Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T21:22:22.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

News from the Eastern Front: The Evidence from Tell Shemshāra*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Jesper Eidem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mari letters from the so-called “Assyrian Interregnum” show that the realm of Šamšī-Adad I stretched far into areas east of the Tigris, and included important towns like Arrapha, Qabrā and Šušarrā (Tell Shemshāra). A few texts relate directly to an Assyrian campaign against Qabrā, and these combined with other evidence make it possible to form a fairly accurate impression of how this town was added to the empire.

Our best source for the campaign is the text on the famous victory stela AO 2776 in the Louvre. As argued by several scholars its author was certainly Šamšī-Adad. The inscription, after a brief introduction, describes how he conquered Arrapha (col. I) and spent some time there performing religious ceremonies and establishing an Assyrian administration in the land of Arrapha, which no doubt included a large area in the plain south of the Lower Zāb. Then on the 20th of Addaru he crossed the Zāb (col. II), raided in the land of Qabrā and destroyed the harvest there, (col. III, 1–6). The text then continues: “(and) all the fortified towns of the land Urbēl I conquered in the month Maqrānu, and I placed my garrisons everywhere.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 47 , 1985 , pp. 83 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1985 

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.)

Footnotes

*

It is a pleasant duty to acknowledge the help and support received from a number of scholars. My supervisor, Professor J. Læssøe, generously shared his intimate knowledge of the material from Tell Shemshāra with me, and allowed me to quote unpublished letters here. The internal chronology of the Shemshāra letters used in this article follows the schema established by Dr. M. T. Larsen (cf. the summary in his OACC, 88), who gave me valuable advice on many of the problems involved. I am also grateful to N. M. Saxtorph, who kindly allowed me to use his unpublished study of the Shemshāra letters (University of Copenhagen MA thesis, 1966, in Danish), and to Professor K. Veenhof, who read and commented on an earlier draft of this presentation. Finally I would like to thank the Carlsberg Foundation for a grant which gave me the necessary time to write this article.

The following abbreviations are used for the books by Læssøe: Babylon: Babylon (Copenhagen, 1966); FAI: Del Første Assyriske Imperium (Copenhagen, 1966); People: People of Ancient Assyria (London, 1963); ShT: The Shemshāra Tablets: A Preliminary Report (Copenhagen, 1959). All texts from Shemshāra are cited by SH-fieldnumbers (cf. FAI, 66–79, and ShT, 88–94). Note that FAI, 83–195, gives Danish translations of nearly all otherwise unpublished letters from Shemshāra.

References

1 This term is strictly speaking a misnomer. The origins of Šamšī-Adad are still in dispute (cf. Anbar, , IOS 3 (1973), 3 ff.Google Scholar), but he was certainly not an Assyrian, nor was his empire primarily built upon the power of the city of Assur (Larsen, , RA 68 (1974), 16 Google Scholar). On the other hand it seems that developments under his dynasty were catalytic for the later change of Assur into Assyria (cf. Larsen, , OACC, 218 ff.Google Scholar), and so his realm was in a sense the first “Assyrian” empire. For this reason, and the lack of any other verifiable designation, the term “Assyrian” for the dynasty and kingdom of Šamšī-Adad is retained here.

2 Cf. Kupper, , CAH II, 1 (3rd ed.), 1 ffGoogle Scholar. For geographical names, and discussions of their locations, I refer in general to RGTC 3.

3 Published by de Genouillac, , RA 7 (1910), 151 ffGoogle Scholar. A recent discussion of the stela with an exhaustive bibliography is found in Börker-Klähn, J., Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und Vergleichbare Felsreliefs (BaFo 4; Mainz am Rhein, 1982), 165 fGoogle Scholar. The latest translation is that of Grayson, , ARI 1, 25 f.Google Scholar

4 So e.g. Unger, , RLA I, 243 f.Google Scholar; v. Soden, , OrNS 22 (1953), 256 Google Scholar; Kupper, , OrNS 27 (1956), 442 Google Scholar; Læssøe, , ShT, 74 Google Scholar; and Tadmor, Fs. Finkelstein; 212 f. As noted by Leemans, , Foreign Trade, 178 n. 2Google Scholar, the two month names in the text provide strong support for its “Assyrian” origin, as no other contemporary calendar seems to have had both names (cf. Hunger, , RLA V, s.v. “Kalendar”, 300 fGoogle Scholar).

5 Col. III (7) a-la-ni da-an-na-ti (8) ša ma-a-at Ur-bé-e-el (9) ka-la-šu-nu (10) i-na ITI Ma-aq-ra-nim (11) ú-ṣa-ab-bi-il-ma (12) bi-ra-ti-ia (13) lu-ú áš-ta-ak-ka-an (14) Qa-ab-ra-a ki Col. IV (1) e-di-[… ..] (2) lu-ú […..] (3) i-na ⌈x⌉ […..] (4) e-bu-[úr?-ša? …] (5) ID/DA bi [….] (6) a-lum šu-[ú…..] (7) i-na ITI ⌈x⌉ [KAM…..] (8) la iš-šu-⌈x⌉ […] (9) a-lam ša-[ti…..] (10) i-na I[TI…..] (11) i-na […..] (12) id-[…..]

6 (15) a-al dan-na-tim (16) ša ma-a-at Qa-ab-ra-a ki (17) ka-la-šu-nu iṣ-ṣa-a[b-tu] (18) [Q]a-ab-ra-a [k]i (19) a-na ra-ma-[ni-šu-ma] (20) ir-te-h[a-am]

7 Cf. Lewy, H., JAOS 88 (1968) 151 Google Scholar. Altm Köprü is located at the main crossing point of the Lower Zāb. Albright, who was looking for Šimurrum here, found no tell at all at Altın Köprü, but noted other large mounds in the area (JAOS 46 (1926), 224 f.Google Scholar).

