¹ Oppenheim, A. L., “Métiers et professions à Nuzi” (RES (1939), 55–56)Google Scholar.

² Cross, D., Movable Property in the Nuzi Documents (New Haven, 1937)Google Scholar.

³ The occurrences of mār šipri in the Nuzi texts are rather numerous. See for instance HSS 14, 128: 16–17Google Scholar; 129: 6–8; 130: 9–10; 134: 9–10; 139: 8–10; 146: 5–6; 149: 3–4,7–8; 150: 7–9:151: 8–9; 159: 9–11; 161: Rv. 12′–13′; HSS 13, 54: 9–11Google Scholar; 298: 17–18. I am very obliged to Prof. Dr. Gernot Wilhelm who drew my attention to this subject. I also want to thank him for discussing with me this and other topics of the present paper, on the occasion of the Birmingham Rencontre.

⁴ Cf. Zaccagnini, C., Lo scambio dei doni nel Vicino Oriente durante i secoli XV–XIII, (Roma, 1973), esp. 51–58, 89–93, and passimGoogle Scholar. See also the recent article by Holmes, Y. Lynn, “The Messengers of the Amarna Letters” (JAOS 95 (1975), 376–381Google Scholar; also quoted by North, R., “Tin, Gift-Mercantilism: Archeological Varia”, Or 44 (1975), 490Google Scholar—his quotation should read JAOS and not JNES), that briefly deals with some of the main topics already extensively treated in my 1973 research on gift-exchange (the quotation on p. 379 fn. 35 of course is Rainey, A. F., “Business Agents at Ugarit”, IEJ 13 (1963). 313–321Google Scholar)

⁵ Gf. Lo scambio dei doni, 124.

⁶ Of course this does not mean that “all foreign trade was carried on under the name of gifts to the king”: North's, R. remark (Or 44 (1975), 490Google Scholar) is totally sound in this respect, and I never intended to put forward an opposite thesis in my research on gifts, as R. North seems inclined to suggest. In this respect I want to stress again the fact that the ideology of the great Near Eastern courts in the second half of the second millennium B.C. strongly aimed at qualifying as “gifts” as many exchanges of goods as possible: this clearly results from the evidence pertaining to international relations (letters). On the other hand, documents written for purposes of inner propaganda (cf. especially the Egyptian evidence) aimed at qualifying as “tributes” the same exchanges of goods: see, e.g., Zaccagnini, C., Lo scambio dei doni, 133–134Google Scholar; Liverani, M., “Memorandum on the Approach to Historiographie Texts” (Or 42 (1973), 191–193)Google Scholar. The subject will be dealt with in extenso in the forthcoming book by M. Liverani, Prestigio e Interesse.

⁷ See the occurrences of mār šipri ša ekalli in HSS 14, 129: 6–8; 159: 9–11; HSS 13, 54: 9–11Google Scholar; 298: 17–18. Cf. however HSS 15, 232: 9–10Google Scholar.

⁸ HSS 14, 146Google Scholar.

⁹ HSS 13, 54Google Scholar.

¹⁰ HSS 13, 298Google Scholar.

