233 OLD ASSYRIAN CHRONOLOGY 234
HOOFDARTIKEL Eponym List contains 129 names, starting with the first epo- nym known to hold this office at the beginning of the reign of King Erisum I. It covers the period from approximately WEEKS, MONTHS AND YEARS IN OLD ASSYRIAN 1 1974-1846 BC, which is the larger part of the Assyrian com- CHRONOLOGY ) mercial presence in the lower city or Karum (Level II) of the central Anatolian city of Kanesh. The book further contains JAN GERRIT DERCKSEN, LEIDEN a discussion of the colophon in text A, of the institution of the year-eponym in Assur and a brief discussion of the attes- Abstract tations of the individual eponyms, as well as observations on 5 This article reviews two recent, seminal books on Old Assyrian the chronology of Karum Levels II and Ib. ) Hand-copies and Chronology (ca. 2000-1725 BC), and discusses evidence for the photos are included of the main text, A (Kt 92/k 193), term hamustum, traditionally understood as “week”. whereas text B is only presented in hand-copies. The tran- scription of the list is that of text A. In recent years, C. Günbattı has published other tablets containing part of the Eponym List, Kt n/k 517+1571 and Kt Introduction p/k 9 (Günbattı 2008b). A significant contribution is his pub- Shortly after the decipherment of texts from Kültepe lication of Kt 01/k 287 (Günbattı 2008a), a document which (ancient Kanesh) in the last decades of the 19th century AD, starts with eponym KEL 110 and continues well into the it became known that Old Assyrian (or Cappadocian, as they Level Ib-period. Despite occasional breaks and uncertainties were called at the time) documents could be dated to a limum in these lists, there now exists a chronological framework for (the year-eponym in Assur), a month according to the Assyr- Upper Mesopotamia and Anatolia spanning from the begin- ian calendar, and to the hamustum or ‘week-eponym’.2) The ning of the second millennium to about 1725 BC based on books by Veenhof and Kryszat, which occasioned the present the use of the Assyrian year-eponym. review article, represent a landmark in the study of the chro- The year-eponym nology of Upper Mesopotamia and Anatolia during the 19th and 18th centuries BC. Until the discovery of the Kültepe The importance of the book by Kryszat as a research tool Eponym list (KEL) it was impossible to fix the sequence of lies in the data it offers on attestations of individual year- year-eponyms and a relative chronology had to be estab- eponyms and the catalogue of persons who held the ‘week’- lished by analysing the dated texts from the main archives eponymy. Although the week-eponyms are duly listed under accessible for study, mostly by making use of the Sam- their respective year-eponyms (the latter listed alphabetically melmemoranda, in which details from several dated debt- and not according to the sequence in KEL) it might have notes were recorded. The aim of Kryszat’s PhD dissertation been useful to include a chart showing the week-eponyms was to establish this internal chronology of the Old Assyrian known for each month. Despite the abundance of texts, for period. Before he could publish the results, however, Veen- many years only a limited number of months and week-epo- hof was able to identify several tablets as lists of eponyms nyms is attested. This severely restricts our attempts to among the texts excavated in 1991, which he was preparing reconstruct the week-eponyms of some years. for publication. The reconstructed Eponym List was