A Pudum Rotation List from Tell Taban and the Cultural Milieu of Tabatum in the Post-Hammurabi...

A PUDÛM ROTATION LIST FROM TELL TABAN AND THECULTURAL MILIEU OF ?ABATUM IN THE POST-HAMMURABIPERIOD Shigeo Yamada P.U.F. | Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale 2011/1 - Vol. 105pages 137 à 156

ISSN 0373-6032

Article disponible en ligne à l'adresse:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.cairn.info/revue-d-assyriologie-2011-1-page-137.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pour citer cet article :

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yamada Shigeo, « A pudûm rotation list from Tell Taban and the cultural milieu of ?abatum in the post-Hammurabi

period »,

Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale, 2011/1 Vol. 105, p. 137-156. DOI : 10.3917/assy.105.0137

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour P.U.F..

© P.U.F.. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays.

La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites desconditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votreétablissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière quece soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur enFrance. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.

1 / 1

Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D

ocument téléchargé depuis w

ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.

[RA 105-2011]

Revue d’Assyriologie, volume CV (2011), p. 137-156

137

A PUDÛM ROTATION LIST FROM TELL TABAN AND THE CULTURAL MILIEU OF ṬABATUM IN THE POST-HAMMURABI PERIOD*

BY Shigeo YAMADA

The historical circumstances of the city of Ṭabatum and its surroundings in the post-Hammurabi period have become better known since the discovery of 24 Old Babylonian tablets and inscribed envelopes in Japanese excavations at Tell Taban during 2005 and 2006.1 This is particularly true of the reign of Iṣi-Sumuabi, the second ruler of the kingdom that was founded with the city of Terqa as its centre after the destruction of Mari by Hammurabi.2 The texts from Tell Taban and some documents from Hirbet ed-Diniye (ancient Harradum)3 revealed that in the Terqa region, Iṣi-Sumuabi controlled an extensive territory along the Middle Euphrates and the Lower Habur, including Ṭabatum, situated on the Habur c. 160 km north of Terqa, and Harradum, located on the Euphrates c. 150 km downstream. It thus seems that his kingdom covered almost the entire territory once ruled by Zimri-Lim of Mari and later probably also by Hammurabi.4 Furthermore, a reference to the governor (šāpiṭum) of Qaṭṭunan as one of the witnesses in the royal grant from Tell Taban (Tab T06-4) suggests that Iṣi-Sumuabi continued to use district divisions similar to those established during the reign of Zimri-Lim. Yadih-abu, the successor of Iṣi-Sumuabi, also seems to have maintained the realm extending along the Habur and the Euphrates for at least some time before his defeat by Samsu-iluna of Babylon.5

* This article is based on two of my presentations at the SAKURA meetings, one in October 2010 at Tsukuba and the other in March 2011 in Paris. I would like to thank Dr Bassam Jammous and Dr Michel al-Maqdissi (DGAM) who granted me permission to work on the cuneiform texts from Tell Taban published and discussed here. I am also grateful to H. Numoto, the field director of the excavation, who entrusted me with the study of the materials dealt with here. It is my pleasant duty to thank D. Charpin, J.-M. Durand, A. Jacquet, L. Marti, O. Rouault, D. Shibata and N. Ziegler, who offered valuable comments and information on various issues discussed in this article. The study is financially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Sciences, Sports and Culture (Japan).

1. See the preliminary report, Yamada 2008. The total number of the inscribed materials given there, 25, has now been reduced to 24, after fragments of school texts assigned to Tab T05B-27 and Tab T05B-28 were all joined into a single large tablet during the restoration work in Syria in 2010. I am grateful for the assistance of Ghassan Abdul-Aziz and Akiko Nishimura for this work. Two other documents from the Old Babylonian period were found on the surface during the 2007 excavation season: one is a fragment of a manuscript of the Weidner god-list (Tab T07-1, published by Shibata 2009), and the other is an administrative text dated to the reign of Yadih-abu (Tab T07-3; see the preliminary report of Shibata and Yamada 2009, pp. 89-91).

2. For the historical investigation of this group of texts, see Yamada 2008 and Yamada 2010. For political and administrative organization around the city of Ṭabatum and the kingdom of the Terqa region, see further Yamada 2012 and now in this volume Charpin 2011. There is no absolute proof that Terqa was the capital of the kingdom founded in the Middle Euphrates region in the post-Hammurabi period. For this problem, see D. Charpin’s discussion in his above-mentioned article.

3. In particular, a text dated with the name of Iṣi-Sumuabi (Joannès 2006, Text 16), who is apparently identified with the king of Terqa (Charpin 2006; cf. Joannès 2006, p. 23).

4. Yamada 2008, and Yamada 2012. For Hammurabi’s probable control of the Middle Euphrates area, see also Stol 1976, p. 40 and Charpin and Ziegler 2003, pp. 243-4.

5. The administrative tablet (Tab T07-3) mentioned above in n. 1 that was found on the surface at Tell Taban and dated by a year of Yadih-abu proves his control of Ṭabatum at some point in his reign. Samsu-iluna claims in a year name from his 28th year that he defeated Yadih-abu (Horsnell 1999, pp. 220-2 [SI 28]). The texts from

assyriologie_105.indd 137assyriologie_105.indd 137 17/12/12 15:2017/12/12 15:20

Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.

SHIGEO YAMADA [RA 105

138

The texts from Tell Taban, especially the royal grant (Tab T06-4) issued for a certain Yasim-Mahar by king Iṣi-Sumuabi and the correspondence between them (Tab T05B-42, Tab T05B43), show that the former was granted fields and a house, possibly for his office, by the king and took responsibility for the local administration of Ṭabatum.6 As discussed in my previous studies, the contents of these sources and their comparison with the evidence from Mari suggest that Yasim-Mahar represented the local society of Ṭabatum and its hinterland as a whole before the king of Terqa, and that he probably held the office of sugāgum ‘sheikh/mayor’.7 Presumably he was nominated for his office as a member of a major local clan, and his position was eventually authorized by the king of Terqa, possibly being placed under the supervision of the district governor (šāpiṭum) of Qaṭṭunan. Yasim-Mahar seems to have led the local civil governance, whose nature was relatively collective. It is very likely that the social-administrative order was similar to that known from texts of Mari, where a sugāgum acted in co-operation with a group of local people, which included a ‘lieutenant/deputy (laputtûm)’ and ‘elders (šībūtum)’ as the most eminent members.8 Alongside the continuation of social-administrative order around Ṭabatum and the political unity of the whole region along the Lower Habur and the Middle Euphrates from the time of Zimri-Lim to the post-Hammurabi period, some cultural affinity appears to have been maintained in the region.9 This paper deals with several aspects of the cultural milieu of Ṭabatum in the post-Hammurabi period, particularly in the second half of the 18th century BC (Middle Chronology), while discussing a rotation list of the rite of pudûm from Tell Taban (Tab T05B-39) as a key text in this context.

1. CULTURAL MILIEU OF ṬABATUM AND ITS RELATIONS WITH MARI AND TERQA

The cultural affinities of Ṭabatum with Terqa, the principal city of its suzerain state, may be observed in a number of points, some of which can be regarded as the common cultural heritage of the Amorite kingdom of Mari. I will summarize my observations about the affinities and differences between the cultural circumstances of Ṭabatum and those of Terqa and Mari in several points: (1) Hana-style formula: The formula: … naṣbu(m) ša lā baqri u lā andurāri ‘(fields and house), (that is) legally established, is not subject to claims or release’, is attested in the above-mentioned royal grant found at Tell Taban (Tab T06-4). This formula is attested in different sorts of contracts written in Terqa and its vicinity from the post-Hammurabi period onwards. I defined this formula and the documents that include it as ‘Hana style’, as discussed in my other article in this volume (p. 61-84). The same royal grant also exhibits some other characteristics that often appear in the Hana-style documents, such as the asphalt penalty clause: kupram emmam ana qaqqadīšu uptašaš (text: erroneously up-ta-pa-aš) ‘he (illegal claimant) should be smeared with hot asphalt’, and the oath formula that includes Dagan: nīš Dagān Addu-Mahani u RN īkul ‘he “ate” the oath of Dagan, Addu (of) Mahanum, and RN’.10 (2) Deities mentioned in the oath-formula: The most significant peculiarity observed in the royal grant Tab T06-4 is the reference to the god Addu-Mahani ‘Addu (of) Mahanum’; this apparently reflects a distinct local religious tradition. This deity is attested in a number of texts from Mari in the time

Harradum include tablets dated to the 25th year of Samsu-iluna (Joannès 2006, pp. 21-2). As D. Charpin notes (Charpin in press), the ‘sixth year of Samsu-iluna’ is read on a tablet from Harradum (Joannès 2006, p. 72, Text 23, l. 33). Accordingly, Samsu-iluna probably inherited control of Harradum from his father Hammurabi (Charpin, ibid.); then, he lost it once to a king of Terqa, either Yapah-Sumuabu or Iṣi-Sumuabu, before retaking it from Yadih-abu. See now Charpin’s detailed analysis in his contribution to this volume concerning the relations between Babylon and the region along the Habur and Euphrates during the reign of Samsu-iluna (Charpin 2011).

6. See Yamada 2008, Yamada 2010, and Yamada 2012 (with the revised edition of the grant). 7. Yamada 2008, Yamada 2012. 8. Yamada 2010. 9. As briefly discussed in Yamada 2008, pp. 58-9. 10. For these formulae and their similarities and peculiarities in comparison with other Hana-style texts, see

my other article in this volume (esp. Part 5, pp. 77-81). See also in this volume Charpin 2011 (esp. Part 2.2, pp. 54-5) for the continuation of the tradition of Mari into Terqa, Ṭabatum and Harradum in later periods, concerning the asphalt penalty as well as other terminology and formulae in the legal documents.


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.

