Annotated List of Hanšû Land in Borsippa

In: The Social World of the Babylonian Priest
Free access

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

hanšû ša1

1) bīt Abunāya (or, Adnāya): one hears of this estate in the famous case of high treason committed against King Nebuchadnezzar ii in his eleventh regnal year.2 The Abunāya family seems to have lost this land already before the reign of Nebuchadnezzar ii. The history recounted in this text tells us that this hanšû was taken from the traitor of the Rēš-ummāni family and returned to the Ezida temple to which it had previously belonged. It was then given to an individual of the Šigûa clan.

1b) Nabû-remēni//Abunāya (or, Adnāya): an individual of the Ša-ṭābtišu clan (and his uncle) sold a part of this hanšû estate to the Kidin-Sîn clan in the early Neo-Babylonian period (VS 5 140; date lost).

2) bīt Apkallu: this property is recorded between the reigns of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn and Nabonidus (ca. 664–548 bce). The first attestation of this hanšû dates to Ššu 04 at the occasion of an inheritance division in the Aqar-Nabû family (OECT 12 A 83). This text probably entered the archive of the Ea-ilūtu-bani family retroactively when a member acquired the land. It is found in their possession between circa Nbk 21+ (ybc 9194) and Nbk 40 (ybc 9189). At one point a share of this hanšû was held by the Ilī-bānis (a clan related to the Ea-ilūtu-bani through marriage) as can be seen from text BM 96263 (Nbn 08). Note that most documents dealing with this property do not use the term hanšû (e.g. TuM 2/3 151, tcl 12 56, oect 12 A 180).

3) bīt Ašgandu (or, Šukandu): this property occurs for the first time in an inheritance division of the Ilia family in the reign of Nabonidus (BM 94587, Nbn 13, note that here the term hanšû is not used). Various texts record the subsequent management of this land by the family (e.g. BM 95042, hsm 1904.4.23).3 The Ilias acquired an additional share from the Nappāhu family in Dar 06 (BM 95042).

4) bīt Atkuppu: this hanšû is mentioned once in Nbk 11 (tcl 12 30). The text records the sale of three larger plots in this hanšû unit by the Nannāhus to a clan whose name is unfortunately not preserved. Members of the Atkuppu family feature as neighbours of two of the sold plots.

5) bīt Bābāya: this hanšû estate is only mentioned once in a cultivation contract from the Gallābu family archive (BM 96291, Nbn 12). Note that the scribe comes from the Babāya clan, suggesting that this clan kept an interest in their eponymous land.

6) bīt mār Bā’iru: land in this unit is bought by the Rē’i-alpis from an individual without family name in Dar 12 (BM 26510). The completion of payment was still due a year and a half later (BM 94540, Dar 14). The land might have been sold together with various other pieces of property to an unknown buyer in Dar 20 (BM 26576 = AHxv no. 192).

7) bīt Banê-ša-ilia: in BM 93001 (Kan 07) two plots of land in this hanšû are exchanged between relatives of the Banê-ša-ilia clan.

7b) Šumā//Banê-ša-ilia: this estate is mentioned once in a cultivation contract arranged within the Banê-ša-ilia family (BM 27854, Kan 19).

8) Nabû-šumu-iškun//Bārû: a share in this hanšû was bought by the Adad-nāṣirs from the Barû clan sometimes before Nbk 14 (BM 26392). This field probably came into the possession of the Atkuppu family upon marrying a daughter of the Adad-nāṣir family.4

9) bīt Basia: in Nbn 09 a woman from the Basia family donated her dowry field in this hanšû to her son who was a descendant of the same clan (BM 21975). At least one of the gardens in this hanšû was used as dowry property for a woman of the Ṣillāya family who was married to Šaddinnu//Bēliya’u. The Basia family, however, still owned certain rights to the land, and members occasionally appear as co-owners or creditors in imittu texts. While the Bēliya’us seem to have had their own interest in this area (BM 28912, Dar 20), various texts bear witness to the fact that the dowry field of the Ṣillāyas came under management of the Bēliya’u family after marriage (e.g. BM 28961, Cam 07; BM 28952, Dar 10?; and BM 96337, Dar 27). Ownership of this hanšû unit was obviously complex with as many as three clans holding rights to it simultaneously: Basia, Bēliya’u, and Ṣillāya (e.g. BM 96389, date lost).

