(Culture and History of The Ancient Near East 51) Jonathan S. Tenney-Life at The Bottom of Babylonian Society - Servile Laborers at Nippur in The 14th and 13th Centuries B.C.-briLL (2011)

Life at the Bottom of Babylonian Society
Culture and History of the

Ancient Near East
Founding Editor
M.H.E. Weippert
Editor-in-Chief
Thomas Schneider
Editors
Eckart Frahm
W. Randall Garr
B. Halpern
Theo P.J. van den Hout
Irene J. Winter
VOLUME 51
The titles published in this series are listed at: www.brill.nl/chan

Life at the Bottom of
Babylonian Society
Servile Laborers at Nippur in the

14th and 13th Centuries B.C.
By
Jonathan S. Tenney
LEIDEN • BOSTON
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2011
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Tenney, Jonathan S.
Life at the bottom of Babylonian society : servile laborers at Nippur in the 14th and 13th
centuries, B.C. / by Jonathan S. Tenney.
p. cm. -- (Culture and history of the ancient Near East, ISSN 1566-2055 ; v. 51)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-20689-2 (hbk. : alk. paper) 1. Working class--Iraq--Nippur (Extinct city)-
-History. 2. Labor--Iraq--Nippur (Extinct city)--History. 3. Social status--Iraq--Nippur
(Extinct city)--History. 4. Families--Iraq--Nippur (Extinct city)--History. 5. Nippur (Extinct
city)--Population--History. 6. Nippur (Extinct city)--History--Sources. 7. Nippur (Extinct
city)--Social conditions. 8. Nippur (Extinct city)--Economic conditions. 9. Babylonia--Social
conditions. 10. Babylonia--Economic conditions. I. Title.
HD4844.T46 2011
305.5’620935--dc22
2011011313
ISSN 1566-2055
ISBN 978-90-04-20689-2
Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV

provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
CONTENTS
Preface �� ix
List of Examples �� xi
List of Figures �� xiii
List of Tables �� xv
List of Abbreviations �� xvii
Selected Rulers of Kassite Babylonia �� xxi
Chapter One. Servile Laborers in a Favored Province�� 1

Introduction �� 1
Prior Work �� 2
Current Approach �� 5
Chapter Two. Sources �� 7

Process of Selection �� 7
Terminology �� 9
Simple Rosters �� 14
Inspections �� 15
Transfers of Personnel �� 18
Summaries �� 20
Undetermined �� 22
Remarks �� 23
Ration Rosters �� 23
Barley or Oil Allocations as Rations (šE.BA and Ì.BA)
to Persons and Families (for Periods of Six Months
or Less?) �� 25
Barley Allocations as Rations (šE.BA) to Persons
Divided into Tenēštu Groups by Occupation
(Period Undetermined) �� 25
Barley Allocations for Various Purposes to Animals
and Humans by Location outside of Nippur
(Period Undetermined) �� 26
Barley Allocations as Rations (šE.BA) and Date
Allocations to Persons for Periods of More Than
Six Months �� 27
vi contents
Ration Allocation Summaries for Groups in a

Single Location, Including a Numerical
Personnel Census �� 27
Remarks �� 31
Purchases of Personnel �� 31
Purchases of Personnel in Groups �� 31
Purchases of Single Individuals �� 32
Miscellaneous Texts �� 34
Concluding Remarks on Sources �� 36
Chapter Three. Population: Sex, Age, Death, and Health �� 37
The Data Base �� 37
The Data and Their Limitations �� 39
Problems of Preservation and Access �� 41
Chronology of the Statistical Corpus �� 42
Problem of Personal Name Repetition �� 43
Groups as Recorded: A Caution �� 47
Descriptive Statistics for the Worker Population �� 47
The Entries �� 48
Males and Females �� 48
Demography, Statistics, and the Sex Ratio �� 50
Young versus Old �� 53
Sex Ratio by Sex and Age Classification �� 56
The Dead (Úš, BA.Úš, and IM.Úš) �� 58
The Blind (NU.IGI, IGI.NU.GÁL, and NU) �� 60
The Ill (GIG) �� 62
Travelers (KASKAL) �� 62
Concluding Remarks on Population �� 63
Chapter Four. Family and Household �� 65

The Families of BE 14 58 and Related Documents �� 65
Identification of Family Units within the Text Corpus �� 71
The Household �� 76
Comparisons with Other Premodern Societies �� 82
Slaves and Households �� 83
The Conjugal Family Unit �� 84
Conjugal Family Size and Composition �� 85
Single Mothers �� 86
Polygyny �� 88
contents vii
Death and Marriage �� 90

Conclusions on Family and Household �� 91
Chapter Five. Work, Flight, Origins, and Status �� 93

Organization of the Servile Labor Pool �� 94
Tasks and Occupations of the Workers �� 98
Administration and Supervision of Workers �� 102
Flight and Diminution of the Working Population �� 104
Identification of Escapees in the Texts (ZÁḪ or ḫ alāqu) �� 105
The Meaning of ḫ alāqu (ZÁḪ ) �� 106
Basic Statistics on Runaways �� 107
Circumstances of Flight �� 111
Escape as a Cause of Work-Force Depletion �� 113
Recapture and Reassignment �� 115
Confinement: Prisons and Fetters �� 118
The šandabakku and the King �� 120
Origins and Civil Status �� 121
Origins �� 121
Civil Status �� 129
Concluding Remarks on Work, Origins,
and Status �� 132
Chapter Six. The Servile Work Force in Local and National

Perspective �� 135
Population Size and Proportion �� 136
Nippur in its Spatial Context �� 138
Nippur in National Context �� 140
Future Research �� 144
Appendix One. Selected Households from Middle Babylonian

Sources �� 147
Households �� 151
Appendix Two. Size and Composition of Select Mobile

Work Groups �� 211
Size and Composition of Select Mobile Work
Groups (Table) �� 213
viii contents
Appendix Three. Sex and Age Classification of Attested

Occupations in Middle Babylonian Rosters �� 229
Select Bibliography �� 233

List and Index of Cuneiform Sources �� 245
General Index �� 253
Index of Select Akkadian Words and Logograms�� 266
PREFACE
The initial draft of this book was written in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University
of Chicago. The topic was first suggested by J. A. Brinkman, who served
as the chairman of the dissertation committee and presented me with
an initial list of texts and notes. The depth of his knowledge on the
Kassite Period is without peer, and his assistance during the genesis of
the manuscript was invaluable. It was an honor to study under him,
and it would be impossible to return his kindness and understanding.
I am proud to call him a friend. Professors Matthew Stolper and
Stephan Palmié also served on the dissertation committee, and
I would like to thank them for their interest and comments. Revision
and expansion of the initial manuscript into its final form was done
while I served in positions at Loyola University New Orleans and the
Center for Identity Formation at the University of Copenhagen. I am
very grateful to both institutions for their support.
During several visits in the 1970s, Professor Brinkman was able to
study the unpublished Middle Babylonian tablets from Nippur kept in
the collections of the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul, and he pro-
vided me with transliterations and notes for the Ni. tablets that appear
in this work. The transliterations of these texts are provisional, and
many of these readings may be improved once the documents become
available for further study.
I would like to express my gratitude to the faculty of the Department
of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations of the University of
Chicago, particularly to Walter Farber and McGuire Gibson for their
past and continued support. I wish also to thank Profs. Wolfgang
Heimpel, Mogens Trolle Larsen, and John Nielsen, who each read and
commented upon drafts of this work. Roger S. Bagnall, whose research
with Bruce W. Frier has set a high standard for ancient population
studies, was of considerable help in puzzling out some of the more dif-
ficult aspects of the quantitative data that appears in the following
pages. I would also like to acknowledge the humor and friendship pro-
vided by Hratch Papazian, which proved invaluable during the final
stages of the writing process.
x preface
I must recognize the assistance of the Division of the Humanities of

the University of Chicago, the Elisabeth and A. Leo Oppenheim
Scholarship Fund, the Doolittle Harrison Fellowship, and my gracious
friend Elisabeth Lanzl. Additional financial support was given by The
American Academic Institute of Iraq (TAARII), who selected me as a
fellow in 2009 and funded most of the research costs incurred since the
approval of the dissertation. I extend my sincerest thanks to Barry
Eichler, Grant Frame, Erle Leichty, and Steve Tinney of the Babylonian
Section of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology for allowing me access to its collection of Middle
Babylonian tablets. Ilona Zsolnay also provided considerable help
while I was working in the Section in 2010–11.
The unpublished documents held by the University of Pennsylvania
Museum that were used for this study are scheduled to be published by
this author in a future Brill volume.
The family is a deep well of strength to which the new author may
always return for aid. Therefore, my final thanks go to my two brothers
and their wives and especially to Alison Whyte for her steadfast kind-
ness, support, and understanding.
This book is dedicated to my mother, Susan, to whom I owe every-
thing. Like her, the texts in this study exemplify the struggles of single
mothers, past and present.
Jonathan S. Tenney
København, Danmark
May 18, 2011
LIST OF EXAMPLES
1. An Example of Standard Inspection Phraseology

(Full Form) �� 16
2. Excerpt from Inspection Text Ni. 1348 �� 17
3. Excerpt from Inspection Text Ni. 2228 �� 18
4. Example of a Transfer between Locales �� 19
5. Excerpt from CBS 11531 �� 21
7. Excerpt from Legal Text BM 17626 �� 34
8. Ni. 826 �� 35
10. Excerpt from BM 17626 �� 116
11. Excerpt from Ni. 1333 �� 117
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Map of Mesopotamia in the Late Bronze Age �� xxii

2. An Illustration of Columns and Subcolumns �� 11
3. Function and Body Format in Simple Rosters �� 15
4. Function and Body Format in Ration Rosters �� 24
5. Vertical Arrangement of Tabular Register of Ration
Allocation Summaries for Groups in a Single Location,
Including a Numerical Personnel Census �� 28
6. Preservation of Tablets: Document Table vs. Personnel
Table �� 42
7. Distribution of Male and Female Workers by
Age Group �� 54
8. The Composition of the Worker Population in Rosters
Listing Individuals and in Ration Roster Summaries
Including a Personnel Census �� 55
9. Sex Ratio by Age Group �� 56
10. The Household of Dayyānī-šamaš �� 73
11. Sample Diagrams of Household Types �� 77
12. Sex-Age Distribution of the Offspring of the Conjugal
Family Unit (CFU): Offspring of Single Mothers versus
Offspring of Families with Fathers Present �� 89
13. Map of Geographic Origin and Relative Proportions of
Foreign Constituents of the Servile Population �� 123
LIST OF TABLES
1. Body Format of Simple Rosters �� 15

2. Body Format of Ration Rosters �� 24
3. Selected Published and Unpublished Purchases of
Personnel in Groups �� 31
4. Published and Unpublished Purchases of Single
Individuals �� 33
5. Number of Rosters by Category in the Document and
Personnel Tables �� 40
6. Personnel Table Entries and Preservation of Personal
Names �� 44
7. Repetition of Personal Names �� 44
8. Frequency of Occurrences of Homonyms among Names
that are Completely Preserved or can be Plausibly
Reconstructed �� 45
9. Male and Female Workers for which Sex and Age
Designation is Available �� 49
10. Male Workers Listed Individually by Sex-age
Designation �� 53
11. Female Workers Listed Individually by Sex-age
Designation �� 53
12. Deaths by Sex and Age Group �� 59
13. The Blind by Sex-age Category �� 61
14. Number of Members of Households by Type �� 78
15. Attested Households by Type and Frequency �� 81
16. Percentages of Attested Households by Type for the
Servile-Worker Population in Kassite Nippur
Compared with General Populations of Medieval
Tuscany and Roman Egypt �� 83
17. Offspring of Conjugal Family Units by
Sex-age Category �� 85
18. Comparison between the Children Belonging to
Conjugal Family Units with and without Biological
Father Present �� 87
xvi list of tables
19. Frequency of Occurrence of Mobile Groups of

Particular Sizes �� 96
20. Sexes and Ages of Escapees �� 109
21. Language of Personal Name for Escapees �� 113
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
All abbreviations employed in the dissertation are adapted from

those appearing in Volume 18 (T) of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary
pp. ix–xxvii. Some of the more common abbreviations encountered
in this dissertation, as well as several additional abbreviations not
included in Volume 18 of the CAD, are given below.
ADOG Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft.

AfO Archiv für Orientforschung.
AHw von Soden, W. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 volumes.
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1965–81.
AJA American Journal of Archaeology.
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament.
AOS American Oriental Series.
ArOr Archiv Orientální.
AS Assyriological Studies.
ASJ Acta Sumerologica (Japan).
B. Tablets in the Babil collection of the Istanbul Archaeological
Museums.
BaF Baghdader Forschungen.
BBVO Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient.
BE The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania
Series A: Cuneiform Texts.
BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis.
BM Tablets in the collections of the British Museum.
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of
the University of Chicago, 1956–2011.
CBS Tablets in the collections of the University Museum of the
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
CT Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British
Museum.
DN Divine name.
EA El Amarna, referring to numbers assigned to the letters
from El Amarna by J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln,
Anmerkungen und Register bearbeitet von O. Weber und
xviii list of abbreviations
E. Ebeling, 2 vols. VAB 2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1907–15;

and in the later supplement by A. F. Rainey, El Amarna
Tablet 359-379: Supplement to J. A. Knudtzon Die El-Amarna
Tafeln. AOAT 8. Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon
und Bercker and Neukirchener-Verlag, 1970.
FLP Tablets in the collections of the Free Library of
Philadelphia.
GMTR Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record.
HANE Histories of the Ancient Near East: Studies.
IM Tablets in the collections of the Iraq Museum, Baghdad.
JA Journal asiatique.
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society.
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies.
JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient.
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies.
KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi.
KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi.
MANE Monographs on the Ancient Near East.
MBTU Gurney, O.R. The Middle Babylonian Legal and Economic
Texts from Ur. Oxford: British School of Archaeology in
Iraq, 1983.
MHEM Mesopotamian History and Environment, Memoirs.
MRWH Petschow, Herbert P. H. Mittelbabylonische Rechts- und
Wirtschaftsurkunden der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena.
Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische
Klasse, vol. 64/4. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1974.
MSKH Brinkman, J. A. Materials and Studies for Kassite History.
MUN Mittelbabylonische Urkunden aus Nippur, referring to
numbers assigned to the tablets from Nippur by Leonhard
Sassmannshausen in Beiträge zur Verwaltung und
Gesellschaft Babyloniens in der Kassitenzeit, 2001.
MVAG Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft.
N Tablets in the collections of the University Museum of the
NBC Tablets in the Nies Babylonian Collection, Yale University
Library.
Ni. Tablets excavated at Nippur, in the collections of the
Archaeological Museums of Istanbul.
OIC Oriental Institute Communications.
list of abbreviations xix
OIP Oriental Institute Publications.

PIHANS Publications de l’Institut Historique-archéologique
Néerlandais de Stamboul.
PN personal name.
RGTC Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes
RIMB The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian
Periods.
SAA State Archives of Assyria.
SAAS State Archives of Assyria Studies.
SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization.
StOr Studia Orientalia (Societas Orientalis Fennica).
TuM Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht-
Sammlung Vorderasiatischer Altertümer im Eigentum
der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.
UE Ur Excavations.
UET Ur Excavations Texts.
UF Ugarit-Forschungen.
UM Tablets in the collections of the University Museum of the
ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie.
Selected Rulers of Kassite Babylonia
Kadašman-Enlil I (1374)–1360 B.C. 15 years

Burna-Buriaš II 1359–1333 27
Kara-ḫardaš 1333
Nazi-Bugaš 1333
Kurigalzu II 1332–1308 25
Nazi-Maruttaš 1307–1282 26
Kadašman-Turgu 1281–1264 18
Kadašman-Enlil II 1263–1255 9
Kudur-Enlil 1254–1246 9
šagarakti-šuriaš 1245–1233 13
Kaštiliašu IV 1232–1225 8
Enlil-nādin-šumi 1224 1?
Kadašman-Ḫ arbe II 1223 1?
Adad-šuma-iddina 1222–1217 6
Adad-šuma-uṣur 1216–1187 30
Meli-šipak 1186–1174 15
Figure 1. Map of Mesopotamia in the Late Bronze Age.
(Locations of Sites Approximate)
CHAPTER ONE
SERVILE LABORERS IN A FAVORED PROVINCE
Introduction
In the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C., Nippur with its temple
of the god Enlil served as the religious capital of Babylonia. The king
made pilgrimages to the site, usually around the time of the New Year.
The governor of Nippur enjoyed the royal favor and played a role in the
divine cult. Among the contemporary archives from the site were found
letters from magnates in far-off regions, including the king of Assyria
and the Babylonian administrator in Dilmun. The local governor con-
trolled a wide range of resources and industries, oversaw the supply
system servicing temples and shrines, and supervised a large public
work force of unfree laborers.
It is that public work force with which the present study will be con-
cerned. The cuneiform text documentation tracking this group is abun-
dant: hundreds of rosters and administrative memoranda, legal texts,
and a few letters. These texts inventory thousands of persons listed by
sex and age (ranging from infants to the elderly) under official control,
working at a variety of jobs sometimes under harsh conditions.
Archaeological provenience would be expected to provide some
context for these documents, but the tablets were excavated under less
than ideal conditions toward the end of the nineteenth century by
archaeologists working for the University of Pennsylvania. Archaeo
logical methods of the day were haphazard, the excavators’ time and
resources were limited, and the find spots for most of these tablets were
not recorded.1 John Peters noted that he found Kassite tablets during
his 1889–90 excavation season close to the southwest wall of the build-
ing known as the Court of Columns (Area WA) at an elevation lower
than the building itself.2 John H. Haynes stated that in 1893–94 he
1
Unfortunately, the handwritten entries by Hilprecht in the official Catalogue
of the Babylonian Section were more often based on his reinterpretation of data than
on the expedition’s records.
2
The building is located in the northwest part of the city, opposite the Enlil temple.
John Punnett Peters, Nippur or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates:
2 chapter one
found a huge collection of tablets on the western mound south of

WA, some “placed on their edges, reclining against each other like a
shelf of leaning books” and others scattered about the floor.3 Albert T.
Clay remarked that a significant number of the Middle Babylonian4
tablets could also have come from other parts of the city.5 Sadly, further
details about the provenience of the Kassite tablets studied here have
never been published; and more recent excavations of the site have not
yielded additional rosters directly pertaining to the servile work force
or other comparable material from this period.
The majority of the documents to be used in this study are adminis-
trative rosters that list the names, sex, general age category, family rela-
tionships, location, and supervisors—among other details—for these
workers. The quantitative data contained in these rosters give rise to
many of the issues to be discussed in this work. The discussion focuses
on the principal area illuminated by the documentation, that is on the
condition of the public servile laborer and his/her family rather than
on the institutional apparatus that controlled them (the latter topic will
not be altogether neglected, but it falls almost completely outside the
purview of the available documentation).
Prior Work
In 1906 Albert Clay published in two volumes the first substantial

number of Middle Babylonian tablets from Nippur (BE 14–15). In the
introductions to these volumes, he singled out for attention a group of
people qualified by a set of sex and age designations whom he identi-
fied as employees of the “temple” (É.GAL) who received grain as
“wages” (ŠE.BA = ipru). Such employees were sometimes grouped by
family (qinnu). Clay also noted that the same sex-age designations were
The Narrative of the University of Pennsylvania Expedition to Babylonia in the Years

1888–1890, vol. 2 (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1897): 188.
3
According to Clay, BE 14, page 1, quoting also Peters and Hilprecht. Haynes’ figure
of 25,000 tablets indicates that over half the tablets he found were not from the Middle
Babylonian period. Brinkman, who has studied the Kassite corpus in depth, once
estimated that the Middle Babylonian tablets from Nippur number around 12,000
(J. A. Brinkman, Materials and Studies for Kassite History, vol. 1 (Chicago: The Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, 1976): 41).
4
Regarding Middle Babylonian as a chronological period: this study follows
the CAD wherein it is equivalent to the time of the Kassite dynasty as explained by
J.A. Brinkman in BiOr 23 (1966): 294 2c-d.
5
Clay, BE 14, page 2.
servile laborers in a favored province 3
used to describe slaves in sale documents. The amount paid in employee

wages or as a slave price was directly correlated to the individual’s age
and sex.6
Harry Torczyner treated the same group of texts in 1913. While
he continued to support the idea that the institution involved was the
temple, he interpreted epru (=ipru) as “food” and translated two impor-
tant collective terms, tenēštu and amīlūtu, sometimes applied to ipru-
recipients, as “slaves.” He also noted a case in which most of the slaves
had non-Semitic names. This marked an advance by establishing that
at least a portion of ipru-personnel were not free workers and that some
were probably of foreign origin.7
In 1974 Herbert Petschow edited a small collection of Middle
Babylonian legal and administrative texts from Nippur. Two of these
texts list persons qualified by sex-age designations and usually grouped
by qinnu. Petschow did not comment on the status of these persons,
though he translated two occurrences of ARAD (after a number) in the
second document as “Sklaven.” He referred to each document simply
as a personnel list (Personenliste).8 In 1976, Inez Bernhardt published
cuneiform copies of the same texts and catalogued each of these two as
a “guruš-Liste,” focusing on the distinctive sex-age terminology.9
In 1980 and 1982, J. A. Brinkman published two articles dealing with
the documents mentioned above and with several hundred more
unpublished rosters of similar type. He categorized the personnel in
these texts as servile laborers working under duress, though sometimes
6
Albert T. Clay, BE 14, pp. 5, 34, 36 and BE 15, pp. 6–7, 22. Also see the descriptions
of the tablets in the catalogues, e.g., BE 14, p. 65 (for the description of BE 14 58:
a “record of salary payments”) and BE 15, p. 62 (for the description of BE 15 96:
“salary payments of temple officials”).
7
Harry Torczyner, Altbabylonische Tempelrechnungen, Denkschriften der Kaiser
lichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, vol. 55 (Vienna: A. Hölder, 1913). See
the definitions of epru and a-mi-lu-tum ibid., pp. 110–11 and the discussion of
BE 15 190 ibid., p. 68.
8
Herbert P. H. Petschow, Mittelbabylonische Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden der
Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena, Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf
ten zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse, vol. 64/4 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag,
1974). The texts are MRWH 50 and 51 found on pp. 97–101. Unfortunately, the two
alleged occurrences of ARAD ša in MRWH 51:3 and rev. 3’ should actually be read
NIM.MA (and translated as “Elamite”).
9
Inez Bernhardt, Sozialökonomische Texte und Rechtsurkunden aus Nippur
zur Kassitenzeit, Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht-Sammlung
Vorderasiatischer Altertümer im Eigentum der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena,
Neue Folge, vol. 5 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1976). MRWH 50 = TuM NF 5 34 and
MRWH 51 = TuM NF 5 63.
4 chapter one
with an intact family structure. He left open the question whether these
laborers were chattel slaves, semi-free, or in some other status. He
posed a number of topics for future study, including whether the texts
describe a uniform social or economic class within society, what the
role of these workers was in the economy, whether they were under
government or private control (or both), and what was the source of
this group (e.g., war booty, purchase, relegation for debt).10
Petschow in 1983 wrote an article on the slave-purchasing activities
of Enlil-kidinnī, a governor of Nippur in the mid-fourteenth century.
In his analysis of slave sales and terminology, he asserted that qinnu
(family), a common collective term in the ration lists, is used only for
unfree people.11
In 2001, Leonhard Sassmannshausen remarked that slavery was
widespread in Kassite Babylonia. He based his observation on eight-
een slave-sale documents, many texts mentioning fugitives, and other
tablets dealing with imprisonment. He reiterated Brinkman’s caution
that fugitives need not necessarily be regarded as slaves. He presented
individual studies on ten key terms (amīlūtu, ardu, etc.), but did not
attempt an integrated picture of the laboring classes at Nippur or
their juridical or social status.12 Three years later, Brinkman observed
that most of the attested foreigners in Middle Babylonian texts from
Nippur were low-status servile laborers who were controlled by large
institutions.13
For almost a century, scholars have observed the presence of servile
laborers in the personnel rosters from Nippur. They have noted that
these workers are marked by specific administrative terms, such as sex-
age designations; but no one has yet undertaken a full-scale systematic
study of this group.
10
J. A. Brinkman, “Forced Laborers in the Middle Babylonian Period,” JCS 32
(1980): 17–22 and “Sex, Age, and Physical Condition Designations for Servile Laborers
in the Middle Babylonian Period,” in Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F.
R. Kraus, eds. G. van Driel, Th. J. H. Krispijn, M. Stol, and K. R. Veenhof (Leiden:
Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1982), 1–8.
11
Herbert P. H. Petschow, “Die Sklavenkaufverträge des šandabakku Enlil-kidinnī
von Nippur,” Orientalia N. S. 52 (1983): 143–55, especially p. 154.
12
Leonhard Sassmannshausen, Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft Baby
loniens in der Kassitenzeit, Baghdader Forschungen, vol. 21 (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von
Zabern, 2001), 117–23.
13
J. A. Brinkman, “Administration and Society in Kassite Babylonia,” JAOS 124
(2004): 284–85.
servile laborers in a favored province 5
Current Approach
Our investigation of the servile laboring population at Nippur will use

traditional philological analysis and the application of quantitative
methods, historical demography, and historical-ethnographic compar-
ison. These combined approaches have been insightful for other pre-
modern populations (e.g., Roman Egypt, Medieval Tuscany),14 and the
same should be true for the Mesopotamian laborers under considera-
tion here.
In this study, we will begin by discussing the genres and functions of
the source documentation (Chapter 2), most of which remains unpub-
lished more than a century after its excavation. Administrative docu-
ments form the bulk of this corpus; and, even though bureaucratic
records concerning laboring groups are attested from many of the
major historical periods of Babylonia, those available from the Kassite
period provide an unusual amount of detail on the condition and rela-
tive age of each individual worker. The sheer mass of information in
these texts facilitates the use of an approach that will be both qualitative
and quantitative.
Chapter 3 will present a detailed statistical analysis of the worker
population. It will begin with a discussion of the raw data and their
limitations, the details of how the data were organized into a data base,
and the dates for the composition of the corpus. The main thrust of the
chapter will be a quantitative analysis of the composition of the popula-
tion (male vs. female, young vs. old, etc.) and a discussion of how one
key demographic indicator, the sex ratio, can provide further insight
into the population and the reliability of the data set. Comments will
also be made on mortality rates and disabilities.
Chapter 4 will discuss patterns of family and household within the
servile population. Through the use of demographic methods devel-
oped by historians of the family, several basic household structures will
be identified. The role of the nuclear versus the extended family will be
explored, and Appendix 1 will describe and present diagrammatic
14
E.g., Roger S. Bagnall and Bruce W. Frier, Demography of Roman Egypt, Cambridge
Studies in Population, Economy, and Society in Past Time 23 (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1994) and David Herlihy and Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, Tuscans
and Their Families: A Study of the Florentine Catasto of 1427 (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1985).
6 chapter one
r epresentations of the one hundred and seven best attested households

in the documentation.
Chapter 5, with Appendices 2 and 3, will consider the milieu in
which the servile population lived and worked. It will rely less on
the methodologies of social science than on the traditional positivist
approaches of Assyriology, comparative history, and simple descrip-
tive statistics. The documents presume a basic understanding of the
socio-economic environment of Kassite Babylonia and the adminis-
trative bureaucracy of Nippur and provide little orientation for the
researcher who attempts to understand the structure of the system.
But we will examine what little evidence is provided for understand-
ing the organization and supervision of the work force, the tasks per-
formed, the problems of worker flight and imprisonment, the origins
of the workers, and the civil status of the laboring population.
The concluding chapter will try, as far as the limited data permit, to
present an integrated picture of the public servile workers and their
environment and to situate them within a larger geographical and his-
torical context. It also will mention topics for further research, aimed at
broadening future understanding of this important socio-economic
group.
CHAPTER TWO
SOURCES
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to survey the principal ancient textual

sources used in this study. These will be broken down into the follow-
ing three groups: rosters of workers, purchases of personnel, and mis-
cellaneous administrative documents. Rosters and purchases merit
detailed discussions because they form the bulk of the pertinent docu-
mentation (82% and 5%, respectively) and are the backbone of our
reconstruction. The miscellaneous administrative documents deal
with a variety of subjects, e.g., the handling of escapees, the imprison-
ment of workers, and residence records for laborers; none of these cat-
egories is attested in sufficient numbers to warrant discussion as a
separate group.
The second section of the chapter describes the criteria used to
identify those personnel texts which deal primarily with the servile
population. The next three sections focus on the principal data source,
the worker roster. Section three presents basic terminology for under-
standing the roster corpus, a text type which has not been systemati-
cally studied. Sections four and five discuss the format and function of
the two types of rosters (simple rosters and ration rosters). Sections
six and seven contain brief analyses of the purchase documents and of
the miscellaneous texts, all of which have been discussed to some
degree by earlier writers. The final section is a concise resume of
source categories.
Process of Selection
For some time, scholars have noted in Middle Babylonian texts the
presence of workers classified by distinctive categories of sex and
age, such as “elderly male,” “adult male,” “adult female,” “adolescent
female,” as well as by characteristic designations of physical condition,
8 chapter two
e.g., “blind,” “ill,” “escaped,” “dead.”1 They also have pointed out the
presence of other select vocabulary (amīlūtu, aštapīru, munnabittu,
piqdānu, qinnu, tenēštu, etc.) used to describe the same groups of
workers.2 This restricted terminology stands out in the record and
marks a specific type of worker at Nippur.3
An initial selection of texts pertinent to servile laborers was identi-
fied through the occurrence of these categories and terms. It was
found that the terminology was prominent in lists of working person-
nel (rosters), where sex-age designations, physical-condition designa-
tions, and several other key terms often occurred in a single text.
Purchases of persons were added to the corpus because the individu-
als being sold are classified by the same designations of sex and
age and are frequently referred to collectively as amīlūtu or aštapīru.
Additionally, a number of miscellaneous texts, mostly of administra-
tive character, contained one or more of our key vocabulary markers
and dealt with the same laborer population. For example, documents
dealing with the escape and recapture of individuals were initially
identified because the same term, ZÁḫ , used to designate escaped
workers in the rosters, is also employed in these texts.
As research progressed, other texts were added to the corpus
because of prosopographical linkage or improved understanding of
administrative practice.
This yielded a total corpus of five hundred twenty texts.4 Four
hundred twenty-six are rosters: two hundred and fifty-three (59.4%
ŠU.GI, GURUŠ, SAL, SAL.TUR, NU.IGI, GIG, ZÁḫ , ÚŠ, etc. These sex-age and
1
condition designations are described later in this chapter. Albert T. Clay, BE 14, p. 34
and BE 15, pp. 6–7; Harry Torczyner, Altbabylonische Tempelrechnungen, Denkschriften
der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, vol. 55 (Vienna: A. Hölder,
1913), 65–69 (discussions of BE 14 60, 91a, and BE 15 190); J. A. Brinkman, “Forced
Laborers in the Middle Babylonian Period,” JCS 32 (1980): 17–22 and “Sex, Age, and
Physical Condition Designations for Servile Laborers in the Middle Babylonian
Period,” in Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus, eds. G van Driel,
Th. J. H. Krispin, M. Stol, and K. R. Veenhof (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het
Nabije Oosten, 1982), 2–8.
2
Harry Torczyner, Altbabylonische Tempelrechnungen (1913); see the definition of
amēlūtum ibid., pp. 110–11 and the pages cited in footnote 1 above. Also Herbert
P. H. Petschow, Mittelbabylonische Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden der Hilprecht-
Sammlung Jena, Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse, vol. 64/4 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1974),
99–101; Leonhard Sassmannshausen, Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft
Babyloniens in der Kassitenzeit, Baghdader Forschungen, vol. 21 (Mainz: Verlag
Philipp von Zabern, 2001), 117–23.
3
This will be discussed more fully in subsequent chapters.
4
The documents can be found in the collections of the Babylonian Section of
the University of Pennsylvania Museum, the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul,
sources 9
of rosters) list workers with no mention of rations and one hundred

forty-seven (34.5%) list workers along with their rations. The remain-
ing twenty-six (6.1%) rosters could not be assigned to either cate-
gory because they are too poorly preserved. Twenty-five purchase
documents and sixty-three pertinent miscellaneous texts have been
identified to date. Five fragments were too damaged to place into any
category.
Terminology
The overwhelming majority (more than 80%) of source materials for

the study of Middle Babylonian servile laborers are rosters, which are
lists of workers and/or working groups. These documents are written
in a terse, bookkeeping language for the use of institutions and func-
tionaries at Nippur. There are two main types of roster: those which
list workers, but not rations (simple rosters) and those which list work-
ers and rations (ration rosters).
Before delving into the appearance and function of these texts, we
must first establish an appropriate terminology for them. For this
we are indebted to Eleanor Robson, whose work on tables in the
cuneiform record5 has clarified issues encountered with our body of
rosters. To fit our roster corpus, our terms “tabular register,” “short-
tabular register,” “non-tabular register,” and “qualitative summary”
have been adapted from Robson’s “table,” “numerical list,” “prosaic”
(document), and “explanatory interpolation.” Robson’s “row label” and
“heading” have been renamed “entry label” and “subcolumn heading”;
and her “axis of calculation” has been borrowed without modification.
We begin with some miscellaneous, but necessary terms which lay
the foundation for this discussion. First, a work group is defined as all
the Free Library of Philadelphia, the British Museum, the Yale Babylonian Collection,
the Hilprecht-Sammlung in Jena, and the Louvre. The portion of unpublished docu-
ments held by the University of Pennsylvania Museum that were used for this study are
scheduled to be published by this author in a future Brill volume. Many of the textual
categories provided in the remainder of this chapter will be further explained there.
5
“Tables and Tabular Formatting in Sumer, Babylonia, and Assyria, 2500 B.C.E.-50
C.E.” in The History of Mathematical Tables: From Sumer to Spreadsheets, eds.
M. Campbell-Kelly et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003): 18–47, esp. p. 20 and
“Accounting for Change: The Development of Tabular Bookkeeping in Early
Mesopotamia,” in Creating Economic Order, eds. Michael Hudson and Cornelia
Wunsch, International Scholars Conference on Ancient Near Eastern Economies,
vol. 4 (Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 2004): 107–44, especially p. 116.
10 chapter two
laborers enumerated on a single tablet, excluding supervisors, officials,

and other functionaries. A subgroup (of workers) is a division of a
work group as specified on the tablet. Additionally, a ration is barley,
wool, or oil disbursed to a worker (ŠE.BA, SÍG.BA, Ì.BA). On account
tablets small indentations were sometimes made with a stylus, usually
placed at the left of a worker’s name, presumably to indicate whether
the listed ration has been issued. We will call these check marks.
Rosters can include an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. The
body is the main section of a roster, listing workers and/or work
groups and any rations disbursed to them. The introduction is the
portion of a roster which precedes the body; it can contain several
types of information: a description of the work group, the name of a
supervising official, the source of rations, the standard of measure-
ment (the type of sūtu) used for grain disbursals, an explanation why
the text was composed (i.e., the function of the document), and the
date of composition. The conclusion is the part of the text that follows
the body; it may include any of the items found in the introduction,
sometimes duplicating the same data, plus grand totals of the amount
and type of rations and the number of workers, sometimes subdivided
into various categories. A roster may lack an introduction, a conclu-
sion, or both; but it will always have a body.
At this point we should introduce the concepts of column, subcol-
umn, row, and cell—all terms describing the way space is divided up
on a tablet.
A roster may be arranged in one or more vertical sense units, which
we will call columns. We will maintain this identification even if only
a single column occurs on the obverse or reverse of a tablet. If there is
more than one column per side, we will number them with lower case
roman numerals. (This differs slightly from the traditional usage for
column in Assyriology, which does not classify a vertical sense unit as
a column if there is only one on a side of a tablet; the issue here is one
of classification rather than labeling, since both our usage and the tra-
ditional usage utilize the same numbering practice.) We are adjusting
this terminology so that we can maintain a clear separation between
the meanings of column and subcolumn. Otherwise, what is consid-
ered a subcolumn in one text could be labeled a column in another
text. The column is a feature of a whole roster: introduction, body, and
conclusion.
In contrast, subcolumn, row, and cell are features of a roster body
only. A subcolumn is a vertical subdivision of a column; it is often
sources 11
marked by a line of separation drawn down the column.6 Subcolumns

will be designated with lower-case letters. Figure 2 provides an illus-
tration of such divisions.
A row (or, sometimes, line) is the horizontal arrangement of data.
A cell is the spatial unit at the intersection of one row and one
subcolumn.
Body format is the style in which workers are listed and described
in the main section of a roster, i.e., the spatial arrangement of data.
There are three body formats: the tabular register, the short-tabular
register, and the non-tabular register.
Figure 2. An Illustration of Columns and Subcolumns

(Image of CBS 9803, Reverse).7
As are columns when there is more than one per side.

6
Note that the curvature of this tablet distorts the image; making some subcol-
7
umns, especially those on the left side, appear narrower than they are. Vertical lines
drawn on the tablet are not always parallel for the same reason (photograph by the
author).
12 chapter two
A tabular register arranges data in three or more subcolumns.

A short-tabular register displays data in just two subcolumns (this is
the most common format found in these rosters). A non-tabular reg-
ister lacks subcolumns or vertical subdivisions; its entries are written
across a column and resemble written prose.
The terms cell entry, row entry, entry label, and subcolumn head-
ing, are appropriate only to tabular or short-tabular registers. A cell
entry is the data written in a single cell. It is the basic element of
a tabular or short-tabular register. A row entry is all the cell entries
running horizontally across a row of the register. A row entry contains
data pertaining to a single worker (in texts that list workers by per-
sonal name) or sub-group (in texts which list them as work units).
Row entries are characterized by an entry label, which is the pri-
mary identifying element—usually the personal name of a worker or
an occupation name—of the row, around which all its other data
revolve. Entry labels are always contained in the same subcolumn on
the tablet. This is usually the ultimate subcolumn on the right; but, on
a few tablets, the penultimate subcolumn may contain the entry label,
and the final subcolumn a ration amount or other information. The
vertical correspondent to the entry label is the subcolumn heading,
written at the top of a subcolumn. This heading usually provides a
description of the contents below or an explanation how the subcol-
umn functions.
Cell entries are composed by entering quantitative and/or qualita-
tive data in accord with the body format. In rosters, quantitative data
are measured substances (e.g., rations) or enumerated persons. These
data may be summed up in a total. The axis of calculation refers to the
direction in which the quantitative data are added up. Documents
with a vertical axis of calculation total data from top to bottom; those
with a horizontal axis calculate data from left to right. If a summation
concerns only a portion of the quantitative entries in a series, this is a
subtotal. Totals and subtotals can appear either as individual cell
entries or as part of the conclusion of a roster.
Qualitative data in rosters are non-quantitative characteristics,
properties, or attributes of a worker or group of workers. The qualita-
tive data in the body of a roster can include:
(a) personal names;
(b) sex-age designations;
sources 13
(c) physical-condition designations;

(d) family relationships;
(e) occupations;
(f) names of supervisors;
(g) subgroups;
(h) place of (last known) residence;

(i) geographic origins of workers;
(j) the function of the document.
This subset of words and phrases which describe the non-quantitative
features of workers or work groups will also be referred to as descrip-
tive elements.
Sex-age designations are a set of standardized terms classifying
workers by sex and relative age group.8 The sex-age designations for
males are:
(a) old (ŠU.GI);
(b) adult (GURUŠ);
(c) adolescent (GURUŠ.TUR or GURUŠ.TUR.GAL);
(d) child (GURUŠ.TUR.TUR);
(e) weaned (pir-su);
(f) nursing (DUMU.GABA).
The female sex-age designations are:
(a) old ( (SAL.)ŠU.GI);
(b) adult (SAL);
(c) adolescent (SAL.TUR);
(d) child (SAL.TUR.TUR);
(e) weaned (pir-sa-tu(m) );
(f) nursing (DUMU.SAL.GABA).9
The sex-age classification of a worker may condition the amount
of ration received, e.g., adult males may receive more food than
8
The English translations for GURUŠ.TUR, GURUŠ.TUR.GAL, GURUŠ.TUR.
TUR, SAL.TUR, and SAL.TUR.TUR (i.e., “adolescent” and “child”) are approxima-
tions. For a study of age categories in Assyrian documents, see Yigal Bloch, “The Order
of Eponyms in the Reign of Shalmaneser I,” Ugarit Forschungen 40 (2008): 159–69.
9
J. A. Brinkman, “Sex, Age, and Physical Condition Designations,” (1982), 2–4.
14 chapter two
adult females. Sex-age designations can be applied to individuals,

groups, and subgroups.
Physical-condition designations are also a set of standardized terms
indicating whether a laborer is unavailable for work or is able to work
only at a reduced level. They are:
(a) dead (ÚŠ, IM.ÚŠ, BA.ÚŠ);
(b) ill (GIG);
(c) blind (IGI.NU.GÁL and perhaps NU);10
(d) escapee (ZÁḫ );
(e) recent escapee (ZÁḫ GIBIL);
(f) non-recent escapee (ZÁḫ LIBIR.RA);
(g) deceased escapee (ZÁḫ ÚŠ);
(h) returned escapee (ZÁḫ DU-kam);
(i) fettered (ka-mu);
(j) imprisoned (ki-lum);
(k) freed (za-ka-at);11
(l) (on the) road (KASKAL).12
Often a series of individual row entries in a short-tabular or tabular
register may be interrupted by a qualitative summary, which groups
and qualifies the immediately preceding entries. A quantitative subto-
tal for these entries may appear in the same line/row as the qualitative
summary.13
Simple Rosters
Simple rosters can be divided into the following categories based on

function: inspections, transfers, summaries, and undetermined (this
last category is a catch-all for texts which lack an expressed or demon-
strable function). Simple rosters are attested in all three body formats.
Short-tabular registers are the most common (at least 58.1%), followed
by tabular registers (27.3%), and non-tabular registers (7.5%).
10
For an additional viewpoint on the meaning of the logograms, see Walter Farber,
“Akkadisch ‘blind’.” ZA 75 (1985): 221–33.
11
Attested to date in only one case (for a female).
12
Brinkman, “Sex, Age, and Physical Condition Designations,” (1982), 5–6.
13
With the format: subtotal + qualitative summary.
sources 15
Table 1. Body Format of Simple Rosters.

Body format Number of texts
Tabular registers 69
Short-tabular registers (clear examples) 107
Short-tabular registers (probable examples) 40
Non-tabular registers 19
Insufficiently preserved 18
Total 253
There is some correspondence between body format and function.

Inspections and summaries are drawn up as tabular registers, usually
with horizontal and/or vertical rulings.14 Transfers are generally non-
tabular registers; in a few cases, it has been impossible to ascertain
whether a transfer is a non-tabular or short-tabular register.15 All three
body formats, not surprisingly, are attested in the undetermined
category.
Inspections
Inspections record the results of an official review of a work group.
Varying descriptive elements are included in the body of each text,
suggesting that inspections were not always conducted in the same
Tabular Registers Short-tabular Non-tabular

Registers Registers
Inspections x
Transfers (unclear) x
Summaries x
Undetermined x x x
Figure 3. Function and Body Format in Simple Rosters.
There is one inspection, Ni. 1627, whose format is that of a short-tabular register
14
and is therefore an exception to this rule. It is also worth noting that its statement of
inspection on edge 2–3 is different from the standard statement.
15
Because it is not clear if the sex-age designation and personal name of the worker
were in separate subcolumns.
16 chapter two
manner or for the same reasons. Workers are listed individually by

personal name in the tabular register body.
Almost all inspection texts can be identified by the appearance of a
standard phrase based on the idiom rēša + našû, in its fullest context
including a description of the work force, the name of the inspecting
authority, and a date.16 The statement of inspection can be found in the
introduction, the heading of the entry label subcolumn (before “MU.
BI.IM”), or the conclusion.
Example 1. An Example of Standard Inspection Phraseology (Full

Form).
top edge
1. GURUŠ GURUŠ.TUR te-lit GÚ.EN.NA ša i-na ITI.KIN.dINNIN
2. ša MU.8.KAM Ša-ga-rak-ti-šur-ia4-aš mLÚ-dAMAR.UTU
3. GÚ.EN.NA re-⌈e⌉-ša ⌈iš⌉-šu-ú
GURUŠ and GURUŠ.TUR, tēlītu of the šandabakku, whom Amīl-
Marduk, the šandabakku, inspected in the month Ulūlu of year 8 of
Šagarakti-Šuriaš.17
Most inspection texts belong to one of two types: (a) those which
focus on the occupation and age group of individual male workers,18
and (b) those which focus on the physical condition and sex-age cate-
gory of individual workers of either sex.
We will use Ni. 1348 as an example of the first kind of inspection.
This text begins with the introduction quoted above in Example 1,
followed by a tabular register with the subcolumn headings “adult
male/ adolescent male/ his (lit.: its) name(s).”19 Subcolumn c contains
the entry labels. (In rosters, MU.BI.IM is usually the heading for the
entry-label subcolumn). Two personal names are written in the entry
labels: the first belonging to the person being inspected and the second
16
There is one inspection which does not utilize the rēša + našû formula. The clos-
ing statement of Ni. 1627 (edge, ll. 2–3) states that this text lists the names of seventy
workers(= ÉRIN.MEŠ) who have been “inspected/accounted for” (amrū) and the
names of three prisoners and at least two escapees, all of whom have been subtracted
(šūlû) from the totals.
17
Ni. 1348.
18
This is especially true for inspections conducted by or on behalf of the
šandabakku.
19
GURUŠ/ GURUŠ.TUR/ MU.BI.IM.
sources 17
probably belonging to someone who held a position of authority or

responsibility over the first-listed person.20
Example 2. Excerpt from Inspection Text Ni. 1348.

a b c
obverse
1. GURUŠ GURUŠ.TUR MU.BI.IM
2. 1 EN5.SI m
Ki-din-dGu-la m
A-na-da-ar-kit-tu
3. 1 UŠ.BAR md
IM-ŠEŠ-SUM-na Kab-bu-šu
m
4. 1 MIN m
Ki-din-dIM MIN
5. 1 ḫ a-za-an m
EN-mu-šal-lim m
ḫ u-ru-uk-ku
lu-ub-di
6. 1 m
ḫ i-in-na-ni-it MIN
…
Subcolumns a and b indicate whether the first-named person in sub-

column c was an adult (GURUŠ) or an adolescent (GURUŠ.TUR)
male, as listed in the subcolumn headings. Adults have a cell entry in
subcolumn a, while adolescents have a cell entry in subcolumn b. Cell
entries in subcolumns a or b are mutually exclusive: there can be an
entry in one or other subcolumn, but not both (i.e., a person can be
either an adult or an adolescent). Since the work group being inspected
contained males from a variety of occupations, the cell entry in sub-
column a or b is a vertical wedge standing for “1” followed by an occu-
pation name (or MIN) or a simple “1.” The text ends with a short
conclusion that gives several subtotals for the group and describes
them as “ÌR É.GAL te-lit ⌈GÚ⌉.EN.NA.”21
Ni. 2228 is an example of the second type of inspection. Such
tabular registers list which members of a group were added (because
they were newborn or had returned from flight), subtracted (because
they fled or died), or remained in the group; and these registers
probably served as assessments of the work capacity and/or the poten-
tial ration needs of the group. Looking at our example, we see that it
is a five-subcolumn tabular register which operates in a manner simi-
lar to the previous type of inspection. The subcolumn headings are
20
This is inferred from the fact that in most simple rosters that feature such PN1 PN2
entries, MIN, mMIN, or mKI.MIN(= “ditto”) is often used in place of the second per-
sonal name to indicate a previously listed name.
21
Rev. 1’.
18 chapter two
“newborn (or: addition)22/ returned escapee/ (unreturned) escapee/

dead/” and the statement of inspection. Personal names are written in
subcolumn e, and cell entries in the preceding subcolumns are sex-age
designations. No cell entry in subcolumns a-d probably means that
none of the categories in a-d apply, i.e., the worker is a continuing
member of the group.23
Example 3. Excerpt from Inspection Text Ni. 2228.

a b c d e
1. il-du ZÁḫ ZÁḫ ÚŠ MU.16.KAM Ku-ri-gal-zu
2. DU-kam m
ARḫ UŠ-šú-dNIN.IB re-ša
iš-šu-ú
3. DUMU.GABA m
BA-šá-dMAŠ
4. DUMU.GABA md
La-ta-ra-ak-še-mi
5. DUMU.GABA m
Ki-din-dGu-la
6. f
Bur-ru-uq-tum
…
13. GURUŠ. m
I-na-É.SU.GAL-mil-ku
TUR
14. DUMU. m
Dan-nu-mu-u-šu
GABA
…
All of the subcolumns are added up along the vertical axis (omitted in
the example) at the end of the register, and the statement of inspection
is repeated in the conclusion.
Transfers of Personnel
Transfers are records of the movement of working personnel from
one economic unit (institution, estate) and/or geographic region to
another. A primary focus of transfers is to record the name of
the transferring official and the total number of individuals moved.
22
The preserved parts of this subcolumn list not only babies (DUMU.GABA and
DUMU.SAL.GABA) but also male adolescents (GURUŠ.TUR and GURUŠ.TUR.
TUR).
23
In this excerpted text being discussed here (Ni. 2228), all of the personnel for
whom there is no cell entry in subcolumns a–d are women, and that they are in the
minority in the listing (of the 35 sufficiently legible lines, only 8 have no cell entry).
They occur bunched together (six in sequence on the obverse, two on the reverse).
I am unsure whether this has any significance.
sources 19
The names of the individual workers or the place of previous residence

were not always provided.
Transfer documents exhibit diversity in format and in the amount
of information included. Some transfers record the relocation of
workers from one place to another. We will call these texts transfers
between locales. Transfers between locales are written in a non-tabular
body format and begin with a list of names of transferred workers, fol-
lowed by a total, a qualitative description of the group,24 and the oper-
ative administrative statement PN ultu GN ušēlâ (“PN transferred [the
above listed personnel] here from GN”). Ni. 1332 is an example.
Example 4. Example of a Transfer between Locales (Excerpt from Ni.

1332).
1. SAL Bu-ru-uq-t[um…]
2. DUMU.SAL mEn-n[a…]
3. GURUŠ.TUR mDI.KU5-d⌈x⌉[…]
4. DUMU.GABA mA-mar-šá-dx[…]
5. SAL I-na-Ì-si-in-GAL ⌈x⌉[…]
6. SAL I-na-Ul-maš-šar-ra[t…]
…
8. PAP 5 DUMU.SAL mEn[-na…]
9. mdUTU-SUM-na DUMU m⌈x⌉[…]
10 LÚ.NU.GIŠ.SAR
11. TA URU DUMU A-ḫi-⌈tu⌉-ú-[ti…]
12 ⌈ú⌉-še-la[-a]25
Only tablets recording the bringing of workers to Nippur from outside

areas are preserved in the known archives.26 On at least one occasion,
a transfer of a slave (ardu) from As-su-⌈ka?⌉ (a city?) sparks a lawsuit
regarding the ownership of the person being moved.27
There are two similar texts (CBS 3472 and Ni. 11149) that record
transfers of groups of workers to Nippur primarily from houses or
E.g., PAP N DUMU.SAL PN.

24
Restoration of line 12 based on UM 29-15-461:11 in which the verb is

25
complete.
26
Since the tablets were found at Nippur, it is probable that the ventive ending of
šūlû indicates that the people in question had been transferred to that city.
27
The dispute concerns whether the slave was owned by Enlil-kidinnī, the gover-
nor of Nippur, or another individual (CBS 8089).
20 chapter two
estates (e.g., PN1 ultu bīt PN2 šūṣâta).28 In Ni. 11149, it is stated that the
laborers were returned to their original location (šūṣâta turrat), which
may mean that CBS 3472 documents an earlier phase of the same
administrative process.29 Most of these groups were composed of a
single family unit or combination of family units and nearly all were
headed by a woman.30 It is worth noting that the Š-stem of aṣû is also
used to describe the process of reassigning captured runaways in some
legal and administrative texts.31
The transfer texts that do not fit this pattern also mention the indi-
viduals overseeing the transfer, but tend to omit workers’ names in
favor of sums and categories. They differ in their administrative lan-
guage and may be difficult to interpret.
Ni. 656, for example, is a sealed tablet containing a statement about
twenty amīlūtu, described as šūlût mār mŠi-⌈in-di⌉, who were trans-
ferred by order of Enlil-kidinnī.32 A second official, Kilamdi-Ubriaš,
sent Enlil-nāṣir and Ur-x-x to take responsibility for the amīlūtu being
transferred and to release them (for work assignments). Enlil-nāṣir
sealed the transaction.
Transfers can also be simple memoranda, such as Ni. 689, which
merely states that two men brought 6 (number damaged) male adults
and 3 female adults to their (?) boss.33
Summaries
Simple roster summaries are records of the disposition and condition
of multiple working subgroups drawn from more detailed field
records. These use large tabular registers which enumerate workers
collectively by category rather than list them individually by personal
name. There are two types of summary documents. The first type enu-
merates workers by numbers in sex-age categories (listed in subcol-
umn headings) and groups them by occupation (indicated by entry
28
Note that these groups are construed as feminine singular. Most transfers in these
two texts use šūṣû as the operative administrative word, but šūlû occurs at least once
(CBS 3472 rev. ii’ 13’).
29
“It (the group) was brought out here (to Nippur), and it was returned.”
30
In one preserved instance (Ni. 11149 iii 10’) the work group is referred to explic-
itly as a qinnu (“family”).
31
See “Miscellaneous Texts” (pages 34–36) and “Recapture and Reassignment”
(pages 115–18), especially Examples 9–11.
32
Presumably the fourteenth-century šandabakku, but without title here.
⌈ ⌉ IM-ni-ši-šu [ù m]dBa-ú-e-ri-iš ⌈a-na⌉ be-⌈lí-šu?⌉ na-šu-ú ⌈6?⌉ GURUŠ.MEŠ 3
33 m d
SAL.MEŠ.
sources 21
label in the far right subcolumn). Totals are then calculated by both
horizontal and vertical axes.34
Example 5. Excerpt from CBS 11531.
a b c d e f
1. GURUŠ GURUŠ.TUR GURUŠ. DUMU. PAP[ ] [ ]
TUR.TUR GABA
…
10. 8 ⌈1⌉ 2 11 LÚ.Ì.[DU8?]
11. 6 1 2 9 LÚ.N[A?.GAD?]
12. 4 6 1 11 LÚ ŠU ⌈x⌉[ ]
13. 5 1 1 7 LÚ pa-ḫ a-⌈rù⌉
14. 20 5 3 ⌈29⌉ LÚ.MUḫ ALDIM
15. 21 8 1 30 LÚ.NU.⌈GIŠ⌉[.ŠAR]
…
17. PAP 1 ME 46 59 31 14 2 ME 50 …
Note the similarity of this text with Example 2, an inspection of males

(only adults and adolescents).
The second type of summary lists additions and subtractions from a
work force by listing the numbers of “dead” (BA.ÚŠ), “escaped” (ZÁḫ ),
and “(new)born” or “addition” (ildu) in each of several groupings (per-
haps based on occupation, supervisors, or something similar).35
a b c d
1. ⌈BA⌉.ÚŠ ZÁḪ il-du [ ]
2. 57 47 73 ⌈x⌉[ ]
3. 6 6 10 ⌈x⌉[ ]
4. 7 1 1 [ ]
…
14. PAP 92 70 103 ⌈x⌉[ ]
15. 11 2 7 [ ]
16. 98 8 23 [ ]
17. 31 4 ⌈25⌉ [ ]
(space)
18. ŠU.NIGIN 232 84 15[8] ⌈x⌉[ ]
At least in all texts which are sufficiently preserved.

34
But this is just a guess, since there are as yet no known examples containing a fully
35
preserved final subcolumn.

22 chapter two
Note the similarity between the categories used in this text and the
inspection document in Example 3.
Some summaries, such as Example 6, presume an earlier census
with which comparison was being made (workers escaped, newborns,
etc.). Only one summary preserves a date—to the year and king only
(thus suggesting that these texts may have been drawn up annually).
Undetermined
Texts in the undetermined category fall into two groups: (a) complete
or nearly complete texts with no expressed or demonstrable function,36
and (b) fragmentary texts whose state of preservation makes it impos-
sible to determine function. We will discuss the few common charac-
teristics of texts of undetermined group one; texts of group two are
too poorly preserved for analysis (or may be fragments from inspec-
tions, transfers, or summaries).
Texts of the first undetermined type do not have much in com-
mon—explained in part by the fact that this is an artificial, catch-all
category. All of them mention workers individually by personal name
and (when dated at all) are dated by the month and year. Some texts of
undetermined type can be linked together by prosopography (demon-
strated below). Otherwise, these texts are attested in each of the three
body formats and can vary widely in content. Six illustrative texts are
presented in the following paragraphs.
BE 14 120, BM 82699, and PBS 2/2 48 are non-tabular registers
which list personnel individually by name subgrouped by occupation,
but without sex-age designation.37 At least fourteen individuals appear
on both BM 82699 and BE 14 120. PBS 2/2 48 shares at least two
persons with BM 82699 and six with BE 14 120, which means that
all three of these documents are snapshots of the same work group
at different times.38 They are not exact copies. In all but one case,39
physical-condition designations or occupations, if any, are given after
the personal name.40 None of these texts have an introduction, but the
36
Although possible functions can be proposed based on the descriptive elements.
37
All of the preserved names are those of males.
38
BE 14 120 is dated to Kudur-Enlil year 5 (1250) and PBS 2/2 48 is dated four years
later to the first month of the accession year of Šagarakti-Šuriaš.
39
In PBS 2/2 48 9’, ki-lum appears before the personal name.
40
Occupations are written after the personal name only once in BM 82699 (line
iv 4’) and PBS 2/2 48 (line 5’) and only twice in BE 14 120 (lines ii 12 and 33).
sources 23
conclusions of two of them41 provide a date and an indication that the

group was the responsibility of one Nāṣiru—the name of the first
worker listed on BE 14 120.42 Two other texts, CBS 4906 and 11899,
have strong stylistic and slight prosopographical links with these three
documents and may also refer to work groups under the same super-
visor (even though the personnel may change).
CBS 11505 is a non-tabular register with just a single column per
side. It lists male and female workers by name and sex-age designa-
tion, grouped into two households (qinnu) for which the household
head is listed first, followed by subordinate members (with the rela-
tionship of each to the head indicated).
Remarks
We have broken down the simple rosters into four types. The catego-
ries of inspection, transfer, and summary are based on expressed or
demonstrable function. Texts that could not be fitted into either of
these categories have been placed into a group of undetermined type.
Ration Rosters
We will now turn our attention to ration rosters. Some of these texts
contain various types of disbursals, such as feed (ŠUK/kurummatu)
for animals and work materials (ÉŠ.GÀR/iškaru) for craftsmen, in
addition to rations. We will only discuss five principal types. They are:
(a) barley or oil allocations as rations (ŠE.BA and Ì.BA) to persons
and families (for periods of six months or less?);
(b) barley allocations as rations (ŠE.BA) to persons who are divided
into tenēštu groups by occupation (period not given);
(c) barley allocations for rations and other purposes to animals
and humans grouped by location outside of Nippur (period
undetermined);
(d) barley (and date) allocations as rations (ŠE.BA) to persons for
periods of more than 6 months;
(e) ration allocation summaries for groups in a single location,
including a numerical personnel census.
Found in BE 14 120 and PBS 2/2 48. BM 82699 lacks a conclusion (its end is
41
preserved).
42
ŠU mNa-ṣi-rum. The ŠU in PBS 2/2 48 is not preserved.
24 chapter two
Table 2. Body Format of Ration Rosters.

Body format Number of texts
Tabular registers 109
Short-tabular registers (clear examples) 18
Short-tabular registers (probable examples) 11
Insufficiently preserved 9
Total 147
Ration rosters that do not fit into these categories are typically unique
texts which have some similarities to the above types or are too poorly
preserved to categorize.
Ration rosters are attested in two body formats. Tabular registers are
the more common (at least 74.1%), short-tabular registers less
frequent (at least 19.7%).
Each text category is drawn up in only one body format (Figure 4).
Types a through c are found as short-tabular registers, and types d and
e as tabular registers.
Basically, ration rosters covering allocations to individuals or fami-
lies (types a–d) for which an allocation period is available are written
as short-tabular if the disbursal period lasts six months or less, as tab-
ular if it covers more than six months.
Ration Roster Category Tabular Short-tabular

Registers Registers
a. Barley or oil allocations as rations
to persons and families for periods x
of 6 months or less (?)
b. Barley allocations as rations
x
to tenēštu groupings
c. Barley allocations to animals
x
and humans
d. Barley (and date) allocations as
rations to persons for periods x
of more than 6 months
e. Ration allocation summaries for groups x
Figure 4. Function and Body Format in Ration Rosters.
sources 25
Barley or Oil Allocations as Rations (ŠE.BA and Ì.BA) to Persons

and Families (for Periods of Six Months or Less?)43
These single column texts are distinguished by a short-tabular body
format44 which lists individual workers and families—sometimes
divided into subgroups based on occupation45—and rations allocated
to them (ŠE.BA and Ì.BA).46 Only one text mentions a disbursal period
(6 months).47 Expressions of familial relationships among the listed
workers are common,48 but sex-age designations for them are rare and
used only in exceptional cases.49
Some allocations of this type contain check marks and/or state-
ments that the rations were “given out” (SUM-nu), which makes it
likely, but not certain, that all texts of this category are records of
rations disbursed rather than rations calculated. The size of the sūtu
used to measure the barley varies, and in only one case50 is the loca-
tion of the disbursal given (outside Nippur). The supervisor’s name
may also be included.
Barley Allocations as Rations (ŠE.BA) to Persons Divided into

Tenēštu Groups by Occupation (Period Undetermined).51
Ration rosters of this type are remarkable for their large size,52 multiple
columns (at least three per side), short-tabular body format,53
and the number (in the hundreds) and sex-age classifications of the
43
Examples include BE 14 138; MUN 101, 103, and 112. BE 14 138 does not
involve oil (Ì or Ì.GIŠ) as such, but ghee (Ì.NUN = ḫimētu).
44
MUN 103 is completely damaged along its left side, and there is no way to be
completely sure of the number of subcolumns originally in the texts (i.e., whether it
had a short-tabular or tabular body format). This could also explain the anomalies
mentioned in notes 47 and 50, page 25 (below).
45
I.e., listed as PN or qinni PN.
46
MUN 112 has no preserved indication that the barley was for ŠE.BA, but the text
is damaged at its beginning and end where one would normally find such statements.
47
MUN 103:1. This text is also the only one in this category that mentions geo-
graphic location.
48
Such as PN1 DUMU(.SAL) PN2, PN DAM/DUMU(.SAL).A.NI.
49
Usually for small children.
50
MUN 103:3.
51
Published examples include BE 15 188 and 190. BE 15 184–85 and 200 are simi-
lar, but with different entry styles and subtotal styles and with some allocations to
animals.
52
E.g., BE 15 190 measures 18.8 × 11.55 × 5.8 cm. Texts of this type are significantly
thicker (usually 5–6 cm in total thickness) than most other ration rosters.
53
One could argue that these texts were written as tabular registers because a sepa-
rate subcolumn containing the sex-age designation can be seen within a few columns
26 chapter two
workers listed on them. Workers are predominantly women and chil-

dren provided with personal name, sex-age designation, and some-
times father’s name and are usually divided into large subgroups of
tenēštu. All allocations are intended as rations (ŠE.BA); and, if an
allocation was disbursed, a check mark was placed to the left of the
recipient’s name. Measurement standard, allocation period, and loca-
tion for the disbursal are not preserved.
Barley Allocations for Various Purposes to Animals and Humans

by Location outside of Nippur (Period Undetermined).54
These one-column texts have a short-tabular body format which
records various types of barley allocations to humans and animals that
were disbursed in locations outside of Nippur. Barley is disbursed to
humans as rations for consumption by workers (ŠE.BA), as materials
for production (ÉŠ.GÀR),55 or as “gifts” (rīmūtu). Ration recipients are
listed as individuals or families, with no subgroups or sex-age designa-
tions given.56 Barley is disbursed to animals for fodder (ŠUK); and the
animals are listed by number, type, and sometimes the individual in
whose care they are placed. All disbursals are made with a standard
measurement (GIŠ.BÁN GAL), and the text may include the name of
the disbursing official.
The intended allocation period for the disbursals listed is not clear.
The period is six months in the lone case where an allocation period
for all of the disbursals is given (months I–VI).57 This is contradicted
in the same text by some individual entries which state that the rations
are intended to cover a period of ten months (months III–XII). The
other documents in this category do not give a disbursal period for all
of the listed disbursals, but some individual entries state that they cover
a span of three months.58
on some of these rosters. This is a rare feature that is not always maintained through-
out a tablet and may be due to a scribe’s choice to draw a ruling down the text to sepa-
rate the designation from the personal name. What is important is that the contents of
row entries are basically the same: sex-age designation/personal name/(ration), with
the sex-age designation and personal name written together in the same subcolumn
or separate in adjacent subcolumns.
54
Published examples include BE 14 60, 62, 91a; BE 15 160.
55
Typically for brewing beer.
56
With one exception: the names and sex-age designations of the members of the
qinnu of mdNuska-erība are laid out at the end of BE 15 160.
57
BE 14 91a.
58
BE 14 60:8–9, 62:3–14.
sources 27
Barley Allocations as Rations (ŠE.BA) and Date Allocations to

Persons for Periods of More Than Six Months.59
These tabular registers provide a monthly accounting of barley alloca-
tions60 to individuals during a period of from seven months to a year
in locations outside of Nippur. Workers are listed individually in the
entry labels (MU.BI.IM) by personal name, sex-age designation, and
physical-condition designation (if applicable). The worker’s occupa-
tion and a statement declaring that the worker listed is the wife, son,
or daughter of a previously listed person may follow the personal
name.61 In one text, sex-age and condition designations are written
in a separate subcolumn which precedes the entry labels.62 There are
no expressed subgroups, but family members are usually listed in
sequence.
Ration allocations make up the bulk of the tabular register—one
subcolumn for each month. Several subtotals of the allocations, calcu-
lated along both the vertical and horizontal axes, may be written in
key locations throughout the register, such as in the final row entry or
in subcolumns dedicated specifically to this task.63 Allocations are
measured out by the “ration sūtu” (GIŠ.BÁN ŠE.BA) and perhaps the
“six-qû sūtu.”64 There are no indications as to whether the rations were
actually disbursed to the workers.
Ration Allocation Summaries for Groups in a Single Location,

Including a Numerical Personnel Census.65
These texts all date from years 13–20 of Kurigalzu II and were com-
piled from information contained in other texts. The four preceding
types of ration rosters would be likely source candidates, though none
of them provide all of the required data. The function of allocation
summaries is to give: (a) the number of workers by sex-age category
Published examples include BE 14 58, BE 15 96 and 111.

