Skip to content

New Mesopotamian Treaties from the Early Second Millennium BC from kārum Kanesh and Tell Leilan (Šehna)

Pages 23 - 57



1 Abbreviations for a few frequently quoted publications: Eidem 2011 J. Eidem, The Royal Archives from Tell Leilan. PIHANS 117, Leiden 2011, Part II. The Letters, 1–309; Part II, Treaties, 310–438, with copies and photos on 472–625. FM V D. Charpin – N. Ziegler, Mari et le Proche-Orient à l'époque amorrite, Florilegium marianum V, Paris 2003. Günbattı 2004 C. Günbattı, Two Treaty Texts Found at Kültepe, in: J.G. Dercksen (ed.), Assyria and Beyond. Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, Leiden 2004, 249–268. Lafont 2001 B. Lafont, Relations internationales, alliances et diplomatie au temps des rois de Mari, Amurru 2, Paris 2001, 213–328. LAPO 16 J.-M. Durand, Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, I, LAPO 16, Paris 1997. OBO 160/5 K.R. Veenhof, The Old Assyrian Period, in: M. Wäfler (ed.), Mespotamien. The Old Assyrian Period. Annäherungen 5. OBO 160/5, Teil I, Fribourg-Göttingen 2008, 13–263.

2 See for relevant documents C. Michel, Correspondance des marchands de Kanish, LAPO 19, Paris 2001, nos. 34, 40 and 53, with the comments in P. Garelli, Les Assyriens en Cappadoce, Paris 1963, 329–336. Occasionally we also meet the expression “to take the oath from” (māmītam laqā'um išti), and once we read of a “great oath” (TC 3, 143:3′). Māmītum was also used for treaties between Anatolian rulers; see K. Balkan, Letter of King Anum-Hirbi of Mama to King Warshama of Kanish, Ankara 1957, 7, l. 51.

3 See M.T. Larsen, The Old Assyrian City-State and its Colonies, Mesopotamia 4, Copenhagen 1976, 243–246.

4 See LAPO 16, 429–458, “Accords diplomatiques” (translation of relevant letters with a general introduction), and Lafont 2001 (with a full bibliography and indices of Akkadian terms and relevant texts from Mari). In his list of treaty texts on p. 284ff., T 1–4 are from Mari.

5 Edited in S. Greengus, Old Babylonian Tablets from Ishchali and Vicinity, Istanbul 1979, text no. 326; its end shows that the kings involved were Sumu-numhim and Ammi-dašur. See also Wu Yuhong, A Political History of Eshnunna, Mari and Assyria during the Early Old Babylonian Period, Changchun 1994, 53–61.

6 BaM 2, 1963, 64f., W 19900, 147; see F.R. Kraus, BiOr 22 (1965) 289b, who quotes the phrase “[the one] whose friend Sîn-gāmil, king of Uruk is .…., (I swear that) I will be his friend” ([itti …. ša] S. [isl]imu lū asallim). In addition there is the still unpublished text (Tell Asmar 1930, T 575) of a treaty between Belakum of Eshnunna (ca. 1850 BC) and an unknown party, some lines of which are quoted in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, see D. Charpin, Histoire politique du Proche-Orient Amorrite (2002–1595), in: P. Attinger et al. (eds.), Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit. Annäherungen 4, OBO 160/4, Teil 1, Fribourg-Göttingen 2004, 98, note 373.

7 If in II:13f. the reading ni-is-h[a-tám kima (ša?) a-bi-k[à …….] is correct. In KTP 14 (= Michel, Correspondance, above note 1, no. 40) the ruler of of Wašhaniya writes to the Assyrian authorities: “I have ascended the throne of my father, make me swear the oath”. See also Lafont 2001, 292, 1). ARM 2, 51:11 (a letter by the king of Qatna) uses the phrase “to swear the oath anew” (nīš ilim uddiš azkur), but this probably does not refer to a new treaty, but to the king's solemn confirmation of an existing alliance.

8 V. Donbaz, Some Old Assyrian Texts with Rare Terminology, in: J.G. Dercksen (ed.), Assyria and Beyond. Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, Leiden 2004, 184–189.

9 See G. Barjamovic – Th. Hertel – M.T. Larsen, Ups and Downs at Kanesh. Chronology, History and Society in the Old Assyrian Period, OAAS 5, PIHANS 120, Leiden 2012, notes 172 and 256.

10 But note that another text, Kt 00/k 16, presumably mentions a week eponym (hamuštum) and therefore must date from the earlier period of level II.

11 In OBO 160/5, Ch. V, ‘Commercial Treaties’. Some additional comments in K.R. Veenhof, Aspects of Old Assyrian Commercial Law. Treaties and Legislation, in: M. Liverani – C. Mora (eds.), I diritti del mondo cuneiforme (Mesopotamia e regioni adiacenti, ca. 2500–500 a.C.), Pavia 2008, 248–269.

