(2013) Glimpses on the Lives of Deportees in Rural Babylonia.

Glimpses on the Lives of Deportees in Rural Babylonia by Cornelia Wunsch – London* Deportations The uprooting and deportation of large population groups and their re-settlement elsewhere was one of the many punitive measures exercised by sovereigns in the Ancient Near East. Assyrian as well as Babylonian rulers used this method to pacify conquered territories and to punish revolting subjects.1 Such instances occurred when the Neo-Assyrian kings conquered the Israelite Northern Kingdom in 722–721 and deported population groups from Israel to other areas under Neo-Assyrian control. When the Babylonians finally subjugated the Southern Kingdom in 587– 586, they also uprooted major parts of the population. This deportation of Judeans from Jerusalem and the surrounding territory by Nebuchadnezzar II figures prominently in the Hebrew Bible, which maintaines memory of these events as the “Babylonian Captivity”. It constitutes one of the quintessential experiences that helped shape Jewish identity. * Research for this article was supported by a grant from the Gerda Henkel Foundation, which was provided for the publication of the corpus. 1 Examples for deportees settled in Mesopotamia from the 8th to the 6th centuries and mentioned in cuneiform sources see the following publications. For Israelites, see Oded 1979, 1995; for Elamites see Faist 2009; for West Semites in general and Judean/Jews the most important studies are Zadok 1977, 1978, 1979a/b, 2002, 2003a/b (and many other articles by the same author that cannot be mentioned here because of lack of space); Coogan 1994; Oded 1995; Joannès and Lemaire 1999 (see also Lambert 2007 for re-publication of one text); Pearce 2006, 2011; Abraham 2005–2006, 2007; Eph al 1978, 2005; for Egyptians in Babylonian texts see Dandamayev 1992 and 2004; Bongenaar and Haring 1994; Zadok 2005; for Tyrian deportees in Babylonia and the question which location is meant by Akkadian Surru, see Joannès 1982 and 1987; Czechowicz 2002; Zawadzki 2003 and 2008; Kleber 2008, 141–154; for tablets referring to Neirabean returnees with ongoing links to Babylonia see Dhorme 1928; Fales 1973; Eph al 1978, 84– 88, 89f; Oelsner 1989; Tolini in prep.; for Gezerites (lúGazràyyu) and Cilicians (lú∞ummàyyu) see Jursa 1998a, 25f., 108; for Arabs see Eph al 1974; Zadok 1981 and Wunsch forthcoming, (JWB 43 mentioning “fields of the Arabs”); for Edomites see Wunsch in prep.; for Carians (lúKarsàyyu or lúBannóšàyyu) see Waerzeggers 2006 (although this population group does not seem to have been settled originally as deportees under a “land for service” regime but on more privileged terms). 248 Cornelia Wunsch High-profile deportees Extra-biblical evidence2 so far substantiates the claim that high-profile deportees, such as the king and his entourage, were living at the court in the Babylonian capital as some kind of prisoners, hostages or “guests” – from whatever viewpoint one wishes to describe it – under close supervision of the authorities. They were limited in their movement, given their potential for causing political trouble. They appear to have been well-provided for, in general, and do not seem to have suffered any further degrading or humiliating treatment. It goes without saying that this kind of “hospitality” did not extend beyond the small aristocratic echelon. The “Babylonian Captivity” of ordinary people The majority of deportees did not enjoy the privileged terms reserved for the king and his immediate circle. There is no doubt that commoners were put to work. The biblical account emphasizes the Babylonian interest in deporting qualified workers for use in public works (e.g., building projects such as palaces, temples and canals), as well as for outfitting troops. The Bible claims that it was largely the Judean elite who were deported, leaving behind just common folk in rural backwaters.3 The term “captivity” suggests not only loss of the homeland but also forced work and life in barracks. It also explains the longing for the past, the desire to idealize it, and the wish to return to the homeland. It has never been doubted, though, that this perception of the exile was only one aspect of a historic reality, subject to reinterpretation and transfiguration over time. Although one may assume that a substantial number of Judean commoners were brought to Babylon itself to be employed in large infrastructure projects under state supervision (and thereby probably fitting the image of forced labourers in “captivity”), the majority of exiles from Judea – and from many other conquered places – did not reach the capital, but were distributed all over the country to settle 2 The German archaeological excavation at Babylon yielded administrative texts that made reference to the Judaean king Jehoiachin being held as a hostage or prisoner in the Babylonian capital, where he and his entourage were maintained by rations assigned by the crown administration, obviously spending some time there (Weidner 1939). This helped to substantiate the biblical report of 2 Kgs 24:12–15. Just about five years ago, Jursa (2008) identified a text in the British Museum that mentions the high Babylonian rab ša-róši official Nabû-šarrdssu-uk$n, who is known as Nebošarsekim (Nbwšrskym, as already expected by Vanderhooft 1999, 151) from Jer 39:3. It is a receipt for a substantial amount of gold that was delivered to the Esangila, the main sanctuary of Babylon, on Nabû-šarrdssu-uk$n’s behalf in the tenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e., about eight years before the events took place that are recounted in Jeremiah 39 (dating to 587) and refer to Nebošarsekim as a participant in the siege of Jerusalem. 3 See, e.g., 2 Kgs 24:15: “He carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon; the king’s mother, the king’s wives, his officials, and the elite of the land, he took into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon”. Glimpses on the Lives of Deportees in Rural Babylonia 249 rural areas. In each locale, they lived as a distinct group in proximity to other populations that we also know from cuneiform texts, such as the Gezerites, Hindaneans and Arabs. Thus far, the primary evidence for descendants of common Judean deportees stemmed from the post-exilic tablets of the Muràšû archive that date from the midfifth to mid-fourth centuries. These texts contain personal names of West Semitic and Hebrew origin (some exhibiting Yahwistic elements) which attest to descendants of Judaeans and other West-Semitic origin. They appear at the margin of transactions: more as witnesses or people mentioned in passing than as the parties to the transactions.4 This situation now has changed, thanks to new evidence from the exilic and early post-exilic time (about one-hundred years earlier than the Muràšû archive). The new documentation portrays Judaeans as the main protagonists and archive holders within a cluster of cuneiform texts. The new text corpus The corpus contains approximately 200 records of legal-administrative nature, issued at hitherto unattested settlements of Judean communities localized in rural Babylonia. The records illustrate the administrative, business, and – at least to a certain extent – family relations of the inhabitants. These texts are dispersed in museum and private collections, such as the Diaspora Museum, Tel Aviv, the Schøyen collection, and the Moussaieff collection.5 Only a few tablets have been published thus far,6 but the publication of the bulk of 4 See further Coogan 1976a; 1976b; Zadok 1979; 2002. For more on the Muràšû archive, see Stolper 1985; 1992; 2001 and Donbaz and Stolper 1997. 5 There exist no doubts about the authenticity of the documents. In regards to tablet-making, writing ductus, dialect features and legal vocabulary they clearly represent the Neo-Babylonian tradition while containing many Hebrew names also known from the list of returnees in the biblical book of Ezra, although in the alienating shape of Babylonian cuneiform syllabic orthography. Working with unprovenanced tablets that have been split between museums and private collections poses problems of its own over and above the lamentable lack of stratigraphic information but the body of information is too important to be ignored and remain inaccessible to both scholars and the public. Most of the known Neo-Babylonian archival material suffered similar circumstances as they were recovered through uncontrolled or undocumented (though licensed) excavations. European and American museums in the nineteenth and early twentieth century acquired them, mostly from individual dealers and collectors. Assyriologists have made up for this shortcoming with a great deal of auxiliary methods to reconstruct the original archival groups on the basis of internal criteria such as prosopographical work and acquisition details. For results achieved by such procedure, see, e.g., Jursa 2005, who provides an overview of the archival background of the entire material known thus far; or Waerzeggers 2005, for a detailed study concerning the Borsippa archives. 6 See Joannès 1999 and Abraham 2005–06; 2007. 250 Cornelia Wunsch material is underway.7 These documents – far from portraying a deported old but impoverished Judean elite – allow glimpses into the lives of ordinary people in a rural setting, who till the land and build houses, pay taxes and render services to the king. While this indicates a certain degree of adaptation to local circumstances, the name-giving patterns among this group over four generations show a strong sense of identity and cultic focus.8 The time span of the corpus Thanks to Babylonian record practice, the dates are clearly discernible in most cases. They range from the time of Nebuchadnezzar through Xerxes, but are distributed unevenly over time. They start with two isolated texts from the time of Nebuchadnezzar. There are a few from the reign of Nabonidus; and the majority were written during the rule of the first three Persian kings. The tablets taper off at the beginning of Xerxes’ rule, but a few continue after year two of Xerxes, which is the cut-off point of most known private archives from Babylonia.9 In contrast to the Muràšû archive, these tablets are much earlier and cover not only the early post-exilic period but also, to a certain extant, the exilic period proper. While they are contemporary with the well-documented