No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2014
Numerous studies addressing Mesopotamian historical geography have been written under the influence of a hypothesis according to which the Ekallatum monarch Išme-Dagan conducted his military actions only in the region to the east of the Tigris. Initial inquiry enables one to understand just how such a hypothesis could emerge. After all, Išme-Dagan's correspondence, found principally in the Royal Archives of Mari, is replete with references to his wars against the Turukkeans, a bellicose tribe who occupied and often controlled much of the land between the Tigris and the Zagros foothills, thus constituting a perennial threat along the Transtigridian frontier of Išme-Dagan's hegemony.
However, evidence gleaned from a closer inspection of all Išme-Dagan texts refutes this hypothesis. It is the purpose of this essay to attempt to demonstrate that such an investigation will disclose the fact that the dynast participated as well in noteworthy military actions to the west of the Tigris. As a consequence, a number of sites which traditionally have been situated to the east of the Tigris must now be localized in the Jezirah, that is, in the “island” of land bounded on the west and south by the Euphrates, on the east by the Tigris, and on the north by the Taurus mountains.
This paper is an expansion of one read to the Middle West Branch of the American Oriental Society, Cincinnati, 4 February 1980. I should like to thank Prof. W. W. Hallo, who read an earlier version of this essay and made numerous useful suggestions. Naturally, any remaining errors are my responsibility alone.
2 The hypothesis is stated in Astour, M. C., “Mesopotamian and Transtigridian Place Names in the Medinet Habu Lists of Ramses III”, JAOS 88 (1968), 744Google Scholar. The hypothesis is implied, e.g. in Kupper, J.-R., “Nouvelles lettres de Mari relatives à Ḫammurabi de Babylone”, RA 42 (1948), 38Google Scholar, where Razama, Karana, Ilanṣura and Andariq are localized in Transtigridian regions. The reader should also consult his Les nomades en Mésopotamie au temps des rois de Mari (Paris, 1957), 177Google Scholar. (However, since this paper was first written, it now becomes apparent that Kupper, , ARMT XVI/1, 5, 17, 19, 28Google Scholar, has modified his earlier views.) The Transtigridian hypothesis may also be found in Edzard, D. O., “Zweite Zwischenzeit” Babyloniens (Wiesbaden, 1957), 106Google Scholar; Glock, A., “Warfare in Mari and Early Israel” (unpublished PhD. dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1968), 156, 265–7Google Scholar; Gaebelein, P. W. Jr., “Graphemic Analysis of Old Babylonian Letters from Mari” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA, 1976), 246Google Scholar.
3 His exploits are recorded also in texts from Tell Shemshara and Tell al-Rimah.
4 For the location of the Turukkeans, the reader is referred to my dissertation, “The Place Names in the Mari Texts: An Onomastic and Toponymic Study” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Dropsie University, 1976), 304Google Scholar. This volume is presently being prepared for publication. For the possibility that the Turukkeans conquered territory west of the Tigris, consult IV.21, 22. Texts not treated in this essay which nevertheless involve Išme-Dagan in activities within the Jezirah include the following: II. 16, 50; IV.26, 29, 31, 33 (? note the location of Ya-Il in the Sagaratum district), 40, 42, 51 (brothers plan to meet at Tušhum), 76, 80; V.21 (? text is written by Sumu-Epuh, a Jezirah monarch), 51; XIV.20 (? note the probable Jezirah locations of Šabazum and Kakkulatum); A.3093.
5 Kupper, op. cit., RA, 38, locates Razama “dans le pays de Iamutbal”, and does not distinguish between the Razama reference of II.18 and those of the battles of Razama ; cf. ARMT XV, 132Google Scholar and map. Dossin, Earlier G., “Les archives épistolaires du Palais de Mari”, Syria 19 (1938), 115Google Scholar, had placed the site in the Tigris valley (pp. 115, 118—read by him Rasaba). Both Lewy, J., “Studies in the Historic Geography of the Ancient Near East”, Or NS 21 (1952), 269–70Google Scholar, and Goetze, A., “An Old Babylonian Itinerary”, JCS 7 (1953), 64Google Scholar, advance an homonymy theory, but they differentiate between northern Mesopotamian references and that of II.18 (mistakenly printed in JCS as I.18), and, in so doing, accept the Transtigridian hypothesis for Razama.