12 See for a reconstruction of this period of the history of Kanesh, Barjamovic et al., Ups and Downs (above note 9), 39–40.

13 J. Eidem, An Old Assyrian Treaty from Tell Leilan, in: D. Charpin – F. Joannès (eds.), Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Études sur la civilization mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli, Paris 1991, 185–207.

14 See also J. Eidem, Apum: A Kingdom on the Old Assyrian Route, in: M. Wäfler (ed.), Mespotamien. The Old Assyrian Period. Annäherungen 5. OBO 160/5, Fribourg-Göttingen 2008, Teil 2, 267–352.

15 Read sú-⌈ú⌉-m[i-i]mki and identified with a town mentioned in texts from Mari, tentatively located in the north of the land of Ašnakkum in LAPO 16, 426. An OB tablet from Kazane probably mentions the town of Sumum, see FM V, 104 note 244, where note 465 suggests identification with Samum. On the photo and in Eidem's copy the second sign is not a good Ú. He restores the end of l. 25 as […. it]-mu, which, if correct (elsewhere written it-mu-ú!) requires a plural subject, such as “the servants/the people of (the ruler of) Sūmum“. This is the case in G I:24–25, where the king of Apûm, his dependants and his people are subject of [it]-mu-ú and where in what follows the first person plural is maintained (cf. zakrānu, “we are under the oath” in IV:8”), but E I:26 and 1'ff. use the first person singular! 16 See Barjamovic et al., Ups and Downs (see note 9), 96, REL 225 (in Kanesh: Amur-Ištar).

16 athūtum tillūtum rā'imūtum salīm kīnātim ša awātim damqātin atwûm ša libbim gamrim. Cf. F IV:34'f., which omits ša awātim damqātim and rā'imūtum. See for this terminology Lafont 2001, 255ff., where (the abstract) tillūtum, “military aid” and rā'imūtum, “love”, “friendship”, do not occur. The latter is used in the El Amarna correspondence, also in the hendiadys ahhūtu u ra'amūtu, and it is the equivalent of ṭābūtu, “friendliness” (frequently used as object of the verb dabābum, “to speak”), in OB usually the plural of the adjective, ṭābātum (alongside salīmum in J. Eidem – J. Laessøe, The Shemshara Archives, 1. The Letters, Copenhagen 2001, no. 63:28f., in connection with a treaty). Cf. the sequence ahhūtu ṭābūtu salīmu u amātu [banītu] in EA 11 rev. 22.

17 See for A. 361, D. Charpin, Un traité entre Zimri-lim de Mari et Ibâl-pî-El II d'Ešnunna, in: Charpin – Joannès, Marchands (above note 13), 139–166; what we have according to Charpin is somewhat less than the upper half of the tablet. See for A. 96 and M. 7750, F. Joannès, Le traité de vassalité d'Atamrum d'Andarig, ibidem, 168f. and 177.

18 See Lafont 2001, 271–276 and also Eidem 2011, 317–321. “Touching the throat” is a ceremonial act that accompanies the oath (note in ARMT 26, 372:10–12, ‘they took [the small tablet] in their hands and made the man of Eshnunna touch his throat on/with – ina – [that] tablet“), whereby one guarantees the oath of loyalty with one's life, perhaps in a ritual involving blood, perhaps, as Eidem 2011, 320 suggests, the blood of a sacrificial animal slaughtered for the occasion or even that of the parties themselves, that was exchanged. Lafont 2001, 286, considers the possibility that some are “comptes rendus de serments établis après coup”, because A 96, on the treaty between Andarig and Mari (F. Joannès in Charpin-Joannès, Marchands, above note 18, 167) begins by stating that “RN swore (itma) by Šamaš” and thus describes what had happened. We will return to this issue below, in § 5.3.

19 See also the remarks in OBO 160/5, 191, b). There is more room in the break than Günbattı assumes and the damaged sign before GA in l. 33 does not look like [L]I. While suqāqu is known as “little street” in OB, it is unknown in OA, while sugāgū, referring to local headmen, also appears in the treaties E V:16 and G III:1, in both cases among people who might become hostile against the king who made the treaty. See for this title, which he translates as “maire”, at home in tribal societies, D. Charpin, RA 101 (2007) 170–172.

20 In a letter from the period of kārum Kanesh level II, dealing with Hahhum, we read that its “king (LUGAL) has committed bloodshed and his throne is not secure ……. the magnates (rubā'ū) are watching each other” (CCT 4, 30a:13–16).

21 A Hurrian loanword, see now J.G. Dercksen, ZA 97 (2007) 38. In TC 3, 75:6–7 a trader, detained in an Anatolian town, appeals to the ruler and the second-in-command (rubā'um u šinahilum) for permission to leave. The latter is not the crown-prince, who usually bears the title rabi simmiltim.

