Food and drink for the palace The management of foodstuffs ...iowp.univie.ac.at/sites/default/files/IOWP_Groß... · leftovers (following the correspondingly large-scale performance

Imperium and Officium Working Papers (IOWP)

Food and drink for the palace The management of foodstuffs in Neo-Assyrian times and

beyond

Version 00

July 2013

Melanie Groß (University of Vienna, Department of Oriental Studies)

Abstract: This paper examines the organisation of the food supply for the Neo-Assyrian palace households. A primary concern of the palace administration was to cover the food requirements of its residents, visitors and personnel. Due to the size and complexity especially of the main palace but also of the other palaces in the imperial centre, this required specific functionaries who were concerned with the different stages of food management, namely procurement, storage, distribution and processing. Specialist officials were employed to deal with different categories of foodstuffs, whether grain products, meat, wine and the like. For example, from the everyday documents we learn of figures such as the chief cook (concerned with domestic animals and the meat supply), the wine master and the fruit master. The results of an examination of these officials active in the Neo-Assyrian period are then compared with what is known about food management in the Middle Assyrian period.

© Melanie Groß 2013 [email protected]

Melanie Groß 1

Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom

Food and drink for the palace: the management of foodstuffs in Neo-Assyrian times and beyond1

When Aššurnaṣirpal II reports on the festivities held for the inauguration of his new imperial

capital at Kalḫu, he speaks of 69,574 people whom he provided with food and drink for ten

days (RIMA 2 A.0.101.30:102–145). Despite possible doubts about the precise number of

guests, this account demonstrates the ability of the Assyrian king to organise the acquisition

and preparation of thousands of cattle, sheep, game, birds and fish, large amounts of grain,

thousands of litres of beer and wine, various different types of vegetables, herbs, spices, and

fruits as well as honey, milk, and dairy products. The whole undertaking must have involved

thousands of labourers and workers, with the king relying especially on his officials who

delegated and coordinated the different operations and channeled the traffic of goods. This

article examines these same administrative figures who organised the supply of food and

drink for the royal household. In studying the nature of their offices and their activities as

witnessed by the everyday documents, we shall gain a better understanding of the complex

system of food supply and management in the Neo-Assyrian royal household that we can then

compare with what is known for the preceding Middle Assyrian period.

Food consumption within the royal household can be basically divided into “ordinary

consumption”, that is, the daily meal, and “extraordinary consumption” on the occasion of

festive banquets. While the daily meal was provided for the king and his inner circle, festive

consumption involved a broader spectrum of participants, including the king’s state officials,

who maintained their own households, as well as guests and envoys from abroad. Hence,

Aššurnaṣirpal lists as his guests 47,074 men and women from all over the empire, 5,000

envoys (ṣīru) from surrounding polities, 16,000 inhabitants of Kalḫu and 1,500 courtiers

(zarriqu) of his palaces to celebrate the new capital Kalḫu. Similarly, Esarhaddon let his

magnates (LÚ.GAL.MEŠ) and the people of his land (UN.MEŠ KUR-ia) enjoy tables richly

laden with food and drink after he had completed his Review Palace (ekal māšarti), “The

palace that administers everything” (Ešgalšiddudua), in Nineveh (RINAP 4 1 vi 43, 49–53).

These sumptuous banquets were accompanied by the performance of offerings to the gods,

that is, the royal meal attended by the king’s subjects was preceded by the divine meal. This

sequence of events is clearly expressed in the aforementioned account of Esarhaddon who

first let the gods of Assyria enter and consecrate his new palace before he invited his subjects

for dinner.2 The connection between cultic offerings and earthly feeding has been repeatedly

addressed for the Assyrian period as well as for other periods of the ancient Near East (see,

1This article was written in the framework of the project “Royal Institutional Households in First Millennium BC Mesopotamia” led by Heather D. Baker at the University of Vienna funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF, grant S 10802–G18) as part of the NFN “‘Imperium’ and ‘Officium’. Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom”. The post-canonical eponym dates, marked with an asterisk, follow the reconstructed schedule of Parpola (PNA 1/I: XVIII–XX). The abbreviations follow the list of bibliographical abbreviations in PNA 3/II, pp. B 31–36. Further abbreviations are KAN = Keilschrifttexte aus Neuassyrischer Zeit and MARV = Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte.

2RINAP 4 1 vi 44–48. Also Aššurnaṣirpal II invited the god Aššur together with the gods of the entire land to his magnificent banquet (RIMA 2 A.0.101.30:104–105); see Joannès 2009: 226, fn. 18.

Food and drink for the palace 2


inter alia, Milano 1998 and Joannès 2009). Parpola (2004: 291) convincingly argued for a

“definite correlation between the divine leftovers and the Assyrian royal banquet” on the basis

of about thirty records (SAA 7 182–219) concerned with offerings in the Aššur Temple,

performed on occasion of the New Year’s festivities, and their leftovers (rēḫātu) from

Nineveh which reveal a pattern (as to the types, order and relative quantities of goods listed)

very similar to what we learn from accounts of royal banquets such as that of Aššurnaṣirpal.

In this context he distinguished between “divine favour”, i.e. leftovers from divine meal for

the benefit of the king and also the crown prince, and “royal favour”, i.e. leftovers from the

royal meal given to the king’s subjects (Parpola 2004: 293). Hence, the foodstuffs served at

the inauguration of the Ešgalšiddudua presumably were leftovers from the preceding

sacrifices which the king, as the principal recipient of these divine favours, in turn shared with

his subjects as a royal favour. Apart from such occasions of “extraordinary consumption”, the

king (and the crown prince) were provided with smaller amounts of offerings leftovers for

their individual consumption. As indicated by the “customary leftovers” (rēḫātu kajamānātu)

from before Aššur which were brought to the palace, according to a broken letter of an

unknown sender (SAA 13 156 r. 6–10), this happened on a more regular basis. The regular

delivery of divine leftovers (also over greater distances) to the king is by no means a unique

practice in the ancient Near East; for instance, it is well known for the Neo-Babylonian

period.3 Although the daily meal of the king for the most part may have remained unaffected

by cultic procedures in the temple, and although the large-scale consumption of offerings

leftovers (following the correspondingly large-scale performance of offerings) by the king’s

subjects took place only exceptionally or in greater intervals, the temple sphere was

nevertheless important for the food supply of the palace. Thus, we have to reckon with

foodstuffs circulating between temple and palace when examining the administration of the

food supply for the royal household.

The management of the food supply in the Neo-Assyrian period

Thanks to Assyria’s abundance of pasture lands and cultivated lands, the royal household

could rely to a great extent on the country’s own production of edible goods for its

maintenance,4 but it also benefitted from foodstuffs entering the land as booty, tribute, and

gifts and obtained via trade. As for Assyria’s own produce, the basic stages of the food supply

were production, management, and preparation. First, meat, grain, legumes, vegetables, herbs,

spices, and fruits were produced through animal husbandry, agriculture, and gardening,

mainly in the countryside. Then followed the collection, the transfer to stables and storage

facilities in local centres and the main cities, and the redistribution to kitchen facilities and

other establishments for further processing such as slaughtering, conserving, and final

preparation including cooking and baking. Depending on the type of food, a modified process

3Nabonidus received leftovers of offerings during his stay in Tayma. According to the letter BIN 1 25, they were brought to the king three times a month, though it remains unclear whether this was an exception or the rule; see Kleber 2008: 302f.

4I shall not discuss here the issue of land ownership and tenure in Assyria (see therefore Postgate 1989: 145–149). It is clear that the royal household had its own land and resources, but it may have also profited from tax income from the provinces.

Melanie Groß 3


was in operation; for example, cattle and poultry were fattened in the urban stables, while

grapes were pressed and bottled already in the countryside (in regions north-west of the

Assyrian heartland). With foodstuffs received from alternative channels,5 the first stage

obviously took place abroad, but the subsequent management and treatment must have been

similar to what happened with the home-produced foodstuffs. These alternative channels were

particularly important for procuring goods that were not available (or scarce) in Assyria, such

as wine and olive oil; these, of course, were processed already before they entered the

Assyrian heartland.6

Food managers

For the Neo-Assyrian period we can observe a considerable number of administrative offices

who were concerned with foodstuffs. I distinguish here between “kitchen managers” who

presided over food-related professions (e.g. chief cook),7 “food managers” who were

concerned with a specific foodstuff (e.g. wine master), and “grain managers” who were in

charge of storage facilities for grain (and grain products).

(1) the “kitchen managers”

◦ rab nuḫatimmi (chief cook)

◦ rab karkadinni (chief confectioner)

◦ rab āpie (chief baker)

◦ rab sirāšê (chief brewer)

◦ rab ṣāḫiti (chief oil-presser)

(2) the “food managers”

◦ rab šamni (oil master)

◦ rab karāni (wine master)

◦ rab zamri (fruit master)

◦ rab raqqûti (spice master)

(3) the “grain managers”

◦ rab karmi or rab karmāni (granary master or chief of granaries)

◦ rab danībāte8

5Note, for instance, livestock coming as booty or tribute to Assyria under Shalmaneser III (Yamada 2000: 263f., 413, Map 6-C). Also, Urzana, king of Muṣaṣir, wrote a letter to Sargon II dealing with oxen and rams that he wanted to bring with him when he met the king (SAA 5 146).

