The Ancient Mesopotamian City

The Ancient Mesopotall1ian City Marc Van De Mieroop CLARENDON PRESS . OXFORD 1997 Ox/ord Unж'vеrsж'ty Press~ Grear ...

Author: Marc Van de Mieroop

299 downloads 1923 Views 17MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The Ancient Mesopotall1ian City Marc Van De Mieroop

CLARENDON PRESS . OXFORD 1997

Ox/ord

Unж'vеrsж'ty Press~

Grear CZarendon Street;t Oxford ОХ2 Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota ВотЬау Buenos Aires Calcurca Саре Town Dar es SaZaaт Delhi FZorence Hong Коnс IstanbuZ Karachz' Kuala Lumpur Madras Madn'd Melbourne Mexico Cz'ty N airobi Рат Sz'ngapore Taipe1.· TokYQ Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in BerZin Ibadan

6DP

Oxford is а trade mark olOx/ord Universiry Press

Ьу

Published ж'n the United Staces Oxjord University Press Inc.) New York ©

Матс

Van De Mieroop 1997

All nghts reserved. No рап 0/ this publication тау Ье reproduced srored ж'n а retrieval system, от n-ansmitted, in аnу lот от Ьу аnу теаns" J

permission in writing 0/ Oxford Unz'versity Press. Within Ше ик" exceptions ате allowed in respect 0/ аnу /air dealing /от the purpose 01 research от private sludY;t от criticism от revieW;t а! permitted иnшт ЕМ Copyright Desigпs аnа Parents АСЕ, 1988 оТ in the case 01 reprogтaphic reproduction in accordance wirh the cerт! 01 lhe licences issued ьу Ет Copyrigh'l L,'censing Асenсу. Enquin'es conceming reproduccz'on outside these Ееrm! and in other countries should Ье sent ЕО the Rights Departmenc Ox/ord Universz'ty Press;t а! the address above wж'rhоut

the

рпот

J

J

J

Bn'rish Lz'brary Caraloguing in Publica!ion Data Data available LtЪrаry

0/ Congress

Catalogz·ng in Publican·on Dara The ancient Mesopotamian ciry / Матс Van de Mieroop, IncZudes bibliographical re/erences 1. Ciu'es and townS Аnсж'еnt-Irаq. 2. Iraq--Civilizalion-To 634. 1. Title. DS69.5, VЗ6 1997 9З5'.ОО9732-dc21 97-8199 J

ISBN 0-19-815062-8 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 Typeset Ьу Besl-sel Typesetter Ltd., Hong Коnс Рп·nЕеа in Great Bri.tain оп acid-free paper Ьу Bookcraft Ltd" МШsотет Nonon

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

During the writing of this book 1 have received the generous help and support of various institutions and individuals for which 1 ат deeply grateful. А feIlowship from the National Endowment for те Humanities in 1993 allowed те to devote а full year to this project, and Columbia University provided те with another six months of sabbatical leave immediately afterwards. 1 thank ту colleagues in те Departments of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures and of History and the University administration а! Columbia for allowing те to stay away from teaching for such а long period of time. The Governing Body and Fellows of Wolfson College, the University of Oxford, elected те Visiting Scholar for the academic year 1993-4, and provided те with а comfonable academic environment in which to pursue ту work. During ту stay at Oxford 1 was able to discuss тапу aspects of this study with а wonderful group of people whose kindness and hospitality is unparalleled. 1 would especially like {о thank John Baines, Jeremy Black, Stephanie Dalley, Roger Moorey, Michael Roaf, and Chase Robinson, who graciously endured ту prolonged intrusion into their lives. 1 ат also grateful to ту graduate students а! Columbia University, who participated in а semester-long seminar оп Ancient Mesopotamian urbanisт and critically evaluated many of the thoughts expressed here. То two ofthem 1 ат especially indebted: Seth Richardson who edited ту English, and Steven Garfinkle who helped те with library research. Му deepest gratitude goes to Mario Liverani and Roger Moorey who took the time to read the entire manuscript and gave те numerous suggestions for improvement. Obviously, попе ofthe above is to Ье held responsible for the mistakes. Finally, this book could not have Ьееп written without the suppon of ту wife, Zainab, and ту son, Кепап, who were not shy of reminding те to keep things in the right perspective. Marc Van De Mi.eroop 15 April 1996

CONTENTS

List 01 Figures

Vll1

Chronological Chart

х

..

Introduction 1. City and Society in Ancient Mesopotamia

Хll

2. The Origins and Character of the Mesopotamian City •

23

3. City and Countryside:

ТЬе

Mesopotamian View

4. The Urban Landscape

Urban Government:

42 63

5. Social Organization б.

1

101 Кing,

Citizens> and Officials

118

7. Feeding the Citizens

142

8. Crafrs and Commerce

176

9. Credit and Management

197

10. Cities as Centres of Re1igion and Learning

215

11. The Eclipse of the Ancient Mesopotamian City

229

Conclusions: The Ancient Mesopotamian City Index

248 265

LIST

ОР

FIGURES

Мар

2.1

2.2

3.1

3.2

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5 4.6

of the Ancient Near East. Uruk vase with reconstruction of the image of the city ruler in the top register, after Michael Roaf, Cultural Atlas 01 Mesopotamia (Oxford, 1990), 61. Late fourth-millennium sealing with combat scene, after Mark А. Brandes, Siegelabrollungen aus den archaischen Bauschichten in Uruk-Warka 2 (Wiesbaden, 1979), pl. б. Crown shaped as а city wall, after Peter Calmeyer, 'Mauerkrone', Reallexikon der Assyriologz·e 7 (1987-90), 595. City-models being offered to the Assyrian king) from Victor Place, Nz·nive et l'Assyrie 3 (Paris, 1867), pl. 48. Ancient тар of Nippur, after Н. W. Р. Saggs, Civilization be/ore Greece and Rome (New Haven and London, 1989), 119. Plan of Kultepe-Kanish, after W. Orthmann, 'Kanis, karum. ~. Archaologisch', Reallexikon der Assyriologie 5 (1976-80), 381, and Tahsin 6zgii~, 'Ап Assyrian Trading Outpost', Scientific Аmеn:саn 208/2 (Feb. 1963), 101. Plan of ТеН Тауа, after J. Е. Reade, 'ТеП Тауа (1968-9): Summary Report' Iraq 33 (1971), and 'ТеП Тауа (1972-73): Summary Report' Iraq 35 (1973) . Assyrian representation of walled city, from Austin Henry Layard, The Monuments 0/ Nineveh 1 (Lопdоп) 1849), pl. 39. Assyrian representation of army сатр, from Layard, Monuments, pl. 30. Plan of АН site а! Ur, after Marc Van De Mieroop,

Хl

32

34

52

53

64

66

70

74 75

lХ

List 01 Figures Society and Enterprise in Old Babylonian Ur (Berlin,

1992), 36. 4.7 Plan of ВаЬуl0П, after Jean-Louis Huot et al., Naissance des cites (Paris, 1990), 236. 4.8 Plan of Borsippa, after Eckhard Unger, 'Barsippa', Reallexikon der Assyriologzoe 1 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1932), Tafel 59. 4.9 Plan of Haradum, after Christine Kepinski and Olivier Lecomte, 'HaradumJHarada: Une forteresse sur l'Euphrate', Archeologia 205 (Sept. 1985), 48. 4.10 Plan of Dur-Sharrukin (Кhorsabad), after JeanLouis Huot ес al. -' Naissance des cites (Paris, 1990), 210. 7.1

8.2

87

88

90

92

Sealings representing grain si1os, after Р. Amiet, La Glyptique mesopotamienne archaique (Paris, 1980), pl. 1 б nos. 267-9.

8.1

80

153

Sealing representing potters at work, after Р. Amiet, La Glyptiue, pl. 16 по. 265. 'Select теп among the craftsmen', after Jean-Robert Kupper, Documents administratijs de la salle 135 du palais de Мап (Archives royales de Mari XXII.l; Paris, 1983), 42-51 по. 13.

Plan of Hatra, after Malcolm А. R. Colledge, Parthian Ап (Ithaca, NY, 1977), 34. 11.2 Trade routes of the Ancient Near East.

177

184

11.1

АН drawin~ were made Ьу Jо

Ann W ood, N ew

У ork.

236 239

Babylonia Histon·cal pen'od SeZected rulers Seleucus 1 Seleucid

Assyria ВС

300

Histoncal period Seleucid

Selected rulers

(305-281) 400

Achaemenid

Achaemenid 500

Neo-Babylonian

Nabonidus (555-539) N ebuchadnezer 11 (604-562)

600

Sennacherib (704-681)

700

Sargon 11 (721-705)

800 900

Neo-Assyrian Assuma~irpal

(883-859)

post-Kassite 1000 1100 1200

Tukulti-Ninuna 1 (1243-1207)

1300 Kassite

Middle Assyrian

Kurigalzu 11 (1332-1308) 1400 1500 1600 Ammi~aduqa

(1646-1626)

Old Babylonian

1700

Old Assyrian

Hammurabi (1795-1750)

Shamshi-Adad 1 (181 3-1 781 )

1800

Isin/Larsa 1900 2000

Ur 111

\

Shulgi (2094-2047) 2100 2200 2300

Agade

Sargon (2334-2279) 2400

Uru:linimgina 2500 2600

Early Dynastic 2700 2800 2900 3000

Chronological chart of Mesopotamian History. АП dates are according {о J. А. Brinkman's appendix in А. L. Oppenheim, Ancienr MesopDlarnia

(Chicago, 1977), 335-46.

\

~

~

1f

!u. ,~t-

~'"

..

and secular elites only developed after cities had Ьееп in existence for several centuries. Although те observation that аН the earliest cities contained а ceremonial centre is accurate, for Mesopotamia at least, the conclusion that religion drew people together in uгЬаn conglomerates is not warranted. The reasoning behind it seems to Ье опе of сит hoc ergo propter hoc. The idea that temples аге primarily religious institutions is а modem concept and does not apply (о те early Mesopotamian temples. Тhey fulfilled primarily а managerial role in the local economy. As 1 will demonstrate later, по urban settlement is possible without ап agricultural base to support а dense population. Agricultural resources needed to Ье extracted from the countryside Ьу ап authority~ and religion provided that authority. But people did not converge ироп ceremonial centres for their spiritual leadership, and throughout те world mаnу such centres exist in isolation. Moreover, the temple's imponance in early Mesopotamia is greatly overstated, due (о the archaeologists' focus оп monumental architecture, and а misreading of mid-thirdmillennium archival records. The ideological focus provided Ьу early cities clearly existed, Ьи! it was of insufficient strength to Ье те sole driving force towards urbanism . . А second theory emphasizes tbe role oflong-distance trade in the 1

Paul Whеаtlеуз Тм Pivot 01 the Роиг Quaтters (Chicago, 1971), 303.

Origins and Character

25

development of cities. Its most extreme advocate is the urban theorist, Jane ]acobs, who has earned ап almost legendary status in the USA for her 'visionary' ideas and is extensively quoted in anthropological and sociologicalliterature. However, she is almost entirely unknown (or ignored) among ancient Near Eastern specialists. In her book The Есоnоmу 01 Cities (1969), she attacked те 'dogma' that agriculture preceded cities, and replaced it with а theory that the existence of cities led to agriculture, and that cities first originated because of long-distance trade in raw materials. The empirical basis for this theory is the existence of such eighthto sixth-millennium settlements in the Levant and Anatolia as Jericho and С;атаl Hi.iyiik, interpreted Ьу some scholars to have Ьееп cities. But, whereas the latter scholars acknowledge that ап agriculrural base was needed for these settlements, Jacobs hypothesized те existence of pre-agricultural cities antedating these ехса vated sires. She described

ап

imaginary city, New Obsidian, which

was involved in the long-distance trade in obsidian without being located near its sources. Food for the inhabitants would have Ьееп obtained partly through barter with nearby hunter-gatherers, but mainly through imports from foreign hunting territories. Because meat would have spoiled during its transport, 1ive animals were driven {о New Obsidian, where soon а selection of те tamest animals was made for breeding. Seeds and nuts were brought into town as they preserved better than frиits and vegetables, and when mixed together in bins and partly sown in wild patches, they were accidentally cross-bred and Ьесате 'better' тап their wild progenitors. Soon the city began (о grow rnost of its food. 'Cities First-Rural Development Later.' Jacobs's theory is based entirely оп false premisses. It relies heavily оп ап unconvincing parallel with те modem world) where the most advanced urban areas are supposed {о have the most advanced agriculture. And, when dealing with prehistory, Jacobs ignores altogether what Bairoch has called 'the tyranny of dis{апсе' .2 The transport of food products is very expensive, as те transporter con~umes part of his or her load. А тап carrying те entire load, сап daily transport 35-40 kilograms over 30-35 kilometres. Every day he has to consume аЬои! one kilogram, so Ье 2 Paul Bairoch, пе Jericho а Mexico: Villes et economie dans l'histoire (Paris, 1985), 33-4.

2б

Origins and Character

eats his entire load in аЬои! seventeen days when Ье has marched а! the most 600 kilometres опе way, taking into ассоип! that Ье has to eat оп his way back. Of course, to Ье аЫе {о barter the food he cannot consume а11 of it. Ап ехатрlе makes this problem obvious. If а тап comes а distance of 1ОО ki10metres to obtain obsidian at New Obsidian, Ье wiIl start ои! with 40 kilograms offood. In three days Ье will have reached his destination with 37 kilograms, and he wiII Ье аЫе to barter а maximum of 34 kilograms for obsidian. Those 34 kilograms will feed опе inhabitant of the city for slightly more·than опе month. For the 5,000 inhabitants of~atal Hiiyiik to Ье supported for оnе year, 60,000 trips of this type would Ье needed from а radius по! surpassing 100 ki19metres from те site. That area is only 157 square kilometres, and considering the ех tremely low population density in pre-agricultural times, there were not enough people in tIiat region to provide аН the food needed in New Obsidian. Moreover, аН these calculations аге based оп the assumption that circumstances were optimal. It seems impossible to walk 33 kilometres а day in the region around grooming, and the consumption of bread and beer. The completion of his education was symbolized Ьу his introduction into the city of Uruk, his entrance into human civilization. Erica Reiner has suggested that, parallel to the tradition of despising the life of nomads, ап opposite trend existed in Mesopotamian literature that glorified те freedom of nomadism and loathed urban life as being effeminate. ТЬе suggestion is based оп two almost idецtiсаl passages in myths where curses were proclaimed, апе Ьу the queen of the netherworld, Ereshk.igal, ироп A~ushunamir, 'Нis Looks are Brilliant', who foiled her plans, те other Ьу Enkidu цроп Shamhat, who had introdueed him {о city life where he found ап untimely death. The curses were devastating. This is what Ereshkigal said: Соте, A~ushunamir,

I will curse уоu with а great curse, Let те ordain уоu а fate never to Ье forgotten. Мау bread of public ploughing Ье your food, Мау the public sewer pipe Ье your drinking place. Тhe shadow of а wall Ье уоuг station, The threshold Ье your dwelling. Мау drunk and те sober slap your cheek!5 5 The Descent ofIshrar [о the Netherworld, 11. 103-9, translation Ьу Benjamin R. Foster, Ртоm DisLant Days (Bethesda, 1995), 82, quored Ьу репnissiоn. Reinees translation of this passage is, obviously, quite different: 'Соте, A~usu-namir, 1 will curse уои with а great curse. Мау the bread from the city's bakers Ье уоит food" тау

City and Countryside

45

Rather than condemning A~ushunamir and Shamhat {о ап effeminate city life, as opposed to the freedom of the steppe, it seems {о те that these curses have to Ье considered as being more таН cious. The writers were aware of the existence of sociaI outcasts, such as transvestites and prostitutes, who were tolerated in Mesopotamian society, Ьи! pushed {о its fringes. Their presence in the cities was acknowledged, and they even fulfilled ап imponant role in urban society, but their life was thought to Ье а miserable one а! the margins of civilization. Theirs was а homeless life in the shadows of the city walls, eating food from the gutters and drinking water from the sewers, and these curses condemn their victims to such а life. 6 Reiner also quotes а passage from the Erra epic where the god Erra is aroused Ьу warmongering creatures, the 'Seven', with те following words: Why have уои Ьееп sitting in the city like а feeble old тап, Why sitting at Ьоте Iike а helpless child? Shall we еаТ WQman food, like non-combatants? Have we turned timorous and trembling, as if we can't fight? Going to the field for the young and the vigorous is like {о а very feast, (But) the noble who stays in the city сап never eat enough. His people will hold him in low esteem, he will command по respect, How could Ье threaten а campaigner? However well developed is the strength of the city dweller, How could he possibly best а campaigner? However toothsome city bread, it holds nothing {о the campfire loaf, However sweet fine beer, it holds nothing to water from а skin, · ТЬе terraced palace holds nothing {о the [wayside] sleeping spot!7 ТЬе

passage was included in а раеап {о military 1ife, gIorified because of its ability {о frighten gods and men aIike. The opposition here is not between urban life and nomadism, but between the city and the battlefield. А life оп те battlefield could lead {о glory, but it was also chaotic, and chaos was something to Ье avoided. th.e jugs of rhe city Ье your drink, тау те shade of rhe city wall Ье your residence, тау the threshold Ье your sitting рlасе, тау rhe drunk and the rhirsry slap your face.) See Erica Reiner, Your Thwarts in Pieces. Your Моопnс Rope СиЕ (Ann Arbor, 1985), 44.

See Jean Bottero, Mesopocamia: Writing, Reasonz·ng, and the Gods (Chicago and London, 1992), 193-7. 7 Еиа epic, Tablet 1, 11. 47-59, translation Ьу Benjamin R. Foster> From Distant Days (Berhesda, 1995), 1 ЗS-б, quoted Ьу permission. 6

46


Erra heeded the words of те 'Seven' and went оп а terrifying rampage. Only when he retumed to his city did he calm down, and order returned {о earth; the audience of the Еаа epic liked order. Реорlе copied excerpts of the {ех! оп amulets as proteetion against the terror described in it. То the Mesopotamian literate mind life оп the fringes of eivilization or оп the battlefield was аЬеаап! and repulsive. There was по admiration for the 1ife of а 'поblе I savage'. \ negative attitude towards non-urban life is quite remarkable as the rulers of mапу dynasties had risen {о power as {пЬаl 'sheikhs~. Yet, опее теу had firmly established а foothold in а city, i their nomadic past, а! best, was reealled in ап epithet, while atten\ tion to те cities, their temples, and their gods Ьесаmе а matter : of pride. Hammurabi, who was still referred {о as 'king of the [Amorites' in а few of his inscriptions, ignored this connection entirely in the long list of epithets at the start of his famous law code. Instead he boasted ofhis accomplishments in embellishing or . restoring cities and their cult plaees. А ruler's work in а city was considered to Ье ofthe greatest importanee. The epic ofGilgamesh in its seventh-century version showed how the king's search for bodi1y immortality was futile;, Ьи! predicted that he would Ье remembered for ever for the beaury of his ciry, Uruk:

ТЬе

I

Climb the wall of Uruk, Ur-shanabi, and walk around. Inspect the foundation terrace, look over the brickwork, if its bricks are not baked bricks, and if the Seven Counsellors themselves did not lay its foundations!8

Why was the city so important to the Mesopotamian? 1Ъе ап swer lies in its role both as а religious and as а political centre, two funetions considered to Ье of utmost importance to sociery, and closely interrelated. Each Mesopotamian ciry was the Ьоте of а god or goddess, and each prominent god or goddess was the patron deity of а ciry. This concept probably arose in prehistory when а11 important sett1ements had their own pantheon headed Ьу опе deity, and it was so strong that it survived throughout те history of the region. In the third millennium, for instanee, every city of the South was closely associated with а Sumerian deity: e.g. Nippur with Enlil, Ur with Nanпa, and Girsu with Ningirsu. The 8

Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI, со!. vi, 11. 303-5.


47

Mesopotaтians

thought that {Ье gods had built the cities as their own dwellirigs. А hymn to Enlil describes те foundation ofhis city Nippur: Enlil, оп the sacred place where уои marked off уоис settlement, уои built Nippur as your very own city. ТЬе Кiur, the mountain, your pure place, whose water is sweet, in the centre of {Ье four corners (of the universe), in Duranki, уои founded. 9

The connection between god and city was thought to have Ьееп so close that the decline of а city was usually blamed оп its abandonment Ьу the patron deity. Thus, when the Sumerian cities were overrun Ьу invaders from the east in the last years of the third millennium, the literary compositions described their faH in terms

of те gods' departure, not as

а

military disaster.

This сопсер! did not disappear when the city-states wer;e replaced Ьу larger political entities of territorial states and empires. When Babylon Ьесате the political capital of the South and те cultural capital of the entirety of Mesopotamia, its patron deity, Marduk, rose in prominence in the pantheon. In the twelfth сеп tury а masterpiece of БаЬуlопiап literature, the so-called Creation Epic-, was composed to explain his ascent as king of те gods. Не defeated the gods' епету, Tiaтat, was granted royal status, and теп the other gods Ьиil! а dwelling as his reward, the city of Babylon. When Marduk heard this, his face lit ир, like the light of the day. 'Build Babylon, whose construction уои have desired. Let its brickwork Ье fashioned, пате it The Shrine.) The Anunnaki wielded the hoe, in the first уеаг they made its bricks. When the second year arrived, they raised high the (ор of the Esagila, equalling the Apsu, having built а ziggurat for the Apsu. For Anи) Enlil, and Еа they set ир dwellings а! its foot. In their presence Marduk was seated in splendour. 1o 9 Нутn {о Enlil, 11. 65-8, Adam Falkenstein, Sunzerische Gouerlieder 1 (Heidelberg, 1959), 14. 10 The Epic of Creation, tablet VI, 11. 55-65.

48


Whenever Mardl1k abandoned the city, eralliterary texts, disaster ensued:

ап

event depicted in sev-

People's corpses bIock the gates. Brother eats brother. Friend strikes friend with а тасе. Free citizens stretch out their hands {о the poor (to beg). The sceptre grows short. Evil lies across те land. Usurpers weaken the country. Lions block the road. Dogs go mad and bite people. Whoever they bite does not live, Ье dies. 11

.

Тhe

absence of the patron deity from his or her city caused grear disruptions in the cult. The absence of the divinity was not always metaphorical, but often те result of the theft of the cult statue Ьу raiding enemies. Divine statues were сотmоnlу carried off in wars Ьу the victors in order {о weaken· the power of the defeated cities. Тhe consequences were so dire that the los8 Qf the statue merited recording in the historiographic texts. When Marduk's statue was not present in ВаЬуl0П, the New Year)s festival, crucial to the entire cultic уеат, could not Ье celebrated. 'For [eight] years under king Sennacherib, for twelve years under king Esarhaddon, thus for twenty years (altogether), Ве! (i.e. Marduk) s[tayed] in Assur and the New У ear's festival was not celebrated.' 12 Despite the existence of а national pantheon headed Ьу the god Assur, whose пате was used for the original capital and for the country as well, the Assyrians also maintained а strong tradition of associating gods with individual cities: Assur with Assur, Ishtar with Nineveh and with АтЬеlа, Ninurta with Kalhu, and Sin with Harran. Deities of lesser rank probably were associated with smaller urban centres. It is thus по exaggeration to say that, throughout Mesopotamian hi~tory, cities were regarded as the dwellings of individual deities, built Ьу these divine beings, and that Фе fortunes of these cities were thought to depend upon те goodwill and юе presence of those tutelary divinities. The second crucial function of the city, closely related {о its religious role, was that of political centre. The Mesopotamians always saw po1itical power as being held within а city, not within а nation or а region. Even if in reality а dynasty had firm control over а territory with many urban centres, emphasis was placed оп its 11

Marduk Prophecy, col. ii, 11. 2-11. Rykle Borger~ 'Gott Marduk

Кбпig Sulgi als Propheten') Bibliorheca Orientalis 28 (1971), 8. 12 AkIm Chronicle, translation after Jean-Jacques Glassner, nlBsopotamiennes (Paris, 1993), 190.

und GottChroniques

City and Counlryside

49

relationship to only one of them. The location of political power in а city was considered to Ье true not only in Mesopotamia itself, but also in the other areas of the Near East with which the Mesopotamians were in contact. ТЬе origin of this concept liеБ in the time of the city-states, when each city truly constituted а separate political power. The Sumerian Кing List starts with Фе statement that 'when kingship was lowered from heaven, kingship was (first) in (the city) Eridu', and then те text goes оп to list а number of cities with the names oftheir rulers. It expresses the ideology that kingship could only Ье present in one city at а time, а distortion of the actual historical situation where the existence of several contemporaneous city dynasties was the rule rather than the exception. It тау thus seem that the Sumerian Юпg List docurnents the existence of а concept of territorial dominion. The justification of the actual territorial control Ьу опе city тау Ьауе Ьееп те reason for the Кing List's composition, but it is imponant that the text fails to define that territory, and instead focuses solely ироп individual cities) аН of which have the ability to act as the centre of political power. The succession of city dynasties was recorded in it from the mythologiса1 origin of kingship to the historical1y attested Isin dynasty (с.1800)) and continued in other chronographic texts to register the dynasties of the cities of Larsa, Babylon, and Urukug, thus persisting in locating political power primarily in опе city. Later, when Babylonia had irreversibly developed into а territorial state, the rulers continued to refer {о themselves as 'king of the city of BabylQn', rather than of the entire country. Тhe Assyrians applied the same ideology to the city-state of Assur) as is expressed in the Assyrian Кing List. ТЬе original purpose of that list тау have Ьееп the legitimization of ShamshiAdad's rule over the city of Assur (1813-1781). This foreign king was of nomadic descent, and his rule could опlу Ье explained Ьу integrating his ancestors within а list of local city rulers. They were placed at the start of the list with the special notation that they were 'kings who lived in tents'. Непсе, it was acknowledged that nonurban rule was possible, уе! highly unusual and leading to ап urban rule. Through later expansion of the list the local dynasty of Assur was portrayed as being continuous from the third millennium down to the reign of Shalmaneser V in the late eighth century. In reality) several kings did not consider the city to Ье their political

50

Cir,y and Countryside

capital. Shamshi-Adad himself ruled from Shubat-Enlil in northеrn Syria, and Assur did по! have а special politicaI significance in his state. From the ninth century оп, Kalhu was Assyria's seat of govemmеп t, whiIe Assur remained primarily а religious centre. The city dynasty of Assur was thus а fiction, and the idea was abandoned when Sargon moved {о Dur-Sharrukin after he succeeded Shalmaneser V. Ви! even then те attention of те Assyrian kings remained focused ироп опе town, the seat of their political power, despite the fact that they ruled ап empire stretching from Iran {о Egypt. ТЬе Mesopotamians did not only conceive of their own cities as harbouring poIitical and religious powers. ТЬеу thought that the same situation existed in the neighbouring lands that they епсоun tered during their military campaigns. This is most obvious in the Assyrian annals where conquests of foreign lands are depicted as the capture of а series of towns, еуеn in regions where cities must have Ьееп rare, if по! non-existent. А few examples from the ancient descriptions of Assyrian campaigns wilI show this clearly. When Sargon during his eighth campaign reached the mountainous region of the Mannaeans, south of Lake Unnia, his opponent Metattati was said to Ьауе abandoned а11 his cities. Sargon claimed, 'Their twelve strong and walled cities, together with eighty-four cities in their neighbourhood, 1 captured. 1 destroyed rheir walls, 1 set fire to the houses inside them, 1 destroyed them like а flood, 1 tumed тет into mounds of ruins.,13 Еуеп in the marshes а! the head of the Persian Gulf Sennacherib asserted {о Ьауе destroyed numerous cities. In {Ье ассоип! ofhis founh campaign, against BitJakin, he stated: 'His (Merodach-Baladan's) brothers, the seed of his father's house, whom Ье ~ad left behind Ьу те sea coast, together with {Ье rest ofthe people ofhis land, 1 forced {о leave BitJakin, (from) the midst of те swamps and marshes, and counted (them) as booty. 1 tumed around. His cities 1 destroyed and devastated, 1 tumed them into ruins.,14 Еуеп if the last sentence was а stock phrase, its constant appearance in the accounts of campaigns in regions with very Iittle urbanization shows that the ciry was seen as the only possible seat of political power. 13 Fran~ois Thureau-Dangin, Иnе relation de lа hu;tieJ1ze canzpagne de Sargon (Paris s 1912) 16 col. i, 11. 89-90. 14 D. D. Luckenbill) The Аnnац 0/ Sennacherib (Chicago, 1924), 35, соl. iii) 11. 65-70.

Cz·ty and Countryside

51

And indeed> the total destruction of а city was used Ьу the Mesopotamians as а military technique to instil terror in the defeated enemies> and to terminate their existence as ап independent power. Although the annals talk аЬои! the levelling of cities as if it happened аН the time> it is clear that this finа! solution was only used after repeated rebeHions. But then it was done with а vengeance as is shown Ьу the destruction of Babylon· Ьу Sennacherib: With their corpses 1 filled те city squares. 1 camed off alive Shiizubu (МushёziЬ-Магduk), king of Babylon, together with his family and [officials] into ту land. ТЬе wealth of that city (Babylon)-silver, goId, рге cious stones, goods and valuables-I counted ои! into те hands of ту people and they took it as their own. ТЬе hands of ту people took hold of the gods) dwelling(s) there and smashed them. ТЬеу took their property and goods ... 1 destroyed the city and its houses, from foundation {о parapet, 1 devastated and bumed тет. 1 razed the brick and earthenwork of the outer and inner walls, of те temples, and of the ziggurat, as тисЬ as there was, and 1 dumped these into the Arahtu canal. 1 dug canals through the midst of that ciry, 1 flooded it with water. 1 made its foundarions disappear, and 1 destroyed it тоге completely than а devastating flood. So that in future days the site ofthat city and (its) temples would по! Ье recognized, 1 totaIly dissolved it with water and made it like inundated land. 15 ТЬе

sight of the earth of Babylon carried down the Euphrates and deposited in the Persian Gulf is said to have terrified the inhabitants of Dilmun, modern-day Bahrain, to such ап extent that they voluntarily submitted {о Assur and presented Sennacherib with their treasures. 16 The total destruction of cities was used Ьу the Babylonians as well. Probably their most ignominious act in today's opinion is те destruction of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezar> repeatedly described in the Hebrew Bible. This event turned Judah into а sparsely populated state without апу political or military significance. Iconographic material also demonstrates the importance of the city as а political centre. Ргот the ninth century оп, а crown appears in Assyria, possibly only worn Ьу queens, which had the 15 Bavian Inscription. D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals 0/ Sennacherib (Chjcago, 1924), 83-4 11. 46-8, 50-4. 16 See Daniel D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records 0/ Assyria and Babylonia 11 (Chicago, 1927), 185.

52


shape of а city wall (Fig. 3.1). This crown Ьесаmе very popular later оп. It was the standard ro~al crown of the Persians, and in the West the Greeks after Alexander considered it ап attribute of goddesses such as Kybele~ clearly with Near Eastem inspiration. And it still influences the popular image of the royal crown today~ as any child's drawing of а king wi11 show. Perhaps most indicative of the idea that relinquishing а city was а symbol of giving ир political power are the depictions of people offering а model of their city to the victorious Assyrian conqueror (Fig. 3.2). Again, this image has а long history in Europe: in Byzantine and Renaissance ап it Ьесаmе а symbol of submission to God, when rulers offer him а model of their city. Thus in the Mesopotamian concept of а city мо ideas predominated: it was both а religious and а political centre. Temple and palace were basic urban institutions, and they were the institutions that defined а city. In the Mesopotamian mind, Фе city was contrasted to the steppe and the desert where permanent settlement was impossible. Several rulers had nomadic ancestry, but this past was not а matter of pride-rather the opposite. Mesopotamia is famous for its numerous cities, many of which grew out ofvil1ages over the centuries. Тhroughout те mil1ennia of

~F.'~

\~j

~ \\(~ I~~

о

ЗОеm

'~~~""-===~I scale

FIG.3.1

Crown shaped as

а

city wall


FIG.

3.2

City-models being offered

{о

53

the Assyrian king

Mesopotamian history, new cities were founded as well. Some of these were royal foundations, and we might expect that kings were proud of their work. У е! in the ancient Mesopotamian sources we notice ап ambivalence towards те value of those endeavours and ап apparent lack of pride among the founders of new cities. Mesopotamian kings are по! known for their false modesty, thus the reasons for this restrained attitude deserve to Ье investigated. The inscriptional record оп the foundation of new cities is surprisingly limited. Only а handful of Mesopotamian kings are known to have founded а city. Sargon of Akkade Ьиil! the seat ofhis new dynasty in the twenty-fourth century. However, as its actual location remains uncertain, we have по local inscriptions describing the work. The Kassite king Kurigalzu 1 (early fourteenth century) built DurKurigalzu, 'fortress of Kurigalzu', modern-day Aqar Quf, north of the traditional capital Babylon, but little is known about this city. The surviving inscriptions do not commemorate the construction ·of the entire ciry, only that of individual buildings within it. In the late thirteenth century Tukulti-Ninurta moved across the river from Assur to ап enormous new settlement. The city, which he called Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta Or 'Harbour of Tukulti-Ninurta', lost

54


its special status ироп his death. Assurna~irpal Il's тоуе to те newly established КаlЬи, modem-day Nimrud, in те ninth сеп tury was more successful in that this ciry remained Assyria's capital for some 150 years. After тас те centre of power was moved to Sargon's new capital Dur-Sharrukin, modern-day Кhorsabad. This was perhaps the only city сеаllу intended to Ье founded оп virgin soil in pre-Greek Mesopotamian history. However, it was left uncompleted Ьу Sargon's successor, Sennacherib, who rebuilt rhe old city of Nineveh in its entirety in order that it might function as the state capital. We know of other settlements named after rulers, but there are по inscriptions commemorating their foundation. When we compare this record со that of Alexander of Macedon and his Hellenistic successors, who covered фе Near Eastem countryside with large cities named after themselves, and used these as the backbone of their administration of the region, the contrast 1S obvious. Alexander аl0пе is said to have founded seventy new cities. The work involved in the construction of the new cities must have Ьееп enormous. Those we know archaeological1y were gigantic in size and contained тапу monumental buildings. Very little evidence conceming the organization of те labour and rhe proсисетеп! of bui1ding materials is preserved. lп their соттетоса tive inscriptions, те kings usualIy pointed out that conquered people were set со work оп те projects, and they also detailed how they obtained in distant lands the wood and stone needed. lс is пос accidental that а11 те builders ofnew capitals were highly successful in their military conquests and captured great amounts ofboory and tribute. But local resources were also needed. Sargon 11's correspondence gives some rare insights оп that aspect during те building оfDuг-Shаrrukiп. Countless bricks were produced Ьу the lосаl population of the region, seemingly with а quota set for each village. 17 The amounts of straw needed were apparently соо great for the асеа со Ьеас. The раlасе herald, Gabbu-ana-Assur, сот plained as follows: 'АН the straw in ту country is reserved for DurSharrukin, and ту recruitment officers are now running after те (because) there is по straw for the pack animals. Now) what are the king ту lord's instructions?,18 And where did Sargon find the funds 17

Рап 18

See Giovanni В. Lafranchi and Simo Parpola:. Тhe Corтespondellce 0/ Sargon 11, 11 (Helsinki, 1990), по. 296. Ibid. ПО 119:. translation quoted Ьу pennission.


