230 Stefan Zawadzki, “Era of unrest” and Uruk prebendaries in the light of a new document

Stefan Zawadzki

“Era of unrest” and Uruk Prebendaries in the Lightof a New Document

Abstract: The published document, although it is undated and presents a corrupted copy of the original tablet (withone or two lines missing), is important because it can be safely dated to the ‘era of unrest’ (ca. 626–619 BC) and it givesinsight into the prebendary system at the outset of the Neo-Babylonian empire.1

1

The primary purpose of Babylonian temples was an unin-terrupted issue of offerings to the gods each day of theyear. The exercise of this duty was based on a system ofprebends. The essence of the system was issue of prod-ucts, such as barley, emmer, wheat, flour, dates, oil, etc. tothe prebendaries, in a proportion adequate to the periodof service, quantity and quality of expected offerings. Themain part came back to the temple as offerings (ginû/sat-tukku), the smaller one constituted the prebendary re-muneration (pappasu).2 Presumably for practical reasonsthe issue of products to the prebendaries was divided intoshort periods: in the smaller temples in three cycles, eachof four months, in the larger temples, like Eanna, into fourthree-month periods. Since the prebends could be tradedand inherited by children, the periods of service owned byindividual prebendaries differed, covering longer periodsin a month or days in each cycle (or only in some of them)throughout the year. Such a situation resulted in the com-position of a huge and diverse amount of documentations:issues of products to the prebendaries for one or some-times two cycles, lists of the days of service of the givenprebendary before the given god; deeds of purchase andinheritance of the prebends, promissory notes, contractswith the performers, etc.3 Some types of documents arepreserved in great amount, other are rather poorly repre-sented, for example in Uruk there is only a small numberof documents determining precisely the days of service ofparticular prebendaries.

1 The abbreviations used in this article are those listed in RlA withone addition: SWU = Freydank (1971).2 The ration of pappasu (prebendary income) and sattukku (offer-ings) is not known except for prebendaries responsible for manufac-ture of the garments of the gods, where the proportion is † for preb-endary and ° for offerings, see Zawadzki (2006, 52–55).3 The most important documents are in: Hunger (1970, 193–304);Freydank (1971); Gehlken (1990, 73–82; 1996, 173–179); Jakob-Rost/Freydank (1978, 90–92); PTS 2097, in: Frame (1991, 38–41); Kessler(1991).

The best example of documents concerning the issueof products for offerings are the texts published by H.Freydank, as they provide detailed data on the quantity ofbarley, emmer and dates for offerings for particular god-desses, as well as number of days of service, though theprecise description of the period (in sense: “from x day xtill y day”) is omitted. Freydank divided these documentsinto five separate groups (sometimes with subgroup, ortype)4 of which Group 1 and 3 concern dates, emmer andbarley connected with bakers’ duties and group 2 barleyconnected with brewers’ duty; in all these groups prod-ucts are measured in kurru, panu, sutu and qû. Group 5concerns barley, measured in mafiäus, connected withbakers’ and brewers’ duties; the same measure was usedin PTS 2097,5 composed in the time of Nabonidus, concern-ing barley, dates, emmer and Dilmun dates, presumablyboth for bakers and brewers. In Freydank Group 2(brewers’ duty) and Group 3 (bakers’ duty) the existenceof a subgroup or type was recognized with differentamounts in comparison with type A, but the reason forthese differences is still unknown.6

The document published and discussed here is im-portant in that it presents a new picture and is in some wayconnected with Freydank’s Group 4 which he separatedfrom the above mentioned groups, but although it differsfrom the groups described above, its internal system is notrecognized.

4 See Freydank (1971, 16); Frame (1991) and Beaulieu (2010, 99–101).5 See note 3.6 Also the reason why in Group 5 and in PTS 2097 mafiäu’s measureis used is unknown.