6For instance, Shalmaneser III received wine via tribute payments from the Zagros valley and the highlands of northern Syria (Yamada 2000: 270f., 416, Map 6-F). In the course of the 8th and 7th centuries vineyards became a familiar sight in the Assyrian territory (Gaspa 2012a: 234f.). The olive and its oil remained exotic products throughout the history of the Neo-Assyrian empire, though the Assyrians were not necessarily interested in a large scale import of these products (Faust 2011, especially pp. 70–74, on oil production in Judea). Nevertheless, it was a valuable product which was also needed, for instance, for the manufacture of perfumes.

7The same principle of a rab-x official presiding over the x-profession is attested for several other professions such as weavers (rab ušpāri in e.g. SAA 6 163 r. 14´).

8This title presumably originates from the Hurrian word k/galteniwa which appears often in association with grain in Nuzi texts (Menzel-Wortmann 1986: 213–4). Also in the Neo-Assyrian sources this official is mainly concerned with the management of grain and grain products; cf. Menzel-Wortmann 1986.



(4) miscellaneous

◦ rab qaqqulāti9

From among these officials it is primarily the “kitchen managers” who, as their titles reveal,

were attached to a specific institution or administrative sphere. Hence, apart from the royal

household also close relatives of the king (crown prince, queen, king’s mother), provincial

governors, temples (Aššur Temple, Ištar Temple), and cities could have their own “kitchen

managers” (see Table 1).10 By contrast, the managers concerned with one specific commodity

lack any such qualification, with the exception of a wine master who is “of the New House”

which is presumably to be identified with an annex to a palace or a distinct palace

department.11 The remaining food managers, apart from the rab qaqqulāti “of the house of the

queen”, are never identified as a member of the department of a key member of the royal

family, a provincial or a temple household. Only the affiliations of the granary master or chief

of granaries show that he was active in Nineveh, the city of Maganuba,12 and the land of

Birtu.13 Although we are dealing here with only a few references in total, the distribution of

the known affiliations appears nevertheless to be significant, even more so if we take into

account the (approximate) date of the references. Hence, the majority of food-managing

offices is already attested in the first half of the 8th century, while individuals explicitly

affiliated to temples occur from the reign of Sargon II onwards. The food managers working

for key members of the royal family are only known for the 7th century, when the

establishments of these royals seem to have expanded considerably.14 Also, the reference to

the wine master of the New House stems from a legal record dating from the reign of

Assurbanipal or later. Based on the fact that the earliest datable attestation of a food manager

qualified as “of the palace” points to the reign of Sargon II, a time when also the other

institutional affiliations are attested for the first time, one might conclude that at the latest in

the second half of the 8th century the “kitchen managers” were no longer restricted to the

royal household, and their number increased further in the seventh century. However, since

we lack substantial data from before the second half of the 8th century, and it is likely that

large establishments such as the Aššur Temple were staffed with “kitchen managers” already

in early Neo-Assyrian times, this observation is to be treated with caution.15 Still, the absence

9q/kaqq/kkulāti is derived from kakkullu which can refer to a “vessel for making beer, for storing liquids” but also to a wooden box keeping fruits; see CAD K 59 s.v. kakkullu and kakkullu in rab-qaqqullāte. Note, in particular, his occurrence in a collection of royal decrees (SAA 12 77 i 21, r. iii 5, 16). References to all these food-managing officials are given in the following discussion. A comprehensive collection of the data is provided in my doctoral thesis “The Structure and Organisation of the Neo-Assyrian Royal Household” (2014).

10These affiliations are also indicated by the context; note, for instance, the “chief baker” (of the Aššur Temple) mentioned in a letter of the scholar Akkullanu (SAA 10 96 r. 2).

11The term bētu eššu occurs also in SAA 7 115 r. ii 16 and 148 ii 16´, 18´ and is not necessarily identical with the ekallu eššu (as listed, for instance, in SAA 7 115 i 6).

12Maganuba is to be identified with a place within the area of Dur-Šarrukin (Fuchs 1994: 38, Zyl.44; SAA 12 19:7´).

13The province of Birtu was established in the reign of Tiglath-pileser III and was situated on the Lesser Ḫabur (Radner 2006: 56f.).

14This phenomenon was inter alia addressed by Radner 2008: 510; see also Groß forthcoming. 15Note especially the undated text Menzel 1981 II: T 24–28, no. 22 in fn. 17.

Melanie Groß 5


of comparable qualifications for officials concerned with one specific type of foodstuff,

including grain, is significant and it seems that these men were usually only active in the royal

household,16 either as a single representative of their office or as one among multiple office-

holders, as in the case of the chiefs of granaries who were assigned to different places from

the reign of Adad-nerari III on. The wine master of the New House from late Neo-Assyrian

times is perhaps an indicator of a continuous process of specialisation within the royal

household due to its increase in size and complexity over the centuries. As a consequence of

the food-managing offices having more than one representative at a time, within or in addition

to the royal household, we have to reckon with a hierarchical formation of holders of the same

office, headed by the main office-holder from the royal household.

“of the palace”

“of the crown prince”

“of the queen”

“of the king’s mother”

of temples of cities miscellanea

rab nuḫatimmi x x x Ištar Ḫarran

rab karkadinni x x x [...]

rab āpie x AššurTemple

rab sirāšê AššurTemple

governor ofGuzana

rab karāni New House

rab karmāni NinevehBirtu Maganuba

rab qaqqulāti x

Table 1: Food managers with an institutional or geographical affiliation.17

The comparably high density of “kitchen managers” employed in different spheres is likely

due to the fact that institutional households were equipped with facilities for the processing

and preparation of food that were staffed with skilled personnel such as cooks, confectioners,

and brewers. The larger these facilities were and the more personnel they deployed, the higher

is the likelihood that individuals were chosen (from among them) to preside over their

professional section. Hence, at first sight these people might be regarded as, for instance, the

16The rab zamri and the rab raqqûti are only attested in an administrative text recording the redistribution of tribute to court personnel (SAA 11 36 i 28, r. i 16). We also find here the rab šamni (SAA 11 36 i 22) who is otherwise only attested as a witness in a legal record from Nineveh (SAA 6 287 r. 13).

17References: rab nuḫatimmi: “of the palace” (SAA 12 77 i 23´, Sargon II), “of the crown prince” (SAA 14 307 r. 5´, probably 7th century), “of the queen” (BT 140 r. 14, 685, edited in Parker 1963: 100, Pl. XXVI), “of Ištar” (StAT 2 102 r. 3´, 711), “of the city of Ḫarran” (SAA 11 203 iii 8–9, Sargon II). rab karkadinni: “of the palace” (SAA 12 77 r. ii 17, date uncertain), “(of the) crown prince” (SAA 7 4 r. ii´ 4´, 6´, Assurbanipal), “(of the) king’s mother” (SAA 7 6 i 8´, Esarhaddon or Assurbanipal) “of […]” (KAN 4 8 r. 12´, 631*). rab āpie: “of the queen” (O 3680 r. 10, 687, see Pruzsinszky, PNA 2/I 631 s.v. Kubābu-idrī), “of the Aššur Temple” (Menzel 1981 II: T 24–28, no. 22 r. iii 4´, not dated). rab sirāšê: “of the Aššur Temple” (Menzel 1981 II: T 24–28, no. 22 r. iii 7´, not dated), “[of the] governor of Guzana” (StAT 2 53 r. 20–21, 700). rab karāni: “(of the) New House” (SAA 14 60:7, 658). rab karmāni: “of the city of Ninua” (SAA 12 72 r. 12, 790), “(of the) land of Birtu” (ND 2791 r. 17´–18´, Tiglath-pileser III or Sargon II, edited in Parker 1961: 54, Pl. XXVIII), “of the city of Maganuba” (SAA 6 37:2–3, 694). rab qaqqulāti: “of the queen” (StAT 2 3 r. 3–4, 692).



chefs de cuisine, as their titles suggest. However, the reality was different: the chief cook and

the chief confectioner of the royal household do not seem to have been occupied in the palace

kitchen and the palace confectionary respectively, but rather they organised the foodstuffs that

were needed by the working cooks and confectioners. In the case of the cooks this involved

the meat of domestic animals, and in the case of confectioners they were occupied with fruits

and spices.18 With the chief cook this developed to such an extent that he was responsible for

the general management of livestock, whether needed for sacrifices, consumption, or work as

draught animals. The chief cook Sa’ilu even became eponym in the year 620*, a function

which was usually reserved for high state officials but was fulfilled also by some court

officials in late Neo-Assyrian times (see Mattila 2009). The other types of kitchen managers

do not occur in particular connection with the royal household, nor do they seem to have

developed a similar degree of abstraction and complexity: they were more “hands-on”. As far

as one can tell from the sources, the chief baker, the chief brewer, and the chief oil-presser

seem to have borne responsibility primarily for the preparation and provision of bread, beer,

and oil (mainly sesame oil),19 rather than for the organisation of the ingredients needed. Also,

the discrepancy between the literal meaning “chief oil-presser” (rab ṣāḫiti) and “oil master”

(rab šamni) supports the impression that the latter managed the acquisition, storage, and

distribution of oil and the “chief oil-presser”, as head of the oil-pressers, was liable for the

productivity of the oil-pressing craft and may have even worked as an oil-presser himself.

