d. f. rosa - middle assyrian gina u offerings lists. geographical implications qvo 5 2010

8/13/2019 D. F. Rosa - Middle Assyrian Gina u Offerings Lists. Geographical Implications QVO 5 2010

1/21

UNIVERSIT DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA DIPARTIMENTO DI SCIENZE STORICHE ARCHEOLOGICHE E ANTROPOLOGICHE

DELLANTICHIT

SEZIONE VICINO ORIENTE

QUADERNO V

R O M A 2 0 1 0

ana turri gimillistudi dedicati al Padre Werner R. Mayer, S.J.

da amici e allievi


2/21


3/21

VICINO ORIENTEAnnuario del Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologichee Antropologiche dellAntichit - Sezione Vicino Oriente

I-00185 Roma - Via Palestro, 63

Comitato Scientifico : M.G. Amadasi, A. Archi, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae, L. Nigro,F. Pinnock, L. Sist

Redazione : L. Romano, G. FerreroCopertina : Disegno di L. Romano daOr 75 (2006), Tab. XII

La foto di Padre Mayer di Padre F. Brenk

UNIVERSIT DEGLISTUDI DIROMALASAPIENZA


4/21


5/21

C. Saporetti - Qualche nota dai testi di E 353

S. Seminara - Uno scriba che non conosca il Sumerico, come potrtradurre? I Proverbi bilingui: fra traduzione e reinterpretazione 369

C. Simonetti - Note in margine ad alienazioni immobiliari det paleo-babilonese 375

G. Torri - The Scribal School of the Lower City of Hattu a and the Beginning of the Career of Anuwanza, Court Dignitary and Lord of Nerik 383

L. Verderame - Un nuovo documento di compravendita neo-sumerico 397

P. Xella - Su alcuni termini fenici concernenti la tessitura (Materiali peril lessico fenicio- IV ) 417


6/21

[Quaderni di Vicino Oriente V (2010), pp. 327-342]

327

MIDDLE ASSYRIANGIN OFFERINGS LISTS:GEOGRAPHICAL IMPLICATIONS

- Roma

1. INTRODUCTION The Middle Assyrian (MA) capital, then holy city, of Aur (modern ) has been surveyed and excavated by German missions since

the first part of the last century. Among the remarkable amount ofdocuments found there, a particular archive1 was discovered in the temple ofAur. This included almost exclusively records compiled by a specialoffice, the duty of which was to keep track of regular offerings, called (latergin), delivered to the temple by provinces2, and consisting in barley,honey or syrup3, sesame and fruit4. The great majority of the textsbelongs to the MA period, and has been partially published in the Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte(MARV) series, byH. Freydank5. The lists seem to have been mostly compiled in a periodspanning from the early 12th century BC (the earliest available documentscan be dated to the reign of obscure kings: III and

6) to the reign of Tiglath-Pileser I (1114-1076 BC). Thisofferings-system survived up to Neo-Assyrian (NA) times7, probably withminor changes in the materials delivered, and debatably with reducedimportance. In order to keep record of deliveries received year by year, thescribes redacted lists including the names of the provinces (Assyrian )

1 The term archive is used here to indicate a complex of documents accumulated over thecourse of an organizations lifetime (specifically the office of the of thetemple of Aur) that was clearly preserved for a certain time (cfr. Pedersn 1985, 43).

See also Jakob 2003, 175-181.3 Ondipu translated as syrup, seeibidem, 406 fn. 92. Postgate 1987, 136 fn. 10. Freydank 1976; 1982; 1994; Freydank - Feller 2004; 2005; 2006; 2008. See Freydank 1997;idem 2006, esp. 221-222. The system is attested up to Sargonid times: Postgate 1974, 214-216; Menzel

1981, 39-40 and 60; Pedersn 1986, 12-28 (esp. 14); Fales - Postgate 1992, xxxv-xxxvi;Postgate 1992, 251-252.


