Imperium and Officium Working Papers (IOWP)
Food and drink for the palace
The management of foodstuffs in Neo-Assyrian times and
beyond
Version 00
July 2013
Melanie Groß (University of Vienna, Department of Oriental Studies)
Abstract: This paper examines the organisation of the food supply for the Neo-Assyrian
palace households. A primary concern of the palace administration was to cover the food
requirements of its residents, visitors and personnel. Due to the size and complexity especially
of the main palace but also of the other palaces in the imperial centre, this required specific
functionaries who were concerned with the different stages of food management, namely
procurement, storage, distribution and processing. Specialist officials were employed to deal
with different categories of foodstuffs, whether grain products, meat, wine and the like. For
example, from the everyday documents we learn of figures such as the chief cook (concerned
with domestic animals and the meat supply), the wine master and the fruit master. The results
of an examination of these officials active in the Neo-Assyrian period are then compared with
what is known about food management in the Middle Assyrian period.
© Melanie Groß 2013
[email protected]
Melanie Groß
1
Food and drink for the palace:
the management of foodstuffs in Neo-Assyrian times and beyond1
When Aššurnaṣirpal II reports on the festivities held for the inauguration of his new imperial
capital at Kalḫu, he speaks of 69,574 people whom he provided with food and drink for ten
days (RIMA 2 A.0.101.30:102–145). Despite possible doubts about the precise number of
guests, this account demonstrates the ability of the Assyrian king to organise the acquisition
and preparation of thousands of cattle, sheep, game, birds and fish, large amounts of grain,
thousands of litres of beer and wine, various different types of vegetables, herbs, spices, and
fruits as well as honey, milk, and dairy products. The whole undertaking must have involved
thousands of labourers and workers, with the king relying especially on his officials who
delegated and coordinated the different operations and channeled the traffic of goods. This
article examines these same administrative figures who organised the supply of food and
drink for the royal household. In studying the nature of their offices and their activities as
witnessed by the everyday documents, we shall gain a better understanding of the complex
system of food supply and management in the Neo-Assyrian royal household that we can then
compare with what is known for the preceding Middle Assyrian period.
Food consumption within the royal household can be basically divided into “ordinary
consumption”, that is, the daily meal, and “extraordinary consumption” on the occasion of
festive banquets. While the daily meal was provided for the king and his inner circle, festive
consumption involved a broader spectrum of participants, including the king’s state officials,
who maintained their own households, as well as guests and envoys from abroad. Hence,
Aššurnaṣirpal lists as his guests 47,074 men and women from all over the empire, 5,000
envoys (ṣīru) from surrounding polities, 16,000 inhabitants of Kalḫu and 1,500 courtiers
(zarriqu) of his palaces to celebrate the new capital Kalḫu. Similarly, Esarhaddon let his
magnates (LÚ.GAL.MEŠ) and the people of his land (UN.MEŠ KUR-ia) enjoy tables richly
laden with food and drink after he had completed his Review Palace (ekal māšarti), “The
palace that administers everything” (Ešgalšiddudua), in Nineveh (RINAP 4 1 vi 43, 49–53).
These sumptuous banquets were accompanied by the performance of offerings to the gods,
that is, the royal meal attended by the king’s subjects was preceded by the divine meal. This
sequence of events is clearly expressed in the aforementioned account of Esarhaddon who
first let the gods of Assyria enter and consecrate his new palace before he invited his subjects
for dinner.2 The connection between cultic offerings and earthly feeding has been repeatedly
addressed for the Assyrian period as well as for other periods of the ancient Near East (see,
1
This article was written in the framework of the project “Royal Institutional Households in First Millennium BC
Mesopotamia” led by Heather D. Baker at the University of Vienna funded by the Austrian Science Fund
(FWF, grant S 10802–G18) as part of the NFN “‘Imperium’ and ‘Officium’. Comparative Studies in Ancient
Bureaucracy and Officialdom”. The post-canonical eponym dates, marked with an asterisk, follow the
reconstructed schedule of Parpola (PNA 1/I: XVIII–XX). The abbreviations follow the list of bibliographical
abbreviations in PNA 3/II, pp. B 31–36. Further abbreviations are KAN = Keilschrifttexte aus
Neuassyrischer Zeit and MARV = Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte.
2
RINAP 4 1 vi 44–48. Also Aššurnaṣirpal II invited the god Aššur together with the gods of the entire land to his
magnificent banquet (RIMA 2 A.0.101.30:104–105); see Joannès 2009: 226, fn. 18.
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Food and drink for the palace
2
inter alia, Milano 1998 and Joannès 2009). Parpola (2004: 291) convincingly argued for a
“definite correlation between the divine leftovers and the Assyrian royal banquet” on the basis
of about thirty records (SAA 7 182–219) concerned with offerings in the Aššur Temple,
performed on occasion of the New Year’s festivities, and their leftovers (rēḫātu) from
Nineveh which reveal a pattern (as to the types, order and relative quantities of goods listed)
very similar to what we learn from accounts of royal banquets such as that of Aššurnaṣirpal.
In this context he distinguished between “divine favour”, i.e. leftovers from divine meal for
the benefit of the king and also the crown prince, and “royal favour”, i.e. leftovers from the
royal meal given to the king’s subjects (Parpola 2004: 293). Hence, the foodstuffs served at
the inauguration of the Ešgalšiddudua presumably were leftovers from the preceding
sacrifices which the king, as the principal recipient of these divine favours, in turn shared with
his subjects as a royal favour. Apart from such occasions of “extraordinary consumption”, the
king (and the crown prince) were provided with smaller amounts of offerings leftovers for
their individual consumption. As indicated by the “customary leftovers” (rēḫātu kajamānātu)
from before Aššur which were brought to the palace, according to a broken letter of an
unknown sender (SAA 13 156 r. 6–10), this happened on a more regular basis. The regular
delivery of divine leftovers (also over greater distances) to the king is by no means a unique
practice in the ancient Near East; for instance, it is well known for the Neo-Babylonian
period.3 Although the daily meal of the king for the most part may have remained unaffected
by cultic procedures in the temple, and although the large-scale consumption of offerings
leftovers (following the correspondingly large-scale performance of offerings) by the king’s
subjects took place only exceptionally or in greater intervals, the temple sphere was
nevertheless important for the food supply of the palace. Thus, we have to reckon with
foodstuffs circulating between temple and palace when examining the administration of the
food supply for the royal household.
The management of the food supply in the Neo-Assyrian period
Thanks to Assyria’s abundance of pasture lands and cultivated lands, the royal household
could rely to a great extent on the country’s own production of edible goods for its
maintenance,4 but it also benefitted from foodstuffs entering the land as booty, tribute, and
gifts and obtained via trade. As for Assyria’s own produce, the basic stages of the food supply
were production, management, and preparation. First, meat, grain, legumes, vegetables, herbs,
spices, and fruits were produced through animal husbandry, agriculture, and gardening,
mainly in the countryside. Then followed the collection, the transfer to stables and storage
facilities in local centres and the main cities, and the redistribution to kitchen facilities and
other establishments for further processing such as slaughtering, conserving, and final
preparation including cooking and baking. Depending on the type of food, a modified process
3
Nabonidus received leftovers of offerings during his stay in Tayma. According to the letter BIN 1 25, they were
brought to the king three times a month, though it remains unclear whether this was an exception or the rule;
see Kleber 2008: 302f.
4
I shall not discuss here the issue of land ownership and tenure in Assyria (see therefore Postgate 1989: 145–
149). It is clear that the royal household had its own land and resources, but it may have also profited from
tax income from the provinces.
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Melanie Groß
3
was in operation; for example, cattle and poultry were fattened in the urban stables, while
grapes were pressed and bottled already in the countryside (in regions north-west of the
Assyrian heartland). With foodstuffs received from alternative channels,5 the first stage
obviously took place abroad, but the subsequent management and treatment must have been
similar to what happened with the home-produced foodstuffs. These alternative channels were
particularly important for procuring goods that were not available (or scarce) in Assyria, such
as wine and olive oil; these, of course, were processed already before they entered the
Assyrian heartland.6
Food managers
For the Neo-Assyrian period we can observe a considerable number of administrative offices
who were concerned with foodstuffs. I distinguish here between “kitchen managers” who
presided over food-related professions (e.g. chief cook),7 “food managers” who were
concerned with a specific foodstuff (e.g. wine master), and “grain managers” who were in
charge of storage facilities for grain (and grain products).
(1) the “kitchen managers”
◦ rab nuḫatimmi (chief cook)
◦ rab karkadinni (chief confectioner)
◦ rab āpie (chief baker)
◦ rab sirāšê (chief brewer)
◦ rab ṣāḫiti (chief oil-presser)
(2) the “food managers”
◦ rab šamni (oil master)
◦ rab karāni (wine master)
◦ rab zamri (fruit master)
◦ rab raqqûti (spice master)
(3) the “grain managers”
◦ rab karmi or rab karmāni (granary master or chief of granaries)
◦ rab danībāte8
5
Note, for instance, livestock coming as booty or tribute to Assyria under Shalmaneser III (Yamada 2000: 263f.,
413, Map 6-C). Also, Urzana, king of Muṣaṣir, wrote a letter to Sargon II dealing with oxen and rams that he
wanted to bring with him when he met the king (SAA 5 146).