55

to finance his project? А somewhat enigmatic letter suggests that he needed to borrow them from his citizens. То

the king) ту lord: your servant Shulmanu-( ]. Good health (о те king) ту lord! The king ту lord told [те]: 'Nobody wil1 рау back your loans until сЬе work оп Dur-Sharrukin is finished!' (Now) теу Ьауе ref(unded] (о (Ье merchants (Ioans оп) the portion of Dur-Sharrukin that has Ьееп constructed) but nobody [has reminded] (the king) about те; 570 pounds of silver with [ту seal] and due this уеас have not Ьееп repaid as yet. When те king) ту Iord, sold gold and pre[cious stones) оп ту ассоиnЕ) 1 told те king, ту lord, that ту father was тuсЬ in debt (о Har[ ]) Huziru and [ ]. After ту father('s death) 1 paid half of [his debts], Ьuс now their sons [are telling те]: 'Рау us те debts that [your] father owes со our fathers!' As soon as Dur-Sharrukin has Ьееп [completely] Ьи[Нс), the king ту 10rd [will ) (о (Ье house [ ] and рау the debts to ( ]. ТЬе king ту 10rd тау ask Shar[ru-emuranni]; half of (his work ass]ignment in Dur-Sharrukin [is finished] .19

The need for funds to рау for the labour and supplies {о Ье obtained locally must have Ьееп great, and it is по! un1ikely that,the king had {о turn to his wealthy citizens to obtain them. Unfortunate]y, we do not have much more iпfопnаtiоп оп these matters, -Ьu! it seems safe to say that the building of new cities was а complex enterprise. If this conclusion is correct, we would expect the kings who undertook t:he work {о elaborate оп their activities in their building inscriptions. Yet, when we study these texts, we find а lack of information оп certain aspects of the undenaking. First, the kings must have had а motivation for the building ofthese vast cities, but when we look а! their records по reason for the work is declared. Assurna~irpal's justification for the work оп Kalhu is merely а statement that the city built Ьу his predecessor Shalmaneser had Ьесоте dilapidated. Divine requests are mentioned Ьу TukultiNinurta and Sargon, yet there is по elaboration of that in their inscriptions. Sargon seems {о have Ьееп proud only ofthe idea that he was able to settle а place по опе else had thought ofbefore. His description depicts him as 'civilizing' ап inhospitable place: Simo Parpola, TJle Corresp01zdence 01 Sargon 11, Рап 1 (Helsinki, 1987), по. 159, translation quoted Ьу permission. ]. N. Postgate, 'ТЬе Economic Srructure of the Assyrian Empire', in Mogens Тгоllе Larsen (ed.), Power and Propaganda, (Сореп hagen, 1979), 221 n. 43 srares that this letter indicates that Sargon imposed а moratorium оп а11 debts during the work оп Dur-Sharrukin. This seems unlikely as the creditors of the writer аге demanding immediate repayment. 19

56


At that time, with те (labour) of the enemies 1 had captured> 1 ЬиНс а city а! the foot of Mount Musri above Nineveh, according to [the god's] command [and ту wish. 1 named it Dur-Sharrukin]. А great park 1ike оп Mount Amanus, planted with аН the aromatic plants of Hatti> fruits of every mountain, 1 laid out Ьу its side. None ofthe 350 ancient princes who before те exercised dominion over Assyria and ruled the subjects of Enlil, had thoughr of this site, nor did they know how [о settle it, nor did теу think of digging its сапа! ог setting out its orchards. [То settle that city] , [о build its shrines) the temples of the great gods, and the palaces, ту тоуаl seats, day and night 1 planned. 1 ordered that it Ье built. In а favourable month, оп ап auspicious day, in the month of Simanu, оп ап eshsheshu 20 day~ 1 made тет carry baskets and mould bricks.

It is only when Esarhaddon decided "to restore the city of Babylon, demolished Ьу his father Sennacherib,) that ап explicit reference is made to ап order Ьу те god Marduk. Esarhaddon described in detail how Ье was hesitant {о undertake the work, and consulted the oracles to see whether the gods were at реасе with Babylon. Ви! this project involved the restoration of а previously damned city, destroyed and cursed Ьу his father, and it was important for Esarhaddon to know the god's feelings about те rebuilding. Тhe lack of justification is аН the more striking when compared to the lengthy explanations written when individual buildings were constructed or restored. In such cases а divine request was often cited as the incentive for the king's work. The most detailed description of such а request Ьу а god is found in а 1iterary composition of the late third millennium, а hymn in honour of the Eninnu temple at Girsu, built Ьу Gudea. Тhe king related мо dreams in which deities сате to him to ask for the construction of а temple for Ningirsu. Не failed to understand the first dream, and needed his mother to explain its meaning to him: The man, who is enonnous like the heavens} enonnous like the еаnh, whose head is like that of а god, whose wing is like that of the thunderbird, whose lower parts are like а fiood, а! whose right and left lions lay20 Sargon, Display Inscription of Room XIV at Dur-Sharrukin) 11. 27-32. F. Н. Weissbach, 'Zu den Inschriften der Sale im Palaste Sargon's 11. уоn Assyrien', ZeitschnYt der Deurschen Morgenliindischen Gesellschaft 72 (1918), 180.


57

Ье

cenainly is ту brother Ningirsu. Не ordered уои to build his temple, the Eninnu. 21

In the second drearn the god Ningirsu told Gudea what the benefits of the new temple would Ье, and urged the king to start the project. А very close parallel {о this account is found sixteen centuries later in а text of king Nabonidus of Babylon, who described how the gods Marduk and Sin appeared to him in а dream and ordered the restoration of the temple of Sin in the northem Mesopotamian city of Harran. The Assyrian king Assurbanipal (ruled 668627) also referred {о а favourable drearn that put him in а good mood, and caused him to order the restoration of the crown prince's раlасе. Such divine requests were thus common and were explicitly detailed when individual buildings were involved. But when the construction of entire cities rather than individual bui1dings took place, the divine request as its motivation was barely mentioned. Anофеr remarkable point in the descriptions of the foundation of new cities is те absence in the records of аnу omen readings used {о determine whether the location was propitious. This fact is аН те more surprising when we consider that divination played а very iтportant role in Mesopotamia, both privately and officially. Кings asked their diviners to determine if the omens were favourаblе before they did anything of great importance, such as starting а military campaign. So why do we have по evidence of отеn readings before the foundation of а new city? Indeed, there seems to have been а totallack of concern аЬои! the location of а town in general. The famous отеn series {итmа alum, which starts with. the statement 'if а city is located оп а height, the inhabitants ofthat city will по! prosper', is far аоm а handbook for the building of cities and houses. The series treats events in daily life that were thought {о have ап ominous significance. Only а few entries deal with the location and the layout of bui1dings, and we lack any references to the actual use of these when buildings were planned. The first entry, for instance, was clearly по! taken very seriously, as most Mesopotamian towns were located оп а height. 22 21 Gudea) Cylinder А) col. v, 11. 13-18. Fran~ois Thureau-Dangin, Les Cylindres de Goudea (Paris, 1925), pl. v. _ 22 See Ann Guinan) 'The Perils of High Living: Divinatory Rhetoric in Sumтa AZu" in Н. Behrens, D. Loding, and М. Roth (eds.) DUMU-Ez-DUB-BA: Studies in

58


Rituals to guarantee the good fortune of the ciry also are not attested. Only the time ofthe fashioning ofthe bricks was explicit1y' mentioned as having Ьееn iтportant. Sargon indicated that this happened in the month Simanu, i.e. May-June. From те third mil1ennium оп this month was regarded the best moment for brickmaking, with good reason" as at this moment of the year there was по agricultural work in southern Mesopotamia and the clay pits were moist, providing both а labour force and easi1y accessible clay. Moreover, there was по danger of subsequent rain which could have destroyed те bricks left in the ореn to dry. There seems to Ьауе been more reliance оп rituals when ап individual building was constructed. Both {ex~иal and archaeologiса! evidence for such rituals before and during construction or restoration exists. Several Babylonian rituals known from late manuscripts describe what needed {о Ье done Ьу а lamentationpriest ~when the wall of the temple falls into ruin'. Тhey involved the offering of sacrificial animals and libations {о various deities, and the singing ofvarious lamentations оп ап auspicious day. Тhe use of such rituals was probably inspired Ьу the need to avoid the curses invoked Ьу earlier builders, as every restoration entailed the partial destruction of the e~isting reтains. However, when ап entirely new building was erected rituals were also perfonned {о ensure the purity ofthe place, and {о protect the building from evil. Foundation trenches were purified with fire and filled with pure sand in which semi-precious stones, metals, and herbs were mixed. The first brick was special1y prepared with Ьопеу, wine and beer mixed in те clay . Commemorative deposits were placed а! various points in the foundations, as well as figurines in order to ward off evil. АН these actions were undertaken fol1owing rigidly established ritual procedures. А final element that is omitted in the available written documentation about the building of а new city involves its planning. The rectangular layout of те walls of а city such as Dur-Sharrukin could not have Ьееп realized without advanced planning. From existing ground plans of houses, some dating as early as the third millennium, we know that architects knew how to develop а Ыие print. Yet, по оnе claims credit for the Iayout ofnew cities. Sargon Honor 0/ Ake W Sjoberg (Philadelphia, 1989), 227-35, for ап interpretation of the initial omen of this series as а warning against hubn·s.


59

boasted that he made plans to overcome те technical difficulties of the construction of Dur-Sharrukin, but his description does not show апу awareness of the unusual character of the city's layout. Tukulti-Ninurta proudly proclaimed that the canal dug to provide Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta with water was straight, but, although he mentioned те walls of the new ciry,23 he did not refer {о the fact that they fonned almost а perfect rectangle. The silence in the building records of new cities conceming те motivations of the founders, те absence of rituals and отеп readings before the work was started, and те apparent lack of pride аЬои! the layout of these cities, are аП startling. Mesopotamian kings were eager to boast of their accomplishments, as they did when they constructed individual buildings, feats often described in great detail. The Mesopotamian situation is Фе соm plete opposite to what we see in ancient Rome. Тhe choice of а site [ог а new Roman town was determined through extensive consultation of the oracles, the area of the town was ritually purified, and its layout was planned after oracular inquiries. Why this difference? After аll, the Mesopotamians сап hardly Ье regarded as less dependent than the Romans оп omens and rituals for the running of their daily lives. In ту opinion, the reluctance of Mesopotamian kings to boast about their city bui1ding was grounded in the general attitude towards the merits of such ап enterprise. Founding а new city was considered to Ье ап act of hubris. А first-millennium tradition аЬои! Sargon of Akkade criticized фе king for having bui1t а new Babylon, whereby he incited the wrath of the god Marduk: 'Не (Sargon) dug ир earth from the clay pits of Babylon and ЬиП! а replica of Babylon next to Akkade. Because of the wrong he сот mitted, {Ье great lord Marduk Ьесате angry and wiped оu! his people Ьу а famine. From east to west there was а rebellion against him, and he was afflicted with insomnia. ,24 And we сап understand this feeling, as аnу new city detracts from the importance of the existing ones. Tukulti-Ninurta highlighted in his inscriptions that Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta was а religious centre to complement the old See Karlheinz DeIler) Abdulilah Fadhil, and Kazad М. Ahmad) 'TWQ new гоуа! inscriptions dealing with construction work in Каг-Tukulti-Ninurta') Baghdader MitteiZu12gen 25 (1994) 467. 21 Chronicle of Early Кings А) 11. 18-23) translarion after Glassner, Chroniques Inеsоросаnziепnеs) 219. 23

60


city of Assur, not а new city to replace it. New work was depicted as те expansion of something that already existed. The only exception was the building of Dur-Shа1ТUЮn Ьу Sargon of Assyria. The king was proud thar Ье settled а previously uninhabited place. Не depicted himself as expanding the cultivated area of Assyria: 'Тhe

wise king, full of kind thoughts, who focused his mind оп the resenlement of the abandoned countryside, the cultivation of lands left fallow, and the planting of orchards, who conceived the idea of raising а crop оп slopes so steep that nothing had grown there since time immemorial, whose Ьеап caused him {о cultivate desolate areas which earlier kings had по! known how to plough, in order {о hear the \Vork song, {о cause те springs of те surrounding агеа to fiow, to ореп ditches, and {о make те water of abundance rise like the sea, above and below. Тhe king, with ореп mind, sharp of еуе, in everything the equal of те Master (Adapa), who Ьесате great in wisdom and intelligence, and grew in understanding-to provide те wide land of Assyria with food {о repletion and well-being, as befitting а king through {Ье filling of their canals, {о save (the people) from want and hunger, so that (even) те beggar will по! ... а! the bringing of the wine, and so по interruption тау оссиг in те offerings of the sick, so та! те оН of abundance, which soothes men, does not Ьесоте expensive in ту land, and that sesame Ье bought ас the (same) price as barley, to provide sumptuous offerings, fitting for те tables of god and king, the price of every article had its limit :fixed, day and night 1 planned to build та! City.25

ТЬе

city was the comerstone of his programme of civilizing the area. А new beginning was made, but perhaps this was acceptable as по important ·city was located nearby Dur-Sharrukin. Other kings did not stress innovation. Continuity was what mattered to them. Cities had histories going back for hundreds of years, and that history made them importanr. Huge rebuilding programmes, such as those фаt took рlасе in Babylon in the first millenniuffi, were not depicted as new beginnings, Ьи! as the restorations of cities to their former glory. Bigger тау have Ьееn better in the Mesopotamian opinion, but the extension needed to Ье based оп ап old and respectable structure with а long history behind it. Existing cities could Ье expanded with new buildings without shame, and such actions were glorified in inscriprions, Ьи! те 25 D. G. Lyon, Keilschтifuexce Sargon~s K6nigs vonAssyrien (Leipzig, 1883),34, Н. 34-43.

City and Countryside foundation of а city itself was too important

mere

.61 а

task to

Ье

left to

а

Ьuтап.

The Mesopotamians' idea of their cities was thus ried Со а respect for the past. Cities were monuments of the age-old culture; they were пос new and rnodem, Ьuс old and respectable. ТЬеу were not human creations Ьис divine ones. When the walls ofUruk were praised, the faet that their foundations were laid Ьу the seven primordial sages was stressed. When Sargon of Assyria-the only king who readily admitted to having built а new city-described his work оп Dur-Sharrukin, he likened himself to опе of these sages, Adapa. It was as if he re-enacted а primordial accomplishment. "Adapa had brought civilized life со the people of Babylonia at the beginning of time, and had introduced те bui1ding of cities. Berossos, те Hellenized Babylonian priest of Marduk writing around 300 вс, stated it in these words: In Babylonia а great mass of foreign people was settled in те land of the Chaldeans, and they lived ап uncivilized life, like that of beasts and animals. In the first year а frightening monster appeared ои! of the Red Sea in те region of те Babylonians, and its пате was Oannes (= Adapa) ... Of the same animal he says та! it lived in the day among те people without earing anything and that it raught сЬе people writing, science and technology of а11 types, the foundation of cities, [Ье bui1ding of temples, jurisprudence, and geometry. Не also showed them how to harvest grains and fruits. Не gave mankind а11 thar constitutes civilized life. 26

In sum, the Mesopotamians took the idea that ciries are at the root of eivilization literally.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Тhe

image of те eity in Sumerian literature has Ьееп studied Ьу Fran 1986). For the mural crown of Assyrian queens see Peter Calmeyer, 'Mauerkrone" Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7 (1987-90), 595-6. The foundation of new cities was studied in ап article Ьу JeanLouis Huot, 'Les Villes neuves de l'orient ancien', in J.-L. Huot (ed.» La Ville neuve: Иnе idee de Z:'Antiquite?- (Paris, 1988)} 7-35. Не denied that cities were ever created 'ех nihilo' in Mesopotamia, either because the settlements were abandoned immediately after те death of their founder, or because the regular town plan по ticed in the archaeological record was imposed ироn ап existing settlement. It appears, however, that these objections сапnо! prevent us from stating та! certain Mesopotamian rulers intended {о create newly planned cities and that such ап undertaking was considered to Ье feasible. In а later publication, Jean-Louis Huot, et al., Naissance des cites (Paris, 1990), 215-16, this scepticism seems to have diminished somewhat. More recently the practice of founding new cities was the subject of ап entire conference рuЬ lished Ьу S. Mazzoni (ed.), Nuove jondazioni nе! Vicino Orie1zle antico: realta е ideologie (Pisa, 1994). Building accounts Ьу Assyrian kings were analysed Ьу Sylvie Lackenbacher, Le Roi biitisseur: Les recils de construction assynens des origines а Teglathphalasar 1/1 (Paris, 1982), which formed the basis for her more accessible book, Le Palais sans rival: Le recix de соn struction еп Assyrie (Paris, 1990). For building deposits see Richard S. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia (New Haven and London, 1968), and for ritual texts used for а new building see Р. А. М. Wiggermann, Mesopotaтian Protecrive Spirirs: The Ritual Texts (Groningen, 1992), 119-40. The rituals and отеп readings performed а! the building of а new Roman city are discussed Ьу }oseph Rykwert, The 1dea о! а Town: The Anthropology о! Urban Porт z·n Rome, Ilaly and the Ancient World (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1988).

4 The U rban Landscape

А

modem-day traveller through the countryside of Mesopotamia does not see the remains of majestic stone temples and funerary monuments, as is the case in Egypt, Ьи! encounters nothing other таn earthen mounds, distinguished from their suпоuпdings only Ьу their height. These mounds, usually referred to with the Arabic {еnn rell, are те remnants of great and small cities, те accumulation through mil1ennia of the debris of rnud-brick houses, palaces, and temples. То recognize the layout of the ancient cities of Mesopotamia from these remains is not ап easy task. Although aerial photographs сап provide us with а тар of their main features, this тар will always Ье а palimpsest with details from тапу different eras. The collection of datable objects оп the surface of the tell, usually pottery shards, permits to some degree the determination of when certain zones were occupied, but still in а very imprecise way. Only excavation guarantees the clear recognition ofbuildings and their date of occupation. It is, however, ап extremely expensive and time-consuming procedure, and not а single urban site in Mesopotarnia has Ьееп completely excavated. In fact, most excavations have uncovered only а very small percentage of the total area of the site under investigation. Ancient Mesopotamian sources оп urban layout are very restricted in number, Ьи! they do provide useful inforrnation. А very small nurnber of ancient summary maps of а few Babylonian cities exists. Best preserved is а plan of the city of Nippur, probably produced around 1300 вс (Fig. 4.1). It focuses оп the city wall) its gates, the course of the Euphrates river, subsidiary canals, and the temples; its accuracy has been confirmed Ьу excavations at the site. Moreover, some texts, somewhat optimistically called 'The Description of Babylon', or 'The Description of Assur' Ьу modem scholars, contain lists of the names of gates, streets> temples, and quarters of these cities. If much of те monumental architecture is

The Urban Landscape

64

!;

..

.~

}\

....

~

;:.' i

~.

;

..::..

,

'

..;.........,. ,

......~::..

-.

FIG.4.1

Ancient

тар

ofNippur

archaeologically known as well, the combination of the two sets of data permits the drawing of city plans with mаnу bui1dings exactly identified Ьу пате. А careful examination of topographic indications in ritual and economic texts, again combined with archaeological data, тау produce comparable results. Тhus, we have something resembling а modem tourist тар for such cities as Assur, Babylon, Borsippa, Nippur, and Uruk, useful [or the principal monuments of these cities, Ьи! less 80 for те details of the plans. Тhe infonnation оп the layout of individual cities is thU8 always partial and fragmentary. Уе! we are in а unique position to study urban layout Ьу те пiеге [ас! that 80 таnу cities existed in ancient Mesopotamia. Many parts of the region are literally covered with teZls of аП sizes. Mesopotamia was, after аН, the most densely urbanized region in те ancient world, and the accumulation of data from various sites allows us to develop quite ап accurate

The

UтЬаn

Landscape

65

picture of the Mesopotamian town. It is а сотmоп misconception that те Mesopotamian city was limited Со its walled centre. А ciry had several built-up parts, а walled inner ciry, suburbs, а harbour district, as well as fields and orchards adjoining these areas. These were аН integral elements of the city and ап evaluation of Mesopotamian urbanism саппо! ignore the гоlе each of them played. Archaeological research has concentrated оп the wal1ed inner city, which is consequently best known to us. А variety of plans, determined Ьу geography and Ьу the time of foundation, are attested, and the various layouts seem {о reftect different attitudes towards the function of the city. But the other sectors of town, surrounding те inner ciry, need to Ье considered as well. Due со те lack of documentation we cannot distinguish temporal or geographical variations in their layout. When someone in antiquity approached а Mesopotamian ciry, along а road or Ьу Ьоа[ оп а waterway, he or she would have been aware of the city's presence long before reaching it. More cultivated fields would appear) together with the villages offarm labourers tending them. The ciry's monumental buildings would have Ьееп visible from afar, especially те ziggurat towering over те rest ofthe town. The first игЬап element encountered would have been the harbour district, where inter-city trade took place. In southern Mesopotamia and along the rivers in the N orth this was а real harbour оп а river or canal, while elsewhere it was а mercantile centre located оп the overland routes passing Ьу the city. The Akkadian language refers to both centres of trade with the same tenn, karum. Texts from various sites indicate that те harbour district was distinct from the inner city and situated outside the city walls, and thus cannot Ье equated with the intramural harbours shown оп some archaeological maps. Мапу toponyms ofBabylonia and Assyria contain те element 'harbour of', but usually те settlements are по! located archaeological1y. Consequently, те only extensive remains of а karuт were found outside Mesopotamia, at а settlement that was founded Ьу merchants from Assur, and is thus likely [о reflect Mesopotamian traditions. The site in question was called karum Kanish, 'harbour Kanish' in antiquity, and was located at the foot of the central Anа[оНап city Nesha, some 150 metres north-east of те citadel (Fig. 4.2). The settlement survived for only about 150 years starting around 1950 вс, with а hiatus in occupation of thirty to sixty

бб

The Urban Landscape

t

®

FIG.

4.2

vated

Ьу

Plan of Kultepe-Kanish. Shaded ponions indicate areas ехса early archaeologists. Contours indicate intervals in metres above the level of the plain

years, and refiects thus а relatively short period of time. Kanish was primarily inhabited Ьу merchants coming from Assyria) whose correspondence and contracts were found in their houses. These texts make clear that the Assyrians settled there in а community structured along Mesoporamian lines, and acting as а branch ofthe govemment of Assur. Some Anatolian merchants lived in the Assyrian colony, but their role is unclear as their records remain unpublished. The excavations have revealed а dense cluster of small houses along winding and narrow streets. These streets were paved with stones, something that would ПО! have Ьееп found in

The Urban Landscape

67

Mesopotamia proper, where pottery shards might have been laid оп the surface of streets. A1so stone-lined drains were in use а! Kanish, а feature that most likely would have Ьееп absent in Mesopotamia. The major streets were seemingly wide enough to pennit the use of а сап. The karum contained not only dwellings, but also workshops) primarily located in the areas settled Ьу Anatolians. Yet по religious or secular monumental buildings have been excavated 80 far. The harbour district had its own defensive wall, emphasizing its detachment from the inner walled city. At Kanish Фе harbour district was located relatively close to the walled city itself, perhaps because it functioned as the centre of the Assyrian trading system throughout Anatolia, and needed close interactions with the king of Nesha who provided protection and the pennission to trade. But elsewhere the karuт was further removed from the city. This physical separation resulted from the fact thar the harbour acted as а neutraI zone where citizens from various communities could interact without direct and obvious supervision of the urban po1itical powers. Оnе сап visualize these districts filled with activity and life, with реорlе loading and unloading boats and pack animals, and buying and selling. Traders from such distant regions as India and Egypt at times mingled with the natives. The lack of information оп this sector of town is unfortunate, and ап archaeological investigation of а kiiтuт in Mesopotamia ргорег would seem а promising project. Coming closer {о the town) а visitor would start to walk through gardens and orchards, owned Ьу the urban residents who grew fresh produce there to complement their diet of barley, fish) and meat) brought in from further afield. In Babylonia the orchards were mainly used to cultivate date palms, still the most соmшоп tree in те area today. Other fruit trees and some vegetables were grown in between the palm trees or in special plots. As these crops required а lot of water, the orchards and gardens were usually located оп the banks of the numerous canals near the cities. In Assyria the date palm was less commonplace, and orchards of different trees were laid out near the cities. Several kings boasted that they imporred exotic trees from the regions in which теу campaigned, and the presence of gardens near capital cities is recorded with pride in their building inscriptions. The mo~t ех tensive record of such ап accomplishment is provided Ьу king

68

The Urban Landscape

Assuma~irpal

11 (ruled 883-859), wpo collected sapIings of some forty-one types oftrees оп his campaigns and planted тет near his capitaI ciry, Kalhu:

1 dug а canal from the Upper Zab) cut it through а mountain top) and called it Patti-hegalli. 1 irrigated те lowlands of те Tigris and planred orchards with аН kinds of fruit rrees in them. 1 pressed wine and offered first-fruir offerings (о Assur) ту Iord) and to те temples of ту land . . . . (Неге Ье lists the names of forty-one trees and bushes, many of which cannot Ье identified.) ТЬе canal cascades from above into the gardens. Тhe alleys smeIl sweet, brooks like те stars of heaven flow in те pleasure garden. 1 Мапу

of these trees were, of course, по! commonly found in Assyria.) and the orchards around other cities were less exotic. Тhe orchards and gardens continued into the suburbs and even inside the city walls. The trees fumished по! only food, but also shadow and protection against те heat of the sun. In the summer their greenery must have provided а pleasant retreat from а parched counrryside. Soon the visitor would enter the city's suburbs. As is the case today, the distinction between sateIlite viI1ages and suburbs would по! always have Ьееп clear, as habitation around the city waI1s was far from continuous and permanent. In contrast {о the inner ~ities, which were almost continuously occupied for mil1ennia, suburbs were only intermittently inhabited, when те city's population outgrew its walls, and when {Ьеу would по! Ье exposed {о constant attacks and lootin& Ьу armies and raiding bandits. Archaeologists unfortunateIy Ьауе not devoted much time {о the areas outside city walls, as they do по! contain monumental buildings considered to produce the most spectacu!ar finds. ТЬе periodic settlement of the suburbs has both а positive and а negative consequence for modem researchers. Advantageous is the fact that, when а suburb is found and mapped out, we аге по! presented with а plan та! incorporates data from mапу different time periods, Ьи! with опе of а single period of occupation. Of course, tha! period тау have lasted for тоге than а century, and changes in the layout of the settlement must have taken place, Ьи! these changes were relatively А. Кirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers 01 lhe Early FirSl Millenniunz ВС. 1 (1114-859 (Тhe Royal Insсriрtiоцs of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 2; Toronto, Buffalo, and London, 1991), 290, 11. 36-40, 48-50. 1

ВС)

The Urban Landscape

69

minor. Оп the negative side is the fact that the areas ofthe suburbs. are often indistinguishable from the surrounding countryside due to the lack of accumulation of remains; they are thus often ploughed over Ьу farmers or, if outside те agricultural zone, а small атоип! of sand deposit сап hide аН traces of them. As а result, very litt]e information is available оп suburbs, and their existence has Ьееп recorded only ас а few sites. In just опе case these remains have Ьееп mapped extensively, at а site called ТеН Тауа, its ancient пате unknown, located in the Assyrian plain пеаг ТеН Afar in north-westem Iraq. ТЬе most conspicuous element of {Ье site is а high round citadeI, 50 metres in diameter, situated оп те left bank ofthe Wadi Тауа. Around this citadel was а small wal1ed city of only 5 hectares. ТеН Тауа is unique so far because its extensive ruined suburbs сап still Ье seen оп the plain: stone foundations were used for те houses) and these are still visible оп те surface due (о wind erosion of other debris. Only one-third of the suburbs have Ьееп surveyed in detail, but their {оса! extent has Ьееп determined. Around те walled city were 65 hectares of dense occupation, themselves surrounded Ьу 90 hectares of scattered development (Fig. 4.3). Considering the ·smal1 walled city and the extensive suburbs) ТеН Тауа тау have Ьееп а very unusua.,I settlement. Уес те features ofits suburbs must reflect those of other cities to some extent, and сап thus Ье used as а guide со visualize those. Although Теll Taya's citadel was occupied intermittently from 2400 со the first centuries AD, те suburbs were only in use during its first period of occupation in the twenty-fourth century. The remains provide атрlе documentation оп their layout. ТЬе suburbs were located primarily {о the north and the east of the waIled city. ТЬеу were intersected Ьу two small rivers, the Wadi Тауа and the East Wadi, which in antiquity must have contained more water than they do today. The wal1ed inner city could Ье approached Ьу мо major roads, опе {о те west ofthe Wadi Тауа, тЬе other to те east of it. Yet these road systems were, it seems, concemed мт communication to the districts outside те city, rather тап with providing access to {Ье town centre. ТЬеу did not converge оп the citadeI, but only led the traveller {о its general area. Within the framework of larger roads was а system of small and narrow side streets, without апу obvious pattern. А number of them led to the Wadi Тауа and it is clear that they were intended to give access to

The Urban Landscape

70

..

...... ..... . .............

•••• 0 ••••••• "

• •••

а

•••••

............ . ............. ............ .

-...... . . - .................... •••••••••• •••••••••. ............................

•••••••• • ••• 1

• • • 111 • • • • 111 • • • •

-

#а.о···

о

•••••••••••• 0

••••••••••••••

: : : : : ;;; ; .. • . • : : : •••••• : : : ii=

............................ ............................. .......................... ........................... - ...................... -. ~··················.·.f ................. ............... ............. ••• 0

••••••••••••••••••••••••

••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••

а

•••••

а

••••••••••••••••••••••

~

-

•••••••••• 0

••••••

•••••••••••••

а

••••••••••••

.......... -. ....... ........

111 111 • • • • • • 111 111 • •

I

I

~

••••• a

I

,/ /

о

,..,. Detensive structure =Streets ___ Allgnments о! houses (П) Developed areas

FIG.4.3

Plan of ТеН

с'==-_с:::=

___'

1(1)111

~

Тауа

its water. There ате some open spaces in the plan, Ьи! it is impossible to determine whether these existed in antiquity от are те result of stone quarrying Ьу тоте recent occupants of the region. In general, те occupation between те streets is very dense. Not only houses are visible, but also а number ofbuildings that are too large to have served for domestic purposes, and тау have had ап official function. Industrial workshops existed also, and сап perhaps Ье recognized Ьу те large amounts of portery debris found near them. It is clear that the suburbs of Тауа grew over time, although а11

Тhe

Urban Landscape

71

within the twenty-fourth century. Three concentric bands of aligned houses are visible in the plan, each representing the lirnit of the dense occupation at апе time. In its final phase the entrance (о the major streets was guarded Ьу semi-circular walls, in one case with ап adjoining tower. Thus, although the suburbs were not surrounded Ьу а defensive wall, (Ье outer row of houses was laid out so that it formed а clear limit, and the entrances {о major streets were protected. ТЬе erosion that uncovered the foundations of the houses unfortunately also removed most of their contents. Here and there remnants of kilns, slag, and pottery wasters сап Ье seen, but it is impossible (о determine the functions of the various neighbourhoods of the suburbs in any detail. ТЬеу contained рп marily residential and industrial areas, while the religious and official buildings were seemingly restricted to the citadel and те walled city. Another Assyrian sire where some evidence of suburbs was supposedly uncovered is Nuzi in north-eastern Iraq. ТЬе mid-secondmillennium levels show, outside the small rnain mound, only 4 hectares in size, the remains of large houses belonging to prominent families according to the tablets found in them. The excavator believed these houses to Ье located in the suburbs, but it is more likely that they were part of the lower town occupation of the city of Nuzi. 2 Early Babylonian cities also had suburbs, but their remains have only been uncovered Ьу accident. The most intensive research оп (Ьеm was done at Ur, where the excavator, Leonard Woolley, noticed that his workmen picked ир тапу objects оп their way to the excavations. Не dug for а few days in те area (о те north of the walled city, but the excavation was considered to Ье too ехреп sive for the meagre architectural results, and was soon abandoned for а system where workmen were paid for objects picked ир and brought in. These collected finds indicate that part of the site was used for the production of pottery, clay figurines, stone amulets) and cylinder seals. Other craft activities probably took place there as well, or in other suburbs located at various sites outside the inner city. ТЬе location of craft areas outside ciry walls was, of course, а sensible practice: access to raw materials and water was easier, bad See G. Wilhelm apztd Mirko Novak, 'Eine Typologie der Wohnhauser von Nuzi) Baghdader lvfiueilungen 25 (1994)) 342 n. 8. 2

72

The

UтЬаn

Landscape

odours were less likely to irritate citizens, and space was less restricted. Freedom of space was а major reason why people settled outside the city walls, which wouId have Ьееn laid ои! many centuries earlier, when the population had been much smaller. This option was only available when the countryside was по! exposed to warfare or raids. In case of ап occasional raid the suburban population could withdraw within the city waIls, but such ап arrangement could not last for prolonged periods of time. Consequently, some cities seem to have established subsidiary walled settlements instead of а corona of suburbs. This led to the existence of agglomerations of two or more cities in close proximity (о one another. А peculiar example of such ап arrangement was found оп the northern border of Babylonia, ап area exposed (о attacks from Assyria and the Syrian desert, where in the early second millennium twin Sippars were located а mere 5 kilometres арап. Тhus, the suburb was not the only way то deal with а population outgrowing the city walls. But suburbs were а соmтоп feature throughout Mesopotamia, and future archaeologica1 research should devote more attention {о them. After traversing the suburbs the Mesopotamian visitor would finally reach the inner city, те centre of the urban settlement. This sector has almost always been the sole focus of attention, both of the archaeologist and ofthe illicit digger, as it is most visible оп the surface and promises to produce the most sensational finds. It is thus best known то иБ, and because of our derai1ed knowledge we are аЫе to distinguish different plans of the inner cities, determined Ьу geographical circumstances and Ьу the history of their foundation. У et al1 inner cities of Mesopotamia had certain сот топ characteristics; before discussing the different layouts we are able to discern, 1 will describe their standard features. An inner city was always, at least partly, located оп а higher elevation than the other sectors of the City. This elevation was due to artificial terracing in те few cases of new foundations, Ьи! usual1y it was а result of the natural growth of те city. The inner city customarily remained occupied for several millennia in antiqui~, and even more recenr sertlements, typically only villages~ tend t:o Ье located оп the remains of these ancient towns. Тhere were several advantages tO keeping а settlement in the same location.