Likewise, the storage of grain, which was central for the chief baker’s and the chief brewer’s

work, was the responsibility of the chief of granaries and the rab danībāti. One would also

assume a similar distribution of responsibilities between the fruit master and the spice master,

on the one hand, and the chief confectioner on the other hand. They all occur in the same

administrative document recording allocations of tribute to court personnel (SAA 11 36 i 28,

31, r. i 16); thus, they were active at the same time. Judging by the developed state of the

office of chief confectioner, he was perhaps responsible for the acquisition of fruits and spices

needed by the confectioners, while the two “food managers” managed the same commodities

for other uses (such as raw consumption or the manufacture of perfumes). Although this is

highly speculative, the responsibilities of the kitchen managers and the other food managers,

in any case, to a certain extent complemented each other.

Comparing the range of food served at the banquet of Aššurnaṣirpal II with the types

of foodstuffs the food managers were concerned with, the management of the most important

components of the elite’s menu, including grain, meat, and wine, was undertaken by separate

officials. In the following we will take a closer look at the comparatively well attested chief of

granaries, the chief cook, and the wine master, in order to gain a better understanding of the

18Note especially the letters of Nabû-dē’iq (SAA 1 226–232) who was concerned with the acquisition of fruit

trees and conifers and who twice mentions the rab karkadinni (SAA 1 227:10 and 228:4). 19We lack significant references to the chief oil-presser who is mentioned in the lexical list of official and

professional titles from Sultantepe (MSL 12 233 r. v 17´) and, if restored correctly, in Ziyaret 10:4; note, however, the addressee Irmulu of the letter of twenty oil-pressers (KAV 197:1, Postgate 1974: 363–367) who might have been chief oil-presser. Still, a text dealing with the responsibilities of the personnel of the Aššur Temple records that the chief baker is responsible for the supply of bread and that the chief brewer, likewise, is in charge of the provision of beer (Menzel 1981 II: T 24–28, no. 22 r. iii 2´–4´, r. iii 5´–8´).

Melanie Groß 7


activities of the food managers in connection with the acquisition, transport, storage, and

distribution of the foodstuffs for the benefit of the royal household (inevitably including also

deliveries to the temple).

rab karmāni (chief of granaries)

The chief of granaries, as his title suggests,20 was in charge of large storage facilities for grain.

This is best documented by an administrative record (ND 2791) from 8th-century Kalḫu

(Room 4 of the ZT area, North-West Palace) according to which the storehouse (nakkamtu)

under the responsibility of the (unnamed) granary master in the land of Birtu received in total

12,800 homers of barley rations (ŠE.PAD) collected from various different places (apart from

Arbail these are mostly unknown).21 Hence, corn from local centres was stored in the granary

of that region administered by the granary master. In three legal records from 7th-century

Kalḫu (Fort Shalmaneser) the (unnamed) chief of granaries is concerned with the collection of

the corn and straw taxes from royal ma’uttu land (CTN 3 14–16). This type of land, which

seems to have been maintenance land for the king (or his household),22 was apparently placed

at the disposal of Šamaš-aḫu-iddina (CTN 3 14, 16) and Šep-Issar (CTN 3 15) respectively,

who were liable to pay taxes in return for its usufruct.23 In another administrative record,

bearing the same archival background as ND 2791, the chief of granaries Saggil-šarru-uṣur is

listed along with 4,000 homers (of barley) (ND 3469:14–15, Wiseman 1953: 146, Pl. XIII). In

the same record also the (unnamed) fodder master (rab kissite) is listed along with 2,000, a

certain Kabtî with 7,000, and the (unnamed) rab danībāte with 1,000 homers (of barley), and

the city of Nineveh is recorded with 3,050 homers (of barley) which were collected inter alia

from Kurbail, Šibaniba, and Talmusu, all provincial cities located in the Assyrian heartland

north of Nineveh. Since the deliveries were made to Nineveh, the grain amounts in Nineveh

and in charge of the officials may have been meant for another final destination, perhaps

Kalḫu, the place where the tablet was found and the imperial capital at that time.24 In any

case, this document reveals the operation of the barley supply for the urban centres of the

Assyrian heartland, something that is also reflected in the administrative text SAA 11 23,

where 70 (homers) 7 seahs (of grain), the total imposed upon several men listed by personal

name, are said to be for (ana) Nineveh.25 The chief of granaries also supplied individual

20Related to the verb karāmu, meaning “to pile up, to store, to keep” (CAD K 201 s.v. karāmu B), the noun

karmu describes a “storage area, pile (of barley)” (CAD K 200 s.v. karammu) and can refer to bare heaps of grain but also to fixed storage constructions (as is made clear by the determinative É, often found in Middle Assyrian writings). For a more detailed discussion about the etymology of this term see Llop 2005: 41–43; note also his discussion of the Middle Assyrian writings ibid. 43f.; cf. Llop in Faist and Llop 2012: 20–24.

21More than 200 letters from the correspondence of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II were found in Room 4 of the North-West Palace (Oates and Oates 2001: 197–201); the present document presumably was drawn up at that time.

22According to Parpola (1975: 295), the term ma’uttu presumably derives from mânu, meaning “to provide”. 23For this interpretation, which I find convincing, see Postgate 1974: 180f. 24Even if the tablet dates from the reign of Sargon (cf. ND 2791) who established a new imperial capital, Kalḫu

still functioned as the imperial centre, since Dur-Šarrukin was only finished and occupied in 706 BC, at the end of Sargon’s reign.

25The total, however, is not compatible with the sum of the individual deliveries (Fales and Postgate 1995: XVIII). Note also the letter of Tariba-Issar to the king (Sargon) dealing with barley rations (to be) collected from provincial palaces in Kilizi, Adian, and Arbail (SAA 1 160).



palace departments and palace members with grain, as is clear from legal texts recording

administrative procedures. When the chief of granaries Il-amar owes 200 barley rations

(ŠE.PAD) to the šakintu “of […]”, to be delivered to Dur-Šarrukin (SAA 14 471), this reflects

an official obligation rather than a personal loan.26 Presumably also Nasḫir-Bel, possibly chief

of granaries (CTN 3 92:4: LÚ.GAL–kar?-[man?]), who owed 4 barley rations to a certain

Mannu-ki-Arbail in late Neo-Assyrian times, acted here in his official capacity, not least

because the indebted barley is qualified as fodder (kissutu) which in other legal records from

Fort Shalmaneser (CTN 3 10:2; 12:7; 13:4) marks their administrative background.27 Hence,

in both cases the chief of granaries was ex officio obliged to supply amounts of grain which he

did not yet manage to deliver. In other cases, the chief of granaries appears as a provider of

corn for temple offerings; this can be placed in the context of general duties that were also

imposed on other officials (primarily the high state officials) who had appropriate resources at

their disposal. According to the letter of the scholar Akkullanu to the king (Assurbanipal), the

(unnamed) chief of granaries is listed among the officials, mainly provincial governors,28 who

did not yet hand in their contributions of barley and emmer for the regular offerings (ginû) in

the Aššur Temple.29 Hence, the chief of granaries (and his establishment) had separate

resources available, independent of the provincial stocks of grain.30

Although the title rab karmāni explicitly refers to the karmu, this official never

actually occurs in association with such an installation. Rather, the chief of granaries is once

recorded as being responsible for a storage facility called nakkamtu (ND 2791), a term which

is otherwise often used to refer to the treasury or treasury houses containing precious metals

(e.g. SAA 7 59 ii 5; SAA 13 127:13) or associated with horses (e.g. SAA 13 95:8; ND 2451:7,

12, 18, see Parker 1961: 28–30, Pl. XIV). Thus, the nakkamtu did not serve exclusively as a

storage facility for grain, as was the case with karmu.31 Since one would, nevertheless,

assume that the rab karmāni was responsible for the establishments designated karmu in the

Neo-Assyrian sources, we shall have a brief look at the Assyrian evidence for karmu which

was only recently examined by Faist and Llop (2012). Both Faist (for the Neo-Assyrian

period) and Llop (for the Middle Assyrian period, cf. Llop 2005) conclude that this term

26In addition to the involvement of officials, the even number, and the absence of the phrase ina pūḫi ittiši,

marking a “true loan” (Postgate 1976: 37, § 3.2.4), underlines the official nature of this transaction. For the drawing up of legal texts in order to document administrative procedures see, for instance, Dalley and Postgate 1984: 8.

27As in SAA 14 471, there is not an ina pūḫi ittiši clause. The date is lost, but see Dalley and Postgate 1984: 156 and Baker, PNA 2/II 687f. s.v. Mannu-kī-Arbail 18 (possibly identical with nos. 15–17 and 30; in the latter case a Mannu-ki-Arbail is one of three debtors of 15 homers of barley rations in a context similar to an administrative procedure, see Dalley and Postgate 1984: 100 about CTN 3 44).

28The toponyms in SAA 10 96:17–23 (and ll. 13–16) refer to LÚ.EN.NAM in l. 13. Daian-Adad, who is mentioned immediately after the chief of granaries, is eponym of a city (see Pruzsinszky, PNA 1/II 367 s.v. Daiān-Adad 3).

29SAA 10 96:17–25, cf. SAA 12 72 r. 12 (fragment belonging to the decree of Adad-nerari III, SAA 12 71) where the chief of granaries is listed as contributor of offering goods (broken).

30Contra Faist (in Faist and Llop 2012: 28, fn. 28) who proposes that Akkullanu refers here to his own city, administered by the rab karmāni. There is no point in assuming that Akkullanu himself had to provide material for offerings in this context, neither is it likely that he had his own rab karmāni.

31Another term denoting a sort of silo is padakku (see Faist in Faist and Llop 2012: 28, fn. 64). For the Middle Assyrian period Llop (in Faist and Llop 2012: 25) points to a few other terms which designate grain storage facilities exclusively, namely ḫašīmu and qub/p(u)tu.

Melanie Groß 9


primarily refers to royal or governmental granaries for the storage of the king’s grain intended

for the benefit of the king’s household. This seems especially plausible on the basis of the

Middle Assyrian evidence which suggests that apart from the imperial capital Assur also all

the provincial capitals had their own royal karmu (Llop 2005: 44f.). Also according to the

Neo-Assyrian state correspondence, the karmu was an institutional facility which was mainly

at the disposal of provincial governors, not least for supplying the army.32 Another relevant

reference to the karmu (the only Neo-Assyrian attestation written with the determinative É)

occurs in a letter of Amar-ili who may have been active in Arbail (Radner, PNA 1/I 98 s.v.

Amar-ili 1). Here, Amar-ili reports to the king that the karmu between the bēt-qātē

(storehouse) of the ša-pān-ekalli (palace supervisor) has fallen down (SAA 1 137). This

incident might or might not have taken place in the city of Arbail (Amar-ili’s possible place of

work), but it shows that the karmu was an urban installation, well integrated into the cityscape

and rather close to representative buildings (i.e. the palace). The karmu attested in SAA 1 181

was administered by provincial authorities (the deputy governor) but had a particular

connection to the king and his household, judging by its description “of the king”.33 This,

together with the other evidence, indicates that the Middle Assyrian system of installing of

royal granaries in provincial capitals was maintained in the Neo-Assyrian period. In addition

to this, however, the sources of the Neo-Assyrian period also refer to a karmu “of the Nabû

Temple” (ND 5457 r. 7) and “of the house of the skilled men (ummânu)” (Ziyaret 13:8),34

while in the Middle Assyrian texts karmus of the Aššur Temple and of individuals may be

attested (Llop in Faist and Llop 2012: 25f.). Hence, karmu was also used as a generic term for

storage facilities of grain, and the rab karmāni was not responsible for all of these individual

establishments but—as noted above—he took care of the granaries (whether designated

karmu or not) of the royal household which were administered separately from the provincial

ones.35 Apart from his general duty to provide grain for offerings in the Aššur Temple (see

above), he does not seem to have been concerned with the corn supply for temples. Although

chronologically removed from each other (see fn. 17), the geographical attributions of the rab

karmāni, referring to provinces, provincial capitals, and other places in the Assyrian centre

(Nineveh, Maganuba) and north of it (Birtu), indicate that several such officials were active

for the royal household at a time. There is no indication that they were hierarchically

organised, but instances where the office of the rab karmāni is listed together with the

provincial governors suggest that there existed one main representative.

32SAA 1 181:18; 210 r. 10; 264 r. 3, 8; SAA 19 193 r. 6´; perhaps also the two fragmentary administrative

records found in the Governor’s Palace CTN 2 46:5 and 135:2. 33The letter was probably written by Bel-liqbi, governor of the province of Ṣupat (see commentary to letter in

Parpola 1987: 142). 34According to Parpola (2008: 75), the latter may have formed part of the Ištar Temple in Tušḫan, but this is

fairly uncertain. The skilled men may be related to the military sphere (ibid.) which would correspond well with the general concept of establishing supply points for the army. Other, less conclusive, references are ND 2098:7 (from room ZT 14, North-West Palace, see Parker 1961: 19, Pl. IX) and KAN 4 62 r. 24 (edited by Faist in Faist and Llop 2012: 29f.). The latter may be a successor of the Middle Assyrian granary which was located in the area of the Tabira Gate in the northwestern part of the city (ibid. 32f.; cf. Llop 2005: 51f.).

35Cf. Fales (1990: 25, fn. 12) according to whom the author (not preserved) of the letter SAA 5 250 distinguishes between royal granaries and stocks of grain of the magnates with regard to the grain reserves in the city Kar-Aššur.



rab nuḫatimmi (chief cook)

As already pointed out, the chief cook of the royal household was not active as an actual cook

in the palace kitchen, but rather he managed the supply of livestock for the urban centres.

Apart from functioning as a representative of the department that delivered the foods—

different types of meat, as far as preserved—that were served for the royal dinner,36 the chief

cook was primarily concerned with the acquisition of the living animals. He obtained cattle

and sheep inter alia via the distribution of tribute revenue by the palace (SAA 11 36 i 9–11)

and as tax payments from the provinces.37 Regarding the latter source of supply, the chief

cook occurs in connection with ṣibtu which seems to denote a tax on domestic animals drawn

from the offspring of the animals at one’s disposal.38 This is the case in an administrative

document dealing with levied oxen and sheep, according to which the department (É) of the

(unnamed) chief cook is in charge of 140 oxen meant for offerings (rēšāti and dariu, SAA 11

90), and in another administrative record where the chief cook Aššur-ašared is provisioned

with 71 old or dead (BE, read labīru or mētu) mules described as ṣibtu (ND 2451:19). When

Inurta-bel-uṣur, an official active in the northwest, claims that he has no resources for taking

care of and feeding the oxen of the palace that were assigned to him (SAA 19 34), these might

have been the very animals that the chief cook took over after they had been properly fed (as

grazing livestock) or fattened (as fatstock kept in stables) in the provinces. For instance, a

broken administrative document (SAA 11 80) records in total 1,998 grain-fed sheep

(UDU.ŠE.MEŠ), distributed over various different provinces and other administrative units,

of which 1,522 sheep were in the charge of the (unnamed) shepherd “of the meal or banquet”

(rā’i naptuni).39 Due to his interest in fed and fattened livestock, the chief cook was

associated with shepherds, as is clear from the case of a chief cook who was in charge of three

palace shepherds.40

36According to the “Dienstanweisung” K 8669 (ll. iii 48–49), published in Müller 1937. The different types of

meat are listed in ll. iii 29–30, but almost 30 lines are missing from the beginning of this paragraph (cf. Parpola 2004: 294, fn. 36).

37SAA 12 77 i 22´–26´. The provincial capitals Ḫatarikka and Ṣimirra are recorded here as the source of the sheep the chief cook had to provide for the regular offerings. These two provinces, located in the far west, were established in the reign of Tiglath-pileser (Radner 2006: 58, 62).

38This is also reflected by the literal meaning of ṣibtu which is either related to ṣabātu or to (w)aṣābu (as indicated by the logographic writing MÁŠ), meaning “to increase” (Postgate 1974: 171). There is also a rab ṣibti (GAL–MÁŠ), a “sheep-tax master”, attested in the sources (SAA 16 48:12).

39Also Dadî, who was possibly chief cook (of the Aššur Temple) judging by his activities (SAA 13 18–24; cf. Deller 1985: 363 who considered Dadî to be a priest of the bēt-nuḫatimmi of the Aššur Temple, analogous to SAA 10 96 r. 1), was concerned with the domestic animals to be delivered by the naptunu-shepherds (SAA 13 19, 20). Radner (1999b: 92f.) defined the rā’i naptini as “Hirte für die Palastversorgung” (by contrast to the rā’i darî, “Hirte für die Tempelversorgung”). However, since naptunu can designate the divine meals (for instance, SAA 13 10 r. 10; SAA 10 361:12´ and RINAP 4 54 r. 31), the divine meals whose leftovers were consumed at the king’s table (SAA 13 156 r. 4) and, similarly, the royal meals preceded or accompanied by sacrifices and, hence, apparently provided with offerings leftovers (such as in RIMA 3 A.0.102.14:70, reign of Shalmaneser III; RINAP 4 33 r. iii 35´–36´, reign of Esarhaddon), the naptunu-shepherd did not take care only of the livestock meant for the maintenance of the palace; this is also indicated by Dadî’s concern with these herders.

40Edubba 10 28:3–8. Note also Inurta-aḫia-šukšid, eunuch of Adad-nerari III, who bore the title “chief of the cooks and herdsmen” (GAL–LÚ*.MU.MEŠ LÚ*.NA.GAD.MEŠ) according to his cylinder seal (Watanabe 1993: 115, no. 6.2:3–4).

