5

The Imprisoned Life

Introduction

The prison is described in literature as a very undesirable place. The prison is personified in the “Hymn to Nungal” as a place that condemns the guilty but sets the righteous free. The prison is said to have a painful grip and to be a house of sorrow; similar to a description found in a personal letter discussed below that claims the prison is a house of distress. The time spent on the inside is depicted as days of misfortune and was meant to be miserable. Personal correspondence also mentions beatings and starvation as part of life on the inside.

To understand the imprisoned life, a variety of lines of inquiry will be explored. This chapter begins by discussing the perspective provided by the literary text, “The Hymn to Nungal.” The picture offered, which relates to the misery of the prison, can be compared to personal accounts provided by prisoners themselves. After considering accounts of life on the inside in literary texts and other documents, such as letters and administrative texts, some of the administrative details of imprisonment will be discussed. These sources document the time spent and the rations that were provided for the prisoner. While detention in administrative contexts remains a staple throughout early Mesopotamia, at least some prisoners during the Old Babylonian period were dependent on their social network for their daily care. These diverse pictures relate to the broader, non-static social and political contexts of imprisonment in early Mesopotamia.

Yet, it should also be noted that while there is a difference in the documentation, the goal or the function of the imprisonment probably contributed to the level of institutional care provided for the prisoner. In general, it might be assumed that basic care was more likely provided for prisoners when the goal of that imprisonment was for the purpose of forcing job performance. If the administrative body did not provide some basic care, they would lose access to the labor of the prisoner because of sickness or death. Likewise, it is generally assumed that masters would also want to provide some care for their slaves, since loss of life or damage to the slave would result in a loss of property for the owner. This is the general expectation except in extreme situations where the owner might want to make an example of the slave.¹ Similarly, one might anticipate basic care to be provided for prisoners when the goal was labor coercion and in times when access to workers might be limited by geopolitical factors.² Yet, there were likely many exceptions in this regard. In Mari, for example, detention often occurred in relation to workhouses where criminals, debtors, and others were detained but starvation and death by disease also occurred there. Perhaps, a standardized process of imprisonment should not be expected in any given period or locale, as imprisonment was multifunctional and occurred in numerous contexts. It is likely that the goals and reasons for imprisonment had a direct impact on the overall experience of life on the inside.

All of this cautions against drawing larger conclusions on the basis of limited details about imprisonment. Nevertheless, it may be observed that prisoners were at times provided rations, while in other instances prisoners appear very dependent on external care.

Finally, the length of time for which people were imprisoned appears to have normally been short. Nevertheless, the texts attest to imprisonment occurring for periods of time beyond a year. These examples of longer confinement are contextualized in this chapter, as they are primarily restricted to the early years of Šu-Suen. Further, the administrative texts demonstrate that there are not many people attested in prison at any given time. It is certain that texts awaiting publication will change the findings, but the overall state of the evidence will be discussed with tentative conclusions drawn. The concluding perspective for this chapter is that the observable changes in the record are incapable of very clear, definitive answers, since the evidence is limited. Nevertheless, imprisonment involved suffering, and any administrative care given to prisoners was likely provided in order that the prisoners might be utilized by the administration as human resources. This goes back to the likely origin of detention and imprisonment in early Mesopotamia. Administrative mechanisms to coerce job performance and restrict movement existed in early Mesopotamia and were capable of multifunctional detention. It is perhaps out of this more basic detention and the experiences attached to it that an ideology arose that developed in relation to imprisonment and ritual practice.

Life on the Inside: A Literary Perspective

In the “Hymn to Nungal” the terror of the prison was not isolated to judicial summoning or the ordeal portions of the judicial process; life inside the prison entailed suffering.

“Hymn to Nungal” (lines 55–57):³

The interior of the temple gives rise to weeping, laments and cries. Its brick walls crush evil men and give rebirth to just men. Its angry heart causes one to pass the days in weeping and lamentation

Throughout the text, her house is described as a flood of waters (l. 33); a painful grip like a wild ox with spread forelegs (l. 43); a place of sorrow (l. 44); full of weeping, laments, and cries (ll. 55, 57).⁴ In the darkness of the house, prisoners listened for the sound of snakes and scorpions (l. 102). The walls had tears inside them (l. 104).

As will be discussed in Chapter 6, the terror of the prison was not meant to induce mere sorrow and lament. Once a guilty person was imprisoned that person recited lamentations designed ritualistically to transform them and cleanse them of impurities. Further, it should be noted that lamentation does appear to feature in actual practice attached to some imprisonment.⁵ For now, it is important to recognize that imprisonment was intended to involve suffering.

The misery of prison can be seen further in the “Lamentation Over the Destruction of Ur,” where the experience of misery faced over the destroyed city is likened to life in the debtor’s prison.

“Lamentation Over the Destruction of Ur” (lines 299–316):⁶

299. ˹lu₂˺ siki-ni ^u2numun₂-bur-gin₇ šu mu-ni-dub₂-dub₂

300. gaba-ni ub₃ ku₃-ga-am₃ i₃-sag₃-ge a uru₂-ĝu₁₀ im-me

301. igi-ni er₂-ra mi-ni-ib-zi-zi-i-zi er₂ gig i₃-še₈-še₈

302. me-˹le˺-[e-a uru₂-ĝu₁₀-ta] uru₂ kur₂ ba-ra-˹du₃-u₃-ne˺

303. ga-˹ša-an˺-[gal]-˹ĝen^?˺ [e₂]-˹ĝu₁₀-ta˺ e₂ kur₂ ba-ra-ma-ma-˹ne˺

304. me-le-e-a ^e2tur₃ bu-ra-˹ĝu₁₀˺ ab₂ sag₂ du₁₁-ga-ĝu₁₀

305. ga-ša-an-gal-ĝen na-gada pe-el-la₂-gin₇ ^ĝištukul ganam₄-ma bi₂-šub

306. me-le-e-a uru₂-ta e₃-a-ĝen ni₂ nu-dub₂-bu-ĝen

307. ga-ša-an-gal-ĝen e₂-ta e₃-a-ĝen ki-tuš nu-pa₃-da-ĝen

308. i-gi₄-in-zu gir₅ uru₂ kur₂-ra saĝ-gin₇ tuš-a-ĝen

309. e₂ ara₅-ra aĝ₂-gig-ga saĝ a-ba-a ma-ab-us₂-e

310. e₂ ur₅-ra mu-lu tuš-bi tuš-a ka e-ne-eĝ₃ nu-dirig-ĝen

311. ki-ba nam uru₂-na mu-na-te er₂ gig i₃-še₈-še₈

312. nin-ĝa₂ nam e₂-a-na mu-na-te er₂ gig i₃-še₈-še₈

313. nam e₂ ḫul-a-na mu-na-te er₂ gig i₃-še₈-še₈

314. nam uru₂ ḫul-a-na mu-un-na-te er₂ gig i₃-še₈-še₈

315. me-le-e-a na-aĝ₂ uru₂-ĝu₁₀ ga-am₃-du₁₁ na-aĝ₂ uru₂-ĝu₁₀ gig-ga-am₃

316. nin-ĝen e₂ gul-la-ĝu₁₀ ga-am₃-du₁₁ na-aĝ₂ e₂-ĝu₁₀ gig-ga-am₃

Translation: (299–316) The woman plucks out her hair as if it were Alfa grass. Her chest, the holy drum, she beats; “Alas, my city!” she cries. Her eyes well with tears, bitterly she weeps: “Woe i[s me! In place of my city,] a strange city is being built. I, Nin[gal], in place of my [house,] a strange house is being set up. Woe is me! My uprooted cattle pen! My scattered cows! I, Ningal, like an unworthy herdsman, the weapon has fallen on (my) ewes. Woe is me! I am who has gone forth from the city, I am one who can find no rest. I, Ningal—I am one who has gone forth from the house, I am one who can find no dwelling place. I am one who, as if a stranger, sits like a slave in a foreign city. In the despicable millhouse, who would help me? I am one who, sitting in a debtors’ prison among its inmates, can make no extravagant claims!”⁷ In that place, for the sake of her city, she approached him, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of my lady’s house, she approached him, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of her devastated house, she approached him, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of her devastated city, she approached him, bitterly she weeps: “Woe is me! The fate (of) my city!” I shall cry: “Bitter is the fate (of) my city!” I, the lady, “My destroyed house!” I shall cry. “Bitter is the fate (of) my house!”

City laments were written from the perspective of the observers but were composed years after the actual destruction of the city. These laments were intended less as immediate responses and more as rituals to prevent destruction.⁸ The lot of the prisoner, in this case one who is in a debtor’s prison, is used to describe the suffering and hopelessness of the one who witnessed the destruction of one’s city. So, it seems that imprisonment was a considered an apt metaphor for suffering and pain.

Personal Accounts of Life on the Inside

This literary image was likely born out of reality. The record about life on the inside is not restricted to literary imagery. In fact, the misery of imprisonment reflected in the literary texts can also be found in personal accounts. Texts written, or at the very list dictated, by actual prisoners provide further indication about what detainment was like in the Old Babylonian period.

In the text, AbB 2, 83,⁹ Bēlšunu complains to his lord that he is living for five months in a house of distress (bīt dannatim). He is detained in prison in relation to theft and complains of his suffering. He needs clothing and food. He is ill. Bēlšunu maintains his innocence but needs to bribe the official to receive protection and care. Since the issue is theft, this imprisonment (kalûm) likely related to detainment until reparation was made.

The brutality of detainment during this period can be seen with greater specificity in another letter that deals with interrogations in relation to a trial. In AbB 12, 65, Sîn-nādin-šumi was beaten repeatedly while being interrogated and there was concern that he would die during the process.

AbB 12, 65 (BM 97071)¹⁰

Reverse:…

27. ^mden.zu-na-din-šu-mi

28. a-˹na˺ mi-nim ˹ka˺-li-ma i-ma-a-˹at˺ [x]

29. i-na ˹da-ba-bi˺-im u₂-ma-aḫ-ḫi-ṣu₂-šu-ma

30. u₂-še-ṣu₂-˹ni˺-in-ni ni-id-bu-ub-ma

31. um-ma be-el a-[wa]-˹ti˺-ia-ma a-na-ku iti bar₂.zag.gar

32. at-ta-˹ṣi₂˺ [x x]-x-u₂ iti gu₄.si.sa₂ x x[…]

33. an-ni-tam ni-id-bu-ma

34. iš-˹tu˺ iti gu₄.si.sa₂ u₄.2(diš).kam

35. a-na x-[x]-x-ZI-ia er-˹ru-ub˺-ma

36. ˹it˺-[ti] ˹ugula˺ e₂ i-na zimbir^ki-am-na-num a-na-ku

37. be-[li₂ a]-˹na˺ a-wi-le-e qa₂-bu-um-ma

38. li-[iq]-˹bi˺ a-na-ku it-ti ugula e₂

39. [a-al]-li-a-am a-na be-li₂-ia ka-ta

40. a-qa₂-˹ab˺-bi-ma

41. ˹ki-ma be˺-li₂ i-qa₂-ab-bi-a-am

42. e-˹ep˺-pu-uš

43. ˹^lu2˺ na.aš.bar la ta-ṭa-ra-dam-ma

44. e-li i-na-an-na ugula e₂ šu-u₂

45. la iṣ-ṣa-ar-ra-ḫa-am

(27–28) “Why is Sîn-nadin-šumi being held? He will die!” (29–30) During the trial they beat him repeatedly, and they let me out. We spoke and thus my adversary (said): (31–36) “I myself went out in Nisan… Ayyar…We discussed this, and from the second day of Ayyar I returned to my (post) and I am with the overseer of the house in Sippar-Amnanum.” (37–45) My lord, shall surely speak to the man. I will come up with the overseer of the house. I will speak to you, my lord, and I will do as my lord says. Do not send to me a messenger lest this overseer of the house becomes angrier with me than now.

In this example, beatings took place in the prison, perhaps in relation to the judicial process.

Mutilation by gouging the eyes or cutting the tongue is also mentioned in relation to detention at Mari. These mutilated individuals were to spend their days grinding grain in the workhouse (ARM 14, 78).¹¹ These texts show the sometimes violent nature of detention in early Mesopotamia, indicating why some people might prefer to run away rather than continue in their current station.

While escape attempts are known from other texts more broadly in ancient Mesopotamia,¹² guards were stationed at prisons and fetters could also be used. For example, fetters are mentioned in AbB 1, 27 in relation to the prison, hinting at one way in which imprisonment was implemented.¹³ This more extreme act of control could indicate one of the ways in which temporary imprisonment to coerce payment or job performance could also serve as a deterrent for potential offenders. The use of implements such as fetters also indicates how imprisonment could occur in multifunctional social space and did not have to be isolated to space used for a singular purpose.

There is little known about life under guard in the Ur III period, except some of the basic care received. For now, it bears mentioning that a couple of Ur III texts refer to people who died while imprisoned.

UTI 4, 2475¹⁴

Obverse:

1. uš₂ šeš-kal-la

2. dumu eš₂-mu

3. ša₃ en-nu-ga₂

4. ˹iti˺ še-sag₁₁-ku₅

5. [mu] ˹bad₃˺ mar-tu [ba]-˹du₃˺-ta

Reverse:

1. ˹ugula˺ šeš-kal-la

2. kišib₃ dingir-ra

space

3. mu bad₃ mar-tu ba-du₃

Seal:

1. dingir-ra

2. dub-sar

3. dumu lu₂-ga

Translation: Dead: Šeškala, the son of Ešmu in the prison. Month: Harvest. From [the year] the Amurru wall was built. Overseer Šeškala. Sealed document of Dingira. The year the Amurru wall was built. Dingira, the sealing official, the son of Luga.

Nevertheless, the text does not prove anything about the conditions of the confinement, since the death and the confinement may have been unrelated to one another. Another text (MVN 16, 1585),¹⁵ also from Šu-Suen Year 4 records three persons living in prison and is sealed by the same official. The first entry in the text lists a farmer being held from months 5 to 11. This is followed by two persons listed as held from months 5 to 12. The final entry returns to the farmer (the first entry) and states that he died in month 12.

The “Laws of Ḫammurapi” distinguishes between the natural death of a distraint (§115) and the wrongful death of a distraint as the result of being mistreated by a creditor (§116). With natural deaths there is no basis for a claim against the creditor, but with deaths resulting from beatings, the penalty relates to the status of the person. If the person who died was a son, the son of the creditor should be executed. If, however, the distraint was a slave, 20 shekels of silver, based on the standard value of a slave in the “Laws of Ḫammurapi,” was owed by the creditor. The following text also relates to the death of a distraint.

Boyer 1928, Contribution 122 (Scheil RA 15, 140–41)¹⁶

Obverse:

1. a-na a-wi-lim ša ^dim u₂-ba-al-la-ṭu₂-šu

2. qi₂-bi₂-ma

3. um-ma ib-ni-^˹d˺im-ma

4. ^dutu u₃ ^dim da-ri-iš u₄-˹mi˺ / li-ba-al-ṭu₂-ka

5. 1(diš) še-ep-^dutu

6. ki-a-am iq-bi um-ma šu-ma

7. sag-geme₂ ša en-ša-^dutu a-ḫi-ia

8. i-na bad₃ gurguri^ki

9. i-na ḫi-iš-ša-tim il-li-qi₂

10. 1(diš) ^˹d˺utu-li-wi-ir dam-gar

11. il-li-kam-ma um-ma-šu-ma

12. sag-geme₂-ka

Reverse:

13. ša i-na ḫi-iš-ša-tim il-li-qu₂-u₂

14. 5(diš) gin₂ ku₃-babbar id-nam-ma

15. sag-geme₂-ka lu-pa-aṭ-ṭi-ra-ak-kum

16. ki-a-am iq-bi-a-am

17. ḫu-ul-lam ku₃-sig₁₇ ad-di-šum-ma

18. sag-geme₂ a-šar il-li-qu₂-ma i-na ṣi-bi-ti-ša

19. im-tu-ut

20. u₃ al-li-ik-šum-ma ḫu-ul-lam ku₃-sig₁₇

21. u₂-ul u₂-te-er-ra-am

22. ki-a-am iq-bi-a-am

23. a-wa-a-ti-šu a-mur-ma

24. šu-te-še-er-šu

25. šum-ma a-wa-tum i-dam i-šu

26. be-˹el˺ a-wa-ti-šu

27. a-na ṣi-ri-ia tu-ur-dam

Translation: (1–3) Speak to the man who Adad causes him to live. Thus (says) Ibni-Adad. (4) May Šamaš and Adad give you life forever. (5–9) Šep-Šamaš thus he said, “The slave-girl of Bēl-ša-Šamaš, my brother, was taken into debt-slavery in the city Bad-Tibira.” (10–16) Šamaš-liwir, the merchant, came to me. Thus (he said), “(For) your slave-girl, who was taken into debt-slavery, give to me 5 shekels of silver. Let me redeem your slave-girl for you,” thus he said to me. (17–21) I gave to him a gold ring. The slave-girl, in the place where she was taken, died in her captivity. When I went to him, he did not return the gold ring to me. (22–27) Thus, he said to me, “Settle his case. Cause him to return it.” If the case is decided there, bring the litigant to me.

Returning to the immediate question, while the causes of death in the prison texts UTI 4, 2475 and MVN 16, 1585 remain unknown, it should be noted that the extant prison texts from the Ur III period deal with administrative contexts, where numerous workers are listed as sick or dead.

Texts from Old Babylonian Mari also mention death in relation to imprisonment but with even greater detail. One text mentions prisoners, who died from thirst, displacement, and starvation (Joannès 1985, Mél. Birot 4 [A.1401]).¹⁷ Another text involved a person who was imprisoned and the author states, “I have had this man enter jail. Yet this man must not die.”¹⁸ The text ARM 26, 265,¹⁹ includes the following: “Further: The hand of the god has abated. The palace is well. There are numerous fatalities among the domestics, the weaver women, the prisons, and cultivators.”²⁰ In this text, there appears to be a general plight that resulted in death that touched prisoners but was not limited to prisoners only. A more striking text related to the life of prisoners comes with a threat about the execution of a prisoner as an example to others.

ARM 2, 48²¹

Obverse:

1. a-˹na˺ be-li₂-ia

2. qi₂-bi₂-ma

3. um-ma ba-aḫ-di-li-im

4. ir₃-ka-a-ma

5. iš-˹tu˺ u_₄ 5.kam i-na ḫa-da-nim

6. ḫa.na.meš u₂-qa-a u₃ ṣa-bu-um

7. u₂-ul i-pa-aḫ-ḫu-ra-am

8. ḫa.na.meš iš-tu na-wi-im ik-šu-da-am-ma

9. u₃ i-na li-ib-bi a-la-ni-ma wa-aš-bu

10. 1-šu 2-šu a-na li-ib-bi a-la-ni

Bottom Edge:

11. ˹aš₂˺-ta-pa-ar-ma <li>-id-ku-ni-iš-šu-nu-ti

12. u₃ u₂-ul ip-ḫu-ru-nim-ma

13. u₃ a-di u₄ 3.kam u₂-ul i-pa-aḫ-ḫa-ru-nim-ma

Reverse:

14. i-na-an-na šum-ma li-ib-bi be-li₂-ia

15. lu₂ be-el ar-nim i-na ne-<pa>-ri-im li-du-ku-˹ma˺

16. qa-qa-as-su₂ li-ik-ki-su-ma

17. u₃ bi-ri-it a-la-ne₂-e

18. a-di ḫu-ut-nim^ki u₃ ap-pa-an^ki

19. li-sa-ḫi-ru aš-šum ṣa-bu-um i-pa-al-la-aḫ°-ma

20. [ar]-˹ḫi˺-iš i-pa-aḫ-ḫu-ra-am

21. [a-na] ṭe₄-em ḫa-ma-ṭi₃-im

22. [ša] be-li₂ u₂-wa-e-ra-an-ni

23. ˹ar˺-ḫi-iš ge-er-ra-am

Top Edge:

24. ˹a˺-ṭa₃-ar-ra-du

Translation: Speak to my lord, thus (says) Baḫdi-lim, your servant:

For the past five days, I have waited for the nomads at the prearranged place, but the troops are not yet gathering. The nomads have indeed come here from (pasturing) the flocks, but they stay in diverse towns. I have written a couple of times to the towns themselves: they were summoned, but they have not gathered as yet. If then within three days they do not gather—and if my lord agrees—a criminal should be killed in jail. His head cut off, it should be paraded among these towns, as far as Ḫutnum and Appan, so that the frightened troops will quickly gather. I will then promptly send out the mission, in view of the urgent dispatch my lord had charged me.²²

In this text, Baḫdi-lim, wanted to execute a prisoner and parade his head in order to organize his fearful troops to fulfill the command of the king, but he must secure the king’s permission to do so in the first place.

These texts show the anguish and danger of the imprisoned life. Physical suffering in some examples was extreme and could result in eventual death. Claims of starvation, however, may be compared to imprisonment in administrative contexts that involve basic provisions for the prisoners.

Ur III Prison Rations

The administrative context of the prison texts of the Ur III period preserves information about basic care and rations given to those living and presumably working while under guard. This picture can be contrasted to the above Old Babylonian accounts of starvation faced while imprisoned.

The following texts, organized by month, record daily provisions for the guards stationed at Girsu (Tables 2 and 3). As these texts do not include a year, this may explain why there are some texts that have different provisions but refer to the same month and day.

Table 2. Prison Rations

Table 3. Captives at Girsu

These texts record the provisions of beer and bread received by guards at Girsu in connection with their administrative duties. Such rations were provided to care for the guards and may have been provided also for the prisoners under their supervision. But without more details about the number of guards stationed at Girsu, it is impossible to determine how many prisoners were there at any given time on the basis of these texts.

Nevertheless, in DAS 206, it is known that each prisoner was allotted 1 sila (approx. 1 liter) of bread per day.

DAS 206 Girsu; Amar-Suen Year 9, Month 5 (lines 8ff.)³⁴

Obverse:…

8. 1(diš) sila₃ i-di₃-ni-id

9. 1(diš) sila₃ lu₂-bala-sa₆-ga gudu₄

Reverse:

1. 1(diš) sila₃ lu₂-dingir-ra du₃-a-ku₅

2. 1(diš) sila₃ lu₂-dingir-ra ma₂-laḫ₆

3. 1(diš) sila₃ kal-kal-la

4. 1(diš) sila₃ ur-ki-gu-la

5. 1(diš) sila₃ ma-na-na

6. ˹u₄˺ 3(u) ˹la₂ 1(diš)˺-še₃

7. ninda-bi 3(barig) 2(ban₂) 3(diš) sila₃

Line Blank

8. lu₂ al-dab₅-ba ša₃ en-nu-me

9. iti munu₄-gu₇

10. mu en ^dnanna kar-zi-da

Since the text mostly includes personal names and rations, I will only describe it here. The text records 203 sila of bread for seven prisoners. The broken line reverse 6 is reconstructed to twenty-nine days, since each prisoner received 1 sila of bread per day. Heimpel, on the basis of this text, uses the standard prisoner ration of 1 sila of bread to determine how many people were housed at the prison in Girsu, arriving at two to five prisoners in the months 7–8 of Amar-Suen year 5 as evidenced in the texts cited in Table 3 that make explicit reference to bread provided for prisoners.³⁵ While this indicates some level of care, it should be noted that the minimal level of subsistence is usually considered to be 2 liters per day.³⁶

The text UTI 5, 3139 deals with 29 liters of barley as rations for the prison that are conveyed by a messenger (month 6 of Year Šu-Suen 3).³⁷ If the one liter of bread above is taken to be representative, at least tentatively, the rations taken can only maintain a single prisoner for the duration of twenty-nine days.³⁸

Already, two basic observations can be made on the basis of the above information:

1.Most prisoners recorded in the Ur III texts were or at least became workers for the administrative bodies.

2.There is not any clear evidence that prisons housed large numbers of people at any given time in the Ur III period.³⁹

Old Babylonian Prison Rations

For the Old Babylonian period, the bīt asīrī—commonly translated “the house of prisoners” or “the house of prisoners of war”—consisted of workers, many of whom were described as slaves or prisoners.⁴⁰ These prisoners, however, do not appear to be kept in relation to criminal activity and many were captured in war. This administrative body worked and allocated those under its oversight, but it is unclear the level of care these “prisoners” received. It is assumed they received some sort of rations for their basic sustenance to enable them to work. But when considering the flour allocations attached to the bīt asīrī, Seri writes:

There is no direct evidence in flour allocations from the bīt asīrī to support the view either that the flour was produced by prisoners or that it was used to feed them, although this might have been the case. What is more, there is not even a single mention of any prisoner or slave in tablets dealing with flour allocation.⁴¹

More recently, Rositani argues, “the possibility that the bīt asīrī should be connected with the production of flour stands to reason. It is also likely that the function of the bīt asīrī would have been to supply flour; it would be related to a granary where the prisoners were forced to turn grindstones.”⁴² According to this reasoning, the prisoners would have been tasked with milling in order to provide for their own sustenance and the needs of others.⁴³ Whatever their function, these prisoners appear to be mostly slaves and prisoners of war and little is known about their basic care, which does not appear to be the focus of the texts.

From Mari, ARM 1, 57 mentions the daily provision of one^? liter of beer and five liters of bread ([1(diš)^?] ˹sila₃˺ am₃ kaš 5 (diš) sila₃ am₃ ninda/[i₃].˹du₁₀˺) as well as oil for personal care for a person being placed in the nepārim.⁴⁴ While the dangers of starving are known in this context, as mentioned above, it is understandable that provisions would be provided when a person was confined in an administrative context that involved an aspect of labor coercion.

Time Served⁴⁵

While it has been established that imprisonment served a variety of functions in early Mesopotamia, another key point of inquiry is the duration of that imprisonment.⁴⁶ The amount of time spent detained supports the argument that detainment was used for different purposes. Numerous texts that deal with prisons fail to give an indication of how long a person spent living under guard. The main exceptions are texts from the Ur III period, which provide a wealth of information in relation to this topic.

The Ur III texts dealing explicitly with the ennu(ĝ) are decidedly uneven in their geographic distribution and are predominantly from Umma and Girsu.⁴⁷ These imprisonment texts are overwhelmingly administrative and support the concept that imprisonment was primarily used to control dependent workers in the administration. The high points of attestation of preserved ennu(ĝ) texts appear primarily during the reigns of Amar-Suen and Šu-Suen, where forty data points belong to each ruler.⁴⁸ These texts typically include the name of the overseer of the confined person, as well as the agent who certified the receipt of the prisoner, indicating that many of the people held under guard were dependent workers.

The administrative need to account for dependent workers appears to be the primary reason to mention prisoners in the record. As discussed above, most of these texts omit offenses and instead focus on time and are thus likely the product of the administrative desire to keep track of the human resources available to the overseers. Other texts record the provisions, mostly food but sometimes clothing, provided for those living under guard and the guards themselves. Again, the textual documentation of prisons and prisoners comes in a context of accounting, this time in relation to movable goods. A third group of texts records the offenses committed by various individuals. The inclusion and omission of information in these different types of texts stem from the overall purpose of writing, resulting in brief glimpses into practices relating to prisons and prisoners during the Ur III period.⁴⁹

The following figures present the number of prisoners in relation to days spent under guard and the ruler. Of the gathered texts, there are six texts that are not represented in the figures, since the ruler is not known. Following Richard Firth, the intercalation years (i.e. the addition of a thirteenth month to fit the lunar calendar to the solar year) at Umma are Amar-Suen 2, 4, 6; Šu-Suen 1, 3, 6, 9; and Ibbi-Suen 3.⁵⁰ According to this model, intercalation was accounted for in the relevant texts when counting the days. When looking at the length of time recorded it is important to keep in mind that the months listed are inclusive. So, months 4–12, would be nine months and not the difference of eight. This is evident when texts account for the workdays in view. Secondly, the amount of time living in prison listed in a tablet does not mean that the person was necessarily released at that point. Instead, it could simply be that the end date of the period being accounted for rather than the end of detention. Given that, the figures of time spent living under guard represent the lower end and not the upper end of time served. But based on the data we have; the recorded lengths of time range from one day to over three years.

Most of the texts compiled relating to imprisonment come from the reigns of Amar-Suen and Šu-Suen. For Amar-Suen, 53.66 percent of the lengths of stay listed during his reign were under six months. With Šu-Suen, however, 32.5 percent of the prisoners are listed as spending time in prison for less than six months.

Other patterns emerge as well. For example, six texts record a total of eight prisoners spending sixteen months (sixteen months when the diri or thirteenth month of Šu-Suen year 1 is counted) detained from Šu-Suen year 1 month 9 to Šu-Suen year 2 month 12 (Princeton 1, 326; AnOr 7, 228; UTI 4, 2931; UTI 4, 2567; UCP 9-2-1, 10; BPOA 1, 1782). These spikes, variation, and patterns likely have to do with the political context of Šu-Suen’s reign. As such, the practice of detention during Šu-Suen’s reign should not be viewed as normative for the entire Ur III period. These examples could be anomalous and rather reflect attempts to solidify and extend control during the initial years of Šu-Suen’s reign. For this reason, the current data remains unable to support larger conclusions about the rest of the period. Based on this limited and imperfect scope of evidence, it may be concluded, however, that the average attested amount of time a person spent under guard during the Ur III period was less than twelve months.

In the first graph (Figure 6), the jitters (or dots) represent the attestations available. The boxes represent the interquartile range (25th–75th percentile). The horizontal line shows the median, while the whiskers show the min/max excluding outliers. It should be noted that the statistics are not taken from a controlled environment and represent only the evidence available to us through accidents of preservation and the current state of publication.

Figure 6. Graph showing number of attestations of imprisonment during different reigns.

The histogram (Figure 7) charts the number of attestations in relation to days spent under guard. Among some of the interesting aspects of the compiled data, Šu-Suen tended toward holding people for longer periods of time with greater variation.

Figure 7. Histogram depicting days spent under guard during different reigns.

For the Ur III period, the longest period of incarceration known to me is found in MVN 21, 91, which states that Šeškala lived in prison for over three years.

MVN 21, 91⁵¹

Obverse:

1. 1(diš) uĝ₃ šeš-kal-la

2. en-nun-ĝa₂ ti-la

3. iti pa₄-u₂-e

4. mu ^dšu-^dsuen lugal-ta

5. iti nesag

6. mu us₂-sa bad₃ ba-du₃-še₃

Reverse:

1. ugula lugal-igi-ḫuš

2. kišib₃ dingir-ra

Seal Impression

3. mu us₂-sa bad₃ ba-du₃

Seal:

1. dingir-ra

2. dub-sar

3. dumu lu₂-ga

Translation: 1 person, Šeškala, living in prison from Šu-Suen Year 1, Month 11 until Šu-Suen Year 5, Month 4. Overseer Lugal-igiḫuš. Sealed by Dingira. Šu-Suen Year 5. Dingira, the sealing official, son of Luĝa.

While the diri month (or an extra month for that year) generally occurs every three years to adjust the calendar, during the years Amar-Suen 9 until Šu-Suen 3 there were two years with diri months.⁵² In Umma, where Šeškala was living in prison, two diri months passed during his incarceration. When counting the period inclusive of the months mentioned in the text together with the additional diri months, Šeškala was incarcerated for forty-four months.

Another text from Umma during the early years of the reign of Šu-Suen has a long period of incarceration and includes the same sealing official as the above text, MVN 21, 91.

UTI 6, 3697⁵³

Obverse:

1. [1(aš…)]-gu-da

2. ˹iti˺ nesaĝ

3. mu ma₂ ^den-ki ba-ab-du₈-ta

4. ˹iti˺ ^dli₉-si₄

Reverse:

1. mu si-ma-num₂^ki ba-ḫul-še₃

2. en-nun-ĝa₂ ti-la

3. ugula ur-saga

4. kišib₃ dingir-ra

Seal:

1. dingir-ra

2. dub-sar

3. dumu lu₂-ga

Translation: [x]-guda living in prison from Šu-Suen year 2 month 4 to Šu-Suen year 3 month 9. Overseer Ur-saga. Received by Dingira. Dingira, the sealing official, son of Luga.

The period of incarceration for this text is eighteen months. Another text, UTI 4, 2931, states that Lugal-itida spent seventeen months living in prison (“Lugal-itida living in prison from Šu-Suen Year 1 Month 9 to Šu-Suen Year 2 Month 12”), since there was a diri month in Šu-Suen year 1.⁵⁴ The texts from the Ur III period indicate that people lived under guard for periods as short as a few days and as long as forty-four months. The range of time spent living under guard likely reflects the multifunctional nature of detainment in early Mesopotamia. While some people lived under guard while awaiting a trial, others served extensive time, likely for a variety of reasons, relating to debt and “crime.”⁵⁵

While most of the texts relating to detainment from the Old Babylonian period leave the length of stay unstated, AbB 2, 83 states that one person had already spent five months imprisoned in the house of a palace administrator for theft, a charge he denies.

AbB 2, 83⁵⁶

Obverse:

1. a-na be-li₂-ia

2. qi₂-bi₂-ma

3. um-ma be-el-šu-nu arad-ka-ma

4. iš-tu i-na e₂.agrig ka-li-a-ku

5. be-li₂ at-ta tu-ba-al-li-ṭa-an-ni

6. mi-nu-u₂ a-wa-tum-ma is-tu iti.5.kam

7. be-li₂ -di a-ḫi i-na mu-uḫ₂-ḫi-ia ir-ši

8. e₂ ša ka-li-a-ku e₂ da-an-na-tim

9. i-na-an-na 1(diš) dumu ka₂.gal ṭup-pa a-na be-li₂-ia

10. ka-ta uš-ta-bi-lam

11. ki-ma be-li₂ at-ta tu-ba^!-al-li-ṭa-an-ni

12. šu-bi-lam-ma ki-la ki-ma it-ti-ka ka-lu-u₂

13. lu-ša-ak-ri-ba-ak-kum

14. u₃ ma-ar-ṣa-ku-ma ḫu-ta-˹iu˺-ṭi

15. na-aḫ-ra-ar be-li₂-ia li-ib-ba-ši-a

Bottom Edge:

16. 1(ban₂) zi₃.da 1(ban₂) še 1 sila₃ za₃.ḫi.li.a.˹SAR˺

17. šum₂.šum₂.sikil.SAR šu-bi-lam-ma

18. la a-ma-at u₃ lu-ba-˹ra˺

Reverse:

19. šu-bi-lam-ma na-ag-la-bi-ia

20. lu-uk-tu-um

21. u₃ ḫu-ub-du aš-šu be-li₂-ia ka-ta

22. i-ba-aš-ša-an-ni

23. šum-ma 1/2 gin₂ ku₃.babbar šum-ma 2 ma-na sig₂

24. šu-bi-la-aš-šu-um-ma

25. i-na du-ul-li pa-ni-ia li-it-ta-ab-ba-al

26. 1(diš) dumu-ka₂.gal re-qu₂-us-su₂ la iṭ-ṭa-ar-ra-da

27. re-qu₂-us-su₂ i-il-la-kam-ma

28. ka-al-bu i-ik-ka-lu-ni-in-ni

29. ki-ma be-li₂ at-ta a-wi-lum zimbir^ki

30. u₃ ka₂.dingir.ra^ki ka-lu-šu i-di

31. ša ka-li-a-ku u₂-ul iḫ-ḫu-ub-ti

32. u₂-ul i-na pi₂-il-ši ka-aš-da-a-ku

33. be-li₂ at-ta i₃.geš a-na e-bi-ir-ta tu-ša-bi-la-an-ni

34. su-tu-u₂ u₂-ša-am-ḫi-ru-ni-in-ni

Top Edge:

35. ka-li-a-ku qi₂-bi-it i-na ma-aḫ-ri-ši-in

36. ma-ag-ra-at du-bu-ub šu-bi-˹lam˺

37. i-na e₂ da-an-na-tim la a-ma-[at]

Left Edge:

38. 1(diš) sila₃ i₃.geš u₃ 5(diš) sila₃ mun šu-bi-lam

39. ša-ad-da-aq-da tu-ša-bi-lam-ma

40. ma-am-ma-an u₂-ul id-di-na

41. ma-la tu-ša-ab-ba-la ze₂-e’-pa šu-bi-˹lam˺

Translation: (1–3) Speak to my lord. Thus (says) Bēlšunu, your servant. (4–8) I am imprisoned from within the house of the palace administrator. My lord, you cause me to live. What is the reason my lord has been negligent concerning me for five months? The house in which I am imprisoned is a house of distress (or famine). (9–10) Now I have sent a letter to you, my lord, by a gatekeeper. (11) Because, you, my lord, cause me to live. (12–15) Send to me, for it is within your power, let me cause the prison to bless you. Furthermore, I am sick and am watched over. Let the help of my lord be offered. (16–20) Send to me a ban of flour, a ban of barley and a sila of shallots, so that I may not die and send to me a lubārum-dress that I may cover my hips. (21–22) Even the ḫubdûm official, for your sake, my lord, is ashamed before me. (23–25) Send to him either 1/2 gin of silver or 2 mana of wool, in order that he may remove the misery of my face. (26–28) The gatekeeper shall not go down empty-handed. If he comes to me empty-handed, dogs eat me. (29–30) Because, my lord, all Sippar and Babylon know you are an awīlum. (31–32) The one who is captive did not commit a robbery. I did not commit a break-in. (33) You, my lord, caused me to bring oil to the opposite bank. (34) The Sūtu caused me to receive it. (35–36) I am imprisoned. Say an agreeable word to them and send it to me. (37) Do not let me die in a house of distress (or famine). (38) Send to me 1 sila of oil and 5 sila of salt. (39–40) Last year, you sent me, (but) no one gave it. (41) Send to me whatever you will send (with) sealed tag.

This five-month detainment can be compared with other texts that mention more limited periods of time, such as AbB 14, 156: (17), which mentions imprisonment for a month (a-na ib₂.tak₄ ku₃.babbar-ia iti 1(diš).kam dumu.munus-su₂ a-pa-ad-ma, “For the rest of my silver, I held his daughter for one month in jail”).⁵⁷ This example may securely be compared to detainment in relation to debt. Other texts mention a four-day period of detainment.⁵⁸

In Old Babylonian Mari, Šamaši-Adad states that a man should be placed in the nepārim in such away that no one hears from him, whether dead or alive (ARM 1, 57).⁵⁹ Unlike more temporary examples of imprisonment, this text points toward the disposal of a person indefinitely. Such examples are likely related to political prisoners or prisoners of war being held indefinitely.⁶⁰ Imprisonment, which was more normally used for temporary confinement, could be used for other purposes or more extended periods of time. This is expected since the practice did not seem to be governed or constrained by policy or rule of law, as much as it was available to those in authority to be used according to their current social and political needs.

The length of time spent detained or imprisoned reflects further the multifunctional nature of such practices in early Mesopotamia, and the above evidence demonstrates that people were imprisoned up to approximately 1,320 days in the Ur III period or indefinitely as at Mari. This shows that the time of detention could be quite extensive and that the prison was not used merely as a temporary holding place. Nevertheless, the evidence remains insufficient to view such examples as representative for the rest of the period, as the Ur III examples could be anomalous or confined to the reign of Šu-Suen, while the Mari examples relate to indefinite detention for the purpose of coercion and control.

Conclusion

Studying life under guard demonstrates the multicontextual nature of imprisonment, since some were dependent on personal social networks for survival in prison, while others received rations. It is possible that this is reflective of changes in the practice of imprisonment, but other possibilities should be kept in view. The limitations of the evidence make it difficult to arrive at very firm conclusions about these observable trends. It is possible that rather than social and historical changes in practices, the differences are merely attributable to the nature of the evidence. It is widely recognized that the Ur III documentation is largely administrative, while more non-official material remains extant from the Old Babylonian period. Perhaps, this is the explanation for the differences observed in practices related to incarceration, but such a possibility should not deter from the pursuit of understanding the recognizable differences, especially when the broader social and historical contexts seem to reflect real change in numerous other areas.

Despite accidents of discovery, limitations of the evidence, and other associated challenges,⁶¹ the general approach to detention, personal accounts, and administrative details reflected in the documents themselves provide insight into the nature of Mesopotamian prisons and the multifaceted ways in which detention was employed. Perhaps, the Old Babylonian personal letters provide examples of people being held until a punishment was carried out or to coerce some sort of payment. It is likely such temporary detainment also occurred during the Ur III period, though the details of which are lost to us. The information we do possess about imprisonment in the Ur III period comes from administrative contexts. This might relate to the origin of these prisoners. If most Ur III prisoners were runaways or debtors, who after capture were confined in contexts like resthouses and provided for there, this could explain the material provision of such prisoners, who would not be there as the result of some judicial process. This view is supported in part by the numerous people sent to capture runaways. These individuals often appear in messenger texts that come from the same context of the prison discussed above.⁶² If the prisoners are those who have left work details, then it stands to reason that they would be provided for while being coerced to work. The institution, while perhaps desiring to teach a lesson to the runaway and deter others from running away, likely wanted also to maintain control of their human resources for the purpose of utilizing their labor.

While many questions remain unanswered, it is certain that the imprisoned life was intended to be miserable. This is documented in the literature and other text types. Accounts of starvation, beatings, and even records of death indicate that imprisonment was dangerous. And while it appears most people were there for short periods of time, others had quite extended stays.

The everyday misery of the prison, which may have been just the reality of an unregulated system of imprisonment, is connected to a higher purpose in literature. The suffering resulted in lament and through the process of lament, a person was ritually purified. While it is unclear if everyday imprisonment was actually expected to produce positive results in the prisoner, imprisonment is ideologically related to notions of purity in ancient Mesopotamia, which is the topic of Chapter 6.

Prisons in Ancient Mesopotamia: Confinement and Control until the First Fall of Babylon. J. Nicholas Reid, Oxford University Press. © J. Nicholas Reid 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192849618.003.0006

¹ See Reid 2015.

² Richardson 2002: 303–4.

³ After Black, Cunningham, Robson, and Zólyomi 2004: 341. Sjöberg 1973: 19–46. See Chapter 1 n. 50 on editions and studies.

⁴ Annus writes, “The Nungal prison, Ekur, had several counterparts in the later Esagila temple complex in Babylon. At least in theory, Babylon contained replicas of all of the important religious institutions of the Mesopotamian past. One of them was the shrine é-akkil ‘House of Laments’ of Manungal, a form of the lady Nungal” (2016: 62).

⁵ See Charpin 2017: 81–82.

⁶ Transliteration and translation are cited after Samet 2014: 70–71.

⁷ Attinger translates this line as, “Cotoyant des détenus pour dettes, la voix et les mots ne prévalent plus;” he further comments in note 298: “Litt. peut-être ‘La prison pour dettes (pendens): séjournant à côté/près de (directif) ses (de la prison) gens (y) résidant’; ‘séjourner parmi’ (ainsi la traduction usuelle) supposerait en sumérien un locatif” [Attinger 2019: 2.2.2 (p. 25)] – https://zenodo.org/record/2599629#.XvJAiZ5KhdA.

⁸ See Gabbay 2014: 15–58. See too Delnero 2019: 317 and n. 4. It is clear that it was less important for the hearers to understand the lament, as it was about creating a soothing sound to the gods, who could both hear and understand them.

⁹ Frankena 1966: 50–53. See edition in Reid 2016: 105–7.

¹⁰ Van Soldt 1990: 52–55.

¹¹ Birot 1974 and Durand 2000 no. 929 (LAPO 18). See too translation in Sasson 2015: 226–27.

¹² See discussion of flight in Reid 2015: 576–605. See the important late text in Kleber and Frahm 2006: 109–22.

¹³ See AbB 1: 27 lines 24–25 (Kraus 1964: 22–23) cited in CAD K: 97 (kalû 1b): “maškana ša 5 ma.na idīšima ki-le-e-ši ‘put her in a fetter weighing five minas and keep her in custody.’” See handcopy in Figulla 1963: text 27 (plate 11).

¹⁴ Gomi and Yildiz 1997. Umma; Šu-Suen Year 4, Month 1; Ist Um 2475.

¹⁵ Waetzoldt and Yildiz 1994.

¹⁶ See Scheil 1918: 140–41 and Boyer 1928 (pl. viii).

¹⁷ Joannès 1985: 102–3. See translation in Sasson 2015: 225–26.

¹⁸ ARM 26, 77 (Durand 1988). See partial translation in Sasson 2015: 226.

¹⁹ Durand 1988.

²⁰ Translation after Heimpel 2003: 279. Further, ARM 26, 264 (Durand 1988) mentions the prison in connection with the death of weaver women and agricultural workers in the context of the workhouses.

²¹ Jean 1950 and Durand 1998 (LAPO 17 no. 559). See translation in Sasson 2015, 226 4.5.c.iv.1.

²² Translation cited after Sasson 2015: 226.

²³ See these texts in Lafont 1985.

²⁴ Mander 1994.

²⁵ Mander 1995. See too Mander 1994: 21 (Kennelmen 21).

²⁶ Uchitel 1992.

²⁷ Mander 1994.

²⁸ Sigrist 1993.

²⁹ Sigrist 1993.

³⁰ Uchitel 1992.

³¹ Barton 1905–1914. See Mander 1994: 26 (Kennelmen 36).

³² Mander 1995. See too Mander 1994: 22.

³³ Garfinkle, Sauren, and Van De Mieroop 2010. See edition in Lau 1906 (OTR 70).

³⁴ Lafont 1985.

³⁵ Heimpel 1998: 392–93. Other texts with provisions appear in a messenger context. For example, Amorites 22 (Buccellati 1966): Obverse col. i: 8´–9´ states: 1(u) sa gi / kas₄-me-eš₂ ša₃ en-nu-ga₂ and BM Messenger 6, Reverse 3 (Sigrist 1990b) notes provisions for the guard in a messenger text: 2(diš) sila₃ ninda ša₃ en-nu.

³⁶ See Reid and Spada 2020: 74.

³⁷ UTI 5, 3139: 3(ban₂) [la₂^?] 1(diš) [sila₃] še / ša₃-gal ḫe₂-dab₅ / ša₃ en-nu-ga₂. See edition in Yildiz and Ozaki 2000.

³⁸ Another text deals with particular rations supplied for the prison. BE 3/1, 40 (Myhrman 1910): Lugal-saga received from Namtarre 1 gur 2 barig (approx. 420 liters of barley), provisions for the women, children, (and) Dugani, living in prison. Month 1 Year Ibbi-Suen Year 4. This text deals with 420 liters of barley to be distributed for female workers and children. The text also mentions a person who is living under guard and serves as a receipt that Lugal-saga received these from Namtarre. This may indicate that the rations were not for the prison as much as they were for regular work performed by a group of females and children. One of the questions is whether the prisoner is to receive a portion of the rations that are allotted to the women and children, or whether the prisoner is being conveyed along with the rations to Lugal-saga.

³⁹ Note CUSAS 39: 145, the recently published text by Dahl 2020: 210, which includes “17 (workers) of the guard house.” These are mentioned alongside boat-builders, sailors, carpenters, and other workers in the same text. But it is not clear why they are being detained.

⁴⁰ Leemans 1961; Seri 2013: 110–41; Rositani 2018: 43 and n. 3.

⁴¹ Seri 2013: 82.

⁴² Rositani 2018: 49.

⁴³ Rositani 2018: 49.

⁴⁴ Dossin 1950. Durand 2000 (LAPO 18, 1076). See translation in Sasson 2015: 228 4.6.c.i.

⁴⁵ The Ur III material in this section was published in Reid 2016: 100–107.

⁴⁶ Since length of time relates to modern distinctions between jails and prisons, the time served in early Mesopotamia is also an important point of comparison. When it comes to the length of time spent in prison, Piotr Steinkeller stated, based on the evidence available at that time, that prison sentences in Umma lasted for periods ranging from “a few months to one year,” Steinkeller 1991: 230. Civil, writing a little more recently, states that the amount of time served in the Ur III period ranged “from 7 days to 450 days.” See Civil 1993: 75. These figures are repeated in Civil 2011: 253. Concerning the Early Dynastic and Sargonic Periods, Wilcke concludes, “The consequences for the offenders are in no instance mentioned. One may assume that, as Ur III texts suggest, the duration of the stay in prison was limited to a certain time and that there one had to compensate the offence with labour” (Wilcke 2007a: 120). This is not the only discussion in which the Mesopotamian evidence related to prisons is partially assessed by the recorded lengths of time people spent in “prison.” See discussion of Kleber and Frahm 2006: 116 n. 30, who conclude that some recorded lengths of time during the Neo-Babylonian period were extensive enough to warrant a comparison to prison sentences.

⁴⁷ On the textual distribution for the period, see Garfinkle 2015: 147–49 and 147 n. 16.

⁴⁸ Garfinkle discusses the chronological distribution for the period, highlighting that textual finds reflect the success of kings. Attestations are considerably higher in the years between Šulgi 25 and the early years of the reign of Ibbi-Suen. See Garfinkle 2015: 148.

⁴⁹ On writing, see Marc Van De Mieroop 1997a: 7–18 and Van De Mieroop 1997b: 301–2, who views documentation as mostly pertaining to liability. See Steinkeller 2004: 95–96, who takes the view that it relates to planning. Garfinkle, building on the ideas of liability and planning, notes that documentation was also used to create immediate community (Garfinkle 2015: 155–57). Consider too Reid 2016: 103 n. 69 for how these concepts relate to the documents dealing with imprisonment.

⁵⁰ Firth 2016 §5.6.

⁵¹ See handcopy in Koslova 2000. See edition in Reid 2016: 103.

⁵² See discussion in Englund 1988: 123 n. 3. See, for example, the following texts that refer to the diri months of Šu-Suen Year 1 (AUCT 3, 343, Sigrist, Gavin, Stein, and Menard 1988); Šu-Suen Year 2 (AUCT 3, 393, Sigrist, Gavin, Stein, and Menard 1988); Šu-Suen Year 3 (AnOr 1, 186 Schneider 1931). Still note Firth 2016 who warns against being fooled by anomalous attestations that do not mark a leap year. For this reason, I follow Firth’s reconstruction.

⁵³ Gomi and Yildiz 2001. See too Reid 2016: 104.

⁵⁴ Gomi and Yildiz 1997.

⁵⁵ For lengths of time in other periods, see, for example, Kleber and Frahm 2006: 116 n. 30.

⁵⁶ Frankena 1966: 50–51. See handcopy in Pinches 1896: plate 19. See edition in Reid 2016: 105–107. See too transliteration and translation in Ungnad 1914: text 154 (pp. 128–29).

⁵⁷ See edition and bibliography in Veenhof 2005: 146–47.

⁵⁸ See, for example, the Old Babylonian texts, AbB 14, 29, cited below (Veenhof 2005: 24–25; Ungnad 1914 BB 143) and AbB 11, 25 (Stol 1986: 14–15; Ungnad 1915: pl. XVII, no.25; Ungnad 1920: 19–20, no. 25). AbB 11, 25: 7´–9´ ˹al˺-li-ik aṣ-ṣa-ab-ta-šu / iš-tu u₄.4.kam a-di a-la-ak-ki / a-mu-ru i-na bi-ti ka-li: “I went (and) apprehended him. For four days, until I noticed your going/coming, he was being detained in the house” (after Stol 1986: 14–15).

⁵⁹ See Dossin 1950 for this text. Note the discussion of length of time at Mari in Sasson 1977: 109.

⁶⁰ Durand 2000: 67–68 and 250.

⁶¹ See discussion in Reid 2017b: 153–54, 176–77.

⁶² See the pursuit, capture, and detainment of runaways in Reid 2015.