59
BE 14 58 contains disbursals of barley and dates.

60
61
DAM.A.NI, DUMU.A.NI, and DUMU.SAL.A.NI.
62
BE 14 58.
63
E.g., subcolumns g, n, o, and line 47 in BE 14 58.
64
But this requires the restoration “[ŠE GIŠ.BÁN]⌈6⌉ SÌLA” in BE 14 58:51.
65
There are at least 34 known documents and fragments of this type of text (includ-
ing the second group written under the reign of Šagarakti-Šuriaš and another variant
text (MUN 111) ). Published examples include BE 14 19–20, 22; BE 15 180; MUN
86–91, 93–95, 105, 108–11; PBS 2/2 9 and 132.
28 chapter two
assigned to a particular supervisor, work assignment, geographic/

ethnic group (gentilic), or larger kin group, (b) the total amount of
barley disbursed as rations (ŠE.BA) to each subgroup by location, and
(c) the month(s) during which the disbursal(s) took place. The attested
disbursal periods usually cover a single month with one or two excep-
tions: BE 14 19 and possibly MUN 86 (both texts would concern dis-
bursals given for two months each). Geographic location, or conceivably
institution, mentioned is most commonly Bīt(-)Ninlil with other
ambiguous names of towns occuring twice.66
A tabular register of allocation summaries can be divided vertically
into three discrete parts, with quantitative data in the first two parts
(census of workers and measurements of barley) and qualitative data
(the names of supervisors and occupations, family groups, etc.) in the
third.
Part 1 enumerates workers in up to five sex-age categories: “adult
male”(GURUŠ), “adolescent male” (GURUŠ.TUR.GAL or GURUŠ.
TUR), “male child” (GURUŠ.TUR.TUR), “adult female” (SAL), or
Figure 5. Vertical Arrangement of Tabular Register of Ration

Allocation Summaries for Groups in a Single Location,
Including a Numerical Personnel Census.67
66
BE 14 22 (Zibbat-Kartaba)and MUN 95 (Pattu).
67
The tablet in Figure 5 is the obverse of MUN 93, published by Sassmannshausen
in BaF 21 (2001). Only the top portion of the tablet is shown (photograph by the
author).
sources 29
“(other) people” (tenēštu). These categories are listed in the subcolumn

headings of this part of the register. The number of workers in each
category and other notations are written in the cells below. The entire
section acts as a census of workers, divided into categories, under each
supervisor.68 The texts do not supply personal names or family data for
individual workers.
The heart of part 2 is the subcolumn(s) totaling the amount of bar-
ley provided to the workers in each row. For the sake of clarity we will
call these disbursal subcolumns. In all but one or two cases, there is
one disbursal subcolumn with the month name in the heading, i.e.,
covering a single month.69 A subcolumn with the heading “BAD”
always follows the disbursal subcolumns. At present, the function
of this subcolumn is unclear, and we will use the neutral reading
BAD.70 Cell entries in the BAD subcolumn are rare and consist of
measures of barley.
The third part contains entry labels or qualitative summaries. Entry
labels mention the names of supervisors71 or occupations,72 or larger
family groups.73 The qualitative summaries (summing up multiple
68
The large percentage of names of supervisors that seem to be of non-Akkadian
origin is striking and significantly out of line with the percentage among the worker
population in general (See Appendix 2). Since “supervisor” is after all an interpreta-
tion, it is possible that these names might rather represent eponyms of work groups,
i.e., the names of the principal leaders of the cohort.
69
Exceptions are BE 14 19 and possibly MUN 86, which both cover two months.
70
The sign has been read as TIL(=gamru) by Leonhard Sassmannshausen in BaF 21
(2001): 266. He has also stated that only check marks occur in this subcolumn
(p. 266), but this is incorrect as these marks are usually on the masculine personal
wedge in the final subcolumn or, lacking this determinative, a corresponding first sign
and often right on the vertical subcolumn dividing line. The only clear entries in this
subcolumn give amounts of grain (MUN 93 i 4, iii 22 and MUN 95: 8–10, 12, 14, and
20). There is no tenable evidence for or against a reading ÚŠ (“dead”), the sign’s most
frequent usage in laborer rosters, on these texts. This is contrary to statements that
I made in my dissertation (University of Chicago (2009): 37–38 n. 56). In fact, the two
signs read by Sassmannshausen as ÚŠ in this text (MUN 95: 6 and 9) which led to those
statements are both in fact NU. For additional certain examples of NU in these subcol-
umns, see BE 14 22: 6, 9, and 22; uncertain examples include MUN 88: 4 (perhaps also
NU, faint), MUN 91:6 and 9 (damaged), and MUN 95: 22 (damaged). One would also
expect a greater number of entries with the reading ÚŠ, based on the frequency of dead
workers in the rest of the roster corpus. Perhaps in the future, if one could make sense
of the ration figures in these texts, one could propose a solution—but this would be a
significant undertaking.
71
Male supervisors predominate heavily, though there are a few females (notably in
MUN 93 and 94).
72
E.g., LÚ.LUNGA.MEŠ (MUN 86:25’, rare).
73
E.g., DUMU.MEŠ PN (BE 14 19:57–59).
30 chapter two
groups) are occupation names,74 geographic names/gentilics,75 super

visors,76 family groups,77 the collective piqdānu,78 or are left blank
(the group being totaled is not labeled).79
There is no indication of a measurement standard (sūtu) or whether
the rations were actually disbursed (other than the check marks on the
tablet).
There is a second slightly different group of documents, dating from
the reign of Šagarakti-Šuriaš eighty years later, one from his eighth
year80 and four from his twefth year.81 Geographic location plays a sig-
nificant role in these allocation summaries. In all cases, these locations
are outside of Nippur. These do not mention a place or institution in
the introduction,82 but only in the grandtotal at the end of the text; or,
if barley was distributed in several locations, the places of distribution
are named in the appropriate subcolumn headings.83 There are no
qualitative summaries (subtotals) in these texts. The grand totals,
where readable, state that these are groups of ÉRIN.84
The disbursal subcolums are also constructed differently in these
texts: a subcolumn with the heading “1 ITI” was inserted before
the disbursal subcolumns to indicate the amount of ration required
for a single month.85 The subcolumns which follow give a com-
bined barley total for several months at this rate. All of these texts,
74
E.g., LÚ.BÁḫ AR.MEŠ (BE 14 22:23 and MUN 95:23), AD.KID.MEŠ (BE
14 22:26 and MUN 95:26).
75
NIM.MA.KI.MEŠ PN (PBS 2/2 9:14 and PBS 2/2 132:14, parallel texts).
76
E.g., CBS 3474 i 19’ and MUN 93 ii 8 (parallel texts).
77
MUN 89 rev. iv 17’.
78
BE 15 180:22. Piqdānu is a poorly understood administrative term derived from
paqādu (to entrust (something)).
79
MUN 89 rev. iv 9’.
80
MUN 105.
81
MUN 108–11 (possibly also 113).
82
Instead they use ŠE.BA N ITI, where N is the number of months covered by the
ration disbursals (maximum attested number of months is 5). MUN 105 deals with
only one month, and the heading is ŠE.BA ITI.NE.NE.GAR. It is also the only text lack-
ing checkmarks, and it has several entries stating that some work groups did not take
their grain allocation (ŠE.BA NU TUK).
83
A large proportion of these subcolumn headings are damaged.
84
Akkadian = ṣābu (“people,” rare). E.g., ÉRIN.ḫ I.A É ⌈dEn⌉-líl (MUN 105:20),
ÉRIN.ME É ⌈dEn⌉-líl (MUN 110:24), and ⌈ša dul-li ÉRIN.ḫ I⌉.[A] (MUN 108:25).
85
E.g., MUN 108, 110–11. Note also the presence of several atypical subcolumns
in MUN 108 (subcolumns h–k) and MUN 109 (subcolumn i and perhaps one or two
of the subcolumns with damaged headings which precede it).
sources 31
except MUN 105, include the BAD subcolumn after the disbursal
subcolumns.86
Remarks
We have analyzed five significant categories of ration rosters and found
that all of them function as records of recipients and allocated goods
and that a typology can be created by analyzing information conveyed,
such as goods disbursed, intended recipients, geographic location,
time span covered, and text format.
Purchases of Personnel
Documents recording the purchases of personnel are of two principal

types: (a) purchases of two or more persons, sometimes members of a
family, and (b) purchases of a single person, usually a very young
child. Several scholars have previously discussed these texts.87
Purchases of Personnel in Groups

With one exception, all presently known group purchases are attested
in documents from Nippur. These texts range in date from c. 1370
(Kadašman-Enlil I) to 1186 (Meli-Šipak).
Table 3. Selected Published and Unpublished Purchases of Personnel in

Groups.
Number of Individuals
Text Regnal Year Purchased
B. 143 + B. 227 Meli-Šipak 1 3

BE 14 7 Burna-Buriaš II 8 8
MUN 8 Burna-Buriaš II 7 (+) 9 (+)
(Continued)
86
MUN 111 , NBC 7959, and (probably) Ni. 1110 are still another variant type,
dealing only with adult males (therefore having only one census subcolumn (in
Ni. 1110 this subcolumn is destroyed)) with entries such as DUMU.ME/.MEŠ mPN.
They record disbursals from year 6 of Kadašman-Enlil (NBC 7959), year 12 of
Šagarakti-Šuriaš (MUN 111), and the accession year of a king whose name is broken
away (Ni. 1110). NBC 7959 and Ni. 1110 list some of the same personal names.
87
J.A. Brinkman, Materials and Studies for Kassite History, vol. 1 (Chicago: Oriental
Insititute of the University of Chicago, 1976): 383–84; O. R. Gurney, The Middle
32 chapter two
Table 3. (Cont.)

Number of Individuals
Text Regnal Year Purchased
MUN 9 + PBS 13 6488 Burna-Buriaš II 22
Ni. 1574 Burna-Buriaš II 18 8
Ni. 1854 (lawsuit about Kadašman-Enlil I 18
a purchase)
Ni. 6192 [Burna-Buriaš II] 25
Ni. 6558 Kurigalzu II 6 2
PBS 2/2 25 Nazi-Maruttaš 10 24
PBS 8/2 162 Burna-Buriaš II 24 4
TuM NF 5 65 Burna-Buriaš II 18 2
(MRWH 2)
TuM NF 5 66 Burna-Buriaš II 17 2
(MRWH 1)
Most of these deal with the acquisition of 2–8 persons, but there are
examples of 18, 22, 24, and 25 slaves being purchased at once. These
legal documents often provide information on each slave: name, rela-
tionship to others in the group, sex-age, price, and place of origin (if
non-native). They also indicate the names of the principals involved in
the transaction: seller, buyer (or buyer’s agent), future owner,89 and wit-
nesses, as well as the full price, how the price was paid, and the date.
Purchases of Single Individuals

Purchases of single individuals are attested from three sites: Nippur,
Ur, and Imlihiye (in the Diyala region). These usually describe a very
young child by sex, age, size (lānu),90 country of birth, and names of
parents.
Babylonian Legal and Economic Texts from Ur (Oxford: British School of Archaeology
in Iraq, 1983): 3–8, 14–15, 17–28, 74–92, 179–81; Herbert P. H. Petschow, “Die
Sklavenkaufverträge des šandabakku Enlil-kidinnī von Nippur,” Orientalia N. S. 52
(1983): 143–55; Sassmannshausen, BaF 21 (2001): 203–08, 211–13.
88
This join should be credited to Daniel Nevez.
89
Enlil-kidinnī, the governor of Nippur, employed proxies in his slave purchases;
and these individuals are listed on the tablet as the person(s) who paid the seller(s) for
the slaves, even though Enlil-kidinnī eventually took possession of them.
90
Expressed in ammatu by the stereotyped formula “(numeral) KÙŠ la-an-šu/ša.”
The attested dimensions of ½, 1, and 2 cubits are unlikely to refer to height, since half
sources 33
Table 4. Published and Unpublished Purchases of Single Individuals.

Text Regnal Year Individual Sold
BaM 13, pp. 57–60, no. 1 Kaštiliašu IV 2 girl (Kassite)
BE 14 1 Burna-Buriaš II 8 boy (native Babylonian)
BE 14 128a Šagarakti-Šuriaš 2 girl (native Babylonian)
CBS 10733 Kudur-Enlil girl (native Babylonian)
MSKH 1 9 Kadašman-Ḫ arbe II girl (native Babylonian)
accession year
UET 7 1 Kadašman-Enlil 3 girl
UET 7 2 Kadašman-Ḫ arbe II boy (native Babylonian)
accession year
UET 7 21 Adad-šuma-iddina boy (native Babylonian)
accession year
UET 7 22 no date preserved boy
UET 7 23 Adad-šuma-iddina boy
accession year
UET 7 24 year 2 (king’s name girl (native Babylonian)
not preserved)
UET 7 25 Kaštiliašu IV 3 girl (native Babylonian)
UET 7 27 Kaštiliašu IV 4 girl
The documents also give the names of buyer and seller, the price, the
names of the witnesses, and the date. In the texts from Ur, the desig-
nation for young male is LÚ.TUR rather than the GURUŠ.TUR used
at Nippur. The time range of these texts is 1352–1224 (Nippur), 1261–
1223 (Ur), and 1231 (Imlihiye).91
Purchases from Nippur are significant in this study because the
people being sold in them are categorized by the same sex-age desig-
nations and many of the same collective terms, notably amīlūtu, that
characterize servile workers listed in rosters. Sales from Ur use slightly
different sex-age terminology and are therefore useful comparisons.
a cubit (or slightly under 25 cm) is too small to indicate a viable child. This metrology
might be a standard which refers to age, rather than actual size. Petschow, “Die
Sklavenkaufverträge,” (1983): 144 n. 8.
91
The type is not confined to the Kassite period in Babylonia. There is a heavily
damaged child-purchase text of the same format (for one child from the land of
Lullumu, sex unknown) from the reign of Adad-apla-iddina in the Isin II dynasty: UM
29-15-598 (from year 5 or 15 of the reign—1064 or 1054 B.C.—M[U.(x+)]⌈5⌉.KAM).
Reference courtesy Brinkman.
34 chapter two
Miscellaneous Texts
The final category consists of sixty-three miscellaneous texts dealing

with workers that either do not occur in sufficient numbers to warrant
a separate category or are unique documents in the study sample.
We will not describe each of these texts, but will look at only a few
examples.
Some texts in this category are legal or administrative texts92 which
deal with the escape, recapture, imprisonment, and subsequent dispo-
sition of aberrant laborers. The first six lines of BM 17626 will serve as
an example:
Example 7. Excerpt from Legal Text from BM 17626.

1. m
SUD-dU.GUR DUMU mfta-x-x(-x)93
2. ZÁḫ -ma md NIN.IB-SUM-aḫ -ḫ e
3. il-qa-áš-šu-um94-ma
4. i-na ki-li ik-la-šu-ma
5. m
⌈ŠES?⌉-du-tum DUMU mIm-ma-ti-ia
6. pu-us-su im-ḫ a-aṣ-ma ú-še-ṣi-šu
…
“Rīš-Nergal, the son of ta-x-x(-x),
escaped, and Ninurta-nādin-aḫḫē
brought him back and held him in prison.
Aḫēdūtu, the son of Immatīya,
assumed a guarantee for him and effected his release.”
The following portion of the text lists the consequences should Rīš-
Nergal escape again, die, etc. It concludes with a list of five witnesses,
the full date, and the fingernail mark of Aḫēdūtu. There are fourteen
92
Legal texts contain conditions for the person’s release, witnesses, seals, etc. These
items are lacking in the administrative texts.
93
For personal names written with both the masculine and feminine personal
determinatives, see J.A. Brinkman, “Masculine or Feminine? The Case of Conflicting
Gender Determinatives for Middle Babylonian Personal Names” in Studies Presented
to Robert D. Biggs: June 4, 2004, eds. Martha T. Roth et al. (Chicago: The Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, 2007), 1–10.
94
This does not necessarily indicate a dative according to Middle Babylonian
orthographic practice.
sources 35
other texts95 that describe comparable situations and use similar

phraseology.96
Other texts in the miscellaneous category are non-roster adminis-
trative texts and ad hoc notes dealing with disbursals of barley to
workers.97 For example, Ni. 826 is a ten-line text which lists the rations
(ŠE.BA) for nine months for two dead women. The text is dated to the
month and day and mentions the women’s supervisor who seals the
tablet.98
Example 8. Ni. 826.

1. 1 GUR 2 PI 3 BÁN ŠE.BA fSu-un-⌈x⌉-am-ma BA.ÚŠ
2. TA ITI.APIN.DU8.A
3. EN ITI.ŠU.NUMUN.NA
4. 1 GUR 2 PI 3 BÁN ŠE.BA fḫ u-un-zu-ʾ-ti BA.ÚŠ
5. TA ITI.APIN.DU8.A
6. a-di ITI.ŠU.NUMUN.NA
7. PAP 3 GUR ŠE.BA 2 BA.ÚŠ.MEŠ
rev.
8. ŠU DUMU fKu-up-pi-ta-ti
9. ITI ŠU.NUMUN.NA U4.28.KAM
10. KIŠIB DUMU fKu-up-pi-ta-ti
A few Middle Babylonian letters are also relevant, especially with

regard to amīlūtu. In one letter, an official is ordered to give barley to
nine amīlūtu under the authority of a brewer of Āl-šēlebi “according
to [their] status as amīlūtu” as well as to residents of the city.99 Another
letter contains an unclear passage that could be interpreted either as a
reminder from the writer to his superior that the amīlūtu-status of
95
Examples include BE 14 11, 127, 135; BM 17626; CBS 8600A, 11106, 11453;
Ni. 1333, 1390, 2204, 7195; PBS 8/2 161; TuM NF 5 67; and UM 29-13-984. Some
scholarly commentary is available: Herbert P. H. Petschow, MRWH (1974): 31–36 and
Sassmannshausen, BaF 21 (2001): 194, 218–19.
96
Specifically, pūta + maḫ āṣu “to assume guarantee (for somebody).”
97
E.g., CBS 15178 and Ni. 826.
98
There is no counterpart seal impression on the tablet, raising the possibility that
this tablet is a draft or a copy.
99
ana pī amīlūt[īšunu] BE 17 83:16 (collated May 2010). A restoration of amīlūt[īšu]
(“his status as amīlūtu”) in line sixteen is also possible. See CAD A/2, p. 62 (amīlūtu, 4)
and note the translation of aššābu in this passage by the CAD as “alien(?) resident (of
low status) in a town.” CAD A/2, p. 461 (aššābu, 1.c).
36 chapter two
some ḫ azannus has been set down on a document or as a statement

that the (names of?) certain amīlus subject to the ḫ azannus have been
recorded.100
Other unique texts, which may be related to this corpus, need to be
further studied. For example, BBSt 33 is a damaged stone document of
undetermined date, though probably late Middle Babylonian or very
early Neo-Babylonian, which lists male and female workers inherited
as part of an estate; these are described by the same distinctive sex-age
categories that are elsewhere applied only to servile laborers. Another
significant text from Dūr-Kurigalzu, also damaged, lists many men
and women by name, often adding information on place of residence
and family/group relationships.101
Texts of the miscellaneous category are important to this study
because they contain information that supplements the data drawn
from rosters and purchases— specifically, what happens to servile lab-
orers who desert their assignments, and what was the social status of
the workers listed on the rosters.
Concluding Remarks on Sources
The available sources for a study of the servile laborer consist of ros-
ters of workers, purchases of personnel, and miscellaneous adminis-
trative texts (including letters). Rosters are the most important; and
these can be divided into simple rosters, which list workers but not
rations, and ration rosters, which list workers and rations. Simple ros-
ters can be separated into types based on function; and ration rosters
can be divided into categories based on a variety of factors, such as
geographic location of the disbursal, goods disbursed, intended recipi-
ents, time span covered, and body format. Purchases of personnel
contain the details of sales of groups of people or of individual chil-
dren. The final category consists of miscellaneous texts which touch
upon the servile population, but do not belong in the more common
text categories.
100
awīlūssunu ina lēʾi ša bēliya šaṭrat BE 17 51: 17–19. CAD A/2, p. 61 (amīlūtu,
2.b).
101
IM 50990, published in Iraq 11 (1949): 131–49, no. 8. Some of the qinnu (families
or work groups?) may total as high as 50 or 60 individuals, but the meaning of the
formulary beginning PAP qin-nu + number needs further elucidation (see page 98).
CHAPTER THREE
POPULATION: SEX, AGE, DEATH, AND HEALTH
Introduction
The next part of this chapter (section 2) describes the data base
that was used to process the information contained in the sources.
Section 3 discusses the quality of the data and suggests ways to lessen
the impact of the data’s limitations. The main contribution of the chap-
ter is section 4, which is a detailed statistical analysis of the worker
population. It includes remarks about the composition of the popula-
tion: sex ratio, age categories, mortality, disability, and absences. The
chapter ends with a conclusion (section 5) summarizing some of the
more significant results of the statistical analysis.
The Data Base
Microsoft Access, a current data base program, has been used to

organize information about the tablets and the individuals listed on
them. These data have been entered into two distinct, searchable
tables—a Document Table and a Personnel Table—that are linked
together so that one can query both tables with a single action.
The purpose of the Document Table is to gather basic information
about each document (e. g., tablet condition, date, contents, style,
transliterations, photographs). It includes all texts that fit the selection
criteria mentioned in section 2 (“Process of Selection”) of Chapter 2,
even those unpublished sources for which full transliterations or pho-
tographs were unavailable. The Document Table functions as a search-
able catalogue of the corpus and an access point for the digitized
transliterations and photographs available for most tablets.
Each of the 520 tablets and fragments that make up the corpus was
entered separately into the table, and the appropriate data for each
tablet were included for the following fields:1
1
Except where some fields did not apply or the information was not available.
38 chapter three
(a) museum number, excavation number, and publication informa

tion;
(b) physical appearance and dimensions;
(c) date (if present);
(d) text type, format,2 and a short description of the contents;
(e) presence of: key vocabulary, sex-age and physical-condition des-
ignations, occupational categories, gentilics, and check marks;
(f) disbursal of commodities and the measuring standard used;
(g) photographs and transliterations.
In most cases, the information to be entered in a field was circum-
scribed, i.e., there could be only a few possible answers; and this aspect
was engineered into the data base to speed up the entry process and to
facilitate standardized responses.3 At other times, the answers for par-
ticularly complicated or anomalous situations were customized.
The Personnel Table collects information on every individual
person listed on the 307 tablets from the University of Pennsylva
nia Museum, the British Museum, the Hilprecht-Sammlung in Jena,
and the Louvre. The texts housed in Istanbul and the Yale Babylonian
Collection could not be collated, and so the individuals listed on these
documents were not entered into this table. However, transliterations
or detailed notes for each of the Istanbul and Yale tablets are available;
and these were used to explore questions that the other texts did not
provide enough information to answer.
Each occurrence of a personal name on the tablets was given a sin-
gle entry in this Personnel Table (total 5816 entries). The table includes
the following fields:
(a) personal name (spelling, transcription, alias);
(b) citation (text, side, column, line, subcolumn4);
(c) function (e.g., worker, supervisor, household head, non-worker
father or mother,5 witness, etc.);
(d) sex-age category;
(e) current condition (alive, dead, ill, blind, escaped, imprisoned,
fettered, travelling);6
2
As described in the preceding chapter.
3
Primarily by creating pull-down menus.
4
The subcolumn letter is given after the line number because it refers to a portion
of a line, i.e., a single cell (box) within a line. The citation style used in this study is
explained on pages 10–11.
5
I.e., patronym or matronym.
6
If a worker is not listed as dead, he or she is presumed to be alive.
population 39
(f) occupation and/or job description;

(g) name(s) and relationship(s) of other household members;
(h) name of supervisor and description of supervisory role
(e.g., PN1 PN2, amīlūtu ša PN);
(i) membership in a qinnu and the eponym of that qinnu (qinni
PN);
(j) gentilic;
(k) residence or place of work-assignment (region, town, insti
tution);
(l) notable administrative term applied to the principal’s status or
his/her work (e.g., tenēštu, amīlūtu, mandattu);
(m) personal barley allocation and amount (total and/or monthly
amount);
(n) other commodities received and amounts;
(o) reference(s) to the same person in other texts.
As with the Document Table, there were a limited number of possible
answers for many fields in the Personnel Table. For example, the “sex”
field presented the following choices: “male”, “female”, “insufficiently
preserved”, and “not indicated”; and this was factored into the data-
entry process.7 Provisions were also made for detailed or unexpected
answers. Some fields were not applicable to a person (e.g., sex-age des-
ignations for patronyms); or the information was not available, even if
the text passage was fully preserved.
Data were entered whenever present. For example, if an individual
was mentioned on a tablet, but his/her personal name was destroyed;
any information that remained (e.g., profession, sex-age designation,
patronym) was entered into the data base. By following this principle,
the data base provided as complete a picture as possible; and any
search, sort, query, or report drawn from it was as comprehensive as
possible.
The Data and their Limitations
The 520 texts fitting the selection criteria formed the basis for the
Document Table, and the information on the individuals listed on 307
of these texts was entered into the Personnel Table. The information
7
Again, primarily through pull-down menus.
40 chapter three
written into these two tables8 makes up the data base used for this
study. A great majority (82%) of the tablets featured in these tables are
rosters, and the individuals found on the rosters of the Personnel Table
are the source of nearly all the statistical information appearing in this
chapter; so it is worth examining how these documents reflect the tex-
tual categories laid out in the preceding chapter.
There are 253 simple rosters, 147 ration rosters, and 26 unassigned
rosters (for a total of 426) in the Document Table. A search of the
Personnel Table reveals individuals listed from 140 simple rosters,
98 ration rosters, and 8 unassigned rosters for a total of 246 rosters
in that table. Numbers of rosters by textual category found in the
Document and Personnel Tables are given in Table Five below:
Table 5. Number of Rosters by Category in the Document and Personnel

Tables.
Document Table Personnel Table
Simple rosters
Inspections 71 32
Transfers 13 9
Summaries 2 2
Undetermined type 167 97
Total simple rosters: 253 140
Ration rosters 9
Allocations—types (a, d, e) 7 6
Allocations—tenēštu-groups (b) 24 20
Allocations—animals and humans (c) 7 5
Summaries—numerical census (f) 35 24
Other 32 28
Insufficiently preserved 42 15
Total ration rosters: 147 98
Unassigned rosters 26 8
Total 426 246
8
And the queries, the derived reports, and the forms designed to assist in data
entry.
9
Letters follow those given in Figure 4, page 24. The categories barley or oil allo
cations as rations (ŠE.BA and Ì.BA) to persons and families (for periods of six months
population 41
Before we study the data from the rosters, we will first discuss how
our analysis will be conditioned by tablet damage, the lack of dates
on the texts, and the manner in which individuals and groups are
recorded on the tablets.
Problems of Preservation and Access

More than 94% of the documents used in this study are damaged.
Figure 6 is a stacked column graph comparing the state of preserva-
tion of all tablets available for statistical analysis on the worker popu-
lation (Personnel Table) with all known tablets available on the topic
(Document Table).10
Each column in Figure 6 is marked off into five categories (A–E)
corresponding to the degree of preservation of the tablets. Category A:
fully preserved tablets that have all four corners and the center
preserved with undamaged writing. Category B: mostly—but not com-
pletely—preserved tablets that have all four corners and the center
preserved, but the text is damaged in some small way. Categories C and
D have at least 40% of the tablet body preserved; but C includes tablets
with mostly readable writing and an identifiable format, while the
writing on tablets of category D is mostly unreadable and the format
has not been identified. Category E includes small portions of a tablet,
such as a corner or a flake of the surface that represents less than 40%
of the original tablet, with an unidentified format or few words
readable.
These categories served as guidelines in creating Figure 6, and on
occasion assignment of a tablet to a category had to be based on esti-
mates of tablet size, etc., that are hardly incontrovertible. Unavailable
tablets had to be placed in a category based on information recorded
on previous transliterations or notes, which were sometimes laconic in
their descriptions.
or less?), barley (and date) allocations as rations (ŠE.BA) to persons for periods of more
than six months, and ration allocation summaries for groups in one location including
a numerical personnel census (i.e., categories a, d, and e) were combined in this table
because of the low numbers represented by each.
10
I.e., tablets entered in the Document Table and the subset of them that was avail-
able for the Personnel Table.
42 chapter three
Figure 6. Preservation of Tablets: Document Table vs. Personnel

Table.
Figure 6 suggests that the documents used to compile population sta-

tistics are generally in better condition than the corpus as a whole.
A greater percentage of them are complete or are mostly preserved
(Categories A and B), and slightly smaller percentages fall under
the categories of at least 40% preserved (C and D) and very little
preserved (E).11
Chronology of the Statistical Corpus

The rosters used to compile the Personnel Table were composed over
a period of at least 89 years, from year 13 of Kurigalzu II to year 1 of
Kaštiliašu IV (c. 1320–1232),12 and at least one text is attested from the
reign of each king ruling during the period.13 Twenty-eight rosters are
dated to king and year, i.e., at least royal name and regnal year are suf-
ficiently preserved for identification.14
11
The statistics on the preservation of documents could be affected in the future: (a)
by the discovery of still more texts in these categories; (b) by more joins within the
corpus.
12
The entire research corpus (Document Table) covers a greater range of dates
from c. 1370 to 1186 (both terminal texts are legal documents pertaining to slaves).
13
Seven kings ruled Babylonia at this time: Kurigalzu II (1332–1308), Nazi-
Maruttaš (1307–1282), Kadašman-Turgu (1281–1264), Kadašman-Enlil II (1263–
1255), Kudur-Enlil (1254–1246), Šagarakti-Šuriaš (1245–1233), and Kaštiliašu IV
(1232–1225).
14
BE 14 19, 22, 58, 60, 62, 91a, 105, 120; CBS 7726; MUN 86–93, 103, 105, 108–
111, 284, 418; UM 29-13-378, -382, -816.
population 43
Three texts are dated just by regnal year or have the regnal year only
preserved.15 Nine texts mention a regnal year without a royal name
within the text, meaning that the year is not the explicit date of com-
position but occurs in an individual entry or qualitative summary as a
year marking some administrative action.16 Four of these twelve texts
refer to high regnal years, and so they either date to or postdate years
within the reigns of Kurigalzu II or Nazi-Maruttaš (the only two rulers
in the sequence who reigned more than 18 years). BE 15 111 is dated to
year 21; and CBS 3646, 8509, and 15178 mention years 23, 21, and 27,
respectively, within the text. One text dates to the eighth year of
Šagarakti-Šuriaš or later, because there is a reference to that year within
one of the qualitative summaries.17 Six others can be dated to a particu-
lar king, but not to a specific year.18
There are two explanations for the lack of dates by regnal year and
king. In the first place, some complete rosters have either no date or
just the regnal year, which indicates that reign and year were not
always required for certain types of documents. Secondly, some of
these tablets have sustained considerable damage in significant loca-
tions. Almost all dates are written in the introduction or conclusion of
the text, which means that they are typically found on the obverse top
left and reverse bottom left corners of a multi-columned tablet, or on
or near the upper edge either as the beginning or end of the text. These
are the thinnest and most exposed parts of the tablet and are therefore
the most likely to be damaged or broken off.
Problem of Personal Name Repetition

The prime identifier of an entry in the Personnel Table is the personal
name (PN) associated with it. Table 6 gives statistics on the relative
preservation of these names.
Of the 5816 entries, just over 92% have at least part of the personal
name preserved and 59.5% have names that are completely preserved
or can be fully restored.
15
BE 15 111; CBS 12572 and 15178.
16
CBS 3646 obv. i’ 12’ and ii’ 18’ b, 8509 obv. ii’ 10’ b, 8510 obv. iii 6’ b, 10700 obv.
i’ 13’ and rev. ii’ 6, 11873 rev. 13’ e’, 13322 obv. 2, 13490 obv. i’ 9’; UM 29-13-644 obv.
iii’ 7’ b’; UM 29-15-253 obv. ii’ 2’ b.
17
CBS 7092+ obv. i’ 8’’ a’.
18
CBS 3816; MUN 94–95, 101, and 112; UM 29-15-370.
44 chapter three
Table 6. Personnel Table Entries and Preservation of Personal Names.

5816 Total Entries
5371 Entries with at least part of the PN preserved.
3459 Entries with the PN completely preserved or plausibly reconstructed
in its full form.
Table 7. Repetition of Personal Names.19

3459 Entries with the PN completely preserved or plausibly reconstructed
in its full form.
1886 Different names that are completely preserved or can be restored.
572 Names that occur in more than one entry.
Table 7 shows the number of different names that can be found

among the entries with at least a partially preserved name.Worth not-
ing is that 30.3% of the different names occur more than once.
Table 8 provides additional statistics on completely preserved or
plausibly reconstructed personal names (complete or reconstructed in
their full form). It lists how often the same or homonymous names
appear in the documentation, the total number of different names
attested, the number of entries, and the percentage of the total.
There are 1886 different names attested and 572 of these names
occur in more than one entry. The majority of names (69.7%) show up
just once in the record, and only forty-two names (2.2%) appear eight
times or more.
Table 8 also uncovers a problem that most historians of Babylonia
eventually encounter: when faced with multiple occurrences of a
name, how does one distinguish among those which are (a) references
to one individual, and (b) references to different individuals (and, with
names occurring a significant number of times, there could be multi-
ple individuals with multiple references each)? Failing to distinguish
individual people with the same name can lead to statistical distortion.
19
At least six workers are known by two different personal names. This phenome-
non is expressed in the entry as: “PN1 ša MU-šu/ša PN2.” See page 112, note 118
for further discussion.
population 45
Table 8. Frequency of Occurrences of Homonyms among Names that are

Completely Preserved or can be Plausibly Reconstructed.
Different Homonymous Names Total Number of Occurrences

As percentage of the
Frequency of Number whole repertoire of Number of As percentage
occurrence of names attested names occurrences of the whole
1x 1314 69.7% 1314 38.0%
2x 264 14.0% 528 15.3%
3x 119 6.3% 357 10.3%
4x 57 3.0% 228 6.6%
5x 41 2.2% 205 5.9%
6x 29 1.5% 174 5.0%
7x 20 1.1% 140 4.0%
8x 11 0.6% 88 2.5%
9x 8 0.4% 72 2.1%
10x 3 0.2% 30 0.9%
11x 6 0.3% 66 2.0%
12x 4 0.2% 48 1.4%
13x 4 0.2% 52 1.5%
15x 1 0.05% 15 0.4%
16x 1 0.05% 16 0.4%
24x 1 0.05% 24 0.7%
30x 1 0.05% 30 0.9%
36x 2 0.1% 72 2.1%
Total (s): 1886 3459
Yet this is not always possible in context because the vast majority of
personal names in these rosters lack further indication of distinction
such as occupation or parentage (patronym, matronym).
Despite these limitations, the data contained in these tablets are
useful. An authoritative quantitative study of any segment of the pop-
ulation of Babylonia has yet to be written,20 and even an initial attempt
at compiling demographic statistics may be a step forward.
20
Especially if the source includes women and children, who tend to be lost in the
record.
46 chapter three
Fortunately, the number of commonly repeated personal names is

minimal;21 and there are ways to reduce the impact of these on the
overall statistical picture by linking occurrences of the same name
with a single individual through prosopography. With this material,
there are at least two methods for making such prosopographical
connections:
(1) persons in work groups tend to be listed in a specific order, and
this sequence is often repeated when the same work group
appears in other documents (the reasonable conclusion is that
personal names shared between such separate groups represent
the same individual);22 and
(2) attestations of the same personal name, combined with the same
physical-condition designation, supervisor, patronym, or qinnu,
suggest a prosopographical link.23
Sometimes one can connect multiple occurrences of the same name
by using both methods, and this strengthens the prosopographical
linkage.24
Prosopographical identifications have made at least slight progress.
Around three and a half percent of the 5816 entries have been con-
nected to at least one other entry. The process is frustrated some-
what by the fact that the most frequently used names are usually
hypocoristics (Tarību). On a positive note, there are some distinctive
21
For the purposes of this study, a commonly repeated name is one which occurs
eight times or more. These account for only 2.2% of the total.
22
For example, BE 15 200 obv. ii 16–24 b lists nine individuals in the following
order: Yāʾu-bani, Ildu-aḫīya, Ulūlītu, Libūr-nādinša, [mārat] Sapsapāni, Ina-Ekur-
tašmânni, Yāʾūtu, Tarâš-ina-Sagil, and ⌈mārat⌉ Ṣalimūti mušēniqtu. The same sequence
of names is found in BE 15 184 obv. i’ 7’–15’ b (these are not the only names that the
two texts share). BE 15 200 also has connections with BE 15 185: e.g., the damaged
names written in BE 15 200 obv. i 9–19 are probably the same as those found in BE 15
185 obv. i 8’–18’.
23
Two examples may suffice. Adad-šemi is attested as a personal name twice (CBS
3736 obv. 12 and CBS 10741 rev. ii’ 10’ b). In both cases the person associated with the
name is a worker who has escaped (ZÁḪ ), which suggests that the two occurrences of
the name are for the same person. Aṣûšu-namir is listed as the name of an escapee
three times (N 1953 obv.? ii’ 3’, UM 29-15-212 rev. i 6, and CBS 10741 rev. ii’ 8’); but,
since the name is attested for male workers ten other times, it is less likely, although
not impossible, that all three can be connected to the same worker.
24
E.g., the first two work groups mentioned in note 22 above (BE 15 200 obv.
ii 16–24 b and BE 15 184 obv. i’ 7’–15’ b) are summarized as amīlūtu ša Yāʾu-bani,
i.e., the names are listed in the same sequence and have the same supervisor. Yāʾu-bani
is also the first member listed in both groups.
population 47
names that stand out in the record (Gubbuḫu, Gabbaša-inbu); and

they are usually a good place to begin looking for prosopographical
links. It is also easier to find multiple listings of the same individual
if that person is associated with a physical-condition designation,
e.g., “blind.”
Groups as Recorded: A Caution

Statistics and conclusions concerning groups, whether they are work
cohorts, families, qinnus, or something else, can only be based on the
group as recorded in the document. There is no way of being certain
that the document includes all members of that group, i.e., that no
other members alive at the time of the tablet’s writing are omitted.
The effects of this on the study are obvious, and one example should
be sufficient. In the next chapter, the family and household structure
of ancient Mesopotamia will be discussed. The documents used in this
study are a particularly good source for this topic because they tend to
list family members together in order of sex and age. This information
is useful for discussions regarding the typical size of the Mesopotamian
household, the average number of children per married couple, and
the ratio of male to female children in a household. There is no way at
present to detect whether any member of a family has been excluded
from a roster; but, if this did happen, it would affect statistics pre-
sented here about family size and structure. The same limitation
applies to any other cohort, such as one organized by occupation or
work task.
Descriptive Statistics for the Worker Population
The completed data base is an important source for qualitative and

quantitative data on the servile population. This section of the chapter
presents statistics—mostly dealing with the sex, age, and other
recorded factors (death, blindness, etc.)—about the worker popula-
tion. The first part discusses the number of entries made in the
Personnel Table by function (worker, supervisor, patronym, etc.) and
the number of worker entries that contain sex and age designations,
i.e., viable entries for demographic analysis. Parts two and three ana-
lyze the distribution of sexes and age categories within the worker
population. Part four briefly makes the case for using sex ratio, an
important demographic measure, as a tool for gaining insight into the
48 chapter three
population as recorded. Parts five through eight provide simple statis-

tics on death, blindness, illness, and traveling workers.
The Entries
Of the 5816 personnel entries, 4130 are associated with workers,
808 with supervisors, 435 or 436 with non-worker parents (patronyms
and matronyms), and 442 or 443 with miscellaneous functions (epo-
nym of a qinnu, witness, buyer or seller of a slave). Males make
up 3484 of the entries (2119 workers, 774 supervisors, 395 non-worker
fathers, and 196 with miscellaneous functions), females account for
1657 (1524 workers, 34 supervisors, 40 or 41 non-worker mothers,
and 58 or 59 with miscellaneous functions). The sex of 675 individuals
is not known.
This study focuses on the lives and living conditions of the workers.
One of its stated goals is to learn as much as possible about the size
of this group and how its members are divided among sex and age
categories. One can draw from the data in the Personnel Table to begin
answering these questions. Most of these data were originally written
in rosters that list workers individually25 or rosters listing workers in
groups by numbers.26 Because there are no personal names attached to
individual workers and because the groups cannot be broken down by
sex or age27 in the second type of tablet (workers in groups by num-
bers), those workers could not be entered into the Personnel Table.28
However, as will be shown later, documents of this type play a signifi-
cant role in our discussions of the adult sex ratio and population
viability.29
Males and Females

The sex of a listed person can be determined by the sex-age designa-
tion, by the presence/absence of a male or female personal name
25
Most rosters enumerate workers individually.
26
Found in simple roster summaries and ration allocation summaries for groups
in a single location including a numerical census.
27
Because of the use of the indefinite catchall tenēštu, whose meaning can vary from
one tablet to another.
28
The tablets do contain the names of the workers’ supervisors, and their names
are entered into the data base along with the number of people (by abbreviated sex
and age groups) that each supervisor oversaw.
29
Pages 54–56 (in “Young versus Old”) and 113–15 (“Escape as a Cause of Work-
Force Depletion”).
population 49
determinative, or by the personal name itself.30 Sex alone (male versus

female) can be determined for most of the 4130 worker entries,31 but
age classification is preserved for just 2256 of the entries. These 2256
entries are those available for detailed demographic study. Although a
seemingly small number by modern census standards, this is a consid-
erable sample size for the ancient world and is over double that used
in the influential study of the demography of Roman Egypt by Bagnall
and Frier.32 Table 9 lists how these 2256 entries break down among the
sexes.
Worth noting is the difference between the total number of male
workers versus female workers (595 more males), contrasted with the
difference between the number of male and female workers used in
the demographic study (110 more males), i.e., a greater percentage of
the total female entries have an available sex-age designation. In cases
where sex-age designation was not available, it is more likely a result
of tablet damage than scribal omission among female entries (49.9%)
Table 9. Male and Female Workers for which Sex and Age Designation is
Available.
Males
2119 Total male workers.
388 Sex-age designation not preserved.
− 548 Sex-age designation not given.
1183 Individually listed male workers for detailed demographic
study.
Females
1524 Total female workers.
225 Sex-age designation not preserved.
−226 Sex-age designation not given.
1073 Individually listed female workers for detailed demographic
study.
Total: 2256 Workers for detailed demographic study.
30
Some name types are typical of male or of female bearers; but at least a few names
are borne by both men and women.
31
Naturally, worker entries exclude supervisors, non-worker parents (patronyms),
etc.
32
Their study included 1,084 entries in the PERSONS data base. Roger S. Bagnall
and Bruce W. Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1994): 39–40.
50 chapter three
than male entries (41.4%), making it a real possibility that sex-age des-
ignation was more often recorded for women than men. If this is true,
one explanation might be that this is due to the use of the adult male
sex-age designation (GURUŠ) as the default entry for male workers in
some tablets.33 In these texts, sex-age designation is recorded for all
individuals except (suspected) adult males. As a result, the data base
entries for these individuals would then be counted among the “Sex-
age designation not given” subtotal.34
Demography, Statistics, and the Sex Ratio

Scholars have used census data to make demographic studies of pre-
modern societies, and it is tempting to do the same with the material
from Kassite Nippur.35 However, we will limit most of our discussion
to descriptive statistics, rather than traditional demographic measures,
for three reasons. The first is that because such a small number of the
documents can be assigned a precise date (by king and regnal year),
one cannot track chronological trends and developments in the com-
position of the population. Second, most meaningful demographic
measures, such as the crude birth rate, general fertility rate, age-
specific fertility rate, crude death rate, and infant mortality rate,
require that the data be drawn from a single year, thus creating a snap-
shot of the population at one moment in time.36 The rosters used in
this study were composed over a period of at least 89 years, which
makes most of these demographic indicators inapplicable; and it is
also unlikely that every person recorded was alive at one time. Third,
the texts record a worker’s age only in a relative age-group scale instead
of the modern practice of stating a person’s age in years. This is
33
E.g., BE 14 138.
34
These individuals were still counted as male.
35
Some examples are Roger S. Bagnall and Bruce W. Frier, Demography of Roman
Egypt (1994), David Herlihy and Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, Tuscans and Their
Families: A Study of the Florentine Catasto of 1427 (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1985), W.V. Harris, “Demography, Geography and the Source of Roman Slaves,” The
Journal of Roman Studies 89 (1999): 62–75, Walter Scheidel, Death on the Nile: Disease
and the Demography of Roman Egypt (Mnemosyne bibliotheca classica Batava
Supplementum, volume 228 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), and Willy Clarysse and Dorothy J.
Thompson, Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt (2 volumes; New York : Cambridge
University Press, 2006).
36
K. Srinivasan, Basic Demographic Techniques and Applications (New Delhi: Sage
Publications, 1998): 65–68, 86–87 and Colin Newell, Methods and Models in
Demography (New York: Guilford Press, 1988): 64.
population 51
because the sex-age classifications were used to determine the work

capacity and food requirements of each individual. Designations
are probably related to age, but are not intended to function as an
exact measure of age. This is a subtle difference that needs to be
acknowledged.
Of these three reasons only the third is of significance to the study.
The first two mean that it is impossible to obtain the quality of statis-
tics that a modern society might yield; but, since many of these
demographic measures are essentially unchanging in an early society,
they are of trivial importance. However, the lack of ages for mem-
bers of the population is decisive and is a problem that cannot be
remedied.37
With these limitations in mind, we will nonetheless present the sta-
tistics here as if the individuals listed on the texts were contemporaries
and the sex-age designations at least partially related to age. As Middle
Babylonian prosopographical studies progress, a relative chronology
for the rosters may be established that will make it possible to do a
demographic analysis of the population in more depth.
There is one demographic measure, the sex ratio, that can be of
use, especially since it is a valuable tool for comparing the demo-
graphic situation in Kassite Nippur with other premodern societies.
Sex ratio is a common measure representing the sex composition of a
population and is defined as “the ratio of males to females in the pop-
ulation. It is normally expressed as the number of males per 100
females,”38 usually reduced to just a single number, i.e., a ratio of
103:100 is usually expressed as 103. A number greater than one hun-
dred indicates that there are more males than females in the sample; a
number less than one hundred means that the population has more
females than males. The normal, accepted sex ratio at birth is 105; and,
because in most of the modern, developed world the mortality rate for
men is higher than for women, it tends to drift towards 100 as the
population ages. In regions where female mortality is greater,39 such as
twentieth century southern and eastern Asia, the sex ratio is higher
(e.g., the ratio for India in 1971 was 107.5).40
37
My thanks to Roger Bagnall for his assistance in evaluating the weight of each
of these three obstacles. Like the Middle Babylonian data, his Egyptian material
(see page 50, note 35) was limited primarily by its quantity and the representativeness
of the sample.
38
Newell, Methods and Models (1988): 27.
39
Due to complications in childbirth and the poor nutrition of young girls.
40
Ibid., 30.
52 chapter three
Sex ratio can also help to assess whether our material is likely to be
a source of representative demographic data. If the calculations from
the Nippur data result in a ratio that is close to normal, then one might
feel more confident that these documents are an accurate record of the
actual population. Ratios that differ significantly from the norm must
be explained, either as the result of poor sampling, inaccurate census-
taking, disease, war, deliberate manipulation of the population, or
something that would similarly affect the recorded numbers. When
drawn from a subset of a population, unusual sex ratios can also be
explained by the constitution of the subset. This is likely the case with
the people studied here.
The basic sex ratio (total male entries versus total female entries in
the data base) of the material collected for Nippur workers is 139. This
ratio favors males to a greater degree than ratios drawn from the doc-
umentary records of other premodern societies, such as Roman Egypt
(ratio=110.4)41 and Medieval Tuscany (ratio=110.3),42 and is closer to
the sex ratio of slaves in the American South in the Eighteenth
Century (117–130).43 This initial result of 139 is a crude measure that
will be refined in the pages that follow.44
41
Bagnall and Frier, Demography of Roman Egypt (1994): 92.
42
Herlihy and Zuber, Tuscans and Their Families, (1985): 132.
43
The following sex ratios are available on American slave populations during the
eighteenth century: Chesapeake 117, North Carolina 125, and South Carolina 130
(Marvin L. Kay and Lorin Lee Cary “A Demographic Analysis of Colonial North
Carolina with Special Emphasis upon the Slave and Black Populations” in Jeffrey J.
Crow and Flora J. Hatley (eds.), Black Americans in North Carolina and the South
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984): 76–78 and 93–103; Allan
Kulikoff, “A’Prolifick’ People: Black Population Growth in the Chesapeake Colonies,
1700–1790,” Southern Studies 16 (1977): 393–96 and 403–06; and Philip D. Morgan,
“Black Society in the Lowcountry, 1760–1810,” (1983): 90–92). Moreover, it seems
that the sex ratio was even higher (skewed towards males) in the Seventeenth Century
when the slave population was being established (Russell R. Menard, “The Maryland
Slave Population, 1658–1730: A Demographic Profile of Blacks in Four Counties,”
The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series 32 (1975): 33, 38–39 and “Slave Demog
raphy in the Lowcountry, 1670–1740: From Frontier Society to Plantation Regime,”
The South Carolina Historical Magazine 96 (1995): 286).
44
Sex ratios can be calculated on the slave population of Post-Republican Rome
(200 or 233) and privately held slaves in Babylonia from the seventh to fourth centu-
ries b.c. (236), but the data from both sources are problematic. The statistics from
Italy were calculated from epitaphs, whose bias has been discussed (W. V. Harris,
“Demography, Geography and the Source of Roman Slaves,” The Journal of Roman
Studies 89 (1999): 69 and Walter Scheidel, “Human Mobility in Roman Italy, II: The
Slave Population.” The Journal of Roman Studies 95 (2005): 73). The Neo-Babylonian
statistics were drawn from numbers given in Muhammad A. Dandamaev. Slavery in
Babylonia from Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (626-331 b.c.), rev. ed., translated
population 53
Young versus Old

The only way to determine any sort of age for a worker is by sex-age
designation. The designations of every individually listed worker have
been compiled in the data base. The data appear here as Tables 10 and
11, which give the number and percentages of each sex-age designa-
tion for males and females, respectively.
There are 704 (59.5%) individually listed male adults45 versus 479
(40.5%) male children. The total number of individually listed female
adults is 638 (59.5%)46 versus 401 (40.5%) female children. The ratio
of children to adults is 0.67:1 (a little over one child per two adults),
which is less than the 1:1 ratio usually required for a population to
maintain its numbers. If servile workers were able to procreate only
Table 10. Male Workers Listed Individually by Sex-age Designation.

Number Percentage
9 0.8% Elderly males
695 58.7% Adult males
254 21.5% Adolescent males
82 6.9% Weaned males
143 12.1% Nursing males
Total: 1183 Male workers for demographic study
Table 11. Female Workers Listed Individually by Sex-age Designation.

Number Percentage
4 0.4% Elderly females
634 59.1% Adult females
179 16.7% Adolescent females
63 5.9% Weaned females
193 17.9% Nursing females
Total: 1073 Female workers for demographic study
by Victoria A. Powell (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984):218. These are
likely Neo-Babylonian household slaves, who tend to have a different demographic
profile than slave populations working in a larger, institutional context.
45
Including the nine elderly males.
46
Including the four elderly females.
54 chapter three
with other forced laborers (endogamy), then the entire servile popula-
tion probably would have experienced a net natural decline without
the addition of new members (migration, voluntary or forced).47
A comparison of the two sets of data (Figure 7) reveals that the eld-
erly, adult, and weaned age-groups make up roughly the same percent-
ages in the male and female populations, e.g., adult males comprise
roughly 58.7 % of the recorded male population and adult females
comprise 59.1 % of the total female population. The female population
tends to have a greater percentage of nursing children, while the male
population has a greater percentage of adolescents. Very few people
survived to old age.
However, texts which list workers individually are not the only
window into the sex-age distribution of the worker population. Ration
allocation summaries for groups in a single location, including a
personnel census can also tell us something about the relative percent-
age of each sex-age group in the worker population. As stated in the
60%
50%
Percentage
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Elderly Adult Adolescent Weaned Nursing
Male 0.8% 58.7% 21.5% 6.9% 12.1%
Female 0.4% 59.1% 16.7% 5.9% 17.9%
Age Group
Figure 7. Distribution of Male and Female Workers by Age Group.
47
Note that this is a child-to-adult ratio similar to what is seen in early slave popula-
tions in the Americas (Russell R. Menard, “The Maryland Slave Population, 1658–1730:
A Demographic Profile of Blacks in Four Counties.” The William and Mary Quarterly,
Third Series 32 (1975): 38 and 40). See page 58 for further discussion.
population 55
previous chapter on sources, these texts list the number of male adults,
male adolescents, and usually, but not always, the number of male
children, female adults, and workers of other sex-age groups (collected
under the rubric tenēštu) under the charge of individual supervisors.
If we collect the number of workers in each category for those work
groups where all age group tallies are fully preserved (total: 331 work
groups)48 and determine what percentage of the entire population is
made up of each sex-age classification, we can compare these numbers
to those available on individually listed workers (Figure 8).
Both types of documents show similar percentages for female
adults.49 They differ in the percentages for adult and adolescent males
and all other age and sex categories. This is due in part to slight differ-
ences in classification for the male adolescent population (GURUŠ.
TUR.GAL and GURUŠ.TUR.TUR in ration roster summaries and
Figure 8. The Composition of the Worker Population in Rosters

Listing Individuals and in Ration Roster Summaries Including
a Personnel Census.
The data from 286 of these groups are given in Appendix Two.
48
When this material was presented in my Ph.D. dissertation (University of

49
Chicago (2009): 70) the data set was much smaller (121 working groups), and it
exhibited similar percentages for both male adults and female adults (within just a few
percentage points in each case).
56 chapter three
GURUŠ.TUR, GURUŠ.TUR.TUR, and pirsu in rosters listing individ-

ual workers), and the non-designation of the age and sex of individu-
als who are included in the tenēštu category of the roster summaries.
It is a question of which categories used in rosters listing individuals
correspond to the categories lumped together by tenēštu.
Although there are differences, the fact that both sources show that
female adults make up roughly the same percentage of the population
in each data set makes the recording of the adult population seem a
more reliable measure of sex ratio.
Sex Ratio by Sex and Age Classification

It was noted earlier that the basic sex ratio for all individually listed
workers was 139—a crude measure made by adding up the total number
of male entries versus the number of female entries. The picture is
different if we examine the sex ratio among particular age cohorts.
The sex ratio for adults is 109.6. For adolescents, the ratio is 141.9
(many more boys than girls) and 74.1 (many more girls than boys) for
nursing infants. Figure 9 is a graph representing these figures.
There are several things in Figure 9 worthy of comment. First, the
statistics for the adult population (ratio=109.6) again seem a more
reliable measure of the sex ratio of the population than the sex ratio
derived from counting up all male and female entries (ratio=139). For
one thing, it eliminates counting a person more than once because
he/she is listed several times at different stages of the relative life cycle.
It also yields a sex ratio that is both closer to normal expected demo-
graphic patterns and the attested sex ratios from other premodern
Figure 9. Sex Ratio by Age Group.

population 57
societies. It is possible that the ratios calculated for adolescents and

nursing infants are not accurate representations of the actual popula-
tion (but rather a subset of the population), which would certainly
account for the very high basic sex ratio.50
There is also no single clear explanation for why the sex ratio for
adolescents is heavily skewed towards males, and towards females
among nursing infants.51 It may be that one sex is promoted through
the lower sex-age classifications at a faster rate, or perhaps the rate
of promotion varies for each classification, i.e., males and females
advance their classification at different rates at different life stages. This
would mean that the designations for males and females are not equiv-
alent in terms of age; and perhaps promotion is determined by some-
thing else, e.g., physical development (onset of puberty or the like) or
marriage. Unfortunately, this cannot be determined at this time.
One also needs to remember that the available population statistics
are a by-product of the texts themselves, and it is the function of the
text that determines the people who will be listed on the tablet. This is
certainly the case in those texts which list workers from just a single
sex (or the only workers for which there is evidence of sex are all
female) or just of certain age groups.52 In most cases this is probably
due to a division of labor among the sexes.53 Noteworthy are a number
of inspection texts listing adult and adolescent males only (younger
males and all females are absent).54 This could be at least a partial fac-
tor explaining the high number of males in the adolescent sex ratio
(sex ratio of 141.9, rather than closer to 100).
It is well documented that more males are born than females, but
that male children are less likely to survive infancy.55 A high incidence
of male infant deaths may also be contributing to a sex ratio favoring
females among nursing infants.
There are probably other factors influencing the adolescent and
nursing sex ratios as they are preserved in the documents, and it is
50
Unless, there has been significant manipulation or disruption of its membership,
such as male infanticide, a preference for nursing girls in households (for whatever
reason), or perhaps a culling of certain sex-age groups by selling off potentially trou-
blesome/marriageable youth or the like.
51
This is also reflected in Figure 7, above.
52
BE 14 138, CBS 3648, 10934, 13311, and 13508.
53
This seems to be the case for boatmen (NBC 7955).
54
See Example 2, page 17.
55
Newell, Methods and Models (1988): 30 and Bagnall and Frier, Demography of
Roman Egypt (1994): 95.
58 chapter three
likely that each ratio is a result of a multiple factors. One well-studied

historical population that had skewed sex ratios throughout all age
ranges was black slaves in the American South, especially at the time
when the plantation system was being established (e.g., South Carolina
from 1670–1740).56 The same oddities were observed among the white,
European migrants to North America, although the differences were
not as severe.57
Nevertheless, the evidence presented here suggests that the condi-
tions in which these people lived promoted a sex ratio that favored
males in the adult population. This is the opposite of what we would
expect of most contemporary populations, but in agreement with
sex ratios determined for other premodern societies around the
Mediterranean.
The Dead (ÚŠ, BA.ÚŠ, and IM.ÚŠ)58

The majority (53.4%) of the 236 individually listed dead persons are
male. An argument could be made that this statistic goes against the
prior assertion that there are more adult men than women in the pop-
ulation (as reflected in the sex ratio). However, of the 126 dead males,
the sex-age designation of only 12 of them is known (see Table 12),59
which could mean that many of these males may have died in the first
years of their life and would have not reached adulthood.
Dead workers are mentioned in 128 texts,60 and the data on 79
of these texts were available for statistical study.61 Fifty-one of these
seventy-nine texts list the dead individuals by name; the other
twenty-eight documents are either poorly preserved or list the total
56
Russel R. Menard, “Slave Demography in the Lowcountry, 1670–1740: From
Frontier Society to Plantation Regime,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine 96
(1995): 280–303 and David Eltis and Stanley L. Engerman, “Was the Slave Trade
Dominated by Men?” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 23 (1992): 237–57.
57
Ibid., 242–46.
58
In this study, the word mortality should be understood in its common usage
(generically with a meaning such as “measure of death”), rather than the precise,
mathematical definition used by demographers.
59
Because a physical-condition designation and sex-age designation are often
mutually exclusive, i.e., there is usually just one cell in which sex-age or physical con-
dition can be recorded, and the physical-condition designation (e.g., “dead”) takes
preference. The sex-age designation must have been recorded in another document or
perhaps had ceased to be significant after the person’s death.
60
128 texts out of a complete corpus of 520 (25% of all texts mention one or more
dead people).
61
I.e., 25.7% of the tablets used to compile the Personnel Table have at least one
dead person.
population 59
Table 12. Deaths by Sex and Age Group (Individually Listed/Named Persons,
Not Persons Recorded Only as Part of a Group).
Sex Total N
Male 126 (53.4%)
95 Sex-age designation not given
19 Sex-age designation insufficiently preserved
12 Sex-age designation available:
Adults 7/12 (58.3%)
Adolescents 4/12 (33.3%)
Nursing children 1/12 (8.3%)
Female 84 (35.6%)
39 Sex-age designation not given.
14 Sex-age designation insufficiently preserved
31 Sex-age designation available:
Adults 18/31 (58.1%)
Adolescents 6/31 (19.3%)
Nursing children 7/31 (22.6%)
Insufficiently 26 (11.0%)
preserved
Total dead: 236
number of dead workers in qualitative summaries or conclusions. Table

12 compiles the mortality statistics available on individually listed
persons.
The corpus actually records many more dead individuals than those
used to compile Table 12. In texts where persons are not enumerated
individually, the dead are represented by a total number of people who
died while assigned to a particular supervisor.
It is impossible to cite a direct cause of death for any of these
workers, but something can be said about the circumstances sur-
rounding the deaths of some. Fifteen of the deceased died after or dur-
ing flight, and it is possible that their death was related to their escape
attempt: either from a lack of food or water, an injury, or murder.
Evidence for particularly hard conditions could be inferred from the
very high percentages of dead workers attested for some groups: rates
as high as 72.7%, 46.2%, 40.9%, 31.25%, and 23.5% are deceased.62
62
Again, the percentages refer to the number of workers within a work group that
are listed as dead and are not to be confused with the standard demographic meas-
ure of mortality rate (which cannot be calculated from the data, see pages 50–51).
60 chapter three
There are also eleven families (qinnu), size unknown, of which every
single member is dead.63
In one particular type of text, the dead from each family (house-
hold) are tallied separately from other members of the family (along
with escapees) and are then subtracted (elû) in the roster subtotals of
eligible workers.64 The ill and the blind are not removed in these totals,
but remain counted among the members of the family (and therefore
still eligible for food or required to work). Dead workers do appear on
ration rosters, but there is only one preserved case where a dead
worker is allocated grain.65 However, this grain had presumably been
issued before the worker died.
The Blind (NU.IGI, IGI.NU.GÁL, and NU)

Fifty-two of the individually listed workers are classified as blind (NU.
IGI, IGI.NU.GÁL, or NU), and a sex-age category is preserved for
forty-five of them (Table 13).66 This means that 1.26% of all workers
Eight of the eleven members of the unit recorded in UM 29-13-441 (iii’ 28’–39’) are
dead. High mortality is similarly attested in Ni. 5989 (twelve of the twenty-six workers
whose vital status (living/deceased) can be ascertained are listed as deceased), CBS
3225 + 3291 (9 out of 22), CBS 10700 (10 out of 32), and Ni. 373 (4 out of 17). Evidence
of difficult conditions can also be found in the texts housed in Istanbul. There are
ninety-five individuals listed in Ni. 1066+1069 for which one can determine if they are
alive or dead, i.e., the sex-age or physical-condition designation is preserved. Twenty-
one (22.1%) of them are dead and six (6.3%) have run away. Female-headed families on
this tablet have it particularly hard: three of the four children of the family of Baba-
šarrat and two of the three children of Bēletu are dead (rev. ii’ 12’–16’, 24’–27’).
63
The heads of three of these families were entered into the Personnel Table (Iqīša-
Marduk (BE 14 142 rev. i 16 b), Bur-x-[…] (UM 29-13-694 obv. ii’ 13’ b), and one
whose name is completely lost (CBS 7092+ ii’ 10’) ). The other eight families are listed
in two texts: Ni. 2793 obv. iii’ 20’ and rev. iv 11” and Ni. 6261 obv. ii’ 6’–9’ and rev. ii’
1’–3’.
64
There are 18 texts of this type (BE 14 142; CBS 10810, 11051; Ni. 6033, 6047, 6068,
6078, 6142, 6165, 6169, 6174, 6464, 6804, 6816, 11817, and 11197; and UM 29-15-292
and -298) and four other damaged texts that probably also belong in this category (Ni.
2595, 2646, 8164, and 11816). CBS 7092+ has the same type of subtotals, but differs in
that it also records transfers and other details.
65
Rabât-Gula is listed as dead in BE 15 188 obv. ii 14’ b, but is still assigned 2 BÁN
of barley.
66
Most of the blind workers are labeled as NU (35 workers), with eleven indicated
by IGI.NU.GÁL, and seven as NU.IGI. Professions are given for four of the NU-blind:
three are herdsmen (SIPA.ÁB.GU4.Ḫ I.A), and one is a water sprinkler (?) (sālihu).
All of the NU.IGI-blind appear in a single document (BE 14 120) and are assigned
the same supervisor. Six are listed as LÚ.SAG (two of them are brothers), while the
seventh worker is listed as a ṭābiḫu/ṭabbiḫu. See Walter Farber, “Akkadisch ‘blind’.”
ZA 75 (1985): 210–33. For IGI.NU.GÁL as a possible metaphor for “unskilled worker,”
population 61
recorded by personal name were blind.67 In comparison, 0.59% of the

world’s population suffered from blindness in the year 2002.68
Blind workers are attested in forty-six texts, but just nineteen of
these texts were available for collation and data entry. Of these nine-
teen, only fourteen could contribute to the personnel data base. The
information from the remaining five texts was not included because
the texts listed the workers collectively as a total number of blind in a
group (and therefore with no personal name recorded), or the names
were unreadable.
Although the sample is small, it is worth noting that females make
up the majority (56%) of those blind individuals whose sex is identifi-
able. This is consistent with what is known about blindness in the
modern world, i.e., studies agree that females are more likely to suffer
blindness in all parts of the world and in all age groups.69 Absent are
elderly women and nursing children of either sex.70
Table 13. The Blind by Sex-age Category.