Melanie Groß 11


The use of the livestock managed by the chief cook was manifold. Though also

working animals were organised by the chief cook (ploughing oxen, see SAA 15 187), his

main concern seems to have been to cover the demand for livestock occasioned by culinary,

cultic, and scholarly activities. In the first place, we would expect the chief cook of the main

palace to have been responsible for the acquisition and delivery of domestic animals intended

for the ordinary consumption of the king and his entourage. However, we not only lack

concrete evidence for the daily meal in the royal household, we also lack evidence for the

chief cook’s involvement in this matter. By contrast, we learn of festive banquets where large

amounts of meat were offered and consumed, and several administrative records are

preserved which list different types of meat and cuts of meat (together with other foodstuffs)

in association with offerings and their subsequent consumption.41 Similarly, the chief cook is

attested in connection with livestock meant for offerings (SAA 11 90, SAA 12 77) and other

rituals (SAA 10 202). Although the general lack of concrete evidence for the daily meal is

easily explained by the fact that the arrangements for it had no need to be mentioned or

discussed in the royal inscriptions, the royal correspondence, and non-documentary texts, one

wonders why the chief cook occurs in the administrative records especially in connection with

offerings but not with livestock meant for the daily meal. Overall, the number of references to

the chief cook’s tasks is limited, in view of the central role assumed by the consumption of

offerings leftovers at the king’s table (see above), however, the chief cook’s preoccupation as

reflected in the sources is not a matter of accident. More so, if we take into account that the

trauma caused by the killing of living creatures for the human diet had to be overcome by

sacrificing activities and collective consumption in order to re-establish the cosmic order, as

argued by Milano (1998: 111f.). The same author also states that, although on the basis of this

principle every slaughter for meat was accompanied by ritual procedures, the “circulation and

way of consumption [of meat] were certainly part of a system of distribution which had little

or nothing to do with the economy of sacrificial meat” (ibid. 113) in Mesopotamia (by

contrast to the West Semitic cultures, judging by the Hebrew and the Ugaritic sources).42 He

also states that “palace and temple (…) share in fact the same concern for meat provisioning”

but stresses that the maintenance of the gods (in the temple) was “substantially different from

the sustenance of human beings” (in the palace) (ibid. 114). Although one cannot argue on the

basis of the available sources that every piece of meat consumed by the Assyrian king and his

entourage was consecrated meat, that is meat sacrificed in the temple and brought to the

palace (or to the king’s table in another location), the economic processes of the palace in

conjunction with its meat supply seem to have been closely connected to the Aššur Temple

(and also other temples) especially but not only during the cultic performances in the context

of the New Year’s festivities lasting from the 11th month (Šabāṭu) to the 1st month (Nisannu)

of the following year (see Menzel 1981 I: 49–59 and Maul 2000).

41Especially SAA 7 182–219, see above. Also the records SAA 7 148–157 deal with foodstuffs including meat

apparently consumed at a festive banquet (with or without cultic background, cf. Gaspa 2012a: 6f.). 42Cf. Milano 1998: 120–125 where he distinguishes between two system of distribution of meat: one strictly

bound to the temple economy and mainly involving leftovers, and the other organised independently of offering activities, taking the systems of Mari and Ebla as an example. Cf. Parpola (2004: 292) with a similar view for the Neo-Assyrian period.



The number of livestock slaughtered on the occasion of these festivities was

unsurpassed by the amount of meat produced in the context of any other event that took place

at regular intervals.43 According to Parpola, daily deliveries of leftovers from the New Year’s

performances provided enough meat for about 700 individuals while up to 3,500–5,000

individuals could have been maintained on peak days (Parpola 2004: 291f.). Since the

performance of meat offerings in the Aššur Temple (and other temples) involved the

slaughtering, cutting, and preparation of meat,44 the sanctuaries must have been equipped with

(or surrounded by) appropriate areas, instruments, and personnel in order to transform the

living animal into the cooked dish. The Neo-Assyrian written sources indeed refer to

slaughterhouses (bēt-qurše, bēt-Dagan), kitchen facilities (bēt-nuḫatimmi), and even

establishments for the conservation of meat (salt-meat house: bēt-midli) in association with

the Aššur Temple.45 A bēt-nuḫatimmi staffed with a butcher (nākisu) and a salt-meat man (ša-

midlīšu) is known for the palace (CTN 3 87:17–20), but we lack evidence for special

slaughterhouses and for separate facilities for the conservation of meat in connection with the

palace. Although the slaughter and the processing of meat must have also happened in the

domestic area of the palace,46 the supply of the royal household with meat seems to have been

to a considerable extent organised via the Aššur Temple (and other temples) due to cultic

requirements. The abundance of meat which was sacrificed in the Aššur Temple especially

during the New Year’s festivities produced such a surplus that the meat had to be conserved or

passed on to other institutions, as is clear from SAA 13 18, a letter of Dadî who has been told

by the temple scribe to forward to the šakintu of the Inner City (= Assur) leftovers of meat

offerings that had previously been given to the salt-meat house. Hence, regarding the

consumption of meat we can observe a reciprocal relationship between palace and temple, the

latter being central for the meat supply for the royal household that was supervised by the

chief cook.

rab karāni (wine master)

On analogy with the other food managers, the wine master must have been concerned with the

acquisition, storage, and distribution of wine. Administrative records dealing with the palace 43Events such as the inauguration festivities of Aššurnaṣirpal II are, of course, excluded here; amounts of foods

approximately 1,000 times larger were offered then (Parpola 2004: 291). 44The gods were not provided with raw meat but with processed meat, since the offerings actually represent their

meal. As Gaspa (2012b: 249f.) stated, “culinary treatment is one of the most significant actions executed by the ritual performer”.

45For these facilities in the Aššur Temple see Deller 1985: 353–364; he argues for an equation of the terms bēt-g/qurše (former bēt-hurše), bēt-Dagan, and bēt-nuḫatimmi. Though there seems to have been a functional overlap, the bēt-Dagan was primarily a sanctuary whose special focus on animal sacrifices gave rise to its strong connection with the processing of meat. Furthermore, the bēt-nuḫatimmi does not exclusively denote a slaughterhouse judging by its eponymous profession and the clear distinction between the profession of cook (nuḫatimmu) and butcher (nākisu, ṭābiḫu). The bēt-gurše, related to the verb garāšu meaning “to trim, to carve” (Deller 1985: 357), clearly focused on the cutting (of meat). The term bēt-midli is attested in two letters (SAA 13 18 r. 8 and 22:5´) of Dadî, an official associated with the Aššur Temple (see above, fn. 39). For midlu meaning pickled meat see Deller 1983.

46From their analysis of the faunal data from Ziyaret Tepe (Tušḫan), Wicke and Greenfield (2013: 80–82, Pl. XXXII) concluded that the processing of entire domestic animals took place in the “open courtyard area” of the excavated Middle Assyrian palace (no faunal remains were found in the main reception rooms of the building).

Melanie Groß 13


income of wine are rare and for the most part not conclusive, though there is, for instance, a

record from the North-West Palace in Kalḫu (Room ZT 4) about the deliveries of livestock

and wine from various (unknown) cities (ND 2790, Parker 1961: 53f., Pl. XXVIII). Another

document from Fort Shalmaneser (Room NE 50) lists the income of audience gifts in the form

of wine (CTN 3 89:20´–33´). Also, in the letter of Babilaiu, Bel-iqiša, and another man (name

lost) to the king (Assurbanipal), a storage place for the wine that came in as audience gift in

the 10th month (Kanūnu) is requested (SAA 16 117). None of these texts mentions the wine

master, but it seems fair to suppose that this official actually supervised incoming wine and its

subsequent storage. Also, although the lists of wine allocations from Fort Shalmaneser do not

give any clue as to the department or official managing the distribution of wine among the

court society, the wine master is the most plausible candidate in this respect, not least because

he occurs as a recipient (of comparatively large amounts of wine) in several of these lists.47

The records stem, on the one hand, from Room SW6 which contained large storage jars (up to

300 litres capacity) and was located next to the rooms (SE 1, 10) where a considerable part of

the dossier of the palace manager (rab ekalli) was found and, on the other hand, from the

Rooms NE48–49, close to the north-eastern palace entrance; it is likely that the wine master

operated here. In line with the duties of the chief of granaries and the chief cook, the wine

master (of the palace) regularly had to provide amounts of wine for offering activities in the

temples, as is clear from royal decrees and schedules (SAA 12 80:4, 6 and, if restored

correctly, SAA 12 77 i 15´–17´). When the astrologer Akkullanu reports to the king

(Esarhaddon or Assurbanipal) that the (unnamed) wine master together with his deputy and

his scribe in the seventh month (Tašrītu) did not refill wine to be offered in the Aššur Temple

(SAA 10 98:17–r. 15), this refers directly to such regulations laid down by the king and

therefore I suggest that the wine master in question was appointed to the royal household

(rather than the Aššur Temple). Also the sum of 9 minas 15 shekels of silver, meant for the

regular offerings (ginû) of Aššur and owed by Zarutî, wine master of the New House, and his

deputy Ululaiu (SAA 14 60, 61), presumably had a similar background.