¹¹ The literature on this subject is fairly abundant: see for instance Oppenheim, A. L., “Trade in the Ancient Near East”, in V International Congress of Economic History, Leningrad, 1970 (Moscow, 1970) (separate offprint, 37 pp.)Google Scholar; Førde, N. W., The Sumerian DAM-KÀR-E-NE of the Third Ur Dynasty (unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1964), esp. 69–147Google Scholar; Leemans, W. F., The Old Babylonian Merchant (Leiden, 1950)Google Scholar; Garelli, P., Les Assyriens en Cappadoce (Paris, 1963), esp. 238–248Google Scholar; Larsen, M. T., Old Assyrian Caravan Procedures (Istanbul, 1967), esp. 49–51Google Scholar; (cf. Veenhof, K. R., Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Terminology (Leiden, 1972), 352, fn. 467)Google Scholar; M. Liverani, Storia di Ugarit (Roma, 1962), 83–86Google Scholar; M. L. Heltzer, “Tamkar i ego rol’ v Prednej Azii, XIV–XIII w. do n. e.”, (VDI, 1964/2, 3–16); Rainey, A. F., “Business Agents at Ugarit” (IEJ 13 (1963), 313–321)Google Scholar; Astour, M. C., “The Merchant Class of Ugarit” (in Edzard, D. O. (ed.), Gesellschaftsklassen im Alten Zweiströmland und in den angrenzenden Gebieten–XVIII. Rencontre assyriologique internationale, München igyo (München, 1972), 11–26)Google Scholar; Zaccagnini, C., OA 15 (1976), 159–163Google Scholar; M. A. Dandamajev, “Die Rolle des tamkārum in Babylonien im 2. und 1. Jahrthausend v. u. Z.” (in Klengel, H. (ed.), Beiträge zur sozialen Struktur des alten Vorderasien (Berlin, 1971), 69–78)Google Scholar; etc.

¹² See literature quoted above, fn. 11. The evidence from Ugarit seems particularly relevant. As for the position of the merchant within the ranks of palace bureaucracy see for instance PRU 3, 199–204Google Scholar (RS 16.257+): a long list of palace personnel, among whom several tamkārū (glossed bi-da-lu-ma [= Ugar. bdl(m)]) occur (II 12–46); PRU 6, 93Google Scholar: another list of specialized personnel, where three tamkārū occur (l. 3); see also the list PRU 3, 205Google Scholar (RS 15.172) where bi-da-lu-na occur (l. 14) together with other specialists. From. texts other than lists of personnel we know of merchants of the king of Hatti, Carchemish, Ugarit, etc. (see references in Liverani, M., Storia di Ugarit, 83–84Google Scholar). A close parallel to the “merchant of the queen” of HSS 14, 26Google Scholar is offered by PRU 4, 189Google Scholar (RS. 17.314: 3–4, 7), 190 (RS 17.449: 3′–4′), where we have PN ^LÚDAM.GÀR ša MÍ.LUGAL KUR URU Ú-ga-H-it.

As for the subordinate link which existed between the merchants and the palace, the remarks of M. Liverani (Storia di Ugarit, 85) according to whom the tamkārū performed a “service” (pilku) have been fully confirmed by PRU 6, 30Google Scholar. It will also be noted that the international documents concerning the activities of the merchants during the Late Bronze age almost invariably show the kings of Hatti, Babylonia, Cyprus, Ugarit, etc., referring to their own merchants, thus emphasizing the subordinate link between these people and the royal administration.

In this regard, a proper evaluation of the occurrences of merchants in Hittite texts (for references see Otten, H., “Zur Kontinuität eines altanatolischen Kultes”, (ZA 53 (1959), 182–183)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. ibid., 176–177; Hoffner, H. A. jr., “A Hittite Text in Epic Style About Merchants” (JCS 22 (1968), 36–37))Google Scholar leads to the conclusion that the DAM.GÀR played an official role in the context of the functions of the palace personnel. Particularly relevant is the evidence of KBo XIV 142Google Scholar (for which see Soucek, V.—Siegelová, J., “Der Kult des Wettergottes von Halap in Hatti” (ArOr 42 (1974), 39–52))Google Scholar, where the ^LÚ.MEŠDAM.GÀR occur in a list of personnel (Rv. IV) including ^LÚDUB.SAR.GIŠ, ^LÚ-MEŠUŠ.BAR, LÚ^MEŠ É.GAL, ^LÚMEŠĒTI, LÚ^MEŠGIŠTUKUL.GÍD.DA, ^LÚKAR-TAPPU, LÚ^MEŠhekur, ^LÚ.MEŠNAGAR.

