Cuneiform Digital Library Journal
§1.1.2. This work will discuss the aromatics trade in the early Old Babylonian Kingdom of Larsa. It will be seen that at this time and place, a vibrant trade in fragrant products and raw materials existed which involved many sectors of the society and economy in the Kingdom of Larsa. In this section, section one, the groundwork for this discussion will be laid, starting with a history of aromatic scholarship, moving on to a textual discussion, and ending by stating both the modern and ancient terms used to describe aromatics and perfumes, as well as defining the use and non use of the šim determinative. Section two will describe the manufacture of aromatic products; beginning with an examination of the materials used in production, moving on to an overview of the methods involved in perfume manufacture, then describing the perfumer, and finishing by exploring the places of aromatic production. Section three will discuss how aromatics and fragrances fit into the society and economy of the Kingdom of Larsa. This section will investigate the sources of aromatic raw materials, the people involved in the aromatics trade, and the availability and uses of aromatics in the Kingdom of Larsa’s society.
§1.2. History of Scholarship
§1.2.2. However, it was not until Ebeling’s Parfümrezepte and its precursors in Orientalia NS (E. Ebeling, 1950; idem 1948, 1949 and 1950a) that scholars began to discuss the technical knowledge held by ancient Assyrians in the field of perfume production. Not only did Ebeling produce copies of Middle Assyrian chemical recipes, he also translated these recipes, in addition to providing a discussion and list of terms used in these recipes.
§1.2.3. In 1955, Robert J. Forbes began his series Studies in Ancient Technology (Forbes 1965: vol. 3). This series, updated starting 1964, began to synthesize archeological materials and the written sources concerning chemistry. However, as the title implies, this series was devoted to technologies all over the ancient and classical world and the section dealing with Mesopotamian chemistry and in particular the aromatics industry are therefore very limited in scope and length.
§1.2.4. It is not until 1959 with Martin Levey’s book, Chemistry and Chemical Technology in Ancient Mesopotamia that we see a discussion of the technology involved in aromatic preparation (Levey, 1959: chapter 10). In addition to a chapter describing the “perfumery,” there is a chapter on chemical apparatuses, furnaces, chemical extraction techniques, and oils, fats, and waxes (Levey 1959: chapters 2, 3, 4, and 6, respectively). Beyond Levey’s book little discussion has appeared on chemistry technology, especially technology surrounding the aromatics industry.
§1.2.5. There are two works in particular which deal with the second branch introduced above, identifying and defining the aromatics mentioned in texts: R. Campbell Thompson’s Dictionary of Assyrian Botany, published in 1949 and Charles F. Myers’ 1975 PhD thesis, The Use of Aromatics in Ancient Mesopotamia (Thompson 1949 and Myers 1975, respectively). These two resources offer in depth encyclopedic entries on many raw materials used in aromatic production, their uses, and their appearances in literature. However, the latter of the two mentioned above is limited mainly to items referred to by the šim determinative in lexical lists (Myers 1975: 21) and relies heavily on the former for definitions (ibid. 21, n. 1) and the CAD and AHw for textual references (ibid. 24-25). It is therefore limited, leaving much out that could be mentioned in such an investigation.
§1.2.6. In addition to these two works, numerous discussions on individual ingredients or ingredient types have appeared in many journals and books (for instance Potts et al. 1996). The series Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture has been particularly bountiful in this way, as it has produced several articles that mention and describe materials pertinent to the aromatics trade since first appearing in 1984 (see for instance Van de Mieroop 1992b and Kupper 1992). Reference must be made to John Halloran’s 2006 Sumerian Lexicon, where definitions and descriptions of many terms discussed here appear (cf. especially 259-261) and which this author was unfortunately not aware of at the time of submission.
§1.2.7. Discussion and identification of the role of aromatics in Mesopotamian society and its place in the economy has its roots in the publication of many texts such as the medical texts published by Friedrich Küchler or those by R. Campbell Thompson (Küchler 1904, Thompson 1923, 1930 and 1937). These texts often show uses for aromatic products in ritual and medicinal settings and their publication show the importance of aromatics in Mesopotamian society. This importance was further underlined in the Myers dissertation mentioned above (Myers 1975). The true strength of the Myers dissertation lies in its easy to utilize description of the attested uses for each aromatic that Myers mentions.
§1.2.8. Examination of the place the aromatics industry held in the economy begins with Leemans’ book on Old Babylonian foreign trade (Leemans 1960). In this book we see for the first time the merchant’s role in procuring resources for aromatic production and hints at their destinations. For the first time the reader is shown the aromatics trade as part of a greater economic system. Since Leemans’ book, archives have been published, like those presented in YOS 14, Early Old Babylonian Documents, by Stephen D. Simmons (Simmons 1978), and discussed by D. Charpin in Bibliotheca Orientalis (Charpin 1979), or the oil texts discussed by Charpin in MARI 3 (Charpin 1984) and those discussed by D. Soubeyran in ARM 23 (Soubeyran 1984), which offer glimpses of aromatics and perfume production within the greater palace or temple administrative and economic structures. Finally, Daniel Snell’s monograph, Ledgers and Prices, has shown aromatics as part of a greater economic structure during the Ur III period (Snell 1982; see in particular pp. 156-168 and 213-215).
§1.2.9. In addition to the avenues of scholarship outlined above, there have been several articles which survey the aromatics industry, in particular at Mari. Charles F. Jean’s article “Pharmacopée et Parfumerie dans Quelques Lettres de Mari,” which appeared in the 1949 volume of Archiv Orientální, is the first such attempt (Jean 1949). This work discusses several documents which involve aromatics in the Mari royal archives. Divided into two halves, it starts out discussing the various salves and aromatics mentioned in the documents and, in the second half of his work, the use of oils. He saw oils used in several ways: foods, medicines, perfumes, and religious or quasi religious usages (ibid. 325). Noteworthy is the use of u2 / šammum to represent drugs in particular (ibid. 320). What is particularly striking about Jean’s article is that it showed aromatics being used by the royal household in the Kingdom of Upper Mesopotamia (see the letter published, ibid. 328, B 287). Of further note, he is the first to discuss aromatics in the Old Babylonian period.
§1.2.10. Particularly noteworthy for their synthesis of the aromatics industry as a whole are H. Limet’s “Pharmacopée et Parfumerie Sumériennes” in Revue de la Pharmacie 25, Francis Joannès “La Culture Matèrielle à Mari V: les Parfums” in MARI 7, and most recently Michael Jursa, “Die Krall des Meeres und andere Aromata,” in the Alexander Sima Festschrift (Limet 1978, Joannès 1993, and Jursa 2009, respectively). In the first article, Limet’s goal is to investigate the perfume and pharmacological industries in the Ur III period and discuss current knowledge of the industry based on a comparative study of a text, TCL 5, 6042, with other texts from the time, letters from Larsa, royal inscriptions, Ebeling’s Parfümrezepte, Assyrian medical texts, and later accounts of perfume production from Dioscorides and al-Kindi. Of particular note is his discussion of the processes evident at Ur found on pages 153-157. The second survey, Francis Joannès’ discussion, has a similar goal as Limet’s survey but limited to the perfumery of Mari in the Old Babylonian period. His work provides a more detailed picture of the perfume industry at Mari due to the relative abundance of texts.
§1.2.11. Jursa’s work discusses several ingredient lists and perhaps recipes for incense in the Neo Babylonian period (Jursa 2009). Of particular interest in this work is that prices for particular raw materials are collected, though a thorough treatment of these prices is not attempted (ibid. 157-166). In the final section of this work Jursa discusses aromatics within Neo Babylonian trade and society directly (ibid. 166-171).
§1.2.12. The 10th volume of the Reallexikon der Assyriologie offers a short overview of the perfume and aromatics industry in the Ancient Near East by Michael Jursa (Jursa 2005). The title, “Parfüm (rezepte)” is somewhat misleading since it deals with more than perfumes and perfume recipes. This work, while very useful as a tool to understand the history of scholarship concerning aromatics, is limited to outlining past studies in the aromatics industry, where they have gone and where they are lacking, while adding little to the discussion.
§1.2.13. Finally, appearing around this article’s submission and thus too late for incorporation here, was Hagan Brunke and Walther Sallaberger’s 2010 discussion of the Ur III aromatics industry at Umma within an institutional context. Discussion centers around Lugalzagim, šabra, translated as “Hausehofmeister” by Brunke and Sallaberger, in the city of Umma’s administration (Cf. especially 42-45). In this work we see the need for and use of aromatics in cultic festivals (45-47), a lexical discussion of aromatics (47-51) and oils (52-54), aromatic use in the production of scented oils (described by the authors as “Rezepte von Duftӧlen,” 54-62), as well as an investigation of aromatic prices (62-72). Brunke and Sallaberger provide an invaluable study of the aromatics industry in the Ur III period, the period immediately prior to the early Old Babylonian period discussed her.
§1.3. Terms of the Trade: a Textual Discussion
§220.127.116.11. It is often difficult to establish exactly what type of text is being examined in this collection. For example, there is no set format to separate deliveries, internal transfers, and disbursements of finished products from each other. Further, names of Merchants can appear representing the palace (see below under ba-zi). This difficulty is perhaps derived from the nature of the administrative apparatuses: Merchants are directly involved in palace and temple administrations (this will be discussed more in §3.3.3). This is discussed by Yoffee: “One of the most striking results of this concatenation of documents was the finding that texts that would otherwise have been routinely adjudged private documents when analyzed in isolation could be ordered as elements in a complicated administrative procedure” (Yoffee 1977: 144-145).
§18.104.22.168. With this in mind, we may note three different verbs which often occur in nominal forms that do help to define a document within its administrative system: mu-DU, šu-ti-a, and ba-zi. In addition, several other terms can be used in the text to help describe the circumstances surrounding a transaction and establish the text’s purpose. This is not the place for a detailed discussion of each term. However, an understanding of each word or phrase can help define a text’s position within the administrative and economic systems existent in the kingdom of Larsa. Therefore, what follows is a brief summary of how each is used in the texts.
§1.3.2. Product Descriptions
§22.214.171.124. kar: Market rate. This term is used to describe the market value of a single unit of a commodity, as opposed to ku3-bi where the value of the whole commodity is described. A typical accounting often reads: ‘x amount of y commodity, kar q, ku3-bi z,’ where x is the item quantity, y is the commodity name, z is its silver equivalent, and q is the market rate (Breckwoldt 1994: part III 133). Thus, when the silver of z is divided by the market rate of q, one should arrive at the amount of x: x = z / q. Conversely, if we multiply the amount of a commodity x by the market rate q we should arrive at its silver equivalent z: z = x . q and so on. Occasionally an odd rate is given, as in TCL 10, 72: 10: ‘1(ban2) šim kar 3 sila3 ku3-bi 3 1/3 gin2,’ ‘1 seah perfumed oil, rate of 3 (shekel) its value 3 1/3 shekel.’ In this example, 1 seah of šim is valued at the market rate of only 3 qûm without giving what this rate is. This is understood as 3 qûm per shekel. The market rate is 1 unit = 1/3 shekel. 1 seah, equal to 10 qûm, when multiplied by 1/3 is 3 1/3, the silver value given in the text. Thus, the market rate can be described by a unit quantity, in TCL 10, 72: 10 that quantity is in qûm, which is the value of 1 shekel silver.
§1.3.3. Descriptions of Use
§126.96.36.199. i-nu-(u2-)ma: When. Inūma is used to describe the circumstances of a transaction which presumably bear on the transaction. The reason for this clause can be difficult to grasp, as in YBC 5151: 2, i-nu-u2-ma ku-lu-am tu-ki-il-lu, ‘when you withheld the withholding.’ (See YBC 5151’s textual commentary and §3) In other instances it states the reason for a transaction, as in YOS 5, 172: 8-9, where the reason for a transaction is described as ‘when Awīlum was delayed at the temple of Inanna in Uruk’ (i-nu-u2-ma a-wi-lim [a]-na e2-dinanna / ša3 unuki ik-ka-lu-u2).
§188.8.131.52. ki-bi-ta: From it. This is seen in YBC 5151: 5, where it is used to describe a secondary transaction derived from the main transaction in the text. The use is then enumerated. Its appearance represents a second transaction in YBC 5151: 5-6, 1 mina of arganum is allotted for oil manufacture that a second PN receives.
§184.108.40.206. nig2(-šu): Good(s). This term is understood as implying the good(s) preceding it is/are property of the name which follows (cf. Akk. būšu, which nig2-šu is equated with, CDA 50, CAD B, 353ff.). This word appears without -šu in YBC 10759 “nig2 i-din-dsuen,” and with -šu in YBC 4402 and in YBC 10758: 4 “nig2-šu i-din-dsuen.”
§1.3.4. Disbursements and Deliveries
§220.127.116.11. ki: From. Used with or without mu-DU or ba-zi.
§18.104.22.168. ba-zi: Disbursed. ba-zi is often used with ki and šu-ti-a. Transactions of this type are often single disbursements, or lists of a series of single disbursements (Breckwoldt 1994: 125). The use here is limited to transfers within the administration and final products for consumption. However, the term ba-zi is a disbursement made by anyone acting for a palace or temple administration; as is seen by TCL 10, 54, where Itti-Sîn-milki, Merchant overseer of Zarbilum, disburses 92 pigs for soldiers on the march to Ešnunna. This is understood as a disbursement for royal use, in this example for consumption by royal soldiers, made with a merchant as intermediary, the merchant overseer of Zarbilum in TCL 10, 54. Perhaps there is a similarity in use between this verb and ‘zi-ga’ at Mari.
§22.214.171.124. šu-ti-a: Receipt. This, like mu-DU, is a nominal form. It is often, though not always, used with mu-DU or ba-zi. Van de Mieroop translates this phrase “receipt (by) PN” (Van de Mieroop 1994: 316) This term could also be translated as “revenue, income” (šu-ti-a = melqētu, CAD M, 13), as in AUCT 4, 87: 5-6, a text from Larsa: “a-na šu-ti-a / 1 gin2 ku3-[babbar],” translated by Sigrist as “1 shekel of silver as salary.” šu-ti-a in AUCT 4, 87, can perhaps be understood as literally “for receipt of 1 shekel silver (as compensation).” The finite verb, šu ba-an-ti, occurs in NBC 8584: 8.
§1.3.5. Others Involved
§126.96.36.199. kišib3: Seal of. In MLC 1683 this word forms part of the verb kišib3–ra. In the oil bureau texts, the noun is used most often with the ša3-tam official. In all uses, it is a form of administrative oversight. An administrator is used to verify a transaction. I do not follow Snell’s understanding of this term for the Ur III texts, as the ultimate recipient in a transaction (Snell 1981: 29). kišib’s use follows Van de Mieroop’s description of use for the early OB city of Isin (Van de Mieroop 1987: 9-18, in particular 18).
§188.8.131.52. inim: Order. It is suggested here that inim is used to state by whose authority a transaction is performed.
§1.3.6. Towards a Typology
§184.108.40.206. In the first type of transaction suggested, Van de Mieroop notes two possibilities at Isin which seem to be the case here: a delivery from the perspective of the deliverer and from the perspective of the administration (ibid. 9-11). The former, transactions from the viewpoint of the deliverer, often uses the term mu-DU followed by an individual who is usually a merchant. Often preceding the deliverer, but in one instance after, is šu-ti-a followed by one or several personal names, understood here as institutional administrators. Several groups of receivers can be enumerated on a text, which correspond to different transactions. In addition, the silver equivalent (ku3-bi) of the items delivered, and more rarely the market rate (kar), can be enumerated in such transactions.
§220.127.116.11. The second type of delivery, from the institutional perspective, lacks mu-DU but often has the silver equivalent enumerated. There are only two of these in this corpus: YBC 5232 and YBC 5765. In the former, there is a receiver, marked by šu-ti-a PN, and the deliverer is described by ki PN. The latter is broken and a full typology is thus impossible.
§18.104.22.168. MLC 1683 and YBC 5151 both seem to be deliveries, though they lack the product values. This understanding is based on circumstances described in each text. The former is understood as the separation and sealing of items owned by the administration and stored in a deceased official’s household. As such, the executor of the estate sealed the royal property for delivery to the administration. The second, YBC 5151, where the phrase i-nu-u2-ma ku-lu-am tu-ki-il-lu, ‘when you withheld the withholding’ is used. The deliverer in question, Watar-Šamaš, is perhaps the same individual as that treated by Feuerherm (Feuerherm 2004: vol. 1, 6-55, where he is a servant of Abu-waqar, a nagar, or both). I understand this text as a collection text from a private individual or member of a private household by a temple or palace administration.
§22.214.171.124. The latter two transaction types, internal transfers and disbursements of finished products, are typically designated by the verb (ki PN) ba-zi or just ki PN. The name of the person disbursing the item is not always given. Both usually have a receiver marked by šu-ti-a. Both can also make use of a conveyor, designated by giri3, ‘via.’ It can be difficult to tell these two text types apart, especially when dealing with a raw material that can be used as a finished product (see §2 and §3.4). One text where an internal transfer is specifically mentioned is YBC 5151, a delivery already mentioned above. In this text one mina out of six delivered is separated by means of the term ‘ki-bi-ta’ for perfume production (i3-šešx, lit. oil allotment). It is then transferred to a third party, possibly the perfumer, from the recipient of the initial delivery.
§126.96.36.199. A use is often mentioned in disbursements of finished products. Thus we see in TCL 10, 71, the term ana to state a destination, such as a-na e2-nin, ‘for the queen’s house,’ in column i l. 28. In addition, šu-ti-a without ki or ba-zi can appear. This occurs in TCL 10, 71-72, both receipts of finished products, and TCL 10, 81, understood as an internal transfer of products or a delivery of products from the administrative perspective.
§1.4. What Was an Aromatic?
§188.8.131.52. We will start with the modern definitions found in Merriam-Webster. The word “aromatic,” as a noun, has two possible meanings: “1: an aromatic plant or plant part; esp: an aromatic herb or spice 2: an aromatic organic compound.” As an adjective, aromatic is anything “of, relating to, or having aroma: a: FRAGRANT b: having a strong smell c: having a distinctive quality.”
§184.108.40.206. In addition to the term “aromatic,” several words have been or will be used to describe aromatic products and raw materials: ‘perfume,” “incense,” “condiment,” “resin,” “oleo-resin,” and “gum.” Perfume, as a noun, is described as: “1: the scent of something sweet-smelling 2: a substance that emits a pleasant odor; esp: a fluid preparation of natural essences (as from plants or animals) or synthetics and fixatives used for scenting.” As a verb, perfume means “to fill or imbue with odor.” Incense is defined as “1: material used to produce a fragrant odor when burned 2: the perfume exhaled from some spices and gums when burned; broadly: a pleasing scent.” A condiment is “something used to enhance the flavor of food; esp: a pungent seasoning.” (ibid. 259) Resin is understood as “1 a: any of various solid or semisolid amorphous fusible flammable natural organic substances that are usu. transparent or translucent and yellowish to brown, are formed esp. in plant secretions, are soluble in organic solvents (as ether) but not in water, are electrical nonconductors, and are used chiefly in varnishes, printing inks, plastics, and sizes and in medicine... 2 b: any of various products made from a natural resin or natural polymer.” Oleo-resin is: “1: natural plant product (as copaiba) containing chiefly essential oil and resin; esp: TURPENTINE 1b 2: a preparation consisting essentially of oil holding resin in solution.” Finally, a gum is “1 a: any of numerous colloidal polysaccharide substances of plant origin that are gelatinous when moist but harden on drying and are salts of complex organic acids ... b: any of various plant exudates (as oleoresin or gum resin) 2: a substance or deposit resembling plant gum (as in sticky or adhesive quality).”