The Urban Landscape

73

ТЬе

aecumulated collapse of the buildings of earlier occupants provided а height that clearly delineated те settlement and had а defensive value. Xenophon reports that the villagers of the area around the former city ofKalhu took refuge оп top ofthe ziggurat's ruins when his troops passed Ьу. Опее а city wall was built, it required less energy to keep it in good order than to build а new one around а new settlement. Moreover, опее the ground level of те city had risen above that of the countryside, it Ьесате impossible (о irrigate its surfaee, and rather тап sett1ing оп badly needed agrieulrural land, it made more sense (о remain оп top of the old site. Finally, religious sentiments dictated that temples must се main in the same location. Thus тапу settlements were occupied continuously for several millennia starting in prehistory, and the collapse of earlier buildings provided а natural height demarcating them from their surroundings. The inner ciries were aIso clearly distinguished Ьу their defensive walls. Perhaps the presence of walls was the main charaeteristie of а city in те eyes of ап ancient Mesopotamian: аП representations of cities prominently display walls;) many kings boast of their building or repairing city walls, and even literary works sing their praise. А city without а wall might thus not have been conceivable. Of the relatively few Mesopotamian depictions of cities, Assyrian palace re1iefs provide the best record. The typieal image of а eity consisted of one or тосе rings of fortification walls with numerous towers зt regular intervals, which seem to indicate а walled citadel and one ос more town walls (Fig. 4.4). The same idea, with only а single wаП, is shown in the city-models offered {о Assyrian kings as а gesture of submission, and, interestingly, also in representations of Assyrian army camps (Fig. 4.5). The ubiquitous emphasis оп the walls in ieonographic material reveals те Mesopotamian eoneept that they were а crucial eharaeteristie of the eity. That concept is also reflected in the numerous royal building inscriptions commemorating the construction or repair of city walls. For instance, Tukulti-Ninurta 1 deseribed his work оп the wal1 of Assur in теве terms: At that time the ancient wall of ту city, Assur, which had been builr Ьу previous kings, had Ьесоmе dilарidзtеd and old. 1 removed its broken down parts, renewed and restored that wall. Around that wall 1 dug а large

74

The Urban Landscape

The Urban Landscape

FIG.

4.5

Assyrian representation of army

75

саmр

moat-a large moat which по previous king had ever built. Its bottom 1 cut into the bedrock with copper picks. Twenty musaru down 1 reached the water level. 1 placed ту foundation inscriptions in that wall. 3

Even the literature of Mesopotamia celebrates city walls. Most famous is the praise of the walls of Uruk а! the beginning and the end of the Epic of Gilgamesh in its first-millennium version. 4 And indeed, the excavated remains of this city's walls are impress'ive. In antiquity they were 9.5 kilometres long and had nearly а thousand semi-circular bastions. Much later Herodotus started his description of Babylon with ап account praising the size of its walls: It is surrounded Ьу а broad deep тоа! full of water, and within the moat there is а wall fifry cubi ts wide and two hundred high ... Оп the top of те А. Кirk Grayson) Assyn·an Rulers 01 che Third and Second Millennia вс. 1 ({,о 1115 ВС) (Тhe Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 1; Toronto) 3

Buffalo) and London, 1987), 267) 11. 3-10. The ехас! value of the musaru measure is unknown. 4

See Ch. 3~ р. 46.

76

The Urban Landscape

wall теу constructed, along each edge, а row of one-roomed buildings facing inwards with enough space Ьемееп for а four-horse charioI со pass. There are а hundred gates in the circuit of the wall, аН of bronze with

bronze uprights and Iintels. 5 Ртот

this quote it is clear that а city's defences were not limited to wal1s, but also included monumental gates and а moat. For the latter, advantage was often taken of the presence of а river adjoining the ciry, while other sides were protected Ьу excavated channels. An Assyrian account describes the тоа! dug around Dur-Jakin, ап archaeologically unidentified Babylonian city conquered Ьу Sargon. Тhe тоа! was almos! 1ОО metres wide, 9 metres deep, and located some 60 metres in front of the city wall. Bridges were built across it, which were cut under attack, while the anny was positioned in between the moat and the wal1s. Clearly this description does not refer to а hastily constructed defence: the digging of the moat had been а massive undenaking. It has been calculated that {о excavate а тоа! of these dimensions for а medium-sized ciry of 50 hectares, ten thousand men would have had to work three and а half months. 6 Massive gates gave access to the inner cities. Some gates, like the famous Ishtar gate at Babylon, were extensively decorared. Тhe location of the northern and southern palaces Ьемееп that gate and the point where the Euphrates river entered the inner city shows the need to guard these access points to the city. A1though rnany town plans show numerous gates, it is not certain that аН of them were in use. For instance, at Dur-Sharrukin several of them were blocked off. Access was restricted as тисЬ as possible for security reasons, and city gates were closed at night to protect the inhabitan!s, as is revealed in ап Akkadian literary topos, describing а city sleeping under а starry sky: Тhe

countryside is quiet, the land is totally still, the cattle lie down, the people are asleep, 7 те doors are fastened, the city gates closed.

5

Herodotus) HisEon·es, 1. 178-9. Translation Ьу Aubrey de Selincourt (N ew

York, 1983), 113. 6

Marvin А. Powell, 'Merodach-Baladan а! Dur-Jakin: А Note оп те Defense of

Babylonian Cities~, Уоиrnа! ofCuneifonn Studies 34 (1982)., 59-61.

? А. Leo Oppenheim, 'А New Prayer СО the "Gods of те Night"), A1lalecra Biblica 12 (1959), 283, Н. 36-8.

The Urban Landscape

77

АН

inner cities were characterized Ьу the presence of rnonumen{аl buiIdings. Palaces were always located there, as were те тain city temples. Some shrines тау have Ьееп located in the suburbs, but аН important temples were within the walled inner city. In Babylonian cities the temple of the patron deity was usually the oldest monumental bui1ding, hence situated in or near the centre of town, and оп а height in order to Ье visible from the surroundings. This elevation was not necessarily due to artificial terracing, but often resulted from the tradition of locating temples exactly оп the same spot, а habit that originated early in prehistory. А! the site of Eridu, for instance, а succession ofsixteen shrines was excavated in exactly {Ье saтe location, spanning а period from the sixth to the late third millennium. The ruins of each earlier shrine were

contained within the foundations of its successor.

ТЬе

sequence

started with а small one-room shrine, and the temple expanded continuously, culminating in а ziggurat ofthe twenty-first century. The exact location of the earlier temple remains was а matter of concern to later builders. In the sixth century, king Nabonidus related how the temple of Shamash а! Sippar had fallen into ruin, although it had Ьееn restored just fony-five years earlier. Specialists examined the situation, and concluded that the last restoration had Ьееn flawed because the original foundations had по! been followed. 8 In order to determine exactly where the ear1ier temple had been, kings of this period were careful to excavate the underlying infrastructure, as failure to adhere to the original plan was thought to lead {о а weak construction. The accumulation of the debris of earlier monumental buildings naturally led to а greater rise of the temple's ground level than for the rest of the town. Ви! it Ьесаmе also а special aim of the builders. In the late third millennium the ziggurat was developed Ьу creating а succession of massive platforms оп top of which а small shrine was located. This ziggurat was situated either adjacent to the main temple, or а! а distance, but then connected {о the temple Ьу а succession of courtyards. lt towered over the rest of the city, and must have presented ап impressive sight, considering that the authors of те Biblical book of Genesis saw in Babylon's ziggurat а prime example of man's hubris. в See Stephen Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Konigsinschriften (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 4; Leipzig) 1912), Nabonid Nr. 6.

78

The Urban Landscape

The palace was те second monumental building in town, distinguished from the temple Ьу its fortified character. In Assyrian cities severaI palaces were located оп artificialIy constructed citadels, сlеагlу visible ffom Фе surrounding countryside. The buildings were often enonnous in size, and considerable energy was ех pended оп their cons!ruction and decoration. They were а powerful symbol of royal might. Most inner cities aIso had non-monumental areas, ехсерс perhaps for the early cities of Assyria, which 1 will discuss later. Тhe cities were after а11 the main residential centres of Mesopotamia, and often largely occupied Ьу domestic quarters. They were divided into топuтепсаl and residential sectors Ьу а system of streets and canals, the latter primarily found in Babylonia. It is clear, however, that these uгЬап divisions were quite flexible, and that domestic dwel1ings couId infringe ироп те топиmепсаl sectors, if space was needed. Certain scholars have doubted сЬас inner city canals existed, as теу wonder how water could have run through them, considering that the level of the сеZl is usually several metres above that of the coun!ryside. ТЬе Nippur тар confinns their reality, however, and we have со imagine сЬас the banks of these canals sloped steeply upward in antiquity. Silt deposit ргоЬ ably caused the canals со dry ир over time, and then they were most likely converted into streets. The streets of Mesopotamian cities were rarely monumental. Notable exceptions. existed, such as the Processional Way in Babylon, leading from the New Year's temple outside the walls to the Marduk temple complex in the centre of the city. It fonned а ki1ometre-long straight avenue from фе Ishtar gate со the Marduk temple, and was named 'Мау the arrogant по! flourish'. Sennacherib described in detail how he enlarged the streets ofNineveh when Ье tumed it into his capital city: At that time 1 enlarged те site of Nineveh, ту royal ciry. 1 widened its streets enough for а royal procession, and made them shine like daylight ... In order that in rhe future there would not Ье а narrowing of the royal road, 1 had steles made which stand opposite оnе another. Sixtytwo great cubits 1 П1еаsurеd as the width of the royal road, ир to the Gate of the Orchard. If ever апу of те inhabitants of that city tears down his old house and builds а new оnе, and те foundation of his house encroaches

The Urban Landscape ироп

the royal road, house. 9

Ье

shalI

Ье

hung

оп а

79

stake in front of his (own)

Roads only rarely transected сЬе entirety of [Ье town as а thoroughfare from опе gate to another. In cities that resulted from organic growrh по straight streets сап Ье observed. In planned cities we find some straight streets behind [Ье gates) but these usually led [о [Ье cult centre in [Ье middle of the town, or even only [о (Ье nearesr monumental building, as far as we сап see. They did по! provide а grid, or even а means to get quick1y from опе end oftown [о another. As was observed in the suburbs ofTel1 Тауа, the primary function of the streets leading into the inner ciries seems со have Ьееп [о provide access from the outsid.e. Вис опсе inside опе was caught ир in а maze of narrow, winding srreets, totally lacking а plan. Such а street pattern was probably determined Ьу [Ье natural conditions in Mesopotamia. Narrow winding streets provided protection against the sun and against dust blown in Ьу desert winds. Moreover, due [о the lack of wheeled transporration, wide streets were unnecessary. Уе! the entire city Ьесаmе subdivided into sectors delineated Ьу these irregular streets. The circulation pattern within these sectors often consisted of small squares from which а number of streets radiated (Fig. 4.6). In this way conglomerations were created of neighbourhoods wirh internal circulation Ьи! with restrieted aceess from сЬе outside. Мапу ofthe streets were dead ends, and eould perhaps Ье closed off wirh gates, creating ап isolated community inside тет.

Street names were nос rare. Мапу ofrhe streets in Babylon ofthe sixth cenrury had exalted names, such as 'Pray and Ье will hear уои'. Legal doeuments throughour Mesopotamian history locate а pieee of property Ьу srreet, ofren named afrer а god or afrer the ethnicity of the inhabitants. А humorous tale of the first millennium describes the eonfusion of а visitor [о Nippur who wants to find а doetor's house and is given these directions: 'When уои еоте [о Nippur ту [eity] , уои should enter Ьу the Grand Gate and leave а street, а boulevard, а square, [Til]lazida Street and the ways D.D.Luckenbil1) TheAn1lalsojSennacherib(Chicago, 1924), 152-З,xviill.lЗ16, 19-27. The exact length of а great cubit is unknown) Ьис it is about SO ст. ТЬе road would thus have been about 31 т wide. ТЬе Gate ofthe Orchard is not one of те known city gates of Nineveh. 9

80

The Urban Landscape

1

®

•: cale

10т 1

FIG.

4.6

Plan of АН site at Ur

The Urban Landscape

81

ofNusku and Ninimma {о your left.,lO Thus, there must have been some order in the clutter of streets we perceive in the archaeologiса! plans. Along the streets houses were packed closely together in agglomerations resembling Roman domestic insulae. This bui1ding pattem was, and is, very common in те Mediterranean and Middle Eastem world, and obviously has the advantage that it protects те inhabitants against the heat Ьу reducing the number of walls exposed to the sun. Protection against the heat dictated many other aspects of the layout of Mesopotamian houses. Although there existed innumerable variations in the house plans, two basic variants existed in Mesoporamia. Опе consisted of а set of rooms· merged together in ап agglutinative pattem. The other was formed Ьу а courtyard, surrounded Ьу rooms that were accessed only from that courryard. Тhe courtyard house was ideally suited to protect its inhabitants

{гот

excessive heat in the daytime and cold at night.

At night the courtyard and the rooms filled ир with сооl air, which during the daytime Ьесате heated Ьу the sun. The rising hot air provided cooling currents in the rooms. In the aftemoon, when the house was at its hottest, increasing shadow produced simi1ar currents {о offset the heat. 1t is thus по surprise that the courtyard house remains the preferred style of dwelling in the Middle East to this day. Outside windows were rare in the Mesopotamian house, and the streets were lined Ьу blank fat;ades. Both the inside and outside walls of unbaked bricks were very thick~ and occupied almost half of те house)s surface. Due to the lack of long roof beams, the rooms were small, and many domestic activities щау have taken place in the courtyard. Second storeys probably did not exist in the south of Babylonia, but further north they тау have Ьееп сот топ. 1t is likely that people slept оп the roofs, if not under the open sky, under reed structures or the like that would never survive in the archaeological record. The plans of houses changed constantly as individual rooms were often bought and sold, or houses were divided among brothers at the father's death. As space limitations were great in inner cities, open spaces between the houses would have Ьееп soon 10

Translation Ьу Benjamin R. Foster) From Distanr. Days (Bethesda) 1995) 363,

quoted

Ьу

perm.ission.

оо

The Urban Landscape

82

occupied Ьу additional rooms. There were obviously differences according to the wealth of the inhabitants of neighbourhoods. Richer citizens ртоЬаЫу had the ability to build larger houses, with some empty spaces between them, whi1e the poor lived packed together in restricted spaces. Unfortunately, archaeologists 80 far have devoted insufficient attention {о the domestic areas of towns for us to distinguish clearly Ьемееп the characters of different neighbourhoods. Mixed together with те domestic areas were industrial sectors where craft production took place.. Usually те archaeological ~ record only allows us to recognize remains of kilns for the produc. tion of pottery and for metal smelting, but texts also attest to the existence of quarters of ;ewellers, fullers-, tanners, and so оп. There is по firm evidence, however, that еасЬ craft was concentrated in а specific neighbourhood. The location of industrial zones was dictated Ьу common sense. In Larsa, for instance, kilns were located in the south-eastern sector of town, while the prevailing winds сате from те north-east. Clearly atrention was paid to these winds, and те bad odours of the industries were blown away from the residential areas, rather than over them. For the same reasons таnу craft centres were located in the suburbs) as 1 mentioned before. Again we are insufficiently informed about these areas of towns) а situation which is only recently being rectified through the changing attitudes of archaeologists. Finally, ап inner city also contained ор еп areas. This is clear from the Nippur тар (Fig. 4.1) where the location of а park is ~hown in the south-west corner of town. The Epic of Gilgamesh indicates the existence of such areas in town: 'The city is one ;quare mПе, the orchards are one square mile> the claypits, те )pen ground of the Ishtar temple) are оnе square mile as well. Гhгee 8quare miles and the open ground comprise Uruk.'11 The :xtent ofthese areas depended оп the nurnber of city residents, and he statement that two-thirds of the city was reserved for ореn paces and gardens is ргоЬаЫу wishful thinking rarher than fact. In Ье open areas cattle and sheep were probably herded, while they lere used also for the growing ofvegetables, date palms, and fruit ~ees. ТЬеу could provide а соо! area in те excessive heat of те I{esopotamian summer. So far> по surface survey of а site has 11

Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI col. vi, Н. 306-7.

The Urban Landscape

83

allowed us to 10cate these zones with certainty. It is important, however, {о keep their existence in mind when population estimates are made based оп the size of settlements. А word needs {о Ье said about the location of burials in ancient Mesopotamian cities. Two types of interment existed seemingly throughout the his!ory of Mesopotamia: burial underneath the floors of houses, streets, and squares, and burial in special cemeteries. Due to the focus of the archaeologists' attention оп built-up areas in towns, the first type seems to have predominated, but it seems unlikely that аН inhabitants could have Ьееп buried in tha! manner. The tradition of burying а dead family member underneath one's house was inspired Ьу the cult of the dead. Deceased ancestors were greatly respected, and а! times meals were held within те house which involved offerings to those family members. Pipes in the floor enabled the pouring of food and drink into the tombs. Interestingly, burial-chambers were often reopened, and, the bones present were swept aside, in order to lay out а new corpse. It is unclear to uS how it was decided who was to Ье buried undemeath the fami1y Ьоте, and who was taken {о а cemetery. The location of cemeteries in or outside inner cities is rarely known. We Ьауе some notable exceptions at Ur, for instance, where in те centre of town а large cemetery was in use for several centuries in {Ье middle of the third millennium. Again more archaeological research оп this aspect of urban occupation would Ье useful. Despite the fac! that аН Mesopotamian inner cities had the above-mentioned characteristics in common, we сап distinguish four major variants in their layouts. ТЬе differences derive from the geographical surroundings of the cities, and from their building histories. ТЬе geographical conditions were quite distinct between Upper and Lower Mesopotamia, and both regions had two types of urban settlements. The majority of cities developed naturally over time from villages to urban centres, and showed по advanced planning in their layout. They were the result of organic growth over the centuries. Throughout the history of Mesopotamia, however, cities were founded according !о preconceived arti:ficial plans as well. These planned cities need not have been bui1t оп virgin soil, but were also created оп {ор of existing towns or villages. What is imporrant, however, is that at а particular moment а decision was taken to build а city according to some regular and

84

The Urban Landscape

preconceived plan. The four variants in the layout of Mesopotamian inner cities сап thus Ье summed ир as Upper and Lower Mesopotamian cities resulting from organic gr owth, and as planned cities in Ьот regions. In the fol1owing 1 will discuss еасЬ variant with special emphasis оп those aspects that distinguish тет from one another. Lower Mesopotamian cities that had grown organically were characterized Ьу а dense occupation of the inner towns with buildings of varied nature. Religious complexes, palaces, administrative buildings, residential, and industrial areas were аН part of the inner ci:ties. The cities were intersected with canals and major streets, Ьи! по effort was made to make these straight, and consequently the divisions of те town they created were irregular. A1though it тау Ье possible to assign predominant functions to quarters, such as religious or administrative, те separation between them was по! strict. Temple complexes, for instance, were only surrounded with monumental walls in the first millennium: previously, houses often abutted the temples themselves. Even if the inhabitants of such houses were often temple personnel, теу were по! exclusively 80. Тhe

main religious complex of а town dominated irs plan and its skyline, as it was large and built ОП а height. Тhe second important monumental building was the palace, but seemingly not аН Lower Mesopotamian cities contained опе, including some cities та! were politically prominent. Palaces were often 10cated а! the edge of the inner cities that had been founded in prehistory or the early historical period. When the cities developed after secular elites had Ьесоте fiлnlу established in the region, Ьу те mid-rhird millennium, the palace and remple complexes were located in each other's vicinity in or near the centre of town. 1Ъе city walls were often constructed after а settlement had already attained а substantial size, and Ьу necessity they followed the contours of the settlement, usually more ог less oval shaped. ТЬе natural height of те tell fonned Ьу earlier building deposits faci1itated фе erection of а defensive wall оп its edges. No prior planning ofthe wall's outlines is thus noticeable. Тhere were а great many cities that developed organically in Lower Mesopotamia.) and local circumstances influenced their panicular layouts. Upper Mesopotamian cities usually developed differently from those in the South. Instead of а gradual growth from village to city

The Urban Landscape

85

over те centuries, mапу villages suddenly expanded in те midthird millennium when the region was urbanized, possibly under Lower Mesopotamian influence. ТЬе cities developed мо clearly distinct sections, ап upper and а lower town. Тhe local Akkadian dialect used мо terms to refer (о these divisions: kerlJuт for те acropolis and adassum for the lower town. Access to the former was restricted as is il1ustrated Ьу this quote from а letter found at Mari: ТЬе

day afrer romorrow Simablane will arrive with his troops in Mari ... 150 Babylonians and 50 Numhaians, 200 men in tota1, will ассотрanу him ... То the теп that ассотраnу him 1 will assign lodgings in the adaffum. Not а single soldier will Ье given а tablet for access (о фе kеrlшm. Ви! 1 will make Simahlane enter сЬе kerhum~ and according to circumstances 1 will give his attendants [comjortable] lodgings, so та! he will nor get upset. 12 ~

~

ТЬе иррег

town was located оп top of the debris of the earlier village, several metres аЬоуе те level of те plain, not in the centre of the lower town, but ас one of (Ье edges. Тhe monumental buildings were situated оп it, clearly visible from the surroundings. It is clear from the excavations at Shubat-Enlil and Qattara that in the early second millennium those buildings were а11 of а religious character} while те palace and administrative buildings were 10cated in the lower town. If the location of те so-called palace of Naram-Sin in the lower town а! ТеН Brak is not unusual, this тау also Ьауе been the case in the mid-third millennium. Тhe upper town was separated from the ]ower опе only Ьу its height and Ьу the monumental walls of its bui1dings. This is different from the situation in the South where canals or streets separated the religious sector from the rest of town. In the опlу site where this has Ьееп examined} Shubat-En1il, the lower town contained some domestic architecture besides monumental palace buildings. Ви! there seems (о have Ьееn ап evolution in that practice. А carefully planned residential агеа with а straight paved street leading to the acropolis was found in те mid-thirdmillennium tоwп. In the second millennium that residential area was not occupied} and just а few domestic remains have been found оп the edges of те town, near the city wal1s. It seems~ therefore, that there was almost по domestic occupation of the 12 Georges Dossin, 'Adassum et kirlJum dans les textes de Мап', Revue d'assyn'ologie еЕ d'archeologie orienrale 66 (1972), 117, 11. 11-13, 18-20, 24-33.

86

The

ИтЬаn

Landscape

walled city in the early second mil1ennium, when Shubat-En1i1 was the capital city of the state created Ьу Юng Shamshi-Adad (ruled 1813-1781). People must Ьауе 1ived in те suburbs and villages surrounding the city, which was reserved for religious and administrative purposes. Such а situation was never encountered in Lower Mesopotamia. Plenty of open spaces were thus ауаНаЫе within the Upper Mesopotamian lower city, which could Ье used for agricultural activity, and provided а safe Ьауеп for те inhabitants of the suburbs and their flocks in times of crisis. Тhe differences between those cities ofthe South and the North та! resulted from organic growth are thus the following: southem cities contained а dense occupation of va~ed nature within their walls, while northem ones r~served the walled cities for official purpo8es and the residential areas were mainly located in the suburbs. The citadels ofUpper Mesopotamia Ьауе по counterpart in the South where а less clearly delineated sector of town contained the city's temples. The remains of southern cities contain several mounds separated Ьу gullies, where canals and streets used {о Ье. In the North the remains are limited to опе high mound, ше acropolis or upper town, whi1e те lower ciry shows 1ittle re1ief. Although cities тас had evolved over the centuries were Ьу far те most соттоп in те entirety of Mesopotamia, throughout the history of the region new settlements were founded with advanced planning, ~r at times older ones were entirely rebui1t with а radiсаllу new and planned layout. Usually these settlements were either new capital cities or trading and military foundations in Mesopotamia's periphery. Although the tradition of founding new capital cities i8 attested in Babylonia as early as the twenty-fourth century, when Юng Sargon built Akkade" only оnе ехатрlе of it is known archaeologically-Dur-Kurigalzu, built in the second half of те second millennium, just south ofmodern Baghdad. It is ап unusual site in that it stretches for some 5 kilometres along а branch of те Euphrates, joining together three ear1ier settlements, and по evidence of planning сап Ье seen. Information оп planned cities only becomes available in the seventh and sixth centuries, when Babylonia gained political and military supremacy over Westem Asia, and its kings undertook massive bui1ding projects in тапу of те ancient Babylonian cities, completely redesigning several of . thеПl. These refurbished cities were planned оп the same pattem, as is exemplified Ьу Babylon (Fig. 4.7) and Borsippa (Fig. 4.8).

The

UтЬаn

Landscape

87

1 ®

key Summer Palace

7

Тетр 'е

о,

Marduk

2

NOrth

Palace

8

Resldenlial quarte r

3

South Palace

9

Outer

4

ProcesSlona I r oad

1О

/nnег

5

Jshtar Gate

11 Euphra tes R. (ancient course)

б

Z,ggurat

12 TempJe 01 Nabu-sha-h аг6

FIG.

4.7

WaJl Wa/I о

I

scale

'ООm

I

Plan of Babylon. So1id areas are fu,l1y excavated, shaded areas have Ьееп partly excavated

88

The Urban Landscape .

FIG.

4.8

Plan of Borsippa

The planning was most likely the work of the architects of kings Nabopolassar (ruled 625-605) and Nebuchadnezar (ruled 604562), who тау have been guided Ьу earlier works, undenaken Ьу the late Assyrian kings. 13 ТЬе inner cities were laid out as а large rectangle surrounded Ьу massive walls and а тоз! filled with water. Within the walls were several monumental gates, giving access to straight streets, leading {о the centre of town. The inner cities were thus partitioned into rectangular sectors, which were named after the city gates. Ви! within these sectors the street pattern Ьесате much less regular, although the rectangular pattern was по! entirely abandoned. Тhe town centre was occupied Ьу те religious quaner, dominated Ьу а 13 А. R. George, Baby/onian TopographicaZ Texrs (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 40; Louvain, 1992) 15, suggests that те rebuilding of Babylon оп а rectangular plan dated (О the 13th-12th cents.) but те evidence for this is limited to а later

literary rext,

The Urban Landscape

89

ziggurat. This quaner was not located оп а height, but separated from its surroundings Ьу а massive wall. The centrality of те temple complex was emphasized Ьу {Ье fact that the roads from the city gates led to it. Moreover~ the ziggurats were panicularly elaborate and must have Ьееп visible from а great distance. Indeed, the remple was inrended [о Ье the city's focal point. The раlасе, оп the other hand, was located оп the edge of the cities, at the point where the rivers entered them. This was a~weak point in the defences, and [Ье military installations adjoining the palace were probably located there for а good reason. Herodotus (1. 191) recounts, however, that Cyrus of Persia was still able to penetrate Babylon through the bed of the Euphrates after Ье had diverted the water upstream. The palace was по! entirely enclosed Ьу те city wal1, bur, as was те case in Assyria, it extended into the countryside, probably indicating that its function surpassed the city Iimits.

Babylon and Borsippa were bisected Ьу rivers. In Babylon the Euphrates си! the inner city into two almost equal parts. The monumental buildings were concentrated in the eastern part, while the westem part тау have Ьееп reserved for residences. In Borsippa а branch of the Euphrates turned into а lake just north of the city. А run-off channel from that lake separated the northern fifth of the city from the rest. In both places water from these rivers was diverted to fill the moat around the walls. Babylon had the unusual feature that а second wall was built to form ап enormous triangle around те eastern part of the city, along {Ье Euphrates. 1t тау have Ьееп intended {о integrate within the city the so-called summer palace, situated 2 kilometres to the north of the inner town wall. This outer wall was 7.5 kilometres long, and together with the Euphrates оп its westem edge, created а triangle measuring 12.5 kilometres in circumference. The eastern inner city was situated а! its corner as а highly defended fortress containing temples, palaces, and elite residences. Advance planning was по! only used for Babylonian cities of the late period, but a1so for earlier settlements built Ьу southem Mesopotamians оп the fringes of the region, for trading and miIitary purposes. Excavated examples of such planned towns аге НаЬuЬа Kabira in northern Syria, founded in the mid-founh тН lennium} Shaduppum, now in а suburb of Baghdad, and Haradum in western Iraq near the Syrian border, both early second

90

The Urban Landscape

millennium foundations. The last sire shows аН the characteristics of these settlements (Fig. 4.9). It was founded Ьу Babylonians оп (ор of ап older settlement in the eighteenth century and survived [or little more than опе hundred years. Its plan was almost а perfect square, covering only 1.3 hectares. The town was intersected Ьу а number of straight thoroughfares, leading to а religious complex in the centre of town. То те north of the temple was located а large residence th~t belonged {о the so-called mayor. The thickness of the walls, and те defensive character of the city gate suggest that те settlement had а military character. But the location of the site close {о the river and the texts found in it indicate that it had ап

1

Ма уое·5

9

о

h0:f В

20т

t=1===-_--.ld sca I е

F~G.

4.9

Plan of Haradum

The Urban Landscape

91

important role ТО play in the trade Ьемееп Babylonia and the areas to its north and west. City planning was thus in existence from the very beginning of Babylonian history, and new foundations were ideally laid ои! as rectangles, al10wing for special circumstances that were easily accommodated. The main roads of these cities led to the religious centre in their centre, which stresses again the fact that the temple was considered to Ье the Babylonian city's most important monumental building. Planned cities are best known in Assyria where several new capital cities were constructed in the late second to the mid-first millennia: Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta (thirteenth century), Kalhu (ninth century), Dur-Sharrukin (eighth century; Fig. 4.10), and Nineveh (seventh century). Kalhu and Nineveh were built over much smaller earlier cities, and а! that time their layout was entirely refashioned. Both survived under several kings, all of whom worked оп them and slightly refurbished тет. ТЬе other мо sites reflect the original plan of their builders accurately, and are thus ideal il1 ustrations of а planned Assyrian city. The architects designed these cities as а large rectangle, surrounded Ьу а massive wall. In Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta and DurSharrukin this rectangle is almost perfect> in Kalhu and Nineveh much less so, probably because earlier features had to Ье included (Kalhu), Or because of те topography of the surroundings (Nineveh). Оп every side of the rectangle, the wall was pierced Ьу several monurnental gates) some ofwhich were seemingly not used. The gates were never located exactly opposite оnе another, аl though this could have been very easily accomplished. Major streets were laid out behind some ofthem, yet they did not transect the entire city, and just led to the nearest monumental building, as far as we сап see. In а sense we have here а total reversal of the Hippodamian scheme of ancient Greece and Rome, where the grid pattem of thoroughfares was strictly maintained even when the circumference of the city was highly irregular. In Assyria те city walls were regular and linear, whi1e internally те street pattern was irregular. Each ciry, except perhaps Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, had two citadels substantially raised above ground level and surrounded Ьу their o~n wal1s. They were always located оп the city wall, not in the centre of tоwп. Often they extended s1ightly beyond the limits of the city wall, as if to show their association with the surrounding

The Urban Landscape

92

Тетрlе

01

? gate

FIG.

