Mesopotamian dimātu of the Second Millennium BC 9781841712833, 9781407323855

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
List of Figures and Graphs
Dedication
INTRODUCTION
PART I. DIMĀTU IN WRITTEN SOURCES
I. DEFINITION OF DIMTU IN THE KINGDOM OF ARRAPHE
II. TERRITORIAL AND TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF DIMTU OUTSIDE THE KINGDOM OF ARRAPHE
PART II. DIMĀTU IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
III. THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF DIMTU SETTLEMENTS
IV. THE SURVEY METHOD AS A MEANS OF DISCOVERING DIMTU SETTLEMENTS
PART III. STUDIES OF DIMĀTU PROBLEM
V. CHRONOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF DIMTU ESTATES IN THE ARRAPHE KINGDOM
VI. THE ECONOMIC BACKGROUND AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DIMTU INSTITUTION
PART IV. CONCLUSION
VII. THE MESOPOTAMIAN DIMĀTU OF THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC
PART V. BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABBREVIATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PART VI. APPENDICES

Citation preview

BAR S1004 2001

Mesopotamian dimātu of the Second Millennium BC

KOLIŃSKI MESOPOTAMIAN DIMĀTU OF THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC

Rafał Koliński

BAR International Series 1004 B A R

2001

Mesopotamian dimQtu of the Second Millennium BC Rafal Kolinski

BAR International Series 1004 2001

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1004 Mesopotamian dimatu of the Second Millennium BC

© R Kolinski and the Publisher 2001 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841712833 paperback ISBN 9781407323855 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841712833 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd/ Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2001. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

EMAIL

PHONE FAX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS

List of figures and graphs Figures Graphs

V V V

Introduction

IX

PART I:

DIMATUIN

I. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

Definition of dimtu in the kingdom of ArraptJ.e Meaning of the word dimtu Dimtu as a construction Dimtu as a settlement Dimtu as a territorial unit Dimtu as a social phenomenon Summary

3 5 8 16 18 19

II.

11.1 11.1.1 ll.1.2 II.1.3 11.1.4 11.1.5 ll.1.6 ll.2 ll.2.1 ll.2.2 11.3 11.4

Territorial and temporal distribution of dimtu outside the kingdom of ArraptJ.e Southern Mesopotamia The Ur III period The Old Babylonian period The Middle Assyrian period The Middle Babylonian/Kassite period The Neo-and Late Babylonian period Summary Elam The second millennium The Neo-Assyrian period Syria Summary

22 22 22 22 30 32 32 33 33 33 35 35 36

PART II:

DIMATUIN

III.

The archaeology of dimtu settlements Tell FalJar The excavations at Tell FalJar The identification of Tell FalJar The family archives at Tell FalJar The name of the dimtu settlement discovered at Tell Fahar Tell Sabi Abyad The Mitannian period structure The Middle Assyrian dunnu Other possible dimtu or dunnu settlements

39 39 39 45 52 59

The survey method as means of discoverning dimtu settlements The method Analysis of results of surveys undertaken in Northern Mesopotamia The Rania/Dokan Plain survey The Tigris Valley The Northern Jazira Plain and the Jjabur Triangle The lower and middle ]jabur valley The middle Euphrates valley The BalilJ valley Overview of the survey evidence from northern Mesopotamia

64

Ill. I III.1.1 III.1.2 lll.1.3 lll.1.4 lll.2 lll.2.1 III.2.2

111.3

IV. IV. I IV.2 IV.2.1 IV.2.2 IV.2.3 IV.2.4 IV.2.5 IV.2.6 IV.2.7

1

WRITTEN SOURCES

3

37

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

111

60 60 61 63

64 65 65 65 67 70 71 72

74

IV.3 IV.4 IV.5

Historical interpretation of settlement patterns in second millennium BC northern Mesopotamia Southern Mesopotamia Summary

76 81 88

PART III:

STUDIESONDIMATU PROBLEM

89

V.

Chronological perspective of dimtu estates in the Arrapb,e kingdom

91

VI. VI.l VI.2 VI.3 VI.4

The economic background and the origin of the dimtu institution The dimtu as a specific element of the culture of second millennium BC Mesopotamia Economic activities in dimatu The dimtu district-administrative or taxation unit? The origin of dimatu

103

103 109 110 122

PART IV: CONCLUSION

123

VII.

The Mesopotamian dimatu of the second millennium BC

125

PART V:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

129

Abbreviations

131

Bibliography

135

APPENDICES

149

Appendix A: A list of dimtu settlements occuring in the texts from the kingdom of Arrapb,e

151

Appendix B: Dimtu settlements outside the kingdom of Arrapb,e

155

Appendix C: Results of surveys conducted in Mesopotamia

159

Appendix D: Dating of tablets mentioning dimtu settlements according to scribal generations

181

Appendix E: Scribes of the Nuzi tablets

189

Appendix F: Economic activities held within dimtu settlements

198

Appendix G: A reconstruction

201

PARTVI:

of the inventory of finds from Tell Fab,ar according to TF numbers

Appendix H: Archives from Tell Fab,ar

206

Appendix I: The contextual analysis of the appearance of the term dimtu in the Nuzi tablets

218

IV

LIST OF FIGURES AND GRAPHS FIGURES Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

1. Dimtu Selwul]u. A reconstructed plan of the settlement, according to HSS 13, 363

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Tell Fal]ar. Plan of the site showing the extent of trenches (after Khalesi 1977b, Fig. 2) Tell Fal]ar. The "Green Palace" oflayer II (after Khalesi 1977b, Fig. 3) Tell Fal]ar. The development stages of the "Green Palace" Cylinder seal oflijasunaja, found in Room 9 of the "Green Palace" (after Rawi 1977, Fig. 10) Tell Sabi Abyad. The Mitannian period stage of the tower (after Akkermans et al. 1993, Fig. 4-5) Tell Sabi Abyad. The Middle Assyrian dunnu (after Akkermans/Wiggermann 1999, Fig. on p. 59)

GRAPHS Graph Graph Graph Graph Graph Graph

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Graph 7. Graph 8. Graph 9. Graph 10. Graph 11. Graph 12.

Distribution of second millennium BC sites identified on the Rania plain Distribution of second millennium BC sites identified during the North Jazira Survey Distribution of second millennium BC sites identified during the Northeastern Syria Survey Distribution of second millennium BC sites identified in the northern part of the Balil}Valley Distribution of second millennium BC sites identified in the southern part of the Balil}Valley Site distribution in the region of the Northeastern Syria Survey after a proportional adjusting of Meijer's results according to those of Weiss Distribution of second millennium BC sites identified during the Diyala Survey Distribution of second millennium BC sites identified during the Akkad Survey Distribution of second millennium BC sites identified during the Central Floodplain of Euphrates Survey Distribution of second millennium BC sites identified during the Uruk Countryside Survey Distribution of second millennium BC sites identified during the Ur Regional Survey according to their calculated area A comparison of numerical data concerning dated tablets, dated tablets mentioning dimatu and reconstructed date for the establishing of 27 dimatu

V

To Xenia

INTRODUCTION My interest in dimatu dates back to the mid-nineties when I was preparing for publication the results of the excavations of the MBA layers at Tell Rijim, a small site located on the right side of the Tigris in northern Iraq. Beside studying the pottery and the discovered structures, I had been considering the settlement patterns of the second millennium BC in this region. It was then that my attention was drawn by the dimatu for the first time. I was surprised that no less than five different meanings were proposed for this word: type of structure, kind of settlement, administrative district, taxation unit and extended family commune. Neither had any of these meanings, save for the last one, been thoroughly discussed in recent years (Grosz 1986, 18-42).

small group of texts, less than one-tenth of all the discovered tablets). Neither Khalesi nor Fadhil ever discussed the contradictory identifications, nor was any of these propositions ever subject to evaluation. In this situation it was neccessary to confront these two points of view. Should the identification of Tell Fa!Jar with the dimtu settlement be sustained, sites with similar features may be searched for in the hope that they, too, will tum out to be dimtu settlements.

Consequently, I decided to study the dimatu. The objective was to re-assess available textual evidence to present a new interpretation of the meaning of the word dimtu. I took into consideration all the cuneiform texts of the second millennium BC from Mesopotamia, Syria and Elam published prior to 2001, in which the term dimtu appeared. These mentions are considered in the first part of the book. Sources from the kingdom of Arrap!Je constitute the most substantial set in the evidence, hence they are presented in the first chapter.The second chapter is devoted to the presence of the dimtu in other regions of the Near East.

The present author has benefited in his work from the assistance of several persons and institutions. Grant no lHO 1GO1916 of the Committee of Scientific Research, Republic of Poland, allowed me to travel to England and Germany and to work on unpublished material from Tell Fa!Jar. I am very much indebted to Dr. Farouk al-Rawi and Dr. Abdulillah Fadhil for permission to use their unpublished theses in my research, as well as to Professor David I. Owen, who collated for me some of the Nuzi tablets, and to Professor Gemot Wilhelm (Wiirzburg) who provided me with collated transliterations of some tablets prior their publication. Dr. F. M. St~pniowski (Warsaw) commented upon the manuscript, Professor Maynard P. Maidman (York University) and Dr. Olga Drewnowska-Rymarz (Warsaw) helped to solve some problems of comprehension concemingAkkadian texts. Special thanks are due to Dr. Jeremy Black and Dr. Amulf Hausleiter, my hosts in Oxford and Berlin respectively.

In the third part of my book I have discussed the origin of dimatu and considered the role dimatu played in the economy and administration of Greater Mesopotamia in the second millennium BC.

The second part of the book comprises a presentation of the archaeological evidence. It starts with a chapter devoted to Tell Fa!Jar. This is the only site which has ever been identified with a dimtu. Still, this identification, proposed by Khalesi, the excavator of the site, is not very widely accepted. Most of the scholars, including all the assyriologists, follow the suggestion made by Fadhil, the assyriologist who was the first to work on a publication of some of the Tell Fa!Jar tablets. According to Fadhil, Tell FalJar was the ancient Kurru!Janni (Fadhil 1972, 6-7). The differences in interpretation were due to the scholars difference of approach. Khalesi presented arguments based chiefly on archaeological evidence, while Fadhil worked exclusively on the texts (moreover, it was a relatively

The publication of the book would not be possible without the assistance of Mr Marek Puszkarski, who inked the drawings, Dr. Tony Green, Mr Mike Penstone and Ms Iwona Zych who revised my English as well as Mr Pawel Dqbrowski, who typeset the manuscript. These tasks would have been impossible without the financial support from the Institute of Prehistory, University of Poznan and its Director, Professor Hanna Kocka-Krenz, to whom I owe a special word of thanks.

IX

PARTI DIMATU IN WRITTEN SOURCES

I. DEFINITION OF DIMTU IN THE KINGDOM OF ARRAP:{JE 1.1. MEANING OF THE WORD DIMTU The identity of the Sumerian wordAN.ZA.GA~ andAkkadian term dimtu is evidenced in several lexical lists. AN.ZA.G~ occurs among architectural terms in the lexical series ]:;[AR-ra = !Jubullu(VIIA 111), i git u b=tamartu (1338), SIG7+ALAM = nabnitu (IV 214), and among the siege machines in the so-called Practical Vocabulary from Assur (line 785). Moreover, the term dimtu (equal to the Sumerian sign DIM) occurs in the list A= naqu (Vlll/2 121) just before !Jalzu and birtu, i.e. among the fortresses.

a fortified dwelling of an extended family commune, the extended family commune itself, and the entirety of its possessions, including its buildings and fields in their totality. This interpretation presupposes the existence of an extended family commune, which according to Jankowska and other Soviet scholars could be recognised in the Nuzi society.1 This point of view was criticised by Maidman in his unpublished Ph. D. thesis. According to his opinion, the term was used only with two meanings: "tower" as a building and "district" as a designation of certain territory (Maidman 1976b, 143- 7). This second sense attracted most of his attention. Maidman observed that dimtu can contain fields and different constructions, can be located in an urban or rural setting and can have people who belong to it and are under the supervision of the be! dimti. In all these features dimtu may be treated as a tenn synonymous to alu, save for the fact that the latter was administered by !Jazannu ("mayor"). This observation was further substantiated by the fact that a dimtu and an alu of the same name can co-exist. Maidman's conclusion was a bit elusive. He suggested that our difficulties with the translating and understanding of the term dimtu reflect most probably the inconsistent use of the tem1 by Nuzi scribes. Maidman also commented on the name-giving practices. In the older literature it was commonly assumed that a personal name used in the name of a dimtu was taken after the most prominent or first member of a family to settle in the area. 2 His name was retained as the name of the district by his progeny after his death. Citing as a case the holdings of Te!Jip-tilla in two dimiitu bearing his name Maidman rightly observed that, though being the owner of a considerable area of fields, Te!Jip-tilla did not hold all the fields in these districts and even did not live in any of these dimatu, but in Nuzi. Maidman therefore agreed with a proposition of Speiser (cf. above) considering dimtu as a unit of taxation. Then the name should indicate a person who was entitled to collect taxes in the district. This right might be transferred to the descendants and was not associated with exclusive ownership of the fields within the district. If so, one could expect that this right to collect taxes from the fields would be an object of the stipulations of a will. On the contrary, however, the will documents (tuppi simti) deal with fields, houses, movables, including family gods, with the ilku obligations, but never with the right to collect taxes.

The basic meaning of the Akkadian word dimtu was "tower", be it a freestanding building or a tower as a part of some other construction, for instance of a defensive wall (CAD, vol. 5, D, 144a;AHW, 170b-171a;Marrassini 1971, 111-14). This meaning was established by Baumgartner in 1925 in a paper devoted to the study of architectural terms in use in ancient Mesopotamia (Bawngartner 1925, 233-6). However, after the first tablets discovered at Yorgan Tepe were read, it became clear that in the vicinity ofNuzi the word dimtu was not used in this meaning at all. In the first publication ofNuzi tablets, Chiera and Speiser decided to translate dimtu as "district", starting from an assumed meaning of dimtu as "pillar"= "boundary stone" (Chiera/Speiser 1927, 38). This translation was accepted by Koschaker, who observed moreover that this word was also used as a designation of a construction, most probably a tower (Koschaker 1928, 63, n. 1; 1944, 175-7). InAASOR 16 the translation "district" was retained, and Speiser stressed a special link between districts and the organisation of feudal service (ilku) and taxes (Speiser 1936, 66). It was Hildegard Levy who soon after pointed to other meanings of the word, composing a list consisting of at least three different interpretations of this term (Levy 1942, 3, n. 1). According to her the word dim tu was used to describe: 1) a landed estate that comprised not only cultivable fields, but also some constructions; 2) a building, in all likelihood a fortified house; and 3) a settlement, sometimes bearing the same name as a village located nearby. This point of view was accepted by the authors of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. The volume devoted to the letter D, issued in 1959, listed the following meanings of dimtu, beside the basic one of tower. They were specific to Northern Mesopotamia, especially in the Nuzi region. First of all it was employed to describe a fort or stronghold, as well as a fortified house located inside or outside a settlement (CAD, D, 147a). Then it was a name of a specific construction being a part of an estate, listed in the legal documents together with fields, houses, granaries and threshing floors (CAD, D, 145a). Finally, it might designate some territory, clearly subordinate to !Jalzu "province" ( CAD, D, 146b).

Zaccagnini in his study of the Nuzi countryside proposed three meanings of the word dimtu: a minor settlement within the territory of an iilu; a geographical district (within the territory of an alu); and a fortified(?) farm-house (Zaccagnini 1979, 4752). The evidence for the first and second meanings comes from tablet HSS 15, 1, from which it is clear that dimtu districts may be located within the district of the city (ina piitu) or in the open country (ina ~eru). What is important that dimtu as a settlement has a territory of its own (ugiiru) where the

A different point of view was presented by Jankowska ( 1969b, 238). According to her, the term dimtu was used to describe

For fmiher discussion of this topic, cf. chapter I.5 "Dimtu as a social phenomenon". Cf. literature in Maidman 1976b, n. 310.

3

Table 1: Dimtu as an element of estates in the texts from the Kingdom of ArraplJe

Field eqlu

IJawa!IJu/ tarba$U field

House brtu

Magrattu/ quppatu

Well burtu

Garden kid)

Dimtu

HSS 13, 143

X

h

X

m

X

X

X

HSS 13,363

X

h

X

m, q

HSS 14, 4

X

HSS 14,230

X

X

HSS 14,231

X

xa

HSS 19, 2

X

X

HSS 19, 4

X

HSS 19, 62

X

Text

X

xa

h

X

X

X

X

HSS 19, 26 + 34 + EN9, 241 +

X

X

JEN 160, 9

X

JEN 237, 4

X

X

JEN 287, 12

X

X

JEN 321, 4

X

X

JEN 325, 7

X

X

JEN 380, 5

X

JEN 382, 3

X

X

X

JEN 392, 28-30

X

X

X

JEN 404, 6

X

X

JEN 405, 5

X

X

JEN 586, 5

X

JEN644, 16

X

JEN651, 45

?

JEN 757, 2

X

X

VSI, 110

X

X X

X

b C

X X

X

h

X

X

X

X

X X

Yale2 a

X

X

EN9, 5b X

X

X

EN9, 4

BM[ANE] 23, 910+

X

nakkatu

X

X

X

xc

It is not clear whether the word dimtu is used in the texts in the meaning of "dimtu-structure". Also qaqqaru pai!]u , "a building plot" and !]arranu "a road". Also nakkatu, a word used in the Nuzi texts to describe an element of estate or a kind of house, CAD, N pt. I, 186.

cultivated fields are located. Zaccagnini also observed the opposition between dimtu buildings and other kinds of buildings, like houses, quppatu buildings, etc. His conclusion was that dimtu buildings had, as suggested by the basic meaning of "tower", a fortified character and this feature was a reason for distinguishing them from other structures (Zaccagnini 1979, 51-2).

part of a territory of a certain city, border a territory of another dimtu or village, and be crossed by a road or by a canal (Fincke 1993, XXII-III, n. 58-66). Finally the dimtu is a well defined kind of a settlement, in which tablets may be written, houses built and to which fields and pastures belong. This grouping was not followed by any analysis of the evidence to establish more clearly the character of the Nuzian dimtu.

Fincke, in her study of Nuzi period geographic names, cited many references to a different use of the word dimtu (Fincke 1993, XXII-XXV). She divided references to adimtu into four groups, relating to aspects of their use. The first group referred to a building of a certain kind, which may be destroyed and may be part of a larger estate composed of fields, gardens and other buildings. Such a building is often located within a dimtu settlement (Fincke 1993, XX.II, n. 54-57). Two other groups refer to a certain territory that may be composed of fields and gardens and built up with different constructions. It may be

It is thus clear that the word dimtu was used with several meanings, which in antiquity were describing different aspects of a certain kind of property: the estate itself with its buildings and territory; a kind of building being the focus point of such an estate; geographic or administrative district around the settlement (or estate), and, probably, a group of people being members of a single extended family to whom such an estate belonged. As the listed meanings refer to quite remote subjects, it is necessary to treat them separately in the following chapters.

4

It had already been noticed by many scholars that there is

describe a particular construction forming part of an estate, or a kind of settlement (in such case the word dunnu was included in the name of the settlement). The evidence for the dunnu settlements will be collected at the end of the next chapter of this book.

another Akkadian term of similar meaning, which appears mainly in the Assyrian texts, namely dunnu (Koschaker 1928, 45 n. 1, 63 n. 2; Garelli 1967, 5-7; Biagov 1976). It shares at least two aspects of the meaning of dimtu. It was used to

1.2 DIMTU AS A CONSTRUCTION Numerous texts listing elements of countryside estates mention dimtu as a specific kind of construction, different from houses (see Table 1). The other elements of an estate include various types of fields, gardens and orchards, wells, as well as a number of constructions which, although their names are not fully understandable, must cover a variety of household installations like threshing-floors, granaries, stables, barns, etc. Unfortunately, it is only rarely that texts provide more specific information about the appearance and dimensions of dimtu buildings.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

i-na sad-da-an-nu sa 1U2-na-ap-ta-e i-na SU-pa-fi sa I 1/2-na-ap 2-ta-e-ma 1 Te-J;i-pa-pu a-na 1E-J;i-li-ia i-SUM-in u3 1E-J;i-li-ia ki-ma NIG 2 .BA-su [ ]x SIG 5-qa 2 na-as 3-k7;1-ul . [x ] MA.NA an-na-ku 3 ANSE SEMEs [x UDU b]a2 -aq-nu SAL 1 en-zu SAL 1 ga 5-zi-iz [an-nu-tu 4 1E]J;-li-ia [a-na 1Te-J;i-pa]-pu i-SUM-in [il-ka sa]AN.ZA.GA~ [1Te-J;i-pa-p]u na-si-i [1E]J;-li-ia la na-a-[si] [sum-ma A ]N.ZA.GA~ pi-ir-qa KIN-su [1Te-J;i-pa-]pu u2-za-ak-ka 4-ma [a-n]a 1E-J;e-li-ia i-na-an-SUM-in ma-an-nu i-na be-ri-su-nu KI.BALMES_tu 3 5 MA.NA KU 2 .BABBAR 5 MA.NA KU 2 .SIG 17 DIRI um-ma 1Te-J;i-pa-pu tup-pu saAN.ZA.GA~ sa-su-u 2 a-na 1E-J;i-li-ia-ma at-ta-din tup-pi EGIR-ki su-du-ti es-si ki-me-e qi-bi-i-ti sa LUGAL sa ITI-J;i ki-nu-na-ti sa URU.DINGIRMES i-na ITI-J;i mi-ti-ru-ni i-na uRuNu-zi sa/0-te-er IGI Qa-i-te-sup DUMU Sa-ti-ki-tar IGI Pa-i-LUGAL DUMU Ke 2-el-te-sup IGI Du-ra-ri-te-sup DUMU lju-ur-pu IGI Zi'-ra-ri-te-sup DUMU Tup-ki-ia 14 LU 2 an-nu-ti mu-se-el-mu sa AN.ZA.GA~ su-nu-ma na-di-na-nu KU 2 .BABBAR KU2 .SIG 17 IGI A-kap-se-en-ni DUMU lja-su-ma-tal [IG]I Mi-is-sa DUMU Te-J;i-ip-til-la [IGI] Ma-at-te-e DUMU Na-a-a [N]A 4 Te-J;i-pa-pu EN-li A.SA 3 Seal Impression 51 [NA4 E-eJ;-li-i]a NA4 Pa-i-LUGAL NA4 Ma-at-te-e N[A 4 ] [ ] Seal Impression Seal Impression [

The first such tablet is HSS 13, 363, on which a dimtu settlement called Selwu!Ju is described. It is an inventory tablet listing elements of a large estate belonging to Surki-tilla, son of Akiptasenni, made on the occasion of transfering this property to Silwa-tessup, one of the best known Nuzi personnages. It is not clear what kind of transaction was related to this property, as the document lists only the composition of the estate, the fact that it was given out to the representatives of Silwa-tessup, and the names of witnesses taking part in the transaction. 3 Beside fields and other installations, a dimtu building with a perimeter of 216 cubits is mentioned in the text, which is fully referred to in chapter 1.3 below. With a cubit measuring about 0.5 m (Powell 1987-90, 462), the perimeter can be calculated at about I 08 m. The dimensions of the dimtu structure may thus be reconstructed as a square with sides 27 m long, or a rectangle 30x24 or 35x 19 m. Consequently, its surface did not exceed 729 m2 • Another transaction concerning a dimtu building is recorded in tablet EN 9, 4. As it has been transliterated only in the unpublished thesis of Lacheman (Lacheman 1935, 222), it is neccessary to provide a full transliteration and translation of the text 4 •

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

EN9,4: [tup-pi] DUMU-ti sa 1Te-J;i-pa-pu [DUMU 1 Wa-a]n-ki-ia u3 1EJ;-li-ia [DUMU 1 ]E-ze-e-ra a-na DUMU-ti [i-t]e-pu-us ki-ma ]jA.LA-su [AN.ZA.GA]~ TUL 2 GIS zi-iq-pu 5KI]RI 6 J;a-la-aJ;-wu [GT [i-n]a li-wi 4-is-su 2 sa AN.ZA.GA~ [x?+ ]2 ma-ti 20 i-na am-ma-ti li-wi 4-is-su 2 i-na il-ta-na-an-nu AN.ZA.GAR 3 sa1U,-na-ap-ta-e i-na su 2 -ta-an-nu A.SA 3 sa1Su-ur-qa-a-a

TRANSLATION: (1--4) Tablet of sonship of Te!Jip-apu, son of Wankija. He made for sonship E!Jlija, son of Ezira. (4-9) As his share a dimtu, a well, saplings, and a J;awalJ;u(?) garden. (10-14) Its perimeter, of dimtu, is 2+x (?) hundred

0

A transliteration of the text is published in HSS 13, the content of the text is related in Jankowska 1969b, 243-4 (but cf. discussion in Chapter 1.3, below). The tablet will re republished by G. Wilhelm, as it constitutes part of the archive of Silwa-tessup (AdS 550, Wilhelm, in print, 14-22). I am gre,tly indebeted to Professor Gernot Wilhelm, who provided me with a collated version of the transliteration of the text prior to its publication in the sixth volume of AdS. 4 Lines 35-39 were published by Lacheman (Lacheman 1962b, 235) but with mistaken line numbers.

5

Table 2: Sizes of the houses in the cities of the kingdom of ArraplJe according to the cuneiform texts (after Zaccagnini 1979) Text

Dimensions (m)

Perimeter (m)

Areaa (m 2 )

HSS 9, 110: 18

2.5X2.5

Gadd 5: 25-6

3.5X2.5

8.75

4x8

32.00

Genava NS 15, 2: 6-7 HSS 19, 71 : 3-5 HSS13, 161: 11-17 HSS 19, 79: 8-11

6.25

8X5

40.00

12.5x4

50.00

12.5x4-4.5

53.75

HSS 14, 111 : 8

31.00

60.00

HSS 14, 111 : 33

34.00

72.25

HSS 9, 21: 6-8

46.25

132.25

HSS 14, 111: 13

50.00

157.25

HSS9, 115: 4-5

JEN 246: 9a-1 0a

12.5x7.5

93.75

32X5.5

176.00

HSS 14, 111: 24,

55.00

188.10

HSS 14, 111: 29

55.00

188.10

HSS13,215:7

57.50

207.30

HSS 19, 111: 19

82.50

424.40

HSS 14, 111 : 2

96.50

582.00

' The area of the houses with known side dimensions was calculated as if they were of rectangular plan. In the case of known perimeter, the maximal possible area has been calculated.

20 cubits in perimeter; to the north (of it 5 is) a dim tu of Unap-tae, to the south (of it is) a field of Surqaja, to the east ( of it is a field) of Unap-tae and to the west ( of it is a field of) Unap-tae (15) Tel]ip-apu gave to EIJlija. (16-21) And El]lija, as his gift [x] sound[ ... ] of excellent quality, [x] minas of tin, 3 donkey(loads) of grain, x sheep plucked once(?), one goat sheared once, [(all) these] EIJlija to Tel]ip-apu gave. (22-24) [For the ilku of] the dimtu [Tel]ip-ap ]u is responsible, EIJlija is not responsible. (25- 27) If the dimtu have a claimant, Tel]ip-apu shall clear (it) and give to EIJlija. (29-31) Whoever will choose to break (this contract) will pay 5 minas of gold and 5 minas of silver. (32-34) As follows (speaks) Tel]ip-apu: "the tablet of this dim tu I am giving now to EIJlija." (35-39) (This) tablet was written in the city of Nuzi after a new proclamation in the month mitirunni, according to the order of the King of the month kinunati of the City of Gods (=Arrapl]e). (40--43) Before Qai-tessup, son of Sati-kitar, before Pai-sarri, son of Kel-tessup, before Turari-tessup, son of ]:Jurpu, before Zirari-tessup, son of Tupkija. (44--46) These four men were surveyers of their dimtu and givers of silver and gold. (47--49) Before Akap-senni, son of ]:Jasum-atal, before Maissa, son of TelJip-tilla, before Matte, son ofNaja. (50) Seal ofTel]ip-apu, lord of the field. (Seal impression) (51) [Seal of El]lij]a, seal of Pai-sarri, seal of Matte, se[al of?]. (Two seal impressions out of four are preserved).

The tablet is a marutu document of EIJlija, son of Ezira, who receives by adoption dimtu and other immovables from Tel]ip-apu, son of [Wa]nkija. The transaction documented by EN9, 4 concerns a dimtu building, which is at least 220 cubits in perimeter (another possible but less likely reconstruction is 320 cubits) accompanied by a garden, a well and probably an orchard full of saplings. Unfortunately, the fragment giving the amount of gifts delivered by EIJlija, son of Ezira, is badly broken, thus it is impossible to reconstruct fully how much this property was worth. Accepting the two most likely dimensions for the dimtu building, i.e. 220 and 320 cubits, the length of the side of the building can be reconstructed as 27.5 m or 40 m (assuming it had a square plan). In the case of the first reconstruction there is only a minimal difference in area from the dimtu of the Selwul]u settlement, in the second case it would be more than two times bigger, with an area covering no more than 1600 m2 • Of course, two examples is too small to assume that all the dimtu buildings of the Arrapl]e kingdom had about 100 m perimeter, but two cases of structures of this kind that have very similar dimensions strongly suggest, in my opinion, the average size of dimtu-buildings. It would be interesting to compare the size of dimtu constructions with dimensions of houses referred to in the Nuzi texts. Zaccagnini had collected instances where the sales contracts from the kingdom of Arrapl]e give the dimensions or the perimeter of the city houses (Zaccagnini 1979, 42-3). The result of his survey is presented in Table 2.6

This sentence clearly refers to a garden, not to adimtu.A similar formulation is present in the case of JJSS 13,363: the location of the dimtu is not given at all but the other elements of the estate are always located in relation to other stmctures, including the dimtu or fields. ' For the houses from Southern Mesopotamia, see the discussion in the chapter 11.1.2 he low.

6

Table 3: House areas in Nuzi according to excavations (after Novak 1994)

13

414.00

181.30

16

300.60

146.93

?

+136.13

House owners (Morrison 1987, 1993; Lion 1999)

Ill

19

II

NWR NES

17/18

II

NES

11

Ill

NWR

12

333.00

98.90

2

II

sws

+13

190.40

+98.64

10

II

155.44

80.02?

II

sws sws

11

5

6

127.84

76.77

4

I

NWR

+14

216.00

+73.94

11

169.00

72.94

Serta-ma-ilu, son of Zillija

6

193.68

72.76

no information

11

238.00

+67.53a

11

sws sws sws sws

?

67.1 Sb

8

sws

10

146.88

66.71

8?

260.00

+57.56

6

96.00

54.04

4

86.40

52.16

5

?

48.40

+7

?

+48.11

3

b

WF (m2)

2

9

a

GF (m2)

Stratum

6

Quarter

Number of rooms

House

25

II

14

Ill

NWR NWR NWR NWR NES

6

Ill

32

II

7

Ill

10+3

7

12

II

sws

6

101.80

43.98

20

II

6

95.14

40.00

13

Ill

NES NES

6

70.00

32.00

Pubi-senni, son of Mus-apu; Pula-bali; Urbi-tessup, mar sarri 17: Ar-tura and Sebal-tessup, sons of Tebup-senni; Tarmija, son of ljuja

Paikku, son Arib-barpa; Artaja, son of Pui-tae no information

Sellapai

Ebli-tessup, son of Taja

ljutanni (son of Turar-tessup?) no information

Novak 1994, 375, with areas of only 8 rooms given, area of room 4, clearly miscalculated (cf. Novak 1994, Abb. 6). Room 4 was excluded from House 11 as it lacked communication with the remaining chambers of the house.

Considering the area of the city houses listed in Table 2, it is clear that houses mentioned in the texts cover a very wide range of structures. On one side there were clearly separate rooms listed in the texts with an area of several square metres only (cf. the first two entries in Table 2). The following six entries concern small houses or parts of large houses. The area between 32 and 72 m 2 corresponds to the sizes of the smallest houses from Ur, listed in Tables 6 and 7 below. The last entries are clearly houses or parts of very large houses, still none of them equal in extent to the size of the dimtu settlement Selwul,:m,covering an area of over 700 m2, or of the dimtu described in EN 9, 4.

the former was taken into consideration by the ancient surveyors (Stone 1981, 20). Another problem is that quite often large houses were owned or inhabited by several families, most often of common descent. The process of division of larger buildings is clearly illustrated by numerous contracts of division of willed property, including houses. A result of this procedure is well illustrated by the case of the Eastern House in the Western Suburb Area in Nuzi. The house has an easily observed tripartite structure. Its eastern wing, including Rooms 1-5, belonged to the family ofl:;lastija, son of Warb,-apu, and his relatives. Tablets belonging to his personal archive were found in Rooms 1 and 4. The rooms of the western wing (1012) contained in fact two separate archives: that of l:;lilpis-sub,, son of Sub,un-zirira, and his son Kurpa-sab, (Room 10), and ofl:;lutija, son ofKussija (Rooms 11 and 12) (Dosch/Deller 1981, 93). These families were related to each other, although at the time that their archives were formed the common relative was quite distant: it was Turi-kintar, a great-grandfather of the actual proprietors (Dosch/Deller 1981, Fig. 1). In this case it was possible to single out particular families, but in most cases when no texts are found within a house, it is impossible to determine the number of inhabitants and families living in it.

It is usually difficult to establish the size of houses excavated by archaeologists. It is only rarely given in the excavation reports. Measurements taken from the published plans are usually not very precise, due to several factors. Most of the published plans are reduced to too small scale, in consequence of which measurements taken from such plans are very imprecise. Differences in measurements taken from different plans of the same building may reach as much as 20% (Mieroop 1992, 38 n. 71). Another problem with the architectural measurements is that the surface area of the house was in antiquity always calculated inside the house, i.e. house area did not include the walls (Mieroop 1992, 224 and n. 79). Finally, it is sometimes difficult to tell roofed from open space, and only

A survey of the houses excavated in Nuzi was recently undertaken by Novak (1994). His work, devoted to the house typology

7

and over 500 1112 (12 and 16 sar). The excavated houses form two groups of slightly different distribution. Smaller houses cover an area of 70 to 130 1112 (2 to 4 sar), while the larger ones are from 150 to 400 m 2 ( 4 to 11 sar). In the case of houses bigger than 300 1112 there is the evidence of several families living in the same house. What is astonishing, the areas of the excavated houses fit into gaps between the area groups evidenced by the tablets. This can be explained by the fact that the living area calculated for the excavated houses was about 50% smaller then the entire area of the plot (Novak 1994, 374) and that the larger houses were accomodating a number of families, thus the cuneiform texts were always referring to a section of these spacious structures occupied by a single family.

provided also the room measurements of twenty-four houses belonging to two subsequent strata (II and III), both contemporaneous with the period of the Nuzi archives. They were found in three sectors of the ancient city constituting most probably the "old city" (Novak 1994, 342, n. 8), designated "North Western Ridge" (NWR), "South-western Section" (SWS) and "Southeastern Section" by the excavator, and the so-called "Suburb villas" constituting most probably a section of the lower city. The determinations of room area put together in Table 3 were done by Novak on the basis of the published plans. Novak has actually published two different figures for every house, GF ("Grundjlache") being in fact the area of the plot on which the houses were constructed and WF ("Wohnjlache") constituting of the sum of the area of rooms being part of a single house. Both indicators will be accepted: GF, as it better refers to the area of the dimtu structure described above, which area was calculated from the perimeter, and WF, as the ancient house measurements seem to be calculated as a sum of the room areas. From the WF area calculated by Novak the area of the courtyard( s), according to his functional determinations, was subtracted. The information in Table 3 will be augmented by data concerning the reconstructed number of families residing in the houses, based on the number of archives found.

In conclusion, dimtu as a structure is clearly different from a house. Judging from the basic meaning of the word used for the name of this kind of building one could expect it to be a "tower-like" construction. On the other hand there is a case of a dimtu-building from a dimtu-settlement Selwul}u, where the construction is described as dimtu kerbu "a fortified dimtu", and its area, about 700 m 2 , suggests a large house rather than a tower, especially when one compares it with the areas of the city houses mentioned in other texts from the kingdom of Arrapl}e. A suggestion of Jankowska ( 1969b, 243, n. 2) that in this case we could be dealing with a three-storey tower of a floor area of 300, 250 and 200 1112 for every storey respectively, has to be excluded, as the figure of 729 1112 was calculated from the perimeter of the building. If the area of the dimtu-structure given in HSS 13, 363 represents an average for the dimtu-building, which may be suggested by EN 9, 4, dimtu tended to be considerably larger than the town houses of the period.

The area of the houses excavated at Nuzi corresponds well with the areas of houses listed in the Nuzi texts. The group of the smallest houses in Table 2 is entirely missing, but it is clear that in this case the documents were dealing with single chambers, not entire houses. The comparison of the total area (GF) and the area of medium- and large-size houses in Table 2 points to close similarities. The houses of the texts are in the area range of32 to 72 1111 (about 1 to 2 sar), 132 to 207 1111 (4 to 6 sar) and two even more spacious houses of over 400

1.3 DIMTU AS A SETTLEMENT The word dimtu was also used to describe a settlement of a particular kind. This role is very well expressed by the use of the AN.ZA.G~ signs for distinguishing them from villages and towns or as a part of the settlement name. Names of all dimtu-settlements known from the Nuzi texts were recently collected by J. Fincke (1993) and G. Muller (1994). All the names are put together in Appendix A, at the end of this book.

brought back was as follows: "These seven towns we questioned. Thus (they) said: its name is dimtu Kizzuk and (it is that) of Kizzuk, and the other (name) we don't know." The reply of the other party to this testimony was somewhat indifferent: "The dimtu (is that) ofTab-pukur and he held (it). The name of the dimtu (is) that ofTab-pukur". It seems clear, that the dimtu of Kizzuk was named after a person who once lived there, and that Tab-pukur, inventing a false name for the village, used his name to make his ownership of the settlement in question more plausible. It is noteworthy that there are cases when the name of a woman was accepted as the name of the settlement.

