Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture - 4 (1988): Irrigation and Cultivation in Mesopotamia, Part I

IRRIGATION AND CULTIVATION IN MESOPOTAMIA PART I

BULLETIN ON SUMERIAN AGRICULTURE Volume IV

Cambridge 1988

CONTENTS OSumerian Agriculture Gmup 1988. All rights resewed. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission of the publishers.

ISSN 0267-0658

Orders may be placed through booksellers or direct to the Sumerian Agriculture Group, Faculty of Oriental Studies, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA, U.K.

11.1-igationinLowlandMesopotarnia. . M.P. Charles

.

I .c systeme Auvia~leau sud-ouest de Baghdad H. Gasche

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I {space agricole et amenagement dgional h Man au debut du IIIe millenaire J .-Cl. Margueron

.

.

I )ic Bewasserungsanlagen in den altsumerischen KGnigsinschriften von LagaS

.

.

.

4148

.

.

49-60

.

.

61-72

13. HruSka

Notes on the irrigation system in Third Millennium Southern Babylonia P. Steinkeller I .'irrigation

. . . . .

a Mari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73-92 93-103

J.-R. Kupper l rrigation in

Kassite Babylonia W. van Soldt

.

Nco-Babylonian Agriculture . G. van Driel

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

104-120

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

121-159

.

.

.

161-172

.

.

. 173-188

l.:vidcnce for agriculture and waterworks in Babylonian mathematical texts . M.A. Powell OldBabylonianfields. M. St01

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I lydraulic management in Southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian times . . . . . . . R.C. Hunt

and bunds, ancient and modem . . . W. Pemberton, J.N. Postgate & R.F. Smyth

189-206

. . . . . . . . . . . 207-22 1

(h a l s

Printed in England by Aris & Phillips Ltd., Warminster, Wiltshire

iii

PREFACE General Editors M.A. Powell Dept. of History Northern Illinois University De Kalb Illinois 601 15 U.S.A.

J.N. Postgate Faculty of Oriental Studies University of Cambridge Sidgwick Avenue Cambridge U.K.

Addresses of contributors M.P. Charles

Institute of Archaeology, 31-34 Gordon Square, London WC1 HOPY

G. van Driel

Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, POB 9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

H. Gasche

28A Avenue de Chailly, CH-1012 Lausanne, Switzerland

B. HruSka

OrientM ostav, Mala Strana, Lsefiskd 4, 11837 Praha 1, Czechoslovakia

R.C. Hunt

Dept. of Anthropology, Brandeis University, Brown 228, Waltham Ma. 02254, U.S.A.

J.-R. Kupper

16 Avenue des ormes, Cointe-Sclessin, B-4200 Li&ge,Belgium

J.C. Margueron Histoire et archeologie de llOrient ancien, 9, Place de l'Universit6, 67084 France W. Pemberton

Sir M. McDonald & Partners, Demeter House, Station Road, Cambridge, U.K.

J.N. Postgate

Trinity College, Cambridge CB2 ITQ, U.K.

M.A. Powell

Department of History, Northern Illinois University, De Kalb, Illinois 60115, U.S.A.

R.F. Smyth

Sir M. McDonald & Partners, Demeter House, Station Road, Cambridge, U.K.

W. van Soldt

Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, POB 9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

P. Steinkeller

Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Literatures, Harvard University, 6 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, Ma. 02 138, U.S.A. Heivlinder 27, 2317 JS Leiden, The Netherlands

This volume of the Bulletin is the first half of a collection of studies which mostly derive I'rom a meeting of the Sumerian Agriculture Group in Leiden, at the invitation of the Nederlands lnstituut voor het Nabije Oosten, in July 1987. Part 11, which includes the rest of the conference contributions on imgation and cultivation, as well as articles by other scholars on the same topics, will appear as Volume 5, together with an index to both Parts. As in previous volumes, bold type is used for Sumerian, italics for Akkadian words; but bold 1s not used for logograms in Kassite or later texts. The bibliographical references tend to follow rhc individual authors' usages, but as before, Harvard system references have been preferred for Ix~oksand articles, and traditional Assyriological abbreviations for text editions (following the dictionaries: W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handworterbuch and the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary). Our first obligation as editors is to thank our hosts at Leiden for their consummate hospitality not only Klaas Veenhof and Marten Stol, but all their colleagues and other aides, who helped to make the meeting thoroughly profitable and enjoyable. Our thanks also go to the C.H.W. Johns Fund of the University of Cambridge, which met the cost of reproducing and circulating the papers in advance of the meeting. For their help in achieving the improved format of this volume, we are very grateful to a number of quarters: to the Cambridge Linguistic and Literary Computing Centre, in the shape of John Dawson, Rosemary Rodd and Beatrix Bown; to Laura Cordy at Trinity College; and to Ilonald Matthews, who helped greatly in giving the volume its final shape. Those inconsistencies of presentation which survive are the fault of the editor of the volume. Nicholas Postgate Marvin Powell

December 1988

INTRODUCTION

.

Hjstorians have always acknowledged the central role of irrigation in ancient ,Mesopotamia and at times it has been hailed as the prime factor in the creation of the earliest states. Archaeologists have drawn on reports of modern exploitation of the waters of Babylon to ,reconstruct with plausibility the ancient conditions, and excellent studies of the implications for the agricultural regime now exist. What we still lack, and what this volume begins to supply, is a detailed study of the cuneiform material from those working directly with the texts, and an attempt to marry this with the other evidence. These introductory pages are intended to give a bird's eye view of the subject so that the less specialized reader can judge where the individual contributions belong in the general scheme. In particular, emphasis will be placed on the gaps in our evidence, and on areas where the Leiden meeting revealed that more work is needed. In some cases gaps have already been filled by recent articles, and it was unnecessary to retrace the same ground at the meeting. Some of the principal recent works on matters concerned with irrigation are listed below in the bibliography. It should be stressed at the outset that we have been principally concerned with the alluvial plain of southern Iraq. While the contributions on Mari by Kupper and Margueron refer to an area north of the plain, the regime there is similar because it depends on gravity flow irrigation, and the texts, being in an Old Babylonian dialect, share terminology with the south. The non-alluvial plains of northern Iraq and north-eastern Syria are another environment, and although inigation projects are attested at different dates they are not fundamental to agriculture. For a recent brief survey of imgation in Assyria see Postgate 1987, 89-91. Almost at the same moment as the Leiden meeting the Institut Fran~aisd'Archblogie du Proche Orient with the Centre Culture1 Fran@s at Damascus organized a colloquium on "Techniques et pratiques hydro-agricoles traditionelles en domaine imgue: approck pluridisciplinaire des modes de culture avant la motorisation en Syrie" (organized by B. Geyer). The results of this colloquium should provide a valuable complement to our studies of south Mesopotamia. The hydraulic system

The essentials of the water regime of the south Iraqi plain have recently been described in detail in Adams 1981, Chapters 1-2. Much that is there is based on the observations of modem engineers in Iraq, who inevitably describe what they see today, and it is very difficult to know how exactly this reflects the conditions of 2000, 4000 or 6000 years ago. One reason is that periods of political and social upheaval mean the abandonment of one canal system and later adoption of a new one; another is that the two main rivers themselves (and the Diyala) have moved their courses, shifting further apart with the years. Much more work remains to be done on the details of the river movements (see for example the basic work on which Gasche reports below, pp. 41-8). We also have to operate with the assumption that the factors controlling the flow of the rivers have not significantly altered, although this is scarcely verifiable: it is known that around 500&3000 BC sea level and global temperatures were higher than today, and this must have affected both the gradient of the rivers and the climatic regime in the area. It also has an effect on the northern limit of the waters of the Gulf, and some recent contributions to this perennial topic have revived speculation that the recession of the water was a very significant factor in the settlement of the plains in the 5th millennium BC (cf. Nissen 1983, 58ff.). vii

Postgate

Introduction

Nissen has also pointed out the possible differences in the pattern of water-courses, which may form local cells or long-range linear patterns. The major canals parallel to the rivers, reconstructed from settlement distribution in the Ur I11 and later periods, are not discernible in the early 3rd millennium, when a dendritic system more subject to local controls is suggested. While the differences between the two systems need not have been very significant in technical respects, there could be important social consequences. One difficulty we meet here is that detailed descriptions of the modem regime are hard to come by. When considering the effects of the irrigation network on society, and vice versa, reference has often been made to the work of Fernea (1970), a study of canal administration in the Daghghara region of S. Iraq. His description does indeed show that a system may be run quite effectively on a local and relatively unsophisticated level, but we should bear in mind that in the historical period at least we are dealing with a highly organized society capable of very detailed management of the system (cf. for instance the contributions of Powell, Steinkeller, and Waetzoldt [Pt. 111): parallels in the social sphere should not be drawn too lightly. Nevertheless, in this respect it is relevant to note the comments on the context within society of the gugal or "canal-inspector" who is presumed to have controlled the system: see Steinkeller's and Hunt's contributions @p. 87; 200; also Van Soldt, p. 119), which hint that the control of the local irrigation cells remained in the hands of the traditional village farmers rather than in the power of the temple or palace. When we attempt to use the textual information to detect the nature of the canal network, we are hampered by two factors. One is the bias towards the institutional and innovative and away from the traditional and local, which is implicit in the nature of our written sources. The other is that the characteristics of the works on the ground that are recorded in the texts are not easy to match with any modern data. There is a variety of words for canal, which certainly changed through time and are very unlikely to have been used in a strictly consistent way. Watercourses differ little from one another except in their size and function, and we need to know how long, how deep, and how wide canals were, if we are to have some idea of the area they could have supplied. Modern irrigation engineers can give us the theoretical framework (cf. pp. 207ff.). and we must work within this, but it will not yield data we can put to practical use without observations in the field. The reports of consultant engineers and agronomists do not need to and hence do not - record this information about the traditional irrigation works, and it may therefore, as so often, be a case where the archaeologists will have to go into the field and record the modern data for themselves. It is not coincidental that the nearest we have to quantitative data on a modern system comes from an anthropologist (Fernea 1970). The best irrigation network is useless without adequate controls, and these afford excellent prospects for matching modern traditional practices with documentary and archaeological evidence. To supply offtakes along a water course the water level has to be raised by arresting the flow. This can be done in a temporary manner (cf. St01 1980, 361; Kupper, p. 99). or with a permanent installation, a "regulator" (engineers prefer to avoid the term "weir" which in English is normally reserved for a barrier over which the water flows, and is not the only possible device). There is general agreement among the cuneiformists that the Sumerian for this is (gig-)keg-DU, and I myself am convinced by Jacobsen's identification of the 'construction enigmatique' at Tello as a regulator. One way in which it could have worked is proposed on pp. 218-9, by analogy with traditional ones in use in the Yemen, but there are certainly other possibilities. There is a strong case for a re-examination of this monument in the field, s eany associated water channel. Apart from the particularly with an eye to the levels and ~ o ~ r of Islamic regulator on the Nahrawan described by Jacobsen et al. (1982), there are no other viii

Postgate

Introduction

archaeological identifications of irrigation works. It would clearly be of great interest if Nissen's suggestion that Tell Khaita represents the remains of a major Ur I11 regulator could be tested by excavation (Nissen 1976, 27"). Other technical terms are much less easy to identify. These are principally kun-zi-da (=mihru) and nag-kud (see also especially the articles of HruSka and Steinkeller). The texts offer only vague indications to help with kun-zi-da, usually described as some kind of weir and clearly similar to the gig-keg-DU (cf. CAD Mlii, 55a and 59 under mihru A). For the nag-kuds the texts do offer detailed information about their construction which should enable us to understand them in due course. However, their nature is still a matter of considerable debate (see especially Steinkeller, pp. 73-4 below; also pp. 194-5, 217-8), and it needs to be combined with the Kassite evidence for namkaru as described by van Soldt @p. 112-13). What is especially notable is that we find no elements in the traditional system in southern Iraq today to which the nag-kud can be closely compared: are we looking at a lost technology which could be revived with profit, or an inefficient device discarded in the light of experience? In one other respect it seems clear from the textual sources that the ancient practices differed, and that is in the exploitation of ground water. Wells (pu) are not infrequently mentioned in the 3rd millennium texts, especially in the context of garden cultivation (cf. HruSka below, p. 64). but rarely in later times including the present. At the Leiden meeting Ir. Boumans described how a water-course creates its own belt of ground water, which would have given access to fresh water from wells sunk in the levees each side. A more thorough investigation of the existence and application of fresh-water wells in the alluvial plain is needed, with particular attention to the question of the effect of salinity, today and in the past. The shaduf, which can of course be used with both wells and water channels, is depicted on 3rd millennium seals, and Maekawa's contribution in Pt. I1 proposes a convincing identification of this device in Ur I11 texts. Water distribution and control Although the title of the volume uses the word irrigation, it is frequently and correctly observed that the control and drainage of excessive water is equally critical in south Iraq (e.g. Hunt, p. 190). It remains difficult to put a finger on any clear mention of drainage in the cuneiform texts, but earthen dikes or bunds for the control of water are clearly attested (e(g), iku and later kalf2). Opinions remain divided as to whether these were combined with small water channels, or represent the restraining banks at the limits of a field or of an entire irrigation cell (see especially Stcinkeller, p. 73ff.; Pemberton, Postgate & Smyth, pp. 212-17). The point is not trivial, because if many of the "canals" referred to in translations of cuneiform texts turn out not to have been water-courses at all, it will make a difference in our judgement of the relative importance of water control versus supply. The nature of the dikes will be discussed by M. Civil in his edition of the Farmer's Inrtructions, now in an advanced stage of preparation. That text is of course a principal source for Mesopotamian agriculture, which relates to the field cultivation practices of the farmers as well: once the water has arrived at the farm outlet a number of options exist, and the practices of Mesopotamian farmers are still far from definitively known. Options for the distribution of the water are described by Charles @p. loff.), and there is of course no reason to suppose that practices did not differ with place and time. At this level, irrigation and field cultivation cannot be separated, and the contributions of van Driel, van Soldt and St01 underline this. Evidently the distribution of water within the fields interacts crucially with the shape and size of fields as well.

Introduction

Introduction

Postgate

Certain terns seem to be especially associated with the irrigation processes. The most importarit of them is tamirtu, discussed for the Kassite and Old Babylonian periods by van Soldt and Stol. An identification as an enclosed basin which could be flooded seems plausible. Van Driel's presentation5of the Nee-Babylonian evidence, .on the other hand, reveals little trace of a similar system, but describes very clearly a pattern of narrow strips. Were there significant changes between Kassite and Neo-Babylonian times? One further area in which cultivation and hydraulic practices are interdependent is in the area of salinity, the scientific aspects of which are considered by Charles, pp. 28ff. The importance of salinity in antiquity has of course been a principal subject of discussion ever since the Diyala project in the 1950's. and remains a live issue (cf. most recently Powell 1985). We know, at least, that the Mesopotamian farmer was aware of the dangers of salt and practised biennial fallow. Whether their irrigation regime included efforts to leach salts out of the land by pre-cultivation flooding remains unclear, and there is no reason to think that there was any awareness of the value of crop rotation, using the legumes which we know they grew. These and other aspects of our subject, such as the layout of fields, methods of tillage, and the seasonal cycle, will be among the subjects covered in Part I1 in addition to further contributions on irrigation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I I

Adams, R. McC. 1981 Heartland of cities (Chicago).

1

.

I

Carroue, F. 1986 Edzard, D.O. 1957 Fernea, R.A. 1970 Jacobsen, Th. 1982 Klengel, H. 1980

J.N. Postgate Laere, R. van 1980 Lafont, B. 1980 Maeda, T. 1984 Nissen, H.J. 1976

1983 Postgate, J.N. 1987 Powell, M.A. 1985 Stol, M. 1980

,

,

I


den-Li l ~ ~ a l - e r i d u ~ - ~ a - k e ~

.

gi-CS-bi ha-ma-an-zd a-bi ba-ma-an-til mu -50-118 Eu-mu-dii mu-50-uS !U-mu-di Ja, in Uruk war Sumpf, Wasser war eingeflossen, es gab (dort) trockenes Land, Pappeln wuchsen (dort), es gab Schilfdickicht, totes Rohr und grünes Rohr. Enki, der Herr von Eridu ließ mich das tote Rohr ausreißen, mich die Wasser dort unterbinden. Fünfzig Jahre habe ich dort gebaut, ich sage - fünfzig Jahre! (Siehe C. Wilcke, Das Lugalbanda-Epos (Wiesbaden 1969) S. 118-119). Die altsumerischen Königsinschriften und Wirtschaftstexte aus LagaS belegen folgende

Bewässerungstechnologien: 1. Die Überstauungen von den kleineren und größeren Wasserläufen. Bei dem sog. 'leaching' (Auswaschen) des Bodens wird die mit Deichen umgebene Fläche (ki-duru,) unter Wasser gesetzt. Dabei sind allerdings die Entwässerungsgräben notwendig, die in den Texten nicht auftreten. 2. Bei einem Geländegefälle von mehr als 13% wird das Wasser in den geraden oder krummen kleinen Kanälen (a-muS-du) auf die Felder und dann direkt in die Furchen bzw. rund um die Beete (Gemüseanbau in den Gärten) geführt. Literatur (siehe weiter Anhang, S. 69-72). Allgemein zur Bewässerungstechnologie: L.J. Booher, Surface Irrigation, (FA0 Agricultural Development Paper 95 = FA0 Land and Water Development Senes 3; Rome 1974) S. 31-39, 44 (Kanäle und Wasserverteilung), S. 111-120 (Furchenbewässerung). Speziell zu Irak: J.B. Smith, Irrigation Methods und Problems (Iraq College of Agriculture, Circular 1; Baghdad 1957). Beim Getreideanbau beträgt der Furchenabstand 20 cm "und mehr" (bis 50 cm). Speziell zur Furchenbewässerung: I.D. Doneen, Irrigation Practice und Water Management (FA0 Irrigation and Drainage Paper 1; Rome 1972) S. 31-42. Siehe weiter I. Petrasovic "Investigation on Surface Irrigation Methods in the Euphrates Basin", in: Water Use Seminar Damascus (FA0 Irrigation and Drainage Paper 13; Rome 1972) S. 211-227.