§220.127.116.11. Several of these terms have a rough equivalent in Akkadian and/or Sumerian (see §6.1 for more discussion of each term mentioned here). Thus we see Akkadian rīqu, Sumerian šim, translated variously as “Duftstoff, Würzholz,” an “aromatic plant,” and an “aromatic substance.” (AHw II 988, CAD R 368, and CDA 305, respectively) Akkadian urû, Sumerian šim ḫi-a is defined as “aromatics,” and “Bez. für Räucher-Kräuter” (CDA 427 and AHw III, 1436, respectively). šim ḫi-a is understood here as general term for a mixture of perfumed oils (see §1.4.3, §2.3, and §6.1 for more on this term). Akkadian ḫīlu, Sumerian a-kal, is described as an “exudation of plants, resins,” “exudation, resin,” “Harz,” and “gum” (CAD Ḫ 188, CDA 116 AHw I, 345, and Thompson 1949: 338, respectively). In addition, Limet points to the use of Sumerian šim-du10 to describe resins and šim-im to describe gums (Limet 1978: 149). These understandings are followed here. Finally Akkadian qutrīnu is translated as “incense” (CAD Q 323, CDA 292) and “Weihrauch-(opfer)” (AHw II, 930).
§18.104.22.168. Other words, like “perfume,” “oleo-resin,” and perhaps “gum,” do not have a direct equivalent but were understood as sub-categories or types of other words. Thus, the term perfume, “a substance that emits a pleasant odor,” can be understood as part of Akkadian rīqu and Sumerian šim, which underlined an items fragrant quality (this will be further elaborated below, §1.4.3 and §2). As a manufactured product, perfumes were often described by their base, such as oil or more rarely water. Thus we see items like cedar oil or cypress oil, understood by the modern reader as a form of perfume, described by the ancient Mesopotamian living in Larsa as oil (§1.4.3 and §2). We also see the Sumerian word i3-du10-ga, literally ‘fine oil,’ used to describe any processed oil, including perfumes (see §2.2.3 and §6.1). Oleo-resins and gums were likely described by the word ḫīlu, ‘resin.’ Indeed, Thompson understands ḫīlu as a gum while rīqu is the equivalent of resin or essence (Thompson 1949: 335-339; see also §2.2 and §6.1).
§22.214.171.124. What must be understood here is that the terms used by the ancient Mesopotamians often overlapped in their use. Therefore, we see the word for aromatics, šim or rīqu, also in use as a general term for perfumes and perfumed products, and as a determinative for anything having an aromatic quality, such as perfumed oils and incenses, both resinous and as wood shavings (for more on this see below, §1.4.3 and §2), while the word for resin, ḫīlu, was also used for oleo-resins and gums (Thompson 1949: 336-337). Thus, identifying an aromatic exactly can be difficult and is often impossible.
§1.4.3. šim Determinative
Our Assyrian word rîqu is at once referable to the Arabic rawwaqa “to clarify”, and its derivation rāwūq “filter” and raiq “the best part of a thing”, so that if we pursue this meaning in the determinative ŠIM(riq), we should get an indication of a fluid from another substance, which will admirably suit the gum-resins which it makes... Riqqu (rîqu), then, represents the substance which have oozed or filtered forth from trees... The word, therefore, which would appear to cover riqqu (rîqu), the evacuations or filtering of trees, is, I suggest, “essence”, with all its comprehensive English implications (ibid. 336-337).
§126.96.36.199. In the Old Babylonian period and earlier there is no cause for limiting either the term rīqu or its corresponding determinative to a resin or an “essence.” Indeed, as Limet argues, there is no hint in the textual evidence for a process of extracting the “essence” as C. Thompson describes (see Limet, 1978: 154, contra Levey 1959: 31). Myers states describing the determinative: “šim became the determinative for all plants and substances which the Mesopotamians classified as aromatics” (Myers 1975: 21). This, however, ignores the fact that many materials, including some in his dissertation, can and often do occur with different determinatives while other materials that do not normally receive this determinative appear on occasion with it.
§188.8.131.52. My definition of the šim determinative is: ‘anything of which the primary, observed, or desired value is its aroma.’ To examine this determinative, evidence will be brought from both within and without of the corpus presented here. Several aspects of the šim determinative are discussed: Its use was not limited to items generally recognized for their aromatic quality. Nor was it always used with items valued or known for such a quality; indeed, the use of another determinative could be used with an aromatic item to outline another quality it was to be used for. Further, some items need not have this determinative; in particular items of which its use would have been redundant. This also allowed an aromatic item to take a different determinative. The use or non use of the šim determinative tells us much about an item’s qualities and purpose.
§184.108.40.206. The use of the šim determinative with some items in the texts is very unusual, for instance šimsig7- sig7, elšim, and šimlal3 in the primary corpus (MLC 1683: 2, NBC 8584: 3, and YBC 10758: 1, respectively). With each of these items, the use of the šim determinative helps to underline a specific quality of the items and perhaps helps enumerate their uses. The first listed, šimsig7- sig7, possibly Akkadian guḫlu, normally occurs with the im determinative which describes it as a paste. Here as well as in other Old Babylonian texts (see its entry in Appendix I below for other occurrences of this item in the OB period), the use of šim with this sig7-sig7 tells us that this item was also known and used for its aromatic quality. elšim, Akkadian akkullaku, normally takes the u2 determinative before it. el’s use here with šim in postposition is an exceptional occurrence, pointing to its aromatic quality. The same can be said about lal3, Akkadian dišpu, honey, which normally occurs without a determinative. Each of these items normally appears with a different determinative or without a determinative. Their occurrence with šim both shows they held a recognized fragrant quality and shows that this quality was what each item was used for.
§220.127.116.11. The šim determinative was not always used with materials that had or were used for their aromatic quality. The use of a determinative other than šim with these items may point to a different use or form. Three examples will be used here to illustrate this point: the use of geš with two different items in NCBT 1808 and TCL 10, 57, as well as the use of geš in lines 134-135 of the Curse of Agade.
§18.104.22.168. Cypress, šu-ur2-min3, is written with the geš determinative for wood in NCBT 1808: 5. However, its occurrence between šimše-li, juniper berries, and šimše-gir2, an unidentified aromatic, in this receipt attests to šu-ur2-min3’s use for its fragrance. Further, its appearance with geš, in addition to šu-ur2-min3’s measurement by weight (2 minas, 1 kg), marks it as a raw material. Before it, šimše-li is measured by capacity which shows še-li was possibly an oil or, more likely, a seed or berry. After it, in the same receipt, šimše-gir and šimaz are measured by weight as well (both 2 minas, 1 kg). I believe these later two as well as geššu-ur2-min3 are all condiments as they appear on a text with other condiments and are destined for a kitchen (line 9: a-na gir4-maḫ, ‘for the Girmaḫ’). The difference between these three items measured by weight here seems to be that geš is used to differentiate a condiment derived from the tree’s wood or foliage from two resinous condiments which are designated by šim.
§22.214.171.124. In TCL 10, 57: 7 cedar, Sumerian eren, occurs with geš as its determinative and is measured at 11 minas, 5.5 kg. It occurs after šim ḫi-a, translated as mixed perfumes, in line 6 and i3-sag, premium or virgin oil, in line 5, both finished products. These show us that gešeren in this occurrence is probably also a finished product, though it is in its raw form. Its destination is a royal sacrifice (10: “geštag-ga lugal”). Thus, it is likely a form of wooden incense, as opposed to a resin which would have taken the šim determinative (§2). The scribe in this text, as well as the previous, is trying to tell us exactly what the item in question is by means of the determinative.
§126.96.36.199. The third example comes from the Curse of Agade, where another determinative appears which underlines that the material was not supposed to be used for its fragrance. The lines in question are 134-135: “gešeren geššu-ur2-min3 gešza-ba-lum geštaškarin/ geš gi-gun4-na-be2-eš3 GUM ba-an-sur-sur” (transliteration from Cooper 1983: 56). I believe this passage refers to the grinding up of woods for their use in aromatic perfume production and translate them thus: “cedar, cypress, juniper, boxwood, woods for its giguna he ground up completely for (fragrant) oils” (for this understanding, see §2.3). The importance this text bears on our discussion here rides on the use of geš as a determinative instead of šim. This work is describing an act performed by Naram-Sîn which goes against what is normal and proper. The woods mentioned are supposed to remain as paneling and furniture in the giguna. The author underlines this by the use of geš for wooden objects, not šim for a fragrant material. The non-use of šim helps to underline the author’s point: these woods are to remain in the giguna, in their original state. It also points to a sin of Naram-Sîn, in that he has these woods ground up for perfume production, an act which goes against the woods’ purpose.
§188.8.131.52. Finally, šim was not always necessary and its use would have been redundant in certain instances. Again, three examples will be given: ḫibištum, šim ḫi-a, and three perfumed oils, all of which occur without determinatives. ḫibištum, mentioned in NBC 8584: 1 is defined by the CAD as “(1) cuttings (of undefined nature), (2) cuttings of resinous and aromatic substances, (3) plants yielding aromatic substances, (4) fragrance; from OB on” (CAD Ḫ 180). This term, as described by Myers, “is an Akkadian word which was used generically to refer to cuttings and aromatic plants” (Myers 1975: 74). As a generic term for aromatic cuttings and plants, its fragrant quality was understood. The use of šim with this item was both unnecessary and redundant.
§184.108.40.206. The same can be said for šim ḫi-a, which occurs in TCL 10, 57: 6, TCL 10, 71 iv: 56, TCL 10, 72: 16, and YBC 5169: 2. šim ḫi-a is, again, an item name, mixed perfumes. Thompson treats šim ḫi-a as a form of riqqu, which he sees as a generic term for aromatic resins (Thompson 1949: 337; for this term, see above, §1.4.2 and below, §6.1). The quantity of this item in YBC 5169 is curious and helps explain my translation, “mixed perfumes.” ḫi-a cannot refer to this item’s plurality as it is 1 seah, measured as a single item. However, šim ḫi-a can be explained if this is a mixture of various fragrant substances, in my opinion oils, which are measured as a unit of capacity. The item in question, oil-based or not, as an aromatic substance is already recognized for its fragrance and again, the use of the šim determinative would have been both unnecessary and redundant as those reviewing the record would understand immediately its aromatic quality. Further, the non-use of šim again allowed for an additional determinative such as geš with šim in YBC 5257: 1.
§220.127.116.11. Finally, cypress oil, i3-šu-ur2-min2, cedar oil, i3-geš-eren, and myrtle oil, i3-a-su all occur in two letters: CT 29, 13-14. In all instances there is no determinative. However, they are all forms of perfumed oil, their fragrance was understood. Indeed, Charpin translates each of these items respectively as: “huile parfumée au cyprès,” “huile parfumée au cèdre,” and “huile parfumée au myrte” (Charpin 1984: 112, 111-112, and 111, respectively). The use of the determinative with each of these oils was unnecessary as again they were finished products already known for a fragrant quality (for more on this see §2.3).
§18.104.22.168. What is to be taken from this part is that the determinative was used to describe the item it augmented; it gave the reader a better understanding of what was being dealt with. Another determinative could replace šim when appropriate. The use of one determinative over another can lead to a big difference in understanding and helps to define an item. Further, it was not necessary in some instances and could be redundant. This redundancy was solved by omitting šim or replacing it with another determinative to better qualify the item in question.
§2. Production and Aromatic Products
§2.1.2. YBC 5151 exemplifies this distinction of worked and un-worked products (this text is discussed in §1.3.6 and §3). It is a delivery of six minas of a fragrant substance, arganum, to an administrator. This administrator removes one mina of the delivery for oil production. In this example, the use of only one mina in oil production is important. This means five minas must have had different uses which did not require the perfumer.
§2.2. Raw Materials
§2.2.3. Aromatics and Oils
§22.214.171.124. The reasons to understand i3-geš as sesame oil, as opposed to another oil type, such as linseed, almond, or olive, are manifold. First, as opposed to the almond or olive, the sesame plant can be locally grown. Both the olive tree and almond were limited to the Mediterranean basin. Further, as a summer crop, Sesame does not interfere with the barley cycle (Charles 1985: 49). Indeed, it thrives with high heat and much sunlight (Renfrew 1985: 64). Second, as F. R. Krause showed in his 1968 article “Sesam im Alten Mesopotamien,” sesame was very likely cultivated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian period. Third, the nature of sesame oil is such that it is easily used as a vehicle for fragrances. Sesame oil, as well as safflower oil, yields the highest quality of fixed oil (Charles 1985: 50). In addition, it, unlike safflower but like olive and almond oils, is a non-drying oil, a term which “reflects the level of saturation and is measured by its potential for iodine uptake (which is equal to air uptake)”( ibid. 50). Non-drying oils are the oils most suitable as a medium for perfumes (ibid. 60). Sesame seed also yields from 45-65 percent oil and is very stable with little chance of rancidity, and, after oil is produced, the cake is a very valuable feed for oxen and is safe for human consumption (Renfrew 1985: 65). Thus, we can exclude outright the use of linseed oil, which is less suitable for perfume production (Charles 198: 60, table 3) and its cake is only safe for consumption after hot pressing or boiling (Renfrew 1985: 64). Sesame oil is a very versatile variety of oil used as a raw material in perfume production, of which its by-products could be further used as animal feed or for human consumption, and the sesame from which it was derived was readily available to those residing in southern Mesopotamia in the early 2nd millennium BC.
§126.96.36.199. i3-geš, as sesame oil, is, then, an oil used in production of oil-based products, in addition to a finished product doled out for other uses, such as food rations. As is seen by the oil bureau texts, i3-geš is also a generic term for oils, both processed and unprocessed (see Charpin 1979 for a discussion of these texts). It is used to describe all oils in these texts, whether received as taxes (YOS 14, 249), disbursed as rations (YOS 14, 182), in festivals (YOS 14, 238), in anointing, or as an unguent during sickness (YOS 14, 187).
§188.8.131.52. Thus, i3-geš is a general term for oils of all types, both when used as a raw material and used as a finished product. This is not the case for i3-du10-ga or i3-sag. Both refer explicitly to finished products. Here, i3-du10-ga is understood as ‘processed oil’ and describes any processed oil-based or oily product, while i3-sag is understood as ‘premium’ or ‘virgin’ oil. As to i3-sag, it is perhaps the virgin oil which, in cold oil production, is derived from the ground sesame meal before it is first pressed.
§184.108.40.206. Evidence that i3-du10-ga refers to processed oil is seen in several ways. First, in Ḫḫ xxiv 13-20, oils are listed: “u2 ša-am-˹nu˺ / i3 MIN / i3-geš el-lu / [i3]-geš bara2-ak-a ḫal-ṣu / i3-˹geš ˺-du10-ga ṭa-a-bu / [i3]-˹geš ˺ ku7-ku7 mat-qu / [i3]-gu-la ŠU-u / [i3]-sag re-eš-tu-u.” In this list, i3-du10-ga is clearly differentiated from sweetened oil, represented by i3-geš ku7-ku7 (for matqu translated sweet, see CDA 204), “best quality oil,” which is understood as i3-gu-la (Levey 1959, 89), and premium or virgin oil, known as i3-sag. Further, its position after three generic terms for oil, u2, i3, and i3-geš, and one term designating a specific oil process, i3-geš bara2-ak-a, ‘filtered oil, (Soubeyran 1984: 416-19), all generic words for oils used in oil product manufacture, reinforces the understanding of i3-du10-ga as ‘processed oil.’ It is listed after basic oils but before finished oil products which further underlines this meaning.
§220.127.116.11. In addition, the location of oil storage at Larsa during the reign of Sumuel is the e2 i3-du10-ga. This is where all oils, designated by i3-geš as seen above, were doled out. If understood correctly, it is the “house of processed oil” (for more on this see §2.5.1). The use of i3-du10-ga in the name of this workshop is perhaps similar to the use of i3-ra2-ra2 in the name of the perfumer’s workshop (e2 i3-ra2-ra2), both refer to what is housed in the location, the former houses processed oils, the later houses the perfumer.
§18.104.22.168. Finally, the occurrence of i3-du10-ga and šim ḫi-a together in YBC 5169 and other texts (as noted by Limet 1978, 152) makes sense if they are understood as generic terms for finished products. In addition, i3-sag-du10-ga in TCL 10, 81: 17, measured by quantity, makes more sense if i3-sag is viewed as a designation of oil quality, premium or virgin oil, and the use of -du10-ga refers to a process by which the oil is worked. Its measurement by quantity can be understood as a type of container this item was stored in, perhaps akin to one of the containers in ARM 23 discussed by Soubeyran (Soubeyran 1984: 417), or the ‘ku-du’ in YBC 4451.
§22.214.171.124. To support these points we may turn to BIN 9, 366: 1-5, a document from Isin where both a ša3-tam official and a perfumer carry leather lids for storage jars of i3-du10-ga. YOS 14, 212, clearly separates the e2 i3-du10-ga from the e2 i3-ra2-ra2, albeit in the kingdom of Larsa. Yet lids for storage jars of processed oil are being delivered to the perfumer’s workshop at Isin. This only makes sense if i3-du10-ga represents all processed oils, of which perfumed oils belong. Thus we see ‘processed oils,’ i3-du10-ga, produced in the perfumer’s workshop.
§126.96.36.199. This understanding can be applied outside of Larsa as well, as in TCL 5, 6042, dated to the Ur III period. In column i, lines 1-2, where we read “0.0.1.6 2/3 sila3 gin2 i3-du10-ga geš-gal-gal,” (transliteration by Limet 1978: 158) translated by Limet as “16 sila 2/3 et 1 sicle d’onguent de grands arbres,” (ibid. 158) and in column ii, line 9, where we read “šim i3.du10.ga geš.gal.gal,” (transliteration by ibid. 159) translated as “onguent parfumé de grands arbres” (ibid. 159). I do not agree with the translation as “onguent.” In the first occurrence, i3-du10-ga is followed immediately by various aromatic products measured first by weight (ll. 3-14), then by capacity (ll. 15-18). The second occurrence is preceded by various products such as excellent beer (ii 2: kaš saga) and dates (ii 6: zu2-lum). As the term i3-du10-ga is followed by geš-gal-gal in both occurrences, I understand this phrase as “processed oil of large trees.” I would argue that this text refers to a series of products, all to be used in the states described by the text: processed oil of large trees, resins, woods, gums, perfumed oils, beer, dates, etc. Column i line 9 is telling. The word šim precedes i3-du10-ga. It may be better understood as a determinative, used to underline the fact that this is a variety of perfumed oil. This line would then be translated: ‘(fragrant) processed oil of large trees,’ or even ‘perfumed oil of large trees’ if šim refers to the process by which these trees were worked. The difference between ‘processed oils of large trees’ and ‘perfumed oil(s),’ written i3-du10-ga geš-gal-gal and šim respectively, is perhaps a difference between two manufacture processes (for which see §2.3). i3-du10-ga simply makes more sense when understood as processed oils. In this instance it is perhaps similar to šim ḫi-a discussed below (§2.3).
§188.8.131.52. We then see three designations of oil in the texts at Larsa: i3-geš, the basic term for oil, both unrefined oil used in perfume production and as any type of oil to be distributed; i3-sag, a grade of high quality oil, possibly the virgin oil retrieved from the sesame meal before it is pressed in cold oil production; and i3-du10-ga, a term used to represent a variety of processed oil, occasionally perfumed but not necessarily. All three were perhaps used in perfume production.
§2.3. Perfume Production
§2.3.2. First we will look at items seen in the documentation. At the outset, we may note two types of perfumed items which required skilled manufacturing techniques: water and oil. In addition, there seems to be a distinction in the texts between oils known by the name of their main ingredient, such as i3(-geš)-eren or i3-šu-ur2-min3 as well as in certain instances when an aromatic ingredient is measured by capacity and not by weight, and those designated by šim, a vague word that does nothing to describe what was in the perfume. It is held here that such a vague reference, as opposed to perfumes known by a specific ingredient, usually represents a different, more complex production process. Those perfumes known by i3 plus an ingredient may have occasionally used hot steeping but more often than not involved cold maceration while those termed simply šim more often than not used heated steeping. šim ḫi-a is understood as a mixture of cold steeped perfumed oils.
