tee eee | 7 ¢ The University of Chicago FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER NOTES ON SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD PART OF A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (DEPARTMENT OF SEMITICS) BY ALLEN HOWARD GODBEY CHICAGO 1906 fe mwrEgeyyy Kee DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY The University of Chicago FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER NOTES ON SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD PART OF A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (DEPARTMENT OF SEMITICS) BY ALLEN HOWARD GODBEY CHICAGO 1906 aa Vy PRINTED AT THE UN ABBREVIATIONS. ABC. = Stevenson, Assyrian and Babylonian Contracts. ABLCL. =Johns, Assyrian and Babylonian Laws, Contracts, and Letters. ABPR. =Meissner, Alt-Babylonische Privatrecht. ADD.’ =ZJohns, Assyrian Deeds and Documents. AJSL. = American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures. AKA. = Budge and King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria, Vol. I. AL. =S.A. Smith, Assyrian Letters. AOF. = Winckler, Alt-Orientalische Forschungen. BAS. = Beitrdge zur Assyriologie. Br. = Brinnow, A Classified List. CH. = RFHarper, The Code of Hammurabi. DB, = Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible. DES. = Thompson, Devils and Evil Spirits of Assyria and Babylonia. EAH. =E. A. Hoffman Collection in Radau’s HBH. EB. = Cheyne-Black, Encyclopedia Biblica. EBA. = Amiaud and Mechineau, L’Ecriture babylonienne et assyrienne. EBH. = Radau, Harly Babylonian History. HABL. =RFHarper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters. HWB. =Delitzsch, Assyrisches Handwérterbuch. JAOS. = Journal of the American Oriental Society. JEL. = Johnston, Epistolary Literature of the Assyrians and Babylonians. JRAS. = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. LI. = King, Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi. IS. = Lehmann, Samas-sum-ukin. MVAG. =WMittheilungen der Vorder-Asiatischen Gesellschaft. OBI, = Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions. PEFSt. = Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement. PSBA. = Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology. RMA. = Thompson, Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh. RS. = Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites. SAS. Abp.=S. A. Smith, Die Keilschrifttexte Asurbanipals. SSO. = Barton, A Sketch of Semitic Origins. Sirnbd. =Strassmaier, Inschriften von Nabonids. Strnbk,. =Strassmaier, Inschriften von Nabuchodonosor, Sup. = Meissner, Supplement zu den assyrischen Worterbiichern. TSBA. =Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archeology. ZA, = Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie. - Digitized by the ae me https://archive.org/details/notesonsomeoffic01g NOTES ON SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD. (Revised from American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, January, 1905, and October, 1905.) It is not to be expected that any exhaustive treatment of this subject can be achieved for years to come. C. H. W. Johns, in his Assyrian Deeds and Documents, has shown us one field from which much information may be derived, and has done excellent pioneer work in Assyrian official antiquities. It is the present purpose to render more available for the general student the rich material in R. F. Harper’s Assyrian and Babylonian Letters. The accompanying index is intended to give a list of all the various officials, tradesmen, and men of sacred and learned pro- fessions, that are mentioned in the eight volumes of letters now published. It will be followed by excurstis upon different functionaries. The determinative prefix amélu is used throughout the letters with very great regularity. But few cases of its omission are noticeable. A rab-so-and-so may sometimes be without it, as in the case of Abni, the rab BIR of the land of the city of Arpadda, in [221] K. 175, obv. 12. The term pikittu is also used in a way that leaves one a little uncertain whether or not some func- tionary is always meant. We have 2™¢! bél pikitte, as in [573] K. 1003, obvy. 7; bél pikitti [608] K. 1136, rv. 9; pikitte 8a bit mar-Sarri 8a kutalli, [658] 83-1-18, 81, oby. 9, 10. In the stereotyped formule of salutation, we have 5 6 Notes ON SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD ana ®™¢! pikitti 8a Bélit parsi Sulmu, in |12] K. 666, obv. 6, 7. The same without the *™®! occurs in [7] K. 601, oby. 4. I do not at present know any other term that affords so much cause for uncertainty. Its occurrence without any deter- minative prefix is frequent; yet in some of these places a functionary is certainly meant. There may be a few other words without any determinative prefix which really indicate officials; one cannot be pasitive on this point till every word occurring in the letters is certainly understood. It is not intended to include in this index gentilic names and adjectives. These belong rather to the geographical data afforded by the letters, which are being compiled by Mr. O. A. Toffteen. There are terms, of course, concerning which there may be a reasonable doubt; and it may be that some have been assigned to the geographical data that should have been included here. Also, it has been the intention to omit all occurrences of other words with the determinative prefix #™¢!" that do not promise anything of importance in relation to the general subject. The word sabé has been omitted from the list, being a purely general term, without any necessary implications of rank. For illustra- tion, we have in [631] K. 1265, oby. 9-13, Ya-ra-pa-a, rab ki-sir; Ha-tar-a-nu, rab ki-sir; Ga-na-bu, Ta-am-ra- nu; pubur 4 2™¢! gabé; yet two of the four are officers. It will be recognized, then, as advisable that a list should be given here indicating terms systematically excluded from the index. Besides the frequent ?™¢! sabé, we find #™¢! emiiki-ia or -8u, “aman of my or his troop,” e.g., [197] K. 181, obv. 11; amélu alone, for “a man” or “any man,” [55] K. 483, rv. 1, 4; amél-+u-tu for “mankind,” [128] K. 650, oby. 10; ?™¢! mar- Su= “the man his son,” [117] K. 991, rv. 12, 27°! ardu, |9] K. 618, oby. 14; #™*! nakru, or nakrati, “the enemy,” [340] Bu. 91-5-9, 183, obv. 21; #™*! tebié, “attacking forces,” [275] K. 82, obv. 17, rv. 12; #™&! bélé hitu, “leaders of rebellion,” [460] K. 1250, obv. 15; *™°! parrisu sa, “that liar,” [208] K. 617, obv. 17; #™&! bél ibtallikani, ‘‘the leader of those who ravage,” [771] 83-1-18, 49, rv. 13; #™¢! liSaniSu, “a man of his speech,” [741] S. 807, obv. 5; 2™¢! mukinnika, “thy sup- porter,” | 416] 80—7-19, 19, obv. 6; 2™¢! kinatatikunu, similar to preceding, [37] K. 1039, obv. 7; #™¢! ra’mani, “(those men are not) lovers (of the king my lord),” [277] K. 1066, rv. 8; INDEX OF OFFICIALS 7 amél 7i’rani, “haters,” [210] K. 647, rv. 9; ®™°! bel dini’a, “my adversary, prosecutor,” [416] 80-7-19, 19, obv. 7; 2™mél babtate, ‘plunderers,” [839] 83-1-18, 21, obv. 16; 2™*! hubtu, “prisoner, captive,” [280] K. 10, obv. 10; 2™¢! munnabitu, “fugitive,” [839] 83-1-18, 21, obv. 16; 2™*! bélé tabtia, “my allies, partisans,” [281] K. 13, obv. 12, 24; 2™°! haniu, is for anniu, [787] R™ 55, rv. 6; 2™¢! GIG, might be “sick man,” usually kadistu, [370] 81—-2-4, 49, obv. 14; #™@! mibir, [718] Bu. 91-5-9, 87, rv. 6; 2™°! mar-bant, [280] K. 10, obv. 16; amél kinnisu, etc., “a man of his family,” [542] K. 114, rv. 7; amat ékalli, ‘“‘a female slave of the palace,” [99] K. 5466, rv. 13; all passages that merely express family relationships, such as “father,” “brother,” “sister,” etc.; 2™°! a, in a broken passage, [101] K. 561, rv. 11, perhaps stands for ‘‘son.” In a few passages there may be scribal errors; but this question is best deferred for the excursis. It is understood that the foregoing are but speci- men references; some of the phrases occur frequently. Their irrelevance to the proposed investigation will be recognized. Nor has it been deemed within the province of the index to correct the occasional scribal errors. It is preferred to give the reading as it stands, leaving corrections and comments for the excursis. Anyone will recognize that tur Sip-ia, [500] K. 1303, obv. 10, is an error for tur Sip-ri-ia; ma-za-si pa-ni, [656] 82-5-22, 168, rv. 8, is the reading in the text for mazazi =manzazi. Tur me-Sa-ni occurs in [205] K. 5387, oby. 5. I suspect the Sa is a defective ra, and that we should read mar-Siprani. A.ri, however, for “courier,” does not seem to be an error, as one might at first suppose. It is listed by Briin- now, No. 11451. It occurs in #™¢! a.ri.ka, [208] K. 617, rv. 9. Scribal errors are, on the whole, rare in titular elements of the Letters. The references given are double: the first number, in brackets, being the number of the letter in Harper’s Assyrian and Baby- lonian Letters, while the second is the British Museum number. In the excursfis the Harper Letters are distinguished by a prefixed H. The order of the officials is that followed by Johns in Assyrian Deeds and Documents, so far as the data permit. It is hoped that this will facilitate the use of both sets of data by those who may take an interest in the subject. Yet many terms occur which 8 Notes oN SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD are not discussed by Johns; these follow immediately after the others, and are arranged in alphabetical order. The present state of Assyriology leaves us in uncertainty about many terms and words. The last page or so of this index contains terms that are hapax legomena in the letters so far published; and their occurrence is of a character that renders it impossible to dogmatize. Frequently all preceding or subsequent connection is lost, and all that can be affirmed at present is that here are phrases to be examined: a few of them may not after all indicate officials or artisans. The compiler of the index has examined these places carefully, and decides that the phrases demand con- sideration from those interested in the official life of Assyria. It is not advisable to commit one’s self further now. The damaged character of many letters results in the frequent occurrence of the ?™¢! with the following characters missing. Here and there a restoration might be ventured from the connec- tion; but this has not been attempted in the index. Many are but partially effaced, and when the restoration of such seems safe, it has been given in the index, with properly bracketed parts. But many occur that do not suggest to me any known official, yet are comparatively little damaged. It has been deemed advisable to append an autographed page of these dam- aged words. It has not been deemed advisable to attempt any association or grouping of terms in the index, except where the facts are well established. The “messenger,” or ‘‘courier,” for instance, is indicated by a variety of phrases, already well known. But we may have in our data various terms for some other office; e. g., rab ali and bazanu might be interchangeable. It has been decided that the index should merely give the data, and leave the discussion of such points to the excursus. On the other hand, it is not intended that an excursus shall be limited in its discussions to the data given in this index. Any attempt to comprehend more clearly the institutions of ancient Assyria and Babylonia must consider something more than the epistolary literature. This work would be facilitated if similar compilations were acces- sible for other bodies of the cuneiform literature; and it is to be hoped such may be eventually available. As to the actual range of excurstis upon various functionaries, it is clear to any student of the cuneiform records that such may involve the whole field of INDEX OF OFFICIALS 9 Assyrian and Babylonian linguistic, scientific, historical, religious, civil, and social development. The custom, very generally followed hitherto, of indicating ideographic or Sumerian expressions by capitals has been aban- doned. While helpful to the young student, it does not seem necessary for those who are likely to avail themselves of this index. Each form of the term has been given in transliteration; the various spellings, and the occurrences with pronominal suffixes, that the lexicographers and grammarians may find their tasks facili- tated. But few of the functionaries are of a character that render possessive suffixes probable in the letters. The “courier” shows more variety of terms, and more occurrences with suffixes than any other; almost as many as all others combined; and I have questioned if this list were worth the space, since we already know what may be expected of the average courier or messenger. In the transliteration, effort has been made to indicate clearly how each spelling is written. The capital catch-word endeavors, where possible, to be phonetically accurate; in detailing the cita- tions, I have intended to suggest the syllables used. Thus, under amél Tta’a, the scribe has choice of two characters for the syl- lable tu: the ordinary ud, and the heavier tu, which I have uniformly marked tt, where occurring. A few other terms, fairly well understood, have been included in the index: such as parSumu, hialu, 5ébu, ummanu, agratu. Their occurrence is not frequent, and investigation produced reason to suspect a particular technical sense in some of them. amé1TU RTANU, TARTANU: #™¢ltur-tan, [205] K. 537, rv. 6, [571] K. 998, oby. 11; 2™6! tur-tan-nu, [682] K. 508, obvy.8; amél tur-tan-ni, [649] 81-24, 110, obv. 4, rv. 3, [373] 82-5-22, 99, obv. 8, [428] 83-1-18, 25, rv. 2, [684] 80-7-19, 37, rv. 3; mel tur-ta-nu, [568] K. 956, rv. 13, [795] Bu. 91-5-9, 107, oby. 5; #™é! tur-ta-nu- Su, [197] K. 181, rv. 1, [492] 81-24, 60, oby. 8; 2™61 tur-ta-nu IT-u (=Sana), [144] K. 194, oby. 13; 2™¢1 tur-ta-ni, [71] K. 1113 +K. 1229, oby. 10; 2™é6l tar-ta-nu, [393] 80-7-19, 25, rv. 8, [701] S. 1338, obv. 8. amé] NAGIRU: 2mél lagar, [281] K. 13, obv. 10, [576] K. 1009, obv. 9; amél lagar é-gal, [112] K. 485, obv. 1, [408] R™ 2, 1, rv. 27, [409] R™ 2, 2, oby. 2, [781] K. 823, rv.2; 2™6¢1 na-gi-ri, [521] 83-1-18, 4, rv. 16; 2™@1nér é-gal, [373] 82-522, 99, obv. 10, [785] K. 13142, oby. 5, [253] K. 1175+1207, obv. 8 (2). 10 Nores on Some OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD amé] BT. LUL: [322] K. 663, obv. 8; 2m¢lrab bi-lul, [194] K. 665, rv. 4, [353] 82-5-22, 169, rv. 11, [373] 82-5-22, 99, obv. 12, [888] R™ 2, 463, obv. 10, [585] K. 1098, oby. 3, [646] 79-7-8, 292, obv. 6; rab bi- lul, [659] Bu. 89-42-6, 17, obv. 6; 4™@lrab bi- .... , [767] 83-1- 18, 75, obyv. 9. amél MU, (NUHATIMMU?): [43] K. 122, rv. 1,6, [322] K. 663, obv. 10; [754] K. 5457, obv. 18, [699] 81-2-4, 468, oby. 3(?); 2m¢l rab mu, [274] K. 81, obv. 19, [357] S. 1368, obv. 9, [555] K. 677, obv.5.... rab mu, [143] K. 584, obv. 11. amél RAB.SE.GAR, [408] R™ 2, 1, rv. 18. amé1 RAB.GAR.MES, [43] K. 122, rv. 2, 18. amé61SE.GAR, [43] K. 122, rv. 12. amél1 RAB SAKU: amélrab Sak, [64] K. 550, obv. 10, [95] K. 1151, obv. 6, [173] K. 686, oby. 5, [283] K. 597, obv. 1, [484] 81-7-27, 33, oby. 15, [568] K. 956, rv. 16, [709] 80-7-19, 67, oby. 3; 2mé@l rab Sa-ki-e, [353] 82-5-22, 169, rv. 9. amél1 PATAR PARZILLI: 4™é! gir-an-bar, [85] K. 613, rv. 7. amél ZAKKU: ameél zak-ku-u, [143] K. 584, obv. 6, [459] K. 1141, rv. 3; amél za-ku-u, [311] K. 630, rv. 3, [633] K. 1366, obv. 17, [685] 81-2-4, 96, obv. 4. (amé6l) TTU’A: amel]-tu-’-u, [138] K. 469, rv. 11; 2mé1 T-tu-u, [506] K. 678, rv. 15; ame! T-tu~-’, [572] K. 1001, obv. 10, [685] 81-2-4, 96, rv. 22; amél T-ta--a-a, [201] K. 690, obv. 5, [242] K. 11148, rv. 16, [388] R™ 2, 463, obv. 7, [419] 83-1-18, 24, obv. 10,12; amélI-ta,..... ; [147] K. 1170, rv. 5; amél T-ta-’-6, [506] K. 678, rv. 10; ame! T-tu- a-a, [424] S. 760, rv. 2,10; amél T-tu-’-a-a-e-a, [482] 82-5-22, 104, oby. 6; 2mé1 U-tu-’-a-a, [349] R™ 78, rv. 3. amél BA, [645] R™ 2, 464, rv. 4. amé!] SELAPPA, [471] 80-7-19, 41, obv. 17. amél PUR.KUL, [429] R™ 69, obv. 9, [531] 81-2-4, 50, rv. 13. amél BARU, amél BARUTU: 4mél hal [773] S. 152, oby. 7, [808] Bu. 91-5-9, 113, rv. 6, [854] K. 1158, rv. 10, [391] 83-1-18, 2, oby. 18 (?); amél hal-mes, [33] K. 572, obv. 6; #6! hal-u-tu, [755] 83-1-18, 122, rv. 18. amé] MASMASU: amél mas-ma8, [23] K. 602, obv. 21, [24] K. 626, obv. 11, 14, rv. 5, [167] K. 582, rv. 16, [361] 81-2-4, 58, rv. 10, [670] K. 12, ry. 10; 2mé6! mas-mas-mes, [1] K. 167, rv. 8, [83] K. 572, obv. 7, [118] K. 1026, rv. 5. amé] MAHHU: amél mah, [205] K. 537, rv. 4, [466] S. 51, rv. 4; emeél mah-me§, [90] K. 594, obv. 13, [205] K. 537, obv. 3, 14, rv. 1, [252] K. 525, obv. 4, rv. 13, [306] K. 622, oby. 3, 14, [680] 83-1-18, 63, obv. 8; amél mah-meS-ni, [196] K. 125, obv. 8, 13, [252] K. 525, rv. 7, 15. amé1 MUKIL APPATE: 4mél mu-kil s* pa-mes, [65] K. 629, obv. 21, [211] K. 662, obv. 4, [445] K. 724, obv. 7, [568] K. 956, rv. 20, [611] KK. 1143, obw 25502) ees su pa-mes, [609] K. 1140, obv. 4, ry. 7; 2mél mu-kil s4 a-pa-a-ni, [633] K. 1366, rv. 21. amé1 MURIBBANU, [458] K. 1122, obv. 6. INDEX OF OFFICIALS 11 amé] RAi’U; amél sib, [639] K. 8390, obv. 10, [716] K. 31, rv. 9, [726] 80-7-19, 24, obv. 7, 12, [727] 83-118, 67, obv. 7, [845] K. 671, obv. 10. amél sib-mes, [75] K. 546, obv. 9, [268] K. 514, obv. 11, rv. 6, [633] K. 1366, rv. 13, [639] K. 8390, rv. 1. amé] RAB.SIB.MES, [336] K. 644, rv. 5. amé1S$ A HUTARI, [445] K. 724, obv. 3. amél1 US.KIB.SI: 2mél ug kib-si-a-ni, [526] K. 628, rv. 2. amé1§A ELI ALI, [90] K. 594, rv. 13, [710] 81-2-4, 87, obv. 6; amél Sa mub-bi ali, [530] 80-7-19, 40, obv. 13. amé1 SA ELI BITI, [343] 83-1-18, 18, oby. 9; 2™6l Sa eli biti Sa bit-bal, [577] K. 1010, obv. 6; 2™é@l Sa eli bit-a-nu, [855] K. . 1226, obv. 1; 2™61 8a eli bit-a-ni, [568] K. 956, rv. 18. amé]1RAB KAKULATHE: 2™é@l rab ka-ku-la-te, [152] K. 1101+ K. 1221, obv. 8. amél KWPU: améel t¢il-la gid-da-me§, [542] K. 114, obv. 8; 2mél ni- gab, [847] 83-1-18, 115, rv. 5; 2m¢l ki-pa-nu, [542] K. 114, obv. 17; amél ki-pa-ni-Su, [524] K. 588, obv. 10; 2™¢ ki-pi, [516] 81-7-27, 31, rv. 1; ki-pi, [95] K. 1151, rv. 7; 2™6! ki-i-pi, [214] K. 831, rv. 14; amél kj-e-pu, [88] K. 507, obv. 7, [476] 83-1-18, 5, obv. 28, [703] K. 8989, oby. 5, [868] 81-2-4, 119, obv. 5; 2mé! ki-pu, [703] K. 8989, oby. 9; 2™¢1 ki-e-pi, [169] K. 997, obv. 8; 2™¢! ki-ba-a-ni, [442] K. 543, oby. 14; 2™¢l ki-pa-a-ni, [437] K. 168, rv. 9. amé1 RAB HALSU: amélrab al hal-su, [343] 83-1-18, 18, obv. 3. amé] RAB URATE: 2™él rab u-ra-te, [630] K. 1264, obv. 13. amél ra[b] ... . (?) [623] K. 1212, obv. 1. amé1 KA.TIN(?), KATINNU(?2): 2™él ka-tin-ni Sarri, [74] K. 185, obv. 11. amél] SUKALLU: amé! lub, [70] K. 1070, obv. 1, 4, rv. 4, [132] K. 655, oby. 1, 3, 5, rv. 10, [235] K. 13016, obv. 1.3, rv. 5, [253] K. 1175-++1207, oby. 8(?), [327] K. 517, rv. 2, [424] S. 760, obv. 12, rv. 12, [473] 81-24, 65, rv. 11, [505] 81-2-4, 95, obv. 1, 3, 4, 6, [716] K. 31, rv. 11, [748] K. 5474, obv. 2, [781] K. 823, obv. 2, 4, 5, rv. 7, [805] S. 267, obv. 2, 5, (102), 12, [874] Bu. 89-4-26, 31, obv. 12, [844] K. 986, obv. 2, 9; amél lub dan-nu, [568] K. 956, rv. 12; 2™61 luh II-u (=Sanf), [568] K. 956, rv. 15. amél] SARTINU: amél sqa-4r-te-nu, [716] K. 31, rv. 11, 15, 27; 2m6l sar-tin-nu, [46] K. 939a, rv. 14 [568] K. 956, rv. 14; amél sar- tin-ni, [441] K. 534, obv. 18. amél RAB DAN.DAN (KAL.LAB?): 4™é6l rab dan-dan-me§, [380] R™ 2, 3, obv. 5. amél MASSARU: 2™6! en-nun, [197] K. 181, rv. 7, 23; 2m™é6l en-nun biti ili, [493] 83-1-18, 13, rv. 11; 2mél sa en-nun, [99] K. 5466, rv. 17, [853] 82-5-22, 169, rv. 19, [410] R™ 2, 4, obv. 5, rv. 9, 13; en en-nun, [238] K. 1107, rv. 5. amé1 RAB HANSA: amél rab L, [251] K. 506, obv. 4, 15, 20, 27, rv. 5, 7. amé] RAB SITIRTE(?): 2™@lrab u-te, [432] D. T. 220, obv. 2, [816] K. 88, obv. 3; 2™¢l rab u-ti, [423] 83-1-18, 12, oby. 3, [829] K. 297, 12 Nores on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD obv. 3; 261 rab u-gi (error for te), [671] K. 678, obv. 3; 2mé6l rab u-meSs-te, [867] 81-2-4, 94, obv. 5. amél1 RAB KARMANT: 4mél1 rab kar-man, [43] K. 122, obv. 18; amél gar-man(?)-mes, [155] K. 1235, obv. 4, 7. amé1 RAB KARANT: 4™6lrab geStin, [42] K. 14, rv. 11. amé1 RAB KARI: 4™élrab ka-a-ri, [467] S. 456, rv. 18. am6é1 MANZAZ PANT: 2™é6l man-za-az pani-ia, [291] K. 828, obv. 14; amél man-za-az pa-ni, [540] K. 87, obv. 7; 2™6l ma-za-si pa-ni, [656] 82-5-22, 168, rv. 8; 2mé! gub-ba pa-ni-ia, [289] K. 312, obv. 10; 2™61 gub-ba pa-ni-Su, [415] Bu. 91-5-9, 157, rv. 10. amé1 ABARAKKU, or TUKULTU: 4mé! si-um, [63] K. 549, obv. 8, [75] K. 546, obv. 6, [84] K. 117, obv. 9, [89] K. 515, obv. 7, [114] K. 538, obv. 15, rv. 6, [145] K. 910, obv. 1, [273] K. 578, obv. 6, [893] 80-7-19, 25, obv. 10, rv. 3, [543] K. 176, rv. 9, [633] K. 1366, rv. 15, . [639] K. 8390, rv. 12; a2mél us si-um, [867] 81-24, 94, rv. 4. amél1 TRRISU: amél apin, [4] K. 568, obv. 1, 3, 4, [15] K. 1197, obv. 1, [38] K. 1049, obv. 1, 3, 5, 7, [183] K. 113, obv. 1, 4, [167] K. 582, obv. 16 [223] K. 112, obv. 1, 18, rv. 10, [332] K. 13000, obv. 1, [361] 81-2-4, 58, obv. 1, 5, 7, [862] 83-1-18, 16, obv. 1(?), 15, [735] 82-5-22, 135, obv. 1 [816] K. 88, obyv. 1,6; 2™¢l apin-mes 6-gal, [871] 82-5-22, 114, rv. 6; 2m61 jr-ri-Se-6, [500] K. 1308, obv. 8. amé] NU,GIS.SAR (URKIU?2): 2™él nu-gis-Sar-mes, [182] K. 1058, obv. 4, [564] K. 937, rv. 4; 2mé¢1 nu-gis ur-ki, [167] K. 582, obv. 15. amél] MALAWU: 4mél m4-lab su bar-ra, [167] K. 582, obv. 14; amélm4-du-du-mes, [103] K. 1189, obv. 10. amé1 USPARU; (EMITU?): 2™él us-par-me$, [209] K. 636, obv. 7; [413] Bu. 91-5-9, 12, rv. 8; [714] K. 1217, obv. 7; 541 uS-par-mes- te, [196] K. 125, obv. 24. amé1 API. SIPRI, MAR SIPRI, KALLAB SIPIRTI, MAR TEME: amél q-ki, [90] K. 594, rv. 4, 8, [101] K. 561, obv. 7, [144] K. 194, rv. 4, [145] K. 910, obv. 4, [165] K. 497, obv. 4, [171] K. 1047, obv. 4, [173] K. 686, obv. 7, [238] K. 1107, obv. 6, rv. 9, [264] K. 1045, rv. 6, [269] K. 528, rv. 7, [281] K. 13, rv. 5, [282] K. 524, obv. 17, rv. 15, [286] K.5398, obv. 5, [311] K. 630, rv. 5, [412] 48-7-20, 115, rv. 9, [424] S. 760, obv. 15, 19, [433] 79-7-8, 138, rv. 17, [472] 80-7-19, 46, rv. 3, [474] 81-2-4, 67, rv. 2, [528] K. 1065, obv. 8, [548] K. 593, obv. 7, [559] K. 899, obv. 11, [576] K. 1009, obv. 7 [589] K. 1106, obv. 9, [622] K. 1210, obv. 1, 2(?), [685] 81-24, 96, obv. 29, [749] S. 1975, rv. 9, [754] K. 5457, obv. 6, [779] 83-1-18, 90, obv. 12, [792] 83-1-18, 52, rv. 16, [846] K. 673, rv. 16; 261 a-ki-e-a, [157] K. 504, obv. 8, [340] Bu. 91-5-9, 183, obv. 8; 2m6l a-ki-ia, [147] K. 1170, obv. 12, [193] K. 542, obv. 11, [259] K. 509, rv. 6, [286] K. 5398, obv. 6, [314] K. 1227, oby. 10; 2mél a-ki-ka, [98] K. 5465, obv. 7, [206] K. 539, obv. 12, [214] K. 831, obv. 15, [434] Bu. 89-4-26, 163, rv. 2, [587] K. 1104, rv. 16; 2mél q-ki-Su, [524] K. 588, rv. 8; am61 a-ki-ku-nu, [815] 48- 7-20, 116, rv. 17; 2m™61 a-ki-Su-nu, [158] K. 530, obv. 20, [792] 83- INDEX OF OFFICIALS 13 1-18, 52, obv. 9, 15; 2™61a-ki-mes, [146] K. 1080, rv. 5, [267] K. 462, rv. 7, [317] K. 5291, rv. 12, [462] K. 1374, rv. 7, [627] K. 1241, obv. 8, [749] S. 1975, obv. 5, [862] K. 1056, obv. 7; 2m™61 a-ki-meSs-ni, [129] K. 5458, obv. 24; 2mél a-ki-mes-e-a, [340] Bu. 91-5-9, 183, rv. 14; am6l a-ki-meS-Su, [576] K. 1009, rv. 8; 2™61 ki-a, [515] K. 621, oby. 5, 6; 2mé61 ki-a-mes, [515] K. 621, obv. 12; 2m¢! a-Sig, [140] K. 518, rv. 1, [154] K. 653, obv. 12, 20; 2mé@1 a-sig-ia, [602] K. 1127, rv. 2; 2™61 a-Sig-mes, [304] K. 533, obv. 10; 2™6! a 8i- pir-mes, [242] K. 11148, obv. 18; 2m6l a Sip-ri, [197] K. 18], rv. 20, [824] K. 523, rv. 5, [705] 82-5-22, 109, rv. 18; 2m6l a Sip-ri-ia, [251] K. 506, obv. 14, [480] K. 8402, rv. 7, [637] K. 1888, rv. 1; amé6l BOS ied te ove , [442] K. 543, rv. 19; améla Sip-ri-ka, [845] 83-1- 18, 39, obv. 4, 7; 2m6! a-ri-ka, [208] K. 617, obv. 9; 2™6! a Sip- ri-meS, [343] 83-1-18, 18, rv. 4; 2m61 tur-ki-ia, [721] K. 912, obv. 5, [832] K. 9390, obv. 5, [833] K. 982, obv. 5, [835] K. 54180, obv. 5, [836] K. 5423c, obv. 5, [837] K. 7526, obv. 5; 2m6! tur Sip-ri, [112] K. 485, obv. 14, [139] K. 1067, rv. 4, 8, 9, [227] K. 560, obv. 10, [276] K, 154, obv. 11, [805] S. 267, rv. 9; 2m™61 tur Si-pir, [555] K. 677, oby. 11, 18; 2m6! tur Sip-ri-ia, [463] K. 1438, obv. 3, 4; tur Sip-ri, [775] S. 268a, rv. 14; 2m61 tur Sip-ri-mes, [633] K. 1366, oby. 18; 2mé6l tur Sip-ra-ni-ia, [123] K. 574, obv. 9; 2mé6! tur Sip-ia, [500] K. 1303, obv. 10; 2mé6! kal-la-bu Si-pir-te, [227] K. 560, rv. 1; 2m™61 kal-lab Si..... , [637] K. 1888, obv. 4; amél kal-lab Si-pir-tu, [322] K. 663, rv. 2. amél SANGU: amél gid, [48] K. 1019, obv. 8, [49] K. 1168, obv. 3, 17, [139] K. 1067, obv. 6, [177] K. 575, rv. 7, [493] 83-1-18, 13, obv. 3, [498] K. 646, obv. 20, [555] K. 677, obv. 9, [633] K. 1366, obv. 21, 26, rv. 3, 26, [724] K. 548, rv. 4, [780] K. 4734, obv. 17, [791] 83-1-18, 51, rv. 1; amél sid-meS, [468] R™ 217, obv. 11; 2mé! sid II-u, [419] 83-1-18, 24, obv. 3, [577] K. 1010, rv. 2; 2m6! sid bit 2mé¢! mu [43] K. 122, rv.1; 2mél sid Sa bit 2mé6! mu, [43] K. 122, rv. 6; amél sid Sa bit 2™m¢l se-gar, [43] K. 122, rv. 12; am6él sid Sa bit kit-mu-ri, [152] K. 1101 + K. 1221, obv. 4, [710] 81-2-4, 87, obv. 3; 2™61 gid 8a bit iu SamaS, [49] K. 1168, rv. 24; amél Sid Sa bit VII-bi Sa ali Nina, [49] K. 1168, rv. 17, 18; amél Sid Sa ali Nina, [43] K.122,rv.8; amél Sid-mes Sa ali..... ; [48] K. 1019, obv. 5; am61 sid se-gar, [43] K. 122, rv. 2. amé] MUSARKISU: amél mu-Sar-kis, [132] K. 655, rv. 13, [186] K. 1], oby. 12; amé! mu-sdr-kis-me§, [153] K. 558, rv. 2; 2mél mu- S4r-kis-mes-ni, [122] K. 491, obv. 6; 2m™6! mu-sSar-kis-mes, [127] K. 616, obv. 6; rv. 6,10; 2mé¢1 mu-Sar-ki-su, [326] K. 1249, rv. 4, 8,10; amé! mu-Sar-ki-si-mes, [344] 83-1-18, 28, obv. 3, 8; amé6l mu-Sar-ki-sa-a-ni, [190] K. 596, obv. 4, 12, [630] K. 1264, oby. 14; amé61 mu-[..... ], [680] K. 1264, rv. 5; 2mé! mu-Sar- ki-[.... ?], [153] K. 558, rv. 8. amél A.BA, or DUPSARRU: 4™¢1 DUPSARROTU: 4™61 a-ba, [84] K. 117, obv. 11, rv. 8, 16, [90] K. 594, rv. 15, [127] K. 616, obv. 5, 14 Nores on Some OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD [151] K. 652, obv. 7, [153] K. 558, rv. 3, [189] K. 1048, obv. 3, [415] Bu. 91-5-9, 157, oby. 5, [429] R™ 69, obv. 12, [434] Bu. 89-4-26, 163, rv. 9, [532] 83-1-18, 15, rv. 1, [557] K. 893, obv. 3, [563] K. 935, rv. 9, [633] K. 1366, obv. 9, rv. 2, 15, [688] 80-7-19, 21, obv. 10, 15, [697] 81-2-4, 73, rv. 2, [706] K. 1076, obv. 5, [779] 83-1-18, 90, obv. 13, [872] Bu. 89-4-26, 16, obv. 8; 2™é! a-ba-meS, [33] K. 572, obv. 6, [846] Bu. 89-4-26, 9, obv. 2, [847] 81-2-4, 52, obv. 10, 11, [886] 83-1-18, 9 oby. 6, [423] 83-1-18, 12, obv. 4, [829] K. 297, obv. 4; 2m61 a-ba- mes-ni, [739] 81-2-4, 101, obv. 5; 2m61 rab a-ba, [307] K. 1078 oby. 4; 2m6la-ba II-u, [532] 83-1-18, 15, obv. 10; a2mél a-ba mati, [211] K. 662, obv. 4, 20, [568] K. 956, rv. 19; am6l a-ba é6-gal, [114] K. 538, obv. 15, rv. 7, [211] K. 662, obv. 10, [220] K. 1274 oby. 1, rv. 5; 2mél a-ba biti ili, [724] K. 548, rv. 10; 2m61 dup- Sar, [733] 81-2-4, 113, obv. 2; amé! dup-Sar-sSu, [42] K. 14, rv. 12; amél qup-Sar biti ili, [476], 83-1-18, 5, obv. 28; amé! dup [Sar](?), [557] K. 893, rv. 10; 2mé¢1 dup-sar ali, [530] 80-7-19, 40, oby. 18; 2™é61 dup-Sar-u-tt, [755] 83-1-18, 122, oby. 10; dup- Sar-u-te [629] K. 1263, obv. 11. amé] MUTIR PUTI: ame! gur-zak, [558] K. 896, rv. 3, [714] K. 1217, obv. 6; 2™é6l gur-zak-meS, [85] K. 613, rv. 2; am¢l gur pu-tu, [167] K. 582, oby. 20, [226] K. 526, oby. 9, [228] K. 1055, rv. 4, [340] Bu. 91-5-9, 183, oby. 13, [839] 83-1-18, 19, rv. 11, [415] Bu. 91-5-9, 157, rv. 14, [476] 83-1-18, 5, rv. 23, [544] K. 464, obv. 6, [564] K. 937, oby. 7, [685] 81-24, 96, rv. 3; amél gur pu-tt, [600] K. 1125, obv. 10; amél gur-ru pu-tt, [266] K. 79, rv. 20, [275] K. 82, obv. 14, 18, [462] K. 1374, rv. 28(?), [792] 83-1-18, 52, rv. 13, [794] 83-1-18, 150, rv. 17, [866] 81-24, 93, obv. 6; 2™6! gur pu-ti, [127] K. 616, obv. 4, [206] K. 539, obv. 7, rv. 1, 9, [806] K. 622, obv. 12, [556] K. 683, oby. 11, [860] K. 845, obv. 10; 2™é6! gur pu-te, [99] K. 5466, rv. 17, [124] K. 903, obv. 6, [165] K. 497, rv..8, [243] K. 567, obv. 8, [246] K. 669, obv. 14, [306] K. 622, obv. 3, (162), [336] K. 644, oby. 13, [408] R™ 2, 1, obv. 7, [494] 80-7-19, 23, rv. 11, [552] K. 640, obv. 5, rv. 4, [598] K. 1123, obv. 3, [610] K. 1142, rv. 8, [638] K. 2908, obv. 6 (15%), [667] 81—7-27, 30, rv. 3, [742] R™ 2, 462, obv. 5, [760] R™ 2, 7, obv. 4, [761] R™ 2, 474, obv. 4; 2™6! Sa gur-ru pu-ti, [721] K. 912, rv.1. amél1 SANU;: amél JJ-u,, [154] K. 653, obv. 15, [424] S. 760, rv. 5, [428] 83-1-18, 25, rv. 1, [506] K. 678, rv. 4, [623] K. 1212, obv.3; 2mél TI-u, [207] K. 541, obv. 9, [211] K. 662, rv. 2; am¢l TI-u-te, [585] K. 1098, rv. 3, [682] K. 608, obv. 18; 2mé! TTI-e, [49] K. 1168, rv. 10, [382] 81- 7-27, 199, obv. 1, 199A, 1, [784] K. 1031, obv. 5; amél IT -i, [252] K. 525, oby. 12, [746] 83-1-18, 146, obv. 8; am6!1IT..... , [787] R= 55, obv. 6; amél TT-u-su, [42] K. 14, rv. 12. amél] SALSU: amél JIJ-su, [140] K. 518, obv. 11, 13, [211] K. 662, rv. 10, [580] K. 1051, rv. 3; amé1 TITI-hu-si, [82] K. 527, rv. 12, [100] K. 554, obv. 9, [211] K. 662, obv. 4, [842] 79-7-8, 234, rv. 19, [425] Bu. 91-5-9, 105, obv. 8, [506] K. 678, obv. 7; ame! ITT-hu-[si], [568] K. 956, rv. 21; amél TI T-hu-si- mes, [85] K. 613, obv. 11, [683] R= INDEX OF OFFICIALS 15 550, rv. 11; 2™6! II I-hu-si-ia, [639] K. 8390, obv. 7, [842] 79-7-8, 234, rv. 14, [705] 82-5-22, 109, rv. 4. amél1 RAKBU: 4mé6l gis-mar, [607] K. 1134, rv. 2; amél gis-m4r- mes, [374] 82-5-22, 172, obv. 10; 2mé! bél gis-mdr-mes, [567] K. 946, obv. 18; 2m™61b61]1 gis-[mar-mes], [567] K. 946, rv. 1; amél bél [gis-mdr-meS], [567] K. 946, rv. 3. amé1 TAMKARU: 2™é!1dam-kar, [186] K. 11, rv. 8, [233] K. 7339, obv. 8, [532] 83-1-18, 15, obv. 8, [578] K. 1018, rv. 8; 2m¢1 dam-kar- meS, [196] K. 125, obv. 20, [234] K. 7548, obv. 5, [310] K. 610, obv. 9, [458] K. 1122, rv. 5, [529] K. 1252A, oby. 4. amé1 RAB KISIR, RAB KISIRUTU: 4™élrab ki-sir, [173] K. 686, obv. 4. [275] K. 82, rv. 5, [315] K. 1402, obv. 10, [434] Bu. 89-426, 163, rv. 15, [462] K. 1374, obv. 21, rv. 27, [500] K. 1303, obv. 6, [530] 80-7-19, 40, obv. 14, [543] K. 176, rv. 15 [582] K. 1093, obv. 4, [639] K. 8390, obv. 3, rv. 1; 2™6l rab ki-sir-mes, [138] K. 469, obv. 10, rv. 3, [169] K. 997, obv. 13, [842] 79-7-8, 234, obv. 4, [505] 81-2-4, 95, oby.6;[.... ] sir-mes, [557] K. 893, rv. 5; amélrab ki-gir-u- tu, [85] K. 613, obv. 9; 2m¢l rab ka-sir, [144] K. 194, obv. 3, [571] K. 998, obv. 10, [633] K. 1366, oby. 12, [755] 83-1-18, 122, obv. 15, [806] Bu. 91-5-9, 85, obv. 2; 2mélrab ka-sar, [273] K. 578, rv. 3, [274] K. 81, obv. 22; amélki-sir, [414] R™ 77, obv. 12, [557] K. 893, obv. 4(?); [@mél rab] ki-sir, [631] K. 1265, obv. 2; rab ki- sir, [631] K. 1265, obv. 9, 10. amé1 RAB MUGU: 4mélrab mu-gu, [154] K. 653, obv. 15; amél rab mu-gi, [108] K. 519, rv. 3. amé1 RAB GAR.SID: 2mélrab gar-sid-me8, [633] K. 1366, obv. ll,rv.4; amélrab gar-sid sa ékalli, [263] K. 825, rv. 4, 5. amé1 NUN.MES (RUBUTU?): @™61 nun-me§, [468] R™ 217, rv. 6. am61§U.I, GALLABU: mélgu-i-su, (2) [15] K. 1197, rv. 6, [439] K. 432, obv.6; 2mé61 Su-u-i(?), [183] K. 113, rv. 1; am6lsu-[ ], [438] K, 177, rv. 10. amé] RAKSU: amélrak-su, [709] 80-7-19, rv. 15; 2m6l rak-su-mes, [64] K. 550, obv. 9, [154] K. 653, obv. 14, [242] K. 11148, obv. 12; amél rak-su-ti, [804] K. 533, obv. 9; amél rak-Su-te, [709] 80-7- 19, 67, obv. 7; 2™61sab-meS-ia ra-ki-su-te, [482] 82-5-22, 104, oby. 10; 2™élrab rak-si, [414] R™ 77, obv. 6. amé1SAKNU: amélgar-nu, [414] R™ 77, obv. 10, [630] K. 1264, obv. 13, [524] K. 588, obv. 12, [639] K. 8390, obv. 6, [763] 81-2-4, 126, obv. 6, [871] 82-5-22, 114, obv. 9; am6l gar-ni, [414] R™ 77, obv. 19; amél gar-nu-mes, [374] 82-5-22, 172, obv. 8, [557] K. 893, rv. 5; amél gar-nu-mes-Su-nu, [138] K. 469, rv. 13; amél gar-nu-te, [880] R™ 2, 3, obv.5; 2™61 gar-nu-u-tu, [533] 83-1-18, 44, rv. 8; amél gar-mat (=8a-kin), [60] K. 487, obv. 9, [807] K. 1078, obv. 2, 6, [339] 83-1-18, 19, rv. 5, [442] K. 543, rv. 16, [473] 81-2-4, 65, obv. 1, 4, 13, rv. 8, 14, 19, [611] K. 1143, rv. 11; amel sak-nu, [238] K. 1107, rv. 8, [270] K. 1089, obv. 6, [419] 83-1-18, 24, obv. 9, 11, [542] K. 114, obv. 14, rv. 3, [863] K. 1196, rv. 6; 2m61 Sak-ni, [524] K. 588, 16 Novzs on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD rv. 7, [567] K. 946, obv. 12, [638] K. 2908, obv. 14; 2m61§a-ak-ni, [833] K. 982, rv. 7; 2m6lsak-na, [846] K. 673, obv. 13; 2m6¢l §ak- ni-ku-nu, [287] K. 94, rv.3; amé6lsak-ni-su-nu, [610] K. 1142, obyv. 10; 2m61 §a-kan-Su-nu, [610] K. 1142, obv. 5; am6l gar-su- nu, [537] K. 8535, obv. 8; 2m¢1 gar-man(?)-mes[=Ssakin-Sarri- mes ?], [155] K. 1235, obv. 4, 7. amé1AB.BA: amélab-ba-mes, [91] K. 620, obv. 13, [256] K. 1202, obv. 6, [287] K. 94, obv. 12, [289] K. 312, obv. 2, [293] K. 1054, obv. 3, [295] K. 1139, obv. 2, [296] K. 1162, obv. 2, [297] K. 1271, obv. 2, [377] 83-1-18, 43, obv. 16, [459] K. 1141, obv. 6, [517] 82-5-22, 91, obv. 8, [518] 83-1-18, 27, obv. 3. amél1 ASU; amélg-zu, [274] K. 81, obv. 6, [341] 82-5-22, 174, oby. 13, [465] K. 8509, rv. 8, 11; 2mél a-zu-mes, [33] K. 572, obv. 8, [157] K. 504, obv. 5. amé1 BAL ALI: 2mélen er, [645] R™ 2, 464, obv. 5, 13, [317] K. 5291, obv. 4, [590] K. 1111, obv.5; 2mélen-mes er Ha-lu-li-e, [262] K. 607, obv. 12; amélen er-meS, [88] K. 507, obv. 13, [342] 79-7-8, 234, rv. 21, [526] K. 628, obv. 3; 2m™6len er-meSs-ni, [136] K. 631, oby.5;....en er-meSs-ni, [784] K. 1031, obv. 16. amé61BRHL PAMATI, 2mel1PAHATI: amélen-nam, [32]K.527, obv. 11, [43] K. 122, obv. 13, [59] K. 1041, obv. 7, [71] K. 1113 + K. 1229, obv. 12, [89] K. 515, obv. 11, rv. 2, 10, [95] K. 1151, rv. 4, [102] K. 657, obv. 10, [112] K. 485, obv. 15, [129] K. 5458, rv. 9, [140] K. 518, obv. 7, rv. 1, 6, [151] K. 652, obv. 10, [179] K. 664, obv. 6, [190] K. 596, rv. 7, [197] K. 181, rv. 5, [198] K. 5464, rv. 1, [206] K. 539, rv. 8, [208] K. 617, obv. 7, [220] K. 1274, obv. 9, [266] K. 79, obv. 19, [311] K. 630, oby. 6, 8, [339] 83-1-18, 19, obv. 7, rv. 5, 18, [880] R™ 2, 3, obv. 6, 13, [381] 81-2-4, 55, obv. 9, 11, [409] R™ 2, 2, obv. 9, 10, [415] Bu. 91-5-9, 157, obv. 11, [421] 83-1-18, 6, obv. 12, [424] S. 760, obv. 9, [444] K. 645, obv. 6, [462] K. 1374, obv. 21, rv. 27, [486] K. 8375, obv. 4, 7, rv. 3, 9, 10, 15, [532] 83-1-18, 15, obv. 10, [543] K. 176, rv. 5, 6, [547] K. 587, rv. 8, [548] K. 593, obv. 8, [558] K. 896, rv. 4, 5, 7, 8, [564] K. 937, obv. 2, [615] K. 1153, obv. 5, [626] K. 1233, rv. 3, [633] K. 1366, rv. 3(?2), 5, 27, [646] 79-7-8, 292, obv. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, [754] K. 5457, obv. 5, 11, 12, [769] K. 1042, rv. 2, [771] 83-1-18, 49, rv. 7, [790] S. 1392, obv. 5, [803] K. 13090, obv. 1, [830] K. 1376, obv. 1, [845] K. 671, obv. 16, [846] K. 673, rv. 18, 21, [849] K. 580, rv. 5; 2m6len- na[m], [49] K. 1168, rv. 6; @m™6len-[nam], [131] K. 625, obv. 7; [205] K. 537, rv. 3; 2m61 en-nam-me§, [881] 81-2-4, 55, rv. 7, [444] K. 645, obv. 4, [506] K. 678, obv. 11, [646] 79-7-8, 292, obv. 5, 12, 14; amél en-nam-me8-te, [197] K. 181, obv. 13, [198] K. 5464, obv. 16; amél en-nam-mes-te-e-Su, [198] K. 5464, obv. 14; 2mél en-nam- mes-Su, [197] K. 181, obv. 11; en-nam, [189] K. 1048, obv. 9, [221] K. 175, rv. 11; amé61 nam, [190] K. 596, obv. 25, rv. 11, [671] K. 78, rv. 5, [839] 83-1-18, 21, rv. 15; 2mé1nam-mes, [148] K. 1907, rv. 1, [409] R™ 2, 2, obv. 15, [415] Bu. 91-5-9, 157, obv. 9, [464] K. 1519, rv. 3, [506] K. 678, obv. 12, [543] K. 176, obv. 12; 2™61 en-nam II-u, [424] S. 760, obv. 10. INDEX OF OFFICIALS 17 amé]1 DAGIL ISSURATE: 4mélda-gil muSén-me§8, [83] K. 572, oby. 9, [410] R™ 2, 4, obv. 6, 12. amél DATALU: amél da-a-a-lu, [530] 80-7-19, 40, obv. 12; 2mél da- a-a-li, [52] K. 80, rv. 3, 6, [309] K. 1021, obv. 6, [424] S. 760, obv. 7, [444] K. 645, rv. 4, [509] 81-24, 123, obv. 13; 2™¢1 da-a-a-li-ka, [148] K. 1907, obv. 3; 2™61 da-ia-a-li, [544] K. 464, obv.17; (am6))? da-a-a-la, [618] K. 1169, obv. 15; #mél da-a-a-li-ia, [769] K. 1042, obv. 4; 2™é6élrab da-a-a-lu, [530] 80-7-19, 40, obv. 12; amélrab da-a-a-li, [573] K. 1003, obv. 9, 13; 2m@lrab da-a-a- li-ia, [547] K. 587, rv. 6. amé1 MUTTAGGISU: 4méltin, [102] K. 657, obv. 4; amél tin- mes, [253] K. 1175+ 1207, obv. 4, 11; amél tin-meS-ni-ia, [253] K. 1175 + 1207, obv. 7; 2™é@lrab tin-mes, [389] S. 1034, ry. 3. amé1 DATANU: améldi-tar, [403] Bu. 91-5-9, 210, obv. 14; 2mé! da- a-a-nu, [340] Bu. 91-5-9, 183, rv. 16, 20. amé] ZAMMERU: 2™é1 Jul, [473] 81-24, 65, obv. 10; 2mé@! lul-mes, [210] K. 647, obv. 3, [408] R™ 2, 1, rv. 15, 22, 30, [599] K. 1124, rv. 5; amél]y]-meS-Su-nu, [599] K. 1124, obv. 9. amé1 HAZANU (LAPUTTU?), 2™*1HAZANUTU: 4™élnu- banda, [505] 81-2-4, 95, oby. 7; m6! ha-za-nu, [150] K. 598, obv. 3, [366] 82-5-22, 96, obv. 10, 16, [419] 83+1-18, 24, obv. 5, [445] K. 724, rv. 1, [493] 83-1-18, 13, rv. 15, [551] K. 634, obv. 3, [573] K. 1003, obv. 9, [710] 81-24, 87, obv. 6, [812] 82-5-22, 93, obv. 3; 2m™6l ha-za-nu Sa biti ilu Nabu, [65] K. 629, oby. 12; #mé@lha-za-ni, [251] K. 506, obv. 5, [473] 81-2-4, 65, obv. 9; #™é! ha-za-nu-ti, [473] 81-24, 65, obv. 6; 2mé1 ha-za-na-te, [91] K. 620, oby. 12; 2mé! ha- za... (2), [528] K. 1065, obv. 10. amé1 MUTIR THEME: 4™¢lmu-tir te-e-mu, [336] K. 644, obv. 4; amélmu-tir ....... (2), [265] K. 13100, oby. 5. amé1 NANGARU: 4mélnagar-mes, [87] K. 466, obv. 6, rv. 7, [95] K. 1151, rv. 10; 2™¢! nagar-meS-Su-nu, [475] 83-1-18, 3, obyv. 10; amél nagar, [476] 83-1-18, 5, obv. 21. amél1 NASTKU: 4mélna-sik, [608] K. 1136, rv.7; 2™61 na-sik-ku, [504] K. 1176, obv. 10; 2™¢1 na-si-ku, [280] K. 10, obv. 14, [520] K. 680, oby. 4, 14, rv. 16, [774] Bu. 894-26, 162, obv. 13; #™é1 na-si- k[u], [451] K. 924, rv. 10; #mé¢l na-si-ka-a-ti, [280] K. 10, obv. 19, [831] K. 470, rv.5; 2mé¢l na-si-ka-[a-ti], [622] K. 1210, rv. 4; amél na-si ...., [210] K. 647, obv. 19. -amél1NAPPAHU: 2mélsimug ékalli, [502] K. 661, rv. 2; amél simug hurasi, [566] K. 942, oby.18; 2@m™é6l murub (for simug) hurdasi, [551] K. 634, rv. 7, [812] 82-5-22, 93, rv. 9, [847] 83-1-18, 115, obv. 3. amél] PAHARU: amélduk ka-bur, [403] Bu. 91-5-9, 210, obv. 5, 7; amél pa-hi-ru, (2) [166] K. 505, obv. 3. amél] PIRHINU: 4mélpir-hi-nu, [90] K. 594, rv. 14, [533] 83-1-18, 44, oby. 3; 2mél pir-hi-ni, [167] K. 582, rv. 17. 18 Nores on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD am61 RAB ALANT: amélrab er, [424] S. 760, rv. 3; 2m™¢lrab er- mes, [784] K. 1031, obv. 15; 2m¢1 rab er-mes-te, [633] K. 1366, rv. 15, [778] 81-24, 75, rv. 10: 2m6lrab-mes gadl-mes, [253] K. 1175 + 1207, obv. 5, 138; aml rab er-meS-Su, [252] K. 525, obv. 8; amélrab er-mes-su-nu, [424] S. 760, rv. 5; @mélrab er-mes ba-a-mes, [767] 83-1-18, 75, rv. 1; 2™6lrab er-mes mu-bu, [506] K. 678, rv. 5. amé]1 RABUTE: 4mél gal-me3, [43] K. 122, obv. 7, 11, [126] K. 609, obv. 6, rv. 3, [174] K. 619, rv. 11, 14, [284] K. 599, obv. 8, 12, [827] K. 517, rv. 2, [328] K. 638, obv. 9, [441] K. 534, obv. 5, [451] K. 924, obv. 17, [460] K. 1250, obv. 3, [467] S. 456, obv. 6, [482] 82-5-22, 104, obv. 13, [523] K. 585, rv. 1, [532] 83-1-18, 15, rv. 7, [546] K. 557, obv. 6, [598] K. 1123, obv. 4, [633] K. 1366, obv. 16, [714] K. 1217, obv. 8, [804] K. 544, rv. 8, [867] 81-2-4, 94, rv. 7; 2m61 gal-mes-te, [639] K. 8390, rv. 11; 2m61 gal-[mes](?), [117] K. 991, rv. 7; 2m6l gal-gal-mes, [467] S. 456, rv. 14; amél gal-mes-Su, [197] K. 181, obv. 28, rv. 12, [281] K. 13, rv. 7, [284] K. 599, obyv. 12, [515] K. 621, rv. 7. amél] RAB BITI, 2™¢1 BEL BITTI, amél BITI: amél gal-6, [197] K. 181, rv. 27, [242] K. 11148, rv. 13, [243] K. 567, rv. 10, [281] K. 13, rv. 19, [414] R™ 77, rv. 3, [415] Bu. 91-5-9, 157, obv. 3, [579] K. 1043, obv. 8, [610] K. 1142, obv. 18, [746] 83-1-18, 146, obv. 8, [784] K. 1031, oby. 10; 2™61 gal-6-Su, [228] K. 1055, rv.14; amél gal-mes Sa biti, [67] K. 1050, rv.1; rab Sa bit-meS=rab bitani(?), [221] K. 175, rv. 12. amél RAB EKALLI or RAB MATI: 4™6l gal-6-gal, [99] K. 5466, rv. 11, [160] K. 1243, obv. 14, [512] K. 858, obv. 2; 2mé1 gal-6-g[al](?), [774] Bu. 89-4-26, 162, rv. 13; 2mélrab mati (gal-kur), [512] K. 858, oby.7;.... gal-6-gal, [99] K. 5466, obv. 9. amél KALLU: amél kal-lu-u, [275] K. 82, obv. 9, rv. 11, 16; amél kal-li-i, [434] Bu. 89-426, 163, rv. 16; amélrab kal-li-e, [414] R™ 77, obv. 6; 2m61 gal-la, [266] K. 79, rv. 2, 11, [805] S. 267, obv. 10; 2mél ka-al-la-a, [852] K. 479, rv. 4; 2mé1 maré kal-lu-te, [563] K. 935, rv. 4; 2m61 kal-mes, [8] K. 492, oby. 11; amél kal- mes-te, [232] K. 1059, obv. 7. amé1 KALU: amélrab ka-li-i, [419] 83-1-18, 24,rv.18; am6l us-ku, [493] 83-1-18, 13, rv. 10, [861] 81-2-4, 58, rv. 9. amél1US.KATI: amélug ka-ti, [90] K. 594, oby. 10. am61§A ELI BABI, 2™¢1 RAB ABULLE: 4mél ga mub ka, [277] K. 1066, rv.7; 2m¢1 gal kd-gal-me3, [493] 83-1-18, 13, rv. 17. amélSA PANI BKALLI: amélga §8i ékalli, [90] K. 594, oby. 11, rv. 4, 8, [287] K. 94, rv. 5, [828] K. 638, obv. 9, [329] K. 8383, obv. 10, [568] K. 956, rv. 17, [725] K. 12989, obv. 5, [733] 81-2-4, 113, obv. 4; amél§a si ékalli-meS, [377] 83-1-18, 43, obv. 14; 2m¢lSa\pa-ni é6kalli, [202] K. 83, rv.1, [270] K. 1089, obv. 5; 2mélsa pa-an 6-gal[l], [521] 83-1-18, 4, rv. 8. am61S AKU: 2mél sag, [1] K. 167, obv. 11, [158] K. 530, obv. 4, [190] K. 596, obv. 10, [220] K. 1274, rv. 8, [261] K. 563, rv. 1, [267] K. INDEX OF OFFICIALS 19 462, rv. 12, [322] K. 663, obv. 11, [343] 83-1-18, 18 obv, 9, [434] Bu. 89-426, 163, rv. 21, [448] K. 826, obv. 3, [527] K. 830, rv. 13, [565] K. 941, rv. 7, [623] K. 1212, obv. 2, [633] K. 1366, obv. 6, [638] K. 2908, ‘oby. 4, rv. 4, [746] 83-1-18, 146, rv. 4, [841] K. 4757, obv. 7; 2™¢l sag- ia, [304] K. 533, rv. 5, 7, [539] K. 17, rv. 13; 2™6! sag-su, [473] 81- 2-4, 65, obv. 6, [547] K. 587, rv. 10, 2mé! sag-mesS, [84] K. 117, obv. 7, [144] K. 194, obv. 5, 11, [336] K. 644, obv. 8, [532] 83-1-18, 15, obv. 4, [779] 83-1-18, 90, obv. 8; 2™61 sag-meS-ia, [138] K. 469, oby. 7, rv. 1; 2™6l sag-meS-Su, [473] 81-24, 65, obv. 7; 2m™&l sag- meS-ni, [322] K. 663, obv. 4, 12; 2m¢l sag Sa Sarri, [493] 83-1 -18, 13, rv. 8; 2™61 sag Sarri, [556] K. 683, rv. 17; amél Sa-ku, [276] K. 154, rv. 10, [326] K. 1249, obv. 8, [827] K. 517, rv. 11, [340] Bu. 91-5-9, 183, obv. 23, rv. 12, [418] S. 1028, obyv. 3, [542] K. 114, obv. 12, [853] K. 905, obv. 13; amé! Sa-ku-mes, [340] Bu. 91-5-9, 183, rv. 4; 2m™é¢1 Sa-ku-u-ti, [238] K. 1107, obv. 9. ZIKRIT EKALLI: sal 6-gal, [99] K. 5466, oby. 8, [232] K. 1059 obv. 6, [233] K. 7339, obv. 6, [437] K. 168, obv. 9, 13, [568] K. 956, obv. 16, rv. 9, [633] K. 1366, obv. 16. KALLATU: sa! k4l-la-ti, [263] K. 825, obv. 6; 52! ka-al-la-a-te, [494] 80-7-19, 23, rv. 2. amél1 PIKITTU: amél pi-kit-ti [12] K. 666, obv. 6; 2mél pi-ki-ta- te, [779] 83-1-18, 90, oby. 9; 2mé@! bél pi-kit-te-ka-a, [573] K. 1003, obv. 7; 2™6! bél pi-kit-ta-te-ia, [573] K. 1003, obv. 10; am6l1hé6] pi-kit-ta-a-te, [476] 83-1-18, 5, rv. 14; amél bél pi- kit-ta-a-a-te-mes, /[778] 81-24, 75, obv. 13; bél pi-k[it]-ti, [608] K. 1136, rv. 9; pi-kit-te, [658] 83-1-18, 81, obv. 9, [178] K. 482, rv. 1, [586] K. 1102, obv. 4; pi-kit-ti, [9] K. 618, obv. 6, [5] K. 583, oby. 10, [7] K. 601, obv. 4, [304] K. 583, obv. 7; pi-ki-te, [178] K. 482, obv. 8; pi-kid-di, [724] K. 548, rv. 9. amé1 SA BITHALLATI: 2™é1 bit-bal, [309] K. 1021, rv. 7; amel Sa bit-hal-la-ti, [138] K. 469, rv. 22; amél sa bit-hal-mes, [159] K. 1025, obv. 4, [546] K. 557, obv. 7, 14, [174] K. 619, oby, 21, 25; amél§q bit-ha[l-mes], [567] K. 946, obv. 15; 2m6! Sa eli biti 8a bit-bal-[meS], [577] K. 1010, obv. 6. amél AGRU: amél ku-mal, [82] K. 1200, rv. 9; 2™¢lag-ru-tu, [210] K. 647, obv. 9. amél ARITU: Sa sia-ri-te al Mar-bu-ba-a-a, [251] K. 506, rv. 1. amél AS, KAK(?)A.A.TT, [385] R™ 2, 6, ry. 11. amél AS,SE, [814] 81-7-27, 34, rv. 7. amé1 #},BAR Sa i! Samai, [262] K. 607, rv. 11. amé17P,TU.GU.TU.RA, [251] K. 506, rv. 9. amél J MMANU: 4mélum-ma-nu, [172] K. 1052, obv. 5, [336] K. 644, obv. 8; 2™¢lum-[ma-nul], [172] K. 1052, rv. 1; 2mé! um- me-a, [566] K. 942, rv. 4; 2m¢l um-ma-ni, [452] K. 943, obv. 10, [629] K. 1263, obv. 19, [867] 81-2-4, 94, oby. 3. amél] ARAMU: améla-ra-mu, [542] K. 114, obv. 15, [747] K. 923, obv. 4,6; améla-ra-mi-Su, [542] K. 114, rv. 8. 20 Norses on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD amél1 (JR: [465] K. 8509, rv. 7; ur-mes, [82] K. 527, obv. 10; a-ur (=mar kalbi) [208] K. 617, rv. 11. amél URASU: amél y-ra-si, [91] K. 620, obv. 13, rv. 2, [476] 83-1-18, 5, rv. 20, [464] K. 1519, obv. 18; 2mé1 u-ra-si-e(?), [119] K. 499, rv. 13; 2mél y-ra-su-tu, [209] K. 636, rv. 1; amé¢lrab u-ra-sa-ni, [323] K. 6005, obv. 5. amé1 {RIB BITI, NIRIB BITI: 2™é¢1¢ua biti, [475] 83-1-18, 3, oby. 7, [496] K. 474, obv. 14; 261 ta biti Sa biti ili, [560] K. 906, rv. 2; amélta biti 8a 1 Sam8i, [468] R™ 217, obv. 7; 2mél ta biti Sa i! Ninip; [493] 83-1-18, 13, obv. 12; amél ta biti Sa il Agur, [539] K. 17, rv. 14; 2™61 ta-mes biti Sa Dur-ilu, [401] 83-1-18, 30, obv. 3;..... ta biti mes, [748] K. 5474, obv. 5; amél §a pani ni-ri-bi, [875] Bu. 89-426, 71, obv. 7. am6é1SA BITI KUDINI: 4™él8a bit ku-din, [245] K. 513, obv. 4, 13, rv. 1, [312] K. 689, rv. 9. amé61 HN.GUR.A.NI, [387] S. 1045, rv. 8. amé1JU DRI, UDRUTI, BEL UDRI: 4™é! ud-ru, [309] K. 1021, rv. 4; 2m™61pé6] ud-ri, [444] K. 645, obv. 13; nisé ud-ru-u-ti, [121] K. 468, obv. 9,10; 2m¢l sabé ud-ru-ti, [506] K. 678, rv. 16, 17. amél BJ ? [353] 82-5-22, 169, obv. 9. amél1 GAR.NA.I (error for gar-ni=Sakni?), [480] R™ 72, obv. 2. am61GUGALLU (or ASARIDU?): 2™é! tig-gal, [562] K. 927, obv. 7. amé61GUR.RU.TU, [752] R™ 48, rv. 19. amél DA-I-KA-NI-E(?), [848] K. 508, obv. 4, rv. 2. amé1 DAN.DA.A.NU: (Kal-da-a-nu ?) [210] K. 647, rv. 5. amé1DI.SA.NU: [443] K. 579, obv. 6. amél ZTLLIRU: amél zi-il-li-ru, [281] K. 13, obv. 11. amé1 ZA.ZAK.KU, [464] K. 1519, rv. 4. amél ZUKU: amélzu-ku 8a 6kalli, [304] K. 533, oby. 6. amél] HU.KAK: amél hu-kak-me§, [212] K. 679, obv. 18. amé] HIALU: amélhj-ia-lu, [272] K. 4736, rv. 3; amé@l ha-a-lu... [849] K. 580, rv. 42; 2mél hi-ia-a-lu, [520] K. 680, obv.7; @mé! hi- a-lu-Su-nu, [804] K. 544, rv. 15; hi-’-a-lu, [412] 48-7-20, 115, oby. 18, 21; 2™¢! hi-’-la-a-nu, [269] K. 528, obv. 8; 2m61 hi-ia- la-ni-ia, [280] K. 10, obv. 22. salHARIMTU: sal kar-kit, [289] K. 312, obv. 8; s2! ha-ri-ma-te, [509] 81-2-4, 123, obv. 11. amél1 7]. KI.1.SU: [633] K. 1366, oby. 22. amél KI ZU: amél ki-zu-u-me§, [542] K. 114, obv. 14. amé] KU.Z1.Z1.1K.TU, [620] K. 1201, rv. 16. amél KT.ZU(?)BI.H, [346] Bu. 89-4-26, 9, rv. 6. amé] KAR.RA.NT, [103] K. 1189, obv. 9. amé1 KAR.KA.TIN, [322] K. 663, obv. 9. amé1 KALLAPANU: 2™él kal-la-pa-ni, [526] K. 628, rv. 1. amé1 KT TKUTU (=KITKITTU?2): 2mé¢l mar ki-it-ku-te-6, [414] R™ 77, obv. 11. INDEX OF OFFICIALS : 21 amélJ,A: (error for APIN 2?) [845] K. 671, obv. 10. amé1 MAKTU, amél MAKTUTU: 2™é!l ma-ak-tu, [343] 83-1-18, 18, tv. 3; 2™6l ma-ak-tu, [434] Bu. 894-26, 163, obv. 20; 2mé6! ma- ak-ta-ta, [792] 83-1-18, 52, rv. 7, [794] 83-1-18, 150, rv. 12; ame! ma-ak-tt-tu, [343] 83-1-18, 18, obv. 13; 2mé! ma-ak-tt-te, [140] K. 518, oby. 6, rv. 5; 2m™¢! ma-ak-tt-u-te, [434] Bu. 89-4~26, 163, obv. 17, rv. 19. amél] MA.LA.ZIZ(2), [701] S. 1338, rv. 1. amél MAN: [873] Bu. 89-426, 20, rv. 7. amé1 MAR EKALLI: mar 6ékalli, [512] K. 858, obv. 5, 6, 14. amél MUBU: 4™é@lmu-bu-u, [467] S. 456, oby. 24; 2i5S¢ mu-bu, [506] K. 678, oby. 16 (cf. amél rab alani mu-bu, [506] K. 678, rv. 5). amé1 NA.U.A.NI, [585] K. 1098, rv. 2. sal NA.GIS.MA.MES, [103] K. 1189, obv. 8. amél NAKISU: 4m™él na-ki-su-te, [484] 81-7-27, 33, obv. 11. amél] SAKLU: 2™é!sa-ak-lu, [437] K. 168, rv. 15; 2mé6l sak-lu-te, [325] K. 571, obv. 10, 13, 16. amél SU.HI.IN.TU.SU, [564] K. 937, obv. 16. amél P].E? [812] 82-5-22, 93, rv. 20. amél PARITU: 2mél pa-ri-tu, [812] 82-5-22, 93, rv. 16. amé1 PARSAMU: 4™él par-Su-mu, [3] K. 492, rv. 3; 2™61 par-Su- me, [9] K. 618, obv. 15; améEpar-Sa-mu-ti, [168] K. 630, rv. 15; amél par-Sa-mu-te, [2] K. 183, obv. 16. amé] KASTI: amél gis-ban-me§, [267] K. 462, obv. 14, rv. 13, [754] K. 5457, obv. 10, 28; nisé ban, [617] K. 1167, obv. 10; nisé gis- ban, [617] K. 1167, rv. 3. amél KADU: amél ka-di-e, [462] K. 1374, obv. 10. amél] KADISTU: amélgig, [447] K. 821, rv. 13, [870] 81-24, 49, oby. 14. amél RAB ARDANT: 4™élrab nitag-me8, [208] K. 617, rv. 6 (2), [533] 83-1-18, 44, rv. 1, 12, 14, [633] K. 1366, rv. 15. amé1 RAB TANIBU: 2™élrab ta-ni-be, [114] K. 538, rv. 1, [876] Bu. 91-5-9, 144, oby. 12; rv. 4. amé1 RAB BIRTI: 2™élrab bir-ti, [422] R™ 215, obv. 8. amél RA.J.,AN-NU, [521] 83-1-18, 4, obv. 21. amél RAB.DIS.SI: (captain of 1,000?) Bu. 894-26, 162, rv. 7. (amél) RAB.BIR, [221] K. 175, oby. 12. amél RASU(?): 2mél ra-Sa-ni, [418] S. 1028, rv. 6; 2m¢lra-sa-a-ni, [518] 83-1-18, 27, rv. 7. amél RAB PILKANU: 4™€lrab pil-ka-ni, [91] K. 620, obv. 14, rv. 4; rab pil-ka-ni, [512] K. 858, obv. 4. amél RADIANU, [102] K. 657, obv. 9, rv. 11. amél RIDU: amélyi-di-ia, [866] 81-24, 93, obv. 11, rv. 8; amél ri- di-ia-a-mes, [866] 81-24, 93, obv. 10; 2™é@lri-di-... , ibid., oby. 13. amél RJ-’-MI(?), [262] K. 607, rv. 9. amél RA-SI-TU, [848] K. 508, rv. 5. 22 NotsEs on SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD amé1SA BITI II-B, [801] K. 13077, obv. 6. amé] SU.GAB.A.MES, [755] 83-1-18, 122, obv. 16; 2mélrab améel rab Su-gab-a-mes, [755] 83-1-18, 122, obv. 6. am61§8A PANI BiT KATA: [875] Bu. 89-426, 71, obv. 5. am61SA PANI MATT: (=8a pani ékalli) [467] S. 456, rv. 11. amé1 SABU, SIBUTU: 2™é1 gi-bu-u, [790] S. 1392, rv. 4; 2m61 §i- bu-tu, [202] K. 83, rv. 15, [210] K. 647, obv. 2, [576] K. 1009, oby. 2, rv. 9, [753] 82-5-2, 111, obv. 6. amél SAG.US(?).MES.TE, [175] K. 614, obv. 7. amél STHLU (SI’LU?2): 2™é! 8i-ih-lu, [154] K. 653, rv. 8. amé1§AT,.UM: (should it be Si-um, abarakku?) [433] 79-7-8, 138, rv. 9; [712] S. 1223, obv. 5. amé] SAMALLU: 4mél gagan-lal-me§, [65] K. 629, rv. 6. amél SA SA.GA.TE, [167] K. 582, obv. 17 (cf. sa-ga-a-te, [75] K. 546, obv. 7). amé1 STMU: amélgam-mei, [99] K. 5466, rv. 12; tur-mes Sam- mes, [99] K. 5466, rv. 10; 2m¢61mes Sam-mes, [99] K. 5466, oby. 11. : amé1 SA SAPTI, or ZIKNI(?): amélga sa-mes, [144] K. 194, oby. 11. amé]1 SARNUPPU: 4mélga-A4r-nu-up-pu, [281] K. 13, rv. 12, 15, 18. amél SATAMMU: @mél ga-tam, [412] 48-7-20, 115, obv. 15, [437] K. 168, oby. 6, 24, [476] 83-1-18, 5, obv. 28, rv. 9, 13; 2m¢1§a-tam- meS, [437] K. 168, rv. 8; 2™61 §a-tam-u-ti, [437] K. 168, rv. 15. amé1 TARGUMANU: 4™éltar-gu-ma-nu, [387] S. 1045, rv. 5. amél TARBIANU: 4mél tar-bi-a-ni, [127] K. 616, rv. 4. amél TITK.EN.NA: 4mél tik-en-na, [327] K.517, obv. 2, [328] K. 638, obv. 2, [344] 83-1-18, 28, oby. 2, [438] K. 177, rv. 11, [447] K. 821, oby. 8, [540] K. 87, obv. 11, [542] K. 114, oby. 11; 2m¢1 tik-en-na- mes, [540] K. 87, obv. 4. A group of women in [527] K. 830 are described by terms that may be gentilic; but some rank or employment seems to me the more probable: sal AR-RA-BA-TI: obv. 8, 6, 9. salRAB.TI: (=rabati?) obv. 4. sal BI-NI-TI: obv. 5. salTU-’-A-TI: obv. 5. sal HU-LU-UT-TI: obv. 6. salNA.MIR.TI: rv. 2, 16. Vy) cS z LLL Us I, INDEX OF OFFICIALS [695] K. 1589, obv. 6. [551] K. 634, rv. 3. [256] K. 1202, obv. 4. [583] K. 1098, obv. 1. [759] D. T. 63, obv. 9. [145] K. 910, obv. 7. [476] 83-1-18, 5, obv. 21. [272] K. 4736, rv. 2. [795] Bu. 91-5-9, 107, obv. 8. [815] 48-7-20, 116, obv. 17. [745] 82-5-22, 141, rv. 4. [476] 83-1-18, 5, rv. 24. — Wf [566] K. 942, obv. 1. [147] K. 1170, rv. 10, 12. [385] Rm. 2, 6, obv. 14. [369] S. 1940, obv. 13. [438] K. 177, rv. 23. WWII), (333) K. 651, rv. 2. [442] K. 543, obv. 2. [795] Bu. 91-5-9, 107, obv. 11 23 THE ASSYRO-BABYLONIAN #76! TU. pitt. » Johns, ADD. II, p. 106, in discussing this officer, inclines to the view that he is not a temple official of any kind, but merely an occupant of temple lands, charged with certain dues to the temple. This opinion he would support by reference to royal endowments of the temples, in which connection the #™¢! TU. biti is sometimes mentioned. But this is inconclusive. Such con- nection with temple-endowments may imply nothing more than the modern pastor’s connection with the manse and glebe, or parsonage, or parish house. There is further the objection that in the Cultustafel of Sippara, also mentioned by Johns, the most important provisions for the reorganization of the temple services are made ki pi #™°! TU.biti, “according to the instructions of the TU.biti.’ Further, instead of being taxed for the main- tenance of the temple, provision is made for his support. He receives five shares of the daily receipts as against two shares received by the nas patri. In H. 167, K. 582, rv. 17, sqq., we may compare the daily allotment for a maSmaSu, four shares, and for a pirbinu, two shares. There is also an #™°!TU.biti II-u in the Cultustafel, a species of classification improbable in the case of mere tenants or taxpayers. Wealsofind #™°!TU.biti who do not appear to be connected with the temple, and are probably palace officials. In various places we find them spoken of in a way that suggests high rank. I do not see how to recon- cile the various data, except upon the theory that the TU. biti was a great official. Accepting the reading erébu for TU as the key to the solution, we may find him to be the #™*8a pani ni-ri-bi, as written syllabically in H. 875, Bu. 89-426, 71, obv. 7. This may be preferable to the reading érib biti cited - by Johns. That nirib rather than érib is used in reference to the entrance of a structure of any kind, is shown by numerous passages; cf. HWB., p. 127. That we must understand the officer in question to be something more than a mere porter or janitor, at least much more than is expressed by our modern conceptions 24 THe Assyro-BaBYLONIAN ?™°1 TU. siti 25 of, and associations with these terms, will appear from the following data. In H. 512, K. 528, we have a letter that is suggestive. The writer does not state his office, but, though addressing the mayor of the palace, he does not call him “my lord.” Such mode of address clearly indicates that he is of higher rank than the recipient of the letter. Order of Nabtt-zér-lisir to the mayor of the palace: (Admit) m Naba-sarbt-ikisa; ™Zér-IStar, a chief repairer(?) (HWB., 527, Johns, ADD. II, p. 174; Van Gelderen, BAS. IV, p. 532); ™ Ubba (one Arabian) (?) a palace employee (son of the palace); " Mfisura (one Egyp- tian) (?) a palace employee; the wife of the rab-mati (mayor of the palace); three sons of ™Nabt-zér-lisir; the wife of ™Nabti-sSarht- ikisa; two daughters of ™Nabt-zér-lisir, (and) his daughter-in-law. The 8th day of Tammuz. m Nabf-zér-lisir to (any) son of the palace. Total, fourteen persons admitted. It would seem that we here have an ancient pass ticket. The writer furnishes an order of admission to various persons who wish to enter the palace enclosure. Addressed primarily to the mayor of the palace, it is countersigned at the bottom, authorizing admission by any ‘‘son of the palace”’ who may be on duty at the gate when the ticket is presented. The note was written rapidly, the determinative amélu being omitted in some places; and hence there is uncertainty about the third and fourth names in the list. The plural sign is omitted throughout, and there is an error of two in the total as the letter stands in Harper’s text. It is to be noticed that six of the persons mentioned are members of the writer’s family, and one is the wife of the mayor of the palace to whom the order is addressed.’ Two persons are palace officials of some type. It would appear, then, that even persons prominent in the social circle of the palace required, if they had been outside its precincts, a special order for their re-admission, and that there was a person authorized to issue such tickets; perhaps an Emel panienirt bi: In H. 511, K. 654, we have a letter from a man of the same name, Nabt-zér-lisir, written, however, in the Babylonian script. He reports a number of things— garments, gold, silver, horses, sheep, etc.—for Abu-érba ‘‘of the king’s seed” and his 1The cases cited by Johns, ADD. II, p. 157, make it appear that rab m&ti and rab 6kalli are equivalent titles. 26 Notes on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD wife, all of which seem to be consigned to his charge in the palace (dib-bu na-as-ru-ti 8a ™“Nabt-zér-lisir ina ékalli du- bu-ub). If this person is the writer of H. 512, we should have some further suggestion as to the rigid supervision he would exercise over everything entering the palace. H. 475, 83-1-18, 3, is a short but suggestive letter, probably from Ibassi-ilu, written in the Babylonian character: To the king, my lord, thy servant (Ibassi-ilu). May Nabft and Marduk be gracious to the king, my lord. Referring to Iddin-ahf, and Ina-kibi-Bél, his brother, the TU.biti: According as the letter of the king my lord gave orders to me, viz., send them those carpenters —now I will send them unto the king my lord. Apparently the two officers named have made a requisition for carpenters for some purpose, and the king has sent word to Ibas8i-ilu to supply the needed men. The inference is natural that alterations or repairs of the temple may have been under the supervision of the TU.biti, and this inference we shall find sup- ported by other data to be cited. The two officers named also appear in another important role; cf. infra H. 496. In the meantime we may compare the change in organization made by Joash, 2 Kings 12:4 sqq. It is to be observed there that so long as the chief priests, those officiating about the altar, handled the temple receipts, the house of Yahweh was in bad repair, and there were no available funds. Only when the matter was taken out of their hands and placed in charge of “the priests, the keepers of the threshold,” was the house put in proper condition. The system adopted, the subdivision and distribution of priestly func- tions, is an interesting parallel to the Assyrian method. Modern critical views upon the relative importance and the chronological priority of priest and Levite may require a slight modification. Some such assignment to special duty would be necessary in the nature of the case, even though all alike were called ‘the priests, the Levites.”’ 1 Chron. 9:17—29, will be reflected in the further study of the TU. biti. It would seem that the *™*!TU.biti was prone to make alterations in the temple interior without consulting anyone. The letter H. 493, 83-1-18, 13, is from ASur-risia, a priest of Ninib, who is not pleased with what has been done. The purport of this broken letter is clear enough. During the reign of the king’s father the TU.biti of Ninib had altered the golden orna- Tur Assyro-BAaBYLONIAN #™61 TU pitt Ar ments of the head of Ninib. At the time of writing, a company of workmen are employed in cutting strips of silver from the walls. The priest begs that the king will stop the work, and remarks that he himself has not been consulted, though he thinks himself “their brother” in such matters. With this we may compare H. 468, Rm. 217. Some Babylonians complain to the king that Hulala, a TU.biti of Sama’, has come down and carried off “a sky’ of gold” from Esagila. What action the priests took with reference to the matter is illegible. Some of the people are incensed, and say that they are no longer safe; that they will be made like the city of Gana. Such stripping of costly decorations from temples, to beautify Assyria, may have been one of the causes of Babylonian revolts from Assyrian domination. To these evidences of the authority of the TU.biti in the matter of repairing or altering the temples, we may add Rm. ITI, 105, a broken cylinder, published by Winckler, AOF. I, pp. 256 sqq. It comes from the period of civil war in Babylonia, near the middle of the eighth century B. C. The inscription is of one Naba-Sum-imbi, who tells us that he is a niSakku and a TU.biti of Naba, as well as 8aka@ (Winckler, NIN.ku) of Borsippa. He records his restoration of the temple, which was damaged during the civil war. NabiSumiddina, a son of Daini- Naba, and a TU.biti of Naba, had made a night attack upon the temple in Borsippa, which Nabaisumimbi was holding with an armed force. The pious NabaSumimbi prayed to Nabi until sunrise, and as a result the enemy were beaten off. The success- ful combatant expresses his gratitude to Nabi by repairing the temple. Passing from this relation of the TU.biti to the repairs or alterations of the temple, we find another interesting feature of his office. Iddinabai and Ina-kibi-Bél, two officials already men- tioned in H. 475, appear in this important function in H. 496, K. 474. Ibassi-ilu writes to notify the king that the third of Elul is the day for the arraying of Bél, and that the opening of the great gate of the temple takes place upon the fourth. 2AN. E., the usual mode of writing Sam6 in the letters. I doubt its being a plural of ‘“*God,” as this would not be in accord with the epistolary usage. Moreover, Hsagila is the residence of Marduk, and we should hardly expect miscellaneous idols therein, judging from the complaint against Nabonidus in the Cyrus cylinder. Further, would an official of the Sama cult have use for images from the Marduk temple? He would, of course, have use for the gold. 28 Novres on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD Iddinaba and Ina-kibi-Bél, the TU.biti are, as the king knows, the persons properly in charge of those ceremonies. The writer asks that they be sent, and that they may stand with him on the day of the opening of the gate. It is probable, then, that they were expected to pass upon the dress of the worshipers as well as that of Bél, when they stood with Ibassi-ilu. The position of Ibassi-ilu himself I do not know. In other letters of this group, HH. 496—501, we find him reporting that the king’s orders for beds, coronets for Ana, and other temple fittings, have been filled. Since the data already given show the TU.biti to be connected with such matters, and since in the letter under con- sideration Ibassi-ilu wishes two well-known threshold-keepers to stand with him on the great day of the opening of the gate of Bél, he may have been such an official himself. He may also be identifiable with one of two men of his name prominent in Thompson’s RMA. These suggestions concerning the functions of this official recall the Cultustafel. Col. V, 26 sqq., specifies, ‘and furni- ture of the interior’ according to the instruction of the two amé1TU.biti-MES.” The king’s share of the daily expense (cf. 2 Chron. 31:3) is the food for the priests, and “two shares according to the instructions of the two #™°!TU.biti;” then follows the list of clothing provided. Special garments are required for the seventh of Nisan, the tenth of Lyyar, the third of Elul, the seventh of Tisrit, the fifteenth of Marchesvan, and the fifteenth of Adar: altogether six festal robes each year given by the king. The interesting features in these details are the evident authority of the TU.biti, and the fact that the third of Elul requires a special festal garment for the servitor of Samai, as it does in the letter last quoted for the servitor of Bél. In H. 388, 82-5-—22, 98 Mar-Istar also discusses ceremonies for Bél and Marduk upon the third of Elul, and the opening of the gate is mentioned (cf. Van Gelderen, BAS. IV, p. 533). We may compare with these specifications for particular garments upon occasions of unusual significance, Jehu’s order: ‘‘ Bring forth vestments for the priests of Baal” (2 Kings 10:22). In the twenty-third verse is an order for special scrutiny of the assembly, that only duly qualified worshipers may be within. 3U-na-at lib-bi is not translated by Jeremias, BAS. I, p. 275; cf. u-na-a-te hurasi kaspi sipirri parzilli is6é u abn6 6puS, from an ASurbanipal inscription, cited by R. F. Harper, Hepraica, X (1894), 198. THE Assyro-BABYLONIAN ?™°1 TU. Bit1 29 This may be parallel to the request of Ibassi-ilu that the two wardens may assist him in the great gate upon the festal day. In Ezekiel’s code we observe that the priests must leave their vestments in the side chambers, not being allowed to come among the laity wearing their official apparel (Hzek. 42:13, 14; 44:19). The Levitical code (Exod. 38:4) will readily suggest itself ; but till we know precisely what the Babylonian or Assyrian robes were, we cannot undertake a comparative study of Jewish and Mesopotamian priestly apparel. But it seems clear from the cuneiform data so far that the great guardian of the threshold was responsible for the proper preparation of every one who would enter the temple. Only thus could the perfection of each rite be guaranteed (observe the conditions and reservations in the oracles of the Sun-god); and only thus could the temple be kept free from defilement. The post was no sinecure, and we shall see that the warden needed to know all that occurred within the temple as well as what was approaching from without. Our data also allow the conclusion that the average temple had two chief officers of this type; and this may imply two gates of the temple in daily use, besides the great gate opened upon spe- cial occasions when the presence of the king was expected. We observe that there are two threshold keepers in the Cultustafel; two are called for by Ibassi-ilu; in the narrative of NabiSumimbi two rival threshold keepers are warring for the possession of the temple; in the Cultustafel one of the two officers is an #™é! TU.biti II-u. We may venture the suggestion, then, that Ezek. 44:1-4; 46:1-3, 8-12, give us some idea of the arrangement of a Babylonian temple (¢f. also 1 Chron. 31:14 for “the porter toward the east”) and of the movement of the throng upon a festal occasion, under the supervision of the TU.biti. Further questions concerning the arrangement of the Babylonian temple will be considered in a separate paper. For the modification of Ezekiel’s plan see Josephus, Ant., XV, II, 5, and 1 Chron. 9:17-28. As showing the familiarity of the TU.biti with all that occurred within the temple, the letters of Akkullanu are pecu- liarly interesting. This writer is shown in H. 539, K. 17, rv. 14, 15, to be a TU. biti of the temple of ASur. In H. 16, K. 428, ina brief report to the king, too broken to be intelligible, he is asso- ciated with AdadSumusur, Arad-Ea, and I8tarsumére3.: This places his activity in Hsarhaddon’s reign, a fact further supported 30 Notes on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD by H. 43, K. 122. His prominence will be more clearly realized when that of his associates is remembered. Their activity is noticeable in the excursus upon the Esarhaddon succession. The letters of Akkullanu, HH. 42-50, 429, 678-681, suggest that he is the proper person to address for information upon almost any matter connected with the temple, or its service. H. 42, K. 14, has been translated by Van Gelderen, BAS. IV, p. 518. Akkullanu reports that on the third of the month (Elul again?), Asur and Bélit went forth in peace and returned in peace. Goblets and drink for the king have been duly prepared, and rites which had ceased through neglect have been re-estab- lished; but the suraru-wine for the month Tisrit has not been provided for Asur. The chief vintner, his deputy, and his secretary have alike neglected the matter. The next letter, H. 48, K. 122, is the most interesting of all. Van Gelderen, BAS. IV, p. 513, has given a translation, and Johns gives a general view of it, ADD. II, p. 105, and a com- plete translation ABLCL., p. 377, changing his former view slightly. In both he differs somewhat from Van Gelderen. I am not sure that the reverse of the letter is perfectly understood. But the bearing upon the duties of the TU.biti is in no wise affected. In the first part of the letter, he replies to an inquiry of the king informing him of the governors, cities, and provinces that have neglected to send the regular offerings to ASur. Nineteen are named; and as several of these are certainly provinces out- side of Assyria itself, we may have a sidelight upon the unwil- lingness of the Hebrew prophet to see his king maintain either hostile or dependent relations with Assyria.‘ The reverse of the tablet reports the facts concerning two priests (Van Gelderen, ‘“scribes’”), who had been consecrated by Sennacherib, but had lost their positions through some cere- monial mishaps, “not great sins.” One is ‘‘priest of the bake- room,”* shaved when he was young. The other is chief of the larder, or almost a ‘“‘head-waiter”’ for the temple tables. Hach seems to have been deposed for some inattention to proper shaving 4Compare the frequent complaints concerning rebels in the cuneiform historical inscriptions. ‘They had had not sent to inquire after my peace—they scorned the solemn oaths by the great gods.”’ 5 With this priest of the bake-house, compare the little cooking chambers flanking Ezekiel’s temple (after Babylonian models (?)), 46: 19-24, and the chambers and those in charge of things baked in pans, 1 Chron. 9:31; 23:28, 29; Lev. 2:5-7; 6:21; 7:9. THE Assyro-BABYLONIAN ®™°1 TU. Bit1 31 (ina la Sab-sa-su-te la gal-lu-ub).° Thus apart from the information the letter gives concerning the TU.biti, it is of interest as suggesting some exacting ritual of the Assyrian priesthood. Apparently, cuttings of the “corners of the head and beard” were seriously regarded. As for the TU.biti, he is evidently expected to know the past history of the temple as well as current events. One would infer his familiarity with the temple library, or record room. The record of the neglect of stated sacrifices by certain governors recalls the frequent com- plaints of the Hebrew narratives, and the list of nobles bringing offerings,’ in Numb. 7. H. 185, K. 1396 is interesting after this report concerning delinquent governors. Nababélsunu tells Asurmudammik that he has been wronged by Akkullanu. The latter has obtained twelve or thirteen mana of silver from ASurmudammik, for the breaches of the shrines of ASur and Bélit. Nababélsunu tells his friend to make a memorandum of it, and to plan for its recovery. It would seem that Akkullanu, when charged with repairing the temple, was inclined to somewhat vigorous measures for securing the necessary funds. H. 44, K. 604 gives us no information. Akkullanu asks the king for a reply to a previous letter. In H. 45, K. 691 he announces that he will “bring to Dilbat”(?) an axe,° pilakku that has been called for. It is probable that some sacred symbol, 6 For shaving the head as part of the ceremony of consecration to the priesthood, com- pare Agurbanipal, L3 12,13. Observe the many cylinder-seals and reliefs in which a shaved person is brought before a god, e. g., the DeClercq collection. The appendix to Curtiss, PSR., 268, by Wm. Hayes Ward, gives a number of illustrations. Notable are figures 3, 7, 10, 17,19. A fully appareled priest wears a queue, sometimes plaited, sometimes turned up - behind, or decorated. As an unclean person must keep from the altar in general Semitic usage, we must regard these scenes as illustrating consecration or purification. Some of the figures may represent females, but some are certainly shaved males. Compare the shaving of the Levites when consecrated, Numb. 8:7; the shaving of the head of the Nazirite as a mode of cleansing, Numb. 6:9, 18; cf. Acts, 18:18; 21:24; shaving of a leper for cleansing, Lev. 14:8, 9; 13:33; Egyptian shaving of one coming to court, Gen. 41:14; the shaving of Egyptian priests mentioned by Herodotus, the prohibition in the case of Hebrew priests, Lev. 19:27; 21:5; Deut. 21:12; Ezek. 44:20. On general subjects see A. R. S. Kennedy, DB. I, p. 536; Carslaw, DB. III, p. 478. 7 These duties of Akkullanu suggest the inventory clerk, and Ezekiel’s familiarity with all costly merchandise (Ezekiel 27:1-25). Was Ezekiel a priestly threshold keeper, becoming in consequence, familiar with all kinds of articles likely to be brought before a god? 8We may think of the double axe, Greek méAexvs as contrasted with the ynuuredéxxov, now familiar from excavations of the Cretan Labyrinth, which bears traces of Semitic influence; the double axe (or mace) in the hand of IStar(?) on some seals (Ward, appendix G, to Curtiss, PSR., fig. 7) ; the lance, as emblem of Ninib, as evidenced by kakkab Sukudu, kakkab tartabu, and the upright lance upon his (?) altar, DeClercq, 308, 371, 373; the double trident (thunderbolt (?)) in the hand of Marduk when assailing Tiamat in various reliefs and seals; the bow of ASur in reliefs and historical inscriptions and O. T. reference to worship of military emblems, Hab. 1:16. 32 NortTeEs on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD or piece of temple furniture, is here referred to. Both letters have been translated by S. A. Smith, AL., and Delitzsch, BAS. I, p-. 222; IT, p. 30. In H. 429, Rm. 69, translated by Van Gelderen, BAS. IV, p. 530, Akkullanu is again concerned with the decorations of the temple. A golden tablet, a peace offering from the king, is missing. Akkullanu reports that it has been seen in the possession of a jeweller(?), and that he will institute a rigid examination of the man before a scribe. That the ornament came safely to the temple from the king’s messenger is doubted, and this person should be questioned. Perhaps the same subject is discussed in the badly broken H. 592, K. 1116. Of the four- teen original lines, not one is left entire. We can recognize some reference to a golden tablet and a jeweller. In H. 47, K. 979 Akkullanu announces libations and royal sacrifices at Tarbisi, and asks the king if he should attend them (cf. RFHarper, Hepraica, X, 1894, p. 196), adding that the king cannot complain this time of not being duly notified. In H. 48, K. 1019, and H. 49, K. 1168, the breaks are too serious to allow any connected narrative ; both, however, may refer to the same subject. In H. 48, Akkullanu says: ‘‘Regarding the priests of the city of Assair(?), about whom the king sent to me, I will myself inquire of some priest . . . .”” H. 49 is much longer, and begins, after greetings, ‘“‘As to that priest about whom the king, my lord, sent to me, he made complaint from his heart three times on that day.’’ The next twenty lines are too fragmentary to yield any connected sense. About the middle of the reverse we find instructions for ritual on certain days; on the tenth day at noon a censer; on the eleventh and twelfth, great sacrifices (niké). There follows a report concerning a complaint made by the priest of the Temple of Seven at Nineveh, about whom he had sent word to his lord the king. The son of some priest of the Temple of Sama’ has been asked for; his name, Akkullanu says, is Zari, son of Nadinapal. The next letter of this group, H. 50, K. 1242, broken also, refers to sacrifices before which Akkullanu stands. Sumerian ritual titles are discernible, and tamarti of Sin and Samai are mentioned. HH. 678, 680, 681, are too fragmentary to be of value, but H. 679, 83-1-18, 61 is interesting as being a purely astrological report. Star movements are discussed at some ‘ Tue Assyro-BABYLONIAN ?™61 TU piri 33 length, though nearly half the letter is broken away. We may question if the writer is the same Akkullanu as above. Bezold thinks there are two. Yet knowing the dominance of astrology in Assyrian thought and ritual, it would seem that all the learned classes and priestly authorities should have some general knowl- edge of the subject, as it would be impossible otherwise for them properly to perform their daily functions. This is supported by Thompson’s Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers. Nos. 81, 259 are from a rab dup-sar; Nos. 109, 266, from a rab A. BA.; No. 160 from a dup-Sar; No. 58 from the rab A.ZU; No. 83, 115F, 183, 243, from a maS-mas. There is a fair pre- sumption then, in favor of some astrological knowledge upon the part of the TU.biti. It is practically confirmed by H. 401, 83-1- 18, 30, in which the king writes to Zéru’a and the TU.MES. biti of Dar-ilu, that the month Adar has an excess, and that they must adjust its calendar. The various astrological reports from Akkul- lanu in Thompson’s collection, and the two other similar reports in HABL, need not then be assigned to some other than our temple warden, as Bezold conjectures. Whatever we may conclude as to the warden Akkullanu’s con- nection with astrology, the passages cited indicate that the TU.biti was a very powerful official. That his position was one of great honor may be fairly inferred from the case of Nabisum- imbi, previously cited. A nisakku, and saka of Borsippa, he would have us know that he is also a TU.biti of Nabi. Per- haps it is for the purpose of maintaining his right to this position that he battles with Nababélsunu. Akkullanu’s activities and associations suggest high honors. We may add from Nergl. 13, “Nabésumukin, the TU.biti of Nabi and satammu’ of Ezida, spoke to the king Neriglissar thus: Give me Gigitum, your virgin daughter to wife.” Some further texts must be noticed. In the large inscription of Merodach-baladan II one Ina-kibi-Bél is mentioned as a bazanu. Is this the person above mentioned as a TU.biti by Tbassi-ilu in HH, 475, 496? For bazanu isa term sometimes 9The Satammu kept the Sutummu or “storehouse,” to which the TU.biti con- signed valuable property, and from which the k6pu drew the supplies which he loaned out when handling the temple revenues. Compare the §4-tam bit u-na-ti on Boundary stone 103, col. IV, 9, with the u-na-a-ti of the temple in Note 3, supra, and the amél S4-tam of the 2™6l17TU.biti of Marduk in VA. 451 (KB. IV, p.172). The term seems Babylonian rather than Assyrian. In Strassmaier’s contracts we sometimes find the Satammu furnishing grain and money from the temple stores. He is occasionally men- tioned in connection with the képu. 34 Notes on SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD applied to the TU.biti. In H. 65, K. 629 (JEL., p. 153.), Naba- Sumiddin writes to the mar-Sarru. The functions shown in the letter are those we have already observed. The writer announces that the temple of Naba will be opened on the third of Iyyar. The couch of the god will be consecrated (for this ceremony see K. 164, BAS. II, p. 635); the god will return on the fourth; sacrifices are announced, and the route of the sacred pro- cession is given. All may enter the temple who bring one ka of food. The writer calls himself the bazanu of the temple of Naba. In H. 366, 82-5-22, Nergal-Sarrani writes of a like event; the temple opening on the third of the month and the god returning on the fourth to the couch. The bazanu’s connection with the ceremonies is noted. In H. 419, 83-1-18, 24, we have a joint letter from the Sangtii II-u and the hazanu. In H. 49, 83-1-18, 13, the hazanu of the temple is expected to aid in stop- ping certain alterations. The other bazanu passages in the RF Harper letters refer generally to city officials. Such may be observed in the historical inscriptions and in the Tell el Amarna letters (cf. Zimmern, ZA. VI, 248). Winckler, AOF., 246, argues that the title was originally that of the prefect of a village or petty district. But the ideogram for hazanu, NU.BANDA, is common in early cattle accounts in the HE. A. Hoffman collec- tion (Radau, HBH.). The hazanu there is only a common herds- man. In early Boundary stones, IT R. 43, III R. 41, the hazanu is a household officer. The inference is that the word hazanu has no restricted technical sense; that it is merely “overseer” (ZA. VI, p. 349), and can in consequence be applied to various func- tionaries. The inference finds support in the Jewish use of the borrowed term. Four hazans are distinguished in Jewish literature ; (1) the hazan, or mayor, of a city; (2) the hazan, or sheriff of a court of justice; (3) the bazan of the temple (the “porter” of 1 Chron. 10:26—29) who had charge of the robes, treasures, and utensils and who aided the priests in robing and disrobing (ef. the Arabic hazin, ‘‘treasure-keeper’’); and (4) the bazan of the synagogue, whose functions may be regarded as a survival of those of the temple hazan. (For particulars see, Jewish Eney- clopedia, VI, pp. 284 sqq.) Considering the very definite character of the reports we have examined, coming from the TU.biti or hazanu, we may fairly conjecture, when we find such reports of the order of services Tue Assyro-BABYLONIAN 2™°1 TU pitt 35 coming from one who does not mention his office, that the writer is the official under consideration. Thus we may conclude that Nabipasir who writes H. 134, K. 1234, and Nabaikudurusur, writer of H. 858, K. 822, are such officers. Compare with the data so far given the account given by Curtiss, (PSR., chap. XII) of the sacred classes in modern Syria. ‘‘In addition to the care that the minister takes of the shrine he is repository of such legends as may exist with respect to the origin of the shrine, and the life of the saint whose names and deeds are celebrated.”” This suggests the Cultustafel. In S* 77, 4, we read of an akil kisalluhi, or ‘‘vakeel of the anointed ground.’”’ Perhaps this is the early equivalent of MW biti. The passages cited inevitably raise the question, What was the relation of this officer to the Sangaii? For we have found a Sangti complaining of alterations made by a TU.biti. Akkul- lanu gives us nearly all the information derivable from the letters concerning the Sangt. The latter appears the less conspicuous personage because the matters treated do not fall within the range of his official activity. He may have been influential in popular intrigues, as he is mentioned in two or three reports of governors and military officers, and it was deemed advisable to place two sons of Hsarhaddon in the most powerful priestly offices of the empire. While the TU.biti clearly super- vises the general procedure within the temple, we must not conclude that the Sanga had no field of his own in which he was final authority. We must regard him as the personage who officiated at the great altar upon the solemn occasions when the keen-eyed and fully-appareled TU.biti stood in the great gate and carefully inspected the incoming worshipers. The reli- gious texts published suggest the domain of the Sangt. From the evolutionary standpoint both officials are certainly descended from the primitive custodian” of the sacred shrine, the Arabian kahinu, the Hebrew kohen. The cuneiform litera- ture affords some data for the history of their development. Neither is known so far in the older inscriptions. We have in them the term patesi, sometimes translated ‘“priest-king,” and comparable with the Semitic sheikh of a petty district, who may 10Such custodian appears on some very early seals. Ward, PSR., Appendix G, fig. 14, gives a very interesting case: a porter guards a two-leaved door, while a worshiper stands before the god within. 36 NotTEs ON SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD also be the custodian of its sanctuary. This translation has been fairly questioned. Budge and King (AKA. I, p. xvii; ef. Jensen, KB. III, 1, 66) would interpret its use by early Assyrian kings as indicating their subjection to Babylonian secular domina- tion. It may as plausibly be construed as showing that there was then little religious differentiation from Babylonia; and Lehmann (BAS. II, p. 614) has shown that the early rulers of Shirpurla use it regularly, whether they were independent or vassals. Moreover, in Assyria they are patesis of gods, not of other princes. In the Hammurabi period the patesis are clearly a sacred class. In LJH., 42, we read of one man libbi m&aré baré, and four libbi maré patesi; in LIJH., 17, we have two men libbi maré patesi and one libbi maré baré. This pair- ing “the sons of the seers” with “the sons of the patesis” recalls the seers or “sons of the prophets” and ‘‘the priests the Levites’’ of the O.T. In LIJH., 43, we learn of a sharp protest made at the drafting of a patesi for corvée service. The recipient of the letter is given to understand that the patesis are exempt from such service. We must understand this exemption to be upon religious grounds; we cannot suppose that one secular governor had seized his confrére for corvée service. Compare Ezra, 7:24. In LJH.,91 a sangt of Anunit is included as one of the patesis of Anunit. This form of statement makes us think that the Sangi is appearing as a subdivision of the patesis. In LIH., 38, a patesi in the service of one officer wishes to be transferred to the employ of another. The king directs that an exchange be effected and that the employer see that the patesi’s field is properly cultivated for him (ef. Neh. 13: 10-13). This is extremely interesting, as sug- gesting that the patesi class was not yet concentrated at a few great temples, but that many were household priests like Micah’s Levite in Judges 17. It would also appear that Hammurabi is endeavoring to control the distribution of the patesis; the LIH. letters show also that he looked after the temple revenues. The grouping of patesis with seers, baraiti, by Hammurabi, should recall the references to visions and a seer-goddess by the patesi Gudea, Cylinder A. This same distribution of the patesi class is shown us a thou- sand years later. Boundary stone No. 105, III R. 41, records the sale of a piece of land. In the list of curses we find one that THE AssyrRo-BABYLONIAN #™6!1 TU siti 37 is unique: an imprecation upon him who shall ignore this deed of sale and present the land to any god, or king, or patesi of aking, or patesi of a Saknu, or patesiof a bittémi. Remembering how frequently we find the kings seizing lands and setting them aside for various temple servitors, we may suspect that patesis, in the days of Marduk-nadinabi, B. C. 1115, were not universally admired, and that they were to some extent household priests, as the data above would suggest: and that the term in the boundary stone is still a general one for shrine functionaries of any kind. Furthermore, we find documents of the later periods showing sacred personalities holding two or three leading offices: as Nabt- Sumimbi, already cited, is both nisakku and TU.biti. And the ability of a man to establish his household shrine and priest is shown by documents like Bu. 88-5-18, 704, cited by Johns, ABLCL., p. 223, in which Nir-ilisu dedicates to a god one SAR of land, and decrees that Pi-sa-Samas shall be its priest, Nurilisu himself laying no claim to the priesthood. This is an excellent parallel to the case of Micah (cf. Nbd. 773). One or two passages in the religious texts may support this view of the patesi as a religious functionary instead of a secular ‘“‘deputy.’’ Marduk is the well-known masmas ilani: the incantations of the maSmas ilani are sometimes called for: in his name evil is adjured to leave. But in DES., p. 168, “HE” 41, Ea tells Marduk, “perform for him the incantation of 1!" pa-te-si-MAH.” In DES., p. 34, “By it Pa-te-si-GAL.ZU.AB be thou exorcised.” Is the “Great Purifier,’ Marduk, the PATESI.MAH? The second reference seems to be to Ha. We may now fairly ask if PA. TH.SI is not simply aklu-++teménu-+karnu (see Brinnow, under signs) “the horned official of the platform.” On ancient seals (e. g., Ward, PSR., Appendix G) the priest wears a horned cap. In the O. T., and in the cases considered by Evans, Myce- nean Tree and Pillar Cult, the horns are on the altar, or over the sacred portal. In Babylonia the title patesi persists to the end, the title TU.biti appearing as early as the time of the Cultustafel. But since the restoration described there is ‘‘according to the instruc- tions of the two TU.biti,” and since this office tended, as we shall see, to be hereditary, we may fairly conclude that the office existed, and that its functions were fixed before the destruction of the temple by the Suteans, several centuries earlier. It may even 88 Notes on SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD date back to the days of Hammurabi, since we have found the Sangai known at that time. The TU.biti appears in other familiar documents of the time of Nabipaliddin, to be mentioned presently in connection with the hereditary character of the office. But in Assyria the title patesi soon disappears. It is claimed by Irisum, B. C. 2000, who is called centuries later a Sang of Agur (Scheil, Rec. Trav., XXI, 1900) ; by Samii-Adad and Isme- Dagan, B. C. 1850-1800. Tiglathpileser I. accords these two the same title, VIII, 2, 8. Pudt-ilu, B. C. 1350, calls himself issakku of ASur, the equivalent of patesi. Adad-nirari, his son, calls himself isSakku of ASur in one inscription, and sanga siru of Bél on a stone tablet; he is in this inscription the son of Puditilu the Saknu of Bél, issakku of ASur; grandson of Bél- nirari the Sanga of ASur, great-grandson of Asur-uballit, whose Sangatu was glorious. Can this varied terminology mean that the chief priests of different divinities originally bore different titles, arising from the different rites prominent in the cults? Sangti is, up to this point, reserved for the servitor of ASur or Istar. Asur-ré3-isi, 1140 B. C., is Sanga of Asur, and gives the same title to Mutakkil-Nusku and Asurdan, his predecessors. Tiglathpileser I. claims the office. ASurnasirpal, in his various inscriptions, is Sangt of different gods; Asur, Istar, Bél, Ninib, and Nergal (see AKA., pp. 182, 189, 198, 205, 209; Annals I, 25). In K. 868 he is iSipu na’du nibit Ninib. Evidently he has become “commander of the faithful” of all the more prominent cults. The Sargonids emphasize their Sangtitu of Istar. But Sargon himself, evidently a religious reactionary, revives the phraseology of Pudu-ilu 600 years before. In the Nimrud inscription he is Saknu of Bél, isSakku of ASur: he repeats this on numerous bricks. This is certainly irreconcilable with the theory that patesi or issakku, when used by an Assyrian king, implies his subjection to Babylon. In some of these brick inscriptions we have his title more fully: Sakan +!" Bél, isSakki flu Agur Sakkanak #"Naba u "Marduk. This supports the suggestion that the chief priests of certain gods may have had distinctive religious titles. The Sakkanakku of Babylon would appear to have been the vicegerent of Naba and Marduk. We may wonder if these royal claims indicate functional activity, or mere honorary headship. We do not hear of an Assyrian king claiming for himself the honor of TU.biti. He Tue Assyro-BABYLONIAN ?™61 TU siti 39 would think of himself as officiating at the altar instead of “keep- ing the charge of the house.” But Neriglissar, placed on the throne by priestly intrigue, tells us that he is the son of BélSum- iskun, the wise prince, the perfect hero, nasir massarti Esaggil u TIN.TIR.KI. (Budge, PSBA., 1888, cylinder; col. I, 11-13.) Is the king boasting of his descent from a TU.biti? In Assyria, did the temple officials, who, in their let- ters, frequently used the phrase: “We keep the charge of the king our lord,”" think of the king as a Sangi whom they assisted? Esarhaddon’s favorite oracle, we know, was that of Istar of Arbela, sometimes spoken of as Bélit parsi. He declares that IS8tar of Arbela is a goddess, ra’imat Sangitia. In opening salutations AdadSumusur (and occasionally others) frequently writes, after greeting the king, a-na pi-kit-te 8a Bélit parsi Sul-mu a-dan-nis. Does he think of the king as the great Sangi of IStar, and therefore include in such salu- tations “those who kept the charge of the house” of Istar? Ques- tions like these are natural in connection with the subject, but answers just now would be premature. Reference has been made to the efforts of various kings to guarantee the maintenance of certain temple officials by freeing certain lands or persons from royal taxation, the revenues being instead devoted to the temple service, and the produce of the lands going into the temple stores, when it was more than could be immediately consumed. The term zakku, ‘‘dedicate,’’ secures this exemption from secular demands. The Chronicler may be copying this scheme in 2 Chron. 31:13-19. Exemptions for sacred classes are specified in Ezra 7:24. But the records of such royal grants raise the question of heredity, the land so con- secrated being sometimes spoken of as previously consecrated by a former king, and later reverting to the royal domain. An example may be cited in K. 4467, published by Johns, ADD., I, 714. Meissner, UV-AG., 1903, III, p. 6 sqq., collates it with K. 1989, and 83-1-18, 425, and Bu. 91-5-9, 193. Sargon narrates in this deed his restoration of land originally set aside by Adad- nirari to supply the granaries of Asur. Ninety-five iméru of land in the fields of the city of the TU.biti, in the campus of Nineveh, are reconsecrated. The land is given in charge of the 11 The frequency of the similar expression in the Old Testament should be noticed: Gen. 26:5; Exod, 6:13; Numb. 9:19; 27:23; 1 Chron. 9:27; 2 Chron. 8:14. 40 Notes on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD sons of former temple servitors. Fifteen iméru of ground are set aside for the rab akalé, “‘like the field of the city of the TU.biti—with the field of the governor of Dar-Sarrakin I counted it—fifteen I thus consecrated.” This placing of the lands of the temple servitors upon the same footing as the land of the governor should be compared with Ezekiel’s land system, 45:1-8, and endowed state offices in the Harran census. Since the benefice is given to the descendants of former bene- ficiaries, and the TU.biti are spoken of as though owning or dwelling in a city, or definite territory, and since Akkullanu, in H. 48, speaking of a deposed priest, then dead, recommends his son for the vacancy, the fact of heredity in sacred offices, and the existence of Levitical cities, is clearly shown.” In this con- nection we have some interesting matter. VA. 208 of the Berlin Museum (KB. IV, p. 94) is from the 22d year of Nabapaliddin. In it Béliddin, son of Naba-zér-iddin, the TU.biti of #4" La-ga- ma-al and Sakti of Dilbat deeds to his second son his right to the entrance fees of flesh of different kinds. In another docu- ment, much damaged, from the 20th year of Nabiapaliddin, we find Nabapaliddin, son of Abua, grandson of Akar-Naba, the TU.biti, complaining that he has received but part of the land held by his fathers. His petition in the case is granted (KB. IV, p. 92). A very interesting case of transfer appears centuries later. It suggests that the hereditary line of temple wardens may have been threatened with extinction. A TU.biti adopts a son, and transfers to him a right to 6 ka of food and 6 ka of drink, a fourth interest (zittu) in the flesh of offered oxen, and an interest in the table of the god (zitti pa8sairi). This document is dated in the first year of Barzia (VA. Th. 123, 124; KB. IV, p. 296). We should not infer that the entire TU.bit-u-tu is transferred by this docu- ment, for we have another, showing partial sale. It comes from Uruk, from the time of the Seleucidae, (KB. IV p. 313). The seller holds the TU.bit-u-tu of Bél, or at least a one-sixth interest in it. He sells for one mina five shekels of silver ‘one- sixth of the day”? upon the 16th, 17th, and 18th days, forever, with all right to the purchaser to do as the seller would have done, with the receipts of the ‘‘sixth of the day.” As the document is 12This question of the city I discuss in “‘The Semitic City of Refuge,’’ Monist, October, 1905. THE AssyRo-BABYLONIAN ?#™¢1 TU pitt 41 dated the 27th of Nisan, and no month is named in connection with ‘the 16th, 17th, and 18th days,” we may infer that those days of each month are implied. Comparing this with the announce- ment of NabaiSumiddin, already noticed, H. 65, K. 629 that the entrance fee upon the festal day will be one ka of food, we may perceive how very profitable the wardenship of a large temple might be. The document just cited is one of the earliest cases of simony or speculating in pew-rents on record. But though heredity in sacred offices is shown by the documents cited, they also show that it was subject to modifications, as in Palestine. The above transfers of TU. bit-u-tu may be compared with trans- fers of other sacred offices. Thus, in the fourteenth year of Nabaina’id, 84-2-11, 61, ABR. II, p. 20, Nabibalatsuikbi bequeaths to one son the “dagger-bearership” (GIR. LAL-u-tu) or position of official slaughterer in the temple of Hsarra, and to another son the income of the shrine of Papsukal in the temple of Bélit-Samé-ersiti. Im MAP. 41, we find in the days of Rim-Sim a suit involving the right to five days in the year in the temple of Nannar, sixteen in the temple of Bélit, and eight in the shrine of Gula. In Bu. 91—-5-9, 2175 A is discussed the right to act as Satammu, for six days in the month, in the temple of Samai. And such priestly offices could be held by women, or transferred to them: the ‘‘dagger-bearership’”’ above mentioned Nabi-balatsu- ikbi states he had formerly assigned to his mother. We may conjecture that during her tenure of the benefice a hireling per- formed the work. Such rights to temple receipts on certain days may lie behind the rotation service of the Levites in the Chroni- cler’s scheme. THE ESARHADDON SUCCESSION. In the preceding index the term mar-Sarru was not included, as it was not considered to need special explanation. But a care- ful examination of the numerous occurrences of the term suggested important bearings upon a mooted historical question. Perhaps this Sargonid title had in the later period a significance which it did not have in the earlier. In its technical sense it is considered a compound noun. That it has such special or restricted sense when used incidentally or in formulae of salutation, must be conceded for the sake of intelligibility. To translate ‘‘ Peace to the king my lord: peace to a son of the king,” when the king has several sons, would be too indefinite. It must be that “the king’s son” xat’ ée€oxnv (Johns, ADD. II, p. 182, “crown prince ;” cf. Lehmann, Samassumukin II, p. 108) is meant by mar- Sarru in such salutations. In H. 3, K. 492, and H. 365, Bu. 91-5—9, 141, Adadsumusur mentions one mar-Sarru, without qualifying additions. . Nabt- sumiddin, of the same period (JEL., pp. 131, 153), writes in H. 65, K. 629 to the m&ar-sSarru. At a later time, in H. 66, K. 1017, he knows of two princes of such rank, with distinctive qualifying epithets. Nabtarabiabé in H. 175, K. 614, writes to the mar-Sarru concerning the shortcomings of the Sidonians. This suggests Esarhaddon’s reign. Isdi-Naba, H. 187, K. 589, and H. 189, K. 1048, addresses letters to the mar-Sarru. Heis probably to be assigned to the reign of Esarhaddon (cf. JEL., p. 156). In H. 108, K. 519, Arad-Nana, court-physician of Esar- haddon’s time, writes in his salutations, Sulmu adanniS ana mar-Sarri, Winckler’s theory (AOF. II, p. 185) that Asur- mukinpalé’a is meant here, because that prince is mentioned by name by Arad-Nana in H. 109, K. 532, can hardly be accepted; the reason is insufficient. There is no evidence that ASurmukin- palé’a was ever crown prince. Winckler does not seem to recog- nize any technical sense for mar-Sarru, nor the fact that it is specifically applied to two princes who are also called by name, 42 THE ESARHADDON SUCCESSION 43 while the other sons of Hsarhaddon are mentioned by name only. The niceties of Assyrian official etiquette must be given due con- sideration. In H. 430, Rm. 72, we have a brief letter written by a mar-Sarru. It does not seem to occur to him that any confusion would result. Surely no other son of the king could write as mar-Sarru. In H. 152, K. 1101+ K. 1221, Sarruna’id com- plains to the mar-Sarru that his property has been seized by one who is neither the king’s agent nor the agent of the mar- Sarru. In H. 404, 81-24, 62 the welfare of the mar-Sarru and his brothers is prayed for; compare like expressions for Asurbanipal and his brothers in H. 453, K. 948. In H. 614, K. 1152, some one is asserted to be called by Sin and Samas a-na mar-Sarru-u-te ™®* Assar. A number of these citations belong indisputably to the reign of Esarhaddon. We have evidence, then, that for some time during that reign one son of the king, and but one, held the official rank of mar-Sarru. Does mar-Sarru, or mar-Sarru rabi, as “crown prince,” designate the eldest son of the king, as some translate (e. g. Johnston, JAOS. XX, p. 248; cf. contra, Lehmann, Samassum- ukin, II, p. 108), or does rabti imply precedence rather than seniority? Sennacherib’s name is suspected to refer to his being a younger son; yet Hunni in H. 216, K. 1062, says, ‘‘Peace to Sennacherib, the mar-Sarru rabt, peace to the maré Sarri.” Meissner in MVAG., 1904, pp. 181-84, and Johnston, J.4OS. XXV, pp. 79 sqq., discuss H. 870, 82-5—-22, 107. That letter, as they recognize, shows that Samassumukin, not ASsurbanipal, was the eldest living son of Esarhaddon, it being agreed that these two princes are referred to. Yet SamasSumukin, we shall see, was not mar-Sarru rabai. The seniority of Samassumukin is also suggested by a boundary-stone inscription dating from the reign of Sama&sumukin, published by Winckler, AOF. I, pp- 498 sqq. The broken beginning speaks of maru réStu Sa Agur-ab-iddin Sarru dannu Sar kisSati Sar ™®* ASStr, Sar kal Sarrani Sakkanak TIN. TIR.ki Sar 1a Sandan abt talimu 8a ASur-bani-apli Sar kissati Sar ™**ASsSair. The name of Samassumukin as the king referred to occurs two or three times in the body of the inscription. With the seniority of SamaSsumukin declared, we must probably regard talimu as signifying equality in rank instead of age. 44 Nores on Some OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD The courtly letter above cited protests against a proposed division of authority. Some one speaks in behalf of the desig- nated prince of AS8sir against the proposal to place the eldest son upon the throne of Babylon. The style suggests Adadsum- usur; and this may find support in H. 594, K. 1118 (not quite understood, I think, by Behrens, ABB., p. 25). This latter let- ter shows that the king is angry at some reported remark of the old courtier upon the proposed relative standing of the mar- Sarru and SamaSsumukin, and orders a ban upon him. This letter settles, it would seem, which son of Esarhaddon was sole mar-Sarru for a time, as suggested by the first paragraph of this discussion. It was not SamasSumukin, as Winckler con- jectures, AOF’. I, 415 sqq., quoted by Johnston, JAOS., 1904, p. 81, where he adds, “If Samaisumukin were the eldest son of Esarhaddon, he would be the natural heir to the throne.” But letters like H. 24, H. 489, H. 594, H. 740, mention one son of Esarhaddon as a mar-Sarru, and another as merely Samassu- mukin. The conjectures mentioned then fall to the ground. Yet Winckler may be correct in connecting the disturbances in the last year of Esarhaddon’s reign with the arrangement for the succession. That Samasumukin’s dignity was an afterthought, growing out of the Babylonian problem, seems then to be the fact. That ASsurbanipal was originally sole mar-Sarru has several other supports. In I.R., IV, 85, we have a tablet stating that a certain palace was built kirib *!" Tarbisi ana masab Agurbanipal mar-Sarru Sa bit-ridaiti. Remembering that the great assembly in the month Iyyar, proclaiming the co- ordinate princes, was held upon the eve of Esarhaddon’s last expedition to Egypt, and that he died upon the road, it is extremely improbable that any palaces were planned or built in that brief interim. Had such been built, at that late period of his reign, Assyrian royal idiosyncrasies would lead us to expect ASurbanipal’s claiming to be the builder. This palace for the “crown prince” must belong to an earlier period, when SamasSum- ukin was not yet designated as a mar-Sarru. ASurbanipal is also called ‘‘the son of my heart,” or favorite son, in this inscrip- tion. But how shall we understand Knudtzon 107, in which Esar- haddon inquires concerning the installation of Siniddinapal as crown prince? As we do not hear of him elsewhere, Knudtzon’s THE EsARHADDON SUCCESSION 45 supposition is most plausible, that Siniddinapal, Hsarhaddon’s first choice for successor, soon died, and the honor was then bestowed upon ASurbanipal. This may be supported by the fact that in Kn. 66, 67, Asurbanipal is merely ‘‘son of Esarhaddon king of Assyria;” in all other cases in which he is associated with Esarhaddon in these oracles, he is mar-Sarru Sa bit ridati. He did not have this honor from the very beginning. Comparing H. 594, K. 1118, H. 117, K. 999, H. 118, K. 1026, H. 656, 82—5—22, 168, and H. 34, K. 981, we find protests from Adadsumusur and his friends that he did not say what he has been charged with saying. Notice especially the third and fourth. We observe in these also an effective reconciliation, and assur- ances that AdadSumusur and Arad-Gula will officiate, will share in the kannu ceremony(?) (ka-an-ni a-bi-i8 ni-za-az), and that they will support the proposed regime. (Does this word kannu in these letters mean “installation” or ‘‘ordination,” from which “jurisdiction” or ‘“‘province,” an apparent meaning in other passages, may well be derivative? Compare H. 409, Rm. 2, 2, obv. 10: ?™*! bél pabati 38a ka-ni ™4* U-ka-a-a: ké- pani 8a ka-ni, Knudtzon 107, obv. 4: képani Sa ka-an-ni, Kn. 109, obv. 7: rab alani sa ka-ni, H. 252, K. 525, obv. 8: and a letter of Istarsuméres on this subject, H. 670, K. 12, rev. 7, a-na ka-an-ni lu Se-si-u: rev. 9, ki-ma Sarri a-na ka- an-ni il-tu-si. Perhaps derivative from kana, “reed.” So SAS., Abp., III, p. 30. In various bas-reliefs we may see the king handing a reed to some one as token of a commission. )’ The 22d of Tisrit may have been a day by which the nobles should recognize the proposed arrangements for the succession. References to im XXII *#™u f&imu anniu recur in the letters cited above. In H. 740, 83-1-18, 26 Ikkaru greets the king; upon the reverse he adds a hearty greeting to SamaSSumukin, and also refers to that 22d day. In H. 34, K. 981, Istarsuméres, a close friend of AdadSumusur, says, ‘“‘My lord the king, from his heart he did not speak about it.” It may be that he refers to the above- mentioned charge against his friend. With ASurbanipal already generally known as a mar-Sarru and SamasSumukin announced for the like dignity, we have some interesting correspondence, possibly upon the solemn prepara- tions for the great occasion. H. 24, K. 626 gives directions for 1See also Johns, ADD. II, p. 124, and further discussion in connection with the Sal8u, 46 Notes oN Some OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD certain ceremonies for averting evil from the mar-Sarru and SamasSumukin, it would seem; while H. 23, K. 602 tells of prayers and ceremonies carefully performed, of purifications and propitiations already complete, on behalf of the mar-sSarru, and the mar-Sarru of Babylon. SamaSSumukin has now his new title, it appears. Marduksakinsum, the author of these two letters, also mentions the mar-Sarru, Arad-Gula, NabaiSumiddin, Nabtiimudiati, and the observances for the month Ab, in H. 17, K. 472, H. 18, K. 490. These all are mentioned in the preced- ing letters cited, and these two fragments may then deal with the same matters. Possibly H. 25, K. 639 does also. Other letters refer to the status of the two brothers. In H. 434, Bu. 89-4-26, 163, AsSurukin salutes the king, the mar-Sarru of Asstir, and the mar-Sarru of Babylon. In rey. 22 he speaks of some one suspected of conspiracy, brought before the mar- Sarru for examination. The mar-Sarru evidently had some executive pre-eminence over the mar-Sarru of Babylon. The broken H. 439, K. 432, 7ff. greets Samassumukin, and refers to ceremonies performed before Ninkigal for the mar-Sarru, but not as yet for SamaSsumukin. In H. 654, 82-5-22, 103 Adad- Sumusur addresses the mar-Sarru rabid, calling him also mar- Sar kiSSat matati, and mar-Sar matati three times. The old courtier certainly suggests that there is now more than one mar-Sarru, as contrasted with the state of affairs at the time he wrote H. 3 and H. 365; he is explicit as to the one now addressed. Even more interesting is his misplaced adjective, added as an afterthought in H. 10, K. 641: .... a-na mar-Sar ™**As- Sur rabé béli’a. One would suppose the necessity for the dis- tinction was new. In H. 658, 83-1-18, 81, he writes concerning the sickness of AStr-etil-Samé-irsiti-uballitsu, and mentions also the mar-Sarru Sa kutalli—a variation of m@r-Sarru Sa bit-ridtiti. The sick prince, like ASurmukinpalé’a, previously mentioned, has no title, though a son of the king. The titled prince, we have already seen, is ASurbanipal, in the opinion of Adadsumusur. We may refer here to letters like HH. 33, 202, 384, 386, con- cerning the taking of the adé by officials and various towns. As they come to some extent from this same group of writers, and as Asurbanipal declares solemn oaths were taken before his father’s death, there is ground for believing that these letters may be con- Tuer EsSARHADDON SUCCESSION 47 nected with the great event discussed. The data so far presented give a very consistent story of the plan for the succession. The months named and the events, compel us to place the publication of the king’s later intentions at least as early as the year preced- ing the great assembly in the month Iyyar. We evidently have not a complete statement from ASurbanipal as to the object of that assembly. The nobles killed with the sword in the last year of Esarhaddon may have been those who refused to recog- nize the new honors of Sama3sumukin. That the mention of a mar-Sarru and a mar-Sarru of Babylon is not intended to include all Esarhaddon’s family we know from the mention of untitled members, already noticed. We may add Arad-Nabit’s letter, H. 113, K. 501, which on the reverse speaks of °niké Sa ASurbani-apli mar-Sarru rabu- u, ‘Sa SamaSSumukin mar-Sar Babili ‘Sa Séri’a-éterat *sa ASur-mukin-palé-ia, “8a Sar-Samé-irsiti-uballitsu. Samasmitiballit is not mentioned, unless we could prove that the last prince in the letter is he. This I think improbable, but the name of the last prince is certainly the same as ASur-etil-Samé- irsiti-uballitsu, already mentioned. The view of Johns, ABLCL., p. 375, that the list gives the order of seniority in Esarhaddon’s family cannot be maintained. We have seen that ASurbanipal, called in this letter the mar-Sarru raba, was not the eldest son. Winckler’s theory, AOF. II, p. 183, that the last prince in this letter is Esarhaddon himself, is very curious. It would require us to believe that the punctilious Arad-Naba disregarded here in a letter to the king the precedence due to him; the first law of official etiquette. Quite as curious is his theory that ASur-etil- ilani-ukinni in H. 870 is also Esarhaddon. A princess named Séra’a-éterat occurs in each; that is the only proof offered. He does not try to prove the two princesses to be one and the same save by the other assumption. Perhaps the problem of precedence occurred to Winckler, and produced his theory of a semi-abdication on the part of Esar- haddon, wherein the king retained the title Sar-kiS8sati and made Asurbanipal Sar ASsair. Neither bears such title in the letters just discussed; and we have seen that the varied official correspondence does not call ASurbanipal the Sar ASSar after the great ceremony, but the mar-Sarru rabti. We would also have Séra’a-éterat and ASur-mukin-palé-ia taking precedence of 48 Notes on SomE OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD Winckler’s theoretical Sar ki8Sati in the letter that troubles him. Winckler, AOF. II, p. 186, bases his theory upon a letter of Nabinadinsum, H, 54, K, 476, to the marat-Sarri, in which the king is called Sar ki88ati béli’a. No proof is offered that the letter is written to Esarhaddon’s daughter. Even if it were, Winckler would have to prove that it was written in the last weeks of Esarhaddon’s reign, and his theory would still be unestablished. For we should ask if the usage of the term Sar kis8ati in the letters supports the limited construction Winckler would here put upon it. The TIK.EN.NA in H. 542, K. 114 addresses Sargon as Sar kissati béli’a. Would Winckler say Sargon was no longer king of Assfir? Asurbanipal is addressed as Sar matati in H. 266, K. 78, and H. 269, K. 528, though he had a colleague at Babylon. Apla, writing to the queen mother, in H. 324, K. 523, calls the king Sar matati. Bélibni prefers bél Sarrani béli’a. Apla, in H. 326, K. 1249, uses both Sar kisSati and sar matati; evidently of Esarhaddon. Kudurru prefers Sar matati. AdadsSumusur varies; he uses Sarru bél matati in H. 5, K. 583. Nabi-ukin, H. 750, 83-1-18 280, says ana Sar Sarrani. Marduk, H. 808, Bu., 91—5—9, 113, uses Sar matati and bél Sar- rani. These are amply illustrative. A subject must recognize the king as a king, and as his lord; additional epitheta ornantia aim at broad compliment, not at precision. The semi-abdication of Esarhaddon and a territorial division of authority is not sup- ported by the single Sar ki8Sati from which Winckler derives it. Nor can we accept Winckler’s theory that abu rab was used to designate a brother whom the king had chosen as his successor. In AOF. II, p. 185, he advances such a theory with regard to the two sons of Esarhaddon, mentioned in L’ 12, 13, and refers to K. 581; but K. 581 as published by Harper, 331, contains no reference to the matter. ASurbanipal’s statement in L’ 12, 13, is that he “shaved” (see TU.biti excursus, p. 45) ASur-etil-Samé- irsiti-uballit-su as the urigallu of Sin at Harran, ASur-mukin- palé-ia as urigallu at (Asur?) ef. Sargon cyl. 5, 6, and HWB., p- 129, and ‘‘The Semitic City of Refuge,” Monist, October, 1905. Johns ABLCL., p. 366, places him at Harran, perhaps a confusion with his brother; he does not give the document for the statement. These two princes, frequently named in the letters, are not accorded any title in them. Winckler, for the sake of variation, THE EsSARHADDON SUCCESSION 49 abandons urigallu in the cited passage (cf. Briinnow 6452, and HWB.) for abu raba, though the two princes are respec- tively called abu kuddinnu, and abu sibru in the same lines. Samassumukin applies the same terms to them (cf. Lehmann, Samassumukin p. 30). H. 370, 81-2-4, 49, may refer to this elevation to the rank of “Great Protector.’ There does not seem to me any real support for the theory that an abu rabt might be an alternative for a mar-Sarru raba. To Winckler’s interpretation is the further objection that it makes ASurbanipal plan a divided authority to succeed himself after he had himself objected to such a measure. Moreover, we would conclude there was despair of direct succession, and that this record was late in the reign of ASurbanipal. The evidence does not support either conclusion. The actual order of events in bringing Samas8umukin to regal dignity and possible co-equality with ASurbanipal seems fairly established as against theories hitherto offered (also contra Hom- mel, DB.,p. 169). What were the intentions of Esarhaddon with regard to the exact extent of the authority.of each?” Some light may be gained by further consideration of the requirements of oriental diplomatic etiquette. Taking up the Tel-el-Amarna letters in the British Museum, as published by Bezold, we find No. 1 beginning ‘‘To Kallimma- Sin, king of Karadunias, my brother, thus saith Amenophis, the great King, king of Egypt, thy brother.” No. 2 begins, ‘‘To Nibmuaria, king of Egypt... . thus saith Burraburias, king of Karadunias, thy brother.” Nos. 5, 6, 7, ‘To the king of Egypt, his brother, thus says the king of AlaSiya, his brother.” No. 8 is especially to the point: ‘To Nimmuaria, the great king, king of Egypt, my brother, my son-in-law, who loveth me, whom I love, thus saith Tusratta, the great king, thy father-in-law, who loveth thee, the king of Mitanni, thy brother.’’ Nos. 9, 10, 11, show like forms of address. Delattre, PSBA., 1891, 539 ff., treats some of the Berlin col- lection of Tel-el-Amarna letters, as published by Winckler. In 2Tiele, Bab. Assyr. Gesch., pp. 351, 369, 371, makes ASurbanipal a viceroy, about 671 B.C Hommel, Gesch. Bab. und Assyr., p. 694, takes the same view, but dates the event 669 B. C, E. Meyer, Geschichte Alterthums, I, p. 447, makes SamaSSumukin and ASurbanipal to be crowned almost simultaneously, both owing their elevation to their father. Lehmann, Samassumukin, pp. 33, sqq., holds a similar view; cf. Maspero, Passing of Empires, p. 381. Knudtzon, Gebete an den Sonnen-Gott, p. 220, does not believe Esarhaddon ever thought of setting ASurbanipal aside for Samassumukin. 50 Notes on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD No. 18, the king of the Hittites addresses the king of Egypt six times as “my brother.” In No. 32, TuSratta, king of Mitanni, uses the term ‘“‘my brother” thirty-two times of the king of Egypt. The king of Alasiya uses the appellation twenty-five times of the king of Egypt. The Aziru letters are published by Delattre, PSBA., 1891, pp. 215 ff. Letter No. 11 begins “ana Dadu béli’a abi’a *umma Aziru maruka arduka ‘ana Sépi abi’a amkut.’’ So also No. 38. Compare in O. T., Gen. 32, 17, 18; 33, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14; 1 Kings, 9,13; 2 Kings 16,7. Par- ticularly interesting is the way in which the king of Israel was tricked out of the fruits of his victory over Syria by the quick- witted Syrians’ claiming the acknowledgment of their king as a “brother” (1 Kings 20, 32 ff.) instead of a ‘‘servant,” or “son.” So also two suppliants in LJH. 48 speak of the governor as ‘‘our father.” The examples show that diplomatic correspondence required the acknowledgment of equality or independence where it existed. Equal precision was to be used in defining the reverse relations. ‘‘Brother” or “sister,’’ in such correspondence, implies something like “peer.” Where family relationships existed, these were specified; the relative rank was still carefully defined, as in the Tusratta letters. ‘‘Father” in such addresses might mean acknowledgment of subjection; it might be mere compliment, as in Joash’s address to the dying Elisha.’ Looking now to Assyria, we observe the same usage. Hsar- haddon (G. Smith, p. 24) writes to Urtaku, king of Elam: “Peace be to Urtaku, king of Elam, my brother.” K. 359 (SAS., Abp., II, p. 51) begins, ‘“‘Letter of Ummanaldas, king of Elam, to Asgurbanipal, king of AS8ir. Peace be to my brother.” Considering family relationships, we may remember that Sennacherib was mar-Sarru rabi; yet when conducting impor- tant operations in the North, in his letters to the king his father he emphasizes his own inferior rank, beginning always: “To the king, my lord, thy servant Sennacherib.” See HH. 196-199; 568. SamaSmitiballit, we have seen, was a younger son of Esarhaddon. His letters to the king are then to his father or his brother. We have two, H. 341, 82-5-22, 174; H. 766, K. 475; each beginning, “To the king, my lord, thy servant, 3This fact invalidates the theory of Tiele and Lehmann that ASurbanipal might have been king of ASSar in the lifetime of Esarhaddon. It is based upon the fragmentary K. 2641, in which a king of ASSQr addresses the king of Babylon as “‘ my father.” See Lehmann, Samassumuktn, p. 36; Tiele, pp. 330, 352, 370. THE EsARHADDON SUCCESSION 51 Samasmitiballit. Peace to the king, my lord.” The require- ments of etiquette in Assyria seem the same as those noted else- where. One should not address the king as “my brother’’ unless he were the peer of the king. We have letters from SamaSsumukin. In H. 426, 80-7-19, 17; he calls the king “my brother” six times; he does not call him “my lord.” He himself is king of Babylon at the time. The broken H. 809, K. 5483, is from him; the king is twice ealled “my brother.” The boundary stone already cited AOF,, I, 498 sqq., makes Sama3Sumukin speak of ASurbanipal as abu talimu, “brother of equal rank.” It seems clear that he did not recognize the over-lordship of ASurbanipal in these docu- ments. How then shall we understand his three short letters, HH. 534-536, beginning: “To the king, my lord, thy servant, Sama3sumukin”? It is fair to consider them addressed to Esarhaddon. Does ASurbanipal recognize the equal rank of Sama3Sumukin ? We know he calls the latter “abu talimu.’’ We have no letters from him to SamaSsumukinin the HABL. vols. H. 870, 82-5-22, 107, already mentioned, Johnston considers inspired by him. In view of the unwillingness to concede division of authority therein shown, any incidental concessions of fact should be accounted of much significance. His effort in several inscriptions to make himself the source of his brother’s authority must be qualified by such incidental concessions, and by the data given in the preceding pages. Johns, in ‘‘The Chronology of ASurbanipal’s Reign,” PSBA., 1905, p. 94, favors the contention of ASurbanipal. ‘“If Esar- haddon had set his son upon the throne of Babylon, Samai- Sumukin must have reigned both in B. C. 669 and 648, and would thus have reigned 22 years. If Esarhaddon did not set him upon the throne, no one but ASurbanipal could doit. There was no organized native power to elect him.” The contention is not sound. The argument to exclude B. C. 669 from Sama3sumukin’s reign would exclude it from ASurbani- pal’s also. Probably this should be conceded. The data already examined seem to show that Esarhaddon’s plans were for the simultaneous accession of his two sons after his own death. What organized native power could then put ASurbanipal on the throne ? 52 Notes on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD Johns, ADD. 477, K. 448, has among the witnesses officers of the mar-Sarru and the mar-sar Babili. The document is dated in Nisan. If the general view be correct, that the great assembly in Iyyar consummated Esarhaddon’s arrangements for the succession; if this assembly be contemplated in the prepara- tions we have referred to in the letters, the above document must be dated in the following Nisan; for in the preceding one SamasSumukin would have been but a prospective mar-Sar Babili. Letters cited name ASsurbanipal as already a mar- Sarru, and greet Samassumukin by name only, seemingly pend- ing his elevation. It would seem, then, that in the Nisan fol- lowing Hsarhaddon’s death each prince may have been but a mar-Sarru of the empire, and that SamaSsumukin’s actual regal dignity must have begun simultaneously with that of his brother. Johns notices the proclamation, 83—1—18, 45, issued by Zakata, the mother of EHsarhaddon, Asurbanipal, Samassumukin, and Samaimitiballit. It declares ASurbanipal to be the rightful king of Assir. Is not Zakitu, possible queen regent, a ‘“‘native power” to be reckoned with? And where is the companion document? After the solemn declaration a few months before, would SamaSsumukin have joined in this proclamation unless another had simultaneously announced his own position? Again, why the emphatic appeal to religion, to ceremonies, oracles, and portents in the preparations of Hsarhaddon, when Asurbanipal had for some time previously been known as mar-Sarru? Clearly, ASurbani- pal’s statement about the great assembly in Iyyar is only a half truth, if viewed as coming from a historian of the times, but a whole truth, if ASurbanipal is only writing personal history; and that is what Assyrian kings really do. It would seem that we must believe that the same solemn oaths that bound the nobles to protect the mar-Sarrfitu of Asurbanipal, and afterward his kingship of Assir, bound them and him to similar obligations in the case of SamaSsumukin and the two younger brothers. Here is a force Johns does not fully recognize. ASurbanipal, in L’, 10, acknowledges that he was bound in this matter by an oath that might not be broken; in VR. III, 77, he also acknowledges his father’s command. Maspero (Passing of Empires, p. 381) recog- nizes the power of oaths and oracles. But for his statement that ASurbanipal proclaimed himself King of Assyria at the same time Tur EsARHADDON SUCCESSION 53 that Samasumukin proclaimed himself King of Babylon no proof is given. Johns’ contention that Sama3Sumukin’s first regnal year could not be co-incident with ASurbanipal’s (so also Hommel, DB., p- 169) because Bél-Marduk was captive in Assyria, and the Babylonian king could not there take the hands of Bél, will not stand. Knudtzon, No. 149, specifically asks “Let Samassum- ukin take the hands of Bél’’ in AS3sar; the very thing Johns and Maspero (Passing of Empires, p. 381) think improbable. In citing this document both curiously overlook this precative. In the boundary stone already cited, AOF. I, 498, the return of Beél- Marduk is placed in the reign of SamaSSumukin. The writer of that document certainly thought the accession of the king ante- dated the return of Bél. The Babylonian Chronicle, IV, 35, 36, says, Sattu ré8 SamasSumukin ina arah Aara ‘"Bél u ilani Sa ™4tAkkadi ultu @!"ASSair adsinimma ina arab Aart aim XI **™ana Babili érubani. SamasSumukin in Stele S' and Cyl. L, 15-17, makes like statements. With these Babylonian claims compare ASurbanipal’s assertion in S*, 36-48, that the return of Bél occurred in his reign. In L’, II, 26-33, he places it in the very beginning of his reign. He claims Mar- duk returned at his tearful entreaty. Five lines of prayer to the god are followed by two lines concerning SamaSSumukin’s taking the hands of Bél; then follow 18 lines vividly portraying the tri- umphal procession to Babylon. The Assyrian records corroborate the Babylonian. The argument of Johns that Sama3sumukin’s reign must have commenced a year later than his brother’s does not seem established. The documents cited apparently indicate simultaneous accession of the brothers, the hands of Bél being taken in Assyria in accordance with Sama3sumukin’s entreaty to Sama& (see below). The brothers must have acted in concert in the matter of the return of Bél; each telling of his own connection with the matter, in the respective inscriptions, and each adding a reference to ahi’a talimi’a. Johns, in citing Knudtzon, No. 149, says: ‘“ASurbanipal, already king of Assyria,” in the month Nisan inquires if Sama3- Sumukin shall take the hands of Bél that year. Consequently, SamasSumukin could not have become king in the Iyyar in which his brother did. But ASurbanipal is not mentioned in this docu- ment! Neither is the reigning king of Assyria! The inquiry 54 Notes oN SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD may have come from the same ‘“‘committee” that announced Asur- banipal as the legitimate successor in Assir. But if the usual forms of presenting an inquiry be a safe criterion, we should infer that this inquiry is from Sama3sumukin himself, if we agree that No. 147 is from Asurbanipal. Each is presented in the normal form: the third person. In Samassumukin’s supplication the verbs in the opening sentences are precative; lisbat, lillik; the following verbs are interrogative; will it be done? It should be noticed that not all of these “Gebete” are from the kings. In Kn. 148, 144, we hear of ASurbanipal as mar-Sarru Sa bit ridtiti; in other later ones he is Sar Assfir. Maspero (Passing of Empires, p. 381) also overlooks the form of the above- mentioned inquiry of Sama, assuming that it was from ASurbani- pal. His statement that the reply was not favorable is mere con- jecture; and the statement that Bél had to be sent to Babylon before Sama3Sumukin could take his hands disregards the above order of events as narrated by ASurbanipal. Adding the evidence of the building inscriptions, we find in L’ and S', Sama3sumukin boasts of the restoration of Hsagila and Ezida, and the re-establishment of the sacrifices. In S*, L?, ASur- banipal claims the credit. Each names his ahu talimu in his own inscriptions, and each invokes a curse upon him who shall erase the two names. The statements are in perfect harmony when we remember that an oriental king names the creditable actions in which he participated without stating precisely the part taken by others therein. The two brothers apparently begin their joint reign harmoniously as equals. The royal titles outside the RFHarper letters give a little light. SamaSSumukin, in S' and L®, and AOF’ I, 498, does not accord to his brother the exalted titles given in the same docu- ment to Esarhaddon. His own title indicates territorial juris- diction, as though he were sole authority in Sumer and Akkad. Asurbanipal, in S’, revels in all the old titles: Sarru raba, Sarru dannu, Sar kiSSati, Sar ASSar, Sar kibrat irbitti, sar Sarrani, rabti 14 Sanan. He rules from the lower sea to the upper sea, and has subdued all princes beneath his feet. In L’ is the same. But he has waged no campaign; the inscriptions belong to the very beginning of his reign, to the time of the return of Bél; compare the parallel L*, IV, I, ina imésuma. The extravagant exordium is merely his indulging in a little idio- THE ESARHADDON SUCCESSION 55 matic Assyrian upon the first occasion that offered, though riba 14 Sanan might conflict with his brother’s claims. But years later, in the Rassam cylinder, we find him going back to mar-Sarru rabi 8a bit-riditi. Is there a sentiment in the empire against his assumption of old regal dignities? Has the title invented by Esarhaddon, and placed upon the palace at Tarbisi, come to have a peculiar force? While each brother was sarru of a territory, was each thought of as only a mar-Sarru of the empire? May we compare the Eastern and Western Cesars and Augusti of the twin-capitalled Roman Empire? In the course of the royal annals, ASurbanipal does not employ the old regal titles until the building appendix is reached (X, 57,58). K. 2867 (SAS. Abp. II, I) uses the same phraseology. This and the Nebo and Bélit inscriptions, IT R, 66, celebrate the overthrow of Elam. The two latter call him only Sar ASSair. So do K. 1523 and K. 2652; K. 2674 does so five times. In line 12 it has the boast Sar Hlamti. In 69 recur the old regal titles. The colophons of texts in his library usually read: “Sar kisSati Sar Asstir.” Perhaps we should not make much of this current abandonment of full old regal titles. As ‘‘Crown Prince of the Executive Mansion” he would like to have us think his brother merely his deputy; notice the phraseology in S*, 50-55, L’, 11-12, and L’. We have seen the brothers’ references to each other. How did the Babylonians regard them? Did they consider their king as their own, independent, or as one of two co-ordinate overlords ? In K. 233, and in H. 702, 812-4, 77* the Babylonians bring com- plaints before the king. The second letter shows the king is Samassumukin. The phraseology of direct address throughout, however, is ‘‘The kings our lords.” Clearly the one king before whom the complaint is laid is the local representative of two co-ordinate rulers, always joined in one phrase. With this Babylonian view contrast the Assyrian. The division was not universally acceptable to them; this must qualify our esti- mate of their expressions. Kudurru, governor of Erech, H. 754, K. 5457, reports to ASurbanipal. The king of Babylon is for him merely Samassumukin. Marduk, in H. 807, Bu. 91-5-9, 90, does likewise. H. 437, K. 168 does the same. We cannot argue from these data with any certainty. Assyrian officers would not be 4 See “The Semitic City of Refuge” in The Monist, October, 1905. 56 Notes ON SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD anxious to recognize a king of Babylon, and Asurbanipal, con- sidering himself the executive officer of the co-partnership, might not be inclined to rebuke such breaches of official etiquette, if breaches they were. But there does not seem to have been per- sonal bitterness between the brothers at first. The policy to which they were sworn was distasteful, but that was all. The numerous votive tablets concerning the conquest of Elam con- trast curiously with the reticence upon the subject of the over- throw of SamasSumukin. The qualifying phrase, bit-ridtiti, or bit-kutalli, may be noticed. Its meaning is not precisely determined. The great pre-Sargonid kings boast of their building operations, but the royal habitation is put before us as ‘‘a stately pleasure house.” Sterner necessities, arsenals and armories, are not emphasized. But Sennacherib, Taylor prism VI, 28 sqq., tells of rebuilding a great arsenal, or armory, an é6kal kutalli. As it was too small, he tore it down, and rebuilt it on a new site, ana SutéSair salmat kakkadé, the storing of war munitions, and ‘my royal abode.” Esarhaddon, Cyl. A, IV, 49 sqq., rebuilds this ékallu mabirte, emphasizing its use as an arsenal, VI, 46 sqq., and as a royal abode, V, 29. Asurbanipal calls the great structure built by Sennacherib a bit-ridaiti, VR. X, 51 sqq. It was built by Sennacherib as his royal abode; thus ASurbanipal corroborates his grandfather’s statement. In I, 27, we observe that Esarhaddon was born there; in X, 59, that ASurbanipal was also. The latter remodels the structure in his turn, calling it still bit-ridati and emphasizing its military aspects; in I, 34 he mentions his own military train- ing, acquired within its precincts. It is the markas Sarriti, in I, 24, ‘the bond of the empire’’—its very life. In L*, II, 4, bit- ridati is aSar milki u téme, ‘‘the place of consultation and news.” Two lines further, the kanni ceremony (?) took place within it. Compare the Rassam cylinder, I, 23, where it is bit- ridati, as against ékallu in the L* passage. All of the emphasis of the Sargonids is upon the administra- tive purposes of bit-ridaiti. Successive enlargements of this group of government buildings are to meet the administrative necessities. ‘‘Harem” and ‘government building” are equally plausible from the etymological standpoint. Choice between them THE EsARHADDON SUCCESSION 57 should then depend upon the evidence as to the purpose of, or the ideas associated with, the structure. We may notice Sargonid usage also in Esarhaddon, B, II, 24: mat tamtim ana sibirtisa ridfit abisu uSadgil panussu. “Harem” is not possible here. We may question if Hsarhaddon’s great dedicatory feast or the solemn proclamation-assembly in Iyyar would be held in a harem. Further, Samassumukin was as much a son of Esarhad- don’s “harem” as ASurbanipal was; yet the title mar-Sarru rabta 8a bit-riditi, mar-Sarru 8a bit-riditi, or mar-Sarru 3a kutalli, belongs only to the latter. We may suggest ‘‘ Execu- tive Mansion” as an approximate translation; and we can under- stand that, if Asurbanipal could not claim to be “‘king of all kings, king without a rival,” as Esarhaddon was, he would at least emphasize the fact that he was war-lord of the empire, control- ling the great central arsenal; that he was “Crown Prince of the Executive Mansion.’’® It appears, then, that mar-Sarru, or mar-Sarru rabia, meant for the Sargonids the designated successor, as contrasted with other sons of the king. With the later Sargonids, mar-Sarru 8a bit ridaiti, or kutalli, distinguished the ruler at the north- ern capital from his confrére at the southern. Only Nineveh has a bit ridaiti. We have compared the two mar-Sarru titles to the Augustus and Cesar dignities of the later Roman empire ; and we have on record a dispute between two court ladies about precedence which might support the view that, so far as the entire empire was concerned, ASurbanipal was held to be legitimately only a mar-Sarru Sa bit ridtiti; that his later claim upon the old titles was regarded by some as usurpation, or disregard of his oath. For some discussion of this letter H. 308, K. 16190, see Johnston, JAOS., 1899, pp. 244 sqq. “Message of the Princess to ASur-Sarrat: Thou dost not properly address thy letter to me, nor dost thou mention thine own title. Will not people say, This lady is the peer of Séra’a- éterat, the Princess Royal, daughter of Asur-etil-ilani-ukinni, the great king, the mighty king, the universal king, the king of Assyria? And thou art only the daughter of the daughter-in- law of the wife of ASurbanipal, the Crown Prince of the Executive Mansion, son of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria.”’ 5 Delitzsch connects kutallu with Hebrew bmp, Arabic hes Shall we understand it as referring to the concentration of military stores? Did the city Ku-ta-al-la*! in LIH. 47, derive its name from its being an arsenal city? 58 Notes oN SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD Séra’a-éterat claims for herself the title she concedes ASur- banipal. Asur-etil-ilani we know was succeeded by his brother. Had he really designated his daughter as his successor? We may recall the prestige of Sammuramit, the Semiramis of the Greeks ; Esarhaddon’s appointment of Tabia, a lady brought up at his court, as ruler of an Arabian kingdom (cyl. A. III, 13 sqq.); and the frequent occurrence of Sakintu, or lady Saknu, in the contract literature. Compare also “the year when the king raised Nikis-midasu, the daughter of the king, to rulership over Marbasi” (Radau, HBH. 257; Scheil, Rec. Trav., XIX, 55). On EPH., p. 186, Radau translates a tablet of a princess “‘a glorious one,’’ who makes a votive offering of a mace for the welfare of her father. The term mar-Sarru occurs in two or three other places in the Sargonid letters. In H. 466, 8.51, we hear of mar-Sar ™** An-di-a-a. In H. 633, K. 1366, obv. 16, we have ardani 3a zinnisat ékal m&ar-Sarri. The former is irrelevant to our inquiry; the latter, in a badly broken letter, affords no infor- mation. What were the motives for Esarhaddon’s policy? It has been thought that he was predisposed in Babylon’s favor, or Samai- Sumukin’s, and that a modification of his first plans in their favor was forced at the last. So Winckler, AOF. I, p. 415. The data we have reviewed render this supposed order of events improbable; further, a disturbance powerful enough to force Samassumukin out of the destined kingship of AS8fir might well have forced him out of all authority whatsoever. We may revert to the tremendous religious influences brought to bear by Hsar- haddon. The problem of sacred asylum cities was a serious one for the Assyrian kings.° We know of their alternate revocation and restoration of sacred privileges; their consecration and con- fiscation of temple lands. We hear of Sargon, probably an usurper, coming to the front with a restoration of the sacred privileges of Harran and ASSar (cyl. 5 and 6), which had been set aside by Salmaneser IV. Babylon was but one item in a great problem ; and we must add to the elevation of Samassumukin to the kingship of Kardunias, ASurbanipal’s statement L’, 12, 13, that two other brothers were placed at the head of two great sacred cities. Probably we should consider this done at the 6See article, ‘‘The Semitic City of Refuge,’’ The Monist, October, 1905. THE ESARHADDON SUCCESSION 59 command of Esarhaddon, for the preceding statement about the oath exacted by Hsarhaddon that might not be broken fairly introduces the honors of all three brothers. We may recognize an effort to solve the conflict between the secular power and the surviving privileged cities by placing members of his family in the four great official positions, and binding all with solemn oaths. It was as futile as similar efforts made by Egyptian kings. THE KEPU. Maspero (Dawn of Civilization, p. 675) thinks this officer a mere temple official. Johns ABLCL., p. 213, expresses the same opinion. The data available render this untenable. A temple could have a képu, as in Johns ADD., No. 50, K.336, line 9; but in line 10 the tartan has a képu; in line 8 is a kepu of the new palace. In Nbk. 460 we have a képu of the city of Rabza. Such passages are numerous and show that the term képu expresses only the function of the officer, suggesting nothing as to the person or institution to which he was attached. He becomes especially important for us when he appears as a royal official in subject provinces, where interference with the religious institutions of the nation is improbable. In VR. I. 58 and 110-11 Asurbanipal speaks of ki-e-pa-ni 8a ki-rib Mu- sur u-pa-ki-du abu ba-nu-u-a; in II, 32, of Sarrani pabate ki-pa-a-ni 8a ki-rib Mu-sur as-ku-nu. We can hardly think these important deputies were temple attendants of any kind. In Assyria the képu may often have been the chief official of a city.’ Asurbanipal, VR. VI, 83, also speaks of ki-pa-a-ni of cities of Elam. In 81-6—25, Nbk., 109, we have ki-i-pi Sa mat tamtim and a ki-i-pi 8a a-bu-ul-la-’a. Again, the képu is an important factor in political disturb- ances in Assyria and Babylonia. In H. 542, K. 114, the képani of Bit-Dakktiri are abroad on a raid, and the képu of the beleaguered Bab-Bitka appeals to Sargon for help, asking that the Saknu bring troops. We might infer that the képu is not himself in command of troops; that his functions are not military. The képu is not frequent in the RFHarper letters. In addi- tion to the case just cited, we may notice H. 437, K. 168, rv. 9. Order is being restored in Akkad; the Satammé and képani 1Delitzsch, BAS. II, 36, reads EN.ER.MES as k6pani, not bél-alani, in H. 88, K. 507; S. A. Smith reads it hazAnate; (so also Delitzsch, AL. 1, No. 69; Briinnow 2826, These only show uncertainty as to the precise character of the officer known as ‘‘ the lord of a town’’). 60 Tue Képu 61 are in much fear of the king. In H. 442, K. 548, the ki-ba-a- ni whom the king has appointed at A88ar have....8é6 nu-sa-hi, 86 Si-ib-Se i-Sab-bu-u. This handling of royal grain is significant. In H. 524, K. 588, news from Naba-ukannik is given, “not as Nabai-ukannik wrote it, but as his ki-pa-nu wrote it.” In H. 214, K. 831, a képu is in charge of the city Hama; acting as a pabatu? In H. 95, K. 1151, the képu of Zibte with some other officials and fifty laborers (?) is asked for. A sgatammu, ki-e-pu, and a dupSarru are mentioned in a broken letter about some gold, H. 476, 83-1-18, 5. Some képu of Déri has called for 2000 soldiers (or workmen?) for halsu cities, in H. 868, 81-2-4, 119. Three or four broken passages yield no information, showing merely the title. In none do we hear of a képu in a private or unofficial relation. These various data do not permit us to rest with the theory of a mere temple official, nor can we maintain that the képu is always a government official. Johns is surely correct, in ADD. II, p. 85, in his discussion of the first eight lines of col. III, K. 4395. As the first is the 2™¢! ki-e-pu, the second the #™¢!TIL.GID-da, also known to be the képu, and the seventh the 2™¢1NI.GAB, usually read képu, he conjectures that the intervening four may represent phases of the képu’s functions. Yet with these hints he does not seem to have clearly comprehended them, conjecturing a rural magistrate as distinguished from an urban one. Magisterial functions are unproven by our data. Later in ABLCL., Johns conjectured a temple functionary. The seven titles referred to are, '@™*!ki-e-pu, *#™! TIL. Giada, *2™¢lrab irrisé, *°@°! rab balsu, °2™*! rab: birteé, ‘amélrab imér u-rat, ‘@™¢INI.GAB. If these are develop- ments from the primitive function we should be interested in determining what that was. Johns’ theory of a rural magistrate will not explain it, nor harmonize with the occasional appearance of the képu in connection with a temple or as the agent of a private individual. The first ideogram above, ?™°! TIL.GID-da, is also written TIL-la GID-da, H. 542, K. 114, obv. 8; TI-la GID-da, MES, Str. Nbd. No. 637, 8, or TI-la MES, Str. Nbd. 102. In the salutations we meet the phrase imé TI-la GID-da or TIL-la GID-da, ‘days of long life; also GID-da tmé, 62 Notes on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD H. 736, K. 1030, obv.6. The #™¢! TIL-la G@ID-da would then appear to be ‘“‘the man who prolongs life.” Winckler, AOF. II, p. 12, collates K. 3500, K. 444, K. 10235. Esarhaddon is cursing the rebels of Egypt, Philistia, and Phoenicia. In lines 11, 12, ““May thy life ... . and letters which I have sent thee for a living from the képu thou shalt not.... If the képu is not gracious, thou shalt see his face, thou shalt break into weeping, not by their means (shalt thou prevail?).” The fragment at least suggests that indigent persons might be recommended to the képu, or appeal to him for sustenance. The third title above is “chief of the farmers.” This idea connects well with the preceding one. Compare Gen. 47:14-26. The Hebrew tradition makes Joseph to be born under Babylo- nian law in the province of Harran, and to introduce into Egypt a land system whereby the tillable soil falls largely into the hands of the king, as in modern Turkey, and the hands of the priests. The system is based upon a distribution of fortified store cities. The bankrupt farmer secures cattle, seed, and provisions from the royal agents. The live stock is largely owned by the government. The historicity of the narrative, or the antiquity of the system in Egypt, does not here concern us. It suffices that such a system was known to the Hebrew, was considered due to a former Babylonian subject, and that Joseph’s function was ‘“‘to preserve life; Gen. 45:5; 47:25. Zaphnath-paaneah has sometimes been thought to be a corruption of some god’s name + “let there be life.” We may include in the comparison now the rab balsé,rab birté, and rab urate; they would be readily explicable from the preceding suggestions as developments of the képu. We may notice Nbk. 460; Nadinu says, ‘‘My lord, thou knowest that for seeds to the képu of Rabza I sent, and money for the seeds I gave him.” The képu of Hararate sends a supply of domestic animals to Sennacherib, Taylor Prism, I, 52sqq. How impor- tant these distributed store cities would be, in peace and in war, needs no minute discussion. They were at all times the life of pauperized masses; and necessarily strong cities as well as store cities, cf. Exod. 1:11. The overseer of such was not necessarily magistrate or military officer. But he was required to be a capable man of business, and a methodical accountant. We have already noticed the képu’s connection with the balsu, and a requisition THe Képu 63 for workmen for such cities, in H. 868. The famous Nabi-bél- Sumate is a képu in Taylor Prism I, 52, and is képu of an alu birat in H. 88, K. 507. We may add that the salutations in H. 247, K. 1027, suggest that an *!"birat was not identical with “garrison city,” repetition not being the rule in salutations. Compare Br. 1562: bi-ra-ti—ki-ru-u, “grove, orchard.” Various cuneiform inscriptions speak of such stores, or store cities. Hammurabi, Prologue III, 18 sqq., extends the tillable land of Dilbat, and heaps up stores of grain for Uras. Similar corn stores are mentioned by Gudea. Sargon, Cyl, 37-42, men- tions his similar efforts. His uniform prices, we may be sure, could not be maintained unless the government itself were in the market, with ample granaries. ‘The king’s price’’ appears also in the Code of Hammurabi, § 51. Joseph’s system would not only make him ‘‘the chief farmer” of Egypt, but also chief of the royal stud and herds, and hence the employment of his brothers as subagents. So, in the titles dis- cussed, a rab urate would be a logical development of an expand- ing system; we find him immediately after the rab birté. Nabéisumiddin in the RFHarper letters is the chief of the king’s stud, reporting regularly arrivals of horses, detailing variety, condition, training, etc. In H. 557, K. 893, some one complains of him for having exacted from the servants of the king from the fields of the birté ali provisions in excess of the royal orders. Thus the rab urate and the képu seem connected by occasional references with the *!*halsé and *!"birate. In LIH. 56, 88, sab birti of acity are mentioned, in connection with grain to be furnished them. Add the letters of Hammurabi con- cerning his cattle (King, LJH.),and the royal herd accounts in the E. A. Hoffman collection (Radau, HBH.); compare Mesha, king of Moab “‘a sheepmaster.” In Camb. 194, the 2™¢!TIL.la GID.da of Ebabbara, is the proper person to receive 200 geese for the temple. It seems that he lets out 50 ‘‘mother geese,” requiring a return of 200 geese within the year. For the seizure of choice animals by royal agents, compare Neb. I, col. I, 51 sqq.; contrast 1 Sam. 8:15-17; 12:3. That such agents were equally important in the management of temple property, or that of individuals, is apparent at sight. The temple stores are well described by Johns, ABLCL., 211 sqq. In 82-74, 13, we have a single page of a képu’s account book. 64 Notes oN SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD Pinches (BOR. II, 143) thought it a list of “gifts to a house of God.” Its meaning is clearer today. Of 765 measures of grain borrowed, only 150 were returned directly to the képu; the rest was delivered at his order to various other parties. In H. 516, 81-27, 31, is the only passage in the RFHarper letters connecting a képu with temples: ‘“‘Naba-ahé-iddin the képu of Esagila, I have put in charge of the revenues of all the temples round about Babylon.” Clearly he is not the servitor of some god, but a capable business manager, handling temple magazines and lands as royal ones were handled. Taxes being largely paid in kind, we can understand the necessity of Assyrian képani in Egypt, not as tax collectors, but as guardians of the store system upon which the farmer’s ability to pay taxes depended. The képu in the land of Elam was probably called a Sarnuppu; see H. 281, K. 13.2 Naba-bél-sumate, once a képu in Babylonia, is in Elam dealing with a similar custodian of stores. 1 Kings 4:26-28; 9:15-19; 10:26; 1 Chron. 27: 25-31; 2 Chron. 9: 5-12 tell of similar developments in Israel, probably adopted from the Canaanites. Whether or not they existed in Canaan before the domination of Babylonia, about 2100 B. C., is yet to be determined. Vast subterranean storehouses have been found at Tell Zakariyeh and elsewhere (PHFSt., 1899). Neh. 6:1-13 and Is. 5:8 are worthy of note. The last passage may recall the contrast between the small amounts of money or produce mentioned in contracts of the first empire and the enormous quantities named in contracts of the Persian period. The small land owner may have become extinct in Babylonia. (Cf. 1 Sam. 8:14.) We do not yet knowthat the Israelite store cities were administered like those of Egypt or Babylonia. The numerous loans without interest from stores in Babylonia may have been to persons who were renting land from the lender. Joseph’s tenants of royal lands pay a rental of one-fifth the crop, which recalls a common rate of interest in Babylonia. That royal lands and temple lands were handled upon the same basis of valuation may be indicated by the frequent dedication of lands to the temples. The tenants apparently but changed landlords, pay- ing the temple what they formerly paid the king. Compare 1 Sam. 8:15, 17 with Lev. 27:30; see Ezra 7: 20-27, and Eze- 2Treated by Johnston, AEL., p. 139, and Van Gelderen, BAS., IV, 257. THe Képu 65 kiel’s endowment scheme, 45. A comparison of Br. 6475, 6499, 6513, shows the ideogram for zakf used to express ‘‘tithe,”’ or tenth. The “dedicated land”’ paid the same rate in Assyria that was customary in Israel. How old the system was that put the cultivation of the temple lands out of the hands of the priests themselves we do not know. The Code of Hammurabi, §§ 178, 182, suggests that it may have existed then. In LIH., No. 38, a patesi is transferred from the service of one man to that of another; and the new employer is reminded that he is responsible for the management of the patesi’s field. Yet in 83-1-18, 264, Nbd. 934, a 8angié of Sippara loans temple corn. Probably this implies that the temple was temporarily without a business manager. Compare Neh. 13:10 sqq. An ideogram for képu not found in K. 4395 is AL-la GID-da, Brinnow, 5752; suggestive of TIL-la GID-da. But instead of ‘‘lengthening life” this would seem to indicate “to lengthen or foster agriculture.” For Briinnow, 5750, shows, GIS.AL=GIS.APIN; 5771, AL.DI=ereSu; 5758, 2™é! AL.AG.A is, rapiku. This word Delitzsch (HWB., 626) allies with sakaku, “to plough or harrow;” ef. CH., col. XIII, 14, 29, and sikki, “a plough,” in modern Arabic in Syria. Brinnow, 5772, GIS.SA.AL.HAB is alluhappu or sakku $a 8é’im, ‘“‘grain sack.” The agricultural associations of AL are marked. This new ideogram “fosterer of agriculture (?)” recalls the rab irrisé in the K. 4395 series. This connection of the képu with the agricultural interests of the country in all its phases, and his importance when supervis- ing temple or government lands, suggests some possibilities rela- tive to early Sumerian kings. #™*! APIN, respectfully addressed in some RFHarper letters, might be a title for the king him- self. In the EAH. collection (Radau, HBH.), are very old accounts of royal agents. In some of these the king seems to be called “farmer.” PA.LUGAL.ENGAR in EAH. 34, Radau reads “overseer of royal shepherds” (HBH. p. 379); but ENGAR is usually read “farmer’’ and is in the adjective posi- tion, making one think of “officer of the farmer king.” Com- pare also EAH. 25; the oxen accounted for to the farmer king are specifically “‘plough oxen.”” Such ‘‘Farmer king”’ as title may be compared with the Hindoo Gai-kwar or ‘“‘Cowherd” of Baroda. Notice also Brimnow 3819-21; *™°! AB may be either 66 NotTeEs oN SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD “farmer, prince, or elder;” suggesting a time when princes were farmers. Those believing the Sumerians to be Mongols may recall that the Chinese Emperor, the “Son of Heaven” still plows at an annual agricultural ceremony. Again, UR-Ningir- su (Arad-Ninib?) name of an early king, is simply irrisu or ikkaru, Br. 11267. Literally it is “servant of Ningirsu,” who is Ninib, Br. 10996, the NIN.APIN, Br. 11007, or DINGIR. APIN, Br. 1020, or “lord of dates,” Br. 767. Radau (#BH. 23) quotes Bur-Sin, the SIB.SAG or “chief shepherd” of Nippur, and ENGAR.LIG.GA of Ur; “mighty farmer” instead of Radau’s ‘‘ powerful shepherd” seems natural. Invo- cations of Nisaba, the ‘“‘harvest-goddess,” by the early Baby- lonian rulers, are to be considered. Against such Sumerian ideas set the Semitic preference for “faithful shepherd,” familiar in royal inscriptions from Hammurabi onward. Yet the older view does not wholly disappear: Babylonian kings boast the title of “cultivator of the sacred tree;” Nebuchadnezzar II. calls himself “Farmer of Babylon.” Hence *™¢! APIN might be a royal title in some RFHarper letters. In the collision of agriculturists of the river valleys (see TIK.EN-na) and Semitic shepherds of the highlands, it has been suggested that we might find a basis for legends like that of Cain and Abel. These accounts of royal plough cattle, of temple stores, and granaries of the gods, let us understand that a képu would be needed by every large landholder, sacred or secular. Four sec- tions of the Code of Hammurabi, 253-56, deal with this system of farming. The data above concerning AL and the képu suggest “‘means of cultivation” as the meaning of the ideogram AL.KAK.A (eréS8u+epésu). Such means our various cita- tions have shown to be cattle, seed, and sustenance while raising a crop. “Implements,” as Johns translates, is too restricted. Yet tools were sometimes supplied. In 82—9-18, 116, Str. Cyr. 26, a wealthy contractor, Sula, leases 60 gur of land from the ki-i-pi of Ebabbara, and is furnished with 12 oxen, 8 irri8é, or cultivators, 3 iron ploughshares, 4 hoes, and 5 appata of corn for seed, for support of the irrisé, and for provender for the cattle. The renter guarantees the temple 300 gur of corn. Tools probably came from the 8utummu, or “‘store- house”” of the temple, supervised by the Satammu. Ob- serve the Sa-tam bit unati, or ‘‘keeper of the tool house,” THE Kepu 67 in Boundary Stone 103, Col. IV, 9. This assistant of the képu and TU.biti frequently occurs; notice the ?™°'S4-tam ?#™¢ TU.biti °Marduk in V. A. 451, KB. IV, p. 152 SA. GAL in the sections of the Code is, as Johns translates, “ prov- ender” (Br. 8051, ukullu; see HWB.), rather than “growing plants” (RFHarper). Compare K. 2867,27; ukulti alpé séni. In EAH. 1 (£BH., p. 323), we have “10 gur grain of the king for one (?) gur copper, as provender for the cattle.” (Cf. II R. 39, 54, ce. d.) In EAH. 5 (EBH. 324) we again have ukullu as food. The four sections of the Code are valuable as showing the indigence of the man who was dependent upon the képu system of farming. Men financially responsible, §§ 42- 65, make compensation or restitution for their delinquencies. In the képu system the Code apparently assumes that the delin- quent has nothing wherewith to repay, and punishes him, for a minor offense, by mutilation; for total delinquency he is torn to pieces by oxen (Johns, DB. V, 607). Such punishment may indicate that those dependent upon the képu may have belonged largely to the politically inferior muSkénu class. We have therein some suggestion as to the hard lot of the man who should, according to Esarhaddon’s wish, find the képu ina bad humor. No English word seems to me to exactly express the meaning of the word képu. As the agent of private parties he is nearly the “factor” of the English landholder; but as supervisor of government stores or temple revenues he has not his equivalent in western civilization though remotely suggesting the Indian agent of the American Indian reservations. I prefer to leave the term untranslated. The ideogram NI.GAB is often translated “‘porter.”” As a name for the képu, it may go back to the primitive custodian or “doorkeeper” of communal granaries. A Nabia-bél-Sumate is a NI.GAB in Johns’ ADD. 9, line 14. A rab NI.GAB.MES occurs in ADD. No. 150, line 6. VITA. I was born in Cooper County, Missouri, on the twenty-first of November, 1864, the oldest son of Rev. William C. Godbey, a minister of the Methodist-Episcopal Church, South. My prepara- tory and classical training was received under home instruction, while I acted as tutor for my younger brothers. I entered Mor- risville Institute in September, 1879, receiving the degree of A.M. from that institution in June, 1883. During the succeed- ing nineteen years I was constantly employed in teaching, journal- ism, and pastoral work, my leisure being occupied with historical and linguistic studies, and the preparation of some volumes of a popular character. Having given special attention to Semitic studies, I entered the University of Chicago in the summer of 1902, and was appointed Fellow in Semitics. This rank I held three years, receiving the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in June, 1905. While a student at the University I attended the courses of President William R. Harper, and Professors Robert F. Harper, Tra M. Price, H. L. Willett, Shailer Mathews, J. R. Jewett, and the late George S. Goodspeed. To all of these, but pre-eminently to the first, my thanks are due, and my indebtedness is hereby gratefully acknowledged. However, for the results of this inves- tigation and the views here expressed I alone am responsible. sauesgr] Aysueaiuf) 34NG g ©