There is no doubt that the names of dimtu-settlements in all regions and periods, where settlements of this kind were in use, were formed in a very similar way. In most cases personal names had been used in the form AN.ZA.GAR/dimtu saPN (Jankowska 1969b, 237-8; Heltzer 1982, 55; Fincke 1993, XVIIIXX). More rarely, they were formed after the name of a profession, existing village or even after a god's name. It has been argued, that in cases where personal names are involved, it was the name of a person who built a dimtu and who was its first owner. The best example of this practice is given on tablets JEN 135 andJEN321 (Levy 1942, 342-7), where the identity of a dimtu is disputed in front of a court by members of two families holding claims to the same estate. Finally, the authorities decide to send out a person to check the name of the settlement in the villages located in the vicinity. The reply the courier

One of the Nuzi texts from the Silwa-tessup archive (HSS 13, 363 = AdS 550) gives a detailed, although by no means complete, description of the dimtu Selwul}u, located presumably in the region ofNuzi or Zizza, along the roads to Arwa and Apenas, on the Nirisse canal. There were several structures forming the core of the settlement. The most important was the dimtu itself, described as dimtu kerbu (a fortified dimtu), which measured 216 cubits in circumference. Assuming that a cubit (ammatu) was about 0.5 m, the perimeter of the building should be close to 108 m and the ground area of this construction could not exceed 729 1112• It was accompanied by houses belonging to two

8

z

=========J

To Nuzi (?)

Niressi canal

Road to Arwa ►

Perimeter 251 cubits

ljirtu

Ill

Dimtu kerl]u

-

BTtu Quppatu Magrattu Eqlu l]awall]u

Road to Apenas

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

20

40

60

80

100 Cubits

Fig. 1. Dimtu Selwut,u. A reconstructed plan of the settlement, according to HSS 13, 363

9

Meters

persons: Surki-tilla, the proprietor of fields and buildings listed on the tablet; and a certain Tarmi-tessup (Fig. 1). The other constructions located in SelwulJuwere four buildings described as quppatu. Neither CAD (Q, 311) nor AHW (508b) give the exact meaning of this word. Zaccagnini proposed to translate it as "stable" ( 1979, 45-6), but the case of dim tu Selwu!Ju shows that the quppatu may actually be located within the settlement, which militates the most crucial argument of Zaccagnini. A new interpretation may be suggested by tablets VAT 19194 and MARV 3, 4, both mentioning quppatu in the context of the storing of grain, although Freydank proposed a meaning "barn" for this structure, possibly because there is another word to describe a granary in common use in Nuzi and Middle Assyrian texts, namely qaritu (Freydank 1997, 132-3). In three cases the perimeters of the quppatu-buildings are given: as 134, 223 and 123(?) or 223(?) cubits (the number of hundreds is not preserved on the tablet). It means that one of them was about the size of the dimtu itself, the second was about four times smaller, while the third, depending on the reconstructed figure is comparable to the first or to the second one. The dimensions of the fourth building are not given. It is possible, that one of the quppatu was lying outside the village, beside the road to Arwa. There were also granaries or rather threshing-floors (magrattu), one located in the close vicinity of the settlement, separated from it only by a lzawallzu-field with a perimeter of 251 cubits, and another, belonging to Surki-tilla himself, located together with one of the quppatu on the road to Arwa. The perimeter of the magrattu was given as 720 cubits, which corresponds an area of not more than 2700 m2 • The remaining part of the property comprised eighteen pieces of land belonging to Surki-tilla, dispersed around the settlement itself and amounting to 62 imeru (ca. 112 ha). There were also other fields in the vicinity of the settlement: the tablet lists twenty-five personal names of their proprietors, including Tarmi-tessup, who owned one of the houses.

and the total area of the fields given is in agreement with the sum of all entries in the earlier part of the tablet. Thus the reconstruction of the size of the population in the settlement and the typical plot size cannot be sustained. There are twenty-five personal names (all belonging to males) to whom other fields in the territory of the dimtu Selwu!Ju belonged, but there is no evidence that they were living in the settlement itself. On the contrary, there are only two houses mentioned as forming the settlement. One of them belonged to Sukri-tilla, another to a certain Tarmi-tessup, proprietor of some other fields in the vicinity of the settlement (lines 11, 16, 43). On the other hand, it is clear that at least some owners of the fields were residing in the neighbouring city of Zizza, for instance, Sakarakti, son of ]ja/Qapuka, in line 38 (Fadhil 1983, 145). Finally, the property assumed to have been undivided, amounting to 22 imeru, is in fact the first entry in the text and, as its area together with areas of other listed fields of Surki-tilla totals 62 imeru, it must also be his property. Summing up, the dimtu of Selwu!Ju was composed of the settlement itself and fields located around it. Within the settlement there was a dimtu kerlzu "fmiified tower", facing south (ina pani sutani), at least two houses, threshing-floors, stables and gardens located on a canal called Niressi (the location of the elements of the settlement is shown in Fig. 1). Around the settlement there were numerous fields cut by roads leading to Arwa (to the south) and Apenas (to the west) and fields belonging to different persons, a few of them residing in Selwu!Ju but most not. Since in the text HSS 13, 363 only the property of Sukri-tilla is listed, it may be assumed that neither all the structures located within the settlement nor all the fields were listed in the text. The other text describing a dimtu settlement, EN 9, 4 is less informative. The list of immobilia provided consists of a dimtu, a well, uiszikpu "saplings" refering most probably to newly planted vegetation, perhaps in an orchard or garden, listed as the next entry. The garden mentioned is further described as a lzalalzwu, which is a writing variation of the often occuring term lzawallzu ( CAD H, 162). Part of the text which describes the location of sold property also introduces fields belonging to Surqaja and Unap-tae and a dimtu belonging to the same Unaptae. At this point some problems with the understanding of the text begin. Does it mean that there were two dimatu in the village, one belonging to Unap-tae and the other to Te!Jip-apu, standing side by side? Or is it a scribal error, by which instead of A.SA3 AN.ZA.G~ has been written? Or, finally, could the text be giving the position of the lzalwalzu-garden, as if the position of the dimtu was a reference point per se and did not need further indication? This last reconstruction seems the most likely to me. A clear parallel is HSS 13, 363, where in a much longer list of entries constituting an estate to be transferred, only the position of the dimtu is not given, although it is described by its perimeter. Thus in EN 9, 4 (above, pages 5-6) lines 7-9 refer to the dimtu structure, while lines 9-14 to the location of the lzawallzu-garden.

A totally different interpretation of the text was proposed by Jankowska (1969b, 243--4). According to her, every field listed in the texts belonged to a family commune, headed by Surki-tilla. The largest field, 22 imeru in area, was considered common property of the family, while other, much smaller plots, belonged to separate members of the family. Families with just one adult male have plots of 9 awilzaru to 1 imeru (about 1.6 to 1.8 ha), while families with more men owned fields of a proportionally larger area. A field owned by a woman had only 0.3 of an imeru. Consequently, Jankowska has recalculated the size of the plots according to this rate and come to the conclusion that the population of Selwu!Ju consisted of thirty-eight or thirty-nine adult males, an equal number of females, and about three times as many children, giving a total of about 200 inhabitants. The total surface of the fields belonging to all families was about 40 imeru (about 72 ha), plus 22 imeru (about 40 ha) of common ground, which could be fallow fields or pastures. However, for several reasons, this interpretation of the text cannot be sustained. Firstly, all eighteen fields listed in the text have a single owner, namely Surki-tilla, son of Akip-tasenni. He is not mentioned as the owner in the list of fields, but in line 63 it is stated that all the listed fields belonged to him

A description of another settlement, the dimtu Uknippa, may be gained from several texts mentioning possesions of the Wullu family in this village. The settlement was composed of the dimtu itself (Yale 2), a nakkatu building (Yale 2), a well

10

(Yale 2), and two quppatu (Gadd 46). 7 The fields of the Wullu family included a IJawallJu-field and three fields of unknown size (at least 6 imeru 2/3 awil]aru). Similarly to the case of the dim tu Selwul]u, several names of proprietors of other fields located in the same dimtu are mentioned.

from Makunta is eleven, and it does not depend on the total reconstructed in line 12 of the text. A population of another settlement bearing a name which is not preserved is described on tablet JEN 665. It consists of twenty-three men including: 2 riikib narkabti, 8 nakkussu and 13 iilik ilki divided into still smaller groups. Other tablets that mention the population of different cities are: Gadd 63, listing a number of houses (= families) in Nuzi belonging to different social classes, 97 of riikib narkabti, 83 of nakkussu, 167 of iilik ilki, 118 of assiibu, altogether 465 houses; HSS 15, 60 listing 92 persons in the town oflrl]abl]e; HSS 13, 454 listing 46 persons in the town of Pabl]arra(swe); HSS 15, 61 listing altogether 29 persons in town Tilpaste, 11 of them of riikib narkabti, 4 of nakkussu, 2 of kizilJIJuru and 12 of iilik ilki class.

The tablet Gadd 50 provides a description of another property, located in dimtu Pal-tessup, being a share of]jumpa and ]jal-senni, sons of Turari. It consists of five quppatu buildings, a tarbafu-field (AHW 1327-8 proposes the meaning "Vieh-hiirde, -hof; Hof(v Gebiiuden)", but Grosz (1988, 124) has translated this term as "pasture", and an empty plot (qaqqaru pail]u) located in front of a gate of an unnamed structure and fields. It may be assumed that there was also a dimtubuilding in the settlement and the buildings mentioned were located by its gate. Another, but not so accurate, description of such an estate located in the dimtu of Kubija is to be found in JEN 160: "5 imeru 8 awil]aru of field in dimtu Kubija, in the large standard of the palace. Inside the field there is a dim tu and a garden, and inside the garden a well constructed of baked bricks" (lines 7-11 ).

There are two texts, JEN 525 and JEN 670, which is probably a copy of the first one, that mention raids of Assyrians in the region of the city ofTursa which resulted in destroying (bepu) some dimiitu. In JEN 525 the result of such a raid is described in the following way: "a dimtu of PN (or other GN) is destroyed and they killed one person and took another and brought him into a dimtu of PN (or other GN)". There is no doubt that in all cases dimtu are mentioned in the meaning of a settlement type. There were several persons kidnapped from these dimiitu (dimtu of Belue-two persons, dimtu of Pie-five persons, dimtu ekalli §a al] GisnR and fo pi GISTIR,dimtu of ]jais-tessup-seven persons, and dimtu of Nanuperra-an adult with children). People were kidnapped both from these dimtu and from settlements of other kinds and transferred into different villages in the land of Assur, including dimtu Purnamiz-zal] and dimtu Mull]ani. Information about destroying another dimtu can be found in line 16 of HSS 13, 430. A similar expression referring to the destroying of a dimtu-settlement may be found in one of the letters from U garit sent to the local ruler by a Hittite viceroy of Karkemish. 8

It is thus clear that the dimtu-estate could be composed of more elements than a dimtu building itself (cf. Table 1). It is also attested by other texts that different kinds of buildings could be located in a dimtu settlement more-or-less as an integral part, for instance: "all finished houses in dimtu Alta" (Serota tablet, 6-7, Shaffer 1964), "a palace, a /ibursu-building, 1 imeru of field from dimtu Kari" (HSS 19, 47: 15-17). A text from the Hermitage mentions also building plots: "a building plot he had exchanged for a similar one (located) in dimtu Uknippa" (Jank. 49: 4-6). It is clear that any of the elements constituting part of a dimtu-settlement or belonging to its territory may be sold separately or together with any of the other elements. It is difficult to reconstruct the number of people living in a dimtu settlement. It is clear that, as in the case of Selwul]u, even the fact that a number of persons owns fields belonging to a certain settlement does not mean that they are actually living in this very village. On the contrary, it is a common practice to own fields dispersed in the agricultural area of different towns. Some gleanings on the population may be found in so-called military census texts. In HSS 15, 44, a dimtu, called Makunta is mentioned as providing a certain number of soldiers. Unfortunately, the text is not well preserved and some of the numbers have to be reconstructed. The total, given in line 12 is eighty-two (Kendall 1975, 335; Zaccagnini 1979, 17) or ninety-two (Fadhil 1972, 9). The first figure, in line 9, concerns archers from Kurrul]anni. The following are archers released to their houses (the lacuna between the preserved beginning of the line and the fragment at the end is quite large). In line 10, after the name of Kurrul]anni there are listed three officers (GAL) and eight bowmen who were released to their houses in the dimtu of Makunta. The signs are only slightly damaged and the reconstruction of this line proposed by Zaccagnini does not fit the copy. Thus the number of soldiers

A curious case is evoked by cases of settlements of the same name, described sometimes as dimtu and sometimes as iilu. This feature is not exceptional as there are thirty-nine examples of a dimtu and iilu bearing the same name (cf. Appendix A). 9 They may be divided into three groups: first, where the dimtu attestations are much more frequent (nine cases); then, where the number of city names is much higher ( eight cases, all well-known cities), and the last group consists of twenty-two instances, where the number of attestations is more-or-less equal. There could be several reasons for this. Firstly, it is possible that both a city and a dimtu of the same name existed. It was most probably the case of the large and well-known cities. In fact, there are a few texts (for instance, HSS 15, 128) that mention a city and a dimtu of the same name together. There is no doubt that they are contemporaneous and located in close vicinity of each other. There are also reasons to believe that a settlement of a certain name was referred to sometimes as dimtu and sometimes as iilu (Fincke 1993, XXIV, nn. 74-77). Fadhil suggested that this situation was result of the settlements developing from a dimtu into a village/city form,

It is possible that three quppatu-buildings mentioned in BM[ANE] 104820 were also located in the dimtu Uknippa. PRU IV, 17.341: People from Siyanu said: "(We don't know) J.:labirn,who destroyed (im/ui.yu) dimlu. It is not us, the J.:labirnwho had destroyed the dimtu (lines 3'--4')". In the following pm1 the text refers to vineyards and wines which were destroyed. 9 G. Muller 1994, 223 mentions only thi11ysuch cases.

11

in the course of about 150 years, 10to which the Nuzi archives relate (Fadhil 1983, 88, 136). Thus, when there are names that appear with two different determinatives, the texts with place names labelled with AN.ZA.GA~ should be earlier.

AdS 699 was written by the same scribe and bears impressions of seals of the same witnesses as AdS 700, thus they have to be quite close in date. JEN 167, like JEN 392, mentioned above, was written by Taja son of Apil-Sin (II)12 • JEN 258, a tidennutu tablet of Tel}ip-tilla, was written by Baltukasid, another son of Apil-Sin, also of the 2nd generation of this family. JEN 398 was written by Uta.an.du½, son ofTaja, thus it may be slightly later than the previous one. Finally the settlement is mentioned on a list of towns and dimtu receiving water (HSS 15, 128). The instances of using dimtu for the description of Arik-kani are dispersed through the entire Nuzi period, dating to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th generations of scribes. The alu cases are distributed to the same generation of scribes as the dimtu cases. Moreover, there are two tablets (AdS 699 and 700) that belong to the same archive, written by the same scribe and signed by the same witnesses 13, suggesting that they were written at more or less the same time; nevertheless in one text the term URU and in the other the term AN .ZA.GAR 3 was used for describing the settlement of the same name. There is already enough evidence to doubt that Fadhil's proposition is accurate, but of course this analysis has to be continued.

Dating the Nuzi texts is still a difficult matter, as there was no practice of putting date formulae on them 11; however, an attempt can be made. The framework for this consists of several studies concerning the genealogy of some prominent families from Nuzi (Tel}ip-tilla: cf. Maidman 1976a; Friedmann 1987; scribes from the Apil-Sin family: cf. Wilhelm 1970, 10). A recent publication of seals impressed on the tablets belonging to the Silwa-tessup archive has provided another useful tool for the internal chronology of this archive and for prosopographic research on Nuzi society (D. Stein 1993a-b). In order to check Fadhil's hypothesis, it is essential to analyse cases of settlements occurring in the Nuzi texts both as dimtu and town. Out of thirty-nine instances of settlements going by both designations only cases when both possibilities had at least two attestations will be considered. There are sixteen such instances that will be examined in the following section: Arik-kani(we ), Arn-apu(we ), Enna-mati, t[asija, Ilu-malik, Katiri, Kizzuk, Kubija, Pal}l}arras(we), Pul}i-senni, Sarri, Selwul}u(we), Tain-sub(we ), Tursenni, UDl}usse,and Z/Sillija.

In the case of the geohraphic name Am-apu, there are two texts listing this settlement as a dimtu. One of them is an unpublished tablet from Tell Fal}ar (IM 70327); the other (HSS 13, 416) a list of people from different settlements, is difficult to date. The "city" texts consist mainly of lists. HSS 14, 39 and Genava 15, 6 are lists of persons, HSS 15, 72 of carts of ampannu wood, HSS 15, 116 of horses and HSS 15, 124 of settlements; they are not dated. HSS 14, 171 is a short text referring to barley and one of a very few tablets bearing a date formula ("when chariots from t[anigalbat stopped in Am-apu andArwa") which, however, because of its rarity, cannot be dated in absolute terms.

Arik-kani(we) is a good case for analysis, as this place-name is known to be applied seven times as the name of a dimtu and five times as a city. First, tablets naming Arik-kani as a city will be considered. TextAdS 24 (HSS 13, 214) sums up grain given to persons belonging to the household of Silwa-tessup and is dated to the early period of his archive. The text HSS 15, 41 cannot be dated, as it bears neither seal impression nor scribe's name. JEN 392, concerning houses in Arik-kani(we ), belongs to the Tel}ip-tilla archive, and Tel}ip-tilla himself is contemporaneous to the period from the 2nd to the 4th generation of the Apil-Sin family (Maidman 1976a, 141). The tablet was written by Taja, son of Apil-Sin, belonging to the 2nd generation of the Apil-Sin family, and is witnessed by Tessuja, son of a king, which confirms a rather early date for the tablet. JEN 121 is a lisanu text, witnessed by Alpija, son of Kizzi-l}arbe. It is very probable that he is identical with Alpija, son Kizzi-l}arbe, appearing many times as a witness on the sale-adoption tablets of Tel}ip-tilla;thus he may be dated to his generation, with additional information provided by the names of the scribes, belonging to the scribal generations 2nd, 4th and, mainly, 3rd (Itl}-apil}e)of the Apil-Sin family (Friedmann 1987, Chart I). Finally, AdS 700 (EN 9, 178) is a tablet from the t[asuar archive written by 0 Iskur.ma.an.sum, son of Uta.an. dul 3, a scribe belonging to the 4th generation of the Apil-Sin family, identified only by his seal impression (D. Stein 1993b, no. 729). Let us turn now to tablets describing Arik-kani(we) as a dimtu. One of them is an unpublished tablet from Tell Fal}ar. Two others, AdS 699 (HSS 14, 531) and 707 (EN 9, 367), like AdS 700, also belong to the t[asuar archive and may be dated to the 4th generation of the Apil-Sin family.

A settlement called Enna-mati is mentioned as a dimtu in JEN 618, a document belonging to Enna-mati, son of Tel}ip-tilla (3rd generation of this family) written by Nanna-adal} (IIIV)13;and on JEN397, which is difficult to date. All the texts in which he is an acting party of a contract were written by the scribes of the 3rd and 4th generations of the Apil-Sin family, all thus belonging to the same period (Friedmann 1987, Chart I). As URU it appears inHSS 15, 72, a long list oflocalities providing wagons of ampannu-wood. All toponyms mentioned on the tablet are listed as alu, but some of them (tlasija, see below and Am-apu, above) are attested as dimtu in other texts. The same determinative accompanies the settlement of Enna-mati in Jank. l, a debt document, notifying of four loans of grain from a certain Surki-tilla. The text was written by Zini, who is unfortunately difficult to date as there are two scribes of this name known from the Nuzi texts, but both fall in the period of the 3rd and 4th generations of the Apil-Sin family (cf.Appendix E). In the case of Jank. 14 the situation is similar. This tablet, a fragment of a tidenniitu contract, cannot be dated. Finally, the settlement of Enna-mati is mentioned

JU This period, reconstructed on a basis of a presence of five generations of scribes who wrote tablets from N uzi, seems to be to long. A very convincing discussion of the length of the Nuzi period, limiting its duration to about 70-100 years, was recently presented by Friedmann (1987, 113), cf. below, p. 92 11 It was argued, that the §udutu clause may be a way of dating texts, pointing to a later period of the Nuzi archives (Lachemann 1962b, 235-6; Eichler 1973, 32-3). Judging from the names of scribes who used thdudutu clause the proclamation took place during the later part of the active life of the scribes belonging to the 3rd generation of the Apil-Sin scribal

family, as no scribe of the 2nd generation ever uses this clause (Lachemann 1962b, Appendix D, 237-8). "

Latin numerals in the remaining pm1 of the book refer to the generations of the Apil-Sin family. The archive oft[asuar is probably contemporary with the earlier part of the archive of Silwa-tessup (D. Stein 1993b, 29) and the texts were wrlten by the SCJibe0 Iskur.ma.an.sum.

12

on the "water tablet" HSS 15, 128. In line 25 it appears as a dimtu, but in the subsequent line it is mentioned again, this time as an iilu. Despite the fact that all the texts mentioning Enna-mati as a city cannot be precisely dated, the occurence of a dimtu and an iilu of Enna-mati in the same text is proof that there was no linear development of the dimtu settlement into a village or town.

other URU texts concern expeditions or receiving of grain. They do not bear the name of a scribe and only one of them (AdS 25 = HSS 13, 413) is sealed, by persons known from the early period of this archive (D. Stein 1993b, No.3, p. 86 and No. 11, p. 91) As it may thus be earlier than tablet AdS 248, no definite evidence for a diachronous use of different determinatives may be found in the case of the Ilu-malik settlement.

The next case to be examined is that of the settlement ofl:;lasija. It is mentioned as a dimtu on the testament tablet HSS 13, 366, unfortunately difficult to date. The scribe of this tablet, Ikkuja, is known from only one other document (LNT 157), a fragmentary adoption tablet of Surki-tilla and lnkita. It may be assumed that the Surki-tilla in question is a son ofTel}ip-Tilla, as some of the witnesses of LNT 157 are known from other tablets of this family. This identification does not allow for a more precise dating of the tablet than to the 3rd-4th generation of the Apil-S'in family. On the other hand l:;lasija may be identified with a witness named l:;lasija,appearing on two tablets (JEN 24 and 97) written by sons of Apil-Sin (II). HSS 5, 18 is a tidenniitu contract written down by the scribe Sag.an.ki, who was active in the time of 3rd and 4th generations of the Apil-S'in scribal family. Both URU attestations come from the lists concerned with ampannu-wood or the preparation of wagons (HSS 15, 72 and 74) and both are difficult to date. As all the geographic names are listed as cities, the suspicion arises that when the scribe was not sure what kind of settlement a named settlement was or when he was dealing with a large number of settlement names, he used a shorter designation, i.e. URU. A settlement named Ilu-malik with determinative AN.ZA. GAR 3 appears on three tablets belonging to the Silwa-tessup archive, while another four texts bear the URU designation. Two of three AN.ZA.G~ tablets (AdS 681 = HSS 14, 4 and 683 = HSS 14,230) belong to the personal archive offAmminaja, slightly predating the time of Silwa-tessup, as fAmminaja was his mother. AdS 681 was written by one of the sons of Apil-S'in himself and sealed with a seal provided with a long legend mentioning Itl}i-tessup, king of Arrapl}e (cf. below, p. 113), later used often by l:;lutija, son of Uta.ma.an.sum (IIIIV). The last text (AdS 248 = HSS 9, 43) is a part of the main archive and was written by Utu.l}egal. He may be identified with Utu.l}egal, son of Uta.ma.an.sum, author of HSS 9, 104, contemporary with scribes of the 3rd and 4th generations of the Apil-Sin family. On the basis of persons occurring in AdS 248, it may be dated to the earlier or middle part of the duration of the Silwa-tessup archive (Wilhelm 1985, 33). The first of the URU texts is HSS 13, 265 (AdS 520), a list of five assiibu men from the city ofllu-malik(we) whom Silwa-tessup had put under the authority of Pai-tessup, son ofTulpi-senni and who are now transfered to l:;lasip-apu, l]alzul:Jlu. l:;lasip-apu, occuring also once with the title of sakin miiti sa Silwa-tessup, is very well known from the tablets belonging to his archive. His two seals (D. Stein 1993b, nos. 12 and 15) were impressed on more than forty tablets, but only a few of them can be dated more precisely, to the middle part of Silwa-tessup's archive. The other person, Pai-tessup is not identical with another well-known servant of Silwa-tessup of this name. The Pai-tessup of HSS 13, 265, identified as the son of Tulpi-senni, uses a different seal from that of the servant ofSilwa-tessup, who is the son ofl:;lanaja. Three

13

The place-name Katiri is given with the URU sign on the lists HSS 16,393 and 394. The first is a list of persons migrating from various settlements to other places, including Assur, the other a listing of persons of differing origins staying in the city of Natmani; all the settlements in the texts are listed as iilu. Neither texts can be precisely dated. A third text, JEN 326, concerns the theft of cattle belonging to Tel}ip-tilla, son of Pul}i-senni, and was written by Uta.an.du½, son of Taj a, a scribe belonging to the 3rd generation of the Apil-Sin family. Of the six attestations of Katiri as a dimtu EN 9, 272 cannot be precisely dated, because Kip-talili, the scribe of the tablet, was active during the 3rd and 4th generation of the Apil-S'in family. HSS 19, 2 is a will document of Akip-senni, son ofNil}rija, and was written by Enna-mati, son ofltl}-apil}e, scribe of the 4th generation of the Apil-Sin family. HSS 5, 62 is a marutu document written by Wakar-beli, scribe of the 3rd generation of the Apil-Sin family. Tablet HSS 5, 90 may be dated only if we assume that the last name on the list of witnesses belongs to the scribe of the document, Uta.an.du½, son of Taja. If so, his name would date the text to the 3rd generation of the Apil-Sin family. HSS 5, 51 and HSS 9, 118 are probably slightly later, as one of the persons mentioned in them is apparently a son of one of the witnesses from HSS 5, 90. The second of these documents was written by Ila-nisu, a scribe belonging also to the 3rd generation of the Apil-Sin family. Both ways of referring to the settlement of Katiri are thus more-or-less contemporary; moreover, there is again a case where the same scribe (Uta.an.du½) gives a different designation to the same settlement name. The dimtu of Kizzuk is well-known from the court case between the descendants ofKizzuk and a certain Tab-pukur. The place is also known as a town from two texts. JEN 325 is one of the documents connected with the process itself (H. Levy 1942, 336-47). The other text, JEN 512, is also testimony concerning the identity of a village, but this time it is negative testimony: "The dimtu of Kizzuk and city ( of the same name) we don't know" (lines 15-16). In this case it may be assumed that it is just a way of expressing a total unfamiliarity with a settlement of this name. The first text belongs to the early stage of the trial, before the case was sent to the king. Both parties refer to the estate being the object of the process as an iilu, despite the name "dimtu sa Kizzuk", which is given to the settlement. It thus seems that this term was introduced by the scribe of this particular document despite the fact that the object of the lawsuit was the dimtu of Kizzuk. Unfortunately, the author of these tablets is not written on the tablet; instead on JEN 512 there is an impression of the seal of the scribe, unfortunately not copied in the publication. As both the city cases cannot be dated there is no sense in dating the dim tu occurrences, though some of them nevertheless refer to the same lawsuit and must be contemporary.

The settlement of Kubija goes by the designation of an alu only on three tablets, which are lists ofmundu flour (HSS 14, 207 and 208B) and malt (HSS 14, 191) and are difficult to date. In the case of tablets HSS 14, 207 and 208B several other geographic names are preserved. All of them bear the URU determinative despite the fact that some of them in the other texts appear as dimtu, as, for instance, Arik-kanari and Tur-senni (see below). It should be mentioned that some of the place-names, which appear only as alu, are known either exclusively from the lists mentioning many geographic names, for instance Sibi, Barbi, Bel-a!}hesu, Sukri-tessup, Zarimena and Karantaja or from the said text (Alkera, Wapiti, Kuzzari, Tultuliwe ). The other tablets attesting Kubija as a dimtu settlement are legal documents. Again a distinction between administrative lists giving the alu designation to all the localities and legal documents may be observed.

Fincke in lines 18-19 proposes to reconstruct AN.ZA.GA~ sa URUPu[lzi-senni](Fincke 1993, 229). If this reconstruction is correct, the coexistence of the dimtu and the city of Pul}i-senni has to be accepted, and again, there would be no evidence for a development from the dimtu to a city. Another case for analysis is that of the dimtu and the city sa sarri ("of the king"). This is found in rare cases only when the name of the settlement is not formed with a personal name but with the title of a person. There are two texts mentioning dimtu sa sarri: EN 9, 24, an adoption tablet with only a small fragment of the scribe's name preserved, and CT 51, 11, which concerns cattle and is not signed; both are thus hard to date. Three "city" texts are mainly list of persons and are also difficult to date. Selwul}u, a settlement already described above, is four times referred to as an alu and six times as a dimtu. The "dimtu texts" include "inventory" tabletAdS 550 (HSS 13, 363), written in Zizza by Ar-tessup, a scribe belonging to the 4th generation of scribes. The same scribe is the author of asupe 'ultu text concerning a dimtu of Selwul}u, written in Nuzi (AdS 551 = HSS 9, 18). The tablets have to be more-or-less contemporary as there are many of the same witnesses appearing on both of them. Unfortunately most of the persons mentioned on both tablets do not occur in the other texts, save for a certain ]:;lutija, son of Kusija, mar sipri sa sarri, who cannot be dated more precisely than as belonging to the generation of Silwa-tessup, which is not surprising, because Silwa-tessup himself appears in AdS 550 as the contracting party. The other witnesses may be dated to the 4th generation of the Tel}ip-tilla family, and should thus belong to the middle or later part of the Silwa-tessup archive (D. Stein 1993b, no. 327, p. 305). The text AdS 260 (HSS 13, 223) is a note concerning expenditure of grain to various persons. No scribe's name or seal impression is to be found on the tablet, but a person called Marsan who is mentioned on it was often sealing documents datable to the middle part of the Silwa-tessup generation, and a certain Susib-Samas featuring on the tablet was active in the middle and later part of the same generation (D. Stein 1993b: for Marsan see no. 29, for Susib-Samas no. 21). Susib-Samas is mentioned several times on AdS 173 (HSS 14, 598), another text mentioning the dim tu of Selwul}u. Like other texts relating to rations of wool (AdS 46 = HSS 15, 211) and grain (AdS 5 = HSS 14, 625) they are dated to the early part of the same generation (Wilhelm 1980, 46, 162). It is thus clear that tablets mentioning Selwul}u as a dimtu are more-or-less evenly dispersed during the period of activity of the 3rd generation of the Silwa-tessup family. Let us turn our attention to texts mentioning Selwul}u as a city. AdS 24 (HSS 13, 214) is a large tablet summing up yearly rations of grain issued to various persons in Nuzi, including the women of the harem of Silwa-tessup. The tablet, according to the personal names mentioned, may be dated to the early period of the archive (Wilhelm 1980, 102-3). It is remarkable that the only other GN extant in this text is Arik-kani, written with an URU determinative. It is another case of a settlement, which occurs in texts with either the URU or the AN.ZA.GA~ determinative (cf. Appendix A). AdS 32 (HSS 16, 17 + 9b + NTF N2A(2) + NTF P199(1)) is another long list of yearly expenditures of grain, dated to the late period of the Sliwa-tessup generation (D. Stein 1993b, no. 286). The following

Pa!}hara(swe), a settlement of potters, is mentioned twice as a dimtu and thirteen times as a city. The dimtu texts are AdS 177 (= HSS 13, 343) and AO 15543. Both refer to barley rations and are not signed by any scribe. The first does not mention any personal name at all. The other lists twenty-one rakib narkabti, two of which can be identified with family members of Tessuja, son of the king, and can be dated to the 3rd and 4-5th generations of the Tel}ip-tilla family (3rd to 4th generations of the Apil-Sin family) (Dosch 1993, 28), though it cannot be dated more precisely. On the other hand, it can hardly be doubted that the city of the same name already existed during the lifetime of Tel}ip-tilla himself (2nd-4th generations of the Apil-Sin family). This conclusion is based on the contemporaneity of him and 1Amminaja, the mother of Silwa-tessup (Fadhil 1983, 129). The tabletHSS 9, 1 is a royal letter supposedly of Saustatar, son of Parsatatar of Mitanni, to Itl}ija (most probably the king of Arrapl}e) informing him that a part of the territory of a city called Pa!}hara(swe), which once was given to fAmminaja, has now been taken from her and given to a certain Uke (cf. translation of the text below, in chapter VI.3). It is very probable that this letter predates two tablets mentioning the dimtu of Pa!}hara(swe); moreover, the granting of Pa!}hara(swe) to 1Amminaja, mentioned in the text, has to be even more remote in time. Tablets HSS 13, 23 (= AdS 250) and EN 9, 300 (= AdS 252) name a mayor of Pal}l}ara(swe), Kiltamuli. He is known from over forty documents from the archive of Silwa-tessup and, most probably, represented him in this city in the later part of the Silwa-tessup's life (Fadhil 1983, 130-33; Wilhelm 1985, 67; 1992, 115; D. Stein 1993b, 105-6). Pul}i-senni is another settlement that was much more often described as a city. There are only two "dimtu" texts, as opposed to sixteen tablets where it is referred to as city. Both dimtu texts are dated by the names of scribes: Simanni-(Adad), son of Ak.dingir.ra (JEN 608) and Silal}i-tessup, son of Sin-nadin-sumi (JEN 492), both belonging to the 4th generation of the Apil-Sin family. It seems very probable that the city of the same name existed as well as the dimtu settlement. From JEN 320 it is known that it was enclosed with a city wall and provided with a gate. The text was written by ]:;lasip-tilla and contained a siidiitu clause, dating it to the 3rd generation of scribes or later. The final proof of the coexistence of the two settlements might be the "water tablet" HSS 15, 128, in which

14

text, AdS 174 (HSS 13,428) is of more-or-less the same date as AdS 173, as it mentions the same person, Susib-Samas, clearly the administrator of Silwa-tessup's property in Selwul]u. Lists of wool rations issued to a number of persons in various cities (AdS 45 = HSS 13, 287 and AdS 59 = HSS 13, 250) constitute other texts from the early period of the archive (Wilhelm 1980, 159, 182). Summing up, the texts using URU as a determinative of Selwul]u are also evenly dispersed through all the periods of the archive ofSliwa-tessup. Again there is no evidence that the dimtu texts are earlier than the tablets with "city" designation.

-ni-we. The presence of such a high functionary points to the importance of the city. In such a case one would expect that a city of such importance would be mentioned more often in the texts. However, there is another possibility for explaining this association. It may be assumed that Turseniwe is just a genitive form of Tursa, the name of a well-known city, two different bazannu which are attested by the texts JEN 605 and HSS 13, 17. Unfortunately the addressee of HSS 13, 38 is not mentioned by name and cannot be identified by other means. Another argument in favour of this interpretation is that the name Turseniwe in this text (and in the other texts mentioning the city of Tursa) does not bear a determinative of the personal name, while such a determinative was used in all the preserved cases of the name of the dimtu ofTur-senni. As the URU texts are not datable, there is no need to analyse the texts where Tur-senni appears as a dimtu.

In the case of Tain-sul](we), attestations as a city are quite numerous. However, it does not seem to be a city of much importance, as many of the tablets concerning fields in Tain-sul](we) were written in the city ofTakuwe (BM[ANEJ 120350, 120358, probably also BM[ANE] 95211, Jank. 13 + 21 + 13a and EN 9, 261), located in the b,alzu of tJurazina. BM[ANE] 120350, 120358 and JEN 643 are documents which cannot be dated precisely. JEN 23 is a marutu tablet of Tel]ip-tilla, son of Pul]i-senni, written by Taja, son of Apil-Sin (2nd generation of this family). EN9, 261 was written by Arip-sarri, who is also the author of over twenty texts, including EN 9, 262, a statement concerning Utl]ap-tae, son of Ar-tura, and AASOR 16, 58, a tidennutu tablet of the same person, active in the period of the 3rd and 4th generations of scribes. HSS 16, 394 is a list of people from various places, and, according to Lacheman should be dated to the very end of the Nuzi period (Lacheman 1958, VIII). HSS 15, 41 and JEN 800 are lists of people from various places, and are again difficult to date. One of the dimtu tablets (JEN 173) belongs to the archive of Tel]ip-tilla, son of Pul]i-senni. SMS 1655 may be dated to the 3rd generation of scribes (in this case only the first sign of the name of the dimtu has survived, thus it would be possible to reconstruct another name, for instance, Takkuram). The last text, EN 9, 22 was written by Ell]ip-Tilla, most probably the son of Kel-tessup, as both were working in the same city, i.e. Unapsewe. Ell]ip-Tilla is an author of two texts written for PulJi-senni, son of Mus-apu. Other scribes working for this person were: Appa (son of Intija?), Kelteja (possibly Kel-tessup himself) and Tel]ija (Morrison 1993, 82). Both Appa and Tegija are dated to the 3rd and 4th generations of the Apil-Sin family. In consequence EN 9, 22 had to be dated to the same period. Two tablets belonging to the Tel]ip-tilla archive thus witness both versions of the identification of the Tain-sug settlement. As the "URU tablet" JEN 23 was written by a scribe of the 2nd generation, it may be (although it does not necessarily have to be) earlier than JEN 173.

The settlement of UDgusse is mentioned on several tablets from Tell Fagar. JM 70781, already quoted above, is a document listing settlements under the jurisdiction of the city of Kurrul]anni (G. Muller 1994, 210). Unfortunately, it cannot be dated. The other, HSS 15, 41 is a muster list, and among the contingents ofb,alzu Kanat[a-], a city ofUDgusse is mentioned. This second text also cannot be dated, hence it is impossible to compare the chronology of the texts mentioning UDl]usse as a dimtu and as a city. In case of the geographic name Z/Sillija it seems that both a city and a dimtu of this name existed as separate settlements. It is also possible that there were two dimtu of this name, one of Zilli, son of Tenteja, the other of Zilli, father of Ukuja, if they are not the same person. One of these dimiitu was located in the vicinity of Nuzi (Fincke 1993, 350). The city was obviously an important settlement, as there was also a b,alzu Silliawe, "a province of Silli". There is no doubt that in this case there was no possibility of the dimtu developing into a city. The result of the examination of 16 different geographic names occurring both with dimtu and city qualification is that in three cases (Pal]bara(swe ), Pul]i-senni and S/Zillia) there is evidence for both a city and a dimtu of the same name existing contemporaneously.14 In six cases texts from one of the groups are impossible to date, and in the remaining eight cases the evidence points clearly to some tablets on which the geographic name appears with the URU determinative earlier than, or at least contemporaneous with, the tablets mentioning the same geographic name as the dimtu. It has to be assumed that there is no significant chronological difference between texts using different qualifications, which, moreover belong to the entire period of the Arrapge kingdom. It is also clear that in most cases the development of a dimtu into a city cannot be proven, and consequently Fadhil's hypothesis cannot be sustained. It may also be observed that the URU determinative is used mostly in "inventory" texts summing up commodities (grain, wool, wood) taken from or given to a number of persons from various places or listing persons coming from various communities. It is possible that in such cases scribes, not being sure what kind of settlement these people were living in, used

A similar situation is observed in the case of the Tur-senni settlement. It is listed four times as a city on the lists of goods, including HSS 14, 207 mentioned above. HSS 14, 204 deals also with mundu flour, and the other texts are lists of persons: HSS 15, 25 (list of people which do not live by their "brothers") and HSS 16, 392 (list of people from tianigalbat). In the case of the last two texts some of the other settlements mentioned are listed as dimtu. Unfortunately, it is difficult to date these tablets precisely. The remaining text, HSS 13, 38, is a letter sent to the b,azannu ("mayor") of the city of Du-ur-se-

Two more geographic names can be added to this list. both evidenced by texts mentioning together a dimtu and a city of the same name: Arwa and Arta!Juta.

