On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests, Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14 (2008), 1-38. (With a contribution by Michael Jursa)

Caroline Waerzeggers

This article offers an overview of the early Babylonian priesthood, as it was organized and operated during the third millennium BCE. It is emphasized that the priests and priestesses proper, i.e., individuals who were specifically concerned with cultic matters, represented a relatively small segment of the employees of temple households. Much more numerous within these institutions (which might more appropriately be termed "temple communities") were the individuals whose roles were of either administrative or economic character. Focusing on the administrators of temple households, and identifying them as "Managerial Class," the article argues that, during Pre-Sargonic times, this social group wielded great economic and political power, which at times even exceeded that of the emerging secular leaders (such as ensiks and lugals). To demonstrate this point, an interaction between these two competing centers of powers (particularly in the city-state of Lagaš) is studied in detail. In memory of Itamar Singer Keywords temple household-palace-early Sumerian kingship-managerial class-Sanga-Ensik-Lugal-purification priests-Lu A List-Nam-šita

This volume is the result of our collaborative efforts to organise a conference that would address the issues of appropriation and interaction with religious professionals in the Roman Imperial Era without overinvesting in labels that are fraught with methodological problems, such as ‘priests’, ‘priestesses’, and ‘priesthood’. These terms are used here, but with caution and in full awareness of their limited applicability to a wide range of religious entrepreneurs of the Roman Empire. The three-day international conference entitled ‘Beyond Duty: Interacting with Religious Professionals and Appropriating Tradition’, which took place in Erfurt in January 2015, was intended to evoke answers to three central questions: who laid claim to special performative competence in cultic matters, how they went about acquiring it, and how they used existing schemata to anchor and legitimate their innovations in the realm of religious knowledge.

Although miqwa’ot and chalkstone vessels have been found throughout Israel, the unparalleled number of such finds at Jerusalem has conventionally been explained in terms of the special demands of the Temple cult and of the city’s priestly residents. In light of a growing number of archaeological discoveries from the past number of years, however, the conception that Jerusalem and its Temple served as focal points of ritual purity observance deserves to be significantly reevaluated. The new data indicate that regular, widespread use of ritual baths and chalkstone vessels was not at all unique to Jerusalem or the priesthood, but rather was commonplace to a comparable degree in Jewish society throughout early Roman Judea. Jews everywhere throughout the country strove on a regular basis to maintain the purity of their bodies, clothing, utensils, food, and drink, and there is no reason to suppose that in doing so they somehow had the Temple in mind. Most Jews living at this time would probably have understood the pentateuchal purity regulations as prescribing that ritual purity be maintained on a regular basis in ordinary, everyday life – without specific regard to the Temple or its cult. This new understanding encourages us to reinterpret the archaeological finds from Jerusalem as reflecting an important facet of prevailing common culture rather than as stemming from the unique sanctity of Jerusalem, the Temple, or its priests.

On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests by Caroline Waerzeggers (Amsterdam)* with a contribution by Michael Jursa (Vienna) Gullubu, “to shave”, describes the ritual induction of priests in Babylonian temples in the first millennium BCE.1 The rite was performed in the bath-house before a priest entered the sacred parts of the temple for the first time.2 Access regulations to the * 1 2 This article is based on research carried out in the context of project P17151-G02 funded by the Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (Vienna) in 2004 and 2005. I wish to thank M. Jursa for contributing to this article and for his many useful suggestions. I am also grateful to J. Hazenbos for commenting upon an earlier draft of this article, and to L.C. Goldman for correcting my English. Unpublished texts in the British Museum are cited with the kind permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. M. Jursa’s research was conducted under the auspices of an ongoing project entitled “Economic History of Babylonia in the First Millennium BC” funded by the Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (Vienna). In this article, I use the terms priest, priesthood and clergy to denote persons who mediated contact with the gods as part of their positions in the institutionalized cult in Babylonian temples. The intensity of mediation could vary enormously – from direct participation in the actual rites around the cult image, to the delivery of offerings for the sacrificial table and the provision of security for the temple grounds. The positions that generated these activities were linked to the ownership of titles, prebends, obtained by inheritance, personal appointment, or another form of acquisition – although the link between the priesthood and prebends was never clearcut (cf. van Driel 2002: 34ff. and 2005). As part of this definition, I count gate-keepers, bakers and other such professions that did not necessarily entail direct participation in ritual procedures around the cult image to the priesthood (contra Sallaberger and Huber Vulliet 2005: 618). On the same account I do not consider diviners as priests (they were not prebendaries), while Sallaberger and Huber Vulliet do. It should be clear that defining the priesthood generates many problems and creates distinctions that probably did not exist in ancient times. The definition that I use in this article is awkward at best, but it should be sufficient for its purpose. On the problems of defining the Babylonian priesthood, see among others van Driel 2002: 34ff., Westenholz 2004: 292, Sallaberger and Huber Vulliet 2005: 617ff., and more generally on ancient priesthoods Beard and North 1990: 1ff. On the gullubu rite, see most recently Scheyhing 1998 and Sallaberger and Huber Vulliet 2005: 620ff. Most of the evidence pertains to 6th century BCE Babylonia, but this is incidental. The earliest references date from the end of the second millennium (Borger 1973; Fleming 1992) and the last to Seleucid times (VS 1 15: 36ff.). The rite was also performed in Assyria (Scheyhing 1998: 66ff.). This article necessarily focuses on the richer Neo-Babylonian evidence but will take ZAR 14 (2008) 2 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa initiation rite thus functioned at the same time as access regulations to the sanctuary and to the priesthood.3 As far as we can see, the main concern of these regulations was with the ritual purity of the candidate, which underscores the centrality of this concept in the organization of the Babylonian cult.4 Access regulations to the gullubu rite (i.e. to the sanctuary and the priesthood) have been studied mostly on the basis of a ritual text about Nippurite priests, which approaches the subject from a general angle.5 This text can be supplemented by a description of the qualifications of the diviner, an uninitiated specialist whose trade was subject to concerns of purity that were similar to those of the initiated priesthood.6 While these texts are essential to reconstruct the ideological framework of the induction of priests, they do not tell us how the ideology of purity was applied and tested in practice. A number of documents written in the course of the election of priests in temples of the mid-first millennium BCE shed light on the practical aspects of initiation. Such documents have been known for a long time.7 Reporting on inquests into the cultic suitability of priestly candidates, these documents offer a unique opportunity to study how and to what extent purity regulations really did shape the Babylonian priesthood. At present four such documents are available, but some problems of interpretation have prevented their correct understanding so far. These problems can now be addressed afresh thanks to the discovery of new documents in the British Museum, while the reading of one of the key texts (OIP 122 36) has been crucially improved by Michael Jursa. 3 4 5 6 7 that of other times and places in consideration too. The consecration of priestesses in Emar – also known as gallubu – falls outside the scope of this study (see Fleming 1992). Not the entire priesthood needed initiation. The classic example of uninitiated cultic personnel is the performing kalû lā gul-lu-bu (“unconsecrated lamentation priest”) in Falkenstein 1959: 40 (ll. 10’-11’). The question which priests needed consecration will be addressed in part II.1 of this article. Purity is an essential principle of organization in the religions of the Ancient Near East; see for ancient Israel a.o. Wright 1992, Miller 2000: 131ff. and Seidl 2006; for Mesopotamian and Israelite parallels a.o. van der Toorn 1985 and 1989; for Mesopotamia a.o. Scheyhing 1998, Stol 2002, Sallaberger and Huber Vulliet 2005; for Egypt a.o. Sauneron 1957, Meeks 1975, Grieshammer 1984, Dieleman 2002; for purity in Hittite religion see a.o. Haas 1994, de Martino 2004. The locus classicus for the study of purity in anthropological perspective is Douglas 1966. The text was published by Borger in BiOr 30 (1973). See Scheyhing 1998 for the latest study of the gullubu rite in the light of this text. This text was re-edited by Lambert in Fs. Borger (1998); the qualifications of the diviner are discussed in relation to those of the Nippurite priests by Sallaberger and Huber Vulliet 2005: 621. San Nicolò presented two of these documents (AnOr 8 48 and YOS 7 167) in ArOr 6 (1934) and one (PSBA 15, 417ff.) in ArOr 7 (1935); Weisberg 2003 published one in his edition of NeoBabylonian tablets in the Oriental Institute (OIP 122 36). On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 3 The present article studies the ideology of purity in relation to its implementation in practice at the appointment of priests. The main focus will be on those regulations that determine whether or not a candidate is accepted into office, because these rules are essential to our understanding of the formation of the Babylonian priesthood (part I). The procedures and formalities leading up to a priest’s initiation will be discussed in part II, as well as the question of which priests needed consecration. Once in office, a multitude of profaning influences could render an essentially pure priest temporarily unsuitable for his job. In part III, I will show that check-ups were built into the priests’ daily routines in order to detect such temporary shortcomings. In part IV, the editions of new text material will be presented, and in part V, the collations and new interpretation of OIP 122 36 by Michael Jursa can be found. Part I: Access regulations at the threshold of office I.1. Purity of the priesthood according to the ritual texts There are at present two texts that describe access regulations to ritual professions in a more or less systematic fashion. The first deals with two priestly offices in the temple of Enlil in the city of Nippur, and the second deals with diviners (bārû). While the nešakku and pašīšu priests of Nippur had to enter the restricted areas of the temple to perform their tasks, diviners did not. As a result, the Nippur priests had to undergo the initiation rite and be shaven (gullubu) while diviners could keep their hair and do their jobs as “long-haired priests of Šamaš”. The text that deals with the nešakku and pašīšu priests of Nippur was edited by R. Borger in BiOr 30.8 It is a bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian ritual from the library of Ashurbanipal of fairly recent date.9 The text describes three parts of the gullubu rite performed in the temple of Enlil when a new nešakku or pašīšu priest presents himself. First, the candidate was taken into the bath-house where he undressed to be examined by a group of cultic experts. The expected standard of purity is explained in this context. If succesful, the candidate was shaven and washed in a series of repetitive purification rites and incantations. After completion of this bath-house ceremony, a solemn procession took the new priest into the temple through a special entrance. The priest, who had until now merely functioned as the object of ritual action and speech, now took the lead and performed additional purification rites bringing his initiation to completion. 8 9 A translation of the text is also available in TUAT 2 p. 171ff. The access principles found in this text are discussed by Scheyhing 1998: 74 and Sallaberger and Huber Vulliet 2005: 620f. The editor of the text situates its composition at the end of the second millennium BCE at the earliest (Borger 1973: 163). 