6 Literally “made pure”; CAD E, p. 6b (sub c. 3′) reads “cleared”.
7 Unless wishing to posit a hyphenated toponym Razama-Yamutbal (otherwise unknown; cf. RGTC volumes), one must supply a connecting particle at this point. In private conversation, J.-R. Kupper indicates he feels this line may be rendered “Razama (of) (i.e. from within) Yamutbal”. In so far as it is the Jezirah, and not the Transtigridian, site in view, such a translation would comport perfectly well with the central thesis of this essay.
8 In this connection, it is pertinent to recall that Borger, R., Einleitung in die Assyrischen Königsinschriften (Leiden/Köln, 1961), 50Google Scholar, suggests comparing this title with the place-name listed in the Old Babylonian Itineraries (JCS 7 (1953), 52Google Scholar (l. 24!), and JCS 18 (1964), 59 (l. 14))Google Scholar, a town said to have been located a distance of one day's travel south of Aššur and in close proximity to the Tigris. Accordingly, one should refrain from confusing this place with the homonym found in Mari tablets, the latter site being located along the mid-Euphrates, probably in the Mari district.
9 Admittedly this translation seems somewhat vague, cf. CAD N2, p. 26a; AHw, p. 754a.
10 A verb to govern this last clause is obviously missing, lost in the break at the end of 1. 13. On the analogy of I.18, 41–2 and 99.6′–9′ (cf. AHw, p. 877b, for the construction ana pūhātišu ana PN iškun), the present translation is provisionally offered.
11 Beitzel, op. cit., 146–7.
12 Suggested by Hallo, W. W., “The Road to Emar”, JCS 18 (1964), 72Google Scholar. Professor Hallo discusses a cluster of sites in the area which bear this name, including one to the west of the Tigris. His suggestion was followed by Laessøe, J., Det Ferste Assyriske Imperium (Copenhagen, 1966), 32–3, n. 25Google Scholar; Birot, M., “Nouvelles découvertes épigraphiques au Palais de Mari (Salle 115)”, Syria 50 (1973), 4Google Scholar.
13 There is a tendency tacitly to confuse Yahrur(a) as ethnonym and as toponym. As an ethnonym, Yahrur(a) represents a Mar(u)-Yaminum sub-tribe which, according to one text, must have maintained direct relations with Mari for some time; cf. Dossin, G., “Le madārum dans les ‘Archives Royales de Mari’”. CRRAI 8 (1972), 61 (A.3821)Google Scholar. In the ARM, the Mar(u)-Yaminum are portrayed as occupying the Euphrates flood plain (between Abattum and Ganibatum), the Habur valley (in the Sagaratum and Qattunan districts), the Balih valley (from Harran to northern Tuttul), and the Jebel Bishri district; see also Luke, J. T., “Pastoralism and Politics in the Mari Period: A Re-examination of the Character and Political Significance of the Major Vyest Semitic Tribal Groups on the Middle Euphrates, c. 1828–1758 B.C.” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1965), 69–75Google Scholar. Mesopotamian geographical research frequently encounters instances of clan names being lent to places founded, or rather permanently occupied, by the tribe.
14 Sasson, J. M., “The ENGAR/ikkarum at Mari”, AOAT 25, ed. Eichler, B. L. (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976), 408Google Scholar.
15 According to several unpublished documents (cf. ARMT XVI/1, 189Google Scholar), Ṣura-Hammu was the head of the Amnanu clan, whose chief city, according to the Yahdun-Lim Inscription, was northern Tuttul. One finds him in his city (VI.73; XIV.83); his concerns have to do with people living in the districts of Sagaratum, Terqa and Mari (II. 104; VIII.67), and one discovers him journeying to Terqa (III.36; XIII. 132), Huhrum (near Sagaratum, II.105) or Mari (II.53). In III.58 he is said to be returning from the “Upper Country” (mātum elītum) to Terqa, but one should note that the text specifies that all Mar(u)-Yaminites from Kibri-Dagan's district are said to be returning (from grazing their flocks in the Upper Country).
