2015 Food and drink for the palace: the management of foodstuffs in Neo-Assyrian times and beyond

State Archives of Assyria Bulletin

ISSN 1120-4699

Volume XXI

2015

STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA BULLETIN VOLUME XXI, 2015

Editors Frederick Mario Fales, Simonetta Ponchia, Giovanni-Battista Lanfranchi Published by S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria — Via Induno 18/A — I-35134 Padova (Italy) Distributed by Casalini Libri S.p.A. — Via Faentina 169/15 — I-50010 Caldine (FI) (Italy) — www.casalini.it Arbor Sapientiae s.r.l. — via Bernardo Barbiellini Amidei 80 — I-00168 Roma (Italy) — www.arborsapientiae.com Eisenbrauns — POB 275 Winona Lake, IN 46590-0275 (USA) — https://www.eisenbrauns.com

NATALIE NAOMI MAY, SAANA SVÄRD (EDITORS)

CHANGE IN NEO-ASSYRIAN IMPERIAL ADMINISTRATION: EVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

1–4 ABBREVIATIONS 5–10 SAANA SVÄRD AND NATALIE NAOMI MAY, Preface: The Importance of Noticing Change 11–20 RAIJA MATTILA AND JOUNI HARJUMÄKI, Change or Chance? Studying Change in Neo-

Assyrian Administration 21–45 MELANIE M. GROß, Food and Drink for the Palace: The Management of Foodstuffs in

Neo-Assyrian Times and Beyond 47–77 KRZYSZTOF HIPP, Fugitives in the State Archives of Assyria 79–116 NATALIE NAOMI MAY, Administrative and Other Reforms of Sargon II and Tiglath-

pileser III 117–156 ZOLTÁN NIEDERREITER, Cylinder Seals of Eleven Eunuchs (ša rēši Officials): A Study on

Glyptics Dated to the Reign of Adad-nērārī III 157–171 SAANA SVÄRD, Changes in Neo-Assyrian Queenship 173–215 KAZUKO WATANABE, Innovations in Esarhaddon’s Succession Oath Documents

Considered from the Viewpoint of the Documents’ Structure

Editore: S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria — Via Induno 18/A — I-35134 Padova (Italy)

Stampa: Copisteria Stecchini — Via Santa Sofia 58–62 — I-35121 Padova (Italy) Direttore responsabile: Prof. Dr. Ines Thomas

Finito di stampare il 31.03.2016

N. N. May and S. Svärd Workshop Organisers and Proceedings Editors

Papers Presented at the Workshop

Change in Neo-Assyrian Imperial Administration: Evolution and Revolution

Held on July 16th, 2013

on the Occasion of the LIX Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale

“Law and (Dis)order in the Ancient Near East” Ghent, July 15th–19th, 2013

with Other Papers Included

ABBREVIATIONS

2 Kings Second Book of Kings. A siglum of texts in the Assur collection of the Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri. AHw W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, I–III, Wiesbaden 1959–81. AO Museum siglum of Musée du Louvre. Ash. Museum siglum of Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology. Ass. Siglum of texts excavated in the German excavations in Assur. BIN Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies, New Haven. BM Museum siglum of the British Museum. BM WA Museum siglum of the British Museum, Western Asiatic Collection. BT Siglum of texts excavated in the British excavations of Balawat (Imgur-Illil). BWL W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, London 1960. CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. CT Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, London. CTN 1 J. V. Kinnier Wilson, The Nimrud Wine Lists. A Study of Men and Administration at

the Assyrian Capital in the Eighth Century B.C. (Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 1), London 1972.

CTN 2 J. N. Postgate, The Governor’s Palace Archive (Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 2), London 1973.

CTN 3 S. Dalley, J. N. Postgate, The Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser (Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 3), London 1984.

Del. Siglum of cylinder seals in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France numbered accord-ing to L. Delaporte, Catalogue des cylindres orientaux et des cachets assyro-babylo-niens, perses et syro-cappadociens de la Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.

EAE Series Enūma Anu Enlil. Edubba 10 A.Y. Ahmad, J. N. Postgate, Archives from the Domestic Wing of the North-West

Palace at Kalhu/Nimrud, London 2007. EŞ Museum siglum of Eski Şark Eserleri Müzesi, İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzesi. IAP Interuniversity Attraction Poles. IM Museum siglum of the Iraq Museum. Isaiah The Book of Isaiah. K. Siglum of the texts in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum. KAJ E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur juristischen Inhalts (Wissenschaftliche Veröf-

fentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 50), Leipzig 1927.

2 ABBREVIATIONS KAN 4 B. Faist, Neuassyrische Rechtsurkunden IV. Mit einem Beitrag von E. Klengel-

Brandt (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 132 = Keilschrifttexte aus Neuassyrischer Zeit 4), Wiesbaden 2010.

KAR E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts, I‒II (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 28, 34), Leipzig 1919, 1923.

KAV O. Schroeder, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 35), Leipzig 1920.

MARV 3 H. Freydank, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte II (Wissen-schaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 92), Berlin 1994.

MARV 5 H. Freydank, B. Feller, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte V (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 106), Saarbrücken 2004.

MARV 6 H. Freydank, B. Feller, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte VI (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 109), Saarwellingen 2005.

MARV 7 H. Freydank, B. Feller, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte VII (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 111), Saarwellingen 2006.

MARV 10 H. Freydank, D. Prechel, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte X (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 134), Wies-baden 2011.

MSL 12 M. Civil (ed.), The Series lú = ša and Related Texts (Materials for the Sumerian Le-xicon 12), Rome 1969.

NBC Museum siglum of Nies Babylonian Collection, Yale University Library. ND Siglum of texts excavated in the British excavations at Nimrud (Kalhu). NWL see CTN 1. O Siglum of texts in the Royal Museum of Art and History, Brussels. PNA K. Radner, H. D. Baker (eds.), The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire 1–

3, Helsinki, 1998–2011. RIMA 1 A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the 3rd and 2nd Millenia BC (to 1115 BC) (The

Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods 1), Toronto 1987. RIMA 2 A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC)

(The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods 2), Toronto 1991. RIMA 3 A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858–745) (The

Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods 3), Toronto 1996. RINAP 1 H. Tadmor, Sh. Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744‒727 BC),

and Shalmaneser V (726?‒722 BC), Kings of Assyria (Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 1), Winona Lake, IN 2011.

RINAP 3/1 A. K. Grayson, J. Novotný, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 1 (Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/1), Winona Lake, IN 2012.

ABBREVIATIONS 3 RINAP 3/2 A. K. Grayson, J. Novotný, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria

(704–681 BC), Part 2 (Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/2), Winona Lake, IN 2014.

RINAP 4 E. Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC) (Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4), Winona Lake, IN 2011.

SAA 1 S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria and the West (State Archives of Assyria 1), Helsinki 1987.

SAA 10 S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (State Archives of Assyria 10), Helsinki 1993.

SAA 11 F. M. Fales, J. N. Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records, Part II: Provincial and Military Administration (State Archives of Assyria 11), Helsinki 1995.

SAA 12 L. Kataja, R. Whiting, Grants, Decrees and Gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period (State Archives of Assyria 12), Helsinki 1995.

SAA 13 S. W. Cole, P. Machinist, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Priests to Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (State Archives of Assyria 13), Helsinki 1998.

SAA 14 R. Mattila, Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part II. Assurbanipal through Sin-šarru-iškun (State Archives of Assyria 14), Helsinki 2002.

SAA 15 A. Fuchs, S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part III. Letters from Baby-lonia and the Eastern Provinces (State Archives of Assyria 15), Helsinki 2002.

SAA 16 M. Luukko, G. Van Buylaere, The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon (State Archives of Assyria 16), Helsinki 2002.

SAA 17 M. Dietrich, The Babylonian Correspondence of Sargon and Sennacherib (State Archives of Assyria 17), Helsinki 2003.

SAA 18 F. Reynolds, The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon and Letters to Assur-banipal and Sîn-šarru-iškun from Northern and Central Babylonia (State Archives of Assyria 18), Helsinki 2003.

SAA 19 M. Luukko, The Correspondence of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II from Calah/ Nimrud (State Archives of Assyria 19), Helsinki 2012.

SAA 20 S. Parpola, Assyrian Royal Rituals and Cultic Texts (State Archives of Assyria 20), Helsinki forthcoming.

SAAS 5 R. Jas, Neo-Assyrian Judicial Procedures (State Archives of Assyria Studies V), Hel-sinki 1996.

SH Siglum of Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad texts. SIT Series Šumma Sīn ina tāmartīšu. StAT 2 V. Donbaz, S. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Legal Texts in Istanbul (Studien zu den Assur-

Texten 2), Saarbrücken 2001. StAT 3 B. Faist, Alltagstexte aus neuassyrischen Archiven und Bibliotheken der Stadt Assur

(Studien zu den Assur-Texten III), Saarbrücken 2007. STT O. R. Gurney, The Sultantepe Tablets (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

Occasional Publications 3), London 1957–1964.

4 ABBREVIATIONS TCL 3 F. Thureau-Dangin, Une relation de la huitième campagne de Sargon (Textes cunéi-

formes du Louvre 3), Paris 1912. VA Museum siglum of Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin. VAT Siglum of the texts in of Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin. Ziyaret Tablet excavated at Ziyaret Tepe, 2002–2003; S. Parpola, “Cuneiform Texts from

Ziyaret Tepe (Tušḫan), 2002–2003”, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 17 (2008), 1–113, pls. I–XXIII.

State Archives of Assyria Bulletin Volume XXI (2015)

N. N. MAY, S. SVÄRD (EDS.) CHANGE IN NEO-ASSYRIAN IMPERIAL ADMINISTRATION:

EVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION

FOOD AND DRINK FOR THE PALACE: THE MANAGEMENT OF FOODSTUFFS

IN NEO-ASSYRIAN TIMES AND BEYOND *

Melanie M. Groß

When Assurnasirpal II reports on the festivities held for the inauguration of his new imperial capital at Kalḫu, he speaks of 69,574 people whom he provided with food and drink for ten days (RIMA 2 A.0.101.30: 102–145). This account demonstrates the ability of the Assyrian king to organize the acquisition and preparation of thousands of cattle, sheep, game, birds and fish, large amounts of grain, thousands of litres of beer and wine, various different types of vegetables, herbs, spices, and fruits as well as honey, milk, and dairy products. The whole undertaking must have involved thousands of labourers and workers, with the king relying especially on his officials who delegated and coordinated the different operations and channelled the traffic of goods. This article examines these same administrative figures who organized the supply of food and drink for the royal household. In studying the nature of their offices and their activities as witnessed by the everyday documents, we shall gain a better understanding of the complex system of food supply and management in the Neo-Assyrian royal household that we can then compare with what is known for the preceding Middle Assyrian period.