4 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa The second text informs us about the qualifications necessary to become a diviner. This text was recently re-edited and discussed by W.G. Lambert in Fs. Borger.10 It opens as a legend of the origins of divination. The gods Šamaš and Adad revealed the secret art of divination to Enmeduranki, the antediluvian king of Sippar, who then passed it on to families from three Babylonian cities. At this point, the text lays down the rules that should be observed when a new ‘son’ is introduced into the secret trade. The priests and the diviners maintained very different types of contact with the gods. The priests came into physical and/or visual contact with the images of the gods, their offerings and paraphernalia. The diviners did not practice their trade in the temple; they mediated contact with the gods by consultation, not by touch or sight. The intensity of contact implied in the priestly office required such personnel to be initiated (gullubu) while diviners did not have to undergo this rite. Nonetheless, candidates to both of these trades had to meet a very similar standard of purity (Sallaberger and Huber Vulliet 2005: 621). The rules of admission in the ritual texts Purity of the male body is a central concern in both texts. It is measured by the absence of imperfections. The nešakku and pašīšu priests must have a body as “pure as a golden statue” (I 13-14), defect-free from head to toe. Some of these defects are listed in a broken part of the text, i.e. bad eyesight, kidney-stones and an assymetrical face (Borger 1973: 172). The physical requirements of the diviner are formulated in a similar vein in the Enmeduranki text: a candidate must have perfect limbs, while a person with squinting eyes, chipped teeth, a cut-off finger, a ruptured (?) testicle or leprosy will be banned (Lambert 1998: 144).11 In addition to bodily perfection, the candidates had to be of the right descent. What is considered “right” depends on local concerns or traditions specific to the trade, but both texts structure descent along paternal lines in keeping with Babylonian custom. In the Enmeduranki text it is said that only the sons of the primordial families who received the wisdom from Enmeduranki qualify as diviners, while the apkal šamni, a certain type of specialist, must even descend from Enmeduranki himself. More generally, the text says that a diviner’s son whose begetter (zārû) is impure (lā ellu) 10 Lambert 1998. There is an earlier edition of a less complete version of the text by the same author (Lambert 1967). 11 Demands of bodily perfection and cleanliness were shared among ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean priesthoods, see Holma 1945 and Johnston 2004 (ed.): 288ff. for overviews covering Mesoptamia, Israel, Syria-Canaan, Egypt, Anatolia, Greece, Rome, early Christianity and early Islam. Berquist 2002 offers a social-anthropological analysis of body regulations for priests and the associated concept of bodily wholeness in the Hebrew Bible in the tradition of Mary Douglas’ Purity and Danger (Douglas 1966). On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 5 should be banned. The Nippur text is not very clear about parentage but if understood correctly, the text says that nešakku and pašīšu priests should descend from a particular deity, which is not very different from the need for the apkal šamni to be born from Enmeduranki’s seed. There is a remarkable focus on adoptees in the Nippur text, which by itself is already a sign that parentage and descent were points of concern.12 This text also adds the stipulation that persons bearing a “(slave-)mark” (šimtu) should be banned from office (TUAT 2: 173). A third aspect of the candidate’s person under scrutiny is his mentality. Both texts agree that candidates must uphold moral behavior and show integrity and devotion. A criminal convicted of blood crimes or theft could not be initiated as a nešakku or pašīšu priest, while a man who pursued an evil way of life could not become a diviner.13 Adequate training as a necessary qualification is only mentioned in the Enmeduranki text. It is almost unthinkable that nešakku and pašīšu priests did not need special knowledge to do their jobs, but such knowledge was perhaps acquired by practice rather than by formal training. There might be a fundamental difference between professions that need extensive training but no formal initiation (i.e. the diviners) and those that need initiation but no formal training (i.e. the prebendary priests). The rules of admittance laid down in these two texts reveal the same conceptual framework: a person who wanted to appear before the gods or enter into communication with them, had to be perfect like they were. This demand of perfection applied to every aspect of the candidate’s person: his body, his blood, his personality and his mind. Physical blemish, dubious parentage and criminal inclination barred a person from taking up office as a cult functionary. Together, these rules lay out the standard expected of the perfect human being – somebody who, by his very perfection and purity, could be accepted into the presence of gods. I.2. Application of purity regulations in practice The two texts discussed so far address the subject of access regulations from a general point of view. They show that in theory purity requirements applied to every aspect of the candidate’s person: body, mind and blood. Upon admission to office, a committee 12 Parallels with adjacent religions can be drawn. Descent of designated clans is a central concern in Pentateuchal legislation of the priesthood (i.e. Miller 2000: 171ff. and Olyan 2004; see also Lambert 1998: 147 on the parallels between Babylonian and Biblical evidence). In ancient Egypt, descent of a priestly family did not only better one’s prospect of induction (Kruchten 1989: 257ff.), it became an absolute requirement in the later periods (Blackman (Lloyd) 1998: 134f.; Lewis 1983: 92f.). 13 Note that a moral standard was also expected of Egyptian (Dieleman 2002: 69; Dunand and Zivie-Coche 2004: 101), Hittite (Taggar-Cohen 2006: 123) and Israelite priests (Wright 1992). 6 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa of experts checked if the candidate fitted the required profile. Bodily defects and signs of illness were detected at the moment when he undressed in the temple bath-house before undergoing the shaving ritual. However, the intentions that filled a person’s heart and the blood that ran through his veins were less easily submitted to a quality check in the setting of a bath-house. A more thorough investigation into the candidate’s personality and past was needed for this – an investigation that could require the consultation of witnesses and written records, and the deliberation of experts who knew the requirements of the cult. We possess several texts that were issued in the course of such formal investigations into the background and family history of priestly candidates in Babylonian temples during the mid-first millennium BCE. These texts are extremely valuable because they show how the theory of admission, known from the two texts discussed earlier, was applied in practice and which difficulties the temple authorities encountered when they reinforced these regulations on their personnel, especially invisible virtues such as moral integrity and parentage. Moreover, the practical texts show that concerns of ritual purity were not the only factor influencing the success of a candidacy. The texts At present there are six cuneiform tablets that contain the report of an inquest into the cultic suitability of a candidate to the gullubu initiation rite. These tablets come from three major Babylonian temples in the 6th century BCE: the Eanna temple in Uruk, the Ezida temple in Borsippa and the Esaggil temple in Babylon. The tablets from Uruk and Babylon have been published before, but crucial improvements to the reading of one of the key texts (OIP 122 36) have been made by M. Jursa (see part V). The texts from Borsippa are published for the first time here with the kind permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. Editions of these texts can be found in part IV. Here follows a summary of the texts. Inquest texts from the Eanna temple in Uruk AnOr 8 48 14 The šatammu and bēl-piqitti of Eanna address the assembly of Eanna (kiništu) as follows (rendered freely): “Nabû-tabni-u◊ur, an ērib-bīti of the goddess Kanisurra, has adopted his paternal cousin Dajjān-Marduk and has assigned his ērib-bīti prebend of Kanisurra to him. Nabû-tabni-u◊ur now advances his (adoptive) son DajjānMarduk to us for initiation (gullubu), but we can not initiate him without your consent – so we ask your advise on his case”. The assembly answers (rendered freely): “DajjānMarduk is the son of a former ērib-bīti of the goddess Ištar-of-Uruk. We know of no 14 San Nicolò 1934: 191ff.; Scheyhing 1998: 69f.; van Driel 1998: 166 n. 3; Wunsch 2003b: 194. On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 7 (incriminating) knowledge about him (nīdu) nor of the existence of a file about him (sipru). Moreover, his older brother of the same mother is also initiated (gullubu) into the service of Ištar-of-Uruk. Dajjān-Marduk is fit for initiation to the goddess Kanisurra (ana gullubi ›ābi).” (Cyr 15-VII-05) YOS 7 16715 Nabû-mušētiq-uddi of the Ekur-zakir family approaches the šatammu of Eanna with the request to be initiated (gullubu) as a brewer of the goddess Lady-ofUruk. The šatammu asks two members of Nabû-mušētiq-uddi’s extended family whether he owns a prebend and whether his mother is pure (ellētu). The relatives answer in an assembly of mār-banês that Nabû-mušētiq-uddi indeed owns a prebend and that his mother is pure. After this statement, the service roster of the Lady-of-Uruk is opened up and days that were previously registered to the name of Nabû-mušētiquddi’s paternal great-uncle are now transferred to Nabû-mušētiq-uddi himself. (Camb 09-XII-04) OIP 122 3616 The šatammu of Eanna conducts an inquiry into the background of a candidate to the gullubu rite in the presence of a board of prebendaries headed by the ahu rabû. The candidate’s mother, fInqāya, is interrogated as follows: “Your son is to be consecrated (gullubu) for service before the Lady-of-Uruk. Now shouldn’t there definitely be a zību-ornament on his neck? If there has been any claim of impurity raised against you (nīdu ša lā elēlika), tell us so in the assembly”. fInqāya answers: “My husband Ištar-nādin-apli has taken me for his wife as a virgin, but my father and my mother did not place zību-ornaments on my neck”. The inquest then continues with the hearing of four men, who had made inquiries regarding fInqāya, and of fIlatā, the first wife of fInqāya’s husband. They all confirm fInqāya’s testimony and declare under oath: “Nothing has been given to her as a share, and we definitely have not seen, heard, come to know nor heard rumours about a query or about impurity (lā elēlu) of fInqāya. She is a sallūhatu”. (Cyr 26-XII-03) Inquest texts from the Ezida temple in Borsippa BM 82732/no. 1 A board of prebendary bakers declares to the šatammu of Ezida that somebody’s son is qualified to be initiated (ana gullubi ›ābi) and quotes a statement by somebody about the candidate’s mother. Because of damages, it is not clear what exactly had been said about the mother. It is possible that she had been declared “pure”.17 (date lost) 15 San Nicolò 1934: 194ff; Scheyhing 1998: 70f.; van Driel 2002: 121. 16 This summary is based on Michael Jursa’s collations and interpretation of the text, included in part V of this article. 17 See the text edition in part IV for details. 8 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa BM 87298/no. 2 A board declares to the šatammu of Ezida that somebody is fit to be accepted as an ērib-bīti of the goddess Ninlil (ana gullubi ›ābi). The declaration also contains some background information on the candidate: he had received the prebend from a relative who is described as his bēl-agurri.18 (date lost) Inquest text from the Esaggil temple in Babylon PSBA 15, 417 19 A board declares to a royal commissioner (ša-rēš šarri) that four named persons are qualified to be initiated (ana gullubi ›ābi) into the service of a deity. The names of the board members are broken off, but among them figured the šatammu of Esaggil, the zazakku and some others who applied their seal to the tablet. (date lost; probably reign of Nabonidus) The inquest texts all pertain to successful candidacies. Important additional information on access regulations can be found in a group of texts that show persons whose candidacies have not been successful, or who temporarily have had to refrain from using their access rights. This group consists of manzaltu contracts of the oxherd prebend in Borsippa. The aim of these contracts was to transfer the service duty attached to the prebend from the owner to a third party. The contracts were drafted in the format of a dialogue text and often mentioned the reason why the owner could not perform his duties in the request. Here follows an overview of the reasons found in the dialogues. BM 26513/no. 3 “I am the son of an unmarried woman (nārtu),20 I am not initiated (ul gu-ul-lu-ba-ka), I can not perform my service”. BM 8269621 “I do not have sons and I am not able to perform my service duty of all the 40 days of the oxherd prebend in Ezida, the temple of Nabû, in my possession”. BM 2648022 “I am disabled 23 and I am sick and my sons are little. I can not wash with water and I can not perform my service duty”. 