7/21

Daniele Federico Rosa

328

forwarding them, followed by the quantity of material(s) provided. Thegeographical reliability of these texts has been debated by scholarsdiscussing the MA provincial system. E.F. Weidner8, who could onlypartially reconstruct the sequence, was doubtful; many years later, P.Machinist9 stated that if we exempt the last three entries (= Aur,

) as placed for reasons of special emphasis andsummary the list actually followed a geographical order (East to West,across Assyria into the ). Anyway, the rough East-to-West order ofthe first four entries seemed in fact broken by the fifth, the town of Idu,which was located at modern H t on the far side of the Euphrates10.Moreover, it was not clear how reasons of special emphasis could leadsomeone to put some names somewhere in the middle of the list. Relying onthe geographical accuracy of these records, K. Nashef 11 postulated theexistence of another Idu Im Norden, different from the Euphrates one;nevertheless, when reviewing his work, J.N. Postgate correctly observed thatit is improbable that two Idus of such importance existed without beingdifferentiated from one another12. For this and other reasons, Postgatediscarded the use of MA lists for the reconstruction of historical geography;what is more, he considered them not founded on strictly geographicalprinciples13. Anyway, recent localization of the Idu of MA lists at Satu Qalaon the Lower Zab14 showed the substantial correctness of Nashefs

suggestion. Meanwhile, a view somehow similar to Postgates one had beenexpressed by H. Freydank15, who, due to the fluctuating number of listedprovinces through time, doubted the offerings texts could be used toshow the extent of the MA kingdom. Even though Postgates paper appearedalmost 25 years ago as a quite brief note, it has been since then the mainfoundation of any survey of MA geography. Recently, K. Radner added littlein her paper on MA and NA provinces16. This was of course due to the highquality of Postgates work, but also to the fact that the repetitive structure ofprovince lists made further inquiries seems useless. Moreover, in the

Weidner 1935-36, 13 fn. 87 and 21 fn. 148. Machinist 1982, 4.

10 Postgate 1976; Stol 1979, 99; Russell 1985. Cfr 3.11 Nashef 1982,136.

Postgate 1985. Postgate 1985, 98. On Postgates vision of MA provincial system and more, see alsoidem

1995.14 van Soldt 2008.

Freydank 1997, 51 and 2006, 220. See also Llop 2007, 680. Radner 2006.


8/21

Middle Assyriangin Offerings Lists

329

lists the name of the eponym is rarely preserved, so that it is often impossibleto date them17. In addition, a high number of them is so heavily damagedthat only fragments of toponyms are readable. For all these reasons, thesetexts have not been greatly considered by scholars interested in thereconstruction of ancient Mesopotamian topography. When taken intoaccount, their apparent (or, to someone, evident) illogic character hasprevented scholars from investigating them more deeply. Nonetheless, whenwe say that the product of an ancient society is or is not founded on logicprinciples, we must be careful to what principles are we referring to. Are welooking for what a 12th century BC Aur temple employee would havefound logic, or are we trying to read lists according to principles we woulduse some 32 centuries later instead? If we had to record today all theprovincial capitals forwarding their tribute to a center, we would in allprobability list them in alphabetic order, or in a clockwise direction, or in aNorth-to-South sequence, and so on. All these perfectly logic principleswould seem totally illogic (and probably unintelligible) to someone notusing our alphabet, not knowing clocks, and not being used to see maps withthe North at the top of them. Instead of searching for our own principles inthe lists, then, we should better try to see if they were redacted on the basisof any principle, no matter how far from the one we would have chosen. Inorder to do so, it can be useful to confront a few lists in which the eponyms

name is preserved (with one exception). A selection of them is presented inthe featured table. In the first line, each list is given a number (1 to 6); theoriginal MARV volume and text numbers follow; in the second and thirdones, eponym names and relative reign18 are shown. Editions of lists follow;to the side of each toponym, numbers of original lines are indicated. Forconvenience reason, the last column on the right contains the list edited byPostgate19 - probably the best preserved and most recent20 known MAprovince list at all.