8 Cf. RGTC 2, s.v. “Urbillum”. RGTC 3, s.v. “Urbel”, refers only to AO 2776, and an unassigned year-formula from the Diyāla. Note also that the town is unattested in Old Assyrian texts (cf. Larsen, , OACC, 90 n. 17Google Scholar).

9 Cf. AHw, 1494a for constructions with (w)ēdiššī-.

10 See e.g. the remarks by Oates, D., OBTR, xv f.Google Scholar

11 Both the reading and the character of this name remain uncertain. Kupper, in Nomades, 53 f.Google Scholar, read Wīlānum (cf. also RGTC 3, s.v.), and interpreted it as the name of a tribe. Later the reading Ja'ilānum suggested by Gelb, , Lingua degli Amoriti, 149 Google Scholar, has been adopted by several scholars, but the fact that the term at Shemshāra also occurs with the PN determinative (e.g. SH 827 (AS 16, 189–96Google Scholar), 29, 35) is puzzling. Kupper has recently suggested in ARMT 16/1, 37 that it is a PN, Ya'ilānum. Unfortunately the sources from Shemshāra help little to clarify the term further. Bina-Addu known from ARM 4, 33 and probably ARM 8, 11 (cf. below, p. 88) seems to have been the leader of Ja'ilānum, and the view tentatively adopted here is that the term covers a geo-political entity, probably close to Qabrā, dominated by Amorite elements, and named after a man Ja'ilānum, who was probably not alive at this time.

12 The letter ends with instructions concerning the property of these people and its disposal. Probably this is also indirectly referred to in ARM 1, 41.

13 Written Tu-x-PI(eras.)ki.

14 See especially Pomponio, , OA 16 (1977), 333 ff.Google Scholar, and Gallery, , JNES 40 (1981), 346 f.Google Scholar Also Anbar, , BiOr 35 (1975). 216 Google Scholar.

15 Based on the discussion by Gallery, op. cit., which in turn relies much on Larsen, , RA 68 (1974), 16 ff.Google Scholar

16 An intercalary Addaru is attested at Rimah (OBTR, no. 213). For variation between the calendar and the solar year caused by the system of intercalation cf. Hunger, op. cit., 298 f.

17 OBTR, nos. 183 (30th) and 194 (8th). The exact time of harvest in any specific year would of course have varied according to a number of factors.

18 See below p. 102 f. for a discussion of these texts.

19 Cf. Iraq 7 (1940), 59 Google Scholar.

20 I owe this suggestion to Prof. Veenhof. Note also that Niqmii and Kinūnu, which are supposed to begin the eponymy year, are the only months not attested for the līmu of Adad-bani at Chagar Bazar (cf. Iraq 7 (1940). 23 Google Scholar).

21 See especially v.d. Meer, , RA 47 (1953), 16 ff.Google Scholar, and Leemans, , Foreign Trade, 176 ff.Google Scholar Lewy, H. in WO 2 (1959), 438 ff.Google Scholar, suggested another order of events, whereby Šamšī-Adad finally defeated Ešnunna before Daduša died, and later reconquered Qabrā, but her reconstruction carries little conviction.

22 For these year-formulae, and the history of Ešnunna in this period, I refer in general to Edzard, , ZZB, 162 ff.Google Scholar, and Greengus, , Old Babylonian Tablets from Ischali, 14 ff.Google Scholar with the literature cited there.

23 That this was a joint campaign was noted already by Munn-Rankin, , Iraq 18 (1956), 77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Anbar, , IOS 5 (1975), 2 f.Google Scholar, and Marzal, , Studia Pohl 11, 31 ff.Google Scholar

24 See below p. 90 f. for this text.

25 For the location of Nurrugum see below p. 101.

26 (1) a-[n]a Ku-w[a-r]i (2) qí-⌈bí⌉-ma (3) um-ma be-e[l-ka-a]-ma (4) ṣa-bu-um [⌈ša it-ti⌉ I[š-me-d]-⌈Da-gan⌉ (5) ik-ta-aš-[d]am (6) u 4-um tup-pí an-né-e-em (7) ⌈ú⌉- āa-bi-la-kum (8) ṣa-bu-um āa it-ti Iš-me-d⌈Da-gan⌉ (9) ⌈ka⌉-lu-šu (10) ù ṣa-bu-um LÚ Èš-nun-na ⌈ki⌉ (11) id Za-⌈i⌉-ba-am i-te-bi-⌈ru⌉ (12) ù a-na-ku a-na Ka-aš-tab-bi-[i]m ⌈ki⌉ (13) ak-ta-āš-dam (14) u 4-um tup-pí an-né-e-em te-še-mu-ú (15) ⌈i⌉-na ša-al-ši-im u4-mi-im (16) a-na Ka-aš-tab-bi-im ki (17) a-na ši-ri-⌈ia⌉ (18) I li-im ša-bu-ka (19) ⌈ṭú?⌉-ur-[dam ù⌉ (20) I GAL MAR.TV-ka (21) it-ti ṣa-bi-im (22) [l]i-li-kam

27 According to the number of llmu eponyms attested, for which see most recently Anbar, IOS 3 (1973), 3 n. 8Google Scholar.

