Everything Must Go

Outgoing Gold: Sales and Silver

Almost half of YOS 17, 360 (sections A–J) records gold transactions. Gold was not a form of currency but was rather a traded luxury good that the Empire either channeled into Babylon, where Eanna traded wool or silver for it, or, in the case of the expensive nalṭar gold, imported into Babylonia from Arabia via the Sealand (or Sealand officials) as dust, ingots, or nuggets starting in the 7^th century.^[19] Because gold was a precious imported commodity, it was, in general, highly controlled by the crown and state institutions, including temples, which kept it accounted for and secured in their warehouses until needed.^[20] Temples used gold to create, embellish, and repair cultic implements and, consequently, most temple records related to gold were composed in this context, since it was allocated to and processed by goldsmiths.^[21] On occasion, the Esagil temple in Babylon provided gold to Eanna for this purpose or Eanna sent its gold to Esagil so that the expert goldsmiths there could fashion it into cultic accessories for Eanna.^[22]

Eanna not only sold silver or traded other commodities for gold but also received gold through gifts (erbu “income”), usually directly from the king, which might have originated from taxes, tribute, or war spoils from conquered regions.^[23] Indeed, section A identifies the gold in the present text as erbu and sections B, D, and H specify the respective origin as erbu ša šarri “income of the king.” There are two other identified sources: the erbu of a certain man named Bulluṭ (name uncertain, section F), who unfortunately cannot be identified but was in possession of 1 mina and ½ shekel of gold (including 2 gold rings), and a Larsean scribe named Šamaš-šuma-uṣur (discussed above, section C), though in the latter case the gold was probably meant to return to Larsa as a finished cultic object. Section H mentions šūrû-vessels of the nišē “(common) people,” and, though these are not qualified as gold, they may well have been, given their context. There is also the possibility that some quantity of gold was collected from the gates (erbu ša bābi) or came from trade or other unspecified sources.^[24] It would be unusual for private citizens to have gold, but contemporary records, for instance, also record gold erbu “income” ša nišē “of the (common) people” (OIP 122, 120, PTS 3020); of Bēl-šuma-iškun/Nabê-pir-laʾ, the governor of Puqūdu (OIP 122, 120, YOS 17, 242); and of Princess Kaššāya (OIP 122, 120), indicating that gold was not fully restricted to the king but could be in the possession of other royal family members, high officials, and perhaps individuals who were simply wealthy.^[25] OIP 122, 120 shows surprisingly large quantities as well: almost 2 minas from the people and almost 3 minas from Bēl-šuma-iškun, which were delivered in three installments. Sections D and F mention the Arabian nalṭar-gold, which would have come via long-distance trade.^[26] Finally, some of the gold was withdrawn explicitly from the temple’s warehouse (D₁), so the ultimate origins are unknown.

What is remarkable about the gold in the present text is that the majority of entries are not about how it was purchased and allocated for internal use within the temple, as one would expect; instead, it is outgoing gold, withdrawn from the warehouse and sold in exchange for silver, transported elsewhere, or both. As mentioned, section A identifies the gold as sold for silver and/or disbursed (ana tēlīti elû). Only section B earmarks gold for cultic objects specifically (the standard type of gold transaction), and goldsmiths are attested in only one other section (H), though no individual goldsmiths are mentioned by name. In contrast, section E records gold that was smelted down, which was typically the first step in turning it into cultic jewelry, but, since this gold was sent to Opis instead of being used for the cult, perhaps it was fashioned into ingots. Section D (D₁, D₂) also mentions gold sent to Opis, while sections F–J are sales of gold for silver.^[27] The phrasing of these latter cases is somewhat ambiguous and it is tempting to read them as sales of silver for gold, as Eanna did not typically sell its gold.^[28] However, section J makes it clear that it is gold being sold for silver: 10 minas are given as the price of 1 mina of gold, of which 2 minas of silver were then disbursed by Eanna to a decurion. Entries F and I are structured identically and should thus be read in the same way; i.e., [quantity] of silver (the price of [quantity] of [outgoing] gold) was brought by PN.^[29] Given that the gold is explicitly outgoing in sections D and E, it is not surprising that outgoing gold is the organizing principle, broadly speaking, for the first half of the text.

Moreover, the transactions record large quantities of gold. Gold allocated for repairing cultic implements tended to be a matter of shekels, as in section B (3 shekels), section C (7 shekels), and section E (5 ⅔ shekels). In contrast, except for section G, the other entries record more than 1 mina of gold each: 2 minas in D₁, 1 mina in D₂, 1 mina and ½ shekel in F, 2 ⅚ minas in H, and 1 mina each in I and J. Altogether, this is a substantial amount of gold leaving the temple’s warehouse. Furthermore, sections D₁ and F mention nalṭar-gold, the most expensive kind of gold, purchased at a rate of about 1 : 12, which was the standard pricing during the 6^th century.^[30] Unqualified gold is sold at approximately 1 : 10 in this text and other contemporaneous texts from Eanna show similar rates: YOS 17, 230 (Nbk 2) gives a rate of approximately 1 : 9, GC 1, 6 (Nbk 2) contains the rate 1 : 8.5, and GC 1, 37 (Nbk 4) gives the anticipated 1 : 10 ratio. Section G has the lowest rate at 1 : 7. Why the gold in G was sold at a much lower rate is unclear, but, as noted above, it is the only sale for less than 1 mina of gold; indeed, the amount in G is only 1 ⅓ shekels of gold. The small quantity of gold—or perhaps also its quality or form—may have affected the price. All told, the temple expended over 9 minas of gold in exchange for a considerable sum of silver: over 57 minas.