16 Unpublished Mari documentation (cf. ARMT XVI/1, 84Google Scholar) asserts that Dadi-Hadun was the head of the Rabbu clan, whose chief city, according to the Yahdun-Lim Inscription, was Abattum, a site located approximately equidistant between northern Tuttul and Imar ( = Tell Meskene), near the southern (i.e. Yamhad) bank of the Euphrates, at a place along the river easily traversed, perhaps near the modern village of Tabqa (so Beitzel, op. cit., 99). Primarily occupying territories along the right bank, the Rabbu move along the Euphrates from Abattum to Mari, and Dadi-Hadun's concerns largely have to do with Abattum (XIV.83), Tuttul (VI.73), Terqa (III.45; XIII.123) and the Rabbu pasturelands (II.61; A.3821). Both Ṣura-Hammu (II.53; III.58) and Dadi-Hadun (II.61) were Zimri-Lim vassals.
17 Text published by Dossin, G., CRRAI 18, 60 (A.3821. 14–27)Google Scholar.
18 Following Finet, A., “La politique d'expansion au temps de Hammurapi de Babylone”, AIPHOS 20 (1968–1972), 226Google Scholar; cf. CAD E, p. 113b.
19 Cf. Stol, M., Studies in Old Babylonian History (Istanbul, 1976), 70–2Google Scholar; Beitzel, op. cit., 192–3.
20 For the location of this toponym, the reader is advised to consult Beitzel, B. J ., “From Harran to Imar Along the Old Babylonian Itinerary: The Evidence from the Archives Rqyales de Mari”, Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor, ed. Tuttle, G. A.. (Grand Rapids, 1978), 213–15Google Scholar; cf. Strommenger, E., “Tall Bi‘a bei Raqqa”, MDOG 109 (1977), 5–13Google Scholar.
21 II.99. 5–12.
22 Beitzel, op. cit., 244–5. A Transtigridian localization had been suggested by D. O. Edzard, op. cit., 106, and by Kupper, J.-R., Les nomades, 74Google Scholar.
23 Beitzel, op. cit., 160, 176, 296, 330. Hallo, W. W., “Gutium”, RIA 3, 719Google Scholar, discusses a number of sites which bear the name “Terqa”. The location for Hišamta suggested above is now confirmed by Wilcke, C., “Truppen von Mari in Kurda”, RA 73 (1979), 40Google Scholar.
24 X.157. 8–16.
25 Beitzel, op. cit., 118–20. One can observe that Idamaraz, associated with Išme-Dagan's military actions, is located to the east of the Tigris on the maps of ARMT I, II and IV.
26 Cf. Kühne, H., “Zur historischen Geographie am Unteren Habur”, AfO 25 (1974–1977), 252–5Google Scholar; “The Lower Habur: A Preliminary Report on a Survey Conducted by the Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients in 1975”, AAAS 27–8 (1977–1978), 124Google Scholar, argues against the equation Qattunan = Tell Sheddade on the basis of a ceramic collection made of the site. M. E. L. Mallowan, “Report on the Archaeological Survey of the Habur and Jaghjagha Regions of North Syria, together with observations on the Region between Ras al ‘Ain and Arab Punar, and a detailed account of the Soundings at Chager (sic) Bazar, Hamdun and Muzan” (unpublished report available through the British Museum; I wish to express my gratitude to Professor D. J. Wiseman for making available to me a copy of this report), 8, had interpreted part of his ceramic sampling from Tell Sheddade to include Assyrian ware. The present writer has collected a wide assortment of ceramic, textual and geographical evidence from the second and first millennia in support of the equation Qattunan = Tell Fadgami.