28 The discovery of the archive is described in ShT, 25 ff. and Pl. I (plan of room 2). In 1958 and 1959 an Iraqi expedition directed by Abd al Qadir excavated the rest of the palace and found a second archive of about 100 administrative texts (cf. Læssøe, , Sumer 16 (1960), 12 ff.Google Scholar). This archive was originally thought to be somewhat later in date than the first, but further study has shown that both are, in fact, contemporary. For the archaeological material from the “Hurrian” levels I refer to the remarks by Ingholt, , Sumer 13 (1957), 214 f.Google Scholar A topographic map of the site is found in Mortensen, P., Tell Shemshāra. The Hassuna Period (Copenhagen, 1970), Pl. I facing p. 16 Google Scholar. Note that outlying mounds belonged with the site, and that Shemshāra must have been a fairly large town (Læssøe, , Sumer 15 (1959), 17 Google Scholar). Preliminary notes on the second mill, pottery may be found in Hamlin, C., The Habur Ware Ceramic Assemblage of Northern Mesopotamia (University Microfilms; Ann Arbor, 1971), 150 f.Google Scholar

29 Cf. FAI, 76–9, or the list in AS 16, 189 n. 2. The archive also included about 40 administrative texts for which see ShT, 67 ff., and JAOS 88 (1968), 120 ffGoogle Scholar. It should be stressed that none of the texts from Shemshāra is dated, either by year or month, and there are no clues to the dating systems in use.

30 Cf. the summary by Larsen, , OACC, 88 Google Scholar.

31 For Zuzum and his title cf. ShT, 82 f. Note that SH 825, 12 (JAOS 88 (1968), 121 Google Scholar) lists a number of troops under a hanizarum. Either Zuzum was governor of Ilalae, and Kuwari had the same title, or perhaps the word denoted a lesser (military?) office. For Ilalae RGTC 3 refers to Ilalija from BRM 4, 53, a text which lists many different towns, also in Upper Mesopotamia.

32 L.6: iš-pu-ru-úš (cf. Hirsch, , OLZ 56 (1961), 42 Google Scholar).

33 Cf. Sumer 15 (1959), 17 f.Google Scholar

34 L. 13 : ma-ru < -šu > Ta-ru-gu-ur mŠu-úr-ti(?)

35 L.56: nu-ul-la!-nu-tam (cf. AHw, 803a and CAD N/II. 333b).

36 L.60: sú-ut be-li-šu ù-ša-qí-il 5 (cf. Bottéro, , OrJVS 29 (1960), 237 n. 1Google Scholar).

37 L.64: pí-i[š]-tum (cf. AHw, 189a).

38 See Læssøe, , JAOS 88 (1968), 120 ff.Google Scholar

39 The name, but probably not the person, occurs in a Mari text (A. 3562, ix 26).

40 L.29: um-ma-mi it<-ti> mJ. (cf. CAD N/I, 160b).

41 The enigmatic “DI” before annîm is perhaps an abbreviated writing of SÁ.DUG4—sattukku, or—in view of 1.60—ginû (here otherwise unattested plural). The translation then would be: “In this sacrifice….”, which makes good sense in context.

42 L.65: [mdEN.z]U-iš!⌈me!-an⌉-ni ⌈ra⌉-im-ka-⌈a⌉-ma É-ka (66) U[RU.K]I ⌈ù⌉ [a-ma-a]t-⌈ka⌉ Ši-ip-šar-ri (67) ša-al-ma im-⌈ra⌉-aṣ-ma it-tu-[uḫ]

43 Cf. e.g. SH 920 and 887, both discussed below p. 97 f., and comment on SH 827, 55 in AS 16, 195 Google Scholar. See also the Elamite stela published by Farber, , ZA 64 (1975), 74 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ascribed to Širukduh I. Col. III′, 18 should perhaps be restored: m In-du-⌈šé⌉ [du-un]. If this is correct the Elamites may eventually have conducted a successful campaign against Endušše and the Gutians. Most other OB references to Gutians date after the time of Šamšī-Adad, and are not considered here.

44 These are general implications of the local letters. For the fact that Kuwari and Talpu-šarri were Turukkeans see below p. 97. For Kunšum cf. perhaps the māt Kunzuhhe or Kuššuhhe in texts from Nuzi (Fisher, L., Nuzi Geographical Names (unpubl. Ph.D.—diss.; Brandeis Univ., 1959), nos. 349 and 369 Google Scholar).

45 This town probably survived into the Kassite period (cf. RGTC 5, s.v. “Arrunāju”).

46 Šudamelum is only mentioned in this text, which lends some indirect support to the same conclusion, as Kuwari's correspondents from Kunsum would not often have mentioned their own country by name.

47 See Stolper, M., ZA 72 (1982), 42 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 Few of the geographical names from Shemshāra belonging to the local horizon can be placed with any certainty on the map, but the Turukkean lands must belong in southern Kurdistān.

49 See in general Hallo, RLA IV, s.v. “Gutium”, 708 ff. Note that evidence from archaeological surveys indicates an increase in settlement in Luristān at this time (cf. Dyson, , CAH II, 1 (3rd ed.) 686 ff.)Google Scholar. R. C. Henrickson in a forthcoming study of the Godin III period (ZA 74 (1984)Google Scholar, suggests equating Luristān with Šimaški, the northern extension of the Elamite confederation. On present evidence, however, I would hesitate to remove the Gutians from their traditional homeland. Like the much commented Habur ware, the Godin III: 2 assemblage (c. 1900–1600 B.C.) may easily reflect rather complex patterns, as does presumably the term “Gutium”, which in this period must be viewed primarily as a traditional geo-political designation, and it seems difficult to determine more exact political boundaries in the mountains at any given time.