Food consumption within the royal household can be basically divided into “ordinary consumption”, that is, the daily meal, and “extraordinary consumption” on the occasion of festive banquets. While the daily meal was provided for the king and his inner circle, festive consumption involved a broader spectrum of participants, including the king’s state officials, who maintained their own households, as well as guests and envoys from

* This article was written in the framework of the project “Royal Institutional Households in First

Millennium BC Mesopotamia” led by Heather D. Baker at the University of Vienna funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF, grant S 10802–G18) as part of the NFN “ ‘Imperium’ and ‘Officium’. Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom”. The post-canonical eponym dates, marked with an asterisk, follow the reconstructed schedule of K. Radner (1998a: XVIII–XX).

22 MELANIE M. GROß

abroad. Hence, Assurnasirpal lists as his guests 47,074 men and women from all over the empire, 5,000 envoys (ṣīru) from surrounding polities, 16,000 inhabitants of Kalḫu and 1,500 courtiers (zarriqu) of his palaces to celebrate the new capital Kalḫu. Similarly, Esarhaddon let his magnates (LÚ.GAL.MEŠ) and the people of his land (UN.MEŠ KUR-ia) enjoy tables richly laden with food and drink after he had completed his Review Palace (ekal māšarti), “the palace that administers everything” (Ešgalšiddudua), in Nineveh (RINAP 4 1 vi 43, 49–53). These sumptuous banquets were accompanied by the perfor-mance of offerings to the gods, that is, the royal meal attended by the king’s subjects was preceded by the divine meal. This sequence of events is clearly expressed in the aforemen-tioned account of Esarhaddon, who first let the gods of Assyria enter and consecrate his new palace before he invited his subjects for dinner.1 The connection between cultic offer-ings and earthly feeding in the ancient Near East has been repeatedly addressed in recent studies (see, inter alia, Milano 1998; Joannès 2009; Joannès 2013). Parpola (2004: 291) has argued for a “definite correlation between the divine leftovers and the Assyrian royal banquet”. His conclusion is based on about thirty records from Nineveh (SAA 7 182–219), which are concerned with offerings in the Aššur Temple, performed on occasion of the New Year’s festivities, and their leftovers (rēḫātu). These records reveal a pattern (as to the types, order and relative quantities of goods listed) very similar to what we learn from accounts of royal banquets such as that of Assurnasirpal. In this context Parpola (2004: 293) distinguished between “divine favour”, i.e., leftovers from divine meal for the benefit of the king and also the crown prince, and “royal favour”, i.e., leftovers from the royal meal given to the king’s subjects. Hence, the foodstuffs served at the inauguration of the Ešgalšiddudua presumably were leftovers from the preceding sacrifices which the king, as the principal recipient of these divine favours, in turn shared with his subjects as a royal favour. Apart from such occasions of “extraordinary consumption”, the king (and the crown prince) were provided with smaller amounts of offerings leftovers for their in-dividual consumption. As indicated by the “customary leftovers” (rēḫātu kajamānātu) from (the offerings) before Aššur, which were brought to the palace according to a broken letter of an unknown sender (SAA 13 156 r. 6–10), this happened on a more regular basis. The regular delivery of divine leftovers (also over greater distances) to the king is by no means a unique practice in the ancient Near East; for instance, it is well known for the Neo-Babylonian period.2 Although the daily meal of the king for the most part may have remained unaffected by cultic procedures in the temple, and although the large-scale

1. RINAP 4 1 vi 44–48. Also Assurnasirpal II invited the god Aššur together with the gods of the entire

land to his magnificent banquet (RIMA 2 A.0.101.30: 104–105); see Joannès 2009: 226, n. 18. 2. Nabonidus received leftovers of offerings during his stay in Tayma. According to the letter BIN 1 25,

they were brought to the king three times a month, though it remains unclear whether this was an exception or the rule; see Kleber 2008: 302f.

FOOD AND DRINK FOR THE PALACE 23

consumption of offerings leftovers (following the correspondingly large-scale perfor-mance of offerings) by the king’s subjects took place only exceptionally or in greater intervals, the temple sphere was important for the food supply of the palace. We have to reckon with foodstuffs circulating between temple and palace when examining the administration of the food supply for the royal household.

1. The Management of Food Supply in the Neo-Assyrian Period Owing to Assyria’s abundance of pasture lands and cultivated lands, the royal household could rely to a great extent on the country’s own production of edible goods for its mainte-nance,3 but it also benefitted from foodstuffs entering the land as booty, tribute, and gifts and obtained via trade. As for Assyria’s own produce, the basic stages of the food supply were production, management, and preparation. First, meat, grain, legumes, vegetables, herbs, spices, and fruits were produced through animal husbandry, agriculture, and gar-dening, mainly in the countryside. Then followed the collection, the transfer to stables and storage facilities in local centres and the main cities, and the redistribution to kitchen facilities and other establishments for further processing such as slaughtering, conserving, and final preparation including cooking and baking. Depending on the type of food, a modified process was in operation; for example, cattle and poultry were fattened in the urban stables, while grapes were pressed and bottled already in the countryside (in regions north-west of the Assyrian heartland). With foodstuffs received from alternative chan-nels,4 the first stage obviously took place abroad, but the subsequent management and treatment must have been similar to what happened with the home-produced foodstuffs. These alternative channels were particularly important for procuring goods that were not available (or scarce) in Assyria, such as wine and olive oil; these, of course, were pro-cessed already before they entered the Assyrian heartland.5

3. I shall not discuss here the issue of land ownership and tenure in Assyria (see therefore Postgate 1989:

145–149). It is clear that the royal household had its own land and resources, but it may have also profited from tax income from the provinces.

4. Note, for instance, livestock coming as booty or tribute to Assyria under Shalmaneser III (Yamada 2000: 263f., 413, Map 6-C). Also, Urzana, king of Muṣāṣir, wrote a letter to Sargon II dealing with oxen and rams that he wanted to bring with him when he met the king (SAA 5 146).

5. For instance, Shalmaneser III received wine via tribute payments from the Zagros valley and the high-lands of northern Syria (Yamada 2000: 270f., 416, Map 6-F). In the course of the 8th and 7th centuries vineyards became a familiar sight in the Assyrian territory (Gaspa 2012a: 234f.). The olive and its oil remained exotic products throughout the history of the Neo-Assyrian empire, though the Assyrians were not necessarily interested in a large scale import of these products (Faust 2011, especially pp. 70–74, on oil production in Judea). Nevertheless, it was a valuable product which was also needed, for instance, for the manufacture of perfumes.

24 MELANIE M. GROß

1.1. Food Managers For the Neo-Assyrian period we can observe a considerable number of administrative offices who were concerned with foodstuffs. I distinguish here between “kitchen manag-ers” who presided over food-related professions (e.g., chief cook),6 “food managers” who were concerned with a specific foodstuff (e.g., wine master), and “grain managers” who were in charge of storage facilities for grain (and grain products). (1) the “kitchen managers”

◦ rab nuḫatimmi, “chief cook” ◦ rab karkadinni, “chief confectioner” ◦ rab āpie, “chief baker” ◦ rab sirāšê, “chief brewer” ◦ rab ṣāḫiti, “chief oil-presser”

(2) the “food managers” ◦ rab šamni, “oil master” ◦ rab karāni, “wine master” ◦ rab zamri, “fruit master” ◦ rab raqqûti, “spice master”

(3) the “grain managers” ◦ rab karmi or rab karmāni, “granary master or chief of granaries” ◦ rab danībāte 7

(4) miscellaneous ◦ rab qaqqulāti 8

6. The same principle of a rab-x official presiding over the x-profession is attested for several other

professions such as weavers (rab ušpāri in e.g., SAA 6 163 r. 14´). 7. This title presumably originates from the Hurrian word k/galteniwa which appears often in association

with grain in Nuzi texts (Menzel-Wortmann 1986: 213f.). Also in the Neo-Assyrian sources this of-ficial is mainly concerned with the management of grain and grain products; cf. Menzel-Wortmann 1986.

8. q/kaqq/kkulāti is derived from kakkullu which can refer to a “vessel for making beer, for storing liq-uids” but also to a wooden box keeping fruits; see CAD K 59 s.v. kakkullu and kakkullu in rab qaq-qullāte. Note, in particular, his occurrence in a collection of royal decrees (SAA 12 77 i 21, r. iii 5, 16). References to all these food-managing officials are given in the following discussion. A compre-hensive collection of the data is provided in my doctoral thesis The Structure and Organisation of the Neo-Assyrian Royal Household (Ph.D. Diss. Univ. Vienna 2014).


From among these officials it is primarily the “kitchen managers” who, as their titles reveal, were attached to a specific institution or administrative sphere. Hence, apart from the royal household also close relatives of the king (crown prince, queen, king’s mother), provincial governors, temples (Aššur Temple, Ištar Temple), and cities could have their own “kitchen managers” (see Table 1).9 By contrast, the managers concerned with one specific commodity lack any such qualification, with the exception of a wine master who is “of the New House” which is presumably to be identified with an annex to a palace or a distinct palace department.10 The remaining food managers, apart from the rab qaqqu-lāti, “of the house of the queen”, are never identified as a member of the household of a key member of the royal family, of a provincial or a temple household. Only the affilia-tions of the granary masters or chiefs of granaries show that they were active in Nineveh, in the city of Maganuba,11 and in the land of Birtu.12

Although we are dealing here with only a few references in total, the distribution of the known affiliations appears nevertheless to be significant, even more so if we take into account the (approximate) date of the references. Hence, the majority of food-managing offices is already attested in the first half of the 8th century, while individuals explicitly affiliated to temples occur from the reign of Sargon II onwards. The food managers work-ing for key members of the royal family are only known for the 7th century, when the es-tablishments of these royals seem to have expanded considerably.13 Also, the reference to the wine master of the New House stems from a legal record dating from the reign of As- surbanipal or later. Based on the fact that the earliest datable attestation of a food manager qualified as “of the palace” points to the reign of Sargon II, a time when also the other institutional affiliations are attested for the first time, one might conclude that at the latest in the second half of the 8th century the “kitchen managers” were no longer restricted to the royal household, and their number increased further in the seventh century. However, since we lack substantial data from before the second half of the 8th century, and it is likely that large establishments such as the Aššur Temple were staffed with “kitchen man-agers” already in early Neo-Assyrian times, this observation is to be treated with cau-

9. All references are given in fn. 16, below. These affiliations are also indicated by the context; note, for

instance, the “chief baker” (of the Aššur Temple) mentioned in a letter of the scholar Akkullānu (SAA 10 96 r. 2).