Male Female
Elderly (ŠU.GI) 1 71
Elderly (SAL.ŠU.GI) 0
Adult (GURUŠ) 8 Adult (SAL) 12
Adolescent (GURUŠ.TUR) 1 Adolescent (SAL.TUR) 3
Weaned (pirsu) 0 Weaned (pirsātu) 2
Nursing (DUMU.GABA) 0 Nursing (DUMU.SAL.GABA) 0
Age group unknown 10 Age group unknown 8
TOTAL: Male 20 Female 25
see Paul Garelli, Dominique Charpin, and Jean-Marie Durand, “Rôle des prisonniers
et les déportés à l’époque médio-assyrienne,” in Horst Klengel, Gesellschaft und Kultur
im alten Vorderasien (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1982): 69–72.
67
Calculated by dividing the number of blind workers (52) by the total number of
workers in the Personnel Table (4130).
68
Calculated by dividing the number of estimated blind worldwide (37,000,000) by
the estimated worldwide population (6,224,150,112). The sources for this data are:
World Health Organization Fact Sheet Number 282 (www.who.int/mediacentre/
factsheets/fs282/en/) and U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/
idbagg).
69
See WHO fact sheet number 282 (web address given in note 68, above).
70
Perhaps nursing children were so young that their parents could not identify their
blindness. Only four elderly women are attested in the population; so the lack of elderly
blind women is not surprising.
71
This elderly man has a wife who is an adult, but not elderly (UM 29-13-694 obv.
i 11’–12’).
62 chapter three
As stated previously, the blind are not removed (elû) in that genre of
texts which group workers by qinnu.72 They are eligible to receive
rations.
The rosters say nothing about how these workers lost their sight or
the severity of their sight loss. Some possible causes are cataracts, birth
defects, vitamin A deficiency,73 or (in the case of prisoners of war)
deliberate blinding.74 This is a topic worth further consideration.
The Ill (GIG)

Five workers are characterized as ill (GIG).75 All of those for whom sex
can be identified are male (4 workers) and attested in various types of
rosters. One is an adult, and the sex-age classifications for the others
are not given. None of them is given an occupation or gentilic (one is
identified by patronym), nor are they listed with family members or
associated with a particular qinnu.
Travelers (KASKAL)
Six workers are absent from their normal work groups and not allo-
cated rations from their usual source because they are travelling
(KASKAL), lit. “(on the) road.” This physical-condition designation
should be distinguished from “escaped (ZÁḪ )” because both KASKAL
and ZÁḪ can be found in the same text.76 KASKAL is an absence pre-
sumably sanctioned by those in charge, but ZÁḪ is not an approved
absence.
All six attested “travelers” are male (four adults, two adolescents).77
Destinations are not mentioned; but one text, BE 14 58, states that the
adolescent Arad-Nuska had been travelling since the month Tašrītu,
and one can determine from his ration allocations that he has been
72
Page 60.
73
Marten Stol, “Blindness and Night-Blindness in Akkadian,” JNES 45 (1986): 297.
74
I. J. Gelb, “Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia,” JNES 32 (1973): 87.
75
The ill workers are Šamaš-ṣulūlī (BM 82699 obv. ii 9), Bukāšu-ina-Ekur (BM
82699 obv. ii 10), name unclear (CBS 3465 i’ 7’), Liltabbir-ilu (CBS 3649 rev. iii’ 12 e),
and the son of Šittan(n)i (CBS 7212 rev. 26’). Note also the sick animal ŠUK ANŠE
GIG (CBS 7212 rev. 4’).
76
BE 14 58.
77
Found in three texts: Arad-Nuska, Ibašši-uznī-ana-ili, Ḫ umba(n)-napir, and
Ina-šār-Marduk-allak are listed as travelling in BE 14 58 8 q, 13 q, 43 q, and 45 q; Ittīša-
aḫbut in CBS 13272 obv. ii’ 1 d; and Ḫ un-[…] in UM 29-15-244 obv. ii’ 11’ c.
population 63
away for half a year.78 The other three travelers in BE 14 58 have been
away for at least one year.
Because of these long absences, we can deduce that any person
labeled as “(on the) road” was not expected to return soon. Each of
these people was taken out of his normal work group—sometimes
away from his family79— for an extended period of time, but was
expected to return some day. Hence, the administration continued to
list them among their original work cohort, rather than remove them
from the records of their group or transfer them to another group.
Some possible reasons for this were that they were enlisted in a tem-
porary mobile work group (travelling from one work site to another
for a year or two), or used as part of a military, diplomatic, or trading
campaign whose destination was at a distance.
Concluding Remarks on Population
Personnel rosters, although designed for another purpose, can be used

as a source of descriptive statistics about a lower-class population
within and around Nippur during the Kassite period. When used with
caution, these statistics can contribute to our understanding of the
size, composition, and living conditions of some working groups. Just
the short analyses presented in this chapter are enough to conclude
that the conditions in which these workers lived favored the male pop-
ulation, that some groups faced particularly harsh and dangerous con-
ditions, and that they had a fairly high rate of blindness by modern
standards. The adult sex ratio resembles the ratios attested from
Roman Egypt and Medieval Tuscany, but its all-age sex ratio is closer
to that of a recently established slave population. There are also statis-
tical oddities in the population data due to one or more distortion
factors, such as incomplete or inaccurate records, or possibly even
population stress and migration.
BE 14 58: 8 q.
78
Ibid.
79
CHAPTER FOUR
FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD
Introduction
This chapter begins (section two) with a brief discussion of several ser-
vile families who appear in the cuneiform record over a decade and a
half, an exceptional length of time in the world of these rosters.
It serves as a useful introduction to the sections that follow. Section
three considers the methods used to identify servile families in the
corpus and the familial terms that are used in later parts of the chap-
ter. Section four discusses what these families reveal about the size and
nature of the Middle Babylonian servile household and the statistics
available on each household type. Section five discusses the nuclear
family, especially the information available on the offspring of single
mothers. Sections six and seven present the evidence for polygamy
and age discrepancies between husband and wife.
The Families of BE 14 58 and Related Documents
Perhaps the first Kassite tablet published in photograph was BE 14 58,

a ration roster that records allocations of barley to forty-six servile
persons over a twelve-month period in Nazi-Maruttaš year 13 (1295
B.C.).1 The first fifteen subcolumns of the table contain information on
the grain disbursed, the sixteenth usually the sex-age status of the
recipient,2 and the last the recipient’s name and sometimes more infor-
mation, e.g., occupation or family relationship. Additionally, physical-
condition designations are often given in the sixteenth or seventeenth
1
The earliest published photograph of which this author is aware appears in John
Punnett Peters, Nippur or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates: The Narrative
of the University of Pennsylvania Expedition to Babylonia in the Years 1888–1890,
vol. 2 (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1897), plate immediately following page 188.
The best published photographs are in BE 14, plates 5 and 6.
2
The sex-age designations are listed and explained on pages 13–14.
66 chapter four
subcolumns for persons who do not draw rations, usually because

they have died, have escaped, or are traveling.3
Each recipient is listed as an individual; and, where there are other
members of the same family, these are listed in adjacent entries. In the
case of families, the name of the head of the household, male or
female, is listed first; the spouse of the head, if there is one, is in sec-
ond position with the children following in descending order of age.
This tablet exhibits most of the characteristics covered in the pre-
ceding two chapters (tabular format, sex-age designations, physical-
condition descriptions, etc.); and, because of the precision and
near-perfect preservation of its seventeen-subcolumn tabular roster, it
has been singled out by at least one scholar as a prime example of the
sorts of texts produced by administrative scribes at Nippur during the
Kassite period.4 Even more noteworthy is the fact that many members
of the work group listed on BE 14 58 remain on the administrative
rolls for at least sixteen years and can be tracked through seven other
texts found at Nippur.5 During this time, workers are dropped or
3
For a list of the attested physical-condition designations, see page 14. For statistics
on rates of death and travelers, see pages 58–60 and 62–63.
4
Eleanor Robson, “Tables and Tabular Formatting,” (2003): 19.
5
BE 14 60, 62, and 91a, CT 51 19, Ni. 6775 and 12412, and UM 29-15-760. Only
four of these tablets preserve full dates by month, regnal year, and king’s name, but a
relative chronology can be established for almost all of them. Dates are preserved on
BE 14 58 (Nazi-Maruttaš year 13), BE 14 60 (Nazi-Maruttaš IV-3-year 14), BE 14 62
(Nazi-Maruttaš IX-11-year 14), and BE 14 91a (disbursals listed end in Kadašman-
Turgu VI-year 3). Ni. 6775 has the date of VII-27-year 15 (king not preserved) written
on its left edge. A comparison between the sex-age designations of Eṭirtu between BE
14 58 and Ni. 6775 (from DUMU.SAL.GABA to SAL.TUR.TUR) makes it likely that
the date refers to the reign of Nazi-Maruttaš. Ni. 12412 mentions years 22 and 23
without king’s name in a broken passage (rev. 3), and must have been written during
or after the 23rd year of Nazi-Maruttaš (for reasons similar to those stated in the pre-
vious sentence). As far as relative chronology, BE 14 58 seems to be the earliest and
CT 51 19 is the latest. The fragment UM 29-15-760 is most likely the bottom right
corner of an annual summary with format and content similar to BE 14 58, but it was
probably drawn up at least a year later (because Qaqqadānu, the escaped doorkeeper,
is listed as returned ([Z]ÁḪ DU) in UM 29-15-760 rev. 2). Ni. 12412 was written after
BE 14 58 and precedes BE 14 91a and CT 51 19. It lists Kidin-napirša, an Elamite, as a
member of the work group. He does not appear in BE 14 58, but is found in texts in
the series that are definitely written after BE 14 58 (e.g., BE 14 91a and CT 51 19). Ni.
12412 probably precedes the last texts in the series (BE 14 91a and CT 51 19) because
Mišarītu is listed as a single person in Ni. 12412 (as she is in the first document of the
series BE 14 58), but appears as a household head in BE 14 91a and CT 51 19. It is true
that in Ni. 12412, the name of Mišarītu is preceded by a broken KI.MIN, which may
stand for a qin-ni written in a preceding line. However, according to the available
transliteration, in a following line (Ni. 12412 obv. 10’) qin-ni is given in the same cell
entry as the personal name rather than an entirely separate subcolumn as we see with
family and household 67
added to the group (22 of the original 46 original members are listed
on the latest dated text);6 and the total number of families increases
from seven to nine. Because the texts state that rations were allocated
to these people in at least four different geographic locations, it is pos-
sible that the group was used as a mobile labor force.7
A brief survey of six of the families introduced in BE 14 58 illus-
trates many of the topics and issues that will be explored in the rest of
this chapter. By following these families through the eight texts in
which they appear, we learn that servile families were identified by a
male or female head, that the eldest son or daughter could assume this
leadership position if something were to happen to the original head,
that family composition was not always stable, and that there is evi-
dence of a high mortality rate among the very young.
The family of Dayyānī-Šamaš, the porter, may be the most consist-
ent and best attested of the families in this tablet series and is the first
to be listed in BE 14 58. This family is mentioned in all but two of the
documents;8 but, in both of these cases, only a fragment of the entire
document is preserved, and the section where Dayyānī-Šamaš and his
kin were likely to have appeared is missing.9 In 1295 B.C., the family
has six members:
the KI.MIN of Mišarītu, i.e., the KI.MIN of Mišarītu is very likely shorthand for some-
thing other than qin-ni. BE 14 60 and 62 are close to being copies of each other and
date to the year following BE 14 58. It is possible that these two texts were used to
compile some of the information that is summed up in the annual summary UM
29-15-760, i.e., written between BE 14 58 and UM 29-15-760. BE 14 58, UM 29-15-760,
BE 14 60 and 62 all precede CT 51 19 and BE 14 91a. In all four of them, Bēlta-balāṭa-
īriš is still alive and in control of her qinnu (which is later taken over by her eldest
daughter Rabâ-ša-Išḫara in CT 51 19 and BE 14 91a). Finally, CT 51 19 may illustrate
the group’s composition at a date after BE 14 91a because Innamar seems now to be the
head of the qinnu once run by her mother, Ina-Akkade-rabât, or has started a family of
her own. If I were to propose a possible reconstruction (although there are other
possibilities) of the chronological order of these eight texts, I would suggest the follow-
ing: (1) BE 14 58, (2) BE 14 60, (3) BE 14 62, (4) UM 29-15-760 (perhaps summing up
the year covered by BE 14 60 and 62), (5) Ni. 6775, (6) Ni. 12412, (7) BE 14 91a, and (8)
CT 51 19.
6
BE 14 91a (Kadašman-Turgu, year 3=1279 B.C.).
7
Zarāt-Karkara (BE 14 58:1 and 47), Dunni-aḫi (BE 14 62:1), Kār-Adab (BE 14
91a:1), and another location whose reading is damaged and elusive (BE 14 60:1). Only
these four texts preserve their introductions or conclusions (where geographic loca-
tion was usually written).
8
BE 14 58:5-10, 60:10, 62:5, 91a:6; CT 51 19:3; Ni. 12412 obv. 3’.
9
Based on the order of entries in similar documents in the series. In UM 29-15-
760 this family would have been enumerated individually by personal name in the
section preceding what is left of the obverse, and I am not sure where it would have
appeared in Ni. 6775 (probably before what remains of the reverse, but it is impossible
to say on which side of the tablet).
68 chapter four
(a) Dayyānī-Šamaš (father and head of household);

(b) Tambi-Dadu (his wife);
(c) Dalīlūša (daughter and eldest child, an adolescent who works as
a teaseler);
(d) Arad-Nuska (eldest son, an adolescent who has been traveling
and not drawing local barley rations since the month Tašrītu),
(e) Nuska-kīna-uṣur (son, a young boy);
(f) Gab-Martaš (son, still nursing).
Any alterations in family composition that may have happened over
this period are obscured by the fact that in all of the texts written after
BE 14 58 the family appears in a single, collective entry (qinni Dayyānī-
Šamaš) without enumeration of its individual members.10 Since
Dayyānī-Šamaš remains as family head throughout the entire time
span and none of the members appear by themselves or with a differ-
ent family affiliation in any other of these documents, one could argue
that this family was relatively stable in terms of leadership.11 Two note-
worthy items about them is that Dayyānī-Šamaš changes occupations
(from porter to brewer),12 and that the names of the family members
could be in as many as three languages.13
10
The same is true of most of the families first seen in BE 14 58.
11
Another possible way to determine if the family grew or shrunk during this time
is to look for an increase or decrease in the amount of barley the entire family
received. Ration amounts are preserved in four of the documents in the series (BE 14
58, 60, 62, and 91a). BE 14 58 is not useful as a comparison because the rations given
out in that text were measured by a different standard, the 6(?)-SÌLA sūtu (BE 14 58:51
“[ŠE GIŠ.BÁN] ⌈6?⌉.SÌLA TA ITI.BÁR MU.13.KÁM EN ITI.ŠE.KIN.KU5 ša MU.13.
KÁM Na-zi-mu-ru-ut-ta-aš i-na ŠÀ ŠE ša ŠU mHu-na-bi i-na ŠÀ ŠE KÁ.GAL i-na ŠÀ
ŠE ša Za-rat-IMki ù ZÚ.LUM ša A.AB.BA SUM-na”), rather than the great sūtu, ŠE
GIŠ.BÁN GAL, which was used to dole out rations in the other three documents. In
both BE 14 60 and 62, the entire family receives 1 GUR, 1 PI, 1 BÁN, and 5 SÌLA (37
BÁN + a fraction (5 SÌLA, perhaps one-half BÁN) ) of barley over a three-month
period (three-month range given after the family’s name in BE 14 62, but omitted in
BE 14 60). In BE 14 91a, fifteen years later, the family received 2 GUR, 3 PI, and at
least 4 BÁN (damaged, but possibly as much as 5 BÁN) (82 (or 83) BÁN) over a
period of six months. This increase in barley allocation over time (37 BÁN + a frac-
tion (for 3 months) x 2 = c. 75 BÁN over 6 months, i.e., less than recorded for the
6-month period in BE 14 91a) may mean that the family grew in size; but it could also
reflect an increase in barley allocated to the children of the original family as they
moved up in age category or some other factor, such as members who ran away or
were unable to work at full capacity. Unfortunately, the way the texts are written
restricts the information available to answer questions of this sort.
12
BE 14 58:5 and BE 14 91a:6.
13
Dayyānī-Šamaš has a Babylonian name, his wife’s name could be Hurrian
(Hölscher questions whether the name is Hurrian or Akkadian: Monika Hölscher,
Tukultī-Adad, another brewer, and his wife, Bāltī-Adad, started off

with two daughters in 1295 B.C.14 The eldest, Bittinnatu, was reported
as having run away, and the youngest, Ēṭirtu, was unweaned. In the
seventh month of 1293 B.C., Ēṭirtu is listed in the next sex-age cate-
gory (young girl), and Bāltī-Adad had borne another daughter,
Bāriḫtu, bringing the number of daughters up to three.15 Bittinnatu is
still away at this time, but by 1279 B.C. she had been brought back and
returned to the rolls.16
Families with women as their head are just as long-lived, but are
perhaps less stable in terms of composition and leadership. Ištar-
bēlī-uṣrī has five children when first attested,17 and they are cited as
a family unit part-way through the following year.18 Afterwards, the
family disappears from the record until two members are listed indi-
vidually with no obvious trace of family relationship in a text written
in 1279 B.C.19 Ištar-bēlī-uṣri and her eldest son are not registered on
this or any subsequent text; and the youngest daughter, who was once
a nursing baby, has grown up and is now married to someone outside
of the group.20
Another single mother from BE 14 58, Bēlta-balāṭa-īriš, has a young
son who works as a weaver and two nursing daughters in 1295 B.C.21
Their family unit appears as a group twice in the following year22 and
perhaps again around 1286-85 B.C.23 Fifteen years later, Bēlta-balāṭa-
īriš is not listed as a member of the work group, the elder daughter has
Die Personennamen der kassitenzeitlichen Texte aus Nippur, IMGULA 1 (Münster:

Rhema Verlag, 1996): 216–17) and the children all have Babylonian names except for
the youngest, who has a Kassite name.
14
BE 14 58:39–42.
15
Ni. 6775 rev. 4’–6’.
16
BE 14 91a:20.
17
BE 14 58:12–17.
18
BE 14 60:13, 62:7.
19
They are listed in order of birth, but one would not know that without first read-
ing BE 14 58. The reference is BE 14 91a:8-8a. 8a refers to a line missing in Clay’s origi-
nal copy but noted in the “Additions and Corrections” page after pl. XV at the end of
BE 14. The line reads: 2 PI 3(+)BÁN ŠE.BA m!Ḫ u-la-la-tum DAM m⌈Di?⌉-ik-di-ia-en-ni
(read by Hölscher as Kikkija-enni).
20
Ištar-bēlī-uṣrī is presumably deceased or married and living in another household
(perhaps less likely since she is unattested in any other document). The eldest son was
said to be travelling sixteen years earlier, and there is no record whether he returned
from his journey.
21
BE 14 58:18–21.
22
BE 14 60:14, 62:8.
23
Ni. 12412:4’ (“[…]⌈fGAŠAN?⌉-TI.LA-UR[U4-iš]”).
70 chapter four
acquired a family of her own, and her son and the second daughter
stand by themselves in the text.24 This unmarried daughter, Dīn(ī)-
ili-lūmur, has followed her brother into the textile industry and is
now working as a spinner/braider (ṭāmītu).
There is even the occasional glimpse into the effects of death on
family life in the Late Bronze Age. For example, the single mother Ina-
Akkade-rabât is caring for two daughters, perhaps twins, who are both
very young and still nursing when first identified in BE 14 58.25 Amat-
Nuska, the younger daughter, dies in infancy.26 Ina-Akkade-rabât and
her surviving child may stay together for as many as sixteen years27
until Ina-Akkade-rabât disappears from the record.28 Sometime later
we learn that this daughter has started her own family (although there
are no indications that she has become someone’s wife (DAM) ).29
Also, Mīšarītu is a single, adult woman for nearly the entire time span
of this textual series,30 but she is listed as a family head by the third
year of Kadašman-Turgu.31
This brief introduction has focused on a select working group to
produce a number of noteworthy insights into family life among the
servile population, e.g., the presence of male and female family heads
and the effect of death on the organization of the families. It also
stands as a reminder that these tablets are the only known records of
the lives of past people and that many of the circumstances they faced
are similar to those faced in the modern day.
In the remainder of the chapter, we will take a broader and deeper
look at the Middle Babylonian servile family through the quantitative
and qualitative data contained in our text corpus. In particular, we will
present the methods for identifying families in these texts, the size and
24
BE 14 91a:10, 12, and 14. There is no mention of the elder daughter becoming a
wife, so it is possible that she took over leadership of her mother’s family rather than
starting a family of her own. However, all known children of her mother are counted
outside of Rabâ-ša-Išḫara’s qinnu at this time, so if she did take control over her moth-
er’s qinnu, then it would have included children born to Bēlta-balāṭa-īriš that are oth-
erwise unattested.
25
BE 14 58:23–25.
26
Ibid., line 25.
27
BE 14 60:16 (as family unit only, no individuals), BE 14 62:10 (as family unit only,
no individuals), UM 29-15-760:6’–8,’ Ni. 12412: 6’ ([…] KI.MIN fI-na-A-ga-d[è-ra?-
bat]), BE 91a:16 and 43 (listed in nonconsecutive lines of the text).
28
Last attested in BE 14 91a:43 and listed separately from her daughter (line 16).
29
CT 51 19:9 (2 PI 1 BÁN 5 SÌLA qin-ni f⌈In⌉-[na-mar]).
30
BE 14 58:22, 60:15, 62:9, UM 29-15-760:5’, Ni. 12412:5’.
31
BE 91a:15 and CT 51 19:8.
composition of a household and nuclear family, and the ways in which

simple families headed by males (almost all two-parent households)
differed from those headed by females (single mothers), among other
topics.
Identification of Family Units within the Text Corpus
The previous section introduced some of the more detailed ways in

which families appear in the corpus, but a wider discussion of the
range of available evidence needs to be presented. The remainder of
this chapter considers how families are distinguished in the texts and
what the data reveal about the size, composition, and organization of
servile families in Kassite Nippur.
The word “family” is used here in a generic sense and encompasses
parents and children, siblings, and other further removed relatives by
blood or marriage (grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, in-laws, etc.).
It also tends to include the more specific terms developed in the fol-
lowing paragraphs. Therefore, when encountered here, family should
be interpreted loosely and in light of the context in which it appears.
Any concept of a larger descent group, such as a clan or lineage, is
lacking in the textual record being studied.32
This means that we must establish a better means of distinguishing
the many types of arrangements or structures that are subsumed under
the English word “family” so that our analysis can be precise and
unambiguous. Our terminology should make a distinction between
domestic units (household) and blood relations (conjugal family unit).
In 1972, Peter Laslett, the founder of the Cambridge Group for the
History of Population Studies, published a set of definitions that are
helpful and meet the needs of our discussion.33 They have been
adopted here with little modification.
The first term to be discussed is the conjugal family unit. It is the
most basic element of family organization, reproduction, and mar-
riage; and it is sometimes referred to as the simple or nuclear family.
32
Such groups may have existed, but do not show up in the documentation.
Perhaps this is due to the status of the persons being recorded (e.g., slaves, prisoners,
etc.).
33
“Introduction: The History of the Family,” Chapter 1 in Household and Family in
Past Time (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972): 28–30. Note that similar
schemes had been developed prior to Laslett’s publication.
72 chapter four
Laslett defined the conjugal family unit as “a married couple, or a

married couple with offspring, or a widowed person with offspring.”34
But, because of the population being studied, the definition needs
to be expanded to include single women (whose marital status is not
known) with their children. Unfortunately, such an exception raises
problems with Laslett’s use of the term conjugal—which is a direct ref-
erence to matrimony—because it means that in some cases there is no
way to determine if children were the product of a formal marriage.
For historical demographers, marriage is merely a proxy for the point
at which a woman begins regular sexual relations; so conjugal family
unit will still be used throughout this discussion with the caveat that
in some cases there is no way of verifying whether a formal marriage
took place.35 With that in mind, the data on conjugal family units are
discussed in detail in section five of this chapter.
A household, according to Laslett, is a domestic and residential unit
made up of related individuals (by blood or marriage) who share a resi-
dence or are considered by the recording party to share a residence. It
may consist of one or many conjugal family units and their relatives.36
In the Kassite texts that make up our corpus, the household appears
as a sublist of individuals, linked together by their blood or marital
relationships, found within a larger list of individuals recording the
names and sometimes status (sex-age and/or physical-condition) of
servile workers or slaves.37 The sense of co-residence is implied rather
than stated, though it may be noted that this format was used in a pre-
vious period to mark individuals who clearly occupied the same resi-
dence.38 It is also difficult to imagine that the members of a conjugal
34
Ibid., 29.
35
I.e., a conjugal family unit is used for the following cases: husband-wife without
children, husband-wife with children, male with children but without listed partner,
female with children but without listed partner.
36
Laslett,” The History of the Family,” (1972): 28–29.
37
I.e., within lists contained in rosters. Two hundred and eight (40%) tablets in the
Document Table have some sort of family relationship expressed in them. These data
range from a simple patronymic to lists of large, multi-family households. Forty-three
(8.3%) of the tablets have at least one known or suspected household as defined on
pages 71–75, and eleven (25.6%) of these household documents are of a type that use
elaborate qualitative summaries for qinnu-groups (see page 60 and page 105, note 86).
For an example of a household listing and further details, see the discussion about
Figure 10 (page 73).
38
An Old Babylonian text from Kish, Ki. 1056, uses similar listings to indicate the
membership of twenty-two households (bītu). Veysel Donbaz and Norman Yoffee, Old
Babylonian Texts from Kish Conserved in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Bibli
otheca Mesopotamica 17 (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1986), 57–65 and 92–93.
family unit—who make up the majority of these households—would

live separately, or that the institution tracking these people would have
any other reason to list people in this manner. Additional support for
this assumption comes from the fact that households have been a
long-standing means of organizing slaves (for reasons of social stabil-
ity and ease of supply) and workers in other societies.39
Each household has a head, who is the principal person with which
the household is identified. In most cases this is usually the husband
or father, but it can be the mother if the father is dead, or even the eld-
est son/brother.
Households are characterized by the logograms that follow the
name of each household member (other than the head). These logo-
grams state a person’s relationship to their household head (e.g.,
DAM.A.NI=“his wife”); and, when several of these appear on a tablet
one after the other, it indicates the presence of a family.40 An example
illustrates the basic format (Figure 10).
GURUŠ Dayyānī-Šamaš
SAL Tambi-Dadu DAM.A.NI (“his wife”)
SAL.TUR Dalīlūša DUMU.SAL.A.NI (“his daughter”)
GURUŠ.TUR Arad-Nuska DUMU.A.NI (“his son”)
GURUŠ.TUR.TUR Nuska-kīna-uṣur DUMU.A.NI (“his son”)
DUMU.GABA Gab-Martaš DUMU.A.NI (“his son”)
Figure 10. The Household of Dayyānī-Šamaš ( BE 14 58:5–10 p–q).
39
Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, Time on the Cross: The Economics
of American Negro Slavery, vol. 1 (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1974):127.
40
In all documents, the relationship is written as a logogram. The possessive suffix
(usually A.NI, rarely simple .NI) is as a rule written in Sumerian; but, in at least ten
texts, the relationship is written in Akkadian (sometimes Sumerian and Akkadian suf-
fixes occur in a single document, e.g., CBS 7092+, Ni. 6068, and 8164). Unfortunately,
a full transliteration is available for just two documents with the relationships
expressed in Akkadian (CBS 7092+ and Ni. 5989) and exact line references cannot be
made for the remaining eight texts. Regardless, the known attestations of family rela-
tionships meant to be read in Akkadian are: CBS 7092+ (selected instances: DAM-su
(i’ 2’, 5’, and rev. ii’ 16’), DUMU-ša (rev. iii’ 8’), DUMU-šá (i’ 6’–7’ and rev. ii’ 17’),
DUMU-šu (i’ 1’ and 11’), DUMU.SAL-sa (rev. ii’ 20’ and 28’), DUMU.SAL-su (rev. iii’
20’) ), Ni. 5989 i’ 4’ (DUMU-šá), Ni. 6068 (DAM-su, ŠEŠ-šu, and DUMU-šú), Ni. 6143
(ŠEŠ-šú is attested, but the text may be listing brothers rather than entire families), Ni.
6758 (DUMU-šú and DUMU.SAL-su), Ni. 6804 (DAM-su, DUMU-šú, and DUMU.
SAL-su), Ni 8164 (DUMU-šú), Ni. 11182 (DUMU-šá), Ni. 11197 (DAM-su, DUMU.
SAL-sa, and DUMU-šú), and Ni. 11373 (DUMU-šú and DUMU.SAL-su). The refer-
ences for relationships with Sumerian pronominal suffixes are too numerous to
cite here. However, the following are attested: DAM.A.NI (“his wife”), DUMU.A.NI
74 chapter four
In this example, the name of the head (Dayyānī-Šamaš) is given first,41

followed by the names of the other family members (Tambi-Dadu,
Dalīlūša, Arad-Nuska, Nuska-kīna-uṣur, Gab-Martaš). A household
may include the head’s spouses and children, mother,42 siblings,43
brother’s wives and children,44 and kallatu (É.GI4.A), i.e., unrelated
females brought into the household upon the agreement that they will
wed the head or one of the other males in the household.45 There are
(“his/her son”), DUMU.SAL.A.NI (“his/her daughter”), NIN.A.NI (“his/her sister”),

ŠEŠ.A.NI (“his/her brother”), AMA.A.NI (“his/her mother”). Note also the pleonastic
usage ŠEŠ.A.NI-ša in BE 14 128a:4 (the DAM.A.NI-ša in the following line is presum-
ably a mistake for DAM.A.NI-šu, unless we want to presume the Babylonians were
early quiet practitioners of same-sex marriage). The same usage is found in MSKH
1 9:3, 6, and 8, but this is not in a household listing (cf. MU.NE-ša in line 2).
41
Sometimes with patronymic or occasionally, in the case of female household
heads, the name of her deceased husband.
42
Only attested if the head is male.
43
Especially unmarried brothers and sisters.
44
Evidence suggests that when a man died, his wife and children were brought into
the household of the dead man’s eldest brother. See page 75, note 46.
45
Of the 1657 total females, only 13 are tagged as kallatu. Five of these attestations
occur among individuals where there is no indication—because they were never writ-
ten or are not fully preserved—of family relationships among the listed individuals, i.e.,
the details of the adopted household of these kallatu are not available (BE 14 58 i 48;
CBS 3484A rev. ii’ 5’ and 6’ (KI.MIN), 3646 ii’ 23’, 11868 ii’ 8). [...]ur/lik-Baba (CBS
7752 rev. ii’ 6) is a kallatu listed as the next to last member of the family of the widower
Imgugu. The text does not indicate whether she was betrothed to Imgugu or one of his
three sons. She has a child, Adad-šumu-līšir (rev. ii’ 7), at least according to the usual
style of listing household members. There are two kallatus within the household of the
first wife of Ḫ ānibu (deceased) where there are two, perhaps three, sons listed whom
they might have been expected to wed (CBS 11937 i’ 14’ and 17’; Appendix 1 Household
49). Another kallatu, known only by patronym (Karzi-Ban), appears in BE 14 126;
there is also one in CBS 7092+ rev. ii’ 23’. There are also one kallatu each included
among two (possibly three) large families of slaves being sold: one in a text dated to the
reign of Burna-Buriaš II (MUN 9 + PBS 13 64: 6), one in a legal text now housed in
Istanbul (Ni. 1574:8), and a third in a legal text that is damaged, but also probably part
of a slave sale (UM 29-15-730: 12’). In only one of these cases is it indicated who the
future husband might be, and it seems that a kallatu is not necessarily betrothed to an
individual listed in close proximity to her name on the text. In CBS 7092+ (Household
30), a note was inserted between two lines (rev. ii’ between lines 23’ and 24’) stating
that a kallatu by the name of Bēltu-rīšat had become the wife of the next-to-eldest son
(rev. ii’ 18’). The slim evidence available on age category suggests that kallatu entered
their new household as adults or nearly adults. Three of the attested kallatu are adults
(SAL) and two are adolescents (SAL.TUR). An age category is not preserved in the
other eight instances. One would expect that an adult kallatu would have been made a
wife by adulthood and would have been listed as such (DAM.A.NI instead of kallatu or
É.GI4.A), but this is not the case. For the purposes of our discussion, kallatus, until they
are officially married and listed as a wife (DAM), are considered to be dependents of
the household in which they are living (i.e., comparable to lodgers and servants in
Laslett’s scheme). This means that a simple family does not become an extended or
multiple family household until the girl is married.
no clear examples of either an elderly father or the children of a wid-

owed sister of a head belonging to the head’s household.46 Members
typically appear in the following order (if the head is male):
(1) Male head;
(2) Wife of the head;
(3) Mother of the head (if alive and a widow);
(4) Children of the head,47 along with their wives and children and
any kallatu that are betrothed to the head, his sons, or his
grandsons;48
(5) Siblings of the head along with their spouses, children, grand-
children, and kallatus.
Female-headed households follow the same rules, but in a manner
that reflects their particular situation: the first person listed is the
female head, followed by her children (eldest son first), brothers, sis-
ters, nephews, and nieces.
Where entries are not well preserved, it is sometimes difficult to
determine the exact relationship of some members of a household to
one another.49 It is also sometimes hard to distinguish the signs NIN
(“sister”) and DAM (“wife”) from one another in the documents, espe-
cially when the text is damaged or carelessly written; and there are a
few cases where one cannot be sure if an adult woman is the wife or
sister of the household head.50 Context can favor one reading over
another, but this is not always the case.
46
A man would remain the head of his own household until his death. His house-
hold may or may not include his children and their offspring. A sister would not return
with her children to her agnate family upon the death of her husband, but instead
would stay with her affinal relatives as is demonstrated by one possible interpretation
of Household 70 of Appendix 1. This is indicative of patrilocal residence.
47
Usually in descending order of age, but there are variations in this pattern, e.g.,
the listing of a male child before a female child even though the male is of a (presum-
ably) younger age class (Appendix 1, Households 2, 15 (reconstructed), 46, and 58).
48
Kallatus are usually the last to be listed, and it is impossible to do more than guess
at which member of the family they will wed (except for one case, see page 74, note 45
and Appendix 1, Household 30). Another possibility, proposed by Donbaz and Yoffee,
is that kallatus are females in the household who are betrothed to males in another
household but have not yet moved into their marriage home (Veysel Donbaz and
Norman Yoffee, Old Babylonian Texts from Kish (1986): 63). If they are correct, then
one would have to alter both the definition appearing above and the interpretive dia-
grams of Households 7, 41, 49, and 67.
49
For examples, see Appendix 1, Households 102, 104, and 105.
50
The principal difference between the two signs is an additional horizontal wedge
in the center of the second, rectangular element of the DAM-sign. This fourth hori-
zontal wedge is impressed on top of and along the same horizontal plane as the
76 chapter four
The Household
Texts from the Document Table were examined for the presence of
households.51 The study revealed that there are 105 households (out of
a total of 131 identified) whose composition is fully preserved or can
be reconstructed to the point of being statistically and analytically use-
ful. This includes two slave families who are enumerated in different
legal texts in a list formatted in the same manner as in administrative
texts.52 Information on and diagrams of one hundred and seven of the
best preserved households have been compiled and are presented as
Appendix 1,53 and scholars interested in the details of these house-
holds should refer to that.
Three basic household types can be observed among the popula-
tion: the simple-family household (a conjugal family unit and its
dependents), the extended-family household (a conjugal family unit
plus other family members and dependents), and the multiple-family
household (two or more conjugal family units and dependents). Each
household type will be further defined in the pages to follow. The
frérèche, a household type consisting of adult brothers and their con-
jugal families, is considered to be a multiple-family household and
is subsumed under that term. There is no reliable way of identifying
solitary households (a household consisting of just a single person) in
the texts.54 Diagrammatic representations of all three basic types of
middle (second) horizontal wedge. Some examples of the confusion this generates can
be found in Appendix 1, Households 39, 47, and 54. The difficulty in distinguishing
these two signs in an Old Babylonian document has been previously discussed:
Donbaz and Yoffee, Old Babylonian Texts from Kish (1986): 63.
51
This is in contrast to the study done in the previous chapter, which used only
tablets from the University of Pennsylvania Museum, the Free Library of Philadelphia,
the British Museum, the Hilprecht-Sammlung in Jena, and the Louvre (pages 38–39).
52
Ni. 1574:1–9 and Ni. 6192:2’?-8’. (Households 67 and 78 from Appendix 1).
Ni. 6192 lists the sale of at least 25 slaves. At least seven of the members on this dam-
aged text are related. Six of them are sisters and at least two of them are nursing girls;
sex-age designations for the other sisters are not preserved. The purchase of three slave
families is recorded on the legal text MUN 9 + PBS 13 64, but the family relationships
can only be partially reconstructed.
53
Two households (49 and 104) whose household type could not be identified
because of tablet damage or uncertainty are included in the appendix (hence the
number 105 in the preceding paragraph, but 107 households appear in the appendix).
These households were significant in other quantitative analyses—i.e., size and compo-
sition of conjugal family units—when household identification was unimportant.
54
One might imply that single persons with no mentioned relatives are solitary,
especially when some groupings of a text are by family. However, since there is no way
to test this hypothesis, it must be left for future consideration.
households can be found in Figure 11. Males are indicated with trian-
gles, females with circles, the head of household with solid fill, and the
entire household enclosed with a dotted rectangle.55 Theoretically,
kallatus can appear in all three household types, but they are so far
unattested in multiple-family households.
The simple-family household is a domestic group that consists of a
conjugal family and any kallatus residing with it (kallatus are attested
just once among single-family households).56 It is the most common
type of household, accounting for over seventy-five percent of all
households for which household type can be identified. Most of the
attested household members belong to a simple family (Table 14).
Figure 11. Sample Diagrams of a Simple-Family Household (a),

an Extended-Family Household (b), and a Multiple-Family
Household (c).
55
For further explanation, consult Laslett, “The History of the Family,” (1972):
36–44, especially pp. 41–42.
56
Household 67 in Appendix 1 (Ni. 1574:1–9). All references to kallatus have been
discussed at length in page 74, note 45.
78 chapter four
Table 14. Number of Members of Households by Type (Includes All

Members).
Household Type Number of Members
Simple-family household 320
Extended-family household 55
Multiple-family household 160
Many of the features pertaining to the simple-family household (such

as size and composition) are shared by the conjugal family unit
because a simple-family household consists of a single conjugal family
unit and its dependents. These shared issues are taken up in the next
section of the chapter.
A striking statistic about simple-family households is that the
majority (61%) of them were headed by a woman,57 and this could
have many causes. The most likely scenario would be that these
women were widows.58 One cannot be sure why so many married
women would have outlived their husbands, but it may point to a large
age discrepancy between men and women at marriage (husbands die
before their wives because they are older).59 This topic is taken up again
in section seven of this chapter (pages 90–91). The argument that adult
men were more likely to die (from overwork, etc.) than adult women
57
The number of female-headed households was determined by adding up the
number of simple-family households of types 1.e and 1.f in Table 15, i.e., simple-
family households consisting of single women (male partner not listed) with
children + single women (husbands listed as deceased=effectively single mothers) with
children.
58
Even though one can prove that only 7 of the 48 claimed female household heads
were ever married, i.e. their husband is listed as deceased on the text (=husband
recently dead or has died since the last previous inspection?), while no husband/father
is listed for the other 41 households (=husband/partner had died long ago or before
the last previous inspection?).
59
This has been observed by other scholars of Mesopotamia, but an average age at
marriage for women or the average age difference between spouses (both in terms of
years) has yet to be convincingly established (mostly because Babylonians very rarely
stated anyone’s age in years). See Martha T. Roth, “Age at Marriage and the Household:
A Study of Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian Forms,” Comparative Studies in Society
and History 29 (1987):736–37, 746–47; Erlend Gehlken, “Childhood and Youth, Work
and Old Age in Babylonia—A Statistical Analysis,” in Approaching the Babylonian
Economy: Proceedings of the START Project Symposium Held in Vienna, 1–3 July 2004,
eds. Heather D. Baker and Michael Jursa, AOAT 330 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005):
102–03, 107–108; and the comments by Yigal Bloch, “The Order of Eponyms in the
Reign of Shalmaneser I,” Ugarit- Forschungen 40 (2008): 159–64.
does not agree with the sex ratio of the adult population (109.6), but
it does agree with the meager information we have on workers listed
as dead.60 In addition, widows may have found it more difficult than
widowers to remarry.61 It is also possible that their male partners
(father(s) of their children) were absent from the rolls because they
were working at a different location and listed on another tablet; but
this would go against the pattern of the available evidence, which gen-
erally records families together in rosters.62 Another reason could be
that the male partners of these female household heads were never a
part of the administrative system,63 perhaps because they were living
as free persons in Babylonia not subject to servile status,64 or they were
dead or separated from their families before the latter fell under the
jurisdiction of the administration. The latter case could arise from
the taking of prisoners, when the assaulting party selectively chose
women or children, and killed any adult males they encounter. This
would only be true of some work groups, however, since the sex
ratio of the adult population favors males.65 A final possibility could
be that children were regularly born in the absence of a stable pairing
(a pattern that some slave systems would produce). None of these
options completely explains the high incidence of female-headed
households, and it is probably a phenomenon with several contributing
factors.
The extended-family household is comprised of one conjugal family
unit plus other family members and dependents (kallatus and perhaps
servants). The household is extended upwards (or up) when a relative
is of a generation earlier than the household head (e.g., the widowed
mother of the head), and it is extended downwards (or down) if the
60
The sex ratio for the entire population and for all age groups except nursing
infants always favors males. On the other hand, 5.9% of the male workers listed are
classified as dead, while just under 5.5% of the female population is said to be dead.
Of those listed in the rosters as dead, 53.4% are male, 35.6% are female, 11.0% are of
unknown sex. These statistics were first discussed on pages 48–60.
61
There are four certain attestations of women who are married to men who are not
the father of at least one of the woman’s children (Households 28, 30, 31, and 96). There
is no way to determine if these women were ever married to the father(s) of the chil-
dren that issued from the previous sexual relationship.
62
Pages 65–71 contain many examples of families working together.
63
And/or did not marry their female partners.
64
As would be the case when some members of a family were forced into service in
payment for a debt.
65
See pages 51–58.
80 chapter four
relative is from a generation later (grandnephew, grandniece, or

grandchild without parent). Lateral extension occurs when a brother,
sister, or cousin of the head or his spouse is included. Most of the
extended-family households in this study are extended laterally, with
five out of seven persons constituting the extension being siblings of
the same sex as the head of household: if the head is male, then the
laterally extended individuals are his brothers; if the head is female,
then she usually has a sister living with her. In four cases, the mother
of the head is included in the household (upward extension).66
The final type of household attested in the documentation is the
multiple-family household. This is a domestic group that includes two
or more conjugal family units that are connected by blood or mar-
riage, though not all household members need be part of a conjugal
family unit (i.e., single brothers of the household head). The conjugal
family units that make up the multiple-family household may be sim-
ple or extended (vertically or laterally). The secondary conjugal family
unit—the one not including the head—is disposed upward if it is a
generation earlier than the head, and downward if the generation
is later.
The attested multiple-family households can be complex, but there
are two noteworthy trends in the data. The first is that most multiple-
family households consist of siblings with their conjugal families67 (if
any) or a formerly simple household that brings in a bride for one of
the sons.68 The second is the lack of kallatus among multiple-family
households.69
The frequency of each household type is summarized in Tables 14
and 15. The largest percentage of identifiable households are of the
simple type (60%), followed by multiple families (13%) and extended
families (7%). Twenty percent of the households could not be placed
into any category because they were poorly preserved or difficult to
interpret.
66
Appendix 1, Households 7, 24 (stepmother), 41, and 67.
67
Ibid., Households, 59(?), 68, 71, 72, 101, 102, 104, and 105.
68
Ibid., Households 39, 54, 69, and 103.
69
One of the interpretations presented for Household 49 (i.e., the lower of the two
diagrams) could offer an exception, but the manner in which the household is listed
in the text presents many problems and it is uncertain whether this was an extended-
or multiple-family household.
Table 15. Attested Households by Type and Frequency.

1. Simple-family households
a. Couples without children 4
b. Couples with children 21
c. Single men with children 0
d. Remarried men with children 3
e. Single women (husbands listed as deceased)70 with children 7
f. Single women (male partner not listed) with children 41
g. Remarried women with children (husband not the father) 3
Total simple-family households: 79
2. Extended-family households
a. Upwards 2
b. Downwards 0
c. Laterally 7
Total extended-family households: 9
3. Multiple-family households71
a. Upwards 0
b. Downwards 4
c. Laterally 8
d. Upwards and laterally 2
e. Downwards and laterally 3
Total multiple-family households: 17
4. Uncertain or insufficiently preserved 2672
Only three households appear more than once in texts that list the
members of the household individually.73 All three are simple-family
households and they do not experience a change in household type
from one text to the next, but in two instances a new child is born.
This does not mean that households were frozen in one particular type
of domestic arrangement, but rather that we have reference to them at
only one particular point in time. It has already been demonstrated
that some household members could break off and form their own
households or take over an existing household when the original head
70
Or the entry has the format fPN1 DAM (“wife of ”) mPN2 (with the husband’s name
not otherwise listed).
71
Possible polygynous families are included in this household category.
72
See page 76, note 53.
73
Households 3, 4, and 6 in Appendix 1.
82 chapter four
dies; and it is likely that the form of each household was fluid and
could change.74
Comparisons with Other Premodern Societies

It was demonstrated in the previous chapter that the Middle
Babylonian servile laborer population shared some basic characteris-
tics with the populations of Roman Egypt, Medieval Tuscany, and
especially black slaves in the American South. The same cannot be
said of the frequency of household types among three of these popula-
tions. If one accepts the method of household identification given here
(pages 71–75), it is apparent that the simple-family household was sig-
nificantly more common among the servile population at Nippur than
in the other two premodern societies (Table 16).75 Scholars generally
agree that the simple-family household (rather than the extended-fam-
ily household or multiple-family household) has been the most com-
mon domestic arrangement in premodern societies; and this idea is
backed up with solid demographic evidence.76
However, the fact that nearly three quarters of the households are
simple is remarkable and may be an indication of the low status of the
population or perhaps the result of direct manipulation by the admin-
istration of the population and its residence patterns. Perhaps the pop-
ulation under study is not typical or representative of the general
population, but an artificially constituted working group selected (or
recorded) for reasons of which we are unaware.
74
Pages 67–71.
75
Information on slave households is not available (presumably mostly simple
households or even barracks in some cases).
76
The evidence is extensive, but was first discussed in Francis L.K. Hsu, “The Myth
of Chinese Family Size,” American Journal of Sociology 48 (1943): 555–62 and Olga
Lang, Chinese Family and Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1946). For a
greater analytical scope, see Marion J. Levy Jr., “Aspects of the Analysis of Family
Structure” in Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure, eds. Ansley J. Coale et al.
(Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1965): 40–63 and Thomas K. Burch, “The Size
and Structure of Families: A Comparative Analysis of Census Data,” American
Sociological Review 32 (1967): 347–63, especially p. 358. For specific case studies, see
Bagnall and Frier, Demography of Roman Egypt (1994): 61; Dale B. Martin, “The
Construction of the Ancient Family: Methodological Considerations.” The Journal of
Roman Studies 86 (1996): 40; and Richard Wall, “The Household: Demographic and
Economic Change in England, 1650–1970,” in Family Forms in Historic Europe, eds.
Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1983): 493.
Table 16. Percentages of Attested Households by Type for the Servile-Worker

Population in Kassite Nippur Compared with General Populations of
Medieval Tuscany and Roman Egypt.77
Medieval Tuscany Roman Egypt Kassite Nippur
Simple-Family 65.1% 54.4% 75.0%
household
Extended-family 12.6% 19.0% 8.5%
household
Multiple-family 22.2% 26.5% 16.5%
household
Slaves and Households

There is no evidence of any households owning slaves. On the other
hand, the heads of at least two female-headed households are labeled
as slaves in a roster text.78 It is not indicated on the tablet whether the
children were also considered slaves. Additionally, a handful of slave
sales are included in the corpus. Among these legal texts are three
tablets recording the sale of partial, if not complete, families.79 This may
be a significant clue as to one way in which families entered the servile
system.
Arad ekalli, a title which may refer to an occupation rather than a
legal or social status, is given for three individuals listed in a house-
hold.80 Some qinnu that contain households may include slaves, but
77
Statistics for Tuscany and Egypt drawn from Table 3.1 in Bagnall and Frier,
Demography of Roman Egypt (1994): 60. Household types not attested (or undetermi-
nable) in the Nippur material (i.e., solitary and no household types) were excluded
from the statistics from Medieval Tuscany and Roman Egypt.
78
These two families are both found in Ni. 6444 rev. i’ 9’–13’, a text fragment listing
slaves and their children. The slave status of Ilti-aḫḫēša (Household 82) is indicated
logographically (GÉME), and she has two young boys (pirsu and DUMU.GABA).
Bēltani’s status (Household 83) is indicated in Akkadian (andu), and she has one
young daughter (pirsatu). At least 40% of preserved individuals listed on this fragment
are dead or have run away. The presence of these terms for slave (GÉME and andu)
may indicate that either this text—as opposed to other texts—is using different crite-
ria for applying this terminology or perhaps even in certain contexts andu and ardu
could refer to household servants or another more defined occupation.
79
MUN 9 + PBS 13 64, Ni. 1574 and 6192.
80
CAD, following Oppenheim, gives arad ekalli as a possible occupation name for
first-millennium documents only (CAD A/2 p. 211). For its possible extension into
84 chapter four
this is not an indication that these slaves were part of the household
(just part of the same qinnu).81
The Conjugal Family Unit
The conjugal family unit, also known as the nuclear family, consists
of a married pair (with or without children) or a single parent (includ-
ing a widow or widower) with children.82 Because of the different
types of domestic arrangement observed among the servile popula-
tion, some households (e.g., the multiple-family household) contained
more than one conjugal family unit. The conjugal family unit is of sta-
tistical importance for determining the fertility and life expectancy of
each mating pair, regardless of residence pattern (household), and
permits comparisons between the fertility of mating pairs from differ-
ent household types internally within a population and externally
among different populations. A survey of all households revealed the
presence of 125 conjugal family units; 119 of them appear on adminis-
trative texts that include individuals of both sexes, but the available
documentation lists a full sex-age designation for all members of only
59 of these conjugal family units.83 Because the conjugal family unit
refers to blood relation among parents and their children, and the
administrative records express this relationship directly—unlike our
definition of household, which assumes the texts reflect a residential
arrangement— the quantitative statistics on the conjugal family unit
are secure, at least from a minimal point of view.84
Kassite period material and further references, see J.A. Brinkman, “Administration
and Society in Kassite Babylonia,” JAOS 124 (2004): 294–95.
81
CBS 7752 rev. i’ 8–10 and rev. ii’ 12’. Qinnu is discussed in detail in the following
chapter, pages 97–98.
82
To be more specific, the conjugal family unit may manifest as (1) a married
couple alone, (2) a married couple and their offspring, or (3) a single person with
offspring.
83
On a total of 49 texts. Some administrative documents may list persons exclu-
sively of one sex (usually because they list individuals of a single occupation that
favors one sex, e.g., boatmen), and there are several possible reasons for this. One pos-
sibility could be that particular documents list just males or females. The family listed
is probably not complete.
84
I.e., A few of the numbers could be larger (because of omission of family mem-
bers or tablet damage), but not smaller.
Conjugal Family Size and Composition

According to the assembled data, the average nuclear family was of
modest size, consisting of 4.22 people and 2.7 children.85 This may
seem small for a population lacking modern birth control, but it is in
line with other premodern populations with high mortality.86 As many
as eight conjugal family units were childless.87
The records of the 119 families that list the sex of all offspring show
the presence of more males (62.7% of all children or at least 1.57 sons/
family) than females (37.3% or 0.96 daughters/family), which may be
because daughters married and left the family at an earlier age. This is
supported by the evidence drawn from conjugal families for which we
can identify the offspring’s relative age (Table 17). Among these 59
nuclear families, male offspring outnumber females by a larger margin
overall (1.80/family versus 1.07/family) as well as in the two oldest age
categories (1.04/family versus 0.56/family).
Table 17. Offspring of Conjugal Family Units by Sex-age Category (169 Total
Issue among 59 Conjugal Family Units).88
Total Percentage Average Number
Category Number of Males per Family
Male
Adult (GURUŠ) 27 25.4% 0.46
Adolescent (GURUŠ. TUR) 34 32.1% 0.58
Child (GURUŠ.TUR. TUR) 7 6.6% 0.12
Weaned (pirsu) 13 12.3% 0.22
Nursing (DUMU.GABA) 25 23.6% 0.42
(Continued)
There are 502 individuals (319 children) among 119 families.

85
Egyptian families during the Roman period averaged 4.3 persons (Bagnall and
86
Frier, Demography of Roman Egypt, (1994): 67–68, and the households of Tuscany in
A.D. 1427 averaged 4.42 (Herlihy and Klapisch-Zuber, Tuscans and Their Families,
(1985): 282). Thomas K. Burch has written that throughout the 20th century, the aver-
age family size worldwide was between 3 and 6 persons (Thomas K. Burch, “The Size
and Structure of Families” (1967): 347–63, see specifially Tables 2, 3, and 7.
87
These can be found in and among Households 11, 32, 56, 68(?), 69, 75, 103,
and 106.
88
This table includes only families for which the sex-age designation for all children
is known.
86 chapter four
Table 17. (Cont.)

Total Percentage Average Number
Category Number of Females per Family
Female
Adult (SAL) 15 23.8% 0.25
Adolescent (SAL.TUR) 18 28.6% 0.31
Child (SAL.TUR.TUR) 1 1.6% 0.02
Weaned (pirsatu) 11 17.5% 0.19
Nursing (DUMU.SAL.GABA) 18 28.6% 0.31
Nursing children are common among nuclear families. Thirty-four

out of the fifty-nine conjugal family units have at least one nursing
infant. Eleven of these families had more than one nursing child,89
which could be a by-product of the age classification system (children
in this category may not actually be subsisting on their mother’s milk)90
or may be evidence of wet-nursing of foundlings or orphans by lower
class families.91
Single Mothers
A significant presence of female heads among single family house-
holds has already been noted. Among those in charge of conjugal
89
The families of Ina-Akkade-rabât (2 nursing daughters—one dead) in BE 14
58:23–25 and UM 29-15-760 6’–8’ (Household 4 in Appendix 1), Ištar-bēlī-uṣrī
(5 children, 1 nursing son and 1 nursing daughter) in BE 14 58:12–17 (Household 2),
Bēlta-balāṭa-īriš (3 children, 2 nursing daughters) in BE 14 58:18–21and UM 29-15-
760:1’–4’ (Household 3), Šaqât-ina-Akkade (8 children, 3 nursing—2 boys, 1 girl) in
CBS 3472 i 9’–17’ (Household 13), Ilassunu (5 children, 2 nursing—1 boy, 1 girl) in
CBS 3472 i’ 4’–9’ (Household 15), Nūr-Bēlti-Akkade (7 children, 3 nursing—1 boy,
2 girls) in CBS 13455 ii’ 6–18’ (Household 51), […]-x-x-Šamaš (3 children, 2 nursing-
boy and girl) in CBS 3650 rev. i’ 4’–8’ (Household 23), fPi-ši-ir-⌈du?⌉ (5 children,
2 nursing boys, her son is the head of household) in a family of slaves being sold off in
Ni. 1574:1–9 (Household 67), a family with the name of the head not preserved in
Ni. 6192:2’?–8’ (6 daughters, 2 nursing) (Household 78), Bāriḫtu (2 sons, both nursing)
in Ni. 11149 i 16’–18’ (Household 89), and Dayyanti-ina-Uruk (3 children, 2 nursing
daughters) in Ni. 11149 ii 7’–10’ (Household 90).
90
Bagnall and Frier, who worked with the Egyptian comparative material, believe
that infancy in Roman Egypt ended sometime before the age of five (Demography of
Roman Egypt(1994):35).
91
Occupations are rare among females (only 73 out of 1524 female workers are
given an occupation), but two women are listed as wet nurses (mušēniqtu): the daugh-
ter of Ṣalimūtu (BE 15 184 i 15’ and BE 15 200 ii 24) and one whose name or affiliation
is not fully preserved (BE 15 200 i 33).
family units, 34.4% of the heads are single mothers (instances where a
male partner is deceased or not listed),92 which is greater than half
(53.8%) the total number of conjugal family units where the father is
still present.93 It is also noteworthy that single mothers average slightly
more offspring, have a greater percentage of offspring in the youngest
age group, and are more likely to have daughters than conjugal family
units headed by males.94 Statistics supporting these claims can be
found in Table 18 and Figure 12.
Table 18. Comparison between the Children Belonging to Conjugal Family

Units with and without Biological Father Present (Parents not Included).95
Families with the Biological Families of Single Mothers
Father Present
Total Number of Average Total Number of Average
Individuals by Per Family Individuals by Per
Age Category Age Category Family
Male
Adult 19 0.44 3 0.13
Adolescent 22 0.51 10 0.43
Child 4 0.09 2 0.09
Weaned 9 0.21 2 0.09
Nursing 12 0.28 14 0.61
(Continued)
92
Or 43 out of 125 conjugal family units. It must be cautioned that one must not
confuse female heads of household with single mothers. The female household head is
a woman in charge of a household (which can consist of a single, extended, or multiple
family), while single mothers are females in charge of a conjugal family unit, i.e.,
a mother and her offspring without a father present (which can be part of a larger
household whose head is not the single mother). Households 59 and 70 contain exam-
ples of single-mother nuclear families within households where the single mother is
not the head.
93
Among heads of conjugal family units, there are 80 males, 43 females, and 2 of
unidentified sex. Of the conjugal family units headed by females, only 23 (53.5%) pro-
vide sex-age designations for the offspring; of those headed by males, only 43 (53.8%)
families provide sex-age designations for the offspring.
94
Nuclear families with the father present average 0.70 female and 1.53 male off-
spring per family (total= 2.23 offspring per family). At least 20.8% of these off-
spring belong to the youngest age group. Nuclear families of single mothers average
1.0 female and 1.3 male offspring per family (total 2.3 offspring per family). At least
42.6% of these offspring belong to the youngest age group. See also Table 18 and
Figure 12.
95
The conjugal family units of remarried widows were excluded from the table
because they did not contain the biological father of the children and were not headed
by a women.
88 chapter four
Table 18. (Cont.)

Families with the Biological Families of Single Mothers
Father Present
Total Number of Average Total Number of Average
Individuals by Per Family Individuals by Per
Age Category Age Category Family
Female
Adult 8 0.19 4 0.17
Adolescent 8 0.19 6 0.26
Child 1 0.02 0 0.00
Weaned 5 0.12 4 0.17
Nursing 8 0.19 9 0.39
The reasons why single mothers had more offspring is puzzling. If one
removes families without issue from the statistics (all of which still
have the husband present), the average number of offspring for single
mothers equals that of married or widowed fathers (2.3).96 On the
other hand, there are examples of high death rates in the families of
single mothers. In one such case, three out of the four children of
Baba-šarrat are marked as dead.97 The one surviving child, Dipārītu, is
probably a toddler (pirsatu) and is the last one listed, presumably
because she is the youngest member of the family.
Polygyny
Polygamous marriages are attested at least four, possibly as many as

six, times among the servile population. In all cases it takes the form
of polygyny (one man having multiple wives), and the husbands all
have two wives.
In CBS 11937, two women, whose names are badly damaged or
completely lost, are listed as wives of Ḫ ānibu.98 Since Ḫ ānibu is not
given a separate entry in the text but appears only in the capacity of
96
Excluding what are presumed to be remarried widows (page 79, note 61), there
are two conjugal family units without issue listed in texts that provide the sex-age cat-
egory of all offspring, all with husband still present. Removing them from the statistics
yields an average of 2.3 offspring per family for families with offspring and the father
present—which equals the 2.3 offspring per family of single mothers.
97
Appendix 1, Household 60.
98
i’ 11’, 19’ and Household 49 in Appendix 1.
Figure 12. Sex-Age Distribution of the Offspring of the Conjugal

Family Unit (CFU): Offspring of Single Mothers versus
Offspring of Families with Fathers Present.
his wife’s husband (listed after her name in the same entry), he may
have been dead at the time the text was composed. The first wife takes
the position of household head and is listed first, followed by her eldest
son, her sister, and then a collection of two kallatu and three sons whose
parentage is unclear (the primary wife or the kallatu?). The second wife
is listed last and without children. Her only connection to the previous
family is the mention of her husband;99 and, according to the method
of household identification laid out at the beginning of this chapter,
would now form her own household.100
Specificially line 19’: “[f…D]AM mḪ a-ni-bi.

99
In rosters, an entry of fPN1 DAM(or DUMU.SAL) PN2 followed by other per-

100
sonal names with family relationship expressed (DUMU.A.NI) indicates the presence
of a female-headed household. Following this rule, both wives became heads of their
own households which included themselves and any children (and children’s wives
and grandchildren) that they had with Ḫ ānibu. In other words, even though both
women once lived in the same household, once Ḫ ānibu died, their familial link was
broken and both sides of the household became independent, presumably simple-
family, households. Of course, this hinges on the idea that Hānibu is deceased rather
than alive, but not listed on the tablet for unknown reasons.
90 chapter four
The second attested polygynous family can be found among the

members of a large household listed on Ni. 2793. In this unfortunately
damaged section of the text, a man named Paliḫ-Adad is listed with
his two wives. Both women have borne multiple children, and this
may indicate that all three parents are fairly old.101 Two other cases of
polygny can be found in CBS 7092+ (Bēlīyūtu, two wives and at least
two sons) and UM 29-15-292 (Guzarzar, two wives, five sons, one with
a wife of his own).102
Two more possible references to polygyny are open to question, and
the hurdles involved are too complicated to discuss here. The two
main issues center on the reading of unclear cuneiform signs and
establishing how several family members are related in a damaged
passage.103 Full details can be found in Appendix 1, Households 54
(Ni. 1066+1069 i’ 10–15’) and 57 (Ni. 1066+1069 ii’ 14’-19’).
Death and Marriage
Statistics for death among the entire servile population were covered
in a previous chapter, and it was revealed that a slightly greater per-
centage of the male population (5.9%) is listed as dead than the female
population (5.5%).104 We have also observed that there is an unexpect-
edly high incidence of female-headed households and single mothers
among servile workers. While these two findings are noteworthy by
themselves, they may be part of a larger social phenomenon reflected
in the statistics for deaths among married individuals. It comes as no
surprise to note that there are more husbands (8) than wives (5) who
are labeled as dead.105 If one were to suppose that all female-headed
households arise from the death of the husband/father, then the
number of dead husbands or male partners could be as high as fifty
(against 5 dead mothers).
101
rev. iv’ 4’–19’ and Household 72 in Appendix 1.
102
CBS 7092+ i’ 8’–12’ (Household 29) and UM 29-15-292 rev. ii’ 4’–12’
(Household 103).
103
Ni. 1066+1069 i’ 10’–15’ (Household 54) and ii’ 14’–19’ (Household 57).
104
Pages 58–60 (males=126/2119, females=84/1524).
105
For dead husbands see Appendix 1, Households 8, 69, 70 (perhaps as many as 3
dead husbands total in the household), 73, 86, and 104. Page 79, note 61 contains
evidence of the possible death of four other husbands (the women may be remar-
ried widows, but this is not clear). For dead wives, consult the same Appendix,
Households 39 (absent), 41 (absent), 57 (first wife), 71 (absent), and 77. In Households
There are five possible cases of three-generation households

(Households 24, 39, 41, and 70, two possible examples); but only three
of these yield relatively clear cases of a living grandparent (all grand
mothers).106 The two less likely cases are a possible paternal grandfa-
ther in Household 39 (unlikely)107 and another paternal grandmother
in Household 70.108 A population in which extended-family and mul-
tiple-family households occur but which has a low incidence of three-
generation households is typically one whose members do not live
very long;109 but this does not really in itself explain why married
women would survive longer than married men.
All of these observations—more deaths recorded both among males
for the entire population and among males who are married; a high
incidence of both widowed mothers and grandmothers (compared to
widowers and grandfathers)—could have many explanations, but one
major contributing factor could be the age at marriage of men and
women at this time. Previous research on this topic has suggested that
husbands were notably older than their wives when they wed.110 This
would mean that wives—if they did not die in childbirth—were more
likely to outlive their husbands simply because they were younger.
Also this social custom would help to explain the high incidence of
female heads of household and single mothers. It would not explain it
entirely, but it would have been an important factor in the observable
sex distribution ratios.
Conclusions on Family and Household
Several significant conclusions on Middle Babylonian servile families

have been reached in this chapter. It has been shown that families as
71 and 77 one of the children is also dead; so it is possible that the mother died in
childbirth or was stricken by an ailment at the same time as their child. However,
some time may have passed between the death of the mother and the death of the
child in Household 71 because the mother has already been removed from the rolls,
while her daughter is still listed (as deceased).
106
Yāʾūgu in Household 24, Bēltūa in Household 41, and Pakkutu in House
hold 70.
107
Bunna-Ninsar, father of mār Elamî (interesting double patronym?).
108
Baltīya, sister or wife of Meli-mašḫu.
109
Levy, “Apects of the Analysis of Family Structure” (1965):49, reiterated by Burch,
“The Size and Structure of Families” (1967): 350.
110
Page 78, note 59. For an actual example of age discrepancy in marriage in this
corpus, see page 61, note 71 where an elderly man is in a different age class from his
wife, who is an adult, but not elderly.
92 chapter four
such were recognized and tracked by the administrative powers at

Nippur and at least occasionally used as a means of organizing the ser-
vile population. Scribes used a loose and cumbersome, yet functional
means of listing the members of each family on the same administra-
tive records that were used to regulate the entire servile population.
A set of definitions was established in order to understand the
recorded data. These definitions proposed differentiating the house-
hold from the conjugal family unit. It was demonstrated that there
were three attested household types: the simple-family household, the
extended-family household, and the multiple-family household. The
simple-family household is by far the most common type of domestic
arrangement, and its frequency in the servile population at Nippur
during the Late Bronze Age is greater than in some other premodern
populations of the Mediterranean and Near East. We have learned that
the nuclear family, here called a conjugal family unit, was small; but
this is not unexpected among a population that experienced high
mortality.
Lastly, women played a significant role in what are traditionally
known as the decision-making positions among families. Females
account for the majority of heads of household among simple families.
Likewise, nearly thirty-one percent of all nuclear families were run by
single mothers. It was proposed that this situation could have been
due to several factors, including the stringent living conditions
imposed on this population and a practice of older men marrying
younger women.
However, it must be cautioned that the data are atypical in many
ways; and some of the oddities observed could have been by-products
of the recording process or a result of direct manipulation and selec-
tion of the population by the government and other institutions.
CHAPTER FIVE
WORK, FLIGHT, ORIGINS, AND STATUS
Introduction
The documents available for use in this study were produced for Nippur
administrators to keep track of the size, physical condition, wherea-
bouts, and supply needs of the servile population. Taken as a whole,
these texts are probably the largest concentrated body of material by
subject matter from the Kassite levels of the site, comprising roughly
5% of its excavated Middle Babylonian tablets.1 There is little doubt
that the management of this population was a significant concern of
the political administration at Nippur.
Although this textual documentation is abundant, the information
it conveys is limited. The texts were composed for practical purposes
and tend to be terse and formulaic, presuming basic knowledge of how
the large-scale labor and supply system functioned and affording only
momentary glimpses into its inner workings. Trying to reconstruct a
fuller picture of the system inevitably involves much extrapolation
based on minor details incidental to the documentation itself, with all
the uncertainties that such a process entails. Much of this reconstruc-
tion may be recast as further research is undertaken.
Nonetheless it is important that a start be made in trying to recover
the milieu in which the servile population lived and worked. Earlier
chapters have dealt with the demography of the laboring popula-
tion and with its family and household structure. Now we will begin
to place the laborers in a broader context within their political and
1
I.e., approximately 600 of the 12,000 MB tablets from Nippur. For the total
number of MB texts from the site, see J.A. Brinkman, “The Monarchy in the Time of
the Kassite Dynasty,” in Le Palais et la royauté, XIXe Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale, ed. Paul Garelli (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1974): 395. To date, less than
15% of the officially excavated Kassite period tablets from Nippur have been published
( J. A. Brinkman, “Administration and Society in Kassite Babylonia,” JAOS 124 (2004):
288). The number of documents identified as relevant to the servile population at
Nippur is expected to grow as ongoing prosopographical studies progress.
94 chapter five
socio-economic world. Succeeding sections of this chapter will deal

with what little is known about the organization of the laboring pool
(section 2), the tasks and occupations of the workers (section 3), their
administration and supervision (section 4), the problem of flight and
diminution of the work force (section 5), the origins and civil status of
the workers (section 6), and conclusions (section 7).
Organization of the Servile Labor Pool
In trying to reconstruct how the Nippur administration organized

the servile population into an effective labor pool, we start by analyz-
ing the groups and subgroups of laborers listed in the texts, especially
in the rosters of various types. First, it must be observed that there
seem to have been no clear-cut general principles according to which
members of the population were grouped or posted. As laborers,
they could be assigned in a set or singly to a place (generally suburbs
or villages near Nippur),2 to a large institution (particularly a reli-
gious organization),3 to a household,4 or to a private individual.5 In
some texts, no place, institution, or person is mentioned as responsi-
ble for the laborers; and such tablets are presumably internal memo-
randa (with the posting unexpressed). A few texts may list all their
workers as connected with a single occupation or with related occu
pations rather than as assigned to a posting; for example, there are
texts concerned exclusively with distinctive classifications such as
2
E.g., Dunni-aḫi (BE 14 62), Tukultī-Enlil (CBS 3465).
3
A temple (such as the temple of Ninlil, e.g., PBS 2/2 11, MUN 89) or a religious
functionary (such as a NIN.DINGIR (=ugbabtu or ēntu), e.g. Ni. 943,) or the šatammu
of a temple (e.g., CBS 7726 rev. 5–6).
4
E.g., CBS 3646 rev. i’ 5’. It can be difficult to determine whether these references
refer to the posting of a laborer (“[assigned to the] house/estate of PN,” i.e. workers
not related to PN) or to the kin-group of a laborer (“[these are kinsmen belonging to]
the House of PN”). Similarly, another expression, DUMU.MEŠ PN, “sons of PN,” occa-
sionally appears in qualitative summaries or entry labels, raising the same issues.
Is it a reference to the previously listed workers (a group of related persons perform-
ing a common work obligation (without further specification as to whether they
were part of a nuclear or extended family, brothers with independent households,
or remoter descendants of one man) ) or to their supervisors (“[assigned to] the sons
of PN”)?
5
E.g., UM 29-16-108 (heading: a-mi-lu-tum ša i-tu mPN). For other examples
of servile workers assigned to individuals, see the discussion of “Recapture and
Reassignment” documents on pages 115–18.
work, flight, origins, status 95
t extile workers,6 boatmen,7 gardeners,8 irrigators,9 herdsmen,10 and

even escapees.11
Of particular interest are ration rosters dealing with large mobile
groups,12 some of which contained more than 800 individuals on the
tablet.13 These rosters do not record the names of individual workers,
but tally them only as numbers within various sex-age categories
assigned to a subgroup. Names are listed only for the supervisors of
each subgroup and for the manager of each series of subgroups. These
large work forces stay in one place for a period usually ranging between
one and seven months;14 and their locations can be tracked through
statements about the places where their grain was supplied.15
Among these large mobile groups, some of which are attested in
more than one text,16 there are 286 subgroups for which the number of
available workers is sufficiently well preserved to allow us to study the
comparative sizes of individual subgroups. The full data for these sub-
groups are available in Appendix 2 below, but a summary of its con-
tents is presented in the following table.
The median size of a mobile subgroup is four workers, with the
largest unit having 153 persons and the smallest units having either
6
E.g., PBS 2/2 142, CBS 3465, Ni. 943.
7
E.g., NBC 7955, Ni. 1642.
8
E.g., CBS 11835.
9
E.g., CBS 10734.
10
E.g., CBS 3816.
11
E.g., CBS 3736.
12
There are 34 known documents and fragments of this type, and the data from
20 of them were available and entered into the Personnel Data Base. Published exam-
ples: BE 14 19–20, 22 and BE 15 180; PBS 2/2 9 and 132; MUN 86–91, 93–95, 105,
108–111. These tablets are also important in establishing the sex-age ratio of the adult
population in Chapter 3 (pages 54–56). For a detailed discussion of their structure, see
pages 27–31 in Chapter 2.
13
E.g., MUN 93, with its missing numbers restored with the aid of the parallel
rosters listing the same personnel (CBS 3474, 8899, 11670, 11826, N 1803, and
Ni. 11458).
14
Examples: one-month assignments (MUN 90, 93), seven-month assignment
(BE 15 111). Note that rations are occasionally listed month-by-month for longer peri-
ods, e.g., up to a full year in BE 14 58.
15
E.g., BE 14 22 (Zibbat-Kartaba), MUN 95 (Pattu).
16
E.g., a group sometimes attached to the Ninlil temple appears in MUN 93 and
various unpublished parallels (census ration lists from other months probably spread
over several years; see page 95, note 13 for parallel texts) from the time of Kurigalzu II
(1332–1308 B.C.). Another notable group appears in BE 14 22 and MUN 95 (and prob-
ably MUN 91).
96 chapter five
Table 19. Frequency of Occurrence of Mobile