18 19 20 21 See the commentary to the edition of BM 87298/no. 2 for a discussion of this word. San Nicolò 1935: 26f.; Scheyhing 1998: 68f. For the meaning of nārtu as “unmarried woman”, see Wunsch 2003a: 5. Published with copy by MacGinnis 1999: 10ff. Ll. 2-4: dumu la ár-ši ù 40 u4-mumeš-ia giš.šub.ba lú sipa-ú-tu é.zi.da é dag ma-la ú-šu-uz-zu šá man-za-la-ti-ia gab-bi la ma-◊a-a-ka. 22 BM 26480: 3f.: sa-ma-a-ka ù mar-◊a-mar ù lúdumu.meš-ía ◊a-ah-ru-ú ma-la ra-ma-a-ka a.meš ù ma-la ú-šu-uz-zu šá man-za-al-ti-ía ul ma-◊a-a-ka. The word mar-◊a-mar is problematic. It could be a misspelling of mar◊āku “I am sick”, but the word is attested a second time in BM 82686: 3 (cited below), which makes a mistake less likely. That the word is derived from the verb marā◊u “to be sick” seems, however, plausible. 23 In the sense of not being able to act as one is expected to. On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests BM 8268624 BM 10198225 9 “I am disabled and I am sick and my sons are little”. “I am disabled and my sons are little”. The rules of admission according to the practical texts a. Body and age None of the inquest texts pays any attention to the physical condition of the candidate under scrutiny. This is surprising because the need of bodily perfection is stressed so strongly in the ritual texts. The reason must be that illnesses and other physical disorders were detected when the candidate undressed during the ceremony in the bathhouse and thus did not warrant additional inquests. Indeed, the manzaltu texts from Borsippa show that in practice prebendaries quite often found themselves unable to carry out their duties because of health problems. Illness is mentioned in at least two manzaltu contracts, and it may also have been the reason why others said they were “disabled” (samû). If there were no sons available (yet) who qualified to replace them, such prebendaries were left with only one, costly solution: finding and paying an interim to take over the temple service. In the manzaltu texts, age appears as a precondition of access. In three instances “young sons” are said to be among the reasons why a person could not take care of his service duties himself. This implies that adult sons would have solved the problem. In the ritual texts age was not explicitly mentioned but it must have been understood that only grown-up men could function in a cultic setting. It is not known at which age men became eligible, but in two cases, the age of freshly inititiated men has been determined by modern scholarship at about 15 or 16.26 24 BM 82686, of which only a small fragment is preserved, contains the same phrase as BM 26480 (2f.: sa-ma-a-ka ù mar-◊a-mar ù lúdumu.meš-ia ◊a-har-ru-u’-ma). The phrase is uttered by the same person as in BM 26480, but the texts were written on different days and are not duplicates. Like in BM 26480, a statement about the inability to wash probably followed the statement about the small sons, but BM 82686 is broken and the remaining text does not entirely correspond to BM 26480 (BM 82686: 3f.: … ù lúdumu.meš ◊a-har-ru-u’-ma ma-la <ra-ma>-ku a.[meš (x?)] nap-ta-nu šá dag ù šu-zu-zu ù ma-a◊-◊ar-tu4 […] “… and my sons are little and washing (?) with water, [(x?)] the meal of Nabû, and doing (service) and (performing) duty […]”. 25 BM 101982: 3: sa-ma-a-ka ù lúdumu.meš ◊a-ah-ru-u’. 26 Šellibi, son of Iddin-Nabû from the Nappāhu family was about 15 years old when he entered prebendary service according to Baker 2004: 37. Marduk-rēmanni, son of Bēl-uballi› from the ◊āhit-ginê family was about 16 years old when he inherited an ērib-bīti prebend from his grandmother (Waerzeggers 2001: 133). TCL 9 137, a letter of Bēlšazzar from the Eanna archive, possibly shows that old age impeded with active participation in the cult: lúérin.meš ku4.é lú ab.ba.meš šá mil-ki šá la man-zal-la-ti-šú-nu “workers, ērib-bītis, old men with experience who are not (doing) their service” (ll. 8-11). 10 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa b. Descent Nearly all inquest texts refer to the candidate’s mother at one point or the other. The ritual texts discussed earlier define descent requirements entirely along paternal lines according to Babylonian custom. Yet there can be no doubt that in practice the mother was important. In the inquest texts, statements of descent involving the candidate’s mother far outnumber those involving the father (see below). G. van Driel interpreted the returning concern with the mother in these contexts as a sign that candidates had to fulfill descent requirements both in the male and in the female line (1998: 166). Apart from the fact that such demands would have created stiffening homogamous practices in prebendary circles for which there is no evidence, OIP 122 36 and the new texts from Borsippa show that the concern with the candidate’s mother was nothing but a by-product of the demand of pure and uncontested paternal descent, which was the only issue at stake. It is helpful to start the discussion with an overview of all statements about descent that are found in the practical texts: Statements of descent involving the candidate’s mother with a positive effect on his cultic suitability: AnOr 8 48: the candidate is the younger brother of an ērib-bīti; they have the same mother. YOS 7 167: the candidate’s mother is pure (ellētu). OIP 122 36: there is no evidence that the candidate’s mother is impure (lā elēlu), despite the fact that the candidate lacks an “ornament” (zību) on his neck. The mother declares that although she was a virgin when she married, her parents did not place such ornaments (zībātu) on her neck. BM 82732/no. 1: the candidate’s mother is […(text broken; probably “pure”)…]. Statements of descent involving the candidate’s mother with a negative effect on his cultic suitability: BM 26513/no. 3: an unconsecrated person says that he is the son of an umarried woman. Statements of descent involving the candidate’s father with a positive effect on his cultic suitability: AnOr 8 48: the candidate, who is the adoptive son of an ērib-bīti of Kanisurra, is the physical son of a former ērib-bīti of the Lady-of-Uruk. OIP 122 36: the candidate’s father married his mother when she was a virgin. This overview leaves no doubt that the mother was important in matters of cultic On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 11 eligibility. The question is, however, what exactly was important about her? The Uruk texts, and probably also the damaged record from Borsippa (BM 82732/no. 1), say that the mother should be pure (elletu), but what did that mean? Did it refer to her descent,27 her legal status28 or perhaps her ritual purity? In order to provide answers to these questions, it is necessary to read the texts closely. Let us first turn to AnOr 8 48, which is one of the few texts that does mention the candidate’s father. In AnOr 8 48 an adoptee applied for consecration to Kanisurra. The committee first looked into the status of his biological father and later also into that of his mother. With regard to the father, the committee reported that he had been an initiate of the Lady-of-Uruk, and with regard to the mother it reported that her older son was initiated, also to the Lady-of-Uruk. AnOr 8 48 allows us to draw some preliminary conclusions about descent requirements. First, physical descent was so important that a legal construct like adoption did not have an influence on it, even though the adoptive father was an ērib-bīti himself. This is confirmed by the ritual text from Nippur which stipulated that adoptees not descending from a particular deity were unacceptable as nešakku or pašīšu priests. Second, the status of both the father and the mother influenced the decision of cultic suitability. As to the father, it was relevant that he had been an initiate himself. That he had been an initiate of another deity than the one applied to, was irrelevant. This is again confirmed by the ritual text from Nippur which says that an adoptee descending “from another god” should not be further questioned. As to the mother, it was apparently sufficient that an older son was initiated to allow her younger son to enter into service too. Once the mother’s correct status was a fact, no further inquiry was necessary. For the moment we leave open the question what constituted her correct status. Finally, it should be noted that the committee of AnOr 8 48 first looked into the status of the father and only after this into the status of the mother. Descent of an initiated father was apparently of primary concern. This also transpires from two NeoAssyrian letters, SAA 10 nos. 96 and 97, in which the king was advised to consecrate a number of priests on account of the fact that they were the sons of former initiates.29 Even though the father may be more important, it remains a fact that the inquest texts focus almost entirely on the candidates’ mothers. Why is this? Two texts help us out here: OIP 122 36 and BM 26513/no. 3. Together, these texts show that cultic eligibility is influenced by the moment when a person was conceived vis-à-vis the 27 van Driel 1999: 166 n. 3. 28 According to San Nicolò 1934: 195 n. 3 and Scheyhing 1998: 71 the mother’s “purity” refers to her free legal status. 29 SAA 10 no. 96: 16 “he is the son of an owner of a headgear”, ll. 18ff. “concerning the chief baker (…): he was initiated and received his headgear (…). It is now the eight years since he died, and his son stands with his hair”; SAA 10 no. 97: 5'ff. “The driller who was initiated (…) died (…). He has left a son, he is a novice and stands with his hair (…) let them shave him”. 12 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa moment when his parents married. According to BM 26513/no. 3, the son of an unmarried woman (nārtu) could not perform his temple service because he had not been initiated. He did carry a full filiation, which means that he was at least legally recognized as his father’s son. But when it came to cultic suitability, legal fatherhood was not enough. Descent from the father had to be physically real and this could only be ascertained if the child was born within the marriage. This is the reason why f Inqāya, during the inquest into her “purity” in OIP 122 36, said that she had been a virgin (batultu) when she married her husband: her virginity at marriage guaranteed that her son was her husband’s. And this is also the reason why in AnOr 8 48 it was sufficient for the committee to find out that the candidate had an initiated older brother from the same mother, as this automatically placed his own birth within his parents’ marriage. The purity of the mother thus related to her ability to guarantee uncontested paternal descent in her children. It had nothing to do with her own descent. fInqāya may very well have been a lower class woman as she lacked full filiation. The concern of the investigating committee in OIP 122 36 was the apparent lack of proof that f Inqāya’s son was born in wedlock. This proof should have been present in the form of a pendant (zību) tied around his neck. fInqāya was supposed to have gotten such pendants (zībātu) from her parents at marriage. Asked about this state of affairs, f Inqāya admitted the lack of pendants but she replied that she had been a virgin at marriage all the same. The implication of her statement is that the pendants functioned as a symbol of virginity on the bride and as a symbol of uncontested paternity on her sons. As M. Jursa argues, the pendant probably consisted of a conch, which was a symbol associated with the goddess Ninlil. As a sign of female purity the conch seems very fitting, as it may have symbolized the womb protecting the seed as a shell. OIP 122 36 is not the only Late Babylonian source to report on the use of pendants to display status. When Ninsun adopted Enkidu in the Standard Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh epic, she too put a symbol (indu) on Enkidu’s neck.30 In the act, she declared that Enkidu’s offspring would from now on belong to the oblates of Gilgamesh, even though Enkidu had not been born from her womb. This suggests that the symbol should normally have been put on the child’s neck by its mother at birth. While Enkidu’s pendant functioned as a slave tag,31 its use as a symbol displaying male status conferred by the mother is very similar to the function of the zību pendant that fInqāya should have tied around her son’s neck to mark his paternal descent. A comparable practice is attested in ancient Rome, where free-born boys were given a pendant (bulla) by their fathers shortly after birth as a sign of free status. 30 George 2003: 580-1 (text and translation of Gilg. III: 121-128), 815-6 (discussion of the word indu with reference to previous literature on this topic). 