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.