27 II.79. 10–23.
28 No non-Mari texts cite a Razama which can be demonstrably located to the east of the Tigris (cf. RGTC volumes), though this is not critical to the overall argument presented here.
29 II.78. In fact, it is likely that the two sites were connected by more than one roadway. The text reports that on this occasion, the road taken from Razama to Qattunan passed through the hinterland (libbi mātim) and was not the one passing through the steppe (kaṣû), which could not be taken (cf. II.50. 60—KASKAL URURa-za-ma-a KI?).
30 Already suggested by Falkner, M., “Studien zur Geographie des alten Mesopotamien”, AfO 17 (1958), 36Google Scholar.
31 V.67; cf. Laessøe, op. cit., 83 (SH 809).
32 I.109. The Mari tablets also show evidence of a Burullum located east of the Tigris and inside the land of Utum (e.g. I.5); cf. Falkner, op. cit., 7, 35.
33 VAT 9295. This text is transliterated by Lewy, op. cit., 266, n. 2; cf. VAT 9260.
34 So listed in CCT I, 42a.3, 13; both sites are referred to in unspecified form in TCL XX, 163.9, 18. This reconstruction follows in part the route charted by Oates, D., Studies in the Ancient History of Northern Iraq (London, 1968), 35Google Scholar, n. 3, and 55, n. 1. For a discussion of the texts involved, refer to Veenhof, K. R., Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and Its Terminology (Leiden, 1972), 240Google Scholar. A third city bearing the name Razama is known to have been situated just north of Larsa.
35 Regarding which, it is important to note the itinerary of Tukulti-Ninurta II from Aššur to the wadi Tharthar, cf. Grayson, A. K., Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (Wiesbaden, 1976), II, 101, §469Google Scholar.
36 Beitzel, op. cit., 100, 109–10, 236–7. One may consult Poidebard, R. P., “Les routes anciennes en Haute-Djezireh”, Syria 8 (1927), 61Google Scholar, in order to ascertain that the upper Habur, from Hasseke to Ras el-‘Ain, represented an important transportation link in antiquity. He describes an alignment of tells spaced at regular intervals situated adjacent to both banks. Subsequent archaeological survey has disclosed that a number of these tells were occupied in the second millennium.
37 My statement should not be interpreted as a denial that the sites of Aššur and Kültepe would have been alternately connected via a tributary of that major transportation artery linking Turkey and Iran, including the sites of Mosul, Mardin, Diyarbekir, Tomisa, a Euphrates crossing opposite Melitene, Gürün to Kaniš. An excerpt of a text published in transliteration by Dossin, G., “Une mention de Hattuša dans une lettre de Mari”, RHA V/35 (1939), 73Google Scholar, clearly implies that Karana played an integral role in Aššur-Kaniš trade.
38 Note the discussion of Lloyd, S., “Some Ancient Sites in the Sinjar District”, Iraq 5 (1938), 123–8Google Scholar; “Iraq Government Soundings at Sinjar”, Iraq 7 (1940), 13–21Google Scholar; Hrouda, B., “Archaeological Survey Map of Upper Mesopotamia and Syria”, Archäologische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung in nördlichen Mesopotamien 1956 (Köln, 1959Google Scholar) (cf. Carter, T. H., “Early Assyrians in the Sinjar”, Expedition 7 (1964), 35–6)Google Scholar.
39 Tell Ḥayal meets all four geographical demands. In addition, one can observe its strategic location at a point just east of the convergence of three major roads: one from Nisibin via Brak, one from Ras el-‘Ain via Hasseke, and one from Besirew via Sheddade. Moreover, Lloyd, op. cit., Iraq 5, 124, 142, demonstrates that the site was occupied in the second millennium, possessed good water and was easily accessible. It is axiomatic in ancient Near Eastern geographical researches that there are largely unchanging physiographic and hydrologic factors which determine, except where partially contravened by geo-politics, that routes followed by caravans, migrants or armies remained relatively unaltered throughout extended periods of time.