¹³ One of the best known examples is provided by Sinaranu at Ugarit: PRU 3, 107–108Google Scholar (RS 16.238); cf. PRU 3, 101–105Google Scholar (RS 15.138 +, 15.109+)-

¹⁴ See for instance the tamkāru ša šēpešu of PRU 4, 219–220Google Scholar (RS 17.424+). More generally, on the difference between retailers and overland trade agents see Landsberger, B., “Akkadisch-hebräische Wortgleichungen” (in Fs. W. Baumgartner (Leiden, 1967), 176–190)Google Scholar; cf. A. L. Oppenheim, “Trade in the Ancient Near East”, loc. cit., 17–22.

¹⁵ HSS 5, 87Google Scholar: 5: AN.ZA.GÀR ta-am-ka₄-ar-ra; HSS 14, 20Google Scholar = AASOR 16, 76: 7: AN.ZA.GÀR tam-ka⁴-ar-ra; JEN 623: 14: AN.ZA.GÀR ša tam-kàr-ra; cf. AASOR 16, 3: 14: AN.ZA.GÀR tam-kà[r-ra ^?]. The form is to be interpreted as tamkari/u=na (plural “article”, with fall of final vowel of the stem and assimilation n ≥ r). The variant tamkarriwe is only supported by E. R. Lacheman's transcription of HSS 16, 55: 13–14: ¹³[iš-tu] dimti ¹⁴[ta-am-qà]-ri-we (cf. 1. 3: iš-tu dimti [x x x x x]-we). tamkarriwe should be analysed tamkari/u=ne-we (singular “article” + genitive suffix) and rendered “the dimtu of the merchant”. E. R. Lacheman's restoration is largely hypothetical, other possibilities being equally satisfactory.

¹⁶ The characteristics of these “specialized” centres have been recently focused by M. Liverani, on the basis of evidence from Ugarit and Alalah, in his paper “Communautés rurales dans la Syrie du II millénaire av. J.-C.”, to be published in the forthcoming issue of the Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin.

¹⁷ Contenau, G., RA 28 (1931), 33, n. 1: 8Google Scholar. The dimtu māhāzi of JEN 328: 4, 7, 20Google Scholar; 426: 4; 3: 6 should not be rendered “dimtu of the weavers”, as suggested by Lewy, H., “The Nuzian Feudal System” (Or 11 (1942), 317 fn. 3)Google Scholar: cf. AHw, 582a “Ort des (Ent-)Nehmens”.

¹⁸ See references in Fisher, L. R., Nuzu Geographical Names (unpublished Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, Waltham Mass., 1959), 32, nn. 215–216Google Scholar; and cf. Jankowska, N. B., “Communal Self-Government and the King of the State of Arrapha” (JESHO 12 (1969), 241)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Gadd 1: 4; JEN 487: 8, 15Google Scholar (for which see CAD K, 176b). The occurrences of a “city of the scribes” (HSS 15, 72: 2) invoked by N. B. Jankowska, loc. cit., should be disregarded, considering the writing URU tup-šar-ri-ni-we which suggests an interpretation “city of the scribe” (tupšarri=ne=we).

²⁰ Cf. Wiseman, D.J., The Alalakh Tablets (London, 1953), 155aGoogle Scholar.

²¹ PRU 4, 157Google Scholar (RS 17.146: 38); cf. 159 (RS 18.115: [29]).

²² For še'u ša pūri see HSS 14, 219: 1–2Google Scholar; CT 51, 6: 3Google Scholar (cf. ll. 8–9); and cf. Zaccagnini, C., OA 14 (1975). 86Google Scholar.

²³ Cf. also HSS 16, 55Google Scholar: Rv. 11–15: “Total: 20 [+ n imērū] of old [barley] which they received from the [ ]riwe-district”: but see the remarks above, fn. 15.

²⁴ HSS 9, 2: 3–4Google Scholar and SMN 1435: 2, 19 (cf. Owen, D. I., The Loan Documents from Nuzu (unpublished Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, Waltham Mass., 1969), 106 and 20)Google Scholar.

²⁵ AMOR 16, 29: 23–24, 35Google Scholar.

²⁶ HSS 14, 10: 1–2Google Scholar.

²⁷ Cf. the well-known example of the merchants of Ura.

²⁸ Transliterated and translated by Saarisalo, A., “New Kirkuk Documents Relating to Slaves” (StOr 5/3 (1934), 49, n. 30)Google Scholar. For ll. 12–13 cf. CAD 1–J, 33bGoogle Scholar; for ll. 14–20 cf. CAD L, 140aGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ See for instance the treaty between Tudhaliya IV and Šaušgamuwa of Amurru: Kühne, G.— Otten, H., Der àauSgamuwa-Vertrag (StBoT 16; Wiesbaden, 1971), 14–17: IV 12–18Google Scholar; the protocol between Hattušili III and Niqmepa of Ugarit: PRU 4, 103–105Google Scholar (RS 17.130) (cf. Liverani, M., Storia di Ugarit, 82–83Google Scholar). See Srzednicki, also C., “Early International Law Documents Concerning the Protection of Merchants” (Folia Orientalia 11 (1969), 255–258)Google Scholar.

³⁰ Such is, for instance, the case of Sinaranu at Ugarit (PRU 3, 107–108Google Scholar (RS. 16.238)). As for the temple, the most pertinent evidence comes from Egypt: see, e.g., Edgerton, W. F., “The Nauri Decree of Seti I” (JNES 6 (1947), 219–230, in particular 225: 82–92)Google Scholar; Griffith, F. Ll., “The Abydos Decree of Seti I at Nauri” (JEA 13 (1927), 193–208)Google Scholar, in particular 207–208 (the Decree of Elephantine; 207: 4: exemptions granted to temple trade).

³¹ See Kraus, F. R., Ein Edikt des Königs Ammiṣaduqa von Babylon (Leiden, 1958)Google Scholar; id., “Ein Edikt des Königs Samsu-iluna von Babylon” (in Studies … B. Landsberger (Chicago, 1965), 225–231); Finkelstein, J. J., “The Edict of Ammiṣaduqa: a New Text” (RA 63 (1969), 45–64)Google Scholar; id., “Some New Misharum Material and its Implications” (in Studies … B. Landsberger, 233–246); Bottéro, J., “Désordre économique et annulation des dettes en Mésopotamie à l'époque paléo-babylonienne” (JESHO 4 (1961), 113–164)Google Scholar.

³² The topic has been mainly dealt with by N. B. Jankowska, who based herself on Nuzian evidence: for a useful résumé of her works see Jankowska, N. B., “Extended Family Commune and Civil Self-Government in Arrapha in the Fifteenth-Fourteenth Century B.C.” (in Diakonoff, I. M. (ed.), Ancient Mesopotamia. Socio-Economic History (Moscow, 1969) 235–252Google Scholar (with previous literature)). The situation, as revealed by the Syro-Palestinian evidence has been analysed by Liverani, M., “Communautés de village et palais royal dans la Syrie du II^ème millenaire” (JESHO 18 (1975), 146–164)Google Scholar; see also the article quoted above, fn. 16.

³³ See Liverani, M., “Sydyq e Misor” (in Studi E. Volterra, VI (Milano, 1969), esp. 59–62)Google Scholar; id., JESHO 18 (1975), esp. 156–162. The proposal of Shifman, I. S., “The Ugaritic Jubilee” (VDI 1975/2, 94–99Google Scholar) (in Russian, with English resumé 99–100) is highly dubious: see the remarks of L. Milano, “Sul presunto giubileo a Ugarit (PRU 5 9)” (OA 16 (1977) in press).

³⁴ For the edicts at Nuzi I may refer to M. Müller, “Sozial- und wirtschaftspolitische Rechtserlässe im Lande Arrapha” (in Klengel, H. (ed.), Beiträge zur sozialen Struktur des alten Vorderasien, 53–60)Google Scholar; lastly Eichler, B. L., Indenture at Nuzi (New Haven—London, 1973), 32–34Google Scholar.

³⁵ References in Liverani, M., “Sydyq e Misor”, 61 and fn. 28Google Scholar.

³⁶ A completely opposite ratio is that of the well-known edict AASOR 16, 51Google Scholar.

³⁷ See Saarisalo, A., StOr 5/3 (1934), 70–71Google Scholar; cf. Eichler, B. L., Indenture at Nuzi, 16 fn. 35Google Scholar.

³⁸ EA 114: 6–9: “… Let the king my lord know that Aziru is my enemy: he has seized 12 of my people and has established with us a ransom of 50 (shekels) of silver …”. Cf. EA 109: 28–29: “… and they have established with us a ransom (consisting in) 50 (shekels) of silver …”. The translation of CAD I–J, 172bGoogle Scholar “… fifty (minas) of silver “is untenable: even if the figure is referred to the total amount of silver to be paid for ransoming 12 people, an individual ransom of 4 minas of silver would be very much too high, in view of the other Amarna data.

³⁹ PRU 3, 7Google Scholar (RS 8.333: 10). A lower price is, however, attested in PRU 2, 6Google Scholar, where 7 people are ransomed from the Beirutians with 100 shekels of silver (i.e. 14.3) shekels each).

⁴⁰ As other pieces of comparative evidence, I shall quote (rather than CH § 281 and Hittite Laws I § 22), Lev. 27: 3–4Google Scholar (cf. Lev. 25: 47–49Google Scholar) where ransoms in silver are established as follows: men: 1 month–5 years = 5 shekels; 5–20 years = 20 shekels; 20–60 years = 50 shekels; over 60 years = 15 shekels. Women: 1 month–5 years = 3 shekels; 5–20 years = 10 shekels; 20–60 years = 30 shekels; over 60 years = 10 shekels.

⁴¹ W. F. Leemans, The Old Babylonian Merchant; id., Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period (Leiden, 1960).

⁴² M. T. Larsen, Old Assyrian Caravan Procedures.

⁴³ Oppenheim, A. L., “The Seafaring Merchants of Ur” (JAOS 74 (1954), 6–17)Google Scholar; id., “Essay on Overland Trade in the First Millennium B.C.” (JCS 21 (1967), 236–254); id., “Trade in the Ancient Near East”.

⁴⁴ Cf. Landsberger, B., “Über Farben im Sumerisch-Akkadischen” (JCS 21 (1967), 156)Google Scholar; Goetze, A., JCS 10 (1956), 35Google Scholar; see also CAD E, 277b, 232a, 396a; A, II, 342b; D, 189b; K, 379a; H, 251a; AHw, 663a, 263a, 162b, 76a, 663a, 359a.

⁴⁵ It seems unnecessary to quote parallels in extenso: this pattern of trade has been discussed especially in the literature quoted above, fnn. 41 and 43; see also Liverani, M., Storia di Ugarit, p. 85Google Scholar (tamkāru ša maddatti at Ugarit). I might also suggest a comparison with the structure of the Old Assyrian “transport contracts” (see Larsen, M. T., Old Assyrian Caravan Procedures, 8–10, 44–70Google Scholar): the main difference is that the Nuzian tamkāru acted not only as a transporter, but also as a palace's representative—there was then no need to draw a “notifying message”.

An interesting piece of information to be drawn from our text is that, to all appearances, Ili-ittiya was travelling westwards: note that some of the items to be purchased by our Nuzian tamkāru, as well as the pattern of the agreement in AASOR 16, 76Google Scholar, are attested in tome Neo-Babylonian documents referred to by Oppenheim, A. L., JCS 31 (1967), 340Google Scholar and fn. 12: in one of these, the tamkāaru is going to perform his trade operations on behalf of the Eanna ina eber nāri, i.e. in Syria.

⁴⁶ Transliteration only.

⁴⁷ For lexical references, see above, fn. 44.

⁴⁸ The text has been transliterated by Landsberger, B., JCS 21 (1967), 157Google Scholar. For tabarru qaqqari see ibid., 169; and AHw, 901a. The verbal form in l. 13, seems strange to me: one possible emendation might be ˹i + na˺^! -an ^!-din.

⁴⁹ Transliteration and translation only.

⁵⁰ SÍG^MEŠ [ba]-aš-lu-ti: cf. CAD B, 140b.

⁵¹ Transliterated by Lacheman, E. R. in HSS 14, 652Google Scholar.

⁵² Transliteration only.

⁵³ Cf. AHw, 1063b.

⁵⁴ Transliteration only.

⁵⁵ Transliteration only.

⁵⁶ For references see AHw, 776b See below, p. 188.

⁵⁷ Transliteration only. For ll. 7–12, see CAD 111a.

⁵⁸ See presently, p. 187.

⁵⁹ Cf. Owen, D. I., The Loan Documents from Nuzu, 106–107, 20Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Sometimes the wording of the documents is very compact. See for instance JEN 500: ¹5 x [ ]^MEŠ2uš-tu ¹Te-hi-ip-til-la ³DUMU Pu-hi-še-en-ni ⁴₁Pa-la-a+a DUMU ^dA-šur-a-mi-ri ⁵il-qè ⁶NA₄¹Pa-la-a+a ^LÚDAM.GÀR, “Palaya, son of Aššur-amiri, took 5 [ ] from Tehip-tilla, son of Puhi-šenni. Seal of Palaya, the merchant”. For a close parallel to this pattern, with reference to the sphere of the palace, see HSS 13, 73, quoted above, p. 179.

⁶¹ The sign QA in ¹Qa-zi (ll. 3, 5, 14) is drawn like GIŠ. The expression in ll. 7 and 9 is not clear: cf. Cross, D., Movable Property in the Nuzi Documents, 22, fn. 25. l. 18Google Scholar: ANSE.KU]R¹¹.RA (?). l. 20: an alternative reading could be … i]-na e-re-eb 〈ITU〉 Š[e-ha-li] “when the month Šehalu will come” (cf.l. 11).

⁶² Transliteration and translation only.

⁶³ Cf. Eichler, B. L., Indenture at Nuzi, 24–25Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Transliteration and translation only.

⁶⁵ Cf. Owen, D. I., The Loan Documents from Nuzu, 119, 27–28Google Scholar. See presently, p. 186.

⁶⁶ Transliteration and translation only. See also below, p. 187.

⁶⁷ Contra, CAD H, 111b.

⁶⁸ The pattern of this contract resembles that of some Old Babylonian documents, where the travelling agent is obliged to give back to the financier a fixed sum, regardless of the issue of the trade expedition (cf. e.g. Leemans, W. F., Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period, 36Google Scholar).

⁶⁹ The writing IGI.DÙ instead of gissu (GIŠ.MI) = ṣillu “shadow” is explained in view of the equivalence dalá (IGI.DÙ) = ṣillû “thorn” (cf. Wilhelm, G., Untersuchungen zum Hurro-Akkadischen von Nuzi (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1970), 4 fn. 3Google Scholar). The meaning of ll. 7–8 is not fully clear: one might think that Kaluli had made a debt consisting in one slave girl; now, in order to extinguish his obligation, he has been sold through the merchant, who in fact receives one slave girl as purchase-price for Kaluli.

⁷⁰ Cf. CAD K, 97a (s.v. kalü). Otherwise one can think of qâlu (cf. AHw, 895), “to pay attention”, “to be silent”.

⁷¹ See, e.g., HSS 9, 36: above p. 180.

⁷² Above, p. 182.

⁷³ Transliterated HSS 14, 576. For 1. 3, see AHw, 666a; CAD E, 277a reads muṭṭû and translates the whole passage “two talents and fifteen minas of cedar (resin) for oil, less (than the promised amount), is still owed by PN, the merchant”.

⁷⁴ As is well known, the custom of keeping accounts concerning the business activities carried out by merchants is well established in Mesopotamia: the best examples are provided by the so-called “balanced accounts” of the Ur III period: see Curtis, J. B.—Hallo, W. W., “Money and Merchants in Ur III” (HUCA 30 (1959), 103–139)Google Scholar; Førde, N. W., The Sumerian DAM-KÀR-E-NE of the Third Ur Dynasty, esp. 14–22Google Scholar; Calvot, D., “Deux documents inédits de Ṣelluš-Dagan” (RA 63 (1969), 101–114)Google Scholar; etc.