2011] A PUDÛM ROTATION LIST FROM TELL TABAN

139

of Zimri-Lim as Addu ša Mahanim or simply Addu, described as being worshipped at Mahanum.11 In other contracts from the reigns of Yapah-Sumu[abu], Iṣi-Sumuabu and Yadih-abu, the first three rulers of the dynasty that ruled Terqa, the oath is taken consistently by the names of Dagan and Itur-Mer, with the occasional addition of Šamaš before Dagan, i.e. nīš (Šamaš) Dagān Itūr-Mēr u RN.12 Dagan apparently represents the chief god of the Middle Euphrates region, and Itur-Mer, the city god of Mari, seems to have come to represent the city of Terqa and its vicinity.13 Šamaš is probably included as the patron god of judgement,14 as accepted broadly throughout the region. Addu-Mahani or Addu-ša-Mahanim is the configuration of the weather god Addu with a modifier Mahanum. Mahanum is attested in the documents of Mari as the location of an important Bedouin assembly, being an eminent cult centre of Addu, somewhere in the western part of the upper Jazira. J.-M. Durand compares it with Hebrew maḥăneh, and suggests that Mahanum means the ‘encampment’ of Bedouins, so it could have been itinerant and not in one fixed place. Nevertheless, he has situated its location within the north-western part of the upper Jazira, primarily south of Jabal Sinjar.15 It seems possible, however, to regard Mahanum as a specific cultic place, as several scholars have suggested.16 The inclusion of Addu-Mahani in the oath formula in any case appears to reflect the location of Ṭabatum close to the cultic place(s) of this deity. In this connection, a Middle Assyrian dedicatory text from Tell Taban, inscribed on bricks and apparently dedicated to the identical deity, is of special interest.17 This inscription, which has survived in three exemplars (Tab T08-14, Tab T08-43+52, Tab T09-19), is dedicated to Adad āšib KUR Ma-a-ni bēl URU Ṭābeti, ‘Adad, dweller of the land Ma’anu, i.e. Mahanum, lord of the city Ṭabetu’ (ll. 1-2). This later testimony implies that Mahanum was the name of a land that contained or was adjacent to the city of Ṭabatum, whether it had already been established as such in the time of Zimri-Lim or not. Curiously, though the dedicator king Adad-bel-gabbe (I) bears only the simple title, šarru ‘king’, in the inscription, his father and grandfather, Zumiya and Akit-Teššup, assume the title šar māt Māri ‘king of the land Mari’, not ‘the land Ma’ani’. It seems therefore that the land name Ma’anu, i.e. Mahanum, was the traditional name of the country around or adjacent to Ṭabatum or Ṭabetu for those rulers, while ‘the land of Mari’ is an appellative applied later to the area of the entire kingdom perhaps by the members of Akit-Teššup’s own dynasty.18 The land grant from Tell Taban thus appears to have been sworn by the chief deity of the entire land of Syria including the middle Euphrates, i.e. Dagan, and the local god of the region surrounding the city Ṭabatum, i.e. Addu-(ša-)Mahani(m), to whom the nomadic people showed special reverence. The pair Dagan and Addu-Mahani may be regarded as parallel to that of Dagan and Itur-Mer, which, as already stated, similarly represents the regional chief deity and the god of a specific locality, i.e. the city of Terqa and its surroundings.19

11. For evidence, see Durand 2004, pp. 139-44; Schwemer 2001, pp. 303-4, and now in this volume, p. 157-

163, Durand 2011. 12. So also in the contracts from the reign of Kaštiliašu, which were unearthed with those of his three

predecessors from the same archives of Puzurum (TFR 1). For evidence, see Podany 2002, pp. 197 and 232. 13. For the god Itur-Mer in the texts of Mari, Terqa and its vicinities, see the contributions to this volume of

Nakata 2011 and Charpin 2011, as well as Podany 2002, pp. 197 and 232. 14. Cf. Feliu 2003, pp. 145-6. 15. Durand 2004, pp. 139-45; cf. also Durand 2000, p. 130 and Durand 2008, p. 320. See further his

contribution to this volume, Durand 2011. See also Charpin 2001 for the attestation of Numuhaeans originating from Mahanum from the time of Ammi-ṣaduqa. As Charpin notes, this supports the location of Mahanum south of Jabal Sinjar, where Numuhaeans are known to have lived.

16. E.g., Schwemer 2001, pp. 303-4; cf. Charpin 2001; Pientka 1998, p. 260 and n. 18. 17. For its publication and detailed discussion, see one of D. Shibata’s contributions to this volume, ‘The

Origin of the Dynasty of the Land of Māri and the City-God of Ṭābetu’, p. 165-180. 18. Cf. Shibata 2011 in this volume, who deliberately avoids determining whether the ma’anu/mahanum

means the land name or not, by putting the KUR sign in KUR ma-a-⸢ni⸣ in parenthesis. 19. I modify here my previous view that Dagan represents the city of Terqa, as against Itur-Mer and Addu-

Mahani who represent Mari and Ṭabatum, respectively. Cf. Charpin’s criticism in his contribution in this volume


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.


140

(3) Mari capacity measure: Another tradition of Mari that continued into Ṭabatum, Terqa and Harradum in the post-Hammurabi period is the use of the capacity measure A.GÀR (= 10 GUR = 1,200 qa) as seen in the following attestations:20

Ṭabatum: Tab T06-9 (unpublished letter of a certain Bina-Ištar), r. 11: 1 A.GÀR ŠE Tab T07-3 (list of barley rations from the reign of Yadih-abu [see above]), r. 20: 40 A.GÀR ŠE

Terqa: TFR 1, 6 (contract from the reign of Yadih-abu), l. 16: 50 A.GÀR ŠE Podany 2002, Text 6 (contract from the reign of Šunuhur-Ammu), l. 5: 2 A.GÀR ŠE Podany 2002, Text 7 (contract from the reign of Šunuhur-Ammu), l. 5: 1 A.GÀR 8 GUR ŠE TFR 2, passim: See ibid., p. 88, index 6.6 (A.GÀR).

Harradum: Joannès 2006, no. 96, l. 1: 1 A.GÀR 1 [GUR] ŠE (Ammi-ditana) Joannès 2006, no. 104, ll. 1, 4 and 6: 3 A.GÀR 4 GUR ŠE.GUR, ⸢7⸣ A.GÀR, 10 A.GÀR 4 GUR ŠE.GUR (Ammi-ṣaduqa)

(4) Calendar: As I have briefly noted elsewhere, the standard calendar of Mari was continuously used also in Ṭabatum and Terqa in the post-Hammurabi period.21 I will review this issue below, giving the edition of the key text from Tell Taban (Tab T05B-39).

2. PUDÛM ROTATION LIST FROM TELL TABAN TAB T05B-39

The tablet Tab T05B-39 is one of the afore-mentioned 24 inscribed objects unearthed from trench 8 at Tell Taban during the 2005 and 2006 excavation seasons. It measures 7.8 cm in length, 4.9 cm in width, and 2.3 cm in maximum thickness, and the colour is red-pink. Though all the inscribed objects from trench 8 had been exposed to fire, and some were found fairly well preserved, Tab T05B-39 was in a fragile state. It was consolidated with chemicals by conservators. The surface of the tablet is partly eroded or damaged, and sign traces remain unclear at several points. The document is sealed, and the seal impressions remain on the obverse, reverse and right edge of the tablet. The impression on the obverse apparently includes an inscription, but it is not clear enough to decipher. The document was issued during the reign of Iṣi-Sumuabu, presumably as a reminder of the monthly rotation assigned to 21 persons for some duty concerning the pudûm ritual. Each person appears to be responsible for taking care of the pudûm ritual of Šamaš for one specific month during a period of eleven months from the month Hibirtum to the month Lahhum. The individuals concerned probably came from in or around the city of Ṭabatum, as a few pieces of evidence found in other texts from Tell Taban may suggest.22

(esp. p. 48-51, Part 1.3.2). See further in this volume Nakata 2011 about the acceptance of Itur-Mer as a chief deity at Terqa.

20. For the use of A.GÀR = ugārum ‘irrigation district’ as a capacity measure in Mari and its vicinity, see Chambon 2006, esp. pp. 102-3 for A.GÀR; cf. also Powell 1987-90, pp. 499-500. See also in this volume Charpin 2011 on the same subject with more elaborate notes.

21. Yamada 2008, pp. 58-9. For some elements of the calendars and cults of the Amorite kingdom of Mari that survived into the later calendars of Terqa in the Early and Middle Hana periods and that of Ṭabatum in Middle Assyrian period, see Shibata 2010. For the changes of the calendar system at Terqa or the kingdom of the land of Hana through the ages, see also my other article in this volume (esp. pp. 69-77 Part 4).

22. See below the last paragraph of the note to Tab T05-B39, ll. 3-23.


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.


141

Text Tab T05-B39

Transliteration: obv. 1. be-el pu-di-im dUTU 2. ra-bi-a-nu-um i-ṣi-su-mu-a-bi 3. ⸢ITI hi-bir5-tum⸣ im-ma-DINGIR

4. ITI ⸢dIGI⸣.KUR um-mi-a-⸢nu⸣-um

5. ù ra-ab-bi-DINGIR 6. ITI ki-nu-nim tu-ra-a[m]-⸢dda-gan⸣ 7. ù ha-ab-d[u- x- x] 8. ITI dda-gan LÚ.SUKKAL 9. ù ⸢ka-ṣi-ib-na?⸣-x 10. ITI li-li-⸢ia-tum⸣ ta-ṣí-[x-(x)] 11. ù ia-am-ṣa-ha-⸢at?⸣-nu l.e. 12. ITI dNIN-bi-ri sà-bi-hu 13. ù e-en-⸢še?-ni?⸣ rev. 14. ITI ki-iṣ-ki-ṣum i-din-iš8-tár 15. ù ib-na-tum 16. ITI e-bu-rum ia-an-ṣí-bu 17. ù ia-ri-im-[x x] 18. ITI ú-ra-hu i-ba-al-⸢d⸣IŠKUR 19. ù ha-am-mi-iš-t[a-mar] 20. ITI ma-al-ka-nim ha-ab-du-ú 21. ù bi-na-ha-am-mi 22. ITI la-ah-hi-im bu-nu-ma-dIŠKUR 23. ù ⸢i-ba-lum⸣ l.e. 24. MU i-ṣi-⸢su⸣-mu-a-bi LUGAL 25. [GIŠ.GU.ZA ?] a-na dUTU ⸢ú-še-lu-ú⸣

Translation: obv. 1. The holder of pudûm: Šamaš. 2. The leader/king: Iṣi-Sumuabi. 3. The month of Hibirtum: Imma-il. 4. The month of Hubur: Ummianum 5. and Rabbi-il. 6. The month of Kinunum: Turam-Dagan 7. and Habd[u-…]. 8. The month of Dagan: Sukkallum 9. and Kaṣib-…[…]. 10. The month of Lilliyatum: Taṣi-[…] 11. and Yamṣa-Hatnu. l.e. 12. The month: Belet-biri: Sabihu 13. and En-šenni. rev. 14. The month Kiṣkiṣṣum: Iddin-Ištar 15. and Ibnatum. 16. The month of Eburum: Yanṣibu 17. and Yarim-[…]. 18. The month of Urahu: Ibal-Addu 19. and Hammi-išt[amar]. 20. The month of Malkanum: Habdu 21. and Bina-hammi. 22. The month of Lahhum: Bunuma-Addu 23. and Ibalum. l.e. 24-25. The year when Iṣi-Sumuabi, the king, dedicated [the throne] to Šamaš.

Notes: Lines 1-2: These two lines define ‘the holder (bēlum) of pudûm’, i.e. the divinity to whom reverence was paid in the ritual pudûm,23 and ‘the leader’ or ‘the king’ (rabiānum) who commissions the whole series of the ritual. Pudûm is an Akkadian word attested mainly in Old Babylonian texts from Mari and other sites in Mesopotamia (see below). The major dictionaries CAD and AHw do not translate the word (CAD B, p. 305 under būdu B; AHw, p. 875a under p/būdu(m) II), though CAD B states in the discussion section：‘the word būdu or pūdu may designate some type of foodstuff and the delivery of it as a tax or for a festival’. The attestations of the word in the Old Babylonian texts, however, suggest that the word also designates a religious ceremony, for which the foodstuff was supplied (see below). J. Sasson assumed that the root of the word is pd’ and that the ceremony may have had something to do with ‘freeing, releasing, or absolving’ an individual, further speculating that it is ‘a terminology which, presumably as in Hebrew, had potentially a spiritual connotation’.24 J.-M. Durand similarly considers that the term designates

23. Cf. Jacquet 2011, p. 58, note c: ‘celui dont relève le pudûm’ for the same expression. 24. Sasson 2001, p. 417.


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.