As with the chief cook, most of the direct evidence we have regarding the tasks of the

wine master refers to the supply of wine for offerings. Although we know that also

consecrated wine, the leftovers from offerings in the temples,48 was consumed in the palace, it

is clear that this cannot have been the only source. Leaving aside the possible loss of texts

written on perishable material and other such difficulties relating to the uneven distribution of

sources, the lack of information is presumably because there was no need to communicate

about the internal distribution of wine in writing; moreover, the documentation of

administrative procedures in the Neo-Assyrian period was generally less extensive (Postgate

2001: 182). Together with the chief cook, the wine master took care of the most valuable

foodstuffs consumed by the gods and the Assyrian elite, items that were not usually available

47NWL 4:13; 5 r. 2; 6 r. 46; 7:9; 8:10; 11 r. 19; 21 r. 10. The amount of wine given to the rab karāni according to

the unbroken entries is 1 sūtu 5 qû (NWL 8) and 1 sūtu 4 qû (NWL 11); single persons usually receive here 1 qû of wine (e.g. NWL 4:18–19) whereas the queen’s household receives 3 sūtu of wine (e.g. NWL 8:6).

48Note, for instance, a letter of an unknown author (heading broken) who in connection with wine offerings before Bel and Nabû refers to wine as the return or benefit of the palace (SAA 13 134:21´: GEŠTIN.MEŠ ta-a-a-ru ša É.GAL, see CAD T 60f. s.v. tajāru).



for the ordinary people. In contrast to the chief cook, the wine master was responsible for a

finished product delivered to the urban centres and, like his colleagues from the same

category (see above), he did not preside over a professional group. The main representative of

this office likely had his bureau in the main palace, in contrast to the managers of grain who

took care of silos beyond the palace walls (and even beyond the walls of the imperial capital).

The management of food supply in the Middle Assyrian period49

As with the Neo-Assyrian sources, several different types of “kitchen managers” are attested

in the Middle Assyrian textual material, including the chief cook (rab nuḫatimmi),50 the chief

confectioner (rab karkadinni),51 the chief baker (rab alaḫḫenni),52 the chief brewer (rab

sirāšê),53 and the chief oil-presser (rab ṣāḫiti).54 Jakob (2003: 28f.) assumed that they

presided over rather small groups of individuals, maybe comprising of about ten people;

hence, several chief cooks or chief confectioners may have been active at the same time. In

any case, it was already in the Middle Assyrian period that the office of chief cook in

particular developed into a more complex role since one of its holders was eponym in the

reign of Aššur-nadin-apli (early 12th century), as did the chief cook Sa’ilu in the Neo-

Assyrian period. The occurrence of the title of chief cook in a fragmentary inscription on an

Assur stele, perhaps accompanied by a reference to the chief confectioner, underlines this

impression and suggests that also the office of the chief confectioner could be represented by

a prominent figure at that time (for references see fns. 50 and 51). Unfortunately we lack

concrete evidence for the tasks of the Middle Assyrian chief cook, but it is likely that the

responsibilities of the chief cook of the royal household were similar to what we learn from

the Neo-Assyrian evidence. Support for this suggestion comes from the archive of the

“Offerings House” in Assur headed by the rab ginā’ē (“offerings overseer”). According to its

written remnants, this department administered cereals, sesame, syrup (or honey), and fruits

provided by the provinces for the regular offerings in the Aššur Temple (Postgate 2014: 90–

146, note especially Fig. 4.5 on p. 97). Gaspa (2011: 167f.) and Postgate (2014: 120), who

49I owe special thanks to Jaume Llop-Raduà who provided me with a collection of data concerning the Middle

Assyrian rab-x officials, as well as to Nicholas Postgate who kindly sent me parts of his monograph on the Middle Assyrian bureaucracy that was published at the beginning of this year.

50Ass. 2001.D–1933:20´: [G]AL? LÚ.MU.MEŠ, eponym, possibly Erib-[Sîn] (Frahm 2002: 72f.) and Ass. 2001.D–2403: GAL LÚ.MU.MEŠ, mentioned on the reverse of a broken document recording, among other things, ox hides and tendons (Frahm 2002: 82). Andrae 1972: no. 104:2´: GAL MU!.MEŠ (cf. CAD K 42f. s.v. kakardinnu b). Writings of the type GAL–LÚ.X(.MEŠ) are rarely attested in the Neo-Assyrian sources, where we usually find the more standardised writing LÚ/LÚ*.GAL–X(.MEŠ).

51The aforementioned GAL MU!.MEŠ attested on Assur stele no. 104 is followed by ka-kar-di-ni in the next line (l. 3´) which perhaps refers to the GAL in l. 2´; cf. GAL–LÚ*.MU.MEŠ LÚ*.NA.GAD.MEŠ in fn. 40.

52Jakob 2003: 387, A 1817 (not A 74, as given by Jakob, see Pedersén 1985: 79). According to the Middle Assyrian sources, the alaḫḫennu seems to have been a professional concerned with the processing of corn, comparable to the tasks of both the miller and the baker (Jakob 2003: 391f.). The Neo-Assyrian (as well as the Old Assyrian) evidence rather suggests that the alaḫḫennu (or laḫḫennu) was an administrative official. In Neo-Assyrian times the laḫḫennu is particularly associated with the temple sphere (Menzel 1981 I: 223–228), while his female counterpart, the laḫḫennutu, was active in the queen’s department (Svärd 2012: 183f.). No rab āpie (or rab āpi’i) is attested in the Middle Assyrian records (Jakob 2003: 394f.)

53See Jakob 2003: 401, MARV 3 39:7: GAL LÚ.LUNGA.MEŠ. 54MARV 5 17:6: GAL Ì.SUR; MARV 6 42:12, 14: GAL Ì.SUR.MEŠ (two sons of the chief oil-presser Salmanu-

iqiša owe sesame, see Postgate 2014: 115) and MARV 10 47:11: GAL Ì.SUR = KAJ 248.

Melanie Groß 15


dealt with this archive recently, point out the lack of domestic animals or meat which was

already in Middle Assyrian times an integral component of provincial provisions for offerings

in the Aššur Temple.55 According to Gaspa, this may have been simply owed to a different

way of record-keeping, but Postgate goes a step further and suggests a different system for

supplying the Aššur Temple with meat. Given that there already existed an office of rab

nuḫatimmi of apparently enhanced status, I suppose that already in the Middle Assyrian

period the chief cook was responsible for the management of meat needed for the divine meal

and, as a consequence, the king’s meal. There is evidence for a rather regular provision of

bread, beer, and oil by the “Offerings House” for the palace which also involved leftovers

from offerings,56 but it is clear that this was only “supplementary support” and that the palace

had other resources for the supply of these commodities. Also the supply of meat for the

palace and temple may have been maintained by more than one department, as indicated by

another archive (M 6, according to Pedersén 1985: 56–68) found in Assur (between the Anu-

Adad Temple and the Old Palace). The owner of the archive was the fattener Muttâ, also

bearing the titles ša-rēši and zāriqu, who took care of the livestock which was brought as

audience gifts (nāmurtu) to the palace (Postgate 1986: 171f.; Jakob 2003: 377f.). Assuming

that a bureau of the chief cook with overall responsibility for the meat supply existed, Muttâ’s

department could have been active at a lower administrative level.

As to managers concerned with distinct types of foodstuffs, we do not find the same

titles that are known for the Neo-Assyrian period. Instead, singular references to a ša-muḫḫi-

šamni and a ša-muḫḫi-karāni can be found in Middle Assyrian administrative records,57

which very likely are equivalent to the titles rab-šamni and rab-karāni respectively.58

Assuming that the ša-muḫḫi-šamni and the ša-muḫḫi-karāni likewise managed the supply of

oil and wine for the palace, the administration of these commodities on behalf of the palace

was managed by separate departments, as was the case in the first millennium BC. When we

look for administrators of grain and grain storage facilities in the Middle Assyrian sources,

however, there are no references to offices such as the rab karmāni and rab danībāti, and I am

not aware of attestations of any equivalent terms or other official designations that might

suggest a similar occupation. However, as we have seen, royal grain storage facilities called

karmu were distributed over the urban centres in the Middle Assyrian period and these needed

to be managed. For the royal karmu in Assur, Llop (2005: 54, fns. 116f.) refers to two 55For meat offered in the Middle Assyrian period see Gaspa 2012b: 250–253. No rab ginā’ē is attested in the

Neo-Assyrian sources; the treasurer (masennu) of the Aššur Temple may have taken over this function instead. According to the decree of Adad-nerari III (SAA 12 69), Šamaš-naṣir, treasurer of the Aššur Temple, was appointed to take care of the supply of oil, honey, grain, and legumes for the offering ceremonies in the Aššur Temple. The supply of meat (grain-fed sheep and bulls) is here separately addressed and each time in explicit connection to the king as the donor (ll. 14, 24, 26).

56Similar to the aforementioned example of wine as tajāru (return or benefit) of the palace (see fn. 48), there is a Middle Assyrian reference to oil described as tajāru of the palace. Note also the presence of brewers and bakers with apparently “divided institutional loyalties”: “bakers (and) brewers of the House of Aššur and the Palace” (Postgate 2014: 128).

57See Postgate 2014: 116 (ša-muḫḫi-ṣāḫiti, MARV 6 31:29; the tablet deals with oil libations) and 117, fn. 93 (ša-muḫḫi-karāni, MARV 7 71; he contributes fruits).

