Here My Preliminary and Sometimes Isin-Larsa Wars Is Explored

241 NEW INSIGHTS FROM THE EARLY OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD 242

NEW INSIGHTS useful that high-quality photos of all texts are available FROM THE EARLY OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD, through CDLI at https://cdli.ucla.edu/. ESPECIALLY CONCERNING THE ISIN-LARSA As the author himself writes (p. xi-xii), the letters have WARS BETWEEN ERRA-IMITTĪ AND SUMU-EL archival connections with groups of texts kept at the Banca (CA. 1870-1865 BCE), d’Italia (published by Pomponio, Stol, Westenholz et alii A REVIEW ARTICLE OF CUSAS 36 2006); the Cotsen collection (partly published by Wilson 2008), and the Cornell/Rosen collection (OB texts will be Rients de Boer published by Miller and others). This makes it currently chal- lenging to put the material into perspective. We also have to keep in mind that letters such as these must have originally Abstract been kept together with economic and administrative texts in an archival context. Future publications will no doubt enrich In this review article, the 221 Old Babylonian letters published our knowledge of the letters in this volume. Nevertheless, it by Andrew George (2018) in CUSAS 36 are discussed. They stem is safe to say that almost all of the letters come from the mostly from southern Iraq covering a period of time between ca. 1880 and 1712 BCE. The most interesting group is the Sumu- south, especially from the area of the Larsa kingdom before El correspondence dated between ca. 1870 and 1865 BCE of and after its conquest in 1762 BCE by Hammurabi of Baby- which the historical and broader geo-political context during the lon. The reader will find here my preliminary and sometimes Isin-Larsa wars is explored. As the provenance of these letters tentative remarks on the letters. Raḫābum is proposed, an as of yet still not located town in the Larsa kingdom. For the other letters, not belonging to the Sumu- El group, efforts are made to group them together and link them The Sumu-El correspondence (nos. 1-32) to other text groups such as the Ipqu-Sîn dossier. In addition, it Certainly the most interesting group of letters constitutes is proposed that a group of letters form a coherent dossier revolv- nos. 1-32 (perhaps also nos. 39, 64, 81 and 82), the corre- ing around the Rīm-Sîn (1822-1773 BCE) era military officer Lipit-Ištar. The article ends with additional comments on selected spondence of Larsa kings Sumu-El (1894-1866 BCE), Nūr- letters, proposing different readings, notes, and additional biblio- Adad (1865-1850 BCE), and their officials. The first letter graphical references. from this correspondence was published by Chambon 2015 and in the same article he also provides the status quaestionis concerning the reign of Sumu-El and the conflict that Larsa had with Isin. Introduction In the letters we read that Isin’s Erra-imittī (ca. 1870-1863 This article is an extended review of Andrew George’s BCE) was on the move against Larsa’s Sumu-El. Chambon edition of Old Babylonian letters from the Schøyen collec- (2015: 36) already stated that Erra-imittī probably wanted to tion in Oslo.1) The book offers much that is exciting. To reconquer important cities in Isin’s direct vicinity such as mention –for example– just one element: the important Old Kisurra and Nippur and to stop Larsa’s hydraulic works that Babylonian Larsa king Sumu-El (1894-1866 BCE) is among were threatening Isin’s water supply. The letters must have its correspondents in nos. 1-28. The contents of this volume been written somewhere between ca. 1870 and 1865 BCE. will prove to be an important addition towards reconstructing This was an eventful time full of war, not only involving Isin early Old Babylonian history. The author is primarily known and Larsa, but also other southern Mesopotamian city-states for his expertise in literary texts (such as his superb edition such as Uruk (under Narām-Sîn and/or Sîn-kāšid), Malgium of the Gilgamesh epic, George 2003), but in the past he (king unknown), Kazallu (under Yaḫzir-El?, probably an ally already showed that he could handle Old Babylonian letters of Isin), Kiš (under Yawium, perhaps an ally of Larsa), Dam- as well. Here, he fully unfolds his expertise by presenting us rum (under Mananâ, an ally of Babylon and Sumu-abum), with a reliable edition of 221 Old Babylonian letters. Marad (under Yamsi-El?, probably an ally of Isin, cf. De Of the letters in this book, some 217 are part of the in total Boer 2013), Babylon’s Sumu-la-El (1880-1845 BCE), and 474 Old Babylonian letters kept in the Schøyen collection. importantly, the Amorite sheikh Sumu-abum (active from Four of the 221 letters (nos. 14-17, and 28) are not part of ca. 1885?