SHULGI-SIMTI AND HER LIBATION PLACE (KI-A-NAG)(1) Lecturer, Shizuoka Women's University

SHULGI-SIMTI AND HER LIBATION PLACE (KI-A-NAG)(1) TOHRU GOMI Lecturer, Shizuoka Women's University I During the four successive reigns of the kings of the third dynasty of Ur which ruled Mesopotamia in the twenty-first century B. C., Puzris-Dagan (now called Drehem), lying south of Nippur, provided animals to be sacrificed for temples and shrines mostly situated in Ur, the capital of the kingdom, and in Nippur, the religious center of the Sumerian pantheon. This central cattle exchange was established by Shulgi, the second and the most mighty monarch of the dynasty, in his thirty-ninth regnal year, as is commemorated in its yearformula.(2) In thousands of texts found there(3) we often find the name of Shulgi's wife, Shulgi-simti,(4) which appears, in most cases, in a phrase mu-tu-dsul-gisi-im-ti/-turn-ma that means "the delivery for (or, in the name of) Shulgisimti."(5) When we arrange all the texts containing her name in chronological order, as S. T. Kang did in his SACT I (1972), pp. 264-267,(6) it becomes apparent that she was one of the most important and most active women of that time and that her activity as receiver of animals(7) offered by many individuals continued from the thirty-second to forty-seventh year of Shulgi's reign.(8) There is no text which gives us any information about the mu-tu-dsul-gi-si-im-ti after that period. Thus it is clear that her activity was restricted only within her husband's reign. During the following nearly twenty years when Amar- Sin, Shu-Sin and Ibbi-Sin were kings successively, it was Abi-simti, the queen (nin),(9) who disbursed animals to various deities in the same manner as Shulgisimti had previously done. This quite certain and clear change of the actresses has given to some scholars a seemingly firm ground for a very attractive conclusion that Shulgisimti and Abi-simti were identical and that the former changed her name to Abi- 1

simti on the occasion of the death of her consort, Shulgi.(10) Though very interesting and attractive, this conclusion is confronted with several difficulties as L. Matous in RA 68 (1974), p. 85 points out in his critical review of E. C. Keiser, "Neo-Sumerian account texts from Drehem," BIN III (1973). On the basis of some facts which seem persuasive enough to me but which some scholars have overlooked, he denies the possibility of identity of those two women. II Thus there are two quite opposite views of the problem whether they were indeed identical or not.(11) A term ki-a-nag (Akkadian asar masqiti/mastiti) "a libation place" for the dead(12) seems to me very useful to solve this complicated and not yet completely settled riddle. It is very rare that we find this term in thousands of already published Neo-Sumerian administrative texts. We want to begin our study by citing the whole text of a tablet, Schileico, Assiriologiceskija zametki, ZVO 25 (1921), p. 134, whose date is 'AS 1 D III 28': 1 gukkal: ki-a-nag-dsul-gi-si-im-ti Na-ra-am-i-li maskim. iti-u4-28 ba-zal, ki-na-lu5 ta ba-zi. sa-uriki-ma. iti-u5-bimusen_ku. mu damar-dsin lugal. "1 fattened sheep for the kitchen(?), for the libation place of Shulgi. 1 fattened sheep for the libation place of Geme-Ninlilla and 1 fat tailed sheep for the libation place of Shulgi-simti. Naram-ili (was) the commissary. On the 28th of the month they were expended from Nalu. The month of the eating of ubi bird. The year when Amar-Sin (became) the king." According to this, a libation place existed for Shulgi who was surely already dead at that time. It teaches us further that there was one also for Shulgisimti. Hence one may assume that she must then have been dead, too. But this is based upon a hypothesis that a place of libation was a place for the deceased which was established after one's death. Therefore, however probable that assumption may be, the hypothesis itself needs to be examined by contemporaneous documents themselves. How can we then prove it correct without hav- 2 ORIENT

ing any record mentioning her funeral ceremony? SHULGI-SIMTI AND HER LIBATION PLACE (KI-A-NAG) A study of many Lagash Early Dynastic III texts of ki-a-nag's(14)(15) will teach us when these cultic places used to be constructed in those days. We find them in the following contexts. sa-du11-ki-a-nag! (-kam): Nik I 62 (L 1)(16), BIN VIII 372 (L 1), RTC 55 (-) and 66 (L 4). mas-da-ri-a-ki-a-nag-kam: Nik I 159 (L 1). ki-a-nag-siraranki-na and ki-a-nag-lagaski: TSA 1 (L 2), Nik I 23 (L 4), RTC 47 (L 3), Fortsch 34 (-). ki-a-nag-ensi-ka-se ba-turn: Nik I 161 (-). Because these examples have no personal names(17), we cannot know whose libation place is dealt with in each case. On the contrary, the following texts are useful in this respect: (1) RTC 46 (L 2), I-III and VI-VII: 1 udu En-en-tar-zi ki-gu-ka ba-sa6 u4-1-kam 1 sila4 En-en-tar-zi ki-a-nag ba-sa6 1 udu Du-du sanga e-ki-sal-la-ka ba-sa6 } u4-2-kam. 1 udu En-en-tar-zi gu-su-nigin-na ba-sa6 u4-3-kam Bara-nam-tar-ra dam-lugal-an-da ensi-lagaski-ke4 ezem-dba-ba6-ka gis be-tag. day. 1 lamb was slaughtered for En-entarzi at the libation place and 1 sheep was slaughtered for Dudu, the sanga priest, in the Ekishalla. On of Lagash, has sacrificed(19) them in the festival of the goddess Baba." (2) DP 56(-): 1 udu-nitah ki-a-nag-en-en-tar-zi-se gis e-tag. "Man sacrificed 1 ram for the libation place of En -entarzi." (3) Fortsch 171 (L 2), XI-XII: (them) for the libation place of En-entarzi." (4) DP 59 (L 3), XV: Vol. XII 1976 3

mas-da-ri-a-ki-a-nag ezem-dba-ba6 ka En-en-tar-zi-ra mu-na-tum. "Man brought (them) to En-entarzi (as) gifts for the libation place in the festival of the goddess Baba." (5) Nik I 195 (L 3): mas-da-ri-a-ki-a-nag-en-en-tar-zi Du-du sanga-bi-da-kam ezem-dba-ba6- ka En-ig-gal nu-banda za bi-sus. Lugal-sa6-ga sipa-ra e-na-sid. "These are gifts for the libation place(s) of En-entarzi and Dudu, the sanga priest. In the festival of the goddess Baba, En-iggal, the overseer, branded(20) (them). He counted them for Lugal-shaga, the shepherd." These five texts describe the existence of the libation place of En-entarzi, the immediate predecessor of Lugal-anda. And all but one which lacks the date belong to the reign of the latter who in turn was followed by the famous reformer-king Uru-inimgina(21) (Uru-KA-gina). It is beyond doubt that En-entarzi was dead at that time. Hence we may think that a place of libation of a certain man must have been constructed after his death for the cultic purpose, so far as the Pre-Sargonic Lagash texts are concerned. III This is confirmed by Ur III texts mainly from Puzris-Dagan and from Umma, Lagash and Ur. The places of libation we know to whom they belonged are following ones: (1) ki-a-nag-ur-dnammu: (1) Or 47-49, 465 (-U); (2) Kang, SACT I 188 ([] D); (3) UET III 76 ([] Ur; e-gal-gibil ki-a-nag-dur-dnammu-se); (4) Reisner, TUT 173 (-L III 4); (5) CT 7,17775 (-L III 13); (6) ib. 13166 (-L XI 20); (7) AnOr 7,290 ([] U IX 3); (8) Nik II 250 (S 48 U; with "dsul-gi-si-im-ti u e-en-nun"); (9) Fish, Catalogue 220 (AS 1 D III 22; sa-uriki-ma); (10) Langdon, Babyloniaca 7, p. 237-, No. 14 (AS 3 D XI 3); (11) Salonen, PDT 417 (AS 4 D IX-min 14); (12) UET III 21 (AS 5 Ur); (13) Szlechter, RA 59 (1965), p. 146, FM E. O. 14 (AS 6 D; sa-tum-[ma-a]1-ta(22)); (14) Chiera, STA 3 III 34 (AS 8 U; -dnammu!); (15) Salonen, PDT 548 (AS 8 D VII 2); (16) CT 32, 104458 (AS 8 D VIII 21); (17) AnOr 7,146 (AS 9 D VIII; e-); (18) Or 47-49, 392 (SS 1 U; se-ba-gir-se-ga-); (19) Keiser, BIN III 586 (SS 9 D VI 21(23)); (20) Delaporte, RA 8 (1911), p. 196, No. 19 (IS 1 D I); (21) de Genouillac, TD 5482 I 5 (IS 1 D VII 13); (22) ib. 5514 (IS 2 D X 4 ORIENT

SHULGI-SIMTI AND HER LIBATION PLACE (KI-A-NAG) 3; sa-uriki-ma); (23) Jones and Snyder, SET 57 (IS 2 D X 9); (24) ib. 58 (IS 2 D X 24); (25) UET III 244 (IS 9(24) Ur; ni-dab5-). (2) ki-a-nag-dsul-gi: (1) Or 47-49, 465 (-U); (2) Reisner, TUT 173 (-L III 4); (3) CT 7,17775 (-L III 13); (4) AnOr 7,290 ([] U IX 3); (5) Nies, UDT 116 (S 48 D XII 12); (6) Fish, Catalogue 221 (AS 1 D III 24); (7) Schileico, ZVO 25 (1921), p. 134 (AS 1 D III 28; see above p. 2); (8) Salonen, PDT 384 (AS 9 D XI 30); (9) UET III 81 (SS 2 Ur IV). (3) ki-a-nag-damar-dsin: (1) Or 47-49, 465 (-U); (2) Salonen, PDT 384 (AS 9 D XI 30); (3) Reschid, TIM 6, 8 (SS 1 D VII 24; sa-unuki-ga); (4) UET III 147 (IS 6 Ur XI 15; -kar-za-gin); (5) ib. 252 (IS 10 Ur X/XI). (4) ki-a-nag-dsu-dsin: (1) Or 47-49, 465 (-U). (5) ki-a-nag-dgu-de-a: (1) Reisner, TUT 128 I X ([]L)(25); (2) Nies, UDT 39 (-L I). (6) ki-a-nag-i-din-dda-gan: (1) Hallo, TLB III 24 (SS 1 D diri-xii 10/ []; sa-unuki-ga). (7) ki-a-nag-nin: (1) UET III 21 (AS 5 Ur). (8) ki-a-nag-geme-dnin-lil-la and (9) ki-a-nag-dsul-gi-si-im-ti: (1) Schileico, ZVO 25 (1921), p. 134 (AS 1 D III 28.). (10) ki-a-nag-sa-ba-na-x sabra: (1) CT 5, 18358 III 11 (S 41-45 L). (11) ki-a-nag-dam-[lu]-[giri!x]-zal [ens]i!(26): (1) Reisner, TUT 128 IX 22-23 ([]L). Although, of course, such expressions as ki-a-nag-ensi-ke4-ne, ki-a-nag-amanin-dingir-ra or ki-a-nag-lugal-lugal-ne etc, are found in other Neo-Sumerian texts,(27) we cannot tell to whom each of them belonged. On the contrary, in cases of the eleven above enumerated ki-a-nag's, the personal names or status indications attached to them teach us clearly with whom they are to be connected. Gudea, one of these persons, lived almost during the same time as or a little earlier than Ur-Nammu, the founder of the Ur III kingdom. Gudea's deified statues were worshipped during this period. Idin-Dagan, whose genealogy is unknown to us so far, appears in the other Puzris-Dagan texts seven times from the fifth year of Amar-Sin to the first year of the next king: five times in the spelling I-din-dDa-gan(28) and twice as I-ti-dDa-gan.(29) Therefore it is not at all impossible to assume that he deceased in the course of the first regnal year of Vol. XII 1976 5

Shu-Sin. Ki-a-nag-nin "the libation place of the queen" and that of Ur-Nammu perhaps lay side by side according to one Ur text, UET III 21 (AS 5): ni-dab5(30)- ezem-ma-didli-za-mu ki-a-nag-ur-dnammu u ki-a-nag-nin-s[e] ba-sum "materials for each festival of the New Year's Day were given for the libation place of Ur-Nammu and for the libation place of the queen." The queen in question here is surely Watartum, wife of Ur-Nammu.(31) The activity of Geme-Ninlilla who also had her own libation place was recorded in Puzris-Dagan texts during the period from the 37th to 48th year of Shulgi's reign. But her name is found also in two other texts of later years. In the line 5 of Keiser, BIN III 610 (AS 2 D),(32) the first almost destroyed ideograph may be GEMS. The other text, Salonen, PDT 220 (SS 3 D VII), mentions this name erroneously without the divine determinative: Geme-Ninlil-la. By the way we have no information about what status and role she enjoyed and played during her lifetime. Perhaps she was a member of the royal family, since her name was put side by side with those of Shulgi and his consort. If Geme-Ninlilla in these two texts is identical with the person of the same name whose activity is attested only during the reign of Shulgi, the latter may have been alive also in the periods of Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin. In this case we may interpret the existence of the libation place for the living Geme-Ninlilla on the same assumption as that applied to the similar case of Shulgi-simti, to which we will refer later. Other two examples which mention the libation places of Shabana-X, the shabra priest (or more likely an official) and of the wife of Lu-girizal, the city governor (of Lagash), remain useless, so far as we cannot know when they died.(33) Four other men were all the kings of the Ur III dynasty. From many texts we know that sacrifices were offered to the place of libation for dead Ur- Nammu. And the oldest evidence of its existence is found in Nik II 250 dated in the last year of his son, Shulgi. As for the libation place of the latter himself, it is in the text of Nies, UDT 116 (S 48 D XII 12) that we find the first record of offerings to it. According to it some cattle were distributed also to be Shulgi-simti rather than Abi-simti, wife of Amar-Sin.(35) This means that the former was alive then. For Amar-Sin who succeeded to his father Shulgi and stayed on the throne 6 ORIENT

SHULGI-SIMTI AND HER LIBATION PLACE (KI-A-NAG) for nine years the construction of his libation place seems to have taken place by the end of the eleventh month of his last year, because then man sacrificed cattle to his libation place as well as to that of his father. Also for Shu-Sin, brother and successor of Amar-Sin, his own libation place was established; but the lack of date in the only one text about it prevents us from determining the exact date of its construction. Unlike his predecessors, Ibbi-Sin, the last ruler of the dynasty, left us no information about his own libation place, though he was on the throne longer than twenty years. The length of his reign, however, doesn't always mean the greatness and stability of his power. In fact his reign was unhappy. His kingdom suffered from successive attacks by such primitive tribes in the neibouring mountains as Subarians and Elamites and Ishbi-Erra, one of his most powerful generals, revolted against him and founded his own dynasty in Isin. And the "Lamentation over the destruction of Ur" tells us that the king was captured and brought to Elam. Anyway the situation at that time didn't permit his bereaved family to build a libation place for the king.(36) Thus from the study of libation places in Pre-Sargonic and Neo-Sumerian texts we can draw a general conclusion that a place of libation of a certain person must have been established soon after his death. In other words, the existence of his libation place implies that the man concerned was already dead. I V The study of when each sovereign of the Ur III dynasty died points to the above-mentioned conclusion. It seems to me very probable that Amar-Sin died sometime earlier than in the seventh month of his last, i. e. the ninth regnal year. This is supported by five texts such as Keiser, STD 101 (AS 9 U?/D?), Oppenheim, Eames Collection G 28 (AS 9 U X 29), ib. O 30 (AS 9 U X 5-7), Levy, 'Atiqot, English Series 4 (1965), No. 35 (AS 9 U XII 8) and Nies, UDT 169 (AS 9 D X 4)(37). The seal impressions on them were dedicated to Shu- Sin, the next king; for instance: dsu-dsin lugal-kala-ga lugal-uri-kima lugalan-ub-da-limmu-ba Ur-dSul-pa-e dub-sar dumu-ur-d[ha-ia](38) it-zu "Shu- Sin, the mighty king, king of Ur, king of the four regions; Ur-Shulpae, the scribe, son of Ur-Haia, is your servant" (UDT 169). The first apparent fact that we ought to pay attention to is the king's name. And the second is the divine determinative d (=dingir) affixed to his name. Vol. XII 1976 7

This expresses his deification. Also Pohl, TuM 225 (AS 9 N VIII 1) tells us his divine statue (alam-dsu-dsin-na). According to them, on Amar-Sin's death sometime earlier than in the seventh month Shu-Sin acceded to the throne immediately or at least during the year,(39) while the year-formula for Amar-Sin's ninth year was continuously used till the end of the year. Otherwise we cannot understand why Shu-Sin was permitted to attach the determinative to his own name, even though he indeed was the crown prince. In case of the change of the throne from Shu-Sin to Ibbi-Sin,(40) too, we reach almost the same conclusion. On BIN III 585 (SS 9 D V), Nik II 190 (SS 9 U) and Oppenheim, Eames Collection P4 (SS 9 U?) we find seal inscriptions which were dedicated to the new king, Ibbi-Sin, while the year-formula there used was that for the ninth year of Shu-Sin.(41) Especially of importance is the unique yearformula in UET III 1595 (SS 9 Ur X). It runs as follows: mu di-bi-dsin lugal-uri (SES!. AB)ki-ma-ke4 e-dsara-ummaki-ka mu-du "the year when Ibbi-Sin, the king of Ur, built the temple of the god Shara of Umma." Naturally not the name of Ibbi-Sin but that of his predecessor Shu-Sin is here expected. Furthermore, as E. Sollberger pointed out,(42) it was in the tenth month(43) of Shu-Sin's ninth year that on the occasion of Ibbi-Sin's corronation a series of religious ceremonies were performed on various days at Ur, Nippur and Uruk one after another. Accordingly we conclude that Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin died sometime earlier than in the seventh or the fifth month of their last regnal year respectively. Now this reminds us that the first mention of the libation place of Amar-Sin is found in a text dated in 'AS 9 D XI 30'. (In case of Shu-Sin it is not possible so far to know when it was constructed, as the text lacks the date.) So we are allowed to suppose that the new king established a libation place for his brother on the latter's death. Generally speaking, the existence of a libation place for a person implies the death of the man concerned. V Now we return to the text of Schileico, Assiriologiceskija zametki, p. 134 (AS 1 D III 28) cited above on p. 2. There three places of libation are enumerated side by side: those of Shulgi, Geme-Ninlilla and Shulgi-simti. On the ground of the mention of the libation place for her in this text, we may conclude that Shulgi-simti must have died soon after the death of her husband. 8 ORIENT

SHULGI-SIMTI AND HER LIBATION PLACE (KI-A-NAG) But on the other hand we must pay attention also to some texts that mention her activity of later days.(44) The first to be cited is a Puzris-Dagan text Boson, Tavolette 186 (AS 7 D XI 28). On the day Shulgi-simti received some dead animals from Nasha, one of then leading Puzris-Dagan officials. Still more we find her name in UET III 1211 which, though its date is lost, can be dated doubtlessly to the period of Shu-Sin or his successor, because a Lu-dSudSin found there could be named only after the king Shu-Sin. There she acted as a gir official on the occasion of kas-de-a-an-nu-ni-tum.(45) In this way we are confronted with two contradictory conclusions. One and the same Shulgi-simti died at the end of the reign of her husband on the one hand, but survived and left some records of her activities during the periods of Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin on the other hand. Of course, needless to say, one of them must be wrong. In order to understand the affairs correctly we want to refer to an old Japanese custom that some Japanese women of high rank in the Edo period (1603-1867) often used to cut off their hair and enter the priesthood upon their consort's death, even if they were young. This helps us think of our curious and at first sight contradictory phenomenon as follows: when Shulgi died, not only the libation place for himself but also that for Shulgi-simti, his wife, were established, in order to symbolize her official retirement from the political and religious world. Hence we have only a few sporadic texts that mention her later activity. This leads to the conclusion that Shulgi-simti must have been different from Abi-simti. This conclusion can well overcome both of the two difficulties which originate from the assumption that they were identical. One is the question why Shulgi-simti appeared in some later texts with this old name. The more important and famous the woman who had changed her name was, the more strange it seems that we find her old name also in later records. Shulgi-simti was the wife of the previous sovereign. It cannot be denied, neverthless, that her name is found in several texts of later period-even seven years after the changing of her name. We may, of course, regard it as an unexpected mistake by a careless scribe. But enough time had already passed to make all Puzris- Dagan scribes familiar with her new name, Abi-simti. So it is rather likely that Shulgi-simti was alive then in retirement as a different woman from Abisimti who was the then queen. The other difficulty lies in the obvious fact that the term mu-tu-a-bi-si-im-ti corresponding to mu-tu-dsul-gi-si-im-ti began to be used only after the eighth Vol. XII 1976 9

year of Amar-Sin. Of course, as S. T. Kang, BIN III, p. 7 shows, there are some other texts which refer to her activity already in the second or third year. But in these cases it was under the control of such officials as Abba-shaga, Shulgiaamu and so on. Namely, at first sight the functions of Abi-simti were indeed similar to those which had been performed previously by Shulgi-simti, but, as Matous points out in RA 68 (1974), p. 85, not perfectly the same. So we had better consider that it was in the eighth year of Amar-Sin that Abi-simti completely succeeded Shulgi-simti in her religious role. Had they been identical in fact, the term mu-tu-a-bi-si-im-ti might have been used also in the early years of Amar-Sin. Accordingly I feel inclined to have the view that Shulgi-simti who was wife (lukur) of Shulgi was different from Abi-simti, the queen (nin) in the periods of Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin. Notes (1) Abbreviations used in this article are common to Sumerology. Dates are indicated in parentheses. As for the Puzris-Dagan calendar after its reform in the fourth year of Shu- Sin, see the note 39 below. S, AS, SS and IS stand for Shulgi, Amar-Sin, Shu-Sin and Ibbi- Sin respectively. The names of four Sumerian cities Lagash, Nippur, Umma and Puzris- Dagan (=Drehem) are abbreviated to L, N, U and D respectively. -or [] expresses the lack or loss of a part or the whole of the date. (2) mu dsul-gi lugal-uriki-ma-ke4 lugal-an-ub-da-limmu-ba-ke4 e-puzris-dda-gan mu-du "the year when Shulgi, the king of Ur, king of the four regions, built the house of Puzris - Dagan." As to its variants, see N. Schneider, Die Zeitbestimmungen der Wirtschaftsurkunden von Ur, AnOr 13(1936), pp. 17-18. (3) Although we don't know the exact provenance of these texts, we regard them as Drehem texts provisionally. See Jones and Snyder, "An Early Drehem(?) Series" in SET, pp. 203-208 and E. Sollberger, AfO 21, p. 90. (4) According to Scheil, RT 37 (1915), p. 130 (S 32 D VI-) and Salonen, PDT 530 (S 46 D VIII) she was his priestly wife (lukur). For the meaning and status of lukur, see ZA 58 (1967), p. 175 etc. Basing upon his own wrong interpretation of a passage in Salonen, PDT 434 (S 41 D VIII), L. Matous in RA 68 (1974), p. 84, note 10 thinks na-at". But the text which runs as follows doesn't allow us to follow him: 1 kus-suhub-du8-si-a-e-ba-an: Nin-kal-la 1 kus-suhub-du8-si-a-e-ba-an: dsul-gi-si-im-ti Matous perhaps reads the text as "dsul-gi-si-im-ti dumu-n. maskim" (Shulgi-simti, the daughter of N., the maskim), from which his above-cited interpretation comes out. But this contains two misinterpretations which prevent us from agreeing to Matous's view. (1) The text symmetrically composed, dsul-gi-si-im-ti must be separated from 'dumu-n. maskim'. This means that the person N. was not her father. How is the phrase 'dumu- N. maskim' to be understood, then? (2) Because maskim was not a name of occupation such as scribe, singer etc. but only a title which was given to an occasional function of 10 ORIENT

SHULGI-SIMTI AND HER LIBATION PLACE (KI-A-NAG) the man concerned, and because, furthermore, it cannot be plausible that the very person who played the function of maskim remained anonymous, though his father's name was first sign read as 'dumu' by Salonen is 'i' in all probability. See I. J. Gelb, MAD 3, p. 301 who proposed this reading hesitatively. So I understand the text as "Itib-sinat is the commissary." He appears as sagi "cupbearer" in three texts so far: Legrain, TRU 363 ( S 6 D VI 20), Salonen, PDT 563 III 5 (SS 9 D X 21) and Keiser, BIN III 603 (IS 2 D XII 1). (5) On the officials appearing in these texts, see my article in Japanese 'About the officials of the Institution mu-tu-dsul-gi-si-im-ti' in the "Near Eastern Studies dedicated to H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday", 1975, Tokyo, pp. 163-170. (6) SACT I=Sumerian and Akkadian Cuneiform Texts in the Collection of the World Heritage Museum of the University of Illinois, vol. I: S. T. Kang, Sumerian Economic Texts from the Drehem Archive (1972). To the texts cited by him on pp. 264-267 are to be added: Keiser, STD 79 (S 32 D IX); Sauren, MVNS II 167 (S 38 D X), 308 (S 32 D IV); Owen, MVNS III 136 (S 33 D IV), 137 (S 33 D VI), 143 (S 35 D VIII), 161 (S 39 D III), 162 (S 39 D III), 179 (S 41 D IX 10/14), 200 (S 44 D I 27-30), 201 (S 44 D II); Lutz, STR II 70 (S 44 D XI); Margolis, STD 4 (S 39 D IX 22); Rinaldi, Aegyptus 29 (1949), p. 106-107, No. 34 (S 35 D XI), p. 108, No. 37 (S 46 D X), No. 38 (S 42 D VIII); Fish, MCS 7, 16, Liverpool 51-63-42 (S 36 D V); Fish, Catalogue 184 (S 47D IX 23); AnOr 7, 11 (S 46 D XII); AnOr 1, 1 (S 38 D VI); Boson, Tavolette 145 (S 47 D IV); Oppenheim, Eames Collection G 11 (S 38 D V), N 19 (S 38 D VII), O 19 (S 39 D VII); Langdon, RA 19 (1922), p. 187-, No. 7 (S 44 D III 20/28); Holma and Salonen, StOr 9 (1940), 22 (S 44 D V 9); Salonen, PDT 56 (S 46 D X 28), 113 (S 47 D I), 475 (S 45 D V 22); Jean, SA IX (41) (S 47 D I 20); Or 18, 6 (S 44 D VII 17-20); de Genouillac, Babyloniaca 8, 17 (S 45 D I 7/10); Scheil, RT 37 (1915): four texts on p. 129 (S 35 D IX), (S 40 D V 29), (S 40 D IX 22) and (S 44? D VI 15); pp. 129-130 (S 45 D III 23); two texts on p. 130 (S 44 D IX) and (S 45 D VIII); Legrain, TRU 76 (-D I). Some other texts also belong to the same group, though we don't find in them either mu-tu or dsul-gi-si-im-ti or even either of them: AnOr 7, 2 (S 36 D IX); Hallo, TLB III 15 (S 34 D V); Jones and Snyder, SET 5 (S 41 D XII 4/9); Salonen, PDT 330 (S 41 D IX); Fish, MCS 7, 16, Liverpool 51-63-27 (S 37 D VI); Boson, Tavolette 62 (S 41 D XI), 218 (S 39 D II), 232 (S 44 D VI 22) and 243 (S 38 D II). Cf. Boson, Tavolette 75 (S 39 D) which has sa-du11-ds. instead of mu-tu-ds. It is not certain whether Keiser, STD 303 (S 40 D I) is concerned to mu-tu-ds. as Jones and Snyder think in their SET p. 207. There are some misprints(?) in the chart of Kang, ib. pp. 264-267: Boson, Tavolette The name of the actinig official from 'S 45 D IX 29' to 'S 47 D IV 3' is not Lugaledinaka but Ur-lugal-edinaka. The table 2 in Jones and Snyder, SET, p. 207 also contains some mistakes which need to be corrected in this occasion: CST 470 (S 42 D V 24) is a zi-ga text. CKS 475 (S 45 184. AnOr 7, 90 (-D VII) which is enumerated among zi-ga texts of the 38th year is to be omitted, because it has no year name. Vol. XII 1976 11

(7) More exactly-needless to say-it was not herself but her agent who received and distributed animals. (8) Because the date of the text PDT 139 is not 'S 48 D X 28' but 'S 47 D X 28', the des- accordingly to be corrected. (9) We follow Th. Jacobsen, "The reign of Ibbi-Suen", JCS 7 (1953), pp. 45-47. He assumes that Abi-simti was the consort of Amar-Sin and, after his death, of Shu-Sin. (10) A. Goetze, JCS 17: 9 apud S. T. Kang, BIN III, p. 6, note 12 points out the phenomenom of changing names in the Ur III period. To my regret I can't get his article. Without presenting any single basis, B. Hruska, ArOr 44 (1976), p. 157 gives support to Goetze's view that Shulgi-simti changed her name to Abi-simti. (11) As for the bases of each of these two views, see S. T. Kang, SACT I, p. 267, note 1. (12) See B. Landsberger, "Der kultische Kalender der Babylonier und Assyrer" (1915), p. 5, note 1. (13) On the reading of the sign MU as muhaldim or mehidix "Koch", see J. Krecher, AfO 24 (1973), p. 120. The function of e-mu seems to me something more than a mere kitchen. It needs to be studied more in detail. (14) See, for example, A. Falkenstein, AnOr 30 (1966), p. 138-139 and notes there. (15) See Y. Rosengarten, "Le regime des offrandes dans la societe sumerienne" (1960), pp. 29-31 and J. Bauer, "Altsumerische Wirtschaftstexte aus Lagasch", Studia Pohl 9 (1972), p. 173, comment to III 9. (16) L stands for Lugal-anda here. (17) Other examples: (1) ki-a-nag-lugal-lagaski: DP 53 (L 3); (2) ki-a-nag-ezem-dlugal- tsch 93 (U 2), STH I 41 (U 4), RTC 60 (L? 3) etc. (18) This meaning proposed by J. Bauer, ib, p. 459, note to I 1 as 'schlachten' is preferable to 'Opfer darbringen' in Deimel, SL 356, 14. (19) J. Bauer, ib. p. 654: 'opfern'. (20) J. Bauer, ib. p. 654: za-sus 'brandmarken'. (21) As for the reading of his name, see W. G. Lambert, Or NS 39 (1970), 419. (22) See the correction by E. Sollberger, RA 60 (1966), p. 90, Bloc-notes. (23) On the Drehem (=Puzris-Dagan) calendar after the fourth year of Shu-Sin, see the note 39 below. (24) In numbering the regnal years of Ibbi-Sin, we follow L. Legrain, UET III Indexes (1947), pp. 277-278, but only provisionally. (25) Without the divine determinative. (26) A. Falkenstein, AnOr 30 (1966), p. 138, note 14. (27) The following libation places are attested in the Neo-Sumerian texts, so far as I know: (i) ki-a-nag: de Genouillac, TD 4681 (S 47 D VIII 13); ib. 5511 (SS 9 D); Fish, Catalogue 508 ([] D [] 16); UET III 1015 (-Ur; ki-a-nag-da ba-an-de-[a]); RTC 264 (Ur-Nammu? L); CT 3, 18343, III 47 and VIII 18-19 (S 44 L); CT 5, 18358 III 7 and 11 (S 41-45L); Reisner TUT 264 (S 35 L VIII; ki-<a>-nag). (ii) a-sa-x-ki-a-nagta: AnOr 7,195 (AS 1 U []). (iii) ki-a-nag-d[]: UET III 73 (-Ur VIII). (iv) ki-anag-ab-ba-nin-dingir-ra: TUT 128 II 5-6 ([] L). (v) ki-a-nag-ama-nin-dingir-ra: STA 29 V 21 (S 37-40 L); CT 10,14308 II 12-13 and IV 32-33 (S 48 L) etc. (vi) ki-a-nag-didli: UET III 267 (IS 16 Ur VIII). (vii) ki-a-nag-en-en-e-ne: RTC 401 (IS 2 L; gir-se-ga---ka). (viii) ki-a-nag-en-na: Reschid, TIM 6,8 (SS 1 D VII 21/24). (ix) ki-a-nag-ensi-ke4-ne: Owen, MVNS III 349 (-U); Keiser, STD 207 V 122 (-U); Or 47-49, 344 (AS 5 U XII); Virolleaud, TEL 278 (SS 2 L V); Or 26, IB 182 (SS 2 U V); Fish, Catalogue 782 (SS 2 U IX); Hussey, STH II 52 (SS 2 L); Pet- 12 ORIENT

SHULGI-SIMTI AND HER LIBATION PLACE (KI-A-NAG) tinato, MVNS I 231 III 24-25 (AS 3? U). (x) [ki-a]-nag-lugal: UET III 71 (-Ur XI); ib. 929 (-Ur). (xi) ki-a-nag-lugal-a-x: UET III 242 (mu-us-sa bad-gal ba-du, Ur). (xii) ki-a-nag-lugal-lugal-ne: RTC 316 (-L VI). (xiii) ki-a-nag-nin-dingir-ra: CT 5,18358 III 7 (S 41-45 L). (xiv) ki-a-nag-sabra: TUT 112 II 13 ([]L) etc. (28) Fish, Catalogue 305 (AS 5 D II 28); de Cenouillac, TD 5504 (AS 5 D X 9); Hussey, JAOS 33 (1913), p. 172, No. 5 (AS 8 D IX 12); Legrain, TRU 126 (AS 8 D IX 18); Deimel, Or 17 (1925), p. 56, IB 93=MVNS IV 96 (AS 9 D VIII 2). (29) Reschid, TIM 6,15 (SS 1 D VIII 13-18) and Owen, MVNS III 338 (SS 1 D IX 6). As for this spelling of the name, see I. J. Gelb, MAD 3 (1957), p. 199. (30) As for ni-dab5, see Fish, 'Some Sumerian tablets of the third dynasty of Ur," JRAS 1939, pp. 36-37; Jacobsen, JCS 7 (1953), p. 45, note 63; Oppenheim, Eames Collection, p. 92, I 9a. In the review of Kang, SACT I in JNES 33 (1974), p. 175 D. I. Owen proposes that "'assigned' or even 'seized' might be a more appropriate translation." (31) See E. Sollberger, RA 61 (1967), p. 69. (32) This document can be also dated to the 45th year of Shulgi. Compare this with Keiser, BIN III 516 (S 48 D VI). (33) As for the period when Lu-girizal was active as the city governor, see A. Falkenstein, NGU I, p. 5, notes 7-9. (34) CAD G gugutu 1: "slaughterhouse". H. Sauren, WMAH 155, note 3: "Haus, in dem Schafe gemastet werden." Hh XIII 92 a in MSL VIII/1, p. 15: "house of the fattening (of (35) But, because we have no text which calls Shulgi-simti the queen (nin), the possibility that tnis queen was Abi-simti whose husband Amar-Sin had already succeeded his father cannot be excluded entirely. (36) Th. Jacobsen, "The reign of Ibbi-Suen", JCS 7 (1953), pp. 36-47, describes the politically difficult situation of his kingdom during his reign. (37) Cf. Keiser, BIN III 434 (AS 9 D diri-xii 18). (38) Cf. the seal inscription of Salonen, PDT 244 (SS 1 D I 13/14). (39) But this doesn't mean unconditionally that the enthronement cremony was then taken place. H. Sauren writes that "le couronnement du roi Ibbisuen fut celebre durant le IXe d'amarsuena et de la 48e de Sulgi sont si proches de celles qui furent dressees pour le couronnement d'ibbisuen qu'elles pourraient bien se rapporter au couronnement de Susuen et d'amarsuena. Il semble donc qu'on choisissait de preference le IXe mois pour celebrer les fetes royales, en particulier celles du couronnement. De ce fait resulte le commencement du regne d'un roi. Quand le roi etait mort, le nouveau roi, son fils ou son frere, fut intronise durant le IXe mois, soit de l'annee en cours, si le roi etait mort avant le IXe, soit de la suivante, si le roi etait mort, apres le IXe mois. Le nouveau roi regnait des que