22 mer'a Aššur šumšu ēlîtm u [wārittim], in B II:25'f. and also in III:8f., instead of Günbattı's š[a! am-t]im wa-ar-dim; this same designation occurs in D I:26–29, [an]a ālimki dAššur / [DUMU] dAššur ēlîtim / [ù a-r]i-it-t[im] ù k[ārim] / ša ina] ālika [wašbu?].

23 The occurrence of kārum Kaneš in the Hahhum treaty III:19 (Günbattı reads k[à!-ri-i]m! Kaniš), if correct, could refer to traders going to or arriving from Kanesh.

24 This happened, according to a letter found at Mari, after the citizens of the city (called muškěnum) had chosen him; see FM V, 204 with note 312. Muškěnum, denoting the common citizens of a town, also occurs in F IV: 49, in Razamâ, and in H I:7″ and 17″, in Šehna.

25 Eidem, Apum (see note 14), 272. This might explain the difficult passage E I:19ff., where the ruler(?) of Sūmum seems to be invited to swear “To Qarnilum …, king of Andarig, and the king of Apûm, their sons, troops.…. (22) [who live in Šubat]-Enlil”.

26 A possible exception might be in the fragment 1a (from the obverse), which refers to a situation where an attack on Andarig forces Apûm come to its aid, which offers the enemy the opportunity to raid Apûm. Something similar is mentioned in the letter of Anum-Hirbi to king Warshama of Kanesh. who complains that when he was attacked by an enemy one of his addressee's vassals invaded and plundered his country (Balkan, Letter, above note 1, 8). The interpretation of the fragment rests on the reading [a-na ma-at a]-pí-im and other restorations of the signs before –BI-im (the end of a noun or an infinitive?) are possible. Moreover, the change from «we» to «I» is remarkable and hubbutum, «to raid», is normally used with an accusative object.

27 See Eidem, Apum (above note 14), 306–310, and Eidem 2011, 46–52.

28 Probably kings who are his allies; Ea-mālik is probably a prince of Kahat, attested as writer of letters addressed to kings Mutiya and Till-Abnû of Apûm (nos 20, 28–32); IV:5–7 mentions the oath as sworn to the king of Kahat (and) Ea-mālik.

29 These terms, also in F III:27, alongside “citizens of Kahat”, must refer to social groups of unknown nature.

30 By the verbal form za-ki-[ru] instead of the expected stative zakrū.

31 The variation between Till-Abnû “and his land” (V:10), “and the whole of the land Apûm” (V:15') “and his servants and his land” (V:21'–22'), “and his servants and the whole of the land of the Hanaeans” (V:24'–25') is purely stylistic.

32 As proof of his superiority; see for this feature Lafont 2011, 248, with note 152.

33 See for this meaning of the term, also attested at Mari, Lafont 2001, 288, 3 with note 303, and for its meaning “decree, (royal regulation)”, K.R. Veenhof, JEOL 35–36 (2001) 53–56.

34 See for za-ki-[ru] in G VI:29', above note 31.

35 See for māmītum, “oath”, as the term by which Old Assyrian letters refer to such treaties, above note 2; it is also used in A:89. The treaties found in kārum Kanesh do not use nīš ilī, but D, the Assyrian treaty from Tell Leilan does, presumably because in Northern Mesopotamia this was the familiar term for a sworn agreement. Old Assyrian texts use nīšum when writing about an oath, in particular in the combination nīš ālim (u rubā'im) tamā'um, to refer to the oath by means of which one appeals to City Assembly of Assur and its ruler to obtain justice. But one also meets nīšum in combination with a god, e.g. nīš Aššur nīš Anna nīš rubā'im itmû, ICK 1, 32:10–13. See for the oath in Old Assyrian, C. Michel, Hommes et femmes prětent serment à l'époque paléo-assyrienne, in: S. Lafont (ed.), Jurer et Maudire, Méditerranées 10–11 (1997) 105–123.

36 See note 83.

37 The text is too damaged to know to what this applied, only “in your city Hahhum” (I:2′) is understandable. The verb is also used in E VI:1–5, “Just as I exert myself to protect my life and that of my country, I will certainly exert myself (lū uštamarraṣ) to protect the life of Qarnilim and to come to his aid”.

38 [DINGIR.M]EŠ annuttun / [ša ni-is-sú]-nu azkuru / [namla]kātia / [ana darě]tim). Cf. G bVI: 12', [š]a bi-is-sú-nu / nizkuru.

39 A good example in A 2028:3–12, a letter to the king of Mari: “After this letter I will take the lead of the gods of my lord and of the gods and envoys of the Ruler (the designation of the king of Eshnunna – K.R.V.) and will arrive [with my lord] and then we will make […….] swear the oath”. Mari's envoy had traveled to Eshnunna with the gods of Mari and after the king of Eshnunna had sworn the oath by them he now brings the gods of Mari, together with the gods and envoys of Eshnunna, back to Mari, so that the king of Mari can swear by them; see Charpin, in: Charpin – Durand, Marchands (above note 13), 163, note 62.