§2.3.3. Two production types are then seen for oiled perfume production: cold steeping and warm or hot steeping. Evidence of the first, grinding up and steeping aromatic ingredients in cold to room temperature oil for perfume production, is seen already in the Curse of Agade, lines 134-135: “gešeren geššu-ur2-min3 gešza-ba-lum geštaškarin/ geš gi-gun4-na-be2-eš2 GUM ba-an-sur-sur.” I believe this passage refers to the grinding up of woods for their use in aromatic perfume production and translate them thus: “cedar, cypress, juniper, boxwood, woods for its giguna he ground up completely for fragrant oil production.” My translation relies on the use of ‘GUM’ and ‘sur’ together. Sur, as proposed by M. Civil, means ““to perform an action from which a liquid product results” without indicating concretely the action by means of which the liquid is obtained” (Civil 1964: 81). GUM must refer to the action and can be normalized as kum, Akkadian hašālu, “to grind.” (CAD Ḫ, 137) This phrase would then mean ‘to grind up for liquid fragrance extraction,’ and, if my understanding is correct, refers to the cold extraction process discussed below. The woods mentioned here are perhaps the ‘large trees’ seen in TCL 5, 6042 (see §2.2.3 for a discussion of this text). Cedar and cypress as well as myrtle and kanaktum all appear as oils preceded by i3 in the texts collected here. In addition, cedar, cypress, and juniper, as well as myrtle, are also singled out by Joannès as woods used in cold maceration at Mari (Joannès 1993: 260). Therefore, a Sumerian word for cold perfumed oil production may be found in kum...sur. The technical term for this process in Akkadian was the D stem verb rummukum at Mari and is perhaps alluded to in ARM 18, 14.
§2.3.4. The process of cold steeping involved the maceration of raw materials by steeping them in cold or room temperature oil. This often entailed the crushing or grinding of said product and placing it in oil for several days. The aromatic substances were dissolved by this steeping and infused the oil with their fragrance. At the end of the process, the oil was filtered to remove impurities (for this process, see Joannès 1993: 259-260). The benefit of this manner of production was the ease in which it created fragrant oil in large quantities. One need only soak an ingredient in oil to infuse the oil with the desired fragrance. The downside was it took a very long time (ibid. 260). These perfumed oils could then be mixed together to form more complex fragrances. It is proposed here that such a mixture was described by the word šim ḫi-a.
§2.3.5. Production of oil using heat is outlined in several of the Parfümrezepte’s published by Ebeling and discussed by Levey in more detail (Ebeling 1950 and Levey 1959: 136-139). It may be described by the word ruqqû. These texts describe the repeated soaking or steeping of raw materials in water and oil which was heated over a fire in order to soften the raw material and extract its fragrances. In such a way the oil or water was progressively charged with the desired fragrances. This process was much more elaborate and required greater labor to produce smaller quantities, but provided a better, purer product than cold maceration.
§2.3.6. The process of maceration and enfleurage by heated water and oil typically used a mixture of aromatic ingredients (ibid. 140 citing Ebeling 1950, 47), which is why it is singled out as the production process used for perfumes described by šim alone. It allowed for the skilled production of compound fragrances which cold steeping was ill suited for. On the other hand, cold maceration allowed for mass production of single ingredient perfumes, and these mass produced perfumes could be mixed together to form more complex fragrances, though of lesser quality.
§2.3.7. In addition to perfumed oils, there is mention in one text, NBC 8584: 4, of perfumed water (šima). The process of impregnating water with a desired fragrance took much more time due to the “slight solubility of most essential oils in water.” (Levey 1959: 140) A process involved in perfumed water production reads:
Following is the method of preparation of 10 qa of commercial oil production for balsam odor. In a fine sieve, clarify it and pour into a flask. Let it remain still for a month. After a full month, you will decant it into a diqaru pot. You will produce it by 40 washings with balsam. Wash water for the king is the name of this (ibid. 139 translating Ebeling 1950: 40-41).
Note in particular the length of time one step took, one month, and the number of ‘washings’ required to produce this product, forty. The production of perfumed water was no small feat, requiring much time and skill to produce a small amount.
§2.3.8. We see in this section the amount of skill and time required to produce perfumed oils and water. In cold maceration, much time but little skill was required to produce large quantities of a single ingredient perfume. In heated oil production, much skill was required, though less time, to produce a high quality mixed product. In perfumed water production, much time and skill went into production. Repeated steeping of raw materials was the common characteristic of all three production process. Two general terms are seen for more complex fragrances: šim ḫi-a, which describes a mixture of lower quality perfumed oils produced via cold maceration, and šim, which describes perfumed oils produced through warm maceration.
§2.4. The Perfumer: i3-ra2-ra2
§2.4.2. This ambiguity is seen in the Canonical Series lu2 = ša, no. 257-261 (MSL 12, 137; VAT 09558, 34-39; VAT 09717 23-26 (omitting no. 258), VAT 10386, 13-17), which reads: “ŠIM.SAR = raq-qu-u / ša3-tam = ki-min / i3-˹ra˺ra2-rara2 = ki.min” (no. 257-259) This is followed after a ruling by two more entries: “i3-sur = ṣa-ḫi-tu / lu2 geštin-sur-ra = MIN ka-ra-ni.” (no. 260-261) The first on the list, šim-sar, better understood as šim-mu2, is discussed by Pomponio and Visicato (1994: 62-63 n. 15):
Among the archaic professional lists, the Prof.N šim-mú recurs only in a Fara tablet (SF 70 r. iii 1). Later it recurs in OB lexical tablets and in a LB bilingual text as the translation of the Akkadian (w)ašipu(m), “exorcist”, raqqû(m), “oil presser,” (cf. AHw s.vv., lex.) and ša’ilu(m), “dream interpreter” (cf. AHw, s.v., 2). This Prof.N should be compared with the much more frequent munu4-mú , but seems to have a more specific employment in rituals.
The šim-mu2 was a profession name that both invoked the use of rituals, as it could be translated into Akkadian as (w)āšipu(m), and could also be described as a raqqû in Akkadian, as it’s appearance in the Canonical Series lu2 = ša indicates. šim-mu2’s location with medical personel in “Nintinugga’s Dog,” a dedicatory text (discussion, copy, transliteration, and translation in Ali 1966), shows us that this term also represented a type of medical professional. The line in question, line 9, reads: “a-zu sa6-ge šim-mu2 tu-ra-ta šà lu2-ulu3 igi-du8” (ibid. 290), and is translated here as “the good physician, herbalist of the sick, psychologist of man-kind.” The term ‘herbalist’ is admirably suited to describe a medical professional who employed both pungeunt ingredients and rituals or prayer to cure disease. As a mixer of pungeunt materials, the connection between the herbalist and the perfumer is quite resonable.
§2.4.3. The second profession on the list, ša3-tam, is treated by M. Gallery. Gallery explains concerning this official: “A survey of all the occurrences of the š. official with certain standard administrative formulas has shown that they served in almost every department of the palace economy, in the capacity of inventory controllers, recording and authorization clerk” (Gallery 1980: 12). She further notes two temple servants and the ša3-tam officials “are responsible for sesame given to the oil presser for the work force of the Šamaš temple” of Sippar during the reign of Abi-ešuḫ (ibid. 22, citing Harris 1975:163). This is supported by a survey of the Larsa oil bureau from Gungunum to Sumuel (see Charpin 1979), where the ša3-tam official’s seal is on most disbursements of oil. Moreover, BIN 9, 366: 3, mentioned above shows a ša3-tam official and a perfumer, written i3-ra2-ra2, as conveyors of lids for jars of processed oils to the perfume workshop (for this line of text, see also §2.2.3). Thus, a connection may be made between the ša3-tam official and the raqqû. The former would have been charged with controlling the inventory of the latter, as well as the latter’s supply of raw materials.
§2.4.4. We now turn to the fourth and fifth professions mentioned, the i3-sur or ṣaḫitu and the lu2 geštin-sur-ra or ṣaḫitu karani. Postgate discusses these terms and their Akkadian verbal roots: “for ṣaḫātum a meaning for “press (to extract liquid)” is favored both by its use for wine from grapes, and by the meaning of cognate verbs in other semitic languages.” And “ṣaḫātum is the process which results in the extraction of oil: the saḫitum is a lú ì.sur, a term meaning literally “oil-presser.” (Postgate 1985: 146) As to the term i3-sur, one can look at the two constituents: i3 + sur. Already noted above, sur, as proposed by M. Civil, means ““to perform an action from which a liquid product results” without indicating concretely the action by means of which the liquid is obtained.” (Civil 1964: 81; see above §2.3) In addition to this, Civil provides several examples of this, all of which involve some qualifier. Pertinent to our discussion are i3–sur, and geštin–sur (ibid. 81-82). Both describe liquid extraction processes, the former oil, the latter wine. The officials mentioned in this latter part are to be understood then as ‘oil presser’ and ‘wine presser.’ What is important for our purposes is that both work in liquid extraction processes.
§2.4.5. The i3-ra2-ra2, as a profession on the Canonical Series lu2 = ša, is clearly separated from those involved in liquid extraction; a ruling separates them. It is connected to two professions, the šim-mu2 and ša3-tam professions. The first involved rituals and the mixing of aromatic materials and may be understood as an herbalist. The second profession involved inventory and oversight and specifically performed administrative oversight in the Larsa oil bureau, and perhaps the office of the perfumer as well.
§2.4.6. However, the i3-ra2-ra2 is still connected with the oil presser. As seen above, the vehicle of most perfumes was oil. In YOS 14, 212, the perfumer receives oil from an official of the processed oil storage depot who is clearly in charge of oil disbursements. In addition, the perfumer in YOS 14, 212, was previously this oil bureau official. Further, at Mari, the e2 (lu2) raqqî, where perfumes are produced, both received oils from the oil storage depot and supplied perfumed oils as finished products to this depot (Soubeyran 1984: 419). This workshop is clearly differentiated from the oil press in the Mari archive (ibid. 419). At Larsa, like at Mari, there is a clear difference between the oil presser and the perfumer.
§2.5. Places of Aromatic Processing
§184.108.40.206. In addition to oil, aromatic raw materials were delivered to the perfumer’s workshop for production, as is seen in YBC 5151 mentioned above and YBC 10512, where a chunk of wood weighing 20 shekels according to the market rate, was delivered to the perfumers workshop. Interestingly, whereas oils were delivered by a palace agency in the Oil bureau texts, which range in date from Gungunum to Sumuel, raw materials, a chunk of marguṣum wood in YBC 10512 and 6 mina’s arganum in YBC 5151, were delivered by what I take to be private entrepreneurs during the reigns of Sîn-iqīšam and Rīm-Sîn. This will be developed further below (§3.3).
§220.127.116.11. Suffice it to say for now the perfumer’s workshop received raw materials in the form of vegetable products, such as woods, gums, etc. (see §2.2), from either an institution or a private entrepreneur by perhaps the reign of Sîn-iqīšam and certainly during the reign of Rīm-Sîn. Oil was received from an oil bureau, to which the perfumer’s workshop was closely aligned until at least the reign of Sumuel, and perhaps from a private entrepreneur also by the reign of Rīm-Sîn. At the perfumer’s workshop, oil and water was fortified with aromatic fragrances by the perfumer, to be delivered to a storage facility and distributed as need demanded from there. That water was perfumed at this workshop seems only logical, as many skills needed to perfume oils were also required to aromatize water. As will be seen below, there is evidence for private perfumers during the reign of Rīm-Sîn (§3.3).
§2.5.2. The Kitchen
§3. Aromatics and Society
§3.2. Sources of Aromatic Raw Materials
§3.2.2. šimšeš, Akkadian murru, is seen in YBC 7189: 5. Its suggested translation is ‘myrrh,’ more specifically ‘Balsamodendron or Commiphora Myrrh.’ Groom states concerning the location of this commodity in the ancient world: “Frankincense and myrrh grew only in southern Arabia, Somalia and parts of Ethiopia, and the trade to Europe and Mesopotamia was controlled by south Arabians” (Groom 1981: 229). He further notes: “Myrrh is found growing to this day all over south and south-west Arabia, including ‘Asīr, as well as in Somalia and Ethiopia. It comes from a number of different species of the genus Commiphora, but principally Commiphora myrrha.”( Groom 1981, 232) The occurrence of myrrh here is not definitive evidence of south Arabian incense trade; it occurs in only one text. However, it does attest to some contact and occasional trade with south Arabia’s incense bearing region, perhaps using Dilmun as an intermediary.
§3.2.3. Another item, šimsig7-sig7, understood here as Akkadian guḫlu, is perhaps evidence for further contact with south Arabia or even India. It is understood here as Commiphora mukul, also known as Mukal Myrrh and Bdellium, following Potts, et al (Potts et al. 1996: 291-305). Potts also states concerning this item: “Commiphora mukul has a wide distribution, extending from Dhofar in the southeastern part of the Arabian Peninsula to India.” (Potts 2007: 135) The ultimate origin of this material is thus difficult to trace but does allude to distance trade. This trade would have connected these areas to Mesopotamia through Dilmun in the Persian Gulf as well (ibid. 135). Thus evidence for contact and even trade with south Arabia and perhaps even India is established with the use of both Myrrh and Mukal Myrrh.
§3.2.4. While there is evidence for southern trade in the texts, via Dilmun, far more items are imported from the west. In CT 29, 13, we see oil of Uršum, perhaps located in Syria or southern Anatolia (Groneberg 1980: 250), explicitly stated. In addition, the ‘west’ seems to have been the source for many aromatic woods mentioned in the texts. Thus, Rowton (1967: 271) states concerning this region:
Very tentatively one can suggest the following “phytogeographical” pattern for the region west of the Euphrates. The great stand of mixed coniferous timbers in the Maraş region, both north and south of the Maraş gap, was known as the Cedar Forest, later Cedar Mountain, a term ultimately extended to the whole of the Amanus. The mountainous country between the Cedar Forest and the Euphrates was known as the oak and terebinthe region. From the Lebanon, a cypress mountain, all the way up into the southern Amanus, the coastal mountains constituted the cypress and boxwood region. The utilitarian element is conspicuous. It can be seen in the emphasis on boxwood which was in great demand but was nowhere a dominant tree, and it shows also in the designation of the Lebanon as a cypress mountain, certainly never a dominant tree there. The great stand of cedar in the Lebanon were of no particular interest since cedar was available much closer, in the Maraş region.
The most prevalent item likely imported from this region is Sumerian eren, Akkadian erēnu, which is often translated cedar. Eren appears in the texts in three states: wood, resin, and perfumed oils (see §6.2 under šim/gešeren and i3-(geš-)eren). The appearance of this item alone, if from the region west of the Euphrates, points to considerable trade between Larsa and the West. These items were acquired via trading agents stationed abroad, who use cities such as Ešnunna or even Susa despite its location east of Larsa (YOS 2, 112) as trade emporiums, though it seems Mari or the Middle Euphrates region was at least one entry point for many aromatic raw materials from the West into Mesopotamia and the East. Since this period was a very volatile one politically, these emporiums would have changed with the political atmosphere.
§3.2.5. In addition to those aromatic materials which came from abroad, a number of items were produced in Mesopotamia itself. Sumerian ḫašḫur, apple, is mentioned as an aromatic item in TCL 10, 71: 15 and YBC 1928: 1. This item was grown in orchards around the city of Larsa and other southern Mesopotamian cities (Van de Mieroop 1992b: 156-57, 159). Powell states concerning the apple in Mesopotamia: “The apple was the preferred species among the Rosaceae in the 3rd mill. precisely because it had been domesticated and filled an important niche in the available domesticates” (Powell 2003-2005: 16). šimlal3 also appears in one text (YBC 10758: 1), while lal3 alone appears on several occasions (TCL 10, 57: 4, TCL 10, 71 iv: 47, 50, 62). This sweet product was likely derived from the locally grown fig tree. Further, in later Babylonian and Assyrian royal gardens and in orchards, aromatic trees and shrubs were planted to support the perfume industry (Wiseman 1983: 142). This can perhaps be surmised for the Old Babylonian period as well. Thus, locally produced items could and did occur in the aromatics trade.
§3.2.6. The aromatics trade involved a wide geographic area. Merchants brought goods from the south Arabian Peninsula or India, likely through the emporium of Dilmun. Other materials were derived from the west, including many of the woods mentioned in the texts, from cedar to terebinthe, to myrtle, and to the juniper. Finally, several ingredients could be derived from locally produced goods, such as the apple or fig. We can surmise three groups involved in the procurement and production of aromatic materials: the local cultivator, as in the case of apples and figs, the merchant, who acquired aromatic materials both locally and abroad, and the administrator, who received these materials for an administration and disbursed them for consumption in the production of perfumed oils, as a condiment for food, or as a finished product such as incense. These last two individuals, the merchant and administrator as well as the perfumer, will be the subject of the next section.
§3.3. The Merchant, the Administrator, and the Craftsman
§3.3.2. The Merchant and the Administration
In a society whose commerce is little developed, trade is only carried out by merchants, who buy and sell. But when commerce increases, the business of a merchant assumes larger proportions and the merchant no longer makes journeys to buy and sell goods personally, but he has this done, either by subordinates or by agents whom he furnishes with money.
§18.104.22.168. In YOS 2, 112, a merchant, Šēp-Sîn, instructs two other merchants, Dadâ and Sîn-uselli, to procure several items, including aromatic oils and juniper, take on a citizen of Susa as a partner, and then to rendezvous in al-Aha-nūta with Šēp-Sîn and royal soldiers. In addition, Šēp-Sîn reprimands Dadâ and Sîn-uselli for previously writing that they would have the items sent; he wants to see them in person. Several aspects of this text must be noted. First, Dada and Sîn-uselli are merchants stationed abroad at Susa. Second, they acquire goods in Susa using a local citizen as a partner to help facilitate this trade. Third, an unexplained situation requires these merchants leave Susa and accompany their goods to al-Aha-nūta where Šēp-Sîn, a local merchant who seems to have authority over Dada and Sîn-uselli, is waiting for them with royal soldiers.
§22.214.171.124. CT 29, 13-14 are both addressed to Ilum-pî-Šamaš from Sîn-aḫam-idinnam and both deal with the same thing: the procurement of perfumed oils for sale by Sîn-aḫam-idinnam abroad. Here, however, the roles seem to be reversed; the merchant abroad both requests items for trade from the trade agent and reprimands the trading agent for not fulfilling this request. In these texts the trading agent is located within the Kingdom of Babylon. In the first text, Sîn-aḫam-idinnam, who according to Leemans operated east of the Tigris, writes to Ilum-pî-Šamaš requesting several oils because his stocks are low. The second, more urgent letter reproaches Ilum-pî-Šamaš for not doing this, but sending a servant empty handed. Interestingly in CT 29, 13: 16, Sîn-aḫam-idinnam asks “u2-ul ti-di,” “Don’t you understand?” after listing oils he should purchase and in CT 29, 14: 14-22, it states: i-na ku3-babbar / ša u2-ša-bi-la-ak-ku-u2 / 1ki-ib-ra-ab-ba pe-ni-ka / li-iṣ-ba-at-ma i3-da-am-qa-am / ša 10 gin2 ku3-babbar i3 šu-ur2-min3 / ša 3 gin2 ku3-babbar i3 a-su / u3 5 gin2 i3-gešeren / ša-ma-am-ma li-qi-a / i3 ma-ṣi, “Kibrabba should guide you in the silver which I sent you so that you buy for me good quality oil and take possession (of it): cypress-oil worth 10 shekels silver, myrtle-oil worth 3 shekels silver, and cedar-oil worth 5 shekels. The oil is available.” It seems Ilum-pî-Šamaš was not familiar with the various qualities and types of oil products; he requires additional assistance from Kibrabba to perform his duties.
§126.96.36.199. In all texts, there is an agent or two. In YOS 2, 112, they works abroad in Susa in order to acquire raw materials for the local merchant in the Kingdom of Larsa. In CT 29, 13-14, he works locally, that is, within the Kingdom of Babylon to acquire finished products for sale abroad. What we see is a semi-subordinate status in both cases. Leemans notes a certain amount of freedom given to the trading agent in the Hammurapi code (Leemans 1950: 22-29). He sees this as the norm for the trading agent in the Old Babylonian period. The merchants in the examples given here need to write twice and reprimand the trading agents to get them to do what the merchants want.