Groups of Particular Sizes (Number of Workers).17
Number of workers Number of
in the group groups
0 12
1 34
2 34
3 40
4 35
5 18
6 16
7 16
8 9
9 20
10 10
11 8
12 6
13 5
14 2
15 6
16 3
17 1
18 1
19 2
20 1
21 1
24 1
25 1
29 2
36 1
153 1
Total: 286
no assigned workers (twelve units)18 or just a single worker (thirty-

four units). Over four-fifths (85.4%) of the subgroups have ten or
fewer members; and only eight subgroups (2.8%) have twenty or more
17
Data drawn from Appendix 2. Note that groups with insufficiently preserved
entries in any of the personnel census cells have been omitted.
18
The subgroups from which no workers are available can be compared to the whole
families listed on other rosters as deceased, e.g., CBS 10743 ii’ 5’, 7’.
members.19 So it seems that, while most of these individual subgroups

were small,20 the combined size of subgroups recorded on a single tab-
let—sometimes amounting to several hundred persons—would have
had a considerable impact working on the same project.
With the exception of such possibly-large mobile units and their
distinctive rosters, workers were more often organized—according to
the texts—into subgroups, either explicitly or implicitly, by various cri-
teria: by occupation, by common (foreign) geographic origin, by family
or household, or by work squad or cohort (a collection of unrelated
individuals living together). There are more than forty occupations21
cited in the text corpus; and, because of the wide range in these occupa-
tions, they are discussed separately in the next section of this chapter.
Geographic origin22 is indicated usually by a gentilic adjective or the
equivalent;23 the most common foreign lands or kingdoms occurring in
this connection are Elam, Hanigalbat, Lullubu (Lullumu), Assyria, and
Arrapḫa.24 Family or household is indicated collectively as qinni PN
(with the personal name here standing for the head of the household,
male or female),25 or perhaps by bīt PN (literally, the “House of PN”);26
19
The extraordinary number of persons in the largest subgroup and the fact that it
is more than four times as large as the second-largest subgroup raise the suspicion that
this entry (MUN 93 i 4) may in itself represent an administrative unit with further
(unexpressed) subdivisions. Atypically, and in contrast to the rest of the entries in its
text, this entry is immediately followed by a double horizontal line.
20
The small size of the mobile subgroups generally corresponds to the number of
active members in qinnu families/households/cohorts, which range from 0 to 27 per-
sons, with a median size of 5.
21
I.e., forty-two identifiable occupations, plus three further instances in which
other occupations are listed, but cannot yet be satisfactorily interpreted.
22
For the use of gentilics to indicate place of origin rather than ethnicity in a more
modern sense, see Brinkman, “Administration and Society in Kassite Babylonia,” JAOS
124 (2004): 284.
23
I.e., a geographical name such as “Elam” (NIM.MA.KI).
24
Less frequently occurring are the areas of Arūna and Ullipi. There are also gentilic
adjectives which may be more ethnic than geographical in emphasis, e.g., Kassite,
Akkadians, Aḫlamû, and Amurrû. Most of these groups are further discussed below
(pages 121–29).
25
E.g., CBS 3695:9, which reads: 3 qin-ni faḫ -la-⌈mi-ti⌉ (the preceding three lines list
Aḫlamītu and her two sons); similarly CBS 11505. As mentioned in the preceding
chapter, if family members are listed individually, the family relationships are expressed
after the personal name.
26
Although many of these instances could refer to the posting of the worker
(page 94, note 4). One needs to be aware that, because of the wide variety of mean-
ings associated with bītu—which can range anywhere spatially from a room to a large
estate (or even a province) and socially from a nuclear family to a tribe or tribal con-
federacy— it is not always possible to pin down the precise meaning of Bīt PN in brief
or broken contexts.
98 chapter five
workers in such groups are often listed together with their family mem-
bers, who also draw rations in proportion to their sex and age.27 The
designation qinni PN, literally “family of PN,” was also used in some
cases in the extended sense of “(work?) squad of PN” covering unre-
lated individuals, presumably residing together or at least drawing
rations28 as a unit (with the PN here standing either for a supervisor
external to the squad or for the most prominent member of the squad).29
The two types of qinnu-groups can be distinguished by the presence or
absence of expressions of familial relationship (DUMU.A.NI, ŠEŠ.A.NI,
etc.) linking all (not merely some) members of the group together.
These administrative qinnu-units have a median size of 5 persons—
nearly the same average size as the mobile groups just mentioned
(4 persons)—and are the second most common type of cohort (169
units). Within a single roster, division into subgroups may be set up
corresponding to two or more of these criteria.30
Tasks and Occupations of the Workers
Although it is hard to imagine that the performance of specific tasks

was not the major purpose behind the assembling and maintaining of
this large laboring force, there are almost no overt references in the
documentation to actual work assigned or performed. There are a few
texts, dealing with small-scale production of goods, such as wool fur-
nished for textile workers or various materials provided for the con-
struction of chariot parts;31 but the principal clues for the activities of
the larger laboring groups lie in the occupation names recorded for
individual workers or series of workers.
Here one is presuming, in the light of the functional brevity of these
administrative texts, that the explicit listing of occupations has rele-
vance to the actual employment of the workers.32 A search of the data
27
Or they can be listed simply as a unit, e.g., qinni PN, and as drawing common
rations.
28
Although they occur primarily on simple rosters, i.e., no ration allocations
recorded on the text.
29
Individuals in such groups could be transferred from one qinnu to another, e.g.,
CBS 10934 rev. 3’–4’ (and passim in this text), Ni. 6430:2’–11’ (five persons, transferred
individually), Ni. 6470 ii’ 16’–19’; cf. Ni. 8282:1’–6’.
30
E.g., CBS 11797, FLP 1313.
31
E.g., textile workers: PBS 2/2 142, Ni. 943; chariot builders: CBS 3465 rev.
ii’ 4’–11’.
32
Hardly a necessary conclusion.
base reveals that only 11.5% (478 individual entries) of the population
are given occupation names in the texts. A full listing of the identified
occupation names is included in Appendix 3 below, together with sta-
tistics for the numbers of persons attested in each occupation, broken
down by sex-age category. Of the members of the population who are
listed with an identified occupation (454 entries),33 the largest percent-
age deal with the care and management of animals or poultry (21.2%),34
followed by textile workers (18.1%),35 food preparers (17.0%),36 gar-
deners and agricultural laborers (14.8%),37 craftsmen (12.2%),38 gate
keepers and guards (5.5%),39 attendants (4.2%),40 entertainers (3.3%),41
inspectors, officials, and scribes (2.0%),42 and a few less frequently
attested worker types with three or fewer representatives.43 In addition,
Ni. 1642 and NBC 7955, tablets which were not collated and so not
incorporated into the personnel data base, list 78 male workers of vari-
ous ages44 operating as boatmen (malāḫu) around Pī-nāri, Arad-bēlti,
and other unspecified sites, presumably near significant waterways.
Five of the boatmen in NBC 7955 are described as Elamites.45
About 32% of these occupations (17 out of 44) are attested for both
males and females; but females represent only 15% (73 out of 477) of
the total personnel who are listed with occupations in these texts.
Males served in all the attested occupations except wet nurse. Females
33
There are a total of twenty-four persons spread among the three occupation
names which cannot as yet be satisfactorily interpreted.
34
Including herders and bird caretakers (fowlers).
35
Including weavers, spinners, teaselers, fullers.
36
Including millers, brewers, cooks, butchers.
37
Including gardeners, farmers, irrigators.
38
Including reed- and leather-workers, potters, carpenters, lapidaries, bow and
arrow makers, and specialist craftsmen (ummânu).
39
Gate keepers (āpil bābi), gate guards (maṣsạ r abulli), porters (atû), guards in gen-
eral (maṣsạ ru).
40
I.e., the ša rēši.
41
Including singers, actors, prostitutes. NBC 7959 is known to list adult male sing-
ers under various supervisors, but the text was not available for collation and is there-
fore not part of the statistical study on occupations.
42
Foremen, agricultural tax collectors (mākisu), distributors of rations (mādidu),
and scribes (ṭupšarru). The presence of individuals in positions of authority raises the
specter of having to reconsider the status of some individuals listed on the texts as not
necessarily servile (were non-servile workers sometimes written down on certain texts
dominated by servile workers?).
43
E.g., builders, water-sprinklers, wet nurses.
44
In addition to adult males, who form the largest percentage of these names, there
are also younger males (GURUŠ.TUR and even three GURUŠ.TUR.TUR) and one
elderly man (ŠU.GI) in the same boatmen rosters.
45
I.e., e-la-mu-ú, lines 30–34. All these men bear Babylonian names.
100 chapter five
were concentrated in a few industries such as textile work (27.4%),

food preparation (17.8%), and horse herding (17.8%); but they also
were found doing leather work (11.5%), serving as entertainers
(8.2%), making pottery and working as lapidaries (8.2%), among other
occupations. In the rosters, exclusively male occupations46 include
gardening and agriculture, herding and animal management (for all
animals other than horses), guarding, building, a few crafts (such as
reed working and carpentry), and butchering.47
Textile workers are particularly common in this corpus, especially
among women.48 This sex distribution parallels what is known from
studies of earlier Mesopotamian weaving industries.49 One would like
to know more about how rosters dealing with textile workers relate to
other Middle Babylonian documents from Nippur concerned with
textile production, and there are promising clues in unedited texts for
future research on the topic. Several female textile workers in some of
the larger ration rosters50 appear also in a detailed production sum-
mary that records amounts of wool given out as raw material (SÍG.
Ḫ I.A mandattu) to each of 28 women working in the establishment of
a high priestess (NIN.DINGIR.GAL) in the seventh and eighth years of
Šagarakti-Šuriaš (1239–1238 B.C.) and the number and type of luxury
garments produced by each worker.51 Other production documents of
the sort survive, as do dozens of large inventories of finished textiles,52
46
I.e., to judge from the occurrence of occupation names in the servile rosters and
related texts.
47
It must be stressed that these occupations are not yet attested for females in the
rosters; this pattern may change as more rosters become available, especially the
unpublished Istanbul material.
48
Even though males outnumber females 3:1 among total textile workers, only
17.7% of males with identifiable occupations worked in the textile industry, while
27.4% of females with such occupations did (i.e., roughly 1 out of 6 males were such
workers, versus roughly 1 out of 4 females).
49
Hartmut Waetzoldt, Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textilindustrie, Studi
economici e tecnologici 1 (Rome: Centro per le Antichità e la Storia dell’Arte del Vicino
Oriente, 1972) and Benjamin Studevent-Hickman, “The Organization of Manual Labor
in Ur III Babylonia” (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 2006): 73–75, 124–28,
171–80, 194, and 312.
50
BE 15 188, 190, 200.
51
Ni. 943. Some of these women include: Yāʾūtu (BE 15 190 rev. v’ 6 b, 200 ii 22 b,
and Ni. 943: 8 f); Dayyanti-ina-Uruk (BE 15 188 rev. vii 8 b, 200 i 32 b, and Ni. 943:11 f);
Ippayītu (BE 15 188 iii 28’ b, 200 ii 31 b, and Ni. 943: 30 f); and Banītu
(BE 15 200 iii 16 b and Ni. 943: 26 f). Each of the women listed in Ni. 943 who worked
full time was given 6 minas of wool per year and over the two-year period produced
two muḫtillû and two naḫ laptu garments.
52
See, for example, Jussi Aro, Mittelbabylonische Kleidertexte der Hilprecht-
Sammlung Jena (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1970).
which may have fed into the prominent foreign export trade at the cap-
ital Dūr-Kurigalzu.53 In any case, the textile industry at Middle
Babylonian Nippur seems to have been a thriving concern; and servile
labor seems to have been an important component of the enterprise.
Occupation names are also listed for children. Of the 263 work-
ers with occupations for whom sex-age designations are available,
26 (9.9%) are children (i.e., GURUŠ.TUR.TUR, SAL.TUR.TUR, or
younger). The statistics for these present interesting patterns. The
majority of child workers—21 out of 26—are very young children (i.e.,
unweaned/nursing, marked as DUMU.GABA or DUMU.SAL.GABA).
Of this very youngest category, 9 were male, 12 female. The unweaned
males were split among several occupations: potter, leather-worker,
textile workers of various types, horse herder, and even a specialist
craftsman.54 Of the twelve unweaned females, the majority were either
horse herders (four) or leather-workers (four), plus two textile workers,
one cook, and one lapidary.55 There are no children in the second-
youngest age categories (pirsu, pirsatu) who are listed with occupations,
and there are only males in the next older category (GURUŠ.TUR.
TUR).56 Thus there were no females listed with occupations between
adolescent (SAL.TUR) and unweaned (DUMU.SAL.GABA). This dis-
tribution raises the question whether the very youngest workers were
likely to be working alongside their parents and thus often under their
parents’ supervision.57
53
Amply documented in the early twelfth century, e.g., the text dealing with woolen
textiles released from the capital’s storehouse to Assyrian merchants: IM 49992 (Iraq
Supplement 1945, pl. 22; for a transliteration of the final lines of this text, see Brinkman,
“Assyrian Merchants at Dūr-Kurigalzu,” NABU 2001/73). More than 10% of the tablets
found in the main palace at Dūr-Kurigalzu in the 1942–45 excavations were textile
inventories (oral communication, J.A. Brinkman, January 2009).
54
CBS 3523 rev. ii’ 12. Is the young boy in question to be viewed as an infant prodigy
or as a young helper assisting one of the UM.MI.A listed immediately before him in the
roster?
55
Again, in the case of the cook and the lapidary, one must consider the possibility
that these young girls were assistants in the professions rather than full-fledged
practitioners.
56
These males were gardeners (nukarribu, 3 instances), a weaver (išparu), and a
builder (bānû).
57
The only explicit evidence currently available for a very young child sharing
the occupation of a parent is the father-daughter combination serving as teaselers
in BE 14 58:34, 38. But it is possible that texts such as BE 15 190, arranged in tenēštu
groupings by occupation, may also have included parent-child working teams—
unfortunately now undetectable because family relationships are so seldom made
explicit in the text.
102 chapter five
Administration and Supervision of Workers
The šandabakku, i.e., the governor of Nippur, seems to be the chief

local administrator in charge of the public servile working population.
Though he does not appear often in the rosters or other supporting
documentation, he can occasionally be seen in key roles: accepting per-
sonnel granted to him by the king and assigning them to various offi-
cials at Nippur,58 purchasing slaves on the open market,59 supervising
the inspection (or counting) of servile workers,60 arranging for the
release and reassignment of recaptured fugitive laborers,61 and creating
documentation used in later lawsuits to determine whether or
not a person has servile status.62 Though there is clear evidence for pri-
vately owned slaves outside the official servile system,63 these private
interests are not nearly so well attested in the documentation—pre-
sumably because it is the institutional archives which have been
unearthed by excavation (which has often tended to concentrate on
large buildings in public areas). Given the accidents of finds, it would
be futile at present to try to estimate from the written remains the
absolute numbers or relative proportions of either the public servile
work force or of privately held slaves.
Despite the strong role of the governor, the rosters and other texts
generally deal with the servile laboring system at its lowest level of
management and thus in a apparently decentralized light. Usually only
the immediate supervisors of work groups are indicated, with occa-
sional references—especially in the rosters dealing with mobile work
forces—to the next higher level, the managing supervisor. How the
58
Ni-ra-a-a-ú š[a] PN1 mār PN2 ṣuḫur[ti] šarri kī šipirti šarri Kaštiliašu ⌈il⌉qâm⌈ma⌉
ana mAmīl-Marduk šandabakki iddinu⌈ma⌉ mAmīl-Marduk ana qīpūtišu upaqqidu (CBS
7726:1–6, collated). The only other official whose title is preserved in the text is the
šatammu of Ekur.
59
Either directly, e.g., BE 14 1, BE 14 7, or indirectly, e.g., through a ša rēši official
(PBS 8/2 162). Slaves are purchased from merchants, private owners, or officials.
60
E.g., Ni. 1348. Inspection documents are discussed above in Chapter 2, pages
15–18.
61
E.g., Ni. 1333. These recapture-and-reassignment documents are discussed below
in section 5.
62
CBS 8089.
63
E.g., Ni. 6558; cf. documents confirming purchases of slaves from private indi-
viduals, e.g., BE 14 7. One may also note Ni. 2885, an unpublished legal text which
deals with a female slave in a private household who had won her freedom as the result
of a royal decree (the key passage is cited by Brinkman in a book review in JNES 32
(1973): 259). B. 143+B. 227, a legal text from Babylon dated in the reign of Meli-Šipak,
also deals with the purchase of slaves by a private person.
supervisors connect hierarchically with the governor is not covered in

the presently available documentation.64
In the rosters, supervisory roles are indicated in a variety of ways. In
the mobile work-group rosters, the immediate supervisors are indicated
for each group in the far right-hand column of each line entry (the entry
label), following the census of workers and the ration amount given
out.65 At the end of each series of such groups, the amount of rations is
totaled; and the name of the next-level supervising manager is given.66
In other texts, one of the following formulae can usually be found to
indicate a supervisor (almost always in a qualitative summary):
(a) amīlūtu (ša) PN67
(b) napḫ aru n (ša) PN68
(c) pīḫ at PN69
(d) qāt PN or ša qāt PN70
(e) qinni PN71
(f) ša PN72
(g) tenēštu PN.73
As many as 34 of the 842 supervisors are females. Eleven (32%) of
these females are known only by patronym, usually in a subtotal of the
type napḫ aru n DUMU.SAL mPN (with the father’s title sometimes
indicated after the personal name).74 This is not an oblique method of
64
In contrast, the chain of command is clearly spelled out in the private herd-
ing contracts dealing with state cattle. At the lowest level is the herder (rēʾû) who tends
the flocks. His immediate boss is the ḫ azannu, a local administrator, a word sometimes
translated “mayor” (but perhaps not in all cases bearing political territorial responsibil-
ity). The ḫ azannu in turn is responsible to a poorly attested next level, an official labeled
the kaššû (even though many of these individuals dubbed “Kassite” by title have
Babylonian names), who is directly under the governor (preceding information cour-
tesy of a private communication from J. A. Brinkman, January 2009).
65
E.g., MUN 93.
66
E.g., MUN 93 i 24, ii 8.
67
E.g., CBS 3650 rev. i’ 3’ (without ša); BE 15 184 i’ 16’ and CBS 10450:11’
(with ša).
68
n = number (of workers or amount of rations for a group of workers). Without ša:
e.g., CBS 3523 ii’ 9’, CBS 3638 ii’ 15’. With ša: e.g., BE 15 185:37.
69
pi-ḫ at is always written syllabically. Examples: CBS 3474i19’, rev. ii 21’; CBS 9803
i 9’, 13’.
70
qātu is such cases is always written ŠU. Examples: ŠU PN (BE 14 120:42; CBS
11501: 5, 9); ša ŠU PN (CBS 3649 i 16’. 21’).
71
E.g., NBC 7975:6. Also occasionally PAP N qinni PN, e.g., CBS 10585 ii’ 4’.
72
Commonly in a line entry such as PN1 ša PN2 (e.g., most entries in CBS 3488, CBS
11873).
73
E.g., CBS 11937:10’.
74
E.g., CBS 3472 ii 3.
104 chapter five
reference used only for women, since men in supervisory positions are
also sometimes referred to just by patronym.75 The reason for such
usage, common enough in the Kassite period, has yet to be satisfacto-
rily explained.76
How supervisors controlled their workers is not revealed in the texts.
Occasionally work rosters list individuals as being “(in) prison”77 or
“fettered”;78 so troublesome laborers could be confined or restrained.
On the other hand, some workers seem to have been entrusted with
jobs requiring their absence from their regular work station and are
labeled in the texts as being “(on the) road,”79 sometimes for several
months;80 and servile laborers plied the waterways around Nippur as
boatmen (malāḫu),81 with no indication that they were guarded or
individually watched while at work. In effect, given the negative evi-
dence, we simply do not know how closely individual workers were
kept under surveillance.
Flight and Diminution of the Working Population
More information is available about flight and its consequences than

many other aspects of the life of servile workers. Administrative per-
sonnel realized that each successful disappearance reduced the work
capacity of the population, and they incorporated details about each
escapee into the laconic roster format. In addition, there are other
legal and administrative documents which provide information on a
network of custodians, prisons, and guarantors who handled recap-
tured fugitives. Most of these texts include a description of the indi-
vidual captive,82 the person responsible for his detention, and details of
the captive’s reassignment for work—with this master explicitly stand-
ing guarantee for the laborer’s return.
75
CBS 3472 rev. ii’ 13’; CBS 3521:20’.
76
See Clay, Personal Names of the Cassite Period, p. 45 and Hölscher, Personennamen,
p. 7 for a description of the usage.
77
Ni. 1627 iv 6 and twice in preserved totals in the same text (iii 7’, edge 2).
78
Ni. 6237:8’, 16’.
79
KASKAL (ḫ arrānu). These men, of course, could have been travelling as part of a
group.
80
BE 14 58 records four workmen as KASKAL (lines 8, 13, 43, 45), one for six
months, the other three for a full year.
81
E.g., NBC 7955, Ni. 1642.
82
Usually bearing a trademark designation for the servile population, e.g., sex-age
designation, a classification such as amīlūtu, or the like.
There is little direct information about factors which would have

influenced servile laborers to run away. The high death rate for person-
nel in some rosters83—whether due to overwork, mistreatment, malnu-
trition, or a combination of these—would undoubtedly inspire flight. It
is also noteworthy that some members of the population are marked as
“fresh” or “new (arrivals),”84 possibly implying a comparison, i.e., that
persons who had been in servitude longer were less fit for work. The
significant number of individuals fleeing to other places is a clear signal
that some workers were greatly dissatisfied with their situation.
In the following pages of this section, we discuss the phenomenon of
flight, which is the only readily identifiable aspect of the servile popula-
tion’s resistance to their situation and probably their only effective
means for avoiding it. This section also treats administrative attempts
to counter the flow of escapees, either by prior physical restraint or by
recapturing fugitives and returning them to the work force.
Identification of Escapees in the Texts (ZÁḪ or ḫalāqu)

Escapees can be identified in rosters by the labels “escapee” (ZÁḪ ),
“recent escapee” (ZÁḪ GIBIL), “non-recent escapee” (ZÁḪ LIBIR.
RA), “deceased escapee” (ZÁḪ ÚŠ), or “returned escapee” (ZÁḪ DU
(-kam) ) that accompany the personal name of the runaway or appear
in a total of persons listed as missing from a group.85 They occur in
simple rosters86 and ration rosters.87
83
Death rate here refers to the percentage of workers within a work group listed as
dead; not to be confused with any sort of standard demographic measure. The highest
recorded percentage of dead workers in a single, still functioning group is 72.7% (UM
29-13-441 iii’ 28’–39’); and there are at least ten families (qinnu) where all of their
members are dead (see pages 59–60, note 62 for references).
84
GIBIL.MEŠ (e.g., PBS 2/2 132:139, 144). By contrast, seventeen other people are
labeled da-lu-ú LIBIR.RA.MEŠ (NBC 7958:7), even though they all have sex-age des-
ignations as either GURUŠ or GURUŠ.TUR (not ŠU.GI, the usual designation for an
elderly person). LIBIR.RA.MEŠ in such contexts refers to “old” (in the sense of no
longer fresh) or perhaps in the sense of experienced.
85
Physical-condition designations are discussed in Chapter 2 (page 14).
86
Primarily in transfers, inspections, and texts of undetermined function (see pages
15–23). Of note is the regular occurrence of escapees in a type of simple roster that
records individuals by personal name and grouped by qinnu. Rosters of this type have
elaborate qualitative summaries that give subtotals by sex-age and physical-condition
groups within each qinnu. Dead or escaped workers are listed as “removed/subtracted”
(elû). More information on these texts including a list of documents of the type can be
found in Chapter 3, page 60 and note 64.
87
Attested in the ration-roster types: barley allocations as rations (ŠE.BA) to per-
sons who are divided into tenēštu groups, barley allocations as rations (ŠE.BA) and
106 chapter five
In non-roster legal and administrative documents,88 the runaways

are recorded as having escaped (the writings ZÁḪ -ma and ḫ a-li-iq-ma
are attested).89 The verb ḫ alāqu also may appear in the penalty sec-
tions of the text where it is spelled out syllabically.90 These documents,
which are referred to here as “recapture-and-reassignment” docu-
ments, will be discussed in detail below.
The Meaning of ḫalāqu (ZÁḪ )

Before we go any further, we must briefly discuss why we have chosen
to translate ḫ alāqu, as “escape/flee” rather than “be(come) absent.” The
Chicago Assyrian Dictionary provides two meanings for ḫ alāqu: (1) to
disappear, vanish, to become missing or lost, to perish, and (2) to
escape, to flee.91 All twenty-five of the quoted, non-figurative, instances
of the first translation in the G-stem refer to inanimate objects (prop-
erty, sealed documents, dye-marks, boats, jewelry, etc.), organs or ill-
nesses, domestic animals (pigs, sheep), or locations (road, towns, etc.).
For the second meaning, “to escape, flee,” all instances refer to slaves
who are absent without permission, soldiers or monarchs running
from battle or invasion, employees who abscond with livestock or are
gone for very long periods, and people who disappear from prison or
are deceased. Therefore, the use of the verb, when referring to the
actions of human beings, tends to deal with activities that are illegal
(theft), cowardly (fleeing from battle), or done without permission
(flight of slaves or breaking out of prison).
Moreover, in terms of actual recorded behavior, the previously men-
tioned legal documentation shows a pattern that supports the second
meaning of ḫ alāqu.92 In these texts, individuals who have fled (haliqma)
seem to be pursued by people who want to return the runaway to
date allocations to persons for periods of more than six months, ration allocation
summaries for groups in a single location, including a numerical personnel census,
unique ration rosters that do not fit into any of the previously established ration roster
categories, or ration rosters that are insufficiently preserved to place in any category.
See Chapter 2, pages 25–31.
88
Pages 34–36. The structure of these documents is discussed toward the middle of
this chapter (pages 115–18).
89
ZÁḪ -ma: in BM 17626:1; CBS 11106:2, 11453:2; Ni. 2204:2, ḫ a-li-iq-ma: Ni.
1333:4, PBS 8/2 161:3.
90
The person who assumes guarantee for the runaway is penalized if the worker
runs off again.
91
CAD vol. 6 pp. 36–38.
92
See the preceding paragraph.
captivity. Once the individuals are seized they are detained in a prison
(ina kīli + kalû), a clear indication that their activity was illegal and
that they were likely to run again. Also many of the reassignment doc-
uments list the individuals responsible if the captive again runs away
and sometimes detail a penalty to be exacted from the guarantor.
Basic Statistics on Runaways

There are 189 escapees listed on 60 rosters included in the Personnel
Data Base, which represents 4.6% of the total recorded worker popula-
tion (4130) and 8.4% of the population available for statistical study
(2256).93 There are two, perhaps three, people mentioned by personal
name as having escaped and returned; but several more persons are
listed statistically in this category—but not by personal name—in other
rosters.94
At least 7.9% (fifteen, all male) of all escapees are listed as “escaped
(and) deceased” in the rosters. Since the recording parties knew of the
death of the runaway, it is possible that they were present at or had reli-
able second-hand knowledge of the runaway’s death. Otherwise, the
runaway would have continued to be listed on the tablets as merely
escaped instead of escaped and deceased. The death may have even
occurred during the escape or a recapture attempt.
Sex-age designations are rarely given for escapees, principally
because the two different types of designations (physical-condition
and sex-age) are generally mutually exclusive in the rosters with the
93
There is little repetition among these personal names. Only eight personal names
are attested multiple times, and each of these names was counted only once in the total
number of escapees (189): Aṣûšu-namir (CBS 10741 rev. ii’ 8’ b, N 1953 ii’ 3’ b, and UM
29-15-212 rev. I 6 b), Aba-ul-īdi (CBS 3736:10 and N 1906 i’ 2’ b), Adad-šemi (CBS
3736:12 and CBS 10741 rev. ii’ 10’ b), Arad-Enlil (CBS 10715 ii’ 3’ b and UM 29-15-212
rev. i 5 b), Kubšiya-Saḫ (BE 14 58 i 30 q and UM 29-15-760 edge i 2 b’), Tarība-Gula
(CBS 11051 ii’ 1 b and CBS 11801 ii’ 7’ b), Urti-Adad (CBS 8510 ii’ 4’ b and UM 29-13-
646 rev. iv’ 12’ b), and Usātūša (CBS 3472 ii 6’ b and 9’ b). Note that Usātūša appears as
both a working member and eponym (supervisor?) of her work group in CBS 3472,
and one can be sure that the references are to the same individual since they bear the
same patronym. Her appearance here is also interesting because it seems that she was
appointed as an internal member of the group (instead of an outsider with a different
status) and that she still chose to run away, despite her elevated status.
94
Indicated by ZÁḪ DU: CBS 10713 ii’ 11’ b, UM 29-15-760 rev. i 2 b’, and possibly
CBS 10667 i’ 11’ 8. Also note that once the Personnel Table (Data Base) is expanded to
include the material in Istanbul (Ni. texts) this number will increase. At least five ros-
ters there (Ni. 1076, 2228, 6243, 7455, 11373) are known to mention returned
escapees.
108 chapter five
indication of physical-condition taking precedence over the sex-age

category. In other words, the two types of designation are written in
the same cell in a tabular register, and the sex-age designation is gen-
erally left out of the cell in favor of marking the person as an escapee
(or sick, blind, dead, etc.).
Statistics drawn from the Personnel Table regarding the sexes and
ages of escapees have been compiled in Table 20, and they provide
some valuable insights. Roughly 91% of escapees whose sex can be
identified are male, a statistic that is remarkably similar to the sex dis-
tribution in known escape attempts by slaves in the American South in
the eighteenth century. In Virginia and North Carolina, runaways are
estimated to have been 89% male, with male escapees accounting for
78–82% of the total number of runaway slaves in South Carolina.95 The
male:female ratio seen among Middle Babylonian escapees goes far
beyond the slightly male-favoring sex ratio (109.6) seen among the
greater Middle Babylonian adult worker population, so the 91% rate is
not directly attributable to a corresponding number of males in the
general population.96 Therefore, an explanation for these statistics must
lie elsewhere.
95
See Lathan Algera Windley, “Profile of Runaway Slaves in Virginia and South
Carolina from 1730 through 1787” (Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1974): 65; Gerald
W. Mullen, Flight and Rebellion: Slave Resistance in Eighteenth-Century Virginia
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972):89 and 103; Daniel C. Littlefield, Rice and
Slaves: Ethnicity and the Slave Trade to Colonial South Carolina (Baton Rouge, La.:
Louisiana State University Press, 1981): 144; and Philip D. Morgan, “Black Society in
the Lowcountry, 1760–1810” in Ira Berlin and Ronald Hoffman (eds.), Slavery and
Freedom in the Age of the American Revolution (Charlottesville: University Press of
Virginia, 1983): 100 (Table 12).
96
Sex ratios in the Chesapeake Bay area and both Carolinas heavily favored males
as well; but, as with our documents, the sex ratio of escapees far exceeds the sex ratio
of the entire population. The following sex ratios are available on American slave popu-
lations during the eighteenth century: Chesapeake 117, North Carolina 125, and South
Carolina 130. Also consider that the gross, uncorrected, sex ratio available for the
entire Middle Babylonian worker population is 139 (note that this ratio may be affected
by the quality of the documentation and only the adult ratio (109.6) is supported by
multiple sources of evidence, see Chapter 3, pages 54–56). Sex ratios for American
slaves are drawn from Marvin L. Kay and Lorin Lee Cary “A Demographic Analysis of
Colonial North Carolina with Special Emphasis upon the Slave and Black Populations”
in Jeffrey J. Crow and Flora J. Hatley (eds.), Black Americans in North Carolina and the
South (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984): 76–78 and 93–103;
Allan Kulikoff, “A’Prolifick’ People: Black Population Growth in the Chesapeake
Colonies, 1700–1790,” Southern Studies 16 (1977): 393–96 and 403–06; and Philip D.
Morgan, “Black Society in the Lowcountry, 1760–1810,” (1983) :90–92.
Table 20. Sexes and Ages of Escapees.

Sex or Age Total
Males Females Unknown Escapees
Adults97 23 9 N/A 32
Adolescents98 2 0 N/A 2
Children99 1 0 N/A 1
Weaned100 0 0 N/A 0
Nursing101 2 0 N/A 2
Sex-age Designation 128 6 18 152
Not Known or
Not Present
Totals 156 15 18 189
This evidence, bolstered by the information provided in Appendix 1,

suggests that the conjugal family or lack thereof played a significant
role in a worker’s decision to flee. Over 99% of runaway males are not
listed as having a spouse or offspring and so were presumably single
adults or children.102 There is only a single clear instance of a male head
of household or father of a conjugal family unit (in this case, he is both)
who runs away leaving his family behind and even he eventually
returns.103 As many as eight, but no more than fifteen, escaped males
come from work groups who also list an escaped female as a member;
and it is possible, although not stated in the text, that these escaped
males and females formed a romantic pair.104 In total, the data suggest
that somewhere between 8 and 11 of the 156 male escapees had a female
partner and that, in all but one case, the pair escaped together.
GURUŠ (male) or SAL (female).

97
GURUŠ.TUR (male) or SAL.TUR (female).

98
99
GURUŠ.TUR.TUR (male) and SAL.TUR.TUR (female).
100
Pirsu (male) and pirsatu (female).
101
DUMU.GABA (male) or DUMU.SAL.GABA (female).
102
As many as nine of them may have run away with a brother. Three brothers from
the same work group are listed as escaped in CBS 11051 ii’ 1–3; and in CBS 3736 lines
2–5 and 11–12, a text which provides the names of runaways from four cities, three
pairs of brothers are listed among the escapees.
103
Adad-ibni in Household 52 in Appendix 1 (Ni. 177 rev. ii’ 6’). There is no indica-
tion whether his return was forced or voluntary.
104
The evidence for this statement is laid out in the following paragraph and corre-
sponding footnotes.
110 chapter five
Females, on the other hand, were significantly less likely to run; and,
if they did, they probably did so in the company of a male and brought
their children along with them. Of the fifteen female runaways, there is
evidence suggesting that at least eight may have escaped with a male
partner.105 In each of these cases, one or more members of their work
group (many times appearing immediately adjacent in the text and
almost always with at least one male) have also run off. This evidence is
certainly not proof that these people escaped together, for there is no
way of determining if it was a coordinated action (exact dates or pre-
cise details about any escape attempt are never recorded); but it is worth
noting in light of the comparative evidence.106 Moreover, the available
evidence suggests that the nursing boys listed as escaped did so as part
of a group containing at least one adult female, presumably the boy’s
mother, although familial relationships are not indicated in the text.
One of the nursing boys, Arad-Amurru son of Apil-Šamaš, is followed
in the roster by an adult female escapee, Šamaš-nūrī; and one may sur-
mise they escaped together.107 The other infant, Ninurta-apil-idīya,
105
Women who seemingly escape by themselves are Usātūša (CBS 3472 ii 6’),
f
ia-a-a-[…](BE 14 105:8 d), and perhaps Bittinnatu (BE 14 58 i 41 q), although there is
a high percentage of male escapees within Bittinnatu’s larger work group. Female
runaways who belong to work groups containing other runaways: (1) šamaš-nūrī
escapes with a child (UM 29-15-335 ii’ 5’); (2) Ur?-Adad-[(…)] (CBS 7092+ rev. ii’ 34’
b) has at least 2 other runaways, both males, in her work group (likely a qinnu); (3) […]
(name not preserved)(N 1934 rev. ii’ 3’ b) is followed on the roster by two other
persons who have also escaped; (4) Rabât-[DN] (CBS 10715 ii’ 4’ b)—both men pre-
ceding her on her roster and in her work group have also escaped; (5) Ulūlītu
(CBS 10671 i’ 7’ e) has escaped with an adult male as well as with (6) šunuḫtu
(8’ e), another female from her work group; (7) Aḫātī-aqrat (CBS 10669 ii’ 12’ b) is
listed as escaped along with three male members of her qinnu; (8) fi-[…] (CBS 10713 ii’
11’) is listed as escaped (and probably returned ZÁḫ .⌈DU?⌉)—at least five men from
her work group are also marked as runaways, two as escaped and deceased; and (9–10)
Aṣûša-x[…] and fx-na-a-be-let x […] (CBS 7092+ obv. ii’ 6’’’ and 9’’’ b) are listed with
two other escapees, both males.
There are two uncertain situations that are less clear, but for which a case can be
made. Urti-Adad (work group attested in two tablets: CBS 8510 ii’ 4’ and UM 29-13-
646 iv’ 12’, here a recent escapee (ZAḫ GIBIL)) seems to have escaped by herself, but
the work group immediately following her own on one of the rosters in which she
appears (the other is severely damaged in the parallel text, CBS 8510) marks at least
four out of ten workers as escaped. Another woman (UM 29-13-441 iii’ 40’ b), whose
name is almost completely destroyed, is listed as part of a work group that is not fully
preserved and the number of runaways from that group cannot be determined. It is
worth noting that escapees and deceased individuals are particularly common on this
last roster.
106
See notes 111–12 below.
107
Despite the fact that the father of Arad-Amurru may also be a supervisor: the
same PN, Apil-Šamaš, is listed in a qualitative summary immediately preceding these
two entries (UM 29-15-335 ii’ 3’–5’).
is listed in a damaged but reconstructable passage with three other

escapees (two adult females and one adult male) from the qinnu of the
Daughter of the Boatman.108 As with the previous case, one of these
women is likely to be his mother. Lastly, there is a female-headed
household consisting of a mother and a single daughter who have
escaped together.109
In contrast to these examples, the female Usātūša (also the eponym
of her work group) runs off and abandons her young children and the
rest of her work group.110
It has already been shown in chapter four that the family was a sig-
nificant institution for both the workers and the administrative powers,
who used families as an organizing principle. It also seems that respon-
sibilities to the immediate family may have been a strong factor consid-
ered by workers who were contemplating going on the run.111 Males
were considerably more likely to escape than females; and, although
the evidence is not ideal, it seems that the high rate among male escap-
ees could be attributed to the men being young and unattached to an
immediate family. Conversely, women were less likely to escape because
of familial ties; and, when they did run, they would do so with a man
and/or bring their children along with them.112
Circumstances of Flight
The penalties of some legal and administrative documents suggest that
there were fears that workers would run off when they were entrusted
CBS 10671 obv. i’ 7’–11’.

108
See Appendix 1, Household 81 (Ni. 6444 rev. i’ 7’–8’).

109
110
See Appendix 1, Household 14 (CBS 3472 ii’ 6’–10’).
111
It was certainly not the only factor. Men and boys may have found themselves in
positions with less oversight and so were presented with more opportunities to run.
In a preceding section (page 99) of this chapter, it was revealed that certain occupations
granting a fair amount of freedom of movement, such as boatmen and herders of
domestic animals other than horses, are given only to male workers. NBC 7955 lists
over forty adult males as boatmen, who could have been plying the rivers and canals
with relative freedom. It is also possible that the boatmen of NBC 7955 had little free-
dom of movement, e.g., they may have been used as part of a large labor force that
hauled large barges on the water. This question is worth exploring in the future, espe-
cially in light of the fact that, in the American South, the slave working on the river was
considered a flight risk. See Philip Morgan, “Colonial South Carolina Runaways: Their
Significance for Slave Culture,” in Out of the House of Bondage: Runaways, Resistance
and Marronage in Africa and the New World, ed. Gad Heuman (London: Frank Cass
and Company Limited, 1986): 63.
112
The same reasons are given for the high numbers of male escapees among
the American slave population. Gad Heuman, “Introduction” in Out of the House of
112 chapter five
to private individuals. This is true of laborers who were loaned out both
by political institutions and prisons holding recaptured escapees.113
There is also an administrative text which involves the allocation of
workers with mention of consequences for the supervisor if there is an
escape.114
Roughly one quarter (24.4%) of all rosters contain some sort of geo-
graphic reference (place name, institutional name, gentilic, etc.); and
statements regarding the place(s) from which fugitives escaped are
equally uncommon. CBS 3736 lists fifteen escapees who have run away
from Dūr-Kurigalzu, Arad-Bēlti, and Nippur. BE 15 160 gives the name
of an escapee who would have been supplied with rations in Namkar-
ešēgi.115 There are also five escapees from a mobile work group that was
operating around Zarāt-Karkara, although the five may have escaped
when the group was working somewhere else.116
There is even less information available on the runaway’s destina-
tion. Only a few recaptured persons are said to have been brought back
from a specific location: Uruk and Opis.117 This may not necessarily
mean that major cities—rather than small towns, the countryside, wil-
derness, etc.— were the hiding places of these workers (where they
might be less easy to detect). Rather these may have been the places
where people were transferred after their initial recapture.
It is worth noting that the majority (94.1%) of escapees whose
names are well enough preserved to be analyzed bear Akkadian names
(Table 21).118 There are many problems with using personal names as
Bondage: Runaways, Resistance and Marronage in Africa and the New World (London:
Frank Call and Company Limited, 1986): 6.
113
For information on the loaning out of escapees being held in prison, see the sec-
tion titled “Recapture and Reassignment” below (pages 115–18). For the loaning out of
slaves of the šandabakku, see BE 14 2.
114
PBS 2/2 55.
115
BE 15 160:8.
116
BE 14 58
117
Uruk (CBS 11106), name lost (Ni. 2204), Opis (PBS 8/2 161). It is also possible
that these people were caught in the small towns and villages located close to the major
city.
118
There are two additional issues at work here. First, the assumption is that people
were not given a new name once they entered the servile population, a custom that was
widely practiced among the Romans for their foreign captives. On the same note,
several members of the worker population are recorded as having two names. The six
examples from the Personnel Table are mIqīša-Marduk a.k.a. mUb-[…] (BE 14 142
rev. i 20 b), fIna-x-[…] a.k.a. fIna-[…] (CBS 3486 ii’ 2’ b), fIK-ri-ia a.k.a. ⌈fId⌉-di-ia (CBS
7092+ i’ 2’ b), mĒdiš-bītī-lūmur a.k.a. mNergal-mušallim (CBS 7092+ rev. ii’ 10’–11’ b),
Table 21. Language of Personal Name for Escapees.

Percentage of the Percentage of
Language of Number of Total Number of Escapees with
Personal Name Escapees Escapees Language Identified
Akkadian 111 58.7% 94.1%
Hurrian 1 0.5% 0.8%
Kassite 6 3.2% 5.1%
Language 8 4.2% N/A
unknown
Insufficiently 63 33.4% N/A
preserved
an indication of place of origin. However, one wonders how many

escapees spoke Akkadian as a native tongue and whether language
influenced the direction in which they ran. Would they try to resettle
in their homeland or another place where their native tongue was spo-
ken, making it easier to reintegrate into society?
To sum up, the evidence suggests that workers were able to flee in
varied circumstances (from major cities,119 mobile work groups, or per-
haps when they were farmed out for labor to private individuals) rather
than in a common situation or environment where oversight was less
rigid, such as working alone in rural areas for private individuals. Some
escapees were shipped from major cities back to the Nippur area (rais-
ing the question whether they were captured in these cities), but most
were never apprehended.120
Escape as a Cause of Work-Force Depletion

Every unrecovered escapee diminished the available work force, and
the loss of workers (through flight and death) was tracked in almost
f
Bēltu-rīšat a.k.a. Yâtu (CBS 7092+ rev. ii’ 23’–24’ b), and mTarībatu a.k.a. mbu-x[…]
(CBS 10810 i 5’).
119
CBS 3736.
120
In fact, the Personnel Data Base indicates that people were more likely to die (15)
during or after their escape attempt than to be recaptured (4). There is some compara-
tive historical evidence that suggests it is difficult for a large-scale, state-organized
apparatus to find and return escapees. For example, when the state-run Soviet gulag
was at its height in 1947, only 27.7% of escapees were caught. Note that this statistic
comes from Soviet reports which may have been inaccurate (Anne Applebaum, Gulag:
A History (New York: Anchor Books, 2003): 394–95).
114 chapter five
all types of rosters. In fact, death and flight are the only significant ways
by which workers seem to have been lost (elû) from an active qinnu-
group; and it generally seems to be the case for work groups of all
types.121
Just how significant were the losses to the work force through flight
and death? Were these depletions in manpower tracked merely to
recalculate ration issues, or were they substantial enough that the
institutions regularly needed to find new sources of labor?
One way to answer the question is to ask whether the population was
able to replenish itself, i.e., through new births. It has already been
established that the ratio of children to adults is lower (0.67:1) than the
rate necessary to prevent a net natural decline in population (1:1).122
There are two additional ways to tackle the problem. Neither procedure
provides a strong argument (mostly because of the poor preservation
of the documents); but taken together they suggest an interesting
trend.
If one examines just the gross data, the Personnel Data Base contains
236 dead workers and 189 escaped workers, for a total of 425 losses
over the time frame of the corpus. It also records 336 nursing children
over the same period, which results in a ratio of additions to losses of
336 to 425. This is not a precise measure of the population’s viability,
but there are in addition a group of summary rosters whose specific
function was to record the number of additions (ildu(=population
growth)123 and returned escapees) and subtractions (deaths, runaways)
occurring in each work group.124 These summaries suggest that losses
may have exceeded additions in the work groups recorded on the
texts.125 The two texts of this type that are well enough preserved to
121
This also has repercussions as far as the relative freedom of these people, i.e., the
only means to escape is by death, flight, or grant of freedom (rare).
122
Page 53.
123
E.g., Ni. 2228, where the subcolumn headings read ildu / returned escapees /
escapees / deceased (i.e., additions to or subtractions from the work force). Note that
the subcolumn headed ildu includes not just persons classified as DUMU.GABA or
DUMU.SAL.GABA (which could fit for newborns), but also older boys in the GURUŠ.
TUR and GURUŠ.TUR.TUR categories. See page 127, note 198.
124
See pages 21–22 for a full description and examples.
125
There are only two texts of this type with complete or reconstructable sub-
column headings: Ni. 2228 and CBS 11978 (see note 123 above for a full explana-
tion). Three other texts (Ni. 8254, Ni. 8291, and UM 29-15-77) do not have preserved
headings, but likely omitted the “escaped and returned” subcolumn like CBS 11978.
Ni. 7033 and UM 29-15-222 could be a similar type of summary; but almost nothing
is preserved of Ni. 7033 and UM 29-15-222, if it is an addition and subtraction text,
recover some statistics give us ratios of 316 losses (deaths and runa-
ways) to 156 additions (ildu) (CBS 11978)126 and 49 losses to some-
where around 20 additions (Ni. 2228);127 but it must be stressed that
neither of these texts is complete.
The evidence, even if crude, hints that the work force lost more
members through death or flight than were added by birth (internal
reproduction) or by the return of fugitives. Even if births and deaths
were equal, social subtractions (in this case flight) would represent a
loss in population numbers (if the population was stationary). This
background helps to explain why the state went to such lengths to keep
workers from running off (to be discussed presently) and why care was
taken to add workers from outside sources by purchase or by importa-
tion of war captives.128
Recapture and Reassignment

There is a collection of legal and administrative texts, henceforth called
“recapture-and-reassignment texts,” that provide details on the net-
works and procedures that were used to deal with runaways who were
recaptured.129 These legal and administrative documents, some of them
poorly preserved, can be identified by distinctive terminology near the
beginning of the text. These lines state who ran away,130 who was custo-
dian of the runaway after his capture,131 and who offered the guarantee
would have to have a different arrangement for its subcolumns than seen elsewhere.
The subcolumns for UM 29-15-222 could just as easily be reserved for particular
occupations or other categories.
126
With a fourth subcolumn, presumably for returned escapees, almost entirely
destroyed.
127
The final totals for Ni. 2228 include ⌈20⌉ [(+?)] ildu, an unknown number of
returned escapees, 7 escapees, and 42 deceased.
128
Low child to adult ratios have been found to be characteristic of long-distance
migration and plantation slavery. See Menard, “Slave Demography in the Low Country”
(1995): 289, Table 5 and David Eltis and Stanley L. Engerman, “Was the Slave Trade
Dominated by Men?” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 23 (1992): 242.
129
To be more precise, these documents deal with workers who ran away, were
caught, placed in prison, and eventually released after guarantee was furnished by
another party. To date, no equivalent legal document for runaways who were caught,
imprisoned, and never released has been found (although there are documents listing
inmates of particular prisons). These texts have been previously discussed and listed in
Chapter 2 (pages 34–35) with references given in footnote 95 of that chapter.
130
Usually expressed in the first two lines as: PN1 (DUMU PN2 + occupation name)
+ ḫ alāqu (ZÁḪ -ma and ḫ a-liq-ma attested).
131
Continuing the documentary formula for recaptured runaways in the previous
footnote, this is usually expressed as: PN3 (DUMU PN4) (ištu GN + šūlû or leqû) ina kīli
+ kalû.
116 chapter five
that resulted in the escapee’s release and reassignment.132 Some of the

documents contain all of these elements, with the entire subset of doc-
uments being linked by three key elements: (1) PN1 ḫ alāqu, (2) PN2
(ina kīli) kalû, and (3) PN3 pūta + maḫ āṣu/emēdu). Three examples will
demonstrate the variation in phraseology found in the opening lines
texts of this type:

1. mGAL-šá-DINGIR DUMU mKit-ta-ti
2. ZÁḪ -ma TA URU.UNUG.KI
3. ⌈DUMU⌉ mŠi-⌈in-di⌉-dEn-líl ú-še-la-šu-ma
4. ⌈i-na ki-li⌉ ik-lu133-šu-ma
5. GIG-ma mKit-ta-tum ⌈a⌉-bu-⌈šu⌉
6. pu-us-su im-ḫ a-aṣ-ma
7. ú-⌈še⌉-ṣi-šu
“Rabâ-ša-ilī, son of Kittatu, escaped, and the son of Šindi-Enlil
brought him up from Uruk and held him in prison. He (Rabâ-ša-
ilī) became ill, and Kittatu, his father, assumed guarantee for him
and effected his release…”
Example 10. Excerpt from BM 17626.134

1. mSUD-dU.GUR DUMU mfta-x-x(-x)135
2. ZÁḪ -ma mdNIN.IB-SUM-aḫ -ḫ e
3. il-qa-áš-šu-um-ma
4. i-na ki-li ik-la-šu-ma
5. m⌈ŠEŠ?⌉-du-tum DUMU mIm-ma-ti-ia
6. pu-us-su im-ḫ a-aṣ-ma ú-še-ṣi-šu
…
“Rīš-Nergal, the son of ta-x-x(-x), escaped, and Ninurta-nādin-aḫḫē
brought him back and held him in prison. Aḫēdūtu, the son of
Immatīya, assumed guarantee for him and effected his release.”
132
Again following the previous documentary formula for recaptured runways,
expressed as: PN5 (DUMU PN6) pūta + maḫ āṣu + šūṣû.
133
-lu- may be a mistake for -la-.
134
The same lines of BM 17626 were given as Example 7 on page 34 when these
documents were first discussed.
135
For personal names written with both the masculine and feminine personal
determinatives, see Brinkman, “Masculine or Feminine?” ( 2007): 1–10.
Example 11. Excerpt from Ni. 1333.

1. mLa-qí-pu […]
2. DUMU mŠEŠ-SI.SÁ-d[…]
3. Ì.ŠUR
4. ḫ a-li-iq-ma
5. mdEn-líl-⌈ki-di⌉-ni
6. ik-la-šu
7. mdAMAR.UTU-mu-šal-lim
8. ú-še-ṣi
…
“Lā-qīpu […], the son of Aḫu-līšir-[DN?], the oil-presser, escaped;
and Enlil-kidinnī held him (in prison). Marduk-mušallim effected
(his) release…”
The documents identify the runaway, custodian, and the guarantor (or
person arranging the release). Nine runaways are recorded in such
texts, and many of their names are partially or completely lost.136 All of
these names except Rabâ-ša-ilī occur in the personnel rosters; but there
is no way, either through comparing relatives, occupation, or other
information, to identify any single person as present in both types of
document.
The relationship between the guarantors and the escapee is gener-
ally not given, but in one case the guarantor is the father of the escapee
who is taking charge of the prisoner, because the captive became ill
while in jail. It is not entirely clear why someone with no relationship
to the escapee would became a guarantor (especially in light of the
penalties if the person ran away again), but one could surmise that one
reason would be to use the prisoner for work outside the prison. He
would be fed and cared for by the guarantor, which would remove the
cost of the prisoner’s upkeep from the captor (and perhaps operator of
the prison) while the final destination of the escapee is being deter-
mined. This echoes the general practice mentioned in the second sec-
tion of this chapter, wherein workers controlled by the šandabakku or
136
The names are completely or partially preserved for six of the nine runaways: (1)
Rīš-Nergal, the son of mfta-x-x(-x) (BM 17626:1), (2) Rabâ-ša-ilī, son of Kittatu (CBS
11106:1), (3) Rabâ-ša-Gula (patronym lost) (Ni. 2204:1), (4) Yāʾūtu, the cook, son of
Kuzub-nišī, son of Ištar-tukultī (PBS 8/2 161:1–2), (5) mAl-⌈lu-at⌉-ra (CBS 11453:1),
and (6) Lā-qīpu, son of Aḫu-līšir-[DN?] (Ni. 1333:1–2). The names of the runaways are
not preserved in BE 14 11, CBS 8600A, and Ni. 7195.
118 chapter five
by large institutions were seen to have been loaned out to private indi-
viduals and estates. While there are a variety of penalties when the
guarantor fails to meet his obligations, there seem to be no penalties
if the escapee dies.137
Custodians of captives include Ninurta-nādin-aḫḫē(=šanda-
bakku?),138 the son of mŠindi-Enlil,139 the son of […]-Šamaš,140 Enlil-AL.
ŠA6(=šandabakku?),141 and Na(ḫ)zi-Marduk, the son of mGu-NI-NI-
Bugaš.142 Although the names of the custodians in two texts are not
preserved, only one of these men seems to be listed as custodian for
more than one person.
Confinement: Prisons and Fetters

The use of prisons (kīlu) as a holding area for escapees has been noted
in the previous few pages. However, there are several other administra-
tive and legal documents that mention the use of prisons and/or
restraints to control members of the population for other reasons.143
Most of the people in shackles or prison listed in the rosters (as
opposed to the recapture texts) are not known by personal name
because the worker’s name is not preserved, the imprisoned workers
appear without name in a subtotal, or the text is unclear as to which
of the listed workers are imprisoned. A check of the Personnel Table
produces the name of just two imprisoned workers, both males,
and two fettered workers, one male and one female.144 At first glance
these numbers seem too low, but 50% of the rosters known to con-
tain references to imprisoned workers (kīlu)145 and 77% of the rosters
known to mention fettered workers (kamû)146 have yet to be included
137
BM 17626:7–8: mSUD-dU.GUR (runaway) i-ma-at-ma (l. 8) mA-ḫi-du-tum (guar-
antor) za-ku.
138
BM 17626:2 and perhaps BE 14 11:3’ (heavily damaged passage).
139
CBS 11106:3.
140
Ni. 2204:3.
141
PBS 8/2 161:3. The final sign is partially damaged.
142
CBS 11453:3–4. Balkan, Kassitenstudien (1954): 53 prefers to read this patronym
as Guzalzal-Bugaš and treats guzalzal as a variant of guzarzar (ibid.: 149). The patro-
nym Guzarzar-Bugaš is attested in PBS 2/2 83:30, and the simple name m⌈gu-za-ar⌉-
za-ar occurs in the roster UM 29-15-292 rev. ii’ 12’, cf. ibid. ii’ ⌈4⌉.
143
Some examples are CBS 7240:2–19, PBS 2/2 116:2–5, 10, and 19–20, Ni. 1627 rev.
iv 6’, Ni. 8221:2’, BM 82699 ii 11, MUN 418 iii’ 5.’
144
BM 82699 ii 11, CBS 3493 ii 6’ b and 7092+ rev. ii’ 52’ b, and Ni. 1627 rev. iv 6’.
145
I.e., three out of the six rosters known to contain references to imprisoned (kīlu)
workers.
146
I.e., ten out of the thirteen rosters known to contain references to fettered (kamû)
laborers.
in the Personnel Table because they are housed in the Archaeological

Museum in Istanbul and could not be collated.147 The number of
available names will increase once this material can be added to the
data base.
Sometimes there is no way of determining why someone is being
detained; so it is difficult to tell whether the imprisoned person was
a member of the servile population or a person of higher status who
had committed a crime. However, the presence of sex-age or physical-
condition designations, words typically used to mark the servile popu-
lation (amīlūtu, qinnu, etc.), and context are reliable ways to identify
members of the servile population.
Members of the servile population—such as escapees or those
recently added to the work force, but not yet assigned to any particu-
lar working group—are held in prison alongside common criminals.
For example, PBS 2/2 116 is a list of persons (ÉRIN.MEŠ) in a prison
run by Sîn-apil-Ekur; and it is suspected that some of these individuals
are there because they are going to be added to the servile labor force,
i.e., they were given to (nadānu) or received by (maḫ āru) the šandabakku
or they were taken (leqû) from Babylon.148 The other inmates are being
held for criminal offenses: e.g., they had struck their mother or elder
brother, or made use of personnel belonging to a temple or to the gov-
ernor without permission.149
Another example would be CBS 7240. It is a severely damaged
roster which lists, among other things, a number of imprisoned indi-
viduals interspersed with long prose descriptions that offer infor
mation on the circumstances surrounding their imprisonment in
a manner similar to that of PBS 2/2 116.150 Depending on how one
reconstructs the first seven or eight broken lines, the first three prison-
ers mentioned, a father, wife, and son, are not only counted among
the ten people listed as in prison (PAP 10 ki-lum), but it is also recorded
that they have been put in shackles.151 The listing of this family is done
in the same format as seen in personnel rosters (discussed in chapter
four).
147
“Ka-mu” and “ki-lum” as physical conditions seem to be frozen writings. One
might have expected ka-mu-ú or inflection for feminine for fettered persons (Brinkman,
“Sex, Age, and Physical Condition Designations” (1982): 6 n. 34).
148
Lines 2–5, 10, and 19–20.
149
Lines 7–9, 15, and 11–12.
150
CBS 7716, which is heavily damaged, may be the same sort of text.
151
CBS 7240 line 7 “[…] ù ⌈ša⌉-šu-nu ú-pa-a-du-šu-nu-ti.”
120 chapter five
The texts do not provide details as to the location or physical struc-

ture associated with any prison, e.g., stockade, building, a secure place
of a private house or compound, etc. Prisons are identified simply by
the person or official who is in charge of the prisoners; this, other than
the names of the inmates and sometimes the reasons behind their
incarcerations, is all that is really known about each place of detention
in this period.152
Restraints or fetters are also a means of restricting the movement
of the population. Notations regarding fettered workers are found in
only thirteen of the rosters,153 suggesting that the practice was not
widespread. All indications are that shackled people, for the most part,
were kept within the work group. In texts listing qinnu work groups,
the workers placed in fetters are not removed (elû) from the work force
and could have been used for assignments. There are no indications as
to what form these restraints took (neck-stocks, shackles, other types
of bindings, etc.).
The Šandabakku and the King

There are other indications about the involvement of specific
šandabakkus in the recapture and release documents. Enlil-kidinnī,
who held the governorship during the reign of Burna-Buriaš II, is men-
tioned as the person responsible for the imprisonment of an escapee.154
In BE 14 135, a document that is nearly identical with a recapture text,
but which lacks the statement that the imprisoned person was a runa-
way, details the release of a prisoner being held by a later governor,
Amīl-Marduk.155 With regard to the king, there is one damaged passage
in the legal deposition Ni. 2891 which may point to the involvement of
king Šagarakti-Šuriaš with the imprisonment of someone;156 the gover-
nor Amīl-Marduk is also mentioned as conducting an interrogation.157
As noted above (page 118), Ninurta-nādin-aḫḫē and Enlil-AL.ŠA6—
152
PBS 2/2 116: 1: “ÉRIN.MEŠ ki-lum ŠU m30-IBILA-É.KUR.”
153
CBS 3493, CBS 10713, CBS 11103, Ni. 1066 +1069, Ni. 1075, Ni. 5993, Ni. 6033,
Ni. 6068, Ni. 6237, Ni. 6244, Ni. 6468, Ni. 6470, and Ni. 11055.
154
Ni. 1333:5.
155
BE 14 135:3.
156
See the following lines: (24) “[…]⌈x⌉-ú-⌈tum? ša⌉ ki-li LUGAL (25) “…⌈iḫ ?⌉-li-
iq-ma.” The king is probably Šagarakti-Šuriaš, since he is mentioned in the document
(lines 15 and 32).
157
Line 12: mLÚ-dAMAR.UTU iš-al-šu.
without titles in the texts, but identified as governors elsewhere—were

also custodians of captives.
Origins and Civil Status
In this section, we address two questions basic to the present research:

where did these workers come from, and what was their civil status in
Babylonian society. As previously observed, our information is limited
because the source documents presume a fundamental understanding
of the socio-economic milieu in which the workers found themselves
and provide little explanation that is directly relevant to answering
these questions. We will discuss what meager evidence is available.
Origins
On the question of origins, we would like to consider two aspects:
(1) from what regions did the workers come, and (2) by what means
were laborers incorporated into this work force. First of all, the texts
indicate the place of origin for only a very small fraction of the workers,
perhaps less than three percent of the total.158 Explicit references to
native Babylonians (akkadû) are absent in the texts used here for statis-
tical analysis of the population, but six Babylonians are so identified in
one of the simple rosters in Istanbul.159 Also one of the children pur-
chased by the governor Enlil-kidinnī in the time of Burna-
Buriaš II (1359–1333) is described as a native of Babylonia (ilitti māt
158
An exact figure is impossible to determine, since many of the designations
of origin (e.g., gentilics) are given only as collectives, e.g., lul-lu-ba-⌈a⌉-[ú], aš-šur-a-
a-[ú], a-ru-na-a-a-⌈ú⌉ in Ni. 6932:9’–11’, without indication of the number of per-
sons in the category. But only a tiny proportion of the population is ever designated by
a gentilic. Although personal names in languages other than Babylonian (Hurrian,
Elamite, and Assyrian) are common among the servile population, they are an unreli-
able indicator of an individual worker’s geographic or ethnic origin; see J. A. Brinkman,
“Administration and Society in Kassite Babylonia,” JAOS 124 (2004): 284–85. However,
there are occasions when a large percentage of workers with names in languages other
than Akkadian occur together on a tablet which, when taken as a whole, leaves the
impression that many of the listed workers may be foreign: for example, a significant
portion of the supervisors in MUN 93 and parallel texts (CBS 3474, 8899, 11670,
11826, N 1803, and Ni. 11458) have Hurrian names, an occurrence that is unusual for
so extensive a group of mobile laborers. Although of little help for statistical purposes,
such evidence provides circumstantial evidence that outsiders played a major role in
Nippur’s servile labor pool.
159
PAP 6 ak-ka-du-ú in Ni. 1627 i 8.
122 chapter five
Karduniaš).160 Otherwise, all statements about place of origin refer to

foreign lands; the collected data are visually summarized on page 123
(Figure 13).161 Each region from which foreign workers are attested is
represented by a circle,162 with the size of the circle corresponding to the
relative volume of each region’s contribution to the servile labor force
at Nippur (the map does not indicate the geographic extent of each
locale).163 The placement of each region on the map should be regarded
as approximate only. As the map shows, foreign servile laborers came
from areas to the east, northeast, north, and northwest of Babylonia,
with the distant Anatolian region of Arūna (thought to lie between
Kizzuwatna and Hatti)164 particularly worthy of note. Elam, Hanigalbat,
and Lullubu are the principal attested sources of foreign workers (29%,
20%, and 18% respectively); Assyria and the region of Arrapḫa furnish
slightly smaller numbers, according to present indications. In the pre-
ceding historical period (Old Babylonian), some of these regions were
known to be sources for slaves sold by merchants.165
By what process or processes were persons incorporated into the
work force at Nippur? There are diverse clues spread thinly across
the documentation, but clear and explicit linkage from point of ori-
gin to membership in the servile system (laboring crews) is lacking.
There are a few roster entries that describe worker groups as “booty” or
160
BE 14 1:1. It is not known whether this boy was added to the servile labor
pool.
161
This is a modern map with contemporary geographical features such as water-
ways and coastlines, which may have differed significantly in the fourteenth and thir-
teenth centuries B.C
162
Gentilic adjectives which may have been more ethnic than geographic in empha-
sis, e.g., Kassite, Akkadian, Aḫlamû, and Amurrû, are not represented on the map.
163
This is a preliminary estimate based on crude numbers drawn from the data base:
total number of individually listed workers and references to foreign groups of workers
divided by the total number of individually listed workers and total references to
groups of workers. It is expected that this estimate will become more precise once the
material from Istanbul can be included in the data base (foreign workers seem gener-
ally to be more common in the Istanbul rosters).
164
For the location of Arūna, see Massimo Forlanini, “La regione del Tauro nei testi
Hittiti,” Vicino Oriente 7 (1988): 145 and 170 (map) and Giuseppe F. del Monte and
Johann Tischler, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte, RGTC 6
(Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1982): 41 (citing earlier literature).
165
Frans van Koppen, “The Geography of the Slave Trade and Northern Mesopotamia
in the Late Old Babylonian Period” in Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited, eds. Hermann
Hunger and Regine Pruzsinszky. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 32 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 2004): 9–33.
Figure 13. Map of Geographic Origin and Relative Proportions of

Foreign Constituents of the Servile Population.166
“captives.”167 Areas attested with such removals are indicated on the

map (Figure 13) by circles with an outline. A few workers were granted
by the king to the governor at Nippur through the intermediation of
a royal official.168 Some workers were purchased by the governor as
slaves (termed amīlūtu or aštapīru).169 Other means of entrance into
the servile work force could be by birth into a servile family or possibly
by enslavement for debt (attested only by inference from a passage
open to several interpretations). Refugees (munnabittu) from foreign
lands are also attested in the rosters, but the processes by which they
may have come under the jurisdiction of the Nippur administration are
not elaborated. The recapture-and-reassignment texts (covered above
166
The circle representing the contribution of Ullipi is included for comparison by
size only. Its location has not been determined.
167
To be discussed in detail in the two immediately following paragraphs.
168
CBS 7726, discussed below.
169
Amīlūtu (written syllabically or NAM.LÚ.U18(=GIŠGAL).LU, sometimes with
omission of the final LU) is the term used in BE 14 7, PBS 8/2 162, and TuM NF 5 65,
aštapīru in MUN 9+PBS 13 64, Ni. 1574, and Ni. 6192.
124 chapter five
in detail in section 5 of this chapter) deal with reentry of escapees into

the work force, not with their initial assignment as servile laborers.
With the exception of this last category, we will discuss the other means
of incorporation in more detail in the succeeding paragraphs.
There is only slight and ambiguous evidence for servile personnel
as war booty or prisoners of war. Three rosters specify that a group
of workers was considered as ḫubbutānu,170 a hitherto unattested
Akkadian term presumably meaning something like “booty” or “cap-
tives.”171 Two of these rosters, dealing with the same collection of ser-
vile groups and individual laborers separated by a four-year interval,172
state that the ḫubbutānu represent a period starting from year 20[(+x?)]
of a king whose name is now missing down to year 9 of Šaga[rakti-
Šuriaš] in one case and down to the accession year of Kaštiliašu (IV) in
the other—therefore a range of at least 49 years.173 The same two rosters
also list several foreign groups of workers by place of origin: men from
Ullipi, Elam, Lullubu, Assyria, and Arūna.174 The third roster has
ḫubbutānu in the entry label subcolumn (furthest to the right) in a
damaged section, without a time qualification and perhaps as a qualita-
tive summary/subtotal;175 this roster also contains references to men
from Hanigalbat, Elam, Ullipi, Lullubu, Assyria, and Arūna. There is
no evidence for the place of origin of laborers covered in the ḫubbutānu
category, but they are listed in entries parallel to groups whose origin is
explicitly indicated.
There are other cryptic references in roster texts and related docu-
ments which record the transportation of foreigners during specific
years. The best preserved of these references occurs in Ni. 11111, a
ration roster without preserved date, which refers to lul-lu-ma-a-a-ú ša
170
In each case written ḫu-bu-ta-nu.
171
Related to ḫubtu, “captive, prisoner-of-war” and ḫ abātu, “to rob, plunder.”
172
The individual and group listings also appear in the same sequence in the two
texts.
173
The last Kassite ruler before this time to have reigned at least twenty years was
Nazi-Maruttaš (1307–1282); but Kurigalzu II (1332–1308) and Burna-Buriaš II (1359–
1333) would also be possibilities. The ḫubbutānu entries here are in the form ḫu-bu-
ta-nu ša TA MU.20[(+x?).KAM RN ] / EN MU.SAG.NAM.LUGAL.LA kaš-[til-ia-šu …
] (Ni. 7050:18’–19’); the corresponding entry in the Šagarakti-Šuriaš text is much more
damaged, but concludes EN MU.9.KAM ⌈šá-gar⌉-[…] (Ni. 6933:18’–19’).
174
In each case by gentilics, without specifying the number of individuals involved
(Ni. 6932:6’–11’, Ni. 7050:6’–11’).
175
Ni. 5860 iv 17. The number subcolumns to the left of this entry are destroyed at
this point; so it is impossible to determine whether this line represents a qualitative
summary/subtotal.
i-na MU.⌈11⌉[(+x).KAM] ka-dáš-man-túr-gu le-qú-ni, i.e., Lullubians176

“who were taken away in the year 11[(+x)] of Kadašman-Turgu.”177
There are similarly ambiguous phrases referring to (a) the year 23(?)
and Kurigalzu (the source of deportees is almost entirely destroyed),178
(b) Elamites in a now-missing year and Nazi-Maruttaš,179 and (c) years
10–14 and Kadašman-Turgu (dealing with Kassites from Tupliyaš).180
The texts merely state that the people in question were moved in cer-
tain years of certain kings, and these need hardly be interpreted as mili-
tary activities of a specific king in a specific year.
Despite the uncertainties involved in interpretation of these short
passages, they seem at least worth mentioning because of the relative
rarity of references to military activities on the part of Kassite mon-
archs. No royal inscription of a Kassite ruler records a military cam-
paign; and pertinent statements from chronicles, votive texts, and
letters are few and far between.181 If it weren’t for the extreme sparsity
of material dealing with Kassite military matters, these vague allusions
would not be worth mentioning; but they should be kept in mind as
possible clues to the poorly understood political history as the period
becomes better known.182
A single text documents a royal grant of servile personnel to Nippur
authorities. CBS 7726, an administrative memorandum dated in the
first year of Kaštiliašu IV (1232 B.C.), records the king’s gift of ten
persons to Amīl-Marduk, the governor of Nippur, and the gover-
nor’s subsequent assignment of these individuals to local officials.183
176
The gentilic occurs as both lullubāyu and lullumāyu. See Nashef, RGTC 5
188–189.
177
i 15’–16’. Leqû is the verb most commonly used in rosters and related texts to
designate transport of servile personnel from one location to another, even in peaceful
context.
178
Ni. 11111 i’ 3’–4’
179
Ni. 7050:20’–21’, less well preserved in the parallel Ni. 6932:20’–21’.
180
Ni. 11111 i’ 11’–12’. Tupliyaš was not included on Figure 13 because it was
in the Diyala and therefore part of Babylonia.
181
The evidence has last been summed up by Brinkman, “The Monarchy in the
Time of the Kassite Dynasty,” pp. 401–02, with citation of additional literature; see also
idem, “Foreign Relations of Babylonia from 1600 to 625 B.C.: The Documentary
Evidence,” American Journal of Archaeology 76 (1972): 271–81.
182
Evidence regarding the taking of prisoners for labor purposes in the Late Bronze
Age can also be found in Babylonia’s northern neighbor Assyria, specifically the city of
Kalḫu (J.A. Brinkman, “Kassiten,” in RlA 5/5–6, eds. Erich Ebeling et al. (Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter, 1980): 470).
183
Described collectively as qīpūti (gen.) ša EN.LÍL.KI. The title of only one of
these officials is preserved: LÚ.ŠÀ.TAM É.KUR [( )] in rev. 6’. A similar conveyance
126 chapter five
Each individual is identified by personal name and categorized by a

traditional sex-age designation.184 The conveyance to the governor at
the king’s order (kî šipirti šarri Kaštiliašu) is effected through the ṣuḫurti
šarri, an official of the central government.185
Purchases of slaves by the Nippur governor are better attested in our
texts, perhaps because at least a portion of the documentation may
have come from the archives of the governor. The purchases of slaves
by Enlil-kidinnī, governor in the time of Burna-Buriaš II (1359–1333),
are well known and have been the subject of a separate study by
Herbert Petschow.186 There are eight surviving legal texts recording
Enlil-kidinnī’s purchases of slaves, usually in family groups, between
year 8 and year 24 of Burna-Buriaš.187 The largest recorded slave
group in a single purchase contains 25 persons;188 the smallest acquisi-
tion deals with one young boy.189 Most of the purchases are made
directly by Enlil-kidinnī; but in at least one case Adad-šar-ilī, his ša
rēši official, acts as purchaser190 and, in two other instances, Enlil-
kidinnī is listed as the buyer, but other men pay the price of the pur-
chase.191 Note in addition the register of law cases involving Enlil-kidinnī,
several of which are concerned with the acquisition of slaves.192
Enlil-AL.ŠA6, governor of Nippur in the time of Nazi-Maruttaš (1307–
1282), was also involved in a question of ownership of slaves, accord-
ing to a laconic administrative memorandum,193 and a legal dispute
in which the brother of a woman sought her release because she was
of lower-level personnel by a ruler (presumably Šagarakti-Šuriaš) to a šatammu at

Dūr-Kurigalzu was routed through a ḫ azannu official (Gurney, Iraq 11 (1949) 132–133
no. 2).
184
Only the categories GURUŠ and SAL GAL are attested in the six preserved
entries.
185
The operative verbs in the pertinent relative clause are: (ša)…ilqâmma…iddinu.
The function of the ṣuḫurti šarri (sometimes expressed also as ṣuḫurtu ša šarri in
Middle Babylonian) has not yet been determined.
186
“Die Sklavenkaufverträge des šandabakku Enlil-kidinnī von Nippur,” Orientalia
52 (1983): 143–55.
187
To the texts cited by Petschow in his 1983 article may be added Ni. 1574 and Ni.
6192. Also CBS 14198 (PBS 13 64) may be joined to UM 29-16-296 (MUN 9).
188
Ni. 6192.
189
BE 14 1.
190
PBS 8/2 162.
191
TuM NF 5 65, 66.
192
TuM NF 5 68.
193
PBS 2/2 25. Lines 5–8 of the text read: (5) 24 a-mi-lu-ut-su (6) it-ti mdEN.LÍL-AL.
ŠA6 (7) a-na le-qé-em-ma (8) di-nam da-ba-bi.
married.194 Unfortunately, it has not been possible to identify any sin-

gle slave in the purchase texts (dating in 1336 and earlier) with a
person also occurring in the worker rosters (which date for the most
part after 1307).195
It is common historical knowledge that slaves in ancient Rome and
the Americas were often renamed when captured or sold; and some of
the workers appearing in rosters are known by two names.196 This is
merely a possible indication of slavery, and the conclusion that people
in possession of two names were slaves cannot be reached on this evi-
dence alone.
Offspring born into worker families were incorporated into the ser-
vile population. This can be seen in cases where the history of a single
family is covered over several years in extant documentation.197 Also,
one may suppose that at least some of the youngest personnel recorded
in the ildu subcolumns of accounting rosters resulted from natural
increase within laborer families.198 The offspring of mixed unions, e.g.,
between a free male and a servile female, were also incorporated into
the servile population (and thus at least have been eligible for public
worker status); the unpublished legal text Ni. 2885 deals with a case
in which the former owner of a freed woman199 who wishes to have her
back in his household is told that he must take her formally as
his wife so that future children born to them will be recognized as his
(i.e., free).200
CBS 7242. His reasons are cited as direct speech in two worn lines 10–11:
194
(10) fNIN-su-nu (11) ⌈a⌉-ḫ a-ti ⌈aḫ -za⌉-at-mi (“Bēlessunu, my sister, is married”). The
restoration, specifically the -aḫ-, is uncertain.
195
Texts from the reign of Kurigalzu II (1332–1308) are generally census-type ros-
ters, which list supervisors and the number of their subordinate workers. Rosters nam-
ing individual workers are generally from the time of Nazi-Maruttaš (1307–1282) and
later.
196
See pages 112–13, note 118.
197
E.g., in the family of Tukultī-Adad, the brewer, the infant girl Bāriḫtu is not listed
in the earliest roster (BE 14 58, covering months I-XII of Nazi-Maruttaš year 13 (=1295
B.C.) ), but appears as the junior female (DUMU.SAL.GABA) in Ni. 6775 rev. 5’ dated
eighteen months later (VII-27(+)-year 15 (=1293 B.C.) ).
198
See pages 17–18, 21–22, and 114–15. Does this imply a lengthy interval
between censuses or that ildu may have had a wider meaning than simply “offspring,
progeny”?
199
It is never stated whether the freed woman was owned by a private individual or
the šandabakku (i.e., a public servile laborer), although she is freed by an act of the
king.
200
The sister of the freed woman who is negotiating for the woman’s return to her
former owner makes her demand plain: aḫ ātī šumma ḫ ašḫ āta u ana bītīka tušerrebši
f
PN qinna libni u mārē līlida lū aššatka šī mārūša lū mārū (Ni. 2885:16’–18’).
128 chapter five
There are no clear instances of enslavement for debt as yet attested in

Kassite Babylonia. But there are two cases in which circumstantial evi-
dence may indicate the possibility of this type of situation or a similar
reduction in the status of an individual, i.e., when members of the same
family are apparently of unequal civil status. One case involves a father
and a son: the son, Rabâ-ša-ili, an escapee, falls ill in prison; and his
father, Kittatu, obtains his release and stands surety for his return.201 It
seems unlikely that Kittatu would have been allowed to make this com-
mitment and to seal a legal document, if he had not been a free person.
How then did his son come to be in the servile system?202 In the second
case, dealt with in the preceding paragraph, there are two sisters: one
had been sold into slavery and obtained her release by virtue of a gen-
eral zakûtu decree enacted by Šagarakti-Šuriaš freeing women born in
Nippur;203 the second sister, presumably a free person all along, acted
on behalf of her freed sister in negotiating the latter’s return—at a
higher status—to the household of her former owner.204 These cases
can also be interpreted in other ways, but nonetheless seem worth not-
ing here.
The last category of entrants into the servile working pool to be
dealt with here is refugees (munnabittu, singular). In most rosters,
munnabittu occurs only as an entry for a group of unspecified geo-
graphical origin, often parallel with collective gentilics such as Assy
rians, Elamites, Hanigalbatians, etc.205 In a single roster,206 it occurs in
the heading of the text (qinnātu ša munnabittī ša ina Lubdi ašbū, “fami-
lies of refugees who live in Lubdu”) and then in the first subtotal
([napḫ aru] 5 qinnū munnabittū, “total: five families, refugees”).207
201
CBS 11106.
202
Enslavement for debt is only one possibility. Debt slavery occurs when a person
is forced into slave-status by his creditor, which would not be the case if a father is sell-
ing his own family members to a third party to pay his own debts (which would just be
a simple slave sale, perhaps with a manumission clause). In order to be a debt-slave, the
son himself would have had to have been in debt to the šandabakku or some type of
government institution.
203
The freeing of women native to Nippur may not have applied to women born into
the lowest servile classes; at least there is no indication of wholesale manumission
within the population covered by the rosters.
204
Ni. 2885 (as described in the preceding paragraph).
205
E.g., Ni. 1235:13’, Ni. 1276 ii’ 14’, Ni. 5890:4’.
206
Ni. 643 (simple roster, no date preserved).
207
Or possibly qinnu munnabittu. It is difficult to determine in some instances
whether the words are singular (in a collective sense) or plural; the singular and plural
of each of these two words are indistinguishable in their common syllabic writings
(except when qinnu exhibits its alternative feminine plural, qinnātu).
In non-Nippur texts from Kassite Babylonia, two cases of refugees

are attested; and these two individuals met very different treatment
at the hands of the king. In one instance, a craftsman who had fled
from Hanigalbat made harnesses for the king and was rewarded with
a tract of land in eastern Babylonia.208 In the second case, an Elamite
refugee was handed over by the king to a temple official at Dūr-
Kurigalzu, who placed him in fetters and then assigned him to a brewer
for work.209
Civil Status
Determining the civil status of the servile population is constrained
by the narrow window offered by the available documentation as well
as by the lack of a comprehensive study on Middle Babylonian society
as a whole. While it is tempting to envisage the Middle Babylonian
servile population as occupying a niche in society comparable to that
of disadvantaged classes in other times and locations, such as serfdom,
indentured servitude, and chattel slavery, the accessible information
is inadequate to the task. Such cross-cultural comparisons would
require arbitrary definitions for terms in broad use and are likely to
elicit unfruitful and distracting debate involving modern assumptions
about ancient social conditions. Therefore, our discussion here on civil
status will be restricted to what is revealed in the ancient source mate-
rial and to usage of basic Akkadian terminology by administrators
dealing with the servile population.
The most common term applied to servile personnel in this period
is amīlūtu. The word has two basic functions in Middle Babylonian;
it can serve as a collective designation for a group of persons or as
an abstract term for civil/social status. In most legal documents deal-
ing with sales of more than one person, the individuals being sold
are listed by their personal names and sex-age classification; and the
group is then summed up in a statement such as “total: n (=number
of persons) amīlūtu.”210 Occasionally, the word aštapīru is used in
place of amīlūtu in such contexts.211 The abstract use of amīlūtu is
less common; one fairly clear example occurs in the letter BE 17
208
MDP 2 95–96.
209
IM 49975, published by Gurney, Iraq 11 (1949) 132–133 no. 2.
210
E.g., BE 14 7:9, TuM NF 5 65:3.
211
E.g., MUN 9+PBS 13 64:25’, Ni. 6192:9’.
130 chapter five
51:17–19: awīlūssunu ina lēʾi ša bēlīya šaṭrat, “their a.-status is recorded

on a document in my lord’s possession.”212
Also in rosters amīlūtu is attested as a collective designation for seg-
ments of the working population. While the vast majority of rosters do
not record the civil status of their personnel, twenty-three of these doc-
uments—slightly more than five percent of the total—213 refer to their
laborers as amīlūtu.214 Thus purchase documents and rosters on occa-
sion use the same term to designate their personnel; and they also
employ the same distinctive sex-age categories (GURUŠ, etc.) to clas-
sify servile individuals.215 Though one cannot identify specific individ-
uals in the purchase documents with persons mentioned in the rosters216
and though there is no evidence that workers in the rosters were ever
sold, the common designation of these groups as amīlūtu and their
common categorization by the same sex-age markers (not otherwise
applied in this period) suggest that these persons were on an equal
footing in civil society.
Purchased persons were bought and sold and thus treated as prop-
erty. In one instance, when twenty-five such persons belonged to a
private individual, the Nippur governor paid their owner for them.217
But we have no additional information on these purchased persons
other than that they were sold (and, in one instance, freed).218
In the rosters and related documentation, there is no indication that
their servile laborers were regarded as saleable property (but also
there is no context in which the subject was addressed). But we do
have incidental information about the living environment of roster
workers. Public servile laborers were allowed to have families and
even participate in at least some Babylonian marriage institutions
(as indicated by the presence of kallatus in their households); patro-
nyms could be used for identification purposes.219 Some held positions
212
Lēʾi is defectively written here (GIŠ.<LI>.U5.UM). For other examples of amīlūtu
as an abstract, see CAD A/2 sub voce, usage 4.
213
Representing over five percent of known rosters whose type can be identified
(simple roster or ration roster).
214
E.g., BE 14 58:1, CBS 3695:10’.
215
These sex-age designations are not employed in Middle Babylonian other than
for the servile population.
216
As explained above on page 127.
217
Ni. 6192.
218
Ni. 1854.
219
E.g., CBS 7752 rev. ii 12, CBS 11969 i’ 7’ (see also the household listings in
Appendix 1). This is contrary to the views of the great scholar of comparative slavery,
of trust—e.g., scribes, foremen, distributors of rations. Some were

allowed to travel. Very few seem to have been physically restrained
(notations of “fettered,” i.e., ka-mu, and “prison,” ki-lum, are compara-
tively rare in the texts). Some served in mobile work groups and were
moved about the Nippur countryside as needed.
Yet there were obvious negative aspects to their condition. The
number of escape attempts, successful and unsuccessful, indicates a
certain level of dissatisfaction with their living and working condi-
tions; and not even the threat of incarceration acted as a deterrent in
such cases. The only ways of breaking out of the servile system were
the granting of freedom (zakû), flight, and death. References in the
rosters to the granting of freedom are so rare that, statistically speak-
ing, a worker had a better chance of dying during an escape attempt
(15 individuals) than being freed (2 individuals). This suggests a nearly
closed system from which there was almost no chance of legitimate
release.
Were all the members of the servile laboring pool of equal status?
This question arises from the circumstance that in at least nine of the
rosters a few isolated individuals were tagged as ardu (ÌR) or andu
(GÉME), titles often translated as “male slave” or “female slave,” —with
a possible implication that the other persons in these rosters were not
of that status. The only published example of such a roster is BE 15 190,
where an adult male, Iltapputta, (i 42’) is labeled ÌR and an adult female,
Eṭērša-rabi, (ii 17’) is labeled GÉME220—more than ninety other suffi-
ciently preserved entries in this text bear no such notation. Nine other
rosters provide at least sixteen additional cases of such isolated desig-
nations in contexts where the overwhelming majority of personnel are
not so marked. Is this to be interpreted that only these persons, among
the thousands of listees in the rosters, are to be considered slaves in a
particular sense that distinguished their status? Or should we seek
another meaning for ardu and andu in such cases, perhaps something
akin to “household servant”?221 There is insufficient context to make a
Orlando Patterson. Patterson suggested that the defining characteristic of a slave is not
that he is property, but that he is a socially dead person, kinless and completely alien-
ated to any ties of natality. Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1982), 7–8, 26, and 38.
220
There is also another occurrence of GÉME in iii 19’, but it is not clear there
whether any other sign(s) may have followed.
221
See pages 83–84, especially note 80.
132 chapter five
judgment, but there seem to be no other indications that ardu or andu

designated a particular occupation or assignment (these words do not
occur parallel to other occupations in their texts). The members of this
population could have been unfree even in the absence of a word that
can be safely translated as “slave,” and need not be marked as such in
administrative texts (especially when most of these documents were
internal memoranda). This is a puzzle yet to be solved, but it does add
a potential complication to any unqualified interpretation of amīlūtu as
slave.
Unfortunately there is not yet enough information to make more
precise determinations about the civil status of the servile laboring
population. Further answers may eventually be suggested by compari-
son with documents outside the corpus under consideration, especially
those concerning servile populations from other places and periods
within ancient Mesopotamia.222
Concluding Remarks on Work, Origins, and Status
This chapter has shown that the administrative and legal documents
concerning the public servile population at Nippur—the largest con-
centrated body of material from the Kassite levels of the site known to
date—allow significant but incomplete glimpses into the daily lives of
servile laborers.
Members of the population could be assigned in a set or singly to a
place, to a large institution, to a household, or to a private individual.
Especially noteworthy were substantial mobile forces of laborers (with
a median size of four workers per subgroup), who were shifted about
the Nippur countryside for various unspecified work tasks.
Occupation names are the only significant source of information
on the jobs performed by the population, with the three most com-
mon categories of workers concerned with the care of animals and
poultry, textile production, and food preparation. It was also revealed
that women are common among textile workers, mirroring what is
known from studies of earlier Mesopotamian weaving industries,
and that the very youngest servile children worked alongside their
parents.
Including the Middle Assyrian šiluḫ lu.

222
Although the rosters for the most part deal with the labor pool at its
lowest level of management, the šandabakku (governor) of Nippur
appears to have been the chief local administrator in charge of the
public servile working population. He plays some key roles at the top
of the system: accepting personnel granted to him by the king, pur-
chasing slaves on the open market, supervising the inspection (or
counting) of servile workers, and arranging for the release and reas-
signment of recaptured fugitive laborers.
The largest part of the chapter was dedicated to flight and its conse-
quences. It was revealed that ninety-two percent of escapees were
male, usually in instances where there was a lack of close family ties.
Most runaways succeeded in escaping the system, but those who were
recaptured ended up in prison and then were reassigned to a new
master. It was also argued that the public servile work force lost more
members through death or flight than were added by birth or by the
return of fugitives. Consequently, the governor would have had to add
replacement workers to maintain a steady population size.
The most significant research questions, those concerning worker
origins and civil status, are the most difficult to answer with the avail-
able documentation. Outsiders from regions to the east, northeast,
north, and northwest of Babylonia are attested in the servile laboring
pool at Nippur; and the possibility that they may have been forcibly
removed from their homelands is worth further consideration. Be that
as it may, there are indications that individuals may have entered the
work force by a variety of means: through purchase, through capture
in war, through royal grant, through settlement of debt obligations (on
their own part or the indebtedness of others), or through flight from
other lands. Present evidence, however slight, indicates that the same
terms and categories were used for persons bought and sold (akin to
chattel slaves) and persons listed in the rosters; but a simple equation
of the status of these two groups may be premature, since only a very
few persons in the data base are designated by the customary Middle
Babylonian terms for “slave” (ardu, andu), while most are not.
CHAPTER SIX
THE SERVILE WORK FORCE IN LOCAL AND

NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Introduction
This study is the first systematic attempt at understanding a large cor-

pus of cuneiform tablets from Nippur dealing with servile laborers
in the Kassite period. Using qualitative and quantitative methods of
research, we have investigated multiple facets of the lives of these
workers and the social and economic environment in which they lab-
ored. We have observed that this group was under abnormal popula-
tion stress, lived in relative poverty, and worked under duress.
This servile environment favored males: its adult sex ratio of 109.6
is generally in line with that of other free premodern societies,1 and its
all-age sex ratio of 139 is consonant with that of a recently established
slave population.2 Other statistics are less easy to explain. For instance,
even though male newborns are more likely than females to die in
infancy, the sex ratio among nursing children seems to favor females
(74.1) to an abnormal degree. The situation is reversed in the adoles-
cent age group where males outnumber females (141.9). In essence, the
sex ratios of certain adolescent and younger sex-age categories and of
the complete population suggest severely stressful living conditions, an
artificially manipulated population, or an inaccurate sample of the
younger members of this overall group.
The small number of elderly in the rosters and the almost total
lack of three-generation households suggest that these workers had a
short life expectancy. The data also show that this population was not
able to sustain its size through natural reproduction and so was not
1
E.g., those of Roman Egypt and medieval Tuscany, which have been extensively
and systematically studied on the basis of available documents. Roger S. Bagnall and
Bruce W. Frier, Demography of Roman Egypt (1994) and David Herlihy and Christiane
Klapisch-Zuber, Tuscans and Their Families: A Study of the Florentine Catasto of 1427
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985).
2
Specifically the early slave population of the American South.
136 chapter six
viable without the continual import of fresh workers. Laborers could

be moved or reassigned as needed. Some workers were foreigners,
originally from areas to the east, northeast, north, or northwest of
Babylonia.
Family life and household structure for these laborers seem to
exhibit different patterns than for other intensively studied premodern
populations. The simple-family household was far more common, and
the majority of nuclear-family households were headed by a woman.
In many cases, these were single mothers caring for young children
only (such as multiple unweaned infants), which may indicate that the
mother was young. The conjugal family unit was small (on average,
4.22 people), and the parent(s) rarely cared for more than two or three
children.
Females played a significant role not just as wives and mothers, but
also as workers contributing their labor to the Babylonian economy.
We have noted that women left their birth household and married at
an earlier age than men and later were often left without a husband.
Women seem to be the principal workers in the state-run textile
industry (although not limited to these jobs), and they were able to
maintain a relatively stable family life by bringing along their children
to their work site.
This demographic picture helps to explain why so many workers
fled to areas outside the control of the servile laboring system and why
the authorities had an elaborate recovery network for absent workers.
Over ninety percent of the runaways were male, most of them without
family ties; and it seems nearly all of them were successful in avoiding
recapture.
Population Size and Proportion
It is impossible to estimate the size of this public labor force, but it was
large and important enough to be a prime concern of Nippur adminis-
trators. Currently there are over 4100 statistically usable worker
entries in the data base, and the number of entries will probably dou-
ble once materials in Istanbul become available. However, the rosters
were composed over a period stretching for more than eighty years
(there is some clustering of texts) which may mean that there were
fewer than the estimated total number of entries (c. 8000) in any given
year. On the other hand, calculating from rosters simply on the basis
local and national perspective 137
of the average number of workers per year (about 92 workers/year)

would yield a seriously inaccurate picture of the size of the population
because some rosters list several hundred workers at a time.
We also cannot determine the proportion of servile laborers within
the population of Nippur; nor can we estimate the total size of the
Nippur population based only on inconclusive archaeological traces
reflecting the occupied area of the site in Kassite times. Any determi-
nation of the servile workers as a minor or major part of the popula-
tion (as far as proportion is concerned) must await the completion of
further research.
A major factor inhibiting further insight in this area is that the
picture presented by our tablets is obviously incomplete. Significant
portions of Nippur residents and workers are missing in the documen-
tation, in effect leaving us with no equivalent group with which to
contrast the servile population. The corpus tells us little about pri-
vately held slaves, political and religious officials, or average free citi-
zens of Nippur, i.e., most of the private work force. The texts also give
us what is a largely urban view centered on Nippur itself with only
occasional references to satellite towns, villages, and hamlets (some
near waterways). Missing are the vast bulk of agricultural and irriga-
tion workers3 as well as private herders—three categories of laborers
that were essential to the function of an economy based principally on
agriculture and animal husbandry.4 Kudurrus indicate that landown-
ers were responsible for the maintenance of countryside infrastruc-
ture, such as roads, irrigation networks, and bridges, and for furnishing
corvée labor for other public projects; these activities lie entirely out-
side the documentation under consideration here. Lastly, there are no
references to involvement of our work force in building construction
3
There are only six farmers (iššakku) and twenty-eight irrigation workers (dālû)
among the 453 workers with indentified occupations in these texts (see Appendix
3)—i.e., 7.5% of the total. It is always possible that some of the servile laborers with
unspecified occupations were engaged in agricultural activity, but there is no informa-
tion on this in the texts.
4
This is not to say that there are no texts dealing with agriculture or animal hus-
bandry, but rather that their focus is primarily on crop yields, taxes, etc. and on stock-
taking rather than on personnel issues. See Maria deJ. Ellis, Agriculture and the State
in Ancient Mesopotamia, Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 1
(Philadelphia: University Museum, 1976), 109–132, 146, 164–65 and Olof Pedersén,
Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East, 1500–300 B.C. (Bethesda MD: CDL
Press, 1998), 115 (which mentions some of the major text types and attempts to esti-
mate archival distribution).
138 chapter six
at Nippur, although royal building inscriptions relating to Nippur are

attested for more than the full chronological range of our texts, i.e.,
from the time of Burna-Buriaš II (1359–1333) to that of Meli-Šipak
(1186–1172).5
Nippur in its Spatial Context
It is possible to reconstruct a general picture of the physical layout of

Nippur and the nearby countryside in this period. Recently, archaeol-
ogists have suggested that the group of mounds representing ancient
Nippur, after having been virtually abandoned for nearly four hundred
years beginning in the eighteenth century,6 was fully occupied within
the city limits—represented by the newly constructed city wall—dur-
ing the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries. The density of occupation
has yet to be established, but it has been suggested that large Kassite
houses constructed just inside the city walls at WC-1 and WC-3 were
built within gardens (which are indicated in this area on the roughly
contemporary Nippur city map).7 Temples were also rebuilt, and the
excavators have uncovered Kassite levels on both the east and west
mounds and recorded considerable surface sherd scatter dating to the
Kassite period along the low “apron” of the tell that slopes away from
the southern corner of the site.8
The surrounding region seems to have become significantly more
rural than it was in the Old Babylonian period, which may explain
why a large portion of the servile labor force was working outside of
the city in mobile groups. Khaled Nashef has published the names of
fifty-nine ancient toponyms from the same period as our archives
which he would locate in the area surrounding the city, most of them
5
Brinkman, MSKH 1: 41–42. The majority of monumental building may have been
accomplished by Kurigalzu I (early 14th century) before the decades covered by our
corpus.
6
Van Lerberghe and Voet have stated that the suspected abandonment may
have occurred later in the Old Babylonian Period than previously thought and that
portions of the people of Nippur may have fled to Babylon and Dūr-Abiešuḫ (A Late
Old Babylonian Temple Archive from Dūr-Abiešuḫ , CUSAS 8 (Bethesda, Maryland:
CDL Press, 2009): 1, 3, and 6–7).
7
McCown and Haines, Nippur I (1967) plate 4.
8
The findings are best summarized by McGuire Gibson, “Patterns of Occupation
at Nippur,” in Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale, ed. Maria de Jong Ellis. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah
Kramer Fund 14. (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1992): 35, 42–43, and 45.
small towns, villages, and estates.9 The presence of toponyms described

as tents (e.g., Zarāt-Dūr-Gula) in Middle Babylonian texts, mostly
from the administrative archives of the Nippur bureaucracy, may also
point to government interaction with less sedentary or impermanent
dwellings.10 This reconstruction complements the picture presented by
the intensive surface survey done in the area. In the Kassite period,
Babylonia as a whole was continuing to undergo a long-term process
of ruralization, begun in Early Dynastic II and reaching its climax
only in the early Neo-Babylonian period (probably in the middle of
the eighth century), whereby an increasing percentage of the popula-
tion came to live in small towns and villages, i.e., those settlements
covering an area of ten hectares or less. The most dramatic growth in
that direction seems to have taken place in the Nippur-Uruk corridor
between the Old Babylonian and Kassite periods, when the percentage
of rural dwellers rose from 29.6% to 56.8% of the population.
In the immediate hinterland of Nippur, i.e., within a 15 km radius of
the city, the settlement shift in the Kassite period is marked. Despite
an overall decline of 27% in total settled area in the Nippur-Uruk cor-
ridor following the Old Babylonian period, the settled area close to
Nippur experienced substantial growth, rising by 54% (from 50 to 77
hectares). The settlement hierarchy was realigned: the one larger Old
Babylonian settlement in Adams’ category 4 (=10.1–20.0 hectares)
disappeared; settlements in category 5 (=4.1–10.0 hectares) increased
in number from 3 to 5 (but maintained an almost constant percentage
of the total settled area, increasing only from 42.0% to 45.5%); and the
smallest settlements, in category 6 (=0.1–2.0 hectares), tripled in
number (from 7 to 21) and almost doubled in percentage of the total
hectarage (from 28.0% to 54.5%). A significant amount of the new set-
tlement took place immediately to the south and southeast of Nippur:
in the Old Babylonian period this had represented 22.0% of the settled
9
Khaled Nashef, “The Nippur Countryside in the Kassite Period,” in Nippur at the
Centennial: Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed. Maria
de Jong Ellis. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 14.
(Philadelphia: University Museum, 1992): 154 n. 17.
10
Stephanie Dalley, Babylonian Tablets from the First Sealand Dynasty in the
Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 9 (Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 2009): 9. An examina-
tion of the appropriate volumes of the Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes
(RGTC) and Sassmannshausen (BaF 21 (2001):465) reveals that there are nine attested
toponyms of this type from the Middle Babylonian Period, but none attested from the
preceding or following historical periods. Groneberg, RGTC 3 (1980); Nashef, RGTC
5 (1982); and Zadok, RGTC 8 (1985).
140 chapter six
area, in the Kassite period it represented 55.8% of the total (and almost
three-quarters of this, 74.4%, was in newly built-up sites). Nippur and
its immediate vicinity were substantially changed, with new agricul-
tural territory opened up and many of the small settlements more
directly dependent on the province capital.11
Nippur in National Context
After the collapse of the First Dynasty of the Sealand in the fifteenth
century, the Kassite kings consolidated southern Mesopotamia into
a single territorial state. Within a few decades, Babylonia became one
of the major powers in the Near East, on equal terms with Egypt,
Mittani, and Hatti. It participated actively in the political and diplo-
matic interchanges of the Amarna period and played a dynamic role
in the Late Bronze Age commercial networks which stretched from
Egypt and the Aegean east to the Persian Gulf, Iran, and Afghanistan.
Babylonian merchants, commercial agents, and envoys worked these
networks, transporting horses, chariots, luxury textiles, precious met-
als and stones, fine jewelry, seals, and unguents to and from southern
Mesopotamia; and Babylonians with special skills, such as stone carv-
ers and physicians, were in demand as far away as Hatti.
The principal states of the Near East underwent a major realign-
ment during the middle decades of the fourteenth century. Mittani
weakened and lost its independence. Assyria grew in stature and
became a political rival to Babylonia. After the end of the Amarna
archive, diplomatic relations with Egypt—at least from our Mesopo
tamian vantage point —plunge into undocumented obscurity.12
11
The survey data on which these conclusions are based are taken from Robert
McC. Adams, Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the
Central Floodplain of the Euphrates (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), espe-
cially pp. 138–39, 166–67, 172–73. For the long-term process of ruralization, see also J.
A. Brinkman, “Settlement Surveys and Documentary Evidence: Regional Variation
and Secular Trend in Mesopotamian Demography,” JNES 43 (1984): 169–80. It should
be kept in mind that the surface survey was unable to cover large areas immediately to
the west of Nippur because these were under cultivation.
12
I.e., compared to the correspondence preserved in the Amarna archives (which
in their coverage are unique for the Near East in the Late Bronze Age). Note, how-
ever, that Egyptian items are still attested in inventories at Nippur in post-Amarna
times (e.g., PBS 2/2 130:37) and that an Egyptian drew food rations at Nippur
in the fifth year of Nazi-Maruttaš (i.e., 1303 B.C.; Ni. 158), and Babylonia remained on
the gold standard throughout these decades.
Almost all the archival materials from Kassite Nippur, including the
documents pertaining to servile laborers, fall into this lesser-known
time period, which begins just as the Amarna age is closing during the
reign of Burna-Buriaš II (1359–1333)13 and then continues through the
reign of Kaštiliašu IV (1232–1225).14 These are decades for which the
political history and international relations of Babylonia are almost
unattested. What sparse documentation is available at present—brief
mentions in chronicles, a damaged epic, and some diplomatic corre-
spondence preserved in Hatti15—sheds light principally on a few
Babylonian contacts with Assyria (often adversarial) and with Hatti
(mostly friendly). There are also two pieces of evidence pointing to
Babylonian aggression against Elam under Kurigalzu II (1332–1308).16
The Nippur archives do not help to fill in more of this picture, but they
do provide evidence for Assyrian merchants and messengers visiting
Babylonia in more peaceful roles.17 In general, there seems to have
prevailed a rough political equilibrium between Babylonia and Assyria
in these decades, with neither party gaining a decisive upper hand—
all the more remarkable because the little-known Kassite kings of this
time ruled opposite three strong Assyrian monarchs: Adad-nirari I,
Shalmaneser I, and Tukulti-Ninurta I (the early part of the latter’s
reign). Our servile-laborer texts fall into this era of relative quiescence
in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries, when there were no major
disruptions and Babylonia was able to prosper economically. This
era—and the coverage of the Nippur archives—were brought to an
abrupt end when the Assyrian Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243–1207) invaded
13
Some of the earliest purchase documents date to the reign of Burna-Buriaš II,
who was a participant in the Amarna correspondence. However, the administra-
tive rosters all post-date the Amarna kings. Also note that the great international
network of the Late Bronze Age was already in decline during the period in which
the Amarna letters were written: J. A. Brinkman, “Foreign Relations of Babylonia,”
(1972): 274.
14
E.g., one of the child-purchase documents (MSKH 1 no. 9) is slightly later, dat-
ing from the time of Kadašman-Harbe II (1224).
15
References in Brinkman, MSKH 1 (1976): 135–36, 155, 207–08, 262.
16
BE 1 43, an agate tablet with a votive inscription of Kurigalzu to Ninlil, telling of
the capture of a palace of the city Ša-a-ša (Susa?) in Elam. Chronicle P iii 10–19, a
poetic passage describing Kurigalzu’s defeat and capture of Hurbatila (Hurpatila?), an
otherwise unknown Elamite ruler. A much later literary text of dubious historical
value, VAS 24 91, lists supposed marriages between Elamite princes and Babylonian
princesses, one of which seems to involve Burna-Buriaš II.
17
⌈DAM.⌉GÀR aš-šur.KI (CBS 11849:7). Note also W. H. van Soldt, “Kassite Textiles
for Enlil-Nērāru’s Messenger,” AoF 24 (1997) 97–104.
142 chapter six
Babylonia18 and the Elamites followed in his wake with raids on the
land.19
No sustained attempt has yet been made to reconstruct the internal
history of Babylonia during these peaceful decades. One of the main
reasons for this is that most of the known contemporary documents
from this time have yet to be edited. Of the approximately twelve
thousand texts from Nippur, fewer than 15% have been published.
From the two royal cities, Dūr-Kurigalzu and Babylon, we have even
less material: of the approximately 220 texts found at Dūr-Kurigalzu
during the 1942–45 excavations, fewer than 55 have been published
even in photo (i.e., under 25%);20 and, of the 564 texts excavated by
the German expedition at Babylon, only one non-scholarly text
(administrative) has been published—and that by accident.21 The legal
and administrative texts from Ur have almost all been published,22 but
these are from private archives and for the most part of purely local
relevance. So trying to place our Nippur laborer materials within a
historical context at Nippur, much less against a broader background
extending over Babylonia as a whole, would at present be an exercise
in futility.
Nonetheless, a few general observations can be made. During the
Kassite period, the three most important urban centers in southern
Mesopotamia seem to have been Babylon, Dūr-Kurigalzu, and Nippur.
The relationship between Babylon and Dūr-Kurigalzu, the two royal
residences, has yet to be satisfactorily elucidated. Nippur, the religious
center containing the principal temple of Enlil, the national patron
deity, was a favored provincial capital whose governor bore the dis-
tinctive title šandabakku (as opposed to šakin māti or šaknu in other
provinces). The Nippur archives, even in their presently underinvesti-
gated state, exhibit a series of direct connections between that city and
18
MSKH 1 313–17; note especially Ni. 65, a text from Nippur dated in the accession
year of Tukulti-Ninurta (MSKH 1 386 no. 13).
19
Chronicle P iv 14–22 (Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (1975):
176–77, chronicle 22); line 15 of the text mentions the scattering of the people of
Nippur.
20
Information courtesy of J. A. Brinkman, who read and catalogued these texts in
Baghdad, 1968–69.
21
VAT 17908, published by L. Jakob-Rost, FuB 12 (1970): 51 no. 1 (with the royal
title misread as LUGAL E.KI and so mistakenly dated as early Neo-Babylonian). The
dating has now been corrected by Pedersén, ADOG 25, p. 85 M5.29.
22
Gurney, UET 7 1–72 and MBTU. There remain a few small Middle Babylonian
fragments from Ur as yet unpublished, as well as a few minor texts from the Isin II
dynasty.
Dūr-Kurigalzu. Chariots, grain, and textiles were shipped from Nippur

to Dūr-Kurigalzu.23 Horses recorded as belonging to Dūr-Kurigalzu
were pastured at Nippur.24 Gold was sent from Dūr-Kurigalzu to
Nippur, especially for smelting,25 and then returned to Dūr-Kurigalzu.26
Jewelry from both Dūr-Kurigalzu and Nippur were sent to the town of
Arad-bēlti, a small suburb of Nippur, presumably for either safekeep-
ing or repair.27 Nippur craftsmen (ummânī) were sent to Dūr-
Kurigalzu,28 and servile workers—including a weaver—were sent from
Dūr-Kurigalzu to Nippur.29 In general, much more is known at present
about Nippur’s incidental relations with Dūr-Kurigalzu than with
Babylon, the nearer of the two royal residential cities.30
Nippur’s connections with Babylon are known to have included
offering provisions for travelers between the two towns and accept-
ing servile workers from a royal official in Babylon for local assign-
ment in Nippur.31 There is also a Nippur text which includes in its
inventory jewelry located in Babylon and Dūr-Kurigalzu.32 The ties
between Nippur and Babylon will undoubtedly be better understood
as research progresses on the Middle Babylonian archives from the
two cities.33
Nippur’s relations with other parts of Babylonia have also to be
further studied. It is known that the Sealand furnished young cattle
for Nippur flocks34 and dates that were handed out as rations to ser-
vile workers.35 There are also letters in the Nippur archives from a
Babylonian official in Dilmun reporting on the vicissitudes befalling
the date crop there.36 So Nippur had fruitful direct contacts with
E.g., Ni. 2939, BE 15 26:4, Ni. 887.

23
E.g., BE 14 12:42.
24
25
E.g., UM 29-15-447.
26
E.g., CBS 11442:5.
27
E.g., PBS 13 80.
28
E.g., Ni. 6052.
29
E.g., Ni. 6871.
30
The only evidence from either Dūr-Kurigalzu or Babylon for a servile population
similar to that at Nippur is one text from Dūr-Kurigalzu which contains references to
qinnu groups, murdered persons, etc. (O. R. Gurney, “Texts from Dūr-Kurigalzu.” Iraq
11 (1949): no. 8).
31
E.g., CBS 3681:7, CBS 7726.
32
Ni. 7019.
33
I wish to express my gratitude to J. A. Brinkman, who provided much of the
unpublished material discussed in this chapter.
34
E.g., BE 15 199:27.
35
BE 14 58:2, 52.
36
P. B. Cornwall, “Two Letters from Dilmun,” JCS 6 (1952) 137–145.
144 chapter six
regions even farther away than the two royal cities. Again we await
further research to appraise Nippur’s role in the national economy.
Future Research
We close this presentation with a few remarks on how our initial foray
into the administrative documentation at Nippur can be improved
by further research, adding a simple cautionary note about demo-
graphic study of Mesopotamian populations. The Personnel Table, i.e.,
that portion of the data base used for statistical study of the worker
population, presently includes all data on persons recorded on identi-
fied administrative texts located in the University of Pennsylvania
Museum, the Free Library of Philadelphia, the British Museum, the
Hilprecht-Sammlung in Jena, and the Louvre. Once the documents
housed in Istanbul and Yale have been collated and added to the
Personnel Table—which is expected roughly to double the number of
worker entries and therefore the known size of the population—a more
complete picture of this laboring group should emerge.37 Descriptive
statistics for escapees, foreigners, and other types of workers will be
drawn from a larger data set; and some of the abnormal sex ratios
observed for certain age categories, e.g., unweaned children, may be
adjusted to less (or possibly more?) distorted levels.
There are a few instances where one can identify the same work
group across several different texts, but the prosopographical study of
the full text corpus from Kassite Nippur is still in its infancy. Hölscher’s
Die Personennamen der kassitenzeitlichen Texte aus Nippur (1996) is of
immense value for its coverage of the texts published before that date;
but it must be supplemented by the personnel in Sassmannshausen’s
Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft Babyloniens in der Kassitenzeit
(2001), which published more than 450 new texts, and even by Clay’s
Personal Names from Cuneiform Inscriptions of the Cassite Period
37
Other factors might expand the data set: (a) identification of new (unnoted to
date) Middle Babylonian Nippur tablets that belong to the already defined categories;
(b) linkage of known Middle Babylonian Nippur texts in various museums that cur-
rently lack the distinctive markers of the servile population through prosopographical
studies; and (c) joins of other tablet fragments to tablet pieces in the already attested
corpus.
(1912), which cites tablets that are still unpublished.38 But, taken
together, these volumes cover less than 15% of the documentation. As
work progresses on the prosopography of the unpublished texts, it is
expected that more questions regarding the administration of the ser-
vile population, the process of writing the tablet corpus, and, most
importantly, the chronology of the source documentation, will be able
to be answered. One possible finding may be that the sources will tend
to cluster toward the beginning and end of the period during which
the servile roster corpus was composed (e.g., during the reign of Nazi-
Maruttaš or the reigns of Šagarakti-Šuriaš/Kaštiliašu IV).39 If one
could place more of the sources in chronological order, or at least
in the reigns of individual rulers, it should become more feasible to
track changes in the composition and viability of the servile popula-
tion over time.
Another potentially fruitful topic for study is the allocation of sus-
tenance within the ration rosters: how much food (or drink) was
issued per individual depending on his or her age, occupation, and
status. There is enough material here to calculate the amount of the
basic daily food ration issued per individual, and an estimate could be
made of its nutritional value. There are as yet insufficient data on oil
and wool rations allotted to servile laborers.
We end with a comment on demography and ancient Mesopotamian
society. Our study of the Middle Babylonian servile laborer has uti-
lized quantitative data to analyze the population, but we have limited
the discussion to descriptive statistics rather than true demographic
measures.40 Until one finds a cache of texts similar in coverage to those
available for the Middle Babylonian servile laborer, but with the
age for the listed people given in years41 and preferably at least two
38
Brinkman, in a review of Hölscher’s Die Personennamen in AfO 50 (2003–04):
396–400 discusses in some detail what type of entries in Clay’s Personal Names (1912)
have not been superseded by Hölscher’s publication.
39
Such a double chronological clustering exists for a distinctive type of flour-issue
text (published examples: BE 14 73, MUN 271–273, PBS 2/2 118), with more than
fifty examples with long personnel lists dating either in the second decade of the reign
of Nazi-Maruttaš or in the time of Šagarakti-Šuriaš. According to presently available
evidence, the personnel in these lists do not appear to be linked with the servile work
force.
40
With the exception of sex ratios, which have been cited here with the necessary
cautions about their limitations.
41
This is extremely unlikely, given the wide range of texts from all periods availa-
ble to date and the paucity of data about year ages. The Mesopotamians hardly ever
146 chapter six
chronologically articulated, discrete personnel data sets within the

material, a true and reliable demographic study of any Mesopotamian
population (using measures such as crude birth rate, general fertility
rate, and infant-mortality rate, and tools of estimating population
dynamics such as model-life tables) cannot be attempted.
recorded age in years for human beings and probably would not have even known the
age of almost anyone older than a child. What could be hoped for, reasonably, is that
we gain a better appreciation of what the sex-age categories may have actually repre-
sented in ranges of age-years.
APPENDIX ONE
SELECTED HOUSEHOLDS FROM MIDDLE

BABYLONIAN SOURCES.1
Introduction
This appendix includes descriptions of one hundred and seven of the

best preserved households attested in the research corpus. Twenty-
four households were too poorly preserved to be included, but all 131
households were used to compile the data featured in Chapter 4.2 For
the sake of presenting a clear argument, the precise details of each
household (except for a few remarkable instances) were compiled in
this appendix rather than included in the chapter.
The methodology for locating a household in Middle Babylonian
administrative and legal texts was explained in detail in chapter four,
but it is worth briefly restating the criteria again (without the footnotes
used in the corresponding chapter). In the Kassite texts that make up
our corpus, a household appears as a sublist of individuals, linked
together by their blood or marital relationships, found within a larger
list of individuals recording the names and sometimes age and status
of servile workers or slaves. Each household has a head, who is the
principal person with whom the household is identified. In most cases
this is usually the father or husband,3 but it can be the mother if the
father is dead or even the eldest son/brother.
Households are characterized by the logograms that follow the
name of each household member (other than the head). These
logograms state a person’s relationship to his/her household head
(e.g., DAM.A.NI=“his wife”). An example (BE 14 58:5–10 p-q,
Household 1) illustrates the basic format:
GURUŠ Dayyānī-Šamaš
SAL Tambi-Dadu DAM.A.NI (“his wife”)
1
A household, for the purpose of this study, is defined on pages 71–75.
2
Pages 65–92.
3
The husband, i.e., the primary male even if not marked as a father because there
are no children in the family.
148 appendix one
SAL.TUR Dalīlūša DUMU.SAL.A.NI (“his daughter”)

GURUŠ.TUR Arad-Nuska DUMU.A.NI (“his son”)
GURUŠ.TUR.TUR Nuska-kīna-uṣur DUMU.A.NI (“his son”)
DUMU.GABA Gab-Martaš DUMU.A.NI (“his son”)
In this example, the name of the head (Dayyānī-Šamaš) is given first,
followed by the names of the other family members (Tambi-Dadu,
Dalīlūša, Arad-Nuska, Nuska-kīna-uṣur, Gab-Martaš). A household
may include the head’s spouses and children, mother, siblings, broth-
er’s wives and children, and kallatus (É.GI4.A), i.e., unrelated females
brought into the household upon the agreement that they will wed
one of the males in the household. Members typically appear in the
following order (if the head is male):
(1) Head;
(2) Wife of the head;
(3) Mother of the head (if alive and a widow);
(4) Children of the head, along with their wives and children and
any kallatus that are betrothed to the head, his sons, or his
grandsons;4
(5) Siblings of the head along with their spouses, children, grand-
children, and kallatus.
Female-headed households follow the same rules, but in a manner
that reflects their particular situation: the first person listed is the
female head, followed by her children (eldest son first), siblings, neph-
ews, and nieces. The majority (66.4%) of the households featured in the
appendix appear on eleven simple rosters,5 and six of these rosters are
of one particular type.6
Every household included in this appendix is designated by a
number, e.g., Household 3. The description begins with the text
4
Kallatus are usually the last to be listed; and, in most cases, it is impossible to
do more than guess at which member of the family they will wed. There is only
one potential grandfather acting as household head (unlikely). See this appendix,
Household 39.
5
The following eleven tablets list more than two households: BE 14 58 (6 house-
holds); CBS 3472 (8 households), 7092+ (11 households), and 7752 (6 households);
Ni. 1066+1069 (13 households), 2793 (6 households), 5989 (4 households), 6444
(3 households), and 11149 (8 households); UM 29-15-292 (3 households) and 29-15-
298 (3 households).
6
The primary feature of these texts are elaborate qualitative summaries that give
the total number of members that fall into each of the sex-age and physical-condition
categories (e.g., GURUŠ, pirsatu, ka-mu, ZÁḪ ).
selected households 149
reference(s) and date(s) for the household followed by a list of the

known household members by name (column 1), relationship as
expressed in the text (column 2), sex (column 3),7 sex-age designation
(column 4), other information, such as the person’s patronymic or
physical status (column 5), and concludes with a diagram of the
household and a discussion (if necessary).8
There is no standard method for diagramming households in aca-
demic publications, but most generally follow the scheme proposed by
Peter Laslett in 1972.9 Males are indicated with triangles, females with
circles, persons of unknown gender are indicated with a diamond, and
the head of household with solid fill. Married and/or sexual partners
are connected by vertical and horizontal lines below the symbols for
the individual members of the partnership. Brothers and sisters are
connected by vertical and horizontal lines above the symbols for the
siblings. Uncertain relationships are indicated with dotted lines. This
appendix uses the same methodology with the following additions
and modifications:
1. Abbreviations for sex-age designations, arranged in order of sex
and age:
male
ŠG ŠU.GI old
G GURUŠ adult
GT GURUŠ.TUR adolescent
GTT GURUŠ.TUR.TUR child
P pirsu weaned
DG DUMU.GABA nursing
female
SŠG (SAL.)ŠU.GI old
S SAL adult
ST SAL.TUR adolescent
STT SAL.TUR.TUR child
7
M=Male, F=Female, Ø=sex not given, [ ] = sex not preserved, and [Ø] = uncer-
tain whether sex-age designation was ever present.
8
Any difficulties or challenges in reconstructing the household are described prior
to the household diagram.
9
“Introduction: The History of the Family,” Chapter 1 in Household and Family in
Past Time (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972): 41–42.
150 appendix one
PT pirsatu weaned
DSG DUMU.SAL.GABA nursing
Other notations
Ø sex-age designation is lacking
[ ] sex-age designation present originally, but now
missing.
[(Ø)] uncertain whether sex-age designation was
ever present.
2. To reduce clutter, conjugal family units are not enclosed by a
sinuous, closed line.
3. If an individual is the suspected head of household, or his/her
headship is based on a reconstruction, that head of household
has a diagonal fill instead of solid black fill.
4. Households are outlined with dotted lines instead of the solid
lines used by Laslett. Patronymics are not included in these out-
lines, but deceased individuals are included if they are listed as
household members in the text.
5. All individuals given an entry in a household listing are depicted
in the diagram. Deceased members whose names are men-
tioned are included in the household box. Patronymics and
individuals presumed dead (but not listed) are not included.
Therefore (dead) spouses of widows or widowers—unlike
Laslett who leaves the place of dead spouses blank—may appear
on the diagram.
6. Laslett’s system was based on European households which lack
the institution of the kallatu. Since kallatus are dependents of
the household but lack marital10 or blood ties to other members
of the household, kallatus are—for the purposes of the diagram
and statistical analysis—treated as servants, lodgers, or non-
related dependents according to Laslett’s scheme, i.e., included
in the diagram, but not connected to the conjugal family. They
also do not affect the household type (from simple-family
household to multiple-family household) until they are labeled
as a wife (DAM).
10
Although they are to wed someone in the household at a future date.
The general principle followed in the arrangement of the elements of

the household diagrams (circles, triangles, lines) is the determina-
tion that pronouns in family relationships (e.g., A.NI) refer back to the
head of household unless there is a compelling reason to believe
otherwise. One common exception occurs when a conjugal family
unit of a son or sibling of the household head interrupts the pronoun
sequence, because the pronouns for the members of the son or sib-
ling’s conjugal family unit will refer back to the son or sibling, not the
head (Households 69 and 68, respectively).
There are two other common problems that complicate the inter-
pretation of a household listing. Where entries are not well preserved,
it is sometimes difficult to determine the exact relationship of some
members of a household to one another. This is particularly frustrat-
ing when the damaged section once contained the beginning of the
household listing and the name of the household head.11 It can also be
a challenge to distinguish the signs NIN (“sister”) and DAM (“wife”)
from each other in the documents, especially when the text is dam-
aged or carelessly written; and so there are a few cases where one can-
not be sure if an adult woman is the wife or sister of the household
head.12 Context can favor one reading over another, but this is not
always the case.
Because there are other ambiguous entries that can be interpreted
in more than one way, care was taken to discuss each exceptional cir-
cumstance before the corresponding household diagram.
For the compilation of statistics used in chapter four, persons
marked as “deceased” members of a household are still counted as full
members in the diagrams (since the recording scribe was still count-
ing them as well).
Households
Household 1 (NM I-XII–Ø–y 13 (=1295 B.C.) )

BE 14 58:5–10 (CBS 3323)
Head: Dayyānī-Šamaš M G Porter (atû).
Tambi-Dadu DAM.A.NI F S
For examples, see Appendix 1, Households 102, 104, and 105.

11
See pages 75–76 and footnote 50 (same pages). Some examples of the confusion
12
this generates can be found in Appendix 1, Households 39, 54, and 70.
152 appendix one
Dalīlūša DUMU.SAL.A.NI F ST Teaseler (kunšillu).

Arad-Nuska DUMU.A.NI M GT Traveling since
Tašrītu.
Nuska-kīna-uṣur DUMU.A.NI M GTT
Gab-Martaš DUMU.A.NI M DG

BE 14 58:12–17 (CBS 3323)
Head: Ištar-bēlī-uṣrī F S
Ibašši-uznī-ana-ili DUMU.A.NI M GT Traveling for the
entire year.
Duqqin-ilu DUMU.A.NI M GTT Builder (bānû).
Basundu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F ST Teaseler (kunšillu).
Ḫ ulālatu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG
Ina-pī-Marduk-dīnu DUMU.A.NI M DG
Household 3 (NM I-XII–Ø–y 13 (=1295 B.C.) and afterwards)

BE 14 58:18–21 (CBS 3323)
UM 29-15-760:1’-4’
Head: Bēlta-balāṭa-īriš F S Not preserved in
UM 29-15-760.
Lultamar-Nuska DUMU.A.NI M GTT Weaver (išparu).
Rabi-Nergal DUMU.A.NI M GTT Not included in BE
14 58 (earlier text).
Rabâ-ša-Išḫ ara DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG Eventually head of

own household.13
Dīn(i)-ili-lūmur DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG
This household is attested in two separate texts of the same format.
In the later text (UM 29-15-760), the entry for Bēlta-balāṭa-īriš has
been destroyed (indicated by a diagonal circle with dotted outline in
the diagram) and there is an entry for the child Rabi-Nergal, who is
not included in the earlier text (BE 14 58). The diagrams below depict
the household as recorded in both texts.
BE 1 4 5 8 UM 29-15-760
Diagram used for statistical study

Household 4 (NM I-XII–Ø–y 13 (=1295 B.C.) and afterwards)

BE 14 58:23–25 (CBS 3323)
UM 29-15-760: 6’-8’
Head: Ina-Akkade-rabât F S
Innammar DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG
Amat-Nuska DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG Deceased.

BE 14 58:34–38 (CBS 3323)
Head: Apuški M G Teaseler (kunšillu).
Ūṣīya DAM.ANI F S
Qinni Rabâ-ša-Išḫ ara in BE 14 91a:14 and CT 51 19:5.

13
154 appendix one
Talziya-enni14 DUMU.A.NI M GT
Ūrī DUMU.SAL.A.NI F ST
Adad-nādā DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG Teaseler (kunšillu).
Household 6 (NM I-XII–Ø–y 13(=1295 B.C.) and [NM] VII–27[(+)]–y

15(=1293 B.C.) )
BE 14 58:39–42 (CBS 3323)
Ni. 6775 rev. 4’-6’
Head: Tukultī-Adad M G Brewer (sirāšû).
Bāltī-Adad DAM.A.NI F S
Bittinnatu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F Ø Escaped (ZÁḪ ).
Ēṭirtu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG/STT
Bāriḫtu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG
Bāriḫtu is born sometime between NM XII- Ø -13 and NM VII-
27–15. The following diagram reflects the family at its larger known
size.
14
Personal name spelled mTal-zi-ia-ni here, in BE 14 58:36 and in BE 14 57:31,
but written m⌈Tal⌉-zi-ia-en-ni in BE 14 91a:19. See Hölscher, Personennamen (1996):
216.
Household 7 (ŠŠ III–Ø–acc. year)

BE 14 126:1–6 (CBS 6078)
Head: Adad-bāni M Ø Son of Adad-šumu-līšir.
Šalittu AMA.A.NI F Ø Daughter of Kidin-Ulmaš,
perhaps wife of Adad-
šumu-līšir.
Mannu-ibbak-dīnšu ŠEŠ.A.NI M G
mārat Karzi-Ban É.GI4.A F Ø
patronymic
patronymic
kallatu
Household 8 (ŠŠ VI– [(Ø)] –y[ ]) )

BE 14 142 rev. i 7–8 (CBS 3477)
Head: Mu-iš?-x-[x]-ti-x M Ø Deceased, second
name is Rabâ-ša?-
x-ia.
Tarībtu DAM.A.NI F S
Šimdi-Šuqamu[na] DUMU.A.NI] M G
Mandīdat[u] [DUMU.SAL.A.NI] F S
Usbi-Enlil DUM[U.A.NI] M DG
Rīš-Nergal ŠE[Š.A.NI] M G
deceased
156 appendix one
Household 9 (ŠŠ VI– [(Ø)] –y[ ])

BE 14 142 rev. ii’ 5–15 (CBS 3477)
Head: [Š]igi-Bugaš M [ ]
[…]-ú-ni-tum DAM.A.NI F [ ]
[Ki]ribti-Marduk DUMU.A.NI M [ ]
[Bur]ra-mašḫu DUMU.A.NI M [ ]
[Ḫ ]anbu DUMU.A.NI M [ ]
[B]ūnānu DUMU.A.NI M [ ]
[Ēm]id-ana-Marduk DUMU.A.NI M [ ]
[…]-⌈x⌉-ši-ri-bu DUMU.A.NI M [ ]
Šimdi-Šuqamuna DUMU.A.NI M [ ]
Binnānu DUMU.A.NI M [ ]
Šagarakti ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ]
Household 10 (no date preserved)

BE 15 185 ii’ 12’-13’ (CBS 3440)
Head: Ina-Isin-šarrat F S
Baltī-Nergal DUMU.SAL.A.NI F S
This is an atypical text for two reasons. First, most individuals listed in
the text are females. Second, this is the only family relationship pre-
served in the text. Therefore, it is unclear whether these entries repre-
sent a complete household.
Household 11 (No date preserved)

CBS 3465 obv. i’ 16’–17’
Head: [A]gab-šenni M Ø Sasinnu.
Upâq-ana-dīnīša DAM.A.NI F

CBS 3472 i 2’-6’
Head: […]-⌈x⌉-bāltī F [ ] Daughter of Amīlīya.
Sîn-abūša DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ]
Ulūlītu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ]
Kissilīmītu KI.MIN F [ ]
Kidin-Šuqamuna DUMU.A.NI M G? Sex-age designation
partially preserved.
patronymic

CBS 3472 i’ 9’-17’
Head: Šaqât-ina-Akkade F [ ]
Bēlta-nādā DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [S]
Mīnâ-ēgu-ana-ili KI.MIN M G
Igāršu-ēmid KI.MIN M GT
Ilīma-a⌈bī⌉ KI.MIN M GT
Iqīša-Marduk KI.MIN M GT
158 appendix one
Taklāku-ana- KI.MIN M DG
Šuqamuna
Iddin-Adad KI.MIN M DG
Rabât-bēlet-Akkade KI.MIN F DSG
Only the ends of the sex-age designations for the seven younger chil-
dren of Šaqât-ina-Akkade are preserved. Also “her daughter” (KI.MIN
repeating the DUMU.SAL.A.NI for Bēlta-nādā) is used to express the
family relationships of all the children even though several are clearly
male.

CBS 3472 ii’ 6’–10’
Head: Usātūša F Ø Escaped (ZÁḪ ),
daughter of Iddin-
Nabû. Perhaps sister of
head of Household 18.
Mannu-balu-ilīšu DUMU.A.NI M GT
Aṣûšu-namir DUMU.A.NI M DG
Kidin-Šuqamuna KI.MIN M DG
patronymic

CBS 3472 rev. i’ 4’–9’
Head: Ilassunu F S Daughter of Ikkaru.15
Unnubtu DUMU.SAL⌈.A.NI⌉ F ST
Kidin-dNIN.X [DU]MU.A.N[I] M DG
Aḫ a-lū[mur?] [DUMU.A.NI] M DG
[…]-x-[…] [DUMU.SAL.A.NI] F ST
Akītu-rīšat ⌈KI.MIN⌉ F DSG
patronymic

CBS 3472 rev. i’ 20’–23’
Head: Ina-Uruk- F S Daughter of Pirrīya.
šarrūssa May be the mother
of the head of
Household 17.
Bēlessunu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F ST
Taklāku-ana- [DUMU.A.NI]16 M GT
NIN.⌈X⌉
d
15
The patronym, Ikkaru, can also be an occupation name (plowman). See
J. A. Brinkman, “The Use of Occupation Names as Patronyms in the Kassite Period:
A Forerunner of Neo-Babylonian Ancestral Names?,” in If a Man Builds a Joyful
House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty, eds. Ann K. Guinan et
al. Cuneiform Monographs 31 (Leiden: Brill, 2006): 27.
16
Relationship inferred because individual families are ruled off separately in the
format of this document.
160 appendix one
patronymic

CBS 3472 rev. ii’ 7’–9’
Head: Šumma- F S Daughter of Ina-Uruk-
⌈x-x⌉-ia šarrūssa, perhaps the same
person as the head of
Household 16.
Ilti-aḫ ḫ ēša ⌈DUMU.SAL.A.NI⌉ F S
matronymic

CBS 3472 rev. ii’ 11’–12’
Head: Rabû-x-x-ša F S Daughter of Iddin-Nabû.
Perhaps sister of head of
Household 14.
Burruqu DUMU.A.NI M DG
patronymic

CBS 3472 rev. ii’ 16’–19’
Head: Ilti-aḫ ḫ ēša F S
Ulūlītu [DUMU.SAL].A.NI F S
Irišša-(ina-)pān-māti DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [D]⌈SG⌉
Bāltī-Nergal KI.MIN F [DS]⌈G⌉
An argument could be made that Ulūlītu is the sister (the family rela-
tionship would be restored as [NIN]⌈.A⌉.NI) rather than the daughter
of Ilti-aḫ ḫ ēša, especially with the use of KI.MIN in line 19’ only.
However, Household 14 (and perhaps 15) also uses KI.MIN to express
the familial relationship for only the final member.

CBS 3484A ii’ 10’–11’
Head: Ātamar-rabûssu M G
Adad-nādā ⌈NIN?⌉.A.NI F ST
162 appendix one

CBS 3484A rev. ii’ 8’–10’
Head: […]-x-x-Nergal [ ] [ ]
Rabâ-ša-Bēltīya DUMU.A.NI M [G]T?
Mannu-kī-Bēltīya KI.MIN M GT

CBS 3484A rev. ii’ 14’–16’
Head: Kidin-Ninurta M G
A-pa-a-x DAM.A.NI F ⌈S?⌉
[…] ša la x x DUMU.A.NI M [ ]

CBS 3650 rev. i’ 4’–8’
Head: […]-x-x-Šamaš M [ ]
[…]-x-nu? ⌈DAM?.A.NI F [ ]
[…]-ra-bi ⌈DUMU⌉.A.NI M [ ] Traces favor a
son (DUMU),
therefore male.
Name left blank DUMU.A.NI M DG

Name left blank DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG

CBS 3650 rev. i’ 9’–17’(+)
Head: Dayyantu F S Daughter of
Ina-x-[…].
Mayūtu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F S
Iddin-Enlil ŠEŠ.A.NI M Ø
Yāʾūgu AMA Iddin-Enlil F S
Bunna-Ninurta ŠEŠ.A.NI M Ø
Iltappit(t)a ŠEŠ.A.NI M Ø
Rabâyūtu NIN[…] F Ø
Bēltu-asât DUMU.SAL F S
Rabâyū[tu]
mārat Rabâyūtu F DSG
patronymic
164 appendix one

CBS 3667:1–5
Head: Kidinnītu F Ø Daughter of the
Brewer (LUNGA).17
Tarâš-ina-Eanna DUMU.SAL.A.NI F Ø
⌈x-x-x⌉-šimânni DUMU.SAL.A.NI F Ø
[…]-bēla-uṣur DUMU.A.NI M Ø
[…]-ú-a DUMU.A.NI M Ø
patronymic

CBS 3695:1’–5’
Head: Tarībtu F [(Ø)] Sister of head of
Household 27.
[…] [DUMU.SAL.A.NI]18 F Ø
Adallalu ⌈ DUMU.A⌉[.NI] M Ø
Apparrītu ⌈DUMU.SAL⌉.A.NI F Ø
Households 26 and 27 are clearly related (the heads are sisters), but are
marked as separate entities with subtotals in lines 5’ (PAP 4 qin-ni fTa-
rib-ti) and 9’(PAP 3 qin-ni fAḫ -la-mi-ti).
17
See Brinkman, “The Use of Occupation Names as Patronyms” (2006): 30 for
additional attestations of this occupation name as a patronym.
18
Relationship inferred from the document format and the family total in line 5’.