31 George 2003: 815f. interprets the adoption of Enkidu by Ninsun as an aetiology of the ritual induction of temple slaves in Uruk. On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 13 Several portraits of young Roman boys with such pendants around their necks exist. The bullae were worn throughout childhood and taken off upon reaching adulthood when other symbols (i.e. the toga) replaced the pendants as outward signs of status.32 In short, the practical texts show that descent requirements for priests arose from the basic concern that the candidate had to be the physical son of an initiated father. Fictional kinship (through adoption) was not enough; descent had to be real. Because real descent could only be tested through the sexual behavior of the mother, inquest texts tend to focus on her. The mother’s purity consisted of her capacity to guarantee that her sons were the children of her husband. Birth outside of marriage automatically led to disqualification, while virginity at marriage may have been an essential precondition. Pendants were in use to mark purity of descent: on the bride these pendants symbolized virginity and on her children uncontested paternity. The need to descend from an initiated father had the practical effect that priesthoods remained in the hands of a limited number of families over very long stretches of time. While this is a topic that certainly deserves a broader study, even a very cursory scan of the available documentation demonstrates the general impact of this tendency (i.e. Kessler 1991; Bongenaar 1997). c. Moral behavior Integrity is part of the concept of purity found in the ritual texts. Convicts of blood crimes and theft disqualified as priests of Enlil and Ninlil, while signs of corporal punishment would not only have rendered them unsuitable because of misbehavior but also because of physical blemish. SAA 10 no. 96 confirms the application of this rule in practice. This Neo-Assyrian letter contains a report about a priest who lost his consecrated status after he had been flogged as punishment for a crime. It is possible that the need to track criminal behavior lies behind the demand of the committee in AnOr 8 48 to produce a file (sipru) on the candidate if there is one. The candidate does not have such a file and as he is accepted into service, this means that the file is supposed to have contained incriminating information, perhaps as a kind of criminal record. d. Vacancy and ownership Recruitment was not only regulated by cultic rules. In addition to ritual purity, the candidate had to own the title of the office to which he sought access. This aspect clearly comes to the fore in the practical texts. In YOS 7 167 the šatammu first made sure that the candidate was a bēl-isqi – the “owner of a prebend” – before matters of ritual purity were examined. This concern also transpires from texts where information 32 M. Harlow and R. Laurence 2002: 40, 66ff. Note also that sealings displayed on the neck were used for identification and taxation purposes in early Islamic Iraq and Syria, a practice that is thought to have had its roots in pre-Islamic custom (Robinson 2005). 14 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa about the candidate’s acquisition of a prebend is given as background information to the case (AnOr 8 48 and BM 87298/no. 2). This implies that a position first had to become vacant before a new priest could be appointed.33 According to YOS 7 167 the name of the successful candidate was entered in a roster at the place where his predecessor’s name had been written before. Succession by a son through inheritance was the normal practice, but titles would be acquired through adoption, donation, exchange and purchase as well. The rule of vacancy implies that unendowed cultic personnel (with access but without a function) did not exist in Mesopotamia, or was at least not supposed to exist. Part II: The procedure leading up to the ceremony of initiation II.1. Which professions needed consecration? This question was raised and answered by Scheyhing 1998, who formulated the following rule: all the temple-enterers (ērib-bīti) have to be consecrated – and nobody else (p. 76).34 This rule is based on the observation that in BiOr 30 the gullubu rite is performed at the moment when a priest first enters the temple. While it is correct that “temple-enterers” were shaven, the total group in need of initiation was far larger: 35 among them we find fishermen (YOS 6 10), bakers (SAA 10 no. 96, BM 82732/no. 1), brewers (YOS 7 167), oxherds (BM 26513/no. 3), artisans (SAA 10 no. 97) and probably also slaughterers36 and others. Not all members of these professional groups automatically enjoyed the status of “temple-enterer”, which renders Scheyhing’s rule inadequate unless we must assume that persons in such groups are only consecrated if they also happen to hold a “temple-enterer’s” prebend. It is helpful to dislodge the title “temple-enterer” from the discussion. Ērib-bīti was a specific, honorary title reserved for a select group of persons with special rights. It is now generally accepted that the special rights of the “temple-enterers” consisted of unlimited access to the cella, the most secluded area of the temple where the cult image 33 This does not mean that the number of positions was limited. It is well known that an initiate was allowed to carve up his title to distribute it among his heirs. 34 A similar idea is promulgated by van Driel 2002: 89 “The status [of the ērib-bīti] was the result of an initiation of the type described by the text published by Borger [BiOr 30], which allowed entry to the presence of the gods”. 35 Cf. Kümmel 1979: 163 n. 92. 36 This may be inferred from the fact that a slaughterer of Marduk is depicted with a shaven head on BBSt 35. Slaughterers sometimes enjoy “temple-enterer” status (van Driel 2002: 117-8). More importantly, in the standard enumeration of prebendary professions the slaughterers are always listed immediately after the bakers and brewers, which were both consecrated professions (i.e. AnOr 8 44). On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 15 of the god could be seen and approached.37 The intensity of contact with the divine implied by such rights called for strict observance of purity rules, and hence for initiation. But not only “temple-enterers” were initiated. A whole range of other cultic experts – bakers, brewers, fishers, oxherds, … – also underwent the gullubu rite, as we have seen. While the consecration of such priests may be explained as a result of the fact that they also happened to own a temple-enterer’s prebend, i.e. rights to enter the cella, there seems to be a more straightforward solution at hand: not only the cella was subject to access regulations but also other areas of the inner temple. This implies the existence of two categories of consecrated priests based on their sphere of activity: the temple-enterers, who were allowed to enter the cella, and the other priests, who were not allowed to enter the cella but whose participation in the sacrificial process warranted purity precautions nonetheless. The kisallu (temple courtyard) and the gradations of sacred space There is associative evidence from Borsippa indicating that it was the kisallu, or temple courtyard, to which the gullubu rite gave access. Let us first return to the dialogue text BM 26513/no. 3 which records the following words of an unconsecrated oxherd of Ezida: “I am the son of an unmarried woman – I am not initiated – I can not perform my service”. The statement encapsulates both the cause and the result of impurity: because of problems of descent, the oxherd could not be consecrated, and because he had not been consecrated, he could not perform his cultic tasks (manzaltu). The area where the oxherds performed their cultic tasks was the kisallu. This is stated explicitly in BM 2649738 and implicitly in tablets identifying the kisallu as the source from which the oxherds “carried off” (našû) their remuneration (pappasu) for doing service (manzaltu).39 Not only oxherds were active on the courtyard. BRM 1 82 shows that brewers expected to draw an income from two areas of activity: the storerooms (šutummu) and the courtyard (kisallu). While the storerooms constituted the area of manufacture, the courtyard must have been the area of service. This is supported by the fact that in BRM 1 82 a slave and a free man jointly engaged as ēpišānus of a third party: the free man belonged to a sacerdotal family of Borsippa and probably enjoyed access rights, while the slave did not. This deficiency confined the slave’s activities to the workshops, 37 van Driel 2002: 88 defines an ērib-bīti as “someone who was allowed to enter (all parts of) the temple”; see Kümmel 1979: 163 and Bongenaar 1997: 149, 158f. for similar definitions. 38 BM 26497, l. 4: a-na-ka man-za-al-ti ina é kisal az-za-zu “I do my service in the kisallu”, said by an oxherd in a dialogue contract. 39 I.e. BM 82766: 12-3 a-hi pap-pa-su šá kisal Idag-na-din-šeš ku-ú ú-šu-uz-zu šá man-za-al-tu4 ina-áš-ši “Nabû-nādin-ahi will carry off half of the pappasu of the kisallu as compensation for doing service”. 16 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa while the free man’s full status allowed him to enter the courtyard and perform the cultic tasks attached to the prebend. BM 25633 confirms that the kisallu was a place inaccessible to unconsecrated persons, even if they were the owner of a prebend.40 The evidence discussed so far suggests that the courtyard was an area of restricted access where consecrated priests of the non-“ērib-bīti” type performed cultic tasks. This protected area presupposes the existence of an outer zone which was accessible to a larger community (i.e. the storerooms where slaves were at work) and an inner, more secluded area (i.e. the cella where ērib-bīti priests were at work). This tripartite division of sacred space is reminiscent of practices known from other areas of the Ancient Near East. In ancient Israel as well as Egypt a distinction was made between different grades of priests on the basis of their rights to enter all the restricted areas of the temple or only some of them.41 In Egypt, the higher grade of priest (“the prophet”) was allowed to enter the inner sanctuary and see the image of the god, while wab priests could only participate in the preparatory rites outside the hypostyle hall.42 The wab priests lacked the kind of thorough initiation necessary to stand eye in eye with the godhead, but they were nonetheless subject to severe purity rules because they manipulated sacred food and participated in processions. In a similar vein, the Hebrew Bible distinguishes between different types of priests according to their access rights to graded areas of holiness within the temple. While the high priest was allowed the enter the most holy place, regular priests had to remain in the court where a lesser degree of holiness prevailed.43 It seems that a similar distinction applied to the Babylonian priesthood. Ērib-bītis represent the highest level of priesthood. They were allowed to enter into the cella, the most protected area of the temple. Initiated priests who did not enjoy ērib-bīti status served in the courtyard. They consisted mainly of catering personnel – those prebendaries who procured, manufactured and delivered the foodstuffs for the sacrificial table: fishers, oxherds, bakers, brewers, slaughterers and the like. While the courtyard was less sacred than the cella, access restrictions were necessary to prevent pollution of the offering material. The gullubu rite was the occasion when these restrictions were implemented. Only persons who met a certain standard of purity by their own merits were allowed. Among them, we find priests with full rights (the ērib- 40 In this text, a judge decides that Šaddinnu, the well-known overseer of the bakers of Nabû, must collect prebendary revenue in the kisalu on behalf of the female prebend-holder, and hand it over to her. 41 For the architectural articulation of the gradations of holiness in Egyptian and Israelite temples, see Assmann 1994, Kruchten 1989: 245ff., Margueron 1994: 45f., Miller 2000: 144ff., Wright 1992: 738ff. 42 Dunand and Zivie-Coche 2004: 103; Gee 2004: 97ff.; Kruchten 1989: 245ff. 43 Wright 1992: 740-1; Miller 2000: 147. On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 17 bītis) and priests with limited rights (mostly purveying prebendaries). The actual professions of the ērib-bītis varied widely. Among their ranks we find very high cultic staff like the šangû and ahu rabû, ritual specialists like the lamentation priest, but also artisans like goldsmiths and textile workers who maintained the cult statue and its paraphernalia. Not all the artisans, not even all the lamentation priests, enjoyed ēribbīti status. In these professions, only those members were initiated who actually needed access to the cella (and to the courtyard in order to reach it) while colleagues who did not have to go beyond their workshops remained uninitiated. According to this reconstruction, the priesthood was divided in three groups: uninitiated ones, initiated ones with limited rights and initiated ones with full rights. If correct, the layering of the priesthood mirrored the standard tripartite layout of Babylonian temples, an architectural organization commonly thought to reflect progressive gradations of holiness: (a) the entrance area where few restrictions on the circulation of persons and goods applied, and (b) an intermediate and (c) inner area where access regulations became increasingly severe (Margueron 1994). The inner core corresponds to the area of operation of ērib-bīti priests, the intermediate area to that of the initiated priesthood, and the outer shell to that of the uninitiated