son predecesseur etait mort, comme roi designe ou intronise, mais sa premiere annee n'etait que l'annee qui suivait celle au cours de laquelle le predecesseur etait mort." ("Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Bruxelles, 30 juin-4 juillet 1969". pp. 14-15). His assumption is very interesting for me. We must, however, strictly distinguish the calendar of Puzris-Dagan from that of Ur in the years before the third regnal year of Shu- Sin, though these two had the entirely same names and order of months except only that the former began with the month iti-mas-da-ku but the latter with iti-se-gur10-ku5. It was only since the fourth year of Shu-Sin that both calendars became fully identical not only in respect of their month names but also of the first month with which the year began. During the third year of Shu-Sin the reform of Puzris-Dagan calendar was prepared and the fourth year began with the iti-se-gur10-ku5 month just as the Ur calendar did. (In the third year of Shu-Sin, the month iti-diri-ezem-me-ki-gal, which hitherto used to have been put be- Vol. XII 1976 13

tween iti-ezem-me-ki-gal (the eleventh month) and iti-se-gur10-ku5 (the twelfth) as a leap month, was not a real leap month but only the substitute for the iti-se-gur10-ku5, the normal twelfth month. This means that this year with a leap month was a normal year, having only twelve months. It was a wise device to avoid the unnecessary and evitable confusion which might have been raised by the reform of the calendar, because otherwise the month iti-se-gur10-ku5 as the first month of the fourth year of Shu-Sin would have followed immediately after the iti-se-gur10-ku5 as the twelfth and last month of the previous year. On this matter I will discuss more in detail in another occasion). Through this reform the Puzris-Dagan calendar became coincident with that of Ur completely, what means that it was not in the ninth but tenth month that the ceremonies of the accession to the throne of Ibbi-Sin took place, because some Puzris-Dagan texts mention its performance in Ur, Nippur and Uruk successively in the iti-ezem-mah (i. e. the tenth month in the both calendars of Ur and Puzris-Dagan of that time). Furthermore, H. Sauren, ib. p. 14, note 19 equates the eleventh month of the Umma calendar with the ninth month of the Ur (from our point of view, Puzris-Dagan) calendar as 'Um XI=Ur IX'. But on what basis? Judging from some Umma texts as Owen, MVNS III 197 (S 42 or AS 6 U X) or Fish, Catalogue 534 (SS 9 U X) etc. where a festival at Ur is mentioned, it seems to me more likely that throughout the Ur III period the month iti-ezem-dsul-gi of the Umma calendar corresponded to the iti-ezem-mah of the Ur (not of Puzris-Dagan) calendar. See also Gregoire, AAS 149 (S 43 U VII) which gives the possibility of the equation of the iti-min-es (the seventh month) of the Umma calendar with the iti-a-ki-ti (the seventh) of the Ur calendar. Hence we can draw the equation "Umma iti-ezem-dsul-gi=ur iti-ezem-mah=puzris-dagan either iti-ezem-an-na before the third regnal year of Shu-Sin or iti-ezem-mah after it". In short, it must be primarily in texts of the tenth month in each calendar that some traces of the ceremonies of the enthronement of Amar-Sin and Shu-Sin should be sought and could be found. (40) There is no text that attaches the divine determinative to the name of Amar-Sin during the last regnal year of his father. Therefore the month in which Shulgi died cannot be known. (41) On the tablet of Jones and Snyder, SET 115 was rolled a cylinder seal whose inscription was, according to the authors, dedicated to Ibbi-Sin, while its date is the eighth year of his predecessor. Though no copy is given, the present writer inclines to the assumption that it is a copy error or a misprint for Shu-Sin. (42) E. Sollberger, JCS 7 (1953), p. 48 and JCS 10 (1956), pp. 18 ff. (43) Not the ninth month as E. Sollberger, ib. writes. See note 39 above. (44) One of them is an Ur text which has the date 'IS 5 Ur diri-xii'; it mentions sa-du11-dsulgi-si-im-ti "regular offerings of/for Shulgi-simti". But we cannot unconditionally see in it a proof of her survival at that time, for sa-du11 offerings could be made both during the lifetime and after the death of a person, as, for instance, Lutz, STR I 20 (S 46 U XII) and Hackman, BIN V 48 (AS 6 U VI) clearly show. (45) E. I. Gordon, JCS 12 (1958), p. 69, note 7 to 5: 116: "banquet". Literally "beer-libation". W. von Soden, AHw qeritu(m): "Gastmahl". * I want to express my sincere thanks to Professor Kazukiyo Hirose of the Toritsu Koku Kosen for his kindness to have made my English better. November 25, 1976 14 ORIENT