-1862?). Sumu-abum was a key player during this the Schøyen collection, but belong to an anonymous private time, being a pan-tribal leader who presided over a group of collector. The rest of the Old Babylonian Schøyen material, Amorite chieftains that took over power in a number of cities among which there are also royal letters of a later Larsa king, in southern Mesopotamia from ca. 1885 BCE onwards (cf. Rīm-Sîn, will be published in the near future. De Boer 2018). After a brief introduction, we find a catalogue and con- Eventually, Erra-imittī was able to gain the upper hand in cordance of the tablets, followed by the text publications the Isin-Larsa conflict by reconquering Kisurra and Nippur themselves, providing us with transliterations, translations, (Charpin 2004a: 103), whereas Kazallu, Marad, and Kiš fell and some incidental philological comments. After this, there to Babylon’s Sumu-la-El. We know for Larsa that Sumu-El’s are indices for personal names, toponyms, and deities. The reign ended in a catastrophe around 1866 BCE, probably author has chosen not to copy most of the letters and instead worsened by the military setbacks in the north (Charpin there are black and white photos at the end of the book. For 2004a: 78). However, Erra-imittī also died around 1863 BCE those wishing to do some “arm-chair collating”, it is very under seemingly strange circumstances (De Boer 2018: 64-66). In the wake of the death of Erra-imittī we see that Sumu-abum might have ruled the kingdom of Isin for eight 1) GEORGE, A.R. – Old Babylonian Texts in the Schøyen Collection. months, which was suspected in De Boer 2018: 65, but is Part One: Selected Letters. (CUSAS Vol. 36). CDL Press, Bethesda, 2018. perhaps corroborated by a text dated to Sumu-abum from (28,5 cm, XIV, 192, CCLXIII). ISBN 978-1-934309-75-9. Nippur published by Farber and Wilent 2018. Furthermore, 243 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXVI N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2019 244 the untimely death of Sumu-abum around 1863/1862 BCE and Damiq-ilīšu of Isin (1816-1794 BCE) both dedicated heralded the ascent to Isin’s throne of newcomer Enlil-bānî buildings to Nergal of Uzarpara. This town was eventually (1862-1839 BCE); the string of annexations of minor polities reconquered by Rīm-Sîn of Larsa (1822-1763 BCE) in his such as Damrum by Babylon’s Sumu-la-El; and a period of 17th year, ca. 1805 BCE. None of the cities mentioned above non-aggression by a new dynasty in Larsa under Nūr-Adad seem to have been part of the “traditional core” of the Larsa (1865-1850 BCE), who distanced himself explicitly from kingdom (cf. the list in Richardson 2015: 284-285). We can Sumu-El (Fitzgerald 2002: 78-82). The hostilities between speculate that these towns were originally part of the Isin the players left on the battlefield, i.e. Isin, Larsa, Malgium, kingdom and had been conquered by Sumu-El during the Uruk, Babylon, and now also the Diyala polities of Ešnunna first 25 years of his reign. Eventually they were retaken dur- and Nērebtum, would flare up again in full force when the ing the campaigns of Isin’s Erra-imittī narrated in the Sumu- son of Nūr-Adad, Sîn-iddinam (1849-1841 BCE), ascended El correspondence. to the throne (Charpin 2004a: 104-106 and Guichard 2014). There are also a number of cities that are mentioned in the However, these events are not chronicled in the Sumu-El correspondence, but not threatened by Isin’s armies, such as correspondence here under review. Adab (it was correctly seen by George that its OB reading Awaiting the publication of the rest of the Sumu-El cor- should be Usab) and Raḫābum. Ancient Raḫābum (Stol respondence by Miller and others, what do these letters 2006-2008) could very well be the town where the Sumu-El already tell us about the Isin-Larsa wars? First of all, Sumu- correspondence was found. In CUSAS 36 9 a group of El’s name carried the divine determinative in some of his “Amorites” must stay with the letter’s addressees in royal inscriptions (Frayne 1990: 130-137), but we find this Raḫābum, lines 21-22 read: i-na URUki ra-ḫa-bi-im-ma, nowhere in his letters. We also do not find any explicit indi- maḫ-ri-ku-nu li-ši-ib “(the group of Amorites) should stay cation of his status as king in the letters. In later royal Larsa with you in Raḫābum (RdB: emphasis added by -ma)”. This letters, for example written under Rīm-Sîn (1822-1763 BCE), makes it clear that Raḫabum was at least one of the towns we always have umma Rīm-Sîn bēlka/bēlkunu “thus (says) where the addressees (i.e. the Heads of Security) resided. Rīm-Sîn, your lord”. As has been