DOI 10.1515/za-2013-0006 Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 2013; 103(2): 230–236

Stefan Zawadzki, “Era of unrest” and Uruk prebendaries in the light of a new document 231

BM 30210 (1841-7-26, 56)7

8.0 × 4.1 cm

7 Published with the kind permission of the Trustees of the BritishMuseum.

1. † gín itiapin igi dgasan-ia 15 u4mdag-sur

2. ° ma-na itigan igi dgasan-ia 15 u4mdag-sur u4 1 5 .kam mgi- mil-lu

3. † 6 gín 2-ta suii.meå itiab igi dgasan-ia 6 u4mdag-sur 14 u4

mden-dù

4. † gín itiapin igi dna-na-a 15 u4mden-dù

5. ½ ma-}na≠ 3 gín fal-fú itigan igi dna-na-a 10 u4mgi-mil-lu 4 u4

mku-na-a

6. 5 u4mden-dù 5 u4

mdag-sur

Edge 7. ½ ma-na itigan fá igi dgasan fá sag 7 ½ u4mi-damar. utu

Rev. 8. 15 u4mden-ib-ni a-fú fá mful!-lu-mu

9. † gín itiab igi dgasan fá sag 15 u4mmar-duk

10 19 gín itiapin }igi≠ dùri-imin-su 10 u4mden-dù

11. † 8 gín 4-tú bit-qa itigan igi dùri-imin-su 15 u4mden-dù

12.13.14

pap 3 ma-na 7 gín 4-tú bit-qa fá lúbappir.mes1 ½ ma-}na≠ 1 ½ gín fá gu-uq-qa-ni-e1 ½ ma-}na≠ 6 ½ gín fá lúmuh

˘aldim.mes

[ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ]

232 Stefan Zawadzki, “Era of unrest” and Uruk prebendaries in the light of a new document

20 shekels (for) the month Ara3samna, before Beltiya, 15 days: Nabû-e5ir

40 shekels (for) the month Kisl\mu, before Beltiya, 15 days: Nabû-e5ir, 15 days: Gimillu

26 ° shekels (for) the month 4ebetu before Beltiya, 6 days: Nabû-e5ir, 14 days: Bel-ibni

20 shekels (for) the month Ara3samna, before Nanaya, 15 days: Bel-ibni

33 † (for) the month Kisl\mu, before Nanaya, 10 days: Gimillu, 4 days: Kuna,

5 days: Bel-ibni, 5 days: Nabû-e5ir

30 shekels (for) the month Kisl\mu, before Beltu-åa-Reå, 7 ½ days: Na’id-Marduk,

15 days: Bel-ibni, son of Åullumu

20 shekels (for) the month 4ebetu before Beltu-åa-Reå, 15 days: Marduk

19 shekels (for) the month Ara3samna, before Usur-amassu, 10 days: Bel-ibni

28 © (for) the month Kisl\mu, before Usur-amassu, 15 days: Bel-ibni

total 3 minas 7 © shekels for the brewers1 mina 31.5 shekels for the guqqu-offerings1 mina 36.5 shekels for the bakers

The text is not dated, and the place of its composition isalso missing, but the fact that it concerns the cultic servicebefore Beltiya, Nanaya, Beltu-åa-Reå and Usur-amassumakes it certain that it was written in Uruk. Some ele-ments suggest that the preserved document is a copy ofan original tablet. Firstly, the silver issued for the preben-daries for preparation of their service was omitted in line1–5 and 7 and evidently added later on the left edge of thetablet. The addition of these data after the whole tabletwas written is supported by the observation that lastlines of the tablet were written with split stylus, visibleespecially when the horizontal wedges were written. Thesame additional lines are seen on the left side signs insigns ma, gín, ½; in l. 3 the sign mes (in 2-ta suii.meå)and in l. 5 fú (in fal-fú) are written partly over iti. Thesecond mistake appears in the summation in ll. 12–14. Ac-cording to l. 12, the total sum of silver issued to thebrewers is 3 minas, 7 © shekels. Line 13 states that 1 mina31.5 shekels was issued for the guqqû-offerings while l. 14that 1 mina 36.5 shekels was issued to the bakers. Thetotal of ll. 13–14 is 3 minas 8 shekels, i.e., it is higher by ™

of shekels in comparison to the sum given in l. 12; itmight mean that the scribe operated here with the ap-proximate quantity. However, the total from ll. 1–5, 7, and9–11 gives 3 minas 57 © shekels, i.e. the result is 50

shekels higher than the sum given in l. 12. It seems to methat the scribe made mistakes while writing the quantityof silver.

