Band 50, Heft 1

This study supplements a previous paper that we published in this periodical: The Tyszkiewicz Amulet, a Chalcedony Pendant Inscribed with an Incantation on Thorn Bush: Notes on an Early Sumerian Kultmittelbeschwörung , AoF 46, 174–185. It compares the Tyszkiewicz amulet to another similar amulet formerly kept in the de Serres Collection and proposes that the two objects originate from the same workshop. Although the de Serres amulet bears a different incantation from the Udug-ḫul series, the two amulets are strikingly similar with regard to physical as well as textual aspects, the latter including the incorporation of certain ‘zi-litany’ sections.

Following the recent reconstruction of the order of eponyms in the Dūr-Katlimmu archive by Nahm, this study considers the eponyms of the period in which Tukultī-Ninurta I waged war for domination of Babylonia, from his 13 th regnal year onward. It is argued that recently published evidence supports the identification of the eponymy of Etel-pī-Aššur as the year in which Kaštiliaš IV of Babylonia was captured, and that the eponymy of Ellil-nādin-apli is to be placed three years later. The campaign to the lands between the Tigris and the Zagros, undertaken by Tukultī-Ninurta I in the eponymy of Ellil-nādin-apli, was probably directed against the power base of Kadašman-Ḫarbe II, including the city of Lubdu which then passed under Assyrian control. Following the dethronement of Kadašman-Ḫarbe II, Tukultī-Ninurta I maintained closer control over Babylonia, which did not prevent the king of Elam from putting an end to the reign of the Assyrian vassal Adad-šuma-iddina in the 22 nd regnal year of Tukultī-Ninurta I.

The present article is focused on an analysis of the distribution of the Sumerograms man and lugal in Urartian inscriptions: since they are found in very specific situations, with only one of the two directly referring to the Urartian king, it is likely that they should be intended not as synonyms, but rather as concealing two slightly different meanings. After a brief introduction focused on the use of the two Sumerograms in Assyrian royal titularies, especially in the ones used as models by the Urartians, the paper will focus on the use of the Sumerograms in Urartian inscriptions, concluding with an analysis of an Urartian text on clay tablet, whose translation is still debated.

We offer transliterations, translations, and autograph copies of three Old Babylonian tablets held by the Musée d’Art et d’Histoire (MAH) in Geneva. MAH 15899 adds a new name to the roster of temple administrators in Ur, and leads us to propose a new interpretation of the year-name Rīm-Sîn IIa. MAH 16042 concerns a second son of the Uqqû first recognized in MAH 15896. MAH 15953 extends the family tree of the well-known Balamunamḫe of Larsa and connects the family with the religious life of the city. It probably postdates Samsu-iluna’s reconquest of Ur (Si 10) but it is difficult to say by how long. The witness lists of the tablets are intertwined with each other and with tablets from scientific excavations. These interrelationships reflect a common origin in Ur, and permit speculation about the location of the site from which they were plundered for the antiquities market.

This study presents an edition of a letter written by an Old Assyrian ruler ( waklum ) concerning the murder of several Anatolian locals at the hands of Assyrian merchants. The issue of financial compensation is taken up by the king of Assur, who acts on behalf of the City Assembly in Assur in solving the issue between the unnamed state from which the victims came and the accused Assyrian merchants. A case can be made that this letter is considerably younger than most of the waklum -letters, though it cannot be ascribed to any ruler at present.

YOS 20, 87 is a scholarly cuneiform tablet from Hellenistic Uruk. The study of its unusual content shows that it is an Akkadian translation of a collection of Greek official documents issued by the Seleucid administration in the first quarter of the third century BC, concerning the rebuilding of the Bīt Rēš, the main sanctuary of Uruk at the time. These works, which had been recognized on the ground by archaeologists a long time ago, remained unattested until now in the textual records. YOS 20, 87 therefore significantly enhances our understanding of the temple’s history and provides a valuable addition to the dossier of Seleucid euergetic policy in Babylonia.

This paper discusses the written evidence for the word šaḫūru , which denotes a building or part of a building in Assyrian and Babylonian structures. A comparison of the textual evidence with the archaeological evidence from Aššur and Mari is used to consider the meaning and function of šaḫūru . Finally, it is discussed whether šaḫūru could have played a special role in the organization of festivals at the sites mentioned.

This paper considers the concept of Phrygia, its origins at the cusp of the Early Iron Age, the beginning of the process of state formation marking the start of the Middle Iron Age and the possible development of a large unified kingdom under Midas son of Gordias. Secondly, the paper turns to consider the aftermath of the Phrygian state following the death of Midas and the period of Lydian hegemony together with the establishment of a new Phrygian petty kingdom east of the Kızılırmak (the Red River, the classical Halys River) in the first half of the 6 th century BCE. In order to assess the extent of the territory of Phrygia, it has been necessary to consider evidence for neighbouring polities, particularly the Neo-Hittite kingdoms to the south and ‘Cappadocia’ to the southeast and east. Two maps graphically illustrate the principal suggestions.