1. Palaeographical and Philological Commentary

• Obverse, line 9: Fiette understood, in his edition, that i₇.ka.ba was for the “Kaba canal” (^i₇ka.ba) (Fiette 2018: 258-259). However, this toponym is not attested anywhere, and Groneberg 1980 does not record it. One might consider that i₇-ka.ba is rather an expression gu₂ i₇ ka=bi=a, “at the shore of the river, at its mouth”, in connection with the following line, explaining this mouth’s geographical situation.
• Reverse, line 8: Fiette understood that šu-um-ma ki-ra-am i-da-ku-u2 and translated “si on laisse mourir le verger”. According to the photograph of the tablet, one could instead read šu-um-ma ma*-ra-am i-da-ku-u2 and understand “if they lift the spade” (i.e. if they stay idle^?) (Walther Sallaberger’s personal communication). Indeed, the term kirûm, “garden, orchard” would be problematic here, as the term “field” (eqlum) of sesame is used in the text. Therefore, the verb dekûm, “to raise, to lift” should be understood here and not dâkum, “to die”. However, the idea remains the same: if the farmers do not do the work, they risk imprisonment.
• Seal 3: Földi proposed, after Stol 2012: 349, that Šēp-Sîn might be the son of Ipquša, the chief physician, and servant of the god Amurrum (Földi 2016: 2). Földi noted as well that his seal might be the one we can find in the text OECT 15 89, a farming contract of a palm grove in the Šamaš-ḫāzir archive. According to him, in that case, Šēp-Sîn would be the rakbûm-official and not the overseer of merchants of Larsa or the šāpirum-governor. Note that, like the other personalities who sealed the document, he could also be a member of the same family, a servant of Ninsiana, and not the rakbûm-official. However, we propose to follow here Stol’s and Földi’s hypothesis.
• Seal 4: Fiette restored, with some doubts, Šu-Ninsiana by considering, in particular, the list of witnesses (Fiette 2018: 259). If this restitution is valid, perhaps we should also consider that he was a servant of the goddess Ninsiana, like Dingir-manšum and Nabi-ilīšu?

For more remarks, see Fiette 2018: 259-260.

2. Historical Commentary

2.1. A Farming Contract

This text is dated to Month III/June, so the contract takes place before the sesame harvest, which should start in Month VII/October. For more details on Larsa’s agricultural cycle and cultivation and harvest of sesame in the Old Babylonian period, see Dossier A.1.1.15, Dossier A.1.1.16 and Dossier A.1.1.17.

The text attests to the expected formulas, as indicated by Fiette: we learn the farmers have rented the field (ib2.ta.e3.a.ne.ne) to cultivate it from Šamaš-ḫāzir, the owner of the area (lugal a.ša3). In contrast to the contracts for the exploitation of cereal fields, the sharing of the harvest is mentioned in this tenancy contract: Fiette indicates that the sharing rates correspond to those found in both the farmers‘ reports and the Code of Ḫammurāpi (§46) (Fiette 2018: 259).

The text refers to the area of Šamaš-ḫāzir’s sesame fields, which is 5 ikû (18,000 m²). Six farmers are responsible for collecting sesame in areas between 1 ½ and ½ ikû of the field. BIN 07 177 also tells us that farmers will keep two-thirds of produced crops. At the same time, Šamaš-ḫāzir, as the owner of the field, will receive one-third, which corresponds to 11.11% of the harvest per farmer (this is only an average because since farmers do not cultivate the same area of field, it is possible that what they keep to themselves is directly correlated to the amount of work done).

2.2. Prosopography

The designation of several persons as “servants of Ninsiana” suggests they belong to one family, with Ninsiana as their family goddess.

Šamaš-dayyān is also known in the Šamaš-ḫāzir’s Archive from OECT 15 101, a text in which he is “responsible” (ĝiri₃) of the sesame received by Zinû[individual=Zinû], Šamaš-ḫāzir’s wife.