142

‘expiation’,25 apparently interpreting it as stemming from the Akkadian verb padûm, meaning ‘to spare from sins’. A similar comment was made by B. Landsberger in 1960, who suggested the possible connection of the word with the verb padû ‘Ablöse’.26 I will follow A. Jacquet’s normalization of the word as pudûm;27 see below, Part 4, for further discussion about the normalization, meaning and usage of the word. The basic meaning of the word rabiānum is ‘great one’, as suggested by its word formation, composed of rabium ‘great’ and a nominal suffix of particularization –ānum (GAG §56r). Practically, the word may be used to indicate different sorts of persons in a social-political sense, such as the tribal leader of a rural community, or the urban leader or ‘burgomaster’ of a city, as well as the king, in different contexts in Old Babylonian texts.28 The word rabiānum in our text apparently designates Iṣi-Sumuabi as the king and commissioner of the ritual, whatever the proper translation of the word itself should be. Lines 3-23: The eleven month names attested here are all identical to those of the standard calendar used in Old Babylonian Mari (see below). The personal names attested on these lines are mostly Amorite, except for Ummiānum (l. 4, Akkadian, title), Sukkallum (l. 8, Akkadian, title), Iddin-Ištar (l. 14) (Akkadian), and En-šenni (l. 13) (Hurrian?). The majority of the names are known from the texts from Mari and Terqa29: im-ma-ìl (l. 3): cf. ARM 16/1, p. 125, im-ma-an; TFR 2, Terqa 5-1 = TQ5-T46, line 6’, im-ma-il; Streck 2000, p. 272, §3.19, ’imma-’el. ra-ab-bi-DINGIR (l. 5): cf. Gelb 1980, p. 632, no. 5220, ra-ab-bu-e-ra-ah. tu-⸢ra⸣-a[m]-⸢dda⸣-g[an] (l. 6): cf. ARM 22, no. 333, ll. 2’ and 4’, tu-ra-am-dda-gan. ha-ab-d[u-x-x] (l. 7): cf. ARM 16/1, p. 95, Habdu-Malik, etc. ⸢ka-ṣi-ib-na?⸣-x (l. 9): cf. ARM 16/1, p. 137, Kazibum; ARM 23, no. 606, l. 9, ka-zi-ib-tum. ta-ṣi-[…] (l. 10): cf. ta-ṣí-an-nu attested in letters from Tell Taban, Tab T05B-41, l. 3, Tab T05B-42, l. 17, and Tab T05B-44, l. 3, as well as in unpublished texts from Mari (courtesy of J.-M. Durand; cf. Yamada 2010). ia-am-ṣa-ha-⸢at?⸣-nu (l. 11): cf. ARM 16/1, p. 220, Yamṣi-Hatnû; another comparable name ia-am-ṣa-ha-ar-nu is attested in M.13021 (courtesy of J.-M. Durand). sà-bi-hu (l. 12): cf. ARM 23, no. 238, l. 22 and ibid., no. 424, l. 13, sa-bi-hu-um. ib-na-tum (l. 15): cf. ARM 23, no. 235, ii 15, ib-na-tum; ARM 25, no. 756, ii tr. 3, ib-na-tum; Gelb 1980, p. 608, no. 3638, ib-na-tum. ia-an-ṣí-bu (l. 16): cf. ARM 16/1, p. 221, Yanṣibum, Yanṣib/Yaṣṣib-Dagān; Gelb 1980, p. 598, no. 3000, ia-an-zi-ib-dda-gan. ia-ri-im-[x x] (l. 17): cf. ARM 16/1, p. 226, Yarim-Dagān, etc. i-ba-al-[d]IŠKUR (l. 18): cf. ARM 16/1, p. 111, Ibal-Addu. ha-am-mi-iš-t[a-mar] (l. 19): cf. ARM 16/1, p. 99, Hammi-ištamar; Gelb 1980, p. 581, no. 1895, ha-am-mi-iš-ta-mar; also Streck 2000, p. 163, §2.26. ha-ab-du-ú (l. 20): cf. ARM 16/1, p. 95, Habdu-Malik, etc., and ARM 22, no.1, col. i 12, ha-ab-du-um. bi-na-ha-am-mi (l. 21): cf. ARM 16/1, p. 80, Bina-Ištar, etc., and ARM 23, no. 427, col. iii 22’, bi-na-ha-am-mi. bu-nu-ma-dIŠKUR (l. 22): cf. ARM 16/1, p. 82, Būnuma-Addu. ⸢i-ba-lum⸣

(l. 23): cf. ARM 16/1, p. 112, Ibalum. Some of the personal names are identical or comparable with those attested in other texts from trench 8: Bunuma-Addu (l. 22) and Ibalum (l. 23) are possibly identical with the namesakes attested in the royal grant Tab T06-4 (mbu-nu-ma-dIŠKUR [l. 31], i-ba-li-im [l. 32]). Furthermore, Taṣi-[…] (l. 10) and Sabihu (l. 12) may be comparable with Taṣi-Annu attested in three unpublished letters (Tab T05B-41, l. 3; Tab T05 B-42, l. 17; Tab T05B-44, l. 3)30 and Sabium, the female sender of another unpublished letter (Tab T06-13, l. 1), respectively. Yanṣibu (l. 16) also might be regarded as the hypocoristic short form of Yanṣib-Dagan, who is referred to in the royal grant (Tab T06-4, l. 40). Line 3: Though the traces in the beginning of the line are faded and not entirely clear, the month Hibirtum should be read here, since a similar rotation list for the same pudûm ritual from Mari (ARM 23, no. 436) also opens the list with the month Ebirtum, i.e. Hibirtum, the fifth month of the Mari calendar (see below). ITI for the month Hibirtum is curiously written on the left edge. It could have been initially forgotten and added later. The reading of the following signs as ⸢ ITI hi-bir5-tum ⸣ follows the suggestion of A. Jacquet (personal communication). Furthermore, another extra ITI, with two excessive vertical wedges, is also inscribed on the left edge in a slightly higher location that corresponds to the space between line 1 and line 2. It is difficult to explain how and why this extra ITI was inscribed in the present position. One may speculate that it is the traces of the first failed attempt to add ITI for Hibirtum and that it was abandoned due to its inappropriate location after the addition of another ITI in the lower and proper position. A. Jacquet suggested the possibility that the scribe once wrote ITI a-bi-im or a-bu-um, the month preceding Hibirtum, as being implied by the traces of the above-mentioned vertical wedges just to the right of the sign ITI, which may represent A, and the subsequent horizontal line(s), that could be traces from BI or BU

25. Durand 2008, p. 193. 26. MSL 8/1, p. 22, note on ll. 163a. 27. Jacquet 2011, pp. 57-9, esp. p. 59, note e; he reserves judgement about the etymology. 28. Most recently, Seri 2005, pp. 51-96 and Charpin 2007, pp. 167-175. 29. I am grateful to J.-M. Durand, D. Charpin and M. Guichard, who helped me in reading and interpreting

the personal names. I am also indebted to I. Nakata, who generously let me use his database of the Mari personal names. Needless to say, I am responsible for all remaining errors.

30. For some details of these letters and the person Taṣi-Annu, see Yamada 2010, pp. 249-50.


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.


143

(personal communication). In any case, the sign(s) appear to have eventually been abandoned, without any meaning in the present text. Another peculiarity observed on line 3 is that only one personal name, i.e. Im-ma-DINGIR, is given for the month Hibirtu, deviating from the norm that two persons are assigned to each of the other ten months. The reason for this deviation remains unclear. Line 10: ITI li-li-⸢ia-tum⸣. Read so instead of: ITI li-li-⸢ia⸣-⸢tim⸣ in Yamada 2008, p. 58. Line 24: The year name ‘the year when Iṣi-Sumuabi, the king, dedicated [the throne] to Šamaš’ is defined with an enterprise of Iṣi-Sumuabi, the king. The restoration of GIŠ.GU.ZA ‘the throne’ is conjectural; cf. the year names of Zimri-Lim, MU zi-im-ri-li-im GIŠ.GU.ZA GAL a-na dUTU (dIŠKUR ša ma-ha-nim/dda-gan ša ter-qa.KI) ú-še-lu-ú “the year when Zimri-Lim dedicated the great throne to Šamaš (Addu of Mahanum/Dagan of Terqa)” for ZL 5=4’ (ZL 10=9’, ZL 12=11’) (Charpin and Ziegler 2003, p. 258). The Iṣi-Sumuabi must be identical to the king attested in the above-mentioned royal grant (Tab T06-4) and the three letters unearthed from trench 8 at Tell Taban (Tab T05B-42, Tab T05B-43, Tab T06-3+17), as well as in texts of Terqa and Harradum (see above). Obviously, the Iṣi-Sumuabi mentioned on line 2 is the same king.

Handcopy of text Tab T05-B39 (Sh. Yamada)


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.


144

Tablet Tab T05-B39


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.


145

3. CALENDAR IN ṬABATUM AND ITS SURROUNDINGS IN THE POST-HAMMURABI PERIOD

Ten month names attested here are all identical with those of the standard calendar used in Old Babylonian Mari (see below, Table 1).31 An almost identical set of month names (Malkānu, Lahhum, dIGI.KUR.RA, Kinūnum, Lilliyātum, Bēlet-bīri, Kiṣkiṣṣum, Ebūrum) is known from Terqa in the late Old Babylonian period (or Early Hana period), in particular the reigns of Yadih-abu, Kaštiliaš, Šunuhur-Ammu and Ammi-madar.32 The month Lilliyatum is also attested in a text from Harradum written during the rule of Iṣi-Sumuabi.33 Thus, as I have discussed elsewhere,34 a certain degree of cultural affinity seems to have been maintained along the Middle Euphrates and the Lower Habur after the period of Zimri-Lim of Mari and Hammurabi of Babylon. It is not yet entirely clear how long the use of the Mari calendar continued in cities in the Lower Habur and the Middle Euphrates region. At Harradum, with the exception of the above-mentioned attestation of Lilliyatum, which belongs to the period when the city was ruled by Iṣi-Sumuabi, a large number of texts written during the reigns of Babylonian kings from Samsu-iluna to Ammi-ṣaduqa are all dated with a month of the standard Babylonian calendar. The adoption of the Babylonian calendar seems to reflect Babylonian control of this fortress city from the reign of Samsu-iluna onwards. In contrast, the Mari calendar was continuously used, as noted, in the independent kingdom of Terqa and its surroundings in the reigns of the post-Hammurabi rulers, Iṣi-Sumuabu, Yadih-abu, Kaštiliašu, Šunuhur-Ammu and Ammi-madar,35 before the region came under stronger Babylonian influence in the time of Ammi-ṣaduqa and Samsu-ditana, when the Babylonian calendar was apparently adopted there.36 Though no data are available about the calendar of Ṭabatum after the reign of Yadih-abu, it presumably followed a pattern similar to that which took place in Terqa.37

31. Jacquet 2008, pp. 406f. 32. For evidence, see Podany 2002, pp. 17 and 210, with the additions noted in my other article in this

volume, esp. p. 73-74. 33. Joannès 2006, no. 16. D. Charpin kindly drew my attention to this date. 34. Yamada 2008, pp. 58-9. 35. For the evidence, see Podany 2002, p. 210. 36. For the adoption of the standard Babylonian calendar in the kingdom of the land of Hana in the Terqa

region, see my other paper in this volume, esp. pp. 69-77 Part 4. 37. Note that Ṭabatum was under the rule of Ahuni, king of the land of Hana, from around the end of the 15th

century BC to the beginning of the 14th century BC, as suggested by the adoption contract (Tab T09-47) sealed by his royal seal and found from Tell Taban. Thus, the city Ṭabatum was probably continuously, though with possibly interruption, situated under the political and cultural influence of the kingdom of Terqa or the land of Hana, more than 200 years from the foundation of this kingdom onwards (see my other contribution in this volume, pp. 61-84). It is also notable that the royal inscriptions of the kings of Ṭabetu, or the land of Mari, from the Middle Assyrian period, as well as the administrative texts originating in the royal palace(s), often mention Marduk, with other Babylonian gods such as Adad, Sin and Šamaš. This implies that Ṭabetu in the Middle Assyrian period had already been under the influence of Babylonian religious culture. For example, see the reference to Marduk in the two inscriptions of Aššur-ketta-lešir, i.e. Maul 1992, pp. 20-1 (Bderi Inscription) l. 17, 37-38 (Adališhu Inscription), l. 13; see also reference to Marduk in the Middle Assyrian administrative texts from Tell Taban, quoted by Shibata in his contribution ‘The Origin of the Dynasty’ in this volume, p. 175. It would be no surprise, therefore, if the city of Ṭabatum/Ṭabetu had adopted the Babylonian standard calendar at some time during 17-16th centuries, whether temporarily or continuously.


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.


146

Table 1: Month names attested from Mari, Terqa, and Ṭabatum

Mari Terqa Ṭabatum Urāhu(m) Malkānu(m) Lahhu(m) Abu(m) Hibirtu(m) Hubur (dIGI.KUR) Kinūnu(m) dDagān Lilliyātu(m) dBēlet-bīri Kiṣkiṣṣu(m) Ebūru(m)

Malkānu(m)

Lahhu(m) dIGI.KUR.RA Kinūnu(m) Lilliyātu(m) dBēlet-bīri Kiṣkiṣṣu(m) Ebūru(m) Pagrû(m)

Urāhu(m) Malkānu(m) Lahhu(m)

Hibir(tum) dIGI.KUR Kinūnu(m)

dDagān Lilliyātu(m) dBēlet-bīri Kiṣkiṣṣu(m) Ebūru(m)

Note to the Table: The table is revised from the Table 1 of Yamada 2008, p. 59. Attestations of month names in Terqa are from the texts in the Puzurum archives (TFR 1; cf. the list made by Podany 2002, p. 210), with the addition of Lahhum attested in TFR 2, TQ5-2, r. 17’ (Šunuhur-Ammu). The month of Pagrû(m) found in a text from Terqa (TFR 1, 6. l. 49: ITI pá-ag-re-e [from the reign of Yadih-abu]) can be compared to the festival associated with Dagan and performed in Mari and Terqa (see Feliu 2003, pp.70-3; Shibata 2010, p. 223 with bibliography cited there). The name Pagrû is also used as a month name in Alalakh and Ugarit (Cohen 1993, p. 372). The position of this month in the calendar system of Terqa is not entirely clear. One may speculate that the month name was not part of the standard calendar, but secondarily used as a local month name that stemmed from the ritual performance of the same name. Such duality with standard and secondary series of month names may have existed in Mari too, as suggested by several month names deviating from the standard set (see Greengus 1987, pp. 221-2; cf. Cohen 1993, pp. 285-7). Of those month names, Pirizarrum, alias Birizarrum, is also known from a later document of Terqa (Podany 2002, Text 13, l. 29); the reading of the first sign BI as pí may be supported by the later spelling pi-ri-NUMUN(zēri) attested on the Middle Assyrian tablets of Tell Taban (Shibata 2010, p. 204 with further discussion). Malkānu (from the standard Mari calendar), as well as Pagrû and Pirizarrum, survived in slightly changed forms (Malikā’u, Pagrā’u, Pirizēri or Pirizar’i) among the month names attested so far in the Middle Assyrian texts from Tell Taban (Shibata 2010, pp. 221, 223 and 224).

4. PUDÛM AT ṬABATUM, MARI AND OTHER MESOPOTAMIAN CITIES

Besides the rotation list from Tell Taban (Tab T05B-39), the pudûm is attested especially well in the documents from Mari, and some evidence is also available from other cities in Mesopotamia in the Old Babylonian period. I shall examine these pieces of evidence in order to consider the contents of the pudûm ritual and its religious meaning, as well as the use of the word in different contexts.38 Though a discussion about the pudûm using all these materials may involve some risk of over-generalization, it is justifiable, I believe, to use all of them to the best advantage in order to reach a clearer view about the pudûm ritual in the region under discussion, i.e. the Middle Euphrates and Lower Habur.

4.1. List of pudûm rotation from Mari, ARM 23, 436 The most striking parallel to Tab T05B-39 is ARM 23, 436. This is a list of persons designated as ‘sons of pudûm (mārū pudîm)’ (l. 31), who were apparently responsible in some way for the ritual of pudûm in monthly rotation (see below). The text reads:

38. My investigation benefitted from the studies of D. Soubeyran (in ARM 23, pp. 385-7), J. Sasson (Sasson 2001, esp. pp. 416-17 with nn. 15-17) and particularly that of A. Jacquet (Jacquet 2011, pp. 57-9). My work includes all the references to the word pudû(m) gathered by them, with the addition of a few other sources.


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.


147

Text 1: ARM 23, 436 (cf. Jacquet 2011, p. 225; Michel 1990, p. 455 [copy]), ll. 1-33: (1) di-túr-me-er (2) be-el pu-di-im (3) mi-din-ka-ak-[k]a (4) ITI e-bi-ir-tim (5) mi-ṣú-ur-dIŠKUR (6) ITI dIGI.KUR (7) mpí-la-hu (8) ITI ki-nu-nim (9) mi-din-AN (10) ITI dda-gan (11) muš-taš-ni-AN (12) ITI li-li-ia-tim (13) mì-lí-e-ra-ah (14) ITI d[NIN-bi-ri] (15) [m]dSU’E[N-…] (16) ITI ki-iṣ-[ki-ṣí-im] (17) ma-hu-[…] (18) ITI e-bu-[ri-im] (19) mé-a-k[a]-ba[r] (20) ITI ú-ra-hi-im (21) mbu-nu-ma-dIŠKUR (22) ITI ma-al-ka-nim (23) gu-mu-ul-dSU’EN (24) ITI la-ah-hi-im (25) mna-bi-ì-lí (26) ITI a-bi-im (27) mia-ás-ru-ki-el (28) ITI e-bi-ir-tim (29) d<i>-túr-me-er-ga-mil (30) ITI dIGI.KUR (31) ŠU.NIGIN 14 DUMU.MEŠ pu-di-im (32) ša a-na pu-lu-uh-ti di-túr-me-er (33) ka-aṣ-[ru] ‘Itur-Mer is the holder of pudûm, PN (is responsible for) the month of Ebirtum …’ (14 months and 14 persons are enumerated in a line, and it is summarized at the end:) ‘Total 14 sons of pudûm who were bound for the reverence of Itur-Mer.’

The two lists of rotation, one from Ṭabatum (Tab T05B-39) and the other from Mari (ARM 23, 436), suggest that the pudûm is a ritual performed monthly. The rotation list from Mari starts with the month of Ebirtum (Hibirtum). As discussed above, the list from Tell Taban also appears to open on the damaged line (l. 3) with the same month. Hibirtum, the fifth month of the Mari calendar, is assigned to the late summer39 and, according to A. Jacquet, appears to mark the start of several elements in the cultic calendar of Mari.40 This suggests that the same ritual calendar was adopted in Ṭabatum in the post-Hammurabi period. Theoretically, the lists should end with the fourth month, i.e. Abum, completing the entire cycle of the full one-year period. It is hard to know exactly why the list from Ṭabatum refers to only eleven months, ending with the month of Lahhum, while that from Mari covers a period of fourteen months, recording the months of Ebirtum and Hubur (dIGI.KUR) a second time. One might suggest that the end point of the list was not considered very important, and was determined by some practical reason. The bēl pudîm, ‘the holder of pudûm’, the expression used for Šamaš in the text from Tell Taban, is used for Itur-Mer in the list from Mari. The relations between the bēl pudîm and the eleven ‘sons of pudûm’ whose names are enumerated in the list are explained here in the last lines (ll. 31-33), reading: naphar 14 mārū pudîm ša ana puluhti Itūr-Mēr kaṣrū ‘total 14 sons of pudûm, who are bound to the reverence for Itur-Mer’. The text from Mari does not reveal what sort of responsibility the 14 ‘sons of pudum’ took in rotation; nor is the new list from Tell Taban helpful in answering this question. One may speculate, however, that the role of the persons mentioned in both lists was to contribute in some way to the performance of the ritual ceremony, possibly by supplying foodstuffs for the offerings to the god and/or banquet. This speculation may be supported by further evidence that is examined below.

4.2. Deities invoked for the pudûm It has been noted that Itur-Mer is often given the offerings for his pudûm at Mari,41 as shown by the preceding rotation list, as well as by the following two administrative texts from Mari (Texts 2-3): Text 2: ARM 23, 462 (cf. Jacquet 2011, p. 126, a consumption report of barley for various purposes), ll. 12-13: (12) 5 GUR a-na pu-d[i-i]m (13) ša di-túr-me-er ‘5 GUR (of barley for beer) for the pudûm of Itur-Mer’ (Date: 4/xii/ZL 1)

Text 3: ARM 24, 19 (cf. Joannès in ARM 23, p. 114, n. 13; Jacquet 2011, p. 129; list of ‘barley rations [ŠE.BA = iprum]’), ll. 1’-2’: (1’) 1 1/2 GUR a-na pu!(on erasure)-di-im (2’) ša É di-túr-me-er ‘1 and 1/2 GUR (of barley) for the pudûm of the temple of Itur-Mer’ (Date: 6/vi/ZL 2)

The pudûm was performed, however, not only with Itur-Mer, but also with other deities, including Annunitum and Belet-biri in Mari (below, Texts 4-6), Ea and perhaps Marduk in southern Babylonia

39. Jacquet 2008, pp. 406-7. 40. Jacquet 2011, p. 58, note b, commenting about the ‘14 sons of pudûm’ referred to in ARM 23, 436, ll. 31-

33, saying ‘le nom de chacun d’eux étant associé à un mois, à compter du mois V (pour ce mois correspondant au « comput de l’année », moment à partir duquel plusieurs éléments du calendrier se mettent en place’ and refers to his dissertation, ‘Le Culte et son calendrier à Mari au XVIIIe siècle avant notre ère’ (Université Paris I, 2007).

41. Sasson 2001, pp. 416-17; Durand 2008, p. 193.


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.


148

(Texts 7-8), an unknown deity at Šubat-Enlil (Tell Leilan, Text 9), and probably at Yamhad in Syria (Text 10): Text 4: A.512, (letter of Itur-Asdu; from Mari), ll. 5-16:42 (5) u4-um ṭup-pa-am an-ni-am (6) a-na ṣe-er be-lí-ia ú-ša-bi-lam (7) pu-du-[u]m ša be-lí-ia (8) i-na ⸢É⸣ [an]-nu-ni-tim ša še-eh-ri-im.KI (9) na-d[i]-in (10) dDUMU.ZI (11) a-na É an-nu-ni-tim (12) ša ma-ri[.KI] (13) ú-še-ri-[i]b (14) fbe-el-tum i-na É [an]-nu-[ni-tim] (15) ša še-eh-ri-im.KI (16) SÍSKUR.RE [i]q-qí ‘The day, when I had this tablet brought to my lord, the pudûm of my lord was given in the temple of Annunitum of Šehrum. I had Dumuzi enter the temple of Annunitum of Mari. The queen made sacrifices in the Temple of Annunitum of Šehrum’.

Text 5: M.9879 (Jacquet 2011, p. 130; cf. Talon, ARM 24/1, p. 214): (1) 1/2 SÌLA ha-za-nu (2) a-na pu-di-im (3) ša LUGAL (4) [i-na] É an-nu-ni-tim ‘1/2 qa of hazannu-onions for the pudûm of the king in the temple of Annunitum’ (Date: 12/xi/ZL 2)

Text 6: TH 84.50, (a bread consumption report; from Mari), ll. 1-1343: (1) 0,0.4 NINDA SAG (2) 0,1.1.5 SÌLA NINDA l[u-t]u-rum (3) a-na pu-de-e ša dNIN-bi-ri (4) 0,0.2.7 SÌLA NINDA SAG (5) 0,0.2.5 SÌLA NINDA ÚS (6) 7 SÌLA NINDA šu-ru-ub-ši-im (7) 2 SÌLA NINDA em-ṣú (8) 1 SÌLA BA.BA.DA (9) NÍG.GUB be-el-tim (10) 2 SÌLA NINDA SAG 3 SÌLA NINDA ÚS (11) ha-at-ni-dIŠKUR (12) 3 SÌLA NINDA ÚS (13) fšu-bu-ul-tum ‘..... breads for the pudûm of Belet-biri, ….. breads (for) the meal of the queen, ….. breads (for) Hatni-Addu, ….. breads for Šubultum’ (Date: 27/xii/ZL 10’=11).

Text 7: UET V, 614 (U 16522; from Ur), ll.1-4: (1) 1 UDU.NÍTA (2) 1 KI[Rx](MUNUS.SILA4.[UR4])44 (3) a-na pu-di-im (4) šá dEN.KI ‘2 sheep for the pudûm of Ea’ (Date: Rim-Sin 19)

Text 8: AbB 7, 159 (= CT 52, no. 159, cf. Talon, ARMT 24, p. 214; letter from an unnamed sender)45: (1) dUTU ù dAMAR.UTU li-ba-al-li-ṭú-ka (2) lu ša-al-ma-ta (3) ki-ma ti-du-ú ša-at-ta-am (4) pu-ud KI.NE ša dAMAR.UTU (5) i-na mu-úh-hi-ia iš-ta-a[k-nu] (6) aš-šu SUM.ŠAR SUM.SIKIL.LUM.[ŠAR] (7) [s]i-ir-bi-it-ti.[KU6] (8) [ù su]-⸢ka-an⸣-ni-ni.[MUŠEN] (9) […] x (5-6 lines broken away) (1’) x [x x x ša-at-t]a-am (2’) a-na ša ša-ad-da-aq-dam (3’) tu-um-ta-aš-ši-il (4’) mDUMU-U4-20.KAM a-na ma-ah-ri-ka a[ṭ-ṭar-dam] (5’) 600 SUM.ŠAR 600 SUM.SIKIL.LUM.ŠAR (6’) 5 šu-ši si-ir-bi-it-ta-am.KU6 (7’) ù 5 šu-ši su-ka-an-ni-ni. MUŠEN (8’) ša 2 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR ša-am-ma (9’) šu-bi-lam ‘May Shamash and Marduk keep you in good health. May you be well. As you know, this year, the pudûm(?) of the brazier fest (kinūnum) of Marduk was set under my responsibility. As for the garlic, shallot, sirbittu-fish and turtledoves … [….. Th]is year, you have made (a delivery) like the last year. I [have sent] Mar-ešre to you. Buy 600 garlic, 600 shallots, 300 sirbittu-fishes and 300 turtledoves, with 2 shekels of silver, and send them to me.’

Text 9: Vincente 1991, pp. 215-16, no. 77 (Tell Leilan): (1) 1 GÚ sa-⸢x⸣-[ ] (2) a-na LÚ.⸢TUR⸣ (3) ṭà-ab-[ ]-hu (4) ša LUGAL a-na ⸢pu⸣-di (5) ú-te-er-ra-a[m] (6) ZI.GA LÚ.ŠÀ.TAM.MU.MEŠ (7) ITI a-bi-im (8) U4 24 KAM (9) li-mu [ha-bil-ki-nu] ‘One tunic to the servant (of) Ṭab-[…]hu, who led the king back for the pudûm-ritual, issued by the šatammū (Date: Abum, 24, eponymate [Habil-kinu])’

Text 10: ARM 2, 71 (= Durand 2002 [FM VII], no. 22; letter of Warad-ilišu, chief musician, sent from Yamhad), ll. 16-1846: (16) ù um-ma šu-ma (17) a-di pu-du-hi-im (18) ka-le-ka ‘(Hammurabi of Yamhad) said: “I hold you until the pudûm-ritual”.’

42. Part of this text (ll. 7-15) is quoted in French translation in Durand 2008, p. 244. I am grateful to J.-M. Durand, who generously provided me with the transliteration before its publication in one of the FM volumes and permitted me to quote it.

43. The translation is quoted in Ziegler 1999, p. 18, n. 106. I thank D. Charpin who kindly provided me with the transliteration, as given here.

44. The restoration suggested by D. Charpin (personal communication). 45. It is not entirely free from doubt that the word pudûm is really attested in the quoted passage. A. Jacquet

regards the combination of the kinūnum feast and pudûm in construct chain, i.e. pud(i) kinūnim, as atypical and doubtful (personal communication).

46. For the missions of Warad-ilišu to Yamhad, see Durand 2002, pp. 29-58 and Ziegler, 2007, pp. 171-5.


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.


149

Another divine being, who is mentioned in association with the pudûm in a number of texts of Mari is Išar-bahli/bēlī. Ph. Talon prudently suggested that Išar-bahli was a deceased person, who was the object of reverence like a god.47 The following attestations are known: Text 11: ARM 24, 65 (= FM XI, no. 21; cf. Jacquet 2011, p. 166; rations of wine jars of Sibkuna-Addu for various purposes), ll. 10-14: (10) 10 DUG GEŠTIN (11) ZI.GA (12) i-nu-ma LUGAL pu-da-a-am (13) ša di-šar-ba-ah-li (14) ša U4 30.KAM im-hu-ru ‘10 jars of wine given out, when the king received/accepted the pudûm for Išar-bahli on Day 30 (of the month)’ (Date: 1/ii/ ZL 6’=7)

Text 12: M.5901 (Jacquet 2011, p. 167): (1) 1 ⸢UDU⸣.NÍTA (2) SÍSKUR.RE (3) ⸢i⸣-nu-ma (4) pu-di-im (5) ša di-šar-⸢ba⸣-ah-li ‘One male sheep, sacrifice, in the time of pudûm of Išar-bahli’ (Date: 16/iii/ZL 7)

Text 13: ARM 25, 17 (cf. Jacquet 2011, p. 192; list of expenses for accessories and textiles), l.e. 2-r. 3: (l.e. 2) 1 GÚ.È.A ki-ti-tum (3) a-na i-dí-ia-tum (r. 1) i-nu-ma pu-di-im ša di-šar-ba-ah-li (2) i-na É ma-a-ia-li ‘One linen coat for Iddiyatum, on the occasion of pudûm of Išar-bahli in the palace’s private quarter (bīt mayyāli)’ (Date: 16/ix)

Text 14: M.8788 (ARM 30, p. 387; cf. Jacquet 2011, p. 192; ARM 23, p. 386; duplicate of ARM 25, 17 [above, Text 13]), ll. 3’-6’: (3’) [x] GÚ.È.A ki-ti-tum (4’) ⸢a⸣-na i-di-ia-tum LÚ.UGULA DA[M.GÀR] (5’) i-nu-ma pu-di-im ša di-šar-ba-[ah-li ] (6’) […..]x-li? ‘[x] linen coat for Iddiyatum, chief of merch[ants], on the occasion of pudûm of Išar-ba[hli in …]’ (Date: lost)

Text 15: M.11270 (Jacquet 2011, p. 219; cf. ARM 24/1, p. 213): (1) 1 UDU GUKKAL (2) 1 SILA4 (3) SÍSKUR.RE (4) a-na i-šar-be-lí (5) i-nu-ma (6) pu-di ‘One sheep with large tail, one ram: sacrifice for Išar-beli at the time of pudûm’ (Date: x/13)

4.3. Types of offerings or goods consumed in the pudûm As for the sorts of offerings or goods consumed in the pudûm ceremony, a number of texts mention different foodstuffs supplied for the pudûm (see below), including wine (Texts 16-19), sheep (Texts 20-21, and Texts 7 and 15), barley, bread, (Texts 22-26, and Texts 2, 3 and 6), hazannu-onion (Text 5), garlic, shallots, fishes and turtledoves (Text 27 and Text 8): Text 16: ARM 23, 494 (= FM XI, no. 86, rations of wine jars of different origins for various purposes), l. 6: 25 DUG GEŠTIN ša DUMU.MEŠ pu-d[i-im] ‘25 jars of wine those of the ‘sons of pudûm’. Text 17: M.15249 (FM XI, no. 85; cf. Jacquet 2011, p. 193), ll. 1-448: (1) [22 DU]G GEŠTIN.HÁ (2) [š]a DUMU.MEŠ pu-di-im (3) [a-na NÍG.GUB] ha-na.MEŠ (4) [i-na ki-sa]-al bi-ir-mi ‘[22 ja]rs of wine [o]f the sons of pudûm [for the food allotment of] Bedouins [in the court]yard of the painted room’ (Date: 6/ ii/ZL 10’=11)

Text 18: M.12300 (FM XI, no. 138; cf. Jacquet 2011, p. 226, rations of wine jars), ll. 4-5: (4) 10+ DUG GEŠTIN.HÁ ša ru-ug-ba-tim (5) ša DUMU.MEŠ pu-di-im ‘10 (or some tens) of wine from the loft chambers, of the sons of pudûm’ (date lost)

Text 19: A.2845+ (FM XI, no. 143; Jacquet 2011, p. 58 with modification; a wine consumption report), ll. 1-4: (1) [4]2 DUG GEŠTIN.HÁ (2) a-na pí-i 42 DUG GEŠTIN.H[Á] (3) 20 DUG GEŠTIN.HÁ ru-qa-[a] (4) i-na GEŠTIN.HÁ ša DUMU!.MEŠ p[u-d]i-im

47. Talon 1985, p. 213. 48. Reading follows A. Jacquet. G. Chambon (FM XI) restores lines 2-3 as: (1) [22 DU]G GEŠTIN.HÁ (2)

[a-na NÍG.GUB š]a DUMU.MEŠ pu-di-im (3) [ù ab-be] ha-na.MEŠ ‘[22 ja]rs of wine [for the food allotment o]f the sons of pudûm [and the elders of] Bedouins’.