10. The term bētu eššu occurs also in SAA 7 115 r. ii 16 and 148 ii 16´, 18´ and is not necessarily identical with the ekallu eššu (as listed, for instance, in SAA 7 115 i 6).

11. Maganuba is to be identified with a place within the area of Dūr-Šarrukīn (Fuchs 1994: 38, Zyl 44; SAA 12 19 7´).

12. The province of Birtu was established in the reign of Tiglath-pileser III and was situated on the Lesser Ḫabūr (Radner 2006: 56f.).

13. This phenomenon was inter alia addressed by Radner 2008: 510; see also Groß 2015.

26 MELANIE M. GROß

tion.14 Still, the absence of comparable qualifications for officials concerned with one specific type of foodstuff, including grain, is significant and it seems that these men were usually only active in the royal household,15 either as a single representative of their office or as one among multiple office-holders, as in the case of the chiefs of granaries who were assigned to different places from the reign of Adad-nērārī III on. The wine master of the New House from late Neo-Assyrian times is perhaps an indicator of a continuous process of specialization within the royal household due to its increase in size and complexity over the centuries. As a consequence of the food-managing offices having more than one representative at a time, within or in addition to the royal household, we have to reckon with a hierarchical formation of holders of the same office, headed by the main office-holder of the royal household.

“of the palace”

“of the crown

prince”

“of the queen”

“of the king’s

mother”

of temples of cities miscellaneous

rab nuḫatimmi x x x Ištar Ḫarrānu

rab karkadinni x x x [...]

rab āpie x Aššur Temple

rab sirāšê Aššur Temple governor of

Gūzāna

rab karāni New House

rab karmāni Nineveh Birtu Maganuba

rab qaqqulāti x

Table 1. Food managers with an institutional or geographical affiliation.16

14. Note especially the undated text Menzel 1981 II: T 24–28, no. 22 in n. 16. 15. The rab zamri and the rab raqqûti are only attested in an administrative text recording the redistribution

of tribute to court personnel (SAA 11 36 i 28, r. i 16). We also find here the rab šamni (SAA 11 36 i 22) who is otherwise only attested as a witness in a legal record from Nineveh (SAA 6 287 r. 13).

16. References: rab nuḫatimmi: “of the palace” (SAA 12 77 i 23´, Sargon II), “of the crown prince” (SAA 14 307 r. 5´, probably 7th century), “of the queen” (BT 140 r. 14, 685, edited in Parker 1963: 100, pl. XXVI), “of Ištar” (StAT 2 102 r. 3´, 711), “of the city of Ḫarrānu” (SAA 11 203 iii 8–9, Sargon II); rab karkadinni: “of the palace” (SAA 12 77 r. ii 17, date uncertain), “(of the) crown prince” (SAA 7 4 r. ii´ 4´, 6´, Assurbanipal), “(of the) king’s mother” (SAA 7 6 i 8´, Esarhaddon or Assurbanipal); rab āpie: “of the queen” (O 3680 r. 10, 687, see Pruzsinszky 2000: 631 s.v. Kubābu-idrī), “of the Aššur Temple” (Menzel 1981 II: T 24–28, no. 22 r. iii 4´, not dated); rab sirāšê: “of the Aššur Temple” (Menzel 1981 II: T 24–28, no. 22 r. iii 7´, not dated), “[of the] governor of Gūzāna” (StAT 2 53 r. 20–


The comparably high density of “kitchen managers” employed in diffeent spheres is likely due to the fact that institutional households were equipped with facilities for the pro-cessing and preparation of food that were staffed with skilled personnel such as cooks, confectioners, and brewers. The larger these facilities were and the more personnel they deployed, the higher is the likelihood that individuals were chosen (from among them) to preside over their professional section. Hence, at first sight these people might be re-garded as, for instance, the chefs de cuisine, as their titles suggest. However, the reality was different: the chief cook and the chief confectioner of the royal household do not seem to have been occupied in the palace kitchen and the palace confectionary respec-tively, but rather they organized the foodstuffs that were needed by the working cooks and confectioners. In the case of the cooks this involved the meat of domestic animals, and in the case of confectioners they were occupied with fruits and spices.17 With the chief cook this developed to such an extent that he was responsible for the general man-agement of livestock, whether needed for sacrifices, consumption, or work as draught animals (see below). The chief cook Sa’īlu even became eponym in the year 620*, a function which was usually reserved for high state officials but was fulfilled also by some court officials in late Neo-Assyrian times (see Mattila 2009). The other types of kitchen managers do not occur in particular connection with the royal household, nor do they seem to have developed a similar degree of abstraction and complexity: they were more “hands-on”. As far as one can tell from the sources, the chief baker, the chief brewer, and the chief oil-presser seem to have borne responsibility primarily for the preparation and provision of bread, beer, and oil (mainly sesame oil),18 rather than for the organization of the ingredients needed. Also, the discrepancy between the literal meaning “chief oil-presser” (rab ṣāḫiti) and “oil master” (rab šamni) supports the impression that the latter managed the acquisition, storage, and distribution of oil and the “chief oil-presser”, as head of the oil-pressers, was liable for the productivity of the oil-pressing craft and may

21, 700); rab karāni: “(of the) New House” (SAA 14 60: 7, 658); rab karmāni: “of Nineveh” (SAA 12 72 r. 12, 790), “(of the) land of Birtu” (ND 2791 r. 17´–18´, Tiglath-pileser III or Sargon II, edited in Parker 1961: 54, pl. XXVIII), “of the city of Maganuba” (SAA 6 37: 2–3, 694); rab qaqqulāti: “of the queen” (StAT 2 3 r. 3–4, 692).

17. Note especially the letters of Nabû-dē’iq (SAA 1 226–232) who was concerned with the acquisition of fruit trees and conifers and who twice mentions the rab karkadinni (SAA 1 227: 10 and 228: 4).

18. We lack significant references to the chief oil-presser who is mentioned in the lexical list of official and professional titles from Sultantepe (MSL 12 233 r. v 17´) and, if restored correctly, in Ziyaret 10: 4; note, however, the addressee Irmulu of the letter of twenty oil-pressers who might have been chief oil-presser (KAV 197: 1; Postgate 1974: 363–367). Still, a text dealing with the responsibilities of the personnel of the Aššur Temple records that the chief baker is responsible for the supply of bread and that the chief brewer, likewise, is in charge of the provision of beer (Menzel 1981 II: T 24–28, no. 22 r. iii 2´–4´, r. iii 5´–8´).

28 MELANIE M. GROß

have even worked as an oil-presser himself. Likewise, the storage of grain, which was central for the chief baker’s and the chief brewer’s work, was the responsibility of the chief of granaries and the rab danībāti. One would also assume a similar distribution of responsibilities between the fruit master and the spice master, on the one hand, and the chief confectioner on the other hand. They all occur in the same administrative document recording allocations of tribute to court personnel (SAA 11 36 i 28, 31, r. i 16); thus, they were active at the same time. Judging by the developed state of the office of chief confec-tioner, he was perhaps responsible for the acquisition of fruits and spices needed by the confectioners, while the two “food managers” managed the same commodities for other uses (such as raw consumption or the manufacture of perfumes). Although this is highly speculative, the responsibilities of the kitchen managers and the other food managers, in any case, to a certain extent complemented each other.

Comparing the range of food served at the banquet of Assurnasirpal II with the types of foodstuffs the food managers were concerned with, the management of the most important components of the elite’s menu, including grain, meat, and wine, was under-taken by separate officials. In the following we will take a closer look at selected food-managing offices, in order to gain a better understanding of the activities of the food managers in connection with the acquisition, transport, storage, and distribution of the foodstuffs for the benefit of the royal household (inevitably including also deliveries to the temple). Since the chief of granaries, the chief cook and the wine master are compara-tively well attested among the food managers and since each of these offices represents one of the categories of food managers established above, they are the most suitable candidates for such an examination.

1.1.1 rab karmāni, “chief of granaries” The chief of granaries, as his title suggests,19 was in charge of large storage facilities for grain. This is best documented by an administrative record (ND 2791, Parker 1961: 54, pl. XXVIII) from 8th-century Kalḫu (Room 4 of the ZT area, North-West Palace) accord-ing to which the storehouse (nakkamtu) under the responsibility of the (unnamed) granary master in the land of Birtu received in total 12,800 homers of barley rations (ŠE.PAD)

19. Related to the verb karāmu, meaning “to pile up, to store, to keep” (CAD K 201 s.v. karāmu B), the

noun karmu describes a “storage area, pile (of barley)” (CAD K 200 s.v. karammu) and can refer to bare heaps of grain but also to fixed storage constructions (as is made clear by the determinative É, often found in Middle Assyrian writings). For a more detailed discussion about the etymology of this term see Llop 2005: 41–43; note also his discussion of the Middle Assyrian writings ibid. 43f.; cf. Llop in Faist & Llop 2012: 20–24.


collected from various different places (apart from Arbaʾil these are mostly unknown).20 Hence, corn from local centres was stored in the granary of that region administered by the granary master. In three legal records from 7th-century Kalḫu (Fort Shalmaneser) the (unnamed) chief of granaries is concerned with the collection of the corn and straw taxes from royal maʾuttu land (CTN 3 14–16). This type of land, which seems to have been maintenance land for the king (or his household),21 was apparently placed at the disposal of Šamaš-aḫu-iddina (CTN 3 14, 16) and Šēp-Issār (CTN 3 15) respectively, who were liable to pay taxes in return for its usufruct.22 In another administrative record, bearing the same archival background as ND 2791, the chief of granaries Saggil-šarru-uṣur is listed along with 4,000 homers (of barley) (ND 3469: 14–15, Wiseman 1953: 146, pl. XIII). In the same record also the (unnamed) fodder master (rab kissite) is listed along with 2,000, a certain Kabtî with 7,000, and the (unnamed) rab danībāte with 1,000 homers (of barley), and the city of Nineveh is recorded with 3,050 homers (of barley) which were collected inter alia from Kurbaʾil, Šibaniba, and Talmusa, all provincial cities located in the Assyrian heartland north of Nineveh. Since the deliveries were made to Nineveh, the grain amounts in Nineveh and in charge of the officials may have been meant for another final destination, perhaps Kalḫu, the place where the tablet was found and the imperial capital at that time.23 In any case, this document reveals the operation of the barley supply for the urban centres of the Assyrian heartland, something that is also reflected in the ad-ministrative text SAA 11 23, where 70 (homers) 7 seahs (of grain), the total imposed upon several men listed by personal name, are said to be for (ana) Nineveh.24 The chief of granaries also supplied individual palace departments and palace members with grain, as is clear from legal texts recording administrative procedures. When the chief of granaries Il-amar owes 200 barley rations (ŠE.PAD) to the šakintu “of […]”, to be delivered to Dūr-Šarrukīn (SAA 14 471), this reflects an official obligation rather than a personal loan.25

20. More than 200 letters from the correspondence of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II were found in Room

4 of the North-West Palace (Oates & Oates 2001: 197–201); the present document presumably was drawn up at that time.