40 In contrast to Walker, C. B. F., “A Foundation-Inscription from Tell al Rimah”, Iraq 32 (1970), 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The present writer would suggest that the following ARM texts have Razama/Razamā ša Uhakim within their purview: I.109; II.78; V.67; VI.51, 52, 54, 65; IX.149; XIV.103–6; A.213 (RA 72 (1978), 186); II.18(?).
41 The first battle of Razama was clearly fought for control of land near the upper Habur, as is subsequently indicated by the territories and kings numbered among Zimri-Lim's vassals. Birot, M., RA 72 (1978), 186Google Scholar, convincingly argues that the first battle of Razama occurred between the 27th and 29th years of Hammurapi's reign.
42 Dalley, S., The Old Babylonian Tablets from Tell Al Rimah (London, 1976), 7–11Google Scholar, recently proposed that the entire corpus of texts dealing with the siege of Razama appertains to a single incident: there was only one battle of Razama. Now there are a number of factors in these texts which have yet to be completely unravelled, and Dalley herself mentions two uncertainties within her argument, (a) The role played by the Babylonians : Were they allies (VI.27, 51, 54) or enemies (II.39) of Zimri-Lim? (b) Precisely who was leading the Assyrian forces: Išme-Dagan (II.43) or Mut-Ašqur (II.39)? Furthermore, M. Birot, op. cit., 185–7, points out a chronological flaw in Dalley's thesis, as he posits the traditional two-battle option. The present writer would like to voice three additional reservations with the view of Dalley. (1) The single-battle thesis produces a disparity in the precise circumstances surrounding Razama's siege: a number of texts describe the monarch Atamrum, king of Andariq, as the one who initiates the siege against Razama (VI.51; A.213) and its king Šarraya (VI.65) whereas in at least one text (II.43), Atamrum is the one against whom a siege at Razama is laid, and there is no mention of Šarraya. (2) From the single-battle hypothesis, it necessarily follows that Ašqur-Addu perceived the work of Haqba-Hammu in a totally inconsistent manner: tablet II.39 suggests that Haqba-Hammu was attempting to overthrow Ašqur-Addu on the throne, yet in text A.424 (see Birot, 187), the latter sustains the actions of his brother-in-law by placing the entire country under Haqba-Hammu's watchful guard. (3) The single-battle thesis leads to a certain ambiguity with respect to the identification of the king of Ešnunna in the Razama campaign: whereas VI.27 identifies Ṣilli-Sin as the king (cf. II.25, 45), Dannum-Tahaz is so identified in V.59; VI.37; and XIV. 104 (note 1. 10—awīl Ešnunna KI) (for the year formulae of this sovereign, the reader should consult Simmons, S. D., “Early Old Babylonian Tablets from Harmal and Elsewhere”, JCS 13 (1959), 76–7Google Scholar; cf. van Dijk, J., “Remarques sur l'histoire d'Elam et d'Ešnunna”, AfO 23 (1970), 64–5Google Scholar). These data have the cumulative effect of evoking the greatest doubt regarding the hypothesis of a single battle at Razama.
43 Išme-Dagan was supported by troops from Ešnunna. After being expelled from Razama, his troops were joined by Hammurapi in the campaign (cf. II.39).
44 Zimri-Lim was supported by troops from Kurda and Karana. This battle is dated by Birot, 187, to the 32nd year of Hammurapi. On the decisive years of Hammurapi (29–32), one should consult Stol, op. cit., 39.
45 This equation is convincingly set forth by S. Dalley and D. Oates, op. cit., passim, and strongly endorsed by M. Birot, 182. The hypothesis is penetratingly analysed by Groneberg, B., ZA 69 (1980), 261–5Google Scholar, who concludes that Rimah was either Karana or Qatar a in antiquity.
