occuring in a masculine personal name since the reference is to the deity, not the human being being named. The evidence slightly weighs in favor of a male, and the writing of the SAL may have been a a mistake by the scribe. If this decision is erroneous it will have virtually no statistical impact. selected households 201

Household 90 (no date preserved) Ni. 11149 ii 7’–10’ Head: Dayyanti-ina-Uruk F S Nūr-Adad DUMU.A.NI M GT La-ra-⌈x⌉-tum DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG Li-ta-⌈x-x⌉ DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG

Household 91 (no date preserved) Ni. 11149 ii 13’–14’ Head: NIN.⌈TU?⌉[…] F S Daughter of Banâ-ša- Šamaš. mKAR[…]-Marduk DUMU.A.NI M DG There may have been a third member of the household, a female, in line 15’.

patronymic 202 appendix one

Household 92 (no date preserved) Ni. 11149 ii 19’–21’ Head: f[…]-ablut ̣ F S Daughter of Nūr-d⌈x⌉[…]. Qīšat?-Kūbi DUMU.A.NI M GT Usāt-Marduk [DUMU].A.NI M DG

patronymic

Household 93 (no date preserved) Ni. 11149 ii 24’–26’ Head: Ina-UNUG.KI-LUGAL-sà! F S Personal name probably Ina-Uruk- šarrūssa. Me-e-ši-ri-bu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F S Nazi-Ḫarbe DUMU.A.NI M DG

Household 94 (no date preserved) Ni. 11149 rev. ii’ 2’–7’ Head: Kidin-Adad M G Son of Ninurta-ašarēd, the brother of Ina- Ekur-zēru. Ammar-ša-ili ⌈DUMU.A.NI⌉ M G Bunna-Gula KI.MIN M GT Irēmanni-Adad KI.MIN M DG Bābilāyitu DAM F S selected households 203

The husband of Bābilāyitu is uncertain as she is listed last in the household and her familial designation lacks a pronominal suffix. In the diagram she is listed as the wife of Kidin-Adad because of the presence of young children in the family, but she could be the wife of Ammar-ša-ili.

patronymic

Household 95 (no date preserved) Ni. 11149 rev. iii’ 14’–18’ Head: Kūbi-nadi F S Daughter of Ulūlītu. Mē-Saḫ DUMU.SAL.A.NI F S Mannu-lēʾūša KI.MIN F ⌈DSG⌉ […]⌈mi⌉ KI.MIN F [ ] […] [KI].MIN F [ ]

patronymic

Household 96 (no date preserved) Ni. 11197 rev.? ii’ 7’–11’ Head: Šigû-Gula M G Mannu-šāninša ⌈DAM-su⌉ F S Adad-zēra-⌈šubši⌉ DUMU-šú M GT Kudurrānu ⌈DUMU-šú⌉ M DG 204 appendix one

Mīnâ-ēgi-ana-Marduk DUMU.SAL-sa F PT Labelled as “her daughter,” i.e., her father is not Šigû-Gula.

Household 97 (no date preserved) Ni. 11732 rev. ii 5’–6’ Head: Kaššītu F Ø Būnānu DUMU.A.NI M Ø

Household 98 (no date preserved) Ni. 11732 rev. ii 8’–11’ Head: Kudurrānu M Ø Bulālitu ⌈DAM.A.NI⌉ F Ø Eanna-bēlet ⌈DUMU.SAL⌉.A.NI F [ ] [K]uzba-ulluḫat MIN F [ ] selected households 205

Household 99 (no date preserved) Ni. 11817 rev. 6–10 Head: Ṭāb-sillị̄ M [ ] ⌈Ur⌉-Nergal DAM-su F [ ] […]x-x-di-ilī DUMU-šú M [ ] Adad-kīna-usuṛ DUMU-šú M [ ] Lame (ḫuzzû) Rabû-Sebettu DUMU-šú M [ ]

Household 100 (no date preserved) Ni. 11817 rev. 11–14+ Head: Ina-Esagil-kabtat F [ ] Sister?/Wife? of Nūr-d[X] (presumably deceased). Sîn-aḫa-īriš DUMU-šá M [ ] Sîn-īriš DUMU-šá M [ ] Lame (ḫuzzû). Arad-Kūbi DUMU-šá M [ ]

Household 101 (no date preserved) UM 29-15-292 i’ 5’–16’ Head: […]-⌈x-x⌉-tum M [ ] Pirriʾtu DAM.A.NI F S Ši⌈rik⌉tu DUMU.A.NI M G ⌈Sillị ?⌉-Šuqamuna DUMU.A.NI M G Šamḫūtu DUMU.A.NI M G Terīmšūtu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F PT 206 appendix one fAl-zu-tum DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ] […]-⌈x⌉-Šuqamuna ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ] His wife and children are members of the household (names and details below). […]-⌈x⌉ DAM.A.NI F [ ] Wife of […]-⌈x⌉- Šuqamuna. […]-⌈x⌉-iš DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Eldest known son of […]-⌈x⌉- Šuqamuna. […] DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Second eldest known son of […]-⌈x⌉-Šuqamuna. […]-⌈x⌉ DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Youngest known son of […]-⌈x⌉-Šuqamuna. The entries following that of the last listed member of the household ([…]-⌈x⌉, the youngest nephew of the head of the household) are destroyed, which leaves the possibility that […]-⌈x⌉-Šuqamuna and […]-⌈x⌉ had more than three children.

Household 102 (no date preserved) UM 29-15-292 rev. i’ 6’–12’(+) Head: Šuqamuna-īriš M G Widower. f⌈x-ta-x⌉ DAM[.A.NI] F Ø Deceased. Nergal-di⌈pār-ilī⌉ ⌈DUMU.A⌉[.NI] M G Qīšat-Gula DU[MU.A.NI] M GT Šad-Šugab DUMU.A.N[I] M P Bēl-bāni DUMU.SAL.A[.NI] F S selected households 207

Erība-Nergal ŠE[Š.A.NI] M G See below for details on his possible family. It is possible that the five entries following rev. i’ 12’ contain the names of the wife and four of the children of Erība -Nergal. The ends of these lines (where familial relationship is written) have not survived, but the fact that these five entries follow the standard arrangment for listing family members (i.e., adult male followed by adult female then children according to age and sex) suggests that they were all part of the same husband-wife pair. The dotted lines in the household diagram below indicate this reconstruction. It is also slightly possible that the entry for Šuqamuna-īriš is followed by a Š[EŠ.A.NI] which would make him not the head of household, but rather the brother of an earlier mentioned household head.

deceased

Household 103 (no date preserved) UM 29-15-292 rev. ii’ 4’–12’ Head: [Guza]rzar? M [ ] […]-⌈x-x⌉-e-a DAM.A.NI F [ ] […]-Šuqamuna DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Wife is ⌈X-x-x-(x)⌉- tum (see below). ⌈x-x-x-(x)⌉-tum DAM.A.NI F [ ] Husband is […]-Šuqamuna. ⌈x-x-x-x-x-x-(x-x)⌉ DUMU.A.NI M [ ] ⌈Ni?-bi-ia-x-x-x⌉ DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Kaštilen-Saḫ ⌈DUMU.A.NI⌉ M [ ] Širiktu ⌈DUMU.A.NI⌉ M [ ] Unnubtu DAM ⌈Guzar⌉zar F [ ] It is possible that the four last males here were sons of the immediately preceding couple. 208 appendix one

Household 104 (no date preserved) UM 29-15-298 obv. ii’ (+)9’–20’ [Household is damaged and unreconstructable in its initial lines, see comments below] Adad-šarru ⌈Š⌉[EŠ.A.NI] M G Rabûssa-āmur ⌈DAM.A⌉[.NI] F S Adad-šumu-līšir DUMU.A.[NI] M G ⌈mḪu⌉-lu-ú DUMU⌈.A.NI⌉ M G Usāt-ili-maʾdā DUMU.A⌈.NI⌉ M GT Tukultu ŠEŠ.A.NI M Ø Deceased, husband of Aḫāssunu and father of Erība-Nergal. Aḫāssunu DAM.A.NI F S Widow of Tukultu and mother of Erība-Nergal. Erība-Nergal DUMU.A.NI M G Son of Tukultu and Aḫassunu. Ina-tappî-kabtat23 DAM.A.NI F S Napšira-Adad [ŠEŠ.A].NI M G Dalīlu ŠEŠ.A.NI M G Nūr-Adad ŠEŠ.A.NI M G This household cannot be reliably reconstructed in full because some of its entries do not have the familial relationship preserved at the end of the line. This includes the head of household, who is likely to be the adult male written in the entry of line 2’ or line 7’. The most likely reconstruction of the end of line 9’ is ⌈Š⌉[EŠ.A.NI], i.e., brother, which suggests that the household does not begin with Adad-šarru, but

23 The suggestion to read this personal name as Ina-Upî-kabtat (RGTC 5 (1982): 272) is not tenable. The tablet clearly has -tap-pí- here for the middle element (collation). selected households 209 rather he is the brother of the original head of household. Because of this uncertainty, any household members who appear on the text in lines preceding 9’ (including the head of household) are not included in the diagram. Moreover, the entries of lines 16’-18’ are shown with dotted lines to indicate that the relationships are uncertain or reconstructed. It seems better to provide a partial and likely portrait of the family rather than a larger unsubstantiated view.

deceased

suspected head of household

interpretation likely, but not certain

Household 105 (no date preserved) UM 29-15-298 rev. i 2’–8’ Head: none preserved Spouse: none preserved ⌈Marduk?-tiš⌉mar ⌈DUMU.A.NI⌉ M [ ] Katta-Ḫarbe ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ] Inbu-eššu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ] Latarak-šemi ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ] Lūsi-ana-nūr-Adaḍ ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ] Husband of Namirtu. Namirtu ⌈DAM⌉.A.NI F [ ] Wife of Lūsi-ana-̣ nūr-Adad. Adad-nāsiṛ ⌈ŠEŠ.A.NI⌉ M [ ] The beginning of this passage is destroyed, and it is impossible to determine if the parents of these children were the head of household and his spouse or the offspring of the brother of the head of household. Therefore they are either the children of the head of household or his nephews and niece. 210 appendix one

Household 106 (no date preserved) UM 29-15-298 rev. i 11’–13’ Head: Izkur-Šuqamuna M [ ] fI-ni-ip-ḫu-tum24 DAM.A.NI F Ø Kidinēʾa ŠEŠ.A.[NI] M [ ]

Household 107 (no date preserved) UM 29-15-373 rev. ii’ 15’–17’ Head: Šuqamuna-īriš M [ ] […]-x-(x) ⌈DAM-su⌉ F [ ] Daughter of Bēl-īriš. […]-⌈x⌉ DUMU.A.NI M [ ]

patronymic

24 A hypocoristic for a name like Ina-niphīša-? The same name may appear in Ni. 6078 rev. iii’ 4,’ but there written with double -n-. APPENDIX TWO

SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF SELECT MOBILE WORK GROUPS

Introduction

Appendix Two is a table presenting the raw data used to compile the table presented in Chapter Five, page 96, on select mobile groups originally appearing on Ration Allocation Summaries for Groups in a Single Location, Including a Numerical Personnel Census.1 Although thirty- eight summaries of this type are known, the data from just twenty-four were available for statistical study; and they contain the information on between 628 and 703 total mobile work groups. Groups are identified by supervisor,2 and the table provides the date, reference, and composition of each group. Supervisors/groups are listed in alphabetical order, and those identified by patronym only (mār PN) are alphabetized according to patronym. In order to maintain the statistical accuracy and to ensure that the comparisons used are parallel, a significant number of the original number of groups were omitted from the table. These groups were omitted for one of three reasons: 1) unpreserved entries in any of the personnel census cells, 2) very damaged and uncertain entries in any of the personnel census cells, (i.e., “plus” numbers),3 and 3) texts with fully preserved

1 These texts are described in detail in Chapter 2 (pages 27–31). 2 See page 29, note 68. 3 This is despite the fact that at least a minumum number of members is preserved for all age categories. The eleven groups removed for this reason are summarized in the following table: Male Male Male Female Supervisor Name Citation Adult Adol. Child Adult Others Ana-Ninurta-taklāku UM 29-13-816:12 ⌈1+⌉ 1 1 1 mār Sissi UM 29-13-816:13 ⌈1+⌉ 1 1 mār Sippūša MUN 86:15’ 2 ⌈2+⌉ Nūr-Šubula UM 29-13-816:14 ⌈1+⌉ 2 2 (Continued) 212 appendix two entries which omit some sex-age categories.4 After making these subtractions, 286 total mobile work groups from BE 15 180, CBS 3474, MUN 86, 88, 93, 105, 108, 110, PBS 2/2 9 and 132, and UM 29-13-382 were available for statistical study. Groups that appear more than once, but at different dates (sometimes with a change in composition) are included in the table as if they are separate groups because it better serves the purpose of the research, which is to illuminate the typical size and composition of these groups. It is the best way to present the broadest picture of the population through the entire time span of the corpus. Some of the readings of personal names in this appendix may be revised as other census lists are brought in for comparison and as prosopographical studies continue to advance. Anyone consulting the later part of PBS 2/2 132 ii will find that the line numbers used from approximately line 74 on in this appendix and by Hölscher, Personennamen (1996), will be one lower than those appearing in the cuneiform copy published by Clay (because the numbering of the lines in the right margin of the publication—“75,” “80”, etc.—are too high).

(Cont.) Male Male Male Female Supervisor Name Citation Adult Adol. Child Adult Others Qīšat-Sukkal MUN 105:15 4 1 2 ⌈4+⌉ Sāmu MUN 105:9 5 1 4 ⌈3+⌉ […] CBS 3474 ii 6’ 1 1 3 ⌈4+⌉ […] CBS 3474 ii 12’ 2 2 ⌈3+⌉ […] CBS 3474 ii 13’ 1 ⌈3+⌉ […] CBS 3474 ii 14’ 1 1 2 ⌈1+⌉ […] PBS 2/2 132:125 3 1 1–2 3 2

4 BE 14 22 (only adult males and others), MUN 91 (number of subcolumns not comparable), and MUN 111(only adult males). mobile work groups 213 ) 4 3 9 4 2 1 9 3 1 6 9 3 3 0 1 Total Total People ( Continued 1 3 1 4 1 3 4 2 2 Others 2 1 3 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 Female Female Adult 5 1 Male Male Child 1 1 1 Male Male Adol. 1 1 3 1 2 Male Male Adult 1 2 PBS 2/2 132:8 PBS BE 15 180:45 BE PBS 2/2 132:77 PBS BE 15 180:8 BE PBS 2/2 132:26 PBS PBS 2/2 132:21 PBS BE 15 180:2 BE CBS 3474 i 8’ BE 15 180:11 BE PBS 2/2 132:53 PBS BE 15 180:49 BE Citation UM 29-13-382: 3’ UM ii 20 MUN 93 rev. 2/2 132:97 PBS MUN 93 i 13 II; ; ŠŠ= Šagarakti-Šuriaš y=year. Sex-age equivalencies are: Male Adult = GURUŠ; Male Adol. ⌉ ⌉ ? ? ] ?? Kurigalzu Kurigalzu Size and Composition of Select Mobile Work Groups Work and Composition Mobile Size Select of [Krg [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] Date [Krg] ] ⌉ -[…] -[…] - ⌈ bāni -[…] -[…] -[…] ( m ) u-illika ̮ Al-gi-zi-zi Am-ni-ri Am-ni-ri A-mu A-mu [ nni Agab-še Adad-zākir Akkul-enni Allu Ambiya Adad-īriš Adad Ah Ana Supervisor Name m m m m m Aku Abbreviations Abbreviations include: Krg =

5 4. 3. 6. 9. 2. 1. 5. 7. 8. (“Adolescents” to (“Adolescents” save space)=GURUŠ.TUR.GAL; Male Child= groups. age other of GURUŠ.TUR.TUR workers , i.e., collected the rubric tenēštu under are in this category Others= People or GURUŠ.TUR (MUN 88 only); Female Adult=SAL; 10. 11. 13. 12. 14. 15. 214 appendix two ? 2 3 4 3 2 8 5 1 5 1 4 3 1 24 10 11 29 14 153 Total Total People 1 4 1 5 4 2 2 4 2 2 14 50 10 Others 1 1 5 2 2 1 3 3 2 4 1 2 1 1 55 10 Female Female Adult 1 1 Male Male Child 8 2 2 1 2 Male Male Adol. 1 11 ? 7 1 1 1 3 1 7 2 6 1 1 1 3 1 1 29 Male Male Adult BE 15 180:6 BE BE 15 180:41 BE PBS 2/2 132:95 PBS MUN 110:6 PBS 2/2 132:39 PBS CBS 3474 i 11’ PBS 2/2 132:68 PBS CBS 3474 rev. ii’ 19’ ii’ CBS 3474 rev. PBS 2/2 132:69 PBS Citation PBS 2/2 132: 135 PBS UM 29-13-382 rev. 9’ 29-13-382 rev. UM MUN 93 ii 12 PBS 2/2 132:7 PBS MUN 88 i 11 MUN 93 i 7 PBS 2/2 132:66 PBS MUN 93 i 4 i 26 MUN 93 rev. PBS 2/2 132:90 PBS ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ? ? ? ? ] ?? [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] ŠŠ, y ⌈ 12 ⌉ [Krg [Krg] [Krg] y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] Date [Krg] [Krg] Krg, y 14 Krg, [Krg] [Krg] y ⌈ 18 Krg, ̣ i ⌉ -[…]-x ? 6 ] ] a ̮ ] - ka ? [ ma [ u ] ⌉ - at-r ? [ šku - ⌈ ik ] l-Adad -[DN] - ⌈ si A-ri-ku-ša A-ri-pu Ar -x Ar-da-am Arad-Gula Arad-Enlil [ nlil Arad-E Apil Ana-nūr-Sîn-lūs [ Api Arip-šarri Arip-Šurih Ariyam Arimmu Supervisor Name m m m m Arad Arikkama Arad-Šamaš Arad-Šamaš Arda Marked as a Lullubian. as Marked escapee. returned as a maleis listed adult This

6 7 21. 19. 20. 18. 34. 16. 17. 32. 30. 31. 33. 29. 25. 22. 27. 28. 23. 24. 26. mobile work groups 215 ) 7 2 2 4 7 4 4 6 1 6 4 1 4 3 1 1 10 15 13 Total Total People ( Continued 2 5 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 Others 2 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 Female Female Adult 1 1 1 1 Male Male Child 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 Male Male Adol. 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 8 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 Male Male Adult 1 PBS 2/2 132:35 PBS BE 15 180:51 BE BE 15 180:47 BE BE 15 180:44 BE MUN 86:10 PBS 2/2 132:67 PBS MUN 110 i 7 MUN 86:9 2/2 132:76 PBS PBS 2/2 132:16 PBS PBS 2/2 132:23 PBS MUN 105: 5 CBS 3474 rev. ii’ 12’ ii’ CBS 3474 rev. PBS 2/2 132:52 PBS BE 15 180:10 BE PBS 2/2 132: 132 PBS PBS 2/2 132:19 PBS Citation PBS 2/2 132: 136 PBS BE 15 180: 7 BE [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] Kr[g], y 14 Kr[g], [Krg] ŠŠ, y ⌈ 12 ⌉ Kr[g], y 14 Kr[g], [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] ŠS, y 8 [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] Date [Krg] [Krg] ⌉ ir [DN] d 8 ]- ⌈ nam ru -…] -…] ̮ -ilī ⌉ me ⌉ -[…] ? -[…] -lik-[…] [ na [ na ? ̣ û ⌉ [ šu A-ši-ri Ba Ba- ⌈ lik⌉ -[…] ⌈ Da ⌈ Bura Bun Bun Bakī ʾ ši Bi mār Emiyah Ayyaru Banâ-ša-Šamaš B/Mariya Dān-rigimšu ⌈ As Ayyaru Ātanah ̮ Dāgil-ili Supervisor Name m m - Atkal-ana m m Marked as a Lullubian. as Marked

