Agents Archives and Risk A Micronarrative Account of Old Assyrian Trade Through Salim-Ahum S Activities in 1890 BC

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
AGENTS, ARCHIVES, AND RISK: A MICRONARRATIVE ACCOUNT OF OLD ASSYRIAN TRADE
THROUGH ŠALIM-AḪUM'S ACTIVITIES IN 1890 B.C.
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF THE HUMANITIES
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTMENT OF NEAR EASTERN LANGUAGES AND CIVILIZATIONS
BY
EDWARD PAUL STRATFORD
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
AUGUST 2010
UMI Number: 3419777
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3419777
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
© Edward Paul Stratford
2010
To Candice, Mary, Isaac, Linda, and Abigail

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES ix
ABBREVIATIONS x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xv
INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction to the Reconstruction 4
Role and Layout of Timeline Figures 20
Overview of Central Events in the Context of the Figures 26
Overview of Chapters 30
CHAPTER 1: MICRONARRATIVE AND THE OLD ASSYRIAN TRADE 34

Encountering the Unexpected 35
Commercial Structures of the Old Assyrian Trade 40
Organizing the Trade: The Concept of the Family Firm 50
Reassessing Family Firm and Cooperation 66
CHAPTER 2: THE ORIGINAL VENTURE 77

Reconstructing the Original Venture 79
The Caravan Documentation 81
The Letters of Receipt 97
The Durḫumit Debts 106
Temporally Constraining the Original Venture 117
The Limits of Šalim-aḫum’s Accuracy and Language 128
Šalim-aḫum’s Imprecisions 131
Šalim-aḫum and ‘His’ Merchants 144
Conclusion 149
CHAPTER 3: SCRAMBLING FOR THE IKRIBŪ 152

The Puzur-Ištar Affair 156
Puzur-Ištar Renegs 156
The Puzur-Ištar Affair and the ša ḫarrān ālim Contract 166
Šalim-aḫum Manages the Situation 174
The Temporal Development of the Puzur-Ištar Affair 187
Tempos of Trade and Communication in the Old Assyrian Period 195
The Tempo of Bulk Transport 196
The Donkeys 200
iv
The Route 206
The Shipping Season 214
Rethinking the Tempo of Bulk Transport 218
The Tempo of Communication 219
The Content of the Correspondence 222
Questions about Equids 229
Conclusion 235
CHAPTER 4: THE TROUBLE WITH ILABRAT-BĀNI 237

The Ilabrat-bāni Affair 238
Ilabrat-bāni’s Transgression 240
Šalim-aḫum’s and Ilabrat-bāni’s Reconciliation 261
Šalim-aḫum’s Retaliation 265
Metaphorical Retaliation, Duality of Structures, and Practice 277
Conclusion 288
CHAPTER 5: FAMILY AND FIRM 289

Šalim-aḫum, His Sons, and Pūšu-kēn 292
Discussing Dān-Aššur’s Travel Plans 293
Dān-Aššur’s Travel Plans and the Timing of the nabrītum 309
Ennam-Aššur’s Reluctance to Return Home 322
The Joint Venture 335
Šalim-aḫum Helps Pūšu-kēn Buy a House 352
Getting Interpersonal 361
Father and Sons: Šalim-aḫum, Ennam-Aššur and Dān-Aššur 361
Principal and Agent: Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn 366
Šalim-aḫum’s Commercial Network 375
Conclusion 391
CONCLUSION: AGENTS, ARCHIVES, AND RISK 394

Agents 399
Archives 404
Risk 412
APPENDIX 1: ANALYTICAL LEDGER OF ŠALIM-AḪUM’S ASSETS DURING REL 80 420
APPENDIX 2: TEMPORAL LEDGER OF ŠALIM-AḪUM’S ASSETS DURING REL 80 432
APPENDIX 3: INTERCALATION IN THE OLD ASSYRIAN PERIOD 441
APPENDIX 4: INDEX OF PERSONS 453
v
APPENDIX 5: INDEX OF NUMBERED TEXTS 460
BIBLIOGRAPHY 462
vi
LIST OF TABLES
1 Location and Event Codes of Each Episode 8
2 Goods Shipped and Cleared from Šalim-aḫum’s Shipment 91
3 Lots Sold from the Shipments Arriving in Kanesh as Reported in 2.2 93
4 Comparison of the Contents of 2.3 and 2.4 104
5 Listed Amounts of Aššur-šamšī’s Sons and the Unknown Party’s Debts 111
6 Summary Table of Events from the Original Venture 116
7 Variation in Expressed Amounts of Šalim-aḫum’s Assets in Select Texts 132
8 Summary of Šalim-aḫum’s Sources of Gold 181
9 Summary Table of Events from the Puzur-Ištar Affair 185
10 Prices Quoted for the Purchase of Perdum 234
11 Summary of Ilī-ašranni’s Caravan and its Disposition 245
12 Ilabrat-bāni’s Minor Debts to Šalim-aḫum 274
13 Summary Table of Events from the Ilabrat-bāni Affair 275
14 Summary Table of Events from the Dān-Aššur Letters 307
15 Summary Table of Events from the Ennam-Aššur Letters 334
16 Summary Table of Events from the Joint Venture 350
17 Summary Table of Events from the Purchasing Houses Episode 360
18 Chronological Distribution of Debt Notes Attributable to Pūšu-kēn 405
19 Analytic Process Ledger of Šalim-aḫum’s Commercial Assets during REL 80 – 423

Part One: Merchandise and Claims

Part Two: Miscellaneous Claims
vii
LIST OF TABLES, continued

Part Three: Silver Assets Received by Šalim-aḫum
22 Estimated Prices in Aššur during REL 80 used in the Temporal Ledger 433
23 Temporal Ledger of Šalim-aḫum’s Commercial Assets managed through 436

Pūšu-kēn during REL 80
24 Successor Eponym References in Intercalary Months and Months I-V 446

between REL 80 and 114
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Logical Construction of Šalim-aḫum’s Activities – Step 1 11
4 Geographic and Temporal Layout for Reconstructed Activity in REL 80 23
5 Overview of the Reconstructed Activity during REL 80 25
6 Chronological Development of the Original Venture 120
7 Familial Relationship between Puzur-Ištar and Pūšu-kēn 171
8 Chronological Development of the Puzur-Ištar Affair 189
9 Two-Cycle Model in the Context of REL 80 198
10 Possible Southern Route through Habur 212
11 Map of Paleoclimate Proxy Sites 218
12 Density of Communication between Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn mid- 221

March to mid-June REL 80
13 Chronological Development of the Ilabrat-bāni Affair 285
14 Chronological Development of Dān-Aššur’s Activities During REL 80 304
15 Chronological Development of Ennam-Aššur’s Activities during REL 80 333
16 Chronological Development of the Joint Venture 345
17 Distribution of Intercalated Months between REL 81 and REL 110 451
ix
ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations follow those of C. Michel, Old Assyrian Bibliography (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut
voor het Nabije Oosten, 2003) 146-153 and the supplement C. Michel, Old Assyrian Bibliography
1 (AfO 51, 436-49), and secondarily M.T. Roth, The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, vol. Ṭ (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 2006) ix-xxxii. Additions and a
selection of abbreviations from the sources above are presented for the convenience of
readers:
AC Paul Garelli, Les Assyriens en Cappadoce, Bibliothèque archéologique et

historique de l’institut français d’archéologie d’Istanbul XIX (Paris:
Librairie Adrien Maisonneuve,1963).
AHK Benno Landsberger, Assyrische Handelskolonien in Kleinasien aus dem

Dritten Jahrtausend, AO 24/4 (1925).
AKT Ankara Kültepe Tabletleri, Ankaraner Kültepe-Texte.
AMMY Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi Yıllığı.
AnAr Anadolu Araştırmaları.
AnSt Anatolian Studies.
AOATT Klaas Veenhof, Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and Its Terminology, Studia et
Documenta ad Iura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentia, no. 10 (Leiden: Brill,
1972).
APU Andrea Ulshofer, Die altassyrische Privaturkunden, FAOS B 4 (Stuttgart:

Franz Steiner Verlag, 1995).
ArAn Archivum Anatolicum.
Aššur-nādā Mogens Trolle Larsen, The Aššur-nādā Archive, PIHANS 96 (Leiden:

Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2002).
ATHE Burkhart Kienast, Die altassyrischen Texte des orientalischen Seminars der
Universität Heidelberg und der Sammlung Erlenmeyer, Untersuchungen zur
Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Bd. 1 (Berlin: Walter
De Gruyter, 1960).
Barjamovic, Gojko Barjamovic, “A Historical Geography of Ancient Anatolia in the

x
“Geography” Assyrian Colony Period” (diss., University of Copenhagen, 2005).
BIN Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of J.B. Nies.
CCT Cuneiform Texts from Cappadocian Tablets in the British Museum.
CMK C. Michel, Correspondance des Marchands de Kanish au début du IIe

millénaire avant J.-C., Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient (Paris:
Lés Editions du CERF, 2001)

CTMMA Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Edinburgh Stephanie Dalley, A Catalogue of the Akkadian Cuneiform Tablets in the

Collections of the Royal Scottish Museum Edinburgh, Art and Archaeology
No. 2 (Edinburgh: Royal Scottish Museum, 1979).
EL Georg Eisser and Julius Lewy, Die altassyrischen Rechtsurkunden vom

Kültepe, 2 vols, Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-aegyptischen
Gesellschaft 33, 35/3 (Leipzig, 1930-35).
FAOS B Freiburger altorientalische Studien Beihefte: Altassyrische Texte und

Untersuchungen.
GKT Karl Hecker, Grammatik der Kültepe-Texte, AnOr No. 44 (Rome:

Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968).
ICK Inscriptions cunéiformes de Kültepe.
Imdīlum Metin Ichisar, Les Archives cappadociennes du marchand Imdilum (Paris:

Editions A.D.P.F., 1981).
Innāya Cécile Michel, Innaya dans les tablettes paleo-assyriennes, 2 vols. (Paris:
Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991).
KEL Kültepe Eponym List
KKS Lubor Matouš and M. Matoušová, Kappadokische Keilschrifttafeln mit

Siegeln aus den Sammlungen der Karlsuniversität in Prag (Prague:
Karlsuniversität, 1984).
KTB Julius Lewy, Die Kültepetexte der Sammlung Rudolf Blankertz (Berlin, 1929).
KTH Julius Lewy, Die Kültepe-Text aus der Sammlung Frida Hahn (Berlin, 1930).
xi
KTK N.B. Jankowska, Klinopisnye teksty iz Kjul'-Tepe v Sobranijach SSSR
(Moscow, 1968).
KTP Ferris Stephens, "The Cappadocian Tablets in the University of

Pennsylvania Museum," Journal of the Society of Oriental Research 11
(1927): 101-36.
KTS Keilschrittexte in den Antiken Museen zu Stambul.
KUG Karl Hecker, Die Keilschrifttexte der Universitätsbibliothek Giessen, Berichte

und Arbeiten aus der Universitätsbibliotheker Giessen 9 (Giessen:
Universitätsbibliothek, 1966).
Larsen et al., “Ups Mogens Trolle Larsen, Gojko Barjamovic, and Thomas Hertel, "Ups and
and Downs” Downs at Kanesh: Observations on Chronology, History and Society in
the Old Assyrian Period," (forthcoming).
MOS Studies 1 Jan Gerrit Dercksen, ed., Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia, MOS
Studies 1, PIHANS 84 (Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch
Instituut te Istanbul, 1999).
OAAS Old Assyrian Archives Studies.
OAAS 2 Guido Kryszat, Zur Chronologie der Kaufmannsarchive aus der Schicht 2 des
Kārum Kaneš: Studien und Materialien, OAAS 2, PIHANS 99 (Leiden:
OAAS 3 Jan Gerrit Dercksen, Anatolia and the Jazira during the Old Assyrian Period,
OAAS 3, PIHANS 111 (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije
Oosten, 2008.
OAB Cécile Michel, Old Assyrian Bibliography (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut

voor het Nabije Oosten, 2003).
OACC Mogens Trolle Larsen, The Old Assyrian City-State and its Colonies,
Mesopotamia 4 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1976).
OACP Mogens Trolle Larsen, Old Assyrian Caravan Procedures, PIHANS 22

(Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in het
Nabije Oosten, 1967).
OACT Jan Gerrit Dercksen, The Old Assyrian Copper Trade in Anatolia, PIHANS 75
(Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1996).
xii
OAI Jan Gerrit Dercksen, Old Assyrian Institutions, PIHANS 98 (Leiden:
OALE Klaas Veenhof, The Old Assyrian List of Year Eponyms from Karum Kanish
and Its Chronological Implications, TTKY VI-64 (Ankara: Turkish
Historical Society, 2003).
OBO 160/5 Klaas Veenhof and Jesper Eidem, Mesopotamia: The Old Assyrian Period,
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/5 (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2008).
PIHANS Publications de l‘Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de

Stamboul.
POAT Walter Gwaltney, The Pennsylvania Old Assyrian Texts, HUCA Supp. 3
(Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1981).
Prag I Karl Hecker, Guido Kryszat, and Lubor Matouš, Kappadokische

Keilschrifttafeln aus den Sammlungen der Karlsuniversität Prag (Prague:
Institute of Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Charles University, 1998).
REL Revised Eponym List
Sealing Beatrice Teissier, Sealing and Seals on Texts from Kültepe Kārum Level 2,
PIHANS 70 (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1994).
Studies Erkanal Studies in Honor of Hayat Erkanal: Cultural Reflections, ed. Armagan
Erkanal-Oktu et al. (Istanbul: Homer Kitabevi, 2006).
Studies Garelli Dominique Charpin and Francis Joannès, eds., Marchands, diplomats et
empereurs: études sur la civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli
(Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1991).
Studies Larsen Jan Gerrit Dercksen, ed., Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens
Trolle Larsen, PIHANS 100 (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije
Oosten, 2004).
Studies Matouš B. Hruška and G. Komoróczy, eds. Festschrift Lubor Matouš, 2 vols.
(Budapest, 1978).
Studies Veenhof Wilfred van Soldt, ed., Veenhof Anniversary Volume: Studies Presented to
Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday, PIHANS 89
(Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2001).
TC Tablettes cappadociennes du Louvre (TC 1, 2, 3/1, 3/2, 3/3 = TCL 4, 14,

and 19-21 respectively).
xiii
TCL Textes cunéiformes du Louvre.
TPAK 1 Cécile Michel and Paul Garelli, Tablettes paléo-assyriennes de Kültepe 1 (Kt
90/k) (Istanbul: Institut français d'Etudes anatoliennes Georges
Dumezil, 1997).
TTKY Türk Tarıh Kurumu Yayınlarından, Publications of the Turkish

Historical Society.
TuM Texte und Materialen der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection.
UAR Hans Hirsch, Untersuchungen zur altassyrischen Religion, AfO Beiheft

13/14 (Graz, 1961).
UHKB Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri.
VS Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der (Königl.) Museen zu Berlin.
xiv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation owes its existence to a great many individuals and number of
institutions whose assistance I gratefully recognize. First, I thank my committee, Professors
Martha Roth, Mogens Trolle Larsen, and Seth Richardson for their patience and guidance
during the process of bringing this work to a completion. Martha Roth was an indefatigable
supporter, cogitator and demander of excellence. The influence of Mogens Larsen’s work and
his counsel on this project is inestimable and his continued support and critique, both in topics
withi this work and broader afeild during this period, have and continue to be refining and
improving. Seth Richardson consistently provided feedback that helped to better focus the
potential and scope of the project.
A number of insitutions and groups supported me during my work on this project. I am
grateful for the support of the A. Leo Oppenheim Scholarship (2006-2009), particularly for
support provided during my stay in Copenhagen (2006-2007), a University Research Travel
Grant (University of Chicago, 2006-2007) during that same period was also helpful.
I cannot hope to fully list all those who provided advice, support, and help in the
conception, research and writing of the present work. Fellow members of the Old Assyrian
Test Project, Klaas Veenhof (Leiden), Jan Gerrit Dercksen (Leiden), Guido Kryszat (Mainz),
Cécile Michel (CNRS) Gojko Barjamovic (Copenhagen), and Thomas Hertel (Copenhagen)
provided feedback and resources at several points. In particular, Thomas Hertel’s attentive and
incisive review of transliterations, translations, and discussion was extremely appreciated. I
also benefitted from the review, advice, and discussion of my research topics with serveral
xv
colleagues in Chicago. Dennis Campbell was a frequent and productive discussion companion. I
also benefitted tremendously from a discussion group with Grant Madsen, Greg Thompson,
Max Hammond, and occasionally Jacob Hickman. Many more associates and colleagues’
thought and insights enriched my struggle with this topic whom I acknowledge here.
Most of all, the support I received from my wife during this process, making allowances
for my time, patiently reviewing drafts, and providing constant assurance, made this work
possible. I owe her more than I could ever repay.
xvi
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this dissertation is to provide an inductive description of one Old
Assyrian merchant’s pursuit of his commercial interests over the course of a year through a
temporal reconstruction of pertinent correspondence. Šalim-aḫum’s correspondence,
primarily with one of his important representatives, Pūšu-kēn, documents Šalim-aḫum’s
efforts to manage his business pursuits on the Anatolian plateau from his base at Aššur 1000
kilometers away.1 Through the year he shepherds ventures, responds to defaulting partners,
expresses outrage at being wronged, seeks retribution, plans one son’s travels, plans another
son’s marriage, helps an agent buy a house, presses an associate into a partnership,
manipulates colleagues, and is occasionally ignored. In response to a need for an inductive
description of private organization in the Old Assyrian trade, this account, focused on the day-
to-day practice of the trade, exposes a substratum of structures which shaped the social
dimensions of the trade but also reveals Šalim-aḫum making decisions in compelling temporal
and material contexts. In turn, Šalim-aḫum’s decisions and tactics, his reactions and strategies,
substantively document a mentality about the Old Assyrian trade and its social and economic
dimensions nearly four millennia ago.

1
The aerial distance between Aššur and Kanesh, the hub of Assyrian commerce in Anatolia, was c. 700km,
but the overland route between them was c. 1000km.
1
This micronarrative account arises from the identification of a set of thirty undated
and two dated letters written, I will argue, during 1890 BC (REL 80).2 The documentary corpus
comes largely from the reconstructed archive of a merchant named Pūšu-kēn and from an
excavated house associated with Šalim-aḫum’s son Ennam-Aššur. Though several small sets of
letters within this number have been noted previously in secondary literature, so large a group
of letters surrounding one person’s commercial operations within a single year is
unprecedented in the Old Assyrian documentation. Rendering a chronologically sensitive
reconstruction of commercial activity over the course of a single shipping season constitutes
an important reconsideration of the Old Assyrian evidence itself, offering the opportunity to
transcend the evidentiary limitations of a largely undated correspondence. In this work,
because Šalim-aḫum’s correspondence is reconstructed through internal analysis back into a
temporal continuum, the result is a different type of evidence on the practice of the trade than
what has heretofore been available, at least partially displacing the limits of an account framed
solely by the letter writers’ choices of content and composition.3
Through the reconstruction, substrata of structures underlying social coordination of
the trade are either confirmed or unmasked. Šalim-aḫum’s inaccuracies in accounting for
Pūšu-kēn’s stewardship over his goods reveal conflicting interests within the coordination
between principal and agent. Šalim-aḫum’s management of several crises during the year
show his ability to instruct his agents through time and space, revealing a tempo of
correspondence and transportation more robust than previously envisioned. In turn, the

2
All dates in this work are expressed in relation to the Revised Eponym List (REL). See Larsen et al., "Ups
and Downs" (forthcoming). During the period covered by this study, the numbering of REL is identical with the
original numbering of years published as the Kültepe Eponym List (KEL) in Veenhof, OALE.
3
The reconstruction is a product of an iterative hermeneutic interpretation of the assembled documents
as a contiguous whole. The process included the consideration of many other documents, which have not been
included.
2
regime of communication permitted Šalim-aḫum to coordinate with multiple representatives
in Anatolia, a group not restricted to family members. When associates of Šalim-aḫum failed to
fulfill agreements, Šalim-aḫum took their individual and separate liability for those
agreements as justification for exploiting multiple tactics to recoup his assets from them.
As a further advantage of the reconstruction, this account interprets Šalim-aḫum’s and
others’ decisions in the context of material consequences as well as concurrent developments.
By exploring the interactions between merchants like Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn, at least
partly re-contextualized into a temporal continuum of events, the contingency of material
concerns plays a role alongside and within cultural and social dimensions. The micronarrative
account has purchase on a more substantive description of commercial mentalities of
merchants like Šalim-aḫum than those offered by other approaches to the Old Assyrian
evidence, normally bound by the use of synchronically aggregated texts. Though great strides
on the Old Assyrian trade have been made from the latter perspective, the traditional objects
of philological inquiry into the Old Assyrian period (lemmata, texts, archives, language) offer
insufficient grounds to fully reconstruct the nuances of the historically situated institutions
and mentalities of the Old Assyrian trade. In this study, practice rather than language or form
becomes the object of inquiry.
The remainder of this introduction will consist of three brief sections: First, a
discussion of the timeline template which facilitates the expression of the mechanical aspects
of the reconstruction; second, a brief overview of the central events of Šalim-aḫum’s
commerce during REL 80 and an expression of the foundational observations that tie the
various reconstructed episodes in this work together; and third, a preview of the chapters in
the rest of this work.

3
Introduction to the Reconstruction
One of the most rewarding aspects of the Old Assyrian documentation is the
identification and reconstruction of dossiers that revolve around discrete events. Many of
these dossiers are only well known to specialists. However, most known dossiers surround
singular or irregular events, For example, Thomas Hertel’s dissertation on dispute processes
accesses many dossiers of varying sizes that document legal disputes. In addition, there are
dossiers known to deal with the settlement of the death of a merchant. Pūšu-kēn, a central
person in this study, has just such a dossier documenting his death. By contrast, this
reconstruction and its reconstructed dossier arises from events that are either regarded as
structural, such as some of the commercial processes followed, or incidents that never entered
the realm of documented dispute processing. On a documentary level, the recognition of this
dossier overturns a pragmatic assumption made about the commercial correspondence in the
Old Assyrian trade. Because all recognized dossiers to date have been formed around irregular
events usually legal in nature, and because the focus on commercial processes has revolved
around structural aspects of the trade, the working assumption has been that the commercial
correspondence has been evenly or randomly distributed through time, perhaps like the
distribution of debt notes. The distribution of an individual’s debt notes usually spread across
many years, occasionally across decades. However, very few particular debt notes have ever
connected to particular correspondence. The present reconstruction demonstrates that as a
working hypothesis, we must allow for the fact that the correspondence preserved to the
present is just as likely to have been formed in dossiers in antiquity as not before encountering
the destructive processes that brought them to our present.

4
Still, because letters are not dated and infrequently include dates, the initial threshold
for demonstrating that two letters refer to the same discrete circumstances is higher when the
activity documented is understood by our current frame of investigation as regular. In
sensitivity to this condition, I include here an explanation of the logical formation of this
reconstruction, which can be shown to proceed logically from the formation of individual
episodes to the cumulative connections between the various episodes. By episodes, I mean
events or developments that can be tracked as main topics of letters. While the
conversations—the groups of letters around these episodes—are to some extent arbitrary,
several letters could belong two more than one conversation because of their open discussion
of two different episodes, this step is a necessary decision made in the organization of the
work.
Recognizing individual episodes is the first step. All of the episodes covered in this
work have a consistency about them that is similar to that gained in forming dossiers
surrounding legal disputes or settlement of estates. For example, the Puzur-Ištar affair and the
Ilabrat-bāni affair each cohere easily because the discussion of the letters in each centers on
something specific going wrong with each person. In the Puzur-Ištar affair, Šalim-aḫum’s
concern for gold, his agreement with Puzur-Ištar to get gold, and his consistent effort to get
the gold after Puzur-Ištar defaults implies that the documents from that episode belong
together. In the Ilabrat-bāni affair, Šalim-aḫum’s consistent frustration with Ilabrat-bāni for
taking 6⅓ minas tin functions in the same way. The validity of each episode is also
corroborated by the agreement of specific and discrete details. For example, in the Puzur-Ištar
affair, Puzur-Ištar is to procure ⅔ minas gold for Šalim-aḫum, who needs a total of 1 mina for
his temple fund (ikribū). Throughout the Ilabrat-bāni affair, whether or not Ilabrat-bāni was
5
always frustrating Šalim-aḫum, a consistent set of small debts confirms the fidelity of the
episode.
Connecting the episodes into their synchronized development is the second step.
However, connecting episodes, while logically similar, differs in focus from the formation of
individual episodes. Like the first step, connections between episodes are also corroborated by
particular, idiosyncratic, small details. But the consistency of letter content observed within
episodes cannot be the basis of connecting episodes because the different episodes do not
originate from singular causalities, nor did the writers of the letters always explicitly connect
them. Some commentators have connected letters placed in different episodes based on their
sense of the situations;4 but when these previous connections were made, the implications of
the present work were not recognized. Occasionally, Šalim-aḫum explicitly discusses aspects of
two different episodes in the same letter or two episodes resolve in common letters. Where
these circumstances exist, such as when Šalim-aḫum looks to Ilabrat-bāni to fill his need for
gold created by Puzur-Ištar, the episodes are fortuitously intertwined. However, in other
circumstances, the connections between episodes are manifest through inferential context and
peripheral aspects of each episode. For example, in the explanation below, the location and
travels of Dān-Aššur form a key element in connecting the episodes together in their original
chronological relationship. Some of these associations and details can only be seen when
several episodes are already connected together. For example, as will be seen below, when the
Puzur-Ištar affair, Ilabrat-bāni affair, Dān-Aššur letters, and joint venture episodes are
assembled, only then do both the fit and corroborating details become apparent.

4
For example, in V. Donbaz and F. Joannès, "Nouvelles Lectures de Textes Cappadociens," in Mémorial Attaturk
(Istanbul: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1982) 27-42 the authors suggest that 2.6, 3.7 and 5.2 stem from
the same circumstances. See Chapter 5, note 14.
6
The path I will take in this explanation is one that links the dating of the Ilabrat-bāni
affair to the dating of the original venture through a chain of specific observations. This chain
of observations can be treated as the core of the reconstruction, highlighting a series of events
that bind what we can observe of this year in the life of Šalim-aḫum. However, these events are
not the sum total of all that happened. There are many circumstances that arise in each
episode which do not find resolution in another, nor form clear connections between the
episodes. In some cases these appendages remain unknowns, in other cases, given the
coherence of the reconstruction some contexts for these events can be inferred. But the
validity of the reconstruction cannot be judged on whether or not every thread in every
episode resolves or weaves through every other episode. The activities of the merchants were
far more complex and our documentation far too fragmentary to expect such a result for the
reconstruction.
To facilitate the present explanation, I have included three aids to allow the reader to
follow this core logical explanation into the chapters. These three aids employed here stand in
addition to the appendices of persons and assets at the end of this work. First, I will use a series
of three figures to illustrating the three most essential steps in the process of the explanation.
Second, the basic events in the discussion below and the essential events in the figure are
indexed with event codes. These event codes arise from summary tables of events located at
the end of each episode throughout the work. In those tables, a summary of main events with
textual references are listed and numbered with the event codes, marked with a star , thus
providing an overview for the reader. For example, the first event I discuss below, Ilabrat-
bāni’s theft of 6⅓ minas tin en route to Kanesh, is coded as IB2 in the summary of events on
the Ilabrat-bāni affair found in Chapter Four on page 235. These codes are also used on the
7
three figures in this explanation as well. Third, when pointing to the consistent details that
corroborate the connections between the episodes, I refer to the page numbers where those
connections are more fully discussed. With these three aids, the reader who is interested in
validating the (micro)historical validity of the reconstruction can proceed through the work
using this explanation as a sort of map. The table below lists each episode, its event code
abbreviation, the table number of each event summary, the chapter in which it is covered, and
the page number of each event summary table.
Table 1: Location and Event Codes of Each Episode

Episode Abbrev. Table Chapter Page
Original Venture OV 5 2 117
Puzur-Ištar Affair PI 8 3 185
Ilabrat-bāni Affair IB 11 4 277
Dān-Aššur Letters DA 13 5 300
Ennam-Aššur Letters EA 14 5 327
Joint Venture JV 15 5 342
Purchasing Houses PH 16 5 352
A logical chain of observations binding this reconstruction could be conducted in a
number of ways. This explanation proceeds in a way that most closely resembles a kind of
deductive process rather than following the order of the chapters, which are ordered in
sensitivity to the discussions within them. The chain will begin with the Ilabrat-bāni affair and
proceed in three steps illustrated by the three accompanying figures. The first step (Fig. 1) is
the elaboration of the Ilabrat-bāni affair and its connection to the Puzur-Ištar affair. The
second step (Fig. 2) consists of connecting the Dān-Aššur letters and the joint venture to the
combined Ilabrat-bāni/Puzur-Ištar affair. The third step (Fig. 3) then consists of showing the
8
connection between the conglomerate of the Ilabrat-bāni, Puzur-Ištar, Dān-Aššur, and joint
venture episodes to the other dated episode, the original venture. The Ennam-Aššur letters
and purchasing houses episodes are not reviewed here because they are peripheral to these
core episodes in the reconstruction.
STEP 1 (Fig. 1) – To begin with, Šalim-aḫum’s problems with Ilabrat-bāni play the most
prominent role in the letters between Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn. Early in REL 80 (April of 1890
BC, p. 264), Ilabrat-bāni travelled with Ilī-ašranni to Kanesh (IB1) and on the way Ilabrat-bāni
took 6⅓ minas tin out of Šalim-aḫum’s goods (IB2). When Šalim-aḫum found out, he reacted
angrily (IB5-6) and wrote to Pūšu-kēn that Ilabrat-bāni should buy a large lot of goods from
Šalim-aḫum as reconciliation (IB7).
Around this time, Ilabrat-bāni offered to buy goods worth a talent of silver and offered
to pay 10 minas silver up front (PI9). Šalim-aḫum’s response demanded that half be paid in
gold (PI11). Šalim-aḫum’s request ties the Ilabrat-bāni affair to the Puzur-Ištar affair. Before
receiving Ilabrat-bāni’s reconciliatory offer, Šalim-aḫum had learned that his plan to retrieve 1
mina gold for a temple fund had gone awry when another man, Puzur-Ištar, with whom he had
contracted to get ⅔ minas gold in Anatolia (PI1), stalled after arriving in Kanesh (PI3),
further stalled (PI5), then defaulted (PI7-8) on the agreement. In the wake, Šalim-aḫum
was fraught to fill his need for a mina of gold (PI8), and utilized Ilabrat-bāni’s offer to fill the
gap (PI12). In addition to the fact that the Puzur-Ištar affair was resolved within the Ilabrat-
bāni affair, the connection between the Ilabrat-bāni affair and Puzur-Ištar affair is
corroborated by the common references to small details like Ilabrat-bāni’s taking the 6⅓ minas
tin and the relationship to the 1 mina gold (p. 256ff.).
9
Šalim-aḫum also designated to his agents Pūšu-kēn and Lā-qēpum from what
transports Ilabrat-bāni should buy goods, including from a transport of 100 kutānum textiles
then being brought by Dān-Aššur, Šalim-aḫum’s son (PI10-11). Ilabrat-bāni was to buy goods
on short term credit and when he defaulted on a 20 mina debt thereafter (IB11), Pūšu-kēn
suggests that Šalim-aḫum take the aggressive move of seizing Ilabrat-bāni’s goods on the road
and liquidating them (IB11). Šalim-aḫum did so through Puzur-Aššur and Ennam-Aššur
(IB12), then when following up, continued to assert that Ilabrat-bāni had not yet paid for the
6⅓ minas tin he took (IB14).
10
Figure 1 Logical Construction of Šalim-aḫum’s Activities - Step 1
Ilabrat-bāni/Puzur-Ištar Affairs
Šalim-aḫum
& Puzur-Ištar Puzur-Ištar Puzur-Ištar
contract ⅔m gold in Kanesh defaults
PI1 PI3 PI7 Ilabrat-bāni
IB defaults on 20m Šalim-aḫum asks
IB11 Ilabrat-bāni’s
Ilabrat-bāni Šalim-aḫum buys goods goods siezed why Ilabrat-bāni not paid
takes 6⅓m tin angry PI11// IB9 Pūšu-kēn IB12 IB14
IB2 IB5 writes to sieze
IB11 Dān-Aššur ill in Aššur
11
STEP 2 (Fig. 2) – The Dān-Aššur letters can be connected to the combined Ilabrat-
bāni/Puzur-Ištar affair at the point in time when Dān-Aššur was travelling with Šū-Suen to
Kanesh with tin and 100 kutānum textiles (PI10, DA5). The eventual outcome of the
discussion of the Dān-Aššur letters was that Dān-Aššur would stay longer in Anatolia (DA10).
Because we know Dān-Aššur to have been back in Aššur and too sick to travel (IB12) when
his brother Ennam-Aššur travelled with Puzur-Aššur to seize Ilabrat-bāni’s goods (IB12), the
Dān-Aššur letters must either come from the time when Dān-Aššur was known to be travelling
to Kanesh with the 100 kutānum textiles, or some time well before then or some time after he
would have recovered from his illness (IB12). The Dān-Aššur letters belong to the moment of
Dān-Aššur transporting the 100 kutānum textiles, in the wake of Puzur-Ištar defaulting and
Šalim-aḫum telling Ilabrat-bāni to buy gold (PI11-12). The connection between the Dān-
Aššur letters and the Ilabrat-bāni/Puzur-Ištar affair is corroborated by, among other things,
the common references to small details like 6 shekels gold with Panaka, the gold associated
with Ḫuraṣānum, and the textile of the ṣuḫartum (p. 298).
The joint venture can also be connected to these three episodes through reference to
Dān-Aššur’s travels. Šalim-aḫum asked Pūšu-kēn to join him in a venture, requesting that
Pūšu-kēn donate one share to Šalim-aḫum’s two shares. In the first offer, Šalim-aḫum stated
that when Dān-Aššur arrived, further arrangements could be made (JV1). The execution of
the venture, slower than Šalim-aḫum had probably planned, was not initiated until Dān-Aššur
was returning to Aššur after his stay in Anatolia. Writing just before Dān-Aššur was to return
to Aššur (JV6), Pūšu-kēn intended Dān-Aššur to return to Kanesh with the joint venture tin
(JV6). However, another merchant, not Dān-Aššur, took the tin after Ilabrat-bāni’s goods
12
were seized, because Dān-Aššur was ill (IB12). The connection between the joint venture and
the combination of the Ilabrat-bāni/Puzur-Ištar affair and Dān-Aššur letters is corroborated by
an extended discussion about the venture in one of the letters from the Ilabrat-bāni affair (4.6,
p. 336).
The combination of these four episodes forms a consistent development of activity with
Ilabrat-bāni’s purchase of goods as a nexus to which each of the episodes can be related.
Ilabrat-bāni’s theft (IB2) and Puzur-Ištar’s default (PI7) led up to the configuration of that
purchase (PI11/IB9). The discussion of the Dān-Aššur letters was conducted while Dān-
Aššur brought goods (DA5, PI10) that Ilabrat-bāni eventually bought (PI11/IB9). The
joint venture was begun (JV1) either before Dān-Aššur left with those goods (IB12), or as
he was travelling; it then continued through Dān-Aššur’s stay in Anatolia (DA5, PI10), to
the point soon after he came home and was deemed to ill to travel (IB12), when Puzur-Aššur
instead took the tin to Kanesh (JV10).
13

0'!(

.'!( '!( '!(
Ҁ ) $
PI1 PI3 PI7
IB + "
IB11
% ! #$%
"&ѿ % PI11// IB9 ',("- IB12 IB14
IB2 IB5 #!
IB11

14
6((

6((:,
.(("

) $
68 in Anatolia
>?
',("-=
',("-; 6(( #$'!((
JV1 JV6 >?@+
“Lulu’s debt remains”

back to Aššur
STEP 3 (Fig. 3) – Finally, the original venture fits and corroborates the reconstructed
development of the four episodes already combined. The original venture caravan arrived in
Kanesh (OV1) and was sold off in various lots (OV2), one of which was sold on short term,
and by association with another debt, fell due in REL 80 VI (June/July 1890 BC,OV5, p. 119-
128). When that debt was collected and sent to Šalim-aḫum in Aššur, it went with Šū-Suen and
Aššur-mālik (OV6), both of whom had travelled to Kanesh at the same time as Dān-Aššur.
Like the joint venture and the Ilabrat-bāni affair, the original venture continuously developed
through Dān-Aššur’s stay in Anatolia. Šalim-aḫum wrote a letter acknowledging silver received
from Šū-Suen and Aššur-mālik and at the same time reminded Pūšu-kēn of more claims from
the original venture coming due in the near future (OV7). When the next claim was
collected, Dān-Aššur was among the persons who brought it back (OV8), linking the return
of Dān-Aššur evidenced in the Ilabrat-bāni affair and joint venture to the original venture.
Šalim-aḫum wrote another letter stating that the next debts on the original venture were
coming due (OV9). One of those debts was owed by Lulu, whose debt is mentioned in two
documents from the joint venture (5.9, 5.10), which connects that part of the original venture
to the later phases of the joint venture (JV6). Besides the consistent itineraries of Šū-Suen,
Aššur-mālik, and Dān-Aššur, and the coherence of development sustained in the
reconstruction, the connection between the original venture and the combination of the other
four episodes (the Ilabrat-bāni and Puzur-Ištar affairs, the Dān-Aššur letters, and the joint
venture) is corroborated by the common references to small details like a ½ kutānum textile
owed by Ilabrat-bāni (p. 247), Dān-Aššur’s return with more than one talent of silver as
15
planned (p. 298), and also his return with 2 minas of silver which arose as planned from 6
textile articles he was to sell (p. 298-99).
Thus, this development of activities began in the early spring of REL 80 with Šalim-
aḫum arrangements with Puzur-Ištar (PI1) and the departure of the original venture and Ilī-
ašranni caravans (IB1, OV1). The resolution of the problems arising from Puzur-Ištar’s
default (PI7), Ilabrat-bāni’s purchase of textiles (PI11/IB9), and Dān-Aššur’s arrival
(DA5, PI10) can all be anchored to June of REL 80. The original venture and joint venture
continued to develop through this time, when Šalim-aḫum sent letter 2.3. When Ilabrat-bāni
defaulted on his debt (IB11), which must have been a short term deadline arising from his
purchase, Dān-Aššur was returning to Aššur (JV6) and Pūšu-kēn advised Šalim-aḫum to seize
Ilabrat-bāni’s goods (IB11). Dān-Aššur was ill when he returned to Aššur (IB12), but Ilabrat-
bāni’s goods were seized (IB12), and Šalim-aḫum was making arrangements at that point to
ensure he himself was not “ashamed at the gate” (JV3, JV11), which seemed to loom
imminent at the end of the season.
The two chronological anchors arising from the Ilabrat-bāni affair on the one hand that
and original venture on the other situate the activities reconstructed here in REL 80 (i.e. 1890
B.C. Middle Chronology). The Ilabrat-bāni affair is anchored to REL 80 by counting 45-50
ḫamuštum weeks backward from the due date of a small group of debts that fell due in early
REL 81 (4.1). The original venture is anchored to REL 80 by counting 46 ḫamuštum weeks
forward from the commencement of a debt in REL 79 into REL 80 where it is stated to be due
(2.7). From here, we can begin to place these events on a timeline. But first, two points need to
be made.
16

F @
-0((" 8((;DE

) $ "(( "(( F@A,
OV1 OV6 OV8
6'!(

0'!( '!( '!(
Ҁ ) $
PI1 PI3 PI7
IB +, "
IB11
% ! #$%
"&ѿ % PI11// IB9 '-(". IB12 IB14
IB2 IB5 #!
IB11

17
8((

8((;-
0(("

) $
8: in Anatolia
?@
'-(".>
'-(".< 8(( #$'!((
JV1 JV6 ?@A,
“Lulu’s debt remains”

back to Aššur
Coherence of development and consistency of specific detail in textual references
become the two important evidences on which the reconstruction proceeds. However, it must
be stated that the substance of some connections and some of the results of the reconstruction
add or revise present knowledge about the Old Assyrian period. The pace of commerce is one
major revision. The fidelity of the reconstruction cannot be rejected if it revises some
provisional conclusion reached from previous studies on the trade, especially studies
conducted within a different frame of inquiry. Language and structure is not the same as
situational context. For the most part, the revisions provoked by the reconstruction are minor.
In any case, historical work cannot proceed from one axiomatic truth to another. The
explanation above allows is ordered in such a way as to appeal to a reader desiring some
logical chain of statements as proof, however, the coherence of the reconstruction is larger
than the core outlined here. And the reconstruction itself is consistent within its own logic,
forming both a new unit of evidence on the trade, and a novel account of commercial activity
in the Old Assyrian period. Where in some cases the value is revisional, these revisions are
sensitive to aspects which are more difficult to detect within the structuralist or anecdotal
frames. Two examples are sufficient at this point to give a sense of the discussions in the
remainder of this work.
The first example concerns the connection observed between several episodes. The last
corroborating detail I cited in connecting the original venture to the conglomerate of the four
other episodes involved Dān-Aššur returning to Aššur after his stay in Anatolia with 2 minas of
silver which arose from him selling 6 textile articles while he was there (p. 298-99). In one
place Šalim-aḫum refers to these articles as 6 kutānum textiles, whereas in other places he
18
specifies that these six articles are 5 kusītum robes and a nibrārum textile. The objection could
be raised that Šalim-aḫum knew, just as well as we know, that robes are something more than
textiles, therefore he would not have called robes textiles, and this connection is dubious.
Though kutānum textiles are indeed textiles, that Šalim-aḫum calls what we think to be robes
in one place textiles in another simply shows the understandable shortcomings of our
structuralist understanding of terms. Šalim-aḫum was not a grammatical automaton and his
expressions do not always conform to our understanding of the Old Assyrian dialect. There
must be some allowance for a flexibility of expression, even sloppiness. He was, after all, a
merchant—not an Assyriologist. Rejecting the consistency of this particular connecting detail
requires considering its validity in the context of the entire coherence of the reconstruction.
The second example concerns the revision of our understanding about a poorly
understood event, the nabrītum. Two recently treated texts have placed occurrences of the
nabrītum in winter, which has prompted suggestion that the nabrītum is winter or wintertime.
However, this reconstruction clearly demonstrates that the nabrītum, whatever it was,
occurred in summer as well (p. 302ff.). The coherence of this reconstruction and its temporal
development confirms the fact that while the two recently treated letters in which nabrītum
occur do place the event in wintertime, identifying nabrītum directly with winter, or
concluding that it only occurred in winter, extends beyond what a close readings of those
letters can demand. The accumulated context of this reconstruction far exceeds the anecdotal
force of those individual letters.
19
The Role and Layout of Timeline Figures
Because a major facet of this work is placing undated correspondence into a temporal
context, expressing the interwoven development of the events and processes reconstructed in
this work in a clear manner is essential. In order to communicate this reconstruction visually,
a special type of timeline has been employed in figures throughout this work. The timeline
displayed in these figures is effective because it is carefully scaled and because all timeline
figures in this work derive from the same master timeline figure. The timeline figures also
provide a method of displaying and validating the entire reconstruction’s temporal
plausibility: any event presented in a timeline figure is sensitive to all events on every timeline
figure in the work. With the important role these timeline figures play in the work, some
further explanation on the layout follows.
Figure 4 below displays the template of these timeline figures. This template represents
the most relevant temporal and geographical frames for the reconstruction of commercial
activity during REL 80. The template has three registers and a key.
The top register of the template represents the passage of time, moving from left to
right along the horizontal axis of the figure. Directly below the figure title is a bar aligning
Gregorian and lunar Assyrian months during the shipping season of REL 80. The opening and
closing of the Taurus passes are aligned with the first week of April and the first week of
December. Vertical grey bars descending through the second and third registers mark
alternate Gregorian months.
Scale along the horizontal axis of time in the figure is important. The alignment of
Gregorian months and Assyrian lunar months in this register is an approximation of the
20
alignment between solar and lunar cycles that resulted from an intercalation performed at the
beginning of REL 81. In the figure month XII of REL 80 is represented as ending on the winter
solstice, which would be the approximate circumstances that would have provoked the
intercalation. This alignment is approximated but correlates within a few days to the situation
that would have triggered the intercalation in REL 81 (see Appendix Three). Distance between
Aššur and Kanesh is scaled to correspond to the passage of time. Each lunar month is scaled to
represent 29½ days and the Gregorian months are scaled to 30 or 31 days as appropriate.5 The
duration of the opening and closing of the passes as modeled on the template is scaled to seven
days.
The second register, the ‘field of notation,’ includes brief explanations to enhance the
representation of activity placed in the third register. The third register, the ‘field of activity,’
is the locus of tracking commercial activity during REL 80. Within this register, the vertical
axis of the figure represents the distance between the two main destinations within this work:
Kanesh and Aššur. Kanesh is represented by the black line at the top of the field of activity,
while Aššur is represented by a black line at the bottom of the field of activity. Along the
vertical axis of distance, scale is more approximate. The passes in the Taurus Mountains are
represented by a dotted line approximating the position of the passes between the two cities.
Below the field of activity space is reserved for extra notation where necessary.
At the bottom of the figure is the key. The key displays four types of arrows, which
distinguish four types of activities. Solid arrows designate preserved letters while short-
dashed arrows represent letters either mentioned in the surviving documentation or proposed

5
In the original Adobe Illustrator file, each lunar month (29½ days) is scaled to ⅞ inch; each day is scaled
to .02966 inches.
21
through the reconstruction but not preserved. Arrows with alternating long and short dashes
represent shipments of goods from Aššur to Kanesh, and thus these arrows only travel upward
on the figure. Long-dashed arrows represent shipments of silver travelling from Kanesh to
Aššur, and thus these arrows only point downward on the figure.
22
& '$ %(
! #) % )*!+,

REL 80 III
II REL 80 IV REL 80 V REL 80 VI REL 80 VII REL 80 VIII REL 80 IX REL 80 X REL 80 XI REL
R 80 XII
&-*!&((
&&-**!&
! & ((
(
(-
( -

23
&-*!&(-.
&&- **!&
! &
(-
..-(/
-(/

"
! !! #$% #

Figure 4 is a template and thus displays no ‘events’ in the field of activity. Figure 5
below displays a basic skeleton of events that come from REL 80, including select events from
various episodes: the ‘original venture,’ the Ilabrat-bāni affair, and the travels of Dan-Aššur.
Figure 5 includes commentary in the field of notation and provides an opportunity to make a
few more general remarks about these figures.
In the field of notation in Figure 5, stars within the temporal continuum represent the
two major chronological anchors for this reconstruction. The date of the sales reported in
letter 4.1 6 is placed approximately 45 ḫamuštum weeks before REL 81 III. The due date of Pilaḫ-
Aššur’s debt mentioned in letters 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 is placed 46 ḫamuštum weeks after
REL 79 VII (below p. 14). The length of each ḫamuštum week is 7 days (see Chapter Three). Also
in the field of notation, several episodes in Ilabrat-bāni’s dealings with Šalim-aḫum are labeled
to further aid in understanding the progression of events.
In the field of activity in Figure 5, a continuous stream of events is represented and
labeled. As mentioned above, the horizontal axis of the figure is scaled as a reliable
representation of time. As a result, a visually legitimate series of events is chronologically
possible. The slopes of the arrows in the field of activity are a function of the estimated length
of that class of action. The slope of the arrows represents the assertion that bulk transport,
barring mishap, made the journey between Aššur and Kanesh in 30 days, while letters made
the passage in 15 days. A defense of these estimates is taken up within the latter half of
Chapter Three.

6
The documents belonging to the reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s activities are numbered by their placement in
each chapter (and hence within a particular episode) and bolded. Thus 4.1 refers to the first document presented
in Chapter Four (and is the first document of the Ilabrat-bāni affair).
24
=>'?!*
#
*+,-@

'
/
A

A
$
/
B
'
9
"! "# $
$# % ' ( )
)
*+,-
*+,-/ *+,-/ *+,-/ *+,-/ *+,-/ *+,-7 *+,-7 *+,-7 *+,-7
*
%
GHII C

46
*+DE/@2.7B JHG>
*+,I

!
!

:
!

5.88
Š-
ture
5.10
Dn-
Pšu
A

šš
Suen
l ven
Report: L
-kn
4.1 & 2.2

Pšu-kn
a
ture
Pšu-kn
,Aš š
ur, Il
en
-ven
rig in
i nt
-lu
25
: “Sieze
o
ot #4 solldd
i&o
r-m
-Su
m
: “Buy tin
Il
,
n
a
!”
,
l ik

K
r
b
w/ j
b
r
u
a
ur
t
urub
Ašš
brat-
r - A šš
-Išta
Dn-
i , Ila
r
-bni’s g
Puzu
rann
oods”
4.2
4.4
Il-aš
2.3
4.5
5.11
4.6

:#
%!
;
+ + + < %
Two points must be stressed: First, there are only two chronological anchors in this
reconstruction; and second, the arrows represent a class of tempo rather than the precise time
it took a particular journey or missive to travel between destinations. As a result, the
reconstruction put forth is an approximation. It is likely that the reconstruction will be revised
with the discovery of new evidence. However, sufficient evidence and contextualization are
brought to bear on this reconstruction that any new evidence will be refining rather than
refuting.
Nonetheless, within the approximation, the positioning of activities with respect to the
Gregorian calendar permits recounting the events in a straightforward manner and with
sensitivity to the seasonal progression. The arguments made for the particular and relative
chronological positions of these events are discussed at length in each chapter. As a result of
this approximation, it is possible to make temporal statements such as “By mid-May, Šalim-
aḫum could note that half of the shipments he sent at the beginning of the season would not
provide a return until the next spring.” Statements like this are the basis on which an account
of Šalim-aḫum’s and Pūšu-kēn’s sentiments about their commercial activity can be made with
greater ease for the reader and with greater impact for the understanding of the temporal
development of the activities during the year.
Overview of Central Events in the Context of the Figures
With the aid of the central events displayed in Figure 5, a further overview of select
activities provides an opportunity to narrate some key processes during REL 80 with
sensitivity to the layout of the figures. After recounting this brief narrative development, I will
26
again review the events in a way that shows that the events transpired within the course of a
single shipping season. Event codes will be used again.
Šalim-aḫum’s business ventures sometimes followed a predictable course. For example,
in mid-March Šalim-aḫum sent off about 650 minas of tin and about 80 textiles with five
transporters. This was the beginning the original venture, the first commercial process dealt
with in this work. Roughly five-sixths of the goods were sold on short-term credit, and this fact
was reported back to Šalim-aḫum (2.2). When the remainder of the shipment was sold,
perhaps at the end of April, that was reported as well (‘Report: Lot #4 sold’ on fig. 2). By mid-
June some portion of the goods had yielded silver and that silver was brought back by Šū-Suen
and Aššur-mālik. Letters document Šalim-aḫum sending the goods, tracking the sale of the
goods and the collection of the attendant claims, and then acknowledging receipt of his silver
(2.3, 2.4—not in figure). The first few claims were successfully collected and roughly two-
thirds of the sales revenue (83 minas of silver) was returned to him in Aššur by the end of
August with another shipment of silver brought by Dān-Aššur, Ilī-ālum, and Kurub-Ištar.
But while the sale and collection of merchandise from the original venture was going
smoothly, a shipment sent off at roughly the same time (mid-March to mid-April) with Ilī-
ašranni and Ilabrat-bāni was more complicated. On the way, Ilabrat-bāni apparently found it
necessary to break open some of Šalim-aḫum’s packaged goods and take a portion (6⅓ minas
tin) to pay for expenses. When Šalim-aḫum learned of this at the beginning of May (4.1), he
reacted angrily, writing scathing letters of accusation and demanding payment of previous
debts (4.2). By mid-May, Šalim-aḫum had heard that Ilabrat-bāni was in Kanesh and instructed
Pūšu-kēn to pressure Ilabrat-bāni to buy a large amount of goods at rates favorable to Šalim-
aḫum on short-term credit (4.4). By mid-June, Ilabrat-bāni had agreed to the demands and
27
purchased a talent worth of goods from Šalim-aḫum. However, when a portion of the talent of
silver fell due in mid-August, Ilabrat-bāni did not pay. Pūšu-kēn immediately advised Šalim-
aḫum to seize Ilabrat-bāni’s merchandise while it travelled to Anatolia. Šalim-aḫum sent
Puzur-Aššur with his son Ennam-Aššur to seize the goods in Amurrum, which they did,
returning by mid-September (reported in 4.5). In the second-half of October, when Šalim-
aḫum had waited in vain for an update about collecting more delinquent debts from Ilabrat-
bāni, he wrote again to reiterate his grievances (4.6).
In part because of Ilabrat-bāni, but in the context of a larger set of factors, Šalim-aḫum
became concerned during the season that his revenues would not adequately reflect his
position in his community or fulfill certain expectations. One measure he took to resuscitate
his balance sheet was to pressure Pūšu-kēn in mid-May to participate with him in a venture in
tin (5.8). Pūšu-kēn spent June and July avoiding and minimizing his involvement in the
venture. But Šalim-aḫum’s magnanimity in helping Pūšu-kēn complete the purchase of a house
supplied further social pressure for Pūšu-kēn to comply (5.9—not in figure). Pūšu-kēn finally
conceded to the joint venture, but not without obtaining concessions on both the rate at which
Šalim-aḫum bought the goods and on who should transport them: Šalim-aḫum’s son Dān-Aššur
(5.10).
Dān-Aššur had already travelled to Kanesh earlier in the season, sometime in mid-May
to mid-June, bringing part of the goods that Ilabrat-bāni had bought from Šalim-aḫum. Though
his travelling companion, Šū-Suen, turned back to Aššur almost immediately, bringing silver
back to Šalim-aḫum (reported in 2.3), Dān-Aššur remained in Anatolia until late July, when he
took more silver back to Aššur to Šalim-aḫum. Although Pūšu-kēn had stipulated when he
agreed to the joint venture that Dān-Aššur must turn around immediately and bring the
28
purchased tin back to Kanesh, when Dān-Aššur returned home to Aššur, Šalim-aḫum did not
give him leave to return to Anatolia, reporting to Pūšu-kēn that Dān-Aššur was ill (reported in
4.5). When Pūšu-kēn sent yet another letter in September instructing Šalim-aḫum to purchase
his part of the tin (‘Pūšu-kēn: “Buy tin!” see fig. 2), Šalim-aḫum finally purchased his portion
and sent it with Puzur-Aššur (not with Dān-Aššur) at the end of September (notified in 5.11).
Pūšu-kēn’s insistence signaled the need to begin the joint venture before Pūšu-kēn’s planned
return to Aššur at the end of the season. He would likely have needed to leave Kanesh by mid-
November to avoid being trapped by the snowed-in passes of the Taurus Mountains.
With this second review, the development of the activities in REL can be summarized
thus: The development of the various intertwined episodes reconstructed in this work was
continuous and must have transpired within the course of a single shipping season. The
‘original venture’ caravan and the caravan led by Ilī-ašranni and Ilabrat-bāni travelled at
roughly the same time to Kanesh early in the season (2.2, 4.1). The original venture
progressed through the year, yielding silver for Šalim-aḫum in mid-June (2.3), then in late
August (2.4), continually tracked by Šalim-aḫum. Dān-Aššur came to Kanesh with the second
part of the shipment of silver, and must have been back in Aššur by early September to be a
candidate (had he been well) for seizing Ilabrat-bāni’s goods (5.8). In turn, the trip to
Amurrum to seize Ilabrat-bāni’s goods must have finished by mid-September to allow enough
time for: a) Puzur-Aššur to leave for Kanesh with the joint-venture tin, which even at this late
point was expected to yield silver before the end of the season, and b) Šalim-aḫum to complain
that he had not received a proper response to 4.5, and still urge Pūšu-kēn to collect the
remainder of Ilabrat-bāni’s delinquent debts before he departed Kanesh for Aššur (4.6). Dān-
29
Aššur’s travels form a connecting thread between the original venture, the Ilabrat-bāni affair,
the joint venture, and other episodes (see commentary after 5.1-5.4)
Overview of Chapters
Within the chapters, the discussion is focused on the improvements in the
understanding of the Old Assyrian trade that are gained from the reconstruction. Chapter One
functions as an introduction to the topic, while each successive chapter uses one of more
episodes to illuminate an issue at stake in the study. A brief outline of each chapter:
Chapter One, “A Micronarrative Approach to the Old Assyrian Trade,” covers the
historiographic context and theoretical and methodological motivations of the current work.
A brief overview of the recovery of the Old Assyrian tablets from the site of Kültepe (ancient
Kanesh) and the development of the field of Old Assyrian studies makes the case that the Old
Assyrian record has overturned expectations many times before. A review of the commercial
aspects of the Old Assyrian trade offers an opportunity to point out the gains made by
synchronic approaches on the Old Assyrian trade. A review of the development of the concept
of the family firm in Old Assyrian studies situates the importance of the current work’s focus
on interpersonal organization of commerce. Finally, a section on the theoretical
underpinnings of the current work discusses the necessity of approaching social structures
through materially and temporally sensitive approaches.
Chapters Two through Five each consist of a section covering an episode from Šalim-
aḫum’s activities and a section expanding on an important element of the evidence arising
from that episode.
30
In Chapter Two, “The Original Venture,” I review Šalim-aḫum’s best attested and most
smoothly developing venture during REL 80. Reconstructing the original venture offers an
opportunity to follow the development of operations and to discuss the basis on which two
documents can be determined to derive from the same circumstances. In the first half of the
chapter, I describe Šalim-aḫum purchasing goods, sending them to Pūšu-kēn in Kanesh, and
his management of the venture as the goods are sold on credit, the due dates arrive, and the
silver is collected. In the second half of the chapter, two issues arising from the original
venture are discussed. First, Šalim-aḫum’s variable precision in citing figures throughout the
venture is discussed in the context of the limits of making reconstructions. Second, an initial
step is taken towards describing the organization of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial operations. I
conclude that Šalim-aḫum’s language does not support viewing the merchants who bought his
goods as his agents or part of his commercial network.
In Chapter Three, “Scrambling for Ikribū Funds: The Puzur-Ištar Affair,” I review an
episode in which a merchant named Puzur-Ištar reneged on buying gold for Šalim-aḫum.
Šalim-aḫum’s attempt to manage the situation in April and May underlines the robust tempo
of communication and commerce and demonstrates that Šalim-aḫum expected to engage
directly in developing matters in Anatolia even though he was 1000 kilometers away. In the
first half of the chapter, Šalim-aḫum’s interventions are described as Puzur-Ištar first stalled
and then backed out of a contract to procure gold for Šalim-aḫum, citing financial hardship.
Eventually Šalim-aḫum turned to Ilabrat-bāni, forcing the latter to pay gold up front for
merchandise he purchases from Šalim-aḫum as a conciliatory gesture. In the second half of the
chapter, a review of the tempo of bulk transport and communication evident in the
31
reconstruction gives the estimates used in the reconstruction: roughly a month for bulk
transport between Aššur and Kanesh, fifteen days for the message service.
In Chapter Four, “The Trouble with Ilabrat-bāni,” I recount the debacle that ensued
after Ilabrat-bāni repurposed some of Šalim-aḫum’s merchandise en route to Kanesh,
apparently to pay for expenses on the road. The Ilabrat-bāni affair provides another
opportunity to consider Šalim-aḫum’s commercial mentality as he dealt with a merchant he
knew well. It also provides an opportunity to speculate on Šalim-aḫum’s conceptions of
retribution. In the first half of the chapter, I narrate Šalim-aḫum’s reaction to the news of
Ilabrat-bāni’s actions as well as the ensuing dealings. Though Šalim-aḫum was furious about
the incident, when Ilabrat-bāni approached him for reconciliation and offered to buy goods on
credit from Šalim-aḫum, Šalim-aḫum accepted. However, when the errant merchant failed to
pay for the goods in a timely manner, Pūšu-kēn advised Šalim-aḫum to forcefully seize Ilabrat-
bāni’s goods in transit to Anatolia in order to recoup the capital. Šalim-aḫum agreed and
followed this counsel.
In Chapter Five, “Family and Firm,” I review Šalim-aḫum’s dealings during the season
with his two sons, Dān-Aššur and Ennam-Aššur, and with his agent Pūšu-kēn. Dān-Aššur’s
travels, Ennam-Aššur’s unruliness, and Pūšu-kēn’s hesitancies all provide opportunities to
review Šalim-aḫum’s relationships with both his family and his agent, in turn providing a basis
to discuss the contours of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial network and whether or not he operated
a ‘family firm.’ Four episodes during the year are discussed. The episodes of Dān-Aššur and his
itinerary and of Ennam-Aššur and his refusal to return to Aššur in the face of a looming
marriage focus attention on the sons’ autonomy vis-à-vis their father. The episode of Šalim-
aḫum’s ultimately successful attempt to pressure Pūšu-kēn into a joint venture in tin reveals
32
aspects of Šalim-aḫum’s own options for managing his revenues and Pūšu-kēn’s own sense of
minimizing risk. At the same time, Šalim-aḫum was helping Pūšu-kēn to purchase a house in
Aššur, which benefitted Šalim-aḫum indirectly in several ways. A comparison of Šalim-aḫum’s
dealings with his sons and with Pūšu-kēn suggest that each of them keenly felt a need to look
out for their own occasionally conflicting interests even as they cooperated to accomplish
their respective commercial pursuits.
Finally, in the conclusion, “Agents, Archives, and Risk,” I summarize the findings of this
work and then discuss their impact under three headings. Under the first heading, “Agents,” I
review Šalim-aḫum’s activities during the year and his commercial network as seen in REL 80.
Under the second heading, “Archives,” I discuss how this unit of evidence on Šalim-aḫum’s
activities during one year changes the use of the archival frame for understanding the social
organization of commerce in the Old Assyrian period. Finally, under the third heading, “Risk,”
I review the substratum of structures which undergirded Šalim-aḫum’s interaction with his
commercial network and the decisions which Šalim-aḫum made over the course of the year in
order to discuss how Šalim-aḫum and those around him conceived of risk as an important
aspect of an Old Assyrian commercial mentality.
33
CHAPTER 1:
MICRONARRATIVE AND THE OLD ASSYRIAN TRADE
This chapter consists of four sections. The first three sections are historiographic, while
the fourth section is dedicated to discussing the theoretical underpinnings of the current
work. My purpose for choosing the arrangement of these sections is to place my
reconstruction into a larger frame. Each section does so silghtly differently, but I feel that the
connection between the first, second and last two sections is cumulative rather than direct. In
the first section, I briefly review the discovery of the Old Assyrian tablets at Kanesh and the
initial scholarly efforts to identify and understand them. In so doing, I seek to hihglight the
paradigm-changing quality that the old Assyrian evidence had from its discovery. In the
second section, I review some of the core elements of the Old Assyrian trade that have been so
well perceived through synchronic approaches. This section forms somethiing of the backdrop
for the reconstruction that follows, but also provides some sense of the fruits of the
structuralist studies which have formed the backbone of synchronic understanding the Old
Assyrin trade. In the third section, I discuss the development of the concept of the Old Assyrian
family firm over recent decades. These discussions of the conceptualization of the family firm
and the synchronically derived understanding of the trade review the frames of evidence
through which the Old Assyrian trade has been approached. In the fourth section, I lay out the
theoretical difference between approaching the Old Assyrian trade through synchronically
structured evidence and through temporally sensitive evidence. This then leads to an
34
explanation of the importance of the current “unit of evidence” and the role a
“micronarrative” study plays in approaches to the current evidence.
Encountering the Unexpected
The story of the villager’s discovery, the archaeologist’s search, and the philologist’s
struggle in the early phases of Old Assyrian scholarship, culminating in 1925, is emblematic of
the successive stages at which the Old Assyrian record has repeatedly surprised or exceeded
expectations. The size of the documentary record far exceeded initial pronouncements, while
the provenience proved more difficult to pinpoint than supposed, and the language turned out
to be more familiar than at first glance. Through the interwar period and after, the content of
the tablets continued to be misunderstood because some scholars characterized the Old
Assyrian trade in terms of imperial expansion until this initial characterization of the trade
was overturned by close scrutiny of the basic operations of the trade.
The houses which yielded the vast number of Old Assyrian tablets were located in the
ancient city of Kanesh whose ruined tell, modern Kültepe, is located 20 kilometers northeast of
modern Kayseri, Turkey. However, the houses did not lie upon the tell, where archaeologists’
instincts first led them to search. Instead, the tablets came from a field east of the tell, outside
the acropolis. While the first discovery of tablets sometime in the third quarter of the
nineteenth century by local farmers was serendipitous, the villagers eventually realized the
economic potential of their new “crop.”
The problem of the Old Assyrian tablets in some way constituted another decipherment
narrative in miniature. Though in 1857 the Royal Asiatic Society had declared the Akkadian
language deciphered, and steady progress had been made since then, when the Cappadocian
35
tablets began appearing after 1875, they were considered alien. For the first few decades after
Western scholars encountered the ‘Cappadocian tablets,’ the struggle to decipher their content
was slow. One tablet was purchased in Constantinople in 1876 and sent to London, while
another tablet arrived in Paris soon thereafter.1 In 1881, T. G. Pinches reported on his first
attempt to decipher the difficult London and Paris tablets, and labeled them ‘Cappadocian’ by
virtue of their purchased provenance. Pinches considered the two tablets possible exemplars
of either the Sumerian or Hittite languages because the characters differed dramatically from
the scribal tradition in Mesopotamia known to Pinches and his colleagues.2 A. H. Sayce was not
able to clear the confusion either, as there were simply not enough gathered exemplars.3 The
difficulties in deciphering the tablets were gradually overcome with successive efforts by W.
Golénishchev, C. Contenau, and F. Delitzch on a slowly expanding corpus.4 But it was Benno
Landsberger’s work in 1925 on the merchants and their reasons for being in Anatolia that
provided insight into the nature of the tablets. His synthetic work remains an impressively
cogent statement of Old Assyrian affairs.5
Nevertheless, the early efforts of Pinches and Sayce meant that Cappadocian tablets
became objects of interest. Demand for the tablets increased, and scholars and museums began
buying them whenever possible. Golénishchev had himself purchased tablets already in 1890
1
Among the first studies to be published were: T.G. Pinches, "Cappadocian Tablets in the British Museum
and the Louvre," PSBA 4 (1881):11-18; T.G. Pinches, "Remarks on the Cappadocian Tablet Preserved in the
Bibliothèque Nationale, and that in the British Museum," PSBA 4 (1881):28-32; A.H. Sayce, "The Cuneiform Tablets
of Kappadokia," PSBA 6 (1883):17-25.
2
AC, 11.
3
A.H. Sayce, "The Cuneiform Tablets of Kappadokia."
4
Contenau, Trente tablettes cappadociennes (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1919); G.R. Driver, "Studies in Cappadocian
Tablets," RA 24, (1927):153-79; V.S. Golénishchev, Vingt-quatre tablettes cappadociennes de la collection W. Golénischeff
(St. Petersburg: 1891). For a contemporary summary of the various publications, see C.H.W. Johns, The Relations
between the Laws of Babylonia and the Laws of the Hebrew Peoples, 2nd Edition, The Schweich Lectures 1912 (London:
Oxford University Press, 1917), 88-89. A summary can also be found in AC, 11-18.
5
B. Landsberger, AHK.
36
in Kayseri. In 1888, John Peters, leader of the University of Pennsylvania’s expedition to
Nippur, noted while in London the British Museum’s demand for tablets. Later, Peters
purchased a group of ‘Cappadocian’ tablets in Istanbul, having earlier passed on buying
another group in London.6
At the same time, the source of the tablets attracted the attention of archaeologists,
who began looking in the expected, but wrong places. Still in 1890, Ramsay was uncertain of
the provenance of the tablets he purchased in Kayseri, thinking them to be from Kayseri itself
or points south. Chantre first proposed the source to be the site of Kültepe, but several visitors
failed to find tablets there in 1901 and 1906, searching on the mound. Despite frequent visits
from curious Europeans, the local villagers kept the source of the tablets secret and continued
to sell what they could on the market. Sayce reported in 1918 that the villagers had discovered
some 1200 tablets at one time, 800 of which had been seized by the Turkish government while
some of the remainder made their way to Paris where Sayce purchased a number of them.
Further large lots soon followed, and the British Museum and the Louvre purchased many of
these.7
B. Hrozný, the Czech scholar who had previously cracked the mystery of the Hittite
language,8 endeavored to solve the puzzle of the source of the Cappadocian tablets as well. He
started his search for the tablets in the same place as previous failed efforts—on the mound of
6
Golénishchev, Vingt-quatre tablettes cappadociennes de la collection W. Golénischeff, 4-5; J.P. Peters, Nippur: Or
Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates, 2nd ed., 2 vols., vol. 1 (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1898), 13-16 and
46.
7
W.M. Ramsay, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor (Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1890; reprint, 1962), 39
and 449. Visitors to Kültepe included Hugo Winckler, who was instrumental in finding the Hittite capital of
Boğazköy. On the large cache of tablets, see A.H. Sayce, "The Museum Collection of Cappadocian Tablets," MJ 9
(1918): 148-50. See AC, 17-19 for summary.
8
Hrozný demonstrated that the language had affinities with Indo-European in B. Hrozný, "Die Lösung
des Hethitischen Problems," MDOG 56 (1915), and identified it as an Indo-European language soon thereafter; see
B. Hrozný, Die Sprache der Hethiter: ihr Bau und ihre Zugehörigkeit zum indogermanischen Sprachstamm (Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1917).
37
Kültepe, though on a much larger scale. He excavated large sections of the acropolis,
uncovering a main street and a large palace, but was frustrated by his lack of success in finding
tablets. Not until he got his cook drunk did he learn that the tablets he sought were directly
under his camp, in the fields off the mound. The next day, he began digging in the ‘suburbs’ of
the acropolis, and soon found what he sought, eventually recovering roughly 1000 tablets. In
the same year that Landsberger produced his synthetic work, Hrozný pronounced the mystery
surrounding the source of the tablets solved and the source exhausted.
When Tahsin Özgüç came to Kültepe in 1948, he quickly found that Hrozný’s claim of
having recovered everything of value was overstated. Beginning where Hrozný left off, Özgüç
began excavating and immediately found more tablets. The many subsequent seasons of
Turkish excavations under the direction of Tahsin Özgüç and since 2005 Fikri Kulakoğlu,
confirm that merchants in private homes maintained these archives.9 The Turkish expedition
has not ceased; the site has continued to yieldhouses and artifacts, bringing the total
recovered tablets and fragments to near 23,000.10
In the first few years of Özgüç’s excavation, it was recognized that there were four
successive levels of occupation in the suburb where the merchant’s houses and records lay.
The levels begin with the last occupation, Level 1 (which was further divided into Level 1b [ca.
1840- ca. 1775 B.C.] and Level 1a [poorly attested]) and extending back to Level 4 (ca. 2400-2300
B.C.). The overwhelming bulk of the documents comes from Level II (ca. 1950-1845 B.C.),
9
The preliminary reports of the Turkish Kültepe excavations have been published in Turkish in Belleten
(1950-57, 1972-75, and 1980-81); AnSt (1959-60 and 1962-66 seasons); TTKY (1961 and 1967-69 seasons); and Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantıswi (1985 season). English preliminary reports have been published for almost every season
(1950-51 and 1996 excluded) in AJA.
10
Of this total, about 4760 texts belong to the ‘old texts’ group, coming to light prior to the Turkish
excavations. For more details see OAB, v.
38
though a small number of tablets (around 500) come from Level 1b, contemporaneous with
Šamši-Adad’s early rule.
By the time Özgüç had come to Kültepe in 1948, many ‘old’ tablets (the term given to
tablets purchased on the market before the controlled Turkish excavations) had been copied
and published. And for a long time, though tablets poured from Kültepe’s houses into the
hands of archaeologists, the ‘old’ texts were the only material available to non-Turkish
scholars. During this period, while the publication of the ‘old texts’ continued, knowledge of
the language of the tablets and nature of the textual documentation increased. However, some
scholars framed the Old Assyrian trade within the ecology of militaristic expansion derived
from activity of the first-millennium Assyrian empire and viewed it as evidence of the imperial
expansion of an Assyrian political and military machine across Syria and into the Anatolian
plateau. Despite the fact that more than a thousand years separated Pūšu-kēn and Šalim-aḫum
from the Neo-Assyrian expansion into Syria-Palestine, of which parts were refracted in the
biblical record, the Old Assyrian merchants suffered from the reputation of the political
machine associated with their ethnic descendants. In 1963, a new phase of scholarship began
with the publication of Garelli’s seminal work establishing the private nature of the trade and
demonstrating that Assyria enjoyed no political hegemony in Anatolia.11
11
J. Lewy and H. Lewy were largely responsible for the characterization of the Old Assyrian mercantile
activity as an operation of empire. See J. Lewy, "On Some Institutions of the Old Assyrian Empire," HUCA 27 (1956):
1-79. The refutation of this model is Garelli, AC.
39
Commercial Structures of the Old Assyrian Trade
Beginning with Garelli’s study Assyriens en Cappadoce, a consensus about the nature of
the Old Assyrian material and the systems of the trade began to emerge.12 Garelli demonstrated
that the Old Assyrian merchants were not agents of the government but privately organized.
In Garelli’s wake, Old Assyrian studies have increasingly illuminated the structures of the Old
Assyrian trade. A growing consensus on the main elements of the trade has provided a
framework within which to explore the interaction of individual traders as a context for
understanding social and cultural dimensions of the Old Assyrian trade. A broad outline of the
commercial aspects of the trade will support further discussion on the family firm.
The Old Assyrian trade between the city of Aššur (modern Qala’at Sherqat) on the Tigris
and the Anatolian plateau was an entrepreneurial system in which ancient Kanesh functioned
as a hub of commercial activity. The numerous Level II documents are, in fact, the merchants’
business records from the period 1900-1845 B.C., providing scholars a detailed picture of the
commerce. In broad outline, the merchants packed and sent their wares, mostly tin and
textiles, by donkey caravan 1000 kilometers across the Syrian steppe, the Euphrates, and the
Taurus Mountains to Kanesh and points beyond. In Anatolia, they sold their wares in the
several politically independent city-states, acquiring silver and occasionally gold. The silver
and gold returned to Aššur, to be reinvested in tin and textiles to be brought again to Anatolia
by caravan.
The city-state of Aššur seems to have been supportive of this merchant trade both in
terms of actors and policy. While the initiation and early development of the trade are
12
A more extensive review of the scholarship before and after Garelli can now be had in OBO 160/5, 62-
121. The present review is restricted to matters of the trade pertinent to the work at hand.
40
uncertain,13 the royal inscriptions of Ilu-šumma (ca. 1990-1975 B.C.) and his son Irišum (1974-
1935 B.C.) suggest that both kings actively sought to enhance the commercial position of the
city Aššur. Ilu-šumma endeavored to attract traders from Southern Mesopotamia, establishing
‘free exchange’ for various commodities: gold, silver, tin, copper, barley, and wool.14 With
Irišum, our recovery of the eponym system—naming years after an official in Aššur—begins,
and it has been argued that this institution and dating system was implemented to facilitate
trade.15 A tablet with Irišum’s seal excavated in Kanesh suggests that this ruler may have
already set up a relationship with the Anatolian city.16
The political institutions at Aššur were arranged in such a way as to foster the interests
of the trade. Though the king’s position was hereditary, held for life, and involved a
relationship with the god of the city, he shared power with the city assembly, divided into the
‘big’ and ‘small’ men. The assembly, whose decisions the king carried out in an executive role,
provided a forum in which mercantilist policies were discussed, disputes involving trade could
be addressed, and the interests of elite investors were served.17
13
For a recent review of the political development of the city-state of Aššur, including thoughts on the
early development, see Veenhof, OBO 160/5, 122-146. Narratives of the Old Assyrian period and the development
of the trade can no longer cite the political control of Aššur by the Ur III empire as terminus post quem for the
trade’s inception. Recent work shows that Zarriqum of Aššur was both a namesake and contemporary of the
governor of Susa, but not subservient to the Ur III state; see P. Michalowski, "Aššur during the Ur III Period," in
Here and There Across the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Krystna Łyczkowska, ed. Olga Drewnowska (Warsaw:
Agade, 2009), 149-56.
14
See A.K. Grayson et al., Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia B.C. (to 1115 B.C.), RIMA 1 (Toronto;
Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1987), 14-46. For the royal inscriptions of Ilu-šumma, his father, and his
dynasty, including the two from which this translation is quoted, see A.0.32.1 and A.0.32.2. The various previous
interpretations of addurarum have been discussed elsewhere, and the word here translated as ‘free exchange,’ has
been argued to refer to a reform of the taxation system of foreigners, most likely to an economic measure, OACC,
63-80. More recently, see D. Charpin, "L'andurârum à Mari," MARI 6 (1990): 253ff; and OBO 160/5, 126ff.
15
On the eponym system, see OACC, Chapter Three. The order of eponyms was only recently discovered,
providing a secure annual chronology to Old Assyrian studies. See OALE and Larsen, et al., “Ups and Downs.” This
issue will be further discussed in Chapter Four.
16
OALE, 41. For reservations about the use of the seal for dating (the seal could have been used by a later
king), see OAAS 2, 5 and G. Kryszat, "Wer schrieb der Waklum-Briefe?," in Studies Larsen 353-8.
17
OACC, Part Two.
41
By the end of the 20th century B.C., Kanesh also enjoyed a political relationship with the
politically diverse city-states of the Anatolian plateau that supported the trade. The Assyrian
city-state needed to regulate its politico-economic relationship with many large cities and
smaller towns across the Anatolian plateau, in addition to Kanesh. These included Durḫumit,
the copper hub in the north; Purušḫattum, the entrepôt from the Aegean at the west end of
the plateau; and Waḫšušana, the crossing of the Kizil Irmak at the center of the plateau. The
city-state of Aššur negotiated trade agreements with the cities of the Anatolian plain to
regulate taxes on imported goods and to outlaw competition. To do so, Aššur authorized
organizations to be its representatives in Anatolia: kārum offices in the larger cities and
wabartum offices in the smaller. These offices were organized into a hierarchy in Anatolia, with
the kārum at Kanesh functioning as the chief governing body. Each of these bodies had
jurisdiction over affairs that dealt exclusively with the Assyrian traders. (When matters
involved both Assyrian merchants and local Anatolians, local palaces presided.) Thus, the legal
framework of the Assyrian merchants was extended into their activities abroad.18
The city of Aššur—and all the polities the trade passed through—benefitted by taxing
the trade. For example, Šalim-aḫum paid export taxes to Aššur when his goods left Aššur and
then paid an import duty and tithe at the palace in Kanesh. Along the route, each town levied a
(small) toll, filling the purses of the local leaders. For example, the kinglet of a small town in
the Taurus Mountains garnered one shekel of tin every time a donkey passed through heading
to the Anatolian plateau and one shekel of silver each time a donkey passed back to Aššur.19
Aššur’s trade with Anatolia was one part of a multifaceted network of trade in which
Aššur was one node. The Old Assyrian documentation attests to the fact that metals and luxury
18
For a fuller treatment, see OACC, Part Three.
19
OBO 160/5, 183-219.
42
goods from all over the known ancient world were traded over long distances. Tin, lapis lazuli,
and carnelian came from as far east as the mountains of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan via the
Iranian Plateau and Susa.20 Most woolen textiles that passed through Aššur were produced in
other Mesopotamian cities and acquired on the market, while small numbers of textiles were
produced for export in Aššur by merchants’ wives. Although copper was readily available in
Anatolia, it was not sent to Aššur in bulk; it was available more cheaply from Oman and
possibly mines to the north of Aššur. Carnelian and lapis lazuli, coming from the same
direction as the tin, were items of sufficient value and scarcity to be included on the trip to
Anatolia when available. Of these, tin and textiles were the main staples of the trade. Tin,
essential for making tin-bronze, was obvious in its importance; but alongside the tin, the
seemingly inexhaustible Anatolian demand for high-quality woolen textiles from Mesopotamia
is remarkable.
Both tin and textiles—the first a commodity, the other a semi-finished product—were
relatively durable, so perishability did not greatly affect the market.21 However, all the tin and
many of the textiles originated outside Aššur, and the circumstances of the supply chain
exerted an important effect on prices. Merchants often instructed their agents to buy only
20
J. Cierny and G. Weisgerber, "The Bronze Age Tin Mines in Central Asia," in The Problem of Early Tin, ed.
A. Giumlia-Mair and F. Lo Schiavo (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2003): 22-31. For a recent report on surveys in Central
Asia for tin mines, including the excavated second-millenium settlement site near tin mines at Karnab-Sichkonchi
in Uzbekistan, see H. Parzinger and N. Boroffka, Das Zinn der bronzezeit in Mittelasien I. Die seidlungsarchäeologischen
Forschungen im Umfeld der Zinnlagerstätten, Archäologie in Iran und Turan 5 (Mainz: 2003).
21
Moths could and did occasionally infest and destroy textiles: “The earlier textiles, both yours and mine,
which I left for Elamma, are they still (there)? The later ones are moth-eaten.” 36ṣubātū paniūtum lu kuwatum lu
iautum 37ša ana Elama ezibu adinī u 38warkiūtum sāsam laptū TTC 14:36-38, re-edited in C. Michel, "Réédition des
Trente Tablettes 'Cappadociennes' de G. Contenau," RA 80 (1986): 116-17, and translated in CMK no. 264, later in
Aššur-nādā no. 74. The translation of the first sentence as a question follows Larsen’s suggestion.
43
when the price was favorable, and merchants in Aššur sometimes reported to their associates
in Anatolia that an interrupted supply chain had driven up prices.22
Preferences for types of textiles affected demand in Anatolia, and where possible
merchants sought to respond to demands.23 However, the merchants treated the textiles as
wholesale bulk goods. Rather than describing each textile individually, as we would expect
from a retail orientation, the vast majority of textiles shipped to Anatolia were classified in
two categories, kutānum and šurum.24 The first class, kutānum, was the staple of Assyrian textile
trade with Anatolia, and these textiles could be classified within a wide range of qualities that,
at least nominally, fit into a logical continuum: “royal quality” (ša šarrūtim), “very
fine”(watrum/damqum watrum), “fine” (damqum), “medium quality” (qablītum), “secondary
quality” (tardium), “ordinary” (qātam/ša qātim), and “defective” (matium). However, there were
other matrices of description, such as geographical source or manner of weave. Geographic
designations like Akkadian (ša akkidīē), Abarnian (abarnīum), Takkuštian(?) (takuštāum), and
Šilipkīan(?) (šilipkīum) could describe the source or style of textiles alongside descriptions like
“thin” (raqqutum), “finished(?)” (kamsum), “fleecy(?)” (saptinnum), or “four-ply” (šurbuītum). In
contrast to the kutānum class of textiles, šurum (black) textiles were most often used to wrap
the tin during transport packing and were roughly half the value of the kutānum textiles.
The Old Assyrian merchant trade functioned on a market basis in which supply and
demand were major factors in determining prices of goods moving through an inter-regional
network. Silver was the standard valuta of the day, though in certain circumstances tin (road
22
For references, see K.R. Veenhof, "Prices and Trade: The Old Assyrian Evidence," AoF 15 (1988): 243-63.
23
See the letter in which the merchant Puzur-Aššur writes to a female relative named Waqqurtum,
giving her specific instructions on the type of textile he wants her to produce: TC 3 17. For translation and
treatment see, AOATT, 103-109. For more general discussions of women and textile production, see C. Michel,
"Femmes et production à Aššur au début du IIe millénaire av. J.-C.," Techniques and Cultures, 46-47.
24
The most thorough review of designations for textiles remains AOATT.
44
taxes on the way to Anatolia) and copper (road taxes in Anatolia) were used as bases of
exchange. Assyrian merchants usually expressed the value of their commodities in terms of
silver. Their correspondence reflected the merchants’ sensitivity to price. One merchant says
that tin was too expensive (16:1 tin to silver) and deferred the purchase until the rate
improved (15:1 or 14:1). Likewise, some merchants stockpiled goods in Anatolia, waiting to sell
until a supply problem drove prices up. This ability to sell tin in Anatolia profitably was
encouraged by cheap silver in Anatolia. A shekel of silver could buy 14 to 15 shekels of tin in
Aššur, while a silver shekel could only buy between 6 and 8 shekels of tin in Anatolia. The
prices for woolen textiles varied more between Aššur and Anatolia. The kutānum-textile
normally cost 4 or 5 shekels of silver in Aššur and was sold in Anatolia for a wide range of
prices (11 to 40 shekels) depending on the urgency to liquidate, access to trustworthy retailers,
and the quality of product. The favorable rate of exchange for silver, cheaper in Anatolia due
to its great supply, was perhaps the single greatest force fueling the trade between Aššur and
the cities of the Anatolian plain.
Differences in supply between markets within Anatolia afforded further opportunities
for Assyrian merchants to maximize their gain. In Kanesh they exchanged their tin and textiles
for wool, trucked the wool further north to the copper mine region, and transported copper
west to Purušḫattum to exchange for silver. Gold was also acquired in Anatolia, but an Assyrian
law prohibited the sale of gold to non-Assyrians and gold acquired in Anatolia was usually
converted to silver in Aššur.25
Purchasing merchandise to take to Anatolia required initial capital. Those who had
capital to spare could lend it out to other merchants at profitable rates. The state exercised
25
Veenhof, "Silver and Credit in Old Assyrian Trade," in Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia:
Proceedings of the First MOS Symposium, ed. Jan Gerrit Dercksen, PIHANS 84 (Instanbul, 1999) 55-56.
45
some regulation of these prices, declaring a standard default interest rate on loans between
Assyrian merchants, though “friends” loaned on (only slightly) better conditions. When
debtors delayed in paying, disgruntled creditors could take out a second loan on their own
loan to recoup their capital, forcing the debtor to pay double interest (to both the original and
new creditor). There were various types of partnerships that could combine capital and labor
or capital and situational advantage, such as geographic location or social access, between two
parties.26 Merchants also had access to long-term financing options such as the naruqqum
investment, a strategy by which a merchant combined several investors’ capital with his own
small sum to create a working fund with which to do business for a term (normally ten years).
The organizing merchant kept one third of the profits, investors divided another third in
periodic installments, and the last third was re-invested into the fund. At the end of the term,
investors received fourfold their original capital-shares. In similar fashion, merchants ‘paid’
service providers, such as shipping personnel, by giving them interest-free loans with which
the shipper would recoup profits in the same manner as the merchant.27
To further the operation of private trade, a host of institutions were necessary, both
public and private. Assyrian merchants developed business procedures to facilitate shipping,
representation, agency, credit, and liquidity of funds. These included caravan procedures,
partnerships, joint-capital investments, accounts at the colony office, and exchangeable debt-
notes. Family in part provided a framework for partnership, cooperation, and contacts. Some
merchants lived most of their lives in an Anatolian city, doing business for themselves and on
behalf of associates who either lived in Aššur, or specialized in shipping, or frequented a
different area of the plateau.

26
See M.T. Larsen, "Partnerships in the Old Assyrian Trade," Iraq 39 (1977): 119-45.
27
M.T. Larsen, "Naruqqu-Verträge," in RlA 9, ed. Dietz O. Edzard (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 181-84.
46
A step-by-step description of the process of the caravan transport, made possible by
the contributions of many scholars, illuminates the major logistical challenge of the trade: to
bring the goods from the banks of the Tigris River across the Jezireh and the Euphrates, and
through the Taurus Mountains to the Anatolian plateau.28 In broad outlines: The bulk goods
were packed on “black” donkeys (emārum ṣallāmum), and the donkey’s load determined much
about its transporting. The donkey’s gear (unūtum), consisting of saddlecloths (ukāpum and
masradum), packsaddle (matliḫšum), ropes (eblum), and pouches (zurzum), supported the main
load. The main load was packed into two half-packs (muttatum), each consisting primarily of
either tin or textiles. If tin, each half-pack contained 65 minas of tin split into three sacks
(naruqqum), each portion wrapped in two textiles (normally šurum) suited for the purpose
(ṣubātum ša liwītim). Because each half-pack usually weighed just over a talent (biltum), that
term came to be used for the half-pack as well; another designation was weighed packs
(šuqlum). If the load was the bulkier textiles, the donkey carried between 20 and 30 textiles,
most often 25 or 26, with about 5 textiles to a sack. The Assyrians thus distinguished a visibly
smaller tin load (upqum) from a larger textile load (kibšum). The sacks were sealed (kanākum) at
departure and were not to be opened until arrival at the intended destination. In addition to
the main load of either tin or textiles, there was often a top-pack (elītum), holding additional
small items, including a purse for the road expenses (gamrum).29
The purse contained ‘hand tin’ (annak qātim)—loose tin for expenses incurred during
travel. The expenses (gamrum) incurred on the road arose from a number of sources. Tolls
28
For a recent discussion of the route between Aššur and Kanesh, see M. Forlanini, "Étapes et ininéraires
en Aššur et l'Anatolie des marchands paléo-assyriens: nouveaux documents et nouveaux problems," Kaskal 3
(2006): 147-76; and K.R. Veenhof, "Across the Euphrates," in OAAS 3.
29
On the topic of donkeys and their gear, see most recently OAI, Appendix 3. The discussion supplements
M.T. Larsen, "Four Letters from the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore," in Studies Matouš, and AOATT, 1-45.
47
(dātum) would be exacted along the road at various towns and were regulated by political
agreements with Aššur, including a head tax (qaqqadātum).30 In addition to the tolls, there were
several other taxes to be paid, including an export tax (waṣītum), often an excise tax (nisḫatum)
and shipping charges (šaddu’ātum). Food for the transporters and fodder for the donkeys
(ukultum) incurred costs as well.
The donkeys used to bear the goods to Anatolia were led by transporters and each
transporter had his own cargo or charge (šēpum).31 It was the job of the transporter principally
to see that the goods got safely to their destination. Transporters were remunerated for their
services in two primary ways. Some were paid wages in cash (igrum). Others were forwarded
capital (be’ulātum), documented in a contract; the average amount was one-half mina of silver.
The transporter would be responsible to repay the loan some time after arriving. References in
some contracts suggest that the transporters were under a labor obligation until repayment of
the loan.32 The long journey between Aššur and Kanesh required many consecutive days of
travel. Comparative evidence on donkeys has been used to suggest they could travel between
30 and 40 kilometers daily, rendering the journey 30 to 40 days.33
When the goods arrived in Anatolia, usually Kanesh, they passed through customs. If
the seller had agents there, they would participate in the customs process, checking the
transporter’s packs against the bill of lading, noting any instructions with regard to its
30
Commercial treaties are known between Aššur and various towns which include stipulations about
tolls, see OBO 160/5, 183-218.
31
Lit. “foot.” “The phrase šēp PN refers to the transporter in a general sense, ‘transported by PN,’” OACP,
176. In this chapter, this term is translated as ‘cargo of.’ However, this will be a point of discussion in Chapter
Five.
32
On be’ulātum loans, see B. Kienast, "The Old Assyrian beʾūlātum," JCS 41 (1989): 87-95. Regarding
vocalization of the term, see recently J.G. Dercksen, "On the Financing of Old Assyrian Merchants," in Trade and
Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia: Proceedings of the First MOS Symposium, ed. Jan Gerrit Dercksen, PIHANS 84 (Istanbul:
Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1999), 87-88.
33
For further discussion on logistics of the trade, see Barjamovic, “Geography,” 13-43, and Chapter Three.
48
disposal. The cargo was unsealed in the presence of the parties in charge of levying customs.
The palace at Kanesh levied excise duties (nisḫatum) on both tin and textiles: 2 minas tin per
talent, and one textile in twenty. The palace also reserved the right to purchase ten percent of
the shipment at the cash price of the textiles (išrātum).34 When the custom duties had been
exacted, the goods were “cleared” (zakā’um) for sale on the local market, and they were said to
come “down from the palace” (ina ekallim warādum).
After the goods cleared the palace, it was the responsibility of the agents to coordinate
the sale and, if on credit, the collection of the silver. The aim was ultimately to convert the
goods into silver, but there were several means by which this could be accomplished; the
merchant in Aššur often expressed his preferences for the means, and sometimes a range of
preferences. The goods could be sold for cash (silver) in the market at Kanesh; they could be
sold on credit for greater profit, but at some delay; or they could be taken elsewhere to be sold
at a different market. For example, the merchant Imdī-ilum chose to instruct his
representatives to sell his goods immediately for cash. Cash sales allowed the silver to proceed
back to Aššur relatively quickly. On the other hand, Šalim-aḫum more frequently expressed a
preference for credit sales, which eventually would garner more silver, but at the expense of
time and the risk of default.
All this activity produced an abudance of documentation, from which our primary
understanding of the trade derives. Bills of lading, transport contracts, caravan accounts,
34
It has been elsewhere held that the palace at Kanesh purchased the textiles at a discounted price set by
themselves, OACP, Veenhof, AOATT. However, the prices cited for the purchase of textiles in the palace are only
discounted in relation to prices expressed for textiles sold on credit. Because the prices for which the palace
purchased textiles varies, it is more likely that the prices reported for purchases by the palace were the cash
prices for the textiles, which is not otherwise reported in the caravan accounts (see Chapter Two, p. 81, n. 25). In
this case, the prices paid for the pre-emptive purchases might form an important starting point for building crude
prices histories and for evaluating the rate of discount on silver in credit purchases.
49
notifying messages, loans, promissory contracts, bearers’ cheques, sales contracts, debt-notes,
memoranda, and a whole host of letters bearing on commercial issues attest to the well
developed system of transport, credit, and legal framework. Many aspects of this trade are now
clear through careful studies of the overland passage of goods, the institutions of the city and
colony, and the Anatolian copper trade, chronology, and credit.35 But the vast majority of this
voluminous documentation of 23,000 texts derives from about five dozen Assyrian houses.
These houses, in the area of the kārum or ‘port’ at Kanesh, lay outside the city walls, and
included houses inhabited by native Anatolians alongside houses the Assyrian merchants
purchased. In these houses valuables, merchandise, and important documents were stored in
‘strong rooms.’ And these houses, associated with families, have provided a strong context for
approaching the trade as a family-oriented enterprise.
Organizing the Trade: The Concept of the Family Firm
With the understanding of the basic structures of the trade as set out here, there has
been an interest in understanding how the Old Assyrian merchants organized themselves to
accomplish the goals of the trade. On the one hand, the long-distance aspect of the Old
Assyrian trade presented challenges for transporting goods, gathering information, and
procuring a network of reliable representation. On the other hand, challenges like financing,
purchasing, selling, and collecting credit were germane to the trade in general. To some
extent, it has been held that the Old Assyrian ‘family firm’ either grappled with all of these
35
Transport contracts, caravan accounts, and notifying messages are covered by Larsen, OACP, 8-14. All
three document types described goods and costs associated with the overland transport between Aššur and
Anatolia. The contract was a witnessed legal document, while the caravan account and notifying message were
sent ahead of a caravan by agent and owner respectively to report or instruct. For a discussion of bearers cheques,
see Veenhof, “Modern Features.” Generally for documents and structures of the trade, see OACP, AOATT, OACC,
OAI, OACT, OAAS 2, Veenhof, "Silver and Credit,” and OALE.
50
challenges internally, or where it did not, nonetheless “was the fundamental unit in the Old
Assyrian socio-economic system.”36 One broadly cited model of the family firm saw members of
extended families cooperating under the direction of a senior member who resided in the
home city of Aššur and directed and delegated complementary roles to the various family
members. Such an organization would have done the work of purchasing goods in Aššur,
transporting them to Anatolia, and selling them at retail. The importance of the broader
network of informal cooperation was always seen as important, but most scholarly focus has
been on clarifying the workings of the family firm.
Different, even incompatible, definitions for the family firm have co-existed in the
scholarship. The concept of the family firm began with sensitivity to a few important points,
namely: the term “our father’s house,” the use of familial terms, and the frequent cooperation
and correspondence between family members. This initial evidence motivated examination of
family cooperation, which produced a strong sense of a family firm based on medieval parallels
and confirmed by inductive approaches developed to explore family firms. As a result of
several studies, primarily by Mogens Trolle Larsen, a concept of family firm could claim
significant size and complexity, both social and financial. But within this complexity, there
were inherent tensions between strong central control and multi-generation extended-family
staff, between common purse and naruqqum funds, and between inheritance and multi-
generational continuation. Many of these tensions between central control and multiple
patrilineal lines have been resolved with recent scholarship through a realization of weaker
forms of “our father’s house.” However, with the resolution of some of these tensions, yet
36
Larsen, "Partnerships in the Old Assyrian Trade," 121 and OACC, 95. The centrality of the family firm in
the Old Assyrian trade has been recognized broadly, for example Johannes Renger, "On Economic Structures of
Ancient Mesopotamia," Or 63 (1994): 180.
51
further tensions emerge in the recent versions of the family firm. A review of these
developments will demonstrate the need for further inductive studies on the operation of
family firm, but on different bases than have been possible thus far. This need is filled in part
by the present study.
Before going on, it is important to point out that the present discussion focuses almost
exclusively on the coordination of activity in accomplishing the long-distance trade with
Anatolia. Households, most probably family households, were a locus of textile production in
Aššur; and households also were a locus of consumption, as the documents which evidence the
purchase of grain both in the City (Aššur) and Anatolia attest. These categories of production
and consumption should not be overlooked. Puzur-Aššur’s letter to Waqqurtum describing
what traits she needs to produce in the textiles to respond to Anatolian demand is
representative of a corpus of letters documenting the coordination of textile production
activities with the Anatolian trade37 and suggests the gendered division of labor in regards to
production. The trade is normally considered in terms of exchange, but with regards to the
focus of the firm, the trade itself was a production of wealth. It is this aspect of the family firm,
in relation to the operation of the commercial exchange, which occupies the more direct
discussion in this work.
Mogens Trolle Larsen has most intensively developed the concept of the family firm
through various studies throughout his career. Initially drawing comparisons with the ‘great
houses’ of medieval trade, Larsen has forwarded the understanding of the day–to-day
operations in relation to the family firm more than any other scholar. Larsen’s statement on
37
See note 23 above.
52
family firms in his 1976 synthesis The Old Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies, though superseded
in part by his later scholarship, forms an appropriate place to start.
It may be regarded as certain that the family-firm was a basic element of

the Old Assyrian system, and it is likely that each one of the prominent families
in Assur had its own ‘branch’ or factory in a colony in Anatolia. As a probably
typical example of a not too big and powerful family I propose to look at the
family firm led by Aššur-idī, the father and boss who lived in Assur. We have
some 125 letters which were exchanged between the members of the group of
persons, mainly in Anatolia, who were more or less closely associated; the man
who directed Aššur-idī’s affairs in Anatolia was his son Aššur-nādā, and he
cooperated very closely with a certain Ilī-ālum, and with his brother Aššur-
taklāku. Sometimes we find that Aššur-nādā has to deal intimately with persons
whose rank exceeds his own, for instance a certain Alāḫum, and such a person
certainly was connected with the firm although not concerned with its daily
affairs, so he was probably a more distant relative. It should be noted that the
study of such an ‘archive’ is hampered by serious difficulties and the
conclusions which can be given here must necessarily be of a tentative
character. It is possible to reconstruct a nucleus of persons who corresponded
fairly frequently with each other, of course, and in this case we find some ten
persons in that group.38
In this review of Aššur-idī’s firm, Larsen sought to demonstrate the importance of
family and the close ties binding kin together in commercial activities. The core of the family
was the father-son pair Aššur-idī and Aššur-nādā. Aššur-idī directed the firm from Aššur, and
Aššur-nādā functioned as the primary agent in Anatolia, running the ‘branch’ there, and giving
his commission agents consignments on credit, while travelling to sell retail as well. Younger
brothers were also present in Kanesh, and Aššur-nādā, as the older brother, apportioned tasks
to them. Others connected with the firm were assumed to have been relatives, their proximity
on the family tree commensurate with the closeness of their involvement. The agents were
mostly a stable cast of characters that formed an Anatolian branch of the family firm.
38
Larsen, OACC, 97.
53
Other Old Assyrian scholars have echoed Larsen’s assertion that the family firm was a
basic element of the trade. Cecile Michel’s publication on Old Assyrian correspondence
devoted an entire section to the family firm, which she regarded as fundamental.39 But while
broad agreement has existed on the use of the term “family firm” and the basic idea it implies,
different descriptions of its organization or mission reveal a lack of consensus on key points.
Two more brief descriptions set the stage for discussing a number of different aspects of the
family firm. First, Veenhof, in 1984:
Old Assyrian overland trade was carried out by family firms in the city of
Assur with an ‘Anatolian branch’, headed by an able member of the family, in
one of the colonies abroad, preferably in kārum Kaniš, which was the
administrative centre of the network of commercial settlements. This Anatolian
based trader functioned as the firm’s chief agent or director abroad and he was
in particular charged with the administration of the business there, the sale of
goods imported by the firm’s caravans and the shipment back to Assur of the
yield. He disposed of a house in the kārum with storing facilities, which also
housed his archives. From there he kept in touch with his agents and
representatives based in other Anatolian cities and with his traveling salesmen
who had received lots of merchandise on consignment for sale. In due time,
when he grew older, he might return to Assur, where his wife and relatives
lived, to take up his responsibilities there, leaving the Anatolian scene to a
younger member of the firm, not infrequently his son who had already acquired
experience there under the guidance of his father.40
And second, Dercksen, in 1999:
The traders were part of the urban elite and were organised in family
firms. As a result, the business relations were based largely upon family ties.
Men would start working in their father’s firm and gradually acquire enough
capital of their own to start a new branch. The core of their capital was formed
by the naruqqum or sack, in which wealthy merchants and money-lenders from
Assur invested a large sum of money for a fixed period. The ‘sack carrier’
rewarded his investors by giving them a share in the profit. A trader was
39
“La firme familiale constitue une association stable de personnes qui travaillent ensemble; c’est l’unité
fondamentale de l’organisation commerciale páleo-assyrienne. … Par consequent, l’analyse des différents groupes
familiaux représente une étape indispensable pour comprendre les mécanismes de foncionnement des
enterprises commerciales assyriennes.” CMK, 359ff.
40
K.R. Veenhof, "An Old Assyrian Business Letter in the Medelhavsmuseet," Medelhavsmuseet Bulletin 19
(1984):3-9.
54
personally responsible for losses and debts and in the worst case his possessions
were seized and sold. Many of these well-to-do families made one of their
daughters a gubabtum-priestess. Like other Assyrian women from the mercantile
milieu they often remained involved in the business of their relatives.41
These two descriptions were written at different times for different audiences, but the
different contexts serve to highlight how the family firm could be described in very different
ways. However, they cover well the range of characterizations of the family firm in
comparison with Larsen’s descriptions above.42 Both descriptions share Larsen’s
characterization of the family firm as a hierarchical and multi-generational organization, but
Veenhof’s description focused on operations while Dercksen’s focused on finance. In Veenhof’s
description, an ‘able member of the family’ acted as a ‘chief agent or director abroad,’ reported
to the director based in Aššur, and directed a host of traveling salesmen. In Dercksen’s
description, the narruqum fund formed the core capital for men who worked at first for their
fathers.
But an attempt to synthesize the two views, or some amalgamation of these two with
Larsen’s view, yields incongruencies. According to Veenhof, the family firm owned houses
abroad and the activities were centrally coordinated, with control of the operations passing
through the family. According to Dercksen, the naruqqum fund provided the means whereby
sons started their own branches. Different elements such as these have also been accompanied
by different historical meanings of the family firm. Larsen’s citation of economic historians
like Frederic Lane placed the family firm as an expected manifestation of the natural pre-
41
J.G. Dercksen, Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia, ed. by Jan Gerrit Dercksen, MOS Studies 1, PIHANS
84, Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1999.
42
See also S. Démare-Lafont, "Aspects du Commerce International des Assyriens en Anatolie," in OAAS 3;
Veenhof, "Silver and Credit"; Veenhof, "Trade and Politics in Ancient Assur: Balancing of Public, Colonial and
Entreprenuerial Interests," in Mercanti e politica nel mondo antico, Congreso 23-24 marzo 2000 Università di Roma, ed. C.
Zaccagnini, Saggi di Storia Antica 21 (Rome: 2003).
55
modern institution, the ‘great family.’43 On the other hand, the Old Assyrian family firms have
been framed as precursors of more modern arrangements because of their apparent affinity to
later medieval firms.44 Morris Silver cited family firms as an efficient strategy for dealing with
the high cost of communication.45
Several pieces of evidence provided for the postulation of the family firm concept: the
bēt abīni, correspondence between family members, and familial terminology. Already in
Larsen’s publication on caravan procedures in 1967, he recognized the density of family
relationships in the correspondence and sought to explain this density as evidence of a semi-
formal organization. It was “apparent that the typical Old Assyrian business firm or ‘house’
was organized along family lines.”46 For Larsen at that point the most important indications of
a ‘typical Old Assyrian business firm’ were the prevalence of family or household members
interacting with each other and the use of the term bētum, “house.” As additional evidence,
Larsen pointed to the use of family terms to express the relationships between merchants,
affirming that ‘father’ could be used to mean ‘boss,’ and ‘brother’ to mean ‘associate’, and ‘son’
to mean ‘employee.’47 While elaboration of the family firm has in some ways moved past family
labels, both the concept of the household and that of corresponding family members and their
roles have formed important aspects of the idea of the family firm.
This initial configuration was evident in Larsen’s statement on the family firm in his
longer exposition (1976) quoted above. But in his yet later work, Larsen developed his
43
OACC, 97.
44
Veenhof, “Modern Features,” 342.
45
M. Silver, Economic Structures of the Ancient Near East (London: Croom Helm, 1985), 32-51.
46
OACP, 16-17.
47
Ibid.
56
approach in two important ways: parallels to medieval commercial organizations and the
pursuit of an inductive method.
First, observed parallels with medieval commercial organizations formed an important
reference point in the definition of the Old Assyrian family firm. The Old Assyrian use of the
term ‘house’ or ‘our father’s house’ in some situations found a ready comparison with S. D.
Goitein’s descriptions of pre-modern family partnerships and ‘great houses’ among the
Maghribi traders of the 12th and 13th centuries A.D. Goitein cited Frederic Lane’s statements
about the importance of ‘great families’ in pre-modern economies, which struck a familiar
chord with the observable activities of the Old Assyrian trade. The situation of Aššur-idī and
Aššur-nādā, reviewed by Larsen in his work, corresponded well to a type of trader outlined by
Abū-Faḍl al Dimašqī: stationary merchants who sent their purchases abroad with agents.
The Old Assyrian family firm and the aspects of the Old Assyrian system implied by the
family firm did have some notable differences from the trade as outlined by Goitein. For
example, al Dimašqī distinguished three different types of traders. Besides the stationary
trader, there were peregrinators and hoarders. The relative importance placed on family firms
in the Old Assyrian system suppressed the importance of a role for these other two types of
merchants. Also, Goitein’s discussion of family partnerships, though citing Frederic Lane’s
broad statement on ‘great families,’48 portrayed family partnerships as unusual in comparison
to more limited-duration partnerships, like commenda or muqarada. Goitein cited an example of
an uncle and a nephew who entered into formal written partnership, defined by shared profits
and liabilities, which suggests that family relationships in and of themselves did not constitute
48
“In most societies, at most times, it has been the great family which by its wealth, power, prestige, and
presumption of permanence has been the outstanding institution in private economic enterprise.” F.C. Lane,
"Family Partnerships and Joint Ventures in the Venetian Republic," Journal of Economic History 4 (1944): 178-96.
57
a basis for cooperation. In the formalized relationship between uncle and nephew, the
common purse funded all activities of either partner and all profits were returned to the
common purse. Goitein also cited the Tāhertīs of Qayrawān, four sons of Barhūn, who worked
together as partners with a common purse. But Goitein also emphasized that informal
cooperation was the most common form of commercial relationships. The case of the Tāhertīs
seemed to arise from an unusually good disposition among the brothers rather than as a
manifestation of a durable structure. An opponent of the Tāhertīs lamented that they were “as
one band, united by one spirit.”49 Goitein’s other important exemplar, al Dimašqī, did not
advise the stationary trader that his agents needed to be family members.
Second, Larsen recognized already in 1967 that a real understanding of Old Assyrian
family firms would only come through inductive descriptions of specific family firms and their
activities, arrived at through careful analysis of their reconstructed archives.50 In Goitein’s
observation that “letters [were] addressed to, or sent in the names of two or more brothers or
to or from father and his sons,”51 Larsen saw an intermediate approach to reconstructing a
family firm, which he called a ‘limited archive approach.’ The limited archive approach was
born of the reality that European scholars of the Old Assyrian trade only had access to the ‘old’
texts, the mass of documents which because they were excavated without careful recording,
were mixed from probably fifteen original archives. By following the family correspondence
outward from well-attested individuals, Larsen practically reasoned that one could both
reconstruct an archive and flesh out a family firm; he did so with a study on the Imdī-ilum
49
S.D. Goitein, A Mediterannean Society, 5 vols., vol. 1: Economic Foundations (Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press, 1967), 157, 181.
50
“A thorough study of the family and business partners of Enlil-bāni and of his father and grandfather
cannot be attempted here, though investigations of that kind would be extremely valuable for the understanding
of how trade was organized on this level,” OACP, 16-17.
51
Goitein, A Mediterannean Society, 181.
58
archive.52 The study on Imdī-ilum’s archive produced a large family firm around the main
protagonist. And in the study, the family tree that could be reconstructed was essentially
coterminous with the family firm.53 Sequences of addressor and addressee in the
correspondence provided an indicator of status or hierarchy. Fathers, sons, uncles, nephews,
cousins, and grandsons operated within a commercial amalgam directed by Imdī-ilum’s uncle,
Aššur-imittī, with Imdī-ilum directing the branch in Kanesh.
Larsen’s study on Imdī-ilum harvested a number of important characteristics that
diffused into other descriptions of the family firm. For example, Imdī-ilum’s uncle seemed to
enjoy strong central control of the extended family; this characteristic is manifest in both
Veenhof’s and Dercksen’s descriptions cited above. The family firm was large and multi-
generational. Members of the family were posted around Anatolia semi-permanently, a notion
that enjoyed broad consensus.54 The narrative of a central character within the family firm
who grew to inherit control of the family firm is also part of both Veenhof’s and Dercksen’s
models. Finally, the conduct of the study itself cemented the idea that archives were family
archives.
But while the study on Imdī-ilum presented a large family firm with a multi-
generational lifespan, some of these characteristics could not easily co-exist with each other,
with characteristics of family firms, or with the conduct of the trade noted elsewhere. There
was the tension between the common purse of the medieval partnership to which the Old
52
M.T. Larsen, "Your Money or Your Life! A Portrait of an Assyrian Businessman," in Societies and
Languages of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of I.M. Diakonoff (Warminster, England: Aris and Phillips, 1982).
53
Largely echoed by independent analysis in M. Ichisar, Imdīlum.
54
“Chaque firme familiale dirigée par un important négociant d’Aššur se doit d’avoir une représentation
dans les places commerciales les plus dévelopées d’Asie mineure, soit par le basis de members de la familie en
résidence permanente dans ces localités, soit encore par l’intermédiaire de représentants. Ceux-ci sont parfois
rattachés à d’autres firmes, auxquelles ils peuvent consacrer la majeure partie de leur temps. Amur-Ištar
représente ainsi les intérêsts de sa familie dans Durhumid, il en est de même pour Iddin-Ištar.” C. Michel,
"Durhumid, son commerce et ses marchands," in Studies Garelli, 217.
59
Assyrian family firm was supposed to correlate, and the presence of an individually managed
fund, the naruqqum fund. There was also a tension between large family firms on the one hand
and central control and patriarchal inheritance on the other.
A singular tension arose from the lack of a common purse in either the Imdī-ilum or
Aššur-idī firms. Unlike medieval parallels of family cooperatives, called fraternas, which
focused on a ‘common table’ or purse,55 no direct evidence could be found for a common purse
between Aššur-idī and Aššur-nādā. Recognizing this disjuncture, Larsen countered the lack of
evidence on the common purse with evidence of common cause. Indications of common cause
in the form of concerns about family status and issues of representation were expressed by
both Aššur-idī and Aššur-nādā. Individually owned goods belonging to Aššur-nādā were
recognized, but when Aššur-idī had trouble settling accounts with his investors, he predicted
disaster for the whole family. Aššur-nādā similarly expressed concern that the lack of
shipments from Aššur-idī was hurting the former’s relationships with other merchants in
Anatolia. Obviously, both Aššur-idī and Aššur-nādā felt they shared a common barometer of
family financial health. Furthermore, Aššur-idī could instruct his son Aššur-nādā to sell the
house in Kanesh, implying that Aššur-idī was the benefactor of an extended enterprise.
But more problematic to the Old Assyrian family firm concept, independent of its
relation to medieval parallels, was the presence of individually run ‘joint-stock’ funds
(naruqqum). In place of pooled finances, members of the same Old Assyrian family firms could
and did have separate naruqqum funds. Aššur-idī’s problems with his own naruqqum did not
prevent him from being frustrated that his son had not yet acquired his own. Imdī-ilum’s
brother Ennum-Bēlum ran his own naruqqum. Noting its importance, Larsen’s 1976 study
55
Lane, "Family Partnerships," 178-80.
60
constituted a brilliant review of how the naruqqum fund was formed and its potential to
organize key relationships. Though only a single exemplar of the actual naruqqum contract,
belonging to an Amur-Ištar, was available to Larsen at the time,56 he cogently discussed
references to naruqqum funds in other contexts. By his definition, the naruqqum fund was a
financial agreement whereby a merchant gathered a large sum of capital to conduct trade by
attracting shares from investors. The naruqqum funds lasted for a decade or more, providing a
far more durable commercial arrangement in the Old Assyrian system than anything known in
the contemporary Old Babylonian evidence. Amur-Ištar’s contract and letters by Pūšu-kēn to
his own investors showed that the individual merchant who managed the naruqqum funds
purchased goods from his investors in addition to paying a premium for his use of their
capital.
Though Larsen reiterated his “distinct impression … that the family firm was the
fundamental unit in the Old Assyrian socio-economic system,” he noted that the coexistence of
naruqqum funds side by side with family firms lacking common purses introduced significant
complexity into the model. It was clear that “our father’s house” was important in the minds
of the merchants, but the naruqqum fund demanded flexibility about private organization in
general. Representation often extended far beyond family circles. The naruqqum fund formed
the basis of a commercial network of its own, potentially in conflict with a merchant’s family
and family firm. Moreover, issues of liability, ownership, and management seemed much more
clearly delineated in regards to the naruqqum fund than with the family firm. When individual
merchants interacted with persons outside their family, Larsen posited that the core idea of
56
More exemplars were later gathered in Larsen, "Naruqqu-Verträge."
61
family firms without common purse and defined by family relationships remained intact by
stressing that such commercial interaction could be between separate firms.57
Other tensions were also manifest. Large firms like the one outlined around Imdī-ilum
begged questions about effective, strong, central control. Situations like that of Aššur-idī and
Aššur-nādā showed that fathers could exert considerable control over their sons, but within
the larger family network of Imdī-ilum’s archive, there was evident discord. Within Imdī-
ilum’s firm, members acted in ways inconsistent with a centrally controlled hierarchical
organization. For example, Aššur-imittī’s role as head of the firm or pater familias was
questionable because he never wrote letters to Imdī-ilum as a sole executive addressor, but
rather alongside a stable cast of characters, only some of whom were demonstrably parts of
the family. At other points, Aššur-imittī seemed at odds with Imdī-ilum, as revealed by
concerned family members in Aššur, which hinted at factions within the family. Imdī-ilum’s
cousin Ennānum wrote letters to Imdī-ilum how he, “[took] care of all of Imdī-ilum’s wishes in
Aššur,” and warned Imdī-ilum to prepare against Aššur-imittī’s planned legal actions against
him.58 Likewise, Imdī-ilum seemed to interact with his other uncle, Amur-Ištar, on a
collaborative but not hierarchical basis, though the uncle is sometimes portrayed as operating
a branch of the family firm in Durḫumit.59 As already noted by Larsen in 1976 in his study on
naruqqum funds, the boundaries of the family firm are ambiguous; it is difficult to determine
whether some persons were or were not part of Imdī-ilum’s firm. For example, a man named
Uzua was a debtor to Imdī-ilum, and wrote to him complaining that Amur-Ištar would not let
57
Larsen, "Partnerships," 121-22.
58
Larsen, “Your Money,” 224.
59
OACT, 119-31; Michel, "Durhumid,"
62
him in to the copper trade in Durḫumit.60 Uzua is not recognized as a family or firm member in
Larsen’s study, but he seemed to depend on Imdī-ilum for help with the latter’s uncle.
In Old Assyrian scholarship, different descriptions of family firms reflected various
resolutions of these tensions. Veenhof’s description cited near the beginning of this section set
out a family firm essentially self-sufficient in carrying out a significant scale of operations. It
was the firm’s caravans that transported the merchandise to Anatolia. The trader based in
Anatolia was director of what appeared to be a sizeable staff, including traveling salesmen,
who received lots of merchandise on consignment. Though emphasizing the importance of
informal networks of contacts within the Old Assyrian trade in other descriptions,61 Veenhof’s
description postulated a fairly large firm, which included a substantial number of personnel
for transporting, but which at the same time enjoyed a theoretically stable succession of
directors within a patriarchal line. The Anatolian director was trained to take over the helm in
Aššur when the overall director passed on. This description responds to the breadth of the
firm discerned within Imdī-ilum’s archive, run by Aššur-imittī, with a significant number of
family members cooperating. On the other hand, Dercksen’s description focused on the
financial management of a nuclear family with less attention to the operation of the trade.
Dercksen’s attention to the naruqqum fund gave more room to the complexity of the financial
aspect of family firms by focusing on fewer family members who each had important roles
with regards to financing.
To this configuration of characteristics, Dercksen’s outline of the copper trade in
Anatolia and his elaboration of the regional aspects of the market in Anatolia also add an
60
CCT 4 27a.
61
“The fabric of colonial community which, in addition to these official bodies, consisted of a network of
private friendships, partnerships, representations and agencies, based in family relations and business contacts,
spread out over many cities and towns, was important for trade.” Veenhof, “Modern Features,” 341.
63
important dimension to the operations that a firm might encompass. Dercksen showed that
Old Assyrian traders were sensitive to a number of regional markets within Anatolia which
served to fuel a circuit route on the plateau that included markets in Kanesh, Durḫumit,
Purušḫanda, and Waḫšušana. A family firm that could place members in several of these major
markets could operate throughout Anatolia.
However, even placing persons at a few of these centers would have severely stressed
most nuclear families, shifting the focus back to large firms of extended families, such as those
associated with Imdī-ilum’s archive. In firms that depended on extended families, many
members of the family firm would be apportioned increasingly peripheral roles as cousins and
nephews and second cousins multiplied. This temporal aspect of the family firm posits a
tension between central control which, according some versions of the family firm model,
centered on a single person or patriarchal line, and an extended network of family relations
that would spread out across the descendants of several brothers or cousins. If there were a
core fund controlled by the head of the firm, access to that capital would become less available
to extended family members over time. The only known copy of an Old Assyrian will mentions
only immediate family members as heirs. Financial alternatives for participating in the trade,
such as partnerships and naruqqum funds, would provide strong forces pulling away extended
family members. Likewise, in the absence of a common fund, the inheritance of control would
play the same role: if each extended family member managed a naruqqum fund, then the
tension manifest in the nuclear family over control vis-à-vis financing would only become
stronger.
The tension between large multi-generation firms and issues of inheritance became
more acute when more excavated archives became available for study, some of which provided
64
evidence of tense difficulties associated with settling the estates of dead merchants. Drawing
on his study of two archives, that of Aššur-nādā and Aššur-idī and the 1994 excavated archive
in the house of Šalim-Aššur (currently in preparation for publication), Larsen recently (2007)
highlighted the central tension between individual ownership and family cooperatives.62 In his
study, three important clarifications in regards to property, financing, and inheritance have
significantly nuanced the idea of the family firm. Under the first heading, ‘property,’ Larsen
argued that only individuals, not organizations, owned goods in Old Assyrian society. Though
family members often played complimentary roles within the trade, and fathers exerted
strong influence over their sons, and though reputations of healthy businesses rested on
families, accounts and property were consistently differentiated. Under the second heading,
‘investment,’ Larsen pointed out the competing role that naruqqum funds played in relation to
the family firm, stressing the fund’s potential to undercut the solidarity of the family. He
stressed that the naruqqum fund formed an egocentric network of important commercial
partnerships, which could be incongruent with the merchant’s family. Under the third
heading, ‘inheritance,’ Larsen pointed out that while merchants passed property on to the next
generation, settlement of an estate was often complicated and—most important—no
organization was passed on. Making use of a spectacular example from the 1994 archive,
Larsen illustrated that when an active merchant died, his heirs struggled to collect outstanding
claims and to settle existing debts in order to clear their father’s holdings. Thereafter, or even
in the process, sons went their separate ways; the family firm was not passed on as a legal
entity to the next generation.
62
M.T. Larsen, "Individual and Family in Old Assyrian Society," JCS 59 (2007):93-106.
65
Though Larsen maintained that the family firm should “be seen as a much wider circle
of individuals, reaching beyond the nuclear family,”63 his recent statements on the family firm
significantly revise the basis for the conceptualization of the Old Assyrian family firm. If his
characterization is followed—and its main points are sound—the practical aspect of family
firms must have been limited in scope to nuclear families, based on cooperation but not
common funds, and did not pass down through generations. In essence, these
characterizations address most of the tensions asserted in the various shades of the family
firm. The existence of large firms capable of transporting goods to Anatolia and selling those
goods through retail agents, like those suggested by Veenhof’s description, seems far less
likely. The common purse aspect now has to be abandoned in favor of individual ownership
and inheritance of property alongside a principle of cooperation. The concept of family firm
has now been rendered in a minimalist dimension.
Reassessing Family Firm and Cooperation
Describing the Old Assyrian family firm has served as an important guiding principle
within Old Assyrian studies. While previous work has rightly been focused on inductive
descriptions of the family firm, the nature of the evidence available has been incongruent with
such an effort. A major motivation for the concept of the family firm has been the
characterization of the recovered archives from Kültepe as family archives, guiding the focus
of many publications. However, that characterization is not without problems, and the
archives as artifacts of deposition stand at a remove from the evidence necessary to describe
day-to-day operations. Also, in distinction to dispute-process dossiers, synchronically