6
For instance, Shalmaneser III received wine via tribute payments from the Zagros valley and the highlands of
northern Syria (Yamada 2000: 270f., 416, Map 6-F). In the course of the 8th and 7th centuries vineyards
became a familiar sight in the Assyrian territory (Gaspa 2012a: 234f.). The olive and its oil remained exotic
products throughout the history of the Neo-Assyrian empire, though the Assyrians were not necessarily
interested in a large scale import of these products (Faust 2011, especially pp. 70–74, on oil production in
Judea). Nevertheless, it was a valuable product which was also needed, for instance, for the manufacture of
perfumes.
7
The same principle of a rab-x official presiding over the x-profession is attested for several other professions
such as weavers (rab ušpāri in e.g. SAA 6 163 r. 14´).
8
This title presumably originates from the Hurrian word k/galteniwa which appears often in association with
grain in Nuzi texts (Menzel-Wortmann 1986: 213–4). Also in the Neo-Assyrian sources this official is mainly
concerned with the management of grain and grain products; cf. Menzel-Wortmann 1986.
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Food and drink for the palace
4
(4) miscellaneous
◦ rab qaqqulāti9
From among these officials it is primarily the “kitchen managers” who, as their titles reveal,
were attached to a specific institution or administrative sphere. Hence, apart from the royal
household also close relatives of the king (crown prince, queen, king’s mother), provincial
governors, temples (Aššur Temple, Ištar Temple), and cities could have their own “kitchen
managers” (see Table 1).10 By contrast, the managers concerned with one specific commodity
lack any such qualification, with the exception of a wine master who is “of the New House”
which is presumably to be identified with an annex to a palace or a distinct palace
department.11 The remaining food managers, apart from the rab qaqqulāti “of the house of the
queen”, are never identified as a member of the department of a key member of the royal
family, a provincial or a temple household. Only the affiliations of the granary master or chief
of granaries show that he was active in Nineveh, the city of Maganuba,12 and the land of
Birtu.13 Although we are dealing here with only a few references in total, the distribution of
the known affiliations appears nevertheless to be significant, even more so if we take into
account the (approximate) date of the references. Hence, the majority of food-managing
offices is already attested in the first half of the 8th century, while individuals explicitly
affiliated to temples occur from the reign of Sargon II onwards. The food managers working
for key members of the royal family are only known for the 7th century, when the
establishments of these royals seem to have expanded considerably.14 Also, the reference to
the wine master of the New House stems from a legal record dating from the reign of
Assurbanipal or later. Based on the fact that the earliest datable attestation of a food manager
qualified as “of the palace” points to the reign of Sargon II, a time when also the other
institutional affiliations are attested for the first time, one might conclude that at the latest in
the second half of the 8th century the “kitchen managers” were no longer restricted to the
royal household, and their number increased further in the seventh century. However, since
we lack substantial data from before the second half of the 8th century, and it is likely that
large establishments such as the Aššur Temple were staffed with “kitchen managers” already
in early Neo-Assyrian times, this observation is to be treated with caution.15 Still, the absence
9
q/kaqq/kkulāti is derived from kakkullu which can refer to a “vessel for making beer, for storing liquids” but
also to a wooden box keeping fruits; see CAD K 59 s.v. kakkullu and kakkullu in rab-qaqqullāte. Note, in
particular, his occurrence in a collection of royal decrees (SAA 12 77 i 21, r. iii 5, 16). References to all these
food-managing officials are given in the following discussion. A comprehensive collection of the data is
provided in my doctoral thesis “The Structure and Organisation of the Neo-Assyrian Royal Household”
(2014).
10
These affiliations are also indicated by the context; note, for instance, the “chief baker” (of the Aššur Temple)
mentioned in a letter of the scholar Akkullanu (SAA 10 96 r. 2).
11
The term bētu eššu occurs also in SAA 7 115 r. ii 16 and 148 ii 16´, 18´ and is not necessarily identical with the
ekallu eššu (as listed, for instance, in SAA 7 115 i 6).
12
Maganuba is to be identified with a place within the area of Dur-Šarrukin (Fuchs 1994: 38, Zyl.44; SAA 12
19:7´).
13
The province of Birtu was established in the reign of Tiglath-pileser III and was situated on the Lesser Ḫabur
(Radner 2006: 56f.).
14
This phenomenon was inter alia addressed by Radner 2008: 510; see also Groß forthcoming.
15
Note especially the undated text Menzel 1981 II: T 24–28, no. 22 in fn. 17.
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Melanie Groß
5
of comparable qualifications for officials concerned with one specific type of foodstuff,
including grain, is significant and it seems that these men were usually only active in the royal
household,16 either as a single representative of their office or as one among multiple officeholders, as in the case of the chiefs of granaries who were assigned to different places from
the reign of Adad-nerari III on. The wine master of the New House from late Neo-Assyrian
times is perhaps an indicator of a continuous process of specialisation within the royal
household due to its increase in size and complexity over the centuries. As a consequence of
the food-managing offices having more than one representative at a time, within or in addition
to the royal household, we have to reckon with a hierarchical formation of holders of the same
office, headed by the main office-holder from the royal household.
“of the
palace”
“of the
crown
prince”
“of the
queen”
rab nuḫatimmi x
x
x
rab karkadinni x
x
rab āpie
“of the
king’s
mother”
of temples
of cities
Ištar
Ḫarran
x
x
rab sirāšê
miscellanea
[...]
Aššur
Temple
Aššur
Temple
governor of
Guzana
rab karāni
New House
rab karmāni
rab qaqqulāti
Nineveh
Birtu
Maganuba
x
Table 1: Food managers with an institutional or geographical affiliation.17
The comparably high density of “kitchen managers” employed in different spheres is likely
due to the fact that institutional households were equipped with facilities for the processing
and preparation of food that were staffed with skilled personnel such as cooks, confectioners,
and brewers. The larger these facilities were and the more personnel they deployed, the higher
is the likelihood that individuals were chosen (from among them) to preside over their
professional section. Hence, at first sight these people might be regarded as, for instance, the
16
The rab zamri and the rab raqqûti are only attested in an administrative text recording the redistribution of
tribute to court personnel (SAA 11 36 i 28, r. i 16). We also find here the rab šamni (SAA 11 36 i 22) who is
otherwise only attested as a witness in a legal record from Nineveh (SAA 6 287 r. 13).
17
References: rab nuḫatimmi: “of the palace” (SAA 12 77 i 23´, Sargon II), “of the crown prince” (SAA 14 307 r.
5´, probably 7th century), “of the queen” (BT 140 r. 14, 685, edited in Parker 1963: 100, Pl. XXVI), “of
Ištar” (StAT 2 102 r. 3´, 711), “of the city of Ḫarran” (SAA 11 203 iii 8–9, Sargon II). rab karkadinni: “of the
palace” (SAA 12 77 r. ii 17, date uncertain), “(of the) crown prince” (SAA 7 4 r. ii´ 4´, 6´, Assurbanipal), “(of
the) king’s mother” (SAA 7 6 i 8´, Esarhaddon or Assurbanipal) “of […]” (KAN 4 8 r. 12´, 631*). rab āpie:
“of the queen” (O 3680 r. 10, 687, see Pruzsinszky, PNA 2/I 631 s.v. Kubābu-idrī), “of the Aššur Temple”
(Menzel 1981 II: T 24–28, no. 22 r. iii 4´, not dated). rab sirāšê: “of the Aššur Temple” (Menzel 1981 II: T
24–28, no. 22 r. iii 7´, not dated), “[of the] governor of Guzana” (StAT 2 53 r. 20–21, 700). rab karāni: “(of
the) New House” (SAA 14 60:7, 658). rab karmāni: “of the city of Ninua” (SAA 12 72 r. 12, 790), “(of the)
land of Birtu” (ND 2791 r. 17´–18´, Tiglath-pileser III or Sargon II, edited in Parker 1961: 54, Pl. XXVIII),
“of the city of Maganuba” (SAA 6 37:2–3, 694). rab qaqqulāti: “of the queen” (StAT 2 3 r. 3–4, 692).
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Food and drink for the palace
6
chefs de cuisine, as their titles suggest. However, the reality was different: the chief cook and
the chief confectioner of the royal household do not seem to have been occupied in the palace
kitchen and the palace confectionary respectively, but rather they organised the foodstuffs that
were needed by the working cooks and confectioners. In the case of the cooks this involved
the meat of domestic animals, and in the case of confectioners they were occupied with fruits
and spices.18 With the chief cook this developed to such an extent that he was responsible for
the general management of livestock, whether needed for sacrifices, consumption, or work as
draught animals. The chief cook Sa’ilu even became eponym in the year 620*, a function
which was usually reserved for high state officials but was fulfilled also by some court
officials in late Neo-Assyrian times (see Mattila 2009). The other types of kitchen managers
do not occur in particular connection with the royal household, nor do they seem to have
developed a similar degree of abstraction and complexity: they were more “hands-on”. As far
as one can tell from the sources, the chief baker, the chief brewer, and the chief oil-presser
seem to have borne responsibility primarily for the preparation and provision of bread, beer,
and oil (mainly sesame oil),19 rather than for the organisation of the ingredients needed. Also,
the discrepancy between the literal meaning “chief oil-presser” (rab ṣāḫiti) and “oil master”
(rab šamni) supports the impression that the latter managed the acquisition, storage, and
distribution of oil and the “chief oil-presser”, as head of the oil-pressers, was liable for the
productivity of the oil-pressing craft and may have even worked as an oil-presser himself.