In two cases, the gold is qualified as finished objects, which is unexpected. Section H is especially significant in this regard, as it lists 5 mukarrišu-vessels given by the king and šūrû-objects whose origins are uncertain due to a break in the text.^[31] Furthermore, as mentioned above, the erbu of Bulluṭ in section F included 2 rings (semeru). These objects, many of which would have normally been melted down and processed by the goldsmiths, were apparently sold as is for silver. That the temple would sell some finished gold objects such as bowls and implements, much less the remainder from goldsmithing projects, is remarkable, giving the distinct impression that the temple cleared out its warehouse of its gold inventory. With several transactions per month, and considering the amount of gold and silver at hand, it is clear that the temple had a dire, relatively urgent, and consistent need for liquid capital, i.e., silver, to support other purchases or purposes that exceeded the temple’s normal operations.

Where this wealth went and for what reasons are important considerations. The destinations for the silver are unfortunately not specified except for 2 minas of silver that were allocated to Aḫu-lūmur and his decurion (section J). Nonetheless, the second half of the text contains disbursements of silver, some of which may have come from this newly acquired capital. Sections D₁, D₂, and E, on the other hand, state that gold was taken to Opis, a trading post and strategic crossroad in northern Babylonia near the confluence of the Diyālā and Tigris Rivers.^[32]D₁ explicitly qualifies this as a partial repayment of a debt to the Sealand administration, as it was the šakin māti (governor) of the Sealand who ordered Eanna’s šatammu (the highest temple official) to withdraw 2 minas of gold from Eanna’s warehouse and take them to Opis.

In general, the sale of gold for silver, the quantity involved, its reallocation from the warehouse and goldsmithing projects, and the transactions that include finished products such as rings, bowls, and implements are all indicative of a financial problem that required asset liquidation to solve. While some sections clearly show Eanna sending gold and silver to Opis, some of the newly acquired silver was probably disbursed internally, as the remainder of the text contains numerous prebendary payments in silver, though only in small amounts and as partial payments. Indeed, the gold transactions are not the only suggestion that the temple needed to raise funds, since the prebendary payments themselves are problematic.

Partial, Substitute, and Delayed Prebendary Payments

The remaining sections (K onwards) comprise the majority of the collection and record prebendary payments. The prebendary system is a central feature of the Neo-Babylonian priesthood, as being a priest required the legal title of “prebend” (isqu “share”) along with temple service and the requisite qualifications.^[33] The prebend could be inherited patrilineally or granted by the king.^[34] This title allowed its holder to participate in the temple cult, defined the holder’s responsibilities to certain gods, and designated when and for how many days in a year these obligations had to be carried out.^[35] Roles related to food preparation and presentation comprised the largest category of prebendaries since deities required daily feeding.^[36] Within this category, the brewers (sirāšu) were at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the bakers (nuḫatimmu) and the butchers (ṭābiḫu).^[37] Where specified, the priests mentioned in the present text were either brewers or bakers; other roles are not represented.^[38] Five brewers are mentioned by name: Kudurru/Mukīn-zēr (N); Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin//Šangû-Šamaš, Nabû-šumaiddin/Mušezib-Bēl, Bēl-aḫa-šubši/Šangû-Bēl (Q); and Aplāya/Marduk-šuma-ibni (X). Two bakers are named: Zēriya/Rīmut-Gula (Q) and Marduk-ētir/Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin//Egibi (AA).^[39] One man, Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin, is listed as the descendant of Atû, a family named after the priestly office they traditionally held: atû “porter” or “doorkeeper” (Q).^[40] Unsurprisingly, the deities to whom the prebendary services were dedicated were the most prominent goddesses of the Eanna temple: Ištar of Uruk (Q and S; as the Lady of Uruk in AA) and Nanāya (N, Q, X, BB).

Priests responsible for food preparation were remunerated and issued the staples required to carry out their duties in the form of a maššartu, which was made up of the sattukku (the commodities that would be prepared and offered to the gods) and the pappasu (the remuneration for the prebend).^[41] The present text does not use maššartu, however, but instead refers to mašīḫu, which is normally the capacity measure by which the maššartu was measured and paid out.^[42] This meaning of mašīḫu is attested in section Q, in which 2 ⅓ shekels of silver are said to be “the price of [1 young male goat], the price of 3 ⅓ mašīḫu of dates,” and in section BB, which records 5 mašīḫu of dates. In all other cases, mašīḫu seems to be bookkeeping shorthand for maššartu, perhaps best seen in section DD, in which the silver mašīḫu is given “(instead of) their barley.” Moreover, all the other prebend payments in this text are only ⅔ of the share (i.e., ⅔ of the maššartu as a whole), never a full payment, and their contents are not qualified, which is otherwise unusual for a volume measure. As with the curious nature of the gold sales records, this shows a deviation from the usual procedures, especially since the priests were also not paid in kind but with partial, delayed, or substitute payments, often in silver but sometimes with poor equivalents, such as sheep carcasses (W) and firewood (Y), for instance. The only occasion on which the prebendary payment was genuinely given in kind is in section BB (the 5 mašīḫu of dates), but it is still a partial payment. In general, the nature of these payments gives an impression of a temple operating under financial stress and with reduced resources.

