916
it is of an official or more or less “private” character. The fact that
the preserved copy probably is a school tablet is irrelevant to that
question. Likewise the characteristics of the dàtu “a “arriof Achaemenid
and Seleucid times are interpreted in different ways.^18 Nonetheless,
the very fact that parties refer to them in contracts speaks in favor
of some official significance. It should be noted that in the trilingual
inscriptions of Darius I, Old Persian dàtucorresponds to dìntuin the
Akkadian version. It is to the latter term that the authorities refer
in a litigation tablet (VAS 6 99 = NRVU 700:10: a-ki-i di-ni-a-ti “á
“arri “according to the ‘laws’(?) of the king”). As this document is
dated shortly after the Achaemenid conquest (Cyrus year 3 = 536),
it is perhaps a reference to a legal institution that already existed in
the Neo-Babylonian Empire.2.1.2.2 In the latter period, especially during the reign of Nabonidus,
the king more than once interfered in the affairs of the temples
through orders to the temple administration.^192.1.3 The Administration
The situation in first millennium Babylonia did not differ greatly
from earlier periods. The bureaucratic system was highly developed
and sophisticated. Beside the central government headed by the king
there were the provincial and local administrative institutions. The
temples as economically important entities each had their own admin-
istration (discussed separately below). Incorporated into the temple
administration were royal officials, especially in the time of Nabonidus,
when the crown interfered a great deal in temple affairs. Detailed
studies of the administrative systems of first millennium Babylonia
are still lacking; to date only certain specific aspects have been treated.2.1.3.1 Central Administration
The royal administration consisted of a number of officials whose
area of authority cannot always be determined. A long, partly bro-
ken list of officials from the time of Nebuchadnezzar II, the so-called
“Hof- und Staatskalender,”^20 provides insight into the administrative
structure of that period. After the conquest of the Neo-Babylonian(^18) Petschow, “Gesetze,” 278–279, A §4.2, and see 1.1 above.
(^19) 1.2 above, see also Dandamaev, “State and Temple.. .,” 591–92.
(^20) See Unger, Babylon.. ., 282–94, pls. 52–56, cols. III–V.
westbrook_f26_911-974 8/27/03 1:36 PM Page 916