8 50. 49. 48. 47. 42. 41. 46. 53. 40. 44. 45. 43. 52. 35. 36. 39. 37. 51. 38. 216 appendix two 2 2 2 2 8 4 6 4 3 1 9 3 3 3 8 1 9 3 5 1 29 12 14 Total Total People 1 4 3 3 4 1 1 4 4 2 5 13 Others 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 5 11 Female Female Adult Male Male Child 2 1 1 1 2 1 Male Male Adol. 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 5 7 1 1 1 Male Male Adult 3 3 2 PBS 2/2 132:91 PBS PBS 2/2 132:94 PBS MUN 110:9 MUN 105:7 MUN 88 i 9 PBS 2/2 132:11 PBS MUN 108:17 MUN 88 i 10 PBS 2/2 132: 9 PBS PBS 2/2 132:81 PBS MUN 108:16 MUN 110:21 PBS 2/2 132:57 PBS CBS 3474 rev. ii’ 16’ ii’ CBS 3474 rev. BE 15 180:50 BE PBS 2/2 132:88 PBS Citation BE 15 180: BE MUN 93 ii 20 MUN 93 ii 19 MUN 93 rev. ii 21 MUN 93 rev. i 29 MUN 93 rev. MUN 93 rev. i 27 MUN 93 rev. i 24 MUN 93 rev. ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ? ? ? ? ? ? [Krg] [Krg] ŠŠ, y ⌈ 12 ⌉ ŠS, y 8 Krg, y 14 Krg, [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, ŠŠ, y 12 Krg, y 14 Krg, [Krg] [Krg] ŠŠ, y 12 ŠŠ, y ⌈ 12 ⌉ [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Date [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, ] ] ] ( b ) il-ilu -x[…] ] -[ pī-Enlil ] -[ ir-ni a-mi ̮ ̣ ir-Adad abil-kīnu ab aniya aniya ānibu idim ̮ ̮ ̮ ̮ ̮ ̮ En ⌈ - ga ⌉ En-na-du -[ gi Gab-tu -[ gi Gab-tu H Eziri-enni Ēt Etel Etel-pī-Enlil Erra-bani Erība-Sukkal H Erība-Adad Erība-Nergal H H Erība-Adad Emūq-ili-mādā [ ula Gimil-G H H Supervisor Name m m m m m Gimil-Gula H 65. 66. 64. 63. 62. 61. 60. 71. 58. 59. 55. 70. 76. 56. 57. 54. 69. 72. 74. 75. 68. 67. 73. mobile work groups 217 ) 6 8 4 9 0 8 2 1 6 3 2 6 7 16 25 10 15 11 36 13 13 Total Total People ( Continued 2 8 8 1 1 1 3 4 1 7 6 4 1 1 9 13 Others 2 4 3 2 2 4 3 1 6 4 3 3 3 3 13 11 Female Female Adult Male Male Child 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 Male Male Adol. 1 1 4 4 4 3 1 1 9 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 2 ⌈ 2 ⌉ Male Male Adult PBS 2/2 132:22 PBS CBS 3474 i 9’ MUN 93 i 14 MUN 110:10 MUN 105:7 BE 15 180:43 BE 2/2 132:83 PBS PBS 2/2 132:92 PBS 2/2 132:15 PBS MUN 108:18 MUN 108:20 BE 15 180:12 BE PBS 2/2 132:27 PBS BE 15 180:53 BE Citation MUN 93 i 11 MUN 93 i 12 2/2 132:10 PBS MUN 93 i 6 PBS 2/2 132:54 PBS MUN 86:17’ MUN 86:7 ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ? ? ? [Krg] [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18? ⌉ Krg, ŠŠ, y ⌈ 12 ⌉ Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, ŠS, y 8 [Krg] [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] [Krg] ŠŠ, y 12 ŠŠ, y 12 [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] [Krg] Date [Krg] [Krg] Kr[g], y 14 Kr[g], Kr[g], y 14 Kr[g], ] ? - si ? ( n )- ilu [DN] d ̣ ̣ ī ī -[DN] - īt īt ̮ ̮ ud-Tešub ira-Zana ⌈ zi ⌉ udi-ya ud-Tešub uzi ̮ ̮ ̮ ̮ ̮ I-gu-us-sí I-gu -[ us [ u ] I-la-ak-k ( m ) Ilī-iddina Ilī-h Ilī-h Ilī-ayabāš H Ilī-ayabāš H H H H Ibni-Adad Ibni-Ea-šarru Ibniyaūtu Iddin Iddin Supervisor Name m m m Humba mār Iddin-Adad mār mār Iddinatu mār 97. 96. 95. 94. 79. 93. 77. 78. 80. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 90. 92. 81. 91. 88. 89. 218 appendix two 2 9 0 0 4 2 4 4 4 7 3 2 7 5 1 1 1 5 1 10 15 15 Total Total People 2 1 1 1 3 4 5 1 1 6 1 3 13 Others 1 6 3 1 2 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 2 1 Female Female Adult 1 1 Male Male Child 1 1 1 1 Male Male Adol. 1 2 2 4 2 4 1 1 Male Male Adult 1 1 1 4 1 MUN 86:20’ 15 180:3 BE BE 15 180:14 BE 2/2 132:56 PBS PBS 2/2 132:12 PBS MUN 108:21 2/2 132:36 PBS MUN 105:15 PBS 2/2 132:74 PBS PBS 2/2 132:86 PBS MUN 86:16’ CBS 3474 i 17’ CBS 3474 rev. ii’ 11’ ii’ CBS 3474 rev. BE 15 180:54 BE Citation MUN 93 rev. ii 16 MUN 93 rev. ii 19 MUN 93 rev. PBS 2/2 132:62 PBS 15 180:48 BE UM 29-13-382 rev. 10’ 29-13-382 rev. UM MUN 93 ii 14 UM 29-13-382 rev. 2’ 29-13-382 rev. UM PBS 2/2 132:18 PBS ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ? ? ? ] ] ?? ?? Kr[g], y 14 Kr[g], [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg ŠŠ, y 12 [Krg] ŠS, y 8 [Krg] [Krg] y 14 Kr[g], [Krg] [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] Date Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg [Krg] ] ] ] ⌉ [ šu [DN] Sukkal d ̣ d ur ⌉ - Adad - ̣ [ rdiya ⌈ s ( a )- Šamaš ] ( a )-[ Šamaš ⌈ i ⌉ [ za Is-si KAR-[…] mār Kurî mār Lā-qīpu Irtīb Irtīb - Izkur Kukulme Kidin Ilī-imittī mār Innibi mār ⌈ Iqīša Iqīšātu Itku Kidin-Ninurta Kidin-Sîn Keli Kadiri Supervisor Name m m Ilī-ippašra Ilī-is Inda Ilī-ippašra 98. 99. 118. 119. 106. 107. 108. 110. 117. 113. 103. 104. 105. 109. 114. 115. 116. 111. 112. 100. 101. 102. mobile work groups 219 ) 8 6 4 1 2 4 9 4 3 3 1 1 8 2 4 6 19 19 12 Total Total People ( Continued 2 2 1 4 1 1 7 4 6 1 1 10 Others 4 4 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 2 1 5 2 1 2 1 3 Female Female Adult 1 1 Male Male Child 1 2 2 1 1 1 Male Male Adol. 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 7 1 2 2 [1] Male Male Adult PBS 2/2 132:44 PBS BE 15 180:1 BE PBS 2/2 132:82 PBS MUN 88:12 CBS 3474 i 10’ PBS 2/2 132:89 PBS PBS 2/2 132:60 PBS BE 15 180:52 BE BE 15 180:13 BE 2/2 132:55 PBS BE 15 180:18 BE PBS 2/2 132:17 PBS PBS 2/2 132:80 PBS PBS 2/2 132:4 PBS MUN 110:19 MUN 110:20 BE 15 180:55 BE Citation PBS 2/2 132:24 PBS PBS 2/2 132:25 PBS [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] y 14 Krg, [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] ŠŠ, y ⌈ 12 ⌉ ŠŠ, y ⌈ 12 ⌉ [Krg] Date [Krg] [Krg] ] 9 10 ] a-iddina ̮ -e-x-[…] [ u ] ⌉ k [ i ] ⌉ [ dā a-nā ̮ ʾ īdi ⌈ h Man-nu-i-bi Man-nu-i-bi MU-[…] ] [ Nergal-ašarēd Nan-Tešub Nan-Tešub [ u ] Man-kitt Mannu Na Makki Nagut ⌈ Mak ⌉ [ ya ⌈ pil-idī Ninurta-ā ] [ pil-idīya Ninurta-ā Nagutu Lultamar-Ninurta Luriyame Ni Ninurta-ah Supervisor Name m m m Name restored from parallel (CBS 11797 i 23) from restored Name Ibid., i 26. Ibid.,

9 10 134. 133. 132. 124. 125. 126. 131. 123. 130. 122. 137. 138. 127. 128. 129. 120. 121. 135. 136. 220 appendix two 9 2 1 5 3 1 0 3 1 4 1 0 4 0 12 13 10 10 11 13 Total Total People 2 2 1 3 3 5 3 2 1 Others 3 1 4 5 2 1 1 2 4 3 1 1 3 1 2 Female Female Adult 1 Male Male Child 1 1 1 1 2 4 Male Male Adol. 2 2 1 1 4 1 4 4 1 Male Male Adult 3 1 3 1 1 6 PBS 2/2 132:5 PBS MUN 110:18 PBS 2/2 132:6 PBS MUN 110:17 PBS 2/2 132:13 PBS MUN 86:8 Citation PBS 2/2 132:51 PBS MUN 93 rev. ii 14 MUN 93 rev. 15 180:9 BE MUN 93 rev. i 25 MUN 93 rev. PBS 2/2 132:65 PBS MUN 93 ii 21 MUN 93 i 8 MUN 93 i 5 MUN 93 rev. i 20 MUN 93 rev. MUN 93 ii 22 15’ ii’ CBS 3474 rev. 15 180:5 BE MUN 93 rev. i 21 MUN 93 rev. UM 29-13-382 rev. 6’ 29-13-382 rev. UM ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ] ?? [Krg] [Krg ŠŠ, y ⌈ 12 ⌉ [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, ŠŠ, y ⌈ 12 ⌉ [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Kr[g], y 14 Kr[g], Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Date [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] [Krg] 11 ] ]- a -šenni ̮ -[ ni ] [ zunna Pa-pa-da Sa Rabâ-ša-Gula Rabâ-ša-Gula Qīšātu Ninurta-rēmanni Nurrugi Qīšat-Sukkal Ninurta-karābī-išme Pandiya [ Paklabi Paratte mār Qīšat-Sîn mār Supervisor Name m m Paklabi Panni Papassi Pa Pendu Piradi Puh Name restored from parallel text (BE 15 180: 9). (BE parallel text from restored Name

11 156. 157. 155. 140. 141. 154. 139. 144. 143. 148. 153. 158. 142. 145. 146. 147. 149. 150. 151. 152. mobile work groups 221 ) 3 3 3 5 6 5 7 4 5 2 5 9 0 9 1 0 2 11 15 18 20 Total Total People ( Continued 1 6 3 7 2 2 4 1 5 1 2 5 2 18 Others 1 2 6 4 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 Female Female Adult 1 1 Male Male Child 1 1 2 1 1 Male Male Adol. 1 1 1 2 3 6 2 3 2 3 1 4 2 2 1 2 [0] Male Male Adult MUN 86:6 PBS 2/2 132:59 PBS MUN 86:21’ 2/2 132:63 PBS MUN 86:18’ CBS 3474 i 13’ MUN 110:11 MUN 86:22’ 15 180:17 BE PBS 2/2 132:75 PBS PBS 2/2 132:3 PBS PBS 2/2 132:73 PBS CBS 3474 i 12’ 2/2 132:87 PBS Citation UM 29-13-382 rev. 7’ 29-13-382 rev. UM MUN 93 ii 4 ii 17 MUN 93 rev. MUN 86:19 MUN 86:24’ MUN 105:11 MUN 93 ii 11 ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ? ? ? ] ?? Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Kr[g], y 14 Kr[g], [Krg] y 14 Kr[g], [Krg] Kr[g], y 14 Kr[g], [Krg] [Krg ŠŠ, y ⌈ 12 ⌉ Kr[g], y 14 Kr[g], [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Date Kr[g], y 14 Kr[g], y 14 Kr[g], ŠS, y 8 u ̮ ] ̣ ⌉ - h illūša ̣ ? ir a-iddina ̮ - ba ] ? ⌉ -[ nās -[…] [ li Si [ a ] Si-it-t ⌈ Ša almu il Sîn Sîn-iqīša Sîn-ēpir[anni] Sîn-ibni mār ⌈ a ⌉ Sîn-iddin mār Ša-s mār Šennakka Sîn-ah Sāmu mār Sîn-damāqu mār Sîn-ēpiranni S ̣ Šamaš-iddina Sigi ⌈ Sili Supervisor Name m m m mār Sissiya mār Sukkal-līssu S ̣ 170. 169. 160. 166. 167. 168. 176. 178. 179. 163. 159. 164. 165. 175. 177. 161. 162. 172. 171. 173. 174. 222 appendix two 9 9 7 6 2 2 8 0 2 2 1 1 5 2 4 11 21 15 Total Total People 3 3 5 3 1 8 8 4 1 Others 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 Female Female Adult 1 2 Male Male Child […] 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 Male Male Adol. 1 […] ] ? ̮ 12 3 3 1 2 4 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 [3] Male Male Adult [ZÁH 1 PBS 2/2 132:58 PBS BE 15 180:16 BE PBS 2/2 132:79 PBS PBS 2/2 132:84 PBS PBS 2/2 132:93 PBS CBS 3474 i 14’ PBS 2/2 132:72 PBS CBS 3474 rev. ii’ 18’ ii’ CBS 3474 rev. CBS 3474 i 18’ Citation PBS 2/2 132: 70 PBS MUN 93 rev. ii 18 MUN 93 rev. MUN 93 ii 13 MUN 93 i 10 CBS 3474 i 18’ MUN 105:12 UM 29-13-382 rev. 11’ 29-13-382 rev. UM UM 29-13-382 rev. 14’ 29-13-382 rev. UM 5’ 29-13-382 rev. UM ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ? ? ? ] ] ] supervisedTitte a single male of uncertain age category an (probably adult) who has Becauserun away. ?? ?? ?? Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] [Krg [Krg] [Krg [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] [Krg] [Krg [Krg] Date [Krg] [Krg] ŠS, y 8 ] ] 13 -x- bi -[ mu Ši-na ŠU-[…] Šī-kabtat [( n ) na Šennu Tagussi ( n ) na Šennu Tarībtu Tagu Tešub Šenniya Taqīša-Gula Tagu [ e ] Titt Šubattu Šubattu Tarību Supervisor Name m m Tagussi Šubula-iddina This worker is marked as escaped and returned. and as escaped marked is worker This Judging by the preserved entries,

12 13 183. 182. 191. 181. 194. 190. 196. 180. 193. 189. 197. the composition of his work group can be reliably reconstructed based on the evidence at hand (no barley disbursed, the mention of an escapee), an of mention the disbursed, barley (no hand at evidence the basedon reconstructed reliably be can group work his of composition the in the table. been has included group work his 186. 187. 195. 184. 185. 192. 188. mobile work groups 223 ) 6 4 3 5 9 5 9 9 4 4 1 3 7 9 6 2 3 1 16 17 Total Total People ( Continued 1 1 2 1 4 2 4 8 3 4 2 1 2 4 4 1 1 2 Others 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 4 4 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 Female Female Adult 14 1 1 1 1 1 Male Male Child 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 [1] Male Male Adol. 1 2 1 1 4 1 5 2 1 2 1 1 [1] Male Male Adult PBS 2/2 132:20 PBS 2/2 132:41 PBS PBS 2/2 132:78 PBS BE 15 180:4 BE PBS 2/2 132:61 PBS CBS 3474 i 15’ BE 15 180:19 BE CBS 3474 i 9’ PBS 2/2 132: 137 PBS MUN 110:8 BE 15 180:46 BE Citation MUN 93 rev. i 22 MUN 93 rev. PBS 2/2 132:85 PBS CBS 3474 i 8’ MUN 93 i 9 MUN 93 ii 18 BE 15 180:42 BE MUN 93 rev. i 28 MUN 93 rev. MUN 110:12 MUN 88 i 4 ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ? ? ? ? [Krg] [Krg] y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, ŠŠ, y ⌈ 12 ⌉ [Krg] Date [Krg] [Krg] Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] Krg, y 14 Krg, ŠŠ, y ⌈ 12 ⌉ u ̮ ⌉ [DN] d - ⌉ -[…] ? iya ⌈ šub i-Te i-Tešub ̮ ̮ ̮ [ b ] i ⌉ […]- bāni [ t-t ] a Tu-u ⌈ UR ÚR-[…] d Urpaši-mašh Usātūša Zūzu Uri Urh Umbi-Tešub Urh Umbi Urh Tukultī Ulukku Tukultī-Ninurta Supervisor Name m m m Ula-Zana Ulukku Umbiya ⌈ […]- ē ʾ a (?) This worker is marked as deceased. marked is worker This

14 213. 214. 215. 212. 211. 205. 210. 204. 209. 198. 203. 207. 199. 200. 208. 201. 202. 206. 216. 217. 224 appendix two 6 7 2 3 6 3 4 8 4 3 5 3 3 6 0 4 1 3 0 11 12 10 16 Total Total People 3 7 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 4 3 4 1 2 1 1 Others 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 2 4 1 2 5 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 Female Female Adult 1 1 1 1 Male Male Child 1 1 1 1 1 Male Male Adol. 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 Male Male Adult 1 4 2 2 1 2 MUN 88 iii 1 MUN 88 ii 7 MUN 88 ii 8 MUN 88 ii 10 MUN 88 ii 6 MUN 88 ii 4 CBS 3474 ii 11’ CBS 3474 ii 10’ CBS 3474 ii 7’ CBS 3474 rev. ii’ 14’ ii’ CBS 3474 rev. MUN 88 i 3 MUN 88 i 6 BE 15 180:56 BE CBS 3474 rev. ii’ 13’ ii’ CBS 3474 rev. Citation MUN 93 rev. ii 15 MUN 93 rev. 2/2 132: 133 PBS MUN 105:6 UM 29-13-382 rev. 4’ 29-13-382 rev. UM PBS 2/2 132:40 PBS 2/2 132:98 PBS UM 29-13-382 rev. 8’ 29-13-382 rev. UM MUN 93 ii 16 UM 29-13-382 rev. 1’ 29-13-382 rev. UM ⌉ ⌉ ? ? ] ] ] ?? ?? ?? Krg, y 14 Krg, Krg, y 14 Krg, y 14 Krg, y 14 Krg, Krg, y 14 Krg, Krg, y 14 Krg, [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] Krg, y 14 Krg, Krg, y 14 Krg, [Krg [Krg [Krg] [Krg] y ⌈ 18 Krg, Date [Krg] ŠS, y 8 y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] [Krg] [Krg (?) ara ̮ ⌉ […] ? X- gu-ra X- Išh […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […]-x-[…]-x […]- ia […]- gu ⌈ X-x ⌉ - Marduk […]- ni ⌈ X-ši ⌈ X ⌉ -[…] Supervisor Name m m X-x -la-ri X-[…] ⌈ X ⌉ -me-ia ⌉ -[…] […]- ⌈ x-na X-[…] 240. 237. 238. 239. 236. 235. 234. 233. 232. 221. 231. 220. 219. 218. 223. 226. 227. 230. 222. 228. 224. 225. 229. mobile work groups 225 ) 3 5 4 9 7 7 5 3 9 4 7 2 4 1 7 1 11 10 12 10 12 Total Total People ( Continued 6 2 4 3 4 3 2 5 2 1 4 2 1 2 1 1 3 Others 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 3 1 4 4 1 5 4 1 3 1 3 2 1 1 Female Female Adult 1 1 2 1 Male Male Child 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Male Male Adol. 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 Male Male Adult 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 PBS 2/2 9 ii 15’ PBS PBS 2/2 9 ii 12’ PBS PBS 2/2 9 ii 13’ PBS PBS 2/2 9 ii 11’ PBS MUN 88 iii 3 2/2 9 ii 10’ PBS MUN 88 iii 2 BE 15 180:59 BE Citation MUN 93 ii 2 MUN 93 ii 3 MUN 93 ii 17 i 18 MUN 93 rev. MUN 93 rev. i 2 MUN 93 rev. i 3 MUN 93 rev. MUN 93 rev. i 4 MUN 93 rev. MUN 93 rev. i 5 MUN 93 rev. i 6 MUN 93 rev. MUN 93 rev. i 7 MUN 93 rev. i 17 MUN 93 rev. BE 15 180:57 BE 15 180:58 BE ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ⌉ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Krg, y 15 Krg, Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Krg, y 15 Krg, Krg, y 15 Krg, Krg, y 15 Krg, Krg, y 14 Krg, y15 Krg, Krg, y 14 Krg, Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] Date Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, Krg, y ⌈ 18 Krg, [Krg] [Krg] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] Supervisor Name […] […] […] […] […] […] 247. 248. 245. 246. 244. 242. 243. 241. 249. 250. 253. 254. 255. 256. 261. 252. 251. 257. 258. 259. 260. 226 appendix two 3 7 4 5 1 2 4 9 2 2 2 3 4 5 7 2 3 2 2 3 10 Total Total People 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 3 1 2 1 Others 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Female Female Adult 1 1 1 1 Male Male Child 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Male Male Adol. 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Male Male Adult PBS 2/2 132: 124 PBS PBS 2/2 132: 123 PBS PBS 2/2 132: 121 PBS 2/2 132: 122 PBS PBS 2/2 132: 120 PBS PBS 2/2 132: 119 PBS PBS 2/2 132: 117 PBS 2/2 132: 118 PBS PBS 2/2 132: 116 PBS PBS 2/2 132: 115 PBS PBS 2/2 132: 114 PBS PBS 2/2 132: 113 PBS PBS 2/2 132: 112 PBS PBS 2/2 132: 108 PBS 2/2 132: 109 PBS 2/2 132: 110 PBS 2/2 132: 111 PBS PBS 2/2 132: 106 PBS PBS 2/2 132: 101 PBS PBS 2/2 132:99 PBS BE 15 180:60 BE Citation [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] Date […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] […] Supervisor Name 282. 281. 279. 280. 278. 277. 275. 276. 274. 273. 272. 271. 270. 266. 267. 268. 269. 265. 264. 263. 262. mobile work groups 227 7 3 4 11 Total Total People 2 2 2 1 Others 3 2 1 1 Female Female Adult 2 1 1 Male Male Child 1 Male Male Adol. 1 2 3 Male Male Adult PBS 2/2 132: 127 PBS 2/2 132: 128 PBS PBS 2/2 132: 126 PBS PBS 2/2 132: 125 PBS Citation [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] [Krg] Date […] […] […] […] Supervisor Name 285. 286. 284. 283.