pub- Ever since Larsen interpreted the months that are dated to lished in 2003. Although the conclusions drawn by Kryszat the sa qate (short for “the eponym who (took over) from were largely corroborated by the eponym list, a considerable eponym PN”) or warki (“after”) of an eponym as months at part of his original work had now become superfluous. He the beginning of the eponymy year, when the identity of the has therefore given his book a different focus. It contains successor eponym was not yet known, it has been accepted three main parts: (a) an analysis of the chronological position that the Old Assyrian year began with the month Belat- of several archives from different times in the Level II-period ekallim. The data collected by Kryszat confirm that most sa at Kanesh,3) (b) a thorough discussion of the available data qate datings occur in the first half of the year.6) The supposed on individual year-eponyms, and (c) a discussion and cata- reasons for this include difficulties in communication between logue of the attested week-eponyms. Assur and Anatolia during the winter months, problems in The monograph by Veenhof has already been reviewed nominating the new eponym or something else.7) Charpin and twice,4) and the author has published a number of corrections and addenda in NABU 2007, 58-62 note 49. This part of the 5) See now also Veenhof 2008, 28ff. 6) Sa qate datings are attested for (year/month) KEL 79: I-IV; 80: III, IV, VII, XII; 81: I-III; 83: III; 84: I-III; 85: III-V; 86: III; 87: I, III, XII; 1) Review article of: Klaas R. Veenhof, The Old Assyrian List of Year 88: II; 89: II, III; 90: IV; 91: I, IV, XII; 92: II-IV; 93: II, IV; 94: II, IV; Eponyms from Karum Kanish and its Chronological Implications. Türk 95: II, IV; 96: II-IV; 97: III-V, XII; 98: I-IV; 99: III, XII; 100: II-IV; Tarih Kurumu, Ankara 2003. (23 cm, VIII, 78, 4 figs.). ISBN 975-16-1546- 101: I, III, IV; 102: I-III; 103: III; 104: I, III, IV; 105: I-III, V; 106: 1. Guido Kryszat, Zur Chronologie der Kaufmannsarchive aus der Schicht I-IV; 107: I, II, IV, V, XII?; 108: II; 109: II; 111: II, III; 110: III; 112: 2 des Karum Kanes. Studien und Materialien. (PIHANS 99, Old Assyrian I, II, IV; 113: III, IV; 116: IV; 117: II; 118: II?-III; 119: III; 120: IV; Archives, Studies 2). Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden, 122: I; 123: III; 127: VI; 128: II, VI; 129: I; 130: II; 131: II; 132: II; 2004. (26,5 cm, XIV, 212). ISBN 90-6258-100-5. ISSN 0926-9568. 133: VI; 134: III, IV; 136: II. 2) Golénischeff (1891, 37) recognized that hamustum derived from the 7) Larsen 1974, 19. Cf. the Mari text TH 84.42 dated to 21 I during “the word for ‘five’, but refrained from giving an interpretation. The first to eponym who has until now not been nominated, the successor of Ibni- translate hamustum by ‘week’ was Sayce (1897, 287). The word limum for Adad” (limu sa adini la nabû sa warki Ibni-Adad); Charpin & Ziegler eponym was already known from Neo-Assyrian texts. (2003, 83) suggested that military campaigns during L Ibni-Adad caused a 3) The archive of Kuliya was published by K.R. Veenhof as volume 5 delay in nominating the successor eponym. They connect the fact that the in the series Kültepe Tabletleri (Ankara 2010). eponym succeeding ™ab-Òilli-Assur, who was in office when Samsi-Addu 4) D.O. Edzard, ZA 94 (2004), 304-306; C. Michel, AfO 51 (2005/2006), died in month XII, was not known until at least after 13 VI, with the death 321-324. of the king (Charpin & Ziegler 2003, 137, 160 fn. 610).
