Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:06:16.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The steward and his jar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Extract

Among those impossible and unconfessed desires which man had in the past, and still has today, there is that of turning the tables of power, of dominating instead of being dominated. The tradition which holds that Sargon of Akkad was the steward of Ur-Zababa of Kiš before overthrowing him is a projection of such dreams. How, otherwise, is it possible to bridge the gap between a cupbearer and a king, a servant and his master?

A steward was, however, a privileged servant, for he was in direct contact with the king. In a palatial organization anyone having responsibilities at court could be given others relating to the running of the state. The Ebla texts show that, apart from overseeing the drinks, a steward or cupbearer in a royal court of the third millennium BC also had important diplomatic responsibilities.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1999

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 Particular abbreviations: Ib. = the minister Ibrium, I-Z = the minister Ibbi-Zikir, AAM = annual accounts of deliveries of precious metals, MAT = monthly accounts of deliveries of textiles.

2 As a reflection of Sargon's desires, his bloody accession to power is foretold to his victim in the Sumerian Sargon Legend”, ed. Cooper, J. S. and Heimpel, W., JAOS 103 (1983), pp. 6682Google Scholar; cf. Alster, B., ZA 11 (1987), pp. 169–73Google Scholar. For the “historical” texts that describe Sargon as the steward of Ur-Zababa see Jacobsen, T., The Sumerian King List (AS 11, Chicago, 1939), p. 110, VI 31–6Google Scholar; Grayson, A. K., Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (TCS 5, Locust Valley, NY, 1975), pp. 148–9Google Scholar, ll. 46–51.1. Finkel, L., JCS 32 (1980), pp. 72–4Google Scholar; cf. Westenholz, J. Goodnick, Legends of the Kings of Akkad. The Texts (Winona Lake, Ind., 1997), pp. 51–5Google Scholar. Šarkališarri calls himself “steward (sagi) of Enlil,” see Oelsner, J., in Behrens, H.et al. (eds.), DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A. Studies in Honor of Å. W. Sjöberg (Philadelphia, 1989), pp. 405–6Google Scholar (the text is a late copy). In Ḫatti, the steward (sagi) Ḫantili became king after having killed Muršili I. He had married, however, the sister of Muršili; see Hoffmann, I., Der Erlaß Telepinus (Texte der Hethiter 11, Heidelberg, 1984), pp. 1821, ll. 31–42Google Scholar.

3 For the cupbearer, sagi, see Glassner, J.-J., “Mundschenk”, MA 8 (19931997), pp. 420–2Google Scholar, with references to sagi-gal and sagi-maḫ in the pre-Sargonic and Akkad periods. Seals that belonged to sagi-officials of the Akkad period are listed by Edzard, D. O., AfO 22 (19681969), pp. 1220Google Scholar; see Nos. 15: 5, 40 and 47; 16: 9; 24: 5 and 11. A further seal-impression comes from Nagar/Tell Brak: see Eidem, J., in Matthews, D. M., The Early Glyptic of Tell Brak. Cylinder Seals of Third Millennium Syria (Göttingen, 1997), p. 308Google Scholar, No. 308:I-šar-mu-b[í] sagi. For the cupbearer, zabar-dab5, see Lafont, B., RA 11 (1983), pp. 97117Google Scholar; Sallaberger, W. in Sallaberger, W. and Westenholz, A., Mesopotamien, Akkade-Zeit und Ur Ill-Zeit (Göttingen, 1999), pp. 186–8Google Scholar; and, in a temple milieu during the OB period, Charpin, D., Le clergé d'Ur au siècle d'Hammurabi (Genève-Paris, 1986), pp. 237–40Google Scholar; for the zabar-dab5 of the Amorite Mari see Lafont, B., NABU 1987/1994Google Scholar (these data concern only the activities of the cupbearer as overseer for the drinks of the king).

4 Archi, , SHb 4 (1981), p. 134Google Scholar.

5 See Archi, , MARI 4 (1985), pp. 7981Google Scholar, where the titles and functions of the people travelling from Mari to Ebla are also listed.

6 Archi, , SEb 4 (1981), pp. 144–6Google Scholar. Another steward, sagi, is mentioned in the following sections, which refer to a later period, when Ḫida'ar was king of Mari. This sagi should be Šugadu, for whom see below.

7 This text has been dated to the third year of Ibrium's mandate on the basis of internal criteria. A list of the annual accounts of deliveries of precious metals (AAMs), dated by the same criteria, was provided by the present writer in Amurru 1 (1996), pp. 7381Google Scholar, adopted here with a few changes.

8 Archi, , SEb 4 (1981), p. 155Google Scholar.

9 For gifts to the members of embassies in the Old Babylonian period, see the data collected for Mari of the Amorite period by Joannès, F., in Mésopotamie et Elam. Actes XXXVIe RAI (Ghent, 1991), pp. 6776Google Scholar; Durand, J.-M., Documents épistolaires du Palais de Mari I (Paris, 1997), pp. 398400Google Scholar.

10 Krebernik, M., ZA 73 (1983), p. 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 This interpretation of NI-si-li-gú as a Š form of alākum,/ušīlik/, is doubtful. The value 'u x for NI was suggested by Krebernik, M., ZA 72 (1982), p. 198CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for another uncertain case; ā > ī should be explained as a case of vocalic harmony. -(g)ú is a “graphic” vowel, see a-za-me-du /aṣmid/ “I have bound”, Edzard, D. O., ARET V, p. 17, ll. 1, 3, 5Google Scholar. For the value 'ux for NI in Sumerian see Steinkeller, P., Aula Or 2 (1984), p. 138Google Scholar.

12 In ARET I 5 (90) a certain Kuku appears in a list of 12 lú-kar of Mari. The identification of this person with the steward of the same name is anything but certain.

13 For the pace set by messengers from Mari in the Amorite period, see Joannes, F., Amurru 1 (1996), pp. 329–30Google Scholar.

14 See above, 1.3.

15 Cf. Archi, , AoF 13 (1986), p. 202Google Scholar.

16 See Milano, L., MARI 5 (1987), pp. 529–30Google Scholar; ARET IX, pp. 349–52Google Scholar. The bilingual lexical lists, MEE IV Nos. 933–7, have the following sequence: sìla / la-ḫa / dar-áb / dar / dug, where the vessels are not listed in order of size; in fact 1 la-ḫa corresponded to 3 dar-áb, see Milano, op. cit. The la-ḫa of 30 sila is used in, e.g., TM.75.G. 10041 + 10249 obv. VI 4 and 8: 170 / 11 la-ḫa 20 sìla ì-giš.

17 TM.75.G.1451 obv. VI 5–7: 70 dug ì-giš ša-ti 20 sila “Seventy vessels of oil, those of 20 sìla (each).” See Archi, , SEb 4 (1981), pp. 67Google Scholar. In Eitam, D. and Heltzer, M., eds., Olive Oil in Antiquity (Padova, 1996), p. 80Google Scholar, M. Heltzer suggests that the capacity of the Ugaritic kd (Akk. karpatu, Sum. dug) was approx. 22 litres.

18 Wine was also transported and stored in the smaller dug vessels, see ARET III 90 II 1:2 dug gestin; 243 I 3; 507 III 4. For large numbers of oil jars see also ARET II 20 (4): 2,800 la-ḫa ì-giš al6-gál 2,286 la-ḫa ì-giš è.

19 ARET II 21 II 3: 30 la-ḫa du-gu; TM.75.G.1383 obv. I 2: 21 la-ḫa du-gúm (between za-la-tum and zíd-sig15, as in 2046 obv. I 2), see Archi, , AoF 13 (1986), pp. 194 and 198Google Scholar. For du-gu /duqqu(-m)/, see dqq, OAkk daqqu(m) “thin”; duqququ (and the hif͑îl form in Heb.), “to crush”, AHw, pp. 162b–3a. See also TM.75.G.1723 obv. I 2: 5 gú-bar zíd du-gúm.

20 See Archi, , AoF 13 (1986), p. 202Google Scholar. For la-ḫa munu4, ti-tum (=še-ŠILIG-titab, see Conti, G., QdS 17 [1990], p. 175 No. 649)Google Scholar and zíd, see TM.75.G.1674 rev. I 2–4.

21 Archi, and Biga, , ARET III, p. 365Google Scholar; Milano, , ARET IX, p. 394Google Scholar. Pettinato, , MEE II, p. 171Google Scholar ad r. I 2, considers this term Semitic and reads: la-ku 6.

22 CAD L, p. 39; AHw, p. 527b: “eine Trinkschale”.

23 Shroeder, O., AfO 6 (19301931), p. 111Google Scholar; Salonen, A., Die Hausgeräte der alten Mesopotamier II: Gefässe (Helsinki, 1966), pp. 225–8Google Scholar.

24 Salonen, , Gefässe, pp. 206–8Google Scholar.

25 Powell, M., RlA 7, pp. 507b–8aGoogle Scholar.

26 Sallaberger, W., Der babylonische Töpfer und seine Gefässe (Ghent, 1996), pp. 56–9Google Scholar.

27 Mazzoni, S., in Milano, L., ed., Drinking in Ancient Society (Roma, 1994), pp. 251–2Google Scholar, and Figs. 8–10. A specific study on the capacity of these vessels is being prepared.

28 This form, /͗akuḥl-um/ (Akk. guḫlu, Semitic kuḥl, see AHw, p. 296b), provides the reading of the gloss in MEE IV 941: šembi-MI/ME = A, B ͗a 5(NI)-gu-um, C: a-gu-u[m]; TM.75.G.1301: ù-gu-um, interpreted by Civil, M., in Cagni, L., ed., Ebla 1975-1985 (Napoli, 1987)Google Scholar, as “antimony paste”. A secondary form used in the administrative documents is a-gú/gi (Conti, G., apud ARET XI, p. 73 ad 5Google Scholar), Akk. eg/qû, AHw, p. 191a. Antimony was usually evaluated (nigsa10) in wool: ARET II 15 × 10 (a-gú); III 856 rev. 2 (a-gi); IV 16 rev. IV 4 (a-); in TM.75.G.2362 rev. XV 11–13, however, in silver: ½ gin DILMUN babban:kù níg-sa10a-gú.

29 TM.75.G.1700 obv. I 1–2: 3 li 5 mi 70 lá-1 ma-na babbar:kù 6 mi ma-na babbar:kù, see Archi, , AfO Beiheft 19 (1982), p. 182Google Scholar.

30 See Pomponio, F., AoF 26 (1999, in press)Google Scholar.

31 For zag-mì “to transfer; to carry out, to perform”, see Archi, , Eblaitica 1 (1987), p. 116 n. 8Google Scholar; Fronzaroli, P., ARET XI, p. 177Google Scholar.

32 a-bí-lum has been analyzed as /wābil-um/, from wabālu, in ARET VII, p. 203; the meaning “(vessel) stand” has been proposed in TIE A 1/1, p. 5. Note, however, that in passage [9] the term ga-bí-lum is found in a parallel context. The term ga-NE-LUM is attested in a quite different context, TM.75.G.2547 obv. I 1–II 4: 1 mí-TÚG 1 dumu-mí … [siin] É × PAP ga-NE-LUM PN ì-na-sum. For ga-bí-lum, see Akk. kablu “leg of a piece of furniture”. It is tempting to consider the first form as a variant of the second, notwithstanding the phonetic problems which this equivalence presents.

33 na-gu-lum /nakkul-um/, the Eblaite and Assyrian infinitive and verbal adjective form of the D stem from nakālu, Akkadian “to execute in an ingenious, artistic way”, AHw, p. 717b, CAD N/I, p. 155a. This term is used as a logogram (it is preceded by the Sumerian negation nu ) in TM.76.G.974 obv. I 1–2, II 3–6, in a form where /1/ is not expressed: 4.[l]i 73 ma-na babbar:kù na-gu-um … wa zi-ru 12na-gu-um wa zi-ru 12 ⌈nu⌉ [na-g]u-[u]m “4,073 minas (1,914-31 kg) of silver to work, … and z.-vessels executed and z.-vessels not executed.”

34 This text shows that KA.NU was the upper part of a jar; see also passage [10]. KA.NU is connected also with the bur-kak vessel, see TM.75.G.2622 rev. XVII 24–30: 1 ma-na babbar:kù 2 bur-kak … 8 gín DILMUN kù-gi nu11 -za KA.NU- “One mina of silver (for) two b. vessels … 8 shekels of gold (for) covering its lip/mouth.” KA.NU has been explained by Fronzaroli, , VO 1 (1988), p. 15Google Scholar, as the writing used at Ebla for KA × NUN, nundum, “lip.” For nu instead of NUN, cf. ÉŠ.NUM/NU.ÉŠ, see Conti, , MisEb 4 (1997), p. 55Google Scholar.

35 Puzurra-malik was a goldsmith, see ARET VII, p. 189.

36 Cf. TM.75.G.2286 rev. II 6: 1 tuš 1 dag-KU.

37 For other passages where a crown is mentioned, see TM.75.G.1860 obv. Ill 26: 4 kù-sal gilim(GI × GI) “Four (shekels of gold for) a stud (for) a crown”. TM.75.G. 10054 rev. III 8–9: šú + ša kù-gi maš-maš gilim (GI.GI) “20 (shekels) of gold … (for) a crown.‘

38 Giš-šilig/asar is interpreted by Waetzold, H., OA 19 (190), pp. 23–4Google Scholar, as a “(Streu>)Axt”, which is unlikely.

39 wa-za-ru 12 /waṣār-u(m)/ “to model, to shape”, is attested also in ARET VIII 534 + 537(+) rev. XIII 28, see below, passage [16], and, with the suffix -, in TM.75.G.2428 obv. XVIII 11; ll. 10–14 run as following: 6 gin DILMUN a-gar5-gar5wa-za-rí-iš 1 gi-di ne-di en “Six shekels of copper in order to shape one flute (for) a dancer of the king”. For baḫar/baḫar = wa-zi-lu-um “potter”, see Krebernik, M., ZA 73 (1983), p. 36 ad No. 1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fronzaroli, , in Fronzaroli, P., ed., Studies on the Language of Ebla (Firenze, 1984), p. 152Google Scholar. Cf. Ugar. and Heb. yṣr “to shape”; yāṣirūma (pl.), yôṣēr “potter”; Akk. eṣēru “to draw”. Note also the GN Wa-za-ru 12 lú Ib-al 6ki, ARES II, p. 474.

40 Passages like ARET VII, p. 205: an-dúl mí DN “a feminine statue (for) DN”, and Archi, , NABU 1988/1977, pp. 53–4Google Scholar: an-dùl … IGI.DUB / ba-nu-ù … šu- … DU- “a statue … its face … its hand … its feet …”, show that an-dùl means “statue”, not “canopy, cover”, Akk. andullu; see also id., RA 84 (1990), pp. 103–5.

41 Confusion between PIRIG and PÉŠ is attested also in the writing of the sign AZ(PIRIG × ZA), see ARES I (Roma, 1988), p. 272Google Scholar. For the signs ANŠU, PÉŠ and PIRIG see Eblaitica 1 (1987), pp. 97, 107Google Scholar. Another variant is SU.PIRIG. Apart from the la-ḫa (see also MEE II 23, above, 2·2), a larger vessel, the sùr, was also provided with a ZU.PIRIG (see the passage quoted below in 3-1). This element is associated with other objects, such as (a) gú-li-lum “bracelet”, see (among the many passages) TM.75.G.1730 obv. XV 13–19: 1 ma-na 15 gín DILMUN kù-gi šir-za 5 gú-li-lum a-gar5-gar5 tar-II 10 gú-li-lum a-gar5-gar5 šú + ša-šú + ša-II 5 gú-li-lum a-gar5-gar5 15-1 10 gú-li-lum a-gar5-gar5 10-I 2 gín DILMUN babbar:kù ZU.PIRIG-; (b) dib “plate”, see TM.75.G.2464 obv. V 1–4: tar babbar:kù ZU.PIRIG “kin”-ag 23 dib a-gar5-gar5 kù-gi; TM.75.G. 10077 rev. XII 23–6: 4 gín DILMUN babbar:kù ZU.PIRIG 2 dib Lu-a-tum ki; (c) kù-sal “stud” and (d) níg-anše-ag “reins”, see TM.75.G. 10077 obv. III 4–9: 10½ gín DILMUN babbar:kù ZU.PIRIG “kin”-ag gú-lilum wa níg-anše-ag kù-sal; (e) á-MUŠEN “eagle”, see TM.75.G.1860 rev. XVII 16–20: 2 gín DILMUN babbar:kù ni-zi-mu 1 á-MUŠEN wa ZU.PIRIG. For ZU.PIRIG not associated with another object, see TM.75.G.1923 obv. VI 15–16: [20+] 30 gín DILMUN babbar:kù ZU.PIRIG. A meaning such as “clasp” would fit all the contexts quoted. The ZU.PIRIG, zu.PIRIG-tur (not SU.PIRIG!) attested in an animal list, see MEE III, p. 67, must not be confused with the object discussed above.

42 This text is the AAM of I-Z 12, see above 1.3.

43 Selz, G., Die Bankettszene (FAOS 11; Wiesbaden, 1983)Google Scholar.

44 Matthiae, P., in Matthiae, et al., Ebla. Alle origini della civiltà urbana (Milan, 1995), p. 505Google Scholar.

45 I owe this observation to remarks of Adelheid Otto and Ursula Seidl, made on the occasion of a lecture I gave at the Institut für Assyriologie und Hethitologie, University of Munich, in June 1998.

46 Archi, , AoF 13 (1986), pp. 194 and 204Google Scholar.

47 Milano, , ARET IX, p. 352Google Scholar. For zirum in OA texts, see Derksen, J. G., The Old Assyrian Copper Trade in Anatolia (Leiden, 1996), p. 241Google Scholar.

48 See above, note 17.