4.1 О

gate

Plan of Dur-Sharrukin

290т

scale

(Кhorsabad)

countryside as well. The largest citadel was used for оnе or more palaces and for ternples; the second one contained mi1itary installations. All these bui1dings were of rnassive proportions, and extensively decorated. Their construction was glorified in numerous inscriptions as те king's major accomp1ishment. Because of the irnposing character of the monurnental buildings оп the citadels~ archaeologists Ьауе had little or по time to investigate the lower towns. Only а SПlаll section of Nineveh has been surveyed, and the research has shown the existence of elite residences just north of те Kuyundjik citadel~ with ап industrial

The Urban Landscape

93

quarter somewhat funher north. Large areas of these immense Assyrian cities were probably not occupied, but used for pleasure gardens, areas to provide refuge to villagers in times of danger, and for pasture, if we сап believe the biblical book of Jonah's mention of many cattle inside Nineveh. It is clear that extensive gardens were considered to have added to the city's pleasures, and several kings boast of having laid them out. According to the building inscriptions а11 kings who established а new capital started out Ьу digging canals to provide their cities with additional water and to irrigate те fields near and possibly inside them. Sennacherib, for instance, built ап extensive aqueduct system, bringing wa!er in from distant mountains. Тhe economic importance of these canals is debated. Тhey тау have been needed to support the dense populations of these artificial foundations; yet Sennacherib's own statement that he used а large рап of the water to create ап artificial swamp suggests that ап image of grandeur тау have been striven for Ьу these works. The planned cities of Babylonia and Assyria thus show similarities in that their generallayouts were highly regular, and preferably rectangular. They differed, however, in the location of their cult centres. In Babylonia, these were in the centre ofthe city, separated from те palace, while in Assyria they were located with the palace оп а citadel оп the city wall. The cities of Assyria seem to have had mисЬ more ореп space than those of Babylonia, perhaps because феу were more artificial creations than their southem соиn terparts, which were usually refurbished ancient and prominent cities. Тhe four different layouts reflect varied attitudes towards the cities. The differences are greater between Lower and Upper Mesopotamia than between unplanned and planned cities. In Lower Mesopotamia numerous cities were located near Фе rivers and canals that provided the water indispensable for agriculture. Often several of these wateIWays entered the city walls. Settleтent outside фе agricultural zone was impossible, so space was restricted. In Upper Mesopotamia the well-watered plains allowed settlement almost everywhere, and the need for artificial canals was less immediate. The cities were not clustered along the major rivers; instead they could rely for their water supply оп smaller streams. Consequently the attitudes towards cities as residential centres were different between the two regions. Throughout Lower

94

The Urban Landscape

Mesopotamian history inner cities were densely occupied Ьу domestic dwelIings, and they were the logical form of settlement in а limited area. In Upper Mesopotamia houses in inner cities were less numerous, and at times perhaps barely present~ because settlement in villages throughout the countryside was possible. In the South, the primacy of те temple as the main public building in town never disappeared, while in те North the palace Ьесате the dominant structure, especially i~ the planned cities of the first millenniuffi. Military installations were also much more prominent in Assyria than теу were in Babylonia. Тhe first millennium cities of Assyria had massive arsenals, while in Babylonia по military buildings separate from the palace are known. These differences suggest the greater importance of military and secular matters in Assyria than in Babylonia, where те cultic imponance of те city remained а constant through its history. The differences between unplanned and planned cities in both regions were really not 80 great. Planned cities show а concem with ап outward regularity, but inside те cities this order soon disappeared. ТЬе emphasis оп the linearity ofthe wall тау have resulted from the city wall's pre-eminence in the Mesopotamian concept of а city. When а wall was built around ап existing settlement it was easier to foIlow its established contours, which were usually oval. Throughout те planning of inner cities in Mesopotamia we see ап ability to adapt to existing circumstances. No dogged adherence to architectural principles is visible, Ьи! flexibiliry in the design is а major characteristic. Finally, а word аЬои! те sizes ofthese Mesopotamian cities is in order. When talking about urban dimensions we сап only take into account the inner cities, clearly delineated Ьу walls, as measurements of suburbs are absent at the moment. There is ап enonnous variation in the areas of excavated cities. А settlement such as АЬи Salabikh in the early third millennium only covered 20 hectares, while at the same time Uruk's wall surrounded ап area of 494 hectares, аЬои! 400 ofwhich were sett1ed. 14 The latter city was very The numbers given in different publications for the sizes of cities vary enormously. 1 use here mainly those provided Ьу Wolfram Nagel and Еуа Srrommenger, 'Altorientalische Stadte-von der Dorfkultur zur Hochkultur seit Habubah bis Babylon', Кбlner Jahrbuch jй, Vor- und Friihgeschichte 16 (1978-79), 61-75) with some additions and corrections. 14

The Urban Landscape

95

unusual in its size and remained the largest wal1ed city in Mesopotamia for мо millennia. More common were Babylonian cities such as Ur, with 61 hectares, and Mashkan-shapir, with аЬоис 72 hectares in size, or in те North Shubat-Enlil, which covered 1.5 hectares in те early second millennium. ТЬе new foundations of the late second and early first mil1ennia greatly surpassed these dimensions: Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta covered ас least 240 hectares, I Dur-Sharrukin 300, and Nineveh 750 hectares. ТЬе largest city in antiquity until imperial Rome was Babylon, where the outer wall encircled ап агеа of 890 hectares. Its size startled the Greeks: Aristotle describes Babylon in his Politics (3. 1. 12) as а 'city that has the circuit of а nation rather than of а ciry, for it is said that when Babylon was captured а considerable рап of the city was пос aware ofit three days later' .15 Of course, not а11 the area within сЬе city walls was occupied, and те kings who cornmissioned the building of these new capital ciries clearly

wanted their size со reflect grandeur. The issue of settlement size relates closely to that of population size, but estimating the latter is virtually impossible. 16 The textual record is disappointing: there are по census lists, and references such as Assurna~irpal 11's claim that he fed 69,574 men and women after the founding of I Scudies in che Al1cienc Hiscory 0/ Norchenl Iraq (London, 1968)) 49 (perhaps 120,000); Mario Liverani, Anrico опеnсе. Scon'a, societa, economia (Rome, 1988), 815 (less таn 120,000); S. Parpola in Jack М. Sasson, Jonah (New York, 1990), 312 (300,000);

and David Stronach in S. Mazzoni (ed.), Nuove jondazioni (Pisa, 1994), 103. (75,000). 20

nе!

vicino orienle ancico

Paul Bairoch, De Jen'cho а Mexico.~ Villes ес economie dans l'hiscoire (Paris, 1985),

44-5.

98

The Urban Landscape BIBLIOGRAPHY

А

few discussions of the layout of inner cities have appeared. Н. Frankfort, 'Town Planning in Ancient Mesopotamia', Town Planning Review 21/1 (1950),98-115, provides а description ofsome of те best known towns а! та! time. Раи} Lampl, Cilies and Planning I in the Ancient Near East (New York, 1968) contains а very superfiI cial text, Ьи! has numerous illustrations. The study recently риЬ~ lished Ьу Elizabeth С. Stone, 'The Development of Cities in Ancient Mesopotamia', in Jack М. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations ofthe Ancient Near East (New York, 1995), 235-48 is the first atrempt to classify the cities of the various regions and J(eriods. See also her 'The Spacial Organization of Mesopotamian Cities', Aula Orientalis 9 (1991), 235-42. Some interesting remarks about Mesopotamian urban forms сап Ье found in А. Е. J. Morris, HislOry 01 Urban Роnn before [he Industrial Revolutions) 3rd edn. (New York, 1994); and Alexander Badawy, Architeclure in Ancient ЕЮJрС and the Near East (Cambridge, Mass., 1966). For planned cities see several of the articles ,in S. Mazzoni (ed.), Nuove Jondaz'ioni nel vicino orf,ente antico (Рisз, 1994). For ancient topographic texts see А. R. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 40; Louvain, 1992). Ап example of а reconstruction of urban topography based оп building inscriptions, data of economic texrs, and archaeological finds is Adam Falkenstein, Topographie von Uruk 1: Unlk zur Seleukidenzeit (Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 3; Leipzig, 1941). For ancient maps see W. Rollig, 'Landkarten', Reallexikon der Assyriologie 6 CBerlin and New York, 1980-3),464-7. For the location of orchards around cities see Denise :ocquerillat, Palmeraies ес cultures de l'Eanna d'Uruk (559-520) :Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in UrukWarka 8; Berlin, 1968). For city streets see Jurgen Schmidt, Strassen in altmesopotamischen W ohnge bieten' , Baghdader Иittеilungеn 3 (1964), 125-47. Forhouses, see Е. Heinrich, 'Haus. з. Archaologisch), Reallexikon der Assyriologie 4 (Berlin and New rork, 1972-5), 176-220; and for burials, see Е. Strommenger> Grab'~ RealZexikon derAssynolog7:e 3 (ВегНп and New York, 1957I!

r

1), 581-93. The literature

оп

individual cities is enormous. The following is

The Urban Landscape а уегу

99

small selection of easi1y accessible works оп те sites mentioned in rhis chapter. Sites excavated Ьу the British Scho61 in Iraq, including АЬи Salabikh, ТеН Тауа, Nimrud (= Kalhu), and Rimah (= Qattara), are summarily described in John Curtis (ed.), Fifty Years 01 Mesopotamian Discovery (London, 1982). For the other sites mentioned see Kanish: Tahsin 6zgii~, 'An Assyrian Trading Outpost', Scientifi,c Атепсаn 208/2 (February 1963), 97106; Tahsin OzgU9, Кйltере-Каnii l! (Ankara, 1986); Nuzi: Richard F. S. Starr, Nuzi (Cambridge, Mass., 1939); Ur: Marc Van De Mieroop, Society and Enrerprise 'in Old Babylonian Ur (Berliner Beitrage zum Vorderen Orient 12; Berlin, 1992); Larsa: JeanLouis Huot et al., 'La Structure urbaine de Larsa: Une approche provisoire', in }.-L. Нио! (ed.), Larsa. Travaux de 1985 (Paris, 1989), 19-52; Shubat-Enlil: Dominique Parayre and Harvey Weiss, 'Cinq campagnes de fouilles а ТеН Leilan dans la Haute Jezireh (1979-1987): Ьilап е! perspectives', Journal des Savants (1991),3-26; Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta: Ti1man Eickhoff, Kar Tukulti Ninurta: Eine mittelassyrische Kult- und Residenzstadt (Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 21; Berlin 1985), Reinhard Dittman in Кhaled Nashef, 'Archaeology in Iraq', Аmеn·саn Journal 01 Archaeology 96 (1992), 309-12; Dur-Sharrukin: Gordon Loud and Charles Altman, Khorsabad 11: The Citadel and the Town (Oriental Institute Publications XL; Chicago, 1939); Nineveh: David Stronach and Stephen Lumsden, 'UC Berkeley's Ехсауа tions а! Nineveh', Biblical Archaeologist 55 (1992), 227-33; DurKurigalzu: А. А. AI-Кhayyat, 'Aqar Quf, capitale des Cassites', Dossiers Histoire ес Archeologie 103 (March 1986), 59-61; Babylon: D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrnezzar and Babylon (Oxford, 1985); А. R. George, 'Babylon revisited: archaeology and philol0gy', Antiquity 67 (1993), 734-46; Borsippa: Eckhard Unger, 'Barsippa', Reallexikon der Assyriologie 1 (Ber1in and Leipzig, 1932); 402-29; Haradum: Christine Kepinski and Olivier Lecomte} 'Haraduml Harada: Une forteresse sur l'Euphrate', Arc1J:eologia 205 (Sept. 1985), 46-55, Christine Керiпski-Lесошtе, Haradum 1: Иnе nouvelle ville sur lе Moyen-Euphrate (Paris, 1992). Рог юе issue of population estimates in ancient Mesopotamia, see Robert мсс. Adams, Heartland ofCities (Chicago and London, 1981}; and Carol I 1973» 18.

126

Urban Governmenl

native Mesopotamians: in the fifth century, we find evidence of ап assembly of Egyptian settlers and отег aliens in Babylon. We do по! know how тапу people were needed before they could соп vene ап assembly, but the right to congregate seems {о have Ьееn unrestricted. The record of the trial for homicide cited аЬоуе is interesting as it shows some of the procedures of the assembly. ТЬе case was referred to this соиn Ьу the king. Similar texts from the early second miIlennium state that the assembly was convened Ьу the king,10 а statement that casts some doubt оп the independent nature of the assembly а! that time. ТЬете seems {о have Ьееп по debate аЬои! те guilt of the three assassins, Ьи! оnlу аЬоu! the responsibility of the victim's wife, who did по! reveal that Ьет husband had Ьееn murdered. Nine men argued rhat she was guilty of murder, whiIe мо stood ир in Ьет defence. ТЬе {ех! is phrased as if we hear statements Ьу both parties> but must Ье а fictitious rendering ofthe discussion, as аН the accusers and аП the defenders speak in unison. Finally те entire assembly pronounced а verdict against the woman, and the record states that she and the assassins were handed over to [Ье executioner. From the Old Assyrian trading colony а! Kanish in Anatolia we have three very unusual, but also extremely fragmentary, texts that originally тау have contained instructions оп how те assembly there needed {о consider а lawsuit. The reconstruction of the procedures remains highly tentative because of the poor condition of the documents. It seems that а lawsuit was first considered Ьу те соипсil of фе 'big теn) to see whether it needed to Ье dismissed or to Ье passed оп to the full assembly. Without (те consent of) а majority of the big теп опе single 'тап of accounting' cannot ask the secretary to сопуепе the assembly of the big and smalI men. If the secretary convened the assembly of the big and rhe smaIl теп without (те consent of) the big теп, at the request of one single person, the secretary wilI рау 1О shekels of si1ver. 11

Seemingly the council was divided into three groups in order (о facilitate the deliberations. When а majority was in [ауоит of соп10

See Stephen J. Lieberman, CNippur: City of Decisions)" in Мапа de Jong Ellis

(PhiIadelphia, 1992), 132. Ferris J. Stephens, 'ТЬе Cappadocian TabIets in the University of Pennsylvania Museum"Journal o/lhe Sociecy ojOn·enlaZ Research 11 (1927),122 по. 19,11. б14, trans. after Mogens Trolle Larsen, The Old AssYl"ian CicJ'-SсQсе (Copenhagen, 1976), 284. (ed.)~ Nippur а& &he Ce1Z!ennial 11

Urban Government

127

sidering the case, те secretary was ordered to convene the entire assembly. This assembly тау have Ьееп divided into seven groups. Irs decisions required а majority as well. We do not know how it was detennined what те majority fe]t. Was а vote taken, and, ifso, how? Further information about the proceedings ofthe assembly is not available, unless we take into consideration the literary descriptions of meetings of gods. Those divine meetings show little evidence of discussion, ехсер! when they were limited со а small nurnber of prominent gods, who really debated те issue at hand. It has Ьееп stated that те proceedings of the assemblies were secret. This conclusion was based оп те above-mentioned отеп, Ьи! such secrecy seems rather unlikely to те. ТЬе proceedings were пос written down because they were of по importance. It was only the final verdict тас was considered significant enough to Ье recorded. The participant in the assembly clearly took оп а public profile, and was vulnerable {о humiliation Ьу his fellow citizens. Fear of this is expressed in prayers со gods: Do по! abandon тe~ ту lord, со the assembly where there are who wish те ill. Do not let те сате со harm in сЬе assembly.12

таnу

In the famous роет of the Righteous Sufferer the central сЬагас ter's downfall includes the [асс that 'ту slave cursed те орепlу in the assembly (of gentlefolk)'. 13 Опе gets те impression that intrigues were rife in the assemblies and that а citizen's good пате could Ье destroyed Ьу gossip, even Ьу that of а slave. ТЬе areas of сотресепсе of the assembly are again ап extremely difficult matter to discuss. Almost а11 the records we have deal with legal decisions. The assemblies, Ьот of the entire city and of the city quarters, acted as courts of law, next со those staffed with judges appointed Ьу the king. In the homicide trial cited above, the k.ing assigned те са5е to the assembly, Ьис it is far from clear whether or not he did 50 for аН cases. The cases heard were most commonly of а civil пасиге, Ьис sometimes а criminal са5е was considered as well. We have а record from Фе mid-first millenniuffi, for instance) describing how the assembly ofUruk examined 12 Trans. Alasdair Livingstone, Соип PoeT:ry and Lirerary Miscellanea (Helsinki, 1989)) 30-2, reverse 11. 11 and 13, quoted Ьу permission. 13 Trans. Ьу Benjamin R. Foster, FroHl Distant Days (Bethesda, 1995), ЗО 1 1. 89,

quoted Ьу permission.

•

128

Urban Government

the circumstances of а murder attempt оп the гоуаl commissioner ofthe Еаппа temple. In this case the assembly only did the preliminary invesrigation, while фе sentencing was passed оп to royal judges. Civi1 cases usual1y involved disputed property.) divorce) and other situations where the main stress lies оп те fact that propeny needed to Ье transferred пот опе parry {о another according to the decision of те court. Непсе, it should соте as по surprise that these cases predominate in our records. Was фе assembly competent in other matters? А single letter from the Old Assyrian correspondence to the merchant colony in Anatolia, dating to the early second millennium, suggests so. The letter contains ап order of the city of Assur [о the colony to provide funds for the building of fortifications. 1-1 In the Old Assyrian correspondence in general 'the city' and 'the assembly' are used as synonyms, suggesting that а great deal of power was located in the assembIy, comparable to те situation in classical Greece. Some optimistic scholars have therefore suggested that the assembly's areas of competence were all-encompassing in urban govemment. There is just по! enough information to deny or соnfiлn this view, in ту opinion. Jacobsen еуеп stated that the assembly originally had the powers to grant and to revoke kingship, а statement 1 will investigate below. ТЬе image we thus obtain of the assembly is tantalizing, but а! the same time exceedingly vague. We could see in it а meeting of citizens discussing widely ranging topics from lawsuits [о те selection of their leaders. Participation сап Ье seen as ап ас! of public prominence, Ьи! also as а way of exposing oneself (о intrigue and scorn. There is obviously nothing unusual аЬоис that, as public behaviour is always judged Ьу others. But was the assembly а place where ambitious теп and women, or теп аlопе, gained public recognition? Were participants involved in debates using their rhetorica! abilities [о convince others of the correctness of their opinion? This is аН ореп to our imagination, as по iпfолnаtiоп for or against such conclusions is available [о us. The palace and the citizenry formed two separate political еlе ments in the Mesopotamian city. Channels of communication between the two needed to exist) and these were the responsibiIity of а nurnber of officials. The study of these officials is, again, very 14

See Larsen, Old Assyrian Cit)'-Scace) 163.

Urban Government

129

difficult, because of сЬе large numbers of titles we encounter and the vagueness of (Ье duties еасЬ officiaI had. W е are overwhelmed Ьу а mass of titles when we look at urban administration. For instance, in her study of те city of Sippar in the early second milIennium, Rivkah Harris talks about the mayor, те chairman of the assembly, the overseer of the merchants, фе governor, the rabi sikkatinz (Akk.), the sussikku (Akk.), the sakkanakku (Akk.), the bailiff, the overseer of те barbers, the barber, те gatekeeper, те gateman, and (Ье doorkeeper. She herself notes that 'officials bearing а disturbing variety of titles appear as chief administrators'.15 It is vinually impossible to determine the responsibilities of most officials with апу accuracy, as а few examples will make clear. Two officials who seemingly played ап important role in the government of (Ье Mesopotamian city were the chainnan of the assembly and the mауог. ТЬе firsr, chairman of [Ье assembIy, owes his Eng1ish title (о the Sumerian designation, gaZ. ukken. па, which literally translates as 'great опе of the assembly', а wording that continued to Ье used еуеп when the texts were written in Akkadian. Не rarely appears in our sources, however, in connection with the assembly. Instead, he seems со Ьауе had сЬе authority to hold people prisoner, and (о have acted as ап intermediary between the palace and the citizens. Therefore some scholars have insisted that the reference со the assembly in his title is inconsequential, and that he has по relationship а! аН to this institution. Another соттоп Akkadian title, rabianum, bears very little resemblance (о our image of а mayor, although we usual1y translate the Akkadian term as such. In Sippar the rabianum appeared as the chairman of the court and as а witness. In the latter capacity Ье was almost always listed first, which seems to reflect his prominence. According (о the Code of Hammurabi, the rabianum, together with 'rhe city', was responsible for prosecuting robberies which took place in his city's territory (§§ 23-4), indicating that he was а high officiaI, but without revealing much about his other functions. In Old Babylonian documents, the rabianum often appears as а middleman in hiring contracts of harvest labourers. It seems that he acted as the iпtеrmеdiаry between [Ье palace and сЬе townspeople 15 Rivkah Harris, Ancient Sippar: А Deтographic Study 01 ап Old Babylonian Ciry (1894-1595 В. С.) (Istanbul) 1975), 57-86.

130

Urban Government

who worked its lands. More тап опе rabianum could function in а city а! те same time, most likely because еасЬ ward had апе. А recently excava~ed, and unfortunarely nor yer ful1y published, Old Babylonian text provides а Iess stereotypical view оп the rabianunz. In Haradum, а Babylonian outpost оп те Euphrates, some tablets were excavated in те house of [Ье mayor located in те centre of town. The mayor, Habasanu, seems to have embezzled some ofthe funds his citizens had paid. Conceming the si1ver) which Habasanu during his tenure as mауос had made {Ье town рау, the entire town assembled and spoke in these terms {о Habasanu: 'Of the silver which уои made us рау) а great amount has stayed in уоиг house) as well as те sheep which we gave оп {ор as voluntazy gifts.' 16

This text suggests that the mayor coIlected Фе payments due Ьу his citizens to pass them оп [о а higher authoriry, Ьи[ that he had omitted to do the latter. Still, despite the numerous attestations of Фе title rabianum in Old Babylonian documents, we сап say very little with certainty аЬои[ the office. The title did по! survive the end of the Old Babylonian dynasry, but а lesser authority, the !;azannu112 (Akk.), seems [о have raken over те duties of Фе rabianunz, and the translation 'mayor' is commonly used [о render this title when it appears in texts written after 1500. А unique letter dating to the middle of те second millennium, found in {Ье northern ciry of Nuzi, describes the duties of this office in some detaiI. It is а letter from те king of Arrapha to the mayor of Tashuhhe: Thus says the mayor of Tashuhhe: 'The king has issued ап order as follows: "Every mayor is responsible for the outlying territory of his ciry, and if there is а fortified settlement in the counrryside around his ciry, Ье is a1so responsible,for it. In {Ье area of his ciry there should Ье по robbery, nor enemies murdering (people» nог the taking ofboory. Ifit happens та! there is а robbery) or enemies take boory and murder (people) within те territory of his ciry, те mayor shall рау damages. If а runaway from АггарЬа runs away from the territory of his ciry and enters another country) the mayor shal1 рау damages. And if а fortified sett]ement within the territory of that city is abandoned, the mayor shall рау damages." ,17 Francis Joannes, 'Haradum et lе pays de Suhum') Archeologie 205 (1985), 58. Ernest R. LзсЬеmап, Excavaxions ах Nuzi 6: The Adnlilliscracive Archives (Сат bridge) Mass.) 1955), по. 1; trans. after А. Leo Oppenheim ес aZ., The Assyn'an Diclionary 6, Н (Chicago, 1956), 164-5. 16

17

Urban Government

131

This man's responsibi1ities were thus not limited to the confines of his cicy, but а180 extended to the 8urrounding countryside. Не seems to have Ьееn per80nally answerable for crimes in his terri{оту, and 80mehow had to prevent 'refugees' from escaping the area. Moreover, Ье had to ascertain тас small fortified settlements surrounding сЬе city were occupied. As Ье seems со have had to рау the damages out ofhis own pocket, the office must have соте with pecuniary rewards to make it worth his while. А unique, unofficial, glimpse at the mayor's status in the city is provided Ьу а Babylonian folk-tale of the first millennium, 'ТЬе Poor Мап of Nippur' .18 The tale relates how а роог тап, GimilNinurta, wa8 80 tired of his lack of decent food that Ье decided to spend аН Ье had оп а goat to cook himself а fine meal. But then Ье remembered how he would not Ье аblе to provide а proper feast for his neighbours, family, and friends, and that he would incite their wrath if he did пос invite them аП. Thus Ье decided со go to the mayor of Nippur, offer him {Ье goat, and hoped that in retum Ье would Ье asked to join him in а nice dinner. Вис instead the mayor kept {Ье good теас for himself, and gave Gimil-Ninurta Фе bones and gristle and some third-rate beer. ТЬе poor тап decided to take а threefold revenge. ТЬе first trick he played оп the mayor gives us some idea of that man's role in а city. Gimil-Ninurta went {о {Ье king and, without explanation, asked со Ье fitted out as а gentleтап with fine clothes and а chariot, for а future payment in gold. Не loaded а sealed Ьох in his chariot and rode (о Nippur where Ье was greeted Ьу сЬе mayor. Не

we{nr off] (о the gate of сЬе mayor of Nippur, The mayor сате o[utside] [о meet him, 'Who are уои, ту lord, who have travelled so la[te in the day]?' 'Тhe king, your lord, sent те, Со [ ] '1 have brought gold for Ekur, temple of Enlil.' The mayor slaughtered а fine sheep Со make а generous 19 теа! for him.

In the middle ofthe night Gimil-Ninurta cried ои! сЬас the Ьох had Ьееп opened and the gold in it stolen, thrashed the mayor, and extoned раутеп! in gold and fine clothes. 18 For the mosr recent English trans. of this tale., used here, see Foster, Frorn Discanc Days, 357-62. 19

Trans. ibid. 359) quoted Ьу permission.

132

Urban Government

The {ех! indicates that the mayor was the representative of the town who was in charge of greeting and entertaining royal emissaries оп official business. It also shows again that he was held ас countable for thefts in his territory. Obviously this does по! teH us тисЬ аЬои! his daily duties. У et, his status within the ciry seems clear: he acted as the intennediary between the palace and the citizenry. Маnу of the отег officials we find attested in the texts played the saтe role. ТЬе contacts between the town communities and the crown were mediated Ьу individuals acting as representatives. This practice was nо! limited to тayors for cities; nomadic tribes were also represented Ьу their sheikhs in their contacts with the crown. It is unclear who was responsible for the appointment of these representatives. Suggestions that they held their office only оп ап annual basis;, and that they were elders of the town selected Ьу their peers;, have been shown to Ье f~lse. In later periods mayors were seemingly appointed Ьу the king; but was the king rubber-stamping а communaI decision} or did Ье make the choice himself? The concept of а higher authority channelling its contacts with segments of the community through representative individuals was applied оп other levels in the hierarchy of urban government as well. The subdivisions of the city mentioned above had the abiliry to discuss matters in their own assemblies, and to speak with опе voice in their contacts with higher authorities. These contacts were mediated Ьу а representative, Ье Ье elected Ьу the people or selected Ьу the king. Thus the тауог тау have consulted with representatives of different city wards, while Ье acted as the representative of the entire city in its contacts with the king. When the palace demanded labour service from the citizens) it was the тау or's duty {о gather (Ье people; Ье probably relied оп the representatives of the different wards to find the individual labourers. ТЬе only people who feH outside this structure were the so-called refugees, who were either new foreign arrivals, or people who had fled their social unit for whatever reason. The mayor was responsible for them as individuals. The hierarchy of people representing segments of the population explains, in ту opinion~ the lack of information оп urban government. This government was а very decentralized affair. Most ofthe responsibilities such as sanitation, policing, or те regulation of marriages and divorces, were not administered Ьу the central

Urban Govemment

133

power, but Ьу the subdivisions of the towns. As problems were dealt with оп а highly personal basis in groups of restricted sizes, they were not registered in writing. Only when а decision resulted in the transfer of property was а record needed, hence the predominance of the legal aspects of the urban government in our dосumепtаtiоп.

Despite the сitizепry's ability to congregate and debate matters of interest to тет, they were по! guaranteed the right to make decisions against the will ofthe king, whose powers were seemingly absolute. The relative powers of the citizenry and the king most likely varied with the nature of the state, and these variations

obviously affected the decision-making process concerning urban affairs. The relationship be(ween citizens and the king when citysrates were srandard would seem likely (О have been different from when the city was just а minor part of ап empire spreading over most of

те

Near East. It is

ту

opinion that, with the progressive

tепitоriаl

expansion of the political units in Mesopotamia, the cities and their representatives gained increased political independепсе and infiuence. This is the reverse of the currently predominant view that Mesopotamian history evolved from 'primitive democracy' 10 а totalitarian state headed Ьу ап all-powerful king. The concept of 'primitive democracy' was developed some fifty years ago Ьу Thorkild Jacobsen. Observing the existence of assemblies with judicial powers in early second millennium Assyria and Babylonia, Jacobsen sought to determine whether they were the survival of ап older tradition or the indication of something new. Не discarded the second possibility 'since the entire drift of Mesopotamian political life and thought in те historical periods is wholeheartedly in the other direction. Throughout we find по signs of growing democratic ideas.,20 Не decided thus that the assembly was ап old institution. Indeed Ье thought that it existed prior то the development of secular kingship in Mesopotamia. Based primarily оп literary material of те second millennium, Jacobsen painted ап almost Biblical picture of the rise of kingship in the third mil1ennium. After а period when the assembly elected а military leader in times of crisis, а period of 'primitive democracy', this power was usurped Ьу the elected leader who forced the 20

Thorkild Jacobsen, 'Primitive Democracy', ]oumal

(1943)) 165.

0/ Near Easlem S,udies 2

~З4

Urban Governn'lent

fitizens to appoint him king for life. This evolution perfectly paralFls the depiction of те rise of kingship in {Ье book of Samuel the Bible. There the last judge, Saul, refused to relinquish ~is temporary powers, and thus introduced kingship among the ~raelites. Jacobsen never pointed out this paralle1ism, perhaps tecause in Mesopotamia kingship was portrayed as а benefit to pankind, while the Bible always maintained а strong anti-royalist :t:titude. , ]acobsen's reconstruction relied extensively оп а Babylonian ;terary text, usually referred to as the 'Epic of Creation'. The text ras apparently composed in the twelfth century and celebrated the ~se to kingship over the universe Ьу Marduk, the god of Babylon. Vhen the gods were threatened with annihilation Ьу Tiamat, еп3.ged Ьу the murder of her husband Apsu, the wise Еа pushed )rward his favourite son Marduk to counter the threat. Marduk ffered his services оп the condition that Ье would Ье accorded lprerne powers. ТЬе gods agreed to grant his wish during ап ~sembly meeting, which was more а banquet with limitless lpplies of beer and wine than а serious discussion of те problem : hand, and Marduk was crowned king before Ье dealt with 'iamat. After his victory he orga11ized the universe, and finally emanded the building of Babylon as his reward. ТЬе events ~picted are thus not exactly а usurpation Ьу ап elected leader of )wers only granted temporarily, but crucial {о Jacobsen's thesis is le fact that Marduk had Ьееп originally elected as king Ьу the .sembly of the gods. Combining this with information from other .eces of literature, Jacobsen pictured тЬе existence in early Meso)tamia of а popular assembly with extensive powers, including the ection of the king. Ву the mid-third millennium the assembly's )wers were greatly restricted Ьу life-long rulers, according to cobsen, and the subsequent history of Mesopotamia showed ап creased totalitarianism. Emperors such as Assurbanipal, who tled ап area from Iran {о Egypr, did not need to consult with their tizens. Leaving aside the issue of the origins of kingship, difficult to Lldy due to the lack of contemporary documentation, the undering view of Jacobsen's entire argument is that the original, and ide powers of the citizenry were eroded and replaced Ьу те Isolute rule of ап individual. Although Jacobsen never indicated s own awareness of it, his reconstruction resembles the Marxist

r. I

Urban Government

135

model where the communal mode ofproduction is thought to have been replaced Ьу the slave-owning mode of production; from а society where the community was of supreme importance to опе where а despotic king was in. charge. Their discussion has Ьееп framed in the context of the perceived dichotomy between the community and те palace, а dichotomy that does по! take into account the private citizens as members of individual households. Сап we discern ап evolution from 'primitive democracy' {о ап absolute monarchy in the Mesopotamian record? 1 believe not, and wish to postulate instead the reverse: as the territory ruled Ьу Mesopotamian kings Ьесате larger and the рорulзtiоп more diverse, те urban citizenry gained importance in its relationship (о the king. Instead of searching for vague clues of citizens' power in the records of the third millennium, it is more usefиl to study the status of urban residents in the first millennium~ when records are mоге abundant. We see that these residents were granted а large degree of independence, especially exemption$ frorn royal taxation, corvee, and military duties, which were the primary areas of interaction berween the king and his subjects. Also, the physical integrity of citizens was guaranteed, and their blood could not Ье shed Ьу the king or his representatives. The freedom from taxation and service was thought to Ье the result of divine protection over the cities, indicated Ьу th~ Akkadian word kidinnu, а divinely enforced security which was probably symbolized Ьу ап етЫет set up in а prominent place in the cities. We have а list of declarations from Assyrian kings stating that they granted от re-established this status (о various cities. The beneficiaries were mostly ancient cult centres in Babylonia: Babylon, Borsippa, Nippur, Sippar, and Uruk. In Assyria the old capital and cu1t centre Assur commonly received this status, and Harran was occasionally mentioned. Опе king extended the practice to cities of the state of Urartu in Anatolia, but this seems to have Ьееп а special occurrence. The protection was taken very seriously: the most illustrative example of it is perhaps found in а letter written Ьу the assembly of Babylon to the Assyrian king Assurbanipal and his brother Shamash-shuma-ukin, who was the king of Babylonia. In the letter the citizens requested that the protection granted to them Ье ех tended (О аН residents ofthe city, even those offoreign origin. They al1uded [о ап earlier statement of the king that 'whoever enters

136

Urban Governl1ze1zt

Babylon is assured permanent protection ... Even а dog who еп ters it will по! Ье killed. ,21 An Assyrian preceptive text of the first half of the first millennium., 'ТЬе Advice to а Prince', makes а great deal ofthe preservation ofthe protected status ofBabylonian cities. It states, for instance, If (the prince) took money of cirizens of Babylon and appropriated (it) for (his own) propeny, (or) heard а case involving Babylonians but dismissed it for trivialitY, Marduk, lord ofheaven and earth~ will establish his enemies over him and grant his possessions and propeny to his foe ... If Ье cal1ed ир the whole of Sippar) Nippur, and Babylon to impose forced labour оп the peoples aforesaid, requiring of them service ar the recruiter's Cty) Marduk~ sage ofthe gods, deliberative prince, will tшn his land over to his foe so Фа! the troops of his land will do forced labour for his foe. Anu, Enlil, and Еа, те great gods who dwell in heaven and еаnh, have соn firmed in their assembly the exemption of these (people from such obligations).2z

The importance of these protected status grants in the imperial policy of the Assyrians has long Ьееп recognized. Cities were used Ьу the Assyrian kings to act as outposts of their rule in ап often hostile countryside, including enemies from Egypt to the Chaldean tribes in the marshes of southern Iraq. The isolation of the urban centres in ill-secured territory is clearly visible in а letter Ьу ап official of Nippur to the Assyrian king Esarhaddon: 'The king knows that аН countries hate us because of the land of Assyria. W е cannot set foot in any country. Wherever we go we will Ье kil1ed, as people say "Why did уои submit to Assyria?)' So now we have locked our gates, and do not go out at а11. ,23 The Assyrian kings needed to maintain good urban contacts, especial1y with the cities of Babylonia, in order to secure their rule over the area. They needed to negotiate with the citizens, and could not simply impose their will upon тет, as is clear from this letter written {о Кing Tiglath-Pileser 111 Ьу two of his officials: Оп

the twenry-eighth we сате to ВаЬуl0n. We took our stand before rhe Marduk-gate (and) talked wirh the nzan of Babylon. Х, servant of Mukinzёr, те Chaldean was at his side. When they сате out they were standing 21

Robert Н. Pfeiffer, State Leuers 01 Assyria (American Oriental Series б; New

Haven, 19.35), 22

23

по.

62, 11. 9 and 11. Trans. Foster, Front Disranc Days) 391-2) quoted Ьу permission. Pfeiffer, Scale Leuers, по. 123, В. 11-20.