994700_Bior_2011_3-4_01.indd4700_Bior_2011_3-4_01.indd 233233 221/10/111/10/11 09:1809:18 235 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXVIII N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2011 236
Ziegler noted the case of the successor of Nimer-Sîn, whose explains this by assuming that the h. mentioned in a debt- name was known in Mari from 16 I, whereas in Tuttul a text note refers to the moment from which the term starts to run, from 25 III was still dated “warki Nimer-Sîn”.8) In this case, but does not necessarily fall in the month named in that text. the nomination of the new eponym seems to have been timely This would explain why some h.-pairs are attested in two and communication effective, so why the news was not used consecutive months. While I fully agree that the h. is the start in Tuttul (supposing it had arrived there) is a matter for spec- of a term, I fail to see what motive can exist to connect it ulation. This apparently also applies to some instances from with a month other than the one in which it fell if it does not Level II; for example to sa qate KEL 80 VII in Prag I 591, explicitly refer to a future moment, unless by mistake. The although evidence is available for datings to KEL 81 III, IV, reconstruction of Veenhof (1997, 11), on the other hand, VI. However, Kryszat (p.123) states that the first date from always needs at least one h. overlapping two months, given original documents stems from IX. that the 30-day month consists of 7-day weeks. Month XII is dated to the sa qate of KEL 80, 87, 91, 97, Whereas Kryszat’s assumption remains difficult to prove, 99 and 107. According to Kryszat (p.73, 108, 124), this that of Veenhof is not supported by the evidence for KEL 89, means that the document was written in XII (L), but repay- where two pairs, Assur-Òululi + Enna-Belum (pair A) and ment started in the next year (sa qate L), whereas Veenhof Su-Nunu + Puzur-Assur (pair B), are both attested in months (p.32) links the case of KEL 80 with the addition of an inter- IX and X.11) calary month after XII. The circumstance that sa qate datings Of a different nature is the case of the pair Iddin-Assur + do not necessarily indicate disrupted communications or Ikunum, attested for three consecutive months, KEL 83 X irregularities in the appointment of the new eponym, adds to (Kt c/k 129:2), XI (Kt c/k 125:23) and XII (Kt c/k 255:6). the complex reality of the Assyrian dating system. Month XII also has a h. “of the kassum who took over from Iddin-Assur + Ikunum” (Kt c/k 41:54). The problem is that The hamustum: introduction the two references to month XII deal with one and the same Although we know that the hamustum was an office held debtor, Ili-bani, owing 14 minas of silver at a term of 56 h. by two people (later one person) for a specific period of time Here a mistake may be assumed. For Kryszat the h. of this (a ‘week’) and was named after these persons during the pair in X means that the debt was contracted in X but that Level II-period, it is also imperfectly understood. Kryszat’s the term started in XI or XII. That I doubt. discussion contains several proposals to solve questions sur- Since the possibility of overlap is excluded, because of the rounding this chronological device. It seems, therefore, evidence for KEL 89, and the idea of dating a h. to a differ- appropriate for me to review some of the currently accepted ent month remains speculative, it appears reasonable to sup- beliefs about the office of hamustum and the length of the pose that the same pair of h. could officiate in consecutive Old Assyrian ‘week’ and to adduce evidence from a number months. of unpublished texts from the archive of Ali-ahum (Kt c/k), which I am preparing for publication. The hamustum of the kassum The word hamustum (h.) means “one-fifth” but it is The word kassum in OA texts denotes a non-Assyrian dig- unclear to what unit this refers. Kryszat states that the two nitary in Northern Syria and, especially, in Anatolia. It occurs individuals holding the office