10) bīt Bēlāya: a garden in this hanšû was held as a pledge for a debt of silver by the Gallābu family in Nbn 10 (BM 96239). Unfortunately, the family name of the debtor is lost. The Kudurrānu family might also have owned a piece of land in this unit as early as Nbn 13 (BM 22064, term hanšû not used), if indeed it concerns the same plot mentioned in BM 22012 (Nbk iv 01, term hanšû used).

11) bīt Bēliya’u: this estate is mentioned in BM 28904, dated Nbk 33. It is thought to mark the arrival of the Bēliya’u family in the Borsippa milieu.5 The text records how the Bēliya’u clan receives lands in the hanšû [PN] ša Kidin-Sîn from a fellow baker clan. While the designation of hanšû is not (yet) attached to this newly created property, called only bīt Bēliya’u, the text does seem to refer to it as ‘this hanšû’ (ll. 1–2: 11š šá é men-ia-[ú…] ina 50-a4). Incidentally, the fact that the Bēliya’u clan, a newcomer in town and the latest addition to the prebendary bakers of Nabû, receives land in or next to estates held by other baker clans like the Kidin-Sîn and Esagil-mansum, suggests a link between hanšû property and professional identity. One wonders whether the allocation of hanšû land was not related to or conditional on the performance of certain services, at least in its original stage. This could also be inferred from the use of ‘son’ or perhaps ‘member’ (māru and aplu) in the designation of hanšû units attached to various professional (family) names: hanšû ša mār Bā’iru (fisherman), hanšû ša mār Lāsimu (express messenger/scout), and hanšû ša apil Nappāhu (smith).

12) bīt Bibbê: this unit is mentioned in TuM 2/3 137 (Camb 02). The owner is from the Ilī-bāni family. The family name Bibbê is only attested three times in the corpus and is found more often as a personal name of Chaldean individuals like for example the royal magnate called Bibêa, son of Dakūru, in the Hofkalender of King Nebuchadnezzar ii.6

13) bīt Bitahhi: BM 26504//BM 26481 (Cam [x]) documents the exchange of fields between two relatives of the Rē’i-alpi clan. A plot in the hanšû ša Rē’i-sisê and some additional silver were exchanged against a larger plot in the hanšû ša bīt Bitahhi. While the family name Bitahhi is only attested twice in the Borsippa corpus, there is prosopographical evidence suggesting that it was an alternative spelling for the somewhat better-known family name of Barihi.

14) Kāṣir//Ēdu-ēṭir: a plot in this unit was reclaimed by a member of the homonymous clan through the exchange of a field with the Išpāru family in BM 17599 (Npl 09). Note that the Ēdu-ēṭir clan still held neighbouring plots.

15) bīt Esagil: in Nbk 39 a plot in this hanšû was owned by the Bābāyas (VS 3 24). This text records the payment of an amount of dates for the services to the ‘canal inspector’ (gugallu) of Borsippa. The fact that this document belongs to the Atkuppu archive suggests that this family had a stake in this land as well. That this hanšû refers to the Esagil temple and not to a family is suggested by the absence of a Personenkeil.

16) bīt Esagil-mansum: this unit is found in two documents recording a transfer of property within the homonymous family. In BM 29379 (Cam 07) a woman donates a garden in bīt Esagil-mansum to her son. In BM 28902 (Dar 01) two individuals from the same family exchange date palm gardens (parts of the ancestral patrimony, bīt abišu). A share of this estate came into the possession of the Ea-ilūtu-bani family, in whose archive it is found in Nbk iii 00 (yos 17 8).7 Between Dar 09 and Dar 26, a plot in this hanšû (probably as part of the dowry of the Ṣillāya family, see hanšû bīt Basia above) was held by the Basia, Bēliya’u, and Ṣillāya families (e.g. VS 3 104, 09; BM 28984, Dar 14; BM 29432, Dar 21; BM 28989, Dar 26; and BM 96186, Dar x).