Urban Government

137

befare the gate with the Babylonians. We said this {о те Babylonians: 'Why ате уои hostile to us for the sake of them? Their place is with the Chaldean tribesmen [ ] Babylon indeed shows favour (о а Chaldean! Yaur privileges (kidinnutu) have been firmly established.) 1 kepr gaing {о Babylon: we used many arguments with Шет. Тhe Five and the Ten were present:. They would not agree {а сате out, they would nо! talk {о us: they (j ust) kept sending us messages ... 24

The privileged status of certain cities indicates the power of the urban citizenry in general; this is not contradicted Ьу the fact that only а small number of cities in Babylonia are attested as having received the exemptions from royal taxation and service. We have to keep in mind that БаЬуlоniа i~ те early first millennium was sparsely urbanized) and that few cities) other than those mentioned Ьу the Assyrian kings, existed at that time. 25 The fact that few Assyrian cities received privileges is а reflection of the reality that Assyria was securely held Ьу its rulers. But the situation

in БаЬуlопiа was different: because of its distance from the heartland of Assyria-and its unruly countryside-the Assyrians needed outposts where the allegiance of те people was assured. Those were the ancient cities, which were given special privileges in return. The special status of citizens was neither new to the early first millennium, nor did it end when the Assyrian empire collapsed. From the mid-second millennium onward, divine protection of the citizens of certain urban centres is attested, and the use of the Akkadian term kidinnu coincided with те growth of те territorial state in Mesopotamia. With the end of the Assyrian empire in the late seventh century, the institution of the kidinnu disappeared, except for what тау have been а nostalgic revival under Кing Nabonidus (ruled 555-5З9)~Ьut that did not mean that the rulers felt secure enough to ignore the urban populations. The rulers of the пео-БаЬуlопiап dynasty (625-539) did not boast in their inscriptions аЬои! their far-flung and successful foreign campaigns, ND 2632 Н. 5-22) Н. w. F. Saggs) 'The Nimrud Letters) 1952-Pan 1', lraq 17 (1955)) 23. 25 For the low level of urbanization, see J. А. Brinkman, Prelude СО Eтpire: ВаЬуlО1liЙIl SocielY Qlld Politics, 747-626 в.с. (Philadelphia) 1984), 3-10. Brinkman proposes) however, that areas outside те former core area of Babylonia show ап increased level of urbanization. В. Landsberger) Archiv fйr On·entforschung 10 (1935-6), 142, suggesred that те ciries mentioned were representative ofBabylonia in general. 2-1

138

UуЬаn GovenUne1Z!

but commemorated the fac! that they restored temples in their homeland. This work was not done for purely pious reasons, but to ingratiate the kings with the 10саl populations. At that time, те temple organization and the citizenry сап Ье regarded тоге or less as the same thing. The important families of Babylonian cities divided the temple offices ир among themselves, and profited extensively from the temple income. They expressed their views in powerful temple assemblies. As Dandamaev stated, 'а characteristic feature of these cities was self-rule Ьу free and legally equal members of society united in а popular assembly (рuЬnе) around the principal temple of the city'. 26 The privileged treatment Ьу rulers did по! end when Mesopotamia lost its independence to rulers from Iran and Greece. ТЬе Hellenistic rulers respected the rights of Babylonian cities, and exempted them from taxes and duties, while allowing them {о continue Babylonian administrative practices. The temple eontinued {о рlау а central role in the city administration, and its head} assisted Ьу а соиnсil, Ьесате the chief authority in the city. Royal supervision was maintained through а number of officials . This does not need to Ье regarded as the introduction ofthe Greek polis system into Mesopotamia, but сап Ье explained as the continua . . tion and intensification of older practices whose roots went back for many centuries. The Seleucid ciry was ап autonomous сотти niry, centred around а temple where most leading citizens held offices, and with а self-governing body, the assembly. Royal power was absolute in matters of national importance> Ьи! it did по! interfere with the' daily problems of urban life. It cannot Ье denied that prior to те mid-second millennium, cities could have been treated with special respect Ьу kings. But before that time the city really was те state, and Фе palace organization was тоге pervasive in the urban context. Control of urban population and affairs was тиер simpler under such conditions. Even when the ruler of one city-state temporarily controlled other cities, фе system of government Ьу (Ье 10саl palace was по! abandoned. Governors rather than independenr rulers continued to fulfil the role of head of the 10саl palace organization, with close citizen interaction. That urban favours had to Ье bought at times is 16 Muhammed А. Dandamaev, 'Neo-Babylonian Sociery and Economy', The Carllbridge Allcienc His!ory, 2nd edn. З: 2 (Cambridge) 1991), 252-3.

UтЬаn

Government

139

shown Ьу the example of I and certain kings тау have merged the temple and crown lands under their control. In later periods in Assyria the crown seems to have had ultimate authoriry over most of те fields, and with widespread foreign conquests and те develортеп! ofmarginal areas Ьу deported рорulзtiопs, crown domains must have been enormous. Meanwhile> in first-millennium Babylonia the temples seem to have Ьееп the major landowners, while the palace acted only as а large private household. Ви! temple administrations were closely supervised Ьу the раlасе and the

Feeding the Citizens

147

crown thus managed these temple assets as wel1. When the Persians conquered Mesopotamia, royal administrators were granted large domains Ьу the king and the latter was the ultimate proprietor of much of the land, а practice continued Ьу Hellenistic Seleucid rulers. Interestingly, the latter donated some of it to cities, perhaps reviving the practice of communal land ownership. Private land continued {о exist, however. When те Seleucids started to tax the sale of such property around 270 ВС) the deeds of these transactions had {о Ье written in Greek оп perishable parchment, and henceforth land disappears from our documentation. Land held both institutionally and Ьу the urban gentry was not fanned Ьу its owners. Different methods were used in order to assure та! it was worked with the least possible trouble for the landlords. Three arrangements were common throughout the history of the region) and were often used simultaneously. Some agricultural labourers were directly dependent оп the proprietors, while many estates were worked Ьу tenant farmers. Finally, people were granted land Ьу their employer as а reward for their service. The last agreement was often made with administrators of palaces and temples~ who thus joined {Ье ranks of urban landlords~ if not legally, at least in practice. Exploitation Ьу personnel dependent оп the owner seems to have be~n the least desirable. The large landlords, especially pal. aces and temples, were confronted with the task of managing, guarding, and rewarding with rations and sometimes salaries, ап enonnous labour force. These workers were the owners' responsibility in years of bad as well as good harvests. They had to Ье housed and fed when there was по agricultural activity, which was а large part of the year, and they had to Ье guarded. The latter required ап army that, in the Bronze Age at least, would have been scarcely better equipped than the workmen who handled hoes and sickles. In the third millennium те southern Mesopotamian kingdoms still exploited many of their fields directly, but in the early second millennium such arrangements Ьесаmе rarer, as the palace and private landowners began to avoid the use of full-time dependants ОП their estates. Instead, the second arrangement, work Ьу tenant farmers, was much more convenient for the landowners, and probably a1so more rewarding

[от

the labourers. Tenant fanners were al10wed

{о

work

148


the land in retum for а share of фе yield, or а payment in kind or in silver. Many different arrangements were worked out, and the . tenants' rewards depended оп factors such as amount of labour invested, quality of те field, and the relationship {о the landlord. When а new field was developed Ьу а fапnеr, Ье was not required {о рау any dues in the first year, and paid only а reduced rate in the second year. We have to remember that labour was not always abundantly available, so we cannot imagine а system that was based оп the absolute exploitation of fanners Ьу the landlords. The use of tenant farmers was beneficial to the owners, who were guaranteed а certain income from their land without having {о supervise or suppon the tenants year rouncJ,. It was а popular arrangement throughout Mesopotamian history. The third way in which те palaces and the temples used their land holdings was Ьу awarding their usufruct to people who provided the institutions with rents or labour. The labour could Ье quite varied in nature, and included military and administrative services, craft production, and agricultural work such as fishing, herding, and even farming. Непсе, someone who ploughed palace lands could Ье given the use of а field as а reward, and the beneficiaries of these land grants were not necessarily urban citizens. ТЬе land was awarded to те individual who provided те services, and withdrawn at his death or when Ье dеfзultеd оп his obligations. But in practice we see how frequently те land passed оп from father to son without the ability of (Ье owner to reclaim rights to те property. Ву receiving the usufruct of these demesnes the urban beneficiaries obtained direct access Уо land, and needed to organize its exploitation as if they were the legal owners. Непсе, they Ьесате hardly distinguishable from other urban landowners. In addition to these full-time arrangements for the cultivation of institutional lands) additional resources could Ье enlisted through hirings or the levying of corvee labour in times of intense demand for manpower, such as during the harvest. Throughout Mesopotamian history we find evidence of such arrangements, but it seems improbable that the institutions ever relied оп them as their main supp1ies for manpower. Obviously аН harvests had to Ье col1ected in the same season, and free labourers had to worry аЬои! their own fields. Непсе, the institutions had to lure them with sufficiently high salaries to make it worth their while. Also те levying


.

149

of substantial numbers of workers would Ье соuпtег-ргоduсtivе з as отег harvests would Ье left uncollected. The way in which the cereals reached the cities depended оп the manner of exploitation of the fields. Some means of provisioning are entirely undocumented: ап urban landowner probably had food delivered Ьу fanners from his estate, а transaction that took place completely within the household and did not need to Ье put down in writing. Small independent farmers possibly peddled some of their produce in the cities, again not leaving а trace in the written record. But large landowners, both individuals and institutions, needed а more elaborate system of organization. W е see here ап evolution in Mesopotamian history from close supervision to а reliance оп intermediary agents. The system of direct control сап Ье described most easily, as it involves more bureaucratic supervision which required record keeping. In the third rnillennium,

те

palace and ternple adminis-

trations supervised every step of agricultural production оп their estates. We find documentation from these institutions about {Ье preparation of fields, seeding, irrigation, and harvesting. After the harvest, which took place in the months April and Мау, the cereals needed processing for preservation, and preparation for consumption. The work included threshing, winnowing, sieving, and storing. АВ these activities were overseen Ьу palace or temple bureaucrats, and could probably Ье studied Ьу а close examination of,) for instance, the texts of the state of Ur in the twenty-first century. Strict control was of the utmost importance, and the barley had to Ье well preserved: if а moist batch ended ир in the storage house, it could cause the destruction of the entire harvest. Tenant fanners had {о рау their rents in cereals оп the threshing floor, where the entire yield of the field was openly visible to аН interested parties. А! that moment the share owed {о the landlord joined his other grain, and probably [тот then оп the owner took fuH responsibility over it. The tenants took their share back home with them. The threshing fioors were probably in the possession of те large organizations, and worked with their own labour force, both human and animal. ТЬе {епап! had {о рау а [ее for its use. When animals were not readily available, they were hired for the occasion. Ап early second-millennium letter from northern Babylonia gives some details оп this matter:

150


То ту

commander say, thus speaks Mannum-meshu-li~~r: ... 'The oxen and slave-girls of the house аге well. 12,880 litres of barley have been

produced оп the threshing floor of the city Egaba. Excluding the expenditures for the threshing floor, 1 Ьауе measured and recorded the barley, and they Ьауе taken it to Egaba. At the threshing ftoor of Lзтта;а we will Ье finished with the threshing оп the seventh day ofthe month Simanu June). We have threshed it with hired oxen and workmen' ... 2

(Мау

It is likely that threshing floors were spread throughout the countryside. Assyrian texts often refer {о them in the description of ап agricultural estate, and each village had one or more threshin~ fioors. ТЬеу needed to Ье close to the :fields, as it is doubtful that unprocessed barley was transported over long distances. After те cereal was treated, it was stored until needed for the preparation of bread or beer. Substantial storage was probably located near the threshing floor. Fanning animals required fodder, and seed needed to Ье kept for те пех! year's planting. Dependent fanners were probably also provided with their rations from а local storage house. Numerous small magazines, named after те person who adrninistered тет, ате attested around Ur in the late third millennium. They were not only used for cereals but for keeping ап amazing variety of goods: '[from] metal utensils, weapons (maces), fumiture, cartwheels, balances, boxes, vats, quems and supplies of linens, wool and cloth, to various woods, aromatics, oils) and foodstuff such as grains, milk and cheese, honey, dates, wine, etc. In almost а11 cases small quantities are kept in stосk.'З Due to the absence of archaeological evidence from the Mesopotamian countryside, we hav~ little idea what these storage houses could have looked like. The only information presently available is from small rural sites, in the middle Habur region in northern Syria, such as ТеН CAtij. Тhey were equipped with silos and fo6d-processing facilities such as mills, ovens, and cooking vats, used for processing the grains, parching them, and boiling them into foods such as bulgur. These sites were located at а great distance from the urban centres they seIVed, including the" city of Mari, some 250 kilomeR. Frankena, Tabulae Cuneiformes а de Liagre Bahl collectae IV (Leiden) 1965), по. 54 11. 1-3~ 6-15; trans. aner R. Frankena, Briefe aus der Leideller Saтrnlung (Altbabylonische Briefe 3; Leiden, 1968), 42-3. 3 Тhorkild Jacobsen, Towards the Inlage 0/ Tal117nUZ and other Essays оп Mesoporamian Hiscory and Си/сите, (Cambridge, Mass.) 1970), 424 n. 18. 2

Feeding the Citizen.s

151

tres away, Ьи! this was ап unusual circumstance, as 1 will show later. The grain needed for urban residents was shipped to the cities to Ье stored there. Boats were used for this purpose) because they provided а cheap means of transportation and could easi1y navigate the canals connecting the cities with фе fields. These vessels are attested in the Babylonian texts as having а capacity of ир to 36,000 litres. Chariots and pack animals were also utilized for grain transport but to а lesser extent. Obviously theft during те trip must have been а concern (о the owner. ТЬе case of the embezzlement of enormous amounts of grain in his care Ьу captain Кhnum-nakht in twelfth-century Egypt is famous, bи~ in the Mesopotamian sources we do not find anything comparable. In Egypt the institutional landowners protected themselves against such dangers Ьу having the атоип! of grain checked Ьу scribes both оп the threshing floor and before it entered те granary, but again по known Mesopotamian sources include such accounts. This is аН те more surprising since we know that theft from the granaries was not uncommon. Ап explanation for this silence тау Ье found in ilie fact та! most trips were of а short distance. ТЬе Egyptian case involved travel from the Delta to the first cataract, а journey of some 1,000 kilometres. In early Mesopotamia, most food was grown locally, as 1 Ьоре to show later) thus minimizing the occasion for theft Ьу shippers. Where canals entered the cities, it was probably possible for the boats to moor near {Ье urban storage facilities. АН of the monumental palaces and temples арреаг {о have contained magazines. Уе! these cannot have Ьееn the only storage facilities in town. А study of third- and second-millennium palaces concludes that the store-rooms in them were {оо small to contain more тап what was irnmediarely used for the feeding ofthe раlасе personnel. 4 The only urban granaries excavated so far were discovered in the mid-thirdmillennium city of Shuruppak in central Babylonia. In the nonhern sector of the city more than thirty silos were found, dug some 8 metres deep into the ground, and with diameter of about 4 metres. They were lined with two courses of bricks, and there is some ~ Jean Margueron, Recllerches sur Zes palais тesoporaтiens de l:lage du bronze Тоте 1) Техсе (Paris, 1982), 549-55.

152

Feedz·ng the Citizens

evidenc~

that теу were roofed. ЕасЬ of them would Ьауе had а capacity of about 1оо cubic metres. It has Ьееп calculated that the contents of аН of them could have fed 20,000 persons [or а period of six months, and that тау·Ьауе Ьееп те total population of the City.5 А few iconographic representations pennit us to visua1ize grain silos, although of а different type than those excavated in Shuruppak. Sealings [гот westem Iran, dated around 3000) represent domed buildings, in one case clearly built upon а wooden infrastructure (Fig. 7.1). ТЬе iтage shows Iadders placed against these domes and теп climbing (о Фе (ор with jars (о pour те contents into те building. The difficulties facing а тап or woman in charge of the storage of grain were numerous. Moisture, insects, and rodents could аН cause damage; omens, for instance, foresee те infestation of granaries Ьу insects or Ьу 'black spots'. But Ьиmап predators also existed. The physical barriers that could Ье put ир against thieves were not strong. Doors were made of reeds ос low quality wood, and по great effon was needed to break through тет. Мосеоуег, there were по locks that could resist а break-in. Тhe system used со secure the doors was very simple: а hook or rope attached to the door was latched со а knоЬ stuck in the adjoining wall. Thеп) а small amount of clay was pressed over the knоЬ, and те official in charge of те magazine rolled а seal over it. When те door needed {о Ье opened, те clay sealing was broken off, а process that did not require апу strength or special tools. Still this system seems (о have Ьееп quite efficient. It provided а psychological barrier rather than а physical опе. The thief knew that а forbidden асс was performed when the seal was broken, and ап unsealed door was one that had Ьееп opened illicitly. Only те officials in charge could break те seal as only теу were able to reseal те door, а privilege that gave тет and their office тисЬ prestige and power. The device was not flawless, however, and evidence for theft from granarles appears. Oppenheim has stated that, in the late Babylonian period) grain was stored in сотmипаl piles covered with mats,6 and indeed а 5 See Н. Р. Martin) Рата: А Reconstnlclion о! lhe Allcienr Mesopotanlian City 01 Shuruppak (Binningham, 1988), 42-7; and Giuseppe Visicato, 'Archeologie et documents еспts: les "silos') е! les texres sur l'orge de Fara', Revue d'assyriologie еЕ d'archeologie orientale 87 (1993), 83-5. 6 А. Leo Oppenheim, А ncient Мesoporalnia: POnTail 0/ а Dead Civilizacion (Chicago and London) 1977),314-15.

i'-~:-\U /

'"

О

ппп ПППППUППОUПППИПUllll\

\ поп п (а)

. __ L

.

__ ....

_

(Ь)

ии

,\1 г

сс) FIG.

7.1

Sealings representing grain silos

154


number of texts from ВаЬуl0П locate heaps of grain in various

places in the eity. It seems unlikely, however, that pi1es would have Ьееn used to keep grain аН year round, as they would have Ьееп exposed to rain, groundwater, insects, and animals. Probably these heaps were only used temporarily, just before the grain was consumed, due to laek of storage space in the palace. According to the texts from Babylon, important people were fed from these piles, and it seems unlikely that they were given contaminated grain. Опее the cereals were in the ciry, they had to Ье passed оп to the consumers. In the redistributive economy of the public institutions, this procedure was сапiес]' out'in two ways: а large group of palaee and temple dependants was issued rarions of unprepared food, while а smaller nиmЬег of people were provided with cooked meals. Rations were the hallmark of the early Mesopotamian есопоmу. The great organizations, the tempIes and palaces, supported the majority of their personnel with amounts of food and wool. Such rations were not only issued to urban dependants, Ьи! {о аН personnel. ТЬе rural workers were probably supplied Ьу the regional store-rooms mentioned above. The basis of the food ration was barley, issued in monthly set amounts, the quantity determined Ьу the worker's gender, age, and position in the hierarchy. For instance, in twenty-first-century Babylonia, а basic barley ration for ап adult man was 60 litres а month, for а woman зо litres. The practice was сотmоп throughout southem Mesopotamia and western Syria in the third mil1enniuffi; later the ration system broke down and was replaeed Ьу а system of wages. It should Ье clearly understood that rations in по sense а! а11 compare to the free distribution of grain to the urban proletariat of the late Roman Republic and the Empire. Ration reeipients had to work for them, and probably worked hard. Perhaps only in qld age тау they have been granted something without labour in return. Two characteristics of the rations are important for our consideration of urban provisioning: the food provided was limited to cereals, with some oil, and the food was unprepared. First, по one сап live оп cereals alone, 80 we have to imagine that the recipients of the rations either had access to gardens and orehards to suppleтеп! their diets with vegetables and fruits, or that they used рап of their grain rations [о barter it for other food. These activities are not docuII1ented in the sources) yet either or Ьот of them mus[ have taken place. It has been suggested that) at least in the early


155

third millennium, most of the recipients of rations were also granted subsistence fields that could have provided them with vegetables and fruit. If barter took place, the fresh products were most likely delivered Ьу independent farmers, and institutionaI and private economies must have intersected here. Second, the food was unprepared: the ration recipients still had to grind and cook the cereals before they could consume them. This was most likely done in те house, and required the presence of family members who were free to perform these time-consuming tasks. Some people were provided with finished food products rather than rations, and this custom"remained constant throughout Mesoporamian history. There is а unique passage in ап inscription Ьу Assurna~rpal II (ruled 883-859) where he describes how he fed 69,574 mеп and women from аН over the kingdom for ten days' at the inauguration of his new capitaI city, Kalhu. ТЬе тепи is unfortunately nо! given, but the ingredients are listed. They include oxen, calves, sheep, lambs, deer, ducks, geese, pigeons, birds, fish, ;erboa, eggs, bread, beer, wine, sesame, greens, grains, pomegranates, grapes, onions, garlic, tumips, honey, ghee, seeds, mustard, milk, cheese, nuts, dates, spices, oiIs, and 0lives. 7 This was of course а special banquet, and worthy of boasting. Вис аН kings, as well as [Ье temples, provided select personnel with daily meals. We do пос have to imagine that а11 these people were fed in communal dining halls, although the royal table probably had mапу guests. Numerous texts from аП periods of Mesopotamian history list loaves of bread, jugs of beer or wine, onions, fish, oils, fats, and dates that were probably taken Ьоте. Food could also Ье obtained through the temples. АН Mesopotamian temples had kitchens for сЬе preparation of the gods' repasts. Obviously, the statues representing те gods did not consume the food; instead it was distributed to the temple personnel according to strictly established quotas. Bread and beer had to Ье produced Ьу the institutional workshops. First the cereals had to Ье ground. This was а labourintensive enterprise, as the typical mil1 was а flat slab of stone оп which те grain was ground Ьу rubbing it back and forth with а 10ng and narrow stone . Grinding was mainly done Ьу women, who 7 А. Кirk Grayson, Assyrian Rlders 0/ che Early Firs! MiZZennium ВС. 1 (1114-859 вс) (ТЬе Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 2; Toronto, Buffalo,

and London, 1991), 292-3.

156

.

Feeding the Citz·zens

laboured very hard. They worked year-round in the rnil1s, and daily quotas were set for them, such as 1О litres of ordinary flour or 20 litres of coarse flour. When needed, workers were pulled from the mills and set to work at agricultural tasks such as harvesting, threshing, winnowing, or transport. The enormity of th~s task in the large institutions of third-millennium Babylonia cannot Ье underestimated. Milling was extremely strenuous work with а low rate of productivity. When flour was avai1able, те preparations of bread and beer took separate paths. Bread could Ье baked immediarely Ьу making thin unleavened loaves that were placed in clay ovens, very similar to те tanurs still in use in the Middle East, and found throughout excavated monumental and domestic buildings. In addirion (о the simple loaf of bread, fancier types and cakes with dates or те like were also produced. Beer took longer {о prepare, as several stages made ир the brewing process. The length of tirne this required is not known to us, although we do know mисЬ about the ingredients and the processes involved. Brewing required careful supervision а! certain times; for instance, at те stage when the barley was allowed to sprout to Ьесоте malt, the humidity and temperature needed to Ье carefully controlled. 1! is interesting that, at first, rnost brewers were women, and their patron deity, Ninkasi, was fernale as well. After те middle of the second millennium men took over as brewers, and it has Ьееп suggested that Ьу the turn of {Ье millennium the drink they produced. had nothing in cornmon with те original product as it was по longer made from barley, Ьи! from dates. None of те information given above has been quantified, and with reason. We are uпаЫе to determine the percentages of institutionalland issued for tenancy, or of palace employees receiving meals rather than rations, or even of palace and temple dependants as compared {о other citizens. We have the impression that, throughout Mesopotamian history, large groups of people depended оп the institutions for part of their food supplies, with variations Ьу period and region. But the ехас! numbers and their importance within те total populations remain unknown. It also has to Ье kepr in mind that many people тау have had several sources of income simultaneously. А high temple administrator, for instance., received food from the employer, and was rewarded with the usufruct of temple land. Moreover~ he or she тау also have


157

been а private landowner at the same time, drawing inсоmе from estates. These various sources of incorne were accounted for in different ways and Ьу separate offices, or not accounted for at аll, 50 it is unlikely that we will ever Ье able to reconstruct the entire picture. We сап say with certainty, however, that the institutions were weary of providing аН the services expected from them. lt took а 10t of manpower and administrative control (о make the system work smoothly. Thus we see how, starting in the early second millennium, much of the labour and supervision was contracted to private businessrnen who Ьесате involved in а11 aspects of the sequence described above. Their services to the institutions were managerial and financial, and will Ье discussed in а later chapter. Imponant here is те fact that their inclusion in те sequence of urban food provisioning caused changes in the ways food was distributed. No longer were те central institutions in а position {о provide for а substantial part of the population, since these institutions collected silver rather than agricultural products. Moreover, the private businessmen needed а way of converting те produce they gathered into silver, part of which they paid to те institutions. This could only Ье accomplished through market mechanisms, in ту opinion. The entrepreneurs who acted as intermediaries between landowners and agricultural producers had excess food supplies оп their hands. Meanwhile certain products needed to Ье acquired Ьу urban residents, either from institutions, from fellow citizens, or frorn the farmers. It seems likely that these city-dwellers Ьесаmе the clientele of the entrepreneurs. How this was ассоПl plished is entirely undocumented, Ьи! this should not lead us to conclude that the marketing of food did not take place. Тhere was по need to record these retail sales of food, as аН sales were final, and по later claim could Ье made оп either the products о! the payment. The only way we could find information about them would Ье if the entrepreneurs had kept inventories of their stock or records of their expenditures, but these are not available to us. The existence of а market does not exclude the possibility of the exchange of goods through reciprocity or redistribution. The three modes of exchange coexisted, and аП played ап important role in the economy. W е should not relate а mode of exchange with а parricular sector of society either. Although the great organizations

158


often relied оп redistribution, they are also known to have acquired goods оп the market. Some private citizens тау have relied оп nuтerous sources for their food: cereals from the institutions, vegetables and milk from their own households, and fish ог meat from the market. The market transactions were seemingly а11 ad hoc and needed по recording. Therefore they remain entirely undocumented in our sources.

SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER

The survey above has indicated some of the difficulties facing ап urban society таС needs со provide food for its citizenry. А related question involves те supply of drinking water то cities, а problem тас has Ьееп rarely discussed Ьу scholars. ТЬе rivers and canals could qbviously provide а source of drinking water> especially in Babylonia where а11 cities needed to Ье located at their banks and where canals entered' their walls. In the suburbs of ТеН Тауа in Upper Mesopotamia а number cf streets led to the Wadi Тауа in order со give access to its water. Кings made certain that such water remained available; Nabopolassar (ruled 625-605) boasted that he redirected the water of the Euphrates into а саnа! with bitumen and baked brick lining when а shifting of the river branch had made it too remote to Ье drawn. 8 уet there are problems connected to а reliance оп this type of water supply. First, these rivers and canals were not always easily accessible. Even ifthey ran through the city, mапу neighbourhoods were по! near them. The Nippur тар, for instance, shows only апе canal within the city walls and people had to walk several hundred metres to reach it. Тhe height of the tells caused these canals to Ье quite а distance below те city level, and it must have been difficult and even dangerous to reach the water. This problem was more acute in Assyria where the rivers and canals were fewer and their banks even steeper. Assur is located оп а cliff overlooking the Tigris and to reach the river опе has to сlimЬ down а precipitous slope. War conditions could make access very difficult. А letter most likely written to king Esarhaddon Ьу the governor ofNippur, 8

Stephen Langdon, Die neubabylonische Konigsinschnften (Vorderasiatische

Bibliothek 4; Leipzig, 1912), 64-5.


159

а

Babylonian city that collaborated with the Assyrians and that was under considerable local pressure, depicts а dire situation: The king knows that аП countrie8 hate us оп ассоип! of Assyria ... So now we have closed our gates and do not even go ои! of town ... Let the king not abandon us (о anyone! Our water is gone. Let us not die of thirst! l'he king> your father, gave us the water rights for the Banltu-canal) saying: 'Dig ап outlet from the Banltu-canal toward Nippur.' [ТЬе ], however, refused us the water. ТЬе king should write (о Ubar, the commander of Babylon, that he should grant us ап outlet from the Banltu-canal, 80 that we сап drink water with them and not have to desen the king because of lack of water. АН countries should not say: 'ТЪе people of Nippur, who submitted [о Assyria) Ьесаmе fed up with the lack of water (and desened)' .9

Considerable energy must Ьауе Ьееп spent оп fetching water for the household, а task probably assigned {о the women, and not documented in our sources as

[аг

as 1 know. А second ргоЫет тау Ьауе Ьееп more serious as it made еуеn

abundant water supplies unfit for use: pollution. The rivers and canals were used for тапу purposes other than the provision of drinking water, such as transport, agricultural irrigation, and industry. Moreover, there was the danger of sewage entering the watercourses. ТЬе network of canals was shared Ьу numerous cities and villages, 80 pol1ution upstream affected тапу сотти nities further down. Navigation and irrigation do not necessarily have to [оиl the water although we сап imagine that dirt entered it due to these activities. Various industries used water extensively. Some that readily соте {о mind are laundering and tanning. ТЬе tanning of leather, ап evil-smelling enterprise, {Ье primary stages of which took place outside the city, required large amounts ofwater {о soak the hides. Moreover, this water needed to Ье discarded after use-where else could this Ье done Ьи! in the river or canal? Then there was the problem of human waste. Archaeological evidence of latrines in private houses is lacking, and public toilets do not seem to Ьауе existed either. People could defecate in fields and orchards, where (Ьеге was always the risk of contaminating а water source. ТЬе textual material makes little reference to such dangers. 9 Robert Н. Pfeiffer, State Letrers 0/ Assyn·a (American Oriental Series 6; New Haven, 1935), по. 123, obv. 11. 11-13, rev. 11. 4-22; tranS. after А. Leo Oppenheim, Letters fr0111 Меsороtапziа (Chicago and London, 1967), 175.

160

Feeding the Ct·tizens

Although а ritual text prohibits urinating or vomiting in а watercourse, acts that were considered as bad as killing one's friend, the relevance of this source for the study of daily life is to Ье doubted. Considering that the Euphrates is а very slow river and that water leveIs in the summer were low, it would seem that а 10t of the filth thrown in canals feeding from it must have remained in the area. As fuel was quite scarce, те boiling of water before consumption was probably {оо expensive to Ье а widespread practice. It appears likely, therefore, that canal water was rather risky to drink in Babylonia, and по! to Ье recommended. А second source of water was provided Ьу wells. Their existence both in Assyria and in Babylonia is attesteq. in texts and in the archaeological record, but their frequency is less clear. In the south of Mesopotamia, pockets of fresh water within the surrounding water-table existed underneath and at the sides of rivers. 'IЪis water could Ье reached Ьу digging vertical wells through the dikes. The presence ofwells is attested in such varied sources as the пео Babylonian laws, where сзгеlеss use of well water for iпigаtiоn was punished,10 and the Sumeriari tale of Gilgamesh and Agga.) in which the king ral1ies his people for war Ьу urging them to protect те wells.) 1 У et for cities located оп top of а t.ell, pockets of fresh water were mисЬ less accessible as оnе had {о dig through layers of debris. Despite this ргоЫет, intramural wells are attested with their sides reinforced with ceramic pipes о! with bitumen. In Nebuchadnezar's southern раlасе at Babylon several of them wer~ found, and this ruler also boasted of his repair of те well in the temple of Sham~sh at Sippar. Wells in private houses in Babylon are attested archaeologically. For some obscure reason the excavator stated та! they were only used for bathing, washing, and household tasks. Не based this assertion оп а puzzling remark: 'Тhe Babylonians would not have been "Orientals)) if they had drunk wel1 water in the neighbourhood of а river.,12 House sale documents do not mention the existence of such а valuable asset, however, and it is doubtful that they were соттоп. So far по 10 James В. Pritchard, Ancient Near Easrern Texts relacing СО the Old TeSla112en'l) 3rd edn. (Princetoo) 1969)) 197 § з.

Ibid.45. 12 'Die Babylonier hatten keine Orientalen sein miissen, wenn sie in der Nachbarschaft des Flusses Brunnenwasser getrunken hatten') Oscar Reuther> Die 11

Innensxadx von BabylQn (Merkes) (Leipzig, 1926)) 26.


161

соmmипаl

wells have appeared in the archaeological record) but their existence is suggested Ьу the fact that а foundling is said to Ье someone abandoned in а well. In Assyria more wells are attested both in the texts and in the archaeological record. One of them, excavated at Kalhu, still yielded 5,000 gallons а day in AD 1952.13 Again kings boasted of their construction: Sennacherib, for instance, rebuilt the pulling system of the wells in his palace, which must have Ьееп very deep, considering the height of the mound at that spot. А letter to ап Assyrian king relates how а fox entered те city of Assur and [еЦ in 14 а well, indicating that they were easily accessible. Yet very few house sales mention the presence of а well in а house. 1S Well water was less likely to Ье polluted than that of rivers and canals, although а lot of brackish water in wells is reported in modem Iraq. How соттоn wells were in Assyria, and how much water they produced, remains unknown, hence we cannot determine how

imponant they were for urban residents. It seerns safe {о say that fresh drinking water was а scarce resource in Mesopotamia, especially in the south, and that diseases could have easily spread through Фе water supply. These circumstances тау explain why beer was such а popular drink.

ТНЕ

AGRICUL TURAL POTENTIAL OF

ТНЕ

URBAN HINTERLAND

А

last issue (о Ье discussed is whether the hinterlands were аЫе to support the lзгgег cities with their agricultural produce. After зll~ the urban population in Меsороtаmiз was at times very large, and big cities were common from уегу early оп in its history. This question has important historical repercussions. If some cities were not supported Ьу their immediate hinterland, where did теу оЬ tain the required additional food, and how did they manage to guarantee themselves а constant supply? At times the need for 13

1-1 15

Н. W. F. Saggs, The Greal1zess cha! was Babylon (London, 1962» 172. Pfeiffer, State Letlers 01 Assyria) по. 227. See С. Н. W. Johns, Assyriatl Deeds and Docuтents recording Transfer 01 Property

4 (Cambridge, 1923), 9. For examples of houses wirh wells, see Theodore Kwasman, N~o-Assyn'an Legal Docu.nzent.s i1l the Kouyundjik Collection 01 lhe Bтitish Л-fusеUnl (Rome, 1988), nos. 123, 373.

162

Feeding the Cilizens

supplemental food has Ьееп used as ап explanation for the military expansion Ьу а Mesopotamian power, even to such distant regions as northern Syria in the case of the Old Akkadian dynasty.16 Such ап explanation is only valid if we сап demonstrate that nearby food production was insufficient. In order to study whether ап adequate supply of food was available near а ciry to feed its population, we need aceess to а set of data including size of population, food resources ауаilаЫе, eultivated area, erop types and productivity, caloric value of те crops, and caloric consumption. Most of these data are unavailable at the moment and the problems in trying {о acquire them are very substantial. А first problem lies in establishing the size of the hinterland. If we ignore political considerations that would have denied access to fields beyond а certain point, the limits to the hinterland were determined solely Ьу distanees {о Ье covered Ьу the producers and Ьу the transporters of the food to and from the urban centre. If аН fanners resided within the city and needed to commute to their fields оп а daily basis, the remotest fields would probably have been only some 7 kilometres from the city, to Ье reached after оnе and 17 а half hours travelling time. We сап imagine, however, that а corona of farming villages surrounded the cities, and in that case the hinterland was only limited Ьу the distance the food needed to Ье transported to the urban consumer. In Assyria most transportation needed to Ье done overland, which was extremely expensive, and the hinterlands of the cities were thus greatly restricted. Water transport is much eheaper, and was obviously readi1y available in Babylonia with its ·numerous irrigation canals. The size of the hinterland was thus much greater there, but impossible for us to establish with accuracy, as we cannot calculate the transportation costs involved. Political considerations тау thus have been the primary lirniting factor there, with access to agricultural areas restrieted either because of the existence of boundaries between political entities or because the urban centres were unable to assert their political eontrol beyond а eertain distance. As 1 pointed ои! before, our population estimates are extremely 16 See Harvey Weiss and Marie-Agnes Courry, 'The Genesis and Collapse ofthe Akkadian Empire') in М. Liverani (ed.), Akkad: The First World Enlpil'e (Padua,

1993), 131-55. 17 See David Oates, Studies in the Anciellt History о! Nonhern Iraq (London, 1968),

44.


163

unreliable. Even if we are able to determine the ехас! size of а city at а panicular moment in time, we cannot establish how densely inhabited it was. Moreover, we lack data about the population of the surrounding countryside: the villagers that produced the food also consumed part of it. Since lhe villages were not as continuously inhabited as the cities, their remains are often invisible to us. Hence the total population of а district becomes virtually impossible to appraise. The types of food ауаilаЫе to ап urban population obviously varied with те geographical surroundings. Cereals тау have been the main source of nutrition, but surely not the only апе. Dates, which have а high caloric value, must have been а major рап ofthe diet in Babylonia, and although we have good evidence оп the cultivation of dates, we have little information оп their consumption. Fish was consumed in great amounts in certain regions of Mesoporamia, bUI in orhers ir was probably less readi1y available; again our information is incomplete. Also the importance of {Ье big herds of sheep, goats, and cattle cannot Ье established. These animals were по! only reared Ьу herdsmen dependent upon urban institutions and individuals, Ьи! a1so Ьу semi-nomadic and по madic groups who almost totally elude us both in the textual and archaeological records. Access to their products must have been seasonal, and how they сате to the city is unclear. We know that meat was eaten but not {о what extent. Dairy products, which have а high caloric value, were probably readily available to most urbanites, but we know very little about the amounts consumed. In our calculation of available cereal resources we have many uncertainties, despite the fact that more textual and archaeological data are at hand. In аН of Babylonia, agriculture was based оп irrigation: access to water was as crucial as the availability of land. Although both textual and survey data сап give us information аЬои! the location of canals around certain cities, nowhere do we Ьауе а complete picture. W е cannot assume that there was а continuous band of cultivation around апу s.ite. We also have difficulties in determining the productivity of the soil. We have textual data that give the yields of particular fields at а given moment in time, but we cannot extrapolate this information to other areas and periods. А major uncertainty, for instance, concerns the negative effects of salinization. Irrigation agriculture causes the accumulation of

164


salt upon the fields. This сап Ье coun1eracted 10 а certain extent Ьу fallowing, а practice definitely in use in Babylonia, and drainage, something та! was very difficult in те area due to its extremely low re1ief. Yet, how damaging was salinization to cereal agriculture? In the 1950s а very appealing picture of three cycles of exhaus1ion of фе soil throughout the history of Babylonia from \ 4000 вс to AD 1000 was drawn Ьу Jacobsen and Adams,18 but their interpretation of те empirical data is now considered equivocal at best, as their statements about declining yields were based оп а misunderstanding ofthe sources. 19 Thus the negative effects of salt} although real} cannot Ье properly assessed. Moreover} we cannot determine the relative importance of the various cereals cultivated in Mesopotamia-wheat, barley, and sesame-and how much area was devoted to each. Hence the caloric value of the crops cannot Ье established. How much food did one person need to survive? We сап look at figures from contemporary developing nations to estimate what someone needs to survive at а subsistence level and try to use this data as а guide for what а Mesopotamian would have required. 20 But сап we assume that те same .caloric requirements existed in antiquity, and what exactly is mеап! Ьу а subsistence level? Moreover, it seems likely that а certain sector of the population consumed much more than the minimum caloric requirement. How large was that sector, and how much more did it consume? Again we are faced with а high level of uncertainry. Considering аН these limitations оп our knowledge} is it even worth asking те question whether or not urban populations could Ье fed Ьу their hinterland? 1 think that it is extremely important that we pose {Ье question, and would like to propose ап answer that could function as а working hypothesis for further research. It seems {О те that most cities were supported Ьу their own hinterlands, and that the long-distance transport of food was rare and unusual. Тhere are only а few cases where cities were not selfreliant and those need а special investigation. The hypothesis that

I

. 18

Тhorkild }acobsen and Robert МсС. Adams, 'Salt and Silt in Ancient Meso-

potamian Agriculture', Science 128 (November 1958) 1251-8. 19 Marvin А. Powel1) 'Salt, Seed, and Yields in Sumerian Agriculture: А Critique ofthe Theory ofProgressive Salinization', Zeirschriftfur Assyriologie 75 (1985)) 7-38. 20 For such ап approach, see Elizabeth С. Stone and David 1. Owen) Adoprioll i'2 Old Babylonian Nzppur and the А rchive 0/ Man1IUl1l-nZеsu-lissur (Winona Lake) 1991), 8-9.


165

most Mesopotamian cities were fed Ьу the agricultural produce of their own hinterlands is supported Ьу а number of historical facts. At the time of те foundation of most Babylonian and Assyrian cities, the political situation in the regions was characterized Ьу fragmentation. In the early history ofBabylonia, i.e. the late-fourth through mid-third millennia, the most important cities in the region were the political centres of а set of more or less equally powerful city-states. Although conflicts between them could arise over the control of certain agricultural zones, as is exemplified Ьу ф~ border conflict between Umma and Lagash,21 these cities Ьу necessiry had {о rely оп the resources of their own surroundings to survive. The agricultural potential of Babylonia seems to have been sufficient, however, to support large urban centres. In те early third millennium Uruk grew to ап enonnous size of at least 400 hectares, а size unsurpassed until two millennia later, уе! only а 14kilometre-wide band of agricultural fields surrounding it was needed to provide for its inhabitants and for the people residing in the neighbouring towns and vil1ages. 22 Between 2300 and 1 БОО, regional powers occasionally developed under the regimes of Akkade, Ur, Larsa, and Babylon. The hinterlands of the Babylonian cities were then по longer restricted for political reasons, and we see that cereals were transported from the provinces to the capital cities. For instance, under the Third Dynasty of Ur in the twenty-first century, the province of Umma provided Nippur, те religious centre, and Ur, the ancestral home of the dynasty, with grain. 23 ТЬе logistics of that conveyance were relatively uncomplicated as one could rely оп canal transport. The observation that such grain shipments took рlасе should not necessarily lead {о {Ье conclusion that they were regularly needed. They тау have been taxes levied Ьу the kings of Ur to symbolize their control over the provincial centres of Babylonia. As Ur 10st its hegemony over Babylonia, the contributions Ьу the provinces 21 See Jerrold S. Cooper, Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions: The Lagash- Unl1nа Border Confiicl (МаНЬu, 1983) . 22 Robert МсС. Adams) Heanland 01 Cities (Chicago and London, 1981), fig. 24. Obviously Adams)s reconstruction depends оп figures, such as those for population densiry, thar are impossible {о establish with certainty) as 1 poinred out before. 23 See Тот В. Jones, 'Sumerian Administrative Documents: Ап Essay', Su~nerological Scudies in НО'70У 0/ Thorkild Jacobsen (Assyriological Studies 20; Chicago and London) 1975),41-61.

1бб

Feeding lhe Citizens

ceased, and it has Ьееп suggested Ьу scholars that this led to а famine within the city.24 Yet the ruling king, Ibbi-Sin, remained in power in Ur for а! least another fifteen years, and it is generally accepted that his бпаl defeat was due to а military invasion Ьу the Elamites. The fact that {Ье city recovered very SQOn after its military defeat and actual1y grew in size despite its 10ss of political importance, suggests that the provincial contributions to its food supply had Ьееп а luxury rather than а necessity. Later in Babylonian history, in the period from те seventh century вс to at least the seventh century AD, те region underwent а process of intense urbanization and а simultaneous intensification of agricultural development. At first the region of Babylon, and later the area some 50 kilometres further north referred to as аl Mada:)in, 'the cities', in early Islamic writings, Ьесаrnе very densely inhabited Ьу severallarge uгЬаn centres in close proximity to one another. In the sixth century вс, Babylon was expanded {о include ап area of 890 hectares and within а 40-kilometre radius around the metropolis were located the major cities of Borsippa~ Кish, Кuthз, and Dilbat, while Sippar was only 60 kilometres {о те north. Moreover, in the countryside numerous villages existed. The successive imperial governments colonized the region with foreign people deported from conquered areas, as is well known from the case of the Judaean exiles who were settled in central Babylonia. ТЬе density of settlement in northem Babylonia seems to have Ьееn enormous, yet the agricultural resources of the area seem {о have been sufficient {о feed the inhabitants, and even {о produce а surplus. Herodotus (1. 92) stated that one-third of the supplies of the Persian court and аnnу was provided Ьу Babylonia, while the rest of Asia contributed the remaining two-thirds. Whi1e this тау по! have been а very accurate statement, later tax documents show that Mesopotamia was ап extremely fertile region into the eighth century AD. 25 The hinterland ofthe city ofBabylon must Ье considered to have included almost the entirety ofBabylonia, and it seems that cereals must have Ьееп transponed over а distance of ир {о 200 kilometres from те south {о the north of the region. Тhis was 2-1

86. 25

tJle

Th. Jacobsen, 'The Reign oflbbi-Suen', in TO'l.()ards rhe Illlage 01 Ta11l11lllz) 173-

See Peter Christensen> The DecZine 0/ lra1lsh~hr: In..zgacion and Ellviroll11ZenCS in

Hiscor:y 01 the 1Vliddle Easr 500 вс СО

AD

1500 (Copenhagen) 1993) 34-44.


167

possible, however, due {о {Ье extensive canal system that enabled transpart Ьу boat. The neo-Babylanian texts excavated in Babylon describe the activities of certain merchants who supplied the urban residents with food. For instance, апе Iddin-Marduk dealt in barlеу, dates, and onions, which Ье had transported and stared in magazines in the city and its suburbs. Unfortunately, we do not know how wide ап area Ье had to explore to find sufficient supplies, but те texts of his archive focus upon localities between Babylon and Borsippa, hence close to Babylon. Others тау have shipped agricultural goods over longer distances, but we find по evidence of great сопсеrnБ aver the difficulties involved. Short-term decreases in the water flow of the Euphrates" ог 10ss of political control оуег the hinterland, for instance, could рlасе а ciry in а situation where it could not feed itself and would have Ьееп under pressure to impoft food from distant regions. But it is {О Ье doubted that such ап option actually existed. Where would that food have been obtained outside Babylonia? Кhuzistan to the east of {Ье Tigris could only Ье reached via а laborious overland ~oute from the Diyala southward., or Ьу Ьоа! through the marshes. The north Syrian Jezirah, which has sornetirnes been portrayed as а bread basket for Babylonia} is located 1,000 kilometres away. The entire transport could have Ьееп accomplished Ьу boat over the Balikh, Habur, and Euphrates rivers, Ьи! the labour required would have Ьееп excessive. It seems doubtful тЬа! such long and expensive expeditions would have Ьееп relied ироп} ехсер! in unusual circumstances. ТЬе agricultural situation in Assyria, i.e. the Jezirah between the Euphrates and Tigris and the Mosul plains east of the Tigris, was quite different from the South. Оп the опе hand, most of the area relied оп rain-fed agriculture, which has а lower level of productivity тап irrigation agriculture} and оп the other hand it lacked good water transport along canals. In the early history ofthe region) from 3000 {а 1500 ВС} urban settlement never exceeded а 1 ОО hectare limit. It has been convincingly argued that {Ье hinterlands could not support larger cities because only а 15 kilometre radius around them could Ье exploited under тЬе prevailing political circumstances of small regional powers. 26 Although in the early second Wilkinson, 'The Structure and Dynamics of Dry-Fапniпg Stares in Upper l\.1esopotamia), СLlгrеJlt. AJllhropoZogy 35 (1994) 483-520. 2()

Т.

J.

168


millennium somewhat larger political entities developed, whose exact outlines are unknown (о us so far, this does not seem to have affected the size of те urban centres. Problems of transport, mostly overland, тау have precluded Iarger urban agglomerations. We are thus struck Ьу the building activities ofthe Assyrian kings in the late' second and early first millennia, who constructed а set of епопnоus capitals for themselves: I<ar-Tukulti-Ninurta, Kalhu, Dur-Sharrukin, and Nineveh. Not а11 of these survived for 10ng: Kar-Tukulti-Ninuna and Dur-Sharrukin were more or less аЬап doned а! {Ье death of their founders, which тау Ье ап indication of the fact that теу presented {оо many difficulties of food supply.27 But Kalhu and Nineveh survived for several geperations, and as centres of а large imperial bureaucracy шеу must have consumed the agricultural output of а wide geographical zone. David Oates, who studied some aspects of the agricultural base of these cities, сате (о the conclusion that they represented 'а high1y artificial element in the economy of northern Iraq). 28 The Assyrian capital cities were too large, too densely packed together, and probably also too wasteful of resources to have been fed Ьу their hinrerlands. 1t has Ьееп stated that this is (о Ье expected in ап empire. 29 However, this assumes ап integration of the conquered areas into the economy of the Assyrian cqre, something that should Ье concluded from the insufficient resources of Assyria rarher than the other way around. The almost total abandonment of these cities subsequent {о the collapse of the Assyrian empire in те late seventh century suggests that residents had to revert Ьу necessity to а vil1age lпе {Ьа! could Ье sustained Ьу the immediate environтent.

If те conclusion is correct that те late Assyrian cities required provisions from the empire to survive, this realiry had important repercussions оп the organization of the food supplies. Transport over long distances and storage near the place of consumption needed to Ье co-ordinated. Shipping was not easy in the region, as 27 Obviously other considerations тау have played ап imponant role. It is usual1y assumed that these cities were built оп the kings~ whims а! the expense of the exist~ng ancient centres> Assur and Nineveh, and that (Ье aristocracies of сЬе old cities were аЫе [О reclaim primacy ироп те deaths of those kings. 28 Oates, Studies in ше Ancienx HislOry 01 Nonhenl j"aq, 52. 29 Mario Liverani, 'Review of Oates Sludies', Orie1ls Anliquus 1 О (1971), 157.


169

the Tigris was а difficult river to navigate. Moreover, little land upstream from Nineveh was available to produce а surplus. Fertile areas cenainly were to Ье found to the east and to the west; these were regions unconnected to the heartland of Assyria Ьу waterways. Thus, transport had {о take place overland, а very expensive affair. We lack аnу data from Mesopotamia itself {о assess the costs, but information from the Roman empire, which had а similar technology,) сап give us soтe idea ofwhat was involved. It has Ьееn asserted that in the late Roman empire the price of а wagon-load Qf wheat would double in 150 Roman miles, and that famines could occur in cities located as little as 75 kilometres from abundant supplies. 30 ТЬе validity of these assertions has Ьееп disputed ОП various grounds, but the stated price of overland transport :fits the general pattern of pre-industrial societies) 31 and it сап Ье safely concluded that the overland shipping of bulky items in те Roman empire was usually shon-hаul. З2

The Assyrian imperial bureaucracy must Ьауе had the ability (о organize the conveyance of food products over а certain distance, even а! а great expense, Ьи( we do nо! know where те geographiса! limit was. Strangely, its records scarcely document overland transport of food products. Cereal taxes were standard in the Assyrian empire, but we are not informed аЬои! the destination of the grain collected. Ап unusual letter to king Sargon тау refer to а grain shipment to Ье made to Dur-Sharrukin: [ТО те

king, ту lord]: yo[ur servant] Tariba-Issar. _ . Now, 1 have collected 500 homers (= 100,000 1itres) of barley in the city of IGlizi, and would 1ike to deliver it. If the king ту lord commands: 'Соllес! barley for three palaces,' 1 will collect it in Adian and Arbela as wеll. З3

If indeed the тап wanted to take the barley to Dur-Sharrukin, Ье would Ьауе had to transport it either Ьу boat from Юlizi down the зо А. Н. М. ]ones) The Lacer ROl1zan Ernpire 2 (Norman, 1964), 841-4. For the recalculation to 150 rather than 300 miles, see Keith Hopkins, 'Models, Ships, and Staples', in Peter Garnsey and С. R. Whittaker (eds.), Trade and Famine in Classical Anciquiry (Cambridge, 1983), 104 n. 46. 31 See Richard Duncan-Jones, The Есоnоmу 01 the Roman Empire: Quantitan:ve Scudies, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, 1982), 368-9. З2 Hopkins, 'Models, Ships, and Staples', 105. и Simo Parpola, The Correspondence 01 Sargon 11, Рап 1 (Ifelsinki, 1987), по. 160, quoted Ьу permission.

170


Greater Zab river and then upstream to Nineveh, where it would have to Ье loaded onto wagons, or overland for the entire distance of аЬои! 60 kilometres as the crow flies. Вот тethods are certainly possible, yet already complicated. The letter тау also refer {о deliveries to palaces in the three nearby cities mentioned, and теп те transport problems would have been minor. It seems thus that те late Assyrian capitals required the produce of ап empire for their support, but, strangely, фе logistical difficulties that this would have presented are по! clear within the textual record at our disposal. А simi!ar difficult situation seems to have existed а! the Middle Euphrates site of Mari. The city, which originally might Ьауе been 254 hectares in size, was strategically located оп the junction between Babylonia and Syria, and also acted as ап intermediary between the nomads of the Syrian desert and the agriculturalists of the Euphrates val1ey. But its agricultural base was limited. 1t Iies in а zone where there is insufficient rainfall for dry-fanning, and the river cuts through а barren plateau оп both sides. ТЬе уаllеу is only 6-14 kilometres wide in Mari's neighbourhood, and just а narrow section of it could Ье easily irrigated. Thus а massive and long irrigation сапа! had to Ье dug when Mari developed into а major setdement, and this сапа! had to Ье carefully maintained. Уе! even these irrigзtеd areas were unable to produce sufficient food for the city, and the texts attest to the practice of grain imports from northem Syria. The following letter documents this procedure: То ту

lord уоиг servant Yasim-Sumusays as follows: 'With respect to the barley boats which leave {Ье city of Emar, from now оп теу wiI1 not leave аnу longer. Harvest time has соте, but there will Ье по тосе boats arriving to load те barley for те palace. And for {Ье пех! five months there will Ье по more boats leaving. Now either there are boats (from Mari) оп their way that will arrive here; (in that case) we will fill them ир so that they shouldn't have to retum (to Mari) empty-or, if it pleases ту lord) he should send те five minas (= five pounds) of silver; then 1, in concert with the merchants living in Emar, will hire ten boats of 300 ugar (= 3,600 litres) capacity (еасЬ), [со]llе[с! barley] and dispatch thus 3,000 ugar (= 36~OOO litres) ofbarley {о Mari. Опе should give either to Idinyatum or {о another official 60 ugar (= 600 kor) of barley for the five minas (= 300 shekels) .of silver at а rate of 2~ kor-measures per shekel. Then, in order that the five minas of silver return to the palace, the wages for те sixty men


171

of the crew will Ье 2~ shekels per man, hence 2~ minas of silver which amounrs to 300 kor of barley. And the balance of 21 О ugar should go into ,34 th е ра1асе ...

The letter is not easy to understand, and the calculations in it appear mistaken а! :first glance; а recent study Ьу Durand has elucidated its contents, however. Yasim-Sumu was in Етаг, and announced that аН cargo ships were chartered;) and would Ье unavailable for five months, indicating that Emar shipped grain to other places that were at а round-trip distance of five months' travel. Now, either Ье had to hope that ships from Мап would soon arrive and could Ье loaded with grain, or Ье had to spend five pounds of silver from the palace {о hire other boats from тег chants, whose representative in Mari was Idinyatum. These merchants were independent from the palace and needed to Ье convinced with financial incentives to reassign their boats ос to release some boats that they had previously withheld. This was to Ье done Ьу offering Idinyatum 60 ugar (= 600 kor) ofbarley, which was worth five minas (= 300 shekels) of silver in Emar. YasirnSumu would recover the additional costs Ьу taking advantage of the differences in the price of barley between Emar and Mari. In Emar he could acquire 2.5 kor of barley per shekel of siIver, in Mari опlу 2 kor. The 3,000 ugar acquired in Emar was worth twenty minas of silver there, but in Mari it would Ье priced at twenty-five minas. Thus {Ье only transport costs {Ье раlасе would have to take саге of were the salaries for the boatmen. We see here how раlасе, private merchants, and salaried boatmen аН were involved in the process, each of them eager to make а profit. The cereals in the letter cited above сате from Еmаг, а city upstream оп те Euphrates, in the zone where rain-fed agriculture was possible. The region of те upper Euphrates was only accessible to Mari when its political relations with Aleppo were good. Such was not always true, however, and ап alternative source for cereals was perhaps the middle Habur area. The grain storage and processing facilities found at sites such as ТеН C=Atij, and mentioned before, тау have Ьееп established for that purpose. Transport of те grain Ьу Ьоа! along the Euphrates was facilitated Ьу а canal оп 3~ Maurice Birot еЕ al., Техсе! divers (Archives royales de Mari XIII; Paris 1964), по.

35 11. 1-32; те rrans. and inrerpretation of this letter are based оп Jean-Marie Durand, 'Relecrures d'ARМTXIII, 11: La correspondance de Numusda-Nahrari',

lvfan. AnnaZes de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 2 (Paris, 1983), 160-3.

172

Feed-z"ng the Citizens

its west bank, more convenient and cheaper than the use of over: land caravans which are also attested. According to the letter : quoted above, the crew of six теп would Ье paid тЬе equivalent of " 450 litres of barley in silver to navigate а 3,600 litre Ьоа! over а distance of more than 300 kilometres. If overland transporr had "Ьееп used, the teamsters themselves would have consumed the , entire load. Mari was thus most likely unable to feed its citizens : with its own resources, and had to import food. Its location provided the city with much inсоте from trade, however, and this income could Ье used for food acquisition. In conclusion, it seems that Mesopotamian cities were usually аЫе to support themselves with the food produced in their hinterlands" and that imports of food over long distances indicate exceptional circumstances. The exceptions could Ьауе Ьееп caused Ьу natura1 disasters, such as droughts, ог they could have Ьееп related to politica1 events. Emperors might construct cities that needed ТО Ье supplied Ьу а wide geographica1 area, or kings might demand that provinces make contributions то support the capital city as а political statement. Certain cities always were artificial foundations, unsustainable Ьу their own surroundings, Ьи! ideally located for trade or other purposes. Уе! those were rare cases and most of the cities were sеlf-геliапr with respecr {о foodstuffs. The problem of food supply is thus related to таnу issues regarding the ancient есоnоmу of Mesopotamia. Questions of land ownership, political and bureaucratic organization" markets and redistriburive centres, land use and agricultural rechniques, аН have ап impact оп our understanding of the ways in which реорlе obtained their food. As mапу of these questions are matters of dispute, the reconstruction provided in this chapter has to Ье regarded as provisional and ореn to debate too. I

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sorne of the issues addressed in this chapter have Ьееп extensively debated, and the 1ist of publicatio~s provided here has to Ье very selective. For а survey ofthe agricultural resources of Mesopotamia see J. N. Postgate, Early Mesopotamia: Society and Econonzy а! the Dawn 01 History (London and New York, 1992), 157-72. Armas Salonen has published several, mainly lexicographical, studies


173

оп

aspects of agriculture: Agricultura Mesopotamica nach sumen:sch-akkadischen QueZZen (Helsinki, 1968); Dz"e Fischerei im , alten Mesopotamien (Helsinki, 1970); Vogel und Vogelfang im alten Mesopotamien (Helsinki, 1973); and Jagd und Jagdtiere im allen Mesopotamien (Helsinki, 1976)" Seтinal articles proving the existence of private ownership of fields in third-millennium Babylonia were written Ьу 1. М. Diakonoff, 'Sale of Land in Pre-Sargonic Sumer') in Papers Presented Ьу the Soviet Delegation ах lhe XXIII InternationaZ Congress 0/ On:entalists. Assyn:ology (Moscow, 1954), 5-32, and 1. J. Gelb, 'Оп the Alleged Temple and State Economies in Ancient Mesopotamia', Studi in оnоуе di Edoardo Volterra 6 (Milano, 1971), 137-54. А collection of essays оп land ownership in various periods of Mesopotaтian history was edited Ьу Burchard Brentjes, Das Grundeigentum in Mesopotamien (Jahrbuch Wirtshaftsgeschichte, Sonderband 1987; Berlin). For varying opinions оп те existence of соmmипаl ownership of land, see 1. М. Diakonoff, 'ТЬе Соmmuпе in the Ancient Near East as treated in the Works of Soviet Researchers', Soviet Anthropology and ArcheolОЮJ 2, по. 1 (1963), 32-46; 1. J. Gelb ес al., Earliesl Land Tenure Systems in the Ancient Near East: Ancient Kudurrus (Chicago, 1991), 16-17, 24-6; G. I(omoroczy, 'Landed Property in Ancient Mesopotamia and the Theory of the so-called Asiatic Mode of Production', Oikumene 2 (1978), 9-26; W. Р. Leemans, 'Trouve-t-on des "comтunautes rurales" dans l'ancienne Mesopotaтie?', Recueils de lа Societe Jean Bodin XLI, Les communautes ruraZes, Deuxieme partie, Antiquite (Paris, 1983), 43-106; J. N. Postgate, 'Land Tenure in the Middle Assyrian Period: а Reconstruction', Bulletin ojthe School ofOriental andAfrican Studies 34 (1971),496-520, and 'Ilku and Land Tenure in the Middle Assyrian Кingdom-a Second Attempt', in J. N. Postgate (ed.), Societies and Languages 01 rhe Ancie11t Near East: Studies in Honour 01 1. М. Diakonoff (Wапniпstег, 1982), 304-13; Carlo Zaccagnini in С. Zaccagnini (ed.), Produclion and Consunlption in the Ancz·ent Near East (Budapest, 1989), 1-126. The need for processing of cereals after harvesting has Ьееn extensively illustrated Ьу G. С. Hillman, 'Traditional Husbandry and Processing of Archaic Cereals in Recent Times: Рап 1, the Glume Wheats', Bulletin оп Sumerian Agriculture 1 (1984), 114-52, and 'Part 11, {Ье Free-Threshing Cereals', Bulletin оп Sumerian

rur .

174


AgricuZture 2 (1985), 1-31. Some ofthe ancient documentation сап Ье found in Апnаs Salonen, Agп"cultura Mesopotamica (Helsinki, 1968), 263-82. For grain processing sites excavated in те Middle Habur area see Michel Fortin, 'Trois campagnes de fouilles а teH CAtij: Un comptoir commercial du IIIeme millenaire еп Syrie du Nord', Bulletin 01 the Canadian Sociery 0/ Mesopotamian Srudies 18 (1989), 35-56, and 'ТеН Gudeda: ип site "industriel" du IIIeme millenaire ау. ].С. dans lа тоуеппе vallee du Кhabur?', BuZZetin 01 the Canadian Society 01 Mesopotamian Studies 21 (1991), 63-77; Glenn М. Schwarrz and Hans Н. Curvers, 'ТеН al-Raqa'i 1989 and 1990: Further Investigations а! а Small Rural Site of Early Urban N orthern Mesopotamia', Аmеnсаn Jourпal 0/Archaeology 96 (1992), 397-419. Seals with representations of grain stores are reproduced Ьу Dominique СоIl0П, First Impressions: Cylinder SeaZs in the Ancient Near East (London, 1987), 146 nos. 622-3; Salonen, Agrz"cultura Mesopotamica, pl. х по. 3. For the functioning of door locks see Richard L. Zettler, 'Sea1ings as Artifacts of InstitutionaI Administration in Ancient Mesopotamia', Journal 01 Cuneiform Studies 39 (1987), 197-240. Their psychological imporrance in Egypt has been described Ьу Barry J. Кеmр, Ancient ЕЮJрС: Аnасоmу 01 а Civilization (London andNewYork, 1989), 113. Rations have been widely studied. 1. J. Gelb, 'The Ancient Mesopotamian Ration System,' Journal 01 Near Eastern Studies 24 (1965), 230-43 was the first systematic discussion of their importance. Some important recent works are: Hartmut Waetzoldt, 'Compensation of Craft Workers and Officials in the Ur 111 Ре riod', in Marvin А. Powell (ed.), Labor in the Ancient Near East (New Haven, 1987), 117-41; and Lucio Milano, 'Le razioni alimentari пе} vicino oriente antico: per un'articolazione storica del sistemo', in Rita Dolce and Carlo Zaccagnini (eds.), 11 раnе del re (Bologna, 1989), 65-1 оо. Оп millers in the Ur 111 period see Robert К. Englund, 'Hard Work-Where Will it Get Уои? Labor Management in Ur l1! Mesopotamia', Journal 01 Near Easterп Studies 50 (1991), 255-80 . ОП brewers see Louis F. Hanman and А. Leo. Oppenheim, Оп Beer and Brewing Techniques in Ancient Mesopotamia (New Науеп, 1950). For а stateтent that the market was oflittle importance in the distribution of food products, see Johannes Renger, 'Formen des Zugangs zu den lebensnotwendigen Giitern: Die


175

Austauschverhaltnisse in der altbabylonischen Zeit', Altorientalische Forschungen 20 (1993), 87-114. For drinking-water supp1ies in Mesopotamia, see the remarks Ьу Н. W. F. Saggs, The Greatness that was Babylon (London, 1962), 171-2; and Н. W. Р. Saggs, Civilization before Greece and Rome (New Науеп and London, 1989), 121-5. Archaeological evidence for wells was summarily described Ьу Valentin Mi.iller, 'Brunnen', RealZexikon der AssyrioZogie 2 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1938), 72-3. For ап example of how one should study the agricultural potential of ап area, see Terence N. D' Altroy, Provincial Power in the Inka Empire (Washington and London) 1992), 154-63. For southern Babylonia the issue has Ьееп studied Ьу Roben МсС. Adarns, Heartland ofCities (Chicago and London, 1981); and for погтеm БаЬуlопiа Ьу McGuire Gibson, The City and Area 0/ Kish (Coconut Grove Miami, 1972). For Assyria, see Т. J. Wilkinson, 'The Structure and Dynamics of Dry-Farming States in Upper Mesopotamia', Current Anthropology 35 (1994), 483-520; and David Oates, Studies in the Ancient History 0/ Northern Iraq (London, 1968), 1966. For the сотрlех issue of salinization and for infonnation оп yields see ThorkiId Jacobsen, Salinity and Im:gation Agriculture in A111iquity (Malibu, 1982); J. N. Postgate, 'The problem ofyields in Sumerian texts), BulZetin оп SumerianAgriculture 1 (1987),97-102; and Marvin А. Powell, 'Sa]t, Seed, and Yields in Sumerian Agriculture: А Critique of the Theory of Progressive Salinization', Zeitschrift 1йr AssyrioZogie 75 (1985), 7-38. For the geographical situation of Mari see Bernard Geyer and Jean-Yves Monchambert, 'Prospection de lа moyenne vallee de l)Euphrate: rapport preliminaire: 1982-1985', Мап: Annales des Recherches Interdisciplinaires 5 (Paris, 1987), 293-344; Jean Margueron, 'Etat present des recherches sur l'urbanisme de Mari -1-', ibid. 483-98 and, 'Mari, 1'Euphrate, et lе Кhabur аu mi1ieu du IIIe millenaire', BulZetin 01 the Canadian Society 01 Mesopotamian Studies 21 (1991), 79-100.

8 Crafts and C01Dmerce

The есопоту of the ancient Mesopotaтian city was по! restricted to те primary activities of food production and processing. ТЬе manufacture of goods, both соmтоп utensiI~ and luxury items, found in abundance in the archaeological and textual records, was also а major economic enterprise. Craft production was по! limited to cities: village craftsmen produced а variety of goods for the local market as well. Ви! manufacture in cities, ог administered Ьу urban institutions, was clearly more extensive, more complex, and of greater importance to the Mesopotamian есопоmу. In this chapter 1 will investigate how crafts in Mesopotamia depended оп the city, and especially how теу were intrinsically connected to international trade. Their reliance оп cities was threefold: first, the producers could only Ье supported in ап игЬап есопоту where а food surplus was available; second, the variety of raw materials needed for manufacture was only available in cities where Ьот local supplies, such as reed and wool, and foreign ones, such as metal ores, were collected; third, the clientele was ап urban опе, which either used the finished products local1y or exported them. Eight main crafts сап Ье distinguished} primarily оп the basis of the material employed: potting, .reedwork, weaving, leathe1Work, carp.entry, stonecutting, metalwork, and jewel1ery-making. Others, such as glassmaking, had less economic importance. АП these crafts are known {о have had specialist practitioners, even basic crafts such as the production of pottery. For although simple vessels сап Ье, and most probabIy were, made in the household Ьу women, there are numerous indications та! most pots were тапи factured Ьу а specialized group of potters, starting in prehistory. Тhe most direct indicator is the fact that there existed а professional designation of potter, bahar, found already in the earliest Sumerian documents from the lat~ fourth millenniuffi. Some scenes carved оп cyIinder seals of that period seem to represent

Crajts and Commerce

FIG.

8.1

177

Sealing representing potters at work

potters at work (Fig. 8.1). ТЬе professionalization of pottery production is also visible in the archaeological record. From early prehistory оп, starting with the earliest permanent settleтent in Mesopotamia proper, pottery was standardized in shape, ware, and decoration. 1 At times, the standardization for certain types of vessels wa8 80 rigorous that soтething approaching оп industrial1evel production сап Ье iтagined. For instance, in the late fourth тil lenniuт, enonnous numbers ofbowls" now referred to as bevelledrim bowls> were produced in moulds of one shape and а limited number of sizes. The archaeological record also indicates that тost pottery kilns were concentrated in particular areas of towns. Yet те existence of specialized craft areas in early Mesopotamian cities is not conclusively proven, as 1 will discuss presently. Finally, we have а limited number of accounts listing enormous quantities of pots produced in specialized workshops. Unfonunately, по archive of such а workshop has Ьееп preserved, but their existence cannot Ье denied. The following example derives from the late third millenniuт, and lists ап enorтous nuтber of vessels produced in а single year. This is just а short excerpt: Тосаl:

3 pithoi of 300 lirres workdays: ЗО Total: б pithoi of 300 litres

workdays:

[БО?]

1 See Hans J. Nissen, The Ear/Y Hislory 01 the Ancient Near EastJ 9000-2000 в.с. (Chicago and London, 1988), 45, who argues that the pottery of the Halaf period

is so refined that it must have been created Ьу specialists.

i78

Crafts and Commerce т otal:

9 pointed jars of 120 litres workdays: 54 Total: 40 pointed jars of 110 litres workdays: 220 Total: 170 jars of 30 litres workdays: 170 [Total]: 320 wide rimmed vessels of workdays: 400

зо

litres

Total of 2,960.55 workdays.2 I

I

.