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.


150

‘[4]2 jars of wine: 20 jars from the wine of the sons of p[ud]ûm are emptied for filling the 42 jars of wine’ (dated to [Day 21?])49

Text 20: ARM 7, 263 (cf. Ph. Talon, ARM 24/1, p. 214; Jacquet 2011, p. 222; list of misappropriated palace property), iv 10’-12’: (10’) 6 UDU ku-ka-al-lu ša <a-na> SÍSKUR.RE LUGAL (11’) i-nu-ma dde-ri-tim ù a-na pu-da-at LUGAL (12’) [ša-a]k-nu-ma ‘6 sheep with a large tail which have been reserved for the sacrifice of the king at the time of the Dērītum-feast, and for the pudûm of the king’.

Text 21: AbB 9, 242 (= BIN 7, no. 55, letter of Ili-iddina; from southern Babylonia), ll. 11-14: (11) ⸢ù⸣ 1 UDU.NÍTA (12) da-am-qá-am (13) ša a-na pu-di-im (14) i-re-du-ú šu-bu-la-am ‘and send me a fine ram, which is suitable for the pudûm’.

UET V, 614 (above, Text 7): Delivery of 2 sheep to the pudûm of Ea

M.11270 (above, Text 15): ‘one sheep with large tail, one ram for the sacrifice of Išar-beli, at the time of pudûm’

Text 22: ARM 23, 463 (rations of various sorts of barley), ll. 1-6 (1) 1 GUR, 0.2 ŠE.NINDA (2) 1 GUR, 1 ŠE.KAŠ.SIG5 (3) 0,0.1 ŠE ši-ip-ki (4) a-na pu-di-im (5) ša d?[…] (6) […] ‘1 GUR, 0.2 of the bread barley, 1 GUR, 1 of the good beer barley, 0.1 barley of šipku, for the pudûm of the god […]’ (Date: ?/x/ ZL 5=4’)

Text 23: Talon, ARM 24/1, p. 214 (quoted without text number; bread expenses): 90 SÌLA NINDA.KUM i-nu-ma pu-di ša ha-ab-du-ma-lik a-bu-um-AN it-ti-in-dIM ‘90 qa of bread at the time of the pudûm of PN1, PN2 (and) PN3’ (Date: 29-ix)

Text 24: M.7147 (Jacquet 2011, pp. 129-30; grain expenses), ll. 1-2: (1) 3 GUR Š[E? …] (2) a-na pu-di-im š[a? LUGAL?] ‘3 GUR of bar[ley …] for the pudûm o[f king]’ (Date: 4/x/ZL 2)

ARM 23, 462 (above, Text 2): Barley for the pudûm of Itur-Mer within the record of barley consumption in the Zimri-Lim period.

ARM 24, 19: 1’-2’ (above, Text 3): A list of ‘barley rations (ŠE.BA = iprum)’ given out from the palace of Zimri-Lim, including 1 1/2 GUR for the pudûm of the temple of Itur-Mer.

TH 84.50 (above, Text 6): breads for the pudûm of Belet-biri.

Text 25: UET V, 499 (U 8806 i; list of expenses from Ur; the type of foodstuff is broken, but probably barley; cf. below UET V 682 [= Text 26]), ll. 1’-4’: (1’) 1 (PI) a-na x [x (x)], (2’) 1 a-na pu-di (3’) 1 a-na pi-še-er-tim (4’) 1 a-na gu-ul-ba-tum … ‘1 (PI) for …, 1 for the pudûm, 1 for the pišertum, 1 for gulbatum’

Text 26: UET V, 682 (U 10606; list of expenses of barley [ŠE, mentioned in l. 34], from Ur), ll. 12-14: (12) 1 (PI) a-na pu-di (13) 1 a-na pi-še-er-tum (14) 1 a-na gu-ul-ba-tim … ‘1 (PI) for the pudûm, 1 for the pišertum, 1 for gulbatum’

Talon, ARMT 24, p. 214: (above, Text 5): ‘1/2 qa of hazannu-onions for the pudûm of the king in the temple of Annunitum’

Text 27: AbB 1, 108, (CT 43, 108; a letter from an unnamed sender, possibly identical to the sender of AbB 7 159 [above, Text 8]; cf. Talon, ARMT 24, p. 214), ll. 5-15: (5) ù ša-at-ta-am a-di i-na-an-na (6) mi-im-ma ú-ul tu-ša-bi-lam (7) pu-du-um ša a-pil-ì-lí-šu ŠÀ.DUB.BA (8) i-na mu-úh-hi-ia iš-ta-ak-nu (9) SUM.ŠAR SUM.SIKIL.LUM.ŠAR (10) si!-ir-bi-it-ta-am.KU6 (11) ù su-ka-an-ni-ni.MUŠEN (12) šu-bi-lam-ma (13) ša ze-nu-ú lu-sa-al-li-im (14) a-na pu-di-ia hi-še-eh-ta-am (15) ṣí-im-da-am-ma šu-bi-lam ‘And this year, until now, you have not sent anything to me. The pudûm of Apil-ilišu, šandabakku, has been set under my responsibility. Send me garlic, shallot, sirbittu-fish and turtledoves. So I will make the angry (god) relent. Make ready and send the need for my pudûm.’

49. A. Jacquet (2011, p. 159, note to no. 143) supposes that this is from the beginning of Year ZL 10’ = 11,

following FM XI, nos. 85, 86, and 138, which are related to the wine rations of the ‘sons of pudûm’.


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.


151

AbB 7, 159 (above, Text 8): Garlic, shallots, fishes and turtledoves for the pudûm(?) of the brazier feast kinūnum of Marduk.

4.4. Ritual Context of the pudûm If the suggested etymology of pudûm as stemming from the verb padûm is correct, the word may mean ‘a releasing (of someone from some misfortune or sin)’ (see above). The idea seems plausible, being supported by the use of the Akkadian verb padû(m) with the gods or supernatural power as the subject, who spares or releases human beings from sin: e.g. [ina] purussê ša Šamaš dayyāni pidinni ‘through a decision of Šamaš, the judge, spare me’ (KAR 292, line 13); erṣetu limhuranni erṣetu lipdanni ‘may earth receive me, may earth release me’ (KAR 88, Fragment 4 r. right col. 7, line 23’); Old Babylonian personal name ì-lí-ip-di-a-ni (BIN 7, no. 59, line 17, no. 60, line 21), meaning ‘My god has spared me’.50 The conclusion may further be reinforced by the lexical reference found on K 247 (CT 19, pl. 42), ii 40: ZAG(pu-du šá ag-gu).ŠÈ(šá) = pu-du-u[m]. As noted by J.-M. Durand (personal communication), the Akkadian gloss of ZAG.ŠÈ should read pudû ša aggu,51 apparently meaning ‘the release (of a human being) from (the god) who is angry, i.e. expiation’. This may be supported by the above quoted passage of AbB 1, 108 (above Text 27), which apparently deals with the appeasing of the angry god by offering foods in the pudûm ritual, reading: ša zenû lusallim “I will make the angry (god) relent (in the pudûm)”.52 This etymological consideration concerning pudûm should be checked against the contexts in which the word pudû(m) is actually attested. This gives us a better idea of the semantic range of pudûm, with a clearer view of the ritual practice of pudûm. As seen above, pudûm often means either offerings given or a ritual performed for a specific deity in his/her temple monthly or occasionally (above, Texts 1-15). One may assume that the foodstuffs were set before the god defined as the ‘holder of pudûm (bēl pudîm)’, and then presumably consumed by a number of people. Though the available pieces of evidence are often too ambiguous to determine the exact role of the ‘sons of pudûm’, it is plausible that they were responsible for organizing the ritual performed before the divine image or symbol. The preparation of the ritual was apparently supported by the supply of barley, wine and perhaps also sheep from the king’s palace, in the case of the ritual for the king (see Texts 2, 3, 5, 7, 15-26). However, the ‘sons of pudûm’ may have been obliged to contribute a part. Texts 16-18 seem to suggest that the ‘sons of pudûm’ supplied wine for the palace, and that the wine was then redistributed from the palace.53 AbB 7, 159 (Text 8) and AbB 1, 108 (Text 27) are possibly letters of a ‘son of pudûm’, who had to assemble and supply the foodstuffs for the pudûm. It is unlikely that the ‘sons of pudûm’ are the individuals who were to be released ritually from misfortunes. The frequent references to the king in connection with the pudûm (Texts 4, 5, 9, 11, 20 and 26) strongly suggest that he is the person asking for a favour from the god by means of offerings, rather than the people called ‘sons of pudûm’. The pertinent texts include some data about the timing, place and context of the ritual, in which the king is involved. A letter (A.512) and an administrative text (M.9879) from Mari (above Texts 4 and 5) refer to the king’s pudûm as performed in a temple of Annunnitum. ARM 7, 263, iv 10’-12’ (Text 20) mentions ‘the sacrifice of the king (sheep)’, ‘at the time of the Dērītum-feast’, and ‘for the pudûm of the king (pudât šarrim)’. The Dērītum-feast is known as being celebrated during days 13-19 of the month Kiṣkiṣṣum, the eleventh month, in which the king visited the city of Der.54 It is not perfectly clear here whether Dērītum is an event separate from the pudât šarrim, or whether the latter is performed as a part of Dērītum. If the pudûm is a monthly ritual, as suggested by the rotation lists from Mari and Ṭabatum

50. See CAD, P, p. 6 under padû, 1.a, with further examples. 51. Contra CAD, B, p. 304, būdu A, lexical section: zag.ŠÈšá (sign name pu-du-šá-aq-qu). 52. Suggestion of N. Ziegler (personal communication). As she noted, the implied subject for “to be angry

(zenû)” must be a god, as suggested by a number of comparable passages, which deal with the reconciliation (salāmu(m) / sullumu(m) of the angry god (CAD S, pp. 91-2).

53. Cf. Jacquet 2011, p. 58. 54. Jacquet 2008, p. 422.


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.