40 In D she occurs as Bēlat Ninuwa, alongside the “Assyrian Ištar”.

41 Of the names of the gods listed in the adjuration of the Mari treaties (see above note 18), in A. 361, the one with Eshnunna, only the Mount Zara and “[the gods of GN] and Eshnunna” are preserved. In M. 7750, probably with Kurda, the gods listed are “Šamaš of heaven”, three manifestations of Haddu/Adad (of heaven, Lord of Kummum and Lord of Halab), Sagar (deified Djebel Sindjār), Lord of Kurda, and Mount Bisir (Djebel Bišri).

42 ARMT 26, 372:57, which uses the words mimma ana ilāni watrūtim u awā[tim watrātim ul hašhāku], cf. Lafont 2011, 278 with note 246.

43 G. Kryszat, Zur Liste der Schwurgötter im Aššur-Apûm-Vertrag, Isimu VI (2003) 99–102. But see for this god now J.G. Dercksen, The double god Šarramat(t)ān, NABU 2011/75, who differentiates him (them, the name a dual!) from Aššur and refers to AKT 4, 42:22f. (corrected reading!), Ša-ra-ma-ta-an i-lu-a, “Š., my gods”, invoked as divine witnesses. In the early treaty text C the Anatolian ruler does swear by Aššur and dIŠKUR, the latter either the Assyrian Adad or the regional “weather-god”, perhaps Teššub.

44 The oldest examples of curses are in the inscriptions of Erišum I, see A.K. Grayson, Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, RIMA 1, Toronto 1987, A.0.33:39–52, A.0.33.2:49 and A.0.33:14, where Aššur, Adad and Bēl, “my god”, are invoked. Series of curses first appear in the Assur inscription of Šamšī-Adad I, RIMA 1, A.0.39.1:114–135, where Šamaš, Enlil, Adad, Šarru-mātim (sic), Nergal, Ištar and Sîn, “my personal god”, are invoked, all gods that also appear in the various adjurations of the Tell Leilan treaties.

45 ilū anniuttum bē[l m]āmītika idaggulūka. This is almost identical to the statement in Esarhaddon's “vassal treaty” line 494, DINGIR.MEŠ annūtte lidgulū, “may these gods watch” (be witnesses), followed by a first person plural, “if we (anēnu) make rebellion….”.

46 Lines 30–32, kāssu umallima itbuk; 39–42, šumma māmītkunu ninaddi damani kīma kāsim lū tabik.

47 x-ši-im of l. 15″ could be a precative of šiāmum, “to fix a destiny”, an activity typical for Enlil.

48 The words “… and that all of the land of the Hanaeans may not raise its weapons in front of their enemies”, suggests a war god, but not Ištar, who figures in the preceding curse. Perhaps Nergal, “lord of the weapon”, who will break the transgressor's weapon according to A. 361 (see above note 18), IV:11'-12', MARI 3 (1984) 62 no. 10:13–15, and the brick inscription of Yahdun-Lim (quoted there).

49 See CAD R, 22 b) 2', for its use in such OB curses, also in lines 34f. of the inscription of Takil-ilissu (said of the vizier of Ea), and in MARI 3 (1984) 63, no. 11:11'–13' (said of Adad).

50 See for them J.R. Kupper, Les formules de malédiction dans les inscriptions royals de l'époque paléobabylonienne, RA 84 (1990) 157–163. Inscriptions just listing the gods invoked to curse are also that of Idi-Suen of Simurrum and Annu-banini (see D.R. Frayne, Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods 4, Old Babylonian Period, Toronto 1990, 705–709), and that of Daduša of Eshnunna (see now D. Charpin, RA 98 [2004] 155, col. XVI:9ff.), where at the end only the curse by Ninurta is specified.

51 This could be the case with Ea in treaty G V:3'ff. (where his curse has its own introduction, presumably by [inūma] …. nittiqū), due to the association between this god and Kahat. Note that in l. 7' one must read li-ki-im-ma, “may he take away”, thereby disturbing the supply of water, with the effect that the furrows do not produce ears of grain.

52 S. Parpola – K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, State Archives of Assyria vol. II, Helsinki 1988, XLII, in their “structural and formal analysis”, designate these curses “involving individual witness gods as agents” as “traditional curses”.

