Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:19:42.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Lots of eponyms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Extract

O Ashur, great lord! O Adad, great lord! The lot of Yahalu, the great masennu of Shalmaneser, King of Ashur; Governor of Kipshuni, Qumeni, Mehrani, Uqi, the cedar mountain; Minister of Trade. In his eponymate, his lot, may the crops of Assyria prosper and flourish! In front of Ashur and Adad may his lot fall!

Millard (1994: frontispiece, pp. 8–9) has recently published new photographs and an annotated edition of YBC 7058, a terracotta cube with an inscription relating to the eponymate of Yahalu under Shalmaneser III. Much ink has already been spilled on account of this cube, most usefully by Hallo (1983), but certain points require emphasis or clarification.

The object, pūru, is a “lot”, not a “die”. Nonetheless the shape of the object inevitably suggests the idea of a true six-sided die, and perhaps implies that selections of this kind were originally made using numbered dice, with one number for each of six candidates. If so, it is possible that individual lots were introduced when more than six candidates began to be eligible for the post of limmu. The use of the word pūru as a synonym for limmu in some texts, including this one, must indicate that eponyms were in some way regarded as having been chosen by lot.

Lots can of course be drawn in a multitude of ways. Published suggestions favour the proposal that lots were placed in a narrow-necked bottle and shaken out one by one, an idea that seems to have originated with W. von Soden (see Hallo 1983: 21). The new photograph shows clearly that the last line reads, not li-l[i]-a, as given by Millard, but li-d[a]-a, i.e. liddâ, “fall”, as proposed by Hallo.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1995 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Forrer, E., 1920. Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Gurney, O. R., 1953. The Sultantepe tablets. Anatolian Studies 3: 1525.Google Scholar
Hallo, W. W., 1983. The first Purim. Biblical Archaeologist 46 (1): 1929.Google Scholar
Kessler, K., 1980. Untersuchungen zur historischen Topographie Nordmesopotamiens (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B, no. 26). Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Michel, E., 1956. Die Assur-Texte Salmanassars III (858–824), 8: Fortsetzung. Die Well des Orients 2 (3): 221–33.Google Scholar
Millard, A., 1994. The Eponyms of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, 910–612 BC (State Archives of Assyria Studies, vol. II). Helsinki.Google Scholar
Reade, J. E., 1978. Assyrian campaigns, 840–811 B.C., and the Babylonian frontier. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 68 (2): 251–60.Google Scholar
Reade, J. E., 1981. Neo-Assyrian monuments in their historical context. In Fales, F. M., editor, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons: 143–67. Roma.Google Scholar
Schroeder, O., 1920. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen des Deutsches Orientgesellschaft, 35). Leipzig.Google Scholar
Tadmor, H., 1958. The campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: a chronological-historical study. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 12: 22–40; 77100.Google Scholar
Ungnad, A., 1938. Eponymen. Reallexikon der Assyriologie, vol. 2: 412–57.Google Scholar