§188.8.131.52. The true subordinate of both the merchant and trading agent was the ṣuḫarum, the servant, who is mentioned specifically in CT 29, 14: 9, and alluded to in YOS 2, 112: 23. This individual was likely the intermediary between the merchant and the trading agent, either a servant given a wage or as a slave (Leemans 1950: 34-35). The need to specifically request the agents appear in person in YOS 2, 112, would show that the physical presence of the trading agent was out of the ordinary. It seems that the norm was to send a servant to deliver goods and letters (as stated by Leemans 1950: 34). This is likely the case in YBC 5151 discussed above where Watar-Šamaš, likely a servant of Abu-waqar’s, acts on Abu-waqar’s behalf to deliver goods to an administrative household.
§184.108.40.206. The trading agent in both sets of letters needs additional help in providing the required commodities. In YOS 2, 112, a local resident needed to be taken as a partner to help facilitate trade. In CT 29, 14, a knowledgeable individual is sent to assist in the acquisition of the commodities in question. This leads to an important point: the trading agent was not an expert in everything, only a representative of the merchant abroad. He needed a local citizen to enhance his abilities to procure items in Susa and an expert in oil products to acquire good quality oils for sale abroad.
§220.127.116.11. In addition to the relationship between the merchant and trading agent, these letters also help show the role of the merchant in society and in relationship to the aromatics industry. First, we will note that the merchant could be located outside of Babylonia proper. This is seen in CT 29, 13-14. The merchant requests finished products in the form of perfumes be delivered to him. As noted the trading agent may have resided in Sippar while the merchant worked abroad, possibly east of the Tigris as Leemans states. In this case the merchant is an exporter of perfumes manufactured in Babylonia. He is also very likely independent of the administration in Babylon, as is seen by the need to purchase items on the market. He certainly lacks the clout shown by Šēp-Sîn in YOS 2, 112, who has royal soldiers at his disposal. Indeed, Sîn-aḫam-idinnam seems to beg his associate in Sippar to send him ingredients whereas Šēp-Sîn takes a commanding tone when demanding his associates meet him in person at al-Aha-nūta.
§18.104.22.168. The appearance of soldiers in YOS 2, 112, as just stated, shows that: “Šēp-Sîn apparently had the assistance of the king at his disposal” (Leemans 1960: 81). This support by the king is due to the merchant’s role in the royal and temple administrations. As described by Renger in 1979 and again in 2004, institutional households, specifically the palace and temple households, handed over both resource gathering in kind and in silver, as well as certain administrative operations, to entrepreneurs as franchised individuals (Renger 1979: 254 and 2004: 145, respectively). Under this system, the merchant acted in an administrative capacity to procure raw materials and silver for an administrative government. Thus Šēp-Sîn, in so far as he is acting on the government’s behalf, had access to government resources, such as soldiers in this example, to assist in resource gathering when necessary.
§22.214.171.124. Another merchant, Itti-Sîn-milki the merchant overseer of Zarbilum, appears several times in the texts (TCL 10, 56, 57, 61, and 72) delivering items to a temple administration. In three out of the four texts (TCL 10, 56, 61, and 72), one of the receiving individuals is Ikūn-pî-Adad, perhaps the same individual as the disbursement official in YBC 5169, the sanga of Ninurta. The first delivery, TCL 10, 56, is for a caravan or journey to Dēr. In the second and fourth texts, TCL 10, 57, and 72 respectively, he makes a delivery for a royal sacrifice. The third, TCL 10, 61, does not enumerate the purpose of the delivery but it is received by Ikūn-pî-Adad. In each text Itti-Sîn-milki serves in an administrative capacity, he provides materials, including aromatics, for temple consumption. In addition, TCL 10, 57 and 72, both show him performing this function on behalf of the king for a royal sacrifice.
§126.96.36.199. The merchant was perhaps used to procure some aromatic items already during the reign of Sîn-iqīšam. This is seen in several aspects of YBC 10512. Whatever the date of this text, it describes the process of procuring a commodity by a palace or temple agency from the market. First, kar-ra and ku3-bi appear in YBC 10512: 2-3 and are described in §1.3 as ‘market rate’ and ‘its value’ respectively. Their appearance in YBC 10512 implies the existence of a market independent of the administration used by the administration to value a commodity. In addition, the appearance of kar and ku3-bi here shows that the commodity here, marguṣum, was traded on this market. Next we see ‘na4 dutu,’ ‘standard of Šamaš.’ This phrase shows a standard weight, verified by the temple of Šamaš, used to measure the commodity and its silver equivalent. Further, the phrase ‘dub šu-bala’ ‘tablet of the exchange’ describes what the transaction in question was, an exchange of silver for goods. Finally, line five enumerates the reason for this transaction: the perfumer’s workshop. We may therefore understand the transaction as a delivery of a commodity, procured on the market in exchange for its silver equivalent using a specific standard, in this case that of Šamaš, to an institution and ultimately destined for the perfumer’s workshop.
§3.3.3. The Craftsman, the Merchant, and the Administration
§188.8.131.52. We may also suggest the existence of private perfumers, operating independently of the temples or palace at this time. In TCL 10, 56 and 57, Itti-Sîn-milki, the merchant overseer of Zarbilum, delivers perfumed oils to temple administrators. In CT 29, 14: 22-25, we read: šum-ma i3 / ša i-ba-tum la da-mi-iq / šu-ḫu-ur-ma i3-da-am-qa-am / ša-ma-am-ma li-qi-a, “If the oil of Ibatum is not good quality, search. Buy me good quality oil and take possession (of it)!” The author of this text expects there to be more than one source for his trading agent to purchase perfumed oils. His trading agent has the luxury of shopping around for the best quality of perfumed oil. Thus, there is not only one independent perfumer or perfume shop in Sippar; there are several offering different qualities of fragrant oils. I see no reason for the situation to be different at Larsa. In addition, Šēp-Sîn in YOS 2, 112, requests the delivery of perfumed oils from Susa, and in CT 29, 13, ‘oil of Uršum’ is mentioned, which would have been an import into Babylonia. Not only were perfumes produced in the temple and palace households themselves, they were also produced by local independent craftsmen in the Kingdom of Larsa and produced abroad.
§3.4. The Place of Aromatics in the Economy and Society of Larsa
§3.4.2. We have already seen aromatic items and products traded on the market in the kingdom of Larsa. Itti-Sîn-milki delivers both aromatic incense as well as perfumed oils for a royal sacrifice in TCL 10, 72. These are each given their silver equivalent and the market rate they were procured at. Also, in CT 29, 13-14, we see the shipment of perfumes produced in the Kingdom of Babylon out of foreign raw materials for sale by a merchant working abroad. This shows that perfumes were an export of Babylonia and that they were purchased by a private individual for sale abroad. The ability to purchase and trade in aromatics and aromatic products by private individuals both on behalf of local administrative apparatuses and for private gain is therefore attested by at least the middle of Rīm-Sîn of Larsa’s reign.
§3.4.3. Private possession of aromatic items is even more explicitly stated in YBC 10758 and 10759. In the former, Iddin-Sîn owns 1 mina of scented honey, which Sîn-išmeanni receives. In the latter text, Iddin-Sîn possesses a quantity (two is written without a unit of measurement) of baluḫḫu resin which Unaḫḫid-Ištar receives. In both texts, nig2 or nig2-šu, ‘goods,’ is used followed by Iddin-Sîn. Unfortunately neither the reason for these transactions nor their dates are stated in the documents.
§3.4.4. Further evidence for private ownership is perhaps seen in the prices given for these items as well. High quality aromatic oils, such as šim in TCL 10, 72: 10, were expensive, we see a rate of three qûm oil per shekel silver. In the same document, i3-sag has the ratio of 1:5 1/18 qûm per shekel. These two oils would have been inaccessible to most people. However, a lower quality of oil, šim ḫi-a, the mixed perfumes discussed in chapters one and two, receives a ratio of 60 qûm to one shekel in the same document. Its price is much more accessible to the population. For comparison, note that i3-geš in the same tablet, well known for cooking oil and distributed as rations (see §2.2.3), is given the ratio of 18 qûm per shekel. Kukru, perhaps terebinthe-oil which would have been manufactured using cold maceration as seen in chapter two, is ordered by Sîn-aḫam-idinnam in CT 29, 13: 21, at a rate of 28 qûm per shekel silver. Again, below the cost of common oil as seen in TCL 10, 72.
§3.4.5. In addition, prices tell us that resins, possibly used as condiments in cooking, and incense were relatively inexpensive as well. Prices are very low for these. For instance, note šimaz, perhaps myrtle resin, is given the rate of 600 shekels per shekel silver in YBC 3365. gešza-ba-al, juniper wood used as incense in the royal sacrifice of TCL 10, 72, is given the rate of 720 shekels per one shekel silver. And šimdu10-eren, cedar resin, is sold at the rate of 1200:1 in YBC 5765. These are all very inexpensive items. While it is nowhere explicitly stated that the average person bought or used oils, resins, and incense, they were by no means out of the reach of much of the population. This is not to say that people bought large amounts of aromatic items on a regular basis. But, if these prices are typical, this would back up Bottéro’s assertion that the average household cook in Mesopotamia could “turn out dishes which were just as tasty and imaginative as those which the nuḫatimmu of the palace created” (Bottéro 1985: 46). Some spices for cooking were definitely within reach of much of the society (for a list of aromatic commodities used as condiments, see §2 and NCBT 1808).
§3.4.6. This brings us to the palace administration and royal use of aromatics. Bottéro quoted above also notes the use of aromatics as spices in the preparation of elite and royal meals as well (Bottéro 1985: 46). This also is not documented in the texts but can be assumed. However, there is documentation for royal consumption of aromatics and aromatic products in the texts. First, we will note the royal sacrifices seen in TCL 10, 57 and 72 and mentioned above. The sacrifices are made on behalf of the king and are thus a royal use of incense and oils. In addition, TCL 10, 71 i 15-26 represents a receipt of aromatic oils and resins for the e2-nin, understood here as the queen’s house. The same text, lines 27-29 lists a receipt of one seah perfumed oil “for the princes,” “a-na dumu-meš lugal.” We see here elite consumption of aromatic products. We can also surmise the use of aromatics as medicines based on later medicine recipes. Indeed for all the aromatic items mentioned in the documents R. Campbell-Thompson mentions a medicinal use (see §6.1 for the location of each entry within Thompson 1949).
§3.4.7. More often mentioned are temple uses of aromatic items. As seen above, Ikūn-pî-Adad, the sanga of Ninurta, receives three deliveries from Itti-Sîn-milki on behalf of the temple administration for a journey or caravan to Dēr and a royal sacrifice. YOS 5, 171, 172, and 194, are especially fruitful in enumerating temple uses of oils. We may note the disbursement of oils and perfumed oils both distributed for several temple uses, including the e2-dinanna u3 dna-na-a (YOS 5, 171: 1, 172: 1 and 194: 1), the e2-a-ab-ba-a (YOS 5, 171: 10), and the e2-gešgu-za en den-ki (YOS 5, 194: 11), for the door-bolt of a temple to the deified Sîn-idinnam (YOS 5, 171: 7 and 194: 10), to polish a door bolt (YOS 5, 171: 8-9), to anoint the copper lion of the e2-dinanna (YOS 5, 171: 16), to anoint the temple of Šamaš (YOS 5, 171: 18), for the deaths of two individuals (YOS 5, 171: 11-13), for a supplication (YOS 5, 172: 11), and for various individuals who presumably were affiliated with the temple (YOS 5, 171: 2-6, 172: 2-6, and 194: 2-5). TCL 10, 71, lists several receipts of aromatics for festivals. In addition, we may again note the delivery of aromatics for food preparation in NCBT 1808 already mentioned (see §2.5.2 and NCBT 1808’s textual discussion).
§3.4.8. We can say from this that aromatics were present in all sectors of the economy and society of the Kingdom of Larsa. They were both an import in the form of raw materials and occasionally perfumed oils as well as an export in the form of fragrant oils. Lower qualities of perfumed oil and basic resins and incense were both available and were accessible to the average person, while higher qualities of perfumed oils were certainly used by the wealthier stratums of society, the temples, and the palace. They were used in food preparation, medicine, incense, and perfumes for conspicuous consumption by the elites and, at a lower quality, perhaps by the average individual. In the temple aromatics were used as incense and perfumed oils to anoint individuals and things, in sacrifices, libations, and on various feast days. Gifts or disbursements of perfumed oils were made by the temple and perhaps the palace to favored functionaries and visiting dignitaries.
§4.2. Once in the cities of Larsa, raw materials were traded on the market, perhaps by the reign of Sîn-iqīšam and certainly by the reign of Rīm-Sîn. Merchants during this period acted in a semi-administrative capacity as suppliers to the temples and palace households. They acted as middlemen, collecting and purchasing from the local craftsmen and farmers for the temple and palace administrations the raw materials and finished products necessary for the upkeep of these estates. We therefore see the merchants purchasing these raw materials on the market or supplying them at the market rate to such administrations. Raw materials could have also been procured by the local populace for household use or for perfume production by local perfumers who were independent from the palace and temple estates and administrations. Perfumed oils produced by the perfumers were also sold to the local populace and merchants for sale abroad or to supply the various administrative apparatuses.
§4.3. Once delivered to the palace or temple households, administrators divided up the raw materials for different uses. Most raw materials would have remained in the state they arrived in. These were used as condiments for food, such as the items delivered to the gir4-maḫ in NCBT 1808, or as incense in sacrifices, or in the royal household, as the receipt of incense for the queen’s house in TCL 10, 71 would show. Some items were held in the households of individual officials, as is seen by MLC 1683. Other fragrant materials were dispatched to the perfumer’s workshop for processing into perfumed oils or water.
§4.4. Two processes of perfume production are alluded to in the texts: cold maceration and heated maceration. Cold maceration produced a lower quality product and required much time for production. The benefits of this production process were that it required little skill and allowed for mass production. Heated maceration was also used. This process took much less time to produce perfumed oils, allowed the mixing of fragrances, and produced a higher quality. Its downside was the amount of skill it required and the low quantities it produced. Perfumed water was also produced, which required the same skills needed in heated maceration and the time required for cold maceration. Its value is reflected in that it only appears once in the texts. All three processes required repeated soakings of aromatic materials to produce a finished product.
§4.5. The perfumer’s workshop, at least during the reign of Sumuel, was closely connected with the oil storage bureau. The perfumer’s workshop received oil, probably sesame oil, from this bureau to be processed into perfumes and likely stored its finished products in the oil storage bureau, literally the ‘processed oil house.’ Moreover, the person who headed this storage house during the majority of the reign of Abi-sare was promoted to the perfumer’s workshop by the fifth year of Sumuel. It seems skill with oil was a prerequisite to work in the perfumer’s workshop.
§4.7. Once finished, these oils were distributed to the temple for sacrifices, feast days, and to anoint individuals and temple objects, such as the copper lion of the Inanna temple in YOS 5, 171, or the door bolt of the temple of Sîn-Idinnam in the same text. Oils were also distributed to important individuals, such as those seen in YOS 5, 171, 172, and 194, to visiting dignitaries, and to various royal or merchant households, such as the queen’s house in TCL 10, 71, or the estate of Abu-waqar in YOS 5, 194.
§4.8. That aromatics were available to the local populace is clear from the prices of the raw materials and even some perfumed oils seen in the texts. However, this was also a prestige industry. Certain oils were priced so high that only the very wealthy could afford them. Perfumed oils were both an import and an export of the Old Babylonian Kingdom of Larsa. This was a vibrant industry that involved all stratums of the society and the economy of this kingdom.
§5.2. Primary Corpus
§184.108.40.206. MLC 1683 is a record of the separating and sealing off of royal property from private property in a household of an official which has come to an end through said official’s death. There are several reasons to describe it thus. First, it is a receipt of goods which I understand as designated for a caravan after the king’s departure to the city of Sabum, near Maškan-šapir and on the Euphrates. More important for this synopsis are lines R. 7-9: ša3 e2-du6-la2/ lu2-ga-a-a/ kišib3 mu-ub-ra, “the executor sealed inside the ‘house in probate.’” I follow Heimpel’s understanding of the term e2-du6-la2, ‘ceased house,’ found in ASJ 19, 63-82. Heimpel, comparing Maekawa’s Ur III evidence to Old Babylonian Mari evidence, comes to the conclusion that this word is used when sealing estates in order to take possession of royal property which had been held by an official in the Ur III period, even a minor one according to the Mari evidence, and also the property of criminals or enemies of the state in the Mari evidence (Heimpel 1997: 72-73, 75). The process involved the sealing of property after the official’s death, retirement, etc (ibid. 76-77); hence the use of ‘kišib...ra.’ Hiempel also notes that the deceased/retiree’s holdings may have been a mixture of public and private property and thus involved the separating of royal from private belongings in the inheritance (ibid. 77-78). Lu2-ga, is understood here as some type of familial relationship to the deceased who had charge of his estate after death; either the estate’s heir or more likely the executor. Thus we may say that the items in the house official, which is set aside at his next of kin’s or executor’s residence or in the deceased’s residence now under the authority of his executor. The items are sealed after this official’s death, to be sent out in the next caravan after the king’s departure.
§5.2.2. NBC 8584 SI 22
§5.2.3. NCBT 1808 RS 25
§220.127.116.11. NCBT 1808 appears to be a receipt by one Ilima-abī of food and spices for the Girmaḫ. I understand Girmaḫ here as the building which housed the “great oven” that was restored by Nur-Adad for the Nanna-temple of Ur, as stated in UET 8, 67, specifically ll. 37-48: “u4-bi-a / gir4-maḫ / u2-su3-su3 dsuen-na-ka / ninda il2-e /kilib3 dingir-re-e-ne-er / du8-maḫ / unu2-gal-ba / mi2-zi-de3-eš du11-ga / kin-sig kin-nim-ma / ka-nun-bi di-dam / nam-ti-la-ni-še3 / mu-na-du3.” This passage is translated in RIME 18.104.22.168 as:
37-41) at that time, a great oven for the meals of the god Suen which provides bread for all the gods
The translation of gir4-maḫ here is seen in the AHw entry, “ein groβer kīru-Ofen.” (AHw I 284, as opposed to CAD K, 408, where it is transalted as a “large crucible.”) Falkenstein, followed by Salonen (Falkenstein 1960: 148-149, and Salonen 1964: 121, respectively), sees this oven as part of the “‘kitchen’ building” (UE 5, 38) described by Wooley in UE 5, 37-38 and connected to the gir4-maḫ mentioned in “the Second Lamentation of Ur,” l. 18 (Gadd 1963: 62-63), and the e2 gir4-maḫ mentioned in CT 42, BM 16919: rev. 12 (e2-gir4-maḫ-a-ni ḫe2-gal2-la bi2-DU). Bottéro further makes mention of this building and oven in his RlA entry under “Küche” (Bottéro 1980-1983: 281).
§22.214.171.124. Based on the evidence presented by UET 8, 67, “the Second Lamentation of Ur,” and CT 42, 40, it may be surmised that NCBT 1808 is a text pertaining to the delivery of condiments, to be used for the preparation of meals at the e2 gir4-maḫ for the God Nanna or another divinity worshipped at the temple complex of Ur. One sees this text as somewhat reminiscent of those presented by Lafont on pp. 292-294 of ARM 23 which were “sans doute principalement destinée au “travail des intendants” ou des cuisiniers chargés de la préperation des repas du roi” (Lafont 1984: 293). Here, however, the ingredients are in all likelihood intended for the craftsmen or cooks serving the god.