Payments made with silver are recorded in sections K, N, P, S, U, X, Z, AA, and DD, which each specify a certain amount of silver corresponding to ⅔ of a mašīḫu. These entries include varying combinations of information concerning the specialization of the person (either brewer or baker), the god for whom the service was undertaken (either Ištar of Uruk or Nanāya), and the days or months of service. For instance, section S details: “3 ½ shekels of silver as partial payment for ⅔ of the mašīḫu of Ayyāru (and) of 8 days of Dûzu before Ištar of Uruk.” Section DD specifies that the silver is paid to the priest instead of barley, which would have been payment in kind. The “Opis dossier” (discussed below) suggests that much of the barley may have been sent away to sustain laborers or soldiers involved in state projects, resulting in a shortage of internal barley supplies that would normally be expended to pay the priests.^[43] Generally speaking, the substitution of silver for payments in kind would not be unprecedented as a sign of crisis; for instance, another Urukean text (BM 30210 [1841-7-26, 56]) records silver payouts for priests as well, which Zawadzki suggests was due to a period of unrest from 626/5–620/19 BCE.^[44] One should note that the silver that Eanna paid out is also a relatively small amount, especially considering how much silver the temple acquired through the gold sales, suggesting that the temple’s wealth was largely being sent elsewhere.

Other sections record payments in kind, which would be more similar to the traditional prebendary payouts, but these are either calculated in silver or in a mixed form of payment-in-kind and silver. The sections in which the payment in kind is reckoned by prices in silver include section R, which has silver prices for firewood bundles and ewes; section T, in which 1 shekel is given as the price of one upper millstone (perhaps associated with a baker’s prebend); and section V, in which 1 ⅔ shekels are given as the price of 1 kur 2 pānu and 2 sūtu of dodder-plant. Finally, in section CC, 5 ½ shekels are given for 5 kur 1 pānu and 4 sūtu of dodder-plant and the recipient also gets ⅚ shekels of silver, the price of an object whose exact nature is lost in a gap in the text. Dodder-plant (kasû “cuscuta”) was an important ingredient for beer-making, so the priests named in sections V and CC, Nabû-nāṣir/Gimillu and Innin-šuma-uṣur/Ibnāya, were likely holders of brewer prebends.^[45]

Sections O and Q record mixed payouts of silver and objects valued in silver. Section O contains “5 shekels of silver (and) 1 tanned hide for (i.e., instead of) ½ shekels of silver” to make up the total partial payment for ⅔ of a mašīḫu. Section Q is the longest in the present text, containing six transactions of goats given by the temple’s rēʾi sattukki, Tukultī-Marduk, with their values given in silver. The total of seven goats (6 young males and 1 female) correspond to ⅔ of the mašīḫu given to the brewers and the bakers. This indicates that the goats were given as substitutes for the silver payment, which was itself a substitute for the payment in kind to these bakers and brewers. The amount of silver value per goat is largely standardized: 2 ⅓ shekels for 1 young male goat (with one for 2 ½ shekels) and 1 ½ shekels for 1 female goat. As these goats came from the rēʾi sattukki (who usually provided livestock for the temple’s sacrificial offerings) and the goats are explicitly qualified as from the temple warehouse, this would suggest that the temple had already cleared out most of its assets.^[46] The same can be said for section O, in which the 5 shekels and a tanned hide were withdrawn from the warehouse as well. Finally, section W records the disbursement of two dead sheep as payment, quite a poor substitute for payment in kind. These sheep carcasses are valued at 2 ½ shekels of silver and may have also come from Tukultī-Marduk, as dead sheep from the temple’s pastures were unsuitable for sacrifice and would consequently have been sold off cheaply or otherwise disbursed.^[47]

Two sections, M and Y, do not have an explicit prebendary context but, given the nature of the other transactions, likely also reference prebendary payments, especially as the two protagonists, Silim-Bēl/Arad-Innin and Silim-Bēl/Isinnāya, are also mentioned in section BB as priests. Section M was most likely two separate transactions, but, as the middle of the entry is missing, it is difficult to make any firm conclusions. In the first half, M₁, 1 ½ shekels of silver were disbursed for firewood for two people; M₂ only contains enough information to suggest that something was given “for barley to the palace.”^[48] Section Y, interestingly enough, shows the opposite situation: firewood valued at 2 shekels of silver was given to Nergal-rēṣūa, the slave of Nergal-nāṣir/Aqara, who was likely also a prebend holder, though it is not specified. Firewood was often associated with bakers, who required wood for their ovens, and one might thus suggest that the individuals mentioned in relation to firewood (sections M, R, and Y) were priests who held baker’s prebends.^[49]