CBS 3695:6’–9’
Head: Aḫ lamītu F Ø Sister (NIN.A.NI) of head
of Household 26.
Rīš-Ulūlu DUMU.A.NI M Ø
Kidin-Gula DUMU.A.NI M Ø
See the comments written for Household 26.
Household 28 (No date preserved, but text mentions Šagarakti-Šuriaš

year 8)
CBS 7092+ i’ 4’–7’
Head: Izkur-Adad M [ ]
Tarībti-Gula DAM-su F [ ]
Ina-nipḫīša-alsīši DUMU<.SAL>-šá F [ ]
Tarībatu DUMU-šá M [ ]
The expected familial relationship for Ina-nipḫīša-iqbīši would be
DUMU.SAL-sa.

year 8)
CBS 7092+ i’ 8’–12’
Head: Bēlīyūtu M [ ]
Kudurrānitu DAM-su F [ ]
166 appendix one
Baltānitu MIN F [ ]
[…]⌈x-x⌉-iqīša DUMU-šú M [ ]
⌈Adad-aḫ a⌉-ē/īriš DUMU-šú M [ ]
The sons in this household are likely the children of Bālṭanītu (the sec-
ond wife) since they are postpositioned to her, but some (or all) of
them could be the offspring of the first wife. The former reconstruc-
tion was used for statistical analysis and in the diagram below. There
are faint traces of what could be another son listed in line 13’, but this
cannot be confirmed on the tablet. The text breaks off after this line
(13’), and more family members may have been listed in the unpre-
served section.

year 8)
CBS 7092+ rev. ii’ 15’–23’
Head: Ḫ amaṣsị ru M G
Balāṭitu DAM-su F ⌈S⌉
Ileʾʾi-bulluṭa DUMU-šá M ⌈G⌉ Kurgarrû.
Eanna-līdiš MIN M G
Lā-nibāš-Nergal MIN M GT
Ina-Isin-rabât DUMU.SAL-sa F ST
Baba-šarrat MIN F ⌈S⌉
Nergal-abūša MIN F ST
Bēltu-rīšat É.GI.A! F ST Second name is Yâtu.
A note was later
inserted between lines
23’ and 24’ in a smaller
and shallower script
stating that she had
become the wife (DAM)

of Eanna-lidīš.
The presence of the feminine possessive suffix (ša) in the expressions
of familial relationship (DUMU-šá, DUMU.SAL-sa ) indicates that the
children in this household are the result of a union between Balāṭitu
and someone other than the head of this household, Ḫ amaṣsị ru.
Therefore, Balāṭitu was probably a widow or divorcée at the time of
her marriage to Ḫ amaṣsị ru.
kallatu

year 8)
CBS 7092+ rev. ii’ 26’–32’
Head: Šumuḫ -Nergal M G
(Ina-)Šamê-bēlet ⌈DAM/NIN⌉.A.NI F S DAM is the most
likely reading, and
this value is adopted
for the diagram.
f
⌈x-x-ša⌉-ra-bi DUMU.SAL-⌈sa⌉ F S
Adad-⌈iddin?⌉ DUMU-šá M P
U4.7.KAM-bāʾilat MIN F ST
Ninurta-āpil-idīya DUMU-šá M P
f
⌈x x x⌉-Gula DUMU.SAL-s[a] F PT
Line 33’ contains a nursing female who more than likely belongs to
this household, but since the familial relationship is not preserved on
the tablet, it has not been included in the diagram and statistical
analysis.
168 appendix one

year 8)
CBS 7092+ rev. iii’ 2’–3’
Head:[…] M [ ] Weaver.
[…] ⌈DAM⌉.A.NI F [ ]

year 8)
CBS 7092+ rev. iii’ 7’–10’
Head: […]⌈x⌉-Gula F [ ]
[…]-⌈x⌉ DUMU-ša M [ ]
[…] MIN M [ ] Arad ekalli.
[…]-x MIN M [ ] MIN (arad ekalli).

year 8)
CBS 7092+ rev. iii’ 17’–20’
Head: Šamaš- M [ ] Has two personal names,

kīna-uṣur and the first one is not
preserved.
[…r]i?-šat DAM-su F [ ]
[…]-šumu-līšir DUMU-šú M [ ]
[…]-ri-tum DUMU.SAL-su F [ ]

year 8)
CBS 7092+ rev. iii’ 3’’’–6’’’
Head: […]-⌈šub⌉ši M [ ]
[…]⌈x⌉ ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ]
[…]-x-ē/īriš ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ]
[Rī]mūtu NIN.A.NI F [ ]

year 8)
CBS 7092+ rev. iii’ 10’’’–12’’’
Head:[…]⌈x x x x⌉ F [ ] Wife of Rabâ-ša-Gula.
[Rab]â-ša-Ninurta DUMU-šá M [ ]
[f]⌈x x x⌉-tum DUMU.SAL-sa F [ ]
170 appendix one

year 8)
CBS 7092+ rev. iii’ 13’’’–14’’’
Head: […]Ur-Adad F [ ] Daughter of Rīmūtu.
Adad-šar-māti DUMU-šá M [ ]
patronymic

year 8)
CBS 7092+ rev. iii’ 16’’’–17’’’
Head: Baḫūtu F [ ] Daughter of Nannaya.
f
EN-⌈x-x⌉-tum DUMU.SAL-sa F [ ]
patronymic

CBS 7752 rev. i’ 3’–7’
Head: Bunna-Ninsar M Ø
⌈mār⌉ Elamî DUMU.⌈A⌉.[NI] M Ø
Apparrītu DAM.A.NI F Ø Spouse of ⌈mār⌉ Elamî.
Tārītu DUMU.A.NI M Ø
Rīš-Nergal DUMU.A.NI M Ø
Because it is difficult to determine if the sign following Apparrītu

in line 5’ is DAM (more likely) or NIN, it is possible that Apparrītu is
the sister of Bunna-Ninsar rather than his daughter-in-law. However,
the following reconstruction reflects what seems to be standard prac-
tice in these texts: that a wife is listed immediately after her husband. If
she were Bunna-Ninsar’s sister, then she would appear either before or
after all of his sons. The fact that she is listed two places after Bunna-
Ninsar makes it unlikely that she is Bunna-Ninsar’s wife.
There is also some uncertainty as to whether Tarītu and Rīš-Nergal are
the sons of Bunna-Ninsar or mār Elamî, so both options are presented
below. The established rule, i.e., that the pronoun (A.NI) almost always
refers back to the household head, favors the reconstruction found on
the left (below). Note the possible double patronym in lines 3’-4’.
or

CBS 7752 rev. i’ 8’–11’
Head: Tarībti-Gula F Ø
Nergal-(x)-uṣur/nāṣir DUMU.A.NI M Ø
Kidinnû DUMU.A.NI M Ø
[…]-⌈x⌉ DUMU.A.NI M Ø
172 appendix one

CBS 7752 rev. ii’ 1–7
Head: Imgugu M Ø Son of X-[…].
Bēltūa AMA.A.NI F Ø
Tarībat-Adad DUMU.A.NI M Ø
[…]x-ni-ia DUMU.A.NI M Ø
Šīma-ilat DUMU.SAL.A.NI F Ø
[…]⌈x⌉-ur/lik-Baba E.GI4.A F Ø Kallatu.
Adad-šumu-līšir DUMU.A.NI M DG Son of […]⌈x⌉-ur/
lik-Baba.
It is unclear whether Adad-šumu-līšir is the child of the kallatu,
[…]⌈x⌉-ur/lik-Baba, or Imgugu, or both. Since his entry follows that of
[…]⌈x⌉-ur/lik-Baba, interpretation slightly favors the former. The
father of the child could be Imgugu, one of Imgugu’s sons, or someone
else not listed as a member of the household.
The three entries immediately following this household on the text
(CBS 7752 rev. ii’ 8–10) list two female slaves and one male slave. This
raises the possibility that they were servants of the household of
Imgugu, although it is impossible to determine at present whether this
was the case.
patronymi c
kallat u

CBS 7752 rev. ii’12–15
Head: Gubbuḫu M Ø Son of Kalūmu.
Simānītu DAM.A.NI F Ø
Tarībatu DUMU.A.NI M GT
[…] DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ]
There may be another member of the household listed in rev. ii’ 16,
but the traces are inconclusive.
patronymic

CBS 7752 rev. ii’ 18–23
Head: Bēlšunu M Ø Father is given as mKI.MIN,
which might be a reference
to the preceding qinnu head,
Nāḫirānu, or to Nāḫirānu’s
father (name mostly
destroyed).
Banītu DAM.A.NI F Ø
Adad-šubši DUMU.A.NI M Ø
Erība-Adad DUMU.A.NI M Ø
Kidinnītu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F Ø
Unnamed DUMU.SAL.A.NI F Ø MU NU.TUK written in place
of name.
patronymic
174 appendix one

CBS 7752 rev. ii’ 25–28
Head: ⌈Iš⌉tar-rāʾim⌈di⌉-x-x(-x-x) F Ø
[…]-x-ŠEŠ DUMU.A.NI M Ø
[…]-Adad DUMU.A.NI M Ø
This household may have included more children, but only traces of
signs remain after […]-x-ŠEŠ in line 29, and any lines once written
after line 29 are completely lost.
Household 45 (no date preserved, but text does mention month VII)
CBS 8558:3’–5’
Head: Lā-qīpu M [ ]
Inib-Kubi DAM.NI F S
Šamaš-tukultī DUMU.NI M GT
Šarrat-ālīša DUMU.NI F STT
Note the abbreviated NI instead of the customary A.NI, and the use of
DUMU instead of the expected DUMU.SAL for the daughter Šarrat-
ālīša.
Household 46 (date not given)

CBS 11505:1–6
Head: Sîn-nādin-aḫi M Ø
Rabû-tuklūša DAM.A.NI F ⌈S⌉
Ninurta-ašarēd [DUMU].A.NI M GT
Sîn-mušallim [DUMU].A.NI M GTT
Šī-banât [DU]MU.SAL.A.NI F ST
Sîn-bāltī ⌈DUMU⌉.SAL.A.N[I] F [S]T
Household 47 (date not given)

CBS 11505:8–13
Head: Sîn-apil-Ekur M [ ]
Biyātu DAM.A.NI F [ ]
Yâtu NIN.A.NI F [ ]
Akbaru DUMU.A.NI M GT
Ēṭir-Marduk DUMU.A.NI M GTT
Sîn-nāṣir DUMU.A.NI M DG
As was the case with Household 39, it is difficult to determine if Yâtu
is the sister or second wife of Sîn-apil-Ekur because the sign immedi-
ately following her name in line 10 could be NIN or DAM. The signs
expressing relationship in lines 9 and 10 are slightly different in
appearance; DAM is reasonably certain in line 9, and so I suggest
reading the sign in line 10 as NIN. Therefore Yâtu could be the sister
of Sîn-apil-Ekur or Biyātu, but it is impossible to be certain one way or
the other.
or
176 appendix one

CBS 11937 i’ 2’–9’
Head: […]-⌈x⌉-nādin-zēri M [(Ø)]
[…]-⌈x⌉-Amurru DAM.A.NI F [(Ø)]
[…] DUMU.A.NI M [(Ø)]
[…]-⌈x⌉ DUMU.A.NI M [(Ø)]
[…]-Gula DUMU.A.NI M [(Ø)]
[…]-(x)-x-ú-a DUMU.A.NI M [(Ø)]
[…]-Marduk ŠEŠ.A.NI M [(Ø)] At the time the text
was written, he was
in Dēr.
[…]-⌈x⌉-kidinnī ŠEŠ.A.NI M [(Ø)]

CBS 11937 i’ 11’–19’
Head: [Ir]išša-ina-pān-māti F [(Ø)] Principal(?) wife
of Ḫ ānibu
(deceased ?)
Sîn-aḫ a-īriš DUMU.A.NI M [(Ø)]
[( )]x-in-bu-x NIN.A.NI F [(Ø)]
[…]-DINGIR-ša-⌈x⌉ E.GI4.A F [(Ø)] Kallatu.
Sîn-mālik-ilī ⌈DUMU.A.NI⌉ M [(Ø)]
f
Ša-ba-di-tum DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [(Ø)]
[…]-rēmanni E.GI4.A F [(Ø)] Kallatu.
[…r]⌈abi⌉ DUMU.A.NI M [(Ø)]
[…] F [(Ø)] Secondary(?) wife
of Ḫ ānibu
(deceased ?).
There are several possible ways to interpret the passage for this house-
hold, and diagrams of the two most likely possibilities are given below.
The main difference between the two is based on whether Sîn-mālik-ilī,
f
ša-ba-di-tum, and […r]⌈abi⌉ are the children of the head of household
or of the kallatu preceding them in the household listing. Because of
the many possible interpretations (extended-family household or mul-
tiple-family household?), this household was not included among the
statistics for household type (Table 15).
deceased ? kallatu
kallatu
or
deceased ?
kallatu kallatu

CBS 11969 i’ 7’–11’
Head: [Š]īma-ina-āli F [Ø] Daughter of Arad-
Šamaš.
⌈fUD⌉-ma?-ḫi-⌈ḫ a⌉ DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG
[…]-ri-ša-tum NIN.A.NI F [Ø]
Mīšarītu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG
It is more likely that Mīšarītu is the daughter of […]-ri-ša-tum because
she is listed immediately after her on the tablet.
178 appendix one
patronymi c

CBS 13455 ii’ 6–18’
Head: Nūr-Bēlti-Akkade M G
Tarībtu DUMU.A.NI M GT
Šamuḫ -Nergal DUMU.A.NI M GT
Rabâ-ša-Nergal DUMU.A.NI M GT
Nergal-muštāl MIN M DG
Dipārša-namrat DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG
Akkade-rabât DAM.A.NI F S
Ilti-aḫ ḫ ēša DUMU.SAL.A.NI F S
Irišša-ina-pān-māti DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG
[…](x) x x tu tum MIN F [ ]
[…]-⌈x-šar⌉-rat DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ]
[…]-⌈x-ni⌉-tum KI.MIN F [ ]
[…] MIN F [ ]
There is a break in the text immediately following line 18’, which
leads to the possibility that more family members may have been
listed on the original tablet. The placement of the wife of the head of
household in seventh, rather than second, position leads one to con-
sider the possibility that Akkade-rabât (shortened from Ina-Akkade-
rabât) was the biological mother of the final six children preserved
on the text, and that the five children of Nūr-Bēlti-Akkade preceding
her on the household list were born to a different mother, now
deceased.
or

Ni. 177 rev. ii’ 6’–8’
Head: Adad-ibni M G Escaped and returned.
Ališpi DAM-su F ⌈S?⌉ Daughter of mx-x.
Adad-šar-ḫ egalli DUMU-šú M [D]G?
patronymic
escaped and returned

Ni. 890:6’–8’
Head: Rabâ-ša-Gula M G
180 appendix one
Narubtu [DAM.A.NI] F S
Banītu ⌈DUMU.SAL.A⌉[.NI] F DSG
It is possible that the two deceased people preceding Rabâ-ša-Gula
on the text were the head and his spouse and that Rabâ-ša-Gula
and Narubtu are siblings rather than husband and wife. The recon-
struction and diagram given here is based on three observations.
The eponym of the qinnu to which these three belong (line 9’: qin-ni
m
GAL-⌈x-x-x⌉[…]) could not have been one of the individuals listed
in lines 4’–5’ in the group;19 and of those people listed, the only
possible candidate based on spelling is Rabâ-ša-Gula. The qualita-
tive summary of line 9’ also states that the qinnu contained one adult
male, one adult female, and one nursing female (although the dead
members may have been tallied at the end of the line, now destroyed).
Finally, the sex-age categories of the individuals listed in 6’–8’ fol-
low the typical order for a household listing: adult male (house-
hold head), followed by adult female (wife), followed by child(ren).
If this reconstruction is incorrect, it would not affect the statistics
given throughout chapter four because both people listed in 4’–5’ are
dead.

Ni. 1066+1069 i’ 10’–15’
Head: Nippurû M [ ]
[…]-⌈x⌉-tum DAM?-su F [ ] Principal wife of Nippurû.
[…]-e-ri-šat DAM?-su F [ ] Secondary wife of Nippurû.
[…]-⌈šu?⌉ DUMU-šú M [ ] Husband of […]-⌈e?-x?-x?⌉.
[…]-⌈e?-x?-x?⌉ DAM?-su F [ ] Wife of […]-⌈šu?⌉.
[…]-⌈x⌉ DUMU-šú M [ ]
Because of the difficulty in telling the signs NIN and DAM apart in
these texts, the family relationships of […]-e-ri-šat and […]-⌈e?-x?-x?⌉
are not certain. The diagram and analysis here are an interpretation
based on context and the standard order in which household members
are listed in tablets from this corpus.
Ḫ a-an-⌈x⌉-[…] and f⌈Ta-rib-t⌉[um], respectively.

19 m

Ni. 1066+1069 i’ 16’–20’ (unread)
Head: […]-⌈x⌉-TI M [ ] Deceased.
[mā]rat Kaššî DAM?-su F [ ]
[…]-šu DUMU-šú M [ ]
[…]-⌈nu ⌉
?
DUMU-šú M [ ]
deceased

Ni. 1066+1069 i’ 21’–22’
Head: […]-⌈bu?⌉ M [ ]
[…] ⌈DAM⌉-su F [ ] Daughter of Sîn-mušabši.
patronymic
182 appendix one

Ni. 1066+1069 ii’ 14’–19’
Head: Kidin-Adad M G
Aqartu DAM -su
?
F Ø Deceased.
f
Ḫ a-na-⌈x⌉-x DUMU.SAL-su F S Daughter of Kidin-
Adad and his first wife.
Ka-ši-x(-x) DAM?-su F S Daughter of Erību.
Previously married?
Banâ-ša-Adad? DUMU-šú M P Son of Kidin-Adad and
his second wife
Ka-ši-x(-x).
Ur-Adad? DUMU.SAL-sa F DSG Daughter of second
wife Ka-ši-x(-x).
Ur-Adad is the last listed member of the household, and she is said to
be the daughter of Ka-ši-x(-x) (lit. “her daughter (DUMU.SAL-sa)”)
rather than the daughter of Kidin-Adad (in this case it would read “his
daughter (DUMU.SAL-su)”) as would be expected. This is either
scribal error or indicates that Ka-ši-x(-x) has a daughter from a rela-
tionship outside of her union with Kidin-Adad. She may have been
previously married or had an illegitimate daughter. Also note that
Ur-Adad belongs to a younger age category than her brother Banâ-ša-
Adad, i.e., she may have been born after her mother married Kidin-
Adad. The second diagram is far more likely.
patronymic patronymic
deceased deceased
or

Ni. 1066+1069 rev. i’ 10’–13’
Head: Na-x-x F S
[…] M Ø Husband of household
head and probably
deceased. See next

paragraph.
Qīšat-dX DUMU-šá M DG
Šalittu DUMU.SAL-sa F ST
Bēlet-sinnišāti MIN F PT
This reconstruction is based on reading rev. i’ 10’ as “SAL fNa-x-x
DAM m[…],” i.e., the name of her husband was written in the damaged
space after the masculine personal name determinative.
deceased

Ni. 1066+1069 rev. ii’ 1’–11’
Head: […] Uncertain [ ] [ ]
[…] [ ] [ ] Widow/head of
household/child
of someone listed
in the preceding
section (now
lost)?
[…]-⌈x⌉-tum DUMU.SAL-sa F [ ] Daughter of […]
(first conjugal
family unit
preserved).
[Iz]kur-Nergal MIN F [ ] Daughter of […]
(first conjugal
family unit
preserved).
Ḫ arrānša-balāṭu MIN F [ ] Daughter of […]
(first conjugal
family unit
preserved).
184 appendix one
Deyyāndi-ina-Uruk NIN.A.NI F [ ] Widow? Children

listed below.
Rabâ-ša-Gula DUMU-šá M [ ] Son of Deyyāndi-
ina-Uruk.
Tukultī-Ninurta DUMU-šá M [ ] Deceased, Son of
Deyyāndi-ina-
Uruk.
Kunzubtu NIN.A.NI F S Widow? Children
listed below.
Ninurta-āpil-idīya DUMU-šá M GT Son of Kunzubtu.
Riḫ êtūša MIN M GT Son of Kunzubtu.
Šunuḫtu DUMU.SAL-sa F PT Daughter of
Kunzubtu
The beginning section of the tablet in which the members are listed
is destroyed, and it is impossible to determine the head of house-
hold, among other things. The head could have been the mother
(name destroyed) of […]-⌈x⌉-tum, Izkur-Nergal, and Ḫ arrānša-balāṭu
or some other individual (male or female) who at one time was listed
in the missing section or in line 1’; therefore the information we have
on this household is incomplete. The diagram below depicts a por-
tion of the original household and does not mark the head of
household.
deceased

Ni. 1066+1069 rev. ii’ 12’–16’
Head: Baba-šarrat F S
Tukultī-Ninurta ⌈DUMU⌉-šá M Ø Deceased.
⌈Bēlet⌉-aḫ ḫ ēša MIN (sic!) F Ø Deceased.
Ulūlītu MIN (sic!) F Ø Deceased.
Dipārītu ⌈DUMU⌉.SAL-sa F PT
deceased

Ni. 1066+1069 rev. ii’ 17’–20’
Head: Ana-ṣillīšu-ēmid M Ø Deceased.
Rabât-eli-ilī DAM-su F S
Izkur-Ninurta DUMU-šá M Ø Escaped (ZÁḪ ).
Rabâ-ša-⌈x-x-x-x⌉-ra DUMU-šá M G
Ana-ṣillīšu-ēmid is depicted as the head of household (dark, filled
triangle) in the diagram even though he is dead, because he remains
listed as the head on the tablet (as the first entry). Note also that the
children are described as “her(s),” probably because her husband is
dead rather than because they were from a previous marriage.
deceased
escaped

Ni. 1066+1069 rev. ii’ 24’–27’
Head: Bēletu F S Second name is
Ippayītu.
Ninurta-āpil-idīya DUMU-šá M P
Aḫ a-iddina-Marduk DUMU-šá M Ø Deceased.
f
Bil-lu-⌈x⌉-tum DUMU.SAL-sa F Ø Deceased.
186 appendix one
deceased

Ni. 1066+1069 rev. ii’ 31’–35’
Head: Ina-Apsû-rabi M G
Šunuḫtu DAM-su F S
Ea-mušabši DUMU-šá M P
Rabâ-ša-D[N] (Šamaš?) [DUMU-x] M P Family relationship
reconstructed.
⌈x?⌉-pa-ni?-⌈x⌉-[…] [DUMU-x] F PT Family relationship
reconstructed.
The pronoun for Ea-mušabši suggests that perhaps at least one of these
children had a father other than Ina-Apsû-rabi.

Ni. 1066+1069 rev. iii’ 13’–18’
Head: […]-Gula F [ ]
[…] DUMU-šá M [ ]
[(DN-)] ⌈a⌉-bi-en-ši DUMU-šá M [ ]
[…]-idīya DUMU-šá M [ ]
[…]-šarrat DUMU.SAL-sa F [ ]
[…]-tum? MIN F? [ ]

Ni. 1066+1069 rev. iii’ 19’–23’
Head: […]-x-la F [ ]
[…]-⌈x⌉ DUMU-šá M [ ]
[…]-⌈x⌉ MIN M [ ]
[…]-⌈x⌉ MIN M [ ]
[…]-⌈x⌉ DUMU.SAL-sa F [ ]
[…]-la ⌈DU⌉[MU…] [ ] [ ] Family relationship
restored.

Ni. 1066+1069 rev. iii’ 25’–31’
Head: […]-x-TI.LA F [ ]
[…]-⌈ši?⌉ DUMU-šá M [ ]
[…]-⌈x-x⌉-rīšat DUMU.SAL-sa F [ ]
[…]-⌈x⌉ MIN F [ ]
[…]-tum MIN F [ ]
[…]-⌈x⌉ MIN F [ ]
[…]-ni-tum MIN F [ ]
188 appendix one
Household 67 (Burna-Buriaš IV–28–y 18 (=1342 B.C.) )

Ni. 1574: 1–9
Head: Šumman-lā-Ninurta M G Designated as a slave
(ardu).
Amīl-Adad ŠEŠ.A.NI M G
Erību ⌈ŠEŠ.A.NI⌉ M G
Kidin-Ninurta ⌈ŠEŠ⌉.A⌈.NI⌉ M DG
Ḫ annānu ŠEŠ.A.N[I] M DG
f
Pi-ši-ir-⌈du?⌉ ⌈AMA⌉.A.⌈NI⌉ F S
Rabi-dīnša ⌈NIN⌉.A.NI F S Possibly sister, rather
than wife, of
Šumman-la-Ninurta.
Ina-šamē-rabiʾat É.GI4.A.NI F S Kallatu.
Ni. 1574 is a legal text concerning the sale of eight slaves. Because of
the difficulty in telling the signs NIN and DAM apart in these texts,
the relationship of Rabi-dīnša (spouse or sister) to Šumman-lā-Ninurta
and the other members of the family is unclear. Because she is listed
after the brothers and mother of the head of household, rather than
immediately after him as is the standard practice, I have decided to list
her as a sibling.
kallat u

Ni. 2793 iii’ 8’–17’
Head: Kaštilen-Saḫ M G
Tarbâtuša DAM.A.NI F [ ]
f
x-x-x-x-x DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ]
m
x-x-pi-ša-tum DUMU.A.NI M [ ]
Ilīya ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ] His wife and son
(names not
preserved) are also
members of the
household.
[…] DAM.A.NI F [ ] Wife of Ilīya and
mother of a son
(name of son not
preserved).
[…] DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Son of Ilīya and his
wife (name not
preserved).
[…]-⌈x⌉ ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ]
[…] ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ]
x x x ⌈NIN?⌉.A.NI F [ ]

Ni. 2793 iii’ 21’–27’
Head: Gubbuḫu M Ø Deceased.
Namir-Sagil DAM.A.NI F S
Ka-tar-⌈ta-ri-Saḫ ⌉ DUMU.A.NI M G
Tukukūtu ⌈DAM.⌉A.NI F S
190 appendix one
Ḫ unābu DUMU.A.NI M GT
Taqīšu DUMU.A.NI M GT
[…] […].A.NI [ ] [ ]
Gubbuḫu is listed in first position as head of household despite being
dead. This is one of seven instances (the others are Households 8, 55,
61, 73, 76, and 86) of a deceased male head remaining on the rolls
with his own entry. Normally the female is listed first with mention of
her husband in the same entry (PN1 DAM PN2) or the husband is not
listed at all.
deceased

Ni. 2793 iv’ 7’–31’
Head: Uncertain, perhaps Turi-Rattaš
Turi-Rattaš […] M G
Rīšatu DAM⌈.A⌉[.NI] F S
Šallī-lūmur DUMU.SAL.⌈A.⌉.NI F PT
Kilamdu ŠEŠ.A.NI M Ø Deceased.
Pakkutu NIN.A.NI F S
Kidin-Šuqamuna DUMU.A.NI M G Son of Pakkutu.
Bīštu DAM.A.NI F S Wife of Kidin-
Šuqamuna.
Nibi-Šipak DUMU.A.NI M P Son of Kidin-
Šuqamuna and
Bištu.
Uribi ŠEŠ.A.NI M G
Meli-mašḫu ŠEŠ.A.NI M Ø Deceased.
Bāltīya ⌈NIN?⌉.A.NI F S
Sibbar-ula DUMU.A.NI M G Son of Baltīya.
Uppultī-līšir DUMU.A.NI M GT Son of Baltīya.
m
Ba?-ak-ta?-ri?-⌈x⌉ DUMU.A.NI M GT Son of Baltīya.
E-x-tum DUMU.A.NI M P Son of Baltīya.
⌈x-x-x⌉-Šipak(?) ŠEŠ.A.NI M Ø Deceased.

Narubtu DAM?.A.NI F Ø Deceased. Wife of
⌈x-x-x⌉-Šipak.
m
Si-la-⌈x⌉-Buriaš DUMU.A.NI M G Son of ⌈x-x-x⌉-
Šipak and Narubtu.
Dannat-šerressa NIN?.A.NI F S
f
⌈x-x⌉-tum DUMU.SAL.A.NI F PT Daughter of
Dannat-šerressa.
Šagarakti-Šipak ŠEŠ.A.NI M G
⌈x⌉-te/li-x-ku-bu ŠEŠ.A.NI M G
⌈x-x⌉-ši-GAD-ru-uk ŠEŠ.A.NI M G
[…]-⌈x⌉-Gula NIN.A.NI F [ ]
X x (x) ⌈DUMU?.A.NI⌉ M [ ] Son of ⌈x-x⌉-ši-
GAD-ru-uk and
[…]-⌈x⌉- Gula.
The beginning of this list of household members is damaged. Turi-
Rattaš is the first, definite, adult male member of the household; and
he has consequently been designated in this reconstruction as head of
household. It is possible that he was a sibling of the actual head, but
the condition of the tablet makes this impossible to determine.
As seen in many of these household listings, whether one chooses to
read a sign as NIN or DAM affects the reconstruction of the house-
hold. I have strong reservations against reading the signs in lines 11’
and 16’ as NIN (as given on the available transliteration) and would
prefer to read them as DAM. The main reasons for my hesitation are
that 1) in household listings featuring a large number of brothers, the
typical pattern is that of brother/brother’s wife/brother’s children,
2) adult brothers of the household head are typically listed ahead of
adult sisters of the household head,20 and 3) one would expect that in a
patrilineal and patrilocal society that married women with children
would remain in the household of their husband upon the husband’s
death.21 For these reasons, two different reconstructions are offered
below. The first follows the readings given in the list above where
NIN.A.NI is given in lines 11’ and 17,’ the second reads those lines with
DAM.A.NI.
See Households 24 and 67.

20
If one assumes a stable society.

21
192 appendix one
deceased deceased deceased
or
deceased deceased deceased

Ni. 2793 rev. iii 8’–15’(+?)
Head: Arduni M G
Apparrītu ⌈DAM?.A.NI⌉ F S
Kidin-Gula DUMU.A.NI M GT
Kudurrānu DUMU.A.NI M DG
Rabât-Gula ⌈DUMU?.SAL?.A.NI⌉ F S
Dipārītu DUMU.⌈SAL.A.NI⌉ F ST
Erību ŠEŠ.⌈A.NI⌉ M G Wife not listed.
Dipārītu ⌈DUMU(sic).A⌉.NI F Ø Deceased.
The text following line 15’ is not clear, and it has not been determined
whether the household ends at this point.
deceased

Ni. 2793 rev. iv’ 4’–19’
Head: not preserved [ ] [ ]
Spouse: not preserved [ ] [ ]
[…]-⌈x⌉-Enlil ⌈DUMU.A.NI⌉ M [ ] This person is the
first preserved
member of the
household. He is
likely to be a son or
nephew of the head.
[…]-⌈x⌉-Adad ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ]
Kidinēʾa ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ]
Pāliḫ -Adad ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ]
[…] DAM.A.NI F [ ] First wife of Pāliḫ -
Adad.
[…]-tum? DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Son of Pāliḫ -Adad
and his first wife
(name not
preserved).
[…] DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Son of Pāliḫ -Adad
and his first wife
(name not
preserved).
[Ittīša]-aḫbut DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ] Daughter of Pāliḫ -
Adad and his first
wife (name not
preserved).
[…-i]na-Ekur DAM.A.NI F [ ] Second wife of
Pāliḫ -Adad.
[…]⌈x⌉ DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Son of Pāliḫ -Adad
and his second wife
([…-i]na-Ekur).
[…]⌈x⌉ DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Son of Pāliḫ -Adad
and his second wife
([…-i]na-Ekur).
The beginning and ending portions of the tablet that list the mem-
bers of this household are damaged. At least six members of the
group are missing: the head (the broken section at the beginning)
and five individuals of unknown sex and age (the broken section at
the end).
194 appendix one
members of uncertain
relationship:

Ni. 2793 rev. iv 3”–6”
Head: ⌈mŠu?-ri⌉-[…] M Ø Deceased.
Banītu DAM.A[.NI] F S
Tarību DUMU.A.[NI] M G
Amīlīya DUMU.⌈A⌉[.NI] M G
deceased

Ni. 5989 obv.?i’ 3’–4’
Head: [Ina]-Esagil-rīšat F [ ]
[…]-in DUMU-šá M [ ]

Ni. 5989 rev.? ii’ 1’–2’
Head: […]-⌈x-x-x⌉ M [ ]
Tarbâtūša DAM.A.NI F ⌈S?⌉

Ni. 5989 rev.? ii’ 5’–9’
Head: Šamaš-uballissu M Ø Deceased.
f
GAŠAN?-⌈x-x(-x)⌉-KUR DAM-su F S
Šamaš-muštēšir DUMU-šú M GT
Aḫ a-iddina-Marduk MIN M P
Aba-lā-idi MIN M DG As indicated by his
name, this child was
born after his father
died.22
deceased

Ni. 5989 rev.? ii’ 10’–15’
Head: Šamaš-bēl-ilīšu M G Son of Ētegi-ana-ili
(patronymic).
Ina-Egalmaḫ -šarrat DAM-su F Ø Deceased.
Šamaš-tišmar DUMU-šú M Ø Deceased.
Rīš-pīšu-ina-Ekur ⌈ŠEŠ-šú⌉ M G
Dayyānī-Šamaš ⌈ŠEŠ-šú⌉ M Ø Escaped (ZÁḪ ).
Ninurta-nīšu ŠEŠ-šú M G
Or perhaps his mother did not know who the father was.
22
196 appendix one
patronymic
deceased
escaped

Ni. 6192:2’?-8’
Head: None preserved, nor is any spouse.
[…]-⌈x⌉-zi-il-lum ⌈DUMU.SAL.A.NI⌉ F [ ]
[…]-⌈ta?-ni?⌉ DUMU⌈.SAL.A.NI⌉ F [ ]
[…]-⌈x⌉-bani DUMU⌈.SAL.A.NI⌉ F [ ]
[…]-⌈x⌉-yāʾūtu DUMU⌈.SAL.A.⌉NI F [ ]
Šī-bāʾilat DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [DS]G
Ina-Nippur-šarrat DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [D]SG
Ni. 6192 is a damaged legal text concerning the sale of twenty-five
slaves (aštapīru). The list of slaves written at the beginning of the tab-
let is damaged, but it probably included at least one household and the
list for the household members could have begun in 2’, 1’, or earlier.
Only (some of?) the female children are preserved, and one can
assume that the household head was once included on the list (because
of the relationship references to him/her: DUMU.SAL.A.NI). There is
no way of knowing if the text records an entire household, or just the
head and his/her daughters, i.e., sons are at least presumed not to be
part of the sale. The diagram below reflects the preserved sections of
the text (head of household has diagonal fill).

Ni. 6208 rev.? ii’ 1’–4’
Head: […] M [ ] Labeled a Kassite (kaššû).
[…]-šu [DA]M.A.NI F [ ] Family relationship partially
restored.
[…]-⌈x⌉ DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ]

Ni. 6208 rev.? ii’ 5’–7’
Head: Te-⌈x⌉-[…]-⌈x⌉-di-Šugab M Ø Labeled a Kassite (kaššû).
f
Mi-ši-GAD-ru-uk DAM.A.NI F Ø
Tambi-Dadu DUMU.A.NI M DG

Ni. 6444 rev. i’ 7’–8’
Head: mārat Manzât-ummī. F Ø Escaped.
Akītu DUMU.SAL-sa F Ø Escaped.
escaped
198 appendix one

Ni. 6444 rev. i’ 9’–11’
Head: Ilti-aḫ ḫ ēša F S Slave (andu = GÉME).
Adad-lītāni DUMU-šá M P
Sîn-šem-me-i MIN M DG

Ni. 6444 rev. i’ 12’–13’
Head: Bēltani F S Slave (andu).
f
Ka-ši-ti-x DUMU.SAL-sa F PT

Ni. 6718 ii’ 2’–5’
Head: […] M [ ] Entry not preserved.
Labiʾtu (Labiḫtu) ⌈DAM?.A.NI⌉ F S
Rīmūt-Gula ⌈DUMU.A.NI⌉ M GT
Tarība-Gula DUMU.A.NI M DG Deceased.
deceased

Ni. 6718 ii’ 10’–14’
Head: […]-⌈x⌉-Amurru M [ ] Son of Iqīša-Amurru.
[…]-x-ge-e-a DAM.A.NI F [ ]
[…]-Adad ⌈DUMU.A.NI⌉ M [ ]
[…] ⌈DUMU.SAL.A.NI⌉ F [ ]
[…]-x DUMU.A.NI M [ ]
patronymic

Ni. 6816 rev. ii’ 6’–8’
Head: Kilamdu M Ø Deceased.
Rīšatu DAM.A.NI F S
Tarību DUMU.A.NI M G
deceased

Ni. 6816 rev. ii’ 13’–16’
Head: Nazi-Šipak M G Son of Pussulu.
Šaqītu-rīšat DAM?.A.NI F S
Gula-šumu-līšir DUMU.A.NI M P
Sebûtu(?)-līšir DUMU.<SAL.>A.NI F ST
200 appendix one
patronymic

Ni. 11149 i 13’–15’
Head: f⌈Bu?-un?-na?-a?⌉ […] ⌈x⌉[…] F S
Nūr-Bēlti-Akkade DUMU.A.NI M G
Ana-Sîn-ēgu KI.MIN M G

Ni. 11149 i 16’–18’
Head: Bāriḫtu F S
Taqīša-Gula DUMU.A.NI M DG
⌈Ke⌉š-ālūša DUMU.SAL.A.NI M DG
The final household entry (line 18’) is inconsistent in gender marking.
Keš-ālūša (“Kesh is her city”) is given a masculine personal name
determinative (m) and sex-age designation (mār irti), but is said to be
the daughter (mārassa) of the head of household. There is no problem
with a pronoun of feminine gender occuring in a masculine personal
name since the reference is to the deity, not the human being being
named. The evidence slightly weighs in favor of a male, and the writ-
ing of the SAL may have been a a mistake by the scribe. If this decision
is erroneous it will have virtually no statistical impact.

Ni. 11149 ii 7’–10’
Head: Dayyanti-ina-Uruk F S
Nūr-Adad DUMU.A.NI M GT
La-ra-⌈x⌉-tum DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG
Li-ta-⌈x-x⌉ DUMU.SAL.A.NI F DSG

Ni. 11149 ii 13’–14’
Head: NIN.⌈TU?⌉[…] F S Daughter of Banâ-ša-
Šamaš.
m
KAR[…]-Marduk DUMU.A.NI M DG
There may have been a third member of the household, a female, in
line 15’.
patronymic
202 appendix one

Ni. 11149 ii 19’–21’
Head: f[…]-abluṭ F S Daughter of Nūr-d⌈x⌉[…].
Qīšat -Kūbi
?
DUMU.A.NI M GT
Usāt-Marduk [DUMU].A.NI M DG
patronymic

Ni. 11149 ii 24’–26’
Head: Ina-UNUG.KI-LUGAL-sà! F S Personal name
probably Ina-Uruk-
šarrūssa.
Me-e-ši-ri-bu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F S
Nazi-Ḫ arbe DUMU.A.NI M DG

Ni. 11149 rev. ii’ 2’–7’
Head: Kidin-Adad M G Son of Ninurta-ašarēd,
the brother of Ina-
Ekur-zēru.
Ammar-ša-ili ⌈DUMU.A.NI⌉ M G
Bunna-Gula KI.MIN M GT
Irēmanni-Adad KI.MIN M DG
Bābilāyitu DAM F S
The husband of Bābilāyitu is uncertain as she is listed last in the

household and her familial designation lacks a pronominal suffix. In
the diagram she is listed as the wife of Kidin-Adad because of the pres-
ence of young children in the family, but she could be the wife of
Ammar-ša-ili.
patronymic

Ni. 11149 rev. iii’ 14’–18’
Head: Kūbi-nadi F S Daughter of Ulūlītu.
Mē-Saḫ DUMU.SAL.A.NI F S
Mannu-lēʾūša KI.MIN F ⌈DSG⌉
[…]⌈mi⌉ KI.MIN F [ ]
[…] [KI].MIN F [ ]
patronymic

Ni. 11197 rev.? ii’ 7’–11’
Head: Šigû-Gula M G
Mannu-šāninša ⌈DAM-su⌉ F S
Adad-zēra-⌈šubši⌉ DUMU-šú M GT
Kudurrānu ⌈DUMU-šú⌉ M DG
204 appendix one
Mīnâ-ēgi-ana-Marduk DUMU.SAL-sa F PT Labelled as “her

daughter,” i.e., her
father is not
Šigû-Gula.

Ni. 11732 rev. ii 5’–6’
Head: Kaššītu F Ø
Būnānu DUMU.A.NI M Ø

Ni. 11732 rev. ii 8’–11’
Head: Kudurrānu M Ø
Bulālitu ⌈DAM.A.NI⌉ F Ø
Eanna-bēlet ⌈DUMU.SAL⌉.A.NI F [ ]
[K]uzba-ulluḫ at MIN F [ ]

Ni. 11817 rev. 6–10
Head: Ṭ āb-ṣillī M [ ]
⌈Ur⌉-Nergal DAM-su F [ ]
[…]x-x-di-ilī DUMU-šú M [ ]
Adad-kīna-uṣur DUMU-šú M [ ] Lame (ḫuzzû)
Rabû-Sebettu DUMU-šú M [ ]

Ni. 11817 rev. 11–14+
Head: Ina-Esagil-kabtat F [ ] Sister?/Wife? of Nūr-d[X]
(presumably deceased).
Sîn-aḫ a-īriš DUMU-šá M [ ]
Sîn-īriš DUMU-šá M [ ] Lame (ḫuzzû).
Arad-Kūbi DUMU-šá M [ ]

UM 29-15-292 i’ 5’–16’
Head: […]-⌈x-x⌉-tum M [ ]
Pirriʾtu DAM.A.NI F S
Ši⌈rik⌉tu DUMU.A.NI M G
⌈Ṣilli?⌉-Šuqamuna DUMU.A.NI M G
Šamḫūtu DUMU.A.NI M G
Terīmšūtu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F PT
206 appendix one
f
Al-zu-tum DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ]
[…]-⌈x⌉-Šuqamuna ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ] His wife and
children are
members of the
household (names
and details below).
[…]-⌈x⌉ DAM.A.NI F [ ] Wife of […]-⌈x⌉-
Šuqamuna.
[…]-⌈x⌉-iš DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Eldest known
son of […]-⌈x⌉-
Šuqamuna.
[…] DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Second eldest
known son of
[…]-⌈x⌉-Šuqamuna.
[…]-⌈x⌉ DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Youngest known
son of
[…]-⌈x⌉-Šuqamuna.
The entries following that of the last listed member of the household
([…]-⌈x⌉, the youngest nephew of the head of the household) are
destroyed, which leaves the possibility that […]-⌈x⌉-Šuqamuna and
[…]-⌈x⌉ had more than three children.

UM 29-15-292 rev. i’ 6’–12’(+)
Head: Šuqamuna-īriš M G Widower.
f
⌈x-ta-x⌉ DAM[.A.NI] F Ø Deceased.
Nergal-di⌈pār-ilī⌉ ⌈DUMU.A⌉[.NI] M G
Qīšat-Gula DU[MU.A.NI] M GT
Šad-Šugab DUMU.A.N[I] M P
Bēl-bāni DUMU.SAL.A[.NI] F S
Erība-Nergal ŠE[Š.A.NI] M G See below for

details on his
possible family.
It is possible that the five entries following rev. i’ 12’ contain the names
of the wife and four of the children of Erība -Nergal. The ends of these
lines (where familial relationship is written) have not survived, but the
fact that these five entries follow the standard arrangment for listing
family members (i.e., adult male followed by adult female then chil-
dren according to age and sex) suggests that they were all part of the
same husband-wife pair. The dotted lines in the household diagram
below indicate this reconstruction. It is also slightly possible that the
entry for Šuqamuna-īriš is followed by a Š[EŠ.A.NI] which would
make him not the head of household, but rather the brother of an ear-
lier mentioned household head.
deceased

UM 29-15-292 rev. ii’ 4’–12’
Head: [Guza]rzar? M [ ]
[…]-⌈x-x⌉-e-a DAM.A.NI F [ ]
[…]-Šuqamuna DUMU.A.NI M [ ] Wife is ⌈X-x-x-(x)⌉-
tum (see below).
⌈x-x-x-(x)⌉-tum DAM.A.NI F [ ] Husband is
[…]-Šuqamuna.
⌈x-x-x-x-x-x-(x-x)⌉ DUMU.A.NI M [ ]
⌈Ni?-bi-ia-x-x-x⌉ DUMU.A.NI M [ ]
Kaštilen-Saḫ ⌈DUMU.A.NI⌉ M [ ]
Širiktu ⌈DUMU.A.NI⌉ M [ ]
Unnubtu DAM ⌈Guzar⌉zar F [ ]
It is possible that the four last males here were sons of the immediately
preceding couple.
208 appendix one

UM 29-15-298 obv. ii’ (+)9’–20’
[Household is damaged and unreconstructable in its initial lines,
see comments below]
Adad-šarru ⌈Š⌉[EŠ.A.NI] M G
Rabûssa-āmur ⌈DAM.A⌉[.NI] F S
Adad-šumu-līšir DUMU.A.[NI] M G
⌈mḪ u⌉-lu-ú DUMU⌈.A.NI⌉ M G
Usāt-ili-maʾdā DUMU.A⌈.NI⌉ M GT
Tukultu ŠEŠ.A.NI M Ø Deceased, husband of
Aḫ āssunu and father of
Erība-Nergal.
Aḫ āssunu DAM.A.NI F S Widow of Tukultu and
mother of Erība-Nergal.
Erība-Nergal DUMU.A.NI M G Son of Tukultu and
Aḫ assunu.
Ina-tappî-kabtat23 DAM.A.NI F S
Napšira-Adad [ŠEŠ.A].NI M G
Dalīlu ŠEŠ.A.NI M G
Nūr-Adad ŠEŠ.A.NI M G
This household cannot be reliably reconstructed in full because some
of its entries do not have the familial relationship preserved at the end
of the line. This includes the head of household, who is likely to be the
adult male written in the entry of line 2’ or line 7’. The most likely
reconstruction of the end of line 9’ is ⌈Š⌉[EŠ.A.NI], i.e., brother, which
suggests that the household does not begin with Adad-šarru, but
23
The suggestion to read this personal name as Ina-Upî-kabtat (RGTC 5 (1982):
272) is not tenable. The tablet clearly has -tap-pí- here for the middle element
(collation).
rather he is the brother of the original head of household. Because of

this uncertainty, any household members who appear on the text in
lines preceding 9’ (including the head of household) are not included
in the diagram. Moreover, the entries of lines 16’-18’ are shown with
dotted lines to indicate that the relationships are uncertain or recon-
structed. It seems better to provide a partial and likely portrait of the
family rather than a larger unsubstantiated view.
deceased
suspected head
of househol d
interpretation likely, but not certain

UM 29-15-298 rev. i 2’–8’
Head: none preserved
Spouse: none preserved
⌈Marduk?-tiš⌉mar ⌈DUMU.A.NI⌉ M [ ]
Katta-Ḫ arbe ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ]
Inbu-eššu DUMU.SAL.A.NI F [ ]
Latarak-šemi ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ]
Lūṣi-ana-nūr-Adad ŠEŠ.A.NI M [ ] Husband of
Namirtu.
Namirtu ⌈DAM⌉.A.NI F [ ] Wife of Lūṣi-ana-
nūr-Adad.
Adad-nāṣir ⌈ŠEŠ.A.NI⌉ M [ ]
The beginning of this passage is destroyed, and it is impossible to
determine if the parents of these children were the head of household
and his spouse or the offspring of the brother of the head of house-
hold. Therefore they are either the children of the head of household
or his nephews and niece.
210 appendix one

UM 29-15-298 rev. i 11’–13’
Head: Izkur-Šuqamuna M [ ]
f
I-ni-ip-ḫ u-tum24 DAM.A.NI F Ø
Kidinēʾa ŠEŠ.A.[NI] M [ ]

UM 29-15-373 rev. ii’ 15’–17’
Head: Šuqamuna-īriš M [ ]
[…]-x-(x) ⌈DAM-su⌉ F [ ] Daughter of Bēl-īriš.
[…]-⌈x⌉ DUMU.A.NI M [ ]
patronymic
24
A hypocoristic for a name like Ina-niphīša-? The same name may appear in Ni.
6078 rev. iii’ 4,’ but there written with double -n-.
APPENDIX TWO
SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF SELECT MOBILE WORK

GROUPS
Introduction
Appendix Two is a table presenting the raw data used to compile the
table presented in Chapter Five, page 96, on select mobile groups origi-
nally appearing on Ration Allocation Summaries for Groups in a Single
Location, Including a Numerical Personnel Census.1 Although thirty-
eight summaries of this type are known, the data from just twenty-four
were available for statistical study; and they contain the information on
between 628 and 703 total mobile work groups.
Groups are identified by supervisor,2 and the table provides the date,
reference, and composition of each group. Supervisors/groups are
listed in alphabetical order, and those identified by patronym only
(mār PN) are alphabetized according to patronym. In order to main-
tain the statistical accuracy and to ensure that the comparisons used
are parallel, a significant number of the original number of groups
were omitted from the table. These groups were omitted for one of
three reasons: 1) unpreserved entries in any of the personnel census
cells, 2) very damaged and uncertain entries in any of the personnel
census cells, (i.e., “plus” numbers),3 and 3) texts with fully preserved
1
These texts are described in detail in Chapter 2 (pages 27–31).
2
See page 29, note 68.
3
This is despite the fact that at least a minumum number of members is preserved
for all age categories. The eleven groups removed for this reason are summarized in the
following table:
Male Male Male Female
Supervisor Name Citation Adult Adol. Child Adult Others
Ana-Ninurta-taklāku UM 29-13-816:12 ⌈1+⌉ 1 1 1
mār Sissi UM 29-13-816:13 ⌈1+⌉ 1 1
mār Sippūša MUN 86:15’ 2 ⌈2+⌉
Nūr-Šubula UM 29-13-816:14 ⌈1+⌉ 2 2
(Continued)
212 appendix two
entries which omit some sex-age categories.4 After making these sub-
tractions, 286 total mobile work groups from BE 15 180, CBS 3474,
MUN 86, 88, 93, 105, 108, 110, PBS 2/2 9 and 132, and UM 29-13-382
were available for statistical study. Groups that appear more than once,
but at different dates (sometimes with a change in composition) are
included in the table as if they are separate groups because it better
serves the purpose of the research, which is to illuminate the typical
size and composition of these groups. It is the best way to present the
broadest picture of the population through the entire time span of the
corpus.
Some of the readings of personal names in this appendix may be
revised as other census lists are brought in for comparison and as
prosopographical studies continue to advance. Anyone consulting
the later part of PBS 2/2 132 ii will find that the line numbers used
from approximately line 74 on in this appendix and by Hölscher,
Personennamen (1996), will be one lower than those appearing in
the cuneiform copy published by Clay (because the numbering of
the lines in the right margin of the publication—“75,” “80”, etc.—are
too high).
(Cont.)
Male Male Male Female
Supervisor Name Citation Adult Adol. Child Adult Others
Qīšat-Sukkal MUN 105:15 4 1 2 ⌈4+⌉
Sāmu MUN 105:9 5 1 4 ⌈3+⌉
[…] CBS 3474 ii 6’ 1 1 3 ⌈4+⌉
[…] CBS 3474 ii 12’ 2 2 ⌈3+⌉
[…] CBS 3474 ii 13’ 1 ⌈3+⌉
[…] CBS 3474 ii 14’ 1 1 2 ⌈1+⌉
[…] PBS 2/2 132:125 3 1 1–2 3 2
BE 14 22 (only adult males and others), MUN 91 (number of subcolumns not

4
comparable), and MUN 111(only adult males).

Size and Composition of Select Mobile Work Groups5
Male Male Male Female Total

Supervisor Name Date Citation Adult Adol. Child Adult Others People
1. Adad-⌈bāni⌉ [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:26 1 1
2. Adad-īriš [Krg] BE 15 180:8 1 1 1 3
3. Adad-zākir [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:8 1 1 2 4
4. Agab-še[nni] [Krg??] UM 29-13-382: 3’ 1 2 3 6
5. Aḫu-illika(m) [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:21 3 3 3 9
6. Akkul-enni Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. ii 20 0
7. Aku-[…] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:97 1 1
m
8. Al-gi-zi-zi [Krg] BE 15 180:2 1 3 4
9. Allu-[…] [Krg] BE 15 180:45 1 1 2
10. Ambiya [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:77 1 1
m
11. Am-ni-ri Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 i 13 2 3 4 9
mobile work groups
m
12. Am-ni-ri [Krg] CBS 3474 i 8’ 2 3 4 9
m
13. A-mu-[…] [Krg] BE 15 180:11 1 2 3
m
14. A-mu-[…] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:53 1 2 3
15. Ana-[…] [Krg] BE 15 180:49 1 1 1 3
(Continued)
5
Abbreviations include: Krg = Kurigalzu II; ŠŠ=Šagarakti-Šuriaš; y=year. Sex-age equivalencies are: Male Adult = GURUŠ; Male Adol.
(“Adolescents” to save space)=GURUŠ.TUR.GAL; Male Child= GURUŠ.TUR.TUR or GURUŠ.TUR (MUN 88 only); Female Adult=SAL;
213
Others= People in this category are collected under the rubric tenēštu, i.e., workers of other age groups.
214
16. Ana-nūr-Sîn-lūṣi [Krg??] UM 29-13-382 rev. 9’ 1 1 2
17. [Api]l-Adad [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:39 1 2 1 4
18. Apil-[DN] ŠŠ, y ⌈12⌉ MUN 110:6 3 1 1 5 14 24
19. Arad-Enlil [Krg] BE 15 180:41 1 1 1 3
20. Arad-E[nlil] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:95 1 1 2
21. Arad-Gula [Krg] BE 15 180:6 1? 2 2 5?
22. Arad-⌈ik?-ka?⌉-[…]-x Krg, y 14 MUN 88 i 11 2 2 4
23. Arad-Šamaš [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:66 1 2 3
24. Arad-Šamaš6 [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 135 17 1
m
25. Ar-da-am-x [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:90 1 1
26. Arda[šku] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 ii 12 1 4 5
27. Arikkama [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:7 1 1
m
appendix two
28. A-ri-ku-ša [Krg] CBS 3474 rev. ii’ 19’ 6 2 4 2 14

29. Arimmu Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 i 4 29 11 8 55 50 153
30. Arip-šarri [Krg] CBS 3474 i 11’ 7 2 10 10 29
31. Arip-Šuriḫ a Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 i 7 3 3 5 11
m
32. A-ri-pu Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 26 1 3 4 8
33. Ariyam[ma] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:68 2 2 2 4 10
m
34. Ar-⌈si?⌉-at-r[u] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:69 1 1 1 3
6
Marked as a Lullubian.
7
This adult male is listed as a returned escapee.

35. ⌈Aṣû⌉[šu]-⌈nam⌉ir [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:23 1 1
m
36. A-ši-ri [Krg] CBS 3474 rev. ii’ 12’ 1 2 3
37. Ātanaḫ -ilī8 [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 136 1 1
38. Atkal-ana-d[DN] [Krg] BE 15 180: 7 2 1 1 4
39. Ayyaru ŠS, y 8 MUN 105: 5 7 1 3 2 13
40. Ayyaru ŠŠ, y ⌈12⌉ MUN 110 i 7 8 4 3 15
41. Bakī-[…] [Krg] BE 15 180:44 2 1 1 3 7
m
42. Ba?-lik-[…] [Krg] BE 15 180:10 1 2 1 1 1 6
m
43. Ba-⌈lik⌉-[…] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:52 1 2 1 1 1 6
44. Banâ-ša-Šamaš Kr[g], y 14 MUN 86:9 1 1
45. B/Mariya [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:76 1 1 1 1 4
46. mār Biʾši Kr[g], y 14 MUN 86:10 1 1 2
47. Bun[na-…] [Krg] BE 15 180:47 1 1 3 5 10
48. Bun[na-…] [Krg] BE 15 180:51 1 1 2
mobile work groups
49. ⌈Bura⌉me [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:35 1 1 1 2 2 7

m
50. ⌈Da?⌉-[…] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 132 1 1
51. Dāgil-ili [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:19 1 2 1 4
52. Dān-rigimšu [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:16 2 1 1 4
53. Emiyaḫru [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:67 1 1 2 4
(Continued)
8
215
Marked as a Lullubian.
216
54. Emūq-ili-mādā ŠŠ, y ⌈12⌉ MUN 110:21 7 2 3 12
m
55. En-x[…] [Krg] BE 15 180:50 1 2 3
m
56. En-na-du⌈-ga⌉ [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:88 1 1 1 3
57. Erība-Adad ŠŠ, y 12 MUN 108:16 5 11 13 29
58. Erība-Adad ŠŠ, y 12 MUN 108:17 1 1
59. Erība-Nergal Krg, y 14 MUN 88 i 10 1 2 3 6
60. Erība-Sukkal [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:11 2 2 4
61. Erra-bani Krg, y 14 MUN 88 i 9 2 2 4 8
62. Etel-pī-Enlil ŠS, y 8 MUN 105:7 1 1 2
63. Etel-[pī-Enlil] ŠŠ, y ⌈12⌉ MUN 110:9 1 1 2
64. Ēṭir-Adad [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:94 1 1 2
65. Eziri-enni [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:91 1 1 2
m
appendix two
66. Gab-tu-[gi] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 ii 20 1 1

m
67. Gab-tu-[gi] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 ii 19 2 1 2 5
68. Gimil-Gula [Krg] BE 15 180: 15 2 2 4 8
69. Gimil-G[ula] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:57 1 2 2 4 9
70. Ḫ ab(b)il-ilu [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 9 2 1 1 4
71. Ḫ abil-kīnu Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. ii 21 1 1
m
72. Ḫ a-mi-[ir-ni] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 29 3 1 5 5 14
73. Ḫ ānibu Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 27 3 2 4 9
74. Ḫ aniya Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 24 2 1 3
75. Ḫ aniya [Krg] CBS 3474 rev. ii’ 16’ 1 1 1 3
76. Ḫ idim [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:81 1 2 3

77. Ḫ ira-Zana [Krg] BE 15 180:43 0
78. Ḫ udi-ya⌈zi⌉ [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:83 1 2 1 4
79. Ḫ ud-Tešub Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 i 11 1 3 4 8
80. Ḫ ud-Tešub Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 i 12 2 2
81. Humba(n)-ilu [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:10 1 1 2
82. Ḫ uzi [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:92 1 1
83. Ibni-Adad [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:15 1 1 6 7 15
84. Ibni-Ea-šarru ŠŠ, y 12 MUN 108:18 1 4 6 11
85. Ibniyaūtu ŠŠ, y 12 MUN 108:20 9 3 11 13 36
86. Iddin-[DN] [Krg] BE 15 180:12 1 2 3 6
87. Iddin-d[DN] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:54 2 2 3 7
88. mār Iddin-Adad Kr[g], y 14 MUN 86:17’ 4 9 13
89. mār Iddinatu Kr[g], y 14 MUN 86:7 2 1 3 3 4 13
m
90. I-gu-us-sí Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 i 6 1 1 3 1 6
mobile work groups
m
91. I-gu-[us?-si?] [Krg] BE 15 180:53 2 1 3
m
92. I-la-ak-k[u] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:27 ⌈2⌉ 4 3 9
93. Ilī-ayabāš ŠS, y 8 MUN 105:7 3 2 2 1 8
94. Ilī-ayabāš ŠŠ, y ⌈12⌉ MUN 110:10 4 2 3 1 10
95. Ilī-ḫīṭī Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 i 14 4 13 8 25
96. Ilī-ḫīṭī [Krg] CBS 3474 i 9’ 4 4 8 16
97. Ilī-iddina(m) [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:22 1 1 2 2 6
(Continued)
217
218
98. Ilī-imittī [Krg??] UM 29-13-382 rev. 10’ 1 1
99. Ilī-ippašra Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. ii 16 1 1
100. Ilī-ippašra Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. ii 19 1 1
101. Ilī-iṣ⌈ṣur⌉[šu] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:62 2 3 5
102. Inda[rdiya] [Krg] BE 15 180:48 1 1 1 1 4
103. mār Innibi ŠŠ, y 12 MUN 108:21 1 3 4
104. ⌈Iqīša⌉-Adad [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:36 2 1 4 7
105. Iqīšātu ŠS, y 8 MUN 105:15 4 3 2 9
106. Irtīb(a)-Šamaš [Krg] BE 15 180:14 0
107. Irtīb(a)-[Šamaš] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:56 0
m
108. Is-si Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 ii 14 4 6 5 15
109. Itku⌈i⌉[za] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:74 1 1 1 1 4
appendix two
110. Izkur-dSukkal [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:18 2 2 1 5

111. Kadiri [Krg] CBS 3474 rev. ii’ 11’ 1 1
m
112. KAR-[…] [Krg] BE 15 180:54 1 2 1 4
113. Kidin-d[DN] [Krg??] UM 29-13-382 rev. 2’ 1 1 1 3
114. Kidin-Ninurta [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:86 1 1 2
115. Kidin-Sîn Kr[g], y 14 MUN 86:16’ 1 6 7
116. Keli [Krg] CBS 3474 i 17’ 1 1 2
117. Kukulme [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:12 4 6 10
118. mār Kurî Kr[g], y 14 MUN 86:20’ 2 13 15
119. Lā-qīpu [Krg] BE 15 180:3 1 1 2

120. Lultamar-Ninurta [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:17 3 1 2 6 12
121. Luriyame [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:80 1 1 1 3
122. ⌈Mak⌉k[i] [Krg] BE 15 180:52 1 1 1 2 4 9
123. Makki [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:89 1 1 2 4
124. Man-kitt[u] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:82 1 1
125. Mannu-e-x-[…] Krg, y 14 MUN 88:12 1 1 2
m
126. Man-nu-i-bi ŠŠ, y ⌈12⌉ MUN 110:19 7 5 7 19
m
127. Man-nu-i-bi ŠŠ, y ⌈12⌉ MUN 110:20 1 1 2 4 8
m
128. MU-[…] [Krg] BE 15 180:55 1 1 2
129. Nagutu [Krg] BE 15 180:18 [1] 3 4
130. Nagut[u] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:60 1 3 4
131. Naʾīdi [Krg] CBS 3474 i 10’ 2 2 2 6
132. Nan-Tešub [Krg] BE 15 180:1 1 2 1 4 10 19
133. Nan-Tešub [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:44 2 2 4 8
mobile work groups
134. [Nergal-ašarēd]9 [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:24 2 1 1 4

135. Ni⌈ḫ a-nā⌉[dā]10 [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:25 2 3 1 6
136. Ninurta-aḫ a-iddina [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:4 1 2 3
137. Ninurta-ā⌈pil-idī⌉[ya] [Krg] BE 15 180:13 1 1
138. Ninurta-ā[pil-idīya] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:55 1 1
(Continued)
9
Name restored from parallel (CBS 11797 i 23)
10
219
Ibid., i 26.
220
139. Ninurta-karābī-išme [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:13 4 4 5 13
140. Ninurta-rēmanni [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:6 1 1
141. Nurrugi Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. ii 14 1 1
142. Paklabi [Krg] BE 15 180:9 3 2 1 1 3 10
143. [Paklabi]11 [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:51 3 2 1 1 3 10
144. Pandiya Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 25 0
145. Panni [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:65 1 2 3
m
146. Pa-pa-da Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 ii 21 1 1
147. Papassi Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 i 8 1 2 3
148. Paratte Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 i 5 3 1 4
149. Pa[zunna] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 20 1 1
150. Pendu Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 ii 22 0
appendix two
151. Piradi [Krg] CBS 3474 rev. ii’ 15’ 1 1 2 4

152. Puḫ -šenni [Krg] BE 15 180:5 1 1 4 5 11
153. mār Qīšat-Sîn Kr[g], y 14 MUN 86:8 1 2 1 5
154. Qīšat-Sukkal ŠŠ, y ⌈12⌉ MUN 110:17 4 2 4 2 12
155. Qīšātu ŠŠ, y ⌈12⌉ MUN 110:18 4 3 2 9
156. Rabâ-ša-Gula [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:5 1 1 2
157. Rabâ-ša-Gula [Krg??] UM 29-13-382 rev. 6’ 6 1 3 3 13
m
158. Sa-[ni]-a Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 21 0
11
Name restored from parallel text (BE 15 180: 9).

159. Sāmu ŠŠ, y ⌈12⌉ MUN 110:11 6 1 4 7 18
m
160. Si-[…] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:73 0
161. Sigi [Krg] CBS 3474 i 12’ 3 1 3 2 9
162. ⌈Sili⌉ [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:87 1 1 1 1 4
163. Sîn-aḫ a-iddina [Krg??] UM 29-13-382 rev. 7’ 4 1 5
164. mār Sîn-damāqu Kr[g], y 14 MUN 86:22’ 2 2
165. Sîn-ēpiranni [Krg] BE 15 180:17 [0] 1 2 3
166. Sîn-ēpir[anni] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:59 1 2 3
167. mār Sîn-ibni Kr[g], y 14 MUN 86:21’ 1 4 5
168. Sîn-iddin⌈a⌉ [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:63 1 1 1 2 6 11
169. Sîn-iqīša Kr[g], y 14 MUN 86:6 1 1 1 3
170. Sîn-[nāṣir] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 ii 4 1 1
171. mār Sissiya Kr[g], y 14 MUN 86:19 2 18 20
m
172. Si-it-t[a] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. ii 17 0
mobile work groups
173. Sukkal-līssu Kr[g], y 14 MUN 86:24’ 2 2

174. Ṣalmu ŠS, y 8 MUN 105:11 1 2 2 5
175. Ṣil[li] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:75 3 2 1 6
m
176. ⌈Ša?-ba?⌉-ḫu Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 ii 11 2 2 5 9
177. Šamaš-iddina [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:3 2 3 5
178. mār Ša-ṣillūša Kr[g], y 14 MUN 86:18’ 2 5 7
179. Šennakka [Krg] CBS 3474 i 13’ 3 2 1 6 3 15
(Continued)
221
222
180. Šenniya [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:84 1 1 1 1 3 7
181. Šennu(n)na [Krg] BE 15 180:16 [3] 2 1 3 9
182. Šennu[(n)na] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:58 3 2 1 3 9
183. Šī-kabtat Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. ii 18 1 1
m
184. Ši-na-[mu] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 ii 13 1 1 2 1 5
m
185. ŠU-[…] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:72 2 2
186. Šubattu [Krg] CBS 3474 rev. ii’ 18’ 2 2
187. Šubattu [Krg??] UM 29-13-382 rev. 11’ 1 1 2 4
188. Šubula-iddina ŠS, y 8 MUN 105:12 3 4 8 15
189. Tagu [Krg] CBS 3474 i 14’ 4 1 2 6 8 21
190. Tagu [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:79 3 1 2 5 11
191. Tagussi Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 i 10 2 2
appendix two
192. Tagussi [Krg] CBS 3474 i 18’ 1 1 2

193. Taqīša-Gula [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:93 2 3 1 6
194. Tarībtu [Krg??] UM 29-13-382 rev. 14’ 112 1
195. Tarību [Krg] CBS 3474 i 18’ 1 1 2
196. Tešub-x-bi [Krg??] UM 29-13-382 rev. 5’ 1 1 2 4 8
197. Titt[e]13 [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 70 [ZÁḪ ?] […] […] 0
12
This worker is marked as escaped and returned.
13
Judging by the preserved entries, Titte supervised a single male of uncertain age category (probably an adult) who has run away. Because
the composition of his work group can be reliably reconstructed based on the evidence at hand (no barley disbursed, the mention of an escapee),
his work group has been included in the table.

198. Tukultī-d[DN] [Krg] BE 15 180:42 2 1 1 4
199. Tukultī-Ninurta [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 137 1 1
m
200. Tu-u[t-t]a Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 22 2 1 2 4 9
201. Ula-Zana [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:85 1 1 3 1 6
202. Ulukku [Krg] CBS 3474 i 8’ 2 3 4 9
203. Ulukku [Krg] CBS 3474 i 9’ 4 4 8 16
204. Umbi [Krg] CBS 3474 i 15’ 1 2 2 5
205. Umbi-Tešub Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 i 9 1 1 2
206. Umbiya Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 ii 18 1 1 2 4
m
207. ⌈UR?⌉-[…] [Krg] BE 15 180:46 1 2 3
m
208. ÚR-[…] ŠŠ, y ⌈12⌉ MUN 110:8 5 4 1 4 3 17
209. Urḫi-Tešub [Krg] BE 15 180:19 [1] [1] 1 2 4 9
210. Urḫi-Te⌈šub⌉ [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:61 1 1 1 2 4 9
211. Urḫiya [Krg] BE 15 180:4 1 3 1 5
mobile work groups
212. Uri[b]i [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:78 2 1 1 1 1 6

213. Urpaši-mašḫu [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:20 1 1 1 1 4
214. Usātūša [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:41 1 2 3
215. Zūzu Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 28 1 2 3
216. ⌈d⌉[…]-bāni ŠŠ, y ⌈12⌉ MUN 110:12 1 1
217. […]-ēʾa (?) Krg, y 14 MUN 88 i 4 114 2 4 7
(Continued)
14
223
This worker is marked as deceased.