Sometimes texts, though datable, are broken in the most interesting part: e.g., see MARVVI, 1, compiled at the time of (or ), who was eponym during the reignof Tiglath-Pileser I, cfr. Freydank 1991, 78-87 and 138; also Saporetti 1979, 154.

This is done after Freydank 1991. Postgate1985, 96 97. It was compiled in Tiglath-Pileser Is penultimate regnal year. Cfr. Freydank 2006, 219-

220.


9/21


330

2. COMMENTARY It is evident that all lists are very similar to each other; the quest for a

logic in their compositional process could then be considered concluded bymaking a simple assumption: the scribes had at their disposal a model listthat they copied through time. I find this explanation unsatisfactory for atleast one reason: it is true that, even if any proof is lacking, a model listcould have existed, or better, scribes might simply have copied listscompiled in precedent years. However, even if a first list surely existed, itmust well have been redacted according to some principle. How can this be

sustained? First of all, an office that seems to have had purely practical aimsmust have kept its work well organized, and a randomly-composed listwould not have helped. Furthermore, although very similar, lists are notexactlyequal to each other. The remarkable fact is that changes in them(both additions and subtractions) do not lead us to think of an unsystematicsequence. First of all, toponyms that change places in the sequence throughtime (quite a few, indeed) do not alter their position in a remarkable way:they are always recorded in the same section instead21. Moreover, whennew places are inserted in or subtracted from the list, this does not seem tohave been done randomly. Nineveh ( Ninua) is not ever-present, but when itappears in the sequence, it is always inserted in the central section of thedocument; the Upper Province ( ) apparently takes the place ofadikannu and (U)ukanu from a certain moment on (cfr. below); and umela, when added, conclude the list; and so on. In addition, there arerarely minor changes in the lists (e.g., two toponyms usually written inconsecutive lines that in one or a few cases switch places, or a place-namethat just in one case is written one or two lines after its usual position, orsimilar) that could be explained with oversights of a scribe trying toremember a sequence that was logic to him. Admittedly, this is not enoughto postulate the existence of an order laying beyond the redaction of listshere in analysis. I think some attention should be paid then to anotheradministrative document composed in the eponymy of who wasprobably in charge at the time of Ninurta-apil-ekur, published by H.Freydank as MARV V, 64. As we read in line 1, this is a record of the

A similar system is attested in the Hellenotamiaitribute-lists redacted in 5th century BCAthens according to a fixed sequence of five (later four) major topographical areas, insidewhich place-names were recorded. These areas were not listed in a way that we wouldfind coherent nowadays: Ionia, Hellespont, Thrace, Caria and Aegean Islands. SeeMeritt - Wade-Gery - McGregor 1939; 1949-53; a summary is found in Guarducci 1969,221-228.

Freydank 1991, 169.


10/21


331

missing sum of the offerings23 from a reduced number of places: (3) (4) (5) (6) URU (7) u--du(8)

(9) u-ka-nu.What is of particular interest here is that at the endof the tables these places are defined , fortresses24. This could be ahint on how we should understand this sequence of toponyms, which aregrouped together (with a variation in the order: udu is the first name of thelist) also in the above transcribed texts nn. 2-325. Furthermore, in certaintexts the towns of adikannu and (U)ukan(n)u are apparently replaced bythe Upper Province, so that a sequence udu, , Amasakku,

, Aur, appears (nn. 5, 7 above26). So far, we onlyhave seen -offerings documents, so that the absence of remarkablevariants in the sequence could once again be explained with a model listthat was copied through time. Nonetheless, we find almost the samesequence in other texts too. MARV V, 60, edited by J. Llop27, is a list ofgrinders deliveries to the temple of Aur. It consists of a list of 25provinces, similar to the regular offerings texts ones. Lines 8 to 13 list asusual: udu, , Amasakku, , Aur, (then