53 The curse by Sîn (in F VI:1″ff. and G IV:15′ff.), which imposes a “heavy punishment” on the culprit's body, is similar to that in Codex Hammurabi XLIX:47ff. and must be a disease. Its effect is described in G IV:19'f. by eli zumr[ini] / ù zumur pí-i[r-ḫi-ni] li-še-BI, which Eidem interprets as a D-stem of šapûm, “to put to silence”, which is difficult with eli zumrim, “on the body”. Perhaps it is, as Kouwenberg tentatively suggests, wapûm in the Š-stem, “to make appear, shine forth”; this would fit the traditional punishment by the moon god with leprosy.

54 Following Eidem's interpretation. The tertium comparationis is the gust of air both in a storm and in a cough. There are some differences between the versions of F and G. The former starts with dAdad kīma, while G has kīma dAdad, and F also states the consequences for Apûm, “so that there will be no offspring of .….”. F has [kīma gahh]imma instead of the expected gahhumma and the verbal form in l. 10″ must be a-tu-ur!.

55 Eidem translates the first line (kīma qayatum ana ŠE.NUMUN la illaku) as referring to the result, “does not sprout”, but I take alākum ana as “to fit, to be meant for, to become” (seed corn), of course with the same implication.

56 Parpola – Watanabe (above note 53) consider such curses, as they appear in Neo-Assyrian treaties, as “effected collectively by all the treaty gods”. This is apparently based on passages such as § 56 of treaty 6, of Esarhaddon (p. 49), which starts in lines 472f. with: “May all the great gods .…. curse you grimly with a painful curse. Above may they take possession of your life ……” and in lines 481ff. continues with: “Before your very eyes may dogs and swine .…. May your days be dark .….”, etc. But nothing forces us to consider lines 481ff. as logically dependent on the introduction of lines 472ff, and making these various curses one single large paragraph (§ 56) is not based on the original, but a proposal of the editors. They do not apply this approach in lines 573ff., in a section that (as indicated by the repeated “ditto”) depends on the protasis of lines 555Aff., “If you should sin against this treaty ….”. They divide it into separate paragraphs, lines 573ff. (§ 77) starting with “(Ditto;) may all the gods …….”, followed by § 78 (lines 576–578), “(Ditto;) as (kī ša) a stag is pursued and killed….”, and § 79 (lines 579ff.), “(Ditto;) as a caterpillar does not see …”, etc. There is no reason to consider these last “curses by comparison” as brought about by divine agents and they are also not syntactically dependent on § 77. In the Tell Leilan treaties too “all the gods” do not appear as agents of the “curses by comparison”.

57 Lines 19'–20', inūma itâm ša nīš ilīa anněm nittiqu … This metaphoric use of itûm is best known from first millennium texts, usually referring to a boundary or limit of (set by) a god. An OB occurrence is in AbB 4. 11:31, where king Hammurabi reproaches his governor for negligence in carrying out an order. If he again fails to comply “you will not be pardoned as if you had transgressed the great boundary”, which suggests that this administrative failure is equated with a serious sin, such as breaking an oath or infringing on a taboo.

58 Read in V:22', with the photo, kīma mē na-di-im. In 26'–28' I take ina puhrišunu as adverbial, “all together”, and NINDA mullu'um as “to fill with bread”.

59 See Parpola – Watanabe (see above note 53), XLII, where they refer to these curses as “ceremonial curses”, because they involve parables or references to symbolic acts actually carried out during the conclusion of the treaties”. The mention of parables does not apply to the Tell Leilan treaties and in the Neo-Assyrian material itself they are also rare, only applicable to the treaty between Aššur-nerarī V with Mati'ilu of Arpad (treaty 2, p. 8ff.). Here in lines 10–21 (and the same applies to the parables of lines 21ff., and 29ff.) the comparison of the fate of the treaty partner with that of a lamb (col. I:10–20) is presented in a narrative parable, in which “this spring lamb” is said to be brought out of its fold specifically to conclude the treaty and that Mati'ilu, if he sins, will no more return to his country than this lamb to its fold.

60 E.g. by K. Watanabe, Die adě-Vereidigung anläßlich der Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons, BaM Beiheft 3, Berlin 1987, 33–34.

61 A further similarity between Esarhaddon's treaty and the treaties from Tell Leilan is that the “curses by comparison”, placed at the end of the texts, are not a completely isolated group. In both texts curses that invoke gods occasionally appear among them (in Esarhaddon's treaty an invocation to Šamaš in line 545; in lines 616–621 an invocation to “all gods” to make the culprits become or behave like a spindle and a crab). And after a new introduction in lines 632ff. (“Should you ….) we have again have a series of “curses by comparison” without divine agents (lines 637–646), followed by a curse by Šamaš (lines 649–651), and again a few “curses by comparison”. This shows that the section with curses had grown by additions, in an agglutinative, less systematic way, a feature which is also noticeable in the Tell Leilan treaties.

62 D. Charpin, Un nouveau “protocole de serment” de Mari, in: S.C. Melville – A.L. Slotsky (eds.), Opening the Tablet Box. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of B.R. Foster, Boston-Leiden 2010, 49–75.