APPENDIX THREE

SEX AND AGE CLASSIFICATION OF ATTESTED OCCUPATIONS IN MIDDLE BABYLONIAN ROSTERS

MALES FEMALES Total Females Occupation Total Sexes Both UnknownSex Adult (GURUŠ) Adolescent (GURUŠ.TUR(.GAL) (GURUŠ.TUR.TUR)Child Weaned ( pirsu Nursing (DUMU.GABA) Age Unknown Total Males Adult (SAL) Adolescent (SAL.TUR) and pirsatu (SAL.TUR.TUR andChild Weaned Nursing (DUMU.SAL.GABA) Age Unknown ) ) )

āpil bābi1 18 9 9 18 arad ekalli 2 2 2 ararru/ 20 11 8 19 1 1 ararratu2 aškāpu3 21 6 3 1 3 13 4 4 8 ašlāku4 5 2 3 5 atkuppu5 3 1 1 1 2 atû6 5 5 5

1 A type of door/gate keeper. 2 A type of miller. 3 Leather-worker. 4 Fuller. In the final phases of producing woolen cloth, the fuller washes and thick- ens the fabric. 5 Reed-worker, i.e., a craftsmen who works with reeds. 6 A type of door keeper or porter. 230 appendix three

MALES FEMALES Total Females Occupation Total Sexes Both Unknown Sex Adult (GURUŠ) Adolescent (GURUŠ.TUR(.GAL) (GURUŠ.TUR.TUR)Child Weaned ( pirsu Nursing (DUMU.GABA) n/avail. desig. Sex-age Total Males Adult (SAL) Adolescent (SAL.TUR) and pirsatu (SAL.TUR.TUR andChild Weaned Nursing (DUMU.SAL.GABA) n/avail. desig. Sex-age ) ) ) bānû7 1 1 1 dālû8 28 13 1 14 28 ḫarintu9 4 1 1 3 3 ḫazannu10 2 1 1 2 ḫuppû11 23 1 10 1 11 7 4 11 išparu12 23 3 4 2 1 12 19 1 1 iššakku13 6 6 6 kāsirụ 14 14 6 1 4 11 1 1 1 3 kasṣ idakkụ 15 3 1 2 3 kunšillu16 15 2 3 2 1 2 8 1 3 1 5 kurgarrû17 6 2 2 2 4 laputtû18 1 1 1

7 Builder. 8 Water drawer. 9 Prostitute. 10 Mayor or perhaps ward official (exercises some control over irrigation). 11 Based principally on the context in which this occupation is attested, the ḫuppû was a type of weaver in Middle Babylonian texts (as per Hölscher, Die Personennamen (1996): 5). In Old Babylonian documents, the ḫuppû is an acrobat (CAD vol. 6: 240). 12 A type of weaver. 13 A type of farmer. 14 A type of textile worker using a special knotting or binding technique (kasārụ =to tie, to bind). 15 A type of miller. 16 Teaseler, i.e., someone who uses a special thistle (teasle) or comb in the final phases of cloth production to remove dirt and other foreign particles, align the fibers, and raise the nap on fabric; in this case the cloth is most likely made from wool. 17 Actor, performer. 18 In this context, a laputtû ( (LÚ)NU.BÀNDA) is a foreman or person in charge of other workers. attested occupations 231

MALES FEMALES Total Females Occupation Total Sexes Both Unknown Sex Adult (GURUŠ) Adolescent (GURUŠ.TUR(.GAL) (GURUŠ.TUR.TUR)Child Weaned ( pirsu Nursing (DUMU.GABA) n/avail. desig. Sex-age Total Males Adult (SAL) Adolescent (SAL.TUR) and pirsatu (SAL.TUR.TUR andChild Weaned Nursing (DUMU.SAL.GABA) n/avail. desig. Sex-age ) ) ) mākisu?19 4 2 2 2 2 mandidu20 2 2 2 masṣ aṛ 1 1 1 abulli21 masṣ arụ 22 1 1 1 mušēniqtu23 2 2 2 naggāru24 4 2 2 4 nâru/nârtu25 5 1 1 2 3 3 nuḫatimmu26 17 4 5 1 6 3 2 1 1 7 nukarribu27 33 26 3 3 1 33 paḫāru28 13 429 1 1 4 10 3 3 paqqāyu30 1 1 1 purkullu31 9 4 2 2 2 1 3 rēʾi lâti/ 28 21 5 2 28 sugulli32 (Continued)

19 NÍG.KUD(.DA)—or, more properly, miksu (?). A collector of taxes and/or yields of a field or perhaps “hired man (?).” See Sassmannshausen BaF 21 (2001): 35–36. 20 Or mādidu. A person in charge of distributing barley and other goods. 21 Gatekeeper or gate guard. 22 Guard. 23 Wet nurse. 24 Carpenter. 25 Singer. 26 Cook. 27 Gardener. 28 Potter. 29 Included in this total is the elderly man (ŠU.GI) Kidinnû (CBS 12572 rev. i’ 5’). 30 Maker of reed mats. 31 Lapidary. 32 Cowherd. 232 appendix three

MALES FEMALES Total Females Occupation Total Sexes Both Unknown Sex Adult (GURUŠ) Adolescent (GURUŠ.TUR(.GAL) (GURUŠ.TUR.TUR)Child Weaned ( pirsu Nursing (DUMU.GABA) n/avail. desig. Sex-age Total Males Adult (SAL) Adolescent (SAL.TUR) and pirsatu (SAL.TUR.TUR andChild Weaned Nursing (DUMU.SAL.GABA) n/avail. desig. Sex-age ) ) ) rēʾi sīsî33 31 5 3 1 9 18 6 3 4 13 rēʾi sēnị 34 25 3 1 21 25 rēʾû35 2 1 1 2 sāliḫu36 2 1 1 1 1 sasinnu37 1 1 1 sirāšû38 31 9 10 2 5 17 1 4 5 ša rēši39 19 19 19 tābiḥ ̮u40 6 2 1 3 4 tāmītụ 41 2 2 2 tupšarrụ 42 2 2 2 ummânu 5 2 1 3 1 1 43 2 usandû44 8 3 4 1 8 not yet read45 24 23 1 24 TOTALS: 478 28 185 35 5 0 9 143 377 30 12 0 12 19 73

33 Someone who cares for horses (lit. “horse herder”). 34 Herder of sheep and goats. 35 Shepherd. 36 Sprinkler (of roads). 37 Maker of bows and arrows. 38 Brewer. 39 Attendant. 40 Or tābiḥ ̮ḫu. Butcher. 41 Spinner. 42 Scribe. 43 Perhaps “weaned”(pirsatu), although the line in question could contain a reference (patronym?) for the woman listed in the previous line (CBS 3523 rev. ii’ 11). 44 Someone who cares for (domesticated?) birds (fowler?). 45 Three occupation names are not yet able to be read. The corresponding references are CBS 6620:1-24 (seven of the workers have escaped), CBS 12934:5 d, and UM 29-13- 666:17’ a. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Robert McC. Land behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains: Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965. ——. “Settlement and Irrigation Patterns in Ancient Akkad.” In The City and Area of Kish, by McGuire Gibson, 182–208. Coconut Grove, FL: Field Research Projects, 1972. ——. Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981. Adams, Robert McC. and Hans J. Nissen. The Uruk Countryside: The Natural Setting of Urban Societies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972. Applebaum, Anne. Gulag: A History. New York: Anchor Books, 2003. Archer, Léonie, ed. Slavery and Other Forms of Unfree Labor. New York: Routledge, 1988. Archi, Alfonzo. “Prices, Workers’ Wages, and Maintenance at Ebla.” AoF 15 (1988): 24–29. Armstrong, James A. “The Archaeology of Nippur from the Decline of the Kassite Kingdom until the Rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1989. Aro, Jussi. Studien zur mittelbabylonischen Grammatik. StOr 20. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1955. ——. Mittelbabylonische Kleidertexte der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena. Sitzungsberichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philosophisch- historische Klasse, 115/2. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1970. Bagnall, Roger S. and Bruce W. Frier. The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy, and Society in Past Time 23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Baker, Heather and Michael Jursa, eds. Approaching the Babylonian Economy: Proceedings of the START Project Symposium Held in Vienna, 1–3 July 2004. AOAT 330. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005. Balkan, Kemal. Kassitenstudien. AOS 37. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1954. ——. Studies in Babylonian Feudalism of the Kassite Period. MANE, vol. 2/3. Malibu: Undena, 1986. Baqir, Taha. “Iraq Government Excavations at ʿAqar Qūf: First Interim Report, 1942–43.” Iraq Supplement (1944). ——. “Iraq Government Excavations at ʿAqar Qūf: Second Interim Report, 1943–44.” Iraq Supplement (1945). ——. “Iraq Government Excavations at ʿAqar Qūf: Third Interim Report, 1944–45.” Iraq 8 (1945):73–93. Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. “The Brewers of Nippur.” JCS 47 (1995): 85–96. ——. “Prébendiers d’Uruk à Larsa.” RA 87 (1993): 137–52. Beckman, Gary. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. 2nd edition. Writings from the Ancient World 7, edited by Harry A. Hoffner. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Bernhardt, Inez. Sozialökonomische Texte und Rechtsurkunden aus Nippur zur Kassitenzeit. Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht-Sammlung Vorderasiatischer Altertümer im Eigentum der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena Neue Folge 5. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1976. Bernhardt, Inez and Jussi Aro. “Mittelbabylonische Briefe in der Hilprecht- Sammlung.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena 8 (1958–59): 565–75 and plates. 234 select bibliography

Bloch, Yigal. “The Order of Eponyms in the Reign of Shalmaneser I.” Ugarit- Forschungen 40 (2008): 143–78. Boehmer, Ranier Michael, and Heinz-Werner Dämmer. Tell Imlihiye, Tell Zubeidi, Tell Abbas. Baghdader Forschungen 7. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1985. Boh, Katja et al. Changing Patterns of European Family Life: A Comparative Analysis of Fourteen European Countries. London: Routledge, 1989. Bongaarts, John, Thomas K. Burch and Kenneth W. Wachter, eds.Family Demography: Methods and Their Application. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. Bongenaar, A. C. V. M. The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and Its Prosopography. PIHANS 80. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch- Archaeologisch Instituut, 1997. ——. “Private Archives in Neo-Babylonian Sippar and Their Institutional Con nections.” In Interdependency of Institutions and Private Entrepreneurs: Proceedings of the Second MOS Symposium (Leiden 1998), edited by A. C. V. M. Bongenaar, 73–94. PIHANS 87. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 2000. Bradley, Keith R. “Wet-nursing at Rome: A Study in Social Relations.” In The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives, edited by Beryl Rawson, 201–29. London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1986. Brandt, Margaret. “Nippur: Building an Environmental Model.” JNES 49 (1990): 67–73. Brinkman, J. A. Review of Arthur Ungnad, Grammatik des Akkadischen in BiOr 23 (1966): 293–96. ——. A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia. AnOr 43. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968. ——. “Foreign Relations of Babylonia from 1600 to 625 B.C.” AJA 76 (1972): 271–81. ——. “The Monarchy in the Time of the Kassite Dynasty.” In Le Palais et la royauté XIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, edited by Paul Garelli, 395–408. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1974. ——. A Catalogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the Kassite Dynasty. MSKH 1. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1976. ——. “Kassiten.” In RlA 5, edited by Erich Ebeling et al., 464–73. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1976–89. ——. “Forced Laborers in the Middle Babylonian Period.” JCS 32 (1980): 17–22. ——. “Sex, Age, and Physical Condition Designations for Servile Laborers in the Middle Babylonian Period.” In Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus, edited by G. van Driel, Th. J. H. Krispijn, M. Stol, and K. R. Veenhof, 1–8. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1982. ——. Prelude to Empire: Babylonian Society and Politics, 747-626 B.C. Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 7. Philadelphia: University Museum, 1984. ——.“A Note on the Middle Assyrian Laws.” RA 79 (1985): 88–89. ——. “Comment on L. W. King, Babylonian Boundary Stones, no. 27 (BM 90937).” NABU 1989/70. ——. “A Kassite Seal Mentioning a Babylonian Governor of Dilmun.” NABU 1993/106. ——. “Catalogue of Tablets.” In Nippur, III: Kassite Buildings in Area WC-1, by Richard L. Zettler, 93–111. OIP 111, edited by McGuire Gibson. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1993. ——. “Assyrian Merchants at Dur-Kurigalzu.” NABU 3/2001. ——. “Administration and Society in Kassite Babylonia,” JAOS 124 (2004): 283–304. ——. “The Use of Occupation Names as Patronyms in the Kassite Period: A Forerunner of Neo-Babylonian Ancestral Names?” In If a Man Builds a Joyful select bibliography 235

House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty, edited by Ann K. Guinan et al., 23–43. Cuneiform Monographs 31. Leiden: Brill, 2006. ——. “Masculine or Feminine? The Case of Conflicting Gender Determinatives for Middle Babylonian Personal Names.” In Studies Presented to Robert D. Biggs: June 4, 2004, edited by Martha T. Roth et al., 1–10. From the Workshop of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary 2. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2007. Brinkman, J. A. and C. B. F. Walker. “Remarks on the Šandabakku Land-Purchase Texts from the Time of Nabû-šumu-libūr.” RA 79 (1985): 72–74. Brinkman, J. A. and Stephanie M. Dalley. “A Royal Kudurru from the Reign of Aššur- nādin-šumi.” ZA 78 (1988): 76–98. Buccellati, Giorgio and Robert D. Biggs. Cuneiform Texts from Nippur. AS 17. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969. Burch, Thomas K. “The Size and Structure of Families: A Comparative Analysis of Census Data.” American Sociological Review 32 (1967): 347–63. ——. “Some Demographic Determinants of Average Household Size: An Analytic Approach.” In Household and Family in Past Time: Comparative Studies in the Size and Structure of the Domestic Group over the Last Three Centuries in England, France, Serbia, Japan and Colonial North America, with Further Materials from Western Europe, edited by Peter Laslett with assistance by Richard Wall, 91–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Bush, M. L., ed. Serfdom and Slavery: Studies in Legal Bondage. New York: Longman, 1996. Campbell, Stanley W. The Slave Catchers: Enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970. Carter, Elizabeth and Matthew W. Stolper. Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. Near Eastern Studies 25. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. Charpin, Dominique, Dietz Otto Edzard and Marten Stol. Mesopotamien: Die altbabylonische Zeit. OBO 160/4. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2004. Civil, Miguel. “Ur III Bureaucracy: Quantitative Aspects.” In The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, 2nd edition, edited by McGuire Gibson and Robert Biggs, 35–44. SAOC 46. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1991. Clarysse, Willy and Dorothy J. Thompson. Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt. 2 vols. New York : Cambridge University Press, 2006. Clay, Albert T. Documents from the Temple Archives of Nippur Dated in the Reigns of Cassite Rulers (Complete Dates). The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania Series A: Cuneiform Texts 14. Philadelphia: Department of Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania, 1906. ——. Documents from the Temple Archives of Nippur Dated in the Reigns of Cassite Rulers (Incomplete Dates). The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania Series A: Cuneiform Texts 15. Philadelphia: Department of Archae ology, University of Pennsylvania, 1906. ——. Documents from the Temple Archives of Nippur Dated in the Reigns of Cassite Rulers. Publications of the Babylonian Section 2/2. Philadelphia: University Museum, 1912. ——. Personal Names from Cuneiform Inscriptions of the Cassite Period. Yale Oriental Series, Researches 1. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1912. Coale, Ansley J. “The Decline in Fertility in Europe from the French Revolution to World War II.” In Fertility and Family Planning: A World View, edited by S.B. Behrman, L. Corsa, and R. Freedman, 3–24. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1969. 236 select bibliography

——. “Age Patterns of Marriage.” Population Studies 25 (1971): 193–214. ——. The Growth and Structure of Human Populations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972. Coale, Ansley J. et al. Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965. Coale, Ansley J. and Paul Demeny. Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966. Cole, Steven W. The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur. OIP 114. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1996. ——. Nippur in Late Assyrian Times c. 755–612 B.C. SAAS 4. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1996. Cole, Steven W. and Hermann Gasche. “Second- and First-Millennium.” in Changing Watercourses in Babylonia, 1–64. MHEM V/1. Chicago and Ghent: Oriental Insititute and the University of Ghent, 1998. Crawford, Vaughn E. “Nippur, the Holy City.” Archaeology 12 (1959): 74–83. Curtin, Philip D. The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Dal Lago, Enrico and Constantina Katsari, eds. Slave Systems: Ancient and Modern. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Dalley, Stephanie. Babylonian Tablets from the First Sealand Dynasty in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 9. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 2009. Dandamaev, Muhammad A. “Forced Labor in the Palace Economy in Achaemenid Iran.” AoF 2 (1975): 71–78. ——. Slavery in Babylonia from Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (626–331 B.C.). Rev. ed. Translated by Victoria A. Powell. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984. ——. “Free Hired Labor in Babylonia during the Sixth through Fourth Centuries B.C.” Translated by Victoria A. Powell. In Labor in the Ancient Near East, edited by Marvin A. Powell, 271–79. AOS 68. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1987. ——. “Wages and Prices in Babylonia in the 6th and 5th Centuries B.C.” AoF 15 (1988): 53–58. ——. “The Composition of the Citizens in First Millennium Babylonia.” AoF 24 (1997): 135–47. David, Paul A. et al. Reckoning with Slavery: A Critical Study in the Quantitative History of American Negro Slavery. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976. Davis, David Brion. Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. del Monte, Giuseppe F. and Johann Tischler. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte. RGTC 6. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1982. Diakonoff, Igor M. “On the Structure of Old Babylonian Society.” In Beiträge zur sozialen Struktur des alten Vorderasien, edited by Horst Klengel, 15–31. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1971. ——. “Slave Labour vs. Non-Slave Labour: The Problem of Definition.” In Labor in the Ancient Near East, edited by Marvin A. Powell, 1–3. AOS 68. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1987. Donbaz, Veysel and Norman Yoffee. Old Babylonian Texts from Kish Conserved in the Istanbul Archaeological Museums. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 17. Malibu: Undena Publications, 1986. Duncan, Simon and Rosalind Edwards, eds. Single Mothers in an International Context: Mothers or Workers? London: UCL Press, 1997. Durand, Jean-Marie. “Les ‘slave documents’ de Merodach-baladan.” JA 267 (1979): 245–60. Edzard, D. O. “Die Beziehungen Babyloniens und Ägyptens in der mittelbabylonischen Zeit und das Gold.” JESHO 3 (1960): 38–55. select bibliography 237

Ellis, Maria de Jong. Agriculture and the State in Ancient Mesopotamia. Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 1. Philadelphia: University Museum, 1976. Eltis, David and Stanley L. Engerman. “Was the Slave Trade Dominated by Men?” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 23 (1992): 237–57. ——. “Fluctuations in Sex and Age Ratios in the Translatlantic Slave Trade, 1663– 1864.” The Economic History Review, New Series 46 (1993): 308–323. Engerman, Stanley L., ed. Terms of Labor: Slavery, Serfdom, and Free Labor. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999. Englund, Robert K. Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur-III Fischerei. BBVO 10. Berlin: D. Reimer, 1990. ——. “Hard Work—Where Will It Get You? Labor Management in Ur III Mesopo tamia.” JNES 50 (1991): 255–80. Fallers, Lloyd A. “The Range of Variation in Actual Family Size: A Critique of Marion J. Levy Jr.’s Argument.” In Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure, edited by Ansley J. Coale et al., 70–82. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965. Farber, Walter. “Akkadisch ‘blind’.” ZA 75 (1985): 210–33. Finley, M. I. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. Middlesex: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1980. ——. The Ancient Economy. Updated Edition. Sather Classical Lectures 43. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Fischer, Clarence S. Excavations at Nippur. Philadelphia: Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, 1905. Floud, Roderick. An Introduction to Quantitative Methods for Historians. 2nd edition. London and Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1973. Floud, Roderick, ed. Essays in Quantitative Economic History. Oxford: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1974. Fogel, Robert William. Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery. 4 vols. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1989. Fogel, Robert William and Stanley L. Engerman. Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery. 2 vols. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1974. Forlanini, Massimo. “La regione del Tauro nei testi hittiti.” Vicino Oriente 7 (1988): 129–70. Frame, Grant. Babylonia 689-627 B. C.: A Political History. PIHANS 69. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1992. ——. Rulers of Babylonia from the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157-612 B.C.). RIMB 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. Franke, Judith A. “Area WB.” In Excavations at Nippur: Twelfth Season, by McGuire Gibson et al., 53–106. OIC 23. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1978. Freydank, H. “Anmerkungen zu mittelassyrischen Texten.” OLZ 66 (1971): 534–35. Furet, François. “Quantitative History.” Daedalus 100 (1979): 151–67. Garelli, Paul, Dominique Charpin, and Jean-Marie Durand. “Rôle des prisonniers et les déportés à l’époque médio-assyrienne,” in Horst Klengel, Gesellschaft und Kultur im alten Vorderasien, 69–75. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1982. Gasche, H. La Babylonie au 17e siècle avant notre ère: Approche archéologique, prob- lèmes et perspectives. MHEM 1. Ghent: University of Ghent, 1989. Gehlken, Erlend. “Childhood and Youth, Work and Old Age in Babylonia—A Statistical Analysis.” In Approaching the Babylonian Economy: Proceedings of the START Project Symposium Held in Vienna, 1–3 July 2004, edited by Heather D. Baker and Michael Jursa, 89–120. AOAT 330. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005. Gelb, I. J. “Ethnic Reconstruction and Onomastic Evidence.” Journal of the American Name Society 10 (1962): 45–52. ——. “The Ancient Mesopotamian Ration System.” JNES 24 (1965): 230–43. ——. “From Freedom to Slavery.” In Gesellschaftsklassen im alten Zweistromland und in den angrenzenden Gebieten–XVIII. Rencontre assyriologique internationale, 238 select bibliography