58Also from a formal point of view they are likely to correspond one another, since in Middle Assyrian times the ša-muḫḫi-ekalli is used synonymously to rab ekalli; the same is true for the ša-muḫḫi-ginā’ē and the rab ginā’ē (Jakob 2003: 74f.).



families, with close ties to the king and his household, which seem to have been responsible

for it and ran the royal karmu as a family business.59 It is only a question of designation, and

whether the administrators of the karmus bore the title rab karmāni (or rab karmi) or another

similar title does not change the fact that they had the same function. We can, nevertheless,

observe one significant difference compared with the circumstances in the Neo-Assyrian

period. We do not have evidence for the rab karmāni or his food-managing colleagues active

in the royal household exercising their office within an elite family network where the son

typically follows his father in office.60 Admittedly, this is primarily a matter of the sources

and while several Middle Assyrian administrative archives were unearthed in Assur, we lack

comparable material from the succeeding period, but there is reason to assume that in Neo-

Assyrian times the king preferred to appoint independent and professionally skilled men to

these offices, as Radner (2011: 359–361) convincingly argued for the Neo-Assyrian high state

officials (the magnates and the provincial governors).61 According to Radner, this possible

change in the bureaucratic ethos also involved the more frequent appointment of ša-rēšis to

state offices; as eunuchs, their lack of family ties was supposed to ensure absolute loyalty

towards the king. From among the Neo-Assyrian food managers only Inurta-aḫia-šukšid,

“chief of the cooks and the herdsmen”, is designated ša-rēši of Adad-nerari (III) on his

cylinder seal (Watanabe 1993: 115, no. 6.2). In the standard formula of Assurbanipal’s grants

of tax exemption the beneficiaries are indirectly referred to as ša-rēši and include the rab ša-

rēši, the chamberlain (ša-muḫḫi-bētāni), and the fodder master (rab kissite).62 Since the latter

operated close to the rab karmāni (see above), it is likely that the office of the rab karmāni

and other food-managing offices were held by the same class of men, namely ša-rēšis.

Whether or not this means “eunuch” or rather “courtier” in such a standardised document,

Assurbanipal’s use of the term ša-rēši in this context indicates a systematic or unified

treatment of the office holders in question. According to the Middle Assyrian sources,

especially the common palace personnel and the qēpu-agents were designated ša-rēši; cases

such as the aforementioned fattener Muttâ as well as the provincial governor and treasurer

Uṣur-namkur-šarre, who both are attested with the title ša-rēši (Jakob 2003: 83–92), were

rather exceptional in the Middle Assyrian period when especially the highest state offices

59The two families are those of Urad-Šerua and of Šamaš-aḫa-iddina and his sons Ištar-eriš, Qibi-Aššur, and

Ubru. Note, however, that Postgate (1988: xii–xiii) rejected the idea that Urad-Šerua was “superintendent of the royal granaries” (as suggested by Saporetti), stressing that his responsibilities were much broader. Also, Melisah, the father of Urad-Šerua, was governor of Naḫur.

60Especially local “kitchen managers”, however, were likely chosen from among their profession and, consequently, a son easily followed his father in office; note, in particular, the deceased chief baker (of the Aššur Temple) who was replaced by his son (SAA 10 96 r. 18–26). Also, from among the food managers in the Neo-Assyrian period I am only aware of the chief baker Aššur-šumu-iddina who is recorded along with his father’s name (StAT 2 183:1).

61A remarkable observation in this respect was recently made in connection with a loyalty treaty from the reign of Esarhaddon found in Tell Tayinat. By contrast to Esarhaddon’s loyalty treaties from Kalḫu, which address the city lords (bēl-āli) by name and their male descendants, it records the anonymous governor (bēl-pāḫiti) together with his subordinate officials and personnel as the king’s contracting party and, thus, indicates the non-hereditary character of the office of provincial governor; see Lauinger 2012: 91f. (ll. T i 3–12), 113.

62SAA 12 26, 30 and 25; in ll. 7–8, (partly) preserved in SAA 12 25 and 26, Assurbanipal describes himself as the one “who always behaves kindly towards the officials who serve him” (ša a-na LÚ.šu-ut–SAG.MEŠ man-za-az–pa-ni-šú it-ta-nab-ba-lu i-na dam-qa-a-ti).

Melanie Groß 17


were maintained by the elite families and their “houses” over generations and their office-

holders, the magnates (rabi’ānu), were distinguished from the ša-rēš-šarrānu.63 The same

change in policy may have affected the lower level of administration, including the food

management, though we should not expect an abrupt and overall change but rather a steady

development (with fluctuations) towards a professionalisation of the different administrative

levels. Although we catch a glimpse of this policy already in the Middle Assyrian period, this

was developed much further in the Neo-Assyrian empire whose administration is also

characterised by the installation of deputies (šaniu) beneath state officials and court officials

including the food-managing offices, a custom which is rarely known from the Middle

Assyrian period and that can also be taken as a sign of increasing professionalisation.64

Hence, while at a first sight one expects significant differences in the way food was managed

for the royal household in the two periods, the basic administrative structures and distribution

of responsibilities (meat, grain, wine,...) already existed in the Middle Assyrian period, as did

the strong reciprocal relationship between palace and temple. Based on these foundations, the

food management apparatus, along with the entire Neo-Assyrian administration, developed

further into a more complex and also a more rational system.65

63See Jakob 2003: 22–24, fns. 174, 176f. and 90, fn. 162. The two terms rabi’ānu and ša-rēš-šarrānu, which are

successively mentioned in the Middle Assyrian Krönungsritual (edited in Müller 1937, l. iii 2), however, are not necessarily understood as mutually exclusive. On the Middle Assyrian governmental “houses” see also Postgate 1988: xxiii–xxv. Though, the office of the treasurer of the palace in Assur seems to have been held by individual figures over generations (Postgate 2014: 147).

64The second-in-commands of Neo-Assyrian officials are collected and discussed in my doctoral thesis “The Structure and Organisation of the Neo-Assyrian Royal Household” (2014). For the Middle Assyrian period I am only aware of the sukkallu šaniu, the deputy vizier (Jakob 2003: 55).

65In his monumental study Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Max Weber established the patrimonial rule (“traditionale Herrschaft”) and the bureaucratic rule (“rationale Herrschaft”) as ideal types of rulership (Weber 1972: 124). The Neo-Assyrian empire was a combination of the two: while it was maintained on the basis of a traditional concept of rulership, more rational elements were implemented.



Bibliography

Ahmad A.Y. — Postgate J.N. 2007, Archives from the Domestic Wing of the North-West

Palace at Kalhu/Nimrud (Edubba 10), London.

Andrae W. 1972, Die Stelenreihen in Assur, 2nd edition (Wissenschaftliche

Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 24), Osnabrück.

Baker H.D. (ed.) 2000, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 2, Part I: Ḫ-

K, Helsinki.

——— 2001, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 2, Part II: L-N,

Helsinki.

——— 2011, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 3, Part II: Š-Z,

Helsinki.

Civil M. (ed.) 1969, MSL 12. The Series lú = ša and Related Texts, Rome.

Cole S.W. — Machinist P. 1998, Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and

Assurbanipal (State Archives of Assyria 13), Helsinki.

Dalley S. — Postgate J.N. 1984, The Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser (Cuneiform Texts from

Nimrud 3), London.

Deller K. 1983, “midlu ‘Pökelfleisch’”, Assur 3/4, 33–39.

——— 1985, “Köche und Küche des Aššur-Tempels”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 16, 347–376,

Pls. 31–32.

Donbaz V. — Parpola S. 2001, Neo-Assyrian Legal Texts in Istanbul (Studien zu den Assur-

Texten 2), Saarbrücken.

Ebeling E. 1927, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur juristischen Inhalts (Wissenschaftliche Veröffent-

lichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 50), Leipzig.

Faist B. 2010, Neuassyrische Rechtsurkunden IV. Mit einem Beitrag von E. Klengel-Brandt

(Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 132 =

Keilschrifttexte aus Neuassyrischer Zeit 4), Wiesbaden.

Faist B. — Llop J. 2012, “The Assyrian Granary karmu”, in G. del Olmo Lete — J. Vidal —

N. Wyatt (eds), The Perfumes of Seven Tamarisks. Studies in Honour of Wilfred G.E.

Watson (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 394), Münster, 19–35.

Fales F.M. 1990, “Grain reserves, daily rations, and the size of the Assyrian army: a

quantitative study”, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 4/1, 23–34.

Fales F.M. — Postgate J.N. 1992, Imperial Administrative Records, Part I: Palace and

Temple Administration (State Archives of Assyria 7), Helsinki.

——— 1995, Imperial Administrative Records, Part II: Provincial and Military

Administration (State Archives of Assyria 11), Helsinki.

Faust A. 2011, “The Interests of the Assyrian Empire in the West: Olive Oil Production as a

Test Case”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 54, 62–86.

Frahm E. 2002, “Assur 2001: Die Schriftfunde”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-

Gesellschaft 134, 47–86.