50 That this lady was in fact Kuwari's wife seems clear when comparing SH 826, 11 ff. with SH 822, 1–8 (ShT, 91 n. 67).

51 (1) a-na Ku-wa-ri (2) qí-bi-ma (3) [u]m-ma dEN.zu-iš-me-an-ni (4) [r]a-im-ka-a-ma (5) še-am ar-hi-iš a-na É.GAL (6) [šu-ú]š-ši-am-ma ù be-e[l]-ka (7) [ùm]a-tum li-ih-[d]a-n[i]-kum (8) [ù šu-um-k]a a-na ka-li-iš (9) lu ša-k[i-i]n ù a-na-ku (10) lu-uh-du[ša-n]i-t[am] (11) a-hu-kara-⌈i⌉-i[m]-k[a] (12) ú a-na-kura-i-im-[ka(-a)-ma] (13) ša-al-m[a-ni] ùÉ-[ka] (14) ù Ši-ip-š[ar-r]i a-ma-at-ka (15) im-ra-aṣ-ma te-[e]r-tam (16) e-pu-⌈uš]-ma (17) qa-at IŠTAR ú-še-li (18) i-na-an-na i-tu-uh (19) [š]a-al-ma-at ù ṣú-ha-ru (20) ma-ru-ka ša-al-mu (21) ša-ni-tam at-ta-a-ma (22) ti-de ki-ma (23) še-am la i-šu-ú (24) šú-ha-ru-ia ma-ah-ri-ka (25) wa-aš-bu še-am ANŠE-šu-nu (26) mu-li-a-ma ar-hi-iš (27) i-na ha-ra-an šu-ul-mì-im (28) ⌈ṭú-ur-da⌉-šu-nu-ti (29) […..] ⌈xx⌉šu

L. 17: The “hand” of Ištar describes a specific disease (cf. CAD Q, 187a) which Sîn-išme‘anni has cured (lit. “lifted”), perhaps by a sacrifice to Ištar, a procedure which seems implied in ARM 10, 87.

52 The background for this unusual situation is revealed in SH 818 quoted below p. 93.

53 (1) a-na ⌈Ku⌉-wa-ri (2) qi-bi-ma (3) um-ma Ta-al-pu-⌈Šar⌉-ri (4) iš-ti-⌈iš-šu⌉ (5) ⌈ù⌉ ši-ni-⌈šu⌉ (6) aš-šum še-a-a[m] (7) šu-úš-ši-⌈im⌉ (8) aš-pu-ra-kum-ma (9) ù še-a-am ú-ul tu-še-eš-ši-[a]m (10) i-na-an-na ma-ta-⌈tum~⌉ (11) ša a-na ti-il-lu-ti-ni (12) i-il-la-ku (13) ⌈iq⌉te-er-ba-⌈nim⌉(14) ù a-na-ku i-na Zu-ut-li-im (15) ⌈a⌉na ⌈p⌉a-ni sa-bi-im (16) a-⌈al-la-ak⌉ (17) i-na-⌈an-na⌉ (18) ⌈ki-ma ṣa-bu-um⌉ (19) i-il-⌈la-kam⌉ (20) ar-hi-iš (21) ⌈še⌉še⌉-a-am- šu-úš-še-a-am (22) [a]t-ta-a-⌈ma⌉ (23) ⌈ti-de ki⌉-[ma] (24) ⌈É⌉⌈na-ka-ma-tum⌉ (25) ri-⌈qa⌉ [še-um] ⌈ù⌉ ⌈qé-mu-um⌉ (26) ⌈ú-ul⌉ i-b[a]-aš-ši (27) aš-šum [še-i]m⌈a⌉ah-ka (28) la ⌈ta-na-ad-di⌉ ar-hi-iš (29) šu-úš-Se-a-am

54 Cf. SH 811 (ZA 55 (1963) 131–7Google Scholar), 868 (AcOr 24 (1959) 83–94 Google Scholar), and 822 (ShT, 91 n. 67 and 81). Apart from the letters quoted or referred to here, a number of local texts deal only with administrative affairs, and some could belong to a more peaceful period prior to the events discussed here. From Talpu-šarri we have SH 810, 824 and 884, and from Hulukkatil SH 813 (ShT, 70 n. 57), 858 (ShT, 66 f.) and 805.

55 In SH 822 Sîn-išme'anni writes to Kuwari: “I went into your house and questioned the daughter-in-law and Tiduri as follows:” (10) ⌈a⌉-na É-ti-ka e-ru-um-ma (11) ⌈ka⌉-la-tam ù m Ti-du-ri (12) a-ša-al-ma um-ma ⌈a-na⌉-ku-u-ma.

56 (1) a-na ra-i-mì-ia qí-bí-ma (2) um-ma mdEN.zu-iš-me-an-ni (3) ra-im-ka-a-ma (4) ⌈m⌉ In-du-úš-še ṭà-⌈ha⌉-um ⌈iṭ-hı ∣-ma (5) ∣ e-bu⌉-[ur] URU.KI Ku-⌈un⌉-ši-im [ki] (6) ⌈it-ti⌉ ⌈e⌉-b[u-u]r Ir-[( )[⌈ta⌉-hi-im (7) ⌈x x⌉ [x] im-ha-aṣ (8) [al-ta-a-ma] ⌈ti⌉-de (9) k[i-ma e-b]u-ra-am iš-tu 3 MU (10) ⌈úṣ⌉-[ul]⌈ú⌉-še-ri-bu (11) ⌈ù⌉ ⌈i⌉-na-an-na e-⌈bu⌉-ra-am (12) ⌈ša⌉ ma-[tim] im-ta-[ha-a]ṣ-ma (13) ù ma d [a ? x (x) t]i? ⌈ta⌉ [x] ni? (14) ù ⌈Ku⌉-s[a-na]-⌈ar-hu⌉-um ù Zu-ut-lu-um (15) ⌈x x x x⌉ [x i]š?-te-mu-ú (16) ma-am-ma-an ú-ul ⌈il⌉-li-kam (17) ⌈i-na-an-na⌉⌈iš⌉-tu 20[( + x)] u4mì-im (18) m I[n-d]u-úš-še i-na li-bi ma-tim (19) ⌈it-ta-na⌉-al-la-ak-ma (20) gišTUKUL.⌈MEš⌉ ú ta-ha-za-am (21) it-⌈ti⌉-šu ú-ul ni-pu-úš (22) ⌈LÚ⌉- hu-up-šu-um ša pa-zu-ur-ta-ni (23) ù ⌈ma⌉-ṣa-ra-tum ir-ti-qa (24) a-⌈hu⌉-um a-na a-hi-im ú-ul ip-pa-la-às (25) ⌈at-ta⌉ aš-ra-nu-um la ti-gi (26) l[u]-⌈ú⌉ a-wi-lum at-ta (27) n[a-k]a-ma-ti-ka du-un-ni-in (28) u 4-⌈mu⌉-um ṭà-bu-um li-ti-iq-ma (29) te-er-⌈tam⌉ a-na šu-lu-um Ku-un-ši-im ki (30) ⌈lu-pu-úš⌉-ma an-ni-tam la an-ni-tam (31) lu-[xxx]-ak-kum-ma (32) l[u-úš-pu-r]a-ak-kum