München, 29. Juni bis 3. Juli 1970 (CRRAI 18), edited by D. O. Edzard, 81–92. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1972. ——. “Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia.” JNES 32 (1973): 70–98. ——. “Quantitative Evaluation of Slavery and Serfdom.” In Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noel Kramer, edited by Barry L. Eichler with the assistance of Jane W. Heimerdinger and Åke W. Sjöberg., 195–207. AOAT 25. Kevelaer : Butzon & Bercker, 1976. ——. “Definition and Discussion of Slavery and Serfdom.” UF 11 (1979): 283–97. ——. “Household and Family in Early Mesopotamia,” In State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East, edited by E. Lipinski, 1–97. Vol. 1. OLA 5. Leuven: Peeters Publishing, 1979. ——. “Comparative Method in the Study of the Society and Economy of the Ancient Near East.” Rocznik Orientalistyczny 41 (1980): 29–36. Gibson, McGuire. The City and Area of Kish. Coconut Grove, FL: Field Research Projects, 1972. ——. “The Twelfth Season at Nippur.” Expedition 16/4 (1974): 23–32. ——. Excavations at Nippur: Eleventh Season. OIC 22. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975. ——. “Nippur: New Perspectives.” Archaeology 30 (1977): 26–37. ——. “Nippur 1975, A Summary Report.” Sumer 34 (1978): 114–21. ——. “Current Research at Nippur: Ecological, Anthropological, and Documentary Interplay.” In L’Archéologie de l’Iraq: Perspectives et limites de l’interprétation anthro- pologique des documents, edited by M.-Th. Barrelet, 193–205. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1980. ——. “Patterns of Occupation at Nippur.” In Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, edited by Maria de Jong Ellis, 33–54. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 14. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1992. Gibson, McGuire et al. Excavations at Nippur: Twelfth Season. OIC 23. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1978. Gibson, McGuire, Richard Zettler, and James A. Armstrong. “The Southern Corner of Nippur: Excavations during the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Seasons.” Sumer 39 (1983): 170–90. Grayson, A. K. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5. Locust Valley, N. Y.: J. J. Augustin, 1975. Grégoire, J.-P. “Major Units for the Transformation of Grain: The Grain-Grinding Households (e2-ḪAR.ḪAR) of Southern Mesopotamia at the End of the 3rd Millennium before the Common Era.” In Prehistory of Agriculture: New Experimental and Ethnographic Approaches, edited by P. C. Anderson, 223–37. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 17. Los Angeles: University of Califormia Press, 1999. Groneberg, Brigitte. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der altbabylonischen Zeit. RGTC 3. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1980. Gurney, O. R. “Texts from Dūr-Kurigalzu.” Iraq 11 (1949): 131–49 and plates. ——. “Further Texts from Dūr-Kurigalzu.” Sumer 9 (1953): 21–34 and plates. ——. Middle Babylonian Legal Documents and Other Texts. UET 7. London: British Museum Publications, 1974. ——. The Middle Babylonian Legal and Economic Texts from Ur. Oxford: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1983. Harris W. V. “Demography, Geography and the Source of Roman Slaves.” The Journal of Roman Studies 89 (1999): 62–75. Herlihy, David and Christiane Klapisch-Zuber. Tuscans and Their Families: A Study of the Florentine Catasto of 1427. Yale Series in Economic History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. select bibliography 239

Heuman, Gad, ed. Out of the House of Bondage: Runaways, Resistance and Marronage in Africa and the New World. London: Frank Cass and Company Limited, 1986. Hinke, W. J. Selected Babylonian Kudurru Inscriptions. Semitic Studies Series 14. Leiden: Brill, 1911. Hirsch, Hans. “Zwei mittelassyrische Protokolle uber die Gestellung von Dienst mannen.” AfO 23 (1970): 79–83. Hollingsworth, T. H. Historical Demography. London: Hodder & Stoughton Limited, 1969. Hölscher, Monika. Die Personennamen der kassitenzeitlichen Texte aus Nippur. IMGULA 1. Münster: Rhema Verlag, 1996. Jacobsen, Thorkild. “On the Textile Industry at Ur under Ibbī-Sîn.” In Toward the Image of Tammuz, edited by William L. Moran, 216–30. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970. Jursa, Michael. Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents: Typology, Contents, and Archives. GMTR 1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005. ——. “The Babylonian Economy in the First Millennium BC.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick, 224–35. New York: Routledge, 2007. Kay, Marvin L. and Lorin Lee Cary. “A Demographic Analysis of Colonial North Carolina with Special Emphasis upon the Slave and Black Populations.” In Black Americans in North Carolina and the South, edited by Jeffrey J. Crow and Flora J. Hatley. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Kessler, Karlheinz. “Kassitische Tontafeln vom Tell Imlihiye.” Baghdader Mitteilungen 13 (1982): 51–116. King, L. W. Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the British Museum. 2 vols. London: British Museum, 1912. Klengel, Horst. “Non-Slave Labour in the Old Babylonian Period: The Basic Outlines.” In Labor in the Ancient Near East, edited by Marvin A. Powell, 159–66. AOS 68. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1987. Knudtzon, Jörgen Alexander. Die El-Amarna Tafeln, Anmerkungen und Register bearbeitet von O. Weber und E. Ebeling. 2 vols. VAB 2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1907–15. Kozuh, Michael G. “The Sacrificial Economy: On the Management of Sacrificial Sheep and Goats at the Neo-Babylonian/Achaemenid Eanna Temple of Uruk (c. 625–520 B.C.).” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2006. Kulikoff, Allan. “A ‘Prolifick’ People”: Black Population Growth in the Chesapeake Colonies, 1700–1790.” Southern Studies 16 (1977): 391–428. Kümmel, Hans Martin. Familie, Beruf und Amt im spätbabylonischen Uruk: Prosopographische Untersuchungen zu Berufsgruppen des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. in Uruk. ADOG 20. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1979. Lambert, W. G. “Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity.” JCS 11 (1957): 1–14, 112. Larsen, M. T. “Commercial Networks in the Ancient Near East.” In Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, edited by M. Rowlands et al., 57–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Laslett, Peter. “Size and Structure of the Household in England over Three Centuries.” Population Studies 23 (1969): 199–223. ——. “Introduction: The History of the Family.” InHousehold and Family in Past Time: Comparative Studies in the Size and Structure of the Domestic Group over the Last Three Centuries in England, France, Serbia, Japan and Colonial North America, with Further Materials from Western Europe, edited by Peter Laslett with assistance by Richard Wall, 1–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Laslett, Peter, Karla Oosterveen and Richard M. Smith, eds. Bastardy and Its Com parative History: Studies in the History of Illegitimacy and Marital Nonconformism in Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, North America, Jamaica and Japan. Studies in Social and Demographic History. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980. 240 select bibliography

Levy, Marion J. Jr. “Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure.” In Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure, edited by Ansley J. Coale et al., 1–63. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965. Littlefield, Daniel C. “Plantations, Paternalism, and Profitability: Factors Affecting African Demography in the Old British Empire.” The Journal of Southern History 47 (1981): 167–82. ——. Rice and Slaves: Ethnicity and the Slave Trade in Colonial South Carolina. Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1981. Liverani, Mario. International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600-1100 B.C. New York: Palgrave, 2001. Lutz, Henry Frederick. Selected Sumerian and Babylonian Texts. Publications of the Babylonian Section 1/2. Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1919. Lynch, Katherine A. Individuals, Families, and Communities in Europe, 1200–1800: The Urban Foundations of Western Society. Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time 37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. MacGinnis, John. “The Manumission of a Royal Slave.” ASJ 15 (1993): 99–106. Maekawa, K. “Female Weavers and Their Children in Lagash—Pre-Sargonic and Ur III.” ASJ 2 (1980): 81–125. ——. “Collective Labor Service in Girsu-Lagash: The Pre-Sargonic and Ur III Periods.” In Labor in the Ancient Near East, edited by Marvin A. Powell, 49–71. AOS 68. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1987. ——. “New Texts on the Collective Labor Service of the Erín-People of Ur III Girsu.” ASJ 10 (1988): 37–94. ——. “Ur III Girsu Records of Labor Forces in the British Museum (1).” ASJ 20 (1998): 63–110. ——. “The Temples and the ‘Temple Personnel’ of the Ur III Girsu-Lagash.” In Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the Second Colloquium onthe Ancient Near East—The City and Its Life Held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo) March 22–24, 1996, edited by K. Watanabe, 61–102. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1999. Martin, Dale B. “The Construction of the Ancient Family: Methodological Considerations.” The Journal of Roman Studies 86 (1996): 40–60. Matthews, Donald M. Principles of Composition in Near Eastern Glyptic of the Later Second Millennium B.C. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 8. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. ——. The Kassite Glyptic from Nippur. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 116. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. McCown, Donald Eugene and Richard C. Haines. Nippur I: Temple of Enlil, Scribal Quarter, and Soundings. Excavations of the Joint Expedition to Nippur of the University Museum of Philadelphia and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. OIP 78. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967. McCown, Donald Eugene, Richard C. Haines, and Robert D. Biggs. Nippur II: The North Temple and Sounding E. Excavations of the Joint Expedition to Nippur of the American Schools of Oriental Research and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. OIP 97. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1978. Meillassoux, Claude. Anthropologie de l’esclavage: Le ventre de fer et d’argent. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1986. ——. L’esclavage en Afrique précoloniale. Paris: François Maspers, 1975. Menard, Russell R. “The Maryland Slave Population, 1658–1730: A Demographic Profile of Blacks in Four Counties.” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series 32 (1975): 29–54. ——. “Slave Demography in the Lowcountry, 1670–1740: From Frontier Society to Plantation Regime.” The South Carolina Historical Magazine 96 (1995): 280–303. select bibliography 241

Mendelsohn, Isaac. Slavery in the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Reprint, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1978. Moorey, P. R. S. “The Hurrians, the Mittani and Technological Innovation.” In Archaeologia iranica et orientalis: Miscellanea in honorem Louis vanden Berghe, edited by L. De Meyer and E. Haerinck, 273–86. Vol. 1. Ghent: Peeters Press, 1989. Moran, William L. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Morgan, Philip D. “Black Society in the Lowcountry, 1760–1810.” In Slavery and Freedom in the Age of the American Revolution, edited by Ira Berlin and Ronald Hoffman, 83–142. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983. ——. “Colonial South Carolina Runaways: Their Significance for Slave Culture.” In Out of the House of Bondage: Runaways, Resistance and Marronage in Africa and the New World, edited by Gad Heuman, 57–78. London: Frank Cass and Company Limited, 1986. Mullen, Gerald W. Flight and Rebellion: Slave Resistance in Eighteenth-Century Virginia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. Nashef, Khaled. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der mittelbabylonischen und mittel assyrischen Zeit. RGTC 5. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1982. ——. “The Nippur Countryside in the Kassite Period.” In Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, edited by Maria de Jong Ellis, 151–59. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 14. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1992. Newell, Colin. Methods and Models in Demography. New York: Guilford Press, 1988. Oppenheim, A. Leo. “Akk. Arad ekalli = ‘Builder.’ ” ArOr 17/2 (1949): 227–35. ——. “Siege-Documents from Nippur.” Iraq 17 (1955): 69–89. Palmié, Stephan, ed. Slave Cultures and the Cultures of Slavery. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1995. Parpola, Simo and Kazuko Watanabe. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. SAA 2. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988. Patterson, Orlando. Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1982. ——. “Slavery, Gender, and Work in the Pre-Modern World and Early Greece: A Cross- Cultural Analysis.” In Slave Systems: Ancient and Modern, edited by Enrico Dal Lago and Constantina Katsari, 32–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Pedersén, Olof. Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500-300 B.C. Bethesda: CDL Press, 1998. ——. Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon: Die Tontafeln der Grabung Robert Koldeweys 1899–1917. ADOG 25. Berlin: Saarländische Druckerei und Verlag, 2005. Peiser, F. E. Urkunden aus der Zeit der dritten babylonischen Dynastie. Berlin: Wolf Peiser Verlag, 1905. Petschow, Herbert P. H. Mittelbabylonische Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena. Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissen schaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse, vol. 64/4. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1974. ——. “Die Sklavenkaufverträge des šandabakku Enlil-kidinnī von Nippur.” Orientalia 52 (1983): 143–55. Peters, John Punnett. Nippur or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates: The Narrative of the University of Pennsylvania Expedition to Babylonia in the Years 1888–1890. 2nd edition. 2 vols. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1897. Postgate, J. N. Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge, 1994. Powell, Marvin A., ed. Labor in the Ancient Near East. AOS 68. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1987. 242 select bibliography

Preston, Samuel H., Patrick Heuveline, and Michel Guillot. Demography: Measuring and Modeling Population Processes. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. Radau, Hugo. Letters to Cassite Kings from the Temple Archives of Nippur. BE 17. Philadelphia: Department of Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania, 1908. Rainey, A. F. El Amarna Tablets 359–379: Supplement to J. A. Knudtzon Die El-Amarna Tafeln. AOAT 8. Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon und Bercker and Neukirchener-Verlag, 1970. Rawson, Beryl. “The Roman Family.” InThe Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives, edited by Beryl Rawson, 1–57. London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1986. Reade, Julian. “Kassites and Assyrians in Iran.” Iran 16 (1978): 137–43. Renger, Johannes. “Flucht als soziales Problem in der altbabylonische Gesellschaft.” In Gesellschaftsklassen im alten Zweistromland und in den angrenzenden Gebieten– XVIII. Rencontre assyriologique internationale, München, 29. Juni bis 3. Juli 1970 (CRRAI 18), edited by D. O. Edzard, 167–82. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1972. Richardson, Seth Francis Corning. “The Collapse of a Complex State: A Reappraisal of the End of the First Dynasty of Babylon, 1683-1597 B.C.” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 2002. Robson, Eleanor. “Tables and Tabular Formatting in Sumer, Babylonia, and Assyria, 2500 B.C.E.–50 C.E.” In The History of Mathematical Tables: From Sumer to Spreadsheets, edited by M. Campbell-Kelly et al., 18–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. ——. “Accounting for Change: The Development of Tabular Bookkeeping in Early Mesopotamia.” In Creating Economic Order, edited by Michael Hudson and Cornelia Wunsch, 107–44. International Scholars Conference on Ancient Near Eastern Economies, vol. 4. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 2004. ——. Mathematics in Ancient Iraq: A Social History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. Rotberg, Robert I. and Theodore K. Rabb, eds. Population and Economy: Population and History from the Traditional to the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Roth, Martha T. “Age at Marriage and the Household: A Study of Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian Forms,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 29 (1987): 715–47. ——. Babylonian Marriage Agreements 7th–3rd Centuries B.C. AOAT 222. Neukirchen- Vluyn and Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon und Bercker, 1989. ——. “The Neo-Babylonian Widow.” JCS 43–45 (1991–1993): 1–26. ——. “Tašmētu-damqat and Daughters.” In Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner, edited by J. Marzahn, H. Neumann, and A. Fuchs, 387–400. AOAT 252. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000. Roth, Martha T. with a contribution by Harry A. Hoffner Jr. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. 2nd edition. Writings from the Ancient World 6, edited by Piotr Michalowski. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Sassmannshausen, Leonhard. Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft Babyloniens in der Kassitenzeit. Baghdader Forschungen 21. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2001. Scheidel, Walter. Measuring Sex, Age and Death in the Roman Empire: Explorations in Ancient Demography. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 21. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1996. ——. Death on the Nile: Disease and the Demography of Roman Egypt. Mnemosyne bibliotheca classica Batava Supplementum 228. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ——, ed. Debating Roman Demography. Mnemosyne bibliotheca classica Batava. Supplementum 211. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ——. “Human Mobility in Roman Italy, II: The Slave Population.” The Journal of Roman Studies 95(2005): 64–79. select bibliography 243

——. “Marriage, Families, and Survival: Demographic Aspects.” In A Companion to the Roman Army, 417–434, edited by Paul Erdkamp. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2007. Schloen, David. The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001. Sjoberg, Gideon. The Preindustrial City: Past and Present. Glencoe: The Free Press of Glencoe, Illinois, 1960. Slanksi, Kathryn. “Middle Babylonian Period.” In A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law vol. 1, edited by Raymond Westbrook, 485–520. Handbook of Oriental Studies 72/1. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Snell, Daniel C. Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 8, edited by B. Halpern et al. Leiden: Brill, 2001. van Soldt, W. H. “Kassite Textiles for Enlil-Nērāru’s Messenger,” AoF 24 (1997): 97–104. Speiser, E. A. “The Hurrian Participation in the Civilizations of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine.” Journal of World History 1 (1953–54): 311–27. Srinivasan, K. Basic Demographic Techniques and Applications. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1998. Stamm, Johann Jakob. Die akkadische Namengebung. MVAG 44. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1939. Steinkeller, Piotr. “The Foresters of Umma: Toward a Definition of Ur III Labor.” In Labor in the Ancient Near East, edited by Marvin A. Powell, 73–115. AOS 68. New Haven, American Oriental Society, 1987. ——. “The Organization of Crafts in Third Millennium Babylonia: The Caseof Potters.” AoF 23 (1996): 232–53. Stol, Martin. “Blindness and Night-Blindness in Akkadian,” JNES 45 (1986): 295–99. Stone, Elizabeth C. “Economic Crisis and Social Upheaval in Nippur in the Old Babylonian Period.” In Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia, edited by Louis D. Levine and T. Cuyler Young, Jr., 267–89. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 7. Malibu: Undena Publications, 1977. ——. “The Social and Economic Organization of Old Babylonian Nippur.” Ph.D. diss. University of Chicago, 1979. ——. “Texts, Architecture and Ethnographic Analogy: Patterns of Residence in Old Babylonian Nippur,” Iraq 43 (1981): 19–33. ——. Nippur Neighborhoods. SAOC 44. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1987. Studevent-Hickman, Benjamin. “The Organization of Labor in Ur III Babylonia.” 2 vols. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2006. Tallqvist, Knut L. Assyrian Personal Names. Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae 43. Helsinki: Finska Vetenskapssocieteten, 1914. Tenney, Jonathan S. “Life on the Bottom of Babylonian Society: Servile Laborers at Nippur in the 14th and 13th Centuries B.C.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2009. Torczyner, Harry. Altbabylonische Tempelrechnungen. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien 55. Vienna: A. Hölder, 1913. Turley, David. Slavery. New Perspectives on the Past. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. Van De Mieroop, Marc. Society and Enterprise in Old Babylonian Ur. BBVO 12, edited by Volkert Haas et al. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1992. van Koppen, Frans. “The Geography of the Slave Trade and Northern Mesopotamia in the Late Old Babylonian Period.” In Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited, edited by Hermann Hunger and Regine Pruzsinszky, 9–33. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 32. Vienna:Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004. 244 select bibliography

Van Lerberghe, Karel and Gabriella Voet with the assistance of Hendrik Hameeuw. A Late Old Babylonian Temple Archive from Dūr-Abiešuḫ. CUSAS 8. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 2009. von Dassow, Eva. “Social Stratification of Alalaḫ under the Mittani Empire.” Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1997. ——. State and Society in the Late Bronze Age: Alalakh under the Mittani Empire. SCCNH 17. Bethesda: CDL Press, 2008. Wachter, Kenneth W., Eugene A. Hammel and Peter Laslett. Statistical Studies of Historical Social Structure. New York: Academic Press, 1978. Waetzoldt, Harmut. Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textilindustrie. Studi economici e tecnologici 1. Rome: Centro per le Antichità e la Storia dell’Arte del Vicino Oriente, 1972. ——. “Compensation of Craft Workers and Officials in the Ur III Period.” Translated by Marvin A. Powell. In Labor in the Ancient Near East, edited by Marvin A. Powell, 117–41. AOS 68. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1987. ——. “Die Situation der Frauen und Kinder anhand ihrer Einkommensverhältnisse zur Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur.” AoF 15 (1988): 30–44. Wall, Richard. “The Household: Demographic and Economic Change in England, 1650–1970.” In Family Forms in Historic Europe, edited by Richard Wall, Jean Robin and Peter Laslett, 493–512. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Wall, Richard, Jean Robin and Peter Laslett, eds. Family Forms in Historic Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Westbrook, Raymond. “A Sumerian Freedman.” In Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, edited by W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, and A. Zgoll, 333–39. Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 14. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003. Wilhelm, Gernot. The Hurrians. Translated by Jennifer Barnes. Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1989. Windley, Lathan Algera. “Profile of Runaway Slaves in Virginia and South Carolina from 1730 through 1787.” Ph.D diss., University of Iowa, 1974. Woolley, Leonard. The Kassite Period and the Period of the Assyrian Kings. UE 8. London: British Museum and University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1965. Woolley, Leonard and Max Mallowan. The Old Babylonian Period. UE 7. London: British Museum and University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1976. Wrigley, E. A. and R. S. Schofield. The Population History of England 1541–1871: A Reconstruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981. Zaccagnini, Carlo. “The Merchant at Nuzi.” Iraq 39 (1977): 171–89. ——. “Aspects of Ceremonial Exchange in the Near East during the Late Second Millennium B.C.” In Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, edited by M. Rowlands et al., 57–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Zadok, Ran. Geographical Names according to New- and Late-Babylonian Texts. RGTC 8. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1985. Zettler, Richard. The Ur III Temple of Inanna at Nippur: The Operation and Organization of Urban Religious Institutions in Mesopotamia in the Late Third Millennium B. C. BBVO 11. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1992. ——. Nippur III: Kassite Buildings in Area WC-1. OIP 111, edited by McGuire Gibson. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1993. List and Index of Cuneiform Sources

The following cuneiform sources were used to complete this study. Published texts are listed by publication number, unpublished by museum number. The following list includes the 520 tablets that were used in the research data base as well as pertinent documents which fall outside the parameters established on pages 7–9. Pages and footnotes in which a text is mentioned, if any, are given to the right of the publication or museum number.

