Dipartimento di Studi Orientali

Dottorato in
“Studi filologici e letterari sul Vicino Oriente Antico e l’Iran pre-islamico”
XXII Ciclo

PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS, BUREAUCRACY AND SOCIAL

NETWORKS IN THE OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD.

AN ANALYSIS OF LETTERS FORM LARSA AND SIPPAR.

Dottoranda: Eleonora Ravenna Tutor: Prof. Franco D'Agostino

2011
 "Penso che il mio ideale storiografico sia
una storiografia che sia insieme Cézanne e Monet
–che dia anche, cioè, la fragilità del vissuto,
che è lì che se ne va,
che non conta nulla o quasi,
che conta solo per quello che ha vissuto per l'appunto.
Una storiografia che riesca nello stesso tempo
a ricostruire l'effimero, l'effimero del vissuto,
e la geologia profonda in cui questo effimero si incardina […]

C. Ginzburg
Paradigma indiziario e conoscenza storica
1980:35-36
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER I

The Textual Material: The Old Babylonian Letters 5

The Approach: The Individual Life,

a Path to Social Life as Power in Action 13

CHAPTER II

The Space: an Ecological and Social Reality 18

How to measure Time: Chronology and Periodization 24

Towards a New Political Order. 27

a- The early incorporation of Sippar to the domains of Babylon 27
b- The Annexation of Larsa 32
c- Changes in the Administration of the State 37

CHAPTER III 40

The Bureaucracy that Administered Larsa: some Important Names 43

a- Sin-iddinam 44
b- Šamaš-hāzir 45
c- Lu-Ninurta 47

The other side of the coin: wrongdoings, offences, crimes 48

A private archive from Sippar 60

a- Who is Who in this Story? 62
b- The Nature of the Relationships 65

Personal Rapports, Bureaucracy and Social Networks:

the path of Power. 70

BIBLIOGRAPHY 75
 INTRODUCTION

Bureaucracy has been a central point in the studies of Ancient Near Eastern societies
as it is closely related with state organization. In fact, the great bulk of official
administrative documents led the scholars to conclude initially that the state was
almost omnipresent and that it imposed its power on the local traditional
authorities. A closer study of the documents -considering new theoretical
perspectives- changed this view and showed that the local powers were still acting
during the Old Babylonian period.

In this work I analyse some aspects of the nature of the relationships that
were established inside the bureaucratic machinery; I stress the personal rapports
that existed between the members of the officialdom and between them and persons
who were not directly associated with the state, but were involved in power
networks. Also I try to determine how those people deepened and consolidated
their social position using these links.

In the thesis I study two epistolary corpora that are very different from one
another. One shows certain aspects of the bureaucratic life in Larsa (south
Mesopotamia) under Hammurabi's control; the other one, that of Sippar (north
Mesopotamia), presents the relationships of a group of men who were engaged in
the agricultural business during the final years of Ammi-saduqa, a period when the
frontiers of the realm were retracting. They were also written under different
circumstances: the first corpus was the result of the bureaucracy's activity while the
other one was produced in a "private" context. In the first case, the letters are not
linked but putting them all together it is possible to reconstruct some practices that,
due to their nature, are difficult to find in most documents. In the second case, the
nine letters are related and help us to understand how negotiations and agreements
went on. Finally, there is a negative aspect: in both cases, the archaeological context
cannot be reconstructed because these tablets were obtained in irregular
excavations.

1
 I used two very different corpora because of the elusiveness of the
documentation and the fact that I believe the situations of the two dossiers may be
complementary. When trying to grasp the concrete character of the social processes
and not finding proof of the relationships I had "imagined"1 existed between
concrete persons, I looked for them in other documents, because all these people
lived in a world they understood ("world" corresponds, theoretically, with the
concept of field that I took from Bourdieu) despite the temporal and the spatial
distance. We must keep in mind that the rhythms of change were different in
ancient times2.

My choice of the theoretical concepts was influenced by the specific character

of the letters: they present the individuals' points of view about their world. So, why
not try to use this material -which has been treated from other points of view- in a
different way? Why not try to analyse the social fabric through the lives of ordinary
people? Focusing on individuals means rescuing of those dimensions of society that
the macro analysis can not cover. Through the study of the lives of single men I am
trying to unveil the invisible structures where “the life lived” gained sense and
where power, in the sense Foucault gave to it3, flowed.

It is power in action, as a concrete social process, that I am studying here. I

am not focusing directly on power associated with political aspects (the traditional
approach) but on the questions: how does power go through the social fabric? how
does it colour the personal rapports? I assume that the exercise of power is not
simply a relationship between "partners" individual or collective; it is a way in
which some act on others. Power exists only as exercised by some upon others, only
when it is put into action –and even though- it is inscribed on a field of sparsely
available possibilities underpinned by permanent structures. This also means that
power is not a matter of consent. What defines a relationship of power is that it is a

1 The word imagine is not a contraposition between what is "true" and what is "invented",
but an integration between "reality" and "possibilities". What is true and plausible, proof and
possibility are interwoven although they are rigorously different.
2 For the argument of rhythms of change in History see Braudel (1953 [1949]).
3 Foucault approaches the theme of power asking for the "how", so he states that the object of

analysis has to be power relations and not power itself.

2
mode of action that does not act directly and immediately on others. Instead, it acts
upon their actions: an action upon an action, on possible or actual future or present
actions. Foucault stresses that a relationship of violence acts upon a body or upon
things; it forces, it bends, it breaks, it destroys, or it closes off all possibilities. Its
opposite pole can only be passivity, and if it comes up against any resistance it has
no other option but to try to break it down. A power relationship, on the other hand,
can only be articulated on the basis of two elements that are indispensable if it is
really to be a power relationship: that "the other" (the one over whom power is
exercised) is recognized and maintained to the very end as a subject who acts; and
that, faced with a relationship of power, a whole field of responses, reactions,
results, and possible inventions may open up" (Faubion 2000 : 339-340).

To consolidate my plan I analyse what the documents offer: the world of

bureaucracy as described in the letters.

The thesis has been divided into three chapters. The first one deals with
general information about the documents, the historical context in which they were
found and the significance of them as "document/monument" (Le Goff 1978).
Considering these aspects is fundamental to understanding part of the
methodological problems that scholars face nowadays, when working with the
epigraphic material obtained in a period in which there was a limited dialogue
between philologists and archaeologists and the techniques were not as highly
developed as they are today. In this part, I also present some of the concepts I use
and the methodological approach. The second chapter offers a brief description of
the territory and the regional differences, as the exploitation of the diverse natural
resources has a high impact on the economic organization, the land tenure system
and on the conformation of the social fabric. I also synthesise the political events, as
the fluctuations in this field influence the economic and social aspects.

The third chapter is the core of the thesis. There I examine the situation in
Larsa and Sippar. First, I analyse the wrongdoings committed by some officials at
Larsa. In doing so, it is possible to establish certain links between the officials, to

3
detect the "unspoken agreements". The letters show traces of these illegal practices,
almost invisible, but real. Is it possible to think that higher and lower officials have
entered into informal alliances to ensure the smooth prosecution of their
relationship, to protect them a) from unbidden inquiries from the central
bureaucracy or b) from competition from the inside to gain some kind of prestige in
society. The second part of this chapter is devoted to the information of a smaller
dossier that presents the relationship between a man who is very close to the central
power and his lieutenant in Sippar. This lieutenant has a dispute with another man;
what seems to be a simple problem between the two men hides, in fact, a complex
network of power where the local identities and the sense of membership might
have been set in motion.

In the last part I offer my provisional conclusions. I believe that this study,
although focusing on a small quantity of documents, shows that it is possible to
analyse bureaucracy and power from another perspective, that of the individuals.
This choice does not mean that I forget the importance of the social tendencies in the
configuration of power relations, but that I prefer to stress, when studying power,
the "how" before the "what". I think that this point of view is more dynamic and
may be closer to the life as it was lived.

4
 CHAPTER I

The Textual Material: The Old Babylonian Letters.

The documental base of this research are two dossiers of edited letters4 that refer to
different situations that transpired in Larsa after the conquest of Hammurabi (1792-
17505) and in Sippar in the last years of Ammi-saduqa (1646-1626). These documents
have been chosen from among the 2800/3000 letters and fragments of letters coming
from Lower Mesopotamia6. Today, the tablets and fragments are scattered in
different museums, cultural institutions and private collections around the world7.
The great majority of them have been published in the series Altbabylonische Briefe in
Umschrift und Übersetzung (AbB)8.

Although the great bulk of the letters has come from looting or from poorly
documented archaeological excavations9, the scholars who analyzed the material

4 Although I base my labour on the corpus of Old Babylonian letters it is, of course,
necessary to consider other documents that complement them.
5 I follow the middle chronology. All the dates are BC. See Chapter II for details.
6 Lower Mesopotamia is basically the alluvial Tigris and Euphrates plain; the land between

the lower course of the Diyala and the Persian Gulf. It is what the ancient inhabitants of
those lands, starting from the 3rd Dynasty of Ur, called Sumer and Akkad.
7 The tablets are kept in the following museums: British Museum, Musée du Louvre,

Vorderasiatischen Museum zu Berlin, Ashmolean Museum (Oxford), Nederlands Instituut

voor het Nabije Oosten (Leiden), John Rylands Library (Manchester), University Museum
(Manchester), City of Liverpool Museum, Millard Collection (Liverpool), Birmingham City
Museum, Private Collection M. J. Mariaud de Serres (Oxford), Bodleian Library (Oxford),
Fizwilliam Museum (Cambridge), Dring Collection (London), County Museum and Art
Gallery (Truro), Royal Scottish Museum (Edimburgh); The Chester Beatty Library and
Gallery of Oriental Art (Dublin), Musées royaux d’Art et d’Historie (Brussels), Bibliothèque
nationale et universitarie de Strasbourg, Musée d’Art et d’historie (Geneva), Iraq Museum,
İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri (Istambul), Sterling Memorial Library-Yale University, Smith
College Library (Northampton, U.S.A.), University Museum (Philadelphia), Oriental
Institute (Chicago).
8 The references of the previous editions of the letters are presented in the introduction of

each volume of the series. There are smaller groups of letters published in several articles
and books.
9 The earliest explorations of archaeological remains in the Middle East at the beginning of

the 19th century occurred well before archaeology existed as a clearly defined scientific
discipline. The early practitioners of archaeology included diplomats, military officers,
missionaries, mining engineers, and businessmen. Monumental stone architecture, most

5
have established a tentative temporal and spatial distribution; there are a few
documents from the 20th and 19th century. Most of the letters are from the 18th-17th
centuries. The documentation ends not later than Samsu-iluna 12 (1737) in the south
of the domains (Girsu, Larsa, Ur, Uruk) while in in Lagaba and Nippur not after
Samsu-iluna 30 (1720). A great quantity of the letters of the 17th century comes from
north Babylonia. Places like Kiš, Dilbat and Babylon, and most of all, Sippar are
mentioned (Sallaberger 1999: 4).

These tablets are exeptional examples of what the French historian, J. Le

Goff, called document/monument: they are "[...] il risultato, prima di tutto di un
montaggio, conscio o inconscio, della storia, dell'epoca, della società che lo hanno prodotto,
ma anche delle epoche successive durante le quali ha continuato a vivere, magari
dimenticato, durante le quali ha continuato ad essere manipolato, magari dal silenzio [...]"
(Le Goff 1978: 46). In fact, most of the letters –as it happens with other types of
documents- have a very turbulent story behind them in relation to the period when
they were excavated: a story, which they share with all the documents and artifacts
that were brought to Europe at the time when the colonialist expansion was going
on (Horvath 1972; Hobsbawm 1975, 1987; Wesseling 1997). The greatest powers,
especially Great Britain and France, not only snatched raw materials and workforce
of the colonies and protectorates, but also appropriated their history and culture
(Said 1979; Liverani 2005; Goody 2006). It seems that the most important thing was
to succeed in the race to obtain valuable pieces to fill the European museums
quickly, no matter the methods used to reach the goals10 (Larsen 1996).

notably from northern Mesopotamia, and inscribed artefacts were the subject of much of the
scholarly attention. The earliest work principally relied on studies of standing monuments,
but by the middle of the 1800’s, excavations – albeit more like treasure hunts by today’s
standards – were becoming increasingly common. They were predicated on the growing
realization that the mounds dotting the landscape in many areas held archaeological
remains. It was not, however, until nearly the end of the 19th century, in Petrie’s work at Tell
el-Hesi, that what we today consider a basic principle – attention to stratigraphy – began to
be incorporated into excavations. A further methodological breakthrough around the turn of
the 20th century allowed excavators for the first time to distinguish mudbrick, one of the
most common building materials used in the region in the past (Pollock-Bernbeck 2005;
previously, there are two articles by Liverani 1999 and especially 2000).
10 There is a very illustrative anecdote was told by Sir. L. Wooley, reproduced by C.B.F.

Walker (Leichty – Finkelstein – Walker 1988: xxii) in which Wooley expresses what kind of
motives hides behind one of the curators of the British Museum to buy looted artefacts: “The

6
 I refer to these initial circumstances not only for an anecdotal purpose. In
fact, it allows us understand part of the methodological problems that must be faced
nowadays. The limitations on archaeology as practiced in those early periods
(Trigger 1992 [1989]; Larsen 1996; Liverani 2000; Mathews 2003), the initial interest
of the epigraphists on editing the content of thousands of documents, but not
considering the archaeological context11 and the actions of looters' gangs (promoted
by institutional and private buyers) were instrumental (for omission or for action) in
the irremediable destruction of the ancient archives which today are mutilated,
incomplete and dispersed all over the world (Veenhof 1986a; Seri 2005; Charpin
L'historien–in press)12.

Nowadays, scholars are aware of the importance that the archaeological

context can offer13 and study, when it is possible, the documental series considering

buying of antiquities can be a very difficult thing and it is not always a very safe thing. It
was, of course, a very popular thing with Museum Directors. There was a Keeper of the
Egyptian Department in the British Museum years ago who always maintained that he
would far sooner buy an object than get it from an excavation, 'Because', he said, 'if it comes
from an excavation, the excavator gives me all sorts of information about it, information
about its level and its date and its history and so on, which isn't very interesting. Whereas if I
buy it from a dealer I can use my own imagination and say what it really is. So I'd far sooner
buy”. On the French side we can read: “Thus, de Sarzac, the first excavator of Gudea’s
Temple at Telloh/ancient Girsu, could be congratulated for making the Louvre ‘the chief
European treasure-house of early Babylonian (Sumerian) art and history.” (de Genouillac
1936:1)
11 The existence of a rich corpus of texts in languages that had to be deciphered, e.g.,

Sumerian and Akkadian, stimulated a compartmentalization of "praxis" in which

archaeologists, on the one hand, and philologists and historians, on the other, staked out
their respective territories and discouraged "trespassing" (Brinkman 1984a: 170).
12 D. Charpin is working on the project “Archives babyloniennes (XXe-XVIIe siècles) =

ARCHIBAB. Charpin's goal is to systematize the Old Babylonian epigraphic material. Vd.
http://www.archibab.fr/. Also, Charpin “'Archibab': an Electronic Corpus of Old
Babylonian Texts” http://www.digitorient.com/?m=200802 and “L'historien face aux
archives paléo-babyloniennes” http://www.digitorient.com/?p=190 French version of a
contribution to be definitively published in English in Too much dated? Generalizations and
model-high rise in ancient economic history one the basis of wide corpora of documentary evidence,
Acts of the Colloquium organized by H.D. Baker, B. Janković et M. Jursa dans le cadre du
START project “The Economy of Babylonia in the First Millennium BC‚” (Universität Wien,
Institut für Orientalistik; July 17th-19th, 2008).
13 By the late 1970s and early 1980s studies that explicitly sought to "integrate" archaeology

and texts began to appear. The majority of such studies, whether by archaeologists or
philologists/historians, dealt with particular buildings (or groups of buildings), attempting
to establish the findspots of tablets, and correlating the findspots and contents of texts. Some
emerged from recent archaeological projects that meticulously recorded findspots, while

7
them as part of ancient archives. In 1983, the 30e Rencontre Assyriologique
International was devoted to Cuneiform Archives and Libraries (Veenhof 1986a); in
that volume the authors offered detailed discussions on individual archives14. Years
later, another collective work that analysed early archival practices before writing
was published by Ferioli, Fiandra, Fissore and, Frangipane (1994). There is also a
contribution of O. Pedersén (1998), a useful survey of the archives and libraries of
the Ancient Near East from 1500 to 500 BC, which presents an overview of the main
finds and their physical location. Recently, Brosius (2003) compiled a study that
offers a systematic approach to the material. She considers how archival practices
were established, transmitted, modified and adapted.

Nevertheless, it is not easy to find a private archive in its archaeological

context; official excavations frequently concentrate on palaces and temples (Ninive,
Mari, Tell Rimah, Ebla) and our knowledge of private archives is restricted. Many of
these private archives were obtained from uncontrolled digging and have been
broken up and dispersed by the dealers; some scholars have begun an arduous but
important task: reassembling what remains of the ancient archives, broken up and
dispersed by the looters and dealers, and then attempting to reconstruct the
formative process of the actual groupings of artifacts15 (van Driel 1989; Kalla 1999).

others revisited older excavations, for which findspots information was more or less
detailed. The list includes, among others, A. Westenholz' work on Akkadian Nippur (1987);
Zettler's analysis of the temple of Inanna under the Third Dynasty of Ur (1991); Ellis' study
of the Old Babylonian Ishtar Kittitum temple at Ishchali (1983 and 1986); Gasche's work on
the Ur-Utu house at Tell ed-Dēr, Sippar Amnānum (Gasche 1981; Gasche & Tanret 1998a);
Stone's reconsideration of Nippur Areas TA and TB (1979, 1981 and 1987; but see also
Charpin 1989 and 1990a; Postgate 1990; van Driel 1990); Charpin' s detailed analysis of Ur
Areas EH and EM (1986a), as well as Van De Mieroop's (1992) and Brusasco's (1999-2000)
complementary studies. Papers from a round table on the end of archives in Mesopotamia
that appeared in 1995's Revue d'Assyriologie (Vol. 89) contain interesting and related studies.
For a more detailed analysis of this matter see: Zettler 2003.
14 For a general approach Veenhof (1986b); especially for the period under study in this

thesis Renger (1986); Klengel (1986); Charpin (1986b).

15 As Veenhof (1986a: 35) states, there are many obstacles to be removed. Officially excavated

archives have not always been carefully registered and frequently have been split up by
partition. Excavation numbers are missing or have become useless by a subsequent
(inconsistent) renumbering, at times also of the rooms where the tablets were found.
Essential data have been lost by accident, including the deaths of excavators whose reports
were long overdue. Discovery circumstances, including matters of stratigraphy, bearing on
subsequent floor levels and even storeys of buildings, have not always been well described

8
 In the case of the letters under analysis, there is no archaeological context as
they were obtained in clandestine digs or in poorly documented archaeological
excavations; nevertheless, sometimes it is possible to reconstruct part of the archives
to which they originally belonged16. In some other cases, the documents could be re-
mixed in new "artificial" archives, created ad hoc to analyze certain aspects of society.
As Yoffee states: "The term archive ought to denote the records of a certain
delimited range of activities and of the personnel formed to execute these activities.
The purpose of concatenating texts into archives lies not in seeking to isolate the
particular affairs of the membership of an organization, but rather in attempting to
bring together disparate elements in order to perceive the larger system that binds
them together" (Yoffee 1978:29).

The problems presented supra -common to almost all the Mesopotamian

documents- are deeper in the case of the letters. On the one hand, due to intrinsic
features: the Old Babylonian letters do not indicate the place where they were
written and, with few exceptions, do not have the date of writing. In many cases the
letter is just addressed to “my Lord” (bēlum), “my/our father”(abum), “my/our
superior” (šapirum), “the gentleman” (awīlum), which makes it difficult to draw
prosopographical networks and allow archival classification. Their origin and date,
therefore, can only be deduced from internal criteria and from links with other
records. On the other hand, difficulties arise because of the nature of the epistolary
discourse in general (not only Old Babylonian corpora):

or convincingly reconstructed. Ignorance and inaccessibility of collections, due to official

measures or private claims, have hampered archival research. Some text editions exhibit a
startling lack of communication between archaeologist and philologian and indifference to
findspots or archival background. Seals impressions, essential for archival reconstruction,
have been neglected or published and studied separately as "works of art".
16
The archive of Šamaš-hāzir, Hammurabi's administrator of the estate (d ub. sar a.ša 3 . ga)
in Larsa, found and sold by native diggers, is an example. They comprise not only official
letters from the king and records bearing on his official duties, but also the correspondence
of his wife and documents relating to his own business. See Thureau Dangin (1924 2 note 2);
Kraus (1968: vii); Gallery (1980: 15b and 22 b). The correspondence of his wife Zinû is to be
found mainly in TCL 18, 108-112; contracts of cultivation of date palms gardens in TCL 11.

9
a) It is segmented by interruptions between letters that break the continuity of
the communication and it is full of hidden senses, of previous circumstances
that do not become apparent, of silences. In the specific case of the Old
Babylonian letters, more than the 40% of them are fragmentary.

b) The letter imitates orality, direct communication, it has the characteristics of

oral speech. The lexicon is that of spoken language, which is a problem for
the scholars, as it is very difficult to understand some expressions.

c) The sender shapes and presents the facts in a specific order to bring the
reader (not only the addressee) to come to certain conclusions.

d) Finally, the epistolary communication, may be better understood if the

letters have a chronological order. Nevertheless, the documents, analysed
individually, help us to understand the everyday problems that people had
to face.

Although a first glimpse shows us a very discouraging scenario, a detailed

analysis of the material obtained more promising results. Sallaberger (1999), who
studied the Old Babylonian letters focusing on the discourse analysis, its usages and
its rules has been able to identify diverse styles in the phraseology and in the
salutation of the letters, which can be attributed to different phases of the Old
Babylonian period. Recently, Veenhof (2005) reintroduced the examination of the
lexical data, the phonetic characteristics and the differences in the usage of the
cuneiform signs as possible criteria to establish the origin of the documentation;
nevertheless he warns us that the palaeographic features must be studied more
deeply17.

The names of the writers and recipients, the gods mentioned in the greeting
formulae18 and the geographical names19 are important to determine the place of

17See Janssen (1991)

18Veenoff (2005) proposes that the greetings which contain the names of Enlil and Ninurta
corresponds to Nippur; Ištar and Zababa to Kish; Damu and Urmašum to Isin. There are
other god names that are less clear: Ea, Ningirsu or Šamaš and Nergal.

10
origin or of destination of the letters, or at least, to identify the geographical zone to
which they are referring. The analysis of other documents of the same period like
contracts, wills, processes, helps to identify different prosopographical networks20
and thus, to assign the letters a more precise setting. It is also possible to use –with
diverse degrees of certainty- the acquisition records of the museums and institutions
where the tablets are preserved21.

Beyond all the difficulties, the testimony that the letters offer is unique:

a) It is the only documental type that informs us about contemporary

facts/situations in two diverse spaces.

b) If we want to study everyday past life, they are incomparable. In many of

them one can feel beating the essence of the human being: pain, happiness,
desperation, misery, justice are expressed.

c) The letters give a name to the unknown persons and remind us that when
we write History, we are working with life lived (Romero 1988). Not only

19 Geographical names in some cases reveal where letters were written and/or where the
addressee lived.
20 For Sippar, a first systematization of the information was made by Harris (1975); her

works on a well represented group in the documents: the nadītum (1962; 1963; 1964; 1969)
and other aspects of Old Babylonian Sippar (1972; 1976) are very important; the find of Ur-
Utu's archive by the Belgian team at Tell ed-Dēr allowed the reconstruction of some social
relationships Van Lerberghe - Voet (1991); Janssen (1992; 1996). Goddeeris (2002) enlarges
the study to other cities of the north of Mesopotamia during the early Old Babylonian
period, using for the analysis of Sippar the database developed by E. Woestenburg
(unpublished); the labour of systematization of Dekiere (1994a; 1994b; 1995a; 1995b; 1996;
1997) is also very important. Recently, S. Richardson uploaded a database in which he
considers the information of the documents of late Old Babylonian Period:
http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/projects/lobpni/. Charpin obtained excellent results
combining different archives with the documentation from Kutalla (1980a). In the case of
Larsa, the illegal diggings made a mess of the material; nevertheless, there are some
important archives like that of Balmunamhe (van De Mieroop 1987; Charpin 1987; Dyckhoff
1998). Veenhof (2005: note 16) lists a number of unpublished dissertations which deal with
the prosopography and/or with the known texts of Larsa: Breckwoldt 1995; Dyckhoof 1999;
Harris, S. 1983; Pers 2002; Reiter 1982) there are also other works, on different aspects of
Larsa (M. de J. Ellis 1977; Farber 1999).
21 The modern excavations give precise information, but in the reports of the initial diggings

it is possible to find gaps in the information and, in some cases, even total chaos. Worst is the
situation of the material that was found by looters (we have to remember that the majority of
the letters were found by them). In this case, most of the information is extremely uncertain
or does not exist.

11
 with the lives of the great personages but also with the lives of the ordinary
people -generally silenced in the documents- but whose lives cannot be
ignored because they are also part of History (De Bernardi/Di Bennardis –
Ravenna 2006).

Some scholars, who have devoted their work to the Old Babylonian history,
used the letters but only partially and have different opinions about the potentiality
and limitations of them as a documental base for research. Leemans (1968) states
that the Social and Economic History of Ancient Mesopotamia needs not only
contracts and administrative documents, but also letters because each typology
complements the others. Yoffee expressed that, at least for the kind of research he
developed in his thesis The Role of the Crown in the Old Babylonian Period (1977), the
information of the letters did not give him much relevant information. Van de
Mieroop (1999: 25) considers that with few exceptions the letters have been used as
secondary sources in historical reconstructions, adding colour to sketches already
drown from other materials. Nevertheless, in recent years there has been an
increasing interest in this kind of documents De Graef (2008) wrote an article
presenting an overview of the different sorts of personal conflicts and their possible
solutions found in the Old Babylonian Letters. Lafont (2003: 655-656) and Charpin in
"Garde ma lettre en témoignage" (in press) stress the importance of the letters for the
study of the juridical phenomena22. For the specific case of Sippar, Harris first
(1975) and Goddeeris later (2002) considered the importance of this kind of
epigraphic material but used it in a restricted way, arguing that is because of its
complexity.