observed by George on Raḫābum also occurs in CUSAS 36 11: 6, 65: 6, 160: 11, p. xi, Sumu-El strikes us in his letters as someone who has and 216: 12’. In addition, Guichard (apud Chambon 2015: little faith in the capabilities of his officials, constantly urg- 37) argues for Raḫābum as the provenience of a group of ing them to maintain their guard, not to demobilize the letters (the Imlik-Sîn correspondence) kept at Cornell that he troops, to keep supplies of barley in store, and to repair or links to the Sumu-El correspondence. Guichard also remarks make fortifications. that Raḫābu(t) is mentioned as the southernmost town of The Sumu-El letters are mostly addressed to the rubbû Isin’s kingdom in the Sargon Geography (Horowitz 1998: sikkātim “Heads of Security” (the irregular plural of rabi 84). Raḫābum emerges in the Old Babylonian cuneiform sikkātim, “He who is responsible for locking the gates”. On record as an important city of the Larsa kingdom. Richardson www.archibab.fr, Charpin wrote about the ru-bu sí-ka-a-tim (2015: 285-287) locates it to the east of Larsa and even pro- in the letter published by Chambon 2015: “Cette ligne poses Tell Abla as a possible location (2015: 280 n. 142). a toutes chances d’être l’inédit cité « courtesy M. Kovacs » This could be true, but if the Sumu-El correspondence was par le CAD R p. 393b s. v. rubbû. On note donc le parallèle : indeed from Raḫābum, we would expect the town to be more rubbû sikkâtim (pl.) // rabi sikkatim (sg.), sur le même to the north west of Larsa. This is supported by Leemans modèle que celui déjà connu rubbû haṭṭâtim (pl.) // rabi (1976: 217-219), who stresses the connection between haṭṭim (sg.)”. For more on the rabi sikkātim, see Pientka- Raḫābum, Zabalam (Tell Ibzaykh), and Bad-Tibira (Tell Hinz 2006. Madain) in a number of OB texts. It is certain that Raḫābum Other Sumu-El correspondence letters are written to or lay somewhere in the (broad) area between Uruk, Kisurra, between Larsa officials mentioned by name, the most prom- Zabalam, and Bad-Tibira. inent among them is Bēlī-ay-annadi (a Beamtenname mean- The occurrence of Ḫanû “tribesmen” in CUSAS 36 4:14 ing “My lord, I must not be cast away”), who is always and 20: 10 as a source of barley is interesting. The term mentioned first, which is indicative of his superior position. Ḫanû or HA.NA is ubiquitous in the later Mari and other Bēlī-ay-annadi is probably the commander of the town/gar- Middle Euphrates material where it is often translated as rison where the letters were found. Another official that “Bedouin” (Durand 1998: 417-418). However, there are rare occurs often is Puzur-Numušda, but he seems to be more occurrences of the word in southern OB texts as well, we can mobile because Sumu-El sends for him on multiple occa- mention for example the list Riftin 117 (Rīm-Sîn 31), where sions (nos. 7, 10, 12). Special mention must be made here of we read at the end (l.20): ˹ERIN2˺ LÚ ḫa-nu-um “the group Pīḫatni-ipiq, the writer of no. 29 (and mentioned in no. 8), of Hanean men”. Together with the earlier mentioned refer- because another letter sent by him “to my lord (i.e. Sumu- ence to “Amorites” in CUSAS 36 9 as a military unit, El)” is kept at Yale, this letter does not belong to the Sumu- and “Amorite service” in the Banca d’Italia text III-23 El correspondence here under review and is published by De (Pomponio, Stol, Westenholz et alii 2006: 206), they provide Boer 2019. us tantalizing clues to what the terms “Amorite” and Ḫanû The Sumu-El letters talk about a number of cities that are meant at that place and time. besieged or threatened: Kisurra (Tell Abu Hatab), whose king Ibni-šadûm was a vassal of Sumu-El (according to De Other Early Old Babylonian Letters (nos. 33-89) Boer 2018: 65); Šayānâ (otherwise unknown); of Anâ (otherwise unknown); Kušḫarda (otherwise unknown); and George has ordered the letters in this section alphabeti- Uzarpara. This last town was probably not far from Uruk and cally, based on the sender’s name. Several letters in this is known as a cultic center of Nergal (Richter 2004: 319 note group can be linked to the Ipqu-Sîn archive. This archive, as 1354). Anam of Uruk (reigned around ca. 1830?-10? BCE) published in Pomponio, Stol, Westenholz et alii 2006: 163- 245 NEW INSIGHTS FROM THE EARLY OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD 246