15

a more standard designation of an iilu, or were doing this for the sake of brevity, as in the same lists dimiitu and iiliinu settlements are summed up together under the heading of iiliini, cf. HSS 15, 128 (Jankowska 1969b, 268-9; Zaccagnini 1979, 48, n. 128). It is also possible that in the case of ration lists the amount of commodities was the most important thing and the scribe did not pay much attention to the accurate determination of the character of the settlement. The legal texts have to put emphasis on accuracy, and on these tablets the dimtu determinations are more often observed. If this explanation is accepted, the number of URU designations decreases significantly, to six instances in the case of Arik-kanni, two in the case ofEnna-mati, zero in the case ofJ;:;lasija,Kubija, Selwul]u and Tur-senni, one in the case of Ilu-malik and Katiri, two in the case of Kizzuk, and finally seven in the case of Tainsul](we). For the reasons explained above, the instances concerning the dimtu of Kizzuk may also be excluded from this list. It seems that only in the cases of Arik-kanni and Tain-sulJ(we) may there be reason to believe that they were or became cities. In both cases, however, it seems that in a certain period they were referred to both as dimtu and as iilu, though it is impossible to determine why one of the determinations was used in a particular case. Another indication that the difference between dimtu and iilu was not always clear to the scribes is a group of texts, in which the same person is once described as coming from a dimtu and another time as coming from an iilu of the same name, for instance: Ari(IJ)-IJamani from the dimtu of Arik-kani (JEN 398: 8) and Ari(b)-IJamani from the iilu of Arik-kani (JEN 121: 13). Te!Jip-tilla,mentioned as a person providing bows, in HSS 15, 37: 14 comes from the dimtu of Serra, in HSS 15, 21: 35 from the iilu of Serra.

This explanation does not seem to be satisfactory, as it supposes that the difference between a dimtu and a city was not clear to the people that use these terms. This, although possible, is very unlikely. In my opinion there is another, more satisfactory, explanation of this discrepancy: that these terms had different meanings, although they were partly overlapping. If we assume that dimtu was used only in the meaning of "district" or "estate" and iilu in the meaning of "settlement", all the problems caused by the contemporaneous use of both terms are immediately solved. Moreover, it becomes easy to explain all the cases when a city and dimtu of the same name are mentioned on the same tablet, like instances of "water tablet" HSS 15, 128, where in lines 22-23,AN.ZA.GA~ and URU Arta!Juta are listed together as receiving water, and in lines 18-19 AN .ZA. GAR 3 §a uRuAt [bisenni] may be reconstructed. There is no need to assume that there were two settlements, one next to another, but that water was available both to the settlement and the district of Arta!Juta. In addition the phrase AN.ZA.GA~ §a uRu Arwa is very easy to explain as a district of the city Arwa rather than an additional settlement beside this city. Finally, it helps to understand cases when apparently the same person is sometimes listed as coming from the city and sometimes from the dimtu of the same name. These occurrences can now be treated as instances of using two tenns of very close meaning, both pointing to the origin of a certain person, despite the fact that it was sometimes indicated as a city and in other cases as a district. This topic will be adressed again in chapter VI. Outside of the kingdom of Arrap!Je, settlements described by the AN.ZA.GA~ determinative are known from the vast territory extending from Ugarit to Elam (cf. below, chapter II).

1.4 DIMTU AS A TERRITORIAL UNIT It has already been mentioned that the term dimtu was also

used to describe territory, assumedly owned by person(s) living in the dimtu. In this meaning dimtu was often employed in various contracts of sale-adoption (tuppi miiriiti) or exchange (tuppi supe 'ulti) concerning fields. In most cases the position of a plot sold, or of exchanged plots, is minutely described in reference to fields belonging to other persons, to roads, to streams, to canals and to settlements (cf. many examples in: Zaccagnini 1979, Fadhil 1983 and many others). Fields are also identified by a location in a dimtu or in a city (the phrase "in the dimtu PN" or "in the city GN" is commonly used)15 and sometime in relation to a border of a settlement, be it a dimtu or a city. In this case, of course, the field was not lying inside the city, but in the territory belonging to this city (or dimtu ), as sometimes indicated by the use of the term ugiiru "cultivated land". It is used in relation to territory of both, the dimtu and city (Zaccagnini 1979, 29-32). This territory might be crossed by canals and roads forming a means of travelling between settlements. The territory of the dimtu may be part of a territory of a certain city as well, for instance: "1 imeru 9 awiharu of irrigated field in dimtu of Sulmija, in the city of Apenas", JEN 71: 7-9. It is also significant that some dimtu-settlements, similarly to the cities, besides their ugiiru have

also Jeritu "open land, pastures" (cf. Zaccagnini 1979, 3239; Fincke 1993, XXIII, n. 67, 68). The relation between dimtu and city is difficult to establish, though it seems that they were both subordinate to the balzu "province". In administrative terms they were clearly distinguishable by the name of the responsible official. In the case of a dimtu he was called bel dimti "lord of the dimtu" but in the case of a city he bears the title of IJazannu "mayor". They were both responsible to a §akin miiti, a high official, possibly the head of a province and subordinate only to the king. 16 The relation between sakin miiti, bel dimti and bazannu is clear from the instruction issued by the king to the bazannu of the city ofTasu!Jbe (HSS 15, 1):17 (1-2) [The king] had established a decree for thebazannu of the city of Tasu!Jbe: (2-14) "Every bazannu has to watch over the territory of his city, in its (total) perimeter. If there is a tower (dimtu) in the open country (ina Jeri) of this city, which is abandoned, he should (likewise) watch over it. In the territory of his city no robberies must be committed, nor enemies killing and taking booty (must be encountered). Should it happen that

Zaccagnini 1979, 49 noted over ninety occurrences of such expressions. This list may easily be extended with more recently published texts. There was also an office of a balzuiJ!u(a HmTian tenn, derived from noun IJalzu,"province"), which could be equal to §akin miiti. Translation according to Zaccagnini 1979, 17-21. Other, slightly different translations can be found in: M. Muller 1968, 195ff;Jankowska 1969b, 273-5.

16

Table 4: Some of the private properties in dimtu-districts mentioned in the Nuzi texts Name of dimtu

Area of fields

Other property in the dimtu

Property in other places

Text number

Katiri

+28imeru

dimtu rabu

houses and orchard in Nuzi, fields in Temtenas, Sa-bel-abbe, Arsali and Guri

HSS 19, 2

Selwubu

62imeru

dimtu, 4 magrattu, 2 quppatu, ? eq/u hawa/l]u

HSS 13,363

?

JEN641

pirsanni saTebip-tilla 104 imeru 1 awil]aru (in Zizza)

Cf. Maidman 1976

Kip-tessup

14 imeru 1 awil]aru

dimtu

Cf. Maidman 1976

llu-malik

107 imeru 1 awil]aru

dimtu

fields in Nuzi, Anzukalu, Palaja, Panaja, Artibe, houses in Nuzi

in the territory of his city robberies are committed, or the enemies who kill (people) or plunder (are encountered), the bazannu will likewise bear responsibility for this. (15-19) Should it happen that a runaway from Arrapl}e flies from the territory of this city and enters another country, the bazannu will take responsibility for this. (20-24) lfthere is a tower (dimtu) (with)in the territory (ina piiti) of this city, which is abandoned, the bazannu will bear responsibility for this. (25-30) Sakin miiti shall send tablets to each of the district officials (bele dimiiti) to give them the following orders. (31-38) In case there are (people) who went out of a dimtu in order to commit robberies, or there are enemies who kill and plunder, the district officials (bele dimiiti) has committed a sin and I will take a dimtu away (from him). (39--43) You shall come here and you will speak: 'This man has not transgressed the edict?[ ...]'. (44--48) lfthere is someone who transgresses the edict, you must take him and he must come to the palace". Seal of Mus-teja (the king).

HSS 14, 4

-tilla. Of course, as was already mentioned,alu settlements themselves varied greatly in rank, from villages to cities. A good example is text IM 70781 (Rawi 1977, 203), informing: "The city ofMaskani, the city ofKapra, the city ofArral}uta, the city of Tupsarriwe and the city of UDl]usse entered into (the jurisdiction of) the city of Kurrul]anni". It is thus clear, that the cities mentioned were inferior to Kurrul]anni, although the exact nature of their dependence is not clear. It should be noticed that in most cases when the texts refer to a dimtu, they are in fact describing the localisation of fields. Zaccagnini mentions at least 90 such cases (Zaccagnini 1979, 49) but this figure can easily be raised when recently published texts are taken into consideration (cf. Appendix I and discussion in Chapter Vl.1 ). The localisation is given as "in dimtu/city of GN", "to the north/west/south/east of dimtu of PN" or "to the north/west/south/east of the road to dimtu of PN". It is remarkable that in the first case the translation of dimtu as "district" makes much better sense than a translation as "dimtu-settlement". ln the second and third cases both seem probable: the word dimtu may refer to a neighbouring "district" or to dimtu as a settlement, or more likely as a construction. The rendering of the meaning of dimtu as "district of PN" rather than "estate of PN" also helps to answer the question why in most of the dimtu there are fields belonging to a large number of persons even when we are able to find a family link between the name of a person acquiring or owning fields in a dimtu and a person whose name is mentioned in the name of that dimtu. An explanation of how dimtu-districts were formed will be attempted below, in the third part of the book.

It is clear, that dimtu-settlements (or districts) can be located in the territory of a certain city and outside it. The head of such a settlement (or district) was the bel dimti. His responsibility was to watch that no crimes would be committed by the population of its dimtu. This observation is well in line with Mesopotamian law, enforcing the responsibility for a crime to the administration of the district; cf. Codex of ];:lammurapi, §23: "lfthe robber has not been caught, the robbed seignior (awilum) shall set forth the particulars regarding his lost property in the presence of god, and the city and governor, in whose territory and district the robbery was committed, shall make good to him his lost property" (Meek 1955, 167). In a case where a dimtu was abandoned (i.e. ifthere was no official to take the responsibility over it at the place) the responsibility was transferred to the bazannu of the city in the territory of which it was located. It is also important to note that bele dimiiti seem to be subordinate to §akin miiti and not to bazannu, as it is the former who is sending them tablets containing orders.

It would be interesting to try to establish how large the area of fields belonging to a single dimtu-district could be. In the case of HSS 13, 363, we are sure that it was well over 62 imeru of fields (i.e. 110 ha), as this was the area of fields transferred to Silwa-tessup. From the description of the localisation of the fields it is clear that there were at least twenty-five more proprietors of fields located in this dimtu. There is no hint about the size of their fields, but it seems that at least in some cases (Irri-tilla or Kussi) their area was considerable, although it is possible that some of the fields were mentioned several times. Some hints concerning the size of the dimtu-districts may be seen in the will documents and in the even rarer documents listing estates. The figures from these texts are grouped in Table 4.

Presumably towns had a slightly higher status. This is demonstrated by some legal tablets recording that judges from certain cities had jurisdiction over dimtu settlements, as in JEN 386 they give a sentence in a case referring to the dimtu of Tarmi-

17

Further interesting evidence for the extent of the property are tablets offAmminaja, specially HSS 14, 4. This partly broken text lists estates of this wealthy lady, composed of dimtu sa uRuAnzukalli (quppatu buildings, 3 awi!Jaru of !Jawal!Ju field, 3 awi!Jaru 1 kumiinu of magrattu) in Nuzi (houses in the city, 6 imeru of fields and dim tu), in the city of Panaja (31 imeru of fields, and houses), in dim tu saIlu-malik (107 imeru 1 awi!Jaru of fields), in the city of Artil}e (3 awi!Jaru and !Jararnu of orchard) and other belongings, which are difficult do decipher because of the poor preservation of the tablet. 18 Her belongings in the dimtu of llu-malik were even larger than the property ofSurki-tilla in Selwul}u,amounting to over 107 imeru of fields, i.e. nearly 200 ha. To this vast fortune one has to add six houses listed on tablet HSS 14, 111, located most probably in Nuzi (cf. Table 2, above).

The other wealthy proprietor has to be Tel]ip-tilla, son of Pul]i-senni. Of over four hundred texts coming from the archive of his family, nearly three hundred relate to his acquisition of fields. Unfortunately, the overall area of his estate is difficult to determine, as some of the acquired plots were subsequently exchanged for other fields, supposedly with a more favourable location. The estimates of Maidman led him to a figure of 589 imeru 3 awi!Jaru of fields acquired by adoption, 275 imeru 3 awi!Jaru of fields that were exchanged for equivalent fields in a more favorable location and 204 imeru 7 awi!Jaru of fields acquired in another way (mainly by non returnedtidennutu contracts) (Maidman 1976, 205). Even if the amount of fields mentioned in the exchange documents should be put aside, the total of acquisitions documented by the tablets from his archive will amount to 794 imeru of fields, equalling about 1430 ha.

1.5 DIMTU AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENON Some scholars have insisted on the social meaning of the word dimtu. Before we turn specifically to this topic, an outline of the research of the family and kinship structures in Nuzi should be presented.

commune ownership of goods may be placed in this scheme between the stage of the communal ownership of goods and private holding of possessions. Jankowska had reconstructed the basic Nuzi family as a clan (extended family)-a land-owning union of some patriarchal, nuclear families stemming from a single ancestor and living under one roof. She also stated that the individual families lived an independent economic life (which was taken as a mark of the progressive disintegration of the system), but that they were bound by the common duty of attending communal house gods, taken care of by the eldest son of the eldest brother of the family ancestor or his descendants (Jankowska 1951, 35 n. 1). The property of this extended family was identified by Jankowska with the dimtu settlements, and, consequently, it was assumed that the people living in a dimtu were connected by family ties, and stemmed from a person whose name was remembered in the name of the dimtu settlement (Jankowska 1969b, 23841 ). This interpretation was further substantiated by the presence in some texts of ewri (Hurrian "lord"), a person having priestly duties, and according to Jankowska responsible also for the "implementation of labour service by the members of his family commune and responsible for his kinsmen's debts" (Jankowska 1969b, 245).

It was Paul Koschaker who first became interested in the kin-

ship system of the kingdom of Arrapl]e (Koschaker 1928; 1933). He perceived the Nuzi family as patriarchal with some elements of the fratriarchate surviving in the shape of the eldest son's authority over the remaining children of the family after the father's death, expressed by the fact that he had a right to a double share of the inheritance. Other hints were offered by the sale-adoptions contracts, which usually were formulated as a father-son adoption (tuppi miiruti), but sometimes also as a brother-brother adoption (tuppi a!J!Juti). This led him to the concept of an extended family-composed of nuclear families of several brothers, living under the authority of the eldest of them, playing the role of paterfamilias. The idea of the existence of common family property came to him after analysing a few texts from the Wullu family archive (Gadd 6, 7 and 15, cf. Koschaker 1944, 197-8, new translation in Grosz 1987, 80-82). According to Koschaker they concerned the division of the property of the deceased Wullu. He assumed that tablet Gadd 7, dealing with the fields of Wullu, was written much later than Gadd 6, concerning the house of Wullu, because on Gadd 7 in place of one of the sons of Wullu there is another name, apparently of a grandson of Wullu. Consequently, Koschaker decided that the house has been divided just after the death of Wullu, while the fields were exploited jointly, under the terms of common ownership (Koschaker 1933, 70).

The concepts of Koschaker and Jankowska were recently discussed by Grosz (1987, 18--42). From her work on the tablets referring to the division of the property of Wullu, which had been the basis ofKoschaker's concept of the family commune, it is clear that the fields were in fact divided at the same time as the house, and all the brothers had an independent household after the division (Grosz 1987, 83-87). With this and many other will documents recently studied, a coherent picture how the inherited property was divided can be reconstructed and, as a consequence, Koschaker's conclusion has to be put aside (Grosz 1987, 22).

Russian scholars combined Koschaker's idea of the fratriarchate and the joint family ownership of fields with the dimtu settlements (Jankowska 1969b, 238--41; Diakonoff 1975, 125). They were obviously trying to adjust the reality of Ancient Near Eastern texts to the theoretical framework offered by the Marxist theory of social development. The tablets from Nuzi were used to illustrate the passage from communal ownership typical for primitive society through the emergence of private property to the stage of the slave-based economy. The family

To examine the "extended family" concept of Jankowska, Grosz tried to analyse the Wullu family according to four features which, according to Jankowska, were characteristic of extended families: common descent, common ownership of

Transliteration and translation of the text are given below, on page 114.

18

land, common residence and common religious duties. Common descent is in most cases difficult to trace, as in the Nuzi texts persons are identified only by their patronymics, or profession, or exceptionally place or country of origin. No formulae suggesting the stressing of developed kinship ties, such as "PN son of PN 2, son of PN/of the house of PNt or "PN descendant of PNt (Gelb 1979, 25-56), were ever used. It is also important to understand three terms used in respect to the sons: ewuru, maru rabu, and maru. It seems that the first term designated all the sons of a family who have the right to an inheritance on the basis of their blood ties. Maru rabu is the main heir, who gets a double share of the inheritance, while maru is the designation of other persons who joined the family by means of adoption (sometimes the husband of a woman was adopted by her father to provide him with the right to a share of the inheritance), and in this way acquired a right to their share of property, although sometimes their status was limited, according to the wording of their adoption documents (Grosz 1987, 26). Ownership of the land was clearly by the head of the family, i.e. the father. His estate seems to have been composed of different elements: his patrimony, his acquisitions, dowry of his wife and the earnings of the other members of the family (sons and wife). As far as the last point is concerned, there are some wills which exclude the properties of the other members of the family from the willed property (HSS 19, 10), but there are also some which include all of them in the inheritance (HSS 19, 37). There are also some exceptional wills, which prohibit the division of the estate, probably to prevent creating shares too small and too unprofitable to handle.

houses were built or bought. In one case (Gadd 51) the main heir is obliged to build "a house" of 8 m2 in area for his sister beside the paternal house. It is clear that in this case it was a single room which was added to the already existing building (Grosz 1987, 46). As for the family gods, of whose appearance we have no idea, 19 it is clear that they were passed to the main heir. The other brothers seem to have acquired their own gods at some point, which further stresses the independent character of their households. It was common practice, as suggested by HSS 14, 108 describing clearly an exceptional situation, when the heirs were prohibited from obtaining their gods. They had to share the gods kept in the house of the main heir. This must have been an exceptional situation and for this reason this stipulation finds its place in the testament. It seems thus that the splitting of a household belonging to a deceased father started with the division of his property and ended with the acquisition of family gods by those of his son(s) who did not inherit them. It is clear that none of the concepts taken by Jankowska as evidence for the existence of extended family communes can be traced in the texts, and if they existed at all it was surely exceptional compared to the everyday practices of the state of Arrapl]e, and may thus be discounted. Neither was common descent important to the people from Nuzi, nor did they own common land, nor did they reside together ( save for small nuclear families) nor, finally, did they share family deities. Considering this negative evidence it has to be assumed that the extended family communes never existed either in Nuzi or in the kingdom of Arrapl]e. 20 This consequently excludes the identification of dimtu settlements as seats of extended family communities and the territories of dimatu as properities of such family communes.

The rules of residence were utterly patrilocal, i.e. a married couple was living with the husband's parents, with the only exception in cases when a husband was adopted by the parents of his wife. It is difficult to know whether they resided in the same building or whether for the married couples new

1.6 SUMMARY In the previous parts of the chapter it was demonstrated that the word dimtu had several meanings, referring not only to an architectural structure, but also to a settlement or estate of a very particular kind, and to a district encompassing fields grouped around a dimtu settlement. Although we are far from understanding what the dimtu term meant specifically, the idea must have been very clear to the ancient population of the kingdom of Arrapl]e. The most important problem will thus be to understand in what aspect it differed from the other types of buildings, settlements and district designations. Once these distinctions are cleared up, it will be possible to identify them and consider their purposes and, finally, origin.

dimtu-buildings and other structures appearing in both urban and rural settlements (like granaries, stables or barns). The distinction between a house and a dimtu is clearly observable in the kingdom of Arrapl]e (cf. Table 1), for instance in the lists of possessions in the testaments (likeIM73243) or in the sale documents (HSS 13, 363 is in fact an inventory document related to the transfer of property), where both these terms appear side by side. Despite the analysis undertaken in chapter 1.2, it is not clear what it was so exceptional and so typical in the dimtu structures that they deserved a different name. According to CAD it was the fortified character of the building. This is quite difficult to ascertain. Descriptions of dimtu structures are exceptionally rare. The most specific is that of HSS 13, 363 giving its dimensions (perimeter of the structure) and using the substantive ked;u (according to CAD K, 404-5 meaning "citadel", "fortified area") to describe it, suggesting a defensive structure. This character of the structure may also be assumed from the name of a very similar structure

As for the architectural meaning of the word dimtu, it was probably a specific form of structure, giving a reason to differentiate houses, palaces (sometimes located in small villages and even in the dimtu-settlements, for instance, in the dimtu of lJasari-HSS 19, 47 or of Kip-tessup-JEN 279),

They seem to be anthropomorphic or zoomorphic. as in the text HSS 19. 5 they are described as having big or small heads (Deller 1981. 48-56 ). In a paper given at 40e RA! in Leiden G. Dosch opted for the existence of the extended families again. Still from her discussim it is clear that they had fonctioned as "extended households" incorporating, besides the family members, also dependents (people adopted or working on a base of the personal tidennutu contract, or slaves) not as "extended families" (Dosch 1996). 19

20

19

found in Assyria, where to describe it a noun dunnu (deriving from the root *dnn, "to be strong") was commonly used (cf. chapter II.1.3). The dimtu tended to be spacious structures. The first of only two areas of which we have some idea was less than 729 m 2 ( only the perimeter of the building is given, thus the area covered by the building could be smaller). The other was similar. In the case of the lowest possible figure of cubits reconstructed, it would still be 2 m longer in perimeter, allowing a maximum area 27 m larger or a maximum possible area more than twice as large, if the reconstructed perimeter would be 100 cubits longer. Another feature that can be gleaned from the written sources is that there were no dimtu structures in the cities. There are three possible instances from Nuzi in the texts that seem to attest at first sight to the opposite. Both belong to the archive of fAmminaja, mother of Silwa-tessup, more precisely to a group of tablets listing the properties of this wealthy woman. HSS 14, 4 is a list of fields, houses and other buildings located in various cities of the kingdom of ArraplJe. The text is quoted in full below (p. 114). The interesting passage comprises lines 9-11: 9 E2 tlLA i-na lib-bi URtWu-zi 10 i-na KA 2 ma-ag-ra-at-ti saE2 .GAL 11 6 GISAPINA •SA3 u3 AN . ZAGAR . 3 an-nu-ti

used here. We are dealing again with property composed of fields and a dimtu structure located in the territory of Nuzi, not in the city itself. The name of!Amminaja refers, of course, to fields and dimtu, not to the city of Nuzi. Summing up the elusive evidence, the dimtu structure was considerably larger that a typical house, was most probably free-standing with defensive features, and was located outside of larger settlements.

saURUNu-zi

The term dimtu is used here followed by the determinative pronoun saand a city name. It is listed there along with fields, which, in my opinion, points to the fact that it was not located in the city itself but in its region. This is strongly suggested by the use of fo instead of ina, which one would expect in a different case. This impression is supported by the wording of the first part of the quoted passage, where houses are listed. It is explicitly written that they are inside (ina libbi) the city of Nuzi, neighboring with the treshing floor of the palace. This is strongly suggestive of the dimtu being located outside of the city but within its territory, like the fields which are mentioned with it. In consequence, the whole passage could be translated as follows: "Houses inside the city of Nuzi, in the quarter of the threshing floor of the palace, 6 awi!Jaru of fields and dimtu, (all) these belonging to (the territory of) Nuzi". It is, in my opinion, strongly suggestive that the word dimtu was used here in the meaning "district". Even, if the word refers to the dimtu structure, it was located together with fields outside of the city. This conclusion will suffice for now, but I will return to this text in Chapter VI. 1 to consider the exact meaning of the sentence. The second tablet (HSS 14, 241) is much shorter, but of similar wording. The text runs as follows: 1 6 G!S APIN A. SA3 2 u3 AN .ZA.GAR 3 3 i-na URUNu-zisa 4 IAm-mi-na-a-a (four seal impressions and four names follow)

In this text both fields and dimtu are located in Nuzi. Exactly the same amount of fields listed permits the assumption that it is the same estate, which was listed together with other holdings of tAmminaja on HSS 14, 4 tablet that summed up all her belongings. The text should be interpreted exactly as in case of HSS 14, 4, despite the fact that the preposition ina was

Also the features of the dimtu settlements are not very clear. Again there are very few descriptions of such settlements known. Besides a long tablet HSS 13, 363, there are only a few passages in the other documents listing structures located in the dimtu settlements. The description of the dimtu of SelwulJu provides us with the names of several buildings and installations, few of which were located outside the settlement, among the fields. The whole list comprises the dimtu structure, 2 houses of unknown size, 4 quppatu-stables (two of them of a size comparable with the area of the dimtu, the third half as big, the area of the fourth not given), 2 magrattu-threshing floors (one many times larger than the dimtu structure, one of unknown size) and a !Jawal!Ju-field. One of the quppatu and one of the magrattu were located in the fields. There is no proof that all the buildings comprising the settlement were listed in the text. The purpose of the text was to list properties belonging to one person, and some other structures were mentioned as a reference point, to indicate the position of the constructions in question. It is very likely that for this reason not all the structures present in the settlement were listed. The same elements appear in the other dimtu settlements, for instance in the dimtu of Akawatil (dimtu, houses, well), Kubija (dimtu, well), Uknippa (the dimtu, l nakkatu-bam, 2 quppatu and a well-Yale 2 and Gadd 46). Further cases are listed in chapter 1.2 above. There are also settlements, in which the dimtu building was not mentioned as existing, but for which other structures were listed, for instance in the dim tu of Alta (houses) or of Kari (palace, libursu-house ). In a very few extant property lists three common elements of the dimtu settlements appear with varying frequency. The first of them is the dimtu structure, the other is houses, the third household structures. The number of their occurrences is well below the total number of names of dim tu settlements known from the tablets originating from the kingdom of ArraplJe (cf. Table 35). For over two hundred dimtu settlements known by name, the dimtu structure is listed only ten times, while houses are listed eight times and palaces three times. Also the household structures were mentioned relatively rarely: threshing floors six times, stables three times. This low frequency was caused by the fact that most of the tablets concern transactions, in which fields rather than buildings were involved. Structures were sold much less often, although they are sometimes mentioned in the will documents. On the other hand, it cannot be proved that there were dimtu settlements, in which there was no dimtu, but due to the specific character of our sources such proof can hardly be found. Dimtu was a very common settlement form in the kingdom of ArraplJe. We know over two hundred names of dimtu located all over the countryside. In most cases their names were formed from a personal name, usually that of a man. The name-giving

20

traits have been explained above; now it is time to consider why this type of settlement was called a dimtu. One could expect that the name of these settlements was adopted from the dimtu structures, which constituted the focal point of every settlement of this kind. The consequence of this view is that the construction of a dimtu structure would have to precede or be simultaneous with the founding of the whole settlement. The answer to the question of whether dimtu settlements evolved into cities is that there was no general rule. There are clear cases when both designations were used simultaneously, for a considerable period of time. On the other hand, it is possible that after some time some of the dimtu settlements evolved into cities. It is plausible that in some texts scribes used a shorter and more uniform designation of the settlement, i.e. URU rather thanAN.ZA.GA~, because in the context of the document this information was not significant. Finally, there is yet another possibility, which will be considered later, that in some instances the word dimtu was used in the meaning of "district" and not "settlement". A good example of such a phrase comes in lines 22-23 of HSS 15, 128: "dimtu u iilu Artatiu[ta] ", on a tablet listing settlements receiving water. The city of A1ialJuta is well known from several tablets, while the dimtu of Arta!Juta is mentioned only once, on this tablet. In my opinion this entry should be translated: "the district and the city of Arta!Juta".

are commonly used to describe different parts of the territory of a "city", ugiiru meaning most probably arable grounds, and (>Critu territory, incorporating probably pastures and steppe (Zaccagnini 1976, 32-9). The dimtu districts are sometimes located within the ugaru and sometimes within a (>Crituof a city. It seems that none of these two designations influenced the location of the dimtu district There are also cases when a dimtu settlement had an ugiiru or (feritu of its own or both. There was an official responsible for the dimtu, called bel dimti, just as the tiazannu was responsible for the city and its territory. His duty was to see that the people living in the dimtu, i.e. in the settlement, did not commit any crimes, and that no enemies commited crimes in the territory of the dimtu (cf. HSS 15, 1, above). It is commonly held that the dimtu settlements were founded by private persons, who established them in the countryside, and, subsequently, the settlement and the area around it adopted or was given their name. This point of view, convincing at first consideration, arouses some doubts. First of all, there were owners of dimtu, like Te!Jip-tilla, son of Pu!Ji-senni, who did not live in the dimtu of their name (Te!Jip-tilla was exceptional also because he had two dimtu of his name, one in the region of Zizza, the other in the vicinity of Tursa). Moreover, a person establishing a dimtu district of his own did not own the entirety of the fields in the district. This is best evidenced by numerous tablets documenting Te!Jip-tilla's acquisitions of fields in both dimiitu of his name. Finally, we have strange cases when the name of the dimtu (settlement or district?) is changed (the cases of the dimtu of Kizzuk (EN 9, 5, cf. below, p. 117-118) and of the dimtu of Sukrija, referred to above) or when a dimtu is referred to by use of two personal names, as in TCL IX, 41: "AN.ZA.GA~ Niarija §a ljutip-urasse". This problem will be discussed more thoroughly in chapter VI.

There are many uncertainties concerning also the other meaning of dimtu, i.e. "district". There is no doubt that the word was often used in this meaning, probably more often that in the meaning "structure" or "settlement". The term dimtu in this meaning was used in all the field transaction texts, both when the field in question was located in a dimtu or dimtu was used as a reference point, to describe the position of the fields in question. It is certain that it was a territory, which the scribes meant, writing "ina dimti". This territorial aspect is also rendered by the use of the terms ugiiru and (feritu. Both

The last of the proposed meanings, that of the "family commune", cannot be sustained in the light of the published Nuzi tablets.

21

II. TERRITORIAL AND TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF DIMTU OUTSIDE THE KINGDOM OF ARRAP]JE 11.1 SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA The oldest possible appearance of the term AN.ZA.GA~ in cuneiform texts dates back to the Akkadian period. AN .ZA. GAR 3 Dug 4 -ga-ka is mentioned in line 2 of text AO 11327 from the Musee du Louvre (MAD 4: 88). It is possible that this line should be read ctzag.kar-duga, being thus a name of a junior singer (US.KU.TUR) mentioned in line 3 of the text. This reading, which seems to be more plausible than dimtu Duga, excludes the possibility that the term AN.ZA.GA~ was already used to describe settlements in the Old Akkadian period. Il.1.1

Babylonian (Groneberg 1980, 18) and Middle Babylonian sources (Nashef 1982, 80, 82). Another large settlement going by the name of a dimtu is the dimtu of Enlil. In the text ITT V: 9962, dated to the rule of Ibbi-Suen, ninety people from that city are mentioned as receiving rations of barley (de Genouillac 1921, 61). A stone door-socket oflr-Nanna, s u kk a 1. 111 ah of Su-Suen, also mentions among his titles an office of sakkanakku of the dimtu ofEnlil, which points to the importance of this town (Thureau-Dangin 1905, 148-52). Another text concerning this city is BE 3: 84. It is a long account of grain, ending with a note of 605 gur 210 qa of barley and 8 gur 120 qa of barley flour coming from the fields of the dimtu of Enlil and deposited in its granary. The text is dated to the 28th year of Sulgi. With a mean productivity for this period equaling about 23 gur per bur (Maekawa 1984, 83--4) this amount of barley might be produced on fields with an overall surface area of some 20 bur, i.e. about 120 ha. For the further information concerning the dimtu of Enlil see the following section of this chapter.

THE UR III PERIOD

There are a number of texts of the period of the Third Dynasty of Ur which mention AN.ZA.GA~ settlements. Four names of settlements are listed in the same text, describing limits of landed properties belonging to different temples or individuals (Kraus 1947, 45-75). 21 Several topographical features are used for the land-marks, such as towns, villages, temples, mountains, rivers and canals, and also towers (this translation of AN.ZA.GA~ was used by Kraus in the edition of the text). Their names were derived in one case from a divine name (Numusda-cf. Appendix B, Section IA), in another case from a geographic feature ("mountain"), then after a possible personal name (Huwuma) and lastly after a social standing ("son of the king"). 22 As their names do not exhibit the construction with a relative and a personal name in the genitive, typical for the later periods, there is nothing in the text to contradict a translation of AN.ZA.GA~ as "tower".

Texts of the Ur III period from southern Mesopotamia, although attesting the presence of a limited number of settlements going by the name of dimtu, do not give much information about the character of the settlements themselves. Among 8 settlement names only one is constructed in a way typical for the settlements of the Nuzi period, i.e. by employing a personal name. The others are called after geographical features (Hursagga, I7-GirsuK1),divine names (Enlil, Numusda, Nunu), or epithets referring to the function ofa person (Dub.sar, Dumu.lugal). At least some of them seem to be large, town-like communities. The best case is probably the dimtu ofEnlil, whose sakkanakku is mentioned in one of the texts. Only in the case of the dimtu ofNunu and the dimtu ofDub.sar may it be assumed that they were small agricultural settlements.

A different situation is attested by a tablet from Ur (UET 3: 1019), dated to 42nd year of Sulgi. A number of workers, including gardeners, are assigned to the dimtu ofNunu, clearly a settlement (Legrain 1937, 295). Also in the case of tablet AO 6041 from the Louvre there is no doubt thatAN.ZA.GA~ Dub.sarKl is an actual settlement. The text in question is a long list of harvest workers, amounting 21,799 persons, written down in the 2nd year of Amar-Suena (Goetze 1963, 1-8). Lines 5-6 read: "60 + 20 workers from the city of Mastabba and the dimtu of Dub.sar". The dimtu is not very likely to be an observation tower, but rather an agricultural settlement, located in the vicinity of Kuta (cf. text, line 14). There is also another settlement on the list bearing the conspicuous name uRuDimatim, also located in the region of Kuta. This settlement seems to have been large one as the number of workers assigned to it (or coming from it) is 617 (line 11). This impression is confirmed by other texts pointing clearly that uRuDimatim was an actual town, perhaps dubbed after characteristic construction(s) located within the city. This settlement existed for several centuries, as it is mentioned many times in Old

Il.1.2

THE OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD

Dimtu settlements seem to be much more popular in Southern Mesopotamia during Old Babylonian times. RGTC 3 lists eighteen settlements with a dimtu element in their names or as a determinative, but this list may be extended (cf. Appendix B, Section IB). For the first time there is also evidence of a dimtu as a construction forming a part of settlement or property.

Similarly to those of the Nuzi period, Old Babylonian texts from southern Mesopotamia mentioning dimtu building refer to constructions built in the immediate vicinity of fields or on the field itself. The instances from legal texts, usually formulated as kin1 qadum dimtim (TCL I: 63, 2), are collected in Table 5. The best source to identify what kind of building we

Frayne (1992. n. 51) dates the text to the reign ofUr-nammu. Cf. comment about the possible meaning and localisation of this geographic name in Frayne 1992. n. 51.

22

Table 5: Dimtu as an element of an estate in Old Babylonian texts Text

Orchard kin]

Field eqlu

Threshing-floor KI.UD

BE 6/1: 70, 7

X

X

CT2:7,2

X

CT 4: 10, 7

X

X

X

CTB: 16a, 31

X

X

X

CT8:31a,3

X

Dimtu

80sar X

X

Schei! 1o, 12

X

X

X

Schei/ 100, 7

X

X

xa

RT17, 33

X

TCL I: 63, 1

X

X

TCL I: 65, 5

X

X

TCL I: 70, 4

X

X

'

X

X

For the location of the dimtu construction see the discussion on the following page.

are dealing with is probably the text AO 4480 from Louvre, concerning a division of family prope1iy, consisting, among others, of a house located in Kis. One of the fields is described as equipped with a dimtu, apparently a kind of building (Kohler/Ungnad 1911, 5-6). A text from Sippar registering several persons, animals and estates, including a "garden as far as it extends and a dimtu" given by a father to his sons dates back to the reign of Sin-muballit, 23 Another text from Sippar of the same date offers the following description of a field: "l O iku of field located in ugaru of Martu, belonging to the "''dimti, together with a garden, as much of it as it is, and the dimtu of the Sippar road" (Schei/ 100, 12--4). It is clear that in this case the dimtu is an actual building, not a kind of settlement. In the text BE 6/1: 70, the surface area of the rural dimtu is given as 80 sar, i.e. about 2,880 1112, much more than that of the dimtu construction described above (chapter 1.2) belonging to estate of the dimtu of SelwulJ.u, which did not exceeded 729 1112•

building might actually be a tower. The text is peculiar in some other aspects. Firstly, the signs AN.ZA.GA~ are preceded by the determinative E2, designating a construction. Furthermore, its position is listed in relation to the houses of two other persons, as if it constituted part of the tightly built settlement. One of the owners of the neighboring houses is named as Res-Samas, son of Beltani, with whom the owner of the document shares some inherited pottery. The same person appears as an owner of a house neighboring a plot with a structures that also has to be transfen-ed, localised in "great Sippar". It is thus not excluded that the given size of the dimtu is in fact the size only of the part that was meant to be transferred together with other goods, as the discrepancy between the area given in this text and other figures is of that order. It is interesting to compare the area of the two dimatu mentioned above with the size of the town houses, as they are known from the archaeological record and from Old Babylonian texts. This will also provide a comparison with the data from the Nuzi texts presented in chapter 1.2.