63
Ibid., 103.
66
aggregated commercial letters still suffer the shortcomings of a structuralist project—
rendering action and decisions symbolic, even when limited to archives or a network of
individuals. Temporally-sensitive units of evidence congruent with the tempo of activity in the
trade, such as the one reconstructed here, must be sought in order to craft accounts of the
practice of commercial activity; such accounts offer more viable descriptions of mentalities
because they remain connected to the materio-temporal context of the trade. Illuminating the
commercial activities of Šalim-aḫum in REL 80 as micronarrative offers an account of a few Old
Assyrian merchants and of aspects of the Old Assyrian commercial mentality.
The conceptualization of the family firm is important for understanding the social
organization of the trade because it draws together issues of evidence, method, focus, and
theory at the intersection between social and material interests. Any description of an Old
Assyrian commercial mentality must include the social dimension of organizing the trade,
hence the importance of the concept of the family firm. How traders organized themselves and
negotiated relationships with those around them in their networks communicates something
about their basic mentalities about commerce, exchange, production and property.
Larsen’s 2007 clarifications on the family firm have significantly diminished the
conceived scope of its meaning and size. But it is worth revisiting the foundation on which the
family firm concept rests, and what evidence survives. Without a common purse or an
organization that passed through generations, essentially only two of the original categories of
evidence for the family firm continue to motivate the concept: the term “our father’s house,”
and the concept of “family archives.” While “our father’s house” does suggest that a sense of
solidarity around the household was part of the Old Assyrian’s conceptual framework, what
form that took is still difficult to say (see Chapter Five). On the other hand, the idea of the
67
archives excavated and gathered from Kültepe forming “family archives” has developed and
grown deeper over time, beginning with a recognition that family members frequently
corresponded with each other. The initial observation of family interaction among the ‘old’
texts fueled the reconstruction of archives in terms of family members.
A focus on archives has been an important dimension of Old Assyrian studies. Family
firms as manifested by family archives and family archives manifesting family firms have been
and continue to be a reasonable basis for organizing projects of publication, like the Old
Assyrian Archives Series.64 A strong sense remains that family archives, as units of evidence,
are central to understanding the family firms.65 Their provenience in private houses—the
architectural manifestation of households—has parallels elsewhere in Mesopotamian family-
run businesses.66 And close archival analysis has yielded important gains to illuminate a
vigorous Assyrian trade in copper on the Anatolian plateau.67 Several studies have been
devoted to understanding the archives of the Old Assyrian traders recovered in Kültepe,
archaeologically and otherwise. These studies frequently address the chronological breadth of
64
A great many works within the Old Assyrian project have been focused on the unit of the archives and
their exploitation, the following being a small sample: J.G. Dercksen, "Review of Karl Hecker, Guido Kryszat and
Lubour Matouš, Kappadokische Keilschrifttafeln aus den Sammlungen der Karluniversität Prag," AfO 48/49
(2001/2002); V. Donbaz, "The Archives of Eddin-Aššur son of Ahiaya," in Studies Garelli; Ichisar, Imdilum; G. Kryszat,
"Beobachtungen zum Archive des Iddi(n)-Ištar," in Studies Veenhof; Larsen, Aššur-nādā; C. Michel, Innaya; K.R.
Veenhof, "Review of Die altassyrische Privateurkunden, Andrea Ulshofer," JESHO 40, no. 3 (1997); K.R. Veenhof,
"Review of Die altassyrische Privaturkunden, Maria Ulshofer," JAOS 118, no. 4 (1998); M.T. Larsen, "Archives and
Filing Systems at Kültepe;" In Old Assyrian Studies in Memory of Paul Garelli, edited by Cécile Michel, 77-88, Leiden:
Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2008.
65
This notion was expressed by Larsen before his article on individual and family: “The understanding of
Old Assyrian trade and society is therefore entirely dependent on the study of families, i.e. their archives from the
houses in Kaneš.” Larsen, Aššur-nādā, xiv. But the sentiment continues: “The realization that all ‘old’ texts
belonged to a group of perhaps fifteen different archives belonging to family firms, made it desirable to
reconstruct and edit these, to allow the study of firms, which could serve as building stones for a more general
analysis.” OBO 16/5, 66.
66
The Neo-Babylonian private archives offer perhaps the largest such phenomenon. For an overview of
the private archives, see M. Jursa, Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents: Typology, Contents and Archives,
Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 1 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005).
67
Dercksen, OACT.
68
the archives, the nature of the contents, and especially note any dossiers that can be
discerned.68 Attempts have been made to understand the filing systems involved in the original
deposition of the archives.69
But in the wake of Larsen’s 2007 article, the essence of the family firm has become
cooperation. To some extent, if we mean by firm “a partnership of two or more persons for
carrying on a business; a commercial house,”70 then it might be time to set aside that term. If
liability, financing, and ownership of funds were based in the individual, then it might be best
to begin to describe the Old Assyrian merchants as collaborative individual operators. Because
sole operators naturally required a large network of associates to accomplish the trade,
families would still have been an important organizing principle along which merchants
collaborated. Hence, a description of family firm, if the term must survive, must be a
description of the cooperation occurring to accomplish the trade in ‘real time.’
Up to a point, concentration on persons like Pūšu-kēn and Šalim-aḫum around whom
reconstructed archives can be arranged has yielded important information. A review of
archives like Pūšu-kēn’s can draw together a portrait of a well-attested person. Pūšu-kēn was
recognized by modern scholars as occurring often in the documentation and was assigned
early on distinction “as the head of one of the prominent business houses.”71 A basic sketch of
68
Dercksen, Prag I, OAAS 2, M.T. Larsen, "Archives and Filing Systems at Kültepe," in Studies Garelli;
Larsen, Aššur-nādā; O. Pedersén, Archives and libraries in the city of Assur: a survey of the material from the German
excavations, 2 vols. (Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1985); K.R. Veenhof, "Archives of Old Assyrian
Traders," in Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions: Concepts of Record-keeping in the Ancient World, ed. Maria Brosius
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); K.R. Veenhof, "Cuneiform Archives: An Introduction," in Cuneiform
Archives and Libraries, ed. Klaas R. Veenhof, PIHANS 57 (Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut,
1986).
69
Larsen, "Material Culture."
70
"firm n.1" The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. 12 Jan.
2010 <http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50085140>.
71
H. Lewy, "Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Period," in Cambridge Ancient History, ed. I.E.S. Edwards, C. J.
Gadd, and N.G.L. Hammond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 710.
69
Pūšu-kēn’s career was available before this study.72 Dates associated with his documents
stretch over a quarter of a century from REL 79 to REL 104, when a dossier on the settlement of
his estate witnesses his death.73 He was involved with Sargon, waklum of Aššur (REL 55-94),74
and he had four sons and a daughter. Šalim-aḫum’ dealings have also been illuminated in the
process of reviewing his sons’ archives.75 He is attested from REL 64 to at least REL 86 (perhaps
REL 92), while his son Ennam-Aššur is attested from REL 80 to REL 117 (see Chapter Five). One
contribution of the present study is to suggest that pockets of documents within archives can
offer more robust sets of evidence that tend to go unrealized within archival frameworks—
sometimes because the archive is so large.76
While archives have been associated with (or in the ‘old’ texts, around) a person who
occurs most often in the archive, the framing of archives has been familial. But this frame is
not without problems. The main person in any archive from Kanesh is usually seen as having a
boss of some sort in Aššur, and at some level this reinforces the concept of the family firm. But
characterizing archives as family archives should be reconsidered with sensitivity to the
reduced scope of the family firm now recognized. If Imdī-ilum’s archive reflected a network of
72
See Kryszat, OAAS 2, 40-50.
73
A list of these texts has already been assembled: AKT 1 11, AKT 2 20, Ankara 1938, ARK 166-9474, ATHE
13 (dupl. CCT 5 25a), ATHE 15, ATHE 21, ATHE 22, ATHE 23, ATHE 24, ATHE 33, ATHE 44, BIN 4 21, BIN 4 96, BIN 4
105, BIN 4 106, BIN 6 8, BIN 6 57, BIN 6 59, BIN 6 66, BIN 6 68, BIN 6 78, C 34, CCT 1 17b, CCT 1 49b, CCT 2 35, CCT 2
44b-44a, CCT 3 12b, CCT 3 41b-42a, CCT 4 31b, CCT 4 40b-41a, CCT 5 2b, CCT 5 8a, CCT 5 11d, CCT 5 21a, CCT 5 22a
(=L 17), CCT 6 44f, Dalley 11, Denver 1964.22.1, I 437, I 652, I 680, I 711, I 744, kt 94/k 785, kt a/k 499b, kt n/k 94,
KTH 7, KTS 1 29b, KTS 1 49c, OrNS 50 4, RA 81 83, Schmidt 2, TC 1 21, TC 1 30, TC 1 73, TC 1 79, TC 2 9, TC 2 46, TC 2
48, TC 3 99, TC 3 199, TC 3 274, TPAK 1 114, TPAK 1 21. See T. Hertel, "Old Assyrian Legal Practices: An
Anthropological Perspective on Legal Disputes in the Ancient Near East" (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Copenhagen, 2007). To this list can be added TPAK 1 14, and possibly also AKT 1 14, BIN 4 31, BIN 6 201, I 606, kt
m/k 7, and TPAK 1 16.
74
POAT 18b, KTS 30, VS 26 73 (VAT 9285), see OACC 134-42.
75
J.G. Dercksen, "Review of Emin Bilgiç, H. Sever, C. Günbattı, S. Bayram, Ankara Kültepe Tabletleri
(Ankaraner Kültepe-Tafeln) I, Ankara, 1990, Emin Bilgiç, S. Bayram, Ankara Kültepe Tabletleri II, Ankara, 1995,
Emin Bilgiç, C. Günbattı, Ankaraner Kültepe-Texte III, Ankara, 1995," JESHO 41 (1998).
76
For another review of the dating of an archive, see C. Michel, "The Alāhum and Aššur-taklāku archives
found in 1993 at Kültepe Kaniš," AoF 35 (2008).
70
associations far beyond a family firm, then that network is not indicative of a family firm’s
archive. On the other hand, when multiple family members’ documents are deposited in a
single room, that physical space certainly could have been used as a shared resource, with
multiple personal archives side-by-side, all without implying an archive connected to a family
firm. The egocentric orientation of the naruqqum prompts an egocentric orientation of the
archives in Kültepe. Nor are archives with documentation from multiple generations definitive
proof of multi-generation ‘family’ archives. Sons would often inherit a large set of tablets, like
property and debts, in the process of clearing the estate after their father passed away.
Moreover, the archival focus produces some inherently biased perspectives on
organization of the trade. First, the contents of the archives reflect a broad span of time. An
inductive method of describing family firms when focused on entire archives favors emphasis
on long-term relationships, especially family relationships, because their durability makes
them prominent through time. By contrast, associations which may have been short-term and
changing but which were important to carrying on the trade would seem transitory. However,
the accomplishment of the trade was largely a constant iteration of short-term arrangements,
and short term arrangements—the day-to-day practice of the trade—belong to a different
temporal register than the lifetime span associated with archives.
Second, in an archival focus, some inherent biases in the texts themselves can go
unnoticed. The reconstruction laid out in this work shows that on occasion several events
thought to be random activities in fact came from a single situation. For example, Garelli cited
two letters between Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn about ikribū funds as supporting evidence of a
class of action, but we can now demonstrate that both letters refer to the same instance (see
Chapter Three). Another example is significant. It is now clear from the present study that
71
almost all instances of the terms ‘short’ and ‘long’ credit stem from letters between Pūšu-kēn
and Šalim-aḫum during this one year. Without this chronological frame recognized, it is
possible to misconstrue how widespread the terms were, or to misunderstand those particular
situations (see Chapter Two). In other cases, the traders’ reactions to a particular circumstance
may seem to be durable characteristics of persons or situations. Thus, Šalim-aḫum has been
described as being generally impatient,77 but in REL 80 this impatience is amply justified (see
Chapter Five).
Structuralist approaches within and without archives have produced the lion’s share of
our knowledge on the Old Assyrian trade. The relatively atemporal evidentiary situation has
still illuminated many inherently structural topics—linguistic maps (lexicon, grammar),
physical structures (donkey-loads), and ideal processes (caravan procedures).78 With the
wealth of documentation made available to Old Assyrian specialists in the past fifteen years,
there has been a tendency to try to apprehend the totality of the available texts through
structural approaches.79 Some of the important results of the scholarship for understanding
the trade were reviewed above in the second section of this chapter.
The main benefit of the current study is that it constitutes an account of a particular
commercial operation over a particular span of time, which is independent of analysis of
archives. In contrast, accounts based on an archival focus do not escape the limitations
inherent in structuralist approaches for several reasons. When documents within an archive
77
Dercksen, "Review of AKT 1, 2, 3."
78
“A solution of all these, basically interrelated questions [about the Old Assyrian trade] can, if ever, only
be achieved by a comprehensive, systematic and structural approach to the material.” Veenhof, AOATT, xxiii.
79
During the 1990’s, the circulation of unpublished texts from Turkish scholars to European scholars
increased dramatically, and several European scholars were assigned the publication of major unpublished
archives. As a result, the documentation available to non-Turkish Old Assyrian specialists has virtually tripled.
However, the demands of philological publication continues to require a significant amount of effort, leaving
much of the material in an early state of exploitation, see K.R. Veenhof, "Traveling in Ancient Anatolia: Two New
Sources from Karum Kanesh," in Studies Erkanal, 778.
72
do not share a unique temporal, and hence material, context, they are disconnected; an
archive without connections becomes an aggregate of anecdotes, rather than evidence of
merchants choosing, strategizing, and negotiating among and against contingencies,
consequences, and competing interests. An anecdote is an encapsulated cosmos of meaning
essentially disconnected from the conditions out of which the interaction arose—whether the
hire of a transporter, the extension of credit, or a complaint about delinquency. When
separated from the material and temporal context, which are germane to the decisions of the
merchants, the actions and decisions of the traders in these anecdotes are rendered symbolic
and the material conditions tokenized. Inasmuch as studies on persons or themes rely on
aggregates of unconnected anecdotes, the frame of interpretation forces a structuralist
approach that divorces words, mechanisms, texts, and relationships from the irreducible
particular circumstances.80
By contrast, this study’s temporally sensitive arrays of evidence gives provenance to
the materio-temporal context of the Old Assyrian trade. To be sure, there are some places in
which the Old Assyrian evidence has previously offered evidence sufficient to historicize
action and seek context. For example, dossiers around specific legal disputes have been
recognized and explored within chronological development. But such processes operate on a
different register and pace from the day-to-day commercial trade, even if they more readily
stand out because of their nature.81 To truly grasp the necessary material and temporal
80
A forceful discussion on the problems of the lost irreducible past in terms of archaeological artifacts is
pursued in I. Hodder, Reading the Past (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).
81
It’s important to point out the subtle but complementary differences between this account of practice
and the way practice has been used in regards to dispute processes in the Old Assyrian period. The most recent
example of this is T. Hertel, "Old Assyrian Legal Practices: An Anthropological Perspective on Legal Disputes in the
Ancient Near East," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Copenhagen, 2007. In that study, Hertel assembles a body of
documentation that dwarfs the current study, including a large number of dispute process dossiers. That those
sources are more easily congregated into individual processes because circumstances are heightened and some
73
contexts of the day-to-day trade and to give agency a dimension within the account, an
integrated set of evidence from a single stretch of time is needed. That this account offers an
authentic window on agency of actors like Šalim-aḫum is signaled by the fact that the account
can give effective space to the duality of structures and that mental schemas and texts can
both structure action and be used as resources. Moreover, recognition that the sources
witness agents acting within structures signals the capacity to move to what Pierre Bourdieu
called practice.82
proceedings more likely to be dated, does not take away from the importance of the dispute process gathered
there. Hertel surveys a large corpus of dispute texts and dossiers to show the range of options open to Assyrian
merchants in resolving disputes. The study focuses on reconstructing dispute process as practice, and in this way
my effort follows Hertel’s lead. My work offers the opportunity to account for the intersection between social
interests and economic interests outside of the realm of dispute processes but in the realm of the day-to-day
practice of the trade. In this way it is complementary to studies on dispute processes. However, my work also
complements Hertel’s attempt to describe the mentalities exhibited through institutions of dispute processes by
observing these institutions as they were used. While part of my study focuses on structures, such as the tempo of
the trade and communication, I seek to provide an account of mentalities by recourse to reconstructions that can
draw on evidence beyond dossiers constituted by texts created for a single process. The legal processes reviewed
by Hertel belong, to some extent, to a different tempo of action which was overlaid on top of the day-to-day
progress of commercial action.
82
P. Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1977; reprint, 2008). My appeal to Bourdieu is limited to his claim that practice must constitute the principle
object of observation. In its most basic sense, this is a re-imagination of Marx’s materialism crafted as response to
the structuralist project, especially as envisioned by Levi-Strauss, but also with sensitivity to the role of
structures. Because it offers an alternative to post-structuralist pessimism about unbounded subjectivity, a
theory of practice offers a theoretical approach towards Old Assyrian economic and social activity that transcends
the problematic dichotomy between grand narratives of economic history, like those of Marx or Polanyi, and a
post-structuralist crisis of interpretation, as raised often, for example, in M. Van de Mieroop, "Economic Theories
and the Ancient Near East," in Commerce and Monetary Systems in the Ancient World: Means of Transmission and Cultural
Interaction, ed. Robert Rolinger and Christoph Ulf (Stuttgart, 2004), 54-64.
Bourdieu’s claim is that focus on objective relations at the expense of practice produces a disconnect
from human action in the world and this disconnect is the principle subjective weakness of structuralism. When
rules and relationships are the primary object of observation, then patterns, trends, or observable oppositions
that only signal these rules and relationships are falsely reified. Instead, Bourdieu argued that in order to
understand human behavior it is necessary to make the object of study the principles that generate behaviors,
rather than statistical patterns of behavior. Though Bourdieu’s intent was to render a ‘scientific’ (i.e. objective)
methodology, his arguments about the primacy of practice are pertinent to a historical approach to the Old
Assyrian trade. In fact, Bourdieu expressed the habitus, the principle of the generation of practice, as a product of
history or “history turned into nature” (Outline, 78). As a result, the mental schemas (to use a term which backs
away from Bourdieu’s more radical claims about habitus) of Old Assyrian traders were historically situated in their
own time. According to Bourdieu, structural anthropology (and by extension structuralist approaches) ignores
time and thus material context, power, and human agency, all key components of human behavior. The present
study responds well to a call that any description of Old Assyrian mentalities must incorporate merchants
‘encountering opportunities,’ raised in J.F. Robertson, "On Profit-Seeking, Market Orientations, and Mentality in
74
The temporal aspect of the Old Assyrian trade is indivisible from the commercial
mentality of the traders. The entire Old Assyrian trade was marked by a necessary awareness
of the passage of time. Winter marked an imminent and looming hiatus in the trade, and the
merchants were always faced with the press of the season, idle capital, and deadlines to pay or
collect debts. Structuralist framed evidence inherently suppresses the connection to the
materio-temporal continuum, a continuum in which the Old Assyrian letters must be
understood. Correspondents constantly refer directly to systemic processes, which can be
perceived through structuralist accounts, and also to intended exigencies, possible
eventualities, or proximal past occurrences.
The present account is micronarrative in character.83 The scope of the study is limited
to Šalim-aḫum, Pūšu-kēn, and persons and situations immediately around them in REL 80. I
attempt to both document the trade activity and also to explore Šalim-aḫum’s mental schemas
about the trade, particularly with regard to social relations. This dual aim draws on the
strengths of the Old Assyrian evidence. While much space in the historical apparatus will be
the 'Ancient Near East,'" review of Morris Silver, Economic Structures of the Ancient Near East (Kent, U.K., 1985), JAOS
113 (1993): 437-43.
William Sewell’s arguments for the duality of structures forms an alternative to Bourdieu’s habitus that
allows more for agency. Sewell argues that mental schemas and material resources are at play within social
structures. Actors make decisions with respect to themselves and with access to resources (social, material, and
otherwise), guided—but not robotically—by mental schemas about the way in which those resources should be
used. Importantly, Sewell holds that texts and structures can be used as resources in addition to being possible
loci or manifestations of mental schemas. W.H. Sewell, Jr., "A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency and
Transformations," American Journal of Sociology 98 (1992): 1-29, revised and republished in W.H. Sewell, Jr., The
Logics of History: Social Theory and Transformation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 124-51.
Bourdieu’s arguments about the tension between privileging structuralist patterns over time are not
privileged because I feel that these two approaches are completely irreconcilible. That one can account for the
dynamic transformation of structure in time and history was well shown by Marshal Sahlins, Historical Metaphors
and Mythical Realities (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1981). However, Bourdieu’s focus on this tension
between structures and time suits the necessary evaluation of the evidentiary situation of the Old Assyrian trade
provoked by the reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s activities in REL 80.
83
For a introductory review of microhistory and micronarrative, see K. Appuhn, "Microhistory," in
Encyclopedia of European Social History from 1350 to 2000, ed. Peter N. Stearns (Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2001),
105-12.s
75
given to reconstructing the order of events during REL 80, there are no ‘historical events’ per se
during the year. The old Assyrian documentation, focusing on trade matters and not geo-
political crises, seems to present evidence for very few pivotal political events.84 The events
covered here are not axial transformations that alter large institutions. Instead, the personal
and social events are temporally and situationally contextualized manifestations of practice.
This approach to understanding the practice of the Old Assyrian traders permits an account
which does much to escape larger frames by virtue of centering within the account both the
agency and the mentalities of the actors involved.
84
It has already been noted that the beginning of Assyrian political self-determination cannot be directly
linked to an exit of control from the Ur III state (see note 13 above). Changes in supply of copper during the
period documented by the trade documents do seem to have had important implications for the Old Assyrian
trade.
76
CHAPTER 2:
THE ORIGINAL VENTURE
Šalim-aḫum:
“Sell the (26 kutānum) textiles to a merchant on credit. … Send your report on how
much the claim of silver is and when it is due”
2.1 (CCT 2 4b)
Pūšu-kēn:
“We sold (the) 26 kutānum textiles for 30 shekels each … on long-term credit to a
merchant.”
2.2 (I 426)
Šalim-aḫum:
“As for the (claim on the 26 kutānum textiles), if the term is completed, have the silver
paid and send it to me with the first traveler.”
2.4 (BIN 4 26)
The first episode revolves around a venture in which Šalim-aḫum purchased tin and
textiles in Aššur, including 26 ‘very fine’ kutānum textiles, and sent the whole shipment to
Pūšu-kēn, his agent in Kanesh, to sell on credit. Pūšu-kēn did so, selling the goods in different
lots for varying terms, collecting the silver as the claims fell due, and sending the revenue back
to Aššur where Šalim-aḫum likely re-invested the silver in further purchases.
This particular process, Šalim-aḫum selling the 26 kutānum textiles in Anatolia through
his representatives, constitutes one small thread of a conversation between Šalim-aḫum and
his representatives in seven documents that largely concern one venture. I will refer to this
venture as the ‘original venture’ here and throughout the rest of this work. The conversation
around the original venture is important in two ways. First, the conversation spans several
77
stages of the most iconic process of the Old Assyrian trade: buying goods in Aššur, shipping
them to Anatolia, and selling them there on credit, collecting the claims, and sending the silver
back to Aššur. The development of the original venture forms a welcome exemplar of this
process, because the process has been previously understood only by aggregating classes of
texts on individual stages from separate situations. Second, this conversation also plays an
important role in reconstructing the larger unit of evidence for this year—because the
reconstruction of the original venture provides a skeleton on which to stretch the
reconstruction of the subsequent episodes.
In the second half of the chapter more general issues are at stake. This original venture
is an excellent opportunity to examine the basis on which two texts can be assumed to refer to
the same circumstances. Because the letters in the original venture refer over and over again
to the same circumstances, they are good examples of variation any can or should be expected
from documents arising from the same circumstances. I will show that Šalim-aḫum
communicated with his correspondents in such a way that took for granted their familiarity
with the details of the original venture, precluding the need for precision in some contexts.
This can aid in developing sensitivity to the contexts in which precision was important and
contexts where correspondents were less concerned with precision. Šalim-aḫum’s practice of
referring to his assets and business shows that absolute precision between figures (numbers of
textiles or minas of tin, for example) cannot always be strictly required for evaluating the
connection between two documents. At the same time, Šalim-aḫum’s context-sensitive
language provides evidence of Šalim-aḫum’s attitude towards his relations with various
parties, in particular, an indifference towards who bought his goods in Kanesh. In combination
with several other strands of evidence, Šalim-aḫum’s lack of concern about the identity of the
78
buyers suggests that those individuals were neither part of his ‘firm’ nor his commercial
network and should be considered simply buyers on credit rather than commission agents.
This chapter is divided into two sections entitled “Reconstructing the Original
Venture” and “The Limits of Šalim-aḫum’s Accuracy and Language.” In the first section, the
seven documents will be reviewed and the original venture will be reconstructed. In the
second section, I will explore the ways Šalim-aḫum and his correspondents referred to persons
and assets in these letters and the ensuing implications for how the reconstructions of the
conversations in the remaining chapters can proceed. I will also review Šalim-aḫum’s varying
ways of referring to his assets to show that that the merchants who bought his goods from his
representatives in Kanesh were simply buyers rather than travelling or commission agents, as
has been previously proposed.
Reconstructing the Original Venture
The review of the Old Assyrian trade in Chapter One discussed various types of
documents which could be produced in the process of any single recurrence of the trade or
venture. There have been no known instances in which all of the documents outlined there are
extant for any one venture, including the original venture discussed here. In this chapter,
seven documents will be used to reconstruct the salient points of the development of Šalim-
aḫum’s original venture. Four surviving documents were produced by activities pursuant to
the completion of the venture (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4). Our information on the venture is
supplemented by three more letters which fix the venture in time (2.5, 2.6, and 2.7).
The first documents written for the original venture would have been the bills of
lading, of which only one is known to us. 2.1 is a bill of lading concerning the 26 ‘very fine’
79
kutānum textiles. Next, we would expect a notifying message, but Pūšu-kēn travelled with
these goods so a notifying message was not necessary. The second document of the
conversation (2.2) is the caravan account, or, more probably, Pūšu-kēn’s copy of the caravan
account. After the goods arrived and were sold on credit, we would expect the debt notes, but
none of these have been recovered. After the goods were sold, the principal in Aššur continued
to communicate with his representatives about the claims still due and other developing
endeavors. The three supplementary letters (2.5, 2.6, and 2.7) were written during this
period. Finally, when the claims were collected, and the silver sent to Aššur, Šalim-aḫum
continued to communicate with his representatives. During this phase, Šalim-aḫum wrote two
letters acknowledging his receipt of silver (2.3 and 2.4), and thus I call these two documents
letters of receipt.
The three supplementary letters which were written while Šalim-aḫum waited for his
claims to be collected are important because they provide a chronological anchor for the
venture and permit consideration of the tempo of the events. Two of the letters stem from
Šalim-aḫum’s discussion with his representatives, including Pūšu-kēn, about some claims
originating in the previous year at Durḫumit (2.5 and 2.6). The third letter, written to Pūšu-
kēn by a man named Ḫinnaya, discusses a pair of those same claims originating in Durḫumit
and refers to the date of origination of one of these debts, allowing us to fix that debt and the
original venture in time (2.7).
The seven documents will be reviewed in three sections. The first, entitled “The
Caravan Documentation,” will review the two letters directly related to the transport of the
goods (2.1 and 2.2) The second, entitled “The Letters of Receipt,” will review two letters
which mark Šalim-aḫum’s receipt of his silver (2.3 and 2.4) After the development of the
80
original venture is established, the three supplementary documents which deal primarily with
the collection of debts originating in Durḫumit (2.5, 2.6, and 2.7) will be reviewed in the third
section entitled “The Durḫumit Debts.” After these three sections, “Temporally Constraining
the Venture” will discuss a temporally sensitive development of the original venture and fix it
in time in relation to the dated reference in 2.7.
The Caravan Documentation
Šalim-aḫum began the original venture by purchasing tin and textiles on the market at
Aššur. The total shipment included the 26 ‘very fine’ kutānum textiles, but also included more
than 10 talents of tin wrapped in šurum textiles and at least 30 more kutānum textiles. Šalim-
aḫum arranged for transportation of the goods, acquiring donkeys and tack, and arranging for
transporters to take the donkeys.
When the goods were packed and the arrangements made, Šalim-aḫum probably sent
off a notifying message to Kanesh. Taxes were assessed, transport contracts drawn up, and
some documentation with the caravan leader was likely involved. Nūr-Ištar, who transported
the 26 kutānum textiles, was accompanied by at least four other transporters. Some of them
were remunerated with be’ulātum loans, as evident from the caravan account. Nūr-Ištar was
paid a wage.
Document 2.1 - CCT 2 4b: Nūr-Ištar’s bill of lading1
1 um-ma Ša-lim-a-ḫu-um-ma
a-na La-qé-ep
ú Pu-šu-ke-en6 qí-bi4-ma
1
Previous treatments: G.R. Driver, "Studies in Cappadocian Tablets," RA 24, no. 4 (1927): Nr. 11. and P. van
der Meer, Une Correspondance Commerciale Assyrienne (Rome: Imprimierie Pie X, 1931), Nr. 27.
81
26 ku-ta-ni SIG5-tim
5 wa-at-ru-tim ku-nu-ki-a
ANŠE ṣa-lá-ma-am 5 ma-na AN.NA
a-na qá-tí-šu mì-ma
a-nim | Nu-ur-Ištar
i-ra-de8-a-am-ku-nu-ti
10 ig-ri sà-ri-dim ša-bu
TÚG.ḪI.A i-ṣé-er DAM.GÀR
ke-nim ša ki-ma qá-qí-dí-ku-nu
a-na u4-me id-a
DAM.GÀR-ku-nu
rev. lu ke-en6 1 ITU.KAM 2 ITU.KAM
16 la tù-šé-qá-ra ANŠE
iš-tí TÚG.ḪI.A e-mì-da
a-ṣé-er AN.NA-ak qá-tí-šu
ša DUMU I-dí-Ištar ša 5 ma-na
20 AN.NA URUDU a-na A-mu-ri-im
a-dí-in ù šu-ut
a-na ILLAT-tí-šu
iš-ku-un-šu KÙ.BABBAR
ša TÚG.ḪI-tí-a ma-lá
25 i-ṣé-er DAM.GÀR
ta-na-dí-a-ni ù u4-me
[té]-er-ta-ku-nu za-ku-tum
li-li-kam
1-3
Šalim-aḫum to Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn:2
4-17
26 very fine kutānum textiles under my seal, a black donkey, and 5 minas tin for his
expenses—Nūr-Ištar transports all this to you. The wages of the donkey driver are satisfied.
Sell the textiles on credit to a merchant as reliable as yourselves.3 Your merchant must be
reliable. Do not overvalue 1 or 2 months. Combine the donkey with the textiles (for sale).
2
I translate the opening epistolary formula (umma PN ana PN qibi-ma and variants) following translations
in M.T. Larsen, Aššur-nādā.
3
ṣubatē iṣṣēr tamkārim kēnim ša kīma qaqqidīkunu ana ūme id’ā – Lit. “Place the textiles on merchants as
reliable as yourselves for a period.” On ina ṣēr tamkārim nadā’um see K.R. Veenhof, AOATT, 84.
82
18-23
In addition to his hand tin, i.e. Iddi(n)-Ištar’s son’s , i.e. 5 minas, I gave (him) copper
for (expenses to be incurred in) Amurrum,4 and he himself deposited it in his caravan.
23-28
Let your full report come on the silver (paid) for my textiles, how much you placed
on the merchant, and the terms.
This document was addressed to the agents Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn and was intended
to tell them what they should find in the sealed cargo, the details they would need to settle
with Nūr-Ištar, and how to dispose of the cargo once it cleared customs. Šalim-aḫum’s
interests for the goods seem typical, given his other bills of lading.5 Nūr-Ištar received 5 minas
tin for road expenses for his cargo. The donkey—an asset on the hoof—was to be sold with the
goods. When the transactions were complete, Šalim-aḫum expected his agents to report the
silver which his goods garnered, ‘placed’ temporarily on the buyer on credit, and the term it
would be due. Šalim-aḫum was risk averse, preferring to trade extra months in a credit term
for selling his goods to a reliable merchant.
Šalim-aḫum’s note regarding the copper (l. 18-23) suggests that the son of Iddi(n)-Ištar
in line 19 is Nūr-Ištar the transporter, thus reading the the bill of lading as a document that is
entirely concerned with Nūr-Ištar’s cargo.6 Nūr-Ištar placed the copper in his caravan (ana
illatišu iškunšu),7 simply meaning his part of the caravan, i.e., the donkey and its pack.8
4
kt n/k 524:22 where MAR.TU is written. See K.R. Veenhof, OBO 160/5, 97 n. 426. On ammurum as a verbal
adjective describing silver, see J.G. Dercksen, OACTA, 164 n. 512, T. Sturm, "kaspum ammurrum: ein Begriff der
Silbermetallurgie in den Kültepe-Texten," UF 27 (1995) 487-503.
5
See CCT 2 4a.
6
There are no patronyms which support a Nūr-Ištar son of Iddi(n)-Ištar. There is a man named Nūr-Ištar
son of Ilabrat-bāni (AKT 3 43:24, b/k 95:1) and a Nūr-Ištar son of Šū-Ištar, with a brother named Aššur-imittī
(TPAK 1 105:7).
7
For other examples of this construction, cf. CCT 4 1b: 19-24 3 mana 12 GÍN annakam ana illatim šukun šīm
URUDU ša ana amurrē ašqulu ina ṭuppim išti tappā’ē lapit, translated “Deliver 3 minas 12 shekels of tin to the
enterprise. The price of the copper, which I paid to the Amorites, has been booked in the tablet together with my
partners,” Aššur-nādā, No.5. Also, CCT 4 1a:22-32 “The 1 mina of silver which he borrowed from you, the ½ mina
83
Such a reading, where the bill of lading focuses entirely on the cargo at hand, derives
from the function of the bill of lading within the larger regime of communication. As reviewed
in Chapter One, the bill of lading was written when the cargo was packed and sealed just before
the caravan departed, then placed within the cargo to travel with the goods. However, at the
same time, the merchant sending off the goods would write a notifying message to his
associates in Kanesh. The notifying message travelled on ahead of the bulk goods and the bill
of lading. Because the bill of lading traveled with the caravan and therefore more slowly than
other communications, it would be a poor medium to communicate time-sensitive information
not connected to the specific cargo with which it travelled. Even though the bill of lading
formally resembles missives sent at the faster pace, any information sent with the bill of lading
but not directly related to the contents of the caravan would likely be outdated by the time it
arrived. By contrast, letters, like the notifying message, were suitable for discussing ongoing
matters not directly connected to the particular departure. Instructions as to the disposal of
the goods in the pack proceeded ahead in the notifying message, and even the instructions in
the notifying message could be superceded before the goods arrived at their destination (see
Chapter Three).
Nūr-Ištar’s bill of lading upholds this interpretation. The bill most accurately reflects
his own cargo, and the instructions about disposing of the cargo are cursory and general; the
which Aššur-šamšī has brought to you—in tin it was 8 minas—plus the 6 minas of tin that you will claim for the
enterprise—take that, and then add in all 14 minas 8 shekels of tin to the silver, seal it for transportation, and
send it to me as a greeting as soon as you arrive,” Larsen, Aššur-nādā, No.13.
8
For attestation of the geographical name in Old Assyrian texts, which was likely aroudn the bend of the
Euphrates and included the town of Neḫriya see, K. Nashef, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der altassyrischen Zeit,
Répetoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 4 (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1991), 10, K.R. Veenhof OBO
160/5, 97. Apparently the towns in Amurrum would accept or even prefer copper over tin. Larsen translates an
instance of paying copper to Amorites in CCT 4 1b (see Aššur-nādā, Nr. 5).
84
bill does not refer to circumstances outside this sphere. For example, it does not reveal that he
departed with four other transporters. Whatever Šalim-aḫum meant about the copper, it was
most likely limited to the matter of Nūr-Ištar’s transport.
Document 2.2 - I 426: Original Venture Caravan account9
1 a-na Ša-lim-a-ḫi-im qí-bi-ma

um-ma La-qé-pu-um Ì-lí-a
ù Pu-šu-ke-en6-ma iš-tù
ni-is-ḫa-tim ú mu-ṭá-e
5 nu-ṣa-ḫi-ru-ni 2 GÚ 2 ma-na 8 GÍ[N]
AN.NA-ak-[kà] iz-ku-a-am
27 TÚG ku-ta-ni 4 TÚG ša li-wi-t[im]
mì-ma a-nim DUMU E-ra-dì
ip-qí-id-ni-a-tí | ni-kà-sí
10 iš-tí-šu a-dí-ni | la ni-sí
ANŠE.ḪI-ru-kà me-tù ŠÀ.BA 20 TÚG ku-ta-ni
½ ma-na.TA 4 TÚG šu-ru-tum 15 GÍN.TA
7 GÍN.TA a-na AN.NA-ki-kà
nu-mì-id-ma 28⅓ ma-na 7 GÍN
15 KÙ.BABBAR i-ṣé-er DAM.GÀR a-na u4-me!
pá-tí-ú-tim | na-dí ší-tí TÚG ku-ta-ni-kà
7 TÚG! a-ni-kà-sí-kà na-ad-ú
2 GÚ 10 ma-na AN.NA 4 TÚG li-wi-tum
5 TÚG ku-ta-ni 1 ANŠE ṣa-lá-ma-am
20 ša šé-ep A-šur-mu-ta-bi-il5
26 TÚG ku-ta-nu 1 ANŠE ṣa-lá-mu-um
Nu-ur-Ištar ir-de8-a-am 1 ANŠE me-et
ŠÀ.BA 1½ TÚG ni-is-ḫa-tum
lo.e. ù 1 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR né-pu-ul | 3 TÚG.ḪI.A
25 a-ší-mì-im 1 TÚG iš-tí dNIN.ŠUBUR-ba-ni
ší-tí TÚG.ḪI-ti-kà 26 TÚG.ḪI.A iz-ku-ú-nim
9
Previous treatment: Prag 1, pp. 3-5 and plates I-II.
85
rev. i-na 2 GÚ 10 ma-na AN.NA
ša šé-ep A-šur-mu-ta-bi-il5
4 ma-na ni-is-ḫa-tum 4⅚ ma-na 4! GÍN
30 mu-ṭá-ú | iš-tù AN.NA-ak q[á]-tim
gám-ru 7⅓ ma-na 7 GÍN AN.NA
a-na A-šur-mu-ta-bil né-pu-ul
ší-tí AN.NA-ki-kà 1 GÚ 53⅔ ma-na LÁ 1 GÍN
iz-ku-a-am 11 ma-na AN.NA
35 [š]a ILLAT-at A-šur-ma-lik
[É] kà-ri-im ni-il5-qé-ma
a-li-bi4 AN.NA-ki-kà ni-dí
ŠU.NIGIN 2 GÚ 4⅔ ma-na LÁ 1 GÍN
AN.NA-ak-kà 7 GÍN.TA
40 26 TÚG ku-ta-nu ½ ma-na.TA ANŠE
ki-ma ½ ma-na ŠU.NIGIN KÙ.BABBAR ša AN.NA
TÚG.ḪI.A ú ANŠE 31 ma-na 18 ½ GÍN
i-ṣé-er DAM.GÀR a-na u4-me pá-tí-ú-tim
na-dí 4 TÚG ša li-wi-tim a-[na]
45 [n]i-kà-sí-k[à n]a-ad-ú i-na
6 GÚ 30 [m]a-na AN.[NA] ša šé-[ep]
Aḫ-ša-lim [2]1 ma-[n]a ni-is-[ḫa-tum]
3 ma-na 10 GÍN mu-ṭá-ú
ší-tí A[N].NA-ki-kà 6 GÚ 5[⅚ ma-na]
50 ŠÀ.BA 5 GÚ 4⅔ ma-na
8 GÍN.TA 50 TÚG ku-ta-nu
u.e. qá-dum šu-ru-tim ša iṣ-bu-[tù]
⅓ ma-na.TA a-na u4-me-e
le.e. qú-ur-bu-tim 54⅔ ma-na 5 GÍN
[K]Ù.BABBAR i-ṣé-er DAM.GÀR na-dì
1-3
To Šalim-aḫum, from Lā-qēpum, Ilī-ālum, and Pūšu-kēn:
—The lot sold from Erra-iddi(n)’s son’s cargo—
86
3-17
After we deducted the customs duty and deficiencies, they (the palace) cleared your
122 minas 8 shekels tin. 27 kutānum textiles, 4 wrapping textiles (and your tin)—all this Erra-
iddi(n)’s son10 entrusted to us. We have not yet settled accounts with him. Your donkeys died.11
Thereof, we bundled 20 kutānum textiles at ½ mina each, 4 šurum textiles at 15 shekels each, a 7
shekel rate for your tin, and it is placed on a merchant on ‘long-term’ credit for 28 minas 27
shekels silver. The remainder of your kutānum textiles—7 textiles—are deposited to your
account.
—The lot sold from Nūr-Ištar and Aššur-mutabbil’s cargo—

18-45
2 talents 10 minas tin, 4 wrapping textiles, 5 kutānum textiles, 1 black donkey from
the charge of Aššur-mutabbil. Nūr-Ištar drove 26 kutānum textiles (on) 1 black donkey here. 1
donkey died. Thereof, the customs duty was 1 ½ textile, and we balanced 1 shekel silver. 3
textiles for purchases. 1 textile with Ilabrat-bāni. They cleared the remainder of your textiles—
26 textiles. From the 2 talents 10 minas tin of the charge of Aššur-mutabbil, the customs duty
was 4 minas. 4 minas 54 shekels (tin) were deficient. After the hand tin was spent, we balanced
7 minas 27 shekels tin to Aššur-mutabbil. They cleared the remainder of your tin: 1 talent 53
minas 39 shekels. We took 11 minas tin from the caravan of Aššur-mālik at the colony office
and placed it in your tin. In sum, your tin—2 talents 4 minas 39 shekels at a rate of 7 shekels, 26
kutānum textiles at a ½ mina each, a donkey for ½ mina. The total silver for the tin, textiles, and
a donkey: 31 minas 18 ½ shekels, is placed on a merchant on ‘long-term’ credit. 4 wrapping
textiles are deposited to your account.
—The lot sold from Aḫ-šalim’s cargo—

45-55
From the 6 talents 30 minas tin of the charge of Aḫ-šalim, the excise tax was 21
minas. 3 minas 10 shekels were missing. The remainder of your tin was 6 talents 5 minas 50
shekels. Thereof, 5 talents 4 minas 40 shekels (tin) at a rate of 8 shekels, 50 kutānum textiles
10
DUMU E-ra-dí: The original editors of the text suggest that DUMU E-ra-dí is Aššur-mutabbil son of E-ra-
dí, as in I 633:21’ and likely the same Aššur-mutabbil in l. 14. This is unlikely for the following reasons: (1) DUMU
E-ra-dí here and Aššur-mutabbil in l. 14 were transporting different cargos and the agents have not yet balanced
DUMU E-ra-dí by the time the document was written, but had already balanced Aššur-mutabbil. (2) As for the
mention of Aššur-mutabbil son of E-ra-dí in I 633, the document is entirely unrelated. At least five persons with E-
ra-dí/di as father are attested at Kültepe (Aššur-mutabbil I 633:21’; Enna(m)-Aššur KTK 79:17, kt 94k 1268:63; Šū-
Ištar AKT 1 61:1, kt 94/k 1261:28; Šū-Suen m/k 86:17; Šū-Zuzu c/k 277:36). Still, the agents may have referred to
the transporter as DUMU E-ra-dí to disambiguate him from the other Aššur-mutabbil.
11
The donkeys died somewhere along the route and replacements must have been needed. This matter is
mentioned in connection with settling accounts with the transporter because he would likely need to be
remunerated for the expense.
87
together with šurum textiles which they (the palace) seized, at 20 shekels each are placed on
the merchant on ‘short-term’ credit for 54 minas 45 shekels silver.
This document (2.2) is a copy of the original caravan report Pūšu-kēn must have
written and sent to Šalim-aḫum in Aššur. It describes both the transporters as well as the sale
of the goods. Nūr-Ištar did arrive in Kanesh with four other transporters, accompanied by
Erra-iddi(n)’s son, Aššur-mutabbil, Aḫ-šalim, and Amurrum-bāni. The first three transporters
appear by name in the caravan account; Ammuru-bāni is named later in the first letter of
receipt (2.3). When they arrived, the goods passed through customs and the transporters
settled accounts with Šalim-aḫum’s agents. Šalim-aḫum’s agents Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn then
sold most of the goods on credit and wrote a caravan account. The agents now referred to the
goods not by the way in which they were transported, but by the way in which they were sold.
Like most caravan accounts, 2.2 reports directly or indirectly details related to the
various stages of the original venture. Although it doesn’t describe Šalim-aḫum’s initial
purchase of the goods, it does reveal how they were packaged and dispatched. The caravan
account also reveals the sizes of the cargoes of three other transporters at their departure
from Aššur. It gives some specific details about the actual journey, details which were largely
embedded within the direct report on the activities following the caravan’s journey: the
arrival of the transporters, when the goods passed through customs, what duties were paid,
and how accounts were balanced with the transporters. Finally, the report includes
information about the sale of the goods.
2.2 does not supply enough information to deduce all the details of any of these stages.
For example, it is impossible to know exactly how many kutānum textiles Erra-iddi(n)’s son
88
originally had when he left Aššur. It only reveals a few minor details about the travel like the
death of the donkeys and some sense of the duties paid. The representatives Lā-qēpum and
Pūšu-kēn reported the customs process in a way that leaves some questions unanswered. Nor
were all the goods sold by the time the report was written. However, much can stil be deduced
about the original venture from the caravan account.
Regarding the packaging and assignment of the cargoes and their departure, all the
original cargoes, except that designated to Erra-iddi(n)’s son, are specified explicitly in the
caravan account. Nūr-Istar’s load matched his bill of lading exactly: 26 kutānum textiles. Aššur-
mutabbil brought 130 minas tin and 5 kutānum textiles. Aḫ-šalim brought 390 minas tin on
three donkeys. Erra-iddi(n)’s son’s cargo can be somewhat deduced through the algebra of the
typical donkey-load—he brought one donkey-load of tin (130 minas), 12 and one donkey-load of
about 32 textiles at most. Although 27 textiles cleared customs, assessed duties were not
reported and therefore it is difficult to know the original number of textiles, whether 28, 29 or
30.
Some details emerge from the caravan account about the travel from Aššur to Kanesh.
Three of the seven donkeys which left Aššur died during the trip to Kanesh, suggesting that
the beasts of burden were being pushed to their limits.13 Both of the donkeys traveling with
12
The agents state that 122 minas 8 shekels cleared customs, including some deficiencies. The difference
between the amount cleared and a typical donkey-load (130 minas) was 7 minas 52 shekels tin. 4 minas was the
excise duty, and the remainder seems a reasonable amount for a deficiency.
13
A discussion of how donkeys were treated and what that implies about the pace of the trade is taken up
in Chapter Three, p. 191.
89
Erra-iddi(n)’s son, and one donkey belonging to either Aššur-mutabbil or Nūr-Ištar died. The
dead donkey is mentioned directly after Nūr-Ištar’s cargo, suggesting that it belonged to him.14
There is some difficulty in reconstructing the details of the goods’ arrival in Kanesh,
their passage through customs, and the balancing of expenses with the transporters. The
agents did not report the duties to which Erra-iddi(n)’s son’s textiles were subject, making it
impossible to reconstruct precisely his original cargo as discussed above.15 But with Nūr-Ištar’s
tin cargo, the agents accounted precisely for the difference between the shipped and cleared
goods.16 It seems that Aššur-mutabbil and Nūr-Ištar processed their cargoes together, and the 5
extra kutānum textiles in Aššur-mutabbil’s top-pack paid for the excise duty on the
combination of those textiles and Nūr-Ištar’s textiles, allowing Nūr-Ištar’s textiles to clear en
bloc. Likely, Aššur-mutabbil’s five textiles were meant to ensure that just this happened; recall
that Šalim-aḫum had described the kutānum textiles that Nūr-Istar carried as ‘extremely fine’
in the bill of lading, possibly implying the desire to sell them as a group. However, the number
of textiles counted does not add up perfectly and, for reasons discussed in Chapter Four,
14
Perhaps the 7 minas 27 shekels tin balanced to Aššur-mutabbil by Šalim-aḫum’s agents when finalizing
accounts in Kanesh was the cost of purchasing a replacement donkey en route. However, the value of the tin
balanced was roughly 1 shekel of silver, and a replacement donkey would likely have cost twenty shekels of silver.
The textual proximity between the report on Nūr-Ištar’s cargo and the donkey’s death, weak as it is, is the only
criterium upon which to determine the donkey’s transporter.
15
The agents state that Erradi’s son turned over 27 textiles to them. Because 20 of these textiles were sold
and the other 7 were deposited in Šalim-aḫum’s account, the original amount before duties and taxes must have
been greater. If Erradi’s son brought 28 textiles, the excise tax would have been 1 2/5 textiles. In that case the
palace would have likely taken 1 textile and they would have been responsible to pay 8 shekels silver. If there had
been 29 textiles, the palace could have taken 2 textiles and balanced 11 shekels back to Šalim-aḫum’s agents.
However, if the palace also purchased the tithe on the textiles then there would have to have been at least 32
textiles for Erradi’s son to have turned over 27 textiles to Šalim-aḫum’s agents after passing through customs. (32
textiles would have yielded 1 3/5 excise and 3 textiles as tithe, the palace could have taken 5 textiles and balanced
8 shekels back to the agents.)
16
The excise duty on the 130 minas tin (2 minas in 65) was 4 minas, and there were 4 minas 54 shekels
deficient.
90
Ilabrat-bāni is named as having or taking a textile.17 There is also some uncertainty with regard
to Aḫ-šalim’s original cargo. Though it was specified as 390 minas tin (three donkey-loads) in
the caravan account, during the customs procedure an unusually high amount of Aḫ-šalim’s
tin was taken for the excise, 21 minas instead of the expected 12 minas duty on his size cargo.18
No explanation was given.
The table below summarizes what can be known about the packaging, transportation,
and customs clearance of the goods.
Table 2: Goods shipped and cleared from Šalim-aḫum’s shipment

Textiles
Transporter Donkeys Tin
kutānum šurum
Erra-iddi(n)’s Original Cargo 2 130m 28-32 4

son
After Customs 2† 122m 8š 27 4
Original Cargo 1 26
Nūr-Ištar
After Customs 1† 26
Original Cargo 1 130m 5 4

Aššur-mutabbil
After Customs 1 113m 39š 0 4
Original Cargo 3 390m 12

Aḫ-šalim
After Customs 3 365m 50š 12
Total Sent from Aššur 7 650m 59-63 20
Total After Customs 4 601m 37š 53 20

(m = minas, š = shekels, † = death of donkey)
17
The excise duty (1 in 20) on the 31 total kutānum textiles (Nur-Ištar’s 26 + Aššur-mutabbil’s 5) was 1 ½
textiles plus 1/20 of a textile, balanced as 1 shekel silver. 3 textiles were purchased for the ‘tithe’, and another
textile went to Ilabrat-bāni. The total of these adds up to 5 ½ textiles. Ilabrat-bāni in fact only took ½ textile, see
Chapter Four Section B.4.1.
18
Though the expected duty on Aḫ-šalim’s tin cargo is 12 minas, the agents report 21 minas, which is not
a scribal error for 12 because they do subtract the entire 21 from the total cargo: of 390 minas – 21 minas – 3
minas 10 shekels (missing) = 365 minas 50 shekels (2.2:45-48).
91
After the goods were cleared through customs, the agents sold the goods in lots. The
sales were significant in part because they dictated the way in which the caravan account was
organized. Three lots were sold and reported. Each of the three lots was fashioned as a
combination of tin and textiles, and was mostly derived from a single cargo or two cargoes
combined.19 The first lot sold derived directly from Erra-iddi(n)’s son’s cargo. The second lot
comprised a combination of Nūr-Ištar and Aššur-mutabbil’s cargoes, and the agents added 11
minas more tin from another source. The third lot consisted of most of Aḫ-šalim’s cargo,
combined with 50 kutānum textiles from an unnamed source. Some 61 minas 10 shekels tin was
left over from Aḫ-šalim’s cargo after the third lot was sold. Though this lot was evidently not
yet sold by the time the report was written, the tin eventually formed a fourth lot, later
acknowledged by Šalim-aḫum (2.4:40-44). The three lots reported in the caravan account and
this fourth lot as well are numbered 1 through 4 on the table below.
19
This demonstrates the continuing effect the structure of the donkey-load had on the market.
92
Table 3: Lots sold from the shipments arriving in Kanesh as reported in 2.2
Composition of Lots and Prices of Each Good
Price (Tin : š Silver)

Total Reported
Original
Kutānum textiles
Price Term
Transporters
Šurum textiles
Price Each (š)
Price Each (š)
Price Each (š)

in Silver
Donkeys
Tin
Lot
Erra-iddi(n)’s son
#1 - 122m 8š 7 20 30 4 15 28m 27š Long
Aššur-mutabbil &
#2 1 30 124m 39š 7 26 30 - 31m 18 1/2š Long
Nūr-Ištar
#3 - 304m 40š 8 50 20 12 0** 54m 45š Short

Aḫ-šalim
- -
#4 - 61m 10š 8* 7m 35⅔š Long
(m = minas, š = shekels.)
Notes
* The calculated price of tin in Lot # 4 is actually 8.05:1, taken from 2.3 below.
**The 12 šurum textiles in lot #3 are priced at zero. When Aḫ-šalim’s tin cargo was sold in the third lot, it was
bundled with, “50 kutānum textiles, together with šurum textiles which were taken, at 20 shekels each” (50 kutānū
qādum šurūtim ša iṣbutū ⅓ mana.TA 2.2:50-52). The price of the lot suggests that the šurum textiles which were
taken were those still used to wrap the tin and were included in the price of the tin, suggesting a reading “50
kutānum textiles at 20 shekels each (together with the šurum textiles that were taken).” Thus the fifty kutānum
textiles came from another source, but the šurum textiles were brought by Aḫ-šalim.
The total price of the lot sold was 304 minas 40 shekels tin (l.48). The price of the tin at 8 shekels tin per 1
shekel silver totals 38 minas 5 shekels silver, leaving 16 minas 40 shekels for the price paid for the textiles. The
total of 50 kutānum textiles at 20 shekels each equals this price exactly. A solution where šurum textiles were
included in the price is difficult. For example, if 12 šurum textiles (still pertaining to the tin) were included in the
lot sold, then if the šurum textiles were valued at half the kutānum textiles (the value of the other šurum textiles an
kutānum textiles mentioned here), 2 minas silver remains unaccounted for. If it were 38 kutānum textiles and 12
šurum textiles, then the values for each type would have been 22⅔ shekels and 11⅓ shekels respetively for an
average price of 20 shekels.
The composition of Lot #3 reveals another layer missing in the caravan account. From
2.3:40-42, we know that another transporter named Amurrum-bāni accompanied Aḫ-šalim.
However, no mention of Amurrum-bāni is made in the caravan account. The question then
93
arises as to what goods he transported.20 If Amurrum-bāni brought the 50 kutānum textiles
which were added to Lot #3, then the source of the 50 kutānum textiles is identified, though he
was not named in the caravan account. However, the presence of Amurrum-bāni’s textiles
would not explain the extra 9 minas tin paid for the excise duty on Aḫ-šalim’s tin.21
Šalim-aḫum prefered selling his goods on credit, which produced more documents.
Debt notes were drawn up delineating the amount owed and the due date for payment.
Though none are extant, either originals or their copies must have travelled to Aššur with the
caravan account supplementing the information in the caravan account. It is possible that the
duplicate to 2.2, which was sent to Aššur and is now lost, had more detailed information about
the exact term periods and the names of the buyers. As a result, when Šalim-aḫum wrote his
20
It is unlikely that Amurrum-bāni worked under Aḫ-šalim to transport one or two of the donkeys over
which Aḫ-šalim had charge, since the pay each transporter received appears to have been roughly equal. Both Aḫ-
šalim and Amurrum-bāni were paid through be’ulātum loans. Aḫ-šalim owed 30 shekels and Amurrum-bāni owed
25 shekels on the capital extended to them. However, the parity of their remuneration is not completely certain
because the actual capital extended to each transporter is not known. This reflects a major weakness of both
be’ulātum contracts and debt notes. Because the nature and amount of the capital extended to the debtor is
virtually never specified, it is impossible to know all the dynamics of the agreements. While Amurrum-bāni and
Aḫ-šalim were required to pay back similar amounts of silver, it is possible that they were actually given different
amounts of capital. I propose that this is possible with regards to be’ulātum loans because the transporters were
being extended some capital in Aššur, but were asked to repay the loan in Anatolia. For the same reason that
Šalim-aḫum and other merchants paid their duties on the road to Anatolia in tin, the capital which merchants
extended to their transporters was most likely tin or textiles. Moreover, it is likely that Šalim-aḫum and his
merchants split the markup on the goods in Anatolia. In addition, it must be assumed that often the rate of
remuneration was haggled, causing small fluctuations in the pay. Pace Larsen OACP 41, I think that the
transporters did not receive the amount of silver stipulated in their be’ulātum contracts in Aššur, but rather the
textiles they received and would sell constituted the whole of their capital. For example, in OACP Type 2:7 (83f.),
the be’ulātum amount was 20 shekels silver and the capital received was 3 textiles. The textiles would have cost
the principal 15 shekels or less and would have fetched three times that amount in Anatolia. The same case holds
for OACP Type 3:12 where 3 kutānum textiles extended to the transporter would have cost the principal less than
the 25 shekels which the transporter was responsible to repay, but still netted the transporter something like 20
shekels of his own. In this way, both the principals and the transporters made a profit on the transaction.
21
Even if the palace had, for some unusual reason, demanded payment in tin for the duty on textiles
(unknown elsewhere), the total value of both the excise and tithe duties on textiles Aḫ-šalim brought would not
have matched the 9 minas tin discrepancy: The palace would have demanded 5 textiles for the excise (nisḫātum)
and purchased 10 more textiles for the tithe. At 20 silver shekels each (the likely cash price for textiles at this
time, see p. 96), the 15 kutānum textiles would have been worth 5 minas silver. Converted to tin at an 8 shekel rate
(the price in silver for which the tin from Aḫ-šalim’s tin later sold), the duties on the textiles would have been 40
minas tin, the nisḫātum alone would have been 13⅓ minas tin.
94
letters of receipt, he was well aware of the order and interval in which his claims would fall
due, despite there being no specific information in our copy of the report.
Before moving on to the letters of receipt, it is worth noting some apparent
characteristics. In the first place, it was noted that each lot except for Lot #4, which could be
considered a remnant, consisted of both tin and textiles. It is difficult to say whether the mixed
composition of the lots served the interests of Šalim-aḫum or those who bought the lots. It
might be that both Šalim-aḫum and those who bought his goods wanted to diversify their risk
by trafficking in both tin and textiles.
Second, the combination of the rate of exchange and term period, listed in the table
above, represented Šalim-aḫum’s key factors of interest in each credit sale. But Šalim-aḫum’s
agents, and Šalim-aḫum himself in later documents, described the periods of credit extended
to the buyers simply as ‘short’ or ‘long’ terms (ūmū qurbūtum or ūmū pati’ūtum), hampering
direct comparison between the transactions. While debt notes normally expressed term
periods with lengths specified in ḫamuštum weeks or months, no measurable length of ‘short’
or ‘long’ terms is available. One suggestion equates ‘short’ terms with periods in debt notes as
short as 20 days, while ‘long’ terms could range to 50 weeks or more.22 Šalim-aḫum often said
“don’t overvalue one or two months” (as in Nūr-Ištar’s bill of lading), and when he told Ilabrat-
bāni that his credit period should be one to two months, it seems logical that he was referring
to short term credit.23 However regarding ‘long’ terms, Šalim-aḫum’s letters of receipt (2.3 and
2.4) show that the due date of lots #1 and #2 differed, even though they were both described as
22
OACP, 167.
23
See 3.4:24-26.
95
‘long’ in the caravan account.24 Importantly, the attestation of ‘long’ and ‘short’ terms in the
Old Assyrian corpus is limited to a dozen times each, and most occur in Šalim-aḫum’s letters
from this year.25
The prices paid for the goods sold in each lot differed as well, but only between goods
sold on ‘short’ and ‘long’ term credit. Even though there were different term periods for Lots
#1 and #2, long-term credit in Lots #1 and #2 fetched the same price for tin (8 shekels) and
textiles (30 shekels), as opposed to the price for tin (7 shekels) and textiles (20 shekels) on
short-term credit in Lot #3. This suggests that ‘long’-term credit and short-term credit were
classes of credit which each dictated consistent prices independent of the actual length of the
credit term.26
24
The same difference in prices occurred in 4.1, see Chapter Four, Table 8.
25
Besides the documents in this chapter, ‘long’ terms (ūmū patiūtum) occurs in letters from Šalim-aḫum
to Pūšu-kēn in this year: (TC 3 21), 2.3, and CCT 6 19a (acephalous but easily identified as Šalim-ahum’s letter).
Two more are letters written to Pūšu-kēn from Ikūn-pīya (VS 26 26) and Šū-Kubum (CCT 2 34), and once in a letter
between Āl-ṭāb and Imdī-ilum. Likewise, ‘short’ terms (ūmū qurbu’ūtum) occurs in two of the same letters above
(TC 3 21 and CCT 6 19a), as well as other letters either certainly or probably from Šalim-aḫum (3.2, 3.4, 3.6, BIN 6
202). The designation ‘short’ terms also occurs once in a letter involving Pūšu-kēn but not between him and
Šalim-aḫum (TC 3 44).
26
The price of kutānum textiles on short term credit is the same as the rate at which the palace balanced
silver back to the agents for the overage on the excise duty for the textiles from Nūr-Ištar and Aššur-mutabbil: 20
shekels silver each. The palace paid 1 shekel silver to balance 1/20 of a textile. The equivalence between the rate
balanced and the price of the textile on short-term credit conflicts with statements in the literature proposing
that the palace enjoyed discounted prices when it purchased textiles through the tithe duty. (“It must have been
established by agreements between the local administration and the Assyrian merchants how much the palace
could buy, as the price paid by the palace was probably a favourable one; if more was bought the palace had to pay
the normal price—such I would interpret the evidence from [CCT 4:13a],” Larsen, OACP, 159. Veenhof was less sure
about the rate paid by the palace on the preempted textiles, Veenhof, AOATT, 84..) The preferential prices have
been thought to be the result of negotiations between the Assyrians and the Anatolian palaces. However, the rates
on textiles on which overages were paid differ from instance to instance; the agreements between palaces must
have pegged the prices set by market forces. (The variation of 10, 15, 20, and 26⅔ shekels each is listed in K.R.
Veenhof, "Silver and Credit in Old Assyrian Trade," in Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia: Proceedings of the
First MOS Symposium, ed. Jan Gerrit Dercksen, PIHANS 84 (Instanbul: Nederlands historisch-Archaeologisch
Instituut te Istanbul, 1999), 83.)
At the same time, the palace paid for the textiles in cash, making the fact that they paid the same rate as
the buyer who purchased on short-term credit of special interest. This further supports the thesis that the palace
paid the cash price for these goods (This is also evident in 4.1, as already noted in Veenhof, AOATT, 84.) and hence
that short-term credit applied to instances where the payments were received promptly enough to be considered
96
The Letters of Receipt
At least nominally consistent with the conventional translation, the short-term claim
fell due first (Lot #3). The agents collected most of the claim on Lot #3 and sent the silver back
to Šalim-aḫum in Aššur. When Šalim-aḫum received the silver, he wrote a letter of receipt
(2.3) back to the same set of agents.
Document 2.3 - TC 3 23: First Letter of Receipt27
a-na La-qé-ep | Ì-lí-a-lim
ù Pu-šu-ke-en6 qí-bi-ma
ta-áš-pu-ra-nim um-ma a-[tù-nu-ma]
5 i-na lu-qú-tim ša šé-ep
Aḫ-ša-lim 12½ ma-na 5⅔!28 [GÍN]
KÙ.BABBAR | a-na u4-me pá-tí-[ú-tim]
i-ṣé-er DAM.GÀR | (Ras.) ke-nim! [na-dí]
54⅔ ma-na 5 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR [ša u4-mu-šu]
10 ma-al-ú-ni ŠÀ 31½ ma-[na]
qá-dum | ša-du-e-tem [Šu-Sú-en6] 29
ub-lam 21 ma-na 10 GÍN [KÙ.BABBAR]
A-šur-ma-lik ub-lam [ší-tí]
same as cash, while the incrementally higher long-term rate applied to payments that would be made farther in
the future.
27
I am not aware of any prior translations of this text.
28
Despite the slanted angle of the bottom wedge as copied, cf. 2.4:41.
29
The restoration of Šū-Suen is based on the parallel passage in 2.4:18-21 where it is recorded that Šū-
Suen and the son of Šū-Aššur brought the silver. Šalim-aḫum also reports the receipt of another packet of silver
totaling 31 minas 15 shekels with 30 shekels as šaddu’utum in 2.4:24-27. In both passages in 2.4, Šalim-aḫum
accounts the totals differently. However, it is clear that the present passage in 2.3 refers to Šū-Suen (or the son of
Šū-Aššur) for two reasons: (1) Restoring Šū-Suen preserves a consistent order between the listing of silver
received in 2.3 and 2.4. (2) Dān-Aššur is mentioned with an additional 2 minas silver in 2.4, which would be
difficult to restore in the break.
97
KÙ.BABBAR 2 ma-na 5 GÍN [i-li-bi-šu]
15 58 ma-na 18½ GÍN [KÙ.BABBAR]
ša lu-qú-tim [ša šé-ep]
Pu-šu-ke-en6 [28⅓ ma-na 7 GÍN]
ša lu-qú-tim [ša šé-ep]
lo.e. DUMU E-ra-dì [10 ma-na 10 GÍN]
20 KÙ.BABBAR ša me-er-[e]30
rev. A-šùr-UTU-ši [ ...? ]
i-ma-du-du31 ⌈x⌉ [ ... ]
DUMU Šu-dEn-líl [Lá-qé-pá-am]
e-pu-lu 21 ma-[na (17 GÍN) KÙ.BABBAR]
25 iš-tí Ḫi-na-a ù [5 ma-na]
KÙ.BABBAR a-ḫa-ma ša ⌈A⌉-[mur-Ištar]
iš-tí-šu-ma mì-ma KÙ.[BABBAR a-nim]
u4-mu-šu-nu ma-al-[ú]
ṭup-pí-šu-nu am-ra-[ma ša u4-mu-šu-nu]
30 e-tí-qú-ni | ṣí-i[b-tám]
la ta-ša-me-a | KÙ.[BABBAR]
pá-ni-a-ma | ša ta-[al-qé-a-ni]
ku-un-kà-ma [iš-tí pá-nim-ma]
šé-bi-lá-nim [ … ]
35 ṣa-aḫ-ra-am [ … ]
½ ma-na KÙ.BABBAR bé-ú-[lá-at]
A-šùr-mu-ta-bil DUMU Šu?-[A-nim]32
ù 1 TÚG ku-ta-num i-li-[bi4-šu]
u.e. ½ ma-na KÙ.BABBAR bé-ú-lá-at
30
This passage is difficult. It is evident elsewhere that Aššur-šamšī’s sons’ representatives are to repay
Lā-qēpum (10 ½ mana kaspam ša mērē Aššur-šamšī mera Ibni-ilī ša kīma šunūti Lā-qēpam eppulū 2.6:23-26). However to
whom Aššur-šamšī’s sons would have ‘measured out’ the silver (to be restored in the break at the end of line 35?)
and what role the son of Šū-Enlil played in the situation are unknown. The verb imaddudū is not explicitly marked
as subjunctive in parallel to eppulū in 2.6:26. It seems that the son of Šū-Enlil will balance the silver to Lā-qēpum.
31
i-ma-du-du – The verb is most often used in association with the measuring out of grain in the Old
Assyrian corpus, though cf. CCT 4 3b:4-6 4KÙ.BABBAR ù ṣí-ba-tù-šu 5i-ṣé-er A-zu-da 6i-mí-dí-id “He measured out the
silver and its interest to Azuda.” The half broken sign is shaped like NIM, AB, or ḪI.
32
See TC 1 63, ICK 1 187. Of the eight persons known to have an Aššur-mutabbil as father, only Šū-Anim is
possible if the wedge going into the break is vertical. If the wedge is horizontal however, (cf. line 22 i-ma-du-du on
the copy), then other possibilities exist (Ikuppi-Aššur, Iddin-abim, I-da-ZU, 91/k 201).
98
40 Aḫ-ša-lim ⅓ ma-na 5 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR bé-ú-la-at
le.e. MAR.TU-ba-ni DUMU Kur-ub-Ištar ša iš-tí Aḫ-ša-lim
is-ri-du | šu-ma lá iš-qú-ul | ša-áš-qí-lá-šu
1-3
Šalim-aḫum to Lā-qēpum, Ili-ālim, and Pūšu-kēn:
—New Claims, Claims Due, and Silver Received—

4-8
You wrote me,33 “12 minas 35⅔ shekels silver are placed on a trustworthy merchant on
long-term credit from the goods in Aḫ-šalim’s cargo.”
9-14
As for the 54 minas 45 shekels silver which are due, thereof Šū-Suen brought me 31 ½
minas together with the shipping charge. Aššur-mālik brought me 21 minas 10 shekels silver.
The rest of the silver—2 minas 5 shekels—he owes.
—Claims Coming Due—

15-17
58 minas 18 ½ shekels silver, (the proceeds) of the goods of the cargo of Pūšu-kēn.
17-19
28 minas 27 shekels (silver) (the proceeds) of the goods of the cargo of Erra-iddi(n)’s
son.
19-24
10 minas 10 shekels silver of the sons of Aššur-šamšī … they will measure out. [PN and
(PN)] son of Šū-Enlil34 will balance (it) to Lā-qēpum.
24-27
21 minas (17 shekels) silver with Ḫinnaya and 5 minas silver separately of Amur-Ištar
are with him.
27-35
All this silver, their terms are full. Inspect their tablets, and those which are past due,
don’t listen to the interest.35 The previous silver that you received, seal and send it with the
first departure. …
33
I translate šapārum “write” instead of “send” because in this instance and in most cases in the Old
Assyrian it implies sending a missive. See also K.R. Veenhof, "Communication in the Old Assyrian Trading Society
by Caravans, Travelers and Messengers," in Studies Garelli, 200.
34
There are only two known persons with Šū-Enlil as the father: Aššur-nādā (88/k 40:3) and Ennum-Aššur
(94/k 1174:1, 4). The two are probably brothers (cf. 88/k 40). Both are demonstrably associated with Pūšu-kēn.
Aššur-nādā owes ⅓ mina silver to Pūšu-kēn and company and his brother Ennam-Aššur asks for a month or two,
after which they may go to the house of a merchant and take out a loan in their name. Ennam-Aššur is involved in
a dispute with Ennam-Aššur son of Lā-qēpum who is known to be associated with Pūšu-kēn and recruited by Šū-
Ḫubur (Adana 237d). The restoration of Lā-qēpum in l.23 is based on 2.6:23-26, where the representatives of the
sons of Aššur-Šamši will balance Lā-qēpum. I cannot confirm whether this son of Šū-Enlil was the same person as
the son of Šū-Enlil in 2.5:12-13.
35
On the personification of inanimate objects, especially silver, in Old Assyrian idiom, K.R. Veenhof,
"'Dying Tablets' and 'Hungry Silver'... Elements of Figurative Language in Akkadian Commercial Terminology," in
Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Mindlin, M.J. Geller, and J.E. Wainsbrough (London: 1987, 1987).
99
—Collecting the Capital Extended to the Transporters—
36-41
½ mina silver, the be’ulātum loan of Aššur-mutabbil son of [Šū-Anim]; he also owes 1
kutānum textile. 30 shekels silver is the be’ulātum loan of Aḫ-šalim. As for the 25 shekels silver
be’ulātum loan of Amurrum-bāni son of Kurub-Ištar who drove with Aḫ-šalim, if he did not pay,
have him pay.
Šalim-aḫum wrote 2.3 to his agents in Kanesh, confirming the receipt of the silver from
the claim on Lot #3. He noted that he had received a letter sent since the original caravan
account (lost), which reported that the remainder of Aḫ-šalim’s cargo was sold (Lot #4). He also
listed four claims coming due, including the claim on Lot #2, and reminded the agents to
collect them. In the last section of the letter Šalim-aḫum noted that be’ulātum loans from some
of the transporters were due, including Aššur-mutabbil and Aḫ-šalim.
We can infer that after the agents received this letter they collected the claims listed as
due (if they had not already done so), and sent the silver also to Šalim-aḫum in Aššur. When
Šalim-aḫum received that second shipment of silver, he wrote another letter of receipt (2.4),
which listed the claims now due and silver he had received, as well as the entries already
posted in the first letter of receipt (2.3). After listing in 2.4 the claim on Lot #3, Šalim-aḫum
listed faithfully all the claims he had warned in 2.3 were coming due, now labeling them as
due. After totaling the claims, he then listed the monies received and included a directive to
collect the remaining monies promptly. He ended by noting that the claims on Lots #2 and #4
were coming due soon. The letter reads:
100
Document 2.4 - BIN 4 26: Second Letter of Receipt36
a-na Lá-qé-ep ú Pu-šu-ke-en6
qí-bi4-ma 54⅔ ma-na 5½ GÍN
KÙ.BABBAR ša šé-ep Pu-šu-ke-en6
5 ša a-u4-me qú-ur-bu-tim
ta-qí-pá-ni 58 ma-na 18½ GÍN
ša šé-ep Pu-šu-ke-en6
28⅓ ma-na 7 GÍN
ša Lu-lu-ú DUMU Zu-ku-ḫi-im
10 31½ ma-na ša i-na
Du-ur-ḫu-mì-it
A-šur-UTU!-ši ú Ḫi-na-a i-qí-pu-ni
5 ma-na ša A-mur-Ištar ša AN.NA-ki-a
ta-áš-pu-ra-nim um-ma a-tù-nu-<ma>
15 Ḫi-na-a i-ša-qá-al-šu
ú té-er-tí-ni a-na Ḫi-na-a
i-ta-lá-ak ŠU.NIGIN 2 GÚ 58 ma-na 1 GÍN
ŠÀ.BA 31 ma-na 15 GÍN
½ ma-na ša-du-a-sú
lo.e. Šu-Sú-en6 ú DUMU Šu-A-šùr
21 ub-lu-nim 20⅚ ma-na
rev. ⅓ ma-na ša-du-a-sú
DUMU E-ra-a ub-lam
31 ma-na 15 GÍN ½ ma-na
25 ša-du-a-sú 2 ma-na
a-ḫa-ma me-eḫ-ra-at TÚG.ḪI!-tí-šu
Dan-A-šùr ub-lam
41⅔ ma-na ⅔ ma-na ša-du-a-sú
Ì-lí-a-lim ub-lam 18 ma-na 18 GÍN
30 Kur-ub-Ištar ub-lam
ŠU.NIGIN 2 GÚ 27 ma-na 18 GÍN
36
Previous editions: van der Meer, Correspondance, Nr. 25.
101
KÙ.BABBAR ša ub-lu-ni-ni ší-tí KÙ.BABBAR
30⅓ ma-na 3 GÍN
ša u4-mu-šu e-tí-qú-ni
35 ṣí-ib-tám lá ta-ša-me-a
KÙ.BABBAR ša-áš-qí-lá-ma
šé-bi4-lá-nim ú a-ṣé-er
Ḫi-na-a šu-up-ra-ma KÙ.BABBAR
ša áš-ra-kam-ma i-qí-pu-ni
40 lu-šé-bi4-lam i-na ṭup-pì-ku-nu
7½ ma-na 5⅔ GÍN
KÙ.BABBAR ša šé-ep Aḫ-ša-lim
u.e. a-na u4-me pá-tí-ú-tim
i-ṣé-er DAM.GÀR-ri
45 na-dí 31 ma-na 19 GÍN
le.e. ša šé-ep A-šùr-mu-ta-bi4-il5 ú Nu-ur-Ištar šu-ma
u4-mu-šu-nu ma-al-ú KÙ ša-áš-qí-lá-ma i-pá-nim-ma
šé-bi4-lá-nim KÙ.BABBAR ša Ì-lí-a-lim ú Kur-ub-Ištar ub-lu-ni-ni
mì-šu-um ṭup-pu-um ik-bi4-da-ku-nu-tí-ma lá tù-še-bi4-lá-nim
1-3
Šalim-aḫum to Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn:
—Tally of Claims Due or Past Due—

3-6
54 minas 45½ shekels silver from the cargo of Pūšu-kēn which you extended on ‘short-
term’ credit,
6-7
58 minas 18½ shekels of the cargo of Pūšu-kēn,
8-9
28 minas 27 shekels from Lulu son of Zukuḫum,
10-17
31½ minas which Aššur-šamšī and Hinnaya extended on credit in Durḫumit, 5 minas
from Amur-Ištar for my tin—you wrote me, saying, “Hinnaya will pay it and our instructions
will go to Hinnaya.”
17
Total: 178 minas 1 shekel.
—Tally of Monies Received and Balance—

18-21
Thereof: Šū-Suen and the son of Šū-Aššur brought me 31 minas 15 shekels, 30 shekels its
shipping charge;
102
21-23
Erraya’s son brought me 20 minas 50 shekels, 20 shekels its shipping charge;
24-27
Dān-Aššur brought me 31 minas 15 shekels, 30 shekels its shipping charge, 2 minas
separately is the corresponding amount to his textiles;
28-29
Ilī-ālum brought me 41 minas 40 shekels, 40 shekels its shipping charge;
29-30
Kurub-Ištar brought me 18 minas 18 shekels.
31-40
Total: 147 minas 18 shekels silver which they brought. The remainder of silver is 30
minas 23 shekels of those (debts) whose terms are past due. Don’t listen to the interest. Have
the silver paid and send it to me. Write to Ḫinnaya so that he sends to me the silver which they
extended on credit there.
—Claims Coming Due—

40-48
In your tablet (you said), “7 minas 35⅔ shekels silver of the cargo of Aḫ-šalim on long-
term credit is placed on merchants.” 31 minas 19 shekels of the cargo of Aššur-mutabbil and
Nūr-Ištar, if their terms are due, have them pay the silver and send (it) to me immediately.
—Comments—
48-51
As for the silver which Ilī-ālim and Kurub-Ištar brought to me, why is it that the tablet
became too heavy for you to send to me?
Both letters of receipt can be divided into five basic sections. After the heading, Šalim-
aḫum listed (1) claims due (or past due), followed by (2) money received towards those claims;
he then listed (3) claims coming due. In both cases, Šalim-aḫum included (4) instructions to
collect the principal quickly. (In 2.3 section (4) followed section (3).) Finally, Šalim-aḫum
included (5) additional comments as necessary. This progression in the letter reflects a
temporal development: first the previous state of the venture is discussed (those debts that
have come due), then the current state (the silver received towards the claims due and the
balance due), and finally instructions pertinent to the time the letter would arrive at its
destination (collecting the balance of claims due and those claims coming due). The following
table outlines these sections. Instances where Lots #1-4 are mentioned are printed in bold.
103
Table 4: Comparison of the Contents of 2.3 and 2.4
2.3 2.4
Heading (ll. 1-3) Heading (ll. 1-3)
Lot #4 sold 12m 35²/₃š Tally of outstanding debts due (ll. 3-17)
-cargo of Pūšu-kēn (Lot #3) 54m 45 ½š
Tally of outstanding debts due (ll. 4-8) -cargo of Pūšu-kēn 58m 18 ½š
Claim from Aḫ-šalim’s cargo due -Lulu s. Zukuḫum (Lot #1) 28m 27š
Lot #3 54m 45š
-Aššur-šamšī, Ḫinnaya 31 ½m
-Amur-Ištar 5m
Total 178m 1š
(Total Due 54m 45š)
Tally of silver packets received (ll. 9-14) Tally of silver packets received (ll. 18-34)
-Šū-Suen w/ DUMU Šū-Aššur 31m 15š
-[Šū-Suen] 31m 30š
shipping 30š
(+shipping)
-Erraya’s son 20m 50š
-Aššur-mālik 21m 10š
shipping 20š
-Dān-Aššur 31m 15 ½š
(Total Received 52m 40š)
shipping 30š
separately 2m
-Ilī-ālum 41m 40š
Balance: 2m 5š
shipping 40š
Notice of claims coming due (ll. 15-28) -Kurub-Ištar 18m 18š
-cargo of Pūšu-kēn 58m 18 ½š š
Total (Received) 147m 18š
-cargo of Erra-iddi(n)’s son(Lot [28m 27š]
Balance: 30m 23š
#1)
Instructions (ll. 35-40)
-Sons of … Aššur-šamšī [10m] 10š
Don’t accept interest in lieu of collecting
Brief notes on that debt
principal. Write to Ḫinnaya to send that silver.
-Ḫinnaya 21m [17š]
-Amur-Ištar to be paid by [5m]
Ḫinnaya
Notice of claims coming due (ll. 40-48)
(Total 123m 12 ½š)
-Aḫ-šalim (Lot #4) 7m 35²/₃š
Instructions (ll. 29-34)
-Aššur-mutabbil & Nūr-Ištar 31m 19š
Ascertain and collect debts and send to Aššur. Do not
(Lot #2)
accept interest in lieu of principal.
Additional Comments (ll. 48-50)
Comment on wording of a previous letter(?)
Additional Comments (ll. 35-42)
Collection of be’ulātum-loans
-Aššur-mutabbil 30š
-Aḫ-šalim 30š
-Amurrum-bāni 25š
104
To review, the two letters of receipt document consecutive stages in collecting the
claims on silver for which the lots were sold. At the writing of 2.3, Šalim-aḫum had received
notice that the remaining portion of Aḫ-šalim’s cargo (Lot #4) had been sold. The claim on Lot
#3, sold on ‘short-term’ credit, had come due and most of it had been collected, and that silver
had been brought back by Šū-Suen and Aššur-mālik. Apparently having had the the debt notes
or copies, Šalim-aḫum took care to note that the claim on Lot #1 was either due or would be
due by the time his letter arrived. Later, at the writing of 2.4, the claim on Lot #1 had fallen
due, and it is likely that the additional silver sent with Dān-Aššur, Ilī-ālum, and Kurub-Ištar
included silver collected from that claim. Again, Šalim-aḫum took care to note that the claims
on Lots # 2 and #4 were due or coming due before this second letter would arrive in Kanesh. He
stressed that all the claims he had listed as coming due in the first letter of receipt were now
past due and reiterated his instructions to the agents to collect the silver and not to heed
promises to pay the interest.
There is no question that the two letters derive from the same venture as Nūr-Ištar’s
bill of lading and the caravan account, but details cited by Šalim-aḫum don’t always agree.
Some figures agree exactly across the documents. For example, the amount owed by Lulu son
of Zukuḫum in the second letter of receipt, 28 minas 27 shekels, matches exactly the amount
for which Lot #1 sold in the caravan account, revealing the Lulu as the buyer. On the other
hand, the remaining tin sold from Aḫ-šalim’s cargo, Lot #4, was quoted as 12 minas 35⅔ shekels
in the first letter of receipt but only 7 minas 35⅔ shekels in the second. And Šalim-aḫum
identified the claim on Lot #3 as part of Aḫ-šalim’s transport in the first letter of receipt, but
with a transport of Pūšu-kēn in the second letter. Significant variation in detail between the
letters suggests that if merchants kept careful track of their outstanding assets, it was not
105
always necessary to communicate with absolute precision. This trend has important
consequences for reconstructing particular events, which will be addressed later in the
discussion section.
Though some details remain elusive, the basic narrative of the venture and the
sequence in which these four documents occur within the development of the venture are
clear:
 Šalim-aḫum sent a shipment of goods to his agents in Kanesh. At departure, Nūr-
Ištar’s bill of lading (2.1) was inserted into his donkey’s pack.
 When the caravan arrived in Kanesh and the bulk of the goods sold, the agents sent
Šalim-aḫum a report (2.2).
 When the agents had collected the first claim, they sent it to Šalim-aḫum in Aššur
and
 he wrote the first letter of receipt (2.3).
 When the agents later collected more silver, including the claim on Lot #3, they sent
it back to Šalim-aḫum and
 he wrote the second letter of receipt (2.4).
The Durḫumit Debts
In 2.3 Šalim-aḫum discussed several persons bringing things to Kanesh and requested
news on the clearance of goods transported by Dān-Aššur, Aššur-mālik son of Erraya, and a
man designated as the son of Šū-Enlil. He also discussed a will, requesting that Lā-qēpum and
Pūšu-kēn acquire it and send it to him. 2.4 is comparably straightforward: all merchants with
terms due were to pay, and it seems all outstanding claims worth mentioning were due except
106
those associated with the caravan of Lā-qēpum.37 Also, Šalim-aḫum asked that the agents send
Dān-Aššur and his brother back home, and some details were set out with regards to the claims
deriving from Durḫumit, the city to the north of Kanesh in the copper mining area. Two more
letters also discuss these debts and help to clarify the situation.
Document 2.5 – POAT 19: First Durḫumit Letter38
a-na La-qé-pí-im ù Pu-šu-ke-en6
qí-bi-ma a-ḫu-ú-a a-tú-nu
AN.NA-ki ù TÚG.ḪI.A39
5 la i-na-ki-mu a-na
u4-me-e | qú-ur-bu-tim
9 GÍN.TA ù e-li-iš
dì-na ù ša u4-me-e pá-tí-ú-tim
ma-lá | ta-da-nim dí-na
10 lu-qú-ti lu ša šé-ep
DUMU Èr-ra-a lu ša Dan-A-šùr
ìr-de8-a-ni40 lu ša ILLAT-at
DUMU Šu-dEn-líl AN.NA-ki
lo.e. ù TUG.ḪI.A ma-lá | iz-ku-ú-ni-ni
15 té-er-ta-ak-nu
rev. li-li-kam 5 TÚG ku-sí-tum
1 TÚG ni-ib-ra-ru-um
ša šé-ep Dan-A-šùr ù ší-im
ANŠE.ḪI.A ma-lá ta-áš-a-ma-ni
37
What Šalim-aḫum means by the caravan of Lā-qēpum is discussed in Chapter Five.
38
Copy in H. Lewy, "Old Assyrian Texts in the University Museum," HUCA 39 (1969):32f. Previous edition:
W.C. Gwaltney, POAT, Nr. 19.
39
Hecker prefers TUG.ḪI-a representing šubātū’ā (also in line 14), K. Hecker, "Review of Gwaltney, W.C,
The Pensylvannia Old Assyrian Texts," review of POAT, AfO 31 (1984):84 However, there is a relatively free
interchange between ḪI and ḪI.A, and while Hecker’s suggestion is equally valid, the least-marked form is
preferred here.
40
Hecker, AfO 31 (1984):84.
107
20 té-er-ta-ak-nu li-li-kam
30⅓ ma-na 7 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR
[u4]-me-e ša ta-áš-pu-ra-ni
[10] ma-na 10 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR ša me-er-e
A-šùr-UTU-ši 5 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR
25 ša Ḫi-na-a mì-ma a-nim
ša-áš-qí-lá-ma i-na
pá-nim-ma šé-bi-lá-nim
ṭup-pu-um ša ší-ma-at
A-šùr-i-mì-tí i-na Ḫu-ra-ma
30 iš-tí Ša-lim-A-šùr DUMU En-um-A-[šùr]
i-ba-ší šu-up-ra-ma ṭup-pá-am
lu-ub-lu-ni-ku-nu-tí-ma
le.e. ṭup-pá-am i-na qà-nu-e lá-wi-a-ma
[da]-am-qí-iš a-na DUMU um-mì-a-nim
35 [ke]-nim pí-iq-da-ma lu-ub-lam a-na
wa-bi4-il5 ṭup-[pì]-im KÙ.BABBAR 1 [GÍN] i-na [KÙ.BABBAR]
dí-na-šu-um [ x x ] ù? ša? [ x x ]
1-3
Šalim-aḫum to Lāqēpum and Pūsu-kēn:
3-20
My dear brothers, my tin and textiles should not be stocked up.41 Sell (the tin) on short-
term credit at a rate of 9 shekels or higher. Otherwise sell as much as can be sold on long-term
credit. Let your report come as to how much of my good—those from the cargo of Erraya’s son
(Aššur-mālik), those that Dān-Aššur drove, and those from the caravan of Šū-Enlil’s son42—
(that is) my tin and textiles, cleared (the palace). Let your report come (on) the five kusītum-
robes, the 1 nibrarum-textile from the cargo of Dān-Aššur, and the price of the donkeys, as
much as you bought.
41
Translation ‘stock up’ follows CAD (nakāmu v. usage c) in preference over Gwaltney, cf. Hecker, "Review
of Gwaltney, W.C, The Pensylvannia Old Assyrian Texts," 84.
42
Five different sons of one or another Šū-Enlil are known in the Old Assyrian corpus, three attested
commonly (Aššur-nādā, Aššur-taklāku, Ennum-Aššur) and two attested only once (Aššur-mālik (c/k 1502), Puzur-
Aššur (TC 3 41)). Aššur-taklāku is attested in association with a caravan (illat Aššur-taklāku mēr Šū-Enlil, kt a/k
381:22-23), and Ennum-Aššur is attested filling the role of transporter (TC 1 19, TC 3 73).
108
21-27
As for the 30 minas 27 shekels silver on terms about which you wrote me: 10 minas 10
shekels silver of the sons of Aššur-šamšī and 5 minas silver of Ḫinnaya, have all this paid and
send it to me at the first opportunity.
28-36
A tablet recording the will of Aššur-imittī is with Šalim-Aššur son of Ennum-Aššur in
Ḫurrama. Send to him to have the tablet brought to you. Wrap up the tablet in straw, and
carefully entrust (it) to a reliable mēr umme’ānum so that he may bring it to me.43 Give a shekel
of silver to the bearer of the tablet. …
Document 2.6 – TC 1 14 : Second Durḫumit Letter44
a-na La-qé-pí-im
Ì-lí-a-lim ù Pu-šu-ke-en6
qí-bi-ma | u4-mu-ú
5 DAM.GÀR-ri-a ša i-na
Kà-ni-iš | ta-qí-pá-ni
ma-al-ú | iḫ-da-ma
DAM.GÀR-ri KÙ.BABBAR ša-áš-qí-lá-ma
ku-un-kà-ma i-na
10 pá-nim-ma | šé-bi-lá-nim
Dan-A-šùr ù a-ḫu-šu
ṭur-da-nim | i-na
DAM.GÀR ša u4-mu-šu
e-tí-qú-ni KÙ.BABBAR ú ṣi-ba-sú
15 lo.e. ša-áš-qí-la
la ta-ša-me-a šu-ma
rev. la ILLAT-at | La-qé-pí-im
lu-qú-ti | ša ta-qí-pá-ni
u4-mu-ú | DAM.GÀR-ri
20 šu-nu-tí | a-ḫu-ru-ni
43
Translation follows Veenhof, AOATT, 28.
44
Previous treatments: AHK, 18.; J. Lewy, Studien zu den altassyrischen Texten aus Kappadokien (Berlin: J.
Lewy, 1922), Nr. 13.; van der Meer, Correspondance, Nr. 24. (who recognized the connection between this text and
2.4), and Driver, "Studies," Nr. 9.
109
ša mì-ma | DAM.GÀR-ri-a
u4-mu-šu-nu | ma-al-ú
10½ ma-na KÙ.BABBAR ša me-er-e
A-šur-UTU-ši DUMU Ib-ni-ì-lí
25 ša ki-ma šu-nu-tí
La-qé-pá-am e-pu-lu
21 ma-na ša Ḫi-na-a
i-na Dur4-ḫu-mì-it
i-qí-pu-ni
30 u4-mu-šu-nu | ma-al-ú
te9-er-ta-ku-nu «a-na!»
u.e. li-li-ik
1-4
Šalim-aḫum to Lā-qēpum, Ili-ālim, and Pūsu-kēn:
4-10
The term of my merchant to whom you extended credit in Kanesh is full. Take care
to make my merchant pay the silver, seal it, and send it to me with the first departing
traveller.
11-12
Dispatch Dān-Aššur and his brother to me.
12-32
From the merchant whose term has expired, make him pay the silver and its
interest. Don’t listen (to the interest). Except for the caravan of Lā-qēpum, my goods which
you sold on credit—the terms of the merchants, those which are still running, of all of my
merchants—their terms are full. 10 ½ minas silver of the sons of Aššur-šamšī son of Ibni-ilī,
their representatives will balance Lā-qēpum. 21 minas which Ḫinnaya extended as credit in
Durḫumit, their terms are full. Let your report come.
Three debts owed by Aššur-šamšī and his sons, Ḫinnaya and Amur-Ištar, are noted as
due in 2.3 (l. 19-27), combined into two entries in the second letter 2.4 (l. 10-17), and
constitute claims arising from other ventures. In 2.3, the relevant section is broken: Šalim-
aḫum mentioned the debts of several persons which only become clear through comparison
with 2.4. The Durḫumit letters are immediately helpful in clarifying the three debts
110
mentioned in the first and second letters of receipt. Three separate parties owed Šalim-aḫum
the following amounts (some of which have not yet been discussed):
(1) Aššur-šamšī’s sons owed a combined total close to 10 minas 10 shekels silver.
a. Ibni-ilī owed 4 minas 34¾ shekels silver plus a small unknown additional
amount.
b. Pilaḫ-Aššur owed 5 minas 16⅔ shekels silver.
(2) An unknown party to which Ḫinnaya extended credit owed 21 minas 17 shekels
silver.
(3) Amur-Ištar owed 5 minas silver, for which Ḫinnaya was responsible to pay (2.3:25-
27, 2.4:13-17, 2.5:24-25).
The debts of Aššur-Šamšī’s sons and the unknown party are mentioned alongside each
other and occasionally combined. By separating the amount owed by Aššur-šamšī’s sons,
which is listed in letter 2.7 (discussed below), we can determine the amount owed by the
unknown party. These debts as they are recorded in letters 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 are listed in
the following table.
Table 5: Listed Amounts of Aššur-šamšī’s Sons and the Unknown Party’s Debts
Aššur-šamšī’s sons Unknown Party
2.3 :19-24 10m 10š :24-25 21m [(17š)]
2.4 :10-12 31½m (combined)
:21-22 31m 27š (combined)
2.5
:23-24 10m 10š
2.6 :23-26 10½m :27-29 21m
(m=minas š=shekels)
111
The 31½ minas mentioned in 2.4 (l. 10-12) as the combined amount of the two debts is
an approximation of the more precisely expressed 31 minas 27 shekels reported in 2.5 (l. 21-
22). Likewise, the 10 ½ minas in 2.6 (l. 23-26) as the debt of Aššur-šamšī’s sons must be an
approximation of the more precisely expressed 10 minas 10 shekels reported in 2.3 (l. 19-24)
and 2.5 (l. 23-24). Therefore the 21 minas silver attributed to the unknown party in 2.6 (l. 27-
29) must be an approximation of a debt of 21 minas 17 shekels: the unexpressed result of
subtracting the more precisely expressed 10 minas 10 shekels from the more precisely
expressed combined amount both in 2.5 and perhaps recorded in the partially broken section
2.3 (l. 24-25). This derived amount, 21 minas 17 shekels, illustrates how Šalim-aḫum used
varying precision in expressing these amounts, suggesting some uncertainty into how precise
they really were.
The uncertainty about the expressed amounts is compounded when we turn to the
debts of Aššur-šamšī’s sons. The more precisely expressed amount of 10 minas 10 shekels silver
represents an approximated combination of the two sons’ debts mentioned in letter 2.7 below.
More information on their repayment was certainly recorded in the broken section of 2.3.
Aššur-šamsī’s sons seem to have had a representative identified as the son of Šū-Enlil (2.3:23)
who was to be involved in repaying the debt to Lā-qēpum (2.3:19-24, 2.6:23-26, see note 30 on
p. 98).
While the first four documents in the chapter can easily be arranged in chronological
order, the two Durḫumit letters (2.5 and 2.6) were written close together, making a
determination of their order more difficult; they are presented here in their probable
chronological order. In 2.5, Šalim-aḫum responded to an initial inquiry about the combined
claims related to Aššur-šamšī’s sons and Ḫinnaya, saying: “As for the 30 ½ minas about which
112
you wrote me … have all this paid and send it to me at the first opportunity” (2.5:21-27). In
2.6, he wrote of the same claims: “Their terms are full. Let your report come” (2.6:24-32).
Other activities referenced in the two letters also suggest this order. In 2.5, Šalim-aḫum asked
for a caravan account on goods which his son Dān-Aššur brought to Kanesh. In 2.6, Šalim-
aḫum asked the agents to send Dān-Aššur home. When Šalim-aḫum wrote 2.4 he
acknowledged that Dān-Aššur had returned to Aššur with some of his silver.45
Finally, one more letter is presented as a potential addition to the documentary record
of the original venture. Letter 2.7 was written by a man named Ḫinnaya to Lā-qēpum, Pūšu-
kēn, and one other associate and may provide information on the due date for Aššur-šamšī’s
two sons’ debts mentioned in 2.5 and 2.6. Ḫinnaya reported the date of origination and a due
date expressed in weeks of two debts owed by persons who can be plausibly identified as
Hinnaya’s sons with a total amount that, with the addition of a small unknown amount, would
be essentially equivalent to the amounts listed in 2.5 and 2.6. To the extent that these debts
may have been the same as those reported in 2.5 and 2.6, the original venture can be
anchored to a specific point in time.
Document 2.7 – CCT 6 20c: Aššur-šamšī’s sons’ debts46
1 um-ma Ḫi-na-a-ma a-[na]

La-qé-pí-im Pu-šu-[ke]-en6
ù Ištar-pì-lá-aḫ
qí-bi4-ma 4½ ma-na 4½ GÍN 15 ŠE
5 KÙ.BABBAR | ṣa-ru-pá-am
Ib-ni-lí
a-na Ša-lim-a-ḫi-im
45
When compared with the overall progression of the venture, the absence and then presence of Ilī-ālum
as one of the correspondents also makes sense in this chronological order. See below p. 123.
46
I am not aware of any previous treatments of this letter.
113
ḫa-bu-lu i-ma-la
u4-me-šu ša E-la-ma
lo.e. 10 i-ša-qú-lu
rev. ú šu-ut i-ša-qal
5 ma-na 16⅔ GÍN
KÙ.BABBAR ṣa-ru-pá-am
Pì-la-aḫ-A-šùr DUMU A-šùr-UTU-ši
15 <a-na> Ša-lim-a-ḫi!-um
DUMU Dan-A-šùr | ḫa-bu-lu
ITU.KAM | Ḫu-bu-ur
li-mu-um
Sú-kà-lí-a | a-na
ue. 20 46 ḫa-am-ša-tim
le.e. i-ša-qal <IGI> DUMU Puzur4-Ištar
mì-ma | AN.NA
ša Ša-<lim>-a-ḫi-im
E-lá ub-lam
1-4
Ḫinnaya to Lā-qēpum, Pūšu-kēn, and Ištar-pilaḫ:
—Ibni-ilī’s debt—
4-11
4 minas 34 ½ shekels 15 grains refined silver Ibni-ilī owes to Šalim-aḫum; he will also pay
whatever Ela pays at the completion of his term.47
—Pilaḫ -Aššur’s debt—

12-21
5 minas 16⅔ shekels refined silver Pilaḫ-Aššur son of Aššur-šamšī owes to Šalim-aḫum
son of Dān-Aššur. REL 79 VII. He will pay in 46 ḫamuštum weeks.
21
<Witness:> Son of Puzur-Ištar.48
22
Ela brought all the tin belonging to Šalim-aḫum.
47
I take 4 ½ mana … ḫabbulu (D stative subjunctive) as an asyndetic relative clause followed by i-mala
ūmēšu ša Ela-ma išaqqulu u šūt išaqqal, where mala is a substantive “fullness” in construct with ūmēšu. Expressing
the sentiment ‘paying in full’ with the verb malā’um is done with the D-stem, which prevents reading i-ma-la as a
present form of the verb.
48
Puzur-Ištar’s son must have functioned as a witness in the original debt note which is being loosely
quoted in an abbrevated form here.
114
This letter documents the two individual debts of Aššur-šamšī’s sons, Pilaḫ-Aššur and
Ibni-ilī, combined and expressed as 10 mina 10 shekels in the documents previously reviewed.49
Though the sons owed an expressed total of 9 minas 51 5/12 shekels, if Ela owed a be’ulātum
loan for delivering Šalim-aḫum’s tin (see 2.7:22-24), then Ibni-ilī must have owed very close to
the 10 minas 10 shekels cited in the Durḫumit letters. Ḫinnaya took a coordinating role in this
letter, reporting credit extended to Aššur-šamšī’s sons; this fits well with Ḫinnaya’s role as one
of the main coordinating representatives for Šalim-aḫum in Durḫumit, as expressed in the
other two Durḫumit letters. In 2.4 Šalim-aḫum told Pūšu-kēn to write to Ḫinnaya in Durḫumit
concerning these debts (l. 16-17).
The fact that Ibni-ilī and Pilaḫ-Aššur owed debts to Šalim-aḫum coordinated by
Ḫinnaya and totaling close to 10 minas silver plausibly connects 2.7 with the other letters of
the original venture. However there are no other activities mentioned in the letter with which
to connect other activities in the original venture. If all the original venture documents were
dated, then it would be much easier to determine whether we can associate 2.7 with the rest
of the original venture. However, if 2.7 is connected, the due date of Pilaḫ-Aššur’s loan in
49
Though not expressed in this letter, Ibni-ilī is certainly the son of Aššur-šamšī and brother of Pilaḫ-
Aššur: this is well attested in Šalim-aḫum’s own sons’ documents (AKT 3 110, v/k 177:1). In one of the texts
stemming from Šalim-aḫum’s sons’ texts, a letter addressed to Idnaya, Lā-qēpum, Pilaḫ-Aššur, and Ibni-ilī
instructs Alili’s representatives (Idnaya and Lā-qēpum) to take their principal’s share from the silver being
delivered by Aššur-šamšī. Pilaḫ-Aššur and Ibni-ilī must have been associates of Aššur-šamšī (AKT 3 110). While it’s
more likely to see this Aššur-šamšī as a son of either of the two, the father’s name recurring in the family line is
suggestive. Ibni-ilī’s parentage is also attested in several ‘old texts’ (TC 1 107:6-7, TC 3 272:24-5), and elsewhere
(75/k 68:5-6 and kt 91/k 485:21). Moreover Aššur-šamši’s own father was named Ibn-ilī, as shown in 2.6 (l. 24).
Papponomy is known among the Old Assyrian merchants. See J. Eidem, "In the Names of Aššur!," in Studies
Larsen.:191-203 The only other patronym known for Ibni-ilī is Al-ṭāb, restricted to the 91/k archive (kt 91/k 132:1
and kt 1/k 200:15).
115
2.7—46 ḫamuštum weeks after REL 79 VII—places the original venture in the shipping season
during REL 80.
In accordance with the explanation of the reconstruction in the introduction, the
summary series of events for the original venture is as follows:
Table 6: Summary Table of Events from the Original Venture
Nūr-Ištar s. Iddi(n)-Ištar, Aššur-mutabbil, Aḫ-šalim, s. Erra-iddi(n), and Amurru-bāni

OV1 s. Kurub-Ištar travel to Kanesh taking goods listed in Table 2 for Šalim-aḫum and
arriving at roughly the same time (2.1, 2.2).
OV2 Lā-qēpum, Pūšu-kēn, and Ilī-ālum sell most of the goods brought by the transporters
in three Lots (listed in Table 3) and report these in a caravan account, of which 2.2
is a copy.
OV3 Lā-qēpum, Pūšu-kēn, and Ilī-ālum (one, two, or all of them) later sell the remainder
of the goods listed as Lot #4 in Table 3. This fact is communicated to Šalim-aḫum
(probably in writing) (2.3:4-8, 2.4:40-44).
OV4 Aššur-mālik s. Erra-iddi(n), Dān-Aššur, and the caravan of s. Šū-Enlil depart for
Kanesh at roughly the same time.
A  Dān-Aššur’s cargo includes 5 kusītum robes and 1 nibrārum textile (2.5:10-20).
OV5 Šalim-aḫum sends two different letters asking for news on the disposal of goods
brought by Aššur-mālik s. Erra-iddi(n), Dān-Aššur, and s. Šū-Enlil (2.5, 2.6).
A  He asks Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn to get the will of Aššur-imittī which is with
Šalim-Aššur s. Ennum-Aššur in Ḫurrama (2.5:28-36).
B  In the second letter Šalim-aḫum asks Lā-qēpum, Pūšu-kēn, and Ilī-ālum to
collect on the merchant (2.6:4-10).
C  He asks they send Dān-Aššur and his brother (Ennam-Aššur) back to Aššur
(2.6:11-12).
D  He mentions the caravan of Lā-qēpum (2.6:17-18).
E  He mentions that the Durḫumit debts are due (2.6:23-32).
F  The debts assigned to Aššur-šamšī’s sons fall due around REL 80 IV, about the
same time as the due date for Lot #3.
116
Table 6: Summary Table of Events from the Original Venture, continued
OV6 Lā-qēpum, Pūšu-kēn, and Ilī-ālum (one, two, or all of them) collect some part of the
claim on Lot #3 and send packets of silver with Šū-Suen and Aššur-mālik s. Erra-
iddi(n). Aššur-mālik s. Erra-iddi(n) had to have arrived in Kanesh by the time the
silver was sent back (2.3:9-14).
OV7 Šalim-aḫum receives the silver brought by Šū-Suen and Aššur-mālik s. Erra-iddi(n)
and writes a report (2.3). He tallies outstanding debts due, silver received, and
claims that will be coming due in the proximate future, i.e. the claim on Lot #1
(summarized in left column of Table 4). He mentions the be’ulātum loans of Aššur-
mutabbil, Aḫ-šalim, and Amurru-bāni. He mentions some assets related to Lā-qēpum
and a possible claim on s. Kududu (2.3).
OV8 Lā-qēpum, Pūšu-kēn, and Ilī-ālum (one, two, or all of them) collect silver from the
claim on Lot #1 and presumably receive all or some of the silver of the Durḫumit
debts; then Ilī-ālum takes the collected silver along with Dān-Aššur and Kurub-Ištar
back to Aššur (2.4:6-17, 24-30).
OV9 Šalim-aḫum receives the silver from Ilī-ālum, Dān-Aššur, and Kurub-Ištar and writes
a report (2.4). He tallies outstanding debts due, silver received, and claims that will
be coming due in the proximate future, i.e. the claims on Lots #4 and #2
(summarized in right column of Table 4).
OV10 Lulu’s debt as the claim on Lot #2 falls due.
Temporally Constraining the Original Venture
To review, Šalim-aḫum bought tin and textiles on the market in Aššur and sent the
goods to be sold in Kanesh. His goods were packed on donkeys as cargo of the various
transporters—Erra-iddi(n)’s son, Nūr-Ištar, Aššur-mutabbil, and Aḫ-šalim (assisted by
Amurrum-bāni). When the cargo was packed and as the transporters departed, Šalim-aḫum
sent a notifying letter on ahead of the caravan to his agents. When the transporters arrived in
Kanesh, Šalim-aḫum’s goods entered and cleared customs. His agents sold three lots on credit
117
and dispatched a caravan account to Šalim-aḫum back in Aššur, of which 2.2 is a copy. The
agents later sold the remainder of Aḫ-šalim’s cargo (Lot #4), sending notification. The agents
sold Lot #4 around the same time they collected on the claim from Lot #3 because Šalim-aḫum
acknowledged news of that sale in the letter declaring receipt of the silver collected on Lot #3
(2.3). In the same letter, Šalim-aḫum reminded his agents that the claim on Lot #1 had also
fallen due. This letter travelled to Kanesh and Šalim-aḫum’s agents sent silver back collected
from both the claim on Lot #1 and debts from associates in Duḫumit. Šalim-aḫum wrote
another letter of receipt acknowledging the silver received, expressing what was yet to be
received, and noting that the claims on Lots #2 and #4 were coming due.
The pace at which business was pursued and conducted in large measure determined
the way in which Old Assyrian merchants pursued their trade and coordinated their activities.
One way to approach the temporal reconstruction of the original venture is through
considering that the connection with 2.7 is valid and following the logical chain. If this
connection is valid, the development of the original venture, beginning with the departure of
Nūr-Ištar and the other transporters and continuing through the collection of the claims on
Lots #3 and #1—and the expected collection of the claims on Lots #2 and #4, transpired from
mid-March to mid-September in REL 80. I will begin with a figure laying out the development
of the original venture and marking the bill of lading (2.1), caravan account (2.2), and two
letters of receipt (2.3 and 2.4) so as to clarify the temporal relationships between the events.
However, even if 2.7 was not connected to the original venture, the original venture must
have transpored within the course of a single season. After exploring the particular
configuration suggested for REL 80, I will show by appealing to the scenarios that don’t work
118
for REL 80 and the internal documentation of the original venture that it must have developed
continuously within the frame of one shipping season.
In order to represent the development of the original venture, I will use a figure which
represents space and time in the Old Assyrian trade.
119
Figure 6 Chronological Development of the Original Venture
Passes Open Passes Close

March April May June July August September October November December
D
REL 80 III
R 80 XII
Pilaḫ-Aššur’s du
ue date
46 ḫamuštums after REL 79 VII (2.7
2.7)
Lotss #1-3
#1 sold Lot #4 sold Lot #3 due Lot #1 due Lots #2 & #4 due
d
Kanesh
2 .2
Šū-S
Dān-
A
Passes
uen,
Report: L
ššur,
Aš
I
š
l ī
u
-
en
ā
ns
-Su
ot #4 sold
120
r-mā
lum,
anio
lik
u r, Šū
Kur
omp
Aš
ub-I
r&c
a
Dān-
štar
r-Išt
ū
2.1 N
2.3
2.5 & 2.66

2.4
Aššur
Key
Shipment Packet
Letter Lost Letter of Goods of Silver
The only potentially datable event in the original venture correspondence is Pilaḫ-
Aššur’s debt in Ḫinnaya’s letter to Pūšu-kēn (2.7). This leads to the argument that Pilaḫ-
Aššur’s term suggests that the ḫamuštum week was seven days long. With this in mind, Pilaḫ-
Aššur’s due date forms the point at which we can work out the pace of the events of the
original venture. I’ll begin with Pilaḫ-Aššur’s debt in 2.7 first, then work backwards to the two
Durḫumit letters (2.5 and 2.6), then move to the development of the original venture.
If 2.7 is connected to the original venture, the due date for Pilaḫ-Aššur’s debt can be
estimated to be mid-June of REL 80 (ca. second week of REL 80 VI). This is determined by both
the range of dates valid for the origination of the loan and the length of the ḫamuštum week.
The two current postulated lengths for the ḫamuštum period are 5 and 7 days.50 Because REL 79
did not have an intercalary month between its twelfth month and the first month of REL 80, a
5-day ḫamuštum week predicts a due date between the beginning of March (REL 80 II 23/24)
and the beginning of April (REL 80 III 22/23); a 7-day ḫamuštum yields a due date between first
week of June (REL 80 V 27) and the first week of July (REL 80 VI 26). If the ḫamuštum was 5 days,
then the loan would have fallen due before the spring opening of the passes through the
Taurus Mountains between Aššur and the Anatolian plateau. If the 7-day ḫamuštum is correct,
then the loan would have fallen due two or possibly three months after the passes opened.51
The two different dates would suggest rather different tracks for the development of
the original venture. The 7-day ḫamuštum permits a plausible course of development. The four
transporters departed near the beginning of the shipping season in mid-March of REL 80 and
50
K.R. Veenhof, "The Old Assyrian Hamuštum Period: A seven-day week," JEOL 34 (1996).
51
Old Assyrian months were lunar months, thus the initiation of each month correlated to the
observation or expected observation of the new moon; the average month was 29.5 days long. These parameters
(the timing of the new year, the length of time the passes were closed, etc.) are more fully discussed, including
other arguments for the 7 day ḫamuštum week, in Chapter Four.
121
the due date of Pilaḫ-Aššur’s debt was due between the first weeks of June and July (the term
length being at most three months). To begin with, it’s important to clarify the relationship
between the due date of Pilaḫ-Aššur’s debt, and presumably that of his brothers, to the two
Durḫumit letters (2.5 and 2.6). In the first Durḫumit letter, Šalim-aḫum assumes that the time
has sufficiently transpired to expect that the debt should be collected. In the second letter, he
states that the terms on the claims are full. Obviously, with such constant communication Old
Assyrian merchants must have had a good sense of how long it took for their letters to get to
Kanesh. Waiting to write a letter about a claim until the actual date that the claim was due
would be ineffective, and would significantly slow down the pace of commerce. As a result, it is
likely that the first Durḫumit letter (2.5) was written before the actual due date, and that its
arrival would correspond roughly with the due date, though it could have preceeded it by a
week or even followed by more. The second Durḫumit letter (2.6) would have followed the due
date by some time.
To this caution we must add the ambiguity of the due date itself, expressed in ḫamuštum
weeks and anchored to simply REL 79 VII. It is possible that references specifying only a month
could mean that the transaction took place at the beginning of the month and thus Pilaḫ-
Aššur’s debt would have been due around the first week of June in REL 80. It has also been
suggested that the resolution of dates in debt notes, expressed no more precisely than in
weeks, implied a periodicity to the trade revolving around a weekly turnover.52
Proceeding with these provisos, the chronological relationship of the Durḫumit letters
to the original venture can be articulated by focusing on the Durḫumit debts and the travels of
52
For a good discussion of these problems with dating, see Veenhof, "The Old Assyrian Hamuštum Period:
A seven-day week."
122
Dān-Aššur and Aššur-mālik. In the first place, the two Durḫumit letters (2.5 and 2.6) were
clearly written before the second letter of receipt (2.4) because by that time, Šalim-aḫum had
received at least part of the payments he was asking for in the Durḫumit letters. Also, by the
time of the second letter of receipt, Dān-Aššur had returned back to Aššur, which Šalim-aḫum
had requested in the second Durḫumit letter (2.6). The peregrinations of Aššur-mālik push the
writing of the two Durḫumit letters even further back in the process of the original venture.
Šalim-aḫum had asked in the first Durḫumit letter about Aššur-mālik’s arrival in Kanesh,
requesting details about the disposal of goods he was transporting, at the same time he stated
that Pilaḫ-Aššur’s debt was coming due. Then, Pūšu-kēn sent Aššur-mālik back to Aššur with
the silver for Lot #3 (see fig. 2). Thus, the due date of Pilaḫ-Aššur’s debt can be matched to
roughly the same time as the due date of the claim on Lot #3 through Aššur-mālik’s arrival in
Kanesh.
This proposition is also supported by the appearance of Ilī-ālum in the addressee
position of Šalim-aḫum’s letters. In the first Durḫumit letter, Šalim-aḫum did not address Ilī-
ālum, but he did in the second. Šalim-aḫum did not learn that Ilī-ālum was participating in the
venture until he received the caravan account, which Ilī-ālum participated in composing. Ilī-
ālum’s peripheral role as an agent for Šalim-aḫum is further reinforced by the fact that he
brought back silver to Aššur, as seen in the second letter of receipt (2.4). Šalim-aḫum did not
address the letter to him, but acknowledged that Ilī-ālum had just brought silver.
On the other hand, a 5-day ḫamuštum would yield a due date just before the opening of
the passes—at the latest. In this case, Šalim-aḫum would have sent off the two Durḫumit letters
(2.5 and 2.6) just as the passes opened. In turn, this alternate scenario would imply that Nūr-
Ištar and the other three transporters must have travelled to Kanesh in the previous shipping
123
season (REL 79) because the due date of Pilaḫ-Aššur’s debt roughly coincides with the due date
of the claim on Lot #3 (2.3:15-35 and 2.6:12-32). This situation would demand that the ‘short
term’ claim on Lot #3 spanned the four-month winter and the caravan account (2.2) would
have had to get back to Aššur during this period or before the passes closed so that Šalim-
aḫum would have known that he indeed had a claim coming due at the very beginning of the
season. This scenario uncomfortably stretches the supposed time for the ‘short-term’ credit in
comparison with ‘long-term’ credit. Nūr-Ištar and the other three transporters could have
arrived in Kanesh before the passes closed in time for the caravan account to travel back to
Aššur. But this would only further pressure the length of the ‘short-term’ credit claim.
If 2.7 provides evidence to date the original venture, even with the cautions
necessarily associated with the figure above, there is a sense of the trade’s brisk tempo of
action and communication. For example, the claims of the original venture can roughly be
correlated to multiple round trips of letters. As a result, the timeline largely becomes a
function of two independent but unknown variables. The first variable is the the time it takes
for the letters to travel; the second is the time between letters—or in terms of the claims, how
long it took to sell the first three lots, and how long it took to collect the claims when they
came due.
Even without 2.7 the internal evidence of the original venture suggests that the
venture developed within the framework of a single shipping season. The first three letters of
this original venture all reveal that Šalim-aḫum expected his goods to sell soon after arrival
and it seems they did. In the first place, notifying messages were regularly sent ahead of
shipments. Šalim-aḫum and other merchants must have sent such letters with an expectation
that the information provided would enable their agents to begin attracting buyers even
124
before the goods arrived. In the bill of lading, Šalim-aḫum told his agents in one breath to
report both on the arrival of goods and their sale, as when asking about Dān-Aššur and Aššur-
mālik in the first Durḫumit letter (2.5:10-16). Likewise, Šalim-aḫum’s agents acted in
accordance with Šalim-aḫum’s expectation that the caravan account be written soon after the
goods arrive. Though they had sold Lots #1-3 by the time they wrote the caravan account, they
had not yet settled the transporting costs with Erra-iddi(n)’s son, nor had they sold the
remaining portion of the cargo brought by Aḫ-šalim.
These expectations about the rate of turnover for investments are consistent with
general practices and specifically with Šalim-aḫum’s expectations about other parts of the
process. There was a general desire among Old Assyrian merchants to ship goods and silver
back and forth as quickly as possible. In some letters, the owner of the silver or goods urged his
counterpart on the other end to send the the silver corresponding to anticipated revenues
before the goods even arrived (see 4.5:38ff). As for Šalim-aḫum, he clearly intended his claims
to be collected promptly and in full. He instructed his agents in both letters of receipt and in
the Durḫumit letters (2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6) not to “listen to the interest,” or in other words
permit the merchants to buy extra time by paying the default interest in lieu of the principal
amount.53 Rather he always urged his agents to collect the silver and send it to him.
53
An alternate reading of this expression is to disregard the interest which may have accumulated when
collecting the debt. In this particular case, I have a hard time seeing such an instruction as arising from Šalim-
aḫum. If he is only mentioning debts that are due in the proximal future and therefore not late, but about to be
due, then the interest would be negligible, and concerns about the interest, whether on the part of Šalim-aḫum,
the debtor, or Šalim-aḫum’s agents would have been quite small. This does present a context in which Šalim-
aḫum could say that the interest is unimportant, but this same context cannot ignore that Šalim-aḫum’s principle
desire (I hesitate to use the word interest here, but in my larger discussions about motivations this is the word I
would use) would be focused on the speed of payment. In this case, he would not want a payment of interest to be
offered by the debtor as a ligitimate way of putting of paying the capital.
125
These aspects of Šalim-aḫum’s preferences and the consistency of the development
evident in the letters support the cautious use of letters as temporal markers for particular
events. In general, letters that mentioned the receipt or departure of a good or asset were
occasioned by the receipt or departure; more general remarks were included secondarily. Bills
of lading and notifying letters marked the departure of a shipment from Aššur; and caravan
accounts marked the arrival of goods in Kanesh—written very soon after the goods arrived;
any sales reported in the caravan accounts would have been concluded in that short period.
The writing of letters of receipt, like the ones Šalim-aḫum wrote (2.3 and 2.4), were written
on the occasion of receiving silver in Aššur.
Likewise, Šalim-aḫum’s letters can provide temporal markers for the due dates of his
claims, albeit less precisely. When Šalim-aḫum noted that a claim was coming due, such as in
the Durḫumit letters or in the letters of receipt, then the estimated time of the letter’s arrival
in Kanesh can be loosely tied to the debts he stated as due. When the sole purpose of a letter
was to remind agents to collect debts, the estimated time of arrival of the letter (in the mind of
the writer) would converge most closely with the actual due date of his claim. However, none
of the letters in the original venture were written with this sole purpose in mind. The first
Durḫumit letter (2.5) was written as a response to an inquiry about the debts associated with
Ḫinnaya, and the second Durḫumit letter (2.6), which covers the same debts, was written later.
In both the Durḫumit letters and the letters of receipt (2.3 and 2.4), the letters were
occasioned by some other event than a direct reminder to collect Šalim-aḫum’s claims. Thus
the composition of any given letter is only secondarily related to the due dates they reference;
therefore the chronological relationship between the composition of the letter and the due
date is not direct, and diverges in ways that cannot always be accounted for. At the same time,
126
Šalim-aḫum’s choice of which claims to mention or not mention in the first and second letters
of receipt (2.3 and 2.4) suggests that uncollected debts were not mentioned unless they were
coming due. In the first letter of receipt (2.3), Šalim-aḫum noted that the claim on Lot #1 was
coming due, but not the claims on Lots #2 or #4. These were far enough off in his estimation to
not yet warrant mention. However, when he wrote the second letter of receipt (2.4), the
claims on Lots #2 and #4 were then coming due, therefore he listed them.
This same principle of mentioning proximal events in the letters argues that the entire
development of the original venture transpired within a single season. In the first place, Šalim-
aḫum composed the first letter of receipt (2.3) in such a way that indicated he had (a) just
received news of the sale of Lot #4, (b) just received silver gained from the collection of the
claim on Lot #3, and (c) expected the claim on Lot #1 to be coming due around the time his
letter arrived in Kanesh. Then, Šalim-aḫum wrote the second letter of receipt (2.4) at such a
time when he had (d) just received silver from the collection of the claim on Lot #1, and (e)
expected the claims on Lots #2 and #4 to be collected around the time his letter arrived in
Kanesh. While we have already argued that the first half of the original venture must have
developed continuously, this second half of the original venture must have as well. Whether of
not the original venture took place in REL 80 or some other year, it seems that there was no
simple space during its development in which we might expect winter to have intervened.
127
The Limits of Šalim-aḫum’s Accuracy and Language
In the original venture Šalim-aḫum sent goods to Kanesh, the goods were sold on
credit, and (insofar as we can observe) the collection of the silver proceeded smoothly; two of
Šalim-aḫum’s four claims were collected and the silver sent back to him. This reconstruction of
the original venture forms a previously unafforded view of a central recurring process in the
Old Assyrian trade. It also forms the first step in reconstructing an account of Šalim-aḫum’s
commercial pursuits during this shipping season. The reconstruction of the original venture
provides an opportunity to describe the relationships between the four categories of persons
or parties directly involved in the commercial aspects of Šalim-aḫum’s original venture. The
first party was Šalim-aḫum, owner of the goods. The second party was the group of his agents
in Anatolia: Pūšu-kēn, Lā-qēpum, and Ilī-ālum (and perhaps Ištar-pilaḫ, who appeared as
correspondent in 2.7) in Kanesh, and Ḫinnaya (and perhaps Amur-Ištar) in Durḫumit. The
third party was the group of transporters. The fourth party were the buyers of Šalim-aḫum’s
goods. The basic aspects of the roles played by the first three parties have been well covered.
However, my description of the fourth party as buyers rather than commission agents differs
from other descriptions of the trade. The evidence with which I will argue the nature of the
commercial relationship between the buyers and Šalim-aḫum rests mostly on evidence
peculiar to this reconstruction.
In regards to transport, the legal aspects of the roles played by the owner, agents, and
transporters were well described by Larsen in his study on caravan procedures. Larsen
reconstructed the process of transporting goods between Aššur and Kanesh by gathering a
synchronic group of the three main caravan texts: transport contracts, notifying messages,
128
and caravan accounts (reviewed in Chapter One). In one instance, Larsen was able to identify
three caravan texts which seem to derive from the same transport: Enlil-bani’s agent Dadaya
sent goods from Aššur with Kukkulānum to Enlil-bāni in Kanesh.54 As in Larsen’s review of the
caravan texts, in this reconstruction there is an opportunity to explore the nature of the roles
of the various parties in the original venture, particularly the buyers. But in another way, the
original venture documentation is very different from Enlil-bāni’s caravan texts. The caravan
texts included the transport contract, which defined the legal aspect of the relationship
between the transporter and the owner. The documentation on the original venture includes
no contracts—particularly between Šalim-aḫum and the buyers. Because the original venture
documentation does not include contracts expressing the configuration of the commercial
relationship between the owner and the buyers, it may seem at first glance inferior to the
evidence available on caravan procedures in terms of elucidating the relationship between
parties.
However, the documentation on the original venture does provide a different type of
evidence not afforded by the caravan texts: recurring language in letters about discrete assets,
particularly the owner’s language about his own assets. In the epistolary conversation about
the original venture, Šalim-aḫum referred to his discrete assets in five of the seven documents
(2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6). Šalim-aḫum’s language—the manner in which he refers to his assets
and associates—provides a window into his mental topography of the transactions and
relationships involved in the original venture. With the caravan texts, only the notifying
54
The three documents are: VS 26 102 (VAT 13519) OACP Type 1:1, TC 3 67 OACP Type 2:1, CCT 3 27a OACP
Type 3:1. There is also a duplicate to CCT 3 27a: KTS I 38a. See Larsen, OACP, Chapter 1. In one way, the original
venture forms a parallel example to Larsen’s reconstruction of the transport of Enlil-bāni’s merchandise. In both
cases, multiple documents derive from a particular instantiation of a common process.
129
message offers the potential to see the owner discussing his assets. The transport contracts
were too rigidly composed, and owners did not write caravan accounts about their own goods.
By contrast, in the letters from the original venture aspects of Šalim-aḫum’s language hold
particular advantage for describing the nature of his commercial relationship with the buyers
of his goods. Significantly, Šalim-aḫum referred to his claims on silver in a way that does not
make reference to those who owed him the money. This suggests that the buyers were not
stable members of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial network.
Šalim-aḫum’s language also provides material for exploring the basis on which the
reconstruction of this shipping season can proceed. One aspect of Šalim-aḫum’s language is
the variation in accuracy and precision with which he refers to the amounts of his assets.
Šalim-aḫum’s imprecision is no barrier to the reconstruction of the original venture because so
many different details of the conversation converge and cohesively agree. However, it is
important to understand the possible conditions of Šalim-aḫum’s discrepancies in order to
inform the credibility of the reconstructions in the following chapters.
The remainder of this chapter will deal with these two aspects of Šalim-aḫum’s
language. First, reviewing Šalim-aḫum’s variation in detail provides an opportunity to probe
the basis on which these reconstructions can be verified and the nature of and reason for the
discrepancies. Second, Šalim-aḫum’s manner of referring to his assets suppresses the identity
of those who purchased his goods in Kanesh. Reviewing Šalim-aḫum’s regular omission of the
buyer’s names in this conversation provides an opportunity to discuss what role these buyers
played in Šalim-aḫum’s commercial network.
130
Šalim-aḫum’s Imprecisions
The reconstruction of the original venture benefits from the overlapping references to
the same assets through a number of documents. However, with such overlapping evidence,
one aspect of Šalim-aḫum’s language becomes immediately apparent. Though he referred to
the same assets time and again, his references to them vary in both precision and detail—both
within the documents he wrote, and in comparison with the documents written by others.
These variations are at once interesting and unsettling: interesting because they suggest a
problem with record keeping, a style of accounting (or lack of one), or a lenient attitude
toward precision; unsettling because they complicate our ability to verify reconstructions.
After presenting Šalim-aḫum’s discrepancies and discussing them briefly, I will review the
impact these discrepancies have on further reconstructing Šalim-aḫum’s activities during this
shipping season. Thereafter, I will discuss what factors might have conditioned this aspect of
Šalim-aḫum’s language. The table below lists the various figures for assets owned by Šalim-
aḫum and reported more than once in the original venture documentation.
131
Table 7: Variation in Expressed Amounts of Šalim-aḫum’s Assets in Select Texts
Second Letter of Receipt
Second Durḫumit Letter

First Letter of Receipt
First Durḫumit Letter
Letter from Ḫinnaya

Caravan account
2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7
Claim #1 28m 27š (broken) 28m 27š

Claim #2 31m 18.5š 31m 19š
Claim #3 54m 45š 54m 45š 54m 45.5š
Claim #4 12m 35.6š 7m 35.6š
Silver Packet 1* 31m 30š 31m 45š
Silver Packet 2* 21m 10š 21m 10š
šēp Pūšu-kēn 58m 18.5š 58m 18.5š
Aššur-šamšī’s sons (broken) [10]m 10š 10m 30š 9m 51š**
31 1/2m
Ḫinnaya 21m [x] (21m 17š) 21m
Amur-Ištar (broken) 5m 5m
*Šalim-aḫum’s figures for both silver packets included the shipping costs paid on the silver.
**Sum of the two stated amounts in the text.
There is a range of discrepancies and convergences. Some figures match exactly: the
claim on Lot #1 is cited the same in the caravan account (2.2) and the second letter of receipt
(2.4). Some of the discrepancies are small: there is only a ½ shekel difference between the
figures for the claim on Lot #2 in the caravan account (2.2) and the second letter of receipt
(2.4). One discrepancy is huge: Šalim-aḫum cited the claim on Lot #4 as 12 minas 35⅔ shekels
in the first letter of receipt (2.3) but 7 minas 35⅔ shekels in the second letter of receipt (2.4).
(The two figures no doubt refer to Lot #4: the transporter is the same; the irregular amount of
132
shekels in both prices is an exact match (35⅔); and the overall context matches.55) Most
discrepancies fall somewhere in between the two extremes. Some discrepancies appear to
simply be sloppy accounting: Šalim-aḫum felt no need to be precise when he listed the
shipping charges for the silver packets he received. In the first letter of receipt, Šalim-aḫum
listed silver packet #1 as 31 ½ minas silver plus shipping (2.3:10-11), but in the second second
letter of receipt he recorded 31 minas 15 shekels silver plus ½ mina shipping costs (2.4:18-19).
Likewise, Šalim-aḫum only noted in the second letter of receipt (2.4) that the shipping costs
were part of the 21 minas 10 shekels for silver packet #2. Other discrepancies are perplexing:
Šalim-aḫum’s figure for the claim on Lot#3 (54 minas 45 ½ shekels) in the second letter of
receipt (2.4:3-6) seems like a hyper-correction for the figure (54 minas 45 shekels) in both the
caravan account and first letter of receipt (2.2:53-54, 2.3:9-10).
What is at stake when Šalim-aḫum’s figures vary? Naturally, when different aspects of
an event or asset are reported in different documents we gain valuable information. For
example, it is clear that Aššur-mālik in the first letter of receipt (2.3:12-13) was the same man
as Erraya’s son in the second letter of receipt (2.4:21-23), and not one of the more than one
hundred other men named Aššur-mālik attested in the Old Assyrian corpus. Likewise, Aššur-
šamšī’s sons’ debts and the claims managed by Ḫinnaya in the two letters of receipt (2.3 and
2.4) are more clearly defined when the Durḫumit letters (2.5 and 2.6) are included. But while
some differences in the references to persons or assets offer more information, the
discrepancies between the amounts of the assets cited complicates determining which figures
55
The remaining 61 minas 10 shekels of tin at an 8 shekel rate yields 7 minas 38.7 shekels and matches
well the second quoted price.
133
are valid. It can also frustrate attempts to verify that documents refer to the same discrete
transactions or commercial processes.
The presence of these discrepancies is of far more impact to this diachronically
constructed reconstruction than it was for most previous studies on the Old Assyrian trade.
Because previous studies have relied on synchronically aggregated evidence, whether the
evidence referred to one discrete event was interesting and helpful, but not necessary. Larsen
proposed that the three (or four) caravan texts referring to Enlil-bāni’s goods probably came
from the same discrete circumstances because the same persons appeared in the same roles
with regards to the same amounts of goods. However, at the end of his discussion, he felt that
he could not decisively conclude that the documents came from a single distinct process: “We
cannot know whether another shipment of exactly the same size, involving the same persons,
etc. has been recorded on other tablets lying in the yet undug houses of Kültpe or in museums
or perhaps irretrievably lost”.56
In contrast to synchronically motivated evidence, the present study requires sufficient
confidence about the reconstruction in order to make many of the arguments here and in the
following chapters. The compelling aspect of the reconstruction here is that it offers practice—
Šalim-aḫum and those around him navigated discrete situations largely configured within
social and commercial structures, but situations equally composed of novel contingencies and
risks. How Šalim-aḫum and other correspondents reacted to the contingencies within the
structures—how they exercised their agency—provides entry into the commercial and social
structures refigured and reinforced in the very excercise of that agency. An account of
56
OACP, 19f.
134
practice rather than of forms (of language, of texts), through diachronically rather than
synchronically motivated evidence, comprises the more direct approach to the type of
commercial and social structures with which this study is concerned. Within the frame of
practice, language offers good evidence of Šalim-aḫum’s mental topography. But at the same
time, the reconstructions have to be valid.
Larsen’s concerns about “shipment[s] of exactly the same size” in combination with
Šalim-aḫum’s tendencies to imprecision demonstrate how difficult it can be in recognizing and
verifying reconstructions of other conversations about discrete transactions or circumstances
when there is not the same degree of overlap as in the original venture. Precisely because the
commercial activities were so germane to the trade, and because some regular structures, such
as the donkey-load, dictated that most goods were transported in packages of roughly the
same size, one could initially demand that all figures match exactly in order to have sufficient
confidence that documents stem from the same transactions. Under this demand, if fewer of
the documents from the original venture were preserved, the connections between them
would seem far less secure. For example, if only the first letter of receipt (2.3) and second
Durḫumit letter (2.6) had survived, the connection between the two would be tenuous at best.
Both cite the names of the debtors for the Durḫumit debts, but the letter of receipt is broken in
the pertinent section and the figures for the debts in the Durḫumit letter differ from those that
are preserved in the first letter of receipt. Likewise, if only the caravan account (2.2) and the
first letter of receipt (2.3) had survived, the difference between the way Šalim-aḫum and his
agents expressed the same claims might negate their connection, even if the first letter of
receipt was not broken at key points. Of the three different claims mentioned in the first letter
of receipt, Šalim-aḫum does not include the name of the transporter with the claim on Lot #3,
135
and the claim on Lot# 4 had not yet been sold by the time the caravan account was written.
Furthermore, the incorrect price Šalim-aḫum quotes for Lot #4 (12 minas instead of 7 minas)
would frustrate an attempt to verify the connection between the remaining goods listed in the
caravan account (2.2).
Thus the issue of discrepancies is particularly important to the validity of the activities
reconstructed in this work. The reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial pursuits in this
shipping season has consequences for understanding the temporal nature of the trade in a way
previously unafforded by studies on synchronic evidence. The reconstruction overturns a
claim about the naming of eponyms and reveals a dramatically more aggressive pace of
commerce, both distinct changes from synchronically motivated descriptions. Yet there are
only three dates in the documents in the reconstruction of this shipping season. The strength
of the diachronic reconstruction lies in connecting the documents together in a temporal
fashion through internal analysis; therefore neither the uncertainty nor the indifference that
is permissible with a synchronic set of evidence can be afforded here. Less cautious claims of
connections between texts have been made in the past as the basis for chronological
arguments with unsatisfying consequences. A brief aside can demonstrate this point.
In 1957 Julius Lewy argued that the texts found in Alişar and Boǧazköy belonged to the
period of the Kültepe Level II period rather than the Level Ib period on the strength, among
other things, of common persons mentioned between Alişar and Boǧazköy on the one hand
and Kültepe Level II on the other.57 Lewy’s assertion was made as a response to Kemal Balkan’s
argument that the documents arising from Alişar and Boǧazköy were contemporary with Level
57
J. Lewy, "Apropos of a Recent Study in Old Assyrian Chronology," Orientalia 26 (1957): 16-20.
136
Ib, an argument based mostly on orthographic and linguistic evidence.58 Lewy noted that in
one place Balkan stated that a text in which Da’a appeared (Bo 289/h) exhibited no
grammatical difference from Level II texts but in another place associated Da’a with Level Ib by
association with a man named Nabi-Enlil. Believing Balkan’s grammatical arguments to be ill-
founded, Lewy sought to strengthen the connection of Da’a to Level II. Lewy noted that Da’a
was evidenced in Alişar (OIP 27 15) and Boǧazköy (Bo 289/h, 2017/l, 2018/l, and VAT 7676/EL
34—now KBo 9 6, KBo 9 4, KBo 9 9, and KBo 9 3 respectively). Lewy set out to show that this
Da’a lived during the Level II period by connecting these texts with three Level II texts (EL 232,
ICK I 162, L 29-560 (POAT 7), and ICK I 178) through the co-occurrence of a name Ziki with Da’a
in Bo 289/h. Lewy argued that the Ziki mentioned in both Bo 289/h and EL 232 was the same
person because the name was rarely attested. He then claimed that Nūr-Ištar in both EL 232
and ICK I 162 was the same person, and that a reference to Ḫattum in those texts (the Old
Assyrian period name of Hittite Ḫattuša, ancient Boǧazköy) placed Nūr-Ištar there, reaffirming
the connection with the texts from Boǧazköy where he was named. On that strength, Lewy
noted that Ilabrat-bāni was departing to Ḫattum in L 29-560, when Nūr-Ištar appeared to be in
that text. Lewy argued that the two men met in Ḫattum. Finally, Lewy supported this assertion
by noting that Ilabrat-bāni’s brother, Iddi(n)-Ištar, was also mentioned in connection with
Ḫattum in ICK 1 178. An inaccurate picture of Ziki and Da’a in Ḫattum surrounded by a circle of
people including Nur-Ištar, Ilabrat-bani, and Iddi(n)-Istar—who were all clearly Level II
personalities—emerged.
58
K. Balkan, Observations on the Chronological Problems of the Kārum Kaniš, TTKY Series 7 No. 28 (Ankara:
Turkish Historical Society, 1955).
137
Lewy’s claims were faulty in part because he connected documents based on the rarity
of names (rarely attested at the time of his publication). By contrast, my reconstruction of the
original venture is based on the thorough coherence of the seven documents referring to
particular assets and transactions. But it is important to try to understand the factors that
conditioned Šalim-aḫum’s discrepancies in order to better understand not only which
discrepancies should not affect the validity of the reconstruction, but also what those
discrepancies might reveal.
So what factors might have conditioned the discrepancies evident in the the original
venture documentation? Were there problems with record keeping; was it a loose style of
accounting? Or does it reflect an attitude about the assets to which they refer?
Šalim-aḫum’s assets changed form through the various phases of the venture, first as
goods transported to Anatolia and sold, then as claims on merchants recorded in clay, then as
monies collected and sent back to him. (In American accounting language: first inventory, then
receivables, then cash.) Yet Šalim-aḫum refered to his assets throughout the three phases of
the process by referencing the initial phase. Most often, Šalim-aḫum identified a claim (the
second phase) by referencing its value in silver and the transporter or tranporters that
brought the original goods. Later, when Šalim-aḫum acknowledged receipt of silver he
referenced it by the claim to which the silver corresponded. This aspect of Šalim-aḫum’s
language makes it easier to track assets from the first phase, (transported inventory), through
the second and third phase, (claims and silver collected). Importantly, it also reduces the need
for precise figures in some situations.
Šalim-aḫum’s problem with precision was not likely due to problems with record-
keeping or to lack of records. In the original venture Šalim-aḫum probably had copies of debt
138
notes for his four claims with him in Aššur; his attentiveness in collecting the debts shows he
knew the due dates even though those dates were not conveyed by our extant copy of the
caravan account (2.2). Šalim-aḫum recounted debts due and debts coming due in both letters
of receipt (2.3 and 2.4) in a manner that shows he knew when the debts would come due. Even
if for some reason he did not have the debt notes or their copies, his copy of the caravan
account (as opposed to the extant copy) would had to have included the due dates to his
claims. As a result, if he wanted to record the exact amounts, he could have easily done so,
which makes his errors—especially the quotes of the claim on Lot #4 (7 minas 35⅔ shekels)
differing by 5 minas—all the more noticeable. The completely dissimilar way in which 7 and 12
were written in Old Assyrian orthography precludes a slip of the stylus. Could it have been
some sort of lapsis occuli?
Different sensitivities to accounting do explain the discrepancies between amounts
recorded by Šalim-aḫum and amounts recorded by his representatives. In general, the figures
reported in the caravan account seem to be more precise than those cited by Šalim-aḫum. For
example, Ḫinnaya clearly stated the debts of Aššur-šamšī’s two sons Ibni-ilī and Pilaḫ-Aššur
much more accurately in his letter (2.7) than Šalim-aḫum ever stated in his, where they were
always combined into one figure. Likewise, Pūšu-kēn and company reported the lots sold and
their claims in the caravan account more accurately than did Šalim-aḫum. Šalim-aḫum
rounded Claim #2 from the caravan account up to a whole number of shekels (31 minas 18 ½
shekels to 31 minas 19 shekels). In both documents, Šalim-aḫum’s representatives stated the
exact amount of the claims more judiciously than Šalim-aḫum tended to do.
But Šalim-aḫum’s discrepancies within his own documents show that his attitude
toward precision depended on context. I can identify three different contexts in the original
139
venture documentation within which Šalim-aḫum excercised different sensitivities to
precision. The three contexts are: legal context, accounting context, and simple discussion. In
the first, like in Nūr-Ištar’s bill of lading, the figures stated are legally binding. Both Šalim-
aḫum as the owner and Nūr-Ištar as the transporter would have been interested in ensuring
that the stated amount of cargo was accurate. The same would have applied to the debt notes
(which we do not have) drawn up by Šalim-aḫum’s agents and the buyers. In these legal
contexts, Šalim-aḫum’s interests demanded that the figures be precisely recorded. By contrast,
accuracy did not carry the same consequences in either of the two other contexts. Mistakes
about claims on merchants in either an accounting or discussion context did not affect the
actual status or value of assets. For example, when Pūšu-kēn first read Šalim-aḫum’s gross
error on the Claim #4 in the first letter of receipt (2.3 – as 12 minas 35⅔ shekels silver), he
might have furrowed his brow, but he certainly recognized the claim to which Šalim-aḫum was
referring. Šalim-aḫum’s error did not affect the fact that the buyer was obligated to pay the 7—
not 12—minas.
Particularly in the third context, when writing to Pūšu-kēn and simply discussing
claims, Šalim-aḫum’s main concern was normally only to identify a particular claim by
sufficiently distinguishing it from a finite number of other active claims. Given that principal
and agents were continuously communicating in ongoing epistolary discussions, the difficulty
in identifying any given asset would have been minimal. On some occasions, Šalim-aḫum was
clarifying the amount of a particular claim or its asset. For example, when Šalim-aḫum wrote
to Pūšu-kēn in the first Duḫumit letter (2.5), he was responding to a need for clarification
about the Durḫumit debts; and in this letter Šalim-aḫum stated most accurately the amounts of
Aššur-šamšī’s sons and the unknown party’s debts. Thereafter, when Šalim-aḫum only needed
140
to again refer to the Duḫumit debts, the figures he cited were rounded or even combined (in
2.6 then in 2.3 and 2.4). When the purpose was not to clarify the amount of the asset, Šalim-
aḫum’s only need was to distinguish it. In those cases, the accuracy of the amount was less
important, especially with the added context of the name of the transporter.
Šalim-aḫum’s tendency to round figures in his ongoing letters tempers the stringency
we should expect from references to the same discrete assets in the reconstruction. It was
common for merchants to quantify their tin on the road in terms of ‘talents’ referring to the
šuqlum packs which held slightly more than a talent. Šalim-aḫum certainly did (3.4:14-15).
Obviously, when the amounts were hypothetical, round numbers were appropriate. At one
point Šalim-aḫum asked Pūšu-kēn to buy some goods from him, “Have I not written you
already (saying), ‘Take roughly 1 talent tin or 10 textiles and do me a favor?’” (5.9:12-16).
Likewise, when Šalim-aḫum asked Pūšu-kēn to send silver, he asked for 20 minas (5.3:4-6,
5.2:22-24) or 30 minas silver (5.1:14-16, 32-33, 5.2:14-16). But Šalim-aḫum referred to his own
real assets or claims in this way as well. In two instances Šalim-aḫum simply stated ‘the 30
minas of silver with Aššur-ṭāb (and Uṣur-ša-Aššur)’ (5.9:38-38, 5.10:2-3), which is clearly an
approximation.
The more removed from the immediate or legal context of a particular venture, the
more likely Šalim-aḫum was to further approximate a figure or round a number. Šalim-aḫum
was wont to round figures up or down to a multiple of five or ten when the reference was in
passing. For example, as we will see in Chapter Five, Šalim-aḫum referred to the claim on Lot
#3 from the original venture (27 mina 28 shekels silver on Lulu son of Zukuḫum) as “25 minas
owed by Lulu” (5.9:16-20). Sometimes Šalim-aḫum rounded numbers for rhetorical effect.
When Šalim-aḫum asked Pūšu-kēn to supply 13⅓ minas to a joint venture (5.8) he wrote
141
‘about 10 minas’ in a reminding plea (5.9) to make the request more palatable for Pūšu-kēn,
though he probably still wanted the larger amount. As a result, when reconstructing this
shipping season, it must be acknowledged that when Šalim-aḫum cited a round-number figure
and the figure was not cited in a legal context (contract or loan) or accounting context (a
portion of a letter where Šalim-aḫum was determining outstanding balances), that figure was
likely only an approximation.
But there is something more interesting in Šalim-aḫum’s attitude towards precision in
contexts where he was doing his own accounting. Obviously, Šalim-aḫum did not round his
figures in accounting contexts as he could in a discussion context. However, there are
discrepancies in his figures within the sections of his two letters of receipt where he added up
debts outstanding and silver received. In the first letter of receipt (2.3), Šalim-aḫum made one
error against the caravan account. He approximated some silver he received, but ignored the
shipping costs (his cost), thus inflating the balance outstanding for his representative by 15
shekels.59 In the second letter of receipt (2.4), however, Šalim-aḫum made three errors. The
claims on Lots #2 and #3 were both inflated by ½ shekel, and when he listed two of the
Durḫumit debts as one entry, he inflated that total by three shekels over the total expressed in
the first Durḫumit letter. Šalim-aḫum’s errors are minor, but they may not have been
accidental; all his ‘errors’ are in his favor.
Thus, understanding Šalim-aḫum’s discrepancies as an element of his language forms
an important part of understanding the limited demands we can make on figures to verify
reconstructions. Šalim-aḫum’s representatives seem to be better sources for the actual
59
Šalim-aḫum writes 31 ½ minas with the shipping charge; in the second letter (2.4), it is actually 31
minas 15 shekels with ½ mina shipping.
142
amounts of his assets than himself, except when he composed a document with legal force. In
the original venture, the caravan account (2.2) is the most reliable indicator of the precise
values of the claims on Lots #1, 2, and 3. Ḫinnaya’s letter (2.7) is a more reliable indicator of
Aššur-šamšī’s sons’ debts than Šalim-aḫum’s letters. However, in legal contexts Šalim-aḫum’s
figures are reliable, as in Nūr-Ištar’s bill of lading (2.1). Like the caravan texts gathered in
Larsen’s study, both the bill of lading and caravan account were intended to communicate the
precise nature of assets. But when it comes to Šalim-aḫum’s ongoing correspondence with his
agents, the most common type of documentation throughout the reconstruction of this year,
we cannot demand the same accuracy from Šalim-aḫum’s figures. Often, the amounts he cited
do seem to be precise, but there are occasions when Šalim-aḫum’s only intention was to
identify the claim. In these instances, his approximations were sufficient for himself and his
representatives, and they will have to be so for the reconstruction as well.
Šalim-aḫum’s discrepancies also suggest something about the relationship between
himself and his agents. Though it would appear that the agents were obligated to report Šalim-
aḫum’s assets to him accurately, Šalim-aḫum did not feel a reciprocal obligation in his
accounting operations. Šalim-aḫum’s minor but consistent errors in his favor in the
accounting context did not comprise an outright attempt on Šalim-aḫum’s part to cheat his
representatives. Pūšu-kēn would not likely have been fooled by the small errors, nor do I think
that he would have considered them serious. Sometimes seemingly small amounts of goods or
silver could mean much to Šalim-aḫum. During this season, when Ilabrat-bāni took 6⅓ minas
tin worth about a mina of silver, Šalim-aḫum reacted angrily (Chapter Four). Šalim-aḫum’s
consistent accounting errors suggests that Šalim-aḫum in some way considered his agents to
be privy to accurate reports of his accounts. But the way in which Šalim-aḫum’s language
143
reveals aspects of his commercial relationships with his agents is comparable to the way in
which Šalim-aḫum’s language can be used to better understand Šalim-aḫum’s relationship
with his buyers, whom he sometimes called ‘his’ merchants.
Šalim-aḫum and ‘His’ Merchants
From time to time, an Old Assyrian merchant could refer to a person who owed him
money as ‘his’ merchant; this could be interpreted to suggest a durable relationship with ‘his’
merchant, comparable to when someone says ‘our PN.’60 The merchants in the original venture
which I have called buyers have sometimes been called commission agents in other
descriptions of the Old Assyrian trade. However, Šalim-aḫum’s language and other indicators
portray the buyers in the original venture, like Lulu who bought Lot #1, as neither Šalim-
aḫum’s employed nor ad hoc commission agents. Šalim-aḫum’s language towards the buyers
both before and after the credit sale transactions communicates disinterest in their identity,
suggesting that to whom his goods were sold was not based on his social or commercial
networks. The conduct of the original venture suggests that Šalim-aḫum could operate his
commerce with a minimum number of contacts in Anatolia if he chose.
In the original venture, Šalim-aḫum wrote to Pūšu-kēn, “The term of my merchant to
whom you extended credit in Kanesh is full. Take care to make my merchant pay the silver ...
the terms of the merchants, those which are still running, of all of my merchants—their terms
are full” (2.6:4-8, 19-22). In the letter, Šalim-aḫum was referring to Aššur-šamšī’s sons and the
other Durḫumit debts, but possibly also to the buyer of Lot #3, whose debt was due around the
60
Larsen, OACP 41, 150.
144
same time. Within some descriptions of the Old Assyrian trade, persons like these who took
goods from merchants were described as taking them on commission to sell them elsewhere,
either in different markets within Anatolia or through retail sales.61 This role has been called
either commission or traveling agent, both implying the same phenomenon. According to the
commission agent arrangement, at the time that the seller or his agent turned the goods over
to the commission or travelling agent, a bond would be drawn up stipulating that the
travelling agent would return a set amount of the proceeds by a set time. Whatever proceeds
the travelling agent could procure through the sales of the goods beyond the amount of his
bond would remain the commission agent’s property.
To some extent, my concern with the term commission agent lies in factors external to
the contract itself. Essentially, there is only a slight functional difference between an
commission agent and a buyer: the point at which ownership of the merchandise was
transferred. For example, if Lulu took Šalim-aḫum’s goods on commission, then he did not own
the goods he held, at least until he paid the amount stipulated, after which, if he still had not
sold all the goods, the remaining ones would essentially be his. If Lulu bought the goods on
credit, then he immediately owned the goods and Šalim-aḫum owned a claim on silver.
The nature of the arrangement, however, suggests that Lulu was not Šalim-aḫum’s
commission agent. In the first place, commission agents are primarily employed to provide a
service—to connect a seller and a buyer. In the original venture, Šalim-aḫum already had his
agents Pūšu-kēn and Lā-qēpum, etc., who filled this role. Second, when the buyer like Lulu
agreed to a set price and time which he must pay, the transaction was materially the same
61
This arrangement has been variously described or alluded to in M.T. Larsen, OACC. Veenhof, "Silver and
Credit in Old Assyrian Trade," 208f; K.R. Veenhof, "Prices and Trade: The Old Assyrian Evidence," AoF 15 (1988):
51-52; and K.R. Veenhof, "'Modern Features' in Old Assyrian Trade," JESHO 40 (1997): 347-48.
145
thing as a credit sale unless the seller regularly exercised his right to reclaim the goods if the
bond were not paid in time. However, no such effort of reclamation is known in the Old
Assyrian evidence. At the least, it would seem quite exceptional alongside the ubiquitous
demand for silver (or sometimes gold) which the buyer was contracted to pay. If the well-
attested debt note were the document which recorded the bond for a commission agent, then
the fact that the debt note did not include the original goods exchanged in the text would have
complicated such a reclamation. Third, assuring Šalim-aḫum’s retention of ownership would
have likely required similar procedures to signal such a retention of ownership, similar to the
act of laying hands on merchandise to clearly establish ownership when handing it over to a
transporter. No evidence of such a process in conjunction with the buyers in the original
venture is available. Granted, citing missing evidence is not convincing in and of itself, but
Šalim-aḫum in his letters never said, “Have my merchants sold my goods?” He only said
effectively “Make them pay.”
As a result, the only logical basis on which we might consider Lulu or the other
merchants who took goods in the original venture as commission agents would be if they were
employed by Šalim-aḫum, or if social or network obligations external to the individual
transaction dictated that they were his commission agents. Such a model implies a much
further organizational reach for a firm than was the case with Šalim-aḫum. If Lulu and others
were employed by Šalim-aḫum, or if they had durable relationships with him that predisposed
them to take his goods on commission, then Šalim-aḫum’s operation would have to have been
configured to coordinate all the phases of the trade, starting with acquiring tin and textiles on
the market at Aššur, to selling the goods retail across Anatolia. The designation of commission
146
agent as travelling agent particularly implies this configuration of operations for the Old
Assyrian firm.
However, Šalim-aḫum’s attitude towards the identity of the buyers works against any
organizational model wherein Lulu and the other buyers were chosen because of their
connection to Šalim-aḫum. Before the transaction, Šalim-aḫum regularly left the selection of
the buyer to the domain of his representatives. When the original venture began, Šalim-aḫum
made no effort to designate who the buyers of Nūr-Ištar’s goods might be. He wrote of the
buyers, “Your merchants must be reliable” (2.1). (Note here they are not ‘his’ merchants, but
those of his representatives.) This instruction is a typical refrain for Šalim-aḫum’s notifying
messages (3.7:13-21). It was entirely his agent’s responsibility to evaluate the reliability of the
merchants to whom they sold his goods if they sold them on credit. The fact that Šalim-aḫum
did not select the buyers underscores the assertion that Šalim-aḫum’s agents sold the goods on
credit to anyone they deemed sufficiently creditworthy—not from within a pool of persons
more concretely tied to Šalim-aḫum.
After the transaction, Šalim-aḫum’s language continued to place little importance on
the identity of the buyers in comparison to the silver they owed. The manner in which Šalim-
aḫum referred to his claims largely leaves the identity of the buyers unexpressed. As stated
before, Šalim-aḫum normally referred to his claims by citing their approximate value in
combination with the transporter or tranporters who brought the original goods, usually in
the phrase “from the transport of PN” (ša šēp PN). For example, in the second letter of receipt
Šalim-aḫum refers to his claim on Lot #2 thus: “As for the 31 minas 19 shekels of the cargo of
147
Aššur-mutabbil and Nūr-Istar” (31 mana 19 šiqil ša šēp Aššur-mutabbil u Nūr-Istar, 2.4:45-46).62
This phrasing did not mean that the transporters purchased the goods they brought. For
example, Lulu bought Lot #1, which largely consisted of the goods transported by Erra-iddi(n)’s
son. Instead, when the transporters did owe money (their be’ulātum debts) their debts were
expressed without the ša šēp PN formula at the bottom of the first letter of receipt (2.3).
Thus, though any profit Šalim-aḫum would make on the original venture was bound up
in the buyers, Šalim-aḫum seemed either unconcerned with who they were or (more likely)
less familiar with them, at least in comparison with the transporters. For example, Šalim-aḫum
only once directly referenced Lulu son of Zukuḫum by name in these letters. In contrast to the
buyers, the transporters formed prominent landmarks in Šalim-aḫum’s referential topography
in this conversation, probably because he interacted with them face-to-face. Šalim-aḫum
effectively de-personalized the buyers, ‘his’ merchants, whether active or passive. This
suggests that when Šalim-aḫum used possessives like “my” in referring to merchants who
owed him money, he was identifying his ownership of his silver rather than any substantive
relationship with the merchant. Thus one would be justified in translating the passage from
2.6, quoted near the beginning of this section: “The term of the merchant to whom you
extended my credit in Kanesh is full. Take care to make that merchant with my silver pay … the
terms of the merchants, those which are still running, of the merchants who owe me silver—
their terms are full” (2.6:4-8, 19-22).
62
The phrase ša šēp PN is parallel to the less frequently attested phrase ša luqūtim ša šēp PN, reconstructed
in 2.3(TC 3 23):15-19. The formula is found on a private note referring to duties on goods in the cargo of a
transporter: 10 GÍN.TA qaqqadātum gamrum ša luqūtim ša šēp Aššùr-ṭāb (TC 1 106:6-8). See Larsen, OACP, 169-70; A.M.
Ulshofer, APU, 263.
148
The original venture forms an example of how few persons Šalim-aḫum needed in his
durable commercial network to conduct his trade. Sometimes transporters did buy some of the
goods they brought and there is one example where Šalim-aḫum arranged a sale with someone
before the goods even arrived in Kanesh. However, the original venture forms the more likely
example of business as usual. In the original venture Šalim-aḫum only needed to know well his
agents in Anatolia: Pūšu-kēn, Lā-qēpum, Ilī-ālum, and Hinnaya. Šalim-aḫum could transport
his goods with a range of transporters, depending on the volume of his trade, but he did not
necessarily need to have them as employees. Examples from Larsen’s caravan texts show that
there were even agents who could arrange for Šalim-aḫum the transport of his goods. Šalim-
aḫum did not seem to know or need to know who bought his goods in Kanesh. If he was
satisfied with selling his goods mostly in Kanesh or occasionally in Durḫumit, then he could
easily do so.
Conclusion
As far as we can observe, the original venture proceeded without significant hazard.63
While we do not know what transpired when the agents tried to collect the claims on Lots #2
and #4, Šalim-aḫum’s safe receipt of silver from Lots #1 and #3 indicates that Šalim-aḫum had
63
Not all of the identifiable strands in this conversation have been discussed. One, for example, is a dead
end: in one of the Durḫumit letters, Šalim-aḫum told Pūšu-kēn and his associates to acquire the will of Aššur-
imittī from another merchant in the town of Ḫurrama and send it to him (2.5:28-36). There are no other
references to this activity. However, there is another strand I have intentionally postponed discussing until
Chapter Five. In the second letter of receipt, Šalim-aḫum referred to the claim on Lot #3 as “54 minas 45 ½ shekels
from the šēpum of Pūšu-kēn on short terms” (2.4:3-6). According to the phrasing, this was not intended to convey
that Pūšu-kēn bought this shipment and owed the money. But neither did Pūšu-kēn personally oversee the
transport of this shipment, as that task was performed by Aḫ-šalim. At the same time, Šalim-aḫum noted the 58
mina 18 ½ shekel claim listed directly afterward also as from the šēpum of Pūšu-kēn (2.3:15-17, 2.4:6-7). This is
another example of the intransparency of the language used in referring to these assets and a hint that we do not
have all of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial activities, only those overseen by Pūšu-kēn.
149
already turned a profit on the venture. If Šalim-aḫum paid an average price in Aššur for the
total merchandise he sent with Nūr-Ištar and the other transporters (49 minas 15 shekels
silver),64 then the silver he had received from the revenues of Lots #1 and #3 (66 minas 32
shekels)65 at the time he wrote 2.4 minus the estimated costs of transport (2 minas 8¾ shekels
silver)66 and customs duties (3 minas 14 shekels silver)67 exceeded his original investment by 11
minas 55 shekels silver. All other silver received thereafter would have been profit, and the
remaining claims totaled 38 minas 54⅙ shekels. Even given that Šalim-aḫum had not yet
received all of the first two claims, he had likely broken even.68 If Šalim-aḫum eventually
received the full amount of his claims, then he would have grossed about 105 minas 30⅙
shekels, profiting 55 minas 35⅙ shekels69—nearly 110%.
The conversation documenting the original venture provides a welcome example of a
process at the core of the Old Assyrian trade as we understand it: buying goods in Aššur,
shipping them to Anatolia, selling them there on credit, collecting the claims, and sending the
silver back to Aššur. Because the process has previously been understood only by aggregating
disparate fragments of separate situations, this example is a welcome addition to our
64
Average prices used: 4 shekels silver for one mina tin, 5 shekels for each kutānum textile, 3 shekels for
each šurum textile. Figures taken from Tables 2 and 3.
65
This figure comprises the combination of the claim on Lots #1 and #3 (83 minas 12 shekels) with the
proceeds of the 50 kutānum textiles in Lot #3 left out (16 minas 40 shekels).
66
Estimated amounts of ‘hand tin’ given for expenses and any wages paid directly to transporters based
on hand tin given to Nūr-Ištar was 5 minas tin each donkey. Wages for Nūr-Ištar are estimated to be 30 shekels
silver. Because a be’ulātum loan is not mentioned for Erra-iddi(n)’s son in the first letter of receipt alongside the
other merchants, I estimate 30 shekels for him as well. Shipping costs for the transport of the silver back to Aššur
is 66½ shekels.
67
The combined cost of the merchandise taken in Kanesh only (6 kutanum textiles, 48 minas 23 shekels
tin) rated at the average cost of the merchandise in Aššur.
68
Šalim-aḫum noted in the second letter of receipt (2.4) that he had still not received 30 minas 23
shekels of a total of 177 minas 41 shekels due. Thus, on average, he had only received 83% of his claims due. That
same ratio applied to the pertinent amount of the claims on Lots #1 and #3 is 55 minas 11 shekels.
69
Total revenue minus initial costs minus 39 shekels silver as the shipping cost for the remaining silver
back to Aššur.
150
knowledge of the trade. Particularly, because each letter pertains to the same venture, several
things are possible to examine. In the second half of the chapter, I argued for caution when
comparing letters arising from the same situations, given that writers could have different
sensitivities to precision in different contexts. Šalim-aḫum referenced his assets in ways that
prevent reliance on exact coordination of amounts for either the verification or disruption of
the reconstruction. Šalim-aḫum referred to his assets with different levels of precision
depending on whether he was simply trying to identify an asset, whether he was accounting
for his assets, or whether he was giving a legal description of his assets. Šalim-aḫum’s comfort
with less precision, particularly in instances when he was simply identifying an asset in
passing, demands that some flexibility be given when trying to verify whether two letters refer
to the same situation.
At the same time, Šalim-aḫum’s language about his assets and the buyers of his goods,
because it could be tracked through the original venture and kept in context, showed that
Šalim-aḫum did not foreground the identities of those who bought his goods. When reading
Šalim-aḫum’s letters in context, it is clear that his manner of referencing his claims suggests
that the buyers held little social significance to Šalim-aḫum, especially in conversation with
his representatives. Instead, the buyers’ identities appeared to be peripheral to Šalim-aḫum’s
attention. For this reason, and for several reasons more germane to the trade, it is inaccurate
to define these persons as commission agents, as is sometimes done in the description of the
trade.
151
CHAPTER 3:
SCRAMBLING FOR THE IKRIBŪ
Šalim-aḫum to Pūšu-kēn:
“Puzur-Ištar owes me ⅔ minas pašallum gold … He promised to pay me upon his arrival
in Kanesh. … Seize him and make him pay.”
3.1 (TC 2 4)
“Why did Puzur-Ištar answer you in that way? … Now if the wind carried off his textiles,
how am I liable? … Seize him and make him pay.”
3.2 (CCT 4 5b)
“Why did you return 1 mina 11 shekels to (Puzur-Ištar)? In view of the fact that he broke
the agreement and wrote to me here, … (gather gold from other various sources) .”
3.3 (TC 2 2)
Ilabrat-bāni to Šalim-aḫum:
“Let your message come to your representatives so that they may give me tin and
textiles worth about one talent of silver when they sell on credit. And, in confirmation
of these things let a 10 minas portion of my silver (i.e. the silver I will pay) go to you,
so that you give heed to my message.”
3.4 (TC 1 26)
Šalim-aḫum to Pūšu-kēn about Ilabrat-bāni:

“Send 5 minas silver and its excise and ½ mina pašallum gold.”
3.4 (TC 1 26)
In the previous chapter, I reconstructed the ways Šalim-aḫum tracked his assets in
Anatolia through a fairly typical cycle of trade. Most aspects of the original venture seem to
have gone according to plan. By contrast, the episode in this chapter details Šalim-aḫum’s
more frustrating process of attempting to acquire a mina of gold in Anatolia. When a purchase
contract he had arranged with a merchant named Puzur-Ištar fell through, Šalim-aḫum was
forced to scramble to aquire from other sources the gold which he owed to a temple in
152
conjunction with what was called an ikribū fund. Šalim-aḫum’s arrangements with Puzur-Ištar
were to buy ⅔ mina gold in Anatolia. However, Puzur-Ištar reneged on the contract, and Šalim-
aḫum sought to compensate by seeking gold in smaller sums from several other merchants
(Panaka, Ḫuraṣānum, and Agua). When another merchant named Ilabrat-bāni asked to
purchase goods from Šalim-aḫum, offering to pay a portion up front, Šalim-aḫum demanded
that half of the initial payment be paid as a half mina of gold.
Šalim-aḫum’s dealings with Puzur-Ištar touch on several salient conditions of the Old
Assyrian trade. Šalim-aḫum sought the mina of gold because he needed to pay it as part of
managing his ikribū fund. In general, ikribū funds (or goods purchased with ikribū funds) appear
to have been funds dedicated to temples by merchants, but with the opportunity to further
manage-and enhance-them in the trade. Thus there existed special rules and advantages for
their use, including rules about taxation and shipping charges. G. Dercksen’s review of the
evidence on ikribū represents the most recent review of the ikribū.1 Šalim-aḫum’s efforts to
gather gold for his ikribū account offers another account ikribū arrangements. But just as
important, the Puzur-Ištar affair provides background for the Ilabrat-bāni affair reconstructed
in Chapter Four.
But even more important, how Šalim-aḫum goes about procuring the gold—and
managing the small crises that complicate his efforts—provides the broader insight into how
effectively merchants like Šalim-aḫum could project short-term instructions from Aššur
concerning their affairs in Anatolia. Puzur-Ištar’s decision to exit the contract presented a
1
J.G. Dercksen, "The Silver of the Gods: On the Old Assyrian ikribū," ArAn 3 (1997). To my knowledge,
Dercksen’s thinking on the nature of the ikribū has developed since this article. An up-to-date treatment of ikribū
funds is needed. My discussion in this chapter only covers a very small part of that needed discussion. See TC 3 68
and 87/k 34 for examples of packages stored in the temple which could be opened and sealed. I thank Mogens
Larsen for pointing these texts out to me.
153
problem for Šalim-aḫum, forcing him to find other sources for the gold he was obligated to pay
to the temple in Aššur. Because of the regime of communication in the Old Assyrian trade,
when Ilabrat-bāni asked to buy goods, Šalim-aḫum was able to respond within a timeframe
that allowed him to use Ilabrat-bāni’s offer to defuse his developing crisis. The capacity for
merchants like Šalim-aḫum to project their interests and intentions across formidable
geographic distances formed an important aspect of the framework within which the trade
was conducted. This conversation about gold provides an opportunity to consider the tempo
and density of correspondence between Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn evident both in this
instance and through the entire reconstruction of this year. The density and tempo of letters
sent between these two merchants represent a significant shift in our understanding of
communication in the Old Assyrian trade. A recent review of communication in the Old
Assyrian period stated that “every year hundreds of [letters] were written and delivered,
usually in the months between spring and autumn.”2 However, the correspondence between
Pūšu-kēn and Šalim-aḫum, fragmentary as it is, suggests that in REL 80 alone the two
correspondents sent perhaps a hundred letters between themselves. The dynamic nature of
Šalim-aḫum’s and Pūšu-kēn’s communication suggests that the regime of communication in
the Old Assyrian trade brought Anatolia within a horizon in which merchants 1000 kilometers
away in Aššur could not only track ventures that were proceeding in an orderly manner, like
the original venture, they could also react to developing situations and crises during the
course of a shipping season.
2
K.R. Veenhof, "Communication in the Old Assyrian Trading Society by Caravans, Travelers and
Messengers," in Studies Garelli, 201.
154
The first half of this chapter is divided into four sections. The first section, entitled
“Puzur-Ištar Renegs,” reviews the first phase of Šalim-aḫum’s interaction with Puzur-Ištar
through three letters documenting the existence and collapse of their purchase contract (3.1,
3.2, 3.3). The second section, entitled “The ša ḫarrān ālim Contract and ikribū Funds,” discusses
the nature of the purchase contract between Šalim-aḫum and Puzur-Ištar and its relationship
to the management of ikribū funds. In the third section entitled “Šalim-aḫum Manages the
Situation,” the narrative is resumed through three more letters documenting Ilabrat-bāni’s
serendipitous offer to purchase goods with a down payment, Šalim-aḫum’s response, and the
departure of Dān-Aššur with a portion of the goods that Ilabrat-bāni will buy (3.4, 3.5, 3.6).
Finally, in the fourth section entitled, “The Temporal Development of the Puzur-Ištar Affair,” I
review the connections between the events covered in the Puzur-Ištar affair and other
episodes reconstructed in this work.
The second half of the chapter, entitled “Tempos of Trade and Communication in the
Old Assyrian Period,” comprises a review of the basis on which Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn
could communicate in the way they did, involving the pace of both the bulk transport and of
messages in the Old Assyrian trade. I argue that both transport and communication proceeded
at a more deliberate and aggressive tempo than what has been gathered from previous
synchronic approaches. Based on the requirements of the reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s
activities, bulk transport—tin and textiles on donkeys—could make the 1000km journey from
Aššur to Kanesh in about a month; letters travelled the same route in roughly two weeks. This
half of the chapter is divided into two sections, each comprising several subsections. The first
section, entitled “The Tempo of Bulk Transport,” covers the pace of tin and textiles through
three components in subsections entitled, “The Donkeys,” “The Route,” and “The Shipping
155
Season,” then summarized in a subsection entitled, “Rethinking the Tempo of Bulk Transport.”
The second section, entitled “The Tempo of Communication,” covers the pace of couriers in
the Old Assyrian period through two subsections entitled, “The Content of Letters,” and
“Questions about Equids.”
The Puzur-Ištar Affair
The entire Puzur-Ištar Affair develops in what can be described as two phases and takes
place between mid-March and mid-June of REL 80. The first phase began in mid-March with
Puzur-Ištar leaving Aššur with an agreement to buy gold for Šalim-aḫum. Within a few weeks
of arriving in Kanesh in mid-April, Puzur-Ištar exited the contract. The second phase began in
late April when Šalim-aḫum realized that he could ask Ilabrat-bāni to pay gold for a purchase.
Ilabrat-bāni agreed to the transaction and took the goods, in part filling Šalim-aḫum’s need for
gold by mid-June. We will review the first phase, then discuss the nature of the contract
between Šalim-aḫum and Puzur-Ištar, then discuss the second phase followed by a review of
the chronological matters of the reconstruction and connections between the Puzur-Ištar
affair and other episodes in this work.
Puzur-Ištar Renegs
Three letters revolve around the arrangement between Šalim-aḫum and Puzur-Ištar
son of Aššur-mālik. Šalim-aḫum had contracted with Puzur-Ištar to purchase ⅔ minas pašallum
gold, payable upon Puzur-Ištar’s arrival in Kanesh (3.1). But after his arrival Puzur-Ištar did
not pay, giving excuses instead (3.2). Thereafter, Pūšu-kēn gave Puzur-Ištar about 1 mina
156
silver and Puzur-Ištar chose to terminate his contract with Šalim-aḫum (3.3). The three letters
will be presented in order before discussing their content in depth.
In the first letter, Šalim-aḫum reminded Pūšu-kēn to collect Puzur-Ištar’s gold. The
tenor of the letter reveals some of the urgency Šalim-aḫum felt about collecting the gold. The
letter reads:
Document 3.1 – TC 2 4: First Puzur-Ištar letter3
a-na Pu-šu-ke-en6 qí-bi-ma
⅔ ma-na KÙ.GI pá-ša-lam
ša ḫa-ra-an | a-limki
5 Puzur4-Ištar DUMU A-šur-ma-lik
ḫa-bu-lam | i-na Kà-ni-iš
i-na | e-ra-bi4-šu-ma | ša-qá-lam
qá-bi | ù me-ḫe-er | ṭup-pí-šu
ḫa-ar-mì-im | a-na-[ku]4
10 a-dí-na-kum | a-wi-[lúm]
a-ma-kam | i-na e-[ra-bi4-šu-ma]
a-na iš-té-en6 ⌈u⌉ [šé-na]5
ma-áš-qá-al-tám | i-[ša-qal]
[e-t]í-iq-ma | ṣa-ba-sú-[ma]
15 KÙ.GI | ša-áš-qí-il5-[šu]
rev. um-ma a-ta-ma iš-ti [x x x]6
3
Previous treatments: van der Meer, Correspondence No. 27, AC, 253 n. 1.
4
Alternatively restore –kam. Either restoration implies that Šalim-aḫum gave the tablet to Pūšu-kēn in
person rather than sending it to him.
5
Van de Meer restored u[4-mi(mì!)-im], but a construction ana ištēn ūmim is unparalleled. A translation
restoring ūmim is possible, “As for the man, he must pay an installment when he arrives—on the first day.”
However, the construction ana ištēn u šēnā, an adverbial phrase, seems more appropriate. Cf. BIN 6 196:12-14 ú ḫa-
li-ip-t[í] a-na iš-té-en | ú šé-na iq-bi “He has cursed me several times (lit. He has spoken my cursing once or twice).”
See also BIN 6 113:11-13. Rendering the conjunction u with the sign U is uncommon and it could well be a Ù, but
157
DUMU Šu-Ištar | ú-šé-ba-[lá-kum]
⅓ ma-na KÙ.GI i-na KÙ.[GI-kà]7
ra-dí-ma | iš-té-ni-iš 1 ma-na
20 KÙ.GI a-na ik-ri-bi-a
ku-un-kam-ma | Ì-lí-a-lim | DUMU Sú!-[kà-li-a]8
lu-ub-lam | a-ḫi a-ta
a-na té-er-tí-a | i-ḫi-id-ma
ṭup-pé-e-a | za-ki-ma
25 En-nam-A-šùr u4-ma-kál
lá i-sà-ḫu-ur | ṭur4-da-šu
for the seeming lack of space. Colaltion of the original is needed to decide whether the sign could be read ù. For
now, (with reservation) I read ⌈u⌉ as the beginning of the winkelhacken in the copy.
6
Restoration of name unknown. Amur-Aššur son of Šū-Ištar appears later in this episode, in 3.4:15-16
where he is travelling to Kanesh. According to the reconstruction of this episode, it is unlikely he could be the
person mentioned here. Amur-Aššur son of Puzur-Ištar is also attested in TPAK 1 192:13, but in that situation
there is no perceivable connection to Šalim-aḫum or Pūšu-kēn. Beyond Amur-Aššur there are at least thirty
persons in published texts who were the son of one or another Šū-Ištar: Amurrum-bāni (AKT 2 20:28, BIN 6
241:20), Šū-Niraḫ (AKT 3 3:19) Aššur-emūqī (AKT 3 49:37), Aššur-rābi (AKT 3 104:2, CCT 5 18c:3), Aššur-iddin (EL
321:44, CCT 1 7b:21, JCS 14 14:14, TPAK 1 104:18, TPAK 1 153:13, KTH 36:35, TC 3 236:17), Il-mitī (EL 321:48), Šamaš-
bāni (ATHE 5:4, I 750:19), Enna-Suen (ATHE 19:4, CCT 1 4:9, ICK 3 37b:2, Ka 1004:15, TPAK 1 94:6, KTK 104:5, TC 1
16:4, TC 3 68:39, TC 3 192:24, TC 3 229:12), Ikuppiya (ATHE 23:17), ?-Išḫara (ATHE 70:6’), Iddin-abim (BIN 4 197:15,
CCT 1 22b:10, TPAK 1 13:1, KTB 10:10), Šū-Bēlum (BIN 6 242:6’, ICK 3 12b(seal impression), kt a/k 485 (seal
impression), KUG 23:17), Aḫu-waqar (CCT 1 4:3, CCT 5 41b:26, EL 93:2, I 501:16), Sakliya (CCT 1 13a:10, AMMK 1995
p. 151(k/k 108):45, OIP 27 56:9ff., TC 1 81:46, TC 3 213:27), Aššur-imittī (CCT 1 15b:18, CCT 4 6b:9, ICK 1 97:19, I
648:5, I 669:7, TPAK 1 103:22, ArAn 4(2000) no.2:1, ArAn 4(2000) no.3:1, ArAn 4(2000) no.4:1), Susaya (CCT 5 20b:4ff.,
CTMMA 1 91:2, CTMMA 1 93b:2), Ataya (ICK 1 133:7) Aššur-bāni (I 496:3), Aššur-mālik (ArAn 4 p. 168 n. 8:2, TC 1
96:14), Lā-qēpum (2001/k 325:57, OIP 27 56:32), Aḫuni (TPAK 1 153:12, TC 2 67:9), Abiya (KTB 7:14), Aššur-tayyār
(KTK 104:3), Amur-Ištar (POAT 37:6), Ikūnum (TC 3 83:8), Šalim-aḫum (TC 3 91:34), Šū-Anum (TC 3 123:2), Puzur-
šaduē (TC 3 264b:3), Aššur-rē’ī (VS 26 91a/b:6ff.), Kakkabānum (VS 26 94:16). At least another eleven can be found
in unpublished texts, including: Susaya, Uraya, Burqānum, Amur-šamšī, Aššur-ṭāb, Abu-šalim, Iddin-Adad,
Buzutaya, Āl-ṭāb, Ilī-ašrannī, and Ḫanānum.
7
This restoration, suggested by J. Lewy and related in Garelli, AC, 253 n. 1, as opposed to KÙ.GI-ia, is
supported by 5.5:40-41.
8
This is the only instance in which Ilī-ālum is mentioned with a patronym in the documents in this work.
From the attested patronyms associated with Ilī-ālum (Sukaliya (AKT 1 25:29, CCT 5 43:20’, JCS 15 127:23, TPAK I
115:11, KTS 2 9:29, kt 91/k 336), Il-pī-uṣur (BIN 4 173:20), Ilī-ālum (TC 1 75:25, n/k 1826:4), Buṣiya (kt n/k 15:21),
Ennam-Aššur (kt m/k 137:2), Šarrum-Adad (kt m/k 148:49), and DU10-lu-kà (TC 3 249:27)) Sukaliya is the only name
which fits Thureau-Dangin’s copy. Ilī-ālum son of Sukaliya is attested several times in the company with persons
in Šalim-aḫum’s and Pūšu-kēn’s circles (in AKT 1 25 with Šalim-aḫum and Ilabrat-bāni, in CCT 5 43, a debt
memorandum where Pūšu-kēn also appears, in JCS 15 127, a letter from Imdī-ilum, in KTS 2 9 with Ilabrat-bāni). It
is uncertain whether this Ilī-ālum son of Sukaliya would have been the same person after whom REL 111 was
named. If so, that fact that he was usually mentioned last in the company of Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn is
appropriate: he would have been quite young in REL 80/81/82. Garelli read i-šé-[pí-šu], AC 253 n.1.
158
1-2
3-17
Puzur-Ištar son of Aššur-mālik owes me ⅔ minas pašallum gold from the “journey of
the city.” He is obliged to pay me upon his arrival in Kanesh.10 Now,11 I personally gave you a
9
duplicate of his certified tablet, (saying) “As for the man, there, he will pay in installments
severally at his arrival.” (The debt) is overdue, seize him, and make [him] pay the gold. You
said, “I will send it to you with … son of Šū-Ištar.”
18-26
Add ⅓ mina gold from your own gold and seal 1 mina gold in a single package for my
ikribū and let Ilī-ālum son of …. bring it to me. My dear brother, give heed to my instructions,
clear my tablets, and do not detain Ennam-Aššur for a single day. Send him to me.
As is evident from the content of the letter, Šalim-aḫum had already discussed the basic
aspects of Puzur-Ištar’s contract with Pūšu-kēn in person at Aššur, at which time Šalim-aḫum
gave Pūšu-kēn a copy of the contract. As a result, the first section of the letter is largely a
reminder. In this vein, I have translated Šalim-aḫum’s instructions to Pūšu-kēn and the latter’s
response to be representations of statements made during their meeting in Aššur. When
Šalim-aḫum began “As for the man,” he was in effect quoting his own words from the time of
his meeting with Pūšu-kēn. Pūšu-kēn had told Šalim-aḫum he would send the gold with the
son of Šū-Istar,12 And now the debt was past due. Perhaps Šū-Ištar had arrived in Aššur without
the expected packet of gold.
9
See the discussion on the ša ḫarrān ālim contract on p. 150.
10
For translation, “he is obliged to …,” for stative of qabā’um taking an accusative infinitive, (lit. he is
promised to …) in this case šaqālam, see EL no 202, n. a. (p. 194); and Landsberger, ZA 38, 278.
11
I translate u as ‘now’ when it occurs between two clauses or series of clauses that do not form a logical
progression. ‘Moreover’ (ausserdem, GAG §117b) may be appropriate in some cases, but ‘now’ offers the function
of shifting the temporal or logical focus without implying the escalating sense implied by ‘moreover.’
12
An alternate reading might interpret Pūšu-kēn’s statement “I will send it to you with … son of Šū-Ištar”
not to have been made in person but in a letter and Šalim-aḫum’s ‘statements’ not to be self quotation but simply
resuming the matter. However, the debt was due when Puzur-Ištar arrived, so the letter could have been written
anytime after.
159
The second section of the letter comprises Šalim-aḫum’s new instructions. Šalim-aḫum
wanted to ensure that when Pūšu-kēn sent the ⅔ minas gold collected from Puzur-Ištar, he
added enough to make a full mina for his ikribū fund. Šalim-aḫum also asked that Ilī-ālum and
not the son of Šū-Ištar bring it to him. Perhaps since their meeting the son of Šū-Ištar had
already returned to Aššur. (Recall that in the last chapter Ilī-ālum, who appeared as a
correspondent alongside Pūšu-kēn and Lā-qēpum, travelled back to Aššur with Dān-Aššur.)
Šalim-aḫum also wanted his other son, Ennam-Aššur, back home in Aššur and requested Pūsu-
kēn to send him quickly.
Though Šalim-aḫum did not mention his concern about the ikribū in the next letter, his
palpable discontent with Puzur-Ištar’s attempt to forestall payment suggests a development
towards Puzur-Ištar’s eventual default. The second letter reads:
Document 3.2 - CCT 4 5b: Second Puzur-Ištar Letter13
a-na Pu-šu-ke-en6 qí-bi4-ma
mì-šu Puzur4-Ištar
BA-a-tám14 e-pu-lu-kà
5 um-ma šu-ut-ma i-na
e-ra-áb lu-qú-tí-a
a-ša-qal ú šu-ma
TÚG.ḪI-tí-šu ša-ru-um
i-tí-ší15 a-na-ku
13
BM 115078 Previous editions: P. van der Meer, Une Correspondance Commerciale Assyrienne (Rome:
Imprimierie Pie X, 1931), Nr. 17. Lines 13-26 also treated in P. Garelli, "La tablet cappadocienne de Liège PUL 100 et
le dossier Ilabrat-bāni," in Festschrift Lubour Matouš, ed. B. Hruška and G. Komoróczy (Budapest: Eötvös University,
1978), 123 n. 24.
14
I cannot explain this form. Is it an adverbial accusative?
15
On Šalim-aḫum referring to the wind carrying things off, see also 5.5:32. For i-tí-ší as itišši, 3ms perfect
of našā’um, see GKT §95c.
160
10 mì-nam ṭá-ḫu-a-ku
i-ṣé-er A-šùr-ma-lik
gi5-mì-lam ta-áš-ku-u[n]
KÙ.BABBAR-áp-šu tù-ša-áš-qí-il5
i-a-am
15 lá tù-ša-áš-qí-il5
a-ḫi a-ta i-na
u4-mì ša ṭup-pì
ta-ša-me-ú
ṣa-ba-sú-ma (Ras.) KÙ.GI
20 ša-áš-qí-il5-šu
ḫu-ra-ṣí ni-is-ḫa-tum
ṭup-pu-šu ḫa-ar-ma-am
a-na-kam ú-kà-al
šu-ma mì-ma i-qá-bi4
25 ta-ar-ki-is-tám
li-qé-šu-um-ma
le.e. ú KÙ.GI ša-áš-qí-il5-šu-ma
iš-tí pá-ni-im-ma šé-bi4-lam
1-2
3-28
Why did Puzur-Ištar answer you in that way? He (had) said, “I will pay when my
goods arrive.” Now if the wind carried off his textiles, how am I liable? You did a favor for
Aššur-mālik. You had his silver paid. Mine you did not have paid. My dear brother, on the day
you read this tablet, seize him and make him pay the gold. My gold is the excise tax. As for his
certified tablet, I retain (it) here. If he says anything (i.e. if he makes excuses), take a binding
agreement for him and cause him to pay the gold and send it to me immediately.
When Puzur-Ištar arrived in Kanesh he decided for one reason or another that he could
not pay Šalim-aḫum the contracted sum of gold. If Šalim-aḫum’s angry remark (ll. 7-10) is any
indication, Pūšu-kēn had reported that the difficulties seemed to be linked to problems with
Puzur-Ištar’s textiles. Though Šalim-aḫum complained that Puzur-Ištar had paid silver to
161
another man (Aššur-mālik), it is clear that when Šalim-aḫum said, “Mine you did not have
paid,” he was referring to the gold that Puzur-Ištar owed him, made clear in the next sentence.
Šalim-aḫum was adamant that Pūšu-kēn promptly collect the gold and send it immediately,
reminding Pūšu-kēn that he held the original of the contract in Aššur.
In order to try to bring resolution to the situation, Šalim-aḫum instructed Pūšu-kēn to
draw up a binding agreement (tarkistum) with Puzur-Ištar if he continued to evade payment.
The tarkistum document was the result of a rakkusum procedure, wherein the creditor or his
representative would confront the debtor and demand payment. If the debtor questioned the
validity of the claim, a resolution identifying what the debtor was liable to pay was recorded in
a tarkistum document. Often a double or triple penalty would be assigned if the debtor either
again contested the debt or did not pay within a reasonable time. The procedure had the effect
of raising the stakes on the debtor.16
Despite Šalim-aḫum’s attempts to coerce Puzur-Ištar into paying the gold, Puzur-Ištar
found a way out of his obligation. As Šalim-aḫum’s agent, Pūšu-kēn did not effectively look out
for Šalim-aḫum’s interests. While this second letter was making its way to Kanesh, a new
arrangement reflected in the third letter developed. The first half of the third letter is
concerned with Šalim-aḫum’s involvement in purchasing a home for Pūšu-kēn in Aššur, which
will be discussed in a further episode in Chapter Five. The statements about purchasing homes
(ll. 3-18) were made to apply subtle pressure on Pūšu-kēn to perform the tasks directed in the
16
For this description of tarkistum, see T. Hertel, "Old Assyrian Legal Practices: An Anthropological
Perspective on Legal Disputes in the Ancient Near East" (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Copenhagen, 2007), 374-
282. All known tarkistum texts are listed there along with references to tarkistum documents in other types of
texts, including 3.2. For a slightly different definition see K.R. Veenhof, "Old Assyrian Period," in A History of
Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook, HdO 72 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 467-68; K.R. Veenhof, "Private Summons
and Arbitration among the Old Assyrian Traders," Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 5 (1991): 441 n.
13.
162
second section of the letter, which bears directly on Puzur-Ištar’s status in the situation. The
letter reads:
Document 3.3 - TC 2 2: Third Puzur-Ištar letter17
a-na Pu-šu-ke-en6
qí-bi4-ma a-šu-mì É-tí
ša ta-áš-pu-ra-ni
5 šu-ma ni-iš-ta-a-ma-kum
KÙ.BABBAR i-ra-mì-ni-a
ma-la ša-qá-li-im
a-ša-qal-ma té-er-tí
i-lá-kà-kum a-wi-lu
10 KÙ.BABBAR ma-dam e-ri-šu
a-ší-a-tí nu-ta-qá
šu-ma la ku-a-tí ša-im-š[u-nu]
ú mu-ri qá-áb-li-tim
rev. ú-li-ba-ší | šu-ma
15 ta-da-nu-um i-ta-áb-ší
a-na-ḫi-id-ma a-ša-a-ma-ku-šu-nu
ù KÙ.BABBAR i-ra-mì-ni-a
a-ša-qal KÙ.GI ša DUMU A-šùr-ma-lik
ḫa-bu-lá-ni a-mì-nim
20 1 ma-na 11 GÍN [KÙ].BABBAR ta-áp-ṭur4-šu-um18
a-ki-ma iš-mu-ḫu-ma
a-ni-ša-am iš-pu-ra-ni
17
Previous editions van der Meer, Correspondance, no. 30. Lines 3-18 were translated in J. Lewy, "Studies in
Old Assyrian Grammar and Lexicography," Or. 19 (1950): 33. Kienasṭ FAOSB 1, 86; 21: EL II, 181.
18
The copy has the AB sign inserted in a lower position on the line, crammed between TA and KIB, as
though it was written afterwards. Ignoring the sign produces tatūršum, which as a G stem 2ms preterite of tuārum
“to return” would not accept the silver as an accusative object. Opening the package of silver in the sense of
remitting it occurs in CCT 2 25:3-10, TPAK 1 156a:1-6, etc., and VS 26 69:8-11 – šumma kaspam ina bīt kārim ana ṣibtim
iḫaššuḫū kaspam puṭrāma a šibtim dinā “If they require silver on credit in the kārum office, then open silver and
loan it on interest.” See aCAD P paṭāru mng. 2a for more examples.
163
14 ma-na AN.NA ma-zi-ra-am
ša Dan-A-šùr a-na A-gu5-a
25 ub-lu a-na i-ta-aṭ-li-im
dí-in-ma a-ṣé-er KÙ.GI
ša Ì-lí-[áš]-ra-ni
ša 5 GÍN.TA
le.e ù 4 GÍN.TA ⅓ ma-na KÙ.GI
30 ú 1 ma-na pá-ša-lam i-pá-nim-ma
šé-bi-lam ú-tù-ku ú-ša-aḫ-du-ru-ni
1-3
3-18
Concerning the houses about which you wrote to me. If we buy for you, I will
personally pay as much silver as necessary and my instructions will come to you. The men (i.e.
the sellers) asked much silver, therefore we will wait. Apart from you, there are no potential
buyers for them or bearers of the qablītum.19 If selling activity arises, I will take care to buy
them for you and I will pay my own silver.
18-32
The gold which the son of Aššur-mālik owes me, why did you open (and remit) 1
mina 11 shekels to him? On account of the fact that he broke the agreement20 and sent word to
me, sell for cash the 14 minas mazīrum tin which Dān-Aššur brought to Agua, and in addition to
the gold from Ilī-ašranni, of 5 shekels rate and 4 shekels rate, <add> 20 shekels gold and send 1
mina pašallum (gold) immediately to me. The utukkum demons are frightening me!
In the second section of the letter, Šalim-aḫum first expressed frustration that Pūšu-
kēn remitted 1 mina 11 shekels silver to Puzur-Ištar. Though there is no overt reference
19
Mūrī qablītim – “bearers of the qablītum,” are associated with the purchase of homes I 502, a/k 605, RA 58
p. 124. Just what a qablītum is remains difficult, but seems to be associated with the home. For a discussion in
relation to the purchase of a home, see P. Garelli, "Tablettes Cappadociennes de collections diverses," RA 58
(1964): 127-28.
20
As proposed in CAD šamāḫu B, this word clearly has the sense of breaking an agreement. Lewy
translated šamāḫu “überheben” (EL Teil 4, 181.) The current text reinforces a sense of exiting the contract with a
penalty (see discussion below). As a result, šamāḫu B might be conflated with šamāḫu A ‘to grow, flourish.’ (Both
are u-class verbs.) The meaning ‘to exit a contract’ would be an anaphorical extension of ‘growing out’ of an
agreement. The merchant pays a penalty to exit the contract in order to avoid stifling financial burden, thus
continuing to grow.
164
connecting this silver to Puzur-Ištar’s contract to buy gold referred to in the previous letters,
the context clearly shows that Šalim-aḫum was reacting to the loss of the gold from that
contract. As a result of Puzur-Ištar’s letter, Šalim-aḫum told Pūšu-kēn to go to other sources to
recover the lost mina of pašallum gold which Šalim-aḫum had requested in 3.1. First, he told
Pūšu-kēn to sell for gold 14 minas of mazīrum tin associated with Agua. Next, he told Pūšu-kēn
to add ⅓ minas gold to the “gold from Ilī-ašranni, of 5 shekels rate and 4 shekels rate” (ḫurāṣim
ša Ilī-ašrannī ša 5 GÍN.TA u 4 GÍN.TA, ll. 26-29).21 At the end of the letter, Šalim-aḫum’s
comments connect the need for gold with the ikribū obligation. Failure to pay implies dire
supernatural consequences—the utukkum demons were frightening Šalim-aḫum.22
Two elements tie the three letters (3.1, 3.2, 3.3) together: their similar tenor and the
clear development of events I have outlined. However, there are some aspects of this third
letter which, at least on the surface, are difficult to understand. For example, how was Puzur-
Ištar able to exit his contract with Šalim-aḫum in a way that Šalim-aḫum accepted as final?
And what did the transaction of 1 mina 11 shekels silver between Pūšu-kēn and Puzur-Ištar
have to do with the contract? Also, what did Šalim-aḫum mean in the second letter by saying
that his gold was the “excise” (nisḫatum)? These difficulties can be addressed through
exploring the nature of the contract between Šalim-aḫum and Puzur-Ištar and the relationship
between their contract and Šalim-aḫum’s management of his ikiribū funds.
21
Here Šalim-aḫum was referring to the 7 shekels 23 ½ grains gold which Ilī-ašranni paid for two textiles
he transported to Kanesh for Šalim-aḫum earlier in the year (4.1:47-49).
22
Tarišmātum and Bēlatum write Pūšu-kēn elsewhere telling him that they have been afflicted by the
utukkū and eṭammū spirits in relation to an ikribū matter (KTS 1 24:4-8) 4a-šu-mì KÙ.BABBAR ša ik-ri-bi4 5a-na-kam Bé-
la-tum 6ta-am-ra-aṣ i-na ú-tù-ki 7ù i-na e-ṭá-me 8ša-am-ṭù?-a-ni. See H. Hirsch, Untersuchungen zur altassyrischen Religion,
Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 13/14 (Graz: 1961), 71 n. 385. For a new citation involving the uttukū demons,
see C. Michel, "Les Assyriens et les Esprits de leurs Morts," in Old Assyrian Studies in Memory of Paul Garelli, ed. C.
Michel, PIHANS 112 (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2008), 188 n. 51.
165
The Puzur-Ištar Affair and the ša ḫarrān ālim Contract
In 3.1, Šalim-aḫum stated “Puzur-Ištar son of Aššur-mālik owes me ⅔ minas pašallum
gold from the ‘journey of the city’ (ša ḫarrān ālim).”23 There are a small number of references to
such a contract in Level II. The situation between Puzur-Ištar and Šalim-aḫum provides a
better opportunity to understand this contract. It appears that the ša ḫarrān ālim was one
strategy whereby merchants in Aššur could obtain gold in Anatolia for their ikiribū funds.
The purpose of the contract cannot be determined by the translation of ša ḫarrān ālim,
“a journey of the city (Aššur).” As it was employed with Puzur-Ištar the contract phrase did not
deal directly with the transport of goods on the road between Aššur and Kanesh, nor did it
imply that Puzur-Ištar was to deliver the gold he found to Aššur. Puzur-Ištar was to turn over
the gold to Šalim-aḫum’s representative in Kanesh. As a result, the direction implied by the
phrase did not indicate the directionality of the journey to or from the city of Aššur.
Moereover, even though Puzur-Ištar’s contract was made in the city of Aššur, the phrase ša
ḫarrān ālim is too vague to demand the contract’s point of origin be Aššur. Where ša ḫarrān ālim
contracts were actually contracted, whether in the city of Aššur or in Anatolia, must be
determined by recourse to all the examples, still few. The function of the contract, giving one
person capital to buy gold where he finds it, would have been as useful within Anatolia as it
was in Aššur. Some ša ḫarrān ālim contracts are dated according to ḫamuštum weeks, which
according to some commentators is a clear sign that some contracts were created in Anatolia.24
23
The title ālikū ḫarrān ālim, confined to the Level Ib period, is not of direct relation. The ālikū ḫarrān ālim
appear as a party important in official declarations or making legal decisions. On that title, see Veenhof,
“Communication in the Old Assyrian Trading Society,” 210-212.
24
Dercksen, "The Silver of the Gods: On the Old Assyrian ikribū."
166
Besides references in the letters covered in this chapter, there are only a handful of
other references in the Old Assyrian corpus to ša ḫarrān ālim contracts. There are six copies of
such contracts, all for payments of between 5 shekels and 1 mina gold.25 There are also three
letters which refer to such an arrangement.26 The contracts are for the payment of fine,
pašallum, or fine pašallum gold. When mentioned, the term periods are short term, ranging
from 2 months to 15 weeks. The penalty interest rate on these debts varies, ranging from low –
¼ shekels per mina per month (a/k 602b:12-15), to the standard rate – 1½ shekels per mina per
month, to double the standard rate – 3 shekels per mina per month (ICK 1 60:12-15).
One ša ḫarrān ālim contract provides an important insight: “If I can’t find (lit. If my eye
does not encounter) any gold, I will pay an eight-shekel silver rate for the gold and I will take
silver.”27 The eight-shekel rate exceeded the price of gold in Anatolia but closely followed the
price in Aššur, and was the same rate between silver and gold applied to naruqqum contracts.
Though the actual price of gold in both Anatolia and Aššur must have fluctuated, and the price
of the gold would have depended on its quality, the average price of a shekel of gold attested in
the Old Assyrian period was just under 6 shekels silver in Anatolia, and around 8 shekels silver
in Aššur.28 In this way, the ša ḫarrān ālim contract was one instrument through which
25
AKT 2 9 for 16½ shekels, ICK 1 60 for ⅓ minas in 12 weeks, ICK 1 160 for ⅓ minas in 15 weeks, a/k 602b
for 5 shekels in 10 weeks, v/k 153 for ⅔ minas in 2 months. There is also a ša ḫarrān ālim debt mentioned in a debt
memorandum: I 432:18-23 for 1 minas 3 shekels in 3 months.
26
CCT 2 46b+ with mention of a debt for ½ minas gold, ICK 1 84 with a debt for 25½ shekels, and 87/k 472
with a debt for ⅔ minas.
27
AKT 2 9: 116½ GÍN KÙ.G[I] 2pá-ša-lam SI[G5] 3ša ha-ra-an a-limk[i] 4i-ṣé-er 5dIŠKUR-ṣú-lu-li 6Ḫu-ni-a i-šu 7a-na ša
ke-n[a]-tim 8i-ša-qal 9šu-ma KÙ.GI e-ni 10lá im-ta-ha-ar 118 GIN.TA KÙ.BABBAR 12a-na KÙ.KI a-ša-[qal-ma] 13KÚ.BABBAR
a-lá-qé. “Adad-ṣulūlī owes Ḫunia 16½ shekels fine pašallum gold of the journey of the city. He will pay in month III.
If my eye does not meet any gold, I will pay an eight shekel rate for the gold and take the silver.”
28
Prices in silver for one shekel gold in Anatolia: 6¼ shekels (ATHE 33:29’-31’ 1½ ma-na 6 GÍN KÙ.KI a-na-
[ku áš-am] 10 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR a-na ší-mì-im a-n[a] DAM.GÀR KÙ.KI a-dí-in); 5.61 shekels (BIN 4 143:23-24 ⅓ ma-na
6 GÍN KÙ.GI 2⅓ ma-na 6 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR-áp-šu); 5 shekels (CCT 3 39b:4-5); 6½ shekels (CCT 5 37a:24). Prices in silver
for one shekel gold in Aššur: 8½ shekels and 8⅚ shekels (BIN 4 30:5-8); 7⅓ and 8⅔ (CCT 3 22a); 7⅓ (TC 3 36); 8⅙
167
merchants in Aššur sought less expensive Anatolian gold. Merchants also took advantage of
the exchange rate in the opposite direction: when one merchant in Anatolia owed silver in
Aššur, he sent some gold to Aššur to be exchanged into silver where it would garner a better
rate (BIN 4 66).
The penalty stipulation above—paying an eight shekel rate in silver when no gold can
be found—does not appear in full in any other examples of the contract. Therefore, either such
a rate was unique to Puzur-Ištar’s contract or this was a general condition of the ša ḫarrān ālim
contract.29 If a general condition, then the penalty clause served as a safety valve for the
buying agent because of the variable availability of gold in comparison to silver in Anatolia. If
the buying agent could not find gold, then he could pay his way out of the contract to avoid a
financial burden. At the same time, the eight-shekel rate in silver protected the interests of the
contractor, since he would be remunerated the approximate price he needed to acquire gold
back in Aššur. The eight-shekel rate did not represent the orginal amount of silver given to the
buying agent. In theory, the contractor of the ša ḫarrān ālim arrangement would have given the
buying agent enough capital both to acquire the gold and to allow some profit margin for the
buying agent, but less than the amount required to purchase gold in Aššur itself. Otherwise,
the buying agent could too easily opt to pay out silver and make his money without buying
gold for the contractor. Though the ša ḫarrān ālim contract clause above states that the buying
agent would be able to keep ‘the silver,’ denoting the original capital, this was likely rated in
regards to its value in silver obtained in Anatolia by selling that capital when no gold could be
found. The contracts do not state the capital extended to the agent.
shekels and 6⅔ shekels (kubrusinnum) (TC 3 43); 8⅚ shekels (BIN 6 65:5-9); 8 shekels (Nesr. C 1:35); between 8 and 9
shekels (CCT 3 47a:5-12); 8 shekels (CCT 4 4a:44); 8 shekels (CCT 4 50b:29); 7⅓ shekels (TC 3 36:4).
29
The eight-shekel penalty rate is also invoked in kt 87/k 472.
168
According to this arrangement, if Puzur-Ištar was unable to find ⅔ minas gold upon his
arrival in Aššur, he would have instead been obligated to pay 5⅓ minas silver. But Šalim-aḫum
would not have given Puzur-Ištar 5⅓ minas silver in Aššur to buy gold. Rather, when the deal
was struck in Aššur, he likely gave Puzur-Ištar goods, such as textiles, which Puzur-Ištar could
sell for slightly less than 5⅓ minas silver when he got to Anatolia, or he gave him enough silver
to buy those same goods in Aššur.30 Indeed, when Puzur-Ištar connected his problems paying
the gold with problems with his textiles in 3.2, this could be read to suggest that Puzur-Ištar
either received textiles from Šalim-aḫum or obtained textiles with silver given him by Šalim-
aḫum that he planned to sell in Anatolia for gold.
There was obvious tension between Šalim-aḫum’s and Puzur-Ištar interests within the
parameters of the ša ḫarrān ālim arrangement. While Šalim-aḫum continually asserted the
fitness and finality of the original agreement, Puzur-Ištar attempted to exploit the safety valve
in the contract by linking his problems with textiles to his difficulty paying the gold. In Aššur,
Šalim-aḫum had given some amount of silver or textiles to Puzur-Ištar in return for a
promissory note with conditions (i.e. the ša ḫarrān ālim contract) to Šalim-aḫum. After the
exchange, Puzur-Ištar’s textiles depreciated in value in some way. Either the textiles were lost,
damaged, or seized. Puzur-Ištar tried to claim this as a condition that merited a change in the
status of his obligation to Šalim-aḫum. But Salim-aḫum’s response was essentially that the
state of the textiles had no bearing on the condition of Puzur-Ištar’s obligation: “If the wind
30
Based on the value of an average kutānum textile in silver in Kanesh at this time (20 shekels each, see
Chapter Two), we might hypothetically propose that Šalim-aḫum paid Puzur-Ištar twelve or thirteen textiles to
purchase the gold. Twelve kutānum textiles would have yielded 4 minas silver or ⅔ minas gold in Kanesh
(according to the exchange rate of 6:1 for silver to gold, see note 23 above). If the textiles only cost 5 silver shekels
each in Aššur, then Šalim-aḫum’s cost Aššur to have Puzur-Ištar obtain the gold in Anatolia would have been 1
mina of silver, compared to 5 ½ or 6 minas if he had to purchase the ⅔ minas gold in Aššur.
169
carried off his textiles—how am I liable?” (3.2:7-9). It could be that like the credit sale of tin
and textiles in Anatolia, this purchase contract was not constructed as a consignment
transaction wherein Šalim-aḫum gave silver or textiles to Puzur-Ištar for the express purpose
of purchasing gold, but retained owneership of that silver or those textiles. If Puzur-Ištar’s
pleadings are to be understood as relevant to the matter at hand, then the textiles likely were
the goods given him to get gold. But if Šalim-aḫum’s retort concerning the textiles’ lack of
relevance is also taken into account, then it could be seen that the textiles were payment to
Puzur-Ištar for gold. The exchange in Aššur was final: Puzur-Ištar received textiles and Šalim-
aḫum received the promissory note. If Puzur-Ištar was to repay anything it would have to be
gold. The escape clause permitted payment in silver, but not textiles.
Despite Puzur-Ištar’s excuses, Šalim-aḫum sought to pressure him to pay the contract,
but Puzur-Ištar instead found a way out, to which the reference to Pūšu-kēn remitting Puzur-
Ištar some silver must pertain. We might assume that when Pūšu-kēn remitted Puzur-Ištar 1
mina 11 shekels, he allowed Puzur-Ištar to pay 4 minas 9 shekels instead of the 5 ⅓ minas silver
in penalty he would have owed. Šalim-aḫum described Puzur-Ištar’s move with the verb
šamāḫum, which I interpret idiomatically as ‘to remain financially viable by choosing to exit a
contract.’ This effectively meant that Puzur-Ištar paid the optional ‘break contract’ fee when
the means to meet the contract ran beyond his control.
This clash of interests between Šalim-aḫum and Puzur-Ištar with Pūšu-kēn as
intermediary is particularly interesting because although an ongoing or permanent
170
relationship between Puzur-Ištar and Šalim-aḫum is not documented,31 Puzur-Ištar was Pūšu-
kēn’s nephew: Puzur-Ištar’s father Aššur-mālik had married Pūsu-kēn’s sister Tariš-mātum
(see figure below).32 Puzur-Ištar was also in the same financial circles as Pūsu-kēn. Both Pūsu-
kēn and Puzur-Ištar invested in the same fund, as did also Puzur-Ištar’s brother Uṣur-ša-Ištar.33
Figure 7: Familial relationship between Puzur-Ištar and Pūsu-kēn
The familial relationship between Pūšu-kēn and Puzur-Ištar adds fitting context to the
interchange between Puzur-Ištar and Šalim-aḫum. Though Pūsu-kēn was Šalim-aḫum’s
representative in the matter, he was also Puzur-Ištar’s uncle. Note that when Šalim-ahum
complained that Pūšu-kēn ensured that Aššur-mālik got paid but not him, it’s possible that this
31
Outside of the letters reviewed from this year in this work, the name Puzur-Ištar occurs very few times
in the roughly 150 documents referencing Šalim-aḫum: it is possibly this Puzur-Ištar to whom Šalim-aḫum
entrusted 30 minas silver and instructed him to then entrust it to Amur-Aššur (ICK 1 54). 2.7 records a son of
Puzur-Ištar probably as a witness to the contracting of debts to Šalim-aḫum, but our present Puzur-Ištar seems to
have been far too young to already have a son at this point. A Puzur-Ištar did witness the entrusting of several
packages to an Urani to deliver to (probably) Pūšu-kēn’s investors and Šalim-aḫum in Kanesh (RA 59 no. 8). The
packages include 4 minas silver from Ilabrat-bāni to Šalim-aḫum as well (see Chapter Four), but the transporter
does not appear anywhere else in the documentation assigned to this year in this work.
32
For Puzur-Istar, Uṣur-ša-Aššur, Ilabrat-bāni, and Iddin-Ištar as brothers and sons of Aššur-mālik, see
KTH 19 and TC 2 21. Michel unconvincingly asserts that Aššur-mālik and Tarīš-mātum have a son named Enlil-
bāni (CMK 446). (In AAA 1/3 1, Tarīš-mātum writes to Enlil-bāni addressing him as ‘my dear brother.’) However, it
is difficult to know whether this Enlil-bāni should be identified with a known Enlil-bāni son of Aššur-mālik. The
known Enlil-bāni s. Aššur-mālik transported goods to Šū-Ḫubur in I 442, acted as witness to a legal decision in
MNK 635, was entangled with a man named Nab-Suen in TC 1 35, held a promissory note worth 25 shekels against
Iddin-Aššur s. Uzua (TC 3 230), received a legal document Pilaḫ-Aššur (TMH 1 7e), owed someone 20 shekels silver
(kt c/k 258:38-39), and witnessed the creation of a loan (kt n/k 674). Nothing compels that the Enlil-bāni to whom
Tarīš-mātum wrote in AAA 1/3 1 was her son.
33
ICK 2 305, see A.M. Ulshofer, Die Altassyrische Privaturkunden, FAOSB 4 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag,
1995), 294.
171
particular Aššur-mālik was Pūšu-kēn’s brother-in-law. Perhaps Puzur-Ištar reasoned that
Uncle Pūšu-kēn would forgive his problems with his textiles. In the end, Šalim-aḫum may have
lost his 1 mina 11 shekels to family loyalty.
Puzur-Ištar’s difficulties with his textiles were likely legitimate. His troubles might also
have been amplified by the short term period to which he agreed. When compared to other
extant texts, it seems that Puzur-Ištar had less than the average span of time to find and
purchase the gold. At least in his own discourse, Šalim-aḫum clearly expected Puzur-Ištar to
pay some of the gold as soon as he arrived in Kanesh. Perhaps Puzur-Ištar had more time to fill
the balance of the obligation, but Šalim-aḫum was careful to point out that Puzur-Ištar needed
to pay at least an installment when he arrived in Kanesh, giving him only the month or so to
travel to Kanesh, as opposed to several months total. Alongside the longer periods expressed in
other ša ḫarrān ālim contracts, Puzur-Ištar was under direct pressure to produce gold without
much time to find it; and Šalim-aḫum was hounding his agent to check on him.
Šalim-aḫum was clearly using Puzur-Ištar as a buying agent to acquire part of the mina
of pašallum gold he needed for his ikribū. Although he did not report what he was specifically
going to do with the gold when he received it in Aššur, it seems clear that Šalim-aḫum needed
to account for it to another party, most likely a temple. In a later letter, Šalim-aḫum urges
Ilabrat-bāni on by saying, “May the god, the lord of my prayer (ikribī), marshall you (to pay
your debt to me)” (3.4:35). Thus Šalim-aḫum’s arrangement with Puzur-Ištar offers new
evidence on the use and management of ikribū funds.
In fact, most of the references in Dercksen’s Appendix to his article on ikribū funds
pertain to this instance of Šalim-aḫum’s management of ikribū funds. Therefore, Šalim-aḫum’s
conversation about his ikribū offers a comparably rare insight into an aspect of managing ikribū
172
funds which is not well documented otherwise—merchants procuring gold to be turned over
to the temple. Within Dercksen’s review of the use of ikribū funds, Šalim-aḫum’s activity in
these letters seems anomalous alongside the more numerous examples of selling merchandise
of tin and textiles. (Dercksen refers to 3.1 and 3.5.) Possible acquisition of funds from the
temples is well-documented, but repayments to the temples are not explicitly recorded. Thus
there is little evidence how the merchants paid the temples either for the use of what were
originally temple funds or the ability to dedicate the funds to a special category which then
afforded the merchant privileges. Though donations of gold in bullion and votive objects to the
temple are known, the connection between these donations and the management of the funds
is uncertain. If Šalim-aḫum’s use of the ša ḫarrān ālim contract here is indicative of a broader
practice, then merchants would periodically ‘cash out’ all or part of their funds which were
normally run through the more usual business of trading tin and textiles for silver. The gold
obtained in this way would be returned to the temple. One further point suggests that the ša
ḫarrān ālim contracts were associated with the ikribū funds: The lower interest rates associated
with some of the known ša ḫarrān ālim contracts accord with lower interest rates associated
with silver loans made with ikribū funds.34
Šalim-aḫum pursued the normal traffic of trading merchandise for silver with his ikribū
funds as well, as we will review later. But Šalim-aḫum’s aggressiveness in securing gold
indicates that obtaining the gold was an important aspect of managing his ikribū during the
span of time in which this episode occurred this year. It seems likely that Šalim-aḫum was
going to give this gold as a votive offering to the temple which had given him his ikribū funds,
34
See Dercksen, "The Silver of the Gods: On the Old Assyrian ikribū," 77-78.
173
as it likely constituted an amount he owed to the temple for having access to some capital
from it. Šalim-aḫum’s comments reveal the importance of collecting the gold in order to
remunerate the temple for access to funds provided by it when he states, “my gold is the
‘excise tax’” (ḫurāṣī nisḫatum, 3.2:21).
Šalim-aḫum Manages the Situation
Puzur-Ištar’s default forced Šalim-aḫum to find alternate sources for his gold. He found
an important source when Puzur-Ištar’s younger brother Ilabrat-bāni requested to purchase a
large amount of goods from Šalim-aḫum, offering an initial down payment in silver. Šalim-
aḫum took the opportunity to demand part of the down payment in gold. The following three
letters (3.4, 3.5, and 3.6) document this opportunity. In 3.4, Šalim-aḫum recounts Ilabrat-
bāni’s offer and responds. 3.4 was sent to Ilabrat-bāni and Pūšu-kēn together, though most of
the content was addressed directly to Ilabrat-bāni and part of the goods that Šalim-aḫum
agreed to sell to Ilabrat-bāni included one hundred kutānum textiles. 3.5, which was sent at the
same time as 3.4, was addressed only to Pūšu-kēn, revealing Šalim-aḫum’s immediate interest
in obtaining gold from Ilabrat-bāni in connection with the ikribū funds. 3.6 comprises the
notifying message for the transport that brought those one hundred kutānum textiles and the
14 minas mazīrum tin which Šalim-aḫum sought to convert into gold.35
35
There are two more documents that might belong to this conversation, but they are so fragmentary
that their interpretation relies entirely on the documents presented here and their addition offers very little. RA
81, p. 19 is mostly broken. If it is related it is because the amounts mentioned on the reverse: 30 shekels gold(?)
and 5 minas silver would correspond to the amounts Ilabrat-bāni is supposed to pay in 3.5 (KTS 1 27b). It reads:
1
um-ma Ša-lim-a-ḫu-um-[ma] 2a-na Pu-šu-ke-en6 qí-[bi-ma] 3a-šu-mì ša um-me-a-ni-[kà] 4ta-x [...] 5x [...] (rev.) 1’ma-da-[...]
2‘
TÚG iš ma am [...] 3’ù a-na dIl5-ba-ni 4’um-ma a-ta-ma um [x x] 5’a-ṭá-ra-ad! 1½ ma-[na KÙ.GI] 6’ù 5 ma-na KÙ x [x x] 7’pá-
šál-lam ù ⅓ ma-[na x x] 8’x [...]. Translation: “Šalim-aḫum to Pūšu-kēn, say: Concerning (your?) investors … (you
wrote?) … and about(?) Ili-bāni, you said, “… I will dispatch … 1 mina 30 shekels [gold] and 5 minas silver x [gold]
pašallum and ⅓ mina silver(?).” The other tablet, BIN 6 53 (NBC 3767) is also quite broken. In that letter, Šalim-
174
Document 3.4 - TC 1 26: First Ilabrat-bāni letter36
a-na Pu-šu-ke-en6
ù dNIN.ŠUBUR-ba-ni qí-bi4-ma
a-na NIN.ŠUBUR-ba-ni qí-bi4-ma
5 ta-áš-pu-ra-am um-ma a-ta-ma
té-er-ta-kà a-na ṣé-er
ša ki-ma ku-a-tí li-li-kam-ma
AN.NA ù TÚG.ḪI.A ki-ma
i-qí-pu-ni ša KÙ.BABBAR
10 1 GÚ li-dí-nu-nim ù i-ta-ki-it
a-ni-a-tim 10 ma-na.TA
KÙ.BABBAR-pí li-li-kà-ku-ma
a-na té-er-tí-a i-ḫi-id
2 GÚ AN.NA iš-tí Ḫu-ra-ṣa-nim
15 2 GÚ iš-tí A-mur-A-šùr
lo.e. DUMU Šu-Ištar ù 1 me-at ku-ta-nu
AN.NA SIG5 i-re-eš15
rev. AN.NA ù TÚG.ḪI.A a-na
u4-me qú-ur-bu-tim
20 nam-gi5-ra-ma li-qé
šu-ma KÙ.BABBAR-áp-kà a-na ší-a-ma-tim
tù-šé-ba-lam la-ma KÙ.BABBAR-áp-kà
e-ru-ba-ni ṭup-pá-kà le-tí-qá-ma
ší-ma-am ša ta-ša-pá-ra-ni
25 i-ra-mì-ni-a lá-áš-a-ma
aḫum is writing to Ilabrat-bani and mentions the tablet from Agua, tin, and Dan-Aššur bringing something. The
circumstances resemble what is happening here, but not clearly enough to be confident. The preserved portions
of the letter read: 1[u]m-ma Ša-lim-a-ḫu-um-m[a] 2a-na dNIN.ŠUBUR-ba-ni 3qí-bi-ma i-ṭup-pì-im 4ša A-gu-a AN.NA ku-
nu-ki-k[à] 5a-na dNIN.ŠUBUR-ba-ni 6ú? [x x ni]-is-ḫa-tim 7[x x x t]ám a-ṣé-er 8[ ... ]-x 1’Dan-A-šur dí-ma lu-ub-lu-[nim] 2’a-
šu-mì dIŠKUR-a-[x x x] 3’i-ra-mì-ni-kà [x x x] “Šalim-aḫum to Ilabrat-bāni: According to the tablet of Agua under
your seal, “(?)To Ilabrat-bāni and(?) … excise … Give […] to Dān-Aššur so that they can deliver (it). Concerning
Adad-a[…] from your own funds(?) …”
36
Previous translations: B. Landsberger, AHK, 15; van der Meer, Correspondance, Nr. 22.
175
lu-šé-bi-la-kum KÙ.BABBAR-pí
ITU.1.KAM iš-té-en6 ù šé-na
li-bé-la-ni a-ḫi a-ta
a-na AN.NA-ki-a 6 GÍN.TA
30 la ta-ba-ta-qám 5 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR ù ni-is-ḫa-sú
½ ma-na KÙ.GI pá-šál-lam
šé-bi-lam 1 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR a-šu-mì
u.e. DINGIR i-ra-mì-ni-kà ma!-li
li-bi4 lá tù-lá-ma-an
35 DINGIR be-el! ik-ri-bi li-ir-de8-k[à]
le.e. i-ṭup-pì-im ša La-qé-pí-im ù Pu-šu-ke-en6
6 ma-na AN.NA ù ku-sí-tum ù ½ ku-ta-nim
iš-tí NIN.ŠUBUR-ba-ni a-ḫi a-ta37
KÙ.BABBAR-pí šé-bi-lam
1-3
Šalim-aḫum to Pūsu-kēn and Ilabrat-bāni:
4
To Ilabrat-bāni, say:
5-13
You wrote me, “Let your message come to your representatives so that they may
give me tin and textiles worth about one talent of silver when they sell on credit. And, in
confirmation of these things let a 10 minas portion of my silver (i.e. the silver I will pay) go to
you, so that you give heed to my messages.”38
14-26
2 talents tin with Ḫuraṣānim, 2 talents with Amur-Aššur son of Šū-Ištar and 100
kutānum-textiles—there is fine tin on top of the tin and textiles)—: make an agreement on
short-term credit and take the tin and textiles. If you send your silver for purchases, before
your silver arrives let your tablet cross overland and I will purchase the purchase-requests
which you send to me with my own funds and send them to you.
37
Collation of lines 31-38 in J. Lewy, "Apropos of a Recent Study in Old Assyrian Chronology," Or. 26
(1957): 23 n. 1.
38
The use of takittum here suggests that it should be read as ‘down payment’ or security deposit in Old
Assyrian. Despite the fact that .TA normally functions as a distributive marker, I take the use of .TA in the phrase
to indicate that the 10 minas forms part of the larger price (about 1 talent of silver) which Ilabrat-bani will
eventually pay for the goods he will buy from Šalim-aḫum. See remarks immediately following 3.5 below.
176
26-35
Let my silver be disposed for 1 or 2 months. My dear brother, do not go lower than a
6 shekel rate for my tin. Send me 5 minas silver and its excise and 30 shekels pašallum gold. As
for the 1 mina of silver, it belongs to the god! Fill it with your means! Don’t make me angry.
May the god, the owner of the ikribū offering, marshall you.39
36-39
From the tablet of Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn: “6 minas tin and a robe and ½ kutānum-
textile (are) with Ilabrat-bāni.” My dear brother, send me my silver.
The companion letter reads:
Document 3.5 - KTS 1 27b : Second Ilabrat-bāni Letter40
a-na Pu-šu-ke-en6
qí-bi-ma a-ṣé-er
5 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR ša a-na
d
5 NIN.ŠUBUR-ba-ni
áš-pu-ru ù a!-ta!
10 ma-na i-na KÙ.BABBAR-pì-a
ra-dí-ma 15 ma-na
KÙ.BABBAR ù KÙ.GI
lo.e. ma-la tù-ba-lá-ni
10 i-na a-wi-tim
ša ILLAT-tim41 ki-ma KÙ.BABBAR
rev. ik-ri-bu-ni
wa-dí-ma ša-du-a-tám
i-na ḫa-ra-nim
15 la i-lá-ma-ad
6 GÍN KÙ.GI ša Pá-na-kà
7 GÍN iš-ti Ḫu-ra-ṣa-nim
i-na e-ra-bi4-šu-ma
ša-áš-qí-il5
20 ½ ma-na KÙ.GI
39
The clause 1 mana kaspum aššumi ilim is constructed to place emphasis on the god’s ownership as
opposed to Šalim-aḫum’s. The translation of lines 32-35 follows Hirsch, UAR, 38 n. 193.
40
Previous translations: AC, 253 n. 2.
41
See Garelli, AC 253 n.2, 257 n. 2.
177
u.e. ù ni-is-ḫa-sú
I-lá-ab-ra-ba-ni
le.e. li-dí-na-kum 6 GÍN KÙ.GI
iš-tí A-gu-a DUMU DU10-A-šùr
25 i-na a-lá-ki-kà ša-áš-qí-il5-šu
1-3
3-25
In addition to the 5 minas silver about which I wrote to Ilabrat-bāni, you yourself add
also 10 minas from my silver and then declare the 15 minas silver and the gold, as much as you
bring to me, in the awītum of the caravan as ikribū money, so that it will not accrue road fees. 6
shekels gold of Panaka, 7 shekels with Ḫuraṣānum: have it paid at his arrival. Let Ilabrat-bāni
give you 30 shekels gold and its excise tax. 6 shekels gold from Agua son of Ṭāb-Aššur: have it
paid at your departure.
Šalim-aḫum begins letter 3.4 by quoting a previous letter from Ilabrat-bāni. In Ilabrat-
bāni’s letter, which is lost to us, Ilabrat-bāni asked to buy one silver talent worth of goods from
Šalim-aḫum and offered 10 minas silver up front if Šalim- aḫum accepted. While the syntax of
Ilabrat-bāni’s 10 mina offer as quoted by Šalim- aḫum is unusual,42 the companion letter (3.5)
clearly shows that Šalim-aḫum understood Ilabrat-bāni to be offering the 10 minas silver as a
down payment and that he intended to use this opportunity to gather the gold for his ikribū
fund. Šalim-aḫum stipulated that Ilabrat-bani pay the down payment in two specie: half in
silver and half in gold. He wrote, “Send 5 minas silver and 30 shekels paššallum-gold and its
excise,” and said later, “May the god, lord of my ikribum, marshall you” (3.4:30-32, 35). Šalim-
aḫum directed Pūšu-kēn in 3.5 to send the silver and gold with the other funds he needed. The
5 minas silver was to be lumped together with 10 minas from another source and the 30
shekels gold was to be included with the small amounts of gold which Šalim-aḫum had already
42
See note 38 above.
178
begun instructing Pūsu-kēn in 3.3 to gather from other sources. In that same letter he
mentioned Ilabrat-bāni’s ½ mina of pašallum-gold and instructed Pūšu-kēn to declare all of the
gold—and 15 minas of silver (of which 5 minas was the other portion to be paid by Ilabrat-
bāni)—as ikribū-funds so that they be exempt from the šaddu’atum fee on the journey to Aššur.
These sources would yield a half mina of gold for Šalim-aḫum, badly needed because of the loss
he suffered from Puzur-Ištar’s abandoning the previous agreement.
In accepting Ilabrat-bāni’s offer, Šalim-aḫum indicated that he would sell him two-
donkey loads of tin brought by Amur-Aššur son of Šū-Ištar and Ḫuraṣānum and 100 kutānum
textiles associated with fine tin.43 While assets already cleared through customs and sold in
Kanesh could still be referenced by the names of their transporters (as shown in the last
chapter), these goods could not have already arrived in Kanesh. If Šalim-aḫum had believed
the goods to already be in Kanesh as he wrote the letter, he would also know he ran the risk
that the goods would be sold by the time his letter arrived in Kanesh. The market price of the
goods, minus the various import duties, closely matched Ilabrat-bāni’s request for one talent
worth of goods. After the shipments of both the tin and textiles cleared the nisḫatum duty, and
the tithe purchases on the textiles had been taken, and after Dān-Aššur took his ten kutānum
textiles (3.6, 11-12), then based on Šalim-aḫum’s demands (20 shekels each on short term
credit for the textiles (see Chapter Two) and 6:1 tin:silver as Šalim-aḫum demanded) the
roughly 250 talents of tin and 76 textiles remaining would have been worth 67 minas silver
43
Note that Ḫurāšānum and Amur-Aššur do appear in another text as transporting a donkey-load of tin
each for Šalim-aḫum in BIN 4 27 (OACP Type 3:14). Each brought about 2 talents (Ḫuraṣānum - 2 talents 6 minas,
Amur-Aššur - 2 talents 10 minas). After clearing the goods through customs and balancing the shipping costs, 3
talents, 43½ minas remained. However, BIN 4 27 does not seem to derive from the same year: Pūšu-kēn was not
present, other persons are acting as Šalim-aḫum’s agent (Al-āḫum, Imdī-ilum, and Puzur-Aššur), both
transporters also bring textiles, there is no ‘fine’ tin mentioned, and the goods are split up into multiple lots and
sold to multiple merchants (l. 36 i-ṣé-er DAM.GÀR ke-nu-tim).
179
based on Šalim-aḫum’s demands (20 shekels each on short term credit for the textiles (see
Chapter Two) and 6:1 tin:silver as Šalim-aḫum demanded) equalled approximately 1 talent of
silver.
It should be clear that the circumstances under which the sale to Ilabrat-bāni was
arranged were quite different from the circumstances of the sales made in the original
venture. In the original venture, Šalim-aḫum sent his goods to Anatolia leaving his agents to
sell the goods to whomever. But Ilabrat-bāni had good reasons for making such an offer (see
Chapter Four). More important is Puzur-Ištar’s relationship to Ilabrat-bāni. The two were
brothers, yet Šalim-aḫum never intimated that Ilabrat-bāni might have had some
responsibility to pay him because his older brother had partially created Šalim-aḫum’s
problems with gold. There is no sense that because Puzur-Ištar and Ilabrat-bāni were brothers,
they were part of the same firm and default of one could rightfully be claimed on the other.
Either a sense of shared responsibility was so deeply engrained in the mental frameworks of all
parties involved that it didn’t need mentioning, or it wasn’t relevant to the business of Old
Assyrian merchants.
Šalim-aḫum’s language—that the god of the ikribū conduct Ilabrat-bāni along--suggests
that the gold was intended to partially solve Šalim-aḫum’s ikribū problem. This is confirmed in
3.5, where Šalim-aḫum instructed Pūšu-kēn to combine the ½ mina gold he demanded from
Ilabrat-bāni with other amounts of gold. First was the gold he hoped to gain from Agua’s fine
tin mentioned in 3.3. Agua’s 14 minas of fine mazīrum tin, which Šalim-aḫum estimated would
yield 6 shekels gold, had not yet arrived in Kanesh travelling as it was with the 100 kutānum
textiles (see comments to 3.6 below). Šalim-aḫum also sought 7 shekels gold from Ḫuraṣānum
(3.5:17-19) likely from the be’ulātum obligation which Ḫuraṣānum would have owed to Šalim-
180
aḫum after he transported the goods mentioned in 3.4:14. Panaka also owed Šalim-aḫum 6
shekels of gold, and though the origin of his debt is unknown, it is mentioned again in another
letter from a later episode (5.5:18-19, 37-42).
The table below summarizes the various sources of gold cited by Šalim-aḫum in the
three letters in which he discusses these matters:
Table 8: Summary of Šalim-aḫum’s sources of gold

Letter Sources of gold Total
3.1 ⅔m gold from Puzur-Ištar, ⅓m gold from other sources
(Pūšu-kēn) 1 mina
3.3 Gold from selling mazīrum tin, gold from Ilī-ašrannī,

⅓m gold from other sources (Pūšu-kēn) 1 mina
3.5 6š gold from Panaka, 7š gold from Ḫuraṣānum, ½m gold

49 shekels
and its excise from Ilabrat-bāni, 6š gold from Agua’s tin
m = minas, š = shekels
The documentation on the shipment of tin carried by Amur-Aššur and Ḫuraṣānum and
earmarked for Ilabrat-bāni has not survived. However, 3.6, the notifying message for the
transport of Dān-Aššur (Šalim-aḫum’s son) and Šū-Suen does show that the two brought the
one hundred kutānum textiles which Šalim-aḫum sold to Ilabrat-bāni, along with the fine
mazīrum tin associated with Agua. It reads:
Document 3.6 - CCT 5 5a: Notifying message for Dān-Aššur’s caravan44
a-na La-qé-ep ú Pu-šu-ke-en6
qí-bi-ma 6 GÚ 30 ma-na
AN.NA ku-nu-ki-a 18 TÚG šu-ru-tum
5 ša li-wi-tim
44
Previous treatments: Garelli, Assyiens en Cappadoce, 239 n. 3, Larsen, OACP, 166, n. 83.
181
1 me-at TÚG ku-ta-nu
7 ANŠE.ḪI.A ṣa-lá-mu
1 GÚ 10 ma-na AN.NA a-qá-tí-šu-nu
mì-ma a-nim ku-nu-ki-a Šu-Sú-en6
10 ú Dan-A-šùr i-ra-de8-ú-ni-ku-nu-tí
ŠÀ 10 TÚG ša Dan-A-šùr 1 TÚG šu-ra-am
a-na a-wi-il5-tim dí-na
AN.NA ú TÚG.ḪI-tí-a a-na DAM.GÀR
ke-nim ša ki qá-qí-dí-ku-nu
15 a-u4-me qú-ur-bu-tim dí-na
šu-ma a-u4-me qú-ur-bu-tim
lá i-ba-ší ki-ma i-qí-pu-ni
AN.NA ú TÚG.ḪI-tí-a | a-na
DAM.GÀR ke-nim ša ki-ma
20 qá-qí-dí-ku-nu | dí-na | DAM.GÀR-ku-nu
lu ke-en6 ITU.KAM iš-té-en6
ú šé-na lá tù-šé-qá-ra
KÙ ma-lá i-na ṣé-er DAM.GÀR
ta-na-dí-a-ni ú u4-me
25 i-na ṭup-pì-ku-nu lu-up-ta-nim
2 ri-ik-sà-an 14 ma-na AN.NA
a-na A!-gu-a 6 TÚG ku-ta-nu
a-ḫa-ma a-na DAM.GÀR-ri
mì-ma a-nim a-ṣé-er
30 Lá-qé-ep ú Pu-šu-ke-en6
Šu-Sú-en6 ú Dan-A-šùr
na-áš-ú | ANŠE.ḪI.A ṣa-lá-me
TÚG.ḪI.A ša Dan-A-šùr iš-tí
ANŠE.ḪI.A ṣa-lá-me e-mì-da-ma
35 a-na u4-me qú-ur-bu-tim
dí-na a-ba-áb ḫa-ra-ni-šu
KÙ.BABBAR li-ší-qí-il5-ma
i-šé-pì-šu KÙ.BABBAR lu-ub-lam
(Remainder uninscribed)
182
1-3
Šalim-aḫum to Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn:
3-25
6 talents 30 minas tin under my seal, 8 šurum-textiles as wrappings, 100 kutānum-
textiles, 7 black donkeys, 1 talent 10 minas hand tin, all this under my seal Šū-Suen and Dān-
Aššur drive to you. Therein, 10 textiles belong to Dān-Aššur. Give 1 šurum textile to the woman.
Sell my tin and textiles to a trustworthy merchant as reliable as yourselves on short-term
credit. If there is no opportunity to sell on short-term credit, when you sell on credit, sell my
tin and textiles to a merchant as reliable as yourselves. Your merchant must be reliable. Do not
overvalue one or two months. Write to me how much silver you deposit on the merchant and
the term period in your tablet.
26-38
Two packages—14 minas—of tin for Agua. 6 kutānum textiles separately for the
merchants. All this, Šū-Suen and Dān-Aššur are transporting to Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn. As for
the black donkeys and textiles of Dān-Aššur, combine them with the (other) black donkeys and
sell them on short-term credit. At his (Dan-Aššur’s) departure let the silver be paid so that he
may bring it here with him.
Šalim-aḫum sent seven donkeys loaded with goods to Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn via Šū-
Suen and Dān-Aššur (ll. 3-9): three donkeys loaded with 130 minas of tin each and four donkeys
with a total of 100 kutānum textiles. In addition to revealing the source of the 100 kutānum
textiles, the letter also shows that the fine mazīrum tin came in the same shipment. After
counseling Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn to sell the goods on invoice to a reliable merchant (a
typical admonition for Šalim-aḫum to make), he noted the inclusion of two packages of tin
weighing a combined 14 minas for Agua, and six textiles for the merchants (Šū-Suen and Dān-
Aššur). Having written this letter before he received Ilabrat-bāni’s offer, Šalim-aḫum
instructed Pūšu-kēn to combine Dān-Aššur’s donkeys and the six textiles with Šu-Suen’s
donkeys, and sell them on short term credit. The silver for that transaction was to be collected
before Dān-Aššur left again for Aššur.
The consistency of the mention of the 14 minas of fine mazīrum tin associated with
Agua and the consistent development of its intended use corroborates the identification of the
183
100 kutānum textiles mentioned in this letter with the textiles Šalim-aḫum sold to Ilabrat-bāni
(3.4:16-18). Following the references to the 14 minas of tin through several letters reveals how
rapidly the situation developed. First, Šalim-aḫum sent off the tin with Dān-Aššur and Šū-Suen
with no specific instructions as to its disposal (3.6). Next, Šalim-aḫum told Pūšu-kēn to sell the
tin for gold when he learned that Puzu-Ištar had backed out of his contract (3.3:23-26). Finally,
Šalim-aḫum attempted to sell the tin to Ilabrat-bāni when the latter offered to purchase a
large lot of goods from him (3.5:16-20). All of these decisions had to be made quickly enough
for Šalim-aḫum’s last letter (3.5) to reach Pūsu-kēn in Kanesh before Dān-Aššur and Šū-Suen
arrived with the tin. Šalim-aḫum must have believed he could communicate to Pūšu-kēn his
decision to sell the tin to Ilabrat-bāni before Dān-Aššur and Šū-Suen arrived, and before the tin
had been sold. The same is true for the 100 kutānum textiles which Šalim-aḫum sold to Ilabrat-
bāni. If the textiles had arrived ahead of Šalim-aḫum’s letter, then it is quite possible that
Pūsu-kēn would have already sold the textiles.
Šalim-aḫum’s instructions to Pūšu-kēn to sell the 14 minas mazīrum tin might seem
confusing if the tin belonged to Agua. Šalim-aḫum clearly seemed to be selling the tin in order
to meet his own needs. Perhaps the tin transported by Dan-Aššur and Šū-Suen came from Agua
but was given as a payment to Šalim-aḫum when it arrived in Kanesh, then Šalim-aḫum’s
attribution of the tin to Agua and at the same time his instruction to Pūšu-kēn to sell that tin
seems reasonable.
Obviously, not everything mentioned in these letters has been exhaustively treated.
Several items merit more attention. For instance, Šalim-aḫum told Ilabrat-bāni that he owed 6
minas tin, a kusītum robe and ½ kutānum textile from a previous incident (3.4:35-39). This
detail pertains to Ilabrat-bāni’s problems more fully documented in the conversation reviewed
184
in Chapter Four. Also, Šalim-aḫum instructed Pūšu-kēn to dispatch Ennam-Aššur to him
(3.1:25-26). Šalim-aḫum’s efforts to coax his son home to Aššur for an imminent wedding are
more fully covered in a conversation in Chapter Five. Šalim-aḫum was also involved in aiding
Pūsu-kēn’s acquisition of real estate, doing so in relative concert with other persons in Aššur
(3.3:3-17). Šalim-aḫum’s role in the real estate endeavor and Pūšu-kēn’s poor showing in
looking after Šalim-aḫum’s interests vis-á-vis Puzur-Ištar both likely contributed to pressure
Pūšu-kēn felt to comply when Šalim-aḫum asked him to participate in a joint venture—despite
Pūšu-kēn disliking the undertaking. This development will be taken up in Chapter Five.
Table 9: Summary Table of Events from the Puzur-Ištar Affair
PI1 Šalim-aḫum makes arrangements with Puzur-Ištar to buy gold in Anatolia, giving
him assets to buy the gold and making a ša harrān ālim contract with him (3.1:3-6).
PI2 Šalim-aḫum discusses with Pūšu-kēn the contract he has with Puzur-Ištar while
Pūšu-kēn is in Aššur. He give Pūšu-kēn a copy of the contract. At this time Pūšu-kēn
may have planned to send the gold with s. Šū-Ištar (3.1:8-13).
PI3 Puzur-Ištar travels to Kanesh but does not provide the gold when he arrives (3.1:3-6,
14).
PI4 Šalim-aḫum writes to Pūšu-kēn that Puzur-Ištar is overdue and tells Pūšu-kēn to
start legal proceedings against Puzur-Ištar. He tells Pūšu-kēn to get 1 minas total in
gold for Šalim-aḫum’s ikrībū fund to be brought with Ilī-ālum (3.1).
A  He tells Pūšu-kēn to send Ennam-Aššur directly back to Aššur (3.1:25-26).
PI5 Puzur-Ištar further stalls payment and rebuffs Pūšu-kēn’s attempt to collect,
claiming problems with his textiles, which Pūšu-kēn reports in a letter (3.2:3-10).
PI6 Šalim-aḫum responds to Pūšu-kēn’s letter, saying that Pūšu-kēn has not been
sufficiently diligent with Šalim-aḫum’s assets, especially in comparison to a certain
Aššur-mālik’s assets. He urges Pūšu-kēn to bind Puzur-Ištar to pay (3.2).
185
Table 9: Summary Table of Events from the Puzur-Ištar Affair, continued
PI7 Pūšu-kēn remits 1 mina 11 shekels silver to Puzur-Ištar and apparently thus allows
Puzur-Ištar to break the agreement, which Puzur-Ištar reports to Šalim-aḫum
(3.3:19-22).
PI8 Šalim-aḫum writes to Pūšu-kēn, accepting the outcome of the event with frustration,
and tells Pūšu-kēn to still get 1 mina gold through various means (selling 14 minas
mazīrum tin with Agua, gathering gold from Ilī-ašranni, and from other places)
(3.3:18-32).
A  He reports to Pūšu-kēn on the ongoing process of purchasing a house for Pūšu-
kēn, promising that he will pay silver out of his own pocket if necessary to close the
deal. He is waiting for the price to fall (3.3:3-18).
PI9 Ilabrat-bāni writes to Šalim-aḫum asking to buy 1 talent of silver worth of goods
from him and offering 10 minas silver up front (3.4:5-13).
PI10 Dān-Aššur and Šū-Suen travel to Kanesh with 3 donkey loads of tin, 8 š. textiles, and
100 kutānum textiles on 4 donkeys and 1 talent, 10 minas hand tin for Šalim-aḫum
(3.6).
A  10 textiles are designated to Dān-Aššur and 1 š. textile is designated to the
woman (3.6:11-12).
B  14 minas tin are related to Agua (3.6:26-27).
C  6 kutānum textiles are noted for Šalim-aḫum’s merchants (i.e. Dān-Aššur)
(3.6:27-28).
D  Šalim-aḫum designates the silver (on some of the assets) to be paid when Dān-
Aššur departs so that the latter can bring it with him back to Aššur. (3.6:36-38).
PI11 Šalim-aḫum writes back to Pūšu-kēn and Ilabrat-bāni that Ilabrat-bāni is to buy 4
talents tin associated with Ḫuraṣānum and Šū-Ištar and 100 kutānum textiles. He
demands a 6 š. rate for the tin and in response to the offer of 10 minas silver by
Ilabrat-bāni, he specifies that instead of 10 minas silver, Ilabrat-bāni is to pay 5
minas of silver and ½ mina pašallum gold (3.4).
A  He complains about 1 mina of silver which Ilabrat-bāni owes saying that it
belongs to the god (3.4:32-34).
B  He calls on the god of the ikribū to ‘marshall’ Ilabrat-bāni (3.4:35).
C  He notes that Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn’s letter says that Ilabrat-bāni owes 6
minas tin, a robe, and ½ kutānum textile (3.4:36-39).
186
Table 9: Summary Table of Events from the Puzur-Ištar Affair, continued
PI12 At the same time as the letter above, Šalim-aḫum writes to Pūšu-kēn to tell him to
include the 5 minas silver which he demanded from Ilabrat-bāni with 10 more minas
silver and to designate that silver as ikribū assets. He tells Pūšu-kēn to send: 6 shekels
gold from Panaka, 7 shekels gold from Ḫuraṣānum, ½ mina gold just demanded from
Ilabrat-bāni (3.5:31-32; 3.6:20-23), 6 shekels gold from Agua s. Ṭāb-Aššur (3.6:23-25).
The Temporal Development of the Puzur-Ištar Affair
The letters were written in the order they have been presented in this chapter with the
exception of 3.6, which was written before Šalim-aḫum received Ilabrat-bāni’s offer. Some
semblance of the temporal development of the events can be gained from internal review of
the events within these letters. There are no specific chronological references within the
documentation that allow us to date the Puzur-Ištar affair or its development. It certainly
developed contemporaneously with the Ilabrat-bāni affair covered in the next chapter, and
with the other episodes covered in Chapter Five. However, when the events are laid out on the
framework of the original venture, it becomes apparent how quickly the process developed.
After sketching the development through internal analysis of only the letters in this
conversation, a more rigorous reconstruction will be assembled in context of the original
venture.
Šalim-aḫum wrote 3.1 while Pūšu-kēn traveled to Anatolia from mid-March to mid-
April (see fig. 5 below). Reminding Pūšu-kēn to collect the debt when he arrived in Kanesh, the
letter was written in late March and sent so as to arrive in Kanesh at the same time or ahead of
Puzur-Ištar and perhaps even overtake Pūšu-kēn before he made it to Kanesh. Pūšu-kēn and
187
Puzur-Ištar must have arrived within a short time of each other. The next two letters, 3.2 and
3.3, followed in rapid succession. Because Puzur-Ištar was responsible to pay an installment of
gold practically upon arrival in Kanesh, Pūšu-kēn would have written Šalim-aḫum the news
that Puzur-Ištar was stalling. This prompted the quick response from Šalim-aḫum (3.2) soon
after Puzur-Ištar and Pūšu-kēn arrived in Kanesh and thus relatively soon after Pūšu-kēn had
received 3.1. After Šalim-aḫum received a letter from Puzur-Ištar himself, stating that the
latter was exiting the contract, Šalim-aḫum wrote 3.3. Most likely, Puzur-Ištar exited the
contract before Pūšu-kēn received the instructions in 3.2 to bind Puzur-Ištar into paying. In
3.3, Šalim-aḫum faulted Pūšu-kēn only for cutting a deal with Puzur-Ištar, not for failing to
deliver a tarkistum to Puzur-Ištar. Had Šalim-aḫum felt that Pūšu-kēn had received 3.2 but still
settled with Puzur-Ištar in the way he did, Šalim-aḫum would have likely reacted more
strongly in 3.3, instead of accepting the outcome as a foregone conclusion.
Šalim-aḫum sent the next two letters, 3.4 and 3.5, together, after he had written 3.3,
when Ilabrat-bāni’s offer to purchase merchandise reached him in Aššur. 3.4 and 3.5 were
also written after Ḫuraṣānum, Amur-Aššur, Šū-Suen, and Dān-Aššur had departed Aššur for
Anatolia, when 3.6, the notifying message for Šū-Suen and Dān-Aššur, was sent. The notifying
message, 3.6, also preceded 3.3 because in 3.6 Šalim-aḫum had already mentioned selling the
mazīrum tin listed in 3.3 which Šū-Suen and Dān-Aššur were bringing in their cargo.
188
8"(

,'9*,,
'
'(
May

!"#
!"#$ !"#$ !"#$ !"#$ !"#$ !"#% !"#% !"#% !"#%
':**;/
/

)

33.6
2.2
Š-
33.2
'
Pšu-k
Suen

Report:Išt
n :
,A
a
33.3
š
r
“

š
e

u
en
ns

ld
0"7
r-m
-Su
nio

Š
Puzur-Iš Puzur-Iš

,
l ik
u r
m pa

c o
Lot #4 sittos contract
Ašš
I tar dela
Dn-
ays”
tar

- I š

r
2.1 N
Puzu r-Ištar &
3.4&3.5
33.1

**
)

'+
! !! ,-/ ,
While it is clear that Šū-Suen and Dān-Aššur had left before Šalim-aḫum wrote 3.3, it
seems that Ḫuraṣānum and Amur-Aššur did not depart with Šū-Suen and Dān-Aššur, nor
before Šalim-aḫum wrote 3.3. When Šalim-aḫum wrote 3.5 to Pūšu-kēn, he told his agent to
collect 7 shekels gold from Ḫuraṣānum (3.5:17), while in 3.3, Šalim-aḫum made no mention of
Ḫuraṣānum. Šalim-aḫum’s arrangement with Ḫuraṣānum likely represents another attempt by
Šalim-aḫum to raise more gold in the aftermath of Puzur-Ištar’s default. Exactly what type of
arrangement he made with Ḫuraṣānum is unknown. One possibility was a be’ulātum loan, with
terms indicating Ḫuraṣānum would pay the debt in gold. At a the basic exchange rate between
gold and silver in Anatolia (1:5 ratio of gold to silver), Ḫuraṣānum’s be’ulātum obligation in gold
would have been valued at 35 shekels silver, which is comparable to the transporters be’ulātum
debts in the original venture (2.3:35-42). Another possibility is that Šalim-aḫum gave
Ḫuraṣānum a few textiles to sell for gold. This would parallel his attempts to raise gold through
Ilabrat-bāni on an earlier occasion (see Chapter Four). In either case, Šalim-aḫum’s
arrangement with Ḫuraṣānum implies two things. First, though he needed gold soon, Šalim-
aḫum nonetheless deemed making an arrangement with a departing merchant a sufficiently
prompt method of obtaining some of that gold. Second, Šalim-aḫum likely took this measure
soon after receiving word from Puzur-Ištar and writing 3.3.
Unlike the documentation on the original venture, there are no specific dates
mentioned in the letters from this conversation, no comparable chronological anchors to assist
in determining how quickly the conversation evolved. From the review above, it seems that
several letters from Kanesh arrived in Aššur on the heels of their precursors and Šalim-aḫum’s
responses followed suit. If Puzur-Ištar’s concerns about his textiles to which Šalim-aḫum
190
alluded in 3.2 were a preview of his default, then its demise was already in process, the
confirmation of the portended failure followed soon thereafter, and Šalim-aḫum was already
trying to compensate for his losses. When the development of this conversation is connected
to the development of the original venture, the sense of swift progression is corroborated. This
connection is found in the movements of Šalim-aḫum’s son Dān-Aššur. As discussed in
3.6,Dān-Aššur had travelled with Šū-Suen to Kanesh and remained in Kanesh. while Šū-Suen
proceeded back to Aššur with the first salvo of silver packets for Šalim-aḫum (2.3:9-14). Dān-
Aššur then later returned to Aššur with the second round of Šalim-aḫum’s silver packets
(2.4:18-34).
Dān-Aššur’s departure for Kanesh in 3.6 and his return to Aššur in 2.4 comprised two
legs of the same round trip. This is evident due to a small lot of goods he carried to Kanesh and
the silver which he brought back to Šalim-aḫum in Aššur. In the original venture
documentation, Šalim-aḫum wrote to Pūšu-kēn about Dān-Aššur transporting goods to Kanesh
for himself, among which are 6 textiles (1 nibrarum and 5 kusītum textiles) which Šalim-aḫum
asked Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn to purchase (2.5:11-12, 16-20). The notifying message for Dān-
Aššur in this chapter (3.6) shows that 6 textiles, separate from the main load, were “for the
merchants,” and asked that those textiles be sold on short term credit so that Dān-Aššur could
bring the silver home with him (3.6:23-38). When Dān-Aššur returned to Aššur, noted in the
second letter of receipt (2.4), he brought back “2 minas silver which corresponded to his
textiles” (2.4:25-27). The two minas silver corresponds to the typical price for 6 kutānum
textiles on short term credit (20 shekels each).
The connection between Dan-Aššur’s departure from and return to Aššur becomes
stronger when documentation from later chapters is also considered. It has already been noted
191
that Dān-Aššur travelled to Kanesh, then stayed there for some period of time. The
conversation in Chapter Five revolves around the discussion leading to the decision that
allowed Dān-Aššur to stay in Kanesh. While Dān-Aššur travelled to Kanesh, Šalim-aḫum heard
that Pūšu-kēn planned to send Dān-Aššur on to Purušḫattum when he arrived in Kanesh. In
response, Šalim-aḫum maneuvered to bring Dān-Aššur home (5.1:30, 5.3:22-24), and to have
him bring one talent of silver with him, also asking Pūšu-kēn to send pašallum gold, including
the 6 shekels from Panaka (5.5:18-19, 37-42) referenced in this chapter (3.5:17).) And in the
process Šalim-aḫum did decide to let Dān-Aššur stay in Anatolia for the nabrītum (see Chapter
Five). Pūšu-kēn responded to Šalim-aḫum’s request that Dān-Aššur bring home one talent of
silver by promising to send 1 talent 20 minas silver (5.10:13-16). When he sent Dān-Aššur with
the 1 talent 32 minas silver, Pūšu-kēn delivered as promised (2.4:24-30).
Aligning Dān-Aššur’s transport of Šalim-aḫum’s goods to Kanesh in this conversation
with Dān-Aššur’s trip to Kanesh mentioned in the original venture (2.5) places the
development of this conversation bewteen the beginning of April and mid-June. The principle
anchor is that of Šū-Suen’s return to Aššur from Kanesh with the first packet of silver
delivered to Šalim-aḫum in the original venture. From the chronological discussion in Chapter
Two, Šū-Suen’s departure with the first packets of silver for Šalim-aḫum’s goods fell around
the time of Pilaḫ-Aššur’s due date from Chapter Two—sometime between the first week of June
and the first week of July in REL 80. As a result, all the activity from this conversation leading
up to Šū-Suen’s arrival with Dān-Aššur occurred before that time.
With Pilaḫ-Aššur’s due date functioning as a terminus ante quem for Puzur- Ištar default
and Šalim-aḫum’s compensatory measures, we can work backwards to try to reconstruct their
timing (See Figure 8). Their development can be divided into three general phases taken
192
loosely from Figure 8. The first phase consists of Šalim-aḫum’s making the agreement with
Puzur-Ištar and Puzur-Ištar’s travel to Kanesh. During this first phase, all proceeded according
to plan as far as Šalim-aḫum was concerned, though he still anxiously sent 3.1. In the second
phase, Puzur-Ištar arrived in Kanesh and began backing away from the agreement, causing
Pūšu-kēn to write the letters that prompted 3.2 and 3.3 from Šalim-aḫum. In the third phase,
Ilabrat-bāni offered to purchase goods. The travel of Dān-Aššur, Šū-Suen, Ḫuraṣānum, and
Amur-Aššur and the writing of 3.4 and 3.5, and the earlier writing of 3.6 all occurred in this
third phase.
Several other items brought up here connect the Puzur-Ištar affair to other episodes in
this work. For instance, Šalim-aḫum told Ilabrat-bāni that he owed 6 minas tin, a kusītum robe
and ½ kutānum textile from a previous incident (3.4:35-39). These details pertains to Ilabrat-
bāni’s problems that are more fully documented in the Ilabrat-bāni episode reviewed in
Chapter Four. Also, Šalim-aḫum instructed Pūšu-kēn to dispatch Ennam-Aššur to him (3.1:25-
26). Šalim-aḫum’s efforts to coax his son home to Aššur for an imminent wedding are more
fully covered in an episode in Chapter Five. Šalim-aḫum was also involved in aiding Pūsu-kēn’s
acquisition of real estate, doing so in relative concert with other persons in Aššur (3.3:3-17).
Šalim-aḫum’s role in the real estate endeavor and Pūšu-kēn’s poor showing in looking after
Šalim-aḫum’s interests vis-á-vis Puzur-Ištar both likely contributed to pressure Pūšu-kēn felt
to comply when Šalim-aḫum asked him to participate in a joint venture—despite Pūšu-kēn
disliking the undertaking. The development of this episode will also be taken up in Chapter
Five.
While phase one is temporally distinct from phase two, phases two and three seem to
have developed simultaneously—Dān-Aššur and Šū-Suen could have left before Šalim-aḫum
193
received notice of Puzur-Ištar’s default. From the discussion in Chapter Two, we posited that
the goods sold in the original venture arrived roughly four weeks before Pilaḫ-Aššur’s due
date. We can also posit here that Šū-Suen and Dān-Aššur departed for Kanesh roughly four to
six weeks before Pilaḫ-Aššur’s due date so that they arrived near that date. If Pilaḫ-Aššur’s due
date fell roughly three months after the passes opened (see Chapter Two), then there would be
six weeks prior to Dān-Aššur and Šū-Suen’s departure from Aššur in which the first phases
could develop, demanding that phases two and three largerly overlapped. In order to allow
sufficient time for the development of the actions in this conversation, Puzur-Ištar’s departure
to Kanesh (the earliest known point in this conversation) must have preceded Nūr-Ištar’s
departure to Kanesh in the original venture (2.1).
In the context of the original venture, the rapid development of Šalim-aḫum’s crisis
suggests that the tempo at which Šalim-aḫum communicated with Pūšu-kēn was swift. The
nature of Šalim-aḫum’s actions in his letters, the type of requests he made and his
expectations for affecting situations, suggest that he had access to a reasonably quick tempo of
trade and communication. While in the first three letters of this conversation Šalim-aḫum
seems to be the victim of a situation developing out of his control, he nonetheless wrote letters
which indicate that he felt that his intentions, if effectively communicated, could somehow
effect success in obtaining gold from his contract with Puzur-Ištar. All the while, both Pūšu-
kēn and Šalim-aḫum understood that while Pūšu-kēn was 1000 kilometers away in Kanesh
acting as Šalim-aḫum’s representative, Šalim-aḫum still retained tactical control of his matters
whenever possible. Clearly in the case of Puzur-Ištar, the distance between Šalim-aḫum and
Kanesh proved too great. However, Šalim-aḫum’s ability to affect a sale of goods to Ilabrat-bāni
while those goods were still en route to Kanesh is impressive. And, because he was sufficiently
194
informed of the situation with Puzur-Ištar, he had the near ‘real-time’ information to identify
Ilabrat-bāni’s offer as a new opportunity to procure gold. It is possible that Pūšu-kēn suggested
such a maneuver, but the fact that Šalim-aḫum had the opportunity to decide reveals that the
regime of communication available to Pūsu-kēn and Šalim-aḫum facilitated an impressive
horizon of reaction. This aspect of the Old Assyrian trade, the tempo of bulk transport and
communication, is the subject of the discussion that follows.
The Tempo of Trade and Communication in the Old Assyrian Period
Perhaps the most significant point that emerges from Šalim-aḫum’s ikribū crisis is the
fact that he remained the effective decision-maker despite the time pressures. Šalim-aḫum
might have wanted to retain control because he felt that Pūšu-kēn, as Puzur-Ištar’s uncle, had
a conflict of interest. Whatever his motivations, the measures he was able to take as
reconstructed above demonstrate an impressive regime of communication. At the same time,
Šalim-aḫum’s capability to react and direct his Anatolian affairs from afar both further
supports and demands a similarly robust schedule of transport between Aššur and Anatolia
which could permit the kind of movement that Šalim-aḫum assumed with his requests. In the
timeframe reconstructed for the original venture and the conversation from this chapter,
Šalim-aḫum expected to be able to recover gold from Anatolia in time to repay his ikribū fund
obligation within the shipping season of REL 80.
The reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn’s activities during this year imply that
the pace both of bulk transport and communication between Aššur and Anatolia was swifter
than has been previously assumed. In the figures used to display this reconstruction, I have
used 30 days as the duration of a bulk transport journey between Aššur and Kanesh and 15
195
days as the duration of time required for a letter to travel between the same points. The
reconstruction of continuous activity during this shipping season suggests that these times—
or something very close to them—were facts of the trade. In this half of the chapter, I will
argue that this portrayal is reasonable according to the sources, the route, and comparative
evidence.
The Tempo of Bulk Transport
Though a discussion of the mode of transport has been part and parcel of nearly every
description of the Old Assyrian trade, there is a lack of direct evidence on the duration of an
average journey from Aššur across the Jezireh and Euphrates and through the Taurus
Mountains to Anatolia. Like fish in water, the Assyrian merchants rarely discussed the most
germane parameters of the journey—no direct references to length or duration of entire or
daily journeys have been found among the documentation. In the wake of this absence,
attempts to account for the tempo of travel between Aššur and Anatolia combined estimates of
abstract parameters. Estimates for caravan travel between Aššur and Kanesh have consisted of
dividing the estimated distance of the journey (between 1000 and 1200 kilometers between
Aššur and Kanesh) by the average daily travel of the donkeys (20 to 30 kilometers per day),
permutated within the estimated length of time during which the Taurus mountains were
passable (eight months—from the 1st of April to the 1st of December). The most common
combination of parameters has been 1200 kilometers segmented into 30 kilometers per day,
resulting in a 40 day journey. This result allowed a particular trader only two round-trip
journeys between Aššur and Kanesh during each eight-month shipping season including time
196
spent at either terminus between trips.45 An agreement on the part of one merchant to travel
back and forth to Aššur from Kanesh twice in the space of a single year has also been cited as a
sense of the maximum possible travel within a shipping season.46
A tempo limited to two round trips per season has important implications. Within a
season dictated by a two-round-trip cycle, two round trips from Aššur would have crossed
paths with two round trips from Anatolia. Synchronized in this way, transporters would have
traveled in cyclical waves of large caravans, giving any merchant four opportunities per
season to ship from either terminus.47 Figure 9 below illustrates this model.
45
Veenhof referred to the two-trip model in passing in K.R. Veenhof, "Prices and Trade: The Old Assyrian
Evidence," AoF 15 (1988): 249.
46
Iddin-Ištar was obliged by his father Aššur-nādā to make two trips to Aššur in the space of one year as a
repayment for the loan of 10 minas silver. See Aššur-nādā, No. 142. In both Aššur-nādā and “Individual and Family,”
97, Larsen associated the journey with 1200 kilometers each way.
47
The reference to a 300 donkey caravan (ARM 26/2 432) is from the later Level Ib period and must admit
different conditions.
197
) *+(,
%
-#.&!/2

REL 80 III
R 80 XII

198

& '("

"
! !! #$% #

Such a schedule would have had the potential to impose a strict economy of action. For
example, if a merchant was not prepared to ship goods at the right time, he would have to wait
two months for the next opportunity. Any given transporter had the opportunity to make two
round trips per season, and if he missed the first opportunity, his capacity for action (and
profit) was cut in half. In such a regime of transport, no matter how fast the communication
was, reacting to new situations would have been practically impossible. Moreover, there would
be little time for an individual merchant to travel around Anatolia between journeys; a
decision to go to a city like Purušḫattum would have been a decision to forfeit a cycle between
Aššur and Kanesh. Such a situation would likely have resulted in a division of labor between
transporting within Anatolia and between Anatolia and Aššur.
The development of activities in the original venture and those activities reviewed in
this chapter do not appear to be constrained by a schedule limited to two round trips per year.
For example, Šalim-aḫum’s son Dān-Aššur left Aššur for Kanesh at least a month after the
opening of the season, which would have jeopardized his second trip for the season. His
brother Ennam-Aššur refused to return to Aššur when he was hailed by his father. The pace of
activity already accomplished by Pilaḫ-Aššur’s due date in mid-June, combined with the total
activity reconstructed for this year implies that four consecutive round-trips were
theoretically possible within the space of one shipping season. This is not to say that it would
be practical for any one transporter to have made all four trips. To do so, he would have had to
have proceeded without any delays or problems, or any down time at either terminus.
However, within the realm of this ideal four trips, it was practical for any one transporter to
accomplish three round trips, even if there arose an occasional problem.
199
The case for the more robust tempo will be made first by reviewing the three
parameters mentioned above: the donkeys, the route, and the season. In the course of
reviewing each factor, it will be shown that though the conservative estimates proposed
elsewhere were appropriate within an approach structured by synchronically motivated
evidence, the temporally-sensitive evidence available in this reconstruction supports faster
travel and communication.
The Donkeys
The first variable of the tempo of bulk transport is the daily rate of travel. Average daily
travel is not information forthcoming from the Old Assyrian sources. Most estimates on
average daily donkey travel have come from the few printed publications on such matters—
largely nineteenth century military manuals. A short range of the average daily travel for
donkeys has been postulated, from 25 kilometers per day to 30 to 40 kilometers per day,
splitting the journey to Anatolia into 48, 40 or 30 (presumably daily) stops.48 Other estimates
posit even lower rates of travel;49 but 30 kilometers for the distance between king’s road
stations in the Neo Assyrian period,50 and 22 kilometers between stations along the Persian
road from Susa to Sardis,51 should suggest that any shorter daily distances were unlikely for a
motivated and well-directed merchant. On the low side, 25 kilometers a day along a 1200
48
English army donkeys at 24 kilometers per day are cited in J.G. Dercksen, OAI, 255. Veenhof estimates
30 to 40 kilometers per day. H. Lewy makes reference to modern military use of donkeys in H. Lewy, "The Assload,
the Sack, and Other Measures of Capacity," RSO 39 (1964): 186.
49
Streck (RlA 1980) claims 20 kilometers per day based on Hallo’s review of the Old Babylonian itinerary
to Emar, “Road to Emar,” JCS 18(1953) 71, though Hallo estimates distances between 25-30 airline kilometers per
day.
50
Parpola 1987 XIII-XIV.
51
Stations were placed about every 5 parasangs (111 stations over 2,600 kilometers). Herodotus V.52-3.
For an accessible translation see, F. Meijer and O. van Nijf, Trade, Transport and Society in the Ancient World A
Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1992), 141-42.
200
kilometer route assured that no more than two round trips could be accomplished within an
eight-month season. On the other hand, averaging 33 ⅓ kilometers per day on a 1000 kilometer
journey renders a 30-day journey, making the journey between Aššur and Kanesh a single
month. In the discussion that follows, I will argue that an average daily rate of travel up to 35
kilometers per day is not outside the realm of possibility.
Much information on donkeys, their use, equipment, and supply in the Old Assyrian
period, has already been gathered.52 As for the specific breed the merchants used, it might
seem that the ‘black donkeys’ needed to be stout and large to carry their heavy loads.
However, no direct evidence is yet available for the physical stature of the ‘black donkey’
which the Old Assyrian merchants used, and all indications gathered to date are too indirect to
muster any confidence.53
The observable mortality rate of donkeys is worth considering in conjunction with the
daily rate of travel. Donkeys were likely used from three years old on, though their life
expectancy thereafter seems a rather moribund prospect. Once on the caravan, the number of
years a donkey was expected to live could easily be counted on one hand—if counting at all was
not too optimistic. In Dercksen’s Appendix, his table on ‘Lost Donkeys’ (donkeys which died)
includes caravan reports from the reconstruction in this work (2.2 and 4.1), where Šalim-
aḫum’s donkeys suffered a 50% mortality rate. Three of Šalim-aḫum’s 7 donkeys died in the
original venture (2.2) and 5 of his 9 donkeys that left with Ili-ašrannī’s caravan died en route
52
OAI, Appendix C.
53
Dercksen leaves open the question as to whether the asses from Damascus, which Lewy preferred, or
perhaps some other type of ass, like that from Tell Brak, should be associated with the ‘black donkey.’ Ancient
evidence of variation and cross breeding between different regions seems to undermine any suppositions that
modern donkey breeds found in various areas might correlate directly to anything the Assyrian merchants used
four thousand years ago.
201
(4.1). Despite the high mortality rate and short lifespan of the cargo donkeys, Anatolia likely
had some infusion of donkeys from the Mesopotamian plain because the bulk of the goods
going up to Anatolia from Aššur was far larger than that which returned. If donkeys died or
were otherwise lost en route, there was obviously ample opportunity to replace them, as
shown by the settling of caravan accounts, where compensation for replacing pack animals
was frequent.
Donkeys likely did not die of exhaustion due to the rate of travel. Donkeys’ reputation
for being stubborn has been earned through their keenly developed sense of self preservation,
at least in comparison with horses, thus the caravan could have proceeded no faster than the
capabilities of the donkeys permitted. It is more likely that the heavy tin loads, rather than the
pace, significantly shortened the lives of the beasts.54 The weight of the tin load was close to
150 pounds (75 kg). The weight of the textile loads are unknown but were certainly lighter
than the tin.55 The evidence from the original venture could be interpreted to support the idea
that donkeys loaded with textiles fared better than those carrying tin: only one of Šalim-
aḫum’s eight dead donkeys was certainly carrying textiles, and at least three of them were
certainly carrying tin. While outside forces such as brigands56 may have been an occasional
54
Leah Patton, office manager at the American Donkey and Mule Society (Lewisville, TX) figures that the
heavy loads would not so much slow down a 400-500 pound donkey as wear them down over time. Donkeys could
outpace human walking for long periods each day (personal communication).
55
K.R. Veenhof, AOATT, 89-91.
56
C. Michel, "Les pérégrinations des marchands assyriens en haute Mésopotamie et en Asie Mineure," Res
Antiquae 5 (2008). Michel suggests that outlaws posed a significant hazard to the donkeys on the road. This begs
the question: Given that the report of a donkey death in the caravan account is stated alongside the safe arrival of
the goods it was originally carrying, would raiding robbers have simply beaten donkeys to death and left the
cargo? Donkey caravans could have never outrun surprise raids.
202
problem, it was the loads which they bore and the care which they received that were the real
factors of their mortality.57
Modern military manuals have been cited for comparative evidence of the ultimate
physical capabilites of donkeys and uniformly favor lower daily rates of travel than 30
kilometers per day. However, the writers of the military manuals were not suggesting rates of
travel consistent with the way the Old Assyrian merchants treated the donkeys, since it is
likely that the authors of the military manuals would not have approved of the treatment of
donkeys in the Old Assyrian trade. The ancient owners’ cautions and complaints to their
transporters about the care of their donkeys indicate that the interests of the merchant-
owners and the interests of their transporters were at variance.58 Because the donkeys were
not necessarily permanent acquisitions, there was less incentive to purchase the finest
donkeys available, only those that would feasibly make the trip. If the ‘black donkeys’ survived
the trip from Aššur intact, they could be sold for a slight profit in Kanesh.59 However,
instructions to transporters were often about feeding the donkeys, rather than about not
pushing them too far, and transporters had little incentive to pamper the donkeys against
making better time if the prospect was that they could replace them at no cost to themselves.
57
Interestingly, the heavy loads of tin might have provided one incentive among several to team a
donkey loaded with tin with a donkey loaded with textiles; the loads could be exchanged from time to time. From
another perspective, pairing different loads could have been for the purpose of spreading risk, or in response to
regulatory injunctions—for example when the city of Aššur demanded that equal amounts of tin and textiles were
to be purchased in Aššur. However, providing for the exchange of loads between some donkeys provided a
possible way to prolong the lives of the donkeys. Granted, this would be unlikely in cases such as in the original
venture where one merchant drove one donkey.
58
See Dercksen, OAI, 266 n. 708. for relevant passages. G. Barjamovic, "A Historical Geography of Ancient
Anatolia in the Assyrian Colony Period" (diss., University of Copenhagen, 2005), 14, also expresses the opinion
that the donkeys were pushed to their limits.
59
Donkeys were sold for around 20 shekels in Aššur and between 20 shekels and 30 shekels in Kanesh. As
has been stated elsewhere, there is little hope of recovering evidence regarding what a specific donkey was worth
in Aššur and was then sold for in Kanesh. Owners did not report to their agents the price they paid for their lesser
steeds, so one side of the equation is always missing in the documentation.
203
There are more general reasons why Western military handbooks do not have direct
purchase on the average daily travel of Old Assyrian caravans. Military proscriptions on the
use of equids in printed manuals from European armies were conditioned both by Western
concepts about equids and military interests—neither necessarily applicable to the Old
Assyrian situation. The military wanted to avoid having to replace trained beasts with
untrained equids on campaign. Self-sufficiency was important for the armies. By contrast, the
Old Assyrian merchants could benefit more by sacrificing self-sufficiency for longer days and
further travel.
Despite owners complaining about the treatment of their donkeys, it does seem that
donkeys were fed sufficiently, and some references suggest they were fed so as to permit
longer stretches of travel. Straw was purchased for feed when departing from Aššur,60 possibly
because of the limited opportunities to graze in the area, but also perhaps allowing for
donkeys to be fed as they walked. The occasional reference to feeding donkeys grain shows
there were some times when donkeys were fed heartier meals, perhaps for a longer leg of the
trip.61 In this regard, and with information on the pace of donkeys outside a military context, a
case can be made for a pace of 35 kilometers per day. Provided that water and food were
available, a caravan could cover 40 kilometers in 11 hours by travelling three shifts of slightly
more than two hours each, at a walking pace of 5½ km per hour, separated by two one-hour
rests, a pace not outside the capabilities of donkeys. Provided that the entire purpose for
60
See Dercksen, OAI, 266 n. 709. This was probably more important as the summer continued. In the wet
spring, grass might be found along the way more easily.
61
TC 3 162:25-26 25ša 2 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR ú-ṭá-tám a-na 26ú-kúl-ti ANŠE.HI.A áš-a-am “I purchased 2 shekels
silver worth of grain for the donkeys’ feed.”
204
travelling was to make it from one end of the route to the other, a schedule approaching this
rate does not seem unreasonable.62
When they reached the Taurus Mountains, there were other measures transporters
could take in order to maintain a good pace, even in the more difficult terrain. A report of
transport expenses seems to indicate that at certain parts of the journey, an extra donkey or a
wagon was hired to distribute the load more broadly and augment the capabilities of the
caravan. One writer recorded paying extra for ‘transport’ at two different stretches early in
the journey, replaced a donkey, hired a wagon to climb the piedmont west of the Euphrates,
and hired an additional donkey through two consecutive stretches of the trip through the
Taurus Mountains.63 A similar text from the same archive suggests that a single donkey was
hired to supplement only three donkeys loaded with goods.64 Renting extra donkeys and
assistant drivers in the mountain regions lightened the loads of the primary donkeys in the
more difficult stretches.
Another parameter of daily travel involved the condition of the human transporters.
Whether an individual walked alongside or rode a donkey all day the man’s endurance, not the
beast’s, would have been the limiting factor. If caravans were to proceed at a reasonable rate,
62
Several informal interviews with ranchers and ranch hands have resulted in a range of proposed travel
rates. One rancher recalls travelling with donkeys at an average of 20-25 miles (32km-40km) per day, perhaps
closer to 20 miles, through the Chihuahua desert, making camp along the way. However, trouble in procuring
water and feed could slow the pace to 15-20 miles (24-32km) per day.
63
Kt 92/k 103, see K.R. Veenhof, "Across the Euphrates," in Anatolia and the Jazira During the Old Assyrian
Period, ed. J.G. Dercksen, PIHANS 111 (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2008), 24. for an edition
of the text. There Veenhof remarks that transporters frequently compensated for donkeys that died were
frequently compensated by hiring donkeys along the way. That the writer ‘replaced’ (ušpa’’il) a donkey in this text
suggest that the hiring of donkeys and the wagon were not meant to compensate for a lost donkey, but to amplify
the caravan.
64
Ibid. Kt 92/k 108 shows perhaps the same writer hiring a single donkey at certain stretches for what
appear to be three donkeys loaded with cargo. Veenhof states that kt 92/k 108 was closely related to kt 92/k 103,
but they do not seem to be from the same journey; the costs for two separate legs of the journey are not equal.
205
then the transporters were also likely mounted. Mounted travelers on donkeys are known
from the Mari letters, and discussions of propriety about such beasts suggest that it was
sufficiently common for the activity to have a decorum associated with it.65 In general, riding a
donkey is far more tiring than riding a larger equid, since riding donkeys demands sitting far
back on the rear of the donkey.
It is possible that some caravans were set up to have one driver (sāridum) or packer
(kaṣṣārum) to each donkey as suggested by the Level Ib reference to the 300 men with 300
donkeys.66 However, in the original venture, the transporter-donkey ratio ranges from 1:1 to
1:3. Furthermore, the assumption in interpreting the Level Ib document is that the
transporters were bringing only the donkeys for the merchant who was receiving the report. A
review of the several persons who were transporting for Šalim-aḫum during this year in
Chapter Five suggests that these transporters were likely also taking goods for either
themselves or other merchants in addition to what they brought for Šalim-aḫum. This further
strains the proposition that donkeys were led individually.
Stepping back, there is cause for considering that the daily journey was not always the
basic unit of progress on the caravan and thus perhaps not always the best parameter for
estimating the duration of the journey. In other historical situations, stages of caravan travel
were not always correlated to the 24-hour cycle.67 In the Old Assyrian period there are many
examples of transporters being sent along without any rest: “Take care to see that the servant
65
For men from Larsa riding donkeys, see Durand, Les Documents Epistolaries du palais de Mari 584 (ARM 2
72). For the decorum of using a donkey as a mount, see Documents 283 (ARM 2 37).
66
See Dercksen, OAI, 283-84 n. 805.
67
Some caravans in Mongolia did not regard the day/night cycle but stopped as the animals required it
or as weather dictated. O. Lattimore, The Desert Road to Turkestan (London,: Methuen & co. ltd., 1928).
206
and Ḫazu do not spend the night, but dispatch them to me. I await them.”68 “Šalim-Adad is not
to stay the night; dispatch him to me.”69 “He must not delay a single day; dispatch him.”70 “He
must not delay in Kanesh a single day; we will dispatch him immediately.”71 “I am waiting for
Amur-ilī to arrive. You must be patient until he comes. As soon as Amur-ilī arrives, I will not
allow him to stay the night. ”72 One letter recounts how a merchant departed a town in the
evening at the behest of some other merchants, staying at an inn later the same night.73 Such
accounts suggest that merchants sometimes travelled into the night and that the inns in which
they slept were not necessarily always in the towns corresponding to the itinerary stops listed
in their letters.74 Such letters were written as expense reports, not travelogues.
In the end, computing the travel time for the journey between Aššur and Kanesh based
on an average daily rate of donkey travel, in turn based on Western military manuals, does not
adequately account for the different conditions /under which the merchants travelled
between Aššur and Kanesh and around Anatolia, or the possible ingenuity of the Assyrian
68
CCT 4 6d:8-11 8iḫ-da-ma 9IR ù Ḫa-zu | lá i-bi4-tù 10ṭur4-da-ni-šu-nu | šu-nu-tí 11ú-qá-a.
69
KTS 1 10:25-26 25Ša-lim-dIŠKUR | ú-ma!-kál 26lá i-bi4-at | ṭù-ur-da-ni-šu.
70
TTC 11:7-8 7u4-ma-kál | lá i-sà-ḫu-ur 8ṭur4-da-šu.
71
ICK 1 184:33-35 33u4-ma-kál 34i-Kà-ni-iš lá i-sà-ḫu-ur iš-tí 35pá-nim-ma | ni-ṭá-ra-da-šu.
72
CCT 4 28a:22-26 22A-mur-DINGIR 23ú-qá-a | a-dí | A-mur-DINGIR 24i-lá-kà-ni | lá ta-ḫa-dí-ri 25ki-ma | A-mur-
DINGIR | e-ru-ba-ni-ni 26u4-ma-kál | lá uš-bi-a-sú.
73
If understood correctly, Pilaḫ-Aššur’s letter to Aššur-nādā explains how the former departed from
Badna in the evening(?) at the invitation of three unfamiliar travelling companions. The merchants bivouacked at
an inn, where his new companions locked him out, leaving him to sleep out in the cow stable. Later that night, the
same companions broke into the (same?) structure (the cow stable where the donkeys were staying?) and stole 6
textiles which Pilaḫ-Aššur was carrying for Aššur-nādā, while Pilaḫ-Aššur slept. When he awoke and found them
and the 6 textiles gone, he travelled back to Badna and related the matter to the local Assyrian wabartum office for
Aššur-nādā’s sake. KTH 3:1-29 1a-na A-šur-na-da 2qí-bí-ma um-ma 3Pí-lá-ḫi-Ištar-ma 4iš-tù | Ba-ad-na 5A-gu5-a | Ṭá-bi-A-
nu-um 6ú Il5-li-ba-ni ú-wa-šé-ru-ni-ma 7um-ma Ṭá-bi-A-nu-ma 8ba-am iš-tí-ni TÚG.HI 9ú-qá i-ú iš-tí-šu-nu 10iš-tù Ba-ad-na
11
na-ba-ta-am 12nu-ṣí-ma iš-tí-šu-nu 13a-na É wa-áb-ri 14ú-lá ú-šé-ru-ni 15a-ḫa-ma É al-pí 16a-bi-it | É-tám 17im-lu-šu-ma 6
TÚG.HI 18i-ta-áb-ku 19ep-«ra»-ra-am a-na qá-qí-dí-a 20áš-pu-kum-ma 21a-na Ba-ad-na 22a-na ṣé-er A-lá-bi-im 23a-tù-ra-ma
wa-ba-ar-tum10 24ša Ba-ad-na 25a-na ṣé-er ba-ru-li 26e-li-ú-ma «um-ma» 27um-ma šu-nu-ma lu ni-iš-e 28ú šu-ma i-ḫa-li-qú
29
né-nu nu-ma-lá - See M.T. Larsen, Aššur-nādā, No. 130.
74
References to inns are frequent and inns are mentioned in small towns, such as Karamaku (83/k 181),
Butnātum, ina paṭi ša Hanaknak, Ḫanika, Wazida (Anatolian towns on the road to Waḫšušana, 91/k 437), as well as
larger towns such as Ḫaḫḫum, Purušḫattum, Waḫšušana, Timelkiya, Šalatuwar, Wašḫaniya, etc. see Barjamovic,
"A Historical Geography of Ancient Anatolia in the Assyrian Colony Period", 34.
207
transporters. Daily rates may even distort our understanding of the travel. However, if the
journey was to be split into ‘daily’ intervals, then the emphasis turns to the lie and path of the
route and where along the route the merchants decided to rest.
The Route
The second parameter on which the frequency of journeys between Aššur and Anatolia
would have depended was the length and segmentation of the route and its layout in the mind
of its travelers. To some extent, if the merchants sought to attain a specific location or inn at
the end of each day, the locations of these inns would have been important. As stated above,
there is no guarantee that all inns were located in the towns that formed waypoints in the
itineraries. While these itineraries are useful for proposing routes—inasmuch as the places
named can be localized—qualifications about whether or not the towns were the rest stops
must be admitted. Nonetheless, reviewing what can be roughly sketched about the route in
relation to stops shows the shortcomings of the itineraries as evidence for the pace of the
journeys.
In the first place, the length of the route between the two main termini, Aššur and
Kanesh, is important. The Euphrates River divides the journey between Aššur and Kanesh into
two almost equal segments, though the two segments were significantly different in terms of
elevation. My own attempts to measure the lengths of the different interpretations of the
route favor a length close to 1000 kilometers; this is in line with distances quoted by T. Özgüç
as opposed to the 1200 kilometers advocated by Veenhof.75 Proceeding west from Aššur, the
75
N. Özgüç, Kültepe Kaniš/Neša: The earliest international trade center and the oldest capital city of the Hittites
(Istanbul: The Middle East Culture Center in Japan, 2003), 44-45.
208
net elevation gain to the Euphrates at modern Biriçek is only 250 meters. From the Euphrates
to Kanesh the net elevation gain is 714 meters, added to which the several passes caravans had
to surmount. But despite our general understanding of the entire geography, reconstructing
individual segments of the route system is not without problems.76 Though the general area of
many intermediary stops can be guessed at, the only ancient locations that enjoy broad
consensus are the termini, Aššur and Kanesh.
From Aššur, the Old Assyrian merchants were able to proceed to the Anatolian plateau
by a number of different routes. Reviewing all the apparent options or even the entirety of one
possible route between Aššur and Kanesh is beyond the scope of this treatment.77 However,
there were two chief routes from Aššur across the Jezireh. The northerly route proceeded
north past Nineveh and then west along the southern rise of the Tur Abdin. The southern
route proceeded through the southern Ḫabur through Apum. The decision to take the
southern or northern route was made at Qaṭṭarā as one could proceed to Burullum (northern)
or Apum (southern) still from that point.78 For our purposes here, I will limit my review to just
one section of one of the possible routes—the section between Aššur and Apum. The purpose
in reviewing this section of the route is to show that correlating daily stops with places on an
itinerary suggests that daily travel could accomplish 40 kilometers per day the route.
76
Several attempts at working out various sections of the route are available, including K. Nashef,
Rekonstruktion der Reiserouten zur Zeit der altassyrischen Handelsniederlassungen, Beihefte zum Tübingen Atlas des
Voerderen Orients 83 (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1987).
77
On the sukinnu route, see most recently OBO 160/5, 79-81.
78
Kt 92/k 108, see Veenhof, "Across the Euphrates," 24.
209
According to the “itinerary” TC 3 163 and its duplicates, a series of stops along the route
comprises the following sequence:79
Aššur Sadduwātum Razamā Abitibān Qaṭṭarā Razamā Darqum Apum
If Tell Leilan is Apum,80 then the distance between Aššur and Apum was 230 kilometers
in a straight line. If transporters followed an imaginary route, where each of the stops above
represented a daily journey and they were spaced equidistant apart, then at the end of the
seventh day they would have arrived at Apum/Tell Leilan having averaged almost 33
kilometers per day. However, as seen on the map in Figure 10, based on Forlannini’s and
Veenhof’s suggestions below, the route was certainly not that direct. The caravan would first
cross over to the Wadi Tharthur, then follow its general lie through Razamā and Qaṭṭarā
(Forlanini’s locations, see below), through the saddle in the Jebel Sinjar, around the north of
79
TC 3 163: 11 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR a-na 2du-ul-ba-tim 3 ¼ GÍN KÙ.BABBAR a-na 4Ébe-et wa-áb-ri-im 5a-dí-in 2 LÁ ¼
GÍN AN.NA i-na sá-du-a-tim 7 ½ GÍN KÙ.BABBAR a-na 8URUDU ta-bu-e-em 9i-na Ra-za-ma 10 ⅔ ma-na URUDU 11i-na A-
6
pì-tí-pá-an 1212 GÍN URUDU i-na 13Qá-aṭ-ra 1410 GÍN URUDU i-na 15Qá-aṭ-ra a-dí-in 162 LÁ ¼ GÍN AN.NA 17a-na Ébe-<tí>-im 18i-
na pá-tí ša Ra-za-ma 19a-dí-in 1 GÍN 20AN.NA a-na ṣú-ḫa-ri-im 21ša kà-ší-im 22ša Da-ar-ki-im 23a-dí-in ½ ma-na 24URUDU a-
še-AM i-na 25A-pì-im 26 ½ ma-na URUDU i-na A-pì-im 27a-na ki-ri 28a-na 294 GÍN AN.NA ⅓ ma-na URUDU “1 shekel silver
to . I gave ¼ shekel silver to the guesthouse. 1¾ shekels tin in Sadduwātum. ½ shekel silver for copper t. in Razamā.
⅔ minas copper in Abitibān. 12 shekels copper in Qaṭṭarā. I gave/sold 10 shekels copper in Qaṭṭarā. I gave 1¾
shekels tin to the guesthouse in pāti ša Razamā. I gave 1 shekel tin to the servant of the kaššum of Darqum. ½ mina
copper for grain in Apum. ½ mina copper in Apum for kiri for 4 shekels tin ⅓ mina copper.” For Razamā 
Abitibān Qaṭṭarā see also BIN 4 193.
80
The localization of Apum is not completely secure. Forlanini claims Apum was the name by which the
Old Assyrian merchants referred to the ancient city at Tell Leilan M. Forlanini, "Étapes et ininéraires en Aššur et
l'Anatolie des marchands paléo-assyriens: nouveaux documents et nouveaux problems," Kaskal 3 (2006); following
D. Charpin, "Šubat-Enlil et le pays d'Apum," MARI 5 (1987), which is followed generally for the Old Assyrian
evidence; K.R. Veenhof, The Archive of Kuliya, AKT 5 (Ankara: TTK, 2008); the fact that the site was called Šeḫna
during the Old Babylonian period before and after it became Šamši-Adad’s residence continues to provide reasons
to look close by for another site, J. Eidem, "Old Assyrian Trade in Northern Syria: The evidence from Tell Leilan,"
in Anatolia and the Jazira During the Old Assyrian Period, ed. J.G. Dercksen, PIHANS 111 (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut
voor het Nabije Oosten, 2008), 32-34. If the localization of the kingdom of Apum to the east Ḫabur is correct, then
the site was likely within 10 kilometers of Tell Leilan and either north or west of the marshes along the course of
the Jagjag River. Such a change in location would have little effect on the overall distance between Aššur and
Apum; the effect on the daily travel average would have been no more than 1 km/day.
210
the marshes along the Wadi Jagjag and across to Tell Leilan. This route is fairly direct but also
reasonably sensitive to the topography of the land. This route would have been between 260
and 270 kilometers, rendering the average daily travel between the stops on the itinerary
above at 38 kilometers per day.
211
Figure 10 Possible Southern Route through Habur
(Figure based on Forlanini 2008)
ŠŠeḫna
eḫn
Naḫur Razamā
Amaz
Ḫab Marshes
ur R
iver
jar
Jebel Sin
Tig
Karanā
anā
ris
Riv
Qaṭṭarā
er
Razamā
Distance between Šeḫna (Tell Leilan)

and Aššur (Qal’at Sherqat) = 230 km ddu
dd
Sadduwātum
Aššur
30 km
20 miles
212
The segmentation of the route argues for a daily travel rate with an average higher
than 30 kilometers per day. Of course, the proposed route is not without problems. The
interpretation of itineraries (that is, whether the towns represent stops for the night) and the
uncertainty of the locations combine to make the problem much more complex. Forlanini’s
placement of some of the place names along the route highlights the challenge of interpreting
the places on the “itineraries” as the nightly stops.81 Forlanini places Qaṭṭarā in the region of
Yamutbal south of Karanā. From Aššur to Forlanini’s location for Qaṭṭarā, the journey is almost
100 kilometers. However, Qaṭṭarā was the fourth stop on Forlanini’s itinerary. If Abitibān was
not an overnight stop, then the daily distance between Razamā and Qaṭṭarā would be close to
the average daily distance for the journey from Aššur to Apum (38 kilometers).82 Otherwise the
segment would be bisected into two very short days. If Forlanini’s localization for Qaṭṭarā is
maintained and the towns interpreted as nightly stops, then the average was 25 kilometers per
day before Qaṭṭarā but almost 45 kilometers per day after. The problem of 45 kilometers per
day after Qaṭṭarā might be solved by an appeal to another stop not known, lowering the
average daily travel to 33 kilometers per day through that section.
Pursuing the route further past Apum, the stretch across the Ḫabur favors daily
journeys of 35 kilometers. Other stops included Amaz, which Eidem identified with Tell Arbid,
where the Syrian-Polish excavation has recently found an Old Assyrian tablet envelope.83 The
81
On the difficulties of assigning locations to place names in this area, see M.C. Astour, "Review of Nashef,
K. Reknonstrucktion der Reisenrouten zur Zeit der altassyrischen Handelsniederlassunen," JAOS 109 (1989).
82
The estimated distance covered for a journey to Emar in the Old Babylonian period through this
section of land (though over a different route which followed the Euphrates river more closely for the first
section) estimated 27 airline kilometers per day. See W. Hallo, "The Road to Emar," JCS 18 (1953).
83
Eidem, "Old Assyrian Trade in Northern Syria: The evidence from Tell Leilan," 40. Tell Arbid lies about
45 kilometers south of modern Qamishliye and 50 kilometers north-northeast of Hassake.
213
distance between Apum and Amaz thus would have been 35 kilometers and from there to
Naḫur, which Forlanini located in the eastern Habur, yet another 35 kilometers. If the towns
mentioned in the itinerary were usually the location of the inns at which the merchants
stayed, 35 kilometers per day was a typical journey.
The Shipping Season
The third parameter that affects how often merchants could travel between Anatolia
and Aššur was the length of the shipping season. Because of references to departing before or
getting stuck in the winter, the model of Old Assyrian trade has recognized a shipping season
within which bulk transport was able to proceed alternating with a winter season during
which the trade was disrupted. This most likely affected bulk transport directly, though some
letters show that messages could get through at least some portions of the Taurus mountains
when the bulk transport could not. One merchant was forced to wait to accumulate capital
because of the arrival of winter.84 Several letters include messages to take measures before the
cold season.85 Another merchant seems to have been overtaken by the cold on the eastern side
of the passes.86 However, there are some indications that merchants could and did travel
84
CCT 3 7b, see translation in Aššur-nādā, no. 50.
85
CCT 4 3a (translation in Larsen, The Aššur-nādā Archive, no. 118.) where arrangements in regards to
matters on the Anatolian plateau needed to be made before the cold. In 94/k 375, the donkeys refused to travel
because of the cold; the text mentions Waḫšušana, suggesting that the locus of the activity was not in the Taurus
mountains (courtesy G. Barjamovic).
86
BIN 6 114 1[a-na I-n]a-a qí-bi-ma 2[um-ma d]UTU-DU10-ma 3[i-na] dUTU-ši | ša PN 4[e]-ra-ba-ni | u4-ma-kál 5lá i-
bi-a-at a-na Wa-aḫ-šu-ša-na 7ṭù-ru-sú | a-dí | TÚG.ḪI-tí-a 8ša a-ma-kam i-ba-ší-ú-ni 9a-bi a-ta | bé-li 10a-ta TÚG.HI-tí | a-na
6
KÙ.B[ABBAR] 11[ma]-lá i-«ni»-du-nu-ni 12KÙ.BABBAR | ku-nu-ku-ma 13[š]é-bi-lam 14ku-ṣú-um | i-sí-ni-iq-ni-a-tí-ma 15e-lu-

tum 16i-ib-té-re 17té-er-ta-kà ú e-ma-ru-kà 18šál-mu | a-na-kam iš-tù 19[Ḫ]a-ḫi-im a-na Tí-me-el-ki-[a] 20[1-i]š-té-na ú 2-ša-na
21
[x]-x-ru | uš-ta-lu-ḫu 22[x x t]a-áš-pu-ra-ni 23[x x x x š]é-bu-lam 24[x x x x x] té-er-ta-<kà> 25[li-li-k]am-ma 26[uz-n]i | pí-té
[ x x (x)] 26[x x] x AN.NA [ ] “To Innaya: Šamaš-ṭāb – On the day that PN arrived he did not stay a single day, he
was dispatched to Waḫšušana. With regard to my textiles which are there, my dear father and lord, sell my
textiles for silver. Seal and send the silver to me. ‘Winter’ overtook us. The caravan suffered from hunger. Your
214
during the winter. After asking his representatives to send him a mina of silver, one merchant
reminds them that he is taking the ‘winter road.’87
Nevertheless, it seems likely that the high passes in the Taurus Mountains through
which the Assyrian merchants travelled were extremely difficult or impassable for some time
each winter, as they remained until the advent of modern roads in the area. During the 19th
century, the passes were blocked for four months—from the first week of December to the first
week of April.88 This statement of conditions has been corroborated by contemporary local
inhabitants’ memory.89
The general consensus has been to define the period when the Taurus passes were not
blocked—approximately from the first week of April to the first week of December—as the
shipping season of eight months during which commercial travel was possible. Two factors
suggest that the Old Assyrian shipping season was longer than eight months, probably nine.
First, aggressive transporters pushed the limits of the seasons by traveling through the
passes as they were closing, as evidenced by the experience of the transporter overtaken by
the cold in the area of Timelkiya. This aggressiveness suggests that it is reasonable to add two
weeks in the spring and two weeks in the fall to the shipping season on the Aššur side of the
passes. Blocked passes in the Taurus only limited travel along the western end of the Jezireh.
By contrast, the route from Aššur across the Euphrates and perhaps even to Timelkiya (at the
goods and your donkeys are well. Here, from Ḫaḫḫum to Timelkiya, one or two ... (Concerning) x about which you
wrote me. … is sent … let your message come so that I am informed ... tin …”
87
BIN 4 97:1-20 1a-na ša ki-ma i-a-tí ... 3qí-bi-ma um-ma 4A-šùr-mu-ta-bi-il5-ma … 9KÙ.BABBAR 1 ma-na ma-li-a-
ma ku-un-kà-ma šé-bi4-lá-nim 11šu-ma i-na 12ba-áb-tí-a 13a-a-kam-ma lá tal-qé-a! 14lu tù-dí-na-tù-ki 15lu mì-ma i-qá-tí-ki i-
10
ba-ší-ú 16KÙ.BABBAR 1 ma-na 17ma-li-a-ma šé-bi4-lá-nim 18lá tí-de8-a ki-ma 19ḫa-ra-an ku-ṣí-im 20a-lu-ku “To my
representative, … thus Aššur-mutabbil: ... Raise about a mina of silver and seal and send it to me. If at my arrival
there you have not received it, either your … or whatever you have on hand raise about a mina silver and send it
to me. Do you not know that I go by way of the winter road?”
88
Admiralty Handbook of Asia Minor, vol. 4 pt. 2 (1919), 82.
89
Gojko Barjamovic (personal communication).
215
top of the Taurus piedmont) would have been ‘open’ all year. Granted, this eastern portion of
the route was still difficult in the wintertime. If today’s conditions are indicative of the Old
Assyrian time, by October the rains began; between December and March half the annual rain
falls, and sometimes snow falls on the Jezireh. Another third of the annual rainfall comes in
the spring months following March. This would have offered a rainy, muddy journey to the
Euphrates, but not necessarily an intractable path. Merchants could have departed in early to
mid-March from Aššur so as to approach the passes as they were opening in the first week of
April.
Second, while it has been reasonable to assume that the general climate during the Old
Assyrian trade was similar to today’s, there are indications that the Taurus passes themselves
might have been blocked for less time in antiquity. Thanks to propositions about social
collapse at the end of the third millennium, there has been a fairly intensive focus on climate
research in the period just before and into the period when the Old Assyrian traders were
plying the Taurus routes. Even if correlations between sudden climate change and social
collapse overstretch the evidence, the data gathered do provide some evidence on which to
consider the extent of the Taurus snowpack. There is widespread agreement that the end of
the third millennium saw two separate but sustained and relatively severe droughts from ca.
2200-2100 B.C. and ca. 2000-1900 B.C. followed by relatively arid conditions similar to today.90
There is also some indication that during the same period the passes were blocked for less time
than in our contemporary climate. Though no climate proxy data have been gathered directly
90
C. Kuzucuoǧlu, "Climatic and Environmental Trends during the Third Millennium B.C. in Upper
Mesopotamia," in Sociétés Humaines et Changement Climatique à la Fin du Troisième Millénaire: Une Crise a-t-elle eu Lieu
en Haute Mesopotamie? Actes du Colloque de Lyon 5-8 Décembre 2005, ed. C. Kuzucuoǧlu and C. Marro (Istanbul: Institut
Français d'études Anatoliennes Georges-Dumézil, 2007).
216
from the Taurus Mountains, data have been gathered from a range of locations, including the
central Anatolia plateau and Lake Van (fig. 8). The most important factor in the climate was
the the westerly jet stream coming from the Mediterranean. Soil cores from Lake Van suggest
the transition towards a drier climate in Anatolia beginning in the late third millennium,
which trend continues today.91 But more direct proxies for the snow pack in the Taurus
mountains—the levels of the Euphrates river—were decreasing from 2000 B.C. onwards,
suggesting that the annual snow pack in the drainage basins feeding into the Euphrates,
including the Taurus Mountains, decreased as time went by.92 Thus if, as according to some
indications,93 in Šalim-aḫum’s time the climate were similar to the modern period, the levels of
the Euphrates were still decreasing over time. The depth and extent of the Taurus snowpack
might have been less intense and thus the Taurus Mountains open for longer periods each year
than observed in the modern period.94
91
L. Wick, G. Lemcke, and M. Sturm, "Evidence of Lateglacial and Holocene climatic change and human
impact on east Anatolia: high-resolution pollen, charcoal, isotopic and geochemical records from laminated
sediments of Lake Van, Turkey," Holocene 13 (2003).
92
S. Riehl and R. Bryson, "Variability in Human Adaptation to Changing Environmental Conditions in
Upper Mesopotamia during the Early and Middle Bronze Age," in Sociétés Humaines et Changement Climatique à la Fin
du Troisième Millénaire: Une Crise a-t-elle eu Lieu en Haute Mesopotamie? Actes du Colloque de Lyon 5-8 Décembre 2005, ed.
C. Kuzucuoǧlu and C. Marro (Istanbul: Institut Français d'études Anatoliennes Georges-Dumézil, 2007), 525.
93
Kuzucuoǧlu, "Climatic and Environmental Trends during the Third Millennium B.C. in Upper
Mesopotamia."
94
Several studies and two edited volumes are specifically dedicated to the question of climate change
around the end of the third millennium: H.N. Dalfes and Et.al., eds., Third Millennium B.C. Climate Change and Old
World Collapse (Berlin: Springer-Varlag, 1997); Kuzucuoǧlu, "Climatic and Environmental Trends during the Third
Millennium B.C. in Upper Mesopotamia.".
217
Figure 11 Map of Paleoclimate Proxy Sites
(Image taken from NOAA website: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/meetings/proxysites.html. Sites most

directly pertinent to Taurus mountains are: 8 - Kaz Gölü, 9 - Konya, 10 - Eski Açigol, 13 - Sögütlü Lake, 14 - Lake
Van.)
Rethinking the Tempo of Bulk Transport
To summarize, there are three parameters by which the present understanding of the
Old Assyrian bulk transport pace has been estimated: 1) average daily travel, 2) the length of
the route between Aššur and Kanesh, and 3) the duration of the shipping season. Be revisiting
each of these elements it becomes apparent that the time constraints assigned by the three
abstract parameters (30 kilometers per day, 1200 kilometers, eight-month shipping season) are
too restrictive. Veenhof appropriately postulated that this would have established some sort of
periodicity: the large caravans of donkeys “presumably departed only a few times a year,
218
probably in spring, in late autumn and a few times in between.”95 While the two-cycle season is
a reasonable combination of the parameters above, such a system does not reflect the earnest
pace of activity manifest in the reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s, Pūšu-kēn’s, and their
associates’ activities in REL 80. It is possible that large caravans took longer to make the
journey, but the progress of the original venture and Dān-Aššur’s departure slightly later in
the season suggest that there was sufficient flexibility in the system so as not to demand the
synchronization implied by the two-cycle season. Slight increases in the average daily travel of
the transports, a slightly shorter journey, and a slightly longer shipping season, especially in
combination with the sense of earnestness of the trade, makes eight month-long journeys
either to or from Aššur possible within the confines of a single shipping season. For smaller
groups, this must have been attainable, and this pace supported a constant ebb and flow of
goods along the trails around the larger caravans. In such a system, merchants like Šalim-
aḫum had the capability of making tactical decisions and responding to developing situations
within the confines of a single year by coordinating or directing not only activity on the
Anatolian plateau, but also goods transported from Aššur throughout the season. It will be
clear below that Šalim-aḫum’s decisions during this year depended on this kind of flexibility.
The Tempo of Communication
Within the reconstruction of the ikribū crisis, Šalim-aḫum received and wrote at least
five letters (3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5) within a short period of time, indicating that he
wished Pūšu-kēn to collect and send gold to him as soon as possible. While Šalim-aḫum never
95
Veenhof, "Commnication," 205.
219
expressed any firm deadline by which he had to have the gold, it seems clear that he needed to
have the gold in Aššur in the near term. Despite the fact that the matter seemed urgent, Šalim-
aḫum received the update about Puzur-Ištar’s initial excuse and then wrote to attempt to
constrain Puzur-Ištar to pay, feeling that he could still affect the desired result in a sufficiently
timely manner. When he (probably soon thereafter) found out that his tactics were too late, he
began laying out a different strategy for obtaining the gold. All this happened within a period
of around two to three weeks during the month of May. Šalim-aḫum’s capability to capitalize
on Ilabrat-bāni’s offer in this context further reflects his ability to keep a hand in his own
affairs as they evolved in Anatolia. Within the context of the Šalim-aḫum’s activities in REL 80,
this earnestness of communication becomes even more apparent. The figure below shows the
density of communication evidence in the first third of the shipping season during REL 80
(mid-March-Mid-June). The figure includes letters from most episodes reconstructed in this
work.
220
Figure 12 Density of Communication between Šalim-aḫum & Pūšu-kēn mid-March to mid-June REL 80

D
REL 80 III
R 80 XII
Pilaḫ-Aššur’s du
ue date
Kanesh
3.22
.2 .
ture
Passes
Pūšu-k ē
l ven
.
Report:Iš
4.1 & 2.2

t
n
a
:
a
i n
r
“
g
e
en
x
IEnnam ššur: “
5.5
ni’i’ss off
& ori
lldd
221
Šū-Su
Puzur-Iš Puzur-Iš
r,
r
u
ffIearm cle
Lot #4 sittos contract

Ašš
lear”
-Aššu
I tar dela
a m
Dān-
ays”
n
- I š tar rat-bāni
ra
r
1
4.2
3.4 & 3..5
3.1 En
4.4
Ilī-aš
Puzu nni, Ilab
5. 7
25..5.5
Aššur
Key
Shipment Packet
The reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s activities during REL 80 demands that the letters
needed to have been travelling at roughly twice the pace of the bulk transport; that is, a letter
was able to travel between Aššur and Kanesh in approximately 15-17 days. This proposition
will be defended by discussing some of the elements of Old Assyrian letters, particularly
regarding the pace and ubiquity of letter writing, as well as further examples from the Old
Assyrian documentation. This will lead to a discussion of the feasibility of the 15-day tempo as
related to the equids used by the Old Assyrian merchants.
The Content of the Correspondence
As is clear from the previous chapter, communication could travel faster in both
directions than bulk transport activities. But how much faster? A recent review by Veenhof of
communication in the Old Assyrian period has underlined the fact that there must have been a
messenger service, positing a type of traveler different from the bulk transporter.96 Šalim-
aḫum’s measures taken during the Puzur-Ištar crisis confirm the vibrancy of the
communication regime in the Old Assyrian period, suggesting that things moved even more
rapidly. While Veenhof asserts that hundreds of letters might have been sent each year, the
review here—especially the fact that Pūšu-kēn and Šalim-aḫum likely sent upwards of one
hundred letters between themselves during the year—suggests that the volume of post could
be many times more voluminous. Though thousands of letter are extant, no direct references
to the specific length of time taken to travel from Aššur to Kanesh exist. However, the
merchants understood from long experience the rate at which the messages travelled, and
96
Veenhof, "Communication," 205.
222
they composed their letters with this rate in mind. Šalim-aḫum’s own letters, and what he
states and what he does not state, give a sense of how many letters were travelling at once
along the road. The overlapping references in his letters and the reconstruction of this year
demand that the letters and activities discussed in this work developed continuously over the
course of a single shipping season.
In other cases, functions of a particular transaction suggest a robust regime of
communication between Anatolia and Aššur. For example, the mere existence of the ša ḫarran
ālim arrangement is a testament to the effective communication between Aššur and Anatolia
during the Old Assyrian trade. In order for a ša ḫarrān ālim contract to work, both the
contractor and buying agent would have needed to know the relative price of gold in Anatolia.
The contractor needed to know the price to ensure that he did not pay too much to the buying
agent; the buying agent needed to know the price to ensure that he would be able to sell the
capital for sufficient gold to fill the contract and make a small profit. Without sufficient
knowledge of the prices in Anatolia, either the contractor or the buying agent risked
unnecessary losses.
Letters were ubiquitous. One letter, written to Pūšu-kēn by a merchant living in Aššur,
shows how many documents could be generated in the process of a lot sold on credit. In the
letter, the different documents mentioned are bolded and their order numbered in relation to
the sequence of events described below. Some of the numbered documents are not mentioned
in the letter.
223
Šū-Ḫubur to Pūšu-kēn:
As for the tin and textiles which Ikūnum purchased, you wrote to me(3): “He will pay
you 20 shekels refined silver for each of your textiles in 13 ḫamuštum weeks, and a 1:7 rate for
the tin.” When you wrote me(3) this I was content. (Now) later, you write me(7):
“Ikūnum produced a letter (5, našpertum) from you in front of my colleagues and put me to
shame.” Indeed, I did write to him(5), but after you set him a term and your message(3)
had come to me, I did not write to him again(6). Please, my dear brother, take care to have
him pay the silver … as soon as you have read my report(8, i.e. this letter), let your
report(10) come by express messenger.97
Šū-Ḫubur’s predicament implied that at least ten letters were written, should have
been written, or were to have been written in relation to this credit sale. The process likely
97
I 678 1-18, 2’-4’: obv. 1um-ma Šu-Hu-bur-ma a-na 2Pu-šu-ke-en₆ | qí-bi-ma | a-šu-mì 3AN.NA ù TÚG.HI.A | ša I-
ku-num il₅-qé-ú-ni | ta-áš-pu-ra-am 5um-ma a-ta-ma | a-na TÚG-tí-kà 6 ⅓ ma-na.TA ù a-na AN.NA-ki-kà 77 GÍN.TA | a-na
4
13 ha-am-ša-tim 8KÙ.BABBAR ṣa-ru-pá-am | i-ša-qal ki-ma 9ta-áš-pu-ra-ni li-bi ih-du 10i-na bar-ki-tim ta-ša-pá-ra-am um-
ma 11a-ta-ma | na-áš-pé-er-ta-kà I-ku-num 12IGI i-ba-ru-tí-a ú-šé-ṣí-a-<am> ú | ub-ta-i-š[a]-ni 13ke-na | i-pá-ni-tim lu áš-pu-
ra-šum 14ú-lá a-tù-ur-ma | iš-tù | a-ta 15u₄-me-e | ta-áš-ku-nu-šu-ni-ma | té-er-ta-k[à] 16i-li-kà-ni | ú-lá áš-pu-ra-šum 17a-pu-
tum | šu-ma a-hi a-ta | i-hi-i[d-ma] 18KÙ.BABBAR | ša-áš-qí-il₅-šu 2’ki-ma | té-er-tí | ta-áš-me-ú-ni 3’[té-er-ta-kà | iš]-tí ba-tí-
[qí-im pá-nim-ma] 4’[li-li-kam]. Cf. Veenhof, "Communication," 202-03, for similar translation, but slightly different
interpretation.
There was a range of terms used to described the peregrinations of the merchants, and Veenhof’s review
makes its most important contributions by approaching the trade through the terminology, aiming to describe
methodologically the communication through the constellation of vocabulary. The limitations of the evidence for
providing precise definitions of terms referring to travelers—specifically ālikum, was̄ium,and bātiqum—and to the
terms ḫarrānum and ellutum are well known. Nonetheless, the following general constellation of relationships
might be suggested. The term ālikum must refer generally to a traveler. If a more specific meaning is sought, then
it may refer to peregrinating merchants. To “join a traveler” (išti ālikim ṭaḫḫu’um) meant to join a small group of
peregrinators and accompanying occasional travelers as they left the city. Likewise, wāṣium had a general
connotation. Either an ālikum or wāṣium could be travelling in a larger group, not necessarily alone. By contrast,
the term bātiqum finds its most important distinction as ‘detached traveler.’ In a context which did not necessitate
the distinction, the same bātiqum traveler could have been referred to by the term ālikum. In regards to speed, it
seems prudent to propose that an ālikum or bātiqum could be fast or slow depending on the individual needs of
that person or group. While the bātiqum has been taken to represent a faster mode of travel, the
interchangeability of attested formulas—“Send your message with the first ālikum/wāṣium/bātiqum”—seems to
reflect the preference of the correspondent rather than materially different phenomena.
224
transpired as follows: When the caravan set off, a notifying message (1), and a bill of lading (2),
were created.98 When the caravan arrived in Kanesh, Pūšu-kēn cleared the goods through
customs, then sold some or all of the goods to Ikūnum, writing up a caravan account (3) and a
debt note (4). Pūšu-kēn sent the caravan account (3) to Šū-Ḫubur. In the meantime, Šū-Ḫubur
had written Ikūnum (5) regarding some matter, conditions which must have allowed Ikūnum
more time than Pūšu-kēn’s original arrangement, and conditions which required some
confirmation in the form of a letter which Šū-Ḫubur never wrote (6). When thirteen weeks had
passed since the original sale, Pūšu-kēn went to collect from Ikūnum, and Ikūnum showed
Pūšu-kēn Šū-Ḫubur’s letter (5), which Ikūnum cited as grounds for not yet paying. Frustrated,
Pūšu-kēn reported this to Šū-Ḫubur (7). Šū-Ḫubur responded apologetically with the present
letter (8). This letter must have been accompanied by another letter likely addressed to both
Pūšu-kēn and Ikūnum (9) which would have sufficiently clarifed the matter so that Pūšu-kēn
could collect the silver.99 When Pūšu-kēn had done so, he was to send an express message (10)
reporting on his success. In the end, the documentation flowed so freely that Ikūnum
essentially used the lack of a document to avoid paying his debt.
The activity of trade and tempo of communication were brisk. Every indication from
the textual sources points to the fact that impatience, which the American economist Irving
Fischer described as a prerequisite for the financial concept of interest,100 was part of the Old
Assyrian merchant’s mindset. Silver was said to “grow hungry” if it was not invested,
98
Depending on how far one wanted to expand the focus, we could also include the contracts with the
transporters, and possibly other bills of lading with accompanying shipments.
99
As a parellel for companion letters, in which one letter is addressed to the agent and the other letter is
addressed to the agent and the person with whom he will be conducting the transaction on behalf of the
principal, see 3.5 and 3.6.
100
Irving Fisher, The Theory of Interest (New York: 1930).
225
reflecting it’s owner’s feelings.101 The same impatience surfaced in the expectation of activity
requested in the correspondence. Phrases like “as soon as you read my tablet send your
response,”102 or “the day you read my letter (give the silver to PN1 and PN2)”103 are common.
There was always a desire (and thus an expectation that it were possible) that requests or
instructions were performed on the same day or very soon thereafter. “At Purušḫattum, do not
tarry at the colony. Do no stay more than 10 days after you arrive.”104
The fact that merchants had constant opportunities to send letters is strengthened by
the fact that even if a situation were to change in 5 or 10 days, there was still sufficient reason
to inform the agent on the other end of the route about the current state of affairs. Writers
reported, “the caravan will arrive within 10 days;”105 “Convert the tin (on hand) into gold
before the (new) tin arrives by caravan;”106 “Be patient for ten days;”107 “Concerning the
purchases of the son of Šu-Aššur about which you wrote me, if I have not written you in ten
days, you won’t hear anything.”108 “Here, in your message (you wrote), ‘Il-wedāku owes about a
mina or two of gold upon his arrival.’ He will pay in ten days. Also, we will have the (debt) of
Amria’s son paid and we will gather about 10 minas silver from various sources and I myself
101
K.R. Veenhof, "'Dying Tablets' and 'Hungry Silver': Elements of Figurative Language in Akkadian
Commercial Terminology," in Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Mindlin, M.J. Geller, and J.E.
Wainsbrough (London: 1987).
102
CCT 2 28:17-19 ki-ma ṭup-pì ta-áš-me-ú té-er-ta-kà li-li-ik.
103
AKT 3 78:18-19 i-na u4-mì-im ša ṭup-pá-am ta-ša-me-ú.
104
CCT 3 4:41-44 41i-na Pu-ru-uš-ḫa-tim 42kà-ra-am 43la tù-ša-áb i-nu-mí 44té-ru-bu a-la-an 4510 u4-me la tù-ša-áb.
For a translation of the entire letter, see C. Michel, Correspondance, 382-83; Aššur-nādā No. 39.
105
BIN 4 84:12-13 a-na 10 u4-me e-lu-tum e-ra-ba!-am.
106
CCT 4 11b:19’-21’ lá-ma AN.NA ša ILLAT-tim e-ru-ba-ni AN.NA a-na KÙ.GI ta-er.
107
adi 10 ūmē lā taḫaddar, CCT 4 36b-37a:17, CCT 5 4a:8.
108
TC 2 15: 35-38 35a-šu-mì | ší-mì-im 36ša DUMU Šu-A-šur | ša ta-áš-pu-ra-ni 37šu-ma | a-dí 10 u4-me-e | mì-ma-
38
ša-ma [lá] áš-pu-ra-[kum] | ú-za-kà | lá i-ba-ší.
226
will depart when Uṣṣur-ša-Aššur goes out in 10 days.”109 “My caravan (leaves) after Puzur-
Aššur. Within 10 days I will dispatch Aššur-lamassī, my maḫḫā’um.”110 “We wrote you (a letter,
taken) by Šū-Adad (saying), “Within 10 days travelers will arrive here two or three times, and
for now we will set aside five minas silver each time.”111
Alongside these urgings, the references in which merchants wrote that they had not
heard from someone in years seems hyperbolic. Complaints by wives that they had not seen
their husbands for unbearable periods of time attest to the rhetorical effect of the emotional
aspect of the discourse. Likewise, when writers complained that a correspondent had not
responded promptly by counting the caravans that had arrived, only weeks were involved—
not months or years. At one point during this year, Šalim-aḫum complained that he had
written five letters to Ilabrat-bāni but the latter had not taken action (4.3:22). At another point
(4.6:10-14), Šalim-aḫum complained to Pūšu-kēn: “Five or six of your tablets have arrived. As
for these (debts), why did you not write in your tablets that I am paid in full?” In both cases,
each group of five letters must have been sent within a period of two weeks or less (see
Chapter Four). In the context of the present review, a complaint like: “Our tablets go to you in
caravan after caravan, but no consignments from you has ever arrived here,” probably refers
to a matter of months rather than years.112
109
BIN 4 38:3-12 3i-na té-er-tí-kà 4KÙ.GI 1 ma-na ù 2 ma-na 5Il5-we-da-ku ba-ab ma-hi-ri-im 6ú-ha-bi-il5 a-dí 10
u4-me i-ša-qal ú ša DUMU Am-ri-a 8nu-ša-áš-qal-ma KÙ.BABBAR 10 ma-na 9nu-uš-ta-ṣa-ba-at-ma 10Ú-ṣur-ša-A-šùr a-dí
7
11
10 u4-me-e u-ṣí-a-ma 12a-na-ku a-ta-lá-kam.
110
BIN 4 68:3-6 3ha-ra-ni | wa-ar-kà-at 4Puzúr-A-šùr | a-dí 10 u4-me-e 5A-šùr-lá-ma-sí | ma-ha-i 6[a]-mì-ša-am | a-
ṭá-ra-dam.
111
CCT 4 10a:8-15 8ni-iš-pu-ra-kum 9i-na šé-ep | Šu-dIŠKUR 10um-ma né-nu-ma a-dí 10 u4-me 11a-li-ku | a-dí šé-ni-
šu 12ù ša-lá-ší-šu 13[i]-lu-[ku]-ma a-ni-ma 145 ma-na.TA KÙ.BABBAR 15nu!-na-ša-ra-kum. Translated also in Larsen, The
Aššur-nādā Archive, No. 44.
112
TC 3 1:12-15 i-na ILLAT-at ILLAT-at-ma ṭup-pu-ni i-li-ku-ni-kum ma-ti-ma te9-er-ta-kà ú-lá i-li-kam.
227
The general feeling in these letters that messages and people needed to keep moving
is corroborated by the sense that messages moved faster than the bulk transport tempo. Along
with the notifying message as described in Chapter Two, several direct quotations serve to
show that the Old Assyrian writers knew that messages outpaced the bulk transport. When
Šalim-aḫum writes Pūšu-kēn about Ilabrat-bāni, he says, “As for the 18 fine kutānum-textiles
which Suea is bringing to you—do not wait for the arrival of the textiles. Send me 5 minas
silver so that I may make purchases and cause them to arrive while you are still there so that
an (extra) mina may arise” (4.6:38-44). Šalim-aḫum’s explicit tactic depended on the letter
beating the arrival of the textiles by a sufficient time so as to benefit him in the short term. An
impatient sister wrote her brother about news concerning the clearance of her father’s estate.
“You have written and in your missive you said: ‘Aluwa must not delay a single day. Let him
catch up with me on the journey.’ Today it is 3 months since we sent Aluwa and until this day
we have heard nothing concerning …”113 Though the tablet is broken, it is clear that the sister
considered three months an unreasonable time to wait for important news. Clearly she did not
imagine either Aluwa or the letter to travel at the pace of bulk goods.
Another reference implies that two different letters from Aššur reached Kanesh during
the duration of a bulk transport caravan’s journey. Aššur-iddi(n) wrote, “In my former letter I
wrote you as follows: ‘Give the tin and textiles to my son Ilī-alum.’ (But) do not give him
anything! He took a lot of tin from his own caravan. Out of the textiles take those of lesser
quality and deposit them as my share on my account. Give the rest of my textiles and the 2
113
kt 94/k 1421:4-10 4ta-áš-pu-ra-nim-[ma i-na] 5na-áš-pè-er-tí-ku-nu um-ma a-t[ù-nu-ma] 6A-lu-wa u4-ma-kál lá
i-sà-ḫu-u[r] 7a-pá-ni-a a-ḫa-ra-ni li-i[k-šu-dam] 8u4-ma-am iš-tù ITI.3.KAM 9A-lu-wa ni-iṭ-ru-da-ma ù [a-na] 10u4-mì-im a-
nim mì-ma ša x […] (courtesy M. T. Larsen).
228
talents of tin to my younger son Aššur-taklāku … ”114 Aššur-iddi(n), though having assigned the
goods of the shipment to an older son, Ilī-ālum, changed his mind upon learning that Ilī-alum
already took plenty of the goods. Instead he decided to give them to his younger son, Aššur-
taklāku. Both the earlier letter (the notifying message for the caravan) and this letter were
sent while Ilī-ālum was in transit.
Questions about Equids
Veenhof’s recent discussion on messages and messengers postulated that there was a
messenger service, and though there is ample evidence that merchants used younger men
(ṣuḫārum) to take messages, as well as merchants already traveling, some messenger service
must have been operating alongside the more informal post.115 To make the journey from
Aššur to Kanesh in 15 days, such messengers would have had to travel 66 kilometers (41 miles)
per day, roughly double the rate of bulk transport. On foot, an unloaded messenger can travel
upwards of 66 kilometers in one day, but not continuously and not with a cargo of clay letters.
Such a pace could not be the basis for even a single trip to Anatolia, let alone a continuing
messenger service. Nor could donkeys provide sufficiently paced transportation. If letters were
to travel such distances quickly, then horses or mules would have had to have been involved.
There are ample modern and pre-modern examples of courier systems which suggest
that 66 kilometers per day was not unreasonable for the Old Assyrian period. The Pony Express
represents perhaps the ultimate speeds for post by horse. On the Pony Express, the riders
114
POAT 5 (L29-558) Translation according to Aššur-nādā No. 2.
115
Veenhof, "Communication."
229
averaged 315 kilometers (196 miles) per day.116 The pre-modern Islamic barīd was claimed to
relay news 300 kilometers (186 miles) in 24 hours.117 There are claims of Roman messengers
with fast horses and repeated changeovers having been able to travel up to 385 kilometers (239
miles) in one day, though this was extraordinary and unsustainable.118 Before there was
imperial post, Ceasar hired private citizens to organize messages for him, though, with his
impressive pace, he would sometimes arrive ahead of his messages. Seutonius admired Ceasar
for making 100 miles per day on his travels, though he would sleep along the way.119
Aššurbanipal would probably have claimed he could do at least half that distance.120
Some of these pre-modern estimates are hearsay. But more reliable estimates include
numbers closer to the capacity claimed for the Old Assyrian merchants. Estimates of typical
travel for Roman messages were upwards of 50 miles per day.121 Alexander’s cavalry and other
mounted soldiers covered over 40 miles per day on some campaigns, when the entire army was
not involved.122 At the height of the Roman Empire, couriers could leave Rome and reach
Antioch in 40 days.123 The Old Assyrian system did not benefit from an imperial infastructure
like that of Rome, nor was it a Pony Express. (If the Pony Express operated on the Old Assyrian
116
The nineteen hundred sixty-six miles of roads and trails from St. Louis to Sacramento took ten days to
cover, passing through the Wasatch and Sierra Nevada Mountains. Horses covered ten miles each and riders
changed horses three to seven times. Oscar Winther, The Transportation Frontier: Trans-Mississippi West, 1865-1890
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964) 52-53.
117
A. Silverstein, Postal Systems in the Pre-Modern Islamic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2007), 191.
118
A. Hyland, Equus: The Horse in the Roman World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 250-54.
119
Suetonius, Divus Julius 1. 57. See M.R. Sheldon, Intelligience Activities in Ancient Rome: Trust in Gods, but
Verify (London: Frank Cass, 2005), 132.
120
“I can canter on thoroughbreds all day long.” gimir ūmēya šitaḫḫuṭāku mūr nisqi, Streck, Asb. 256 I 19.
121
C.W.J. Elliot, "New Evidence for the Speed of the Roman Imperial Post," Phoenix 9 (1955); A.W. Ramsay,
"The Speed of the Imperial Post," Journal of Roman Studies 15 (1925).
122
D.W. Engels, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army (Berkeley: University of
California, 1978).
123
L. Casson, Travel in the Ancient World (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), 188.
230
route, the time for a letter between Aššur and Kanesh would have been 3½ days.) However, 66
kilometers (41 miles) per day does not seem unattainable.
While riding equipment was different between the Old Assyrian riders and the Pony
Express, the differences between the Old Assyrians and Alexander’s cavalry were not likely
significant. Neither had treed saddles, thought to be necessary for long distances because they
lift the rider off of the horse’s or mule’s back, thus preventing the spine of the animal from
being pinched, and provide the necessary prerequisite for true dual stirrups. Treed saddles
came later than Alexander.124 Recent evidence has pointed to the adoption of metal bits
already in the third millennium B.C.125 In any case, some of these technologies are not
unilaterally advantageous for the horse.126 The Old Assyrians used saddlecloths for their pack
donkeys—they likely also did for riding.127
Archaeological and pictoral evidence for the presence of the horse in Mesopotamia and
Northern Syria now leads some to postulate the use of the horse in this area as early as the
first half of the third millennium BC.128 It is clear that in areas of Mesopotamia equids were
prized and valued already in the Early Akkadian period, such as the equid burials in Hamrin
124
The first evidence of the innovation of the stirrup is in representations in the sculptures of the stupa
at Sanchi (ca. 200 B.C.). The stirrup in these depictions is simply a loop for the big toe. The true stirrup developed
later, is credited to the southern Siberian or Altaic nomads by the 5th century AD. See M.A. Littauer, "Early
Stirrups," Antiquity 55 (1981).
125
M.A. Littauer and J.H. Crouwell, "The Earliest Evidence for Metal Bridle Parts," Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 20, no. 4 (2001).
126
These innovations did not necessarily dramatically improve riding distances. Stirrups are most useful
in warfare, where swinging swords and throwing spears requires a much more stable mount than simple riding.
Treeless saddles have become increasingly popular in endurance horsemanship for the comfort of both the horse
and rider.
131
The first millennum Assyrian reliefs of Assurbanipal II and Shalmaneser III have been interpreted to
depict Assyrian soldiers riding bareback. Later reliefs (Sargon II) show introduction of a saddlecloth and more
advanced reins, followed by more advanced reining system in the 7th century B.C.: M.A. Littauer and J.H.
Crouwell, Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 142-43. However, this
can’t be used to infer that Old Assyrian merchants would not have used saddlecloths.
128
E. Vila, "Data on Equids form the late fourth and third millennium sites in Northern Syria," in Equids in
Time and Space: Papers in Honor of Véra Eisenmann, ed. M. Mashkour (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2006).
231
Basin.129 But it has also reasonably been questioned whether an Ur III seal of Abbakal with a
depiction of a “flying horse” meant horses (equus caballus) were used in everyday third
millennium Mesopotamia for riding or draft.130 If the seal of Abbakal does not demonstrate that
horses were regularly employed in the Ur III period, it does evidence human use. Either way,
their existence and use in the Old Assyrian ambit is clear from a quotation about getting goods
from one point to another fast: “Much tin will arrive at Purušḫattum, so exhaust every shekel
of silver there so that the tin is carried either by horse (sīsum) or drive donkeys so that it
arrives in Purušḫattum as soon as possible.”131
Within the discussion of equids, the identification of the perdum is of direct interest to
the Old Assyrian messenger system. By lexical exclusion, Veenhof proposed that a perdum was
a mule because an Anatolian position rāb sīsē “administrator of the horses” implied that sīsum
was still the word for horse in Anatolia.132 Michel largely follows Veenhof, though she prefers
to include the possibility that perdum could have been a hermione.133 Nonetheless, though Old
Assyrian perdum as “mule” is reasonable, it is not yet possible to completely exclude that in the
early second millennium perdum may have referred to a unique, perhaps Anatolian, breed of
129
M. Gibson, ed., Uch Tepe 1: Tell Razuk , Tell Ahmed al-Mughir, Tell Ajamat, Hamrin Report 10 (Copenhagen:
University of Copenhagen, 1981), 73.
130
D.I. Owen, "The "First" Equestrian: An Ur III Glyptic Scene," Acta Sumerologica 13 (1991), warns against
using the depiction of the “flying horse” on Abbakal’s seal as evidence of everyday activity. The horse is mounted
by a human and the horse is in full gallop.
131
TTC 28 (RA 80 128-9):7-19 7AN.NA 8ma-dum | a-na 9Pu-ru-uš-ḫa-tim 10e-ru-bu ú 11a-ma-kam KÙ.BABBAR 121
GÍN gu5-mu-ur-ma 13lu i-na sí-sá-im 14AN.NA i-ta-ší 15ú-lá e-ma-re-e 16sé-er-da-ma 17i-pá-nim-ma 18a-Pu-ru-uš-ḫa-[t]im 19e-
ru-ub. Though the horse mentioned would have been acting as a burden animal, the essence of the message is the
speed. Without a rider accompanying the horse on a similarly capable equid, the relative advantage of using the
horse would have been muted.
132
K.R. Veenhof, "Status and Offices of an Anatolian Gentleman - Two Unpublished Letters of
Huharimataku from karum Kanish," in Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, ed. K. Emre,
et al. (Ankara: 1989), 520-1.
133
C. Michel, "The perdum-mule, a Mount for Distinguished Persons in Mesopotamia during the First Half
of the Second Millennium BC," in PECUS. Man and Animal in Antiquity. Proceedings of the Conference at the Swedish
Institute in Rome, September 9-12, 2002., ed. B.S. Frizell (Rome: The Swedish Institute in Rome, 2004).
232
horse.134 In the Old Assyrian documentation, the rab sīsē or his wife never sell a ‘horse’ (sīsum),
but do sell perdum equids. The quotation above about sending tin by horse or donkey is, in fact,
the only reference to a sīsum aside from the title rab sīsē. On the other hand, there are
references to a rab perdī (kt 94/k 1226, 87/k 320). It is possible that rab perdī represents the
more direct rendition of an Anatolian title that was more often rendered rab sīsē.
The question of whether or not a perdum was a breed of horse or a mule is less
important from an economic perspective. Both the cost to purchase and the opportunity cost
to produce a horse or mule was roughly equal. Because mules are statistically infertile, and
because a hinny, the result of a jenny (female donkey) and male horse is less desirable, the only
sustainable way to produce mules is with a mare (female horse) as dam. As a result, the to bear
a mule is to give up a horse because the gestation periods (340 days) are the same. In the
Roman period, mares fit for breeding mules were considered to be as valuable as fine racing
horses and much more valuable than mares only able to bear horses.135 So too, in the Old
Assyrian period, a perdum cost upwards of ten times a donkey.
134
The editors of the CAD simply translate ‘(an equid)’. The word is also found in the Hebrew Bible, but
focus on the evidence from the early second millennium is best. Gelb’s affirmation still holds: “We must try to
bring clear understanding into the chaos of historical presentations. When an occurence is attested and its
meaning established, it must be stated that this meaning applies only to one certain area and to one certain
period. An identically sounding word may denote elephant at one time and camel at another; it may be used for
cedar in one area and for juniper in another. It is absurd to speak of a fixed meaning of a word, as if it had been
left unchanged formally and semantically for almost three thousand years and throughout the vast area of the
Near East in which Akkadian was spoken.” in I.J. Gelb, "Lexicography, Lexicology, and the Akkadian Dictionary,"
in Miscelánea Homenaje a André Martinet, Estructuralismo e Historia II, ed. D. Catalán (Tenerife: Biblioteca Filológica,
1958), 74.
135
Junius Moderatus Columella De re rustica Book 6 Chapter 27.
233
Table 10: Prices quoted for the purchase of perdum
Reference Quotation Price per perdum
CCT 6 46b:23 5 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR ší-im 3 pé-er-di 1⅔ minas silver
I 443:6-8 4 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR ší-im pé-er-dí136 2, 1⅔, or 1 minas silver
t/k 1:6-7 2 ma-na 16½ GÍN KÙ.BABBAR a-na pé-er-dí-im | áš-qúl 2 minas 16⅔ shekels silver
m/k 21:1-2 4 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR ší-im pé-er-dí 2, 1⅔, or 1 minas silver
94/k 1176:34 1 ma-na KÙ.GI ší-im | pé-er-dí 1, ½, ⅓ mina gold (ca. 5, 2½,
1⅔ minas silver)
94/k 1756:18-19 3 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR ší-im pé-er-dim 3 minas silver
Mules outlive horses by almost double, with the average mule living past 20 and some
living to 40 years old. This meant that if the perdum were a mule and if each established
merchant had his own, he would only perhaps need two in his life. This might explain why
there are few references to the purchase of perdum equids and why in some cases, the purchase
of a perdum involved wine; it would have been a special event in the life of a merchant.137
Moreover, the capabilities of a mule are essentially equivalent to a horse, and it excels the
136
The form is plural. If there were three perdum the average price would have been 1⅔ minas, if there
were four, the price 1 mina.
137
Kt t/k 1 (See Sever, TTK II, pl. 290) 12 ma-na LÁ 6½ GÍN KÙ.BABBAR 2ša Kà-da-lá a-na pé-er-dí-im 3ša-a-mì-
im | i-dí-na-ni 4 ⅓ ma-na 4 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR i-na 5ra-mì-ni-a ú-ra-dí-ma 62 ma-na 16½ GÍN KÙ.BABBAR a-na 7pé-er-dí-im |
áš-qúl 3 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR 8a-na É wa-áb-ri a-dí-in 93 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR | a-na É kà-ri-im 10ša-du-a-tám áš-qúl 7 ma-na
11
URUDU i-ša-am-ší pé-er-dam 12ni-iš-ú-mu-ú | a-na ki-ra-nim 13áš-qúl 1 ma-na a-na iš-pá-tá-li 14mì-ma a-nim i-na Ša-lá-tí-
wa-ar 15a-šu-mì pé-er-dí-im ú-ša-qí-il5 16iš-tù | Ša-lá-tí-wa-ar 17nu-ṣa-ma 2½ ma-na URUDU 18i-na ša-pá-at na-ri-im 19a-šu-
mì pé-er-dí-im áš-qúl 202 ma-na URUDU a-na ŠE-am 21i-na Ša-lá-tí-wa-ar áš-qúl 225 ma-na URUDU a-na É wa-áb-ri 235 ma-
na ša-du-a-tám 24a-na É kà-ri-im áš-qúl 255 ma-na a-na kà-ší-im 26áš-qúl 4 ma-na a-na ŠE-am 27áš-qúl 10 ma-na URUDU a-
na 28ra-dí-im a-na a-lá-ḫi-nim 29a-dí-in-ma | a-dí | ša-pá-at 30na-ri-im | ir-dí-a-ni 311 ma-na a-na ma-lá-ḫi-im 32a-dí-in | mì-
ma a-nim 33i-na Wa-aḫ-šu-ša-na 34a-šu-mì | pé-er-dí-im 35ú-ša-qí-il5 “I added 24 shekels silver from my own funds to the
1 mina 53 ½ shekels silver Kadala gave me for buying a perdum, and I bought a perdum for 2 minas 16 ½ shekels
silver for the perdum. I gave 3 shekels silver to the ‘inn.’ I paid 3 shekels silver to the colony office as šaduattum. I
paid 7 minas copper for wine on the day we bought the perdum. 1 mina (copper?) for išpitali: All this I paid out in
Šalatuwar on account of the perdum. We departed from Šaltuwar and I paid 2½ minas copper from the bank of the
river on account of the perdum. I paid 2 minas copper in Šalatuwar for grain. I paid 5 minas copper for the ‘inn,’ 5
minas (copper) as šaduattum to the colony office. I paid 5 minas copper to the kasim, I paid 4 minas copper for
grain. I gave 10 minas copper for a guide to Alaḫum. He led us up to the bank of the river. I gave 1 mina (copper)
to … I had all this paid in Waḫšušana on account of the perdum.” Compare also t/k 25.
234
horse in endurance. Getting a donkey to travel as quickly as a mule was considered an enviable
and magical feat in Mesopotamia, associated with the blessing of the gods.138 As one indication
of the parallel capability of horses and mules, mules regularly do well against horses in the
Tevis cup, a 100 mile (160 kilometers) course across the Sierra Nevada Mountains along the old
Pony Express trail from Lake Tahoe, Nevada, topping elevations of 7400 ft. Times of 12-13
hours are considered competitive, with the horse or mule trotting most of the way. In longer
situations where the speeds are lower but conditions rougher, mules are claimed to have an
advantage over horses.139 Mules also subsist on a much more variable diet than horses and on
less water. If the perdum were a mule and the common mount of Old Assyrian messengers, then
66 kilometers per day would not have been a problem.
Conclusion
Šalim-aḫum’s interaction with Puzur-Ištar ended in failure. Though he had arranged
with Puzur-Ištar to purchase gold in Anatolia, Puzur-Ištar cited financial hardship in relation
to textiles with which the latter apprently had problems. Set up by early march, Šalim-aḫum’s
arrangements for acquiring Anatolian gold for payment to a temple at Aššur had collapsed by
mid-May around the time he expected the returns, leaving Šalim-aḫum in a position where he
was forced to gather smaller amounts of gold from a number of sources. Fortunately for Šalim-
aḫum, he had other issues with Ilabrat-bāni, who had also wronged Šalim-aḫum in late March
138
Among the promises that Ištar makes to Gilgamesh should he heed her charms, she touts, “Your
packass shall outrun the mule” ANŠE.NITA-ka ina bilti ANŠE.ŠÚ.MUL libā’ Gilg. VI 9. In Atra-hasis, the mules are
associated with the four winds (Atra-hasis 122 r. 5).
139
M. Stamm, The Mule Alternative (Dugway, UT: Medicine Wolf Press, 1992), 1, 127.
235
or early April, and by mid-May was asking for ways to make it up. Šalim-aḫum took advantage
of the situation, through the benefit of an apparently robust pace of correspondence, and
demanded that some of Ilabrat-bāni’s reconciliation go towards filling his deficit in gold.
Šalim-aḫum’s effort to gather Anatolian gold was back on track, but it was likely running late.
At the same time, the Puzur-Ištar affair highlights the impressive ability that Šalim-
aḫum had to communicate with his agent in Kanesh, Pūšu-kēn. Correspondence containing
directions and instructions constantly moved between principals like Šalim-aḫum and agents
like Pūšu-kēn in the Old Assyrian system. The Puzur-Ištar affair, and the larger reconstruction
of Šalim-aḫum’s activities in REL 80 demonstrate that the tempo of bulk transport clearly
outstripped previous understanding, such as models based on two round-trips per year.
Moreover, Šalim-aḫum’s ability to tactically respond to his own affairs in Anatolia from his
base in Aššur shows an aggressive tempo of communication. A review of the route and equids
involved in both transport and communication suggests that transport could travel between
Aššur and Kanesh in about 30 days, while couriers must have been travelling the same route in
roughly half that time, 15 days. With the flexibility and tempo associated with this system,
Šalim-aḫum depended on an ever-moving flow of peregrinating merchants and couriers
through which he could pursue the trade.
236
CHAPTER 4:
THE TROUBLE WITH ILABRAT-BĀNI
Lā-qēpum and Ilī-ālum:

“Ilabrat-bāni took 6⅓ minas tin. He is not present here.”
4.1:17-19
Šalim-aḫum:
“He acted on his own authority and opened my sack and took my tin!
Not some thief, but he took my own tin!”
4.2:7-11
Ilabrat-bāni:
“Let your message come to your representatives so that they may give me tin and textiles worth about
one talent of silver when they sell on credit. And, in confirmation of these things let a 10 minas portion
of my silver (i.e. the silver I will pay) go to you, so that you give heed to my message.”
3.4:6-13
Šalim-aḫum:
“May Aššur and Ilabrat witness that whenever I give out a single shekel of (your) silver, I
lose 10 or 20 minas of my silver! My dear brother, do not make me angry. Give my silver to
Pūšu-kēn, or send to me so that I may take from your silver here. Do not make me angry.”
4.3:37-44
Pūšu-kēn:
“On the day I am writing this tablet to you, (Ilabrat-bāni’s) term is full. Purchase
refined tin so that Puzur-Aššur can depart with Dān-Aššur to Amurrum and seize
(Ilabrat-bāni’s) tin on his own authority.”
4.5:7-13
Šalim-aḫum:
“I sold (Ilabrat-bani’s) goods in Amurrum and I took my silver. … If he quarrels, send your
message with the first traveler so that I may here make my decision about taking my
silver here.”
4.6:5-6, 38-42
237
In the previous chapter, Puzur-Ištar’s problems with procuring gold for Šalim-aḫum
was portrayed as an instance of the problems a merchant faced in working with other
merchants. The development of the Puzur-Ištar affair also demonstrated the tempo of
communication during the Old Assyrian period, a tempo which was faster than previously
assumed. In this chapter, I explain another problem that Ilabrat-bāni presented for Šalim-
aḫum. Šalim-aḫum’s reactions to the ongoing saga of Ilabrat-bāni are interesting in their own
right, but especially so when they are contextualized within the larger documentation of REL
80. The Ilabrat-bāni affair allows us to grasp actors making active decisions which can be
connected to material contexts, risks, and consequences.
The present chapter is divided into two sections. In the first section, entitled, “The
Ilabrat-bāni Affair,” I reconstruct the Ilabrat-bāni affair and its connections to the original
venture. In second section, entitled, “Metaphorical retaliation, Duality of Structure, and
Practice in the Ilabrat-bāni Affair,” I consider the source of Šalim-aḫum’s decisions and
motivations within the Ilabrat-bāni affair and the different quality of an account of those
decisions and motivations as offered by the reconstruction. I argue that the Ilabrat-bāni affair,
when contextualized in contemporary developments, is an opportunity to see Šalim-aḫum not
only pursuing activities within the frame of cultural structures, but also using those structures
as resources for his own interests.
The Ilabrat-bāni Affair
Šalim-aḫum’s problems with Puzur-Ištar, whose quittance of his duties left Šalim-aḫum
in need of gold for his ikribū fund, were not his only problems in the first half of REL 80. He also
238
had a problem with another merchant, Puzur-Ištar’s brother Ilabrat-bāni. As seen in the
previous chapter, Šalim-aḫum turned to Ilabrat-bāni among others to compensate for Puzur-
Ištar’s failure to deliver gold. Meanwhile, Ilabrat-bāni had requested to purchase goods from
Šalim-aḫum. Šalim-aḫum did not turn to Ilabrat-bāni to right Puzur-Ištar’s wrong because the
two were brothers. Rather, Ilabrat-bāni initiated his offer after tracing a prodigal route of his
own. Šalim-aḫum was able to demand a dear price for his merchandise from Ilabrat-bāni
because Ilabrat-bāni had appropriated 6⅓ minas tin out of Šalim-aḫum’s goods while he
travelled to Kanesh earlier in the year, in tandem with the caravan of the original venture
(4.1, 4.2, 4.3). But when Ilabrat-bāni failed to pay his first installment on time, Šalim-aḫum
heeded advice to seize merchandise belonging to Ilabrat-bāni, which was travelling on the
road to Kanesh. Just as Ilabrat-bāni highhandedly stole from Šalim-aḫum, Šalim-aḫum
highhandedly collected by force from Ilabrat-bāni.1
The entire Ilabrat-bāni affair, insofar as we can follow it, transpired within the course
of the same shipping season as the original venture. There are three perceivable phases in the
interaction between Šalim-aḫum and Ilabrat-bāni during this year, which will divide this
reconstruction into three sections. In the first phase, entitled “Ilabrat-bāni’s transgression,”
Ilabrat-bāni took 6 minas 20 shekels tin from Šalim-aḫum’s shipment while in transit from
Aššur. Apparently, Ilabrat-bāni took the tin to pay expenses on the road, but Šalim-aḫum felt
that the purported expenses were excessive and that Ilabrat-bāni’s actions were in violation of
good practice. Four letters (4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4) document the initial report of the incident
1
The interconnection between some of these documents have been noted before. Veenhof, AOATT, 32 n.
66, noted that BIN 4 61 (4.1), TC 2 3 (4.2), and L 29-560 (POAT 7)(4.3) all mentioned the same incidents. Also, P.
Garelli, "La Tablet Cappadocienne de Liège Pul 100 et le Dossier Ilabrat-Bāni," in FS Matouš (Budapest, 1978): 105-
26.
239
and Šalim-aḫum’s reaction. In the second phase, entitled “Šalim-aḫum and Ilabrat-bāni
attempt to reconcile,” Ilabrat-bāni offered to buy a large lot of goods from Šalim-aḫum, who
constrained him to pay half of his conciliatory down payment in gold. This second phase,
occurring a few months after the season started, was documented in the previous chapter.
However, these measures did not lead to resolution. Approximately two months later, when
Ilabrat-bāni missed another deadline to pay, Pūšu-kēn advised Šalim-aḫum to seize some of
Ilabrat-bāni’s goods, then in transit to Kanesh, in order to recoup his investment. Šalim-aḫum
did so, liquidating the goods, and Šalim-aḫum reported the result of the action and Ilabrat-
bāni’s updated balance of debt to Pūšu-kēn. Two letters from Šalim-aḫum (4.5 and 4.6)
document this third phase, which I have entitled “Šalim-aḫum exacts justice.”
Ilabrat-bāni’s transgression
Our documentation commences with a document reporting the goods from which
Ilabrat-bāni took the tin. Šalim-aḫum’s representatives, Lā-qēpum and Ilī-ālum, reported the
process of clearing the goods for sale upon their arrival (4.1:3-25) after which they reported
on the credit sale of most of the goods to two persons, Puzur-Anna and Iddi(n)-abum (4.1:26-
42). They also reported the liquidation of the remaining merchandise through cash sales and
another smaller credit sale to Ilī-ašranni, the chief transporter (4.1:42-71).
Because 4.1 provides only a brief mention of the problem with Ilabrat-bāni, our
information for reconstructing what happened along the road to Kanesh comes from Šalim-
aḫum’s angry letters 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, an emotionally charged version of events based on
secondary reports. As in most cases with Šalim-aḫum’s interpersonal interactions during this
year, Ilabrat-bāni’s interests and actions are mediated almost exclusively through Šalim-
240
aḫum’s perspective. While there seems to be consensus among Šalim-aḫum and his agents
concerning Ilabrat-bāni’s responsibility—and Šalim-aḫum certainly must have had information
about Ilabrat-bāni’s action that surpasses the surviving documents—it impossible to know to
what extent Ilabrat-bāni would have agreed to Šalim-aḫum’s version of the story. It is clear
that Ilabrat-bāni removed tin from Šalim-aḫum’s sealed cargo, committing a breach of
conduct. The letters in this conversation give no indication that Ilabrat-bāni ever protested his
responsibility for the missing 6⅓ minas tin and we do not know why Ilabrat-bāni decided to
take the tin from Šalim-aḫum cargo. Nonetheless, what transpired after the event—
particularly Šalim-aḫum’s reaction—is documented.
The progression of 4.1 is detail-laden.
Document 4.1 - BIN 4 61: Summary Document on of Ilī-ašranni’s arrival2
1 a-na Ša-lim-a-ḫi-im qí-bi4-ma

um-ma La-qé-pu-um ú Ì-lí-a-lúm-ma
6 GÚ 30 ma-na AN.NA ku-nu-ki
20 TÚG šu-ru-tum | qá-dí ša li-wi-tim
5 85 TÚG ku-ta-ni ša a-na Ì-lí-áš-ra-ni
ta-dí-nu | ŠÀ.BA 4¼ TÚG ku-ta-ni
ù šu-ra-am ni-is-ḫa-tim il5-qe-ú
2 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR i-pu-lu! | 8 TÚG ku-ta-ni
iš-ra-tí-kà É.GAL-lúm il5-qé ù 2 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR
10 ta-pu-ul ši-tí TÚG.ḪI-tí-kà 73 LÁ ¼ TÚG ku-ta-nu
2
Previous treatments: Larsen, OACP, 122, Type 3:11. The translation and interpretation of this letter here
differs slightly from Larsen’s previous treatment in respect to the role taken by Ilī-ašranni vis-à-vis Šalim-aḫum.
Larsen points out that the subject of iqīp in lines 30 and 40 is Ilī-ašranni. Ilī-ašranni continues as the subject in the
sentence directly after these two sections where he turns over textiles to the agents. However, though the agents
then record that the palace bought some of the goods next, it is clear from several factors that Ilī-ašranni was the
one who paid gold for the two textiles. In the first place, Ilī-ašranni is the only possible referent even though the
palace is more proximal because the persons acting on behalf of the palace, when the palace is not specifically
invoked as the subject, are grammatically plural in this letter, as in the beginning of the caravan account (ll. 6-16).
Second, the reconstruction corroborates Ilī-ašranni’s role (see note 3 below).
241
1 TÚG šu-ra-am | a-na iš-ra-tim
il5-qé-ú 3 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR i-pu-lu
ší-tí šu-ru-tí-kà | 20 LÁ 2 TÚG qá-dí
ša li-wi-tim i-na 6 GÚ 30 ma-na
15 AN.NA-ki-kà 12 ma-na AN.NA
ni-is-ḫa-tim il5-qé-ú | 9⅔ ma-na
mu-ṭá-ú | 6⅓ ma-na AN.<NA>
d
NIN.ŠUBUR-ba-ni il5-qé
a-na-kam lá w[a-š]a-áb | iš-tù
20 50 ma-na 5 GÍN AN.NA-ak qá-tí-šu
4 SILÀ re-eš15-tám | ⅓ ma-na AN.NA
ù 5 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR a-na A-bi-tí-ba-an
tù-šé-bi4-lá-šu-n[i] gám-ru | 9 ma-na AN.NA
a-na Ì-lí-áš-ra-ni | ni-pu-ul
25 ší-tí AN.NA-ki-kà 5 GÚ 53 ma-na AN.NA
lo.e. ŠÀ.BA 3 GÚ LÁ 1 ma-na AN.NA
7 GÍN.TA 20 TÚG ku-ta-ni ½ ma-na.TA
10 TÚG šu-ru-tum 15 GÍN.TA ŠU.NIGIN KÙ.BABBAR-pì-kà
rev. 38 ma-na 4½ GÍN | Puzur4-A-na
30 DUMU E-lá-lí i-qí-ip
ŠÀ.BA 30 LÁ 2 ma-na | a-na 50 ḫa-am-ša-tim
i-ša-qal 10 ma-na 4¼ GÍN
a-na 45 ḫa-am-ša-tim i-ša-qal
2 GÚ 14 ma-na 10 GÍN AN.NA
35 7 GÍN.TA 20 TÚG ku-ta-ni ½ ma-na.TA
4 TÚG šu-ru-tim 15 GÍN.TA
1 ANŠE ṣa-la-mu-um | ki-ma ½ ma-na
a-na 30⅔ ma-na KÙ.BABBAR a-na 48 ḫa-am-ša-tim
I-dí-a-ba-am DUMU I-dí-in-Ištar
3
Though there is damage between MA and MIN, Larsen’s reading of only 2 textiles is corroborated by the
gold Šalim-aḫum sought from Ilī-ašranni in 3.3(TC 2 2):26-29, where Šalim-aḫum asked Pūšu-kēn to gather Ilī-
ašranni’s gold worth 4 and 5 shekels each and send it to him. The price Ilī-ašranni paid in gold, 7 shekels 23 ½
grains, would have been a fair price for no more than two kutānum textiles (usually worth about 20 shekels silver).
If all but a small amount of Ilī-ašranni’s gold was valued at a gold:silver rate of 5:1, then the gold he paid would
have had a value close to 37 shekels silver.
242
40 i-qí-ip | u4-mu-šu-nu ITU.KAM
ša ke-na-tim li-mu-um
Šu-da-a DUMU En-na-nim 8 TÚG ku-ta-ni
ú 3 TÚG šu-ru-tim i-dí-in-ni-a-tí
5 TÚG ku-ta-ni | wa-at-ru-tim
45 É.GAL-lúm a-na ší-mì-im il5-qé-ma
1⅔ ma-na i-na ni-kà-sí
ni-ša-kà-an ki-ma 23 TÚG ku-ta-ni
7½ GÍN LÁ 6½ ŠE KÙ.KI ù 5 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR
i-dí-in-ni-a-tí | ší-tí | TÚG ku-ta-ni-kà
50 17 TÚG | ù 1 TÚG šu-ru-um | KÙ.BABBAR-áp-šu-nu
⅓ ma-na.TA ù 10 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR
ša šu-ri-im | 5⅚ ma-na
ší-ti AN.NA-ki-kà 40 ma-na LÁ 10 GÍN
u.e. KÙ.BABBAR!-áp-šu 5 ma-na
55 lu ša ší-tí TÚG ku-ta-ni
ù šu-ri-im lu ša ší-tí
AN.NA-ki-kà | 10⅚ ma-na KÙ.BABBAR
le.e. ṣa-ru-pá-am i-li-bi4
Ì-lí-áš-ra-ni
60 ta-dí-in ṭup-pu-šu
ša 10⅓ ma-na KÙ.BABBAR
ú a-ḫa-ma
ša ½ ma-na KÙ.BABBAR
la-pì-it ITU.1.KAM
65 ku-zal-li | li-mu-um
Šu-da-a DUMU E-na-nim
1½ GÍN.TA
i-na ITU.1.KAM a-na
1 ma-na-im ú-ṣa-áb
70 5 ANŠE.ḪI.A ša šé-ep
Ì-lí-áš-ra-ni me-tù
243
1-2
To Šalim-aḫum, from Lā-qēpum and Ilī-ālum:
—Receipt of Shipment—
3-6
Regarding the 6 talents 30 minas tin under seal, 20 šurum-textiles along with
wrappings, and 85 kutānum-textiles which you gave to Ilī-ašranni:
—Payment of Custom Duties—
6-16
Thereof, they took 4 ¼ kutānum-textiles and a šurum-textile as the excise tax. They
balanced 2 shekels silver. The palace took 8 kutānum-textiles as your tithe, and you balanced 2
shekels silver. The remainder of your textiles: 72¾ kutānum-textiles. They took 1 šurum-textile
for tithes. They balanced 3 shekels silver. The remainder of your šurum-textiles: 18 together
with wrappings. From your 6 talents 30 minas tin, they took 12 minas as excise tax.
—Settlement with Ilī-ašranni—
16-25
9⅔ minas were deficient. Ilabrat-bāni took 6⅓ minas tin. He is not present here.
From the 50 minas 5 shekels of his hand tin, the 4 qûm fine oil and the ⅓ minas tin and the 5
shekels silver which you sent to him at Abitiban were exhausted. We balanced 9 minas tin to
Ilī-ašranni. The remainder of your tin: 5 talents 53 minas tin.
—Lot Sold to Puzur-Anna—
26-33
Thereof, he (Ilī-ašranni) sold on credit 2 talents 59 minas tin at 7 shekels (silver per
mina), 20 kutānum-textiles at 30 shekels each, 10 šurum-textiles at 15 shekels each—in total
your silver is 38 minas 4½ shekels to Puzur-Anna son of Elāli. Thereof, he will pay 28 minas in
50 ḫamuštum-weeks. He will pay 10 minas 4¼ shekels in 45 ḫamuštum-weeks.
—Lot Sold to Iddi(n)-abum—
34-42
He (Ilī-ašranni) sold on credit 2 talents 14 minas 10 shekels tin at 7 shekels (silver
per mina), 20 kutānum-textiles at 30 shekels each, 4 šurum-textiles at 15 shekels each, one black
donkey for 30 shekels—30⅔ minas silver for 48 ḫamuštum-weeks—to Iddi(n)-abum son of
Iddi(n)-Ištar. Their terms were month III, eponymy of Šudaya son of Ennanum (REL 81).
—Miscellaneous Cash Sales—
42-49
He (Ilī-ašranni) gave us 8 kutānum-textiles and 3 šurum-textiles. The palace took 5
fine kutānum-textiles for (tithe) purchases, and we put 1⅔ minas (silver) into accounts. He (Ilī-
ašranni) gave us 7 shekels 23½ grains gold and 5 shekels silver for the 2 textiles.
—Lot sold to Ilī-ašranni—
49-69
The remainder of your textiles was 17 (kutānum)-textiles and 1 šurum-textile, their
(price) in silver, 20 shekels each (for the kutānum-textiles) and 10 shekels each for the šurum-
textile, is 5⅚ minas (silver). The remainder of your tin was 39 minas 50 shekels, its (price in)
silver is 5 minas. Both the price of the remainder of the kutānum-textiles and the šurum-textiles
and the remainder of your tin, 10 minas 50 shekels refined silver, is sold to Ilī-ašranni. His
244
tablet stating ‘10⅓ minas silver,’ and separately ‘½ mina silver,’ has been written. Month XI,
eponymy of Šudaya, son of Ennānum (REL 81). He will add 1½ shekels per mina per month.
—Equine Postscript—
70-71
Five donkeys from Ilī-ašranni’s caravan are dead.
The following table summarizes the transactions reported in 4.1. In order to facilitate
the arithmetic for the reader, all amounts of tin have been expressed in terms of minas, while
silver has been expressed in terms of minas (m) and shekels (š). The credit sales are not
separated from the sales for cash.
Table 11: Summary of Ilī-ašranni’s Caravan and its Disposition (4.1)

Goods Shipped: 6 donkeys 390 minas tin 20 š. textiles 85 k. textiles Silver Gained
Customs
nisḫatum excise -9⅔ m -1 -4 ¼ 2š, -2š
Subtotal 6 380⅓ m 19 80¼ 0
Tithe purchases -1 -8 3š
Subtotal 6 380⅓ m 18 72¾ 3š
Other Losses
Missing -12 m
Ilabrat-bāni -6⅓ m
Transport -9 m
Death -5
Subtotal 1 353 m 18 72 ¾ 3š
Sales
Puzur-Anna -179 m -10 -20 38 m. 4¼š
Iddi(n)-abum -1 -134⅙ m -4 -20 30 m. 40š
Subtotal 0 39⅚ m 4 32 ¾ 68 m. 47¼š
To agents -3 -8
Palace -5 1m 40š
Ilī-ašranni-cash -2 5š
Ilī-ašranni-credit -39⅚ m -1 -17 10m 50š
Final Balance 0 0 0 ¾ 81m 22¼š
m = minas š = shekels
Note: The table does not include the 7 shekels 23½ grains of gold which Ilī-ašranni paid in cash for goods reported
in conjunction with his purchase of textiles for 5 shekels, which would belong with the second to last entry, Ilī-
ašranni credit.
245
The accounting is straightforward. Šalim-aḫum’s goods arrived in Kanesh on 6 donkeys,
half loaded with tin and half with textiles, and all but ¾ of one kutānum textile were sold,
perhaps an error of accounting (as Larsen suggests). After the goods were cleared for sale, one
lot of goods was sold on credit to Puzur-Anna, and another to Iddi(n)-abum. Small amounts of
goods were sold for cash after which Ilī-ašranni purchased the remainder of the goods on
credit.
The summary document suggests that Ilī-ašranni played a more active role in selling
the goods than did the writers of the summary document, Lā-qēpum and Ilī-ālum, even though
they seem to act as Šalim-aḫum’s representatives. It is Ilī-ašranni who sells the goods on credit,
and when there are goods still unsold, it is Ilī-ašranni who purchases the balance on credit. Ilī-
ašranni apparently bore the primary responsibilty of selling off the transported goods.
I tentatively suggest that 4.1 could be an example of a ‘complete report’ (têrtum
zakûtum). It is clearly written well after the arrival of the caravan which is the subject of
report. It also records how virtually each and every good in the caravan was sold or disposed,
or ‘cleared’ from Ilī-ašranni’s responsibility to ensure it was sold. By contrast, this document is
not a caravan account according to the description put forth in OACP, where it is “primarily an
acknowledgement of receipt...” While “it (could) also inform [the receivers of] the sender(s) ...
activities [concerning] the shipments, and in some cases even [report what happened with the
goods],” the primary purpose of the caravan report was to report the receipt of the caravan
and how much cleared. 4.1 instead is careful to report both the circumstances of arrival and
how (nearly) every mina of tin and textile was turned for a claim or cash.
246
Full reports, if 4.1 is any indication, would have been necessarily large and detailed.
They would have been physically larger than the average letter and as such may have incurred
an extra charge if sent with other letters. As comparison, Šalim-aḫum instructs Pūšu-kēn and
Lā-qēpum to pack the will he requests in straw before sending—because it was larger than
average—and to give the person that will take it back to Aššur and extra shekels of silver (2.5).
At the same time, because ‘full reports’ would be mostly ‘old news,’ they would not need to
travel at the same speed as letters and they could go to Aššur or Kanesh (depending on the
owner of the goods and his location) with the transport rate, where they could packed in
straw, or in textiles, and placed in a top pack, where they would incur no cost for transport.
Letters often include a note that a transporter or merchant should bring a full report with
them.5
Likewise, if 4.1 is an example of a complete report, then the only thing faithfully
recorded is the sale of the goods—not the collection of the sales. Whether one wants to assert
that ūmūšunu refers to the beginning or the end of the terms associated with the credit sales to
Puzur-Anna and Iddi(n)-Ištar, information about the collection of those debts is not the point
of the report. In the case that the debts would be coming due at the end of REL 81 or the
beginning of REL 82, or whether they were due in REL 81 III, in neither case does the document
concern itself with the collection of the debts. I take this to be consistent with a view that the
credit sales were regarded as final and that once the goods were sold, the nature of the asset
5
An additional example arises within this reconstruction. In 5.3:30-32, Šalim-aḫum directs that Dān-
Aššur should bring the full report of a different venture with him when he comes. In that context, the full report
seems to refer to the goods Dān-Aššur is bringing. In fact, it is Dān-Aššur’s delay that prompts Šalim-aḫum to
suggest that he would be able to do so. Šalim-aḫum’s directions for Dān-Aššur to bring back a ‘complete report’ on
the goods brought by his caravan is consistent with this reconstruction and Šalim-aḫum’s hope and intention that
all the goods would at least be sold by the point that Dān-Aššur was able to come home, after the nabrītum.
247
changed and the essential phase of the caravan venture was finished, provoking a full report of
the caravan.
If 4.1 is seen as a copy of a complete report than as a caravan account, then the
composition of the document is worth looking at. In comparison with the gestalt of the copy of
the caravan account in the original venture (2.2), 4.1:3-40 up to ūmūšunu seems to more or
less represent a faithful copy of the copy of the (lost) caravan account for Ilī-ašranni’s caravan,
which tablet was retained in Kanesh at least until the time that 4.1 and its copy (sent to Šalim-
aḫum) was written. In addition, 4.1:42-49, which records textiles taken for purchases and
small purchases made by Ilī-ašranni, also likely represents events that transpired soon after
the caravan arrived in Kanesh and was included in the caravan account.
Whether or not 4.1 is a ‘complete report’ or some other type of document not given a
specific name within the Old Assyrian dialect, it was written after REL 81 XI, but recording in
full detail events which occurred in the past only for the sake of reporting on a venture. The
most straightforward reading of 4.1:40-42 (u4-mu-šu-nu ITU.KAM ša ke-na-tim li-mu-um Šu-da-a
DUMU En-na-nim) is “Their terms were REL 81 III” that is that the caravan arrived in REL 80 IV,
the lots were sold relatively quickly with terms of 45, 48, and 50 weeks so that they would have
been due in REL 81 III, 50 weeks (there was an intercalation between REL 80/81, see Appendix
Three) after the arrival. References to Iddi(n)-abum’s and Puzur-Anna’s debts clearly show that
their debt notes were term debt notes,6 the expression of the dates related to their debts does
6
With regard to the first lot, Lā-qēpum and Ilī-ālum report that Puzur-Aššur must pay in two
installments, due in forty-five then fifty ḫamuštum weeks. The phrasing reflects what appears to be the pertinent
portion of Puzur-Aššur’s debt note, the amount and the length of the term of the loan. The original debt note
would probably have read like any other typical debt note of its kind: 30 LÁ 2 mana KÙ.BABBAR ṣarrupam iṣṣer
Puzur-Adad Šalim-aḫum išu ištu ḫamuštim ša PN ITU.KAM MN limmum PN2 ana 50 ḫamšātim išaqqal šumma la išqul 1½
GÍN.TA i-warḫim ana 1 mana’im uṣṣab IGI PN3. All the information which was already obvious was left out of the
248
not stem from their debt notes; rather it is descriptive prose concerning when Šalim-aḫum
should expect the silver. Whether REL 81 III referred to the extension of credit to them or was
related to the due date of their debts depends entirely on whether “their terms” (ūmūšunu)
refers to the beginning or end of the credit period. 7 According to Šalim-aḫum’s use of the
term, REL 81 III refers to the due date rather than the origination of the debts. Statements
similar to “the term of my merchants are full, collect the money and send it to me” can be
found in much of his correspondence from this period (2.4:46-47, 2.6:4-7).8 While the basic
term ūmū can refer to the days between contracting the loan and the due date,9 and thus
introduce ambiguity as to what part of the term it could denote, in all cases it is used with a
view towards the completion of the term, as in ūmūšu(nu) etiqū/etqū “his/their terms are past”,
i.e. the debt is past due.10 There are also instances where the term is used in a simple
letter. Šalim-aḫum’s name and the name of the debtor need not be included, the origination date of the loan was
not included because it was old knowledge, the repayment clause was standard, the witnesses were unimportant
in this context. In the case of the second lot, the synatx of the date shows that Lā-qēpum and Ilī-ālum did not
directly quote the debt note.
7
The linguistic ambiguity of the quotation in no way implies a situational ambiguity for Šalim-aḫum or
the writers. When Šalim-aḫum read the clause, he would have had no trouble determining whether the date
represented the dates of the initial sales or the due dates as the date would have referred to the past or future
from his perspective.
8
Also BIN 4 25:25-29 mì-ma KÙ.BABBAR a-nim u4-mu-šu-nu ma-al-ú ṭup-pì-šu-nu am-ra-ma ša u4-mu-šu-nu e-
tí-qú-ni ṣí-ib-tám ša-áš-qí-lá.
9
For example, CCT 4 16c:30-33 2 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR ša Ḫa-nu-nu ù šu-a-tí iḫ-da-ma KÙ.BABBAR ša-áš-qí-lá-
šu-nu u4-mu-šu-nu im-tí-du “As for the 2 minas silver from Ḫanunu and him, take care and make them pay the
silver, their days have become numerous.” See CAD mâdu mng. 1a-2’ for more examples. This language still
focuses on the endpoint of the term.
10
AKT 3 13:24-25 a-šu-mì A-šùr-i-dí-ma e-tí-iq u4-mu-šu | im-lu-ú-ma “Regarding Aššur-iddi(n), it is passed,
his terms are full.” AKT 3 50:13-15 a-dí iš-tù Ú-la-ma a-tù-ra-ni u4-mu-šu-nu ma-al-ú a-ša-ḫu-ut “Before I return from
Ulama their terms will be full. I am concerned.” ATHE 28:26-29 um-ma šu-ut-ma 2 ḫa-mu-uš-ta-an u4-mu-šu e-ti-qú ṣí-
ib-tám šu-uq-lá-nim-ma ù ṭup-pu-šu lá-dì-na-ku-nu-[ti] “He said, ‘The terms are 2 weeks past. Pay me the silver so
that I can give you (pl.) the tablet.” BIN 4 15:7-9 u4-mu-šu 4? ḫa-am-ša-tím e-ti-qá “The terms are 4 weeks past.” BIN
6 59:7 u4-mu-šu 3 ša-na-tim lu e-ta-at-[qú] “His terms have indeed passed by three weeks.” CCT 3 45a:21-24 ù a-šu-mì
ša A-mur-A-šur DUMU Sú-kà-lí-a ki-ma u4-mu-šu a-ḫu-ru-ni | na-áš-pè-er-tám lá ú-<lá>-pì-ta-ku-um “Now as for the
matter of Amur-Aššur son of Sukalia, I will not write a našpertum to you (stating) that his terms are past due.”
249
declarative sense and must refer to the end of the term.11 Thus, REL 81 III could easily be read as
the time that the debts would begin to come due.12
To review, the summary document on Ilī-ašranni’s caravan (4.1) included the sale of
two larger lots, one to Puzur-Anna and one to Iddi(n)-abum, and one smaller lot that Ilī-
ašranni bought. (Smaller bundles of goods were sold as well, but are irrelevant to this
discussion.) If the order of packages reported in 4.1 reflect a chronological progression, then
Puzur-Anna and Iddi(n)-abum first purchased large lots of goods on credit from Ilī-ašranni in
REL 80 IV.The two lots were sold on credit with delayed payment. Puzur-Anna was to pay his
debts in two installments, one in 45 ḫamuštum weeks and another in 50 ḫamuštum-weeks, while
Iddi(n)-abum was to pay in 48 ḫamuštum weeks. After recording how many weeks Iddi(n)-abum
had to pay, 4.1 simply states: “Their terms (are) the month Ša Kēnātim, eponymy of Šudaya
son of Ennanum (REL 81 III).” The claims on Puzur-Anna and Iddi)n)-abum came due beginning
in REL 81 III. After these two lots were sold, some small amounts of goods were sold or
purchased. Finally, when the remainder of goods did not sell for some time, Ilī-ašranni
11
BIN 6 150:1-14 iš-tù ḫa-muš-tim ša A-šur-be-el-a-wa-tim ù A-gu5-za a-na 44 ḫa-am-ša-tim ša Pu-šu-ke-e[n6] a-
[n]a 41 ḫa-am-š[a-t]im ša Zu-kur-ì-lí iš-tù ḫa-muš-tim [ša] A-šur-[SIPA] ù E-na-ma-nim u4-mu-šu-nu a-na 47 ḫa-am-ša-tim
ša Išta[r-pì]-lá-aḫ ù Id-na-a “From the ḫ. of PN and PN2 for 44 ḫ. weeks from Pūšu-kēn; for 41 ḫ. weeks from Zukur-
ilī; from the ḫ. of PN3 and PN4, their term is for 47 ḫ. weeks from Ištar-pilaḫ and Idnaya.” Cf. also CCT 5 27b: 1a-dí
ma-lá u4-me-e 2tám-kà-ri sà-aḫ-ra-k[u] 3i-na UTU-ši <ša> ṭup-pì 4a-ni-ú-tim ú-lá-pì-ta-ku-ni 5u4-mu-šu-nu 15 ḫa-am-ša-tum
6
i-li-ku KÙ.BABBAR ma-lá 7qá-tí i-kà-šu-du pá-ni-a-ma 8ú-še-ba-lá-kum u4-mu-šu-nu 9i-ma-lu-ni!11-ma 10ú-za-kà-ma a-ta-
be-a-ma 11a-ta-lá-kam “I am delayed for the duration of the term of the merchants. From the day they wrote out
these tablets to me, their terms have proceeded 15 hamuštum weeks. I will send you as much as I (my hand) can
assemble. As soon as their terms are full, I will clear my affairs, set out, and come to you.” In this case, ūmūšunu
seems to refer to the moving endpoint of the progress of the terms. Though this could mean that terms could
refer to the beginning as well as the end, here ūmūšunu is distinguished from the date that the document was
drawn up.
12
The three term periods (45, 48, and 50 ḫamuštum weeks) would have fallen due over five full weeks if
they were contracted on the same day. But in the context of the letter, the statement meant the commencement
of the variosu due dates. Demanding that the writers of the letter would have described the due dates fully, thus
relating them to their likely span of 5 or more weeks in coming due, demands that they needed to carefully
describe an event in the past that is if secondary importance. The collection of those debts are not discussed.
250
purchased the remainder of the goods in REL 81 XI. His purchase was not on credit, but rather
interest began accruing on his debt immediately. 4.1 was written in REL 81 XI (November).
The summary document (4.1) reports so much information about the customs
procedure and the subsequent credit sales that small details not directly pertinent to the
typical aspects of this caravan procedure can be easily overlooked. But nestled within the mass
of details, between an accounting of losses and a report of settlement with Ilī-ašranni, Lā
qēpum and Ilī-ālum the terse report: “Ilabrat-bāni took 6⅓ minas tin.” (ll. 17-19). The brevity
of the remark mirrors the small amount of tin involved, less than 2% of the original shipment.
At the same time, the brevity of the second statement, “He is not present here,” is pregnant,
signalling Lā-qēpum’s and Ilī-ālum’s reluctance to dwell on the unresolved matter. If we read
this letter focusing on the typical aspects of the procedures, there is little indication of its
importance, how Šalim-aḫum would react to this statement, or if he would even give it a
second thought. However, because of Ilabrat-bāni’s conduct in the recent past, Šalim-aḫum’s
response to the statement was neither positive nor reserved.
Document 4.2 - TC 2 3: Šalim-aḫum’s angry response13
a-na La-qé-ep ù Pu-šu-ke-en6
qí-bi-ma ta-áš-pu-ra-nim
um-ma a-tù-nu-ma i-na lu-qú-tim
5 ša šé-ep | Ì-lí-áš-ra-ni
6⅓ ma-na AN.NA ù ½ TÚG
iš-tí dNIN.ŠUBUR-ba-ni e-ta-lu-tám
13
Previous Treatments: P. van der Meer, Une Correspondance Commerciale Assyrienne (Rome, 1931), Nr. 29;
EL, 206 n. a.
251
e-pu-uš-ma | šu-uq-li
ip-ṭù-ur-ma AN.NA-ki il5-qé
10 a-pu-ùḫ | a-wi-lim sà-ri-im
šu-ut AN.NA | i-a-am | il5-té-qé
a-na AN.NA-ki-a 6 GIN.TA
ša!-áš-qí-lá-šu | a-ša-me-ma
i-na lu-qú-tim | ší-a-tí-ma
15 16½ ma-na KÙ!.BABBAR!14 (Ras.)
ù ½ ma-na 7 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR
iš-tí | I-dí-a-bi-im DUMU I-dí-Ištar
a-na AN.NA 6 GÍN.TA
ú-lá i-ba-ta-aq
rev. 20 IGI dEn-líl-ba-ni IGI Puzur4-A-šur
DUMU E-la-lí | ú-nu-tí
ù ú-nu-sú-nu | iš-té-ni-iš
a-na-nu-um ir-de8-ma |
a-wi-lúm | sà-ru-um | a-ṣé-er
25 AN.NA qá-tim | ša a-dí-nu-šu-nu-tí
ù AN.NA 1 GÚ ù 2 GÚ
up-ta-re-er | a-ki-ma | šu-nu
a-ma-kam | wa-áš-bu-ni | a-wi-lam
ú-tí-du-ma | i-na i-a-im
30 il5-qé-ma | ú-nu-sú-nu | ša-lim-tám
il5-ta-qé-ú | ILLAT-at Lá-qé-ep
ú-ku-ul-tám ⅔ ma-na 5 GÍN.TA
iš-ku-nu | šu-nu | šu-a-tí
⅓ ma-na.TA | ú-ša-áš-ki-nu-šu
35 mì-šu | a-num | ša i-na i-a-tim-ma
lu-qú-tim | e-ku-lu | lu i-na
AN.NA-ki-šu-nu | il5-qé lu i-na
TÚG-tí-šu-nu | il5-qé-e
14
Signs: AN.NA. The amount must be either an error or an approximation. According to 4.1, Iddi(n)-
abum purchased 134 minas 10 shekels tin, which according to the 7 shekel rate would have cost 19⅙ minas silver.
Though the rates quoted match 4.1, Šalim-aḫum’s quotation of the amount of silver is another example of his
garbling details.
252
ú-tí-du-šu-ma i-na i-a-im
40 il-qé-ma | ṣú-ba-tí-šu-nu
ù an-na-ak-šu-nu
le.e. šál-ma-am-ma ú-ta-er | a-pu-tí-a-ma a-na-ku
lá a-ḫa-li-iq | iš-té-en6 ù šé-na
lu-uš-bu-ma | a-šar | us-ma-at-ni le-pu-šu
45 šu-ma da-nu-tám | e-ta-wu-ú a-na kà-ri-im [x]
1-3
Šalim-aḫum to Lā-qēpum and Pūsu-kēn:
3-31
You wrote me, “From the goods of Ilī-ašranni’s cargo, 6 minas 20 shekels tin and ½
textile are with Ilabrat-bāni.” He acted on his own authority and opened my sack and took my
tin! Not some thief, but he took my own tin! Make him pay a 6 shekel rate for my tin. I ‘hear’
(i.e. read) that from those very same goods 16 ½ minas silver and (at a rate of) ½ mina (for the
kutānum textiles), (and) 7 shekels silver (for the tin) are with Iddi(n)-abum son of Iddi(n)-Ištar.
Do not discount below a 6 shekel rate for the tin. In the presence of Enlil-bāni and Puzur-Aššur
son of Elāli, he drove my goods and their goods together from here and the thief (i.e. Ilabrat-
nāni) broke up 1 or 2 ‘talents’ (i.e. sacks) of tin in addition to the hand tin which I gave to them.
In this way they who were there ‘informed’ the man so that he took from mine while they took
away their merchandise intact.
31-45
As for the caravan of Lā-qēpum, they charged feed (expenses of) 45 shekels each,
while they themselves charged 20 shekels each to him. How is this that thay took it out of my
own merchandise? Did he take (anything) from their tin or did he take (anything) from their
textiles? They ‘informed’ him and he took from mine, and he returned their textiles and their
tin intact. Urgent, I shall not lose (this). Let one or two of them stay and do whatever
necessary. If they speak harshly, [go?] to the colony.
Though Ilabrat-bāni is not reported in the summary document (4.1) to have
transported the goods, Ilabrat-bāni evidently participated in Ilī-ašranni’s transport. Despite
the hand tin Šalim-aḫum had already given them for expenses on the road, at some point
along the journey either Ilī-ašranni or Ilabrat-bāni wrote back to Šalim-aḫum requesting more
funds (4.1:19-24). It is likely that after these further funds (20 shekels tin and 5 shekels silver)
253
were expended Ilabrat-bāni opened one of Šalim-aḫum’s sealed half-packs of tin and took the
6⅓ minas. Apparently, Ilabrat-bāni was ‘informed’ (perhaps assigned?, l. 39) to pay a duty and
he used Šalim-aḫum’s tin. In Šalim-aḫum’s mind, he should have taken from someone else’s
goods. Šalim-aḫum was clearly furious with Ilabrat-bāni, who having apparently acted alone,
bears all of Šalim-aḫum’s malice. Liability for the anomalies in feed costs, however, was shared
by Ilabrat-bāni and Ilī-ašranni. The caravan of Lā-qēpum charged 45 shekels per donkey for
feed to Šalim-aḫum, but “they” (Ilī-ašranni and Ilabrat-bāni) only charged 20 shekels each for
their own donkeys.
In the context of the explanation of the reconstruction reviewed in the Introduction,
one comment from 4.2 provokes one of the connections between the original venture and the
Ilabrat-bāni affair. Šalim-aḫum quotes a letter or letters he has received saying “From the
goods of Ilī-ašranni’s cargo, 6 minas 20 shekels tin and ½ textile are with Ilabrat-bāni.” This
quotation presents a problem of interpretation. Šalim-aḫum references a ½ textile debited to
or with Ilabrat-bāni, but while there is ¾ of a kutānum textile unaccounted for in the complete
report,15 there is no mention of Ilabrat-bāni owing ½ textile in the complete report (4.1).
While this may be a function of the derivative nature of 4.1, one can at least note that the
absence of any ½ textile attributed to Ilabrat-bāni in the complete report—with its emphasis on
detail—leaves it possible that the ½ textile arose from something other than Ilī-ašranni’s
caravan despite the fact that it was mentioned in the context of the 6⅓ minas tin. Given that
the most logical reconstruction of the travel of Ilī-ašranni’s caravan places it in the spring of
REL 80, that the copy of the caravan account for the original venture, which venture also
15
This point already poitned out in OACP, 127.
254
occurred in REL 80, suggests the source of the Šalim-aḫum’s reference to the ½ textile. If so,
then Šalim-aḫum received the caravan account for both Ilī-ašranni’s caravan and the original
venture caravan at the same time. In the copy of the caravan report (2.2), Ilabrat-bāni is
reported to have a whole kutānum textile. There are other differences about the details, but
these can all be understood by a closer look at the respective references to the matter.
In the first place, it should be noted that Šalim-aḫum begins the quotation with, “You
(pl.) wrote me.” The “you (pl.)” likely refers to both Pūšu-kēn and Lā-qēpum, to whom 4.2 is
addressed. That Pūšu-kēn does not appear as a writer of the copy of the complete report (4.1)
is irrelevant because it was written so long after the fact. Both Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn,
alongside Ilī-ālum, appear as writers of the copy of the original venture caravan account (2.2).
The discrepancy more in need of explication is that between the descriptions of the
textile or ½ textile that Ilabrat-bāni purportedly owed Šalim-aḫum. Further clarification about
the ½ textile makes it very unlikely that the ½ textile arose from within Ilī-ašranni’s caravan
and the ¾ textile unaccounted for in 4.1. Later letters in the Ilabrat-bāni affair clarify that the
½ textile to which Šalim-aḫum was referring in 4.2 was a ½ kutānum textile associated with
Nūr-Ištar’s cargo (4.3:15-19, 4.6:16-17). However, in the copy of the original venture caravan
report (2.2), Ilabrat-bāni is assigned a whole kutānum textile that came from Aššur-mutabbil’s
cargo.
The difference between the two descriptions can be lessened by a closer look at the
surviving copy of the original venture caravan account (2.2). In 2.2, Aššur-mutabbil brought
five kutānum textiles on top of his donkey loaded with tin. Nūr-Ištar brought 26 kutānum
textiles. However, the two cargos, Aššur-mutabbil’s cargo and Nūr-Ištar’s cargo, were grouped
together in their description of what cleared; and it is clear that they formed a logical unit for
255
Šalim-aḫum’s agents, and thus likely for Šalim-aḫum as well. In fact, the five textiles on Aššur-
mutabbil’s donkey were used to pay the nisḫātum and išrātum taxes on Nūr-Ištar’s 26 fine
kutānum textiles, all of which cleared. The five kutānum textiles Aššur-mutabbil’s cargo were
used for this purpose, but 2.2 records a total of 5½ textiles being spent from these 5 textiles:
1½ textiles for the nisḫātum, 3 textiles for išrātum, and ‘1’ textile to Ilabrat-bāni (2.2:22-24). 5½
textiles taken from only five textiles means that some accounting is incomplete.
It was easiest for the palace to take whole textiles, and the textiles thus far paid for
Aššur-mutabbil’s and Nūr-Ištar’s cargoes added up to 4½ textiles. Only a shekel of silver had
been balanced for the slight difference between nisḫātum tax and the 1½ textile given for that
tax. The copy of the caravan account has Ilabrat-bāni with a whole textile, but there was only a
½ textile left and it was likely in the hands of the palace. When Ilabrat-bāni needed ½ kutānum
textile to clear some of his own goods, the ½ textile was credited to his account. When Šalim-
aḫum later stated that he read “½ textile is with Ilabrat-bāni” in 4.2:6-7, and mentioned this as
a kutānum textile pertaining to Nūr-Ištar’s cargo later in 4.6, the context communicated in 2.2
suggests that either the “1” textile in 2.2 is an error, or a different way of describing the asset
that we are not used to seeing. A collation of 2.2 may or may not reveal that that the vertical
wedge representing ‘1’ textile for Ilabrat-bāni in fact has some faint horizontal wedge so that it
should instead be read as ½ textile. But the description of the asset as part of Nūr-Ištar’s cargo
still remains. It is the context and the contemporaneous dating of the two documents that
support this argument.
Šalim-aḫum’s comments in 4.2 betray more knowledge about the incident involving
the 6⅓ minas tin than the surviving copy of the summary document on Ilī-ašranni’s caravan
256
(4.1) communicates. Another letter, updating Šalim-aḫum on the journey, may have come
while the caravan was still en route. Šalim-aḫum’s response (4.2) reveals raw and present
feelings about the news. Rather than referring to him by name, Šalim-aḫum only refers to
Ilabrat-bāni as ‘the man’ or calls him a thief, naming him only in his quotation of 4.1.
Šalim-aḫum’s remark equating Ilabrat-bāni with “some thief” asserts that the act was
criminal. However, it also prefigures what Šalim-aḫum’s next letter reveals about Ilabrat-
bāni’s recent track record with Šalim-aḫum. In Šalim-aḫum’s mind, Ilabrat-bāni’s infraction
had added yet one more insult to a growing list of injuries.
Document 4.3 POAT 7 – Šalim-aḫum’s angry words to Ilabrat-bāni17
1 um-ma Ša-lim-a-ḫu-um-ma a-na

Pu-šu-ke-en6 ù dNIN.ŠUBUR-ba-ni
a-na dNIN.ŠUBUR-ba-ni qí-bi4-ma
i-na ṭup-pì-im ša Lá-qé-ep
5 6⅓ ma-na AN.NA i-na
šu-uq-li-kà dNIN.ŠUBUR-ba-ni
il5-qé-ma i-nu-mì-šu-ma a-na
Ḫa-tim i-ta-lá-ak ku-sí-tám
pá-ṣí-tám ša ik-ri-bi4-a
10 Ì-lí-áš-ra-ni a-na A-šùr-ma-lik
ú-bi4-il5 A-šur-ma-lik ù-lá
ik-šu-ud i-ta-ṣa-am ku-sí-tám
a-ta tal-qé um-ma a-ta-ma
a-na a-bi4-a šé-bu-lá-at
15 ½ ku-ta-nim ša šé-ep
Nu-ur-Ištar 15 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR
17
Previous treatments: Julius Lewy, "Apropos of a Recent Study in Old Assyrian Chronology," Or. 26
(1957): 26 n. 18.
257
a-na Dan-A-šur ta-aq-bi4
um-ma a-ta-ma wa-ar-kà-at-kà
lo.e. ú-šé-ba-lam mì-ma a-nim
20 iš-tù li-mì-im Aḫ-mar-ší
rev. tù-kà-a-al té-er-tí
a-dí ḫa-am-ší-šu i-li-kà-ku[m]
lu ša AN.NA ku-sí-tim
ù ½ ku-ta-nim KÙ.BABBAR a-na
25 Pu-šu-ke-en6 dí-in ù-lá
šu-up-ra-am-ma a-na-kam i-na
KÙ.BABBAR-pì-kà lá-al-qé
3 TÚG.ḪI.A ša ik-ri-<bi->a
1 TÚG ša ṣú-ḫa-ar-tim iš-tí
30 ṣú-ba-tí-kà A-šùr-ma-lik DUMU A-zu-za!18
ub-lá-kum 1 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR a-na
Pu-šu-ke-en6 dí-in-ma a-li-bi4
KÙ.BABBAR-pì-a li-dí ú-lá ta-áš-ta-na-me
ki-ma a-dí KÙ.BABBAR-pì-kà 1 GÍN
35 a-šar ni-du-nu ša-tí-ša-ma
iš-tí ṣa-bi4-im 5 ù eš15-ra-at
šu-t[a-a]l-mu-na-ku<-ni> A-šùr
[ú d]NIN.ŠUBUR ⌈li⌉-ṭù-lá
u.e. a-šar [KÙ.BABBAR] 1 GÍN a-dí-nu KÙ.BABBAR-pì
40 10 ma-na ù 20 ma-na
lu i-ru-qá-ni
le.e. a-ḫi a-ta li-bi4 lá tù-lá-ma-an KÙ.BABBAR-pì a-⌈na⌉
Pu-šu-ke-en6 dí-in ú-lá šu-up-ra-ma a-na-kam
i-na KÙ.BABBAR-pì-kà lá-al-qé li-bi4 lá tù-lá-ma-an
1-2
Šalim-aḫum to Pūsu-kēn and Ilabrat-bāni:
3-27
To Ilabrat-bāni: In the tablet of Lā-qēpum: “Ilabrat-bāni took 6 minas 20 shekels tin
from your package and at that time left for Hattum;” Ilī-ašranni brought a white kusītum robe
18
For other occurrences of Aššur-mālik s. Azuza in this context, see 4.6:18-21, and 5.3:39.
258
pertaining to my ikribū fund to Aššur-mālik. He did not reach Aššur-mālik, (for) he had
departed.19 So you took the kusītum robe, saying, “It is delivered to my father”; ½ kutānum
textile from the cargo of Nūr-Ištar; (and) you promised 15 shekels silver to Dān-Aššur, saying,
“I will send it after you”;—all this you hold since the eponomy of Aḫ-marši (REL 78). My
messages have come to you five times. Either give the proceeds of the tin, the kusītum robe and
the ½ k. textile to Pūšu-kēn, or write to me so that I may take from your silver here.
28-33
Aššur-mālik son of Azuza brought you 3 textiles of my ikribū fund and a textile for
the girl with your textiles. Give 1 mina silver to Pūšu-kēn so that he can deposit into my silver.
33-44
Aren’t you hearing that every year I am alienated from groups of five or ten people
for every shekel of your silver whenever we give it out? May Aššur and Ilabrat witness that
whenever I give out a single shekel of silver, I lose 10 or 20 minas of my silver! My dear
brother, do not make me angry. Give my silver to Pūšu-kēn, or send to me so that I may take
from your silver here. Do not anger me!
It is important to mention that Šalim-aḫum’s quote from ‘the tablet of Lā-qēpum’ (ll. 5-
8) is not an exact quote of the text of the caravan account preserved in 4.1, which only states,
“He is not here.” The present letter indicates that Šalim-aḫum had been informed of Ilabrat-
bāni’s destination, from which I infer that Šalim-aḫum had yet additional sources of
information.
Ilabrat-bāni’s ‘theft’ of the 6⅓ minas tin was not the only grievance that Šalim-aḫum
had with Ilabrat-bāni. For several years (since REL 78), Ilabrat-bāni had maintained an
unfavorable balance with Šalim-aḫum. In addition to the ½ kutānum textile mentioned in 4.2,
Ilabrat-bāni had promised to pay for a white kusītum robe. Ilabrat-bāni also owed 1 mina silver
for the 3 textiles from Šalim-aḫum’s ikribū fund which he bought in conjunction with textiles
brought to him by Aššur-mālik son of Azuza (so designated to distinguish him from Ilabrat-
19
Alternatively, one might translate “Aššur-mālik had not yet arrived, he (Ilī-ašranni) departed.” Though
the grammatical antecedent at this point is Ilī-ašranni, it is also possible that Šalim-aḫum is referring to Ilabrat-
bāni leaving. In this case, the quotation of the tablet of Lā-qēpum—most likely the copy of the caravan account
which Šalim-aḫum received—would continue until line 12 whereas now it is interpreted to end in line 8.
259
bāni’s father). Moreover, as creditors came calling to Šalim-aḫum for Ilabrat-bāni’s debts in
Aššur, Ilabrat-bāni’s apparent irresponsibility was taking an increasing toll on Šalim-aḫum,
who claimed that he was losing credibility among the merchant community in consequence of
their relationship.
Šalim-aḫum finishes his list of grievances by saying “all this (viz. the things
enumerated in the previous list) you have held since REL 78” (mimma annim ištu REL 78 tuka’’al).
It must be noted that the statement was hyperbole. Obviously the 6⅓ minas tin became a
problem only from the beginning of REL 81 as indicated by the dates in 4.1. Of the three
grievances listed alongside the 6⅓ minas tin, we’ve already established that the half textile
from the cargo of Nūr-Ištar was contemporaneous with the problem of the tin (4.2:6-7). The
matter of the kusītum robe could have occurred around the same time as well, since Ilī-ašranni
would likely have been carrying the white kusītum robe for Aššur-mālik, Ilabrat-bāni’s father,
on the same journey that Ilabrat-bāni took the 6⅓ minas tin. Only the final grievance, Ilabrat-
bāni’s promise to pay 15 shekels silver to Dān-Aššur, must originate in REL 78.20 The more
recent infractions caused Šalim-aḫum consternation and hence he either mentally or verbally
collapsed them together with his past infractions.
Šalim-aḫum also mentioned sending “five” messages to Ilabrat-bāni, emphasizing
Ilabrat-bāni’s lack of reply (ll. 21-22). Whether or not “five” is a rhetorical remark, surely
Šalim-aḫum did not begin sending messages three years ago in REL 78, but only recently since
he had first received news of the 6⅓ minas tin. If he had waited for Ilabrat-bāni to reply to
each letter before sending the next one, the process would have stretched at least three
20
Thus mimma annim cannot be translated literally as “all this” in this instance without admitting that it
applies to a temporal span or the last item on the list—not all of the infractions listed.
260
months, an unreasonable time period within the reconstruction—as well as for Šalim-aḫum’s
immediate interests. Šalim-aḫum may have sent a letter as often as every day or every ten
days, but whatever the case, Šalim-aḫum’s complaintcontrasting his own earnestness in
communicating with Ilabrat-bāni’s apparent reticence—was a more forceful way of pointing
out Ilabrat-bāni’s evasion.
Šalim-aḫum’s and Ilabrat-bāni’s Reconciliation
It is difficult to know to what extent Ilabrat-bāni realized he had damaged his
relationship with Šalim-aḫum. Based on the reaction of Šalim-aḫum and the caravan account
that must have been sent by Lā-qēpum and Ilī-ālum, Ilabrat-bāni must have known that his use
of the 6⅓ minas tin would be contested. While Ilabrat-bāni was away from Kanesh on his trip
to Ḫattum and out of the reach of Pūšu-kēn, Šalim-aḫum’s could only write angry letters. But
when he learned that Ilabrat-bāni returned to Kanesh, he wrote to Pūšu-kēn to demand more
personal and direct pressure: Šalim-aḫum’s idea of reconciliation was to demand that Ilabrat-
bāni buy Šalim-aḫum’s inventory.
Document 4.4 - CCT 4 25b: Ilabrat-bāni returns to Kanesh21
1 um-ma Ša-lim-a-ḫu-um
a-na Pu-šu-ke-en6
qí-bi-ma a-ṣé-er
AN.NA-ki-im ša a-na
5 En-nam-A-šur ta-dí-nu
ù TÚG.ḪI.A ma-lá
21
Previous treatments: P. van der Meer, Correspondence, Nr. 17; Garelli, “PUL 100,” 123 n. 24.
261
ra-du-im ra-dí-šu-ma
KÙ.BABBAR 1 GÍN i-ša TUG.ḪI-tí-a
le-li-am
10 ù qá-sú-ma
lu-kà-il5 a-ša-me-ma
[ ] x [ ] tí ?
d
[NIN.ŠUBUR-ba]-ni
DUMU A-šur-ma-lik
15 a-ma-kam wa-ša-áb
gi-ri-šu-ma AN.NA
ù TÚG.ḪI.A | a-na u4-me
qú-ur-bu-tim
lo.e. ma-lá ta-da-nim
20 dí-šu-um um-ma a-ta-ma
rev. té-er-tí Ša-lim-a-ḫi-im
AN.NA ù TÚG.ḪI.A
mì-ma ⌈a-na⌉ ša ki-ma
ku-a-tí lá té-zi-ib
25 qá-a[t]-kà-ma
le.e. i-ṣ[é-e]r DAM.GÀR li-dí-ma
ki-ma-ma! KÙ.BABBAR i-šé-pì-kà
tù-ub-lá-ni li-bi4
i-ḫa-du
1-3
3-11
In addition to the tin which you gave to Ennam-Aššur, add to him as many textiles as
can be added so that every single possible shekel (of profits) results from the proceeds of my
textiles. And he may retain his own share.22
11-29
I hear that … Ilabrat-bāni son of Aššur-mālik is there. Approach23 him and give to
him as much tin and textiles as possible on short-term credit. Say (to him), “Do not leave the
instructions of Šalim-aḫum concerning any tin and textiles to your representatives, but do it
22
This portion of the letter (lines 3-11) will be discussed in Chapter Five.
23
In the sense of taking legal action.
262
yourself (lit. it (must be) your hand).” Sell (the goods) to the merchant (Ilabrat-bāni) so that I
will be pleased in this way—by you bringing silver to me in your own charge.”
When Šalim-aḫum heard that Ilabrat-bāni was back in Kanesh, he was eager to force
Ilabrat-bāni to buy goods at a rate favorable to himself. As in other letters, when Šalim-aḫum
gives instructions to tell something to someone, or quotes another’s words, he drifts between
direct and indirect speech. After referring to himself as ‘the merchant’ (l. 26), Šalim-aḫum
places his own words into the speech which Pūšu-kēn is to give to Ilabrat-bāni. Ilabrat-bāni is
to take care of matters himself. Pūšu-kēn’s responsibility is to see to it that Ilabrat-bāni buys
the goods and then to bring as much silver, now apparently also the silver that will arise from
selling goods to Ilabrat-bāni, back to Šalim-aḫum.
Ilabrat-bāni responded in the way Šalim-aḫum directed. As seen in the previous
chapter, Ilabrat-bāni wrote a letter to Šalim-aḫum offering to buy a talent worth of goods, for
which he was willing to pay 10 minas silver up front. Šalim-aḫum responded to Ilabrat-bāni’s
offer by stipulating that half of the initial payment must be submitted in gold (3.4 and 3.5).
Šalim-aḫum’s reminder about the 6⅓ minas tin and the half textile (3.4:36-39) indicated that
those amounts had not yet been paid. Šalim-aḫum also stated that he would sell two talents of
tin and 100 kutānum textiles to Ilabrat-bāni. These goods were evidently on their way to
Kanesh at the time, the textiles in particular being brought by Dān-Aššur, Šalim-aḫum’s son
(3.6).
In Chapter Three, Dān-Aššur’s trip to Kanesh with the 100 kutānum textiles was
anchored to the original venture by demonstrating that his arrival in Kanesh was
contemporaneous with the due date for Pilaḫ-Aššur’s debt, that is in mid-June. Around that
same time, the first packets of silver were transported back to Šalim-aḫum by Dān-Aššur’s
263
traveling companion Šū-Suen (2.3). As a result, we see a definite span of time during which
the first phase of the Ilabrat-bāni affair developed into the second phase. If Nūr-Ištar and
Ilabrat-bāni arrived together in mid-April, then Ilabrat-bāni would have had two months to go
to Ḫattum, return, interact with Pūšu-kēn, decide to make a conciliatory purchase, send a
letter, and receive Šalim-aḫum’s response (3.4 and 3.5), all before Dān-Aššur arrived in
Kanesh. Was there sufficient time for these events to develop?
Working backwards from mid-June, by which time 3.4 and 3.5 must have arrived in
Kanesh, we can see there was sufficient time. Šalim-aḫum would have had to respond with 3.4
and 3.5 by the beginning of June, and thus Ilabrat-bāni would have had to have sent the offer
(which is lost to us) by the end of May. If Šalim-aḫum had received the caravan accounts (2.2
and 4.1) at the beginning of May (the caravans having arrived in mid-April), then Šalim-aḫum
could have sent his ‘five’ letters during the middle of REL 80 V. This meant his initial letters
would have reached Ilabrat-bāni in the middle of May, leaving Ilabrat-bāni two weeks to
respond. Ilabrat-bāni’s trip to Ḫattum would have taken less than a month, possible because
the city of Ḫattum (Hittite Hattuša) was only 155 kilometers north of Kanesh. The journey
there would have taken less than a week, the round trip less than two weeks. Furthermore, he
might only have been headed to the region of Ḫattum, not as far as the city itself. Thus, if
Ilabrat-bāni arrived in Kanesh sometime in mid-April, then he could have been back in Kanesh
before mid-May to receive Šalim-aḫum’s ‘five’ letters.
In this phase of the interaction between Ilabrat-bāni and Šalim-aḫum, it seems as
though Ilabrat-bāni was trying to mend his relationship with Šalim-aḫum. Šalim-aḫum had
designated that the sale to Ilabrat-bāni should be short-term in duration (3.4:26-28). If the
sale was transacted during the middle part of June, then it would have fallen due during
264
August or September. Had Ilabrat-bāni promptly paid his debt on this new credit purchase and
paid off his various small debts to Šalim-aḫum, he certainly had a chance of repairing his
tarnished relationship with Šalim-aḫum. After all, he was part of the solution to Šalim-aḫum’s
gold problem with Puzur-Ištar. However, when part of the price for the large lot fell due, in
mid-August, Ilabrat-bāni was not prepared to pay. At this point, Šalim-aḫum’s patience was
wearing thin. And Pūšu-kēn, whose two nephews were fast becoming liabilities to his own
relationship with Šalim-aḫum, was prepared to invoke more extreme measures.
Šalim-aḫum’s Retaliation
Despite the lack of documentation spelling out the distinct term of Ilabrat-bāni’s
purchase, Šalim-aḫum had expressed that he expected the sale to be on short terms. Ilabrat-
bāni had an obligation to pay about 20¾ minas silver in mid-August. This amount must have
constituted part of the amount due from the conciliatory purchase. It seems unlikely that he
had other major debts with Šalim-aḫum at that time. If he had, Šalim-aḫum would likely have
brought them up in 3.4 or 3.5. Moreover, Šalim-aḫum’s method of reclaiming his silver
reflected a symbolic response to the original infraction with the 6⅓ minas tin.
When the end of Ilabrat-bāni’s term arrived and he had not paid, Pūšu-kēn
recommended to Šalim-aḫum that he seize some of Ilabrat-bāni’s goods on the road to Kanesh
(4.5:5-11). Šalim-aḫum followed this recommendation, sending Ennam-Aššur his son and
Puzur-Aššur to seize the goods. The two then liquidated the goods in Amurrum for most of the
amount owed. When he received the silver, Šalim-aḫum wrote to Pūšu-kēn (4.5) to update
Ilabrat-bāni of his balance and to continue pressing him for the money. Šalim-aḫum
265
impatiently wrote again soon therafter complaining that he had still not received payment
from Ilabrat-bāni for his other debts (4.6).
Document 4.5 - TC 3 20: More Extreme Measures, Part I24
a-šu-mì ša dNIN.ŠUBUR-ba-ni
ša ta-aš-pu-ra-ni
5 i-u4-mì-im ša ṭup-pá-am
ú-la-pí-ta-ku-ni u4-mu-šu
ma-al-ú AN.NA za-ku-a-am
ša-a-ma KI Dan-A-šùr Puzùr-A-šùr
a-li-bi dMAR.TU lu-ṣí-ma
10 a-na e-ta-li-tí-šu25 AN.NA
li-iṣ-ba-at Dan-A-šùr ma-<ra->aṣ-ma
la ú-ṣí En-um-A-šùr té-er-tí
a-ṣé-ri-kà i-ra-de8 ù Puzur4-A-šùr
iš-tí-šu ú-ṣí-ma i-ša DUMU
15 šu-e-em a-e-ta-lu-tí-šu AN.NA
En-um-A-šùr iṣ-ba-at-ma
a-na Puzur4-A-šùr i-dí-ma
20 ma-na LÁ 6⅙ GÍN al-qé
lo.e. ší-tí KÙ-pì-a ⅚ ma-na 1⅙ GÍN
20 a-ma-kam le-qé ù a-ša-ar
rev. wa-áš-bu šu-pu-ur-šu-um
20 ma-na KÙ-ap-kà ša a-na
a-limki a-ṣé-er ša ki-ma i-a-tí
ú-šé-bi4-lu lu-qú-tum ú-ṣa-ma26
24
Previous treatments: (all partial): Lewy, HUCA 32, 63 n. 188 (lines 3-18); Hirsch, UAR 5 n. 21 (lines 5-11,
25-28); Lewy, HUCA 32, 64 (lines 22-31); Larsen, OACP 96 (lines 38-43).
25
For etallūtišu; see GKT §15b.
26
uṣamma For this form of the preterite of waṣā’um, see GKT § 97e.
266
25 ki-ma u4-mu-kà ma-al-ú-ni
a-na e-ta-lu-tí-šu Ša-lim-a-ḫu-um
i-li-bi4 dMAR.TU i-dí-ma
20 ma-na LÁ 6⅙ GÍN KÙ il5-té-qé
ší-tí KÙ-pì-šu ⅚ ma-na 1⅙ GÍN
30 šé-bi4-lam-ma ṭup-pá-ka lá-dí-na-ku-ma
du-uk (Ras.) ší-tí KÙ ú-šé-bi4-lá-ku-um
lá ú-šé-bi4-lá-ku-um té-er-ta-kà
li-li-kam 12 ma-na 15 GÍN
KÙ ša tù-šé-bi4-lá-ni AN.NA ša-mì
35 ù a-na-ku ša ra-du-im
ú-ra-da-ma AN.NA a-ša-a-ma
Dan-A-šùr ù Puzur4-A-šur
a-ṭá-ra-dam 18 TÚG ku-ta-ni
dam-qú-tim ša Sú-e-a na-áš-ú-ni-kum
u.e. 40 e-ra-áb TÚG-tí-šu lá tù-qá-a
5 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR šé-bi4-lam-ma
ší-ma-am
le.e. lá-áš-a-ma a-dí a-ma-kam wa-áš-ba-tí-ni lu-ša-ak-<ší->da-ma
KÙ 1 ma-na le-li a-ḫi a-ta a-lá-nu-kà
45 a-ma-nim ta-ak-lá-ku a-té-er-tí-a i-ḫi-id
1-2
3-12
Concerning the matter of Ilabrat-bāni about which you sent word to me, “On the day
I am writing this tablet to you, his term is full. Purchase refined tin27 so that Puzur-Aššur can
depart with Dān-Aššur to Amurrum and seize the tin on his own authority.” Dān-Aššur is sick
so he did not go.
12-18
Ennum-Aššur conveys my message to you. Now, Puzur-Aššur departed with him and
from the (goods) of his (Ilabrat-bāni’s) son, Ennam-Aššur seized the tin on his own authority
and gave it to Puzur-Aššur and I received 19 minas 53⅚ shekels.
19-33
Acquire the remainder of my silver—51⅙ shekels—there. Now, send to him
wherever he is staying (saying), “Regarding the 20 minas (of) your silver which you (lit. he)
27
On zaku’um as ‘pure’ or ‘clean’, see OACTA, 44, 213.
267
had sent to the city to my representative28—the goods departed, but because your term was
full, Šalim-aḫum sold it in Amurrum on his own authority and took 19 minas 53⅚ shekels. Send
the remainder of your (his) silver—51⅙ shekels, so that I may give your tablet to you and it
may be voided.” Let your message come as to whether he sent to you the remainder of the
silver or not.
33-38
Regarding the 12 minas 15 shekels silver which you had sent to me, (saying)
“Purchase the tin.” Now, for my part, I will gather as much silver as I can and purchase the tin
and dispatch Dān-Aššur and Puzur-Aššur.
38-45
As for the 18 fine kutānum-textiles which Suea is bringing to you—do not wait for
the arrival of his textiles. Send me 5 minas silver so that I may make purchases and cause them
to arrive while you are still there so that an (extra) mina may arise. My dear brother, whom
can I trust besides you? Give heed to my messages.
Šalim-aḫum opens the letter by quoting Pūšu-kēn’s suggestion to take action against
Ilabrat-bāni. According to Šalim-aḫum’s quotation, Pūšu-kēn had written to Šalim-aḫum on
the very day that Ilabrat-bāni’s term had lapsed and suggested that Šalim-aḫum purchase tin
and send it with Dān-Aššur and Puzur-Aššur so that the two could overtake Ilabrat-bāni’s
goods and confiscate them in Amurrum.29 For the most part, Šalim-aḫum heeded Pūšu-kēn’s
advice, though instead of sending Dān-Aššur, he sent his other son, Ennam-Aššur, with Puzur-
Aššur. These two did seize the goods in Amurrum, where they liquidated them, realizing just
less than 20 minas silver. Upon their return, Šalim-aḫum sent this letter with Ennam-Aššur.
Šalim-aḫum told Pūšu-kēn to send Ilabrat-bāni a message, wherever he was. The message, a
28
The text which Šalim-aḫum instructs Pūšu-kēn to say is a mix of direct and indirect discourse. It is
possible that Šalim-aḫum is again referring indirectly to himself by quoting Pūšu-kēn’s (future) direct speech,
thus he, Šalim-aḫum, would be Pūšu-kēn’s representative. Were Pūšu-kēn speaking directly, he could be referring
to a different representative of Pūšu-kēn, for example, Šu-Ḫubur. It is also possible that the speech is indirect and
the person is a different representative of Šalim-aḫum.
29
Veenhof identifies Amurrum as the area of the west bend of the Euphrates and the Balikh, including
the town of Niḫriya, see OBO 160/5, 97 n. 426.
268
mishmash of direct and indirect discourse, effectively informed Ilabrat-bāni of the action
taken in Amurrum and demanded the remainder of the payment.
Šalim-aḫum then moved to a different matter between Pūšu-kēn and himself, that of a
joint purchase of tin (ll. 33-38). Šalim-aḫum acknowledged both the receipt of Pūšu-kēn’s 12
minas 15 shekels along with Pūšu-kēn’s instructions to go ahead and purchase the tin. This
instruction was written in the same letter by Pūšu-kēn (lost to us) from which Šalim-aḫum had
quoted Pūšu-kēn’s instructions to send the tin with Dān-Aššur (ll. 3-12). Šalim-aḫum responded
that he would try to purchase the remainder of the silver and indicated that he would send it
with Dān-Aššur when he did purchase it. The joint purchase had been in process of
arrangement for at least a few months; it will be dicussed at length in Chapter Five.
Šalim-aḫum finished the letter with a few other notes, including a request that Pūšu-
kēn send another 5 minas of silver so he could send one more lot of goods to Anatolia before
Pūšu-kēn left Kanesh at the end of the season.
This letter (4.5) exemplifies two general points worth mentioning:
1) The fact that Pūšu-kēn could suggest in a message sent by post that Šalim-aḫum seize
Ilabrat-bāni’s goods, which would be heading away from Šalim-aḫum by the time Pūšu-kēn’s
letter arrived, and that Šalim-aḫum had the ability to follow through with the suggestion,
reinforces the claim of the brisk tempo of communication asserted in the previous chapter.
Prior to this exchange, Ilabrat-bāni had sent 20 minas of silver to Šalim-aḫum to buy goods for
his own business, and Šalim-aḫum had complied. Ilabrat-bāni must have sent his 20 minas of
silver in late July, arriving in late August, so that his goods were to have been bought, packed,
and sent back on the road to Kanesh soon after Pūšu-kēn wrote his letter informing Šalim-
aḫum of Ilabrat-bāni’s default on the 20¾ minas (in mid-August). Pūšu-kēn writes his
269
instructions assuming that the goods would have already departed by the time his letter
arrived in Aššur. Despite the merchandise’s head start, Pūšu-kēn also assumed it would be
possible to overtake the goods. Both Pūšu-kēn’s knowledge of Ilabrat-bāni sending 20 minas
silver to Aššur along with his estimate of what was happening to that silver demonstrate
effective knowledge of developments at the other terminus of the trade. Pūšu-kēn’s confidence
that he could propose such an operation from his remote location only serves to underline the
extent to which a merchant in one terminus could effectively interfere in another.30
2) The market for tin between Aššur and Amurrum was sufficiently integrated so that
the value of the Ilabrat-bāni’s goods in both places was essentially the same. Thus it was not
until after the Assyrian merchants began to push across the Euphrates and into the Taurus
Mountains that their wares increased in value as they gained elevation. Provided all the silver
which Ilabrat-bāni sent to Aššur was applied towards tin and its transport, the value of the tin
did not significantly appreciate between Aššur and Amurrum: Ilabrat-bāni sent 20 minas silver
to Aššur (ll. 22-24) while the liquidated tin fetched 19 minas 53⅚ shekels silver in Amurrum.31
The price in Amurrum would have depended in part on the effective demand for the tin
there—how many persons were capable of buying the merchandise. Local inhabitants could
have purchased it, as could have Assyrian merchants on their way back from Anatolia, rich in
silver. However, merchants on their way to Anatolia would likely not have had the ready
30
The seizure of Ilabrat-bāni’s goods had to have taken place after Dān-Aššur was expected to arrive in
Aššur, but with enough time to allow the following actions to be completed before the end of the season.
31
20 minas silver less 20 shekels šaddu’utum which would have been exacted, could have purchased two
donkeys loaded with tin, as well as pay for the associated expenses (assuming an exchange rate of 15 shekels
tin/shekel silver): 2 talents 20 minas tin at (17 minas 20 shekels silver) + 20 shekels silver for each donkey (40
shekels silver) + 5 shekels per donkey for gear and food (10 shekels silver) + 5 minas hand tin for each donkey (40
shekels silver) + export taxes (1-10 shekels silver). All this leaves 40 shekels silver, which could have purchased
textiles to put in a top pack.
270
silver, as they would have converted all silver into tin and textiles in Aššur before commencing
the journey to Anatolia. Also, to know exactly how much the tin appreciated between Aššur
and Amurrum relied on an exact knowledge of the price of tin in Aššur (and whether or not
the donkeys were part of the goods liquidated), and thus remained unknown.
Though the booty from the retributionary raid answered most of the 20¾ minas silver
debt, Šalim-aḫum did not recoup the remainder of the petty debts which Ilabrat-bāni owed.
Pūšu-kēn responded to the letter above (4.5), but despite writing further letters, Šalim-aḫum
had yet to receive news that the remainder had been collected. Again becoming impatient,
Šalim-aḫum pestered Pūšu-kēn. At this point he was adamant that Pūšu-kēn force Ilabrat-bāni
to send permission to Šalim-aḫum so that he could take the silver directly from Ilabrat-bāni’s
accounts in Aššur.
Document 4.6 - CCT 2 3: More Extreme Measures – Part 232

Pu-šu-ke-en6 qí-bi-ma a-šu-mì
ša dNIN.ŠUBUR-ba-ni ša ta-qí-pu-šu
ta-áš-pu-ra-ma i-na té-er-tí-kà-ma
5 lu-qú-tám i-li-bi4 dMAR.TU
a-dí-in-ma KÙ.BABBAR-pì al-qé ší-tí KÙ.BABBAR
⅚ ma-na 1⅙ GÍN a-ší-tám
áš-pu-ra-kum um-ma a-na-ku-ma
li-iš-qú-lá-ku-ma ṭup-pu-šu
10 dí-in-šu-um | ṭup-pu-kà 5 ù 6
i-li-ku-nim a-ni-a-tim
ki-ma ša-bu-a-ku-ni mì-šu-um
i-ṭup-pè-kà lá ta-al-pu-tám
6⅓ ma-na AN.NA KÙ.BABBAR-áp-šu
32
Previous treatments: van der Meer, Correspondance, Nr. 21.
271
15 1 ma-na 3 GÍN ku-sí-tum
ma-al-a-i-tum ½ TÚG ku-ta-num
½ ma-na 5 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR-áp-šu-nu
lo.e. 3 TÚG ša ik-ri-bi4-a
1 TÚG ša ṣu-ḫa-ar-tim
rev. iš-tí ṣú-ba-tí-šu A-šùr-ma-lik
21 DUMU A-zu-za ú-bi4-il5-šu-um
1 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR lá i-ba-ta-qam
šu-ma TÚG.ḪI.A | a-ta tal-qé
té-er-ta-kà li-li-kam
25 ṭup-pu-um ša a-ki-lá-li-ku-nu
lá-pu-tù ki-ma ta-áš-me-ú
pá-nam šu-ku-šu-ma mì-ma a-nim
ša lá-pu-ta-ku-ni a-na nu-ku-ra-e
lá i-ša-kà-an ṭup-pu-um
30 ša ki-lá-li-ku-nu li-li-kam-ma
KÙ.BABBAR-pì a-na-kam lá-al-qé
a-na KÙ.BABBAR-pì-šu ša a-na-kam
ma-dí-iš du-mu-uq-tám
e-pu-šu-um ú li-ba-kà i-de8
35 a-na KÙ.BABBAR-pì-šu ša-lu-ḫi-im
iš-tap-ra-am i-dí-qá-tí-ma
u.e. li-iš-pu-ra-ma a-na-kam KÙ.BABBAR-pì
lá-al-qé šu-ma
ší-ib-sa-tim e-ta-wu i-na
40 iš-té-en6 a-li-ki-im
le.e. té-er-ta-kà li-li-kam-ma ša lá-qá KÙ.BABBAR-pì-a
a-na-ku a-na-kam mì-il5-ki lá-am-li-ik
1-2
Šalim-Aḫum to Pūšu-kēn:
2-24
Concerning the (silver) of Ilabrat-bāni which you entrusted to him—you sent me
word: “In your message (in which you quoted me as saying): ‘I (Šalim-aḫum) sold the goods in
Amurrum and took my silver. The remainder of the silver is 51⅙ shekels.’” I (Šalim-aḫum)
272
wrote you (again) about the remainder, “Let him pay you, then give his tablets to him.”33 Five
or six of your tablets have arrived. As for these (debts enumerated below), why did you not
write in your tablets that I am paid in full? 6⅓ minas tin—its price in silver: 1 mina 3 shekels; a
kusītum mal’aītum34 robe; ½ kutānum textile—their price in silver: 35 shekels; Aššur-mālik son of
Azuza brought him 3 textiles of my ikribū and 1 textile for the girl along with his textiles. He
must not go below 1 mina silver. If you yourself received the textiles, then let your message
come.
25-42
When you read the tablet addressed to both of you, confront him with it so that he
cannot deny all for which I am written. Let a tablet from both of you come to me so that I can
take my silver here. As for his silver which is here, I have done him a great favor and you know
it very well. He had sent word to me to withdraw his silver. He should have sent word at the
same time so that I could take my silver here. If he quarrels,35 let your message come with the
first traveler so that I may here make my decision about taking my silver.
Although the letter is clearly a continuation of the matter of Ilabrat-bāni, without the
aid of 4.5 it would be difficult to recognize that it was Šalim-aḫum (through his agents) who
seized the merchandise rather than Pūšu-kēn. Šalim-aḫum’s prose underlines the difficulty in
understanding his letters. This letter opens with Šalim-aḫum quoting Pūsu-kēn’s citation of
Šalim-aḫum in the previous letter. Correlation with 4.5 clearly shows that the quotation from
Pūšu-kēn’s letter was in fact another quotation of Šalim-aḫum’s own words. However the
language within the letter does not reveal this sufficiently on its own. Šalim-aḫum does lead
33
Despite the nominative case ṭuppušu in line 9.
34
Most probably a nisbe qualification, cf. Veenhof, AOATT, 190.
35
šumma šib/ps/ṣātim etawwû lit. “If he speaks angry/violent words.” AHw places this occurrence with
šipṣu ‘Gewalt, Widersetzlichkeit.’ The CAD limits the use of šipšu A to Neo-Assyrian, but does not include this
instance under šibsātu s. pl. tantum (limited to Standard Babylonian). The Old Assyrian orthography allows either,
and all lemmas (the one in AHw and the two in CAD) revolve around abstract meanings which fit the current
instance. Here šib/ps/ṣātim could also be read as a fem. pl. adjective elliptically modifying awâtum.
273
the quotation with a lexico-syntactic cue that does not imply the following text was Pūšu-kēn’s
own speech (i-tīrtika-ma instead of umma attama).
This letter also underlines again the earnestness of the tempo at which Šalim-aḫum
expected his letters to be delivered and hence his instructions to be executed. Šalim-aḫum’s
use of the quotation from Pūšu-kēn’s letter is a frank reminder to move ahead. Šalim-aḫum
pointed out that although he had sent five more letters since, Pūšu-kēn had not informed him
as to whether he had collected the remainder of Ilabrat-bāni’s 20¾ minas silver (51⅙ shekels)
(4.6:6-7). This period could have been as short as a week if Šalim-aḫum were sending off
letters each day.
Before he urged Pūšu-kēn to resolve the matter (ll. 25-42), Šalim-aḫum again listed the
outstanding debts owed by Ilabrat-bāni. Šalim-aḫum notes that the 6⅓ minas tin was to garner
1 mina 3 shekels silver, commensurate with the 6 shekel rate he previously demanded. He
again lists the kusītum robe (here described as mal’aītum), and the ½ kutānum textile now rated
as a combined 35 shekels, then the 3 other textiles and the textile for the girl brought by
Aššur-mālik son of Azuza, for which Šalim-aḫum had demanded one mina silver. Šalim-aḫum
reminds Pūšu-kēn to let him know if Ilabrat-bāni has returned the textiles instead. Ilabrat-bāni
still needed to pay these debts and the rest of his talent of silver.
Table 12: Ilabrat-bāni’s Minor Debts to Šalim-aḫum

4.3 4.6
6⅓m tin 6⅓m tin = 63š silver
white kusītum kusītum mal’aītum \
=35š silver
½ kutānum-textile = 15 š silver ½ kutānum-textile /
3 textiles for Šalim-aḫum’s ikribum 3 textiles for Šalim-aḫum’s ikribum
1 textile for the maiden 1 textile for the maiden
m = minas, š - shekels
At this point, I present the summary table of events for the Ilabrat-bāni affair.
274
Table 13: Summary Table of Events for the Ilabrat-bāni Affair
IB1 Ilī-ašranni in the company of Ilabrat-bāni conducts 6 donkey-loads with 390 minas
tin, 85 kutānum textiles, 20 š. textiles and hand tin to Kanesh for Šalim-aḫum in REL
80 IV (4.1:3-25).
IB2 During the trip, Ilabrat-bāni opens one or more of Šalim-aḫum’s sealed packs of tin
and extracts 6⅓ minas tin, perhaps to pay for expenses on the road (4.1:17-19;
4.2:3-31, 4.3:3-27; 4.6:14).
IB3 The caravan arrives and two lots of goods are sold to Puzur-Anna s. Elāli and Iddi(n)-
abum s. Iddi(n)-Ištar respectively (see Table 11) (4.1:3-42).
IB4 A caravan account is written and sent to Šalim-aḫum (not a direct copy of 4.1) The
letter as quoted by Šalim-aḫum includes the statement, “From the goods of Ilī-
ašranni’s cargo, 6⅓ minas and ½ kutānum textile are with Ilabrat-bāni.” (4.2:4-7) and
also, “he left at that same time for Ḫattum” (4.3:7-8).
IB5 Šalim-aḫum finds out about Ilabrat-bāni’s ‘theft’ of the 6⅓ minas tin. He reacts
angrily and demands a 6š rate for the tin. He mentions Iddi(n)-abum s. Iddi(n)-Ištar.
Šalim-aḫum states that Ilabrat-bāni was part of the caravan as witnessed by Enlil-
bāni and Puzur-Aššur s. Elāli (4.2).
A  Šalim-aḫum writes to Ilabrat-bāni five times (4.3:21-22).
IB6 Šalim-aḫum writes to Ilabrat-bāni quoting the caravan account/letter. He

enumerates other things that Ilabrat-bāni owed, clarifying that the ½ kutānum textile
derived from Nūr-Ištar’s cargo (rather than Ilī-ašranni’s cargo as in 4.2:4-7), that
there was also a white kusītum robe brought by Ilī-ašranni, and that Ilabrat-bāni had
promised Dān-Aššur (presumably Šalim-aḫum’s son) 15 shekels of silver, but never
given it to him. Šalim-aḫum states that Ilabrat-bāni had begun accruing these debts
in REL 78. He tells Ilabrat-bāni to give the owed goods to Pūšu-kēn (4.3).
A  He points out that Ilabrat-bāni owes 1 mina silver related to Šalim-aḫum’s ikribū
funds which arose from Ilabrat-bāni’s responsibility to pay for 3 textiles brought by
Aššur-mālik s. Azuza (4.3:28-33).
B  He complains that his relationship with Ilabrat-bāni continually costs him both
social and commercial capital (4.3:33-44).
275
Table 13: Summary Table of Events for the Ilabrat-bāni Affair, continued
IB7 Šalim-aḫum writes to Pūšu-kēn telling him that he hears that Ilabrat-bāni is in
Kanesh and to sell tin and textiles to him. He instructs Pūšu-kēn to tell Ilabrat-bāni
to do the job himself (4.4).
A  He tells Pūšu-kēn to sell textiles to Ennam-Aššur (presumably Šalim-aḫum’s
son) (4.4:3-11).
IB8 Ilabrat-bāni writes to Šalim-aḫum asking to buy tin and textiles worth 1 talent of
silver from Šalim-aḫum (3.4:5-13). Events discussed in Chapter 3 transpire at this
point.
IB9 Ilabrat-bāni buys the goods outlined by Šalim-aḫum (assumed).
IB10 Ilabrat-bāni sends approximately 20 minas silver to Šalim-aḫum in Aššur so that

Šalim-aḫum can by goods for Ilabrat-bāni and send them to Kanesh with Ilabrat-
bāni’s son (4.5:22-27).
IB11 Ilabrat-bāni does not pay a debt of 20 minas 45 shekels silver. On the very day it is
due, Pūšu-kēn writes to Šalim-aḫum to send Puzur-Aššur and Dān-Aššur to seize the
Ilabrat-bāni’s goods that will be travelling on the road in Amurrum.
A  Pūšu-kēn tells Šalim-aḫum to buy refined tin to send with the two travellers
(4.5:3-12).
IB12 Šalim-aḫum follows Pūšu-kēn’s advice but sends Ennam-Aššur instead of Dān-Aššur
with Puzur-Aššur because Dān-Aššur is sick. Ennam-Aššur and Puzur-Aššur travel to
Ammurrum and seize and liquidate Ilabrat-bāni’s goods for the amount of 19 minas
53⅚ shekels silver and return to Aššur (4.5:13-18).
IB13 Šalim-aḫum writes Pūšu-kēn explaining these events, instructing Pūšu-kēn to tell
Ilabrat-bāni to pay the remaining 51 shekels silver (4.5).
A  He tells Pūšu-kēn that he received Pūšu-kēn’s 12 minas 15 shekels silver, that he
bought tin with it and that he will buy his own portion of the tin and send it soon
with Dān-Aššur and Puzur-Aššur (4.5:32-38).
B  He mentions 18 kutānum textiles which Sueyya is bringing to Kanesh, and asks
that Pūšu-kēn send 5 minas silver in exchange for them before they arrive so that
Šalim-aḫum can use that silver again (before the end of the shipping season?)
(4.5:38-45).
276
Table 13: Summary Table of Events for the Ilabrat-bāni Affair, continued
IB14 Šalim-aḫum again writes Pūšu-kēn complaining that although he had received five
or six letters from Pūšu-kēn, no news about payment of the 51 shekels silver had
been sent in those letters. He again enumerates the list of small debts which Ilabrat-
bāni owes, viz.
A  6⅓ minas tin, the kūsītum robe, the ½ kutānum textile, and 3 textiles worth 1
mina silver (4.6:10-24).
He tells Pūšu-kēn to confront Ilabrat-bāni and force him to write a letter so that
Šalim-aḫum can collect the silver from Ilabrat-bāni’s accounts in Aššur. If Ilabrat-
bāni resists, Pūšu-kēn is to write Šalim-aḫum immediately (4.6).
IB15 Ilī-ašranni, who brought the 6 donkey-loads of goods and was responsible for seeing
that the cargo was sold under the observation of Lā-qēpum and Ilī-ālum (who wrote
4.1) is unable to sell off the last portion of the cargo and is responsible to buy it from
Šalim-aḫum with a debt arrangement in which interest begins accruing immediately
(4.1:49-69).
IB16 4.1, a complete report, is drawn up in REL 81 XI as a summary document of the

caravan taken by Ilī-ašřanni.
Metaphorical Retaliation, Duality of Structures, and Practice
The Ilabrat-bāni affair is a good example of the potential evidence lying beneath the
surface of the Old Assyrian documentation. The Ilabrat-bāni affair can be read as a self-
contained episode, though failing to contextualize it in the larger processes of REL 80 risks
rendering the account of Šalim-aḫum’s actions and decisions in the affair anecdotal. At the
anecdotal level, Šalim-aḫum’s actions toward Ilabrat-bāni can be read as a manifestation of
277
what might be called metaphorical retaliation.36 However, this is only part of the story. When
the Ilabrat-bāni affair is temporally contextualized within concurrent developments in REL 80,
it becomes clear that Šalim-aḫum needed to meet needs outside his relationship with Ilabrat-
bāni. At the level of practice, Šalim-aḫum conciously chose to seize Ilabrat-bāni’s goods
because it served his immediate needs. Because of the contextualization of the Ilabrat-bāni
affair, the evidence on Šalim-aḫum’s motivations transcends the limitations of the anecdotal
frame and offers a more compelling account of Šalim-aḫum’s measures, more compelling even
than if they were related at length in a single letter. In a contextualized account of the Ilabrat-
bāni-affair, not only did Šalim-aḫum conform to the concept of metaphorical retaliation, but
his measures also served his larger interests and this more robust account, sensitive to
practice on a personal scale, constitutes a previously unrealized type of evidence on the Old
Assyrian trade.
The theoretical arguments I make in this discussion are not novel in social theory; they
are adopted from other struggles with the limitations of structuralism. My arguments hinge on
the concept of practice as argued by Pierre Bourdieu and the concept of the duality of
structures argued by William Sewell. However, the present argument is focused on the
potential of the temporally reconstructed Old Assyrian documentation. Temporal
reconstruction of commercial activity has been far less common a mode of inquiry in Old
Assyrian studies in comparison to structural and archival focuses. I make no claim that
documentation subject to reconstructions such as the present is the norm or that this
reconstruction signals a vast undiscovered state of evidence in the Old Assyrian
36
By this I do not mean that the retribution itself was not actual, only metaphorical, but rather that the
nature of the retaliation had a metaphorical relationship to the incident which prompted the retaliation.
278
documentation. Indeed, much of the Old Assyrian record is fragmentary. However, there is the
potential for further reconstructions and their importance and nature are worth considering.
Temporally sensitive reconstructions offer substantive evidence of socioeconomic
motivations, transcending theoretical frameworks that imply specific categories of motivation.
In that regard, accounts like the Ilabrat-bāni affair contextualized in REL 80 show the potential
to query Old Assyrian mentalities.
A brief narrative of the Ilabrat-bāni affair exhibits a certain poetic balance. On the road
to Kanesh, Ilabrat-bāni opened Šalim-aḫum’s sealed merchandise “on his own authority” and
appropriated some of the tin to pay for an expense. Ilabrat-bāni’s actions angered Šalim-aḫum,
who likened them to worse than thievery because the two had a working relationship. As
compensation, Šalim-aḫum demanded that Ilabrat-bāni purchase more goods at a price that
favored Šalim-aḫum. But when Ilabrat-bāni did not pay part of that debt (the 21 minas silver)
at the appointed time, Šalim-aḫum followed Pūšu-kēn’s recommendation to recoup the silver
by seizing Ilabrat-bāni’s goods heading out on the road to Kanesh. Šalim-aḫum sent Puzur-
Aššur and Ennam-Aššur to Amurrum, where they seized Ilabrat-bāni ‘s goods “on their own
authority.” The silver they brought back nearly equaled the amount of Ilabrat-bāni’s
delinquent debt.
Pūšu-kēn’s recommendation to seize Ilabrat-bāni’s goods in Amurrum reflect the
symbolic parity of metaphorical retaliation in more ways than one. It is tempting to suggest
that the reason to seize Ilabrat-bāni’s goods in Amurrum, on the road between Aššur and
Kanesh, stemmed from a sense that returning to the original scene of the crime would have
been fitting. But there is no way to know with the documents at hand where Ilabrat-bāni’s
infraction actually took place. That the seizure was done on the road when Ilabrat-bāni was
279
absent from his goods, as was Šalim-aḫum, certainly had symbolic merit. What may have been
more important regarding the choice of location was the price for which the goods were sold.
When Puzur-Aššur and Ennam-Aššur liquidated Ilabrat-bāni’s goods in Amurrum, Šalim-aḫum
nearly recovered the 20¾ minas Ilabrat-bāni owed. Ilabrat-bāni had just sent 20 minas to
Šalim-aḫum to purchase goods, the goods that were then seized. The relative equivalence
between the silver Ilabrat-bāni sent for purchases and the silver gained from liquidating them
suggests there was a price parity between Aššur and the land of Amurrum. Šalim-aḫum or
Pūšu-kēn could have preferred to seize the goods farther along the road, closer to Kanesh, in a
place that would probably have yielded not only the twenty minas and change in which
Ilabrat-bāni was most recently delinquent, but also the full amount associated with further
debts that Ilabrat-bāni owed Šalim-aḫum. But seizing Ilabrat-bāni’s goods in Amurrum appears
to have been a measured act of retribution, targeted at a specific claim. Šalim-aḫum received
approximately (but not more than) the 20 minas Ilabrat-bāni had just sent for his own
purchases, which should have gone straight into Šalim-aḫum’s coffers in the first place.
Gaining more money might have risked overextending the logic of the retaliatory act.
Šalim-aḫum’s sense of metaphorical retaliation as an element of an Old Assyrian
mentality forms a interesting parallel to the principle of lex talionis invoked in collections of
laws from the same era, such as the Laws of Lipit-Ištar, or later collections, like Hammurabi’s
laws. This is interesting because Šalim-aḫum seized Ilabrat-bāni’s goods in lieu of pursuing
either informal dispute resolution or formal legal measures. While Šalim-aḫum’s working
relationship with Ilabrat-bāni must have affected the way he dealt with him, even family
members appealed to formal dispute processes from time to time. Rather, the narrative of the
280
Ilabrat-bāni affair suggests that at some level Šalim-aḫum’s actions derived from a practical
concept of metaphorical retaliation, which seems to have justified using force associated with
formal legal authority, and in that sense it must have been a potent structure.
According to this reading, the Ilabrat-bāni affair is an anecdotal narrative of re-
balancing imbalances. By anecdotal, I mean that Šalim-aḫum’s and others’ decisions and
actions within the frame of the Ilabrat-bāni affair are functionally symbolic because those
decisions and actions are disconnected from larger, specific material consequences and
concerns. Consequences do arise within the narrative of the Ilabrat-bāni affair. Šalim-aḫum
was deprived of potential revenues when Ilabrat-bāni appropriated the tin. In turn, Ilabrat-
bāni was obligated to bear the risk of selling a large batch of goods when he was constrained to
make the compensatory purchase from Šalim-aḫum. Ilabrat-bāni also lost the goods which he
had planned on receiving from Aššur when they were seized. But the 6⅓ minas tin or the 20¾
minas silver taken and owed do not escape a symbolic meaning within the Ilabrat-bāni affair;
instead they form tokens of the social balance between Pūšu-kēn and Šalim-aḫum. At the same
time, Šalim-aḫum’s and Ilabrat-bāni’s actions and decisions are also tokens of the balancing
structure of metaphorical retaliation. The meaning of the tin or silver or actions or decisions
have connections only to a structural context around it, and no connections to larger
situations at work during REL 80.
Likewise, if the narrative of the Ilabrat-bāni affair as reviewed here were all that could
be reconstructed from the Old Assyrian documentation, then in this instance, as in most from
the account of Old Assyrian practice, the focus of inquiry is not on practice at the personal
level, but on apparent structures. Structures, like the idea of metaphorical retaliation or the
tempo of trade and communication discussed in the previous chapter, or even caravan
281
procedures, must constitute part of an account of Old Assyrian commercial mentalities. But
accounts which do not extend beyond such structures themselves, as with either tempos or
caravan procedures or metaphorical retaliation—accounts that cannot reference proximal
causes for motivations—while an important part of the attempt to slowly reclaim a dead
civilization, fall short of comprehending mental schemas.
Bourdieu’s and Sewell’s arguments concerning practice and the duality of structures, as
briefly reviewed in Chapter One, hold respectively that structuralist inquiry separated from
time cannot grasp the mode of generating behavior and that actors use both material and
structural resources to pursue their interests. At the level of documentation and evidence, the
necessary requirement for pushing past the structuralist limitations of the anecdote is the
capacity to provide at least an incipient account of practice sensitive to material interests. A
crucial element of practice is agency; but to the extent that material resources and decisions
function as tokens within narratives that manifest primarily structures, agency is functionally
subverted. Agency in practice is only observable in temporally-sensitive reconstructions that
benefit from a broader interconnected documentation in a way that can couple decisions with
particular material interests and consequences. Agency through the lens of practice is clearly
apparent when reconstructions offer sufficient context to account for the dual nature of
structures. Ideas, tempos, and institutions structure activity, but just as actors use material
goods as resources, actors also can use structures as resources. When the Ilabrat-bāni affair is
re-contextualized into Šalim-aḫum’s larger concerns, interests, and activities during REL 80,
the decisions Šalim-aḫum made in the Ilabrat-bāni affair not only depict the concept of
metaphorical retaliation but Šalim-aḫum’s calculated use of the concept as a resource to serve
his interests beyond his problems with Ilabrat-bāni.

282
The Ilabrat-bāni affair can be connected to the other developments during REL 80 to
show the importance of a larger context (See Figure 13 below). It was already noted above that
the original venture caravan and Ilī-ašranni’s caravan travelled at roughly the same time to
Kanesh in the early spring. The ½ textile which Nūr-Ištar was deficient shows up as the ½
textile which Ilabrat-bāni took and about which Šalim-aḫum complained was owed to him,
along with other small debts. Dān-Aššur’s travels form a central connecting thread
interweaving the original venture, the Puzur-Ištar affair, the Ilabrat-bāni affair, and a joint
venture between Pūšu-kēn and Šalim-aḫum during the year. In addition to the joint venture,
the travels of Šalim-aḫum’s other son active in the trade, Ennam-Aššur, and Šalim-aḫum’s help
to Pūšu-kēn in purchasing a house are covered in the following chapter.
Dān-Aššur travelled from Aššur to Kanesh and back one time during this year.38 He
departed Aššur in mid-May and arrived in mid-June, bringing the 100 kutānum textiles
designated for Ilabrat-bāni.39 By the time Dān-Aššur had arrived in Kanesh, Puzur-Ištar’s
backing out of his obligation had already resolved into Šalim-aḫum demanding that Ilabrat-
bāni pay half of his down payment in gold (3.5, 3.6).40 Dān-Aššur then stayed in Anatolia until
late July (5.1-5.3), when he departed for home with silver acknowledged by Šalim-aḫum as
the second shipment of silver from the original venture (2.4).41 Pūšu-kēn had planned that
upon Dān-Aššur’s arrival in Aššur, he would then bring back to Kanesh tin pertaining to the
joint venture between Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn (4.5:3-12, 5.3:31-37). Pūšu-kēn also planned
that Dān-Aššur participate in seizing Ilabrat-bāni’s goods. However Dān-Aššur fell ill and
Šalim-aḫum prevented him from going, instead sending Ennam-Aššur with Puzur-Aššur (4.5:3-
283
12). After going to Amurrum and returning to Aššur, Ennam-Aššur brought word to Pūšu-kēn
of Šalim-aḫum’s delay in sending the tin for the joint venture (4.5:13-18).42
When Šalim-aḫum responded to Pūšu-kēn’s suggestion that he seize Ilabrat-bāni’s
goods, he acknowledged receipt of Pūšu-kēn’s portion of a joint venture (4.5). Šalim-aḫum had
initially suggested the joint venture to Pūšu-kēn already in May (5.8), and after further
prodding (5.9), Pūšu-kēn had agreed to participate on certain conditions (5.10). By the time
Šalim-aḫum was writing 4.5 in the second week of September, he was discussing the joint
venture in the context of his anxiety that he produce enough revenues by the end of the
shipping season to avoid being “shamed at the gate” (5.11). Šalim-aḫum had trouble raising
the funds to purchase his own portion of the tin according to the arrangement, sending word
to Pūšu-kēn that he needed more time to purchase his own portion (5.11). The silver from
Ilabrat-bāni accounted for about half his portion. Within a week or so, Šalim-aḫum had
managed to obtain the remainder of the silver and sent the tin off to Pūšu-kēn (5.11).
284
Figure 13 Chronological Development of the Ilabrat-bāni affair

D
REL 80 III
R 80 XII
IIlabrat-bāni purchases
chases Ilabrat-bāni defaults
Ilabra Ilabrat-bāni’s goods
Kanesh Ilabrat-bāni
ni to Ḫattum liquidated in Amurrum
A
ture
Ilabr
Pūšu
Passes
l ven
Ilabrat-b
Ilabrat-b
-kēn
4.1 & 2.2

Pūšu-kēn
a
at-bā
Pūšu-kēn
n
n
i
i
g
en
ri
āni in
send
āni’i’ss off
-Su
’s respon
i&o
285
ffer
: “Sieze Il
n
s 20
r, Šū
se to
Kan e s h
š u
-Aššur)
š
m sil
at-bā
A
4.5
abrat-b
ver
, Ilabr
Dān-
n i
h Ennam
āni’s goo
ran
ds”
4.2
Ilī-aš
4 (
4. 6
Aššur
Ilabrat-bāni’s goods depart Puzur-Aššur & Ennam-Aššur
travel to and from Amurrum
Key
Shipment Packet
Recontextualized into the larger documentation and developments of REL 80, the
Ilabrat-bāni affair now plays a more nuanced role in an account of Šalim-aḫum’s practice. At
two different points, Šalim-aḫum’s dealings with Ilabrat-bāni not only addressed the status of
their social relationship, but also social pressures that lay outside their association.
In mid-May, when Šalim-aḫum wrote to Ilabrat-bāni to buy more goods, Šalim-aḫum
was already shaping Ilabrat-bāni’s reconciliation with respect to Šalim-aḫum’s immediate and
intermediate interests. In the wake of Puzur-Ištar’s failings, Šalim-aḫum’s demand that Ilabrat-
bāni pay half of his down payment in gold served his immediate need for gold. His demand
that Ilabrat-bāni purchase a silver talent worth of goods on short terms served his
intermediate interests to boost revenues within the current year. In mid-August, when Ilabrat-
bāni missed his payment deadline for 20¾ minas silver, he compromised more than his already
strained relationship with Šalim-aḫum; he also compromised Šalim-aḫum’s effort to boost
revenues and avoid being “shamed at the gate.” Šalim-aḫum’s swift measures against Ilabrat-
bāni to regain his money, outside of a regulated court, or more usual adjudication procedures43
were motivated by his need to preserve his own social capital at Aššur. Metaphorical
retaliation provided a valuable resource of legitimation to Šalim-aḫum’s need to raise funds
quickly in order to have time to process them before the end of the season.
In accessing the broader temporally sensitive reconstruction, the concept of
metaphorical retaliation alone neither determined Pūšu-kēn’s advice nor Šalim-aḫum’s
decisions. Outside of this context, the Ilabrat-bāni narrative portrays metaphorical retaliation
not only as a lever in Šalim-aḫum’s mind with ample moment to motivate, but with sufficient
mass to self-activate. In such an anecdotal frame, Šalim-aḫum’s motivations were disconnected

286
from the braoder materio-temporal facts—the immediate contexts in which he made those
decisions. In the greater context, unexpectedly offered from undated letters, Šalim-aḫum’s
plurality of motivations and interests become relevant.
Only when we are able to reconstruct sufficiently particular and personal contexts of
activity that extend beyond the domains directly invoked by writers can we move beyond the
anecdotal frame. Only when we are able to connect the Ilabrat-bāni affair to the original
venture, Puzur-Ištar’s revocation of his contract, and the joint purchase of Šalim-aḫum and
Pūšu-kēn can we begin to contextualize the Ilabrat-bāni affair, understanding the motivations
of Šalim-aḫum in this particular instance as a manifestation of his mentality. By contrast to
practice observed within a dossier defined by its direct relevance to a particular process,
reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s activities during REL 80 provides a different kind of evidence
than individual letters and their symbolic cosmos. It might seem that because Šalim-aḫum
does not himself connect his seizure of Ilabrat-bāni’s goods with his need to increase revenues
before the end of the season, that the current account is weaker than if he had related his
motivations to Pūšu-kēn in a single letter. However in such a situation, Šalim-aḫum would
have been framing his narrative, rendering the evidence of the narrative anecdotal. Rather,
access to contemporary developments not mentioned by Šalim-aḫum in the frame of his
dealings with Ilabrat-bāni provides a more compelling explanation of extreme measures. In
this way, a greater evidentiary potential lies below the surface of the Old Assyrian
documentation.
287
Conclusion
Ilabrat-bāni’s entanglement during REL 81 with Šalim-aḫum is within its own frame
slightly tragic, but only slightly. Ilabrat-bāni had a commercial association with Šalim-aḫum
before REL 81, and he likely had one after his goods were seized in September of REL 81.
However, the measures Šalim-aḫum took against Ilabrat-bāni, pre-empting some sort of due
process an reconciliation with an appeal to a third party, must have been a harsh message to
Ilabrat-bāni. Šalim-aḫum’s patience had run out. Ultimately, the Ilabrat-bāni affair is
important to understanding the Old Assyrian trade studies for several reasons. Pūšu-kēn
seemed to tap into a sense of metaphorical retaliation that could legitimize the actions which
Šalim-aḫum needed to take. Yet Šalim-aḫum could use such a sense to profit his short term
interests. The ability to see both sides of the concept of metaphorical retaliation, its structure
and Šalim-aḫum’s use of it as a resource within the context of his needs in REL 810 represents a
decidedly different kind of evidence for mental schemas in the Old Assyrian trade.
288
CHAPTER 5:
FAMILY AND FIRM
I hear that you will dispatch Dān-Aššur to Purušḫattum … instead dispatch Dān-Aššur to me.
5.1:15-16, 22
If Dān-Aššur is delayed, then fulfill 20 minas silver … and send it with the next departure.
5.2:17, 21-23
Let Dān-Aššur stay for this nabrītum … send me one talent of silver (later) with Dān-Aššur.
5.3:8-9, 18-19
Give my silver … to Ennam-Aššur … Let him arrive here for the nabrītum
5.5:35-36, 38-39, 43-44
In this chapter, I seek to lay out what I feel is an important differnce between the
important dimension of family and that of firm, if such a concept is appropriate for the Old
Assyrian period. The most important observation from the episodes in this year which come
forward within the context of the their temporal development is the relative autonomy of the
various actors, particularly Šalim-aḫum, his agent Pūšu-kēn, and Šalim-aḫum’s sons. While
copperation between merchants was essential to the manner of trade practiced by the Old
Assyrian merchant society, each trader seemed to operate with a keen sensitivity to his
ultimate individual liability in the long-run. This sensitivity, together with the lack of
289
substantive evidence of coprorate ownership associated with firms is the largest argument for
a re-evaluation of the assumptions of family firms as the default mode of cooperation. At the
very least, the symbol of the fmialy firm, occasionally invoked in the discourse of the traders
appears to be more ideal than a real part of the day-to-day operation. As in previous chapters,
several episodes will lay the groundwork for further observations. The relationship between
Šalim-aḫum and his closest associates—his two sons, Dān-Aššur and Ennam-Aššur, and his
agent Pūšu-kēn—allow us to consider the interplay between cooperation and autonomy in the
Old Assyrian trade through the lens of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial activities in REL 80. Šalim-
aḫum’s interaction with these three actors as they each pursued their own interests in the
trade presents an opportunity to observe their decisions and strategies as practice.
In the first half of the chapter, entitled “Šalim-aḫum, His Sons, and Pūšu-kēn,” I review
four episodes, two episodes relating to Šalim-aḫum’s dealings with his sons and two episodes
with Pūšu-kēn. Because these letters are less formulaic than others (for example, those in the
original venture) the discussion of these episodes lies primarily in recounting their
development and their relationship to the rest of the reconstruction. The first episode
concerns the travels of one of Šalim-aḫum’s sons, Dān-Aššur, confirming the aggressive tempo
of communication in the Old Assyrian trade, and also the secondary roles that Šalim-aḫum’s
sons played in his own commercial operations. The second episode concerns the ongoing
preparations for Ennam-Aššur’s marriage to Šū-Ḫubur’s daughter during this year and the
resulting conflicted with his need to take care of affairs in Anatolia: the tension between his
father’s wishes that he come home and his decisions to delay doing so project a clear fissure
between the interests and commercial accounts of father and son.
290
The two episodes between Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn indicate the complexity of the
relationship between principal and agent. During the year, Šalim-aḫum risked losing social
capital with a large group of merchants, perhaps the community of merchants in Aššur, if he
was not able to display sufficient revenues. As a result, Šalim-aḫum needed to more closely
align Pūšu-kēn’s interests with his own, and he pressured Pūšu-kēn to join him in a
partnership in tin. At the same time, Šalim-aḫum was also attempting to help Pūšu-kēn
purchase a house in Aššur and forwarded to him ten minas of silver. This move provided an
opportunity for Šalim-aḫum to manifest both conspicuous generosity and capacity in
contradistinction to Pūšu-kēn’s other associates, thereby increasing Šalim-aḫum’s social
capital with Pūšu-kēn and with the merchants involved.
In the rest of the chapter, entitled “Getting Interpersonal,” I return to the four episodes
again in order to explore the mentalities evoked through the decisions and strategies
employed by Šalim-aḫum, Dān-Aššur, Ennam-Aššur, and Pūšu-kēn. This half of the chapter is
divided into two parts. The first part, “Father and Sons: Šalim-aḫum, Dān-Aššur, and Ennam-
Aššur,” focuses on the independent liabilities of the commercially active male members of a
nuclear family. Dān-Aššur was a willing participant in his father’s operations, but he was not
always able to perform up to expectations. Moreover, he had his own naruqqum fund to
manage. Ennam-Aššur’s resistance to returning to Aššur in connection with his upcoming
marriage in preference to his balance sheet suggests that he imagined himself an autonomous
actor at the commercial level and that his family and social interests were not always aligned
with his commercial interests. Both Šalim-aḫum’s instructions and Ennam-Aššur’s instructions
to Pūšu-kēn suggest a contested arena of autonomy and activity.
291
The second part is entitled “Principal and Agent: Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn.” As Šalim-
aḫum’s primary representative, Pūšu-kēn was a central node in Šalim-aḫum’s commercial
network in Anatolia. However, Pūšu-kēn’s relationship to Šalim-aḫum was not dictated by a
strict hierarchy, and although principal and agent cooperated they watched out for their own
interests. Two episodes during this year involving both Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn highlight
Šalim-aḫum’s multiple and overlapping social interests with regards to Pūšu-kēn and his need
to maintain a level of prestige in reference to large and small social groups. When Šalim-aḫum
found himself in need of increasing revenues from Anatolia to make a good showing to the
group of merchants at Aššur, he pressured Pūšu-kēn to enter a joint venture, which he
engineered either to artificially boost his own volume of silver revenues before season’s end or
to use Pūšu-kēn to share the burden of risk associated with the venture. However, when Pūšu-
kēn was trying to finalize his purchase of a house in Aššur, Šalim-aḫum took opportunity to
show his own beneficence by fronting Pūšu-kēn ten minas of silver to finish the deal,
exceeding the assistance given Pūšu-kēn by other associates. Moreover, though Šalim-aḫum’s
decisions illustrate the complex social dimensions of the participating in the commercial
trade, those same decisions further confirm a sense of autonomy of accounts between the
principal and agent.
Šalim-aḫum, His Sons, and Pūšu-kēn
The four episodes presented in this chapter benefit from the context of the
reconstruction in the previous chapters. For the most part, these episodes are treated either to
illustrate how they are involved in the reconstruction, as is the case with Dan-Aššur’s travels
and the joint venture, or to explain their importance in analyzing Šalim-aḫum’s dealings with
292
his close associates. The episodes in this chapter are derived from letters which are far less
structured than those associated with the original venture and thus the focus in these episodes
is on the narrative action rather than the textual format. In addition, the explication of each
of these four smaller episodes (rather than one large episode as in each of the earlier chapters)
moves more at a narrative level in order to lay the foundation for the discussion of their
combined significance in the second half of the chapter. To illustrate the development of the
episodes within the context of the entire year, Dān-Aššur’s travels, Ennam-Aššur’s reluctance,
and the joint venture are all represented on timeline figures. Because the house buying
episode is less chronologically clear, no figure is presented for that episode.
Discussing Dān-Aššur’s Travel Plans
Dan-Aššur’s actions during the season were an important part of Šalim-aḫum’s
commercial operations and are one of the important threads connecting each of the episodes
discussed in previous chapters (see fig. 12 below). As mentioned in conjunction with the
Puzur-Ištar affair, Dān-Aššur first left Aššur for Kanesh in mid-May, with his father’s cargo in
tow, two months after the original venture caravan and Ilī-ašranni’s caravan had left. The
cargo that Dān-Aššur and Šū-Suen transported for Šalim-aḫum was in part sold to Ilabrat-bāni
when they arrived in mid-June (3.5, 3.6). Dān-Aššur stayed some additional six weeks in
Anatolia, until late July, probably making the further trip west to Purušḫattum. Thereafter,
Dān-Aššur travelled back to Aššur, bringing part of the second shipment of silver from the
original venture to his father (2.4). Upon his return, plans to send him back to Kanesh were
scrapped because he was too ill to travel (5.11).

293
When Dān-Aššur was first travelling to Kanesh in mid-May, Šalim-aḫum planned to
have Dān-Aššur return to Aššur as soon as he reached Kanesh. When he heard that Pūšu-kēn
had other plans for Dān-Aššur, he wrote to persuade him otherwise (5.1). He wrote again soon
thereafter to make arrangements in the case that Dān-Aššur arrived late (5.2). However,
Šalim-aḫum changed his mind rather quickly, writing once more to tell Pūšu-kēn that Dān-
Aššur should remain in Kanesh during the nabrītum, an event of unknown purpose or meaning
(5.3). These three letters were all written while Dān-Aššur travelled to Kanesh from mid-May
to mid-June. The fourth letter (5.4) elaborates on a situation in which Šalim-aḫum had
involved Dān-Aššur in helping manage another’s difficulties.
Document 5.1 - KTS 1 42d: First Letter on Dan-Aššur’s Travel Plans1
1 [um-ma Ša-lim-a-ḫu-um-ma]
[a-na Pu-šu-ke-en6]
[qí-bi-ma]
[AN.NA ù TÚG.ḪI].A
5 [ša šé-ep Ku-lu]-ma-a
⌈ù⌉ [A-gu5-a té-er-t]a-kà
[li-li-kam i-na KÙ.BABBAR]2
[ša Ḫu-ra-ṣa-n]im
⌈ù⌉ A-[šur-ma-l]ik
10 ⌈ù⌉ 7[½ ma-na] KÙ.BABBAR
lo.e. [š]a TÚG.ḪI.A ša ta-áš-pu-ra-ni
rev. 30 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR
ku-nu-uk-ma i-pá-ni-ú-tí-ma
1
Previous treatments: edition in V. Donbaz and F. Joannès, "Nouvelles Lectures de Textes Cappadociens,"
in Mémorial Attaturk (Istanbul: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1982), 28-29, 35 (photo of reverse), 38
(handcopy). Line numbering follows edition rather than handcopy.
2
There are problems with the reconstruction of the obverse as put forth by Donbaz and Joannés. Line 7
in the transliteration has no corresponding line or space on the tablet in the accompanying handcopy, while
there seems to be enough room for an extra line above line 4. The ù at the beginning of line 10 disrupts the
relationship between Aššur-mālik and the 7½ textiles as more clearly expressed in 5.3:11-13. Despite these
problems, I have no better suggestion.
294
wa-ṣí-e šé-bi-lam
15 a-ša-me-ma Dan-A-šùr a-na
Pu-ru-uš-ḫa-tim ta-ṭá-ra-ad
KÙ.BABBAR ma-lá ú-šé-ṣa-a-ni
lu a-ma-kam ša šé-ep Ku-lu-ma-a
ù A-gu5-a šu-ma mì-ma ta-dí-in
20 lu ša ANŠE.ḪI.A | a-li KÙ.BABBAR
1 GÍN i-ba-ší-ú za-ki-a-ma
Dan-A-šùr ṭur4-dam a-ḫi a-⌈ta⌉
a-na té-er-tí-a i-ḫi-id
li-ba-am dí-nam KÙ.BABBAR
25 ša Puzur4!-dIŠKUR ù En-um-A-[šùr]
⌈ša⌉3 u4-mu-šu-nu ma-al-[ú]
[ša-á]š-qí-il5-šu-nu 30 ma-[na]
u.e. [KÙ.BABBAR ku-nu-uk-ma šé-bi-lam]
le.e. [šu-ma am-tám Dan-A-šùr lá ir]-de8-a-am [li-bi]
30 [i-lá-mì-na-kum] i-na ṭup-pì-kà u[m-ma a-ta-ma]4
[KÙ.BABBAR ša A]-pì-lá A-šùr-iš-ta-ki-il5
[i-ša-qal K]Ù.BABBAR ša-áš-qi-il5-šu
1-3
4-14
Regarding the tin and textiles of Kulumaya’s and Agua’s cargo, let your message
come. From the silver of Ḫuraṣānum and Aššur-mālik and the 7½ minas silver about which you
sent word to me, seal 30 minas silver and send it with the first travellers.
15-24
I hear that you will dispatch Dān-Aššur to Purušḫattum. The amount of silver he
realizes, both whatever is sold there of Kulumaya’s and Agua’s cargo, and also from (the
proceeds) of donkeys, wherever there is a single shekel of silver, clear (pl.) it and dispatch Dān-
Aššur to me. My dear brother, pay heed to my message. Give (me) some encouragement.
24-32
As for the silver of Puzur-Adad and Ennum-Aššur, whose terms are full, cause them
to pay. Seal and send 30 minas silver. If Dān-Aššur’s does not lead the maidservant here, I will
be angry with you. In your tablet, you said, “Aššuriš-tikal will pay the silver of Apila.” Make
him pay the silver.
3
ša – Handcopy suggests ša instead of šu-ma.
4
Restoration possible through comparison with 5.3:3-7.
295
Document 5.2 - TC 2 1: Second Letter on Dān-Aššur’s Travel Plans5
a-na Pu-šu-ke-en6
ù Dan-A-šùr qí-bi-ma
AN.NA ù TÚG.ḪI.A
5 ša šé-ep Dan-A-šùr
lu ša A-gu-a ù Ku-lu-ma-a
ma-lá iz-ku-a-ni
té-er-ta-ak-nu li-li-kam
i-na KÙ.BABBAR ša Ḫu-ra-ṣa-nim
10 ù A-šùr-ma-lik
7½ ma-na ša TÚG.ḪI.A
ša ta-áš-pu-ra-ni
30 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR
ù ni-is-ḫa-sú
15 ku-nu-uk-ma i-pá-ni-ú-tí-ma
rev. wa-ṣé-e šé-bi-lam
šu-ma Dan-A-šùr sà-ḫe-er
ù ší-tí KÙ.BABBAR lu i-ša
ANŠE.ḪI.A lu KÙ.BABBAR 1 GÍN
20 a-šar i-ba-ší-ú
20 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR ma-li-ma
iš-tí wa-ar-ki-ú-tim
šé-bi4-lam KÙ.BABBAR ša Puzur4-dAdad
ù En-um-A-šùr šu-ma
25 u4-mu-šu-«ma»-nu ma-al-ú
ša-áš-qí-il5-šu-nu-ma šé-bi-lam
lu lu-qú-tam ša šé-ep
Dan-A-šùr lu ša A-gu-a
ù Ku-lu-ma-a za-ki-a-ma!
5
Previous treatments: P. van der Meer, Correspondance, Nr. 16.
296
30 Dan-A-šur ṭur4-dam
i-na KÙ.BABBAR ša tù-šé-ba-<la-ni>
le.e. Ḫa-nu ú-ul ša?-ni!-um! l[e-tí?-i]q6 šu-ma
am-tám Dan-A-š[ùr i?-na?] a-lá-kí-[šu]
lá ir-de8-a-am ⌈li-bi4 i-lá-mì⌉-na-kum i-na ṭup-pì-kà
35 um-ma a-ta KÙ.BABBAR ša A-pì-lá A-šùr-iš-tí-kál
i-ša-qal
1-3
Šalim-aḫum to Pūšu-kēn and Dān-Aššur:
4-26
Let your(pl.) message come (informing) how much (of) the tin and textiles of Dān-
Aššur’s cargo cleared, and both that of Agua and Kulumaya. (To Pūšu-kēn:) From the silver of
Ḫuraṣānum and Aššur-mālik – 7½ minas worth of textiles about which you sent word to me,
seal 30 minas silver and its excise and send with the first travellers. If Dān-Aššur is delayed,
then fulfill 20 minas (with) the remainder of silver, whether from the proceeds from the
donkeys or every shekel of silver wherever it is available, and send it with the next departure.
As for the silver of Puzur-Adad and Ennum-Aššur, if their terms are full, make them pay and
send it to me.
27-36
Clear both the goods of Dān-Aššur’s cargo and Agua’s and Kulumaya’s cargo and
dispatch Dan-Aššur to me. Let Ḫanu or someone else travel overland with the silver that you
send to me. If Dān-Aššur does not bring the maidservant at his departure, I will be angry at
you. In your tablet you said, “Aššuriš-tikal will pay the silver of Apila.”
Document 5.3 - AKT 3 72: Third Dān-Aššur Letter7
a-na Pu-šu-ke-en6 ù Dan-A-šùr <qí-bi-ma>
i-na u4-mì-im ša ṭup-pá-am
6
The restoration and translation of this clause and the next is difficult, though some information can be
gained from comparison with 5.3:3-7. In the first main clause (Ḫanu ul šani’um l[eti]q), the second element could be
a personal name, perhaps Kà?-lá?-pá?-am. The restoration ša-ni!-um! from ša?-na?-am is not certain. When Šalim-
aḫum asks Pūšu-kēn to send Ḫanu in 5.3:3-7, he proposes no second candidate. For the reading l[é-tí-i]q, see
leading portion of LI in li-bi4 (l. 34) instead of in li-li-kam (l. 8). In the second main clause (šuma amtam Dān-Aššur ina
alākišu lā irde’am), reading šu-ma at the end of l. 32 produces a reasonable protasis in lā irde’am for libbī
ilamminakkum “I will be angry with you.”
7
Previous Treatments: E. Bilgic and C. Günbattı, AKT, 115-17.
297
ta-ša-me-ú 20 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR
5 ù ni-is-ḫa-sú ša ta-áš-pu-ra-ni
i-na pá-nim-ma wa-ṣí-im
šé-bi-lam ù Ḫa-nu ṭur4-dam
Dan-A-šùr na-ab-ri-tám
a-ni-tám li-ib-re-ma8
10 a-ṣé-er KÙ.BABBAR ša šé-ep
Ḫu-ra-ṣa-nim ù 7½ ma-na KÙ.BABBAR
ša TÚG.ḪI.A ša še-ep DUMU Er-ra-a
ša ta-áš-pu-ra-ni lu i-na
AN.NA lu TÚG.ḪI.A ša še-ep
15 Dan-A-šùr lu i-ša ANŠE.ḪI.A
lu i-ba-áb-tí-a | ta-aḫ-sí-is-tám
ša a-na-kam a-dì-na-ku-nu-tí-ni
lo.e. 1 GÚ KÙ.BABBAR iš-tí Dan-A-šùr
20 šé-bi-lá-nim | 55 TÚG.ḪI.A
rev. ša šé-ep DUMU Er-ra-a
mì-šu ša 30-ma ta-áš-pu-ra-ni-ni
qá-tí <ša> TÚG.ḪI.A KÙ.BABBAR a-ṣé-er
ša šé-ep Ḫu-ra-ṣa-nim-ma
25 ṭá-ḫi-a | lu-qú-tum lu ša šé-ep
Dan-A-šùr lu ša a-ni
iš-tí ḫa-ra-nim ú-šé-ba-lá-ku-nu-tí-ni
AN.NA-ki ù TÚG-tí-a za-ki-a-ma | ma-lá
KÙ.BABBAR 1 GÍN i-ṣé-er
8
On the translation of nabrītam barā’um, see section entitled “Dān-Aššur’s Travels and the Timing of the
nabrītum” p. 316 below.
9
Read lá-áš instead of lá?-áš? in Bilgic and Günbattı, AKT 3, 116, see 5.8:9-12.
10
tamkārum ‘the merchant’ is used anaphorically to refer to Ḫuraṣānum. Šalim-aḫum writes about
Panaka’s 6 shekels gold (5.3:18-19, 37-42), which is the same 6 shekels gold he needed for his ikribū fund (3.5:17).
As a result, a satisfying interpretation of the reference to the ‘gold of the merchant’ (5.3:41-42) logically points to
Ḫuraṣānum, mentioned earlier in the letter and who also owed 7 shekels gold which Šalim-ahum desired for his
ikribū fund (3.5:18-20).
The word tamkārum could be used anaphorically in the same way that awīlum was used from time to time.
The term tamkārum seems to be such a broadly held characteristic of all Old Assyrians, at least in Anatolian, that it
was the way they defined themselves in relation to the Anatolian populace, as common among the merchants in
Anatolia as their being Assyrian. In many contexts the term can be taken very generally.
298
30 DAM.GÀR ta-na-dí-a-ni
Dan-A-šùr i-šé-pí-šu <té-er-tí-kà>
za-ku-tám lu-ub-lam | a-šu-mì
ša Dan-A-šùr KÙ.BABBAR ša ra-mì-ni-«ni»-kà
ma-lá tù-šé-ba-lá-ni šé-bi4-lá-ma
35 ú a-na-ku ší-ta qá-té-en6
la-dí-ma a-ší-mì-im ša ta-ša-pá-ra-ni
lá-áš-a-ma9 Dan-A-šùr i-pá-nim-ma
lá-aṭ-ru-da-kum | a-ṣé-er
u.e. 6 GÍN KÙ.GI ša Pá-na-kà
40 ù ší-im TÚG ša ṣú-ḫa-ar-tim
ta-dí-na-ku-ni ù a-ta KÙ.KI
le.e. ma-lá ra-du-im ra-dí-ma KÙ.KI pá-šál-lam
DAM.GÀR10 šé-bi4-lam 40 ma-na URUDU SIG5 Dan-A-šùr lu-ub-[lam]
1-2
Šalim-aḫum to Pūšu-kēn and Dān-Aššur:
3-24
On the day which you read the tablet, send 20 minas silver and its excise about which
you wrote me with the first departure and dispatch Ḫanu. Let Dān-Aššur stay for this nabrītum,
and in addition to the silver from Ḫuraṣānum’s cargo and the 7½ minas silver of the textiles of
Erraya’s son’s (Aššur-mālik) cargo about which you sent word, the tin and textiles of Dān-
Aššur’s cargo, the proceeds from the donkeys, from my outstanding claims, my memorandum
which I gave to you here, send 1 talent of silver with Dān-Aššur. Why is it that you two wrote
to me thirty times (about) the 55 textiles from Erraya’s son’s cargo? Combine my share of the
textiles (in) silver to the proceeds of Ḫuraṣānum’s cargo.
25-32
As for the goods both those of Dān-Aššur’s cargo, as well as those which I now send
to you with the caravan, clear my tin and textiles, and as much silver, every shekel that you
will give to the merchant, let Dān-Aššur bring your full report in his caravan.
32-44
As for Dān-Aššur, send as much silver from your own funds as you are able so that I
myself may deposit two shares and I will buy for the purchases about which you will send to
me, and I will dispatch Dān-Aššur immediately (back) to you. In addition to the 6 shekels gold
299
of Panaka, add the price of the textile which the girl gave you and as much gold as you are able
and send to me the pašallum-gold of the merchant. Let Dān-Aššur bring 40 minas fine copper.11
Document 5.4 - AKT 3 78: To Aššur-tikal First Letter12

1 um-ma A-li-li-ma
ù Ša-lim-a-ḫu-um-ma
a-na Pu-šu-ke-en6
A-šùr-iš-tí-kál ù Dan-A-šùr
5 a-na A-šùr-iš-tí-kál qí-bi4-ma
1 GÚ 5 ma-na AN.NA
ku-nu-ki-ni 6 ku-ta-nu
2-šé-na ša li-wi-tim
5 ma-na AN.NA-ak qá-tim
10 mì-ma a-nim (Ras.)
a-na A-bi-lá nu-šé-bi-il5-kà
AN.NA ù TÚG.ḪI.A e-ta-lu-tám
ta-ap-ṭur4-ma a-na
ra-mì-ni-kà ta-al-té-qé
lo.e. 15 6 GÍN.TA KÙ.BABBAR
rev. ša AN.NA-ki-ni
½ ma-na.TA ša TÚG.ḪI.A
ta-ša-me-ú KÙ.BABBAR
20 a-na Pu-šu-ke-en6
ù Dan-dA-šùr dí-in
šu-ma a-na A-bi-la
ta-dí-in a-ma-kam-ma
ší-bi-kà šu-du-ud-ma
25 i-na KÙ.BABBAR-áp
A-bi-lá le-qé!13-ma
11
The 40 minas fine copper (5.3:42) might have also pertained to Šalim-aḫum’s ikribū fund.
12
Previous treatments: Bilgic and Günbattı, AKT 3, 127-28.
300
a-ša ki-ma
ni-a-tí | dí-in
1-5
Āl-ilī and Šalim-aḫum to Pūšu-kēn, Aššuriš-tikal, and Dān-Aššur:
6-28
To Aššuriš-tikal: 65 minas tin under our seal, 6 kutānum-textiles, 2 as wrappings, 5
minas hand tin, all this we sent to Abila with you. You opened the tin and textiles on (your
own) authority and you took for yourself. A 6 shekel rate silver for our tin, a 30 shekel rate for
the textiles. On the day you read (this) tablet, give the silver to Pūšu-kēn and Dān-Aššur. If you
already gave it to Abila, line up your witnesses there, and take it from Abila’s silver, and give it
to our representatives.
Although a number of other participants were involved alongside Dān-Aššur with
Šalim-aḫum’s operations,14 we will remain focused here on the relevance of Dān-Aššur’s travels
13
The reading li-di-ma as reported in AKT 3 is unlikely. If the sign is DI, not TÍ, then KI is preferred. A
reading li-di-ma weakens Alili and Šalim-aḫum’s communication of their ultimate intent—getting the silver.
14
Notes on other individuals in texts 5.1-5.4.
Agua and Kulumaya – Agua and Kulumaya transported goods for Šalim-aḫum and were set to arrive in
Kanesh at roughly the same time as Dān-Aššur (5.1:17-21; 5.2:27-29; 5.3:24-31). Donbaz and Joannès posited that
TC 3 21 constituted the notifying message for the two. Though this cannot be verified, their intuition with regards
to connections to other letters (5.2, 3.7, and 2.6) is supported by the present reconstruction.
Ḫuraṣānum and Aššur-mālik – Ḫuraṣānum and Aššur-mālik son of Erraya have silver and commodities due
to Šalim-aḫum as a result of transporting they have done for him. Expected revenue from the cargoes of
Ḫuraṣānum and Aššur-mālik is also a point of discussion for Šalim-aḫum in these letters. 7 ½ minas silver arises
from textiles of Aššur-mālik son of Erraya’s cargo and an undisclosed amount from Ḫuraṣānum. While the
phrasing in the first two letters would indicate that Ḫuraṣānum and Aššur-mālik might have owed the silver
themselves (KÙ.BABBAR ša PN), the phrasing in 5.3:11-12 suggests instead that they transported the shipments
(KÙ.BABBAR ša šēp PN – 5.1:4-7; 5.2:9-16; 5.3:10-14, 19-23). The textiles brought by Aššur-mālik likely stem from
the same trip from which some tin was taken to sell lot #3 in Chapter Two, but neither the 7½ minas silver from
textiles nor the 55 textiles fit well into that context, though Šalim-aḫum’s possible sloppiness must be taken into
account. In connection with the 55 textiles, Šalim-aḫum’s capacity to employ hyperbole is apparent: he
complained that Pūšu-kēn wrote 30 times about the 55 textiles associated with Aššur-mālik son of Erraya (5.3:21-
24). Also, it is difficult to verify that two other texts might have informed by Pūsu-kēn’s effort to get that silver
from Ḫuraṣānum. In one other document, Pūšu-kēn seized Ḫuraṣānum stating that Ḫuraṣānum owed 1 talent 14
minas less ten shekels of tin and nearly 3 minas of silver (cf. ATHE 20 and Ark. 397/FS Garelli 234a.) The composite
transcription of the two duplicates reads: Pūšu-kēn a-Ḫuraṣānim iṣbatniāti-ma umma Pūšu-kēn-ma a-Ḫuraṣānim-ma 1
GÚ 14 mana LÁ 10 GÍN annakum u 2⅚ mana 1 GÍN kaspum i-libbika umma Ḫuraṣānum-ma kēna i-libbia ina alāk harrānia
kasapka ašaqallakkum ana awatim anniātim kārum Kaniš iddinniāti-ma IGI paṭrim ša Aššur šībūtīni niddin IGI Aḫ-šalim
(mer Šū-Anum) IGI Kurara IGI Ikuppī-Aššur. As Pūšu-kēn played a role in arranging Ḫuraṣānum’s affairs when he
died, there could have been more than one occasion on which Pūšu-kēn needed to collect money from the man.
RA 88 p. 121 is a (copy of a) letter to Ḫuraṣānum’s representatives and investors in Aššur wherein Pūšu-kēn and a
number of other merchants reported the measures they took in sealing up the deceased merchant’s storage room.
301
for reconstructing Šalim-aḫum’s activities during REL 80. Also, 5.4 is tangential to Dān-Aššur’s
travel plans and thus will be dealt with separately at the end of the explication of 5.1, 5.2, and
5.3.
Šalim-aḫum sent 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 in quick succession while Dān-Aššur was travelling
to Kanesh from mid-May to mid-June as seen in Figure 14. Though the time elapsed between
sending them was minimal, 5.1 logically precedes 5.2 and they should not be mistaken for two
copies of the same letter.15 Having heard that Pūšu-kēn intended to send Dān-Aššur on to
Purušḫattum, Šalim-aḫum directed that his son return home instead with as much silver as
possible (5.1:15-24), reiterating that Dān-Aššur bring 30 minas silver, once at the beginning of
the letter, and once again at the end (5.1:12-14, 27-28). When Šalim-aḫum wrote 5.2, he made
provisions for the possibility that Dān-Aššur would arrive late in Kanesh, and asked that Pūšu-
kēn raise 20 minas silver and send it with Ḫanu. In 5.3, Šalim-aḫum changed his mind again.
Puzur-Adad and Ennum-Aššur – It is possible that Ennum-Aššur and Puzur-Adad purchased Lot #3 on short-
term credit in the original venture (2.2:45-55). When Šalim-aḫum was writing 5.1 and 5.2, Puzur-Adad and
Ennum-Aššur owed him silver in the near term (5.1:24-27, 5.2:23-26). Though the phrasing in 2.2 suggests a
single buyer (54⅔ mana 5 GÍN kaspum iṣṣer DAM.GÀR nadi), the timing fits with Šū-Suen’s arrival in Kanesh then
his quick and direct return to Aššur with the silver collected on that claim (2.3:10-12, 2.4:18-21). It is doubtful
that this Ennum-Aššur is Šalim-aḫum’s son Ennam-Aššur; Šalim-aḫum’s son was ‘cleared’ of financial obligations
according to a letter he wrote before Dān-Aššur arrived (5.8).
Ḫanu and Dān-Aššur’s maid – At the end of 5.1 and 5.2, Šalim-aḫum wished Ḫanu to bring back 20 minas of
silver and Dān-Aššur’s amtum (junior wife). Though the upper edge of both 5.1 and 5.2 are damaged, the situation
can be fairly well decoded. In the first letter, Šalim-aḫum wanted Ḫanu to bring the maid back (5.1:29-30). In the
second letter, Šalim-aḫum seemed to suggest that Pūšu-kēn send the silver with Ḫanu or some other person and
reasserted that Ḫanu should bring the maid (5.2:31-34). Finally, in the third letter, Šalim-aḫum instructed Pūšu-
kēn to send Dān-Aššur’s maid along with the 20 minas silver and Ḫanu as soon as he received the letter (5.3:3-7).
Panaka and the ‘girl’ – For Panaka, see note 10. The ‘girl’ (ṣuḫartum) is also mentioned in conjunction with a
textile related to Ilabrat-bāni and the ikribum (4.3:28-30, 4.6:18-21). Precisely who she is is difficult to know. In
parallel with Šalim-aḫum’s reference to Ennam-Aššur as the ‘boy’ (ṣuḫārum, note 48), she may be Šalim-aḫum’s
daughter.
15
The near duplication between 5.1 and 5.2 was already pointed out in Donbaz and Joannès, "Nouvelles
Lectures de Textes Cappadociens," 29. The editors there suggest that 5.2 preceded 5.1, citing the mention of
Purušḫattum as a new piece of information to Šalim-aḫum, and explaining that the reference to the goods which
should be given to Dān-Aššur in 5.1:17-23 imply that the goods are now in Pūšu-kēn’s hands.
302
He settled for Ḫanu transporting the 20 minas silver, as first mentioned in 5.2 (5.2:17-23, 31-
32, 5.3:3-7), and decided to “Let Dān-Aššur stay for this nabrītum” (5.3:8-9).
303
Figure 14 Chronological Development of Dān-Aššur’s Activities during REL 80

D
REL 80 III
R 80 XII
nabrītum
IIlabrat-bāni purchases
chases Ilabrat-bāni’s goods
Kanesh Dān-Aššur
Aššur in Anatolia liquidated in Amurrum
A
5 .
.2 5.88
2 .2
1
Enn
0
Pūšu
Enna
a
Passes
m
.
-kēn
Pūšu-kēn
ture
šš
ur
Dān
en
-ven
s
nt
5.5
i
-Su
o
304
: “Buy tin
ni on
-Ašš -Aššur
!”
ur: “I am
r, Šū
w/ j
r
u
mpa
š
cle
o
ur
c
A
lear”
&
m -Aššu
r-Ašš
a
Dān-
Ištar
Puzu
En
Nūr-
4.4
5..33
2.1
5. 7
4.5
5.11
Aššur Dān-Aššur ill
Key
Shipment Packet
All three letters, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, were written in the last week of May. Based on the
discussion of the tempo of communication in Chapter Three, Šalim-aḫum most likely wrote the
first two letters, requesting news of what cleared from Dān-Aššur’s and the accompanying
travelers’ shipments, so that the letters would have arrived with or ahead of Dān-Aššur (5.1,
5.2).16 Because 5.3 communicated his change of mind about Dān-Aššur’s travel plans, Šalim-
aḫum must have intended for 5.3 to reach Kanesh before his instructions in 5.1 and 5.2 were
irreversibly effected. The letter did serve its function: Dān-Aššur’s travelling companion Šū-
Suen turned back immediately to Aššur, but Dān-Aššur stayed for the nabrītum (see fig. 12).
The activities of Dān-Aššur provide a continuous thread binding together the
reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial activity during 1894 B.C. The 14 minas fine
mazīrum tin they carried under Agua’s name connected their journey to the Puzur-Ištar affair
(3.3:23-26, 3.6:26-27). The small portion of the goods included in Dān-Aššur’s cargo, the six
kutānum textiles (1 nibrarum textile and 5 kusītum robes), which was to be sold quickly so that
he could bring the proceeds back to Aššur with him, connects his travels with the original
venture (2.5:11-12, 15-17, 3.6:17-18). Šū-Suen’s quick return to Aššur with the silver collected
from the claim on Lot#3 (2.3:9-14, 2.4:18-21) also connects Dān-Aššur’s travels to the original
venture. Dān-Aššur’s six-week stay in Anatolia ended when he returned to Aššur with the
second shipment of silver from the original venture (1 talent 38 minas silver); he also brought
the 2 minas silver from the six kutānum textiles which he had brought for immediate sale
16
That Dān-Aššur was addressed in 5.1 – 5.3 does not imply that he was in Kanesh. It did imply that the
letter concerned him and that when he arrived in Kanesh he could have read it, and perhaps if he encountered
the letter on the road he could probably have read it as well.
305
(3.6:17-18, 2.4:24-30).17 Dān-Aššur’s return with the packet was Pūšu-kēn’s answer to Šalim-
aḫum’s request that Dān-Aššur bring 1 talent of silver with him (5.3:18-19): Pūšu-kēn had
responded that he would send 1 talent 20 minas silver with Dān-Aššur (5.10:12-18), including
the claim of roughly 25 minas on Lulu (2.4:8-9, 5.9:16-17). Pūšu-kēn also directed that Dān-
Aššur must again head back to Kanesh with the tin for the joint venture (5.10:31-37).
Dān-Aššur’s travels are evident in the Ilabrat-bāni affair. The cargo that Dān-Aššur and
Šū-Suen took for Šalim-aḫum was in part (the 100 kutānum textiles they carried) sold to
Ilabrat-bāni when they arrived in mid-June (3.4:16-17, 3.6:3-10). In turn, references in the
documents from this chapter to Panaka’s 6 shekels gold (3.5:17, 5.3:38) and the 7 shekels gold
which must be associated with Ḫuraṣānum (3.5:18-20, 5.3:41-42) reinforce the following chain
of events: Dān-Aššur left Aššur with the 100 kutānum textiles and the 14 minas fine tin
associated with Agua; while he was still enroute, discussion ensued as to where Dān-Aššur
should go after he would arrive in Kanesh; Dān-Aššur arrived and the 100 kutānum textiles and
fine tin were sold to Ilabrat-bāni. Dān-Aššur then stayed in Anatolia for the nabrītum. Then, at
the end of August, Dān-Aššur did return to Aššur but he did not go to seize Ilabrat-bāni’s goods
as suggested by Pūšu-kēn; Šalim-aḫum reported that Dān-Aššur was ill (4.5). Instead, Ennam-
aššur travelled to Amurrum, then back, then travelled to Kanesh with the message to Pūšu-kēn
about the succesful operation against Ilabrat-bāni (4.5).
The fourth letter presented here (5.4) was likely written well before 5.1-5.3 but is
included in the reconstruction because it shows Dān-Aššur acting in Kanesh as a
representative for his father, a detail important to the discussion of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial
17
Note the price for the textiles would have been 20 shekels each, consistent with the short term price
for textiles this year (see Chapter Two).
306
network later in the chapter. In 5.2:35-36, Šalim-aḫum noted that Pūšu-kēn had reported that
Aššuriš-tikal would pay the silver of Abila. Prior to mid-May, perhaps in REL 79, Aššuriš-tikal
was paid to transport a half-donkey load of tin and 6 kutānum textiles to Abila, but Abila then
claimed to have never received the shipment. Aššuriš-tikal was told that he must pay the silver
to Pūšu-kēn and Dān-Aššur or demonstrate that he delivered it to Abila (5.4).18
Table 14: Summary Table of Events from the Dān-Aššur Letters

DA1 Āl-ilī and Šalim-aḫum send 65 minas tin, 6 kutānum textiles and 5 minas tin to Apila
by means of Aššuriš-tikal to Kanesh (5.4:6-11).
DA2 (En route?) Aššuriš-tikal opens the tin and textiles and takes some for himself
(5.4:12-14).
18
Elsewhere, Āl-ilī was dicussed by Abila and Lā-qēpum as an owner of goods, and Šalim-aḫum mentions
similar circumstances, but it is difficult to confirm that these letters apply here. AKT 3 110 – 1a-na Id-na-a La-qé-ep
2
Pí-lá-aḫ-A-šùr ù Ib-ni-lí 3qí-bi-ma um-ma A-bi-lá-ma 416 ma-na LÁ 6 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR ku-nu-ki-a 516 GÍN ša-du-a-sú ša A-
li-li 6a-na A-šùr-UTU-ši áp-qí-id 7a-ma-kam KÙ.BABBAR ù ša-du-a-sú 8ša ki-ma A-li-li li-il5-qé 95½ ma-na KÙ.BABBAR i-a-
um 10a-na A-šùr-dUTU-ši a-ší-a-m[a-tim] 11a-dí-in ba-áb né-pí-ší-i[m] 12a-na A-šùr-UTU-ši KIŠIB DAM.GÀR 13lá-pí-it a-na
Id-na-a 14ù Lá-qé-ep qí-bi-ma 15KÙ.BABBAR li-qé-a-ma | [iš-tí-ku-nu] 16li-bi-ší ù té-er-ta-[ku-nu] 17li-li-kam (lo.e.) 185 GÍN
KÙ.BABBAR ku-nu-ku-a 19a-na Ta-ta-a (rev.) 20me-er-<i>-tí-a 3 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR ku-n[u-ki-a] 21a-na Ša-zu-a DUMU.SAL
22
En-nam-A-šùr šé-bu-lá-tim 23a-na A-šùr-UTU-ši áp-qí-id 24a-ma-kam šé-bu-lá-tim 25li-qé-a-ma ša a-na a-[limki] 26i-li-ku a-
na a-li-ki-im 27dí-na-ma šé-bu-lá-tim 28a-na a-limki lu-bi-il5-ma 29a-na Ta-ta-a me-er-i-tí-a 30ù Ša-zu-a DUMU.SAL En-nam-
A-šùr 31li-dí-in ki-ma KÙ.BABBAR 32ù šé-bu-lá-tim tal-qé-a-ni 33té-er-ta-ku-nu li-li-kam. Another letter, written only by
Šalim-aḫum, appears it might refer to this same situation but it is difficult to verify because the details are
inconclusive and further corroborating context cannot be found: P. Garelli, "Tablettes Cappadociennes de
collections diverses (suite)," RA 59 (1965): no. 26, p. 160-63 – 1um-ma Ša-lim-a-ḫu-um-ma 2a-na Pu-šu-ke-en6 3A-šùr-iš-
tí-kál ù Dan-A-šùr 4a-na A-šùr-iš-tí-kál 5qí-bi-ma 35 ma-na AN.NA 61 TÚG ½ ANŠE ša šé-pí-kà 72 TÚG ku-ta-<ni> En-um-A-
šùr 8DUMU I-li-li 2 ku-ta-ni 9Dan-A-šùr i-dí-nu-ni-kum 10ma-áš-kà-tí ša šé-pí-kà 11AN.NA-ki 7 GÍN.TA 12[T]ÚG.ḪI.A ½ ma-
na.TA 13[i]-dí-nu-ma KÙ.BABBAR ub-lu-nim 14[a-š]a qí-ip-tí-im! 2-šé-né (About 8 lines destroyed.) 1’[ ... u]š? 2’[ ... šé]-bi4-
il5? 3’a-ḫi a-ta KÙ.BABBAR dí-šu-nu-tí-ma 4’ší-ma-am la-áš-a-ma 5’KÙ.BABBAR 1 GÍN le-li-ma? (Ras.) 6’i-nu-mì ta-la-kà-<ni>
7’
ṭup-pá-am ša na-ru-qí-kà 8’i-lá-pu-tù-ni 9’ù a-na-ku a-da-na-kum-[ma] 10‘(Ras.) – “Šalim-aḫum to Pūšu-kēn, Aššuriš-
tikal,and Dān-Aššur: To Aššuriš-tikal: As for the 35 minas tin, 1 textile, ½ donkey of your šēpum; 2 kutānum-textiles
of Ennum-Aššur son of Ilili, 2 kutānum-textiles of Dān-Asšur which he gave to you, my inventory of your šēpum:
they sold (you) tin at a 7 shekel rate, textiles at a 30 shekels rate and they brought the silver. With regards to the
qīptim, 2 … . (8 lines broken) My dear brother, give the silver to them so that I may make purchases and make
every shekel of silver possible. When you come, then I will give to you myself the tablet of your naruqqum which
they will write for you and …” Some elements from this document could fit the situation from 5.4. In this letter,
one could posit that Šalim-ahum’s share of the 65 minas tin in 5.4 was 35 minas (thus Āl-ilī’s share 30 minas tin).
But Abila is not mentioned, the textiles add up to five instead of six, the rate on the textiles was 7 instead of 6.
307
Table 14: Summary Table of Events from the Dān-Aššur Letters, continued
DA3 Āl-ilī and Šalim-aḫum demand that Aššuriš-tikal pay a 6 shekel rate on the tin taken
and 30 shekels each for the textile unless Aššuriš-tikal can produce witnesses to the
effect that he turned the goods over to Apila (5.4:15-28).
DA4 Kulumaya and Agua travel to Kanesh with goods owned by Šalim-aḫum (5.1:4-7;
5.2:6-7).
DA5 Dān-Aššur leaves for Kanesh from Aššur with Šū-Suen (perhaps in company with
Kulumaya and Agua?) (5.1:17-22; 5.2:5).
DA6 Ḫuraṣānum and Aššur-mālik incur debts with Šalim-aḫum (Aššur-mālik’s - 5.1:7-10,
5.2:9-12, 5.3:10-13).
DA7 Pūšu-kēn makes plans to send Dān-Aššur to Purušḫattum and word travels to Šalim-
aḫum (5.1:15-17).
DA8 Šalim-aḫum writes to Pūšu-kēn to instead send Dān-Aššur directly back to Aššur
with whatever can be sold from Kulumaya’s and Agua’s cargo and from the donkeys
and from Dān-Aššur’s goods (5.1:15-24).
A  He asks that Pūšu-kēn send 30 minas silver, which Pūšu-kēn is to gather from
the silver owed by Ḫuraṣānum and Aššur-mālik, from 7½ minas silver which Pūšu-
kēn wrote about in an earlier letter (related to textiles – 5.2:9-12), and from silver
owed by Puzur-Adad and Ennum-Aššur (5.1:7-14, 24-28).
B  He writes that Ḫanu is to bring the junior wife of Dān-Aššur, or else Šalim-aḫum
will be angry (5.1:29-30; 5.2:32-34).
C  He reminds Pūšu-kēn to have Aššuriš-tikal to pay Apila’s silver (5.1:30-32;
5.2:34-36).
DA9 Šalim-aḫum writes a second letter to Pūšu-kēn, asking how much of Dān-Aššur’s
cargo cleared, and the same for Kulumaya and Agua, again asking to collect the
silver of Ḫuraṣānum and Aššur-mālik and send 30 minas silver as soon as possible. If
Dān-Aššur is delayed, then Pūšu-kēn is to send 20 minas silver. If the debts of Puzur-
Adad and Ennum-Aššur are due, he is to collect those as well. Šalim-aḫum reiterates
that Pūšu-kēn is to send Dān-Aššur back to Aššur quickly. He reiterates that Ḫanu
should bring Dān-Aššur’s junior wife, and suggests that Ḫanu travel with the silver.
He brings up the matter of Aššuriš-tikal paying Apila’s silver as well (5.2).
308
Table 14: Summary Table of Events from the Dān-Aššur Letters, continued
DA10 Šalim-aḫum writes a third letter to Pūšu-kēn, this time asking Pūšu-kēn to send 20
minas silver and to send Ḫanu. He then changes his mind about Dān-Aššur, saying
that Dān-Aššur can ‘stay for the nabrītum.’ Instead, Pūšu-kēn is now to add the silver
coming from Ḫuraṣānum’s cargo, the 7½ minas silver related to Aššur-mālik s. Erra-
iddi(n)’s textiles, the tin and textiles of Dān-Aššur’s cargo, the proceeds from the
donkeys, anything from his outstanding claims, and anything from his
memorandum, which Šalim-aḫum had given to Pūšu-kēn when Pūšu-kēn was last in
Aššur, and add all those assets together and send 1 talent silver with Dān-Aššur
when he comes back to Aššur (5.3).
A  He tells Pūšu-kēn to send as much silver as Pūšu-kēn can from his own funds
with Dān-Aššur so that Šalim-aḫum can add two shares to the venture himself,
adding that Pūšu-kēn can send his orders for goods to Šalim-aḫum. When Pūšu-kēn
sends that silver, Šalim-aḫum will send Dān-Aššur directly back to Pūšu-kēn in
Kanesh (5.3:30-38).
B  He asks Pūšu-kēn to add as much gold as he can and send pašallum gold of the
merchant (Ḫuraṣānum?) in addition to the price of the girl’s textile and the 6 shekels
gold owed by Panaka (5.3:39-42).
C  He asks that Dān-Aššur bring 40 minas fine copper with him (3.5:42).
Dān-Aššur’s Travel Plans and the Timing of the nabrītum
Within the reconstruction, the roughly six weeks that Dān-Aššur spent in Anatolia
before returning to Aššur becomes of special interest. During this stay from mid-June to the
end of July, Šalim-aḫum intended that Dān-Aššur “perform this nabrītum” (nabrītam annītam
libre).19 However, recent opinion on the nabrītum has emphasized its context in two letters as
19
The normalization of this word as nabrītum is provisional. Because Old Assyrian orthography does not
fully distinguish phonemes, in this case particularly b and p, the normalization naprītum is also possible; likewise
for the verb: i.e., barā’um or parā’um. I render the normalization barā’um (and hence nabrītum) because of the
continuing plausibility that this barā’um could be indentified with CAD barûm B ‘to inspect’ and thus nabrītum be
309
clear evidence that nabrītum means winter or wintertime. However, the strength of this
conclusion is in need of revision. The present reconstruction presents independent evidence
that the nabrītum was not “winter”; and while claiming that it is easiest to read nabrītum as
winter in the two letters in question is understandable, asserting that no further revisions are
possible based on independent evidence prizes the anecdotal evidence over more fully
contextualized discrete examples.
Šalim-aḫum wrote in 5.3, ceding at least in part to Pūšu-kēn’s plans recognized in 5.1,
that Dān-Aššur should “perform this nabrītum.” Thus, ‘this’ nabrītum was an expected event.
Treatment of nabrītum in Old Assyrian has followed a course of distinguishing two or three
separate homonyms.20 The lemma nabrītum which appears in contexts that indicate it was an
event, as in the case with Dān-Aššur here, was initially associated with ‘inspection’ (CAD barûm
B) by virtue of a set of parallel constructions luqūtam ana nabrītim likšudam (as in CCT 2 7:30-31
and Ka 1004:19-20, 39-40) and luqūtam ana barā’im likšudam (as in CCT 3 8b:8-9).21 It has also
been associated with the wintertime nabrû festival practiced in the Ur III and Old Babylonian
periods, which was also the ninth month of the Amorite calendar at Tell Rimah.22 More
understood as a maprast form meaning ‘inspection.’ However, the present discussion does not provide sufficient
evidence to make this assertion stronger than a plausibility.
20
The first two lemmas would refer to 1) the care of donkeys, i.e. ‘paddock’ (rendered as nebrītum in the
CAD), while a possible second word would be manifest in a single known use as an object, most likely a textile. For
‘paddock,’ see Dercksen, Old Assyrian Institutions, 267-70. The textile is found in BIN 6 190 (Innāya II, no. 1):14-18 -
10 GÍN K[Ù.K]I ku-pu-ur-ši-nàm ù na-áb-ri-tám a-ṣú-ḫa-ar-tim šé-bi4-lam na-áb-ri-tum [lu] ra-bi4-a-at ‘send 10 shekels
kupuršinnum gold and a nabrītum for the girl. The nabrītum must be large.’ See also Donbaz and Veenhof, "New
Evidence for some Old Assyrian Terms," 140.
CAD recognizes a nabrītum (meaning unknown) and an OA nabrītum under neb/prītum ‘food, fodder,
pasture,’ citing K.R. Veenhof, AOATT, 249f. and 50 n. 380. Ahw. (774a) translates naprītum as ‘basic/minimum
provisions.’ The stance of the dictionaries and previous treatments were well summarized in V. Donbaz and K.R.
Veenhof, "New Evidence for some Old Assyrian Terms," Anatolica 12 (1985): 139-42. The positions taken there were
largely followed by J.G. Dercksen, OAI, 267-70.
21
Veenhof, “New Evidence for Some Old Assyrian Terms,” 141.
22
M. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda: 1993): 394-95.
310
recently, it has come to be associated with winter or winter time through its use in two
diferent letters.23 Just what the nabrītum was is still difficult to say. There are fewer than
twenty references to the phenomena. It is not the purpose of the present discussion to develop
a definition of the nabrītum, though the original association with commercial concerns and
some connection to the ‘settling of accounts’ (nikassī) seems to be the most promising
description.
The association between winter and nabrītum is due to two letters from the 94/k texts.
The two texts in their entirety read as follows; the translations mostly follow their
translation in Larsen, The Archive of the Šalim-Aššur Family, vol 1. and 2:
kt 94/k 1673:
1
a-na Zu-ku-a qí-bi-ma 2um-ma Puzur4-A-šur-ma 3šál-ma-ku i-Dur4-ḫu-mì-it 4wa-áš-ba-ku i-na
Ḫu-ra-ma 51 ku-ta-nam i-ṣé-ri-a 6il5-qé iš-tù Ḫu-ra-ma 7a-dí Dur4-ḫu-mì-it ½ ma-na 8da-tum a-na ANŠE
9
ik-šu-ud a-ḫi a-ta 10we-da-ku mu-ša-ki-il5 11ANŠE ú ša ba-áb-tí 12ú-šé-ṣa-a-ni ú-lá i-šu 132 ṣú-ha-ri ša li-
ba!-kà 14i-de8-ú šu-up-ra-ma 15iš-tí-in ANŠE.HI.A 16lu-ša-ki-il5 iš-tí-in 17i-š[a-ḫ]a-tí-a li-zi-iz-ma 18⌈a⌉ [x
x] ṣú-ba-tám a-tù-nu 19⌈x⌉ [x š]é-ṣí-a-ma lá-ma 20ku-ṣí-im a-na Pu-ru-uš-ḫa-tim 21le-ru-ub na-áb-ri-tum
22
lá i-kà<-ša>-da-ni a-na-kam ú-ku-ul-ti 23ANŠE.HI.A da-na-at 24i-ḫi-id-ma ṣú-ha-ri 25ṭur4-da-ma ku-ṣú-
um 26lá i-kà-ša-da-ni ḫa-ra-ni 27le-pu-uš i-na dUTU-ši 28ša ṭup-pí ta-ša-me-ú 29we-da-ku ṣú-ḫa-ri 30ṭur4-
da-am
To Zukua, from Puzur-Aššur: I am well. I am in Durḫumit. He took 1 kutānum on my

account in Ḫurrama. From Ḫurrama to Durḫumit, fees of ½ mina accrued per donkey-load. My
dear brother, I am alone. I have no one to feed the donkeys or realize the outstanding claims.
Send me two young men whom you prefer, so that one will feed the donkeys and one will
assist me. … textile … you yourselves … produce so that I can arrive in Purušḫattum before the
23
Dercksen, OAI, 270, first published the suggestion that nabrītum was associated with winter through
context with kt 94/k 1673. This interpretation of winter has been followed by K. Veenhof in his recent citation of
Ka 1004 in “Communication in the Old Assyrian Trading Society by Caravans, Travelers and Messengers,” in Old
Assyrian Studies in Memory of Paul Garelli (Leiden, 2008) 199-246. It is also the position taken by Mogens Larsen in his
translation of the two 94/k texts cited below.
311
winter. The nabrītum must not overtake me. Here donkey fodder is difficult to get. Take care to
send the young men so that I can take my way without winter overtaking me.24 On the day that
you read this letter, I am alone, send the young men.
Kt 94/k 1131
1
um-ma En-um-A-šùr-ma a-na SIG5-pí-i-A-šur | qí-bi-ma i-na pá-ni-tim-ma áš-pu-ra-kum um-
ma a-na-ku-ma šu-ma ILLAT-at-kà 5i-sà-ri-dam ù a-ta qá-dí-ma | ILLAT-tí-kà sí-ir-dam-ma lu-qú-tám
ša DAM.GÀR ša ta-ra-dí-ú TÚG.ḪI.A SIG5-tim bi-ir-ma i-na Ma-a-ma 10ú-lá i-na Ú-na-ap-sé-e-sí ší-tí
TÚG.ḪI.A ma-ṭí-ú-tim lu i-na ša DAM.GÀR i-ba-ší-ú lu ša bé-ú-lá-tí-kà | ù-lu i-na ša bé-ú-lá-at 15ṣú-ḫa-
re-e i-ba-ší-ú qá-dí-ma tap-pá-e-kà | a-na É.GAL-lim le-ru-bu-nim | a-ni na-ab-ri-tum i-na Ur-šu i-ṣa-ba-
at-ku-nu | ki-ma ku-pá-um 20ma-du-ni a-na lu-qú-ut DAM.GÀR-ri-im ša ki-ma qá-qí-dí-a ú-lá áš-tap-ra-
am i-na na-áp-ṭí-ir | ku-nu-tí ù a-na-ku ú-lá ša ki-ma 25qá-qí-dí-a | a-ṭa-ra-dam-ma mì-li-ik lu-qú-tim ša
DAM.GÀR a-ma-lik mì-šu ša ta-áš-pu-ra-ni um-ma a-ta-ma tí-ir-tí DAM.GÀR | ḫi-mì-tum | i-li-kam 30a-
na-ku sà-aḫ-ra-ku-ma a-na lu-qú-tim ša DAM.GÀR mì-li-ik-ša ma-lá-kam | lá a-al-té-e | ba-a-nim i-a-tí |
ta-aš-pá-ra-am | a-pu-tum ri-iš | lu-qú-tim ša DAM.GÀR 35ša-ṣí-ir | ú a-ma-lá tí-ir-tí-kà [um]-ma a-ta-
ma ṣú-ba-tù an-ḫu-tum! i-ba-ší-ú a-pu-tum i-na dUTU-ši ša ṭup-pí ta-ša-me-ú i-na ḫu-ur-ší-im ša ib-ri-
im 40a-[ta] ù Ì-lí-áš-ra-ni TÚG.ḪI.A kà-lá-šu-nu-ma na-pí-ša-ma 3 u4-me-e ú 5 u4-me-e li-ib-ší-ú-ma šu-
ta-áb-lá-ki-da-šu-nu ma-ma-an ša-ni-am lá tù-ṭá-ḫa-a | a-dí 4510 u4-me-e lē ta-ḫa-ta-ar a-ṣé-er E-ni-ša-
ri-im a-di AN.NA-ki-kà Ú-ṣú!-ur-ší-Ištar aš-ta-pá-ar iš-tù Za-al-pà i-tù-ru-nim-ma A-lá-ḫa-am 50a-ṭá-ra-
dam ½ ma-na ṣa-ru-pá-am ú ša 3 GÍN ṣà-ḫi-ir-tám ku-nu-ki-a Ili5-tù-ra-am ú-šé-bi4-lá-kum 15 GÍN
KÙ.BABBAR ší-im TÚG-tí-kà Id-na-a ú A-lu-a na-áš-ú-ni-[kum e-]ma-ru-kà | lu ak-lu
From Ennam-Aššur to Damiq-pī-Aššur: I sent word to you earlier, saying “If your
caravan is being packed, then you too should pack together with your caravan, and choose
textiles of good quality from the goods of the merchant that you are leading, and in Mamma or
in Unapsesi the rest of the less good textiles—both from what there is of the merchant’s and
from your own working capital and from the working capital of the servants—should enter the
palace together with your partners.
Now, the nabrītum has overtaken you in Uršu. Because there is a lot of snow, I have not
sent anyone on whom I could rely for the goods of the merchant. At the opening (of the
24
I read the syntax of lines 24-27 to understand kuṣṣum lā ikaššadanni as a subjunctive clause functioning
as a temporal marker within the following chain of verbal clauses: iḫid-ma | ṣuḫārī ṭurdam-ma | kuṣṣum lā
ikaššadanni ḫarrānī lēpuš. An alternate translation which instead finds the end of the clauses linked by –ma in
ikaššadani is equally possible due to the incomplete specificity of the Old Assyrian orthography.
312
passes)?/Instead,?25 I shall send either myself or someone I can rely on, and I shall make a
decision about the merchant’s goods. Why did you send word, saying: “A heated letter from
the merchant came.” I have personally been delayed and been unable to take any decsion
about the merchant’s goods. Come on, it is to me you send word! Urgent, guard the goods of
the merchant; and with regard to your message where you said: “There are some old
textiles”—urgent, the very day you hear my letter you and Ilī-ašranni should air all of the
textiles in the store-room of a friend, and leave them for 3 or 5 days before you turn them
over. Do not approach anyone else. Do not hesitate for 10 days!
I have sent Uṣur-ši-Ištar to Enišarum concerning your tin. When they come back from
Zalpa, I shall dispatch Ali-aḫum. I sent Ili-tūram to you with ½ mina of refined silver and small
goods worth 3 shekels under my seal. Idnaya and Aluwa are bringing you 15 shekels of silver,
the proceeds from your textile. Your donkeys are consumed.
Unquestionably, the sense gained from these two letters is that onset of the nabrītum
occurs at the same time as the winter (kuṣṣum). In the first letter, kt 94/k 1673, the two terms,
nabrītum and kuṣṣum, are invoked in parallel. In the second, the writer comments that the
nabrītum has overtaken his correspondent as pretext for the ensuing discussion about the
problems of the snow preventing him from travel. Unquestionably, the easiest way to read
these examples is that nabrītum is essentially “winter” or something inextricably associated
with winter.
If these were the only two texts available on nabrītum, then it would appear that it was
essentially equivalent to wintertime. At the same time, nabrītum is not invoked as the strict
25
ina napṭir<im?> — This cannot be the N-stem infinitive, which would be rendered napṭurim. There are
two possible interpretations I propose at this point. First, in the present context a meaning “opening” as in the
opening of the passes. In this case, we would expect to restore na-ap-ṭí-ir-<im>, though this would be a broken
writing. The form as it stands is absolute. This provokes the second, more speculative proposal: the phrase ina
napṭir, with napṭir as an absolute form related to napṭirum “substitute,” could be construed as a productive sort of
adverb. It is now becoming more apparent with the increasing publication of different archives, that new words
and expressions are arising with different writers. There is a vibrancy to the Old Assyrian dialect amongst the
many writers that is only beginning to be appreciated. While this does not in itself dictate that the second
proposal is correct, both proposals are of words/expressions that we would think to be more common than this
single attestation indicates.
313
cause of either potential or ongoing transport problem in either letter. Rather, in both letters
above, it is the ‘winter’ (kuṣṣum) and ‘snow’ (kuppa’um) which are the phenomena that directly
impair or hold the potential to impair the intentions of the correspondents. Though reading
nabrītum as winter or the like in these contexts seems a straightforward solution, to assert that
these two contexts are sufficiently clear as to preclude any further revision to nabrītum is too
strong a position.
Beyond the inherent theoretical dangers of precluding any further evidence, such as
this reconstruction, from bringing any revision to the interpretation of nabrītum as winter or
wintertime, I see two specific weaknesses in such a strong proposition arising from other
points in the Old Assyrian documentation. The first weakness involves the difference with
which writers refer to kuṣṣum and nabrītum in the letters. When writers discuss making
arrangements to avoid the winter they often write that things must be accomplished ‘before
the winter’ lama kuṣṣim (several references in CAD, to which a/k 913:26-27 lama kuṣṣim etarūnim,
87/k 509:12’-15’ iḫid-ma annakī u ṣubatīā ki luqūtika abkam-ma lama kuṣṣim ana kaspim lūtar can be
added). An example of arranging something for the winter, i.e. ana kuṣṣim is attested: KTS 2
40:25-27 šitti kaspim mala ištišu kunuk-ma ana kuṣṣim šēbil. However, by and large, merchants are
trying to get things arranged before the advent of winter. By contrast, arranging things to
happen before the nabrītum (i.e. lama) is comparatively rare. Instead, arrangements are made
for the nabrītum, i.e. ana nabrītum. This difference is entirely linguistic, but it must be
considered that the distribution of prepositions used with kuṣṣum is different than that used
with nabrītum. Moreover, an argument that proposes that nabrītum is winter because of its
parallel usage to kuṣṣum must also allow for the fact that nabītum is also used in parallel with
settling accounts (nikassī). Dercksen’s recent remarks when discussing the nabrītum confirm
314
that aside from the contexts of the two letters above, the nabrītum seems to have a closer
connection to a commercial procedure (OAI, 270). Following Veenhof’s initial review of Ka
1004, the most noticeable aspect was that goods needed to arrive for the nabrītum.
The second problem with demanding that nabrītum is winter on the strength of the two
kt 94/k letters is Ka 1004, where nabrītum is used several times, and reading nabrītum as winter
results in a strained interpretation of the letter. In this letter Imdī-ilum writes to his colleagues
in Aššur in order to prepare against the upcoming nabrītum. However, he expresses frustration
that Amur-Ištar was prevented from making it to him for what must be a past nabrītum. I have
included the transliteration with a translation that closely follows the translation in Anatolica
12. Statements of direct interest are rendered in bold text in the translation.
Ka 1004
1
[a-na] A-šùr-i-mì-tí Šu-Ištar [Šu]-Ḫu-bu-ur En-na-nim ù Bu-bu-ra-nim qí-bi-ma um-ma Im-dí-
lúm-ma 45⅔ ma-na 4⅓ GÍN KÙ.BABBAR ṣa-ru-pá-am 5ni-is-ḫa-sú DIRI | ša-du-a-sú ša-bu ku-[n]u-ki-a
Ḫi-na-[a] na-áš-a-ku-nu-tí a-ḫu-a | a-tù-nu ki-ma lu-qú-tí ša šé-ep A-mur-Ištar a-na na-áb-ri-tim lá ik-
šu-da-ni li-bi4 im-ta-ra-aṣ 1012 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR ni-is-ḫa-sú DIRI ša-du-a-sú ša-bu ù 1 ma-na KÙ.GI
[ni]-is-ḫa-sú DIRI ša-du-a-sú ša-bu E?-li na-áš-a-ku-nu-tí 20 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR ṣa-ru-pá-am ni-is-ḫa-
sú 15DIRI ša-d[u]-a-sú ša-bu En-na-Sú-en6 DUMU Šu-Ištar na-áš-a-ku-nu-tí iḫ-da-ma lu-qú-[tí] ša šé-ep
Ḫi-na-[a] lu ša šé-ep E-li lu ša šé-ep I-na-Sú-en6 a-na na-áb-ri-tim 20lu-qú-tí | li-ik-šu-dam-ma iš-té-ni-iš
le-ru-ba-am AN.NA-[ka]m šu-uq-lam za-ku-tám li-wi-sú ù e-li-a-tim ša-ma-ma iš-tí a-li-ki-im pá-ni-im-
ma áb-kà-nim 25ki-ma lu-qú-tám ša šé-ep A-mur-Ištar tù-uk-ta-ṣí-da-ni | a-dí ni-kà-sí ak-ta-lá ni-kà-sú i-
[ša-s]í-ú-ma | a-ta-be-a-ma [a-ta]-lá-kam a-ma-lá té-er-tí-a iḫ-da-ma 30[AN.]NA li-wi-sú ù e-li-a-tim ša-
ma-ma še-bi4-lá-nim AN.NA lu za-ku a-ma-lá té-er-tí-a a-šar lu-qú-tí ta-pá-qí-da-ni ší-ma-am ša a-ki-dí-
e ša 1 ma-na 35ša-ma-ma dí-na-šu-um lu KÙ.BABBAR lu sà-am-ru-a-tim | lu Ì.GIŠ ṭá-ba-am a-qá-tí-šu
lu re-eš15-tám dí-na-šu-<um> [a-ḫ]u-ú-a | a-tù-nu a-na té-er-tí-a [iḫ-d]a-ma lu-qú-tum a-na Kà-ni-iš
40
[a-na n]a-áb-ri-tim li-ik-šu-dam [...] x ù Ḫi-na-a ni-kà-sí [...] a-ma-lá ší-ma-at [...] i-na mì-ma i-šu-ú
[a]-na šé-ni-šu a-zu-az 45[...]-a-ma i-na zi-tim a-[n]a qá-tí [...]-a E-nu-Be-lum AN.NA ù [...] x a x [...] x
en? x i-dí-nu [...] x mì-šu-um [...] iš-tí A-mur-Ištar lá [...]
315
1-3
To Aššur-imittī, Šū-Ištar, Šū-Ḫubur, Ennānum and Buburānum, say, thus Imdīlum:
Ḫinnaya is transporting to you 45 minas 44⅓ shekels refined silver under my seals, its excise
added, its expenses paid. My dear colleagues, I am disappointed because my
merchandise in the cargo of Amur-Ištar did not reach me for (ana)26 the
nabrītum. 10Eli is transporting to you 12 minas silver, its excise added, its expenses paid, plus
1 minas gold, its excise added, its expenses paid. Enna-Suen son of Šū-Ištar is transporting to
you 20 minas refined silver, its excise added, its expenses paid. Take care that my
merchandise in the cargo of Ḫinnaya, Eli, and Enna-Suen reaches me for (ana)
the nabrītum and arrives (lit. enters) all together. Buy tin in pure packets, with
wrappings and top-packs, and ship them here with the first travellers. 25Since you had held
up merchandise in the cargo of Amur-Ištar, I have stayed here until the
settling of accounts; when the accounts are settled, I will depart and leave.
Take care to buy tin, its wrappings and top-packs according to my instructions and send them
to me. The tin must be pure! Follow my instructions and buy Akkadian textiles with 1 mina
(silver) and give it to him when you entrust my merchandise. Give him silver, (copper) nails,
fine oil, and prime oil for his account. 38My dear colleagues pay heed to my message
and let the merchandise reach me in Kanesh for (ana) the nabrītum. [When PN]
and Ḫinnaya settle accounts, I will divide a double share of all he owns according to the
dispositions …
One of Imdī-ilum’s chief concerns in this letter is to ensure that his correspondents will
help rather than hinder Ḫinnaya, Eli, and Enna-Suen to bring goods back to him in Kanesh for
the nabrītum. Imdī-ilum uses the term nabrītum three times in the letter. But the most
important information the letter provides for understanding nabrītum lies beyond the various
syntactic constructions in which the term is found. Rather, it is in the context nabrītum is used.
I see two salient contexts: 1) when the nabrītum that Amur-Ištar missed occurred, and 2) the
relationship between the nabrītum and settling accounts (nikassī) in Imdī-ilum’s plans for the
immediate future.
26
In Anatolica 12, Donbaz and Veenhof rendered ana as be(for)e. I avoid this translation in sensitivity to
the difference in usage between ana and lama with regards to nabrītum and kuṣṣum discussed above.
316
First, Amur-Ištar was delayed from reaching Imdī-ilum for a nabrītum, a fact which
required Imdī-ilum to stay for the upcoming accounting time. But which nabrītum did Amur-
Ištar miss?27 One way to interpret Imdī-ilum’s letter is that Amur-Ištar was so delayed by Imdī-
ilum’s correspondents that it was now impossible for him to get to Kanesh for the upcoming
nabrītum. I find this reading strained within the (limited) context of the letter becasue it seems
that it will be possible for Ḫinnaya, Eli, and Enna-Suen to make it to Aššur and back to Kanesh
during this same time. Moreover, Imdī-ilum’s includes no further efforts to obtain the goods
transported by Amur-Ištar. Instead he is only interested in the silver he is now sending with
Ḫinnaya, Eli, and Enna-Suen. If Imdī-ilum meant that Amur-Ištar was to miss the upcoming
nabrītum, then he had strangely lost interest in the goods with Amur-Ištar. On the other hand,
the letter could better be read to understand that Imdī-ilum is referring to the fact that Amur-
Ištar missed the previous nabrītum. This is then the context for his current pleas to his
correspondents about Ḫinnaya, Eli, And Enna-Suen. In this case, the goods of Amur-Ištar were
no longer a problem. However, the lingering effect of Amur-Ištar’s failure to arrive in time for
the previous nabrītum meant that Imdī-ilum now had to stay until the settling of accounts.
Therefore, if nabrītum means ‘winter’ then Amur-Ištar’s tardiness nearly a year ago is the cause
of Imdī-ilum now having to stay for the settling of accounts. That something which happened
a year ago is affecting Imdī-ilum’s plans seems a strange situation. This could be the case; but
my sense of this letter, and the pace of commerce in general, is that the previous nabrītum to
27
The phrase in question is rendered with a preterite ikšudanni. However, because of the aspectual nature
of verb usage in Akkadian within the subjunctive clauses, and particularly within the complex temporal situations
of epistolary discourse, even though the morphosyntax of the verb would suggest that the action to which he is
referring is essentially complete, whether or not Imdī-ilum used it purposefully in this context or not to
emphasize the actual finality of the event or the inevitable finality of the event cannot be determined on
grammatical grounds alone.
317
which Imdī-ilum refers, occurred more recently than the previous winter in order to have
created a situation that required Imdī-ilum stay for the upcoming winter.
Second, the order of events in Imdilum’s intended itinerary is: (1) Ḫinnaya, Eli, and
Enna-Suen arrive in Kanesh with goods, (2) nabrītum (3) settling of accounts, (4) Imdī-ilum
departs (most likley to Aššur). It is possible that nabrītum and ‘settling accounts’ occurred at
the same time. It is even possible that they are essentially different aspects of the same
process. But Imdī-ilum pleads that the goods reach him in Kanesh for the nabrītum and he says
that he will leave after the settling of accounts. If the settling of accounts technically followed
the nabrītum, then Imdī-ilum planned to leave after the settling of accounts, but this was after
the arrival of the nabrītum. Was he essentially saying that he was staying for winter? On the
other hand, if nabrītum is to be read winter, and the settling of accounts occurred at the same
time as the nabrītum, then the same problem as the first interpretation remains. In this letter,
interpreting nabrītum as winter creates a series of events that contradicts the current
understanding of travel restrictions associated with winter.
For the problems inherent in this text alone, nabrītum as winter should be carefully
reconsidered. There are approximately a dozen other occurrences of the Old Assyrian event
nabrītum. Besides the one above, two others come from Imdī-ilum’s letters, where Imdī-ilum is
intent that goods enter Kanesh before the nabrītum so that he can exchange the goods for
silver.28 His concern about the deadline understandably makes equating wintertime with the
nabrītum a reasonable hypothesis. But it is the disposition of goods in relation to an upcoming
and ongoing process for which they seem to be purposed (business transactions in Kanesh),
28
CCT 2 7, I 489, for translations of these passages see Dercksen, OAI, 269.
318
rather than for which they are purposed to avoid (the wintertime), that makes winter a less
likely meaning of the word. Other occurrences where persons are urged to make haste so that
they or their goods arrive for the nabrītum include the following one:
1
um-ma Ša-lim-A-šùr Pu-šu-ke-en6 2ù Sà-ba-sí-a-ma a-na 3Ì-lí-iš-ti-kál qí-bi-ma 416 ma-na
KÙ.BABBAR ni-is-ḫa-sú DIRI 5ù 1 ma-na 17 GÍN KÙ.GI 6pá-ša-lam ša-du-a-sú 7ša-bu Ku-lu-ma-a na-
áš-a-kum 8KÙ.GI da-mì-iq wa-ta-ar 9a-na-kam-ma 10 GÍN.TA ú-ba-al 104 GÚ AN.NA ú-tù-ra-e-šu 11ù li-
wi-sú li-we-tum 12lu TÚG ku-ta-nu lu ša-ak-sú 13ù a-ší-tí KÙ.BABBAR ku-ta-ni 14ša-a-ma iš-tí a-li-ki-im
15
pá-ni-e-ma ab-kam-ma 16a-na na-ab-ri-tim 17li-ik-šu-dam-ma 18a-na tám-kà-ri-kà li-ba-kà 19dì-in
Šalim-Aššur, Pūšu-ken and Sabasiya to Iliš-tikal: Kulumaya brings you 16 minas silver,
its excise added and 1 mina 17 shekels pašallum gold, its shipping charge paid. The gold is
extremely fine. Here it was worth a 10 (silver) shekel rate. Convert it to 4 talents tin, and its
wrappings can either be kutānum textiles or šakšum textiles. Then purchase kutānum textiles
with the remainder and send it out with the first departure so that it will arrive for (ana) the
nabrītum and (you can) give your account to you’re a merchant of your choice.29
The nabrītum seemed applicable to both Anatolia and Aššur. In addition to Dān-Aššur
going to Kanesh, or possibly to Purušḫattum for the nabrītum, other cities in Anatolia are
mentioned in association with the nabrītum: “As long as you are delayed, I will perform this
nabrītum in Kununamit for my qīptum” (VS 26 71:45-49). As for Aššur, Šalim-aḫum expressed his
desire that Ennam-Aššur return to Aššur for the nabrītum when he told Dan-Aššur to hand over
his revenues from his naruqqum fund to Ennam-Aššur (5.5:34-46, see below). In fact, it seems
that the tone of Šalim-aḫum’s letter (5.5:43-44) suggested that the idea of Dān-Aššur staying in
Kanesh for the nabrītum was counterbalanced by the idea that Ennam-Aššur would be back in
Aššur for the same period of time.
29
kt 94/k 1130 (courtesy M.T. Larsen).
319
According to the present reconstruction, the occurrence of the nabrītum about which
Šalim-aḫum made reference did not transpire during the winter. Instead, the movements of
Dān-Aššur in the reconstructed activities of REL 80 suggest that it transpired during July.
Moreover, within the reconstruction, there is a continuation of activity (travelling, crossing
the Taurus mountains, letters being sent, etc.) through this period. When Dān-Aššur arrived in
Kanesh in mid-June, he did stay in Anatolia longer than his travelling companion, Šū-Suen,
who proceeded directly back to Aššur. But when Šalim-aḫum later acknowledged Šū-Suen’s
arrival in Aššur in mid-July (2.3, see also fig. 5, p.172), he also noted that Lot #1 was coming
due soon and reminded Pūšu-kēn to collect. Dān-Aššur in fact helped bring that silver at the
end of July (2.4), which was in line with Šalim-aḫum’s intent in 5.3. Šalim-aḫum expresses no
sense that a winter hiatus was approaching when he wrote the letters as Dān-Aššur arrived
(5.1-5.3) and winter surely did not arrive before Dān-Aššur returned to Aššur (2.4). Because
Šalim-aḫum intended that Ennam-Aššur return to Aššur in time for the nabrītum and that Dān-
Aššur would have given Ennam-Aššur silver from his own funds when he arrrived in mid-June
suggests that the nabrītum would not have started until Ennam-Aššur had time to return to
Aššur in July. There is no sense in the letters that a cessation of activity was imminent.
If Šalim-ahum’s decision to have Dān-Aššur ‘perform this nabrītum’ meant he was
relenting to Pūsu-kēn’s original plans, then those plans must also be considered: Dān-Aššur
was to go to Purušḫattum after he arrived (5.1). It is possible that Pūšu-kēn’s plan included the
circuit journey around Anatolia. Whatever relation that may have had with the nabrītum
(indirect if any), the circuit journey to Purušḫattum involved a series of exchanges of goods. In
Kanesh, merchants exchanged their tin and textiles for wool, took the wool north to the
copper mine region, and transported the copper obtained there west to Purušḫattum to
320
exchange for silver, and then shipped the silver back to Aššur to start the process all over
again.30 Wherever he directed his travels, Dān-Aššur did leave Kanesh during his stay in
Anatolia. At the end of July, Pūšu-kēn received a letter from Šalim-aḫum asking for silver (5.9);
Pūšu-kēn’s response indicated that Dān-Aššur would arrive in (or return to) Kanesh in two
days and that Pūšu-kēn would then send Dān-Aššur with the silver.31
Dān-Aššur’s possible trip to Purušḫattum could have occasioned the following letter.
However I have not numbered it because it cannot be confirmed to come from this year.
1
a-na Pu-šu-ke-en6 qí-bi4-ma 2um-ma Dan-A-šùr-ma 3a-bi a-ta be-lí a-ta 4a-na ša-al-ṭim 5lá ta-ša-
ki-ni-a-tí 6URUDU ša É.GAL-lim a-dí 7u4-mì-im a-ni-im 8i-ta-na-bu-lu-ni-a-tí 9ù i-a-tí mu-ur-ṣú-um
10
im-qú-tám-ma 11a-dí-ni a-sú-ḫu-ur 12ša-al-ma-ku 13mì-ma li-ba-kà 14lá i-pà-ri-id 15a-dí 5 u4-me ú-ta-
qá-ma 16šu-ma URUDU ša 17«ša» É.GAL-lim lá i-ta-ṣa-am 18kà-ki a-lá-qé-ma 19a-Pu-ru-uš-ḫa-tim 20a-ta-
lá-ak
To Pūsu-kēn, from Dan-Assur: My dear father and lord, you must not treat us harshly.
(Concerning) the copper of the palace, they have been giving us the run-around to this day.
Now as for me, I illness had overcome me so that until now I was confined, (but now) I am well.
Do not be troubled. I will wait for 5 days and if the copper of the palace does not emerge, I will
take up my weapon and will depart for Purušḫattum.32
In this letter, Dān-Aššur tells Pūšu-kēn that he has been waiting on the palace with
regards to the trade in copper, most likely in Durḫumit. He has been there long enough to get
30
First discussed in OACTA, 90-157.
31
Pūšu-kēn promised to send Dān-Aššur back to Aššur with one talent twenty minas silver when Dān-
Aššur was to have arrived in Kanesh in two days (5.10). This would fit well as a response to Šalim-aḫum’s request
that Dān-Aššur come home with one talent silver, written in late May (5.3). However, 5.10 could not have been a
direct response to 5.3 and written in mid-June, implying that Dān-Aššur was at the time travelling to Kanesh
from Aššur. First, it has already been shown that Dān-Aššur returned with the second shipment of silver from the
original venture in late July while the first shipment was sent just after Dān-Aššur arrived in Kanesh in mid-June.
Second, it would be difficult to place 5.10 in mid-June because if Pūšu-kēn promised to send Dān-Aššur back with
the one talent twenty minas silver, he was inexplicably reversing his earlier stance to send him to Purušḫattum
within the tight timing of 5.1-5.3.
32
TC 3 25. Translation closely follows Dercksen, OACTA, 205. Dercksen there equates “taking up the
weapon” with preparing for departure.
321
sick and recover, and evidently for Pūsu-kēn to worry. He reports that he will only wait 5 more
days and then he will depart for Purušḫattum. Dān-Aššur’s illness in Durḫumit could presage
his illness when he returned to Aššur at the end of August, wherein he was not able to go seize
Ilabrat-bāni’s goods because of his health (2.4, 4.5).
Ennam-Aššur’s Reluctance to Return Home
Ennam-Aššur also played a significant role in Šalim-aḫum’s commercial operations
during this year. Ennam-Aššur travelled to Kanesh more than six weeks before his brother,
soon after the original venture and Ilī-ašranni’s caravans departed. When Šalim-aḫum wrote to
Pūšu-kēn at the beginning of April, he was already asking that Pūšu-kēn not delay Ennam-
Aššur, but send him home quickly (3.1:25-26). Ennam-Aššur had a prospective father-in-law
who shared Šalim-aḫum’s sentiment (5.7). But Ennam-Aššur had a mind of his own. By the
first half of May, almost a month after Šalim-aḫum’s initial urgings, Ennam-Aššur was still
delaying in Kanesh, expressing his intention to return to Aššur only when Dān-Aššur was
expected to arrive in mid-June (5.5:3-7). Despite Ennam-Aššur’s promises, Šalim-aḫum had to
repeat requests for him to return to Aššur at the end of May (2.6), of June (5.5), and in mid-
July (5.9), and doubtless in other letters that do not survive. In response to the last extant
request, Ennam-Aššur retorted in the presence of several witnesses that Pūšu-kēn, who
relayed the message, was acting over-zealously. Ennam-Aššur asserted that Pūšu-kēn was
acting as if he were the ‘son of a dead man,’ a condition that would have obligated Ennam-
Aššur to more diligently heed Pūšu-kēn’s request if it were so, but was rather Ennam-Aššur’s
322
way of implying that Pūšu-kēn was being overbearing in those circumstances (5.10:28-37).33
Nonetheless, he must have changed his mind soon thereafter and headed back to Aššur
because by the end of August, Šalim-aḫum was able to send him on the errand to seize Ilabrat-
bāni’s goods. Ennam-Aššur spent the first half of September on that job and was then
dispatched back to Kanesh.
The following documents (5.5, 5.6, 5.7) show the measures taken to have Ennam-Aššur
return home in order to continue the preparations for marriage. The first two letters (5.5, 5.6)
came from his own father, urging him to leave his business activites in Kanesh, stop acting like
a ‘big-shot,’ and come home. The third letter (5.7) stems from the bride’s side of the family; it
was written to Pūšu-kēn by Šū-Ḫubur, Ennam-Aššur’s intended father-in-law. Šū-Ḫubur
probably wrote near the beginning of the season asking Pūšu-kēn to ensure that Ennam-Aššur
returned quickly to Aššur. That Šū-Ḫubur was writing Pūšu-kēn instead of Ennam-Aššur fits
with Šalim-aḫum’s comment to his son that Šū-Ḫubur was being polite by not writing him
directly.
Document 5.5 - AKT 3 67: “Come Home!”34

En-nam-A-šur qí-bi4-ma
ta-áš-pu-ra-am um-ma a-ta-ma
za-ku-a-ku ki-ma Dan-A-šur e-ru-ba-ni
5 a-ta-lá-kam a-ša-me-ma KÙ.BABBAR 1 ma-na
33
A ‘son of a dead man’ was one whose father had recently died and was thus under constraint to clear
his father’s estate. Persons in this position had a responsibility to dutifully execute the will and ensure that all
accounts of the father were settled. Often this included paying off debts that the father had incurred. See K.R.
Veenhof, "Some Social Effects of Old Assyrian Trade," Iraq 39 (1977): 109-18.
34
Previous treatments: Bilgiç and Gunbattı, AKT 3, 106-08.
323
ù 2 ma-na nu-a-ú35 iš-ta-du
KÙ.BABBAR da-ma-qam li-im-ḫu-ur36
ta-ša-me-ú al-kam-ma e-en
10 A-šur ù e-ni-a a-mu-ur
ta-aḫ-sí-is-tám a-na a-ḫi-kà
e-zi-ib-ma a-ḫu-kà lá ki-ma
qá-qí-dí-kà KÙ.BABBAR ma-lá qá-at-kà
kà-áš-da-at-ni na-an-ší-a-ma
15 me-eḫ-ra-at KÙ.BABBAR ša nu-a-e
a-na-ku a-na-kam lá-dí-na-ku-ma
ḫa-ra-nam ša ra-mì-ni-kà
kà-ší-id mì-ma pá-nu-ma
lo.e. lá i-kà-bi4-du
20 A-šur ù dNIN.ŠUBUR
rev. li-ṭù-lá mì-ma li-bi4
lá i-lá-mì-nu-ma as-ḫu-ru-nim-ma
tù-ta-šé-er al-kam-ma
e-ni-a a-mu-ur me-er-at
25 um-mì-a-nim i-ga-ra-am
tù-mì-id-ma ki-ma a-wi-lim
ra-bi4-im a-dí u4-mì-im a-nim
ta-sú-ḫu-ur ù šu-nu pá-ni-a
wa-ab-lu-ma ú-lá i-ša-pu-ru-ni-kum
30 a-nu-a-e lá ta-áš-té-né-ar
a-qá-qí-dí-kà lá ta-ša-ḫu-ut
ša-ru-um li-ší-šu-nu37 qá-dum
35
nu’ā’ū - For an interpretation of this as a form of a term referring to Luwians, see O. Carruba, "Luwier in
Kappadokien," in La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien, ed. D. Charpin and F.
Joannès (Paris: Éditions Recherche sure les Civilisations, 1992), 251-57; but now questioned by I. Yakubovich,
"Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language" (diss., University of Chicago, 2008), 279. Here I translate the word
loosely as Anatolians, realizing that the ethnic composition of Anatolia was complex, that evidence of Luwian,
Hittite, and Hattic speakers is available during the Old Assyrian period, but that a translation such as ‘native’
invokes a sense of colonial encounter incongruent with our knowledge of the Old Assyrian trade.
36
Dān-Aššur is the most likely subject of limḫur.
37
For Šalim-aḫum’s use of the phrase ‘let the wind carry them off,’ see also 3.2:7-9.
324
KÙ.BABBAR-pì-šu-nu i-ša-ḫa-at a-ḫi-kà
ba-ab kà-ri-im lu kà-a-na-tí
35 a-Dan-A-šur qí-bi4-ma KÙ.BABBAR
lu i-a-am lu ku-a-am
ša na-ru-qí-kà ma-lá qá-at-kà
i-kà-šu-du a-na En-um-A-šur
dí-in-ma lu-ub-lam
u.e. šu-ma ni-qí-am ḫa-bu-ul ni-qí-šu
41 ú dá-ta-am kà-lá-ma
a-na-ku-ma a-da-šu-um
a-na na-ab-ri-tim a-ni-ša-am
le.e. li-ik-šu-dam
1-2
Šalim-aḫum to Ennam-Aššur:
3-7
You wrote me, “I am clear. When Dān-Aššur arrives, I will depart (for home). I hear
that the ‘Anatolians’ are short 1 or 2 minas of silver. Let him acquire good silver.”
8-19
On the day that you read (this) tablet, come and see the eye of Ašsur and my eye.
Leave the taḫsistum to your brother so that your brother is not liable for you. Bring here as
much silver as you can lay your hands on, and no one should be disappointed (lit. no face
should be heavy at all), for I myself will give you the equivalent of the silver of the ‘Anatolians’
when you arrive here (lit. your own caravan having arrived).
20-29
Let Aššur and Ilabrat witness that I will not be angry and retain (you), but you will
be released. Come and see my eye. A daughter of an ummi’ānum leans against the wall and you,
like a big-shot, delay until this day. Now, they are not writing to you because they are
preserving my reputation.
30-33
As for the ‘Anatolians,’ do not be agitated.38 Do not be concerned about your own
welfare. Let the wind carry them off—together with their silver!
33-34
You must strongly support your brother at the gate of the colony.
35-44
To Dān-Aššur: Give both my silver and your silver from your naruqqum fund—as
much as accrues to your share—to Ennam-Aššur so that he may bring it. If he owes niqī’um,39
38
Following AKT 3, 108, taštene’ar Gtn of ši’ārum “to rise early.”
39
niqī’um is translated as ‘offering’ in AKT 3, but must have something to do with Ennam-Aššur’s financial
relationship with his brother Dān-Aššur, likely in relation to Dān-Aššur’s naruqqum fund.
325
retain his niqī’um and the dātum payment, and I myself will give to him. Let him arrive here for
(ana) the nabrītum.
Document 5.6 - AKT 3 66: Šalim-aḫum Continues to Urge Ennam-Aššur Home40
a-na En-nam-A-šur qí-bi4-ma
lu iš-tí nu-a-e lu a-a-kam-ma
ba-ab-ta-kà ša áš-ta-na-me-ú
5 lá-ma ḫa-ra-nim ša Ḫa-ḫi-im
e-ru-ba-ni ra-ma-kà za-ki
a-ṣé-er KÙ.BABBAR ša iš-tí I-na-a
tù-šé-bi4-lá-ni ki-ma ni-iš-ri-im
KÙ.BABBAR ma-lá qá-at-kà i-ka-šu-du
10 i-pá-ni-kà ša šé-bu-lim
šé-bi4-lam AN.NA ù TÚG.ḪI.A
ša šé-ep Dan-A-šur qá-at-kà
lá tu-ša-ar a-na KÙ.BABBAR
li-tù-ra-ma i-Kà-ni-iš
15 lá ta-ba-re tí-be-a-ma
lo.e. a-tal-kam al-kam-ma
šu-ma li-bi4-kà a-ni-ma
rev. ṭup-pá-kà li-li-pì-it-ma
ḫa-ra-kà kà-ší-id
20 a-nu-a-e-kà lá na-az-qá-tí
KÙ.BABBAR ša AN.NA ILLAT-at
A-šur-ma-lik DUMU Lu-zi-na
ki-iš-da-tí-a lá tè-zi-ba-am
KÙ.BABBAR ša AN.NA ša Ša-at-A-šur
25 ù A-zi-a i-pá-ni-kà
šé-bi4-lam ú ša ṣú-ba-tí-šu-nu
iš-tí (Ras.) lu-qú-tí-a lá ṭa-ZA-ḫi41
40
Previous treatment in AKT 3, 103-05.
326
15 ma-na URUDU da-mu-qam
re-eš15-tám ša Kà-ni-iš
30 ú ša Ḫa-ḫi-im bi4-lam
16½ GÍN KÙ.GI iš-tí
Li-[x-x-i]n i-Ší-ma-lá42
lá-d[í-na-ku]m kà-sa-tám43
u.e. ša ˹pa-šu-ri˺-im ša a-ma-at
35 ú ú-uṭ bi4-lam kà-ab-lu
a-na-kam i-ba-ší
le.e. A-gu-a DUMU DU10-A-šùr pa-šu-ra-am ša ḫa-bu-lá-ni
li-dí-na-kum
1-2
Šalim-aḫum to Ennam-Aššur:
3-6
As for your outstanding claims with both the ‘Anatolians’ and wherever, which I
continue to hear about, clear yourself before the caravan from Ḫaḫḫum arrives.
7-20
In addition to the silver which you sent me with Innaya, send as much silver as you
can lay your hands on ahead of you as an installment. Do not neglect your share of the tin and
textiles in Dān-Aššur’s cargo. Convert it to silver, and do not tarry in Kanesh, but depart
quickly. Come here and if you so desire, have your tablet drawn up and then take your journey.
Don’t be concerned about your ‘Anatolians.’
21-27
Do not neglect my assets—the silver from the tin of the caravan of Aššur-mālik son
of Luzina. Send the silver from Šāt-Aššur’s and Azia’s tin ahead of you. Also, do not … the
proceeds of their textiles with (that of) my goods.
28-30
Bring 15 minas of very fine copper from both Kanesh and Ḫaḫḫum.
41
ṭa-ZA-ḫi – Šalim-aḫum’s clear concern is the relationship between his silver and the proceeds of Šāt-
Aššur and Azia. The reading requires emendation. The editors suggest taṣaḫḫir, but it is difficult – “Do not look for
my silver with the proceeds from their assets(?).” An emendation to tù!-ṭa!-ḫi would make sense in this context,
“Do not combine the proceeds from their textiles with my assets.” I have no other suggestions.
42
For the location of Šimalā to the east of the Euphrates, roughly across from Ḫaḫḫum, see Barjamovic,
“Historical Geography,” 215ff.; K.R. Veenhof, "Across the Euphrates," in Anatolia and the Jazira During the Old
Assyrian Period, ed. J.G. Dercksen, PIHANS 111 (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2008), 11-13.
43
kassutum/kasātum/kasattum – The morphology is uncertain . The editors suggest “tabletop,” which
makes good sense considering the length specified and the fact that the legs were already with Šalim-aḫum. It is
also possible that it referred to raw material for a table top. So an Akkadianized borrowing from Hurr. kazan
(CAD), likely a specific specie of tree, is worth considering.
327
31-38
The 16½ shekels gold with Li[…]n in Šimala, let him give it to you. Bring a tabletop of
one and one-half cubits. The legs are here. As for Agua son of Ṭāb-Aššur, the table which he
owes me, let him give it to you.
In 5.7, Šū-Ḫubur spends the first half of the letter discussing matters of business
between himself and Pūšu-kēn which do not directly concern us here. In the second half of the
letter he asks Pūšu-kēn to tend to Ennam-Aššur.
Document 5.7 - VS 26 64: Šū-Ḫubur Tries to Get Ennam-Aššur Home through Pūšu-kēn44
1 um-ma Šu-Ḫu-bur-ma
a-na Pu-šu-ke-en6
qí-bi-ma | a-šu-mì
ša Puzur4-A-[šur DU]MU Qá-a-tim
5 a-na-kam | a-šar KÙ.BABBAR 1 GÍN
lá-qá-em | ú-lá i-ba-ší
a-ma-kam | ki-ma ta-le-ú
a-wi-lam | ša!-zi-iz-ma
KÙ.BABBAR ša-áš-qí-il5-ma
10 a-na tár-ki-is-tim
a-na ší-a-ma-tim
pá-kà dí-in-šu-um
lo.e. šu-ma | ṭup-pu-šu
rev. ḫa-ar-mu-um
15 ša ku-nu-ki-šu | a-na-kam
lá ú-kà-al | ru-ta-ki-is
En-um-A-šùr DUMU
Ša-lim-a-ḫi-im
iš-tí ILLAT-tim i-lá-ak
44
Previous Treatment: J. Lewy, "Ḫatta, Ḫattu, Ḫatti, Ḫattuša and 'Old Assyrian' Ḫattum," ArOr 18/3 (1950):
374 n. 49.
328
20 a-na-kam | i-na É-tim
ṣú-ḫa-ar-tám e-ḫa-az
a-ma-kam | ki-ma | i-a-tí
kà-bi-sú li-bu-šu
lá i-lá-mì-in
25 e-mì-i-ma | lá e-mu-kà
ar-ḫi-iš-ma
u.e. ṭur4-da-šu-ma
rev. ṣú-ḫa-ar-tám li-it-ru-ma
šu-ma a-ḫi a-ta | me-er-i-tí
30 lá me-er-at-kà | kà-bi-sú-ma
ṭur4-da-šu
1-3
Šū-Ḫubur to Pūsu-kēn:
3-16
Concerning the matter of Puzur-Aššur son of Qa’atum: Here, there isn’t a single
shekel of silver to take. There, make the man accountable for whatever you can and cause him
to pay the silver and promise him regarding tarkistums and purchases. If I do not hold his
certified tablet with his seal here, it is bound up.45
17-31
Ennam-Aššur son of Šalim-Aḫum will go with the caravan. Here he will marry the
girl in the house. There, honor him as you would (honor) me, don’t disappoint him. Is not my
son-in-law your son-in-law? Dispatch him quickly so that he can take the girl away (to his own
house.) If you are my brother, is not my daughter your daughter? Honor him and send him off.
Ennam-Aššur’s travels during REL 80 began in late March when he departed for Kanesh
wth goods, including some which belonged to his father. He then stayed in Anatolia long after
his father and Šū-Ḫubur had hoped he would, until the end of July. When he did finally return
to Aššur near the end of August, he was soon off to Amurrum to seize Ilabrat-bāni’s goods, then
45
Translated differently in CAD R rakāsu mng. 12, where la ukal is read ‘he does not have in his person,’
would refer to Puzur-Aššur son of Qa’atum. This is difficult because Puzur-Aššur must be in Anatolia for Šalim-
aḫum’s comments to make sense, therefore when Šalim-aḫum says ‘here’ in conjunction with holding the tablet,
the ‘here’ must mean Aššur, and must refer to Šalim-aḫum himself holding the tablet.
329
back to Aššur, then back to Anatolia during September (4.5). He thus did not spend much time
in Aššur after all, which may not have bothered him as much as it did his father.
Unlike Dān-Aššur’s travels, which form a central thread through the reconstruction,
Ennam-Aššur’s activities rely heavily on the strength of the reconstruction in order to plot
their chronological development (fig. 13). Šū-Ḫubur likely sent 5.7 asking Pūšu-kēn to send
Ennam-Aššur home quickly in early April, around the same time that Šalim-aḫum sent his
letter to Pūšu-kēn about Puzur-Ištar and asking that Ennam-Aššur be returned as soon as
possible (3.1:25-26). Perhaps the two families had come to an agreement about the marriage
after the caravan had left and wished to proceed more quickly than had been anticipated when
Ennam-Aššur departed. One of the two letters by Šalim-aḫum asking Ennam-Aššur to return to
Aššur (5.5) was sent in early June, roughly timed around Dān-Aššur’s arrival in Kanesh.
Ennam-Aššur’s report to his father that he was clear of his obligations, acknowledged in that
letter (5.5:3-7), must have been sent by mid-May. As a result, his statement that he was clear
did not mean that the problems with the Anatolians were resolved. Rather, ‘clear’ probably
meant that he had paid all his imminent obligations, including any be’ulātum loans he had been
extended in transporting goods. By contrast, it is difficult to determine whether or not 5.6
preceded or followed 5.5. The tone of 5.6 is more businesslike than the promises and pleas of
5.5, but whether this means that Šalim-aḫum was becoming more stern over time (i.e. 5.5
came first) or more desperate (i.e. 5.6 came first) is difficult to tell. Ennam-Aššur clearly had
not left Kanesh by mid-July, as Šalim-aḫum was still asking for his return then when he sent
another letter (5.9:37-44).
Documents from the joint venture (see below) reveal further information about
Ennam-Aššur. From 5.9 it is evident that Ennam-Aššur had brought goods to Kanesh when he
330
came earlier in the season, goods Šalim-aḫum offered to Pūšu-kēn (5.9:35-37) in order to
participate in a joint venture with Šalim-aḫum. Because Pūšu-kēn was to send Ennam-Aššur
back to Aššur in mid-June, Šalim-aḫum anticipated that Ennam-Aššur might have already left,
directing Pūšu-kēn to send the silver so that it would catch with Ennam-Aššur if he were
already gone (5.11:34-37).
During REL 80 it appears that Ennam-Aššur was not easy to deal with. One of Šalim-
aḫum’s letters has an element of exasperation about it, complaining that Ennam-Aššur was
acting like a ‘big-shot’ and worrying himself about silver owed him by Anatolians instead of
attending to a matter of life-long importance. Assuring Ennam-Aššur that he wouldn’t keep
him home in Aššur for long, Šalim-aḫum seemed to be negotiating from a perceived point of
weakness (5.5:20-34). Moreover, Ennam-Aššur’s delay in returning was clearly a source of
anxiety for Šalim-aḫum, who pointed out that Šū-Ḫubur’s good breeding prevented them from
writing directly to Ennam-Aššur to return (5.5:37-44). That Šalim-aḫum’s delicate manner in
5.5 was because of Ennam-Aššur’s unruliness seems corroborated by Ennam-Aššur’s curt
response to Pūšu-kēn when the latter relayed Šalim-aḫum’s instruction that he return home.
Ennam-Aššur spat that Pūšu-kēn was not the ‘son of a dead man,’ implying that Pūšu-kēn could
not demand attention from him. Ennam-Aššur’s comment was somewhat ironic in the context
of talking about his marriage arrangements. There would likely be few other more pivotal
events in his life.
Ennam-Aššur’s resistance to various parties’ directions telling him to return to Aššur
must be placed within a context of conflicting interests. Šalim-aḫum’s discussions in 5.6 do
indicate that Ennam-Aššur was fulfilling, or at least supposed to fulfill, important tasks for
Šalim-aḫum in Anatolia. Ennam-Aššur had sent silver to Šalim-aḫum with Innāya (5.6:7-8),
331
Šalim-aḫum asks him to send more silver (5.6:8-11). Šalim-aḫum also tells him to attend to the
silver arising from tin (brought by) Aššur-mālik son of Luzina (5.6:21-21-23).46 At the same
time, Šalim-aḫum clearly recognized that Ennam-Aššur was an autonomous commercial
operator with his own balance sheets. Ennam-Ašˇßur was clearly concerned about his
difficulty in collecting silver from Anatolians. In order to make it more amenable for his son to
leave Kanesh, Šalim-aḫum assured him that he would be reimbursed for any losses from
leaving the Anatolians’ debt uncollected. Ennam-Aššur apparently had goods shipped with
Dān-Aššur (ll:11-15). Šalim-aḫum’s recognition of the autonomous nature of Ennam-Aššur’s
commercial operations mirrors his own autonomy from persons also close to him, such as Šāt-
Aššur and Azia, from whom he wanted his silver kept separate (5.6:24-27).
Ennam-Aššur’s actions and decisions show the limits of cooperation between a son and
a father. While the two cooperated to help each other, Šalim-aḫum also includes fatherly
advice to Ennam-Aššur to take care of his affairs, reminding him of assets he needed to attend
to that came from Dān-Aššur’s caravan (5.6:11-15). But at the same time, Ennam-Aššur had his
own concerns, and at least in Ennam-Aššur’s mind in the short term, the interests of his father
and his soon-to-be father-in-law were less important than his own. This aspect will be taken
up again in the second half of the chapter.
On Figure 15 below, 5.6 is not displayed in the field of activity as its precise
chronological position is uncertain.
46
This tin of one Aššur-mālik son of Luzina may have been the same as the tin associated with an Aššur-
mālik combined with the tin of Lot #2 in the original venture (2.2:38-44).
332
Figure 15 Chronological Development of Ennam-Aššur’s Activities during REL 80

D
REL 80 III
R 80 XII
nabrītum
Ilabrat-bāni’s goods
Kanesh Dān-Aššur
A
5.88
5 .
2 .2
1
Enn
0
Pūšu
Enna
a
Passes
m -
-kēn
Pūšu-kēn
A
ture
š
-Ašš
š
ur
-ven
s
nt
5.5
oi
333
: “Buy tin
ni on
!”
ur: “I am
5.9
w/ j
mpa
cle
o
ur
c
lear”
&
m -Aššu
r-Ašš
n a
Ištar
Puzu
En
Nūr-
5..33
2.1
5. 7
4.5
5.11

5.6 is not pictured on the figure.
Key
Shipment Packet
Table 15: Summary Table of Events from the Ennam-Aššur Letters
EA1 Ennam-Aššur clears himself of obligations prior to Dān-Aššur arriving in Kanesh. He
is concerned about ‘Anatolians’ being short 1 or 2 minas of silver. He communicates
these things by letter to Šalim-aḫum (5.5:3-7).
EA2 Šalim-aḫum responds to Ennam-Aššur’s letter, telling Ennam-Aššur to leave for

Aššur immediately, to bring as much silver as he has in hand, and promising him
that he will reimburse him for any losses associated with the Anatolians so that
Ennam-Aššur will not be disappointed. Šalim-aḫum promises that he will not be
angry with Ennam-Aššur, but reminds him that a daughter of an important person is
waiting for him to come, and the only reason that family has not written him is that
they are respectful. He reminds him to support Dān-Aššur at the gate of the colony.
A  He writes to Dān-Aššur to give both Šalim-aḫum’s and Dān-Aššur’s silver from
Dān-Aššur’s narruqum fund to Ennam-Aššur so that the latter can bring it to Aššur. If
Ennam-Aššur owes something to Dān-Aššur, then Dān-Aššur need not pay Ennam-
Aššur, but Šalim-aḫum will reimburse Ennam-Aššur when the latter returns to Aššur
(5.5).
EA3 Ennam-Aššur sends some silver with Innāya (5.6:7-8).
EA4 Šalim-aḫum again writes to Ennam-Aššur that he is to clear himself before the
caravan from Ḫaḫḫum arrives. Ennam-Aššur is to send as much silver as he can
ahead of himself, and not to neglect his share of the tin and textiles in Dān-Aššur’s
cargo. He is to convert it to silver and not to tarry in Kanesh, but to leave for Aššur
and not be concerned about the ‘Anatolians’ (5.6).
Ennam-Aššur is supposed to collect silver from the tin brought by Aššur-mālik s.
Luzina, and to send the silver from Šāt-Aššur’s and Azia’s tin ahead of him (with the
other silver Šalim-aḫum asked for), though he is not to mix their silver with Šalim-
aḫum’s silver (5.6:21-27).
A  Ennam-Aššur is to bring 15 minas fine copper from Ḫaḫḫum and Kanesh, bring
the 16½ shekels gold with another person, a tabletop, and a table from Agua s. Ṭāb-
Aššur (5.6:28-30).
EA5 At some point in time (difficult to pinpoint within this episode) Šū-Ḫubur writes to
Pūšu-kēn to treat Ennam-Aššur well in Kanesh, but to ensure that he retuns quickly
(5.7).
334
The Joint Venture
By mid-May of REL 80, Šalim-aḫum had begun to fear that he needed to boost revenues
in order to avoid being “shamed at the gate of the city (of Aššur).” This concern did not
become explicit until later the season, when Šalim-aḫum repeatedly expressed concern about
being “shamed at the gate” (5.9:20-27, 5.11:32-37). But already in mid-May, Šalim-aḫum was
taking measures consistent with a tactic to prevent the scenario he expressed fear over later.
As one such measure, Šalim-aḫum proposed to Pūšu-kēn that the two enter into a joint
venture in tin to sell in Anatolia, for which Pūšu-kēn would contribute one third the price
(5.8). Šalim-aḫum wrote to Pūšu-kēn again in mid-June trying to persuade him with more
amenable conditions (5.9). For his part, Pūšu-kēn recognized that he would not equally benefit
from the arrangement, and sought to minimize his risk in the venture, conditioning his
participation in the venture with various proscriptions (5.10). Shortly thereafter, Pūšu-kēn
sent his portion of the silver so that Šalim-aḫum received it in early September. Šalim-aḫum
immediately bought tin with Pūšu-kēn’s silver (4.5), but waited until the end of September to
purchase his portion of the tin. He then dispatched the tin with Puzur-Aššur (5.11). By the
time the tin arrived in Kanesh in late October or early November, Pūšu-kēn only had about a
month to travel west to Purušḫattum to convert the goods into silver and then make his way
east before the Taurus passes closed.
Document 5.8 - Eilsberger Tablet: The Joint-Venture Proposal47
47
Previous treatments: D.O. Edzard and K. Hecker, "Ein Brief aus der altassyrischen Korrespondenz
Šallim-aḫum/Pūšu-kēn," MDOG 102 (1970).
335
šu-ma li-bi4-kà i-na
u4-mì-im ša ṭup-pá-am
5 ta-ša-me-ú 13⅓ ma-na
KÙ.BABBAR ni-is-ḫa-sú DIRI
šé-bi4-lá-ma ù a-na-ku
2-ší-ta qá-té-en6 lá-dí
a-dí a-mì-ša-am lu-qú-tum
10 š[a] ba-ri-ni e-li-a-ni
ší-[m]a-am ša ta-ša-pá-ra-ni
lá-áš-a-a[m-ma lu-šé-bi4-lá-ku]m
lo.e. i-na u4-mì-im ša Dan-A-šur
rev. a-mì-ša-am e-ra-ba-ni
15 ší-ma-am pá-ni-a-ma
ša ta-da-na-ni
KÙ.BABBAR-áp-kà a-ta le-qé
ù i-a-am a-ni-ša-am
lu-ub-lu-nim a-dí AN.NA
20 ma-dum iš-tí e-li-tim
i-lu-ku um-ma a-na-ku-ma
Dan-A-šur i-na e-ra-bi4-im
i-na AN.NA 1 GÍN.TA
e e-tí-qú-ma e i-dí-nu
25 ma-áš-kà-tum wa-ar-kà-tám
u.e. li-li-ik-ma
(Ras.) x ½? ma-na ù ⅓ ma-na
le.e a-ba-ri-ni le-li-a-am48
1-2
48
Lines 25-28: The original editors’ translation of 25-26 seems correct in sense. If wa-ar-kà-tám were
adjectival, one would expect maškattum warkītum. In lines 27-28, the handcopy indicates ‘20½’ after the erased
sign, differing from the edition’s transliteration, but the referant of ‘let 20½ or ⅓ minas arise between us’ (with
the ½ and ⅓ in reverse order) is difficult to find. The editors’ suggestion that the statement concerns a marginal
increase in profit seems appropriate for the context.
336
3-19
If you choose, on the day you read this tablet, send me 13⅓ minas silver–its excise
added, and then I will contribute two shares. While our common goods come up there, I will
make any purchases about which you send me word and send (them) to you. When Dān-Aššur
arrives there, take your silver (from) the first sales which you will make for me, so that they
bring mine here.
19-28
As long as much tin goes with the caravan, I say, “They should not travel nor sell a
single shekel of tin until Dān-Aššur’s arrival.”49 Let the inventory go afterward and [ … ] may a
profit of ½ mina or ⅓ mina arises for our share.
Document 5.9 - VS 26 58: Second Letter about the Joint Purchase50
2 GÚ 10 ma-na AN.NA ku-nu-ku
13 ma-na AN.NA-ak qá-tim
5 13 TÚG li-wi-tum ú e-li-tum
1 ANŠE ṣa-lá-mu-um ša sà-ri-dim
ša-bu mì-ma a-nim ku-nu-ki-a
A-šùr-ta-ak-lá-ku i-ra-de8-a-kum
a-ḫi a-ta eb-ri a-ta ma-tí-ma
10 ú-lá áš-pu-ra-kum um-ma a-na-ku-ma
i-na ma-áš-kà-tí-a AN.NA
1 GÚ ú-ul 10 TÚG.ḪI.A li-qé-ma
gi5-im-lá-ni a-ḫi a-ta a-na
ú-um ga-ma-li-im a-na
15 AN.NA-ki-a ú TÚG.ḪI.A KÙ.BABBAR 1 GÍN
lá tù-šé-qá-ra-am a-ṣé-er
25 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR ša Lu-lu
49
Šalim-aḫum also suggested holding goods until Dān-Aššur arrived. Alongside the other instructions in
the letter, Šalim-aḫum suggested that no one should ‘travel overland’ until Dān-Aššur arrived with the tin. This
probably meant departing with merchandise to Durḫumit or Purušḫattum. Šalim-aḫum believed that if Pūšu-kēn
would wait to sell his or Pūšu-kēn’s inventory, the two would make a marginal profit. If Šalim-aḫum’s advice was
advantageous because he had special knowledge of the situation in Aššur, then perhaps Šalim-aḫum had fresh
information that suggested the price of tin in Aššur would increase soon.
50
Previous Treatments: Handcopy and comments in VS 26, 22.
337
ú ša AN.NA-ki-a ú T[ÚG.ḪI.A]
19 KÙ.BABBAR ṭá-ḫi-ma i-šé-pí-k[à]
lo.e. bi4-lam a-ḫi a-ta ma-lá
rev. i-na a-lá-ki-kà i-na
ba-áb a-bu-li-im lá a-ba-šu
KÙ.BABBAR lu ša ú-me lu ša AN.NA-ki-a
a-num ù TÚG.ḪI.A e-mì-id-ma
25 KÙ.BABBAR 1 GÍN a-na be-tí-a i-na
a-lá-ki-kà le-ru-ub-ma
lu šu-um-kà i-na 13 TÚG 2 TÚG
da-tám lá i-lá-mu-du
1 TÚG a-ḫa-ma ša Ša-at-A-šùr
30 ša ra-pá-dí-im kà-áb-tum
A-šùr-ta-ak-lá-ku na-áš-a-kum
a-ṣé-er KÙ.BABBAR 30 ma-na
ša A-šùr-DU10 ú ší-im TÚG.ḪI.A
ša šé-ep A-šùr-ma-lik
35 ú a-ta KÙ.BABBAR 10 ma-na ra-dí-ma
KÙ.BABBAR-áp-kà 1 ITU.KAM ú šé-na
li-be-el En-na!-A-šùr
ṭur4-dam lu-qú-tám ša šé-ep
39 En-nam-A-šùr ma-lá
u.e. ta-le-e-a-ni dí-na-ma
KÙ.BABBAR-áp-kà li-qé
le.e. šu-ma En-nam-A-šùr i-ta-ṣa-am i-na u4-mì-im
ša ṭup-pì ta-ša-me-ú wa-ar-kà-sú KÙ.BABBAR
ša-ak-ší-dam li-bi4-i lá tù-lá-ma-an
1-2
3-8
2 talents 10 minas tin under seal, 13 minas hand tin, 13 textiles—wrappings and top-
pack—1 black donkey. The (wages) of the rider are satisfied. Aššur-taklāku transports all this to
you under my seal.
9-27
My dear brother, my friend, have I not already written you saying, “Take about 1
talent tin or 10 textiles from my inventory and do me a favor.” My dear brother, now that it is
338
time (for a) favor, do not overvalue every shekel against my tin and textiles. In addition to the
25 minas silver of Lulu, and the proceeds of my tin and textiles, add the silver and bring it in
your šēpum. My dear brother, in order that I not be ashamed at the gate of the city at your
arrival, collect every shekel of silver, that which is on terms and the proceeds of my tin and my
textiles, so that every shekel of silver at your arrival will enter my house to the benefit of your
reputation.
28-31
Of the 13 textiles, they should not recognize the dātum of 2 textiles. Aššur-taklāku
bears to you separately 1 heavy textile for travelling from Šāt-Aššur.
32-37
In addition to the silver, 30 minas of Aššur-ṭāb and the price of the textiles of Aššur-
mālik’s cargo, put up some 10 minas silver yourself and let your silver be disposed for one or
two months.
37-44
Dispatch Ennam-Aššur to me. Sell as much of the goods of Ennam-Aššur’s cargo as
you are able and take your silver. If Ennam-Aššur has left, on the day you read my tablet, cause
the silver to catch up to him. Do not make me angry.
Document 5.10 - VS 26 47 : Pūšu-kēn’s Calculated Reply51
1 a-na Šál-mì-ḫi-im qí-bi-ma um-ma

«um-ma» Pu-šu-ke-en6-ma 30 ma-na
ša A-šùr-DU10 ù Ú-ṣur-ša-A-šùr
i-ḫi-ib-lu-ni | 10 GÍN ki-ib-sà-tum
5 ⅓ ma-na KÙ.BABBAR i-na ra-mì-ni-a
ú-ra-dí-ma | 30 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR ku-nu-ki-a
ša-du-a-sú | ša-bu | Šu-Ištar
DUMU Da-da-nim | na-áš-a-kum52
ta-áš-pu-ra-am | um-ma a-ta-ma
10 a-ṣé-er KÙ.BABBAR | a-nim 10 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR
ra-dí-ma | ṣú-ḫa-ra-am53 | ṭur4-dam
51
Previous Treatments: Handcopy and comments in VS 26, 21.
52
Pūšu-kēn includes 10 shekels kibsātum and 20 shekels of his own silver in order to pay the shipping
charge of the 30 minas silver of Aššut-ṭāb and Uṣur-ša-Aššur. Normally the money for the shipping comes out of
the owner’s silver, as it did in the case of 2.4. In this case, it is clear that the 10 shekels labeled as kibsātum was
part of the expected 30 shekels silver shipping charge. Shipping charges are 1 shekel silver per mina of tin (1:60).
See M.T. Larsen, OACP, 159-61.
53
ṣuḫārum here refers to Ennam-Aššur, Šalim-aḫum’s son (5.9:37-38).
339
ší-im TÚG.ḪI.A | ù ší-im 50 ma-na AN.NA
a-na šé-ep Dan-A-šùr
KÙ.BABBAR 1 GÚ 20 ma-na54 ú-pá!-qá-ad55
15 a-na 2 u4-me | e-ra-ba-ma
lo.e. a-ṭá-ra-da-šu | ù té-er-ti
za-ku-tum | iš-tí-šu
rev. i-lá-kà-kum | AN.NA šu-ma
15 GÍN.TA | ú e-li-iš
20 ša 40 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR ša-a-ma
a-dí e-ra-ab | Dan-A-šùr
li-ni-dí-ma | a-ma-kam
lá i-sà-ḫu-ur | ṭur4-da-šu
ù a-na šé-pi-i-a | šu-ma lá
25 2-šé-na ṭup-pè-e-en | ša Lu-lu
ù A-šùr-na-da ù me-er-i-šu
mì-ma | ša-ni-um | ú-lá i-ba-ší
a-na me-er-i-kà | áš-pur-ma
um-ma a-na-ku-ma | iš-ti
30 KÙ.BABBAR a-nim a-lik | um-ma šu-ut-ma
a-na ší-ip-ri-a-ma
ki-ma | DUMU me-tí-im | ta-ta-wu
u.e. IGI 3 DUMU-e um-mì-a-ni
a-lá-kam | lá i-mu-a
35 mì-nam a-qá-bi4
le.e. a-ṣé-er | iš-tù 5 ITU.KAM
54
The value of šīm ṣubātī u šīm 50 mana annakim is not kaspam 1 bilat 20 mana but the 10 minas silver
previously asked for by Šalim-aḫum (5.9:9-13) and quoted immediately preceding this clause in ll. 9-11.
55
ú-pá!-qá-ad following VS 26, 21.
56
Translation of the last clause is conjecture. I translate aṣṣer ištu 5 warḫī i-Kuriya atanalluku (subjunctive
verb following aṣṣer) to reflect the similarity to the use of aṣṣer plus a nominal phrase, which is often meant to
convey “In addition to …”. i-Ku-ri-ya could alternatively be read i-ma-ri-a, to construe an interpretation in which
Pūšu-kēn had been running from(?) his son for five months. This reading is strained and unlikely. A spelling
reflecting the open syllable in mer’a would be expected (i.e. i-ma-ar-i-a), though forms parallel to this one do exist
(ATHE 21a:10 ma-ru, see GKT §28d). On the other hand, reading i-ku-ri-a (suggested by Lewy KVA) does not yield a
clearly plausible answer. A personal name I-ku-ri (kt 94/k 288:3, 16, 17) leaves I-ku-ri-a as a related hypochoristic
(or Pūšu-kēn refering to Ikuri as “my Ikuri”) without a clear grammatical role in the clause. Reading i-Ku-ri-a
yields a reasonable personal name (Kuriya: see OIP 27 55:37, kt 87/k 404:8, 89/k 257:9, kt a/k 624:3). Another
possibility could be i-Ku-<za>-ri-«a» (where za! was transposed with ri) who is mentioned in 5.11:4, 16.
340
i-Ku?-ri-a | a-ta-na-lu-ku56
1-2
To Šalim-aḫum; Pūsu-kēn:
2-8
The 30 minas (silver) which Aššur-ṭāb and Uṣur-ša-Aššur owe, 10 shekels deducted
amounts—I added ⅓ mina silver from my own funds and Šū-Ištar son of Dadānim bears to you
30 minas silver under my seal—its šaddu’utum is paid.
9-11
You sent word to me, “In addition to this silver, add 10 minas silver and dispatch the
boy (Ennam-Aššur) to me.”
12-18
(As for) the price of the textiles and the price of 50 minas tin, I will entrust about 1
talent 20 minas silver to Dān-Aššur’s transport. He will arrive in 2 days and I will dispatch him
to you. My complete report will come to you with him.
18-23
As for the tin, (only) if (the rate) is 15 shekels or higher, purchase 40 minas silver
worth (in such a way) that it is deposited until the arrival of Dān-Aššur so that he does not
delay there. Dispatch him to me.
24-27
Now, as for my šēpum, besides the two tablets of Lulu and Aššur-nādā and his son,
there is nothing else.
28-37
I sent word to your son, “Go with this silver!” He said to my messenger, “You speak
as though the son of a dead man.” In the presence of three ‘sons of investors’ (mer’ē
ummi’anim), he refused to go. What can I say? Not only have I been running from(?) Kuriya(?) for
the past five months … [second tablet expected]
Document 5.11 - CCT 2 1: Final Arrangements57
1 um-ma [Ša]-lim-a-ḫu-um-ma
ta-áš-pu-ra-am um-ma a-ta-ma
AN.NA ša šé-ep Ku-za-ri
5 ki-ma e-ru-ba-ni a-na
Pu-ru-uš-ḫa-tim uš-tè-bi4-il5-šu
a-na 5 u4-me a-na KÙ.BABBAR
a-da-ga-al i-na u4-mì-im
ša ṭup-pì ta-ša-me-ú
57
Previous treatments: G.R. Driver, "Studies in Cappadocian Tablets," RA 24, no. 4 (1927): Nr. 10; van der
Meer, Correspondance, Nr. 15.
341
10 ša 45 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR
AN.NA a-na ba-ri-ni
ša-a-ma KÙ.BABBAR-áp-kà
li-be-i-el AN.NA
áš-a-ma Puzur4-A-šùr
15 i-ra-de8-a-ku-nu-tí
lo.e. a-ṣé-er KÙ.BABBAR ša šé-ep
Ku-za-ri ù ša DUMU A-šùr-i-dí
rev. ša ta-qí-pá-ni
i-pá-nim-ma wa-ṣí-e-em
20 šé-bi-lá-nim i-na ṭup-pì-kà
ki-ma Dan-A-šùr e-ru-ba-ni
a-na-ku-ma a-na Pu-ru-uš-ḫa-tim
šé-pì-a a-da-an-ma
lu-qú-tám lu i-a-tám! lu ku-a-tám
25 u-za-kà-ma i-šé-pì-a ú-ba-lá-kum
e-zi-ib ša ba-ri-ni
AN.NA ù TÚG.ḪI.A lu ša šé-ep
Dan-A-šùr lu ša šé-ep
Ku-lu-ma-a ú I-dí-Sú-en6 i-šé-pì-kà
30 a-ḫi a-ta K[Ù.BAB]BAR
mì-ma lá té-zi-ba-am
ma-lá i-na ba-áb
u.e. a-bu-lim lá a-ba-šu
lu šu-um-kà | qá?-tí ki-ma
35 pá-[ni-a-tí]-ma a-É
le.e. kà-ri-im i-ta-dí-a-ma i-na
ni-kà-sí mì-ma lá a-na-pá-al
1-2
3-13
You wrote to me, “I sent the tin of the Kuzari’s cargo to Purusḫattum when he
arrived. I expect the silver in five days. On the day you read this tablet, purchase 45 minas
silver worth of tin for our common property and let your silver be thus disposed.”
342
13-20
I purchased the tin and Puzur-Aššur transports it to you (pl.). In addition to the
silver from Kuzari’s transport, send me (the silver) which Aššur-iddi(n)’s son owed which you
extended as credit, with the first messenger.
20-25
In your tablet: “When Dan-Aššur arrives I will set off to Purušḫattum myself and I
will clear the goods, both mine and yours, and bring (the proceeds) to you in my cargo.”
26-37
Apart from the goods between us and the tin and textiles of Dan-Aššur’s cargo and
Kulumaya’s and Iddin-Suen’s cargo, my dear brother, you did not leave for me any silver in
your cargo. So that I will not be shamed at the city gate, and in consideration of your
reputation, make deposits to my account as soon as possible to the colony office, so that I will
not have to balance anything at accounting time.
As in the case of Dān-Aššur’s travels, the discussion here focuses on the details of the
reconstruction while a more extended discussion of the meaning of these events will be taken
up in the section below, “Principal and Agent.” The chronological order of 5.8-5.11 is
identical to their order of presentation here, and the chronological development of the joint
venture can be separated into three stages: (1) Šalim-aḫum’s initial offer, and accompanying
documentation (5.8 and fig. 14); (2) a negotiation as Šalim-aḫum again tried to get Pūšu-kēn to
enter the joint venture and Pūšu-kēn conceded with some conditions (5.9 and 5.10); (3) the
gradual execution of the venture (4.6 and 5.11). Some connections between these documents
have been posited previously. The original editors of 5.8 insightfully noted that the 13⅓ minas
tin was one-third of the forty minas requested by Šalim-aḫum also seen in 5.10:18-23,
proposing the connection between these documents.58 Likewise, Veenhof proposed that 5.10
was clearly the response to 5.9:59 Pūšu-kēn quoted sections of Šalim-aḫum’s letter in his
response (5.9:35-38 quoted in 5.10:9-11) and responded in one way or another to every point
58
Edzard and Hecker, "Ein Brief aus der altassyrischen Korrespondenz Šallim-aḫum/Pūšu-kēn," 86-88.
59
K.R. Veenhof, VS 26, 21.
343
raised in 5.9. Veenhof also pointed out in his notes on 5.9 that both Šalim-aḫum’s shame and
Pūšu-kēn’s reputation are issues raised by both VS 26 5 and 5.11.60
The variable amounts of silver promised and delivered through the joint venture do not
invalidate the reconstruction of this process. Šalim-aḫum initially requested 13⅓ minas silver
from Pūšu-kēn which would constitute one third of a 40 mina purchase (5.8:3-19, 5.9). But
later Šalim-aḫum only asked for about 10 minas silver (5.9: 35-37). Pūšu-kēn then sent 12½
minas silver, which he saw as part of a 45 mina silver fund (5.11:8-13), reducing his portion
from a one-third closer to a one-quarter share. These differing amounts are part of the
negotiation of the arrangement. Šalim-aḫum’s request for “about 10 minas” is consistent with
Šalim-aḫum’s practice of rounding numbers in other commincations (Chapter Two: “Šalim-
aḫum’s Imprecisions”).
60
Ibid., 22.
344
Figure 16 Chronological Development of the Joint Venture

D
REL 80 III
R 80 XII
Ilabrat-bāni’s goods
Kanesh Dān-Aššur
A
5.88
P u
2 .2
z
5.10
Dān-
Pūšu
Pūšu
u r
A
Passes
-
š
I
š
Išš
-kēn
-kēn
Pūšu-kēn
ture
ur, Il
sen
en
d
t -ven
ns
n
tar exitts
5.5
i
ī-ālu
-Su
o
345
m
: “Buy tin
anio
!”
ilver
5.9
K
r, Šū
w/ j
š u
omp
ur
š
lāku
contract
urub
A
for jo
i n
r&c
t
r-Ašš
r-tak
a
-Išta
Dān-
u
r
š š
vent
r-Išt
Puzu
ū
ure
5.3
2.1 N
4.5
5.11
Key
Shipment Packet
Šalim-aḫum’s first offer to Pūšu-kēn (5.8) was written in the second half of May. The
only chronological reference in 5.8 is inferred from the fact that Pūšu-kēn would be able to
‘take his silver’ when Dān-Aššur arrived in Kanesh, rendering Dān-Aššur’s arrival a terminus
ante quem for when 5.8 reached Pūšu-kēn. There are two different points in the documentation
when Dān-Aššur arrived in Kanesh in REL 80: first in mid-June when he came from Aššur, and
second at the end of July when he was expected back at Kanesh from travels to other points in
Anatolia before he was to head back to Aššur again. 5.8 must come from Dān-Aššur’s first
arrival in Kanesh because his second arrival in Kanesh is discussed in 5.9 and between the two
there had clearly been developments in the situation.
Pūšu-kēn received 5.9 and responded with 5.10 during the last week of July. In 5.10
Pūšu-kēn reported that Dān-Aššur was to arrive in Kanesh from points elsewhere in Anatolia
within two days and that he would then send Dān-Aššur back to Aššur with at least 1 talent 20
minas silver, part of which was Lulu’s debt of ‘25’ minas (5.10:12-18). Pūšu-kēn actually sent at
the beginning of August 1 talent 34 minas 23½ shekels silver with Dān-Aššur, Ilī-ālum, and
Kurub-Ištar, part of which was Lulu’s debt of 27 minas 28 shekels (2.4:24-30). At this time,
Pūšu-kēn also sent 30 minas collected from Aššur-ṭāb and Uṣṣur-ša-Aššur (5.10:2-8, attributed
to Aššur-ṭāb only in 5.9:32-37). This revenue does not stem from the original venture but from
some other arrangement.
Šalim-aḫum’s notification to Pūšu-kēn that he had sent the tin for the joint venture
(5.11) was written in late September. Šalim-aḫum sent the shipment of the joint venture tin,
which 5.11 announced, with Puzur-Aššur, who had recently been to Amurrum to seize Ilabrat-
bāni’s goods, returning after the middle of September (4.5). It was after this point that Puzur-
346
Aššur left, the less time remained for Pūšu-kēn to return to Aššur at the end of the season. That
Pūšu-kēn would return to Aššur at the end of the season was expected by Šalim-aḫum (5.9:16-
20)
According to Šalim-aḫum’s first offer (5.8), Šalim-aḫum wished Pūšu-kēn to contribute
a third portion of 40 minas silver (i.e. 13⅓ minas silver) to purchase his share of tin (5.8:3-8). If
Pūšu-kēn should accept, Šalim-aḫum offered to make purchases for Pūšu-kēn in Aššur (5.8:9-
12). When Dān-Aššur arrived in Kanesh, Pūšu-kēn would have the opportunity to acquire silver
from transactions he performed for Šalim-aḫum before sending the remainder of Šalim-
aḫum’s own silver to Aššur (5.8:13-19). Šalim-aḫum’s offer in 5.8 for Pūšu-kēn to recoup his
money when Dān-Aššur arrived referred to enabling Pūšu-kēn to raise cash to participate in
the venture. Šalim-aḫum was not suggesting that Pūšu-kēn would recoup his money from the
joint venture when Dān-Aššur arrived later, taking his share before Šalim-aḫum received his.
Finally, Šalim-aḫum stated his opinion that some unidentified party (‘they’) should not travel
overland nor sell any tin until Dān-Aššur arrived, but let the inventory ‘go’ (remain) in order to
make a marginal profit (5.8:19-28).
Some of Šalim-aḫum’s directions in 5.8 seem either contradictory or deceptively
elaborate accounting. Despite the fact that Šalim-aḫum seemed concerned about his revenues
as they were observed coming back to Aššur, he nonetheless offered to make purchases for
Pūšu-kēn during the period of the arrangement. Thus, it would seem that cash flow was not a
problem for Šalim-aḫum; this suggests that he would not have needed Pūšu-kēn’s silver to
acquire tin at a better rate in bulk. On the other hand, if Šalim-aḫum were to be a buying agent
as a special service, then it would imply that Šalim-aḫum did not normally provide this service
to Pūšu-kēn. The same concern goes for Šalim-aḫum’s apparent offer to Pūšu-kēn to take some
347
of Šalim-aḫum’s revenues, perhaps to allow Pūšu-kēn to participate in the joint venture
(5.8:13-19).
The 10 minas silver which Šalim-aḫum asked Pūšu-kēn to contribute to the joint
venture is separate from the silver Šalim-aḫum hoped Pūšu-kēn would pay him should the
latter do him a favor and purchase 10 textiles or 50 minas tin (5.9:9-20, 5.10:13-14). Šalim-
aḫum asked that favor as a simple purchase, whereas the 10 minas he discussed later in the
letter was in relation to the joint venture. Šalim-aḫum asked Pūšu-kēn to include roughly 10
minas of the Pūšu-kēn’s own silver for investment (kaspaka 1 waraḫ u šēna libbe’el) when he
sent—preferrably with Ennam-Aššur—the 30 minas silver owed by Aššur-ṭāb as well as the
silver gained from Aššur-mālik’s textiles (5.9:35-37, 5.10:9-11). As in mid-May (5.8), in mid-
July Šalim-aḫum again offered Pūšu-kēn opportunites to raise the silver from Šalim-aḫum’s
own commercial operations, suggesting that Pūšu-kēn could raise silver by selling goods that
Ennam-Aššur had brought to Kanesh (5.9:37-44).61
Šalim-aḫum’s concerns suggest that one of the times for balancing accounts at the
kārum in Kanesh was near the end of the shipping season. At least part of Šalim-aḫum’s
concern about being ashamed at the city gate was related to the time of balancing accounts. He
told Pūšu-kēn to ensure that certain goods were deposited in the kārum office to avoid his
embarrassment (5.11:26-37). Perhaps accounting time in the kārum at Kanesh was performed
just before the last caravans left Kanesh, so that an omission in this regard would become news
back at Aššur’s city gate, where so many of Šalim-aḫum’s concerns seemed centered.
61
Why this merchandise was still available approximately two months after Ennam-Aššur had arrived in
Anatolia is unknown.
348
It is important to note that Pūšu-kēn began and ended his shipping season during
REL 80 in Aššur, as evident in the Puzur-Ištar affair and the joint venture, and that this time
span of eight months included the activity reconstructed in this work. Šalim-aḫum discussed
arrangements with Pūšu-kēn in person before the season began, confirming that Pūšu-kēn had
been in Aššur at the beginning of the season. In 5.9:32-37, when Šalim-aḫum again asked Pūšu-
kēn to participate in the joint venture, he said, “Put up 10 minas and let your silver be disposed
for one or two months.” The length one or two months was fairly common, but given the fact
that Šalim-aḫum seemed to need the silver in short order and the fact that in a later letter he
referenced Pūšu-kēn coming back to Aššur in the near future (5.11), the joint venture was
clearly meant to have preceded the winter. In Pūšu-kēn’s response to 5.9 (5.10), Pūšu-kēn
expressed frustration about scrambling around for five months. If this reference was tied to his
departure from Aššur, then it matches the fact that he had left in mid-March and it was now
the end of July. Pūšu-kēn was still in Kanesh two months later, but at that point the
merchandise of the joint venture was about to leave Aššur. Even at that late point in mid-
September, Šalim-aḫum still expected Pūšu-kēn to return to Aššur at the end of the season.62
62
The sequence above transpired over the course of the shipping season during REL 80. Nūr-Ištar’s one
way trip to Kanesh with the original venture, followed by Dān-Ašsur’s trip to Kanesh, followed by the nabrītum,
then Dān-Aššur’s trip back to Aššur, followed by the excursion to Amurrum, followed by Puzur-Aššur’s trip to
Kanesh with the tin for the joint venture, followed by Pūšu-kēn’s return journey, made a total of five round trips
in addition to the time of the nabrītum and the round trip to Amurrum (which probably travelled faster than bulk
transport). This progression supports the pace of transport argued in Chapter Three.
349
Table 16: Summary Table of Events in the Joint Venture
JV1 Šalim-aḫum sends Pūšu-kēn a letter requesting that Pūšu-kēn send 13⅓ minas silver
to Šalim-aḫum. If Pūšu-kēn does so, Šalim-aḫum will add double the amount and
while the goods which will be purchased with these funds travel to Anatolia, Šalim-
aḫum will make any purchases which Pūšu-kēn will request. Šalim-aḫum offers that
Pūšu-kēn can ‘take his silver’ when Dān-Aššur arrives. Šalim-aḫum recommends that
sales are not made until Dān-Aššur arrives and in so doing perhaps a marginal profit
will be made (5.8).
JV2 Aššur-taklāku takes a donkey-load of tin to Kanesh for Šalim-aḫum (5.8:3-8).
JV3 At Aššur-taklāku’s departure, Šalim-aḫum writes to Pūšu-kēn about the amounts

being brought and notes that the dātum should not be imposed on the 13 textiles,
and that Aššur-taklāku is bringing a textile for Šāt-Aššur (5.9:3-8, 28-31).
Šalim-aḫum reminds Pūšu-kēn that he has asked him to buy a talent of tin or 10
textiles, and thus do him a favor. He requests that Pūšu-kēn not be stingy with the
price. He then asks him to add that silver to the 25 minas owed by Lulu s. Zukuḫum,
and the proceeds of his tin and textiles, and bring it with him (Pūšu-kēn). He
includes in the possible silver to be collected 30 minas silver of Aššur-ṭāb and the
silver that will arise from the sale of Aššur-mālik’s cargo (5.9).
A  He encourages Pūšu-kēn to put up about 10 minas of his own silver to be
disposed for 1 or 2 months (5.9:34-37).
B  He associates Pūšu-kēn bringing this silver with him with preventing him from
being ashamed at the gate, thus urging Pūšu-kēn to bring every shekel of silver
available (5.9:20-27).
C  He asks Pūšu-kēn to send Ennam-Aššur home. Pūšu-kēn is to sell Ennam-Aššur’s
goods. If Ennam-Aššur has already left, send the silver after him (5.9:37-44).
JV4 Pūšu-kēn collects 30 minas from Aššur-ṭāb and Uṣur-ša-Aššur and sends 30 minas
silver with Šū-Ištar s. Dadanim. Pūšu-kēn paid 20 shekels silver of the shipping
charges himself (5.10:2-8).
JV5 Pūšu-kēn directs Ennam-Aššur to leave with the 30 minas silver, but Ennam-Aššur
refuses in the presence of witnesses, treating Pūšu-kēn’s directions lightly (5.10:28-
34).
350
Table 16: Summary Table of Events in the Joint Venture, continued
JV6 Pūšu-kēn writes to Šalim-aḫum reporting his dispatch of 30 minas silver (5.10:2-8).
Pūšu-kēn responds to 5.9 and the request for 10 minas silver and to send Ennam-
Aššur home. Instead of purchasing about a talent of tin or some textiles, Pūšu-kēn
writes that he will give about 1 talent 20 minas silver to Dān-Aššur when he comes
back to Kanesh in 2 days and a complete report will come with him then (5.10:9-18).
Pūšu-kēn states that Šalim-aḫum should only purchase (their joint) tin if the price is
better than 15 shekels and tells him to purchase 40 minas silver so that Dān-Aššur
can bring it back to Aššur immediately (5.10:18-23).
Pūšu-kēn asserts that only the tablets of Lulu and Aššur-nādā remain for Šalim-aḫum
in Pūšu-kēn’s šēpum (5.10:24-27).
Pūšu-kēn reports on his encounter with Ennam-Aššur, complaining to Šalim-aḫum
about running around (5.10:28-37).
JV7 Dān-Aššur arrives in Kanesh two days after Pūšu-kēn writes 5.10 and Pūšu-kēn
sends with him about a talent of silver (assumed).
JV8 Kuzari arrives in Kanesh with goods owned by Šalim-aḫum, which Pūšu-kēn sends
off to Purušḫattum (5.11:3-13).
JV9 Pūšu-kēn writes to Šalim-aḫum and reports on sending some assets from Kuzari’s
cargo to Purušḫattum (perhaps with Kuzari). Pūšu-kēn expects the silver to return in
five days and instructs Šalim-aḫum to purchase tin with 45 minas of silver for their
joint venture. He states that when Dān-Aššur arrives (persumably with the joint
purchase of tin) then he, Pūšu-kēn, will set off for Purušḫattum himself, and bring
those proceeds in his cargo (5.11:3-13, 20-25).
JV10 Šalim-aḫum purchases the tin as directed by Pūšu-kēn and sends it to Kanesh with
Puzur-Aššur (5.11:13-15).
351
Table 16: Summary Table of Events in the Joint Venture, continued
JV11 Šalim-aḫum responds to Pūšu-kēn’s letter reporting that he purchased the tin and
that Puzur-Aššur is bringing it to Kanesh. Šalim-aḫum asks that Pūšu-kēn send the
silver arising from the goods with Kuzari that went to Purušḫattum, along with
silver that Aššur-iddi(n) owes immediately (5.11:13-20).
Šalim-aḫum expresses concern that apart from the joint venture goods, the goods
from Dān-Aššur’s cargo, and Kulumaya’s and Iddi(n)-Suen’s cargo, Pūšu-kēn will not
have much silver to bring back in his cargo. He associates this with possible shame at
the city gate of Aššur, and in connection with that concern directs Pūšu-kēn to
ensure that deposits are made in his account at the colony office so that he will not
have to balance anything at accounting time (5.11:26-37).
Šalim-aḫum Helps Pūšu-kēn Buy a House
Despite his pleas that Pūšu-kēn participate in a joint venture with him, suggesting that
he needed funds, Šalim-aḫum was still able to help Pūšu-kēn close on a house in Aššur by
providing ten minas of silver on his behalf and in Pūšu-kēn’s absence. When Šalim-aḫum wrote
Pūšu-kēn in the second half of May, at roughly the same time he wanted Pūšu-kēn to consider
the joint venture, he reported on the progress he and others were making in helping Pūšu-kēn
finish the process of buying a house in Aššur (3.3:3-18). Šalim-aḫum related that the sellers
were asking too much, and so he had advised the rest of group representing Pūšu-kēn that
they should wait, assuring them that the sellers would soon lower their price. He also assured
Pūšu-kēn that when the time came, he would use his own silver to finish the transaction.
Likely also in May, Šū-Ḫubur also wrote Pūšu-kēn to assure him that he would take care of the
matter of buying the house (5.14). The two parties, Šalim-aḫum on the one hand and Šū-
352
Ḫubur on the other, did not coordinate their strategies well. Sometime later, Šalim-aḫum
wrote to Pūšu-kēn in company with Aššur-imittī (5.12). In that letter, Šalim-aḫum again
asserted that his strategy had been to wait out the sellers; however, he reported that Pūšu-
kēn’s other representatives Šū-Ḫubur and Šalim-Aššur had purchased the house for 16 minas
silver without consulting with him or Aššur-imittī. Šalim-aḫum assured Pūšu-kēn that
although Šū-Ḫubur and Šalim-Aššur had intended to borrow the 16 minas silver, Šalim-aḫum
had paid 10 minas silver out of his own pocket (perhaps the amount at which he was hoping
the sellers would settle). Though the sale must have concluded sometime after mid-May, there
are few temporal markers within 5.12 to indicate how long after May it happened; although it
likely happened not too long after Šalim-aḫum had written the previous letter. Later, Šalim-
aḫum asked Pūšu-kēn to repay the ten minas silver he paid for the house, though the text of
the document is largely broken (5.13).
Document 5.12 - TTC 6: Purchasing the House I63
1 um-ma A-šùr-i-mì-tí-ma
ù Ša-lim-a-ḫu-um-ma
a-šu-mì bé-tí ša En-na-nim
5 ša ta-áš-pu-ra-ni
um-ma a-ta-ma bé-tí ša-ma-nim
a-na bé-tí KÙ.BABBAR ma-dam
e-ri-šu-ni-a-tí-ma
um-ma né-nu-ma a-ḫa-iš!
63
Previous treatments: Michel, RA 80 (1986), 109-111; J. Lewy, Studien zu den altassyrischen Texten aus
Kappadokien (Berlin: J. Lewy, 1922), No. 3 (pp. 76-77); J. Lewy, "The Old Assyrian Surface Measure šubtum," AnBi 12
(1959): 217; van der Meer, Correspondance, No. 31. Veenhof, AOATT, 454.
353
10 lu ni-dí-ma KÙ.BABBAR 1 ma-na
lo.e. ⌈lu⌉ nu-ša-pí-lá-am
Ša-lim-A-šùr ú Šu-Ḫu-bur
rev. ba-lúm ša-a-li-ni bé-tí64
a-na 16 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR
15 iš-ú-mu-ni-kum
ù iš-ta-áp-ru-ni-kum
um-ma šu-nu-ma KÙ.BABBAR a-na ṣí-ib-tim
ni-il5-qé-a-kum KÙ.BABBAR
mì-ma a-na ṣí-ib-tim
20 ú-lá ni-il5-qé-a-kum
10 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR a-na ší-mì-im
bé-tí Ša-lim-a-ḫu-um i-na
ra-mì-ni-šu iš-qúl
i-ḫi-id-ma KÙ.BABBAR
25 ša Ša-lim-a-ḫi-im
u.e. šé-bi-lam!
ù 6 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR ta-áš-bi-tám
le.e. šé-bi-lam um-ma A-šùr-i-mì-tí KÙ.BABBAR-kà
a-na Ḫu-ra-ṣa-nim a-dí-in-ma KÙ.BABBAR65
30 lá-šu-ma ú-lá áš-qúl li-ba-am [lá]
i-[ma-ra-aṣ]
1-3
Aššur-imittī and Šalim-aḫum to Pūšu-kēn:
4-28
With regards to the houses of Ennanum about which you sent word to us, “Buy the
houses for me.” They requested much silver from us for the houses and we said, “Let’s
disregard (them) together so that we can deflate the price a mina or so.”66 Šalim-Aššur and Šū-
64
Placed in this line according to the handcopy.
65
According to the handcopy.
66
Michel’s collation of a ‘lu’ at the beginning of l. 11 suggests an improved reading over Michel and
Veenhof (AOATT p.454). My translation assumes that the group of (at least) Aššur-imittī, Šalim-aḫum, Šalim-Aššur
and Šū-Ḫubur are responding to the sellers who have asked for (too) much money, saying “we will pay” but then
moving out of reported speech to tell Pūšu-kēn that they had negotiated the price down. However, the two
phrases are both reported speech, the speakers are counseling amongst themselves. Read ni-di-ma and niddī-ma
rather than from nadānum, for the sense to disregard a person for nadā’um, see CAD nadû v. mng. 1c-6’. In this way,
the actions of Šalim-Aššur and Šū-Ḫubur are represented as a significant departure from plans made as a group.
354
Ḫubur—without asking us—purchased the houses for you for 16 minas silver. Now, they have
sent word to you, “We borrowed silver for you.” We didn’t borrow any silver on your behalf.
Šalim-aḫum paid 10 minas of his own silver towards the price of the houses. Take care and
send Šalim-aḫum’s silver. And send the 6 minas silver, the balance.
28-34
From Aššur-imittī: I gave your silver to Ḫuraṣānum, but there is no silver, did I not
pay it? Do not anger me.
The following text is very fragmentary, but most likely came from this point in time.
Document 5.13 - BIN 6 87: Purchasing the House II67
1 [um-ma] Ša-lim-a-ḫ[u-um-ma]
[a-na] Pu-šu-ke-en6
[qí]-bi-ma a-dí šé-ni-[šu]
⌈É⌉-tí Šu-Ḫu-bu-ur
5 [i]-ṣí-bi-it ki-ša?
[K]Ù.BABBAR i-pu-uz-ri-[im]
[x]-ma a-ṣé-ri-a
[t]ù-šé-bi-lam a-ḫi a-ta
[K]Ù.BABBAR ša a-na
10 É-bé-tí | áš-qú-lu
[K]Ù.BABBAR-pì a-na É-bé-tí
[š]é-bi-lam a-na
[x]-x-e É ma-ma-a[n]
(Remainder broken)
1-3
3-13
The house of Šū-Ḫubur has been seized for the second time. ... silver secretly ... You
sent to me. My dear brother. The silver which I paid for the house, send my silver for the
house. For ... house ... someone ...
In the following document, only lines 3-15 are pertinent to Pūšu-kēn’s house purchase.
67
I am not aware of any previous treatments of this text.
355
Document 5.14 - Schaeffer 22: Purchasing the House III68
1 um-ma Šu-Ḫu-bu-ur-ma | a-na

Pu-šu-ke-en6 | qí-bi-ma
É-tám ša ṭé-ḫi-kà ša É DINGIR-ma-lik
i-du-nu | um-ma né-nu-ma
5 qá-ab-li-tám | nu-ra
a-na-ku a-ni-ša-am ú-ṣa-am-ma
É-bé-tám ú-lá ta-dí-in |
wa-ar-ki-a | ša ki-ma ku-a-tí
ù ša ki-ma | i-a-tí ú-na-ḫi-du-ma
10 É-bé-tám i-lá-qé-ú-ni-kum
šu-ma | a-dí | a!-lu-ku-ni | É-bé-tám
ša ki-ma ku-a-tí ù i-a-tí a-dí-ni
lá lá!-qé-ú MU.1 i-na a!-[lá]-ki-a
lo.e. a-na-ku a-lá-qé-a-kum | ú-la
15 e-zi-ib-šu-nu | a-šu-mì
1 GÚ AN.NA ša i-na
Ḫa-ḫi-im | a-na Lá-li-im
rev. A-šùr-ma-lik ù Ir-ma-A-šùr
ip-qí-du-ú-ni | a-na-kam
20 a-šu-mì AN.NA a-nim | [É] Lá-li-im
aṣ!-ba-at-ma69 | um-[m]a šu-nu-ma
ší-bi-kà ri-[d]am a-p[u-tu]m
a-ma-kam | A-šùr-ma-lik
ù Ir?-ma-A-šùr [š]í-[b]i-šu-nu
25 ša i-nu-mì AN.N[A a]-na
Lá-li-im | i-d[í]-nu-ni
lu-da-ni-nu-ma70 ù [KÙ].BABBAR 10 ma-na
68
Previous Treatments: P. Garelli, "Tablettes Cappadociennes de collections diverses," RA 58 (1964): 124-
28. Garelli there proposes that 3.3, 5.12, TC 2 11, and VS 26 8, and VS 26 65 are all part of the same situation
connected to the Lalum affair in the Šu-Ḫubur letters. I agree with these connections, but the Lalum affair is not
pursued here because the focus in this work is on Šalim-aḫum.
69
aṣbat for iṣbat see Garelli, RA 58, 28. The situation amounts to Šū-Ḫubur having had an anmount of tin
entrusted to Lalum, but now having to claim it because Lalu has passed away. Aššur-māḹik are to confirm the
testimony that Lalum was responsible for the tin when he passed so that Šū-Ḫubur can claim it from his estate.
356
i-ba-ab-t[í]-a a-ma-k[a]m ma-mì-tù
li-iṣ-bu-tù-ma | a-ni-ša-[a]m
30 la ta-na-dí-a-nim KÙ.[BABBAR] ku-un-kà-ma
šé-bi-lá-nim šu-ma ša ki-ma
Lá-li-im | i-ba-ší
u.e. a-wi-li | ša-ḫi-sú-nu-ma
KÙ.BABBAR li-il5-qé-ú-ni!-ma
35 ù [m]a-la a-na Ḫa-wi-li-a
a-dí-in ⅓ ma-na KÙ.BABBAR
le.e. a-na Ša-sá-ra-[r]a? a-dí-in 10 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR
ù 2 ma-na AN.NA! a-na DUMU Ù-ra?-a mì-ma a-n[i]m
a-šu-mì kà-ri-im ú-ša-qí-il5 a!-ma-kam
40 kà-ra-am KÙ.BABBAR e!-ri-iš-ma šé-bi-lam
1-2
Šū-Ḫubur to Pūšu-kēn:
3-15
(Concerning) the house next to yours which the estate of Ilī-mālik sold, we said, “We
will move the qablītum.” As for me, I went to this place but he would not sell the house.
Afterwards, I gave instructions to your representatives and my representatives that they
should buy the house for you. If your representatives and my representatives have not
purchased the house before my arrival, within a year, I will buy it for you at my arrival. I will
not leave it to them.
16-26
Concerning the talent of tin which Aššur-mālik and Irma-Aššur entrusted to Lalum
in Ḫaḫḫum, here, I seized the house of Lalum on account of this tin, and they said, “Arraign
your witnesses.” Urgent! There let Aššur-mālik and Irma-Aššur document their testimonies
concerning when they gave Lalum the tin so that the oaths may seize the roughly 10 minas
silver of my outstanding claims. Seal and send the silver to me.
31-36
If Lalum’s representatives are there, may the men clear them of their obligations so
that they give me the silver so that I can accordingly give it to Hawilia.
70
šibīšunu ša inūmi ammakam ana Lalim iddinūni ludanninū-ma -- elsewhere translated “making witnesses
strong,” see T. Hertel, "Old Assyrian Legal Practices: An Anthropological Perspective on Legal Disputes in the
Ancient Near East" (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Copenhagen, 2007), 110 n. 301. This phrase referred to a
procedure of stating testimony before the divine image, often the dagger of Aššur. The testimonies were recorded
on tablets.
357
36-41
I gave ⅓ minas silver to Šasarara. 10 shekels silver and 2 minas tin the son of Ura, all
this I weighed out to the colony office. There ask the colony office for (my) silver and send it to
me.
5.12 – 5.14 refer to the same process discussed in 3.3:3-18 in which Šalim-aḫum’s
strategy had been to wait until the sellers lowered their price. 71 5.13 is fragmentary, but most
likely stems from this situation because Šalim-aḫum had paid some silver for the house on
behalf of Pūšu-kēn and wanted Pūšu-kēn to send the silver. 5.14 likely comes from the same
context communicated in 5.12 in which Šū-Ḫubur had gone ahead and purchased the house
without consenting with Šalim-aḫum. In 5.14 Šalim-aḫum had committed to ‘moving the
qablītum’72 and was working to ensure the house would be purchased for Pūšu-kēn.
The lack of coordination between Šalim-aḫum and Aššur-imittī on the one hand and
Šū-Ḫubur and Šalim-Aššur on the other is an indication of the shape of Pūšu-kēn’s own social
and commercial network, as well as the relationship between Ennam-Aššur and his future in-
laws. Pūšu-kēn’s representation was divided between the two groups for purchasing the house.
On the one side Šū-Ḫubur assured Pūšu-kēn that he would use his own representatives to
pursue Pūšu-kēn’s needs while Šū-Ḫubur was absent from Aššur (5.14:3-15). On the other side,
Šalim-aḫum was heavily involved with the purchase, both advising on the timing and willing
to involve his own money. Yet, Šū-Ḫubur’s impatience to close the deal outran Šalim-aḫum’s
patience, and Šū-Ḫubur proceeded without coordination with Šalim-aḫum. To some extent,
this mirrored the efforts being made to get Ennam-Aššur home during the year. Both were
using Pūšu-kēn to encourage Ennam-Aššur, but doing so in independent and parallel efforts.
71
BIN 6 100 and I 679 also deal with house purchases for Pūšu-kēn. Pūšu-kēn evidently purchased, or at
least tried to purchase several homes in Aššur. However, these other letters cannot be fixed to REL 80.
72
See Chapter 3, p.149 n. 19 for qablītum.
358
The house or houses (plural in 5.12:4, 13, 23) Pūšu-kēn was trying to purchase belonged
to Ennānum and was or were apparently next to Pūšu-kēn’s house and Ilī-mālik’s house,
though our slight knowledge of Aššur in this period and the incomplete description of the
location of the house gives no real sense of the physical arrangement of the houses. But the
fact that it was next door suggests that Pūšu-kēn was trying to increase the size of his own
house. The plural of the term ‘house’ in 5.12 likely refers to rooms or portions of the house
rather than multiple houses; it has been proposed that this represented 105 square meters
(from the 3 šubtum mentioned in TC 2 2 (3.3).73 The importance of this episode lies in the
complexity of overlapping representatives looking out for Pūšu-kēn’s interests and also in
Šalim-aḫum’s loan for Pūšu-kēn while simultaneously asking him to contribute to the joint
venture. The value of Šalim-aḫum’s generosity for Šalim-aḫum himself will be discussed below.
73
See C. Michel, “Proprietes immobilières dans les tablettes paléo-Assyriennes.” In Houses and Households
in Ancient Mesopotamia (CRRAI 40), ed. K.R. Veenhof, (Leiden: 1996) 285-300. Pūšu-kēn also apparently had letters
from Lammasātum about purchasing a house, but with the multiple houses that Pūšu-kēn seemed to be involved
in buying it is uncertain as to whether that letter (MAH 16209, Garelli, RA 59, 159-160), derives from the same
circumstances as the present.
359
Table 17: Summary Table of Events from the Purchasing Houses Episode
PH1 Pūšu-kēn directs Aššur-imittī, Šalim-aḫum, Šalim-Aššur, and Šū-Ḫubur to buy the
house of Ennānum for him (5.12:4-7).
PH2 The sellers ask a high price; Pūšu-kēn’s erstwhile agents decide to wait (5.12:7-11).
PH3 Šalim-Aššur and Šū-Ḫubur break ranks and decide to purchase the house without
consulting Aššur-imittī and Šalim-aḫum. They pay 16 minas silver and report to
Pūšu-kēn that they borrowed (10?) minas silver in order to pay the price (5.12:12-
18).
PH4 Aššur-imittī and Šalim-aḫum write Pūšu-kēn to inform him that they did not borrow
any money, that Šalim-aḫum paid the 10 minas silver out of his own pocket, and
direct Pūšu-kēn to send the 10 minas silver for Šalim-aḫum, and also the remaining 6
minas silver for the balance of the house price (which presumably Ennānum is still
waiting for) (5.12).
A Aššur-imittī writes that he gave Pūšu-kēn’s silver to Ḫuraṣānum, but (now?)
there is no silver. He asserts that he paid it, but that Pūšu-kēn has (perhaps not
remitted him and thus) angered him (5.12:28-34).
PH5 Šalim-aḫum possibly sends another letter telling Pūšu-kēn to send him the money
which he had paid for the house (5.13),
PH6 Šū-Ḫubur writes to Pūšu-kēn about his efforts to purchase the house which the
estate of Ilī-mālik sold. Šū-Ḫubur committed to purchasing the house by promising
to move the qablītum, but the representatives would not sell the house. However, he
promised that if his representatives had not purchased while he was away he would
do so as soon as he returned to Aššur (5.14).
A Šū-Ḫubur relates a number of incidents important to his dealings with Pūšu-kēn
but irrelevant to this particular study (5.14).
360
Getting Interpersonal
The value of the four episodes reviewed above lies in the interaction between Šalim-
aḫum and his sons and representative Pūšu-kēn. Within the context of Šalim-aḫum’s activities
reconstructed in REL 80, these interpersonal interactions, focused on both family matters and
commercial matters, communicate something of the mental schemas about personal liability
and autonomy, as well as the moves which actors like Šalim-aḫum, Dān-Aššur, Ennam-Aššur,
and Pūšu-kēn made as they negotiated the inevitable situations wherein their own interests
occasionally conflicted with those with whom they cooperated and had permanent
associations. This second half of the chapter is divided into three sections.
Father and Sons: Šalim-aḫum, Ennam-Aššur and Dān-Aššur
If the family firm applied to Šalim-aḫum’s operation in the trade in REL 80, then its
analysis must begin with his use of his two sons during this year. Šalim-aḫum clearly intended
that both his sons did work on his behalf. His constant communication with Pūšu-kēn often
included notes about his intended movements for his two sons. Both sons hauled cargo owned
by their father, Ennam-Aššur bringing goods early in the season, which were put at Pūšu-kēn’s
disposal (5.7), and Dān-Aššur bringing merchandise in mid-June, part of which was sold to
Ilabrat-bāni (3.6). Šalim-aḫum also expected the brothers to cooperate in facilitating
commercial matters beneficial to him, which might be seen as indicative of a cohesive family
firm. At the end of June, Šalim-aḫum wrote to Dān-Aššur, instructing him to send both of their
dividends from Dān-Aššur’s naruqqum to Aššur with Ennam-Aššur (5.5). In the same letter,
Šalim-aḫum wrote to Ennam-Aššur that he needed to “strongly support [his] brother in the
361
gate of the kārum” (5.5:33-34).74 In this vein of family cooperation, one brother could be used
for the tasks the other could not fulfill. When Dān-Aššur could neither pick up tin for Šalim-
aḫum’s and Pūšu-kēn’s joint venture (5.11), nor go to seize Ilabrat-bāni’s goods (4.5), Ennam-
Aššur was selected to fulfill the task.
However, the capricious contingencies of the trade complicated Šalim-aḫum’s ability to
use his sons as cogs in his commercial operations. Šalim-aḫum’s plans were somewhat fragile
when they involved actors outside his immediate family; Puzur-Ištar’s failure to provide gold
and Ilabrat-bāni’s nuisance form two ready examples from this year already discussed.
However, even dutiful sons could be undependable under circumstances beyond their own
control and thus every merchant needed a network larger than his immediate family. Dān-
Aššur was unable to fulfill important tasks for his father because by late August when he
returned to Aššur, he had fallen sufficiently ill that he could not travel. This illness possibly
began during his travels in Anatolia during July (4.5:11-12, 37-39). Ennam-Aššur’s delays in
Kanesh were connected to his concern over Anatolian associates who would not turn over
assets they owed him (5.5-5.7).
But if matters of contingency warned against depending on too few actors—even
family—perceptions of autonomy were potentially more consequential. Ennam-Aššur’s
contrary attitude during this season towards both commercial and familial matters caused
problems for Šalim-aḫum. When asked to return home in the beginning of the season, Ennam-
Aššur simply did not. His rude retort to Pūšu-kēn’s message in late July represented Ennam-
74
Dān-Aššur’s need for support at the gate of the kārum could have either implied simply help in
managing the procedures associated with arriving at Kanesh, or some sort of public or legal problem. Dān-Aššur’s
maid (amtum), likely an Anatolian, was being taken to Aššur (5.2-5.3). Taking her to Aššur may have been related
to some incident with legal implications for Dān-Aššur, but the connection is unsure.
362
Aššur’s disposition; Šalim-aḫum’s prose in a previous letter, which prompted the
confrontation, anticipated Ennam-Aššur’s attitude by cautiously asking him to come home
rather than giving him frank direction (5.9, 5.10). Moreover, Ennam-Aššur’s decisions had
potential implications for Šalim-aḫum’s commercial activities. Although the silver could be
sent with someone else, because Ennam-Aššur postponed departing for several weeks instead
of returning with Dān-Aššur’s dividends, he delayed Šalim-aḫum’s receipt of important
revenues.
Ennam-Aššur’s attitude also did potential damage to Šalim-aḫum socially. In the face of
his looming arranged marriage, Ennam-Aššur’s actions and attitude toward both his father’s
directions and Pūšu-kēn’s messages were disconcerting to his father. Moreover, Šalim-aḫum
was clearly perturbed that his son had been treating lightly the polite prodding of his soon-to-
be in-laws to come back to Aššur (5.5:20-29). The particular reasons for Ennam-Aššur’s
unwillingness to leave Kanesh can only be speculated on. He was clearly concerned about a
matter to do with the Anatolians (5.5:29-34), and might not have relished his upcoming
marriage. Whatever the cause, Ennam-Aššur obviously did not feel compelled to always act in
line with his father’s directions or interests; and Šalim-aḫum’s letters to his son, with the
concessions he made to entice him to come home to Aššur, recognized Ennam-Aššur’s attitude
and at least a pragmatic acknowledgement of its validity.
By contrast, Dān-Aššur was the dutiful son. But even here, there was the potential for
conflicting interests. Šalim-aḫum’s directives for Dān-Aššur’s travel are one example of Šalim-
aḫum’s control, and it appears that Šalim-aḫum also had the ability to command Dān-Aššur’s
Anatolian maid (amtum) back to Aššur of his own accord (5.1, 5.2). Time and again, Dān-Aššur
appeared as the reliable actor, making him a favorite of Pūšu-kēn. But Dān-Aššur was also his
363
own commercial actor with his own naruqqum fund, from which Šalim-aḫum drew dividends
(5.5:35-44). This implies that although according to the surviving documentation Dān-Aššur’s
only traffic in merchandise during this year was Šalim-aḫum’s, he must have been conducting
his own commerce to support his naruqqum fund. In the surviving documentation, Dān-Aššur
was passively part of the larger plans of Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn, but the reality may have
been otherwise.
Furthermore, not only did Šalim-aḫum’s interests have to compete with his sons’
individual interests, but also other persons’ interests for his sons’ cooperation. Šalim-aḫum’s
ability to use his sons’ labor or draw on their cooperative resources was not only limited by
their varied levels of autonomy, but because of Pūšu-kēn’s conflicting plans. Pūšu-kēn did not
interact much with Ennam-Aššur, never expressing plans for him; Pūšu-kēn’s attitude toward
him soured (if it was not already poor) by the latter’s rude retort to directions relayed to him
through Pūšu-kēn. Pūšu-kēn’s annoyance was evident in his letter at the end of July reporting
the exchange (5.10). However, Pūšu-kēn did see Dān-Aššur as a reliable and important
cooperative associate. Pūšu-kēn made decisions about or had plans for Dān-Aššur, which
indicates a complex web of interests operating on Dān-Aššur. The epistolary discussion
between Pūšu-kēn and Šalim-aḫum about Dān-Aššur’s travel plans during May illuminates the
competitive use of Dān-Aššur’s labor as a resource. Dān-Aššur’s eventual six-week stay in
Anatolia through July was not Šalim-aḫum’s original intention but Pūšu-kēn’s. Šalim-aḫum had
expressed his intention that both his sons return home quickly soon after Dān-Aššur had
departed (2.6:11-12). But when Šalim-aḫum received word that Pūšu-kēn was intending to
send Dān-Aššur to Purušḫattum (5.1:15-16), Šalim-aḫum was forced to write Pūšu-kēn to ask
that his son not be kept from home for too long (5.1:17-24). But whether by Šalim-aḫum’s own
364
reevaluation of the situation or his acceptance of Pūšu-kēn’s plans, Šalim-aḫum quickly
resigned himself to the basic contrast between his and Pūšu-kēn’s itineraries for Dān-Aššur.
After another letter with a proviso in the case that Dān-Aššur arrived late (5.2:17-26), Šalim-
aḫum conceded that Dān-Aššur remain in Anatolia during the nabrītum (5.3). Moreover, on
two counts, Pūšu-kēn either required or requested Dān-Aššur’s participation in key tasks: in
bringing the tin for the joint venture (5.8-5.10) and in seizing Ilabrat-bāni’s goods (4.5:5-11).
As he interacted with his sons and his agent, Šalim-aḫum’s control of his ‘family firm’
was circumscribed in meaningful ways at the operational level of the trade. In the first place,
Šalim-aḫum coordinated many of his intents for his sons not only directly with them, but also
through the intermediary of his agent Pūšu-kēn, thus including the agent in the direction over
his own sons. Second, the unexpected events that would inevitably arise, such as Dān-Aššur’s
illness, showed the weakness of any merchant depending too heavily on a few core actors. The
cooperative help supplied by his sons was less efficient than either Pūšu-kēn or Šalim-aḫum
would have liked. Not only was Dān-Aššur hindered by his sickness from participating in both
the seizure of Ilabrat-bāni’s goods and taking the tin of the joint venture to Kanesh, but
Ennam-Aššur’s attitude also provided problems. As much as Dān-Aššur sickness complicated
matters, Ennam-Aššur’s concept of his own autonomy meant that he was willing to sacrifice
Šalim-aḫum’s interests when he felt like his own interests, such as concluding a debt with his
Anatolians, were more pressing. His attitude during this process is only a stronger indicator of
his sense of autonomy. Finally, in addition to Ennam-Aššur’s own autonomy, it was clear that
the autonomy of Pūšu-kēn’s interests and his ensuing plans could interrupt Šalim-aḫum’s own
intentions for how his commercial operation should proceed. The effectiveness of a concept of
365
‘family firm’ in leading either Dān-Aššur or Ennam-Aššur to forgo or abandon individual
interests was diluted at best.
Principal and Agent: Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn
Pūšu-kēn’s sometimes intermediary position between Šalim-aḫum and his sons was due
to the central role Pūšu-kēn played as an agent in Šalim-aḫum’s commercial network. Though
Pūšu-kēn was not Šalim-aḫum’s only representative in Anatolia, or even in Kanesh,75 Pūšu-kēn
was one to whom Šalim-aḫum turned when in need, as in the case of Ilabrat-bāni. The
revelatory nature of Pūšu-kēn’s documentation for Šalim-aḫum’s activities alone is indicative
of his importance to Šalim-aḫum. More information on Šalim-aḫum’s business during REL 80
stems from the records of Pūšu-kēn’s reconstructed archive than from the excavated house of
Šalim-aḫum’s son Ennam-Aššur. Pūšu-kēn’s central role in Šalim-aḫum’s commercial network,
perhaps more central than Šalim-aḫum’s own sons, suggests a divide between the day-to-day
operation of the trade and the ideal occasionally invoked in the Old Assyrian letters of “our
father’s house.” The family firm, or “our father’s house,” as a concept within the Old Assyrian
mind, must admit a different characterization than as an organizational locus of operation.
Merchants like Šalim-aḫum required representation of various kinds; and Pūšu-kēn’s role as a
managerial agent for Šalim-aḫum in Anatolia was crucial.
Despite Pūšu-kēn’s place in Šalim-aḫum’s network, Pūšu-kēn’s interests were not
always aligned with Šalim-aḫum’s interests. In the press of the shipping season, managing
separate funds meant that cooperating traders were either willing or forced to compromise
75
A discussion of Pūšu-kēn’s place among Šalim-aḫum’s other representatives will be taken up in “Šalim-
aḫum’s Commercial Network” below.
366
the interests of their associates when necessary. An underlying matrix of individual ownership
and liability formed a substratum that inexorably affected the contours of every merchant’s
association with other merchants, and merchants associated as principal and agent were no
exception. The two episodes between Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn related above help to
illustrate the substratum of social pressures and autonomy which conditioned Šalim-aḫum’s
relationship with Pūšu-kēn as principal and agent. In particular, an extended review of the
arrangements of the joint venture provides an opportunity to explore the negotiations,
contexts, and motivations of Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn and highlight the conflicting interests
that arose within their cooperation. In addition, a brief review of the social moves Šalim-aḫum
was making as he used his own silver to help Pūšu-kēn buy a house shows how many decisions
were affected by social considerations.
The joint venture between Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn constituted a case of two
cooperating associates negotiating their cooperation about a specific venture. Šalim-aḫum
proposed the joint venture in late May (5.8), though negotiations on the arrangement of the
venture continued through July (5.9, 5.10) and the actual merchandise was not purchased and
shipped until September (5.11). In the joint venture, the arrangements indicate something
more complex than simply combining capital.
Šalim-aḫum first sent Pūšu-kēn a letter requesting his participation in the joint venture
in tin during the second half of May (5.8). Most characteristics of the arrangement as Šalim-
aḫum proposed it in 5.8 seem clear, including the following two conditions: Šalim-aḫum
wished Pūšu-kēn to contribute one-third of a 40 minas silver total that would be applied to the
purchase of tin. If Pūšu-kēn should accept, then Šalim-aḫum would “make purchases for”
Pūšu-kēn during the time the tin travelled to Kanesh. However, some aspects of Šalim-aḫum’s
367
proposed arrangement with Pūšu-kēn seem to conflict. Šalim-aḫum also wrote in the letter,
“When Dān-Aššur arrives there, take your silver (from) the first sales which you will make for
me, so that they bring mine here” (5.8:13-19). While Šalim-aḫum might have seemed to be
stating that Pūšu-kēn could take his proceeds from the venture out when Dān-Aššur arrived,
the exchange between Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn in June-July instead shows that Šalim-aḫum
meant Pūšu-kēn could raise his funds to participate in the venture from Šalim-aḫum’s funds
(5.9:32-37, 5.10:9-11, 18-23).
The basic principle of the joint venture would seem to have been to combine capital
and whatever proportions either Šalim-aḫum or Pūšu-kēn put into the partnership, they
should get out. However, Šalim-aḫum’s arrangements suggest that all the capital could have
come from his own funds. If so, Šalim-aḫum’s purpose in offering the arrangement must have
been something other than seeking to combine capital. It was certainly not to buy tin in larger
bulk. When the time came, Šalim-aḫum did not buy the tin with all 40 minas at the same time,
so any advantage of buying in bulk was lost. Thus, the advantage of the partnership was not in
financing, nor was the financing arrangement significantly different from all the other
ventures Šalim-aḫum was coordinating with Pūšu-kēn. In the short term, he also seemed to
have sufficient silver at home so as to preclude him needing Pūšu-kēn’s silver. He was giving
Pūšu-kēn ten minas silver for the house purchase around this time, and offering to reimburse
his son Ennam-Aššur for losses from Anatolians if the latter would return home promptly.
According to this reading, Šalim-aḫum wanted to involve Pūšu-kēn contractually with this
particular venture because he wanted to more fully ensure that Pūšu-kēn’s interests were
aligned with his. Pūšu-kēn had failed him in collecting gold from Puzur-Ištar earlier in the
368
season; by involving Pūšu-kēn in the joint venture, Šalim-aḫum was trying to assure that Pūšu-
kēn would pursue Šalim-aḫum’s interests as aggressively as his own.
Proposing Šalim-aḫum’s basic motivation for the arrangement of the joint venture
leads to considering the context in which Šalim-aḫum felt the arrangement would be
beneficial. In his letter in mid-May (5.8), Šalim-aḫum did not discuss any of his particular
motivations for arranging the joint venture with Pūšu-kēn. Perhaps the omission was
intentional, leaving any deficit in his finances subliminal. But looking more broadly at the
correspondence during this time of the season suggests that Šalim-aḫum’s offer stemmed from
a growing realization that he needed to enhance his commercial volume during the year. By
the second week of May, Šalim-aḫum had learned his operations were experiencing some
setbacks. One was merely personal, such as Ilabrat-bāni’s infraction in taking the 6⅓ minas tin
(4.1-4.3). But another had larger ramifications. Puzur-Ištar reneged on obtaining ⅔ minas
gold, which Šalim-aḫum had set aside for an ikribū donation (3.1, 3.2). By the beginning of
June, Šalim-aḫum had been able to regain some of the lost gold from Ilabrat-bāni, but in mid-
May, when he was writing 5.8 to suggest the joint venture, he was still in the process of re-
arranging his affairs to obtain his gold (3.2, 3.3). Moreover, there is good reason to think that
Šalim-aḫum was sensitive to his overall ‘cash’ flow. Between the middle and end of May, Šalim-
aḫum wrote to Pūšu-kēn to ensure his silver would be sent back to him quickly, whether or not
Dān-Aššur arrived on time (5.2).
It is difficult to tell whether these conditions, apparent in May, had begun to foster in
Šalim-aḫum a concern about his revenues, or whether these conditions merely anticipated his
later concerns. However, by mid-July Šalim-aḫum had begun to openly express concerns that
he would be “put to shame at the city gate,” a concern which he continued to express in
369
September (5.9:20-22; 5.11:30-37). This concern probably had both systemic and proximal
causes. One systemic cause may be linked to Šalim-aḫum’s likely status as a dātum payer, which
afforded him special privileges, but which obligated him to a certain volume of trade.76 Šalim-
aḫum clearly linked exhibiting a sufficient volume of silver in Aššur with ensuring that his
account in the kārum was up-to-date and balanced (5.8:26-37). More specific to REL 80, Šalim-
aḫum obviously felt the need to manifest sufficient revenues and volume in Aššur in order to
maintain some sort of social capital among his peers in Aššur. Already in mid-July, Šalim-aḫum
was urging Pūšu-kēn to prepare “so that every shekel of silver at your arrival would enter your
house” (5.9:25-27).
Šalim-aḫum’s desire for the joint venture was clearly greater than Pūšu-kēn’s. Šalim-
aḫum’s own urgency about the joint venture was clear in mid-July when he wrote again to
Pūšu-kēn (5.9). Any response from Pūšu-kēn in the interim is lost to us, but he had not yet
consented to the arrangement. Šalim-aḫum was now willing to soften the desired commitment
from Pūšu-kēn from 13⅓ minas silver to ‘about’ 10 minas silver (5.8, 5.10:9-11). This offer was
inserted briefly among other business details, indicating that the conversation was ongoing.
Other pressures Šalim-aḫum was placing on Pūšu-kēn also may have left Šalim-aḫum with the
sense that he would need to lower the threshold for participation. Since the first offer, Šalim-
aḫum had also asked Pūšu-kēn to “Buy about 1 talent tin or 10 textiles from your inventory
and (thus) do me a favor” (5.9:9-16). Šalim-aḫum’s attempts to lower the threshold for Pūšu-
kēn to enter the joint venture were accompanied by both the usual accoutrements of fictive
kinship combined with recognition of his autonomy. Despite the fact that Šalim-aḫum had a
76
For a discussion of dātum payers and the purpose of the dātum see Dercksen, OAI, 119-47.
370
superior hierarchical relationship over Pūšu-kēn as one of his investors, Šalim-aḫum
repeatedly called Pūšu-kēn his “dear brother” during the exchange (5.9:9, 13, 20). At the same
time, Šalim-aḫum expressly invokes Pūšu-kēn’s autonomy in the first letter, beginning his
proposal with the polite and deferential “if you wish …” (šumma libbika, 5.8:3-4).
Šalim-aḫum’s persuasive measures appear justified when viewed in the context of
Pūšu-kēn’s apparent ambivalence toward the joint venture. Not only did Pūšu-kēn not accept
Šalim-aḫum’s original request of mid-May, but also in the beginning of July Pūšu-kēn
conditioned his participation in his reply (5.10) to Šalim-aḫum’s later request (5.9). Pūšu-
kēn’s letter (5.10) reads as an exercise in subtle evasion. Though he had acknowledged each of
Šalim-aḫum’s several requests in the beginning of the letter, Pūšu-kēn effectively evaded some
while qualifying his compliance with others. For example, Pūšu-kēn first alleviated Šalim-
aḫum’s concern about raising silver in the short term by announcing the departure of some
silver (5.9:32-44; 5.10:9-11), then acknowledging his compliance to send both Ennam-Aššur
and the 10 minas for the joint venture. Thus Pūšu-kēn avoided the fact that he was not
purchasing any tin or textiles from Šalim-aḫum (5.10:12-18). Against this background of a
good flow of silver in the short term, Pūšu-kēn proscribed his participation in the joint venture
first by requiring Šalim-aḫum to purchase the tin only at a good price. He also directed Šalim-
aḫum to have the tin purchased and ready to ship quickly—by the time Dān-Aššur returned to
Aššur (Dān-Aššur was about to leave Kanesh for Aššur - 5.10:20-23). After Pūšu-kēn had agreed
to the venture and set out his requirements for participation, he then felt comfortable in
reporting that the flow of silver after the short term would not be as plentiful. There remained
only two outstanding claims to Šalim-aḫum’s credit from Pūšu-kēn’s šēpum, those owed by
Lulu, which was sent with Dān-Aššur, and by Aššur-nādā and his son (5.10:24-27).
371
Pūšu-kēn’s lack of enthusiasm for the joint venture seems to reflect his sense that the
arrangement was not likely to benefit him, and this raises questions as to why Pūšu-kēn would
have complied at all. Though the joint venture was meant to return silver for both sides of the
partnership, several facets could favor Pūšu-kēn less. If Šalim-aḫum needed extra volume for
his trade to maintain his status as a dātum payer with minimal expense, Pūšu-kēn would likely
not be able to claim as his own the silver he contributed. Alternatively, if the venture were
implicitly arranged so that Šalim-aḫum received his money first, Pūšu-kēn would bear the risk
of having to dun the dregs of the debt before he saw a return on his investment.
Even after the stage of negotiations, Šalim-aḫum’s and Pūšu-kēn’s moves suggest that
their interests in the joint venture were conditioned by their individual interests. Whatever
Pūšu-kēn’s reasons for agreeing to the joint venture, in the second week of September, less
than two weeks after Dān-Aššur had returned to Aššur, Šalim-aḫum acknowledged receipt of
Pūšu-kēn’s contribution: “Regarding the 12 minas 15 shekels silver which you sent me, the tin
is purchased. Now, for my part, I will purchase as much tin as I can assemble and I will dispatch
Dān-Aššur and Puzur-Aššur” (4.5:34-38). Pūšu-kēn had supplied less than the 13⅓ minas silver
Šalim-aḫum had originally requested but more than the ‘about 10 minas’ Šalim-aḫum had
conceded in mid-July (5.9). Moreover, Pūšu-kēn had effectively delayed the commencement of
the joint venture beyond his own desired shipping date (Dān-Aššur’s arrival in Aššur – the end
of September) by sending his portion late.
Despite Šalim-aḫum’s assertion that he would have the tin ready for shipment when
Dān-Aššur returned to Aššur (5.9), Šalim-aḫum had not yet purchased his share of the tin
when he received Pūšu-kēn’s silver. After Pūšu-kēn sent his portion, Šalim-aḫum asserted he
would begin gathering his own silver. And although he had just received the nearly 20 minas
372
silver from seizing Ilabrat-bāni’s goods in Amurrum (4.5), he still asked Pūšu-kēn to forward
him money for 18 fine kutānum textiles he was yet to ship.77 It was not until near the end of
September that Šalim-aḫum amassed another 12½ minas silver and purchased his share of the
tin (5.11). By that time, Pūšu-kēn had written again urging Šalim-aḫum to buy the tin, perhaps
because he saw some situation developing in Anatolia that required haste, or because he was
concerned about the ability to execute the arrangement if Šalim-aḫum delayed any longer.
The joint venture appears as an indication that despite the close cooperation between
Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn, each had and protected individual concerns. However, if Šalim-
aḫum appeared stingy and self-interested in configuring the joint venture, his social cosmos
afforded no such pursuit without complex counterbalances. Šalim-aḫum’s interest in
increasing his revenues was to avoid diminishing his standing among the public group
signified as “the city gate.” However, Šalim-aḫum also acted to embellish or maintain his
standing among a smaller group of people, namely Pūšu-kēn’s representatives in Aššur. A
necessity to act within a smaller sphere meant that Šalim-aḫum found it practicable, or even
necessary, to help Pūšu-kēn at the same time he was pressuring him.
Šalim-aḫum wrote to Pūšu-kēn about the ongoing process of buying the house in mid-
May during his difficulties with the Puzur-Ištar affair. But even at that time he was assuring
Pūšu-kēn that he would use his own money to ensure that the purchase went through
smoothly. Though he advocated for waiting until the sellers were willing to drop the price, Šū-
Ḫubur and Šalim-Aššur, also acting as Pūšu-kēn’s representatives in Aššur, went ahead and
purchased the house before Šalim-aḫum felt that the price had dropped low enough. While it
77
“Do not wait for the arrival of the textiles. Send me 5 minas silver so that I may send (goods) and profit
every silver mina as long as you are staying there” (4.5:38-44).
373
is difficult to know exactly when the purchase transpired, it seems that it was not too long
after 3.3 was written, in mid-May.
Šalim-aḫum’s loan to help Pūšu-kēn purchase a house served multiple purposes. Šalim-
aḫum’s favor for Pūšu-kēn was performed during the time they were negotiating over the joint
venture. Šalim-aḫum mentioned the proceedings of purchasing the house in 3.3 as a reminder
of his favors toward Pūšu-kēn. Šalim-aḫum’s choice to insert his beneficence in the face of
Pūšu-kēn’s failings with Puzur-Ištar and the gold, which constituted the second half of that
letter, played its part in creating social pressure for Pūšu-kēn to better tend to Šalim-aḫum’s
interests. This same pressure likely also affected Pūšu-kēn’s decision to participate in the joint
venture. But Šalim-aḫum’s loan to Pūšu-kēn simultaneously benefitted Šalim-aḫum’s interests
in competing for status among other senior traders in Aššur, such as Šū-Ḫubur, his son’s soon-
to-be father-in-law. Thus Šalim-aḫum’s generous forwarding of ten minas silver to Pūšu-kēn
functioned both to uphold a promise to Pūšu-kēn and as a demonstration of his generosity in
the company of other merchants associated with Pūšu-kēn. Incidentally, it also reveals the lack
of coordination between Šalim-aḫum and his soon-to-be in-law. If Šalim-aḫum felt Šū-Ḫubur to
be an important man (5.5:20-29), then prestige was just as important a factor in this marriage
as pre-existing strong ties between the two families.
These moves made by Pūšu-kēn, Šalim-aḫum, Dān-Aššur, and Ennam-Aššur all show
that each actor had his own commercial interests tied to his own funds for which he could not
expect anyone else to shepherd with the same care. While every one of these men depended
on the others for assistance in participating in the trade and while cooperation was essential,
built into their cooperation was the equivalent need to protect their own interests in a way
that indicated that they recognized their individual commercial autonomies.

374
Šalim-aḫum’s Commercial Network
To the extent that any merchant was involved with the trade, his capacity to benefit
from the trade was not only configured by his capital, but also expanded or contracted
according to the extent of his network of contacts in the system. In this section, I will set out
the contours of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial network in REL 80. Reconstructing the interaction of
principal, agents and transporters in Šalim-aḫum’s network—in real time—affords the
opportunity to understand the social dynamics of such Old Assyrian commercial networks.
Two elements of the trade were important to configuring the basis on which Šalim-aḫum
maintained a network: an efficient messenger system and the credit sale. These two conditions
provided for an environment in which Šalim-aḫum required a network of agents to perform
only two primary classes of tasks. First, Šalim-aḫum could make use of a broad number of
persons to perform definite short-term tasks, such as transporting his goods. Second, Šalim-
aḫum required agents in Anatolia to perform continuing managerial assistance, such as
making credit sales, collecting silver, dunning debtors, coordinating transports, and managing
accounts with the kārum. Here he drew on a number of different persons, benefitting from the
regime of communication, which allowed him to use multiple persons with overlapping realms
of responsibility and closely manage their actions on his behalf.
During REL 80, Šalim-aḫum sent goods with a number of transporters at least 4
different times to Kanesh with his merchandise. At the beginning of the season, in mid-March,
Šalim-aḫum sent goods with eight different transporters, ten if Pūšu-kēn and Lā-qēpum were
375
also taking goods.78 In the second half of May Šalim-aḫum sent more goods with seven more
transporters.79 During the second half of July and into the beginning of August, Šalim-aḫum
sent four different shipments with five different transporters.80 In the second half of
September, Šalim-aḫum reported that he was sending textiles with Sueyya, likely Pūšu-kēn’s
son, and the joint venture in tin with Puzur-Aššur.81 He also received silver from six different
transporters at three different times: in the second half of June, he received roughly 53 minas
silver from Šū-Suen and Aššur-mālik, while at the end of July he received nearly 95 minas
silver from his son Dān-Aššur, Ilī-ālum, and Kurub-Ištar, followed by 30 minas silver which
probably arrived in the first week of August with Šū-Ištar.82
Šalim-aḫum had an impressive volume of goods and silver during REL 80. The goods
Šalim-aḫum purchased during the season would have totaled more than 230 minas silver. He
must have essentially started the season with that much silver or got it from other sources,
such as claims initiated before REL 80 coming due or from commerce managed by
other representatives. While Šalim-aḫum was concerned with bringing sufficient silver
revenues back to Aššur by the end of the season, his assets in Kanesh, claims and goods
combined (of which some must have been converted into claims without attested
documentation), were worth 452 minas silver. A portion of these claims, particularly those
arising from Ilī-ašranni’s caravan would not come due until the next year, but much of it likely
78
In the Analytical Ledger in Appendix 1, these shipments are individually catalogued as S01, etc. Son of
Erra-iddi(n) (S01), Nūr-Ištar (S02), Aššur-mutabbil (S03), Aḫ-šalim and Amurru-bāni (S04), Ilī-ašranni and Ilabrat-
bāni (S08), and Aššur-mālik s. Erraya (S11).
79
Ḫuraṣānum (S05), Amur-Aššur s. Šū-Ištar (S06), Dān-Aššur s. Šalim-aḫum and Šū-Suen (S07), Kulumaya
and Agua s. Ṭāb-Aššur (S10).
80
Aššur-taklāku (S12), Ennam-Aššur (S13), Kuzari (S14), and Iddi(n)-Suen and Kulumaya (S15).
81
Sueyya (S09) and Puzur-Aššur (S16).
82
Silver received is tracked in Analytic Ledger Part Three.
376
was received during REL 80. Šalim-aḫum acknowledged receiving more than 174 minas silver
during the season, though our documentation is certainly incomplete. In all, Šalim-aḫum’s
assets, viewed singly through the records preserved through Pūšu-kēn’s and Ennam-Aššur’s
archives for this year must have exceeded 600 minas silver (ten talents!). This does not speak
to his investments in naruqqum funds operated by others, including his sons and probably
Pūšu-kēn. But even with regard to his operating budget, the funds Šalim-aḫum had directly
involved in his day-to-day trade, this amount did not comprise Šalim-aḫum’s total holdings.83
Building and maintaining a network of cooperating associates in the trade was essential
to being able to effectively participate in the commerce. Theoretically speaking, it would have
been possible for a single merchant without agents to operate independently within the Old
Assyrian trade during the lifetime of Šalim-aḫum. A single independent merchant could have,
each year, travelled back and forth between Aššur and Anatolia, packing purchased retail
goods on the backs of a few donkeys, and selling his goods on the market in Kanesh, returning
to Aššur to start the whole process over again. However, such a merchant would have faced a
number of difficulties. Policies in different cities changed over time, and someone not known
to the colony office was sometimes treated differently.84 When he arrived at Kanesh, he would
83
For further detail see the analytic ledgers in Appendix 1.
84
A letter from a merchant named Puzur-Aššur to an associate Sueyya illustrates complications which
could arise when a merchant travelled to a city with which he was not familiar (TEXT). Puzur-Aššur’s letter
clearly intimates that he had not been to this particular city, large enough to have a kārum rather than a
wabartum. He related that he had not been sufficiently informed about the conditions in this city (ll. 10-13),
though this might have been a new development of which he was not aware. He is required to pay a tax at this
location which he had not anticipated, and his goods were subject to customs procedures with regards to the
palace. His deliberations did not gain him any ground, and after reporting a decision against him, he explains to
Sueyya that he needed him to send him two textiles, which seem to offer a chance at a resolution of the matter.
Translation: 1-2To Puzur-Aššur, from Sueyya: 2-5Here, as I was arriving, in my state of being a stranger they caused
me to go up to the colony office; they put me through a thorough clearing procedure. 6-10They said, “According to
the tablet of the kārum at Kanesh, bring in your fine and poor textiles, as many as you carry, so that we may
inspect (them).” 10-13Here, no one informed me that I would have to pay for the textiles in their entirety to the
377
have had to accept the prices available in the market at the time, since waiting for the prices to
change would dramatically slow his rate of turnover. Nor would he have been able to sell on
credit unless he remained in Anatolia until he could collect, incurring the costs of living during
that visit and still slowing his turnover rate. If he had divided his capital into two sums, and
sold on credit, collecting after returning from a round trip, he would still have had to rely on
the timely payment of his claims at the expense of losing valuable time. Delays in payment
would have had an immediate effect on his itinerary. On the other hand, if business went well,
he would have eventually required help in transporting an ever-longer train of donkeys
packed with goods.
By contrast, a firm with internally-employed transporters and agents would have been
able to complete all these activities without outside help. However, its challenges would have
been similar to that of a lone operator, albeit on a larger scale. A firm, as a group of individuals
sharing the same revenues, could have coordinated activities insomuch that some stayed in
colony office. 13-16I said, “Fine, inspect my textiles. Let’s come to an agreement so that I possess my silver.” 16-
19
They said, “We’ll take your textiles up to the palace and come to an agreement with the palace.” 20-22(The kārum)
took my textiles up to the palace, but still now the palace has not given me an iṣurtum. 23-27I said to the kārum,
“When you go up to the palace, let me go up with you so that I may remind them myself.” 27-30The palace began
litigating with me. With respect to my goods, they decided my case in favor of the palace. 30-32Now, for their part,
they are complaining, saying “Why does/should (this matter) keep coming up with us?” 32-37My dear father, I will
come to you according to your desires. If you please, stand for half so that they transport for my entrance tax the
2 textiles that I deposited there. 38-41Also, concerning their copper which is deposited in Hattum, let your
instructions come with Adada the scribe so that they do not cause me trouble concerning the š-charge.
Transliteration: 1a-na Puzur4-A-šur qí-bi-ma 2um-ma Sú-e-a-ma a-na-kam ki-ma 3e-ru-ba-ni-ni i-na wa-ab-ru-tí-a-ma 4a-na
É kà-ri-im 5ú-šé-ri-bu-ni ú-ta-bi-bu-ni 6um-ma šu-nu-ma a-ma-lá ṭup-pí-im 7ša kà-ri-im Kà-ni-iš 8TÚG.HI.A SIG5 ù lam-nu-
tim ma-lá 9tù-ub-lá-ni šé-ri-ba-ma 10lu né-mu-ur a-na-kam ma-ma-an 11úz-ni lá ip-té-té-ma TÚG.HI.A 12kà-lá-šu-nu-ma a-na
É kà-ri-im 13a-na-pá-al um-ma a-na-ku-ma 14a-ma TÚG.HI-tí-a ta-ta-am-ra 15mì-ta-ag-ra-ma KÙ.BABBAR-pí 16lá-ad-gu5-ul
[u]m-ma šu-nu-ma 17TÚG.HI-tí-kà a-na É.GAL-lim 18lu nu-šé-li-ma iš-tí 19É.GAL-lim mì-it-ga-ar 20TÚG.HI-tí-a a-na É.GAL-
lim 21ú-šé-li-ma i-ṣú-ur-tám 22É.GAL-lúm a-dí-ni lá i-dí-nam 23a-na kà-ri-im um-ma a-na-ku-ma 26i-nu-mì a-na É.GAL-lim
25
tè-li-a-ni ù a-na-ku 26iš-tí-ku-nu le-li-ma ra-mì-ni 27lu-ha-sí-is É.GAL-lúm i-a-tí 28i-da-ba-ba-ni a-ṣé-er 29lu-qú-tí a-na
É.GAL-lim ú-ga-mì-ru-ni 30ù šu-nu-ma i-na-zu-mu 31um-ma šu-nu-ma mì-šu-um iš-tí-ni 32e-ta-na-li a-bi a-ta a-ma-kam 33i-
na li-bi-kà a-ta-lá-ak-ma 34šu-ma dam-qá-ku-um a-mì-iš-li-[i]m 35ša-zi-zi-ma 2 ku-ta-ni 36ša a-ma-kam! a-dí-ú a-na 37e-ri-ib-
tí-a li-iš-du-du 38ù a-šu-mì URUDU-šu-nu 39ša i-na Ḫa-tim na-ad-ú té-er-ta-kà 40iš-tí A-da-da DUB.SAR li-li-kam-ma 41a-na
ša-du-a-tí-im lá ú-ša-am-ru-ṣú-ni. For a previous summary of this letter, see {Veenhof, 1995 #3857@324}
378
Anatolia, some acted as transporters, some as both. Such a firm would had to have coordinated
the movements of its members tightly in order to best assure that the merchandise was
moving steadily enough, or if we assume that any individual transporter had a finite limit to
the number of donkeys he could manage on the road, then the firm would had to have had a
proportionally similar operational limit for moving goods. In fact, without a significant
number of transporters, say a dozen or so, the firm would have limited ability to respond to
market fluctuations and hazards of the trade.
As he appears in REL 80, Šalim-aḫum was neither a lone operator nor the head of an
autarchic, self-contained firm. Instead, Šalim-aḫum’s commercial operations during REL 80
present a picture of a merchant who depended on a large number of peregrinating merchants
moving through the system at all times. In fact, insofar as can be observed during REL 80,
Šalim-aḫum’s commercial pursuits involved an uncomplicated network with little hierarchy.
Because of two important impersonal elements of the Old Assyrian trade, Šalim-aḫum’s ability
to participate in the trade required less personal infrastructure than has been intimated by
some aspects of the family firm model. First, Šalim-aḫum took for granted a messenger system
that must have sped his and other’s letters along the route between Aššur and Kanesh. Second,
Šalim-aḫum’s operation did not require family or social relationships with those who bought
his goods on credit.
The first element of the system on which Šalim-aḫum depended was the impressive
regime of communication reviewed in Chapter Three, evident throughout the reconstruction
of his activities in REL 80. Šalim-aḫum did not travel even once to Anatolia in REL 80. Šalim-
aḫum’s impressive ability to communicate with his agents constituted a crucial dimension of
how effectively he could project his interests across time and space.
379
Moreover, the second element was that Šalim-aḫum turned his merchandise into silver
in Anatolia most often by selling his goods on credit; and the way Šalim-aḫum treated the
credit sales shows that he did not require a social relationship to engage in the transaction.
Pūšu-kēn, Lā-qēpum, Ilī-ālum, Dān-Aššur and Ennam-Aššur all acted on behalf of Šalim-aḫum
to sell goods to various parties in Anatolia. In Chapter Two, the argument was made that
Šalim-aḫum’s manner of referring to his assets effectively suppressed the identity of those
who bought his goods and owed him money. Of the four of people who had bought things from
Šalim-aḫum in the original venture, only Lulu son of Zukuḫum can be identified with
certainty, though Aššur-nādā and his son possibly bought Lot #2. Šalim-aḫum did refer by
name to others who owed him money in his correspondence during REL 80, naming twelve
additional persons who owed him money not including three references to transporters who
only owed a be’ulātum. Among them, Ilī-ašranni and Ilabrat-bāni both stand out as persons who
transported for Šalim-aḫum. Šalim-aḫum did sell to associates, but the way he arranged the
sale with Ilabrat-bāni clearly suggests that Šalim-aḫum considered the credit sale an effective
way to make Ilabrat-bāni work for Šalim-aḫum’s ends, not a way of reinforcing their social
relationship. That Šalim-aḫum sold his goods to anyone who would by them (provided they
were trustworthy) negates the notion that travelling consignment agents in Anatolia were the
primary mechanism for selling goods retail within a family firm.
Within a framework of these two elements—efficient communication and non-kin
networks—Šalim-aḫum maintained a loose federation of merchants with whom he associated,
alongside some more important managerial agents. In neither area of Šalim-aḫum ‘s
commercial network can anyone be found who is certainly an employee, that is, someone who
exclusively worked for Šalim-aḫum. At one level, Šalim-aḫum’s commercial network included
380
an outer ring of a fairly large group of merchants to whom Šalim-aḫum turned to perform
well-defined and time-limited tasks for him. These merchants were in effect limited agents for
Šalim-aḫum in the sense that their performance of tasks for Šalim-aḫum was limited in scope
and duration. The best documented aspect of this type of agent was the transporter; however,
Puzur-Ištar and his ša ḫarrān ālim contract present another example of a limited-durations
agent, by which a contract defined the relationship. Many such persons can be considered part
of Šalim-aḫum’s extended commercial network.
On another level, Šalim-aḫum maintained an inner ring of managerial agents who
formed Šalim-aḫum’s true commercial network. Their tasks were not configured according to
a contract, nor are any real contracts known to exist which would have defined the scope of
their relationship. Within this circle, some persons were more important than others. For
example, Pūšu-kēn seemed to be more central to Šalim-aḫum’s operations during this year
than either of his sons; however, that view may be partly due to the bias of the documentation.
I’ll review these two levels in greater detail in turn.
The outer ring of Šalim-aḫum‘s commercial network consisted of a relatively large
number of merchants to whom Šalim-aḫum would turn to perform defined tasks for him. The
most easily seen category of defined tasks was transporting goods to Anatolia and bringing
silver back. Some twenty different persons are named during REL 80 transporting goods to
Kanesh for Šalim-aḫum, including DUMU Erra-iddi(n), Nūr-Ištar, Aššur-mutabbil, Aḫ-šalim,
Amurru-bāni, Ḫuraṣānum, Amur-Aššur s. Šū-Ištar, Ilī-ašranni, Ilabrat-bāni, Šū-Suen, Sueyya (s.
Pūšu-kēn?), Kulumaya, Agua s. Ṭāb-Aššur, Aššur-taklāku, Kuzari, Iddi(n)-Suen, Aššur-mālik s.
Erraya, Puzur-Aššur, as well as Šalim-aḫum’s sons Dān-Aššur and Ennam-Aššur. In addition,
three of these persons who transported good to Kanesh (Dān-Aššur, Šū-Suen, and Aššur-mālik
381
s. Erraya), also transported silver back to Aššur. To these transporters can be added four
others: DUMU Šū-Aššur, Kurub-Ištar, and Šū-Ištar s. Dadānum, and Ilī-ālum.
This outer ring of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial network was not homogenous. Some
persons who appeared as transporters were undoubtedly not really part of Šalim-aḫum’s
commercial network in that they did not have a ongoing social relationship with Šalim-aḫum.
Just which ones would have been part of Šalim-aḫum’s network and which ones were not is
difficult to tell. However, the main point at hand is whether or not these various merchants
had their own operations, and in every case that can be observed, they did.85
On the other hand, some of these agents had multiple and simultaneous associations
with Šalim-aḫum. Šalim-aḫum evidently had an ongoing association with Panaka and others to
whom he turned for payment of gold (3.5:17, 5.3:38). Those who formed part of Šalim-aḫum’s
closer circle, such as his sons, were also of a different standing. Transporters like Šū-Suen who
transported goods to Kanesh (3.6) then silver back to Aššur (2.3) also were more likely to have
had an ongoing relationship with Šalim-aḫum. Moreover, there were others with whom Šalim-
aḫum evidently expressed desire to work, such as Puzur-Ištar, who purchased gold for him.
However, each of these associations was configured with a definite timeframe and a specific
task. This is not to say that such persons were not socially connected to Šalim-aḫum, but their
involvement with Šalim-aḫum outside of the managerial sector was limited.
Moreover, some of the persons who performed tasks associated with this outer ring
were in fact part of Šalim-aḫum’s closer circle. Given the way Šalim-aḫum dealt with Puzur-
85
This gives reason to revisit the lack of a role of “Spediteur” (Lewy, EL I, 111-112) in the Old Assyrian
system. In a system conceived as largely formed by firms with employees who were responsible for the
transporting of goods (Larsen, OACP, esp. 65-70), the “Spediteur,” an agent who could find a tranpsorter for
someone else, was limited to a large merchant who had his own shipping resources. If merchants operated as
individuals, then this role of finding transporters is more properly regarded as Spediteur.
382
Ištar, Ilabrat-bāni, and even his sons Dān-Aššur and Ennam-Aššur, it is difficult to see how any
of these persons could confidently be assigned as ‘employees’ to anything we might call Šalim-
aḫum’s firm. All four of these individuals clearly had separate operations of their own which
meant that their interests were divided between the services that they performed for Šalim-
aḫum and the health of their own accounts. The case of Dān-Aššur and Ennam-Aššur was
unique because they technically belonged to Šalim-aḫum’s inner circle. In addition, it could be
argued that Puzur-Ištar and Ilabrat-bāni, both nephews of Pūšu-kēn, were included in Šalim-
aḫum’s network for the social reasons associated with Pūšu-kēn. But the example of these
closer merchants, who each had separate accounts, warns against assuming that other persons
less well-known in Šalim-aḫum’s operations were not in the same situation, also transporting
for other merchants as well as tending to their own businesses. If there were a hierarchy of
Šalim-aḫum and the persons who transported for him, then it was a hierarchy that competed
with other hierarchies within which the transporters located themselves.
In this regard, the terminology associated with transporters does not sufficiently
delineate the relationship between any one merchant and Šalim-aḫum. For example,
discerning which of Šalim-aḫum’s transporters were in Šalim-aḫum’s commercial network and
which transporters were hired through agents or otherwise cannot be distinguished
conclusively on the basis of a designation of ‘my packer’ (kaṣṣārī) or other possessive
designations. Šalim-aḫum’s use of possessives when referring to merchants who owed him
money (Chapter Two) and Ennam-Aššur’s and Šalim-aḫum’s use of possessives in describing
the Anatolians who owe Ennam-Aššur silver (5.5-5.6) belie any sense that these possessives
communicated a durable relationship between possessor and possessed.
383
As with terminology, the method of payment to transporters is another indeterminate
factor from which we cannot determine relationships. How transporters were paid cannot
necessarily distinguish between those who were more durable nodes in Šalim-aḫum’s
commercial network and those who were not. There were two recognized modes of payments
to transporters: first, straight wages (igrum), and second, the be’ulātum loan. In the first, wages
were paid in silver up front to the transporter. In the second, transporters were given some
kind of capital in Aššur and agreed to pay a sum of silver some time after their arrival in
Anatolia, recorded by a be’ulātum note. Both arrangements offered advantages and
disadvantages, some of which cannot be accounted for with our current documentation. On
the one hand, when the owner of the good or his agent paid a transporter straight wages, the
transaction was closed and no further effort would be necessary to contact that transporter
after he delivered the goods to the desired destination. On the other hand, wages were likely
paid in silver. The same cannot be said for be’ulātum loans: though payment was recorded in
silver, it is unknown whether the capital given the transporter was merchandise or silver.86
The very fact that be’ulātum were for a specific task and timeframe belies the fact that the
owner of the goods and the transporter were not closely coordinated when the contractual
agreement came to an end.
86
It is just as possible that the owner could pay the transporter in goods, like textiles, which would have
cost less than the average 20 to 30 shekels silver owed on a typical be’ulātum, rather than give that amount of
silver. In fact, if the owner paid the transporter 2 kutānum textiles in Aššur in REL 80, when the textiles could be
sold for 20 shekels or more in Kanesh, then if the textiles cost 5 shekels silver in Aššur (an average price), the
owner would pay out 10 shekels worth of silver, the transporter could have sold the goods for 40 shekels of silver,
and after the transporter paid back 20 shekels of silver, making the owner 10 shekels silver, the transporter made
20 shekels silver as well. In this case, the be’ulātum would still need to be collected, but the owner benefitted more
than the transporter. If this were the arrangement, transporters would likely have preferred the certainty of
straight wages.
384
To some extent, Šalim-aḫum’s use of a large number of transporters could be explained
by his need to move a large volume of goods. But he also needed to maintain a large number of
transporters to ensure flexibility. Šalim-aḫum benefitted from having a steady stream of
transporters with whom to send his goods as they came and went from Aššur. At the same
time, Šalim-aḫum also used many different persons who were known to him in order to
maintain as large a commercial network as possible, with the social reach that would
accompany the breadth of his network.
When Šalim-aḫum’s goods reached Anatolia, Šalim-aḫum needed managerial agents his
inner circle. This class of agents represented Šalim-aḫum’s real commercial network: a series
of durable relationships not regulated by contracts for each individual task. However, like the
lower level of his network, this part of the network was also heterogenous, and to some extent
the boundary between the two levels was blurred. In REL 80, we saw that Šalim-aḫum had a
number of managerial agents in Anatolia. In Kanesh he had Pūšu-kēn and Lā-qēpum, while Ilī-
ālum was recognized as someone who could help when necessary. He also used Ḫinnaya in
Durḫumit, though we only know this activity as it is mediated through Šalim-aḫum’s
conversations with Pūšu-kēn (2.5-2.7). Šalim-aḫum’s sons also did some of representative
work for him. The fact that Šalim-aḫum had multiple managerial agents representing him in
Kanesh allowed him the flexibility to be assured that at least one would be in Kanesh at all
times, but also that if there were performance deficiencies with one, he could transfer duties
to the others. This he did with the Ilabrat-bāni affair, transferring the responsibility to Pūšu-
kēn when he deemed Lā-qēpum to have mismanaged the situation.
At the beginning of the season, responsibility for Šalim-aḫum’s goods was dispersed
between Pūšu-kēn and Lā-qēpum. Pūšu-kēn travelled to Kanesh at the same time as both the
385
original venture and the Ilī-ašranni caravans, but at the beginning of the season he was
directly involved only with the original venture. There was a šēpum attributed to him in
association with the original venture (2.4). Pūšu-kēn wrote the caravan account for the
original venture caravan alongside Lā-qēpum and Ilī-ālum. But the caravan account for Ilī-
ašranni’s caravan was written without Pūšu-kēn, and only by Lā-qēpum and Ilī-ālum. (Perhaps
Ilī-ašranni arrived in Kanesh just ahead of Pūšu-kēn and the original venture caravan.) Nor was
Pūšu-kēn blamed for Ilabrat-bāni’s actions on the road. Pūšu-kēn also cannot be styled as a
permanent agent of Šalim-aḫum’s interests stationed in Kanesh. Pūšu-kēn both began and
ended the REL 80 shipping season in Aššur.
Lā-qēpum, though apparently less central than Pūšu-kēn, was also an important node
in Šalim-aḫum’s network of representation. Lā-qēpum was a co-recipient of letters about the
continuing disposition of the original venture and its subsequent claims and collections (2.1,
2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6), and was appraised of Dān-Aššur’s caravan when it departed (3.6). It was
Lā-qēpum’s letter that Šalim-aḫum cited in writing to Ilabrat-bāni that he had learned of
Ilabrat-bāni’s ‘theft’ (4.3). Lā-qēpum may have travelled with Ilī-ašranni: Šalim-aḫum
complained about the money spent in Lā-qēpum’s caravan in the same breath as his complaint
about Ilabrat-bāni (4.2). However, when the Ilabrat-bāni problem developed, Šalim-aḫum
turned it over to Pūšu-kēn to work out; Lā-qēpum was not addressed in letters to Pūšu-kēn
about dealings with Ilabrat-bāni after 4.2 at the end of April.
Alongside Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn, Ilī-ālum was more peripheral—transitory as a
representative, requested as a transporter. Before Šalim-aḫum received the caravan account
for Ilī-ašranni (4.1), he was requesting at the beginning of April that Ilī-ālum bring silver and
gold back to him in Aššur (3.1). Only after he received the caravan account of Ilī-ašranni’s
386
caravan, of which Ilī-ālum was a co-writer, did Šalim-aḫum address Ilī-ālum as a co-recipient
alongside Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn in letters pertinent to the original venture (2.2, 2.3, 2.6).
Then, by the end of July, Ilī-ālum was proceeding back to Aššur bringing silver to Šalim-aḫum
in concert with Dān-Aššur and he was no longer one of Šalim-aḫum’s correspondents (2.4).
Perhaps Ilī-ālum had begun representing Šalim-aḫum in Aššur out of the need for a second
person alongside Lā-qēpum when disposing of Ilī-ašranni’s caravan. He was a likely candidate
because he and Lā-qēpum were serving as ḫamuštum officials that year; they also served
together as ḫamuštum officials in REL 79.87
This multiplicity of agents with sometimes overlapping fields of responsibility is
reflected in the incomplete picture of Šalim-aḫum’s activities gleaned from the extant
documentation. In REL 80, it is evident within the letters to Pūšu-kēn and Ennam-Aššur that
others, specifically Lā-qēpum, were managing parts of Šalim-aḫum’s operations but were only
partially documented there. Despite the fairly impressive volume of goods and revenues
attested for Šalim-aḫum and reviewed earlier in this section, Šalim-aḫum evidently had yet
other assets being managed by Lā-qēpum. Both Pūšu-kēn and Lā-qēpum managed assets for
Šalim-aḫum, which Šalim-aḫum referred to as their šēpum. The term šēpum basically means
‘transport’; the phrase šēpum PN means the ‘transport of PN,’ implying that PN transported a
shipment. However, the term could also be used in an extended sense for management of
assets. In 2.4:3-6, Šalim-aḫum attributed to the šēpum of Pūšu-kēn Lot #3, worth 54 minas 45½
shekels. However, Pūšu-kēn did not transport the goods of Lot #3 but rather Aḫ-šalim did (2.2).
87
For Lā-qēpum and Ilī-ālum serving together in REL 80, see kt 91/k 237:4’ (courtesy K.R. Veenhof). For
REL 79, see I 427:18 (month unknown) and I 427:23 (month XII). Nine of Šalim-aḫum’s twelve extant letters
mentioning Lā-qēpum were written during this year. On ḫamuštum officials, see K.R. Veenhof, "The Old Assyrian
Hamuštum Period: A seven-day week," JEOL 34 (1996): 5-26.
387
Šalim-aḫum also credited Pūšu-kēn’s šēpum with another claim of 58 minas 18½ shekels in the
same letter as (2.4:6-8). Moreover, when Pūšu-kēn wrote to Šalim-aḫum later in the season, he
noted that only the claims on Lulu and Aššur-nādā and his son remained on his šēpum; these
must have referred to Lots #2 and #4 from the original venture. Thus goods from the original
venture transported by persons other than Pūšu-kēn were attributed to Pūšu-kēn’s šēpum,
implying that Pūšu-kēn was managing that venture for Šalim-aḫum. On the other hand, when
Šalim-aḫum mentioned an ellutum associated with Lā-qēpum also during this year (2.6:16-17,
4.2:31-32), and noted that Lā-qēpum was to receive monies on behalf of Šalim-aḫum from
Aššur-šamšī’s sons, there is a sense than another sector of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial endeavors
was being managed by Lā-qēpum, a sector only hinted at in the documentation maintained by
Pūšu-kēn.88
Šalim-aḫum’s overlapping multiple agents in Kanesh are important when considering
that very few persons in Šalim-aḫum’s operations can be documented as his family members.
Apart from his sons Dān-Aššur and Ennam-Aššur, none of the other people who appear in
Šalim-aḫum’s commercial network during REL 80 can be securely demonstrated to be related
88
If Pūšu-kēn personally transported anything for Šalim-aḫum in REL 80 it would have been the goods
that yielded the 58 mina 18½ shekel claim (2.3:15-17, 2.4:6-7). He would have brought this to Kanesh at the
beginning of the season when he travelled at the same time as the original venture and Ilī-ašranni caravans. VS 26
43, a letter from Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-kēn to Šalim-aḫum, possibly records that transport. It lists Pūšu-kēn with 4
donkey-loads of tin and a load of kutānum textiles, which would have yielded at least the 58 minas associated with
the claim, even after import duties. The arrangement of the shipment, however, reflects the ellutum style of
transport, in which merchandise of multiple merchants was pooled, because there was an awītum assessment for
Šalim-aḫum. If this ellutum run by Pūšu-kēn happened in REL 80, at the same time as the original venture caravan
and the Ilī-ašranni caravan, then it makes sense that Ilī-ašranni was mentioned in VS 26 43. But without
emendation the figures don’t align sufficiently to posit the connection. Charges accumulated by the šēpum of Ilī-
ašranni amount to an awītum value of 5 talents tin; Ilī-ašranni’s shipment from 4.1, totaling 6½ talents tin, 85
kutānum textiles, and 6 donkeys, should have been rated at approximately 9½ talents tin. Moreover, if Ilī-ašranni’s
caravan were the same from which Ilabrat-bāni took the 6⅓ minas tin, then it’s difficult to see how Pūšu-kēn
escaped Šalim-aḫum’s ire about the Ilabrat-bāni incident and to understand why Pūšu-kēn would not have been
involved in writing the caravan account with Lā-qēpum and Ilī-ālum.
388
to him. This may be a function of the surviving documentation (i.e., perhaps Šalim-aḫum’s
family members worked with Lā-qēpum and not with his two sons or with Pūšu-kēn). What can
be said is that only one person appearing in this documentation could possibly have been
either Šalim-aḫum’s brother or a brother’s son: Aššur-imittī. 89 He is mentioned briefly in
2.5:28-29 in which Šalim-aḫum asked Pūšu-kēn or Lā-qēpum to recover a will and send it to
Aššur. If Aššur-imittī were indeed Šalim-aḫum’s brother, then Šalim-aḫum’s involvement in
the will is straightforward. However, it is worth noting that neither Ennam-Aššur, then in
Kanesh, nor Dān-Aššur, then on his way to Kanesh, was designated to fetch the will. Beyond
Aššur-imittī and Šalim-aḫum’s sons, no other persons in his commercial network during REL
80 can be connected to Šalim-aḫum’s family.
Moreover, Šalim-aḫum’s preference to have Pūšu-kēn manage his goods in Kanesh, in
contrast to his sons, suggests that Šalim-aḫum’s commercial network was not family-
dependent. Šalim-aḫum’s relationship with his agent Pūšu-kēn vis-à-vis his two sons, who
were active in the trade, underscores the dynamic nature of Šalim-aḫum’s representation and
the multiplicity of his agent base. Šalim-aḫum used Pūšu-kēn and others despite the fact that
his sons were old enough to act on his behalf; Dān-Aššur and Ennam-Aššur had been operating
in the trade and in Anatolia for ten years before REL 80. In response to debts either due or
originating in REL 68 and 69, Šalim-aḫum was already asking his two sons in REL 70 to follow
89
Šalim-aḫum’s father was named Dān-Aššur, and only Aššur-imittī’s name among all the other names
mentioned in these letters has attestations of Dān-Aššur as a patronym (I 472:9, v/k 159:8-9). There are eleven
other persons with Dān-Aššur as a patronym, none mentioned in these letters: Iddi(n)-Aššur (ATHE 24a:43, CCT 2
30:21, Dalley 11:15, OCK 2 147:36’, KTS 2 40:9, Or. 50 4:14, TC 3 9:27, k/k 62a:1-2, k/k 99:1, k/k 110:9, n/k 1498:15, 19;
75/k 84:7, 91/k 141:21-22, 91/k 511:5-6, 93/k 467:2, 94/k 1007:3, 94/k 1023:2-3, 94/k 1716:3, 94/k 733:5-6), Iddi(n)-
abim (ICK 3 15b seal impression, 94/k 1000:11-12), Aššur-iddi(n) (d/k 28:20), Naram-Zu (g/k 118:1), Lila (Kayseri
4695:9, a/k 235:3, a/k 264:13, 93/k 345:65, 93/k 466:2, 93/k 531:41), Adad-dukul (c/k 581:53), Puzur-Ištar (91/k
391:4, 91/k 410:15’, n/k 193:5, n/k 1371:24, 94/k 1229:2-3), Kibal (OIP 27 56:21), Adad-tukultī (j/k 608:4), Aššur-
taklāku (n/k 7:22).
389
up on collection (AKT 3 69). Ennam-Aššur was getting married during REL 80 or in the very
near future, and Dān-Aššur had a junior wife in Anatolia and operated a naruqqum. These are
all indications of maturity and responsibility. Still, Šalim-aḫum involved Pūšu-kēn. Though in
other years Ennam-Aššur was clearly managing large amounts of goods and transactions for
his father in Kanesh (AKT 3 65) and Šalim-aḫum also depended on Dān-Aššur as a complement
to the services of Pūšu-kēn, both sons were contacted through Pūšu-kēn. These conflicting
pictures suggest that the nature of Šalim-aḫum’s network could change over time. In
correspondence from other years, Šalim-aḫum was instructing Dān-Aššur to liquidate
everything of Šalim-aḫum’s in Kanesh because Pūšu-kēn had not brought sufficient silver to
Aššur.
That there was a concept of a family estate in the Old Assyrian society is undeniable
from previous studies on the phrase “our father’s house.” However, in terms of the operation
of the trade, merchants spread social connections across as broad a base of the social network
of peregrinating travelers as possible. Because of his great wealth, it may be tempting to view
Šalim-aḫum as exceptional. However, the network of persons which Šalim-aḫum drew on
could not have been bound up in their own family firms as this would have made them less
available for cooperative labor with Šalim-aḫum. The very fact that Šalim-aḫum could operate
in the way he did combined with the mental schemas projected by the practices of Šalim-
aḫum, Dān-Aššur, Ennam-Aššur, and Pūšu-kēn suggest that the focus of individual liability and
ownership, and thus the interests which Larsen noted in his study on the “Individual and
Family,” operated at a level that undermined family cooperation.
390
Conclusion
The reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s activities in REL 80 offers a special opportunity to
arraign evidence of interpersonal interaction in practice that transcends structuralist
treatments of the evidence. Not only with his sons but also with respect to Pūšu-kēn, Šalim-
aḫum made decisions and pursued strategies that indicate his awareness of his own
individuality and that of those around him. At a larger level, Šalim-aḫum’s strategies were
reflected in the contours of his commercial network, which exhibited a fairly simple albeit
flexible structure. In all, these activities demonstrate some of the basic mentalities of Šalim-
aḫum and his associates.
The activities of Šalim-aḫum’s two sons, Dān-Aššur and Ennam-Aššur, illustrate both
their integration into and independence from Šalim-aḫum’s commercial operations. Both Dān-
Aššur and Ennam-Aššur travelled to and from Kanesh in conjunction with their father’s
commercial needs and both Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn looked to one of them as an important
associate. However, when contingencies arose, the sons’ decisions and Šalim-aḫum’s responses
expressed various levels of perceived or real autonomy, suggesting that Šalim-aḫum’s sons
were not passive cogs in his mercantile machine. Šalim-aḫum did not function as the only
directing force in the activities of his sons. At some points he even seemed to negotiate from a
position of weakness, as when he wrote to Ennam-Aššur pleading for him to come home and
promising not to detain him. Pūšu-kēn’s preferred use of Dān-Aššur at several points during
the year is an example of how Šalim-aḫum’s sons, doubtless like all merchants in the trade,
needed to negotiate a web of interests within the core network of actors with which they
cooperated.
391
Moreover, just as Šalim-aḫum’s relationship with his sons respected their autonomy, so
too did his dealings with his agent Pūšu-kēn. Pūšu-kēn’s interaction with Šalim-aḫum in
negotiating the terms of the joint venture suggests that in practice, both Šalim-aḫum and
Pūšu-kēn conducted themselves within a framework characterized by autonomy and
atomization of risk. Šalim-aḫum probably initiated the joint venture to serve his own interests
and to more closely align Pūšu-kēn’s interests with his. By contrast, Pūšu-kēn sought to limit
his involvement in the joint venture. That Pūšu-kēn had his own separate balance sheet was
clear when Šalim-aḫum sought to use Pūšu-kēn’s account and Pūšu-kēn sought to protect it.
The moves Šalim-aḫum made with respect to his sons and his agent reflect the
autonomy evident in his commercial network and the conditions within which that network
was formed. Impersonal elements within the trade, such as message services and the
impersonal wholesale market, affected the place reserved for social relations in Šalim-aḫum’s
commercial network. Because of these two impersonal elements, Šalim-aḫum was able to
participate in the trade with a fairly simple commercial network with only two classes of
representatives. Šalim-aḫum had one class of representation that focused on discrete tasks,
like transporting goods, and one that encompassed managerial aspects of his operations.
Šalim-aḫum’s high volume of trade allowed him to use a large number of transporters. Also,
the effectiveness of communication allowed Šalim-aḫum’s commercial network to manage his
affairs with a number of overlapping managerial agents to whom he was able to give specific
instructions about his short-term affairs in Anatolia.
The resulting mode of cooperation that characterized Šalim-aḫum’s commercial
network was in part configured by the dispersed nature of wealth in the Old Assyrian
merchant system. This does not mean that the concept of family was not important in the Old
392
Assyrian period. However, an operational interpretation of the family firm, meant to internally
convey the goods across the landscape and then organize a retail sale of the goods on the
Anatolian market was not how Šalim-aḫum operated within the trade in REL 80. Instead, the
somewhat egalitarian cooperation between merchants within the Old Assyrian system
supports the idea that there was equal access to the goods of the Old Assyrian trade on the
market in Aššur. Šalim-aḫum’s commercial activities during REL 80 supports a view that the
nature of the market, from whence the Old Assyrian merchants gained their wealth, reserved a
different space for the cooperation of the family than offered in many versions of the family
firm before Larsen’s 2009 study.
393
CONCLUSION:
AGENTS, ARCHIVES, AND RISK
This dissertation has sought to demonstrate and discuss the implications of
reconstructing Šalim-aḫum’s commercial operations during one commercial season (REL 80) as
reconstructed from a small corpus of mostly previously undated letters. The chapters were
ordered to reflect the substantive revisions to our understanding of the Old Assyrian trade and
opportunities offered by the reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s activities. Chapter One set out the
background of the Old Assyrian period, the discovery of the tablets, and a history of the
discussion of the family firm. Chapters Two through Five included reconstructions of different
episodes of Šalim-aḫum’s activities with discussions of elements arising from those
reconstructions.
Chapters Two through Four were largely technical in nature. In Chapter Two, I
reconstructed a single venture run by Šalim-aḫum through Pūšu-kēn and their agents in
Anatolia between March and August of REL 80 and which I called the “original venture”
because of its place in this work. Šalim-aḫum sent a shipment of goods with several
transporters to his agents in Kanesh who then sold those goods after they arrived and cleared
customs. The claims arising from selling the goods on credit were shepherded by Šalim-aḫum
in Aššur through his correspondence with Pūšu-kēn and others in Kanesh. The reconstruction
of the original venture provided an opportunity to review two perceived difficulties involved
in reconstructing historical activity from the Old Assyrian correspondence. First, because so
394
much activity in the trade seems to be homogenous and repetitive, previous discussions that
identified multiple references to specific ventures or assets posited that references needed to
match precisely in order to confirm connections. My review of the original venture shows,
however, that correlating amounts of assets relied not only on context--whether the document
was a legally binding document or a more informal discussion of an asset in a letter—but also
on the disposition or mood of the writer. Šalim-aḫum seemed unconcerned about precision
when discussing his assets with Pūšu-kēn, in one case rounding and fudging all the numbers in
his favor. Second, I demonstrate that although Šalim-aḫum referred to the persons who
bought his goods as ‘his’ merchants, this cannot mean that those who bought his goods were
necessarily parts of his commercial network. Despite calling the buyers ‘his’ merchants, Šalim-
aḫum did not often name them and their identities did not occupy the same prominence in his
letters of those who transported his goods. These two observations have important
implications about the idea of a family firm: unlike the cooperation required within some
models of a family firm, Šalim-aḫum did not report his goods in a way that indicated that he
shared Pūšu-kēn’s interests; nor did Šalim-aḫum seem to regard those who bought his goods
on credit as his commission agents.
In Chapter Three, I reviewed another episode from REL 80 involving Šalim-aḫum.
Šalim-aḫum contracted with Puzur-Ištar to buy gold in Anatolia when the latter was to arrive
early in the shipping season. However, when Puzur-Ištar did arrive in Anatolia, he cited vague
excuses for why he could not complete the contract. Šalim-aḫum attempted to manage the
situation from Aššur, but it quickly developed beyond his control, and Puzur-Ištar exited the
contract. Fortunately for Šalim-aḫum, he was able to demand gold from another individual
named Ilabrat-bāni, who seemed to be beholden to Šalim-aḫum (for reasons discussed in

395
Chapter Four). In reviewing the Puzur-Ištar affair, I note that despite Šalim-aḫum’s inability to
remedy the situation from Aššur, his clear ability to communicate with his agents in Kanesh
throughout the first three months of the season signals a need to revisit the assumptions held
in regards to bulk transport and communication in the Old Assyrian trade. Against previous
estimates, I argue that the trip from Aššur to Anatolia took approximately 30 days, barring
significant delays. This is evident by the flexibility of travel between Aššur and Kanesh during
the activities of REL 80, activities that demanded that transporters were not forced to operate
within the two-cycle season proposed in earlier models. I also argued that estimates about
daily travel of donkeys for the Old Assyrian trade based on modern military practices, in which
self-sufficiency and protecting investments in animals are paramount, do not match the
context of the Old Assyrian trade. Moreover, I argue that the pace of communication so
evident in Šalim-aḫum’s activities as reconstructed in REL 80 reflected a pace and vibrancy
that has not been recognized through structuralist approaches to the Old Assyrian material. As
opposed to previous estimates that hundreds of letters were sent each year, I argue that Šalim-
aḫum alone could have sent and received more than a hundred letters during this year; thus
estimates of the total amount of correspondence sent in one year in the Old Assyrian trade
must be geometrically greater than thus far supposed. Finally, I note that although Puzur-Ištar
and Ilabrat-bāni were brothers, Šalim-aḫum did not assign any liability to Ilabrat-bāni because
of his brother’s failing, further corroborating the individual locus of liability argued recently
by Mogens Larsen.
In Chapter Four, I show how Ilabrat-bāni had become beholden to Šalim-aḫum,
allowing Šalim-aḫum to demand gold from him when Puzur-Ištar defaulted. Early in REL 80,
Ilabrat-bāni had travelled to Kanesh in the company of others with responsibility for Šalim-
396
aḫum’s goods. Along the way, Ilabrat-bāni opened Šalim-aḫum’s pack and took 6 1/3 minas tin,
probably to pay fees. Šalim-aḫum replied angrily that the action was thievery, further
complaining about small infractions made by Ilabrat-bāni in the recent past. The two
reconciled the problem with Ilabrat-bāni agreeing to buy a large lot of goods from Šalim-aḫum
on credit at a price favorable to Šalim-aḫum. However, when Ilabrat-bāni then defaulted on
the first payment, Pūšu-kēn recommended that Šalim-aḫum seize Ilabrat-bāni’s goods en route
to Anatolia. Šalim-aḫum did so and recovered most of the initial payment he should have
received from Ilabrat-bāni. The value of the Ilabrat-bāni episode lay in the fact that through
the reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s interactions with Ilabrat-bāni and simultaneous
developments in Šalim-aḫum’s business, Šalim-aḫum’s use of a cultural structure could be seen
alongside his actions within them. Šalim-aḫum seized Ilabrat-bāni’s goods in accordance with a
concept of mirror retribution, taking Ilabrat-bāni goods on the road in the same manner
Šalim-aḫum’s goods were taken, and thereby accomplishing his own interests.
In Chapter Five, I cover four different episodes involving Šalim-aḫum to set up a
discussion on the shape of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial network during REL 80. One episode
revolved around the discussion of his son Dān-Aššur’s travel itinerary between May and
August of REL 80. The second episode dealt with another son, Ennam-Aššur, and his reluctance
to return to Aššur where the ongoing discussions of his arranged marriage required his
participation. The third and fourth episodes involved convincing Pūšu-kēn to join Šalim-aḫum
in a venture while at the same time Šalim-aḫum helped Pūšu-kēn purchase a house in Aššur. In
each of these episodes Šalim-aḫum’s attitude to either his sons or one of his most valuable
agents stands out against the press of the season and the context of these and the other
episodes discussed in previous chapters. His attitude throughout these episodes illuminates
397
our understanding of how merchants who needed to coordinate their actions constantly faced
conflicts of interests even while coordination was necessary for those conflicts to arise. As a
result, the contours of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial network could be sketched, showing a simple
hierarchy of an inner circle, an outer circle, and persons outside the network. I will elaborate
on these elements further below in the section entitled, “Agents.”
Šalim-aḫum’s commercial operations during the course of REL 80 form a different kind
of account of Old Assyrian commerce than has been rendered in the past. Here I discuss the
effect that this account has on Old Assyrian studies under three headings. Under the first
heading, “Agents,” I review the findings of this work in regards to Šalim-aḫum’s commercial
network. Šalim-aḫum’s activities during REL 80 give at least a partial picture of the network of
persons with whom Šalim-aḫum dealt over the course of a season, as well as their modes of
interaction with him. This provides a picture of a commercial network characterized by an
organizational arrangement different from a “family firm.” Under the second heading,
“Archives,” I discuss how the reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s activities indicates that the
documentation arising from archives at Kültepe has the potential not only to yield large
dossiers about legal disputes, but also occasional dossiers derived from the conduct of business
over short periods of time. Šalim-aḫum’s activities and their documentation serve to correct
several distortions inherent to structural and archival approaches on the Old Assyrian
documentation. Under the third heading, “Risk,” I review the substratum of structures that
reveal an inherent conflict between the interests of individual merchants as they practiced the
trade. The account of Šalim-aḫum’s commerce in REL 80 both documents some of these
underlying structures and shows Šalim-aḫum and other merchants practicing within and in
response to these structures.

398
Agents
A significant aspect of this work has been the reconstruction of a reasonably significant
portion of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial pursuits with the trade in tin and textiles in Anatolia.
Internal analysis of his undated correspondence has shown that a significant portion of it
comes from REL 80 and that attention to multiple interwoven episodes creates a reasonable
reconstruction of those activities over the course of the shipping season in REL 80. A more
vigorous pace of trade became evident, suggesting that peregrinating merchants moved
between Aššur and Anatolia within a more flexible schedule than implied by the previous two-
cycle model of a shipping season. In addition, it was evident that Šalim-aḫum enjoyed a robust
capacity to communicate with his agents in Anatolia. Within these two conditions, Šalim-aḫum
could utilize a constant ebb and flow of peregrinating merchants and sufficiently communicate
with several agents in Anatolia. The combination of the constant flow of peregrinating
merchants and the swift pace of communication meant that Šalim-aḫum’s commercial
network was organized differently and depended on different principles than what has been
postulated for the operation of family firm in the commercial trade.
The reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s activities during REL 80 also provided a tempo of
both transport and communication more vigorous than had previously been understood
through structurally motivated studies. Enough transporters left Aššur and returned from
Kanesh during REL 80 to demand that rather than taking six weeks to travel between Aššur
and Kanesh, it must have been possible to make the trip in about 30 days. At the same time, the
correspondence carried by some form of a courier service must have been able to travel
399
between these same points in roughly half the time. Correspondence containing directions and
instructions constantly moved between principals like Šalim-aḫum and agents like Pūšu-kēn.
While this was evident in the reconstruction of the Puzur-Ištar affair, it was also evident in the
discussion of Dān-Aššur’s travels, and in most other episodes reviewed in this work.
This density and tempo of communication within the Old Assyrian system gave
merchants like Šalim-aḫum the capacity to communicate with their agents in such a manner
that largely left them in tactical control of their commercial pursuits, even those being
conducted hundreds of miles away. Šalim-aḫum sent perhaps more than a hundred letters to
Pūšu-kēn, his sons Dān-Aššur and Ennam-Aššur, and his other agents, like Lā-qēpum, during
REL 80, of which the surviving 32 are only a fragment. So effective was the communication that
while Dān-Aššur cajoled his donkeys towards Kanesh, Šalim-aḫum could change his mind three
or four times about Dān-Aššur returning home, and communicate all of his decisions to Pūšu-
kēn with the expectation that the final decision would be received before Dān-Aššur arrived.
He also could send and receive enough information to solve one developing problem—his need
to compensate for his loss of gold from Puzur-Ištar—through dealing with another—Ilabrat-
bāni’s inappropriate appropriation of his tin. Both problems began in April; Šalim-aḫum found
out about both at the beginning of May; both situations developed beyond his control for two
weeks; but by mid-May he had taken measures to resolve both situations; and by mid-June
Ilabrat-bāni had agreed to buy goods, paying part in gold.
The temporal frame of reference provided by this reconstruction is significant for
understanding the scale of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial operations. The shipping season in REL
80 began with Šalim-aḫum sending a large number of goods with more than six different
transporters. Thereafter, Šalim-aḫum sent goods to Kanesh to be handled by Pūšu-kēn, from

400
whose reconstructed archive most of the correspondence survives. While it appears that
Šalim-aḫum could have had other sectors of his commercial pursuits managed by other agents,
particularly Lā-qēpum, the portion which was constructed suggests Šalim-aḫum had an
operating budget near 600 minas silver, a significant amount by any standard. Likewise, the
number of persons which Šalim-aḫum used during REL 80 provides a snapshot of his
commercial network. In this year, Šalim-aḫum utilized over twenty different persons to
transport his goods, as listed in Chapter Five.
Šalim-aḫum’s commercial network consisted of two basic levels. On one level, Šalim-
aḫum drew widely from a pool of peregrinating merchants to transport his goods, many of
whom he knew. It was important for Šalim-aḫum to use as many of these transporters on as
regular a basis as possible so as to assure that he could use someone he knew as they came and
went according to their own schedules throughout the year. In addition, Šalim-aḫum could use
persons from this group for specific tasks, such as Puzur-Ištar and his contract to find gold.
However, despite the fact that Šalim-aḫum used persons he knew, all these tasks were
configured through written contracts that defined the temporary commercial relationship
between he and the other merchant. This level of his network was separate from those who
bought his goods on credit in Anatolia, who did not become part of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial
network by virtue of such a transaction. Exceptionally, some persons in his network did
purchase goods, such as Ilabrat-bāni. However, Šalim-aḫum made Ilabrat-bāni purchase goods
as a penalty and this case might be regarded as Ilabrat-bāni being symbolically marginalized.
On the second level, Šalim-aḫum needed a small number of managerial agents on
whom he could rely to coordinate his pursuits and carry out his instructions, which he sent by
correspondence. Managerial agents were responsible for arranging sales on his behalf,
401
dunning debtors, and ensuring that those with whom Šalim-aḫum dealt in Anatolia complied
with his arrangements.
Šalim-aḫum’s capacity to communicate framed the basis on which he chose and
communicated with his managerial agents in Anatolia. Šalim-aḫum’s capacity to communicate
in REL 80 presents a situation in which the imbalance of information between Šalim-aḫum and
his agents was sufficiently limited that Šalim-aḫum did require his agents’ long-term interests
to be intimately tied to his own commercial operations. With the ability to provide constant
updates to his instructions, and the possibility of playing agents off on one another, Šalim-
aḫum could look for the most competent or influential persons within a larger circle of social
associations. In fact, Šalim-aḫum’s actions towards Pūšu-kēn with regard to the joint purchase
suggest that Šalim-aḫum felt it necessary to draw Pūšu-kēn’s interests further in line with his
when Šalim-aḫum became concerned about being ashamed at the gate at the end of the
season. Šalim-aḫum’s mode of employing agents in REL 80 differs from the postulated basis for
placing family agents in Anatolia. Under that model, heads of family firms in Aššur needed
agents who would act in the best interests of the family firm because of the significant latitude
within which they operated. In a model where these agents might not have received constant
direction from informed bosses in Aššur, their own strategies were key to the success of the
firm. Agents that were family members, particularly sons, had long-term interests aligned with
the head of the firm because sons stood to eventually inherit at least part of their father’s
wealth.
This picture of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial network differs from the commercial
operation associated with some versions of a family firm in several respects, as discussed in
Chapter One. It is very different from a version of a family firm in which a group of persons
402
were all dependent on a single bundle of revenue streams centrally managed by the head of
the firm and purchasing, transporting, dividing, and selling on the level of retail, all internally.
Instead, Šalim-aḫum seemed to be a single operator who used other independent operators to
transport his goods, still other independent operators to represent him in Anatolia, and selling
his goods wholesale to still other independent operators on credit. It is also different from
another version of a family firm in which family members all managing their own independent
funds cooperated together in order to support one another, particularly a larger extended
family. Šalim-aḫum and his sons cooperated together on their individual pursuits, and Šalim-
aḫum certainly expected cooperation between his sons, though his explicit demands suggest
that this was compelled by the circumstances of the trade, and more ideal than natural. But
Šalim-aḫum’s commercial operations also depended on several other persons who were not his
sons, and would according to our (admittedly small) knowledge of inheritance, not inherit
anything from Šalim-aḫum. Beyond his sons, none of those who participated with Šalim-aḫum
during REL 80 can be shown to be related by blood to Šalim-aḫum. Thus, Šalim-aḫum utilized a
much larger base of social relations to accomplish his commercial operations than might be
associated with a family firm.
Certainly there were other aspects to the dimensions a family firm could take. The
financing of merchants was an important element of participating in the trade. Whether or not
Šalim-aḫum had need of instruments of financing such as the naruqqum is difficult to
determine. Šalim-aḫum was not obligated to communicate the details of his financial
arrangements to his agents in Anatolia during REL 80. Certainly he did not need to report to
Pūšu-kēn how much he paid for his goods in Aššur. Therefore this picture of Šalim-aḫum’s
commercial network is restricted to the operation of the trade from day-to-day rather than a
403
view of his overall the finances. However, in terms of operation, Šalim-aḫum’s commercial
network is not easily characterized as a family firm.
Archives
The difference between the reconstructed picture of Šalim-aḫum’s operations and the
idea of the family firm is related to the frame of the archive, whether reconstructed or
excavated. The ongoing effort to arrange the ‘old texts’ into reconstructed archives has been
an important focus among Old Assyrian scholars for some time and it is well worth continuing.
This effort is now complemented by the ongoing publication of large archaeologically
excavated archives, and a discussion of the nature of these archives has occupied much
attention in the Old Assyrian scholarship.1 Because an archival frame also has reinforced the
idea of the family firm, some biases and distortions have not been sufficiently exposed. The
frame of this reconstruction also has its own distortions. For example, it only accounts for a
part of Šalim-aḫum’s commercial endeavors during REL 80 and a smaller part of the activities
of those around him. But to the extent that approaches to the trade within an archival frame
simply continue in the same vein as past structuralist approaches have outside of that frame,
an archival frame risks totalizing roles within the trade and overemphasizing the parts
archive-holders play cooperating with other merchants but suppressing their own autonomy.
The documentation on Šalim-aḫum comes from the reconstructed archive of Pūšu-kēn
and the excavated house of Ennam-Aššur. The concentration of undated documentation from
REL 80 made evident through the reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s activities is unexpected—an
1
Two recent discussions are important: K.R. Veenhof, "Archives of Old Assyrian Traders," in Ancient
Archives and Archival Traditions: Concepts of Record-keeping in the Ancient World, ed. M. Brosius (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2003), 84; M.T. Larsen, Aššur-nādā, xi ff.; Veenhof, OBO 160/5, 65-75.
404
island of evidence twenty years before his death. At the very least, according to one metric
which has been applied to dating Old Assyrian archives, dated debt notes, Pūšu-kēn’s archive
would be expected to yield documentation spanning his career with increasing density near
the end of his life: the distribution of Pūšu-kēn’s debt notes stretches over fifteen years from
REL 82-97, with a slight increase in the five years before his death in or around REL 106.2 Such a
distribution gives no hint at the pocket of documentation from REL 80 reconstructed in this
work.
Table 18 Chronological Distribution of Debt Notes Attributed to Pūšu-kēn

REL 82 83-91 92 93 94 95 96 97
# Debt notes 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3
Debt notes: REL 82: CCT 1 5b, REL 83-91: I 583, REL 92: ATHE 1, SMEA 32 (1993), 115; TC 3 231a;
REL 93: ATHE 2; REL 94: KTH 20; REL 95: CTMMA I 91; REL 96: TC 3 233a & b; REL 97: CCT I 8c,
CCT 5 20b, CCT 5 20d, CCT 5 43. Undated debt notes attributable to Pūšu-kēn include: ATHE 6,
KTH 19, KTH 21, and TC 1 73.
The unexpected concentration of documentation in REL 80 reveals distortions within
the documentary record on which structural approaches have been conducted. One such
distortion concerns lexical studies and their dependence on how large a sample of evidence is
gathered. When connections between multiple attestations of a word in a lexical study remain
undetected, the conclusions can be skewed. For example, Veenhof’s treatment of be’ālum in
AOATT drew mostly on texts that derive from the activities reviewed here, but he was unaware
of the texts’ interrelatedness.3 Garelli’s discussion on ikrībū cited two different letters from the
Puzur-Ištar affair, but without pursuing what they might mean together, and perhaps
2
See T. Hertel, "Old Assyrian Legal Practices: An Anthropological Perspective on Legal Disputes in the
Ancient Near East" (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Copenhagen, 2007), 416-38 for an overview of the
documentation of the settlement of Pūšu-kēn’s estate after his death, beginning in 1871 B.C.
3
AOATT, 409-412. Texts cited included 3.6, 3.4 and 5.9.
405
uncertain as to whether they belonged to the same circumstances.4 Moreover, without
knowledge of the chronological distribution of the letters from which the characteristics were
determined, what might appear to be durable characteristics of merchants could in fact be
temporary. Šalim-aḫum’s concerns about being ashamed at the gate and his hastiness in
pushing the trade along during REL 80 show that while from an archival perspective, Šalim-
aḫum seems to be “a nervous man,”5 in a temporal reconstruction, his concerns can be
ascribed to definite developments over a particular span of time. These examples do not
indicate deficiencies in the pursuit of structural analysis, but regarding lexical studies these
concerns do call for a more careful application of conclusions, particularly in the generality of
claims.
The same principle applies to the archival frame. Although archival studies have been
considered something separate from broad-based structural approaches like lexical studies or
text-type studies, the reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s activities suggests that while moving
from a lexical frame to an archival frame usually involves moving from focus on terms to focus
on people, without a move toward temporally-sensitive reconstructions the same
shortcomings relevant to lexical or text-type studies appear. However a temporal
reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s activities allowed several aspects of his business to become
apparent. Šalim-aḫum’s interaction with Pūšu-kēn showed that despite the fact that Šalim-
aḫum referred to those who bought his goods as ‘his’ merchants, he did not regard these
people as his part of his commercial network. Moreover, Šalim-aḫum’s inaccuracy in reporting
4
AC, 253, 257.
5
Dercksen, “Review of AKT 3,” JESHO 41 (1998): 220-24.
406
his assets indicates that there was the potential for competition of interests within the
principal agent relationship, in addition to the cooperation, which is most often the focus of
the Old Assyrian trade. The reconstructed and revised tempo of communication showed that
Šalim-aḫum’s ability to send letters that could travel from Aššur to Kanesh in approximately
15 days empowered him to remain in tactical control of the direction of his assets and interests
in Anatolia in a way not realized within the archival frame.
Further phenomena would also be extremely difficult to detect from a structural or
archival perspective. In Chapter Four I argued that an account of Old Assyrian commercial
mentalities must be based on the observation of practice, decision and tactics pursued in
relation to specific material circumstances. Such a perspective is not immediately available
within an archival frame without further awareness of documentation arising from discrete
stretches of time. In Chapter Five I argued that Šalim-aḫum’s sons exhibited differing attitudes
towards their inclusion in his commercial operations, and that Pūšu-kēn was not
wholeheartedly aligned with Šalim-aḫum’s interests at all times, reinforcing the picture of
self-interest among cooperation associated with the original venture in Chapter Two. These
issues are obscured within an archival frame if that frame is simply a structural approach to
social relations within the confines of a limited set of documents around a smaller group of
persons.
Biases in the evidence of larger consequence are also suggested by Šalim-aḫum’s
reconstructed dossier. The tempo of communication reviewed in the previous section suggests
that the scale of documentation in the Old Assyrian trade was even larger than has been
suspected. If Veenhof’s suggestion that hundreds of letters were sent each year in the Old
Assyrian trade must be said only of Šalim-aḫum’s letters, then the number of documents that
407
may have originally been created, sent, read, used, referenced, stored, sifted, reserved, or
thrown away was exponentially larger than has been posited, and consequentially the
preserved remnants represent a proportionally smaller sample than previously thought. Given
this consideration, the fact that dispute process dossiers make up a significant portion of some
excavated archives, should give us a sense that the commercial activity is documented far less
than assumed. There must be an attempt to discern some sense of the scale of operations in
the Old Assyrian trade through prosopographical studies as well as by utilizing principles
gleaned from social network research. This would posit estimates of the size of the Old
Assyrian population involved in the Anatolian trade at any one time. Such estimates should
influence consideration of the nature of the social and commercial networks at work in the Old
Assyrian trade.
The archival focus sometimes occludes the fissures of liability that formed a substratum
underlying social organization of the trade at odds with the cooperation associated with the
family firm. The reality of the Old Assyrian system seems to be that everyone worked for
someone some of the time and themselves all of the time. When Dān-Aššur transported goods
for his father to Kanesh, Šalim-aḫum also included textiles that were tagged to his son.
However, Dān-Aššur was operating a naruqqum at the time and had to have been doing more
traffic than the few textiles which Šalim-aḫum assigned to him. Holding a naruqqum implied
that he had access to a much larger base of capital and would had to have operated at a higher
volume than a dozen textiles, in order to satisfy investors’ concerns that he was prudently
using their capital. The same must be said for Ilabrat-bāni, who after the infraction in the
beginning of the season, had immediately departed for Ḫattum on his own business. Even
though he was involved in transporting Šalim-aḫum’s goods, he had an operation of his own
408
which allowed him the capacity to purchase a talent worth of goods from Šalim-aḫum. He
could not have been only a transporter. Therefore it must be admitted that those who
transported for Šalim-aḫum also were transporting their own merchandise.
Likewise, Šalim-aḫum’s documentation produces only the side of the story that had to
do with him. Pūšu-kēn’s own operations are not present, though he certainly seemed to have
some during this year, as Pūšu-kēn was both buying a house for 10 minas silver, and Šalim-
aḫum also felt that he could ask Pūšu-kēn to donate 13 1/3 minas of silver to the joint
undertaking. The letters written by Šalim-aḫum, and in this case saved by Pūšu-kēn, concern
Šalim-aḫum’s business almost exclusively; Šalim-aḫum’s mention of Pūšu-kēn’s business
ventures are incidental to his own.
Within either a structural or archival focus, other tricks of the evidence are difficult to
correct. The long-held idea that merchants spent long periods of time in Anatolia is supported
by various observations. Merchants would occasionally form unions with Anatolian women.
Imdī-ilum’s wife’s oft-quoted plea, “You only love money! Come home!” is just one example of
how letters from wives of Old Assyrian merchants could be read to imply that merchants
usually spent years away from home.6 Pūšu-kēn’s wife also urged him to come home and put
his daughter on the lap of Aššur and behold the eye of Aššur. Such a picture of merchants away
for years at a time has fit well into some descriptions of the family firm in which these traders
in Anatolia constituted outposts of the organization. But in REL 80, this was not the case for
6
TC 1 5: “Here we ask the women who interpret oracles, the women who interpret omens from entrails,
and the ancestral spirits – and (divine) Aššur gives you a serious warning: You love money! You hate your life!
Can’t you satisfy Aššur (here) in the City? Please, when you have heard this letter then come, see Aššur’s eye and
save your life!” Translation quoted from M.T. Larsen, "Your Money or Your Life! A Portrait of an Assyrian
Businessman," in Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of I.M. Diakonoff (Warminster,
England: Aris and Phillips, 1982), 214.
409
Pūšu-kēn. He spent neither the winter beginning REL 80 nor the following winter in Anatolia.
Instead, he travelled to Kanesh alongside the original venture caravan from mid-March to mid-
April and Šalim-aḫum depended on him returning to Aššur before the end of the season. Pūšu-
kēn’s itinerary alone does not overturn the fact that some merchants were semi-permanently
based in Anatolia. The very presence of the archives exhumed from Kanesh and many other
indications, including intermarriage with Anatolians, clearly demonstrate that some
merchants made Anatolia a permanent base. But Pūšu-kēn’s example and the tempo of the
trade suggest that many merchants could spend the shipping season in Anatolia and return
each winter to Aššur. The rhetorical expressions of time in some letters did not reflect real
time.
None of these criticisms undermine the archival approach itself; only that moving
forward with the archival frame must include sensitivity to its limitations, limitations like
those reviewed above as well as two more. First, an archival approach can have a totalizing
effect on the construction of commercial networks thus causing durable (family) relationships
to be read with misplaced prominence. While the concept of the power of the family was
important, “our father’s house” (bēt abīni) was not necessarily the only principle of commercial
organization. A review of the use of the term ‘house’ in the Old Assyrian documentation has
not been the focus of the present study, and is beyond the scope of this discussion, but one
archival distortion with regard to the use of ‘house’ is worth pointing out. A reasonable
portion of many archives have been identified as dossiers comprising the clearing of a
merchants estate, or ‘house.’ This in no way accounts for all the occurrences of ‘house’, and
some are simply the sale of physical houses. Nevertheless, there is an archival bias built into
most of the observed Old Assyrian evidence which predisposes ‘our father’s house’ to refer to
410
the clearance of his estate, and thus ‘our father’s house’ can often simply be read to refer to
the physical holdings of the father. For example, large legal dossiers exist within the archives.
In one, two brothers had a falling out after one returned from burying their father in a small
Anatolian town, claiming a major deathbed revision to the will. Two hundred documents
survive as a fraction of the depositions, appeals, oaths, and unsuccessful attempts to resolve
the issue.7
The final limitation that must be considered in the archival approach is this: because
letters received have been preserved far more often than letters sent, an archival frame
inherently renders the holders or owners of the archives as more passive and cooperative to
key persons than they might have otherwise been. The imbalance between letters received and
sent is already well recognized. However, regarding matters of commercial organization,
without the benefit of knowing that Pūšu-kēn’s correspondence with Šalim-aḫum almost
exclusively belongs to a single year, Pūšu-kēn would appear to have only one role: an
employee of Šalim-aḫum. However, in this case, Pūšu-kēn’s motivations in preserving this
particular correspondence with Šalim-aḫum could as reasonably reflect Pūšu-kēn’s feeling that
he needed to document his due diligence with regards to Šalim-aḫum. Dossiers like Pūšu-kēn’s
correspondence with Šalim-aḫum could be interpreted to reflect his feelings of autonomy and
his attempts to protect it, just as much as it could reflect the solidarity of a firm. A temporal
reconstruction favors this interpretation of motivation for preserving such a dossier, rather
than preserving it as an organizational imperative.
7
A brief description of this dispute, which comes from the texts excavated in 1994, is included in M.T.
Larsen, "Individual and Family in Old Assyrian Society," JCS 59 (2007): 93-106.
411
Risk
Finally, the reconstruction of Šalim-aḫum’s activities and the actions of those around
him during REL 80 provides an opportunity to explore Šalim-aḫum’s commercial mentality
through the frame of practice, particularly in how he dealt with risk. Šalim-aḫum’s
management of risk during REL 80 illuminates some of the ways in which merchants
negotiated the systemic confrontations between individual economic interests and the need
for social coordination within the trade. The most common anecdotal quality of Old Assyrian
merchants, invoked in many brief sketches of their trade, is their love of money, i.e. “You only
love money!” However, quotations like these and the accompanying anecdotes and
expressions that make up the main evidence of our accounts of Old Assyrian commercial
mentalities subvert the context of the discrete decisions, maneuvers, and interests expressed
in the letters from which these quotations are drawn. By contrast, Šalim-aḫum’s encounters
with risk during REL 80 more effectively demonstrate the potential of the Old Assyrian
evidence to offer compelling insight into economic mentalities in the ancient past that
transcends the anecdotal and lexical frames.
It should be clear from the outset that a focus on risk in the Old Assyrian period is
difficult to sustain from a lexical frame. We can cite no word for ‘risk’ in the Old Assyrian
documents.8 As such, criticism may arise that focusing on risk is inappropriate inasmuch as
such a native concept cannot be demonstrated without identifying a word in their vocabulary.
Whether or not the Assyrian merchants referred to risk through a particular word or phrase,
8
The Assyrian-English-Assyrian Dictionary, 251 does provide puluḫtu as a (Neo)-Assyrian correspondence to
the word risk, though this interpretation of what the CAD defines as ‘fera, panic, terror,’ or ‘reverence, respect,
awe’ does not quite correlate with the idea of risk under discussion here.
412
they each intuitively responded to situations with sensitivity to the varying shades of and
exposures to the risk inherent in the capricious contingencies of the trade. If an awareness of
the native mentalities of the subjects in the ancient past is limited to cognizance of particular
vocabulary or turns of phrase, then that awareness is insensitive to the problems of asserting
an absolute primacy of language.
Risk as a focus of analysis, however, demands both proximal and systemic contexts, as
opposed to the heavy emphasis characteristic of most previous approaches, placed on the
systemic contexts at the expense of the proximal. The problems of focusing on risk from an
approach dictated by a lexical frame also apply to focusing on risk from an anecdotal frame
mutatis mutandis. Anecdotes or expressions taken from individual letters do not connect to
discrete circumstances that exist within systemic constraints but also represent novel
encounters in manner, timing, or configuration. This disconnect from discrete material and
temporal contexts ruptures evidence of persons dealing with actual risk. Risk only becomes
actionable for persons within a temporally configured and hence materially sensitive context.
When accounts of Old Assyrian merchants encountering risk are based on anecdotal evidence
not embedded in a larger temporally-sensitive frame, the way each actor deals with immediate
risk is sublimated by making a metaphorical interpretation of the situation in which each
letter arose. Granted, it is impossible to recover complete context, and even complete context
would come no closer to a coherent account of any particular event. The account of Šalim-
aḫum and his associations in REL 80 only slightly pushes back our curtain of ignorance about
the lost world of the Old Assyrian traders. But the account of how Šalim-aḫum, Pūšu-kēn and
others interacted during REL 80 offers at least an account that is in some way historically
particular to how they dealt with risk in practice.