Likewise, the storage of grain, which was central for the chief baker’s and the chief brewer’s
work, was the responsibility of the chief of granaries and the rab danībāti. One would also
assume a similar distribution of responsibilities between the fruit master and the spice master,
on the one hand, and the chief confectioner on the other hand. They all occur in the same
administrative document recording allocations of tribute to court personnel (SAA 11 36 i 28,
31, r. i 16); thus, they were active at the same time. Judging by the developed state of the
office of chief confectioner, he was perhaps responsible for the acquisition of fruits and spices
needed by the confectioners, while the two “food managers” managed the same commodities
for other uses (such as raw consumption or the manufacture of perfumes). Although this is
highly speculative, the responsibilities of the kitchen managers and the other food managers,
in any case, to a certain extent complemented each other.
Comparing the range of food served at the banquet of Aššurnaṣirpal II with the types
of foodstuffs the food managers were concerned with, the management of the most important
components of the elite’s menu, including grain, meat, and wine, was undertaken by separate
officials. In the following we will take a closer look at the comparatively well attested chief of
granaries, the chief cook, and the wine master, in order to gain a better understanding of the
18
Note especially the letters of Nabû-dē’iq (SAA 1 226–232) who was concerned with the acquisition of fruit
trees and conifers and who twice mentions the rab karkadinni (SAA 1 227:10 and 228:4).
19
We lack significant references to the chief oil-presser who is mentioned in the lexical list of official and
professional titles from Sultantepe (MSL 12 233 r. v 17´) and, if restored correctly, in Ziyaret 10:4; note,
however, the addressee Irmulu of the letter of twenty oil-pressers (KAV 197:1, Postgate 1974: 363–367) who
might have been chief oil-presser. Still, a text dealing with the responsibilities of the personnel of the Aššur
Temple records that the chief baker is responsible for the supply of bread and that the chief brewer, likewise,
is in charge of the provision of beer (Menzel 1981 II: T 24–28, no. 22 r. iii 2´–4´, r. iii 5´–8´).
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Melanie Groß
7
activities of the food managers in connection with the acquisition, transport, storage, and
distribution of the foodstuffs for the benefit of the royal household (inevitably including also
deliveries to the temple).
rab karmāni (chief of granaries)
The chief of granaries, as his title suggests,20 was in charge of large storage facilities for grain.
This is best documented by an administrative record (ND 2791) from 8th-century Kalḫu
(Room 4 of the ZT area, North-West Palace) according to which the storehouse (nakkamtu)
under the responsibility of the (unnamed) granary master in the land of Birtu received in total
12,800 homers of barley rations (ŠE.PAD) collected from various different places (apart from
Arbail these are mostly unknown).21 Hence, corn from local centres was stored in the granary
of that region administered by the granary master. In three legal records from 7th-century
Kalḫu (Fort Shalmaneser) the (unnamed) chief of granaries is concerned with the collection of
the corn and straw taxes from royal ma’uttu land (CTN 3 14–16). This type of land, which
seems to have been maintenance land for the king (or his household),22 was apparently placed
at the disposal of Šamaš-aḫu-iddina (CTN 3 14, 16) and Šep-Issar (CTN 3 15) respectively,
who were liable to pay taxes in return for its usufruct.23 In another administrative record,
bearing the same archival background as ND 2791, the chief of granaries Saggil-šarru-uṣur is
listed along with 4,000 homers (of barley) (ND 3469:14–15, Wiseman 1953: 146, Pl. XIII). In
the same record also the (unnamed) fodder master (rab kissite) is listed along with 2,000, a
certain Kabtî with 7,000, and the (unnamed) rab danībāte with 1,000 homers (of barley), and
the city of Nineveh is recorded with 3,050 homers (of barley) which were collected inter alia
from Kurbail, Šibaniba, and Talmusu, all provincial cities located in the Assyrian heartland
north of Nineveh. Since the deliveries were made to Nineveh, the grain amounts in Nineveh
and in charge of the officials may have been meant for another final destination, perhaps
Kalḫu, the place where the tablet was found and the imperial capital at that time.24 In any
case, this document reveals the operation of the barley supply for the urban centres of the
Assyrian heartland, something that is also reflected in the administrative text SAA 11 23,
where 70 (homers) 7 seahs (of grain), the total imposed upon several men listed by personal
name, are said to be for (ana) Nineveh.25 The chief of granaries also supplied individual
20
Related to the verb karāmu, meaning “to pile up, to store, to keep” (CAD K 201 s.v. karāmu B), the noun
karmu describes a “storage area, pile (of barley)” (CAD K 200 s.v. karammu) and can refer to bare heaps of
grain but also to fixed storage constructions (as is made clear by the determinative É, often found in Middle
Assyrian writings). For a more detailed discussion about the etymology of this term see Llop 2005: 41–43;
note also his discussion of the Middle Assyrian writings ibid. 43f.; cf. Llop in Faist and Llop 2012: 20–24.
21
More than 200 letters from the correspondence of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II were found in Room 4 of the
North-West Palace (Oates and Oates 2001: 197–201); the present document presumably was drawn up at that
time.
22
According to Parpola (1975: 295), the term ma’uttu presumably derives from mânu, meaning “to provide”.
23
For this interpretation, which I find convincing, see Postgate 1974: 180f.
24
Even if the tablet dates from the reign of Sargon (cf. ND 2791) who established a new imperial capital, Kalḫu
still functioned as the imperial centre, since Dur-Šarrukin was only finished and occupied in 706 BC, at the
end of Sargon’s reign.
25
The total, however, is not compatible with the sum of the individual deliveries (Fales and Postgate 1995:
XVIII). Note also the letter of Tariba-Issar to the king (Sargon) dealing with barley rations (to be) collected
from provincial palaces in Kilizi, Adian, and Arbail (SAA 1 160).
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Food and drink for the palace
8
palace departments and palace members with grain, as is clear from legal texts recording
administrative procedures. When the chief of granaries Il-amar owes 200 barley rations
(ŠE.PAD) to the šakintu “of […]”, to be delivered to Dur-Šarrukin (SAA 14 471), this reflects
an official obligation rather than a personal loan.26 Presumably also Nasḫir-Bel, possibly chief
of granaries (CTN 3 92:4: LÚ.GAL–kar?-[man?]), who owed 4 barley rations to a certain
Mannu-ki-Arbail in late Neo-Assyrian times, acted here in his official capacity, not least
because the indebted barley is qualified as fodder (kissutu) which in other legal records from
Fort Shalmaneser (CTN 3 10:2; 12:7; 13:4) marks their administrative background.27 Hence,
in both cases the chief of granaries was ex officio obliged to supply amounts of grain which he
did not yet manage to deliver. In other cases, the chief of granaries appears as a provider of
corn for temple offerings; this can be placed in the context of general duties that were also
imposed on other officials (primarily the high state officials) who had appropriate resources at
their disposal. According to the letter of the scholar Akkullanu to the king (Assurbanipal), the
(unnamed) chief of granaries is listed among the officials, mainly provincial governors,28 who
did not yet hand in their contributions of barley and emmer for the regular offerings (ginû) in
the Aššur Temple.29 Hence, the chief of granaries (and his establishment) had separate
resources available, independent of the provincial stocks of grain.30
Although the title rab karmāni explicitly refers to the karmu, this official never
actually occurs in association with such an installation. Rather, the chief of granaries is once
recorded as being responsible for a storage facility called nakkamtu (ND 2791), a term which
is otherwise often used to refer to the treasury or treasury houses containing precious metals
(e.g. SAA 7 59 ii 5; SAA 13 127:13) or associated with horses (e.g. SAA 13 95:8; ND 2451:7,
12, 18, see Parker 1961: 28–30, Pl. XIV). Thus, the nakkamtu did not serve exclusively as a
storage facility for grain, as was the case with karmu.31 Since one would, nevertheless,
assume that the rab karmāni was responsible for the establishments designated karmu in the
Neo-Assyrian sources, we shall have a brief look at the Assyrian evidence for karmu which
was only recently examined by Faist and Llop (2012). Both Faist (for the Neo-Assyrian
period) and Llop (for the Middle Assyrian period, cf. Llop 2005) conclude that this term
26
In addition to the involvement of officials, the even number, and the absence of the phrase ina pūḫi ittiši,
marking a “true loan” (Postgate 1976: 37, § 3.2.4), underlines the official nature of this transaction. For the
drawing up of legal texts in order to document administrative procedures see, for instance, Dalley and
Postgate 1984: 8.
27
As in SAA 14 471, there is not an ina pūḫi ittiši clause. The date is lost, but see Dalley and Postgate 1984: 156
and Baker, PNA 2/II 687f. s.v. Mannu-kī-Arbail 18 (possibly identical with nos. 15–17 and 30; in the latter
case a Mannu-ki-Arbail is one of three debtors of 15 homers of barley rations in a context similar to an
administrative procedure, see Dalley and Postgate 1984: 100 about CTN 3 44).