, and so on). We get the impression, then, that the above mentionedsequence was well fixed in the minds of those performing a merely practicalrecording work in MA times Aur. The list must have made some sense tothem. In order to understand it, let us make a step backwards to the term

fortress which seems to give coherence to an otherwise apparently randomsequence (the one including places from udu to to Aur and toadikannu/(U)ukannu or the Upper Province, i.e. from the upper area to Assyria and then back to the middle ). The termbirtu, normallytranslated fortress, is not an administrative one like, e.g., or 28.From various sources29 it seems particularly connected with borders, where abirtu is often found. Now, we have seen that all places listed in MARV V,64 are defined like that. Should we put them all on a map, we would noticethat, apart of the definition, they have something in common from atopographical point of view: even though their location is in some casesuncertain, we can be reasonably sure in affirming that they are at least in sixcases out of seven the farthest reaches of the MA kingdom in the period

Ll. 1-2: A (2) . . (...). L. 11:bi-ra-te. The broken sequence of n. 1 could be integrated like this as well. This is also the case of MARV V, 67, not edited here. 2007, 681-682. Cfr. Jakob 2003, 14-25. CAD/B, . . A, 2, 262.


11/21


332

under analysis. More detail is added in 3 below. If now we look back at theprovince-lists transcribed above and to the almost perfectly fixed sequencethey express, and we keep in mind that places from udu to ukanu (or tothe Upper Province) represent a coherent succession, or better a series ofsuccessions, we can assume that the entire list is formed by a series ofstrings as coherent as that. In the following paragraph, I will try to examineall toponyms included, in order to see if logical sequences can be isolated.

3. COHERENTSEQUENCES INSIDE THEMAINONE

Part A: the borders of the MA kingdom (from Arbailu to Turan):

(1) Arbailu, Kilizu, , Talmuu, Idu: the first five entries areever-present in the - lists we know30. Arbailu and Kilizu have beenidentified with modern sites (respectively and ). Theterritory corresponding to , that included (modern

) in later times31, has not been identified with certainty, but musthave extended somewhere between that city in the South and the source ofthe river in the North32. The location of Talmuu is uncertain too. Onthe basis of NA material, J. Reade has tentatively identified it with modern

33, a solution that has been generally accepted by assyriologists.In any case, it is clear that from the point of view of Aur the first fourplaces named in the list represent the north-eastern border of Assyria.Moving eastwards, Kilizu and Arbailu were the last important Assyriancentres before the western reaches of the Zagros mountains, where hostilepeople lived. The plain of , right east of Arbailu, was probably thecore of the land of Tummu35, attested from the time of Tiglath-Pileser I aspart of Nairi. In earlier times, Shalmaneser I hinted at the area North of

and Talmuu while listing his enemies: the land of Uruariextended from (i.e. the upper basin of the Lower Zab) in the East tothe land of the in the West; on its turn and in that context equal to later

Text 3 = MARV VI, 82 is broken in its first lines; however I think it can be well

integrated with this sequence. Radner 2006, 54. The southernmost location is that by Forrer 1920 (around A ); the

northernmost is the one by Reade 1978a, pp. 52-53 (North of the B), followed by Parpola - Porter 2001, map 4; Postgate (1985, 97), chooses an

intermediate solution.33 Reade 1978b, 159-160.34 Postgate 1995, 11; Parpola - Porter 2001, map 4; Radner 2006, 48.

Liverani 1992a, 19-20.


12/21


333

Uqumenu or / , which laid in the area around modern Gefe. Asseen above, Idu has recently been located at Satu Qala and must therefore beconsidered part of this group of places bordering Assyria in the east.

(2) : at least in MA times, the core of seems to havebeen in the eastern part of the 36. Even if these mountains werefrequently crossed by MA kings during their expeditions, no enduringconquest was obtained there, and was the only land to be added tothe borders of Assyria37. It was, then, the northernmost province of theperiod, and this is why it was included at this point of the list.