I consider that the probative value of the documents depends on the topic to
be analysed, on the ways by which the researcher constructs the object of study but,
fundamentally, on the underlying assumptions of the researcher (Goudner 1979
[1970]) that together determine the choice of the epistemological and theoretical
framework and which phenomena can be expressed and conceptualized.

22They presented their positions in the Meeting "Documents in Ancient Societies: The Letters
held at The American Academy, Rome between 28-30/09/08.

12
The Approach: The Individual Life, a Path to Social Life as Power in Action.

The Old Babylonian letters offer the most vivid understanding of everyday life from
the individual's point of view. They give the chance to reconstruct the individuals
and some of the strategies they implemented to guarantee or improve their social
position. As Ginzburg states, “Alcuni studi biografici hanno mostrato che in un individuo
mediocre, di per sé privo di rilievo e proprio per questo rappresentativo, si possono scrutare
come in un microcosmo le caratteristiche di un intero strato sociale in un determinato
periodo storico …” (Ginzburg 1976: xix). To focus on individuals means to retrieve
those dimensions of society that the macro analysis cannot perceive because they
favour the knowledge of the structures and the general context. Nevertheless, this
statement does not mean that I am not considering the social tendencies because in
the individual, in the personal and subjective dimension is to be found also the
social, the collective dimension (Bourdieu & Wacquant 2008 [1992]: 166).

I believe that the specific potentiality of this research is to focus on the

individuals and to analyse -from a micro level point of view- how social rapports
took shape getting closer to the ethos of a given society or at least, part of it: "Dalla
cultura del proprio tempo e dalla propria classe non si esce, […] la cultura offre all'individuo
un orizzonte di possibilità latenti –una gabbia flessibile e invisibile entro cui esercitare la
propria libertà condizionata" (Ginzburg 1976: xx). The lives of the individuals, the
rapports they could establish in order to improve their social positions and the
study of the strategies they developed to reach their goals may become a relevant
object23 in the context of studies such as the Italian micro-history and the sociology
of P. Bourdieu.

23 In Social Sciences, an object (the scope of the study that an observer -the scientist-
constructs) is considered important when it demonstrates that has two necessary conditions:
being knowable and bearing knowledge. Another important issue to keep in mind is that
this knowledge must be relevant. But no object of study bears per se relevant knowledge; it is
not an inherent quality but an attribute that the observer gives, because in the object see
some potentialities that could give answers to his/her questions. The questions emerge from
a specific scientific tradition. If an object is relevant or not is a relative characteristic: it
depends on the discipline, on the technical possibilities to enlarge knowledge, on an epoch
and a cultural milieu (Piña 1986).

13
 The Italian micro-history24 studies, although not being a school, have some
features in common; they describe in a realistic way human behaviour, considering
social action and conflicts as central elements. Micro-history, bases its practise,
essentially, on the reduction of the scale of analysis and on an intensive study of
documents. Taking as a point of departure a smaller-scale focus and employing
different combinations of scales, they try to formulate certain generalizations25.
Micro-history has close links with Anthropology, especially with interpretative
Anthropology as synthesised in C. Geertz "thick description" (Geertz 1973). This
approach, looks for significant signs and tries to put them in an intelligible
structure. The micro-historical approach focuses on the more trivial and local
actions to show gaps opened by the incoherencies of any system (Levi 1991). Using
the evidential paradigm26, another perspective appears that which privileges the
qualitative aspects to the quantitative ones27. However, the interest of Micro-history
is not simply on "agents" but also on the more general social phenomena; its aim is
to explain the contradictions of the normative systems, the overlapping networks of
social and economic power, and the meaning of some systems of belief that are
constitutive of social life.

24 A synthesis of what can be considered Micro-history in Levi (1991) different approaches of

the micro-history analysis Cerutti (1992), Ginzburg (1976, 1979, 1984, 1994a, 1994b, 2000)
Grendi (1977, 1994), Levi (1981, 1985a, 1985b); Merzario (1981), Ramella (1984); Revel (1989,
1994, 1996). In the Assiriological tradition was N. Yoffee who tried to take advantage of this
approach, in his article "The Economics of Rituals at Late Old Babylonian Kish" (1998).
25 Levi says that what has to be generalized are the questions and not the results. (Levi 1991).
26 Ginzburg states: "... mi pare utile distinguere due strategie cognitive diverse, una volta a

ricostruire la norma al di là delle anomalie individuali (il paradigma galileano) l'altra volta invece a
ricostruire el anomalie individuali (il paradigma indiziario). Va da sé che lo studio delle anomalie
presuppone la conoscenza della norma; ma il fine delle due stretegie rimane diverso" (1980: 33-34).
27
In fact, it is a false dichotomy between the qualitative and the quantitative approach: what
is considered social reality does not have qualitative and quantitative aspects, but this
distinction means different processes of "objectivation", by which some kind of properties
are attributed to an object; these processes are validated in specific spaces of legitimacy,
adapt to the object the scholar wants to study (Piña 1986). Ginzburg and several colleagues
attacked large-scale quantitative studies on the grounds that they distorted reality on the
individual level. The microhistorians emphasise the study of small units and how people
conducted their lives within these units.

14
 Micro-historians have developed their studies as an experimental practice,
so they never developed a unique and coherent theoretical corpus; they used
concepts as tools that have to be adapted to every single case of analysis. It is
necessary to look for theoretical support elsewhere. I believe that the ideas of the
French sociologist P. Bourdieu may enrich the research proposal of micro-historians.

The theoretical framework of Bourdieu offers researchers a highly flexible

model for understanding human social interaction. It also offers a way to transcend
the traditional structure/agency dichotomy and highlights the necessity of
including the field of interaction, or context, into the analyses. By providing an
accurate description of the practical mastery of individuals in the social world, he
captures the ways in which individuals manage and simultaneously influence the
structural forces in social life. It is important to keep in mind that for Bourdieu,
structural properties are always embedded in everyday events. He believes that
action structures structure and structure structures action. He advocates a dialectical
relationship between structure and action that results in a better understanding of
social practice. In order to explain his phenomena Bourdieu presented a group of
interrelated concepts that I will synthesize here.

One of them is habitus; it can be viewed “as a system of lasting, transposable

dispositions which … functions at every moment as a matrix of perceptions,
appreciations, and actions” (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 82-83). The habitus provides a tacit,
internal, subconscious understanding through time of the rules of social interaction.
One of the most useful elements of habitus is that it does not merely function as a
boundary mechanism, that is, defining which actions or plans are acceptable. It also
functions as a generative mechanism from which possibilities and potentialities for
action in the social world spring. What is judged or gauged as reasonable or
possible for a given individual in a field of interaction is determined by the habitus.
It is the mechanism by which individuals develop a sense of their place in the world
and the availability or accessibility of a variety of social worlds. Habitus represents
an individual’s internalization of possibility. Another central concept absolutely
bound to this is field (campus).

15
 Bourdieu uses the term field to capture the “rules of the game”. The field may
be defined as "a network or as a structured space of positions (or posts) whose
properties depend on their position within these spaces and which can be analyzed
independently of the characteristics of their occupants" (Bourdieu 1993: 72) . As a
space of forces –potential or active-, the field is a field of struggle that could change
to preserve or to transform the configuration of these forces. Also, the field as a
structure of objective relationships between positions of strength, underlies and
directs the strategies of those who occupy these positions in order to ensure or
improve their own positions and to impose principles of ranking more favourable to
themselves. The strategies of the agents depend on their own position in the field
and on the perception that they have of the field, considering the point of view that
they have about the field from their own position in the field (Bourdieu & Wacquant
1992).

These two concepts, habitus and field plus that of capital - essentially a form
of power in a given field, combine to create practice. Practice consists of the actions
taken by individual actors in fields of interaction, considering the social-sense over
time. These actions constitute the practice of maximizing one’s potential in a field
given the individual’s habitus and capital. Practice in the field of interaction is shaped
by multiple forces interacting together, including the rules governing the field as
well as the relative positions of the "players" in this field (Bourdieu, 1977).

Foucault considered one of the factors that can shape practice: power. He
gives his own perception. He states that the object of analysis has to be power
relations and not power itself: "power relations that are distinct from objective capacities.
[…] The exercise of power is not simply a relationship between 'partners' individual or
collective; it is a way in which some act on others. Which is to say, of course, that there is not
such entity as power, with or without capital letter; global, massive, or diffused;
concentrated or distributed. Power exists only as exercised by some on others, only when it is
put into action, even though, of course it is inscribed in a field of sparse available possibilities
underpinned by permanent structures. This also means that power is not a matter of

16
consent. In effect, what defines a relationship of power is that it is a mode of action that does
not act directly and immediately on others. Instead, it acts upon their actions: an action
upon an action, on possible or actual future or present actions. A relationship of violence acts
upon a body or upon things; it forces, it bends, it breaks, it destroys, or it closes off all
possibilities. Its opposite pole can only be passivity, and if it comes up against any resistance
it has no other option but to try to break it down. A power relationship, on the other hand,
can only be articulated on the basis of two elements that are indispensable if it is really to be
a power relationship: that 'the other' (the one over whom power is exercised) is recognized
and maintained to the very end as a subject who acts; and that, faced with a relationship of
power, a whole field of responses, reactions, results, and possible inventions may open up"
(Faubion 2000 : 339-340).

So, I will explore the practices of a group of social actors related to the Old
Babylonian bureaucracy taking into account this theoretical framework.

17
 CHAPTER II

The Space: an Ecological and Social Reality.

The scenario of the socio-historical processes under analysis is Lower

Mesopotamia28; this region extends form the lower course of the Diyala up to the
Persian Gulf29. It is a flat region crossed by a network of canals and watercourses
that derive from the Euphrates and the Tigris. Both rivers tend to meander and to
burst their banks in flood. Neither of these habits is convenient for the farmer, and
from prehistoric times efforts would have been made to contain the flood water and
discourage meandering and minor shifts in course by building earth banks.

There are identifiable sub-regions: a river-plain in the north from Sippar as

far south as Nippur, with constantly shifting, meandering channels; a flatter delta
plain from Isin to Ur, in which irrigation regimes were more stable; marshlands
spreading out to the southeast of Ur; and an estuarial zone beyond that. Regional
variation also ran east-west: the Euphrates channels shifted more frequently (with
grater consequences for the settlements) than the deeper, lower Tigris (Butzer 1995:
232)30. Cities like Uruk, Kiš and Sippar sat next to a well-defined desert frontier, a
steppe with few permanent settlements, supporting only nomadic herders bringing
wool and heards to market. Along the eastern flak across the Tigris, from the Diyala
plain down to the marshlands, cities like Umma, Girsu and Lagaš (III millennium)

28 The division in Upper and Lower Mesopotamia is associated with the specific
characteristics of each region. The frontier is an imaginary line that goes from Hit to
Samarra. For an excellent description of the most relevant features see Postgate (2004: 3-21).
29 Until the 1960s Arab countries used the term "Persian Gulf", however with the rise of Arab

nationalism in the 1960s, most Arab states started adopting the term "Arabian Gulf" to refer
to the waterway. However, this naming is not recognized by the United Nations or any
other international organization. At the Twenty-third session of the United Nations in
March–April 2006, the name "Persian Gulf" was confirmed again as the legitimate and
official term to be used by members of the United Nations. See: United Nations Group of
Experts on Geographical Names Working Paper N° 61, 23rd Session, Vienna, 28 March – 4
April 2006.
30 On historical patterns of river regime change see also Gasche and Tanret 1998b.

18
lay along a less severe ecological border, a meadowland running up to the Zagros
foothills, supporting cattle pasturage and even limited agriculture.

Present average temperatures range from higher than 48°C in July and
August to below freezing in January. Roughly 90% of the annual rainfall occurs
between November and April, most of it in the winter months from December
through March. The remaining six months, particularly the hottest ones of June,
July, and August, are dry31.

The environment played a decisive role in the ancient economic, social and
political organization. Layout patterns show differential community access to
irrigation water and, thus, different relationships both between rural neighbours,
and with urban authorities. Some villages in linear-array along river banks needed

31The Mesopotamian farmer had a problem. The amount of water available is more critical
in the autumn, when the fields need to be flooded to prepare the ground for ploughing and
sowing, and for the periodic irrigations over the winter, than in spring, when the cereal
crops are fast ripening. Unfortunately, the two rivers are at their lowest in the autumn, and
begin to reach their peak at just the stage when the crops no longer need to be watered.
Hence, all efforts must be made to use the water in the river and its distributaries canals
efficiently. Access to the canal was of course essential for each cultivator, and inheritance
texts show carefully water rights needed to be defined when the paternal state was being
divided. See Postgate (2004: 178).

19
no communal organization for water access32; others, supplied with water via take-
off directly from major watercourses, required only modest interdependence; still
others, employing the lowest dendritic levels of large managed canal systems,
coordinated their activities closely with state authorities. Other primary and
secondary subsistence modes flourished in the micro-environments which
permitted specialized orchard and reed cultivation, fresh- and saltwater fishing,
and water buffalo husbandry; yet others provided secondary services of trade and
transport when they were located on important waterways.

In South Mesopotamia, arable land consisted of an artificially irrigated field

system complemented by garden areas for growing onion-type plants, pulses and
oil plants (La Placa and Powell 1990; 80-104). To maintain productivity it was
necessary to put into operation complex and sophisticated water-management
facilities, such as systems of channels, retention tanks and reservoirs, as well as the
conveying of water towards individual cereal field tracts, divided into "ridge-and-
furrow" (the furrows were water trenches). The building and maintenance of
artificial water supply lines, sluices, reservoirs and water conveying facilities
(Pemberton et alii. 1988), were a protracted and demanding affaire (Hruška 1995:
46-57). Beyond the capacities of individual families and groups, it evolved into
collective ventures of major communities (Adams 1982: 131-135). The construction
of complex water-management systems (Steinkeller 1988; Renger 1990b) could last
for generations. Finally it was the state to coordinate the maintenance of the canals
(a job which was carried out in the summer after the harvest) and the water
supply33; this seems to have been the task of the gugallum, usually translated as
"canal inspector".

32 Richardson (2007) points out, that although there are many examples of this type of
settlement layout, a particular interesting string of these is evident in the OB-Kassite levees
at sites 1584, 1589, 1590, 1592, 1600 and 1601 (Adams 1981).
33 The great majority of the intervention seems to have concentrated on the Euphrates

because most of the early settlements depended on the Euphrates water. The reasons: it is a
lower stream, carrying less water and therefore, easier to control. It is higher than the Tigris
at the point where the two rivers enter the plain, hence offering a steeper gradient to those
wishing to use its water.

20
 The inhabited landscapes were characterized by fields and field systems,
garden plots, pastures greenery, grassland, reeds and woods. The cultivated 'earth'
stood in opposition to the wild and untamed land, the place of 'foreign realms'. The
familiar landscape was, in fact, enclosed form all cardinal points, by 'all the foreign
lands', on the north and east by mountains.

In the III and III millennia, the intensive agricultural activities (Salonen 1968;
Butz 1980-1983) took place in three zones:

1- Strips along natural and artificial water-courses and water reservoirs such
as rivers, channels, lakes, buffering 'ponds', with gardens, vegetable fields, and
with minor grain fields. Given the need to walk to the fields and to use animal
teams for ploughing, the extent of such strip zones would not have been much
wider than 4 km.

2- Artificially irrigated fields with cereal (Maekawa 1984; Renfrew 1984), oil-
plants (Waetzoldt 1985), pulse (Stol 1985; Van Zeist 1985; Renfrew 1985) and onion
like monocultures (Stol 1987; Waetzoldt 1987).

3- Pastures adjacent to fields and water sources. This zone included land
lying fallow and parts of cultivable steppe, both representing the only reserve for
soil.

Although, there were changes through the centuries, basically, the division
of arable land, either freshly brought under cultivation or lying fallow, was
determined by the quality of the soil. The most fertile tracts fell under the
management and control of the sovereign while lower-quality fields were leased
out for cultivation. The palace and the temple administrations enabled the
leaseholders to till the leased fields by means of animal-drawn ploughs and also
supplied traction animals, fodder, and seed at the onset of the autumn tilling
season. The leasing fees might have included as much as 50% of the harvest. The

21
compulsory deliveries, as well as the 'irrigation taxes' were controlled by collectors
(Steinkeller 1981).

Other plots were held by various agents and dignitaries, perhaps on a

temporal basis. The fields belonging to the palace and temples provided for the
needs of non-agricultural workers, such as builders or craft workers.

Considerable efforts were made to preserve soil quality. Measures include

the division of field systems into fields and plots, the practice of long and short-
term fallow, soil leaching, as well as the probable crop rotation. Fields were
separated by wider zones of overgrowth, which protected the soil from wind
erosion. The actual situation of fields and plots was described in survey texts. The
upper and lower margins of the field system close to water sources were employed
for cultivation of vegetables and spices. Tamarisks grew along the sides of the field
system and perhaps also in some inner orchards. Although the general situation of
individual fields must have had a considerable agro-technical significance –access
roads, irrigation, direction of the 'ridges' and furrows – these purely practical
questions of tillage did not concern the palace or temple administration because
they were the responsibility of the 'farmer' (Hruška 2007).

This characterization must not be interpreted in a static fashion, as the

ancient population as well as the state modified their strategies to adapt themselves
to the changes in the environment. During the III and most of all in the II
millennium the exhaustive exploitation of the soil had a negative result despite the
efforts pointed out supra: the increasing of salinity in the south.

In the north the river beds display considerable more channelization, the
watercourses remained more constant, bringing about a "basin" irrigation system
versus the "furrow" irrigation applied in the south and a specific settlement pattern,
with sites exhibiting a linear distribution. The irrigation pattern allowed a larger
variety in the shapes of the fields (Liverani 1996; 1997). In addition, northern
Babylonia is comprised of more area suitable for pastoralism. All these distinct

22
features gave shape to different forms of land property; also to diverse ways of
control, appropriation and centralization of the surplus34.

There is a beautiful description of the known/organized/productive

landscape in a literary composition published by Kramer:

[…]
From (where) the sun rises, to (where) the sun sets,
From south to north,
From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea,
From (where grows) the halub-tree to (where grows) the cedar,
Over all Sumer and Akkad give him the staff (and) the crook,
May he exercise the shepherdship of the blackheads (wherever) they
dwell,
May he make productive the fields like the farmer,
May he multiply the sheepfolds like a trustworthy shepherd. (20)
Under his reign may there be plants, may there be grain,
At the river, may there be overflow,
In the field may there be late-grain,
In the marshland may the fish (and) birds make much chatter,
In the canebrake may the 'old' reeds, the young reeds grow high,
In the steppe may the mashgur-trees grow high,
In the forests may the deer and the wild goats multiply,
May the watered garden produce honey (and) wine,
In the trenches may the lettuce and cress grow high,
In the palace may there be long life, (30)

Into the Tigris and Euphrates may flood water be brought,

34 Liverani states that: "Nei fatti i modi di produzione prevalenti nell'antico Oriente sono quello
"palatino" e quello "domestico". Il primo è il portato della rivoluzione urbana, ed è caratterizzato
dall'accentramento dei mezzi di produzione nelle mani delle cosiddette "grandi organizzazioni"
palatine e templari; dallo stato servile dei produttori verso i detentori nel potere
politico/amministrativo (nucleo dirigente palatino o templare); dalla forte ed organica specializzazione
lavorativa; da un afflusso centripeto e redistributivo di beni e dalla conseguente disposizione
gerarchizzata dei vari settori produttivi. Il modo "domestico" invece residuale della situazione di tipo
neolitico, è caratterizzato dalla coincidenza di forze produttive e possessori dei mezzi di produzione; da
una serie di scambi multidirezionali e reciprocativi; dall'assenza di specializzazione a tempo pieno (o
meglio dal suo carattere non strutturato); dalla pariteticità delle unità produttive e dei settori
produttivi. I due modi si pongono in palese rapporto di egemonia/subordinazione, poiché il modo
palatino non potrebbe sussistere senza utilizzare il preesistente modo domestico, che viene
radicalmente asservito nonché ristrutturato (per i nuovi rapporti col modo egemone) rispetto alla
formazione in cui era solo ed autonomo. La definizione di questi due modi prevalenti, e del carattere
egemonico del primo (col conseguente aspetto "tributario" della formazione economica
complessivamente risultante), non elimina né il problema dell'evoluzione diacronica della formazione
economica, né il problema dell'esistenza di altri (più marginali) modi di produzione" (Liverani 2009
[1988]: 52).

23
 On their banks may the grass grow high, may the meadows be covered,
May the holy queen of vegetation pile high the grain heaps and mounds,
Oh my queen, queen of the universe, the queen who encompasses the
universe,
May he enjoy long days [at your holy] lap."
[...]35

In this hymn, the territoriality and the "identity"36 of the country are
established considering diverse parameters: geographical, south and north, Upper
Sea - Lower Sea; considering the organization of the diverse spaces: river, fields,
marshes, reedbeds, steppe, forest, gardens, irrigation channels; ethnic, "blackheads"
expression of the mankind that considers "we but not the others"; economic strategies:
agriculture and cattle farming, hunting and fishing.

This literary piece shows us, through the Mesopotamians point of view (at
least that of the scribes) on the one hand, the close links between peasantry and
pastoralism that shapes the everyday subsistence strategies and creates social
cohesion based on productive specialization and on the other, the importance of
kingship in the achievement of the gods will .

How to measure Time: Chronology and Periodization.

The Old Babylonian period is one of the best documented periods of ancient history
(Stol 2004: 643); the political events have been partially reconstructed considering
royal lists (Grayson 1980-83:86-135), lists of year names (Horsnell 1999; Tanret 2001:
455-466), commemoration inscriptions (Edzard 1980-83: 59-65; Renger 1980-83: 65-
77; Frayne 1990; Galter 1995: 25-50; Edzard 2004: 549-554) and royal hymns (Hallo
1963: 112-118).

35 "Inanna and the King: Blessing on the Wedding Night" (Pritchard 1969: 640-641) The text
of this composition was published in CT, XII, No. 4. The transliteration and translation by
Kramer was originally published in PAPS, Vol. 107, No. 6, pp. 501-03.
36 For the possibility of analysing the relationship between the environment and ethnic

identity in the literary documents from Ancient Mesopotamia see De Bernardi/ Di

Bennardis (2006, chapter IV, unpublished)

24
 Nevertheless, the fragmentary character of the evidence does not allow us to
assign absolute dates to the events. In the case of years names, sometimes the year
name is known only by its short version; in other cases the scribes did not use the
official formula or, there exist variants of the same year name. Also, there are lists of
year names for Isin, Larsa and Babylonia, but there are not for Ešnunna, Mari or
Mananâ Dynasty; nor for most of the dynasties of local petty rulers. Another
problem is to establish the correlation between kings (Charpin 1978, 1985, 2004; Wu
and Dalley 1990).

Today, there are three different chronologies for the II millennium

Mesopotamia: the High Chronology, which places the end of Babylon in 1651; the
Middle Chronology, that considers the fall in 1595 and the Low Chronology that
establishes the end in 1531. (Rowton 1970; Ǻström 1987). Ultimately, the
reconsideration of different kinds of records has challenged previous ideas (Huber
& Sachs 1982; Gasche, Armstrong, Cole y Gurzadyan (1998a, 1998b); Tanret 2000;
Michel y Rocher 1997/2000; Michel 2000). Nonetheless, I will follow the Middle
Chronology due to convention and because the new proposals are not widely
accepted.

Another point of discussion is what to include under Old Babylonian

Period37. Traditionally, the period of time that goes from the collapse of the III
Dynasty of Ur (ca. 2002) to the fall of Babylon (1595) has been considered over the
topic Old Babylonian Period. But depending on the aspects the researcher wants to
stress, this division of time may not be suitable. From a political point of view, this
span of time has been divided into different stages. The Early Old Babylonian
Period (ca. 2000-1800) is characterized by the political fragmentation that followed
the collapse of the III Dynasty of Ur, when cities and small kingdoms competed to

37 The linguistic periodization of Mesopotamian history is one of the most frequently used.
This taxonomy rests upon the language or language version attested in written documents
(Seri 2005: 30). Recently, Charpin argued in favour of calling these four centuries "Amorrite
Period": "L'appellation de 'période amorrite' est sans doute meilleure, puisqu'elle met l'accent sur
l'importance jouée alors par la population d'origine amorrite et l'unité d'appartenance de la plupart
des dynasties de l'époque …" (Charpin 2004: 38).

25
archive the hegemony over the region38. The Middle Old Babylonian Period (1800-
1750) refers to the consolidation of territorial states such as Larsa under Rim-Sin in
the south, Ešnunna in the north and, finally the all-encompassing realm of
Hammurabi. The Late Old Babylonian Period (1750-1595) entails the
dismemberment of Hammurabi's kingdom under his descendants.

38 Edzard (1957) called this period Zwischenzeit, a clear loan from the Egyptian periodization.

26
Towards a New Political Order.

The political picture of the two first centuries of the period, shows the emergence of
independent states competing for the consolidation of their own territories. In the
south, the rivalry between Isin, Larsa and Uruk; in the north, there was a much
more complex situation as the political power was atomized; the documentation
shows petty-kings, with ephemeral leaderships, trying to survive and in doing so,
fighting or negotiating loyalty with more powerful kings. Finally, cities like Susa in
the east, Aššur in the north and, Mari in the northwest became political units more
or less consolidated39.

a- The Early Incorporation of Sippar to the Domains of Babylon.

It was in this period when the territory that would later constitute the core area of
the domains of Babylonia began to take shape. During the reign of Sūmû-la-el (1880-
1845)40 cities like Kiš (Dombaz & Yoffee 1986: 3-22) and Sippar (Harris 1975: 5-6;
Goddeeris 2002: 41), with a complex history of independent and subordinate
periods, were incorporated into his realm.