224
218. […]-gu (?) Krg, y 14 MUN 88 i 6 2 1 4 3 10
m
219. X-gu-ra [Krg] CBS 3474 rev. ii’ 13’ 3 5 4 12
220. […]-ia Krg, y 14 MUN 88 i 3 1 1 1 3
m
221. X-Išḫ ara Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. ii 15 0
222. X-x-la-ri ŠS, y 8 MUN 105:6 4 4 4 4 16
223. ⌈X-x⌉-Marduk [Krg??] UM 29-13-382 rev. 4’ 1 1
224. ⌈X⌉-me-ia [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:40 2 1 3
225. […]-⌈x-na⌉-[…] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:98 2 1 3
226. […]-ni [Krg??] UM 29-13-382 rev. 8’ 1 1 1 3
227. ⌈X-ši?⌉ […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 133 1 1 1 1 4
228. X-[…] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 ii 16 0
229. X-[…] [Krg??] UM 29-13-382 rev. 1’ 2 2 2 6
appendix two
230. ⌈X⌉-[…] [Krg] BE 15 180:56 2 2 1 5

231. […]-x-[…]-x [Krg] CBS 3474 rev. ii’ 14’ 1 1 2 4
232. […] [Krg] CBS 3474 ii 7’ 1 1 4 2 8
233. […] [Krg] CBS 3474 ii 10’ 1 2 1 4
234. […] [Krg] CBS 3474 ii 11’ 1 1 1 3
235. […] Krg, y 14 MUN 88 ii 4 1 1 2 2 6
236. […] Krg, y 14 MUN 88 ii 6 2 4 1 7
237. […] Krg, y 14 MUN 88 ii 7 1 1 2
238. […] Krg, y 14 MUN 88 ii 8 1 2 3
239. […] Krg, y 14 MUN 88 ii 10 1 2 3 6
240. […] Krg, y 14 MUN 88 iii 1 1 1 2 7 11

241. […] Krg, y 14 MUN 88 iii 2 2 1 2 4 9
242. […] Krg, y 14 MUN 88 iii 3 1 2 1 3 7
243. […] Krg, y15 PBS 2/2 9 ii 10’ 1 3 4
244. […] Krg, y 15 PBS 2/2 9 ii 11’ 2 1 1 2 4 10
245. […] Krg, y 15 PBS 2/2 9 ii 12’ 2 3 5
246. […] Krg, y 15 PBS 2/2 9 ii 13’ 1 1 1 2 6 11
247. […] Krg, y 15 PBS 2/2 9 ii 15’ 1 2 3
248. […] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 ii 2 2 1 2 5
249. […] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 ii 3 2 1 4 5 12
250. […] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 ii 17 1 1 2
251. […] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 18 1 1 3 2 7
252. […] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 2 2 1 1 4 2 10
253. […] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 3 1 1 1 3
254. […] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 4 1 1 1 5 4 12
mobile work groups
255. […] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 5 2 1 4 2 9

256. […] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 6 3 1 4
257. […] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 7 1 1
258. […] Krg, y⌈18?⌉ MUN 93 rev. i 17 1 1 2 3 7
259. […] [Krg] BE 15 180:57 1 1
260. […] [Krg] BE 15 180:58 1 1 1 1 4
261. […] [Krg] BE 15 180:59 2 1 1 3 7
(Continued)
225
226
262. […] [Krg] BE 15 180:60 1 1 1 3
263. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132:99 1 1 2
264. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 101 1 1 2
265. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 106 1 2 1 1 5
266. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 108 2 1 1 3 7
267. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 109 1 1 2
268. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 110 1 2 3
269. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 111 1 1 3 5 10
270. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 112 1 1 1 1 4
271. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 113 1 1 1 3
272. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 114 1 1 2
273. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 115 1 1 2
appendix two
274. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 116 1 1 1 2 4 9

275. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 117 2 2
276. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 118 1 2 1 4
277. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 119 1 1 2
278. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 120 2 2 1 5
279. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 121 1 1
280. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 122 1 1 1 1 4
281. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 123 2 1 1 3 7
282. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 124 1 1 1 3


283. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 125 3 1 2 3 2 11
284. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 126 2 1 2 2 7
285. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 127 1 2 3
286. […] [Krg] PBS 2/2 132: 128 1 1 1 1 4
mobile work groups
227
APPENDIX THREE
SEX AND AGE CLASSIFICATION OF ATTESTED

OCCUPATIONS IN MIDDLE BABYLONIAN ROSTERS
MALES FEMALES
Total Females
Occupation
Total Both Sexes

Sex Unknown
Adult (GURUŠ)
Adolescent (GURUŠ.TUR(.GAL) )
Child (GURUŠ.TUR.TUR)
Weaned (pirsu)
Nursing (DUMU.GABA)
Age Unknown
Total Males
Adult (SAL)
Adolescent (SAL.TUR)
(SAL.TUR.TUR and pirsatu)
Child and Weaned
Nursing (DUMU.SAL.GABA)
Age Unknown
āpil bābi1 18 9 9 18
arad ekalli 2 2 2
ararru/ 20 11 8 19 1 1
ararratu2
aškāpu3 21 6 3 1 3 13 4 4 8
ašlāku4 5 2 3 5
atkuppu5 3 1 1 1 2
atû6 5 5 5
A type of door/gate keeper.

1
A type of miller.
2
3
Leather-worker.
4
Fuller. In the final phases of producing woolen cloth, the fuller washes and thick-
ens the fabric.
5
Reed-worker, i.e., a craftsmen who works with reeds.
6
A type of door keeper or porter.
230 appendix three
MALES FEMALES
Total Females
Occupation
Total Both Sexes

Unknown Sex
Adult (GURUŠ)
Weaned (pirsu)
Nursing (DUMU.GABA)
Sex-age desig. n/avail.
Total Males
Adult (SAL)
Child and Weaned
bānû7 1 1 1
dālû8 28 13 1 14 28
ḫ arintu9 4 1 1 3 3
ḫ azannu10 2 1 1 2
ḫuppû11 23 1 10 1 11 7 4 11
išparu12 23 3 4 2 1 12 19 1 1
iššakku13 6 6 6
kāṣiru14 14 6 1 4 11 1 1 1 3
kaṣsị dakku15 3 1 2 3
kunšillu16 15 2 3 2 1 2 8 1 3 1 5
kurgarrû17 6 2 2 2 4
laputtû18 1 1 1
Builder.
7
Water drawer.
8
9
Prostitute.
10
Mayor or perhaps ward official (exercises some control over irrigation).
11
Based principally on the context in which this occupation is attested, the ḫuppû
was a type of weaver in Middle Babylonian texts (as per Hölscher, Die Personennamen
(1996): 5). In Old Babylonian documents, the ḫuppû is an acrobat (CAD vol. 6: 240).
12
A type of weaver.
13
A type of farmer.
14
A type of textile worker using a special knotting or binding technique (kaṣāru=to
tie, to bind).
15
A type of miller.
16
Teaseler, i.e., someone who uses a special thistle (teasle) or comb in the final
phases of cloth production to remove dirt and other foreign particles, align the fibers,
and raise the nap on fabric; in this case the cloth is most likely made from wool.
17
Actor, performer.
18
In this context, a laputtû ( (LÚ)NU.BÀNDA) is a foreman or person in charge of
other workers.
attested occupations 231
MALES FEMALES
Total Females
Occupation
Total Both Sexes

Unknown Sex
Adult (GURUŠ)
Weaned (pirsu)
Nursing (DUMU.GABA)
Total Males
Adult (SAL)
Child and Weaned
mākisu?19 4 2 2 2 2
mandidu20 2 2 2
maṣsạ r 1 1 1
abulli21
maṣsạ ru22 1 1 1
mušēniqtu23 2 2 2
naggāru24 4 2 2 4
nâru/nârtu25 5 1 1 2 3 3
nuḫ atimmu26 17 4 5 1 6 3 2 1 1 7
nukarribu27 33 26 3 3 1 33
paḫ āru28 13 429 1 1 4 10 3 3
paqqāyu30 1 1 1
purkullu31 9 4 2 2 2 1 3
rēʾi lâti/ 28 21 5 2 28
sugulli32
(Continued)
19
NÍG.KUD(.DA)—or, more properly, miksu (?). A collector of taxes and/or yields
of a field or perhaps “hired man (?).” See Sassmannshausen BaF 21 (2001): 35–36.
20
Or mādidu. A person in charge of distributing barley and other goods.
21
Gatekeeper or gate guard.
22
Guard.
23
Wet nurse.
24
Carpenter.
25
Singer.
26
Cook.
27
Gardener.
28
Potter.
29
Included in this total is the elderly man (ŠU.GI) Kidinnû (CBS 12572 rev. i’ 5’).
30
Maker of reed mats.
31
Lapidary.
32
Cowherd.
232 appendix three
MALES FEMALES
Total Females
Occupation
Total Both Sexes

Unknown Sex
Adult (GURUŠ)
Weaned (pirsu)
Nursing (DUMU.GABA)
Total Males
Adult (SAL)
Child and Weaned
rēʾi sīsî33 31 5 3 1 9 18 6 3 4 13
rēʾi ṣēni34 25 3 1 21 25
rēʾû35 2 1 1 2
sāliḫu36 2 1 1 1 1
sasinnu37 1 1 1
sirāšû38 31 9 10 2 5 17 1 4 5
ša rēši39 19 19 19
ṭābiḫu40 6 2 1 3 4
ṭāmītu41 2 2 2
ṭupšarru42 2 2 2
ummânu 5 2 1 3 1 143 2
usandû44 8 3 4 1 8
not yet read45 24 23 1 24
TOTALS: 478 28 185 35 5 0 9 143 377 30 12 0 12 19 73
Someone who cares for horses (lit. “horse herder”).

33
Herder of sheep and goats.

34
35
Shepherd.
36
Sprinkler (of roads).
37
Maker of bows and arrows.
38
Brewer.
39
Attendant.
40
Or ṭābiḫ ḫu. Butcher.
41
Spinner.
42
Scribe.
43
Perhaps “weaned”(pirsatu), although the line in question could contain a refer-
ence (patronym?) for the woman listed in the previous line (CBS 3523 rev. ii’ 11).
44
Someone who cares for (domesticated?) birds (fowler?).
45
Three occupation names are not yet able to be read. The corresponding references
are CBS 6620:1-24 (seven of the workers have escaped), CBS 12934:5 d, and UM 29-13-
666:17’ a.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Robert McC. Land behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the Diyala
Plains: Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965.
——. “Settlement and Irrigation Patterns in Ancient Akkad.” In The City and Area of
Kish, by McGuire Gibson, 182–208. Coconut Grove, FL: Field Research Projects,
1972.
——. Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central
Floodplain of the Euphrates. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981.
Adams, Robert McC. and Hans J. Nissen. The Uruk Countryside: The Natural Setting of
Urban Societies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.
Applebaum, Anne. Gulag: A History. New York: Anchor Books, 2003.
Archer, Léonie, ed. Slavery and Other Forms of Unfree Labor. New York: Routledge,
1988.
Archi, Alfonzo. “Prices, Workers’ Wages, and Maintenance at Ebla.” AoF 15 (1988):
24–29.
Armstrong, James A. “The Archaeology of Nippur from the Decline of the Kassite
Kingdom until the Rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.” Ph.D. diss., University of
Chicago, 1989.
Aro, Jussi. Studien zur mittelbabylonischen Grammatik. StOr 20. Helsinki: Societas
Orientalis Fennica, 1955.
——. Mittelbabylonische Kleidertexte der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena. Sitzungsberichte
der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philosophisch-
historische Klasse, 115/2. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1970.
Bagnall, Roger S. and Bruce W. Frier. The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge
Studies in Population, Economy, and Society in Past Time 23. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Baker, Heather and Michael Jursa, eds. Approaching the Babylonian Economy:
Proceedings of the START Project Symposium Held in Vienna, 1–3 July 2004. AOAT
330. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005.
Balkan, Kemal. Kassitenstudien. AOS 37. New Haven: American Oriental Society,
1954.
——. Studies in Babylonian Feudalism of the Kassite Period. MANE, vol. 2/3. Malibu:
Undena, 1986.
Baqir, Taha. “Iraq Government Excavations at ʿAqar Qūf: First Interim Report,
1942–43.” Iraq Supplement (1944).
——. “Iraq Government Excavations at ʿAqar Qūf: Second Interim Report, 1943–44.”
Iraq Supplement (1945).
——. “Iraq Government Excavations at ʿAqar Qūf: Third Interim Report, 1944–45.”
Iraq 8 (1945):73–93.
Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. “The Brewers of Nippur.” JCS 47 (1995): 85–96.
——. “Prébendiers d’Uruk à Larsa.” RA 87 (1993): 137–52.
Beckman, Gary. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. 2nd edition. Writings from the Ancient
World 7, edited by Harry A. Hoffner. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999.
Bernhardt, Inez. Sozialökonomische Texte und Rechtsurkunden aus Nippur zur
Kassitenzeit. Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht-Sammlung
Vorderasiatischer Altertümer im Eigentum der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
Neue Folge 5. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1976.
Bernhardt, Inez and Jussi Aro. “Mittelbabylonische Briefe in der Hilprecht-
Sammlung.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena 8
(1958–59): 565–75 and plates.
234 select bibliography
Bloch, Yigal. “The Order of Eponyms in the Reign of Shalmaneser I.” Ugarit-
Forschungen 40 (2008): 143–78.
Boehmer, Ranier Michael, and Heinz-Werner Dämmer. Tell Imlihiye, Tell Zubeidi, Tell
Abbas. Baghdader Forschungen 7. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern,
1985.
Boh, Katja et al. Changing Patterns of European Family Life: A Comparative Analysis of
Fourteen European Countries. London: Routledge, 1989.
Bongaarts, John, Thomas K. Burch and Kenneth W. Wachter, eds. Family Demography:
Methods and Their Application. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
Bongenaar, A. C. V. M. The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its
Administration and Its Prosopography. PIHANS 80. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Instituut, 1997.
——. “Private Archives in Neo-Babylonian Sippar and Their Institutional Con
nections.” In Interdependency of Institutions and Private Entrepreneurs: Proceedings
of the Second MOS Symposium (Leiden 1998), edited by A. C. V. M. Bongenaar,
73–94. PIHANS 87. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut,
2000.
Bradley, Keith R. “Wet-nursing at Rome: A Study in Social Relations.” In The Family
in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives, edited by Beryl Rawson, 201–29. London:
Croom Helm Ltd., 1986.
Brandt, Margaret. “Nippur: Building an Environmental Model.” JNES 49 (1990):
67–73.
Brinkman, J. A. Review of Arthur Ungnad, Grammatik des Akkadischen in BiOr 23
(1966): 293–96.
——. A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia. AnOr 43. Rome: Pontificium
Institutum Biblicum, 1968.
——. “Foreign Relations of Babylonia from 1600 to 625 B.C.” AJA 76 (1972): 271–81.
——. “The Monarchy in the Time of the Kassite Dynasty.” In Le Palais et la royauté
XIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, edited by Paul Garelli, 395–408.
Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1974.
——. A Catalogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the Kassite
Dynasty. MSKH 1. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
1976.
——. “Kassiten.” In RlA 5, edited by Erich Ebeling et al., 464–73. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1976–89.
——. “Forced Laborers in the Middle Babylonian Period.” JCS 32 (1980): 17–22.
——. “Sex, Age, and Physical Condition Designations for Servile Laborers in the
Middle Babylonian Period.” In Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to
F. R. Kraus, edited by G. van Driel, Th. J. H. Krispijn, M. Stol, and K. R. Veenhof,
1–8. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1982.
——. Prelude to Empire: Babylonian Society and Politics, 747-626 B.C. Occasional
Publications of the Babylonian Fund 7. Philadelphia: University Museum, 1984.
——.“A Note on the Middle Assyrian Laws.” RA 79 (1985): 88–89.
——. “Comment on L. W. King, Babylonian Boundary Stones, no. 27 (BM 90937).”
NABU 1989/70.
——. “A Kassite Seal Mentioning a Babylonian Governor of Dilmun.” NABU
1993/106.
——. “Catalogue of Tablets.” In Nippur, III: Kassite Buildings in Area WC-1, by Richard
L. Zettler, 93–111. OIP 111, edited by McGuire Gibson. Chicago: The Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, 1993.
——. “Assyrian Merchants at Dur-Kurigalzu.” NABU 3/2001.
——. “Administration and Society in Kassite Babylonia,” JAOS 124 (2004): 283–304.
——. “The Use of Occupation Names as Patronyms in the Kassite Period:
A Forerunner of Neo-Babylonian Ancestral Names?” In If a Man Builds a Joyful
select bibliography 235
House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty, edited by Ann K.

Guinan et al., 23–43. Cuneiform Monographs 31. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
——. “Masculine or Feminine? The Case of Conflicting Gender Determinatives
for Middle Babylonian Personal Names.” In Studies Presented to Robert D. Biggs:
June 4, 2004, edited by Martha T. Roth et al., 1–10. From the Workshop of the
Chicago Assyrian Dictionary 2. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, 2007.
Brinkman, J. A. and C. B. F. Walker. “Remarks on the Šandabakku Land-Purchase
Texts from the Time of Nabû-šumu-libūr.” RA 79 (1985): 72–74.
Brinkman, J. A. and Stephanie M. Dalley. “A Royal Kudurru from the Reign of Aššur-
nādin-šumi.” ZA 78 (1988): 76–98.
Buccellati, Giorgio and Robert D. Biggs. Cuneiform Texts from Nippur. AS 17. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1969.
Burch, Thomas K. “The Size and Structure of Families: A Comparative Analysis of
Census Data.” American Sociological Review 32 (1967): 347–63.
——. “Some Demographic Determinants of Average Household Size: An Analytic
Approach.” In Household and Family in Past Time: Comparative Studies in the Size
and Structure of the Domestic Group over the Last Three Centuries in England,
France, Serbia, Japan and Colonial North America, with Further Materials from
Western Europe, edited by Peter Laslett with assistance by Richard Wall, 91–124.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Bush, M. L., ed. Serfdom and Slavery: Studies in Legal Bondage. New York: Longman,
1996.
Campbell, Stanley W. The Slave Catchers: Enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law,
Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970.
Carter, Elizabeth and Matthew W. Stolper. Elam: Surveys of Political History and
Archaeology. Near Eastern Studies 25. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1984.
Charpin, Dominique, Dietz Otto Edzard and Marten Stol. Mesopotamien: Die altbaby-
lonische Zeit. OBO 160/4. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, 2004.
Civil, Miguel. “Ur III Bureaucracy: Quantitative Aspects.” In The Organization of
Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, 2nd edition, edited by
McGuire Gibson and Robert Biggs, 35–44. SAOC 46. Chicago: The Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, 1991.
Clarysse, Willy and Dorothy J. Thompson. Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt.
2 vols. New York : Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Clay, Albert T. Documents from the Temple Archives of Nippur Dated in the Reigns
of Cassite Rulers (Complete Dates). The Babylonian Expedition of the University
of Pennsylvania Series A: Cuneiform Texts 14. Philadelphia: Department of
Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania, 1906.
——. Documents from the Temple Archives of Nippur Dated in the Reigns of Cassite
Rulers (Incomplete Dates). The Babylonian Expedition of the University of
Pennsylvania Series A: Cuneiform Texts 15. Philadelphia: Department of Archae
ology, University of Pennsylvania, 1906.
——. Documents from the Temple Archives of Nippur Dated in the Reigns of Cassite
Rulers. Publications of the Babylonian Section 2/2. Philadelphia: University
Museum, 1912.
——. Personal Names from Cuneiform Inscriptions of the Cassite Period. Yale Oriental
Series, Researches 1. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1912.
Coale, Ansley J. “The Decline in Fertility in Europe from the French Revolution
to World War II.” In Fertility and Family Planning: A World View, edited by
S.B. Behrman, L. Corsa, and R. Freedman, 3–24. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1969.
——. “Age Patterns of Marriage.” Population Studies 25 (1971): 193–214.

——. The Growth and Structure of Human Populations. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1972.
Coale, Ansley J. et al. Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure. Princeton: Princeton
Coale, Ansley J. and Paul Demeny. Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966.
Cole, Steven W. The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur. OIP 114.
Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1996.
——. Nippur in Late Assyrian Times c. 755–612 B.C. SAAS 4. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian
Text Corpus Project, 1996.
Cole, Steven W. and Hermann Gasche. “Second- and First-Millennium.” in Changing
Watercourses in Babylonia, 1–64. MHEM V/1. Chicago and Ghent: Oriental
Insititute and the University of Ghent, 1998.
Crawford, Vaughn E. “Nippur, the Holy City.” Archaeology 12 (1959): 74–83.
Curtin, Philip D. The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1969.
Dal Lago, Enrico and Constantina Katsari, eds. Slave Systems: Ancient and Modern.
Dalley, Stephanie. Babylonian Tablets from the First Sealand Dynasty in the Schøyen
Collection. CUSAS 9. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 2009.
Dandamaev, Muhammad A. “Forced Labor in the Palace Economy in Achaemenid
Iran.” AoF 2 (1975): 71–78.
——. Slavery in Babylonia from Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (626–331 B.C.).
Rev. ed. Translated by Victoria A. Powell. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University
Press, 1984.
——. “Free Hired Labor in Babylonia during the Sixth through Fourth Centuries B.C.”
Translated by Victoria A. Powell. In Labor in the Ancient Near East, edited
by Marvin A. Powell, 271–79. AOS 68. New Haven: American Oriental Society,
1987.
——. “Wages and Prices in Babylonia in the 6th and 5th Centuries B.C.” AoF 15
(1988): 53–58.
——. “The Composition of the Citizens in First Millennium Babylonia.” AoF 24
(1997): 135–47.
David, Paul A. et al. Reckoning with Slavery: A Critical Study in the Quantitative
History of American Negro Slavery. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.
Davis, David Brion. Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
del Monte, Giuseppe F. and Johann Tischler. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethi-
tischen Texte. RGTC 6. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1982.
Diakonoff, Igor M. “On the Structure of Old Babylonian Society.” In Beiträge zur
sozialen Struktur des alten Vorderasien, edited by Horst Klengel, 15–31. Berlin:
Akademie Verlag, 1971.
——. “Slave Labour vs. Non-Slave Labour: The Problem of Definition.” In Labor in the
Ancient Near East, edited by Marvin A. Powell, 1–3. AOS 68. New Haven: American
Oriental Society, 1987.
Donbaz, Veysel and Norman Yoffee. Old Babylonian Texts from Kish Conserved in the
Istanbul Archaeological Museums. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 17. Malibu: Undena
Publications, 1986.
Duncan, Simon and Rosalind Edwards, eds. Single Mothers in an International
Context: Mothers or Workers? London: UCL Press, 1997.
Durand, Jean-Marie. “Les ‘slave documents’ de Merodach-baladan.” JA 267 (1979):
245–60.
Edzard, D. O. “Die Beziehungen Babyloniens und Ägyptens in der mittelbabylo-
nischen Zeit und das Gold.” JESHO 3 (1960): 38–55.
Ellis, Maria de Jong. Agriculture and the State in Ancient Mesopotamia. Occasional
Publications of the Babylonian Fund 1. Philadelphia: University Museum, 1976.
Eltis, David and Stanley L. Engerman. “Was the Slave Trade Dominated by Men?”
Journal of Interdisciplinary History 23 (1992): 237–57.
——. “Fluctuations in Sex and Age Ratios in the Translatlantic Slave Trade, 1663–
1864.” The Economic History Review, New Series 46 (1993): 308–323.
Engerman, Stanley L., ed. Terms of Labor: Slavery, Serfdom, and Free Labor. Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1999.
Englund, Robert K. Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur-III Fischerei. BBVO 10.
Berlin: D. Reimer, 1990.
——. “Hard Work—Where Will It Get You? Labor Management in Ur III Mesopo
tamia.” JNES 50 (1991): 255–80.
Fallers, Lloyd A. “The Range of Variation in Actual Family Size: A Critique of Marion
J. Levy Jr.’s Argument.” In Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure, edited by
Ansley J. Coale et al., 70–82. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965.
Farber, Walter. “Akkadisch ‘blind’.” ZA 75 (1985): 210–33.
Finley, M. I. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. Middlesex: Penguin Books, Ltd.,
1980.
——. The Ancient Economy. Updated Edition. Sather Classical Lectures 43. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1999.
Fischer, Clarence S. Excavations at Nippur. Philadelphia: Babylonian Expedition of the
University of Pennsylvania, 1905.
Floud, Roderick. An Introduction to Quantitative Methods for Historians. 2nd edition.
London and Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1973.
Floud, Roderick, ed. Essays in Quantitative Economic History. Oxford: Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1974.
Fogel, Robert William. Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American
Slavery. 4 vols. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1989.
Fogel, Robert William and Stanley L. Engerman. Time on the Cross: The Economics of
American Negro Slavery. 2 vols. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1974.
Forlanini, Massimo. “La regione del Tauro nei testi hittiti.” Vicino Oriente 7 (1988):
129–70.
Frame, Grant. Babylonia 689-627 B. C.: A Political History. PIHANS 69. Leiden:
Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1992.
——. Rulers of Babylonia from the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian
Domination (1157-612 B.C.). RIMB 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995.
Franke, Judith A. “Area WB.” In Excavations at Nippur: Twelfth Season, by McGuire
Gibson et al., 53–106. OIC 23. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, 1978.
Freydank, H. “Anmerkungen zu mittelassyrischen Texten.” OLZ 66 (1971): 534–35.
Furet, François. “Quantitative History.” Daedalus 100 (1979): 151–67.
Garelli, Paul, Dominique Charpin, and Jean-Marie Durand. “Rôle des prisonniers et
les déportés à l’époque médio-assyrienne,” in Horst Klengel, Gesellschaft und Kultur
im alten Vorderasien, 69–75. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1982.
Gasche, H. La Babylonie au 17e siècle avant notre ère: Approche archéologique, prob-
lèmes et perspectives. MHEM 1. Ghent: University of Ghent, 1989.
Gehlken, Erlend. “Childhood and Youth, Work and Old Age in Babylonia—A
Statistical Analysis.” In Approaching the Babylonian Economy: Proceedings of the
START Project Symposium Held in Vienna, 1–3 July 2004, edited by Heather D.
Baker and Michael Jursa, 89–120. AOAT 330. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005.
Gelb, I. J. “Ethnic Reconstruction and Onomastic Evidence.” Journal of the American
Name Society 10 (1962): 45–52.
——. “The Ancient Mesopotamian Ration System.” JNES 24 (1965): 230–43.
——. “From Freedom to Slavery.” In Gesellschaftsklassen im alten Zweistromland
und in den angrenzenden Gebieten–XVIII. Rencontre assyriologique internationale,
München, 29. Juni bis 3. Juli 1970 (CRRAI 18), edited by D. O. Edzard, 81–92.
Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1972.
——. “Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia.” JNES 32 (1973): 70–98.
——. “Quantitative Evaluation of Slavery and Serfdom.” In Kramer Anniversary
Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noel Kramer, edited by Barry L.
Eichler with the assistance of Jane W. Heimerdinger and Åke W. Sjöberg., 195–207.
AOAT 25. Kevelaer : Butzon & Bercker, 1976.
——. “Definition and Discussion of Slavery and Serfdom.” UF 11 (1979): 283–97.
——. “Household and Family in Early Mesopotamia,” In State and Temple Economy in
the Ancient Near East, edited by E. Lipinski, 1–97. Vol. 1. OLA 5. Leuven: Peeters
Publishing, 1979.
——. “Comparative Method in the Study of the Society and Economy of the Ancient
Near East.” Rocznik Orientalistyczny 41 (1980): 29–36.
Gibson, McGuire. The City and Area of Kish. Coconut Grove, FL: Field Research
Projects, 1972.
——. “The Twelfth Season at Nippur.” Expedition 16/4 (1974): 23–32.
——. Excavations at Nippur: Eleventh Season. OIC 22. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1975.
——. “Nippur: New Perspectives.” Archaeology 30 (1977): 26–37.
——. “Nippur 1975, A Summary Report.” Sumer 34 (1978): 114–21.
——. “Current Research at Nippur: Ecological, Anthropological, and Documentary
Interplay.” In L’Archéologie de l’Iraq: Perspectives et limites de l’interprétation anthro-
pologique des documents, edited by M.-Th. Barrelet, 193–205. Paris: Éditions du
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1980.
——. “Patterns of Occupation at Nippur.” In Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at
the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, edited by Maria de Jong Ellis,
33–54. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 14. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania, 1992.
Gibson, McGuire et al. Excavations at Nippur: Twelfth Season. OIC 23. Chicago: The
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1978.
Gibson, McGuire, Richard Zettler, and James A. Armstrong. “The Southern Corner of
Nippur: Excavations during the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Seasons.” Sumer 39
(1983): 170–90.
Grayson, A. K. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5.
Locust Valley, N. Y.: J. J. Augustin, 1975.
Grégoire, J.-P. “Major Units for the Transformation of Grain: The Grain-Grinding
Households (e2-Ḫ AR.Ḫ AR) of Southern Mesopotamia at the End of the 3rd
Millennium before the Common Era.” In Prehistory of Agriculture: New
Experimental and Ethnographic Approaches, edited by P. C. Anderson, 223–37.
Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 17. Los Angeles: University of
Califormia Press, 1999.
Groneberg, Brigitte. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der altbabylonischen Zeit. RGTC
3. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1980.
Gurney, O. R. “Texts from Dūr-Kurigalzu.” Iraq 11 (1949): 131–49 and plates.
——. “Further Texts from Dūr-Kurigalzu.” Sumer 9 (1953): 21–34 and plates.
——. Middle Babylonian Legal Documents and Other Texts. UET 7. London: British
Museum Publications, 1974.
——. The Middle Babylonian Legal and Economic Texts from Ur. Oxford: British School
of Archaeology in Iraq, 1983.
Harris W. V. “Demography, Geography and the Source of Roman Slaves.” The Journal
of Roman Studies 89 (1999): 62–75.
Herlihy, David and Christiane Klapisch-Zuber. Tuscans and Their Families: A Study of
the Florentine Catasto of 1427. Yale Series in Economic History. New Haven: Yale
Heuman, Gad, ed. Out of the House of Bondage: Runaways, Resistance and Marronage
in Africa and the New World. London: Frank Cass and Company Limited, 1986.
Hinke, W. J. Selected Babylonian Kudurru Inscriptions. Semitic Studies Series 14.
Leiden: Brill, 1911.
Hirsch, Hans. “Zwei mittelassyrische Protokolle uber die Gestellung von Dienst
mannen.” AfO 23 (1970): 79–83.
Hollingsworth, T. H. Historical Demography. London: Hodder & Stoughton Limited,
1969.
Hölscher, Monika. Die Personennamen der kassitenzeitlichen Texte aus Nippur.
IMGULA 1. Münster: Rhema Verlag, 1996.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. “On the Textile Industry at Ur under Ibbī-Sîn.” In Toward the
Image of Tammuz, edited by William L. Moran, 216–30. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
Jursa, Michael. Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents: Typology,
Contents, and Archives. GMTR 1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005.
——. “The Babylonian Economy in the First Millennium BC.” In The Babylonian
World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick, 224–35. New York: Routledge, 2007.
Kay, Marvin L. and Lorin Lee Cary. “A Demographic Analysis of Colonial North
Carolina with Special Emphasis upon the Slave and Black Populations.” In Black
Americans in North Carolina and the South, edited by Jeffrey J. Crow and Flora J.
Hatley. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984.
Kessler, Karlheinz. “Kassitische Tontafeln vom Tell Imlihiye.” Baghdader Mitteilungen
13 (1982): 51–116.
King, L. W. Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the British Museum.
2 vols. London: British Museum, 1912.
Klengel, Horst. “Non-Slave Labour in the Old Babylonian Period: The Basic Outlines.”
In Labor in the Ancient Near East, edited by Marvin A. Powell, 159–66. AOS 68.
New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1987.
Knudtzon, Jörgen Alexander. Die El-Amarna Tafeln, Anmerkungen und Register
bearbeitet von O. Weber und E. Ebeling. 2 vols. VAB 2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs,
1907–15.
Kozuh, Michael G. “The Sacrificial Economy: On the Management of Sacrificial Sheep
and Goats at the Neo-Babylonian/Achaemenid Eanna Temple of Uruk (c. 625–520
B.C.).” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2006.
Kulikoff, Allan. “A ‘Prolifick’ People”: Black Population Growth in the Chesapeake
Colonies, 1700–1790.” Southern Studies 16 (1977): 391–428.
Kümmel, Hans Martin. Familie, Beruf und Amt im spätbabylonischen Uruk:
Prosopographische Untersuchungen zu Berufsgruppen des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. in
Uruk. ADOG 20. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1979.
Lambert, W. G. “Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity.” JCS 11 (1957): 1–14, 112.
Larsen, M. T. “Commercial Networks in the Ancient Near East.” In Centre and
Periphery in the Ancient World, edited by M. Rowlands et al., 57–65. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Laslett, Peter. “Size and Structure of the Household in England over Three Centuries.”
Population Studies 23 (1969): 199–223.
——. “Introduction: The History of the Family.” In Household and Family in Past Time:
Comparative Studies in the Size and Structure of the Domestic Group over the Last
Three Centuries in England, France, Serbia, Japan and Colonial North America, with
Further Materials from Western Europe, edited by Peter Laslett with assistance by
Richard Wall, 1–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Laslett, Peter, Karla Oosterveen and Richard M. Smith, eds. Bastardy and Its Com
parative History: Studies in the History of Illegitimacy and Marital Nonconformism in
Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, North America, Jamaica and Japan. Studies in
Social and Demographic History. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980.
Levy, Marion J. Jr. “Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure.” In Aspects of the
Analysis of Family Structure, edited by Ansley J. Coale et al., 1–63. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1965.
Littlefield, Daniel C. “Plantations, Paternalism, and Profitability: Factors Affecting
African Demography in the Old British Empire.” The Journal of Southern History 47
(1981): 167–82.
——. Rice and Slaves: Ethnicity and the Slave Trade in Colonial South Carolina. Baton
Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1981.
Liverani, Mario. International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600-1100 B.C. New
York: Palgrave, 2001.
Lutz, Henry Frederick. Selected Sumerian and Babylonian Texts. Publications of the
Babylonian Section 1/2. Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1919.
Lynch, Katherine A. Individuals, Families, and Communities in Europe, 1200–1800: The
Urban Foundations of Western Society. Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy
and Society in Past Time 37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
MacGinnis, John. “The Manumission of a Royal Slave.” ASJ 15 (1993): 99–106.
Maekawa, K. “Female Weavers and Their Children in Lagash—Pre-Sargonic and
Ur III.” ASJ 2 (1980): 81–125.
——. “Collective Labor Service in Girsu-Lagash: The Pre-Sargonic and Ur III Periods.”
In Labor in the Ancient Near East, edited by Marvin A. Powell, 49–71. AOS 68. New
Haven: American Oriental Society, 1987.
——. “New Texts on the Collective Labor Service of the Erín-People of Ur III Girsu.”
ASJ 10 (1988): 37–94.
——. “Ur III Girsu Records of Labor Forces in the British Museum (1).” ASJ 20 (1998):
63–110.
——. “The Temples and the ‘Temple Personnel’ of the Ur III Girsu-Lagash.” In Priests
and Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the Second Colloquium on the
Ancient Near East—The City and Its Life Held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center
in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo) March 22–24, 1996, edited by K. Watanabe, 61–102.
Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1999.
Martin, Dale B. “The Construction of the Ancient Family: Methodological
Considerations.” The Journal of Roman Studies 86 (1996): 40–60.
Matthews, Donald M. Principles of Composition in Near Eastern Glyptic of the Later
Second Millennium B.C. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 8.
Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990.
——. The Kassite Glyptic from Nippur. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 116. Freiburg:
Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.
McCown, Donald Eugene and Richard C. Haines. Nippur I: Temple of Enlil, Scribal
Quarter, and Soundings. Excavations of the Joint Expedition to Nippur of the
University Museum of Philadelphia and the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago. OIP 78. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967.
McCown, Donald Eugene, Richard C. Haines, and Robert D. Biggs. Nippur II: The
North Temple and Sounding E. Excavations of the Joint Expedition to Nippur of the
American Schools of Oriental Research and the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago. OIP 97. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
1978.
Meillassoux, Claude. Anthropologie de l’esclavage: Le ventre de fer et d’argent. Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France, 1986.
——. L’esclavage en Afrique précoloniale. Paris: François Maspers, 1975.
Menard, Russell R. “The Maryland Slave Population, 1658–1730: A Demographic
Profile of Blacks in Four Counties.” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series
32 (1975): 29–54.
——. “Slave Demography in the Lowcountry, 1670–1740: From Frontier Society to
Plantation Regime.” The South Carolina Historical Magazine 96 (1995): 280–303.
Mendelsohn, Isaac. Slavery in the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
Reprint, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1978.
Moorey, P. R. S. “The Hurrians, the Mittani and Technological Innovation.” In
Archaeologia iranica et orientalis: Miscellanea in honorem Louis vanden Berghe,
edited by L. De Meyer and E. Haerinck, 273–86. Vol. 1. Ghent: Peeters Press, 1989.
Moran, William L. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1992.
Morgan, Philip D. “Black Society in the Lowcountry, 1760–1810.” In Slavery and
Freedom in the Age of the American Revolution, edited by Ira Berlin and Ronald
Hoffman, 83–142. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983.
——. “Colonial South Carolina Runaways: Their Significance for Slave Culture.” In
Out of the House of Bondage: Runaways, Resistance and Marronage in Africa and the
New World, edited by Gad Heuman, 57–78. London: Frank Cass and Company
Limited, 1986.
Mullen, Gerald W. Flight and Rebellion: Slave Resistance in Eighteenth-Century
Virginia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.
Nashef, Khaled. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der mittelbabylonischen und mittel
assyrischen Zeit. RGTC 5. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1982.
——. “The Nippur Countryside in the Kassite Period.” In Nippur at the Centennial:
Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, edited by Maria de
Jong Ellis, 151–59. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 14.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1992.
Newell, Colin. Methods and Models in Demography. New York: Guilford Press, 1988.
Oppenheim, A. Leo. “Akk. Arad ekalli = ‘Builder.’ ” ArOr 17/2 (1949): 227–35.
——. “Siege-Documents from Nippur.” Iraq 17 (1955): 69–89.
Palmié, Stephan, ed. Slave Cultures and the Cultures of Slavery. Knoxville: University
of Tennessee Press, 1995.
Parpola, Simo and Kazuko Watanabe. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths.
SAA 2. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988.
Patterson, Orlando. Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1982.
——. “Slavery, Gender, and Work in the Pre-Modern World and Early Greece:
A Cross- Cultural Analysis.” In Slave Systems: Ancient and Modern, edited by Enrico
Dal Lago and Constantina Katsari, 32–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2008.
Pedersén, Olof. Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500-300 B.C.
Bethesda: CDL Press, 1998.
——. Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon: Die Tontafeln der Grabung Robert Koldeweys
1899–1917. ADOG 25. Berlin: Saarländische Druckerei und Verlag, 2005.
Peiser, F. E. Urkunden aus der Zeit der dritten babylonischen Dynastie. Berlin: Wolf
Peiser Verlag, 1905.
Petschow, Herbert P. H. Mittelbabylonische Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden der
Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena. Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissen
schaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse, vol. 64/4. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 1974.
——. “Die Sklavenkaufverträge des šandabakku Enlil-kidinnī von Nippur.” Orientalia
52 (1983): 143–55.
Peters, John Punnett. Nippur or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates: The
Narrative of the University of Pennsylvania Expedition to Babylonia in the Years
1888–1890. 2nd edition. 2 vols. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1897.
Postgate, J. N. Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. 2nd
edition. New York: Routledge, 1994.
Powell, Marvin A., ed. Labor in the Ancient Near East. AOS 68. New Haven: American
Oriental Society, 1987.
Preston, Samuel H., Patrick Heuveline, and Michel Guillot. Demography: Measuring
and Modeling Population Processes. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.
Radau, Hugo. Letters to Cassite Kings from the Temple Archives of Nippur. BE 17.
Philadelphia: Department of Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania, 1908.
Rainey, A. F. El Amarna Tablets 359–379: Supplement to J. A. Knudtzon Die El-Amarna
Tafeln. AOAT 8. Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon und Bercker and
Neukirchener-Verlag, 1970.
Rawson, Beryl. “The Roman Family.” In The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives,
edited by Beryl Rawson, 1–57. London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1986.
Reade, Julian. “Kassites and Assyrians in Iran.” Iran 16 (1978): 137–43.
Renger, Johannes. “Flucht als soziales Problem in der altbabylonische Gesellschaft.”
In Gesellschaftsklassen im alten Zweistromland und in den angrenzenden Gebieten–
XVIII. Rencontre assyriologique internationale, München, 29. Juni bis 3. Juli 1970
(CRRAI 18), edited by D. O. Edzard, 167–82. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1972.
Richardson, Seth Francis Corning. “The Collapse of a Complex State: A Reappraisal of
the End of the First Dynasty of Babylon, 1683-1597 B.C.” Ph.D. diss., Columbia
University, 2002.
Robson, Eleanor. “Tables and Tabular Formatting in Sumer, Babylonia, and Assyria,
2500 B.C.E.–50 C.E.” In The History of Mathematical Tables: From Sumer to
Spreadsheets, edited by M. Campbell-Kelly et al., 18–47. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2003.
——. “Accounting for Change: The Development of Tabular Bookkeeping in Early
Mesopotamia.” In Creating Economic Order, edited by Michael Hudson and
Cornelia Wunsch, 107–44. International Scholars Conference on Ancient Near
Eastern Economies, vol. 4. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 2004.
——. Mathematics in Ancient Iraq: A Social History. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2008.
Rotberg, Robert I. and Theodore K. Rabb, eds. Population and Economy: Population
and History from the Traditional to the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge
Roth, Martha T. “Age at Marriage and the Household: A Study of Neo-Babylonian and
Neo-Assyrian Forms,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 29 (1987):
715–47.
——. Babylonian Marriage Agreements 7th–3rd Centuries B.C. AOAT 222. Neukirchen-
Vluyn and Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon und Bercker, 1989.
——. “The Neo-Babylonian Widow.” JCS 43–45 (1991–1993): 1–26.
——. “Tašmētu-damqat and Daughters.” In Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für
Joachim Oelsner, edited by J. Marzahn, H. Neumann, and A. Fuchs, 387–400. AOAT
252. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000.
Roth, Martha T. with a contribution by Harry A. Hoffner Jr. Law Collections from
Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. 2nd edition. Writings from the Ancient World 6,
edited by Piotr Michalowski. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.
Sassmannshausen, Leonhard. Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft Babyloniens in
der Kassitenzeit. Baghdader Forschungen 21. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern,
2001.
Scheidel, Walter. Measuring Sex, Age and Death in the Roman Empire: Explorations in
Ancient Demography. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 21. Ann Arbor:
Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1996.
——. Death on the Nile: Disease and the Demography of Roman Egypt. Mnemosyne
bibliotheca classica Batava Supplementum 228. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
——, ed. Debating Roman Demography. Mnemosyne bibliotheca classica Batava.
Supplementum 211. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
——. “Human Mobility in Roman Italy, II: The Slave Population.” The Journal of
Roman Studies 95(2005): 64–79.
——. “Marriage, Families, and Survival: Demographic Aspects.” In A Companion to

the Roman Army, 417–434, edited by Paul Erdkamp. Blackwell Companions to the
Ancient World. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2007.
Schloen, David. The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2001.
Sjoberg, Gideon. The Preindustrial City: Past and Present. Glencoe: The Free Press of
Glencoe, Illinois, 1960.
Slanksi, Kathryn. “Middle Babylonian Period.” In A History of Ancient Near Eastern
Law vol. 1, edited by Raymond Westbrook, 485–520. Handbook of Oriental Studies
72/1. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Snell, Daniel C. Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East. Culture and History of
the Ancient Near East 8, edited by B. Halpern et al. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
van Soldt, W. H. “Kassite Textiles for Enlil-Nērāru’s Messenger,” AoF 24 (1997):
97–104.
Speiser, E. A. “The Hurrian Participation in the Civilizations of Mesopotamia, Syria,
and Palestine.” Journal of World History 1 (1953–54): 311–27.
Srinivasan, K. Basic Demographic Techniques and Applications. New Delhi: Sage
Publications, 1998.
Stamm, Johann Jakob. Die akkadische Namengebung. MVAG 44. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs,
1939.
Steinkeller, Piotr. “The Foresters of Umma: Toward a Definition of Ur III Labor.”
In Labor in the Ancient Near East, edited by Marvin A. Powell, 73–115. AOS 68.
New Haven, American Oriental Society, 1987.
——. “The Organization of Crafts in Third Millennium Babylonia: The Case of
Potters.” AoF 23 (1996): 232–53.
Stol, Martin. “Blindness and Night-Blindness in Akkadian,” JNES 45 (1986):
295–99.
Stone, Elizabeth C. “Economic Crisis and Social Upheaval in Nippur in the Old
Babylonian Period.” In Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of
Greater Mesopotamia, edited by Louis D. Levine and T. Cuyler Young, Jr., 267–89.
Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 7. Malibu: Undena Publications, 1977.
——. “The Social and Economic Organization of Old Babylonian Nippur.” Ph.D. diss.
University of Chicago, 1979.
——. “Texts, Architecture and Ethnographic Analogy: Patterns of Residence in Old
Babylonian Nippur,” Iraq 43 (1981): 19–33.
——. Nippur Neighborhoods. SAOC 44. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, 1987.
Studevent-Hickman, Benjamin. “The Organization of Labor in Ur III Babylonia.”
2 vols. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2006.
Tallqvist, Knut L. Assyrian Personal Names. Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae 43.
Helsinki: Finska Vetenskapssocieteten, 1914.
Tenney, Jonathan S. “Life on the Bottom of Babylonian Society: Servile Laborers
at Nippur in the 14th and 13th Centuries B.C.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago,
2009.
Torczyner, Harry. Altbabylonische Tempelrechnungen. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien 55. Vienna: A. Hölder, 1913.
Turley, David. Slavery. New Perspectives on the Past. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers,
2000.
Van De Mieroop, Marc. Society and Enterprise in Old Babylonian Ur. BBVO 12, edited
by Volkert Haas et al. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1992.
van Koppen, Frans. “The Geography of the Slave Trade and Northern Mesopotamia
in the Late Old Babylonian Period.” In Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited, edited by
Hermann Hunger and Regine Pruzsinszky, 9–33. Österreichische Akademie der
Wissenschaften Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 32. Vienna:Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004.
Van Lerberghe, Karel and Gabriella Voet with the assistance of Hendrik Hameeuw. A
Late Old Babylonian Temple Archive from Dūr-Abiešuḫ . CUSAS 8. Bethesda,
Maryland: CDL Press, 2009.
von Dassow, Eva. “Social Stratification of Alalaḫ under the Mittani Empire.” Ph.D.
diss., New York University, 1997.
——. State and Society in the Late Bronze Age: Alalakh under the Mittani Empire.
SCCNH 17. Bethesda: CDL Press, 2008.
Wachter, Kenneth W., Eugene A. Hammel and Peter Laslett. Statistical Studies of
Historical Social Structure. New York: Academic Press, 1978.
Waetzoldt, Harmut. Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textilindustrie. Studi econ-
omici e tecnologici 1. Rome: Centro per le Antichità e la Storia dell’Arte del Vicino
Oriente, 1972.
——. “Compensation of Craft Workers and Officials in the Ur III Period.” Translated
by Marvin A. Powell. In Labor in the Ancient Near East, edited by Marvin A. Powell,
117–41. AOS 68. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1987.
——. “Die Situation der Frauen und Kinder anhand ihrer Einkommensverhältnisse
zur Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur.” AoF 15 (1988): 30–44.
Wall, Richard. “The Household: Demographic and Economic Change in England,
1650–1970.” In Family Forms in Historic Europe, edited by Richard Wall, Jean Robin
and Peter Laslett, 493–512. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Wall, Richard, Jean Robin and Peter Laslett, eds. Family Forms in Historic Europe.
Westbrook, Raymond. “A Sumerian Freedman.” In Literatur, Politik und Recht in
Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, edited by W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, and
A. Zgoll, 333–39. Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 14. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
2003.
Wilhelm, Gernot. The Hurrians. Translated by Jennifer Barnes. Warminster: Aris and
Phillips, 1989.
Windley, Lathan Algera. “Profile of Runaway Slaves in Virginia and South Carolina
from 1730 through 1787.” Ph.D diss., University of Iowa, 1974.
Woolley, Leonard. The Kassite Period and the Period of the Assyrian Kings. UE 8.
London: British Museum and University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania,
1965.
Woolley, Leonard and Max Mallowan. The Old Babylonian Period. UE 7. London:
British Museum and University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1976.
Wrigley, E. A. and R. S. Schofield. The Population History of England 1541–1871: A
Reconstruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981.
Zaccagnini, Carlo. “The Merchant at Nuzi.” Iraq 39 (1977): 171–89.
——. “Aspects of Ceremonial Exchange in the Near East during the Late Second
Millennium B.C.” In Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, edited by
M. Rowlands et al., 57–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Zadok, Ran. Geographical Names according to New- and Late-Babylonian Texts. RGTC
8. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1985.
Zettler, Richard. The Ur III Temple of Inanna at Nippur: The Operation and
Organization of Urban Religious Institutions in Mesopotamia in the Late Third
Millennium B. C. BBVO 11. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1992.
——. Nippur III: Kassite Buildings in Area WC-1. OIP 111, edited by McGuire Gibson.
Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1993.
List and Index of Cuneiform Sources
The following cuneiform sources were used to complete this study.

Published texts are listed by publication number, unpublished by
museum number. The following list includes the 520 tablets that were
used in the research data base as well as pertinent documents which
fall outside the parameters established on pages 7–9. Pages and foot-
notes in which a text is mentioned, if any, are given to the right of the
publication or museum number.
B. BE 14 62 26 nn. 54 and 58, 42 n. 14,

B. 143+227 (Pedersén, ADOG 25, 66–70 (passim in footnotes), 94 n. 2
M8:17) 31, 102 n. 63 BE 14 73 145 n. 39
BE 14 91a 8 n. 1, 26 nn. 54 and 57,
Baghdader Mitteilungen 13 (1982) 42 n. 14, 66–70 (passim in footnotes),
BaM 13 1 (pp. 57–60) 33 69 n. 19
BE 14 105 42 n. 14, 110 n. 105
BBSt BE 14 120 22–23, 42 n. 14, 60 n. 66,
BBSt 33 36 103 n. 70
BE 14 126 74 n. 45, 155
BE 1 BE 14 127 35 n. 95
BE 1 43 141 n. 16 BE 14 128a 33, 73–74 n. 40
BE 14 135 35 n. 95, 120
BE 14 BE 14 138 25 n. 43, 50 n. 33, 57 n. 52
BE 14 1 33, 102 n. 59, 122 n. 160, BE 14 142 60 n. 63–64, 112 n. 118,
126 n. 189 155–56
BE 14 2 BE 14 166
BE 14 7 31, 102 nn. 59 and 63, 123 n.
169, 129 n. 210 BE 15
BE 14 11 35 n. 95, 117 n. 136, BE 15 26 143 n. 23
118 n. 138 BE 15 48
BE 14 12 143 n. 24 BE 15 96 3 n. 6, 27 n. 59
BE 14 19 27 n. 65, 28, 29 nn. 69 and 73, BE 15 111 27 n. 59, 43, 95 n. 14
42 n. 14, 95 n. 12 BE 15 160 26 nn. 54 and 56, 112
BE 14 20 27 n. 65, 95 n. 12 BE 15 177
BE 14 22 27 n. 65, 28 n. 66, 29 n. 70, 30 BE 15 180 27 n. 65, 30 n. 78, 95 n. 12,
n. 74, 42 n. 14, 95 nn. 15–16, 212 n. 4 212–26
BE 14 42 BE 15 184 25 n. 51, 46 nn. 22 and 24, 86
BE 14 58 3 n. 6, 27 nn. 59–60 and n. 91, 103 n. 67
62–64, 42 n. 14, 62–70, 73, 74 n. 45, BE 15 185 25 n. 51, 46 n. 22, 103 n.
86 n. 89, 95 n. 14, 101 n. 57, 104 n. 80, 68, 156
107 n. 93, 110 n. 105, 112 n. 116, 127 BE 15 188 25 n. 51, 60 n. 65, 100 nn.
n. 197, 130 n. 214, 143 n. 35, 148 n. 5, 50–51
151–54 BE 15 190 8 n. 1, 25 nn. 51–52, 100 nn.
BE 14 60 8 n. 1, 26 nn. 54 and 58, 42 n. 50–51, 101 n. 57, 131
14, 66–70 (passim in footnotes) BE 15 198
246 list and index of cuneiform sources
BE 15 199 143 n. 34 CBS 6620

BE 15 200 25 n. 51, 46 n. 22, n. 24, 86 n. CBS 7092+10654 + 13380B + N 4268, 43
91, 100 n. 50–51 n. 17, 60 nn. 63–64, 73 n. 40, 74 n. 45,
90, 110 n. 105, 112–13 n. 118, 118 n.
BE 17 144, 148 n. 5, 165–70
BE 17 51 CBS 7212 62 n. 75
BE 17 83 CBS 7220
CBS 7222
BM CBS 7231
BM 17626 34, 35 n. 95, 106 n. 89, 116, CBS 7240 118 n. 143, 119
117 n. 136, 118 n. 137–38 CBS 7242 127 n. 194
BM 82699 22, 23 n. 41, 62 n. 75, 118 nn. CBS 7716 119 n. 150
143–44 CBS 7726 42 n. 14, 94 n. 3, 102 n. 58,
125–26, 143 n. 31
CBS CBS 7752 74 n. 45, 84 n. 81, 130 n. 219,
CBS 2126 148 n. 5, 170–74
CBS 3225+3291 59–60 n. 62 CBS 7767
CBS 3431 CBS 7769
CBS 3465 62 n. 75, 94 n. 2, 95 n. 6, 98 n. CBS 8089 19 n. 27, 102 n. 62
31, 157 CBS 8509 43
CBS 3471 CBS 8510 43 n. 16, 107 n. 93, 110 n. 105
CBS 3472 19–20, 86 n. 89, 103 n. CBS 8557
74, 104 n. 75, 107 n. 93, 110 n. 105, CBS 8558 174
111 n. 110, 148 n. 5, 157–61 CBS 8600A 35 n. 95, 117 n. 136
CBS 3474 30 n. 76, 95 n. 13, 103 n. 69, CBS 8728
121 n. 158, 211–12 n. 3, 212–14 CBS 8889
CBS 3480 CBS 8899 95 n. 13, 121 n. 158
CBS 3484A 74 n. 45, 161–62 CBS 9803 11, 103 n. 69
CBS 3486 112 n. 118 CBS 9881
CBS 3488 103 n. 72 CBS 10437
CBS 3493 118 n. 144, 120 n. 153 CBS 10450 103 n. 67
CBS 3513 CBS 10585 103 n. 71
CBS 3521 104 n. 75 CBS 10654 see CBS 7092+
CBS 3523 101 n. 54, 103 n. 68 CBS 10660
CBS 3534 CBS 10663
CBS 3638 103 n. 68 CBS 10665
CBS 3640 CBS 10667 107 n. 94
CBS 3646 43, 74 n. 45, 94 n. 4 CBS 10668
CBS 3648 57 n. 52 CBS 10669
CBS 3649 62 n. 75, 103 n. 70 CBS 10671 110 n. 105, 111 n. 108
CBS 3650 86 n. 89, 103 n. 67, 162–63 CBS 10674
CBS 3651 CBS 10681
CBS 3667 163–64 CBS 10696
CBS 3681 143 n. 31 CBS 10699 110 n. 105
CBS 3695 97 n. 25, 130 n. 214, CBS 10700 43 n. 16, 59–60 n. 62
164–65 CBS 10701
CBS 3736 46 n. 23, 95 n. 11, 107 n. 93, CBS 10703
109 n. 102, 112 CBS 10707
CBS 3816 43 n. 18, 95 n. 10 CBS 10713 107 n. 94, 110 n. 105,
CBS 3819 120 n. 153
CBS 4904 CBS 10714
CBS 4906 23 CBS 10715 107 n. 93, 110 n. 105
CBS 4908 CBS 10728
CBS 4914 CBS 10733 33
list and index of cuneiform sources 247
CBS 10734 95 n. 9 CBS 11971

CBS 10741 46 n. 23, 107 n. 93 CBS 11976
CBS 10743 96 n. 18 CBS 11978 21, 114 n. 125, 115
CBS 10750 CBS 12532
CBS 10809 CBS 12560
CBS 10810 60 n. 64, 112–13 n. 118 CBS 12561
CBS 10826 CBS 12572 43 n. 15
CBS 10835 CBS 12598
CBS 10934 57 n. 52, 98 n. 29 CBS 12630
CBS 10959 CBS 12691
CBS 10977 CBS 12721
CBS 11051 60 n. 64, 107 n. 93, CBS 12767
109 n. 102 CBS 12768
CBS 11103 120 n. 153 CBS 12769
CBS 11106 35 n. 95, 106 n. 89, 112 n. CBS 12771 + 13316 + UM 29-13-525
117, 116, 117 n. 136, 118 n. 139, CBS 12934
128 n. 201 CBS 13248
CBS 11142 CBS 13271
CBS 11143 CBS 13272 62 n. 77
CBS 11425 CBS 13287
CBS 11442 143 n. 26 CBS 13303
CBS 11453 35 n. 95, 106 n. 89, 117 n. CBS 13311 57 n. 52
136, 118 n. 142 CBS 13316 see CBS 12771+
CBS 11501 103 n. 70 CBS 13319
CBS 11505 23, 97 n. 25, 174–75 CBS 13322 43 n. 16
CBS 11531 21 CBS 13337
CBS 11612 CBS 13341
CBS 11617 CBS 13380B see CBS 7092+
CBS 11618 CBS 13455 86 n. 89, 178–79
CBS 11638 CBS 13490 43 n. 16
CBS 11642 CBS 13508 57 n. 52
CBS 11670 95 n. 13, 121 n. 158 CBS 14210
CBS 11697 CBS 15178 35 n. 97, 43
CBS 11747
CBS 11750 CT 51
CBS 11751 CT 51 19 66–70 (passim in footnotes)
CBS 11796
CBS 11797 98 n. 30 FLP
CBS 11801 107 n. 93 FLP 1313 98 n. 30
CBS 11803
CBS 11826 95 n. 13, 121 n. 158 IM
CBS 11833 IM 49992 101 n. 53
CBS 11835 95 n. 8
CBS 11849 141 n. 17 Iraq 11 (1949)
CBS 11868 2 (pp. 132–33) 129 n. 209
CBS 11873 43 n. 16, 103 n. 72 8 (pp. 146–47) 36 n. 101
CBS 11899 23
CBS 11907 Ki
CBS 11909 Ki. 1056 72 n. 38
CBS 11919
CBS 11937 74 n. 45, 88–89, 103 n. 73, MBTU
176–77 MBTU 1
CBS 11966 MBTU 2
CBS 11969 130–31 n. 219, 177–78 MBTU 21
MBTU 22 MUN 105 27 n. 65, 30 nn. 80, 82, and

MBTU 23 84, 31, 42 n. 14, 95 n. 12, 211–12 n. 3,
MBTU 24 212, 215–18, 221–22, 224
MBTU 25 MUN 108 27 n. 65, 30 n. 81 and
MBTU 26 nn. 84–85, 42 n. 14, 95 n. 12, 212,
MBTU 27 216–18
MUN 109 27 n. 65, 30 nn. 81 and 85, 42
MDP n. 14, 95 n. 12
MDP 2 95–96 129 n. 208 MUN 110 27 n. 65, 30 nn. 81 and
84–85, 42 n. 14, 95 n. 12, 212, 214–17,
MRWH 219–21, 223
MRWH 1 see TuM NF 5 66 MUN 111 27 n. 65, 30 nn. 81 and 85, 31
MRWH 2 see TuM NF 5 65 n. 86, 42 n. 14, 95 n. 12, 212
MRWH 10 see TuM NF 5 67 MUN 112 25 nn. 43 and 46, 43 n. 18
MRWH 14 see TuM NF 5 68 MUN 113 30 n. 81
MUN 273 145 n. 39
MSKH 1 MUN 284 42 n. 14
MSKH 1 9 (pp. 383–84) 33, 73–74 n. 40, MUN 317
141 n. 14 MUN 417
MSKH 1 13 (p. 386) see Ni. 65 MUN 418 42 n. 14, 118 n. 143
MUN N
MUN 8 31 N 868
MUN 9 + PBS 13 64 32, 74 n. 45, 76 n. N 919
52, 83 n. 79, 123 n. 169, 126 n. 187, N 1076
129 n. 211 N 1803 95 n. 13, 121 n. 158
MUN 20 N 1906 107 n. 93
MUN 86 27 n. 65, 28, 29 nn. 69 and 72, N 1934 110 n. 105
42 n. 14, 95 n. 12, 211 n. 3, 212, 215, N 1936
217–18, 220–21 N 1953 46 n. 23, 107 n. 93
MUN 87 27 n. 65, 42 n. 14, N 1957
95 n. 12 N 1959
MUN 88 27 n. 65, 29 n. 70, 42 n. 14, 95 N 2037
n. 12, 212, 214, 216, 219, 223–25 N 2059
MUN 89 27 n. 65, 30 nn. 77 and 79, 42 N 2066
n. 14, 94 n. 3, 95 n. 12 N 2077
MUN 90 27 n. 65, 42 n. 14, 95 nn. 12 N 2137
and 14 N 2193
MUN 91 27 n. 65, 29 n. 70, 42 n. 14, 95 N 2219
nn. 12 and 16, 212 n. 4 N 2248+2249
MUN 93 27 n. 65, 28, 29 nn. 70–71, 30 N 2267
n. 76, 42 n. 14, 95 nn. 12–14 and 16, N 2368
97 n. 19, 103 nn. 65–66, 121 n. 158, N 2442
212–14, 216–18, 220–25 N 2466
MUN 94 27 n. 65, 29 n. 71, 43 n. 18, N 2468
95 n. 12 N 2481
MUN 95 27 n. 65, 28 n. 66, 29 n. 70, N 2486
30 n. 74, 43 n. 18, 95 nn. 12 and N 2515
15–16 N 2518
MUN 101 25 n. 43, 43 n. 18 N 2640
MUN 103 25 nn. 43–44, nn. 47 and 50, N 2688
42 n. 14 N 2691
N 2791 Ni. 1226

N 2976 Ni. 1235 128 n. 205
N 3064 Ni. 1241
N 3509 Ni. 1260
N 4268 see CBS 7092+ Ni. 1265
N 4556 Ni. 1267
N 4746 Ni. 1269
Ni. 1276 128 n. 205
NBC Ni. 1279
NBC 7955 57 n. 53, 95 n. 7, 99, 104 n. Ni. 1283
81, 111 n. 111 Ni. 1289
NBC 7958 105 n. 84 Ni. 1309
NBC 7959 31 n. 86 Ni. 1332 19
NBC 7975 103 n. 71 Ni. 1333 35 n. 95, 102 n. 61, 106 n. 89,
117, 120 n. 154
Ni Ni. 1348 16–17, 102 n. 60
Ni. 65 (MSKH 1 p. 386 no. 13, date only), Ni. 1365
142 n. 18 Ni. 1368
Ni. 106 Ni. 1390 35 n. 95
Ni. 158 140 n. 12 Ni. 1574 32, 74 n. 45, 76 n. 52, 77 n. 56,
Ni. 177 109 n. 103, 179 83 n. 79, 86 n. 89, 123 n. 169, 126 n.
Ni. 373 59–60 n. 62 187, 188
Ni. 436 Ni. 1624
Ni. 614 Ni. 1627 15 n. 14, 16 n. 16, 104 n. 77,
Ni. 625 118 nn. 143–144, 121 n. 159
Ni. 643 128 n. 206 Ni. 1642 95 n. 7, 99, 104 n. 81
Ni. 656 20 Ni. 1644
Ni. 689 20 Ni. 1647
Ni. 717 Ni. 1649
Ni. 826 35 Ni. 1854 32, 130 n. 218
Ni. 887 143 n. 23 Ni. 1860
Ni. 890 179–80 Ni. 2204 35 n. 95, 106 n. 89, 112 n. 117,
Ni. 919 117 n. 136, 118 n. 140
Ni. 926 Ni. 2228 17–18, 107 n. 94, 114 nn. 123
Ni. 943 94 n. 3, 95 n. 6, 98 n. 31, 100 nn. and 125, 115
50–51 Ni. 2290
Ni. 1019 Ni. 2595 60 n. 64
Ni. 1030 Ni. 2646 60 n. 64
Ni. 1053 Ni. 2793 60 n. 63, 90, 148 n. 5,
Ni. 1056 189–94
Ni. 1057 Ni. 2809
Ni. 1066 +1069 59–60 n. 62, 90, 120 n. Ni. 2885 102 n. 63, 127, 128 n. 204
153, 148 n. 5, 180–88 Ni. 2891 120
Ni. 1067 +1079 Ni. 2939 143 n. 23
Ni. 1075 120 n. 153 Ni. 3028
Ni. 1076 107 n. 94 Ni. 3061
Ni. 1086 Ni. 3199
Ni. 1090 Ni. 5860 124 n. 175
Ni. 1100 Ni. 5878
Ni. 1108 Ni. 5887
Ni. 1114 Ni. 5890 128 n. 205
Ni. 1147 Ni. 5966
Ni. 1154 Ni. 5978
Ni. 1198 Ni. 5980
Ni. 5989 59–60 n. 62, 73 n. 40, 148 n. 5, Ni. 6590

194–96 Ni. 6614
Ni. 5993 120 n. 153 Ni. 6635
Ni. 5998 Ni. 6667
Ni. 6033 60 n. 64, 120 n. 153 Ni. 6668
Ni. 6047 60 n. 64 Ni. 6713
Ni. 6052 143 n. 28 Ni. 6718 198–99
Ni. 6068 60 n. 64, 73 n. 40, 120 n. 153 Ni. 6733
Ni. 6078 60 n. 64 Ni. 6758 73 n. 40
Ni. 6134 Ni. 6759
Ni. 6136 Ni. 6775 66–70 (passim in footnotes),
Ni. 6142 60 n. 64 127 n. 197, 154
Ni. 6143 73 n. 40 Ni. 6787
Ni. 6157 Ni. 6794
Ni. 6165 60 n. 64 Ni. 6804 60 n. 64, 73 n. 40
Ni. 6168 Ni. 6816 60 n. 64, 199–200
Ni. 6169 60 n. 64 Ni. 6844
Ni. 6174 60 n. 64 Ni. 6850
Ni. 6192 32, 76 n. 52, 83 n. 79, 86 n. 89, Ni. 6864
123 n. 169, 126 nn. 187–88, 129 n. Ni. 6871 143 n. 29
211, 130 n. 217, 196 Ni. 6880
Ni. 6208 197 Ni. 6883
Ni. 6233 Ni. 6896
Ni. 6235 Ni. 6897
Ni. 6237 104 n. 78, 120 n. 153 Ni. 6899
Ni. 6243 107 n. 94 Ni. 6900
Ni. 6244 120 n. 153 Ni. 6932 121 n. 158, 124 n. 174, 125 n. 179
Ni. 6261 60 n. 63 Ni. 6945
Ni. 6262 Ni. 6961
Ni. 6270 Ni. 6964
Ni. 6283 Ni. 7002
Ni. 6285 Ni. 7013
Ni. 6290 Ni. 7016
Ni. 6341 Ni. 7019 143 n. 32
Ni. 6342 Ni. 7033 114 n. 125
Ni. 6387 Ni. 7050 124 nn. 173–74, 125 n. 179
Ni. 6397 Ni. 7067
Ni. 6430 98 n. 29 Ni. 7081
Ni. 6433 Ni. 7107
Ni. 6444 83 n. 78, 111 n. 109, 148 n. 5, Ni. 7160
197–98 Ni. 7170
Ni. 6447 Ni. 7195 35 n. 95, 117 n. 136
Ni. 6464 60 n. 64 Ni. 7200
Ni. 6468 120 n. 153 Ni. 7455 107 n. 94
Ni. 6470 98 n. 29, 120 n. 153 Ni. 7580
Ni. 6471 Ni. 8135
Ni. 6472 Ni. 8164 60 n. 64, 73 n. 40
Ni. 6477 Ni. 8168
Ni. 6504 Ni. 8221 118 n. 143
Ni. 6537 Ni. 8254 114 n. 125
Ni. 6558 32, 102 n. 63 Ni. 8261
Ni. 6564 Ni. 8265
Ni. 6575 Ni. 8282 98 n. 29
Ni. 6587 Ni. 8291 114 n. 125
Ni. 8326 PBS 2/2 118 145 n. 39