§126.96.36.199. What can be said concerning the Girmaḫ in NCBT 1808 is that it was a building proper, not simply a big oven, evidenced by its appearance as a destination in this tablet, and that it was still in use during the reign of Rīm-Sîn as a food preparation facility, as is clear from the year date. Of more interest for our purposes is the use of aromatics in this text with other condiments. We see juniper berries, myrtle seeds?, myrtle, and cypress measured by capacity or weight depending on the condiment, delivered with possibly leeks, garlic, lentils, and mustard, measured by capacity and quantity. In particular, myrtle, delivered by weight, was likely the hardened sap used as a sweetener for foods.
§5.2.4. YBC 1928 RS 52
§5.2.5. YBC 4451
5) George’s House Most High lists, as 424-431, eight separate entries for e2-gu-la. The entry which strikes me as the more likely for the e2-gu-la of YBC 4451: 5 is entry 425, “a shrine of Ninlil in the é-kur at Nippur” (George 1993: 96). e2-gu-la possibly appears in CT 42, 40: 15. It is first described by F. R. Kraus as a chapel where Ninlil was honored in the Ekur complex of Nippur (Kraus 1963: 154). Reference is also seen in the Nippur Lament, l. 32, translated by Tinney as “the great temple whose noise (of activity) was famous” (Tinney 1996: 99). That the e2-gu-la was a place of offerings is seen in both this document (YBC 4451: 5) and in UM 29-13-357 + N 915 + N 1911: rev. v 35, vi 23-24, where it is directly connected to Ninlil (published by Heimerdinger 1976: 228).
However, in the Nungal Hymn, e2-gu-la is described as a “prison, «house of misdeed», where the sinful man is under heavy sentence, house which selects the righteous and evil man ...” (translation from Sjöberg, 1973: p. 30, l. 10). Indeed, as Civil notes, e2-kur-ra is also equated with prison (ṣibittu) and therefore the Nungal hymn need not, and probably should not, reference a shrine in the Ekur at Nippur (Civil 1993, 75). That offerings would take place in a prison seems odd. However, if we follow Civil’s understanding of Nungal’s role as a warden, we see two things: First, Nungal is compassionate, and “from the perspective of the author of the text, a prison sentence is a compassionate alternative to the death penalty, and compassion in Mesopotamia is mainly a female attribute.” (ibid. 78) In addition, the prison is both a source of light and a place of rebirth, where the guilty are reborn honest. (ibid. 78) If the prison is both a place of passion and rebirth, it only makes sense that it would be a place of offerings as well, especially offerings made by those seeking compassion in a court case where they want to be found innocent and honest or desire leniency. Leniency, after all, is proposed by Civil as the motive of the author of the Nungal Hymn (ibid. 72).
6) The reading of ku-du is enigmatic. It is understood here as a type of container, perhaps the kd jars which were used to store oil rations, among other items at Ugarit. This is seen in a rations list, CTC 136 (UT 84) in which, as noted by Heltzer; “eleven persons are listed who received from 1-3 kd—“jars”—of oil (šmn) each.” (Heltzer 1976: 27) Comparison of this jar is made to the DUG sign in Akkadian texts (ibid 27, note 51). Another possible explanation is the kuddu described in CAD K, 493: “On the one hand (A, EA and Ḫḫ VI 47 and IX 381) the word seems to denote a piece of wood or reed, a log, on the other hand (Ḫḫ IV, 239 and IX, 218) it describes a container made of wood or reed.”
§5.2.6. YBC 5151 RS 54
3) According to Roberts (1972: 34), Ilaba “plays a brief but important role before fading into obscurity at the end of the sargonic period.” This is, perhaps, corroborated by Richter 2004, where no mention of this deity is made. However, Bowes (1987: vol. 2, 954) notes two other occurrences of this divinity in personal names during the OB period: Nabi-Ilaba at Sippar and more importantly for this text, Ṣilli-Ilaba at Larsa.
5) the understanding of še is based on Poebel 1911, where it is argued that in the Old Babylonian period at Larsa and Babylon a phonetic spelling (for šeš2) could be used for a Sumerian word.
§5.2.7. YBC 5169 RS 28
§5.2.8. YBC 5227
§5.2.9. YBC 5232 RS 39
§5.2.10. YBC 5765 RS 16
§5.2.11. YBC 7189 RS 04
§5.2.12. YBC 10512 Sîn-iqīšam 5a
§188.8.131.52. I understand this text as a delivery of a piece of wood valued at 2 shekels. Two additional quantities are given in line two: 1/2 and 10. The only standard measurements given are shekels in line 3 and na4 dutu, lit. ‘weight of Šamaš,’ in line 4. I therefore understand both measurements in line two as weights. The first is that of marguṣum, the second of silver. The market rate, then, is 1/2 shekel marguṣum for every 10 shekels of silver, or a rate of 1:20 marguṣum / silver according to the market. The weight of this chunk of wood is thus 1/10 shekel, measured by the weight of Šamaš. l. 8 helps explain the transaction: it is an exchange of silver for its equivalent in the wood at the market. Unfortunately the rest of the line is broken.
§5.2.13. YBC 10758
1) This is understood here as a hardened sugary honey, measured by weight, rather than a syrup meausured by capacity.
§5.2.14. YBC 10759
§5.3. Secondary Corpus
4) ki on the tablet copy.
9) One expects ku3-bi 1 gin2, as Breckwoldt (1994) restores. However, Leemans’ copy does not allow this reading.
10) The second sign on the case makes the restoration tentative; my reading of it is based on l. 14. Leemans (1960) restores “2 udu-nita2 ku3-bi 2/3 gin2” which is also a possibility. Breckwoldt’s restoration “2 sila3 šim! ku3-bi 2/3 gin2” is unlikely though her statement that 2/3 shekel is low is valid. The sign, according to the copy, is not šim, however, but ir3.
8) Leemans notes the presence of ‘mil-ki’ on the tablet though it is absent from the copy. Since this makes sense, Itti-Sîn-milki was a merchant, the merchant overseer of Zarbilum in fact as seen in TCL 10, 61, below, I follow Leemans.
10) For the translation of geš–tag as ‘to sacrifice,’ see Thompson (1984: 318). Leemans (1960: 149), leaves this untranslated. Breckwoldt’s understands this phrase as derived from “to offer.” See Breckwoldt (1994: part 5 68 n. 10).
12) Leemans transliteration of this text shows a -šu at the end of this line. In addition, he notes the alternative reading of the sign preceding -šu as UŠ (Leemans 1960: 149 n. 2). The translation “when” for ša is tentative following Leemans and Breckwoldt.
§184.108.40.206. TCL 10, 61, AO 8497 RS 23
2) Leemans reading of 3(barig [pi]) must be a typo since he translates it as 2.
7) I follow Jean (1931: 142) in restoring ZUR, understood here as amar and thus making this a personal name, against both Leemans (1960: 150) followed by Breckwoldt (1994: part 5 69-70), who both see this as a mistake for SIZKUR, a sacrifice.
8) Following Leemans (1960) for nig2-gi-na. Breckwoldt translates “correct.”
3) Arnaud’s collation sees the beginning of this line as: ‘1/2 gu2-.’ The gu2- is possibly a mistake for kar3-, which look very similar in these texts. This understanding seems relatively certain as there is no gu2-šumsar I am aware of, but there is a kar3-šumsar (see appendix 1). As this material is routinely measured by capacity, it is likely that Arnaud’s 1/2 should be read as 1 ban2.
49, 53) I cannot document these festivals.
§220.127.116.11. TCL 10, 72, AO 8464 RS 27
6) Arnaud’s collation of 8 gin2 at the end of this line is unlikely. One would have to understand this as 1/2 (mina) 8 shekels which the math does not support.
7) Leemans (1960: 151-52) notes the possibility of this line as 7 1/6 shekels 10 še, which Breckwoldt (1994: part 5 72) follows.
18-19) Arnaud’s collation suggests the possibility of 40 at the beginning of this line, which is backed up by Leemans’ review of the document in Leemans (1960: 151).
19) Jean (1931: no 128) reads: zi?-nin.
32) Leemans notes the text is clearly 22, against the copy in TCL 10. Leemans would further prefer to restore ku3-babbar after it, though he states “the traces hardly allow this reading.” (Leemans 1960: 151 n. 3)
34) For the translation of geš–tag as ‘to sacrifice,’ see Thompson 1984: 318. Leemans (1960: 149) leaves this untranslated. Breckwoldt (1994: part 5 68 n. 10) understands this phrase as derived from “to offer.”
§18.104.22.168. TCL 10, 81, AO 8470 RS 30
4) Leemans (1960: 152) gives gešbara6-eren
8) For šim-du10-x see Feuerherm (2004: vol. 2, 203 n. c). As he notes, this is not šim ḫi-a. EREN is broken but supported by the copy.
10) Following Ebeling’s reading. Cf. YBC 7189: 3, where we see šimši-mi-iš-la2.
18) Following Feuerherm (2004: vol. 2, 203 and n. l)
2 (tablet and case)) Breckwoldt (1994: part 5, 76) notes the possibility that the first two signs are to be read ‘aš-šum.’
1) See also YOS 5, 172: 1 and 194: 1, below where the temple of Inanna and Nanaya is also mentioned. If the e2-dinanna u3 dna-na-a of this text and those below are related to the mention of dinanna u3 dna-na-a in TCL 10, 100, then a location in Uruk is certain (ll 36-37: a-na dinanna u3 dna-na-a / ša3 unuki). This is supported by YOS 5, 172: 8-9, where an allotment is given to one Awīlum while he was delayed at Uruk. Thus reference is possibly made here to a part of the Eanna-complex at Uruk, for which see George (1993: 67-68 no. 75, 99 no. 460, and 126 no. 793).
4) Breckwoldt (1994: part 5 152) also notes the possible appearance of Liqtum in SVJAD 52: 6 (nig2-ba li-iq-[...]). SVJAD 52: 7-8 “i-nu-ma iš-tu mu-x-[x il]-li-kam-ma / i-na e2-dinanna ik-ka-lu-u2,” as noted by Breckwoldt (1994: part 5 152), is similar to YOS 5, 172: 8-9, thus making this identification likely. Unfortunately the name in SVJAD 52: 6 is broken, as is the town name in l. 7, thus rendering certain identification impossible.
5) For Bettatum, see Breckwoldt (1994: part 5 152 n. 5), where a personal correspondence between T. Breckwoldt and G. Beckman makes note of an unpublished seal in the Babylonian collection which identifies her as the daughter of Balmunamḫe and spouse of Nurum-liṣi, a diviner.
7-31) I understand the majority of oils in this text and the following two to be cedar oil.
7) The tablet itself shows this is clearly the door-bolt, si-gar. This line refers to a temple of Sîn-idinnam, a deified predecessor of Rīm-Sîn, for which see above and under the introduction to this section. Mention of this temple is also made in YOS 5, 194: 10
11) aḫ-ra-ma is clear upon a reexamination of the tablet. Note also its appearance in ll. 28 and 32 of this text, and in YOS 5, 95: 6. This is understood as the predicative masculine singular of aḫāru, translated in CDA 7 as “to be behind” and AHw I, 18 as “hinten sein,” plus a ventive ending, which is represented in the following -ma. Its use here is perhaps of the same purpose as kalû in YOS 5, 172: 8-9.
10) Breckwoldt (1994: 151 understands ḫa-te-e-im as “to rivet/patch,” based on a suggestion by Postgate “on the basis of the meaning “zusammenscharren” given for the Semitic cognate seah ” (ibid 152). Levey (1959: 92), mentions the use of oil, along with bitumen and wool to caulk ships. “Zusammenscharren” is suggested in the AHw I, 336 iii, again based on Semitic cognate seah. However, the AHw is uncertain on this point, as is CAD Ḫ, 152 B (3) on the meaning altogether in this example. CDA 112 suggest ““to load” ship ?,” which I follow. This is likely if the oil used here is cedar oil as I understand it.
11) This line perhaps refers to the same Inanna of Zabalum whose temple was rebuilt by Warad-Sîn in RIME 22.214.171.124 See also George (1993: 92 no. 369, 107 no. 562, and 140 no. 968).
12) For the Kittum temple and mention of Raḫabum, see Frankena (1966: 20 no. 30: 6-7, 10-11). For Raḫabum: YOS 5, 106: 5, the partitioning of a built up estate, and 217 iv 18, a contract concerning sheep and wool, both from the reign of Rīm-Sîn.
13) Išar-re’ini appears in YOS 8, 14: 3 and 9: case 2. There are two interpretations for this name: that of AHw II, 978 as i-šar-re-e/e’-ilī or that of Bowes 1987 2, 424: i-šar-re-e/e’-i-ni. Its appearance here as i-šar-re-i-ni lacks the first sign for i3-li2 or the middle radical for re’u, which shows that the AHw interpretation is incorrect, at least in this example.
2) The beginning of this broken name, a-wi-il, matches that of YOS 5, 108: 8, rather than of the a-wi-lim of the two notables mentioned above (171: 2, 172: 2), making an identification with the former more likely. However the occurrence of Bītim, Šāt-ibbi, and Liqtum render the opposite plausible as well.
9) The same Iškur-ḫegal appears in YOS 5, 191: 6, a grain disbursement dated to RS 10.
16) This line is broken though what is clear does not match the formula for Rīm-Sîn year 6, thus the date is uncertain. However, the content of this document closely matches that of YOS 5, 171 and 172. It seems therefore likely that this text dates from the same year.
7) Restoration of e2 seems likely for two reasons. First, this is the only text of the oil bureau which names specifically where any official works. Second, this is the only text where both Lipit-Irra and Irra-azu are named together. My understanding is that, Lipit-Irra, as the former head of the oil bureau, needed to be differentiated from the current oil bureau head, Irra-azi. Thus the name of the location where each worked was written. It would seem, then, that Lipit-Irra received a promotion from the chief of the ‘processed oil house,’ where I believe oil products were worked, to the perfumer’s workshop, where oil was infused with aromatic materials (§2.2.3). Perfumed oil production would have required more skill as more production steps went into their manufacture. Perhaps a family relation (this suggestion is based on name only), Irra-azu replaced him as the head of the ‘processed oil house.’
8) An examination of the text itself shows there is a break right before -e. There is plenty of room in this break for a sealing official, such as a ša3-tam-official, to be named.
1-3Say to Ilum-pî-Šamaš: “thus Sîn-aḫam-idinnam, 4-6‘Do not worry about what I have repeatedly written you, there is silver so I have continually written you. 7-15Galbanum worth 10 shekels silver, 3 talents ballukka, 1 talent terebinthe, together with that of Šarrum- Sîn, 1 pānû 3 seah sumlalum, juniper worth 5 shekels, myrtle-oil worth 3 shekels, cypress-oil worth 10 shekels—make inventory—look for good quality and take it. 16-17Don’t you understand? As for good quality, don’t reduce the silver or processed oil. 18-20The seah is 2 shekels fine silver, buy! Also, the Uršum oil, buy 5 shekels worth from the seah. 21-22Recieve 2 pānû 2 seah worth 5 shekels silver from Šarrum-Sîn. 23-28All the lulu has been sold. I have sold the juniper which you sent me for 1 shekel silver. I sold my ezizzu-vegetables for silver. All of the remainders are given! 29-31As soon as you have left, the remainder [...]. Take action! Bring terebinthe; don’t reduce the cypress oil!
17) Restoration of Leemans (1960: 92).
19) Ur-šum was perhaps located in Syria or southern Anatolia, cf. Groneberg (1980: 250).
26-27) Lit. “for my e. I bought silver.” Leemans suggests an error here for either “ana kaspim eziziia ašam or ana eziziia addin.” (Leemans 1960: 93 no. 1)
27-28) i.e. “my stock is all gone!”
31) Restoration is based on l. 17.
1-3Say to Ilum-pi-Šamaš: “Thus Sîn-aḫam-idinnam. 4-5‘Why are the words which I have sent displeasing to you? 6-7I sent you as follows: “bring cypress oil worth 10 shekels silver.” 8-10You did not bring oil but dispatched to me a servant empty handed! 11-14aSince you abandoned me, I have exhausted my remainder and I have no cypress-oil or kanaktu-oil! 14b-22aKibrabba should guide you in the silver which I sent you so that you buy for me good quality oil and take possession (of it): cypress-oil worth 10 shekels silver, myrtle-oil worth 3 shekels silver, and cedar-oil worth 5 shekels. The oil is available. 22b-25If the oil of Ibatum is not good quality, search! Buy me good quality oil and take possession (of it)! 26-29Nobody told you what I sent you. Since I am entrusting 12 shekels of silver, Tišpak-gamil or Kibrabba should send you reed-oil.
13) The collation shows BIL instead of ka.
O 1-4Speak to Dadâ and Sîn-uselli: “Thus Šēp-Sîn. 5-7‘May Šamaš and Ašnan keep you well for my sake. 8-9Thus I sent you, as follows me: 10-15“Both of you, you and Sîn-uselli, gather for me tin sweepings and its powder, leeks, perfumed oils, juniper, and two talents of copper. Do not delay! 16-19A citizen of Susa should g[o] with[ you] as yo[ur] partner.” R20Thus I sent you. 21-24What you yourselves replied is “we shall have it brought.” 25-26On the day you see my letter, both of you, do not delay. 27I heard your words. 28-34aI, together with the king’s soldiers and the king’s letter of non-interference up to Larsa, will be ready for you in al-Aha-nūta. 34b-35I shall see you 5 days from now. 36-37May he gi[ve] 10 talents of juniper and 1 talent resin. 38-39One must not hinder another.... 40-42I shall see both of you together, you and Sîn-uselli, in person soon. l.e. 43-46I, together with the kings soldier(s), shall see you soon in person while I am staying in al-Aha-nūta.
8) Stol understands -ti as a mistake for -ŠI
12) Leemans (1960: 79) transliterates u2x against Ebeling (1943) šim. I follow Ebeling as šim here is similar to the first šim in l. 36 while the second is broken but looks similar as well.
16) Following Stol. The copy shows KI, though upon examination of the tablet ŠU is clear. For this GN. see Groneberg (1980: 230) and Edel and Mayrhofer (1971: 3), where šu-ši-im is equated with Susa in Iran in the Old Babylonian period.
17) Leemans’ transliteration as ta-ap-p[e2] seems likely considering its context. My suggestion of -ku-nu-ma is very tentative. Both Stol and Ebeling do not have a restoration for this line. Stol notes the copy is wrong, it is “not AŠ2 or u2; SA is possible.” (Stol 1981: 72 n. 112c).
27) Leemans suggests pa-ZA-ku-nu and translates “your excuses;” Stol suggests pa-a-ku-nu, “your words.” The ‘e’ here is difficult. Is it e-iš-ma, ‘heard,’ following Stol, or e iš-me, ‘I shall not hear,’ a misspelling following Leemans? In each case the spelling is incorrect. I side tentatively with Stol.
29-30) Stol suggests UD.U[NUk]i. The passage is lit. “Until Larsa, nobody is to hinder you.”
33, 43) For this GN see Groneberg (1980: 5) and Leemans (1960: 80). Leemans notes of this town: “The mention of a lu2 āl-A-ha-am-nu-taki ša3 Larsaki in the letter LIH 42 (VAB 4, 25) could suggest that it was a district of the town of Larsa, but other references suggest that it was a separate town in the kingdom of Larsa, probably not a great distance from Larsa.” (ibid. 80)
36) I tentatively follow Leemans. Ebeling (1943: 62) suggests šimim-[du-um], “Zypergras?.” This does not fit the space allowed. Stol’s suggestion of šim ḫi-a is likely incorrect since šim ḫi-a is normally measured by capacity at Larsa in this period.
This building inscription occurs on a fragment of a clay cylinder (Hallo 1961: 11). Edzard (1957) attributes this text to the reign of Rīm-Sîn of Larsa, followed by Hallo 1961. Frayne notes that the titular on this inscription closely resembles that of RIME 126.96.36.199 and thus likely comes from the same period (Rīm-Sîn 8 according to Frayne, RIME 4, p. 280). Further, Frayne sees this inscription as likely excavated by Woolley at Ur (ibid. 280). Thus this would be a building inscription for a temple workshop in Ur.
10) Kärki (1968 and 1980) does not restore geš. RIME 4 translates peš-peš as “costly.” Kärki (1968 and 1980) restores -[am3] at the end of the line.
šima: NBC 8584: 4. Fragrant/aromatic water? For the production of aromatic water, see KAR 140: R 4-8, treated in Ebeling 1950, 39-41 and discussed in Levey 1956, 139-40. KAR 140: R 8 calls this “e-gub2-ba ša eli šarri i-qab-b[i-u] (Ebeling’s transliteration). Note also the use of juniper water (ameš šimli) in CT 4, 5: 9 and KAR 73 :7.
a-du-a-a: TCL 10, 71 i: 30. Meaning Unknown. There are three additional occurrences of this item I am aware of from the Ur III period: CUSAS 3, 1464: 4, CUSAS 3, 1465: 5, and CUSAS 3, 1509: 7. The first two are measured by capacity (2 seah each), the last by weight (4 mina).
an-da-aḫ-šumsar: NCBT 1808: 3. Akk. andahšum. CAD A II, 112-13 “a bulbous spring vegetable.” CDA 17: (an alliaceous plant). AHw I, 50 “eine Pflanze;” Thompson 1949: 89, 92-94: “lentils?”
an-na: YOS 2, 112: 11. annaku/anāku. CAD A II 127-30: “tin.” CDA 18: “tin, lead.” AHw I, 49: “Zinn” u wohl auch “Blei.” Interesting is its use in YOS 2, 112: “an-na ḫi-im-mi u3 ša-ak-ti-šu,” “tin sweepings and its powder.”
šimar-ga-num: YBC 5151: 1. Akk. argānu. See also variant šimmar-ga-nu2-um. CAD A II 253-54: “1. (a conifer), 2. (the resin of a conifer), from OB on.” CDA 23 “(a conifer, its resin).” AHw I, 67 “eine Pflanze.” However, see Thompson 1949: 359-364 followed by Myers 1975: 21, 26-31: “balm of Mecca.” Thompson 1949: 363 identifies it with resins or gums and notes its sweet scent in particular. Thompson, followed by Myers, mentions its medicinal uses, often in conjunction with siḫu and bariratu (Thompson 1949: 359-364, Myers 1975: 30). Note also Thompson 1949: 337, where argānu is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.”
šimaz: NCBT 1808: 7, TCL 10, 81: 6, YBC 3365: 1, 6817: 13, 7189: 7. See also Variant šimgir. Akk. asu, CAD A II 342-344: “myrtle; from OAkk. on.” CDA 26: “myrtle.” AHw I 76: “myrtle.” Thompson 1949: 300-302 “Myrtus communis L., myrtle.” (listed under riqgir). Note also p. 337, where asu is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers 1975: 21, 32-36: “myrtle.” Van de Mieroop 1992b: 160: “myrtle.”
ba-ba-za-am, var. ba-ba-az: NBC 8584: 2, TCL 10, 71 i: 6. Irr., normally. ba-ba-za. Akk. pappāsu. CAD P, 111-14: “1. (a porridge), 2 (income paid to prebends); from OAkk. on.” As income it occurs as barley, dates, flax, or even silver (CAD P, 113-14). CDA 264: “porridge.” AHw II 824: “ein Gerstenbrei oder Pudding.” See also Thompson 1949: 101, where it is listed under cereals and vetches.
ba-lu-ga: CT 29, 13: 8. See also Sum. šimmug and Akk. ballukku. CAD B, 64-65: “1. (an aromatic substance of vegetable origin) 2. (the tree which produces this substance). from OAkk. on” CAD notes that this is a resinous substance imported into Mesopotamia in large quantities (64) and sees a relationship between ballukku and baluḫḫu mentioned below. CDA 37: “(an aromatic substance produced by the b. tree).” AHw I 100: “ein Baum.” Thompson, 1949 340 “Styrax officinalis L.” or styrax. Note also p. 337, where ballukku is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers 1975: 22, 37-41: “Styrax,” following Thompson’s identification very tentatively (Myers 1975: 37).
ba-lu-ḫa: CT 29, 13: 7. See also Sum. šimḫal and perhaps also šimḫi-li-hal and šimhi-il ba-lu-hu. Akk. baluḫḫu. CAD B, 74: (a tree and its resin, possibly galbanum) from OAkk., OB on.” CDA 37: “(an aromatic plant).” AHw I 101: “Galbanum-Kraut” Thompson 1949: 342-344: “Ferula Galboniflua Boisse., galbanum.” Note also p. 337, where baluḫḫu is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers 1975: 22, 42-45: “Galbanum.”
šimbar2-bar2-ra: YBC 5304: 6. An aromatic, meaning unknown.
šimba-ri-ra-a-tum: TCL 10, 71 i: 17. Akk. barīrātu. CAD B, 111: “sagapenum?” CDA 39: “sagapenum.” AHw I, 107: “Sagapenum?” Thompson, 1949, 359, 361-63: “Ferula Persica Wild., Sagapenum.” Note also p. 337, where barīrātu is listed with other gum-resins. plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Thompson, followed by Myers, mentions barīrātu’s medicinal uses, often in conjunction with siḫu and argānu (Thompson 1949: 359-364, Myers 1975: 46). Myers 1975: 22, 46-49: “Sagapenum.”
šimbar-sig7: TCL 10, 71 i: 43. An aromatic, meaning unknown.
bu-ra-ša: CT 29, 13: 11, 24. See Sum. šimli. Akk. burāšu. CAD B, 326-328: “1. juniper tree, 2. (an aromatic substance obtained from the Juniper tree); from OAkk., OB on.” CDA 49: “(species of) juniper” AHw I, 139: “(phönikischer) Wacholder.” Thompson 1949: 258-262: “Pinus pineal., pine (turpentine, resin).” Note also p. 337, where burāšu is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers 1975: 22, 51-61: “Juniper (oxycedrous).” Myers 1975: 51, notes early dissention among earlier scholars, with burāšu’s identification as both cypress and pine. Van de Mieroop 1992b: 159: “juniper.”
šimdup-ra-num: TCL 10, 71 i: 19. Akk. duprānu, variant of daprānu. CAD D, 189-90: “a tree-like variety of juniper (Juniperus drupacea); from OB on.” CDA 56: “juniper.” AHw I 162: “Wacholder” Thompson 1949: 268, 279: “Juniperus drupacea Labill., juniper.” Note also p. 337, where daprānu is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers 1975: 22 62-66: “Juniper (drupacea).” Van de Mieroop 1992b: 158: “a type of juniper.”
na4du7-ši-a: TCL 10, 71 i: 39. Akk. dušû. CAD D, 200-202: “1. (a precious stone of characterisitc color)...; from OAkk. on.” CDA 63: “quartz, rock crystal” AHw...
elšim: NBC 8584: 3. Akk. akkullaku. CAD A, 275: “a vegetable.” CDA 10: “(a vegetable).” AHw I, 29: “eine Pflanze.” This is the only occurrence with šim determinative I can document. Thompson 1949: 317-318: “perhaps a Zizyphus.”
šim/gešeren: TCL 10, 57: 7, 72: 11, 81: 4, 8, YBC 4451: 1, 5288: 2, 5304: 5, 5765: 1, 7189: 1. Akk. erēnu. CAD E, 274-279: “cedar (tree, wood and resin); from OAkk. on.” CDA 77: “cedar.” AHw I, 237-38: “Zeder” Thompson 1949: 282-285: “Cedrus Libani Barr., Cedar.” Note also p. 337, where erēnu is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers 1975: 22, 67-72: “Cedar.” Van de Mieroop 1992b: 158: “cedar.”
esir2: YBC 5288: 3, 6817: 14. Akk. kupru or iṭṭu. As kupru: CAD K, 553-55: “bitumen; from OB on.” CDA 168: “bitumen, pitch.” AHw I, 509 “(Trocken-)Asphalt.” Asiṭṭu: CAD I-J 310-12: “crude bitumen; from OB on. CDL, 137: “bitumen.” AHw I, 408: “Asphalt.”
e-zi-zi: CT 29, 13: 26 Akk. ezizzu. CAD E II, 431: “(a bulb vegetable); OA, OB, SB.” CDA 86: “an alliaceous vegetable.” AHw I 270: “ein Gemüse.” Thompson 1949: 89-94: “Lathyrus.”
gaba-lal3: TCL 10, 71 i: 36. Akk. iškuru. CAD I-J, 251-52 “wax; from OB on.” CDA 134: “wax.” AHw I, 396: “Wachs.”
šimgam-gam(-ma): TCL 10, 81: 13, YBC 5173: 2, YBC 6817: 9. See also Akk. ku-uk-ri. Akk. kukru, CAD K, 500-01: “(an aromatic plant); from OAkk., OB on.” CDA 165: “(an aromatic tree)” AHw I, 501: “etwa “Terebinthe.”” Thompson 1949: 262-265: “fir turpentine.” Note also p. 337, where kukru is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers does not mention ‘gam-gam’ as a form of kukru. However, Thompson, the CAD, and AHw do. In addition, the -ma after the gam-gam makes the value ‘gam-gam’ as, opposed to ‘gur2-gur2,’ certain in this instance. On kukru Myers 1975: 92 states: “Kukru has been variously identified as terebinthe, chickpea, and turpentine. A possible identification is not yet possible.” However, he sides with the AHw definition of kukru as terebinthe in his section on definitions (Myers 1975: 23). For more discussion see Myers 1975: 23, 92-93.
šimgam-ma: YBC 3365: 7, 5304: 7. See also su-um-la-li-e, variant of Akk. ṣumlalû. CAD L, 245: “(an aromatic); from OA, OB on.” CDA 341: “(a spice plant).” AHw III, “eine Gewürzpflanze.” Thompson 1949: 347-348: “Nerium odorum L.?.” Note also p. 338, where ṣumlalû is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers 1975: 22, 122-24: “unknown.” Myers suggests duprānu cuttings, citing its possible appearance as “sum-lu-lu” with duprānu, kikkirânu, which he translates as “berries,” (Myers 1975: 122) or “juniper seeds” (ibid. 23, see below under šimše-li) and ḫibištum, translated as “cuttings.” (ibid. 122)
ganam4: TCL 10, 72: 24. See also variant u8-udu ḫi-a. Akk. immertu. CAD I-J, 128-29: “1. ewe, 2. sheep (as a generic term); from OB on.” CDA 128: “ewe.” AHw I, 378: “MutterSchaf.” bar-su3: TCL 10, 72: 26.
gazi: NCBT 1808: 8. Akk. kasû. CAD K, 248-50: “(a native spice plant, specifically its pungent seeds); from OB on.” CDA 150: “(a spice plant, phps.) “mustard.”” AHw I, 455: “Senf(-Kohl), sinapis nigra.” Thompson 1949: 188, 192-194: “Ceratonia siliqua L.” or ibid, 188, 194-97: “the rose.”
šimgi-du10-ga: TCL 10, 81: 7, YBC 3280: 1, 3365: 3, 7189: 6. Akk. qanû ṭābu. CAD Q: 288-89 2b): ““sweet” reed.” CDA 284: “sweet reed.” AHw II, 898 4c “‘Süβrohr,’ Cymbopogon?” Thompson 1949: 19-21: “Acorus calamus L., Sweet Reed.” Note Thompson does not list qanû ṭābu under his section of plants and trees that use the “det. riq,” on pp. 337-338. Myers 1975: 23, 109-12: “Cane,” literally “sweet reed.” However, as stated on p. 109, there is no evidence to connect this material to sugar cane.
šimgig: YBC 7189: 9. Akk. kanaktu. CAD K, 135-36: “1. (a tree), 2. an aromatic product obtained from the tree); from OAkk., OB on.” CDL, 144: “(an incense-bearing tree).” AHw I, 434 “Weihruchbaum.” Thompson 1949: 344-347: “Boswellia sp., Olibanum.” Note also p. 337, where kanaktu is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers 1975: 23, 81-85: “Olibanum,” following Thompson 1949: 344 while noting the CAD and AHw reservations to this meaning.
šimgir2: TCL 10, 71 i: 20. See also variant šimaz. Akkadian asu. CAD A II 342-344: “myrtle; from OAkk. on.” CDA 26: “myrtle.” AHw I 76: “myrtle.” Thompson 1949: 300-302 “Myrtus communis L., myrtle.” (listed under riqgir). Note also p. 337, where asu is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers 1975: 21, 32-36: “myrtle.”
geš-i3-a; TCL 10, 82: (case) 2. Likely a mistake for gešeren.
imḫa-gir2: TCL 10, 71 i: 23. Perhaps a shortened form of u2ḫa-gir-ha-ah, Akk. puquttu. CAD P, 515-16: “thorn, barb; from OB on.” CDA 278: “thorn.” AHw II, 880: “ein Dornpflanze.” Thompson 1949: 178-180: “Carduus, thistle.”
šimḫal: TCL 10, 71 i: 21, 81: 9, YBC 3280: 2, 4402: 1, 4451: 2, 6817: 1, 10759: 1. see also ba-lu-ḫa, and perhaps šimhi-il ba-lu-hu and šimhi-il ḫal. Akk. baluḫḫu. CAD B, 74: (a tree and its resin, possibly galbanum) from OAkk., OB on.” CDA 37: “(an aromatic plant).” AHw I 101: “Galbanum-Kraut” Thompson 1949: 342-344: “Ferula Galboniflua Boisse., galbanum.” Note also p. 337, where baluḫḫu is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers (1975: 22, 42-45): “galbanum.” Van de Mieroop 1992b: 159: “a tree and its resin, possibly galbanum.”
šimḫašḫur(-ra): TCL 10, 71 i: 15, YBC 1928: 1, YBC 6817: 2. Akk. ḫašḫūru, CAD Ḫ, 139-140: “(1) apple tree, (2) apple, (3) “apple” plant, (4) (a cut of meat); from OB on.” CDA 111: “apple(wood).” AHw I, 333-34: “Apfel(baum).” Thompson 1949: 302, 304: “Pirus malus L., apple.”
ḫa-za-nu-umsar: NCBT 1808: 2. ḫazzannu, variant of azannu, CAD A II, 526 A: “bitter garlic, OB, SB.” CDA 113 (ḫazzannu): “(an alliaceous plant).” AHw I 92: “eine Pflanze...wohl “Köcher.”” Thompson 1949: 90 only makes mention of it in lexical lists.
ḫi-bi-iš-ti: NBC 8584: 1. Akk. ḫibištum. CAD Ḫ 180-81 “(1)cuttings (of undefined nature), (2) cuttings of resinous and aromatic substances, (3) plants yielding aromatic substances, (4) fragrance; from OB on.” CDA 114: “crushed pieces (of aromatic wood).” AHw I, 344: “etwa “Harzholzscheit(e).”” Myers 1975: 22 and 74 is unsure of this items value. Ḫibištum is used in connection with perfume production in OIP 2, 116 viii: 71, though this is a later usage from the annals of Sennacherib.
šimḫi-li: YOS 2, 112: 36. Akk. ḫīlu. CAD Ḫ, 188: “exudation of plants, resins; from OB on.” Often used in medicine production(189). CDA 116: “exudation, resin.” AHw I, 345: “Harz.” Thompson 1949: 338-339: “gum.” On p. 339 Thompson states concerning ḫīlu: “...where ḫîlu is used we should suspect at least a gum-resin which will give emulsion in water.”
šimḫi-il ba-lu-hu: TCL 10, 71 i: 22. see also šimḫi-li-hal, possibly from šimḫal, Akk. ba-lu-ḫu and for which see above. CAD B, 75 and Ḫ, 189: “resin which is prepared for medicinal purposes,” related to baluḫḫu. Perhaps see also hilbanītu, galbanum: AHw I, 345, Myers 1975: 22, 75, CAD Ḫ, 185 where it is identified as “(the resin) produced by the hilbanū plant; NB*.” Van de Mieroop 1992b: 159: “resin of the baluḫḫa-tree.”
šimḫi-li sikil: YBC 4451: 4 Possibly hil sikillu. For sikillu: CAD Ḫ, 243-44: “1. (a plant), 2. (a stone); MB, Bogh., SB.” CDA 322: “1 (a plant) ... as drug, called šam tēlilte “purification plant.” AHw II, 1042: “eine Pflanze.” Thompson 1949: 52, 54-55: “(wild) onion.”
šimḫi-li hal: YBC 4451: 3 Variant of šimḫi-il ba-lu-hu above. CAD B, 75 and Ḫ, 189: “resin which is prepared for medicinal purposes,” related to baluḫḫu discussed above. Perhaps see also hilbanītu, galbanum: AHw I, 345, Myers 1975: 22, 75, CAD Ḫ, 185 where it is identified as “(the resin) produced by the hilbanū plant; NB*.” Van de Mieroop 1992b: 159: “resin of the baluḫḫa-tree.”
i3-du10-ga: YBC 5169: 1. Akk. šamnu ṭābu. For its understanding as ‘processed oil,’ see §2.2.3. CAD Ṭ, 19: “aromatic,” ibid, 22-23: “said of oil, herbs, reeds, perfumes.” CDA 354: ““fine oil”; aromatic “oil” of trees, e.g. myrtle, cedar.” AHw III, 1377-78: “schön, gut, süβ.” 1) “v Wasser, Getränken, Speisen.” 1) d) “v Öl”
i3-(geš)eren: CT 29, 14: 20; TCL 10, 56 (case): 12; 71 iv: 47, 50, 61; 82 (tablet): 1; 82 (case): 1; YOS 5, 171: 2-8, 10, 12-13, 15-29, 31; 172: 2-8, 10-14; 194: 25, 7-11. CAD E, 277: “šaman erēni cedar oil.” see also above šim/gešeren.
i3-gi-lu: CT 29, 14: 28. Akk. šamnu gillu, reed oil. for gillu: CAD G, 73 A: “cut reed.” CDA 93: “(a piece of reed).” AHw I, 288: “ein Stück Rohr.”
i3-geš: CT 29, 13: 19; TCL 10, 61; 1, 63: 2; 72: 6, YBC 4451: 6; YOS 5, 171: 1; 172: 1; 194: 1. See also variant u2i3-geš. see §2.2.3. Akk. ellu, šamnu. ellu: CDA 70: “sesame oil.” AHw I, 205: “(gutes) Sesam-Öl.” šamnu: CAD Š I, 321-30: “Oil, fat, cream; from OAkk. on.” ibid 325e: “for making perfume.” CDA 354: “oil, fat, cream.” AHw III, 1157-58: “Öl, Fett.”
i3-geš-bar2a-ga: TCL 10, 63: 1. Akkadian ḫalṣu. CAD Ḫ, 50-51: “adj.; (1) obtained by ḫalāṣu (said of oil, etc.), (2) pressed out (said of sesame seeds), (3) combed (said of flax); form OB on.” CDA 103: ““combed filtered”...of sesame, sesame oil “filtered”; of perfumes.” AHw I, 313: “ausgekämmt, ausgepreβt.” See §2.2.3 and Soubeyran 1984 for a discussion of this term as used in the Mari Oil bureau. For a discussion of ḫalṣu, see Postgate 1985: 146-47, and Stol 1985: 121.
i3 ka-na-ak-ti: CT 29, 14: 13. kanaktu-oil, see šimgig.
im-babbar: TCL 10, 71 i: 11. Akk. gaṣṣu. CAD G, 54-55: “gypsum, whitewash; from OB on.” CDA 91: “gypsum” AHw I, 282-83: “Gips”
ir3: TCL 10, 56 (case): 10. Akk. (w)ardu. CAD A II, 243-51: “1.) slave, 2.) official, servant, subordinate, retainer, follower, soldier, subject (of a king), worshiper (of a deity); from OAkk. on;” CDA 434: “slave, servant.” AHw III, 1464-66: “sklave, Diener.”
i3-sag du10-ga: TCL 10, 81: 17 Processed premium oil, see §2.2.3.
kar3-šumsar: NCBT 1808: 1; TCL 10, 63: 3; 71 iv: 43, 45; YBC 5288: 1; 5304: 9, YOS 2, 112: 12. Variant of Akkadian karašum. CAD K, 212-14: “1. leek, 2. (a stone); OB, SB, NB. CDA 148: “leek.” Thompson 1949: 52-53: “Allium Porrum L., leek.” Note also 305, 307-08, where Thompson discusses karšu as a type of cherry: “Cerasus Mahaleb L., the perfumed cherry.”
ku3-babbar: TCL 10, 56: (case, tablet) 1; 71 iv: 41, 68; 72: 1. Akk. kaspu. CAD K, 245-47: “1. silver (as metal used for objects and as means for payment), 2. money (as medium of exchange), price, value, payment (usually pl); from OAkk. on.” CDA 150: “silver.” AHw I, 454: “Silber”
ku3-sig17: TCL 10, 72: 2, 4. Akk. ḫurāṣu. CAD Ḫ, 245-247: “gold; (1) as metal, (2) varieties, (3) economic use, (4) figurative use, (5) in pharmacopoeia, (6) other occ.; from OAkk. on.” CDA 121: “gold” AHw I, 358: “Gold.”
ku-uk-ri: CT 29, 13: 8, 21, 31. See also Sum šimgam-gam(-ma). Akk. kukru. CAD K, 500-501: “(an aromatic plant); from OAkk, OB on.” CDA 165: “(an aromatic tree)” AHw I, 501: “etwa “Terebinthe.”” Thompson 1949: 262-265: “fir turpentine.” Note also p. 337, where kukru is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers 1975: 23, 92-93. On page 92 Myers states: “Kukru has been variously identified as terebinthe, chickpea, and turpentine. A possible identification is not yet possible.” However, he sides with the AHw definition of kukru as terebinthe in his section on definitions (Myers 1975: 23).
gešlam-gal TCL 10, 57: 3. Akk. buṭuttu/buṭumtu. CAD B, 359: “1.) pistachio tree (Pistacia vera), 2. pistachio wood, 3. pistachio nut; from OAkk., OB, Mari ...” CDA 51: “terebinthe.” AHw I, 144: “Terebinthe, Pistazie.” Thompson 1949: 247, 252-253: “Pistachio, prob. Pistacia Terebintheus L.” Van de Mieroop 1992b: 159: “pistachio.”
gešlam-tur: TCL 10, 57: 2. Akk. šer’azu, tur’azu. CAD T, 485: “(a nut tree).” CDA 367: “(a nut tree)?” AHw III, 1216: “ein Baum.” Thompson 1949: 247, 254-255: “perhaps Pistacia vera.” Van de Mieroop 1992b: 159: “a type of nut.”