I Dynasty of Babylon

[Sūmû-abum] 1894-1881 (14 years)

Sūmû-la-el 1880-1845 (36 years)
Sabium 1844-1831 (14 years)
Apil-Sin 1830-1813 (18 years)
Sin-muballit 1812-1793 (20 years)
Hammurabi 1792-1750 (43 years)
Samsu-iluna 1749-1712 (38 years)
Abi-ešuh 1711-1684 (28 years)
Ammi-ditana 1683-1647 (37 years)
Ammi-saduqa 1646-1626 (21 years)
Samsu-ditana 1625-1595 (31 years)

39 The best synthesis of the political events of the Old Babylonian Period is Charpin (2004:57-
480).
40 Sūmû-la-el has been considered, according to the "royal list" the second ruler of the I

Dynasty of Babylon. Nevertheless, the origins of the Dynasty are not so clear as some letters
found at Tell-ed-Dēr mention simultaneously Sūmû-abum and Sūmû-la-el. A synthesis of
the problem in Charpin 2004: 80-86.

27
 At the beginning of the reign of Sūmû-la-el, Sippar had independent rulers.
We do not have a "royal list" from this city so it is not possible to establish with
certainty the sequence and the duration of each governor41. Some of them are
known from the year names, others because their names are mentioned in the oaths
in contracts, others by commemorative inscriptions. The known rulers of Sippar are:
Ilumma-Ila, Ammi-sura42, Immerum43 and Buntahtum-Ila44.

The integration of Sippar to the domains of Babylon is attested by the change

in the oath formula: the great majority included Šamaš45, Aya46, Marduk47 and

41 The matter seems to be more complex than establishing the right sequence of rulers.
Ilumma-Ila and Immerum are mentioned as contemporaries in some letters of Tell-ed-Dēr;
this fact forces us to introduce to the analysis not only the temporal perspective but also the
spatial one (Wu 1994: 31; Goddeeris 2002: 41-42 cf. Charpin 2005: 165).
42 Ilumma-Ila and Ammi-sura are known by oaths in a few contracts and because their

names are mentioned in some letters of Tell-ed-Dēr (Harris 1975: 4 n. 14; De Meyer 1978: 148)
43 Immerum is known by year names, contracts and letters.
44 There are few texts mentioning this ruler, which leads to the conclusion that his reign was

very short. For the succession Immerum / Buntahtum-Ila see Kraus 1984: 51-52.
45
The name of this god first appears in Akkadian personal names from the pre-Sargonic
period. Unlike the Sumerian god, the Akkadian Šamaš, as a god of justice, was a deity of
cosmic and 'national' importance, 'the lord of heaven and earth'. His main cult centre was
Sippar. The extent of Šamaš’s popularity can be gauged from many personal names, cylinder
seals and the considerable number of hymns and prayers in his honour. A bilingual hymn
celebrates the all-encompassing vigilance and mercy of the sun-god. His rising in the
morning renews all life; as he ascends into high heaven, he surveys living beings wherever
they may be, from the highest to the humblest. He crosses all seas and sees all countries; in
his universal knowledge he understands all languages. Throughout his journey he is the
companion of travellers. At the zenith he reveals himself as the god of justice who destroys
the wicked and rewards the just. He looks after the interests of the socially deprived and no
secret is hidden from him. He is also praised for giving omens and for regulating the
seasons. Another composition describes the activities of the sun-god at night. After opening
the western door of heaven he passes through the interior of heaven (the underworld),
where he judges the dead. In the morning he opens the eastern door of heaven and his
journey begins again. A large number of incantations also address Šamaš personally (Leick
1991: 147-148). See also (Lambert 1960; Castellino 1976; Heimpel 1986).
46 Aya is an ancient Semitic goddess, well attested in numerous personal names since the

Old Sumerian period. She seems to have been a primarily astral deity, according to her
Sumerian epithets: dsud-aga2= nur šamê, 'heavenly light', but she is also connected with
sexuality and fertility, as another epithet is 'the bride', and 'Mistress adorned with
voluptuousness'. As the wife of the sun-god Šamaš she was greatly venerated in Sippar and
during the Old and Neo-Babylonian periods, less in her own right than in her capacity to
intercede with her husband (Leick 1991: 16-17). See also Ebeling (1932: 196-198) and Roberts
(1972: 14-15).
47 Isolated examples of the mention of Marduk exist since the Old Sumerian period, as for

instance in a god-list from Abu Salabikh. His rise to 'national' importance, however, was

28
Sūmû-la-el. For many years, scholars supposed that this event had taken place by
Sūmû-la-el 28 because Sūmû-la-el 29 commemorates the (re)building of the wall of
Sippar48, but new documentation shows that it was earlier, as there is a text dated
on Sūmû-la-el 13 49. There were, nevertheless, some events that make us think about
a complex and not always clear process of integration. One of these events was a
rebellion lead by a certain Yahzir-el that seems to have disturbed the peace of the
region between the years Sūmû-la-el 17 and 24, when the rebel finally seems to
have been defeated by the king of Babylon50. Although the year Sūmû-la-el 18
reminds the expulsion of Yahzir-el from Kazallu, a text coming from Tell Harmal
(ancient Šaduppum) commemorates the death of Yahzir-el "King of Sippar". Wu
interprets that he was a rebel, who would have proclaimed himself as King of
Sippar and would have vainly tried to involve Kazallu in his revolt; the Babylonian
king would have defeated him only after several years of armed conflict (Wu 1998:
227). I wonder to what extent it was possible for a rebel to proclaim himself king of
a city, challenging another alien power – as that of Sūmû-la-el- without the
agreement of some of the powerful local men. To reinforce this idea I refer to a later
document, a letter that Zimri-Līm, King of Mari sent to Hammurabi of Babylon51:

directly linked with the political success of the First Dynasty of Babylon. There is little
evidence outside the royal inscriptions of the Old Babylonian Dynasty that the cult of
Marduk reached much beyond the sanctuary of Babylon. There are also very few religious
texts from this period which concern the god. His growing popularity among the people,
however, seems to be proved by the fact, that even at his 'beginnings' he appears in a
significant list of personal names. By the time of the second Dynasty of Isin, Marduk was
officially acknowledged as the ‘lord of the gods’. The most comprehensive text arguing for
this pre-eminence, the Enuma eliš, was probably composed at this period. The Enuma eliš
celebrates the glory of Marduk by enumerating his fifty names and functions. It provided a
mythological justification for his superior position in the pantheon, as the deliverer from the
forces of primeval chaos and the organizer of the known universe. The nature of Marduk
became increasingly complex as he gradually absorbed the functions and characteristics of
many other gods. As the son of Ea, Marduk was a god of wisdom, healing, the magic arts,
and to some extent, irrigation and fertility (Leick 1991: 115-116). See also: van Dijk (1966);
Borger (1971); Bottéro (1977: 5–18); Sommerfeld (1982); Lambert (1975: 193-194; 1984).
48 Year 29a: mu bad
3 zimbir
k i su-mu-la-el
3 lugal ba-d u 3 (RlA 2 165: 43); Year 29b:
šanat dur zimbir su-mu-la-el3 šarrum i-pu-šu (RlA 2 165: 44).
ki
49 Dekiere (1994a) n° 19.
50 Year 18: mu ia-ah-zi-ir-el ša ka-zal-luki-ta ba-ra-e (RlA 2 165: 32); Year 25: mu ia-ah-zi-ir-
3 3 3
el3 gištukul ba-sig3-ge (RlA 2 165: 39).
51 6aš-šum te -em ma-a-atki Èš-nun-naki |ša be-lí a-na Ha-am-mu-ra-pí iš-pu-ra-am | um-ma-
4
a-mi šum-ma awîlumeš awîlÈš-nun-naki | [i]m-gu-ru-ka at-ta-a-ma šar-ru-ut ma-a-atki |10[Èš]-

29
 “6For what concerns the news from the land of Ešnunna, 7that the Lord
sent to Hammurabi, 8this is what he says: ‘If the principals of Ešnunna
9accept you, exercise the kingship over the land of 10Ešnunna and if they

do not accept you, 11install a madārum52 in your place"

This source shows that even important kings like Hammurabi, had to agree on
different issues –not always critical, but necessary to maintain domination- with
local leaders (Finet 1982; Yoffee 1995) and/or with tribal chiefs (Luke 1965) who
tried to keep their own social and economic practices, norms and traditions53. At this
point appear two issues that are central in this work and will be deepened later: the
importance of local powers54 and agency.

After the episode of Yahzir-el, Sippar was definitively subdued to Babylon.

Nevertheless, it was not a static political relationship. Collaboration does not
necessary imply dependence or submission; when the mechanisms of the state

nun-naki e-pu-uš ù šum-ma ú-ul im-gu-ru-ka | awîlma-da-ra-am ša ma-ah-ri-ka wa-aš-bu

(Dossin 1938: 120) Note: In all cases, I follow the original transliteration.
52 There are different positions on the word madārum . The CAD translates it as "a high

official" and associates this term with Mari. Anbar (1991: 132) interprets that, in the context
of the document it means "vassal" and refers to Durand (ARMT XXVI/1: 283), who proposes
the translation "noble", someone who belongs to the upper estate of society, and because of
this, reliable to the kings.
53 Although being paradoxical, the information that this document gives is very important; it

seems that the defeated had the possibility of giving their consent to be governed. Maybe, in
this case, Hammurabi had to create consensus among the important personages of society,
who due to their prestige, wealth or family links could exercise some kind of influence on
the ordinary people. We must keep in mind that any power which intends to perpetuate in
time, cannot be based only on violence but on consensus. B. Gandulla suggests: "En la
medida, en que al proceso de conquista, se van incorporando reinos otrora independientes, nos es
posible percibir que el conjunto de las poblaciones conquistadas va sufriendo una progresiva
degradación y corrupción de su status social y político que no se produce en todas de igual manera,
hecho que debió depender aparentemente del mayor o menor grado de colaboración o adehesión
demostrado por las elites dominadas para con el conquistador amorreo. Por ejemplo, en Larsa, capital
del último reino súmero-acadio de la Mesopotamia meridional, la dominación se ejerce por medio de
dos funcionarios de Hammurabi: Sin-Iddinam y Shamash-hazir. En Eshnunna, en cambio, [...], el
control queda a cargo del propio rey local, pero cambiando su título de sharrum por el de ishshakum,
con la antigua significación de “gobernador” (EN.SI). Si nos atenemos a cuestiones geopolíticas y
económicas, en Larsa y la situación en Eshnunna parece responder a un principio lógico, puesto que la
primera había sido el centro político más importante, en tanto que la segunda era un reino periférico,
con una dinastía amorrea y más proclive a pactar debido a la pérdida del respaldo de Elam [...] queda
clara la estrategia política de Hammurabi, en las formas que adopta para el gobierno de su
“Imperio”(Gandulla 1993: 30-31).
54 Local powers have been treated by Seri 2005.

30
machinery worked properly, the royal bureaucracy was able to fix those disruptions
that originated from the jurisdictional transgressions by local authorities55, but in
periods of increasingly weakened central government the situation became rather
difficult to manage (Seri 2005: 191-192)56.

The influence of the political strategies imposed by Babylon on Sippar, seems

to have caused changes in the balance of the local powers. Consider the importance
of the kārum through time: the kārum of Sippar was presumably in existence before
the reign of Hammurabi but its relevance and that of the merchants of Sippar came
into prominence only in this period, with what one must assume was the growth of
Sippar as a centre of far-reaching mercantile activities. In Hammurabi's references to
the term kārum as a body of people, it appears to serve primarily as a judicial body
in conjunction with the judges of Sippar57. The presiding officer in these cases was
the rabiānum of Sippar (Harris 1975: 68). By the time of Samsu-iluna, in addition to
its juridical role, the kārum became the principal administrative body, apparently
supplanting the "city" and the "elders". In the reign of his successor, Abi-ešuh, the
kārum juridical function appears to have become subsidiary and its administrative
functions predominate. Harris concludes that: "Our data would suggest that
although the city and the elders, the body politic of Sippar, may not have
disappeared in the later part of the Old Babylonian period, the authority and
importance gradually diminishes and it is taken over by the kārum, just as the
prominence of its mayor, the rabiānum of Sippar, also gradually recedes (Harris
1975:60).

The opposite process occurred with regard to the Overseer of the Merchants
(ugula dam.gar 3 meš)58. After Hammurabi, during the reigns of Samsu-iluna and

55 This point is going to be analyzed in the next chapter.

56 From the reign of Abi-ešuh onwards it is possible to see the rabiānum and the elders
involved in apparently fraudulent manoeuvres concerning the collection of taxes, which
include appropriation and concealment (Seri 2005: 191).
57 CT 47 24/24a (Ha. 3); 31/31a (Ha. 11); CT 6 47b (Ha. 24); VAS 9 30 (Ha. 30); CT 47 25/25a

(Si. 14).
58 The office of the Overseer of the Merchants would appear from our information to have

been held for only one year at a time, and although several men hold the office many times,

31
Abi-ešuh, the Overseer became head of the most important administrative body of
the city, composed of both the kārum and the court of judges. However a change in
the leading role of the Overseer of the Merchants is noted in the reign of the last
ruler of the First Dynasty. In three accounts from the reign of Samsu-ditana, the
chief responsibility for this task seems to have been taken over by a scribe; and in
two of these, even the gal.ukkin.na 59 precedes the Overseer in the list of
supervisory officials.

All these changes are important in order to understand that the dealings
between local powers and the state are characterized by both collaboration and
conflict; but not only between local institutions and the central power, but also
between the local authorities in order to increase their share of power. The diversity
of these interactions is a clear indicator of the complex political, economic and social
networks operating in Old Babylonian society.

b- The Annexation of Larsa

Hammurabi definitively defeated Larsa in 1763 and commemorated this event in
Hammurabi 3160. It was the end of a long tense relationship between both centres of

they never hold it for two consecutive years (Harris 1975: 75-76). One exception to this rule
may be Ilšu-ibnī who is attested as Overseer for a period of 22 years in the reign of Ammi-
ditana, a period during which only one Overseer is known. This, however, appears to be an
exceptional occurrence, representing perhaps an unusual acquisition of power by the
Overseer Ilšu-ibni (Harris 1975: 71).
59 There is a debate over the reading, etymology and responsibilities of the gal. ukkin. na /

mu'errum. See Yoffee (1977: 81-85) and Charpin (1980b).

60 Year 31a: mu ha-am-mu-r a-bi lugal-e gišk im-t i an d en- lil -bi-t a igi er e n -na-
2 2
še 3 i 3 -gin- na-am 3 usu ma h . . . d ingir ga l -gal -e-ne mu- un- na-an-sum-uš-am 3
ma-d a er en 2 e-mu-ut -ba- lum k i / ia-mu-ut -ba- lum k i ba -hu l u 3 luga l-bi r i-im-
d en. zu šu-ni sa bi -in-d u -ga . . . []-bi-še zi-ni . . . ba-e .. . un . .. ki-en-gi ki-
2 2 11 3 3
ur i d u 1 1 -ga-ni b i 2 -in-t uš-e (Year Hammurabi the king, trusting An and Enlil who
marches in front of his army and with the supreme power which the great gods have given
to him, destroyed the troops of Emutbal and subjugated its king Rim-Sin and brought Sumer
and Akkad to dwell under his authority) (RlA 2 180, 133).
Year 31b: mu ugnim lar sa k i g i š t u kul ba-si g 3 (Year the army of Larsa was smitten by
weapons) (BM 79954).

32
power that went back at least to the reigns of Sin-iddinam of Larsa and Sabium of
Babylon61.

The letters from the chancellery of Mari, illustrates the political scenario of
Mesopotamia during the early eighteenth-century:

"[…] ten or fifteen kings follow Hammurabi of Babylon, as many follow

Rim-Sin of Larsa, Ibal-pī-el of Ešnunna and Amūt-pī-el of Qatna and
twenty kings follow Yarīm-Līm of Yamhad"62.

This situation, however took a new turn in successive years. After his defeat of
Isin in 1794 BC, Rim-Sin of Larsa (1822-1763) had become the leading king in the
southern Mesopotamia. In the north, Elam conquered Ešnunna while a coalition
between Mari and Babylon later defeated Elam in 1763 BC. The following year, the
same allies marched against Larsa, finishing Rim-Sin's long reign of 60 years.

At the beginning of his reign, Hammurabi established a special rapport with

Larsa. He imposed a new calendar whose point of departure was the fall of Larsa63
(but afterwards, the Babylonian one was definitively imposed). He also proclaimed
a mīšarum64.

61 The king of Larsa Sin-iddinam (1849-1843) commemorates in 1847 a victory over Babylon;
some years later, Sabium celebrates the defeat of Larsa in 1840 and 1838). See Charpin 2004:
317.
62 wa-ar-ki Ha-am-mu-ra-pí awîl Bâb-iliki 10 15 šarrânumeš i-la-ku wa-ar-ki Ri-im-[ilS]in awîl

La-ar-saki qa-tam-ma wa-ar-ki I-ba-al-pí-ìl awîl Eš-nun-naki qa-tam-ma | wa-ar-ki A-mu-ut-

pí-ìl awîl Qa-ta-nimki qa-tam-ma | w[a-a]r-ki Ia-ri-im-li-im awîl Ia-am[a-a]dki 20 šarrânu i-
la-ku … (Dossin 1938: 117).
63 See: Horsnell (1999) pp. 41-44; also Charpin (2001: 89-92).
64 Several year names of Old Babylonian rulers refer to the proclamation of a mīšarum

('redress') edict. These decrees do not contain reforms but, rather, measures with a
temporary effect. A mīšarum edict orders that the people involved in the production of
palace assets (cultivators, herdsmen and flayers) and the merchants selling the palace
surpluses get a remission of the arrears they owe to the palace. The edicts interfered in the
relations between private citizens as well. All non-commercial debts were cancelled. The
application of this measure can be observed in loans issued shortly after the mīšarum
proclamation, which contain a clause assuring that the loan is concluded after the
proclamation and, therefore, cannot be subject to it. Also several archives display a
concentration of many unpaid debts (therefore, not destroyed) in the years preceding the
proclamation of an edict. Some debtors were forced to sell their land or their relatives in
order to get their previous possessions back. Self-sales because of unpaid debts are annulled

33
 When Hammurabi annexed the south of Mesopotamia, its administrative
structure was centralized in the city of Larsa. Hammurabi did not have to create a
new organization but he based his government on well-established practices and
personnel. In fact, during the reign of Rim-Sin, important administrative changes
occurred65: the palace replaced local temples as the grantor of land to dependent
share croppers, provincial entrepreneurs were put out of business as they lost their
role as intermediaries in the collection of taxes and dues; edicts abolishing debts
were instituted at irregular intervals; innovations in the calendar were attempted;
and perhaps cultic offices were also abolished. All this signals the centralization of
power in the hands of palace officials in the capital city (Van de Mieroop 1993: 61-
66)66.

Other local tendencies seem to have continued under the reigns of

Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna. Van de Mieroop believes that the palace of Larsa,
during the reign of Rim-Sin took control of the administration of taxes. This is clear
from Hammurabi's period; the palace demanded the taxes and dues earlier kept in
the local temples, and used its own representatives to manage of the tax collection
and the conversion of produce into silver (Van de Mieroop 1992: 241-250). As a
consequence, some wealthy businessmen of Larsa disappeared (Leemans 1950: 114-
115) but others such as Šēp-Sin67, the son of Sirašum, continued to be active. Still

as well. Therefore, sale documents, too, may contain the clause that they have been
concluded after the proclamation. The recurring proclamation of a mīšarum was necessary
during the Old Babylonian period because the economic risks were carried by the producers
and the lowest levels of entrepreneurs. They had no reserves to fall back on, as would the
creditors and the 'great organizations' who called in the entrepreneurs. See Charpin (1990b;
2000); Renger (2002); Kraus (1958); Veenhof (1997/2000). On edicts in Larsa see Bouzon
(1992).
65 It is not easy to establish the timing of these reforms, but Van de Mieroop considers that

they took place around the middle of Rim-Sin's reign (Van de Mieroop, 1993: 61).
66 See also: Kienast (1976-1980); Leemans (1973); Ellis (1976: 12, 21-22, 28) referring to the

Lagaš area and Charpin (1980a: 188-189) for Kutalla. Kraus (1959, 1984); Charpin (1987);
Bottero (1961); Robertson (1983).
67
The archive of Šēp-Sin consists of two files. On the one hand, the file of mainly loan
documents dating from before and after Šēp-Sin’s official function as Overseer of the
Merchants in Larsa forms his private archive. Another file consisting of administrative texts
dated between Hammurabi 36 and Hammurabi 42, documents the responsibilities of Šēp-Sin
as Overseer of the Merchants. These official documents must have been kept in his private
archive, a practice not uncommon in Babylonia. In his function as Overseer of the

34
others appear to have helped administer the affairs of the palace. Charpin has
pointed out that, at the same time, the great merchant houses at Larsa reached the
apogee of their wealth. By the year name Rim Sin 32 they had acquired enormous
houses through acquisition of neighbouring lots, and the archaeological remains
uncovered at Larsa show that these residences, which had become a status symbol
of success, could surpass 1000 square meters in area (Charpin 2003). This situation
may reinforce the proposal of Adams (2009) who points out the gradual emergence
in the Old Babylonian period of an urban-based group of "notables". All these
elements suggest that the administration of the Larsa state was centralized in the
capital city before the conquest by Hammurabi.

Nevertheless, Babylon imposed some changes. On the one hand, it became the
political centre; the region that was previously under the control of Larsa was
divided into two provinces: "Upper (in the north) possibly controlled from Maškan-
šapir and "Lower" (in the south) controlled from Larsa. AbB 13.8 shows that all the
officials called šapir mātim were under the authority of Sin-iddinam, a very
important official who discharge most of the administrative matters in the region of
Larsa. On the other hand, the taxes were collected by Babylon.

The control of Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna was to last about twenty two
years in total. From the year-formulae it appears that Samsu-iluna, after eight
peaceful years, was beset by difficulties owing to attacks of the Cassites, which
coincided with risings, and that there was warfare all over the country. Sumer and
especially Larsa were no longer mentioned in the year-formulae of the kings of
Babylon. After Samsu-iluna 11, Larsa is no longer heard of68.

Merchants, Šēp-Sin was responsible for the retail of dates from the palace orchards around
Larsa. The merchants selling the dates owed an amount of silver to the palace equivalent to
one-third of the value of the dates, to be collected and delivered to (the delegate of) the
palace in Babylon by Šēp-Sin. Accordingly, the merchants had a profit margin of two-thirds
of the value of the dates. The retail of fish from the palace marshes also fell under Šēp-Sin’s
responsibility (Goddeeris 2007: 202) See Anbar 1978.
68 After Samsu-iluna 11, all written and archaeological documentation disappear from

southern Babylonia for several centuries. Apparently, a large part of the population fled to
northern Babylonian towns, where the cults from Uruk and Lagaš were reinstalled in Kish,
those from Larsa and Nippur in Babylon, and the one from Isin in Sippar. The cause of this

35
 The matters presented up to this point suggest that, although historiography
presented the reign of Hammurabi as an "empire", it was only an impasse in the
upheavals that characterized the Old Babylonian Period. There was not a long-
lasting control of the territories. During this period, external forces and powers were
imposed temporally on local elites and affected them, but also needed, them
because the local notables had something that the central power did not possess:
tradition and prestige. In this context it is possible to understand the letter about the
situation in Ešnunna presented supra. Adams states that "Intermediary agents
between royal power and segments of the general population grew rapidly in
significance in various domains of economic activity (Adams 2009: 7). I believe that
this was true not only in the economic sphere but also in the political one. But the
relationship did not flow in only one direction.

The central power needed the cooperation of the local notables, but it is also
true that in many cases it affected the local balance of power. This situation can be
seen in the case of the kārum and the role of the Overseer in Sippar or in the case of
the Overseer Šēp-Sin in Larsa, who managed to survive not only the changes in the
tax policy of Rim-Sin of Larsa, but also the changes of power, as his services to the
crown continued to be valid under the reign of Hammurabi.

In many cases, the notables were associated with traditional families, but I
believe that, in other cases, in which the control over the local situation by the
central power lasted longer, as in the case of Sippar, other personages associated
with the state machinery, began to claim a share of the local prestige and power, but
perhaps not on the same grounds.

In order to understand this situation we have to consider the changes in land

tenure and management.

collapse must be sought, at least partly, in environmental factors. In the course of his reign,
Samsu-iluna’s territory further shrank with the loss of northern Sumer (the region of Nippur
and Isin) in Samsi-iluna 30, and with the varying attachment of Ešnunna to the Babylonian
kingdom, which was lost definitively in Samsi-iluna 35.

36
c- Changes in the Administration of the State69.
From the reign of Sūmû-la-el on, some new concepts and institutions were
introduced, such as royal edicts70, the ilkum duties, and the engagement of
entrepreneurs to manage royal assets.

In fact, in the first half of the II millennium a large proportion of the

economic activities, which had hitherto taken place within large institutional
households, were assigned to individuals farming small plots of land (subsistence
fields šukūsum) or to entrepreneurs (rental fields equel biltim) (Renger 1987).

In the first case, the system replaced a large part of the daily or monthly
rations in kind, giving to a part of the population a subsistence field (minimum size
6 ha.) in exchange for rental dues in kind or for various types of corvée, which could
have consisted of military service, participation in public building or irrigation
projects, transportation of barley or dates, agricultural work, flaying or fishing, to
name just some of the public tasks (ilkum service) (Ellis 1976; Renger 1990a)71. In the
second case, the ‘great organizations’ (Oppenheim 1972) increasingly assigned
economic activities to private individuals as a kind of franchise. Its purpose was to
escape the costs of permanent maintenance of the personnel, to transfer the
economic risks onto the shoulders of the 'entrepreneur' and to keep the
administration of the whole organization relatively simple by laying the
responsibility of the whole scheme on a few managers. Most of these entrepreneurs
were members of the administrative elite (Renger 2000).

The system as a whole concerned activities such as large-scale cereal

production, date palm cultivation, animal husbandry, as well as the exploitation of

69 For a discussion of the characteristic of the ancient economies see Polanyi et alii (1957);
Polanyi (1977); Finley (1985). For the specific case of Old Babylonian Period see Renger
(1984; 1990a); Goddeeris (2002). For a debate on the land property see Gelb (1971); Diakonoff
(1971; 1982) Gelb see also a short annotated bibliographical outline concerning land tenure in
Ancient Mesopotamia in Foster (1994).
70 See note 64.
71 Administrative and legal documents may refer to the persons carrying out their ilkum

assignment with the term redûm, most often translated as ‘soldier’, although redûm may have
worked in public projects as well (Goddeeris 2007: 207).