46 II.43; cf. II.63; A.3093. VI.26 speaks of Ašqur-Addu's vassalage.
47 Reported in II.50 by Haqba-Hammu, Ašqur-Addu's brother-in-law and colleague at Karana.
48 According to the unpublished text A.264 (Birot, 186), Iddiyatum reports that Zimri-Lim's armies have sealed up Razama to the degree that Išme-Dagan's hungry Ešnunnean compatriots abandoned their ally and evacuated the city.
49 One infers from II.43 that the real objective of this campaign was Andariq.
50 V.59. For the suggestion that one should search for Mankisum near the ford at modern Tarmiya, see Beitzel, op. cit., 224–5. Millard, A. R., “Another Babylonian Chronicle Text”, Iraq 26 (1964), 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, mentions the strategic location played by Mankisum in first millennium Babylonian geo-politics.
51 Kupper, op. cit., Les nomades, 38–9; Lewy, H., “The Synchronism Assyria-Ešnunna-Babylon”, WO 2 (1959), 445–6Google Scholar; S. D. Simmons, op. cit., 79. For the relationship between Ešnunna and Rapiqum after the death of Šamši-Addu, consult Jacobsen, T., OIP 43 (Chicago, 1940), 129Google Scholar.
52 Beitzel, op. cit., 256; Finet, op. cit., 245. The reader should also consult the discussion of Anbar, M., “La region au Sud du district de Mari”, IOS 5 (1975), 2–7Google Scholar.
53 Beitzel, op. cit., 383, n. 875.
54 Both Harbe (VI. 15) and Yabliya (I.20; IV.81) were fortress towns.
55 IV.88. A partially translated text by Dossin, G., “Les archives epistolaires du Palais de Mari”, Syria 19 (1938), 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar, seems to pertain to the same event.
56 II.17; IV.81.
57 IV.81. 11–22.
58 I.123.
59 Beitzel, op. cit., 161–2.
60 Cf. KAV 183.23—[Tu]-ul-tu-ul KI= uruI-i[t]/I-tu (“Tuttul = Hit”).
61 Beitzel, op. cit., 184. Note the placement of the oil pipe line from Kirkuk to Latakia and the modern ferry at this point along the Euphrates.
62 I.138.
63 I.131.
64 In this connection, therefore, the conclusion of B. Groneberg, op. cit., 266, has not been accepted. Though offering for Hurara a Jezirah localization, she equates Hu-ra-ra-a KI (I.131) with Hu-ur-ra-a KI (II.37) and tacitly assumes that the latter name is to be identified with Hu-ur-ra-an/a KI (“Wilcke text”) (cf. C. Wilcke, op. cit., 47), locating all these sites in the Sagaratum district. The present writer finds in these references another case of homonymy in the Mari documentation.
65 The letters are partially translated by Dossin, G., “L'ordalie à Mari”, CRAIBL (1958), 388–90Google Scholar.
66 Both Kirdahat and Abum are to be situated in the Habur triangle. Specifically, Kirdahat should be localized as part of the Idamaraz territory in the Habur triangle, and near to Nahur, Talhayum and Ašnakkum, so Beitzel, op. cit., 253. See now Kupper, J.-R., “Les Hourrites à Mari”, RHA 36 (1978), 123Google Scholar, n. 39, where a Šubram (spelled there Šupram) is included in a list of Idamaraz kings (A.1212).
67 Otherwise unattested at Mari.
68 Dossin, op. cit., 389, goes on to state that in the second part of the Šubram letter the governor reports to Zimri-Lim concerning the military treachery of Išme-Dagan in the same region of the Habur triangle. Accordingly, there is no support for the contention of Glock, op. cit., 265, that Hatka, together with Tarrum, Šunhum and Hurara, probably are to be located to the east of the Tigris. This assumption seems to be predicated upon the hypothesis against which the present essay has been written.
69 Lewy, H., “Šubat-Šamaš and Tuttul”, Or NS 27 (1958), 5, n. 3Google Scholar; Anbar, M., “Le début du règne de Šamši-Addu Ier”, IOS 3 (1973), 27Google Scholar.