⁷⁵ Cf. Owen, D. I., The Loan Documents from Nuzu, 106–107, 20Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ See above, pp 180–1, and below p. 187. 1. aa: ša 8 GUN URUDU hu-šu-hi-iš is not clear to me.

⁷⁷ Cf. Owen, D. I., The Loan Documents from Nuzu, 38–42Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Transliterated ibid., 120. For ll. 7–8 see CAD E, 387b; l. 9: SAG.DU DUMU^MEŠ is unclear; restoration in l. 1 ([3] GUN URUDU) is suggested in view of a 50% rate of interest.

⁷⁹ For kap-hu ^? cf. CAD K, 20b; also Owen, D. I., The Loan Documents from Nuzu, 142Google Scholar. For a possible emendation of the figure in l. 1, see presendy, fn. 82.

⁸⁰ Transliteration only.

⁸¹ HSS 9, 93Google Scholar comes from Room A 26; no provenience is given for HSS 13, 40 (cf. HSS 13, p. ixGoogle Scholar): nevertheless, it would seem very probable that also the latter text comes from the same Room.

⁸² The rate of interest would be 62.5%. If we emend the figure “4” in HSS 9, 93Google Scholar: 1 to “5”, we would have exacdy a 50% rate, which would better fit this type of contract: cf. above, p. 185 and fn. 77.

⁸³ Cf. Owen, D. I., The Loan Documents from Nuzu, 119, 27–28Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Note that in D. I. Owen's translation (l. 1) we read 2 GU₄ and 1 ANŠE.MÍ; but he translates “2 male asses … 1 female ass”.

⁸⁵ See above, p. 182.

⁸⁶ Cf. Owen, D. I., The Loan Documents from Nuzu, 112–113, 140, 22Google Scholar. D. I. Owen's translation is not very satisfactory. The text was also quoted, with some misunderstandings, by Speiser, E. A., AASOR 16, pp. 122–123Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ HWb, 2. Erg., 37a; cf. Laroche, E., RA 48 (1954), 219–220Google Scholar; RA 54 (1960), 193Google Scholar; Bush, F. W., A Grammar of the Human Language (unpublished Ph.D.diss., Brandeis University, Waltham Mass., 1964), 173, 347Google Scholar; lastly Steiner, G., “Die Bezeichnung von ‘Gruppen’ und ‘Klassen’ durch Abstrakta in Sprachen des Alten Orients” (in Edzard, D. O. (ed.), Gesellschaftsklassen im Alten Zweiströmland, 196, 204)Google Scholar. The translation “commercial due” given by Owen, D. I., The Loan Documents from Nuzu, 22, 140Google Scholar is unsatisfactory.

⁸⁸ HSS 9, 154Google Scholar: 3, 6^!.

⁸⁹ HSS 9, 93: 4, 7Google Scholar; SMN 2359: 4, 9. Of course ṣibtu occurs in all the interest-bearing loans.

⁹⁰ HSS 9, 2: 7Google Scholar; AASOR 16, 78: 6Google Scholar.

⁹¹ SMN 2359: 4, 10; AASOR 16, 79: 5Google Scholar.

⁹² Above, pp. 179–180.

⁹³ Above, p. 180.

⁹⁴ Above, p. 179.

⁹⁵ Above, p. 183.

⁹⁶ Above, p. 186.

⁹⁷ Above, p. 186.

⁹⁸ Cf. Leemans, W. F., The Old Babylonian Merchant, 23–24Google Scholar; see also Driver, G. R.—Miles, J. C., The Babylonian Laws, I (Oxford, 1952), 188–190Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ MSL I, 76Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ See references in AHw, 776b, s.v. nēmelu 2a. Cf. also Leemans, W. F., Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period, 57–58Google Scholar (cf. ibid., 41); id., The Old Babylonian Merchant, 25.