The two terms LÚ hupšum and pazzurtum in l. 22 are interesting, but problematic. They are not attested in other SH-letters, and it is hardly possible to establish their exact meaning in the context of Zagros society on this basis. For hupšum I have followed AHw, 375a, where the term is explained as “Angehòriger einer niederen Klasse, oft Soldaten”. I am aware of Veenhof's discussion of pazzurtum, and his translation “smuggled goods, smuggling” for Old Assyrian (AOATT, 306 ff.), but it hardly fits this passage where the word must refer to specific places of “hiding”, perhaps depôts (cf. AHw, 852b), or watching posts in the mountains surrounding the valley where Kunsum was located.

57 For Mesopotamia in general cf. D., and Oates, J., “Early Irrigation Agriculture in Mesopotamia”, in Sieveking, et al. (eds.), Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology (London, 1976), 117 ff.Google Scholar For the Zagros I refer to the remarks in Hansen, H. H., The Kurdish Woman's Life (Copenhagen, 1961), 13 ff.Google Scholar (Dr. Hansen was the ethnographer of the Danish expedition to Shemshāra, and did fieldwork near the town of Dokān). See also Watson, P. J., Archaeological Ethnography in Western Iran (The University of Arizona Press, 1979), 77 ff.Google Scholar, for the inner Zagros valleys.

58 L. 15: uš-[ba-ku]

59 Administrative texts from Shemshāra mention deliveries to e.g. Talpu-šarri (SH 202), Tenduri (SH 889), and šip-šarri (SH 923 and 902(?)), but are undated, and could belong to the pre-Assyrian period.

60 An exception may be SH 878 (ShT, 47–50), where Kuwari is to come to Šamšī-Adad with the “elders”, perhaps for the conclusion of a formal treaty of vassalage (cf. e.g. ARM 4, 78, 6′ ff. for a similar case), and this event should probably be dated to late summer.

61 Cf. AS 16, 189 n. 2Google Scholar. Kurašānum, Jadīnum and Migir-Adad were also “Assyrian” correspondents.

62 Šikšabbum is also known from the Ur III period (cf. RGTC 2, s.v.). The campaign against this town and Ahāzum, discussed below, shows that it should be located somewhere on the Lower Zāb, downstream from Shemshāra (cf. SH 915, quoted below p. 99). Several letters written during the campaign (SH 859 + 881 (cf. Babylon, Fig. 4 and Pl. 3, copy and photo), SH 925 + and 941) contain instructions to Kuwari about the destruction or removal of a boat or ferry operating near Zaslum, in order to prevent more Gutians, who must have come from the south, from entering Šikšabbum. Presumably the ruins of Šikšab-bum are to be found near the modern town of Taqtaq, and the country of Ahāzum is to be equated with an area around this town, north of the Zāb.

63 See also the translation by Moran, ANET suppl. 628.

64 L. 45: i-na-an-⌈na⌉ I[TI.X +]I.KAM an-nu-tim ka-ṣ[i?( )] (46) ú qa-ti ú-ul⌈ub⌉-ba-⌈al!⌉-[šum? ]. This restoration is suggested by a similar passage in SH 828, a text which also deals with Jašub-Adad: (22) ku-uṣ-ṣú-ma ITI.2.KAM an-nu-tim ku!-ṣú-[ú ?] (23) [q]a-tam ú-ul ub-ba-al-[š]um: “It will still be winter for these two months. I cannot lay hands on him”.

65 L. 44b: ge-er-⌈ri⌉sic (45) Ša-ku-um-mi ki i-te-eš-ru (46) ge-er-ri Ša-ku-um-mi ki-ma (47) ṭú-ur-da-aš-šu.

66 (1) a-na Ku-wa-r[i qí-bí-ma] (2) um-ma LUGAUL-[ma] (3) tup-pa-ka ša tu-š[a-bi-lam eš-me] (4) aš-šum ṭe4-em Ja-[u-ub- dIM] (5) ša ta-aš-pu-[ra-am](6) sà-ar-ru-um a-nu-u[m-mu-?-um? …..] ⌈ x x⌉ (7) iš-tu MU.2. ⌈KAM⌉ wa-a[r-ki LÚ Ši-mu-ur-ri-iki ] (8) ⌈il⌉-li-ik LÚ Ši-⌈mu-ur-ri-iki (9) i-zi-ib-ma wa-a[r-ki-ku-nu il-li-ik] (10) ku-nu-⌈ti⌉ ⌈i⌉-zi-i[b-ma](11) a-na ṣi-ri-ia it-ta-a[l-ka-am] (12) [a-n]a-ku a-na qa-at Ja8-i-⌈la-nim⌉ ap-p[u-uṣ-ma] (13) [a-n]a a-wa-tim an-né-e[tim] (14) mJa8-i-la-nam i-zi-ib-[ma] (15) ⌈a⌉-na ⌈ṣi-ri⌉-ia it-ta-al-ka-⌈am⌉ (16) [i-na-an-n]a [i]-ia-⌈ti⌉⌈i-zi⌉-ba-an-ni-[ma] (17) [a-na ṣ]i-ir LÚ [Ka-ak-mi-imki ] (18) [it-ta-la]-ak […..]