It is also possible that a dimtu building might be located in-

side the city. This interpretation was proposed in case of the text Scheil 100, which concerns a gift of fields, orchards and dim tu from the parents to a daughter (dated tentatively to the reign of ]:;lammurapi). According to R. Han-is, orchards and dimtu were located inside the city wall, as suggested by wording ina SippaiN put directly after the word for dimtu (R. Han-is 1975, 20). It is also possible that the fields listed in the texts were located outside the city of Sippar, although in its immediate vicinity (by the KU-MAL (?) gate and by the ditch). There was in Sippar an in-igation district called AGAR ~ URUK1 and it may be disputed whether it was locted inside the city wall, or outside but in the vicinity of the gate. On the other hand there were also fields located ina bab alim, which may point to a location within the city walls. In any event, the wording of the location of the property is not clear. What is important, this dimtu is clearly a kind of building associated with an orchard. Less clear is the case of a dimtu of surface area 1 sar located in the region of Sippar (cf. BE 6/1: 62, 11). The given surface area is only ca. 36 1112, which suggests that the

A survey of the private houses of Ur by van de Mieroop ( 1992, 223) has established that there were differences in the area of houses located in the different quarters of the city. For instance, in the northern part of the AH sector the average area of twenty houses was 72 1112, while in its southern part the average area of twenty-eight houses was only 40 1112• In sector EM (twelve houses) the average was about 54 1112,while at the Mausoleum site four houses averaged about 75 m2 • Among the texts found in the houses there were also some inheritance division contracts, mentioning a family of three sons owning a house of206 1112, a family of four sons owning a house of 46 1112, and another concerning two sons with a house of 24 m2 . A text found in the house at No. 2 Church Lane mentions five sons dividing a house of 143 1112 . Data concerning the private houses from Ur extracted from the tablets of the Old Babylonian period are presented below in the form of Table 6. It has to be noted that some of the texts

Schei/ 10, 13: kini ma/a ma.yuu dimtwn. cf. 77, 10 and 89, 4', being a copies of the same text or refeJTing to the same piece of field.

23

Table 6: The size of the houses in the sale and inheritance contracts from Old Babylonian Ura Text number

Area (sar, gin, se)

Document type

Area (m2 )

UET5: 153

0, 3 5/6, 15

s s

4.35 4.40

2.50

UET5: 154

0,7,1/4

UET5: 119

0, 7 1/3

1(2)

UET5: 132

0, 10

s

6.00

YOS 12: 42

0, 10

?

6.00

UET5: 134

0, 11

S(1/2?)

6.60

UET5: 106

0, 13, 15

I(2)b

7.90

UET5: 139

1/6, 4 1/2

s

8.70

UET5: 109

0, 16 2/3

1(3)

1o.ooc

UET5: 142

1/3, 2 5/6

s

13.50

1/3, 4 2/3, 6

1(4)

14.90

UET5: 131

1/2

S(1 /2)

18.00

UET5: 147d

1/2

s

18.00

UET5: 155

1/2

E

18.ooe

UET5:113

UET5: 252

1/2

?

18.00

UET5: 150

1/2, 3

19.80

UET5: 137

1/2, 4

UET5: 143

1/2, 4

UET5: 148

1/2, 4 2/3, 6

s s s s s

UET5:112

2/3, 61/2

1(4)

UET5:119

UET5: 149

20.40 20.40 20.40 27.60 28.10

2/3, 7 2/3

1(2)

28.60

UET5: 135

5/6

30.00

UET5: 136

5/6

s s

30.00

UET5: 124

5/6, 4

E

32.40

UET5: 104

5/6, 41/3

1(2)

32.60

UET5: 101

5/6, 8 5/6

1(2)

35.00

UET5: 123

E

36.00

UET5: 145

s

36.00

UET5: 261

?

36.00

UET5: 137

1, 4

UET5: 141

1, 10

UET5: 152

1, 10

UET5: 156

1, 10

s s s s

UET5: 124

1, 13

E

43.80

UET5: 146

1 1/3

s

48.00

UET5: 123

1 5/6

E

66.00

UET5: 100

2, 161/3

UET5: 105

81

UET5: 151

2 1/3,

38.40 42.00 42.00 42.00

82.00

4

'

I

88.80

s

144.00

For the contracts concerning houses in other cities cf. Battini-Villard 1999, Tab. CLXXIX, and further texts from: - Tell Sifr (TS, no. 1, 2, 5, 9, 14-16, 18, 19, 22, 25, 29, 37, 43-5, 47, 56, 57, 59, 93, 99)-houses ranging in area from 7 1/2 gin to 1 1/2 sar, i.e., from 4.5 to 54 m'. - Larsa (S. Harris 1983, Tab. 4 and 5)-houses ranging in area from 17 gin to 3 sar, i.e., from 10.2 to 72 m2 • - Nippur (Stone 1987, nos. 12, 16--20, 21, 26, 36, 37, 42-47, 54), ranging from 1Ogin to 1 sar 28 gin, i.e., from about 6 to 52 m2 • - lschali (Greengus 1986, no. 30)-2/3 sar 15 se, ca. 24 m'. - Saduppum (Simmons 1961, nos. 92, 112, 115, 122)-from 1/3 sar to 2 1/3 sar, from 12 to 84 m'. b The other part is of size 0, 18 1/3, 15, i.e., 11 m'. ' There are three parts of a house of this size located side by side, given to each of three brothers, cf. Charpin 1986, 106--8. Charpin suggested that it was the house at 7 Quiet Street that was described in the text. d Bought from his own brother. ' Two such houses. ' Or 2 2/3, 8, then 100.8 m'.

24

Table 7: Area of the roofed space of the excavated private houses in Ur, according to Luby (1990)3 The name of the house

Site

7 Niche Street 2 Store Street 3 Bazaar Alley 2 Straight Street 4 Store Street 1 Bazaar Alley 6 Store Street 6 Paternoster Row 2 Bazaar Alley 1 Paternoster Row 2 Paternoster Row 5 Paternoster Row 6 Straight Street 9 Paternoster Row 8 Straight Street 7 Paternoster Row 12 Paternoster Row 3 Niche Street 8-1 0 Paternoster Row 5 Gay Street 7 Straight Street 1 Niche Street 4A Paternoster Row 1 New Street 5 Straight Street 5 Niche Street 14 Paternoster Row 1 Church Street 11 Church Lane 2-3 New Street 3 Paternoster Row 9B Church Lane 1 Quiet Street 3 Quiet Street 5 Quiet Street 4 Gay Street 15-15A Church Lane 1B Bakers' Square 7 Quiet Street 3 Church Lane 3 Gay Street 9A Church Lane 1 Broad Street 3 Store Street 1 Bakers' Square 7 Quiet Street 7 Church Lane 2 Quiet Street 4 Straight Street 1 Old Street 1 Store Street 4 Paternoster Row 4 Niche Street 2 Church Lane 5 Church Lane 13 Church Lane 1 Boundary Street 3 Straight Street 11A-B Paternoster Row

AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH EM AH AH AH EM AH AH AH AH AH EM AH AH EM EM EM EM AH AH AH AH EM AH AH AH AH EM AH EM AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH

No. of pieces

2 2

3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 3 3 3 4 4 6 4 4 5 1 3 6 7 8 8 6 3 6 4 7 10 9 5 9 5 9 8 9 3 9 9 9 10 10 7 10 12 12 10 12 14 12 15 18

AH AH

Area (m2 ) 8.8 10.0 12.7 12.8 13.2 15.2 15.2 15.8 17.0 18.3 22.0 22.3 23.6 24.5 24.9 25.4 27.8 28.0 29.2 30.6 31.9 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.1 45.9 49.9 51.7 55.7 58.3 60.8 62.3 63.7 65.2 67.3 68.5 69.1 71.3 76.0 76.7b 78.5 78.6 81.6 82.5 82.9 86.9 88.9 99.4 104.1 117.6 121.9 125.2 125.8 126.2c 126.4 148.4 151.3 157.6 266.2

Somewhat different sizes, due to a different way of calculation, were published recently by L. Battini-Villard (1999, pp. 161-3, Table II). The measurments of houses uncovered in Areas TA and TB at Nippur are published by Stone (1981, Tab. 1, 2, 5; 1987, Tab. 11, 15 and 16). b It is possible that tablet UET5: 131 found in this house, relating to the sale of a share in the father's house by one brother to another, relates to the 13 Church Lane house. If so, it would have been occupied by 4 families, cf. UET 5: 264. ' That four near-contemporary private archives of unrelated persons were found in the house suggests that at the beginning of the 18th century BC it was occupied by at least four families (van de Mieroop 1992, 142-5).

25

Table 8: Names of dimtu settlements mentioned in the Old Babylonian Lexical lists YOS 5: 105

SLT213

AO 6447

AN.ZA.GAR3Kl

AN.ZA.GAR3Kl

AN.ZA.GAR/

/M51134 1

AN.ZA.GAR3MESKI (I. 62)

LugalK1 Ur.ge/ 0

En.lil.la2 Ki

0

En.lil.la2 " 1

0

1

En.lilK1

Ur.zir5 .raK1 (I. 51) 0

1 En.li1K

lr3 .raK1 Da.daKI(I. 3)

Da?.daKI

Bu.BuKI(I. 4)

PU.PLJKI

Ku-na-nu-umK1

Gu-na-nu-umK1

IS.DI?.RIKI

IB.DIKI

Da.daKI

PU.PLJKI Ku-na-nuK1

quoted in Table 6 are house sale or exchange contracts, while others are division contracts mentioning only that part of the house which is a single share belonging to one of the brothers. To distinguish these texts, letter codes have been placed in the third column to designate sold houses (S), exchanged houses (E) and inheritance documents (I, accompanied by the number of shareholders). In this last case one has to multiply the figure given in the fourth column of the table by the number of shareholders to obtain the original area of the house.

Ku-na-[nu-umK1]

a range of medium houses in both presented groups of texts. The larger one (BE 6/1: 70), of a surface of 2,880 m2 is many times bigger than the biggest of houses known both from tablets and from the archaeological excavations. Beside the dimtu constructions there were many instances of dimtu settlements located in Southern Mesopotamia. Some names of dimtu settlements were included into lexical lists dating to the first centuries of the second millennium BC. The tablets in question are: YOS 5: 105 from Ur or Larsa; SLT213 from Nippur, (Jean 1933, 24);AO 6447, fromLarsa(Jean 1935, 164); andIM51143 from Saduppum (S. Levy 1947, 54). Most of the names appear repeatedly on several lists, thus it would be interesting to compare the sequence of the entries, summarised in Table 8.

It is clear that, as in the case of Nuzi, the houses mentioned were sometimes very small segments of buildings. A single room, indeed, was occasionally sold (the first eight entries in Table 6, of an area not larger than 10 m 2). The main body of the table constitutes houses of moderate size (about 40-60 m2 in area). The largest mentioned house covered an area of 144 m 2 , i.e. considerably smaller than the largest houses from the Nuzi texts. For Ur, like for Nuzi, we can attempt a comparison of the area of houses noted in the texts and the area of houses excavated on the same site. The estimated sizes of the excavated houses are presented in Table 7.

Only a few of the dimtu names appearing in lexical lists are known from other texts. These are: Ur.ge 7 = Kalbi, DEnlil, Dada and Kunanum (cf. Appendix B, Section IB). Dimtu-Kalbi (AN.ZA.GA~ UR.GE 7) is mentioned twice. The first case is a letter concerning a person being sent to this place to receive a field (AaB 5: 264). The other text, also a letter, concerns a runaway person who took shelter by his brother in [AN.ZA.]GA~ UR.GE/Ebeling 1942b, 38-9). It is thus clear, that this dimtu was a settlement, as there were people living there and fields to be taken.

It is remarkable that the areas given in the cuneiform documents are usually considerably smaller than the sizes of the excavated houses. The same tendency was observed in the case of the houses from Nuzi (cf. chapter I.2) and it is clear that the same factors were acting in both cases. This situation was caused by progressing decline of the house area occupied by the single family. Original houses were divided among the children in a way regulated by testaments or by a customary rule. This process is well illustrated by comparison of two houses: I and F in Old Babylonian Nippur with the data concerning inheritance and sale ofhouses found within the houses (Stone 1981 ). The original area of House I, calculated as 88.8 gin con-esponds astonishingly well with area given on the inheritance tablet 3N-T-94 (Stone 1987, no. 42). Later divisions, witnessed by cuneiform documents, resulted in spliting house into three parts, being later objects of further transactions. Comparing the area of houses and dimtu constructions of the Old Babylonian texts it is noticeable that the area of smaller dimtu (36 1112, BE 6/1: 62, page 23, above) is still within

A settlement called the dimtu of Enlil24 appears on several tablets from Sippar. It is a place of origin of two persons mentioned on the tablet VS 9: 141. The text, dated to the 24th year of]jammurapi, mentions three other persons and declares that they are free of any debts (Ungnad 1914, 118-19). The same settlement appears on an unpublished tablet from the British Museum: BM[ANEJ 80496, and on a tablet CT 48: 7, the latter being a fragment of a letter or a contract mentioning a field located in a district belonging to this settlement. Recently published tablet BM[ANEJ 80509 is a summary of fields allotted to men serving in the army (Dekiere 1995, no. 485). In one section 4.0.4 iku of field and 4 ila?of garden, and in another 9.0.3 iku of fields and again 4 iku of garden, are listed.

Cf. the settlement of the dimtu of Enlil in the Ur Ill period, above.

26

The letter BM[ANEJ 17339 refers to some animals which are sent to the dimtu ofEnlil to feed on the grass (van Soldt 1990, 116--7). The settlement was changed into a fortress by Samsu-iluna, who built a new defensive wall in place of an earlier, ruined construction (King 1889, 199-207). A similar change may be surmised in the case of a fortress called Dur-dimti-Dada, the destruction of which was mentioned in the 7th year-formula of Sin-muballit (Ungnad 1933, 177b). The problem is that the dimtu of Dada may earlier be identified either with a town named Dada, occurring in the Early Dynastic list of geographical names and located on the Irninna canal between Kuta and Jjarbidum, or else with a settlement of the same name known from the geographical lists (Frayne 1992, 12, 16, Map 2). It cannot be excluded that both Old Babylonian and Early Dynastic lists refer to the same settlement.

geographical criteria. The first territory would be the Diyala region. Two dimiitu, Ahimara~ and Barmi, are mentioned in texts from the vicinity of Ischali. The first settlement is found in text OBTJ305, a list of thirteen soldiers of the Marduk and Samas regiments, dated to the reign of Samsu-iluna (Greengus 1979, 71--4). A boy living in this settlement is listed in lines 23-5 of the tablet and another person from the same settlement, apparently lying close to the cities of Lasumi and Kismar, appears in line 29. The other dimtu is mentioned in text no. 306, also a military recruitment document and on the small fragment no. 321, listing personnel. Tablet no. 309 also has a similar character; unfortunately the text is partly destroyed, and only settlement designations (AN.ZA.GA~) are preserved in lines 10 and 14.

Another of the dimtu listed in the geographical lists, Kunanu, is mentioned on the British Museum tablet BM[ANE] 87389, a letter to an overseer (rabiiinu) of the dimtu of Kunanu concerning loses caused by someone breaking into the house (Kraus 1964, 38-41 ). It is also enumerated on a tablet listing taxes paid by various persons dated to the 32nd year of Rim-Sin (Faust 1941, 34, no. 100). Finally, it appears also on tablet VS 13: 104, considered more fully below.

There is also evidence of dimtu settlements or buildings existing further north, along the Diyala river. One of the letters found at the site of Tell Haddad in the area of the Hamrin Salvage Project, identified with the Old Babylonian town of Me-Turan, refers to amounts of grain given to a ce1iain lbi-Sa!Jan residing in a dimtu (Muhammad 1992, 52, no. 21 ). There is a reference to the place of residence of Ibi-Sa!Jan as bitu, which suggests that the dimtu mentioned before was the residence of this man and his family. The same shipment of grain is most probably referred to in text no. 22. The presence of a dimtu in the Diyala region is further attested by another text mentioning a settlement of this kind, though without giving its name. OBTI 6 is a letter from a certain Izi-Sumu addressed to E 2 .Gl 4 .A ("a daughter-in-law of the house") (Greengus 1986, 12). In line 4 it refers to meat from dimtu settlements to be sent to the addressee. The plural determinative put after AN.ZA. GA~ clearly indicates that there were at least a few settlements of this kind existing at the same time. Tablet NBC 8264, probably coming from the Diyala region, deals with grain and fodder for oxen taken from a dimtu (Simmons 1960, 51, no. 75). The same formula is used in NBC 9139, dated to the 9th year of Sumu-la-el (Simmons 1961, 82, no. 139).

Among four dimiitu appearing in the geographical lists, two (Enlil and probably Dada) were large settlements that during the Old Babylonian period were transformed into fortresses. Kuna-nu and Kalbi, on the other hand, are clearly rural settlements of limited importance. The dimtu of Ahuni and dimtu ofTab-~illasu are mentioned in the long list of geographical names of settlements located in the vicinity of Der (which is listed in line 22) and Lagas (line 30) (BRM 4: 53). 25 The list, containing forty-six extant names of settlements, some of them situated along the Lagas Canal, had originally be much longer. The difference is clear between this list, composed only of geographical names, and the lists described above. The other lists also mention various objects and names, which are usually placed in an "alphabetial" order, i.e. words starting with the same signs are placed together. The text BRM 4: 53 gives an impression that in this part of Mesopotamia the proportion of dimtu settlements to other villages was very small.

A similar situation appears in tablets from Tell Harmal. Text NBC 8664 is a record of expenditures on grain. In lines 7'-9' we read about sending 1 gur 1 pi of grain for the oxen when they return(?) to the dimtu (Simmons 1961, 29, no. 62). Again the name of the dimtu is not given.

VS 13: 104, a long text composed of six columns, is of a similar character (Figulla 1914, 74-9). It is list of a large number of persons coming from the settlements dispersed between Adab (lines I, 26; II, 6, 13, 22) and Der (line I, 2, 10). Two of these settlements are called dimtu, namely the dimtu of Apija and dimtu of Kunanu. Altogether forty-five settlements are listed, al1hough their original number must have been greater. The purpose of the text is a census of workers (including slaves, with their supervisors and village names given). Some of the persons are listed as "dead" or "runaway". Again it is quite clear that we are dealing with settlements scattered around the countryside.

In TCL I: 65 a large property, composed of several fields together with slaves and inventory is divided between two brothers. Among different villages names bearing a determinative of place, KI, a dim tu without name and further determinative is mentioned (lines 8 and 30). In the text, dated to Sin-muballit, a relative sais used in all cases when the text refers to the dimtu, thus it may be assumed that dimtu was in fact a kind of settlement, like other localities. Another good example is BE 6/2: 136, relating activities of Kassite troops in the region of Sippar in the time of Ammi-~aduka or Samsu-ditana: "after they had moved from Kar-Samas and pitched their tents in the dim tu-settlements (or districts) lying around the city of Sippar" (Landsberger 1954, 66, n. 167). There are also legal texts, in

Dimtu settlements known from economic texts and from letters will be analysed on the following pages according to their

Schei] (1907. 68-71) proposed switching the obverse and the reverse of the tablet.

27

which fields are located by means of their relation to dimtu. A good example is BE 6/1: 77, which runs as follows (lines 1-3): "Field in agricultural area[ ... ] in front of the gate of the dimtu belonging to l:Jazannu" (Kohler/Ungnad 1909, no. 596). Finally, there are some letters of Old Babylonian date which relate to agricultural products and activities connected with fields which are obviously part of the dimtu estate: "Lugatum took his oxen to the dimtu to sow a field with sesame" (PBS7: 7); "As concerns the grain from your dimtu, it has not yet been cleaned and I have not sent it to you" (TCL 17: 1, 1718); "4 bur of sesame has beeen used for sowing in your dimtu and it is all right" (TCL 17: 7, 4-6); "I took 5 bur of grain from your dimtu" (YOS 2: 94, 4-5, dated to the 2nd year of Rim-Sin); "Nurrija had given me twenty oxen. (With them) einkorn had been ploughed and sown. (Now) I will take them to the dimtu of the gardeners" (ABUK 178: 13-8).

grain of the dimtu of Kattim equals 300 gur. This letter is dated to the 2nd year of Rim-Sin (Ebeling 1942b, 53, 138). In the same region a dimtu of Warad-ilisu was also located. It is mentioned on a tablet listing fields located in the different villages which were given to various persons (Jean 1926, 3, TC XI: 185). Another letter in the Louvre, AO 8324, sent to Samas-hazir by king t[ammurapi of Babylon, contains an order for providing a certain Munawirum with a 3 iku field for his use (Kraus 1968, 2-3, no. 4). The field in question has to be cut out of the Samas-hazir family property (A.SA 3 E 2 abi-su), located in the dimtu of Ili-asranni. There is no doubt that the dimtu is a kind of rural settlement to which a number of fields belonged. One may wonder if Ili-asranni was the ancestor of Samas-hazir, and the village came to Samas-hazir as a part of his inheritance. The dimtu of Ili-asranni appears again in a text from Larsa (YBC 5673 = YOS 8: 88) dated to the 32nd year of Rim-Sin (Faust 1941, 34). The text is a division contract of an inherited property composed of fields and date-palm orchards located in several villages in the vicinity of Larsa, including the dimtu of Ili-asranni.

Quite a number of dimiitu were located in the vicinity of Larsa. Three dimtu settlements are listed on the tablet SVJAD 118 (Riftin 1937, Pl. LXXIII). All of them bear names constructed of the word dimtu and a personal name, in the way which has already been described in the case of the dimtu settlements from the kingdom of Arrapl}e (the dimiitu of Awil-Iskur, Enlil-abi and Sin-gimilanni). The text lists names of more than a dozen settlements, described as URlJK', which is a frequently used designation of a village (Kozyreva 1988, 16), and among these the names of dimtu appear. In fact, the names of these villages are constructed in exactly the same way as the names of the dimtu. Kozyreva has proposed interpreting the text as a list of small settlements, which are grouped into larger units described by the word dimtu (Kozyreva 1988, 17). There is nothing in the text to justify such an interpretation. More likely all the geographical names refer to the settlements located in the ugiiru named after the neighbouring canal Gir.sag.(ga?). It is of course not clear whether the listed names comprised all the settlements in the region. If so, it would be possible to reconstruct the ratio of villages and dimtu settlements in the Larsan countryside. Unfortunately, there is no such a certainty. None of the dimtu-settlements from the tablet SVJAD 118 is known from other texts, but a city bearing exactly the same name as one of them, i.e. uRuSin-gimilanni, is mentioned on the letter Sin-muballit addressed to Ea-rabi (Lutz 1929, 318, no. 29). It is difficult to locate the city on the map, thus one can not be certain if the settlement mentioned as a dimtu and as an iilu is one and the same.

Located in the same region, another dimtu, Awilija, may be found on tablet TCL XI: 231. It is one more list of persons, with the name of the settlement given after the personal name. Neither an introductory formula nor a summary of the text was even written on the tablet, thus the exact character of the text is impossible to reconstruct. Among the geographical names there are seven names of cities and that of the dimtu of Awilija. Very interesting is the case of the dimtu of Balmunaml}e, the property of a prosperous and well-known Larsan merchant. This man's private archive has been a subject of many studies, the most recent by Marc van de Mieroop (1987). Among the settlements belonging to the domain of Balmunaml}e, son of Sin-niir-matim, there is one named after him, and another named after his father (van de Mieroop 1987, 18-9). The latter is always referred to as URUK1 Sin-niir-matim, while the settlement called Balmunaml}e is sometimes referred to as a dimtu and sometimes as an iilu (Groeneberg 1980, 37,205; Breckwoldt 1995/96, 8Tj 6 • This has been pointed out by several scholars. As it basically recalls the situation of the kingdom of Arrapl}e, it is worth citing at some length the various opinions presented. According to Kozyreva, villages were named after the founder or after a person actually receiving an income from the settlement (Kozyreva 1975, 17). For her it was therefore clear that the settlement was founded by Balmunaml}e himself, and for this reason it bears his name. He was most probably acting in the same way as his father had when founding a settlement called by his name. According to Renger, the villages were centres of substantial private estates, and were named after their owners (Renger 1957-71, 650). Leemans is of a different opinion. According to him the estates started with single farms (dimtu) named after their owners. Subsequently the estates were enlarged and the settlements grew up to form proper villages, which were then described as iilu (Leemans 1975, 140; 1982, 247). This view

Another agricultural settlement in the countryside of Larsa was the dimtu of Kattim. It is mentioned in the Louvre tablets AO 6734 and AO 6747, both being letters sent by Silli-Samas to his lord. The first of them mainly concerns the harvest of grain in the rural estates under the surveillance of the letter's author. Then, there is a section of the letter devoted to the dimtu ofKattim, where, it is stated, "the workers did not clear it (the grain) yet", and the grain was therefore not yet ready for dispatch (Ebeling 1942a, 6- 7). In the otherletterSilli-Samas gives details about the preparations for the sowing season. In the dimtu of Kattim 4 bur of field was prepared for sesame (Ebeling 1942a, 10-1). The same person had written another letter, YOS 2: 94, which informs his lord that the (harvested?)

For a reconstructed localisation of both settlements with respect to Larsa, see Breckwoldt 1995/96, Fig. 5.

28

follows the opinion of Fadhil concerning the development of the dimtu settlements into villages or towns in the kingdom of Arrap!Je, as referred to above (chapter 1.3). Finally, Butz assumes that the villages listed were crown properties, because they are not very numerous (Butz 1979, 31, note 192). This last opinion has to be discarded, as the text YOS 8: 42 states clearly that the dimtu of Balmunam!Je was a private property. There is no doubt that settlements that were given names after particular persons sustained these names for a considerable period of time. The village of Si'n-niir-miitim was still called by this name, despite the fact that Si'n-niir-miitim was most probably already dead at the moment when YOS 8: 42 was written down and the village itself was the property of his son, Balmunam!Je. A possible reason for keeping the old name was that the property was still held by the same family.

settlements, comprising fields and pastures and engaged in agricultural production. There are also a few dunnu settlements mentioned in the Old Babylonian sources. Tablet YOS 13: 138 is a list of indivduals, the last of whom is described as coming from Dunni-sa'idi. This place-name would be totally obscure but for a Neo- or possibly Late Babylonian text, BM[ANEJ 77433, mentioning temples in Babylon and its vicinity, which lists a temple of Gula located in Dunni-sii'idi (George 1992, 222, n. 4). In another text (BRM 4: 25) both a temple of Gula and a temple of Ulsigga located in the same place are mentioned. If we are dealing with the same settlement, it had survived for about a millennium, and during this time most probably developed into a town, provided with at least two temples. Another case, slightly uncertain, is provided by tablet TCL XI: 174. This is a long document denoting the division of the substantial estates of Iddin-Amurrum between his five sons. One of the fields (literally "meadow and garden") is located in atudunnu sa atufjanzipatanu (the reading of the two final signs is unce1iain). A problem with understanding this line is caused by the double use of the URU determinative, before both word dunnu and the actual name. The tablet is dated to the 40th year of Jjammurapi.

Luckily, the Old Babylonian tablets usually carry a date, unlike the tablets from the Nuzi region. The most important text concerning the estate of Balmunam!Je is tablet YOS 8: 42, a court ruling denying the claims of several persons to his property. All his belongings are summarically listed (in respect to their location within districts of the settlements) and the dimtu of Balmunam!Je is one of the localities mentioned. The text is dated to the 21st year of Rim-Si'n. The other tablets refer to an earlier period. Letter YOS 6: 122, written by Silli-Samas to his lord and concerning grain in his lord's dimtu, is dated to the 2nd year of R.im-Si'n (Stol 1981, no 94). As Silli-Samas is well-known as a person responsible for the administration of grain production in the estate of Balmunam!Je, it is very likely that the letter concerns the dimtu of Balmunam!Je. Two other tablets mentioning the dimtu of Balmunam!Je (YOS 5: 181 and YBC 6231 = Breckwoldt 1995/96, 82) are dated to 8th year of R.im-Si'n. Another (YBC 5585 = Breckwoldt 1995/ 96, 80) gives a date of the 10th year of Rim-Si'n. There is also a single tablet where the settlement by the name ofBalmunam!Je is determined by the URU sign. This text is YOS 8: 173, written down in the 31st year of Rim-Sin. In this case the dimtu texts are clearly earlier than the iilu tablet, but the number of texts considered is too small to offer a convincing proof of this chronological relationship.

The Old Babylonian dimtu resemble dimtu from the kingdom of Arrap!Je in two respects. There were dimtu constructions, located beside the fields, and dimtu settlements or estates, which were located in the countryside along with the villages. It is again very difficult to reconstruct the shape of the dimtu

constructions. There are two cases when the area covered by the building is given. In one case (BE 6/1: 70: 2,880 m2) it is much larger than the area covered by the the dim tu of Selwu!Ju, and in the other instance (BE 6/1: 62: 36 m2) it is considerably smaller. It is possible that the second, small dimtu was in fact a tower. This discrepancy in the sizes is astonishing, as the areas covered by private houses in the two areas are comparable. It may be caused by the fact that there are only two cases when the area of a dimtu construction is known. In contrast, we have several scores of houses of known area, provided both by excavations and texts. It seems that one may safely assume two mentioned figures form the upper and lower area limits of the dimtu constructions.

There are a number names of dimtu settlements which cannot be located precisely on the map. Among them is the dimtu of Etel-pi-Marduk, a rural settlement mentioned on tablet YOS 13: 3 51. This is a small fragment of the original text, dealing with an account of cattle. In the last lines we read: "production of the dimtu of Etel-pi-Marduk" (Finkelstein 1972, 35). The text is dated to the 24th year of Ammiditana. A legal text concerning a property partly located in the dimtu of Sin is inscribed on tablet BM[ANE] 82432, published in CT 48: 59. Less certain is the case of the letter AM 313 from Oxford (Kraus 1968a, 98-99, no. 150). In this text Nindat-Sin relates to his father activities conducted in his rural estate, especially the acquisition of new fields. One of them is located between the Musribtum canal and the dimtu ofBit-Ibarim. In this case the dimtu may be a construction of some kind (i.e. a tower or farm) as well as a settlement.

The dimtu settlements seem to be scattered throughout the countryside of Babylonia. There are two regions where several settlements of this kind existed: along the Diyala river and in the region of Larsa. In the other parts of Babylonia their presence is not so certain. In the cuneiform texts there are some settlements that cannot be located on the map; they might belong either to the regions with a considerable number of dimtu settlements or else to other parts of the country. If tablet SVJAD 118 informs us about the ratio of villages to dimtu settlements in the region of Larsa, the latter constituted about 20% of all the countryside settlements. Unfortunately there is no proof that all the settlements in the region are mentioned on the tablet. It is more likely that only some of the settlements was listed, selected by some criterion which is now difficult to appreciate. They may, for instance,

In all cases save for two (the dimtu of Enlil and the dimtu of Dada, which played the role of fortified towns or outposts) the dimtu of the Old Babylonian period were small rural

29

Table 9: Dunnu as an element of an estate in Middle Assyrian texts

Text

KAJ 53: 15

Field

House

Threshing-floor

eqlu

bTtu

adru

Well burtu

Garden

kiru

qaqqar a.Jim

dunnu X

KAJ 156 KAJ 160: 2

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

KAJ 162: 17

X

X

X

X

X

KAJ 177: 1

X

X

?

X

X

constitute settlements involved in wool production, as the text itself is connected with the delivery of wool. On the other hand, comparing the number of entries for villages and dimtu settlements in the list of geographical names provided by the volume of RGTC concerning the Old Babylonian period, this proportion should be considerably lower. There are again two plausible explanations: either the number of dimtu settlements in the area of Larsa was considerably higher than in the other parts of southern Mesopotamia (eight out of eighteen names listed in section 1B of Appendix B are located in the region of Larsa), or the disproportionately high ratio on tablet SVJAD 118 was caused by other factors which cannot be reconstructed at present.

at Tell Sabi Abyad on the Balig river. Judging from the amount of grain harvested, this area may amount over 5000 iku, i.e. over 2,000 ha (Wiggermann 2000, 180-83). Similarly to the dimtu settlements of the Nuzi region and Babylonia, the Middle Assyrian dunnu settlements bear names taken from personal names, and again the origin of this geographical designation can be explained by the adoption of the the name of the first owner or founder of the settlement. Similarly to the situation observed in the kingdom of Arrapge, persons bearing the same name as that appearing in the name of the settlement sometimes occm in the text, for instance in KAJ 100, where the place of origin of the woman named 1Damqat-Tasmetum, daughter of Asusija is dunnu saAsusija.

11.1.3 THE MIDDLE ASSYRIAN PERIOD

A considerable number of names of dunnu settlements may be found in the texts from Tell Billa, ancient Sibaniba, a large site located about 25 km northeast of Mosul. The site was a capital of a province (pii!Jiitu) and, consequently, a seat of a local administration centred in a palace. Nevertheless the archive (if it were indeed a single archive) seems to be a private one grouping texts relating to private transactions, a few letters addressed to Asm-sum-iddina, the rah iiliini, and a number of administrative and economic texts, dated to the mid-13th century BC (Finkelstein 1953). The most interesting text is Bi 47, a list of settlements from which one Adad-Tasmar took sheep to be brought to the "city of sheep" or to the city, i.e. Sibaniba. The text is heavily damaged and on the obverse only a few signs at the beginning of each line are preserved. On the reverse only the final lines are slightly damaged (Finkelstein 1953, 132, 162). Despite the damage, the every line of the tablet is, to a greater or lesser extent, preserved. The main part of the text is a long list of the names of settlements, occupying twenty-eight lines. The names start with the determinative URU or with the words iilu dunnu saPN. On the obverse the names of the dunnu are not preserved, and the names of towns only partly preserved. Fully preserved names may be found only on the reverse of the tablet. The structure of the text is of importance. Therefore, a transliteration based on the one published by Finkelstein (1953, 162) will be quoted below:

As has already been said, Middle Assyrian texts mention a construction appearing analogous to a dimtu, called a dunnu (cf. above, p. 5). The similarity is so strong that even an identification of Assyrian dunnu and Arrapgean dimtu has been proposed (Koschaker 1928, 63, n. 2;; Garelli 1967, 5-21; Diakonoffl969, 212, Biagov 1976). There is a very close resemblance of contexts, i.e. dunnu as well as dimtu were listed together with other elements of an estate, and as those elements are also common in the Nuzi texts, it is quite convincing that these two kinds of buildings played a similar role in the estate. It is noticeable, that the name dunnu was also given to settlements of a certain kind, which bear the designation a1dunnu (see the list in section ID of Appendix B). It is understood that these settlements had a defensive character, which is indicated by their name, deriving from the root *dnn, "to be strong". The number of texts relating to dunnu constructions is very limited ( cf. Table 9). Consequently, it is virtually impossible to reconstruct the appearance of the building. The only text which could give an idea about it is KAJ 20, which mentions that bit dunni was provided with a gate and with tarba$U, clearly a kind of courtyard. There is no evidence pointing to the size of dunnu construction. Similarly to the dimtu settlements of the Nuzi region, the dunnu settlements were situated in the countryside and they incorporated fields. The area listed is as a rule substantial: 105 ika (ca. 38 ha) inKAJl 77; 60 ika (ca. 20 ha) inKAJ160; 200 ika (more than 70 ha) in KAJ 156. A significantly larger area of fields can be reconstructed in the case of a dunnu discovered

Bi 47: l iilu dunnu 2 iilu dun nu 3 iilu dunnu 4 iilu dunnu 5 URU£ri[ ... ]

30

sa[...] sa[...] sa[...] [sa...]

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

uRuTurabu?[... ] uRuMatma[... ] alu dunnu sa [... ] alu dunnu sa [... ] alu dunnu sa [... ] alu dunnu sa [ ... ]ria [uRu.jparmu URUijista[ ...] alu dunnu sa [ ... ]x[ ..] URU£s?alun?i alu dunnu sa flu-eris alu dunnu sa mare f[ ...] uRuPisanibe alu dunnu sa Bel-musallaja alu dunnu sa Salme URUijasuanU alu dunnu sax[ ...] alu dunnu sa Suzbe alu dunnu sa Sulmanu-libsi URUfjusarse uRUU/Samru alu dunnu sa [... ] uRuSu[... ] [ ...] anniitu sa alu immerate Adad-tasmar ma!Jir

3 alu dunnu sa Kidin-ilani 4 uRuKabasibi 5 alu dunnu sa [ ... 6 alu dunnu sa Silli[ ...

7 [...]x[ ...]x x[ ... Finally the list of dunnu names can be modfied by reference to an administrative tablet (Bi 20) concerning a group of men placed in the alu dunnu sa S'iniya. All the texts cited demonstrate that dunnu settlements of a rural character occurred in this part of Assyria with a high frequency. They were definitely more common here then in other parts of the Middle Assyrian Empire. In the texts from Assur there are six dunnu settlements mentioned. Four of them are named after personal names. Dunnu sa Asusija was the place of origin of one 1Damqat-Tasmetum, daughter of Asusija. The text (KAJ 100) is tentatively dated to the reign of Adad-nirari I or Salmaneser I, but the location of this dunnu is unknown (Ebeling 1933, 85-6; new dating and translation in Postgate 1988, X, 3-6, no. 2). The situation is the same in the case of KAJ 91. The text concerns a debt to be repaid by work in the fields. The debtors (two brothers) come from dimtu sa Erabi, described by the adjective "Sarazaean", and were supposed to provide fifty workers at harvest time, which gives some idea about the size of the settlement. Dunnu Bur-~ir (son of Belija) is a place where goods to be exchanged for a tarbaJu located in the vicinity of town sa Idinni are stored. Its location is difficult to identify. The text (KAJ 175) belongs to the reign of Marduk-nadin-al_llJe(Ebeling 1933, 70-2). Tablet KAJ 101, like KAJ 91, a loan contract to be paid off by field labour, mentions both a dunnu sa Ninuaje and a dunnu sa al sarriite. 28 Probably they are to be located in the vicinity of the town of Kurda, west of Nineveh. The sixth dunnu lying in Assyria is dunnu sa mar sarri, in text VAT 10037 placed on the road from Nineveh to KallJu. In this case we do not know what was the nature of the settlement which existed at the time ofTukulti-Ninurta I (Schroeder 1928/ 29, 201-2).

It may be assumed that the city of line 30 is Sibaniba itself. Therefore four dunnu listed in the four first lines of the text

may be located in its immediate vicinity. For this reason no village or town name was given in line 1. The subsequent lines are constructed according to a scheme: the name of a village or town was followed with names of dunnu settlements located it its vicinity. It should be noted that after some names no dunnu was listed. If this interpretation is right, on tablet Bi 47 we may observe a reflection of the settlement pattern in the countryside around Sibaniba: larger settlements (villages or small towns) and small farmsteads or manors (such a translation was proposed by Finkelstein 1953, 118) clustered around some ofthem. 27 The information about sheep taken from all the places mentioned points to their agricultural character. One of the dunnu settlements, Bel-musallaja, is mentioned also on the tablet Bi 37 (Finkelstein 1952, 131, 160). It is a receipt for a single sheep, suggesting again sheep-herding as the economic activity carried out in this dunnu. Of course, the number of documents is much too small to assume that this kind of settlement was specialised in animal production.

Additional, widely dispersed, dunnu settlements existed further west. One dunnu settlement is mentioned on the Middle-Assyrian tablets from Tell al Rimah. It is called dunnu sa Sulmanu-na~ir and was the place of origin of one of persons mentioned on a tablet TR 2087 detailing a transaction concerning horses and tin (Saggs 1968, 171). A single dunnu settlement located in the Khabur Triangle is attested by tablet KAJ 110 (Postgate 1988, 75-77, no. 36). It is a document issued by a person who took four original debt records in order to collect goods owed from the debtors. One of them, Asaredu, was residing in a dunnu whose name is not given but which was located in the province of Ta'idu.

Two more dunnu with names not present (or not preserved) on Bi 47 may be found in the text Bi 50. It is a very small fragment of a tablet with only seven lines of writing preserved. It has a similar structure as Bi 4 7, mentioning settlement names each written on a separate line. Unfortunately no name preserved in this document repeats any of the names readable on Bi 47 (Finkelstein 1953, 132, 162):

Further dunnu settlements of the same date could be found to the south and west of the ljabur Triangle. Dunnu sa Palipala is mentioned on an unpublished tablet from Tell Se}_lI:Iammad (DeZ 2500). Two other dunnu, the first employing the name of the god Assur and the other of Dagal, are mentioned

uRuMa[... 2 URUJl[ ...

27

Cf. tablet SVJAD 118, giving insight into the countryside of southern Mesopotamia in the region of Larsa, as treated above, p. 28. Postgate (1988, 132--4) proposes reading this name as dunnu §a URUMAN?-te.

31

in the long letter also found in Diir-Katlimmu (Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996, 94-106, no. 2). The author of the letter, a grand vizier named Assur-iddin, residing in or writing to someone residing in Diir-Katlimmu, informs his lord about the military actions taken in the westernmost part of the empire, in the valley of the BalilJ. Both the dunnu settlements mentioned are clearly located in this region. The dunnu of Assur was most probably located in the BalilJ valley, as in other texts it is mentioned as located between t[arran and t[uziranu (list of cities DeZ 3281) and near to Sal}lalu (DeZ 3396 + 3837). It is certainly not Tell Sabi Abyad, a Middle Assyrian fortress which was a seat of the governor (Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996, 99), but it has to be located very close to it. The dunnu of Dagal seems to be located further south, as the letter says that some of the soldiers from this fort are busy in Tuttul and others in Sirda. It is clear that these dunnu were above all military posts and troops originating from them were taking part in reconnaissance activities west of the Balil}, and in public works in the towns located in the valley of this river. The dunnu of Assur is also mentioned in one of the texts found at Tell Sabi Abyad. Tablet T98- l l 5 is a granary account concerning grain. The amount of grain harvested is summed up, with the "old" grain already deposited in the granary listed in the first paragraph. The next paragraph denotes the amount of grain to be used for sowing the fields. The third paragraph lists grain given as rations to silu!Jlu workers in five localities: the city oft[uziranu, the city of Sauanu, the dunnu sa Assur, the dunnu sa Asaredilani and the dunnu sa Wardi. These were most likely located in the vicinity of Tell Sabi Abyad, as they were clearly administered from that site (Wiggermann 2000, no. 2). In one of the letters from Tell Sabi Abyad another dunnu (sa Subre) is mentioned, but the text gives no clue as to its location.

11.1.4 THE MIDDLE BABYLONIAN/KASSITE PERIOD

There are only a very limited number of dimtu settlements mentioned in texts of the Middle Babylonian period. Instead, there are numerous geographical names which comprise words suggesting the character of the settlement: bitu, "house", duru, "enclosure", kiiru "pier", or iilu, "village, town", including also dunnu. A dimtu called Bit-SIPAD.ZUM.ANSEMES,a name difficult to render in Akkadian (Borger 1970, 24), is mentioned on the kudurru ofMarduk-apla-iddina I found at Susa (Scheil 1905, 31-9). The name is also used as the reference point in the description of the limits of a field located in the district of t[udadu, in northern Babylonia. Four tailors coming from the dimtu sa Bit-Sumija and town of Abu are mentioned on the tabletPBS2/2: 47 (Luckenbill 1914/ 15, 84). The exact number of persons from the dimtu is not given, nor the place they were supposed to go to, although it may be assumed that they were brought to Nippur. Consequently, the villages have to be located in its vicinity. Another dimtu, sa DBaba is mentioned on a long list of rations for persons from different cities, BE 15: 149. A similar name, incorporating a divine name, dimtu 0 Ea, is mentioned on other delivery tablet from Nippur (BE 15: 159c) and also on tablet CT 51: 36, dated to Kastilias IV. Besides a few dimiitu there is also a more substantial group of dunnu settlements present in the Kassite Babylonia. Dunni Ahi is mentioned in several Kassite texts from Nippur. According to tablets BE 14: 65 and 15: 54 it should be located together with Dur-Nusku in the province of Bit-Sin in the vicinity of Nippur. Tablets mentioning it belong to the following categories: BE 14: 59-a memo of grain given to oxen and donkeys in dunni Ahi, BE 14: 61, 62, 65-expenditures and rations given to persons also in dunni Ahi, BE 15: 54a record of collected taxes, BE 15: 112-a record of expenditures.29It may thus be assumed that it was a kind of agricultural settlement.

Two more dunnu settlements which cannot be located on the map are mentioned in a Middle Assyrian letter dated to the reign of Salmaneser I. In the letter the author informs his lord, certainly a provincial governor, about agricultural activities undertaken in two dunnu settlements. Unfortunately, in both cases the name of the settlement has been badly damaged and cannot be reconstructed. Nevertheless it is quite clear that they differ from names of dunnu settlements already known. The tablet, published by Wilhelm (1997), is presently in private possession in Germany, thus its place of origin is not known, and it is consequently impossible to connect it with any particular part of the Middle Assyrian Empire.

Dunnu sa Etelpu is mentioned in the long list of persons PBS 2/2: 130. There are no less than forty-three warad sarri listed as coming from this settlement. This information is insufficient, however, to judge what kind of settlement it was.

Although there are no dim tu mentioned in the Middle Assyrian texts, it seems that certain constructions and settlements of a particular kind, sharing some features with the dim tu of the kingdom ofArrapl}e, were in the north called dunnu. The equation between both names is not proven beyond doubt, but the proposition is convincing.

The dunnu of Adad is to be found in a similar context on two tablets dealing with rations given to persons in different cities (BE 14: 12 and PBS 2/2: 12; the first one is dated to the 2nd year of Kurigalzu). Judging from other names of settlements occurring on the tablet, this dunnu may be located near to Nippur, in Bit-Sin province. To a group of settlements incorporating the names of gods also belong the aforementioned dimtu Baba and dimtu Ea.

Dunnu settlements are present over all northern Mesopotamia administered by the Assyrians at the end of the earlier part of the second millennium BC. Sparse in the west, their number increases towards the east to a considerable quantity (about 50% of all settlements evidenced by the tablets from Tell Billa). 19

11.1.5. THE NEO- AND LATE BABYLONIAN PERIOD

A few dunnu settlements located in southern Mesopotamia survived until the first millennium BC, as attested in Neo-Babylonian

Nashef 1982. 84. lists three more unpublished texts in the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

32

sources. The case ofDun(ni)-sii'idi has already been mentioned above on page 29, when referring to the Old Babylonian settlement of this name. This Neo-Babylonian dunnu is a settlement of considerable importance as there were at least two temples located there: those of Gula and ofUlsigga. The place was located on the bank of Euphrates, probably in the region of Babylon. Listed on the kudurru of Marduk-apla-iddina II, from the last decade of the 8th century BC, there is also a Dunnu-~eri, located on the canal called Nir-sarri, supposedly also sited in the region of Babylonia. Some of the gardens mentioned in the texts are located in the territory (ugaru) of this settlement. There was also a dimtu settlement located in the vicinity of Uruk. Its name, Dindu-sa-Nanaja, is mentioned on a tablet listing fields belonging most probably to the Eanna temple (Joannes 1982, no. 36, 121-3). The latest attestation of a dunnu settlement existing in Babylonia is in a loan contract concerning silver, VS4: 112, dated to the reign of Darius (San Nicolo/Ungnad 1935, no. 191, 213).

During the Old Babylonian period the number of settlements increases, reaching twenty-one dimatu and two dunnu. Most of those that can be attributed to particular regions of Mesopotamia were located in the Diyala valley and around Larsa. During this period dimtu constructions were built in the countryside, much as they had been in the region of N uzi. During the Kassite dynasty the number of dimtu settlements decreased, and while dunnu settlements became more numerous, their total remained less than the number of dimtu in the preceding period. On the other hand, this period witnessed a rapid growth in the number of the small rural settlements (Leemans 1982, 247). Unfortunately, it is difficult to find out whether the less popular dimtu settlements were in any way similar to the dunnu settlements of the same period. It is not likely that existing dimtu settlements were of earlier origin: the names were not repeated, and from historic sources we know that at the end of 18th century BC most of the large cities located in this region (and probably smaller settlements as well) were deserted (Charpin 1995, 517). On the other hand all these settlements seem to be located in the vicinity of Nippur, a region in which no known Old Babylonian dimtu settlement were located. Moreover, in this period the dimtu constructions are no longer mentioned.

11.1.6 SUMMARY

The Babylonian dimtu settlements seem to have been a quite popular settlement form in the earlier part of the second millennium BC. It is certainly possible that the earliest dimtu settlements were even older, being founded already during the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur. From among eight names evidenced by the tablets of the Ur Ill period that are composed of this element, at least three are settlements located in the countryside.

During the first millennium BC the dimtu/dindu and dunnu settlements were in most cases towns of considerable importance. It seems that in this period the only similarity to the Old Babylonian dimtu settlements was limited to the name.

11.2 ELAM receipts refering to deliveries of kakku-beans (lentils ?) twice lists an unnamed dimtu located in the region ofuRuDAG (MDP 28: 483, 483), once dimtu sa sarrim (MDP 28: 487), once dimtu GIBIL (MDP 28: 488). As dimtu sa sarrim was located in the district of uRuDAG,it is possible that this is the settlement mentioned in the first two texts. Texts MDP 10: 20, 26, 67, 72, 75, 76 and 78 are of special interest as they are quite early, dating approximately to the period of Biir-Sin (Scheil 1908, 14)32 • All of them refer to sheep kept in a settlement called dimtu Atta-gusu or "dimtu of the king". Another text of the same date, again referring to sheep, is MDP 10: 20 (dim tu Ibru-Adad). In a similar context dimtu settlements are mentioned in other texts: MDP 28: 503 and 504. It seems that some time dimtu sarri was a very important settlement, because MDP 28: 518 attests a palace located there and MDP 18: 181 is a list of persons summed up in lines VI, 2-4: "14 7 ERIM §a AN.ZA.GA~ LU GAL K 1". In MDP 28: 533 the settlement bears a determinative of a city before the signs AN .ZA. GAR 3 . Within the settlement there were some temples: inMDP 28: 515, 7-9 we read about a sheep sent to a mullilu-priest, and another to the temple of the goddess Ninni. MDP 28: 533, 3-9 lists vestments given to temples of Ninkigal, Ninni and Simut, all located in dimti sarri, as well as to a mullilu-priest and to a scribe.

11.2.1 THE SECOND MILLENNIUM

Some Elamite contracts dated to a period corresponding to the First Dynasty of Babylon mention dim tu as a kind of building (Table 10). They are listed along with the fields (MDP 24: 367, 1 and probably 376, 1-7) in a formula similar to that used in the Old Babylonian sale contracts. It has to be noted that in some texts, for instance MDP 23: 173, AN.ZA.GA~ replaces E2"DU2"A,a word meaning buildings or rather roofed floor space (Stone 1981, 20), in a formula which is typical for the Elamite sale contracts. 30 Unfortunately, it is impossible to derive from these texts more precise information concerning the character of AN.ZA.GA~ constructions. Also the dimtu estates, comprising fields located in their territory, can be found in Elam, particularly on tablets from Susa. There are numerous instances of texts in which the fields sold were located in a dimtu sa PN, after which a specific location with respect to other fields is given (MDP 22: 132, 1 = MDP 4, p. 172; MDP 24: 366, 6). In some cases a dimtu estate was used as a reference point in the description of the location of a field (MDP 18: 154, 1-2, MDP 23: 200, 54date: Siwe-palar-1:;lupak/Kaduzulus, contemporary to Sumula-el31;MDP 24: 333, 7----dimtusa Salaq-danim). A series of

Cf. for instance MDP 22: 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51;MDP 23: 201,204,210,212,215,221,226. Cf. the chronological table in de Mecquenern/Rutten 1949, pp. 166-7, but according to Potts (1999, Tab. 6.1 n. 3) conternporaneou; with tiarnrnurapi of Babylon. The period of rule of Atta-i}usu is dated by two isc1iptions giving synchronisrns with the 16th year of Gungunurn and 1st year of Surnu-aburn (Potts 1999, 163).

33

Table 1O: Fields and dime.tu in the texts from Elam Tablet

Field

Dimtu

MOP 23: 173, 1

X

X

MOP 24: 367, 1

80qa

X

MOP 24: 333, 7

?

X

Table 11: Dimtu as an element of an estate in the texts from Ugarit (Heltzer 1976, Table 1) Field eq/u

Text

House bftu

Olive grove Vine-yard serdu karanu

PRUII: 16.382, 7-10a

X

PRUIII: 15.85, 14-16

X

X

PRU Ill: 15.122, 5-6, 16

?

X

X

X

PRU Ill: 15.127, 6-8

X

X

X

X

PRU Ill: 15.132, 5-7

X

X

X

Garden kin]

Woods kisatu

dimtu gt

X

dunnu X X X

X

PRUIII: 15.132, 7-10

X

X

X

X

PRUIII: 15.139, 5-13

X

X

X

X

PRU Ill: 15.140, 4-8

X

X

X

X

PRUIII: 15.141,4-8

X

X

X

X

PRU Ill: 15.155, 4-9 PRU Ill: 16.138, 4-6

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

PRU Ill: 16.138, 7-17, 24-6b

X

X

X

X

PRU Ill: 16.148+254B, 2'-4', 7'-11"

X

X

X

?

PRU Ill: 16.154, 5-6

X

X

X

X

PRU Ill: 16.160, 5-6

X

X

X

PRU Ill: 16.163, 3'-5'

X

X

?

?

PRU Ill: 16.178, 3-7

xc

X

X

X

PRU 111:16.182+199,3-5

X

X

X

X

PRUIII: 16.186, 1'-4'

X

X

?

?

PRU Ill: 16.204, 5-7

X

X

X

PRUIII: 16.204, 8-10

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

PRUIII: 16.204, 12-15

X

PRU Ill: 16.246, 5-6 PRU Ill: 16.254A, 4-5

X

X

X

X

PRU Ill: 16.254F, 4-8

X

X

X

X

PRU Ill: 16.255D

X

X

?

X

PRU Ill: 16.261 +339+ 241, 8-12

X

X

X

X

X

Xd

X

X

X X

?

PRU Ill: 16.343, 5, 11-12

X

X

X

X

PRU Ill: 16.353, 7-8

X

X

X

X

PRU VI: 27 17.01, 5-6

X

PRU VI: 29 17.147, 4-9

X

X

X

PRUVI: 31 19.98, 4-10

X

X

X

X

X

PRU VI: 56, 17.121 , V 4'-5'

X

X

X

X

X

UV: 17.325, 4-8

X

X

X

0

X

X

X

X

Text in Ugaritic. Five entries concerning different estates of the same composition. The dimtu was not a necessary part of every settlement, since in the same text (lines 21-23) a property composed of a house, vinery, olive grove and a garden is mentioned, cf. PRU Ill: 16.188, 16.201, 16.248, 16.255D, 16.269; PRU VI: 19.98; UV: 17.61, 17.149. ' In lines 7-1 Ofour additional kinds of fields are listed: sarima, mubali, yarqani and aramima. d A kind of tree is given specifically as gisimmaru, date(?) palms. b

34

dimtu and one by dunnu occur on the list of the Elamite towns which rebelled against Assurbanipal during his eighth campaign. One of them is the same Dunnu-Samas who had already been conquered and destroyed by Sennaherib, but two others, Dimtu-sa-Simame and Dimtu-sa-Tappa were not mentioned in the earlier inscription. In addition, on the way back from the seventh campaign a town called Dun-Sarri was destroyed, probably the town which has already been discussed above (Cylinder of Rassam, col. VII, 62, 64, 67).33 It should to be noticed that both dimtu and dunnu are treated as an element in the name of the settlement, as all of them are preceded by the URU determinative. Most of these places seem to have been located in the steppe land separating the middle part of Babylonia from Elam, between Suza and Der.

11.2.2 THE NEO-ASSYRIAN PERIOD

There are altogether nine dunnu or dimtu settlements mentioned in royal inscriptions of Assyrian kings recounting their military campaigns in Elam. Sennaherib, describing his seventh campaign, lists the names of cities-summed up as "thirty-four strong cities together with the small cities of their environs, which are countless" (Luckenbill 1927, II, 124)-that were conquered and destroyed at the beginning of the campaign. The list is apparently divided into two parts, differentiated by the phrase "together with the cities of the passes". Dunnu-Samas, Dimtu-sa-Sulai and Dimtu-sa-Miir-b'iti-etir are mentioned in the first section of the list, while in the other we find Dimtu-sa-Dume-ilu. Two settlements described by the word

11.3. SYRIA Buildings and estates known by the name of dimtu were present also in the far west, in the very remote region of Ugarit.

In the "alphabetic" cuneiform texts the meaning of dimtu is rendered by the word gt. This translation refers only to a specific meaning of dimtu as a farm (construction) or farmstead (settlement) (Heltzer 1982, 51-2). According to Heltzer both these words have the same meaning, i.e. a settlement forming part of a royal estate, including installations such as granaries, oil presses, etc. (Heltzer 1976, 15, n. 4; 1979)-despite the fact that they seem to differ in their basic meaning (dimtu = tower, gt /gattu/ = oil or vine press). The basic meaning, ie. "tower", was rendered in Ugaritic by dmt, clearly a loan-word (Marrassini 1971, 111-14). The term dimtu was used in relation to thirty-one place names found in the texts ofUgarit (Heltzer 1982, 50), and there are seventy-eight cases where an Ugaritic translation of that designation (gt) was used. It should be mentioned that in Ugarit dimtu was a kind of settlement forming a royal estate, not an estate of private property (Heltzer 1976, 29-30 and Tab. 1; 1982, 50-55). It is also significant that at least some gt settlements were subordinate to the administrations located in cities, as in the kingdom of Arrapge. This picture may be assumed from KTU 4.110 where a sakinu of Ilstm is clearly in charge of fields located in the gt of Pm and the gt of Mzln. Moreover, Heltzer suggests that gt could be an element of the villages, and there are cases where more than one gt is located in a particular village (Heltzer 1982, 56).

The buildings described with the word dimtu were distinguished from settlements of the same name by means of the determinative for buildings (E). Table 11 lists texts mentioning dimtu as an element of a countryside estate. Beside dimtu, the most common elements are olive orchards and vineyards, forming specific kinds of fields. The noun eqlu seems to have in U garit also the general meaning of estate and district, as in many of the royal donation text formulae: eqlu saPN saina eqleti saGN qadu dimti-su, qadu serdi-su, etc. Only in one case is the proporty listed as b"dimtu qadu eqli-su (PRU Ill: 16.254A), but this can be interpreted as an error of the scribe. It is important that in Ugaritic texts a distinction between dimtu and a house (bitu) is easily observed. This distinction was clear to the scribes, as sometimes houses and dimtu are mentioned side-by-side as different elements of a property. It may be assumed that the first term related to the houses located inside the settlements (villages or towns), while buildings constructed in the countryside, immediately beside fields, were referred to as dimtu. An interesting question of interpretation concerns tablets PRU III: 16.138 and 16.204. In the first of them, one out of five entries is formulated: eqlu qadu N 1dimtiKI-su. The same formulation is present in three entries of the second text. Use of the determinative Kl, which always indicates a territory, may suggest that in these references, but also in other texts listed in Table 11, another territorial designations was intended rather than just listing a building. No satisfactory solution to the interpretation of this formula may be offered at present. On the other hand, there are altogether thirteen texts in which the word dimtu is provided with the determinative Kl (and in one case even with two determinatives: Kl and MES). According to Heltzer (1982, 51) this manner of writing reflected the fact that a dimtu was composed of several buildings dispersed in a limited area.

In Ugarit dimtu settlements seem to have been smaller than their counterparts in the region ofNuzi. Text RS 20.01 provides us with a list of people, giving their names and also the number of family members and quantity oflivestock kept. In two cases, families coming fromdimtu settlements are mentioned: Ili-yanu from the dimtu of Galinum and 12 persons, 11 cows and 3 donkeys from the dimtu of Ilu-milku. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the text to prove that the whole population of the settlement was given. In the extant documents there is not much difference in the numbers of persons given for dimtu and alu settlements, thus it is impossible to establish a relationship between their sizes (Nougayrol 1968, 188-9).

According to Parpola, this name should be read Din-Sani (Parpola 1970, 105).

35

11.4. SUMMARY The presented survey of the occurrences of the term dimtu in the different parts of the Near East testifies that the tradition of constructing dimtu buildings and settlements was not restricted to the kingdom of Arrapt}e in the 15th and 16th centuries BC.

1992), nor in Emar (Beckman 1997) nor Alalat} (Wisemann 1953; Niedorf 1998; Zeeb 1998).34 Moreover, they do not appear in the much more numerous texts from Mari (Luciani 1997; Millet Alba 2000).

In the first part of the second millennium BC, the geographical distribution of dimtu constructions covers southern Mesopotamia and Elam. In both cases texts refer to these constructions forming a part of rural estates and they are certainly distinct from the houses. In the later part of the second millennium BC there is no evidence for the existence of such constructions in the south, but numerous buildings of this kind were present in the region of Nuzi and in the kingdom of Ugarit. A term dunnu describes a similar or identical kind of construction in Assyria. After the end of the second millennium BC, dimtu and dunnu constructions disappear from the written sources.

In the later part of the second millennium BC the situation changes considerably. The number of dimtu settlements decreases considerably in the south, despite the general tendency for the growth of rural settlement density (Leemans 1982, 2489). In the north the situation is also changed. In the regions where no dimtu settlements were present in the earlier part of the second millennium BC, they now constitute a significant element of the rural landscape. In certain regions (Arrapt}e, the vicinity of Sibaniba, and Ugarit) they seem to be as often encountered as other kinds of rural settlements. On the other hand, it has to be stressed that in Syria they are evidenced only in Ugarit, while in the texts from Emar and AlalalJneither dim tu nor dunnu settlements are ever mentioned.

The history of Mesopotamian dimtu settlements is even longer. The earliest examples are to be found during the Ur Ill period. Among several dimtu of this period there are a few which are beyond any doubt small rural settlements of a kind described on many Nuzi tablets of the much later period.

With the end of the second millennium BC, the dimtu and dunnu settlements disappear totally from all of North Mesopotamia and Syria. During the first centuries of the first millennium BC the only remaining dimtu and dunnu are listed in the texts referring to Babylonia and Elam. In these two regions dimtu settlements were quite common in early second millennium, but later their number significantly decreased. It seems that some of them survived until the mid-first millennium, as the latest known instance of an existing dunnu settlement has been found on a tablet dated to the reign of Darius of Persia, ie. to the 5th century BC.

During the Old Babylonian perioddimtu settlements were quite numerous in the south, i.e. in Elam, Babylonia and even the Diyala region. It is quite surprising that they were absent in the north; not a single instance of a dimtu may be found on the tablets from Tell Chagar Bazar (Talon 1997), Tell Rimah (Dalley et al. 1976) nor Tell Semsarra (LaesS0e 1959; Eidem

'"'DimiitK', occun-ing in three texts listed by both Zeeb and Niedorf. seems to have the meaning of"tower"; cf. the city of this name kncwn from Babylonia (cf. ahove, Table 8). In period IV it also bears a detmninative of place (KI) (Niedorf 1998, n. 204).

36

PART II

DIMATU IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL

RESEARCH

III. THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF DIMTU SETTLEMENTS Among many archaeological sites excavated in Mesopotamia during last two centuries only one has been tentatively identified with a dimtu settlement. It is the small mound of Tell Fal}ar, located in the northeastern Iraq in the ancient Kingdom of Arrap!Je. As an alternative identification of the site has also been proposed, namely with the city of Kurru!Janni, it is neccessary to re-examine the evidence concerning the results of the excavations and to re-evaluate the textual evidence. Another possible dimtu structure was discovered

far away to the west, in the valley of the Bali!J. At Tell Sabi Abyad, a tower of the Mitannian period was excavated. This structure was renovated after a period of abandonment and around it a dunnu settlement was founded after the Balil} Valley fell to Assyrian control. It is unanimously agreed that Arrap!Jean dimtu and Assyrian dunnu were very similar settlements and structures (cf. above, chapter 1.2, II.1.3). It is of interest here also to describe the Middle Assyrian settlement at Tell Sabi Abyad.

111.1. TELL FA{[AR Ill.1.1.

identified in the field (Khalesi 1977b, 6- 7). One freestanding room was excavated ajoining the eastern side of the platform (no. 27 on Fig. 3) and also a fragment of a wall was unearthed that might have enclosed a yard adjacent to the platform. The area around the platform was most probably used for household activities witnessed by the presence of a hearth and many stratitions of ash deposited in this area.

THE EXCAVATIONS AT TELL FA]jAR

The reason that excavations were undertaken at the not very impressive site of Tell Fal}ar was a casual find of inscribed clay tablets in the irrigation canal beside the tell in October 1967 (Fadhil 1973, 1).35One of the texts turned out to be a legal document of a kind well known from the excavations at Yorgan Tepe or from illegal digging in Kirkuk. It was a matter of weeks before the Iraqi State Organization of Antiquities sent an archaeological team headed by Mr. Yasin Mahmud al-Khalesi to excavate the site. 36 The fieldwork had started on October 22nd, 1967 and was discontinued after completing two field seasons in January 1969.

The large main building, as described by Khalesi, had a castle-like appearance. It had seven solid mudbrick towers. Two of them were facing the main entrance to the building, the other three defended the southern and western walls of the structure while two more were parts of the platform (cf. Fig. 3). The entrance to the structure was located on the northeastern wall and was flanked by two towers, forming an impressive gate.

The site, located some 45 km south-west from Kirkuk, is about 2 km distant from Wadi al-Nafat, a local seasonal stream, along which several sites containing mid-second millennium pottery were observed (Khalesi 1970, 110). The tell itself was, according to the excavator, 200 m long and 135 m broad at the base and over 4 m high. Its flat top was nearly circular with a diameter of about 60 m. (cf. Fig. 2) and the excavations were caried out there. During two seasons over 1900 m 2 of the tell area were excavated, revealing two main architectural levels. The upper one consisted of six houses dated by finds in the Neoassyrian period. The houses enclosed an open space located in the centre of the settlement (Khalesi 1977b, Fig. 4). In the lower stratum, labelled layer II, a single, substantial structure was discovered that, due to the colour of the extant wall plaster, was named the "Green Palace" by the excavator. The building itself was about 60 m long and 30 m wide and was preserved in places to a height of about 1.5 m. During the first season, 17 rooms of this structure were unearthed (Khalesi 1970, Plan 2; Rawi 1977, 554) and after, the second season, it was clear that the total was 26 rooms. On the northeastern side of the "Green Palace" there was discovered a substantial mudbrick platform of an irregular outline extending along the northeastern wall of the building. It was 35 m long and at some points more than 20 m wide. There were traces of constructions and other installations found around it, but no remains were identified on the top of the platform. Khalesi suggested that a small temple was located on the platform, but he admitted that no trace of such a building was

Khalesi's account of the excavations did not contain much information indicating the development of the plan of the building except for remarks that walls had been replastered six times with a layer of clay mixed with straw and some green paint added and that there were two floor levels found in most of the rooms. The upper one was over 6 cm thick and also covered with a thin layer of green "paint" (Khalesi 1977b, 7). On the other hand, he had observed that walls of the public (eastern) wing were not bound either with northeastern or southeastern exterior walls. Also, walls forming rooms of the private wing were not bound with exterior walls. Moreover, in several places double walls were employed (for instance in Rooms 4 and 9, cf. Fig. 3). Finally, he observed that the northeastern exterior wall was constructed of reddish mudbrick, in comparison with the southwestern and northwestern walls which were built of greyish bricks (Khalesi 1970, 111, 1145). Two trial pits set along the northeastern exterior wall yielded evidence for an earlier perimeter wall that predated the platform. The northeastern exterior wall of reddish brick partially stood on the platform itself, clearly postdating its construction (Khalesi 1970, 115). Despite all these significant observations, Khalesi did not attempt to reconstruct a history of the building. The above mentioned evidence makes it clear that the "Green Palace" in the condition it was uncovered by Khalesi was the

According to Rawi tablets were found on the top of the tell itself, as there were traces of a robbery pit identified in Room 4 of the "Green Palace" (Rawi 1977, 545-6). For the excavation reports see: Wa'ili 1967, Khalesi 1969; 1970; 1977a (in arabic); 1977b.

39

40 m

0

Fig. 2. Tell Faoar. Plan of the site showing the extent of trenches (after Khalesi 1977b, Fig. 2)

last stage in a long development of the original structure. Closer examination of the published plan of the structure and Khalesi's observations make it possible to discern elements that belonged to the original construction and put in a chronological order some of the later changes and extensions. At least four stages of the development may be discerned with certainity. This accounts for four out of six of the replasterings of the rooms, but not all these have to be neccesserily connected with significant changes in the plan of the building.

during the excavations did not belong to the original building. It was not bound with the northwestern wall, it was standing partly on the platform itself and constructed of mudbricks of a different colour. The traces of the original wall were found in two trial pits cut into the platform. Its face, covered with plaster, was cleared ca. 0.6 m to the south of the face of the later wall. A layer of plaster between the wall and bricks of the platform testifies that this wall also predated the platform (Khalesi 1970, 112). On Fig. 4a this wall is reconstructed as symmetric to the southwestern wall and, like that one, has a single tower. On the southeast the defence wall turned to the north forming a kind of a bastion, which could have served as a part of a gate (the northern one was not preserved, but reconstructed in Fig. 4a in a similar shape). Inside this bastion another space, Room 8, was located. The dimensions of this original structure were approximately 3 6 by 24 m (or 41 by 34 m if the external towers were be taken into consideration) and it covered an area of about 950 m 2 •

The core of the original structure consisted of Rooms 16-22 which formed an L-shaped series of interconnecting chambers joined by narrow corridors, and provided with short dead-end tunnels running crosswise to the axis of the main corridor (Fig. 4a). The walls of these rooms were not covered with plaster, as distinct to all other rooms and their fill was composed of a nearly sterile fill of soft clay containing only some fragments of tablets and a fragmentary skeleton (Khalesi 1977b, 4-5). The excavator was not able to interpreted the role of this part of the building satisfactorily. In his opinion, the chambers were used by home servants, while the niches served as graves that were robbed after the building was sacked by an unidentified enemy (Khalesi 1977b, 4-5). In my opinion, they were not accessible, at least during most of the time of the existence of the structure. They had formed a kind of high basement under the upper story(s) of the building. Room 12 was apparently also a part of this construction, but unlike other rooms, it had a doorway leading outside. This core construction faced a courtyard for household activities, enclosed with a substantial wall (up to 3.5 m wide) made of grey mudbricks. It was provided with two towers located in the middle of the western and southern sides of the enclosure. It is clear that the northeastern wall of the palace found

Some time after the building was finished, a mudbrick platform was added along its northeastern wall. The length of this platform corresponded to that of the original length of the building and had an irregular outline (Fig. 4b ). It is difficult to interpret the purpose of this platform, but it does not seem very likely that a temple was located there, as had been expected by Khalesi (1977b, 6-7). Most probably it was a construction meant for household activities that may be tentatively identified with a threshing floor (cf. magrattu of the Nuzi texts, Richter 1995). At this stage no significant changes were introduced inside the building, although it is not excluded that Room 12, already described with structures belonging to the first stage of the building, was added to it at this time.

40

0

2

4

6

8

10 m

Fig. 3. Tell Fal]ar. The "Green Palace" of layer II (after Khalesi 1977b, Fig. 3)

This initial building was reconstructed and extended a few times. Not all of these changes may be put into chronological order. At a certain moment, the northeastern external wall and the northern part of the earliest gate were dismantled and a new enclousure wall was constructed of red mud-bricks protruding 0.6 m to the north over the platform. A new impressive wing was added to the structure on the northeastern side. It consisted of a gate located between two solid towers forming a kind of fore-chamber open to the outside. The gate led to a spacious "reception room" (Room 10) oriented on a perpendicular axis, with another smaller room (11) to the north of it. A door located in the southwestern wall of the reception room exited to yet another room (9) and still further into the former courtyard which had now been converted into rooms. These Rooms (2- 7 and 9 on the plan)

definitely served domestic purposes. The original courtyard which was reduced to a quarter of its original size survived in the form of Room 7. Some other additions to the main structure date to that period, for instance, Room 25 had been added to the south-western tower, probably reinforcing this part of the construction. During the third stage of the development the building was 24 to 26 m wide but as its length increased to 47 m (excluding towers), its area rose to about 1220 m 2 ( cf. Fig. 4c ). In the final stage of the development, two antechambers were added to the entrance to the "Green Palace", used subsequently as a storage space (Rooms 14 and 15-Khalesi 1977b, 5). The entrance was provided with benches for sitting on the outside. Another addition was the so called "guest room" (no. 26), the

41

~ ~

(b)

(a) o

2

4

6

a

0

2

4

6

8

10 m

.i::,. I\)

~

~

(d)

(c) O

2

4

6

8

10 m

o

Fig. 4. Tell FaiJar.The development stages of the "Green Palace"

2

4

6

8

10 m

10 m

only room in the building which had an independent entrance. Its outer wall had several narrow buttresses. As buttresses of the same kind supported the outer wall of the antechambers of the gate (rooms 23 and 24) they have to belong to the same period. Similar butresses are present on the wall of a new tower, located to the west of the original southwestern tower and on the walls of two small chambers filling the space between the towers. For this reason they are assigned to the same period. At this point the building had reached its maximum extent, i.e. 60 by 30 m covering nearly 1460 m 2 (Fig. 4d). In the following part of the chapter I will use the term "Green Palace" to describe this stage of the structure.

concerns rooms added to the building outside the perimeter walls. Room 26, called the "guest room" by the excavator, differed clearly from the other more recently added rooms of the "Green Palace", as it was enclosed by two walls abutting the defence wall on one end and a tower on the other and not by four walls as usually arranged (cf.Room 25). Consequently, it was most probably not covered, as there were only two walls on which a roof could have been constructed. Thus it was not a room, but just a space enclosed with massive walls and provided with a separate entrance and differing in these respects from other chambers of the building. It seems very likely that it was intended as a shed for animals-for this reason it had a separate entrance and was open or covered with a roof of light construction.

The function of the rooms of the "Green Palace" was interpreted by the excavator according to the finds and to the character of the deposits identified within the rooms. The main division was referred to already in the first report. According to it, the structure consisted of the public part (Rooms 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and Forecourt 13) and a residential sector (Rooms 1-6, 8, 16-22 and Court 7) (Khalesi 1970, 112). This division into official and the private parts of the building, recalling the functional arrangement of different zones of activities in the Mesopotamian palaces, was the reason the excavator used the term "palace" to describe the unearthed structure.

According to Khalesi, the "Green Palace" was seized by an unidentified enemy who killed people present in the building and destroyed it in a conflagration, evidenced from a substantial ash layer over the floors and charred beams found on the floor of roofed spaces (Khalesi 1977b, 17). Some of the doorways (from Room 13 to 10 and from 10 to 9) were partly blocked with baked bricks taken out from the paved floors of Rooms 13 and 7 to obstruct the entrance to the building. There was a total of forty-two skeletons found in different parts of the building, supposedly belonging to persons who had been trying to hide from the attackers. Twenty-two skeletons were found heaped on the floor of Room 9 (a subsidiary room of the reception hall), nine more in another heap in Room 13 (vestibule), one in Room 3 and three in Room 7 (Khalesi 1970, 113-14, 118, Pl. 15-16). During the second campaign, a single skeleton was also found in Room 22 and seven more in the main drain leading south from Room 3 (Khalesi 1977b, 15). The skeletons belonged both to men and women of different age groups (Khalesi 1970, 118), pointing to the fact that they very probably belonged to the residents of the structure. According to Khalesi, the number of the skeletons constituted the total population of the "Green Palace". A number of valuable objects were found accompanying the skeletons: cylinder seals, beads, and in the case of the skeletons found in the drain, two daggers. Quite a number of valuable objects found in other rooms, for instance a glass bottle, adze, chisel, bowl, some nails and spearheads, metal armour scales all made of bronze suggest that the building was not entirely looted, maybe because of the fire that destroyed it (Khalesi 1977b, 15). Some arrowheads were also found, but it is impossible to tell whether they belonged to the defenders or were shot at them.

Rooms 14, 15 and the Forecourt 13 had formed an impressive entrance to the building. Although the facade of the building was 15.6 m long, the width of the doorway was a mere 1.05 m. The gate was flanked by two benches, each ended before the buttress that was part of the wall. It led to a forecourt with a baked brick floor and three for benches sitting along the northeast, northwest and southeast walls. Rooms 14 and 15, which may be entered from this forecourt, were used as storerooms, as they had contained a number of large storage vessels (Khalesi 1977b, 3, Fig. 16). Another door, located close to the northern gate-tower, led to the inside of the structure, to Room 10, the largest in the building (14.85 x 4.80 m). The room was identified as the main part of the reception suite composed of three spaces: 9, 10 and 11. Room 10 was a reception room of the bent-axis type with a hearth of baked bricks located close to its southern end. A doorway in the opposite wall led to Room 11, called "the archive". A third door, opening to Room 9 gave access to the inner part of the house. Khalesi was not able to interpret the role of Room 9. A few valuable objects found there testify that it was functionally linked with the reception suite. In his opinion, it served as a subsidiary room of the reception hall giving access to the private part of the house starting with Courtyard 7.

Already during the first campaign a number of cuneiform tablets were unearthed in several rooms of the "Green Palace". At the end of the season the total number of complete tablets and fragments reached several hundreds. During the following season the number of texts found was considerably smaller. It is still hard to establish the entire number of documents found at Tell Fagar as there were different figures published in the reports and in the texts publications. Even Khalesi gave different numbers in his different reports. According to the report on the first season of the excavations published in Sumer, the number of tablets was close to eight hundred (Khalesi 1970, 110). In the summary report written after new discoveries were made during the second season, this number was increased to about one thousand (Khalesi 1977b, 15). More

The private or residential part of the building consisted ofRooms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and Courtyard 7, providing communication, light and ventilation to this part of the building. According to Khalesi, the largest Room 1 was the main domestic space; Room 2 was just a corridor providing communication to Room 4 (another archive) and Room 5 (a bathroom with toilet). Room 6 most probably included a staircase and also a well and a drain were identified there. Damaged by illicit digging, it was filled with a mass of mud brick that made cleaning of all the installations extremely difficult (Khalesi 1970, 113; 1977b, 4). Room 12 as well as a line of small chambers (nos. 16-22) was not functionally interpreted by Khalesi. A similar situation

43

specific information was provided by Fadhil in his Master's thesis. According to him, texts found during the first campaign were given field numbers from TF l to TF 703. Tablets bearing numbers from TF704 to TF 847 were found during the subsequent season (Fadhil 1972, 2). As two texts found before the excavation started did not get TF inventory numbers, they have to be added to the number of registered tablets. The total of complete tablets and fragments thus amounted to eight hundred and fifty pieces. Different estimates of the number of tablets from found at Tell Fal]ar were indicated in the introduction to the dissertation of Rawi. According to the internal reports still kept in the Iraqi Museum and quoted by Rawi, the number of tablets found by inhabitants before the actual excavations started was higher than stated by Fadhil. Report MA.F 38/95 states that the Organization of Antiquities received no less than twenty-nine tablets from the inhabitants of Tell Fal]ar village (Rawi 1977, 20). Rawi assumed that a certain number of the texts found had been lost. This assumption does not seem to be substantiated, since, to date, no text fitting into the prosopography and geography of Tell Fal]ar tablets have appeared during the past 30 years on the antiquities market. The finds from the second season, according to Rawi, comprised only thirteen tablets, but it has to be admitted that the number of texts from the second campaign translated by him or referred to in his thesis amounts to twenty-one tablets (Rawi 1977, 549-50). 37 The remaining inventory numbers given during the second campaign were assigned to other finds like cylinder seals. Twenty-four cylinder seals found in the rooms of the "Green palace" were given the field inventory numbers TF 365-6, 451,456, 500, 519-20, 526-30, 572,619,631,644, (the first season) and TF 701, 743-5, 753, 763--4 (the second season). One more seal was listed only by its museum number (IM 72479). According to Rawi it was found during the first season (Rawi 1977, 142-58). 38 Most of the pottery vessels shown on the plates in Khalesi's reports bear numbers which may be Tell Fal]ar inventory numbers as they fit the range of numbers given by him (Khalesi 1970, Pl. 19-22; 1977b, Fig. 43 a, b, d, 44 a-d, 45 a-b). It is, thus, also clear that during the first season of excavation not all the assigned inventory numbers concern cuneiform tablets. On the other hand, Rawi had quoted several fragments of tablets which were found in Tell Fal]ar, but they never recieved the Iraqi Museum number (for instance TF 379, 384 or 632). In this situation G. Muller attempted another estimate according to which, after the cleaning and joining of fragments, the number of texts was finally established at about five hundred nearly complete tablets and a hundred more fragments (G. Muller 1994, 64) which seems to provide the highest possible number of the excavated tablets. 39

The late Dr. M. Muller from Leipzig University and Dr. Bahija Ismail from the Iraqi Museum were working on another group of the texts consisting of sixty-seven tablets (Fincke 1993, 158), but finally only four tablets of this group were published (M. Muller/Ismail 1977-78). In the following years, several of the texts from the dissertations of al-Rawi and Fadhil were published by themselves (Rawi 1980; Fadhil 1981; 1983) and by Deller (1983). One of the yet unpublished tablets found its place in a paper devoted to NIN.DINGIR.RA/entu priestesses in the Nuzi (Deller/Fadhil 1972). Finally, in 1999 another thesis based on the texts from Tell Fal]ar was promoted in Baghdad (Mundhiri 1999), containing an edition of twenty-nine more tablets. It is not clear whether the tablets Mundhiri had worked on belonged to the group which was left behind by Rawi or Fadhil or if they were texts that had never been worked on. The total number of studied texts thus equals 118 tablets which is in fact about 22% of the texts found at Tell Fal]ar, if we accept G. Muller's estimate. Some information about the unpublished tablets may be found in the indices of Rawi's dissertation. Book by Fincke (1993) concerning the topography of the kingdom of Arrapl]e included data from the texts that M. Muller and Ismail were working on. Altogether 156 tablets were published or referred to as texts under publication. It is certainly less than the total of the tablets that were given for publication to Rawi, Fadhil and M. Muller/Ismail (183 tablets). If Mundhiri had published tablets which did not belong to this group, the total number of tablets would reach 212 texts. This is the lowest possible number of tablets that were found acccording to published sources. A much more precise estimation can be attempted on the basis of the comparison of the field numbers (TF) given by the excavator both to tablets and to finds of different categories and the inventory numbers of the Iraqi Museum (IM). The results of this attempt are presented in Appendix G, where the numbers of tablets that are only mentioned are marked with an asterisk before the IM number, and the numbers which are reconstructed are given in brackets. The tablets can be divided into several groups according to their Iraqi Museum inventory numbers. This grouping reflects the date that batches of tablets were brought to the museum from the excavations. It seems that besides the tablets, only the cylinder seals have been introduced in the inventory of the Iraqi Museum. What happened to other finds is not clearwe do not know their field inventory numbers (save for some pots) nor do we have any hint about their IM numbers. The first group of numbers was given to texts that were introduced into the Iraqi Museum before the excavations started. According to Fadhil, two tablets (IM 70403--4) were registred on the October 22nd, 1967 (Fadhil 1972, 110), i.e. on the day when the expedition started to work in the field. Still there are many tablets from Tell Fal]ar that bear lower numbers and presumably arrived at the Iraqi Museum earlier or at the same time. These are tablets IM70326-8, 70330-3, 70341-2, 70398 and 70408, mostly in the planned publication by the late M. Muller and Bahija Ismail. If we combine this information with the

It have to be stressed that only small part of these text has been published till now. The two largest collections were given to Iraqi scholars preparing their degree thesis. Fadhil was dealing with fifty-seven texts assigned to him for study, but finally only thirty-three tablets found a place in his dissertation (Fadhil 1972). Rawi was entrusted with a similar number of texts, of which fifty-nine were translated in his Ph. D. thesis (Rawi 1977). Neither of these dissertations have been published.

39

Most probably, the number in the thesis was misprinted for 43, as this number of tablets was calculated from the list of finds (Appendix G). The number of the seals found reported by Khalesi was considerably lower, i.e. sixteen pieces (Khalesi 1977b, 14). This problem will be addressed again at the end of this section.

44

remark of Rawi that twenty-nine tablets were found before the excavations were started (Rawi 1977, 20), we would be able to fill the gaps between the numbers. Consequently numbers IM 70326-42 and IM 70398--408 will belong to this grup and that would account for twenty-eight tablets. It is thus possible that there was one more tablet outside the range of the numbers listed. The tablets excavated during the first season had numbers forming three groups. The first one starts most probably with IM 70702 and ends with IM 70988. It thus contains 287 tablets and at least four fragments of tablets that did not get the Iraqi Museum numbers (TF 40/k, TF 40/1), 379 and 384). Another batch bears much later numbers from IM73204 to 73279. The reasons for the delay in introducing the tablets into the inventory of the Iraqi Museum may be diverse: slow progress of the preservation or firing of tablets. It is almost certain that they were not written into the inventory directly after being brought from the excavations, as the IM numbers do not respect the sequence of the TF numbers. To the same group belong most probably text IM 73288 and a small group of ten tablets IM 73291 to IM73300. The number of the tablets equals eighty-seven, but in my opinion, it may be assumed that also numbers filling the gaps before IM 73288 and after it were assigned to the tablets found during the later part of the first season. Because of the discrepancy between TF and IM numbers it is impossible to demonstrate this. The maximum number of the tablets belonging to this batch, therefore would be ninety-seven. The next group comes also from the first season of work. The tablets have numbers IM 73386 to IM 73396 (11 tablets). The maximum number of the tablets found during the first season would, thus, be 395 tablets and some tablet fragments. The texts from the second season were introduced in the Iraqi Museum just after the last mentioned group or together with it. There were at least forty-three tablets found during the second season and they received numbers IM 73412 to IM 73459. It is possible that two more tablets were found during the season, as we do not know what kind of artifacts were written under two last numbers of the field inventory. The minimum number of tablets found at Tell Fabar during the excavations is 428, with possible allowance for twelve more tablets and a hard-to-determine number of smaller fragments. To this figure, twenty-eight or twenty-nine tablets found before the excavations have to be added, giving a total of 456 to 469 tablets. The reconstructed number is thus slightly lower than the one proposed by G. Muller. Ill.1.2.

THE IDENTIFICATION

and published it in 1972 in a paper written together with Deller (Deller/Fadhil 1972). Unfortunatly, the information about the identification of Tell FalJar was given there without presenting the textual evidence. Rawi considered two possible identifications of Tell FalJar: with KurrulJanni and with Tupsarriniwe. The second proposal was based on the assumption that as some of tablets are school texts or were only partly inscribed therefore the site may be identified with the city of Tupsarriniwe, "the city of the scribe". This suggestion was proposed without much conviction (Rawi 1977, 39). In the summary excavation report, Khalesi had made a referrence to Fadhil's proposition of the identification of the site, repeating briefly his arguments in favour of this identification (Khalesi 1977b, 15). It was Khalesi's own idea, influenced by a paper of Jankowska (1969), to identify the building itself with a dimtu and to interpret the settlement discovered on Tell FalJar as a dimtu settlement (Khalesi 1977b, 18). For this reason the name of dimtu KurrulJanni was used in the title of Khalesi's report. From this moment further publications referring to the identification of Tell FalJar split into two groups. The archaeologists accepted the point of view presented by Khalesi, despite the fact that the philological identification pointed clearly to the fact that Kurru1Jam1iwas iilu. The assyriologists seemed to be oblivious to Khalesi proposal to identify Tell FalJar as a dimtu, as theiy never comment on it. Fadhil, publishing in 1983 his Ph.D. thesis about the topography of ArraplJe Kingdom, did not discuss the case of Kurru1Jam1i.He mentioned this city only when writing about other settlements. He did not stress the fact that it was the city, nor comment on the Khalesi proposal to consider Tell F alJar as a dim tu settlement, even when referring to his own identification ofKurrulJanni with Tell FalJar (Fadhil 1983, 33, 58, 128, 293--4, 320). This was typical for other authors as well (for instance Wilhelm 1980-83). The tenth volume of the RGTC series devoted to the geographic names from the Nuzi period (Fincke 1993) and publication of a thesis concerning the geography of the ArraplJe Kingdom (G. Muller 1994) provided assyriologists with an over four hundred entries long list of the settlements mentioned in the Nuzi texts. In this exhaustive list there is no dimtu KurrulJanni and in all of over forty cases evidenced, the place name of KurrulJanni bears the determinative of a city, i.e. URU (cf. Appendix A) (Fincke 1993, 157-60; G. Muller 1994, 63-70). There is no doubt that dimtu KurrulJanni never existed, and the idea of connecting this name with the dimtu settlement was entirely wrong.

OF TELL FAIJAR

Attempts to identify the site of Tell FalJar were made during the excavations. Some tablets were read in the field by Dr. Fawzi Rashid who consequently proposed an identification of Tell FalJar with the city of Arwa (Wa'ili 1967, f). This identification was based on the reading of two tablets, of a letter addressed to someone in Arwa and an adoption tablet, mentioning fields located in the same city. No text numbers were given in the report and it is hard to tell whether the texts were subsequently published, although one of the texts was tentatively identified with tabletIM 70765 (Fadhil 1983, 59). The opinion of Rashid was repeated in some papers published in subsequent years (Khalesi 1969, 4; M. Muller 1971, 52). The identification was refuted after additional tablets were translated by Fadhil in his unpublished M.A. thesis (Fadhil 1972). He proposed a different identification with iilu KurrulJanni

Consequently, if Tell FalJar can not be the dimtu KurrulJanni, the following questions need to be ansewered: a. is Tell FalJar the city of KurrulJanni? b. is the "Green Palace" a dimtu structure and, consequently,

the settlement a dimtu settlement? Finding a positive answer to any one of these questions automatically renders the other false. If both questions are answered in negative, another solution has to be sought. To evaluate the evidence put in favor of the first solution, it will be neccessary to review arguments presented by Fadhil

45

and by Rawi in favour of the identification of Tell Fagar with Kurrul]anni. The list of arguments presented by Fadhil is five entries long (Fadhil 1972, 6-7). The first one is based on the frequency of occurrences ofKurrulJanni in satir-formulas, indicating the city where the legal tablet was written. Among thirty-three documents Fadhil had studied in his thesis, ten had satir-formulas preserved. In one case the name of the city was broken off (IM 73440); in five documents it was the city of Kurrul]anni (IM 70878, 70972, 73425, 73441 and 73445). The remaining documents were written down in: the city t[almaniwe (/M73413), city Tupsarriniwe (/M70882), city Unapsewe (/M73424) and finally in dimtu ofMakunta (IM70978). The second element in his reasoning was provided by two letters: the first one addressed to t[ulukka and Mus-tessup (IM 70404) and the other to Nikri-tessup and t[ulukka (IM 74430). Both these letters were written on behalf of the king of the Kingdom of Arrapl]e by a high court official named Ell]ip-tasenni and concerned activities to be preformed in the city of Kurrul]anni (Fadhil 1972, 110-2). The third element is the tablet IM 73260, which is a memo concerning grain lent to twelve men who, after collecting the harvest, were supposed to return it back to the city of KurrulJanni. The fourth argument is based on the relative frequency of occurrences of geographical names. City Kurrugaimi is again the most often mentioned (ten cases), while the next most popular cities of Arwe, t[erruwe and Tupsarriniwe are mentioned only twice each. Finally, the fifth reason for assuming that Tell Fagar is Kurruganni is the lack of any proposals of another identification for Kurrul]anni.

site, can be only used for defining a starting point for research devoted to the identification of the city. The first group of arguments is based on the statistical data, offered by satir formulas and by the number of occurrences of city names in the texts. The comparison of the number of texts taken into consideration for the purpose of this study (183 tablets) and the total number of the tablets found (456 at least) demonstrates that the studied group includes less then 40% of the whole archive. The statistical data based on a small part of the corpus must have restricted importance. There are altogether fifty-two geographical names mentioned in the tablets taken into consideration by Fincke in RGTC l 0 (Fincke 1993). Most of them (thirty-two) appear only once, although among them there are cases of the city names constituting a part of satir formulas. The city names are more numerous than the names of dimtu settlements, although there are cases when the same name appears both as a city and a dimtu in the archive (Makunta and UDgusse ). The number of occurences is to be found in Table 12. Kurruganni is the most popular city name, with 27 instances, followed by Arwa (9), Tupsarriniwe (8) and Al ilani, Artal]uta and dimatu Makunta and UDgusse (5 instances each). It is also interesting to note a remarkable difference between the frequency of the occurences of names of the cities (42 entries in the list, altogether 108 occurances ) and of dimatu (only 10 names with 23 entries). This difference reflects probably the administrative and economic importance of the cities, in contrast to dimatu, which played, most probably, only an agricultural role (cf. Chapter VI.2).

It is also necessary to present Rawi's arguments about the

identity of Tell Fagar and Kurruganni as some of them differ from the arguments of Fadhil. The first one is actually the same and concerns a number of occurrences of Kurruganni in texts studied by him. Again the second most frequently mentioned is Tupsarriniwe, although the number of the cases was much lower than the number of appearances of Kurruganni (18 against 5, or 8 against 1 if only satir formulas are taken into account) 40 • Other reasons that made Rawi reach the same conclusion as did Fadhil were: the mentioning of several officials, like issakku and makisu, on tablets which were written in Ku-rruganni, the presence of tablet stating that several cities were placed under the jurisdiction of the city of Kurruganni (IM 70781) and, finally, the fact that one of the cylinder seals found on the site was impressed on a tablet which was written down in Kurruganni (IM 70732, cf. Rawi 1977, 41).

The number of the preserved satir formulas is even smaller, amounting to thirty-six examples (cf. Table 13). This series is much to short to reach sound conclusions based on the statistic of the occurrences. On the other hand, a disproportion in frequency between Kurrul]anni (fifteen cases) and other names mentioned in the texts is so large that it is, in fact, meaningful. Nevertheless, it has to be noted that it does not point directly to the fact that Tell Fal]ar was Kurruganni itself. 41 It is obvious that Kurrul]anni was a city of importance, which is best exemplified by the tablet IM 70781, listing settlements (cities Maskanni, Kapra, Artal]uta, Tupsarriniwe and UDIJusse) that were under the jurisdiction of Kurrul]anni, a presence of the palace (JEN 250: 5-6) and a long list of city officials compiled in Table 14 (G. Muller 1994, 65-69). It is, thus, clear that most of the documents concerning a region of Kurrul]anni would be written in Kurrul]anni itself where many scribes permanently resided, and then deposited in smaller settlements where the people being parties to contracts or other legal documents, lived. In consequence, a considerable number of legal tablets written in Kurruganni found their way into the smaller settlements around it, beginning with the five settlements listed on IM 70781. Thus, the information one could extract from the high number of occurrences of Kurrul]anni in the texts from Tell Fagar only points to the fact that Kurrul]anni was the most

Arguments for the identification of Tell Fagar with the city of Kurruganni can be grouped into three categories. The first one is based on the frequency with which the name of the city occurs in the texts from Tell Fagar. The second group points to the importance of the city by listing city officials and pointing to its administrative functions. The third group is composed of cases when the interpretation of the content of texts is the reason for the identification. The last ofFadhil's arguments, that Kurruganni was not yet identified with any archaeological '°

Rawi took in consideration some texts which were translated by Fadhil, ct: Rawi 1977, 542--4. B. Lion, preparing for the publication the archive of Passi-tilla son of Pulaliali from Nuzi, told me that all the texts from this archive hear .fo/ir formulas indicating the city of Tupsarriniwe exclusively. In consequence, if only this archive would been found in Yorgan Tepe then the site could he logically identified with Tupsarriniwe and not with Nuzi as in fact was the case (Lion, pers. comm.). This view may he judged extreme, hut it illustrates very well the prohlem of identifying the name of the city based only on the statistic ofoccurrences of the names in the texts.

41

46

Table 12: Occurences of the geographic names in the tablets from Tell Faoar (according to Fincke, 1993)a Name of the city

Iraqi Museum (tM) numberb

Number of atestations

KurruiJanni

27

Arwa Tupsarriniwe

9

70342, 70404, 70702, 70732, 70767, 70781, 70795, 70796, 70832, 70854, 70871, 70878, 70972, 73242, 73250, 73260, 73291, 73293, 73396, 73425, 73430, 73434, 73441, 73442, 73445, 73456, Nr.41c 70341, 70718, 70741, 70765, 70806, 70822,73291, 73399, 73457

Al ilani (ArrapiJe) ArtaiJuta ljerruwe

8 5 5 4

70326, 70781, 70854, 70882, 70887, 70889, 70956, 70985 70825,70871, 72234, 73237, 73393 *70800, *70811,*70833 70831,70876, 70882, 70985

ljalmaniwe Unapsewe Zira Kapra

3 3 3 2

70800,70833, 73413 *70746, No. 41 73237, *73261, 73297 70748,70781

Kapra TUR Masante

2 2 2 2 2 4 + 1 as a.tu 4 + 1 as a.tu 4

70987,73300 70836,70794 70872,73237 73244,74318

2 2

*70341, 70887 70702,70878

PuiJi-senni Sinina Durubla dimtu Makunta dimtu UDIJusse dimtu ljaniku dimtu Apa dimtuSei§we

70757,70985 70326, 70978, 73243, 73428+ 73421 70782, 70811, 70827, 73237+ 70781 *70327, 70792, 73339, *73457

" There are also single occurences of the following geographical names noted: alanu: Amra, Anzukalli, Arsalipe, Artanta, Ar-tesse, ljilmani, ljurazina GAL, lrsikalli, Izzi, Kapra GAL, Qarana, Katija (?), Kuzut)t)e, Maskani, Natmane, Palaja, Put)ijawe, Sarri, Tarbast)ena, Taseniwe, Temtenas, Tilla, Tilpaste, Ulamme, Zallu, $illijawe and Zimhalse; dimatu: Arik-kaniwe, Arn-apu, Nulluenaswe, Ukin-zalJ and Ululija. ' Asterisk designates unpublished texts. ' Number given in an unpublished manuscript: B. lsmail/M. Muller, Bearbeitung van 67 Rechtsurkunden aus Kuruhanni (Fincke 1993, 158). Neither TF nor /M number of the tablet is known. Cf. also under Unapsewe.

Table 13: Localities mentioned in the safirformulas of the texts from Tell Faoar City name KurruiJanni Tupsarri (ni)(we) Arwa ljerruwe Al ilani (ArrapiJe) Anzukalli ArtaiJuta Artanta ljalmani(we) ljurazina GAL PuiJi-seni(we) Sinina $illiawe Unapse(we) dimtu Makunta " '

Number of tablets 15

Text numbers (tM)a *70342, 70702, 70732, 70767, 70795, 70832, 70871, 70878, 70972, 73242, 73425, 73441, *73442, 73445, 73456 *70326(?), *70854, 70882, *70956 *70341, *70718, *70806, *73457

4 4

2

*70831, *70874 70825 *73254 *70800 *70836 73413 *70954 70872 73244 73237b 73424 70978

Asterisk designates unpublished tex1s. Tex1 of a testimony given at the gate of the city $illiawe, no

safirformula

(Rawi 1977, 467).

47

Table 14: Officials acting in the city of Kurruoanni (after G. Muller 1994, 65-9; Fadhil 1972, 56-8) Title

Name

Text number

§akin mati

Turarija

IM 70972, IM 73271, /M 73439 (/M 70953, IM 73395)

issakku

Artaja

/M73250

sukkallu

Akija

IM 73299, (/M 70953)

dajanu

Al]a-aj-amsi

IM 73436, IM 73453

Akap-senni

/M73453

Akap-se,

mB$$Br abulli

abultannu

s. ljasig-emar

JEN 386, AASOR 16, 60

Akija

/M70953

ljaip-sarri

/M70953

ljamanna, s. Nait-tessup

JEN 386, AASOR 16, 60

lla-jabas, s. Kalbi-lstar

IM 73434, IM 73453

Baltu-kasid

/M70940

Pazija

/M70940

Sijati

IM 70940, AASOR 16, 71

Unap-tae

/M73434

Usibi

/M73434

Turarija

IM 70953, (AASOR 16, 70)

Puhi-senni, s. Kipija

JEN 386, AASOR 16, 60

Enna-mati, s. Tebija

/M70795

Natman-api, s. Simika-atal

IM70878

Jari, s. ljuziri

/M 73441 , /M 73442, IM 73425

? ljupampa

*/M73249

? Sarri

*/M73249

? Turarte

*/M73249

emantu!Jlu

Nikri-tessup

/M73273

atu!Jlu

ljutija

/M73249

Tupkizza

/M73249

Turari

/M73249

important administrative centre in the vicinity of Tell Fagar, but it does not necessarily have to be Tell Fagar itself.

with the authorities. Thus, such a tablet may be found in Kurruganni, in any of the listed settlements and also in any other settlement dependent to Kurruganni.

The second group of arguments points to the importance of the city, a fact already indicated in the previous paragraph. From the texts, we know of at least three judges, a §akin miiti, an issakku and some gate-watchers residing in the city (Table 14). It is natural that persons of high standing holding official positions were mentioned on the tablets as they played an active role in administration and jurisdiction. Thus, their presence is just another argument in favour of the important role Kurruganni had played in the kingdom of Arrapge, but it does not contribute to the identification of Tell Fagar. It is surprising that a city of such importance as Kurruganni was not a capital of the province. This fact is clear from one of the muster documents (HSS 15, 41), in which Kurruganni is listed as belonging to IJalzuKanata[ ...]. The same argument may be put forward in the case of the already mentioned tablet IM 70781, referring to the localities put under the jurisdiction ofKurruganni. Such information was important for the authorities of Kurruganni, but was even of greater significance for the people living in the listed settlements, as it defined their relationship

Summing up, the arguments based on the presence of high-standing officials or on the administrative importance of the city of Kurruganni do not contribute to the identification of the site of Tell Fagar. The only information one may extract from these texts is that Kurruganni was unmistakably the most important city of the region, with officials like issaku, probably sakin midi and a court of jury and a local palace, probably responsible for the administration of the economy. The third group consists of few cases of letters sent to persons supposed to execute some authority in Kurruganni, a cylinder seal is impressed on one of the tablets written in Kurruganni and there are memos concerning loans of grain. They deserve more careful treatment. One out of twenty- four seals found in the "Green Palace" was identified among the seal impressions on the tablets from Tell Fagar. It is a frit cylinder (JM 72493 = TF 528) with a simple

48

Fig. 5. Cylinder seal of 11jasunaja, found in Room 9 of the "Green Palace" (after Rawi 1977, Fig. 10)

herring bone pattern with dots at the end of every line (Fig. 5). It had been found in Room 9, close to skeletons nos. 15, 16, 17, and, thus, belonged to the residents of the last phase of the structure (Rawi 1977, 147). The impression on the tablet is identified, on the basis of the tablet, as belonging to woman named 1tlasunaja. The tablet in question, IM 70732, was written in Kurruganni by Tegija. It is a marriage contract arranged by lij:asunajaand her husband, Belija, son of Arteja for their daughter, fAzuli. The other party is ]japuka, son of Atlam who is supposed to give her to his son, Pugi-senni. 1tlasunaja is not known from any other published tablet from Tell Fagar, although a person of the same name, mother of a girl called fAzuli is known from one Nuzi tablet (MSGR 16, 34 discussed in Rawi 1977, 339--42). Her husband, Belija, is known from Tell Fagar from a tidennutu tablet IM 70836 written in Artanta. Certain Belija is the father of two persons mentioned in an unpublished tablet IM 70985 but there is no certainity that this is the same person. The other party, ]japuka, is possibly mentioned in IM73389, a list of persons belonging to other persons, but no father name is given there. It is therefore possible that both parties lived at Tell Fagar. The place name where they lived is not mentioned, however, as members of two families are known from other texts found in Tell Fagar and because the seal which was impressed on the tablet that was written in Kurruganni was found in Room 9, it may be assumed that the place where both tablet and cylinder seal were found is Kurruganni.

found in Room 4 of the "Green Palace", it seems plausible that this was the place where his personal archive was kept. According to the letters of Elgip-tasenni, ]julukka was entrusted with a responsibility of some kind. From the first letter, we may assume that he was reponsible for the crimes comitted by people from Kurruganni or Simutaja, in the same way as the !Jazannu and bele dimiiti instructed in HSS 15, 1 were responsible for crimes comitted by persons living in their settlements. From the second letter, we know that his fields of responsibility were deliveries of sheep or keeping watch over the vicinity of the city or taking care of horses belonging to high court officials. It is also possible that his field of responsibility encompassed more than one or maybe even all of these duties. The other addressee of the second letter, Nikri-tessup, is known from another letter found in Tell Fagar, IM 73271 (Fadhil 1972, 108; Deller 1983, 18-27). This letter, sent by the King Musteja himself, has two parts. The first one, addressed to Nikri-tessup, Ipsa-galu and Turarija is badly broken and the sense is not clear-it concerns male and female slaves, sheep and cattle. The other part, directed to Turarija exclusively, is very damaged too, but it is clear that it had contained instructions concerning !Jalzu of Turarija. This Turarija could be Turarija sakin miiti, the person who acted as a witness to two texts from Tell Fagar: IM 70972 and IM 73439. In both these texts his title is fully preserved. The presence of an archive of an official whose field of responsibility was Kurruganni and its region (i.e. of ]julukka) was accepted as definite proof of the identity of Tell Fagar.

The other case is a set of two letters (IM70404 andIM73430). The first, addressed to Mus-tessup and ]julukka, was sent on behalf of the king by Elgip-tasenni. He was clearly a high court official acting as a go-between for the king and his officials in yet another letter, HSS 14, 29, and who received two horses in MSGR 16, 98 (Fadhil 1972, 110). The letter concerns some grain illegally taken from city Arsenniwe by people from Kurruganni and Simutija. The other letter, addressed to t[ulukka and Nikri-tessup by the same Elgip-tasenni, concerns sheep which were not sent from Kurruganni, patrol duties in the region of the city and fodder for the akannu-horses of the sender. ]julukka, the person mentioned in both letters, is most probably ]julukka, son of Arip-apu, addressee of a private letter concerning cattle and barley (IM 70816), and a party to three legal documents (IM 70767, IM 70782 and IM 70802) found in Tell Fagar. The second and the third of them were written in Kurruganni. As four of the listed documents were

The remaining text is a memo concerning the loan of grain. The tablet in question is IM 73260: a list of twelve persons to whom barley was given and who were supposed to return it to the city ofKurruganni after the harvest (Fadhil 1972, 88-9, no. 16). It was assumed that the document was written and kept in Kurruganni by the person who was responsible for the grain, but unfortunately neither his name or his seal impression is present on the tablet. A comparison of the names of the debtors with the names of persons known from the Tell Fagar archive demonstrates that only two names occur in both grups. The first one is Selipu, son ofKalbuja, known from IM73254 written in Anzukallu, who may be the same person as Selipu, father of two men occuring as witnesses in unpublished texts IM 73425 and 73438. One of them, Akip-tilla, is also a party in IM 73439, and may be the addressee of a letter IM 73299. The other, Sukrapu, is the sender of a letter IM 73277. The other

49

name is that of Ila-msu, son of Artisu, known from a single text written in Artanta (IM 70836). There are several interpretations possible of the considered text. The first is that all the persons listed came from Kurrulpnni, but only two names survived in the found (and published) texts. Another interpretation is that in the list there were registered some persons from Kurru!}anni (like Selipu and Ila-msu) as well as from other settlements. Finally, the least likely possibility is that all the persons listed were living in places other than Kuru!}anni (in the cases of Selipu and Ila-nisu, in Anzukallu and Artanta respectively, as indicated by the preserved satirformulas of their documents). This last possibility is hard to support because of the presence of texts belonging to the archives of the families of Selipu and of Ila-msu in Tell F a!}ar (cf. Appendix H). Moreover, the first possibility does not seem plausible. The entire structure of the "Green Palace" was excavated. Thus the explanation that ten archives belonging to the remaining persons listed on the tablet are still waiting for publication or are hidden in the part of the tell that was not excavated is improbable (for its size cf. Fig. 2). Thus the second explanation is the most plausible. If we assume that most of the debtors are not residents of Kuru!}anni, it is possible to propose a different interpretation of the presence of tablet IM 73260 at Tell Fa!}ar. Two persons whose archives were identified there can be residents of one of the settlements other then Kurru!}anni, while the remaining man can belong to the residents of Kurru!}anni or other villages. Both these variants are equally possible and thus this document can not be accepted as proof of the identity of Tell Fa!}ar.

building. 43 Despite this fact, some additional arguments in favour of the Khalesi's thesis can be found. Firstly, the earliest phase of the structure uncovered on Tell Fa!}ar was much closer to the size of the dimtu built at the Selwu!}u settlement. The earliest phase structure measured only 36 by 24 m, with a perimeter equalling about 120 m. It had an exlusively domestic character but it was still provided with thick walls and towers. It was the third phase of the structure that featured the remarkable increase in the dimensions of the building, caused by the addition of the public wing and a more elaborate entrance. Moreover, there are also similarities in the structure of the Tell Fa!}ar settlement and dimtu saSelwu!}e. The reconstruction of this second settlement is presented on Fig. 1. Beside the dimtu kerbu, there were two houses of unknown dimensions and several household constructions like quppatu and magrattu, dispersed within and around the settlement. The excavated plan of the layer II structures of Tell Fa!}ar presents a similar character. The only structures found on the site beside the platform (magrattu?) were some hearths, a fragment of a wall about 1 m wide, probably enclosing a yard adjacent to the platform, and a single one-room house used for storage. Of course, whole area of the site was not excavated, but comparing the area dug with the plan of the whole site (Fig. 2), it is clear that there was not much space left for other constructions. On the other hand, a trial trench 1 m wide, dug in front of the entrance gate of the "Green Palace", revealed remnants belonging to Layer II (Khalesi 1977b, 13--4). The trial trench was 16 m long and, at the end, branched to the north-east and south-west. It reached down to a depth of ca. 1.8-2.0 m below the surface of the ground, a level corresponding with the floors of layer II found beside the platform. There were two clay floors encountered, both covered with ash. They were sloping down from the "Green Palace". No information about any structural remains connected with these floors were included in the report, thus it has to be assumed that they had formed a kind of open surface, similar to the floor level found beside the platform (Khalesi 1977b, 7). It is clear the the similarities of the dimtu and the settlement ofSelwu!}u and the "Green Palace" and the settlement found at Tell Fa!}ar are too close to be coincidential. The hypothesis of Khalesi is thus well founded.

Concluding the analysis of the arguments of the third group, it has to be admitted that the case of the letters sent by high court officials and by the king to the members of the local administration cannot be easily rejected. The same is true with the case of the seal impression. They both point strongly to the identification of Tell Fa!}ar with Kurru!}anni. The arguments from the other groups does not provide support for this thesis. The first group gives reasons to locate Kurru!}anni at Tell Fa!}ar or in its vicinity while the second does not point to any identification at all. It is now time to tum to the interpretation of the "Green Pal-

ace" as a dimtu building and Tell Fa!}ar as a dimtu settlement. The reason for this proposition appears to be similarities between the Tell Fa!}arsettlement and the dimtu sa Selwu!}u.Khalesi based his interpretaion on the description of this settlement on the tabletHSS 13,363, provided by Jankowska (1969b, 238-9). The case of dimtu Selwu!}u was already analized in chapters 1.2 and 1.3 above. What have to be reminded here is that Khalesi's attention was attracted by the dimensions of the dimtu construction given in the text (its perimeter was 216 cubits, i.e. about 108 m) as well as by its fortified character (reflected by term dimtu kerbu). 42 The fortified nature of the "Green Palace" is beyond any doubt, but its dimesions are much more substantial than those of the dimtu of the Selwu!}u settlement. The perimeter of the "Green Palace" is well over 200 m, i.e. twice as long as the mentioned dimtu

A reconsideration of the arguments put in favour of both identification does not solve the problem. Although most of the arguments in favour of the identification of Tell Fa!}ar with Kurru!}anni did not point directly to this fact, there were at least two cases that make this identification sustainable. On the other hand, the opposing conclusion ofKhalesi seems to be well founded. Moreover, additional evidence in favour of this hypothesis was presented. In this situation it will be neccessary to approach the problem from a different angle. Some of the arguments put in the favour of the identification of Tell Fa!}ar with Kurru!}anni may in fact be used to refute this identification. The most serious one is the importance of the city in the administration of the Arrap!}e kingdom, a fact

Dr. Schneider-Ludorff tumed my attention to the fact that in the Nuzi texts, the tenn ker!Juis used mainly to describe a wall enclosing the inner part of the city. This meaning does not see111to fit ve1y well to the context and so I continue to interpret this term as "fortified dimtu". 43 Tablet EN 9, 4 registers a sale-adoption concerning a dimtu structure the perimeter of which is 220 or 320 cubits (numeral is partly broken oft). Whichever reconstruction accepted, the dimtu structure ofUnap-tae was higger than that ofSelwut,u. 42

50

proven beyond any doubt. Table 14 lists officials who appear, mainly as witnesses, in the documents written in Kurrul]anni or who recieve letters. It has to be noticed that some of the judges bear the same names as the other high officials. It is possible that it was their high position that allowed them to take part in the court as judges.

assabu class, altogether 206 adult males. This number fits the figure from the texts written by Mus-tessup, rather then the reconstructed number of the residents of Tell Fa!Jar.

Finally, the texts mention some specific structures that were present in Kurru!Janni. These were: a palace (JEN 250), two city gates (abullu-Nu. l, IM 70702, IM 70767, IM 70795, IM 70832, IM 70878, IM 73445, IM 73456 possibly identical with bit biibi-IM 73441, IM 73425 and abullu sabiibiinu-unpublished texts IM 73249), a gate to a city quarter (abullu sa rebi iili-IM73415) and houses (JM70796). The last text is a tidenniitu document concerning houses in the city of Kurru!Janni. Their description is as follows (lines 36): "houses inside the city Kurru!Janni, to the south of houses of Iklaja, to the east of houses of Simik-atal and to the west of the houses of Iklaja" (Rawi 1977, 192-7). This situation is quite typical for a city, as may be judged from other instances collected by Zaccagnini (1979, 41--44). There is serious difficulty in identifying all these structures at Tell Fa!Jar save for a not very likely suggestion that these terms in fact refer to different parts of the "Green Palace". Moreover, the names of the owners of houses located in Kurrul]anni are not known from the Tell Fa!Jar archives, suggesting strongly that the site where the tablet was found and Kurru!Janni are not the same place.

If Tell Fal]ar is Kurrul]anni, it would be very likely that some, if not most of the listed officials, would live in the "Green Palace", certainly the most imposing structure of the site. This does not seem to be the case. Proof of this may be the lack of their cylinder seals among the seals found in the "Green Palace". Of course they could have been absent from the "Green Palace" when it was captured and destroyed, they could have been taken alive and held as captives or, finally, robbed of their property, including seals. On the other hand, the seals that were found at Tell Fal]ar did not leave impressions, save for one, on the tablets written in Kurrul]anni.One can easily expect that residents of the most important building on the site would take an active part in the administration and economy of the whole settlement. Thus, cylinder seals found at Tell Fal]ar should have left many impressions on the tablets written in Kurrul]anni if the "Green Palace" was a part (a palace) of the city. This is certainly not the case.