28
The toponyms in SAA 10 96:17–23 (and ll. 13–16) refer to LÚ.EN.NAM in l. 13. Daian-Adad, who is
mentioned immediately after the chief of granaries, is eponym of a city (see Pruzsinszky, PNA 1/II 367 s.v.
Daiān-Adad 3).
29
SAA 10 96:17–25, cf. SAA 12 72 r. 12 (fragment belonging to the decree of Adad-nerari III, SAA 12 71) where
the chief of granaries is listed as contributor of offering goods (broken).
30
Contra Faist (in Faist and Llop 2012: 28, fn. 28) who proposes that Akkullanu refers here to his own city,
administered by the rab karmāni. There is no point in assuming that Akkullanu himself had to provide
material for offerings in this context, neither is it likely that he had his own rab karmāni.
31
Another term denoting a sort of silo is padakku (see Faist in Faist and Llop 2012: 28, fn. 64). For the Middle
Assyrian period Llop (in Faist and Llop 2012: 25) points to a few other terms which designate grain storage
facilities exclusively, namely ḫašīmu and qub/p(u)tu.
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Melanie Groß
9
primarily refers to royal or governmental granaries for the storage of the king’s grain intended
for the benefit of the king’s household. This seems especially plausible on the basis of the
Middle Assyrian evidence which suggests that apart from the imperial capital Assur also all
the provincial capitals had their own royal karmu (Llop 2005: 44f.). Also according to the
Neo-Assyrian state correspondence, the karmu was an institutional facility which was mainly
at the disposal of provincial governors, not least for supplying the army.32 Another relevant
reference to the karmu (the only Neo-Assyrian attestation written with the determinative É)
occurs in a letter of Amar-ili who may have been active in Arbail (Radner, PNA 1/I 98 s.v.
Amar-ili 1). Here, Amar-ili reports to the king that the karmu between the bēt-qātē
(storehouse) of the ša-pān-ekalli (palace supervisor) has fallen down (SAA 1 137). This
incident might or might not have taken place in the city of Arbail (Amar-ili’s possible place of
work), but it shows that the karmu was an urban installation, well integrated into the cityscape
and rather close to representative buildings (i.e. the palace). The karmu attested in SAA 1 181
was administered by provincial authorities (the deputy governor) but had a particular
connection to the king and his household, judging by its description “of the king”.33 This,
together with the other evidence, indicates that the Middle Assyrian system of installing of
royal granaries in provincial capitals was maintained in the Neo-Assyrian period. In addition
to this, however, the sources of the Neo-Assyrian period also refer to a karmu “of the Nabû
Temple” (ND 5457 r. 7) and “of the house of the skilled men (ummânu)” (Ziyaret 13:8),34
while in the Middle Assyrian texts karmus of the Aššur Temple and of individuals may be
attested (Llop in Faist and Llop 2012: 25f.). Hence, karmu was also used as a generic term for
storage facilities of grain, and the rab karmāni was not responsible for all of these individual
establishments but—as noted above—he took care of the granaries (whether designated
karmu or not) of the royal household which were administered separately from the provincial
ones.35 Apart from his general duty to provide grain for offerings in the Aššur Temple (see
above), he does not seem to have been concerned with the corn supply for temples. Although
chronologically removed from each other (see fn. 17), the geographical attributions of the rab
karmāni, referring to provinces, provincial capitals, and other places in the Assyrian centre
(Nineveh, Maganuba) and north of it (Birtu), indicate that several such officials were active
for the royal household at a time. There is no indication that they were hierarchically
organised, but instances where the office of the rab karmāni is listed together with the
provincial governors suggest that there existed one main representative.
32
SAA 1 181:18; 210 r. 10; 264 r. 3, 8; SAA 19 193 r. 6´; perhaps also the two fragmentary administrative
records found in the Governor’s Palace CTN 2 46:5 and 135:2.
33
The letter was probably written by Bel-liqbi, governor of the province of Ṣupat (see commentary to letter in
Parpola 1987: 142).
34
According to Parpola (2008: 75), the latter may have formed part of the Ištar Temple in Tušḫan, but this is
fairly uncertain. The skilled men may be related to the military sphere (ibid.) which would correspond well
with the general concept of establishing supply points for the army. Other, less conclusive, references are ND
2098:7 (from room ZT 14, North-West Palace, see Parker 1961: 19, Pl. IX) and KAN 4 62 r. 24 (edited by
Faist in Faist and Llop 2012: 29f.). The latter may be a successor of the Middle Assyrian granary which was
located in the area of the Tabira Gate in the northwestern part of the city (ibid. 32f.; cf. Llop 2005: 51f.).
35
Cf. Fales (1990: 25, fn. 12) according to whom the author (not preserved) of the letter SAA 5 250 distinguishes
between royal granaries and stocks of grain of the magnates with regard to the grain reserves in the city KarAššur.
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Food and drink for the palace
10
rab nuḫatimmi (chief cook)
As already pointed out, the chief cook of the royal household was not active as an actual cook
in the palace kitchen, but rather he managed the supply of livestock for the urban centres.
Apart from functioning as a representative of the department that delivered the foods—
different types of meat, as far as preserved—that were served for the royal dinner,36 the chief
cook was primarily concerned with the acquisition of the living animals. He obtained cattle
and sheep inter alia via the distribution of tribute revenue by the palace (SAA 11 36 i 9–11)
and as tax payments from the provinces.37 Regarding the latter source of supply, the chief
cook occurs in connection with ṣibtu which seems to denote a tax on domestic animals drawn
from the offspring of the animals at one’s disposal.38 This is the case in an administrative
document dealing with levied oxen and sheep, according to which the department (É) of the
(unnamed) chief cook is in charge of 140 oxen meant for offerings (rēšāti and dariu, SAA 11
90), and in another administrative record where the chief cook Aššur-ašared is provisioned
with 71 old or dead (BE, read labīru or mētu) mules described as ṣibtu (ND 2451:19). When
Inurta-bel-uṣur, an official active in the northwest, claims that he has no resources for taking
care of and feeding the oxen of the palace that were assigned to him (SAA 19 34), these might
have been the very animals that the chief cook took over after they had been properly fed (as
grazing livestock) or fattened (as fatstock kept in stables) in the provinces. For instance, a
broken administrative document (SAA 11 80) records in total 1,998 grain-fed sheep
(UDU.ŠE.MEŠ), distributed over various different provinces and other administrative units,
of which 1,522 sheep were in the charge of the (unnamed) shepherd “of the meal or banquet”
(rā’i naptuni).39 Due to his interest in fed and fattened livestock, the chief cook was
associated with shepherds, as is clear from the case of a chief cook who was in charge of three
palace shepherds.40
36
According to the “Dienstanweisung” K 8669 (ll. iii 48–49), published in Müller 1937. The different types of
meat are listed in ll. iii 29–30, but almost 30 lines are missing from the beginning of this paragraph (cf.
Parpola 2004: 294, fn. 36).
37
SAA 12 77 i 22´–26´. The provincial capitals Ḫatarikka and Ṣimirra are recorded here as the source of the
sheep the chief cook had to provide for the regular offerings. These two provinces, located in the far west,
were established in the reign of Tiglath-pileser (Radner 2006: 58, 62).
38
This is also reflected by the literal meaning of ṣibtu which is either related to ṣabātu or to (w)aṣābu (as
indicated by the logographic writing MÁŠ), meaning “to increase” (Postgate 1974: 171). There is also a rab
ṣibti (GAL–MÁŠ), a “sheep-tax master”, attested in the sources (SAA 16 48:12).
39
Also Dadî, who was possibly chief cook (of the Aššur Temple) judging by his activities (SAA 13 18–24; cf.
Deller 1985: 363 who considered Dadî to be a priest of the bēt-nuḫatimmi of the Aššur Temple, analogous to
SAA 10 96 r. 1), was concerned with the domestic animals to be delivered by the naptunu-shepherds (SAA
13 19, 20). Radner (1999b: 92f.) defined the rā’i naptini as “Hirte für die Palastversorgung” (by contrast to
the rā’i darî, “Hirte für die Tempelversorgung”). However, since naptunu can designate the divine meals (for
instance, SAA 13 10 r. 10; SAA 10 361:12´ and RINAP 4 54 r. 31), the divine meals whose leftovers were
consumed at the king’s table (SAA 13 156 r. 4) and, similarly, the royal meals preceded or accompanied by
sacrifices and, hence, apparently provided with offerings leftovers (such as in RIMA 3 A.0.102.14:70, reign
of Shalmaneser III; RINAP 4 33 r. iii 35´–36´, reign of Esarhaddon), the naptunu-shepherd did not take care
only of the livestock meant for the maintenance of the palace; this is also indicated by Dadî’s concern with
these herders.
40
Edubba 10 28:3–8. Note also Inurta-aḫia-šukšid, eunuch of Adad-nerari III, who bore the title “chief of the
cooks and herdsmen” (GAL–LÚ*.MU.MEŠ LÚ*.NA.GAD.MEŠ) according to his cylinder seal (Watanabe
1993: 115, no. 6.2:3–4).