šimli: TCL 10, 71 i: 18, iv: 48, 51; YBC 6817: 7; YOS 2, 112: 12, 36. Akk. burāšu. CAD B, 326-328: “1. juniper tree, 2. (an aromatic substance obtained from the Juniper tree); from OAkk., OB on.” CDA 49: “(species of) juniper” AHw I, 139: “(phönikischer) Wacholder.” Thompson 1949: 258-262: “Pinus pineal., pine (turpentine, resin).” Note also p. 337, where burāšu is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers 1975: 22, 51-61: “Juniper (oxycedrous).” Van de Mieroop 1992b: 159: “juniper.”
šimli-wi-ir: TCL 10, 72: 14; 81: 5. Perhaps a variant of Akk. liāru/tiālu or a variant of lip/bāru. As liāru/tiālu: CDA 405: “(a tree and its wood) ‘white cedar.’” AHw III, 1353: “Weiβzeder (Juniperus oxycedrus).” Thompson 1949: 282, 285: “Juniperus oxycedrus L.” Van de Mieroop 1992b: 159: “white cedar resin.” As lip/bāru: CAD L, 198: “(a fruit tree); OA, OB, Elam, Bogh., SB.” CDA 181: “(a fruit (tree)); OA, O/jB, Elam, Bogh.” AHw I, 554: “ein baum od Strauch.” This example is cited by AHw as li-pi-ir (I, 554).
lu-u2-lu: CT 29, 13: 23. meaning unknown, possibly an aromatic.
lu-ur-pi-a-nu2-um: TCL 10, 71 i: 37. CAD L, 256: “(a mineral); OB, SB.” CDA 186: “(a mineral)?” AHw I, 565 “ein Mineral?”
šimmar-ga-nu-um: TCL 10, 81: 2. See also variant šimar-ga-num. CAD M 279: variant of margūnu, “an aromatic.” CDA 197: “(a resinous bush; also its resin).” AHw II 611: “ein Harz-Busch.” Thompson 1949: 359-364 and Van de Mieroop 1992b: 159 mentions it as a variant of arganu, for which see above.
šimmar-gu-ṣum: TCL 10, 71: 16. YBC 10512: 1. Akk. marguṣu CAD M I, 279: “(an aromatic); Ur III, OB, SB. CDA 197: “(a resinous bush).” AHw II, 661: “ein Harz-Busch.” Thompson 1949: 359-364 mentions it as a variant of arganu, for which see above. Note also ibid, 337, where marguṣu is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.”
tug2ma-aṣ-ṣu-um: TCL 10, 71 iv: 64, 65. CAD M I, 344A: “a garment; OB.” CDA 200: “a garment.” AHw II, 621: “ein Gewand.”
maš2-munus-aš2: TCL 10, 72: 29. meaning unknown, perhaps a type of female goat.
šimmug: TCL 10, 81: 12. Akk. ballukka. CAD B, 64-65: “1. (an aromatic substance of vegetable origin) 2. (the tree which produces this substance). from OAkk. on” CAD notes that this is a resinous substance imported into Mesopotamia in large quantities (64) and notes a relationship between ballukku and baluḫḫu mentioned above. CDA 37: “(an aromatic substance produced by the b. tree).” AHw I 100: “ein Baum.” Thompson, 1949 340 “Styrax officinalis L.” or styrax. Note also p. 337, where ballukku is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers 1975: 22, 37-41: “Styrax,” Following Thompson’s identification very tentatively (Myers 1975: 37).
tug2mu-sir2-ra: TCL 10, 71 i: 13. perhaps ‘garment of the mussiru-official.’ For Akk. mussiru: CAD M II, 235B: “(a cult functionary); lex.”CDA 220: “3. Mari, jB lex. (a cult functionary). AHw II, 678: “3) ein Beschwörer?”
or: tug2mu-bu-ra, perhaps tuk muburru. For muburru: CAD B, 158 (mubarru): “member of the temple personnel who presents offerings, announcer?; MB, SB, NB, akkadogram in Hitt.” CDA 214: “2. (a temple? official).” AHw II, 665 “ein Funktionär.” This would be a garment for a muburru-official.
naga: TCL 10, 71 i: 12, 15, iv: 54. Akk. uḫūlu. CDA 419: “potash” “as mineral; for soap.” AHw III, 1404-05: “Salzkräutern u deren alkali (Natriumkarbonat)-haltinger Asche.” Thompson 1949: 31-32: “Alkali.”
tug2na-al-ba-šum: TCL 10, 56: (tablet, case) 8. CAD N I, 200: “(a fine cloak)...; mari, EA, SB.”CDA 234: “cloak, coat.” AHw II, 724: “Mantel”
šimdnin-urta: TCL 10, 81: 11; YBC 7189: 4. Akk. nikiptu. CAD N II, 222 A: “(a plant); OAkk., OB, Bogh., EA, SB, NA.” CDA 253: ““spurge, Euphorbia”? (a shrub with male and female flowers, milky juice).” AHw II, 788: “ein Euphorbia-Strauch?” Thompson 1949: 364-367: “probably Euphorbia Antiquorum L., or similar.” Note also p. 338, where nikiptu (niqibtu) is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers 1975: 23, 102-106: “milkwort.”
gešqu-ta-nu-um ḫi-a: MLC 1683: 1. Perhaps for qutānum, thin pieces of wood according to the CAD Q, 321 B. CDA 292: “’s.th. thin’...3. OB (a piece of wood).” AHw II, 930: das Dünne.” As a low quality of thin wood see VAS 16, 182: 4-8: a-na geš hi-a aq-bi-kum / um-ma a-na-ku-ma gešma2 [...]/ geš hi-a dam-qu2-tim šu-bi-[lam?]/ at-ta qu2-ta-ni ša a-[na ...]/[la?] i-re-ed-du[...], “I spoke to you about wood, I said as follows: “send to [me] a boat [...] good quality wood,” but you [sent to me?] thin wood, which is not suitable for [...].”
imsa5: YBC 5274: 2. Akk. šaršerru. CAD Š II, 124-125: “red clay or paste; Mari, Nuzi, SB, NA, NB.” CDA 361: “red paste.” AHw III, 1191 “rote Paste.”
šimsig7: TCL 10, 71 i: 42. Perhaps a shortened form of šimsig7- sig7.
šimsig7-sig7: MLC 1683: 2; YBC 5274: 1. See possible variant šimsig7. The two occurrences here add to three previous occurrences, all from the OB period: OIP 11, OIP 11, 3: 7; OIP 11, 89+191: face e 1, 13; and ZSN 65: 10. šimsig7-sig7 is understood here as a variant of imsig7-sig7, equated to Akkadian guḫlu in Hg B III I 53, following Feuerherm’s designation in his dissertation ([i]m.sig7sig7 = e-gu-u2 = [gu-uḫ-lu] (cf. Ḫg A II 139)). However, the šim determinative’s occurrence with this item makes it unlikely to be a mistake for im, as Feuerherm suggests, leading to the likelihood that this product was used for its fragrance. Thus, its designation as antimony paste, as stated by the CAD, AHw, and CDA (CAD G, 125, AHw I, 296, and CDA 95 respectively) seems unlikely and its designation as Commiphora mukul, also known as Mukal Myrrh and Bdellium, as described by Potts (Potts et al 1996: 291-305), et al is favored here. Other possibilities variants are: geškin-sig7-sig7, ar-qu (III 6 9b C. Thompson 1949: 287 sees also gešsig7-sig7 as a form kiškanû), im-sig7-sig7, da-a’-ma-tum (x I 317 f) and šim-bi-sig7-sig7, u2 da-ma-tu2 (Uruanna III 490f).
sila4: TCL 10, 72: 28. Akk. puhādu. CAD P, 477-79: “1. lamb, young male sheep ...; from OAkk., OB on.” CDA 277: “lamb.” AHw II, 875: “Lamm.”
su-um-la-li-e: CT 29, 13: 10. See also Sum. šimgam-ma. Variant of ṣumlalû. CAD L, 245: “(an aromatic); from OA, OB on.” CDA 341: “(a spice plant).”AHw III, “eine Gewürzpflanze.” Thompson 1949: 347-348: “Nerium odorum L. ?.” Note also p. 338, where ṣumlalû is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers 1975: 22, 122-24: “unknown.” Myers cites a tentative suggestion of duprānu cuttings, citing its possible appearance as “sum-lu-lu” with duprānu, kikkirânu, which he translates as “berries,” (Myers 1975: 122) or “juniper seeds” (ibid. 23; see below under šimše-li) and ḫibištum, translated as “cuttings” (ibid. 122).
ṣi-iḫ-ḫi-ir-tum: TCL 10, 56: (tablet, case) 6. Variant Akk. ṣeḫḫertum, CAD L 174: “1. minor crop, 2. scraps, small items; OB, SB.” CDA 335: “young girl” “minor crop” ““small pieces”? of wood, stone.” AHw III, 1088: “kleines Mädchen” “(Ernte-) Nebenfrucht.”
šimša-me!-eš!-la: see šimši-mi-iš-la2
še: YOS 5, 194: 6. Akk. še’u. CAD Š II, 345-55 “1. barley, grain, 2. grain (a unit of measure) 3. pine nut; from OAkk. on.” CDA 369: “barley, grain.” AHw III, 1222: “Gerste; Getreide.”
še-geš-i3: TCL 10, 61: 2, Akk. šamaššammū/u. CAD Š I, 301-307: “(the principal oleiferous plant, probably flax, and its seeds); from OAkk?. on.” CDA 353: “sesame.” AHw III 1155: “meist PL. “Sesam.”” Thompson 1949: 101-02: ““corn of the oil tree”... Arab. simsim, sesame (Sesamum indicum ...).”
šimše-gir2: NCBT 1808: 6. Perhaps myrtle seed or berry. For myrtle, see šimaz,šimgir2. For “še” used as “seed,” see šimše-li. Thompson, 301 discusses the uses of myrtle seed. However, the use of gir2 here is curios as šimaz occurs below it for myrtle, not šimgir2 as would be expected with the use of šimše-gir. Further, this item is measured by weight, as opposed to še-li above it measured by capacity. Thus the suggestion of myrtle seed is very uncertain.
šimše-li: NCBT 1808: 4; TCL 10, 81: 16; YBC 3287: 1; 3365: 5, 5304: 8; 7189: 9. Akk. kikkirānu. CAD K, 351-52: “(an aromatic substance); from OB on.” CDA 157: “pine or juniper seeds.” AHw I 475: “Pinien-, Wacholdersamen”? Thompson (1949: 261): “seed of the pine.” Myers 1975: 23, 88-91: “pine seed.”
šimšeš: YBC 7189: 5. Akk. murru. CAD M II, 221-22: “myrrh?; OA, Bogh, EA, MA, SB, NA, NB.” CDA 219: “2. “myrrh.”” “AHw II 676: “2) Myrre” Thompson (1949: 339): “Balsamodendron myrrha Nees, myrrh.” Note also p. 338, where murru is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers (1975: 22, 97-101): “Myrrh.”
šim: TCL 10, 71: 27; 72: 10; YBC 5227: 1; YOS 2, 112: 12. Akk. riqqu/rīqu CAD R 368-71: “aromatic plant; from OB on.” CDA 305: “aromatic substance.” AHw II 988: “Duftstoff, Würzholz.” Thompson (1949: 335-339). On p. 336, Thompson states: “The word, therefore, which would appear to cover riqqu (rîqu), the evacuations or filtering of trees, is, I would suggest, “essence”, with all its comprehensive English implications.” (Thompson 1949: 337) Myers (1975: 152): “generic term for aromatics.” Strangely, in Myers’ section dealing with Akkadian definitions and terms for aromatics, he does not make direct mention of the Akkadian term for aromatic but only explains it in his section “Summary and Conclusions” (152-161). For more on this word see §2.3.
šim-du10: resin, see §1.4.2 and §2.2. This appears as a genitive construct before several raw materials, for which see the individual material entry here for their definitions.
šim ḫi-a: TCL 10, 57: 6; 71 iv: 56; 72: 16; YBC 5169: 2. Akk. urû, variant labānatu or riqqu. I translate the Sumerian as ‘mixed perfumes.’ Limet informs us that šim ḫi-a refers to a finished product in the Ur III period and often occurs with or in the place of i3-du10-ga (Limet 1979, 152). Its measurement in capacity make it seem likely that this is a general term for aromatic oils. See §1.4., §2.3., and §3.4. for additional discussion. Thompson 1949: 335-338 treats šim ḫi-a as form of riqqu and states on p. 337: “this word again coincides with the equivalence ŠIM ḫi-a =urû (šamrû), the latter word (if urû) probably coming from the root arû “to throw, shoot, evacuate (the body)”. Riqqu (rîqu), then, represents the substances which have oozed or filtered forth from trees.” (Thompson 1949: 337) As urû: CDA 427: “pl. tant. “aromatics.”” AHw III, 1436: “Bez. für Räucher-Kräuter.” As labānatu: CAD L, 8: “frankincense; SB, WSem. lw.” CDA 173: “incense.” AHw I, 522: “Weihrauch.” Myers (1975: 23, 95): “Frankincense.” As riqqu: CAD R, 368-71: “aromatic plant; from OB on.” This product’s measurement is by capacity rather than weight as other resins in the texts, would seem to preclude its use as labānatu or urû, at least in the texts discussed here.
šimši-mi-iš-la2: YBC 7189: 3. Var. ša-me!-eš!-la TCL 10, 81: 10. Probably a variant of šimšim-šal, šimšim-meš-li, Akk. šimeššallû. CAD Š III, 4-5: “(a tree, possibly the box); from OB on.” CDA 373: ““(type of) box-tree”?” AHw III, 1237: “eine Buchsbaumart.” Thompson (1949: 348): “Buxus longifolia Boiss., box.” Note also p. 338, where šimeššallû is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers (1975: 23, 126-128) is uncertain of this šimeššallû’s identification.
geššinig: TCL 10, 71 iv: 68. Akk. bīnum. CAD B, 239-42: “tamarisk; from OAkk., OB on.” CDA 44 “tamarisk” AHw I, 127: “Tamariske.” Thompson 1949: 279-282: “Tamarix orientalis Forsk., tamarisk.”
šimšu-ur2-min3: NCBT 1808: 5; TCL 10, 72: 13; 81: 1; YBC 6817: 15; 7189: 2; CT 29, 14: 13. Akk. šurmēnu. CAD Š III, 349-353: “a cypress; from OAkk. on.” CDA 388: “cypress.” AHw III, 1284: “Zypresse.” Thompson 1949: 286-287: “Cupressus sempervirens L., Cypress generally, and thus doubtless C. horizontalis (Mill) Gord.” Note also p. 338, where šurmēnu is listed with other plants and trees that use the “det. riq.” Myers 1975: 24, 130-31: “cypress.” Van de Mieroop 1992b: 160: “cypress.”
gešza-ba-al: TCL 10, 72: 12; 81: 14. Variant of gešza-ba-lam, Akk. supālu. CAD S, 390-91: “(a variety of Juniper?); OAkk., OB, Mari, Bogh., SB.” CDA 328: “juniper.” AHw III, 1059-60: “Wacholder.” Thompson (1949: 268): “Juniperus excelsa M.B., juniper.” Van de Mieroop (1992b: 160): “a type of juniper.”
za3-ḫi-li-a: TCL 10, 71 i: 24. Akk. sahlû. CDA 312: “(a cultivated plant, phps.) “cress.”” Thompson 1949: 55-61: “Lepidium sativum L., cress.”
na4za-gin3: TCL 10, 71 i: 40. Akk. uqnû. CDA 424: “lapis lazuli; turquoise?.” AHw III, 1426: “Lapislazuli, Lasurstein, Türqis.”
imzu-ge6 kur-ra: TCL 10, 71 i: 38. Meaning unknown, a form of paste.