Ni. 8540 PBS 2/2 130 140 n. 12
Ni. 8701 PBS 2/2 132 27 n. 65, 30 n. 75, 95 n. 12,
Ni. 8956 105 n. 84, 211–12 n. 3, 212–24,
Ni. 11035 226–27
Ni. 11043 PBS 2/2 142 95 n. 6, 98 n. 31
Ni. 11055 120 n. 153 PBS 2/2 144
Ni. 11074
Ni. 11079 PBS 8/2
Ni. 11095 PBS 8/2 161 35 n. 95, 106 n. 89, 112 n.
Ni. 11111 124–25 117, 117 n. 136, 118 n. 141
Ni. 11149 19–20, 86 n. 89, 148 n. 5, PBS 8/2 162 32, 102 n. 59, 123 n. 169,
200–203 126 n. 190
Ni. 11169
Ni. 11179 PBS 13
Ni. 11182 73 n. 40 PBS 13 64 see MUN 9+
Ni. 11197 60 n. 64, 73 n. 40, 203–4 PBS 13 80 143 n. 27
Ni. 11203
Ni. 11228 TBER
Ni. 11346 TBER, pl. 25 (AO 8187-3)
Ni. 11371 TBER, pl. 26 (AO 8187-6)
Ni. 11373 73 n. 40, 107 n. 94
Ni. 11378 TCS 5 (Grayson, Chronicles)
Ni. 11391 Chronicle P (BM 92701) 141 n. 16, 142
Ni. 11395 n. 19
Ni. 11455
Ni. 11458 95 n. 13, 121 n. 158 TuM NF 5
Ni. 11732 204 TuM NF 5 34 3 nn. 8–9
Ni. 11735 TuM NF 5 63 3 nn. 8–9
Ni. 11736 TuM NF 5 65 32, 123 n. 169, 129 n. 210
Ni. 11751 TuM NF 5 66 32
Ni. 11816 60 n. 64 TuM NF 5 67 35 n. 95
Ni. 11817 60 n. 64, 205 TuM NF 5 68 126 n. 192
Ni. 11907
Ni. 12147 UET
Ni. 12317 UET 7 1 33
Ni. 12412 66–70 (passim in footnotes) UET 7 2 33
Ni. 12449 UET 7 21 33
Ni. 12485 UET 7 22 33
Ni. 13081 UET 7 23 33
UET 7 24 33
PBS 2/2 UET 7 25 33
PBS 2/2 9 27 n. 65, 30 n. 75, 95 n. 12, UET 7 26
212, 225 UET 7 27 33
PBS 2/2 11 94 n. 3
PBS 2/2 25 32 UM
PBS 2/2 48 22, 23 nn. 41–42 UM 29-13-258
PBS 2/2 53 UM 29-13-293
PBS 2/2 55 112 UM 29-13-307
PBS 2/2 89 UM 29-13-332
PBS 2/2 95 UM 29-13-371
PBS 2/2 100 UM 29-13-378 42 n. 14
PBS 2/2 111 UM 29-13-382 42 n. 14, 212, 214, 218,
PBS 2/2 116 118 n. 143, 119, 120 n. 152 220–22, 224
UM 29-13-441 59–60 n. 62, UM 29-15-298 60 n. 64, 148 n. 5,

110 n. 105 208–10
UM 29-13-525 see CBS 12771+ UM 29-15-316
UM 29-13-592 UM 29-15-335 110 nn. 105 and 107
UM 29-13-631 UM 29-15-345
UM 29-13-644 43 n. 16 UM 29-15-370 43 n. 18
UM 29-13-646 107 n. 93, 110 n. 105 UM 29-15-372
UM 29-13-651 UM 29-15-373 210
UM 29-13-666 UM 29-15-431
UM 29-13-680 UM 29-15-447 143 n. 25
UM 29-13-694 60 n. 63 UM 29-15-452
UM 29-13-696 UM 29-15-461 19 n. 25
UM 29-13-701 UM 29-15-598 33 n. 91
UM 29-13-724 UM 29-15-627
UM 29-13-739 UM 29-15-730 74 n. 45
UM 29-13-808 UM 29-15-751
UM 29-13-816 42 n. 14, 211 n. 3 UM 29-15-760 66–70 (passim in
UM 29-13-856 footnotes), 86 n. 89, 107 n. 93–94,
UM 29-13-873 152–53
UM 29-13-984 35 n. 95 UM 29-15-781
UM 29-15-52 UM 29-16-45
UM 29-15-57 UM 29-16-108 94 n. 5
UM 29-15-66 UM 29-16-116
UM 29-15-72 UM 29-16-149
UM 29-15-77 114 n. 125 UM 29-16-160
UM 29-15-84 UM 29-16-174
UM 29-15-151 UM 29-16-288
UM 29-15-170 UM 29-16-355
UM 29-15-212 46 n. 23, 107 n. 93 UM 29-16-465
UM 29-15-222 114–15 n. 125 UM 29-16-755
UM 29-15-244 62 n. 77 UM 29-16-791
UM 29-15-253 43 n. 16
UM 29-15-269 VAS 24
UM 29-15-271 VAS 24 91 141 n. 16
UM 29-15-284
UM 29-15-286 VAT
UM 29-15-292 60 n. 64, 90, 118 n. 142, VAT 17908 (FuB 12 p. 51 no. 1), 142 n.
148 n. 5, 205–8 21
General Index
This index contains some personal names but is not a complete

personal-name index (many individuals are incidental to the overall
argument). Different persons with the same name are distinguished in
the index when possible. In cases where persons cannot be told apart,
page numbers are placed under the same name even though they might
have been different people. In general, entries are alphabetized accord-
ing to the order of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (e.g., s, ṣ, š; t, ṭ), but
with ḫ alphabetized as h. Markers of vocalic length are kept if so used
in the text, but they have no bearing on alphabetization. Most special
transliteration markers (e.g., half brackets, question marks), except in
the case of severely broken names, are omitted. Names that are dam-
aged at the beginning can be found at the end of the index. Personal
names in Appendix 2 are not repeated here, since they are listed alpha-
betically in that appendix.
Abbreviations for cross references include: GI = General Index;
IWL = Index of Select Akkadian Words and Logograms.
abandonment of children: 111; see also Adad-šubši: 173

foundlings Adad-šuma-iddina: occurrences of
Aba-lā-idi: 195 regnal years, 33
Aba-ul-īdi: 107 n. 93 Adad-šumu-līšir: 74 n. 45, 155,
Abu (month name): 30 n. 82 172, 208
acrobats: 230 n. 11; see also ḫuppû in the Adad-zēra-šubši: 203
IWL Adallalu: 164
actors: 99, 230 n. 17; see also kurgarrû in administration: see organization of
the IWL servile laborers and supervision,
Adad-aḫa-iddina: 17 supervisors
Adad-aḫa-īriš: 166 administrative texts: see under sources,
Adad-bāni: 155 documentary
Adad-ibni: 109 n. 103, 179 adolescent (laborers): 13, 54, and passim,
Adad-iddin: 167 escapees 109; statistics regarding
Adad-kīna-uṣur: 205 55–63; see also GURUŠ.TUR,
Adad-lītāni: 198 GURUŠ.TUR.GAL, and SAL.TUR in
Adad-nādā: 154, 161 the IWL
Adad-nāṣir: 209 adult (laborers): 13 and passim;
Adad-nirari I: 141 escapees 109; statistics regarding
Adad-šar-ḫegalli: 179 53–64; see also GURUŠ and
Adad-šar-ilī: 126 SAL in the IWL
Adad-šar-māti: 170 Aegean region: 140
Adad-šarru: 208 Afghanistan: 140
Adad-šemi: 46 n. 23, 107 n. 93 Agab-šenni: 157
254 general index
age(s) of laborers 50–51; see also sex-age Arrapḫa: 97, 122; on map 123
designations Arūna, Arūnayans: 97 n. 24, 121 n. 158,
agriculure, agricultural work: see 122, 124; on map 123
farming, farmers As-su-⌈ka?⌉ (city?): 19
Aḫa-iddina-Marduk: son of Bēletu 185; Assur (city): on map xxii
son of Šamaš-uballissu 195 Assyria, Assyrian(s): 1, 97, 121 n. 158,
Aḫa-lūmur: 159 122, 124, 128, 140–41; merchants, 101
Aḫāssunu: 208 n. 53, 141; on maps xxii, 123
Aḫātī-aqrat: 110 n. 105 Aṣûša-x […]: 110 n. 105
Aḫēdūtu: 34, 116, 118 n. 137 Aṣûšu-namir: 46 n. 23, 107 n. 93, 158
A-ḫi-tu-u-tu, city of the son of Ātamar-rabûssu: 161
(Aḫēdūtu?): 19 attendants: 232 n. 39; see also ša rēši in
Aḫlamītu: 97 n. 25, 164–65 the IWL
Aḫlamû: 97 n. 24 axis of calculation: 9, 12
Aḫu-līšir-DN: 117
Akbaru: 175 Baba-šarrat: 59–60 n. 62, 88, 166, 184
Akītu (personal name): 197 Bābilāyitu: 202–3
Akītu-rīšat: 159 Babylon: 142–43; on map xxii
Akkade-rabât: 178; see also Ina-Akkade- Babylonia, Babylonians: 1, 4, 6, 121–22,
rabât 129, 140, and passim; consolidation
Akkadians: 97 n. 24; see also Babylonia, under Kassites 140; dynastic marriages
Babylonians in this index and akkadû with Elam 141 n. 16; on map xxii;
in the IWL political history 140–44; see also
Ališpi: 179 Akkadians and Karduniaš in this
Al-lu-at-ra: 117 n. 136 index and akkadû in the IWL
Āl-šēlebi: 35 Baḫūtu: 170
Al-zu-tum: 206 Ba-ak-ta-ri-x: 190
Amarna (letters and period): 140–41 Balāṭitu: 166–67
Amat-Nuska: 70, 153 Baltānitu: 166
Amīl-Adad: 188 Bāltī-Adad: 69, 154
Amīlīya: 157, 194 Bāltī-Nergal: 156, 161
Amīl-Marduk: 16, 102 n. 58, 120, 125 Bāltīya: 91 n. 108, 190
Ammar-ša-X: 19 Banâ-ša-Adad: 182
Ammar-ša-ili: 202–3 Banâ-ša-Šamaš: 201
Amurrû: 97 n. 24 Banītu: 100 n. 51, 173, 180, 194
Ana-dār-kittu: 17 Bāriḫtu: 69, 86 n. 89, 127 n. 197,
Ana-Sîn-ēgu: 200 154, 200
Ana-ṣillīšu-ēmid: 185 barley allocations: see rations
Anatolia: 122 Basundu: 152
animals, food for: 23, 25 n. 51, 26 beer: see brewer, brewing
A-pa-a-x (personal name): 162 Bēl-bāni: 206
Apil-Šamaš: 110 Bēlessunu: 127 n. 194, 159
Apparrītu: 164; wife of Arduni 192; wife Bēlet-aḫḫēša: 184
of mār Elamî 170–71 Bēlet-sinnišāti: 183
Apuški: 153 Bēletu: 59–60 n. 62, 185
Aqartu: 182 Bēl-īriš: 210
Arad-Amurru: 110 Bēlīyūtu: 90, 165
Arad-bēlti: 99, 112, 143 Bēl-mušallim: 17
Arad-Enlil: 107 n. 93 Bēlšunu: 173
Arad-Kūbi: 205 Bēlta-balāṭa-īriš: 66–67 n. 5, 69, 70 n. 24,
Arad-Nuska: 62–63, 68, 74, 152 86 n. 89, 152–53
Arad-Šamaš: 177 Bēlta-nādā: 157–58
Araḫsamnu (month name): 35 Bēltani: 83 n. 78, 198
Arduni: 192 Bēltūa: 91 n. 106, 172
general index 255
Bēltu-asât: 163 categories: of sex and age, see

Bēltu-rīšat: 74 n. 45; a.k.a. Yâtu 112–13 sex-age designations; of physical
n. 118, 166 condition, see physical-condition
Bil-lu-⌈x⌉-tum: 185 designations
Binnānu: 156 cell: in rosters 10–12; cell entry 12
bird caretaker (fowler): 99, 232 n. 44; census: 23, 27–29
see also usandû in the IWL chariots, chariot builders: 98
Bīštu: 190 check mark(s) on tablets: 10, 25–26, 29
Bīt(-)Enlil: 30 n. 84; see also temple n. 70, 30
Bīt(-)Ninlil: 28, 94 n. 3; see also temple child, children: 25 n. 49, 26, 45 n. 20,
Bittinnatu: 69, 110 n. 105, 154 127, 135; childbirth 51 n. 39; escapees
Biyātu: 175 109–11; occupations 101; number per
blindness, blind (laborers): 14, 47, conjugal family unit 47, 85–89; as a
60–62; causes 62; see also IGI. sex-age designation 13; statistics
NU.GÁL in the IWL regarding 53–63; see also GURUŠ.
Boatman, daughter of: 111 TUR.TUR and SAL.TUR.TUR in the
boatmen: 99, 104, 111 n. 111; see also IWL
malāḫu in the IWL chronological table of kings: xxi
booty, war: 4, 122, 124; see also prisoners class: see status, social and civil
of war column, in rosters: 10
bound (laborers): see fetters, fettered conclusion, of rosters: 10; see also
(laborers) rosters, format
bow and arrow makers: 99, 232 n. 37; conjugal family unit: 80, 84, 92;
see also sasinnu in the IWL compared to household 78;
brewer(s), brewing: 26 n. 55, 68–69, 99, definition 71–72; Egypt 85 n. 86;
127 n. 197, 129, 154, 164, 232 n. 38; function 109–11; residence patterns
see also sirašû in the IWL 72–73, 84; size and composition
brother: 60–61 n. 66, 70, 73, 73–76, 80, 84–89, 136; Tuscany, medieval
94 n. 4, 109 n. 102, 119, 126, 147–49, 85 n. 86
182, 188, 191, 202, 207–209 cooks: 99, 101, 117 n. 136, 231 n. 26;
Bu-x[…] (a.k.a. Tarībatu): 112–13 see also nuḫ atimmu in the IWL
n. 118 Court of Columns at Nippur: 1
builder(s): 99 n. 43, 100, 152, 230 n. 7; craftsmen: 99, 101, 143
see also bānû in the IWL criminals: 119
building construction: 137–38 curvature of tablets: 11 n. 7
Bukāšu-ina-Ekur: 62 n. 75 custodians of captured escapees: 115–18
Bulālitu: 204
Būnānu: son of Kaššītu 204; son of Dalīlu: 208
Šigi-Bugaš 156 Dalīlūša: 68, 73–74, 152
Bu-un-na-a[…]: 200 Dannat-šerressa: 191
Bunna-Gula: 202 Dannū-mûšu: 18
Bunna-Ninsar: 91 n. 107, 170–71 data base: 5, 40, 47; Document Table
Bunna-Ninurta: 163 37–41; entries, personnel 38–39,
bureaucracy: 6 43–44, 48; Personnel Table 37–41,
Burna-Buriaš II: 120–21, 124 n. 173, 43, 47–48, 61, and passim
126, 138, 141; occurrences of regnal daughter: passim; see also child, conjugal
years 31–33, 74 n. 45, 126, 188 family unit, family, and household in
Burra-mašḫu: 156 this index and māru/mārtu in the
Burruqtu: 18–19 IWL
Bur-x (personal name): 60 n. 63 Dayyānī-Šamaš: 67–68, 73–74,
butchers: 99–100, 232 n. 40 151, 195
Dayyanti-ina-Uruk: 86 n. 89, 100 n.
carpenters: 99–100, 231 n. 24; see also 51, 201
naggāru in the IWL Dayyantu: 163
256 general index
death, deceased: 29 n. 70, 47, 58–60, 70, Enlil-AL.ŠA6: 118, 120, 126–27
78–79, 90–91, 131; causes 59–60; Enlil-kidinnī: 4, 19 n. 27, 20, 32 n. 89,
during flight 59; murder 57 n. 50, 59, 117, 120–21, 126
79; see also mortality in this index and Enlil-nāṣir: 20
ÚŠ in the IWL En-n[a-…] (personal name): 19
debt slavery: see under slaves entertainers: 99
decline in size of servile population: entries, personnel: see under data base
53–54, 113–15, 135–36 entry label: 12, 16, 27, 29–30, and passim
demography, demographic analysis: 5, epitaphs, Roman: 52 n. 44
47, 50–52, 145–46; see also the Erība-Adad: 173
subcategories under statistics Erība-Nergal: 207–8
depletion of servile work force: see Erību: brother of Arduni 192; brother of
decline Šumman-lā-Ninurta 188; as patro-
descriptive elements: 13 nym, 182
Deyyāndi-ina-Uruk: 184 escape, escapee(s): 7–8, 14, 43, 46 n. 23,
Di-ik-di-ia-en-ni: 69 n. 19 104–18, 131; identification 105–106;
Dilmun: 1, 143 recapture and reassignment 34, 102,
Dīn(ī)-ili-lūmur: 70, 153 106–107, 115–18; slaves in the
Dipārītu: daughter of Baba-šarrat 88, American South 108, 111–12 nn.
184; daughters (2) of Arduni 192 111–12; Soviet gulag 113 n. 120; see
Dipārša-namrat: 178 also fugitives in this index and ḫ alāqu
diplomacy: 140–41 and munnabittu in the IWL
division of labor: 57 Ētegi-ana-ili: 195
Diyala (region): 32 Eṭērša-rabi: 131
Document Table: see under data base ethnic group, ethnicity: 28, 30, 32
Dumūzu (month name): 35 Ēṭir-Marduk: 175
Dunni-aḫi: 67 n. 7, 94 n. 2 Eṭirtu: 66–67 n. 5, 69, 154
Duqqin-ilu: 152 Euphrates River: on maps xxii, 123
Dūr-Kurigalzu: 101, 112, 125–26 n. 183, extended-family household: see under
129, 142–43; on map xxii household
E-x-tum: 190 family: 5, 27, 47, 65–92 (passim in

Ea-mušabši: 186 footnotes), 128, 130, 136; definiton 71;
Eanna-bēlet: 204 identification 70–75; nuclear 5, 136;
Eanna-līdiš: 166–67 extended 5. See also conjugal family
Early Dynastic II: 139 unit and household in this index and
economy of Babylonia: 4, 143–44 qinnu in the IWL
Ēdiš-bītī-lūmur (a.k.a. Nergal-mušallim): farming, farmers: 99–100, 137, 230 n. 13;
112 n. 118 see also iššakku in the IWL
Egypt: 140; see also under population(s) female(s): 26, 45 n. 20, 136; blindness 61;
Elam, Elamites: 97, 99, 122, 124–25, escapees 110–11; granting of freedom
128–29, 141; dynastic marriages with 128; heads of household 73–75, 78–79,
Babylonian princesses 141 n. 16; on 89 n. 100, 92; identification 48–50;
maps xxii, 123; see also elamû in the occupations 99–101; statistics in
IWL conjugal family units 85–89; statistics
Elamû, son of: 91 n. 107, 170–71 of entire population 49–63; see also
elderly (laborers): 13, 54, 105 n. 84, 135; mothers and supervision,
statistics regarding 53–57, 61; see also supervisors
SAL.ŠU.GI and ŠU.GI in the IWL fetters, fettered (laborers): 14, 104,
Ēmid-ana-Marduk: 156 118–120, 129, 131; see also kamû and
EN-⌈x-x⌉-tum (personal name): 170 pâdu in the IWL
endogamy: 53–54 flight: see escape
Enlil: god 1; temple of 1 n. 2; see also foreigners: 3, 97, 121–25, 136; see also
Bīt(-)Enlil origins of servile laborers
general index 257
foreman, as occupation name: 99 n. Ḫ ānibu, family of: 74 n. 45, 88–89,

42, 131, 230 n.18; see also laputtû 176–77
in the IWL Hanigalbat: 97, 122, 124, 128–29; on
foundlings: 86 map 123; see also Hurrians
fowler: see bird caretaker Ḫ annānu: 188
freedom: 128, 131; see also manumission Ḫ arrānša-balāṭu: 183–84
in the GI and zakû in the IWL Hatti, Hittites: 140–41; on map xxii
frérèche: 76 heading, subcolumn: 12, 16–17, 29
fugitives: 4, 102, 104–05, 112, 115, 133; herding, herders: 99–101, 103 n. 64, 111
see also escape in this index and n. 111; blind 60–61 n. 66; of cows 231
munnabittu in the IWL n. 32; of goats 232 n. 34; of horses 232
fullers: 229 n. 4; see also ašlāku n. 33; of sheep 232 nn. 34–35; see also
in the IWL rēʾû in the IWL
Ḫ innanit: 17
Gabbaša-inbu: 47 Hittites: see Hatti
Gab-Martaš: 68, 73–74, 152 homes, of laborers: see residence(s), of
gardens, gardeners: 99–100, 231 n. 27; laborers
see also nukarribu in the IWL household(s): 147–210; definition
GAŠAN-x-x(-x)-KUR (personal name): and identification 71–75, 147–49;
195 diagrams 77, 149–51, see also
gate keepers: 99, 229 n. 1, 231 n. 21; Appendix 1; Egypt 82–83; extended-
see also āpil bābi and maṣsạ r abulli family household 76–83; extension,
in the IWL types of 80; formation 81; head 23,
gentilic(s): 121 n. 158; see also ethnic 66–67, 69–70, 73–75, and passim;
group household structure 47, 76–82,
gold: 143 92, 136; multiple-family household
governor of Nippur: see šandabakku in 76–78, 80–83; simple-family
the IWL household 76–79, 136; size and
guarantor(s) of escapees: 115–118 other statistics 76, 78, 80–83; sources
guard(s): 99–100, 231 n. 22; see also related to 148; three-generation
maṣsạ ru and maṣsạ r abulli in the IWL households 91; Tuscany,
Gubbuḫu: 47, 189–90; son of Kalūmu medieval 82–83
172 Ḫ ulālatu: 69 n. 19, 152
Gula-šumu-līšir: 199 Ḫ u-lu-ú: 208
Gu-NI-NI-Bugaš: 118; see also Guzalzal, Ḫ umba(n)-napir: 62 n. 77
Guzalzal-Bugaš, Guzarzar, and Ḫ un-[…]: 62 n. 77
Guzarzar-Bugaš Ḫ unābu: 68 n. 11, 190
guruš-Liste: 3; see also roster Ḫ unzuʾtu: 35
Guzalzal: 118 n. 142; see also Guzalzal- Hurbatila: 141 n. 16
Bugaš, Guzarzar, Guzarzar-Bugaš, and Hurrians: 121 n. 158; see also Hanigalbat
Gu-NI-NI-Bugaš Ḫ urukku: 17
Guzalzal-Bugaš: 118 n. 142; see also husband: 65, 72 n. 35, 73, 74 nn. 41 and
Guzalzal, Guzarzar, Guzarzar-Bugaš, 45, 75 n. 46, 78, 81, 88–91, 136, and
and Gu-NI-NI-Bugaš passim in Appendix 1
Guzarzar: 90, 118 n. 142, 207; see also
Guzalzal, Guzalzal-Bugaš, Guzarzar- I-[…] (personal name): 110 n. 105
Bugaš, and Gu-NI-NI-Bugaš Ia-a-a-[…] (personal name):
Guzarzar-Bugaš: 118 n. 142; see also 110 n. 105
Guzalzal, Guzalzal-Bugaš, Guzarzar, Ibašši-uznī-ana-ili: 62 n. 77, 152
and Gu-NI-NI-Bugaš Id-di-ia (Iddīya?, a.k.a. IK-ri-ia):
112 n. 118
Ḫ amaṣsị ru: 166–67 Iddin-Adad: 158
Ḫ a-na-⌈x⌉-x (personal name): 182 Iddin-Enlil: 163
Ḫ anbu: 156 Iddin-Nabû: 158
258 general index
Igāršu-ēmid, 157 inspection: type of roster 15–18, 23; by

Ikkaru: 159 the šandabakku 102
IK-ri-ia (a.k.a. Id-di-ia (Iddīya?) ): Ippayītu: 100 n. 51
112 n. 118 Iqīša-Amurru: 199
Ilassunu: 86 n. 89, 159 Iqīša-Marduk: 60 n. 63, 157; a.k.a
Ildu-aḫīya: 46 n. 22 Ub-[…] 112 n. 118
Ileʾʾi-bulluṭa: 166 Iqīša-Ninurta: 18
Ilīma-abī: 157 Iran: 140
Ilīya: 189 Irēmanni-Adad: 202
illness, ill: animals 62 n. 75; laborers 14, Irēmšu-Ninurta: 18
60, 62; see also GIG in the IWL Irišša-ina-pān-māti: 161, 176, 178
Iltappit(t)a: 163; see also Iltapputta irrigators: 99
Iltapputta: 131; see also Iltappit(t)a Isin II dynasty: 33 n. 91
Ilti-aḫḫēša: 83 n. 78, 160, 178, 198 Ištar-bēlī-uṣrī: 69, 152
Imgugu: 74 n. 45, 172 Ištar-rāʾimdi-x-x(-x-x): 174
Imlihiye: 32–33 Ištar-tukultī: 117 n. 136
Immatīya: 34, 116 Ittīša-aḫbut: 62 n. 77, 193
importation of workers: 135–36 Izkur-Adad: 165
imprisonment: 4, 7, 14, 34, 104, 107, Izkur-Nergal: 183–84
118–20, 131; release 34, 120; see also Izkur-Ninurta: 185
kīlu and kalû in the IWL Izkur-Šuqamuna: 210
Ina-[…] (a.k.a. Ina-x-[…]): 112 n. 118
Ina-x-[…]: 163; a.k.a. Ina-[…] jewelry: 143
112 n. 118
Ina-Akkade-rabât: 66–67 n. 5, 70, 86 n. Kabbušu: 17
89, 153; see also Akkade-rabât Kadašman-Enlil I: occurrences of regnal
Ina-Apsû-rabi: 186 years 31–33
Ina-Egalmaḫ-šarrat: 195 Kadašman-Enlil II: xxi, 42 n. 13;
Ina-Ekur-tašmânni: 46 n. 22 occurrences of regnal years 33
Ina-Ekur-zēru: 202 Kadašman-Ḫ arbe II: occurrences of
Ina-Esagil-kabtat: 205 regnal years, 33, 141 n. 14
Ina-Esagil-rīšat: 194 Kadašman-Turgu: xxi, 42 n. 13;
Ina-É.SU.GAL-milku: 18 occurrences of regnal years, 66–67
Ina-Isin-rabât: 19, 166 n. 5, 67 n. 6, 70, 125
Ina-Isin-šarrat: 156 kallatu: see IWL
Ina-niphīša-type names, hypocoristic Kalūmu: 172
for: 210 n. 24 KAR[…]-Marduk: 201
Ina-nipḫīša-alsīši: 165 Kār-Adab: 67 n. 7
Ina-Nippur-šarrat: 196 Karduniaš: 122; see also Babylonia
Ina-pī-Marduk-dīnu: 152 Karzi-Ban, daughter of: 74 n. 45,
(Ina-)Šamê-bēlet: 167 155
Ina-šamē-rabi᾽at: 188 Kassite(s): 97 n. 24, 125; see also kaššû in
Ina-šār-Marduk-allak: 62 n. 77 the IWL
Ina-tappî-kabtat: 208 Ka-ši-x(-x) (personal name): 182
Ina-Ulmaš-šarrat: 19 Ka-ši-ti-x (personal name): 198
Ina-Uruk-šarrūssa: 159–60, 202 Kaššītu: 204
Inbu-eššu: 209 Kaššû, daughter of: 181
infant mortality: 57 Kaštilen-Saḫ: 189, 207
infanticide: 57 n. 50 Kaštiliašu IV: xxi, 42 n. 13, 102 n. 58,
inheritance of persons: 36 126, 141; occurrences of regnal years
Inib-Kubi: 174 33, 42, 124–25
I-ni-ip-ḫu-tum: 210 Ka-tar-ta-ri-Saḫ: 189
Innammar, 66–67 n. 5, 70 n. Katta-Ḫ arbe: 209
29, 153 Keš-ālūša: 200
general index 259
Kidin-Adad: 17, 182; son of Ninurta- supervisors; transfers; travelling;

ašarēd 202–3 weaned; work groups; and individual
Kidinēʾa: 193, 210 occupation names
Kidin-Gula: 17–18; son of Aḫlamītu 165; lameness, lame: 205
son of Arduni 192 Lā-nibāš-Nergal: 166
Kidin-napirša 66–67 n. 5 lapidaries: 99–101, 231 n. 31; see also
Kidin-Ninurta: 162, 188 purkullu in the IWL
Kidinnītu: 164, 173 Lā-qīpu: 117, 174
Kidinnû: 171 La-ra-⌈x⌉-tum: 201
Kidin-Šuqamuna: 157–58; son of Latarak-šemi: 18, 209
Pakkutu 190 leather-worker: 99, 101, 229 n. 3; see also
Kidin-Ulmaš: 155 aškāpu in the IWL
Kikkiya-enni: see Di-ik-di-ia-en-ni legal status: see status, social and civil
Kilamdi-Ubriaš: 20 legal texts: see under sources,
Kilamdu: 190, 199 documentary
king: 1, 42–43, 102, 106, 120, 124–27, letters: see under sources, documentary
129, 133, 140–41, 145, and passim Libūr-nādinša: 46 n. 22
Kiribti-Marduk: 156 life expectancy: 135
Kissilīmītu: 157 Liltabbir-ilu: 62 n. 75
Kittatu: 116, 117 n. 136, 128 list, personnel: see roster
Kizzuwatna: 122 Li-ta-⌈x-x⌉: 201
knotters: 230 n. 14; see also kāṣiru Lubdu: 17 (ḫ azan Lubdi), 128
in the IWL Lullubu/mu, Lullubians: 33 n. 91, 97, 121
Kūbi-nadi: 203 n. 158, 122, 124–125; on map 123
Kubšiya-Saḫ: 107 n. 93 Lultamar-Nuska: 152
Kudur-Enlil: xxi, 42 n. 13; occurrences of Lūṣi-ana-[…]: 110 n. 105
regnal years 22 n. 38, 33 Lūṣi-ana-nūr-Adad: 209
Kudurrānitu: 165
Kudurrānu: 204; son of Arduni 192; son male(s): identification 48–50; occupa-
of Šigû-Gula 203 tions 99–101; statistics for conjugal
kudurrus: 137 family units 85–89; statistics for entire
Kunzubtu: 184 servile population 49–63
Kuppitātu: 35 malnutrition: 105
Kurigalzu II: xxi, 42 n. 13, 124 n. 173, Mandīdat[u]: 155
127 n. 195, 141; occurrences of regnal Mannu-balu-ilīšu: 158
years 18, 27, 32, 42–43, 125 Mannu-ibbak-dīnšu: 155
Kuzba-ulluḫat: 204 Mannu-kī-Bēltīya: 162
Kuzub-nišī: 117 n. 136 Mannu-lēʾūša: 203
Mannu-šāninša: 203
Labi᾽tu (Labiḫtu): 198 manumission: 102 n. 63, 126–27; see also
labor, laborers: see adolescent, adult, freedom in the GI and zakû in the
blindness, blind; child, children; IWL
conjugal family units; death, deceased; Manzât-ummī, daughter of: 197
decline in size of servile population; Marduk-mušallim: 117
elderly; escape, escapees; family; Marduk-tišmar: 209
female(s); fetters, fettered; marriage: 72, 85, 126–27, 130; age
household(s); imprisonment; male(s); at (first) marriage 78–79, 90–91,
lameness, lame; marriage; mother(s); 136
nursing; occupations of laborers; matronym, matronymic: 38 n. 5, 48
organization; origins of servile mayor(s): 230 n. 10; see also ḫ azannu in
laborers; physical-condition the IWL
designations; population(s); sex-age Mayūtu: 163
designations; sex ratio; slave sales; measurement, standards of: 10; see also
status, social and civil; supervision, sūtu in the IWL
260 general index
Me-e-ši-ri-bu: 202 Nergal-dipār-ilī: 206

Meli-mašḫu: 91 n. 108, 190 Nergal-mušallim (a.k.a. Ēdiš-bītī-lūmur):
Meli-Šipak: 138: occurrences of regnal 112 n. 118
years 31, 102 n. 63 Nergal-muštāl: 178
merchants: 101 n. 53, 122, 140 New Year’s Festival: 1
Mē-Saḫ: 203 Ni-bi-ia-x-x-x (personal name): 207
migrant laborers: see travelling and work Nibi-Šipak: 190
groups, mobile Ninlil: see Bīt(-)Ninlil
military campaigns: 125; see also NIN.⌈TU?⌉[…] (personal name): 201
prisoners of war Ninurta-apil-idīya: 110; son of Bēletu
millers: 99, 229 n. 2, 230 n. 15; see also 185; son of (Ina-)Šamê-bēlet 167; son
ararru and kaṣsị dakku in the IWL of Kunzubtu 184
Mīnâ-ēgi-ana-Marduk: 204 Ninurta-ašarēd: 175, 180
Mīnâ-ēgu-ana-ili: 157 Ninurta-nādin-aḫḫē: 34, 116, 118, 120
Mišarītu: 66–67 n. 5, 70, 177 Ninurta-nīšu: 195
Mi-ši-GAD-ru-uk: 197 Nippur: city, 1–4, 23, 26, 32–33, 112,
Mittani: 140; on map xxii 137–44, and passim; excavation
mobile work groups: see under work areas (WA and WC) 1–2, 138; on
groups maps xxi, 123; province 1, 138–44,
mortality (rate): child 67; female 51; and passim
in India and Southeast Asia 51; Nippurû: 180
definition 58 n. 58; see also death, non-tabular register: see under
deceased rosters(s)
mother(s): 38 n. 5 and passim; single nuclear family: see conjugal family unit
mothers 86–89, 136; see also female, and simple-family household
heads of household and matronym, Nūr-d⌈x⌉[…]: 202, 205
matronymic Nūr-Adad: 201, 208
Mu-iš?-x-[x]-ti-x (a.k.a. Rabâ-ša?-x-ia): Nūr-Bēlti-Akkade: 86 n. 89, 178, 200
155 nursing (laborers): 13, 54; in conjugal
multiple-family household: see under family units 86; escapees 109–11;
household occupations 101; as a sex-age category
13; sex ratio 56–58; statistics regarding
Na-x-x (personal name): 182 53–63; see also DUMU.GABA and
Nāḫirānu: 173 DUMU.SAL.GABA in the IWL
name(s), of workers, supervisors, etc: see Nuska-erība: 26 n. 56
personal name(s) Nuska-kīna-uṣur: 68, 73–74, 152
Namir-Sagil: 189
Namirtu: 209 occupations of laborers: 13, 16, 22,
Namkar-ešēgi: 112 94–95, 98–101, 132, 137–38; statistics
Nannaya: 170 regarding 229–32; see also the names
Napšira-Adad: 208 of individual occupations in the GI
Narubtu: wife of Rabâ-ša-Gula 180; wife and IWL
of ⌈x-x-x⌉-Šipak 191 old age (laborers): see elderly
Nāṣiru: 23 oil (ration): 10, 23, 25
Nazi-Ḫ arbe: 202 omission, scribal: 49
Na(ḫ)zi-Marduk: 118 Opis: 112
Nazi-Maruttaš: xxi, 42 n. 13, 43, 124 n. organization of servile laborers: 94–98,
173, 125–26, 127 n. 195, 145 n. 39; 102–104, 132–33
occurrences of regnal years 65, 66–67 origins of servile laborers: 121–29; see
n. 5, 68 n. 11, 127 n. 197, 151–54 also foreigners
Nazi-Šipak: 199 orphans: 86
Neo-Babylonian period: 139
Nergal-(x)-uṣur/nāṣir: 171 Pakkutu: 91 n. 106, 190
Nergal-abūša: 166 Paliḫ-Adad: 90, 193
general index 261
patronym, patronymic: 38 n. 5, 48, and Rabâ-ša-ilī: 116–17, 128

passim Rabâ-ša-Išḫara: 66–67 n. 5, 70 n. 24,
Pattu: 28 n. 66, 95 n. 15 153
Persian Gulf: 140 Rabâ-ša-Nergal: 178
personal name(s): 3, 12, 34 n. 93, and Rabâ-ša-Ninurta: 169
passim; in families 68; hypocoristics Rabâ-ša-Šamaš?: 186
46; languages other than Akkadian Rabât-[DN]: 110 n. 105
112–13, 121 n. 158; persons with more Rabât-bēlet-Akkade: 158
than one name 44 n. 19, 112–13 n. Rabât-eli-ilī: 185
118, 127; preservation 43–44; Rabât-Gula: 60 n. 65; daughter of
repetition 43–47 Arduni 192
Personenliste: see list, personnel Rabâyūtu: 163; daughter of 163
Personnel Table: see under data base Rabi-dīnša: 188
physical-condition designations: 7–8, 12, Rabi-Nergal: 152–53
14, 16, 58 n. 59, and passim Rabû-Sebettu: 205
Pī-nāri: 99 Rabûssa-āmur: 208
Pirri᾽tu: 205 Rabû-tuklūša: 174
Pirrīya: 159 rations: 10, 23, 25–29, 145, and passim;
Pi-ši-ir-du (personal name): quantities 68 n. 11; see also oil (ration)
86 n. 89, 188 and wool (ration) in this index and
polygyny: 81 n. 71, 88–90 ipru, Ì.BA, and SÍG.BA in the IWL
population(s): Babylonia 45, 136–38; recapture of escapees: see under
servile laborers at Nippur 7, 48–63, escapee(s)
136–38, and passim; growth and reduction of servile work force: see
reduction 113–15, 135–36; Tuscany, decline in size of servile population
medieval 5, 52; Premodern societies 5; reeds, craftsmen of: 99–100, 229 n. 5, 231
Egypt 5, 49, 52; American South 54 n. n. 30; see also atkuppu and paqqāyu in
47, 108 n. 96 the IWL
porter: 68, 99, 151, 229 n. 6; see also atû refugees: 123, 128–29; see also
in the IWL munnabittu in the IWL
potters: 99–101, 231 n. 28; see also replacement of laborers: 105
paḫ āru in the IWL residence(s) of laborers: 7, 13, 72–73
prison(s): see imprisonment Riḫêtūša: 184
prisoners of war: 79, 115, 122–25 Rīmūt-Gula: 198
prosopography: 46–47, 51, 144–45 Rīmūtu: 169–70
prostitute(s): 99, 230 n. 9; see also Rīšatu: 190, 199
ḫ arintu in the IWL Rīš-Nergal: 34, 116, 117 n. 136, 118 n.
puberty: 57 137, 155, 170–71
purchases of personnel: see slave(s), Rīš-pīšu-ina-Ekur: 195
slave sales Rīš-Ulūlu: 165
roster(s): 3, 9, 36, 40, 127 n. 195, 130;
Qaqqadānu: 66–67 n. 5 attested dates 42–43; format 7, 9–15,
Qīšat-dX: 183 36; non-tabular registers 11–12,
Qīšat-Gula: 206 14–15; ration rosters 23–31, 40, 60;
Qīšat-Kūbi: 202 short-tabular registers 11–12, 14–15,
qualitative data: definition 12–14; use 47 24; simple rosters 14–23, 40; tabular
qualitative summary: 14, 29–30, 43 registers 11–12, 14–15, 17, 20, 24, 27;
quantitative data: definition 12; use 47 see also summary rosters
row(s), in rosters: 10–11; see also
Rabâ-ša?-x-ia: see Mu-iš?-x-[x]-ti-x new entry
Rabâ-ša-⌈x-x-x-x⌉-ra: 185 row entry: 12
Rabâ-ša-Bēltīya: 162 runaway(s): see escapee(s)
Rabâ-ša-Gula: 117 n. 136, 179–80, 184; ruralization of Babylonian settlements:
wife of 169 138–40
262 general index
Sapsapānu, daughter of: 46 n. 22 in this index and māru/mārtu in

scribe(s): 66, 99, 131, 232 n. 42; see also the IWL
ṭupšarru in the IWL sources, documentary: 7–36, 245–52;
Sealand: First Dynasty of 140; administrative texts 34–36
region 143 (see also rosters); from Babylon 142;
Sebûtu-līšir: 199 chronology of study corpus 42–43, 50,
settlement patterns: 138–40 144–45; curvature of tablets 11 n. 7;
sex (male vs. female): see sex-age from Dūr-Kurigalzu 36, 101
designations n. 53, 142; from Nippur 1–3, 141–44,
sex-age designations: 7–8, 12–13, 16, and passim; legal texts 34, 115–18,
48–63, 130, and passim; culling 57 n. 126–27 (see also under slaves; slave
50; function 51; statistics regarding sales); letters 35–36; mentioning dead
47–63 workers 58–60; Middle Babylonian
sex ratio: 5, 47, 51–52, 135; adolescent in general 4, 93,141–42, and passim;
(laborers) 56; adult (laborers) 56; preservation of research corpus 41–42,
American South 52, 58, 108 n. 96; 49; recapture and reassignment
Babylonia in 1st millennium 52 n. 44; 115–18; selection of 7–9, 37–38; from
Egypt 52; Rome 52 n. 44; Tuscany, Ur 142; see also data base
medieval 52 spinners: 232 n. 41; see also ṭāmītu
Shalmaneser I: 141 in the IWL
short-tabular registers: see under rosters statistics: see adolescent; adult; blind-
Sibbar-ula: 190 ness, blind; child, children; conjugal
sick (laborers): see under illness, ill family unit; data base; death,
Simānītu: 172 deceased; decline in size of servile
simple-family household: population; elderly; escape, escapee(s);
see household family; female(s); fetters, fettered;
Sîn-abūša: 157 household(s); illness, ill; imprison-
Sîn-aḫa-īriš: son of Ina-Esagil-kabtat ment; male(s); nursing; occupations of
205; son of Irišša-ina-pān-māti 176 laborers; origins of servile laborers;
Sîn-apil-Ekur: 119, 120 n. 152, 175 personal name(s); population(s);
Sîn-bāltī: 175 rosters; settlement patterns; sex-age
singer(s): 99, 231 n. 25; see also nâru/ designations; sources, documentary;
nârtu in the IWL supervision, supervisors; weaned;
Sîn-īriš: 205 work groups
Sîn-mālik-ilī: 176–77 status, social and civil: 4, 79, 83, 102, 127,
Sîn-mušabši: 181 129–33; of amīlūtu 35–36
Sîn-mušallim: 175 subcolumn: in rosters 10–12;
Sîn-nādin-aḫi: 174 disbursal 29
Sîn-nāṣir: 175 subgroup of laborers: 10; see also work
Sîn-šem-me-i: 198 group(s)
sister: 73–74 nn. 40 and 43, 75, 76 n. 52, summary rosters: ration allocation
80, 89, 127 nn. 194 and 200, 128, 151, summaries 27–31, 40, 54–56;
and passim in Appendix 1 simple roster summaries 15,
slaves, slavery: 2–4, 102, 129, 131, and 20–23, 40
passim; debt slavery 4, 79 n. 64, 123, Su-un-⌈x⌉-am-ma (personal name): 35
128; families and households 76, supervision, supervisors: 13, 28, 48,
83–84; slave sales 2–4, 8–9, 31–33, 36, 55, 103–104; female 29 n. 71, 48,
48, 76, 102, 121–23, 126–27, 130; 103–104
American South 52, 54, 58, 108;
see also amīlūtu, ardu, and aštapīru Ṣalimūtu, daughter of: 46 n. 22,
in the IWL 86 n. 91
social status: see status, social and civil Ṣilli-Šuqamuna: 205
son: passim; see also child, conjugal Ša-ba-di-tum: 176–77
family unit, family, and household Šad-Šugab: 206
general index 263
Šagarakti: 156 Tarâš-ina-Sagil: 46 n. 22

Šagarakti-Šipak: 191 Tarbâtuša: wife of Kaštilen-Saḫ 189;
Šagarakti-Šuriaš: xxi, 42 n 13, 120, wife of […]-x-x-x 194
128, 145 n. 39; occurrences of regnal Tarība-Gula: 107 n. 93, 198
years 16, 22 n. 38, 27 n. 65, 30, Tarībat-Adad: 172
31 n. 86, 33, 43, 100, 124, 155–56, Tarībatu 165, 172; a.k.a. Bu-x[…]
165–70 112–13 n. 118
Šalittu: 155, 183 Tarībti-Gula: 165, 171
Šallī-lūmur: 190 Tarībtu: 155, 164, 178
Šamaš-bēl-ilīšu: 195 Tarību: son of Kilamdu 199; son of
Šamaš-iddinna: 19 Šu-ri-[…] 194
Šamaš-kīna-uṣur: 169 Tārītu: 170–71
Šamaš-muštēšir: 195 tasks of laborers: see occupations of
Šamaš-nūrī: 110 n. 105 laborers
Šamaš-ṣulūlī: 62 n. 75 Tašrītu (month name): 62, 152
Šamaš-tišmar: 195 tax collector: 99 n. 42, 231 n. 19; see also
Šamaš-tukultī: 174 miksu in the IWL
Šamaš-uballissu: 195 Te-⌈x⌉-[…]-⌈x⌉-di-Šugab: 197
Šamḫūtu: 205 teaselers: 101 n. 57, 152–54, 230 n. 16;
Šamuḫ-Nergal: 178 see also textile workers in the GI and
Šaqât-ina-Akkade: 86 n. 89, 157–58 kunšillu in the IWL
Šaqītu-rīšat: 199 temple: of Enlil 1 n. 2; of Ninlil 94 n. 3;
Širiktu: 205 rebuilding of temples 138; see also
Šarrat-ālīša: 174 Bīt (-)Enlil and Bīt(-)Ninlil
Šī-bā᾽ilat: 196 tents: 139
Šī-banât: 175 Terīmšūtu: 205
Šigi-Bugaš: 156 textiles: industry 100–101, 136; workers
Šigû-Gula: 203–4 98 n. 31, 99–101
Šīma-ilat: 172 texts: see sources, documentary
Šīma-ina-āli: 177 Tigris River: on maps xxii, 123
Šimdi-Šuqamuna: 155–56 trade: 140
Šindi-Enlil, son of: 116, 118 transfer(s): of laborers 19–20, 98 n. 29,
Širiktu: 207 112; type of roster 15, 18–20, 23
Šittan(n)i, son of: 62 n. 75 travelling: laborers 62–63, 104;
Šumma-⌈x-x⌉-ia: 160 as a physical-condition designation
Šumman-lā-Ninurta: 188 14, 62; see also KASKAL in the IWL
Šumuḫ-Nergal: 167 Tukukūtu: 189
Šunuḫtu: 110 n. 105; daughter Tukultī-Adad: 69, 127 n. 197, 154
of Kunzubtu 184; wife of Ina-Apsû- Tukultī-Enlil (place): 94 n. 2
rabi 186 Tukultī-Ninurta: Tukultī-Ninurta I
Šuqamuna-īriš: 206–7, 210 (Assyrian king) 141–42; son of
Šu-ri-[…] (personal name): 194 Baba-šarrat 184; son of Deyyāndi-ina-
Uruk 184
ta-x-x(-x) (personal name, patronym): Tukultu: 208
34, 116, 117 n. 136 Tupliyaš: 125
tablets: see sources, documentary Turi-Rattaš: 190–91
tabular registers: see under rosters Tuscany, medieval: see population(s),
Taklāku-ana-dNIN.⌈X⌉: 159 Tuscany, medieval
Taklāku-ana-Šuqamuna: 158 Ṭ āb-ṣillī: 205
Talziya-enni: 154
Tambi-Dadu: 68, 73–74, 151, 197 U4.7.KAM-bāʾilat: 167
Taqīša-Gula: 200 Ub-[…] (a.k.a. Iqīša-Marduk): 112 n.
Taqīšu: 190 118
Tarâš-ina-Eanna: 164 UD-ma-ḫi-ḫa (personal name): 177
264 general index
Ullipi, Ullipians: 97 n. 24, 124; Yâtu: 175; a.k.a. Bēltu-rīšat 112–13 n.

on map 123 118, 166
Ulūlītu: 46 n. 22, 110 n. 105, 157, 161, Yā᾽u-bani: 46 nn. 22 and 24
184, 203 Yā᾽ūgu: 91 n. 106, 163
Ulūlu (month): 16 Yā᾽ūtu: 46 n. 22, 100 n. 51, 117 n. 136
Unnubtu: 159, 207 youth, young: 31–33, 51 n. 39, 53–58, 61
Upâq-ana-dīnīša: 157 n. 70, 67, 69, 70, 75 n. 47, 83 n. 78,
Uppultī-līšir: 190 87–88, 91–92, 99 n. 44, 101, 110–11,
Ur: 32–33; on map xxii 126–27, 132, 135–36, and passim; see
Ur-x-x (personal name): 20 also alādu (walādu), DUMU.GABA,
Ur-Adad: 110 n. 105, 170, 182 DUMU.SAL.GABA, GURUŠ.TUR,
Ūrī: 154 GURUŠ.TUR.GAL, GURUŠ.TUR.
Uribi: 190 TUR, lānu, pirsatu, pirsu, SAL.TUR,
Ur-Nergal: 205 SAL.TUR.TUR, and LÚ.TUR
Urti-Adad: 107 n. 93, 110 n. 105 in the IWL
Uruk: 112, 116; on map xxii
Usāt-ili-maʾdā: 208 Zarāt-Adad: 68 n. 11
Usāt-Marduk: 202 Zarāt-Dūr-Gula: 139
Usātūša: 107 n. 93, 110 n. 105, 111, 158 Zarāt-Karkara: 67 n. 7, 112
Usbi-Enlil: 155 Zibbat-Kartaba: 28 n. 66, 95 n. 15
Ūṣīya: 153
Personal Names, Initial Signs Damaged
villages: 137, 139 […]⌈a⌉-bi-en-ši: 186
[…]-abluṭ: 202
water drawers: 230 n. 8; see also dālû in […]-Adad: son of […]-⌈x⌉-Amurru 199;
the IWL son of Ištar-rā᾽imdi-x-x(-x-x) 174
water sprinklers: 99 n. 43, 232 n. 36. See […]-⌈x⌉-Adad 193
also sāliḫu in the IWL […]-⌈x⌉-Amurru: son of Iqīša-Amurru
weaned (laborers): 13, escapees 109; 199; wife of […]-⌈x⌉-nādin-zēri 176
occupations 101; sex ratio 56–57; […]-⌈x⌉-bāltī 157
statistics regarding 53–57, 61. See also […]-⌈x⌉-bani 196
child, children in this index and pirsu […]-bēla-uṣur 164
and pirsatu in the IWL […]-⌈bu?⌉ 181
weaver(s): 152, 168, 230 nn. 11–12; see […]x-x-di-ilī 205
also under textiles in the GI and […]-DINGIR-ša-⌈x⌉ 176
ḫuppû and išparu in the IWL […]-⌈e?-x?-x?⌉ 180
wet nurse, wet-nursing: 86, 99 n. 43, […]-⌈x-x⌉-e-a 207
231 n. 23; see also mušēniqtu […]-⌈x⌉-Enlil 193
in the IWL […]-x-īriš 169
widow(er), widowhood: 78–79, 90–91 […]-e-ri-šat 180
wife: 27, 61 n. 71, 65–66, 68–70, 72 n. 35, […]-x-ge-e-a 199
73–75, 81 n. 70, 89–91, 119, and […]-Gula, 176 186
passim in Appendix 1; see also aššatu […]⌈x⌉-Gula: 168, 191
in the IWL ⌈x x x⌉-Gula: 167
witnesses on legal texts: 32, 34, 38, 48, […]-idīya: 186
and passim […]-in: 194
women: see females […-i]na-Ekur: 193
wool (ration): 10 [( )]x-in-bu-x: 176
work group(s): 9–10, 46–47, 55; mobile […]⌈x-x⌉-iqīša: 166
63, 67, 95–97, 121 n. 158, 211–27; […]-⌈x⌉-iš: 206
organization 94–98, 103; removal […]-⌈x⌉-kidinnī: 176
from 63 […]-la: 187
work performed by laborers; see […]-x-la:, 187
occupations of laborers […]-Marduk: 176
general index 265
[…]⌈mi⌉: 203 ⌈x-x-x⌉-šimânni: 164

x-na-a-be-let: 110 n. 105 ⌈x-x-x⌉-Šipak: 191
[…]-⌈x⌉-nādin-zēri: 176 […]-⌈x⌉-ši-ri-bu: 156
[…]-x-x-Nergal: 162 […]-⌈šu?⌉: 180
[…]x-ni-ia: 172 […]-šu: 181, 197
[…]-ni-tum: 187 […]-⌈šub⌉ši: 169
[…]-⌈x-ni⌉-tum: 178 […]-šumu-līšir: 169
[…]-⌈nu?⌉: 181 […]-Šuqamuna: 207
[…]-x-nu?: 162 […]-⌈x⌉-Šuqamuna: 206
⌈x?⌉-pa-ni?-⌈x⌉-[…]: 186 x-ta-x: 206
x-x-pi-ša-tum: 189 […]-⌈ta?-ni?⌉: 196
[…]-ra-bi: 162 ⌈x⌉-te/li-x-ku-bu: 191
[…r]⌈abi⌉: 176–77 […]-⌈x⌉-TI: 181
[…]-rēmanni: 176 […]-x-TI.LA: 187
[…r]i?-šat: 169 […]-tum: 186–87, 193
[…]-⌈x-x⌉-rīšat: 187 […]-⌈x⌉-tum: 180, 183–84
[…]-ri-ša-tum: 177 ⌈x-x⌉-tum: daughter of Dannat-šerressa
[…]-ri-tum: 169 191; husband of Pirri᾽tu 205
[…] ša la x x: 162 ⌈x x x⌉-tum: 169
[…]-Šamaš, son of: 118 ⌈x-x-x-(x)⌉-tum: 207
[…]-x-x-Šamaš: 86 n. 89, 162 […](x) x x tu tum: 178
⌈x-x-ša⌉-ra-bi: 167 […]-ú-a: 164
[…]-šarrat: 186 […]-(x)-x-ú-a: 176
[…]-x-šar⌉-rat: 178 […]-ú-ni-tum: 156
[…]-x-ŠEŠ: 174 […]⌈x⌉-ur/lik-Baba: 74 n. 45, 172
[…]-⌈ši?⌉: 187 […]-⌈x⌉-yā᾽ūtu: 196
⌈x-x⌉-ši-GAD-ru-uk: 191 […]-⌈x⌉-zi-il-lum: 196
Index of Select Akkadian Words and Logograms
Generally speaking, words are listed in Akkadian with a cross-reference

to the logogram if the word or logogram appears any where in the text
in Akkadian. If only given as a logogram, then references will be given
under that logogram. Determinatives (e.g., LÚ) are ignored for pur-
poses of alphabetization. GI is an abbreviation for General Index.
A.AB.BA: 68 n. 11 BAD: 29, 31; cf. ÚŠ below

abullu: see maṣsạ r abulli LÚ.BÁḪ AR: see paḫ āru
aḫ ātu(NIN): 73–74 n. 40, 127 nn. 194 BÁN: see sūtu
and 200, and passim; cuneiform sign banû: 127 n. 200
75, 191 bānû: 101 n. 56, 152, 230
aḫ āzu: 127 n. 194 BA.ÚŠ: see ÚŠ
A.NI (Sumerian suffix): 73–74, esp. bēlu: 20 n. 33, 36 n. 100, 130
n. 40, and passim bītu: 20, 72 n. 38, 94 n. 4, 97,
aḫu (ŠEŠ): 73–74 n. 40, and passim 127 n. 200
akkadû: 121
alādu (walādu): 127 n. 200 dabābu: 126 n. 193
AMA: 73–74 n. 40 dālû: 105 n. 84, 137 n. 3, 230
amāru 16 n. 16 DAM: see aššatu
amīlūtu: 3–4, 8, 20, 33, 35–36, 39, 123, dīnu: 126 n. 193
126 n. 193, 129–30, and passim; dullu: 30 n. 84
awīlūtu (as abstract) 36 n. 100, 130 DUMU(.SAL): see māru, mārtu
ammatu: 32–33 n. 90 DUMU.GABA: 13 and passim; see also
amtu: see andu nursing (laborers) in the GI
ana: 127 n. 200 DUMU.SAL.GABA: 13 and passim; see
andu (amtu, GÉME): 83 n. 78, 131–32 also nursing (laborers) in the GI
āpil bābi: 99 n. 39, 229
ARAD: see ardu É.GAL: see ekallu
ardu (ÌR): 3–4, 19, 131–32, 188; arad É.GI4.A: see kallatu
ekalli 17, 83, 168, 229; see also andu ekallu (É.GAL): 2; see also under ardu
arḫu: 30 above
ararru/ararratu: 229 É.KUR: 125 n. 183
arūnāyu: 121 n. 158 elamû (NIM.MA(.KI.MEŠ) ): 3 n. 8, 30 n.
aṣû: 20, 34, 116–17 75, 99 n. 45
ašābu (wašābu): 128 elû: 16 n. 16, 19–20, 60, 62, 114, and
aškāpu: 229 passim
ašlāku: 229 EN5.SI: see iššakku
aššābu: 35 n. 99 ēntu: see NIN.DINGIR
aššatu (DAM): 73–75, 127 n. 200, and erēbu. 127 n. 200
passim; cuneiform sign DAM 75, 191 ÉRIN(.Ḫ I.A/ME/MEŠ): 16 n. 16, 30 n.
aššurāyu: 121 n. 158 84, 119, 120 n. 152; see also ṣābu
aštapīru: 8, 123, 129, 196 ÉŠ.GÀR: see iškaru
atkuppu (AD.KID): 30 n. 74, 229
atû: 151, 229 GÉME: see andu
awīlūtu(m): see amīlūtu GIBIL: 14, 105, 110 n. 105
index of select akkadian words and logograms 267
GIG: 8 n. 1, 62, 116; see also illness, kāṣiru: 230

ill in the GI kaṣsị dakku: 230
(GIŠ).BÁN(.GAL/ŠE.BA, etc.): see sūtu kaššû: 197
GÚ.EN.NA: see šandabakku kīlu, ki-lum: 14, 22 n. 39, 34, 107, 116,
GURUŠ: 8 n. 1, 13, and passim; see also 118–120, 131; see also imprisonment
adult (laborers) in the GI in the GI
GURUŠ.TUR: 13, 33; see also adolescent kunšillu: 152–54, 230
(laborers) in the GI kurgarrû: 166, 230
GURUŠ.TUR.GAL: 13; see also kurummatu: 23, 26, 62 n. 75
adolescent (laborers) in the GI
GURUŠ.TUR.TUR: 13; see also child, lānu: 32
children in the GI laputtû: 230
leqû: 34, 102 n. 58, 116, 119, 125, 126 nn.
ḫ alāqu: 8, 14, 18, 21, 34, 62, 105–107, 185 and 193
116–17, and passim; meaning lēʾu: 36 n. 100, 130
106–107 LIBIR.RA: 14, 105 n. 84
ḫ arintu: 230 lullubāyu/lullumāyu: 121 n. 158, 124–25
ḫ ašāḫu: 127 n. 200 (LÚ.)LUNGA: see sirāšû
ḫ azannu: 17, 36, 103 n. 64, 125–26 n.
183, 230 mādidu/ mandidu: 99 n. 42, 231
ḫimētu: 25 n. 43 maḫ āru: 119
ḫubbutānu: 124 maḫ āṣu: 34–35, 116
ḫuppû: 230 mākisu: see miksu
ḫuzzû: 205 malāḫu: 99, 104
mandattu: 39, 100
Ì(.GIŠ): 25 n. 43 mandidu: see mādidu
Ì.BA: 10, 23, 25, and passim; see also oil māru, mārtu: 73, 94 n. 4, 127 n. 200, and
(ration) and rations in the GI passim
LÚ.Ì.DU8: 21 maṣsạ ru: 231
Ì.NUN: see ḫimētu maṣsạ r abulli: 99 n. 39, 231
IGI.NU.GÁL (NU.IGI, NU): 8 n. 1, 14, miksu: 99 n. 42, 231 n. 19
60; see also blind in the GI LÚ.MUḪ ALDIM: see nuḫ atimmu
ikkaru: 159 n. 15 muḫtillû: 100 n. 51
ildu: 18, 21, 114–15, 127; see also ilittu munnabittu: 8, 123, 128
ilittu: 121; see also ildu mušēniqtu: 46 n. 22, 86 n. 91, 231
IM.ÚŠ: see ÚŠ
ipru (ŠE.BA): 2–3, 10, 23–24, 27–28, 30 nadānu(SUM): 25, 68 n. 11, 102 n. 58,
n. 82, and passim; see also rations in 119, 126 n. 185
the GI LÚ.NA.GAD: 21
ÌR: see ardu naggāru: 231
iškaru: 23, 26 naḫ laptu: 100 n. 51
išparu (UŠ.BAR): 17, 101 n. 56, 152, 230 nâru/nârtu: 231
iššakku (ÉNSI, EN5.SI): 17, 137 n. 3, 230 našû: 16, 18, 20 n. 33
Ì.ŠUR (ṣāḫitu): 117 NE (Sumerian suffix): see A.NI
NI (Sumerian suffix): see A.NI
KÁ.GAL: 68 n. 11 NÍG.KUD(.DA): see mākisu
kallatu (É.GI4.A): 74–75 esp. n. 45, 77, NIM.MA(.KI(.MEŠ) ): see elamû and
79–80, 130, 148, 155, 172 Elam in the GI
kalû: 34, 107, 116–17 NIN: see aḫ ātu
kamû: 14, 118–119, 131; see also fetters, NIN.DINGIR (ugbabtu or ēntu): 94 n. 3
fettered (laborers) in the GI NIN.DINGIR.GAL: 100
KASKAL: 14; see also travelling, ni/īrāyu (?): 102 n. 58
as a physical-condition designation NU: see IGI.NU.GÁL
in the GI LÚ.NU.GIŠ.ŠAR: see nukarribu
268 index of select akkadian words and logograms
nuḫ atimmu (LÚ.MUḪ ALDIM): 21, 231 sūtu: 10, 25–27, 30, 68 n. 11, and
NU.IGI: see IGI.NU.GÁL passim
nukarribu: 19, 21, 101 n. 56, 231; see also
gardens, gardeners in the GI ṣābu: 30 n. 84; see also ÉRIN
ṣuḫurti šarri: 102 n. 58, 126
pâdu: 119 n. 151
paḫ āru (LÚ.BÁḪ AR): 21, 30 n. 74, ša: 128, 130
231 šakin māti: 142
paqādu: 102 n. 58 šaknu: 142
paqqāyu: 231 šâlu (šaʾālu): 120 n. 157
pīḫ atu: 103 šandabakku: 4, 16–17, 32 n. 89, 102,
piqdānu: 8, 30 118–21, 126, 133, 142
pirsatu: 13; see also weaned (laborers) ša rēši: 99 n. 40, 102 n. 59, 126, 232; see
in the GI also LÚ.SAG
pirsu: 13; see also weaned (laborers) šarru: 102 n. 58, 120 n. 156, 126
in the GI šatammu: 94 n. 3, 102 n. 58; šatam
pû: 35 n. 99 ekurri (LÚ.ŠÀ.TAM É.KUR [( )])
purkullu: 231 125–26 n. 183
pūtu: 34–35, 116 šaṭāru: 36 n. 100, 130
ŠE.BA: see ipru
qātu: 103, 120 n. 152 ŠEŠ: see aḫu
qinnu: 2–4, 8, 20 n. 30, 97–98, 127 n. šipirtu: 102 n. 58, 126
200, 128, and passim; see also family ŠU.GI: 8 n. 1, 13; see also elderly
in the GI (laborers) in the GI
qīpūtu: 102 n. 58, 125–26 n. 183 ŠUK: see kurummatu
šūlû: see elû
rēšu: 16, 18 šūṣû: see aṣû
rēʾû: 103 n. 64, 232; rēʾi lâti/sugulli 231;
rēʾi sīsî 232; rēʾi ṣēni 232 târu: 20
rīmūtu: 26 tēlītu: 16–17
LÚ.SAG: 60 n. 66; see also ša rēši tenēštu: 3, 8, 23–26, 29, 39, 48 n. 27,
55–56, and passim
SAL: 8 n. 1, 13; see also adult (laborers) TIL: see BAD
in the GI LÚ.TUR: 33
sāliḫu: 232; blind 60 n. 66 ṭābiḫu/ṭabbiḫu: 60–61 n. 66, 232
SAL.ŠU.GI: 13; see also elderly(laborers) ṭāmītu: 70, 232
in the GI ṭupšarru: 99 n. 42, 232
SAL.TUR: 8 n. 1, 13; see also adolescent
(laborers) in the GI ugbabtu. see NIN.DINGIR
SAL.TUR.TUR: 13; see also child, ummânu: 99 n. 38, 143, 232
children in the GI usandû: 232
sasinnu: 157, 232 ÚŠ (BA.ÚŠ, IM.ÚŠ): 8 n. 1, 14, 21, 29 n.
SÍG.BA: 10; see also wool (ration) 70, 35; cf. BAD above
in the GI UŠ.BAR: see išparu
SIPA.ÁB.GU4.Ḫ I.A: 60 n. 66; see also
herding, herdsmen in the GI ZÁḪ (GIBIL/LIBIR.RA/ÚŠ/DU-kam):
sirāšû ( (LÚ.)LUNGA): 29 n. 72, 154, see halāqu
164, 232 zakû: 14, 118 n. 137, 131
SUM: see nadānu zakûtu: 128.

(Culture and History of The Ancient Near East 51) Jonathan S. Tenney-Life at The Bottom of Babylonian Society - Servile Laborers at Nippur in The 14th and 13th Centuries B.C.-briLL (2011)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

(Culture and History of The Ancient Near East 51) Jonathan S. Tenney-Life at The Bottom of Babylonian Society - Servile Laborers at Nippur in The 14th and 13th Centuries B.C.-briLL (2011)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Life at the Bottom of Babylonian Society

Culture and History of the

The titles published in this series are listed at: www.brill.nl/chan

Servile Laborers at Nippur in the

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV

Chapter One. Servile Laborers in a Favored Province���������������� 1

Chapter Two. Sources �������������������������������������������������������������������� 7

Ration Allocation Summaries for Groups in a

Chapter Four. Family and Household ����������������������������������������� 65

Death and Marriage ���������������������������������������������������������������������� 90

Chapter Five. Work, Flight, Origins, and Status ������������������������ 93

Chapter Six. The Servile Work Force in Local and National

Appendix One. Selected Households from Middle Babylonian

Appendix Two. Size and Composition of Select Mobile

Appendix Three. Sex and Age Classification of Attested

Select Bibliography ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 233

I must recognize the assistance of the Division of the Humanities of

1. An Example of Standard Inspection Phraseology

1. Map of Mesopotamia in the Late Bronze Age ������������������������� xxii

1. Body Format of Simple Rosters ������������������������������������������������� 15

19. Frequency of Occurrence of Mobile Groups of

All abbreviations employed in the dissertation are adapted from

ADOG Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft.

E. Ebeling, 2 vols. VAB 2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1907–15;

OIP Oriental Institute Publications.

Kadašman-Enlil I (1374)–1360 B.C. 15 years

SERVILE LABORERS IN A FAVORED PROVINCE

found a huge collection of tablets on the western mound south of

In 1906 Albert Clay published in two volumes the first substantial

The Narrative of the University of Pennsylvania Expedition to Babylonia in the Years

used to describe slaves in sale documents. The amount paid in employee

Our investigation of the servile laboring population at Nippur will use

r­ epresentations of the one hundred and seven best attested households

The purpose of this chapter is to survey the principal ancient textual

of rosters) list workers with no mention of rations and one hundred

The overwhelming majority (more than 80%) of source materials for

laborers enumerated on a single tablet, excluding supervisors, officials,

marked by a line of separation drawn down the column.6 Subcolumns

Figure 2. An Illustration of Columns and Subcolumns

As are columns when there is more than one per side.

A tabular register arranges data in three or more subcolumns.

(c) physical-condition designations;

(h) place of (last known) residence;

adult females. Sex-age designations can be applied to individuals,

Simple rosters can be divided into the following categories based on

Table 1. Body Format of Simple Rosters.

There is some correspondence between body format and function.

Tabular Registers Short-tabular Non-tabular

Figure 3. Function and Body Format in Simple Rosters.

manner or for the same reasons. Workers are listed individually by

Example 1. An Example of Standard Inspection Phraseology (Full

probably belonging to someone who held a position of authority or

Example 2. Excerpt from Inspection Text Ni. 1348.

Subcolumns a and b indicate whether the first-named person in sub-

“newborn (or: addition)22/ returned escapee/ (unreturned) escapee/

Example 3. Excerpt from Inspection Text Ni. 2228.

The names of the individual workers or the place of previous residence

Example 4. Example of a Transfer between Locales (Excerpt from Ni.

Only tablets recording the bringing of workers to Nippur from outside

E.g., PAP N DUMU.SAL PN.

Restoration of line 12 based on UM 29-15-461:11 in which the verb is

Chapter One. Servile Laborers in a Favored Province�� 1

Chapter Two. Sources �� 7

Chapter Four. Family and Household �� 65

Death and Marriage �� 90

Chapter Five. Work, Flight, Origins, and Status �� 93

Select Bibliography �� 233

1. An Example of Standard Inspection Phraseology

1. Map of Mesopotamia in the Late Bronze Age �� xxii

1. Body Format of Simple Rosters �� 15

ADOG Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft.

OIP Oriental Institute Publications.

r epresentations of the one hundred and seven best attested households

groups) are occupation names,74 geographic names/gentilics,75 super

(a) museum number, excavation number, and publication informa