67 For Šimurrum in early sources see Hallo, , RHA 36 (1978), 71 ff.Google Scholar Šimurrum should probably be located somewhere between the Lower Zšb and Diyāla rivers. The stela from Bitwāta (al Fouadi, , Sumer 34 (1978), 122 ff.Google Scholar) does not really provide a more exact location (as suggested by Wilhelm, , Grundziige der Geschickte und Kultur der Hurriter (Darmstadt, 1982), 9 f.Google Scholar). It commemorates the Simurrean conquest of a town named Kulunnum, and it may have been this place, not Šimurrum, which was close to Bitwâta.

68 Cf. RLA V, s.v. “Kakmum”, 289, and RGTC 3. Kakmum was not part of the Turukkean alliance and apparently not threatened by the Gutians. Probably it should be located somewhere north of the Rania plain, whereas the lands of the alliance should be sought east/southeast of there.

69 SH 828 (cf. n. 64), SH 880 and SH 886.

70 L. 15 “(Indušše) is dead set against you, he will not leave you in peace”. For other renderings of this passage see JNES 21 (1962), 296 no. 448Google Scholar, OrNS 29 (1960), 57 Google Scholar and OLZ 56 (1961), 40 Google Scholar.

71 (17) …. ùbi-ra-ti-ka (18) la tu-uš-ma-ad šum-ma bi-ra-tum i-ṣú-ma (19) ù a-lu-ju ma-du ú-ul ú-ka-lu-ma (20) a-na qa-tim ⌈ša⌉ na-ak-ri-im ú ⌈ul⌉ ⌈i-na⌉di-nu (21) mi-im-ma bi-ra-tim la tu-uš-[ma-ad]: “and you should not increase the number of your garrisons. If the garrisons are small and the townspeople many, will they not (then) control (the towns), and surrender (them) to the enemy? Do not increase the number of your garrisons.” (cf. CAD M/I, 27a).

72 Several of the men listed in SH 887 also occur in administrative texts from Kuwari's archive as recipients of clothes, shoes, cups and other items. Thus SH 837, 842, 846, 850, 865 and 923 mention Hazip-Teššup, and SH 851, 862, 866 and 897 Zazija.

73 (1) a-na Ku-wa-ri qí-bí-ma (2) um-ma be-el-ka-a-ma (3) i-nu-ma ma-ah-ri-ia tu-uš-bu ki-a-am aq-bi-kum (4) um-⌈ma⌉ a-na-ku-ma LÚ Tu-ru-ku-ú ki (5) ša ⌈ki⌉-ma iš-tu ul-la-nu-um i-la-ku-nim (6) ša e-mu-uq⌈šu⌉-ku-li-šu-nu te-le-ú (7) ma-ah-ri-ka ki-la ša ki-ma e-mu-uq šu-ku-li-šu-nu (8) la te-le-ú a-na ṣi-ri-ia li-ti-qú-nim (9) an-ni-tam aq-bi-kum (10) a-na-ku a-na wa-ša-bi-šu-nu aš-ra-nu-um (11) ú-ul ha-de-ku-ú ú-ul a-al pa-ṭi-i (12) ma-a sa-bu-um ma-du-um li-ši-ib-ma (13) ul-⌈la-nu-um-ma li-i⌉-ta-pa-al (14) ⌈ù i-na e⌉-mu-⌈ qú-im⌉ ma-t[am š]a-⌈ti⌉ lu-ú he-sú-ú (15) an-né-tim ṣa-ab-ta-ku (16) i-na-an-na ṣa-ba-am ša šu-ku-lam te-le-ú (17) ma-ah-ri-ka ki-la ù ša šu-ku-lam la te-le-ú (18) a-na ṣi-ri-ia ṭú-ur-dam (19) ù am-mi-nim ba-lum LÚ.TUR-ka ⌈i⌉-[la-k]u-nim (20) ⌈i⌉-na a-la-ki-šu-nu pa-ga-ar-[Su-nu] (21) ⌈ša-ra⌉-qum i-ša-ar-ri-qú-nim-m[a] (22) [xx i]-na qa-ab-li-itge-er-ri (23) [i-ma(-aš)]-⌈Ša⌉-hu-šu-nu-ti (24) [ù an-na]-nu-um ú-ul uš-ša-bu (25) [ša? an?-n]i-iš LÚ.TUR-ka (26) [la ? ú-š]a-al-la-ma-šu-nu-ti (27) [xx] ⌈x⌉-ma i-ha-al-li-qú (28) [x x] ⌈x x ab ? bi ?⌉ i-la-qú-šu-⌈nu⌉-ti-ma (29) [….] ⌈xxxx⌉ [()] ⌈ i x⌉-di-i-im (30) [xxx]⌈x⌉ ma-tam li-ki-lu (31) [ša ? an ?-ni ?]-iš ta-ṭa-ar-ra-dam (32) I LÚ.TUR-ka pa-ni-šu-nu li-iṣ-ba-tam-ma (33) a-na ṣi-ri-ia li-ša-al-li<-ma>-šu-nu-ti-ma (34) i-na bi-ri-tim-ma la i-ha-al-li-qú (35) šum-ma la ki-a-am-ma nu-ga-la-at-šu-nu-t[i-m]a (36) ⌈pa⌉-ni-šu-nu a-šar ša-ni-im ú-ul i-ša-ka-nu-ú

74 SH 919. Cf. ARM 1, 69, discussed below p. 101.

75 SH 906+.

76 SH 883.

77 SH 943.

78 For the Mari evidence see below p. 102. For Burullum cf. SH 825 JAOS 88 (1968), 121 Google Scholar) which lists troops from this town (1. 3, 10).