§6.2. Product Distribution
šima: NBC 8584:4 (3 qûm., 3 l)
a-ba: TCL 10, 71 i: 31 (# 1)
a-du-a-a: TCL 10, 71 i: 30 (4 kor, 1200 l)
an-da-aḫ-šumsar: NCBT 1808: 3 (4 qûm., 4 l)
an-na: YOS 2, 112: 11 (no figure)
šimar-ga-num: YBC 5151: 1 (6 mina, 3000 g)
ba-lu-ga: CT 29, 13: 8 (3 talent (silver equivalent?), 90 kg)
ba-lu-ḫa: CT 29, 13: 7 (10 shekel, silver equivalent, 83 g)
šimbar2-bar2-ra: YBC 5304: 6 (3 seah 30 l)
šimba-ri-ra-a-tum: TCL 10, 71 i: 17 (1 seah 10 l)
šimbar-sig7: TCL 10, 71: 43 (1/3 mina, 166.7 g)
bu-ra-ša: CT 29, 13: 11 (5 shekels, silver equivalent, 41.5) 24 (no figure)
šimdup-ra-num: TCL 10, 71 i: 19 (1 seah., 10 l)
na4du8-ši-a: TCL 10, 71 i: 39 (1/2 shekel, 4.15 g)
elšim: NBC 8584: 3 (1 2/3 seah, 10.667 l)
šim/gešeren: TCL 10, 57: 7 (11 mina, 5.5 kg); TCL 10, 72: 11 (10 mina, 5 kg); TCL 10, 81: 4 (1 talent, 30 kg) 8 (du10) (30 mina, 15 kg); TCL 10, 82 (tablet): 1 (10 talent 11 mina, 305.5 kg); YBC 4451: 1 (1/2 mina, 250 g); YBC 5288: 2(geš) (#1); YBC 5304: 5(du10) (5 mina, 2.5 kg); YBC 5765: 1(du10) (15 mina, 7.5 kg); YBC 7189: 1(geš) (2 talents 15 mina, 67.5 kg)
e-zi-zi: CT 29, 13: 26
gaba-lal3: TCL 10, 71 i: 36 (1 mina, 500 g)
ganam4: TCL 10, 72: 24 (# 99)
ganam4 bar-su3: TCL 10, 72: 26 (# 10)
gazi2: NCBT 1808: 8 (# 4)
šimgig: YBC 7189: 9 (# x)
šimgir2: TCL 10, 71 i: 20 (4 mina, 2 kg)
geš-i3-a; TCL 10, 82 (case): 2 (10 talents 11 mina, 305.5 kg)
gud al-zu2-a: TCL 10, 56 (case): 14 (# 5 heads)
šimḫa-gir: TCL 10, 71 i: 23 (4 mina, 2 kg)
šimhal: TCL 10, 71 i: 21 (4 mina, 2 kg); TCL 10, 81: 9 (30 mina, 15 kg); YBC 3280: 2 (10 mina, 5 kg); YBC 4402: 1 (1 talent 6 mina, 33 kg); YBC 4451: 2 (1 mina, 500 g); YBC 6817: 1 (24 mina, 12 kg); YBC 10759: 1 (du10) (# 2)
ḫa-za-nu-umsar: NCBT 1808: 2 (1 seah., 10 l)
hi-bi-iš-tum: NBC 8584: 1 (4 seah., 40 l)
šimḫi-li: YOS 2, 112: 36 (1 talent, 30 kg)
šimḫi-il ba-lu-ḫu: TCL 10, 71 i: 22 (4 mina, 2 kg)
šimḫi-li sikil: YBC 4451: 4 (1/2 mina, 250 g)
šimḫi-li hal: YBC 4451: 3 (1/2 mina, 250 g)
i3-du10-ga: YBC 5169: 1 (2 seah, 20 l)
i3-(geš)eren: CT 29, 14: 20 (5 shekel, silver equivalent, 41.5 g); TCL 10, 56: (case) 12 (2 qûm. 2 l); TCL 10, 71 iv: 47 (1 qûm, 1 l), 50 (1 qûm, 1 l), 61 (1 qûm, 1 l); TCL 10, 82: (tablet) 1 (6 qûm., 6 l); TCL 10, 82: (case) 1 (6 qûm., 6 l); YOS 5, 171: 2 (4 qûm, 4 l); 3 (1 seah, 10 l); 4 (1 seah, 10 l); 5 (1 seah, 10 l); 6 (1 seah, 10 l); 7 (1 seah., 10 l); 8 (1 seah, 10 l); 10 (1 seah, 10 l); 12 (1 seah, 10 l); 13 (2 qûm, 2 l); 15 (4 2/3 qûm, 4.667 l); 16 (1 qûm, 1 l); 17 (1/2 qûm, 0.5 l); 18 (1/3 qûm. 0.667 l); 19 (x qûm., x l); 20 (3 qûm. 3 l); 21 (1 seah, 10 l); 22 (3 seah, 30 l); 23 (1/3 qûm, 0.667 l); 24 (1 qûm, 1 l); 25 (2 qûm, 2 l); 26 (1 seah, 10 l); 27 (1/2 qûm, 0.5 l); 28 (5 qûm, 5 l) ; 29 (1 seah, 10 l); 31 (2 qûm, 2 l); YOS 5, 172: 2 (4 qûm, 4 l); 3 (1 seah, 10 l); 4 (1 seah, 10 l); 5 (1 seah, 10 l); 6 (1 seah, 10 l); 7 (1 seah, 10 l); 8 (2 pānû 1 seah, 140 l); 10 (2 2/3 qûm, 2.667 l) ; 11 (5 qûm, 5 l); 12 (2 pānû, 2 seah, 140 l); 13 (1 seah, 10 l); 14 (5 qûm, 5 l); YOS 5, 194: 2 (4 qûm, 4 l); 3 (1 seah, 10 l); 4 (1 seah, 10 l); 5 (1 seah, 10 l); 7 (1/3 qûm, 0.334 l); 8 (2 pānû 3 seah, 160 l); 9 (1 seah, 10 l); 10 (1 seah, 10 l); 11 (1 qûm, 1 l)
i3-gi-lu: CT 29, 14: 28 (1 seah, 10 l)
i3-geš: CT 29, 13: 19 (no figure); TCL 10, 61: 1 (21 kor 3 pānû 5 seah, 6.53 kl); TCL 10, 63: 2-3 (3 qûm, 3 l); TCL 10, 72: 6 (4 kor 1 seah, 1.21 kl); YBC 4451: 6 (1 KU.DU 2 qûm, x and 2 l); YOS 5, 171: 1 (2 qûm. 2 l); YOS 5, 172: 1 (2 qûm, 2 l); YOS 5, 194: 1(2 qûm, 2 l); YOS 14, 212: 1 (2 pānû 1 seah 1 1/2 qûm, 131 1/2 l)
i3-geš bara2 a-ga: TCL 10, 63: 1 (8 qûm, 8 l)
i3 ka-na-ak-ti: CT 29, 14: 13 (no figure)
im-babbar: TCL 10, 71 i: 11 (20 talent, 60 kg)
ir3: TCL 10, 56 (case): 10 (5 head)
i3-sag-du10-ga: TCL 10, 81: 17 (# 1)
kar2-šumsar: NCBT 1808: 1(1 seah., 10 l); TCL 10, 63: 3 (1 seah, 10 l); TCL 10, 71 iv: 43 (1 seah, 10 l); 45 (7 qûm, 7 l); YBC 5288: 1 (5 kor 1 pānû 5 seah., 1.61 kl); YBC 5304: 9 (3 seah. 11 mu-šub 30 l.?); YOS 2, 112: 12 (no figure)
ku3-sig17: TCL 10, 72: 2 (8 shekel, 66.4 g), 4 (5 shekel, 41.5 g)
ku-uk-ri: CT 29, 13: 8 (1 kor, 300 l), 21 (2 pānû, 1 qûm, of 5 shekels), 31 (no figure)
gešlam-gal TCL 10, 57: 3 (2 seah, 20 l)
gešlam-tur: TCL 10, 57: 2 (2 seah, 20 l)
lu-u2-lu: CT 29, 13: 23 (no figure)
lu-ur-pi-a-nu-um: TCL 10, 71 i: 37 (10 shekels, 83 g)
šimmar-ga-nu2-um: TCL 10, 81: 2 (30 mina, 15 kg)
tug2ma-aṣ-ṣum: TCL 10, 71 iv: 64 (#1), 65 (#2)
maš2-munus-aš2: TCL 10, 72: 29 (# 34)
šimmug: TCL 10, 81: 12 (30 mina, 15 kg)
tug2mu-sir2-ra: TCL 10, 71 i: 13 (no figure)
naga: TCL 10, 71 i: 12 (15 kor, 4500 l), 15 (15 kor, 4500 l), 71 iv: 54 (15 kor, 4500 l)
tug2na-al-ba-šum: TCL 10, 56 (tablet): 8 (# x), (case): 8 (# 1)
gešqu-ta-nu-um ḫi-a: MLC 1683: 1 (# 3)
imsa5: YBC 5274: 2 (x mina, x g)
šimsig7: TCL 10, 71 i: 42 (1/3 mina, 166.7 g)
sila7: TCL 10, 72: 28 (# 16)
geššinig: TCL 10, 71 iv: 68 (no quantity)
su-um-la-li-e: CT 29, 13: 10 (1 pānû, 2 seah, 80 l)
ṣi-iḫ-ḫi-ir-tum: TCL 10, 56 (tablet/case): 6
šimša-me!-eš!-la: TCL 10, 81: 10 (30 mina, 15 kg)
še: YOS 5, 194: 6 (10 shekel, 0.05 l)
še-geš-i3: TCL 10, 61: 2 (53 kor, 2 pānû, 2 seah, 16.04 kl)
šimše-gir: NCBT 1808: 6 (2 mina, 1 kg)
šimšeš: YBC 7189: 5 (x talent, x kg)
šimši-mi-iš-la2: YBC 7189: 3 (1 talent, 30 kg)
šimšu-ur2-min3: NCBT 1808: 5 (2 mina, 1 kg); TCL 10, 72: 13 (10 mina, 5 kg); TCL 10, 81: 1 (x talent 30 mina, 15+ kg); YBC 6817: 15 (2 mina, 1 kg); YBC 7189: 2 (1 talent, 30 kg); CT 29, 14: 13 (no figure)
udu-nita2 bar-su3: TCL 10, 72: 22 (# 9)
za3-ḫi-li-a: TCL 10, 71 i: 24 (2 seah, 20 l)
na4za-gin3: TCL 10, 71 i: 40 (1/2 shekel, 4.15 g)
imzu-ge6 kur-ra: TCL 10, 71 i: 38 (1 qûm, 1 l)
§6.3. Aromatic Prices
šimaz: (YBC 3365: 1) 13 1/3 mina, value 1 1/3 shekel, rate: 600:1
šimdu10-eren: (YBC 5765: 1) 15 mina, value 2/3 shekel, 15 grains, rate: 1200:1
šimgam-ma: (YBC 3365: 7) 2 seah 6 qûm, value 1 2/3 shekel 12 grains, rate: 15:1
šimgi-du10-ga: (YBC 3365: 3) 13 1/3 mina, value 1 1/3 shekel, rate: 600:1
šimḫal: (YBC 4402: 1) 1 talent 6 mina, value 10 1/3 shekel, rate: 383 7/31: 1
i3-gešeren: (TCL 10, 56 (case): 12) 2 qûm., value 2/3 shekel, rate 3:1.
i3-geš: (TCL 10, 72: 6) 4 kor 1 seah, value 1 mina 8 shekels, rate: 18:1
i3-geš ur-šum: (CT 29, 13: 19-20) 5 shekels from the seah: rate 1:5
ku-uk-ri: (CT 29, 13: 21) 2 pānû, 1 qûm, of 5 shekels, rate: 28:1
šimli: (YBC 6817: 7) 3 talent 20 mina, value 1/2 mina, 5 shekels, rate: 342 6/7:1
šimmar-gu-ṣum: (YBC 10512: 1) #1 (= 1/10 shekel), value 2 shekels, rate 1:20
šimše-li: (YBC 3365: 5) 2 seah 6 qûm, value 1 2/3 shekel 12 grain. rate: 15:1
šim: (TCL 10, 72: 10) 1 seah, value 3 1/3 shekels, rate: 3:1
šim ḫi-a: (TCL 10, 72: 16) 4 seah 2 qûm, value 2/3 shekel, 6 grains, rate: 60:1 (TCL 10, 72: 11-15); gešeren 10 mina; gešza-ba-al 10 mina; geššu-ur2-min3 10 mina; gešli-wi-ir 10 mina, value 3 1/3 shekels, rate: 720:1
šim[...]: (YBC 5232: 1) 1 (+) seah, value 10 (+) shekels, rate 1:1?
a-ba-a: TCL 10, 71 i: 29 (via)
a-ba-an-ni-a: YBC 5304: 11 (via (with ir3-dsuen)
a-bu-um-wa-qar: YBC 3280: 5 (receipt from)
diškur-ma-an-šum2: YBC 5765: 3 (ša...broken)
a-da-al-lalx(LA)-a-a: YBC 7189: 10 (delivery of)
a-ḫi-na-x-[...]: YBC 5232: 3 (for)
a-ḫu-um-wa-qar: TCL 10, 56: 17 (receipt of, s. of lu2[...])
a-ḫu-ṭa-bu-um: YOS 5, 171: 28 (when delayed)
amar-ne2-ru-um: TCL 10, 61: 6 (for)
a-ma-at-dsuen: YOS 5, 171: 27
a-mu-u2-a-tum: YBC 5304: 13 (receipt of)
ar-bi-tu-ra-am: YBC 3280: 3 (receipt of (with dsuen-da-mi-iq)
a-wi-lum: YOS 5, 172: 8 (delayed at the temple of Inanna in Uruk); 12 (journey to Raḫabum)
a-wi-il-i3-li2: YOS 5, 194: 2
be-ta: YOS 5, 194: 6 (delayed)
dingir-ga-mil: TCL 10, 81: 18 (via, replacement (diri-ga))
dingir-inim-ma: TCL 10, 71 iv: 48 (for); 53 (for, uru ku-ur-ra-ab); 57
dumu-i3-li2: TCL 10, 71 iv: 62 (for)
e2-a-ra-bi: TCL 10, 71 i: 5 (via, with two others), 10 (via?, with two others); 46 (via, with ša-li-mu-um and ra-bu-ut-dsuen)
den-lil2-na-ši: YBC 10512: 7 (f. of dsuen-be-el-ap-lim)
gi-mil-sîn: TCL 10, 71 i: 34 (via)
dgu-la-du-um-qi: YBC 5169: 3 (receipt of)
ḫa-ba-an-nu-um: TCL 10, 63: 7 (disbursed from)
i-ba-tum: CT 29, 14: 23 (oil of)
ib-bi-dŠamaš: YBC 1928: 3 (receipt of)
ib-bi-dsuen: YBC 1928: 4 (receipt from)
i-ku-un-pi4-diškur: TCL 10, 56: (tablet) 17, (case) 18 (receipt of, with i3-li2-i-din-nam ); TCL 10, 61: 5 (receipt of, with i3-li2-i-din-nam); TCL 10, 72: 36 (receipt of, with i3-li2-i-din-nam). TCL 10, 81: 19 (receipt of); TCL 10, 82: (tablet, case) 4 (receipt of); YBC 5169: 6 (receipt from, sanga of Ninurta)
i3-li2-inim-gi-na: TCL 10, 71 i: 14 (receipt of)
i3-li2-ma-a-bi: NCBT 1808: 10 (receipt of)
di3-li2-na-ap-še-ra-am: NBC 8584: 6-7 (received)
im-gur-dutu: TCL 10, 71 iv: 70 (receipt of)
im-gu-rum: YBC 6817: 23 (via, with dsuen-ga-mil and wa-tar-dutu)
i-ni-ia-tum: YBC 5169: 4 (order of)
ir3-dmar-tu: TCL 10, 71 iv: 45 (via)
i-ri-ba-am-dsuen: YBC 5288: 4 (receipt of)
ir3-dsuen: YBC 5304: 12 (via / with a-ba-an-ni-a)
ir3-ra-a-zu: YOS 14, 212: 3 (delivery, processed oil house)
i-šar-re-i-ni: YOS 5, 172: 13
mi-ka-zi-im: YBC 4402: 2
ki-ib-ra-ab-ba: CT 29, 14: 16, 29
kur-mar-da-maḫ-ni2: TCL 10, 63: 6 (receipt of, with 1dri-im-dsuen-mu-ba-li2-iṭ)
li-pi2-it-ir3-ra: YOS 14, 212: 6 (receipt of, perfumer’s workshop)
lugal-dsuen: CT 29, 13: 9, 22 (receive from)
lu2-dnin-šubur-tu-kul2-ti: YBC 5232: 4-5 (for?)
lu2-dutu: YBC 3287: 2 (receipt of)
mar-ra-bi: TCL 10, 71 i: 25 (receipt of, for the e2-nin)
dnanna-ma-an-si2: YOS 5, 172: 14 (builder)
dnin-urta?-mu-pad3-da: TCL 10, 56: (case, tablet) 2 (receipt of)
dnin-urta-us2-eden: YBC 5169: 5 (via)
nu-ur-dkab-ta: TCL 10, 71 iv: 44 (via, son of X)
nu-ur2-ub-tum: YOS 5, 171: 32 (delayed)
pi-iš-ti-ia: YOS 5, 171: 8 (when she polished the door bolt of x-temple), 31(when Nur-ubtum was delayed)
puzur4-dingir-a-ba4: YBC 5151: 3 (receipt of), 7 (receipt from)
ra-bu-ut-dsuen: TCL 10, 71 i: 46 (via, with ša-li-mu-um and e2-a-ra-bi)
1dri-im-dsuen-mu-ba-li2-iṭ: TCL 10, 63: 5 (receipt of, with kur-mar-da-maḫ-ni2)
dsuen-an-dul7-a-ni: TCL 10, 71 iv: 46 (receipt of)
dsuen-da-mi-iq: YBC 3280: 4 (receipt of, with ar-bi-tu-ra-am)
dsuen-du-ur-šu: TCL 10, 71 i: 44 (receipt of)
dsuen-ga-mil: YBC 6817: 10 (via); 24 (via, with im-gu-rum and wa-tar-dUtu)
dsuen-iš-me-a-ni: YBC 10758: 3 (receipt of)
sîn-ma-ḫa-[...]: TCL 10, 71 iv: 58 (via)
dsuen-še-mi: MLC 1683: 4 (receipt of)
dsuen-u2-se2-li: YOS 2, 112: 2 (letter to, with da-da-a); 10; 41
ša-li-mu-um: TCL 10, 71 i: 7 (receipt of), 26 (order of), 28 (receipt of), 45 (via, with ra-bu-ut-dsuen and e2-a-ra-bi), iv: 55 (receipt of), 65 (receipt of)
dutu-dingir: YBC 5173: 3 (receipt of)
dutu-mu-ba-li2-iṭ: TCL 10, 82: (tablet, case) 5 ((disbursed) from)
ša-at-dnin-šubur: YOS 5, 194: 7 (in dumu-munus ša-at-dnin-šubur)
ši-ip-dsuen: YOS 2, 112: 4 (letter from)
ta-al-pu-ni: YBC 4451: 8 (to; palace servant, head fisherman)
ta-ri-bu-um: TCL 10, 82: (tablet) 6 (order of)
dtišpak -ga-mil: CT 29, 14: 28
u-na-ḫi-id-eš18-dar2: YBC 10759: 3( receipt of)
ur-lugal-banda3da: YBC 5274: 3 (via, office broken)
zi-ik-rum: TCL 10, 71 iv: 55 (via)
§6.4.2. Titles Only:
dumu-munus ša-at-dnin-šubur: YOS 5, 194: 7
ir3 e2-mar-ba-tum: YOS 5, 171: 15
maš2-šu-gid2-gid2: YOS 5, 171: 17
nar-meš: TCL 10, 71 iv: 66.
e2 a-ab-ba-a: YOS 5, 171: 10
e2 i3-du10-ga: YOS 14, 212: 4
gir4-maḫ: NCBT 1808: 9 (for)
e2 gu-la: YBC 4451: 5 (for)
e2 gešgu-za en den-ki: YOS 5, 194: 11
e2 dinanna: YOS 5, 171: 16 (to anoint)
e2 dinanna zabalaki: YOS 5, 172: 11
e2 šu-zi: TCL 10, 71 iv: 42
e2 dutu: YOS 5, 171: 18 (to anoint)
§6.4.4. Geographic Names:
BAD3.ANki: TCL 10, 56: (tablet, case) 3 (caravan of GN), (tablet) 15 (caravan of GN), (case) 16 (caravan of GN)
bad3-tibir-ra: YBC 3287: 5 (they gave to him in GN.)
larsaki: YOS 2, 112: 30
šu-ši-imki: YOS 2, 112: 16 (citizen of GN.)
unuki: YOS 5, 172: 9 (delayed at the Inanna temple in GN), 10 (caravan of GN.)
ur-šum: CT 29, 13: 19 (oil of GN)
iriki a-ḫa-nu-ta: YOS 2, 112: 33 (in), 43 (in)
iriki ib-ra-at: TCL 10, 71 iv: 52
iriki ra-ḫa-bu-um: YOS 5, 172: 12 (caravan of GN)
iriki sa-bu-um: MLC 1683: 6 (caravan to GN)
zabalaki: YOS 5, 172: 11 (Inanna temple of GN)
Version: 24 March 2014