during the Level II-period instead of a personal name as the holder of a h. in Kanesh, (from KEL 97 onward only a single person acts in this capac- usually in the phrase istu hamustim sa kassim sa iqqate PN1 ity) represented a ten-man committee, known as an esartum u PN2 ilqeu “from the h. of the kassum who took over from at the start of the Assyrian presence in Anatolia. The author the hands of PN1 and PN2”. Interestingly, only one person implies that this committee functioned for a whole year and holds the h. in these periods, even at the time when it was was able to provide eponyms for 45 weeks. But as there is customary for two individuals to hold it jointly. no evidence for the existence of such a ten-man committee Additional support for the interpretation of a kassum as in Kanesh, he assumes the function was taken over by the a non-Assyrian person from Kanesh comes from Kt c/k Karum office (bet karim). 782 (KEL 80/X), which contains the clumsily written Earlier, J. Lewy regarded the term as one-fifth of the phrase (10)… is-tù (11) ha-mu-us-tim sa «ga» kà-sí-im 9 year, ) being the term of office for one person from a group (erasure) kà-/ni-sí-im (12) ì-lí-a-lim ù la1-qé-pí-im il5-qé-ú of five. This idea has now become untenable, for we now “From the h. of the Kaneshite kassum (who) took over have so many h.-eponyms that there must have been several (from the hands of) Ili-alum and Laqep”. Apparently the h. serving in one month. Tur-Sinai claimed that it denotes name of the Anatolian dignitary who assumed this office one-fifth of the month,10) and later scholarship revised the was not generally known or the Assyrians were simply not length of this ‘week’. The current mainstream opinion held interested in recording the name of a man who did not in Old Assyrian studies is that h. denotes an office and a unit belong to the Assyrian mercantile community. This may of time corresponding to a seven-day week. This was the shed some light on the function of a h. which remains prac- outcome of the analysis by Veenhof (1997) and has been tically unknown apart from the costs it seems to have accepted by Kryszat and others. When the term of a loan is involved for some.12) expressed as a number of h. it means that number of weeks. The fact that these kassum-‘weeks’ prove that non-Assyr- Of direct relevance to the question of the length of a h. is ians could hold the h. may indicate a concession made by the the significance of occurrences of the same pair of h. for Assyrians to the king of Kanesh. We know that the concept consecutive months of the same year. Kryszat (p.73f.) of the h. was alien to Anatolian society, as a brief survey of
8) Charpin & Ziegler 2003, 160 fn. 612. 11) Month IX — Pair A in ICK 1, 60; Pair B in AKT 3, 59; month X 9) 1928, 127. — Pair A in Kt c/k 123:40; Pair B in AKT 1, 36 and VS 26, 93. 10) 1951, 19. 12) Dercksen 2004, 224; see also AKT 3, 93.
994700_Bior_2011_3-4_01.indd4700_Bior_2011_3-4_01.indd 234234 221/10/111/10/11 09:1809:18 237 OLD ASSYRIAN CHRONOLOGY 238
bonds with Anatolian creditors (Peruwa, Siwasme, Mad- 8 no. 101 Ayaya (OBTR no.213: niggallu = VIII*); awada) demonstrates.13) These texts mention a h. if the 9 no. 110 Habil-kenu (Vincente no.53: niggallu = VIII*); debtor is an Assyrian or appears to be involved in the Assyr- 2 no. 112 Ipiq-Istar (Ismail no.138: niggallu = VIII*); ian community, or if the creditor wants to be explicit about ? no. ‘131’ UÒur-sa-Assur (OBTR no.317: month diri.ud). the start of the debt. Kryszat (p.162f.) explains the inclusion This clearly shows that a 3-year cycle could have been of a among the otherwise almost exclusively Assyr- kassum used in this period between the nos. 78-93 and 101-110, but ian holders of a as the result of irregularities in economic h. that it could not have been used between 110-112 or at some life in Anatolia, which necessitated a ‘week of the ’ kassum time between 93-101. three times a year.14) The author relates this to a disruptive The beginning of the OA year was the winter solstice (22 event called , which he interprets as a local festival sikkatum December).18) This is inferred from Kt c/k 568, where a debt the celebration of which practically halted any commercial runs from harvest time (i tu Òibat niggallim) and the tablet is activity. He further assumes that the ‘week’ held by a ka um s ss dated to month VII (Ò ),19) and we know that winter varied in length. ip’um wheat is harvested in July in Anatolia.20) Note that the tenth I am sceptical about the interpretation of as a sikkatum month, “figs”, falls in October, which fits the har- festival and rather regard it as a reference to violent conflict. te’inatum vest of late figs in September/October. The Samsi-Addu cal- Yet Kryszat’s suggestion to link the -‘weeks’ to an kassum endar, to which the month belongs, used the eponymy inner-Anatolian affair may guide us to a better understanding niggallu year but started in August with the month according of this phenomenon. The ‘week’ of a is attested in nikmum kassum to the evidence presented by Charpin.21) This suggests that KEL 80/X, 82/XII, 83/XII, 84/ , 102/VII, 103/III, zibibirum Samsi-Addu altered the beginning of the eponymy year. 106/I and IV, 107/XII. As noted by Kryszat, these instances To facilitate trade, interest was expressed per month often involve the end and beginning of the year, but other (sometimes per year), one month was put at 30 days.22) The parts of the year occur as well. Perhaps these ‘weeks’ were half-month of 15 days was called after the term for somehow connected with local religious celebrations at sapattum the full moon day. Kanesh, such as the festivals of Parka and Anna. In such a system of 30 as the standard number of days in The calendar, intercalation and the length of a hamustum a ‘month’, where the h. marks the start of a term and a series expresses the length of a term, . must always be a standard For cultic and civil purposes, a lunisolar calendar consisting h portion of the month, and one . should start at the beginning of a year of 12 months of 29 or 30 days was used during the h of the month and another one terminate at the end of that Ur III period. In this system it is necessary to add an interca- month. Veenhof argued that calibrating weeks with months lary month every three years to adjust to the agricultural cycle. resulted in a preference for 13 . over 12 . since that cor- For bureaucratic purposes, however, a standard year of 360 h h responded to a “natural” term of 3 months. But the existence days was used in which each month had 30 days.15) of ‘left-overs’ adding up to a . would not occur in the sys- It is my impression that the Old Assyrian calendar was h tem proposed here. In short, a 7-day week is not a natural also based on the lunisolar calender, with a month of 29 or division for a 30-day month. 30 days. An intercalary month called would be zibibirum A month divided into 5 parts, each of 6 days, could explain added, ideally, every three years.16) One is attested for KEL the etymology of . And in fact, terms of 6 days for 81 and 84, but it is unclear how strict the three-year cycle hamustum office holders are attested in a text from Old Babylonian Ur was adhered to. Evidence exists for an intercalary month in (Charpin 1986, 267), besides others lasting a single day or six different years dated to an eponym in the 18th century 12 days. The high frequency of 3 ., which would then cor- from Mari and North Mesopotamia (Chagar Bazar, Tell Lei- h respond to 18 days, makes this option unlikely. lan, Tell al Rimah). It is attested in the following epony- What was more widespread was the division of a month mates, which are numbered after Günbattı KEL G, and add- into three parts, ideally each of 10 days. This is the length of ing the number of years separating the eponymates: office for temple prebends and other service personnel in no. 78 Asqudum (Mari, Chagar Bazar: niggallu = VIII*); 15 no. 93 Zabzabu (OrNS 63 [1994] 326: month diri.ga);17) 18) Previous attempts to determine the beginning of the year during Level II were made