152

(see above), one might think that pudûm and the annual feast of Dērītum are different from each other. However, it cannot be excluded that the pudûm was performed not only monthly in a specific temple, but also on special occasions in tandem with annual or seasonal festivals. A letter from southern Babylonia, AbB 7, 159 (above, Text 8), if indeed referring to the pudûm on the occasion of the Kinūnum-feast of Marduk, supports such a possibility. Another reference to the pudûm related to the king is ARM 24, 65 (above, Text 11), which tells of ‘10 jars of wine given out, when the king received the pudûm of Išar-bahli’. The quoted passage of ARM 24, 65 (Text 11), telling of the king’s receipt of the pudûm of Išar-bahli (inūma šarrum pudâm ša Išar-bahli … imhuru), may indicate that the king received a favour from the divine being Išar-bahli, presumably as well as the left-overs, as a reward for his sacrifices. The king’s involvement in the pudûm is also seen in an administrative text from Tell Leilan (above, Text 9), which refers to ‘a person who led the king back for the pudûm (… ša šarram ana pudî uterra[m])’. Here, the pudûm cannot mean offerings, but must indicate a place where the ritual took place. This text also suggests that the king personally took place in the ritual. Similarly, a letter from Mari ARM 2, 71 (above, Text 10) also suggests that the term pudûm may mean the ritual itself, but not the sacrifice. Though the king is attested in a majority of texts as the major cultic participant facing the divinity with the pudûm offering, it is not restricted to kings alone. Some high-ranking officials also seem to have been allowed to hold the pudûm for themselves, as illustrated by an administrative text from Mari (Talon, ARMT 24, p. 214; above, Text 23) that refers to the pudûm of Habdu-Malik, Abum-El and Ittin-Addu. The ‘pudûm of Apil-ilišu, šandabakku’, mentioned in AbB 1, 108 (above, Text 27) may also refer to a pudûm made for the šandabakku, though the possibility cannot be excluded that the šandabakku was just a controller who imposed the duty or tax concerning the ritual upon the writer (see below). To sum up, in the majority of the attestations, the pudûm may mean either the offerings made or the rite performed in front of a deity with an appeal for the divine favour of releasing a person from misfortune or sin, which may have been caused by divine anger. The rite was apparently practised broadly in Mesopotamia and Syria for the king or high-ranking personages in the second millennium BC. It was prepared as the responsibility of local persons, called ‘sons of pudûm (mārū pudîm)’, often, if not always, in a monthly rotation that was presumably fixed by a senior controller. The deity as the object of reverence in the rite is called bēl pudîm and is apparently a major deity in the place of ritual.

4.5. The use of the word pudûm: semantic and grammatical analysis It is worthwhile to give further thought to the use of the word pudûm from semantic and grammatical viewpoints. The pudûm is attested in combination either with the name of the god who receives the offering and releases the person, as ‘the pudûm of DN (pudûm ša DN)’ (Texts 2, 3, 6-8, 11-14 and 22), or with the name of the dedicator of the offerings who asks for salvation by means of divine favour, as ‘the pudûm of the king or PN (pudât šarrim, pudûm ša PN)’ (Texts 5, 20, 23, 24 and possibly Text 27). In other words, in the expression pudûm ša X or pudât X, X may mean either of the two parties involved in the ritual: the receiver of the offering or its dedicator. The word pudûm may also mean the divine favour bestowed in the ritual, as suggested by the above-mentioned case in which the king received the pudûm of Išar-bahli (Text 11). In one case (AbB 1, 108 [above, Text 27], l. 14), ‘my pudûm (pudîya [gen.])’ apparently means the writer’s duty or tax to pay for a ritual that is performed for someone else. This use of the word as meaning a tax or duty finds a relevant reference in a lexical text, as seen below. The lexical entry: udu-ZAG.HA = im-mer pu-du (MSL 8/1, p. 22: 163a with note) implies that ZAG.HA corresponds to the pudûm. Since ZAG.HA (= enku) is the logogram for Akkadian mākisu(m) ‘tax collector’ (CAD M/1, p. 129), udu-ZAG.HA = immer pudû (grammatically problematic!) may mean sheep taken as a tax, as Ph. Talon suggested.55 Thus, the pudûm may also mean the goods collected monthly or at other intervals as a tax for the preparation of the ritual. Another lexical entry: lú-bala = be-el pu-di-im (MSL 12, p. 170, 407) curiously equates the bēl pudîm with Sumerian lú-bala, literally meaning ‘a man of turnus or rotation’. As seen above, in the

55. Talon 1985, p. 215.


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.


153

rotation lists from Tell Taban (TabT05B-39) and Mari (ARM 23, 436 [above, Text 1]), the expression bēl pudîm, literally ‘the holder of pudûm’, designates the god who receives the offerings. However, here the lexical text reveals that the same expression may also mean one who dedicates the offerings in rotation, but not the god as the receiver. Thus, one must conclude that the expression bēl pudîm holds a semantic ambiguity, similar to the case of pudûm ša X; it may mean either the god who receives the offerings or a person who contributes them, depending on the given context. I would now like to summarize points about the grammatical form of the word pudûm. The previous studies normalized the word as b/pudum, b/pūdum, b/pudûm etc.56 Accepting the suggested etymology connected with the verb padûm, however, one may choose the ‘p’ sound for the first consonant. All the attested spellings are: pu-da-a-am (acc. ARM 24, 65 [Text 11], l. 12), pu-da-at (st. cstr., pl. ARM 7, 263 [Text 20], iv 11’), pu-de-e (gen., TH 8450 [Text 6], l. 3), pu-di (gen., Vincente 1991, 77 [Text 9]: l.e. 1; M.11270 [Text 15], l. 6; Talon, ARM 14/1, p. 214 [Text 23]; UET V, 499 [Text 25], l. 2; UET V, 682 [Text 26], l. 12), pu-di-ia (gen.+1st p. suff., AbB 1, 108 [Text 27], l. 14), pu-di-im (gen., ARM 23, 462 [Text 2], l. 12; ARM 24, 19 [Text 3], l. 1’; M.9879 [Text 5], l. 2; UET V, 614 [Text 7], l. 3; M.5901 [Text 12], l. 4; ARM 25, 17 [Text 13], r. 1; ARM 23, 494 [Text 16], l. 6; M.15249 [Text 17], l. 2; M.12300 [Text 18], l. 5; A.2845 [Text 19], l. 4; AbB 9, 242 [Text 21], l. 13; ARM 23, 463 [Text 22], l. 4; M.7147 [Text 24], l. 2; MSL 12, p. 170, 407), pu-du (MSL 8/1, p. 22, 163a), pu-du-hi-im (ARM 2, 71 [Text 10], l. 17), pu-du-um (A.512 [Text 4], l. 7; AbB 1, 108 [Text 27], l. 7), pu-ud (st. cstr. sg. AbB 7, 159 [Text 8], l. 4). The plene writing pu-da-a-am apparently illustrates a long vowel in the second syllable.57 Spellings such as pu-de-e and pu-du-hi-im also support this. Thus, one may normalize the word as pudûm, with A. Jacquet, as already stated. Jacquet has assumed the noun form of purās (GAG § 55k 15a, deverbale Vergegenständlichungen, like ṣubāṭum) or of purūs (ibid., § 55k 17a, deverbale Vergegenständsbezeichnungen, like rukūbum) for the word formation of pudûm.58 The above-mentioned spelling pu-du-hi-im seems to support the latter form. The popular normalization with the long vowel in the first syllable, i.e. pūdum, might perhaps still be admitted, if one regards it as the result of the secondary lengthening after the accent shift from the second to the first syllable, i.e. pudûm to pūdum; similar phonetic variations appear in niqium/niqûm/nīqum and mar’um/mārum. This explains the pūd (pu-ud) as the st. cstr. sg., if it is a genuine attestation of the word pudûm (see above). The plural form is taken with the feminine ending as attested in pu-da-at (st. cstr.), normalized pudât or pūdāt.

4.6. Pudûm at Ṭabatum? Finally, I return to the rotation list from Tell Taban, Tab T05B-39, in order to consider its ritual and administrative context. How does Iṣi-Sumuabi, king of Terqa and its vicinity, appear in the text dealing with pudûm and found at Tell Taban, i.e. Ṭabatum? And who are the ‘sons of pudûm’ who contributed to the preparation of pudûm? First, we should ask where the pudûm ritual took place. As seen above, in Tab T05B-39, the sun god Šamaš is ‘the holder of pudûm’. Šamaš is frequently attested with Dagan in the greeting formula of a number of letters from Tell Taban, in the formula ‘May Šamaš and Dagan keep you well (Šamaš u Dagān liballiṭūka)’ (Tab T05B-44, Tab T06-9, 10, 11, 12+14, 13 and 16). As stated above, Šamaš also appears in roughly contemporary contracts from Terqa along with Dagan and Itur-Mer.59 This illustrates, as expected, that just as in the preceding period, Šamaš was a major deity in the broad area along the Habur and the Middle Euphrates, as reflected in the texts from Mari.60 Therefore, the divine identity does not seem to help definitely in determining the location of the ritual.

56. Besides būdu B of CAD B, p. 305 and p/būdu(m) II of AHw, p. 875a, as already noted, e.g., Sasson 2001,

pp. 416-7: b/pudum (plural b/pudātum) ; Durand 2008: pûdum (p. 193) and pudûm (p. 244); Talon (ARM 24/1, p. 214) suggests budûm; A. Jacquet 2010, p. 245 (index) gives pudûm.

57. As noted by Ph. Talon, ARMT 24, p. 214, n. 9; Jacquet 2011, p. 59. 58. Jacquet 2011, p. 59. 59. TFR 1, nos. 2 and 5; both from the reign of Yadih-abu, the direct successor of Iṣi-Sumuabi. 60. Durand 2008, p. 663 (index, sub. Šamaš).


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.


154

Could Tab T05B-39 imply that the king of the Terqa region visited Ṭabatum every month for the rite? The distance of c. 160 km between Terqa and Ṭabatum requires a week’s journey just in one direction. Even considering the king’s frequent travels around his kingdom, it would seem too difficult for him to come to Ṭabatum quite so often. Two possible alternative scenarios come to mind. The first possibility is that the pudûm ceremony was actually performed at Terqa or a nearby city, and that the people of Ṭabatum took on obligations as the ‘sons of pudûm’ to deliver foodstuffs for the ceremony. The other possibility is that the king permitted his servants to give the offerings on his behalf at Ṭabatum, if he himself was absent. The text from Tell Leilan (above, Text 9), if it does indeed deal with the pudûm ritual, suggests that the king was actually brought to the ritual. However, a letter from Mari A.512 (above, Text 4) reveals that the king’s pudûm was performed in the temple of Annunitum, apparently without his presence.61 Thus, it seems that the king’s presence was not an absolute condition for the performance of the pudûm. One may speculate that various rituals were performed periodically in a number of different places within the kingdom on behalf of the king. If the pudûm ritual for the king was performed at Ṭabatum, as the rotation list from Ṭabatum probably suggests, it could have been supported by the royal palace, while the local people were expected to take part in the preparations. The rotation list in any case seems to illustrate a collective responsibility for the monthly royal ritual imposed upon the local people of Ṭabatum. It is understandable, therefore, that the list was kept with the other tablets belonging to the archive of Yasim-Mahar, probably the mayor or sugāgum of the city. In other words, the rotation list may reflect an aspect of the cultural milieu of the city Ṭabatum that was linked to the political-administrative framework of the kingdom, whose centre was in the Middle Euphrates region.

ABBREVIATIONS

AbB 1 = Kraus 1964; AbB 7 = Kraus 1977; ARM = Archives royales de Mari; ARM 2 = Jean 1950; ARM 7 = Bottéro 1957; ARM 16/1 = Birot et al. 1979; ARM 22/1-2 = Kupper 1983; ARM 23 = Bardet et al. 1984; ARM 24 = Talon 1985; ARM 25 = Limet 1986; ARM 30 = Durand 2009; BIN 7 = Alexander 1943; CT 19 = Campbell Thompson 1904; CT 43 = Figulla 1963; CT 52 = Walker 1976; FM = Florilegium marianum ; FM XI = Chambon 2009; GAG = von Soden 1995; KAR = Ebeling 1919; MSL 8/1 = Landsberger 1960; MSL 12 = Civil 1969; TFR 1 = Rouault 1984; TFR 2 = Rouault 2011; UET V = Figulla et al. 1953.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, J. B., 1943: Early Babylonian Letters and Economic Texts, Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies, Yale University, 7, New Haven.