21. According to Parpola (1975: 295), the term maʾuttu presumably derives from mânu, meaning “to provide”.

22. For this interpretation, which I find convincing, see Postgate 1974: 180f. 23. Even if the tablet dates from the reign of Sargon (cf. ND 2791) who established a new imperial capital,

Kalḫu still functioned as the imperial centre, since Dūr-Šarrukīn was only finished and occupied in 706 BCE, at the end of Sargon’s reign.

24. The total, however, is not compatible with the sum of the individual deliveries (Fales & Postgate 1995: XVIII). Note also the letter of Tarība-Issār to the king (Sargon) dealing with barley rations (to be) collected from provincial palaces in Kilīzi, Adian, and Arbaʾil (SAA 1 160).

25. In addition to the involvement of officials, the even number, and the absence of the phrase ina pūḫi ittiši, marking a “true loan” (Postgate 1976: 37, § 3.2.4), underlines the official nature of this tran-

30 MELANIE M. GROß

Presumably also Nasḫir-Bēl, possibly chief of granaries (CTN 3 92: 4: LÚ.GAL–kar?-[man?]), who owed 4 barley rations to a certain Mannu-kī-Arbaʾil in late Neo-Assyrian times, acted here in his official capacity, not least because the indebted barley is qualified as fodder (kissutu) which in other legal records from Fort Shalmaneser (CTN 3 10: 2; 12: 7; 13: 4) marks their administrative background.26 Hence, in both cases the chief of grana-ries was ex officio obliged to supply amounts of grain which he did not yet manage to deliver. In other cases, the chief of granaries appears as a provider of corn for temple offerings. This can be placed in the context of general duties that were also imposed on other officials (primarily the high state officials) who had appropriate resources at their disposal. According to the letter of the scholar Akkullānu to the king (Assurbanipal), the (unnamed) chief of granaries is listed among the officials, mainly provincial governors,27 who did not yet hand in their contributions of barley and emmer for the regular offerings (ginû) in the Aššur Temple.28 Hence, the chief of granaries (and his establishment) had separate resources available, independent of the provincial stocks of grain.29

Although the title rab karmāni explicitly refers to the karmu, this official never actu-ally occurs in association with such an installation. Rather, the chief of granaries is once recorded as being responsible for a storage facility called nakkamtu (ND 2791), a term which is otherwise often used to refer to the treasury or treasury houses containing pre-cious metals (e.g., SAA 7 59 ii 5; SAA 13 127: 13) or associated with horses (e.g., SAA 13 95: 8; ND 2451: 7, 12, 18, see Postgate 1974: 376–378). Thus, the nakkamtu did not serve exclusively as a storage facility for grain, as was the case with karmu.30 Since one would, nevertheless, assume that the rab karmāni was responsible for the establishments designated karmu in the Neo-Assyrian sources, we shall have a brief look at the Assyrian

saction. For the drawing up of legal texts in order to document administrative procedures see, for instance, Dalley & Postgate 1984: 8.

26. As in SAA 14 471, there is not an ina pūḫi ittiši clause. The date is lost, but see Dalley & Postgate 1984: 156 and Baker 2001: 687f. s.v. Mannu-kī-Arbail 18 (possibly identical with nos. 15–17 and 30; in the latter case a Mannu-kī-Arbaʾil is one of three debtors of 15 homers of barley rations in a context similar to an administrative procedure, see Dalley & Postgate 1984: 100 about CTN 3 44).

27. The toponyms in SAA 10 96: 17–23 (and ll. 13–16) refer to LÚ.EN.NAM in l. 13. Daiān-Adad, who is mentioned immediately after the chief of granaries, is eponym of a city (see Pruzsinszky 1999: 367 s.v. Daiān-Adad 3).

28. SAA 10 96: 17–25, cf. SAA 12 72 r. 12 (fragment belonging to the decree of Adad-nērārī III, SAA 12 71) where the chief of granaries is listed as contributor of offering goods (broken).

29. Contra Faist (in Faist & Llop 2012: 28, n. 28) who proposes that Akkullānu refers here to his own city, administered by the rab karmāni. There is no point in assuming that Akkullānu himself had to provide material for offerings in this context, neither is it likely that he had his own rab karmāni.

30. Another term denoting a sort of silo is padakku (see Faist in Faist & Llop 2012: 28, n. 64). For the Middle Assyrian period Llop (in Faist & Llop 2012: 25) points to a few other terms which designate grain storage facilities exclusively, namely ḫašīmu and qub/p(u)tu.


evidence for karmu which was only recently examined by Faist and Llop (2012). Both Faist (for the Neo-Assyrian period) and Llop (for the Middle Assyrian period, cf. Llop 2005) conclude that this term primarily refers to royal or governmental granaries for the storage of the king’s grain intended for the benefit of the king’s household. This seems especially plausible on the basis of the Middle Assyrian evidence which suggests that apart from the imperial capital Assur also all the provincial capitals had their own royal karmu (Llop 2005: 44f.). Also according to the Neo-Assyrian state correspondence, the karmu was an institutional facility which was mainly at the disposal of provincial gover-nors, not least for supplying the army.31 Another relevant reference to the karmu (the only Neo-Assyrian attestation written with the determinative É) occurs in a letter of Amar-ili who may have been active in Arbaʾil (Radner 1998: 98, s.v. Amar-ili 1). Here, Amar-ili reports to the king that the karmu between the bēt-qātē (storehouse) of the ša pān ekalli (palace supervisor) has fallen down (SAA 1 137). This incident might or might not have taken place in the city of Arbaʾil (Amar-ili’s possible place of work), but it shows that the karmu was an urban installation, well integrated into the cityscape and rather close to rep-resentative buildings (i.e., the palace). The karmu attested in SAA 1 181 was administered by provincial authorities (the deputy governor) but had a particular connection to the king and his household, judging by its description “of the king”.32 This, together with the other evidence, indicates that the Middle Assyrian system of installing royal granaries in pro-vincial capitals was maintained in the Neo-Assyrian period. In addition to this, however, the sources of the Neo-Assyrian period also refer to a karmu “of the Nabû Temple” (ND 5457 r. 14, Parker 1957: 131f., pl. XXVII) and “of the house of the skilled men (ummâ-nu)” (Ziyaret 13: 8),33 while in the Middle Assyrian texts karmus of the Aššur Temple and of individuals may be attested (Llop in Faist & Llop 2012: 25f.). Hence, karmu was also used as a generic term for storage facilities of grain, and the rab karmāni was not responsible for all of these individual establishments but — as noted above — he took care of the granaries (whether designated karmu or not) of the royal household which

31. SAA 1 181: 18; 210 r. 10; 264 r. 3, 8; SAA 19 193 r. 6´; perhaps also the two fragmentary administra-

tive records found in the Governor’s Palace CTN 2 46: 5 and 135: 2. 32. The letter was probably written by Bēl-liqbi, governor of the province of Ṣupat (see commentary to

letter in Parpola 1987: 142). 33. According to Parpola (2008: 75), the latter may have formed part of the Ištar Temple in Tušḫan, but

this is fairly uncertain. The skilled men may be related to the military sphere (ibid.) which would correspond well with the general concept of establishing supply points for the army. Other, less conclusive, references are ND 2098: 7 (from room ZT 14, North-West Palace, see Parker 1961: 19, pl. IX) and KAN 4 62 r. 24 (edited by Faist in Faist & Llop 2012: 29f.). The latter may be a successor of the Middle Assyrian granary which was located in the area of the Tabira Gate in the north-western part of the city (ibid. 32f.; cf. Llop 2005: 51f.).

32 MELANIE M. GROß

were administered separately from the provincial ones.34 Apart from his general duty to provide grain for offerings in the Aššur Temple (see above), he does not seem to have been concerned with the corn supply for temples.

Although chronologically removed from each other (see fn. 16, above), the geograph-ical attributions of the rab karmāni, referring to provinces, provincial capitals, and other places in the Assyrian centre (Nineveh, Maganuba) and north of it (Birtu) indicate that several such officials were active for the royal household at a time. There is no indication that they were hierarchically organized, but instances where the office of the rab karmāni is listed together with the provincial governors suggest that there existed one main rep-resentative.

1.1.2 rab nuḫatimmi, “chief cook” As already pointed out, the chief cook of the royal household was not active as an actual cook in the palace kitchen, but rather he managed the supply of livestock for the urban centres. Apart from functioning as a representative of the department that delivered the foods — different types of meat, as far as preserved — that were served for the royal dinner,35 the chief cook was primarily concerned with the acquisition of the living ani-mals. He obtained cattle and sheep inter alia via the distribution of tribute revenue by the palace (SAA 11 36 i 9–11) and as tax payments from the provinces.36 Regarding the latter source of supply, the chief cook occurs in connection with ṣibtu which seems to denote a tax on domestic animals drawn from the offspring of the animals at one’s disposal.37 This is the case in an administrative document dealing with levied oxen and sheep, according to which the department (É) of the (unnamed) chief cook is in charge of 140 oxen meant for offerings (rēšāti and dariu, SAA 11 90). Also in another administrative record the chief cook Aššūr-ašarēd is provisioned with 71 old or dead (BE, read labīru or mētu) mules described as ṣibtu (ND 2451: 19, see Postgate 1974: 376–378). When Inūrta-bēl-uṣur, an

34. Cf. Fales (1990: 25, n. 12) according to whom the author (not preserved) of the letter SAA 5 250

distinguishes between royal granaries and stocks of grain of the magnates with regard to the grain reserves in the city Kār-Aššūr.