Finally, a few payments were clearly delayed. Section P identifies the prebendary payment in silver as one that “had remained (unpaid) in the warehouse.” Section DD shows payments of silver for prebendary days that had taken place in Addāru and Nisānu in a transaction dated to Ṭēbetu, meaning that these payments were delayed for at least nine months. Similarly, section S mentions a partial payment of the mašīḫu of Ayyāru and eight days in Dûzu that was finally paid in Ulūlu a few months later. Section Q is dated to Ulūlu and records the payment of several mašīḫu owed in Nisānu, Simānu, Dûzu, and Ulūlu; like section P, these payments have come from the temple warehouse. Even the only case of payment in kind, section BB, is dated to Ṭebētu and chronicles payments of dates that were the remainder of prebendary days served in Addāru, including a previous mašīḫu payment, which would suggest almost a year’s delay for remuneration.^[50]

As mentioned, it is compelling that a few payments were explicitly withdrawn from the warehouse (D₁ in the gold section, O, and Q), especially when combined with the delays and substitutions, plus the paltry quantities of silver given instead of payments in kind. It appears that the normal prebendary payments were beyond the capacity of the temple, which was forced to clear out its warehouse or use some of the silver that it had acquired by trading its gold. If the delay in section BB is representative of a general trend, the pressure began already in year 13, though it seems that the early months of year 14 were particularly difficult for the temple, and it was only starting around mid-year that Eanna was able to begin paying its priests (albeit largely in silver) as the prebendary transactions are mostly dated to the latter half of year 14. Some priests in these transactions may have also been given delayed or partial payments because they were absent from the temple during their prebendary days (see below), a situation that may have been caused by the same factors that resulted in the downsizing of the temple warehouse.

Eanna within the Network of Resource Exchange

Temples were significant actors in the movement of resources within the imperial network of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (626–539 BCE). While temples were often the recipients of the wealth and imported goods that entered the Empire through conquest or trade, they also took an active role, trading their local goods and resources within and between cities. Eanna, Ištar’s temple in Uruk, was no exception: the temple’s economic records reveal that it routinely sold its locally sourced wool for silver and purchased grain, dates, and beer within Uruk.^[51] Eanna personnel also traveled to the capital Babylon, where they sold wool (often to the palace) for silver, grain, and gold and had access to trade in base metals, dyes and textiles, resins, spices, and other prestige goods as well.^[52] Moreover, smaller temples depended on Eanna for their basic functions, such as the Šamaš temple in nearby Larsa, which often asked Eanna for livestock and dates for their routine sacrifices.^[53] These regional and interregional exchange patterns not only affected goods but also meant a constant movement of personnel; for instance, Eanna’s priests and staff regularly travelled to the capital, and Uruk was in turn visited by cultic officials from other temples, such as Esagil in Babylon and Ezida in Borsippa.^[54] Temples used these networks to sustain their internal supplies and personnel in order to ensure that the daily cult could continue without interruption, which was their most important responsibility.^[55]

Temples were not entirely autonomous actors, however; they were subject to external forces, the most significant of which was the Babylonian king. The king was the great patron of Babylonia’s temples, investing his efforts and wealth into gifts for the gods and extravagant renovations of their shrines. Indeed, administrative archives record the king’s financial support in the form of erbu “income” and other supplies meant to ensure the continuation of the cult, while the royal inscriptions detail (re)construction projects and royal interest in cultic procedures.^[56] In reality, however, the transfer of resources was not one-directional: for state-sponsored projects, which included military expeditions and construction works, the king reallocated labor and goods by imposing obligations upon his citizens and institutions.^[57] While temples were theoretically protected from anything that would affect normal operations of the cult, state demands could nonetheless result in labor and resource shortages as people were conscripted and materials were sent to the project site, and these endeavors could last for years.^[58]

Overall, the impression given by YOS 17, 360 is that Eanna liquidated much of its assets in a relatively short period of time and sent most of its monetary gains elsewhere, expending minimal resources for prebendary payments. In general, the temple prioritized the accumulation of silver currency over its own warehouse holdings and priestly staff. As far as explanations go, an internal crisis is not impossible, but, given that there are clear indications in the text that the newly liquid capital was sent to other parts of the Babylonian Empire (e.g. Opis), it is far more likely that the squeeze on temple holdings was catalyzed by external forces; namely, royal pressure on the temple to provide support for some state-sponsored project(s). State matters are certainly indicated by sections such as D₁ and D₂, which record that the delivery of a gold payment for the šanû (“deputy”) of the Sealand was instead taken from Eanna’s warehouse to Opis by the temple’s šatammu personally by order of the Sealand’s šakin māti.^[59] The Sealand is also mentioned in section Z, in which a priest had been sent to see the šakin māti for some unstated official business, resulting in a partial prebendary payment for him.^[60] As mentioned, the Sealand was critical for trade into Babylonia, including the acquisition of nalṭar-gold; moreover, its governor had administrative oversight of Uruk.^[61] Major state endeavors tended to fall into two categories: construction initiatives and military actions. The impacts of such projects have been observed on temples across Babylonia in previous studies.^[62] Unfortunately, because it is not clear in the extant text corpus which military and building ventures were undertaken by Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur II in his 14^th year, it cannot be said with certainty what may have instigated the temple’s liquidation of assets and reduction of prebendary payments. Nonetheless, there are some possibilities within both categories and, as will be demonstrated below, Eanna’s crisis in year 14 was likely caused by a combination of pre-existing commitments to building projects and the onset of a military escalation that placed further demands on already strained resources.