210 contains twenty-five texts, of which ten are letters. The the reign of Rīm-Sîn of Larsa (1822-1763 BCE), due to economic-administrative texts in this archive are dated a letter that Lipit-Ištar received from Rīm-Sîn’s sister En- between the years Sumu-El 1 and 25. Aside from Ipqu-Sîn, ane-du (no. 101, that she is Rīm-Sîn’s sister is confirmed by two other men occur regularly in the archive: Išar-Kubi and RIME 4.2.14.20, Frayne 1990: 299-301), and the mentioning Ikūn-pī-Damu. In CUSAS 36 we can probably assign the fol- of Rīm-Sîn’s name in no. 194, a letter sent by a man with the lowing letters to the Ipqu-Sîn archive: nos. 52, 55, 56, 69-71. Beamtenname Țāb-eli-mātim “He (i.e. the king) is good for In addition, a number of letters seem to be part of the Imlik- the country”. We see Lipit-Ištar responsible for: Sîn correspondence kept at Cornell university (cf. Guichard • assigning troops and/or workmen, nos. 104, 133, 142 (writ- apud Chambon 2015: 36-37): nos. 42, 51, 54, and perhaps ten by a man with the Beamtenname Lišīḫ-palûšu “Let his even no. 130. These letters stem perhaps from Raḫābum. (i.e. the king’s) reign grow in age”), 181, and 194; Finally, the goddess Inanna of Zabalam (a.k.a. Sugallītum) • handing out barley, no. 140 (Lipit-Ištar to Aḫam-arši, occurs in three letters: nos. 43, 51, and 68. This is perhaps the latter must give an amount of barley to a man with the indicative of the provenience of some of the letters: Zabalam Beamtenname Libūr-mātī “Let my country be durable”); (Tell Ibzaykh). • assigning fields and houses, nos. 94? and 104; • explicitly military matters, nos. 106 and 210 (Lipit-Ištar as Letters of the Era of Rīm-Sîn I to Samsu-iluna (nos. 90-219) the letter’s recipient in no. 210 is uncertain); • there are a number of letters for which it is uncertain The letters in this section are identified as belonging to the whether we should attribute them to the Lipit-Ištar corre- “middle” Old Babylonian period (ca. 1822-1712 BCE) based spondence, nos. 119, 128, 131, 139 (sent by Lipit-Ištar to on the particular “Larsa script” (for which a study is still “my father”, greeting formula with Marduk), and 162; lacking) used in some letters and the usage of greeting for- • possibly related letters without the mention of Lipit-Ištar mulae containing deities. The practice of using such greeting are nos. 127 (Ilī-yatar to Ṣilli-Sîn, about assigning fields formulae became widespread from ca. 1820 BCE onwards. to soldiers); 128 (Ilī-[…] to […], about the transfer of Here as well, the letters are arranged alphabetically accord- a man); 141 (Lišīḫ-palûšu to Iddin-Sîn, about the assigning to the sender’s name. George (p. xi) is correct to identify ment of a man); 147 (Abī-[…] to Nawram-šarur, concern- some letters as having their origin in specific southern towns ing problems with the drafting of men); 160 (Sîn-imittī to due to the usage of city-gods in the greeting formulae, he Ilum-bānî, about demobilizing men and the king’s jour- mentions Karkara, Girsu, Ašdubba, Nippur, and Ur. In addi- ney); 197 (Ubayâtum to […], about distrainees); and 206 tion, there are two letters at the end of the book, nos. 220 and (Zarriqum to “my lord”, about building fortifications). 221 that must be dated to the late Old Babylonian period (ca. Even though the hypothesis of a specific “Lipit-Ištar cor- 1711-1595 BCE) and the Sealand I dynasty (post 1595 BCE). respondence” dossier is still tentative, it is hoped that the The mother goddess Dingirmaḫ/Ninḫursag and her hus- publication of more letters and economic-administrative texts band Šulpaea are attested a few times: in no. 100 a temple from the Cornell, Cotsen, Schøyen, and other collections of Šulpaea is mentioned; no. 119 has a greeting formula with might shed more light on this. Šulpaea and Dingirmaḫ; no. 152 mentions the emblem of Finally, a smaller group of documents with similar content Dingirmaḫ (and Išar-pada) used to ascertain the truth; and as those of the Lipit-Ištar correspondence seems to date to no. 218 sees the settlement of a case in Ninḫursag’s temple. the Babylonian occupation (due to greeting formulae with This probably puts these letters in Adab or (less likely) Keš Marduk), they often feature a man called Ilī-ippalsam: (cf. Delnero 2011-2013 and Richter 2004: 384-388). nos. 108, 110, 123, 190, 193, and 199. As in other Old Babylonian texts from the south, we see in some cases that an /i/ before an /l/ seems to become an /e/. Remarks on Individual Texts This is probably a reflection of the southern OB dialect. As far as I know, this phenomenon still needs to be studied, 22. In line 8 we have: IDUMU-ba-az-ba-zi, which is trans- together with other particulars of the southern OB dialect, lated as the “Mār-Bazbazi (tribe)”. I do not know of any such as the usage of specific words like unnedukkum for (Amorite) tribe called like that, but George might be right. “tablet”. Some examples where i=>e from CUSAS 36 are: It might be safer to see here the personal name of an Isin ˹el-li˺-ka-am (no. 65: 14); a-wi-el-ì-lí (no. 98: 3); mi-el-ki-im general, with the element ba-az-ba-zi referring to an obscure (no. 132: 6); e-lu-ti-šu (no. 176: 11); li-el-li-ku-nim-ma (no. town in Isin’s kingdom. 178: 18); ig-me-il-dIM (no. 186: 32), and perhaps the most 37. Line 12, I suggest for i-ḫe-le-ṣi-ka, ina ḫelēṣika from interesting, ib-ni-e-lum (pronounced Ibnêlum?, no. 152: 25). the verb ḫalāṣu, “to press sesame”, here as a metaphor. Note Several small groups of letters belong together, due to the that another verb for the pressing of sesame, ṣaḫātu, is also same names for sender and receiver: nos. 111 and 112; 114 used as a metaphor, in CUSAS 36 49: 8 and 38: 26. Lines and 115; 141 and 142; and 164 and 165. In addition, 172, 17-19, another translation could be: “they should inform the 178, and 185 should be considered as belonging to the same head of the household Kubīya on your behalf”. dossier due to the occurrence of the receiver’s rare name, 38. Line 19, the word ṣerrum probably means here “door- É-úr.bi-dùg. socket”, giving for lines 19-20 something like: “you were A large selection of letters is concerned with military mat- lying at the doorstep”. ters, the management of troops/workmen, and the assignment 39. Line 14, given the photo, perhaps a reading ú-la i-ba-ši of fields. It is striking that a sizeable number of these letters is possible giving a different translation for lines 12-14: have a certain Lipit-Ištar as its addressee. Even though Lipit- “there is no one who will get silver to me”. Could the Erra- Ištar is a very common name in the Old Babylonian period, imittī (l. 18) mentioned in this letter be the Isin king who is I would venture the hypothesis that we have here a group of at war with Larsa? If so, we should interpret lines 18-19 texts from one dossier. These letters should be dated during ironically: “Let (that cursed) Erra-imittī meet your needs!”. 247 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXVI N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2019 248

42. Lines 5-6, perhaps a different translation is possible: rights) and make (the flocks) eat”. The right to graze the “I had caught him in the act”. plants of (harvested) fields could be bought. 44. Line 15, we would expect a writing such as i-zi-ba- 75. Line 3, read for the name of the addressee: dEN. aš-šu for the translation of George. Perhaps we should read: ZU-mu-ba-lí-/˹iṭ˺: Sîn-muballiṭ. Line 5, read re-di LUGAL, i-zi-ba-am šu-ma, giving for lines 14-16: “the work party “soldier of the king”. left because of thirst, as for him, he came here”. 77. Line 10, another possible reconstruction is: [ú-t]a-ru- 45. Lines 13-15, I translate: “Save the distrainees by ni-˹a˺-[ši-im], giving for lines 8-10: “They are returning to force!”. For i-qá-ti-im, a sandhi spelling of ina qātim “by us my servant to take an oath”. Lines 15-18: “He who will the hand = forcibly”, see J.-M. Durand apud Charpin 2015: make him swear an oath has set a fixed amount of time 75-76, note 66. For eṭērum “to save a person”: CAD E, 402- (ḫa-da-nu-um sic for ḫadānam) to the king”. 403. 78. Line 19, given the photo we must read: zi-ki-ir-ì-lí-šu. 46. Line 10, la i-tu-ra-am: “He must not come back (on 82. This is perhaps a letter belonging to the Sumu-El cor- the case)”. respondence. 47. Lines 4-12, a different interpretation is: “Give 2280 83. Lines 5-7, this is an idiom, I translate: “Like a wolf liters of barley to Sîn-i[…]. In the presence of Ibbi-Sîn and on a cloudy day you towered over me”. Ipiq-Nunu he has been satisfied with 1980 liters of barley from 91. This letter mentions Dūr-Sîn-muballiṭ in connection it. Please, satisfy him with the (remaining?) barley from it. with Uruk, for a recent discussion concerning the location of 49. Line 3, given the photo, I prefer to read i-túr-su-mu-a- this fortress: Abraham and Van Lerberghe 2017: 6-7. bu-/um-ma: Itūr-sumu-abum “The progeny of the father has 94. Line 12, the translation has a mistake: Sîn-gāmil for returned”, note that this is not a basilophoric name contain- the correct Šamaš-gāmil. ing the name of the Amorite leader Sumu-abum, see my 95. Line 3, could the reading of the personal name AN.NE- forthcoming article De Boer 2018-2019. a-ri-im be connected to the name of the early Old Babylo- d ? 50. Line 17, we could read here perhaps a-na 1 E.ÍB SIG5 nian Kiš king Ašduni-arim, with NE = ašduni See Marzahn and translate lines 16-20 as: “…give 20 mina of wool for 1999 on this king. one good belt and let him make two headdresses”. For 97. Line 1, perhaps it is better to read here: i-túr-dEN.ZU. Sumerian E.ÍB = belt/girdle, see ARES IV 127 and CAD Note the plene writing of the number twelve in line 10, line M/2: 111a (sub miserru) which quotes a Nuzi text in which 12 provides another example of the imperative of naʼādum. wool is given for such a belt. Waetzoldt 1980-1983: 23a 107. This letter sent by Etel-pī-Nabium to the Urukeans (§ 7f.) writes: “Gürtel aus Wolle (etc.)”. concerning the handing over of barley to one Samsu-iluna- 55. I propose a different translation for this difficult letter, kīma-ilim could very well belong to the large group of texts lines 4-24: “It is well known, you said these things concern- from Tell Abu Antiq/Pī-Kasî, also known as the Yaḫrūrum ing Parīya’s daughters tenfold? (l. 7 e-ši-ir) but you did not šaplûm group (cf. De Boer 2016). The Urukeans could be the assemble them. Now, send me the previous documents! I am gardeners from Uruk mentioned frequently in these texts. holding you responsible (l. 14 a-ša-al-ki) for (the fate of) However, only one Etel-pī-Nabium is attested as the writer their progeny concerning their transgressions. The servant of a letter in the group, the unpublished YBC 7618. An offi- has no news. It must not be that, should he commit a trans- cial called Samsu-iluna-kīma-ilim is also found in JCS 5 gression, you will pin me down with lawsuits. I am holding 83c: 4’ (Ae.k) and CT 48 101: 6 (Ad.32). you responsible for this matter!” 111. Lines 25-27, another translation could be: “the 59. I propose a different, tentative translation for this let- unemployed oxen, I will start to throw down straw (to be ter, lines 4-14: “How do you (fem. sing.) advise? They are trampled upon)”. Line 37: Āl-Sāmum “town of Sāmum”, a holding 15 shekels of silver available for Yaraḫānum. They reference to the early Larsa king Sāmum. asked about it and I have just sent silver to you. Buy a sheep, 114. Another translation of lines 5-17 could be: “Con- fatten it, and slaughter it.” cerning the taking and collecting of the main sums, I have 61. Line 1, having a profession in the first line of a letter written to you five times! I will not go to you again! Con- is highly unusual. Also, a name such as Sîn-ḫi-li does not cerning Ipqūša, why does he continuously moan? Thinking exist to my knowledge, however, I have no better idea for (= -mi particle) that you had not directed him correctly. Show reading this line. him the accounting, (it is) just like (that of) his colleagues. 62. I propose a different translation for this letter, lines He must not keep on moaning, saying: “He has done me 5-22: “Amkuni, well his favorite brother Šamaš-rē’ûm said wrong!”. as follows: “Give me the silver!”. Amkuni (in response) 116. The pillû is indeed mandrake, see Stol 2000: 57-58. said as follows: “Let me see the tablet of my lord and then 122. Line 1, perhaps we could read LÚ-dA.A.BI for Lu- I will give the three minas of silver”. (Lines 16-20: restitu- Ayyabi, note the PN ÌR-dA.AB.BA.A in RA 75 (1981), 21 tion uncertain). Your servant will die, you will not “seize” AO 8130: 5 and the goddess Ayyabītu, Boivin 2016. Line 3, me (about this matter)! (l. 22 ú!-la ta-ṣa-ba-ta-ni)”. the verb ḫapātum only occurs here as iḫ-ta-pi-it in a PN, 63. On the nēbaḫum payment, maybe a piece of clothing, usually we have Iḫbit-DN. see Charpin 2004b. 123. Lines 5-7, I propose: “What is this major disaster 64. This is perhaps a letter from Larsa king Nūr-Adad. during which the stakes are planted in the land?” We also 67. Line 7, instead of interpreting ḫu-up-pe-e-em as a per- encounter gamartum dannatum in AbB 8 35: 9, “Strikte sonal name, we could have here D ḫepûm with the inferred Beendigung”. Gamertum can mean “annihilation” (Vernich- meaning “to castrate (animals)”, giving for lines 6-8: “have tung), AHw III 1556a, meaning 4. Gamartum in Atram-hasis the flocks (ready) for castration led to me”. 183b is “total destruction”, see Lambert and Millard 1969: 71. Lines 5-9, a different interpretation is: “If there are 158 note on viii 34, now also attested in Finkel 2014: 364 grasses/plants for grazing available to buy, buy (the grazing line 49. 249 NEW INSIGHTS FROM THE EARLY OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD 250

125. The temple of Nissaba functions as an archive in this igisûm tax that (at least in Mari) high officials had to pay in letter, for more on this phenomenon: Charpin 2017: 128-132. fattened oxen to the crown, see Durand 2000: 115-119. 131. In this letter a woman must be taken to the divine 208. In the greeting formula of this letter we find the bird-trap Ḫuḫārum for an oath, probably in Šamaš’ temple in “deity” DUMU AN.NA “the Son of Heaven”. In prayer Larsa, for more on this: Veenhof 2003: 326. Lines 10-18, seals from the Old Babylonian period this often is an epithet another solution is: “I myself, about your going thought: of gods such as Amurrum and Adad, see for example the “he will not come!” When I was in Larsa, where were you? specimens in Buchanan 1981: 467. When I arrived there, you had left! Write me about this!” 209. Because of the mentioning of Puš and Kār-Šamaš, Line 18: [šu-up]-˹ra˺-am. this letter could come from Sippar or its vicinity. 132. Lines 19 and 21, the šutēmuqum is in my opinion not 210. Lines 26-31, I propose: “Within three days they will derived from ēmiqtum “housekeeper”. A translation deriving reach you, (if) they have not hurried to you within three days, from ummuqum “to humiliate” (CAD U/W: 134) seems bet- you can disagree with what I am writing to you”. ter. Perhaps šutēmuqum is “to be humiliated”? 218. Lines 4-12, perhaps we can read: “The legal case, 134. The city god of Kazallu, Numušda is invoked in this since Sîn-[…] granted (it to) Sîn-irībam concerning his fili- letter’s greeting formula. ation in Ninḫursag’s temple, Tummalûm-gāmil and Simmu- 137. Interesting about this letter is furthermore that the dar came here and terrorized the gentlemen”. Line 12, on the weapons of Ninurta and Lā-maḫār are used to settle accounts reading of D ḫatātum: Renz 1995. of sheep and barley. Renting a divine weapon to establish the truth in several matters is a well-known practice in the Old The remarks above are only my modest contribution to our Babylonian period, see Stol 2012. further understanding of a number of texts and passages. 142. Line 10, tēbibtum, most likely “census”, as in the Andrew George has done us all an enormous favor by pub- Mari texts. lishing these important Old Babylonian letters that deepen 148. Line 3, if the reading by George dZU.GAL is correct our knowledge and understanding of early Old Babylonian we would have Sugalītum, i.e. Ištar of Zabalam. Mesopotamia. 151. I do not believe that an-ni-sà la an-ni-sà means “whether she consents or refuses”, we are probably dealing Bibliography with a variation of an-ni-tam la an-ni-tam (annītša => annīssa). Abraham, K. and Van Lerberghe, K., 2017: A Late Old Babylonian 152. This a letter written by nine(!) men to a certain Temple Archive from Dūr-Abiešuḫ. The Sequel (with the assis- Warad-Amurrum, George is probably right that these nine tance of G. Voet and H. Hameeuw), CUSAS 29, Bethesda. men were the town elders of Adab. Boer, R. de, 2013: “Marad in the Early Old Babylonian Period: its Kings, Chronology, and Isin’s Influence”, JCS 65, 73-90. 154 & 155. George (p. xii) equated the writer of these Boer, R. de (with a contribution by G. Colbow), 2016: “From the letters, Sîn-iddinam, with the well-known Babylonian offi- Yaḫrūrum Šaplûm Archives: The Administration of Harvest cial in Larsa, see now Fiette 2018: 16-50. Labor Undertaken by Soldiers from Uruk and Malgium”, ZA 175. Line 8, Muti-abalu is the name of a tribe, so perhaps 106, 138-174. we should read: the Muti-abalean/ the one from Muti-abalu. Boer, R. de, 2018: “Beginnings of Old Babylonian Babylon: Line 14: perhaps better tu-ta-ki-li-in-ni-ma: “you encour- Sumu-abum and Sumu-la-El”, JCS 70, 53-86. aged me, but…” Boer, R. de, 2019 (forthcoming): “Pīḫatni-ipiq, an Official in the 177. The town of Razamâ near Larsa is mentioned in this Service of King Sumu-El of Larsa”, Mélanges Charpin. letter and in no. 194: 6. The town provides a nice example Boer, R. de, 2018-2019 (forthcoming) “Hammurabi-is-my-god!” Basilophoric Personal Names and Royal Ideology during the of the mirror topography, studied by Charpin 2003: 27. Old Babylonian Period”, JEOL 47. 189. A very interesting letter! It appears that one of its Boivin, O., 2016: “On the Origin of the Goddess Ištar-of-the- writers, Iddin-ilum has an affliction, the letter tells about the Sealand, Ayyabītu”, NABU 2016/15. efforts to help him through oniromancy and haruspicy, as Buchanan, B., 1981: Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylo- well as offerings to the god for Simanûm?. The letter’s nian Collection, New Haven & London. addressee, “my lord”, must pray to Ilabrat and the deity Chambon, G., 2015: “« Il faut que vos gardes soient fortes! » Une Lugal-kisunna, who was perhaps the city god of Kutalla near lettre de Sūmu-El sur la guerre entre Isin et Larsa”, Semitica Larsa. 57, 33-42. 192. Another highly interesting letter about a debt incurred Charpin, D., 2003: “La « toponymie en mirroir » dans le Proche Orient amorrite”, RA 97, 3-34. under the reign of Rīm-Sîn. The letter mentions an edict Charpin, D., 2004a: “Histoire politique du Proche-Orient amorrite (ṣimdatum) made by the sender’s lord (i.e. Hammurabi or (2002-1595)”, D. Charpin, D.O. Edzard, and M. Stol, Meso- Samsu-iluna) regarding debts, setting a maximum price of potamien: Die altbabylonische Zeit, OBO 160/4, Fribourg & ten shekels(!) per GUR of barley, whereas the “normal rate” Göttingen, 25-480. is one shekel per GUR (Stol 2004: 860). Perhaps this refers Charpin, D., 2004b: “Encore une exemple du nêbehum”, NABU back to the usurious prices that barley might have com- 2004/81. manded during the final days of Larsa’s independence. Charpin, D., 2015: Gods, Kings, and Merchants in Old Babylonian 194. Lines 22-23, I prefer to read “Nobody should spread Mesopotamia, PIPOAC 2, Louvain. hostile rumors about you”. The same phrase is found in AbB Charpin, D., 2017: La vie méconnue des temples mésopotamiens, Paris. 3 70: 6 (see also CAD Š/1: 388), the verb is Š alākum. Delnero, P., 2011-2013: “Šulpa’e”, RlA 13, 284-286. 198. In this letter, a certain Uṣi-Araḫ is detained by Durand, J.-M., 1998: Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, Balmunamḫe (one of Larsa’s highest ranking men) for not Tome II, LAPO 17, Paris. paying 2 mina of silver to the palace, the value of his oxen. Durand, J.-M., 2000: Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, Perhaps we have here an indirect reference of the so-called Tome III, LAPO 18, Paris. 251 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXVI N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2019 252

Farber, H. and Wilent, A., 2018: “Sumu-abum at Nippur”, NABU 2018/44. Fiette, B., 2018: Le palais, la terre et les hommes. La gestion du domaine royale de Larsa d’après les archives de Šamaš-hazir, Archibab 3, Paris. Finkel, I., 2014: The Ark Before Noah. Decoding the Story of the Flood, London. Fitzgerald, M.A., 2002: The Rulers of Larsa, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Yale University. Frayne, D.R., 1990: Old Babylonian Period (2003-1595 BC), RIME 4, Toronto, Buffalo & London. George, A.R., 2003: The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Introduc- tion, Critical Edition, and Cuneiform Texts, Two Volumes, Oxford. Guichard, M., 2014: “Un traité d’alliance entre Larsa, Uruk et Ešnunna contre Sabium de Babylone”, Semitica 56, 9-34. Horowitz, W., 1998: Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, MC 8, Winona Lake. Lambert, W.G. and Millard, A.R., 1969: Atra-ḫasīs, the Babylonian Story of the Flood (with the Sumerian Flood Story by M. Civil), Oxford. Leemans, W.F., 1976: “Quelques remarques à propos d’un livre récent concernant la région d’Uruk/Warka”, JESHO 19, 215- 221. Marzahn, J., 1999: “Asduniarim von Kiš – eine unbekannte Inschrift”, B. Böck, E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, and Th. Richter (eds.), Munuscula Mesopotamica, Festschrift für Johannes Renger, AOAT 267, Münster, 267-276. Pientka-Hinz, R., 2006: “Der rabi sikkatum in altbabylonischer Zeit”, J. Hengstl and U. Sick (eds.), Recht gestern und heute. Festschrift zum 85. Geburtstag von Richard Haase, Wies- baden, 53-70. Pomponio, F., Stol, M., and Westenholz, A. et alii, 2006: Tavolette cuneiformi di varia provenienza delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia, Volume II, Rome. Renz, J., 1995: “Terror und Erosion: ein Beitrag zur Klärung der Bedeutungsbreite der Wurzel ḥtt”, M. Weipert and S. Timm (eds.), Meilenstein: Festgabe für Herbert Donner zum 16. Februar, ÄAT 30, 204-224. Richardson, S.F.C., 2015: “Building Larsa: Labor Value, Scale and Scope-of-Economy in Ancient Mesopotamia”, P. Steinkeller and M. Hudson (eds.), Labor in the Ancient World, a Collo- quium held at Hirschbach (Saxony), April 2005, Volume V, Dresden, 237-328. Richter, Th., 2004: Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit (2., verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage), AOAT 257, Münster. Stol, M., 2000: Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: its Mediterra- nean Setting, Groningen. Stol, M., 2004: “Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in altbabylonischer Zeit”, D. Charpin, D.O. Edzard and M. Stol, Mesopotamien: Die altbabylonische Zeit, OBO 160/4, Fribourg & Göttingen, 641-975. Stol, M., 2006-2008: “Raḫabum”, RlA 11, 231. Stol, M., 2012: “Renting the Divine Weapon as a Prebend”, T. Boiy, J. Bretschneider, A. Goddeeris, H. Hameeuw, G. Jans, and J. Tavernier (eds.), The Ancient Near East, A Life! Fest- schrift Karel Van Lerberghe, OLA 220, Louvain, 561-583. Veenhof, K.R., 2003: “Fatherhood is a matter of Opinion. An Old Babylonian Trial on Filiation and Service Duties”, W. Salla- berger, K. Volk, and A. Zgoll (eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, OBC 14, Wiesbaden, 313-332. Wilson, M., 2008: Education in the Earliest Schools, Cuneiform Manuscripts in the Cotsen Collection, Los Angeles. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam June 2019