***

Der Bau von den Bewässerungsanlagen und deren ständige Instandsetzung war ein wichtiger Teil der ökonomischen Funktion des frühen Staates bereits im 27. Jahrh.v.u.Z., als der König Mesalim von KiS die Grenze und damit auch die Bewässerungsdistrikte (ki-sur-ra-GN; e-ki-sur-ra-GN) zwischen LagaS und Umma vermessen und festgelegt hatte. Die ältesten Informationen über die konkreten Kanalbauten finden wir allerdings erst in den Inschriften des Herrschers UrnanSe von LagaS (etwa 2500 v.u.Z.). Urn.24, Ko1.2:3-7.

Das Graben (dun) des Kanals REC 107 bzw. a-REC 107 und dessen 62

Anschluß (a-A+KU4) an eine frühere(?) Bewässerungsanlage. Vgl. noch Urn.34, Ko1.5:3-5. Zum Gewässernarnen REC 107 = LAK 175 vgl. RGTC 1, S. 227. Der Kanal REC 107 lag wahrscheinlich in ki-sur-ra-dnan~eund versorgte mit Wasser ein Gartengebiet. J. Cooper (RA 74 (1980) S. 106) sieht in nin-ba-ri-REC 107 (vgl. Urn.26, Ko1.5:3.) einen Verbindungskanal zu REC 107. Urn.26, Ko1.3:3-5:4. Das Graben der Kanäle a-a-subur, den-lil-pii-da uS-gal und sur-du7-dim-du. Der ON a-subur erscheint in Ean.2, Ko1.6:19. zusammen mit Elam, Subir und URUxA bei der Beschreibung der militärischen Expedition nach Elam. Vgl. noch Urn.51, Ko1.6:l. Nach den in RGTC 1, S. 212 zitierten Wirtschaftstexten lagen an der Mündung des Kanals den-lil-pii-da uS-gal Getreidefelder, die aus einem Wasserbecken mit Schleuse (nag-ku,) bewässert wurden. In ITT 5, 9267, Z2,ff. sind interessante Angaben über die Entfernung der Gebiete ambarE (280 nindan = 16632 m) und GIS.AN (630 nindan = 37422 m). Zu siir-du,gim-du vgl. RGTC 1, S. 228. UrnanSe erwähnt weiter den Bau des beim Wald gelegenen Bewässerungsgraben e-tir-sig mit den Getreidefeldern, s. dazu J. Bauer, AWL, S. 103-1 17 (Pachtfelder mit den Angaben über die Bodenqualität). Urn.27, Ko1.3:2-4. Der Bau einer unbekannten Anlage (LAK 500 = e r i m auf dem Kanal *nin-gir-su-pa-da. Vgl. dazu M. Powell, ZA 63 (1973) S. 105. Urn.40, Ko1.2:l-3. Die Gräben an der Seite des Sala4-martu-Kanals. Vgl. noch Ent.16, Ko1.2:8-3:lO. Dudu, der Tempelvorsteher des Ningirsu baut an der Seite des Sala4-Kanals in Gu'edena eine Mauer mit dem Namen "Bauwerk, der das Auge über die Steppe erhebt'' (6-igi-il-eden-na). Zu den Reinigungsarbeiten an diesem Graben vgl. DP 636, Ko1.4:l. (Entfernen des Rohrs). Urn.51. Vs. KolS:lOd:2. Kanäle pa,(E.PAP.PAP)-sadn (BUSE.SE.NUN) und a-suhur (vgl. Urn 26, Ko1.3:7.); zur Bearbeitung siehe J. Cooper, RA 74 (1980) S. 104-108. In ~s.~o1.2:5-7 eine bisher nicht belegte Bewässerungsanlage [bal-gar [ 1-SAR [mu-dlun. Nach den erfolgreichen Kämpfen mit den Feinden in Mesopotamien und im Ausland baute um 2470 v.u.Z. Eannatum für Gott Ningirsu den "neuen Kanal" (a-gibil; vgl. Ean.34, Ko1.6:&12) mit dem Namen lum-ma-gim-du„ "gut wie Lumma" (vgl. auch Ean.3-4, Ko1.6:15-19), der später vertieft(?) wurde7. Das Stauwehr mit einer Sperre hatte ein Fassungsvermögen von 3600 gur-2-UL, d.h. 3600.72 sila = Ca. 259200 "~iter". Die Kanalsperren lagen gewöhnlich an den Abzweigstellen und an den Mündungen der künstlichen Wasserläufe und ermöglichten es, den Wasserstand zu regulieren. Über die weitere Uferverbauung geben die Texte keine Information. Nach der viel späteren Karte aus der sargonischen Zeit (RTC 159) bildete der neue Kanal eine Nord-Süd-Achse der Wasserzufuhr im Gebiet von LagaS. Die in RGTC 1, S. 220 erwähnten Texte DP 628, 659 belegen das Entfernen von Rohr an einem Ufer, und eine nicht näher spezifizierte "Arbeit mit der Hacke". Nur direkt genannt, und zwar im Namen einer aufgestellten Stele, ist der Kanal pirig-eden-na "Löwe der ~teppe"~. Eannatums Nachfolger, sein jüngerer Bruder Enannatum I. (etwa 2430 v.u.Z.) berichtet über die Gegenoffensive seiner Truppen im Gebiet von LagaS. Er hatte Urlurnma, den Stadtfürsten von Umma "bis zum Grenzgraben des Ningirsu" zurü~kgeschlagen'~.Die Aussage über die Kampfhandlungen am Grenzkanal ~umma-girnunta" läßt sich noch nicht deuten. War K ~ Din Kb-lum-ma-gir-nun-ta ein Bestandteil des Kanals, etwa parallel zu gu "Ufer", also

Wka

Die Bewässerungsanlagen in den altsumerischen Königsinschriften

"Uferdamrn"?

An zwei Stellen, die offensichtlich nicht zusammenhängen, finden sich kurze Nachrichten über den ~runnenbau'~.Obwohl du6 "Hügel" in den Texten aus LagaS oft in den Ortsnamen vorkommt (vgl. RGTC 1, S. 30-33, ist die Verbindung du6-uru sonst nicht belegt. Der Brunnen aus Backsteinen auf dem Stadthügel diente wahrscheinlich der Tnnkwasserversorgung. Zu den bei H. Steible (FAOS 512, S. 423-424) nicht verzeichneten Gewässernamen gehört - g a dem stauwehr13. auch [X ~ ] - ~ n i n - h u r - s a ~mit Die Bewässerung der Gartenpflanzungen aus mehreren Brunnen beweist Ent. 16, Ko1.25-7 kiri6-6-Sa-ga mu-na-du p u - s i g - ~(LAK ~ ~ 742)-ra ~ ~ mu-na-si-si "'den Garten des ESa (ON ?) hat er ihm angelegt und hat ihm Brunnen aus Backsteinen eingetieft". Die Belege für Kaianlagen sind in den Texten aus Lagd äußerst selten, obwohl wir annehmen müssen, daß alle großen Kanäle schiffbar waren14. Zum Bau einer Kaimauer für die Frachtschiffe von Girsu (bad-kar-ma-addir;gir-suE-ka) siehe Ent. 16, Ko1.3:94: 1. Im bekannten Streit zwischen LagaS und ummal' geht es in der ersten Reihe um die Wasserzufuhr für das Gu'edena. Diese an den Bezirk MuSbi'anna grenzende und über 1000 ha große Flur war sehr fruchtbar, neben Getreideanbau und Viehzucht hatte man dort auch Fische gefangen16. Obwohl die "Regenten" von Umma mehrmals Übergriffe auf das Gu'edena und damit auf das Gebiet von Lagd unternommen haben, ist ständige militärische Überlegenheit von LagaS während des langen Konfliktes ersichtlich17. Umma lag jedoch oberhalb von LagaS an einem Hauptarme des "Euphrat-Systems" und konnte die Wasserzufuhr für Lagd erheblich beeinträchtigen. Bei Nutznießung am Gu'edena war entscheidend, wer den Kanal (i7) Inun kontrollierte. Die mehrmals erneuerte Markierung der Grenze durch die an den Wassergräben aufgestellten Stelen hat sich als unwirksam erwiesen. Eannatum ließ deshalb vom Inun-Kanal zum Gu'edena einen neuen Graben abzweigen1'. So entstand auf der Seite von Urnma (a-ummafi-Se) eine "Flur des Gottes Ningirsu" (wohl als zu LagaS gehörend angesehen), 210 i ES.GAR.DU - Ca. 1290 m lang, ohne Besitzer. In Ent. 28, Ko1.3:38-4:10 wird weiter über "Aufschüttung" des Ningirsu am neuen Grenzgraben "bis zum Ufer von Tigns hin" berichtet (vgl. auch Ko1.2:27-42) und zwar im Zusammenhang mit dem Kanal nam-nun-da-ki-gar-ra, der ein "Fundament" aus Stein (vgl. Ent.41, Ko1.3:2-5:4) bekommt. Dem Herrscher ging es offensichtlich nicht nur um eine exakte Grenzziehung, sondern um eine von Umma weniger abhängige Wasserzufuhr (Ent. 28, Ko1.5:9-10; Ent. 41 Ko1.3:2-4:1). Während der Regierungszeit Entemenas reichte der verlängerte Grenzgraben vom Tigris bis zum Inun-Kanal und in den Bezirk Mubikura. D.O. Edzard (RGTC 1, S. 216-217) lokalisiert Idigina (Tigns) ins heutige Dugaii, dies allerdings nur, wenn wir den Inun-Kanal mit dem Wasserlauf von Iturungal identifizieren würden. Ob Tigris zur Zeit Entemenas die Ostgrenze von LagaS bildete, muß zunächst offen bleibenlg. Die von Tigris in das Gebiet von Girsu fliessenden Kanäle endeten in den Sumpfgebieten nördlich vom Persischen Golf. Nach F. Carroud (ASJ 8, (1986) S. 13-25) war der Kanal Inun die wichtigste schiffbare und fischreiche Wasserstraße zwischen Girsu (Tello), LagaS (El-Hibä) und NINA" (Surghul). Unter Entemena hatte man die Bewässerungsanlagen am Kanal Lummagimdu weiter ausgebaut. Ent. 25, Ko1.3:10-4:8 berichtet über das neue Stauwehr aus 648.000 Backsteinen mit einem Fassungsvermögen von 1840 gur-sag-ghl = Ca. 2649 hlm. Zum Bau des Staubeckens verpflichtete der Herrscher eine unbekannte, vermutlich aber große Zahl der Bewohner von LagaS. Nach Abschluß der Arbeit wurden die Arbeitskräfte entlassen und durften nach Hause gehen (Ent.

Wka

Die Bewässenmgsanlagen in den altsumerischen Königsinschriften

35, ~01.5:2-6:1)~~. Den direkten Arbeitseinsatz konnten die Nutznießer der bewässerten Fluren später - wahrscheinlich seit der altakkadischen Zeit - umgehen und eine Feldsteuer (mhS-a-Sa-ga), eigentlich eine Art "Bodensteuer" zahlenU. Die Grenzgräben im Bewässerungsdistrikt von LagaS waren "gewaltig" (Ent. 4 1, Ko1.2:4-3: 1 e-mah ki-sur-ra; vgl. En. 1.29. Kol.lO:l), ihre Verbindung mit den an den Grenzen liegenden Feldern ist in den Königsinschriften allerdings nur einmal belegt (Ent. 41, Ko1.4:4 a-SBGANA-ki-sur-ra).

In den Texten Uru'inimginas finden wir Angaben über die Sanierungsarbeiten am Kanal i 7 - N I N A ~ - ~ Uan - ~ ,dessen Abzweigstelle (ka) und dessen Mündung (kun) man die Kult- und Wirtschaftseinrichtungen Eninnu und Esirara baute bzw. erneuerte. Die Einmündung des Wasserlaufes ist bis ins Innere des Hör verlängert wordenu. Das Surnpfgebiet a-ab, a-ab-ba und ambar lag im Bezirk NINA'O, wo man Getreide angebaut und Fische gefangen hattex. Der Getreideanbau war dort nur unter ständiger Bewachung des variablen Grundwasserspiegels möglich, man benötigte also Drainagen. Die Entwässerungsarbeiten finden wir nur in Ent. 1, Ko1.5: 1 4 7 . 25 GANA en-an-na-tum sur-Aan~ee-ta-e„ 11 GANA IM.KA-ZIXZI-~e G ~ ~ A - a r n b a r - N I N A ~pa5-ku-ge -ka us-sa 60 GANA den-lil GANA-gfi-eden-na-ka en-te-me-na ensi-lagap-ke, 6-ad-da-ka-ra gir e-na-du

Der Herrscher Enannaturn I. hat Felder (insgesamt 36 bur = 228,6 ha) in den BewässerungsdisVil ; 2 gi U-tir a dabiba aSag nag-a

nag-bi 6 gi dagal-bi 1 gi U-tir-kam ;63 Ih 1 gi a igi 8 gi a egir,(TUM)

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

Steinkeller

vi

iii

5) 6)

dur~n~(~US.~~S)-ki-ma~ ERIN-ri e-dab,

1) 2) 3) 4)

kin GANA-da-tir-Ambarki En-ig-gal nu-bbda mu-gid 5

1) 2) 3) 4)

(Its length is) 72 cubits, its width is 12 cubits. its height (is) 3 cubits. (Its length is) 24 cubits, its width (is) 12 cubits, its height (is) 6 cubits -

1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

(this) is (the dike) of the nag-kud of Damu. It has not been completed (lit.: taken as a work assignment). (Its length is) 24 cubits, its width (is) 12 cubits, its height (is) 6 cubits (this is the dike of) the nag-kud [of ...I.

1) 2)

Lugal-pae has completed it. (Its length is) 90 cubits, its width (is) 12 cubits, its height (is) 4 cubits (this) is (the dike) of the nag-kud of Imnun-idu.

3) 4)

5) 1) 2) 3) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 1) 2) 3) 4)

600 cubits (long) is the dike of the dam. 552 cubits (long) (is the reservoir) at the Tir-bridge(?); it stores water (and) irrigates the field; its sluice (is) 36 cubits (long), its (i.e., of the sluice) width (is) 6 cubits (this) is (the reservoir) at the Tir-bridge(?). 54 cubits (is the width of) water at the back (of the reservoir), 48 cubits (is the width of) water at the front (of the reservoir), (this is) the Kim*-dam. The workers have completed it.

Steinkeller

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

Commentary iv 1: The sequence of the signs is TUS eg TUS-na-am,. Since this phrase clearly contains the word / d u d , which is regularly written TUS.TUS in Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic texts (see Steinkeller, Or. NS 48 [I9791 55 n.6), I interpret the signs as eg durunx(~uS.T~S)-na-arn6. The dike in question is almost certainly identical with eg durunX(T~S.TUS)( G ~ ~ A - ) d a - t i r - A n b a r ~ ~ , attested in DP 623.x.2-3; 624.x.1-2; and 653.iv.l. For other occurrences of durunx, see v.5 below; DP 642.iv.l-3 (two durunx, located in the field Da-tir-ambar); 658.iii.2-iv.1 (durun u id-mah-kam); and VAS 14, 130.i.l (durunx id-mah). Bauer 1972, p.58, interpreted TUS.TUS as dur-dur, "Staudamm", based on the entry ku-ku-ru (or dur-dur-ru) = ka-lu-u $& me-e, "to hold back (irrigation) water" (Nabnitu IX 254), and the word kiilli, "die" (CAD K, pp. 104-5). But, since the reading of the word appears to be durunx (see above), the connection with ku-ku-ru is doubtful. Nevertheless, the extant data on durunx (especially v.3-5 in the present text) support the translation "dam". v.2: The word U, attested in Pre-Sargonic, Sargonic, and Ur I11 texts, frequently occurs in connection with canals and other parts of the irrigation system. See especially durunx (TuS.TUS) u id-map-kam, "dam of the u of the IdmG-canal" (DP 658.iii.2-iv.l), kun-zi-da u sumun, "dam of the old ir" (Sigrist, Syracuse 52:2; 180:2), kun-zi-da U-sur mh-gur,-ra (Sigrist, Syracuse 239:2-3), id 0-sur (RGTC 2, 295), kun-zi-da U-dag-ga (Kang, SACT 2, 26:2-3; 95:4), and ka (id) 0-dag-ga (RGTC 2, 293). Among other occurrences, note ~ - g i g - ~(RGTC a 1, 164), ~ - ~ a r - t u ( - n (RGTC e ) ~ ~ 1, 165), ~ - d u , - ~ and l , U-du,-tur-ra (both listed in Donbaz & Foster, STTI, p. 17). Tentatively, I propose that we find here a term for "bridge". The reading of u is probably durux. This is suggested by the comparison of the Abu Salabikh and Ebla mss. of the a b ~= ~ ~ ~ . ~ - g u(E) l - (Pettinato, ln~~ h E E 3, Geographical List, 1. 126: G d . ~ . ~ ~ - k u l -(AS) lh~~ p. 234). Assuming that the toponym in question is identical with the OB ~ u - u r - * ~ - g u l -@GTC 3, 240) and the lexical B A D - ~ - ~ I -(MSL Y ~ ~11, p. 57 ii.43), the two writings may be analysed as g'durux(~db'-kul-ab4ki and g*duru(~)-gul-laki respectively. For /durn/ or /adurn/, "bridge". [diri], a-dik, and addir, all equated with (etymologically related?) titiiru cf. &du-ruduru!ki), (AHw, 1363). v.3-4: The terms a igi and a egir, seem to describe respectively the back (upper) and front (lower) weirs closing the dam (durunx). A parallel for this construction is provided by the Middle Babylonian dam natbaktu, which, according to the text BE 17, 12:4-18, was likewise provided with two weirs, called mebru. The upper weir, which was located at the "mouth" of the dam (pi natbakti), apparently regulated the flow of water into the dam's reservoir. The lower weir, situated at the "foot" of the dam (,@pit natbakti), dammed up water in the reservoir. v.6: The reading of $RIN, when meaning "worker" in Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic sources, remains uncertain. See Steinkeller, WZKM 77 (1987) 192.

Text no. 2 (Or. 47-49, 511 + Waetzoldt, Oriens Antiquus 17, 56 [coll.])

The work in the field Da-tir-Ambar.

1)

[180]+45 GAR gid

En-iggal, the supervisor, has surveyed it. 5th (year).

2)

1GAR-ba kiI3 sahar-bi 1; sar-ta

3) 4) 5)

saljar-bi 3(iku) GANA 37i sar a-' ga'-mu-um gii id-lugal sumun 600 GAR gid 1 GAR-ba kiI3 sabar 1; sar-ta

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

Steinkeller

6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13)

sabar-bi l(eSe) 3(iku) GANA eg KU a-Sag,-ga-ka 12 GAR gid 2 GAR dagal 4 GAR 4 kY csukud> sabar-bi 2(iku) GANA 40 sar nag-kud 1-kam 6 GAR gfd 2 GAR dagal7 kuS csukud>

sabar-bi 84 sar nag-kud 2-kam GAR gid 1; GAR dagal5 kU csukudr 14) R"v.15) sabar-bi 1d sar 5 gin 16) gu id-dSul-gi-ra 285 GAR gid 1 GAR-ba khS sahar 1sar-ta 17) sabar-bi 2;(iku) GANA 35 sar 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24)

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18)

eg a-gar-gibil-ka 280 GAR gid 1 GAR-ba kU =bar 1; sar-ta sabar-bi 4(iku) GANA 20 sar eg a-ghr-gu-la [Su-nigh 20]+2;(iku) GANA 1 [35z sar ...I- zi igi-nim-ma [...I-zi [ ] id-Idigna

...

2700 cubits (is its) length, the volume of earth per each GAR (is) 1; sar, its earth (is) 337; sar (the dike) at the marsh on the bank of the old Lugal-canal. 7200 cubits (is its) length, the volume of earth per each GAR (is) 1; sar, its earth (is) 900 sar the ... dike of the field. 144 cubits (is its) length, 24 cubits (is its) width, 10 cubits (is its height), its earth (is) 240 sar (the dike of) the first nag-kud. 72 cubits (is its) length, 24 cubits (is its) width, 7 cubits (is its height), its earth (is) 84 sar (the dike of) the second nag-kud. 30 cubits (is its) length, 18 cubits (is its) width, 5 cubits (is its height), its earth (is) 18; sar 5 gin (the dike at) the bank of the Sulgi-canal. 3420 cubits (is its) length, the volume of earth per each GAR (is) 1 sar, its earth (is) 285 sar -

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

Steinkeller

19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24)

the dike of the (field) Agar-gibil. 3360 cubits (is its) length, the volume of earth per each GAR (is) 1; sar, its earth (is) 420 sar the dike of the (field) Agar-gula. [Total of 20]+2; iku [35t sar (of earth)]; the upper ...-I. the ...' of the Tigris.

'

'

Commentary 2: As far as I know, the use of kU in the sense of "volume" (also lines 5, 17 and 20) is unique. This meaning apparently derives from the fact that 1 (volume-)sar = 1 (surface-)sar xl kU. 7: eg KU should possibly be read eg durun and compared with eg durunX(T~S.TuS) in Text no. l.iv.1. 23-24: Apart from the total, the reconsuuction of these lines is uncertain.

Text no. 3 (IM 5592/6)51 [x Su-si] a gi,

[x] Su-si a an-bar, [I] ud-a-k[am] 1 3 Su-si a gi, (blank) Su-si a an-bar, 1ud-a-kam 3 Su-si a gi, 2 Su-si a an-bar, 1ud-a-kam 2 Su-si a g[i,I 1 [Su-si a an-blar, 1ud-a-kam 3 Su-si a gi, 10 Su-si a an-b[ar,] 1ud-a-[kaml 4 Su-si a [gi,] 7 Su-si a [an-bar,] 1ud-a-[kaml 11Su-si a [gi,] 22 Su-si a an-bar, 1ud-a-kam (blank) Su-si a gi, 20 Su-si a an-bar,

Irrigation System in Southem Babylonia

Steinkeller

1 ud-a-kam

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

one day (= 8th day); 24) 25)3'g1' 22 fingers of water (rose) at midnight, 267 5 fingers of water (rose) at noon, one day (= 9th day); 27) 0 fingers of water (rose) at midnight, 28) 0 fingers of water (rose) at noon, 29) one day (= 10th day); 30) 0 fingers of water (rose) at midnight, 31) 0 fingers of water (rose) at noon, 32) 33) one day (= 1lth day). / L Total of 115 fingers of 34) 35) [ri]sing [water], [(in)ll]days. 36) 37) [(x month) x] year.

22 Su-si a gi,

'

5 Su-si a an-bar,

1 ud-a-kam

(blank) Su-si a gi, (blank) Su-si a an-bar, 1 ud-a-kam

(blank) Su-si a gi, &Id&)

Steinkeller

Su-si a an-bar,

1 ud-a-kam

fl

(space) Su-nigin '4'

khS la 6 Su-si

[a zli-ga 1111 ud

[(x iti) X] mu

Commentary 1) 2) 3) 4)

[x fingers] of water (rose) at midnight, 1x1 fingers of water (rose) at noon, [one] day (= 1st day); finger of water (rose) at midnight, 0 fingers of water (rose) at noon, 5) [one] day (= 2nd day); 6) 7) i L 3 fingers of water (rose) at midnight, - -L 8) : ' 2 fingers of water (rose) at noon, one day (= 3rd day); 9) 10)") ' 2 fingers of water (rose) at mid[night], 11) ' 1 [finger of water (rose) at nolon, one day (= 4th day); 12) 3 fingers of water (rose) at midnight, 13) 14) ' " 10 fingers of water (rose) at noo[n], one day (= 5th day); 15)

9

I

16) 17) 1

'0

5,

4 fingers of water (rose) at [midnight], 7 fingers of water (rose) at [noon],

18) one day (= 6th day); 19) 11 fingers of water (rose) at [midnight], 2O)?.' - 22 fingers of water (rose) at noon, 21) one day (= 7th day); 22) 0 fingers of water (rose) at midnight, 23) '3 20 fingers of water (rose) at noon,

I

2: For an-bar, (or an-bir,), A&. muslalu, "noon, midday", see CAD M/2, 243-245. Among the occurrences cited there, note the numerous instances where muslalu is contrasted (as in the present text) with gi,, mnSu, "midnight, night". 37: The reconstruction of this line assumes a mu-iti date-formula. However, since the standard form of the formula is x mu x iti, the restoration [XI mu may be preferable. This unique and extremely important text dates to the Classical Sargonic period. Its origin is almost certainly Umma, as indicated by the fact that all other Iraq Museum tablets sharing the same primary accession number (IM 55920'~ assuredly come from Umma. The text records measurements of the rising flood-water, which were made twice each day, at midnight and at noon, over a period of eleven days. Given that the text's provenience appears to be Umma, the locus of the readings was certainly one of the canals belonging to the Euphrates ~ water, designated system. The individual measurements add up to 115 fingers (=189.75 ~ r n ) 'of as [a-z]i-ga, "rising water" or "flood water". Cf. a zi-ga = milu, "seasonal flooding of the rivers" (CAD M/2, 69-72). Based on the total line (1. 34), the numbers in ll. 1-2, recording the measurements for the first day, may be jointly restored as 23 fingers; their exact breakdown is, of course, unknown. The main question raised by the text is the interpretation of the measurements. It is clear that these figures refer only to the flood increment; but what do they actually represent? Here two possibilities may be considered: (1) each measurement represents the difference in water-level since the previous reading; accordingly, the 115 fingers (=189.75 cm) recorded in the text are a sum of daily increments, and thence the total rise of water-level in relation to the unknown point zero; (2) each measurement represents the difference between the unknown point zero and the current water-level; accordingly, the 115 fingers are simply a tally of daily readings; if so, the relative rise of water-level would be only 22 fingers (=36.30 cm), the peak reached on the 7th 20 . and 25). and then on the 9th day (ll

Steinkeller

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

Steinkeller

Though the first solution may appear more attractive initially, at least two important considerations speak against it. First, the water-rise of 189.75 cm in eleven days (132 cm of which would have occurred only within three days), required by this interpretation, seems unlikely, since this figure would fall in the upper range of average monthly rises that are recorded for the Euphrates between March and May, i.e. during the flood season.% Second, following this interpretation, we would have to assume an increment of 33 fingers or 54.45 cm on the 7th day (ll. 19-21). This too does not appear very probable, since such an increment would be in excess of average daily rises observed in the Euphrates during the flood season.% Thus, unless our text deals with an aberrant situation (of which we find no indication in the text, and thus have no reason to suspect), and if the comparison with the modern data is indeed valid, the second interpretation, as offering more realistic figures, must be favored. If analysed in this way, the data of the text result in the following graph:"

However, the assumption that the text is a tally of separate daily readings raises questions as to the purpose of such a record. The answer, we believe, is contained in the measurements themselves. The striking minuteness of the readings (down to fractions of Su-si), and the fact that they were taken twice each day," make it unlikely that the purpose of the observation had been simply to record the highest level of the flood. That objective would have been met quite ~In sufficiently by a single reading, taken at the flood's peak, as was customary in ancient ~ our opinion, these readings make sense only if one assumes that they were taken as part of a water-distribution scheme. By recording the midnight and noon levels of the flood water, the author of the text obtained the approximate volumes of water discharge available for irrigation within each twelve-hour period; the tally of the individual levels then provided him with an estimate of the total volume of discharge used during the period in question. Here it may not be irrelevant that in southern Iraq the traditional base unit of water measurement is waqt, "time", which denotes either the period from sunrise to sunset, or that from sunset to sunrise approximately twelve hours.59 If we are correct that the present text was prepared as part of a water-distribution project, one could speculate that the readings were taken from a gauge that was permanently fixed at some diversion point, such as a dam or the branching-off of a canal. Better still, that diversion point could have been the earlier-discussed nag-kud, if indeed a water-distributing device is meant by it.

~

days

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

As for the identity of the agency that was responsible for the execution of our text, the absence of any related material makes it virtually impossible to evaluate this point. Purely as a speculation, one could consider here the office of kug-gh1, "canal inspector". Though documented already in the Pre-Sargonic period? this shadowy functionary is exceedingly rare before Middle Babylonian times.61The rarity of references to the kug-ghl in administrative contexts suggests that, originally at least, he operated outside the temple-household system, as part of the village-based communal structure. This, in t u n , could explain the total uniqueness of the present text.

~

~

Steinkeller

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

FOOTNOTES 1

Cf. Th. Jacobsen, Salinity and irrigation agriculture (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 14; Malibu 1982), 62: "branch canals and feeders (pa,) often run along the top of artificial dykes (e) to preserve desirable elevation". D. Foxvog, ASJ 8 (1986) 65, though confusing the issue somewhat, reaches similar conclusions: "it seems preferable ... to regard pa, as the ditch proper ... and e its retaining walls; when combined e-pa, refers to the whole structure".

2

E.g. DP 614.iv.l-v.2; 615.v.14; 616.v.14; 617.vii.l-5; 623.x.2-5; 624.vi.l-vii.1; H. Behrens & H. Steible, FAOS 6, pp. 75, 95. Here it should be pointed out that the exact meaning of du is not "to build" (as commonly thought by Sumerologists) but "to erect (buildings and other standing structures), to plant (trees and plants)".

3

E.g. DP 641.i.3, ii.1, et passim; 642.i.1-2: Behrens & Steible, FAOS 6, p. 94.

4

E.g. MVN 10, 231.i.3 (eg si-ga pa,-dara,-an-na, "piled-up eg of the Dara-ana ditch/canal"), i.6-7, 11, ii.10; BE 3, 88:5. Cf. also eg si-ga = i-ku iS-pu-uk, contrasted with pa, mu-un-bal = a-tap-pu it-ri (Hh. I1 213-214); si-g[al = S&-pa-kuS& i-ki (Nabnitu XVI 64).

5

PSD B pp. 11-12. Add pa, a-da-ga GN ba-al-la (Sigrist, Syracuse 1222; 125:2; 207:4-5; MVN 10, 2315.3; MVN 13, 362:24).

6

For bur, see PSD B, 199-200. For pu, see Langdon, Tablets from the archives of Drehem (Paris 1911), 12:3,6,10, describing pa4-d~umu-zi-da (line 8) and pa4-kar(?)d~anna(!)-ur-sag(line 12).

Steinkeller

16

According to the testimony of lexical texts, the sequence, in the ascending order, was iku (eg), palgu (pa$, pattu (pa, = PAP.IS), and atappu (pa,-WI, pa,aig, or pa,-jita) (see especially A Il6:29-32; Hh. I1 207-210; Hh. XXII Sect. 8, 1'-4'; and Practical Vocab. Assur 875-878). The superior position of the atappu vis-a-vis the palgu is noted in Virolleaud, ACh., Supp. Adad 59:14: PA, itti atappiSa, and K 63363.7' (unpubl. SB ritual cited in CAD A12, 485a): E PA, PA,.LAL. But note that in KAH 2, 141:203-204 + TCL 3, 2 0 3 4 the order is reversed: palgu ...ih[rima] ... atappi la mina suruSSa uS&sa[mma], "he excavated a palgu, ... and had branch off from it atappus beyond counting".

17

AHw, 1219-1220; CAD All, 65a.

18

Fernea 1970, p. 122 and Map 7 @. 194).

19

See Sauren 1966, pp. 50-51, 180-183.

20

See below, p. 81.

21

Behrens & Steible, FAOS 6, pp. 75-76, 148. While not completely assured, the reading nag-kud of nag-TAR is strongly indicated by the testimony of A IIV5, where kud is translated by batiiqu Sa mE, pariisu Sa md, and petd Sa m& (see below). All other evidence cited by scholars in support of this reading is invalid: (1) as pointed out by Gelb, AS 16, p. 59, in the form nag-kud da umrnaki (YOS 4, 235:1), cited by Oppenheim, Earnes Collection, p. 113 n. 117, as evidence for the reading kud, da is a separate word ("side, surroundings") and not a complement of kud; (2) with Bauer 1972, pp. 58-59, and against Gelb, AS 16, p. 59, na -kud cannot be connected with the implement g i S n a g - ~here ~ ; note that the form ggnag-kud in Or. 4749, 361:1, on which Gelb's interpretation rests, actually reads -kul (H. Waetzoldt, Oriens Antiquus 17 [1978], 46, collation).

E.g. RTC 412.ii.l'-iii.5, iv.1-12, iv.13-v.16. The only exception here is provided by the text MVN 10, 231, where bur is applied both to pa, and to eg. The Akkadian iku in turn developed the meaning "plot of land enclosed by a dike", from which eventually came the area designation ikdliku. Cf. M.A. Powell, ZA 62 (1972) 204-220.

23

DP 639.iii. 1; 642.i.3; 654.ii. 1,5, iii.4; VAS 14, 130.i.2-ii. 1, ii.3-iii. 1.

24

For occurrences, see Sauren 1966, 184-188; S.T. Kang, SACT 2, pp. 431-435; M. Sigrist, Syracuse, p. 68; etc.

25

M.E. Cohen, The canonical lamentations of ancient Mesopotamia 2, p. 608, 1. a+33; p.615,1.c+205.

26

Kang, SACT 2, pp. 432-433. For timber as the building material of nag-kuds, see Boson, Tavolette 355:14: 104 ur giS nag-kud tir id-gal-la-ta Sag, Gu-eden-na-84, "104 logs of wood (for) a nag-kud, from the forest of the Idgal canal into the field Guedena".

27

E.g. Or. 4749, 361:2-3; TCL 5, 6036.vii.33-34; RA 34 (1937) 76, no. 3:l'-2'.

28

Kang, SACT 2, p. 432.

29

450 sa gi nag-kud A-gu u nag-kud A-kal-la ba-an-dim (Or. 4749, 346:14). B. Lafont, RA 74 (1980) 39, reads incorrectly ba-an-US.

30

Kang, SACI' 2, p. 433.

CAD H, 198-199. CAD I/J, 67-68. See CT 9, 8.i.4144 cited just below. See in detail below, p. 74. For this graphic phenomenon, see M. Civil, Or NS 42 (1973) 27. CAD I/J, 67. Note especially ikam palgam harii'iS, "(the extispicy) for the digging of a dike or a canal" (RA 35 [I9381 59 [= pl. 71 no. 14:l-2). See CAD and AHw., s.vv.: atappu is documented since OB; palgu since Sargonic; pattu since Ur I11 (if-du ba-ti-im a-ti E.DU,.LA - TIM 3, 149:ll-12, 15-16; also ibid. 1.8 (envelope)).

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

Steinkelller

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

Steinkeller

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

31

Ibid., p. 433.

52

Ibid., nos. 22-30.

32

Ibid., p. 433.

53

Note: 1 Su-si = ca. 1.65 cm; 1 kuS = 30 Su-si = ca. 49.5 cm.

33

Ibid., p. 434.

54

Ionides 1937, p. 69 Table 36; p. 81 Table 41.

34

Ibid., p. 434; alternatively, BAD may be interpreted as US = sekEru, "to dam up, to close (a canallwatercourse)" (CAD S, 210). Cf. Lafont, RA 74 (1980) 38-39.

55

35

Ibid., p. 434.

According to Table 34 in Ionides 1937, p. 59, which gives data for Ramadi, the maximum rises in 24 hours ever observed were 103 cm in March, 68 cm in April, and 21 cm in May.

36

Eames Collection, p. 113 n.117.

56

Not included in the graph are the measurements for the first day.

37

Topographie der Provinz Umma, pp. 54-55.

57

Note that as recently as the 1930's most of the gauges in Iraq were read only once a day, in the morning. See Ionides 1937, p. 15.

38

SACT 2, pp. 429-438.

58

39

AS 16, p. 59.

40

Agricultura Mesopotamica, p. 225.

See H. Kees, Ancient Egypt: a Cultural Topography (Chicago 1961), 4849; J. von Beckerath, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 5 (1966) 43-44 (with further literature).

41

See below, pp. 79-85.

59

Fernea 1970, 125. Similar irrigation units based on hours were known in various Islamic countries and in Spain. See Glick 1970, 213-215.

42

See above, n. 25.

60

MSL 12, p. 16 1. 25 (gu-gal); A. Archi, Studi Eblaiti 4 (1981) 184, 1. 108 (kug-gPl).

43

R. Tresse, "L'irrigation dans Ghouta de Damas", Revue des ttudes islamiques 3 (1929) 475476; R. Thoumin, "Notes sur I'amCnagement. et la distribution des eaux A Damas et dans sa Ghouta", Bulletin d'ttudes orientales 4 (1934) 1-26; Glick 1970, 214.

61

CAD G, 121-122.

44

Glick 1970, 87-93.

45

Ibid., p. 88.

46

Ibid., pp. 3840.

47

Ibid., p. 40.

48

Identified as "servant of Sara" in the inscription of his seal: i r - ~ n Prad , d~Pra,dumu Lugal-Sag,-ga (SACT 2, 126 = p. 346 seal no. 10; Sigrist, Syracuse 32; etc.).

49

BIN 5, 254 (kiSib); SACT 2, 126 (kiSib); Forde, Nebraska Cuneiform Texts 73 (kiSib); Sigrist, Syracuse 32 (kiSib nam-Sag,-tam), 33 (kiSib); AnOr 1, 144 (gir); etc. In the texts where Ir-An is designated as a kiSib (receiving official), he apparently acknowledges the withdrawals of laborers (or of the barley intended as their rations). Cf. Steinkeller in R.D. Biggs & McG. Gibson (eds.), Seals and sealing, p. 43. Note that in Sigrist, Syracuse 34, the same Ir-An is being issued reeds, very likely to be used as building material on an irrigation project.

50

Glick 1970, pp. 214 n.19, 222 n.28. Cf. also sistar, a term for "divisor" in Vall de Sego, which Glick 1970, p. 223, derives from the Arabic root Str, "to divide into two equal parts".

51

To be published as no. 31 in P. Steinkeller with copies by J.N. Postgate, Third Millennium legal and administrative texts in the Iraq Museum (forthcoming).

Steinkeller

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

L'IRRIGATION A MARI

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS

Bauer, J. 1972 Fernea, R.A. 1970

J.-R. Kupper Altsumerische Wirtschaftstexte aus Lagasch (Studia Pohl, 1).

(Liège)

Shaykh and Eflendi: Chunging patterns of authority among the El Shabana of Southern Iraq (Cambridge, Mass.).

Glick, Th.F. 1970

Irrigation and society in Medieval Valencia (Cambridge, Mass.).

Ionides, M.G. 1937

The Regime of the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris (London).

Sauren, H. 1966

Topographie der Provinz Umrna, 1: Kanale und Bewdsserungsanlagen

(Heidelberg).

Nos informations sur l'irrigation à Mari proviennent pour l'essentiel de la correspondance des gouverneurs des districts de Mari, de Terqa et de Sagaràtum, qui constituaient le coeur même du royaume, dans la vallée moyenne de l'Euphrate et la basse vallee du uabur. L'Euphrate dessine de nombreux méandres au fond d'une vallée en auge, profondément entaillée dans le plateau et dont la largeur varie considérablement, formant ainsi des sortes d'alvéoles; celle de Mari s'étend sur près de 40 km de long sur 15 km de large en moyenne. Le sol de la vallée contient des dépôts de limon fertile, d'origine alluviale. Les crues, alimentées par la fonte des neiges en Anatolie, se produisent au printemps, tandis que les eaux sont au plus bas en automne. Le climat est du type subdésertique, avec de hautes températures en été et des précipitations très faibles, dépassant de peu les 100 mm par an; de surcroft, elles sont fort irrégulières d'une année à l'autre.' On comprend dès lors que les cultures aient et6 obligatoirement conditionnées par Les textes le disent l'irrigation, praticable sur les basses terrasses de la vallée.2 expressément: "Si les eaux sont coupées, écrit Kibri-Dagan, le gouverneur de Terqa, le pays de mon seigneur aura faim" (ARM III 1). Le gouverneur de Sagariitum, Yaqqim-Addu, lui fait écho: "Si le travail concernant ce fossé n'est pas exécuté, les charmes du palais seront inactives et le peuple aura faim" (ARM XIV 14). Bien que les machines élévatoires aient été connues de longue date en ~ésopotamie? il n'en est jamais question dans les textes de Mari. On a recours uniquement à des canaux dérives du fleuve par gravité à partir d'une prise en amont. Seuls deux passages font allusion au geste de puiser de l'eau. Dans l'inscription dite du disque, Yydun-Lim se glorifie d'avoir ouvert des canaux et d'avoir fait disparaître dans son pays le seau à p u i ~ e r . ~Le procédé ne fut cependant pas tout à fait abandonné, puisqu'une lettre de BaQdi-Lim, préfet du palais sous Zimri-Lim, rapporte qu'un oued en crue a inondé les da-lu-wu-tim (ARM VI 3:16), c'est-à-dire les terres irriguées habituellement par puisage.s Comme il le signale dans sa communication, J. Margueron pense que des systèmes d'irrigation par elevation ont pu être pratiqués le long de la terrasse holodne, permettant de développer notamment des cultures maraîch5res. Nos textes n'en parlent pas, mais leur silence peut se comprendre: ils émanent exclusivement des services officiels et ne s'intéressent guère aux pratiques des simples particuliers, qui ne nécessitent pas de grands travaux à superviser par le pouvoir central. Nous venons de le voir, Yadun-Lim tenait beaucoup à rappeler qu'il avait ouvert des canaux. Il le proclame aussi, en tête de ses accomplissements, dans l'inscription de fondation du temple de Nous connaissons le nom de deux de ces canaux: le canal 1Gm- adu un-~im, dont le creusement, pour alimenter la cité nouvelle de Dür-Yldun-Lim, est évoqué dans l'inscription du disque, et le canal Puzuran, qui apparaît dans un nom d'année de ~ y d u n - ~ i m . ~ Le réseau était donc anciens et il était certainement étendu. Il se peut même qu'il remonte beaucoup plus haut. En effet, selon J. Margueron, certains canaux seraient contemporains des origines de la cité, au troisième millénaire avant notre ère. D'autre part, les travaux d'entretien montrent bien, par l'abondante main-d'oeuvre qu'ils exigent, qu'il

KUPP~

L'irrigation B Mari

s'agissait d'entreprises importantes et d'une grande envergure. D'ap&s une lettre de BahdiLim, deux mille hommes ne suffisent pas pour exécuter un travail au canal Takkirum (ARM VI 7:ll-12)? On fait appel simultanément à de la main-d'oeuvre des trois districts de Mari, de Terqa et de Sagaràtum pour aller travailler à des barrages et au canal ~s'h-Y@dun-~im (ARM XIV 13:4-12).1° Ce réseau devait comporter toute une hiérarchie de canaux, plus ou moins larges et profonds, depuis les canaux principaux ou primaires greffés directement sur l'Euphrate ou le Habur, jusqu'aux rigoles qui amenaient l'eau sur les champs. Le canal I%m-Y~dun-~im appartenait évidemment à la premi&recatégorie. Ii est mentionné à plusieurs reprises dans la correspondance de Kibri-Dagan (ARM III 1; 76; 79; XIII 123) et de Yaqqim-Addu (XIV 13; 14)' ce qui signifie qu'il traversait les deux districts voisins de Terqa et de Sagaràtum. Comme les travaux qui le concernent intéressent aussi à l'occasion Bwi-Lim (ARM III 79: 11'-14')' on pourrait en inférer qu'il coulait également A travers le district ,de Mari, à moins qu'il ne s'agisse d'une main-d'oeuvre d'appoint, car il est question précisément de travaux & hauteur de Terqa. M'appuyant sur ces données, j'ai proposé nagu&red'identifier le canal Igm-Y@dun-~irn avec le Nahr Dawrîn, un canal qui remonte à l'antiquité et dont on rel&veencore clairement le tracé: il était destiné à relier le Habur à l'Euphrate qu'il rejoignait en aval de Mari à plus de 100 km de son point de départ." Cene identification a été mise en doute par J.D. Safren, qui situe Dür-YaQdun-Lim et son canal sur la rive droite de l'Euphrate; le canal déboucherait ~ compter l'argumentation de Safren, 19hypoth&se dans le fleuve un peu en amont de ~ e r q a . ' Sans de l'identification avec le Nahr Dawrîn me semble plus contestable à l'heure actuelle. C'est à coup sQr YaQdun-Lim qui a fait creuser le canal ~ & n - ~ @ d u n - ~ ài mla, suite de la fondation d'une ville qui porte son nom, "dans des terres brûlées, en un lieu de soif où jamais un roi quelconque n'avait bâti de ville". Si le Nahr Dawrîn est plus ancien, comme on vient de le voir, l'identification s'exclut d'elle-même. D'autre part, les observations de J. Margueron tendent à établir que le Nahr Dawrîn était destiné à la navigation.13 Or le canal 13m-Y@dunLirn servait à l'imgation, un texte le dit expressément (ARM XIV 13:16-17). Ce n'est pas non plus le canal dont on a retrouvé récemment des vestiges sur la rive droite de l'Euphrate dans l'alvéole de ~ a r i qui ' ~ peut être pris en considération; en effet, ce canal ne peut remonter au-delà de l'oued es-Souâb qui débouche dans la vallée au pied de la falaise où se dresse coule bien en amont, à travers les districts de Doura-Europos. Or le canal 13m-~@dun-~im Sagaritum et de Terqa. Le tracé que propose Safren correspond en réalité à celui d'un canal ancien que l'on a identifié au Nahr Saïd des historiographes arabes; il quitte l'Euphrate en aval de Deir-ez-Zor et l'on peut suivre ses traces jusqu'au sud de ~ a ~ a d i n .Les " sites qui le bordent sont en majorité ayyoubides et aucun n'a livré en surface du matériel datant du bronze moyen; néanmoins, il pourrait s'agir d'un canal plus ancien réutilisé à l'époque islamique. Il faudra attendre une enquête de terrain plus approfondie pour trancher la question. D'autre part, il reste une question sans dponse: quel nom portait le Nahr Dawrîn au temps des archives de Mari? Dans un passage dont l'interprétation n'est pas tout à fait assur&,16 Kibri-Dagan parle d'un "grand canal" (niirim rubztim), qui paraît distinct du canal 1Em-YaQdun-Lim, mais il n'en est jamais question ailleurs." Le canal A ~ ~ @ t u mdont , on avait cru lire le nom dans deux lettres de Kibri-Dagan (ARM II 83:5: III 3:4), a dtsormais cessé d'exister. En vérité, le nom a une forme inusitde; c'est pourquoi W. von Soden avait déjà proposé de retrouver dans les deux cas l'infinitif du verbe @tàtum . . "curer", ce qui a été confirmé par une note récente de J.M. ~ u r a n d . ' ~

Kupper

L'irrigation B Mari

Le canal Puzuran n'est plus mentionné au temps de Zimri-Lim. En revanche, deux autres canaux apparaissent dans la correspondance de BW-Lim: le canal adh hum (ARM VI 5:6) et le

Takkirum (VI 7:7, 11); ils doivent donc être situés dans la région de Mari. Mais le second pourrait n'être qu'un nom commun désignant un type particulier de canal*, en effet, le terme se retrouve dans des textes de diverses époques et doit sans doute être mis en relation avec le verbe makàrum "irrig~er".'~ Lorsque Kibri-Dagan (ARM III 6:6-7; XIII 118:ll-12) et Bldi-Lim (VI 11:6-7) parlent du canal de Mari, nous ignorons de quel canal il s'agit; peut-être pourrait-on penser au canal de la rive droite évoqué plus haut. Quant au canal mentionné deux fois par Kibri-Dagan sans autre précision (ARM III 4; 5)' le contexte permet de l'identifier avec le canal ~llrn-~aQdun-~irn. Enfin, il existe aussi un canal dit de *IGI.KUR, que Yaqqim-Addu met sur le même pied que le Habur et le canai ~gm-~a?yiun-~im sur le plan de l'imgation (ARM XIV 13:17). Comme la ~ main-d'oeuvre 2 0 appelCe en renfort de réfection des barrages situés à d ~ ~ ~ q u. i e~r t ~de la Mari et de Terqa, c'est que le dit canal était lui aussi de premi&reimportance. A un échelon inférieur, on trouve les fossés qui portent le nom d'atappum; c'est ainsi que Kibri-Dagan fait curer tous les fossés des champs du palais (ARM III 34:11-12).~' Le terme peut aussi désigner un canal plus considérable. En effet, dans une de ses lettres au roi (ARM XIV 14)' Yaqqim-Addu l'assimile à un ia-bi-il-tum, un terme nouveau que M. Birot a traduit par "adducteur". Or ce yubiltum est identifié par un nom de localité, et il paraît être branché immédiatement sur le Uabur, puisque c'est la crue de ce dernier qui l'a rempli de vase; sa mise en état demandera dix jours et réclamera le renfort des travailleurs du district de Terqa. Le terme ikum peut désigner aussi bien le fosst que la levée de terre qui le borde. Comme il est question de l'''entasser" (Sapakum) dans une lettre de Yaqqim-Addu (ARM XIV 22:25), c'est dans le second sens qu'on l'entendra

Pour assurer l'écoulement régulier des eaux, la construction d'ouvrages tels que digues et barrages était indispensable. Un premier terme, mehrum "barrage", bien attesté en vieuxbabylonien, est absent des textes de Mari. Le terme qui y est le plus fréquent est celui de erretum. Ii s'agit de toute façon d'une construction destinée à contenir les eaux, mais il est parfois difficile de préciser: digue ou barrage. La solution la plus plausible est d'y voir des barrages de retenue. Ii est question à plusieurs reprises des barrages du Habur (ARM III 2:12; 80:9; XIV 12:4; 18:7). Kibri-Dagan compte mettre quatre jours pour réparer des barrages, sans doute construits en fascines, qui laissaient passer l'eau (ARM III 7). D'après une lettre de B*di-Lim, la paroi (usukkum) inférieure d'un barrage, qualifié de médian (erretum qablîtum), s'est effondrée sous la pression de l'eau; Bahdi-Lim a fait agrandir l'ouverture du barrage en pierre qui se trouvait en aval, de façon à faire baisser le niveau de l'eau pour permettre les travaux de réfection (ARM VI 1). Nous avons donc affaire ici à une série de barrages successifs, comme le laisse entendre le terme médian. De son c6té. Yaqqim-Addu signale que par suite de la crue du Ijabur, tous les barrages ont été endommagés (ARM XIV 18:8'). C'est aussi la crue du Habur qui a amené Yaqqirn-Addu A exhausser des barrages (ARM XIV 14~12-15)~~ A propos de travaux sur le canal ~grn-Y@dun-~im, Kibri-Dagan utilise le mot kisrum: "en deux jours nous construirons (nippei) un kerum" (ARM III 4:ll). Dans deux autres lettres du même correspondant, le terme, dérivé du verbe k@rum "joindre, lier", désigne un bouchon formé par la végétation sauvage dans le lit d'un canal (ARM III 5:48-50; 79:s'-7'). A premitre vue, il serait étonnant que le terme soit employé dans des acceptions différentes, s'agissant pareillement d'irrigation. C'est pourquoi certains l'ont compris comme désignant aussi dans le

Kupper

Kupper

L'irrigation à Mari

La pratique de l'irrigation est évoquée fréquemment. Pour désigner l'opération, on a recours aux verbes rnakarum (ARM III 31:ll; XIII 119:18; 142:6)~~ et S a q h (III 4:18; 5:44; 79:2'; XIII 142:lO; XIV 13:17). Il ne faut pas confondre avec l'inondation, évoquée par les verbes ra@sum (ARMT XXIII 426:20'; A.1101,l. 9 [dans La voix de i'opposition en Mésopotamie, p. 1841) et s a b h (ARM VI 2:9; 3:11, 16).~' En effet, l'annonce de crues - que ce soit le fait de l'Euphrate, du Habur ou de oueds temporaires - fait l'object de nombreux passages,34 qui soulignent la préoccupation des autorités à cet égard. On observera que les crues surviennent à peu près au temps de la moisson (ARM XIII 1245, 8; XIV 69130-31; A.llO1, 1. 8)' ce qui correspond à la situation a~tuelle.~'

premier contexte une sorte d'obstruction dans le canai, malgd l'emploi du verbe epëium.M Il me paraît néanmoins plus vraisemblable, en accord avec le schéma proposé par P. Steinkeller dans sa communication, de penser à une forme particulière de barrage, faisant obstacle au cours de l'eau que l'on voulait faire dériver dans une autre direction. Un troisième terme, kisirtum, semble désigner plutôt une digue selon les références des dictionnaires. Il apparaît dans une lettre de Yaqqim-Addu, où il est employé concurremment avec celui de muballittum, dont nous reparlerons plus loin: une kisirtum, qui se trouve en amont d'une brèche (bitqum) et en aval d'un muballittum, s'est affaissée (ibbeki) à deux reprises. S'il s'y forme une nouvelle brèche, personne ne pourra la colmater (ARM XIV 13: 4346, 52-54).

L'irrigation proprement dite comporte essentiellement deux opérations: arrêter les eaux: mê sekërum (ARM III 4:16; 5:42; VI 10:lO; ARMT XXIII 426:211;A.4188 + A. 1487, ll. 20-21,29, 3 132)% et les relilcher: mê wGSurum (ARM II 58:6-9; A.2769, ll. 7-8, 12 [dans F U 68 [1974], p. 301) ou les diriger: mê SûSurum (ARM III 4:14; 5:41; VI 4:18). Il n'est jamais fait allusion à la répartition des eaux entre les différents ayants droit, une opération qui requiert toujours des soins attentifs dans les pays du Proche-Orient, ni non plus aux est pourtant dispositifs ingénieux qui l'assurent et qu'on appelle des répartiteurs." question d'un personnage qui se refuse à donner deux "soixantaines d'eau": 2 iu-Si me-e (ARM XIII 142:6), mais la mesure est imprécise et nous ne savons si elle concerne le volume ou le

Un autre vocable encore, le rükibum, évoque un entassement de tem; en effet, dans deux cas, il est question de l'entasser (iapükum: ARM VI 65-8; VI11 12:2-3). Partant de là, on pourrait le considérer comme un barrage.25 Mais d'autre part, si le rükibum est en rapport r VI 6:s) - il est aussi en avec des cours d'eau - on parle du rükibum de l'oued de ~ i (ARM relation avec des terres agricoles (ARM VI11 12;l-3; XXIII 466:l-2, 5) et il apparaît même comme le lieu où sont situés des champs (ARM XXIII 467:16-17). C'est pourquoi, au terme d'une analyse serrée, D. Soubeyran est d'avis d'y reconnaftxe "des terrasses alluviales consolidées, voire des terrasses gagnées sur le lit d'une rivière par remblai".26 De nouvelles références devraient permettre de confirmer l'hypoth&se. Sinon, nous nous trouverions devant une abondance de termes pour désigner des bamges.

L'entretien du réseau des canaux d'irrigation exige une surveillance constante qui se traduit par des travaux variés. Parfois, la nature de ces travaux n'est pas précisée (ARM III 1; 3; VI 17:s'-6'; XIII 120; XIV 99:16), ou bien nous apprenons seulement qu'ils concernent l'embouchure du canal (ARM III 4:6-7; XIII 117:16-17; 118: 10-12). Kibri-Dagan se contente de dire qu'il a remis en ktat (GtëSiram) le canal 18m-~@dun-~irn (ARM III 76:12-13), et le roi Zimri-Lim fait de même à propos des rives de 1'~uphrate.~~ A plusieurs reprises, il est question de curer (@tà@) des fossés (atappàtum: ARM III 34:ll-12), des canaux (ARM II 835; III 3:4; XIV 14:8), et même le ~ a b u r .En ~ effet, les canaux peuvent s'emplir de vase: tërum, teritani malûm (ARM 111 5:27; XIV 14:lO-12). Le travail est très dur, note Kibri-Dagan, "il y a dcs places où je dois creuser une excavation (kalakkam anassabu) sur une demi-canne, il y en a où je dois creuser sur deux coudées" (ARA4 III 532-34; cf. III 79:lO). Le lit des voies d'eau p u t aussi être encombré par de la végétation qu'il faut arracher. C'est pourquoi Kibri-Dagan doit procéder au désherbage du canal 1s";m- adu un-~im (ARM III 5:47-50; 795'-7'), parfois en mettant le feu (nummurum) aux roseaux (ARM III 76:14-16). On l'a vu plus haut, p. 3, la vegétation va jusqu'à former de véritables bouchons (kisrum) qui obstruent le courant.

Les bassins-réservoirs représentent un autre type d'ouvrage dont la construction s'av&re souvent nécessaire. Le terme bafitum est généralement pris dans ce sens. Celui de la localité de Zurubbiln est mentionné deux fois dans les lettres de Kibri-Dagan. Son niveau a monté à la suite d'une crue et il faut faire Ccouler ses eaux vers le canal (ARM III 9). Une autre fois, il s'agit d'y réparer une brèche (ARM III 755-6). Dans un long texte qui contient des copies d'actes d'achat de terrains dans la vailée du Habur, on fait référence à un balitum, qui doit donc être un ouvrage suffisamment remarquable, pour localiser des champs.n Le terme muballittum. dont le sens a été diversement interprété, est très vraisemblablement à rapprocher du précédent.28 Les muballiMtum peuvent être en joncs (ARM VI 4:s; XIV 13:2425)' en bois (XIV 13:37-38) ou en pierre (nom d'année de ~ i m r i - ~ i m Leur ) . ~ construction revdt donc une importance certaine puisque Zimri-Lim y consacre le nom d'une de ses années de règne. Il peut y en avoir plusieurs au même endroit (ARM XIV 13:20, 40). Parlant du canal I&IYadun-Lim, Kibri-Dagan regrette qu'il ne s'y trouve pas un muballittum pour évacuer la vase dans le "grand canal" (ARM III 79:11-12).~' Bahdi-Lim a aveuglé une large brèche ouverte par de joncs, construit à d ~ en raison ~ de la présence ~ d'un . oued~ les eaux dans un muballi(ARM VI 4). Yaqqim-Addu exprime la crainte de voir la crue du Habur provoquer des dégâts aux muballittiitum (ARM XIV 15:9'- 10').

Le mot igum doit peut-être être pris également en considération. De fortes pluies ont fait monter d'une canne le niveau d'un igum (ARM X 25; XIII 28). Le grand intendant du palais de Mari, Yasim-Sumo, signale au roi que selon ses ordres, on a enduit un igum d'argile dans sa partie supérieure et de différentes espèces de bitume (ARM XIII 27:4-10). Se fondant sur ces données, M. Birot a suggéré de voir ici un réservoir plut6t qu'un fossé.31 Mais il n'est question nulle part de travaux d'irrigation et il pourrait s'agir tout aussi bien d'un réservoir d'eau situé dans l'enceinte du palais.

L'irrigation à Mari

~

il arrive souvent que des bri?ches (bitqum) s'ouvrent dans les digues et les barrages; il y a lieu alors de les aveugler (sekërum) le plus promptement possible (ARM VI 4:17; 9; 115; 12:15, 17; XIV 13:47, 52-54; 18:ï'). En deux occasions, Bldi-Lim annonce qu'il va utiliser ~ dcs fascines de joncs pour la réfection (ARM VI 9:12; 12:12). Des brèches peuvent affecter dgalement les bassins-réservoirs (balitum: ARM III 75:s) ou les terrasses de la vallée (rükibum: ARM VI 65-7). Cependant, le terme bitqum est équivoque, car il peut aussi désigner une ouverture pratiquée à dessein pour laisser passer les eaux.41 C'est le cas d'une ouverture dws une construction en pierre qui laisse passer correctement les eaux, comme le signale Bribdi-Lim (ARM VI 1:12-14, 31-32). Une autre fois, le Habur a monté; Bahdi-Lim attendra la dtcrue de la rivière pour fermer la vanne (ARM VI 8:12-13). Le terme miriqtum évoque, lui, un écroulement dans un mur;" c'est ce qui s'est produit dans le Habur à hauteur de Sagarfitum (ARM II 101:6). Parfois, nous ignorons la nature des ddgits que les barrages ont subis; il est simplement question de les remettre en état: S&urum

L'irrigation à Mari

L'irrigation à Mari

NOTES Sur le contexte géographique de Mari, voir les récents articles de P. Sanlaville et de B. Geyer, dans MARI 4 (1985) 15-39, et de B. Geyer et J.-Y. Monchambert, dans MARI 5 (1987) 293-344. Sur les problèmes de l'irrigation en Mésopotamie, voir en dernier lieu M. Stol 1980, S.V. "Kanal(isation)", dans RlA V, 355-365; R. Van Laere, "Techniques hydrauliques en Mésopotamie ancienne", dans OLP 11 (1980) 11-53. La question de l'irrigation à Mari n'a suscité jusqu'ici que l'essai de H. Klengel, "Zum Bewàsserungsbodenbau am Mittleren Euphrat nach den Texten von Man", dans Altorient, Forschungen 7 (1980) 77-87. La thèse de R. Spender, "Irrigation at Mari", signalée par R. Van Laere (p. 13, note 7), est restée inédite. Au cours de l'été 1987, un colloque a été organisé au Centre Culturel Français de Damas sur "les techniques et les pratique; hydro-agricoles traditionnelles en domaine irrigué"; plusieurs communications relatives à Mari y ont ét6 présentées, mais les actes de ce colloque ne sont fias encore publiés. Cf. J. Laess*, JCS 7 (1953) 12-14; A. Salonen, Die Hausgerate der Alten Mesopotamier, 1 (Helsinki, 1965), p. 264 ss. Col. II, 2-4: da-la-a-am i-na ma-fi-ia ii-ha-al-li-iq (cf. Fr. Thureau-Dangin, RA 33 (1936) 50). La traduction précise de da-la-a-am importe peu pour notre propos (Fr. ThureauDangin: "(habitude) de puiser"; CAD D, S.V. dülu: "drawing bucket"; J.-R. Kupper, AOAT 25 (1976) 302: "puiseur d'eau"); dans tous les cas, il s'agit d'un dérivé du verbe dalûm "puiser de l'eau". Comme l'a signalé K.R. Veenhof, dans Mesopotamië. Het land en het water (Amsterdam, 1974), p. 27, note 44, on connaît encore des A.SA da-lu-tu à Terqa au temps du royaume de Hana: TCL 1 238:8. Un autre passage pourrait être invoqué ici, mais il faut le prendre dans un sens ironique. Un certain personnage refuse d'assurer une répartition d'eau, disant à son interlocuteur: "Tu irrigueras (taiaqqi) le champ au seul moyen d'un aquamanile (me-e qafi-im-ma)!" (ARM XIII 142:9-10; pour mê qütim "bassin pour se laver les mains", voir CAD M D , 155b). Col. 1, 20: pi-ti tüirütim (G. Dossin, Syria 32 (1955) 4).

13 Cf. aussi B. Geyer et J.-Y. Monchambert, MARI 5 (1987) 313.. 14 Sur ce canal, voir B. Geyer et J.-Y. Monchambert, ibid., 312. 15 Cf. B. Geyer et J.-Y. Monchambert, ibid., 328-331; pour le tracé du Nahr Saïd, voir p. 307, fig. 3. 16 ARM III 79:ll-12; cf. ci-dessous, note 30. 17 Sur la carte dressée par P. Hamelin qui figure dans ARMT III, 112, le nom de nürum rabitum a été donné arbitrairement au Nahr Saïd. D'après le contexte de ARM III 79, "grand canal" i mtrouvaient en tout cas sur la même rive. et canal ~ g m - ~ & d u n - ~se 18 W. von Soden, Orient. 21 (1952) 83; 22 (1953) 199; J.-M. Durand, MARI 5 (1987) 215. 19 Cf. W. von Soden, AHw, 1307a, S.V. takkr'ru(m). M. Stol, RIA V, 357, fait dériver le terme du verbe nakarum.

20 La lecture de d ~ n'est pas ~ encore~ établie;. comme ~ l'indique~ le déterminatif, ~ il s'agit d'un nom divin, qui désigne à la fois un dieu et une localité. 21

Autres références: ARM XIII 142:8; XIV 13:22; 14:17; M.7451a VI:5 (texte inédit cité dans ARMT XXIII, 411). Pour la lecture du passage de ARM III 34, cf. CAD A/2, 484b.

22

Le passage est neanmoins difficile interpréter. D'après le CAD S, 214b, il faut lire sé-ki-ri E(=ikam) li-iS-pu-ku, mais on attendrait le nominatif sé-ki-ru. M. Stol a proposé de corriger li-ii-pu-ku en li-ii-pu-ru! et de lire sé-ke-re-e (Bi.Or. 35 (1978) 2 19-220).

23 Pour la traduction, cf. AHw,

Pour la traduction du passage, cf. CAD A/1, 135b. D'autres textes confirment les besoins en main-d'oeuvre: ARM III 19-14 (pour la traduction, cf. CAD 1-J, 220b); 3:6-8; 34:9-12 (pour la traduction, cf. CAD A/2, 484b); XIV 1350; 14124-26; 18:10'-12'.

Saqû(m) II, 1181a.

24

Cf. J. Safren, art. cité, p. 128, qui traduit: "We shall take care of the obstruction". De son c6t6, le CAD K, 441b, traduit: "we will handle".

25

C'est la proposition du CAD B, 163a: "dam". W. von Soden, AHw, 947b, suggère "eine Aufschüttung auf dem Feld?". M. Stol, RlA V, 358, y voit plutôt un genre particulier de canal.

26

ARMT XXIII, 411-412.

27

i-na ba-li-tim: ARMT XXII 328 col. I:10, 41; KASKAL Sa ba-li-tim: col. II: 20, 30; A.GAR ba-l[i-tim]: col. I V 5

28

Cf. M. Birot, ARMT XIV, 218. Le CAD M/2, 157b, adopte la traduction "barrage". W. von Soden, AHw, 665a, suggère "Zubringerkanal?". P. Steinkeller, en revanche, y voit un réservoir (cf. le croquis pl. 4 pour illustrer le passage ARM VI 4).

29

Studia Mariana, 59, date no. 31.

Cf. J.-R. Kupper, MARI 3 (1984) 181. Comme H. Klengel l'a fait remarquer (art. cité, p. 79-80), aucun texte ultérieur ne fail état du creusement d'un nouveau canal.

S.V.

L'irrigation B Mari

KUPP~

L. 12: lire i-Sa-[ab-b]a-tu avec le CAD Mn,157b, et W. von Soden, AHw, 1130a. La suite du passage est obscure. Syria 41 (1964) 34-35; cf. J.M. Durand, MARI 3 (1984) 137. Le CAD ne traduit pas le terme igum dans les textes cités ici (cf. K, p. 179a, s.v. kaparu; M/1, 177a, S.V. malfi); W. von Soden, AHw, 1563a, assimile le terme à ikum "fossé". ARM XIV 23:15-16 offre la variante mê mikrim nadûm. A noter aussi i-nu-ma mi-ik-ri-im (ARM XXIV 199:14) "lors de l'irrigation". Le document est daté du 1" jour du mois de Hibirtum bis; Hibirtum est le cinqui8me mois du calendrier de Mari. D'après le CAD S, 45b, ce sens serait propre aux textes de Man; en effet, ailleurs, le verbe signifie aussi "irriguer".

Le vocabulaire est varié. On parle de la "crue" des cours d'eau: mîlum (ARM Ill 9:s; VI 8:8; XIV 14:9; 15:9'; 18:2',3'; 20:s; 21:s; A.llO1, 8 [dans La voix de l'opposition en Mésopotamie, p. 1841, du "gonflement" du Habur: tappiitum (ARM XIV 18:6). Les cours d'eau "montent": malûm (ARM III 2:s; IV 23:14; 22; VI 8:7; XIV 13:42; 159; 185; 19:16), "subissent un afflux": terditam r & h (ARM VI 2: 6), ou, s'agissant d'un oued (nablum), "surviennent": kdüdum (RA 61 (1967) 103, inédit 1. 10) ou alakum (ARM VI 35-8); on dit aussi d'un oued qu'il s'est "répandu": itbukam (ARM VI 4:8). Dans l'autre sens, les cours d'eau "baissent": m a t h (ARM IV 23:Z0; VI 8:12; 17%') ou "se retirent": turrum (ARM VI 2:lO; 8:9). Cf. P. Sanlaville, MARI 4 (1985) 25. Texte reconstitué, publié par P. Villard, dans MARI 5 (1987) 591-592.

antérieure A l'anivée de B y d i - L i ; ce dernier rassure le mi en affirmant qui'il va la colmater rapidement. En revanche, le lieu-dit "champ de la brèche" (ARMT XXIII 439:9; 466:4) évoque plutôt une installation permanente. 42

Nom d'année no. 29, dans Studia Mariana, p. 58. Cependant, J.-M. Durand attribue un sens politique à ce nom d'année (cf. ARMT XXIII, p. 484, note 85); il s'agirait de la pacification de la région entre Terqa et Mari, à la suite d'une rebellion. On attendrait également Bu-te!-Su-ri-im dans ARM XIV 13:9, ainsi que l'a suggéré M. Stol, dans Bi.Or. 35 (1978) 219. Nom d'année de Zimri-Lim no. 30, dans Studia Mariana, p. 59. En réalité, il ne s'agit pas d'un nom d'année à proprement parler, mais bien d'un mode de datation occasionnelle, comme le montre le texte ARMT XXIII 42 (cf. D. Charpin, MARI 4 (1985) 253). C'est le sens que lui attribue le CAD dans tous les cas (B, 277a; cf. A. Salonen, Agricultura Mesopotamica (Helsinki, 1968) 228-229); toutefois, je pense que dans la plupart de ceux qui ont été mentionnés, il s'agit de brèches accidentelles. Par exemple, dans ARM VI 4:13-15, ce sont les eaux, note Bydi-Lim, qui ont élargi la br8che sur 4 cannes, soit environ 12 m. Dans ARM VI 9, la b&che, qui en mesure le double, est

CAD MD, 107a: "crurnbled area in a mud-brick structure"; AHw, 658a: "schadhafte Stelle (in Mauem)". Sur le terme, voir également M. Birot, ARMT XIV, 218-219. Le pluriel mirqëtu se retrouve dans ARM XIV 13:19, 51, pareillement à propos du Habur.

43 ARM XIV 1 8 9 : 2 am-ma-a ka-la-kam e-li-8i-na i-ka-app;-it. Sur kalakkurn dans ce contexte, voir M. Bimt, ARMT XIV, 222; il faut bien lire ukappit, car kubbunun ne s'emploie que dans le sens d"'hono~r". 44

J.-R. Kupper, ARMT VI, 15: "la (construction en) pierre"; CAD Afl, 91a: "the stone (dam)"; A12, 189a: "the stone (regulating the flow of water?)"; W1, 434a: "the stones".

45

Sur ce passage, cf. ci-dessus, p. 9, note 22.

46

Ii s'agit de ma-@-ab-bi: cf. ci-dessous, p. 11. A la ligne 9, ukabbat est pour ukappat, en accord avec le CAD S, 214b; dans un volume précédent (Mil, 49a), le CAD traduisait séki-ri i-ka-ab-ba-at "1 will strengthen the sluice-gates".

47 ARM XIV 17; texte complété par M. Birot, dans MARI 1 (1982) 149. Voir aussi, après la relecture de J.M. Durand, MARI 5 (1987) 195, le cas d'un autre sëkinun, nommé Taribum: ARM V 28:28-35. 48

Cf. CAD W ,260a. Dans ARM VI1 32:3, au lieu de [Sa] ba!-Li-tim, il faut lire [i-nul-ma ii-li-mu: cf. MARI 2 (1983) 76. Pour sàlibum, la traduction "irrigateur", proposée avec réserve par B. Lafont, Miscellanea Babylonica, Mélanges offerts à M. Birot (Paris, 1985), p. 163, est encore douteuse (cf. CAD S, 99b).

49

Cf. notamment K.R. Veenhof, Symbolae Bohl (Leyde, 1973) 371-374.

Voir à ce sujet R. Thoumin, Géographie humaine de la Syrie centrale (Tours, 1936), p. 39 ss. Cf. A. Finet, ARMT XIII, 171; K.R. Veenhof, Mesopotamië. Het land en het water, p. 28, note 56. Le CAD M/1, 125b, traduit "(even) two fingers (?)", en pensant évidemment à S ~ . ~ ~ = u b i i n umais r n , A. Finet me signale que le signe SI est indiscutable.

L'irrigation à Mari

50 Les dictionnaires restent dans le vague: CAD A/1, 91a: "field or Pasture by the city wa1.l"; AHw, 9a: "etwa Flusswiese". 51 Vol. A/2, 348b. 52

il existe plusieurs verbes hesûm, mais aucun n'offre de sens satisfaisant; cf. M. Birot, ARMT XIV, 219-220.

53 W. von Soden, AHw, 1546a; M. Stol, RIA V, 361. 54 J'avais proposé la traduction "conduits(?)", faisant dCriver le terme du verbe babiibum, attesté seulement en babylonien standard, qui signifie "murmurer", s'agissant de l'eau. Les dictionnaires restent hésitants: le CAD M/1, 49a, propose "part of a dam", et W. von Soden, AHw, 577b, "etwas am Kanal?". Tous deux suggkrent un emprunt ouest-sémitique. 55

Gilgamei, XIe tablette, lignes 101-102.

56

Orient. 17 (1948) 53-54.

IRRIGATION IN KASSITE BABYLONIA W. van Soldt

(Leiden)

,

'?

/

'f

'

0,"

,,Ma ,*/,.,,-damar.utu ki-i ep-tu-I5 mi-sli, "When I opened the water from the Bana-Sa-Marduk-numkaru it was too little". Compare also the letter B 40 in which the writer complains that the &azannu of a nearby town is taking water from the namkaru of the lord of the writer, although - according to this writer - his own namkaru is filled with water. Thus, the purpose of the namkaru complies with its etymology, "imgation-canal". Probably, these namkaru-canals could be quite long and could provide a number of fields with water. This is especially clear from the map in JNES 21, where three namkaru's are shown, two of which branch off from the ruiru. All three traverse more than one field or estate. The namkaru could thus best be compared with the modem bada or naharan (Fernea 1970, 122). It is not clear whether boats were able to use a namkaru; no reference to boats occurs in the texts. Like the ndru, the namkaru could be opened or closed. d B 3:6, nam-kar si-mat- [enlfll d nam-kar d[en.lfl...] 1 [e-pe-e]t?-te, ''I will open the Simat-Enlil-namkaru and the Enlil- ... namkaru". Compare also ibid.16 and B 27:33, both quoted above. B 40:3, &a-za-an-nu Sa b&Ldp&.ni:.gar.raE nam-ga-ra is-se-[kel-er, "The burgomaster Dtir-Panigarra has blocked the namkaru". As parts of the namkaru we find a bdbu @A, P 56:21 and B 27:33) and in a GN we find kenurn-ka-rz? (CBS 13488:4). Sometimes the determinative i, is added to a namkaru when term is part of a name, cf.: in[a]m-gdr-

d

en.lflk, i n a m - g a - r ~ ~ n . k u r . hand r inam-gar-lugal

Unlike a ruiru, a namkaru could contain sluices (biStu), 112

(S.2.6,1:52).

o

Irrigation in Kassite Babylonia

... uh-hu-ra, "And " "

the four hiftuis of

Whether the water from the , !mkaru was used directly to irrigate the fields is unclear. In the letter B 3 the natbaktu is fillea lirectly from the namkaru and the field is irrigated as soon as the natbaktu is full enough. In B 4( a whole tamirtu appears to be dependent on one namkaru: B 40:10f., be-lf lif-pu-ra-am-ma fa-mi-ir-ta Sa i-na Sh-hi-fu li-ma-al-lu-ri lif-qi, "May my lord write that he must irrigate the tamirtu which he should fill from it (i.e. the namkaru)".

In conclusion, one can say that a namkaru is an irrigation canal which branches off from the ndru and provides a large area (as large as a tamirtu) with water, presumably through a natbaktu (see below, 5a).

c. A few other terms for canals and ditches occur in the texts. First, there is the atappu, a secondary branch from the ndru, separating individual fields and cstates according to the map in JNES 21. At least, the atappu does not appear to function as a main irrigation canal but rather as a relatively short ditch bordering a field. It is possible that the pa, mentioned in the kudurm S.2.8 (see the beginning of this section) is our atappu, although a palgu seems to be attested in P 53:19. Another pa, occurs in B 3:10, 1 pa5 dx[.x.x].ra ul ep-re, "And I did not open the ditch of ...". Second, there is the iku. Apart from the kudurm occurrence mentioned earlier we find it in the letter P 78:1OY,1 ka-a-r[u7] So a-hi +idigna $a ul-f[u] e .KTB.N& a-di M ~ ] 1;~ danna ka-lu-ri lu e[-pu-~7], "At the embankment along the Tigris a dike should be made (cxtending) one and five-sixths double miles from the ditch (connected with) the Euphra'tes to the [own ...". Apart from these occurrences, we have a few syllabic spellings in kudurms (quoted CAD I/J, 67b) which refer to the function of the iku as boundary ditch. Like the modern umud, the water ran through the center of a low earth wall. Finally, we encounter the term takkiru in text P 57, a word also attested in earlier and later lcxts (mostly as a name). According to the text the takkiru had a door (kd) and could be closed, just like the ndru and namkaru. It should be noted that this text is rather idiosyncratic in its terminology; it is also the only one to use the word kilu for "dam". 5.

The reservoirs attested in the texts.

a. The most important of these seems to have been the natbaktu. This term occurs in three texts. Apparently, water could be brought from a namkaru into a ~atbaktu, B 3: 15f., Sa na-at-b[a]-ak-ti me-e ul-tu nam-kar Pdti-a-<S&>-darnar.utu ki-i ep-tu-li mi-sli, "As for the natbaktu, when I opened the water from the BanCSa-Marduk-namkaru it was too little". Ibid.:18f., me-e [$]a %~[a]rn?-gdr-~en.lfl~a-nu nu-at-ba-ak-ti e-[ple-e[t-tie. "I will open the water flow of the Namkar-Enlil into the natbaktu". Thus, if one narnkaru did not have sufficient water, this could be brought in from another numkaru. From the natbaktu water was brought into the field itself:

[

van Soldt

Inigation in Kassite Babylonia

B 3:17f., a.SA Sa di?r.ra-ga-mil i-ma-l[a-a]-ma na-at-ba-ak-ta e-se-ki-ir-ma ... i-na-an-na e-pe-et-te-ma mu-li ul-tu na-at-b[a-a]k-ti Sa di?r.ra-ga-mil li-sli-ni, "As soon as the field of Erra-gmil has filled up, I will close the natbaktu, ... should I open now, the water would certainly flow out of the natbaktu of Erra-gmil (?)". The natbaktu was surrounded by a dike, according to B 3: B 3:21, Sa k[a]-le-e Sa na-at-b[a-a]k-ti q&-nu4Sa 5 tar-bi Sa ensi.meS Sb pdamar.ut[u-ii]ru na-di, "As to the dike of the natbaktu, the reed of the five tarbu's of the iSSakku's of Marduk-nQir has been put in place". Ibid.:30f., i-na-an-na-a me-e a-na na-at-ba-ak-ti e-pe-te-ma mu-li a-na "d&r.ra- ga-mil ul ir-ru-bu me-e a-na na-at-ba-ak-ti e-pe-te-ma a-na [email protected] ki-i ir-ru-bu 3 ka-lu-li ul e-pu-d, "If I open the water into the natbaktu, it will not enter Erra-gmil. If I open the water into the natbaktu, how will it enter Diir-Enlille as long as (?) the dike has not been made(!)". Probably, the dike had to make sure the water would reach the area around Diir-EnliUe. The construction of natbaktu's is described in B 12: na-at-[b]a-ak-ti [etfite-ri [x] B 12:4f., 10 na'-at-ba-ka-a-ti us-se-ki-ir 21 Se-[p]i-i[t] mi-ih-re-e-ti [Sa] i-na ka na-at-b[a]-ak-ti 3' Se-pi-it na-at-ba-ak-ti na-du-6 ul-te-li, "Ten natbaktu's I dammed up, 21 lower ends of natbaktu's I dug, x weirs which were located in the upper end(s) and the lower end(s) of the natbaktu(s) I removed".

van

Soldt

Inigation in Kassite Babylonia

some sort of " ~ e r b i n d u n ~ s k a dbetween " the two canals mentioned in this text.

c. Finally, there is the word ~uppiitu(plural), which occurs in three texts: P 56:13f., be-li li-iS-pu-ra-am-ma me-e a-na bi-x[ 1 li-id-di-nu su-up-pa-ti-Su-nu Ii-ma-a[-Iu-li 3 %Sib.meS-Jli-nu su-ub-bu-ta a-na a.SA lugal a-nu la e-re-A la-a[m] m[u]-li i-ba-lu4 be-lf li-iq-bi-ma su-up-pa[-t]u-Su-nu la in-na-da-a, "Let my lord write that they will give water for ... Let them fill up their suppcitu. Their sealed documents are deposited. Let my lord give instructions not to plow the king's field before the water has dried up. Their suppdtu may not be neglected". The term is also attested in two kudurms, R.2.4,1:31 and BBSt 15,11:6; in both cases they are used as reference points to indicate the boundaries of plots of land. Thus, little can be said about suppiitu apart from the fact that they can be filled with water.

6. Dikes, sluices and weirs

a. Undoubtedly the most important word in this category is &la, lit. "keeper". Measurements for the Eli2 are provided by three texts, the most interesting of which is CBS 4742. Three stretches ore mentioned in this text, 1052m, 1144.5m and 2340m. In P 63:14' we find 360m (near the tanzilam) and in P 78:119 l d double mile (a reference not beyond doubt). No data are available for width and height of the kiild. The work on the kdlli, its construction and repair is expressed by several verbs. The construction of the kcild is expressed by epZSu:

From this it seems clear that a natbaktu was some sort of reservoir which had an upper and lower end and in which weirs were erected. However, whether the natbaktu was a "Staustufe" (AHw), that is a part of a namkaru, or a reservoir lying along a namkaru remains unanswered.

P 63:7'f., &Sum ka-le-e Sa [ which my lord ordered to make".

b. Tanzilam and talgab

B 3:33, ka-lu-li ul e-pu-d, "A k l l i has not been made(!)".

P 485, ka-la-a Sa be-lf i-pu-Su, "the kiild which my lord made". ] [#]a be-lf e-pe-Sa iS-pu-ra, "As for the kiilli of

...

B 15:14, ]$a ka-la-a i-na er-re-fi-Su i-pu-Su, "Who made a kcilli with his cultivators".

These two terms are attested in text P 63: P63:7'f., a$-Sum ka-le-e Sa[ ] [S]a be-lf e-pe-Sa iJ-pu-ra ta-al-ga-ab tar-ru Su-li i-nu ta-an-z[i-lam] [$]a? '7q&-ab-la-at'--uru 3 il Sa uru-"%-a-mu a-Jar 1 kiiS a-Sar 2 kiiS a-#[ar 3 kCS(?)] [a-ka]-an-na i-qd-ab-bi um-ma-a e-ne-en-na-ma ?q&-ab-la-at-u[ru ] [ ]x ki ma ta-an-zi-lam i-ba-aF-Si i7 Sa uru-"%-a-mu me-e ul i-din' [ ] [ta]-an-zi-lam-Ja 1-li i-[n]a ta-an-zi-lam fa ] [ a-a-i-ka-a ul-tu, i7 ep-tu-ma mi-ik-ra en-gi-r[3 i,.didli ki-la-at-te-e in-&-la [kli-Sa-ad-su 20,- Se.nurnun 1 US ka-lu-li, "As to the dike of which my lord instructed me to build, this watercourse is a talgab. In the tanzilam of the Qablat-fili-canal and the canal of h-~a-iddina,here one cubit, there two cubits, there three cubits (?) ... He speaks in the following terms: 'The Qablat-lili-canal ... and there is a tanzilam, the canal of AI-~a-iddinadid not provide (?) water, where is its tanzilam?' After I had opened the canal and irrigated ... in the tanzilam of both these canals had filled up. It8 embankment, 20 kor of land, a dike 360m (long)".

...

According to this text, a talgab seems to be a sort of watercourse, while tanzilam appears to be

Or by Sapdku: S.2.8,1:8, in er[im].hi.a-Su ka-la-a iS-pu-uk, "With his workers he piled up a kr5lil"

The same verb is used in the long passage in CBS 4742 where kiilli is mentioned several times with the remark Sa eperu Sapku, "Which has been piled up with earth" (lit.: of which the earth

has been piled up). In the last instance J a p a u can also refer to repair work. The latter is also expressed by dunnunu: P 33:2f., li-is-ki-ru-ma ka-la-a li-dan-ni-nu-li-ma me-e li-ip-tu-li, "Let them block (the water flow) and let them strengthen the kiilli; then they may open the water flow again".

A kiilli had a front (pcimitu, pdnu) and a rear (kutallu). In CBS 4742 several stretches are mentioned, some of which show S b u while others do not,

van Soldt

Irrigation in Kassite Babylonia

CBS 4742:58f., i-na 390 gar ka-le-e ... 160 gar Sa pa-na 12 ku-t~l-laSu-li-ra ku-ul-lu-mu 1 US Sa pa-na-tu Su-li-ra ku-ul-lu-mu 1 US 5 gar Sa e-pe-ru Sa-ap-k[u] 105 gar la qk-er-bu, "Of 2340m of kiild ... (there is) 960m which shows reed on its front and rear, 360m which shows reed on its front, 390m which has been piled up with earth and 630m (which) has not been worked on yet".

van Solclt

Irrigation in Kassite Babylonia

No reference is preserved as to the material of which a hiitu was made, we can only say that it had a door and was part of a namkaru and a dike. The translation "sluice" seems the best for the moment.

c. mi@ Text B 12 provides us with measures of a mi@:

This means that the kdld was sometimes, if not always, strengthened with reed.

B 12:14f., z2 erim.meS ki as-su-ha a-na mi-ih-ri ba-ta-qi eq-re-ri-ib 2; gar US 1 ga[r] 3 kiiS dagal 4; kiiS me-lu-zi 40' erim.meS ki-i i-ba-at-ta-qu [eri]m.meS mi-i-sli [n]u?hri,me~ li-il-li-ku-ni-ma [i]t-ti-ia li-ib-tu-qu "And when I had transferred the workmen, I started cutting through the mi@; 15m is its length, 7.5m its width and 2.25m its height. When the 40 workmen have to cut through it, they are too few. Let the gardeners come to cut through with me".

Other contexts in which kiild occurs are: P 48:18, mu-li it-ti ka-le-e in-na-am-ma-ru, "The water is as high as the kiila" (lit.: is seen with the kdld). B 3:21, Sa k[a]-le-e Sa na-at-b[a-afk-ti qci-nu-li Sa 5 har-bi Sa ensi.meS Sa pdamar.ut[u-ii]ru na-di, "As to the kiild of the natbaktu, the reed of the five harbu's of the iSSakku's of Marduk-nasir has been put in place".

As in CBS 4742, reed is apparently used for the kii112. Summing up the available evidence, we can say that the kiild could be very long (over two kilometers), that it was made by piling up earth and probably strengthened by reed on its front and rear and that it was used to guide water. The only possible translation which fits this evidence is the word "dike".

Thus the mihru, unlike the hiStu, had a considerable width, 7.5m, and many workmen were needed to remove it in a short time. This brings us to the verbs used to describe the activities on the mihru. Again, text B 12 is enlightening:

-

B 12:8f., [x] mi-ih-re-e-ti [Sa] i-na ka na-at-b[a]-ak-ti [xlx Se-pi-it na-at-ba-ak-ti na-du-6 ul-te-li 1 mi-it-ra [$]a i-na i7 [g]ib[il17 na-du-li ul-te-li, "X mihru's which were located in the upper end(s) and the lower end(s) of the natbaktu9(s) I removed".

b. h_iftu

CBS 4742 provides us with some measures for the hiitu. I will quote the pertinent passage in full:

k]u-ul-lum 20 kiiS.h ra-ap-pa-Sa 3 12 CBS 4742:65f., 8 hi-Sa-a-nr, 40 gar 5 g[i7 kiiS.h ~ a - a ~ - ~ c i ep-So - a " 3 4 hi-Sa-a-tu, nam-gar b~d-~mar.tu 2 hi-Sa-a-tu, Sa W A L ~ 3 kan7-du-ru-li Sa b~d-~mar.tu uh-hu-ra, "Eight hiStu's, 255m ...; each of them has been made lorn wide and 6m high and 4 hiStu's of the namkaru of Diir-Amurm, 2 4iStu's of KAL and the kandurd of Diir-Amurm are behind schedule". Thus, we obtain a size for one hiStu of 10 x 6m. The hiStu apparently had a door which could be opened:

P 48:5f., ka-la-a Sa be-li i-pu-Su kkB hi-Sa-a-ti Sa su-ur-ru-ha ... "As to the dike which my lord built, the door(s) of the hiStu's that are broken ..." (remainder uncertain). B 3:llf., Sa be-li iS-[pu-ra] um-ma-a hi-Sa-ti [pi]-ti mu-li a-di-na i-na [kkB? hi-fla-a-ti [ul] iS-Sa-ka-nu, "What my lord wrote to me: 'Open the hiStu's!', water has not yet accumulatcd in the (door? of the) hitu's".

The construction of hiStu's is mentioned in another text: P 55,R:4'f., [a-na] mu-uh me-e Sa i,-*en.ll[l] [Sa'] i-pe-et-tu-li mi-Si-il er[im.meS] [ila-M] mu-uh ka-le-e du-ul-l[u ...I @? mi-Si-il erim.meS bi-i-Sa-ti [ ] [liS]-t[a-a]k-ka-n[u], "Apart from "the water of the Nar-Enlil-canal which they will open, half of the workmen must [carry out] work on the dike and half of the workmen must put the his'ru's in place".

Apparently, the mihru last mentioned was lying in a ndru and had to be removed (Slild). The mihru's mentioned at the beginning were placed in the upper and lower ends of natbaktu's or possibly just one natbaktu, which, as we have seen, could have been a dammed-up section of a namkaru (5.a). The other verb used for the mi@ is batdqu (see the text just quoted and compare also S.2.6,11:18f., du-ul-li bit-qt mi-ib-ri). The mi@ apears to be quite different from the hiStu and the translation "weir" seems justified. Probably, the mihru was made of earth which could be dug away (batdqu), whereas the hiStu had a door that coild be opened. 7.

Reed

Two words are attested for "reed" in the Kassite texts, qand and Sliru.

a. qant2 is almost always attested with the verb nadd and in this context it is best translated by "to put reed in place". CBS 4742:61f., an-nu-tu-ma at-ta-ma-an-nu kurun sagi tab-bi-hu-li ld.sag.me8 3 sli-hur-tu4 qci-na-a-ma i-zu-zu it-ta-du-li, "Now, these, each of them, the innkeeper, the cup-bearer, the bakers, the Sa r2i"s and the suhurtu's have divided the reed (and) put (it) in place".

Ilowever, the next line (63) describes their wandering off to celebrate the tzrubtu-festival, so we cannot be entirely sure that nadd does not mean "abandon" in this context. Another text seems ccrtain on this point:

B 3:21f., Sa k[a]-le-e Sa na-at-b[a-a]k-ti qci-nu-li Sa 5 har-bi Sa ensi.meS Sa' pdamar.ut[u-h]ru na-di i-na a-Sa-ab be-li-ia a-na be-li-ia al-tap-ra @ i-nu-an-na a-na

van Soldt

Inigation in Kassite Babylonia

be-li-ia al-tap-ra ki-i qd-nu-ri na-du-ri '"[apin.meS7 fla er-re-Si 3 Sa ensi.meS ki-i ri-qd-ri-bu i-te-e[p-Su7 ...I, "As to the dike of the natbaktu, the reed of the five harbu's of the iSSakku9s of Marduk-nasir has been put in place. When my lord was here I wrote to my lord and now I write again to my lord. Because the reed has been put in place, the plows/plowteams of the cultivators and the iSsakku's, when I got them started, have worked ... ". B 46:6f., 1 iti 10 u4-mi is'-tu qa-na-a ad-du-ri ki-ki-i 20 gar la ma-a-l[i] [email protected] m[a]-a'-da-a li-it-ku-su-ma li-pu-Su-ma! gii.en.na la i-ru-a'-li-ub um-ma-a iS-tu ma!-ru-li na-du-ri 1 US na-bal-kht-ta at-ta-di im-ma-ti i-he-er-ru-ri, "It is one month and ten days since I put the reed in place. How is it that the 120m are not yet complete? There are many workmen, they should be hired to do the work so that the Sandabakku will not become angry. Also, since the first (reed) was put in place I put in place 260m of nabalkattu. When are they going to dig?" Compare also P 36: P 36,R:23f., 1-Su erim.meS J~-~ur'-m[a]2 US gi li-Se-zi-bu-#, "Send 60 workmen, so that they 'save' 720m of reed". b. The other word, Siiru, is used in contexts which are more diverse in content. In a few texts the Siiru is reported to be "strong":

B 3:34f., ta-mi-ir-ta Sa bh[d-*en.lfl].ki.a be-li ki i-mu-ru a-ka-an-na iq-t[a-ba-a um-ma]-a Su-ru da-an ma-am-ma la x[ , "When my lord inspected the tamirtu of Diir-Enlille he spoke to me as follows: 'The reed is strong, no one may ...' ". B 48:20f., 3 a.Sh Sa pdga~an-Gh-dingir.me~ ki-i a-mu-ru zu-gi-ir-ru Su-ru danM, "And when I inspected the field of B e l e t - ~ i ~ - ithe l i ... (and) the reed was strong". (A connection with the later sungiru [CAD S, 384al is problematic.)

In P 57 we find nakiisu and sapL2: P 57:18f., um-ma-a Su-ri-ra am-mi-na-an-na-a fa-ki-sa-ma gi-na-ti am-mi-ni gu-un-nu-nu-tu-nu-ma, "Thus: 'Why did you have to cut the reed just now (and) why arc you confined ..."

Ibid.:30f., 3 i-na-an-na Su-ri-ra a-na sa-pe-e-ma tak-ki-ra a-na se-ke-ri a-na-ku ..., "And now, in order to soak the reed and to close the takkiru-canal, I ..." The most intriguing text, however, is again CBS 4742 in which an already quoted (6.a) list is given of sections of dikes which do or do not show Siiru at the front and rear. To sum up, it appears that qanL2 (and sometimes Siiru) was used for imgation works, primarily to strengthen dikes; Siiru could become so dense in fields that it had to be removed.

8.

A short remark on those who performed the work and the officials in charge.

As already indicated above, the installations with which the writers of the quoted letters arc concerned are always used for areas of land larger than a single field. Thus, for instance, wc never find a report on the work on atappu's and iku's, only on ndru's and namkaru's. This

van Solclt

Inigation in Kassite Babylonia

roughly parallels the modern situation, compare Fernea 1970, 123: "Responsibility for the upkeep of the system rests both with the Directorate of Irrigation and with the individual users. The imgation engineer has the legal right to requisition labor from the users of government canals and to raise funds for their cleaning through special levies. But while local irrigators may be required to contribute their money and efforts to the upkeep of these major canals, all the decision-making responsibility is reserved to the Directorate of Imgation. After the water leaves the government canal the responsibility for construction and maintenance of canals rests with the cultivator or cultivators. The small canals or umud's are the joint responsibility of all the farmers taking water from them". In the Kassite texts, sdbu ([email protected]) are usually employed for the work on the irrigation system. However, on some occasions people from probably nearby estates had to come to give assistance: B 12:19f., 40' erim.meS ki-i i-ba-at-ta-qu [eri]m.meS mi-i-sli [n~u.~kiri,meSli-il-li-ku-ni-ma [i]t-ti-ia li-ib-tu-qu, "(And when I had transferred the workmen, I started cutting through the mihru ...). When the 40 workmen have to cut through it, they are too few. Let the gardeners coke to cut through with me". Unfortunately, we do not know the title(s) of the writers of the many letters that deal with irrigation. From a couple of texts it is clear that the Sa rZSi could be in charge: B 13:5f., 1ii.sag.lugal Sa dul-la ri-Se-ep-p[i]-Su,, ..., "The Sa rCSi who is in charge of the work ...". B 1:5f., 1ii.sag.lugal ... urn-ma-a dul-la i-nu ka-ri Su-pa-li-i sa-ab-ta-ma ep-Sa, "The Sa rZSi ..., saying: 'Start working on the lower quay' ". A more general word for official seems to be qQu: B 46:15f., im-ma-ti i-he-er-ru-li qi-ip-ka a-a-um-ma ul i-mu-ur, "When are they going to dig? No single official of you carried out an inspection". The gugallu, a likely candidate for the 'irrigation engineer', only occurs in letter B 27:8, in broken context. He is also attested in a few kudurrus. Nothing with regard to his position can be gathered from these attestations.

CONCLUSIONS. If we try to sum up the rather meagre results of this study, we come to the following conclusions: 1. Work on the irrigation system was done in months 11, I11 and IV (and possibly V), that is, April to June (July). 2. The official in charge of this work remains unknown. On a few occasions the Sa rZSi appears to be in charge.

3. The letters only deal with irrigation works concerning more than one field. Individual owners

Inigation in Kassite Babylonia

van Soldt

were probably responsible for canals and dikes used to irrigate single plots. 4. Work on the irrigation system included the digging of canals (ndru, namkaru), the building of dikes ( E l d ) , weirs (mihru), and sluices (hiStu), as well as reservoirs (natbaktu). Of the canals the ndru was the main source for water, the namkaru brought the water from the niZru to smaller units (e.g., a tamirtu), and it probably only served as an irrigation canal. From the namkaru the water apparently passed through a natbaktu into the fields. Whether a natbaktu was part of the namkaru or was built along the namkaru cannot be made out for the moment. The dikes were apparently strengthened with reed placed on the front and rear of the dike.

5 . ugiiru and tamirtu probably refer to different things. The word ugdru seems to have been a general indication of farm land, consisting, of course, of individual fields (harbu, eqlu). The tamirtu probably was an area in which irrigation was applied. It does not seem to have had the status of a 'district'. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS Fernea, R.A. 1970

Hinke, W.J. 1907 Jacobsen, Th. 1982

Shaykh and Effendi. Changing Patterns of Authority Among the El Shabana of Southern Iraq (Cambridge, Mass.)

A New Boundary Stone of Nebuchadnezzar I from Nippur (Philadelphia)

Salinity and Irrigation Agriculture in Antiquity (Bibliotheca Mesopotarnica 14; Malibu, UNDENA Publications)

Other abbreviations: B = BE 17 = H. Radau, Letters to Cassite kings from the temple archives of Nippur (Babylonian Expedition, 17li; Philadelphia 1908). P = PBS I/2 = A.T. Clay, Documents from the temple archives of Nippur dated in the reigns of Cassite rulers (University of Pennsylvania Museum, Publications of the Babylonian Section, 2lii; Philadelphia 1912). T 5 = TMH NF 5 = I. Bernhardt, Texte und Materialen der Frau Professor Hilprecht-Sammlung vorderasiatischer Altertiimer im Eigentum der Friedrich-Schiller-UniversitatJena NF V (Berlin 1976).

The kudurrus are quoted according to the number assigned in J.A. Brinkman, Materials for the Study of Kassite History, 1 Rome 1976).

NEO-BABYLONIAN AGRICULTURE G. van Driel (Leiden)

I. Introductory Remarks

1. The problems a. Documentation The evidence concerning Neo-Babylonian agriculture is mainly derived from the archives of Ebabbar in Sippar, Eanna in Uruk, and the private archives of the Egibis - with the Nur-Sins and the Sin-ilis in Babylon, with some additional information from other groups, notably the Nappau's and the smaller archives in Borsippa. For the later Achaemenid period, the Muragt3 archive is much more important than the Tattannu group. The Mu&Q archive occupies a completely unique position in that it contains evidence about a feudal society outside the towns. There are some important differences between the published material from Sippar and Uruk. In Uruk the major part of the evidence deals with the functioning of the central administration of the temple: much about the rent farm, central accounting and administrative disputes. The material from Sippar, as far as published, also deals with accounting, but it is much more "small scale". There is, for instance, only one major document dealing with the rent farm. The material from Sippar is very fragmentary. The documents preserved in private archives differ greatly from those derived from the temple administration: important are property titles. Tenancy contracts underlie the role of the private businessman in developing the countryside, especially the transformation of arable land into date orchards along virtually all canals known. The lack of information about the exploitation of arable in the private archives is striking. All these archives share, however, one common factor. All deal, as far as agriculture is concerned exclusively with the relations of the landlord with his tenants. The landlord may be replaced by rent farmers, but that makes little difference. As practical agriculture is in the hands of the tenants, little of it is reflected in the documents. Most documents deal in ope way or the other with the payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord or his representative: tenancy agreements, assessments of expected yields, promises to deliver the amounts assessed and receipts on delivery. This means that practical agricultural work occurs only sporadically in what are after all, considerable numbers of texts. For confirmation one could refer to entries like esbdu in the dictionaries. Irrigation, self-evidently indispensable in Southern Mesopotamia, is poorly documented, while the question of fallow can hardly be touched upon at all. The documentation is abundant, but practical agriculture is hidden behind it, one can ask the obvious questions but an answer can be given with only the greatest hesitation. The planting of date orchards probably meant an increased importance of horticulture, but this is not reflected in the texts by an increase in the diversity of products mentioned. Greater variety is not found before the MurGOs, in the later Achaemenid period.

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

b. Metrology Neo-Babylonian metrology related to agriculture, i.e. measures of length and volume, has recently been treated by Powell (AfO 31 (1984) 32-66). The basic idea is that combination of a cubit of 50 crns with a SILA, of one litre is the only practical approach possible. Yet wewill have to be cautious. and recognize that actual practices varied. Powell differentiates between the "common" GUR of 54,000 square cubits which represents the ordinary equation and that of 50,000 of which the use in Uruk is well attested, but which certainly also occurs in Sippar. CI' 56, 65 obv. 6 and 9 establish the standard of 1 GUR = 50,000 square cubits there. One could quote VS 6, 255 for confirmation, even though the length of the fields in this text is not given. The standard frontage of 133 KUS 8 SU.SI is certainly related to the 1 kor = 50,000 square cubits system, as each 750 cubits of depth produce 10,000 square cubits, a fifth of a kor. But the 54,000 and 50,000 systems are not the only ones. Among the texts about Mardukapal-iddina's allotment schemes in the Uruk neighbourhood is AnOr 9, 1, paralleled by NBC 4848 and Crozer 201. In NBC 4848, the individual lots measure 70 x 5,000 cubits, or 7 kor in the 50,000 system. But line 35 as published by Goetze (JCS 1 (1974) 352) gives a surface of 5.4.1.0, i.e. 175 siitu, thus indicating with 350,000 square cubits a kor of 60,000 square cubits. (During the Leyden meeting, Powell told me that he would not consider a metrological'hapax as evidence. He thinks three attestations minimal before a new set of values becomes acceptable.) The difficulties the scribes had with the parallel use of the different systems of measurement is illustrated by the undated land register text AnOr 9, 10. Lines 1-6 and 7-10 produce on application of the "common system" of 1 GUR = 54,000 square cubits an area of 1315 GUR and of 65 GUR respectively. But the equation of 35,000 square cubits with 0.3.3.0 in lines 7-10 establishes the use of the GUR of 50,000 square cubits in the same text. This standard is used in what remains of the text, but the scribe felt insecure and did not fill in several totals. Significantly he also left open the totals in lines 44 and 60, which do not result in a round number of GURs in any system. The cubit provides its own problems, of course influencing surface measurements. Mrs Cocquerillat (1968, p. 25, note 45) reasonably interpretid a passage in AnOr 9,l (line 1) as meaning that 1000 royal cubits were the equivalent of 1100 temple cubits. Our imaginary cubit of 50 crns would become 45,4545 crns and a square cubit of 2,500 cm2 would turn into 2,066 cm2. A surface kor of 1'1, ha would become slightly more than a hectare. Dar 391 possibly expresses a similar phenomenon as 1 KUS 2 SU.SI ina 1 KUS LUGAL, "26 fingers equal 24 royal fingers". Cf., however, the different interpretation CAD M/2 p. 256 (muialld), which, of course, still implies concurrent use of different cubits. The kor as a measure of volume is not stable either. The practical Neo-Babylonian grain measure is the ma@u (cf. CAD M/1, p. 366) of 1 PI or 36 litres. But not just 5 to a kor (= 180 litres) are attested, but also 6(= 216 litres). The copy of CT 55,532 (rev. 7-9) suggests 4 ma;i.i:bu to a kor, but the text seems to have 5. We can accept therefore a minimum value for the kor of 5 PI or 180 litres. But the actual contents of the m&bu vary. The texts quoted by the CAD allow anything between 1 and 2 PI. Only one instance of a muiibu containing less than a PI is quoted. The emendation in VS 6, 25 of a-di into a-ki is not compelling, however: a d i b u of 66 SILA, would not be the biggest known.

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

Practical consequences are considerable. Reduction of a surface kor from 60,000 to 54,000 and 50,000 square cubits indicates a certain intensification of agriculture in the period we are dealing with. The rate of 6 maiihu to a kor is used regularly in Sippar at the delivery of imittu dates. If the texts about assessment of imittu use the same kor, and if seed grain (cf. CT 55, 532, rev. 7-9) is measured at a rate of 5 maiibus to a kor, then that introduces a considerable additional degree of uncertainty in all speculations about yield, rental, seed grain and related topics. In all periods authorities have tended to adapt the practical size of standard measures to their needs. So, accepting in practice that a cubit is 50 crns and a SILA, a litre, we must recognize that that is a very coarse equation when details are under consideration. 20% more or less is easily possible when dealing with measures of volume. That there were still other "systems" is suggested by VS 1, 37, a kudurru from the reign of Marduk-apal-iddina 11, but it is difficult to understand the arithmetics of this text. 2. What type of question can be asked? Direct questions about the practice of Neo-Babylonian agriculture will, on the whole, remain unanswered. Circumstantial evidence must be tapped.

1. We must not ask how irrigation was practised, but: what do we know about the siting of fields, about field systems? Can we find indications about access to water? That will tell us perhaps more than the few instances where water rights are mentioned. 2. Can we find out something about the size of holdings, about the stability of tenancy? That type of evidence could have a bearing on the problem of fallow, about which very few texts inform us directly. 3. The documentation deals with the relationship between landlord and tenant. The question of yields can only be approached through the rental received by the landlord. Even if the percentage of the share of the landlord could be established, not all problems are solved: who paid the eird or various dues to all sorts of authorities? Problems are considerable. 4. Yields are influenced by soil quality: can we reconstruct the meaning of the relevant terms in tenancy contracts and in documents registering the transfer of land? 5. What type of product was cultivated? At first sight the answer would seem to be simple. The rental paid to landlords consists of what was cultivated. Not true probably. Rentals consist of barley, emmer or wheat and dates with some sesame, kasia and cress. But the Nur-Sin archive specializes in onions. This archive is a salutary warning: the onions were probably grown to contract. The presence of the Nur-Sin family made ~@rinniinto a centre of onion growing. Without this one archive the product is almost absent before the period of the MuragQs. Something similar is the case with flax. There are many texts dealing with linen,. but in the period from Nabopolassar to Xerxes I know of only one text registering the delivery of flax: the Sippar text Moldenke 2, 13 (26.II.Nbp.14). It is a certainty that certain products, including grain and dates, were grown to contract. For "smaller crops" - the term is used in the Mu&Q archive, where much greater variety in products is found than in the earlier period - specialisations will, as a rule, escape us.

6. Some inferences about seasonal labour requirements might be drawn from files about public works, as these inform us about the availability of the agricultural labour force for

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

other work. The existence of such files is known from Sippar (work on the muiannitu at Gilugu in Nabonidus years 13 and 14, or on the foundation of a temple gate during year 1I), but these are still very incomplete. Not all these questions can be dealt with now, detailed treatment would require more time (and space) than is available. As this number of the Bulletin will deal mainly with imgation, we will address ourselves first to question 1. As Neo-Babylonian field systems would seem to be directly connected to the canal system, we will first discuss what is known from the texts about the major rivers and canals which formed the backbone of imgation in the areas concerned. Treatment of the field systems follows and after that, notes on the size of holdings, water rights and terminology related to irrigation, as it does not seem possible to provide a really coherent picture of Neo-Babylonian practices. Other matters, more related to cultivation, will not be treated here.

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

accepted by his in general otherwise fierce critics, compress the Babylon neighbourhood too much. VS 1, 37 and the material from the Egibi archive (cf. appendix I) should be the basis for an attempted reconstruction. The main difficulties are caused by the Sippar material. Here problems of interpretation will be eased by the work of the ed-Der team and future publication of maps of the type shown in Leyden by H. Gasche. An important addition to the material collected by R. Zadok 1985 for the Kig-gursagkalama area is found in McEwan 1984. Published survey maps of relevance for the Sippar area are figs 39 and 40 in Adams 1981, mentioned above, and figs 13 and 15 in Gibson 1972. Important are some maps in the three volumes on the ed-Der excavations (ed. L. de Meyer) with the related sketch published by R.G. Killick in Iraq 46 (1984), p. 126. The reconstruction should be based upon the direct evidence in practical documents, contracts and administrative material, but I feel inclined to accept one further category of information. If texts from two neighbouring places with known location mentioned above mention a (main) river or canal with the same name, I think it reasonable to suppose that the same canal is meant.

11. Rivers, Canals and Land: Irrigation

1. The main rivers and canals In his Heartland of Cities @. 188; cf. p. 189, fig. 39 and p. 191, fig. 40) R. McC. Adams has stressed the meaning of his reconstruction of the system of watercourses in certain areas of Southern Mesopotamia as a kind of grid "that broke large, contiguous areas of cultivation into polygons of fairly uniform size and shape", indicating that contiguous areas of cultivation were coming into being. In his contribution to the Leyden Sumerian Agriculture Group meeting, H.J. Nissen suggested that the many parallel canals (and rivers) found on the maps might be explained as a kind of drainage system, one canal bringing water, the other draining it away after use. Though not entirely mutually exclusive, it is not easy to reconcile these ideas: as soon as water had entered one of the polygons, it will have been difficult to dispose of it through the levees or the heaps of earth removed from the canals. Surplus water remaining in the main canals could certainly be removed with greater ease, but once inside the basins internal drainage was the only possibility.

Though the combination of evidence from surveys and from collections of occurrences of geographical names of all types in texts, especially in a period which showed considerable changes in the map is not without risk, the matter cannot be completely avoided in view of the importance of archeological survey evidence for especially Neo-Babylonian (and later) irrigation. The written evidence from locations of which the place on the map is known comes from Sippar, Babylon, Borsippa, Dilbat, Kig-uursagkalama, Ur and Uruk. It does not, therefore, contain much on the Tigris area. Two other important localities of which the site seems reasonably identified are Marad and Kuta. A sketch map designed by W. Rtillig has been appended to RGTC 8 (Zadok 1985). Zadok's own sketch based on Gibson 1972, fig. 69 appeared in Israel Oriental Studies 8 (1978), p. 332 where pages 289, 294 and 306 provide schematically presented evidence about the relationship of some of the main Nippur waterways. Gibson's map is meant, of course, for the period before 1000 B.C. His Map 6 is in many respects much more valuable, certainly for the North of the plain. For the Uruk area, Planches 3a and 3b in Cocquerillat 1968 should be consulted. Much material about the Babylon area is found in Unger 1931, though his ideas about "Vorsttidte",

The temptation to impose the evidence available on the Landsat imagery sketch Adams 1981, fig. 6, is great, but tempered by the fact that some 2500 years have passed since NeoBabylonian times, which could mean that locally lev&s can have accumulated 2.5 times the height as mentioned by H. Gasche for the difference between the base of Sippar and that of edDer. This is a problem related to that studied by G. Bergamini (Mesopotamia 12 (1977) pp. 111152) for Babylon. I would for the moment rather not accept the Sipparled-Der datum as a kind of "general law of river lev& accumulation", as phenomena as noted by Gibson 1972, p. 31 remain disturbing. As the discussion in Leyden about the possibility or impossibility of a canal between Urnma and Girsu in the third millennium B.C. showed, it is difficult to reconcile the Landsat sketch which indicates canals across the Gharraf lev& with De Vawnas's map of the general drainage pattern (Iraq 27, 1965, Plate XXI). One cannot easily eliminate 4000 years of levee accumulation from the (mental) map. The main problems seem to be in the North as nobody seems to have much idea when the Euphrates finally took its course West of Sippar. We must therefore start in the South. TCL 12, 73 (8.II.Nbn.l) deals with the farming out of the eird of Belet of Uruk in the huge area between Uruk and Babylon, between watercourses called ID-LUGAL and ID pu-rat-ti (gen.), and including areas of Bit Dakuru and Bit Arnukanu. The text can be regarded as a support for MKSCocquerillat's reconstruction of the Neo-Babylonian - Early Achaemenid irrigation system of r i the North and on the other the Uruk area as being based on the one hand on the ~ 3 r - ~ a rfrom being derived from the Euphrates located at a certain distance to the Southwest. Via this Euphrates, transport to and from Marad (cf. TCL 13, 18-20, note the nearly 19% transport costs; these are, however, much lower than the costs of transport from the neighbouring Sealand, cf. line 17) and Babylon was possible. This suggests an alignment more or less like the Hilla branch of that river. There is, as far as I can see, dothing in the texts which warrants a Western (Apkallatu) branch of the Euphrates which is retained by Zadok from Gibson's map. This branch does not appear on map 6 in Gibson 1972. In contracts from Babylon, the Euphrates is called Purattu or ID UD.KIB.NUN*, but not Aratu, a name occurring in this period in royal inscriptions only: to

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

contemporaries, Babylon was on the Euphrates. One can speculate, however, about the meaning of the occurrence of a GARIM ArQtu in Borsippa texts: could this be an indication that before the Neo-Babylonian period the Euphrates under the name Ar@tu was regarded as running from Babylon in the direction of Borsippa? In the Neo-Babylonian period the Niir-Barsip branched off from the right bank of the Euphrates outside the Sam2 Gate in Babylon, indicating that the "main branch" was taking a more easterly course, to Marad in all likelihood. The - or rather a - NZ~-Saniwas the other main source of irrigation water for Uruk, and it seems reasonable to regard this canal as running through Bit-Arnukani. This tribal area occurs in the very fragmentary MurJQ text UMBS 211, 71:s (1.XI.Dar 11.3) in connection with a number of well known canals of the Nippur area. Though the NP-Sarri does not occur in what r i the MuraHO remains of the text, we must accept that the Uruk and the Nippur ~ i i r - ~ a rof documents are one and the same canal, which provided Uruk with a limited amount of irrigation water, as seems indicated by BIN 1, 44: 17)en-na me'-e 18)ki-i ni-is-bat-ta 19) "AKIN ih m ) ")ki-i ~ ~ ii-h-u 21'a-na eJ-re-ii-e '%t-ta-din ina ID %)ih E.DINGIR iii ni-ib-ra-a' ")me-e ul it-ta-ii 26)a-mur5 ID.MES n)ul-tu ID-LUGAL 28)il-la-ka-nu29)me-e-ihman-ma