B. BE 14 62 26 nn. 54 and 58, 42 n. 14, B. 143+227 (Pedersén, ADOG 25, 66–70 (passim in footnotes), 94 n. 2 M8:17) 31, 102 n. 63 BE 14 73 145 n. 39 BE 14 91a 8 n. 1, 26 nn. 54 and 57, Baghdader Mitteilungen 13 (1982) 42 n. 14, 66–70 (passim in footnotes), BaM 13 1 (pp. 57–60) 33 69 n. 19 BE 14 105 42 n. 14, 110 n. 105 BBSt BE 14 120 22–23, 42 n. 14, 60 n. 66, BBSt 33 36 103 n. 70 BE 14 126 74 n. 45, 155 BE 1 BE 14 127 35 n. 95 BE 1 43 141 n. 16 BE 14 128a 33, 73–74 n. 40 BE 14 135 35 n. 95, 120 BE 14 BE 14 138 25 n. 43, 50 n. 33, 57 n. 52 BE 14 1 33, 102 n. 59, 122 n. 160, BE 14 142 60 n. 63–64, 112 n. 118, 126 n. 189 155–56 BE 14 2 BE 14 166 BE 14 7 31, 102 nn. 59 and 63, 123 n. 169, 129 n. 210 BE 15 BE 14 11 35 n. 95, 117 n. 136, BE 15 26 143 n. 23 118 n. 138 BE 15 48 BE 14 12 143 n. 24 BE 15 96 3 n. 6, 27 n. 59 BE 14 19 27 n. 65, 28, 29 nn. 69 and 73, BE 15 111 27 n. 59, 43, 95 n. 14 42 n. 14, 95 n. 12 BE 15 160 26 nn. 54 and 56, 112 BE 14 20 27 n. 65, 95 n. 12 BE 15 177 BE 14 22 27 n. 65, 28 n. 66, 29 n. 70, 30 BE 15 180 27 n. 65, 30 n. 78, 95 n. 12, n. 74, 42 n. 14, 95 nn. 15–16, 212 n. 4 212–26 BE 14 42 BE 15 184 25 n. 51, 46 nn. 22 and 24, 86 BE 14 58 3 n. 6, 27 nn. 59–60 and n. 91, 103 n. 67 62–64, 42 n. 14, 62–70, 73, 74 n. 45, BE 15 185 25 n. 51, 46 n. 22, 103 n. 86 n. 89, 95 n. 14, 101 n. 57, 104 n. 80, 68, 156 107 n. 93, 110 n. 105, 112 n. 116, 127 BE 15 188 25 n. 51, 60 n. 65, 100 nn. n. 197, 130 n. 214, 143 n. 35, 148 n. 5, 50–51 151–54 BE 15 190 8 n. 1, 25 nn. 51–52, 100 nn. BE 14 60 8 n. 1, 26 nn. 54 and 58, 42 n. 50–51, 101 n. 57, 131 14, 66–70 (passim in footnotes) BE 15 198 246 list and index of cuneiform sources

BE 15 199 143 n. 34 CBS 6620 BE 15 200 25 n. 51, 46 n. 22, n. 24, 86 n. CBS 7092+10654 + 13380B + N 4268, 43 91, 100 n. 50–51 n. 17, 60 nn. 63–64, 73 n. 40, 74 n. 45, 90, 110 n. 105, 112–13 n. 118, 118 n. BE 17 144, 148 n. 5, 165–70 BE 17 51 CBS 7212 62 n. 75 BE 17 83 CBS 7220 CBS 7222 BM CBS 7231 BM 17626 34, 35 n. 95, 106 n. 89, 116, CBS 7240 118 n. 143, 119 117 n. 136, 118 n. 137–38 CBS 7242 127 n. 194 BM 82699 22, 23 n. 41, 62 n. 75, 118 nn. CBS 7716 119 n. 150 143–44 CBS 7726 42 n. 14, 94 n. 3, 102 n. 58, 125–26, 143 n. 31 CBS CBS 7752 74 n. 45, 84 n. 81, 130 n. 219, CBS 2126 148 n. 5, 170–74 CBS 3225+3291 59–60 n. 62 CBS 7767 CBS 3431 CBS 7769 CBS 3465 62 n. 75, 94 n. 2, 95 n. 6, 98 n. CBS 8089 19 n. 27, 102 n. 62 31, 157 CBS 8509 43 CBS 3471 CBS 8510 43 n. 16, 107 n. 93, 110 n. 105 CBS 3472 19–20, 86 n. 89, 103 n. CBS 8557 74, 104 n. 75, 107 n. 93, 110 n. 105, CBS 8558 174 111 n. 110, 148 n. 5, 157–61 CBS 8600A 35 n. 95, 117 n. 136 CBS 3474 30 n. 76, 95 n. 13, 103 n. 69, CBS 8728 121 n. 158, 211–12 n. 3, 212–14 CBS 8889 CBS 3480 CBS 8899 95 n. 13, 121 n. 158 CBS 3484A 74 n. 45, 161–62 CBS 9803 11, 103 n. 69 CBS 3486 112 n. 118 CBS 9881 CBS 3488 103 n. 72 CBS 10437 CBS 3493 118 n. 144, 120 n. 153 CBS 10450 103 n. 67 CBS 3513 CBS 10585 103 n. 71 CBS 3521 104 n. 75 CBS 10654 see CBS 7092+ CBS 3523 101 n. 54, 103 n. 68 CBS 10660 CBS 3534 CBS 10663 CBS 3638 103 n. 68 CBS 10665 CBS 3640 CBS 10667 107 n. 94 CBS 3646 43, 74 n. 45, 94 n. 4 CBS 10668 CBS 3648 57 n. 52 CBS 10669 CBS 3649 62 n. 75, 103 n. 70 CBS 10671 110 n. 105, 111 n. 108 CBS 3650 86 n. 89, 103 n. 67, 162–63 CBS 10674 CBS 3651 CBS 10681 CBS 3667 163–64 CBS 10696 CBS 3681 143 n. 31 CBS 10699 110 n. 105 CBS 3695 97 n. 25, 130 n. 214, CBS 10700 43 n. 16, 59–60 n. 62 164–65 CBS 10701 CBS 3736 46 n. 23, 95 n. 11, 107 n. 93, CBS 10703 109 n. 102, 112 CBS 10707 CBS 3816 43 n. 18, 95 n. 10 CBS 10713 107 n. 94, 110 n. 105, CBS 3819 120 n. 153 CBS 4904 CBS 10714 CBS 4906 23 CBS 10715 107 n. 93, 110 n. 105 CBS 4908 CBS 10728 CBS 4914 CBS 10733 33 list and index of cuneiform sources 247

CBS 10734 95 n. 9 CBS 11971 CBS 10741 46 n. 23, 107 n. 93 CBS 11976 CBS 10743 96 n. 18 CBS 11978 21, 114 n. 125, 115 CBS 10750 CBS 12532 CBS 10809 CBS 12560 CBS 10810 60 n. 64, 112–13 n. 118 CBS 12561 CBS 10826 CBS 12572 43 n. 15 CBS 10835 CBS 12598 CBS 10934 57 n. 52, 98 n. 29 CBS 12630 CBS 10959 CBS 12691 CBS 10977 CBS 12721 CBS 11051 60 n. 64, 107 n. 93, CBS 12767 109 n. 102 CBS 12768 CBS 11103 120 n. 153 CBS 12769 CBS 11106 35 n. 95, 106 n. 89, 112 n. CBS 12771 + 13316 + UM 29-13-525 117, 116, 117 n. 136, 118 n. 139, CBS 12934 128 n. 201 CBS 13248 CBS 11142 CBS 13271 CBS 11143 CBS 13272 62 n. 77 CBS 11425 CBS 13287 CBS 11442 143 n. 26 CBS 13303 CBS 11453 35 n. 95, 106 n. 89, 117 n. CBS 13311 57 n. 52 136, 118 n. 142 CBS 13316 see CBS 12771+ CBS 11501 103 n. 70 CBS 13319 CBS 11505 23, 97 n. 25, 174–75 CBS 13322 43 n. 16 CBS 11531 21 CBS 13337 CBS 11612 CBS 13341 CBS 11617 CBS 13380B see CBS 7092+ CBS 11618 CBS 13455 86 n. 89, 178–79 CBS 11638 CBS 13490 43 n. 16 CBS 11642 CBS 13508 57 n. 52 CBS 11670 95 n. 13, 121 n. 158 CBS 14210 CBS 11697 CBS 15178 35 n. 97, 43 CBS 11747 CBS 11750 CT 51 CBS 11751 CT 51 19 66–70 (passim in footnotes) CBS 11796 CBS 11797 98 n. 30 FLP CBS 11801 107 n. 93 FLP 1313 98 n. 30 CBS 11803 CBS 11826 95 n. 13, 121 n. 158 IM CBS 11833 IM 49992 101 n. 53 CBS 11835 95 n. 8 CBS 11849 141 n. 17 Iraq 11 (1949) CBS 11868 2 (pp. 132–33) 129 n. 209 CBS 11873 43 n. 16, 103 n. 72 8 (pp. 146–47) 36 n. 101 CBS 11899 23 CBS 11907 Ki CBS 11909 Ki. 1056 72 n. 38 CBS 11919 CBS 11937 74 n. 45, 88–89, 103 n. 73, MBTU 176–77 MBTU 1 CBS 11966 MBTU 2 CBS 11969 130–31 n. 219, 177–78 MBTU 21 248 list and index of cuneiform sources

MBTU 22 MUN 105 27 n. 65, 30 nn. 80, 82, and MBTU 23 84, 31, 42 n. 14, 95 n. 12, 211–12 n. 3, MBTU 24 212, 215–18, 221–22, 224 MBTU 25 MUN 108 27 n. 65, 30 n. 81 and MBTU 26 nn. 84–85, 42 n. 14, 95 n. 12, 212, MBTU 27 216–18 MUN 109 27 n. 65, 30 nn. 81 and 85, 42 MDP n. 14, 95 n. 12 MDP 2 95–96 129 n. 208 MUN 110 27 n. 65, 30 nn. 81 and 84–85, 42 n. 14, 95 n. 12, 212, 214–17, MRWH 219–21, 223 MRWH 1 see TuM NF 5 66 MUN 111 27 n. 65, 30 nn. 81 and 85, 31 MRWH 2 see TuM NF 5 65 n. 86, 42 n. 14, 95 n. 12, 212 MRWH 10 see TuM NF 5 67 MUN 112 25 nn. 43 and 46, 43 n. 18 MRWH 14 see TuM NF 5 68 MUN 113 30 n. 81 MRWH 50 see TuM NF 5 34 MUN 271 145 n. 39 MRWH 51 see TuM NF 5 63 MUN 272 145 n. 39 MUN 273 145 n. 39 MSKH 1 MUN 284 42 n. 14 MSKH 1 9 (pp. 383–84) 33, 73–74 n. 40, MUN 317 141 n. 14 MUN 417 MSKH 1 13 (p. 386) see Ni. 65 MUN 418 42 n. 14, 118 n. 143

MUN N MUN 8 31 N 868 MUN 9 + PBS 13 64 32, 74 n. 45, 76 n. N 919 52, 83 n. 79, 123 n. 169, 126 n. 187, N 1076 129 n. 211 N 1803 95 n. 13, 121 n. 158 MUN 20 N 1906 107 n. 93 MUN 86 27 n. 65, 28, 29 nn. 69 and 72, N 1934 110 n. 105 42 n. 14, 95 n. 12, 211 n. 3, 212, 215, N 1936 217–18, 220–21 N 1953 46 n. 23, 107 n. 93 MUN 87 27 n. 65, 42 n. 14, N 1957 95 n. 12 N 1959 MUN 88 27 n. 65, 29 n. 70, 42 n. 14, 95 N 2037 n. 12, 212, 214, 216, 219, 223–25 N 2059 MUN 89 27 n. 65, 30 nn. 77 and 79, 42 N 2066 n. 14, 94 n. 3, 95 n. 12 N 2077 MUN 90 27 n. 65, 42 n. 14, 95 nn. 12 N 2137 and 14 N 2193 MUN 91 27 n. 65, 29 n. 70, 42 n. 14, 95 N 2219 nn. 12 and 16, 212 n. 4 N 2248+2249 MUN 93 27 n. 65, 28, 29 nn. 70–71, 30 N 2267 n. 76, 42 n. 14, 95 nn. 12–14 and 16, N 2368 97 n. 19, 103 nn. 65–66, 121 n. 158, N 2442 212–14, 216–18, 220–25 N 2466 MUN 94 27 n. 65, 29 n. 71, 43 n. 18, N 2468 95 n. 12 N 2481 MUN 95 27 n. 65, 28 n. 66, 29 n. 70, N 2486 30 n. 74, 43 n. 18, 95 nn. 12 and N 2515 15–16 N 2518 MUN 101 25 n. 43, 43 n. 18 N 2640 MUN 103 25 nn. 43–44, nn. 47 and 50, N 2688 42 n. 14 N 2691 list and index of cuneiform sources 249

N 2791 Ni. 1226 N 2976 Ni. 1235 128 n. 205 N 3064 Ni. 1241 N 3509 Ni. 1260 N 4268 see CBS 7092+ Ni. 1265 N 4556 Ni. 1267 N 4746 Ni. 1269 Ni. 1276 128 n. 205 NBC Ni. 1279 NBC 7955 57 n. 53, 95 n. 7, 99, 104 n. Ni. 1283 81, 111 n. 111 Ni. 1289 NBC 7958 105 n. 84 Ni. 1309 NBC 7959 31 n. 86 Ni. 1332 19 NBC 7975 103 n. 71 Ni. 1333 35 n. 95, 102 n. 61, 106 n. 89, 117, 120 n. 154 Ni Ni. 1348 16–17, 102 n. 60 Ni. 65 (MSKH 1 p. 386 no. 13, date only), Ni. 1365 142 n. 18 Ni. 1368 Ni. 106 Ni. 1390 35 n. 95 Ni. 158 140 n. 12 Ni. 1574 32, 74 n. 45, 76 n. 52, 77 n. 56, Ni. 177 109 n. 103, 179 83 n. 79, 86 n. 89, 123 n. 169, 126 n. Ni. 373 59–60 n. 62 187, 188 Ni. 436 Ni. 1624 Ni. 614 Ni. 1627 15 n. 14, 16 n. 16, 104 n. 77, Ni. 625 118 nn. 143–144, 121 n. 159 Ni. 643 128 n. 206 Ni. 1642 95 n. 7, 99, 104 n. 81 Ni. 656 20 Ni. 1644 Ni. 689 20 Ni. 1647 Ni. 717 Ni. 1649 Ni. 826 35 Ni. 1854 32, 130 n. 218 Ni. 887 143 n. 23 Ni. 1860 Ni. 890 179–80 Ni. 2204 35 n. 95, 106 n. 89, 112 n. 117, Ni. 919 117 n. 136, 118 n. 140 Ni. 926 Ni. 2228 17–18, 107 n. 94, 114 nn. 123 Ni. 943 94 n. 3, 95 n. 6, 98 n. 31, 100 nn. and 125, 115 50–51 Ni. 2290 Ni. 1019 Ni. 2595 60 n. 64 Ni. 1030 Ni. 2646 60 n. 64 Ni. 1053 Ni. 2793 60 n. 63, 90, 148 n. 5, Ni. 1056 189–94 Ni. 1057 Ni. 2809 Ni. 1066 +1069 59–60 n. 62, 90, 120 n. Ni. 2885 102 n. 63, 127, 128 n. 204 153, 148 n. 5, 180–88 Ni. 2891 120 Ni. 1067 +1079 Ni. 2939 143 n. 23 Ni. 1075 120 n. 153 Ni. 3028 Ni. 1076 107 n. 94 Ni. 3061 Ni. 1086 Ni. 3199 Ni. 1090 Ni. 5860 124 n. 175 Ni. 1100 Ni. 5878 Ni. 1108 Ni. 5887 Ni. 1114 Ni. 5890 128 n. 205 Ni. 1147 Ni. 5966 Ni. 1154 Ni. 5978 Ni. 1198 Ni. 5980 250 list and index of cuneiform sources

Ni. 5989 59–60 n. 62, 73 n. 40, 148 n. 5, Ni. 6590 194–96 Ni. 6614 Ni. 5993 120 n. 153 Ni. 6635 Ni. 5998 Ni. 6667 Ni. 6033 60 n. 64, 120 n. 153 Ni. 6668 Ni. 6047 60 n. 64 Ni. 6713 Ni. 6052 143 n. 28 Ni. 6718 198–99 Ni. 6068 60 n. 64, 73 n. 40, 120 n. 153 Ni. 6733 Ni. 6078 60 n. 64 Ni. 6758 73 n. 40 Ni. 6134 Ni. 6759 Ni. 6136 Ni. 6775 66–70 (passim in footnotes), Ni. 6142 60 n. 64 127 n. 197, 154 Ni. 6143 73 n. 40 Ni. 6787 Ni. 6157 Ni. 6794 Ni. 6165 60 n. 64 Ni. 6804 60 n. 64, 73 n. 40 Ni. 6168 Ni. 6816 60 n. 64, 199–200 Ni. 6169 60 n. 64 Ni. 6844 Ni. 6174 60 n. 64 Ni. 6850 Ni. 6192 32, 76 n. 52, 83 n. 79, 86 n. 89, Ni. 6864 123 n. 169, 126 nn. 187–88, 129 n. Ni. 6871 143 n. 29 211, 130 n. 217, 196 Ni. 6880 Ni. 6208 197 Ni. 6883 Ni. 6233 Ni. 6896 Ni. 6235 Ni. 6897 Ni. 6237 104 n. 78, 120 n. 153 Ni. 6899 Ni. 6243 107 n. 94 Ni. 6900 Ni. 6244 120 n. 153 Ni. 6932 121 n. 158, 124 n. 174, 125 n. 179 Ni. 6261 60 n. 63 Ni. 6945 Ni. 6262 Ni. 6961 Ni. 6270 Ni. 6964 Ni. 6283 Ni. 7002 Ni. 6285 Ni. 7013 Ni. 6290 Ni. 7016 Ni. 6341 Ni. 7019 143 n. 32 Ni. 6342 Ni. 7033 114 n. 125 Ni. 6387 Ni. 7050 124 nn. 173–74, 125 n. 179 Ni. 6397 Ni. 7067 Ni. 6430 98 n. 29 Ni. 7081 Ni. 6433 Ni. 7107 Ni. 6444 83 n. 78, 111 n. 109, 148 n. 5, Ni. 7160 197–98 Ni. 7170 Ni. 6447 Ni. 7195 35 n. 95, 117 n. 136 Ni. 6464 60 n. 64 Ni. 7200 Ni. 6468 120 n. 153 Ni. 7455 107 n. 94 Ni. 6470 98 n. 29, 120 n. 153 Ni. 7580 Ni. 6471 Ni. 8135 Ni. 6472 Ni. 8164 60 n. 64, 73 n. 40 Ni. 6477 Ni. 8168 Ni. 6504 Ni. 8221 118 n. 143 Ni. 6537 Ni. 8254 114 n. 125 Ni. 6558 32, 102 n. 63 Ni. 8261 Ni. 6564 Ni. 8265 Ni. 6575 Ni. 8282 98 n. 29 Ni. 6587 Ni. 8291 114 n. 125 list and index of cuneiform sources 251