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Melanie Groß
11
The use of the livestock managed by the chief cook was manifold. Though also
working animals were organised by the chief cook (ploughing oxen, see SAA 15 187), his
main concern seems to have been to cover the demand for livestock occasioned by culinary,
cultic, and scholarly activities. In the first place, we would expect the chief cook of the main
palace to have been responsible for the acquisition and delivery of domestic animals intended
for the ordinary consumption of the king and his entourage. However, we not only lack
concrete evidence for the daily meal in the royal household, we also lack evidence for the
chief cook’s involvement in this matter. By contrast, we learn of festive banquets where large
amounts of meat were offered and consumed, and several administrative records are
preserved which list different types of meat and cuts of meat (together with other foodstuffs)
in association with offerings and their subsequent consumption.41 Similarly, the chief cook is
attested in connection with livestock meant for offerings (SAA 11 90, SAA 12 77) and other
rituals (SAA 10 202). Although the general lack of concrete evidence for the daily meal is
easily explained by the fact that the arrangements for it had no need to be mentioned or
discussed in the royal inscriptions, the royal correspondence, and non-documentary texts, one
wonders why the chief cook occurs in the administrative records especially in connection with
offerings but not with livestock meant for the daily meal. Overall, the number of references to
the chief cook’s tasks is limited, in view of the central role assumed by the consumption of
offerings leftovers at the king’s table (see above), however, the chief cook’s preoccupation as
reflected in the sources is not a matter of accident. More so, if we take into account that the
trauma caused by the killing of living creatures for the human diet had to be overcome by
sacrificing activities and collective consumption in order to re-establish the cosmic order, as
argued by Milano (1998: 111f.). The same author also states that, although on the basis of this
principle every slaughter for meat was accompanied by ritual procedures, the “circulation and
way of consumption [of meat] were certainly part of a system of distribution which had little
or nothing to do with the economy of sacrificial meat” (ibid. 113) in Mesopotamia (by
contrast to the West Semitic cultures, judging by the Hebrew and the Ugaritic sources).42 He
also states that “palace and temple (…) share in fact the same concern for meat provisioning”
but stresses that the maintenance of the gods (in the temple) was “substantially different from
the sustenance of human beings” (in the palace) (ibid. 114). Although one cannot argue on the
basis of the available sources that every piece of meat consumed by the Assyrian king and his
entourage was consecrated meat, that is meat sacrificed in the temple and brought to the
palace (or to the king’s table in another location), the economic processes of the palace in
conjunction with its meat supply seem to have been closely connected to the Aššur Temple
(and also other temples) especially but not only during the cultic performances in the context
of the New Year’s festivities lasting from the 11th month (Šabāṭu) to the 1st month (Nisannu)
of the following year (see Menzel 1981 I: 49–59 and Maul 2000).
41
Especially SAA 7 182–219, see above. Also the records SAA 7 148–157 deal with foodstuffs including meat
apparently consumed at a festive banquet (with or without cultic background, cf. Gaspa 2012a: 6f.).
42
Cf. Milano 1998: 120–125 where he distinguishes between two system of distribution of meat: one strictly
bound to the temple economy and mainly involving leftovers, and the other organised independently of
offering activities, taking the systems of Mari and Ebla as an example. Cf. Parpola (2004: 292) with a similar
view for the Neo-Assyrian period.
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Food and drink for the palace
12
The number of livestock slaughtered on the occasion of these festivities was
unsurpassed by the amount of meat produced in the context of any other event that took place
at regular intervals.43 According to Parpola, daily deliveries of leftovers from the New Year’s
performances provided enough meat for about 700 individuals while up to 3,500–5,000
individuals could have been maintained on peak days (Parpola 2004: 291f.). Since the
performance of meat offerings in the Aššur Temple (and other temples) involved the
slaughtering, cutting, and preparation of meat,44 the sanctuaries must have been equipped with
(or surrounded by) appropriate areas, instruments, and personnel in order to transform the
living animal into the cooked dish. The Neo-Assyrian written sources indeed refer to
slaughterhouses (bēt-qurše, bēt-Dagan), kitchen facilities (bēt-nuḫatimmi), and even
establishments for the conservation of meat (salt-meat house: bēt-midli) in association with
the Aššur Temple.45 A bēt-nuḫatimmi staffed with a butcher (nākisu) and a salt-meat man (šamidlīšu) is known for the palace (CTN 3 87:17–20), but we lack evidence for special
slaughterhouses and for separate facilities for the conservation of meat in connection with the
palace. Although the slaughter and the processing of meat must have also happened in the
domestic area of the palace,46 the supply of the royal household with meat seems to have been
to a considerable extent organised via the Aššur Temple (and other temples) due to cultic
requirements. The abundance of meat which was sacrificed in the Aššur Temple especially
during the New Year’s festivities produced such a surplus that the meat had to be conserved or
passed on to other institutions, as is clear from SAA 13 18, a letter of Dadî who has been told
by the temple scribe to forward to the šakintu of the Inner City (= Assur) leftovers of meat
offerings that had previously been given to the salt-meat house. Hence, regarding the
consumption of meat we can observe a reciprocal relationship between palace and temple, the
latter being central for the meat supply for the royal household that was supervised by the
chief cook.
rab karāni (wine master)
On analogy with the other food managers, the wine master must have been concerned with the
acquisition, storage, and distribution of wine. Administrative records dealing with the palace
43
Events such as the inauguration festivities of Aššurnaṣirpal II are, of course, excluded here; amounts of foods
approximately 1,000 times larger were offered then (Parpola 2004: 291).
44
The gods were not provided with raw meat but with processed meat, since the offerings actually represent their
meal. As Gaspa (2012b: 249f.) stated, “culinary treatment is one of the most significant actions executed by
the ritual performer”.
45
For these facilities in the Aššur Temple see Deller 1985: 353–364; he argues for an equation of the terms bētg/qurše (former bēt-hurše), bēt-Dagan, and bēt-nuḫatimmi. Though there seems to have been a functional
overlap, the bēt-Dagan was primarily a sanctuary whose special focus on animal sacrifices gave rise to its
strong connection with the processing of meat. Furthermore, the bēt-nuḫatimmi does not exclusively denote a
slaughterhouse judging by its eponymous profession and the clear distinction between the profession of cook
(nuḫatimmu) and butcher (nākisu, ṭābiḫu). The bēt-gurše, related to the verb garāšu meaning “to trim, to
carve” (Deller 1985: 357), clearly focused on the cutting (of meat). The term bēt-midli is attested in two
letters (SAA 13 18 r. 8 and 22:5´) of Dadî, an official associated with the Aššur Temple (see above, fn. 39).
For midlu meaning pickled meat see Deller 1983.
46
From their analysis of the faunal data from Ziyaret Tepe (Tušḫan), Wicke and Greenfield (2013: 80–82, Pl.
XXXII) concluded that the processing of entire domestic animals took place in the “open courtyard area” of
the excavated Middle Assyrian palace (no faunal remains were found in the main reception rooms of the
building).
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Melanie Groß
13
income of wine are rare and for the most part not conclusive, though there is, for instance, a
record from the North-West Palace in Kalḫu (Room ZT 4) about the deliveries of livestock
and wine from various (unknown) cities (ND 2790, Parker 1961: 53f., Pl. XXVIII). Another
document from Fort Shalmaneser (Room NE 50) lists the income of audience gifts in the form
of wine (CTN 3 89:20´–33´). Also, in the letter of Babilaiu, Bel-iqiša, and another man (name
lost) to the king (Assurbanipal), a storage place for the wine that came in as audience gift in
the 10th month (Kanūnu) is requested (SAA 16 117). None of these texts mentions the wine
master, but it seems fair to suppose that this official actually supervised incoming wine and its
subsequent storage. Also, although the lists of wine allocations from Fort Shalmaneser do not
give any clue as to the department or official managing the distribution of wine among the
court society, the wine master is the most plausible candidate in this respect, not least because
he occurs as a recipient (of comparatively large amounts of wine) in several of these lists.47
The records stem, on the one hand, from Room SW6 which contained large storage jars (up to
300 litres capacity) and was located next to the rooms (SE 1, 10) where a considerable part of
the dossier of the palace manager (rab ekalli) was found and, on the other hand, from the
Rooms NE48–49, close to the north-eastern palace entrance; it is likely that the wine master
operated here. In line with the duties of the chief of granaries and the chief cook, the wine
master (of the palace) regularly had to provide amounts of wine for offering activities in the
temples, as is clear from royal decrees and schedules (SAA 12 80:4, 6 and, if restored
correctly, SAA 12 77 i 15´–17´). When the astrologer Akkullanu reports to the king
(Esarhaddon or Assurbanipal) that the (unnamed) wine master together with his deputy and
his scribe in the seventh month (Tašrītu) did not refill wine to be offered in the Aššur Temple
(SAA 10 98:17–r. 15), this refers directly to such regulations laid down by the king and
therefore I suggest that the wine master in question was appointed to the royal household
(rather than the Aššur Temple). Also the sum of 9 minas 15 shekels of silver, meant for the
regular offerings (ginû) of Aššur and owed by Zarutî, wine master of the New House, and his
deputy Ululaiu (SAA 14 60, 61), presumably had a similar background.