priesthood. II.2. Application and election The procedure leading to initiation opened with a request addressed to the šatammu, the highest authority of cultic affairs at the local level. The application was filed by the candidate himself or by the person whose position he intended to take. In normal circumstances, a son followed in the footsteps of his father and the necessary prebendary title(s) were inherited accordingly, but titles could be conferred upon relative strangers by a number of strategies.44 AnOr 8 48 represents such a case and it is indicative that it was the former owner of the title who filed for initiation here. It was probably the responsibility of the priests to secure their own succession and guarantee the continuity of the cult. It still remains to be studied which strategies were followed when a position fell vacant for lack of a designated heir or suitable successor, but election of a candidate by co-optation of the temple authorities and pressure on surviving relatives seem to have been among the options. The request led to a formal investigation of the candidate’s suitability. Because not all access conditions could be read from the candidate’s body during the initiation ceremony in the bath-house, a preliminary investigation was staged by a kind of temple court. It is impossible to say whether this was standard procedure or a precautionary measure in case of doubt. Conceivably our sources are biased by their focus on the abnormal. The inquest was led by the šatammu or by a delegation of specialists who 44 Non-hereditary transfer of priestly titles was in most cases facilitated by existing kinship ties, often reinforced by adoption, see Wunsch 2003b: 201f. 18 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa reported their findings back to him. There is a tendency that complicated cases were decided by large bodies of specialists, even the entire assembly of prebendaries (kiništu; i.e. OIP 122 36), while less problematic cases were handled by the professional unit applied to (i.e. BM 82732/no. 1). If the court decided to elect the candidate, a standard phrase was uttered: PN ana gullubi ›ābi “PN is fit for initiation”.45 This phrase marked the end of the local election procedure, but not yet the beginning of the initiation ceremony because first royal permission had to be obtained. II.3. Royal confirmation The royal establishment carefully supervised the installation of priests. In PSBA 15, 417 four locally elected priests were presented to a royal commissioner with the request to grant permission to proceed with their consecration. Even though the four men applied for a minor cult, the tablet was sealed by two very important persons: the šatammu of Esaggila and the zazakku of the king. The šatammu’s presence is probably explained by the fact that the deity resided in Babylon, but the presence of the zazakku is more interesting. The zazakku was the most senior royal official charged with cultic affairs during the reign of Nabonidus46 and his presence indicates that the appointment of priests, even in the lower clergy, was a matter of the upmost importance that warranted the attention of one of the men closest to the king.47 It is of course well known that the king was actively involved in the recruitment of candidates to the country’s senior cultic positions. Most endowments of new priesthoods were initiated by the king (Da Riva/Frahm 1999: 161f.). In the NeoAssyrian letters SAA 10 nos. 96 and 97 the king was advised to consecrate a number of candidates to existing priesthoods, showing that he did not only have the last word in their installation but that he probably also participated in the ceremony. The high clergy was a royal delegation and as such it was exposed to the politics of the day.48 While the šatammu and his experts guarded the cultic regulations surrounding initiation, the king retained the right to confirm, promote or remove whomever he wanted. This right transpires most clearly from the fact that the advent of a new king was often accompanied by changes in the clergy. YOS 6 10 offers a very good example of this phenomenon. In this text Nabonidus, who had only recently been inaugurated, 45 See San Nicolò 1935: 26 on this phrase. Note that this phrase was in use in Uruk, Babylon and Borsippa. 46 Dandamaev 1994; Joannès 1994; MacGinnis 1996. 47 Note that also in Egypt priests were confirmed in their offices by the king or a royal representative; see for pharaonic times Sauneron 1957: 43ff., for Persian times Hughes 1984 and Grabbe 2006: 538, and for Graeco-Roman times Schönborn 1976: 17 and Lewis 1983: 92f. Taggar-Cohen 2006: 435 considers the Hittite priesthood as part of the royal administration. 48 On the dependency of the clergy on royal patronage and grace, see a.o. Sallaberger and Huber Vulliet 2005: 619, van Driel 2002: 55f., Kessler 2004: 250f. On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 19 ordered both the dismissal of old sacerdotal personnel and the consecration of new priests in the provincial city of Uruk.49 PSBA 15, 417 shows that not only the initiation of senior priests required the attention of the king or his government. Direct involvement of the royal establishment in these matters also transpires from AnOr 8 48 where a commissioner of the king assisted the šatammu during an inquiry into the suitability of a local candidate. This betrays a strong concern on the part of the king to keep track of elite formation in the provinces.50 In Persian times this form of elite control acquired a new dimension with the introduction of a kind of tax payable upon entry to the priesthood. This practice is attested in BM 79293 which records a payment of silver as a gift to the ša-muhhi bītāni “the person in charge of temples” for the consecration (gullubu) of a priest of Išhara.51 The same kind of payment to the ša-muhhi bītāni was made in VS 4 85.52 It is not clear whether the ša-muhhi bītāni was connected to the crown, to the temple, or to both.53 Part III: Control during office – the visits to the temple barbers Once in office, an essentially pure priest could be rendered temporarily or indefinitely unfit to serve the gods by a multitude of profaning influences. K. van der Toorn has discussed the various forms of pollution that could befall a person in the course of his lifetime such as eating prohibited food, touching contaminated substances and persons, and going about unwashed or in dirty clothes.54 Some of the purity requirements checked before and during the initiation ceremony (part I) could also be lost later in life as the result of an accident, a disease or criminal activity. In short, ritual purity could never have been had forever since it was under constant threat of the profanities of a priest’s daily life. This means that a test of purity at the threshold of office was not enough to guarantee his lasting ritual fitness. Texts deriving 49 Frame 1991: 55ff.; Beaulieu 1989: 118f. 50 Another way to look at this concern is from the point of view of the king’s safety and personal protection: as G. van Driel suggested (2002: 55), a sacerdotal post did not only yield access to the gods but also to the person of the king who participated in numerous rites, festivals and processions in provincial cult centres thoughout the year. 51 This text is cited by Baker 2004: 37. I would like to thank M. Jursa for providing me with a transcription of this tablet. Note that San Nicolò considered the possibility that new priests had to pay a kind of tax to the royal authorities upon initiation, for which he had an Egyptian parallel (1935: 28 with n. 2). See for the payment of a fee to the state by Roman Egyptian priests upon induction Wallace 1938: 249ff. 52 Baker 2004: 37 and 132 (no. 53). 53 A dignitary with this title was present at the Neo-Babylonian court (Jursa, forthcoming), but as “bītāni” can refer to temples as well as to the inner parts of the palace, it is not certain whether we are dealing with the same official. 54 Van der Toorn 1985: 29ff. and 1989: 345ff.; see also Stol 2002: 103ff. 20 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa from cult practice in the mid-first millennium BCE show that consecrated priests were regularly submitted to tests of cultic suitability in the course of their active careers. III.1. Regular visits to the temple barbers In our sources, the term gullubu “to shave” always refers to the initiation rite at the threshold of office or to the status resulting from it. The term is not used to describe routine acts of shaving performed in the course of office. Nonetheless, there is evidence that initiates regularly paid visits to the temple barbers and it is likely that these occasions fulfilled a similar function as the first visit to the bath-house. As Scheyhing observed, gullubu is not only an initiation rite but also an act of separation and of purification (1998: 73). During the rite the fit were visibly set apart from the unfit by shaving55 while at the same time purity was installed in them through a series of cleansing acts (washing and shaving). It makes little sense to mark the body of the fit by shaving if it is done only once. Moreover, the gullubu rite purified the priest’s body and guaranteed his safe mediation with the gods by separating his daily life from his cultic tasks; it should be desirable to maintain such a buffer throughout the priest’s active career in order to avert the risk of pollution. Evidence for regular visits to the barbers from the viewpoint of the initiated Regular visits to the temple barbers are indirectly attested in the paylists of the brewers and bakers of the Ezida temple in Borsippa.56 These lists record the payment of fees to temple personnel whose services were regularly used by the brewers and the bakers. Among the recipients we find for instance the measurers who weighed out the ingredients for the offerings, the persons who tended the temple ovens, the accountants who kept track of the sacrificial commodity flow, the gatekeepers who guaranteed the safety of the sanctuary, and many others. Among the persons on the paylists we also find the temple barbers (gallābu). Like other groups in the lists, they are mentioned both individually (i.e. BM 96169: 13 “[fee for] Guzānu, the barber (gal-la-bi), son of Rēmūt-Bābu”) and collectively (i.e. BM 28880: 3’, 10’: “upnātu-fee for the barbers (lúšu.i.meš)”). Fees paid to the barbers could cover several months (i.e. BM 96169) but also just one day (i.e. BM 28880). The appearance of the barbers in these paylists suggests that brewers and bakers made use of their services on a regular, even daily, basis. Because a single prebendary can be seen paying the fee multiple times, these visits can not have been identical to the initiation rite at the threshold of office. In the paylists, the names of those who dispensed the fees were meticulously recorded, suggesting that visits to the barbers only took place on the days of duty and that fees were paid accordingly. 55 For other outward signs of priestly status, see Sallaberger and Huber Vulliet 2005: 623. 56 A study of these paylists is in preparation. On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 21 Evidence for regular visits to the barbers from the viewpoint of the barbers UET 4 57 and 58 are copies of a collective work agreement between five temple barbers from late Achaemenid Ur. The agreement prohibits the members of the group to pursue their trade individually under penalty of the payment of a large silver fine. From the terms of the agreement, F. Joannès concluded that the barbers must have had access to a steady source of income – not only the major initiation rite at the threshold of office. This income, he suggested, could have resulted from regular, paid visits to the barbers by the initiated clergy.57 This suggestion is confirmed by the paylists from Ezida discussed above. III.2. The tasks of the temple barbers Temple barbers were prebendaries who exercised their profession on account of their ownership of sacerdotal titles that were the heritage of their particular families. The prebend as such (gallābūtu) is not documented outside of the work agreement from Ur discussed earlier (UET 4 57 and 58),58 but there is a letter from the Eanna archive (YOS 3 80) which shows that barbers drew pappasu, an income that places them firmly in the prebendary world.59 In addition to the pappasu, or perhaps as part of it, barbers received fees from their clients, as we have seen. Very few prosopographic details of actual barbers are available, but those we have show that the profession was dominated by families named after the trade.60 This pattern is more often observed in small priesthoods, such as the oxherds, oilpressers and reedworkers.61 Barbers did not only shave the initiates who entered the bath-house on their days of duty. UET 4 57 and 58 tell us that their trade consisted of “the art of shaving” (gallābūtu) and “the art of establishing well-formity” (ša-bānûtu). This second activity consisted of detecting signs of malformity or disease on the bodies of their clientele 57 Joannès 1995. 58 van Driel 2002: 113 n. 86 indicated that a second source about the barbers’ prebend went missing. I do not know what this source is, or in which publication it was referred to. 59 For pappasu as prebendary income see a. o. van Driel 2002: 92f. and 2005: 520. 