: The need for specialization increased with the level of difficulry f the craft: jewellers obviously needed more training than potters. ~ is likely that fathers usually passed оп their skills {о their sons, rld that recruits were taught through apprenticeship. From very tte in Mesopotamian history we have а smal1 number of apprence's contracts, drawn ир between 8pecialists and the o~ners of aves who wanted their servants to leam а craft. This example ates to the second year of I trans. с. Н. Oldfather, The Loeb Classical Library. Diodorиs of Sicily 1, (Cambridge) Mass.) and London) 1933), 447.

Cities as Centres 01 Religion and Learning

221

divination rather тап scribal activity in general. Тhe so-called scribal families of the first millennium аге not necessarily indications of real blood relations, as 1 pointed ои! before. Moreover, texts describing life in а Sumerian school were maintained in те literary сапоп, and traditional school texts remained commonly in use in Mesopotamia throughout its history. Тhe recent find of hundreds ofthem in the temple ofNabu sa l}are in ВаЬуl0П shows that clearly.8 So, а type of education in schools тау have been а pennanent feature in Mesopotamia. Scribal training was а long process, supeIVised Ьу skilled professionals, such as priests,9 with long practice in the uses of writing. It involved many aspects in addition to read~g and writing, such as literature, grammar, calculus, geometry, and music. 10 As time went оп, this training Ьесаmе more esoteric, as the written and spoken languages diverged., and the means of writing Ьесате more агсапе. Specialists who knew the scribal techniques were only to Ье found in cities. In his investigation of те position of те intellectual in Mesopotamian so:ciery, А. Leo Oppenheim distinguished between three types of scribes: the bureaucrat, the poet, and the scholar. The Mesopotamians themselves did not see them as separate specialists until те first millennium, when the scholar was regarded as distinct. ТЬе bureaucrats produced те majority of the written documentation: the раlасе and temple economies as well as the affairs of prominent businessmen, depended оп their work. Their functions were probably not limited to bookkeeping, but also included deciding actions, such as те disbursement of goods, to keep the system going smoothly. Their employment outside the public institutions should по! Ье underestimated. А study of Babylonian texts of the first millennium found 3,060 names of scribes who wrote Akkadian оп clay tablets. Of those 2,681 worked for private individuals, 11 for the palace, and 368 for the temples. Many of the private scribes probably made а living Ьу helping citizens with papeIWork, as professional scribes still do today in the Middle East. 8

See Antoine Cavigneaux, Textes scolaires du temple de Nabu

sa hare

(Baghdad,

1981). Nore thar А. Leo Qppenheim caregoricaHy rejected те idea thar the scribal craft was passed оп from father ro son, Daedalus 104: 2 (1975), 43. 9 For instance, the chief lamentation priest of Annunitum, Ur-Utu, at ТеН edDer, see М. Tanret, 'Les Tablettes scolaires decouvertes а ТеН ed-Der', Akkadica

27 (1982),46-9.

10 See А. w. SjБЬеrg, 'The Old Babylonian Eduba' > in S. LiеЬепnаn (ed.), Sumerian Srudies in Ноnоу 0/ ThorkildJacobsen (Chicago, 1972)~ 159-79.

222

Cit'ies а! Centres

0/ Religion and Learning

The poet-scribes were crucial in те creation and preservation of the гоуаl ideology: epics~ hymns, and royal inscriptions were сот posed and copied Ьу them. ТЬеу kept alive а cultural tradition in Mesopotamia фа! persevered despite numerous political changes and Фе arrivals of foreign rulers. Непсе, Фе Kassites from Iran, for instance, could portray themselves as traditional Babylonian mоп archs without difficulty. Scholar-scribes were experts in scientific knowledge, especial1y in divination. Private citizens and the court cou]d шт to them for predictions of future events, cures for illnesses, or ritua]s to aven evil. Their knowledge was entirely based оп standardized lists of interpretations of omens от medical symptoms, annotated and explained with glosses and quotes from other literary material. Oppenheim stressed that а11 these intellectuals prospered in Mesopotamia because of their relationship to те со иП ог their етрl0У mеп! Ьу private citizens in ап urban environrnent. In the latter case, unattached professionals sold their services to private customers, who in the first millennium enjoyed increased wealth thanks {о Фе general economic flourishing of Mesopotamia. The role of cities as centres of religion and learning in Mesopotamia сап Ье exemplified Ьу two cases Фа! excelled in these respects, Nippur and ВаЬуl0П: these cities were unusual in the extent to which they administered these functions. Nippur, in те centre of Babylonia, had the unique position of never having had its own dynasty; but the city was of crucial imponance for the po1itical ideology of те rulers of other city-states. From the twenty-fifth until the eighteenth century вс, dynasts of Akkade, Ur, Isin, Larsa, and others strived for control over Nippur in order to justify their claim to kingship over Sumer and Akkad. The priesthood а! Nippur seems to have had the authority to grant that title, which could only Ье held Ьу оnе ruler а! а time. ТЬе power derived fro~ its association with the god Enlil, head of the Sumerian pantheon. Some time in фе third millennium, а regional pantheon had developed in Babylonia under the leadership of the air god Enlil. In the mythology the city of Nippur Ьесате the 10cus where the gods gathered for the discussion of important problems, and several myths describe the visits of deities {о Enlil's temple in Nippur, the Ekur. When the ideology of regional kingship was introduced with the Akkade dynasty, the support of Enlil)s priesthood seems to have Ьесоте crucial {о further та! ideology. Special attenrion was

Cities as Centres

01 Religion

and Learning

223

thus paid {о the city and its shrines, booty and prisoners of war were offered to it, while statues and inscriptions glorifying те king's military feats were erected in the Ekur's courtyard. ТЬе rulers of the so-саIlеd Third Dynasty of Ur made Nippur their religious capital, perhaps even their dynastic seat, and promoted its cults Ьу forcing other regions of Babylonia to contribute food products and livestock оп а rotating basis. When Ur>s hegemony over Babylonia dissolved into а number of competing city-states, the struggle over Nippur Ьесате constant, although not necessarily violent. Acceptance Ьу the Nippur priesthood provided а number of important ideological benefits. The dynasty was integrated into the Sumerian Кing List; the king was honoured in royal hymns; and he was crowned as king of Sumer and Akkad, not merely as king of his city. How те suppon froт Nippur was obtained is по! entirely clear. Certainly а! times те priesthood had по choice but to acknowledge the supremacy of а panicular ruler, when his military dominance was obvious. А! other times, kings тау have bought the goodwill of the priests Ьу showering gifts upon their temple. Nippur was important in other aspects of Babylonian culture as well. те early centuries of the second millennium те religious ideology of southem Babylonia Ьесаmе codified. Possibly because of те death of Sumerian as а spoken language, its literature was written down. МисЬ of this activity seems to have taken place in Nippur. А scribal school, which тау have been established there Ьу Кing Shulgi (ruled 2094-2047), was pre-eminent in юе formation ofthe corpus of Sumerian literature. In the 'scribal quarter' of the city, thus outside the temp]e сотрlех) thousands of manuscripts of1iterary texts were found. Unfortunately, these texts were discovered in Фе early stages of archaeo]ogical exploration in Mesopotamia in те late nineteenth century, and spurred ап acrimonious debate between the principal scholars involved, Peters and Hilprecht, which resulted in а total lack of infonnation about rheir ехасС provenience. Renewed excavations in the 1950s discovered school texts as well, in much smaller numbers, however, and still with а confused archaeological context. Ви! they were certainly found in domestic dwellings, where students were taught Sumerian Ьу тemorizing literary passages of increasing difficulty, and where а preservation of Sumerian literature seems to have Ьееп соп sciously pursued. ТЬе output was enormous. The texts include аН

In

224

Cz'tz'es as Centres 01 Religion and Learning

the tools needed to train а skilIed scribe: sign lists, lexical lists, model contracts, letters and legal decisions, mathematical problems, and аП types of literature: hymns, prayers, wisdom texts, myths, and epics. ТЬе large majority of the preserved tablets was probably written in те decades just before the abandonment of Nippur due to political circumstances с.! 720. It is clear that the scribal activity was not limited to that period Ьи! that rablets were recycled and tha! we only see their last use. 11 Long after 1720 те memory of а special connection Ьемееп Nippur and the Sumerian language was тaintained. ТЬе humorous story 'Why do уои curse те?',12 preserved in а manuscript from the sixth century, describes how а physician from Isin goes {о Nippur, and fails to communicate even with the local gardening woman selling vegetables, who speaks Sumerian. We have по idea whether or по! this predicament occurred in realiry, but the fact that it was perceived to Ье possible and was understood as ап amusing situation, is what shows that Nippur was considered {о Ье а city of special knowledge in. Babylonia. ТЬе religious primacies of Enlil and Nippur were taken over in the mid-second millennium Ьу Marduk and Babylon. Babylon had risen to Ьесоmе the foremost city of southern Mesopotamia Ьу military and political means. Its first dynasty had conquered the rest of Babylonia in the eighteenth century~ and since that time Babylon was considered to Ье the main political capital of the region until те Greek founding of nearby Seleucia around 300 вс. Because ofBabylon's prominence, its city-god Marduk Ьесате the head of те Mesopotamian pantheon, а rise described in the socalled Epic of Creation, in which the fonner leader Enlil is among those gods honouring the new king. Again cult and political ideology were closely interwoven. The king was the only person allowed to lead те ceremonies in the annual New Year's festival, when the rise of Marduk was celebrated. Every king, whether Kassite, Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian от Greek, panicipated in this event when possible, from а! least 1300 to 224 Bc. 13 For several years the See Miguel Civil, Materialsfor rhe Sumen·an Lexicon 14 (Rome, 1979), 7-8, and Charpin, Revue d'assyrioZogie 84 (1990), 1-8. 12 Беnjаmin R. Foster, Froт Distarit Days, (Беthеsdз, 1995), 363-4. 1 ат not convinced Ьу А. R. George's interpretation of the humour in this text as deriving from а confusion between two dia]ects of Akkadian (Iraq 55 (1993), 63-72)~ 11

13

Апн~liе КиЬп> 'Usurpзriоn> Conquesr> and Ceremonial: Ртот Babylon {О

Persia', in David Cannadine and Simon Рпсе (eds.), Ricuals 0/ Royalcy (Cambridge, 1987), 52.

CiEies as CenEres 01 Religion and Learning

225

maverick Кing Nabonidus abandoned Babylon for the T~ima oasis in the Arabian desert, thereby ignoring the festival and bringing ироп himself the wrath of the Marduk priesthood. The priesthood had less power than the old Nippur one, in that it did not have а choice between several candidates for the office of king and was confronted with а miIitary fait accompli. Yet, it тау have Ьееп аЫе to arouse popular resentment against а king, which probably ех plains why the Persian ruler Cyrus was greeted as а 1iberator when he took Babylon from Nabonidus. Iп addition to its cultic role, the priesthood of ВаЬуlоп also acquired а leading position in the 'science' that was of utmost importance to те Mesopotamians: divination. ТЬе abilities to read the signs sent Ьу the gods revea1ing future events, and to perform correct rituals or recite the proper prayers to make тет change their minds in case the отеп was bad, was greatly prized оу the citizenry. Under the Assyrian kings of the seventh century а network of posts was set ир across те Mesopotamian countryside for the observation of а11 relevant celestial signs. А constant flow of reports arrived at the court, describing the signs, intetpreting them, and suggesting а means for warding off evil. А large portion of these repons сате from Babylonia, and Babylon was опе of the prominent centres of observation. The ciry's importance and fame in the divinatory sciences survived for а very long time. In те seventh century, celestial omens Ьесаmе of paramount importance in divination: in Babylon astronomical diaries were produced) in preparation for the composition of new Iists of ominous interpretations. The diaries record оп а daily basis the positions ofthe mооп, the planets, and the fixed stars, as well as information about the weather, the level of the Euphrates river, and some historical events. Тhey date from the mid-seventh to Фе mid-first century ВС, and а11 those known to us were written in БаЬуlоп. These observations also provided the necessary data for mathematical astronomy, which flourished at that time. Непсе, the Babylonians, under the Greek designation Chaldaeans, Ьесаmе the most famous astronomers of antiquity, а fame that lasted at least until the first century AD. In his Natural Hislory, Pliny describes the city of Babylon as а wasreland, Ьи! for the temple of Jupiter Belus (i.e . Marduk) which survived as а school of asrronomy.14 The popular longevity of astronomy in Babylon сап Ье explained Ьу the [ас! that it was н б. зо. 121-3.

226

Cities as Centres 01 Religion and Learning

fundamentally connected with divination and religion in the Mesopotamian mind. The temple was те locus of celestial divination; this should not Ье disassociated from the other intellectual endeav~ ours of the Mesopotamians;) simply because in our opinion divination has nothing to do with science. Nippur and Babylon were two prime examples of Mesopotamian centres of learning. The strength of their cultural contributions сап only Ье explained because of фе inherent connection with the temple; similarly temples flourished because of their integral role in the гоуа! ideology. The culture of Mesopotamia relied thus оп the presence oftemple and palace, elements that were only to Ье found in the city. The absolute character of the urban bias of Mesopotamian culture сап Ье understood for practical reasons. The urban background had а strong impact оп the culture in general. The outlook оп the world centred оп the city, which was regarded as те only habitat suitable for а cultured person. Anything outside the city wal1s was regarded with suspicion, or еуеп fear. There was по appreciation of wild nature and its beauty, only for nicely laid-out gardens. А few texts devote special attention [О the natural environment, sometimes showing great powers of observation,15 but their rarity stresses the usual formalism and lack of interest in such matters. Cosmogonic myths d? not focus оп the creation of natural phenomena and man's environment, but оп the organization of that environment, especially the establishment of cities for тап to live in. То а modem mind, such ап outlook тау have а claustrophQbic feeling to it, а lack of openness and а short-sightedness. То the Mesopotamian as known [о us, this closed environment seems to have Ьееп the only ассер[аblе one, with the chaos outside as something to Ье avoided.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

АП

known rock reliefs were listed Ьу Jutta Вбгkег-Юаhп, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs (Mainz ат Rhein, 1982). Those of Assyrian kings are conveniently indicated See А. Leo Oppenheim) 'Мап and Nature in Mesopotamian Civilization', Diccionary 01 SCiellEific Biography 15) suppl. 1 (Nev. York, 1981), 636. 15

F

Cicies as Centres 0/ Religion and Learning

227

оп

the maps in Michael Roaf, Cultural Atlas 01 Mesopotamia and che A1zcienl Near East (Oxford, 1990), 164 and 179. The position of scribes in Mesopotamian society was srudied Ьу А. Leo Oppenheim, 'The Position of (Ье Intellectual in Mesopotamian Society), Daedalus 104: 2 (1975), 37-46. For bureaucrat-scribes in fi.rst millennium Babylonia, see Muhammed А. Dandamaev, Babylonian Scribes in the First Millennium в.с. (Moscow~ 1983), in Russian with ап English summary оп рр. 23542. For Nippur as а literary centre, see William W. НаНо, 'Nippur Originals', in Н. Behrens, D. Loding, and М. Roth (eds.), DUMUEz-DUB-BA: Studies in Honor 0/ Ake W. Sjoberg (Philadelphia, 1989), 237-47. ТЬе most up-to-date survey of education, based primarily оп Old Babylonian sources, is provided Ьу Miguel Civil in D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dicrionary 2 (New York, 1992), 301-5.

Моге

detail

сап Ье

found in Hartmut Waetzoldt,

'Der Schreiber as Lehrer in Mesopotamien', in Johann Georg Prinz von Hohenzollern and Мах Liedtke (eds.), Schreiber, Magister, Lehrer (Bad Heilbrunn, 1989), 33-50. Also interesting are (Ье observations Ьу Н. L. J. Vanstiphout, 'How did they learn Sumerian?', Journal о1 Cuneiform Studies 3 1 (1979), 118-26. А clear description of the discovery of approximately 23,000 literary texts in Nippur during the excavations in the late nineteenth century is not available. Н. V. Hilprecht, Exploration in Bible Lands (Edinburgh, 1903), 512-32, gives ап account of what he calls the Тетрlе Library. The disaster-prone early seasons of ехса vations а! the sire are described Ьу Andre Parrot, Archeologie l1lesopotamienne 1 (Paris, 1946), 143-58; and in С. Wade Meade, Road со Babylon (Leiden, 1974), 47-63. The latter book also gives а summary account ofthe Perers-Hilprecht controversy оп рр. 72б. The excavation of the scribal quarter in the 1950s is published in Donald Е. McCown and Richard С. Haines, Nippur 1 (Oriental Institute Publications 78; Chicago, 1967); and restudied Ьу Elizabeth С. Stone, Nippur Neighborhoods (Chicago, 1987). For the latter see the important review Ьу Dominique Charpin, 'Un quartier de Nippur et le probleme des ecoles а l'epoque paleobabylonienne', Revue d:JassJJriologie 83 (1989), 97-112 and 84 (1990), 1-16. For examples of school texts, see Edward Chiera, Lists 01 Perso11al Nan2es frorn the Temple SchooZ 01 Nippur, (Philadelphi3., 1916). Оп рр. 41-8 3. typology of school tablets is provided,

228

Cit1:es as Centres 01 Religion and Leaming

which has Ьееп refined Ьу Edmuhd 1. Gordon in Sumerian Proverbs (Phi1adelphia, 1959), 7-10. ТЬе New Year's festival at Babylon and its imponance in royal ideology was discussed Ьу Amelie Kuhrt) 'Usurpation" Conquest" and Ceremonial: From Babylon {о Persia'" in David Cannadine and Simon Price (eds.), Rituals 01 Royalty (Cambridge, 1987» 2055. Divination and astronomy are discussed in mапу books and articles. А very useful introduction to the fundamentals of divination сап Ье found in Jean Bottero, Mesopotamia: Wrixing" Reasoning" and the Gods (Chicago and London, 1992). ТЬе nature of the 'сапоп' of divinatory texts has Ьееп discussed Ьу Francesca Rochberg-Halton" 'Canonicity in Cuneifonn Texts', Journal о! CuneijQnn Studies 36 (1984), 127-44. For the practitioners of astronomical divination see, for

ехаmрlе, А.

Leo Oppenheim, 'DiviLast Assyrian Empire',

nation and Celestial Observation in те CentaunlS 14 (1969)" 97-135; and те papers Ьу Francesca Rochberg and Simo Parpola in Н. D. Galter (ed.), Die Rolle der Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens (Graz, 1993). The contents of the astronomical diaries are discussed in the same volume Ьу Hermann Hunger, who together with Abraham Sachs was responsible for their publication in Astronoтical Dianes and Related TexIsfrom Babylon 1 and 2 (Vienna, 1988-9). Hunger also recently re-edited the Asrrological reports 10 Assyrian kings (Helsinki" 1992).

11 The Eclipse of the Ancient Mesopotall1ian City

What happened to the ancient Mesopotamian city? Did it die out

suddenly or gradually or did it form the basis for а long evolution leading to the medieval cities of Iraq? In this book the bulk of documentation was derived from archaeological and textual sources dating to the early third millennium through the fourth century вс, the period traditionally identified as that of ancient Mesopotamian history. Scholars have rarely addressed the issue of when this period ends, and various dates seem to Ье tacitly accepted for different purposes. Some define the ehd of Mesopotamia as when it ceased to exist as ап independent political entity Ьу its integration in the Persian empire in 539;1 while this is seen as а convenient date, most scholars see the conquest Ьу Alexander of Macedon and the coming ofHellenism as the decisive moment. But scholars working with sources written in cuneiform from the Persian and Seleucid periods are readi1y considered ап cient Mesopotamian specialists and theтselves often emphasize the continuity with earlier periods. Alexander has been cal1ed the last of the Achaemenids, ending а period of Persian refonns based оп Assyrian antecedents,2 while the end of Babylonian culture has Ьееп seen as caused Ьу Iranization under the Parthians starting in the second century вс, rather than Ьу Hellenization under the Seleucids two centuries earlier. 3 It is often forgotten that only four successive foreign imperial regimes controlled аН ог part of the region of ancient Mesopotamia from the defeat of the last 1

William

w.

НаНо and William К. Simpson) The Ancient Near

Easr: а Hisro~

(New York, 1971). 2 Р. Briant, 'Des Achemenides аих rois hellenistiques: continuites et ruptures (Bilan et perspecrives)') Rois, tribus ес paysans (Besan~on) 1982)) 291-330. з Joachim Oelsner, 'Копtinuirзt und Wandel in Gesellschaft und Kultur Babyloniens in hellenistischer Zeit', Юiо 60 (1978)) 1О 1-16.

230

Eclipse

01 the Ancient Mesopota1nian City

independent Babylonian dynasty to те Muslim conquest of Iraq: Achaemenid Persians from 539 то 331 вс, Seleucid Greeks from

331 to 141

вс,

Arsacid Parthians from 141

вс

to

AD

226, and

Sasanian Persians from AD 226 to 637. Even the Muslim conquest сап Ье seen as the imposition of а new foreign government ироn the area. The dynastic struggles of the successive regimes were highly intricate, and те агеа of Mesopotamia was often divided among various powers: Iranian, Roman, о! Byzantine, alongside more or less independent kingdoms, such as Characene, Adiabene, and the Lakhmid kingdom, to пате just а few. АН of these left historical records, minted coins, and are discussed in а wide variety of sources, so that the political history of the region becomes а labyrinth ofnames, dates, and events. But аге we justified is speaking of the end of а historical era, simply because of те conquest of Mesopotamia Ьу а foreign dynasry? Was there really а difference between фе Kassite invasion of Mesopotamia in the sixteenth century вс and the Achaemenid Persian annexation of the region а millennium later? Was the history ofthe region more homogeneous previously, or do we just lack insight because we lack documentation? The limits traditionally imposed upon Mesopotamian history have less to do with historical reasoning than with the [ас! that the nature of the textual sources changed entirely. The use of cuneiform slowly died out in Babylonia at {Ье same time as the coming of а Greek adminisrration, and neither the reasons for that disappearance nor the ехас! moment of irs occurrence are entirely clear to us. We see а gradual decline in the number oftextual types written in cuneiform during the Seleucid period, with the variery of legal documents decreasing, and fewer genres of literature at first being composed, later only copied. Only astronomical material) the evidence of 'Chaldaean' science famous throughout the classical world, was still being created wel1 into the first century AD, the latest text known so far dating {о the year 75. But cuneiform writing and Akkadian as а literary and ап administrative language remained in use at least until the early first century БС, thus well into the Parthian period. Literary material is copied into the midfirst century вс. The most recent administrative text known so far was found in Babylon and dates to the year 92 ВС, ~ and texts from -1

71.

See R. J. van der Spek) Grolldbezit i1l hel SeZeucidisc}le Rijk (Amsterdam, 1986))

Eclipse 01 the Ancient Mesopotamian CilY

231

Kutha and Borsippa are known from only а few years earlier. Cuneiform was thus still in daily use in several places in the late second century вс, and possibly more archives from this poorly researched period are still to Ье found. ТЬе 'death' of cuneiform was surely not due to the fact that alphabetic writing systems .appearing in те first millennium would have Ьееп somehow superior in communicating messages: cuneiform had been found perfectly acceptable for expressing whatever was needed for millennia. 5 The 108Б of cuneiform's cultural foundations, which has Ьееп blamed аБ the cause of its demise,6 seems {о те something we should set out to demonstrate, rather than to presume. Another theory asserts that the Seleucid administrators demanded records of {ахаЫе transactions to Ье written in а language understandable {о them-Greek or Aramaic-and {Ьа! теБе records сопsеquепtlу were penned down оп parchment or papyrus, marerials [Ьа! did not survive in те Mesopotarnian soil. 7 This idea is certainly зр

pealing, but evidence that some transactions, such as slave sales, were taxed Ьу the central administration when cuneiforrn records of them were still in use, shows that it does not explain the entire process; moreover, it fails to demonstrate why the interactions Ьемееп the native Babylonian communities did not remain recorded in Akkadian written in cuneiform оп clay tablets. In order properly to understand the periods after 331 ВС) the ancient Near Eastern historian, trained to work with cuneiform tablets, is thus forced to consider very different materials, either written in difficult languages, such as various dialects of Aramaic, and Old and Middle Реrsiап, or classical sources which ате thought {о require ап entirely different approach. Непсе, it is а convenience {о consider these periods as irrelevant to the field of study. Archaeologists too, are usually по! interested in Parthian and Sasanian remains, as they merely prevent access ТО older deposits, which are considered 'genuine' ancient Mesopotamian. This issue involves тапу aspects of society other than urbanism, and it merits а separate discussion. Неге, 1 want only to review Mogens Trolle Larsen, 'Whar They Wrote оп Clay', in К. Schousboe and Mogens Trolle Larsen (eds.), Lileracy a11d Socier.y (Copenhagen, 1989), 121-48. 6 Marvin А. Powell, 'Three Problems in the History of Cuneiform Writing: Origins, Direction of Scripr, Lireracy', Visible Language 15: 4 (1981),435. 7 See L. Т. Doty apud William W. НаНо, 'God, Кing, and Man at Yale') in Е. Lipinski (ed.), Slace aJld Te111ple Eco'1lonzy in the Ancient Near East 1 (Orienralia Lovaniensia Analecra 5; Louvain, 1979), 110-11. 5

232

Eclipse

0/ the Ancient Mesopotamian CilY

briefly what we сап discern in the meagre and undigested material from the sixth century вс to the seventh century AD аЬои! the survival or death of the ancient Mesopotamian city. This question cannot Ье answered Ьу considering а11 aspects of urban life simultaneously. 1t seems more useful {о isolate {Ье problems discussed in the earlier chapters, and {о see whether substantial changes took place starting with the Persian conquest of Mesopotamia. First, there is the question of what cities continued to exist, and whether and where new cities were built. We see both а continued use of older settlements and те foundation of new ones Ьу the ruling dynasties. Мапу of {Ье old cities of Babylonia remained inhabited and important for several ceQturies. For instance, Babylon itself was the political capital of Asia until Alexander's successor, Seleucus 1, founded Seleucia-on-the-Tigris пеагЬу around 300 вс. The city sиffered from the new foundation, mainly because Seleucia was settled Ьу displaced Babylonians. But Babylon remained ап important cult centre, and а centre of astronoтy into the Panhian period, а! least until the end of the first century AD. Other cities of Babylonia that show Parthian remains аге Larsa, Uruk, and Nippur, while Кish contains the ruins of а considerable Sasanian town. ТЬе new royal foundations in Babylonia often caused а shift away from the older urban centres. Thus was Seleucia-on-the-Tigтis built at the expense of Babylon, and Ctesiphon surpassed its neighbour Seleucia in the Parthian period. Finally, the Sasanians built Veh-Ardashir (СосЬе) in the same neighbourhood, which Ьесаmе so densely urbanized that уЬе Arabs referred ·to it as aI-Маdа:)iп, 'the cities'. ТЬе intense сопсеп tration of urbanism а! that point сап Ье explained Ьу its location in the centre of mапу trade routes. Other trading centres, such as Charax Spasinu оп the Shatt al-АтаЬ, were probably also established зt the expense of older cities. According {о Adams's analysis of central Babylonian senleтent patterns, the region ftourished [гот the neo-Babylonian period well into the early Islamic period because of its agricultural resources. In те Seleucid, Parthian, and Sasanian periods total settlement reached ап extent unparalleled in earlier history with а high percentage of people living in urban centres. 8 Тhe same cities did not necessarily remain inhabited) however. With the Islamic 8

Defined as more than 1О hectares in size.

Eclipse 01 the Ancient Mesopotaтian City

233

conquest, the Sasanian cities suffered а 1085 of inhabitant5 who moved to те new mi1itary settlements such as Basra, Kufa, and Wasit. Also, there had previously Ьееп а general shift of settlement eastwards, as the water of the Tigris river was now integrated into те irrigation system of Babylonia. А сапа! joining Tigris and Euphrates in the north of Babylonia drained much of the water of the Euphrates and caused а gradual reduction of settlement further south. The period after 500 вс was not оnе of decline in Babylonia. Quite the opposite wa5 true. ТЬе region flourished, supported Ьу а strong agricultural base. 1t was only after the eighth century AD та! те agricultural есоnоту collapsed, and that permanent settlement virtual1y ceased to exist in Babylonia. Тhis collapse seems to have been the result of а cumulative process involving wars, adminisrrative mismanagement, and excessive taxation, causing а spiral of rural resistance and subsequent repression, and perhaps aIso 9 а string of plagues. Мапу of these problems тау have developed in pre-Islamic times, уе! they did по! cause havoc unti1 much later. In the North of Mesopotamia, the situation is тоге difficult to assess, primarily because of the lack of а systematic archaeological survey. We see the survival and creation of several important urban centres. Assur has substantial Parthian remains, while Nineveh, Shemshara, and Erbil were settled at that time as well. Nimrud contained а Hellenistic village, abandoned in the second century вс. The most imponant city of northern lraq Ьесаmе Hatra оп the Wadi Tharthar, originally built Ьу the Parthians as а fortress against Rome. The city сате to have а crucial strategic imponance in те struggles between Rome and the Parthians and Sasanians, ruled Ьу а native dynasty та! shifted its allegiance back and forth between East and West. It withstood several Roman attacks, and was finally destroyed Ьу те Sasanians, probably around AD 240. Тhe city тау Ье indicative of the pattem of urbanization in the North after the eighth century вс. lt was located in а Ьапеп countryside wirhout а hinterland аЫе to feed its inhabitants. lts fonunes depended оп caravan trade, not оп agriculture. Northern Mesopotamia in the period from 612 вс to the AD 6308 9 See Peter Chrisrensen) The DecZine 01Iranshahr: Irrigation and Environments in the Hiscory 01 che MiddZe Easl 500 В.С. &0 А.п. 1500 (Copenhagen) 1993).

234

Eclipse 01 the Ancient Mesopotamian City

seems по! to have known much rural settlement, Ьи! was gradually taken over Ьу semi-nomadic tribesmen. l! was exposed {о numerous military incursions, as it was located between Rome and its successor state Byzantium trying to extend their inftuence eastward to the Tigris, and the Iranian dynasties attempting to maintain те Euphrates, with the Balikh or the Habur, as their westem border. The political uncertainties of the region тау have caused its sparse population, as there is по evidence for droughts or environmental decline. The potential for the economic development of the region was always great, if the right political conditions existed. In the eleventh to thirteenth centuries AD, ап independent and stable dynasty in Mosul brought great prosperity {о the region which Ьесате densely inhabited а! that time. ТЬе middle Euphrates valley shows а different pattern of осси pation from northern Mesopotamia. ТЬе river was extremely important for strategic purposes and often formed the border between the eastern and westem empires. Politically, it changed hands mапу times, its northern section often controlled Ьу Rome or Byzantium, its southem section usual1y in Parthian or Sasanian hands. Despite the ravages that must have Ьееп imposed upon it Ьу military activity, the valley seems to have thrived economically. The names of many cities in the Euphrates valley are preserved in the accounts of classical geographers. ТЬе most important city Ьу far was Dura Europos, founded in 303 вс midway between the Seleucid capitals of Seleucia and Antioch. From 113 вс оп it was а Parthian city, and in the second century AD it Ьесате Roman, until it was sacked Ьу the Sasanian ruler Shapur in 256. Subsequently, it seems that the Euphrates valley 10st its prosperity, due то а Byzantine emphasis оп the cities of northem Syria. These remarks оп the 10cation of sites are extremely superficial, due to the lack of solid data, caused partly Ьу archaeologists' lack of interest, and раnlу Ьу the fact that remains of these periods are often concealed undemeath subsequent Islamic settlements. It is important to remember that mапу variatio~s according {о period and region existed, and that the political situation often differed in neighbouring regions that had earlier Ьееп ruled Ьу the same regime. It seems, however, that we сап state that settlement trends in Babylonia, started in the sixth century вс with the пе 0Babylonian dynasty, continued with а great agricultural ftourishing of те region and ап increasingly dense population, а trend that

Eclipse

0/ the Ancient Mesopotamian

City

235

culminated in late Sasanian times. Older cities were gradually surpassed in imporrance Ьу the new foundations of successive regimes. In Assyria settlement seems to have Ьесоmе sparse after the faH of the neo-Assyrian empire in 612 вс, and а process of 'Bedouinization' is at the latest obvious in the first centuries AD. Some urban centres in this area were very prosperous, however. These seem to have Ьееп isolated cities in а deserted hinterland, whose survival depended оп trade, not оп the exploitation of local resources, а subject 1 will discuss in more detail presently. The Euphrates valley seems also to have benefited from intemational trade; its prosperiry lasted untiI те third century AD. The lауои! of the cities in these periods depended greatly upon the time of their foundation. ТЬе old centres seemingly continued with the same basic patterns as before. In Babylon, for instance, а theatre and perhaps also а gymnasium and ап agora were bui1t in the Seleucid period, Ьи! the city did not lose its Babylonian character. The new royal foundations were planned in advance, however, and Seleucia and Dura Europos have а strict Greek Hippodamian layout. The Parthian city of Hatra (Fig. 11.1) reflects ап entirely different plan. It was а round city, 320 hectares in size, surrounded Ьу two concentric walls. In its centre was located а large rectangular official complex, 437 Ьу 322 metres, separated from фе rest of town Ьу а massive wall. Four gates gave access (о the city. Almost its entire surface was covered with houses, grouped in insulae, formed Ьу streets that were not laid out in а regular pattern. The circular plan of the city was new in Mesopotamia, but in Iran several older examples of it are known; thus we see here Parthian influence in city planning. This plan was adopted Ьу the Sasanians who used it for the layout of their new foundation Veh-Ardashir, near Seleucia. In western Syria, а gradual reformation of фе Hellenized cities to the early Islamic madina has Ьееn observed in late antiquiry, their 'dec1ine' due to overpopulation, imperial neglect, and changing ideas аЬои! property,IO but such ап evolution cannot Ье discerned in Mesopotamia. The only planned HeIlenized cities, Seleucia and Dura, did not survive the Sasanian period, and the other cities already had many of те aspects of the early Islamic Hugh Kennedy> 'From PoZis to Madina: Urban Changes in Late Antique and Early Islamic Syria', Pasl and Present 106 (РеЬ. 1985), 3-27. 10

Eclipse

236

01 rhe Ancz·ent Mesopotamz"an City

--:.--_ _ _-.....!n о r t h 9 а te

west gate

2~

~

t r

main t

sanctuar~T"'.1 ~.

·

1

•

-

,~:'~ •

1

~

~ ::::: mausolea /

" •• а. а

~

_ _ 5?Om

sca'e FIG.

