A Second Note on the Toprakkale Tablet

N.A.B.U. 2024 n° 3 (septembre) There are several reasons for the direction taken by his article. The first is that he gives an overview of my book and we have seen from the few examples above that he tends to misinterpret certain passages while leaving others aside. The other point is that Edmonds tends to seek confirmation of the Assyrian vision without considering more important local complexities. In this respect, his discussion of the “transitional cases” (p. 75), while interesting, leads to a teleological reconstruction of the history of a region essentially seen as manipulated by Assyria only. We do not have many sources for understanding the complex history of Sūhu. It therefore seems reasonable to put forward various hypotheses and to test them. It is likely that no reconstruction can be fully satisfactory, but all of them will provide elements of understanding. So let us keep an open mind and move our research forward. Bibliography Ph. CLANCIER, À l’ombre des grandes puissances de Mésopotamie. Une histoire du Sūhu à l’époque néo-assyrienne, CHANE 114, Leiden/Boston, 2021. A. J. EDMONDS, “New Light on the Land of Sūḫu. A Review Article and New Political History”, ZA 114(1), 2024, p. 58–83. N. NA’AMAN, “Two Additional Notes on the Suhu inscriptions”, NABU 2003/92, p. 101-102. S. PARPOLA, “A Letter from Marduk-Apla-Usur of Anah to Rudamu/Urtamis, King of Hamath”, in P. J. Riis & M.-L. Buhl (ed.), Hama. Fouilles et recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg 1931-1938. II 2. Les objets de la période dite syro-hittite (âge du Fer), Nationalmuseets Skrifter XII, Copenhagen, 1990, p. 257–265. Philippe CLANCIER <Philippe.Clancier@univ-paris1.fr> Université Paris 1 – Panthéon-Sorbonne, UMR 7041 (FRANCE) 70) A Second Note on the Toprakkale Tablet — The tablet VAT 7770 was found from the Urartian administrative centre at Toprakkale (Urart. mrusaḫinili KURqilbanikai “Rusaḫinili in front of (mount) Qilbani”), within the limits of Van in Eastern Türkiye, and has been subject of several editions1). The tablet enumerates in groups the members of the palace/temple personnel, including nobles, different functionaries and specialists, a large number of eunuchs and dependant workforce and, as I have suggested in my previous paper in NABU, female personnel of the palace or palace women2). During a study of one of the texts written on a clay bulla found from another Urartian centre at Upper Anzaf near Van, that refers to some high-skilled textile-workers3), I again paid attention to the Toprakkale tablet, as it mentions a group of female weavers. The original reading, in fact, belongs to Igor’ Diakonoff, who interpreted the corresponding passage in the line Obv. 13 of the tablet as “68 fGAD-ḫi-e” and translated it as “68 female weavers (?)” or, literally, “women of (linen) cloths” (“68 ткачих (?)”, “женщин (льняной) одежды” respectively, see Fig. 1)4). In spite of the fact that Diakonoff’s interpretation was marked as questionable, it was accepted almost in all later editions5) and, most widely, in studies on Urartian textiles6). Fig. 1. A close-up photo of the Toprakkale tablet CT Tk-1, Obv., line 13. The photo is subject to the following license: CC-BY-SA 4.0. © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum / Olaf M. Teßmer. A close look on that passage revealed that the Sumerogram interpreted by Diakonoff as GADA (GAD in original publication, see above) is not justified. Clearly, the cuneiform sign does not resemble GADA (gad/t, qàd/t, kad/t, kid/t9, see Fig. 2/a-b)7), even if he had in mind the second half of that sign8). We can compare it with GADA in LÚGADA of the text of Upper Anzaf mentioned above (Fig. 2/c-d). Along with this, the readings of the determinative MUNUS for “women” attached to that logogram, as well as the phonetic complement ḫe (graph. ḫi-e) are certain, even though the sign MUNUS is slightly damaged. – 118 – N.A.B.U. 2024 n° 3 (septembre) a. b. c. d. Fig. 2. The problematic sign GADA (?!) on the Toprakkale tablet CT Tk-1 (a-b) and Upper Anzaf clay bulla CB An-1 (c-d). Drawings of the signs after Salvini 2012, p. 146 and 174. The determinative MUNUS narrows the circle of logograms that one would expect to see in this context. The first possibility is that we deal here with a variant (?) of the sign DAM (dam, ṭam, tám, ṭ/da4), if we accept that the scribe misplaced the upper short horizontal wedge and wrote it after and not before the long vertical. The logogram DAM stands for “wife”, “lady”, Akk. aššatu(m)9). The mention of 66 (not 68!)10) “ladies” in the list, where there is also a reference to “palace women”, 90 persons in total, seems logical. At the same time, it looks strange the mention of “ladies” in the section of eunuchs (LÚŠÁ.RĒŠIMEŠ) that includes several thousand dependent workers (LÚubše), as well as accountants (LÚNÍG.ŠID.DA-ka-i “… (people) in front of the accountant”) and huntsmen (lit. “dog-keepers”, LÚUR.GI₇). The situation can be explained differently. One may think about some kind of negligence made by the scribe, who inserted the number of “ladies” not in its right place. One may also think about different usage of the logogram DAM by the Urartian scribes, to indicate, for example, women of some status or speciality, like, e.g., priestess and female physicians, musicians, singers, cooks or even textile workers. In this aspect one may remember that in the texts of Ebla the writing form for the female weavers is dam túgnu-tag11). The second possibility is the reading of the logogram as LUKUR, Akk. nadītu(m)12). Certainly, in this case too we deal with scribal negligence, in particular, in the writing of the horizontal wedge of the sign MUNUS of the logogram LUKUR (= MUNUS-ME), that was carelessly repeated by the scribe. If this is the case and if we really deal with the logogram LUKUR, we shall have an interesting mention of “childless women” in Urartian sources. The separate mention of a group of women, who were not allowed or physically could not have children, seems reasonable and fits well with the section, where these women occur, i.e., among eunuchs, see above. In the meantime there is no ground to speak about existence of a category of women in Urartu that would resemble the Old Babylonian institution of nadītus’13). Hence, there is no need to make also further discussions about status or functions of these women. I cannot insist on the rightness of these suggestions, but the problem in the reading of line Obv. 13 of the Toprakkale tablet VAT 7770 surely exists. Acknowledgements I am greatly indebted to the staff of the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin, Alrun Gutow and Olaf M. Teßmer in particular, for providing and permission to use high-quality images of the Toprakkale tablet VAT 7770. My sincere thanks also to Kenan Işık for discussions and his kind help with illustrations of the Upper Anzaf clay bulla. Notes 1. LEHMANN 1900, p. 625f. (no. 135). For latest editions with bibliographical references see SALVINI 2007, p. 37-50; 2012, p. 145-147 (CT Tk-1); HARUTYUNYAN 2001, p. 330-333 (no. 412). 2. GREKYAN 2016, p. 53-56. 3. GREKYAN 2024, p. 221-227. 4. DIAKONOFF 1963, p. 39, 81 (no. 12₁₃). See also DIAKONOFF 1989, p. 99. 5. See, e.g., MELIKISHVILI 1971, p. 231f. (no. 286₁₃); SALVINI 2007, p. 38 (CTU CT Tk-1 Vs13); 2012, p. 145 (CT Tk-1 Ro₁₃). See also Electronic Corpus of Urartian Texts (eCUT) Project, eCUT CT Tk-01 at – 119 – N.A.B.U. 2024 n° 3 (septembre) https://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/ecut/Q007996. The only exception we find in the corpus of the Urartian texts published by N. Harutyunyan (2001, p. 330-333, no. 412₁₃ and note 16), where, following F.W. König (1957, p. 161, no. 131 Vo₁₃), he reads 68 xx-ḫi-e and desists from translating the passage. 6. See, e.g., ÇAVUŞOĞLU et al. 2014, p. 249-252; ÇIFÇI 2012, p. 38; GÖKCE 2016, p. 432; BATMAZ 2022, p. 191; etc. 7. BORGER 1978, p. 83 (no. 90). 8. Whether Diakonoff interpreted the first part as a separate sign (in spite of close writing), a determinative MUNUS (?!), and omitted in his transliteration the proceeding sign MUNUS, cannot be ever answered. 9. BORGER 1978, p. 194 (no. 557). 10. SALVINI 2007, p. 38 (CTU CT Tk-1 Vs₁₃). 11. See, e.g., BIGA 2010, p. 152. 12. BORGER 1978, p. 192. (no. 554). 13. STOL 2016, passim. Bibliography BATMAZ, A., 2022, “Urartu’da Dokumacılık”, in D. Yılmaz (ed.), Neolitik Çağ’dan Demir Çağı Sonuna Kadar Anadolu’da Dokumacılık / Weaving in Anatolia from the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age, İstanbul, p. 149-178. BIGA, M.G., 2010, “Textiles in the Administrative Texts of the Royal Archives of Ebla (Syria, 24th Century BC) with Particular Emphasis on Coloured Textiles”, in C. Michel and M.-L. Nosch (eds), Textile Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC, Ancient Textile Series 8, Oxford – Oakville, p. 146-172. BORGER, R., 1978, Assyrisch-babylonische Zeichenliste, AOAT 33, Neukirchen-Vluyn. ÇAVUŞOĞLU, R., IŞIK, K., GÖKCE, B., 2014, “Women and Their Status in Urartu: A Critical Review”, ANES 51, p. 235-263. ÇIFÇI, A., 2012, “Textiles in the Urartian Kingdom”, Aramazd: Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies 7/2, p. 36-48. DIAKONOFF, I.M., 1963, Urartian Letters and Documents, Moscow – Leningrad (in Russian). ––––– 1989, “On Some New Trends in Urartian Philology and Some New Urartian Texts”, AMI 22, p. 77-102. GÖKCE, B., 2016, “Urartu Giyim Kuşamına Sosyo-Kültürel Bir Bakış”, Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi 31/2, p. 421-444. GREKYAN, Y., 2016, “A Note on the Toprakkale Tablet”, NABU 2016/29. ––––– 2024, “Zanua, the Carpet-Maker: Urartian CTU 4 CB An-1 Revisited,” JCS 76, p. 221-227. HARUTYUNYAN (ARUTJUNJAN), N.V., 2001, Corpus of the Urartian Cuneiform Inscriptions, Yerevan (in Russian). KÖNIG, F.W., 1957, Handbuch der chaldischen Inschriften, Teil II, AfO, Beiheft 8/2, Graz. LEHMANN, C.F., 1900, “Bericht über die Ergebnisse der von Dr. W. Belck und Dr. C.F. Lehmann 1898/99 ausgeführten Forschungsreise in Armenien”, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Jahrgang 1999, Erster Halbband, Januar bis Juni, Berlin, p. 619-633. MELIKISHVILI, G., 1971, “Urartian Cuneiform Inscriptions, II”, Journal of Ancient History 3(117), p. 227-255 (in Russian). SALVINI, M., 2007, “Die urartäische Tontafel VAT 7770 aus Toprakkale”, AoF 34/1, p. 37-50. ––––– 2012, Corpus dei testi urartei, vol. IV. Iscrizioni su bronzi, argilla e altri supporti. Nuove iscrizioni su pietra. Paleografia generale, DocAs VIII/IV, Roma. STOL, M., 2016, Women in the Ancient Near East, Boston – Berlin. Yervand GREKYAN <ervandgr@yahoo.com> Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography / Institute of Oriental Studies, NAS RA, Yerevan (ARMENIA) 71) Humban-haltaš of the Astronomical Diaries — The Babylonian Chronicle is currently regarded as the only source covering the reign of the Elamite king Hu(m)ban-haltaš I (Ḫum-ba-ḫal-da-šú in Babylonian spelling) in 688-681 BC (ABC 1: iii 27-32). However, the Astronomical Diaries appear to contain one more reference to this ruler. The record ADART 5 52A: o ii 1' is dated to the 8th year (MU 8) of Ḫum-baḫal-da-šú, who must be Humban-haltaš I, given the stated reign length and the record's chronological position. All the rulers following Humban-haltaš I in ADART 5 52A – Esarhaddon, Šamaš-šum-ukin, Kandalanu, and Nabopolassar – successively reigned over Babylonia. A year was instead identified with Humban-haltaš I, a foreign monarch, during the Southern Mesopotamian power vacuum that lasted from Sennacherib's destruction of Babylon until the accession of Esarhaddon. ABC 1 indicates that Sennacherib outlived Humban-haltaš I by three months. It was therefore a deliberate choice of the astronomical records' author and/or compiler to present the king of Elam as the highest authority instead of dating the observed – 120 –