413
Moreover, observing Šalim-aḫum’s practice is less susceptible to concerns of using
distinctively ‘modern’ categories in trying to understand ‘ancient’ mental frameworks. There
has been understandable concern that the Old Assyrian merchants did not engage in ‘purely’
economic activity because they preceded an intellectual separation of economic activity from
other spheres.9 However, whether or not the average individual in contemporary periods
intellectually separates economic activity without some sort of socialization is as relevant a
question. Moreover, Šalim-aḫum’s strategies and Pūšu-kēn’s tactics are much more interesting
in terms of the complex tensions between social and economic forces in distinction to
totalizing models of ‘market’ or ‘primitive’ economies. Statements made by Old Assyrian
merchants to the effect of ‘buy low, sell high’ are one thing, but crafting accounts of merchants
negotiating risk between socially connected associates is much more important. In contrast to
the difficulties involved in exploring risk through key terms, an account of Šalim-aḫum’s
strategies as practiced in REL 80 reflect sensitivity to individual liability, an awareness of
market and more general forms of risk, and a tendency to employ strategies to minimize risk
between socially connected associates.
The social management of risk, especially between Šalim-aḫum and his managerial
agent Pūšu-kēn, cannot be approached by studying structures of contracts because they did
not, to the best of our knowledge, draw up contracts to delineate their long-term coordination.
Instead, a description of how merchants managed risk must first draw on the substratum of
structures and institutions that shaped the field, in which the merchants interacted, then
9
J. Gledhill and Larsen, M.T., "The Polanyi Paradigm and a Dynamic Analysis of Archaic States," in Theory
and Explanation in Archaeology, ed. C. Renfrew (Academic Press, 1982).
414
move to exploring their interactions within that field. The present account suggests a number
of elements and institutions that formed a substratum of the trade. The first element was
individual liability. As pointed out above, in the Old Assyrian system individual liability was
clearly delineated. Married couples were special cases. For example, spouses could be held
accountable by the law for the debts of their husbands, or rather, wives were affected when
property associated with their husbands was seized. But within the practice of the trade,
Šalim-aḫum did not transfer liability between two brothers, as with the case of Puzur-Ištar and
Ilabrat-bāni. Second, pooled capital, such as the joint stock naruqqum fund created a situation
in which most merchants were responsible for payment to a series of investors, demanding
that to a reasonable extent, each manager of a fund needed to protect and promote the
financial vibrancy of his fund in the process of managing it.
Other elements of the substratum of the Old Assyrian trade also shaped the
confrontation between individual risks and coordination within the trade. The robust pace of
communication meant that traders like Šalim-aḫum could run their representation networks
as a meritocracy within social constraints. Redundant agents and good communication created
situations in which principals could expect agents to compete for esteem. Everyone was
principal and everyone agent in a thick web of commercial relationships. This arrangement
comes into focus properly when documents are placed in context. Šalim-aḫum writes often to
both Pūšu-kēn and Lā-qēpum about shipments in transit; elsewhere Ilī-ālum also appears as an
agent in company with these two. But when Ilabrat-bāni absconds with Šalim-aḫum’s tin on
Lā-qēpum’s watch, Šalim-aḫum engages Pūšu-kēn alone to clean up the mess, implying he had
lost some trust in Lā-qēpum. At the same time, Šalim-aḫum competes with other merchants in
Kanesh for esteem in Pūšu-kēn’s eyes, including Šalim-aḫum’s soon-to-be in-law Šū-Ḫubur.
415
When Pūšu-kēn needs help finishing the purchase of a house in Aššur while he is away in
Kanesh, both Šalim-aḫum and Šū-Ḫubur assist. But they don’t do so in coordination, and each
seeks to broker a better deal for Pūšu-kēn. Šalim-aḫum goes so far as to front ten minas of
silver for Pūšu-kēn to purchase the house, and mildly denigrates Šū-Ḫubur’s arrangements.
Šalim-aḫum’s correspondence in REL 80 demonstrates that managing individual risk
was an integral element of merchant strategies in dealing with each other. Šalim-aḫum and
Pūšu-kēn’s association was characterized by the need to both cooperate and to compete. The
realities of the trade dictated that merchants constantly came into conflict with each other.
The copious record of dispute processes attests to the fact that such conflicts could swell into
larger problems.
Ultimately, one merchant cooperated with a finite number of persons in a network
shaped by social considerations. In such a system, risk was shared but ideally transferred.
Market risk was engaged and distributed within and around the merchant community through
financial institutions. Joint-stock investments pooled and distributed both capital and risk
among networks of financiers and traders. However, at the same time, merchants pushed risk
onto others in particular situations. Šalim-aḫum arranged the short-term joint venture
described earlier between he and Pūšu-kēn in such a way as to bind Pūšu-kēn’s risk to his own;
and Pūšu-kēn sought to minimize that risk. Families banded together to respond to financial
crises in some situations, but in other cases it tore them apart, and the constant pressures on
the households of the peregrinating merchants are still reflected in the wife’s plea for her
husband to come home.
In turn the realities of the trade could result in practices that have seemed
counterintuitive from other viewpoints. For example, in contrast to some models of a family
416
firm, Šalim-aḫum seemed to prefer to sell his goods on credit to those outside his commercial
network. Doing so allowed Šalim-aḫum to keep his exposure to risk mediated through persons
who were less socially connected to him. If there were problems with the market, in most
cases the untidy job of collecting on those debts would not directly strain the connections
within his commercial network. It is true, that Šalim-aḫum did sell some goods to his son
Ennam-Aššur, but sons were special cases. Likewise, within this frame it is possible to see
Ilabrat-bāni’s required penance for the tin he took as a credit purchase from Šalim-aḫum, as
Šalim-aḫum effectively pushing him farther out in his commercial network. This approach to
market risk separates Šalim-aḫum’s commercial pursuits sharply from a model of a family firm
where the credit sales are interpreted as consignments given to travelling agents. In that case,
a hierarchical power relationship would be needed to overcome strain arising from travelling
agents bearing responsibility for market risk and thus the firm’s potential losses.
But more interesting is the tension that inevitably arose between close relatives and
their individual interests. For example, in the Ilabrat-bāni affair Šalim-aḫum decided to take
serious retaliatory measures towards Ilabrat-bāni, suggested by Ilabrat-bāni’s own uncle Pūšu-
kēn. Seizing Ilabrat-bāni’s goods on his own initiative, instead of engaging in a dispute process
offers an instance of how confrontations could be heightened within the temporal constraints
of the season and the social proximity of the actors. Šalim-aḫum would likely have thought
twice about seizing someone else’s goods with whom he did not have an ongoing relationship.
Pūšu-kēn might not have recommended the measure had he not worried that Šalim-aḫum
identified the previous failure of the Puzur-Ištar affair with Pūšu-kēn’s management. Uncle
turned against nephew and associate against associate in this case.
417
Family concerns frequently overlapped with commercial ones, as marriages could be
coordinated between two important, but otherwise not closely coordinated families, and the
personal interests of the marrying parties, including Ennam-Aššur, were subjugated. But each
could use his own cards to play the game. When Šalim-aḫum got his son Dān-Aššur back to
Aššur, he could appeal to sickness to keep him there. When Ennam-Aššur did not obey his
father in returning to Aššur, he could appeal to debts from Anatolians in need of attention.
These factors were not purely rhetorical, they were part of the contingencies that arose,
constrained, and in some cases could be used as resources by these sons and brothers, uncles
and nephews, and principals and agents to try to minimize the risk they acquired with regard
to other merchants, even as they necessarily cooperated to pursue their shared interests.
Šalim-aḫum’s strategies and decisions during REL 80, and the strategies and decisions
of those around him, reflect an awareness and attitude toward risk in relation to social
associations as one element of an Old Assyrian commercial mentality. With the “most
extensive documentation for ancient commerce from any region or period of the Near East
and the Mediterranean world,” the Old Assyrian record has been richly positioned to offer
accounts of commercial mentalities. 10 But despite its manifest richness, the Old Assyrian
evidence has yet to play a commensurate role in larger discussions of ancient economic
history. The lack of a temporal element in much of the Old Assyrian documentation has served
to limit the perceived impact that Old Assyrian has had in larger debates. The anecdotal
expressions in merchants’ letters have been sufficient to reject meta-narratives tied to the lack
10
Larsen, Aššur-nādā, xi.
418
of markets in the ancient world. Their letters also offer evidence that disturbs Marxian
teleological models of historical modes of production. But the real value of the Old Assyrian
documentation arises when groups of documents like the present can be recognized and
combined to form micronarrative evidence of Old Assyrians putting their attitudes into
practice, negotiating the balance between cooperation and conflicts of interests among social
networks and social actors around them. When the Old Assyrian documentation offers this
kind of evidence, its place at the center of debates about socioeconomic mentalities—beyond
dichotomies between ancient and modern—is assured.
419
APPENDIX 1
ANALYTIC LEDGER OF ŠALIM-AḪUM’S ASSETS DURING REL 80
The analytic ledger of Šalim-aḫum’s assets is derived from the documents numbered
and reviewed in this work. The ledger is separated into parts. Part One covers all typical
commercial traffic in tin and textiles, and the silver deriving from that traffic insofar, as it can
be tracked. Part Two covers miscellaneous claims and goods including claims on gold. Part
Three collects the few known instances of silver received by Šalim-aḫum in Aššur. The ledger
for Part Three is relatively straightforward, but the layout of Parts One and Two requires
explanation. Part One is primary to Part Two, which adopts the same layout, but uses fewer
columns. As such, the following explanation will refer to Part One, though the applicable
sections of the explanation will pertain to Part Two.
Part One of the Analytic Ledger is divided into three sections, which represent the
three most important stages of a venture, largely following the discussion in Chapter Two. Part
One is restricted to tracking the shipment of merchandise from Aššur and its sale in Kanesh.
Section One, consists of two columns, pertaining to Aššur and tracking transporters. The first
column records the transporter, the index number of his shipment, and textual references to
that shipment. The second column records the content of the shipment in terms of tin,
textiles, and donkeys. (The costs associated with purchasing and sending off the shipment,
never reported by Šalim-aḫum, are not treated in this ledger, but are estimated in the
420
temporal ledger in Appendix 2.) Many of the shipments are reconstructed because no details
are preserved about their actual composition; in such cases a single donkey of tin is the default
assumption. In cases where two shipments travel together, the assumption is that one is
textiles and one is tin.
Separating the first section from the second section is a space in which is recorded the
estimated time during which that particular shipment was on the road between Aššur and
Kanesh. This period is referred to by quarter-months, the primary unit of time in both this
ledger and the next dependent on the Gregorian months used in the reconstruction and
particularly in the figures within the work. Because very few markers anchor individual dates
for travel, all of these quarter-months are derived from the reconstruction. These dates are
represented, as, for example, Apr1, Apr2, Apr3, Apr4, which represent the first, second, third,
and fourth quarters of the Gregorian month of April.
Part One Section Two pertains to the customs procedure and duties assessed in Kanesh
when the caravans arrived. This process is divided into three columns: shipping costs, customs
duties, and losses. Shipping costs/Deficiencies have to do with what needed to be balanced to
the transporters as exceeding the hand-tin which was given them for expenses on the road;
deficiencies apply to the category reported by the managerial agents which cannot always be
explained but which the managerial agents noted in the reported amount stored in the cargo.
Customs duties are applied to both the tin and textiles (as discussed in Chapter Two). The third
column in Section Two records the amount of merchandise that was cleared after this process.
Part One Section Three, “Conversion to Claim in Kanesh,” accounts for the formation of
the merchandise into lots and its sale on credit for claims in silver. This section is separated
from the previous one to allow for the mixing and matching that occasionally happened
421
between shipments and lots sold after the merchandise was cleared. As a result, though many
lots are associated with shipments (i.e. Lots 6, 7, and 8 (L06, L07 and L08) derived from
Shipment 8 (S08) brought by Ilī-ašranni and Ilabrat-bāni) some lots are the products of mixing
between two different shipments. There are more claims indexed than lots. Only lots that
were reported in the documentation are indexed, while claims are estimated for all
merchandise estimated to have departed from Aššur and reached Kanesh. This section of the
ledger is divided into six columns. The first and second columns pertain to the formation and
sale of the lots: the first column records the composition of lots that are recorded in the
documentation, while the second column records the estimated date of sale according to the
reconstruction. As with the dates associated with the shipment of the goods, these dates are
separated by quarter-months. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth columns pertain to the known
or estimated parameters of the claims arising form the sale of these lots on credit. The third
column records the Claim number, its value, and any references to that amount. The fourth
column records, where known, the buyer of the lot and thus the person on whom the claim is
placed. The fifth column records the estimated due date of the claim, while the sixth column
records when, if known, the claim was collected. Totals for select columns are given at the end
of Part One.
Part Two is modeled after Part One but is focused on miscellaneous claims. In Part Two,
only Section Three from Part One is applicable and the space for Section Two is used for
comments.
Part Three of the Analytic Ledger tracks silver received. Part Three is divided into two
sections. Section One pertains to the silver shipped from Kanesh while Section Two pertains to
the silver received in Aššur.
422
Table 19: Analytic Process Ledger of Šalim-aḫum’s Commercial Assets during REL 80 – Part One: Merchandise and Claims
In Aššur Arrival in Kanesh Conversion to Claim in Kanesh
Shipment # Lot # Claim #

Transporter Lot Sale
Description Amount Buyer/
Debtor
Trip to Anatolia
Merchandise
Shipped
Shipping
Costs/
Deficiencies
Customs
Duties
Merchandise
Cleared
Date Sold
Due Date/
Term
Date
Collected
References References References

S01 L01 C01
DUMU Erra-iddi(n) 130m tin Def. [3m 4m tin 122m 8š tin 122m 8 š tin 28m 27š KB Lulu s.
[28 k.] 52š tin] [1 k.] 27 k. 20 k. Zukuḫum
4 š. 4 š. 4 š.
Jul4
Jul4
2.2:3-17 2 ANŠE 2 ANŠE† 2.2:14-15

S02 L02 C02
Nūr-Ištar 26 k. - 26 k. 26 k. 31m 18½š ?
1
2.1:1-28, 2.2:20-26 1 ANŠE 1 ANŠE† 124m 39š tin silver
S03 1 ANŠE
423
Sep4
?
Aššur-mutabbil 130m tin Def. 4m 54š 4m tin 113m 39š tin 2.2:41-43
5 k. Bal. 7m 27š 4½ k. - L03 C03
4 š. 4 š. 304m 40š tin 54m 45š KB ?
2.2:18-19, 26-33 1 ANŠE 1 ANŠE 50 k.
<-------------------------Apr3----------------------->
Jun3
Jun3
S04 12 š. 2.2:49-54
Aḫ-šalim & Amurru- 390m tin Def. 3m 10š 21m tin 365m 50š tin L04 C04
<------------------------Mar3-Apr3----------------------------->
bāni [12š.] [12 š.] 61m 10š tin 7m 35⅔š KB ?
Apr4
Sep4
?
2.2:45-48, 2.3:40-42 3 ANŠE 3 ANŠE 2.4:40-45
1
Includes 11 minas tin brought by Aššur-mālik, which was taken out of Šalim-aḫum’s account.
Table 19: Analytic Process Ledger of Šalim-aḫum’s Commercial Assets during REL 80 – Part One: Merchandise and Claims, continued
Trip to Anatolia
Debtor
Merchandise
Shipped
Shipping
Costs/Losses
Customs
Duties
Merchandise
Cleared
Date Sold
Due Date/
Term
Date
Collected

C05
79
4m 53š KB Ibni-ilum s.
Jun3
2.3-2.7 Aššur-šamšī
C06
5m 16⅔š KB Pilaḫ-Aššur s.
79 VI
Jun3
2.3-2.7 Aššur-šamšī
79 C07
21m 17š KB Unknown
424
Jun3
2.3-2.7 (via Ḫinnaya)

C08
79
5m KB Amur-Ištar
Jun3
2.3-2.7
C09
79
58m 18½š KB Pūšu-kēn

Sep2
2.4:6-7
C10
30š KB Aššur-
Mar3
Aug1
2.3:36-37 mutabbil
C11
30š KB Aḫ-šalim
Mar3
Aug1
2.3:39-40
Transporter Lot
Sale Amount
Description Buyer/
Date Sold
Trip to Anatolia
References Debtor
Merchandise
Shipped
Shipping
Costs/
Deficiencies
Customs
Duties
Merchandise
Cleared
Due Date/
Term
Date
Collected
References References
C12
25š KB Amurru-
Aug1
Mar3
2.3:40-41 bāni
S05 L05 C13
Ḫuraṣānum 130m tin [6m tin] [4m tin] [120m tin] @240m tin 20m 45⅔š KB2 Ilabrat-bani
3.4:14 1 ANŠE 1 ANŠE @100 k.
Sep2
Aug3
S06
Jun3 4.5:18-24
Amur-Aššur s. Šū- 130m tin [6m tin] [4m tin] [120m tin]
Ištar 3.4:15-16 1 ANŠE 1 ANŠE C14
?
?
425
S07 @40m KB Ilabrat-bāni
Dān-aššur s. Šalim- 390m tin [18m tin] 12m tin [360m tin] --tin worth @39m KB
<--------May3-Jun3------->
aḫum & Šū-Suen 100 k. 4 k. 96 k.
“Jun3”
8 š. 8 š.
3.6:3-39 7 ANŠE - 7 ANŠE --donkeys worth 3½m KB
S08 L06 C15
81
Ili-ašranni 390m tin Def. 9⅔m 12m tin 353m 179m tin 28m KB Puzur-Anna
& Ilabrat-bāni 85 k. Ib 6⅓m3 12½ k.4 72¾ k. 20 k. C16
Apr3
81
Mar3-Apr3
20 š. Bal. 9m 2 š.5 18 š. 10 š. 10m 4½š KB Puzur-Anna
4.1:3-71 6 ANŠE 6 ANŠE 4.1:26-33
2
Total taken from sum of 19m 53 5/6š and 51 5/6š, the combination of the amount for which Ilabrat-bāni’s goods were seized to repay.
3
See C33.
4
4½ k. as excise duty, 8 k. as tithe purchase, two shekels silver were balanced back; and five more textiles purchased later for 1m 40š.
5
1 š. for excise, 1 š. for tithe, 2 shekels silver were balanced back.
Trip to Anatolia
Debtor
Merchandise
Shipped
Shipping
Costs/Losses
Customs
Duties
Merchandise
Cleared
Date Sold
Due Date/
Term
Date
Collected
References References Reference

L07 C17
134m 10š tin 30m 40š KB Iddi(n)-abum
81
20 k.
Apr3
4š
both lots derive from S08 (4.1) --> 1 ANŠE 4.1:34-42
L08 C18
81
39m 50š tin 10m 20š KB Ilī-ašrannī

17 k. Apr3 C19
81
1 š. 30š KB Ilī-ašrannī
426
S09
Sueyya 18 k. [3 k.] [15 k.] --tin worth @ 7½m KB
“Oct3”
Sep3-O3
4.5:33-35
S10
Kulumaya & Agua [130m tin] [6m tin] [4m tin] [120m tin] --tin worth @ 12m silver
“Jun3”
s. Ṭāb-Aššur [40 k.] [6 k.] [34 k.] --k. worth @ 17m silver
May3-Jun3
5.1:4-10 [2 ANŠE] 2 ANŠE --ANŠE worth @ 1m silver
C20
?
? Puzur-Adad
Jun2
5.1:25-27
C21
?
? Ennum-Aššur
Jun2
5.1:25-27
Trip to Anatolia
Debtor
Merchandise
Shipped
Shipping
Costs/Losses
Customs
Duties
Merchandise
Cleared
Date Sold
Due Date/
Term
Date
Collected

C22
? Ḫuraṣānum
5.1, 2.3
C23
7½m KB Aššur-mālik
5.1, 2.3
S11
Aššur-mālik s. [63] [8] 55 k. --k. worth @ 27.5m KB
Erraya
Mar3-Apr3
427
2.5:12-13 2 ANŠE [2 ANŠE]
S12
Aššur-taklāku 130m tin [6m tin] [4m tin] [120m tin] --tin worth @ 12m KB
13 k. [⅔ k.] [12⅓ k.] --k. worth @ 6½m KB
Jul3-Aug3
[4 š.] [4 š.] --š. worth @ 1m KB
5.7:3-8 1 ANŠE 1 ANŠE --ANŠE worth @ ½m KB
C24
Jul4
30m KB Aššur-ṭāb &

5.7:32-37 Uṣur-ša-Aššur
S13
Ennam-Aššur ?
Jul4-Aug4
5.7:38-41
C25
? Aššur-idd(n) &
5.8:24-27 Aššur-nādā
Contents Amount Buyer
Trip to Anatolia
/
Merchandise
Shipped
Shipping
Costs/Losses
Customs
Duties
Merchandise
Cleared
Date Sold
Due Date/
Term
Date
Collected
References References References Debto

S14 r
Kuzari [130m tin] [6m tin] [4m tin] [120m tin] --tin worth @ 12m KB
[4 š.] [4 š.] --š. worth @ 1m KB
Jul4-Aug4
5.9:3-13 [1 ANŠE] [1 ANŠE] --ANŠE worth @ ½m KB
S15
Iddi(n)-Suen & [130m tin] [6m tin] [4m tin] [120m] --tin worth @ 12m KB
Kulumaya [30 k.] [4 k.] [24 k.] --k. worth @ 12m KB
Aug1-Sep1
[4 š.] [4 š.] --š. worth @ 1m KB
5.9:28-29 [2 ANŠE] [2 ANŠE] --ANŠE worth @ 1m KB
428
S16
Puzur-Aššur [520m tin] [24m tin] [16m tin] [480m tin] Joint purchase w/ --tin worth @ 47½m KB
[16 š.] [16 š.] Pūšu-kēn --š. worth @ 4m KB
Sep4-Oct4
5.9:13-15 [4 ANŠE] [4 ANŠE] --ANŠE worth @ 2m KB
TOTALS 2080m tin 1964m 37š tin 356.1m att. ‘25’
408 k. 385 k. 137.5m different
19 different 60 š. 60 š. guess buyers
transporters 29 ANŠE
Attested 1820m tin 503.6

275 k. minas+unkn
52 š. own (@8
25 ANŠE talents)
Table 20: Analytic Process Ledger of Šalim-aḫum’s Commercial Assets during REL 80 – Part Two: Miscellaneous Claims
Conversion to Claim in Kanesh
Claim #
Value of
Associated Claim Buyer/
Goods Debtor
Date
Due Date/
Term
Date
Collected
Reference
C26
⅔m KG Puzur-
Apr3
Apr3
LOSS
3.1, 2.3 Ištar

C27
79
6š KG Agua s.
Jun3
3.3, 5.6 Ṭāb-Aššur

C28
These claims mentioned in conjunction 7⅔š 23g KG Ilī-ašrannī
Jun3
Apr3
with compensating for the loss of 3.3

Puzur-Ištar’s gold claim --> C29
429
79
6š KG Panaka
Jun3
3.5, 5.3
C30
79
7š KG Ḫuraṣānu
Jun3
3.5 m
C31
Associated with purchase of L05---> 30š KG Ilabrat-
Jun3
Jun3
3.5 bāni
Table 20: Analytic Process Ledger of Šalim-aḫum’s Commercial Assets during REL 80 – Part Two: Miscellaneous Claims , continued
Conversion to Claim in Kanesh
Claim #
Buyer/
Associated Value of Debtor
Goods Claim
Date
Due Date/
Term
Date
Collected
C32
78
79
Aššur-mālik s. Azua 4.3:28-31 -------------------> 3 k. (ikribū) [1m KB] Ilabrat-bāni

4.2-4.4
C33
79
79
1 kusītum [20š KB] Ilabrat-bāni

4.2-4.4
C34
6⅓m tin [1m 20š KB] Ilabrat-bāni
Apr2
Apr3
4.2-4.4
C35
430
6
½ k. [15š KB] Ilabrat-bāni
Apr3
Apr3
4.2-4.4
TOTALS 1m 37š KG 6 different

(40š lost) buyers/
debtors
2m 55š KB
6
This textile pertains to the settlement of Nūr-Ištar above.
Table 21: Analytic Process Ledger of Šalim-aḫum’s Commercial Assets during REL 80 –
Part Three: Silver Assets Received by Šalim-aḫum
In Kanesh In Aššur
Trip to Aššur
Packet # Silver Shipping Net Silver
Transporter Shipped Costs
Reference
P01
Šū-Suen & DUMU Šū-Aššur 31m 45š 30š 31m 15š
Jun3-Jul3
2.3, 2.4
P02
Aššur-mālik s. Erraya 21m 10š 20š 20m 50š
2.3, 2.4
P03
Dān-Aššur s. Šalim-aḫum 33m 45½š [30š] 33m 15½š
2.4
P04
Jul4-Aug4
Ilī-ālum 42m 20š [40š] 41m 40š

2.4
P05
Kurub-Ištar 18m [18š] [18š] 18m
2.4
P06
Aug1-Sep1
Šū-Ištar s. Dadānum 30m 30š1 30m
5.8:5-9
ATTESTED TOTAL SILVER 177m 18½š 2m 48š 175m ½š
Ḫanu was also intended to take 30, then 20 minas silver, leaving mid-June (5.2:32, 5.3:3-7).
1
Paid by Pūšu-kēn.
431
APPENDIX 2
TEMPORAL LEDGER OF ŠALIM-AḪUM’S ASSETS DURING REL 80
The temporal ledger derives from the chronological arrangement of the analytic ledger
above with some simplifications in order to allow for a double-entry bookkeeping approach to
viewing the assets of Šalim-aḫum, as those assets can be accounted for through the year. This
ledger only refers to Šalim-aḫum’s commercial assets reported in the commercial proceedings
within the documents covered in this work pertaining to Pūšu-kēn. It does not include
references to Šalim-aḫum’s assets that did not participate in the trade with Anatolia. For
example, Šalim-aḫum’s payment of 10 minas silver on behalf of Pūšu-kēn for purchasing a
house in Aššur does not appear in this ledger, nor does Šalim-aḫum’s silver promised to his son
Ennam-Aššur to remunerate him for the possible loss of silver from failing to follow up with
the Anatolians.
As in the analytic ledger in Appendix 1 the smallest unit of time recognized is the
quarter-month, which is an abstraction from the reconstruction as represented in the figures.
The temporal ledger is divided into three main areas representing the three principal sectors
in which Šalim-aḫum’s goods can be classified. These three sectors or areas are essentially
treated as three different accounts run in parallel in the ledger which permit at least an initial
sense of Šalim-aḫum’s ‘cash flow’ during the season. The three separate accounts are: 1) Aššur,
2) Caravan, i.e. on the route between Aššur and Anatolia, and 3) Claims in Kanesh. The three
accounts or categories represent a simplification of the process in several ways. First, the costs
432
and taxes emanating in Aššur must be largely estimated. Second, the time lapse between the
arrival of goods in Kanesh and their sale is not always immediate, but is represented here as
such for convenience only.
1) Assets in Aššur are only listed in silver because all purchases reported to Pūšu-kēn
were essentially reported as they were departing. Thus the departure of a shipment is
recorded as a draw on Šalim-aḫum’s silver. Because Šalim-aḫum had no responsibility to
report the prices and taxes he paid in Aššur to his managerial agents in Anatolia, all these
amounts must be estimated for the purpose of the Temporal Ledger. The following table
outlines the prices used.
Table 22: Estimated Prices in Aššur during REL 80 used in the Temporal Ledger
Price silver (shekel) (mina)
kutānum (k.) 5 .083
kutānum (k.) fine 7.5 .125
kutānum (k.) very fine 9 .15
šūrum (š.) 2 .033
tin/mina 4 .067
waṣītum tax/donkey 2 .033
harness & fodder/donkey 5 .083
hand-tin 40 .67
clothes, additions/transporter 5 .083
be’ulātum 15 .25
wages of driver 12.5 .208
433
Textiles are assumed to be the typical kutānum textiles unless otherwise identified. A
be’ulātum is assumed as the default method of payment for shipments.
The wage (igrum) for a driver (sāridum) is set to 12½ shekels of silver as taken from a
range of documents referring to the trip between Aššur and Kanesh.1 Amounts below 12½
shekels in other documents usually refer to situations where less than a full donkey-load has
been entrusted to a merchant, a driver has been hired for only a portion of the journey, or
some other special situation.
2) Caravan. The second major section of the ledger and separate account is the Caravan,
or all goods and silver or gold that was transported at the time. When goods were shipped
from Aššur, they entered the ledger as a debit to Šalim-aḫum’s account in silver in Aššur, and
then listed according to the merchandise shipped in the Caravan section. There are columns
for tin, kutānum textiles (k.), šūrum textiles (š.), donkeys (ANŠE), silver (KB – for KÙ.BABBAR),
and gold (KG – for KÙ.GI). Merchandise (tin, textiles, donkeys) listed in the Caravan section is
travelling to Kanesh, while silver and gold in the Caravan section is travelling to Aššur.
Merchandise listed in the caravan section is not differentiated by individual transporter,
though the shipments, listed by index number deriving from the analytic ledger, are noted in
the Comments section for that line. Goods or silver in gold that are entered into the Caravan
account remain there for the period of four quarter-months at which point the goods are
represented to have reached Kanesh and sold on credit and now have become claims.

1 17 (AKT 1 23:24); 20 (AKT 3 39:34); 11(CCT 1 31a:1); 7 1/3 (CTMMA 1 75:23); 17 (KTS 2 10:24); 2 ¼ (KUG
27:11); 8 (TC 3 139:9’); 3 (VS 26 43:19’); 15 (kt e/k 46:13); 10 1/3 (k/k 67b:2); 40 (m/k 30:18); 6 (kt 87/k 361:21); 12 ½
(kt 94/k 1353:24); 10 (kt 94/k 1359:9); 5 (kt 94/k 1456:19); 12 ½ (kt 94/k 1756:50); 21, 15 (kt 94/k 760:3, 14).
434
3) Claims – Kanesh. The third major section of the ledger, representing a separate
account, tracks the claims in Kanesh credited to Šalim-aḫum. As all evidence of Šalim-aḫum’s
business activities during REL 80 indicate that his goods were sold on credit. I assume that
Šalim-aḫum’s goods were sold on credit even when much of the activity must be
reconstructed. Šalim-aḫum’s goods are assumed to be sold immediately after they arrived in
Kanesh, though this cannot always be confirmed. Claims remain in this column until it is
known that they were collected and sent home. Because the documentation of what Šalim-
aḫum received is more fragmentary than the record of how much he sent out, undoubtedly
more claims remain credited to Šalim-aḫum in Kanesh but not yet collected in this ledger than
was the case in REL 80, though how much more actual silver Šalim-aḫum received at Aššur is
impossible to know at the moment.
435
Table 23: Temporal Ledger of Šalim-aḫum’s Commercial Assets managed through Pūšu-kēn during REL 80
Aššur Caravan Claims - Kanesh
KB (m) TIN (m) k. š. ANŠE KB (m) KG (m) Comment
KB (m) KG (m)
DATE
4.88 C05 (approx.)
5.28 C06
21.28 C07
5 C08
58.31 C09
.1 C27
.1 C29
.166 C30
Pre-Mar3 REL 80
1 C32
.33 C33
109.5 Total silver necessary for purchases
96.08 .366 TOTALS -- PRE-MAR3
436
<11.8> 130 28 4 2 S01
<4.23> 26 1 S02 (very fine k. textiles)
<9.55> 130 5 4 1 S03
<27.4> 390 12 3 S04
<35.75> 390 85 20 6 S08
<5.92> 63 2 S11
<10.18> Hand-tin/waṣītum/harness/fodder
Mar3
<1> Capital extended as be’ulātum/wages
<0.6> Clothes and Additions
.5 C10
.5 C11
.42 C12
.66 C26
<109.5> 1040 207 40 15 97.5 1.026 BALANCE End Mar3
Table 23: Temporal Ledger of Šalim-aḫum’s Commercial Assets managed through Pūšu-kēn during REL 80, continued
KB (m) KG (m)
DATE
1040 207 40 13 97.5 1.026 Balance carried from previous page
Mar4 No Activity MAR4
Apr1 No Activity APR1
Apr2 <6.33> 1.33 Ilabrat-bāni’s ‘theft’
<109.5> 1033.33 207 40 13 1.026 BALANCE end Apr2
<122.13> <20> <4> 28.45 L01-C01
<124.65> <26> <1> 31.31 L02-C02
<304.66> <50> <12> 54.75 L03-C03
<48.33> <6> Expenses/Losses S01-S04
<3> Dead donkeys
<179> <20> <10> 38.08 L06-C15, C16
<134.17> <20> <4> <1> 30.66 L07-C17
437
Apr3
<39.83> <17> <1> 10.83 L08-C18, C19
<40.66> <12.5> <2> Expenses/Losses S08
<7> Deposit for nikassū; 2.2:15-16
<55> 27.5 Estimated Yeild from S11
<8> Estimated Taxes from S11
<.66> Loss of C26
39.9 108.5 33 288.42 .366 BALANCE end Apr3
<61.17> 7.6 L04-C04
Apr4
267.92 BALANCE end Apr4
May1 No Activity May1
<9.13> 130 4 1 S05
May3
<9.13> 130 4 1 S06
KB (m) Tin (m) k. š. ANŠE KB (m) KG (m) Comment
KB (m) KG (m)
DATE
<37.06> 390 100 8 7 S07
<12.46> 130 40 4 2 S10
<1> Capital extended as be’ulātum/wages
<.33> Clothes and Additions
May3 cont.
BALANCE end May3
Jun1 No Activity Jun1
Jun3 51.09 <51.09> Silver Collected P01, P02
<.83> Shipping charges P01, P02
<10> Expenses/Losses S05
438
<10> Expenses/Losses S06
<30> <4> Expenses/Losses S07
<10> <6> Expenses/Losses S10
<240> <100> 60.66 L05, C13, C14
<480> <34> <36> <13> 73.5 Estimated yeild of S05-07, 10 leftovers
BALANCE Jun3
Jul1 No Activity Jul1
Jul2 No Activity Jul2
Jul3 <10.21> 130 13 4 1 S12
<9.13> 130 4 1 S14
<.5> Capital extended as be’ulātum/wages
KB (m) KG (m)
DATE
51.09 <51.09> P01, P02 arrive in Aššur
BALANCE Jul3
Jul4 92.93 <92.93> P03, P04, P05
<1.46> Shipping Charges P03, P04, P05
<9.13> 130 4 1 S14
<.78> Hand-tin/waṣītum/harness/fodder
30 C26 Due
BALANCE Jul4
Aug1 30 <30> P06
<.5> Shipping Charges P06
439
<11.96> 130 30 4 2 S15
BALANCE Aug1
Aug2 No Activity Aug2
Aug3 <10> <.66> Estimated Taxes S12
<120> <12.33> <4> <1> 20 Estimated Yeild S12
BALANCE Aug3
Aug4 92.93 <92.93> P03, P04, P05 arrive in Aššur
<10> Estimated Taxes S14
<120> <4> <1> 13.5 Estimated Yeild S14
BALANCE Aug4
KB (m) KG (m)
DATE
<10> <4> Estimated Taxes S15
<120> <24> <4> <2> 26 Estimated Yeild S15
Sep1
30 <30> P06 arrives in Aššur
BALANCE Sep1
Sep2 No Activity Sep2
<1.5> 18 S09
<.25> Estimated Shipping Costs S09
Sep3
BALANCE Sep3
<32.5> 520 16 4 S16 Šalim-aḫum’s share
440
Sep4
BALANCE Sep4
Oct1 No Activity Oct1
Oct2 No Activity Oct2
<15> 7.5 Estimated Yeild S09
Oct3
BALANCE Oct3
<480> <16> <4> 53.5 Estimated Yeild S16
Oct4
BALANCE Oct4
Nov1 No Activity Nov1
0 0 0 0 0 0 100.35 .732 BALANCE Dec1
APPENDIX 3
INTERCALATION IN THE OLD ASSYRIAN PERIOD
Aligning the dates mentioned in the documents used in this work during REL 80 to the
Gregorian calendar involves some consideration of both the timing of the new year and
intercalation. As these two events normally happen during the wintertime, this also involves
the use of successor eponyms. While notes on intercalation have been made previously, the
purpose of this appendix is to clarify that 1) the Old Assyrian calendar was synchronized to the
winter solstice, 2) intercalation was performed during the winter but in response to an
observation made ahead of time, likely during the previous summer solstice, and thus 3) an
intercalary month Zibiba/urum was inserted after REL 80 XII. These assertions are based on a
review of the distribution of successor eponyms and results in the alignment used in the
figures in this work.
Annual chronological rigor for understanding the Old Assyrian trade and Old Assyrian
society and state was distressingly lacking until 1998. Before the discovery among the tablets
excavated from Kültepe in that year of two different lists of the annual eponyms, attempts at
sorting out the annual chronology of the period had yielded unreliable results.1 Now, a secure
annual chronology can be claimed from the beginning of the reign of Irišum (1974 BC, middle
chronology) into the reign of Hammurabi with only minor deficiencies.2 However, there
remain a number of variables below the level of annual chronology, parts whose schedules are

1
For the publication of the first eponym lists, see Veenhof, OALE.
2
Larsen et al., “Ups and Downs.”
441
not explicitly laid out in the ancient sources. These include: the order of the months of the Old
Assyrian calendar; the timing of the new year in the Old Assyrian society; the existence and
manner of intercalation during this period; and the length of the ḫamuštum-week. As a result,
describing the procession and schedule of some of these units of time remains a struggle in
appropriately combining and understanding the forces that governed them, both astronomical
(movements of planets) and political (institutions for selecting eponyms). Successor eponyms,
their distribution and interpreted use, have played an important role in trying to track the
movements of the calendar and new year in lieu of ancient records which explicitly lay out
patterns, schedules, or institutions. Because successor eponyms have been interpreted as an
important marker of winter, seasonal climate has formed another variable in this discussion.
Some of these variables currently have accepted and reliable explanations. Consensus
on the order of the months of the Old Assyrian calendar is longstanding.3 The basic timing of
the new year during Level II, is proposed to be during winter.4 The current reconstruction also
confirms arguments for a 7-day ḫamuštum.5 This leaves the need to determine the three points
listed above for the purpose of the present work.
In the Old Assyrian society, each year was assigned the personal name of a limmum
official as eponym. Because direct information for the selection of limmum officials have

3
For discussion of the calendar, see Lewy, “The Assyrian Calendar,” ArOr 11 (1939): 35-46; Lewy, RLA 5,
301 § 3.4; Larsen, “Unusual Eponymy-datings from Mari and Assyria," RA 68 (1974): 53-24; M.E. Cohen, The Cultic
Calendars of the Ancient Near East, 237-46.
4
See Larsen, “Unusual Eponymy-Datings,” 18. This problem was considered solved in Veenhof, "Old
Assyrian Chronology," Akkadica 119-120 (2000): 137-50. Veenhof appropriately wonders what might have induced
a shift of the new year. One criterion on which this issue needs to be appreciated is the possibility that the Mari
calendar was not intercalated on the same schedule as the calendar at Aššur, even after Šamši-Adad took over at
Mari. The continuance of the independent calendar at Mari reasonably implies the continuation of independent
intercalation of that calendar. While the celestial movements which goverened these two calendars were the
same, one city could have been practicing proactive insertion of intercalary months, while the other reactionary
insertion, thus giving rise to a situation where the two calendars were a full month apart. This does not
completely solve the problem, but its possibility must be admitted.
5
Veenhof, "The Old Assyrian Hamuštum Period: A seven-day week," JEOL 34 (1996): 5-26.
442
neither been discovered nor intimated by the Old Assyrian sources, it has been held that these
names were chosen, at least officially, by lot.6 Successor eponyms designated the year by
relation to the previous year, viz. “the year after the eponymy of PN.” The interpretation for
the use of successor eponyms was first proposed by H. Lewy:
“Very frequently, one finds, instead of the well-known date formula ‘month A, līmum B,
the son of C’, the following wording: ‘month A, līmum of the hand of B, the son of C’. The fullest
version of this formula reads: ‘līmum [was the one] who took over (iṣbutu) from the hand of B,
the son of C’. This fuller wording as well as the interchange of the ‘hand’ formula with the
version ‘līmum who [was] after (warki) B, the son of C’ makes it clear that it designates the year
as that of the successor of B, the son of C. The frequent use of such ‘successor’ formulae
suggests that it was a consequence of the long distance, which separated Kanesh from the
mother country. Yet under normal travelling conditions a messenger on horseback who left
Ashur immediately after the name of the new eponym had been announced could have
reached Kanesh about three weeks later. Instead it can be shown that in every year at least
three, but frequently as many as four and sometimes even five months are dated with
successor formula. This makes it clear that in the period in question the annual change of
eponym took place at the beginning of winter when the regular messenger service between
Ashur and Kanesh had ceased.”7
Thus, because the occurrence of successor eponyms is almost entirely confined to the
first five months of the Old Assyrian calendar, the distribution of successor eponyms is
understood to imply that a) the Old Assyrian new year occurred near the beginning of winter,
b) the new eponyms was chosen at the new year, and c) that news of the new eponym did not
arrive in Anatolia until the spring of that year, after the passes opened and communication
and trade resumed. The eponym for any given year would not be known ahead of the first day
of that year.

6
Larsen, OACC, 211f.
7
Hildegard Lewy, "Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Period," in Cambridge Ancient History, ed. I.E.S. Edwards, C.
J. Gadd, and N.G.L. Hammond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 727-28.
443
Though slight doubts have been expressed about Lewy’s proposal,8 it remains the de
facto basis for further important work and is sustained in particular by the existence of the
successor eponym dates which include intercalary months.9
Table 19 below, displaying the distribution of current and successor eponym dates
during the beginning of the Old Assyrian calendar, effectively shows that both successor
eponyms and current eponyms were used concurrently during the first months of the
calendar. Table 19 differs from a previous table published by Veenhof in several ways.10 First,
Table 19 is drawn almost exclusively (with one exception) from the data published in Kryszat’s
work on the annual chronology in the Old Assyrian period.11 Veenhof also drew from Kryszat,
but also from both published and unpublished texts and thus his sample may have differed.
Second, Table 1 does not cover months VI through XII, except for intercalated months (both
Zibiba/urum and XIIb, placed in the columns labeled XIIb).12 Third, Veenhof displayed
occurrences of current eponym dates as a continuum, i.e., if a current eponym date were first
attested in month IV and last in month XI, an ‘x’ marked all months from IV to XI. In Table 19,
all individual occurrences of both successor and current eponym dates are listed without
continuous marking. Fourth, successor eponym dates drawn from Kryszat’s 2004 study that
occur in a secondary context, such as a debt memorandum or a letter that mentions a debt
note, are listed in Table 19, while current eponym dates from secondary contexts are omitted,
including cases where the document is probably from Aššur or clearly refers to the past events.

8
Veenhof, “Hamuštum: A seven-day week,” 144.
9
Larsen, “Unusual Eponym-Datings,” 53, n. 1, summarizes previous scholarship. See also, OACC, 53 n.18;
OAI, 56-9. For a more recent analysis of the development of the office of eponym, see H. Freydank, Beiträge Zur
Mittelassyrischen Chronologie Und Geschichte, (Berlin, 1991): 16.
10
Veenhof, “Hamuštum: A seven-day week,” 144-147.
11
Kryszat, OASS 2, 57-156.
12
On Zibaba/urum, the name of an intercalary month, see section on intercalation below.
444
Omitting current eponyms from secondary contexts represents the distribution with greater
rigor.13
Each eponym between REL 80 and 114 is listed in Table 19. The attestations of successor
eponym dates (←) and current eponym dates (∎) are listed according to the months associated
with them through month V.14 Intercalated months which can be interpolated (marked with an
asterisk) are also inserted, as well as intercalary months extrapolated (marked with a question
mark because they are less secure). Only months are distinguished in this table because
Assyrian merchants rarely dated things to a specific day in the month. Merchants often did
date things to ḫamuštum-weeks, probably referring to the first day of that period;15 but because
the order of ḫamuštum-weeks is essentially unknown to us and the ḫamuštum was not always
used to date debt notes by the merchants, these divisions are not used. A light grey bar
extending to the left shows the range of use of successor eponym dates in each year.

13
As already pointed out (Veenhof 1983/84) a debt which was originally dated by a successor eponym can
later be recorded with respect to the current eponym. Case in point: CCT 5 23a is the original debt note recording
the fact that Kuzari s. Šamaš-bāni owed Innaya s. Elāli 7 minas 35 shekels silver during REL 99 I, expressed by
successor eponym, whereas in kt 91/k 157 (a debt memorandum, courtesy K. Veenhof) including dates as late as
REL122, the same debt is recorded for the same date but without recourse to the successor eponym.
14
Months in the Old Assyrian calendar: I. Bēlet ekallim, II. Narmak Aššur ša šarrātim, III. Narmak Aššur ša
kēnātim, IV. Maḫḫur ilī, V. Ab šarrāni, VI. Ḫubur, VII. Ṣip’um, VIII. Qarratum, IX. Kanwarta, X. Te’inātum, XI. Kuzallu, XII.
Allanātum, (intercalary- Zibiba/urum, XIIb).
15
More work on the ḫamuštum period is needed. The length of the ḫamuštum-week is still disputed,
though I find Veenhof 1996, arguing for a seven-day period, most convincing.
445
Table 24: Successor Eponym References in Intercalary Months and Months I – V between REL
80 and 114.
REL XIIb I II III IV V

80 ← ← ← ←∎
81 ←← ←∎ ←∎
82 ← ←←∎←∎ ∎ ∎
83 ∎ ∎
84 ∎ ∎ ← ∎
85 ← ← ← ∎ ∎
86 ←←←← ←∎ ←∎∎
87 ←← ∎ ∎
88 ← ←←←∎ ← ∎∎∎∎∎
89 ←←∎ ∎
90 ← ← ∎∎
91 ∎ ← ∎
92 ← ← ←←←← ∎
93 ←←←← ← ← ∎
94 ←← ←∎ ∎
95 (*) ∎ ←← ←
96 ← ∎ ← ∎∎∎∎
97 ← ← ←∎
98 ← ←←∎ ← ←∎
99 ←← ← ← ← ∎
100 ← ←← ∎ ∎∎∎
101 ←← ←← ←∎∎ ∎
102 ← ← ← ∎
103 ← ←← ←←∎
104 (*) ←←←∎ ∎ ∎
105 ← ∎ ← ←∎ ∎∎∎∎∎
106 ←∎ ←←← ← ←∎ ←
107 ← ←← ←∎ ←←←
108 ← ←← ← ←←∎ ←∎∎
109 ←← ∎
110 ← ∎
111 (?) ←← ∎
112 ← ←←
113 ← ← ←←∎
114 (?) ←← ← ∎
Notes to Table 4.4:
1) Two dates are listed for REL 81 Z. See note 21 below for the interpretation of I 591 as Z. rather than
month VII.
446
The distribution of successor eponyms does support a fairly aggressive regime of
communication in evidencing the knowledge of the new eponym early in the spring. This
could be evidence that the winters were somewhat lighter than they were in the 18th century
and early 20th century, when British intelligence sources cited blocked passes through the
Taurus passes from the first week of December to the first week of April, corroborated by
interviews of local inhabitants about their memory of conditions before paved roads were built
in the area (see Chapter Three). While snows had to have blocked the initial selection of the
new limmum essentially every year, the news travelled relatively quickly to Anatolia after the
passes opened, as suggested by the distribution of successor eponyms. Adoption of the new
name, however appears to have been gradual.
Though some studies have proposed that intercalation was not performed during the
Old Assyrian period,16 it is clear that during Kültepe Level II intercalation was performed as
demonstrated by a named intercalary month: Zibiba/urum (henceforth Z.). Alongside Z., the
more commonly referenced intercalary month during Level II was a second Allanātum
(henceforth XIIb), inserted after the regular month Allanātum (XII).17 Z. is attested only three
times (REL 81, REL 84, and once in a text in which the year is broken away), and the etymology
of Zibiba/urum is unclear.18 Intercalated Allanātum months are recognizable because they

16
J. Koch, Neue Unterschungen zur Topographie des Babylonischen Fixternshimmels (Wiesbaden1989), Chapter
17, refuted in Veenhof, “Old Assyrian Chronology.”
17
Veenhof, "Old Assyrian Chronology."
18
Cf. Kryszat, OASS 2, 124, 43; who associates Zibiba/urum with mid-year by associating the month name
with month VII (Ṣip’um) and normalizes Zibiba/urum as Ṣibi birim, presumably following H. Lewy and J. Lewy, "The
Origin of the Week and the Oldest West Asiatic Calendar," HUCA 17 (1943): 69 n. 229. A normalization like ṣipi’ bīrim
“Ṣip’um of the gap,” is interesting but for kt 89/k 428, ZI-bi-ba-ri-im (year name broken away, courtesy Y.
Kawasaki). My normalization of the name follows Veenhof 2001, not making any claims at etymology.
447
occur in conjunction with successor eponyms, for example: “from … Allanātum of the year after
the eponym of Agutum (he will add 1 shekels per mina per month).”19
Despite proposals for an autumnal new year,20 the distribution of successor eponyms in
Table 19 demands that the new year transpired during the wintertime, and hence the winter
solstice. If directly connected to the choice of the new eponym, the timing of the new year is
an important part of determining appropriate use of the successor eponyms. If the Taurus
passes were regularly blocked from the first week of December to the first week of April, the
correlation of the Old Assyrian new year with the the autumn equinox through the “Šamši-
Adad” calendar presented as much tension as confirmation of the successor eponyms as
evidence of the wintertime new year. (See Larsen, “Unusual Eponomy-datings,” 16-18.)
Because Assyrian merchants used successor eponym dates in every sufficiently documented
year, the new year could not have been during the autumn equinox because the news could
have easily travelled to Kanesh before the passes closed at the beginning of December. If
successor eponyms were a manifestation of institutions enacted during the new year, then the
new year needed to occur near the first week of December or soon afterwards. The winter
solstice has been asserted as an alternate timing for the Old Assyrian new year during Level II,
positing that the new year passed to the autumnal equinox during Level Ib.
When intercalary months were inserted has been complicated by the recognition of the
two different ways to refer to intercalary months. Despite different names, Z. and XIIb were

19
CCT 1 2 (debt memorandum):32-36: iš-tu ḫa-muš-tim ša kà-ší-im ša qá-tí En-na-nim ITU.KAM a!-lá-na-tim li-
mu-um š[a qá-tí] A-gu5-tim 1 GÍN.TA a-ma-na-[im] i-ITU.KAM ṣí-ib-tám ú-ṣa-á[b].
20
An a reference in a debt note to the ‘spring’ in conjunction with month VII is considered by some to
demonstrate that the Old Assyrian new year began in the autumn. The text in question is TPAK 1 98: 1KIŠIB Pí-lá-
aḫ-Ištar DUMU Ku-ku-a 2KIŠIB A-mur-Ištar DUMU Da-da 37 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR li-tí 4SIG5 i-ṣé-er 5A-mur-Ištar DUMU Da-da
6
A-šùr-i-dí i-šu 7iš-tù | i-da-áš-<e> | ITU.KAM 8ša ṣí-ip-e-em 9KÙ.BABBAR il5-qé ⅔ GÍN KÙ.BABBAR 10i-na ITU.KAM ṣí-ib-
tám 11ú-ṣa-áb 12iš-tù ḫa-muš-tim ša A-šur-DU10 13li-mì-im En-nam-A-šùr.
448
inserted in the same position in the Old Assyrian calendar during the phase attested above in
Table 19. This issue is of importance for the general understanding of intercalation. Two
closely related texts dated to REL 81 by successor eponym, one dated to Z. and the other to
what has been interpreted as VII, seem to argue for a mid-year insertion of Z., but the second
text must be understood to refer to the month Z., not VII.21 A reference from k/k 65 implies
that XIIb was inserted in REL 81, and thus Z. should be identified with XIIb in REL 81.22 In
regards to REL 84, REL 84 XII and REL 84 Z. share a ḫamuštum-week of the same name, which
has been taken to imply that Z. followed XII and that week bridged the two months.23 However,
ḫamuštum-eponyms do recur during the same year, and we would expect REL 84 Z. to have
been inserted at the beginning of REL 84 (after REL 83 XII rather than REL 84 XII). If Z. were
inserted at the end of the year, then this case would have to be recognized as an exception to
the observed rule that the new eponymate began with the end of month XII of the previous
eponymate. This brings us to the timing of intercalation in relation to the winter solstice.

21
The close relationship between EL 30(BIN 4 207) and I 591, credited to the same author, Enna-Suen,
suggests the two documents be dated to the same month. I 591 is an otherwise anomalous occurrence of a
successor eponym in month VII. The month is rendered ITU.KAM ṣí-bu-um, which has been interpreted (with
reservation) as month VII (ṣip’um). However, VII is normally rendered in the genitive and respecting the aleph
opening the second syllable (ṣí-ip-em or ṣí-ip-e-em, etc.), thus, ṣí-bu-um ought to be read ZI-<bi->bu-<ru->um. Full
texts: I 591: 1 ⅔ ma-na 5 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR 2ṣa-ru-pu-um i-ṣé-er 3MAR.TU-ba-ni 4 EN.ZU-na-da i-šu 5iš-tù ḫa-mu-uš-tim 6ša
En-na-nim 72 GÍN.TA a-na 81 ma-na-im 9ṣí-ib-tám i-na 10ITI.1.KAM | ú-ṣa-áb 11li-mu-um 12ša qá-tí | I-dí-a-šur 13ITI.KAM | ṣí-
pu-um (witnesses follow) “Amurru-bāni owes Suen-nādā 45 shekels refined silver. From the hamuštum-week of
Ennanum, he will add 2 shekels per mina per month. Year after the eponymy of Iddi(n)-Aššur (REL 81), Month
Ṣip’um (VII).” EL 30 (BIN 4 207a): 140 ma-na (Ras.) URUDU 2i-ṣé-er Ku-za-ri 3Sú-en6-na-da 4i-šu iš-tù 5ḫa-mu-uš-tim 6ša
Ḫu-ra-ṣa-nim 7a-na 10 ma-na URUDU 81 ma-na.TA i-na 9ITI ú-ṣa-áb 10iš-tù ITI ZI-bi-bi-ri-im 11li-mu-um ša qá-tí 12I-dí-A-šur
DUMU Ku-bi-dí (witnesses follow) “Kuzari owes Suen-nādā 40 minas copper. From the ḫamuštum week of
Ḫuraṣānum he will add 1 mina copper per 10 minas per month. From the month Zibiba/urum, year after the
eponomy of Iddi(n)-Aššur son of Kūb-iddi(n) (REL 81).”
22
The relationship between k/k 65 and EL 30 was noted previously in Veenhof, "Old Assyrian
Chronology." Akkadica 119-120 (2000): 143. The text reads: (List of Seals) ša ḫu-bu-ul En-nam-A-šur ½ ma-na
KÙ.BABBAR i-na ṣé-er En-nam-A-šur Šu-la i-šu ITU.1.KAM A-lá-na-tim li-mu-um ša i-qá-tí Id-na-A-šur DUMU Ku-bi4-dí i-
lá-qé-ú a-dí 3 MU.ŠÈ i-ša-qal šu-ma lá iš-qú-ul ki-ma a-wa-at kà-ri-im ṣí-ib-tám ú-ṣa-áb.
23
Noted in Veenhof 2000, 142-143: k/k 71: 1[KIŠIB PN1 DUMU A]-šur-dan 2[...]-A-šùr 3[... -n]im 4[... -i]k? 5[... i]š-
tù 6ḫa-[mu-uš-ti]m ša (lo.e.) 7kà-ší-im | mì-iš-lam 8a-na ITU.3.KAM i-ša-qal (rev.) 9ù mì-iš-lam a-na 4[+x] ITU.KAM 10i-ša-
qal šu-ma lá ìš-qul 11ki-ma | a-wa-at kà-ri-im 12i-na ITU.1.KAM ú-ṣa-áb 13ù Zu-pá | i-š[a]-ú-lu-ma 14šu-ma um-ma Zu-pá-ma
15
⅔ ma-na [KÙ].BABBAR a-na Ha-ma-a 16a-hi-bi4-i[l5 x] GÍN KÙ.BABBAR 17a-ṣé-er 2/[3 m]a-na 5 GÍN 18ú-ra-da
ITU.1.KAM (u.e.) 19ṣí-bi bi4-ri-im (le.e.) 20li-mu-um 21Puzur4-MUŠ.
449
That the insertion of XIIb and Z. was the result of a decision based on previous
observation can be deduced from the simple fact that intercalary months are attested with
successor eponyms in the winter. Such attestations as in Table 19 show that knowledge in
Anatolia was sufficient to insert an intercalary month, but insufficient to provide a name for
the new eponym, which the intercalary month commenced. The designation of XIIb as second
Allanātum essentially shows that an eponymate ended at the end of XII, beginning with either I
or, if inserted, XIIb. As a result, if the new eponym were chosen on the first day of his office
then this could not have fallen strictly on the winter solstice. Moreover, there are two ways
one could approach intercalation around the winter solstice. The proactive method would be
to insert the intercalary month whenever the new moon after month XII was observed before
the winter solstice. This would keep the beginning of month I after the winter solstice almost
all the time, and could be implemented immediately. The reactive method would be to insert
the intercalary month when the new moon of month II was observed before the winter
solstice. This would keep the winter solstice in month I most of the time. However, this
reactive method would have to be predicted or implemented after the fact. Because
intercalation was observed before the winter, the proactive method is more likely.
The irregular schedule of intercalation between REL 80 and 114 corroborates the
practice of intercalation by observation. With some uncertainty about an intercalary month in
REL 93,24 the intercalary months appear at plausible intervals. According to Kryszat 2004, there
are attestations of XIIb in five years, in REL 88 (87/k 284), 92 (87/k 299), 98 (87/k 330), 101 (a/k

24
Veenhof, "Old Assyrian Chronology," 146, was correctly concerned with the fact that REL 92 and 93
both listed intercalary months, though he did not specify them in his article. However, the only date which I can
find that would be the candidate for this eponym is I 587 and its apparent envelope ICK 1 50a, which is REL 82 XII,
not dated by a successor eponym.
450
435), and 109 (CCT 1 2:34-35).25 In addition, there are the attestations of Zibiba/urum in REL 81
(BIN 4 207a/b) and REL 84 (k/k 71). Three more intercalations interpolated at REL 95, 103, and
106, result in the following schedule:
Figure 17: Distribution of intercalated months between REL 81 and REL 110
REL 81z••84z•••88•••92,93?•[95]••98•100••[103]••[106]•108••
(Dots represent years without an intercalary month. Interpolated instances of intercalation are bracketed.
Intercalated Zibiba/urum is marked with a z.)
The schedule appears plausible, but highlights the irregularity between REL 81 and REL
95. Intercalary months should be attested, on average, every three years because of the
difference in days between twelve lunar months (354) and a solar year (365¼). The distribution
above meets the requirement of an average intercalation every three years; attested and
interpolated intercalary months yield 11 intercalations in 30 years. However, two unusually
long intervals occur in direct sequence: between the intercalations at the summer solstice of
REL 84 and the winter solstice beginning REL 88 and then the winter solstice beginning REL 92.
A second intercalation in REL 93 might have been necessary to right the calendar.
Given that there was an intercalation at the beginning of REL 81, it is possible
functionally to align the Assyrian calendar during REL 80 to the Gregorian calendar. Because
intercalation was necessary in REL 81, REL 80 XII would have fallen at its earliest in relation to
the winter solstice. The new moon ending REL 80 VI would have been observable before the
summer solstice triggering the decision to intercalate in the coming winter. REL 80 XII would

25
k/k 65 is not useful here because of its unique successor eponym formula (ša iqqātē Idna-Aššur s. Kūb-iddi
ilaqqe’ū, Kryszat, OASS 2, 124.) and unique debt repayment formula.
451
have ended within a few days of the winter solstice. For the sake of more clearly
communicated reconstruction, I have aligned the Gregorian calendar with the Assyrian
calendar during REL 80 so that month XII ended on December 21st.
REL 81 III, the due date associated with the debts of Iddi(n)-abum and Puzur-Anna in
4.1 would have fallen from approximately Mar 21 to April 19 in REL 81. Working back
approximately 45 ḫamuštum weeks from REL 81 III dates the arrival of Ilī-ašranni’s caravan and
the original venture caravan in Kanesh to the period between REL 80 III 10 - REL 80 IV 10. As
displayed on the figures in this dissertation, this means mid-April and mid-May in REL 80.
452
APPENDIX 4
INDEX OF PERSONS
This index of persons presents references to events in which they are associated. In
general, the events within each entry are listed in the order that they appear in the chapters of
this work rather than arranged chronologically.
Agua s. Ṭāb-Aššur – associated with 14 minas fine mazīrum tin 3.3:23-24, 3.6:6-7; for which tin
Ilabrat-bāni was to pay 6 shekels gold 3.5:24-25; transports donkey-load of tin and 40
kutānum textiles for Šalim-aḫum in company of Kulumaya 5.2:6, 28-29; 5.1:4-7, 18-19.
Aḫ-šalim – transports 3 donkey-loads of tin to Kanesh for Šalim-aḫum (possibly working with
Ammuru-bāni s. Kurub-Ištar) 2.2:46-49; from which cargo tin is taken as part of a lot
sold for 54 minas 45 shekels on ‘short’ term credit (Lot #3) 2.2:50-55, 2.3:9-10; and the
remainder of tin sold for 7 minas 35⅔ shekels (Lot #4) 2.3:5-8, 2.4:40-45 ; owes ½ mina
silver as be’ulātum from contract for transporting the cargo 2.3:39-40.
Āl-ilī – writes letter with Šalim-aḫum 5.5.
amtum – to go to Aššur with Ḫanu 5.1:29, 5.2:33-34.
Amur-Aššur s. Šū-Ištar – transports one donkey-load of tin to Kanesh for Šalim-aḫum 3.4:15-16.
Amur-Ištar s. Amur-ilī – owes Šalim-aḫum 5 minas silver 2.4:13, 2.5:24-25; which Ḫinnaya is
responsible to pay 2.4:13-17.
Amurru-bāni s. Kurub-Ištar – transports to Kanesh for Šalim-aḫum with Aḫ-šalim 2.3:40-42; owes
25 shekels silver as be’ulātum loan from contract for transporting the cargo 2.3:40-42.
Apila – his goods sent to him from Šalim-aḫum and Alili via Aššuriš-tikal who inappropriately
takes from the cargo 5.4:5-28; Aššuriš-tikal agrees to pay him in silver for the goods
taken 5.2:34-36, 5.1:30-32.
453
Aššur-imittī – his will to be recovered from Šalim-Aššur s. Ennam-Aššur by Lā-qēpum and Pūšu-
kēn and sent to Šalim-aḫum 2.5:28-37.
Aššur-mālik s. Erraya – transports to Kanesh for Šalim-aḫum 2.5:10-11; transports 55 textiles of

which Šalim-aḫum has a share to Kanesh 5.3:19-24; transports goods sold for 7½ minas
silver and associated frequently with goods brought by Ḫurāṣānûm 5.3:10-13, 5.2:9-12,
5.1:7-11; transports 21 minas 10 shekels to Aššur for Šalim-aḫum 2.3:12-3, 2.4:21-23.
Aššur-mālik s. Azuza – transports 3 textiles of Šalim-aḫum’s ikribum and 1 textile for the ‘girl’ to
Ilabrat-bāni for Šalim-aḫum 4.3:28-30; 4.6:18-21, 5.3:39.
Aššur-mālik s. Luzina – brought tin to kanesh for Šalim-aḫum sometime in first half of year
5.6:21-24; if tin is assocaited with original venture, i.e. 11 minas tin from his caravan
included in lot from cargo of Nūr-Ištar and Aššur-mutabbil (Lot #2) 2.2:34-37, then
brought tin at beginning of season.
Aššur-mālik (various unknown) – favor done for him by Pūšu-kēn (according to Šalim-aḫum)
3.2:11-12.
Aššur-mutabbil s. Šū-Anum – transports one donkey-load of tin to Kanesh for Šalim-aḫum

2.2:18-20, 28-32; associated with the lot sold from a combination of his cargo and cargo
of Nūr-Ištar for 31 minas 18½ shekels (Lot #2) 2.2:38-44, 2.4:45-46; owes 1.2 mina silver
as be’ulatum from contract for transporting the cargo 2.3:36-37; also owes 1 kutānum
textile 2.3:38.
Aššur-nādā s. Aššur-idī – together with his son owes some money to Šalim-aḫum 5.10:24-27,
5.11:16-20.
s. Aššur-nādā s. Aššur-idī – together with his father owes some money to Šalim-aḫum 5.10:24-27.
Aššur-šamšī s. Ibni-ilum – sells goods on credit to his sons for Šalim-aḫum 2.410-12, 37-40.
Aššur-taklāku – transports one donkey-load tin and extra textiles to Kanesh for Šalim-aḫum
5.9:3-8, 27-31.
Aššur-ṭāb – together with Uṣṣur-ša-Ištar owes 30 minas to Šalim-aḫum 5.9:32-33, 5.10:2-4.
Aššuriš-tikal – transports donkey-loads to Apila for Alili and Šalim-aḫum 5.4:5-11; takes goods
from the cargo and is responsible to pay Pūšu-kēn and Dān-Aššur or Apila 5.4:12-28;
decided to pay silver to Apila 5.2:34-36, 5.1:30-32.
awīltum (unknown) – to be given šurum textile from cargo of Dān-Aššur 3.6:11-12.
454
Dān-Aššur s. Šalim-aḫum – transports 31 minas 45 shekels silver to Šalim-aḫum 2.4:24-27;
transports this silver as part of a delivery of 1 talent silver requested by Šalim-aḫum
5.3:18-19; 1 talent 20 minas promised by Pūšu-kēn 5.10:13-16; he and his brother
Ennam-Aššur to be sent home as requested by Šalim-aḫum 2.6:11-12; to be sent home
without mention of his brother 5.2:30, 5.1:22-24; transports 3 donkey-loads of tin and
100 kutānum textiles in concert with Šū-Suen to Kanesh for Šalim-aḫum 3.4:16-17,
3.6:3-10, 2.5:11-12, 5.2:5, 27-8, 5.3:14-15, 24-25, 5.11:27-28; also brings 14 minas fine
mazīrum tin associated with Agua 3.3:23-26, 3.4:16-17, 3.6:26-27; possibly delayed in
arriving at Kanesh 5.2:17, 5.1:29; possibly to go to Purušḫattum 5.1:15-16; intended to
br’ the nabrītum 5.3:8-9; anticipated arrival back to Kanesh from some other point in
Anatolia 5.10:15-16; intended to bring a full report of Pūšu-kēn’s operations 5.3:30-31,
5.10:16-18; told to give Šalim-aḫum’s dividends and his own dividends from his
naruqqum fund to Ennam-Aššur to be brought back to Aššur 5.5:35-44; intended to
bring tin purchased in joint-venture between Pūšu-kēn and Šalim-aḫum 5.3:31-37,
5.8:13-14, 5.10:18-23; intended to bring tin to Kanesh and seize Ilabrat-bāni’s tin along
the way 4.5:5-11; intended to transport goods with Puzur-Aššur including 18 kutānum
textiles belonging to Suea 4.5:37-39; does not go because he is ill 4.5:11-12; intended to
bring 40 minas fine copper to Aššur with him 5.3:42; anticipated arrival in Kanesh (the
second time) 5.11:20-25.
Ela – transports tin for Šalim-aḫum presumably between Kanesh and Durḫumit in REL 79;
2.7:22-24; owes Šalim-aḫum a small amount of silver, probably as be’ulātum from
contract for transporting the tin 2.7:8-10.
Enlil-bāni – witnesses the departure of Ilī-ašranni’s transport with Ilabrat-bāni 4.2:20.
Ennam-Aššur s. Šalim-aḫum –he and his brother Dān-Aššur requested home by Šalim-aḫum
2.6:11-12; plans to return to Aššur when Dān-Aššur arrives in Kanesh 5.5:3-7;
requested home separate of his brother 3.1:25-26, 5.5:8-34; 5.9:37-38, 42-44, 5.10:11; to
bring Šalim-aḫum’s and Dān-Aššur’s revenues from Dān-Aššur’s naruqqum fund with
him 5.5:35-44; refuses temporarily to return to Aššur 5.5:20-29, 5.10:28-37; is sold
Šalim-aḫum’s goods by Pūšu-kēn 4.4:3-11; seizes Ilabrat-bāni’s goods with the
assistance of Puzur-Aššur in Amurru 4.6:5-6, 4.5:5-11, 12-33; takes 4.5 to Pūšu-kēn in
Kanesh 4.5; has transported goods for Šalim-aḫum 5.9:38-40.
Ennum-Aššur (unknown) – together with Puzur-Adad, owes Šalim-aḫum silver 5.2:23-26,

5.1:24-27.
455
s. Erra-iddi(n) – transports one donkey-load textiles, one donkey-load tin to Kanesh for Šalim-
aḫum sold for 28 minas 27 shekels 2.2:3-17, 2.3:17-19; at the time of the caravan report
agents had not yet settled with him 2.2:9-10.
Ḫanu –intended to transport silver (eventually 20 minas), and Dān-Aššur’s amtum to Šalim-
aḫum 5.2:32, 5.3:3-7.
Ḫinnaya – arranges debt of 21 minas 17 shekels for Šalim-aḫum (usually combined with the
debt of Ibni-ilum and Pilaḫ-Aššur, sons of Aššur-šamšī) 2.3:24-25, 2.410-12 37-40,
2.5:21-22, 2.6:27-32; located in Durḫumit
Ḫurāṣānum – transports one donkey-load of tin to Kanesh for Šalim-aḫum 3.4:14; owes 7
shekels gold to Šalim-aḫum 3.5:18-20, 5.3:41-42; transports goods associated
frequently with goods brought by Aššur-mālik s. Erraya 5.2:9-12, 5.1:7-11, 5.3:10-13.
Ibni-ilum s. Aššur-šamšī – owes Šalim-aḫum 4 minas 34 ¾ shekels and change 2.7:4-11, this same
debt combined with his brother Pilaḫ-Aššur’s debt as 10 minas 10 shekels 2.3:19-22,
2.4:10-12, 2.5:21-24, 2.6:23-26; which their representatives are to pay to Lā-qēpum
2.3:23-24, 2.6:25-26.
Iddi(n)-abum s. Iddi(n)-Ištar – buys 2 talents 14 minas tin, 20 kutānum textiles, 4 šurum textiles
and a donkey for 30⅔ minas silver to be paid 48 ḫamuštum weeks after sale 4.1:34-42;
associated with tin that did not sell cheaper than a 6 shekels rate 4.2:13-19.
Iddi(n)-Suen – transports merchandise to Kanesh for Šalim-aḫum in company with Kulumaya

5.11:28-29.
Ilabrat-bāni s. Aššur-mālik – owes ½ textile associated with the balancing Nūr-Ištar’s cargo
2.2:25, 3.4:37-38, 4.3:15-6, 4.6:16-17; requests to buy goods from Šalim-aḫum on credit
from Šalim-aḫum offering 10 minas silver as initial payment 3.4:6-13; is to pay the
initial payment half in silver and half in gold 3.4:30-32, 3.5:3-6, 21-24; takes 6⅓ minas
tin from Šalim-aḫum’s goods 3.4:37-38, 4.1:17-19, 4.2:5-9, 4.3:4-7, 4.6:14-15; leaves for
Ḫattum directly after 4.1:17-19, 4.3:4-7, 23, 4.4:11-29, 4.3:15-16, 24; owes white kusītum
textile which he was supposed to give to Aššur-mālik (his father?) 4.3:8-14, 23, 4.6:15-
16; to pay 6 shekels gold for 14 minas mazīrum tin associated with Agua s. Ṭāb-Aššur
3.5:24-26; to pay 1 mina silver to Pūšu-kēn (for textiles being brought by Aššur-mālik s.
Azuza?) 4.3:31-33; his goods seized and liquidated in Amurru 4.6:5-6; remainder owed
is 51⅙ shekels 4.6:6-10.
456
s. Ilabrat-bāni – transporting goods for his father seized by Puzur-Aššur and Ennam-Aššur
4.5:14-16.
Ilī-ālum s. Sukaliya – acts in concert with Pūšu-kēn and Lā-qēpum in managing Šalim-aḫum’s
assets 2.2, 2.3, 2.6; transports 42 minas 20 shekels silver back to Aššur for Šalim-aḫum
in company with Dān-Aššur and Kurub-Ištar 2.4:28-9; requested to transport silver and
gold to Šalim-aḫum 3.1:21-22. For the proposal to identify Ilī-ālum as Ilī-ālum son of
Sukaliya, see notes to 3.1.
Ilī-ašranni – owes Šalim-aḫum gold 3.3:26-29; transports 3 donkey-loads tin and 85 kutānum
textile to Kanesh for Šalim-aḫum 4.1:3-6, 4.2:4-5; buys from the cargo almost 40 minas
tin, 57 kutānum textiles, and 1 šurum textile for 10⅚ minas silver from Šalim-aḫum with
a debt note dated KEL 82 xi 4.1:49-69; was to deliver a white kušītum textile to Aššur-
mālik, but taken by Ilabrat-bāni instead 4.3:8-12.
s. Kududu – perhaps owes money to Šalim-aḫum, mentioned in broken context 2.3:22.
Kulumaya – transports donkey-load of tin and 40 kutānum textiles for Šalim-aḫum in company
of Agua 5.2:6, 28-29, 5.1:4-7, 18-19; transports in company with Iddi(n)-Suen 5.11:28-
29.
Kurub-Ištar – transports 18 minas 18 shekels silver back to Aššur for Šalim-aḫum 2.4:29-30.
Kuzari – transported goods for Šalim-aḫum 5.11:4-8, 16-17.
Lā-qēpum – acts in concert with Pūšu-kēn in managing Šalim-aḫum’s assets 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 2.6, 2.7 3.6; associated with a ‘caravan’ including goods owned by Šalim-aḫum
2.6:16-17, 4.2:31-32; to receive debts of Ibni-ilum and Pilaḫ-Aššur from their
representatives 2.6:25-26; possibly owes some silver to Šalim-aḫum, though in broken
context 2.3:26-27 (see Chapter Two)
Lulu s. Zukuḫum – buys the lot from s. Erra-iddi(n)’s cargo from Šalim-aḫum for 27 minas 28
shekels on ‘long’ term credit 2.4:8-9, 5.9:16-17, 5.10:24-27.
Nūr-Ištar s. Iddi(n)-Ištar – transports one donkey-load of 26 ‘very fine’ textiles to Kanesh for
Šalim-aḫum 2.1:4-28, 2.2:21-28; hired as driver 2.1:10; takes copper with 5 minas tin as
well 2.1:19-20; associated with the lot sold from a combination of his cargo and cargo of
Aššur-mutabbil s. Šū-Anum for 31 minas 18½ shekels (Lot #2) 2.2:38-44,2.4:45-46.
Panaka – owes 6 shekels gold to Šalim-aḫum 3.5:17, 5.3:38.
457
Pilaḫ-Aššur s. Aššur-šamšī – owes Šalim-aḫum 5 minas 16⅔ shekels to Šalim-aḫum 46 ḫamuštum
weeks after REL 79 VII 2.7:12-21, this same debt combined with his brother Ibni-ilum’s
debt as 10 minas 10 shekels 2.3:19-22, 2.4:10-12, 2.5:21-24, 2.6:23-26; which their
representatives are to pay to Lā-qēpum 2.3:23-24, 2.6:25-26.
Pūšu-kēn s. Sueyya – writes in association with Lā-qēpum ; writes in association with Lā-qēpum
and Ilī-ālum 2.2; acts as selling agent for Šalim-aḫum 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4; 2.5, 2.6, 2.7;
acts as collecting agent for Šalim-aḫum 3.1; associated with 58 mina 18½ debt to Šalim-
aḫum 2.3:15-17, 2.4:6-7; associated with the debt of 54 minas 45 shekels from cargo of
Aḫ-šalim (Lot #3) 2.4:3-6; is to buy perhaps along with Lā-qēpum 5 kusītum textiles and
a nibrarum textile from Dān-Aššur’s cargo 2.5:16-20, possibly also in 3.6:27-28; to add ⅓
mina of his own gold to shipment being sent to Šalim-aḫum 3.1:18-19, 5.3:40-41; is
asked to contribute a third of 45 minas to a joint purchase 5.3:31-37, 5.8:3-19, 25-28,
5.9:9-16, 35-37, 5.10:9-11, 18-23; gives the go ahead to purchase 45 minas silver 5.11:8-
13; sends 12 minas 15 shekels 4.5:33-38; intended to deliver silver in his (own?) šēpum
5.9:16-20; plans to travel to Purušḫattum to clear Šalim-aḫum’s claims 5.11:20-25; is
asked to ‘honor’ Ennam-Aššur on behalf of Šū-Ḫubur while the former is in Anatolia
5.7:17-33; also asked to dun Puzur-Aššur s. Qa’atum for Šū-Ḫubur 5.7:3-16.
Puzur-Anna s. Elāli – buys nearly 3 talents tin, 20 kutānum textiles, and 10 šurum textiles from
Šalim-aḫum for 38 minas 4½ shekels silver to be paid back in installments 45 and 50
ḫamuštum weeks after purchase 4.1:26-33.
Puzur-Adad – together with Ennum-Aššur, owes Šalim-aḫum silver 5.2:23-26, 5.1:24-27.
Puzur-Aššur – witnesses the departure of a transport associated with Ilabrat-bāni and Ilī-
ašranni 4.2:20-21; intended to bring tin to Kanesh and seize Ilabrat-bāni’s tin along the
way 4.5:5-11; does assist Ennam-Aššur in seizing Ilabrat-bāni’s goods in Amurru 4.6:5-
6, 4.5:5-11, 12-33; returns to Aššur 4.5:17-18; to transport goods with Dān-Aššur
including 18 kutānum textiles belonging to Suea 4.5:37-39; does transport tin
apparently without Dān-Aššur 5.11:13-15.
Puzur-Ištar s. Aššur-mālik – owes Šalim-aḫum ⅔ minas gold 3.1:3-15, resists paying 3.2:3-28,
breaks agreement 3.3:18-22.
Puzur-Ištar – witnesses Pilaḫ-Aššur’s contract of debt to Šalim-aḫum for 15 minas 16⅔ shekels
silver 2.7:21.
458
Sueyya s. Pūšu-kēn? – his 18 kutānum textiles are to be delivered to Kanesh by Dān-Aššur and
Puzur-Aššur 4.5:38-39.
ṣuḫartum – owns a textile sent from Šalim-aḫum via Aššur-mālik s. Azuza to be purchased by
Pūšu-kēn(?) 4.3:28-30; 4.6:18-21, 5.3:39.
Šāt-Aššur d. Šalim-aḫum – one textile for travelling transported by Aššur-taklāku for her 5.9:29;
to receive a textile transported by Agua from Dān-Aššur TC 3 21:6-8. Note also the
textile sent to Šāt-Aššur in TC 3 26:18.
Šalim-aḫum s. Dān-Aššur – writes 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1, 4.2,
4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 5.5; assists Pūšu-kēn in purchasing a home back in Aššur in
association with Šū-Ḫubur 3.3:3-18.
Šalim-Aššur s. Ennam-Aššur – Pūšu-kēn and Lā-qēpum are to recover the will of Aššur-imittī
from him (in Ḫurrama) and send it to Šalim-aḫum 2.5:28-37.
s. Šū-Aššur – transports silver to Aššur for Šalim-aḫum with Šū-Suen 2.4:18-21.
s. Šū-Enlil –associated with a caravan having Šalim-aḫum’s goods 2.5:12-13; possibly

representing the interests of Aššur-šamšī’s sons(?) 2.3:23, 2.6:23-26.
Šū-Ḫubur – writes 5.7; asks Pūšu-kēn to ‘honor’ Ennam-Aššur while in Anatolia on behalf of
himself 5.7:17-33; asks Pūšu-kēn to dun Puzur-Aššur s. Qa’atum 5.7:3-16; referred to as
an ummi’ānum 5.5:20-29; finalizes house purchase on behalf of Pūšu-kēn an intend to
borrow money to pay for the house 5.12:12-17.
Šū-Ištar s. Dadānum – transports 30 minas silver to Aššur for Šalim-aḫum 5.10:5-9.
s. Šū-Ištar – was to have transported silver to Šalim-aḫum 3.1:16-17.
Šū-Suen – transports 31 minas 45 shekels silver to Aššur for Šalim-aḫum 2.3:10-12, 2.4:18-21;
transports 3 donkey-loads of tin and 100 kutānum textiles in concert with Dān-Aššur s.
Šalim-aḫum to Kanesh for Šalim-aḫum 3.6:3-10.
Uṣur-ša-Aššur – together with Aššur-ṭāb owes Šalim-aḫum 30 minas silver 5.9:32-33, 5.10:2-4.
459
APPENDIX 5
INDEX OF NUMBERED TEXTS
Forward Reverse
2.1 CCT 2 4b AKT 3 66 5.6
2.2 I 426 AKT 3 67 5.5
2.3 TC 3 23 AKT 3 72 5.3
2.4 BIN 4 26 AKT 3 78 5.4
2.5 POAT 19 BIN 4 26 2.4
2.6 TC 1 14 BIN 4 61 4.1
2.7 CCT 6 20c BIN 6 87 5.13
3.1 TC 2 4 CCT 2 1 5.11
3.2 CCT 4 5b CCT 2 3 4.6
3.3 TC 2 2 CCT 2 4b 2.1
3.4 TC 1 26 CCT 4 5b 3.2
3.5 KTS 1 27b CCT 4 25b 4.4
3.6 CCT 5 5a CCT 5 5a 3.6
4.1 BIN 4 61 CCT 6 20c 2.7
4.2 TC 2 3 I 426 2.2
4.3 POAT 7 KTS 1 27b 3.5
4.4 CCT 4 25b KTS 1 42d 5.1
4.5 TC 3 20 MDOG 102 86 5.8
4.6 CCT 2 3 POAT 7 4.3
5.1 KTS 1 42d POAT 19 2.5
5.2 TC 2 1 Schaeffer 22 5.14
5.3 AKT 3 72 TC 1 14 2.6
5.4 AKT 3 78 TC 1 26 3.4
5.5 AKT 3 67 TC 2 1 5.2
5.6 AKT 3 66 TC 2 2 3.3
5.7 VS 26 64 TC 2 3 4.2
5.8 MDOG 102 86 TC 2 4 3.1
460
Forward (cont.) Reverse (cont.)
5.9 VS 26 58 TC 3 20 4.5
5.10 VS 26 47 TC 3 23 2.3
5.11 CCT 2 1 TTC 6 5.12
5.12 TTC 6 VS 26 47 5.10
5.13 BIN 6 87 VS 26 58 5.9
5.14 Schaeffer 22 VS 26 64 5.7
461
Bibliography
Admiralty Handbook of Asia Minor. 1919. Vol. 4 pt. 2
Appuhn, Karl. “Microhistory.” In Encyclopedia of European Social History from 1350 to 2000. Edited
by Peter N. Stearns, 105-12. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2001.
Astour, Michael C. 1989. Review of Nashef, K. Reknonstrucktion der Reisenrouten zur Zeit der
altassyrischen Handelsniederlassunen. Journal of the American Oriental Society
109:686-688.
Balkan, Kemal. Observations on the Chronological Problems of the Kārum Kaniš, Turkish Historical
Society Publications Series 7 No. 28. Ankara: Turkish Historical Society, 1955.
Barjamovic, Gojko. “A Historical Geography of Ancient Anatolia in the Assyrian Colony Period.”
diss., University of Copenhagen, 2005.
Bilgic, Emin, and Cahit Günbattı. Ankaraner Kültepe-Texte III: Texte der Grabungskampagne 1970,
Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 3. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1995.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1977. Reprint, 2008.
Carruba, Onofrio. “Luwier in Kappadokien.” In La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées
dans le Proche-Orient ancien, edited by Dominique Charpin and F. Joannès, 251-57. Paris:
Éditions Recherche sure les Civilisations, 1992.
Casson, Lionel. Travel in the Ancient World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
Çeçen, Salih. “mūtānā in den Kültepe-Texten.” ArAn 1 (1995): 43-72.
Charpin, Dominique. “L'andurârum à Mari.” MARI 6 (1990): 253-70.
———. “Šubat-Enlil et le pays d'Apum.” MARI 5 (1987): 129-40.
Charpin, Dominique, and Francis Joannès, eds. Marchands, diplomates et empereurs: études sur la
civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les
civilisations, 1991.
Clay, Albert T. Letters and Transactions from Cappadocia, Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of
James B. Nies, Yale University 4. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1927.
Cohen, Mark E. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1993.
462
Contenau, G. Tablettes cappadociennes 1. Textes cunéiformes, Musée du Louvre 4. Département des
antiquités orientales, Paris: P. Geuthner, 1920.
Contenau, G. Trente tablettes cappadociennes. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1919.
Dalley, Stephanie. A Catalogue of the Akkadian Cuneiform Tablets in the Collections of the Royal
Scottish Museum Edinburgh, Art and Archaeology, No. 2. Edinburgh: Royal Scottish
Museum, 1979.
Dalfes, H.N., et al., eds. Third Millennium B.C. Climate Change and Old World Collapse. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 1997.
Démare-Lafont, Sophie. “Aspects du Commerce International des Assyriens en Anatolie.” In

Anatolia and the Jazira During the Old Assyrian Period, edited by Jan Gerrit Dercksen, 195-
207. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2008.
Dercksen, Jan Gerrit. Anatolia and the Jazira during the Old Assyrian Period, PIHANS, No. 99. Leiden:
Dercksen, Jan Gerrit. Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen. Leiden:
Dercksen, Jan Gerrit. Old Assyrian Institutions, PIHANS 98. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het
Nabije Oosten, 2004.
———. “On the Financing of Old Assyrian Merchants.” In Trade and Finance in Ancient
Mesopotamia, edited by Jan Gerrit Dercksen, 85-99. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1999.
———. “Review of Emin Bilgiç, H. Sever, C. Günbattı, S. Bayram, Ankara Kültepe Tabletleri
(Ankaraner Kültepe-Tafeln) I, Ankara, 1990, Emin Bilgiç, S. Bayram, Ankara Kültepe
Tabletleri II, Ankara, 1995, Emin Bilgiç, C. Günbattı, Ankaraner Kültepe-Texte III,
Ankara, 1995.” Review of Emin Bilgiç, H. Sever, C. Günbattı, S. Bayram, Ankara Kültepe
Tabletleri (Ankaraner Kültepe-Tafeln) I, Ankara, 1990, Emin Bilgiç, S. Bayram, Ankara
Kültepe Tabletleri II, Ankara, 1995, Emin Bilgiç, C. Günbattı, Ankaraner Kültepe-Texte
III, Ankara, 1995. JESHO 41 (1998): 220-24.
———. “Review of Karl Hecker, Guido Kryszat and Lubour Matouš, Kappadokische
Keilschrifttafeln aus den Sammlungen der Karluniversität Prag.” AfO 48/49 (2001/2002):
183-96.
———. The Old Assyrian Copper Trade in Anatolia, PIHANS 75. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor
het Nabije Oosten, 1996.
———. “The Silver of the Gods: On the Old Assyrian ikribū.” Archivum Anatolicum 3 (1997):75-100.
463
———. Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia. Edited by Jan Gerrit Dercksen, MOS Studies 1,
PIHANS 84. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1999.
Donbaz, Veysel. “The Archives of Eddin-Aššur son of Ahiaya.” In Old Assyrian Studies in Memory
of Paul Garelli, edited by Cécile Michel, 47-62. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het
Donbaz, Veysel, Julius Lewy. Keilschrifttexte in den Antiken-Museen zu Stambul. II, Freiburger
altorientalische Studien. Beihefte, Altassyrische Texte und Untersuchungen. Stuttgart:
Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden, 1989.
Donbaz, Veysel, and F. Joannès. “Nouvelles Lectures de Textes Cappadociens.” In Mémorial

Attaturk, 27-42. Istanbul: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1982.
Donbaz, Veysel, and Klaas R. Veenhof. “New Evidence for some Old Assyrian Terms.” Anatolica
12 (1985): 131-55.
Driver, Godfrey Rolles. “Studies in Cappadocian Tablets.” RA 24, no. 4 (1927): 153-79.
Edzard, Dietz O., and Karl Hecker. “Ein Brief aus der altassyrischen Korrespondenz Šallim-
aḫum/Pūšu-kēn.” MDOG 102 (1970): 86-88.
Eidem, Jesper. “In the Names of Aššur!” In Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle
Larsen, edited by J. G. Dercksen, 191-203. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije
Oosten, 2004.
———. “Old Assyrian Trade in Northern Syria: The evidence from Tell Leilan.” In Anatolia and
the Jazira During the Old Assyrian Period, edited by J. G. Dercksen. Leiden: Nederlands
Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2008.
Eisser, Georg, and Julius Lewy. Die altassyrischen Rechtsurkunden vom Kültepe. 2 vols, Mitteilungen
Der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft 33, 35.3. Leipzig1930-35.
Elliot, C. W. J. New Evidence for the Speed of the Roman Imperial Post. Phoenix 9 (1955):76-80.
Engels, Donald W. 1978. Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army. Berkeley:
University of California.
Fisher, Irving. The Theory of Interest. New york: Macmillan Company, 1930.
Forlanini, Massimo. “Étapes et itinéraires en Aššur et l'Anatolie des marchands paléo-

assyriens: nouveaux documents et nouveaux problems.” Kaskal 3 (2006): 147-76.
464
———."A Historical Geopgraphy of Anatolia and the Transition from the kārum-period to the
Early Hittite Empire." In Anatolia and the Jazira During the Old Assyrian Period, edited by
Jan Gerrit Dercksen, 57-86. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2008.
Freydank, Helmut. Beiträge zur mittelassyrischen Chronologie und Geschichte, Schriften zur Geschichte
und Kultur des alten Orients 21. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991.
Garelli, Paul. “La Tablet Cappadocienne De Liège Pul 100 Et Le Dossier Ilabrat-Bāni.” In
Festschrift Lubour Matouš, edited by B. Hruška and Géza Komoróczy, 105-26. Budapest:
Eötvös University, 1978.
———. Les Assyriens en Cappadoce, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique de l’institut français

d’archéologie d’Istanbul XIX. Paris: Librairie Adrien maisonneuve, 1963.
———. "Tablettes Cappadociennes de collections diverses." RA 58 (1964): 53-68, 111-36.
———. “Tablettes Cappadociennes de collections diverses (suite).” RA 59 (1965): 19-48, 149-76.
Garelli, Paul, and Dominique Collon. Cuneiform Cappadocian Tablets in the British Museum 6.
London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1975.
Gelb, Ignace J. “Lexicography, Lexicology, and the Akkadian Dictionary.” In Miscelánea Homenaje
a André Martinet, Estructuralismo e Historia II, edited by D. Catalán. Tenerife: Biblioteca
Filológica, 1958
Gibson, McGuire, ed. Uch Tepe 1: Tell Razuk , Tell Ahmed al-Mughir, Tell Ajamat, Hamrin Report 10.
Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, 1981.
Gledhill, John, and Mogens Trolle Larsen. "The Polanyi Paradigm and a Dynamic Analysis of
Archaic States." In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by Colin Renfrew, 197-
229: Academic Press, 1982.
Goitein, S. D. A Mediterannean Society. 5 vols. Vol. 1: Economic Foundations. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press, 1967.
Golénishchev, V. S. Vingt-quatre tablettes cappadociennes de la collection W. Golénischeff. St.

Petersburg, 1891.
Grayson, Albert Kirk, Grant Frame, Douglas Franye, and M. P. Maidman. Assyrian Rulers of the
Third and Second Millennia B.C. (to 1115 B.C.), RIMA 1. Toronto; Buffalo: University of
Toronto Press, 1987.
Gwaltney, W.C. The Pennsylvania Old Assyrian Texts, HUCA Supp. 3. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union
College, 1981.
465
Hallo, W. “The Road to Emar.” JCS 18 (1953): 57-88.
Hecker, Karl. Grammatik der Kültepe-Texte, Analecta Orientalia 44. Rome: Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum, 1968.
———. “Review of Gwaltney, W.C, The Pensylvannia Old Assyrian Texts.” Review of Gwaltney,
W.C., The Pennsylvania Old Assyrian Texts, Cinncinati, 1983. AfO 31 (1984): 81-86.
Hecker, Karl, Guido Kryszat, and Lubor Matouš. Kappadokische Keilschrifttafeln aus den
Sammlungen der Karlsuniversität Prag. Prague: Institute of Ancient Near Eastern Studies,
Charles University, 1998.
Hecker, Karl, Julius Lewy, and Universitätsbibliothek Giessen. Die Keilschriftexte der
Universitätsbibliothek Giessen. Giessen: Universitätsbibliothek, 1966.
Hertel, Thomas. “Old Assyrian Legal Practices: An Anthropological Perspective on Legal

Disputes in the Ancient Near East.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Copenhagen, 2007.
Hirsch, Hans. Untersuchungen zur altassyrischen Religion, AfO Beiheft 13/14. Graz, 1961.
Hodder, Ian. Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Hrozný, Bedřich. “Die Lösung des Hethitischen Problems.” MDOG 56 (1915): 17-50.
———. Die Sprache der Hethiter: ihr Bau und ihre Zugehörigkeit zum indogermanischen Sprachstamm.
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1917.
Hruška, B., and Komoróczy, eds. Festschrift Lubor Matouš. 2 vols. Budapest, 1978.
Hyland, Ann. Equus: The Horse in the Roman World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.
Ichisar, Metin. Les Archives cappadociennes du marchand Imdilum. Paris: Editions A.D.P.F., 1981.
Johns, C. H. W. The Relations between the Laws of Babylonia and the Laws of the Hebrew Peoples.
Second Edition ed, The Schweich Lectures 1912. London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford
University Press, 1917.
Jursa, Michael. Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents: Typology, Contents and Archives,
Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005.
Kienast, Burkhart. Die altassyrischen Texte des orientalischen Seminars der Universität Heidelberg und
der Sammlung Erlenmeyer, Basel, Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen
Archäologie. Bd. 1. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1960.
Kienast, B. “The Old Assyrian beʾūlātum.” JCS 41 (1989): 87-95.

466
Koch, J. Neue Unterschungen Zur Topographie Des Babylonischen Fixternshimmels. Wiesbaden, 1989.
Kryszat, Guido. “Beobachtungen zum Archive des Iddi(n)-Ištar.” In Veenhof Anniversary Volume:
Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by
Wilfed Hugo Van Soldt, Jan Gerrit Dercksen, Bert Kouwenberg and Th. J. H. Krispijn,
263-73. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2001.
———. “Wer schrieb die Waklum-Briefe?” In Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle
Larsen, edited by Jan Gerrit Dercksen, 353-8. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het
———. Zur Chronologie der Kaufmannsarchive aus der Schicht 2 des Kārum Kaneš: Studien und
Materialien, PIHANS 99. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2004.
Kuzucuoǧlu, Catherine. “Climatic and Environmental Trends during the Third Millennium B.C.
in Upper Mesopotamia.” In Sociétés Humaines et Changement Climatique à la Fin du
Troisième Millénaire: Une Crise a-t-elle eu Lieu en Haute Mesopotamie? Actes du Colloque de
Lyon 5-8 Décembre 2005, edited by Catherine Kuzucuoǧlu and Catherinr Marro, 459-80.
Istanbul: Institut Français d'études Anatoliennes Georges-Dumézil, 2007.
Landsberger, Benno. Assyrische Handelskolonien in Kleinasien aus dem dritten Jahrtausend. Vol. 24,
Der Alte Orient, 1925.
Lane, Frederic C. “Family Partnerships and Joint Ventures in the Venetian Republic.” Journal of
Economic History 4, no. 2 (1944): 178-96.
Larsen, Mogens Trolle. "Affect and Emotion." In Veenhof Anniversary Volume: Studies Presented to
Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by Wilfed Hugo Van
Soldt, Jan Gerrit Dercksen, Bert Kouwenberg and Th. J. H. Krispijn, 275-86. Leiden:
———. “Archives and Filing Systems at Kültepe.” In Old Assyrian Studies in Memory of Paul Garelli,
edited by Cécile Michel, 77-88. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten,
2008.
———. “Four Letters from the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore.” In Festschrift Lubor Matouš, edited
by B. Hruška and Géza Komoróczy, 113-37. Budapest: Eötvös University, 1978.
———. “Individual and Family in Old Assyrian Society.” JCS 59 (2007): 93-106.
———. “Naruqqu-Verträge.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, edited

by Dietz O. Edzard, 181-84. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999.
467
———. Old Assyrian Caravan Procedures, PIHANS 22. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Instituut in het Nabije Oosten, 1967.
———. “Partnerships in the Old Assyrian Trade.” Iraq 39 (1977): 119-45.
———. The Aššur-nādā Archive, PIHANS 96. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten,
2002.
———. The Old Assyrian City-State and its Colonies, Mesopotamia 4. Copenhagen: Akademisk
Forlag, 1976.
Larsen, Mogens Trolle. "Old Assyrian Texts." In Tablet, Cones, and Bricks of the Third and Second
Millenia B.C., 92-143. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1988.
———. “Your Money or Your Life! A Portrait of an Assyrian Businessman.” In Societies and
Languages of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of I.M. Diakonoff, 214-45. Warminster,
England: Aris and Phillips, 1982.
———. “Unusual Eponymy-datings from Mari and Assyria.” RA 68 (1974): 53-24.
Larsen, Mogens Trolle, Gojko Barjamovic, and Thomas Hertel. “Ups and Downs at Kanesh:
Observations on Chronology, History and Society in the Old Assyrian Period.”
(forthcoming).
Lattimore, Owen. The Desert Road to Turkestan. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd, 1928.
Lewy, Hildegard. “Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Period.” In Cambridge Ancient History, edited by
I.E.S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd and N.G.L. Hammond, 707-70. Cambridge: Cambridge
———. “Old Assyrian Texts in the University Museum.” HUCA 39 (1969): 1-33.
Lewy, Hildegard, and Julius Lewy. “The Origin of the Week and the Oldest West Asiatic
Calendar.” Hebrew Union College Annual 17, (1943): 1-152c.
———. “The Assload, the Sack, and Other Measures of Capacity.” RSO 39 (1964): 181-97.
Lewy, Julius. “Apropos of a Recent Study in Old Assyrian Chronology.” Orientalia 26, (1957): 12-
36.
Lewy, Julius. Die altassyrischen Texte vom Kültepe bei Kaisarije, Keilschrifttexte in den Antikenmuseen
zu Stambul. Istanbul: Selbstverlag der Antikenmuseen, 1926.
Lewy, Julius. Die Kültepetexte der Sammlung Rudolf Blackertz. Berlin, 1929.
468
Lewy, Julius. Die Kültepe-Text aus der Sammlung Frida Hahn. Berlin, 1930.
———. “Ḫatta, Ḫattu, Ḫatti, Ḫattuša and 'Old Assyrian' Ḫattum.” ArOr 18, no. 3 (1950): 366-440.
———. “On Some Institutions of the Old Assyrian Empire.” HUCA 27 (1956): 1-79.
———. Studien zu den altassyrischen Texten aus Kappadokien. Berlin: J. Lewy, 1922.
———. “Studies in Old Assyrian Grammar and Lexicography.” Orientalia 19 (1950): 1-36.
Lewy, Julius. Tablettes cappadociennes. Troisième série, Textes Cuneiformes du Louvre 19-21. Paris,:
Geuthner, 1935.
———. “The Old Assyrian Surface Measure šubtum.” AnBi 12 (1959): 216-26.
Lewy, Julius, and Albrecht Götze. Die Keilschrifttexte aus Kleinasien, autographiert und mit
Inventarverzeichnis und Namenlisten versehen, Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor
Hilprecht Collection of Babylonian antiquities im Eigentum der Universität Jena Bd. 1.
Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1932.
Littauer, M.A., and J.H. Crouwell. Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East.
Leiden: Brill, 1979.
———. “The Earliest Evidence for Metal Bridle Bots.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 20, no. 4
(2001): 329-38.
Littauer, Mary Aiken. “Early Stirrups.” Antiquity 55 (1981): 99-105.
Meijer, Fik, and Onno van Nijf. Trade, Transport and Society in the Ancient World A Sourcebook.
London: Routledge, 1992.
Michalowski, Piotr. “Aššur during the Ur III Period.” In Here and There Across the Ancient Near
East: Studies in Honor of Krystna Łyczkowska, edited by Olga Drewnowska, 149-56. Warsaw:
Agade, 2009.
Michel, Cecile. “The Alāhum and Aššur-taklāku archives found in 1993 at Kültepe Kaniš.” AoF
35 (2008): 53-67.
———. Correspondance des Marchands de Kanish au début du IIe millénaire avant J.-C., Littératures
Anciennes du Proche-Orient. Paris: Lés Editions du CERF, 2001.
———. “Durhumid, son commerce et ses marchands.” In Marchands, diplomats et empereurs,

Études sur las civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli, edited by Dominique
Charpin and F. Joannès, 253-73. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991.
469
———. “Femmes et production à Aššur au début du IIe millénaire av. J.-C.” Techniques and
Cultures 46-47 (2006): 285-304.
———. Innaya dans les tablettes paleo-assyriennes. 2 vols. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les
Civilisations, 1991.
———. “Les Assyriens et leurs Femmes Anatoliennes.” In Anatolia and the Jazira During the Old
Assyrian Period, PIHANS 111, edited by J. G. Dercksen, 209-29. Leiden: Nederlands
Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2008.
———. “Les pérégrinations des marchands assyriens en haute Mésopotamie et en Asie

Mineure.” Res Antiquae 5 (2008): 371-88.
———. Old Assyrian Bibliography, PIHANS 97. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten,
2003.
———. “Réédition des Trente Tablettes “Cappadociennes” de G. Conetenau.” RA 80 (1986): 105-

40.
———. “The perdum-mule, a Mount for Distinguished Persons in Mesopotamia during the First
Half of the Second Millennium BC.” In PECUS. Man and Animal in Antiquity. Proceedings of
the Conference at the Swedish Institute in Rome, September 9-12, 2002., edited by Barbro
Santillo Frizell, 190-99. Rome, 2004.
Nashek, Khaled. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der altassyrischen Zeit, Répetoire Géographique des
Textes Cunéiformes 4. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1991.
———. Rekonstruktion der Reiserouten zur Zeit der altassyrischen Handelsniederlassungen, Beihefte zum
Tübingen Atlas des Voerderen Orients 83. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1987.
Owen, David I. “The “First” Equestrian: An Ur III Glyptic Scene.” Acta Sumerologica 13 (1991):
259-73.
Özgüç, Nimet. Kültepe Kaniš/Neša: The earliest international trade center and the oldest capital city of
the Hittites. Istanbul: The Middle East Culture Center in Japan, 2003.
Parpola, Simo, ed. Assyrian-English-Assyrian Dictionary. Helsinki: Vammalan Kirijapaino, 2007.
Parzinger, H., and N. Boroffka. Das Zinn der Bronzezeit in Mittelasien I. Die
Siedlungsarchäeologischen Forschungen im Umfeld der Zinnlagerstätten, Archäologie in Iran
und Turan 5. Mainz, 2003.
Pedersén, Olof. Archives and libraries in the city of Assur: a survey of the material from the German
excavations. 2 vols. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1985.
470
Peters, John Punnet. Nippur: Or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Vol. 1.
New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1898.
Pinches, Theophilus Goldridge. “Cappadocian Tablets in the British Museum and the Louvre.”
PSBA 4, no. Nov. (1881): 11-18.
———. “Remarks on the Cappadocian Tablet Preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale, and that
in the British Museum.” PSBA 4, no. Dec. (1881): 28-32.
Ramsay, William Mitchell. The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert,
1890. Reprint, 1962.
Ramsay, A. W. “The Speed of the Imperial Post.” Journal of Roman Studies 15 (1925): 60-74.
Renger, Johannes. “On Economic Structures of Ancient Mesopotamia.” Orientalia 63 (1994): 157-
208.
Riehl, Simone, and Reid Bryson. “Variability in Human Adaptation to Changing Environmental
Conditions in Upper Mesopotamia during the Early and Middle Bronze Age.” In Sociétés
Humaines et Changement Climatique à la Fin du Troisième Millénaire: Une Crise a-t-elle eu Lieu
en Haute Mesopotamie? Actes du Colloque de Lyon 5-8 Décembre 2005, edited by Catherine
Kuzucuoǧlu and Catherine Marro, 523-48. Istanbul: Institut Français d'études
Anatoliennes Georges-Dumézil, 2007.
Robertson, John F. “On Profit-Seeking, Market Orientations, and Mentality in the “Ancient
Near East".” Review of Morris Sivler, Economic Structures of the Ancient Near East (Kent,
U.K., 1985). JAOS 113 (1993): 437-43.
Sahlins, Marshall David. Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Structure in the Early History of
the Sandwich Islands Kingdom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1981.
Sayce, Archibald Henry. “The Cuneiform Tablets of Kappadokia.” PSBA 6, no. Nov. (1883): 17-25.
———. “The Museum Collection of Cappadocian Tablets.” MJ 9 (1918): 148-50.
Sewell, William H., Jr. “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency and Transformations.” American
Journal of Sociology 98 (1992): 1-29.
———. The Logics of History: Social Theory and Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2005.
Sheldon, Mary Rose. Intelligience Activities in Ancient Rome: Trust in Gods, but Verify. London: Frank
Cass, 2005.
Silver, Morris. Economic Structures of the Ancient Near East. London: Croom Helm, 1985.
471
Silverstein, Adam. Postal Systems in the Pre-Modern Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge
Smith, Sidney. Cuneiform Cappadocian Tablets in the British Museum 1. London: Trustees of the
British Museum, 1921.
———. Cuneiform Cappadocian Tablets in the British Museum 2. London: Trustees of the British
Museum, 1924.
Museum, 1925.
Museum, 1927.
Smith, Sidney, and D. J. Wiseman. Cuneiform Cappadocian Tablets in the British Museum 5. London:
Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.
Spar, Ira. Tablet, Cones, and Bricks of the Third and Second Millenia B.C., Cuneiform Texts in the
Metropolitan Museum of Art 1. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1988.
Stamm, Mike. The Mule Alternative. Dugway, UT: Medicine Wolf Press, 1992.
Stephens, Ferris J. Old Assyrian Letters and Business documents, Babylonian Inscriptions in the
Collection of James B. Nies, Yale University. vol. 6. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944.
Stephens, Ferris J. Studies of the cuneiform tablets from Cappadocia, The Culver-Stockton Quarterly
2. Canton, Mo.: Culver-Stockton College, 1926.
Sturm, Thomas. “kaspum ammurrum: ein Begriff der Silbermetallurgie in den Kültepe-
Texten.” UF 27 (1995): 487-503.
Thureau-Dangin, François. Tablettes cappadociennes 2. Textes cunéiformes, Musée du Louvre 14.

Département des antiquités orientales, Paris: P. Geuthner, 1920.
Ulshofer, Andrea Marie. Die altassyrischen Privaturkunden, Faosb 4. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner
Verlag, 1995.
van der Meer, Petrus. Une Correspondance Commerciale Assyrienne. Rome: Imprimerie Pie X, 1931.
van de Mieroop, Marc. “Economic Theories and the Ancient Near East.” In Commerce and
Monetary Systems in the Ancient World: Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction, edited
by Robert Rolinger and Christoph Ulf, 54-64. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2004.
472
van Soldt, Wilfred Hugo. Veenhof Anniversary Volume: Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the
Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 89. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije
Oosten, 2001.
Veenhof, Klaas R. “Across the Euphrates.” In Anatolia and the Jazira During the Old Assyrian Period,
edited by Jan Gerrit Dercksen, 3-29. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije
Oosten, 2008.
———. “Archives of Old Assyrian Traders.” In Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions: Concepts of
Record-keeping in the Ancient World, edited by Maria Brosius, 78-123. Oxford: Oxford
———. Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Terminology, Studia et Documenta ad Iura Orientis Antiqui
Pertinentia, vol. 10. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
———. “Communication in the Old Assyrian Trading Society by Caravans, Travelers and
Messengers.” In Old Assyrian Studies in Memory of Paul Garelli, edited by Cécile Michel,
199-246. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2008.
———. “Cuneiform Archives: An Introduction.” In Cuneiform Archives and Libraries, edited by

Klaas R. Veenhof, 1-36. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1986.
———. “'Dying Tablets' and 'Hungry Silver'... Elements of Figurative Language in Akkadian
Commercial Terminology.” In Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, edited by
M. Mindlin, M.J. Geller and J.E. Wainsbrough, 41-75. London: 1987, 1987.
———. “'Modern Features' in Old Assyrian Trade.” JESHO 40 (1997): 336-66.
———. “New Evidence for Some Old Assyrian Terms.” Anatolica 12 (1985): 131-55.
———. “Old Assyrian Chronology.” Akkadica 119-120 (2000): 137-50.
———. “Old Assyrian Period.” In A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, edited by Raymond
Westbrook, 431-84. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
———. “Prices and Trade: The Old Assyrian Evidence.” AoF 15 (1988): 243-63.
———. “Private Summons and Arbitration among the Old Assyrian Traders.” Bulletin of the
Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 5 (1991): 437-59.
———. “Review of Die altassyrischen Privaturkunden, Andrea Ulshofer.” JESHO 40, no. 3 (1997):
301-04.
473
———. “Review of Die altassyrischen Privaturkunden, Maria Ulshofer.” JAOS 118, no. 4 (1998):
582-85.
———. “Silver and Credit in Old Assyrian Trade.” In Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia:
Proceedings of the First MOS Symposium, edited by Jan Gerrit Dercksen, 55-83. Instanbul:
Nederlands historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1999.
———. “Some Social Effects of Old Assyrian Trade.” Iraq 39 (1977): 109-18.
———. “Status and Offices of an Anatolian Gentleman - Two Unpublished Letters of

Huharimataku from karum Kanish.” In Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor
of Tahsin Özgüç, edited by Kutlu Emre, B. Hrouda, M.J. Mellink and Nimet Özgüç, 515-25.
Ankara, 1989.
———. The Archive of Kuliya, AKT 5. Ankara: TTK, 2008.
———. “The Old Assyrian Hamuštum Period: A seven-day week.” JEOL 34 (1996): 5-26.
———. The Old Assyrian List of Year Eponyms from Karum Kanish and Its Chronological Implications,
TTKY VI/64. Ankara: Turkish Historical Society, 2003.
———. “Trade and Politics in Ancient Assur: Balancing of Public, Colonial and Entreprenuerial
Interests.” In Mercanti e politica nel mondo antico, Congrso 23-24 marzo 2000 Iniveristà di
Roma, edited by C. Zaccagnini, 69-118. Rome, 2003.
———. “Traveling in Ancient Anatolia: Two New Sources from Karum Kanesh.” In Studies in
Honor of Hayat Erkanal: Cultural Reflections, edited by Armagan Erkanal-Oktu, Betül Avunç
and others, 778-83. Istanbul: Homer Kitabevi, 2006.
Veenhof, Klaas R., and Jesper Eidem. Mesopotamia: The Old Assyrian Period. Edited by Pascal
Attinger, Walther Sallaberger and Markus Wäfler, OBO 160/5. Fribourg: Academic Press,
2008.
Veenhof, Klaas R., and Evelyn Klengel-Brandt. Altassyrische Tontafeln aus Kültepe: Texte und
Siegelabrollungen, VS 26. Berlin, 1992.
Vila, Emmanuelle. “Data on Equids from the Late Fourth and Third Millennium Sites in
Northern Syria.” In Equids in Time and Space: Papers in Honor of Véra Eisenmann, edited by
Marjan Mashkour, 101-23. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2006.
Weisberger, G., and J. Cierny. “Tin for Ancient Anatolia?” Der Anschnitt Beiheft 15 (2002).
Wick, Lucia, Genry Lemcke, and Michael Sturm. “Evidence of Lateglacial and Holocene Climatic
Change and Human Impact on East Anatolia: High-Resolution Pollen, Charcoal, Isotopic
474
and Geochemical Records from Laminated Sediments of Lake Van, Turkey.” Holocene 13
(2003): 665-75.
Winther, Oscar Osburn. The Transportation Frontier: Trans-Mississippi West, 1865-1890. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964.
Yakubovich, Ilya. “Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language.” diss., University of Chicago, 2008.
475

Agents Archives and Risk A Micronarrative Account of Old Assyrian Trade Through Salim-Ahum S Activities in 1890 BC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agents Archives and Risk A Micronarrative Account of Old Assyrian Trade Through Salim-Ahum S Activities in 1890 BC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

AGENTS, ARCHIVES, AND RISK: A MICRONARRATIVE ACCOUNT OF OLD ASSYRIAN TRADE

THROUGH ŠALIM-AḪUM'S ACTIVITIES IN 1890 B.C.

THE FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF THE HUMANITIES

IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF

DEPARTMENT OF NEAR EASTERN LANGUAGES AND CIVILIZATIONS

EDWARD PAUL STRATFORD

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

LIST OF TABLES vii

CHAPTER 1: MICRONARRATIVE AND THE OLD ASSYRIAN TRADE 34

CHAPTER 2: THE ORIGINAL VENTURE 77

CHAPTER 3: SCRAMBLING FOR THE IKRIBŪ 152

CHAPTER 4: THE TROUBLE WITH ILABRAT-BĀNI 237

CHAPTER 5: FAMILY AND FIRM 289

CONCLUSION: AGENTS, ARCHIVES, AND RISK 394

APPENDIX 1: ANALYTICAL LEDGER OF ŠALIM-AḪUM’S ASSETS DURING REL 80 420

APPENDIX 2: TEMPORAL LEDGER OF ŠALIM-AḪUM’S ASSETS DURING REL 80 432

APPENDIX 3: INTERCALATION IN THE OLD ASSYRIAN PERIOD 441

APPENDIX 4: INDEX OF PERSONS 453

1 Location and Event Codes of Each Episode 8

2 Goods Shipped and Cleared from Šalim-aḫum’s Shipment 91

3 Lots Sold from the Shipments Arriving in Kanesh as Reported in 2.2 93

4 Comparison of the Contents of 2.3 and 2.4 104

6 Summary Table of Events from the Original Venture 116

7 Variation in Expressed Amounts of Šalim-aḫum’s Assets in Select Texts 132

8 Summary of Šalim-aḫum’s Sources of Gold 181

9 Summary Table of Events from the Puzur-Ištar Affair 185

10 Prices Quoted for the Purchase of Perdum 234

11 Summary of Ilī-ašranni’s Caravan and its Disposition 245

12 Ilabrat-bāni’s Minor Debts to Šalim-aḫum 274

13 Summary Table of Events from the Ilabrat-bāni Affair 275

14 Summary Table of Events from the Dān-Aššur Letters 307

15 Summary Table of Events from the Ennam-Aššur Letters 334

16 Summary Table of Events from the Joint Venture 350

17 Summary Table of Events from the Purchasing Houses Episode 360

18 Chronological Distribution of Debt Notes Attributable to Pūšu-kēn 405

19 Analytic Process Ledger of Šalim-aḫum’s Commercial Assets during REL 80 – 423

20 Analytic Process Ledger of Šalim-aḫum’s Commercial Assets during REL 80 – 429

21 Analytic Process Ledger of Šalim-aḫum’s Commercial Assets during REL 80 – 431

23 Temporal Ledger of Šalim-aḫum’s Commercial Assets managed through 436

24 Successor Eponym References in Intercalary Months and Months I-V 446

1 Logical Construction of Šalim-aḫum’s Activities – Step 1 11

2 Logical Construction of Šalim-aḫum’s Activities – Step 2 14

3 Logical Construction of Šalim-aḫum’s Activities – Step 3 17

4 Geographic and Temporal Layout for Reconstructed Activity in REL 80 23

5 Overview of the Reconstructed Activity during REL 80 25

6 Chronological Development of the Original Venture 120

7 Familial Relationship between Puzur-Ištar and Pūšu-kēn 171

8 Chronological Development of the Puzur-Ištar Affair 189

9 Two-Cycle Model in the Context of REL 80 198

10 Possible Southern Route through Habur 212

11 Map of Paleoclimate Proxy Sites 218

12 Density of Communication between Šalim-aḫum and Pūšu-kēn mid- 221

13 Chronological Development of the Ilabrat-bāni Affair 285

14 Chronological Development of Dān-Aššur’s Activities During REL 80 304

15 Chronological Development of Ennam-Aššur’s Activities during REL 80 333

16 Chronological Development of the Joint Venture 345

17 Distribution of Intercalated Months between REL 81 and REL 110 451

AC Paul Garelli, Les Assyriens en Cappadoce, Bibliothèque archéologique et

AHK Benno Landsberger, Assyrische Handelskolonien in Kleinasien aus dem

AKT Ankara Kültepe Tabletleri, Ankaraner Kültepe-Texte.

AMMY Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi Yıllığı.