37
natural resources (fishing, fowling, reed harvesting, brick making). It also included
services such as the collection of dues and revenues, the transportation of
agricultural goods, storage of cereals, long-distance trade, as a kind of franchise
often labelled Palastgeschäft, 'enterprise of the palace'. (Renger 2000, Kraus 1958). The
risk of the enterprise was carried by the entrepreneur. This meant that, more often
than not, they were not able to deliver the promised service, due to various factors,
such as bad harvests and diseases among herds. Since the palace was dependent
upon the services of the entrepreneurs, the accrued debt could be remitted by so-
called edicts (Renger 2002).

Besides subsistence and rental fields assigned to individuals by the palace,

privately held property of arable land also existed in certain parts of Babylonia from
the 19th to the 17th centuries (Renger 1990a; Diakonoff 1971, 1982 cf. Komoroczy
1979). However, it is not possible to quantify the relationship between the two types
of land holdings (Renger 1995; 2000).

This brief outline shows the complex changes that occurred in Mesopotamia,
which must have had a strong influence on the familial and social structures, on the
palatine sphere, as well as on the communities. There was a tendency –in the
administration hierarchy- to transmit within the family the position/service and
with it, the possession of the land attached to the service. Frequently, it was the case
that the beneficiary of this category of land was able to acquire adjoining lots, which
made it difficult to establish the juridical status of each one. In the familial sphere,
there were also modifications; part of the documentation shows a process of
division of the familial estate72 and the more frequent use of the will. Liverani (2009
[1988]) states that this situation may be considered as a process of "personalization"
of land that follows the model of the palace and temple land tenure in which the
fields were allocated to a person and not to a family.

72 A synthesis of this debate in Postagate (2004 [1992]: 88-108) .

38
 Summing up, in this period is it possible to find two clear tendencies: on the
one hand, an economic independence of the privileged groups (originally specialists
linked to the 'great organizations'); on the other one, a process of impoverishment of
the more vulnerable groups (originally 'independent' families that did not depend
on the lands of the Palace).

39
 CHAPTER III

I am Hammurabi, the shepherd selected by the god Enlil,

He who heaps high abundance and plenty,
Who perfects every possible thing for the city of Nippur
(the city known as) band-of-heaven-and-earth, the pious provider of the Ekur
temple;

the capable king, the restorer of the city of Eridu,

the purifier of the rites of the Eabzu temple;

the onslaught of the four regions of the world,

who magnifies the reputation of the city of Babylon,
who gladdens the heart of his divine lord Marduk,
whose days are devoted to the Esagil temple;

seed of royalty, he whom the god Sin created,

enricher of the city of Ur, humble and talented,
who provides abundance to the Egishnugal temple;

discerning king, obedient to the god Shamash, the mighty one,

who establishes the foundations of the city of Sippar,
who drapes the sacred building of the goddess Aja with greenery,
who made famous the temple of the Ebabbar which is akin to the abode of heaven;

the warrior, who shows mercy to the city of Larsa,

who renews the Ebabbar temple for the god Shamash his ally;

the lord who revitalizes the city of Uruk,

who provides abundant waters for its people,
who rises high the summit of the Eanna temple,
who heaps up bountiful produce for the gods Anu e Ishtar

the protecting canopy of the land,

who gathers together the scattered peoples of the city of Isin,
who supplies abundance for the temple of Egalmah;

dragon among kings, beloved brother of the god Zababa,

founder of the settlement of Kish,
who surrounded the Emeteursag temple with splendour,
who arranges the great rites for the goddess Ishtar,
who takes charge of the temple of Hursagkalama;

40
 the enemy-ensnaring throw-net, whose companion, the god Erra,
has allowed him to obtain his heart's desire,
who enlarges the city of Kutû, who augments everything for the Emeslam temple;

the fierce bull who gores the enemy, beloved of the god Tutu
the one who makes the city of Borsippa exult,
the pious one who does not fail in his duties to the Ezida temple,
<the dwelling of> the god of kings;

the one who steeped in wisdom,

who enlarges the cultivated area of the city of Dilbat,
who heaps up the storage bins for the mighty god Urash;

the lord, worthy recipient of the sceptre and crown

bestowed upon him the wise goddess Mama
who devised the plans of the city of Kesh,
who provides the pure food offerings for the goddess Nintu;

the judicious one, the noble one,

who allots pasturage and watering place for the cities of Lagash and Girsu,
who provides plentiful food-offerings for the Eninnu temple:

who sizes the enemies, beloved of (the goddess Ishtar) the able one,
who perfects the oracles of the city of Zabala,
who gladdens the heart of the goddess Ishtar;

the pure prince, whose prayers the god Adad acknowledges,

appeaser of the heart of the god Adad, the hero of the city of Karkara,
who installs the proper appointments throughout the Eudgalgal temple;

the king who gives life to the city of Adab, who organizes the Emah temple;

lord of kings, peerless warrior, who granted life to the city of Mashkan-shapir,
who gives waters of abundance to the Emeslan temple;

wise one, the organizer, who has mastered all wisdom,

who shelters the peoples of the city of Malgium in the face of annihilation,
who founds their settlement in abundance,
who secreted eternal pure food offerings for the god Enki and Damkina
who magnify his kingship;

leader of kings, who subdues the settlements along the Euphrates River
by the oracular command of the god Dagan, his creator,
who showed mercy to the people of the cities of Mari and Tuttul;

[…]73

73 Laws of Hammurabi. Prologue (i 50- iv 31). Roth (1997: 77-80)

41
In literary fashion Hammurabi announced he had become king of a large realm
composed by previously independent kingdoms and territories.

Although the inhabitants of the region shared many features as a

consequence of more than one thousand years of common cultural development,
there were also many peculiarities that distinguished them. On the one hand, the
Mesopotamians had a strong connection with the place where they were born. First
of all they were "sons" of Ur, Larsa, Babylon, Sippar and not members of a great
state74. On the other hand, the population of the cities and their hinterlands were
historically configured. There were ancient groups -that had lived in the same place
for many generations, which roots went back to the Sumerian-Akkadian tradition-
living alongside Amorite groups -some of them long settled and long integrated,
others recently arrived. The ethnic composition of the diverse regions of
Hammurabi's realm was heterogeneous and the relationship of the inhabitants to
the environment was also different. There were also different political traditions:
one centred on the palace and temple power -typical of the Mesopotamian urban
states- and a new one based on genealogy and ethnic relationships, associated with
the Amorite world75. In this context it is important to consider the nature of the
relationship between the kings and the officialdom; between the state and the
population.

After the conquest of the different regions that became part of his realm,
Hammurabi could not abruptly replace all the officials throughout the state. He had

74 There are many studies devoted to the problem of the state, its origins, its manifestations.
An excellent historiographical analysis with a very complete selected bibliography in De
Bernardi/Di Bennardis (2011).
75 Yoffee states: “... ethnicity was a useful mechanism through which political interactions within

and among city-states and regions could not only accommodate, but also further the maintenance of
overarching Mesopotamian cultural ideologies. Amorites and Cassites, having taken political power
sequentially in Mesopotamia in the early and middle second millennium, used Mesopotamian cultural
institutions (issued law-codes in the time-honoured method [Yoffee 1988], revived ancient languages,
and patronized scribal schools to preserve and reinvigorate ancient literary forms [Lambert 1961])
precisely because, in doing so, they could legitimize their political gains. While maintaining aspects of
their own ethnic orientations, they also were (or because) Mesopotamians” (Yoffee 1993: 261).

42
to rely on a group of loyal men very close to him but also on the local bureaucracies
which had their own habits76.

The Bureaucracy that Administered Larsa: some Important Names.

The letters of Larsa offer relevant information about the administrative organization
of the region during the twelve years that Hammurabi controlled the area (1763-
1750)77, as well as the names of many officials78. We have 190 letters from
Hammurabi to different men: most were directed to Sin-iddinam and Šamaš-hāzir;
the principal addressee of the letters was Šamaš-hāzir. He received letters from the
king, from Lu-Ninurta, an officer who acted from Babylon; also, from Sin-iddinam
and other personages.

Sender Addressee Number of letters

Hammurabi Sin-iddinam 98
Hammurabi Šamaš-hāzir 49
Šamaš-hāzir
Hammurabi 11
Marduk-nāsir
Šamaš-hāzir,
Hammurabi 22
Sin-mušallim and others
Šamaš-hāzir
Hammurabi Iddin-šakkan 1
Ili-ublam
Šamaš-hāzir
Hammurabi 1
Iddin-šakkan
Šamaš-hāzir,
Hammurabi Jakum Ašar 1
Ūbar-Sin
Hammurabi Šamaš-hāzir and others 2
Ibni-Sin
Hammurabi 2
Marduk-nāsir

76 For an interesting analysis of the bureaucracy of the III Dynasty of Ur in Michalowsky

1987.
77 From the conquest of Larsa till the death of Hammurabi. His son, Samsu-iluna maintained

the control over the region for about eleven years.

78 There are many more officials mentioned in the letters. Trying to reconstruct all the links

between them is an important but very time consuming task. For this thesis I concentrated
only on the addressees and senders, with the exception of the persons involved in the corpus
treated in detail.

43
 Hammurabi ? 3
Sin-iddinam Šamaš-hāzir 3
Lu-Ninurta Šamaš-hāzir 51
Šamaš-hāzir
Lu-Ninurta 1
Mār-Damu
Šamaš-hāzir
Lu-Ninurta 3
Marduk-nāsir
Ensi Šamaš-hāzir 1
Tarībatum Šamaš-hāzir 4
Idinjatum Šamaš-hāzir 1
Enlil-kurgalanu Šamaš-hāzir 1
Nanna-mansum Šamaš-hāzir 1
Nantilani-idug Šamaš-hāzir 1
Aha-nuta Šamaš-hāzir 1
U-balana-namahe Šamaš-hāzir
Enlil-ilum and
Šamaš-hāzir 1
Annum-pī-Šamaš
Šamaš-hāzir
Tāb-eli-mātim 2
Marduk-nāsir
Sin-eriš
Šamaš-hāzir 1
Ibbi-Sin
251

a- Sin-iddinam
Judging from the letters, he was the highest official in the province of Yamutbal,
ancient name of the region of Larsa. He was responsible for a wide variety of palace
affairs: for the assignment of personnel, providing Babylon with specialists, sending
people to the capital city under the requirements of Hammurabi79, general
administrative matters such as arranging that the share owed to the palace was
shipped to the capital, checking the accounts of the registers and overseers on the
movement of goods and services80, controlling the collection of taxes (that was not
his direct task, but that of a certain merchants81), assisting the king in legal issues:
providing evidence and witnesses, sometimes investigating the matters and in

79 AbB 2: 1, 2, 3, 10, 13, 17, 18, 26, 31, 32, 35, 39, 41, 42, 43, 57; AbB 5: 137; AbB 13: 7, 14, 16, 20,
28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 40; AbB 14: 1, 225.
80 AbB 2: 4, 7, 8, 14, 15, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 36, 37, 40, 44, 56, 58, 59; AbB 5: 135; AbB 13: 23, 24,

25, 39, 42, 46; AbB 14: 3.

81 AbB 1: 1; AbB 2: 16, 22, 30, 33; AbB 13: 8, 9, 11, 19, 31, 36, 48.

44
fewer cases judging according to the royal regulations82 also, organizing the repairs
and cleaning of the canals and dams83. Finally, he mediated in some disputes over
land tenure and barley84, although this matter was for the most part under the
responsibility of Šamaš-hāzir. He must have had many other administrators
working under his responsibility as specialists in different areas, but they are not as
well attested as Šamaš-hāzir.

b- Šamaš-hāzir.
He had two titles, “scribe of the fields” (dub.sar a.ša 3 .ga) and "registrar"
(sag.dun 3 /šasukkum85). His origins are unknown but it seems that he was first a
personal attendant of Hammurabi's son, Sūmû-ditana, as a letter from Mari shows:

"I [Tāb-eli-mātim] have heard say among my attendants: 'Šamaš-hāzir

has become abarakkum. Now that he has been appointed, he has not
taken up his post'. That is what I heard. Šamaš-hāzir is with you. Why
does he delay a single night now that he has been appointed? Make him
leave with my messenger Sakkum, who brought you this letter, and
send him to me (Lion 1994: 223, n° 120)86.

He may have moved to Larsa somewhat later. There is a letter of Hammurabi

to Sin-iddiman advising of his arrival:

"To Sin-iddinam say, thus speaks Hammurabi: Herewith I send you

Igmil-Sin, son of Puzur-Šamaš, and Nabijatum, the mounted messenger,
to collect the fattened animals of Larsa that were under Nabium-mālik's
control. I also send you Šamaš-hāzir, the registrar" (AbB 13.48: 1-9)87.

82 AbB 2: 11, 12, 19, 24, 76; AbB 13: 10, 12, 18, 21, 22, 27, 38, 41, 43, 47; AbB 14: 2.
83 AbB 2: 5, 55; AbB 5: 136; AbB 13: 5.
84 AbB 2: 6, 9, 28, 38, 60; AbB 13: 13, 15; JCS 17:79.
85 Pecha (1999).
86 5[i-na] ┌a┐-hi-tim ki-a-am a[l-ma-ad] 6[um-ma] Idut u-ha-zi-ir 7[a-n]a a-ba-ra-ak-ku-tim n[a-

tu2] 8┌a┐-nu-um-ma ša-ki-[in] 9[u3] ┌i┐-na la pa-qi2-dim [šu-u3] 10┌ki┐-a-am al-[ma-ad] R. 11

┌l┐d
ut u-ha-[zi-ir it-ti-ka-ma] 12 iš-tu a-na mi-im-[ma ša-ak-nu] 13am-mi-ni i-bi2-a-at 14it-ti sa-
ak- kum-la-si┐-[mi] 15[ša-t]up-pi2 ub-ba-la-a[k-kum] 16[š]u-ta-as-bi-ta-[am-(ma)] 17┌a-na se┐-
┌

ri-[ia] 18[tu2-ur-da-am]
87 1a-na dEN.ZU – i-din-nam qi -[b]i -ma 2um-ma ha-mu-ra-bi-m[a] 3a-nu-um-ma ig-mil –
2 2
dEN.ZU d umu buzur – dut u 4u na-bi-ia-tum r a . [g]ab 5a-na nam-ri-ia-tim ša lar sam ki
4 3 2
(6)nig . šu dna-bi-um – ma-lik 7m[a]-ha-ri-im 8u -wa-e-ra-am-m[a] [a]t-tar-d[a]m 9u d[u]t u –
2 2 3
ha-zi-ir sag.d un 3 [a]t-tar-dam

45
 As the king owned enormous estates that needed to be farmed and managed,
Šamaš-hāzir's function was very important, although he was not the highest
administrator in the region. He was responsible for field assignments. The system,
as was presented in chapter II, was very complex because, within the system co-
existed subsistence fields, rental fields, private land, palace and temple lands all of
them laboured by a mass of farmers.

As the system was not new, Hammurabi continued the leases that had been
under Rim-Sin88; all existing tenancy agreements were registered in order to
determine what rental fees and taxes the palace could expect89.

This method of organization of land tenure and management required a great

deal of accounting. The plots of land were quite small and consequently there were
a great number of them. Registers needed to be kept to indicate who had the right to
a field, and that was Shamash-hazir’s assignment. Also, every time someone new
started to work for the palace, a field had to be found. Problems arose regularly.
Sometimes people unjustly claimed fields as their own and even started to farm
them. Because many of the palace tenants used subtenants to farm their land and
had plots in different regions, they could not keep constant watch over their
properties90. When they discovered that someone else was squatting on it, they had
to reclaim their land based on the registers that Šamaš-hāzir kept, but it was a very
complex process. Problems of this nature took up most of Šamaš-hāzir's time; these
situations obliged him to be out in the fields interacting with the people, but also in
direct contact with the king, receiving numerous letters from him.

88 There is a letter concerning one contested field in which another official, Lu-Ninurta,
pointed out to Šamaš-hāzir that "These men have had that field for twenty years, from before
my Lord came down here" 11a-wi-lu-u2 a. ša 3 -lam 12la-ma be-li ur-ra-dam 13iš-tu m[u]
20. [ka]m. (AbB 4.115: 11-13).
89
Eleven of those registers are preserved, recording fields in the area of Lagaš. They were
written on the 15th and 16th of the third month in 1761, this is less than 18 months after
Hammurabi conquered the region (Briot 1969).
90 This is the case presented in AbB 11.32 and AbB 11.33. Abijatum, head of weavers in

Sippar, holds a field in Isin, but as it was impossible for him to go there and control the
situation, the person in charge of his field misappropriated the barley.

46
c- Lu-Ninurta
Judging from the documents, he was an official in charge of land assignments, who
lived in Babylon. Dianhua (1997) considers that Lu-Ninurta began his career in the
state administration after the conquest of the south. Nevertheless there is a letter
sent by Rim-Sin to his officials in which, between the addressees, there is a Lu-
Ninurta.

"To Lu-Ninurta, Balmu-namhe, Ipqu-Erra, and Mannum-kīma-Sin say,

thus speaks Rim-Sin, your lord. Because he cast a boy into the oven, you,
throw the slave into the kiln." (AbB 9.197)91.

It is not possible to assure that he is the same person, but considering what has
been said previously about the officials recruitment, it is a possibility.

Lu-Ninurta had a direct and close labour relationship with the officials in
Larsa as AbB 9.199 shows:

"Speak to Šamaš-hāzir: thus says Lu-Ninurta. May Šamaš keep you in

good health! Concerning Ali-waqrum, Saniq-pī-Šamaš, who claimed a
field from him: how is his "hand"? In what does his service consist?
Whose son is he? How did he claim that field from him? Is he a … of
Apil-Amurrum? Is he a … of Lamassatum? Now then, send me a report
about him!"92.

This letter is interesting not only because it shows how the local and central
bureaucracy interchange information, but what is more surprising is the nature of
the data Lu-Ninurta required. He wants to know under whose responsibility this
Saniq-pī-Šamaš is, who his father is, what service he is doing. It seems that
membership was important in order to solve the dispute or to protect the interests

91 (obv.) 1a-na [l]-u2 – d nin. [ur t a] 2 Pbal. mu - na[m-he 2 ] 3 Pip-qu2 – er 3 . r [a] 4 u3 ma-an-
nu-um – ki-ma – d[EN.ZU] 5qi2-bi2-ma 6[u]m-ma dri-mi - d EN.ZU be-[e]l-k[u]-nu-ma 7aš-šum
su2-ha-ra-am a-na ti-nu-r[i-i]m 8[i]d-du-u2 9[a]t-tu-nu [s]ag. ir 3 a-na u2-tu-nim 10i-di-a
92
(obv.) 1a-na dut u—ha-zi-ir 2qi2-bi2-ma 3um-ma lu2—nin. ur t a-ma 4 dut u li-ba-al-li-it-ka 5
aš-šum pa-li2—wa-aq-rum 6 psa3-ni-iq—KA—dut u 7 ša a. ša 3 -lam ib-qu2-ru-u2-šu 8ki-i qa2-as-
su2 9i-na mi-nim i-li-ik-šu 10X-ru ma-an-nim šu-u2 11a. ša 3 -lam ša-a-ti 12ki-i-ib-qu2-ur-šu 13I X
pa-pil—dMAR.TU šu-u (rev.) 14I X la-ma-as-sa -tum šu-u 15 ma-ga-na te -e-em-šu 16šu-up-ra-
2 3 2 4
am

47
of Ali-waqrum (who seems to be well known by Lu-Ninurta and Šamaš-hāzir)
against the other man's claims93.

There are no letters from Lu-Ninurta to Sin-iddinam, nevertheless there is a

document which demonstrates that they mainteined contact AbB 4.68.

The other side of the coin: wrongdoings, offences, crimes.

The information presented up to this point about Hammurabi's bureaucracy in

Larsa shows that the central and local officials controlled the different aspects of the
administration of the lands, the irrigation system, the workers, the shipping of
goods and, although there were some problems such as disputes and claims on field
possession, these matters may have resulted from the complexity of the system.

But, the same corpus gives us hints of "uncontrolled events". It is possible to

outline another reality, where some officials committed offences in order to take
advantages for themselves or for other persons. Should we interpret these
individual/corporate actions as a form of resistance of groups of middle/lower
rank local officials to the impositions of the centre? Or, should we consider these
actions as old and deeply institutionalized practices?

Text Sender Addressee Other persons mentioned

AbB 2.6 Hammurabi Sin-iddinam Lalum
Ali-tillati
AbB 2.11 Hammurabi Sin-iddinam Šumman-la-ilum
AbB 2.18 Hammurabi Sin-iddinam Hablum
Etel-pi-Marduk
AbB 2.28 Hammurabi Sin-iddinam Inbni-Amurrum
Etel-pī-Marduk
AbB 2.30 Hammurabi Sin-iddinam Šēp-Sin
Etel-pī-Marduk
Gimil-Mardu
AbB 2.57 Hammurabi Sin-iddinam Etel-pī-Marduk

93This second interpretation is possible considering the context of production that will be
presented infra.

48
AbB 4.15 Hammurabi Šamaš-hāzir Lipit-Ištar
Apil-Ilišu
Lu-Ninšuburaka
AbB 4.36 Hammurabi Šamaš-hāzir Uraš-muballit
Sin-mušallim Iddin-Nanâ
and mates Irra-qarrad
AbB 4.37 Hammurabi Šamaš-hāzir lu2e-di-ki.meš

Sin-mušallim
and mates
AbB 4.79 Hammurabi Šamaš-hāzir Ili-ippalsam
Etel-pī-Marduk
Sin-iddinam
AbB 4.93 Hammurabi Šamaš-hāzir Ilīma-abi
Marduk-nāsir
AbB Munawwirum Šamaš-hāzir Šamaš-māgir
9.198 Adi-mati-ilī
AbB Lu-Ninurta Šamaš-hāzir Ali-waqrum
9.199 Saniq-pi-Šamaš
Apil-Amurrum
Lamassatum
AbB 13.4 Ibni-Amurrum ana belīya Saniq-pi-Šamaš, the son of …
Hammurabi? ramma
Sin-iddinam
Annum-pi-Marduk
Etel-pī-Marduk
Šamaš-hāzir
Etel-pī-Marduk (another one)?
VER
ABb Hammurabi Sin-iddinam lu2 e-di-ki.meš

13.15 Šamaš-hāzir
AbB Marduk- Sin-iddinam belīya Hammurabi?
13.33 mušallim

Although the letters are not directly connected, it is possible to link them
considering the matters that are discussed in each one. The "affaires" of Etel-pī-
Marduk will, initially help us to organize the plot.

Etel-pī-Marduk, seems to have been a middle/lower94 ranked official of the

bureaucracy of Larsa. He is mentioned in different letters in which he was always

94 It is not possible to establish his exact position in the bureaucratic system.

49
related to the organization of agricultural exploitation. He had a particular modus
operandi as can be deduced from the information of some documents:

"To Sin-iddinam say, thus says Hammurabi. Concerning the delivery of

barley to Ibni-Amurrum, yield of the field of Ibni-Amurrum, that is in
hands of Etel-pī-Marduk about which he wrote to you, this is (what you
said): 'Etel-pī-Marduk said (this) to me: I cultivated the field of Ibni-
Amurrum together with another field. The barley was kept in only one
place. May the yield of the field of Ibni-Amurrum be calculated by the
god's weapon and may he receive it'. This is what he said! But the
servant of Ibni-Amurrum did not accept …"95 (AbB 2.28)

In this case, Etel-pī-Marduk is charged of misappropriation of barley. The

problem was previously discussed and, in that opportunity, Etel-pī-Marduk
explained that he stored together the barley of two fields. It is possible to imagine
that due to this fact, he was unable to calculate exactly the yield of each field. The
justification sounds reasonable. Hammurabi's verdict was to calculate the quantity
of barley considering the "god's weapon", and to give it to Ibni-Amurrum, who
seems to have been the administrator of the field and not the possessor. But this
man did not accept the settlement. Why? Perhaps because the "god's weapon" was
not so precise; Etel-pī-Marduk being aware of this fact, acted the way he did. For
certain he knew that his actions would have caused him problems, but the
possibility of obtaining a benefit must have been a great temptation.

This interpretation -which may be considered exaggerated- have more sense if

we analyse this letter alongside others. The next two documents are related. In the
first one, Hammurabi deals, again, with a complaint against Etel-pī-Marduk, who
wronged the sons of a certain Hablum. The text does not specify what kind of
wrongdoing was committed, although the plaintiffs were able to prove what they

95
(Vs.) 1a-na dEN.ZU—i-din-nam qi2-bi2-ma 2um-ma ha-am-mu - ra-bi-ma 3aš-šum še-im mi-
ki-is a. ša 3 -im 4ša ib-ni-dMAR.TU ša i-na qa2-at e-tel-pi2-dmar d uk 5 a-na ib-ni-dMAR.TU na-da-
nim 6 ša iš-ta-ap-ra-ak-kum-ma um-ma at-ta-ma 7 pe-tel - pi2 - dm a r d u k ki-a-am iq-bi-a-am
um-ma šu-ma 8 it-ti a. ša-im ša ib-ni- dMAR.TU 9 a. ša -am a-hi-a-am e-r[i-]iš-ma 10 še-um a-šar
iš-te-e[n-m]a ša-pi2-ik 11i-na giš. t ukul ša d ingir še-am m[a-la] i-na a. ša ib-ni- dMAR.TU
12ib-ba-šu-u 13li-bi-ir-ru-ma mi-ik-sa-am li-il-qu -u 14ki-a-am iq-bi-ma 15sú-ha-ar ib-ni-
2 2 2
dMAR.TU u -ul im-gur
2

50
said, as the king ordered Sin-iddinam to compensate them and to send Etel-pī-
Marduk before him.

"To Sin-iddinam say, thus says Hammurabi. The sons of Hablum, the
mounted messenger and manager of arable lands took and showed me a
tablet (where there were registered the damages that Etel-pī-Marduk
unfairly caused to them) (a large gap). Calculate and compensate them
for the damages! Besides this, send to me Etel-pī-Marduk who caused
the unfair damages"96 (AbB 2.18).