60 The gallābūtu prebend in the text from Ur was owned by members of the Gallābu family. Guzānu/Rēmūt-Bābu, the barber who appears on the paylist of the bakers of Ezida (BM 96169: 13), also belonged to the Gallābu family (BM 26567: 21). 61 Some examples: the oxherds of Ezida belonged to the Rē’i-alpi (“Oxherd”) family; the reedworkers of Ezida belonged to the Atkuppu (“Reed-worker”) family (Waerzeggers 2005); many oilpressers of Ebabbar belonged to the ◊āhit-ginê (“Oilpresser”) family (Bongenaar 1997: 261ff.); the measurer’s prebend in Dilbat and Sippar was partly owned by members of the Mādidu (“Measurer”) family (VS 5 21; Bongenaar 1997: 290); and the rab-banûtu prebend in Uruk is often found in the hands of the Rab-banê family (Cocquerillat 1973: 111 and SpTU 4 222). On the relationship between family names and cultic offices, see more generally van Driel 2002: 65 with n. 43. 22 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa (Joannès 1995). UET 4 57 and 58 illustrate G. van Driel’s thesis that Mesopotamian priestly titles became increasingly specialist over time. In the late Achaemenid period the two areas of competence were explicitly specified, but the text about the Nippurite priesthood, which might date from the late 2nd millennium BCE (Borger 1973), shows that barbers were already conducting health check-ups on their clientele in that period. This last text also indicates that washing, in addition to shaving, was part of the ceremony in the bath-house. Washing is of course the purifying act par excellence, and there is evidence in the practical texts that it functioned as an essential precondition for doing service as a cultic functionary. The oxherd at word in BM 26480 and BM 82686 cited above, declared that he was unable to do service because he could not wash himself with water, among other reasons. Washing in this context should probably be seen as referring to the visit to the barbers officiating in the bath-house. Sallaberger and Huber Vulliet 2005: 621 also noted a certain overlap of the designations gullubu “shaven” and ramku “washed”. Conclusion Purity requirements shaped the Babylonian priesthood in a very real and concrete manner. All the levels of perfection expected of priestly candidates in the ritual texts were applied and tested in practice. Before the initiation rite (gullubu) could go ahead, substantial inquests were conducted into the candidate’s past and family in order to ensure his correct descent and moral behavior. In case of doubt, a temple court summoned witnesses and consulted written evidence to clarify these matters. Such courts did not busy themselves with the question whether the candidate’s body was pure, because a health check-up was scheduled as part of the initiation rite itself. The rite took place in the bath-house and was performed by the barbers and other cultic experts. Later in their professional lives, the priests continued to pay visits to the barbers to have their lasting fitness controlled. The combination of the inquests and the programme in the bathroom ensured that the temple authorities had enough time and opportunity to assure themselves of the ritual purity of their candidate. An important insight gained from the inquest texts is that not only cultic rules influenced this decision. Before a person could file for admission, he had to possess the sacerdotal title (prebend) attached to the position applied for. In addition, local elections had to be ratified by the king or a representative, which did not only prevent too much autonomy in these matters on the part of the temples, but also supplied the king with an excellent tool to control and shape the elites in the provinces. In view of the thoroughness of the inquests, by-passing cultic regulations in order to recruit priests outside of a designated circle of families seems impossible unless it was sanctioned by the king. Even a legal construct like adoption did not affect the need to physically descend from a former initiate. The obsessive concern with the candidate’s On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 23 mother in the inquest texts is borne out of this very need to secure paternal descent. On the other hand, some manoeuvring was allowed as the candidate’s father did not necessarily have to be an initiate of the profession applied for. This widens the circle in which recruits could be sought, but the number of candidates remained restricted nonetheless. The need to own the prebend and descend from an initiate at the same time explains the extremely strong ties that existed between families and their particular cultic heritage. On the other hand, it were these selfsame obligations that could cause despair if no suitable successors were availabe to take over the duties, as the dialogue texts of the oxherd family in Borsippa have shown to us. It is unavoidable that the access restrictions to cultic functions finally hit their own limitations and that positions fell vacant without the prospect of a suitable successor. Because the cult had to go on, there will have been solutions at hand to deal with such emergencies, but this is a topic that will need more study. Part of this article was devoted to the question which types of priests needed initiation. Based on conjectural evidence from Borsippa and a comparative study of practices in Egypt and ancient Israel, I arrived at the tentative conclusion that two types of priest needed to pass under the barbers’ razors to receive initiation: purveyors who had to enter the courtyard to deliver their materials for the sacrifial table, and ērib-bītis who had to enter the restricted area beyond the courtyard to reach the cult image. Part IV: Editions of texts No. 1. BM 82732 (94-7-17, 51) [Borsippa, ca. reign of Darius]; archive unassigned beginning of obverse broken off Obv. 1’. [PN a-šú šá Iìr]-dna-na-a a Igì[rII-ding]ir-ía 2’. Id[x-x] a-šú šá Idag-mu-ùru a Iki-din-d30 3’. Ii-de[n a-šú š]á Ire-mut a Iki-din-[d]30 4’. Isumna-dag a-šú šá Idag-dù-ùru a IgìrII-dingir-ía (one line blank) 5’. šá a-na Idag-tini› lúšà-tam é-zi-da i[q-bu-ú] 6’. um-ma Ilib-[lu]› a-šú šá Ire-mut a Ik[i-din-d30] 7’. šá Iden-dù dumu-šú a-na gu-ul-lu-bu [ x x ] 8’. a-na gu-ul-lu-bu ›a-a-bi Lo.E. 9’. Ini-din-tu4 a-šú šá Idag-gin-[x] 10’. a I[še]š-ú-tu iq-bi um-[ma] 11’. [fx-x]-a ama šá Iden-dù e[l?-let?] Rev. 12’. lúmu-kin-ni Idu.gur-tini› a-šú šá 24 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa 13’. Idag-mu-im-bi a Iki-din-d30 14’. Idag-tin-su-iq-bi a-šú šá Idag-mu-ùru 15’. a Iki-din-d30 Idag-šeš-it-[tan]-nu 16’. a-šú š[á Ir]e-mut a lú má.lah4 17’. Idag-en-dumu a-šú šá Išu a IgìrII-dingir-ía (one line blank) 18’. [lúumbisag PN a-šú] šá Išu-la-a rest of reverse broken off Translation: (1’) (beginning of text lost) [PN/Arad]-Nanāya/Šēpê-ilia, [PN]/Nabûšumu-u◊ur/Kidin-Sîn, Nā’id-Bēl/Rēmūt/Kidin-Sîn (and) Iddin-Nabû/Nabû-tabni-u◊ur/ Šēpê-ilia, who said the following to Nabû-uballi›, the šatammu of Ezida: “Liblu›/ Rēmūt/Kidin-Sîn, who [presented?] his son Bēl-ibni for consecration – he (Bēl-ibni) is fit for consecration. Nidintu/Nabû-mukīn-[x]/Ahūtu said: ‘f[x]-a, the mother of Bēlibni, is p[ure?]’.” (12’) Witnesses: Nergal-uballi›/Nabû-šumu-imbi/Kidin-Sîn, Nabûbalassu-iqbi/Nabû-šumu-u◊ur/Kidin-Sîn, Nabû-ahu-ittannu/Rēmūt/Mallāhu, Nabû-bēlmāri/Gimillu/Šēpê-ilia. (18’) [Scribe: PN]/Šulā[/FN] (end of text lost). Commentary: (1’) Arad-Nanāya is the only possible reconstruction of the patronymic in keeping with the onomastic practices of mid-first millennium BCE Borsippa. Three sons of an AradNanāya from the Šēpê-ilia family, not necessarily brothers, are attested between Dar 06 and Dar 16: Nabû-upahhir (BM 96132, EAH 254), Murašû (BM 96244) and Gimillu (VS 5 69). All these tablets record prebend-related transactions. (11’) The break at the end of the line is most unfortunate. It is not clear whether the SAL sign stands by itself (i.e. as a determinative of a female profession) or as part of a composite sign. In view of the parallel texts from Uruk (YOS 7 167 and OIP 122 36), I suggest to read el-let in the break (“she is pure”), although it can not be excluded that a female profession or status was intended here. Most persons involved in this inquiry belong to the Kidin-Sîn and Šēpê-ilia families. These families were prominent among the bakers of Ezida, which suggests that Bēlibni filed for initiation into this particular priesthood. At least one member of the committee (Iddin-Nabû/Nabû-tabni-u◊ur/Šēpê-ilia) and one witness (Nabû-bēlmāri/Gimillu/Šēpê-ilia) are actually attested as bakers (VS 6 125 and BM 29400), while Bēl-ibni’s father appears in a tablet concerning the bakers prebend of Šaddinnu of the Bēlija’u family (VS 5 124). The archival context of BM 82732 is not known. In view of the preceding remarks, it would make sense if the tablet were part of Šaddinnu’s archive, which is the only archive of a prebendary baker that survives from Borsippa, but this is extremely unlikely because the collection 94-7-17, to which the tablet belongs, was acquired On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 25 before the Bēlija’u archive appeared on the market (see Waerzeggers 2005: 346 n. 11). The approximate date of redaction of BM 82732 can be established on the basis of Nabû-uballi›’s (known) term of office as šatammu of Ezida: ca. Dar 08 (BM 102012) – ca. Dar 20 (BM 26491). No. 2. BM 87298 (no copy available) [Borsippa, ca. mid-Dar]; unassigned beginning of obverse broken off Id Obv. 1’. xx[ ] Id na 2’. en-sum a-šú šá Idag-mu-si.sá a Iegir.meš-[dingir.meš] lú 3’. ku4.é.meš šá dnin.líl a-na Idag-tini› lú 4’. šà-tam é.zi.da a-šú šá Idag-sumna 5’. a Iku-du-ra-nu iq-bu-ú um-ma I[x x x] 6’. a-šú šá Idag-šeš.meš-mu a lúsimug šá Ina-i’-id-den 7’. a-šú šá Ila-a-ba-ši-damar.utu a lúsimug 8’. en a-gur-ri-šú 2 silà ninda.hi.a 2 silà kaš.sag 9’. giš.šub.ba lúku4.é-ú-tu pa-ni Lo.E. 10’. dnin.líl a-na u4-mu ◊a-a-ta 11’. id-di-nu-uš a-na gu-ul-lu-bu Rev. 12’. i-na ugu ›a-a-bi lúmu-kin-ni 13’. Ina-i’-id-den a-šú šá Ila-a-ba-ši-[d]amar.utu 14’. a lúsimug na-di-na-nu giš.šub.ba [Ix]-x-x 15’. a-šú šá Idag-gin-numun a lúsimug Idag-mu?-[x] 16’. a-šú šá Idag-[ka]-◊ir a Isumna-dpap.sukkal 17’. Idag-gin-numun a-šú šá Ire-mut a Izálag-dpap.sukkal 18’. Isumna-dag a-šú šá Iki-na-a a lúsimug 19’. Idag-it-tan-nu a-šú šá Idag-mu-si.sá [a FN] 20’. Isumna-dag a-šú šá Id[x x a] lúšu.i rest of reverse broken off, left hand side uninscribed Translation: [(the names of several persons are lost)], Bēl-iddin/Nabû-šumu-līšir/ Arkāt-[ilāni], ērib-bītis of Ninlil, spoke to Nabû-uballi›/Nabû-iddin/Kudurrānu, the šatammu of Ezida, as follows: “[PN]/Nabû-ahhē-iddin/Nappāhu, to whom Nā’id-Bēl/ Lābāši-Marduk/Nappāhu, his bēl-agurri, gave in perpetuity 2 liters of bread (and) 2 liters of good quality beer, an ērib-bīti prebend before Ninlil – he is fit for initiation”. (12’) Witnesses: Nā’id-Bēl/Lābāši-Marduk/Nappāhu, the seller (donor) of the prebend, [PN]/Nabû-mukīn-zēri/Nappāhu, Nabû-šumu?-[x]/Nabû-kā◊ir/Iddin-Papsukkal, Nabûmukīn-zēri/Rēmūt/Nūr-Papsukkal, Iddin-Nabû/Kinā/Nappāhu, Nabû-ittannu/Nabûšumu-līšir[/FN], Iddin-Nabû/[PN/]Gallābu, [rest of reverse lost] 26 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa Commentary: (8') bēl-agurri: this word, literally “master of brick(s)”, is used in two more texts from Borsippa. In BE 8 35 a storeroom in Ezida (šutummu) is transferred by Nabûušebši/Marduk-šākin-šumi/Rē’i-alpi to Nabû-ē›ir-napšāti/Rē’i-alpi, “his bēl-agurri” (l. 7: en a-gur-ru-šú). In BM 26652 an oxherd prebend is transferred by Nabû-ahhēšullim/Nabû-šumu-u◊ur/Rē’i-alpi to Nabû-mukīn-zēri/Aplā/Rē’i-alpi, “his bēl-agurri” (l. 5: en a-gur-ru-šú). In all three texts the word is used to describe a relationship between relatives of the same paternal family who engaged in the transfer of temple property or sacerdotal titles. The “brick” of the title probably refers to the obligation resting on prebendaries to manufacture and deliver bricks to, or on behalf of, the temple.62 Prebendary associations organized themselves in units in order to divide the workload. The title bēl-agurri probably describes membership to such a unit of the brick impost. Because prebends broke down along family lines, such units must often have coincided with the wider family. It is however not clear why these texts refer to the brick units. Perhaps the transfer of property described in these texts originated in the existence of debts or arrears linked to the impost. For the inquest committee in BM 87298 there may have been a different kind of interest in the fact that the candidate and his predecessor belonged to the same brick unit. Membership to the unit implies that the candidate was at least legally of prebendary descent which would better his prospects to gain access to the gullubu rite. None of the parties involved (apart from the šatammu), nor any of the witnesses, is otherwise attested. For Nabû-uballi›, the šatammu of Ezida, see the commentary to BM 82732/no. 1. No. 3. BM 26513 (98-5-14, 331) Borsippa, Nbn 01-IX-02; Rē’i-alpi archive Obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Id ag-en-šú-nu a-šú šá Ida[g-numun]-gin a lúsipa.gud.me a-na Idag-gin-numun a-šú šá Iibilaa a lúsipa.gud.me šeš-š[ú k]i-a-am iq-bi um-ma dumu salnar-tu4 a-na-ku ul gu-ul-lu-ba-ka-ma man-za-la-ti-ia ul az-za-zu ù 20 mu.an.na.meš ad-ka man-za-la-ti-ni it-ta-áš-ši-iz en-na at-ta man-za-la-ti-ia i-ši-iz-zi-iz mim-ma ina giš.