On the Old Assyrian Letter Heading. Playing with Social Hierarchy for Rhetorical Effect

On the Old Assyrian Letter Heading Playing with Social Hierarchy for Rhetorical Effect Matthias Adelhofer University of Vienna* ABSTRACT: Among Old Assyrian merchants, the epistolary form of address follows astrict pattern that directly reflects social hierarchy. Social standing dictates who is named first among the letter authors and the addressees. In rare occasions, this pattern is reversed. This paper investigates the effects to which this purposeful rhetorical play is used. KEYWORDS: Old Assyrian, letter, epistolography, address, social hierarchy, rhetoric The letter heading that comprises the address denoting author(s) and addressee(s) displays an impressively high degree of formularisation— especially in terms of vocabulary— throughout the millennia in ancient Mesopotamian epistolography.1 The Akkadian version ‘ana X qibīma umma Y(-ma)’ (“Speak to X! Y[says] the following.”) was already fully developed in the Old Assyrian (OA) city-state at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. Among the Old Assyrians, the sequence of addressee section ‘ana PN qibīma’ and author section ‘umma PN’ reflects the principal persons’ social hierarchy: whoever enjoys superiority is named first, and in case of multiple addressees and/or authors, the standing of the single most important person decides the overall sequence. The individuals within the respective groups are arranged likewise.2 Seniority seems to have been the most pertinent value. This usage of the letter address is worthy of mention not only for its importance for OA social history, but also for its uniqueness among most other epistolographic practices in Mesopotamia; compare e.g. the Old Babylonian address that always starts with the addressee.3 * This study was carried out while working on the author’s Ph.D. thesis on Old Assyrian epistolography at the University of Vienna, supervised by Michael Jursa and Cécile Michel. 1 For earlier times and the standardisation of the general formula by the Ur III period, cf.Sollberger 1966: 2–5 and Michalowski 2011: 31–32. 2 Naming entire groups of people in the address occurs commonly in OA letters, while it is equally often clear from the letters’ contents that only one of those persons is the actual author who might be speaking directly to only one of the addressees, not necessarily the ones mentioned first in the address. Cf., e.g., Michel 2008b: 126. 3 Cf. Sallaberger 1999: 22. OPEN ACCESS 6 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2020 While this general principle has long been recognised4 and has recently been fruitfully elaborated upon,5 some aspects of this practice have escaped scholarly scrutiny. The neat pattern, as described above, is at certain times breached and not strictly adhered to. Oftentimes we can discern the relative position of individuals within OA society and perhaps even anticipate the structure of the letter heading they would choose. Yet in specific situations, we find the sequence of the same individuals switched, their hierarchy inverted. Letter authors only ever invert the address in order to ascribe themselves alower ranking than normally, and only as the severity of their issues increases unbearably. We clearly see this of course only in those instances in which we possess continuous correspondences.6 Furthermore, we would assume that it is only possible in circumstances under which the correspondents’ social proximity allows for it.7 Certain, mostly philological reservations need to be addressed for our analysis: first, the high degree of homonymity in the OA onomasticon necessarily entails some uncertainty regarding the identification of individuals, especially when dealing with letters. Second, there is also the possibility of different scribal hands which composed individual letters of one continuous correspondence and which might have perceived the author’s place in society differently— even despite the widespread literacy among OA merchants that often suggests that writer and author are the same person.8 However, these arguments would be all too easy apretext to rule out those instances of variation, especially in examples for which rather clear social and/or archival contexts exist. The demonstrable deliberateness of writers of OA letters further argues against attempts at discounting the variability of the letter address as merely arbitrary. Furthermore, in order to give aquick idea about the pertinent differences between our sample texts, we will try to roughly characterise them by assigning them to one of two groups: requests vs. injunctions. For our purposes, requests are direct in tone and can often offer sound economic arguments (e.g. quid pro quo) that are also in the immediate interest of the addressees, whereas injunctions engage in more elabo4 J.Lewy (1926: 61 fn. *) noticed this already in the 1920s, some 40 years after the first tablets from Kültepe came to light. H.Hirsch (1981) elucidated the reasoning behind the changeable address structure, and C.Michel (1991: 70–71) aptly applied this knowledge in her reconstruction of the Innaya archives. 5 A.Anderson (2017) scrutinised this phenomenon in order to build social hierarchies and at the same time verify it through astrong quantitative approach throughthe perspective of Social Network Analysis in his dissertation. 6 Of course, we also have letters dealing with events unique to and detached from the rest of the correspondence with any one addressee that nonetheless swerve from the typical pattern. In our attempts at systematisation, we need to bear in mind that we find in the letters organic conversations that cannot for the most part have been premeditated and cannot as awhole be submitted to auniform rhetorical scheme. 7 The question as to the margin within which the Old Assyrians could engage in such hierarchical games has acertain allure to it, and perhaps with A.Anderson’s (2017) data it may even be approachable. 8 The first to articulate the particularity of Old Assyrian literacy was probably M.Larsen (1989: 132–136), with C.Michel (2008a) elaborating profusely on the topic. OPEN ACCESS MATTHIAS ADELHofER 7 rate convincing mostly by (implicitly) referring to social bonds (in that one affiliated trader should help the other even without immediate personal gain) and have for the most part an air of urgency about them. Our first and most clear-cut example consists of acontinuous conversation in three letters sent by Šīmat-Suen to her brother Uṣur-ša-Ištar.9 It concerns the death of the siblings’ elder sister, Akatiya, and Šīmat-Suen’s wish for her brother to come and sort out the economic aftermath. However, Uṣur-ša-Ištar seems to largely ignore her letters and remains inactive.10 Kt n/k650 (translation Michel 2020, no.272)11— request umma Šīmat-Suen-ma ana Uṣur-ša-Ištar qibīma For the instructions concerning the house of your father that you have been repeatedly sending me, why do you not come here and put in order the house of your father? When you heard the tablet, (you should have) gotten ready and come here. You did not come here and did not put in order your father’s house! (Now) your father’s house is being ruined! Your sister has passed away! And as for me, he gives us an abundance of (misfortunes), while you, they dream about you! If you are my brother, get ready and come, seize the foot of Aššur, your lord, and save your life! And put your father’s house in order, lest it be ruined. Kt n/k584 (translation Michel 2020, no.273)12— request/report umma Šīmat-Suen-ma ana Uṣur-ša-Ištar qibīma As for the house of Lila, the 3 minas of silver for which your guarantor Puzur-ilī, son of Uṣur-ša-Ištar, had been recorded, when your sister was still alive, she paid 9 For Uṣur-ša-Ištar’s broader background in the Anatolian copper trade, see Dercksen 1996: 140–147. 10 Judging from the content of the letters, we would agree with C.Michel (2020: 397–410) in ordering the texts in the given way. In the first letter, Šīmat-Suen refers to previous ones sent by her brother, which he must have started to issue as soon as he had heard about his other sister’s death. In the second one, she reports on various problems which have arisen, also mentioning Uṣur-ša-Ištar’s daughter whom she will now have to care for. In any case, it seems clear that Uṣur-ša-Ištar had not complied with Šīmat-Suen’s request to come to her. In the third letter, Šīmat-Suen can no longer cope with having to deal alone with the fallout of Akatiya’s death and writes aletter expressing just that. Might Uṣur-šaIštar’s daughter be behind the inept young woman (ṣuhartum) who is left in charge of the household in this last letter? If so, the chronology of the correspondence would be evident, otherwise the second and third letter should perhaps be switched. In the latter case, Kt n/k584 would have been written after some sort of resolution with Uṣur-ša-Ištar had been reached after Šīmat-Suen’s more desperate letter (Kt n/k713). This course of events would then be similar to the situation observed in the “Asqūdum-affair,” introduced as our last example below, in which the correspondence between the king and Pūšu-kēn continues after the first and most pressing issue had been resolved. 11 First published in Çeçen— Gökçek 2017. 12 First published in Bilgiç— Bayram 1995, no.31. OPEN ACCESS 8 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2020 back the interest. After your sister’s death, Iddin-Aššur gave the Lady 10 minas of copper from the wages of Sirabi. And as for me, two or three times Icalled upon Puzur-ilī to demand payment, and Ihave cleared him from obligations. Today the Lady has saved me, but she keeps coming in order to seal the house! Urgent! Send the silver, so that they pay the Lady, and she will not break up the household. You are my brother, send the silver of Ia-šar, as much as you had me pay, so that Ican store barley (and) wheat for our food. The season is there! Your daughter has learned alesson from her aunt: she left her nothing! The toggle pin that you sent her is here, it has been deposited with me. Iwill personally clothe her and cover her, and she always will go with me. You should not be anxious about her. Iwill take care of her. Kt n/k713 (translation Michel 2020, no.274)13— injunction ana Uṣur-ša-Ištar qibīma umma Šīmat-Suen-ma For how long will you not come, and for how long will Isuffer on account of the house and the furniture? Why don’t you come and put in order the house of your father? How long will Ihave to keep in order your father’s house? Indeed, you left ayoung woman in charge of the feeding of alarge household! As for me, Isuffer from that young woman! Truly, your sister is dead and Isent you aletter several times. Your instructions never came back to me. Urgent! When you will hear my tablet, set out and come here! At the beginning of the affair Šīmat-Suen vents her indignation and asserts that their “father’s house is being ruined,” which is arather typical statement in this context.14 At the same time, she is confronting her brother with the valid economic considerations commonplace when members of the OA trade pass away, such that her brother should come himself to conclude the matter.15 In the second letter, she retains asomewhat aloof air of factuality in complaining to Uṣur-ša-Ištar about various points of business. Only in the third letter does her personal distress become explicit, rather than simple concern for the paternal household and business. Šīmat-Suen accuses her brother of neglect of the family’s household with emphasis on her own suffering, showering him with reproachful rhetorical questions.16 Thus, Šīmat-Suen mentions herself in the address of this final letter only after Uṣur-ša-Ištar, thereby ceding the position of slight superiority she claimed in her other letters. We would, therefore, suggest that she does this in order to underline the gravity of the situation and her own chagrin which causes her to disregard her own pride, while in the previous two 13 First published in Çeçen— Gökçek 2017. 14 See, e.g., AKT 6 232, 14–18, where Ennam-Aššur uses the same phrase in the context of his father Šalim-Aššur’s death: “Do not act rashly there, Imust not be delayed here for long and my father’s house must not be ruined!” 15 For asynopsis of the economic aftermath of OA merchants’ deaths, see Veenhof 2008: 100–101. 16 The rhetorical question is apopular means to express indignation and perhaps sarcasm, as will be demonstrated in our Ph.D. thesis. OPEN ACCESS MATTHIAS ADELHofER 9 letters, assured by the customary expediency of her requests, she does not need to stoop, but rather asserts the appropriateness of her writing. At this point, it needs to be acknowledged that these three tablets were not all written by Šīmat-Suen herself, nor even by one and the same person. As C.Michel already points out in her commentary, in Kt n/k713 the sign LA1 is (uncommonly for OA) consistently used instead of LA2, which is found in the other two tablets. It is also clearly visible from the hand-writing that the scribe of Kt n/k713 is different from that of Kt n/k584 and Kt n/k650.17 We were, however, not able to unequivocally decide whether the latter two were written by the same hand or not. Since, as relates to our main focus, Kt n/k713 is also the one that differs in address, one may object that it could have been the different writer who simply did not deem it proper to rank the younger sister above her elder brother. Yet we do not believe that awriter would have acted in this way, entirely on their own initiative. We stress again the deliberateness in the choice of the exact form of the letter address, which will be clear by the end of this paper. The next set of examples consists of two letters, not directly connected, that are exchanged between Aššur-mūtappil and Puzur-Aššur, who had already been abusiness partner of the former’s father, Pūšu-kēn, hence superior in rank to Aššur-mūtappil.18 TC 3 19 (translation by the author)— request umma Puzur-Aššur-ma ana Aššur-mūtappil qibīma Since, here, Kuzizia paid me with silver of his working capital for the textiles of Kulziar which Kuzizia entrusted to you in the City, release, there, the garments to Kuzizia’s representatives! TC 3 18 (translation Michel, 2001, no.125)— report ana Aššur-mūtappil qibīma umma Puzur-Aššur Asānum m’a confié 28 étoffes de bonne qualité, 1 talent 28 mines d’étain au sceau de tes représentants, 2 ânes noirs et leur équipement. Šamaš-bāni m’a confié 47 mines d’étain scellé et en outre 4 mines d’étain provenant d’Asīya, 12 étoffes-kutānum d’excellente qualité, tout cela au sceau de tes représentants. Un âne étant malade, je viens de le laisser àŠamaš-bāni.19 Ton serviteur étant malade, j’ai dû charger (les ânes) moi-même. 6 mines d’étain ont été dépensées pour les frais de transport de ton équipement jusqu’àZalpa et pour le fourrage de tes ânes; là-bas, scelle leur montant en argent et remets-le àma servante, et qu’il soit conservé sous son sceau. Tes serviteurs vont te conduire les ânes et leur équipement. 17 Photos of Kt n/k650 and Kt n/k713 are provided in Çeçen— Gökçek 2017: 475–479. C.Michel kindly provided us with her own photos of Kt n/k584 which she had taken for collation. 18 Cf. Matouš 1969, especially 158 fn. 5–7 and 162 fn. 15, about the relation of Puzur-Aššur and Aššur-mūtappil (also mentioning our tablets) in the context of Puzur-Aššur’s death. 19 He might be the same Šamaš-bāni who also worked for Pūšu-kēn as transporter, according to TC 2 8 (partly translated in Stratford 2017: 232 fn. 24). OPEN ACCESS 10 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2020 The first letter deals with succinct business instructions, in the address of which Puzur-Aššur— again being the older partner and practically on the same level as Aššur-mūtappil’s father— mentions himself before Aššur-mūtappil. Yet against expectations, in the second letter he ranks Aššur-mūtappil first. This text is atypical caravan notice20 without much rhetorical embellishment, but there is one passage we would take as an explanation of the irregular address by virtue of its content and perhaps tone. Puzur-Aššur has to convey the bad news that not only did Aššur-mūtappil’s donkey fall ill but also his servant, so he himself had to graciously prepare the load.21 He emphasises this latter fact doubly by using the independent pronoun of the 1st person singular (anāku) together with the enclitic particle -ma,22 in order to dim the bad light cast on him by the misfortunes that occurred under his supervision. This he does, of course, in addition to the conciliatory effect of the address. Compared to the previous one, our third example set comes from amore secure (archival) context. The identity of the protagonists is beyond doubt: the letters are chosen from the correspondence of Šalim-Aššur with his representatives in Kaneš23 and his sons, Ennam-Aššur and Ali-ahum. AKT 6 150 (translation after M.Larsen)— request umma Šalim-Aššur ana ša kīma iāti Ennam-Aššur uAli-ahim qibīma The tin Isent to you Ibought the same way acolleague and friend would, at 2 shekels under the rate. Later, there was no tin. After you give it to Ennam-Bēlum you will also give it for apledge according to my instructions. Now, as to the rest of my tin, if the rate is not 1:7 or 1:8, then do not sell the tin for refined silver. Ihear that there is amarket for kutānus in Kaneš. Inquire, and if you cannot realise any silver in Kaneš, you must not release the kutānus to credit agents in Kaneš itself. You will bring the kutānus up to either Hattum or Burušhaddum … Give instructions to …-Aššur… … Amkuwa and … turn to … and … on the narrow track and either to Durhumit or to Tišmurna wherever … that Ihave promised to you … until Icome, my smuggling goods, fine kutānus … the proceeds from the Akkadian textiles. Until Icome … 20 Type 2 of Larsen 1967: 10. 21 TC 3 18, lines 15–19: “(…) 1 e-ma-ru-um / ma-ri-iṣ-ma a-na / dutu-ba-ni : e-tí-zi-ib-šu / ṣu-haar-kà ma-ri-iṣ-ma / a-na-ku-ma : as-ri-dam.” 22 Cf. Kouwenberg 2017: 470 for this usage of -ma. 23 According to AKT 6 214 these representatives are Iddin-abum, son ofAššur-rabi, Itūr-ili, son ofAmur-Ištar, Ennānum, son ofAmriya, and Īnah-ilī, son of Šū-Aššur. Šalim-Aššur writes many letters to them among others (with Iddin-abum always heading the list) and is himself always the very first person in the address (AKT 6 133 [+his sons]; 136; 137; 138; 141 [+his sons]; 142 [+his sons]; 143 [+his sons]). OPEN ACCESS MATTHIAS ADELHofER 11 AKT 6 149 (translation after M.Larsen)— injunction ana ša kīma iāti Ennam-Aššur uAli-ahim qibīma umma Šalim-Aššur Iam staying in Tegarama.24 Before Itake away my goods— urgent!— before Iarrive, collect every mina of silver and let it be in my house. Do not send any silver to the City. On the day you hear my letter Ali-ahum should come to meet me either in Hurama or in Kuššara, and he should bring every mina of silver that is at my disposal. The textiles that Ali-ahum transported from the smuggling must remain under seal. Šalim-Aššur begins AKT 6 150 by reminding his correspondents of afavour he had already done them, and proceeds to give his instructions how to fare with the goods. As we can see from many other texts, Šalim-Aššur ranks unequivocally above these representatives25 and especially above his own sons. It thus comes as asurprise to see him reverse this order in AKT 6 149. In this letter, one can verily hear his pressing distress and glean that he must have been running precariously low on money. Šalim-Aššur therefore entreats his representatives to act on his behalf unquestioningly, and above all, fast. Two more of Šalim-Aššur’s tablets help to demonstrate our main hypothesis further. They appear less immediately applicable to the observed pattern, but upon closer examination fit well in overall tone and message. In both of them Šalim-Aššur expresses acertain urgency while maintaining his superior rank in the address that is directed to (aselection of) his representatives— here by name (cf. fn. 23)— together with his sons. AKT 6 141 (translation M.Larsen)— request umma Šalim-Aššur-ma ana Iddin-abum Ennānim Īnah-ilī Man-mahir EnnamAššur uAli-ahim qibīma Check my certified tablets concerning my outstanding claims, and make anyone who owes me asingle shekel of silver pay the silver and its interest. You yourselves must decide there in whatever matter you observe. Take care to have the silver paid and to send it to me as soon as possible. The silver from my outstanding claims must be available; do not make trouble mixing it with my merchandise. 7 ½ minas of silver, the share of the man from Tumliya: you received interest for 4 years at 2 minas of silver each and two times 80 (sacks) of grain, half of it wheat. 8 minas of silver plus 320 sacks of grain: make the proceeds from my grain and my interest on the silver available and send it. And if they will give you the full payment on my share, then take it. Also, if any of my partners do not agree with you, then sell the share. Send me all of the silver. 1 mina of silver and 30 sacks of grain, the interest for 2 years, Icharged to you with Šuppun-ahšu/Ušhata before my departure, and you received 80 sacks and 2 pots as interest for 4 years. So, offer 24 For Tegarama, see Barjamovic 2011: 122–133 and Barjamovic— Gander 2012. 25 Although the representatives perhaps do not always have to constitute astatic group (courtesy C.Michel), considering the bulk of evidence for Šalim-Aššur, the likelihood of this being the deciding factor here appears negligible. OPEN ACCESS 12 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2020 this grain for sale and deposit the price with the silver of the man from Tumliya. 20 sacks of beer-bread, 20 sacks of malt minus the price of … and 6000 sacks from that of the man of Tumliya: the lady received the interest when Iwas staying in Burušhaddum. She gave me 6 minas of silver thereof and said: “Ishall send you the rest later.” Don’t you know how much silver Amur-Šamaš has taken there on the account of his son Irišum? And the lady is robbing even me, but you, you keep quiet! Concerning 27 minas 10 shekels of silver, 2 minas 3 shekels of gold and … thousand minas of copper: Ileft my tablets and iṣurtu-documents with EnnamAššur in Burušhaddum. As for the losses of Ali-ahum’s son: Iheard about … shekels which they imposed and he returned. Of all this Ennam-Aššur has not sent me any silver. There, let him send … which he took. Ishall not reach … Ishall not reach and shall not be unhappy. Speak … Iexpect to see your care and gentlemanly behavior. These men may know … As in AKT 6 149, Šalim-Aššur here appears pressed for money and instructs his representatives in Kaneš to collect all outstanding claims.26 However, the matter does not exhibit the same quality of urgency that made him place himself lower than even his sons in that tablet. Rather, he is demonstrating his indignation, e.g., through the rhetorical question “Don’t you know how much silver Amur-Šamaš has taken there on the account of his son Irišum?”, at once followed up by the reproach “And the lady is robbing even me, but you, you keep quiet!” in lines 45–49.27 AKT 6 142 appears connected to what is talked about in AKT 6 141; both texts mention, e.g., the man of Tumliya and adebt of grain owed by Šuppun-ahšu. AKT 6 142 (translation M.Larsen)— request umma Šalim-A[ššur(-ma) an]aIddin-abim Ennanim Īnah-ilī Adida Ennam-Aššur Ali-ahim uAmur-Ištar qibīma My tin and my textiles have come to you from the caravan of Anninum’s son. You have not sent me any silver from that! You are my brothers and lords, check my certified tablets and reach an agreement where possible with those of my customers you see. Set terms where you are able to, so you produce my silver for me. Set aside your own needs for just one or two days and clear my outstanding loans. 8 minas of silver owed by the man from Tumliya: at the rate of 2 minas in silver and 80 sacks of grain, half barley, half wheat, he will pay interest annually. He has held the silver for 4 years. 1 mina owed by Šuppun-ahšu: he will pay interest of 20 sacks of grain annually. Why is it that interest on the silver and the price of grain in silver from his interest from the man of Tumliya has come to my partner Kurub-Ištar/Ali-ahum, but nothing has come to me? You are my brothers, reach 26 M.Larsen (2010: 250) insinuates in his comment on this tablet that Šalim-Aššur’s writing may be anatural action “late in the season, before the last caravans would leave Anatolia for Assur.” 27 AKT 6 141, 45–49: “(…) ma-lá A-mur-dutu / i-ṣé-er I-ri-ší-im me-er-i-šua-ma-kam / ˹kù.˺babbar il5-qé-ú a-tù-nu lá tí-de8-a/ [ú] a-wi-il5-tum i-a-tí ta-ma-ší-hi-ma / [a]-tù-nu ta-áš-ta-pu-a(…)” OPEN ACCESS MATTHIAS ADELHofER 13 an agreement with the man from Tumliya and take my share of the silver. Ido not need the interest. Or reach an agreement with someone else and take the agreed amount in silver, and let the man from Tumliya be responsible for this. You are my lords, save me while Ican still be saved. If Adida has arrived there, take care to send him with … my servants. … … … the balance … You are my lords, save me while Ican still be saved! Again, the chief emotion of this text is indignation. Šalim-Aššur masks it by courteously calling the addressees brothers and lords (ahḫūa bēlūa attūnu, lines 8f.) and by ending the letter in an indulgent manner. He concedes the interest that should have accrued on the credit and contents himself with whatever silver they can garner.28 He even emphasises that he will see their helping him as abig favour, via the repetition of the stock phrase “You are my lords, save me while Ican still be saved!”29 Yet this serves only to mitigate Šalim-Aššur’s venting of his frustration in the previous passage (and to show his rhetorical skill). Already in the second sentence he reproaches his representatives for their idleness. His anger most clearly shines through, while providing us with perhaps one of the clearest examples of sarcasm in his telling them to set aside their own needs for just two days,30 as well as the rhetorical question as to why silver has reached others but not himself,31 only after which he presents himself as more amicable. Thus, even though Šalim-Aššur ends on aconciliatory note, this certainly does not warrant granting the addressees first place in the address. Neither does his minor, justified rebuke in AKT 6 141, in the rest of which he plainly lists his instructions. An intriguing example comes from the archive of Elamma, son of Iddin-Suen.32 In AKT 8 263, Šāt-Tašmētim is writing to Puzur-Anna and Šu-Suen. This letter is an example of such texts that are often found in an (original) archival context without immediate connection— as far as we can reconstruct it— to the rest of the archive and its protagonists/owners. The overall letter is structured in two parts by two addresses that mention the same correspondents in different ways. The letter begins with an address with Šāt-Tašmētim in first position, but halfway through she inserts another address line inverting the sequence. As far as the letter’s contents can be understood, despite sometimes unclear readings due to damage on the tablet, the two parts correspond very well to our main hypothesis. 28 AKT 6 142, 32–35: “a-hu-ú-aa-tù-nu iš-tí / Tù-um-li-[a-]i-im namam-gi5-//ra-ma / kù.babbar qá-tí [le-]qé-a-nim / ṣí-ba-t[im] ú-lá ha-áš-ha-ku.” 29 AKT 6 142, 39–41+46–47: “(…) be-lu-aa-tù-nu / a-na u4-mu-ú e-ṭá-ri-im / eṭ-ra-ni (…)” … “be-lu-ú-a˹a-tù-˺nu a-na u4-mu-ú e-ṭá-ri-im / eṭ-ra-ni.” 30 AKT 6 142, 15–16: “ú ší-na u4-me-eku-ša-hi-ku-nu / ez-ba-ma ba-ab-tí za-ki-a-nim.” 31 AKT 6 142, 16–31: “(…) mì-šu ša a-na / Kur-ub-Ištar dumu A-lá-hi-im tap-pá-i-a/ kù.babbar ṣí-ba-sú ù ší-im še-im / kù.babbar ša ṣí-ba-tí-šu / ša tù-um-li-a-i-im i-li-kà-//šu-ni-ma / i-a-tí lá i-li-kà-ni.” 32 The archive is edited in Veenhof 2017 (AKT 8). OPEN ACCESS