The end of the letter, seems to have been the end of the problem but as we
read in the second letter, Etel-pī-Marduk did not obey:

"To Sin-iddinam say, thus says Hammurabi. Considering the matter of

Etel-pī-Marduk, I ordered you to send him to me. Why did not you send
him to me? When you read this letter, send Etel-pī-Marduk to me. [He is
not to stop!!] He is to travel day and night and he is to come here as soon
as possible"97 (AbB 2.57)

There are two possible interpretations to explain this attitude: or Etel-pī-

Marduk did not obey under his own responsibility or, acting in collusion with Sin-
iddinam waited till the matter was forgotten. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the
king and the central bureaucracy did not forget it. There is a letter that may support
the second interpretation. It presents the policy of the laissez faire, laissez passer:

"To Šamaš-hāzir say, thus says Hammurabi. The shepherd Ili-ippalsam

informed me this: 'Etel-pī-Marduk took away from me, four years ago,
the field of 3 bur that was given to me with a sealed document. Since
then, he takes away the yield of it. And he also said: I told this situation
to Sin-iddinam, but the field never returned to me". This is what he said

96 (Vs.) 1a-na dEN.ZU-i-din-nam 2qi2-bi2-ma 3um-ma ha-am-mu ra-bi-ma 4d umu. meš ha-ab-
lum ra2.gab ensi2 5tup-pa-am ša hi-bi-il-ti-šu-nu 6 ša e-tel – pi2-dmar d uk 7 ih-bu-lu-šu-nu-ti
8ub-lu-nim-ma 9u -ka-al-li-mu-ni-in-ni 10 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (gap) (Rs.) 1'[hi-bi-i]l-ta-[š]u[-nu]
2
2'li-bi-ir-ru-ma 3'hi-bi-il-ta-šu-nu 4'te-er-šu-nu-ši-im 5'u e-tel –pi - dmar d uk 6 ' ša ih-bu-lu-šu-
3 2
nu-ti 7'a-na ma-ah-ri-ja 8' tu2-ur-dam
97 (Vs.) 1 [a-na dE]N[.ZU]–i[-d]in-[nam] 2qi -bi -[ma] 3[u]m-ma ha-am-mu–ra-[b]i[-ma] 4[aš-šum
2 2
pe-tel–pi -dmard uk 5[a-]na ma-ah-ri-ja t[a -r]a-di[-im] 6 [aš-pu-ra-ak-kum] 7[a-na] mi-nim
2 2
[l]a [ta-at-ru-da-aš-šu] 8 tup-pi2 an-ni-a-am i-na a-ma-ri-im 9pe-tel–pi2-dmar d uk 10a-na ma-
ah-ri-j[a] 11tu2-ur[-dam] 12[la u2-la-ap-pa-tam] 13(Rs.) m[u-ši u3 ur2-ri] 14a-la-kam li-pu-ša-a[m]
15ar-hi-iš 16li-is-ni qa -am
2

51
 to me. I have just written to Sin-iddinam. If it is true what Ili-ippalsam
says, (that) Etel-pī-Marduk has taken away four years ago his field of 3
bur that the Palace had given to him and that (since then) he lives from
it, there is not a worse case than this!!! Check carefully the case and
return Ili-ippalsam the field in accordance with his sealed document that
has been confirmed in Palace. Also calculate, with the god's weapon the
barley that for four years Etel-pī-Marduk has been taking away from the
field and give it to the shepherd Ili-ippalsam! Send me, also, a report of
the entire process"98 (AbB 4.79)

This letter shows on the one hand, that Sin-iddinam did not take care of the
problem and that he never gave an answer to the shepherd claims, on the other
hand, the document seems to confirm that although the Palace had a detailed
register of the fields and the tenants, the system was so complex that there were
errors and great delays in the resolution of the conflicts (when they were noticed by
the correct official or by the king). What is important to stress is the fact that there is,
again, a victim of Etel-pī-Marduk and that he obtained illegal profits damaging
others' rights. Etel-pī-Marduk is not an isolated case as AbB 4.93 registers a similar
situation, but in this case there were Šamaš-hāzir and Marduk-nāsir, who illegally
appropriated another person's barley.

Whether these letters show isolated cases or they present consolidated

practices may be confirmed by the following letter:

"To Šamaš-hāzir, Sin-mušalim and his mates say, thus says Hammurabi.
The basket menders told me (this): 'Šamaš-hāzir and his mates, took
away 6 bur of the best part(?) of the field that our Lord, gave us with a
sealed document. They replaced it with a field in another place'. That is
what they told me. Why did you take away the best share of their field

98 (Vs.) 1ana dut u-ha-zi-ir 2qi2-bi2-ma 3um-ma ha-am-mu – ra-bi-ma 4pi3-li – ip-pa-al-sa3-am
sipad 5ki-a-am u3-lam-mi-da-an-ni um-ma šu-ma 6bur 3 iku a. ša 3 i-na ka-ni-ik be-li2-ia 7ka-
an-kam 8iš-tu mu 4 kam pe-tel – pi2 mar d uk i-ki-ma-an-ni-ma 9še-šu il-te-ne-eq-qi2 10u3
EN.ZU – i-din-nam u2-lam-mi-id-ma 11u2-ul u2-te-er-ru-nim 12ki-a-am u2-la-mi-da-an-ni 13a-na
dEN.ZU – i-din-nam šu-u 15iq-bu-u (unt. Rd.) 16 bur 3 iku a. ša ša i-na e . gal 17ka-an-ku-
3 2 3 2
šum (Rs.) 18 pe-tel – pi2-dmar d uk iš-tu mu 4 kam il-qe2-e-ma 19i-ik-ka-al 20e-li-ša a-wa-tum
ma-ru-uš-tum 21u2-ul i-ba-aš-ši 22wa-ar-ka-at a-wa-tim šu-a-ti 23dam-qi2-iš pu-ur-sa-ma 24
a. ša-am ša pi2-i ka-ni-ki-im 25ša i-na e 2 . gal ik-ka-an-ku-šum 26a-na i3-li2 – ip-pa-al-sa3-am te-
er-[r]a 27u3-še-am ša iš-tu mu 4 kam 28i-na a.ša šu-a-ti pe-tel –pi2-dmar d uk 29il-te-eq-qu2-u2
30i-na giš t ukul ša d ingir bi-ir-ra-ma 31a-na i -li – ip-pa-al-sa -am sipad 32id-na 33u -te-em
3 2 3 3
di-nim šu-a-ti 34šu-up-ra-nim

52
 and gave them a field elsewhere? Check the sealed document that I gave
to them and give them the field according to what says that sealed
document. You do not have to give them a field in another place!"99
(AbB 4.37)

In this opportunity, Šamaš-hazir, Sin-mušalim and other officials took away

the best share of a field that Hammurabi had given to a group of workers, and
compensated them for the loss, giving them another field. Evidently, the second
field did not the same qualities of the first one, so the workers complained to
Hammurabi. What is significant about these documents is the impunity of the
officials in Larsa that led them to take advantage of their positions in order to obtain
personal or corporate benefits. There is a clear abuse of the prerogatives they had as
officials of the crown.

There is another interesting letter of the same case, which helps us to

understand how the central bureaucracy tried to control situations:

"Speak to Sin-iddinam. Thus says Hammurabi. Concerning the basket-

menders who had informed me about their field, which is on the bank of
the Supru-canal, and about which I had written to you, if – as they have
informed me –in exchange for their field which … (break) Return the
field … If Šamaš-hāzir has not staked out a field for the basket menders,
but the basket menders, have … informed me, impose a punishment
upon the basket-menders"100 (AbB 13.15)

99 1ana dut u-[h]a-z[i-ir] (2) p dEN.ZU – mu-ša-lim (3) u3 tap-pe2 šu-nu qi2-b[i2-ma] 4um-ma ha-
am-mu – ra-bi-ma 5 lu2 e-di-ku.meš 6ki-a-am u2-lam-mi-du-ni-in-ni 7um-ma šu-nu-ma 8i-na
a. ša 3 -im ša be-el-ni ik-nu-ka-an-ni-a-ši-im 9 bur3 6 iku qa2-qa2-ad a. ša 3-ni 10 dut u-ha-zi-ir u3
tap-pu-šu 11i-ki-mu-ni-a-ti-ma 12pu-ha-am a-šar-ša-ni 13 a. ša 3 -am u2 ka-al-lu-ni-a-ši-im 14ki-a-
am u2 lam-mi-du-ni-in-ni (Rs.)15a-na mi-nim qa2-qa2-a[d] a. [š]a 3 -šu-nu 16te-el-qi2-a-ma 17a-
šar-ša-ni 18 a.ša 3 -am ta-ad-di-na-šu-nu-ši-im 19ka-ni-kam ša ak-nu-ku <šu>-nu-ši-im 20am-ra-
ma 21a-na pi2-i ka-ni-ki-im-ma 24la ta-na-ad-di-na-šu-nu-ti
100
(obv.) 1a-na dEN.ZU—i-din-nam qi2-bi2-ma 2um-ma ha-am-mu-ra-bi-ma 3aš-šum lu2e-di-
ki. meš 4 ša aš-šum a. šà-šu-nu ša gu2 A URU su2-up-[r]i 5u2-lam-mi-du-ni-in-ni-m[a] 6aš-pu-
[r]a-ak-kum 7šum-ma ki-ma u2-lam-mi-d[u-ni]-i[n]-ni 8pu-uh2 a. ša 3 -šu-nu ša KI [x x] x x 9ša
m[u]-s[i2] u2-š[a]-AD-x[-o- šu-nu-t]i 10p[........] (two broken lines) (lo. e.) 13[x] x AN [….......]
(rev.) 14a. ša 3 -am […..] 15 a-na n[i.......] 16še-am […....] 17 a. ša 3 x x[.....] 18 te-e-e[r] 19šum-ma
dut u—ha-zi-ir 20a. ša -am a-na lu2e-di-ki. meš 21la ip-[l]u-uk-ma 22lu e-di-ki.meš 23u -wa-at-
3 2 2
t[u]-u2-n[i]-m[a] 24u2-lam-mi-du-n[i]-i[n]-n[i] 25 lu2e-di-ki. meš 26ar-nam e-m[i-i]d (eras.)

53
 Hammurabi on the one hand, wrote to the defendants giving a very
structured version of the facts, without any space for doubts; on the other hand, he
wrote another letter to Sin-iddinam the highest official in Larsa to investigate the
matter. Perhaps the order of the letters was different and first he wrote to Sin-
iddinam and then to the other officials, once he new the truth; but in this case it is
also interesting to note that Hammurabi did not mention the letter sent to Sin-
iddinam in that which he sent to Šamaš-hāzir and the other officials; in this second
letter, he showed himself taking a decision on the basis of the testimonies of the
basket-menders. The tone of the discourse was also different, because in the letter
sent to the group of officials there was no trace of doubt, while in that sent to Sin-
iddinam he showed he is not certain of the story told to him by the basket-menders.

Why was Hammurabi so distrustful? Perhaps because he was aware of the

wrongdoings committed by the officialdom and that all the "players" (plaintiffs and
defendants) played a game to obtain personal or corporate benefits; at the same
time, the king was conscious that it was impossible to control all situations.

It seems to me that part of the officialdom had their own parallel businesses
and that their position in the state bureaucracy was an opportunity to increase their
private affairs. They had access to relevant information about the quality of the
fields, the registers, and also the possibility to take advantage of their control over
the workforce.

The fact that it was impossible for the central bureaucracy to monitor
everything and that the local officials displayed strategies to maximize their benefits
while preserving their position, is shown in the following letter; in this document, it
is possible to see two officials reaching an agreement on the information they must
send to the central bureaucracy. They seem to be interested in having the same
discourse about taxes:

"Speak to Sin-iddinam. Thus says Marduk-mušallim. May Šamaš and

Marduk keep you in good health forever. A letter of my lord has come
(with) the following (message): “Send the arrears of the shepherds,

54
 which you were ordered to collect and which you collected, to the men
who have gone for the counting and let them muster (the arrears) and
put on a mark” Thus the letter of my lord has come. (The message)
which was written to me was also written to you. How did you answer
the letter of my lord? How many sheep have they collected for you from
the arrears of the shepherds which you were ordered to collect? (And of)
the sheep which they have collected for you, have you sent everything
to the men? Write me a full report. Furthermore, concerning the arrears
of the shepherds which we were ordered to collect, I told my lord that
we are unable to collect (them). As for you, speak to my lord and send
me the report with which my lord will answer you"101 (AbB 13.33)

But things were not always the same. It is possible to see other letters in
which the addressee tries to get further away of compromising situations. We read
in AbB 2.30:

"To Sin-iddinam say, thus says Hammurabi. Šēp-Sin, chief of the

merchants told me this: 'Etel-pī-Marduk prevents me from collecting the
silver for the Kittum temple of Bad-Tibira and (of the region of the)
Tigris, (so) I could not collect all the silver […]"102

Šēp-Sin was a very important merchant in charge of tax collecting in the

region of Larsa103. He denounces the fact that a man called Etel-pī-Marduk does not
allow him to collect the taxes. It is not possible to affirm that this Etel-pī-Marduk is
the same we know. Nevertheless, the important point here is to understand that
there were, possibly, different "circles" in the bureaucracy and that it is obvious that

101
(obv.) 1a-na den. zu—i-din-nam 2qi2-bi2-ma 3um-ma dmar d uk—mu-ša-lim-ma 4dut u u3
dmar d uk da-ri-iš u4-mi (5)li-ba-al-li-tu2-ka 6[d]ub-pi2 be-li2-ia ki-a-am il-li-kam um-ma 7[r]i-
ib-ba-ar sipa. meš ša šu-ud-du-nu-um 8[i]š-ša-ap-ra-al-lim-ma 9tu-ša-ad-di-nu 10a-na se-er
lu 2 . meš ša a-na ZA-la-tim il-li-ku 11 tu2-ru-ud-ma li-ip-qi2-du 12u3 ši-im-tam li-iš-ku-nu 13ki-
a-am dub-pi2 be-li2-ia il-li-kam 14ki-ma a-na ia-ši-im iš-ša-ap-ra-a[m] (lo. e.) 15u3 a-na ka-ši-im
iš-ša-ap-r[a]-a[k]-kum 16me-he-er dub-pi2-im ša be-li2-i[a] 17ki-i ta-pu-ul i-na ri-ib-ba-at
sipa. meš (rev.) 18ša šu-ud-du-nu-um iš-ša-ap-ra-ak-kum 1 9 u 8 . ud u. hi. a ki ma-si (20)u2-ša-
ad-di-nu-ni-ik-kum 2 1 u 8 . ud u. hi. a ša u2-ša-ad-di-nu-ni-ik-kum 22mi-im-ma-a a-na se-er
lu 2 . meš 23 ta-at-ru-ud 24[t]e4-em-ka ga-am-ra-am šu-up-ra-am 25[u3] aš-šum ri-ib-ba-at
sipa. meš 26[š]a [š]u-ud-du-nu-um iš-ša-ap-r[a-a]n-ni-a-ši-im 27ki-ma šu-ud-du-nam la ni-le-
u2 28a-na be-li2-ia aq-bi 29u3 at-ta a-na be-li2-ia qi2-bi-ma 30 te4-ma-am ša be-li2 i-ip-pa-lu-ka
31šu-up-ra-am (ruling)
102
(Vs.) 1a-na dEN.ZU—i-din-nam 2qi2-bi2-ma 3um-ma ha-am-mu—ra-bi-ma 4pše-el-dEN.ZU
ugula. d am. gàr . meš 5ki-a-am u2-lam-mi-da-ni-ni um-ma šu-u2-ma 6a-na kubabbar e2
dki-it-tim 7ša bad -t ibir a ki u ídid igna 8pe-tel—pi dmar d uk ip-ta-na-ar-ri-kam-ma
3 3 2
9kubabbar ga-am-ra-am u -ul u -ša-ad-di-in […]
2 2
103 See note 67 in Chapter II.

55
Šēp-Sin and Etel-pī-Marduk did not belong to the same one, as the merchant did not
hide the situation, perhaps because it was he himself who had to guarantee the
collection of the taxes.

There are some cases in which it is possible to detect not an official abusing
his position but other powerful personages. This is what AbB 2.6 informs:

"To Sin-iddinam say, thus says Hammurabi. The miller Lalum told me:
'The rabiānum104 Ali-tillati took away the field that I possess since a long
time and besides that he took from me the barley'. This is what he told
me. The tablet was checked in the Palace and a field of 36 iku is
registered for Lalum. Why has the rabiānum Ali-tillati claimed Lalum's
field? Study the matter! If Ali-tillati has committed a wrongdoing,
compensate Lalum and punish Ali-tillati because of his action"105

In this case was a local authority, who took advantage of his social status and
power and acted against a simple miller. Another case is AbB 4.36:

"To Šamaš-hāzir, Sin-mušalim and his mates say, thus says Hammurabi.
The ugula mar.tu Uraš-muballit placed soldiers in the field of the
carpenter Iddin-Nanā, that is between Zibnatum and Egikkirum, that
previously Irra-qarrad took unfairly from Iddin-Nanā. Write a strong
letter to Uraš-muballit ordering him to take away the guards that he put
in the field of Iddin-Nanā and not to approximate to it anymore. You

104 The rabiānum title represented two unrelated institutions. On the one hand, it was a title
borne by several kings during the early Old Babylonian period. On the other one it was a
urban office. This office is well attested in cities from both northern and southern
Mesopotamia. The characteristics of the office are difficult to trace. Apparently the elders
and the city appointed the rabiānum to act as their representative, especially in those
transactions where it was necessary to identify the person who acted on behalf of the local
authorities. It is certain that the rabiānum as well as the elders and the city were urban elites.
That the rabiānum was not a royal appointee becomes clear from the rabiānum seals, which
do not mention the name of the king, as was the case with the seals of the royal officials. The
only exceptions to this is the case of Ibni-Erah in Šaduppûm, which could have been the
result of negotiation strategies between the state and certain local powers. For a detailed
characterization See: Seri (2005: 55-96).
105
(vs.) 1a-na dEN[.Z]U [-i-din-nam] 2qi2-bi2-ma 3um-ma ha-am-mu – ra-[bi-ma] 4la-lum
ka. zid 2 ki-a-am [u2-lam-mi-da-an-ni] 5um-ma šu[-u2-ma] 6 Pa-li2 - illat -ti ra[-bi-a-nu-um] 7
a. ša 3 -am ša iš-tu u4[-um sa-a-tim] 8sa-ab-ta[-ku] 9ib-ta-aq-r[a-an-ni] 10u3 še-am ša a. ša 3 [-ja il-
qi2] 11ki-a-am u2-lam-m[i-da-an-ni] 12tup-pu-um i-na e 2 -gal in[-na me-er-ma] 13 36 iku
a. ša 3 a-na la[-lum ša-at-ru] 14a-na mi-nim a-li2 – illa t -t[i] (15)ra-bi-a-nu-um (rs.) 16 Pla-lum
a. ša 3 -am ib-qu2-ur 17wa-ar-ka-tam pu-ru-us2-ma 18šum-ma a-li2 – illat -ti 19 Pla-lum ka.zid2
ih-bu-u[l] 20hi-bi-il-ta-šu te-e-er-šum 21 u3 a-li2 – illat -ti ša ih-bu-l[u-šu] 22ar-nam e-mi-id.

56
 take away the guards that Uraš-muballit placed in the field of Iddin-
nanā. Confirm the possession of the field to the carpenter Iddin-Nanā"106.

In this instance, it is a military officer who wrongs a carpenter by placing

soldiers in the field in order to intimidate the legal possessor. It is interesting to
notice, from what is said in the letter, that Uraš-muballit was not acting for his own
benefit, but seems to have been doing a favour for someone else. The relationships
based on (mutual) favours may be of different types, going from friendship to a
patron-client rapport, if we take into account the distance and asymmetry between
the participants of the dyad107. These close relationships may be discovered in two
other letters. The first one does not deal with offences; there are no crimes, but
rather peddling of influence:

"Speak to Šamaš-hāzir, thus says Munawwirum. May Šamaš and

Marduk keep you in good health! Concerning the field of Šamaš-māgir,
father of Adi-mati-ilī, my servant, do you not know that the man is
mine? You want to give a field, a field whose usufruct he has had for
forty years to somebody who showed up for the service (only) this year.
Is this that you did proper? Never have I written to you about anything;
now, I write to you about Šamaš-māgir. Return his field to him and give
him due satisfaction, and despatch him here"108 (AbB 9.198).

The second one, is a case from Dilbat. It seems to be a private letter between
two men called Aplatum the sender and Lipit-Ea the addressee, which helps us to

106 (Vs.)1a-na dut u-ha-zi-ir (2)den. zu – mu-ša-lim (3)u3 tap-pe2-šu-nu 4qi2-bi2-ma 5um-ma ha-
am-mu – ra-bi-ma 6 pdur aš -mu-ba-li2-it ugula mar . tu 7i-na mu-uh2-hi a-ša 3 si-bi-it i-din –
d na. na. a nagar 8ša bi-ri-it zi-ib-na-t um. ki 9 u e-gi-ik-ki-ri-im 10ša pa-na-nu-um ir . r a –
3 3
ur . sag 11 pi-din –d na. na. a ih-bu-lu 12ma-as-sa-ri (unt.Rd) 15ša i-na mu-uh2-hi a. ša 3 -im (16) ša
i-din – d na. na. a (Rs) 17iš-ku-un 18du-up-pu-ri-im 19 u3 a-na a. ša 3 šu-a-ti 20 la te4-he-e-em 21
u2-da-an-ni-nam-ma 22 aš-tap-ra-aš-šum 23 u3 at-tu-nu 24ma-as-sa-ri-ša i-na mu-uh2-hi a. ša 3 -
im 25 ša i-din – d na. na. a 26 pd u[ra]š – m[u-ba-li2-i]t iš-ku-nu 27 du-[up-pi2-r]a 28[u3 a. ša 3 -am]
šu-a-ti 29 [a-na i-din –d na. n]a. a-ma nagar 30[ki-i]n-na
107 This phenomenon will be treated in a next point.
108 (obv.) 1a-na dut u – ha-zi-ir qi -bi -ma 2um-ma mu-na-wi-rum-ma 3dut u u mard uk li-ba-
2 2 3
li-tu-ka 4aš-šum a. ša 3 dut u – ma-gir a-bi a-di – ma-ti – i3-li2 5su2-ha-ri-ja a-wi-lum ia-um 6 u2-
ul ti-de-e 7 a. ša 3 -am ša iš-tu mu 40. kam i-ka-lu 8a-na ša ša-at-tam a-na il-ki-im 9i-li-a-am
a. ša-šu ta-na-ad-di-in 10na-tu e-pe2-šum an-nu-um ša te-pu-uš (lo.e) 11ma-ti-ma a-na mi-im-
ma u3-ul aš-pu-ra-kum (rev) 12a-nu-um-ma dut u – ma-gir aš-tap-ra-kum 13 a. ša-šu te-er-
šum-ma 14u3 i-ša-ri-iš ap-la-aš-šu 15t[u]-ur-da-aš-šu

57
reconstruct together with the other documents what Bourdieu called habitus: the
tacit, internal, subconscious understanding of the rules of social interaction.

"As concerns Tarībatum, about who you wrote to me in the following

way: 'He has offered me 3 kor of dates'. I am now sending you this letter.
As soon as you see it, take from him the 3 kor of dates he offered you.
Humour the gentlemen, so that later the gentlemen will pronounce a
favourable judgement. Help me to survive! […] let me experience that
you are a brother"109 (AbB 14.41).

When the personal rapports were not so strong, when there was no
possibility to ask for a favour, there were other ways to obtain "services" as a group
of letters show:

"To Sin-iddinam say, thus says Hammurabi. Šumman-la-ilum told me:

'In Bad-tibira there are cases of bribery and there are men who accept
bribes; there are also witnesses of this situation' This is what he told me.
I am sending to you this Šumman-la-ilum, a mounted messenger and an
officer. After reading my letter, study the matter! If there has been
bribery, seal the silver and the things that has been accepted and order
to send them to me. Also send to me the men who accepted bribes and
the witnesses –that Šumman-la-ilum knows- who know the case"110
(AbB 2.11).

This document is an indirect proof of bribery but there are others in which this
crime is quite clear:

109 5
aš-šum pta-ri-ba-tum 6ša ta-aš-pu-ra-am 7ša um-ma at-ta-a-ma 8 3.0.0 gur zu 2 . lum u2-
ki-la-am 9a-nu-um-ma dub-pi2 uš-<ta>-bi-la-ak-kum (lo.e.) 10ki-ma dub -pi2 ta-am-ma-|ru
(rev.) 11 3.0.0 gur zu 2 . lum 12 ša ┌u2┐-[k]i-la-ak-kum 13e-te4-er-[m]a *a-w[i]-le 14bi-si-im-ma
wa-ar-ka-nu-um 15di-nam a-wi-lu-u2 16i-qa2-ab-bu-nim 17bu-l┌i-ta-an-ni┐ [...] 23at-hu-ut!(RI)-ka
lu-mur
110
(Vs.) 1[a-n]a dEN.ZU - i-din-na[m] 2[q]i2-bi2-ma 3um-ma ha-am-mu—ra-bi-[ma] 4pšum-ma-
an - la - d i n g i r 5ki-a-am iq-bi-a-am 6um-ma šu-ma 7i-na bad 3 -t ibir a ki 8ta2-a-tum ib-ba-ši-
ma 9a-wi-lu-u2 ša ta2-a-tam 10 il-qu2-u2 11 u3 ši-bu ša a-wa-a-tim ši-na-ti 12 i-du-u2 13i-ba-aš-šu-
u2 (Rs.) 14ki-a-am iq-bi-a-am 15a-nu-um-ma š[u]m-ma-<an>—la—d ingir šu-a-ti 16 I r a 2 . gab
ù I ag[a. u]š. sag 17a-na se[-ri]-ka 18at[-tar]-dam 19tup-pi2 an-ni-a-am i-na a-ma-ri-im 20wa-ar-
ka-tam pu-ru-us2-ma 21 šum-ma ta2-a-tum i[b]-ba-š[i] 22kubabbar u3 mi-im-ma 23ša i-na ta2-
a-tim i[l-qu2-]u2 24ku-un-kam-ma a-na ma-ah-ri-[j]a [š]u-b[i]-l[a]m 25a-wi-le-e ša ta2-a-tam 26il-
qu2-u2 27u3 ši-bi š[a] a-wa-a[-tim] 28i-du-u2 ša šum-ma-an - l[a - d in gir ] 29u2-ka-al-la-mu[-ka]
(l.Rd) 30[a-na ma-ah-]ri-ja 31[šu-r]i-a-am

58
 "Speak to Pusiatum: Thus says …-silla. […] Take one string of fruit along
for the one who directs the (division of the) water, give it (to him) and
get the field irrigated and do not detain Apil-Ba'u" […]111 (AbB 14.116).

The knowledge of the correct person inside the bureaucratic apparatus who
could change things was important. It was the path to solve everyday problems and
to speed up the administrative affairs. For certain, there were different kind of
illegal services that could be paid. The next one is an example:

"To Šamaš-hāzir say, thus says Hammurabi. The šatammu112 Apil-ilišu

divided a field in Nina for the redûm Lipit-Ištar, separated from the
(field of) Dayaum. It had a surface of 1 1/3 bur. When Lipit-Ištar was
away, his substitute, Lu-Ninšuburaka, asked (someone) cancel Lipit-
Ištar's name and write instead his own. Almost immediately, (someone)
realized of the situation. Give an order to bring to me this Apil-ilišu.
May he return the field of 1 1/3 bur separated (from the field of)
Dayaum to the redûm"113 (AbB 4.15).

How many cases like these must have occurred? It is not possible to know the
answer. We have to remember that the hazards of time, the actions of illegal
diggers, the decisions of the archaeologists (what, where and why to excavate) and
ultimately war, impose limits. But there is another factor: the desires of those men.
Sometimes they did not want to leave traces of their actions and behaviours as can
be read in this letter:

111 1
a-[na pu]-si2-ia-tum 2q[i2]-bi2-ma 3[um-ma x x]-*si2-[li]-ia-ma […] 18*še!-er-ka-am iš-te-en
li-qe2-e-ma 19a-na ša i-na pa-ni me-e! i-ta-| na-la-ku 20i-di-in-[m]a a. ša 3 -la mu-*ku-ur 21 u3 *a-
pil-dba.u2 la ta-ka-la-šu-x
112 See Gallery (1980)
113
(Vs.) 1a-na dut u—ha-zi-[ir] 2qi2-bi2-ma 3um-ma ha-am-mu—ra-bi-ma 4a-na li-pi2-it—išt ar
aga. uš sag 5 a. ša 3 -am i-na nina. ki 6 ni-še-er-ti da-a-IA-um 7 bur 3 eše 3 iku a. ša 3 a-pil2—
i3-li2-šu ša3.tam 8ip-lu-uk-šum 9i-na-la wa-aš-bu-ut li-pi2-it—ištar 10 plu2-d nin-šubur a. ka
dah-šu 11šum pli-pi2-it—išt ar u2-ša-ap-ši-it-ma 12šum-šu i-na a. ša 3 šu-a-ti 13u2-ša-aš-te4-er
14u
3 ki-ma šu[m] l[i]-pi2-it-
15u -ša-ap-ši-tu -ma 16šum-šu u -ša-aš-te -ru (Rs.) 17plu -
3 2 2 4 2
d nin. šubur a .[ka dah-šu] 18ub-ti-ir-r[u] 19šu-pu-ur a-pil —i -li -[š]u 20li-it-ru-ni-ik-kum-m[a]
3 3 2
2 1 bur
3 eše 3 iku a-ša 3 -am
(22) ni-še-er-ti pda-a-IA-um 23a-na li-pi -it—ist ar aga. uš sag
2
24li-il-di-in

59
 "To Sin-ajabās, whom Marduk grants health, say: Thus says Ahu-waqar
[...] Destroy my letter after you have read it. Do not preserve any of the
letters I am sending to you do not preserve" 114 (AbB 14.112).

Fortunately for us, there is always someone who disobeys!115

A private archive from Sippar.

The second group of letters comes from Sippar116. This city had been under the
control of Babylon since Sūmû-la-el's reign. It presents another situation, because
the documents were part of a private archive, that of Ilšu-ibni, who seems to have
been a man who administred fields in the region. As with the other letters, in this
case it is not possible to establish where they were found, but it is feasible to date

114 36d ub-pi ši-me-e-ma hi-pi 37dub-pi ma-li u -ša-ab-ba-la-ak-kum 38 la ta-na-as-sa-ar (u.e.)
2 2 2 2
39u pi -qa -at pden. zu-re-me-ni 40a-šar wa-aš-bu a-na e . d ub. ba 41a-na se-ri-ka i-re-ed-*du-
3 2 2 2
ni-liš-ši (l.e.) 42la-te-gi-i-šu 2 sila 3 kaš li-iš-ti
115 In this case I am supposing that this letter was conserved; in fact, as there is no

archaeological context. Maybe it has obtained form the basement of a building, filling
mudbrick benches and not in an archive. Nevertheless, to my purpose it is useful.
116 They are in the British Museum and are part of the collection Budge 1902-10-11 which

gathers approximately 1000 documents of different nature. Besides the 134 letters in AbB 12,
89 real state documents have been published by Dekiere (1997); Veenhoff in MHEO 2:143-
153; other texts in NABU 1991:110;. CT 33 See: CBF. Walker, Index to Parts I-L, 35b (BM
96974 – 97816). G. Kalla (1999), who studied the British Museum Collections, concludes,
from the internal evidence of the documents of Bu. 1902-10-11, that they seem to be re-mixed
from Abū-Habba and Tell ed-Dēr and that they have few links with other collections: Die
Texte haben nur wenige Verbindungen mit andren Sammlungen; MHET 2/6, 843 ist der
einzige, der mit einiger Sicherheit aus einem schon früher bekannten Archiv stammt; er
gehört nämlich zur Halhalla-Gruppe (Tall al-Dēr). Die anderen Verträge kommen
anscheinend wieder gemischt aus Abū Habba und Tall al-Dēr. Nach der Lage der städtischen
Immobilien lassen sich vier verschiedene Gruppen unter den anderen Verträgen erkennen.
Die Hauser und Grundstücke der ersten Gruppe liegen an der Bunene-Straße; in der zweiten
Gruppe an der Sîn-Straße (beide Sippar-Jahrurum = Abū Habba); in der dritten liegen sie
an der Lugal-Gudua-Straße bzw. Anunnītum-Straße (Sippar-Amnānum) und in der vierten
an einer breiten Strasse ohne Namen, angrenzend an ein Heiligtum des Gottes Amurrum
(é dMar-tu) und an andere Immobilien in Sippar-rabûm (= Sippar-Amnānum = Tall al-Dēr).
Es gibt zwei Möglichkeiten: entweder stammt ein Teil der Urkunden aus Abū Habba und ein
anderer Teil aus Tall al-Dēr, oder die Texte wurden aus der einen Stadt in die andere
gebracht. Ich halle die erste Möglichkeit für wahrscheinlicher; denn es müßten sonst auch
prosopographische Verbindungen zwischen den einzelnen Gruppen bestanden haben. Der
Fundort der Tall al-Dēr-Tafeln aus dieser Sammlung befand sich wahrscheinlich nicht weit
von Ur-Utus Haus (Chantier E der belgischen Grabung, siehe unten); denn dieses lag
zwischen der Lugal-Gudua- und der Anunnītum-Straße. Kalla (1999:216-217).

60
them: from the greetings in AbB 12.72:9-10117- we know that the documents were
written during the reign of Ammi-saduqa. Also there are persons mentioned in the
letters that help to delimit the period more precisely. The activities of the "barber"
Ipqu-Nabium (AbB 12.2; AbB 12.6) are witnessed between Ammi-saduqa 5 and 11
(CT 8 11b; CT 8 19a; TCL I 164; CT 19b; AbB 12.6; MHET II/4, 521); Nanna-mansum,
gal.unkin.na erim ka 2 e 2 .gal (AbB 12.72), is found in documents from Ammi-
saduqa 16 and 17+a (ARN 169; BIN 7 211).

Text Sender Addressee Other persons mentioned

AbB 12.1 Amat-Šamaš Ilšu-ibni Gimillum

AbB 12.2 Iluni Ilšu-ibni Ipqu-ilīšu
Ipqu-nabium
Sîn-rēmēni
Etel-pī-nabium
Ninurta-nīšu
AbB 12.3 Iluni Ilšu-ibni Ipqu-ilīšu

AbB 12.5 Nabium-nāsir Ilšu-ibni …-rabi

Ilšu-ibni, šapir ZIMBIRki
Bēlšunu
Warad-Ulmaššītum
AbB 12.6 Nabium-nāsir Ilšu-ibni Nanna-ibila-mansum
Ipqu-nabium
Sîn-rēmēni
Sîn-iddinam
Sîn-mušallim
Usur-pī-Ištar
AbB 12.7 Nabium-nāsir Ilšu-ibni Ipqu-ilīšu

AbB 12.8 Nabium-nāsir Ilšu-ibni Sîn-rēmēni

Ibni-Amurrum

AbB 12.9 Ilšu-ibni ana belīya Ubar-Nabium

AbB 12.72 Nabium-nāsir ana awīlim Ipqu-ilīšu

Nanna-mansum,
Ilšu-ibni, bēl pihatīya

117 10May 9your well-being 10last forever 9before Šamaš, Marduk, and my lord Ammi-saduqa!
9šu-lum-ka ma-har d ut u d mard uk u3 be-li2-ia am-mi-s[a]-[d]u-[a]a2 lu da-ri

61
a- Who is Who in this Story?
As the personages of this dossier are not well known persons, it is necessary to
reconstruct their lives, according to what the letters inform us.

Ilšu-ibni, who lived in Sippar, will be the link between the letters. The
documents show some aspects of his public life. Together with him are other two
men who had important roles in the plot: Nabium-nāsir and Iluni.

Who were they? What was the relationship between them? The documents
show that they had a hierarchical labour relationship and that their duties were
different. There is proof of this situation: the flux of notices, the guidelines and
goods coming and going show that they were part of a network between Sippar and
Babylon. The members of this network had at least one goal: to exploit the
agricultural resources in the area of Sippar. There, Ilšu-ibni was the executor of the
orders that arrived from Babylon. He was aided by other personages, whose
functions are not very clear to me, considering what the letters say about them: the
"barber" Ipqu-Nabium, el judge Sīn-rēmēni and, the general Ibni-Amurrum.

Ilšu-ibni was subordinate to Nabium-nāsir. There are three documents to

prove this. In the first one, Nabium-nāsir called Ilšu-ibni bēl pīhatīya "my chargé
d'affaires" (AbB 12.72:32). In the second one, a man who had problems with Ilšu-ibni
and exposed the details of the dispute to Nabium-nāsir called his rival waradka
"your servant" (AbB 12.5:24). Also, in the heading of AbB 12.9 that Ilšu-ibni wrote to
Nabium-nāsir he wrote the formula: ana bēlīya "To my lord". In this letter he always
spoke to his superior in the 3rd person, avoiding the 2nd person and a direct dialog.
The imbalanced relationship may be seen also in the letters between Ilšu-ibni and
Iluni; both talked about Nabium-nāsir calling him awīlum "gentleman" (AbB 12.2:10,
25; AbB 12.3:5, 6). Nevertheless, the fact of having been subordinate, was not an
obstacle to direct communication with their superior.

It seems that Ilšu-ibni and Iluni had first and foremost labour relationship,
but it is not possible to establish if they were equally ranked or if there was a

62
hierarchical relationship between them. There are some hints that show that they
were united by links based on mutual confidence. There is a letter sent by Iluni to
Ilšu-ibni (AbB 12.2) in which there is a reference to the problems that Ilšu-ibni had
with a judge called Ipqu-ilišu. It is possible to read the advice that the sender offered
to his "friend":

"In the Assembly, in the debate, do not give up (lit. do not forgive this
Ipqu-ilišu). No matter how strong words you will say to each other, face
to face, the gentlemen will take position against (lit. will shout) Ipqu-
ilišu, the judge. Besides, they will send me a copy of their tablets (and)
the Lord118 will inform the king about the debate, considering what has
119
been told to him" (AbB 2:15-25).

This document is very interesting because the decision against the judge is
taken for granted. This situation allows us to infer that the resolution of the dispute
was established elsewhere and not by the Assembly of Sippar and that it was
reduced to a mise en scène.

There are other elements to analyse the rapport between Ilšu-ibni and Iluni.
In AbB 12.3, it is again Iluni who informs his mate of Sippar about the actions taken
by him in order to help his "friend" in the "Ipqu-ilišu affair":

" Considering the letter of yours that you sent me, I put in motion (lit.
instigate) the gentleman (Nabium-Nāsir) and (as a consequence) I
received a tablet from the king and a tablet from the gentleman
(ordering) that Ipqu-iliši be summoned to the city (Babylon)" (AbB 12.3:
4-9)120.

118 Although the letters sent from Iluni never say who "the lord" is, it is possible to deduce
that "the lord" is Nabium-nāsir.
119 15i-na pu-uh -ri-im i-na da-ba-bi-im 16pa-ni ip-qu – i -li -šu šu-a-ti la tu-ub-ba-al 17ma-la a-
2 2 3 2
wa-ti-ku-nu ša at-ta u3 šu-u2 18i-na pu-uh2-ri a-wi-lum a-na pa-ni a-wi-lim (l.e.) 19ta-da-ab-
bu-ba (rev) 20 [a-wi-l]u-u2 i-na mu-uh2-hi ip-qu2 – i3-li2-šu d i. ku 5 21i-ša-aš2-su-u2 22u3 tup-pa-
ti-šu-nu me-eh-ra-am 23u3-ša-ab-ba-lu-nim a-na zi-mi da-ba-bi 24ša i-še-em-mu-u2 25a-wi-lum
šar-ra-am u2-la-am-ma-ad
120 4[aš-š]um tup-pi -ka ša tu-ša-bi-lam 5a-wi-lam u -de-ek-ki-ma 6[t]up-pi ša[r-r]i-im u tup-
2 2 2 3
pi2 a-wi-l[i]m 7a-[n]a a-li-im [Pi]p-qu2 – i3-li2-šu d i. ku 5 8[šu]-li-im 9it-ta-al-kam

63
 Iluni uses the expression awīlam udekkīma121 which I interpret as a repeated
claim to Nabium-nāsir asking to resolve the problem. This may seem to be only a
minor detail but, in fact, it demonstrates on the one side, the zeal of Iluni who
would do anything in order to solve his mate's problems (or at least, the intention to
show himself before Ilšu-ibni this way) and on the other side, the close relationship
between Iluni and Nabium-nasir, as no everyone may be insistent with his superior.

There is another letter (AbB 12.1), not directly related to the documents
presented up to this point, which shows the network of relationships of Ilšu-ibni. In
this case, the sender was a woman called Amat-Šamaš. The salutation formula by
Šamaš and Aya, as well as her name indicates that she was nadītum of Šamaš who
lived in the gagûm of Sippar. As the name was very common between the nadītums it
is not possible to establish which of them she was. But, what is clear is that she and
Ilšu-ibni had mutual affairs. The woman seems to have been in difficulty and asked
him to help her.

There were other persons connected to Ilšu-ibni: the "barber" Ipqu-Nabium

(AbB 12.6), the judge Sin-rēmēni (AbB 12.6; AbB 12.8) and the "general" Ibni-
Amurrum (AbB 12.8). All of them helped Ilšu-ibni, although it is not possible to
establish how. Together with them there were other minor personages sent from
Babylon: Ninurta-nīšu (AbB 12.2), Sin-iddinam, Sin-mušallim, Usur-pī-Ištar (AbB
12.6). Ilšu-ibni also helped a man called Ubar-Nabium in a dispute (AbB 12.9).
Finally, he engaged in disputes with another Ilšu-ibni, a governor of Sippar, and
with the judge Ipqu-ilišu.

To synthesise, the analysis of this group of letters shows –considering Ilšu-

ibni as the centre of the plot- the relationships that existed between persons that
were initially linked by hierarchical labour relationships and that were members of
a network the goal of which was to carry out agricultural affairs in the region of
Sippar, but operating also from Babylon. Nevertheless, the situations demonstrate
that the links were not restricted to the sending of guidelines or to the notification of

121 CAD D: 128 ad. dekû, 5.

64
activities. In their interaction, these men constructed rapports that went beyond the
everyday tasks that were activated in case of necessity.

b- The Nature of the Relationships.

In the previous point I tried to identify, although as a hypothesis, the quality of the
connections glimpsed in the letters. In this section I will pay attention to one of the
several interwoven stories and to the strategies used by the different personages in
order to reach their own goals.

The documents AbB 12.2, AbB 12.3, AbB 12.7, AbB 12.8, AbB 12.72 are part
of dialogues –that in some cases were simultaneous- between the different actors of
this play. In their discourses we can find traces of their own interests.

It is not possible to establish precisely the order in which the documents

were written. But each one of them contributes to reconstruct a conflict that
involved, in different degrees, Ilšu-ibni, el judge Ipqu-ilišu, Iluni y Nabium-nāsir.
The letter AbB 12.72 sent by Nabium-nāsir to an unknown important personage of
Sippar, will string together the spread information.

The origin of the problem seems to have been a dispute over the possession
of a field in the district of Našiareš (AbB 12.8; AbB 12.72)122. This is what Nabium-
nāsir said:

"(As for) this Ipqu-ilišu, who used force against me and continued
123
cultivating the rented field after I have complained to my Lord in
124
accordance with my contract and I have received the ... field" (AbB
12.72:17-22).

122 There is another letter that gives information about a field in the area of Našiareš (AbB
12.6) but it is not possible to assure that is the same field.
123 He refers to the king. See: AbB 12.7.
124 17 Pip-qu – i -li -šu šu-u 18ša a-na e-mu-qi -im u -te-er-ru-n[i] (rev) 19a. ša šu-su -ti i-ri-šu
2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2
[x] 20[i]š-tu a-na pi2-i ri-ik-sa-ti-i[a x x] 21ma-har be-l[i2]-ia a-da-ab-bu-bu-ma 22a.ša 3 bi-ir-tam
e-le-eq-qu2-u2

65
 How is it possible that Ipqu-ilišu continued cultivating a field that,
apparently was assigned to another person? Maybe because he was the former
possessor and did not accept the new situation. That is why, although there was a
new contract …

"He kept complaining because of the field (in the) district of Našiareš
125
before my lord" (AbB 12.72:26-27)

Why did he lose the exploitation of the field? Perhaps, as a consequence of a

bad administration and because he did not pay the taxes:

"In order to irrigate (and) check this field and to collect under pressure
the rent of the field of the last 3 years, the gentleman sent Nanna-
126
Mansum, the mu'errum and his servant to Sippar" (AbB 12.72:27-31)

Perhaps, due to this fact, Ipqu-ilišu lost the field and Babylon decided to give
the exploitation to another man: Ilšu-ibni, who seemed to administer things
differently:

" … and (now) the field has been released to Ilšu-ibni, my charge
127
d'affaires and the rent of the field has been collected and deposited"
(AbB 12.72:32-33).
This fact could explain the anger of Ipqu-ilišu against Ilšu-ibni. Possibly he
saw in his neighbour the cause of his misfortune. In this point the information of
other letters is very important: we know that Ipqu-ilišu went to the Assembly, a

125 26 aš-šum a. ša 3 a. gar 3 na-ši-a-re-eš ma-har be-li2-ia 27[i]d-da-ab-ba-ba a-na a. ša 3 šu-a-ti

su2-up-p[i3-i]m
126 27[i]d-da-ab-ba a-na a. ša
3 šu-a-ti su2-up-p[i2-i]m
28[a-n]a sa-na-qi -im u gu . un. hi. a
2 3 2
a. ša 3 ša i[š-tu mu] 3.kam 29[u]s-su2-ri-im-ma šu-ud-du-nim 30 a-wi-lum dnanna –
ma. an. sum gal. unkin. na er im ka 2 e 2 . gal 31 u3 su2-ha-ar-šu a-na zimbir ki it ̣-ru-dam

127 32 [u3] a. ša 3 a-na d ingir -šu – ib-ni be-el pi2-ha-ti-ia 33[x x]x (posiblemente [wu-šu-u]r) u 3
gu 2 . un. hi. a a. ša 3 šu-ud-du-na-ma ša-ak-na 34 [x] x u2-te-er-ra-am gu 4 . apin. hi. a-ia

66
local institution128, where he exposed his case and attacked Ilšu-ibni, as expressed in
129.
a document sent from Ilšu-ibni to Iluni :

" 'Ipqu-ilišu, the judge, has vituperated against me in the Assembly. May
a written order be issued that my complaint must be investigated'"130
(AbB 12.2: 6-8).

The judge, considering that nothing was enough to punish Ilšu-ibni, did not
allow him to leave the city, as another letter, sent to Nabium-nāsir, informs us:

" 'Ipqu-ilišu, the judge, did to me something rotten!!; he has confined me

131
to the city' " (AbB 12.7:5-7).

Nabium-nāsir seems to talk about the same situation in the letter sent to the
powerful unknown personage of Sippar:

"What is (this) report that the judge Ipqu-ilišu has bound the slaves and
132
the dependants of my family?" (AbB 12.72:13-16).

It is obvious why Ilšu-ibni asked for assistance from Iluni (AnN 12.2 and AbB
133
12.3) and from Nabium-nāsir (AbB 12.7), who were in Babylon . In the former
section it was anticipated that both helped Ilšu-ibni; nevertheless, their motives
seem to have be different. There are some nuances that distinguish those of Iluni
from those of Nabium-nāsir. The letter AbB 12.3 has been previously analysed; it
shows Iluni very interested in demonstrating to his "friend", Ilšu-ibni, the efforts he
made to find a solution for his problems. In doing so, he let Ilšu-ibni understand

128 See: Seri (2005: 159-180)

129 This letter is not part of the dossier because it was never found, but there is a reference to
it in AbB 12.2.
130 6 Pip-qu – i -li -šu d i. ku i-na pu-uh -ri-im 7ma-ga-al id-bu-ba-am li-iš-ša-ap-ra-am-ma
2 3 2 5 2
8ar (sic)-ka-at da-ba-bi-ia li-ip-pa-ri-is
131 5um-ma at-ta-ma Pi[p-q]u
2 – i3-li2-šu d i. ku 5
6[ša e-li-i]a mar-sa-at i-te-pu-uš 7
3
ka 2 . gal. hi. a uš-ta-di-a-a[n-ni]
132 13[m]i-nu-u a-wa-tum-ma 14[P]ip-qu – i -li -šu d i. ku [x x] 15[a]r-di e -ia u se-eh-he-r[u-
2 2 3 2 5 2 3
ti-ia] 16ra-ki-is.
133 In AbB 12.3 there are some diacritics that allow us to establish that Iluni was in Babylon,

Nabium-nāsir, too. There are several hints in AbB 12.5:39-42; AbB 12.7:20-21.

67
that, thanks to his "influence" (his insistent claims to Nabium-nāsir), the lord did
something and as a consequence the documents ordering Ipqu-ilišu to go to
Babylon arrived. But in the answer of Nabium-nāsir there is, of course, no reference
to the "active negotiations" of Iluni. The lord simply helped his subordinate because
he could not accept Ipqu-ilišu attacking his chargé d'affaires; Ilšu-ibni represented
his own interests in the region. As a consequence of the actions of the judge,
Nabium-nāsir reacted in a threatening fashion, as the letter sent to the unknown
man in Sippar shows:

"I will make this Ipqu-ilišu experience a harsh verdict in the presence of
134
my Lord" (AbB 12.72:23-25).

It is clear now that when Ipqu-ilišu began his escalation of violence he was
unable to calculate the real weight of the person whom he was really facing, which
was not Ilšu-ibni but Nabium-nāsir, acting from Babylon with the support of the
political power.

This is not the only conflict that involved Ilšu-ibni and Nabium-nāsir and it is
not the only situation in which the powerful Babylonian man shows himself defiant.
There is another letter that gives an example of this. AbB 12.5 presents a dispute
between our well known Ilšu-ibni and another Ilšu-ibni who had the title of šapir
zimbir ki, governor of Sippar. Although the facts are not very clear -there are
internal contradictions in the document-, it presents a conflict that originated
because the two Ilšu-ibnis had an agreement, to exchange an ox for an ox, but it
seems that the Ilšu-ibni, the governor, decided not to keep his word. It is possible to
infer from the letter that he had to go to Babylon to explain the case. This is an
important point because shows that the power of Nabium-nāsir was so big as to
order a local governor to go to the capital city to solve what seems to be a private
problem.

"They brought this Ilšu-ibni to me and I spoke to him as follows: 'They

say that they gave you a rear ox for 10 shekels of silver and that you

134 23u ip-qu – i2-li2-šu šu-a-ti 24di-nam ma-ar-sa ma-har be-li2-ia 25u2-ka-al-la-am-šu
3 2

68
 handed over a sales document. What is this report that you caused a
complaint? Ilšu-ibni the governor of Sippar said: 'Ilšu-ibni, your servant
and I exchanged an ox for an ox and we had a sales document drawn
up. The ox which I received was delivered to me one month ago. I will
135
not change my contract'. This is what he said." (AbB 12.5:17-28).

The answer of the governor shows that there was not place for negotiations, as
if the presence of Nabium-nāsir would have been enough to make anyone change
plans; the only thing that the governor could do was to observe the agreement. But
it is obvious that these are speculations based on Nabium-nāsir's discourse who
could have constructed an image of himself that did not correspond to reality.

But the relationships between Ilšu-ibni, Iluni and Nabium-nāsir were not only
based on orders, reports, conflicts. There is a last document that shows another
angle of the relationship between Ilšu-ibni and Nabium-nāsir. AbB 12.9 deals with
another request. In this case, Ilšu-ibni asked a favour not for himself but for another
person: Ubar-Nabium, a crown official who was in Sippar. It seems that this man
had problems with his brothers because of the sale of a slave. He had been
summoned to Babylon. It is evident that he talked to Ilšu-ibni, who promised to
help him. It is not possible to establish why Ilšu-ibni was interested in the familial
affairs of Ubar-Nabium. We read:

"May my lord speak in accordance with his high position to the

honourable personnel manager, so that his complaint will be
investigated, and so that he, like his eldest brother … will receive 12
shekels of silver. May my lord look for the honourable personnel
manager and take him … so that he will go to his duties. You, my lord,
136
come!" (AbB 12.9: 15'-22').

135 17 Pd ingir -šu - i[b-n]i šu-a-ti u2-qe2-er-r[i-b]u-nim-ma (l.e.) 18ki-a-am aq-bi-šum i-qa2-ab-
bu-m[a] 19 gu 4 ar-ki-a a-na 10 gin 2 ku 3 . babbar 20id-di-nu-ni-ik-ku (rev) 21 u3 ka-ni-ik ši-ma-
tim ta-ad-di-in 22mi-nu-u3 a-wa-tum-ma da-ba-ba-am tu-še-er-ši 23 Pd ingir -šu – ib-ni ša-pir
zimbir ki 24um-ma šu-ma a-na-ku u3 d ingir -šu - ib-ni ir 3-ka 25 gu 4 ki-ma gu 4 nu-up-te-eh-
ma 26 ka-ni-ik ši-ma-tim nu-uš-te-<<te>>-zi-ib 27 gu 4 ša el-qu2-u2 it i. 1. kam ma-ah-ri-ia iš-
š[a-ak-n]a 28 ri-ik-sa-ti-ia u2-ul e-en-ni an-ni-tam iq-b[i]
136 15'l[i-i]q-bi-ma da-ba-[a]b-šu [l]i-in-na-me-[er] 16'u ki-ma a-hu-šu ra-b[u-um x x]-bu (s.e.)
3
17'2 gin
2 ku 3 . babbar li-[...]
18'be-li a-wi-lam a-b[i er im ...] 19'li-iš-i x [...] 20'l[i]-i[l]-q[e -šu-
2 2
ma] (l.e.) 21' [l]i-iš-te-bi-ir-šu-ma a-na pi2-ha-[ti-šu] 22' [l]i-it-ta-al-kam be-li2 at-ta al-k[am]

69
Personal Relationships, Bureaucracy and Social Networks: the path of Power.

Up to this point we have seen two fascinating plots that occurred in different spaces
and times: one in Larsa, during the period in which Babylonia reached its maximum
limits, during Hammurabi's reign; and the other one in Sippar, during a period in
which the reign had lost its past splendour and barely controlled its frontiers from
pressuring groups. Nevertheless, it is possible to individuate certain common
characteristics when analysing the strategies developed by certain groups or
individuals in order to guarantee themselves their position in society.

The singular stories are only the manifestation of deeper processes that are
the very object of study of this work. Through the stories it is possible to glimpse
several phenomena.

First, many of the conflicts and disputes registered in the letters were of a
private nature. They were resolved through different channels even simultaneously.
It is possible to think that ordinary people tried to find solutions appealing to the
closer circle of "friendship", to more immediate (physically as well as emotionally)
persons. I am referring to "instrumental" friendship and not to the emotional one. In
instrumental friendship instrumental friendship each member of the dyad acts as a
potential connecting link to other persons outside the dyad. Each participant is a
sponsor for the other. In the cases under analysis, it is possible to see that this kind
of friendship was used to accelerate or secure matters through the personal
influence of an acquaintance who was in power or knew a third party who could be
influenced. Despite the instrumental character of these relationships, however, a
minimal element of affection remains an important ingredient in the rapport. If it is
not present, it must be feigned because when the instrumental purposes of the

70
relationship clearly take the upper hand, the bond is in danger of disruption137. This
attitude may be perceived in the salutations and the closings of some letters. In the
case of canning or socially well-positioned persons capable of creating a larger
network, there was another possibility: to ask for aid from powerful yet socially
distanced individuals, engaging in a patron-client type of relationship138. Such ties
would prove especially functional in situations in which the formal institutional
structure of society is weak and unable to deliver a sufficiently steady supply of
goods and services, especially to the terminal levels of the social order.

Second, in the letters we see that over a network of labour relationships, in

which hierarchy was imposed by function, there was another network, which was
activated because of certain circumstances that were outside the sphere of labour.
This second network, which overlapped the labour one, was larger and far reaching;
the relationships in both cases were asymmetrical, and linked persons of lesser
social positions. The weaker part appealed to the stronger one, asking for protection
and benefits, evidencing the existence of patron-client relationships in this society.
Considering the information of the letters it is not possible to establish which were
the counterparts of these favours, but we can take advantage of anthropological
studies on the matter. Certainly, the stronger part expected loyalty and esteem; also
information of the machinations of others and assistance, which included personal

137 One may speculate about the function of this emotional burden. The initial situation of
friendship is one of reciprocity, not of a strict quid pro quo kind but of more generalized
reciprocity. The relationship aims at a large and unspecified series of performances of
mutual assistance. The charge of affection may thus be seen as a device for keeping the
relationship one of open trust or open credit. The charge of affection that retains the
character of balanced reciprocity between equals may be seen as a device to ensure the
continuity of the relationship in the face of possible ensuing imbalance. Hence, too, the
relation is threatened when one party is too clearly exploitative of the other. Similarly, if a
favour is not forthcoming, the relation is broken and the way is left open for a realignment of
friendship bonds. Instrumental friendship thus contains an element that provides sanctions
within the relationship itself (Wolf 2001: 166-183).
138 Patronage is an asymmetrical relationship between one party, the patron, and another

one, the client. This relationship is personal and employs a 'family' or 'friendship'
terminology. The patron necessarily posseses honour and prestige within society. He may be
wealthy, but it is not only his economic but social status that allows patronage to exist in
society. For an introduction to this issue see Pitrone (1994); Gellner and Waterbury (1977);
Wolf (2001).

71
services to be rendered within a period of time that was not necessary immediately
(Gellner and Waterbury 1977).

A benefit of these kind of practices –instrumental friendship and patron-

client relationship- could have been the increase in the social prestige of the stronger
part, which among other variables, could have been based on his ability to manage
influences which was part of his social capital (Bourdieu and Wacquant 2008: 159);
capital that every personage had in order to construct and consolidate a position
inside the social space (campus) where he acted. This seems to be repeated in
different segments of the network.

The letters also allow us to glimpse not only the central power's relationships
within its own local officialdom and with the local powers, but also to understand
the motivations of the individuals' actions.

When analysing the situation of Larsa we see that the illegal appropriation of
land seems not to have been an isolated deed. There appear hints of tacit
agreements that might have been established between the officials, in order to delay
or to override accusations against their workmates, traces of the difficulties of the
victims when trying to denounce these practices to Hammurabi and the central
bureaucracy, resulting of the officialdom’s “own rules”. So, is it possible to think
that some of the conflicts were silenced before they could reach the ears of the king?
May we think that higher and lower officials may have entered into informal
alliances to ensure the smooth prosecution of their relationships, to protect
themselves from unbidden inquiries from the central bureaucracy, or from inside
competition for some kind of social prestige? We can also find signs of "minor"
corruption such as bribery or swindle. Perhaps they were not singular offences. We
can ask ourselves if all these practices could have been an "illegal subsystem" for the
state, but a “code” which was normal for the officialdom, or at least for part of it?
Finally, may we consider these practices as a limit to the central power, which was
not able to control the internal affairs of its own regional bureaucracy?

72
 It is clear that old states did not work the way they were supposed to
(indeed, even modern ones do not)(Cowgill [1988] 1995: 244-276). But this cannot
lead us to think that they did not function at all. The nature of the documents helps
to distort our view as they deal with deviances. In some cases we see that the central
bureaucracy could not have realized what the officialdom in Larsa was doing; in
other cases over-acted, controlling things that seem to us to be trivial matters, for
example when Hammurabi scolded some gardeners because they cut a tree without
permission! Nevertheless, Hammurabi and the central bureaucracy did not have, or
maybe did not want to have, total control over the situations. As Wolf stresses,
"There are political resources which are essential to the operation of the system, and the
system will try to remain in control of these. But there are also resources and organizations
which could be either too costly or too difficult to bring under direct control, and in this case
the system yields its sovereignty to competitive groups that are allowed to function in its
entrails. At other times, informal social relations are responsible for the metabolic processes
required to keep the formal institution operating".

The case of Sippar, on the other hand, points to a private problem, but
perhaps, is in fact the reflex of a deeper, generalized but elusive phenomenon. When
reconstructing the dispute of Ilšu-ibni with Ipqu-ilišu, it is not simple to explain
why someone ho seems to have been an important personage of the society of
Sippar's society, the judge Ipqu-ilišu, was relegated so easily to an uncomfortable
position. In this affair, the relationships of Ilšu-ibni may be traced, but not those of
the judge. By analogy, it could be thought that Ipqu-ilišu also had a network to
appeal to in case of necessity. The decisions that he took against the subordinate of
Nabium-nāsir, the powerful man of Babylon, certainly could not have been taken
without the agreement and support of a collective or at least of certain powerful
personages of Sippar. It seems in this case that the judge could not measure his
position in the field because of his position in the field. I believe that it is important to
consider the extent to which these personal conflicts could have reflected only
clashes of personal interests, or may have been manifestations of deeper social
divisions based on local loyalties conflicting with the central one.

73
 All the cases show power in action, not in the traditional way, that of
situations of forced imposition, but instead in circumstances in which weaker
individuals in a consenting relationship indirectly helped powerful persons to grow
even more socially and to obtain even more power. Those who did not understand
the rules of the game or who did not have social capital or anything to
offer/exchange were excluded. It was through these social networks that power
flowed. Some personages acquired power thanks to a position in the bureaucratic
apparatus, as in the case of some officials of Larsa; power that originated in the
function that the state assigned to them. Other persons based their power on
tradition and prestige, which was the case of local authorites; and in some cases
there was a mixed situation. As I stated at the begining of this analysis, the external
forces and powers needed the agreement of the local notables because they had
prestige and, therefore, the control of many situations. The central power needed
the cooperation of the local powerful men but when choosing one and not another
one this fact affected the balance of local power. So, when the situation of
domination was long-lasting, conflicts arose because different actors began to claim
a share of the local power, although not on the same grounds.

To what extent did the authorities –of foreign or local origins- who obtained
power because they belonged to the state machinery clashed with the interests of
the old elites? To what extent did they joint together in order to obtain major
benefits against the great majority of society, which was only a witness to this game
in which it could not really participate?

The restrictions that the documents impose hinder us from composing

immediate answers to these questions but at least allow us to form hypotheses that
enlarge the limits of what can be conceived and, in some occasions of what can be
conceptualized.

74
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABBREVIATIONS:

CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago (Chicago 1956 ff.)
CT Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum (London
1896 ff.)
PAPS Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society (Philadelphia 1838 ff.)
TCL Textes cunéiformes, Musées du Louvre (Paris 1910 ff.)
VAS Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmaler

EDITED TEXTS:

Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung (=AbB ), Leiden: Brill.

AbB 1 KRAUS, F. R. Briefe aus dem British Museum (CT 43 und 44). 1964.
AbB 2 FRANKENA, R. Briefe aus dem British Museum (LIH und CT 2-33).
1966.
AbB 3 FRANKENA, R. Briefe aus der Leidener Sammlung (TLB IV). 1968.
AbB 4 KRAUS, F. R. Briefe aus dem Archive des Šamaš-hāzir in Paris und
Oxford (TCL 7 und OECT 3). 1968.
AbB 5 KRAUS, F. R. Briefe aus dem Istambuler Museum. 1972.
AbB 6 FRANKENA, R. Briefe aus dem Berliner Museum. 1974.
AbB 7 KRAUS, F. R. Briefe aus dem British Museum (CT 52) 1977.
AbB 8 CAGNI, L. Briefe aus dem Iraq Museum (TIM II). 1980.
AbB 9 STOL, M. Letters from Yale. 1981.
AbB 10 KRAUS, F. R. Briefe aus kleineren westeuropäischen Sammlungen.
1985.
AbB 11 STOL, M. Letters from Collections in Philadelphia, Chicago and
Berkeley. 1986.
AbB 12 VAN SOLDT, W. H. Letters in the British Museum. 1990.
AbB 13 VAN SOLDT, W. H. Letters in the British Museum. Part 2. 1994.
AbB 14 VEENHOF, K. Letters in the Louvre. 2005.

75
ADAMS, R. MC.
1981 Heartland of Cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1982 "Die Rolle des Bewässerungsbodenbau bei der Entwicklung von
Institutionen in der altmesopotamischen Gesellschaft" in J. HERRMAN
(Ed.) Produktivkräfte und Gesellschaftsformationen in vorkapitalistischer Zeit,
pp. 131–148. Berlin: Akademie–Verlag.
2009 "Old Babylonian Networks of Urban Notables" in Cuneiform Digital Library
Journal 7 http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2009/cdlj2009_007.html

ANBAR, M.
1975 "Textes de l'époque babylonienne ancienne" Revue d'assyriologie et
d'archéologie orientale 69: 109-136
1978 "Textes de l époque babylonienne ancienne II: Les archives de Šēp-Sîn", in:
RA 72 in Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale 72: 113-138.
1991 Les tribus amurrites de Mari, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Band 18,
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

ANBAR, M. AND M. STOL

1991 "Textes de l'époque babylonienne ancienne III" Revue d'assyriologie et
d'archéologie orientale 85: 13-48.

ǺSTRÖM, P. (ed.)
1987 High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute
Chronology Held at the University of Gotherburg, 20th-22nd August 1987. Part I.
Gothenburg: P. Ǻströms Förlag.

BECKMAN, G.
2000 Old Babylonian Archival Texts in the Yale Babylonian Collection. Catalogue of
the Babylonian Collections at Yale 4. Bethesda: CDL Press.

BORGER, R.
1971 "Gott Marduk und Gottkönig Sulgi als Propheten" in Bibliotheca
Orientalis 38: 3-24.

BOTTERO, J.
1961 "Desordre économique et annulation des dettes en Mésopotamie à
l'epoque paléo-babylonienne" in Journal of Economic and Social History of the
Orient 4: 113-163.
1977 "Les noms de Marduk, l’écriture et la logique en Mésopotamie ancienne"
in M. DE JONG-ELLIS (Ed.) Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of

76
 J.Finkelstein, pp. 5-28 [Memories of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and
Sciences 19].

BOURDIEU, P.
1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1993 "Some properties of fields" in P. BOURDIEU Sociology in Question: pp. 72–77.
London: Sage.

BOURDIEU, P. & L. WACQUANT

(1992) [1992] An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

BOUZON, E.
1992 "O alcance social da simdat šarrim nos contratos paleobabilónicos de
Larsa” Cadmo 2: 77-100.

BRAUDEL, F.
1953 [1949] Civiltà e imperi del Mediterraneo nell'età di Filippo II, Torino: Einaudi.

BRECKWOLDT, T.
1995 Economic Mechanics in Old Babylonian Larsa (Cambridge, unpublished
dissertation)

BRINKMAN, J.
1984 “Settlement Surveys and Documentary Evidence: Regional Variation and
Secular Trend in Mesopotamian Demography", Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 43: 169-80.

BIROT, M.
1969 Tablettes économiques et administratives d’époque babylonienne ancienne. Paris:
Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner.

BROSIUS, M. (Ed.)
2003 Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions. Concepts of Record Keeping in the
Ancient World, Oxford: University Press.
BRUSASCO. P.
1999-2000. Family Archives and the Social Use of Space in Old Babylonian
Houses at Ur in Mesopotamia 34-35: 3-174.

77
BUTZ, K.
1980–1983 "Landwirtschaft", Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen
Archaologie, Vol. 6, pp. 470–486. Berlin and New York: W. de Gruyter.

BUTZER, K.
1995 "Environmental Change in the Near East and Human Impact on the Land"
in J. SASSON (Ed.) Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. I, pp. 123-125.
New York: Scribner's.

CASTELLINO, G.R.
1976 "The Šamaš Hymn: A Note on its Structure" in Kramer Anniversary Volume:
cuneiform studies in honour of Samuel Noah Kramer. AOAT 25: 71-74.

CERUTTI, S.
1992 Mestieri e privilegi. Nascita delle corporazioni a Torino, secc. XVII-XVIII,
Torino: Einaudi.

CHARPIN, D.
1978 “Recherches sur la dynastie de Mananâ (I) : essai de localisation et de
chronologie", Revue d’Assyriologie 72 : 13-40.
1980a Archives familiales et propriété privée en Babyloine ancienne: étude des
documents de "Tell Sifr", Hautes Études Orientales 12. Genève-Paris:
Librairie Droz.
1980b "Remarques sur l'administration Paleobabylonienne sous les successeurs
d'Hammurapi", Journal of American Oriental Society 100.4: 461-471.
1985 "Données nouvelles sur la chronologie des souverains d’Ešnunna" in J. M.
DURAND and J. KUPPER (Eds.) Miscelanea babylonica. Mélanges offertes á
Maurice Birot, pp. 51-66. Paris: Éditions Recherches sur les Civilizations.
1986a Le clergé. D'Ur au siclè d'Hammurabi (XIXe-XVIIIe siclès av.J.C.), Hautes
Études Orientales 22. Genève-Paris: Librairie Droz.
1886b "Transmission des titres de propriété et constitution des archives privées
en Babylonie ancienne" in K. VEENHOF (Ed.) Cuneiform Archives and
Libraries. Papers Read at the 30e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale,
Leiden 4-8 July, 1983, pp. 121-140. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Instituut te Istambul.
1987 "Notices prospographiques, 2; des descendants de Balmunamhe", NABU
1987/36.
1989 "Un Quartier de Nippur et le probleme des écoles à l'époque palé-
babylonienne" , Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale 83: 97-112.
1990 "Un Quartier de Nippur et le probleme des ècoles à l'èpoque palèo-
babylonienne (suite)", Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale 84: 1-15.

78
1990b "Les édits de restauration des rois babyloniens et leur application" in CL.
NICOLET (ed.) Du pouvoir dans l’antiquité: mots et réalité, pp. 13-24. Genève:
Librairie Droz
2000 "Les prêteurs et le palais: les édicts de mîsarum des rois de Babylone et
leur traces dans les archives privées", in H. BONGENAAR (Ed.),
Interdependency of Institutions and Private Entrepreneurs. Proceedings of the
second MOS symposium (Leiden 1998). MOS Studies 2. PIHANS 87, pp. 185-
211. Leiden: NINO
2001 "Comptes rendus", Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale 93 : 81-96.
2003 "La politique immobilière des marchands de Larsa à la lumière des
découvertes épigraphiques de 1987 et 1989" in J.-L. HUOT (Ed.), Larsa,
travaux de 1987 et 1989, pp. 311-322. Beyrouth: Institut Français
d'Archéologie du Proche-Orient
2004 “Histoire Politique du Proche-Orient Amorrite (2002-1595)” in CHARPIN,
D., D. O. EDZARD and M. STOL, Mesopotamien. Die Altbabylonische Zeit
(=OBO 160/4) pp. 25-484. Fribourg-Göttingen: Academic Press –
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
2005 “Chroniques Bibliographiques 5. Économie et société à Sippar et en
Babylonie du Nord à l'époque paléo-babylonienne", Revue d'Assyriologie et
d'Archéologie orientale 99: 133-176.
(in press) " 'Garde ma lettre en témoignage'. Le rôle de la correspondance dans le
système juridique mésopotamien de la première moitié du deuxième
Millénaire av. n. è" in U. YIFTACH-FIRANKO (Ed.), Documents in Ancient
History: First Meeting. "The Letter". The American Academy, Rome, 28-
30/09/2008, PHILIPPIKA. Marburg: Marburger altertumskundliche
Abhandlungen.
(in press) "L'historien face aux archives paléo-babyloniennes" in H.D. BAKER, B.
JANKOVIC AND M. JURSA (Ed.) Too much data? Generalizations and model-high
rise in ancient economic history one the basis of wide corpora of documentary
evidence, Münster: AOAT. (English version in www.digiorient.com/?=190)

CHARPIN, D., D. O. EDZARD and M. STOL

2004 Mesopotamien. Die Altbabylonische Zeit (=OBO 160/4), Fribourg-Göttingen:
Academic Press – Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

COWGILL, G.L.
1995 [1988] Onward and Upward with Collapse, in N. YOFFEE – G. L. COWGILL (Ed.),
The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations, pp. 244-276. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.

79
DE BERNARDI/ DI BENNARDIS, C.
2006 Procesos étnicos y poder político. Recuperación y comprensión de la etnicidad en
una sociedad extinguida: la Mesopotamia del III milenio a.C. (Universidad
Nacional de Rosario, unpublished dissertation)
2011 "¿Discutir el origen del estado o discutir las especificidades de los estados en
la antigüedad? El caso Mesopotamia III y II milenios a.C." in Estudios
Interdisciplinarios de Historia Antigua vol. IIII, C. AMES and M. SAGRISTANI
(comps.) pp. 131-145. Córdoba: Editorial Brujas.

DE BERNARDI/DI BENNARDIS, C. and E. RAVENNA

2006 "Orientalism’ in Latin-american Prospect” in Studi Semitici, NS 21: 285-
294.

DEKIERE, L.
1994a Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents from Sippar in the British Museum. Part
I, Pre-Hammurabian Documents, Mesopotamian and History Environment
Texts II/1, Ghent: University of Ghent.
1994b Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents from Sippar in the British Museum Part
II, Documents from the Reign of Hammurabi, Mesopotamian and History
Environment Texts II/2, Ghent: University of Ghent.
1995a Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents from Sippar in the British Museum Part
III, Documents from the reign of Samsu-iluna, Mesopotamian and History
Environment Texts II/3, Ghent: University of Ghent.
1995b Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents from Sippar in the British Museum Part
IV, Post Samsu-iluna Documents, Mesopotamian and History Environment
Texts II/4, Ghent: University of Ghent.
1996 Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents from Sippar in the British Museum Part
V, Documents without Date or with Date Lost, Mesopotamian and History
Environment Texts II/5, Ghent: University of Ghent.
1997 Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents from Sippar in the British Museum, Old
Babylonian Real State Documents. Documents from the series 1902-10-11 (from
Zabium to Ammi-ṣaduqa), Part VI, Mesopotamian and History Environment
Texts II/6, Ghent: University of Ghent.

de GENOUILLAC, H. (ed)
1936 Fouilles de Telloh I. Paris: Geuthner.

DE GRAEF, K.
2008 "Enemies … A Love Story. Personal Warfare in Old Babylonian Letters" in
Akkadica 129: 181-195.

80
DÉMARE LAFONT, S.
2003 Critical Review of E. Dombradi "Die Darstellung des Rechtsaustrags in
den altbalylonischen Prozeßurkunden". (Halbband I and Halbband II) in
Bibliotheca Orientalis LX N° 5-6: 652-661.
DE MEYER, L.
1978 "Documents épigraphiques paléo-babyloniens provenant des sondages A,
B, et D" in L. DE MEYER (Ed.) Tell ed-Dēr 2. Leuven: Peeters.

DIAKONOFF, I.
1971 “On the structure of the Old Babylonian Society” in H. KLENGEL, Beiträge
zur Sozialen Struktur des Altes Vorderasien, pp. 15-31. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag.
1982 “The structure of Near Eastern society before the middle of the 2nd
millenium B.C”, Oikumene 3: 7-100.

DIANHUA, Z.
1996 “On the role of Lu-Ninurta in Hammurapi's administrative
structure", Journal of Ancient Civilizations 11: 111-122.

DONBAZ, V. AND N. YOFFEE

1986 Old Babylonian Texts from Kish Conserved in the Istambul Archaeological
Museums, (BiMes 17). Undena Publications: Malibu.

DOSSIN, G.
1938 “Les archives épistolarires du palais de Mari” Syria 19: 105-126. (=Recueil
G. Dossin [1983: 114-115])

DURAND J. M.
1988 Archives Epistolaires de Mari, ARMT XXVI/1, Paris: Éditions Recherche sur
les Civilisations = ARMT XXVI/1.

DYCKHOFF, C.
1998 "Balmunamhe von Larsa, eine altbabilonische Existenz zwischen
Ökinomie Kults und Wissenschaft" in J. PROSCECKÝ (Ed.) Intellectual Life of
the Ancient Near East. Papers presented at the 43rd Rencontre
assyriologique internationale, Prague, July 1-5: 117-124. Prague: Academy
of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute.
1999 Das Haushaltbuch des Balunamhe (München, unpublished dissertation)

81
EDZARD, D. O.
1957 Die 'zweite Zwischenzeit' Babyloniens. Weisbaden: O. Harrassowitz.
1980-83 “Königsinschriften. A. Sumerisch” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und
voderasiatischen archeologie VII.
2004 “Altbabylonische Literatur und Religion” in D. CHARPIN, D. O. EDZARD
and M. STOL, Mesopotamien. Die Altbabylonische Zeit (=OBO 160/4): 485-
640. Fribourg-Göttingen: Academic Press – Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

ELLIS, M. DE J.
1976 Agriculture and the State in Ancient Mesopotamia (Occasional Publications of
the Babylonian Fund, 1). Philadelphia.
1977 "An Agricultural Administrative Archive in the Free Library of
Philadelphia" in Journal of Cuneiform Studies 29: 127-150.
1983 “Correlation of Archaeological and Written Evidence for the Study of
Mesopotamian Institutions and Chronology” in American Journal of
Archaeology 87: 497-507.
1986 "The Archive of the Old Babylonian Kittitum Temple and other Texts
from Ischali" in Journal of the American Oriental Society 106: 757-86.

FARBER, W.
1999 "Dr. med. Apil-ilišu, Mārat-Anim-Straße (am Ebabbar_Temel) Larsa" in B.
BÖCK, E. CARBERANCIK-KIRSCHBAUM, T. RICHTER (Ed.) Munuscula
Mesopotamica. Festchrift für Johannes Renger: 135-150. AOAT 267.

FAUBION, J. D. (ED)
2000 Power: Essential works of Foucault 1954-1984. New York: The New Press.

FEROLI, P., E. FIANDRA, G.G. FISSORE & M. FRANGIPANE (EDS.)

1994 Archives before Writing. Torino-Roma: Scriptorium

FINET, A.
1982 "Les autorités locales dans le rouyame de Mari" Akkadica 26: 1-16

FINLEY, M.I
1985 The Ancient Economy. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press.

FOSTER, B.R
1994 "Early Mesopotamian Land Sales" in Journal of the American Oriental Society
114: 440-452

82
FRAYNE, D. R.
1990 Old Babylonian Period (2003-1595 BC), Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia,
Early Periods, vol. 4. University of Toronto Press: Toronto (=RIME 4).

GALLERY, M.
1980 "The office of the šatammu in the Old Babylonian Period" Archiv für
Orientforschung 27: 1-36.

GALTER, H. D.
1995 “Cuneiform Bilingual Royal Inscriptions”, Israel Oriental Studies 15: 25-50

GANDULLA, B.
1993 “Avanzadas militares y asignación de tierras durante el reinado de
Hammurabi” Orientalia Argentina, vol. 10: 1-7

GASCHE, H.
1981 "Babylonie au 17e siècle avant notre ère: approche, archéologique,
problèmes et perspectives", Mesopotamian History and Environment, Series
II, Memoirs 1. Ghent: University of Ghent.

GASCHE, H. and M. TANRET (Eds.)

1998a Towards a Recontruction of the Ancient Environment in Lower Mesopotamia.
Mesopotamian History and Envirnoment. Series II, Memoires 5/1. Chicago:
University of Ghent and the Oriental Institute.
1998b (Eds.) Changing Watercourses in Babylonia, Ghent: University of Ghent.

GASCHE, H., A. ARMSTRONG, S.W. COLE and V. G. GURZADYAN

1998a Dating the Fall of Babylon. A Reappraisal of Second Millennium Chronology (A
Joint Ghent-Chicago-Harvard Project), Mesopotamian and History
Environment, Memoirs II: Memoirs IV, Ghent - Chicago: University of
Ghent and the Oriental Institute of Chicago.
1998b “A Correction to Dating the Fall of Babylon. A Reappraisal of Second
Millennium Chronology (=MHEM 4), Ghent and Chicago, 1998”, Akkadica
108: 1-4.

GEERTZ, C.
1973 "Thick description: towards an Interpretive Theory of Culture" in The
Interpretation of Cultures: selected Essays, pp. 3-30. New York: Basic Books

GELB. I
1971 "On the Alleged Temple and State Economies in Ancient Mesopotamia"
in Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra, Vol. 6, pp. 137-154. Giuffre: Milano.

83
GELLNER, E. and J. WATERBURY (Eds.)
1977 Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Society, London: Duchworth.

GINZBURG, C.
1976 Il formaggio e i vermi. Il cosmo di un mugnaio nel Cinquecento. Torino:
Einaudi.
1979 Spie. Radici di un paradigma indiziario in A. GARGANI, (a cura) Crisi della
ragione, Torino: Einaudi.
1984 “Prove e possibilità” in N. ZEMON DAVIS, Il ritorno di Martin Guerre, pp.
131-154. Torino: Einaudi.
1994a, "Aristotele, la storia, la prova" in Quaderni storici 85: 5-18.
1994b "Microstoria. Due o tre cose che so di lei" in Quaderni storici 86: 511-539.
2000 Rapporti di forza. Storia, retorica, prova, Milano: Feltrinelli.

GINZBURG, C. ET ALII
1980 "Paradigma indiziario e conoscenza storica. Dibattito su Spie di Carlo
Ginzburg". Interventi di Luciano Canfora, Mario Rosa, Rosario Villari,
Mario Vegetti, Giulio Girello, Aldo Schiamone, Salvatore Veca, Eva
Cantarella, Umberto Eco e Carlo Ginzburg" in Quaderni di Storia, anno
VI, numero 12: 3-54.

GODDEERIS, A.
2002 Economy and Society in Northern Babylonia in the Early Old Babylonian Period
(ca. 2000-1800 B.C.), Leiden - Paris - Sterling: Peeters and Department
Oosterse Studies.
2007 "The Old Babylonian Economy" in G. LEICK (Ed.) The Babylonian World,
pp. 198-209. London/New York: Routledge.

GOODY, J.
2006 The Theft of History, Cambridge: University Press.

GOULDNER, A.
1979 [1970] La crisis de la sociología occidental, Buenos Aires: Amorrortu.

GRENDI, E.
1977 "Microanalisi e storia sociale" in Quaderni storici 35: 506-520.
1994 "Ripensare la microstoria?" in Quaderni storici 86: 539-549.

84
GRAYSON, A. K.
1980-83 “Königslisten und Chroniken. B. Akkadisch” in Reallexikon der
Assyriologie und voderasiatischen Archaologie 6.

HALLO, W.
1963 "Royal Hymns and Mesopotamian Unity" Journal of Cuneiform Studies 17.4:
112-118.

HARRIS, R.
1975 Ancient Sippar. A Demographic Study of an Old Babylonian City (1984-1595),
Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istambul.

HARRIS, S.R.
1983 Land Conveyance in Old Babylonian Larsa (Ann Arbor, unpublished
dissertation).

HEIMPEL, W.
1986 "‘The Sun at Night and the Doors of Heaven in Babylonian Texts’, Journal
of Cuneiform Studies 38.2: 127-151.

HOBSBAWM, E.
1975 The Age of Capital 1848-1975. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
1987 The Age of Empire 1875-1914. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

HORVATH, R. J.
1972 “A definition of Colonialism” in Current Anthropology 13.1:45-57.

HORSNELL, M. J. A.
1999 The Year-Names of the First Dynasty of Babylon, Volume 1 Chronological
Matters--The Year-Name System and the Date-Lists. Hamilton: McMaster
University Press.

HUBER, P.J.
1984 Astronomical Dating of Babylon I and Ur III, Monographic Journals of the
Near East Occasional Papers on the Near East 1/4, Malibu: Undena.

HUBER, P.J. and A. SACHS

1982 Astronomical Dating of Babylon I and Ur III, Monographic Journals of the
Near East Occasional Papers on the Near East 1/4, Malibu: Undena.

85
HRUŠKA, B.
1985 "Der Umbruchpflug in den archaischen und altsumerischen Texten" in
Archiv Orientalni 53, pp. 46-65.
1995 "Sumerian Agriculture: New Findings". Preprint 26. Berlin: Max Planck
Institute for the History of Science.
2007 "Agricultural Techniques" in G. LEICK (Ed.) The Babylonian World, pp. 54-
65. London/New York: Routledge.
JANSSEN, C.
1991 “Samsu-iluna and the Hungry nadītums” in Northern Akkad Project Reports
5, pp. 3-39. Ghent: University Press.
1992 "Inanna-mansum et ses fils: relation d'une succession turbulente dans les
archives d'Ur-Utu" in Revue d’Assyriologie 86: 19-52.
1996 "When the house is on fire and the children are gone" in K. VEENHOF
(Ed.), Houses and Households in Ancient Mesopotamia. Papers read at the
40th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, July 5-8, 1993 pp.
237-246.

KALLA, G.
1999 “Die Geschichte der Entdeckung der altbabylonischen Sippar-Archive”,
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 89.2: 201-226.

KIENAST, B.
1976 "Ilku" in Reallexicon der Assyriologie und voderasiatichen Archaologie 5/1: 52-
59.

KLENGEL, H.
1986 "Altbabylonische Privatarchive Babylons" in K. VEENHOF, (Ed.) Cuneiform
Archives and Libraries. Papers Read at the 30e Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale, Leiden 4-8 July, 1983, pp. 106-111. Leiden: Nederlands
Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istambul.

KOMOROCZY, G.
1979 “Zu den Eigentumsverhältnissen in der altbabylonischen Zeit: Das
Problem der Privatwirtschaft“ in E. LIPINSKY, State and Temple Economy in
the Ancient Near East. OLA 5, pp. 411-422. Leuven: Peeters.

KRAUS, F. R.
1958 Ein Edikts des Königs Ammi-Saduga von Babylon. Leiden.
1959 "Ungewöhnliche Datierungen aus der Zeit des Königs Rīm-Sin von Larsa"
in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 53: 137-167.

86
1968 Briefe aus dem Archive des Samas-Hazir in Paris und Oxford. Leiden: Brill
(=AbB 4)
1984 Königliche Verfügungen in altbabylonischer Zeit (Studia et Documenta 11)
Leiden: Brill.

LAMBERT, W.G.
1960 Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
1975 "The Historial Development of the Mesopotamian Pantheon. A Study in
Sophisticated Polytheism", pp. 191-200 in R. GOEDICKE (Ed.) Unity and
Diversity. Baltimore:John Hopkins University Press
1984 "Studies in Marduk", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 47:
1-9.

LA PLACA, P. J. AND M. POWELL

1990 "The Agricultural Cycle and the Calendar at Pre-Sargonic Girsu’. Bulletin
on Sumerian Agriculture Vol. 5, Part 2: 65–104.

LARSEN, M. T.
1996 The Conquest of Assyria: Excavations in the Antique Land 1840-1860. New
York: Routledge.

LE GOFF, J.
1978 “Documento/monumento” in Enciclopedia, vol. 5. Torino: Einaudi.

LEEMANS, W.F.
1950 The Old Babylonian Merchant: his business and social position. Leiden: Brill.
1954 Legal and Economic Records from the Kingdom of Larsa Leiden: Brill.
1968 Old Babylonian Letters and Economic History. A Review Article with a
Digression on Foreign Trade, Leiden: Brill. (Re-print of the article published
originally in Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 11: 171-192
1973 "Quelques remarques à propos d'un texte concernant l'administration des
terres vieux-babylonienne" in M.A. BEEK et al (Eds.) Symbolae … Francisco
Mario Theodoro de Liagre Böhl dedicatae,pp. 281-292. Leiden: Brill.

LEICHTY, E., J. J. FINKELSTEIN, C. B. F. WALKER

1988 Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Vol. VIII: Tablets
from Sippar III. London: British Museum Publications Ltd.

LEICK, G.
1991 A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology. London: Routledge

87
LEVI, G.
1981 “Un problema di scala” in Dieci interventi di storia sociale, Torino:
Rosenberg e Sellier.
1985 "I pericoli del Geertzismo" in Quaderni storici 58: 257-278.
1985b L’eredità immateriale. Carriera di un esorcista nel Piemonte del Seicento,
Einaudi: Torino.
1991 “On Microhistory” in P. BURKE, New Perspectives on Historical Writing, pp.
93-113. London: Polity Press.
LION, B.
1994. “Des princes de Babylone à Mari.” In D. CHARPIN AND J.M. DURAND,
Florilegium marianum II. Recueil d’études à la mémoire de Maurice Birot, pp.
221-234. Paris: SEPOA

LIVERANI, M.

1996 "Reconstructing the Rural Landscape of the Ancient Near East", Journal of
Economic ans Social History of the Orient 39.1: 1-41

1997 "Lower Mesopotamian Fields: South versus North" in PONGRAZ-LEISTEN,

B., H. KUHNE nd P. XELA Ana šadî labnāni lū allik: Beitrage zu
altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen, Feschrift für W. Röllig AOAT
247: 219-227.
1999 “History and Archaeology in the Ancient Near East: 150 Years of a
Difficult Relationship” in KÜHNE, H. R. BERNBECK and K. BARTL (eds.)
Fluchtpunkt Uruk: Archäologische Einheit aus methodischer Vielfalt Schriften
für Hans Jörg Nissen (=H.J. Nissen Festschrift) pp. 1-11. Rahdord: Marie
Leidorf.
2000 “La scoperta del matton2e. Muri e archivi nell'archeologia
mesopotamica”, Vicino Oriente 12: 1-17.
2005 “Imperialism” in POLLOCK, S. and R. BERNBECK (eds.) Archaeologies of the
Middle East: Critical Perspectives, pp. 223-243. Oxford: Blackwell.
2009 [1988] Antico Oriente. Storia, società, economia, Roma-Bari: Laterza.

LUKE, J. T.
1965 Pastoralism and Politics in the Mari Period. A Reexamination or the Character
or Political Significance of the Major West Semitic Tribal Groups on the Middle
Euphrates c. 1828-1758 BC. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, University of
Michigan.

88
MAEWAKA, K.
1984 "Cereal Cultivation in the Ur III Period’, Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture
1: 73–96.

MATHEWS, R.
2003 The Archaeology of Mesopotamia. Theories and Methods. London: Routledge.

MERZARIO, R.
1981 Il paese stretto. Strategie matrimoniali nella diocesi di Como. Torino: Einaudi.

MICHALOWSKI, P.
1987 "Charisma and control: on continuity and change in early Mesopotamian
bureaucratic systems" pp. 55-68 in MCG. GIBSON and R. D. BIGGS (eds.)
The organization of power: aspects of bureaucracy in the ancient Near East
(SAOC 46, Chicago: Chicago University Press.

MICHEL, C.
2000 “Nouvelles données pour la chronologie du IIe millénaire”, N.A.B.U.
Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaries 2002/20.

MICHEL, C. and P. ROCHER

1997/2000 “La chronologie du IIe millénaire revue à l'ombre d'une éclipse de
soleil”, Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap (ab 1945
Genootschap) Ex Oriente Lux 35/36: 111-126.

OPPENHEIM, A.L.
1972 Ancient Mesopotamia – Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

PECHA, L.
1999 "Das Amt des šassukkum in der altbabylonischen Zeit", Archiv
Orientalni 67, p. 51-71

PEDERSÉN, O.
1998 Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500-500 BC. Bethesda: CDL
Press.

PEMBERTON, W., POSTGATE, J. N. and R. F. SMYTH

1988 ‘Canals, Bunds, Ancient and Modern’. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 4.1:
207–221.

89
PERS, M. P.
2002 Prosopografia ed Onomastica di Larsa del regno di Warad-Sîn al regno di Samsu-
iluna (Napoli, unpublished dissertation)

PIÑA, C.
1986 Sobre las historias de vida y su campo de validez en las Ciencias Sociales,
Documento de Trabajo programa FLACSO, n° 319. Santiago de Chile:
FLACSO.

PITRONE, M. C.
1994 Il clientelismo, tra teoria e ricerca. Acireale: Bannano Editore.

POLANYI, K.
1977 The Livelihood of Man. New York, San Francisco, London, Academic Press.

POLANYI K., C.H ARENSBERG and PEARSON, H. W. (EDS.)

1957 Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory,
Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.

POLLOCK, S. and R. BERNBECK (eds.)

2005 Archaeologists of the Middle East: critical perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.

POSTATE, J. N.
1990 "Archaeology and Texts—Bridging the Gap" in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie.
80: 228-40.
2004 [1992] Early Mesopotamia: society and economy at the dawn of history.
London: Routledge.

PRITCHARD, J. B. (Ed.)
1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament. (3rd. edition with
Supplement) Princeton: Princeton University Press.

RAMELLA, F.
1984 Terra e telai. Sistemi di parentela e manifattura nel Biellese dell’Ottocento.
Torino: Einaudi.

REITER, K
1982 Untersuchungen zum Archivwesen der altbabylonischen Zeit, dargestellt and
den Brief-, Rechts-, und Verwaltungsurkunden des Sēp-Sin und des
Balmunamhe (Berlin, unpublished dissertation)

90
RENFREW, J. M.
1984 "Cereals Cultivated in Ancient Iraq", Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 1:
32–44.

RENGER, J.
1979 “Interaction of Temple, Palace, and 'Private Enterprise' in the Old
Babylonian Economy” in E. LIPINSKY (ed.), State and Temple Economy in the
Ancient Near East, Proceedings of the International Conference organized
by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 10th to the 14th of April
1978 (= Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 5), pp. 249-256 Leuven.
1980-83 “Königsinschriften. B. Akkadisch” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und
vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7.
1984 “Patterns of Non-institutional Trade and Non-commercial Exchange in
Ancient Mesopotamia at the Beginning of the Second Millennium BC” in
A. ARCHI (ed.), Circulation of Goods in Non-Palatial Context in the Ancient
Near East, 31–123. Rome, Edizioni dell’Ateneo.

1986 "Zu den altbabylonischen Archiven aus Sippar" in Veenhof, K. (Ed.)

Cuneiform Archives and Libraries. Papers Read at the 30e Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden 4-8 July, 1983, pp. 96-105. Leiden:
Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istambul.
1987 “Das Privateigentum an der Feldflur in der altbabylonischen Zeit” in
Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte, pp. 49-67. Berlin: Sonderband.
1990a ‘Different Economic Spheres in the Urban Economy of Ancient
Mesopotamia –Traditional Solidarity, Redistribution and Market
Elements as the Means of Access to the Necessities of Life’, in E. AERTS
and H. KLENGEL (EDS.), The Town as Regional Economic Centre in the Ancient
Near East, 20–28. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
1990b "Rivers, Watercourses and Irrigation Ditches", Bulletin on Sumerian
Agriculture, Vol. 5, Part 2: 31–46.
1995 “Institutional, Communal, and Individual Ownership or Possession of
Arable Land in Ancient Mesopotamia” in Chicago-Kent Law Review 71,
269–319. Chicago: Chicago-Kent Law School.
2000 "Das Palastgeschäft in der altbabylonische Zeit", in A.C.V.M. Bongenaar
(ed.) Interdependency of Institutions and Private Entrepreneurs, pp. 153-183.
Istanbul: Nederlands historisch-archeologisch instituut.
2002 "Royal Edicts of the Old Babylonian Period" in M. HUDSON and M. VAN
DE MIEROOP (eds.) Debt and Economic Renewal in the Ancient Near East, pp.
139-162. Bethesda: CDL Press.
.
REVEL, J.
1989, “L’histoire au ras du sol” in G. LEVI, Le pouvoir au villane, pp. I-XXXIII.
Paris: Gallimard.

91
1994 "Microanalisi e costruzione del sociale" in Quaderni storici 86:549-575.
1996 (a cura) Jeux d’échelles. La mycroanalyse à l’expérience. Paris: Gallimard.

RICHARDSON, S.
2007 "The World of Babylonian Countryside's" in W. LEICK, The Babylonian
World. London-New York: Routledge: 13-38.

ROBERTS, J. J. M.
1972 The Earliest Semitic Pantheon London-Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press

ROBERTSON, J. F.
1983 "An Unusual Dating System from Isin-Larsa-Nippur. New Evidence”,
Acta Sumerologica 5: 147-161.

ROMERO, J. L.
1988 La vida histórica. Buenos Aires: Sudamericana.

ROTH, M.
1997 [1995] Law collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, Atlanta: Scholars
Press.

ROWTON, M.
1970 "Chronology II. Ancient Western Asia" in I. EDWARDS et al. (Eds.) The
Cambridge Ancient History I/1: 193-239. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

SAID, E. W.
1979 Orientalism, New York: Vintage.

SALLABERGER, W.
1999 Wenn du mein Bruder bist: Interaktion und Textgestaltung in atlbabylonischen
Alltagsbriefen, Cuneiform Monographs 16, Leiden: Brill.

SALONEN, A.
1968 "Agricultura Mesopotamica". Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Ser.
B, Tom 149.

SERI, A.
2005 Local power in old Babylonian Mesopotamia London: Equinox Publishing.

92
SIGRIST, M. and P. DAMEROW
2001 “Mesopotamian Year Names. Neo-Sumerian and Old Babylonian Date
Formulae”http://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/yearnames/yn_index.html

SOMERSFIELD, W.
1982 "Marduk. A. Philologisch I. In Mesopotamien“ Reallexikon der Assyriologie
und voderasiatischen Archaologie, 7: 360-70.

STEINKELLER, P.
1981 "The Renting of Fields in Early Mesopotamia and the Development of the
Concept of “Interest” in Sumerian", Journal of the Economic and Social
History of the Orient 24: 113–145.
1988 "Notes on the Irrigation System in Third Millenium Southern
Mesopotamia", Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 4: 73-92.

STOL, M.
1985 "Beans, Peas, Lentils and Vetches in Akkadian Texts", Bulletin on Sumerian
Agriculture, Vol. 2: 127–139.
1987 "Garlic, Onion, Leek. The Cucurbitaceae in the cuneiform texts", Bulletin
on Sumerian Agriculture, Vol. 3: 57–80, 81–92.
2004 "Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Altbabylonischer Zeit" in D. CHARPIN, D.
O. EDZARD and M. STOL, Mesopotamien. Die Altbabylonische Zeit (=OBO
160/4) pp. 643-975. Fribourg-Göttingen: Academic Press – Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht.

SZLECHTER, E.
1958 Tablettes juridiques de la 1ère dynastie de Babylone conservées au Musée d'Art
et d'Histoire de Genève. Publications de l'Institut de Droit Romains de
l'université de Paris: Paris.
1963 Tablettes juridiques et administratives de la IIIe dynastie d'Ur et de la Ire
Dynastie de Babylon conservées au Musée de l'Université de Manchester, à
Cambridge, au Musée Fitzwilliam, à l'Institut d'études orientales et à l'Institut
d'égyptologie, Publications de l'Institut de Droit Romains de l'université de
Paris: Paris.

STONE, E.
1979 The Social and Economic Organization of Old Babylonian Nippur. PhD
dissertation, University of Chicago.
1981 “Texts, Architecture and Ethnography Analogy: Patterns of Residence in
Old Babylonian Nippur” Iraq 43: 19-33.

93
1987 Nippur Neighborhoods. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations, No. 44.
Chicago: Oriental Institute.

TANRET, M. (Ed.)
2000 Just in Time. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ancient Near
Eastern Chronology (2nd Millennium BC) Ghent 7-9 July 2000, Akkadica
119/120.
2001 “As Years Went by in Sippar-Amnānum …” in T. ABUSCH, P.A.
BEAULIEU, J. HUEHNEGARD, P. MACHINIST, P. STEINKELLER (Ed.),
Historiography in the Cuneiform World. Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale. Bethesda: : CDL Press.

THUREAU DANGIN, F.
1924 “La Correspondance de Hammurapi avec Šamaš-hâsír.” Revue
d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale, vol. 21, 1–2.

TRIGGER, B.
1992 [1989] Historia del Pensamiento Arqueológico, Barcelona: Crítica.

VAN DE MIEROOP, M.
1987 "The Archive of Balmunamhe", Archiv für Orientforschung 34: 1-29
1992 Society and Enterprise in Old Babylonian Ur. Berliner Beitrige zum vorderen
Orients, 12. Berlin: Deitrich Reimer Verlag.
1993 "The reign of Rim-Sin" in Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 87:
47-69.
2005 King Hammurabi of Babylon. A Biography. Oxford: Blackwell.

VAN DIJK, J.

1966-1967 "L’hymne à Marduk avec intercession pour le roi Abi’ešuh’"

Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 12: 57-74.

VAN DRIEL, G.
1989 “The British Museum 'Sippar' Collection: Babylonia 1882-1893”, Zeitschrift
für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 79.1: 102-117.
1990 "Old Babylonian Nippur", Bibliotheca Orientalis 47: 559-78.

VAN LERBERGHE, K. AND G. VOET

1991 Sippar-Amnānum. The Ur-Utu Archive. Mesopotamian History and

Environment, Series III, Texts I, vol. 1. Ghent: University of Ghent.

94
VAN SOLDT, W. H.
1990 Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung 12: Letters in the British
Museum, Leiden: Brill.

VAN ZEIST, W.
1985 “Pulses and Oil Crop Plants” Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture, Vol. 2: 33–38.

VEENHOF, K.
1986a (Ed.) Cuneiform Archives and Libraries. Papers Read at the 30e Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden 4-8 July, 1983, Leiden: Nederlands
Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istambul.
1986b "Cuneiform Archives. An Introduction" in VEENHOF, K. (Ed.) Cuneiform
Archives and Libraries. Papers Read at the 30e Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale, Leiden 4-8 July, 1983, pp. 1-36. Leiden: Nederlands
Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istambul.
1997/2000 "The relation between royal decrees and 'law codes' of the Old
Babylonian period. Jaarbericht van het Voor-Aziatisch-Egyptisch-Gezelschap
35-36: 49-83.
2005 Altbabylonische Briefe Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung 14: Letters in the
Louvre, Leiden: Brill.

WAETZOLDT, H.
1985 “Ölpflanzen und Plfanzenöle im 3. Jahrtausend vor Chr.” Bulletin on
Sumerian Agriculture, Vol. 2: 33–96.
1987 “Knoblauch und Zwiebeln nach den Texten des 3. Jt. vor Chr.” Bulletin on
Sumerian Agriculture, Vol. 3: 23–56.

WALKER, C.B.F.
1974 Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. Index to parts
I-L. The Trustees of the British Museum: London.

WESSELING, H. L.
1997 Imperialism and Colonialism: Essays on the History of European Expansion.
Westport: Greenwood.

WESTENHOLZ, A.
1987 Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Philadelphia. Part 2. CNI
Publications 3. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen Press.

95
WU, Y.
1994 A Political History of Eshnunna Mari and Assyria During the Early Old
Babylonian Period (from the End of Ur III to the Death of Šamši-Adad).
Supplement to Journal of Ancient Civilizations 1. Changchung: Institute of
History of Ancient Civilizations.
1998 "Kings of Kazallu and Marad in the Early OB Period" in H. ERKANAL, V.
DONBAZ, A. UGUROGLU (Eds.) XXXIV. Uluslararasi Assiriyoloji Kongresi
(XXXIVème Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale) 6-10 july 1987 - Türk
Tarih Kurumu Yayinlari XXVI. Dizi - Sa. 3 pp. 221-227. Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu Basimevi

WU, Y. and S. DALLEY

1990 "The Origins of the Mananâ Dynasty at Kish, and the Assyrian King List",
Iraq 52: 159-163.

WOLF, E.
2001 Pathways of Power. Building Anthropology of the Modern World. Berkeley –
Los Angeles – London: University of California Press.

YOFFEE, N.
1977 The Economic Role of the Crown in the Old Babylonian Period, Bibliotheca
Mesopotamica 5, Malibu: Undena.
1978 "On Studying Old Babylonian History: A Review Article" in Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 30,1: 18-32

1995 “Political Economy in Early Mesopotamian States”, Annual Review of

Anthropology 24: 281-311

1998 "The Economics of Rituals at Late Old Babylonian Kish" in Journal of

Economic and Social History of the Orient 41,3: 312-343.

YOFFEE, N. Y J. J. CLARK
1993 Early Stages in the Evolution of Mesopotamian Civilization. Soviet Excavations
in Nothern Iraq, Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

ZETTLER, R.
1991 "Nippur under the Third Dynasty of Ur". In Velles Paralles: Ancient Near
Eastern Studies in Honor of Miguel Civil on the Occasion of His Sixty-
fifth Birthday, Aula Orientalis 9: 251-81
2003 "Recontructing the World of Ancient Mesopotamia: Divided Beginnings
and Holistic History" in Journal of the Economic and Social History of the
Orient 46,1: 3-45

96