šub.ba-ia lu-uk-nu-ku-ma pa-ni-ka lu-šad-gil Idag-gin-numun Idag-en-šú-nu iš-me-e-ma 62 This impost, which is mainly known from private archives from Borsippa, has not yet received proper study. Some of the relevant material was discussed by Joannès 2000: 36f. I intend to return on this issue in the near future. On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Lo.E. 23. Rev. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 27 a-di u4-mu ma-la Idag-en-šú-nu bal-›u pu-ut ú-šu-uz-zu šá man-za-la-ti-ši(sic) iš(sic)-ši ù Idag-en-šú-nu a-šú šá Idag-numun-gin a lúsipa.gud.me ina hu-ud lìb-bi-šú i-na mu.an.na 4 u4-mu.meš giš.šub.ba lúsipa.gud.meš-ú-tu é.zi.da é dag iti šu ud.24.kam ud.25.kam itidu6 ud.24.kam ud.25.kam i-na giš.šub.ba-šú ik-nu-uk-ma a-na u4-mu ◊a-a-tú pa-ni Idag-gin-numun a-šú šá Iaa a lúsipa.gud.me šeš-šú ú-šad-gil mim-ma re-hi-a-ni ù gu-ra-a šá é-kur-ru šá ku-tal-lu šá a-di la imdub Id ag-en-šú-nu i-kan-na-ku-ma a-na Idag-gin-numun i-nam-di-nu ina ugu giš.šub.ba i-la-a Id ag-en-šú-nu ul-tu ram-ni-šú a-na é-kur-ru u›-›ar-ru a-na [la] šá-né-e niš dag u damar.utu dingir.meš-šú-nu iz-za-kar niš dag-na-i’-id lugal en-šú-nu iz-za-kar šá dib-bi an-nu-tu-ú šá-an-nu-ú d amar.utu u d◊ar-pa-ni-tu4 ha.a-šú liq-bu-ú __________________________________ ina ka-nak imdub mu.meš __________________________________ igi Idamar.utu-sur a-šú šá Idag-mu-dù a Iegir.me-dingir-sig 5 igi Idag-šeš.meš-gi a-šú šá Idag-gin-eduru a Izálag-dpap.sukkal igi Idag-dub-numun a-šú šá Idag-mu-ùru a lúsipa.gud.meš igi Ire-mut-dag a-šú šá Iaa a Iman-di-di igi [I]kar-dag a-šú šá Idag-eduru-mu a Iib-na-a-a igi Idag-šeš.meš-[gi] a-šú šá Idag-mu-ùru a lúsipa.gud.me igi Idag-kar-zi.me a-šú šá Ire-mut a Išá-la-la lú dub.sar Idag-tab-ni-ùru a-šú šá Idag-da a Iegir.me-dingir-sig5 bára.sipaki itigan ud.1.kam mu.2.kam Idag-na-i’-id lugal tin.tirki Translation: Nabû-bēlšunu/Nabû-[zēru]-ukīn/Rē’i-alpi spoke to Nabû-mukīn-zēri/Aplā/ Rē’i-alpi, his brother, as follows: “I am the son of an unmarried woman, I am not initiated and I do not perform my service; and for 20 years your father has performed our service. Now, you, do my service. I am prepared to seal and assign to you something of my prebend”. (9) Nabû-mukīn-zēri listened to Nabû-bēlšunu and, for as long as Nabû-bēlšunu will live, he will take over the responsibility to perform his service. 28 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa (12) And Nabû-bēlšunu/Nabû-zēru-ukīn/Rē’i-alpi voluntarily sealed and gave forever to his brother Nabû-mukīn-zēri/Aplā/Rē’i-alpi four days in the year of the oxherd prebend in Ezida, temple of Nabû: days 24 and 25 of month Du’ūzu (IV) and days 24 and 25 of month tašrītu (VII). (18) Whatever arrears and outstanding fees of the temple will arise on the prebend – dues dating from the time before Nabû-bēlšunu signed over the property deed to Nabû-mukīn-zēri – Nabû-bēlšunu must pay (these dues) himself. (24) He made an oath to Nabû and Marduk, their gods, that (this arrangement) will not change. (25) He made an oath to Nabonidus, the king, their lord. (27) May Marduk and Zarpanītu command the ruin of the person who changes this arrangement. (29) At the sealing of this tablet are present: Marduk-ē›ir/Nabû-šumu-ibni/Arkāt-ilāni-damqāt, Nabû-ahhē-šullim/Nabû-mukīn-apli/Nūr-Papsukkal, Nabû-šāpik-zēri/Nabû-šumu-u◊ur/ Rē’i-alpi, Rēmūt-Nabû/Aplā/Mādidu, Mušēzib-Nabû/Nabû-aplu-iddin/Ibnāja, Nabûahhē-[šullim]/Nabû-šumu-u◊ur/Rē’i-alpi, Nabû-ē›ir-napšāti/Rēmūt/Šalala. (37) Scribe: Nabû-tabni-u◊ur/Nabû-le’i/Arkāt-ilāni-damqāt. (38) Borsippa, Nbn 01-IX-02. Commentary: (3) The use of the kinship term “brother” is fictional: Nabû-bēlšunu and Nabû-mukīnzēri belonged to the same family but they were not brothers, at least not legally. For the meaning of nārtu as “unmarried woman”, see Wunsch 2003a: 5. (11) pūt … manzalti-ši iš-ši must be a mistake for pūt … manzaltīšu inašši “he will stand surety for doing his service”. (18) gu-ra-a: this word is unattested as far as I am aware. It could derive from the verb gerû “to fight, litigate”. In this context – in combination with rēhu (“rest, remainder”) – a meaning in the financial sphere (i.e. “due”) seems more fitting than a purely judicial one (i.e. “claim”). It is likely that the word refers to the fees that prebendaries had to pay to the temple treasury as their contribution to the costs incurred by the institution. Such fees are documented, among other texts, in the paylists of the brewers and bakers of Ezida referred to earlier in this article (part III.1). Part V: OIP 122 36 by Michael Jursa Another reference to the shaving of the head in the context of prebendary service can be found in the recently published tablet OIP 122, 36. The text contains valuable new information, but also an unusual number of philological problems, not all of which can be attributed to the tablet’s imperfect state of preservation. It will be attempted to achieve a coherent and satisfactory interpretation of the text, but some doubts will remain. The text starts with a list of witnesses, in whose presence the šatammu of Eanna, [Nidinti-B]ēl, son of Nabû-mukīn-[zēri of the Dābi]bī family (line 1´f., reading after collation), interrogates (iš-’-a-lu) fInqāya, daughter of Mušallim-Marduk, [wife of On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 29 Ištar]-nādin-apli, son of Ištar-šumu-ēreš of the Ekur-zākir family. The continuation is as follows: [x x x x63] [**dumu]**-ú-ka ina pa-ni dgašan šá unugki ú-gal-la-bi i-ba-áš-ši-i [**lu-ú zi*?]**-[i-bu] [**i]**-na ti-ik iš-šu-ú mim-mu ni-di šá la e-le-li-ka ina ukkin qí-bi-in-na-šú míin-qa-a taq-bi um-ma Id15-na-din-ibila míba-tul*-tu4 a-na dam-ú-tu ir-ta-šá-an-na [**ad*-ú*-a ù ama*-a*]** zi-ba-a-ta i-na gú-ia ul id-du-ú ár-ki (four men) 10´ … lúdumu.dù-i šá ›è-e-m[e] šá míin-qa-a dam Idinanna-na-din-ibila [**la*-an*-du*]** ù míi-lat-a dumu. munus-su šá Ipir-’u dumu Imu-dpab.sukkal dam Idinanna-na-din-ibila mah-ri-tu4 i-na <<i-na>> d en u dag d gašan šá unugki u dna-na-a niš dingir iz-ku-ru ki-i mim-mu šá ru-uh-hu zi-zu[**uš]** ni-di ù la e-le-li šá míin-qa-a dumu.munus.a.ni šá Igi-damar.utu dam 15´ Id15-na-din-ibila ni-mu-ru ni-iš-mu-ú ni-du-ú ù še-ma-ku-n[u]* la mísal-lu-ha-tu4 ši-i 4´ 5´ The text concludes with the name of the scribe and the date, 26.12.3 Cyrus. “‘[PN], your son, is to be consecrated for service before the Lady of Uruk. Now shouldn’t there definitely be a zību-ornament on (his) neck? If there has been any claim of impurity raised against you, tell us so in the assembly.’ fInqāya said as follows: Ištar-nādin-apli has taken me for his wife as a virgin, but my father and my mother have not placed zību-ornaments on my neck.’ Later, (four men), who had made enquiries regarding fInqāya, the wife of Ištar-nādin-apli, and Ilatā, the daughter of Pir’u of the Iddin-Papsukkal family, the first wife of Ištar-nādin-apli, swore an oath by Bēl and Nabû (and) by the Lady of Uruk and Nanāya: ‘Certainly nothing special has been given to her as a share, (and) we definitely have not seen, heard, come to know nor heard rumours about a query (regarding), or impurity pertaining to, Inqāya, daughter of Mušallim-Marduk, wife of Ištar-nādin-apli. She is definitely a sallūhatu-woman.’ ” Philological commentary 4´: Add UET 4, 191: 17 and BIN 1, 92: 8 to the attestations of the rare use of ibašši, or rather, interrogative ibaššī, as “certainly” (following Weisberg 2003: 64) quoted in CAD B. The closest parallel to this passage known to me can be found in TCL 13, 181, likewise from the Eanna archive. The brother of the notorious rent-farmer Gimillu is 63 Note that the indication of the size of most of the gaps in Weisberg’s copy is somewhat inaccurate. 30 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa being interrogated: i-ba-áš-ši-i ú-ìl-tìme šá zú.lum.ma ù he-pi (read: še.bar) zag a.šàme níg.ga dgašan šá unugki ù dna-na-a i-na pa-ni-ka i-ba-áš-ši-i lu-ú a-šar šak-kan te-de-e “there must certainly be promissory notes for dates and break (read: barley), the impost on the fields belonging to the Lady of Uruk and Nanaja, under your care; or do you know where they have been put?” 5´: we take zību (or zibû, or possibly zībtu; a little more of zi is visible on the tablet than in Weisberg’s copy) to be a possibly cumin-shaped stone or ornament worn around the neck; cf. Weisberg 2003: 65, who refers i.a. to mB zi-ba-a-ti, made of gold. The word has been posited as masculine, with a feminine plural (see 7´), following CAD Z, 107, because it is taken up by the masculine predicative pronoun iššū.64 The verb iššû (< našû) cannot be read into these signs since lū indicates that we are dealing with a nominal sentence.65 It is furthermore possible, even likely, given the context, that whatever form one posits for the word in the singular, it will have to be connected also with zibtu, possibly a type of conch, which was frequently worn in amulet chains (Oppenheim 1963: 411; Röllig 1993-97: 451).66 Importantly, the zibtu conch a late mythological explanatory text (Livingstone 1986: 175ff.) which correlates various objects, stones and plants with different gods. These things are typically used in rituals, so this compendium may be a kind of commentary to such a text. Here, na4zi-bit is equated with Ninlil: the association with an important goddess would fit the probable symbolic function of the object in our text very well, as we shall see. nīdu: also this rare word has been discussed by Weisberg (2003: 64f.). The general meaning of “query, objection, claim” or the like seems certain.67 It is to be connected with the use of nadû in the sense of “to accuse” (CAD N/1, 88). 64 See e.g. YOS 21, 108 (NCBT 27): en-na a-mur it-tal-ku ù ina É-šú iš-šu-ú “now look, he went away and is (now) in his house.” 65 Unless of course the syntagma here is an abbreviation of the construction found in TCL 13, 181 citied above: “… is to be consecrated. Isn’t that so (ibašši_), or (lu_) have they taken the z.object from (his) neck?” (lu_ “or” is not too frequent, but it does occur in NB letters and contracts [see YOS 3, 76: 13]). Since interrogative ibašši_ is is not used independently anywhere else, the translation given in the main text seems preferable. But the gist of the text would not be essentially different if the other alternative were correct, since the third person plural would have to be taken as a circumlocution of a passive sentence. The issue would still be the absence of the expected zi_bu object. 66 I am grateful to Anais Schuster for pointing out to me several references relating to this word, including Livingstone 1986. Conchs and shells are frequently found as part of necklaces in NeoBabylonian burials in Uruk: Salje 1995: 43ff., e.g. 45 no. 92. 67 Contrary to CAD N/2, 211 (and in accordance with the opinion of Oppenheim, San Nicolò and Petschow cited there), another attestation of the noun is found in AnOr 8: 19. In this text, the seller of some slaves and a guarantor swear as follows: ki_ ame_luttu šá ni-du ana PN niddinu. Surely this cannot mean “we have certainly not sold slaves known to us to PN”, as the interpretation of CAD would suggest, while “we have not sold slaves regarding which a claim has been raised” makes perfect sense. The passage in Strassmaier Liverpool 19 cited by Peschow and the CAD is probably to be read pu_t e?-›e-[**ri¬? … On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 31 8´: nadû refers to the placing of the z.-objects on fInqāya’s neck, not to their removal (contra Weisberg 2003: 65).68 The removal of necklaces and the like is expressed by našû (see e.g. YOS 7, 61). 13´: as the stative zīzu indicates, this surely refers to a division of an estate, probably that left behind (râhu D) by fInqāya’s parents, at which occasion she, as a married woman, could not expect to be given anything, certainly nothing ‘special’, or valuable (see CAD R, 407 for ruhhu “select”), as a zību/zibtu object would have been. 15´: še-ma-ku-n[u] is a hybrid form, a combination of the stative of the first person singular and of the first person plural, to express the latter. The whole passage is paralleled by an oath formula in BM 114525 (Eanna archive; transliteration courtesy E.E. Payne who will publish the text in the near future): ki-i … ni-du-ú še-ma-ku-nu-ma ni-mu-ru ni-iš-mu-ú … “we certainly do not know …, nor have we heard rumours, nor have we seen or heard …”. 16´: the witnesses state that fInqāya is a known sallūhatu woman.69 This hitherto unknown word – which may have to be posited as *sallūhtu – is also attested in the unpublished letter NCBT 6 70 written by (the šatammu of Eanna) Nabû-mukīn-apli to (the bēl piqitti) Nabû-ahu-iddin; the text dates roughly to the second half of the reign of Cyrus or to the reign of Cambyses. After the initial salutation, the letter runs as follows: 6 10. Rs. sal-lu-h[a]-ti šá bi-ta-nu ma-›a-a4 mí muh-[**hu?]**-[tú] DUMU.MUNUS-s[u] šá IdAMAR.UT[U-x x] a-na bi-[**ta]**-[nu?] ta-as-ru-qu (end of the text) 8) One could also read ma-da-a4, but both orthographically and in view of the continuation, a derivation from ma û seems indicated. 9) The reading of the name – it must be a name, not a professional designation, “woman ecstatic” – is not entirely certain. 