The single large structure present at Tell Fal]ar could not have been home to a large population. The excavator assumed that forty-two skeletons found in the conflagration layer on the topmost floors of layer II building account for the whole population of the settlement, as they represented males and females from different age groups. It is difficult to challenge this view as determination of the number of persons living in archaeological communities is a tricky matter. At first glance, this number seems to be too small compared to the area of ca. 1500 m2 of the building. It is very probable that the building had more than one storey, which would be reason enough to increase the number of inhabitants. On the other hand, part of the building served public functions and, thus, this area would not be included into the living space. Taking these two factors into consideration, it seems that Khalesi's assumption about the number of residents may be not far from the truth.

In conclusion, there is no doubt about the importance of Kurru!Jam1iboth as an administrative and economic centre. Most of the evidence taken into consideration by Fadhil and Rawi very much stresses this point. Still, the quoted information allows us to locate Tell Fa!Jar in the region of Kurru!Janni but is not enough to prove that it was Tell Fa!Jar itself. A comparison of the size of the population of Kurru!Janniand of the structures present in the city with Tell Fa!Jaris a good reason to doubt this identification, despite the evidence yielded by the ]julukka letters. Thus, there is no alternative but to accept that Tell Fal]ar is not the city of Kurru!Janniand the city itself has to be looked for in the vicinity of Tell Fa!Jar,probably along the neighbouring Wadi al-Nafat. There was no survey conducted in the region and thus it is impossible to indicate any site that could hide the ruins of Kurru!Janni.Nevertheless, Khalesi wrote that there were some tells located along this wadi on which second millennium BC pottery was present (Khalesi 1970, 110). This permits the Tell Fa!Jar settlement to be identified as one of the dimtu-settlements located in large numbers all over the countryside of the Arrap!Je kingdom. This interpretation is supported by the archaeological evidence. I believe that there is also a convincing explanation as to why some letters sent by high officials of the royal court, and even the king, were found in Tell Fa!Jar.The main structure of Tell Fa!Jar underwent several changes of plan that have been more particularly described above. The most substantial change, marking the transition form the second to the third phase, was the dismantling of the northern part of the earlier structure and the construction of a substantial representative wing of the building, with an impressive gate and a reception hall. It is clear that from that moment on the "Green Palace" was the home of a person of importance, most likely fulfilling administrative duties. ]julukka or Turari, the §akin miiti, would be the most likely candidates

It is interesting to compare this figure with the information

about the population of Kurrul]anni derived from the tablets. The names of3 judges and 54 other persons, including 3 women, acting as witnesses are listed in the texts written in Kurrul]anni by Mus-tessup, son of Silwaja. Even if some of these persons had come to Kurrul]anni from other localities to witness a legal act, this number seems to be too large in comparison to the assumed population of Tell Fal]ar. Tablet HSS 15, 44, a fragment of a military muster document, lists 41 bowmen from the riikib narkabti class and 40 other men, all coming from Kurrul]anni (Fadhil 1972, 9-10). 44 If the proportion between the number of houses belonging to the persons of different social classes was similar in Kurrul]anni as in Nuzi, it would be possible to attempt a reconstruction of a minimal number of men of the age suitable for military service. The proportion is taken from the tablet Gadd 63 (cf. above, p. 11). Beside 41 men of the riikib narkabti class, there would be 35 men of nakkussu class, 70 men of iilik ilki class and 50 men of Cf. above Chapter 1.3.

51

to be such a person. This assumption explains why ]julukka's archive was found at Tell FalJar. The idea of a person living outside a city that was his field of responsability may seem a little bit anachronistic, but it has to be stressed that there are many cases in the archives of Nuzi, when prominent persons or families lived far away from their countryside holdings (for instance the families ofKizzuk, Pasi-tilla or Pula-lJali).45 This problem certainly deserves further research.

It is clear that the mentioned tablets were property rights in the form of sale contracts. Keeping them was substantial, because physical possession of the tablet itself evidenced possession of the real estate described thereon. In case of court litigation, they were the primary proof of the ownership. The "Sammelurkunden" are also proofs of this special concern. They list, in abbreviated form, tablets, in most cases sale contracts, kept in the archive. Instances of such tablets are texts JEN 508, JEN 513, JEN 521, JEN 524, JEN 526, JEN 528, JEN639,JEN64l,JEN77l,HSS 13, l7l,JENu97 (Maidman 1979, 180; Dosch 1995, 132). Thus, the division of the tablets kept in the family archive between the sons equalled the division of the property itself. The other kind of tablets that could be subject to division were the tidennutu tablets, which were loan contracts that did not run their term or had not been paid back. It seems that all the contracts of this kind that have survived to our times were actually records of debts that were never returned. Once a debt was repaid, the tablet was destroyed and eventually a tablet recording the return of the loan was made out. Otherwise, the tablet was kept in the archive as the title to a plot of ground or other property. Apart from property titles the family archive should also consist ofletters addressed to the family members, sale and loan contracts with family members being parties to them, as well as documents registering court trials or testimonies. They reflect frequent court action and show that retention of primary documents, as listed above, served not only to effect re-sale of real property, but also to refute allegations of illegal occupancy. The last group consisted of documents concerning family life, like will, marriage and divorce tablets. Finally, there should also be economic documents referring to contemporary household activities. Logically, no primary record of the alienation of real estate was ever kept in the family archive, because they did not serve to demonstrate the ownership of the family and for this reason documents of this kind were never written. For the same reasons no tablets referring to lost cases were kept in the family archive (Maidman 1979, 183).

The problem of a supposed residence of]julukka, a person who clearly held his responsability in Kurrul]anni, in other place than Kurrul]anni itself leads to another topic that was not yet sufficiently clarified: the prosopography of the Tell Fal]ar archive. Two limited attempts to research it were undertaken both by Fadhil and Rawi. Both of them had to limit the scope of their research to information from the tablets they were publishing, only exceptionally emploing information extracted from the remainig part of the archive. Moreover, Rawi has been using in his study all the geneological informations available, including names of the witnesses. This led to a results that are difficult to accept. Some of the family trees reconstructed by him, for instance of the family of ]julip-apu (Rawi 1977, 47-52) or Ariwati (Rawi 1977, 57-61), were seven generation long. It is much too long according to the present knowledge of the length of the Nuzi period. My intention is another approach, based on the names occuring as the parties to contracts and other documents. The objective of this study is to reconstruct the original family archives of the "Green Palace" in hope to establish their number and original location within the building. This may answer how many families were living in the structure during its last phase of use and the names of archive owners. 111.1.3 THE FAMILY ARCHIVES AT TELL FAl;IAR

Before a reconstruction of the original archives may be attempted, it is necessary to consider the way private archives were formed in the Ancient Near East. Highlights to this topic are offered by documents referring to the division of the inherited property, as well as by the so-called "Sammelurkunden". Tablets coming from the archive of the Wullu family fromArraplJe provide a good example of the division of property. Two tablets related to the division of the property of the deceased Wullu and his stepfather Naswe are known. The interesting passages read as follows.

The Tell Fal]ar tablets were found in several rooms within the structure and also near the northeastern wall of the platform, outside the "Green Palace". The exact find-spot of this group of texts was not indicated, but it had to be somewhere between Room 11 of the "Green Palace" and a free-standing single-room magazine (Room 27) or even to the north of it (cf.Fig. 3). There are few possible explanations of their presence there. They could have been left behind by looters, thrown out of the building in an attempt to save them or fallen when the building collapsed. Without precise indication of the findspot, the explanations listed above are just speculations. Inside the building, the most numerous groups were discovered in Rooms I, 4, 9, 10 and 11. Two of them (Room 4 and 11) were called the archive rooms already during fieldwork:. Not all the tablets were found in the same stratigraphic position. Some of them were lying on the floor, while others were found in the debris, about 10 cm above floor level. This may suggest that some of the tablets were kept in a room of the hypothetical upper storey of the "Green Palace". Nevertheless, the information concerning the stratigraphic position of

Gadd 15: "All tablets concerning dimtu Uknipa, as of this day we, the sons of Wullu, have divided them among ourselves. Wanti-senni took five tablets as his share, and Pui-tae took two big tablets concerning dimtu Uknippa apart from Pui-tae's share of fields in dimtu ljais-tessup; Wanti-senni evaluated(?) Pui-tae's share to 4 imeru ofland; Ak:awatil took three tablets as his share and Suk:ri-tessup took three(?) tablets as his share.( ...)" (Grosz 1987, 81-2). Gadd 7: "Out of Naswe's tablets Wanti-senni took two tablets, Ak:awatil two tablets, Pui-Tae two tablets, Sukri-tessup took two tablets.( ...)" (Grosz 1987, 80-81).

For instance, Kussi-i)arbe, the notorious mayor ofNuzi, owned a house in the city of Anzullallu (AASOR 16, 1: 13-26). As there is no private archive ofKussi-i)arbe known from Yorgan Tepe it is possible that his city of origin was Anzukallu, not Nuzi. 45

52

the tablets provided by Rawi and Fadhil is far from being coherent.

that an archive concerned with the administration of grain was located in this room or in the room located upstairs. If so, then the supervisor of this archive was Assaniasu. He is the addressee of one of the letters (IM73394) and his name is mentioned on a tablet confirming the obtaining of the grain. Texts found under the wall refer to grain, while on the floor two other letters, a testimony tablet and another list involved with grain were found, one of them mentioning Assaniasu. Hence, it may be assumed that the texts found on the floor and in the fill came from the same archive. The other texts did not form any group and cannot be attributed to any of the already established archives.

Let us sort the documents from Tell Fa!Jar according to the highlights presented above. The find-spot of the tablets should also be taken into consideration, as the tablets from one archive should be found together. This information is, at least in some cases, not easy to recover as the tablets published by M. Muller and B. Ismail have no provenance given. In some cases, a comparison with the excavation numbers of other tablets will be used as a hint for identifying their find spots, according to a list presented in Appendix H, Section I. The most numerous were tablets found in Room 4. 69 tablets were identified as coming from this room (IM 70764, TF 40/1}, k, IM 7072~ and 70782-816) according to the information provided by Rawi that the tablets found prior to the excavations may come from a robbers' pit dug in Room 4. The tablets found during the excavation will be described separately for the sake of prudence. Only 7 of them were published. Two of them belonged to Arija, son of ljaniku (IM 70792 and IM 70801 ), and two to ]julukka, son of Arip-apu (IM 70802 and IM 70816). Three remaining texts could not be grouped. At least 5 published texts that, according to Rawi, were found in the fill of a robbers' pit dug in Room 4 may originate from the same room. One of them is a tidennutu text of ]julukka, son of Arip-apu (IM 70782). Other tablets did not form a group among themselves nor did they belong to any of the already identified archives. The important question is whether the texts found prior to the excavations also came from Room 4. Out of 29 tablets only two have been published (JM70403 and 70404). The first one did not belong to any of the identified archivegroups. The second is a letter addressed to ]julukka, thus it fits well into the assemblage of other tablets found in Room 4. It should be observed that all the published texts found during the excavations are of a similar content. They belong to categories that are very likely archived: letters, contracts and testimonies. This view cannot be sustained when considering a group of tablets IM70326 to IM70342. One tablet of this group (IM 70327) is a tidennutu document, but some other tablets are administrative in nature, for instance IM 7033170334-receipts recording quantities of grain taken from different persons (M. Muller 1995, 37). On the other hand, many of the tablets from Room 4 have not been published, thus it is difficult to generalise about their content. Other possible explanations is that among 29 tablets unearthed prior to the excavations there were texts found in other parts of the tell or in its various parts. Neither this hypothesis nor the one listed above can be proven for the moment. The other archive room, No. 11, yielded at least fourteen tablets (IM 73223, 73254-261, 73294-297 and 73390), of which nine were published. The published texts are of a different nature. Three are letters, one is a statement concerning a loan contract and another four list persons receiving or borrowing grain. Also in this case the tablets were found in various stratigraphic positions. Some of them were lying on the floor, others were found in the fill, finally, at least two were placed under a later wall, unfortunately not shown on any plan of the building. Based on the available evidence, it is likely

The finds in the neighbouring Room 10, the "reception room", were quite numerous. At least eight tablets were found there and the number of published tablets is only one tablet less (IM 73234, 73271, 73298-300, 73387-8 and TF 561). The tablets grouped in this chamber were of a varied nature, too. One of them is a letter addressed to three persons, of which one, named Turari, is also the addressee of a letter found in Room 1 1. TF 5 61 is a fragment of a contract, while the remaining five tablets are lists of grain and oil given out to various persons. The tablets found in both rooms have a similar character and beside the similarity in the composition of the assemblage, they are linked by the person of Turari, who is the addressee of two letters, one of which was found in Room 10 and the other in Room 11. Another place where numerous tablets were found is Room 1. There are thirty-nine tablets coming assumedly from this room (IM 70731-732, 70832, 70871-887, 70940-956, 73237 and 73250), of which sixteen have been published. Nine of them were found immediately on the floor, while the remaining seven in the fill of the room, about 10 cm above the floor. For this reason both these groups will be examined separately. Four texts belonging to Te!Jija, son of ljaip-sarri, were identified among the tablets found in the fill of the room. Two of them are tidennutu contracts, one is a marutu contract and one more is a loan tablet. Moreover, Ur!Ji-tilla, son of Te!Jija,occurs on just one tablet. His identity as a son of Te!Jija, son of ljaip-sarri, is confirmed by tablet IM 70833. This conjunction could not be done automatically, as on one of the tablets found in this room appears Te!Jija, son of Kubenija. It may be safely assumed that this room housed an archive of the family ofTelJija, son ofljaip-sarri. The tablets from the floor may belong to the same archive. There is one text of Te!Jija, son of Kubenija, among them and three more tablets, in which various sons of Te!Jija appear as parties to the contracts. Unfortunately, it is not possible to ascertain, which of the two Te!Jija was their father. It is very probable thus that we have here two family archives mixed together. This situation is difficult to understand save for a situation when one family is living on the ground floor and the other upstairs. Among the published tablets there is also one concerning grain that mentions again Assaniasu as a person responsible for its administration. This tablet may be a stray from the "grain archive" identified already in Rooms 10-11. A numerous collection of tablets was unearthed also in Room 9. Out of twenty-three identified tablets (IM70972-985, 73215, 73242-244, 73286 an 73291-293) twelve were published. Two

53

of them belong to Artaja, son of Arip-Apu, two to Kibija, son of Sarisse, two to Sama!Jul, son of Akija, two to Sarteja, son ofSama!Jul, finally one to tianiuja, son oftiulukka. Evidently, texts coming from at least three different archives were found there. The archive of the Arip-apu family (to which also tianiuja belonged) was already identified in Room 4. The remaining documents belong to two as yet unidentified archives of two more families: of Sarisse and of Akija. Among the published documents there are 2 testaments, 2 testimonies, 3 adoption contracts, 2 marriage contracts, 2 tidennittu documents and a very interesting tablet concerning fields in Tupsarriniwe (IM 70985). This curious mixture of documents originating from various archives is composed of documents that usually constituted important elements of such archives (for instance testaments and marriage texts). Their presence in Room 9 may be explained through the examination of the archaeological context of finds from this room. Room 9 was a place where numerous skeletons were uncovered, apparently belonging to the inhabitants of the "Green Palace" killed during the assault. Cylinder seals were found on some of them and it is imaginable, that the tablets accompanied the skeletons, too. This hypothesis has one serious flaw, namely, that the tablets were found mainly along the northwestern wall of the room. The skeletons were totally absent from this part of the room, when it was cleared from debris (Khalesi 1970, Pl. 15). It is possible that the residents were attempting to rescue tablets that were important for them as the business documents, but were worthless for the attackers and in consequence they were discarded by them as useless objects in contrast with the valuables, of which the dead bodies were deprived. In consequence, no original archive can be reconstructed in this room.

and 18 (/M73413), 3 to Room 19 (/M73419-21) and a single tablet to Room 18 (IM 73418). It is possible to reconstruct some links between these "dispersed" texts and the already established archives. The tablet found in Room 3 is a tidennutu contract of Belija, son of Arteja. Other tablets of this person were found in Room 1. One of the two tablets found in Room 7 is a letter sent by tiaip-sarri to Turari, whose tablets were found in Room 10. The same name appears also on a tablet concerning grain for horses found in Room 18. One of the two published texts from Room 8 belongs to Seru-atal, son of Arija, member of the tianiku family. One text from the archive of this family was found in Room 9, one in Room 8 and two more in Room 4. Two published tablets from Room 13 belong to the already established archives of Artaja, son of Arip-apu and Kibija, son of Sarisse. One of four published tablets found in Room 16 contributes to the archive of Assaniasu and like the others in this group it concerns grain. Two other texts mention Mus-tessup, in one of them, a miirutu contract, identified as the son of Jabas. The other tablet, bearing an impression of his seal, is a receipt summing up grain that was sent away to Al-ilani. The name of Mus-tessup without the father's name occurs on both published surface tablets, once as the addressee of a letter, the other time as the father of Zike, on a declaration concerning a loan of grain. Moreover, Mus-tessup without the father's name preserved is a side in a court litigation IM 70940 found in Room 1. Finally, all the tablets found in Room 19 concern grain. One of them (IM 73421) was sealed by Ekeke, a person who appears on a tablet concerning grain found in Room 10 (IM 73428). This short review of the textual finds is sufficient proof that several family archives were present in the "Green Palace". The reconstruction of the actual archives deserves a different approach. The tablets should be sorted not by the find-spots, but by the persons appearing as parties to the contracts. Then the genealogical links between some of these persons may be reconstructed and subsequently the find-spots examined again, to identify in which room of the "Green Palace" a particular family's archive was stored.

The last numerous group of tablets was found during the last campaign. The find-spot was located outside the "Green Palace", and described by Rawi as being "near the N. E. wall of the platform" and by Fadhil "im Schutt in der Nahe der Platform, nordostlisch des Griinen Palastes". There were thirty-six tablets found there (IM 73424--459). Sixteen of them were subsequently published. This group is of a mixed character, too. Three of the tablets belong to El]lip-apu, son of Te!Jipapu, two to Turari, who is identified in one of the texts as the son oflpsaja, and one to Pai-tessup, son ofArip-apu; the group is thus composed of tablets that belong to different family archives. The published texts also belong to various text categories. There are marriage contracts, a number of testimonies, two letters, including one addressed to t£ulukka, one agreement and some sale contracts. This mixed composition, as far as the type of text and the archive of origin are concerned, makes it very possible that these documents were taken out of the building (or thrown out from it) by the residents trying desperately to rescue them from a conflagration or looters.

The first family archive to be considered is the archive of the family oftiaip-sarri (cf.Appendix H, Section II. lA). The published documents evidence the activities of three generations of this family. tiaip-sarri appears on two tablets, once as an addressee of a letter (IM 73205), another time as a person receiving grain from four different cities to be fed to akannuhorses in his responsibility (IM 73418). 46 Six other tablets refer to the activities of two ofhis sons. The first of them, Sarrija, left an unpublished tablet (IM 70954), found most probably in Room 1. The other, Te!Jija is known from five published tablets: 3 of them are /isiinu-testimonies, 1 is a tidennutu contract and an unpublished tablet IM 72442 refers to a contract, by which Te!Jija gives his son Ur!Ji-tilla into slavery. The 3rd generation of this family is represented by sons ofTel]ija. There are several names of persons described as "son ofTe!Jija" known from the Tell Fal]ar archives, namely, Adadma-ilu, Enna-mati, Selluni, Tai-senni, Tae-tessup and Url]i-tilla. Unfortunately,

The other find spots yielded only a few tablets each. Single tablet may be allotted to Room 3 (IM 70836), 2 to Room 7 (/M73204-5), 7 to Room 8 (/M73210--4, TF379, 384), 2 to Room 13 (/M73277 and TF632), 5 to Room 16 (IM73279, 73386 and 73391-393), 1 to a corridor between Rooms 17

" A certain l:laip-sarri appears as a judge on tablet IM 70953, together with Turarija and Agija, in a case made by l:lamanna, son of Turarija against Nirari. There are no grounds to identify this judge with our l:laip-sarri.

54

there were tablets belonging to two Tegijas found in the same find-spot. One of them was the son of J;:;[aip-sarriand the other son of Kubenija. In this situation it is extremely difficult to ascertain which Tegija was the father of a specific individual. There is no doubt that Urgi-tilla was the grandson of J;:;[aip-sarri,as he appears together with his father in one of tablets and his father is identified by the name of his own father. Tae-tessup also occurs in one tablet with Tegija, son of J;:;[aip-sarri,and his membership in the same family cannot be doubted. Most of the dated tablets belonging to this archive were written by J;:;[asip-tilla(IV-V). Consequently, the period of activity ofTe!Jija and his son Tae-tessup should be dated to the period of the 4th and 5th generation of the Apil-Sin family. His other son, Ur!Ji-tilla appears on a tablet written by Mus-tessup. There are at least two scribes of this name known from the Nuzi archives. In this case it seems very likely that the author of the tablet was identical with Mus-tessup, son of Silwaja, who is the scribe of IM 70988, found in Tell Fa!Jar. Silwaja, son of Intija, wrote several other tablets found in Tell Fa!Jar: IM 70767, 70871; in IM 73445 and 73452 his name appears without the name of his father. For this reason it is possible to accept the identification of Mus-tessup with a son of Silwaj a. In consequence, his period of activity shall be dated to the 4th generation of scribes of the Apil-Sin family. In consequence, the third scribe who wrote contracts for this family, Diabeil, known exclusively from IM 70883, should be dated to the same period, i.e. 4th-5th generation of the Apil-Sin family. The period of activity of J;:;[aip-sarriwould fall to the 3rd generation of scribes, his sons would be active during the 4th generation, and his grandsons in the later part of the 4th and during the 5th generation of the Apil-Sin family. Nearly all the tablets of this archive were found in the fill of Room 1. Consequently, the original storing place of this archive was either in this room or, what is more likely, in the hypothetical upper story of the structure. Tablet IM 73204 was found in Courtyard 7, adjoining Room 1 and may have easily dropped there when the building collapsed. IM73422 was found among the tablets lying near the platform, which must have been taken out of the building, hence it does not contribute to the reconstruction of the place of origin of this archive. Finally, IM 73418 was found in Room 18, one of a series of small chambers forming the substructure of the upper story of the original part of the building. This tablet may belong to the grain archive assemblage as well. If so, it would have to be treated jointly with other tablets of this archive, some of them found in the adjoining Room 19 of the superstructure.

grandson of Kubenija. In consequence, this Tiwirra may be considered contemporary with the 4th generation, his father with the 3rd, and his grandfather may be tentatively identified with the 2nd generation of the Apil-Sin family. Both tablets were found in Room 1, one on the floor and the other in the fill. If the proposed chronology of both families is correct, the two Tegijas were not contemporary. The son of];:;[aip-sarriwas active during the 4th-5th generation of scribes, while the son of Kubenija during the 3rd and 4th. Due to this difference it is possible to identify tentatively Adad-ma-ilu and Seluni as the sons of Tegija, son of Kubenija. Both of them appear in texts written by scribes belonging to the 3rd generation of scribes (Adad-ma-ilu) or to the 3rd-4th generation (Selluni). It seems that both of them are too early to be the sons ofTegija, son of J;:;[aip-sarri;moreover the first of them was most probably dead when IM 70767 was written, as his wife, Elizzi, is acting in this text as abu, i.e. the head of the family. The text mentions also a son of Adad-ma-ilu, named Segal-tessup. Both the mentioned tablets were found in Room 1, where other tablets of this archive were found. The two remaining sons of Tegija cannot be included in any of the described archives. Tai-senni is a party to the tidennutu contract written in Tupsariniwe by Nan-tessup, a scribe known exclusively from this contract. Enna-mati appears in the texts of the "grain archive". In one of them he is identified as the son ofTegija, in two of them no father's name is given. There is also a person called Enna-mati, son of Tegip-apu, known from a Tell Fagar text (IM70871) found also in Room 1. As it would be of importance to know whether Tegija was a hypocoristicon of Te!Jip-apu and the family of Tegip-apu is in fact identical with either the family of Tegija, son of J;:;[aip-sarri, or the family ofTegija, son of Kubenija, the archive of the family of Te!Jip-apu will be analysed now. Tegip-apu did not leave any record of his personal activities (Appendix H, Section II.2C). Most of the texts preserved in the archive of this family belong to his son E!Jlip-apu. He is known from four texts, three of them being lisiinu statements concerning the acquisition of a horse, loan of grain and theft of his sheep, and in a contract concerning the sale of a slave. E!Jlip-apu without a father's name is also listed in IM 70720, a list of persons to whom donkeys were entrusted. It is possible that Arimmu, son of Eglija, is his son, but there is no proof of this, as Eglija may be a hypocoristicon of Egel-tessup, another person known from the Tell Fagar archive as well. The tablet that mentions his name (IM 73425) was found outside of the palace, hence it is impossible to use its find-spot to identify the original location of the archive that the tablet had once belonged to. The other son of Te!Jip-apu is Enna-mati, a person already considered above. Both sons ofTegip-apu employed Silwaja, son of Intija (3rd generation), as their scribe. He wrote one contract for Enna-mati and two texts concerning Eglip-apu. The third tablet of E!Jlip-apu was written by Mus-tessup who was, most likely, the son ofSilwaja. In consequence, the activity period of both sons ofTegip-apu may equal the 3rd generation of the Apil-Sin family, with E!Jlip-apu surviving in the earlier part of the period of the 4th generation of scribes. In consequence, Tegip-apu should be dated to the 2nd generation of scribes, that is earlier than both Tegija, son ofKubenija

The other Tegija seems to have been the owner of an archive of his own (Appendix H, Section II. lB). His father did not play an active role in any of the published texts, while he himself appears on two tablets: IM 70872 and IM 70876. The second document identifies also his son, Tiwirra. There is a single tablet known, on which Tiwirra occurs without the name of his father, but as there is also Tiwirra, son of Arpuja, known from the Tell Fagar tablets, he cannot be safely identified with the son of Tegija, son of Kubenija. Both tablets of Te!Jija, son of Kubenija, are signed by scribes. One of them was Tegija, known from ten documents found both in Tell Fa!Jar and Nuzi, and dated to the 3rd-4th generation of scribes. The other scribe is Utgap-tae, son of Arkabi, known exclusively from this tablet. Tablet IM 70876, written by Tegija, mentions also Tiwirra,

55

during the 4th generation of scribes and that ffisnuri's marriage took place at the same time. It is also clear that this tablet did not originally belong to the archive of Akija's family, but rather to that of Arip-apu. In fact, a few more tablets belonging to the archive of this family were found in the same room as IM 70984. For the reasons given on p. 54 the archive of Akija's family may have been stored in a room above Room 9 of the "Green Palace". Only one tablet out of six belonging to this archive was found outside this room.

(III-IV), and Tel]ija, son of ljaip-sarri (IV-V). The texts of the sons of Tel]ip-apu were found outside of the palace. The only exception is the text of El]lip-apu, found in Room 1. The tablet of Arimmu was found by the platform, hence it could possible originate from the same archive. This tablet was written by Mus-tessup (IV), so the connection of this person with the family of Tel]ip-apu cannot be excluded on chronological grounds. Another family, which kept its archive in the "Green Palace", was that of Akija 47 (Appendix H, Section 11.2). No text from his personal archive has survived but two other generations of his family were represented in the texts. Akija had two sons, Pai-tilla and Samal]ul. The first one is mentioned in the text (JM 70403), which is an umma statement concerning grain borrowed from Pai-tilla. The text is one of two tablets found prior to the excavations and its place of origin is not clear. The remaining six tablets concern Samal]ul or his children. The most important text is IM 73243, a testament of Samal]ul, listing four of his sons. ljanaja is the oldest one. His share was a house in Temtena and a share of some other ofSamal]ul's properties in this city. The other son, who received a single share of property in Temtena, is called Sal]lupate. Both of them are not known from any other tablet found at Tell Fal]ar. Two other sons received shares of property located in the dim tu ofMakunta. One of them, ljapi-senni, is not evidenced in any other text, but Sarteja is a party to a maridu contract (IM70987) and appears in a lisanu statement concerning grain that he lent (JM 70981 ). The fifth child of Samal]ul may be 1Tisnuri, wife of Adad-terri, who was adopted by Artaja, son of Arip-apu, (cf.below) in a real-adoption contract (IM70984). There is only one Samal]ul known from the whole Tell Fal]ar archive, making this association possible. On the other hand, there are reasons to doubt it. First of all, 1Tisnuri seems to be too old to be the daughter of Samal]ul, son of Akija. Both texts in which Samal]ul appears as an active party were written by ljasip-tilla (IV-V). The same scribe was working for Sarteja, his son. Hence, there are two possible ways to reconstruct the chronology of the family. First, the testament of Samal]ul could have been written down in the early part of ljasip-tilla's professional activity and the other tablet ofSamal]ul could date from the same period, while the tablets of Sarteja, which have to belong to the period after his father's death, would date to a later part of the 4th or to the 5th generation of the Apil-Sin family. It is clear that all the sons of Samal]ul were full grown, as they were able to receive inheritance shares and there was no need to place them under the authority of another person. The other possibility is that the testaments date to the period of the 5th generation of scribes; there will be still enough time for Sarteja's independent economical activities. The tablet mentioning ffisnuri was written by Tel]ija, a scribe who was active during the 3rd and 4th generation of scribes. Consequently, 1Tisnuri's wedding could not have happened later than early in the period of the 4th generation, because at the moment the tablet IM 70984 was written, she was clearly a widow with at least two daughters (one of the conditions in the contract is an arrangement of marriage for them). She may be included in Akija's family only on the condition that the testament of Samal]ul was conceived

The family of Arip-apu mentioned above left their own archive, composed of thirteen published tablets (Appendix H, section II.3). As in the preceding cases, the head of the family did not appear as a party in any of the texts. The tablets were left by three of his sons, of which ]julukka and Artaja were men of importance. ]julukka is the addressee of three letters. One of them (IM 70404) is sent by Ell]ip-tasenni, author of two other letters (IM 73430 and HSS 14, 29). In all of them Ell]ip-tasenni is transmitting the orders of the king. The case of the quoted letter refers to the theft of royal grain by a certain Simutija and some persons from Kurrul]anni. ]julukka and Mus-tessup are ordered to bring this man and other persons to the king. In IM 73430 the same Ell]ip-tasenni orders ]julukka and Nikri-tessup to resume patrol duties in the territory of Kurrnl]am1iand refers to sheep which were not sent out from this city. The third letter, IM 70816, written by Nanip-tessup concerns a private matter. The remaining three tablets are legal texts: a lisanu statement concerning animals which were entrnsted to a shepherd, a tidennutu contract concerning a loan secured by fields in the dim tu ofUDl]usse, and a marutu contract concerning a real adoption. His brother, Artaja, appears on four documents. One of them (IM73277) is a private letter sent by a certain Sukrapu. Among the others, there is a mariitu contract (IM 70984), already referred to above as the other party to this contract is 1Tisnuri, daughter of Samal]ul. The third one is an umma statement concerning a previous personal tidennutu contract. The fourth tablet was not published. Moreover, IM 73250, a short notice which confirms receiving a gift, is issued by a person named Artaja, who is issakku saKurrul]anni. It is possible that he is the same person as Artaja, son of Arip-apu, as there is no other person of this name appearing among the active parties to the contracts discovered at Tell Fal]ar. Moreover, his brother, ]julukka, clearly occupies an elevated position in the royal administration in Kurrul]anni, as evidenced by two letters sent to him by a royal aide, Ell]ip-tasenni. One of them is a very likely candidate for ownership of the whole estate. The place of origin of the archive is difficult to reconstruct. Tablets, which belong to it, were found in Rooms 1, 4, 9 and 13 and outside the building as well. Most of the legal texts of Arip-apu come from Room 9, while the legal texts of]julukka were found either in Room 4 or in Room 1. Room 9 was already identified as the place of origin of the archive oftheAkija family (cf.above). In this situation the most plausible place of origin of the archive of the Arip-apu family is Room 4 or the hypothetical chamber located above Room 9. The family of Ar-teja 48 left only three tablets (Appendix H, Section 11.4). One of them is an umma statement referring to

Rawi calls this family "ofTulip-apu" (Rawi 1977, 47). Rawi calls this family "of Ariwati" (Rawi 1977, 57-61 ).

56

a marriage (JM 70732), hence it gives insight into the family structure. The owner of the archive is Belija, son of Ar-teja, who himself did not appear as a party to any of the preserved documents. He and his wife, fijasunaja, daughter of Suraja, are giving their daughter 1Azuli as a wife to a certain Pul]i-senni, son of ]::Japukaand grandson of Atlam. His father is mentioned most likely on IM 73389, a list of persons who own(?) other persons, thus Pul]i-senni may also be one of the inhabitants of the discovered settlement. The other document of Belija is a tidennutu contract. Another family member, not mentioned in the marriage contract, is his son, Duglilu. A tablet mentioning his name (IM 73424) is an umma statement concerning the return of two sheep. Despite the fact that the described three tablets mention members of the same family, it is impossible to reconstruct the place of origin of this archive. Each one of the three texts was found in the different spot of the site.

The activity period of the sons ofUdduli is contemporaneous with the 3rd and 4th generation of the family of Apil-Sin. This early date, the fact that one of the tablets was found in Room 4, while the other was discovered outside of the palace, and that it is impossible to reconstruct the storing place of this archive suggest that at the time that the "Green Palace" was destroyed they did not form a living archive.

The fifth family whose archive was identified in the "Green Palace" is that of]::Janiku (Appendix H, Section 11.5).]::Janiku himself did not appear as a party on any of the tablets, but a dimtu settlement bearing his name is mentioned and his sons still held possessions in it at the time that the tablets registering their activities were written. Most of the tablets from the archive refer to the activities of his son Arija. Four his marutu contracts are known, all concerning holdings in the city of Arwa, some of them in the dimtu of ]::Janiku.IM 73291 mentions also Akija, son of ]::Janikuas one of the witnesses to a document written down in Arwa. It is plausible that this Akija is a member of ]::Janikufamily, who still resides in the city of Arwa, holding his share of the estate inherited from ]::Janiku.Three of Arija's contracts are signed by scribes: Ak.dingir.ra (III), Tel]ija (III-IV) and Nabu-M5ir (IV), hence his period of activity falls in the period of the 3rd and the 4th generation of the Apil-Sin family. The next generation of the family is represented by Seru-atal, son of Arija, who is a party to a personal tidennutu contract, written by Ilanu. This scribe was active during the 3rd and 4th generation of the Apil-Sin family and the most likely date of this tablet is towards the end of the period of the 4th generation of scribes. The place, where this archive was originally kept, is difficult to reconstruct. Two tablets belonging to it were found in Room 4 and a single tablet in each of Rooms 8 and 9. The place of origin of the fifth tablet is not clear. It may come either from Room 9 or Room 11. It seems that the listed tablets did not form a single archive, but constituted part of an archive of another family or were moved from their original place of storage for reasons discussed above (in the section devoted to the composition of groups of texts found in Rooms 9 and 11). Two tablets (IM 70796 and 73439) witness the activities of the sons ofUdduli (Appendix H, Section 11.6).Naip-tilla and Unap-tae appear as party to the tidennutu contract IM 70796 concerning houses located in Kurrul]anni. IM 73439 is an unpublished trial document mentioning the third brother, Sennuni, while the fourth brother is one of the witnesses to a tidennutu contract of Amumija, son of Akip-tasenni. This tablet clearly formed part of the personal archive of the latter. The two mentioned texts are quite early: IM 70795 was written by Tel]ija (III-IV), while IM 70796 by Ell]ip-tilla (III).

57

Amumija, son of Akip-tasenni, party to the tidennutu contract mentioned above (IM 70795) is a member of another family whose activities were evidenced by only two published tablets (Appendix H, Section 11.7).The other tablet, IM70782, is a tidennutu contract too, but the party to it is Pul]i-tessup, clearly a brother of Amumija. Both tablets are of the same date: IM 70795 was written by Ell]ip-tilla (III-IV), IM 70782 by Tel]ija (III-IV) and both were found in Room 4, although the exact stratigraphic position of IM 70782 is doubtful, as it was found in a part of the room disturbed by a robbery pit. Despite the early date, both tablets may originate from the same archive, which was kept in Room 4. The last important group of texts is made up of administrative tablets concerning grain, appearing together as the "Grain Archive" in Appendix H (Section II.8). At least seventeen tablets referring to grain are known, although some of them have not been published. The tablets mention personal names and amounts of grain which were received or given out from the granary and, sometimes, the name of the person responsible for the grain. The most frequent personal name is that of Assaniasu. He signed two grain receipts (IM 73386 and IM 73296, where he is acting together with ]::Jutip-nawar).Another document (JM 73233) is an umma statement concerning a loan of grain. Assaniasu acted there as an administrator of the property of]::Jasip-tilla, a person not known from any other published tablet from the Tell Fal]ar archive. A document, which is not related with the "Grain Archive", is a letter addressed to the same Assaniasu (IM 73394), in which a certain ]::Jupitaorders him to send sheep and barley to the city of Apa(we). It confirms Assaniasu's involvement in the administration of agricultural produce. The name of his father is never given nor is any of his tablets signed with the name of the scribe, hence Assaniasu's relation to already identified families, as well as the date of the period of his activity, remain obscure. Tablets mentioning his name were found in Room 11 (with the exception of IM 73386 found in Room 16). Another name to be connected with grain administration is Ekeke. His name appears only once on tablet IM 73428, which is a receipt of grain, but the seal he impressed on this document is used for another tablet on which no name of the person overseeing the transaction is given (JM 73421 ). The tablet notifies of the return of a debt by people from two dimatu: Makunta and Ziml]alse. Three more persons appear in a similar role on a single tablet each. Beliuadna and Mus-tessup signed receipts of grain, while the name of Haip-sarri appears on a grain list. Of these three persons only Mus-tessup may be identified with a person known from texts of other character. Mus-tessup, son of Jabbas, appears in a marutu contract, which was found in Room 16 together with the grain list mentioning Mus-tessup. The same name appears in a text concerning court proceedings, IM 70940, found in Room 1, but this time the name of Mus-tessup's father is broken off and

the identification is doubtful. Also the date of his period of activity is impossible to establish. IM70940 does not bear the name of the scribe and IM 73391 was written by Sumu-libsi, who is impossible to date.

several various archives were discovered. 49 Turari, son oflpsaja left only one document, a lisiinu statement concerning the transfer of a lady and her girl-servant to Turari. In the same text his brother, ]:Jutip-sarri, is mentioned, and also Enna-mati, son ofTel_).ija,who may be a member of another family known from the archives of Tell Fal_).ar(cf. above, p. 55). Three other tablets mentioning Turari are letters addressed to a person of this name, clearly a high official of the regional administration. Turari is a common name and it will be very difficult to prove the identity of Turari, son of Ipsaja, and this person, who may be identical with the judge Turarija known from a few other Nuzi texts (see Table 12) and Turarija, the §akin miiti, known from IM 70792. Tablets mentioning Turari were found in various spots in the palace: in Rooms 7, 11 and two more tablets by the platform. Finally, one of the parties appearing in IM 70723 is ]:Jamanna, son of Turarija, whose belonging to the family ofTurari, son oflpsaja, may be considered. ]:Jais-tessup, son of Titeja, is party to a sale contract concerning a slave (IM 73456) and a person of this name, but without the name of the father given, is the addressee of a letter (IM 73416). The letter was found in one of the small chambers in the basement of the core building, while the contract by the platform outside the building. Another somewhat elusive character is El_).el-tessup,known from three tablets: IM 70953, IM 73299 and IM 73389. The first of them is a trial document concerning 10 sheep. El_).el-tessupwas supposed to transfer them from ]:Jamanna to Nirari, but they never reached their destination. It seems that the document comes from an archive belonging to one of the parties to this trial, i.e. either ]:Jamanna or Nirari. The remaining two are documents concerning grain, which mention his name. They had clearly formed part of the administrative archive and his name appears in these documents simply because he was living in the settlements or in a district, which was located within the responsibility ofan official taking care of the economic archive. The last person, who should be mentioned here, is Silwaja, son of Akulenni. He appears as a party to two tidennutu contracts (IM 70723 and IM 70887). The other party to the second document is Tel_).ija, son of]:Jaip-sarri, and the tablet clearly belonged to his archive, not to that of Silwaja. The other tablet poses more problems. First of all, Silwaja appears in this tablet with two other persons, named Akulenni and Zilteja, described as his brothers. One of them bears the same name as the father of Silwaja, a fact difficult to explain, as there was no custom of repeating the same name within the same family in the Nuzi society. The only possible explanation is that the text, very broken in this section, was not properly reconstructed. On the other hand, there was no custom of the father appearing with his sons as a party to any contract. Also in this tablet Silwaja is borrowing grain from another person. It is very unlikely that this tablet formed a part of his private archive and there is no reason to reconstruct the presence of his archive at Tell Fal_).ar.