Ni. 8326 PBS 2/2 118 145 n. 39 Ni. 8540 PBS 2/2 130 140 n. 12 Ni. 8701 PBS 2/2 132 27 n. 65, 30 n. 75, 95 n. 12, Ni. 8956 105 n. 84, 211–12 n. 3, 212–24, Ni. 11035 226–27 Ni. 11043 PBS 2/2 142 95 n. 6, 98 n. 31 Ni. 11055 120 n. 153 PBS 2/2 144 Ni. 11074 Ni. 11079 PBS 8/2 Ni. 11095 PBS 8/2 161 35 n. 95, 106 n. 89, 112 n. Ni. 11111 124–25 117, 117 n. 136, 118 n. 141 Ni. 11149 19–20, 86 n. 89, 148 n. 5, PBS 8/2 162 32, 102 n. 59, 123 n. 169, 200–203 126 n. 190 Ni. 11169 Ni. 11179 PBS 13 Ni. 11182 73 n. 40 PBS 13 64 see MUN 9+ Ni. 11197 60 n. 64, 73 n. 40, 203–4 PBS 13 80 143 n. 27 Ni. 11203 Ni. 11228 TBER Ni. 11346 TBER, pl. 25 (AO 8187-3) Ni. 11371 TBER, pl. 26 (AO 8187-6) Ni. 11373 73 n. 40, 107 n. 94 Ni. 11378 TCS 5 (Grayson, Chronicles) Ni. 11391 Chronicle P (BM 92701) 141 n. 16, 142 Ni. 11395 n. 19 Ni. 11455 Ni. 11458 95 n. 13, 121 n. 158 TuM NF 5 Ni. 11732 204 TuM NF 5 34 3 nn. 8–9 Ni. 11735 TuM NF 5 63 3 nn. 8–9 Ni. 11736 TuM NF 5 65 32, 123 n. 169, 129 n. 210 Ni. 11751 TuM NF 5 66 32 Ni. 11816 60 n. 64 TuM NF 5 67 35 n. 95 Ni. 11817 60 n. 64, 205 TuM NF 5 68 126 n. 192 Ni. 11907 Ni. 12147 UET Ni. 12317 UET 7 1 33 Ni. 12412 66–70 (passim in footnotes) UET 7 2 33 Ni. 12449 UET 7 21 33 Ni. 12485 UET 7 22 33 Ni. 13081 UET 7 23 33 UET 7 24 33 PBS 2/2 UET 7 25 33 PBS 2/2 9 27 n. 65, 30 n. 75, 95 n. 12, UET 7 26 212, 225 UET 7 27 33 PBS 2/2 11 94 n. 3 PBS 2/2 25 32 UM PBS 2/2 48 22, 23 nn. 41–42 UM 29-13-258 PBS 2/2 53 UM 29-13-293 PBS 2/2 55 112 UM 29-13-307 PBS 2/2 89 UM 29-13-332 PBS 2/2 95 UM 29-13-371 PBS 2/2 100 UM 29-13-378 42 n. 14 PBS 2/2 111 UM 29-13-382 42 n. 14, 212, 214, 218, PBS 2/2 116 118 n. 143, 119, 120 n. 152 220–22, 224 252 list and index of cuneiform sources

UM 29-13-441 59–60 n. 62, UM 29-15-298 60 n. 64, 148 n. 5, 110 n. 105 208–10 UM 29-13-525 see CBS 12771+ UM 29-15-316 UM 29-13-592 UM 29-15-335 110 nn. 105 and 107 UM 29-13-631 UM 29-15-345 UM 29-13-644 43 n. 16 UM 29-15-370 43 n. 18 UM 29-13-646 107 n. 93, 110 n. 105 UM 29-15-372 UM 29-13-651 UM 29-15-373 210 UM 29-13-666 UM 29-15-431 UM 29-13-680 UM 29-15-447 143 n. 25 UM 29-13-694 60 n. 63 UM 29-15-452 UM 29-13-696 UM 29-15-461 19 n. 25 UM 29-13-701 UM 29-15-598 33 n. 91 UM 29-13-724 UM 29-15-627 UM 29-13-739 UM 29-15-730 74 n. 45 UM 29-13-808 UM 29-15-751 UM 29-13-816 42 n. 14, 211 n. 3 UM 29-15-760 66–70 (passim in UM 29-13-856 footnotes), 86 n. 89, 107 n. 93–94, UM 29-13-873 152–53 UM 29-13-984 35 n. 95 UM 29-15-781 UM 29-15-52 UM 29-16-45 UM 29-15-57 UM 29-16-108 94 n. 5 UM 29-15-66 UM 29-16-116 UM 29-15-72 UM 29-16-149 UM 29-15-77 114 n. 125 UM 29-16-160 UM 29-15-84 UM 29-16-174 UM 29-15-151 UM 29-16-288 UM 29-15-170 UM 29-16-355 UM 29-15-212 46 n. 23, 107 n. 93 UM 29-16-465 UM 29-15-222 114–15 n. 125 UM 29-16-755 UM 29-15-244 62 n. 77 UM 29-16-791 UM 29-15-253 43 n. 16 UM 29-15-269 VAS 24 UM 29-15-271 VAS 24 91 141 n. 16 UM 29-15-284 UM 29-15-286 VAT UM 29-15-292 60 n. 64, 90, 118 n. 142, VAT 17908 (FuB 12 p. 51 no. 1), 142 n. 148 n. 5, 205–8 21 General Index

This index contains some personal names but is not a complete personal-name index (many individuals are incidental to the overall argument). Different persons with the same name are distinguished in the index when possible. In cases where persons cannot be told apart, page numbers are placed under the same name even though they might have been different people.I n general, entries are alphabetized according to the order of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (e.g., s, s,̣ š; t, t),̣ but with ḫ alphabetized as h. Markers of vocalic length are kept if so used in the text, but they have no bearing on alphabetization. Most special transliteration markers (e.g., half brackets, question marks), except in the case of severely broken names, are omitted. Names that are damaged at the beginning can be found at the end of the index. Personal names in Appendix 2 are not repeated here, since they are listed alpha- betically in that appendix. Abbreviations for cross references include: GI = General Index; IWL = Index of Select Akkadian Words and Logograms. abandonment of children: 111; see also Adad-šubši: 173 foundlings Adad-šuma-iddina: occurrences of Aba-lā-idi: 195 regnal years, 33 Aba-ul-īdi: 107 n. 93 Adad-šumu-līšir: 74 n. 45, 155, Abu (month name): 30 n. 82 172, 208 acrobats: 230 n. 11; see also ḫuppû in the Adad-zēra-šubši: 203 IWL Adallalu: 164 actors: 99, 230 n. 17; see also kurgarrû in administration: see organization of the IWL servile laborers and supervision, Adad-aḫa-iddina: 17 supervisors Adad-aḫa-īriš: 166 administrative texts: see under sources, Adad-bāni: 155 documentary Adad-ibni: 109 n. 103, 179 adolescent (laborers): 13, 54, and passim, Adad-iddin: 167 escapees 109; statistics regarding Adad-kīna-usur:̣ 205 55–63; see also GURUŠ.TUR, Adad-lītāni: 198 GURUŠ.TUR.GAL, and SAL.TUR in Adad-nādā: 154, 161 the IWL Adad-nāsir:̣ 209 adult (laborers): 13 and passim; Adad-nirari I: 141 escapees 109; statistics regarding Adad-šar-ḫegalli: 179 53–64; see also GURUŠ and Adad-šar-ilī: 126 SAL in the IWL Adad-šar-māti: 170 Aegean region: 140 Adad-šarru: 208 Afghanistan: 140 Adad-šemi: 46 n. 23, 107 n. 93 Agab-šenni: 157 254 general index age(s) of laborers 50–51; see also sex-age Arrapḫa: 97, 122; on map 123 designations Arūna, Arūnayans: 97 n. 24, 121 n. 158, agriculure, agricultural work: see 122, 124; on map 123 farming, farmers As-su-⌈ka?⌉ (city?): 19 Aḫa-iddina-Marduk: son of Bēletu 185; Assur (city): on map xxii son of Šamaš-uballissu 195 Assyria, Assyrian(s): 1, 97, 121 n. 158, Aḫa-lūmur: 159 122, 124, 128, 140–41; merchants, 101 Aḫāssunu: 208 n. 53, 141; on maps xxii, 123 Aḫātī-aqrat: 110 n. 105 Asûša-x̣ […]: 110 n. 105 Aḫēdūtu: 34, 116, 118 n. 137 Asûšu-namir:̣ 46 n. 23, 107 n. 93, 158 A-ḫi-tu-u-tu, city of the son of Ātamar-rabûssu: 161 (Aḫēdūtu?): 19 attendants: 232 n. 39; see also ša rēši in Aḫlamītu: 97 n. 25, 164–65 the IWL Aḫlamû: 97 n. 24 axis of calculation: 9, 12 Ahu-līšir-D̮ N: 117 Akbaru: 175 Baba-šarrat: 59–60 n. 62, 88, 166, 184 Akītu (personal name): 197 Bābilāyitu: 202–3 Akītu-rīšat: 159 Babylon: 142–43; on map xxii Akkade-rabât: 178; see also Ina-Akkade- Babylonia, Babylonians: 1, 4, 6, 121–22, rabât 129, 140, and passim; consolidation Akkadians: 97 n. 24; see also Babylonia, under Kassites 140; dynastic marriages Babylonians in this index and akkadû with Elam 141 n. 16; on map xxii; in the IWL political history 140–44; see also Ališpi: 179 Akkadians and Karduniaš in this Al-lu-at-ra: 117 n. 136 index and akkadû in the IWL Āl-šēlebi: 35 Bahūtu:̮ 170 Al-zu-tum: 206 Ba-ak-ta-ri-x: 190 Amarna (letters and period): 140–41 Balātitu:̣ 166–67 Amat-Nuska: 70, 153 Baltānitu: 166 Amīl-Adad: 188 Bāltī-Adad: 69, 154 Amīlīya: 157, 194 Bāltī-Nergal: 156, 161 Amīl-Marduk: 16, 102 n. 58, 120, 125 Bāltīya: 91 n. 108, 190 Ammar-ša-X: 19 Banâ-ša-Adad: 182 Ammar-ša-ili: 202–3 Banâ-ša-Šamaš: 201 Amurrû: 97 n. 24 Banītu: 100 n. 51, 173, 180, 194 Ana-dār-kittu: 17 Bārihtu:̮ 69, 86 n. 89, 127 n. 197, Ana-Sîn-ēgu: 200 154, 200 Ana-sillīšu-ēmid:̣ 185 barley allocations: see rations Anatolia: 122 Basundu: 152 animals, food for: 23, 25 n. 51, 26 beer: see brewer, brewing A-pa-a-x (personal name): 162 Bēl-bāni: 206 Apil-Šamaš: 110 Bēlessunu: 127 n. 194, 159 Apparrītu: 164; wife of Arduni 192; wife Bēlet-aḫḫēša: 184 of mār Elamî 170–71 Bēlet-sinnišāti: 183 Apuški: 153 Bēletu: 59–60 n. 62, 185 Aqartu: 182 Bēl-īriš: 210 Arad-Amurru: 110 Bēlīyūtu: 90, 165 Arad-bēlti: 99, 112, 143 Bēl-mušallim: 17 Arad-Enlil: 107 n. 93 Bēlšunu: 173 Arad-Kūbi: 205 Bēlta-balāta-īriš:̣ 66–67 n. 5, 69, 70 n. 24, Arad-Nuska: 62–63, 68, 74, 152 86 n. 89, 152–53 Arad-Šamaš: 177 Bēlta-nādā: 157–58 Araḫsamnu (month name): 35 Bēltani: 83 n. 78, 198 Arduni: 192 Bēltūa: 91 n. 106, 172 general index 255

Bēltu-asât: 163 categories: of sex and age, see Bēltu-rīšat: 74 n. 45; a.k.a. Yâtu 112–13 sex-age designations; of physical n. 118, 166 condition, see physical-condition Bil-lu-⌈x⌉-tum: 185 designations Binnānu: 156 cell: in rosters 10–12; cell entry 12 bird caretaker (fowler): 99, 232 n. 44; census: 23, 27–29 see also usandû in the IWL chariots, chariot builders: 98 Bīštu: 190 check mark(s) on tablets: 10, 25–26, 29 Bīt(-)Enlil: 30 n. 84; see also temple n. 70, 30 Bīt(-)Ninlil: 28, 94 n. 3; see also temple child, children: 25 n. 49, 26, 45 n. 20, Bittinnatu: 69, 110 n. 105, 154 127, 135; childbirth 51 n. 39; escapees Biyātu: 175 109–11; occupations 101; number per blindness, blind (laborers): 14, 47, conjugal family unit 47, 85–89; as a 60–62; causes 62; see also IGI. sex-age designation 13; statistics NU.GÁL in the IWL regarding 53–63; see also GURUŠ. Boatman, daughter of: 111 TUR.TUR and SAL.TUR.TUR in the boatmen: 99, 104, 111 n. 111; see also IWL malāḫu in the IWL chronological table of kings: xxi booty, war: 4, 122, 124; see also prisoners class: see status, social and civil of war column, in rosters: 10 bound (laborers): see fetters, fettered conclusion, of rosters: 10; see also (laborers) rosters, format bow and arrow makers: 99, 232 n. 37; conjugal family unit: 80, 84, 92; see also sasinnu in the IWL compared to household 78; brewer(s), brewing: 26 n. 55, 68–69, 99, definition 71–72; Egypt 85 n. 86; 127 n. 197, 129, 154, 164, 232 n. 38; function 109–11; residence patterns see also sirašû in the IWL 72–73, 84; size and composition brother: 60–61 n. 66, 70, 73, 73–76, 80, 84–89, 136; Tuscany, medieval 94 n. 4, 109 n. 102, 119, 126, 147–49, 85 n. 86 182, 188, 191, 202, 207–209 cooks: 99, 101, 117 n. 136, 231 n. 26; Bu-x[…] (a.k.a. Tarībatu): 112–13 see also nuḫatimmu in the IWL n. 118 Court of Columns at Nippur: 1 builder(s): 99 n. 43, 100, 152, 230 n. 7; craftsmen: 99, 101, 143 see also bānû in the IWL criminals: 119 building construction: 137–38 curvature of tablets: 11 n. 7 Bukāšu-ina-Ekur: 62 n. 75 custodians of captured escapees: 115–18 Bulālitu: 204 Būnānu: son of Kaššītu 204; son of Dalīlu: 208 Šigi-Bugaš 156 Dalīlūša: 68, 73–74, 152 Bu-un-na-a[…]: 200 Dannat-šerressa: 191 Bunna-Gula: 202 Dannū-mûšu: 18 Bunna-Ninsar: 91 n. 107, 170–71 data base: 5, 40, 47; Document Table Bunna-Ninurta: 163 37–41; entries, personnel 38–39, bureaucracy: 6 43–44, 48; Personnel Table 37–41, Burna-Buriaš II: 120–21, 124 n. 173, 43, 47–48, 61, and passim 126, 138, 141; occurrences of regnal daughter: passim; see also child, conjugal years 31–33, 74 n. 45, 126, 188 family unit, family, and household in Burra-mašhu:̮ 156 this index and māru/mārtu in the Burruqtu: 18–19 IWL Bur-x (personal name): 60 n. 63 Dayyānī-Šamaš: 67–68, 73–74, butchers: 99–100, 232 n. 40 151, 195 Dayyanti-ina-Uruk: 86 n. 89, 100 n. carpenters: 99–100, 231 n. 24; see also 51, 201 naggāru in the IWL Dayyantu: 163 256 general index

death, deceased: 29 n. 70, 47, 58–60, 70, Enlil-AL.ŠA6: 118, 120, 126–27 78–79, 90–91, 131; causes 59–60; Enlil-kidinnī: 4, 19 n. 27, 20, 32 n. 89, during flight 59; murder 57 n. 50, 59, 117, 120–21, 126 79; see also mortality in this index and Enlil-nāsir:̣ 20 ÚŠ in the IWL En-n[a-…] (personal name): 19 debt slavery: see under slaves entertainers: 99 decline in size of servile population: entries, personnel: see under data base 53–54, 113–15, 135–36 entry label: 12, 16, 27, 29–30, and passim demography, demographic analysis: 5, epitaphs, Roman: 52 n. 44 47, 50–52, 145–46; see also the Erība-Adad: 173 subcategories under statistics Erība-Nergal: 207–8 depletion of servile work force: see Erību: brother of Arduni 192; brother of decline Šumman-lā-Ninurta 188; as patro- descriptive elements: 13 nym, 182 Deyyāndi-ina-Uruk: 184 escape, escapee(s): 7–8, 14, 43, 46 n. 23, Di-ik-di-ia-en-ni: 69 n. 19 104–18, 131; identification 105–106; Dilmun: 1, 143 recapture and reassignment 34, 102, Dīn(ī)-ili-lūmur: 70, 153 106–107, 115–18; slaves in the Dipārītu: daughter of Baba-šarrat 88, American South 108, 111–12 nn. 184; daughters (2) of Arduni 192 111–12; Soviet gulag 113 n. 120; see Dipārša-namrat: 178 also fugitives in this index and ḫalāqu diplomacy: 140–41 and munnabittu in the IWL division of labor: 57 Ētegi-ana-ili: 195 Diyala (region): 32 Etērša-rabi:̣ 131 Document Table: see under data base ethnic group, ethnicity: 28, 30, 32 Dumūzu (month name): 35 Ētir-Marduk:̣ 175 Dunni-aḫi: 67 n. 7, 94 n. 2 Etirtu:̣ 66–67 n. 5, 69, 154 Duqqin-ilu: 152 Euphrates River: on maps xxii, 123 Dūr-Kurigalzu: 101, 112, 125–26 n. 183, extended-family household: see under 129, 142–43; on map xxii household

E-x-tum: 190 family: 5, 27, 47, 65–92 (passim in Ea-mušabši: 186 footnotes), 128, 130, 136; definiton 71; Eanna-bēlet: 204 identification 70–75; nuclear 5, 136; Eanna-līdiš: 166–67 extended 5. See also conjugal family Early Dynastic II: 139 unit and household in this index and economy of Babylonia: 4, 143–44 qinnu in the IWL Ēdiš-bītī-lūmur (a.k.a. Nergal-mušallim): farming, farmers: 99–100, 137, 230 n. 13; 112 n. 118 see also iššakku in the IWL Egypt: 140; see also under population(s) female(s): 26, 45 n. 20, 136; blindness 61; Elam, Elamites: 97, 99, 122, 124–25, escapees 110–11; granting of freedom 128–29, 141; dynastic marriages with 128; heads of household 73–75, 78–79, Babylonian princesses 141 n. 16; on 89 n. 100, 92; identification 48–50; maps xxii, 123; see also elamû in the occupations 99–101; statistics in IWL conjugal family units 85–89; statistics Elamû, son of: 91 n. 107, 170–71 of entire population 49–63; see also elderly (laborers): 13, 54, 105 n. 84, 135; mothers and supervision, statistics regarding 53–57, 61; see also supervisors SAL.ŠU.GI and ŠU.GI in the IWL fetters, fettered (laborers): 14, 104, Ēmid-ana-Marduk: 156 118–120, 129, 131; see also kamû and EN-⌈x-x⌉-tum (personal name): 170 pâdu in the IWL endogamy: 53–54 flight: see escape Enlil: god 1; temple of 1 n. 2; see also foreigners: 3, 97, 121–25, 136; see also Bīt(-)Enlil origins of servile laborers general index 257 foreman, as occupation name: 99 n. Ḫānibu, family of: 74 n. 45, 88–89, 42, 131, 230 n.18; see also laputtû 176–77 in the IWL Hanigalbat: 97, 122, 124, 128–29; on foundlings: 86 map 123; see also Hurrians fowler: see bird caretaker Ḫannānu: 188 freedom: 128, 131; see also manumission Ḫarrānša-balātu:̣ 183–84 in the GI and zakû in the IWL Hatti, Hittites: 140–41; on map xxii frérèche: 76 heading, subcolumn: 12, 16–17, 29 fugitives: 4, 102, 104–05, 112, 115, 133; herding, herders: 99–101, 103 n. 64, 111 see also escape in this index and n. 111; blind 60–61 n. 66; of cows 231 munnabittu in the IWL n. 32; of goats 232 n. 34; of horses 232 fullers: 229 n. 4; see also ašlāku n. 33; of sheep 232 nn. 34–35; see also in the IWL rēʾû in the IWL Ḫinnanit: 17 Gabbaša-inbu: 47 Hittites: see Hatti Gab-Martaš: 68, 73–74, 152 homes, of laborers: see residence(s), of gardens, gardeners: 99–100, 231 n. 27; laborers see also nukarribu in the IWL household(s): 147–210; definition GAŠAN-x-x(-x)-KUR (personal name): and identification 71–75, 147–49; 195 diagrams 77, 149–51, see also gate keepers: 99, 229 n. 1, 231 n. 21; Appendix 1; Egypt 82–83; extended- see also āpil bābi and masṣ aṛ abulli family household 76–83; extension, in the IWL types of 80; formation 81; head 23, gentilic(s): 121 n. 158; see also ethnic 66–67, 69–70, 73–75, and passim; group household structure 47, 76–82, gold: 143 92, 136; multiple-family household governor of Nippur: see šandabakku in 76–78, 80–83; simple-family the IWL household 76–79, 136; size and guarantor(s) of escapees: 115–118 other statistics 76, 78, 80–83; sources guard(s): 99–100, 231 n. 22; see also related to 148; three-generation masṣ arụ and masṣ aṛ abulli in the IWL households 91; Tuscany, Gubbuhu:̮ 47, 189–90; son of Kalūmu medieval 82–83 172 Ḫulālatu: 69 n. 19, 152 Gula-šumu-līšir: 199 Ḫu-lu-ú: 208 Gu-NI-NI-Bugaš: 118; see also Guzalzal, Ḫumba(n)-napir: 62 n. 77 Guzalzal-Bugaš, Guzarzar, and Ḫun-[…]: 62 n. 77 Guzarzar-Bugaš Ḫunābu: 68 n. 11, 190 guruš-Liste: 3; see also roster Ḫunzuʾtu: 35 Guzalzal: 118 n. 142; see also Guzalzal- Hurbatila: 141 n. 16 Bugaš, Guzarzar, Guzarzar-Bugaš, and Hurrians: 121 n. 158; see also Hanigalbat Gu-NI-NI-Bugaš Ḫurukku: 17 Guzalzal-Bugaš: 118 n. 142; see also husband: 65, 72 n. 35, 73, 74 nn. 41 and Guzalzal, Guzarzar, Guzarzar-Bugaš, 45, 75 n. 46, 78, 81, 88–91, 136, and and Gu-NI-NI-Bugaš passim in Appendix 1 Guzarzar: 90, 118 n. 142, 207; see also Guzalzal, Guzalzal-Bugaš, Guzarzar- I-[…] (personal name): 110 n. 105 Bugaš, and Gu-NI-NI-Bugaš Ia-a-a-[…] (personal name): Guzarzar-Bugaš: 118 n. 142; see also 110 n. 105 Guzalzal, Guzalzal-Bugaš, Guzarzar, Ibašši-uznī-ana-ili: 62 n. 77, 152 and Gu-NI-NI-Bugaš Id-di-ia (Iddīya?, a.k.a. IK-ri-ia): 112 n. 118 Ḫamasṣ iru:̣ 166–67 Iddin-Adad: 158 Ḫa-na-⌈x⌉-x (personal name): 182 Iddin-Enlil: 163 Ḫanbu: 156 Iddin-Nabû: 158 258 general index