79 (1) a-na Ku-wa-ri (2) qí-bí-ma (3) um-ma be-el-ka-a-ma (4) a-nu-um-ma ṣa-ba-am (5) it-ti E-te-el-lim (6) a-na la-we-e «KI» (7) aṭ-ṭà-ra-ad «KI» (8) erased (9) 1 li-im ṣa-ba-ka (10) šu-ta-aṣ-bi-it-ma (11) a-na ⌈ṣi-ri-šu⌉ (12) Ši-ik-ša-am-bi ki (13) ṭú-ru-ud-sú (14) Zi-ik-ri-Ištar. The name in l. 14 is written on the left edge (cf. ShT, 93 n. 70), and it is possible that Zikri-Ištar had something to do with the dispatch of this letter. The text, however, which is extremely badly written, is probably a palimpsest, hastily written in the field, and the name on the edge may simply have escaped erasure like the “KI” signs in ll. 6 and 7. (For Zikri-Ištar cf. ARM 4, 86 and ARM 5, 71.)

80 The Etellum known from ARM 4, 80 may be the same person.

81 (1) a-na Ku-wa-ri (2) qí-bí-ma (3) um-ma E-te-el-lum-ma (4) Ši-ik-ša-ab-bu-umki na-ka-ar-ka (5) a-ka-šu-um ù a-ia-ši-im ma-ru-⌈uṣ⌉ (6) ša Ši-ik-ša-ab-bi-imki (7) la-we-e-em i ni-pu-uš (8) tup-pi an-né-em i-na še-me-e-em (9) ⌈ga⌉-ma-ar-ti (10) ṣa-bi-ka ù LÚ Lu-ul-li-im (11) it-ti-ka ⌈ar-hi-iš (12) lu-pu-ut-m[a] (13) ù at-la-ka-am (14) ar-hi-iš (15) Ši-ik-ša-ab-ba-amki (16) i ni-il-wi ù šu-ma-am IGI be-lí-ne (17) ni-ir-ši (18) an-na a-na-ku i-na pa-aṭ Ta-ri-im ki (19) ⌈wa⌉-[aš-ba]-∣ku⌉ú ?! x x ar-hi-iš (20) [x x]⌈am⌉ x (21) [x ( ) Si-i]k-ša-ap-pa-am (22) [ni-qa-t]a-al la-ma LUGAL i-ka-aš-ša-tam (23) [a]-di U4.3.KAM U4.4.KAM Nu-ru-ga-am LUGAL (24) [i]-ṣa-ap-pa-at (25) [ù] LUGAL it-ti um-ma-na-tim (26) [a-n]a Š[i]-ik-ša-ab-bi-imki (27) i-⌈la⌉-ka-am (28) la-ma LUGAL i-la-ka-am ni-nu (29) [i]š-te-el i nu-ta-am-mi-iq (30) ⌈a⌉-na be-lí-ne (31) ⌈la⌉ tu〈-la〉-ap-pa-at al-ka-am

The letters from Etellum are full of peculiarities in both orthography and grammar. They were probably written under primitive conditions in the field, and certainly by a badly trained scribe.

82 Tārum here should be located in or near Ahāzum, and is probably not identical with the town, Tarrum, of which Išme-Dagan reports his conquest in ARM 1, 131.

83 Cf. the letters from Etellum already published, SH 876 (ShT, 65 f.), SH 859 + 881 (Babylon, Fig.4 and Pl. 3, copy and photo), and see People, 156.

84 Cf. RGTC 3, s.v., and see especially Oates, D., Studies, 31 and 39 Google Scholar. S 115 4, no. 72–2 (Birot, , Syria 50 (1973), 4 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar) is a letter from an Assyrian official(?) near(?) Nurrugum to Šamšī-Adad or Jasmah-Addu, and reports that Nurrugum can be taken if reinforcements are received. The sender indicates that messengers from his lord to Išme-Dagan have to follow a special route across the Tigris, apparently north of Ekallātum, “at night and in secret”. Birot assumes that the end station for this route was Ekallātum, but it seems more logical to assume that it was a field camp near Nurrugum where Išme-Dagan was staying during the siege, and that the letter was written by one of his officers. In that case the town of Nurrugum is to be located east of the Tigris, but the country of Nurrugum probably covered areas on both banks, hence the secret route through enemy territory.

85 See Læssøe, , “Siksabbum: An Elusive City”, to be published in OrNS (1985)Google Scholar.

86 Cf. Sasson, , Studio Pohl 3, 8 f.Google Scholar

87 A large number of Assyrian Mari letters concern relations with Qatna. See in general Klengel, , Geschichte Syriens 2, 117 ff.Google Scholar

88 Cf. Munn-Rankin, , Iraq 18 (1956), 87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The text is dated to the 12th of Addaru, and this would make good sense if Dadusa died towards the end of this year. Anbar, , IOS 3(1973), 19 f.Google Scholar, has suggested linking this text with ARM 2, 44 (dated to the 2nd of Dumuzi), also dealing with negotiations between Šamšī-Adad and Ešnunna, but contrary to Anbar I would date it after ARM 1, 37. It should be stressed, however, that these two texts may also concern negotiations which took place e.g. before the joint Qabrā campaign, or on some other occasion.

89 Other texts indicate such an alliance, but cannot with certainty be placed chronologically. Among them are ARM 1, 35 where Jasmah-Addu is to take an army to Esnunna, and ARM 1, 72 where this project is abandoned. Cf. also TIM 2, 15 (AbB 8, p. 12 ff). Most references to Assyria-Ešnunna hostilities, on the other hand, can be dated after Šamšī-Adad's death (cf. Anbar, , IOS 5 (1975), 4 ff.Google Scholar).

90 Cf. SH 856 (ShT, 51–3) and SH 921 (ShT, 53–5) which could belong here.

91 See ShT, 26, and Sumer 16 (1960), 13 Google Scholar. This sack did not, however, mark the end of OB occupation, and a later reference to a man from Šušarrā is found in OBTR, no. 207, 12.

92 For the first part of this letter, and the proverb quoted there, see most recently Alster, , WO 10 (1979), 1 ff.Google Scholar

93 For lines 26–35 cf. Klengel, , Klio 40 (1962), 9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94 Anbar, , IOS 3 (1973), 19 ff.Google Scholar has suggested linking these Mari letters (except 4, 25) with the Assyrian campaign in Zalmaqum. In his reconstruction they are placed just after ARM 1, 10 (dated to the 30th of Dumuzi), 22 and 29, which clearly belong together, and all concern preparations for the Zalmaqum campaign. Both ARM 1, 10 and 22, however, imply that Išar-Lim is in the west, where he is ordered to take troops to Helium, while ARM 2, 8 and ARM 4, 25 show that he has just been with Išme-Dagan in the east. It is therefore possible that the Zalmaqum campaign took place another year. ARM 1, 22 shows that it should be dated after the conquest of Nurrugum, and if it did not take place the following year, it must belong to the last three years of Samšī-Adad's reign.

95 (1′) [ú aš-šu]m⌈ m Im-di⌉-dIM ìR m Sa-[am-si-dIM] (2′) [š]a ta-⌈ma⌉-ar-tam KUG.BABBAR KUG.GI ù ru-[uq-qa-at] (3′) [K]UG.BABBAR a-na mIn-du-úš-še ub-lu ta-aš-p[u-ra-am] (4′) a-wa-tum ši-i ki-na-at ù ma-li ub-l[u-šum] (5′) še-me-ku KUG.BABBAR KUG.GI ù ru-uq-qa-at KUG.[BABBAR] (6′) ša ú-ša-bi-lu aš-šum ma-an-nim ú-ša-bi-i[l] (7′) aš-šu-mi-ka ú-ša-bi-il a-na En-du-úš-[še] (8′) ki-a-am iš-pu-ur um-ma šu-ma-a (9′) a-na-ku ù at-ta pu-hu-ur ni-iṣ-ṣa-bi-[it] (10′) ṣa-la-am-ka ù ṣa-al-mi ša KUG.GI (11′) lu-še-pi-iš-ma a-hu-um ki-ša-ad a-hi-im (12′) li-ki-il DUMU.MÍ ma-ar-ti (13′) lu-ud-di-na-ak-kum-ma a-na ša-ar-ra-k[u-ut] (14′) DUMU.MÍ-ti-ia ma-a-at Šu-šar-ra-a ki (15′) lu-ud-di-na-ak-kum ù ma-a-at—break

l. 9′: lit. “You and I have mutually (cf. AHw, 877a B, 3) seized each other”. The exact connotations of this expression are uncertain.

l. 13′: šarrākūtu, here taken as more or less equivalent to šeriktu, seems otherwise unattested in OB (cf. AHw, 1187b).

96 Cf. above n. 43.

97 Cf. also ARM 1, 75, 106 and 136. ARM 2, 13. ARM 4, 5 and 31. Chagar Bazar 983 (Iraq 7 (1940), 56 f.)Google Scholar; that the texts from Chagar Bazar date late in the Interregunum has long been suspected, cf. Larsen, , RA 68 (1974), 19 Google Scholar. If Nurrugum included Nineveh (cf. above p. 101) ARM 1,7, 10 and 60 should be added (as for 1, 10 a dating after the Nurrugum campaign is proven by its association with 1, 22, see above n. 94). Cf. also ARM 4, 12 and ARM 5,43 mentioning Talmuš, which was perhaps located north of Nineveh.

98 For these texts see Klengel, , Klio 40 (1962), 5 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

99 ARM 4, 87.

100 ARM 1, 90 and ARM 4, 52. Cf. also ARM 4, 42 and 53.

101 ARM 4, 23, 24 and 76.

102 ARM 4, 63, ARM 5, 61 and 62.

103 ARM 4, 21.

104 ARM 1, 90 was sent by Šamšī-Adad, while he is mentioned in ARM 4, 87 and 76. Note that ARM 4, 76 belongs closely with ARM 4, 23 and 24, and ARM 1, 90 probably with ARM 4, 52.

105 See Klengel, op.cit. 19 ff. for ARM 2, 40, 63 and ARM 6, 33. Cf. also ARM 10, 108; ARM 14, 126; RA 39 (1942–1944). 67 n. 2Google Scholar; A. 80, A. 424 (RA 72 (1978), 187)Google Scholar; S 115 6, no. 72-87, and 7, nos. 72–26 and 72–38. Also indices to OBTR, ARMT 21 and 22, s.v. “Zazija” and “Turukkû”.

106 Zimri-Lim period texts contain several references to messengers from these places, e.g. ARM 6, 15 and 23 (Arrapha), and ARM 6, 22 and 23 (Qabrā).

107 Cf. Dalley, , OBTR, 4 ff.Google Scholar

108 Stolper, op.cit.

109 For a survey of Ur III expansion in the northeast see e.g. Hallo, , RHA 36 (1978), 71 ff.Google Scholar

110 See Klengel, , MIO 11 (1965), 355 ff.Google Scholar It is significant that one of the few Mari references to Lulleans (B 308, cf. Stol, , Studies, 34 f.Google Scholar) mentions these in a context of places located far from the Zagros “homeland”, and probably with no relation to this.