It was already observed that the tablets belonging to the "Grain Archive" were not signed by the scribe. It is not very likely that they were written by the person who was responsible for the transaction as their names do not appear on the list of the scribes presented in Appendix E. The place where the original archive was stored is difficult to reconstruct as well. Four tablets found in Room 11 and three more unearthed in the neighbouring Room 10 clearly form one group. The other group is composed of tablets, which were found in small rooms forming the basement of the core structure of the "Green Palace". Three of them were found in Room 16, one in Room 18 and three more in Room 19. The remaining three tablets did not form any other group. One was found in Room 4, another by the platform outside the building and the find-spot of the third is not known. It is very likely that there were two spots when the grain archive was kept. One of them was Room 11, which is a more likely place for storing an archive, despite the fact that the tablets found in Room 10 were more numerous. This group of tablets is related to Assaniasu. His personal text (a letter) was found in Room 11, too. The other group seems to be related to Mus-tessup, son of Jabiis. One tablet belonging to this person was found in Room 16, together with a receipt of grain for which he was responsible. There were some more administrative tablets found in Tell Fal_).ar,but they do not form any coherent thematic group. A list relating to the distribution of copper was found in Room l (IM 70955, unpublished), a list of donkeys in Room 4 (IM 70720), a receipt of oil and a list of persons in Room 10 (IM 73387 and 73389 respectively) and another list of persons in Room 11 (IM 73259). The last two documents may form part of the administrative archive which was kept in Room 11. The last group of texts to be mentioned concerns persons who left a few legal texts referring to their activity, but as they are the only members of their families known at the moment, it seems premature to establish them as archive owners. This state of affairs may change easily once more tablets will have been published. Either their own archives will be established or their texts will be attributed to already identified ones. The first of these persons, Mus-tessup, son of Jabiis, has been mentioned already when describing the texts forming the "Grain Archive". Other possible archive owners are: Kibija, son of Sarisse (Appendix H, Section 11.B), Turari, son oflpsaja (Appendix H, Section 11.C), ]:Jais-tessup, son of Titeja (Appendix H, Section Il.D), El_).el-tessup(Appendix H, Section ILE) and Silwaja, son of Akul-enni (Appendix H, Section II.F). The first of these appears as a party to a tidennutu contract (IM 73215) and to a marriage tablet (IM 70978), written in the dimtu of Makunta. A certain Kibija, without the name of the father given/preserved, appears also in an agreement tablet (tab,siltu) concerning the exchange of gardens (TF 632). Two of his tablets were found in Room 9, the remaining one in Room 13, hence in spots where tablets originating from

49

There is no doubt that several private archives had existed in the "Green Palace" discovered at Tell Fal_).ar.The number of published texts is less than one-third of the total number of tablets discovered at the site (cf. above, pp. 44-5), hence the reconstruction presented below should be treated as provisional

Kibija, son of Sarisse, appears as a witness to several contracts of members of the ]jaip-sarri family (Appendix H, Section 11.1A): IM 70802, 70881, 70884, 70887 and 70978.

58

at best. One of the most important problems that has to be solved is the clarification of relations between the three personal archives listed in Appendix H, Section 2.IA-C. They belong to the families ofl:;laip-sarri, Kubenija and Tel]ip-apu. The best evidenced members of the first two archives are Tel]ija, son of J:;[aip-sarri, and his namesake, Tel]ija, son of Kubenija. The tablets from their archives were found mixed together in Room 1, and despite the fact that the patrinomicon is never changed in the Nuzi archives, 50 it is tempting to assume that the two Tel]ijas are the same person. Moreover, Tel]ija may by a hypocoristicon ofTel]ip-apu, whose sons were owners of an archive found mainly outside of the building but one of the tablets, IM 70781, was also found in Room 1. The second archive belonged to the family of Akija. The tablets were found mainly in Room 9 but it is very likely, that they were transferred there when the structure was being attacked by an unidentified enemy. The third archive was that of the Arip-apu family. It was found dispersed among Rooms 1, 4 and 9 and no place of origin may be indicated at the moment. The archive of the Ariwati family was also found dispersed, while the family of J:;[anikukept their tablets most likely in Room 4 of the structure. The only two tablets mentioning another family, that of Udduli, were found in the same room. Again, the relation between these two families is impossible to establish. Finally, from the same room came two tablets mentioning the family of Akip-tasenni. The presence of two or more family archives in the same room may be explained by the presence of an upper storey, at least over part of the structure. In consequence, one of the archives could have been kept in a room located above the discovered chamber and the archives got mixed up when the floors in the burning structure collapsed. The remaining smaller archives may be in fact tablets which get into other archive as "background" documents, evidencing earlier transaction concerning plots of land subsequently transferred to one of the archive owners (Maidman 1979, 183).51 An archive of a different character was kept in the "archive room" (Room 11). The tablets found there and in the adjoining "reception room" (Room 10) formed the economic archive of the structure, called earlier the "grain archive", as most of the tablets concerned grain. It is possible to identify two persons responsible for this archive: Assaniasu and Ekeke, but three other names appear in this archive in single instances: Mus-tessup, Beliuadna and J:;[aip-sarri.Among these five, J:;[aip-sarri may be identical with the head of the J:;[aip-sarri family, while Mus-tessup left also two legal tablets of his own. Most likely, they were both residents of the Tell Fal]ar settlement, fulfilling also administrative tasks. Three other names appear exclusively in the context of the grain archive texts. The presence of this administrative archive, run by persons like Assaniasu, who left his name only in receipts issued by him and appears also as an addressee of a letter, fits the impression that some of the residents of the structure occupied elevated positions in the society of the kingdom of Arrapl]e, as suggested by the presence of the reception hall in the "Green Palace", as well as by letters of high court officials (including

Musteja, the king) addressed to the residents of the Tell Fal]ar settlement. It is also clear that despite the appearance of the structure, several families had been residing in it, as evidenced by the presence of more than one private archive. 111.1.4 THE NAME OF THE DIMTUSETTLEMENT DISCOVERED AT TELL FA]JAR

What was the name of the dim tu settlement uncovered at Tell Fal]ar? It is clear that it can not be Kurrul]anni, as this name was used exclusively for the city. Analysis of the texts found at Tell Fal]ar provides three possible candidates: dimatu UDl]usse, J:;[anikuor Makunta. These three names were chosen because of their relatively high frequence of attestation in the Tell Fal]ar archive (respectively 5, 5 and 4 attestations including single appearances of Makunta and UDl]usse as alu, cf. Table 12). On the basis of the Tell Fal]ar and Nuzi tablets, the first and the last settlement were already located in the vicinity ofKurrul]anni (Fincke 1993, 334-5, 170-1), while J:;[aniku was close to Arwa (Fincke 1993, 91). The name of UDl]usse occurs in tablet IM 70782, a tidennidu contract of J:;[ulukka,son of Arip-apu, one of several persons whose archive was kept in Tell Fal]ar (family of Arip-apu). The other party to the contract, Pul]i-tessup, son of Akip-tasenni, is not known from any other text. In this situation it is not very likely that the contract related to a settlement that was home to both parties. On the contrary, it is more likely that it was Puhi-tessup who resided at UDl]usse, although it is possible that he lived in yet another city. The other text, IM 73237, is a composite document listing several testimonies of persons coming from different settlements: besides UDl]usse, Zallu, Pul]i-seni, Artal]uta, URU AN.ZA.GAR 3 LUGAL, Arnra and Natmane are listed. The person coming from the dimtu UDl]usse rsilwa-astar, is never mentioned in any other published tablet from Tell Fal]ar. IM70781 has already been mentioned several times, as this is the document recording the subjugation of several cities by Kurrul]anni. Two remaining texts have not been published yet. This evidence is not enough to propose the identification of Tell Fal]ar as the dimtu of UDl]usse, but the last quoted documents points clearly to the fact that it was located in the vicinity of Kurrul]anni. All four tablets mentioning the name of dimtu J:;[anikuwere found in Tell Fal]ar. Moreover, there is a person called J:;[aniku known from the documents found in the "Green Palace". He, himself, is not a party in any of the published texts but his son, Arija was one of the archive owners, being a party to four documents. IM 70792 is an adoption contract, by which Arija acquires 2 imeru l (?) awi!Jaru of fields in Arwa, south of the dimtu of J:;[aniku.TF 517 is another adoption tablet. Arija obtains now 9 awi!Jant of fields located in Arwa, in the dimtu of J:;[aniku. Two other documents of Arija do not relate to the dimtu of J:;[aniku.Tablet IM 73291 is another adoption document. Arija again accquires fields inArwa.The name of dimtu ofl:;laniku is

° Cf. Wullu, son of Pul]i-se1111i.who became a heir of a person called Naswe as a result of a real-adoption. but in all his legal documents continued to appear as Wullu son of Pul]i-senni (Grosz 1988). 51 Maidman has identified in the archive of the Tel]ip-tilla family six tablets describing real estate transfers, in which neither of the principal parties was a member of the Tel]ip-tilla family. However, the buyers in these contracts were identical with parties, who subsequently ceded the same property to members of the Tel]ip-tilla family. Pairs may be fonned of tablets JEN207 and JEN 129. JEN 414 and JEN 260. JEN 467 and JEN 699,JEN 161 and probably JEN 588. all concerning Tel]ip-tilla. as well as JEN60 and JEN 383, concerning his son. Enna-mati. The other possibility how tablets may have been transferred fi-om one archive to another is demonstrated by texts JEN 60 and JEN 383. A court litigation resulted in judges awarding Enna-mati the property itself. the old tablet and the current (i.e. trial) tablet. Both tablets were identified in the archive of the Tel]ip-tilla family (Maidamn 1979, 183). 5

59

one text (IM 73299)-a list of persons receiving rations of grain found in Room 10, whereas Sarteja appears in two other tablets (IM 70981 and 70987). The first one is an adoption contrat, by which Sarteja obtains 1 imeru 3 awibaru of fields in ugizru of Kapra TUR. The other is a testimony of Surukk:a, son of Arip-urek:ke, concerning grain borrowed from Sarteja. Both these texts were also found in Room 9. The other brothers did not take part in any of the published texts. It is very likely, that the inheritance tablet constituted an important part of the archive of Sarteja as it was the title to hold the property, and was kept in the place where he had been living, presumably in the inherited houses in dimtu Makunta.

not mentioned in the texts but it may be assumed that the field in question was located close to his holdings. The last tablet is a court litigation concerning a donkey (IM 70801 ). The court is held in Taseniwe and the opposing party is J;:;[asuar,son of the king, who lost the case. The remaining two texts where the dimtu J;:;[anikuis mentioned are unpublished tablets IM 70327 and 73457 (written inArwa), both adoption documents. The connection between the dimtu ofl;:;[anikuand his family is thus clear. It is tempting to assume that the family ofl;:;[anikuwas still holding possessions accquired by their progenitor, living in the dimtu built by him where they kept their archive. Locating the dimtu J;:;[aniku in Arwa, given expressis verbis by wording of IM 70792, contradicts the already established closeness of Tell Fagar and Kurruganni. It has to be assumed that the J;:;[anikufamily, although they resided in another place, i.e. in the "Green Palace", owned fields, in the dimtu J;:;[anikuin the region of Arwa.

Another hint, although not a direct one, is offered by the already quoted military muster tablet HSS 15, 44. It provides a list of military men remaining in their houses. An entry reffering to Kurruganni lists 41 bowmen and 40 other man. In the following line there is also an entry concerning the dimtu Makunta, listing 3 officers of the bowmen and 8 other men. This number fits much better to the reconstructed number of the residents of the "Green Palace" than the figures relating to Kurruganni (cf. above). Moreover, the presence of three officers originating from dimtu Mukunta goes well with the relative wealth and impressive architectural features of the "Green Palace".

The last possible candidate, dimtu Makunta, is known from five tablets found in Tell Fagar and from two texts from Nuzi. Both Nuzi tablets are lists. HSS 15, 128 is a list of localities that received water and HSS 15, 44 is a list of soldiers from different settlements in at least two different balzu. These two lists provide evidence for locating dimtu Makunta close to Kurrugam1i. From the other tablets we know that it was most probably located on the road runing north-south, linking Kurruganni and Tupsarriniwe (IM 70326). One of the tablets (IM 70978) was written dimtu Makunta-indeed, one of two known cases when the document was written down in a dimtu, not in the city (the other one is HSS 19, 58, written in dimtu Masante ). The tablet is a marriage contract between Kibija, son of Sarisse, who gave his sister, 1Ummi-taba, as a wife to Zirteja, son of Dukk:ija. It belonged to the archive of Kibija whose two other texts are known from Tell Fagar (IM 73215 and TF 632) and who appeared as a witness in several documents belonging to the archive of the J;:;[aip-sarrifamily in Tell Fagar (IM 70802, IM 70881, IM 70884, IM 70887, IM 70978). As the other party is not known from the local archive, there is no proof that the text was written in the place where the Kubija lived. More convincing evidence is offered by IM 73243, a testament of Samagul, son of Ak:ija. He had given to two of his sons houses, fields, orchards and other possesions in Temtena and houses (this word can also mean "rooms"), fields, orchards and other possesions in dimtu Makunta to two others, named Sarteja and J;:;[api-senni.Sama1_).ul is known from Tell Fagar from another single tablet (IM 73242), a testimony of a certain Ilaja son of Wanteja, concerning 12 imeru of grain and 12 minas of tin borrowed from Samagul. Both of these tablets were found in Room 9 of the "Green Palace". The only known Akija, sukkallu, appears in

Finally, there is a receipt concerning grain (IM 73428). It is a sealed tablets (the owner of the seal is a certain Ekeke ), confirming that the residents of dimtu Makunta had deposited 70 imeru of grain, which was their debt, in the granary (qmitu) of the palace. It is not very likely that the palace was located in the dimtu Makunta. On the contrary, we know that there was a palace in Kurruganni and it is nearly certain that this document was written there. Ekeke is never mentioned in any of the published Tell Fagar text, but the same seal is impressed on IM 73421, noting two debts of grain to Nanija and to Ipsa-1_).alu from the city of Zimgalse. In this tablet, the interest of the specified b01Tower and the term of repayment of the debt are given. This time the grain was given out in the city of Makunta (lines 2-3: ina URU Makunta ana MAS2-ti Nanija ilqe) and it is very likely that it was the place where the document was kept. Of the three possible names for the dimtu settlement at Tell Fagar, only in the case of the dimtu Makunta is the evidence strong enough to propose the identification. Still this proposition has to be treated as a provisional one. Publication of the remaing tablets found at Tell Fagar will certainly make the identification of the ancient name of the site more convincing.

111.2. TELL SABI ABYAD 111.2.1. THE MITANNIAN PERIOD STRUCTURE

carried out there were originally focused on the substantial neolithic settlement present at the site. During the excavations it turned out that on the top of the small tell there is a Middle Assyrian settlement comprising square enclosure, 60 m side dimension enclosing domestic constructions centred around a more massive structure, as well as some scattered buildings standing outside the walls. The nucleus of the settlement was formed by a massive rectangular structure

Among other excavated sites of second-millennium Mesopotamia there is only one which has extant remains of a structure which can fit into the category of a dimtu structure. It was discovered recently at Tell Sabi Abyad, a small site located in the Balig valley of northern Syria (Ak:kermans 1989; 1997; Akkermans et al. 1990; 1993; 1999). The Dutch excavations

60

0

5m

Fig. 6. Tell Sabi Abyad. The Mitannian period stage of the tower (after Akkermans et al. 1993, Fig. 4-5)

measuring 23 by 21 m. This massive tower turned out to be the only element of the settlement that was constructed during the preceding Mitannian period (Duistermaat, pers. com.). This initial phase (cf. Fig. 6) was excavated only in a few of the rooms of the structure. In general this early structure had slightly thinner walls than the later constructions, and built of bricks of different dimensions to them. Only few changes were introduced to the plan of the building when it was reoccupied by the Assyrians after a period of abandonment that resulted in the accumulation of about 70 cm of debris over the lowest floor (Akkermans et al. 1993, 8). The structure had very thick walls (ranging from 2.6 to 3.5 m) and was provided with a staircase what suggests that it had at least one upper storey. Nine rooms were identified within the structure. Room 4 was provided with a series of thirteen niches in one of the walls (Akkermans et al. 1993, 9, Fig. 10) and a small oven, which may suggest that it was originally a place where a local archive was kept; nevertheless the niches were found empty. Room 6 served as latrine, while Room 3 contained the staircase. The function of the other rooms was not interpreted but in the following phase they served as magazines. It is possible that during the first phase they served the same purpose (Akkermans et al. 1993, 19). None of the rooms can be identified

as belonging to the residential part of the building. They were very likely located on the upper floor(s) of the structure. This rectangular structure of thick walls was provided with a single narrow doorway, suggesting that security was one of the most important concerns of its inhabitants. The Mitannian tower at Tell Sabi Abyad may tentatively be dated to the turn of the 14th century BC. It is in some respects (dimensions, protective character, existence of several floors) comparable to the initial stage of the dimtu structure at Tell Fagar (Wiggermann 2000, 184). It is very probable that this structure was in antiquity described by the term dimtu, although there is less likelihood that it was also referred to by the Assyrian word dunnu. 111.2.2. THE MIDDLE ASSYRIAN DUNNU

In the Middle Assyrian period the site was occupied again.

The tower was reconstructed on the highest point of the tell and around it other structures were erected, forming a square settlement covering an area of 3,600 m2, thus corresponding precisely to 1 iku (Wiggermann 2000, 175). Three Middle Assyrian layers were identified on the site. The oldest one

61

. WI .

n

&

rnM

~-◄····~~

L.J.1. •..••••;; :.:

.

..

·:'· ·.: ··:....

···.:;,

.·.... •·7~;,-•• :,,:

l

'

..___;fL_;

Fig. 7. Tell Sabi Abyad. The Middle Assyrian dunnu (after Akkermans et al. 1999, Fig. on p. 59)

cleared has been reached only in few places. Level 2, unearthed over the entire surface of the dunnu, and dated to the latter half of the 13th century BC, yielded nearly all the tablets. In the latest layer, 3, the whole surface of the settlement was again cleared, but yielded no texts that could with any certainty be linked with this phase. During this period, dated to the beginning of 12th century BC, some of the structures inside the defensive wall were abandoned and partly ruined (Wiggermann 2000, 175).

135 tablets was found in a small chamber close to the reception court, while ninety-three more were in the residence annex to the office of the chief steward, seventeen were found in a small office at the back of the fortress, and seven more in the owner's residence. Other tablets were found in pits, thus most probably belonging stratigraphically to the later level, though the identified limu names indicate that they should be assigned to the same time as the main archive. Some individual texts were found in the settlement, most probably strays from one of main archives (Wiggermann 2000, 175).

In layer 2 of the Middle Assyrian structure a large number of tablets were recovered. Altogether about 315 tablets were found, forming three main archives. The largest one, composed of ca.

Due to the textual evidence it was possible to identify the structures forming the settlement.

62

The centre of the settlement was occupied by the "tower", according to Wiggermann used as storage, treasury and probably a jail (E on Fig. 7). East of it the owner's residence was located. It is a large structure (comparable in size to the "tower") with two large rooms and several smaller chambers including a toilet, staircase and small archive room (Don Fig. 7). In front of the residence there was a large courtyard (B on Fig. 7). The main entrance to the dunnu was located to the north of this comiyard. It was 1.60 m wide and provided with two solid pilasters on the left and right of the doorway (A on Fig. 7). West of the courtyard the main archive (C) was located, while on the eastern side of the courtyard a large but irregular administrative building, serving also as a residence of the chief steward (abrakku) and containing his personal archive, was located (F on Fig. 7). The southwestern corner of the enclosure, excavated in 1999 and not included on the published plan, accommodated a bakery and an office of the baker (ala!J!Jinu)with his small archive (Wiggermann 2000, 175, n. 5). The southern and western part of the dunnu were built-up with small irregular houses intended to accommodate servants or administrative personnel of the dunnu (G on Fig. 7). Another entrance was located there. No stables, barns or granaries have been identified within the defensive wall of the dunnu. They were most probably located on the tell but outside the enclosure. There is no doubt that some other structures were built on the tell, as at least one building of the same period was discovered about 25 m from the dunnu (Wiggermann 2000, Fig. 2). Some tablets were also found there (Jas 1990).

Assyria. They were members of the royal family. The first owner of the dunnu, Assur-iddin, was a grandson of Ibassiili, son of Adad-nirari I and brother of Salmaneser I. The period of his life must fall within the reign ofTukulti-ninurta I. The office of the "great vizier" was later held by Sulmanu-musabsi, probably also a member of the family. The last known owner of the dunnu was Ili-pada, grandson of Assur-iddin. The archives found at Tell Sabi Abyad date to his period of activity, contemporary with the rule of Assur-nadin-apli and Assur-nirari, thus the first two decades of the 12th century BC (Wiggermann 2000, 171). It is certain that the owner seldom resided in the dunnu itself. His residence was one of the big provincial cities: ljarran, Dur-Katlimmu, Tell Fa!Jariya/Sikani, or maybe evenAssur (Wiggermann 2000, 172, 173 n. 3). The property was administred by the abrakku (chief steward), responsible only to the owner of the dunnu. We know three names of the abrakku of Tell Sabi Abyad: Mannu-ki-Adad, Burija and Tamitte, the last contemporary with Ili-pada (Wiggermann 2000, 172). The name of the dunnu is never mentioned in the texts from Tell Sabi Abyad. They refer to the settlement simply by the term dunnu. Some dunnu settlements located on the BalilJ are mentioned in one of the letters from Dur-Katlimmu (Cancik, Kirschbaum 1993, text no. 2). One of their names, Dunnu-Assur, was at first considered as a possible name of the Tell Sabi Abyad settlement, but now it is tentatively attributed to Tell Abyad, a site located to the north of Tell Sabi Abyad. The reason to this identification is tablet T98-115. It is a balance of the grain production of a certain year. Besides the quantity of new grain it lists also grain given out as rations to silulilu workers. Dunnu-Assur is listed there together with some other settlements. This suggests strongly that it was not the dunnu located at Tell Sabi Abyad, as the latter is always referred to by use of the term dunnu only.

The identity of the settlement is not clear. There is no doubt that it was a dunnu. Several tablets use this term in relation to the settlement and to the officials administering it. It belonged to the family of the "great viziers" (sukkallu rabu) and the kings of ljanigalbat, a vassal state dependent on

111.3. OTHER POSSIBLE DIMTU OR DUNNU SETTLEMENTS It was has already been demonstrated that the identification of an archaeological site with a dimtu/dunnu is possible only when textual evidence proving it is available. In consequence some of small sites of the later second millennium BC discovered in the northern Mesopotamia may in fact be settlements of this kind. Most of them were excavated during the salvage excavations. In consequence, they have been excavated only to a very small extent, not allowing for clear interpretation of the form of settlement. Among sites that were more extensively cleared an identification as a dimtu has been proposed only for the later period of the MBA settlement at Tell Rijim on the Tigris, which is dated to the 16th century BC (Kolinski 2000, 78). The settlement at Tell Rijim consisted of an enclosure covering an area of about 60 by 40 m encompassing

tightly packed structures. Beside domestic or storage constructions, paved streets were identified as well as an entrance to a more elaborate building located in a large court enclosed by its own perimeter wall. Only a very small part of the structure located in the courtyard was uncovered, making it impossible to identify its pmpose. Since the publication of further information about the dunnu of Tell Sabi Abyad (Akkermans et al. 1999; Wiggermann 2000), it seems to me that the architectural plan of the Tell Rijim settlement is much closer to this dunnu than to the dimtu identified at Tell Fa!Jar. Because the textual sources from Assyria never mention dimtu located in this region, it would seem more proper to assume that the settlement at Tell Rijim was a very early dunnu rather than an early dimtu as was proposed in the publication of the MBA layers of the site.

63

IV. THE SURVEY METHOD AS A MEANS OF DISCOVERING DIMTU SETTLEMENTS IV.1. THE METHOD The dimtu settlement description attempted above (Chapter 1.3) has resulted in some features typical of settlements of this kind being identified. One of these attributes-the small area covered by the settlement-is easily observed in the case of unexcavated sites, offering the opportunity for analysing survey data against this feature. Obviously, not all small villages can be differentiated from dimtu unless excavations are conducted; and even with cuneiform tablets having been excavated from a given site, a positive identification can still present difficulties on occasion (cf. chapter III.2). Consequently, the presence of small sites is not yet proof for the existence of dimtu settlements. It is to be expected, however, that the number of very small settlements will be considerably higher in the case of a settlement pattern involving dimtu settlements as opposed to one, in which dimtu did not play a substantial role. Study of this kind should thus focus on quantitative, not qualitative data. Wherever possible, survey data has to be checked against the written sources. It is the only way to establish relations (if any) between dimtu as a form of settlement and settlement patterns established on the grounds of survey data. Once a positive relation is found, settlement patterns can then be used to check for the dimtu settlement form through survey work.

this epoch: Old Assyrian/Babylonian or the Middle Bronze Age in its beginning, and Mitannian and Middle Assyrian in its second part. The sites have been listed separately for each region in descending order of site area (cf. Appendix C). In most cases, the present author has calculated the site area himself (the only exceptions were the Balil] Valley Survey and the North Jazira Survey, where the occupied area of the site was given specifically for each period) in order to avoid differences potentially arising from various methods of calculation. 52 If a contour map of the site had been published, the dimensions of the site were taken off the plan. In other cases, the area was calculated on the grounds of published dimensions. In the case of elliptic sites, the area was treated as the sum of the areas of a circle of a diameter equal to the shorter axis and of a rectangle with one side equal to the shorter axis and the other to the difference between the longer and shorter axe. The circle area formula was applied to circular sites. In the case of the Northern Jazira Survey, the area of the sites was determined in the same way, but the settlement area in successive periods was calculated according to collection units, summed up whenever pottery of a certain period occurred (Tucker, pers. comm.). How the area estimation was done in the case of the Balil] survey is not known. Once site areas had been recalculated using a single standard formula, the proportion of very small sites to the total number of sites was analyzed. As dimtu tend to be very small indeed, the category of sites under 1 ha in area was divided into subcategories of between 1 and 0.5 ha and under 0.5 ha. As it was difficult to predict, which of the proportions would turn out to be more significant, both the number of sites under 1 ha to the total of identified sites and the number of sites under 0.5 ha to the total of identified sites were calculated for every area and period.

The following section presents a review, in geographical order starting from the west, of the results of surveys carried out in northern Mesopotamia. Here, in the interest of clarity, the surveys in question have been listed in chronological order. There was a survey of Rania (Dokan) plain carried out by Iraqi archaeologists in 1955. In 1976-79 a large area of northeastern Syria was surveyed by a Dutch team. In the early eighties, archaeological surveys became a much appreciated tool, clearly providing more information than mere site inventories. The upper part of the Iraqi Tigris valley was surveyed by the Iraqis, the valley of the ]jabur by two independent teams from Germany and France, the Balil] valley by the Dutch. In the mid-eighties smaller surveys were conducted in the region of Tell Leilan and Tell Abu Dhahir on the Tigris. The later part of that decade was marked by the North Jazira Survey Project launched by the British, the Wadi Ajij survey in Syria and an extensive survey of the ]jabur Triangle undertaken by Lyonnet. Even though large-scale survey activities ceased in the nineties, smaller regional surveys continued to be carried out around Tell Brak and Tell ]jammam et-Turkman, as well as yet unpublished surveys in the region of Tell Beidar and Chuera (Wadi Hammar Survey Project) in northeastern Syria.

The interpretation of identified settlement patterns in the context of settlement form is possible in corroboration with written sources. The textual data essential for the identification of a proportion characteristic of a settlement pattern involving dimtu settlements has already been quoted to some extent in Chapter II. This set of data testifies positively to the presence of dimtu settlements in different regions of Mesopotamia during the second millennium BC. Attention has also been focused on regional archives, containing no information on dimtu settlements, and on making a comparison between textual evidence and the results of archaeological work. The objective was to search for a positive correlation between the proportion of very small sites and mentions of dimtu/dunnu settlements in texts from the same region and period. Observing such a positive correlation in more cases than one should be taken as proof that surveying

The present analysis has been restricted to second millennium BC sites, which have been grouped, wherever possible, in correspondence to three main historical periods identified for

5' It is difficult, for instance, to accept the method by which the area of some sites identified in the Northeastern Syria Survey has been calculated. For round sites, it was a square based on the diameter, and for oval sites a rectangle with side dimensions equal to the length and width of the site (cf. site dimensions in Meijer 1986 and areas in Meijer 1990, Fig. 1).

64

can be an efficient way to identify dimtu settlements as part of a settlement pattern. Still, it remains beyond doubt that

the character of settlement at any given site cannot be identified on the grounds of survey data alone.

IV.2 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF SURVEYS UNDERTAKEN IN NORTHERN MESOPOTAMIA IV.2.1

Sites nos. 36 to 39 have not been included in Table 15, because the area of the tell in these cases could not be estimated with any precision (given only the length of the site). Assuming the area calculation principles outlined above two of these sites should be added to the category of between 1 and 2 ha and one to the category of 3 to 4 ha in the "Assyrian" row, and a single site to the 4 to 5 ha category in the "Hurrian" row. The case of Tell Semsarra also deserves a comment. In Soof's catalogue the site measured 50 m in diameter at the base, 20 mat the top and 25 min height (Soof 1970, 67, site no. 15). A comparison with Mortensen's contour plan (1970) demonstrates that the quoted dimensions refer to a conical mound located at the northern end of the tell. A spur 300 m long, which stretches along the Little Zab river, must have been the "upper city", and it is in a building located there that the archive of Kuwari, the ruler of the city, was found. The mound was about 80 m wide, and the area of this spur and the conical mound taken together slightly exceeded 2 ha (Laess0e 1957, 214-6; Eidem 1992, 11). However, there is a reason to believe that the city itself was even larger. SamsiAddu is known to have informed Kuwari, in letter SH 861 (Laess0e 1959, 57-9), about sending 600 soldiers to the garrison at Susarra. It is difficult to imagine so many soldiers staying for any length of time in a settlement of about 2 ha. Hence, one is justified in assuming that beside the "upper city", where the ruler's palace would have been located, there must have been a "lower town", possibly concealed under the flat mound where the Danish expedition had camped during fieldwork (Laess0e 1959, 17; Eidem 1992, Phot. 1). 53 For this reason and against the published evidence, Tell Semsarra has been listed in Table 13 as a site of the highest area category.

THE RANIA/DOKAN PLAIN SURVEY

Dam construction undertaken in 1955 on the Little Zab river near Dakan village resulted in the flooding of about 320 km 2 of an intermontane valley located on the ancient road from Assyria to Iran. Prior to the construction project, an archaeological salvage program was undertaken, including a survey of the valley. The chief objective was to identify ancient sites and to select promising ones for excavation. The survey was executed by Iraqi archaeologists, but in the following years many of the sites were visited by members of Danish mission working on Tell Semsarra. The survey results were published after much delay in 1970 (Soof 1970, 66-67, Pl. 1) and additional information was given by Eidem in a volume devoted to the publication of the tablets from Tell Semsarra (Eidem 1992, 54-6, Map 2). Thirty out of the forty archaeological sites identified in the valley were inhabited during the second millennium BC (cf. Appendix C, section 1). Sites with running numbers from 20 to 27, marked on the map published by Soof, were omitted from the catalogue of sites prepared by this author. It is quite possible that the sites: Yawa, Blair and Du Gird Khan, listed by Eidem as having early second millennium BC occupation (Eidem 1992, Map 2), could be identical with some of these missing sites. Concrete information concerning these specific sites has yet to be published. Determining the area of the sites proved to be quite difficult. In most cases the dimensions of sites were given, most often as the length, width and height of the tell, but sometimes as the perimeter (of assumedly circular or nearly circular sites) or just the length of the site. When the perimeter was given, the area of the site was calculated as for a circular tell, giving thus the maximum possible area. When only the length of the tell was known and there was no indication of the shape of the site, the area was calculated as for an oval with the longer axis equal to the distance indicated by Soof and the shorter one equal to its half.

The structure of the settlement of the "Assyrian" and "Hurrian" periods on the Rania Plain differs significantly. In the first period, there was a town, a few large villages between 3 and 5 ha in area and a more numerous group of villages, each covering between 1 and 2 ha. In the "Hurrian" period, the largest settlement was about 4 ha big, while the predominant form consisted of small and very small settlements (Graph 1). Data from the Middle Assyrian period is insufficient to support an interpretation.

The determination of archaeological periods also faces some problems. Soof used two terms: "Assyrian" and "Hurrian". Judging from the sequences identified on five excavated sites, the term "Assyrian" should be referred to the early second millennium BC, while "Hurrian" was used to describe pottery originating from the midto late part of the same millennium. It was necessary to use the terms employed by Soof in Section 1 of Appendix C and in Table 15. Only in case of the sites with excavated Middle Assyrian layers the presence of remnants of this period was indicated in Appendix C.

IV.2.2

THE TIGRIS VALLEY

Saddam Dam Basin Salvage Project. The Eski Mosul Dam Salvage Project, later dubbed the Saddam Dam Basin Salvage Project, was announced in 1980, following the decision to build a dam on the Tigris, in the region of Eski Mosul. As in the Dakan/Rania Plain Salvage project, here too Iraqi archaeologist were responsible for inventorying the sites. An

According to Dr. Eidem, the extent of the site in this direction was not investigated (pers. comm.).

65

Table 15: Sites on the Rania plain according to their area in hectares (excluding sites nos. 36-49) 10

1?

2

-

6

-

-

-

-

-

.$

·u;

0

m4

.0

E

:::,

z

2

0

10

Area in hectares

Assyrian

Ill

Hurrian

Graph. 1: Distribution of second millennium BC sites identified on the Rania plain

initial catalogue of archaeological sites in the possession of the State Organization of Antiquities and Museums was augmented with the results of inquiries and a survey carried out in the region to be flooded. The outcome was a map of "Archaeological Sites at the Mosul Dam Reservoir", showing one hundred and forty-nine sites located in the area of the future artificial lake. The map was accompanied by a list of sites with an indication of settlement periods to facilitate choice of sites for future excavation. Cultural periods were described with Roman numerals supposedly adhering, according to the note on the salvage project map, to the system used in the Archaeological Map of Iraq, issued by the State Organization of Antiquities in 1972. This information turned out to be misleading. According to the 1972 map, second millennium settlements should be described with an "X" (for the Old Assyrian sites) and "XI" (for the Kassite/Middle Assyrian mounds). While the number of "XI" designations on the project map is quite substantial, no "X" -marked sites can be located, although one would have expected the Old Assyrian period to be well represented in the North. It is plausible that the designations on the two maps do not correspond.

Empire, meaning most probably both Middle and Neo Assyrian times (Haik 1968, 7). Second millennium BC occupation was noted on forty-nine out of one hundred and forty-nine sites identified in the area. Sixteen of them were subsequently excavated, but in three cases (Karabeh Shattani, no. 10 on the map, Gray Darki, no. 31, and Tell Baqaq 2, no. 34) no remnants of second millennium occupation were found. On the other hand, 14 sites that were not marked as occupied in the second millennium BC yielded finds from this period. Additional sites of the same date were identified during surveys some of the archaeological missions working on the project had undertaken in the vicinity of sites they were excavating. The widest area was covered by the British mission working on Tell Abu Dhahir, in the northern part of the project area. Thirty-five sites located on both sides of the river were visited, some already known from the Iraqi survey. A number of newly found sites were located outside the area to be flooded by the artificial lake (Ball, in print) and six of the sites identified by the survey were subsequently excavated to some extent, providing more precise information about the settlement history.

The key to solving the period identification issue on the Eski Mosul Projet map is found in a list of archaeological sites and excavations in Iraq compiled by Haik (Haik 1968; 1971). The period designations he used are referred to in the introduction to the book. They were most probably the same designations that the State Organization of Antiquities had been using in its files. According to Haik, period "X" refers to the Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian periods, making the absence of this period in the Upper Tigris Valley easily understandable. Period "XI" is a designation for Old Assyrian times, while period "XII", similarly often appearing in the list of identified tells, describes sites from the period of the Assyrian

Unfortunately, no information about the dimensions of the sites identified during the Iraqi survey is available. Those that were excavated have either contour plans or dimensions given, but this is not always the case. The descriptions of sites discovered by the British mission also lack uniformity; sometimes their dimensions are given, but in many cases there is no indication of the site area. This state of affairs precludes a full analysis of the settlement pattern. Available information on the excavated sites, for which the area may be established, is collected in Table 16 in hope that even incomplete evidence can be compared with the better known

66

Table 14: Saddam Dam Basin Salvage Project. Area of excavated sites of second millennium BC Number of sites