35. According to the “Dienstanweisung” K 8669 (iii 48–49), published in Müller 1937. The different types of meat are listed in iii 29–30, but almost 30 lines are missing from the beginning of this paragraph (cf. Parpola 2004: 294, n. 36).

36. SAA 12 77 i 22´–26´. The provincial capitals Ḫatarikka and Ṣimirra are recorded here as the source of the sheep the chief cook had to provide for the regular offerings. These two provinces, located in the far west, were established in the reign of Tiglath-pileser (Radner 2006: 58, 62).

37. This is also reflected by the literal meaning of ṣibtu which is either related to ṣabātu or to (w)aṣābu (as indicated by the logographic writing MÁŠ), meaning “to increase” (Postgate 1974: 171). There is also a rab ṣibti (GAL–MÁŠ), a “sheep-tax master”, attested in the sources (SAA 16 48: 12).


official active in the north-west, claims that he has no resources for taking care of and feeding the oxen of the palace that were assigned to him (SAA 19 34), these might have been the very animals that the chief cook took over after they had been properly fed (as grazing livestock) or fattened (as fatstock kept in stables) in the provinces. For instance, a broken administrative document (SAA 11 80) records in total 1,998 grain-fed sheep (UDU.ŠE.MEŠ), distributed over various different provinces and other administrative units, of which 1,522 sheep were in the charge of the (unnamed) shepherd “of the meal or banquet” (rāʾi naptuni).38 Due to his interest in fed and fattened livestock, the chief cook was associated with shepherds, as is clear from the case of a chief cook who was in charge of three palace shepherds.39

The use of the livestock managed by the chief cook was manifold. Though also working animals were organized by the chief cook (ploughing oxen, see SAA 15 187), his main concern seems to have been to cover the demand for livestock occasioned by culinary, cultic, and scholarly activities. In the first place, we would expect the chief cook of the main palace to have been responsible for the acquisition and delivery of domestic animals intended for the ordinary consumption of the king and his entourage. However, we not only lack concrete evidence for the daily meal in the royal household, we also lack evidence for the chief cook’s involvement in this matter. By contrast, we learn of festive banquets where large amounts of meat were offered and consumed, and several adminis-trative records are preserved which list different types of meat and cuts of meat (together with other foodstuffs) in association with offerings and their subsequent consumption.40 Similarly, the chief cook is attested in connection with livestock meant for offerings (SAA 11 90, SAA 12 77) and other rituals (SAA 10 202). Although the general lack of concrete

38. Also Dādî, who was possibly chief cook (of the Aššur Temple) judging by his activities (SAA 13 18–

24; cf. Deller 1985: 363 who considered Dādî to be a priest of the bēt-nuḫatimmi of the Aššur Temple, analogous to SAA 10 96 r. 1), was concerned with the domestic animals to be delivered by the naptu-nu-shepherds (SAA 13 19, 20). Radner (1999: 92f.) defined the rāʾi naptini as “Hirte für die Palastver-sorgung” (by contrast to the rāʾi darî, “Hirte für die Tempelversorgung”). However, since naptunu can designate the divine meals (for instance, SAA 13 10 r. 10; SAA 10 361: 12´ and RINAP 4 54 r. 31), the divine meals whose leftovers were consumed at the king’s table (SAA 13 156 r. 4) and, similarly, the royal meals preceded or accompanied by sacrifices and, hence, apparently provided with offerings leftovers (such as in RIMA 3 A.0.102.14: 70, reign of Shalmaneser III; RINAP 4 33 r. iii 35´–36´, reign of Esarhaddon), the naptunu-shepherd did not take care only of the livestock meant for the maintenance of the palace; this is also indicated by Dādî’s concern with these herders.

39. Edubba 10 28: 3–8. Note also Inūrta-aḫīa-šukšid(?), eunuch of Adad-nērārī III, who bore the title “chief of the cooks and herdsmen” (GAL–LÚ*.MU.MEŠ LÚ*.NA.GADA.MEŠ) according to his cylinder seal (Watanabe 1993: 115, no. 6.2: 3–4).

40. Especially SAA 7 182–219, see above. Also the records SAA 7 148–157 deal with foodstuffs including meat apparently consumed at a festive banquet (with or without cultic background, cf. Gaspa 2012a: 6f.).

34 MELANIE M. GROß

evidence for the daily meal is easily explained by the fact that the arrangements for it had no need to be mentioned or discussed in the royal inscriptions, the royal correspondence, and non-documentary texts, one wonders why the chief cook occurs in the administrative records especially in connection with offerings but not with livestock meant for the daily meal.

The number of references to the chief cook’s tasks is limited, but in view of the central role assumed by the consumption of offerings leftovers at the king’s table (see above), the chief cook’s preoccupation as reflected in the sources is not a matter of acci-dent. More so, if we take into account that the trauma caused by the killing of living creatures for the human diet had to be overcome by sacrificing activities and collective consumption in order to re-establish the cosmic order, as argued by Milano (1998: 111f.). The same author also states that, although on the basis of this principle every slaughter for meat was accompanied by ritual procedures, the “circulation and way of consumption [of meat] were certainly part of a system of distribution which had little or nothing to do with the economy of sacrificial meat” (ibid. 113) in Mesopotamia.41 He also states that “palace and temple (…) share in fact the same concern for meat provisioning” but stresses that the maintenance of the gods (in the temple) was “substantially different from the sustenance of human beings” (in the palace) (ibid. 114). On the basis of the available sources one cannot argue that every piece of meat consumed by the Assyrian king and his entourage was consecrated meat, that is meat sacrificed in the temple and brought to the palace (or to the king’s table in another location). Nevertheless, the economic processes of the palace in conjunction with its meat supply seem to have been closely connected to the Aššur Temple (and also other temples) especially but not only during the cultic perfor-mances in the context of the New Year’s festivities lasting from the 11th month (Šabāṭu) to the 1st month (Nisannu) of the following year (see Menzel 1981 I: 49–59 and Maul 2000).

The number of livestock slaughtered on the occasion of these festivities was unsur-passed by the amount of meat produced in the context of any other event that took place at regular intervals.42 According to Parpola, daily deliveries of leftovers from the New Year’s performances provided enough meat for about 700 individuals while up to 3,500–5,000 individuals could have been maintained on peak days (Parpola 2004: 291f.). Since the performance of meat offerings in the Aššur Temple (and other temples) involved the

41. Cf. Milano 1998: 120–125 where he distinguishes between two system of distribution of meat: one

strictly bound to the temple economy and mainly involving leftovers, and the other organized inde-pendently of offering activities. Cf. Parpola (2004: 292) with a similar view for the Neo-Assyrian period.

42. Events such as the inauguration festivities of Assurnasirpal II are, of course, excluded here; amounts of foods approximately 1,000 times larger were offered then (Parpola 2004: 291).


slaughtering, cutting, and preparation of meat,43 the sanctuaries must have been equipped with (or surrounded by) appropriate areas, instruments, and personnel in order to trans-form the living animal into the cooked dish. The Neo-Assyrian written sources indeed refer to slaughterhouses (bēt-qurše, bēt-Dagan), kitchen facilities (bēt-nuḫatimmi), and even establishments for the conservation of meat (salt-meat house: bēt-midli) in associa-tion with the Aššur Temple.44 A bēt-nuḫatimmi staffed with a butcher (nākisu) and a salt-meat man (ša midlīšu) is known for the palace (CTN 3 87: 17–20), but we lack evidence for special slaughterhouses and for separate facilities for the conservation of meat in connection with the palace. Although the slaughter and the processing of meat must have also happened in the domestic area of the palace,45 the supply of the royal household with meat seems to have been to a considerable extent organized via the Aššur Temple (and other temples) due to cultic requirements. The abundance of meat which was sacrificed in the Aššur Temple especially during the New Year’s festivities produced such a surplus that the meat had to be conserved or passed on to other institutions. This is clear from SAA 13 18, a letter of Dādî who has been told by the temple scribe to forward to the šakintu of the Inner City (= Assur) leftovers of meat offerings that had previously been given to the salt-meat house. Hence, regarding the consumption of meat we can observe a reciprocal relationship between palace and temple, the latter being central for the meat supply for the royal household that was supervised by the chief cook. 1.1.3 rab karāni, “wine master” On analogy with the other food managers, the wine master must have been concerned with the acquisition, storage, and distribution of wine. Administrative records dealing

43. The gods were not provided with raw meat but with processed meat, since the offerings actually

represent their meal. As Gaspa (2012b: 249f.) stated, “culinary treatment is one of the most significant actions executed by the ritual performer”.

44. For these facilities in the Aššur Temple see Deller 1985: 353–364; he argues for an equation of the terms bēt-g/qurše (former bēt-hurše), bēt-Dagan, and bēt-nuḫatimmi. Though there seems to have been a functional overlap, the bēt-Dagan was primarily a sanctuary whose special focus on animal sacrifices gave rise to its strong connection with the processing of meat. Furthermore, the bēt-nuḫa-timmi does not exclusively denote a slaughterhouse judging by its eponymous profession and the clear distinction between the profession of cook (nuḫatimmu) and butcher (nākisu, ṭābiḫu). The bēt-gurše, related to the verb garāšu meaning “to trim, to carve” (Deller 1985: 357), clearly focused on the cutting (of meat). The term bēt-midli is attested in two letters (SAA 13 18 r. 8 and 22: 5´) of Dādî, an official associated with the Aššur Temple (see fn. 38, above). For midlu meaning pickled meat see Deller 1983.

45. From their analysis of the faunal data from Ziyaret Tepe (Tušḫan), Wicke & Greenfield (2013: 80–82, pl. XXXII) concluded that the processing of entire domestic animals took place in the “open courtyard area” of the excavated Middle Assyrian palace (no faunal remains were found in the main reception rooms of the building).