(3) udu, Taidu, Amasakku, , Aur, adikannu, Uukannu; , : this is the sequence of fortresses of MARV V,64 we have already seen above, plus the Upper Province (that seems to beinterchangeable with the two preceding toponyms, see below) and theLower Province (which I would consider linked with the Upper one, seebelow). In this case, we are in my opinion facing a sequence of sequences.This can be proofed not only on the basis of our, not deep indeed, knowledgeof ancient topography of Upper Mesopotamia38, but also thanks to the

-offerings lists themselves. More precisely, Taidu, Amasakku and represent a sequence in themselves: even if their location is (with

different degrees) still uncertain39

, we know these places laid probably in the triangle; moreover, their presence and position in the list seemindependent from those of udu: they are in fact mentioned before Assur andudu in MARV V, 64; they are absent in our text n. 4 where udu is presentand they are listed in text n. 640 where udu is absent. With regard to its

On the MA situation of , see Nashef 1982, 165-166 with further bibliography;see also the maps (I-III) in Salvini 1967, and p. 88 fn. 28 there. In NA times, seems to have extended southwards: see Liverani 1992a, 29-30; now Radner 2006 p. 53(s. and Till).

1991, A.0.87.1, 30 31. While I am writing, the long-awaited volumeEntre deux fleuves - Untersuchungen zur

historischen Geographie Obermesopotamiens im 2. Jahrtausend , edited by E. Cancik-Kirschbaum and N. Ziegler, is still in press.

The best candidate for Taidu seems to be Tell , see Eichleret alii 1985; Wfler1994. has good chances to be equal to modern Tell Amuda: Nashef 1982,171; Machinist 1982, 36; Postgate 1985, 98. Amasakku cannot be located with certainty,even if we know from royal inscriptions that it was part of , and comparisonwith NA Masaka (Tell ? Cfr.Tall al-HamidiyaI, p. 49) seems to confirm itslocation in the triangle.

Ll. 8-10: the sign after URU seems to be part of TA more than U, and there is room fortwo more signs, so that line 8 could be reconstructed asURUta-[i-du].


13/21


334

location, apart of its comparison with the of I41, noserious proposal can be made. Explaining the presence of Aur at this pointin the list is not easy, and it is even harder when we find out that ,i.e. Aur itself, is mentioned once again a few lines under. The doubleadministrative character of the MA capital (with a of Aur distinctfrom the inner city) could be the explanation42; Aur was then included herebecause its territory was one of the limits of the MA kingdom (no otherimportant centre is known West of the Tigris and South of Aur43). Lastly, Iwould keep adikannu and Uukannu apart. While adikannu has beenidentified with certainity with , some doubts remain on the yetfeasible identification of Uukannu with NA Sikanu and modern Tell

, located near the source of the river . Nonetheless, in casethis location is accepted, we are facing a couple of places unified by theirposition along the . The geographical principle seems here to prevailon the political one: Uukannu is in fact known from royal inscriptions tohave been in 44, like toponyms from udu to ;nonetheless, it is not associated with them, but with adikannu, the otherprovince on the explicitly mentioned here. As seen above, it has beennoted that the last two toponyms are apparently replaced in certain lists bythe Upper Province. This had led S. Jakob to argue that the UpperProvince consisted in fact in the territory of these two centres45. The

problem in identifying this , as well as its Lower counterpart, is noteasy solved. Adjectives like upper and lower are almost meaningless ifwe do not perfectly know the cultural horizon, or merely the point of view,of people using them. In lack of decisive proof, then, any proposal inlocating the two unnamed MA provinces had at least some chances to beright46. However, we now have two texts both dated to the same eponymy(MARV V, 64 and 67) that give respectively adikannu - ukanu47 and

48 after Aur. I think another argument can be brought to sustainthe correctness of Prof. Freydanks assumption: as he knows well, the Lower

Grayson 1987, A.0.76.1, 1-17, and A.0.76.3, 15-31. Postgate 1985, 98. No Assyrian province is found South of Assur until the of Assurbanipal in the

area: cfr. Liverani 1992b. Harrak 1987. Jakob 2003, 12. Postgate (1985, 98-99) thinks the two names refer to MA provinces known from other

sources but unnamed here. MARV V, 64, ll. 8-9. MARV V, 67, l. 12.


14/21


15/21


336

seems more flexible than the one used in the first. Actually, one couldrecognize two major sub-groups inside which interchanges of toponymstake place: the first includes Addarik, Apku, Karana, Kurda, andNinua. When present, opens the list followed by Ninua; otherwise,Ninua takes its place right after Turan. Other toponyms are listed quitefreely. The second group includes , , , ,

/ , imu and umela. This is opened alternatively by/ and ; the order in which toponyms are given seems slightly morerigid than the one used for the first group. After the first two place-names,the sequence is imu, (absent in nn. 1-2), , , umela(the last two are not ever-present). Due to the low number of toponyms thathave been identified with a modern site unquestionably or with a few doubts,it is hard to determine the reason why the second part of the list, whichseems to concern provinces enclosed within the boundaries listed in part A,is organized like that. In any case, a few conjectures can be made, anyway.Part B of the list is opened by Aur as . As we have seen, thedouble mention of the capital city of Assyria must have depended on someadministrative diversification. In this case, I think we can assume that itopens the list of inner provinces for hierarchical (or merely natural)reasons. There follow the provinces belonging to what we have called thefirst group. Among these, Ninua and Apku are well known. On the basis of

Old-Babylonian evidence, we know that both Kurda and Addarik can besought somewhere between the eastern affluents of the in the East andthe area of Ninua itself in the West53. Karana laid not far South of Apku inthe region54. Therefore, we have another group of toponymswhich probably have a common geographical connotation. The other groupis the hardest to discuss, since apart of/ and we have nofixed points to rely on. Both these places were in the heartland of Assyria,well inside the north-eastern border. Quite the same is sustainable for imuon the basis of NA sources55, while recently has been proven to bedifferent from similar place-names laying elsewhere56. umela is attested atNuzi (the geographical horizon of which could well correspond to the onewe are hinting at)57. We suspect then that that all place-names mentioned inthis sub-group belong to a precise area of inner Assyria. If truth be told, we

On Kurda, cfr. Groneberg 1980, 173. On Addarik, see Dalley 1976, 4 fn. 25. On theabove mentioned location, cfr. Postgate 1985, 99.

54 Nashef 1982, 151 with bibliography.55 Postgate 1985, 99; 1995, 11; Radner 2006, 47-48.56 Llop - George 2001-02, 16-17 fn. 23.

Fincke 1993, 262.


16/21


337

have a couple of documents that seem to contradict the possibility ofdividing the second part of the whole list into minor sub-parts: our text n. 3gives after Apku and , and the above-mentioned MARV V,60, though very fragmentary, mixes places of what we conjecturally haveidentified as sub-groups of part B. Anyway, there are few doubts in myopinion that all toponyms listed after Turan were enclosed in the broadcircle drawn by previously recorded provinces.