11.1

Plan of Hatra

town layout. The only difference was in the layout of the cult complexes-mosques, Christian churches, or synagogues-and perhaps in the introduction of the Muslim school, the madrasa. Тhroughout the periods after 500 вс the majority of urban citizens must have lived in conditions similar to those of their ancestors. Streets remained primarily narrow and winding. Houses main-

Eclipse

0/ the А ncient Mesopotamian

City

237

tained the same courtyard plans as before. Only rarely were Greek architectural forms adopted. Even traditional public buildings at first remained Mesopotamian in outlook. Parthian architecture Ьесаmе а mixture of many different styles, including ancient Mesopotamian fonns: the ground plan of the Gareus temple at Uruk, for instance, is traditional Babylonian. 11 Architectural historians of те Islamic city have emphasized the continuation of traditions going back to the second millennium вс,12 but опе should Ье careful not to see this too much as the result of а conscious policy. ТЬе winding streets and courtyard houses provide фе best protection against the heat and dust of the region, and it is likely for this reason that феу remain popular {о this day. When we look at the есопоту of cities after 539 вс, we see many elements of continuity, but also fundamental changes. Continuity сап Ье seen in agricultural practices. Even if such new crops as rice were introduced, they did not change the basic provisions of food available. Starting in те neo-Babylonian period, Babylonia's аgП culture revivified, continuing into the early Islamic period, based оп the traditional irrigation techniques and crops ofwheat, barley, and dates. Тhe decline of agriculture in the North of Mesopotamia, due to extensive military activity in the region, explains the rarity of urban centres there. Cities such as Hatra, located in а Ьааеn hinterland, must have imported their food. Industrial activity also remained the same as in earlier centuries. The same products were made with the same resources as before, and political changes did not alter these activities. Borsippa, for instance, was famous as а centre of linen production from the Seleucid to the early Islamic periods. 13 However, it is likely that the rnanufacture of certain products was intensified due to increased demand for export. The centralization imposed Ьу Sasanian administrators affected both agriculture and industry, especially in the late fifth century AD. The Sasanians тау have organized shipments of food and basic craft products over long distances, and caused ап unprecedented regional specialization of agriculture and indusrry. Indicative of such specialization are the enonnous н Ernst Heinrich, Sechster vorliiufiger Bericht . .. Uruk- Warka (Вегlin, 1935), 33. 12 e.g. Besim S. Наюm, Arabic-IsZа7niс Cz'ties: BuiZding and Planning Principles (London and New York, 1986). l3 Pauly's Real-ЕnсусZорiidiе der kZassischen Alleтtumswissenschaft 3, Georg Wissowa

(ed.) (Stuttgart, 1899), 735.

238

Eclipse


City

mounds of glass slag found north of Uruk, which suggest that production for те entire Sasanians empire took place there. А radical change in the есопоту did take place, however, in the area of international trade which undeIWent ап enonnous ехрап sion starting in the sixth century вс. Two factors contributed {о this growth: the use of сатеl caravans, and the integration of Mesopotamia into empires with enormous geographical extent. Тhe domestication of the camel and its use as а pack animal in the early first millennium вс, opened ир ап entire network of trade routes crossing the interior of Iran and the Syrian and Arabian desens. The dependence uроп river valleys for the water supply of. travelling caravans disappeared, and oasis cities could Ьесоте transit stations for long-distance trade. Palmyra in Syria, for instance, enjoyed ап ideal location halfway Ьемееn the Euphrates valley and the Mediterranean coast. Travel time between Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean Sea was substantial1y reduced Ьу using а direct road through the desert, whi1e camels also had greater speed and endurance than other pack animals previously used, covering а much greater distance in one day. А wide array of new trade routes from east to west and north to south Ьесате thus accessible, and areas previously out of the reach of Mesopotamian traders, such as south and central Arabia, now Ьесате frequent destinations. But the new means of transportation Ьу itself would nо! have been sufficient to have caused the enormous expansion of intemational trade. ТЬе fact that Mesopotamia Ьесаmе рап of а succession of enormous empires gave its traders freedom of movement in а wide geographical area and imperial diplomatic protection in foreign lands. Already the ~eo-Babylonian empire stretched from western Iran to Egypt, providing traders safe passage from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. Under the Achaemenids, this area was extended permanently {о include Egypt and Anatolia in the west, and Iran, Afghanistan and India in the east. Under the Seleucids) Arsacids, and Sasanians this area had shrunk somewhat, but still enonnous regions were ruled Ьу the same regime that control1ed Mesopotamia. Emperors provided diplomatic assistance to traders in their interactions with foreign powers. Direct contacts berween Parthian and Chinese rulers are attested in the first centuries AD, including trade along {Ье famous 'Silk Route'.

~ .

...........................

..... . ,

I

.... ..... . .. . . .. .. •.. • .0 .. ••

·~l······· о

Q

~

~ -...

~.

~

~ ~

•

~

~ ~

с")

""".

~

•• IJ· •••••••••••• •

"'t" ~

Q;'

~

.' •• l'aJmyra

~

~

I.ц

J... ... Q

с-')

~ (';)

lц

~

~ ~

~. ~

D ~.

~ о

I

300 km J

sCBle

Charax Spasinu

pl/;'s G

и

А

I N L F

tv

ы

FIG.11.2

Trade routes of the Ancient Near East

\с>

240

Eclipse 01 the Ancient Mesopotamian City

Moreover, the existence of те Roman and Byzantine empires, with а clientele that desired supp1ies of exotic products from the East was аН to the benefit of Mesopotamian traders. Silk, spices, aromatics-, slaves, gold, and silver а11 passed through Mesopotamia оп their way to markets in the west. In return, primary manufactures, such as woollen cloth and glass, were exported to те east. Glass from Iran and Babylonia was highly prized in China. In addition, some natural products, such as purple dyes, olive oil, wine, pomegranates, and other fruits were a1so shipped eastward. Тhis is not to say that the trade was physically undertaken Ьу Mesopotamians themselves, Ьи! that they acted as middlemen in аН these transactions. Тhe trade was а transit trade, and the area of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris lay а! the nodal point of аН routes of this trade. The 'Silk Route' from China, which opened ир at те latest in the first century ЛD, channelled overland trade from India, Afghanistan:l and eastern Iran into те west via the Diyala river valley. Sea trade from India, south Arabia, and east Лfriса arrived а! те Persian Gulf harbour of Charax Spasinu, and was directed ир the Tigris river to the vicinity of Seleucia. From Seleucia two main routes were used {о transport the goods further west. One followed the Tigris river north-westvvard and either cut across to те Mediterranean just south ofthe Taurus mountains or went into Anatolia оп its way to the Aegean coast. The other crossed overland to Hatra and Dura Europos) whence it either followed the Euphrates or went overland through the desen {о Palmyra and further west. Thus те Tigris acquired ап unprecedented importance, and several ofthe new trading cities were built оп its banks. Older cities such as Assur and Nineveh probably owed their survival to та! trade as well. In northern Syria cities like Nisibis, Напап (= Carrhae), and Edessa likewise flourished, while the desert cities of Напа, Dura Europos, and Palmyra could not have existed without this trade.

This rrade was nOI direcrly controlled Ьу те major political powers, however, but Ьу the more or less independent trading cities in the region. Charax Spasinu, Seleucia, Hatra, Dura Europos, Palmyra, and so оп functioned with а large degree of autonomy. Their independence enabled the trade to continue during the long and devastating territorial wars between eastern and western powers, often fought out оп Mesopotamian soi1. Тhe imperial authorities encouraged this situation: they benefited from

Eclipse


City

241

the transit taxes and the selection of goods made available to them . .Consequently, the fate of these trading cities did not depend directly ироп their geographical surroundings. Politically and есо nomically.) феу were like oases.) rather than cities integrated within their hinterlands. Although similar situations had existed previously in the Near East-for instance with the Phoenician trading centres of the early first millennium-the heartland of Mesopotamia had never known such conditions. There, intemational trade had always Ьееn ап aspect of the urban есопоту, integrated with agriculture and industrial production. ТЬе caravan cities were thus innovations in the Mesopotamian environment. А tremendous amount offinancial activity probably took place in these trading cities.) and in other cities as well. During the Achaemenid period, private 'banking' houses such as the Egibi in ВаЬуl0n and the Мuгаshб in Nippur were extensively involved in the financing of agriculture and trade. Credit operations were widespread at that time.) both for consumer and investment purposes. No basic differences with те earlier periods are noticeable. But with the Seleucid period.) evidence for such activity becomes rarer. ТЬе records start focusing ироп the transactions of the temples, which continued to function as in the past. ТЬе есопоту was entirely run ироп а monetary basis with silver used for every transaction. 14 Financial activity Ьу private individuals is clear from parchment and papyrus records found at Dura.) 15 but the number ofthese records remains limited. Coinage.) introduced into the area Ьу the Achaemenids, does not fill the documentary gap. We know that Seleucia was а royal mint into the Parthian period, Ьи! we do ПО! know what was done with the coins, ог how extensive their use was among private citizens. The lack of documentation should not Ье taken as indicative of а change in the financial role of urban residents in the есопоту, only as the unfonunate 10ss of evidence for such activity. Changes in the political structure of Mesopotamian cities have been hotly debated Ьу scholars attempting to determine the impact See e.g. the records published Ьу Gi1ben McEwan, 'Arsacid Temple Records', Iraq 43 (1981), 131-43. 15 e.g. С. Bradford Welles, The PaTchments and Раруп (Excavations а! Dura Europos. Final Reports V/l; New Haven, 1959), 109-22 where severalloan records are published, staring circumstances and conditions simi1ar to those found earlier in 14

Mesopotamian material.

242

Eclipse 01 the Ancient Mesopotamian CilY

ofHellenism оп the ancient Near East. In а sense, the discussion is futile, as it often ignores the earlier civic institutions of Mesopotaтian cities,_ while portraying the Greek polis as ап idealized democratic urban society that certainly did по! exist in the late fourth century, if it had ever existed at аН. As 1 pointed out in ап earlier chapter, many aspects of urban government continued from те пео-ВаЬуlопiаnJАсhаеmепid into the Seleucid periods. Cities had а great deal of autonomy and maintained political institutions, such as те assembly. That assembly тау resemble the Greek bOllZe, but that does not mean that its activities changed from pre-Greek times. ТЬе temple organization and its importance in Babylonian society remained. Officials with Greek titles, such as epistates, were introduced within this existing structure) and their responsibility remained the representation of the community in its interactions with те royal administration, as had Ьееп the case before wirh officials with traditional Babylonian titles. The latter continued to use their old titles when dealing with the native communiry. Тhere is по indication та! the new Seleucid cities were treated differently from the older ones. Their governmental structure~ including Seleucia's, is not really known {о us in this period. Ви! in the Parthian period assemblies stil1 existed there. According to а Syriac text of the seventh century, Seleucia had three assemblies in те first and second centuries AD: for the elders, for the young теn, and for the boys. The Aramaic term used for assembly was puhra, obviously а survival of the identical ancient Akkadian term. 16 ТЬе Parthian kings allqwed cities а great deal of autonomy: their trading activities brought substantial income to the crown) and the new rulers тау not have had the experience needed (о administer the vast geographical area they controlled. ТЬеге was по need to change existing mechanisms та! had proved their worth. The Sasanians тау at first have continued this practice, Ьи! they finally limited urban autonomy. Both new foundations and older cities were instituted under а policy of political and economic centralization, and cities turned into military garrisons and centres of гоуаl administration. Early Muslim rulers continued this trend, clamping down оп urban autonomy. We сап, however, say that the concept ofthe Mesopotamian urban community as ап autonomous 16 N. Pigulevskaja, Les Villes de l'erac ira12ieJ1 аuх epoqlles parthe ес sassanide. Contribucion а l'Jzisxoire so"iale de la Basse А 12 tiquice (Paris and ТЬе Hague) 1963), 84-

5.

EcZipse 01 the Ancient Mesopotamian City

243

body, represented to фе crown Ьу se~ected individuals, survived for тапу centuries of foreign rule over the region. Thus а situation that had originated under local dynasties was perpetuated опее independence was 108t. Socially, the ethnic diversity of {Ье urban populations increased with the ability of various peoples of the empire to settle in Mesopotamia~ which was always опе of the most prosperous regions. · Again, this was а continuation of trends that had started earlier, especially Ьу the deportation policies of the Assyrian and пе 0Babylonian kings. Already under the Achaemenids, Babylonia housed а great variety of foreign people, including Phoenicians, Judaeans, Egyptians, Arabs, Phrygians, Lydians, Carians, Armenians, Indians, and Persians, mixing with indigenous Babylonianswhatever that meant in this period-and Chaldaeans. Certain of these communities тау have resisted assimi1ation, but а great deal of cultural and ethnic mixing took place. АН spoke Aramaic and adopted Babylonian name8. The Macedonian conquest introduced а European element in this mixture. Despite A1exander's alleged desire to merge Asiatic and European cultures and peoples, the Greek and Macedonian populations seem то have maintained а distance from the Mesopotamians. In Babylon, evidence of Greek occupation is limited to а small area in the north-east sector of the city, and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris was seemingly built as а Greek counterpart of the Mesopotamian metropo!is. А number of Babylonians were allowed {о adopt Greek паЦ1еs and to work in the Greek administration, but apparently по Greek wanted (о do the reverse. lt is quite likely that new immigrants from Europe continued to arrive throughout the Seleucid period,17 so а policy of segregation could Ье maintained. У et, we should nо! exaggerate те Greek lack of interest in the natives and their culture. Some adoption of Babylonian practices, among them the use of сlау tablets, is attested. Why should we assume that Greeks did not mаny native Babylonians? They could пос Ьауе avoided seeing them, even in cities such as Seleucia, and we kпow that they were not averse to mixed marriages in places like Egypt. The situation changed when the Parthians took over control of the area. We have по idea what happened in most cities due to а See Pierre Briant) 'Renforts grecs dans les cites hellenistiques d'Orient', in Rois~ u-ibucs ес paysallS (Besan The Medirerra'llean and the Medicerтanea11 World 'in the Age 01 Philip 11 (New York, 1973). 17

Conclusions

259

tion that extends far beyond the issue of urbanism and that needs much more exploration. It is hoped that it will Ье given serious consideration Ьу scholars Ьот of the ancient Near East and the Graeco-Roman world. Сап we say that there was а Mesopotamian city, i.e. а {уре that сап Ье found both in Babylonia and Assyria? Here again the answer depends оп how far one is willing to make abstractions. It seems that there were differences between Babylonia and Assyria in the role and importance of the city, differences that at some times of their histories тау have been more acute than at others. In origin, те divergences were due to the ecological conditions of the мо regions. In БаЬуlопiа, the arid countryside and the dependence ироп irrigation for agriculture limited the possibilities of settlement and caused the need for redistributive centres. In the rain-fed areas of Assyria, settlement in self-sufficient viIlages throughout the countryside was possible. ТЬе first cities in Assyria were artificial foundations for political ог trading purposes, often inspired Ьу southem stimuli. Urban life in те two regions has to Ье considered separately, although mutual infiuences have led to many similarities between Фет as well. In Babylonia, the city was the most important social and economic institution for the entire society. Babylonia is one of the few areas in the world where ап urban society developed without outside influence, entirely due to local circumstances. 1n most periods of its history} from roughly 3000 to 1600 вс and from 700 ВС to AD 700 те level of urbanization was extremely high, with major urban centres within sight of one another. Cities were тЬе centres of the economy, the political institutions, and фе culture. Whenever Babylonia flourished economically, cities were needed to enable the exchange of locally produced agricultural and manufactured products. Either the public institutions situated in the cities distributed these goods to their dependants, or ап uгЬап market financed and organized Ьу private entrepreneurs enabled their acquisition. International trade was of secondary importance in [Ьа! it procured prestige goods for а small elite, not for the majority ofthe Babylonians-, and, until the Seleucid period, по city seems (о have Ьееп founded there for trading purposes опlу. The city was of paramount importance in the political life of Babylonia: по ruler could claim real power without ап urban base. Such ап attitude сап Ье well understood, since по positive

260

Conclusions

economic role could Ье played without access to а city. In ideology and in practice, the city dominated political life. Non-urban segments of the society, such as villagers and pastoral nomads) were considered to Ье dependent ироп а particular town. People who did not have such ап affiliation were outcasts, brigands. ТЬе king resided in the city to Ье with his gods and his bureaucracy. Не could not Ье а tribal leader, using existing cities for trading purposes or the like. The entire high culture of Babylonia was also focused ироп те city in that it housed its primary patrons, the temples and the court. Babylonian civilization cannot Ье imagined without cities. ТЬе situation was different in Assyria, although БаЬуlопiап influence also generated many similarities Ьемееп the two regions. Since cities were not needed for the exchange of locally produced goods, they did not develop independently. They were created for long-distance trading or for political purposes. The ephemeral urban foundations of the North in те third millennium were organized under Babylonian influence, for trade and perhaps for political control of the region. Most of these cities disappeared when southern influence waned. Those that survived) like Assur, were perhaps primarily trading centres, specializing in transit trade between various regions. \Vhen а second wave ofurbanization took рlасе in the early second rnillennium, the cities were primarily bases of political control of the region. Assyrian rulers founded them for administrative purposes throughout the territorial states they tried to create. In Assyria the political powers created the cities; in Babylonia the cities created political power. The dominant element in Assyrian society was те соип, which used the cities for its own purposes. In economic terms) mапу Assyrian cities, such as the imperial capitals, were а drain ироп the region rather than ап asset. They disrupted the rural есопоmу Ьу their excessive demands-consumer cities par excellence. Ви! the regions had such close and permanent contacts that the mutual influences were great, and over time these differences were smoothed :out. The similarities in their attitude towards игЬап life are most obvious in the ideology towards cities and in the cultural role of the cities. Both Babylonians and Assyrians saw те city as the centre of the universe, the heart of their culture and religion, the proper habitat of а civilized person. T}:le social role of юе city, with its ability to gather people of different backgrounds and separ-

261

Conclusions

ate affinities, was also the same ... And, over time, the relationship between cities and the state Ье.сате also more alike: Assur, the· cultural centre of Assyria, claimed the same urban privileges as did the Babylonian cities of ancient standing. 1 think thus that we сап speak of ап ideal {УРе of the ancient Mesopotamian city, which showed different characteristics in Babylonia and Assyria. ·Л 10t more work needs to Ье done {о improve our knowledge of Mesopotamian urbanism. Problemoriented research, both Ьу archaeologists and philologists, сап elucidate many of the topics discussed in this book, and several projects of this nature are in progress. Archaeologists сап devore more attention to the residential areas of the walled cities, to suburbs, and even to villages. Reconstructions of entire town plans have Ьееп artempted through aerial photography and surface scraping, but still the focus of excavations is оп monumental buildings. It is, obviously, impossible to excavate

ап

entire city.,

thus only sample areas in residential zones сап Ье investigated in this manner. Remains of villages are not so easy to identify in the countryside, while grant agencies and archaeological services seem to show little interest in providing funding ог pennits for their excavation. Yet, in order to understand aspects of urban geography, it is necessary to contrast the city to non-urban setrlements. There is also а great need to understand the natural environments of cities, and to determine their agricultural potential in antiquity. Such research would enable us (о study the availability of foods, their procurement Ьу citizens, and the ability of the hinterlands to support cities in individual cases. Projects of this nature are now regularly undertaken, around the Assyrian city Dur-Katlimmu оп the Habur in Syria, for ехатрlе,18 and will yield crucial insights оп the basis of the Mesopotamian есопоту,

.

agriculture. Philologists сап analyse materials already available {о them in order to elucidate many of the problems of urban life. Information оп the governmental strucrure, for instance, could probably Ье culled from the abundant business correspondence of several periods ofhistory. Ifbacked Ьу а concern to understand the role ofthe 18

Hartmut Kuhne, Die reZeJlLe Umwell von Tall SёJ; Hamad und пасеn zur

Unzwelzrekonstruktion der assyn·sche1l Stadt

DUr-Каr.l-inzmu

(Berlin, 1991).

262

Со nclusions

city, те writing of social histories of particular cities would seem very useful and feasible, especially in periods other than the early second millennium, for which such studies already exist. Such histories will Ье filled with lacunae because of the total absence of data оп many questions, but еуеп in that form they сап lead to а better understanding of remporal and regional variations in urban life. In general, Mesopotaтian historians should Ье aware of the urban bias of the documentation available to them~ and evaluate that material in this light. Land sales, rental contracts, business agreements, and so оп, are evidence of activities Ьу игЬап landlords and businessтen. They do по! necessarily reflect the most сот топ situations in Mesopotamia. Ап understanding of Hfe in the countryside, even if it is based оп scanty evidence, is needed то provide а fоП for our image of the city. Projects of this nature require the careful analysis of numerous documents, edited and unedited, and need to Ье undertaken Ьу а large nuтber of individual researchers concentrating оп а particular place or time. ТЬеу provide the necessary basis for. more general studies of urbanism. Оп the other hand, we have to resign ourselves to the fact that certain aspects ofurban life in Mesopotamia will never Ье known to. us, or that our reconstructions of them will Ье extremely tentative. We will never obtain а clear portrait of daily life in the Mesopotamian city, ап unreasonable aim in any case as there is по paradigmatic city. Essays which hope to show 'а day in the Hfe of' ап individual of а particular city are simi1arly impossible. The lack of narrative sources in Mesopotamian historiography makes it irnpossible to do more than imagine how опе of the innumerable теп and women known to us Ьу пате spent the day а! work, а! Ьоте, with friends, or wherever. Ехсер! for а f~w kings, whose personality is to some extent revealed to us, the Mesopotamian person we study is а faceless апе, а пате with а profession, some records and earthly goods. We сап develop vivid images of а citizen ofUruk or the like, but тost ofthat would Ье in те realm offantasy.What а Mesopotamian city would Ьауе looked like during the day is hard to say. Ви! at night) реасе and quiet descended when people had gone to sleep, as this testimony of а diviner, forced to stay awake, attests:

Conclusions

263

ТЬе

noble ones are safely guarded, doorbolts drawn, rings in place. ТЬе noisy people are fallen silent, the doors are barred that were open. Gods of the land, goddesses of the land, Shamash, Sin, Adad, and Ishtar are gone off to the lap of heaven, They will give по j udgment, they will decide по cases. Night draws а veil, the palace is h ushed, те ореn land is deadly stil1, ТЬе wayfarer cries out {о а god, even the petitioner (of this отеп) keeps оп sleeping! The true judge, the father to the orphaned, Shamash has gone off to his bedchamber. 19

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Оп

Syro-Palestinian cities, see Giorgio Buccellati, Cities and Naciolls 0/ Ancien[; Syna (Rome, 1967). The archaeological informatiоп, primarily from Palestinian sites, has Ьееn sumтarized Ьу Ze)ev Herzog, 'Cities iп the Levant', The Anchor Bible DicEionary 1 (New York, 1992), 1032-43. For the Bronze Age, see Jean-Louis Huot ес al., Naissance des ciles (Paris, 1990). For Anatolia the literature is very slim. Some remarks оп urban settlements in сЬе third and second millennia сап Ье found in Rudolf Naumann, Architektur Юеinаsiеns, 2nd edn. (Tiibingen, 1971), 204-35. ТЬе literature оп Egyptian cities is steadily growing. See most recently те contributions Ьу Fakri А. Hassan. and David O'Connor to Thurstan Shaw еЕ al. (eds.), The Archaeology 0/А/пса: Food, Metals and Towns (London, 1993), 551-86 . Also important are the insights in Barry J. I(emp, Ancien[; Egypt: Anatomy 01 а Civilization (London, 1989). Trans. Benjamin R. Foster, Before rhe Muses (Bethesda, 1993) 1, 146, quoted permission.

19

Ьу

INDEX

АЬи Salabikh 94, 112 Achaemenid 147, 230, 238 Adams, R. мсс. 2, 3, 12, 27-8, 29, 34, 110, 164, 232 Adapa 61 'ТЬе Advice [о а Prince' 136 agriculture 14,27,96, 142-58, 1701, 237, 255-6 Akheraten 251 Akkade 42, 86 Alexander of Macedon 54, 229 al Mada'in 166, 232 Amorites 46, 114-15, 124 Amurru 216 Anatolia 250-1 ancestry 107-8 ancient urbanism 4-5, 192-3, 252-8 Anu 37 apprenticeship 178-9 Arbela 43, 48 Aristotle 1, 18, 95 Arrapha 102, 103, 106, 130, 146 assembly 121-8, 138, 242, 258 Assur (city) 48, 49, 50" 60, 66, 73-5, 124) 128,135, 158,161,183,190, 192, 198-9, 233, 240, 255) 260, 261 Assur (god) 48, 51 Assurbanipal 57, 135 Assurna~irpal 11 54, 55, 68, 95, ,155 Assyria, natural conditions 8, 38-9, 167 Assyrian Кing List 49 astronomy 225-6, 230

Babylon 1, 4, 10, 42-3, 47, 48) 49, 51, 56, 59, 60, 75-6, 76, 77, 78, 79, 86-9, 95, 97, 108, 134, 135, 154, 160, 1б6, 167, 183, 206, 216, 221, 224-6, 230, 232, 235, 241, 243 Babylonia, natural condirions 8, 28-9, 165

Bairoch, Р. 25, 97 barter 29, 154-5 Basra 233 beer 145, 156, 161 Berossos 61 Blanton, R. 11 Borsippa 86-9, 135, 166,167, 231, 237 Boserup, Е. 28 bottomry loans 200-1 Braudel, F. 6, 11, 258 bread 145} 156 bureaucracy 18, 36, 120, 143, 204, 211 bureaucrats 221 burials 83 Byblos 249 camel 238 canals 59, 78, 84, 93, 158-9, 160, 162,163,165,170 135) 240 Harris, R. 129 Hatra 233, 235, 237) 240 Hattusas 250 l]azannu1n 130-2

Herodotus 75, 89, 166 Eanarum 33 Ebla 39 Edessa 240 Edict of Ammi~aduqa 206 Egibi 241 Egypt 10, 38, 151, 251 el-Amarna 251 elders 124-5 Emar 171 Engels, F. 104, 109 Enkidu 44 Enlil 46, 47> 222, 224 entrepreneurs 203-11 'Epic of Creation' 47, 134, 218, 224 'Epic of Gilgamesh) 44, 46, 75, 82~ 216

Erbil 233 Ereshkigal 44 Eridu 29, 49, 77 'Еаа

Epic' 45-6 Esarhaddon 56, 136, 158 erhnicity 112-15) 243-4 ethno-archaeology 4, 96 exchange 27-8> 29, 142, 143, 157-8

hinterlands 161-72 houses 81-2) 96-7 Hunt, R. 143 Ibbi-Sin 166 Iddin-Marduk 167, 206-1 О, 213 ideology 31-3 import 188 Inanna 32, 38, 42) 216 industrial sectorS 82 inner city 72-94 institutional workshops 181 Ishme-Dagan 139 Ishtar 48 Isin 181

Isin dynasty 49 Israe1ites 113 Jacobs, J. 25-6, 256 Jacobsen, Тh. 128) 133-5, 164 Jebel Aruda 38 Jericho 25> 26 Jerusalem 51 jewellery 180

lndex Jezirah 167-8 113 }udaeans 113, 166 juridical organization 121

Josephus

Kahun 251 Kalhu 48, 50, 54, 55, 68з 73, 91, 95, 155, 161" 168 Kanish 65-7, 124з 126, 190, 199,212 Kar-Tukulti-Ninuna 53, 59, 91, 95, 168 Kassites 16 Кhuzistan 167

kidinnu 135-8 king 118-20, 126 kinship groups 27, 103-1 О, 257 Кish 123, 166з 232 КоlЬ, Frank 257-8 Кufз 233 Kurigalzu 1 53 Kutha 166, 231 Lagash 9, 33, 165 land exploitarion 147-9 land ownership 145-7 Larak 43 Larsa 49, 82, 204, 21 О, 232 Layard, А. Н. 1 library of Assurbanipal 218 Liverani, М. 13, 15, 29 literacy 18, 220 literature 218, 223, 244 loans 17, 197-8, 200-1, 205, 212 Manishtushu 104

267

Mosul plains 167-8 Murashu fami1y 210, 241 Nabonidus 57, 77з 137, 225 Nabopolassar 88, 158 Nanna 46 Nebuchadnezar 11 51, 88 neighbourhoods 112, 183 new cities 53-61, 83-4, 86-93 Nimrud 233; see also КаlЬи Nineveh 4, 10, 48з 54, 78, 91, 92, 93, 95, 97,168, 170, 183,218, 233, 240:s 255 Ningirsu 33, 46, 56-7, 105 Ninhursag 33 Ninkasi 156 Ninurta 48 Nippur 46, 47, 79} 131, 135, 136, 139, 158-9, 165} 179, 183, 21 О, 218, 220, 222-4} 232, 241 Nippur тар 63-4, 78, 82, 158 Nisibis 240 nomads 2, 34, 4З-6:s 49, 102, 132:s 163, 170,215,216 nuclear family 15, 101, 107, 109 Nuzi 71, 130 Oates, D. 168 occidental city 252-5 omens 35,57,118-19,218-19,225 Орреnhеiш, А. L. 3, 7, 8, 13, 152, 221-2 orchards 67-8, 144 oriental city 252-4 oriental despotism 5,118-19,253

Мапп, М. ЗО, З5

Marduk 47, 48, 56, 57, 59, 134, 216, 224 Mari 34, 39, 170-2 market 157, 189, 209 'ТЬе Marriage of Marru) 216 Manu 216-17 Mashkan-shapir 95 mауог 90, 129-32 Mellaan, James 26 merchants 31, 66 metallurgy 188 military installations 94 mi1irary power 33-5, 40, 119, 147 milling 155-6 mоа{ 76, 88 Morgan, L. Н. 103-4, 109 Mosul 234

palace 15, 16,18-19,34з 52, 77, 78, 84, 89, 94, 110, 146-7, 181, 185, 189, 202, 204, 206 Palmyra 238, 240 Parthian 229, 230, 233 partnership agreements 198-9, 208 Pirenne, Н. 11 Pliny 225 poets 222 Polanyi) К. 1 3 polis 138, 242 political power 35-6, 40, 48, 52, 260 pollution 159 'The Poor Man of Nippur' 131 population estimates 95-7, 162-3 pottery 176-8 Powell, М. 38

268

Index

prebends 111 primitive democracy 13 з- 5 primitivism-rnodernism debate 13-18> 254 private businessmen 157 private household 16-17 procurement of agricu1tural produce 203-11 professional associations 108-9, 11011 Qattara 85

rabianum 129-32 rations 154-5. redistribution 16, 24, 27, 154, 21 7

Reiner, Е. 44-5 religion 24, 26-7, 31-2,40, 46-8, 215-17) 223-4, 257

Renger, J. 13, 15 rise of cities> theories 24-8 river ordeal 215-16 rivers 65, 158-9, 160, 167, 215-16 rock reliefs 219-20 тоуаl foundations 53-4 royal inscrip tions 21 9

I

sale documents 9> 157, 160, 180-1> 204 salinization 163-4 Sзrgоn 11 50, 54-5, 55-6, 58~ 60-1, 169 Sargon of Akkade 34, 53) 59, 86 Sasanian 230, 233 scholars 222 schools 220-1 scribes 221-2 Seleucia-on-the-Tigris 4, 224, 232, 235, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244 Seleucid 138, 147, 229> 230 Seleucus 1 232 Sennacherib 50,51,54,56,78,93, 97, 161 settlemen't patterns 3 sewage 159 Shaduppum 89 Shahr-i-Sokhte 38 Shalmaneser V 49, 50 Shamash-shuma-ukin 135 Shamshi-Adad 49, 86 Shapur 234 Shemshara 233 Shubat-Enli1 50, 85-6, 95

Shulgi 223 Shuruppak 151-2 Silk Route 238, 240 si1ver 204, 213., 241 Sin 48, 57 Sippar 3, 4, 72, 77, 129, 135, 160, 1-66, 210., 218 size of cities 94-5 Sjoberg, G. 28 social structure 15-1 7 street names 79, 183 streets 66-7, 78-81, 84, 85, 88, 91, 112, 237 storage houses 186 substantivist-formalist debate 13 suburbs 68-72, 82, 86 Sumerian Кing List 49, 223

Susa 4, 38 Syria-Palestine 248-50

tax records 5 ТеН t"Atij 150, 171 ТеН Brak 85 ТеН Тауа 69-71, 79, 158 temple 15) 16,18-19,24,27, зо, 31, 52, 73, 77, 84, 89, 90, 94, 111, 12 О, 138, 146-7, 179, 181, 185, 202, 210, 215-17 temple-city 9 temple of Nabu 5а l)are 221 tenant farmers 147-8, 149, 203, 205, 210 textile industry 185-7> 191 Third Dynasty of Ur 14, 34-5, 36, 165-6, 223 threshing floor 149-50 Tiglath-Pi1eser 111 136 trade 40; local 157-8, 185-7; long distance 24-5,27, 30-1, 67, 187-91, 198-202, 238-41, 259, 260 transport 25-6, 151, 162,165,167, 168-70 Tukulti-Ninurta 1 53, 55, 59, 73 Tyre 250 Umma 33,165 unplanned cities 84-6

Ur 29, 31, 37, 46, 71, 83, 95, 150, 165, 181, 185-6, 187, 192,199200, 213, 218, 220 Urartu 135, 251 U ru~inimg1na 33

Index Uruk 4, 29, 37-8, 39, 44, 46, 61, 75, 82,94,108,111,123, 127, 135, 165, 181-2, 210, 232, 237, 238, 244 Urokug 49 Uruk vase 32 usufruct of land 148

Veh-Ardashir (Coche) 232, 235 vilIage communities 18, 40, 104 vil1ages 2, 4, 12, 39, 68, 86, 102-3, 162,163, 166, 176, 187,192

269

Wasit 233 Weber, М. 11, 14, 192, 248, 2529 wells 160-1 Wheatley, Р. 11, 24 'Why do уои curse те?' 224 Woolley, L. 71 writing 37, 38, 217-22, 230-1

Xenophon 73 ziggurat 77, 89

The Ancient Mesopotamian City

The Ancient Mesopotamian City

Mesopotamian Chronicles (Writings from the Ancient World)

The City in Ancient Israel

Pacific Moon - Ancient City

Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence

Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Mesopotamian Civilizations, 8)

Prophecy in its ancient Near Eastern context: Mesopotamian, biblical, and

Mesopotamian planetary astronomy-astrology

Child of an Ancient City

Pacific Moon - Ancient City II

Trade, Traders and the Ancient City

Death and Desease in the Ancient City

Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography

The Book of Ezekiel - Patterned After a Mesopotamian City Lament (Ph.D. Thesis)

The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur. An Epistolary History of an Ancient Mesopotamian Kingdom

Ancient Rome: City Planning and Administration

Mesopotamian protective spirits: the ritual texts

The survival of ancient anatolian and mesopotamian vocabulary until the present

The City & the City

The City & The City

The City & The City

The City & The City

The City & The City

The City & The City

The City & The City

The City & The City

The City & the City

The City & The City

The City & the City

The City and The City

The Ancient Mesopotamian City