36 MELANIE M. GROß

with the palace income of wine are rare and for the most part not conclusive, though there is, for instance, a record from the North-West Palace in Kalḫu (Room ZT 4) about the deliveries of livestock and wine from various (unknown) cities (ND 2790, Parker 1961: 53f., pl. XXVIII). Another document from Fort Shalmaneser (Room NE 50) lists the income of audience gifts in the form of wine (CTN 3 89: 20´–33´). Also, in the letter of Bābilāiu, Bēl-iqīša, and another man (name lost) to the king (Assurbanipal), a storage place for the wine that came in as audience gift in the 10th month (Kanūnu) is requested (SAA 16 117). None of these texts mentions the wine master, but it seems fair to suppose that this official actually supervised incoming wine and its subsequent storage. Also, alt-hough the lists of wine allocations from Fort Shalmaneser do not give any clue as to the department or official managing the distribution of wine among the court society, the wine master is the most plausible candidate in this respect, not least because he occurs as a recipient (of comparatively large amounts of wine) in several of these lists.46 The rec-ords stem, on the one hand, from Room SW6 which contained large storage jars (up to 300 litres capacity) and was located next to the rooms (SE 1, 10) where a considerable part of the dossier of the palace manager (rab ekalli) was found and, on the other, from the Rooms NE 48–49, close to the north-eastern palace entrance; it is likely that the wine master operated here. In line with the duties of the chief of granaries and the chief cook, the wine master (of the palace) regularly had to provide amounts of wine for offering activities in the temples, as is clear from royal decrees and schedules (SAA 12 80: 4, 6 and, if restored correctly, SAA 12 77 i 15´–17´). When the astrologer Akkullānu reports to the king (Esarhaddon or Assurbanipal) that the (unnamed) wine master together with his deputy and his scribe in the seventh month (Tašrītu) did not refill wine to be offered in the Aššur Temple (SAA 10 98: 17–r. 15), this refers directly to such regulations laid down by the king. I therefore suggest that the wine master in question was appointed to the royal household rather than the Aššur Temple. Also the sum of 9 minas 15 shekels of silver, meant for the regular offerings (ginû) of Aššur and owed by Zārūtî, wine master of the New House, and his deputy Ulūlāiu (SAA 14 60, 61), presumably had a similar background.

As with the chief cook, most of the direct evidence we have regarding the tasks of the wine master refers to the supply of wine for offerings. Although we know that also consecrated wine, the leftovers from offerings in the temples,47 was consumed in the

46. NWL 4 13; 5 r. 2; 6 r. 46; 7 9; 8: 10; 11 r. 19; 21 r. 10. The amount of wine given to the rab karāni

according to the unbroken entries is 1 sūtu 5 qû (NWL 8) and 1 sūtu 4 qû (NWL 11); single persons usually receive here 1 qû of wine (e.g., NWL 4: 18–19) whereas the queen’s household receives 3 sūtu of wine (e.g., NWL 8: 6).

47. Note, for instance, a letter of an unknown author (heading broken) who, in connection with wine offer-ings before Bel and Nabû, refers to wine as the return or benefit of the palace (SAA 13 134: 21´: GEŠTIN.MEŠ ta-a-a-ru ša É.GAL, see CAD T 60f. s.v. tajāru).


palace, it is clear that this cannot have been the only source. Leaving aside the possible loss of texts written on perishable material and other such difficulties relating to the une-ven distribution of sources, the lack of information is presumably because there was usu-ally no need to communicate about the internal distribution of wine in writing.48 Moreo-ver, the documentation of administrative procedures in the Neo-Assyrian period was gen-erally less extensive (Postgate 2001: 182). Together with the chief cook, the wine master took care of the most valuable foodstuffs consumed by the gods and the Assyrian elite, items that were not usually available for the ordinary people. In contrast to the chief cook, the wine master was responsible for a finished product delivered to the urban centres and, like his colleagues from the same category (see above), he did not preside over a profes-sional group. The main representative of this office likely had his bureau in the imperial capital, in contrast to the managers of grain who took care of silos beyond the palace walls (and even beyond the walls of the imperial capital).

2. The Management of Food Supply in the Middle Assyrian Period 49 As with the Neo-Assyrian sources, several different types of “kitchen managers” are at-tested in the Middle Assyrian textual material, including the chief cook (rab nuḫatim-mi),50 the chief confectioner (rab karkadinni),51 the chief baker (rab alaḫḫenni),52 the

48. An exceptional case is the letter SAA 16 117 where the king (Esarhaddon) is asked where to put his

wine which has come in as audience gifts. 49. I owe special thanks to Jaume Llop-Raduà who provided me with a collection of data concerning the

Middle Assyrian rab-x officials, as well as to N. Postgate who kindly sent me parts of his monograph on the Middle Assyrian bureaucracy that was published in 2014.

50. Ass. 2001.D–1933: 20´: [G]AL? LÚ.MU.MEŠ, eponym, possibly Ērib-[Sîn] (Frahm 2002: 72f.) and Ass. 2001.D–2403: GAL LÚ.MU.MEŠ, mentioned on the reverse of a broken document recording, among other things, ox hides and tendons (Frahm 2002: 82). Andrae 1972 no. 104: 2´: GAL MU!.MEŠ (cf. CAD K 42f. s.v. kakardinnu b). Writings of the type GAL–LÚ.X(.MEŠ) are rarely attested in the Neo-Assyrian sources, where we usually find the more standardized writing LÚ/LÚ*.GAL–X(.MEŠ).

51. The aforementioned GAL MU!.MEŠ attested on Assur stele no. 104 is followed by ka-kar-di-ni in the next line (l. 3´) which perhaps refers to the GAL in l. 2´; cf. GAL–LÚ*.MU.MEŠ LÚ*.NA.GADA.MEŠ in fn. 39.

52. Jakob 2003: 387, A 1817 (not A 74, as given by Jakob, see Pedersén 1985: 79). According to the Middle Assyrian sources, the alaḫḫennu seems to have been a professional concerned with the processing of corn, comparable to the tasks of both the miller and the baker (Jakob 2003: 391f.). The Neo-Assyrian (as well as the Old Assyrian) evidence rather suggests that the alaḫḫennu (or laḫḫennu) was an admin-istrative official. In Neo-Assyrian times the laḫḫennu is particularly associated with the temple sphere (Menzel 1981 I: 223–228), while his female counterpart, the laḫḫennutu, was active in the queen’s department (Svärd 2015: 123). No rab āpie (or rab āpiʾi) is attested in the Middle Assyrian records (Jakob 2003: 394f.)

38 MELANIE M. GROß

chief brewer (rab sirāšê),53 and the chief oil-presser (rab ṣāḫiti).54 Jakob (2003: 28f.) assumed that they presided over rather small groups of individuals, maybe comprising of about ten people; hence, several chief cooks or chief confectioners may have been active at the same time. In any case, it was already in the Middle Assyrian period that the office of chief cook in particular developed into a more complex role since one of its holders was eponym in the reign of Aššūr-nādin-apli (early 12th century), as was the chief cook Saʾīlu in the Neo-Assyrian period. The occurrence of the title of chief cook in a fragmen-tary inscription on an Assur stele, perhaps accompanied by a reference to the chief confec-tioner, underlines this impression and suggests that also the office of the chief confec-tioner could be represented by a prominent figure at that time (for references see fns. 50 and 51).

Unfortunately we lack concrete evidence for the tasks of the Middle Assyrian chief cook, but it is likely that the responsibilities of the chief cook of the royal household were similar to what we learn from the Neo-Assyrian evidence. Support for this suggestion comes from the archive of the “Offerings House” in Assur headed by the rab gināʾē, “offerings overseer”. According to its written remnants, this department administered cereals, sesame, syrup (or honey), and fruits provided by the provinces for the regular offerings in the Aššur Temple (Postgate 2014: 90–146, note especially fig. 4.5 on p. 97). Gaspa (2011: 167f.) and Postgate (2014: 120), who dealt with this archive recently, point out the lack of domestic animals or meat which formed already in Middle Assyrian times an integral component of provincial provisions for offerings in the Aššur Temple.55 According to Gaspa, this may have been simply owed to a different way of record-keep-ing, but Postgate goes a step further and suggests a different system for supplying the Aššur Temple with meat. Given that there already existed an office of rab nuḫatimmi of apparently enhanced status, I suggest that already in the Middle Assyrian period the chief cook was responsible for the management of meat needed for the divine meal and, as a consequence, the king’s meal.

53. See Jakob 2003: 401, MARV 3 39:7: GAL LÚ.LUNGA.MEŠ. 54. MARV 5 17: 6: GAL Ì.SUR; MARV 6 42: 12, 14: GAL Ì.SUR.MEŠ (two sons of the chief oil-presser

Salmānu-iqīša owe sesame, see Postgate 2014: 115) and MARV 10 47: 11: GAL Ì.SUR = KAJ 248. 55. For meat offered in the Middle Assyrian period see Gaspa 2012b: 250–253. No rab gināʾē is attested

in the Neo-Assyrian sources; the treasurer (masennu) of the Aššur Temple may have taken over this function instead. According to the decree of Adad-nērārī III (SAA 12 69), Šamaš-nāṣir, treasurer of the Aššur Temple, was appointed to take care of the supply of oil, honey, grain, and legumes for the offering ceremonies in the Aššur Temple. The supply of meat (grain-fed sheep and bulls) is here sepa-rately addressed and each time in explicit connection with the king as the donor (ll. 14, 24, 26).


There is evidence for a rather regular provision of bread, beer, and oil by the “Offer-ings House” for the palace which also involved leftovers from offerings,56 but it is clear that this was only “supplementary support” and that the palace had other resources for the supply of these commodities. Also the supply of meat for the palace and temple may have been maintained by more than one department, as indicated by another archive (M 6, according to Pedersén 1985: 56–68) found in Assur (between the Anu-Adad Temple and the Old Palace). The owner of the archive was the fattener Muttâ, also bearing the titles ša rēši and zāriqu, who took care of the livestock which was brought as audience gifts (nāmurtu) to the palace.57 These gifts were delivered (by provincial governors, local stewards or treasurers, etc.) for the benefit of the prince Inūrta-tukulti-Aššūr (in the reign of Aššūr-dān I). The incoming cattle were meant for the meals (of Inūrta-tukulti-Aššūr), for the feeding of the lions kept by the palace, for exorcists and the performance of sacri-fices and for the expenditure of personal gifts (rīmūtu). Hence, the wide range of uses of cattle administered by a single department may remind us of the Neo-Assyrian period. Apart from the majority of the texts, representing a unilateral documentation for internal usage, there is a sealed account of cattle received and issued over half a year ratified by a certain Puṣa (A 113, Postgate 2014: 179). According to the other references to this man (within Muttâ’s archive and elsewhere), whose title is unknown, Postgate (2014: 182) concluded that he was “closely associated with Mutta” and “perhaps his immediate supe-rior”. Assuming that the office of chief cook had overall responsibility for the meat supply, Puṣa seems to be a suitable candidate for this position who, in his official capacity, supervised departments at a lower administrative level. As to managers concerned with distinct types of foodstuffs, we do not find the same titles that are known for the Neo-Assyrian period. Instead, singular references to a ša muḫḫi šamni and a ša muḫḫi karāni can be found in Middle Assyrian administrative records,58 which very likely are equiva-lent to the titles rab šamni and rab karāni respectively.59 Assuming that the ša muḫḫi šamni and the ša muḫḫi karāni likewise managed the supply of oil and wine for the palace, the administration of these commodities on behalf of the palace was managed by separate

56. Similar to the aforementioned example of wine as tajāru (return or benefit) of the palace (see fn. 47,

above), there is a Middle Assyrian reference to oil described as tajāru of the palace. Note also the presence of brewers and bakers with apparently “divided institutional loyalties”: “bakers (and) brewers of the House of Aššur and the Palace” (Postgate 2014: 128).

57. For the archive see Postgate 1986: 171f.; Jakob 2003: 377f.; and, in particular, Postgate 2014: 177–200.

58. See Postgate 2014: 116 (ša muḫḫi ṣāḫiti, MARV 6 31: 29; the tablet deals with oil libations) and 117, n. 93 (ša muḫḫi karāni, MARV 7 71; he contributes fruits).

59. Also from a formal point of view they are likely to correspond one another, since in Middle Assyrian times the ša muḫḫi ekalli is used synonymously to rab ekalli; the same is true for the ša muḫḫi gināʾē and the rab gināʾē (Jakob 2003: 74f.).

40 MELANIE M. GROß

departments, as was the case in the first millennium BCE. When we look for administra-tors of grain and grain storage facilities in the Middle Assyrian sources, however, there are no references to offices such as the rab karmāni and rab danībāti. I am also not aware of attestations of any equivalent terms or other official designations that might suggest a similar occupation. However, as we have seen, royal grain storage facilities called karmu were distributed over the urban centres in the Middle Assyrian period and these needed to be managed. For the royal karmu in Assur, Llop (2005: 54, nn. 116f.) refers to two families, with close ties to the king and his household, which seem to have been respon-sible for it and ran the royal karmu as a family business.60 It is only a question of designa-tion, and whether the administrators of the karmus bore the title rab karmāni (or rab karmi) or another similar title does not change the fact that they had the same function. We can, nevertheless, observe one significant difference compared with the circum-stances in the Neo-Assyrian period. We do not have evidence for the rab karmāni or his food-managing colleagues, active in the royal household, exercising their office within an elite family network where the son typically follows his father in office.61 Admittedly, this is primarily a matter of the sources and while several Middle Assyrian administrative archives were unearthed in Assur, we lack comparable material from the succeeding pe-riod. However, there is reason to assume that in Neo-Assyrian times the king preferred to appoint independent and professionally skilled men to these offices, as Radner (2011: 359–361) convincingly argued for the Neo-Assyrian high state officials (the magnates and the provincial governors).62 According to Radner, this possible change in the bureau-cratic ethos also involved the more frequent appointment of ša rēšis to state offices; as

60. The two families are those of Urad-Šērūʾa and of Šamaš-aḫu-iddina and his sons Ištar-ēreš, Qībi-

Aššur, and Ubru. Note, however, that Postgate (1988: xii–xiii) rejected the idea that Urad-Šērūʾa was “superintendent of the royal granaries” (as suggested by Saporetti), stressing that his responsibilities were much broader. Also, Melisaḫ, the father of Urad-Šērūʾa, was governor of Naḫur (in the Ḫabur Triangle). Since karmus were established in the provincial capitals, it would be not surprising if provin-cial governors took care of these royal storage facilities, whereas in Neo-Assyrian times separate, independent offices were introduced.

61. Especially local “kitchen managers”, however, were likely chosen from among their profession and, consequently, a son easily followed his father in office; note, in particular, the deceased chief baker (of the Aššur Temple) who was replaced by his son (SAA 10 96 r. 18–26). Also, from among the food managers in the Neo-Assyrian period I am only aware of the chief baker Aššūr-šumu-iddina who is recorded along with his father’s name (StAT 2 183: 1).

62. A remarkable observation in this respect was recently made in connection with a loyalty treaty from the reign of Esarhaddon found in Tell Tayinat. By contrast to Esarhaddon’s loyalty treaties from Kalḫu, which address the city lords (bēl āli) by name and their male descendants, it records the anonymous governor (bēl pāḫiti) together with his subordinate officials and personnel as the king’s contracting party and, thus, indicates the non-hereditary character of the office of provincial governor; see Lauin-ger 2012: 91f. (ll. T i 3–12), 113.


eunuchs, their lack of family ties was supposed to ensure absolute loyalty towards the king. From among the Neo-Assyrian food managers only Inūrta-aḫīa-šukšid(?), “chief of the cooks and the herdsmen”, is designated ša rēši of Adad-nērārī (III) on his cylinder seal (Watanabe 1993: 115, no. 6.2). In the standard formula of his grants of tax exemption Assurbanipal describes himself as the one “who always behaves kindly towards the ša rēšis who serve him” (ša a-na LÚ.šu-ut–SAG.MEŠ man-za-az–pa-ni-šú it-ta-nab-ba-lu i-na dam-qa-a-ti).63 Although the beneficiaries themselves, including the rab ša rēši (SAA 12 26), the chamberlain (ša muḫḫi bētāni, SAA 12 30), and the fodder master (rab kissite, SAA 12 25), are not directly referred to as ša rēši, it is likely that they were addressed with this introductory statement.64 Though this remains unproven, it could indicate that middle-ranking palace offices such as that of the fodder master but also of the granary master and other food managing offices were held by the same class of men, namely ša rēšis. Whether or not this means “eunuch” or rather “courtier” in such a standardized document,65 Assurbanipal’s use of the term ša rēši in this context indicates a systematic or unified treatment of his officials.

According to the Middle Assyrian sources, especially the common palace personnel and the qēpu-agents of the king were designated ša rēši. By contrast, the highest state offices were maintained by the elite families and their “houses” over generations and their office-holders,66 the magnates (rabiʾānu), were possibly distinguished from the ša rēš šarrānu.67 Cases such as the provincial governor and treasurer Uṣur-namkūr-šarre, who is attested with the title ša rēši (Jakob 2003: 83–92), seem to have been rather excep-tional.68 Like state offices were preferably staffed with eunuchs in Neo-Assyrian times, the same change in policy may have affected the lower level of administration, including

63. SAA 12 26: 30 and 25; in ll. 7–8, (partly) preserved in SAA 12 25 and 26. I follow here the translation

of the editors. However, one can also translate “who always behaves kindly towards the ša rēšis and his mazzāz pāni”. For the close association between the two Akkadian titles, basically referring to courtiers, see Groß & Pirngruber 2014.

64. Note Deller (1999: 307) who argues for the grants SAA 12 25–34 being “genuine eunuch grants not applicable to any other person”.

65. The question of whether ša rēšis were eunuchs is still debated. For recent, critical discussions see, for instance, Siddall 2007 and Pirngruber 2011. However, one often misses to consider a quite crucial reference in a collection of prophecies mentioning the “sons (marʾu) of the ša ziqni” and the “ ‘suc-cessors’ (ḫalputu) of the ša rēši” (SAA 9 7: 4), see already Parpola 1983: 21. The term ḫalputu is an Aramaic loanword meaning “substitute” (Parpola 1997: 38, comment on l. 4).

66. On the Middle Assyrian governmental “houses”, Postgate 1988: xxiii–xxv; Postgate 2014: 333–335. 67. See Jakob 2003: 22–24, nn. 174, 176f. and 90, n. 162. The two terms rabiʾānu and ša rēš šarrānu,

which are mentioned one after the other in the Middle Assyrian Krönungsritual (edited in Müller 1937, l. iii 2), however, are not necessarily understood as mutually exclusive.

68. This exception is possibly related to the office of treasurer (or steward) which lacks the background of traditional “houses” (Postgate 2014: 334).

42 MELANIE M. GROß

the food management. However, we should not expect an abrupt and overall change but rather a steady development (with fluctuations) towards a professionalization of the dif-ferent administrative levels. Although we catch a glimpse of this policy already in the Middle Assyrian period, this was developed much further in the Neo-Assyrian empire. The latter administration is also characterized by the installation of deputies (šaniu) be-neath state officials and court officials including the food-managing offices, a custom which is rarely known from the Middle Assyrian period and that can also be taken as a sign of increasing professionalization.69 While at a first sight one expects significant dif-ferences in the way food was managed for the royal household in the two periods, the basic administrative structures and distribution of responsibilities (meat, grain, wine, etc.) also existed in the Middle Assyrian period, as did the strong reciprocal relationship be-tween palace and temple. Based on these foundations, the food management apparatus, along with the entire Neo-Assyrian administration, developed further into a more com-plex and also a more rational system.70

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrae W. 1972, Die Stelenreihen in Assur, 2nd edition (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 24), Osnabrück.

Baker H. D. 2001, “Mannu-kī-Arbail”, in H. D. Baker (ed.), The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 2, Part II: L–N, Helsinki, 685–688.

Dalley S., Postgate J. N. 1984, The Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser (Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 3), London.

69. The second-in-commands of Neo-Assyrian officials are collected and discussed in my doctoral thesis

(fn. 8, above). For the Middle Assyrian period I am only aware of the sukkallu šaniu, the deputy vizier (Jakob 2003: 55).

70. In his monumental study Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Max Weber established the patrimonial rule (traditionale Herrschaft) and the bureaucratic rule (rationale Herrschaft) as ideal types of rulership (Weber 1972: 124). The Neo-Assyrian empire was a combination of the two: while it was maintained on the basis of a traditional concept of rulership, more rational elements were implemented.


Deller K. 1983, “midlu ‘Pökelfleisch’ ”, Assur 3/4, 33–39. —— 1985, “Köche und Küche des Aššur-Tempels”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 16, 347–376, pls.

31–32. —— 1999, “The Assyrian Eunuchs and Their Predecessors”, in K. Watanabe (ed.), Priests and

Officials in the Ancient Near East. Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East — The City and Its Life Held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 22–24, 1996, Heidelberg, 301–311.

Faist B., Llop J. 2012, “The Assyrian Granary karmu”, in G. del Olmo Lete, J. Vidal, N. Wyatt (eds.), The Perfumes of Seven Tamarisks. Studies in Honour of Wilfred G.E. Watson (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 394), Münster, 19–35.

Fales F. M. 1990, “Grain Reserves, Daily Rations, and the Size of the Assyrian Army: A Quantita-tive Study”, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 4/1, 23–34.

Fales F. M., Postgate J. N. 1995, Imperial Administrative Records, Part II: Provincial and Military Administration (State Archives of Assyria 11), Helsinki.

Faust A. 2011, “The Interests of the Assyrian Empire in the West: Olive Oil Production as a Test Case”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 54, 62–86.

Frahm E. 2002, “Assur 2001: Die Schriftfunde”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 134, 47–86.

Fuchs A. 1994, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, Göttingen. Gaspa S. 2011, “The rab gināʾē’s Administrative Unit at Work. A Quantitative Study on the

Provision of Foodstuffs in the Middle Assyrian Period in the Evidence of the Tabular Lists”, Ugarit-Forschungen 43, 161–222.

—— 2012a, Alimenti e pratichi alimentari in Assiria. Le materie alimentari nel culto ufficiale dell’Assiria del primo millennio a.C. (History of the Ancient Near East. Monographs 13), Pa-dova.

—— 2012b, “Meat Offerings and Their Preparation in the State Cult of the Assyrian Empire”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 72/2, 249–273.

Groß M. 2015, “Innovation and Tradition in the Sphere of Neo-Assyrian Officialdom”, in A. Archi (ed.), Tradition and Innovation in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 57th Ren-contre Assyriologique Internationale at Rome, 4–8 July 2011, Winona Lake, IN, 251–266.

Groß M., Pirngruber R. 2014, “On Courtiers in the Neo-Assyrian Empire: ša-rēsi and mazzāz pāni”, Altorientalische Forschungen 41/2, 161–175.

Jakob S. 2003, Mittelassyrische Verwaltung und Sozialstruktur. Untersuchungen (Cuneiform Monographs 29), Leiden - Boston.

Joannès F. 2009, “Le goût des autres”, in X. Faivre, B. Lion, M. Cecile (eds.), Et il y eut un esprit dans l’Homme. Jean Bottéro et la Mésopotamie (Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 6), Paris, 221–236.

—— 2013, “Quand le roi mange comme un dieu … Les transferts entre table divine et table royale en Assyrie et en Babylonie au Ier millénaire av. J.-C.”, in C. Grandjean, C. Hugoniot, B. Lion (eds.), Le banquet du monarque dans le monde antique, Tours - Rennes, 327–342.

Kleber K. 2008, Tempel und Palast. Die Beziehungen zwischen dem König und dem Eanna-Tempel im spätbabylonischen Uruk (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 358 = Veröffentlichun-gen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte Babyloniens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 3), Münster.

Lauinger J. 2012, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tell Tayinat: Text and Commentary”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64, 87–123.

44 MELANIE M. GROß

Llop J. 2005, “Die königlichen ‘großen Speicher’ (karmū rabiʾūtu) der Stadt Assur in der Regie-rungszeit Salmanassars I. und Tukultī-Ninurtas I.”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Ge-sellschaft 137, 41–55.

Mattila R. 2009, “The Chief Singer and Other Late Eponyms”, in M. Luukko, S. Svärd, R. Mat-tila (eds.), Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars. Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola (Studia Orientalia 106), Helsinki, 159–166.

Maul S. M. 2000, “Frühjahrsfeierlichkeiten in Aššur”, in A. R. George, I. L. Finkel (eds.), Wis-dom, Gods and Literature. Studies in Honour of W. G. Lambert, Winona Lake, IN, 389–420.

Menzel B. 1981, Assyrische Tempel I–II (Studia Pohl: Series Maior 10/1–2), Roma. Menzel-Wortmann B. 1986, “Der LÚGAL DANIBATA in neuassyrischer Zeit”, Mesopotamia 21,

213–227. Milano L. 1998, “Aspects of Meat Consumption in Mesopotamia and the Food Paradigm of the

Poor Man of Nippur”, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 12/2, 111–127. Müller K. F. 1937, “Das Assyrische Ritual, Teil I. Texte zum Assyrischen Königsritual”, Mittei-

lungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft 41/3. Oates J., Oates D. 2001, Nimrud. An Assyrian Imperial City Revealed, London. Parker B. 1957, “Economic and Legal Texts from the Nabu Temple”, Iraq 19/2, 125–138. —— 1961, “Administrative Tablets from the North-West Palace, Nimrud”, Iraq 23/1, 15–67, pls.

IX–XXX. —— 1963, “Economic Tablets from the Temple of Mamu at Balawat”, Iraq 25/1, 86–103, pls.

XIX–XXVI. Parpola S. 1975, review of J. N. Postgate, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire,

Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 65/2, 293–296. —— 1983, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Part II:

Commentary and Appendices (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 5/2), Kevelaer - Neukirchen-Vluyn.

—— 1987, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria and the West (State Archives of Assyria 1), Helsinki.

—— 1997, Assyrian Prophecies (State Archives of Assyria 9), Helsinki. —— 2004, “The Leftovers of God and King. On the Distribution of Meat at the Assyrian and

Achaemenid Imperial Courts”, in C. Grottanelli, L. Milano (eds.), Food and Identity in the Ancient World (History of the Ancient Near East. Studies 9), Padova, 281–312.

—— 2008, “Cuneiform Texts from Ziyaret Tepe (Tušḫan), 2002–2003”, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 17, 1–113, pls. I–XXIII.

Pedersén O. 1985, Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur. A Survey of the Material from the German Excavations. Part I (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 6), Uppsala.

Pirngruber R. 2011, “Eunuchen am Königshof. Ktesias und die altorientalische Evidenz”, in J. Wiesehöfer, R. Rollinger, G. B. Lanfranchi (eds.), Ktesias’ Welt / Ctesias’ World (Classica et Orientalia 1), Wiesbaden, 279–312.

Postgate J. N. 1974, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire (Studia Pohl: Series Maior 3), Roma.

—— 1976, Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents, Warminster. —— 1986, “Administrative Archives from the City of Assur in the Middle Assyrian Period”, in

K. R. Veenhof (ed.), Cuneiform Archives and Libraries. Papers read at the 30e Rencontre As-syriologique Internationale Leiden 4–8 July 1983, Leiden, 168–183.


—— 1988, The Archive of Urad-Šerūa and His Family. A Middle Assyrian Household in Govern-ment Service, Roma.

—— 1989, “The Ownership and Exploitation of Land in Assyria in the 1st millennium B.C.”, in M. Lebeau, P. Talon (eds.), Reflets des deux fleuves: Volume de mélanges offerts à André Finet (Akkadica Supplementum 4), Leuven, 141–152.

—— 2001, “System and Style in Three Near Eastern Bureaucracies”, in S. Voutsaki, J. T. Killen (eds.), Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States. Proceedings of a Conference Held on 1–3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge (Cambridge Philological Society, Supplementary Volume 27), Cambridge, 181–194.

—— 2014, Bronze Age Bureaucracy. Writing and the Practice of Government in Assyria, Cam-bridge.

Pruzsinszky R. 1999, “Daiān-Adad”, in K. Radner (ed.), The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 1, Part II: B–G, Helsinki, 367.

—— 2000, “Kubābu-idrī”, in H. D. Baker (ed.) 2000, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 2, Part I: Ḫ–K, Helsinki, 631.

Radner K. 1998, “Amar-ili”, in K. Radner (ed.), The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 1, Part I: A, Helsinki, 98.

—— 1999, Ein neuassyrisches Privatarchiv der Tempelgoldschmiede von Assur (Studien zu den Assur-Texten 1), Saarbrücken.

—— 2006, “Provinz. C. Assyrien”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 11/1–2, 42–68. —— 2008, “The Delegation of Power: Neo-Assyrian Bureau Seals”, in P. Briant, W. F. M. Hen-

kelman, M. W. Stolper (eds.), L’archive des fortifications de Persépolis. État des questions et perspectives de recherches (Persika 12), Paris, 481–515.

—— 2011, “Royal Decision-Making: Kings, Magnates, and Scholars”, in K. Radner, E. Robson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, Oxford, 358–379.

Siddall L. R. 2007, “A Re-Examination of the Title ša reši in the Neo-Assyrian Period”, in J. Azi-ze, N. Weeks (eds.), Gilgameš and the World of Assyria. Proceedings of the Conference Held at Mandelbaum House, The University of Sydney, 21–23 July 2004 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 21), Leuven - Paris - Dudley, 225–240.

Svärd S. 2015, Women and Power in the Neo-Assyrian Palaces (State Archives of Assyria Studies 23), Helsinki.

Watanabe K. 1993, “Neuassyrische Siegellegenden”, Orient (Report of the Society for Near East-ern Studies in Japan) 29, 109–138.

Weber M. 1972, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie, Studienaus-gabe, 5th edition, Tübingen.

Wicke D., Greenfield T. 2013, “The ‘Bronze Palace’ at Ziyaret Tepe. Preliminary Remarks on the Architecture and Faunal Analysis”, in D. Kertai, P. A. Miglus (eds.), New Research on Late Assyrian Palaces. Conference at Heidelberg, January 22nd, 2011 (Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 15), Heidelberg, 63–82, pls. XXXI–XXXII.

Wiseman D. J. 1953, “The Nimrud Tablets, 1953”, Iraq 15/2, 135–160. Yamada S. 2000, The Construction of the Assyrian Empire. A Historical Study of the Inscriptions

of Shalmaneser III (859–824 B.C.) Relating to His Campaigns to the West (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 3), Leiden - Boston - Köln.

46 MELANIE M. GROß

2015 Food and drink for the palace: the management of foodstuffs in Neo-Assyrian times and beyond

Documents

Transcript of 2015 Food and drink for the palace: the management of foodstuffs in Neo-Assyrian times and beyond