on the basis of the months dated to sa qate years, see Larsen 1976, 193: “(New year) seems to have been placed at winter sol- 13) Bonds from the largely unpublished archive of Perua are not dated stice, or perhaps autumnal equinox”; Veenhof 1997, 12: “on the day of except for five texts. Three of these are dated to a h., one to an Assyrian the autumnal equinox (ca. Sept. 23) or rather the winter solstice (ca. Dec. month and limum, and one to an Anatolian festival. Three or perhaps four 21).” A different view was based on heavy emendation of TPAK 1, 98 (cf. of these bonds have an Assyrian debtor. next note). Veenhof 2008, 243: “Text 17 [= TPAK 1, 98, JGD] shows that Siwasme, priest of Hikisa, is creditor in six bonds, all with Anatolian the Assyrian month VII fell in ‘spring’ (ca. April-June), which suggests that debtors. Four are undated, but two are dated to a h. (Kt 88/k 1082, the other month I may be equated with Oct./Nov.”; Michel 2010, 222: “Thus, the is unpublished). Old Assyrian year may have started the day of the autumnal equinox (22-23 Half of the bonds in which the woman Madawada is the creditor September), if we consider that ∑ip’um was the first month of the spring.” (together with Iddin-Assur in Kt o/k 81) are undated; the debtors are all 19) TPAK 1, 98 does not contain a correspondence between spring Anatolian. The other half are dated to a h. (Kt o/k 44, Anatolian debtor) or (das’u) and month VII, as implied by the editor of the text. Lines 11-12 to a h. plus Assyrian month and limum (Kt o/k 40, Anatolian debtor; CCT read: is-tù : i-da-ás : itu.kam (12) sa Òí-ip-e-em, “from the renewal (for 1, 9b, Assyrian debtor). edas) of the month, that of Òip’um”. The rare spelling with initial i for the 14) Further analysis has to establish what connection existed between infinitive of a verb I-e also occurs in Kt 94/k 365:7 ina i-lá-i-su (by cour- the Anatolian Happiahsu and the Assyrians Laqep and Sukkalliya, with tesy of G. Barjamovic). whom he functioned as a ‘week’-eponym. 20) Landsberger, JNES 8, 294; Morrison 1939, 37; Hoffner 1974, 28. 15) See Brack-Bernsen 2007. 21) 1985, 246; see also Charpin and Ziegler 2003, 160. 16 22 ) For this month, see Veenhof 1997, 13-15; Veenhof 2000, 141-145. ) Cf. Kt c/k 658a, 13: 30 u4-me-e // Kt c/k 839, 82: itu.1.kam; Brus- 17 ) Van De Mieroop assumed that the month diri.ga followed VI Mana. sel O 3684 (AV Reiner), 7f.: a-na itu.1.kam, 30 u4-me-e “within one full However, it would fit after VIII. month”.
994700_Bior_2011_3-4_01.indd4700_Bior_2011_3-4_01.indd 235235 221/10/111/10/11 09:1809:18 239 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXVIII N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2011 240
some nearly contemporary Old Babylonian documents. A 1) KTS 1, 1a: “Speak to Ili-nada, thus Ikunum and Kurub- division of the month into dub.sag.gá, murub4 and egir is Istar: You asked 8 minas of silver from me and I gave to you known from Ur (Charpin 1986, 209 and 263-265) and lists the exact amount you had asked for. You said: I shall return detailing a responsibility lasting 10 or 9 days of a given it to you within 10 days. Instead of 10 days, 2 or 3 months month come from Larsa (Birot, TEBA, no. 18, days 21-29; elapsed and you did not give me the silver. Your term has no. 21, days 1-10). A h. of 10 days would mean that for eight now run for 7 h. (…) The rest of the silver, 5 minas and its 1 months all h. are known (KEL 81/VII, 88/I, 91/VIII, 97/VIII, interest, 1 ⁄3 minas
994700_Bior_2011_3-4_01.indd4700_Bior_2011_3-4_01.indd 236236 221/10/111/10/11 09:1809:18 241 OLD ASSYRIAN CHRONOLOGY 242