The approximate dating might be established byanalysis of the character of cuneiform signs, the form ofthe goddesses’ names and prosopographical analysis. Theshape of signs, written with great care (although a fewsigns were written badly, next presumably erased andwritten again, see u4 in l. 4 with redundant vertical wedge;ful in l. 8 has atypical shape; traces of earlier signs areseen in l. 7 (dingir and gasan)) points to the early Neo-Babylonian period. The possibility to narrow the time ofits composition is offered by the form of the name Beltiya(dgasan-iá), identified certainly with Iåtar of Uruk. Ac-cording to data gathered and interpreted by P.-A. Beau-lieu, the name Beltiya was not in use after the 7th year ofNabopolassar’s rule at least until the end of Nebuchadnez-zar’s reign.8 Prosopographical studies are hindered by thefact that people involved bear popular Neo-Babylonian

8 For the discussion of different designations of Iåtar in the Neo-Babylonian period in Uruk, see Beaulieu (2003, 119–128, especiallytable 13).

Stefan Zawadzki, “Era of unrest” and Uruk prebendaries in the light of a new document 233

names and the names of their fathers or family names arenot given. The only exception is Bel-ibni, performing theservice before Beltu-åa-Reå, who was the son of Åullumu,however, it is also not certain if Bel-ibni from line 3–4,10–11 is the same person as Bel-ibni/Åullumu (l. 8), al-though taking into account the fact that in Sippar and inBorsippa the same person have had the prebends of differ-ent gods this seems highly probable. The presence of Bel-ibni/Åullumu does not help in dating the tablet as accord-ing to my knowledge he does not appears in other pub-lished documents.

It is clear that SWU 109: 10 concerns the same days of ser-vice of Gimillu and most probably Kuna before Nanaya inthe month Kisl\mu. In l. 11 information about 5 days ser-vice performed in the month 4ebetu by Zabida, omittedfrom unknown reason in BM 30210, is given.

Interesting observations concern the days of servicebefore Beltu-åa-Reå. First, SWU 109 delivers informationconcerning five days of service performed in the monthAra3samna by Remut, the data omitted in BM 30210. Ac-cording to data from BM 30210, in the month Kisl\mu 7.5days were performed by Na’id-Marduk and 15 days by Bel-ibni/Åullumu, total 22.5 day. According to SWU 109which – as is suggested by writing of the name of Iåtar –was composed a little later than BM 30210, Na’id-Mardukperformed 10 days of service. It means that Na’id-Mardukwent into possession of 2.5 days or he performed these ad-ditional days’ service in the name of another prebendary.

Taking into account the observations of Beaulieu con-cerning the designation of Iåtar and the fact that SWU 109dated to the 8th year of Nabopolassar’s reign used alreadythe writing dXV and dif-tar while BM 30210 employed the

Although the data about the prebendary bakers andbrewers from Uruk are not as abundant as those from Bor-sippa and Sippar some prosopographical studies are pos-sible, mostly basing on the texts published H. Freydank.The majority of Freydank’s texts come from the periodfrom Nabonidus till Darius, but three documents are datedto the earlier period, two to the Nabopolassar’s rule,9 oneto the time of Nebuchadnezzar.10 One of these texts (SWU109 dated to the 8th year of Nabopolassar [618/17 BC]), pro-ves evident similarity to BM 30210, even though the issuesare measured in kurru, pan and sutu:

older writing Beltiya (dgasan-iá), we can safely date itscomposition some time before SWU 109, but the parallelsbetween both texts suggest that the time that passed tillthe composition of SWU 109 was rather short.11