Neo-Babylonian10 private archives from various cities and the best known temple archives from Uruk and Sippar, their contents and business profile show similarities with the later Muràšû corpus and represent a situation that may be described as “Muràšû in its infancy” (i.e., in its earliest – undocumented – stages). The location Most of the place names mentioned in the records do not help locate the corpus’s place of origin, as they either do not occur in other corpora or have been known before from other sources but nonetheless cannot be pinpointed. The place most often to be mentioned is called “town of Našar” (Þlu-ša-Našar) or “(town of) Našar’s house” (B$t-Našar) which was named after an individual. It is also known 7 Pearce and Wunsch (in prep.; text numbers are cited with the prefix IMMP) and Wunsch (in prep.; text numbers with the prefix JWB). 8 Pearce 2011. 9 Cf. Waerzeggers 2003–04. 10 The term “Neo-Babylonian” (unless applied to political history and the empire as such) is used here to encompass not just the period when the Neo-Babylonian kings held political control over Mesopotamia (612–539) but also to include the first half-century of Achaemenid Persian rule until the end of Darius I’s reign (539–486), as both periods, despite the dynastic change, share similar socio-economic features in Babylonia proper and are well documented. For details about the period of transition from Chaldean to Achaemenid rule see Jursa 2007. Glimpses on the Lives of Deportees in Rural Babylonia 251 from some Borsippa texts but remains unlocalized.11 The second focal point is “Judah-town” (Þl-Yà‡ddu) which in two early texts is called “town of the Judeans” (Þl-Yà‡ddàya), thereby indicating the gentilic origin of its name. As a few individuals appear in both places, they probably were situated in close proximity. The third prominent place name is “(town of) Abraham’s house” (B$t-Ab$-râm), likewise attested outside this archive but not yet located. Some other place names are less often or only once attested and otherwise unknown. A few tablets are either drafted in Babylon or mention it, but this is inconclusive as to the tablets’ locale because the parties appear to have traveled to the capital to deal with administrative, juridical or business matters. Borsippa is mentioned once in connection with the personal affairs of one official, which again does not tell us anything about the origin of the archive itself. This leaves the three localities of Karkara12, Keš13 and Nippur as the only hints at the possible origin of the tablets – although these places also appear only once. Because they lie beyond the scope of our other known NeoBabylonian archives their appearance is probably indicative and points to the region to the east and south-east of Babylon beyond the city of Nippur, at the Tigris corridor, as the point of origin, which is roughly identical with the area that is later reflected at the fringes of the Muràšû texts. Groups of tablets Among the tablets, three distinct groups may be discerned. Prosopographic analysis allows us to reconstruct four generations of a Judean family who appear as protagonists in one archival group, based in Þl-Yà‡ddu, and a few two- or threetiers family groups around them (henceforth referred to as “group one”). Another group focuses most prominently on the town of Našar, with the town’s headman as the main protagonist (“group two”). A third group (centered around the royal official Zababa-šar-usur) relates to B$t-Ab$-râm and displays a faint link to the other two groups, but does not involve Judean protagonists. There is good reason to assume that these three distinct groups did not emerge in three different places at the same time but, rather, in close proximity to each other, perhaps in an administrative centre 11 Waerzeggers 1999–2000. 12 Karkara, written IMki and perhaps to be identified with modern Tell ÿidr, is otherwise attested in Neo-Babylonian sources only in YOS 7 152 (Eanna archive; a judicial protocol involving širkus of Eanna that refers in line 10 to events which took place in IMki). 13 Spelled Ki-e-šúki, best known for the “Keš temple hymn”, probably located north of Umma and to be identified with modern Tell al-Wilayah. Given the fact that there was so far no evidence for the existence of this city in the second and first millennia apart from it being mentioned in a Nabonidus inscription, one might at first sight consider this as an irregular orthography for Kiš. As there are, however, some new texts from the later Achaemenid period which were issued at Keš (see Wunsch in prep.) displaying both syllabic as well as logographic spellings (thereby clearly supporting the identification with Keš) it can be safely assumed that the place mentioned in our record indeed is Keš. 252 Cornelia Wunsch of the region where they had been finally disposed off or set aside by their ancient owners. These three groups throw light on different administrative strata: while group one pertains to the dealings of a local businessman who reaches out beyond the immediate surroundings, the main protagonist in group two is the headman of his settlement and these texts reflect the next-higher layer of administration. The third group focusses on the manager of a royal estate in the region and, therefore, allows to assess the settlements in their wider context. Who wrote the cuneiform texts? All the texts in these groups were written by well-trained Babylonian scribes on behalf of their clients (in group one and two, mainly Judeans) and the influence of the traditional and highly sophisticated Neo-Babylonian legal system is strongly felt, also far beyond the rule of the Chaldean kings; it seems to have served as a default system at least during the first decades of Achaemenid rule, but maybe even throughout the Persian realm. This is reflected not just in business transactions between Judeans and their native or fellow-deportee neighbours, but likewise in dealings among Judeans themselves, even in records concerning private affairs. The deportees and their descendants certainly had regular contact with representatives of the royal administration in the region, who dealt directly with the settlers in the context of rent and tax payments and corvée service. In such a context, it does not surprise us to find Babylonian scribes writing the pertaining documents. Yet, business contracts among the exiles, intra-Judean litigation records, and even family contracts (e.g., referring to marriage and inheritance), were written by Babylonians. This holds true even where all the parties and most of the witnesses have Hebrew names and far into the Persian period. The aim of the settlements The rationale behind the deportation and re-settling of large population groups has been spelled out in detail for the Neo-Assyrian period.14 It included punishment for rebellion, liquidation of rival powers and weakening of centres of resistance and increasing loyalty among subjects, supporting the army through military conscription and corvée work, supplying craftsmen and unskilled labourers for building projects, populating strategic places and resettling desolate regions to extend the agricultural basis. Neo-Babylonian measures followed the same principles. The Judean archive attests to the deportees’ settling on newly-claimed agricultural land 14 Oded 1979, 41–74. Glimpses on the Lives of Deportees in Rural Babylonia 253 under the control of the royal administration through the “land for service”15 scheme. In this way, the Neo-Babylonian kings attempted to revive economically and exploit previously underpopulated areas within their core territories, and this strategy turned out to be sucessful. The land beyond Nippur, to the southeast of Babylon and north of Uruk is a region well known from third- and secondmillennium texts, but it had suffered considerably during the eighth and seventh centuries when the Neo-Assyrian kings fought numerous battles with Elam. Nebuchadnezzar and his successors apparently took measures to revive cultic centres of old and to make the region economically viable again. The importance of the Ninma‡ temple in Keš over at least five generations after Nabonidus (i.e., well into the late Achaemenid period) testifies to the sustained effect of their endeavour. The Persian kings seem to have followed this strategy – or at least allowed the status quo to remain – although with slightly different emphasis. It is unlikely that they shared the devotion for Babylonian deities and their ancient cult centers which was a key impetus for the Chaldean kings. Because the region touched upon main routes linking Babylonia and Persia, however, its increased geo-political importance caused more traffic to pass through it and further stimulate its development. The settlement of Judaean deportees was just one example among many others. Large irrigation projects resulted in new canals and along their course emerged new outposts, such as the “king’s town on the new bow land”,16 that still refer to their recent establishment by name. After completion of the necessary infrastructure work, groups of Judaeans received “bow-(fief)”17 lands along the waterways or nearby, allotted in units for further subdivision, which were linked with the obligation to pay taxes and to render either military or corvée service for a certain period each year.18 The texts further allude to the fact that populations of different ethnic descent and geographical background were transplanted and settled in homogeneous groups according to their origin. 15 Jursa 2010, 198f. provides a description: “numerous individuals and groups of individuals, often of non-Babyonian origin, were assigned land – gardens, or more often fields – by the crown, or its representatives. In return, they owed services as soldiers and/or corvée workers as well as taxes in kind and (increasingly) in money. The estates in question were often situated on recently reclaimed, or perhaps marginal land … the land-for-service system served both to integrate foreign groups into the society and the fabric of the state and to extend the range of state-controlled agriculture into otherwise under-exploited areas”. 16 Mentioned in IMMP 47: 11 and 51: 18. 17 Akkadian qaštu. This institution is already attested in texts from the time of Nebuchadnezzar II, see Jursa 1998b. In records of rental dues from the Yà‡ddu archive the units are referred to as “one bow”, “one-half bow” or “one-quarter bow”. IMMP 14 and 15 provide lists of such bowfief shares. 18 On these obligations, see further van Driel 2002, 155–85; and Jursa 2009. The tablets JWB 4 and Joannès/Lemaire 1999, 27f. no. 2 specifically refer to such duties. According to JWB 4 this service comprised two months per year. 254 Cornelia Wunsch Agricultural work The Judaeans’ main occupation – at least as far as the cuneiform documents record – was agriculture, primarily grain and date palm cultivation. When these settlers arrived and land parcels were measured out to them, they apparently all started from a more or less equal basis. As we follow the archive over three generations, we notice signs of increasing affluence and wealth in some families, with some of their members climbing the administrative ladder up to a certain point (such as to foreman and summoner of workmen for corvée services19 or the position of the headman of the village20), while others struggle to make ends meet. A certain social polarization among the population can, therefore, be observed. The successful individuals are the ones who left their mark in the archives. Although the archive refers to both date cultivation and grain farming there is a difference in focus as compared to the contemporary sixth-century private archives from urban centres. While the latter primarily focusses on date palm gardening (usually performed by tenants) and shows an increasing portion of irrigable land turned into high-yielding orchards, at the expense of grain cultivation with its rather extensive use of land, the Judean archive documents the details of grain cultivation that otherwise only appears in an institutional context, e.g., in the Eanna temple archives of Uruk.21 Furthermore, this archive contains evidence for some community members’ entrepreneurial efforts in intensifying cereal production. The crucial factor, apart from access to land, water, and seed, is labour, namely manpower and draught animals. How much land can be taken in cultivation, mostly depends on the latter, as the ploughing and sowing season is short and the use of cattle-driven seeder ploughs multiplies the manual output. Cattle were, thus, extremely useful during a short period but difficult to maintain over the year as their feed used up precious resources. For a plough team, four oxen or cows were needed; two leading animals and two immediately before the plough that did the heavier duty. Only in an institutional context do we usually find a number of cattle sufficient to form such teams, but, even there, the texts attest to a constant shortage of animals. Although the Judeans were settled on land managed by the crown, the local administration does not seem to have supplied them with ploughteams, or at least not enough. It does not come as a surprise, then, that individual smallholders were willing and determined to invest their modest proceeds in cattle to extend and intensify farming, although they were hardly able to afford a 19 Akkadian lúdókû. Stolper 1985, 83 describes the role and title of dókû as “marshaling the taxes and services incumbent on land holders” and provides attestations of individuals bearing this title in the Muràšû corpus. Individuals with Hebrew names are attested in this role, e.g., Yà‡ûezer, son of Tdb-šalam (IMMP 12) and Abdi-Yàhû, son of Barak-Yàma (Joannès and Lemaire 1999, 27–28 no. 2). 20 Written lúEN.NAM; Joannès and Lemaire 1999, 27–28 no. 2. 21 Cf. Jursa 2010, 26–28 on land-tenure patterns in Babylonia. Glimpses on the Lives of Deportees in Rural Babylonia 255 single animal. The archive, therefore, provides detailed information concerning cattle-breeding, the joint ownership of draught animals, the formation of plough teams and the lease of land to provide such teams with a sufficiant – and preferably contiguous – area to make best use of it. The following examples illustrate this process. IMMP 77: sale of an same ox: 18.10.2 Cambyses (528) PN1 and PN2 voluntarily sold their four-year old red-colored ox (marked with the name) Samak-Yàma, for the price of eighteen shekels of silver, to PN3. PN1 and PN2 guarantee against any person contesting (the sale) or claiming (ownership of the object). Two witnesses, scribe, place, date. Eighteen shekels of silver, the price for their ox, PN1 and PN2 have received from PN3. According to this tablet, two brothers sold an ox to the archive holder, A‡$qar. The animal is marked with the previous owner’s name – an indication that the ox had passed through several hands already. Less than three years later A‡$qar sold it with a profit of thirteen shekels (i.e., five-sixth or 83%), according to the following record. This time the ox is said to be “plough-trained”. This certainly contributed to the increase in value. JWB 29: resale of the same ox: 11.1.5 Cambyses (526) (One plough)-trained red ox whose horn is showing ‘Samak-Yàma’, belonging to PN1: he has sold (it) for (its) price of thirty-three šeqels of silver to PN2 and PN3. PN1 guarantees against anyone who turns up concerning this ox to contest (the sale) or vindicate (the object). PN1 has received the purchase price of his ox. Three witnesses, scribe, place, date. The next record contains the provisions for a cattle-sharing agreement. The first person (the silent partner) contributes the animals (two heifers) which are valued at eighteen shekels (i.e., each heifer for half the price of the four-year-old ox in our first example): JWB 26: joint venture for cattle; 27.1.4 Cambyses (526) Two red heifers, one of them a two-year old, and one (born) this year, belonging to PN1, for sharing, for eighteen shekels of silver (in value) he has given to PN2. These [eighteen] shekels of silver (for PN1’s) proportional share PN2 (thereby) has recieved from PN1. For five? years … (text lost). PN2 guarantees for herding, guarding [and proper] care of the heifers. One additional stipulation, too fragmentary to translate 256 Cornelia Wunsch From the day that they [pull] (the plough), per year one shekel of silver (for) its “hoof” (i.e., rental fee for its labour) PN2 will give to PN1. One (copy of the document) each they have taken. The active partner is supposed to take care of the animals and to make use of them during the ploughing season. Both partners expect this to yield at least two shekels per year, as the silent partner is supposed to receive one shekel as his share. This would amount to a return of about 5% on the original value, once the animals are trained. The partnership is set up for at least five years. At the end of this period the partners will probably dissolve their partnership and divide the proceeds. In a text that was issued about twenty years later, the same type of animal is valued much higher. Both sides contribute eighteen shekels each for altogether one heifer and the arrangement is to last for ten years. The income from ploughing is denominated in barley and, therefore, not directly comparable to the previous text, but it is definitely higher. IMMP 30: joint venture for cattle; 22.4.15 Darius (507) (This is concerning) [one] black heifer, born this (last) year, which PN1 gave to PN2 and PN3, for one-half mina and six shekels of silver with ginnû-mark as a share (in a joint venture) for 10 years. PN2 and PN3 guarantee for feeding, watching and herding of the heifer. Of that one-half mina and six shekels of silver PN1 received as much as is the share of PN2 and PN3 – (i.e.,) eighteen shekels of silver – from them. One (copy of the document) each (party) has taken. Five witnesses, scribe, place, date. From one year (of age) the heifer will pull a plow. [Per] year, 270 litres of barley (for) its “hoof” (i.e., rental fee for its labour) they will give. Three witnesses, scribe, place, date. In view of such arrangements it does not surprise to find a reference to “one-half cow … which is with PN” among the assets of a bequest (JWB 3). The donor obviously acted as the silent partner in such a cow-sharing venture. In contrast to the long-term share contracts for young animals the following document seems to apply only for one ploughing season. One partner provides the plough-trained ox with equipment while the other one is responsible for the work. In contrast to a straight-forward rental the owner of the animal receives a (half)share in the proceeds rather than a fixed amount. IMMP 76: Business venture for ox sharing; Našar, 13.3.acc. Bardiya (II) (522) PN1 gave a plough-ox along with its harness […] for a (half)-share in order to do cultivation to PN2. PN2 guarantees for the feeding, general caretaking and Glimpses on the Lives of Deportees in Rural Babylonia 257 safe-guarding of the ox. (Of) whatever PN2 earns (lit. “makes”) with the ox, they have an equal share. Grain and fodder they provide jointly. (This is) apart from previous promissory notes (about debts) owed by PN2. Three witnesses, scribe, place, date. For the purpose of seed-ploughing through moist soil a single ox is not efficient. Ploughteams ideally consist of four animals. Two of them do heavy duty directly before the plough, another pair of trained animals pull in front. The following text describes the formation of a ploughteam by three individuals: IMMP 75: Joint venture to form a plough-team and cultivate flax; Našar, 13.3.acc. Bardiya (II) (522) One plough-ox, one lead ox and two farmers of PN1; one plough-ox and one farmer of PN2; one lead ox and one farmer of PN3; in total: four oxen they have (put) together, until the pulling of the plowshares is over. (The one with) a plough-ox will enjoy a three-quarter (share) and (the one with) a lead ox will enjoy a two-third (share by comparison). Jointly they will cultivate the field with flax. Each man will feed his (own) ox. Any lost ox they will replace jointly. The ploughing equipment belongs to PN1. (If) the equipment is broken or lost, they will pay (for it) from their jointly-held property. And if they jointly cultivate more field(s than anticipated), each of them according to (his share in) the ox(en) will share (in it). The field(s) at their disposal they will open up with the plough, break up (the soil) and plant it, and hand it over to PN1. PN1 will provide grain (text: barley; but probably linseed is meant) for seed. The one who violates the contract will pay 100 kur of barley. One work quota (of men/ox-work?) PN2 will give to PN3. Two witnesses, scribe, place, date. This text provides the ratio according to which the work capacity of lead oxen versus plough oxen is assessed. It is calculated as eight versus nine (three-quarters versus two thirds). The clause about work exceeding their plan seems to imply that the team first and foremost works on fields that either belong to the partners or had been leased by them. Summary The texts from Þl-Yà‡ddu, Našar and B$t-Ab$-ràm offer glimpses on the life of deportees of various origins and their descendants who had been settled on freshlyclaimed land in the Babylonian countryside. While we cannot discern where and how they built their houses, our records show them tilling the land, marrying and prospering. 258 Cornelia Wunsch Bibliography Abraham K. 2005–2006: West Semitic and Judean Brides in Cuneiform Sources from the Sixth Century BCE: New Evidence from a Marriage Contract from Al-Yahudu, Archiv für Orientforschung 51, 198–219. — 2007: An Inheritance Division among Judeans in Babylonia from the Early Persian Period, in: M. Lubetski (ed.), New Seals and Inscriptions, Hebrew, Idumean and Cuneiform (= Hebrew Bible Monographs 8) 206–221. Bongenaar A. C. V. M./Haring B. J. J. 1994: Egyptians in Neo-Babylonian Sippar, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 46, 59–72. Coogan M. D. 1974: Life in the Diaspora: Jews at Nippur in the Fifth Century BC, Biblical Archaeologist 37, 6–12. — 1976a: West Semitic Personal Names in the Murašû Documents (= Harvard Semitic Monographs 7). Missoula, Mont. — 1976b: More Yahwistic Names in the Murashu Documents, Journal for the Study of Judaism 7, 199–200. Czechowicz N. 2002: : ?, in: . . ( ) 327–343. Dandamayev M.A. 1992: Egyptians in Babylonia in the 6th–5th Centuries B.C., in: D. Charpin/F. Joannès (eds.), La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Actes de la XXXVIIIe Recontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 8-10 juillet 1991, Paris) 321–325. — 2004: Twin Towns and Ethnic Minorities in First-Millennium Babylonia, in: R. Rollinger/ C. Ulf (eds.), Commerce and Monetary Systems in the Ancient World: Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction (= Melammu Symposia 5. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project held in Innsbruck, Austria, October 3rd-8th 2002 = Oriens et Occidens 6) 137–151. Dhorme P. 1928: Les tablettes babyloniennes de Neirab, RA 25, 53–82. Donbaz V./Stolper M. W. 1997: Istanbul Murašû Texts (= PIHANS 79). Eph al I. 1974: Arabs in Babylonia in the 8th Century BC, Journal of the American Oriental Society 94, 108–115. — 1978: The Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6th-5th Centuries BC: Maintenance and Cohesion, Orientalia 47, 74–90. — 2005: The Babylonian Exile: The Survival of a National Minority in a Culturally Foreign Milieu, in: R. Kratz (ed.), Gründungsfeier am 16. Dezember 2005, Centrum Orbis Orientalis, Göttingen 21–31. Faist B. 2009: An Elamite Deportee, in: G. Galil/M. J. Geller/A. R. Millard (eds.), Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded (= Vetus Testamentum, Suppl. 130) 59–69. Fales F. M. 1973: Remarks on the Neirab Texts, Oriens Antiquus 12, 131–142. Joannès F. 1982: La localisation de Surru a l’époque néo-babylonienne, Semitica 32, 35–42. — 1987: Trois textes de Surru à l’époque néo-babylonienne, RA 81, 147–158. Joannès F./Lemaire A. 1996: Contrats babyloniens d’époque achéménide du Bît-abi Râm avec une épigraphe araméenne, RA 90, 41–60. — 1999: Trois tablettes cunéiformes à l’onomastique ouest-sémitique (Collection Sh. Moussaieff), Transeuphratène 17, 17–34. Glimpses on the Lives of Deportees in Rural Babylonia 259 Jursa M. 1998a: Der Tempelzehnt in Babylonien vom siebenten bis dritten Jahrhundert v. Chr. (= AOAT 254). — 1998b: Bogenland schon unter Nebukadnezar II., NABU 1998/124. — 2005: Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents. Typology, Contents and Archives (Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 1). — 2007: The Transition of Babylonia from the Neo-Babylonian Empire to Achaemenid Rule., in: H. E. W. Crawford (ed.), Regime Change in the Ancient Near East and Egypt from Sargon of Agade to Saddam Hussein (= Proceedings of the British Academy 136) 73–94. — 2008: Nabû-šarrdssu-uk$n, rab ša-róši, und “Nebusarsekim” (Jer. 39:3), NABU 2008/5. — 2009: On Aspects of Taxation in Achaemenid Babylonia: New Evidence from Borsippa. With contributions by Caroline Waerzeggers, Persika 14, 237–269. — 2010: Aspects of the Economic History of Babylonia in the First Millennium BC. Economic Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth, with contributions by J. Hackl, B. Jankoviç, K. Kleber, E. E. Payne, C. Waerzeggers and M. Weszeli (= AOAT 377). Kleber K. 2008: Tempel und Palast. Die Beziehungen zwischen dem König und dem EannaTempel im spätbabylonischen Uruk (= AOAT 358). Lambert W. G. 2007: A Document from a Community of Exiles, in: M. Lubetski (ed.), New Seals and Inscriptions, Hebrew, Idumean and Cuneiform, edited by (= Hebrew Bible Monographs 8) 201–205. Oded B. 1979: Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden. — 1995: Observations on the Israelite/Judaean Exile in Mesopotamia during the EighthSixth Centuries BCE. (= Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 65) 205–212. — 2000: The Settlements of the Israelite and Judean Exiles in Mesopotamia in the 8th-6th Centuries BCE, Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography 91–103. Oelsner J. 1988: Weitere Bemerkungen zu den Neirab-Urkunden, Altorientalische Forschungen 16, 68–77. Pearce L. E. 2006: New Evidence for Judeans in Babylonia, in: M. Oeming/O. Lipschits (eds.), Judah and Judeans in the Achaemenid Period (Winona Lake) 399–411. — 2011: “Judean”: A Special Status in Neo-Babylonian and Achemenid Babylonia?, in: O. Lipschits/ G. N. Knoppers/M. Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period. Negotiating Identity in an International Context (Winona Lake) 267–277. Pearce L. E./Wunsch C. in prep.: Into the Midst of Many Peoples: Judeans and Other Exiles in Babylonian Texts (= CUSAS 18). Stolper M. W. 1985: Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murašû Archive, the Murašû Firm, and Persian Rule in Babylonia (= PIHANS 54). — 1992: The Murašû Texts from Susa, RA 86, 69–77. — 1994: Iranians in Babylonia, JAOS 114, 617–624. — 2001: Fifth Century Nippur: Texts of the Murašûs and From Their Surroundings, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 53, 83–132. — 2005: Farming with the Murašûs and Others: Costs and Returns of Cereal Agriculture in Fifth-Century Babylonian Texts, in: H. D. Baker/M. Jursa (eds.), Approaching the Babylonian Economy. Proceedings of the START Project Symposium Held in Vienna, 1– 3 July 2004 (= AOAT 330) 323–342. 260 Cornelia Wunsch Tolini G. in prep.: De Syrie à Babylone et Retour: les archives de Neirab (paper presented at the conference “Exile and Return”, London 2011). Vanderhooft D. 1999: The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets (= Harvard Semitic Monographs 59). Waerzeggers C. 1999–2000: The Records of Insabtu from the Naggàru Family, Archiv für Orientforschung 46/47, 183–200. — 2003–04 [2005]: The Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes and the “End of Archives”, Archiv für Orientforschung 50, 150–173. — 2005: The Dispersal History of the Borsippa Archives, in: H. D. Baker/M. Jursa (eds.), Approaching the Babylonian Economy. Proceedings of the START Project Symposium Held in Vienna, 1–3 July 2004 (= AOAT 330) 343–379. — 2006: The Carians of Borsippa, Iraq 68, 1–22. Weidner E. 1939: Jojachin, König von Juda, in babylonischen Keilschrifttexten, Mélanges Syriens offerts à M. René Dussaud … par ses amis et ses élèves, vol. 2 (= Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 30) 923–935. Weszeli M. 1999: Ein Rind mit vernarbtem Buckel, NABU 1999/107. — 2007: Rind. B. In mesopotamischen Quellen des 2. und 1. Jahrtausends, RlA 11, 387–406. Wunsch C. in prep.: Judeans by the Waters of Babylon: New Historical Evidence in Cuneiform Sources from Rural Babylonia (= Babylonische Archive 6). Zadok R. 1977: On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods. An Onomastic Study. Jerusalem. — 1978: Phoenicians, Philistines, and Moabites in Mesopotamia, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 230, 57–65. — 1979a: On some Foreign Population Groups in First-Millenium Babylonia, Tel Aviv 6, 164–181. — 1979b: The Jews in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods. Haifa. — 2002: The Earliest Diaspora. Israelites and Judaens in Pre-Hellenistic Mesopotamia (= Publications of the Diaspora Research Institute 151). — 2003a: West Semites in Administrative and Epistolary Documents from Northern and Central Babylonia, in: R. Deutsch (ed.), Shlomo. Studies in Epigraphy, Iconography, History and Archaeology in Honor of Shlomo Moussaieff (Tel Aviv) 255–271. — 2003b: The Representation of Foreigners in Neo- and Late-Babylonian Legal Documents (Eighth through Second Centuries B.C.E.), in: O. Lipschits/J. Blenkinsopp (eds.), Judah and the Judaeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Winona Lake) 471–589. — 2005: On Anatolians, Greeks and Egyptians in “Chaldean” and Achaemenid Babylonia, Tel Aviv 32, 76–106. Zawadzki S. 2003: Nebuchadnezzar and Tyre in the Light of New Texts from the Ebabbar Archives in Sippar, Archeological, Historical and Geographical Studies. Hayim and Miriam Tadmor Volume (= Eretz Israel 27) 276*–281*. — 2008: Nebuchadnezzar’s Campaign in the 30th year (575 B.C.): A Conflict with Tyre?, in: M. Cogan and D. Kahn (eds.), T.reasures on Camels’ Humps. Historical and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Eph al (Jerusalem) 331–336. Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien Herausgegeben von Michael P. Streck Band 3 2013 Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C. Edited by Angelika Berlejung and Michael P. Streck 2013 Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden Bibliografi sche Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografi sche Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. For further information about our publishing program consult our website http://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de © Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2013 This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Printed on permanent/durable paper. Printing and binding: A Hubert und Co., Göttingen Printed in Germany ISSN 2193-4436 ISBN 978-3-447-06544-3