4. CONCLUDINGREMARKS

In front of the lists, some questions could be raised: are theyuseful to our knowledge of ancient topography, i.e. were they composedaccording to geographical principles or not? and, do they give us a completerepertory of MA provinces? We have seen that the lists were actuallycompiled on the basis of a principle that I would define geographic.Provinces laying on the borders of the kingdom are listed first, in the order:East; South (beyond the Euphrates); North; West ( triangle); South(between Tigris and Euphrates); West (course of the ); there followprovinces enclosed in these boundaries, with the Inner City of Aur at thetop of them, perhaps divided into two main groups (western and eastern).Why the scribes did use this order, we do not know; its constant use showsthat it must have made sense to them anyway. The enclosing of a certainplace in a determined group, then, gives us a general idea about its location.However, various other sources inform us that not all known MA provincesare included in the regular offerings records. Inner provinces, like and -Itar, do not appear were we would expect them. The ones layingbeyond the far side of the Lower Zab, like and , wereprobably not yet under firm Assyrian control when the lists were redacted. Inany case, the absence of certain places could simply mean that not allprovinces forwarded regular offerings to the central temple of the capitaltown (exemptions for particular reasons are attested in the NA period).Being purely functional documents, the lists analysed in this paper givepractically no details on the cult of the Assyrian major god apart of naming

all materials delivered; I hope this short study can help at least to shed somelight on the MA geographical conceptions.

The making of this paper would have not been possible without theconstant and precious advice of Prof. Mario Liverani, who also edited andimproved the text, Eva Cancik-Kirschbaum and Johannes Renger, who bothhelped me in the early stages of my research, and Jaume Llop, who gave mepriceless suggestions and patiently reviewed my transcriptions. Prof. Wilfredvan Soldt kindly provided me with his paper on Idu. I would also like to


17/21


338

thank Ms Valentina Porretta for helping me in finding out bibliographicalreference on the Athenian tribute lists, and Ms Francesca Pajno for drawingthe map.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MARV V = FREYDANK- FELLER 2004MARV VI = FREYDANK- FELLER 2005.

DALLEY, S.1976 The Old Babylonian Tablets from Tell al Rimah, London 1976.EICHLER, S. ET AL. 1985 Tall al-Hamidiya 1. Vorbericht 1984 (OBO Series Archaeologica 4),

Freiburg 1985.FALES, F. M. - POSTGATE, N.1992 Imperial Administrative Records, I (SAA VII), Helsinki 1992.FINCKE, J.1993 Die Orts- und Gewssernamen der Nuzi-Texte (RGTC 10),

Wiesbaden 1993.FORRER, E.1920 Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches, Leipzig 1920.

FREYDANK, H.1976 Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte (VS 19),Berlin 1976.

1982 Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte,II (VS 21),Berlin 1982.

1991 Beitrge zur mittelassyrischen Chronologie und Geschichte (SGKAO21), Berlin 1991.

1994 Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte, III (WVDOG92), Berlin 1994.

1997 Mittelassyrische Opferlisten aus Assur: WAETZOLDT, H. - HAUPTMANN, H. (eds), Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten, XXXIXe RAI (HSAO 6), Heidelberg 1997, pp. 47-52.

2006 Anmerkungen zu mittelassyrischen Texten. 5: AoF 33/2 (2006), pp.

215-222.FREYDANK, H. - FELLER, B.2004 Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte, V (WVDOG

106), Saarbrcken 2004.2005 Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte, VI (WVDOG

109), Saarwellingen 2005.2006 Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte, VII

(WVDOG 111), Saarwellingen 2006.


18/21


339

2008 Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte, VIII(WVDOG 119), Saarwellingen 2008.

GRAYSON, A.K.1987 Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC)

(RIMA 1), Toronto-Buffalo-London 1987.1991 Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, I (1114-859 BC)

(RIMA 2), Toronto-Buffalo-London 1991.GRONEBERG, B.1980 Die Orts und Gewssernamen der altbabylonischen Zeit (RGTC 3),

Wiesbaden 1980.GUARDUCCI, M.1969 Epigrafia GrecaII, Roma 1969.HARRAK, A.1987 Assyria and Hanigalbat,Hildesheim-New York 1987.JAKOB, S.2003 Mittelassyrische Verwaltung und Sozialstruktur: Untersuchungen

(CM 29), Leiden-Boston 2003.KHNE, H.1991 Die rezente Umwelt von Tall eh Hamad und Daten zur

Umweltrekonstruktion der Assyrischen Stadt Dur-Katlimmu (BATSH1), Berlin 1991.

2000 Dur-Katlimmu and the Middle-Assyrian Empire: ROUAULT, O. - WFLER, M. (eds), La Djzir et l'Euphrate syriens de la protohistoire la fin du second millnaire av. J.-C.(Subartu VII), Turnhout 2000,pp. 271-277.

LIVERANI, M.1992a Studies on the Annals of Ashurnasirpal II, 2: Topographical Analysis

(QGS 4), Roma 1992.1992b Raappu and atallu: SAAB 6 (1992), pp. 35-40.LLOP, J.2007 Review of FREYDANK-FELLER: BiOr 44 (2007), pp. 677-683.LLOP, J. - GEORGE, A.W.2001-02 Die babylonisch-assyrischen Beziehungen und die innere Lage

Assyriens in der Zeit der Auseinandersetzung zwischen Ninurta-tukulti-Aur und Mutakkil-Nusku nach neuen keilschriftlichenQuellen: AfO 48/49 (2001-02), pp. 1-23.

MACHINIST, P.1982 Provincial Governance in Middle Assyria and Some New Texts fromYale: Assur 3/2 (1982), pp. 1-37.

MENZEL, B.1981 Assyrische Tempel,I, Rome 1981.MERRITT, D. - WADE-GERY, H.TH. - MCGREGOR, M.F.1939 The Athenian Tribute Lists, I, Cambridge 1939.1949-53 The Athenian Tribute Lists, II-IV, Princeton 1949-1953.


19/21


340

NASHEF, K.1982 Die Orts- und Gewssernamen der mittelbabylonischen und

mittelassyrischen Zeit (RGTC 5), Wiesbaden 1982.PARPOLA, S. - PORTER, M.2001 The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period ,

Helsinki 2001.PEDERSN, O.1985 Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur , I, Uppsala 1986.POSTGATE, J.N.1974 Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire, Rome 19741976 Idu: RlA 5/1-2 (1976), p. 33.1985 review of NASHEF1982: AfO 32 (1985), pp. 95-101.1987 Notes on Fruit in Cuneiform Sources: BSA 3 (1987), pp. 115-144.1992 The Land of Assur and the Yoke of Assur:WA 23/3 (1992), pp. 247-

263.1995 Assyria: the Home Provinces: LIVERANI, M. (ed.), Neo-Assyrian

Geography (QGS 5), Roma 1995, pp. 1-17.RADNER, K.2006 Provinz: C. Assyrien: RlA 11 (2006), pp. 42-68.READE, J.1978a Studies in Assyrian Geography, I: RA 72 (1978), pp. 47-72.1978b Studies in Assyrian Geography, II: RA 72 (1978), pp. 157-180.RLLIG, W.1978 Dur Katlimmu:Or NS 47 (1978), pp. 419-430.RUSSELL, H.F.1985 The Historical Geography of the Euphrates and abur According to

Middle and Neo-Assyrian Sources: Iraq 47 (1985), pp. 57-74.SALVINI, M.1967 Roma 1967. SAPORETTI, C.1979 Gli eponimi medio-assiri (BM 9), Malibu 1979.STOL, M.1979 On Trees, Mountains, and Milestones in the Ancient Near East ,

Leiden 1979.VAN SOLDT, W.2008 The localization of Idu: NABU2008/55.

WFLER, M.1994 Taddum, Tdu und Taidu(m)/Tdum: CALMEYER, P. et al. (eds),Festschrift fr Barthel Hrouda zum 65. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden 1994,pp. 293-302.

WEIDNER, E.F.1935-36 Aus den Tagen eines assyrischen Schattenknigs: AfO 10 (1935-36),

pp. 1-53.


20/21


341

T a

b .

1


21/21


342

. 1: .

d. f. rosa - middle assyrian gina u offerings lists. geographical implications qvo 5 2010

Documents