Assuming that all entries mentioning Bel-ibni in BM30210 refer to the same person he owned in total at least 74prebendary days before Beltiya, Nanaya, Beltu-åa-Reåand Usur-amassu and presumably he was the most in-fluential among the persons treated in the document. Thesecond was Nabû-e5ir, who performed 36 days service inthe month Arahsamna, Kisl\mu and 4ebetu before Beltiya(i.e 15+15+6) and 5 days before Nanaya in the month

9 SWU 109 (Nbp 8 (618/17 BC) and SWU 117 (Nbp –)10 SWU 130 (Nbk 36)11 Nabû-e5ir from BM 30210 might be identified with Nabû-e5ir/Nadna (or Iddina), possibly nuäatimmu, from Gehlken (1996, 173: 11H)dated to the time of Nebuchadnezzar. The identity of Gimillu of BM30210 with Gimillu known from prebendary texts Gehlken, AUWE 5,76: 4–5. 13 and AUWE 5, 77: 6, and Marduk with Marduk of Gehlken,AUWE 5, 76: 8. 12 is possible, but cannot be proved.

BM 30210: 5 ½ ma-‹na› 3 gín fal-fú itigan igi dna-na-a 10 u4mgi-mil-lu 4 u4

mku-na-a

SWU 109: 10 x kùr 3 pi 2 bán itigan i]gi dna-na-a 10 u4.mes mgi-mi[l-lu 4 u4mku-na-a]

cf. also

SWU 109: 11 x kùr 3 pi 2 bán itia]b igi dna-na-a 5 u4.mes mza-bi-da-[a . . . . . .]

SWU 111: 10 5 kùr 1 (pi) 4 bán itiab igi dna-na-a 4 ½ u4.mes mza-bi-da-a […]

BM 30210: 7–8 ½ ma-na itigan fá igi dgasan fá sag 7 ½ u4mi-damar. utu

15 u4mden-ib-ni a-fú fá mful!-lu-mu

SWU 109: 15 …] itiapin igi dgasan fá sag 5 u4.mes ri-mu[t . . . . . .]

SWU 109: 16 … it]igan [igi] dgasan fá sag 10 u4.mes fá mi-damar.utu

BM 30210: 9 † gín itiab igi dgasan fá sag 15 u4mmar-duk

SWU 109: 17 … itiab igi dgasan] fá sag 15 u4.mes mmar-duk

[ ] [ ]

234 Stefan Zawadzki, “Era of unrest” and Uruk prebendaries in the light of a new document

Kisl\mu, in total 41 days. Two period of service were in thehands of Gimillu: 15 days before Beltiya and 10 days beforeNanaya, both in the month Kisl\mu, total 25 days. Threepersons owned only one period each. 7.5 days of servicebefore Beltu-åa-Reå in the month Kisl\mu was performedby Na’id-Marduk, however, in the light of SWU 109 heowned 10 days in this month.12 4 days were performed byKuna before Nanaya in the month Kisl\mu, and 15 day byMarduk before Beltu-åa-Reå in the month 4ebetu. In totalBM 30210 concerns 166.5 days13 of service for the period of3 consecutive months Arahsamna, Kisl\mu and 4ebetu,i.e. in the third cycle in the yearly schedule in Uruk for thefour most influential goddesses in the Uruk pantheon:Beltiya, Nanaya, Beltu-åa-Reå and Usur-amassu. Out of166.5 days of service 65 days are before Beltiya, 39 days be-fore Nanaya, 37.5 before Beltu-åa-Reå, and 25 days beforeUsur-amassu.14 It is interesting to note that the days of ser-vice in BM 30210 reflect precisely the position of the god-desses in the Uruk pantheon.15 As already noted, in BM30210 only service for Beltiya concerns all three months,while before the three other goddesses only in two con-secutive months: before Nanaya and Usur-amassu in themonth Arahsamna and Kisl\mu, while before Beltu-åa-Reåin Kisl\mu and 4ebetu. It means that fullest data concernthe service for the Kisl\mu (61.5 days out of 90 or 69 daysout of 90 of the cycle of three months if we add data fromSWU 109: 15–16); next is month Ara3samna (40 day out of

12 Cf. above.13 However, when we add two periods of service known form SWU109, the total is 181.5 or 180 (if Zabida owned 4.5 not 5 days of service).14 Taking into account the data from SWU 109 we reach 44 days be-fore Nanaya and 52.5 days before Beltu-åa-Reå.15 However, this is accidental because service was preformed everyday before every goddess.

90 days or 45 if we add data form SWU 109:15), and 4ebetu(only 25 days out of 90 or 30 days (or 29.5) if we add datafrom SWU 109: 11and SWU 111:10).

The problem is that we do not known what type of ser-vice was performed by each person, as according to l. 12and l. 14 some of them must have owned the brewer’s,16

others the baker’s prebends. However, the sources access-ible make it in practice impossible to establish who wasthe baker and who the brewer. Although the names Nabû-e5ir, Bel-ibni, Gimillu and Marduk appear quite often inSWU texts, their bearers cannot be identified with the per-sons from BM 30210 because most texts were not writtenbefore the time of Nabonidus, i.e. the chronological gapbetween these texts is half a century or more.17

The document is highly interesting for two differentreasons. Firstly, it is the first known case where all preben-daries were paid not in natural product, but fully in silver. Itmight be recognized as an expression of a high level of mon-etisation of the temple economy – the problem discussedthoroughly by M. Jursa.18 However, the idea that already atthe very beginning of the independent Neo-Babylonianstate the monetisation was so highly advanced is improb-able; the most important reason is that in Freydank’s textthe prebendaries are paid in natural product, never insilver. The explanation of this situation must be different.

The text makes it possible to estimate the value of oneday prebend of particular goddesses:

16 According to l. 12 the total sum of silver was issued to brewers, ofwhich 1 mina 36.5 shekels was given to bakers while 1 mina 31.5shekels for preparation of guqqû or regular offerings. It results fromthis that guqqû offerings were produced by the brewers and presum-ably it was beer.17 For example Na’id-Marduk from BM 30210 and SWU 109 (Nbp 8,618/617 BC) cannot be identical with Na’id-Marduk from SWU 26dated to 6th year of Cambyses (524/23 BC). For comparison we needmore materials dated to the time of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnez-zar.18 Jursa et al. (2010, 775–780. 788–790).

20 shekels, the value of 15 days in Arahsamnu before Beltiya, i.e. 1.33 shekels per day40 shekels, the value of 30 days in Kisl\mu before Beltiya, i.e. 1.33 shekels per day26 ° shekels, the value of 20 days in 4ebetu before Beltiya, i.e. 1.33 shekels per day20 shekels, the value of 15 days in Arahsamnu before Nanaya, i.e. 1.33 shekels per day33 † shekels, the value of 24 days in Kisl\mu before Nanaya, i.e. 1.39 shekels per day30 shekels, the value of 22.5 days in Arahsamnu before Beltu-åa-Reå, i.e. 1.33 shekel per day20 shekels, the value of 15 days in 4ebetu before Beltu-åa-Reå, i.e. 1.33 shekel per day19 shekels, the value of 10 day in Arahsamnu before Usur-amassu, i.e. 1.9 shekels per day28 © shekels, the value of 15 days in Kisl\mu before Usur-amassu, i.e. 1.9 shekels per day

Stefan Zawadzki, “Era of unrest” and Uruk prebendaries in the light of a new document 235

As we see, the value of a one-day prebend was almostequal for three first goddesses, but – surprisingly – ishigher for Usur-amassu.19 This stands in contrast to earlierdata known mostly from SWU tablets and PTS 2097,20

where the norm for Lady of Uruk were the highest or equalto the norm of Nanaya, who took the second position inthe Uruk pantheon, while the norms for Beltu-åa-Reå andUsur-amassu were lower but equal or the norms of Usur-amassu were the lowest one (with the one already men-tioned exception). In other words the picture whichemerges from BM 30210 has no parallel and for this reasonis difficult to explain.

The prebend shares owned by prebendaries beforeparticular gods are quite long. Out of 15 shares, 7 comprisethe period of half month (15 days), one: 14 days, two: 10days (one third of the month), one: 7.5 days (¼ of themonth), one: 6 days (one-fifth of the month), two: 5 days(one-sixth of the month) and one: four days. The low divi-sion of prebendary periods speaks also for the early periodof its composition.21 Similarly to Borsippa and Sipparsome prebendaries owned prebends of different god-desses, i.e. Bel-ibni owned the prebends of all four god-desses. Nabû-e5ir’s policy was different: he owned 36 outof 65 days of Beltiya and only 5 days of Nanaya, i.e. his in-tention was to preserve the long period of service of one,but most influential goddess.

The last question, difficult to answer, is why BM 30210was written and why instead of issues of agricultural orhorticultural product (barley or dates) the composer ex-pressed the obligation in silver. Two alternative interpre-tations can be taken into account: a. the prebendaries re-ceived agricultural or horticultural products, but for anunknown reason the temple (or state?) administrationwished to evaluate their obligation in silver; b. the reasonmight be sought in the so called “era of unrest”,22 whichaccording to Beaulieu started in 626/625 and lasted till

19 Note that only in Freydank’s group 2, type B product for Usur-amassu are higher than for Beltu-åa-Reå, but the reason is unknown.20 Frame (1991, 38–54, esp. 51–54); Beaulieu (2003, 99f.).21 Cf. the highly advanced division of the baker’s prebend in Bor-sippa in the time of Darius (usually 1–2 days per month, Waerzeggers2010, 204f.) and even more advanced division of the brewer’s preb-end (Waerzeggers 2010, 171). For the increasing division of thebaker’s prebendaries in Sippar already in the time of Nabopolassar,see Bongenaar (1997, 174f.). For division in Uruk, see also the obser-vation of Gehlken (1990, 62) and compare of AUWE 5, 73–75.22 The term introduced by Beaulieu (1997) for the period626/25–620/19 BC in Uruk.

620–19 (sixth year of Nabopolassar).23 During this period“the gate(s) of Uruk” were closed many times because of“hostilities in the country”. This resulted in economic cri-sis and it is not excluded that similarly to the dramaticsituation in Nippur in the 3rd year (623 BC) of Sin-åar-iåkun,24 when parents have had sold their children to keepthem alive, also in Uruk as a result of repeated siege in afew consecutive years a shortage of food might be ob-served. Although the crisis influenced also the temple, theowners of the prebends were in a better position than or-dinary people as they still received products to produce of-ferings; this might explain the rapid increase of the preb-ends’ price during this period and their decrease later.25

Perhaps BM 30210 delivers the first data, which mightmean that even the temple was not in a position to deliverthe prebendaries the proper products and thus exception-ally paid them in silver. The lack of dating might be acci-dental, but it cannot be excluded that the text wascomposed in a time of unrest and the temple’s scribe de-cided to avoid any dating. This exceptional situationmight also explain practically equal value of one-dayprebend. All in all this suggests that the text was written atthe time of crisis before the final collapse of Assyrian in-fluence in Uruk, in the period between 626/5–620/19 BC.The low price of one-day suggest that it is rather not anequivalent of one-day offering, but rather the income ofthe prebendary. However, as many unresolved questionsstill remain one might repeat after G. Frame: “In view ofthe many difficulties in interpreting the above mentioneddata … a detailed study of prebendary system in the Eannacomplex … is clearly needed.26