The use of h. to indicate a ‘month’ seems to have been more 28 1 widespread than previously thought. The number of h. to 30 17 express the term of a debt or the overdue period for payment 1 32 1 ranges from 5 (text 7), 7 (text 1), 8 ⁄2 (text 6), 9 (text 2), 12 1 33 4 (text 8), 17 ⁄2 (text 4), 20 (text 3) to 22 (text 5) in the examples just listed. It raises the question of how the persons concerned 35 2 we able to distinguish between these usages of the same word, 36 2 or whether there was no difference. The meaning ‘week’ of 37 2 the word h. is evident when the names of the office holders 40 16 are given. Several unpublished texts contain the phrase ana n 41 1 warah hamsatim, which apparently means “within n full 43 2 24 months”. ) In most of the cases, however, it appears that a 44 1 term expressed as a number of h. refers to a week, because 45 7 otherwise one expects a far greater number of terms to have been expressed in years. After the identification of several lists 46 6 of year-eponyms during the past decade and a half, the discov- 47 2 ery of more hamustum-almanacs would be very welcome to 48 1 clarify the uncertainties that still surround this institution. 50 6 53 1 Veenhof and Kryszat are to be congratulated on the publica- 54 1 tion of these two books. The significance of their work is not 55 1 limited to specialists of Old Assyrian, but extends to everyone 56 1 interested in Ancient Near Eastern chronological principles. 60 2 APPENDIX: 70 2 73 1 Number of attestations of h., months and years used as terms (ca. 700 occurrences). The data in Veenhof (1997, 21-22) were based 100 1 on some 520 occurrences. Remarkable frequencies in bold type. months number of attestations hamustum number of attestations 145 13 248 29 329 327 413 423 525 519 615 619 71 79 81 815 10 3 92 12 1 10 34 14 2 11 3 15 1 12 19 13 40 years number of attestations 14 3 144 15 35 212 16 5 313 17 2 46 18 1 53 20 44 66 21 2 71 22 4 10 1 23 2 24 7 Bibliography 25 11 26 5 Balkan 1965 — K. Balkan: The Old Assyrian Week, in: Studies in 27 1 Honor of Benno Landsberger, 159-174. Assyriological Studies 16. Brack-Bernsen 2007 — L. Brack-Bernsen: The 360-day year in
24 Mesopotamia, in: J.M. Steele (ed.), Calendars and Years. ) For example in Kt n/k 223, 7f.: a-na : itu.4.kam, ha-am-sa-tim (by Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East, 83-100. courtesy of S. Bayram).
994700_Bior_2011_3-4_01.indd4700_Bior_2011_3-4_01.indd 237237 221/10/111/10/11 09:1809:18 243 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXVIII N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2011 244
Brinkman 1963 — J.A. Brinkman: New evidence on Old Assyrian hamustum, OrNS 32, 387-394. Charpin 1985 — D. Charpin: Les archives d’époque “assyrienne” dans le palais de Mari, MARI 4, 243-268. Charpin 1986 — D. Charpin: Le clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurabi (XIXe-XVIIIe siècles av. J.-C.). Charpin & Ziegler 2003 — D. Charpin and N. Ziegler: Mari et le Proche-Orient à l’époque amorrite. Essai d’histoire politique. Florilegium marianum V. Dercksen 2004 — J.G. Dercksen: Old Assyrian Institutions. Hoffner 1974 — H.A. Hoffner, Jr.: Alimenta Hethaeorum. Food Production in Hittite Asia Minor. Günbatt? 2008a — C. Günbattı: An eponym list (KEL G) from Kültepe, AoF 35, 103-132. Günbatt? 2008b — C. Günbattı: A list of eponyms from Kültepe (KEL D), in: C. Michel (ed.), Old Assyrian Studies in Memory of Paul Garelli, 125-135. Larsen 1976 — M.T. Larsen: The Old Assyrian City-State and its Colonies. Lewy 1928-1929 — J. Lewy: Fragmente altassyrischer Prozessge- setze aus Kanis, MAOG 4, 122-128. Michel 2010 — C. Michel: The day unit within the Old Assyrian calendar, in: ≤. Dönmez (ed.), Studies Presented in Honour of Veysel Donbaz, 217-224. Morrison 1939 — J.A. Morrison: Ali≥ar: A Unit of Land Occu- pance in the Kanak Su Basin of Central Anatolia. Sayce 1897 — A.H. Sayce: Assyriological notes. No. 3, Society of Biblical Archaeology. Proceedings 19, 280-292. Tur-Sinai 1951 — N.H. Tur-Sinai: Sabbat und Woche, BiOr 8, 14-24. Veenhof 1997 — K.R. Veenhof: The Old Assyrian hamustum period: a seven-day week, JEOL 34 (1995-1996), 5-26. Veenhof 2000 — K.R. Veenhof: Old Assyrian chronology, Akkad- ica 119-120, 137-150. Veenhof 2008 — K.R. Veenhof: The Old Assyrian Period, in: M. Wäfler (ed.), K.R. Veenhof and J. Eidem, Mesopotamia. The Old Assyrian Period. OBO 160/5, 13-264.
994700_Bior_2011_3-4_01.indd4700_Bior_2011_3-4_01.indd 238238 221/10/111/10/11 09:1809:18