17) bīt Gallābu: parts of this estate were already lost to the ancestral family during or even before the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar ii when it was controlled by the Ea-ilūtu-banis (ybc 9158). After being divided and partly sold to the Iddin-Papsukkal family, a member of the Gallābu clan was able to reclaim some of his ancestral land during the reign of Nabonidus (BM 96351). This land was subsequently sold off to the Mannu-gērûšus (BM 29401). According to R. Zadok, the Ilia family also owned a share of land in this hanšû unit.8

18) tamirtu humamātu: land in this hanšû was sold by a member of the Gallābu family to the Mudammiq-Marduk family. However, in BM 96267 (Nbn 06) this transaction was successfully contested and reclaimed by a brother of the seller.

19) Ahu-ēreš//Huršanāya: this estate is mentioned in BM 87239 (Nbk 11). In this text a member of the Nabû-šemê family sells two kur of land stretching over this hanšû and the hanšû šaNabû-ēṭir//Purattāya for the staggering amount of seventy-two minas of silver to the Pahhāru family. The Huršanāya family is attested only once in the corpus (BM 28826).

20) bīt Huṣābu: in the earliest documentation of this unit the land is (temporarily) held by Banê-ša-ilia as collateral for a debt of silver due from a member of the Huṣābu family (TuM 2/3 106, Nbk 15). Another dossier documents the acquisition of a garden in this hanšû by the Rē’i-alpis. The first text shows that a member of the Adad-ibni clan bought part of this land from the Mubannû clan, which had previously bought it from the Asalluhi-mansums (before Cam 06, VS 5 48). This share was then sold to a member of the Atkuppu family (BM 85239 and BM 26623, Dar 03). In a document dated one year later it is, however, revealed that the Atkuppu acted only as a proxy for the actual buyer from the Rē’i-alpi family (BM 82619). Documentation for this land continues until Dar 18 (e.g. BM 82713, BM 94716, and BM 102022).

21) Iddin-Amurru: the earliest secured attestation of this hanšû comes from BM 26487 (Nbk 22). Rēmūt-Gula//Rē’i-alpi requests his son-in-law from the fMaqartu family to assign property to his wife. He assigns to her the ownership of a house and a garden on the nār-Mihir in the hanšû ša Iddin-dx. While the reading of the name is unsure, this is one of the few hanšûs in Borsippa named after an individual without a family name. Contrary to, for example, Uruk where Iddin-Amurru can denote an ancestral name, in Borsippa it is only attested as a personal name. That it should be interpreted as such in this case also is suggested by the lack of the term ‘house’ or ‘family’ (bīt). Moreover, in Dar 00 Nabû-mukīn-zēri//Rē’i-alpi showed further interest in this (hanšû) area and exchanged three slaves with the Allānu family for a garden in the vicinity of the nār-Mihir in the Iddin-Amurru area (BM 94546, hanšû not mentioned).

22) bīt Iddin-Papsukkal: according to oect 12 AB 241 (Cyr 06), a man from the Aqar-Nabû family and his wife from the Huṣābu family sold four plots in this hanšû to the Ahiya’ūtus. The text further specifies that the property was held undivided with the Nūr-Papsukkal and the Išparu families. Moreover, the Iddin-Papsukkal still owned neighbouring plots. Another neighbour is Nabû-mukīn-zēri//Rē’i-alpi who would later buy this land from the Ahiya’ūtu family (BM 82764 Dar 02).

22b) Saggillu//Iddin-Papsukkal: this hanšû is attested in BM 26493 (ca. Nbk 08). The Raksu family sold the land to an individual of the Adad-nāṣir clan. The buyer already owned a neighbouring plot. This text probably belongs to the Atkuppu archive and it is likely that this field entered into their possession through the marriage alliance with the Adad-nāṣir family.

23) bīt (Ea-)ilūtu-bani: this hanšû is mentioned in two cultivation related contracts (nbc 8362, AmM 02 and BM 94780, Nbn 13) involving Zēru-Bābili//Ea-ilūtu-bani and his son, respectively. Some parts of this hanšû were presumably lost to the ancestral family at an earlier phase because in Nbk 18 the Ilī-bāni family (linked to the Ea-ilūtu-banis by marriage) bought a plot in this hanšû from the Damēqu family (TuM 2/3 15).

23b) Illûa//(Ea-)ilūtu-bani: this estate was kept largely within the Ea-ilūtu-bani family from the reign of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn until at least the reign of Cyrus. The first period of documentation is characterised by a series of sales of smaller shares between relatives (e.g. ybc 11426, Ššu 12; and oect 12 A 131, Ššu 12). The land was kept by Puhhuru//Ea-ilūtu-bani until the reign of King Nabopolassar.9 In Npl 16 Puhhuru divided this property among his sons (TuM 2/3 5) who successfully passed it down to his grandson and great-grandson (e.g. TuM 2/3 195, Nbk 01; TuM 2/3 135, Ner 03; 94780, Nbn 13; and BM 94692, Cyr 06). This dossier has been discussed extensively in the past.10

23c) Nādin-ahi//(Ea-)ilūtu-bani: evidence on this hanšû came into existence when the Ea-ilūtu-bani family sold various plots to the Iddin-Papsukkal family around the 660s bce (TuM 2/3 17, tcl 12 9, and TuM 2/3 11). It was sold to an individual member of the Nappāhu clan only a short time later (TuM 2/3 12, Ššu 10). The land eventually ended up in the possession of the Gallābus. It was only sometime during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar ii, some fifty years later, that the Ea-ilūtu-bani family regained this property (OECT 12 A 163).

23d) Suppê-Bēl//(Ea-)ilūtu-bani: in Ššu 12 Puhhuru//Ea-ilūtu-bani exchanged parts of this hanšû for a plot in the hanšû ša bīt Pahhāru owned by the šāpiru of the brewers from the Ilia family (TuM 2/3 23//mah 16232).11 Puhhuru already owned a neighbouring field and it has been stressed previously that this transaction was part of a coherent strategy to assemble a bloc of several pieces of land.12 That the ancestral family remained in control of most of the hanšû Suppê-Bēl//(Ea-)ilūtu-bani, however, is clear from a later transaction. In tcl 12 16 (Kan 06) Puhhuru sold a plot in this unit to a relative; both owned neighbouring plots.

24) bīt Iššakku: a garden in this hanšû was kept as pledge by the Kudurrānu family for a debt of silver against the Iššakkus in Dar 27 (BM 29007). The land was at that time held by members of the Iššakku and the Purkullu families.

25) bīt Kidin-Sîn: an orchard located here was part of the property transferred by Nabû-mukīn-zēri//Rē’i-alpi to his grandson and subsequently claimed by his own son, Rēmūt-Nabû (e.g. BM 26514, Dar 05 and BM 26492//BE 8 108, Dar 06). The land was held undivided with a member of the Kidin-Sîn clan.

25b) Nabû-šumu-līšir (or, -ukīn)//Kidin-Sîn: this hanšû is mentioned first in a complicated division of dowry property in Cam 07 (BM 94697). In this document Nabû-šumu-uṣur//Kidin-Sîn grants a garden in this unit to his daughter and her husband (Gimillu//Kidin-Sîn) as a dowry. It is not exactly clear why, but a member of the Bēliya’u also receives a share in this hanšû. One year later, Gimillu sells part of his land to Nabû-mukīn-zēri//Rē’i-alpi (BM 82656). The presence of a royal scribe (ṭupšar šarri) suggests that this sale was not completely voluntary. The transaction dragged on for another year when a re-confirmation of the sale was written (BM 82654). It seems, however, that Gimillu still owned some land in this hanšû (this time not belonging to his wife’s dowry), which he later sold to the same buyer in Dar 02 (eah 212).

25c) [PN]//Kidin-Sîn: this is the estate where members of the Bēliya’u family received land from the Kidin-Sîns in Nbk 33, see hanšû ša bīt Bēliya’u (above). It might be identical to the hanšû discussed before (25b).

26) bīt Kudurru u bītfLe’itu: the dossier from the Ilia (A) family dealing with these units has been discussed elsewhere.13 The four sons of Šulā//Ilia inherited land in this area in the reign of Nabonidus. The eldest brother sold part of this property to his siblings who initially kept it undivided (e.g. BM 102289, Nbn 12; BM 26532, Nbn 13; and BM 17657, Nbn 13). The rest of the documentation concerns the management of this land by especially one of the three brothers, Marduk-šumu-ibni (e.g. BM 17641//VS 3, 196, Cam 02; BM 25718, Dar 02; BM 102012, Dar 08; and BM 102307, Dar 15). It is interesting to note that this unit is only explicitly called a hanšû once (BM 25718). The land is usually said to be located in the eblu (meaning unsure) ša bīt Kudurru u bītfLe’itu.

27) bīt Kurgarrê: based on parallel attestation this hanšû name has been restored previously by R. Zadok.14 The first attestation of this estate comes from the marriage contract between the Arad-Ea and the Rē’i-alpi families dated Dar 01.15 This land is later said to be located on the canal (harru) of the bīt Kurgarrê and probably sold by the Rē’i-alpi family to an unknown buyer in Dar 20 (BM 26576 = AHxv no. 192).

28) bīt Lahāšu: this hanšû is mentioned only once in Nbk 11 (tcl 12 30) as a neighbouring estate of the hanšû ša bīt Atkuppu (see above).

29) bīt mār Lāsimu: a garden here is sold by the Lāsimu clan to Šaddinnu//Bēliya’u in Dar 10 (BM 96289). While the term hanšû is not used in this text, it can be restored from the imittu text BM 96299 (Dar 22). Šaddinnu only completed his payment in Dar 20 when the remainder was given to the Lāsimu family (BM 29113). There are thus far only two individuals attested with the family name Lāsimu in the Borsippa corpus.

30) bīt Mubannû: a field belonging to the dowry of fNanāya-bulliṭiš//Mubannû, wife of Nabû-mukīn-zēri//Rē’i-alpi, was located in this hanšû. It is only attested in a short period between Dar 05 and Dar 09. In Dar 05 the couple assigned this plot first to their daughter fInbā (BM 101980//BM 82607) and then to their grandson Lâbâši-Marduk (BM 26514). This transaction was later cancelled to the benefit of their son Rēmūt-Nabû (BM 26492//BE 8 108 Dar 06). This land is mentioned once more when Rēmūt-Nabû used it as a pledge for 5/6 minas of silver in Dar 09 (BM 82728).

31) Nabû-mutakkil(?): this unit is mentioned in a very fragmented text in Cyr 06 (VS 5 36). It probably belonged to the Ilia (A) family.

32) bīt Naggāru: land in this hanšû was held as a pledge by the Gallābu family for a debt of barley, dates, and silver drawn against a member of the Maṣṣār-abulli family in Nbn 15 (BM 85641). According to the imittu text BM 96315 (Dar 18) Šaddinnu//Bēliya’u owned a garden here as well. He also obtained ownership of another field here in return for the old-age care of a member of the Kāṣir clan (BM 25630//BM 25653, Dar 20).

32b) Nummuru//Naggāru: three members of the Naggāru family sold this unit, apparently in its entirety, to the Ilia family in Ššu 04 (RA 10 no. 46) for only 5 shekels of silver. It should be noted, however, that no dimensions are given.

33) bīt apil Nappāhu: land in this unit was used as dowry property of fAhattu//Arad-Ea who married into the Rē’i-alpi clan in Dar 01 (BM 82609 = Roth 1989 no. 22). The management of this plot (still held with some other members of the Arad-Ea family, according to BM 26707 and BM 26561//BM 94879) is recorded until Dar 29 (BM 26335). This property was, however, temporarily pledged to the Ea-imbi family in Babylon around Dar 19 (BM 26624//BM 102002 and BM 94685).

34) bīt Nikkāya: this hanšû is mentioned as neighbouring estates of the hanšû ša bīt Atkuppu in Nbk 11 (tcl 12 30) (see above).

35) bīt Pahhāru: land in this unit was originally bought from the Damēqu family by the šāpiru of brewers of the Ilia family. The latter then exchanged it in Ššu 12 against a plot in hanšû Suppê-Bēl//(Ea-)ilūtu-bani (see above).

36) mār Pa-ni-a-su-šu-du(?): this land was part of the dowry of fAhattu//Arad-Ea who married into the Rē’i-alpi clan around Dar 01 (BM 82609 = Roth 1989 no. 22). The reading of this name is unsure.

37) Nabû-ēṭir//Purattāya: see hanšû ša Ahu-ēreš//Huršanāya above.

38) Rabî: this hanšû is mentioned once in an imittu text from the Ilī-bāni archive.16

39) bīt Rē’i-alpi: this hanšû is documented through numerous transfers of property within the Rē’i-alpi family between Nbn 00 and Dar 29. It is first attested in Nbn 00 when an individual from the Arkāt-ilāni-damqā family bought land from fAmat-Ningal//Rē’i-alpi as proxy for Nabû-mukīn-zēri//Rē’i-alpi (BM 25627). A year later Nabû-mukīn-zēri made use of another proxy to buy a different plot of land here from his relatives (BM 26636 and BM 109871). The presence of a royal scribe at the latter transaction suggests an involuntary sale, perhaps as a result of indebtedness. A final transaction is found in BM 26571 (= AHxv no. 147, Nbn 08), which records the exchange of two days of the oxherd’s prebend against a field in this hanšû. This hanšû seems to have been kept firmly in the family until Dar 29 (BM 86442).

39b) Nabû-zēru-ibni/Nabû-aplu-iddin/Rē’i-alpi: an orchard in this unit was sold in Nbn 04 by Nabû-ušebši//Rē’i-alpi (perhaps the grandson of the individual who gave his name to this hanšû) to fṬabātu//fMaqartu (Rē’i-alpi from her mother’s side) in order to pay off a long-standing debt to the Ezida temple (BE 8 44//BM 94562). The fact that it was written in the presence of the royal scribe suggests that there was pressure from higher-up. According to the quittance text BM 26687//BM 26656, fṬabātu paid the full price to Nabû-ušebši in Nbn 05. However, a few years later disagreement arose over the exact boundaries of the field. Unfortunately, from the document that records its settlement it is not entirely clear who the real owner was in Nbn 10 (BM 26648). It only tells us that the land was jointly bought by Nabû-mukīn-zēri//Rē’i-alpi and fṬabātu.

40) bīt Rē’i-sisê: a plot in this hanšû was exchanged by a member of the Ēdu-ēṭir family against land in the hanšû ša Kāṣir//Ēdu-ēṭir owned by the Išparus in Npl 09 (BM 17599). During the reign of King Nabonidus the Šagimmu family sold a share to the Huṣābus (BE 8 43). This transaction was later cancelled and the land was bought by another individual whose name is lost (BM 26474). During the reign of King Cambyses shares in this hanšû came under control of the Rē’i-alpi family. BM 26504//BM 26481 (Cam [x]) records the exchange of two fields within the Rē’i-alpi clan: a field in the hanšû ša Rē’i-sisê was exchanged for one in the hanšû ša bīt Bitahhi. The land was later sold to the Šarrahus, a family related to the Rē’i-alpi family by marriage.

41) bīt Rīšāya: this hanšû is attested as a dowry field in BM 29375 ([Ach?] 04), a document that records the division of dowry gifts among three generations of the Ardūtu family. Given that one of the daughters married into the Rē’i-alpi family, it is likely that this land followed her into the new conjugal household.

42) bīt Ṣillāya: land in this hanšû is attested in the Bēliya’u archive between Dar 09 (BM 96309) and Dar 18 (VS 3 119). It is very likely that the Ṣillāya clan held this land until it married one of its daughters to the Šaddinnu//Bēliya’u, sometime during the reign of King Cambyses, and used it as dowry property.

43) Ša-Nabû-šū: a field in this hanšû was bought by the Egibis from Babylon in Nbn 08, perhaps from the Arad-Ea family.17

44) bīt Ṭābihu: Šaddinnu//Bēliya’u bought a date grove in this estate in Dar 20 from the Ibnāya family (VS 5 92). It is interesting to see that members of the Ibnāya family, who traditionally performed the function of the prebendary butcher of Nabû, also held land in the hanšû of the butcher (ṭābihu).


The list of hanšû land is in alphabetic order, following the family or professional name when units are identified by PN//FN. The references to most of these hanšû units can be found in Zadok 2006.


Weidner 1956: 1–5.


Zadok 2006: 440.


See Abraham [forthcoming].


Waerzeggers 2010: 207–208.


Beaulieu 2013a: 34.


Joannès 1989: 326.


Zadok 2006: 431.


Note that in most texts the term hanšû is not used. See, for example, TuM 2/3 133, Kan 04 and TuM 2/3 134, Npl 07.


Joannès 1989: 65f. and Nielsen 2011: 91f.


See Joannès 1989: 174 for an edition of this text. Corrections can be found in Nielsen 2011: 92+310.


Joannès 1989: 66–67.


Jursa et al. 2010: 368–371.


Zadok 2006: 442.


BM 82609 = Roth 1989 no. 22.


See Joannès 1989: 87 and 269.


Wunsch 2000: no. 116.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.