Bardet, G., Joannès, F., Lafont, B. Soubeyran, D. and Villard, P. 1984: Archives administratives de Mari, I, ARM 23, Paris.

Birot, M., Kupper, J.-R and Rouault, O. 1979: Répertoire analytique: Tomes I-XIV, XVIII et textes divers hors-collection, I: Noms propres, ARM 16/1, Paris.

Bottéro, J. 1957: Textes économiques et administratifs, ARM 7, Paris. Campbell Thompson, E. A. 1904: Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 19, London. Chambon, G. 2006: ‘Chroniques du Moyen-Euphrate 7: Écritures et pratiques métrologiques: La grande mesure à

Mari’, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 100, pp. 101-6. Chambon, G. 2009: Florilegium marianum XI: Les archives du vin à Mari, Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 12, Paris.

61. This may also be supported by Hali-hadun’s letter to the king A.1005, quoted by Durand in his

contribution on Mahanum in this volume, p. 159. The letter reports that on the day the writer sent the tablet, Hana-Bedouins made sacrifices to Addu at Mahanum. Is this perhaps another example of a ritual made on behalf of the king without his personal attendance?


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.


155

Charpin, D. 2001: ‘Des Numhéens originaires de Mahanum montaient la garde à Sippar sous Ammi-ṣaduqa’, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2001/No. 2, pp. 42-3, no. 37.

Charpin, D. 2002: ‘Chroniques du moyen-Euphrate 1. Le « royaume de Hana »: Textes et histoire’, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 96, pp. 61-92.

Charpin, D. 2006: ‘Harrâdum entre Terqa et Babylone’, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2006/No. 4, pp. 90-1, no. 89.

Charpin, D. 2007: ‘Chroniques bibliographiques 10. Économie, société et institutions paléo-babyloniennes: nouvelles sources, nouvelles approches’, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 107 (2007), pp. 147-181.

Charpin, D. 2011: ‘Le « pays de Mari et des Bédouins » à l'époque de Samsu-iluna de Babylone’, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 105, pp. 41-59.

Charpin, D. in press: ‘Harrâdum, entre Babylone et le « pays de Mari »’, in: E. Cancik-Kirschbaum et al. (eds.), Normierung und Emanzipation: Bausteine für eine Kulturgeschichte des 2. Jts. v Chr. im Alten Orient. Internationales Symposium zu Ehren von Gernot Wilhelm, Berlin.

Charpin, D. and Ziegler, N. 2003: Florilegium marianum V: Mari et le Proche-Orient à l’époque amorrite. Essai d’histoire politique, Paris.

Civil, M. 1969: The Series lú = ša and Related Texts, Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon, 12, Rome. Cohen, M. E. 1993: The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East, Bethesda, MD. Durand, J.-M. 2000: Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, III, Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 18,

Paris. Durand, J.-M. 2002: Florilegium marianum VII: Le Culte d’Addu d’Alep et l’affaire d’Alahtum, Mémoires de

N.A.B.U. 8, Paris. Durand, J.-M. 2004: ‘Peuplement et sociétés à l’époque amorrite: (I) Les clans bensim’alites’, in: C. Nicolle (ed.)

Nomades et sédentaires dans le Proche-Orient ancient, Amurru 3, CRRAI 46, Paris, pp. 111-97. Durand, J.-M. 2008: ‘La religion amorrite en Syrie à l’époque des archives de Mari’, in: G. Del Olmo Lete (ed.),

Mythologie et Religion des Sémites Occidentaux, I: Ébla, Mari, Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 162, Leuven, pp. 161-704.

Durand, J.-M. 2009: La nomenclature des habits et des textiles dans les textes de Mari, Matériaux pour le Dictionnaire de Babylonien de Paris, T. 1, Archives Royales de Mari 30, Paris.

Durand, J.-M. 2011: ‘Le mahanum du dieu de l'orage’, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 105, pp. 157-63.

Ebeling, E. 1919: Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts, Leipzig. Feliu, L. 2003: The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 19, Leiden. Figulla, H. H. 1963: Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 43, London. Figulla, H. H. and Martin W. J. 1953: Letters and Documents of the Old Babylonian Period, Ur Excavation Texts 5,

London. Gelb, I. J. 1980: Computer-aided Analysis of Amorite, Assyriological Studies 21, Chicago. Greengus, S. 1987: ‘The Akkadian Calendar at Sippar’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 107, pp. 209-29. Jacquet, A. 2008: ‘Calendrier et culte à Mari’, under ‘Tell Hariri/Mari: Textes’, in: J. Briend et al. (eds.), Supplément

au dictionaire de la Bible, Fascicule 77-78: Taršiš – Tell Hariri, Paris, pp. 405-24. Jacquet, A. 2011: Florilegium marianum XII: Documents relatifs aux dépenses pour le culte, Mémoires de N.A.B.U.

13, Paris. Jean, C.-F. 1950: Lettres diverses, ARM 2, Paris. Joannès, F. 2006: Haradum II: Les textes de la période paléo-babylonienne (Samsu-iluna – Ammi-ṣaduqa), Paris. Kraus, F. R. 1964: Briefe aus dem British Museum (CT 43 and 44), Altbabylonische Briefe 1, Leiden. Kraus, F. R. 1977: Briefe aus dem British Museum (CT 52), Altbabylonische Briefe 7, Leiden. Kupper, J.-R. 1983: Documents administratifs de la salle 135 du palais de Mari, ARM 22/1-2, Paris.Landsberger, B. 1960: The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia, First Part, Materialien zum Sumerischen Lexikon 8/1,

Rome. Limet, H. 1986: Textes administratifs relatifs aux métaux, ARM 25, Paris. Maul, S. 1992: Die Inschriften von Tall Bderi, Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient, Texte 2, Berlin. Michel, C. 1990: ‘Copies cunéiformes d’ARMT XXIII-4’, Mari Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 6, Paris,

pp. 453-61. Nakata, I. 2011: ‘The God Itūr-Mēr in the Middle Euphrates Region during the Old Babylonian Period’, Revue

d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 105, pp. 129-136. Pientka, R. 1998: Die Spätaltbabylonische Zeit: Abiešuḫ bis Samsuditana. Quellen, Jahresdaten, Geschichte, Teile 1-

2, Münster. Podany, A. 2002: The Land of Hana: Kings, Chronology, and Scribal Tradition, Bethesda, MD. Powell, M. 1987-90: ‘Maße und Gewichte’, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7, Berlin, pp. 457-517. Rouault, O. 1984: Terqa Final Report, 1: L’archive de Puzurum, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 16, Malibu, Calif.


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.

SHIGEO YAMADA [RA 105-2011]

156

Rouault, O. 2011: Terqa Final Reports No. 2: Terqa: les textes des saisons 5 à 9, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 29, Malibu, Calif.

Sasson, J. M. 2001: ‘Ancestors Divine?’ in: W. H. van Soldt et al. (eds.), Veenhof Anniversary Volume: Studies presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, PIHANS 89, Leiden, pp. 412-22.

Schwemer, D. 2001: Wettergottgestalten: Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen, Wiesbaden.

Seri, A. 2005: Local Power in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia, Studies in Egyptology and the Ancient Near East, London,

Shibata, D. 2009: ‘An Old Babylonian Manuscript of the Weidner God-list from Tell Taban’, Iraq 71, pp. 33-42. Shibata, D. 2010: ‘Continuity of Local Tradition in the Middle Habur Region in the 2nd Millennium B.C.’, in:

H. Kühne (ed.), Dūr-Katlimmu 2008 and Beyond, Studia Chaburensia 1, Wiesbaden, pp. 217-39. Shibata, D. 2011: ‘The Origin of the Dynasty of the Land of Māri and the City-God of Ṭābetu’, Revue d’assyriologie

et d’archéologie orientale 105, pp. 165-180. Shibata, D. and Yamada, S. 2009: ‘The Cuneiform Texts from the 2007 Excavations at Tell Taban: A Preliminary

Report’, in: H. Numoto (ed.), Excavations at Tell Taban, Hassake, Syria: Preliminary Report on the 2007 Season of Excavations, and the Study of Cuneiform Texts, Tokyo, pp. 87-109.

Stol, M. 1976: Studies in Old Babylonian History, Leiden. Streck, M. 2000: Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit, 1: Die Amurriter. Die onomastische

Forschung, Orthographie und Phonologie, Nominalmorphologie, AOAT 271/1, Münster. Talon, Ph. 1985: Textes administratifs des Salles <<Y et Z>> du palais de Mari, I-II, ARM 24/I-II, Paris. Vincente, C. A. 1991: ‘The 1987 Tell Leilan Tablets Dated by the Limmu of Habil-kinu’, dissertation, Yale

University. von Soden, W. 1995: Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, 3. Auflage, Analecta Orientalia 33, Rome. Walker, C. 1976: Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 52, London. Yamada, S. 2008: ‘A Preliminary Report on the Old Babylonian Texts from the Excavation of Tell Taban in the 2005

and 2006 Seasons: The Middle Euphrates and Habur Areas in the Post-Hammurabi Period’, Al-Rāfidān 29, pp. 47-62 (= H. Numoto ed., Excavations at Tell Taban, Hassake, Syria: Preliminary Reports on the 2005 and 2006 Seasons of Excavations, and the Study of Old Babylonian and Middle Assyrian Texts, Tokyo, pp. 153-68).

Yamada, S. 2010: ‘Administration and Society in the City of Ṭābatum as seen in the Old Babylonian Texts from Tell Taban’, in K. Ohnuma (ed.), Al-Rafidan Special Issue: Formation of Tribal Communities: Integrated Research in the Middle Euphrates, Syria, pp. 247-52.

Yamada, S. 2011: ‘An adoption contract from Tell Taban, the kings of the land of Hana, and the Hana-style scribal tradition’, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 105, pp. 61-84.

Yamada, S. 2012: ‘The City of Ṭabatum and its Surroundings: The Organization of Power in the Post-Hammurabi Period’, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Organisation, Representation and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East, Proceedings of RAI 54, Winona Lake, pp. 591-603.

Ziegler, N. 1999: Florilegium marianum IV: Le Harem de Zimrî-Lîm, Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 5, Paris. Ziegler, N. 2007: Florilegium marianum IX: Les Musiciens et la musique d’apres les archives de Mari, Mémoires de

N.A.B.U. 10, Paris.

University of Tsukuba [email protected]


Doc

umen

t tél

écha

rgé

depu

is w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo -

-

- 12

1.11

4.24

0.22

5 -

09/0

3/20

13 1

0h59

. © P

.U.F

. D


ww

.cairn.info - - - 121.114.240.225 - 09/03/2013 10h59. © P

.U.F

.

A Pudum Rotation List from Tell Taban and the Cultural Milieu of Tabatum in the Post-Hammurabi...

Documents

Transcript of A Pudum Rotation List from Tell Taban and the Cultural Milieu of Tabatum in the Post-Hammurabi...