As with the chief cook, most of the direct evidence we have regarding the tasks of the
wine master refers to the supply of wine for offerings. Although we know that also
consecrated wine, the leftovers from offerings in the temples,48 was consumed in the palace, it
is clear that this cannot have been the only source. Leaving aside the possible loss of texts
written on perishable material and other such difficulties relating to the uneven distribution of
sources, the lack of information is presumably because there was no need to communicate
about the internal distribution of wine in writing; moreover, the documentation of
administrative procedures in the Neo-Assyrian period was generally less extensive (Postgate
2001: 182). Together with the chief cook, the wine master took care of the most valuable
foodstuffs consumed by the gods and the Assyrian elite, items that were not usually available
47
NWL 4:13; 5 r. 2; 6 r. 46; 7:9; 8:10; 11 r. 19; 21 r. 10. The amount of wine given to the rab karāni according to
the unbroken entries is 1 sūtu 5 qû (NWL 8) and 1 sūtu 4 qû (NWL 11); single persons usually receive here 1
qû of wine (e.g. NWL 4:18–19) whereas the queen’s household receives 3 sūtu of wine (e.g. NWL 8:6).
48
Note, for instance, a letter of an unknown author (heading broken) who in connection with wine offerings
before Bel and Nabû refers to wine as the return or benefit of the palace (SAA 13 134:21´: GEŠTIN.MEŠ taa-a-ru ša É.GAL, see CAD T 60f. s.v. tajāru).
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Food and drink for the palace
14
for the ordinary people. In contrast to the chief cook, the wine master was responsible for a
finished product delivered to the urban centres and, like his colleagues from the same
category (see above), he did not preside over a professional group. The main representative of
this office likely had his bureau in the main palace, in contrast to the managers of grain who
took care of silos beyond the palace walls (and even beyond the walls of the imperial capital).
The management of food supply in the Middle Assyrian period49
As with the Neo-Assyrian sources, several different types of “kitchen managers” are attested
in the Middle Assyrian textual material, including the chief cook (rab nuḫatimmi),50 the chief
confectioner (rab karkadinni),51 the chief baker (rab alaḫḫenni),52 the chief brewer (rab
sirāšê),53 and the chief oil-presser (rab ṣāḫiti).54 Jakob (2003: 28f.) assumed that they
presided over rather small groups of individuals, maybe comprising of about ten people;
hence, several chief cooks or chief confectioners may have been active at the same time. In
any case, it was already in the Middle Assyrian period that the office of chief cook in
particular developed into a more complex role since one of its holders was eponym in the
reign of Aššur-nadin-apli (early 12th century), as did the chief cook Sa’ilu in the NeoAssyrian period. The occurrence of the title of chief cook in a fragmentary inscription on an
Assur stele, perhaps accompanied by a reference to the chief confectioner, underlines this
impression and suggests that also the office of the chief confectioner could be represented by
a prominent figure at that time (for references see fns. 50 and 51). Unfortunately we lack
concrete evidence for the tasks of the Middle Assyrian chief cook, but it is likely that the
responsibilities of the chief cook of the royal household were similar to what we learn from
the Neo-Assyrian evidence. Support for this suggestion comes from the archive of the
“Offerings House” in Assur headed by the rab ginā’ē (“offerings overseer”). According to its
written remnants, this department administered cereals, sesame, syrup (or honey), and fruits
provided by the provinces for the regular offerings in the Aššur Temple (Postgate 2014: 90–
146, note especially Fig. 4.5 on p. 97). Gaspa (2011: 167f.) and Postgate (2014: 120), who
49
I owe special thanks to Jaume Llop-Raduà who provided me with a collection of data concerning the Middle
Assyrian rab-x officials, as well as to Nicholas Postgate who kindly sent me parts of his monograph on the
Middle Assyrian bureaucracy that was published at the beginning of this year.
50
Ass. 2001.D–1933:20´: [G]AL? LÚ.MU.MEŠ, eponym, possibly Erib-[Sîn] (Frahm 2002: 72f.) and Ass.
2001.D–2403: GAL LÚ.MU.MEŠ, mentioned on the reverse of a broken document recording, among other
things, ox hides and tendons (Frahm 2002: 82). Andrae 1972: no. 104:2´: GAL MU!.MEŠ (cf. CAD K 42f.
s.v. kakardinnu b). Writings of the type GAL–LÚ.X(.MEŠ) are rarely attested in the Neo-Assyrian sources,
where we usually find the more standardised writing LÚ/LÚ*.GAL–X(.MEŠ).
51
The aforementioned GAL MU!.MEŠ attested on Assur stele no. 104 is followed by ka-kar-di-ni in the next line
(l. 3´) which perhaps refers to the GAL in l. 2´; cf. GAL–LÚ*.MU.MEŠ LÚ*.NA.GAD.MEŠ in fn. 40.
52
Jakob 2003: 387, A 1817 (not A 74, as given by Jakob, see Pedersén 1985: 79). According to the Middle
Assyrian sources, the alaḫḫennu seems to have been a professional concerned with the processing of corn,
comparable to the tasks of both the miller and the baker (Jakob 2003: 391f.). The Neo-Assyrian (as well as
the Old Assyrian) evidence rather suggests that the alaḫḫennu (or laḫḫennu) was an administrative official.
In Neo-Assyrian times the laḫḫennu is particularly associated with the temple sphere (Menzel 1981 I: 223–
228), while his female counterpart, the laḫḫennutu, was active in the queen’s department (Svärd 2012: 183f.).
No rab āpie (or rab āpi’i) is attested in the Middle Assyrian records (Jakob 2003: 394f.)
53
See Jakob 2003: 401, MARV 3 39:7: GAL LÚ.LUNGA.MEŠ.
54
MARV 5 17:6: GAL Ì.SUR; MARV 6 42:12, 14: GAL Ì.SUR.MEŠ (two sons of the chief oil-presser Salmanuiqiša owe sesame, see Postgate 2014: 115) and MARV 10 47:11: GAL Ì.SUR = KAJ 248.
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Melanie Groß
15
dealt with this archive recently, point out the lack of domestic animals or meat which was
already in Middle Assyrian times an integral component of provincial provisions for offerings
in the Aššur Temple.55 According to Gaspa, this may have been simply owed to a different
way of record-keeping, but Postgate goes a step further and suggests a different system for
supplying the Aššur Temple with meat. Given that there already existed an office of rab
nuḫatimmi of apparently enhanced status, I suppose that already in the Middle Assyrian
period the chief cook was responsible for the management of meat needed for the divine meal
and, as a consequence, the king’s meal. There is evidence for a rather regular provision of
bread, beer, and oil by the “Offerings House” for the palace which also involved leftovers
from offerings,56 but it is clear that this was only “supplementary support” and that the palace
had other resources for the supply of these commodities. Also the supply of meat for the
palace and temple may have been maintained by more than one department, as indicated by
another archive (M 6, according to Pedersén 1985: 56–68) found in Assur (between the AnuAdad Temple and the Old Palace). The owner of the archive was the fattener Muttâ, also
bearing the titles ša-rēši and zāriqu, who took care of the livestock which was brought as
audience gifts (nāmurtu) to the palace (Postgate 1986: 171f.; Jakob 2003: 377f.). Assuming
that a bureau of the chief cook with overall responsibility for the meat supply existed, Muttâ’s
department could have been active at a lower administrative level.
As to managers concerned with distinct types of foodstuffs, we do not find the same
titles that are known for the Neo-Assyrian period. Instead, singular references to a ša-muḫḫišamni and a ša-muḫḫi-karāni can be found in Middle Assyrian administrative records,57
which very likely are equivalent to the titles rab-šamni and rab-karāni respectively.58
Assuming that the ša-muḫḫi-šamni and the ša-muḫḫi-karāni likewise managed the supply of
oil and wine for the palace, the administration of these commodities on behalf of the palace
was managed by separate departments, as was the case in the first millennium BC. When we
look for administrators of grain and grain storage facilities in the Middle Assyrian sources,
however, there are no references to offices such as the rab karmāni and rab danībāti, and I am
not aware of attestations of any equivalent terms or other official designations that might
suggest a similar occupation. However, as we have seen, royal grain storage facilities called
karmu were distributed over the urban centres in the Middle Assyrian period and these needed
to be managed. For the royal karmu in Assur, Llop (2005: 54, fns. 116f.) refers to two
55
For meat offered in the Middle Assyrian period see Gaspa 2012b: 250–253. No rab ginā’ē is attested in the
Neo-Assyrian sources; the treasurer (masennu) of the Aššur Temple may have taken over this function
instead. According to the decree of Adad-nerari III (SAA 12 69), Šamaš-naṣir, treasurer of the Aššur Temple,
was appointed to take care of the supply of oil, honey, grain, and legumes for the offering ceremonies in the
Aššur Temple. The supply of meat (grain-fed sheep and bulls) is here separately addressed and each time in
explicit connection to the king as the donor (ll. 14, 24, 26).
56
Similar to the aforementioned example of wine as tajāru (return or benefit) of the palace (see fn. 48), there is a
Middle Assyrian reference to oil described as tajāru of the palace. Note also the presence of brewers and
bakers with apparently “divided institutional loyalties”: “bakers (and) brewers of the House of Aššur and the
Palace” (Postgate 2014: 128).
57
See Postgate 2014: 116 (ša-muḫḫi-ṣāḫiti, MARV 6 31:29; the tablet deals with oil libations) and 117, fn. 93
(ša-muḫḫi-karāni, MARV 7 71; he contributes fruits).
58
Also from a formal point of view they are likely to correspond one another, since in Middle Assyrian times the
ša-muḫḫi-ekalli is used synonymously to rab ekalli; the same is true for the ša-muḫḫi-ginā’ē and the rab
ginā’ē (Jakob 2003: 74f.).
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Food and drink for the palace
16
families, with close ties to the king and his household, which seem to have been responsible
for it and ran the royal karmu as a family business.59 It is only a question of designation, and
whether the administrators of the karmus bore the title rab karmāni (or rab karmi) or another
similar title does not change the fact that they had the same function. We can, nevertheless,
observe one significant difference compared with the circumstances in the Neo-Assyrian
period. We do not have evidence for the rab karmāni or his food-managing colleagues active
in the royal household exercising their office within an elite family network where the son
typically follows his father in office.60 Admittedly, this is primarily a matter of the sources
and while several Middle Assyrian administrative archives were unearthed in Assur, we lack
comparable material from the succeeding period, but there is reason to assume that in NeoAssyrian times the king preferred to appoint independent and professionally skilled men to
these offices, as Radner (2011: 359–361) convincingly argued for the Neo-Assyrian high state
officials (the magnates and the provincial governors).61 According to Radner, this possible
change in the bureaucratic ethos also involved the more frequent appointment of ša-rēšis to
state offices; as eunuchs, their lack of family ties was supposed to ensure absolute loyalty
towards the king. From among the Neo-Assyrian food managers only Inurta-aḫia-šukšid,
“chief of the cooks and the herdsmen”, is designated ša-rēši of Adad-nerari (III) on his
cylinder seal (Watanabe 1993: 115, no. 6.2). In the standard formula of Assurbanipal’s grants
of tax exemption the beneficiaries are indirectly referred to as ša-rēši and include the rab šarēši, the chamberlain (ša-muḫḫi-bētāni), and the fodder master (rab kissite).62 Since the latter
operated close to the rab karmāni (see above), it is likely that the office of the rab karmāni
and other food-managing offices were held by the same class of men, namely ša-rēšis.
Whether or not this means “eunuch” or rather “courtier” in such a standardised document,
Assurbanipal’s use of the term ša-rēši in this context indicates a systematic or unified
treatment of the office holders in question. According to the Middle Assyrian sources,
especially the common palace personnel and the qēpu-agents were designated ša-rēši; cases
such as the aforementioned fattener Muttâ as well as the provincial governor and treasurer
Uṣur-namkur-šarre, who both are attested with the title ša-rēši (Jakob 2003: 83–92), were
rather exceptional in the Middle Assyrian period when especially the highest state offices
59
The two families are those of Urad-Šerua and of Šamaš-aḫa-iddina and his sons Ištar-eriš, Qibi-Aššur, and
Ubru. Note, however, that Postgate (1988: xii–xiii) rejected the idea that Urad-Šerua was “superintendent of
the royal granaries” (as suggested by Saporetti), stressing that his responsibilities were much broader. Also,
Melisah, the father of Urad-Šerua, was governor of Naḫur.
60
Especially local “kitchen managers”, however, were likely chosen from among their profession and,
consequently, a son easily followed his father in office; note, in particular, the deceased chief baker (of the
Aššur Temple) who was replaced by his son (SAA 10 96 r. 18–26). Also, from among the food managers in
the Neo-Assyrian period I am only aware of the chief baker Aššur-šumu-iddina who is recorded along with
his father’s name (StAT 2 183:1).
61
A remarkable observation in this respect was recently made in connection with a loyalty treaty from the reign
of Esarhaddon found in Tell Tayinat. By contrast to Esarhaddon’s loyalty treaties from Kalḫu, which address
the city lords (bēl-āli) by name and their male descendants, it records the anonymous governor (bēl-pāḫiti)
together with his subordinate officials and personnel as the king’s contracting party and, thus, indicates the
non-hereditary character of the office of provincial governor; see Lauinger 2012: 91f. (ll. T i 3–12), 113.
62
SAA 12 26, 30 and 25; in ll. 7–8, (partly) preserved in SAA 12 25 and 26, Assurbanipal describes himself as
the one “who always behaves kindly towards the officials who serve him” (ša a-na LÚ.šu-ut–SAG.MEŠ
man-za-az–pa-ni-šú it-ta-nab-ba-lu i-na dam-qa-a-ti).
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Melanie Groß
17
were maintained by the elite families and their “houses” over generations and their officeholders, the magnates (rabi’ānu), were distinguished from the ša-rēš-šarrānu.63 The same
change in policy may have affected the lower level of administration, including the food
management, though we should not expect an abrupt and overall change but rather a steady
development (with fluctuations) towards a professionalisation of the different administrative
levels. Although we catch a glimpse of this policy already in the Middle Assyrian period, this
was developed much further in the Neo-Assyrian empire whose administration is also
characterised by the installation of deputies (šaniu) beneath state officials and court officials
including the food-managing offices, a custom which is rarely known from the Middle
Assyrian period and that can also be taken as a sign of increasing professionalisation.64
Hence, while at a first sight one expects significant differences in the way food was managed
for the royal household in the two periods, the basic administrative structures and distribution
of responsibilities (meat, grain, wine,...) already existed in the Middle Assyrian period, as did
the strong reciprocal relationship between palace and temple. Based on these foundations, the
food management apparatus, along with the entire Neo-Assyrian administration, developed
further into a more complex and also a more rational system.65
63
See Jakob 2003: 22–24, fns. 174, 176f. and 90, fn. 162. The two terms rabi’ānu and ša-rēš-šarrānu, which are
successively mentioned in the Middle Assyrian Krönungsritual (edited in Müller 1937, l. iii 2), however, are
not necessarily understood as mutually exclusive. On the Middle Assyrian governmental “houses” see also
Postgate 1988: xxiii–xxv. Though, the office of the treasurer of the palace in Assur seems to have been held
by individual figures over generations (Postgate 2014: 147).
64
The second-in-commands of Neo-Assyrian officials are collected and discussed in my doctoral thesis “The
Structure and Organisation of the Neo-Assyrian Royal Household” (2014). For the Middle Assyrian period I
am only aware of the sukkallu šaniu, the deputy vizier (Jakob 2003: 55).
65
In his monumental study Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Max Weber established the patrimonial rule
(“traditionale Herrschaft”) and the bureaucratic rule (“rationale Herrschaft”) as ideal types of rulership
(Weber 1972: 124). The Neo-Assyrian empire was a combination of the two: while it was maintained on the
basis of a traditional concept of rulership, more rational elements were implemented.
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Food and drink for the palace
18
Bibliography
Ahmad A.Y. — Postgate J.N. 2007, Archives from the Domestic Wing of the North-West
Palace at Kalhu/Nimrud (Edubba 10), London.
Andrae W. 1972, Die Stelenreihen in Assur, 2nd edition (Wissenschaftliche
Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 24), Osnabrück.
Baker H.D. (ed.) 2000, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 2, Part I: ḪK, Helsinki.
——— 2001, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 2, Part II: L-N,
Helsinki.
——— 2011, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 3, Part II: Š-Z,
Helsinki.
Civil M. (ed.) 1969, MSL 12. The Series lú = ša and Related Texts, Rome.
Cole S.W. — Machinist P. 1998, Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and
Assurbanipal (State Archives of Assyria 13), Helsinki.
Dalley S. — Postgate J.N. 1984, The Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser (Cuneiform Texts from
Nimrud 3), London.
Deller K. 1983, “midlu ‘Pökelfleisch’”, Assur 3/4, 33–39.
——— 1985, “Köche und Küche des Aššur-Tempels”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 16, 347–376,
Pls. 31–32.
Donbaz V. — Parpola S. 2001, Neo-Assyrian Legal Texts in Istanbul (Studien zu den AssurTexten 2), Saarbrücken.
Ebeling E. 1927, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur juristischen Inhalts (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 50), Leipzig.
Faist B. 2010, Neuassyrische Rechtsurkunden IV. Mit einem Beitrag von E. Klengel-Brandt
(Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 132 =
Keilschrifttexte aus Neuassyrischer Zeit 4), Wiesbaden.
Faist B. — Llop J. 2012, “The Assyrian Granary karmu”, in G. del Olmo Lete — J. Vidal —
N. Wyatt (eds), The Perfumes of Seven Tamarisks. Studies in Honour of Wilfred G.E.
Watson (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 394), Münster, 19–35.
Fales F.M. 1990, “Grain reserves, daily rations, and the size of the Assyrian army: a
quantitative study”, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 4/1, 23–34.
Fales F.M. — Postgate J.N. 1992, Imperial Administrative Records, Part I: Palace and
Temple Administration (State Archives of Assyria 7), Helsinki.
——— 1995, Imperial Administrative Records, Part II: Provincial and Military
Administration (State Archives of Assyria 11), Helsinki.
Faust A. 2011, “The Interests of the Assyrian Empire in the West: Olive Oil Production as a
Test Case”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 54, 62–86.
Frahm E. 2002, “Assur 2001: Die Schriftfunde”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 134, 47–86.
Freydank H. 1994, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte III (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 92), Berlin.
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Melanie Groß
19
Freydank H. — Feller B. 2004, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte V
(Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 106),
Saarbrücken.
——— 2005, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte VI (Wissenschaftliche
Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 109), Saarwellingen.
——— 2006, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte VII (Wissenschaftliche
Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 111), Saarwellingen.
Fuchs A. 1994, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, Göttingen.
Fuchs A. — Parpola S. 2001, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part III: Letters from
Babylonia and the Eastern Provinces (State Archives of Assyria 15), Helsinki.
Gaspa S. 2011, “The rab ginā’ē’s Administrative Unit at Work. A Quantitative Study on the
Provision of Foodstuffs in the Middle Assyrian Period in the Evidence of the Tabular
Lists”, Ugarit-Forschungen 43, 161–222.
——— 2012a, Alimenti e pratichi alimentari in Assiria: Le materie alimentari nel culto
ufficiale dell’Assiria del primo millennio A.C. (History of the Ancient Near East,
Monographs 13), Padua.
——— 2012b, “Meat offerings and their preparation in the state cult of the Assyrian empire”,
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 72/2, 249–273.
Grayson A.K. 1991, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, I (1114–859 BC) (The
Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, 2), Toronto.
——— 1996, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, II (858–745) (The Royal
Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, 3), Toronto.
Groß M. forthcoming, “Innovation and tradition in the sphere of Neo-Assyrian officialdom”,
Proceedings of the 57th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale in Rome, 2011.
Jakob S. 2003, Mittelassyrische Verwaltung und Sozialstruktur. Untersuchungen (Cuneiform
Monographs 29), Leiden — Boston.
Joannès F. 2009, “Le goût des autres”, in X. Faivre — B. Lion — M. Cecile (eds), Et il y eut
un esprit dans l’Homme. Jean Bottéro et la Mésopotamie (Travaux de la Maison RenéGinouvès 6), Paris, 221–236.
Kataja L. — Whiting, R. 1995, Grants, Decrees and Gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period (State
Archives of Assyria 12), Helsinki.
Kinnier Wilson J.V. 1972, The Nimrud Wine Lists. A Study of Men and Administration at the
Assyrian Capital in the Eighth Century, B.C. (Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 1), London.
Kleber K. 2008, Tempel und Palast. Die Beziehungen zwischen dem König und dem EannaTempel im spätbabylonischen Uruk (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 358 = Veröffentlichungen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte Babyloniens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 3), Münster.
Kwasman T. — Parpola S. 1991, Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part I:
Tiglath-Pileser III through Esarhaddon (State Archives of Assyria 6), Helsinki.
Lanfranchi G.B. — Parpola S. 1990, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part II: Letters from
the Northern and Northeastern Provinces (State Archives of Assyria 5), Helsinki.
Lauinger J. 2012, Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tell Tayinat: Text and Commentary,
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64, 87–123.
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Food and drink for the palace
20
Leichty E. 2011, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC) (Royal
Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4), Winona Lake.
Llop J. 2005, “Die königlichen ‘großen Speicher’ (karmū rabi’ūtu) der Stadt Assur in der Regierungszeit Salmanassars I. und Tukultī-Ninurtas I.”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 137, 41–55.
Luukko M. 2012, The Correspondence of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II from Calah/
Nimrud. (State Archives of Assyria 19), Helsinki.
Luukko M. — Van Buylaere G. 2002, The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon (State
Archives of Assyria 16), Helsinki.
Mattila R. 2002, Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part II: Assurbanipal
through Sin-šarru-iškun (State Archives of Assyria 14), Helsinki.
——— 2009, “The Chief Singer and Other Late Eponyms”, in M. Luukko — S. Svärd — R.
Mattila (eds), Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars. Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in
Honour of Simo Parpola (Studia Orientalia 106), Helsinki, 159–166.
Maul S.M. 2000, “Frühjahrsfeierlichkeiten in Aššur”, in A.R. George — I.L. Finkel (eds),
Wisdom, Gods and Literature. Studies in Honour of W. G. Lambert, Winona Lake, 389–
420.
Menzel B. 1981, Assyrische Tempel I–II (Studia Pohl: Series Maior 10/1–2), Rome.
Menzel-Wortmann B. 1986, “Der LÚGAL DANIBATA in neuassyrischer Zeit”, Mesopotamia
21, 213–227.
Milano L. 1998, “Aspects of Meat Consumption in Mesopotamia and the Food Paradigm of
the Poor Man of Nippur”, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 12/2, 111–127.
Müller K.F. 1937, “Das Assyrische Ritual, Teil I. Texte zum Assyrischen Königsritual”, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft 41/3.
Oates J. — Oates D. 2001, Nimrud. An Assyrian Imperial City Revealed, London.
Parker B. 1961, “Administrative Tablets from the North-West Palace, Nimrud”, Iraq 23/1,
15–67, Pls. IX–XXX.
——— 1963, “Economic Tablets from the Temple of Mamu at Balawat”, Iraq 25/1, 86–103,
Pls. XIX–XXVI.
Parpola S. 1975, review of J.N. Postgate, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire,
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 65/2, 293–296.
——— 1987, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria and the West
(State Archives of Assyria 1), Helsinki.
——— 1993, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (State Archives of Assyria 10),
Helsinki.
——— 2004, “The Leftovers of God and King. On the Distribution of Meat at the Assyrian
and Achaemenid Imperial Courts”, in C. Grottanelli — L. Milano (eds), Food and Identity
in the Ancient World (History of the Ancient Near East, Studies 9), Padua, 281–312.
——— 2008, “Cuneiform Texts from Ziyaret Tepe (Tušḫan), 2002–2003”, State Archives of
Assyria Bulletin 17, 1–113, Pls. I–XXIII.
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Melanie Groß
21
Pedersén O. 1985, Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur. A Survey of the Material from
the German Excavations. Part I (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Semitica
Upsaliensia 6), Uppsala.
Postgate J.N. 1973, The Governor’s Palace Archive (Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 2),
London.
——— 1974, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire (Studia Pohl: Series
Maior 3), Rome.
——— 1976, Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents, Warminster.
——— 1986, “Administrative Archives from the City of Assur in the Middle Assyrian
Period”, in K.R. Veenhof (ed.), Cuneiform Archives and Libraries. Papers read at the 30e
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Leiden 4–8 July 1983, Leiden, 168–183.
——— 1988, The archive of Urad-Šerūa and his family. A Middle Assyrian household in
government service, Rome.
——— 1989, “The Ownership and Exploitation of Land in Assyria in the 1st millennium
B.C.”, in M. Lebeau — P. Talon (eds), Reflets des deux fleuves: Volume de mélanges offerts
à André Finet (Akkadica Supplementum 4), Leuven, 141–152.
——— 2001, “System and style in three Near Eastern bureaucracies”, in S. Voutsaki — J.T.
Killen (eds), Economy and politics in the Mycenaean Palace States. Proceedings of a Conference held on 1–3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge (Cambridge Philological Society, Supplementary Volume 27), Cambridge, 181–194.
——— 2014, Bronze Age Bureaucracy. Writing and the Practice of Government in Assyria,
Cambridge.
Radner K. (ed.) 1998, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 1, Part I: A,
Helsinki.
——— (ed.) 1999a, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 1, Part II: B–G,
Helsinki.
——— 1999b, Ein neuassyrisches Privatarchiv der Tempelgoldschmiede von Assur (Studien
zu den Assur-Texten 1), Saarbrücken.
——— 2006, “Provinz. C. Assyrien”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 11/1–2, 42–68.
——— 2008, “The delegation of power: Neo-Assyrian bureau seals”, in P. Briant — W.F.M.
Henkelman — M.W. Stolper (eds), L’archive des fortifications de Persépolis. État des
questions et perspectives de recherches (Persika 12), Paris, 481–515.
——— 2011, “Royal Decision-Making: Kings, Magnates, and Scholars”, in K. Radner — E.
Robson (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, Oxford, 358–379.
Svärd S. 2012, Power and Women in the Neo-Assyrian Palaces (Unpublished Dissertation),
University of Helsinki.
Watanabe K. 1993, “Neuassyrische Siegellegenden”, Orient (Report of the Society for Near
Eastern Studies in Japan) 29, 109–138.
Weber M. 1972, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie,
Studienausgabe, 5th edition, Tübingen.
Wicke, D. — Greenfield, T. 2013, “The ‘Bronze Palace’ at Ziyaret Tepe. Preliminary Remarks
on the architecture and Faunal Analysis”, in D. Kertai — P.A. Miglus (eds), New Research
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom
Food and drink for the palace
22
on Late Assyrian Palaces. Conference at Heidelberg, January 22nd, 2011 (Heidelberger
Studien zum Alten Orient 15), Heidelberg, 63–82, Pls. XXXI–XXXII.
Wiseman D.J. 1953, “The Nimrud Tablets, 1953”, Iraq 15/2, 135–160.
Yamada S. 2000, The Construction of the Assyrian Empire. A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmaneser III (859–824 B.C.) Relating to His Campaigns to the West
(Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 3), Leiden — Boston — Köln.
Imperium & Officium: Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom