Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:27:49.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assyrian Contracts from Sultantepe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2015

J. J. Finkelstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The four tablets published here were found in room C II, on the western side of the Assyrian acropolis at Sultantepe, during the excavations of the British Institute and the Turkish Department of Antiquities in 1951. Two of these are more or less complete, while two are only fragmentary. It is only in these last two, however, that the dates are preserved; S.U. 51/43 being dated in the eponym of Sharru-nūri, 674 B.C., and S.U. 51/43A in the eponym of Mannu-zīrni, 684 B.C. S.U. 51/36 may have had an eponym date at the end of the first line of the left edge, but that part is now lost. S.U. 51/44, contrary to the usual practice with legal documents, is undated.

There is no clear indication from the Sultantepe tablets concerning the name of the site in Assyrian times. Although the city of Ḫuzir(i)na is mentioned in line 36 of 51/36 and in a number of colophons on the literary tablets from Sultantepe, it has already been pointed out by Gurney that Sultantepe, situated about fifteen miles north of Harran, could not be identical with the city of Ḫuzirina, familiar from the Assyrian royal annals, which was situated at a distance of not more than one day's march to the west of Nasibina (Nisibis); in other words, some 130 miles to the east of Sultantepe.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 7 , December 1957 , pp. 137 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Anatolian Studies II (1951), pp. 14 f.Google Scholar, 26.

2 ibidem; there has since been an alteration in the numbering so that No. 43 is now the one of 674 B.C. and No. 43A of 684 B.C.

3 The only undated examples, to my knowledge, are A(ssyrische) R(echts)u(rkunden) 131 and 231.

4 See now The Sultantepe Tablets, I, p. 6Google Scholar, nos. 64 and 71.

5 Anatolian Studies II, p. 30 fGoogle Scholar.

6 The “Harran Census” covers only the area to the south and west of the city (Johns, , An Assyrian Doomsday Book, p. 11Google Scholar), which might account for its failure to mention any town with which Sultantepe might be identified. Should it turn out that the site does, in fact, represent another city by the name of Ḫuzirna, or Ḫuzirina, as its coupling with Harran in the last line of the colophon to STT. 64 seems to indicate, then an identification may be possible with the town named Ḫaziri, the second station after Harran in the Old Babylonian itinerary published by Goetze, , JCS, VII, pp. 51 ff.Google Scholar, col. iii, 8 ff. As the approach to Harran on that itinerary was from Apqum ša Balīḫa (near Tell 'Abyaḍ, cf. ibidem p. 61), that is, from the south, it must be assumed that the caravan proceeded in a leisurely fashion up the Jullāb-Nahr el-Kut valley, stopping at some of the numerous villages along the way (see Lloyd, S. and Brice, W., AS. I, p. 81 f.Google Scholar) or making minor detours—one of these being at Saḫulda, which should therefore be sought somewhere between Harran and Sultantepe—for we must account for the three days elapsing between Harran and Ḫaziri.

7 See Johns, op. cit. pp. 11 ff.

8 VS. I, Nos. 84 ff., for transliterations and translation see ARU. p. 402. Also Text No. 2, PSBA. XXX (1908), p. 137Google Scholar. For other literature see Johns, ibid., and Gry, L., Le Muséon 35 (1922), 153 ff.Google Scholar, and 36 (1923), 1 ff.

9 The following tablets, on the basis of internal indications such as Aramaic personal names, theophorous elements such, as Si' and Našḫu, place names, and stipulation of payment of fines to Sīn of Harran, would appear to derive from the Harran area: ARU. 64, 76, 88, 100/100a, 166, 170, 174, 214, 268, 553. There are probably others that should be included in the group, but the relevant indications are either no longer preserved or are not as unambiguous as in those cited here.

10 Published at intervals in Iraq beginning with XII (1950), pp. 184 ffGoogle Scholar.

11 (Die) I(nschriften vom) T(ell) H(alaf), AfO. Beiheft 6 (1940).

12 For a list of the prices of slaves in the Nineveh tablets, see Johns, , ADD. III, pp. 542 ff.Google Scholar, and for slaves described in number of rūṭu, ibid. 519 ff. See also Mendelsohn, , Slavery in the Ancient Near East p. 117 fGoogle Scholar.

13 ARU. 53.

14 KAJ. 161, 163, cf. Koschaker, , Neue Keilschriftliche Rechtsurkunden aus der El-Amarnazeit p. 152Google Scholar, and discussion p. 42 f.

15 Billa 9, cf. JCS. VII, p. 125Google Scholar.

16 See in general Boyer, G., Symbolae … Koschaker pp. 208 ffGoogle Scholar.

17 Mr. Briggs Buchanan has been most kind in communicating the following remarks about the seals on the tablets published here:—

“S.U. 51/36: This impression appears to be that of a pseudo-hieroglyphic inscription of the type common in the Levant in the 1st millennium B.C. It could have been made by a scarab or a tabloid.

S.U. 51/44 (upper edge): The style of the animal in this impression is quite common in Neo-Assyrian glyptic. Cf., for example, two impressions from Nimrud, both dated c. 650 B.C. Iraq XVII (1955), pl. XXVI, 3Google Scholar (ND3464), pl. XXVIII, 1 (ND3421).

S.U. 51/44 (left edge): It is hard to say what is represented in this impression, possibly an arrangement of symbols, possibly a schematic human figure with long robe and headdress. Both subjects are well attested in Neo-Assyrian stamp seals.

It is probable that both of the above impressions were made by scaraboids.”