Building Projects in the Opis-Sippar Area

The Eanna temple supported numerous state works under Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur II. For instance, several administrative texts show Eanna’s contributions to the North Palace in years 18–29, and BIN 1, 138, dated to Kislīmu in year 13, records that the temple sent gold for work on the Esagil temple in Babylon; the amount was likely generous, as almost 1 mina was sent back and partially reallocated to a goldsmith, while the rest presumably reentered the treasury.^[63] Moreover, several of Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur’s other major construction works were conducted or concluded around the date of YOS 17, 360 (591–590 BCE). For example, Uruk contributed to the ziqqurrat in Babylon, which was completed in 590, while Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur’s early reign also saw the construction of the Nār-Šarri (later Nār-Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur) canal between the Euphrates and the Tigris Rivers, essentially from Sippar to Opis, and the so-called Median Wall alongside it.^[64] By year 15, Eanna was also involved in a building project in Jādaqu.^[65] An Eanna text dated to Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur year 12 records over 7.5 minas of silver ultu libbi erbi ša Addāru “from the income of Addāru” that was disbursed by Eanna in order to pay the rēḫānu ša dulli “remainder of the work” for years 9 through 11, a transaction that was witnessed by Ninurta-šarra-uṣur, the qīpu.^[66] A few other projects in the Sippar area also placed a demand on Eanna’s resources, including work undertaken at Raqqat-Šamaš, for example, though this was probably late in Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur’s reign.^[67] Letters suggest that the Sealand was heavily involved in state building projects to which Eanna contributed as well, possibly including the North Palace project or the projects in Opis.^[68] In general, Eanna was consistently involved in supporting state construction works during Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur’s reign and existing commitments to building projects may have been a contributing factor in the crisis behind the transactions in YOS 17, 360.

The appearance of Opis in YOS 17, 360 is significant for this point. Located to the northeast of Uruk near the confluence of the Diyālā and Tigris Rivers, Opis (ancient Upia, likely modern Tulūl al-Muǧailiʿ) was an important trading post and strategic crossroad.^[69] Because Opis had a prominent role in long-distance trade, one might initially suppose that gold being sent there would be designated for trading purposes. This is not likely, however, as the gold was being handled by high-status administrators, including Sealand officials, and D₁ explicitly qualifies the gold as a partial payment for a debt to the Sealand’s šanû Nabû-ētir-napšāti. Moreover, Eanna is not known to have traded its gold (its cash crop was wool); indeed, gold was acquired primarily via the Sealand or in Babylon, where Eanna itself would purchase some of its supply.^[70] More probable is that these transactions were related to the long-term construction project in Opis, which included defensive structures about which there is unfortunately little further information.^[71] It is certain, however, that the project was overseen by the šatammu and the temple scribe; as mentioned, the šatammu, Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin, was responsible for taking the gold from Uruk to Opis in D₁, either during early Abu (V) or earlier. He then remained in Opis, where he subsequently received gold sent by others from Eanna on the 10^th and 16^th days (in D₂ and E, respectively). Thus, the temple sent at least 3 minas of gold to Opis, much of which was originally earmarked for other purposes: in D₁ for a payment to the šanû of the Sealand, Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti; and in E, for repairing cultic implements.^[72] The šatammu seems to have traveled back and forth several times that year, since PTS 3020 shows him traveling again on Kislīmu (IX) 10 and YOS 17, 33, dated to Kislīmu (IX) 26, records that the šatammu received sheep in Opis that were provided by Eanna’s rēʾi sattukki, Tukultī-Marduk. If the Opis building project is indeed the reason behind the transactions recorded in YOS 17, 360, then this text shows the crown compelling the temple to sell its gold to raise money for this undertaking and to send staples like barley and dates (which would normally be used to pay priests) to sustain the laborers.

Perhaps the clearest indication that a substantial portion of the liquidated funds were utilized to support personnel sent to the Opis region is GC 1, 256.^[73] This text indicates that some of Eanna’s oblates (širku) had been sent to Opis, where their basic costs were covered on credit by Kīnāya/Rāši-ili. Kīnāya is also mentioned in section F, where he purchased over 1 mina of nalṭar-gold for almost 12 minas of silver. Kīnāya’s exact role is not specified, but it is clearly one in which he dealt in large sums of silver and gold with Eanna. To repay Kīnāya for financially supporting the oblates in Opis, Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin sent him 12 shekels of gold, which he had purchased from Širiktu using the temple’s silver erbu of the month of Nisānu (I).^[74] Again, instead of disbursing its gold purchases for internal use, GC 1, 256 is another case of Eanna sending gold to Opis to cover costs related to state projects outside of Uruk. What the oblates were doing in Opis is, however, not clear—they may have been used as labor for state building projects or they may have been sent onwards for military purposes (as discussed below).

That the Eanna temple was wrapped up in several concurrent state projects at this time is clear from the letters in the “Opis dossier.”^[75] Several letters to and from Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin belong to this dossier, as he was stationed in Opis and wrote repeatedly to Eanna asking for dates, barley, and silver for worker’s rations and wages to support the project he was overseeing there. For example, a letter to Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin from Nabû-ušabši mentions a dam and requests several iron spades and shovels.^[76] A different official, Innin-zēra-šubši, reports severe shortages in silver and labor for a state project possibly located in the Sealand, asking Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin to intervene.^[77] Specifically, Innin-zēra-šubši writes that fewer men had arrived than Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin was expected to send, that they were not accompanied by a decurion to supervise them, and that he would have to employ an additional 130 laborers (agru) as workmen to assist the 80 serfs sent as corvée workers (ṣābu) who did show up, lamenting, “we are always short these days and the lord should not forsake us. Let the lord quickly send 100 corvée workers (ṣābtu) and a decurion . . . The lord cannot n[eglect] it . . . the hired laborers (agru) are doing all the work of the corvée workers.”^[78] In other words, they were forced to use hired laborers, who are far more expensive than the corvée workers they were expecting. One might note a possible connection with section J, which mentions silver given to a decurion, but it is not clear what role the decurion has in that case. In addition, one letter, sent from Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin in Opis to Nabû-ušallim in Eanna, which Kleber dates to around Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur year 14, may in fact refer obliquely to the situation in the first half of YOS 17, 360, as it ends with the question “what is this gold that I keep hearing about?”^[79]

Military Mobilization to the Levant

Opis was moreover a border city with a garrison and acted as a base for military excursions into the Levant, which presents another possible explanation: warfare.^[80] Eanna is known to have stationed archers in the city for watch duties on the Tigris and would have sent over money and staples for the military forces. In support of military action as an interpretation is PTS 3020, also dated to Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur year 14 (Kislīmu [IX], 10^th day), which lists spades, shovels, axes, and quivers, along with 40 daggers for a contingent of farmers and 1200 arrows that were sent to personal guards (tašlīšus), 10 of whom belonged to Eanna’s šatammu, Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin, and 10 to the temple scribe, both of whom personally traveled to deliver a considerable amount of gold from the erbu ša nišē and the temple’s stores.^[81] The initial destination was likely Opis, where the šatammu was stationed in year 14, but, given the overtly military nature of the provisions recorded in PTS 3020, it is unlikely that they were intended for endeavors such as canal building in Opis and were probably sent onwards to Tyre for martial purposes instead.

The case for military motivations behind the presence of the Sealand and the Eanna administration in Opis as well as the high levels of investment becomes stronger when considering that Opis was a collection point for campaigns to the Levant.^[82] Indeed, the historical context suggests that military escalation in the Levant was driving the demand for labor, money, tools, and weapons. At the time of YOS 17, 360, the Eanna’s royal representative, the qīpu Ninurta-šarra-uṣur, was based in Tyre in Lebanon. In one letter, he demands that Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin settle his accounts and send silver and 20 ploughmen right away (presumably to Tyre),^[83] following up in another letter that Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin must send him laborers, 10 talents of iron, 300 tools, and silver for wages, sternly reminding him that these are the king’s orders and threatening to report him to the king if he does not comply promptly.^[84] Ninurta-šarra-uṣur’s phrasing betrays urgency and a possible outbreak of violence: “send the silver quickly [...] they have killed the replacements (ḫalpu). Quickly, send me 20 ploughmen.”^[85] Perhaps in response to these very letters, Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin sent Nabû-ušabši and Ibni-Ištar 20 ploughmen, instructing the Eanna officials to send them to Ninurta-šarra-uṣur along with anything else the qīpu requests.^[86] Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin further instructs the officials to purchase bows and military equipment with the silver he sent them, using the temple’s stores if additional money was needed, and to bring lances and weapons from the warehouse: “send iron lances from the warehouse and a leather scabbard with stakes . . . Get 10 shekels [of silver from] the warehouse, (and) do your work.”^[87] This equipment was likely destined for Tyre along with the ploughmen. Administrative texts such as NBC 4665, also dated to Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur year 14, confirm that the qīpu received at least iron, tools, and shovels in large quantities from the temple: “4 talents and ½ minas of iron, finished goods; 62 ḫālilu-tools, 4 shovels, which were sent to Tyre (Ṣūru) to the qīpu.”^[88] Likewise, NBDMich 32 mentions two people, including a tašlīšu, who took silver to the qīpu in Tyre earlier that year (Ulūlu, 10^th day).^[89] Several other texts dated to year 14 record goods sent to the qīpu in Tyre, including YOS 17, 225 and NCBT 757, in which he received silver and tools.^[90] As discussed above, GC 1, 256 demonstrates that Eanna sent oblates to Opis and it is possible that they were sent onwards to Tyre in order to assist with military efforts in the Levant. The amount of gold that the šatammu sent to them is significant and may have been intended to provision the oblates not (or not only) for a stay in Opis but also for a journey westward. It may be that Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur II dispatched the qīpu and the šatammu to Tyre and Opis, respectively, to manage a supply chain of people and provisions from the Eanna temple in Uruk (presumably also including from the nearby Ebabbar temple) to the collection point in Opis before sending them onward for mobilization in Tyre and the greater Levant.

Relations with the Levant at this time also support the military hypothesis. Tyre (Ṣūru), an island city off the coast of Lebanon, had long been considered a strategic location, both as a commercial hub and as a military stronghold.^[91] Not only did Tyre provide access to vast trading routes, but it was also well situated for empires with aspirations for naval dominance, providing an ideal location and workforce for ship-building and navigation that could enable campaigns to Northern Africa, for instance.^[92] The Egyptian pharaohs and the Neo-Assyrian kings, for example, repeatedly sought to control this city-state for these reasons, and the Neo-Babylonian kings seem to have followed suit.^[93] There are few direct data for military missions to the Levant, as much of the information comes from the Babylonian Chronicle or later (non-Akkadian) sources, but it appears that Tyre was a vassal of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur’s 7^th year at the earliest (598/7 BCE), given its appearance in the Hofkalender.^[94] It is not until Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur’s 14^th year, however, that Tyre is attested in administrative texts from the Eanna archive (YOS 17, 360 and the aforementioned texts), which is quite suggestive for explaining why YOS 17, 360 was compiled in the first place.^[95]

As the Neo-Assyrian state collapsed, it left a power vacuum in the Levant and Syria that both the rising Neo-Babylonian regime and Egypt were rushing to fill.^[96] The Babylonian Chronicle and biblical sources suggest that the Babylonian king campaigned regularly to the area but did not maintain stable or long-lasting hegemony there.^[97] This includes Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur II’s (in)famous siege of Tyre, which was recorded only in later Greco-Roman or biblical sources; consequently, the exact dates of this siege, if it occurred at all, are still disputed.^[98] There does seem to have been a consistent military presence in Tyre, especially late in Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur’s reign and into Amēl-Marduk’s, given a dossier of Babylonian texts dated between Nbk 31–AM 1.^[99] Van de Brugge and Kleber believe the later dossier is indicative of stable military occupation (after the presumed siege);^[100] nonetheless, neither the texts from Nbk 14 nor later sources are unequivocally indicative of a long-term siege taking place. By this time, there are military camps (madāktu) and resources for soldiers, which may have been built up as part of the efforts chronicled in the year 14 texts.^[101] In the case of YOS 17, 360 and contemporary texts, military mobilization, occupation, and perhaps even escalation are possible, though it seems more likely that Tyre was still within the Babylonian sphere of influence and these measures were either meant to install a strong military presence there or to use Tyre as a base from which to campaign elsewhere. There is no evidence, after all, that Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur removed the local king, Ittô-Baʾal III, from power.^[102]

Why Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur would have wanted to install and/or maintain a strong Babylonian military presence in Tyre is probably related to the perennial struggle with Egypt over the Levantine states in general and over Tyre in particular. Tyre was an advantageous location from which to campaign directly against Egypt, if necessary, and to push back Egyptian influences in other Levantine states. Additionally, rivalries with Egypt provide a compelling reason for why Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur was so concerned with Tyre at this particular time: the reigning pharaoh, Psamtik II (595–589 BCE), embarked on a journey to Byblos and the Phoenician coast in 592–591.^[103] The exact reasons for this excursion are unknown—they may have been alliance-making or -strengthening or they may have been overtly military in nature—but YOS 17, 360 and contemporary texts would indicate that the visit at least provoked an official response from the Babylonian regime. Thus, it is probable that the funneling of resources and people from Eanna and the Sealand through Opis and onwards to Tyre may have been crisis measures to strengthen existing garrisons, to build new military encampments, or to actually set up for and/or conduct campaigns in the Levant, all to maintain Babylonia’s hold on Tyre and its seaports, and to protect it against possible Egyptian advances.^[104] In the latter case, it is likely that Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur himself was in the area at the time, which would certainly be supported by the fact that the šakin māti, qīpu, šatammu, and other high-level administrators from the Sealand and Eanna were also stationed away from their usual duties in order to oversee operations in Opis and Tyre.

The Ensuing Crisis in the Eanna

Whether they were military in nature, related to construction, or a combination of both, the state projects during Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur’s 14^th year affected the basic functions of the Eanna temple, not only resulting in asset liquidation but also in the crippling of the prebendary system. As the financial strain rapidly emptied the temple’s warehouse, it consequently resulted in substitute and delayed payments for priests, likely necessitating the partial ⅔ mašīḫu payments as well, since the temple could not afford full payments or payments in kind. Even the silver income from gold sales that went towards internal payments rather than being sent away seems to have been stretched thin, with some priests receiving a substitute valued in silver instead, e.g., in W (sheep carcasses instead of silver corresponding to ⅔ mašīḫu) and Y (firewood instead of silver). Nonetheless, since the crown imposing service obligations was a standard feature of construction and military projects, this could provide an alternate reason for why priests received partial payments, as they would have missed their designated days of service to the temple because of deployment for state business.^[105] Indeed, some of these officials were clearly elsewhere at the time of payment: one priest’s son took the payment on his behalf (N), one had his slave pick it up (Y), and one had been sent to the šakin māti in the Sealand (Z). In addition, many of the items issued as substitute payments were portable, perhaps also indicating that people were traveling at this time. Of course, the situation was most likely precipitated by a combination of many factors: it is possible that Eanna, already stretched thin from its contributions to ongoing building endeavors, entered into a crisis mode under sudden military demands, which would explain the relatively rapid selling-off of assets and clearing out of the warehouse via multiple transactions per month, as well as the absence of its administrators and priests. A perceived threat from the Egyptian pharaoh would certainly account for the severity and exceptionality of these measures, as well as for the timing to 591–590 BCE.

If this interpretation of the circumstances behind YOS 17, 360 is correct, there are several important implications. First, this text shows the clear contrast between the king’s ideological claims as a patron of temples and actual practice, in which the king’s demands put at risk the main concern of temples: an uninterrupted cult. The trickle-down effects of state projects could clearly be quite severe. Second, it suggests an administrative reason for the composition of YOS 17, 360 as a collection of exceptional payments due to exceptional demands the king made upon Eanna, possibly catalyzed by foreign aggression against the Empire’s hegemony. Third, YOS 17, 360 and contemporary texts may not only provide data for the ongoing construction projects in Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur’s early reign, but may also give unique insights into the highly-disputed and poorly-attested Babylonian military involvement in the Levant and tensions with Egypt. In sum, this unusual compilation of economic records, while covering less than two years of the Eanna archive, illustrates how actively the temple participated in the interregional movement of people and goods and how it was itself subject to the ways in which the Neo-Babylonian king directed and reallocated these same resources across the Empire.

PTS 3020106

OIP 122, 120 (Translation Only)

Col. i′

[1 mina(?)] of gold metal corresponding to 2 mukarrišu-vessels, [5]7 shekels of gold šūrû-objects and scrap-metal (ḫušû), the income (given to the temple by) the people. Total: 1 mina, 57 shekels of gold, the income of Nisānu, 13^th year of Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur, king of Babylon.

–––––––––––––––

2 minas of gold, the income (given by) the king; 7 shekels (and) ⅔ shekels of gold, the income (given by) Bēl-šuma-iškun, son of Nabê-pir-laʾ.^[109] Total: 2 minas, 7 shekels (and) ⅔ shekels of gold, the income of Nisānu, 14^th year.

–––––––––––––––

7 shekels of gold brought by Šamaš-šuma-uṣur, son of Apkallu the Larsean. Ayyāru 23^rd day, 14^th year of Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur, king of Babylon.

–––––––––––––––

½ minas (and) 7 shekels of gold, the income of Bēl-šuma-iškun, son of Nabê-pir-laʾ. Tašrītu, 29^th day, 14^th year of Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur, king of Babylon.

Col. ii′

2 stone amulets which (have) a gold attachment [...], 2 gišrētu-stones which have (a gold?) attachment [...], 2 golden earrings/rings, 1 maššânu-utensil of pappardilû-stone which was put (in) a gold attachment,^[110] 1 golden stamp seal ring (with) 1 pappardilû-stone in it, 1 stone arzallu of ni-lu-stone (and) pappardilû-stone, 1 cylinder seal of pappardilû-stone which (has) a gold attachment, 4 kidney-shaped precious stones, 1 ni-lu-stone (of?/and?) muššaru-stone, 2 gadru-stones (of) gold, 1 jewelry mounting(?) of anzakuku-glass. Total: the income of Kaššāya, princess, Dûzu, 15^th day, 15^th year.

–––––––––––––––

½ mina (and) 1 ¾ shekels of gold, income of Dûzu, 15^th year, Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur, king of Babylon.

Col. iii′

[Bēl-šuma-iš]kun, son of Nabê-pir-laʾ[...] 15^th year [...# day] mukarrišu-vessels [...] in the 15^th year [...] income from the king [... i]ncome from the people. Total [...] gold, income of [...] 16^th year.

[Rest of column traces or lost]

Col. iv′

2 ⅟₁₀ shekels of gold that is from the dust was withdrawn. 1 ¾ shekels (and) ⅟₁₂ [...], income of the people. Total: 2 ¾ shekels of gold, Ṭebētu, 26^th day, 17^th year.

–––––––––––––––

2 ⅟₁₀ shekels of the gold that is from the dust, which was taken^[111] (away) from the cella [...] 3 ¾ shekels (and) ⅟₁₂ of gold, income of the peo[ple]. Total: 5 ¾ shekels and(?) ⅛ shekels of gold, Šabāṭu, 14^th day, 17^th year.

–––––––––––––––

Addāru, 17^th year, not written.

–––––––––––––––

4 ¾ shekels of gold šūrû-objects and reddish [...]

[Remainder traces or lost]

GC 1, 256

Obv.

1. 2 ½ ma.na ku₃.babbarina ku₃.babbare[r-bi]

2. ša₂ iti.bara₂ ku-um 15 gin₂ [ku₃.gi]

3. ša₂ ^mdag-šeš.meš-muina šu^IImši-[rik-ti]

4. iš-ša₂-am-⸢ma a-na⸣^mki-na-a

5. a^mra-ši-dingir [s]um-nu ^mši-⸢rik-ti⸣ giš

6. 12 gin₂ ku-[u]m ku₃.babbarša₂ ina ^uruu₂-pi-ia

7. a-na ^lu₂ši-ra-ku sum-nu

Lower Edge

8. 1-ta dan-[nu kaš^m]^den-ba-ša₂

Rev.

9. it-ta-ši

10. iti.bara₂ ud.12.kam mu.[+/-14.kam]

11. ^dag-nig₂.du-uru₃ lugal [tin.tir.ki]

2 ½ minas of silver, from the silver income of Nisānu, instead of 15 shekels of [gold], which Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin has received from Ši[riktu] and given to Kīnāya, son of Rāši-ili: Širiktu has received (it). 12 shekels (of gold thereof) were in compensation for the silver that was given in Opis to the oblates. Bēl-iqīša has taken away one vat [of beer]. Nisānu, 12^th day, 14^th+/- year of Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur, king of Babylon.