This book brings to light everyday economic and legal sources of three large exiled West Semitic communities, first resettled on Babylonian soil following the western campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar II (which took place throughout his reign, 604–562 bce; R. Da Riva, AfO Beih. 32, Vienna, 2012); more specifically our corpus starts 15 years after the final destruction of Jerusalem and the subjugation of the kingdom of Judah (earliest text 33 Nbk, i.e. 572 bce). Nearly two decades after appearing on the antiquities market, this volume encapsulates the editions of around half of a lot of some 200 Neo-Babylonian and Early Achaemenid cuneiform tablets now housed in private collections (Sofer, Schøyen and Moussaieff). In particular the book is commended for publishing 54 texts (20 still pending publication by Wunsch; see below) of a now famous archive detailing the business, agricultural and legal activities across three generations (pp. 7–8) of a prominent Judean family from the “town of Judah” (Āl-Yahūdu; initially Ālu ša Yahūdāyi “town of the Judeans”), or simply Yahūdu (R. Zadok, NABU 2015/86, 142–4). It is accompanied by two other archival groups distinguishable primarily by their place of issue and their main protagonists, broadly comparable in size and content: 47 texts (24 still pending publication; estimates are based on the indices) from “town of (Bīt)-Našar” (Ālu-ša-(Bīt)-Našar), located near Yahūdu; and close to 60 texts, of which only two appear in the present volume, originating in what was probably an administrative centre called Bīt-Abī-râm, yet can be better identified with their main protagonist: a royal agent of the Crown Prince's estate by the name of Zabba-šar-uṣur (Zšu). The Judeans and their West Semitic neighbours, like many other Babylonians or displaced foreigners on Babylonian soil, were granted parcels of land by the crown (commonly bīt qašti “bow-fief”) – date gardens and grain producing fields – which they were allowed to cultivate in lieu of service obligations (i.e. taxation) in the army or in construction work gangs (”land-for-service” sector; G. van Driel, Elusive Silver, PIHANS 95, Leiden, 2002, 226 ff.).
In fact, texts from these archives appeared in the late 1990s (Moussaieff Collection). F. Joannès and A. Lemaire published six Zšu texts (RA 90, 1996, 41–60), and three texts from Yahūdu and Našar (Transeuphratène 17, 1999, 17–34). K. Abraham published two important Yahūdu deeds, one marriage agreement and one inheritance division (AfO 51, 2005–06, 198–219; Hebrew Bible Monographs 8, Sheffield, 2007, 206–21). As detailed in the book under review (p. 6), a companion volume by Wunsch (with contributions by Pearce) will offer a more nuanced archival study, and editions of the second half of the lot of texts kept in the Schøyen Collection, which includes additions to the Yahūdu and Našar archives alongside the main bulk of the Zšu archive (Wunsch, Babylonische Archive 6, Dresden, forthcoming; abbreviated BaAr 6).
First, some general remarks on the corpus and its presentation (henceforth CUSAS 28). CUSAS 28 is divided into four sections preceded by three catalogues: one arranged by text number (pp. xxxiv–xxxvi), one thematic (xxxvii), and a chronological catalogue including the forthcoming BaAr 6 texts (xxxviii–xlii). Then comes a two-part socio-historical introductory section, a detailed analysis of each personal name, most of them naturally West Semitic, including references to previous attestations in relevant corpora like Neo-Assyrian Names (PNA), Neo-Babylonian Names (Tallqvist's NBN, and Zadok's many publications on Judeans and other West Semites), Biblical names and Murašû texts. This analytical name catalogue will be indispensable to any future study of West Semitic onomastics and culture in Babylonia. The main bulk are the text editions, their hand copies and accompanying short textual and thematic commentaries, followed by expansive indices of persons with their kinship affiliations (prosopographical index), scribes and their tablets, comparison of Yahwistic names across different corpora, geographical names, and a selective Akkadian and Sumerian glossary. Rounding up the book are tablet photographs including duplicates (e.g. no. 16), almost all of them in good quality. The authors should be praised for supplying such useful tools for further study. Corrigenda were soon published on the authors’ Academia.edu pages and on the website of the Cornell Cuneiform Library (http://cuneiform.library.cornell.edu/, keyword CUSAS 28).
The decision to incorporate the BaAr 6 materials in the indices before their full publication helps to complete the uneven picture caused by publication based on the tablets’ existence in different private collections. For instance, the geographical index indicates that Babylon, which is hardly mentioned in the tablets of CUSAS 28, does appear in ten tablets from BaAr 6; most of them belong to the extensive business dealings of Zšu (19 Dar–3 Xer). These data reflect the less provincial character of the Zšu archive, given its more frequent contact with the capital.
Many will surely dwell on the rich linguistic and onomastic evidence in CUSAS 28, and others might discuss its contribution to our knowledge of the geographical hinterland east and south of Nippur, where Yahūdu and Našar were very likely established (pp. 6–7). Presently, I wish to point out some succinct features of the documentation in each of the archival groups:
(1) The Yahūdu archive is the family archive of Ahīqam/Ahiaqam (majority of spellings write initial šeš-ia/iá-…) son of Rapā-Yāma. He, his father, some of his sons and business partners are the principal actors in the archive, which is made up mostly of promissory notes for debts of barley and dates for the rental payments on the bow-fiefs of his colleagues in Yahūdu, as well as rental, sale and exchange of property (nos 26, 46), slaves (nos 5, 52) and livestock (nos 29, 31, 50–51); only two documents deal with family matters like inheritance (no 45) and marriage (K. Abraham, AfO 51, 198–219). The deeds issued under Darius I reflect advancement in his wealth and position within the local hierarchy of farms under the Achaemenids. Cambyses extended the settlement block around Yahūdu in 530 bce. One small dossier (nos 41, 47–51) which is related to the larger Ahiaqam archive comes from a place named “Kingstown of the new bow-fief” (uru lugalša qašti eššetu), first attested on the accession year of Cambyses.
(2) The Našar archive is rather uniform in character, and concerned with the business affairs of Ahīqar/Ahiaqar son of Rīmūt and his brother Ah-immê. His deeds deal with several agricultural joint ventures to cultivate fields (ana errēšuti) and the cattle he acquired for these purposes (e.g. nos 62, 64, 67, 69, 76–80). In many promissory notes he is the creditor for a certain amount of dates against a pledge of the debtor's field (e.g. nos 70, 72–3), which might have a similar background to instances in which he covered tax payments for certain individuals (e.g. nos 86, 91).
Marginal as they are in the Neo-Babylonian urban scenery, the chronological and onomastic intensity of Yahūdu and Našar allow these archives to advance a narrative thus far dominated by the Biblical account of exile and return on the one side, and the Late Achaemenid Murašû archive on the other. We should thank the authors for their efficient and beautifully presented publication of this part of the corpus, and await the full publication of the rest in due course.