23 Beaulieu (1997, 367–394, esp. 379, table 4 and 381–83, with table 6on p. 382).24 Oppenheim (1955, 69–89).25 Zawadzki (1979, 175–182). For a comparison of this data (plus laterdata), see MacGinnis (1991/92, 76); Joannès (1997, 321). For prices ofprebends in Borsippa, see Waerzeggers (2010, 314–317 and table onp. 317); Jursa et al. (2010, 165, tabl. 11); both concern prices of the ox-herd prebend in Ezida; for prices in Sippar, see Jursa (1999, 38 and59). The most recent study of all presently known data is by Pirn-gruber/Waerzeggers (2011).26 Frame (1991, 54).

236 Stefan Zawadzki, “Era of unrest” and Uruk prebendaries in the light of a new document

ReferencesBeaulieu, P.-A. (1997): The Fourth Year of Hostilities in the Land,

BaM 28, 367–94– (2003): The Pantheon of Uruk during the Neo-Babylonian Period.

Leiden/BostonBongenaar, A.C.V.M. (1997): The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at

Sippar: its Administration and its Prosopography. PIHANS 80.Istanbul.

Frame, G. (1991): Nabonidus, Nabû-ãarra-usur, and the EannaTemple, ZA 81, 37–86.

Freydank, H. (1971): Spätbabylonische Wirtschaftstexte aus Uruk.Berlin

Gehlken, E. (1990): Uruk: Spätbabylonische Wirtschaftstexte ausdem Eanna-Archiv, Teil I: Texte verschiedenen Inhalts. AUWE 5.Mainz

– (1996): Uruk: Spätbabylonische Wirtschaftstexte aus dem Eanna-Archiv, Teil II: Texte verschiedenen Inhalts. AUWE 11. Mainz

Hunger, H. (1970): Das Archiv des Nabû-uåallim, BaM 45, 193–304Jakob-Rost, L./Freydank, H. (1978): Spätbabylonische Rechtsur-

kunden and Wirtschaftstexte aus Uruk. VS 20. BerlinJoannès, F. (1997): Prix et salaires en Babylonie du VIIe au iiie siècle

avant notre ère, in: J. Andreau, et al. (eds.), Économie antique:Prix et formation des prix dans les économies antiques. Entre-tiens d’ archéologie et d’histoire. Saint-Bertrand-de-Com-minges, 313–33

Jursa M. (1999): Das Archiv des Bel-remanni. PIHANS 86. LeidenJursa M. et al. (2010): Aspects of the economic history of Babylonia in

the first millennium BC: economic geography, economic men-talities, agriculture, the use of money and the problem of econ-omic growth. AOAT 377. Münster

Kessler, K. (1991): Uruk: Urkunden aus Privathäusern: Die Wohn-häuser westlich des Eanna-Tempelbereichs, Teil I_ Die Archivedes Bel-uåallim, des Nabû-uåallim und des Bel-suppê-mu3ur.AUWE 8. Mainz

MacGinnis, J. (1991–92): Neo-Babylonian Prebend Texts from theBritish Museum, AfO 38/39, 74–100

Oppenheim, A. L. (1955): “Siege-documents” from Nippur, Iraq 17,69–89

Pirngruber, R./Waerzeggers, C. (2011): Prebend Prices in First-Millennium B.C. Babylonia, JCS 63, 111–144

Waerzeggers, C. (2010): The Ezida Temple of Borsippa. Priesthood,Cult, Archives. Achaemenid History 15. Leiden

Zawadzki, S. (1979): The Economic Crisis in Uruk During the Last Yearof Assyrian Rule in the Light of the So-Called Nabû-uåallimArchives, Folia Orientalia 20, 175–182

– (2006): Garments of the Gods. Studies on the Textile Industry andthe Pantheon of Sippar according to the Texts from the EbabbarArchive. OBO 218. Fribourg/Göttingen