Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:01:21.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Comments on Archive Keeping at Mari

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

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

Extract

In approaching the problem of Archive keeping at Mari, it might be profitable to inspect, at the outset, the archaeological evidence. On doing so, one is immediately struck firstly by the heterogeneous arrangement of objects in storage and secondly by the apparent lack of a noticeable system in organizing the archives. A spot check of other second millennium palaces which produced appreciable quantities of texts reveals this observation to be generally applicable. In almost every major segment of the Mari palace, a cluster of chambers, really store-rooms, contained a collection of tablets, varying in size. In addition, a text or two would be uncovered here and there at unexpected quarters. For this scattering, Hammurapi's victorious troops were often blamed. This accusation is contradicted, however, by the evidence, documented with archival tags, that after its initial victory, Babylon attempted to preserve Mari's archives under a modicum of order.

In the south-east section of the palace, dubbed by Parrot as the “Eastern” and “Workshops and Store-rooms” Quarters, at least twelve chambers sheltered tablets, many of which dated to the days of Yaḫdun-Lim and his (son (?) and) successor Sūmū-Yamam. On the opposite end, tablets were found in four rooms and in one large chamber of the Administrative Quarters. More to the centre of the palace, and around the vast open courtyard no. 106, the largest proportion of tablets were stored. Rooms 115 to the east, 110 to the north-west, and 108 to the west came the closest to being strictly archival in character.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , Spring 1972 , pp. 55 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1972

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 (A) Alishar. See figure 1 (opposite p. 8) of Gelb's, I. J.Inscriptions from Alishar and Vicinity (OIP, 27), 1935Google Scholar.

(B) Shemshāra. Provisionally, see Laessøe, J., The Shemshāra Tablets, Copenhagen, 1959, p. 27 (11)Google Scholar.

(C) Tell al Rimah. Oates, D., Iraq 30 (1970), 4 ffGoogle Scholar.

(D) Alalaḫ. Woolley, C. L., Alalakh, London, 1955Google Scholar.

(1) Level VII. Rooms 11–13 (pp. 93–95; 102–103).

(2) Level IV. Room 7 (p. 119); 9–10 (p. 120); 16 (pp. 121–124).

(E) Nuzu. Starr, R. F. S., Nuzi, I. Cambridge (Mass.), 1939Google Scholar. Rooms N120 (p. 131); L14 (p. 143); L27 (p. 148); L6 (p. 152); L2 (p. 152); R46 (p. 164) (closest to being a palace archive); courtyard (p. 165); R76 (p. 174).

(F) Boǧazköy. Conveniently, see Otten, H., “Bibliotheken im Alten Orient”, Das Altertum I/2 (1955), 71–74Google Scholar; Kullurgeschichte des Alten Orient, 401–406.

(G) Ras Shamra. Schaeffer, C. F. A., Ugaritica IV, Paris, 1962, pp. 95–101; 113–121Google Scholar. It should be noted, however, that the secretariat of Ugarit seems to have displayed more care in classifying its archives.

(H) Knossos. Cf. Ventris, M. and Chadwick, J., Documents in Mycenean Greek, Cambridge (England), 1956, pp. 114–117Google Scholar. Note the interesting remarks of Palmer, L. R., Myceneans and Minoans, London, 1961, pp. 182–207Google Scholar.

(I) Pylos. Blegen, C. W. and Rawson, M., The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, I, Princeton, 1966Google Scholar. Room 7, 8 (pp. 92–100); Magazine 23 (pp. 134–139); Room 38 (pp. 170–173); Room 99 (pp. 318–321).

(J) Mycenae. Cf. Mylonas, G. E., Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age, Princeton, 1966Google Scholar.

(K) Thebes. Kadmos 9 (1970), 170–171Google Scholar.

Some first millennium sites have been surveyed by Goossens, G., RA 46 (1952), 98–107Google Scholar. Add now Mallowan, M., Nimrud and its Remains, I, New York, 1966, Chapter XIGoogle Scholar; Gurney, O. R. and Finkelstein, J. J., The Sultantepe Tablets, I, London, 1957, p. ivGoogle Scholar (cf. also An. St. 2 (1952), 15Google Scholar).

2 Thureau-Dangin, F., Symbolae Koschaker, Leiden, 1939, 119–120Google Scholar.

3 Parrot, A., Mission archéologique de Mari, 11/1, Paris, 1958Google Scholar. Room 108 “Toute la salle n'avait été qu'une gigantesque brasier, comme si, plus qu'ailleurs, elle avait fourni davantage de matière comestible”, (p. 102) Room 115 also seems to have other functions beyond archive keeping; see p. 80. For materials found in Room 110, see p. 163.

4 Cf. Laessøe, J., Shemshāra, pp. 25–28Google Scholar; CAD ṣ, 187 (s.v. ṣiliānu).

5 MAM II/1, pp. 162–163; 102; Rutten, M., RA 35 (1938), 36–70Google Scholar.

6 C. H. Kraeling and R. M. Adams, editors, Chicago, 1960, p. 99.

7 Baltimore, 1965, p. 278.

8 ARM XIII: 41: 8, 12; SAL.DUB.SAR VII: 206:11; TEM IV: iv: 19–27.

9 MAM II/1, Chapter IX, pp. 187–192. Note ARM VII: 101, a text which declares that “In the month of Eburum, at the end of the 10th day, Masiḫa was registered as scribe” (a-na ṭup-šar-ru-tim/[in-]na-di). On the peculiarity of this tablet see Bottéro, J., ARMT VII, § 38, 20Google Scholar; § 54.

10 AS 16, 253–256.

11 See also Birot, M., Syria 41 (1962), 26Google Scholar.

12 For the various nouns at Mari designating a store-room, see Birot, M., ARMT IX, pp. 326–327 (125)Google Scholar. To É nakkamtim, add XII: 613: 3′. To abūsum add XIII:40:35 (note spelling of a-bu-us-sí-im). New entries include ašaḫḫu XIII: 52: 5; È karêm XIII: 40: 32; RA 64 (1970), 28:13: 6 (Dossin, however, reads É [na-]ab-ri-im); É ḫurši, Jean, C-F., ArOr 17 (1949), pl. 6: 4Google Scholar. Note also É naṣrim, III: 17: 12.

13 RA 48 (1954), 64Google Scholar.

14 BiOr 27 (1970), 32Google Scholar.

15 Cf. Studia Pohl, no. 3, pp. 9–10.