70 I.10; cf. I.22.
71 An important commander in Yasmah-Addu's army.
72 Cf. I.60, 97.
73 Limet, H., Textes administratifs de l'époque des Šakkanakku (ARM 19) (Paris, 1976), 11–14 and n. 28Google Scholar.
74 I.53. Mammagira is undoubtedly in the Ras el-‘Ain region of the Habur triangle.
75 I.107.
76 Following the restoration of Finet, A., ARMT 15, 203Google Scholar—[l]a ta-[ha-m]]u-uṭ-ma.
77 IV.35. Employing texts I.107 and IV.35, Astour, op. cit., 738, n. 57, and Finet, op. cit., ARMT 15, 128, arrive at diametrically opposite conclusions. Finet suggests that Išme-Dagan's new directive indicates that Nahur and Kawala were geographically approximate. Astour avers, on the other hand, that new orders would have been unnecessary if the two places were in the same region. If the criterion for distinguishing between the orders of these two texts, as proposed in this essay, is one of urgency, not geography, this might suggest that both places were geographically near.
78 I.e. Niqmum must be placed between months 8–11 in the calendrical system employed in the Zalmaqum texts; cf. Anbar, op. cit., IOS 3, 27. It is noteworthy that Niqmum, though not part of the standard calendar of Aššur, appears in both Chagar Bazar and Tell Rimah menologies.
79 II.10.
80 I.39.
81 IV.28.
82 Text published by Bottéro, J., Le problème des Habiru à la 4e rencontre assyriologigue Internationale (Paris, 1954), 22 (A.109)Google Scholar.
83 XIII.143; Jean, C.-F., “Lettres de Mari IV, transcrites et traduites”, RA 42 (1948), 70Google Scholar. For a different translation of the latter text, see Sasson, J. M., “Biographical Notices on Some Royal Ladies from Mari”, JCS 25 (1973), 66, n. 41Google Scholar; cf. XIII.144, 146; and Beitzel, op. cit., 320.
84 Beitzel, op. cit., 100, 195–6, 250; Anbar, op. cit., IOS 3, 28.
85 Beitzel, op. cit., 107–8, 165–8, 276–7, 289–90. All of these sites must be sought in the Ras el-‘Ain region of the Habur triangle.
86 Orlin, L. L., Assyrian Colonies in Cappadocia (Paris, 1970). 171, 183Google Scholar; Hamlin, C., “The Habur Ware Ceramic Assemblage of Northern Mesopotamia: An Analysis of Its Distribution” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Pennsylvania, 1971), 291Google Scholar.
87 Oates, op. cit., 23; Orlin, op. cit., 211–15; Hamlin, op. cit., 268–78. Because the names of Ṣabrum, Azzubiya and Ayaya, who appear in the Rimah texts as līmu, are found as well in Kültepe documents (stratum Ib) where they perform the same function, S. Dalley arrives at essentially the same conclusion (cf. “The Tablets from Tell-al-Rimah 1967”, Iraq 30 (1968), 95Google Scholar; “Old Babylonian Trade in Textiles at Tell al Rimah”, CRRAI 23 (1977), 155)Google Scholar.
88 Hamlin, op. cit., 295. Concerning the distribution of Habur ware, the reader is advised to refer to Hrouda, B., RIA 4, 30a (s.v. Habur-Ware)Google Scholar; cf. Meijer, D.J. W., “Archäologische Geländebegehung östlich des Ǧaġǧaġ”, AfO 26 (1978–1979), 174Google Scholar.
89 Lewy, J., “Hatta, Hattu, Hatti, Hattuša in ‘Old Assyrian’ Hattum”, ArOr 18 (1950), 419, n. 294Google Scholar. For annakum = “tin”, see Landsberger, B., “Tin and Lead: The Adventures of Two Vocables”, JNES 24 (1965), 285–96Google Scholar. Oppenheim, A. Leo, “Trade in the Ancient Near East”, Fifth International Congress of Economic History (Moscow, 1970), 9–14Google Scholar, traces the nature of Mesopotamian trade in the 3rd–1st millennia.