Volume 9, Issue 1

This article considers the sons of Shulgi, especially those who never became crown prince, and what can be known of their employments as adults. Well documented as various types of military officers and on diplomatic missions, as well as in administrative roles, Shulgi’s sons appear to have had many leadership roles in his reign. However, perhaps in an effort to keep any one from becoming too powerful, the sons were constantly rotated in and out of positions.

This article reviews the major problems in the political history of Megiddo during the early Iron Age (Iron Age I–IIA), at the time of the early monarchic period in Israel (eleventh–ninth centuries BCE). Megiddo has been central to an ongoing debate over the nature of the early monarchic period in Israel and the exact chronology of the Iron Age I–IIA periods. This importance derives both from the extensive excavations of the relevant strata at Megiddo (VIA, VB and VA-IVB) as well as Megiddo’s appearance in relevant historical sources, namely the Hebrew Bible, which claims that Solomon “built” Megiddo, and its appearance in the campaign list of pharaoh Sheshonq I. Though the fragment of a stela of Sheshonq I was found at Megiddo, it was only found after having been discarded and so its stratigraphic attribution is unclear. Radiocarbon dating from these strata has assisted to some degree but still left dating and historical questions quite open. This article will demonstrate that the political history of Megiddo during the early Iron Age is beset with ambiguities in the evidence, which have been divided into seven ambiguities for the purpose of the discussion here. When these ambiguities are taken into account, it becomes clear that the interpreter has much latitude in making their reconstruction, specifically in how they date strata and associate them with putative historical developments. Different cases can be made for associating particular strata and their termination with Solomon, Sheshonq or even later kings, but none can claim to objectively be the correct or superior reconstruction.

Alongside the ongoing debate over whether the primary meaning of the Akkadian term ša rēši (lit. “he of the head”) is “eunuch” or “courtier,” various explanations for the origin of the term have been proposed. After reviewing the seven explanations encountered in the secondary literature, and assessing their respective strengths and weaknesses, this article makes a new proposal for the origin of the term, namely that it refers to the “head” of the king’s bed. It is observed that this hypothesis is consistent: (i) with Akkadian terminology relating to parts of beds, which uses rēšu ( m ) to designate either a bed’s top end generally or its “headboard” specifically; (ii) with the perception, visible in Babylonian ritual texts, of the bed as a place of potential danger to its occupant; and (iii) with the Akkadian literary expression mukīl rēši (“lit. keeper of the head”) which, by analogy with well-attested expressions like mukīl bābi (“keeper of the gate”) and mukīl appāti (lit. “keeper of the bridle”), is more likely to refer to an inanimate “head” than part of the human body. The possibility that the term ša rēš ( šarri ) is equivalent to the Greek term εὐνοῦχος, as argued for example by (Briant, P. 1996. Histoire de l’empire Perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre . Paris: Fayard. = Briant, Pierre. 2000. From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire. Translated from the French by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns), has been questioned by (Lenfant, D. 2012. “Ctesias and his Eunuchs a Challenge for Modern Historians.” Histos 6: 257–97), but if the newly proposed origin of ša rēši is correct, it indirectly supports the case for an equivalency of the two terms: like εὐνοῦχος (lit. “bed-keeper”), ša rēši would literally refer to guardianship of the king’s bed. The new proposal nevertheless has no bearing on the debate over whether ša rēši primarily designates “eunuch” or “courtier.”

This paper argues for a historically grounded view of slavery in Achaemenid-period Babylonia by examining the life of one particular individual, Rībat son of Bēl-erība, an ardu of the Murašû family (whose archive spans c. 454–404 BCE ). In contrast to other studies which focus on the terminology or legal aspects of slavery, we examine the lived experience of Rībat. We do this in two ways. First, we study all of Rībat’s attested business ventures and demonstrate that, although Rībat occasionally acted under the direct orders of his masters, he more often pursued activities ancillary to those of the core Murašû business. Secondly, we use social network analysis of over 700 Murašû texts to demonstrate that, although Rībat was crucial in linking distinct individuals to the Murašû business, he lay outside his masters’ group of core associates. We then compare Rībat’s social position to that of other known Murašû subordinates to argue that Rībat’s experience was representative of that of other Murašû subordinates. We conclude by arguing for more social-historical studies of Babylonian servitude in the future.