63 The final imperative is šumīt and it may be restored in E I:10', where Qarnilim is the object. But in G II:34, where Eidem convincingly restores a-[n]a, the verb must be different, perhaps something like “to attack” or “to do harm to”.

64 That kīma lā idûma appears between two imperatives (ālik … šumīt) suggests that it applies to their subject, the attacker, but then we would expect kīma la tidû, “since you do not know”, scil. that “I am bound by an oath”, but this very confession rules out ignorance of the accomplice. Paragraph 2 of the treaty between Zimrilim of Mari and Ibāl-pi-El of Eshnunna (A 361, see above not 18) may contain a similar clause. The king of Mari swears that “because I myself (aššum anāku) [………] “, he will not instruct or order the troops of his lands, his allies, foreign troops and auxiliary troops (restoration on the basis of § 4): “Go (alkā), because (kīma)………, [attack(?) them], ….their …. and their.….”. “Because” must state the reason for issuing this order (in Mari in the plural; cf. H III:10, in a somewhat different context), but the expected final imperative is missing at the end of line 10'. The following two lines contain Zimrilim's promise not to order “[to………] their……and their……” (ZU-ra-šu-nu x-ka-šu-nu), which I do not understand and where an imperative is missing. The heaping of verbs for giving such instructions or orders (šūhuzum, šapārum, qabûm, wu”urum) and the enumeration of the possible accomplices is also similar in the texts from Mari and Tell Leilan. The same verbs turn up in M 5719, the protocol of the loyalty oath from Mari (see above note 63), especially in its paragraphs 5” and 6”, also in the pairing of basic and causative stems (§ 2' and 8”').

65 The situation in B is specific, because the three magnates of Hahhum in descending order can “take” textiles in fixed numbers and at fixed prices; the first and highest gets most at the lowest prices. The figures are: no.1: 5 pieces at 6 2/3 shekels of silver; no. 2: 2 pieces at 9 1/3 shekels; no. 3: 1 piece at [12 shekels].

66 The damaged B IV:6?–12 perhaps deals with a related subject, mentioning that “[certain goods that an Assyrian] and/or member of kārum Hahhum will bring into (the city) get lost (l. 10, [i-ha-li]-qá-ni?), in which case “you shall not seize a […….] instead of what is lost (appūh ha[lqim]) nor a house”.

67 A:43 states that an (agreed and) fixed amount (šīmtum) has to be paid as blood-money, but we do not know how much this was. The archive of the Šalim-Aššur family, excavated in 1994, comprises a dossier on the collection of blood-money for one of his sons, Ennam-Aššur, killed in the territory of Tawiniya, by his brother. Several letters, to be published by M.T. Larsen in (Ankara) Kültepe Tabletleri VI-b (Ankara, in the press), report on the problems encountered.

68 Also in letting (waššurum) his citizens and foreign residents (hapīrū) harm Assyrian houses (A:61–63).

69 In a case of suspected high treason the Assyrian authorities make the Anatolian ruler the offer that the accused Assyrian “may present himself and swear by the weapon of Aššur or like a citizens of yours go to the water ordeal” (paṭram ša Aššur litma / ul: kīma mer'i ālika/ ana i-id: lillik, Kt. n/k 504:20–22).

70 See for an analysis of what was possible, K.R. Veenhof, The Old Assyrian Period, in: R. Westbrook – R. Jasnow (eds.), Security for Debt in Ancient Near Eastern Law, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Vol. 9, Leiden-Boston 2001, 93–159, § 4, Default, Seizure, Forfeiture, and Foreclosure.

71 Eidem's translates “not to rebel”, which is too specfic (being applicable to the relation between overlords and vassals, as in the Hittite text quoted in CAD B 131, b). Kouwenberg pointed out to me that the basic meaning is “to quarrel, fight with” (attested in the Gt-stem in Old Assyrian, in AKT 6-a, 229:4). For the D-stem (lā nubarru, in l. 9), “to sow discord”, he refers me to AKT 6-a, 217:22, lā tuba”arniāti (among brothers). In our treaty the construction with ana, “(king) Y. ana ālKahat … lā nibarru”, is unusual, but this probably means “we will not stir up strife between Y. and Kahat”.

72 The Gt-stem of the verb for “joining forces”, kakkī šutēmudum, has apparently attracted the use of the thus far not attested a reciprocal Gt-stem in sakāpum, “to drive out together”. Joining forces is made explicit by ina rubuṣ ṣābišu ṣābuni irabbiṣ, where Eidem's “in the camp of his troops our troop shall be available” is too formal for an expression in military argot, meaning “to bunk together”, “to share camp”. See D. Charpin, ARMT 26/2, p. 128 note a, who also quotes from M. 9739 (unpubl.), a treaty proposal of Hammurabi of Babylon to the kings of Yamhad and Qatna: ṣābaka ina rubuṣ ṣābini lirbiṣ. In M. 5117, quoted by J.-M. Durand in Charpin-Joannès, Marchands (above note 13) 129, the citizens of a town mention that the oath of allegiance sworn to Zimrilim contained the following stipulation: ina rubuṣ LÚ.MEŠ Hana tarabbiṣā ūm tebě LÚ.MEŠ Hana tetebbě, “You shall share camp with the Bedouins and when the Bedouins set out to attack, you shall join them”.

