A (Humorous) Model Court Case about Adultery (IM 28051; Volk #39)
Introduction
The following unprovenanced and undated text records what appears to be a legal case about adultery. J. van Dijk (1962) called it an Ehescheidungsprozeß ‘divorce process’. S. Greengus (1969-1970) called it a “textbook case of adultery in ancient Mesopotamia.” Its humorous elements betray that, in all likelihood, it was a modal court case, a literary genre first established by Thorkild Jacobsen (1959). This genre has been variously called “literary legal decisions” (Greengus), “zu Übungszwecken benutzte Rechtsurkunden” (J. Renger), and “model court records” / “model court cases” (M. Roth). The majority of such model legal cases come from Old Babylonian Nippur and should otherwise be kept distinct from Ur III ditilas such as here and here despite superficial similarities.
N.b., this post is part of a series of my translations of Sumerian texts which I translated in my Sumerian class at Hopkins this semester. In preparation for my upcoming Sumerian final on May 9th, I plan to review all the texts which we read this semester. In what follows, I present the inscription’s line drawing followed by a transliteration of the cuneiform, translation, and brief philological commentary.
Line Drawing
Transliteration
(1) [deš4?]-dar-um-mi | [du]mu-munus i3-li2-a-z[u] | [de]r2-ra-ma-lik-e | [na]m-dam-še3 ba-an-tuku | (5) [a-r]a2-diš-kam | [ é]-še-ni in-buru3[1] | [a-r]a2-min-kam-ma-ka | [dugš]ab[2] i3-g̃iš-ka-ni | [g̃]al2 bi2-in-taka4-ma | (10) tug2 i-ni-in-dul | a-ra2-eš5-kam-ma-ka | ugu lu2-ka[3] in-dab5 | su lu2-ka g̃iš-nu2-a | in-keš2[4] | (15) pu-uḫ2-ru-um-še3 in-il2[5] | pu-uḫ2-ru-um-e | mu lu2 ugu-na | al-dab5-ba-aš | ku3-dam-taka4-ni [x ma-na ku3-babbar] | (20) i-ni-in-g̃ar-r[e-eš] | [ ][6] sur-ra gal4-la-a-[ni] | um[bin][7] i[n]-ku5-ru-ne | giri17-ni g̃išgag-si-sa2 in-buru3-uš | uruki nig̃in-e-de3[8] | (25) lugal-e | [ba]-an-se3 | [di-dab5-b]a-lugal-la-kam | [diš-m]e-dda-gan-zi-mu/g̃u10 | maškim-bi-im[9]
————
[1] Volk reads [es]aĝx ([E2].ŠE)-ni in-bùru. van Dijk reads [tùg] še in-šu4. Greengus normalizes [É].ŠE.ni in.buru3(U).
[2] wr. PA.IB = šab
[3] wr. U.KA = ugu
[4] Or van Dijk’s in-kešda
[5] This line was (presumably inadvertently) left out of Greengus’s edition.
[6] Volk reads [kiši4? x ù] with the note, “The interpretation of the faint traces at the beginning of line 21 as kiši4 is highly tentative, though persuasive.”
[7] Partially reconstructed, but apparently wr. GAD.KID2.UR2 = umbin (so Volk, van Dijk, and Greengus)
[8] wr. LAGAB.LAGAB = nig̃in. Alternatively, Volk transliterates the line iriki NIĜIN2-NIĜIN2-e-dè.
[9] wr. PA.KA4 = maškim
Translation(s)
My translation: Erra-mālik took Eštar-ummī, the daughter of Ilī-Azu, in marriage.[1] First, she broke into his granary.[2] Second, she opened his jar of oil, then she covered it with a cloth. Third, he seized her on top of a man; he tied her to the body of the man on the bed! He carried her to the assembly. The assembly, because they seized a man on top of her, they imposed (lit. ‘placed’) her divorce payment [as X mina of silver]. [ ] They shaved her vulva; they perforated her nose with an arrow; in order to lead her around the city, the king gave her over![3] It was the decision of the king! Išme-Dagan-zimu was its bailiff.
J. van Dijk 1962: (1) Eštarrum[i], die [To]chter des Ilī’as[ûm], hat Erramālik zur Ehefr[au] genommen. (5) [Er]stens: Er hat ihr [Kleidung], Gerste (und) Öl ,gestellt’. [Zwei]tens: Seinen [Kr]ug mit Sesamöl hat er geöffnet und (10) sie mit einem Kleid bedeckt. Drittens: Sie hat ihn auf einem Manne ertappt; ,auf den Leib des Mannes hat sie das Bett gebunden (15) (und) es zur Ratsversammlung gebracht’. Die Ratsversammlung auf Grund dessen, daß sie einen Mann auf ihm ertappt hatte, [hat] ihr [. . . .Minen Sil]ber als Scheidegeld (20) zugesprochen; [ ]. . . und seine Scham haben sie [sch]eren lassen; seine Nase haben sie mit einem ,Pfeil’ durchbohrt. Der König (25) hat ihn zum Herumführen durch die Stadt übergeben. Es ist ein [Urte]il des Königs. [Iš]mēdaganzimu, [………] war Kommissar.
Greengus 1969-1970 (literal; reflecting original syntax): (1) Eštar-ummī daughter of Ilī-asû did Irra-malik take in marriage. (5) In the first place, she burglarized his storeroom. In the second place in his oil jar she made an opening and (10) covered it up with a cloth. In the third place, he caught her upon a man; to the body of the man on the bed he tied her (15) (and) carried her to the assembly. The assembly, because with a man upon her she was caught, his/her divorce money… (20) (they) decided … (her) pudendum they shaved; they bored her nose with an arrow (and) to be led around the city (25) the king gave her over. It is a decision of the king. Išme-Dagan-zimu was deputy.
————
[1] nam.dam.šè ‘in marriage’: lit. ‘toward/with regard to matrimony’ (=the status of being spouse)
[2] é.še.ani ì.n.bùru.∅ ‘she broke into his granary’: lit. ‘she perforated his (store)house of grain’
[3] The translation of ln. 25-26 follows Greengus as it is relatively noncommittal. The precise meaning is unclear. The vb. sè means ‘to equal, compare, compete, be equal to, rival’. Thus, two possible interpretations are (1) “the king became a rival to her” (allowing the public shaming to happen), or (2) “the king treated her as equal (to a man, slave, etc.)” (again, allowing the public shaming to happen). The shaving of a vulva and being led around the city could have been interpreted as humorous to the young (teenage?) scribes (boys!) responsible for composing this modal legal case.
Philological Commentary
- ln. 1: Ištar-ummī is an Akkadian personal name meaning ‘(the goddess) Ištar is my mother’.
- ln. 3: Erra-mālik is an Akkadian personal name meaning ‘(the god) Erra is ruler’
- ln. 5: ara.1.kam ‘first’: lit. perhaps ‘it being the first time’. Paul Haupt (1922) understood the suffix kam to be composed of the genitive particle (wr. -ka) plus the copula (usually wr. –àm [A.AN]), lit. meaning ‘being of one’, i.e. ‘first’.
- ln. 6: é.še is a known word from lexical lists meaning ‘granary’ or ‘storehouse’ (Greengus 1969: 35).
- ln. 6: ì.n.bùru.∅: hamtu transitive with 3rd sg. animate agent from bùru ‘to perforate’[1]
- ln. 8-9: s/šab ìg̃eš.ak.ani(.e) g̃ál bi.n.taka4.ma ‘she opened his jar of oil’:
-
- s/šab: the quality of the sibilant is unclear.[2]
- ìg̃eš: a common way to write ‘oil’, variant of ì.[3] Marked here with final loc.-term. /e/ marking the second object of a compound vb.
- g̃ál bi.n.taka4.ma: hamtu transitive with 3rd sg. animate agent from the compound vb. g̃ál–taka4 ‘to open’. The final -ma is perhaps due to Akk. influence to mark logical/temporal succession, translated here as ‘then’.
-
- ln. 10: ì.ni.n.dul. ‘she covered it’: hamtu transitive with 3rd sg. animate agent from dul ‘to cover’[4]
- ln. 11-15: As observed by Greengus (1969: 35), the three charges against the defendant (i.e., the wife) are increasingly more serious than the previous. According to his interpretation, which I think is correct, the agent (=subject) of the verbs changes in the third instance, so that the husband is now the agent of the verbs ‘seize, tie, carry,’ etc.
- ln. 21-22: gala.ani umbin ì.n.kudr.ene ‘they shaved her vulva’: an act of shame. For gala, see fn. 5.[5] For the compound vb. umbin–kudr, see fn. 6.[6]
- ln. 25: giri17.ani g̃išgag.si.sa2 ì.n.buru3.eš ‘they perforated her nose with an arrow’. Volk, Greengus, and van Dijk all read KA as kirix/giri17 ‘nose’, which makes sense. Of several more common words for arrow (e.g. ti), the authors choose a rare term, which reflects either scribal creativity or the fact that we do not understand the precise semantic nuance of gagsisa.[7]
- ln. 29: maškim.bi.àm: A copular clause with the third sg. copula -àm where the (written) vowel is colored to an /i/.
————
[1] ePSD: burud [PERFORATE] (49x: Old Akkadian, Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. burudx(U) “breach, hole; depression, low-lying area, depth; to perforate; (to be) deep” Akk. palāšu; šapālu; pilšu; šupālu; šuplu
[2] ePSD: sab [JAR] (12x: Old Babylonian) wr. dugsab; sa2-ab “an oil jar” Akk. šappu
[3] ePSD: iĝeš [OIL] (2209x: Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian, unknown) wr. i3-ĝeš “oil”. Cp. the more common ì [OIL] (8654x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian, unknown) wr. i3; u5; u2 “oil; butter; container for oil” Akk. tallum; šamnu
[4] ePSD: dul [COVER] (260x: ED IIIb, Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. dul; dul9; dul5; dulx(DUN3) “to cover” Akk. katāmu
[5] ePSD: gala [VULVA] (58x: Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. gal4-la; gal4 “female genitals, vulva” Akk. bişşūru
[6] ePSD: umbin TAR [SHAVE] wr. ĝešumbin TAR “to shave” Akk. gullubu
[7] ePSD: gagsisa [ARROW] (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. ĝešgag-si-sa2 “arrow”
Bibliography
Greengus, Samuel. “A Textbook Case of Adultery in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Hebrew Union College Annual 40/41 (1969-1970): 33-44.
Hallo, William W. “A Model Court Case Concerning Inheritance,” in Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen. Edited by Tzvi Abusch. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2002.
Haupt, Paul. “The Sumerian Affixes TAM and KAM,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 42 (1922): 301-304.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. “An Ancient Mesopotamian Trial for Homicide,” in Studia Biblica et Orientalia III: Oriens Antiquus. Rome, 1959.
Milstein, Sara. “Teaching with a Dose of Humor in the Mesopotamian Unica,” in “A Community of Peoples”: Studies on Society and Politics in the Bible and Ancient Near East in Honor of Daniel E. Fleming. Harvard Semitic Studies 69. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2022.
Van Dijk, J. “Neusumerische Gerichtsurkunden in Bagdad,” ZA 55 (1962): 70-90.
Volk, Konrad. A Sumerian Chrestomathy. Subsidia et Instrumenta Linguarum Orientis 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2012.
Westbrook, Raymond. “Adultery in Ancient Near Eastern Law,” Revue Biblique 97, no. 4 (1990): 542-580.
Postscript
Shortly after publishing this post, I came across Sara Milstein’s (2022) discussion of the text in her chapter, “Teaching with a Dose of Humor in the Mesopotamian Unica,” published in the Daniel Fleming fs. (now included in the bibliography above). I was glad to see her treatment was much in line with the interpretation offered above (which is otherwise not original to me anyway). At the end of the relevant section, she writes, “All that said, is the text actually funny? I would say yes, on several counts.” Without reciting her reasons here, I agree. I also liked her concluding line, which I hadn’t previously considered: “In this case, the depiction of the wife’s crime and humiliation–especially when set in an imaginary legal context–would have worked inversely to enforce the norm of marital fidelity.” Yet again, I agree.
About The Author
Gilgameš and Agga (Lines 1-17) 
Law Code of Lipit-Ištar (Laws 8-18; CBS8284) 
Gudea Cylinder A xviii 1-28 (E3/1.1.7.CylA) 
Gudea Cylinder A iii 1-29 (E3/1.1.7.CylA) 
Gudea Cylinder A ii 1-29 (E3/1.1.7.CylA) 
Gudea Cylinder A i 1-29 (RIME E3/1.1.7.CylA)