Igāršu-ēmid, 157 inspection: type of roster 15–18, 23; by Ikkaru: 159 the šandabakku 102 IK-ri-ia (a.k.a. Id-di-ia (Iddīya?) ): Ippayītu: 100 n. 51 112 n. 118 Iqīša-Amurru: 199 Ilassunu: 86 n. 89, 159 Iqīša-Marduk: 60 n. 63, 157; a.k.a Ildu-aḫīya: 46 n. 22 Ub-[…] 112 n. 118 Ileʾʾi-bulluta:̣ 166 Iqīša-Ninurta: 18 Ilīma-abī: 157 Iran: 140 Ilīya: 189 Irēmanni-Adad: 202 illness, ill: animals 62 n. 75; laborers 14, Irēmšu-Ninurta: 18 60, 62; see also GIG in the IWL Irišša-ina-pān-māti: 161, 176, 178 Iltappit(t)a: 163; see also Iltapputta irrigators: 99 Iltapputta: 131; see also Iltappit(t)a Isin II dynasty: 33 n. 91 Ilti-aḫḫēša: 83 n. 78, 160, 178, 198 Ištar-bēlī-usrī:̣ 69, 152 Imgugu: 74 n. 45, 172 Ištar-rāʾimdi-x-x(-x-x): 174 Imlihiye: 32–33 Ištar-tukultī: 117 n. 136 Immatīya: 34, 116 Ittīša-ahbut:̮ 62 n. 77, 193 importation of workers: 135–36 Izkur-Adad: 165 imprisonment: 4, 7, 14, 34, 104, 107, Izkur-Nergal: 183–84 118–20, 131; release 34, 120; see also Izkur-Ninurta: 185 kīlu and kalû in the IWL Izkur-Šuqamuna: 210 Ina-[…] (a.k.a. Ina-x-[…]): 112 n. 118 Ina-x-[…]: 163; a.k.a. Ina-[…] jewelry: 143 112 n. 118 Ina-Akkade-rabât: 66–67 n. 5, 70, 86 n. Kabbušu: 17 89, 153; see also Akkade-rabât Kadašman-Enlil I: occurrences of regnal Ina-Apsû-rabi: 186 years 31–33 Ina-Egalmaḫ-šarrat: 195 Kadašman-Enlil II: xxi, 42 n. 13; Ina-Ekur-tašmânni: 46 n. 22 occurrences of regnal years 33 Ina-Ekur-zēru: 202 Kadašman-Ḫarbe II: occurrences of Ina-Esagil-kabtat: 205 regnal years, 33, 141 n. 14 Ina-Esagil-rīšat: 194 Kadašman-Turgu: xxi, 42 n. 13; Ina-É.SU.GAL-milku: 18 occurrences of regnal years, 66–67 Ina-Isin-rabât: 19, 166 n. 5, 67 n. 6, 70, 125 Ina-Isin-šarrat: 156 kallatu: see IWL Ina-niphīša-type names, hypocoristic Kalūmu: 172 for: 210 n. 24 KAR[…]-Marduk: 201 Ina-nipḫīša-alsīši: 165 Kār-Adab: 67 n. 7 Ina-Nippur-šarrat: 196 Karduniaš: 122; see also Babylonia Ina-pī-Marduk-dīnu: 152 Karzi-Ban, daughter of: 74 n. 45, (Ina-)Šamê-bēlet: 167 155 Ina-šamē-rabi᾽at: 188 Kassite(s): 97 n. 24, 125; see also kaššû in Ina-šār-Marduk-allak: 62 n. 77 the IWL Ina-tappî-kabtat: 208 Ka-ši-x(-x) (personal name): 182 Ina-Ulmaš-šarrat: 19 Ka-ši-ti-x (personal name): 198 Ina-Uruk-šarrūssa: 159–60, 202 Kaššītu: 204 Inbu-eššu: 209 Kaššû, daughter of: 181 infant mortality: 57 Kaštilen-Saḫ: 189, 207 infanticide: 57 n. 50 Kaštiliašu IV: xxi, 42 n. 13, 102 n. 58, inheritance of persons: 36 126, 141; occurrences of regnal years Inib-Kubi: 174 33, 42, 124–25 I-ni-ip-hu-tum:̮ 210 Ka-tar-ta-ri-Saḫ: 189 Innammar, 66–67 n. 5, 70 n. Katta-Ḫarbe: 209 29, 153 Keš-ālūša: 200 general index 259

Kidin-Adad: 17, 182; son of Ninurta- supervisors; transfers; travelling; ašarēd 202–3 weaned; work groups; and individual Kidinēʾa: 193, 210 occupation names Kidin-Gula: 17–18; son of Aḫlamītu 165; lameness, lame: 205 son of Arduni 192 Lā-nibāš-Nergal: 166 Kidin-napirša 66–67 n. 5 lapidaries: 99–101, 231 n. 31; see also Kidin-Ninurta: 162, 188 purkullu in the IWL Kidinnītu: 164, 173 Lā-qīpu: 117, 174 Kidinnû: 171 La-ra-⌈x⌉-tum: 201 Kidin-Šuqamuna: 157–58; son of Latarak-šemi: 18, 209 Pakkutu 190 leather-worker: 99, 101, 229 n. 3; see also Kidin-Ulmaš: 155 aškāpu in the IWL Kikkiya-enni: see Di-ik-di-ia-en-ni legal status: see status, social and civil Kilamdi-Ubriaš: 20 legal texts: see under sources, Kilamdu: 190, 199 documentary king: 1, 42–43, 102, 106, 120, 124–27, letters: see under sources, documentary 129, 133, 140–41, 145, and passim Libūr-nādinša: 46 n. 22 Kiribti-Marduk: 156 life expectancy: 135 Kissilīmītu: 157 Liltabbir-ilu: 62 n. 75 Kittatu: 116, 117 n. 136, 128 list, personnel: see roster Kizzuwatna: 122 Li-ta-⌈x-x⌉: 201 knotters: 230 n. 14; see also kāsirụ Lubdu: 17 (ḫazan Lubdi), 128 in the IWL Lullubu/mu, Lullubians: 33 n. 91, 97, 121 Kūbi-nadi: 203 n. 158, 122, 124–125; on map 123 Kubšiya-Saḫ: 107 n. 93 Lultamar-Nuska: 152 Kudur-Enlil: xxi, 42 n. 13; occurrences of Lūsi-ana-[…]:̣ 110 n. 105 regnal years 22 n. 38, 33 Lūsi-ana-nūr-Adad:̣ 209 Kudurrānitu: 165 Kudurrānu: 204; son of Arduni 192; son male(s): identification 48–50; occupa- of Šigû-Gula 203 tions 99–101; statistics for conjugal kudurrus: 137 family units 85–89; statistics for entire Kunzubtu: 184 servile population 49–63 Kuppitātu: 35 malnutrition: 105 Kurigalzu II: xxi, 42 n. 13, 124 n. 173, Mandīdat[u]: 155 127 n. 195, 141; occurrences of regnal Mannu-balu-ilīšu: 158 years 18, 27, 32, 42–43, 125 Mannu-ibbak-dīnšu: 155 Kuzba-ulluḫat: 204 Mannu-kī-Bēltīya: 162 Kuzub-nišī: 117 n. 136 Mannu-lēʾūša: 203 Mannu-šāninša: 203 Labi᾽tu (Labihtu):̮ 198 manumission: 102 n. 63, 126–27; see also labor, laborers: see adolescent, adult, freedom in the GI and zakû in the blindness, blind; child, children; IWL conjugal family units; death, deceased; Manzât-ummī, daughter of: 197 decline in size of servile population; Marduk-mušallim: 117 elderly; escape, escapees; family; Marduk-tišmar: 209 female(s); fetters, fettered; marriage: 72, 85, 126–27, 130; age household(s); imprisonment; male(s); at (first) marriage 78–79, 90–91, lameness, lame; marriage; mother(s); 136 nursing; occupations of laborers; matronym, matronymic: 38 n. 5, 48 organization; origins of servile mayor(s): 230 n. 10; see also ḫazannu in laborers; physical-condition the IWL designations; population(s); sex-age Mayūtu: 163 designations; sex ratio; slave sales; measurement, standards of: 10; see also status, social and civil; supervision, sūtu in the IWL 260 general index

Me-e-ši-ri-bu: 202 Nergal-dipār-ilī: 206 Meli-mašhu:̮ 91 n. 108, 190 Nergal-mušallim (a.k.a. Ēdiš-bītī-lūmur): Meli-Šipak: 138: occurrences of regnal 112 n. 118 years 31, 102 n. 63 Nergal-muštāl: 178 merchants: 101 n. 53, 122, 140 New Year’s Festival: 1 Mē-Saḫ: 203 Ni-bi-ia-x-x-x (personal name): 207 migrant laborers: see travelling and work Nibi-Šipak: 190 groups, mobile Ninlil: see Bīt(-)Ninlil military campaigns: 125; see also NIN.⌈TU?⌉[…] (personal name): 201 prisoners of war Ninurta-apil-idīya: 110; son of Bēletu millers: 99, 229 n. 2, 230 n. 15; see also 185; son of (Ina-)Šamê-bēlet 167; son ararru and kasṣ idakkụ in the IWL of Kunzubtu 184 Mīnâ-ēgi-ana-Marduk: 204 Ninurta-ašarēd: 175, 180 Mīnâ-ēgu-ana-ili: 157 Ninurta-nādin-aḫḫē: 34, 116, 118, 120 Mišarītu: 66–67 n. 5, 70, 177 Ninurta-nīšu: 195 Mi-ši-GAD-ru-uk: 197 Nippur: city, 1–4, 23, 26, 32–33, 112, Mittani: 140; on map xxii 137–44, and passim; excavation mobile work groups: see under work areas (WA and WC) 1–2, 138; on groups maps xxi, 123; province 1, 138–44, mortality (rate): child 67; female 51; and passim in India and Southeast Asia 51; Nippurû: 180 definition 58 n. 58; see also death, non-tabular register: see under deceased rosters(s) mother(s): 38 n. 5 and passim; single nuclear family: see conjugal family unit mothers 86–89, 136; see also female, and simple-family household heads of household and matronym, Nūr-d⌈x⌉[…]: 202, 205 matronymic Nūr-Adad: 201, 208 Mu-iš?-x-[x]-ti-x (a.k.a. Rabâ-ša?-x-ia): Nūr-Bēlti-Akkade: 86 n. 89, 178, 200 155 nursing (laborers): 13, 54; in conjugal multiple-family household: see under family units 86; escapees 109–11; household occupations 101; as a sex-age category 13; sex ratio 56–58; statistics regarding Na-x-x (personal name): 182 53–63; see also DUMU.GABA and Nāḫirānu: 173 DUMU.SAL.GABA in the IWL name(s), of workers, supervisors, etc: see Nuska-erība: 26 n. 56 personal name(s) Nuska-kīna-usur:̣ 68, 73–74, 152 Namir-Sagil: 189 Namirtu: 209 occupations of laborers: 13, 16, 22, Namkar-ešēgi: 112 94–95, 98–101, 132, 137–38; statistics Nannaya: 170 regarding 229–32; see also the names Napšira-Adad: 208 of individual occupations in the GI Narubtu: wife of Rabâ-ša-Gula 180; wife and IWL of ⌈x-x-x⌉-Šipak 191 old age (laborers): see elderly Nāsiru:̣ 23 oil (ration): 10, 23, 25 Nazi-Ḫarbe: 202 omission, scribal: 49 Na(ḫ)zi-Marduk: 118 Opis: 112 Nazi-Maruttaš: xxi, 42 n. 13, 43, 124 n. organization of servile laborers: 94–98, 173, 125–26, 127 n. 195, 145 n. 39; 102–104, 132–33 occurrences of regnal years 65, 66–67 origins of servile laborers: 121–29; see n. 5, 68 n. 11, 127 n. 197, 151–54 also foreigners Nazi-Šipak: 199 orphans: 86 Neo-Babylonian period: 139 Nergal-(x)-usur/nāṣ ir:̣ 171 Pakkutu: 91 n. 106, 190 Nergal-abūša: 166 Paliḫ-Adad: 90, 193 general index 261 patronym, patronymic: 38 n. 5, 48, and Rabâ-ša-ilī: 116–17, 128 passim Rabâ-ša-Išḫara: 66–67 n. 5, 70 n. 24, Pattu: 28 n. 66, 95 n. 15 153 Persian Gulf: 140 Rabâ-ša-Nergal: 178 personal name(s): 3, 12, 34 n. 93, and Rabâ-ša-Ninurta: 169 passim; in families 68; hypocoristics Rabâ-ša-Šamaš?: 186 46; languages other than Akkadian Rabât-[DN]: 110 n. 105 112–13, 121 n. 158; persons with more Rabât-bēlet-Akkade: 158 than one name 44 n. 19, 112–13 n. Rabât-eli-ilī: 185 118, 127; preservation 43–44; Rabât-Gula: 60 n. 65; daughter of repetition 43–47 Arduni 192 Personenliste: see list, personnel Rabâyūtu: 163; daughter of 163 Personnel Table: see under data base Rabi-dīnša: 188 physical-condition designations: 7–8, 12, Rabi-Nergal: 152–53 14, 16, 58 n. 59, and passim Rabû-Sebettu: 205 Pī-nāri: 99 Rabûssa-āmur: 208 Pirri᾽tu: 205 Rabû-tuklūša: 174 Pirrīya: 159 rations: 10, 23, 25–29, 145, and passim; Pi-ši-ir-du (personal name): quantities 68 n. 11; see also oil (ration) 86 n. 89, 188 and wool (ration) in this index and polygyny: 81 n. 71, 88–90 ipru, Ì.BA, and SÍG.BA in the IWL population(s): Babylonia 45, 136–38; recapture of escapees: see under servile laborers at Nippur 7, 48–63, escapee(s) 136–38, and passim; growth and reduction of servile work force: see reduction 113–15, 135–36; Tuscany, decline in size of servile population medieval 5, 52; Premodern societies 5; reeds, craftsmen of: 99–100, 229 n. 5, 231 Egypt 5, 49, 52; American South 54 n. n. 30; see also atkuppu and paqqāyu in 47, 108 n. 96 the IWL porter: 68, 99, 151, 229 n. 6; see also atû refugees: 123, 128–29; see also in the IWL munnabittu in the IWL potters: 99–101, 231 n. 28; see also replacement of laborers: 105 paḫāru in the IWL residence(s) of laborers: 7, 13, 72–73 prison(s): see imprisonment Riḫêtūša: 184 prisoners of war: 79, 115, 122–25 Rīmūt-Gula: 198 prosopography: 46–47, 51, 144–45 Rīmūtu: 169–70 prostitute(s): 99, 230 n. 9; see also Rīšatu: 190, 199 ḫarintu in the IWL Rīš-Nergal: 34, 116, 117 n. 136, 118 n. puberty: 57 137, 155, 170–71 purchases of personnel: see slave(s), Rīš-pīšu-ina-Ekur: 195 slave sales Rīš-Ulūlu: 165 roster(s): 3, 9, 36, 40, 127 n. 195, 130; Qaqqadānu: 66–67 n. 5 attested dates 42–43; format 7, 9–15, Qīšat-dX: 183 36; non-tabular registers 11–12, Qīšat-Gula: 206 14–15; ration rosters 23–31, 40, 60; Qīšat-Kūbi: 202 short-tabular registers 11–12, 14–15, qualitative data: definition 12–14; use 47 24; simple rosters 14–23, 40; tabular qualitative summary: 14, 29–30, 43 registers 11–12, 14–15, 17, 20, 24, 27; quantitative data: definition 12; use 47 see also summary rosters row(s), in rosters: 10–11; see also Rabâ-ša?-x-ia: see Mu-iš?-x-[x]-ti-x new entry Rabâ-ša-⌈x-x-x-x⌉-ra: 185 row entry: 12 Rabâ-ša-Bēltīya: 162 runaway(s): see escapee(s) Rabâ-ša-Gula: 117 n. 136, 179–80, 184; ruralization of Babylonian settlements: wife of 169 138–40 262 general index

Sapsapānu, daughter of: 46 n. 22 in this index and māru/mārtu in scribe(s): 66, 99, 131, 232 n. 42; see also the IWL tupšarrụ in the IWL sources, documentary: 7–36, 245–52; Sealand: First Dynasty of 140; administrative texts 34–36 region 143 (see also rosters); from Babylon 142; Sebûtu-līšir: 199 chronology of study corpus 42–43, 50, settlement patterns: 138–40 144–45; curvature of tablets 11 n. 7; sex (male vs. female): see sex-age from Dūr-Kurigalzu 36, 101 designations n. 53, 142; from Nippur 1–3, 141–44, sex-age designations: 7–8, 12–13, 16, and passim; legal texts 34, 115–18, 48–63, 130, and passim; culling 57 n. 126–27 (see also under slaves; slave 50; function 51; statistics regarding sales); letters 35–36; mentioning dead 47–63 workers 58–60; Middle Babylonian sex ratio: 5, 47, 51–52, 135; adolescent in general 4, 93,141–42, and passim; (laborers) 56; adult (laborers) 56; preservation of research corpus 41–42, American South 52, 58, 108 n. 96; 49; recapture and reassignment Babylonia in 1st millennium 52 n. 44; 115–18; selection of 7–9, 37–38; from Egypt 52; Rome 52 n. 44; Tuscany, Ur 142; see also data base medieval 52 spinners: 232 n. 41; see also tāmītụ Shalmaneser I: 141 in the IWL short-tabular registers: see under rosters statistics: see adolescent; adult; blind- Sibbar-ula: 190 ness, blind; child, children; conjugal sick (laborers): see under illness, ill family unit; data base; death, Simānītu: 172 deceased; decline in size of servile simple-family household: population; elderly; escape, escapee(s); see household family; female(s); fetters, fettered; Sîn-abūša: 157 household(s); illness, ill; imprison- Sîn-aḫa-īriš: son of Ina-Esagil-kabtat ment; male(s); nursing; occupations of 205; son of Irišša-ina-pān-māti 176 laborers; origins of servile laborers; Sîn-apil-Ekur: 119, 120 n. 152, 175 personal name(s); population(s); Sîn-bāltī: 175 rosters; settlement patterns; sex-age singer(s): 99, 231 n. 25; see also nâru/ designations; sources, documentary; nârtu in the IWL supervision, supervisors; weaned; Sîn-īriš: 205 work groups Sîn-mālik-ilī: 176–77 status, social and civil: 4, 79, 83, 102, 127, Sîn-mušabši: 181 129–33; of amīlūtu 35–36 Sîn-mušallim: 175 subcolumn: in rosters 10–12; Sîn-nādin-aḫi: 174 disbursal 29 Sîn-nāsir:̣ 175 subgroup of laborers: 10; see also work Sîn-šem-me-i: 198 group(s) sister: 73–74 nn. 40 and 43, 75, 76 n. 52, summary rosters: ration allocation 80, 89, 127 nn. 194 and 200, 128, 151, summaries 27–31, 40, 54–56; and passim in Appendix 1 simple roster summaries 15, slaves, slavery: 2–4, 102, 129, 131, and 20–23, 40 passim; debt slavery 4, 79 n. 64, 123, Su-un-⌈x⌉-am-ma (personal name): 35 128; families and households 76, supervision, supervisors: 13, 28, 48, 83–84; slave sales 2–4, 8–9, 31–33, 36, 55, 103–104; female 29 n. 71, 48, 48, 76, 102, 121–23, 126–27, 130; 103–104 American South 52, 54, 58, 108; see also amīlūtu, ardu, and aštapīru Salimūtu,̣ daughter of: 46 n. 22, in the IWL 86 n. 91 social status: see status, social and civil Silli-Šuqamuna:̣ 205 son: passim; see also child, conjugal Ša-ba-di-tum: 176–77 family unit, family, and household Šad-Šugab: 206 general index 263

Šagarakti: 156 Tarâš-ina-Sagil: 46 n. 22 Šagarakti-Šipak: 191 Tarbâtuša: wife of Kaštilen-Saḫ 189; Šagarakti-Šuriaš: xxi, 42 n 13, 120, wife of […]-x-x-x 194 128, 145 n. 39; occurrences of regnal Tarība-Gula: 107 n. 93, 198 years 16, 22 n. 38, 27 n. 65, 30, Tarībat-Adad: 172 31 n. 86, 33, 43, 100, 124, 155–56, Tarībatu 165, 172; a.k.a. Bu-x[…] 165–70 112–13 n. 118 Šalittu: 155, 183 Tarībti-Gula: 165, 171 Šallī-lūmur: 190 Tarībtu: 155, 164, 178 Šamaš-bēl-ilīšu: 195 Tarību: son of Kilamdu 199; son of Šamaš-iddinna: 19 Šu-ri-[…] 194 Šamaš-kīna-usur:̣ 169 Tārītu: 170–71 Šamaš-muštēšir: 195 tasks of laborers: see occupations of Šamaš-nūrī: 110 n. 105 laborers Šamaš-sulūlī:̣ 62 n. 75 Tašrītu (month name): 62, 152 Šamaš-tišmar: 195 tax collector: 99 n. 42, 231 n. 19; see also Šamaš-tukultī: 174 miksu in the IWL Šamaš-uballissu: 195 Te-⌈x⌉-[…]-⌈x⌉-di-Šugab: 197 Šamhūtu:̮ 205 teaselers: 101 n. 57, 152–54, 230 n. 16; Šamuḫ-Nergal: 178 see also textile workers in the GI and Šaqât-ina-Akkade: 86 n. 89, 157–58 kunšillu in the IWL Šaqītu-rīšat: 199 temple: of Enlil 1 n. 2; of Ninlil 94 n. 3; Širiktu: 205 rebuilding of temples 138; see also Šarrat-ālīša: 174 Bīt (-)Enlil and Bīt(-)Ninlil Šī-bā᾽ilat: 196 tents: 139 Šī-banât: 175 Terīmšūtu: 205 Šigi-Bugaš: 156 textiles: industry 100–101, 136; workers Šigû-Gula: 203–4 98 n. 31, 99–101 Šīma-ilat: 172 texts: see sources, documentary Šīma-ina-āli: 177 Tigris River: on maps xxii, 123 Šimdi-Šuqamuna: 155–56 trade: 140 Šindi-Enlil, son of: 116, 118 transfer(s): of laborers 19–20, 98 n. 29, Širiktu: 207 112; type of roster 15, 18–20, 23 Šittan(n)i, son of: 62 n. 75 travelling: laborers 62–63, 104; Šumma-⌈x-x⌉-ia: 160 as a physical-condition designation Šumman-lā-Ninurta: 188 14, 62; see also KASKAL in the IWL Šumuḫ-Nergal: 167 Tukukūtu: 189 Šunuhtu:̮ 110 n. 105; daughter Tukultī-Adad: 69, 127 n. 197, 154 of Kunzubtu 184; wife of Ina-Apsû- Tukultī-Enlil (place): 94 n. 2 rabi 186 Tukultī-Ninurta: Tukultī-Ninurta I Šuqamuna-īriš: 206–7, 210 (Assyrian king) 141–42; son of Šu-ri-[…] (personal name): 194 Baba-šarrat 184; son of Deyyāndi-ina- Uruk 184 ta-x-x(-x) (personal name, patronym): Tukultu: 208 34, 116, 117 n. 136 Tupliyaš: 125 tablets: see sources, documentary Turi-Rattaš: 190–91 tabular registers: see under rosters Tuscany, medieval: see population(s), Taklāku-ana-dNIN.⌈X⌉: 159 Tuscany, medieval Taklāku-ana-Šuqamuna: 158 Ṭāb-sillī:̣ 205 Talziya-enni: 154

Tambi-Dadu: 68, 73–74, 151, 197 U4.7.KAM-bāʾilat: 167 Taqīša-Gula: 200 Ub-[…] (a.k.a. Iqīša-Marduk): 112 n. Taqīšu: 190 118 Tarâš-ina-Eanna: 164 UD-ma-ḫi-ḫa (personal name): 177 264 general index

Ullipi, Ullipians: 97 n. 24, 124; Yâtu: 175; a.k.a. Bēltu-rīšat 112–13 n. on map 123 118, 166 Ulūlītu: 46 n. 22, 110 n. 105, 157, 161, Yā᾽u-bani: 46 nn. 22 and 24 184, 203 Yā᾽ūgu: 91 n. 106, 163 Ulūlu (month): 16 Yā᾽ūtu: 46 n. 22, 100 n. 51, 117 n. 136 Unnubtu: 159, 207 youth, young: 31–33, 51 n. 39, 53–58, 61 Upâq-ana-dīnīša: 157 n. 70, 67, 69, 70, 75 n. 47, 83 n. 78, Uppultī-līšir: 190 87–88, 91–92, 99 n. 44, 101, 110–11, Ur: 32–33; on map xxii 126–27, 132, 135–36, and passim; see Ur-x-x (personal name): 20 also alādu (walādu), DUMU.GABA, Ur-Adad: 110 n. 105, 170, 182 DUMU.SAL.GABA, GURUŠ.TUR, Ūrī: 154 GURUŠ.TUR.GAL, GURUŠ.TUR. Uribi: 190 TUR, lānu, pirsatu, pirsu, SAL.TUR, Ur-Nergal: 205 SAL.TUR.TUR, and LÚ.TUR Urti-Adad: 107 n. 93, 110 n. 105 in the IWL Uruk: 112, 116; on map xxii Usāt-ili-maʾdā: 208 Zarāt-Adad: 68 n. 11 Usāt-Marduk: 202 Zarāt-Dūr-Gula: 139 Usātūša: 107 n. 93, 110 n. 105, 111, 158 Zarāt-Karkara: 67 n. 7, 112 Usbi-Enlil: 155 Zibbat-Kartaba: 28 n. 66, 95 n. 15 Ūsīya:̣ 153 Personal Names, Initial Signs Damaged villages: 137, 139 […]⌈a⌉-bi-en-ši: 186 […]-ablut:̣ 202 water drawers: 230 n. 8; see also dālû in […]-Adad: son of […]-⌈x⌉-Amurru 199; the IWL son of Ištar-rā᾽imdi-x-x(-x-x) 174 water sprinklers: 99 n. 43, 232 n. 36. See […]-⌈x⌉-Adad 193 also sāliḫu in the IWL […]-⌈x⌉-Amurru: son of Iqīša-Amurru weaned (laborers): 13, escapees 109; 199; wife of […]-⌈x⌉-nādin-zēri 176 occupations 101; sex ratio 56–57; […]-⌈x⌉-bāltī 157 statistics regarding 53–57, 61. See also […]-⌈x⌉-bani 196 child, children in this index and pirsu […]-bēla-usuṛ 164 and pirsatu in the IWL […]-⌈bu?⌉ 181 weaver(s): 152, 168, 230 nn. 11–12; see […]x-x-di-ilī 205 also under textiles in the GI and […]-DINGIR-ša-⌈x⌉ 176 ḫuppû and išparu in the IWL […]-⌈e?-x?-x?⌉ 180 wet nurse, wet-nursing: 86, 99 n. 43, […]-⌈x-x⌉-e-a 207 231 n. 23; see also mušēniqtu […]-⌈x⌉-Enlil 193 in the IWL […]-x-īriš 169 widow(er), widowhood: 78–79, 90–91 […]-e-ri-šat 180 wife: 27, 61 n. 71, 65–66, 68–70, 72 n. 35, […]-x-ge-e-a 199 73–75, 81 n. 70, 89–91, 119, and […]-Gula, 176 186 passim in Appendix 1; see also aššatu […]⌈x⌉-Gula: 168, 191 in the IWL ⌈x x x⌉-Gula: 167 witnesses on legal texts: 32, 34, 38, 48, […]-idīya: 186 and passim […]-in: 194 women: see females […-i]na-Ekur: 193 wool (ration): 10 [( )]x-in-bu-x: 176 work group(s): 9–10, 46–47, 55; mobile […]⌈x-x⌉-iqīša: 166 63, 67, 95–97, 121 n. 158, 211–27; […]-⌈x⌉-iš: 206 organization 94–98, 103; removal […]-⌈x⌉-kidinnī: 176 from 63 […]-la: 187 work performed by laborers; see […]-x-la:, 187 occupations of laborers […]-Marduk: 176 general index 265

[…]⌈mi⌉: 203 ⌈x-x-x⌉-šimânni: 164 x-na-a-be-let: 110 n. 105 ⌈x-x-x⌉-Šipak: 191 […]-⌈x⌉-nādin-zēri: 176 […]-⌈x⌉-ši-ri-bu: 156 […]-x-x-Nergal: 162 […]-⌈šu?⌉: 180 […]x-ni-ia: 172 […]-šu: 181, 197 […]-ni-tum: 187 […]-⌈šub⌉ši: 169 […]-⌈x-ni⌉-tum: 178 […]-šumu-līšir: 169 […]-⌈nu?⌉: 181 […]-Šuqamuna: 207 […]-x-nu?: 162 […]-⌈x⌉-Šuqamuna: 206 ⌈x?⌉-pa-ni?-⌈x⌉-[…]: 186 x-ta-x: 206 x-x-pi-ša-tum: 189 […]-⌈ta?-ni?⌉: 196 […]-ra-bi: 162 ⌈x⌉-te/li-x-ku-bu: 191 […r]⌈abi⌉: 176–77 […]-⌈x⌉-TI: 181 […]-rēmanni: 176 […]-x-TI.LA: 187 […r]i?-šat: 169 […]-tum: 186–87, 193 […]-⌈x-x⌉-rīšat: 187 […]-⌈x⌉-tum: 180, 183–84 […]-ri-ša-tum: 177 ⌈x-x⌉-tum: daughter of Dannat-šerressa […]-ri-tum: 169 191; husband of Pirri᾽tu 205 […] ša la x x: 162 ⌈x x x⌉-tum: 169 […]-Šamaš, son of: 118 ⌈x-x-x-(x)⌉-tum: 207 […]-x-x-Šamaš: 86 n. 89, 162 […](x) x x tu tum: 178 ⌈x-x-ša⌉-ra-bi: 167 […]-ú-a: 164 […]-šarrat: 186 […]-(x)-x-ú-a: 176 […]-x-šar⌉-rat: 178 […]-ú-ni-tum: 156 […]-x-ŠEŠ: 174 […]⌈x⌉-ur/lik-Baba: 74 n. 45, 172 […]-⌈ši?⌉: 187 […]-⌈x⌉-yā᾽ūtu: 196 ⌈x-x⌉-ši-GAD-ru-uk: 191 […]-⌈x⌉-zi-il-lum: 196 Index of Select Akkadian Words and Logograms

Generally speaking, words are listed in Akkadian with a cross-reference to the logogram if the word or logogram appears any where in the text in Akkadian. If only given as a logogram, then references will be given under that logogram. Determinatives (e.g., LÚ) are ignored for purposes of alphabetization. GI is an abbreviation for General Index.

A.AB.BA: 68 n. 11 BAD: 29, 31; cf. ÚŠ below abullu: see masṣ aṛ abulli LÚ.BÁḪAR: see paḫāru aḫātu(NIN): 73–74 n. 40, 127 nn. 194 BÁN: see sūtu and 200, and passim; cuneiform sign banû: 127 n. 200 75, 191 bānû: 101 n. 56, 152, 230 aḫāzu: 127 n. 194 BA.ÚŠ: see ÚŠ A.NI (Sumerian suffix): 73–74, esp. bēlu: 20 n. 33, 36 n. 100, 130 n. 40, and passim bītu: 20, 72 n. 38, 94 n. 4, 97, aḫu (ŠEŠ): 73–74 n. 40, and passim 127 n. 200 akkadû: 121 alādu (walādu): 127 n. 200 dabābu: 126 n. 193 AMA: 73–74 n. 40 dālû: 105 n. 84, 137 n. 3, 230 amāru 16 n. 16 DAM: see aššatu amīlūtu: 3–4, 8, 20, 33, 35–36, 39, 123, dīnu: 126 n. 193 126 n. 193, 129–30, and passim; dullu: 30 n. 84 awīlūtu (as abstract) 36 n. 100, 130 DUMU(.SAL): see māru, mārtu ammatu: 32–33 n. 90 DUMU.GABA: 13 and passim; see also amtu: see andu nursing (laborers) in the GI ana: 127 n. 200 DUMU.SAL.GABA: 13 and passim; see andu (amtu, GÉME): 83 n. 78, 131–32 also nursing (laborers) in the GI āpil bābi: 99 n. 39, 229 ARAD: see ardu É.GAL: see ekallu ardu (ÌR): 3–4, 19, 131–32, 188; arad É.GI4.A: see kallatu ekalli 17, 83, 168, 229; see also andu ekallu (É.GAL): 2; see also under ardu arḫu: 30 above ararru/ararratu: 229 É.KUR: 125 n. 183 arūnāyu: 121 n. 158 elamû (NIM.MA(.KI.MEŠ) ): 3 n. 8, 30 n. asụ̂ : 20, 34, 116–17 75, 99 n. 45 ašābu (wašābu): 128 elû: 16 n. 16, 19–20, 60, 62, 114, and aškāpu: 229 passim ašlāku: 229 EN5.SI: see iššakku aššābu: 35 n. 99 ēntu: see NIN.DINGIR aššatu (DAM): 73–75, 127 n. 200, and erēbu. 127 n. 200 passim; cuneiform sign DAM 75, 191 ÉRIN(.Ḫ I.A/ME/MEŠ): 16 n. 16, 30 n. aššurāyu: 121 n. 158 84, 119, 120 n. 152; see also sābụ aštapīru: 8, 123, 129, 196 ÉŠ.GÀR: see iškaru atkuppu (AD.KID): 30 n. 74, 229 atû: 151, 229 GÉME: see andu awīlūtu(m): see amīlūtu GIBIL: 14, 105, 110 n. 105 index of select akkadian words and logograms 267

GIG: 8 n. 1, 62, 116; see also illness, kāsirụ : 230 ill in the GI kasṣ idakkụ : 230 (GIŠ).BÁN(.GAL/ŠE.BA, etc.): see sūtu kaššû: 197 GÚ.EN.NA: see šandabakku kīlu, ki-lum: 14, 22 n. 39, 34, 107, 116, GURUŠ: 8 n. 1, 13, and passim; see also 118–120, 131; see also imprisonment adult (laborers) in the GI in the GI GURUŠ.TUR: 13, 33; see also adolescent kunšillu: 152–54, 230 (laborers) in the GI kurgarrû: 166, 230 GURUŠ.TUR.GAL: 13; see also kurummatu: 23, 26, 62 n. 75 adolescent (laborers) in the GI GURUŠ.TUR.TUR: 13; see also child, lānu: 32 children in the GI laputtû: 230 leqû: 34, 102 n. 58, 116, 119, 125, 126 nn. ḫalāqu: 8, 14, 18, 21, 34, 62, 105–107, 185 and 193 116–17, and passim; meaning lēʾu: 36 n. 100, 130 106–107 LIBIR.RA: 14, 105 n. 84 ḫarintu: 230 lullubāyu/lullumāyu: 121 n. 158, 124–25 ḫašāḫu: 127 n. 200 (LÚ.)LUNGA: see sirāšû ḫazannu: 17, 36, 103 n. 64, 125–26 n. 183, 230 mādidu/ mandidu: 99 n. 42, 231 ḫimētu: 25 n. 43 maḫāru: 119 ḫubbutānu: 124 maḫāsụ : 34–35, 116 ḫuppû: 230 mākisu: see miksu ḫuzzû: 205 malāḫu: 99, 104 mandattu: 39, 100 Ì(.GIŠ): 25 n. 43 mandidu: see mādidu Ì.BA: 10, 23, 25, and passim; see also oil māru, mārtu: 73, 94 n. 4, 127 n. 200, and (ration) and rations in the GI passim

LÚ.Ì.DU8: 21 masṣ arụ : 231 Ì.NUN: see ḫimētu masṣ aṛ abulli: 99 n. 39, 231 IGI.NU.GÁL (NU.IGI, NU): 8 n. 1, 14, miksu: 99 n. 42, 231 n. 19 60; see also blind in the GI LÚ.MUḪALDIM: see nuḫatimmu ikkaru: 159 n. 15 muḫtillû: 100 n. 51 ildu: 18, 21, 114–15, 127; see also ilittu munnabittu: 8, 123, 128 ilittu: 121; see also ildu mušēniqtu: 46 n. 22, 86 n. 91, 231 IM.ÚŠ: see ÚŠ ipru (ŠE.BA): 2–3, 10, 23–24, 27–28, 30 nadānu(SUM): 25, 68 n. 11, 102 n. 58, n. 82, and passim; see also rations in 119, 126 n. 185 the GI LÚ.NA.GAD: 21 ÌR: see ardu naggāru: 231 iškaru: 23, 26 naḫlaptu: 100 n. 51 išparu (UŠ.BAR): 17, 101 n. 56, 152, 230 nâru/nârtu: 231 iššakku (ÉNSI, EN5.SI): 17, 137 n. 3, 230 našû: 16, 18, 20 n. 33 Ì.ŠUR (sāḥ ̮itu): 117 NE (Sumerian suffix): see A.NI NI (Sumerian suffix): see A.NI KÁ.GAL: 68 n. 11 NÍG.KUD(.DA): see mākisu kallatu (É.GI4.A): 74–75 esp. n. 45, 77, NIM.MA(.KI(.MEŠ) ): see elamû and 79–80, 130, 148, 155, 172 Elam in the GI kalû: 34, 107, 116–17 NIN: see aḫātu kamû: 14, 118–119, 131; see also fetters, NIN.DINGIR (ugbabtu or ēntu): 94 n. 3 fettered (laborers) in the GI NIN.DINGIR.GAL: 100 KASKAL: 14; see also travelling, ni/īrāyu (?): 102 n. 58 as a physical-condition designation NU: see IGI.NU.GÁL in the GI LÚ.NU.GIŠ.ŠAR: see nukarribu 268 index of select akkadian words and logograms nuḫatimmu (LÚ.MUḪALDIM): 21, 231 sūtu: 10, 25–27, 30, 68 n. 11, and NU.IGI: see IGI.NU.GÁL passim nukarribu: 19, 21, 101 n. 56, 231; see also gardens, gardeners in the GI sābụ : 30 n. 84; see also ÉRIN suḥ ̮urti šarri: 102 n. 58, 126 pâdu: 119 n. 151 paḫāru (LÚ.BÁḪAR): 21, 30 n. 74, ša: 128, 130 231 šakin māti: 142 paqādu: 102 n. 58 šaknu: 142 paqqāyu: 231 šâlu (šaʾālu): 120 n. 157 pīḫatu: 103 šandabakku: 4, 16–17, 32 n. 89, 102, piqdānu: 8, 30 118–21, 126, 133, 142 pirsatu: 13; see also weaned (laborers) ša rēši: 99 n. 40, 102 n. 59, 126, 232; see in the GI also LÚ.SAG pirsu: 13; see also weaned (laborers) šarru: 102 n. 58, 120 n. 156, 126 in the GI šatammu: 94 n. 3, 102 n. 58; šatam pû: 35 n. 99 ekurri (LÚ.ŠÀ.TAM É.KUR [( )]) purkullu: 231 125–26 n. 183 pūtu: 34–35, 116 šatārụ : 36 n. 100, 130 ŠE.BA: see ipru qātu: 103, 120 n. 152 ŠEŠ: see aḫu qinnu: 2–4, 8, 20 n. 30, 97–98, 127 n. šipirtu: 102 n. 58, 126 200, 128, and passim; see also family ŠU.GI: 8 n. 1, 13; see also elderly in the GI (laborers) in the GI qīpūtu: 102 n. 58, 125–26 n. 183 ŠUK: see kurummatu šūlû: see elû rēšu: 16, 18 šūsụ̂ : see asụ̂ rēʾû: 103 n. 64, 232; rēʾi lâti/sugulli 231; rēʾi sīsî 232; rēʾi sēnị 232 târu: 20 rīmūtu: 26 tēlītu: 16–17 LÚ.SAG: 60 n. 66; see also ša rēši tenēštu: 3, 8, 23–26, 29, 39, 48 n. 27, 55–56, and passim SAL: 8 n. 1, 13; see also adult (laborers) TIL: see BAD in the GI LÚ.TUR: 33 sāliḫu: 232; blind 60 n. 66 tābiḥ ̮u/tabbiḥ ̮u: 60–61 n. 66, 232 SAL.ŠU.GI: 13; see also elderly(laborers) tāmītụ : 70, 232 in the GI tupšarrụ : 99 n. 42, 232 SAL.TUR: 8 n. 1, 13; see also adolescent (laborers) in the GI ugbabtu. see NIN.DINGIR SAL.TUR.TUR: 13; see also child, ummânu: 99 n. 38, 143, 232 children in the GI usandû: 232 sasinnu: 157, 232 ÚŠ (BA.ÚŠ, IM.ÚŠ): 8 n. 1, 14, 21, 29 n. SÍG.BA: 10; see also wool (ration) 70, 35; cf. BAD above in the GI UŠ.BAR: see išparu

SIPA.ÁB.GU4.Ḫ I.A: 60 n. 66; see also herding, herdsmen in the GI ZÁḪ (GIBIL/LIBIR.RA/ÚŠ/DU-kam): sirāšû ( (LÚ.)LUNGA): 29 n. 72, 154, see halāqu 164, 232 zakû: 14, 118 n. 137, 131 SUM: see nadānu zakûtu: 128.