Freydank H. 1994, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte III (Wissen-

schaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 92), Berlin.

Melanie Groß 19


Freydank H. — Feller B. 2004, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte V

(Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 106),

Saarbrücken.

——— 2005, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte VI (Wissenschaftliche

Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 109), Saarwellingen.

——— 2006, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte VII (Wissenschaftliche

Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 111), Saarwellingen.

Fuchs A. 1994, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, Göttingen.

Fuchs A. — Parpola S. 2001, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part III: Letters from

Babylonia and the Eastern Provinces (State Archives of Assyria 15), Helsinki.

Gaspa S. 2011, “The rab ginā’ē’s Administrative Unit at Work. A Quantitative Study on the

Provision of Foodstuffs in the Middle Assyrian Period in the Evidence of the Tabular

Lists”, Ugarit-Forschungen 43, 161–222.

——— 2012a, Alimenti e pratichi alimentari in Assiria: Le materie alimentari nel culto

ufficiale dell’Assiria del primo millennio A.C. (History of the Ancient Near East,

Monographs 13), Padua.

——— 2012b, “Meat offerings and their preparation in the state cult of the Assyrian empire”,

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 72/2, 249–273.

Grayson A.K. 1991, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, I (1114–859 BC) (The

Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, 2), Toronto.

——— 1996, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, II (858–745) (The Royal

Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, 3), Toronto.

Groß M. forthcoming, “Innovation and tradition in the sphere of Neo-Assyrian officialdom”,

Proceedings of the 57th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale in Rome, 2011.

Jakob S. 2003, Mittelassyrische Verwaltung und Sozialstruktur. Untersuchungen (Cuneiform

Monographs 29), Leiden — Boston.

Joannès F. 2009, “Le goût des autres”, in X. Faivre — B. Lion — M. Cecile (eds), Et il y eut

un esprit dans l’Homme. Jean Bottéro et la Mésopotamie (Travaux de la Maison René-

Ginouvès 6), Paris, 221–236.

Kataja L. — Whiting, R. 1995, Grants, Decrees and Gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period (State

Archives of Assyria 12), Helsinki.

Kinnier Wilson J.V. 1972, The Nimrud Wine Lists. A Study of Men and Administration at the

Assyrian Capital in the Eighth Century, B.C. (Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 1), London.

Kleber K. 2008, Tempel und Palast. Die Beziehungen zwischen dem König und dem Eanna-

Tempel im spätbabylonischen Uruk (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 358 = Veröffent-

lichungen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte Babyloniens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 3), Münster.

Kwasman T. — Parpola S. 1991, Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part I:

Tiglath-Pileser III through Esarhaddon (State Archives of Assyria 6), Helsinki.

Lanfranchi G.B. — Parpola S. 1990, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part II: Letters from

the Northern and Northeastern Provinces (State Archives of Assyria 5), Helsinki.

Lauinger J. 2012, Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tell Tayinat: Text and Commentary,

Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64, 87–123.



Leichty E. 2011, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC) (Royal

Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4), Winona Lake.

Llop J. 2005, “Die königlichen ‘großen Speicher’ (karmū rabi’ūtu) der Stadt Assur in der Re-

gierungszeit Salmanassars I. und Tukultī-Ninurtas I.”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-

Gesellschaft 137, 41–55.

Luukko M. 2012, The Correspondence of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II from Calah/

Nimrud. (State Archives of Assyria 19), Helsinki.

Luukko M. — Van Buylaere G. 2002, The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon (State

Archives of Assyria 16), Helsinki.

Mattila R. 2002, Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part II: Assurbanipal

through Sin-šarru-iškun (State Archives of Assyria 14), Helsinki.

——— 2009, “The Chief Singer and Other Late Eponyms”, in M. Luukko — S. Svärd — R.

Mattila (eds), Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars. Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in

Honour of Simo Parpola (Studia Orientalia 106), Helsinki, 159–166.

Maul S.M. 2000, “Frühjahrsfeierlichkeiten in Aššur”, in A.R. George — I.L. Finkel (eds),

Wisdom, Gods and Literature. Studies in Honour of W. G. Lambert, Winona Lake, 389–

420.

Menzel B. 1981, Assyrische Tempel I–II (Studia Pohl: Series Maior 10/1–2), Rome.

Menzel-Wortmann B. 1986, “Der LÚGAL DANIBATA in neuassyrischer Zeit”, Mesopotamia

21, 213–227.

Milano L. 1998, “Aspects of Meat Consumption in Mesopotamia and the Food Paradigm of

the Poor Man of Nippur”, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 12/2, 111–127.

Müller K.F. 1937, “Das Assyrische Ritual, Teil I. Texte zum Assyrischen Königsritual”, Mit-

teilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft 41/3.

Oates J. — Oates D. 2001, Nimrud. An Assyrian Imperial City Revealed, London.

Parker B. 1961, “Administrative Tablets from the North-West Palace, Nimrud”, Iraq 23/1,

15–67, Pls. IX–XXX.

——— 1963, “Economic Tablets from the Temple of Mamu at Balawat”, Iraq 25/1, 86–103,

Pls. XIX–XXVI.

Parpola S. 1975, review of J.N. Postgate, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire,

Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 65/2, 293–296.

——— 1987, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria and the West

(State Archives of Assyria 1), Helsinki.

——— 1993, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (State Archives of Assyria 10),

Helsinki.

——— 2004, “The Leftovers of God and King. On the Distribution of Meat at the Assyrian

and Achaemenid Imperial Courts”, in C. Grottanelli — L. Milano (eds), Food and Identity

in the Ancient World (History of the Ancient Near East, Studies 9), Padua, 281–312.

——— 2008, “Cuneiform Texts from Ziyaret Tepe (Tušḫan), 2002–2003”, State Archives of

Assyria Bulletin 17, 1–113, Pls. I–XXIII.

Melanie Groß 21


Pedersén O. 1985, Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur. A Survey of the Material from

the German Excavations. Part I (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Semitica

Upsaliensia 6), Uppsala.

Postgate J.N. 1973, The Governor’s Palace Archive (Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 2),

London.

——— 1974, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire (Studia Pohl: Series

Maior 3), Rome.

——— 1976, Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents, Warminster.

——— 1986, “Administrative Archives from the City of Assur in the Middle Assyrian

Period”, in K.R. Veenhof (ed.), Cuneiform Archives and Libraries. Papers read at the 30e

Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Leiden 4–8 July 1983, Leiden, 168–183.

——— 1988, The archive of Urad-Šerūa and his family. A Middle Assyrian household in

government service, Rome.

——— 1989, “The Ownership and Exploitation of Land in Assyria in the 1st millennium

B.C.”, in M. Lebeau — P. Talon (eds), Reflets des deux fleuves: Volume de mélanges offerts

à André Finet (Akkadica Supplementum 4), Leuven, 141–152.

——— 2001, “System and style in three Near Eastern bureaucracies”, in S. Voutsaki — J.T.

Killen (eds), Economy and politics in the Mycenaean Palace States. Proceedings of a Con-

ference held on 1–3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge (Cambridge Philo-

logical Society, Supplementary Volume 27), Cambridge, 181–194.

——— 2014, Bronze Age Bureaucracy. Writing and the Practice of Government in Assyria,

Cambridge.

Radner K. (ed.) 1998, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 1, Part I: A,

Helsinki.

——— (ed.) 1999a, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 1, Part II: B–G,

Helsinki.

——— 1999b, Ein neuassyrisches Privatarchiv der Tempelgoldschmiede von Assur (Studien

zu den Assur-Texten 1), Saarbrücken.

——— 2006, “Provinz. C. Assyrien”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 11/1–2, 42–68.

——— 2008, “The delegation of power: Neo-Assyrian bureau seals”, in P. Briant — W.F.M.

Henkelman — M.W. Stolper (eds), L’archive des fortifications de Persépolis. État des

questions et perspectives de recherches (Persika 12), Paris, 481–515.

——— 2011, “Royal Decision-Making: Kings, Magnates, and Scholars”, in K. Radner — E.

Robson (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, Oxford, 358–379.

Svärd S. 2012, Power and Women in the Neo-Assyrian Palaces (Unpublished Dissertation),

University of Helsinki.

Watanabe K. 1993, “Neuassyrische Siegellegenden”, Orient (Report of the Society for Near

Eastern Studies in Japan) 29, 109–138.

Weber M. 1972, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie,

Studienausgabe, 5th edition, Tübingen.

Wicke, D. — Greenfield, T. 2013, “The ‘Bronze Palace’ at Ziyaret Tepe. Preliminary Remarks

on the architecture and Faunal Analysis”, in D. Kertai — P.A. Miglus (eds), New Research



on Late Assyrian Palaces. Conference at Heidelberg, January 22nd, 2011 (Heidelberger

Studien zum Alten Orient 15), Heidelberg, 63–82, Pls. XXXI–XXXII.

Wiseman D.J. 1953, “The Nimrud Tablets, 1953”, Iraq 15/2, 135–160.

Yamada S. 2000, The Construction of the Assyrian Empire. A Historical Study of the In-

scriptions of Shalmaneser III (859–824 B.C.) Relating to His Campaigns to the West

(Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 3), Leiden — Boston — Köln.