73 I assume that annītam, in II:39, means the action prohibited in the first part of this section. The translation “who <intends> to harm” supplies a verb required by the object lemuntam. In l. 30 the words wardī awīlam etc. must logically be taken as indirect object of qabûm, which however requires a dative (ana), and this suggests that the scribe had in mind a construction with direct object (e.g. “to command, instruct”, wu”urum, used in H II:13,16). The final verb on which “against (ana) his towns.” in l. 34 depends, is lost (see above note 64).

74 The text is not easy, also due to damage. The items coveted (“to raise one's eyes to”) include his land, his inbum, his izbum”, which Eidem renders by “his fruit, his ‘anomaly’”. If izbum is “malformed newborn”, inbum might, as Stol suggests to me, mean “foetus”, and the combination might be a merismus, meaning “anything born”.

75 Including a category called hajjātum (see on them Eidem 2011, 103, ad 4; their release, after payment of a ransom, is the subject of letter 59) and craftsmen.

76 This section (l. 5″) does not begin with ša but, following a suggestion by Stol, with NITA. See for the broad meaning of habālum / hablum, K.R. Veenhof, JEOL 35–36 (1997–2000) 61f. The mention of traders and soldiers suggest that the victims had been seized as pledges or defaulting debtors (which explains the promise of a fair trial) or had been kidnapped by raiding soldiers, who tried to sell the abroad.

77 This same designation, the participle with the ending –ānum, occurs in letters from Tell Leilan, see Eidem 2011, nos. 43:12'–14' and 64:23.

78 These isolated mentions of past acts are different from the so-called “oaths of purgation”, attested for servants of Zimrilim, such as A. 3696, edited by J.-M. Durand, Précurseurs syriens aux protocoles néo-assyriens, in: Charpin – Joannès, Marchands (above note 13), 16–21. It only looks back and covers the period “since my lord Zimrilim ascended to the dynastic throne” l. 1). According to Durand such oaths must be distinguished from “programmatic” ones, that concern the future behavior of an official appointed, as in “le protocole des devins” (ARMT 26/1 no. 1), which are more akin to the treaties we are dealing with.

79 Eidem has not seen that the beginning of E II is identical to H II:11f.: ki-le-et lemuttim u napištim / ki-la-šu, to which E II:3 adds: ù ŠUKUR-šunu ina qa-[xxxx]. I do not know the meaning of the paranomastic expression kilět …. kalûm (perhaps “to hold in one's grip”?), but cf. L.T.–4a, I:3' [.…. k]i-le-e lemuttim [……….l]a akallû. The second order could mean “[take] their spears out of their hands”, which would mean render them defenseless (cf. perhaps L.T.–1a:8', ù ŠUKUR-šunu ina x [….]?).

80 Eidem's translation “let him tell me” etc. misses the point, also in G III:21, where li[ddinamma] means, “even when he would he offer me silver”; cf. in H I:5”', littalla[kūma], “should they keep going”, and in E V:16″, [li!]-iṣ-sa-bi-it, “should he (the run-away slave) be seized”, in the same way as the letter on this topic (no. 75:20) writes linnamer, “if he is seen”. Note in M. 5719:II:13' (see note 63 above), bēlī liṭrudanni, “should my lord send me”.

81 The only exception is in C:27–28, which states that “they will send you tin from Hahhum”, which must refer to the Assyrian kārum there, but note that they do not write “we will see to it that they send you…”.

82 See Eidem 2011, 328: all negative promissory oaths use lā + subjunctive, but D uses the indicative; positive ones have lū + indicative, but F lū + subjunctive.

83 “I told you” might indicate that he had insisted on including this stipulation in the treaty, perhaps because Kahat was the stronger party and was in a position to demand certain clauses.

84 Note Eidem 2011, 408f., “must be from …” and “presumably belongs to ….”. This concerns what he considers remains of col. I, which do not seem to have parallels in G, but the curses on the reverse of L 87–744 might also be part of col. V, which would make the obverse of this fragment part of col. II.

85 H II:1 writes of approaching “[a (great?) king or any man], who is anywhere in the land” ([ša ina m]ātim kališa ibaššû), while G II:25f. has “a king who is his enemy, anybody, whomsoever” (mār awīlūtim šumšu), which is similar to E I:2'f. (which has “a great king”). Cf. in the Mari treaty A. 361 (above note 18) LUGAL.MEŠ šumšu ù raběnī ša ina mātim kališa ibaššû (see also above 4.3 with note 64), and in M.5719 III:7 (see above note 63) mār awīlūtim šumšu.