68 Note the unfortunately damaged passage in the Eanna letter Durand, DCEPHE 436 (addressed to the ›upšar bi_ti by an unidentifiable man): mah-ru-ú a-ki-i pi-i šá PN1 u PN2 ta-ad-du-ka-an-ni en ki-i ih-ru-◊a šá ina ti-ik-ki-ia id-[**du¬-[ú … (continuation lost) “first you have killed me, following what PN1 and PN2 said; (now), as my lord ascertained what they had placed on my neck […]” The reference to something having been placed on the sender’s neck can refer to a concrete, physical fact or can be a metaphor. 69 And not the opposite, pace Weisberg. The statement is part of the oath, hence the negation gives the phrase a positive meaning. 70 Cited with kind permission of B. Foster and U. Kasten. It will be published as YOS 21, 85. 32 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa 13) The preterite has a volitive function here. sarāqu “to sprinkle (flour)” occurs only infrequently in Neo-Babylonian archival texts. It is attested in the Eanna archive for instance in TEBR 56: 6. See also BM 25650 (Borsippa,18 Dar): silver ša sarāqi ša Ištar Bābili is owed to a woman, and CT 51, 64: 12 (Esangila archive, mentioned alongside of other forms of offerings). “There are not enough s.-women for the inner temple precinct. fMuhhû[tu?], the daughter of Marduk-[…], should work as a sprinkler for the inner temple precinct.” The inference from this text is that sallūhātu-women had a cultic funtion within the bītānu which probably involved the sprinkling of flour – hardly surprising, given the obvious derivation of the word from salāhu “to sprinkle (etc.)”. As in some of the texts discussed above, the principal issue under discussion in OIP 122, 36 is a woman’s ‘purity’ – or lack thereof – in as far as it was relevant for the possibility of her son being admitted to the circle of prebendaries. fInqāya certainly did not come from an ‘upper-class’ (prebendary) family, she may even have been a širkatu (as her father does not bear a patronymic); in any case, her status was lower than that of her husband’s first wife, fIlatā. Neither this nor the fact that fInqāya was a second wife seems to have disqualified her son from being consecrated; in fact, the question of f Inqāya’s status seems to play no role in the matter discussed in the tablet. The argument for the reading and interpretation proposed here is based primarily on the completely preserved passage in lines 6´-9´. In response to a query relating to her son’s envisaged consecration for prebendary service, which also mentions something “on the neck” and possible doubts regarding her own ‘purity’, fInqāya states to have been a batultu at the time of her marriage to Ištar-nādin-apli and not to have had zību or zibtu objects placed on her neck by her parents. Clearly, it is these objects which are at issue in 5´. In the context of this passage, which first introduces fInqāya’s son, it is more likely that it is his neck rather than hers where a z.-object was supposed to be present. The implication of fInqāya’s statement seems to be that marriage as a batultu, with parental consent, would normally have entailed the gift of z.-objects to her by her parents at least one of which, in the light of 5´, was expected to be passed on to the bride’s son. This makes the z. appear as an object somehow linked symbolically to marriage and perhaps to the maternal line. It might conceivably signify legitimacy of descent in that it was an object passed on from the parents of the mother to the mother on the occasion of her legally recognised marriage. In this respect the association of the zibtu conch with Ninlil in the explanatory text quoted above seems relevant. This assumption is also supported to a certain extent by the witnesses’ statement. This is clearcut as far as their denial of any knowledge of a claim of impurity with respect to f Inqāya is concerned. The passage about the lack of any property transfer, judging from the terminology, in an inheritance-related context, probably again implicitly refers to On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 33 the z.-object(s): fInqāya demonstrably had not received anything valuable from her parents, hence she could not be blamed for the fact that her son had no z. She would also seem to be exonerated by the witnesses’ final assertion regarding her acting as a sallūhatu – a cultic function which most likely required a certain degree of ‘purity’ as well. Bibliography Assmann, J. 1994 “Le temple égyptien et la distinction entre le dedans et le dehors”, in Ph. Borgeaud (ed.) Le temple, lieu de conflit. (Les Cahiers du CEPOA 7) Leuven, p. 13-33. Baker, H.D. 2004 The Archive of the Nappāhu family. (AfO Bh. 30) Vienna. Beard, M. and J. North 1990 (eds) Pagan Priests. Religion and Power in the Ancient World. London. Beaulieu, P.-A. 1989 The Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon 556-539 B.C. New Haven/London. Berquist, J.L. 2002 Controlling Corporeality. The Body and the Household in Ancient Israel. New Brunswick. Blackman, A.M. (ed. A.B. Lloyd) 1998 Gods, Priests and Men. Studies in the Religion of Pharaonic Egypt by Aylward M. Blackman Compiled and Edited with an Introduction by Alan B. Lloyd. London/New York. Bongenaar, A.C.V.M. 1997 The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and Its Prosopography. Istanbul. Borger, R. 1973 “Die Weihe eines Enlil-Priesters”, BiOr 30, p. 163-176. Cocquerillat, D. 1973 “Recherches sur le verger du temple campagnard de l’Akītu (KIRI6 hallat)”, WdO 7, p. 96-134. Dandamaev, M.A. 1994 “The Neo-Babylonian zazakku”, AoF 21, p. 34-40. Da Riva, R. and E. Frahm, 1999 “Šamaš-šumu-ukīn, die Herrin von Ninive und das babylonische Königssiegel”, AfO 46/47, p. 156-182. Dieleman, J. 2002 “Rituele reinheid in het oude Egypte”, Phoenix 48, p. 63-73. Douglas, M. 1966 Purity and Danger. An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York. van Driel, G. 1998 “Care of the Elderly: the Neo-Babylonian Period”, in M. Stol and S.P. Vleeming (eds) The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East. Leiden, p. 161-197. van Driel, G. 2002 Elusive Silver. In Search of a Role for a Market in an Agrarian Environment. Aspects of Mesopotamia’s Society. Istanbul. van Driel, G. 2005 “Pfründe”, in RlA Bd. 10, p. 518-524. Dunand, F. and Chr. Zivie-Coche, 2004 Gods and Men in Egypt 3000 BCE to 395 CE. Ithaca/ London. Falkenstein, A. 1959 “Zwei Rituale aus seleukidischer Zeit”, UVB 15, p. 36-44. Fleming, D.E. 1992 The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar. (Harvard Semitic Studies 42) Atlanta. Frame, G. 1991 “Nabonidus, Nabû-šarra-u◊ur and the Eanna Temple”, ZA 81, p. 37-86. Gee, J. 2004 “Prophets, Initiation and the Egyptian Temple”, JSSEA 31, p. 97-107. George, A.R. 2003 The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. Oxford. Grabbe, L.L. 2006 “The ‘Persian Documents’ in the Book of Ezra: Are They Authentic?”, in O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (eds), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Winona Lake, p. 531-570. 34 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa Grieshammer, R. 1984 “Kultische Reinheit”, in W. Helck and E. Otto (eds) Lexikon der Ägyptologie Bd. 5. Wiesbaden, p. 212-213. Haas, V. 1994 Geschichte der hethitischen Religion. Leiden. Harlow, M. and R. Laurence 2002 Growing Up and Growing Old in Ancient Rome. A Life Course Approach. London/New York. Holma, H. 1945 “Zum akkadischen Wörterbuch. 11. Die äusserlichen Voraussetzungen bzw. Irregularitäten des babylonischen Priesterkandidaten”, Or 14, p. 242-254. Hughes, G. R. 1984 “The So-called Pherendates Correspondence”, in H.J. Thissen and K.Th. Zauzig (eds) Grammata demotika. Festschrift für Erich Lüddeckens zum 15. Juni 1983. Würzburg, p. 7586. Joannès, F. 1994 “A propos du zazakku à l’époque néo-babylonienne”, NABU 1994/103. Joannès, F. 1995 “Lépreux fantomes?”, NABU 1995/20. Joannès, F. 2000 “Relations entre intérêts privés et biens des sanctuaires à l'époque néobabylonienne”, in A.C.V.M. Bongenaar (ed.), Interdependency of Institutions and Private Entrepreneurs. (MOS Studies 2) Istanbul, p. 25-41. Johnston, S.I. 2004 (ed.) Religions of the Ancient World. A Guide. Cambridge MA. Jursa, forthcoming “Der neubabylonische Hof,” in B. Jacobs (ed) Der Achämenidenhof (to appear in the series Oriens et Occidens in 2008) Kessler, K. 1991 Die Archive der Söhne des Bēl-ušallim, des Nabû-ušallim und des Bēl-supê-muhur. (AUWE 8) Mainz am Rhein. Kessler, K. 2004 “Urukäische Familien versus babylonische Familien. Die Namengebung in Uruk, die Degradierung der Kulte von Eanna und der Aufstieg des Gottes Anu”, AoF 31, p. 237-262. Kruchten, J.-M. 1989 Les annales des prêtres de Karnak (XXI-XXIIImes dynasties) et autres textes contemporains relatifs à l'initiation des prêtres d'Amon. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 32) Leuven. Kümmel, H.M. 1979 Familie, Beruf und Amt im spätbabylonischen Uruk. Prosopografische Untersuchungen zu Berufsgruppen des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. In Uruk. Berlin. Lambert, W.G. 1967 “Enmeduranki and Related Matters”, JCS 21 (1967), 126-138. Lambert, W.G. 1998 “The Qualifications of Babylonian Diviners”, in S.M. Maul (ed.) Festschrift für Rykle Borger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Mai 1994. (Cuneifrom Monographs 10) Groningen, p. 141-158. Lewis, N. 1983 Life in Egypt under Roman Rule. Oxford. Livingstone, A. 1986 Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. Oxford. MacGinnis, J. 1996 “A further note on the zazakku”, NABU 1996/29. MacGinnis, J. 1999 “Additional Prebend Texts from the British Museum”, AoF 26, p. 3-12. Margueron, J.-Cl. 1994 “L’organisation architecturale du temple oriental: les modalités de la rencontre du profane et du sacré”, in Ph. Borgeaud (ed.) Le temple, lieu de conflit. (Les Cahiers du CEPOA 7) Leuven, p. 35-59. de Martino, S. 2004 “Purità dei sacerdoti e dei luoghi di culto nell’Anatolia ittita,” Or 73, p. 348-362. Meeks, D. 1975 “Pureté et purification en Egypte”, in Supplément au dictionnaire de la bible IX, p. 430-452. Miller, P.D. 2000 The Religion of Ancient Israel. London/Louisville. Olyan, S.M. 2004 “Religious Personnel. Israel”, in S. I. Johnston (ed.) Religions of the Ancient World. A Guide. Cambridge MA, p. 296-298. Oppenheim, A.L. 1963 “Mesopotamian Conchology”, Or 32, p. 407-12. Robinson, Ch.F. 2005 “Neck-Sealing in Early Islam”, JESHO 48, p. 401-441. Röllig, W. 1993-97 “Muscheln”, RlA Bd. 8, p. 450-2. On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 35 Salje, B. 1995 “Neu- /spätbabylonische Zeit”, in R.M. Boehmer et al., Uruk. Die Gräber (AUWE 10). Mainz, p. 34-135. Sallaberger, W. and F. Huber Vulliet 2005, “Priester I. A. Mesopotamien”, in RlA Bd. 10, p. 617-640. San Nicolò, M. 1934 “Parerga Babylonica XII. Einiges über Tempelpfründen (isqu) und hmerai leitourgikai in Eanna”, ArOr 6, p. 179-202. San Nicolò, M. 1935 “Parerga Babylonica XVI. Nochmals zum gullubu von Pfründeninhabern in den neubabylonischen Tempeln”, ArOr 7, p. 25-28. Sauneron, S. 1957 Les prêtres de l’ancienne Egypte. Paris. Sauneron, S. 1962 “Les conditions d’accès à la fonction sacerdotale à l’époque gréco-romaine”, Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale 61, p. 55-57. Scheyhing, H. 1998 “Das Haar in Ritualen des alten Mesopotamien. Der Umgang mit Haar im Bereich von Religion und Kult”, WdO 29, p. 58-79. Schönborn, H.B. 1976 Die Pastophoren im Kult der ägyptischen Götter. Hain. Seidl, T. 2006 “Rein und unrein”, in M. Görg and B. Lang (eds) Neues Bibel-Lexikon Bd. III. Düsseldorf/Zürich, p. 315-319. Stol, M. 2002 “Reinheid in Mesopotamië”, Phoenix 48, p. 103-107. Taggar-Cohen, A. 2006 Hittite Priesthood. Heidelberg. van der Toorn, K. 1985 Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia. Assen/Maastricht. van der Toorn, K. 1989 “La pureté rituelle au Proche-Orient ancien”, Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 206, p. 339-356. te Velde, H. 1995 “Theology, Priests, and Worship in Ancient Egypt”, in J. Sasson (ed.) Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. New York, p. 1731-1749. Waerzeggers, C. 2001 Het archief van Marduk-remanni. (unpublished PhD Ghent University) Waerzeggers, C. 2005 “The Dispersal History of the Borsippa Archives”, in H. D. Baker and M. Jursa (eds) Approaching the Babyonian Economy. Proceedings of the START Project Symposium Held in Vienna, 1-3 July 2004. Münster, p. 343-363. Wallace, S.L. 1938 Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian. Princeton. Weisberg, D.B. 2003 Neo-Babylonian Texts in the Oriental Institute Collection. (Oriental Institute Publications Vol. 120) Chicago. Westenholz, J.G. “Religious Personnel. Mesopotamia”, in Johnston 2004: 292-296. Wright, D.P. 1992 “Unclean and Clean. Old Testament”, in D.N. Freedman et al (eds) The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. 6. New York, p. 729-741. Wunsch, C. 2003a Urkunden zum Ehe-, Vermögens- und Erbrecht aus verschiedenen neubabylonischen Archiven. Dresden. Wunsch, C. 2003b “Findelkinder und Adoption nach neubabylonischen Quellen”, AfO 50, p. 174244. 36 Tablets Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests 37 38 Caroline Waerzeggers – Michael Jursa

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests, Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14 (2008), 1-38. (With a contribution by Michael Jursa)

On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests, Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14 (2008), 1-38. (With a contribution by Michael Jursa)

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS