Hermitage 15552

(f)Andia ((f)A) and (f)Innā/Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti ((f)I), wife of Nidintu/Nabû-mušētiq-uddi, make statements in the assembly (puḫru) regarding the status of (f)A and her use as a slave. (f)A who is marked with the star symbol tells Nidinti-Bēl/Nabû-mukīn-zēri//Dābibī (NB), High Priest (šatammu) of Eanna, and Nabû-aḫu-iddin (NAI), Royal Overseer (ša rēš šarri bēl piqitti) of Eanna, that she had been marked and dedicated (zakû) to the Lady of Uruk by her owner (f)Etelletu(?), mother of (f)Iʼs husbandʼs father Nabû-mušētiq-uddi/Qīštia//Kurī (NMU), and that this had been written down (šaṭāru) in the writing board (lēʼu) of the Lady of Uruk in Nbk. 35. (f)I states that in Nbk. 37 NMU had concluded a contract (riksu rakāsu) with Sîn-iddin, Royal Resident (qīpu) of Eanna (restoration of his name based on his incumbency), about (f)A not having the status of an oblate, and he gave this contract to NMU. The members of the assembly then examine (amāru) the (or some?) contract carried by (f)I, and oblige her to bring (našû) and present (kullumu) to NB and NAI the said contract (again?) by Cyr. 02.00.01. Else, she will pay the Lady of Uruk a quitrent (mandattu) starting from the day that (f)A serves her.

Witnesses (neither names nor number given in the publication, but based on the line length roughly one person per line for ll. 22-27).

Scribe: Pirʼu/Eanna-šumu-ibni. 

Dispute over the status of women (private slave vs. temple-serf).

The tablet lays out the claims of two women, a slave (fA) and her mistress (fB), regarding the status of the former as a private slave or a temple-serf (širku) of Ištar. We learn about the  conflicting versions of the two women from their testimonies before C1, the temple administrator (šatammu) of Eanna, and C2, the royal supervisor (bēl piqitti) of Eanna.

fA, who is marked with a star (of Ištar), says that fD, her (original) mistress marked her with a star and dedicated her to the Lady-of-Uruk. This took place in 35 Nbk (i.e. 33 years prior to the writing of the present text), and fA was inscribed in the registry of the Lady-of-Uruk as a temple-serf of Ištar. Although not stated in the text, the dedication was probably a delayed dedication that would take effect only upon the mistress’ death.

fB, granddaughter-in-law of fD, argues that in 37 Nbk, Sîn-iddin, the royal resident (qīpu) of Eanna, wrote a tablet annulling the temple-serf status of fA who returned to E, fB’s father-in-law. This non-temple-serf-status document was apparently seen (amāru N) in the assembly (puhru). 

Now, the present text states that fB will present this document to C1 by the 1st of month X, 2 Cyr. If she does not produce it, fB will pay all the daily mandattu-payments, i.e., she will fully compensate the temple for each day that fA was not at the temple’s disposal.

Witnesses (the number of which is not included in the publication) and a scribe.

 fA= fAndia (a slave); fB= fInnāya/Nabû-ēṭer-napšāti, wife of F, (as well as daughter-in-law of E, and granddaughter-in-law of fD; C1= Nidinti-Bēl/Nabû-mukīn-zēri//Dābibī, temple administrator (šatammu) of Eanna; C2= Nabû-ahu-iddin, royal supervisor (bēl piqitti) of Eanna; fD= fEtellitu, mistress of fA and mother of E; E= Nabû-mušētiq-uddê/Qīštiya//Kurī, son of fD and father of F; F= Nidintu/Nabû-mušētiq-uddê, son of E and husband of fB.