86 Published by J.-M. Durand, Fragments rejoints pour une histoire Élamite, in: L. de Meyer et al. (eds.), Fragmenta Historicae Elamicae. Mélanges offerts à M.J. Stève, Paris 1986, 114, later included in LAPO 16 as no. 290, where at the end of lines 1–2 Durand now also reads tama.

87 The words are “this oath to Qarnilim [š]a balum libbia lū zakrāku”, which Eidem translates (without comment) by “This is the oath which …. without (secret) reflection I have sworn”, where adding “(secret)” is understandable, but difficult to accept. G IV:6–8 has a similar sentence: “This oath which (ša) to Yamṣi-hatnu, Ea-mālik [……….] lū zakrānu”.

88 The reading it-[ta-mu], a rather surprising passive form, was proposed by Durand and restored in A. 96:10' by Lafonty 2001, 290 note 310. Joannès read [atmû], as one expects, since the king is speaking in the first person singular of his own oath.

89 See for the question whether a similar itmû (preserved only [……]-mu) can be assumed in E I:25, also before a ruling, above note 15.

90 This itma appears in the treaty text A. 96:1–3 (see note 18), “By Šamaš of the heaven Atamrum .…. swore”, which has of course raised the question of the function of this text. Joannès, Un traité (see above note 18) 170, took itma, “he swore”, serious and assumed that A. 96 was drawn up at Mari, after the oath has been sworn and was a duplicate of the tablet sent to Andarig. It might – following the reconstruction of the procedure by D. Charpin, Une alliance contre l'Elam et le rituel du lipit napištim, in: Mélanges Jean Perrot, Paris 1990, 109–118 – have been a “small tablet”, mentioning the gods and the main clauses, on which each partner would swear the oath during the so-called lipit napištim ceremony (of “touching the throat”, see Lafont 2001, 271ff.), after which the “big tablets”, which also contained the curses, would be exchanged on which each would swear “the oath by the gods” (nīš ilī). Such a “small tablet”, according to Lafont 2001, 283, allowed potential treaty partners who lived far apart to negotiate and finalize their agreement, by fixing the content of the oaths to be sworn during the nīš ilī ceremony. This also left the possibility open that the final “big tablet” contained more clauses, since one would expect the loyalty oath by Atamrum to cover more subjects than the “small tablet”, e.g. also on military aid, keeping secrets etc. But in some cases, he feels, the “small tablet” may have been sufficient, as was probably the case for the text with the oath of Hammurabi to Zimrilim (M. 6435+ = LAPO 16 no. 290, which Durand originally called “un project de traité”). It may have been an extension of an existing alliance by new clauses about making a common front against Elam. Lafont 2001, 279, agrees, considering it “the text of the treaty that was concluded”, and though he does not say which role the tablet played, he probably assumed that it was taken along to Mari when its delegates returned from Babylon after the treaty had been concluded.

91 ARMT 26, 372:55ff. reports that Atamrum agreed with the gods and the stipulations mentioned in the “tablet of the oath by the gods” that Hammurabi sent him and subsequently declared his readiness to swear the oath (l. 68), but appears to have been unable to do so (for the time being?), because he had already sworn an oath to Hammurbi's enemy Eshnunna (see Lafont 2001, 278).

92 A comparable reference is found in ARMT 28, 48:36–37, whose writer declares “My lord made me swear (ušazkiranni) the oath by the gods and in the oath is was declared (ina nīš ilī hasis): “If….”. Again no written text is mentioned and the writer uses hasis for the content of the oath, after zakārum to refer to the invocation of the gods. The verb hasāsum is also found in M. 5719 IV:11–12 (see above note 63), [nīš ilīa] anněm ša ana Z. [belia a]h-sú-sú. The meaning “to declare, to pronounce”, instead of “to stipulate” (Charpin) or “to recall, to remember (in the sense of to keep or to observe)” (P. Hoskisson, The nīšum, “oah” in Mari, in: G.D. Young (ed.), Mari in Retrospect, Winona Lake 1982, 203–210), is suggested by ARMT 14, 89:9 and 9'–12′. Here people ask a governor: “Pronounce the oath by the god to us (hussanněšim) so that we are reassured” and the answer is: “If I am to swear (zakārum) the oath by the god to you, assemble all the boys and girls of your villages in GN and then I will pronounce to you (luhsusakkunūšim) the oath by the god”. Here hasāsum refers to publicly pronouncing (already used in Birot's translation) the content of what is sworn (in this case probably a promise of protection or military aid) for a large crowd, to reassure them.


Export Citation